Aged care packages in the community 2008–09
A statistical overview
2010

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare is Australia’s national
health and welfare statistics and information agency. The Institute’s mission is
 better information and statistics for better health and wellbeing.
© Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2010
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced without prior written permission from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be directed to the Head of the Communications, Media and Marketing Unit, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, GPO Box 570, Canberra ACT 2601.
This publication is part of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s Aged care statistics series. A complete list of the Institute’s publications is available from the Institute’s website <www.aihw.gov.au>. 

ISSN 1329-5705
ISBN 978-1-74249-083-0
Suggested citation 
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2010. Aged care packages in the community 2008–09: a statistical overview. Aged care statistics series no. 29. Cat. no. AGE 60.Canberra: AIHW.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 
Board Chair
Hon. Peter Collins, AM, QC
	
Director 
Penny Allbon

Any enquiries about or comments on this publication should be directed to:
Unit Head, Ageing and Aged Care Unit
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
GPO Box 570
Canberra ACT 2601
Phone: (02) 6244 1000
Email: agedcare@aihw.gov.au
Published by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
Printed by Blue Star Print Group 

Please note that there is the potential for minor revisions of data in this report.
Please check the online version at <www.aihw.gov.au> for any amendments.

Contents
Preface	iii
Acknowledgments	iv
Abbreviations	v
Symbols	v
Summary	vi
1	Introduction	1
Community aged care programs	2
What is in this report?	4
2	Service outlets and provision	5
2.1	Service outlets	5
How many service outlets are there and how many packages do they provide?	5
Where are the service outlets located?	6
What sorts of organisations provided the packages?	7
2.2	Available packages	8
How many packages are available?	8
State and territory	8
What is the provision of CACP, EACH and EACH D?	9
What were the occupancy rates?	12
3	Characteristics of clients	14
3.1	How many clients are there?	14
3.2	Age and sex profiles of clients	15
What about younger clients?	23
3.3	Client background	25
Indigenous status	25
Clients’ birthplaces	26
Language	29
3.4	What were their living arrangements?	31
Who did community aged care clients live with?	32
3.5	Do community aged care clients have carers?	33
4	Special needs groups	35
4.1	Outer regional, Remote and Very remote areas	36
Age of clients	36
4.2	Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders	37
Usage rates by Indigenous status	38
4.3	People from non-English-speaking background	39
Usage rates by English-speaking background	41
5	Admissions, separations, and leave	43
5.1	Admissions	43
How many admissions were there?	43
5.2	Separations	45
How many separations were there?	45
5.3	Separation modes	46
Why did clients leave community aged care?	46
5.4	Length of stay	48
5.5	Leave	50
Leave and sex	54
Glossary	55
Appendix 1: Service providers and provision	58
Appendix 2: Characteristics of clients	65
Appendix 3: Special needs groups	73
Appendix 4: Admissions, separations and leave	76
Appendix 5: Data sources and limitations	92
Care recipients’ personal details	92
Care recipients’ admission and separation details	93
Service providers’ details	93
Limitations of the data	93
References	95
List of tables	96
List of figures	99
List of boxes	101

Preface
As the number of Australians aged 65 years and over increases, so does the need for aged care services. Community Aged Care Packages, Extended Aged Care at Home, and Extended Aged Care at Home Dementia are three community care packages that provide care in the home and community, as an alternative to residential aged care. The number of Australians using these packages has been growing, and at 30 June 2009 there were just over 47,000 Australians using one of these packages. 
This is the eleventh report in the Aged care statistics series produced by the Ageing and Aged Care Unit of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), under an agreement with the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA).
The purpose of this report is to provide information about the three community aged care programs. The data reported is from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009.
Funding provided by DoHA for this year’s report has made possible a review of the style and content of this series of reports. Stakeholders for this report, including from the non-government sector, provided a range of suggestions about content, style and analysis, of which a large number were implemented. Due to available resources, not all suggestions could be implemented; however, the full body of ideas collected in the planning of this report remains a resource for future reports in this series.
While past reports in this series have had a strong focus on statistical reporting and analysis, a review of the style and presentation for this edition intends to widen the accessibility of the information. This year’s report is intended to present data in a more simplified way through further use of graphs, simplified language and case stories to provide examples and give context to the information provided. It is intended to summarise information related to the three community aged care packages and provide a broad overview for stakeholders in the aged care industry.
A very useful inclusion in this year’s reporting format is the presentation of online ‘data cubes’. Data cubes are interactive tables that allow the user to add and manipulate variables, and to produce information specific to the user’s request. These data presentations are available on the AIHW website and provide data contained within this report.
I congratulate everyone involved in the revision of this important report.

Penny Allbon
November 2010
 
Acknowledgments
The report was prepared and written by Jancine Szukalski of the Ageing and Aged Care Unit at the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Data was extracted by Evon Bowler with the assistance of Peter Braun, who also prepared the online data cubes that complement this report. Other valuable assistance and comments from colleagues within the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare are gratefully acknowledged, especially Agnes Tzimos, Sam Topalidis, Simon Margrie, Gail Brien, Fadwa Al-Yaman and Vicki Bennett. 
Supporting comments have been gratefully received from non-government stakeholders in this report: in particular valuable comments were provided by Richard Gray, Director of Aged Care Services, Catholic Health Association; Rod Young, CEO of Aged Care Association Australia; Glenn Rees, CEO and Anne Eayrs, National Policy Officer of Alzheimer’s Australia; and from Dr Anna Howe.
Finally, thanks are also due to colleagues in the Ageing and Aged Care Division of the Australian Department of Health and Ageing for supplying the data behind this report and for making critical and helpful comments on drafts. 
Abbreviations 
ABS 		Australian Bureau of Statistics
ACAT 		Aged Care Assessment Team
ACCMIS	Aged and Community Care Management Information System
ARIA		Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia
ASGC 		Australian Standard Geographical Classification
CACP 		Community Aged Care Package
CDs		Census Collection Districts
DoHA		Department of Health and Ageing
EACH 		Extended Aged Care at Home
EACH 	D 	Extended Aged Care at Home Dementia
HACC 	Home and Community Care
n.p.		Not published
UK		United Kingdom
Symbols
. .		Not applicable
—		Nil or rounded to zero
<		Less than
+		Plus

Summary
This report presents statistics about three types of community aged care packages, Community Aged Care Packages (CACP), Extended Aged Care at Home (EACH), and Extended Aged Care at Home Dementia (EACH D) over the period of 1 July 2008 to 
30 June 2009. These packages provide an alternative form of care to older Australians who are eligible for residential aged care, that is, to receive care in their own homes and communities. 
Increased supply across all three packages
•	The number of packages for CACP, EACH, and EACH D rose since 30 June 2008. There were close to 40,900 CACPs, 4,500 EACH packages, and 2,000 EACH D packages. This equated to a rise of 1% for CACP, 6% for EACH, and 2% for EACH D. As at 
30 June 2009, there were about 38,100 CACP clients, 4,200 EACH clients and 1,900 EACH D clients. 
•	The provision ratio for CACP, EACH, and EACH D (23 places per 1,000 people aged 
70 years and over) is moving closer to the Australian Government target for community care places to be achieved by 30 June 2011 (25 places per 1,000 people aged 70 years and over). This target also says that four of these places must be for high care. This includes EACH and EACH D, which currently sits at 3.2 places per 1,000 people aged 70 years and over. 
Usage is higher for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders compared to other Australians
•	Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people had higher usage compared to those that did not identify as Indigenous. At a rate of 1,000 people of the Indigenous population, 
2.4 used CACP, compared to 1.7 people per 1,000 of the other Australian population.
•	A much higher proportion of CACP and EACH Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients (1 in 3) were under the age of 65, compared with those that did not identify as Indigenous (1 in 29 for CACP, and 1 in 15 for EACH). 
Usage is the highest by people from non-English-speaking backgrounds
•	More than 1 in every 3 clients receiving community aged care was born overseas. 
•	A higher proportion of people from a non-English-speaking background used community aged care services, when compared to those from an English-speaking background. Per 1,000, 5.8 people from a non-English-speaking background used CACP and 1.1 used EACH and EACH D combined, compared with 4.8 and 0.8 respectively, for those born overseas in an English-speaking country. For Australian-born per 1,000, 5.6 people used CACP and 0.8 people used EACH and EACH D combined. 
Residential aged care was the most common destination when clients left CACP, EACH, and EACH D 
•	Close to half of all CACP and EACH separations and two-thirds of all EACH D separations occurred because the client moved into residential aged care. 
1	Introduction
The aged care system in Australia has to take into account the needs of an increasing and ageing population. Community aged care is available to older people who need support, and would rather be at home in the community than moved to some form of institutional care. Although residential aged care and residential respite care continue to play a very important role in meeting the needs of older Australians, community aged care is increasingly central to aged care provision.

Box 1.1: Case stories
 ‘Alan’
Alan is 75 years old and has lived alone for the past 10 years. He enjoys living in his neighbourhood and plays cards every Thursday night with some friends up the road. He also lives a suburb away from his niece and goes to church with her and her family on Sundays. His pride and joy is his modest-sized garden, in which he has a variety of fruit trees and a vegetable patch. 
Recently, Alan has had trouble with his vision and, as such, has decided to give up driving. He has also noticed that while he still loves his garden, the work needed to maintain it seems to take twice as much effort. Alan’s niece has noticed that the state of his appearance has been deteriorating as his clothes are often dirty. She also recently visited him at home and found that, while Alan spent a lot of time working on his garden, his house was quite dirty and his cupboards were pretty bare except for some tins of soup and baked beans. Alan feels very connected to his community and wants to stay there, but he has realised that in order to do this, he may need help.
‘Ivy’
Ivy is a 78 year-old whose husband passed away 3 years ago. She now lives alone in the house in which she raised her family and has been there for 46 years. She lives a few blocks away from the local shopping centre and likes sitting in the local café with friends or family, and chatting with the friendly staff. She also loves sewing and using her hands and makes all of her clothes to ‘fit her just right’. She also loves whipping up meals for her friends and family. 
Recently, Ivy had a stroke and has trouble with what she calls a ‘tired right-hand side’. She has had trouble walking to the local shops, and is making fewer trips down to the café. Ivy also had started to eat a lot of frozen pre-prepared food due to concerns about working with a knife and lifting hot heavy objects. When her son and his family came to visit he noticed that the house was more untidy than usual and Ivy was getting confused with her medication. Ivy is resistant to leaving her house or ‘treasure trove of memories’, but needs a fair amount of help to remain living at home. 
Note: The case stories of Alan and Ivy are fictional.

As can be seen in the cases of Alan and Ivy, the needs of older Australians can be quite different (Box 1.1). Flexible services are required that provide a mixture of care options, tailored to the individual. For example, Alan’s care needs may include help with domestic duties, food services and transport. Alternatively, Ivy has a greater need for care that could include the same services as Alan, as well as help with medication, showering and personal care, and assistance in accessing a physiotherapist to improve strength on her right side. 
Community aged care programs
Most home and community-based care services for older people are provided by the Home and Community Care program (HACC) and are jointly funded by the Australian, and state and territory governments. The Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA) reports annually on HACC and the results are available on the Department’s website (DoHA 2009a). This report does not focus on HACC but concentrates on three smaller community aged care programs, namely Community Aged Care Packages (CACP), Extended Aged Care at Home (EACH) and Extended Aged Care at Home for Dementia (EACH D). CACP, EACH, and EACH D packages are funded solely by the Australian Government. 
The CACP, EACH, and EACH D packages have been designed with the varied care needs of older Australians in mind, and they are different from each other in the amount and type of care available (Table 1.1). An Aged Care Assessment Team (ACAT) assessment is required for access to CACP, EACH, and EACH D, as it is for access to residential aged care. The assessment determines the level and type of care required by an individual (Box 1.2). If a person is eligible for low- or high-residential care, they can also access CACP, EACH or EACH D packages. CACPs target those with ‘low-care’ needs, such as in the example of Alan. EACH packages have been designed to cater for those older Australians whose need is determined to be ‘high-care’, as may be the case in the example of Ivy. EACH D packages are specifically designed to provide care for high-care clients with dementia-related behaviours. An important characteristic of these packages is case coordination and management, as every package is tailored to the individual needs of the client. 
Aged care services provided by Multi-Purpose Services and by organisations receiving funding under the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program are funded for flexible delivery. While the number of approved packages funded in this way is included in some tables of this report, data are not available for reporting on the characteristics of recipients or providers of these forms of aged care services. Innovative care places are also not included in this report. 

Table 1.1: Differences between CACP, EACH, and EACH D
	CACP	EACH	EACH D	
Year introduced 	1992	2002	2006	
Number of packages at 30 June 2009	40,859	4,478	2,036	
Required for access	ACAT assessment	ACAT assessment	ACAT assessment	
Residential aged care equivalent	Low-care	High-care	High-care	
Where does it take place?	In the community	In the community	In the community	
Type of care available(a)	Assistance may include:
•	domestic assistance 
•	meals at home and other food services
•	transport services
•	home or garden maintenance 
•	social support
•	personal care
•	counselling
•	equipment and home modifications
•	respite care 
•	linen services. 	Similar to CACP but to a higher degree plus:
•	nursing (at home or at a centre)
•	allied health/therapy (at home or at a centre). 
	Same as EACH but also involves care and links to services directed specifically to manage behaviours associated with dementia.	
Average hours of care received(b)	6 hours per week	18–22 hours per week	18–22 hours per week	
(a)	Type of care available from AIHW (2009). 
(b)	Average hours of care from DoHA (2008). 

Box 1.2: What is an ACAT assessment?
An ACAT assessment is conducted by a group of health professionals. The assessment is essential to access residential aged care services and community aged care packages such as CACP, EACH, and EACH D. The ACAT assessment includes a decision about which of two levels of care is required for an individual. These two levels are low-care and high-care. 
What is low-care(a)?
Types of care that may be required for low-care include: 
•		bathing, eating, and other personal care
•		communication
•		mobility
•		continence maintenance.
What is high-care(a)?
High-care can require more hours and a greater level of care compared to low-care. High-care includes those services provided for low-care with additional ones that may include: 
•		nursing services
•		therapy services
•		basic pharmaceuticals and administration of medication.
(a)	Definitions of low-care and high-care from DoHA (2009b).
What is in this report?
This report uses data from the Department of Health and Ageing’s Aged and Community Care Management Information System (ACCMIS). ACCMIS records administrative data about the approval of services to care clients and payment of funding to service providers (for more information on data sources see Appendix 5). 
The aim of this report is to highlight the characteristics of CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients, and patterns of service provision. More specifically this report provides information about: 
•	CACP, EACH, and EACH D provision and characteristics of the outlets that provide these services (Chapter 2) 
•	CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients characteristics such as age, sex and background (Chapter 3)
•	clients from ‘special needs’ groups including those from Outer regional, Remote and Very remote areas, those who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and clients from a non-English-speaking background (Chapter 4)
•	Patterns of admission, separation, length of stay and leave (Chapter 5). 
•	Additional tables are available in appendixes 1 through 4, while Appendix 5 provides information on data sources and limitations.
This report is the 2008–09 edition of an annual series on CACP, EACH, and EACH D. The look of the current report has been updated from previous years and aims to provide statistical information in a way that is more easily understood. 
2	Service outlets and provision
This chapter describes some of the characteristics of the service outlets that deliver community aged care packages. These packages include the Community Aged Care Package (CACP), Extended Aged Care at Home (EACH) and Extended Aged Care at Home Dementia (EACH D). This chapter will also answer the questions:
•	How many service outlets provide the packages and how many packages?
•	Where are the service outlets located (across state/territory and remoteness)?
•	What sorts of organisations provided the packages?
•	What is the provision of packages?
•	What were the occupancy rates?
2.1	Service outlets
How many service outlets are there and how many packages do they provide?
Across Australia at 30 June 2009, including packages provided through Multi-Purpose Services and service providers receiving flexible funding under the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program, there were about:
•	1,100 service outlets providing 40,900 CACPs packages
•	280 service outlets providing 4,500 EACH packages
•	190 service outlets providing 2,000 EACH D packages.
•	The number of CACP, EACH or EACH D packages provided by service outlets varied greatly. Some 3% (37) of all CACP service outlets offered more than 120 packages, while the highest number of EACH packages provided by service outlets was in the range of 61–80 (1% of all EACH service outlets). The newest of these community aged care programs is EACH D, and the highest number of packages provided by a service outlet was in the range of 41–60 (1% of all EACH D service outlets) (Figure 2.1).
•	Less than half of CACP service outlets offered 20 or fewer CACPs (44%), compared with 80% of EACH outlets and 92% of EACH D outlets. 
 
Figure 2.1: CACP, EACH, and EACH D service outlets by number of packages, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Vertical bar chart showing, for service outlets, per cent on y-axis and packages on x-axis.
Source: Table A1.1.

Where are the service outlets located?
The service outlets that provide CACPs, EACH and EACH D packages are spread across all Australian state and territories, as remoteness areas (Box 2.1). 

Box 2.1: How is remoteness defined? 
The term ‘remoteness’, as used in this publication, refers to a classification defined by the Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC) (ABS 2009a). The ASGC uses measures of access and distance to services offered (such as health, education) in urban areas to determine classifications of Australian remoteness. These classifications include:
•		Major cities
•		Inner regional
•		Outer regional
•		Remote
•		Very remote
Without an understanding of how remoteness is classified, the classifications can sometimes seem confusing. For example, Tasmania has no classification of Major cities. This is due to the classification of Hobart as Inner regional. 
Source: ABS (2009a).

State and territory, and remoteness
At 30 June 2009:
•	Consistent with its population size, the highest proportions of service outlets were located in New South Wales with 29% of CACP, 34% of EACH, and 35% of EACH D service outlets.
•	The least numbers of service outlets were located in the Australian Capital Territory for CACP (1%) and in the Northern Territory for EACH (2%) and EACH D (2%).
•	More than half of the service outlets were located in Major cities: CACP (51%), EACH (56%), and EACH D (59%) (Figure 2.2).
•	The least number of CACP service outlets were located in Remote areas (4%). EACH had the least amount of service outlets in Very remote areas, with 0.4%. EACH D had no service delivery outlets in Very remote areas and 1% in Remote (Figure 2.2). 
•	In the Northern Territory, nearly 2 in every 3 CACP service outlets were located in Very remote areas. However, EACH and EACH D had no service outlets in Very remote areas in the Northern Territory (Figure 2.2). 
•	In Queensland and Western Australia, access to CACP service outlets was available for all remoteness areas. In the same states, there were lower proportions of EACH service outlets than CACP service outlets in Very remote areas in Queensland and none in Western Australia. EACH D had no service outlets in either Remote or Very remote areas in these states (Figure 2.2). 
•	The number of packages offered by the service outlets also varied by remoteness. For CACP, EACH, and EACH D as remoteness increased, the proportion of small service outlets (1 to 20 packages) increased. The opposite trend was found for the larger service outlets with the proportion of these being higher in Major cities (Table A1.2). 
Figure 2.2: CACP, EACH, and EACH D service outlets by state/territory and remoteness, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Three vertical bar charts (CACP, EACH and EACH D) showing, for remoteness areas, per cent on y-axes and state/territory on x-axes.
Source: Table A1.3.

What sorts of organisations provided the packages?
At 30 June 2009:
•	The majority of service outlets were run by not-for-profit organisations for CACP (77%), EACH (86%) and EACH D (90%). Not-for-profit organisations include organisations classified as charitable, community-based, and religious. 
•	Government-run organisations accounted for 17% of CACP service outlets, 7% of EACH, and 4% of EACH D. 
•	The remaining service outlet providers were privately run organisations (6% CACP, 7% EACH, and 6% EACH D) (Figure 2.3).
•	In the Northern Territory, CACP service outlets were run by not-for-profit organisations (51%), government organisations (45%) and private organisations (4%). EACH and EACH D service outlets in the Northern Territory were run by not-for-profit organisations (80% EACH and 75% EACH D) and private organisations (20% EACH and 25% EACH D) (Figure 2.3).
Figure 2.3: CACP, EACH, and EACH D service outlet type by state/territory and organisation type, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Vertical bar chart showing, for private, government or not-for-profit, per cent on y-axis and state/territory on x-axis.
Source: Table A1.4.
2.2	Available packages
How many packages are available? 
At 30 June 2009:
•	Across Australia there were about 40,900 CACPs, 4,500 EACH, and 2,000 EACH D packages available (Table 2.1).
•	There has been a gradual rise in the number of packages available since the programs began. From 30 June 2008 until 30 June 2009 this rise continued and equated to an increase of 1% for CACP, 6% for EACH, and 2% for EACH D (Figure 2.4). 
•	This continued rise in CACP, EACH, and EACH D packages is to meet the growing demand for community-based aged care. The Australian Government encourages growth by offering funding to service providers for more CACP, EACH, and EACH D packages. 
Figure 2.4: Number of CACP, EACH, and EACH D packages, 30 June 1999 to 30 June 2009
Vertical bar chart showing, for CACP, EACH and EACH D, packages on y-axis and year on x-axis.
Source: Table A1.5.
State and territory
At 30 June 2009:
•	The highest number of packages for CACP, EACH, and EACH D was in New South Wales, and accounted for about 1 in every 3 packages for each of the programs (Table 2.1). This was followed by Victoria, which accounted for about 1 in every 4. 
•	The least number of packages available was in the Australian Capital Territory for CACP (1%), and the Northern Territory for EACH (2%), and EACH D (2%) (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1: CACP EACH and EACH D packages by state/territory(a), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
 State/territory	CACP	EACH	EACH D	Combined	
	Per cent	
NSW	33.5	32.0	33.2	33.3	
Vic	25.0	25.0	24.4	25.0	
Qld	17.3	15.6	17.2	17.2	
WA	10.0	12.4	9.5	10.2	
SA	8.6	7.9	8.5	8.6	
Tas	2.7	2.7	3.4	2.7	
ACT	1.3	2.5	2.2	1.4	
NT	1.6	1.9	1.5	1.6	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	40,859	4,478	2,036	47,373	
(a)	Refers to location of service outlets.
Notes
1.	CACPs provided by Multi-Purpose Services and service providers receiving flexible funding under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Strategy are included.
2.	Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
What is the provision of CACP, EACH and EACH D?
A provision ratio is used to understand what proportion of people in a specified age group is likely to need community aged care packages. It is used as an Australian Government planning tool, especially for funding (to see the current Australian Government target provision ratio see Box 2.2). All provision ratios and usage ratios reported in this publication are per 1,000 people aged 70 years and over, unless otherwise noted. 

Box 2.2: What is a provision ratio or usage rate?
An operational provision ratio (from now on referred to as a ‘provision ratio’) compares the amount of places or packages available, to a specific population at a point in time, usually a 
30 June date. Currently, aged care planning looks at the number of places available per 1,000 people aged 70 years and over. Under these circumstances, if a provision ratio is 10, it would mean that there are 10 places available for every 1,000 people aged 70 years and over. 
What is the Australian Government target ratio?
In 2007, the national target ratio was lifted from 108 to 113 operational places per 1,000 people aged 70 years and over. This target was set to be achieved by 30 June 2011. In particular, the community care component of this ratio (comprising CACP, EACH, and EACH D) included a rise from 20 to 25 places per 1,000 people aged 70 years and over, with 4 of these 25 places to be high care (such as EACH and EACH D). 
What is a usage rate?
A usage rate is used to measure patterns of use and access to services. It is similar to a provision ratio; however it looks at the number of people who are currently using a service, compared to all of the people in the population that the service is for. For example, if a usage rate is 10 for a specific age group it would mean that there are 10 people for every 1,000 people in that age group who were using a community aged care package at a specific point in time.
Indigenous Australians
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia have lower life expectancy compared to other Australians, and may need access to aged care services earlier in life. For this reason, the provision ratios and usage rates are sometimes calculated with the Indigenous Australian population aged 50 to 69 years added to the 70 years and over age group. 

•	Across Australia, the combined provision ratio for CACP, EACH, and EACH D packages at 30 June 2009 was 23. When the Indigenous population aged 50 to 69 years was added, the provision ratio fell slightly to 22.5 (Figure 2.5). Both of these ratios are currently just below the Australian Government national target to be reached by 30 June 2011 (Box 2.2). 
State and territory
At 30 June 2009:
•	The lowest combined provision ratio for the 70 years and older population per 1,000 was found in Queensland (22). The highest was in the Northern Territory with a provision ratio of 121 (Figure 2.5).
•	When the Indigenous population between 50 and 69 years was added to the 70 years and over population, Queensland still had the lowest provision ratio at 21. The Northern Territory had the highest, with a provision ratio of 60 (Figure 2.5).
•	The most noticeable change in the provision ratio with the addition of the Indigenous population aged between 50 and 69 years was in the Northern Territory. It dropped by half, from 121 to 60 (Figure 2.5), due to the high proportion of Indigenous Australians found in the Northern Territory (Table 3.7). 
Figure 2.5: Combined packages provision ratio by state/territory, 30 June 2009 (per 1,000 population)
Vertical bar chart showing, for 70 years and over and 70 years and over and Indigenous population aged 50 to 69 years.
Note: The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population aged 50–69 years uses ABS projections (ABS 2004).
Source: Table A1.6.
Remoteness
At 30 June 2009:
•	The highest provision ratio for the three packages combined was in Very remote areas (100). The second highest was in Remote areas (36). The lowest provision ratio for the combined programs was in Outer regional areas (20) (Table 2.2).
•	Across Australia the provision rate for CACPs was 20. This was about 6 times as high as the provision rate for EACH plus EACH D packages, which was 3. This puts the provision ratio close to the current Australian Government planning target (provision ratio of 21 for CACPs, and 4 for EACH plus EACH D packages, see Box 2.2) to be achieved by 30 June 2011.
•	The highest CACP provision ratio for remoteness was in Very remote areas (99), and the smallest was in Outer regional (17).
•	EACH plus EACH D provision ratios were highest in Inner regional areas (3.3) and lowest in Very remote areas (1.0).

Table 2.2: CACP and EACH packages available per 1,000 persons aged 
70 years and over by remoteness(a), 30 June 2009
Remoteness	CACP	EACH/EACH D	Combined	
Major cities	 20.2	 3.2	23.4	
Inner regional	 18.7	 3.3	21.9	
Outer regional	 17.3	 3.0	20.2	
Remoteness	 33.2	 2.4	35.6	
Very remote	 99.1	 0.7	99.8	
Australia	 19.9	 3.2	23.1	
(a)	Refers to location of service outlet.
Note: Due to small numbers in remoteness areas, the provision ratio for EACH and EACH D was 
calculated together.
What were the occupancy rates?
From 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009:
•	Across Australia, the average occupancy rates for CACP, EACH, and EACH D were 95%, 95%, and 89% respectively (Box 2.3 and Figure 2.6). 
Box 2.3: What is an occupancy rate?
Occupancy rates are numbers that tell us how much a program is being used. It is different from a provision ratio or a usage rate as these are comparing the proportion of the population using a service, whereas an occupancy rate is looking at how ‘full’ a service is. It is calculated by dividing the number of clients using a package in a specific time period, by the number of available packages during that time period, and multiplying it by 100. For example, at a given point in time, if there are 15 people using an EACH package and 20 places available, the occupancy rate would be 75% (15 ÷ 20 × 100 = 75). This also means that 75% of the available places are in use and 25% are not. 
State and territory, and remoteness
From 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009:
•	For CACPs, the average occupancy rate ranged from 87% in Queensland to 98% in Tasmania (Figure 2.6).
•	For EACH packages, the minimum average occupancy rate was 83% in the Northern Territory and the maximum was 98% in Victoria (Figure 2.6). 
•	For EACH D packages, the average occupancy rate was lowest in the Northern Territory (67%) and highest in Victoria (95%) (Figure 2.6).

Figure 2.6: CACP, EACH, and EACH D average occupancy rate by state/territory, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Vertical bar chart showing, for CACP, EACH and EACH D, occupancy rate on y-axis and state/territory on x-axis.
Source: Table A1.7.
•	The average occupancy rate for CACP was lowest in Very remote areas (85%). Inner regional had the highest for CACP (96%), and was about 10 percentage points higher than Very remote areas (Figure 2.7).
•	EACH average occupancy rate ranged from 78% in Remote areas to 96% in Major cities (Figure 2.7). Only Queensland had EACH packages in Very remote areas, with an average occupancy rate of 88% (Table A1.7; Figure 2.7).
•	For EACH D the lowest average occupancy rate was in Remote areas (72%), and the highest was in Major cities (91%) (Figure 2.7). There were no Very remote areas with EACH D packages. 
Figure 2.7: CACP, EACH, and EACH D average occupancy rate by remoteness, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Vertical bar chart showing, for CACP, EACH and EACH D, occupancy rate on y-axis and remoteness area on x-axis.
Source: Table A1.7.

3	Characteristics of clients
This chapter describes some of the characteristics of CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients: where they receive services, age and sex distribution, where they were born, and their living arrangements. It is important to keep in mind that reference to state and territory and remoteness areas relate to the location of the service outlet providing the service. Specific details about the location of the client are not recorded. 
In particular, this chapter will describe:
•	CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients’ state and territory, and remoteness locations (based on the location of their service outlet)
•	CACP, EACH, and EACH D age and sex distribution 
•	Younger (under 65 years) CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients
•	The birthplace and preferred language of CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients
•	Living arrangements and how many CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients have carers. 
3.1	How many clients are there?
Recipients of CACP and EACH are spread across all Australian states and territories, and remoteness areas. EACH D, although the smallest of the three community aged care programs, it can still be found in most states and remoteness areas. It is important to note that where the clients live is inferred by the location of the service outlet from which they receive care (see Appendix 5 for more information). 
At 30 June 2009 there were about:
•	38,100 CACP clients
•	4,200 EACH clients
•	1,900 EACH D clients. 
At the same time:
•	Across the states and territories, the highest number of clients for CACP, EACH, and EACH D was in New South Wales, accounting for about 1 in every 3 clients for each of the programs (Table 3.1). This was followed by Victoria, which accounted for about 1 in every 4 clients. 
•	Compared with other states and territories, the smallest proportion of clients was in the Australian Capital Territory for CACP (1%), and the Northern Territory for EACH (2%) and EACH D (1%) (Table 3.1). 
•	The majority of clients was located in Major cities for CACP (68%), EACH (66%) and EACH D (69%), followed by Inner regional with 22% for both CACP and EACH D and 25% for EACH (Figure 3.1). 
•	The smallest number of clients was located in Very remote areas for CACP (1%), EACH (0.1%). EACH D had no clients in this area (Figure 3.1). 

Table 3.1: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by state/territory(a), 
30 June 2009 (per cent)
State/territory	CACP	EACH	EACH D	
	Per cent	
NSW	34.7	33.4	33.8	
Vic	26.2	26.3	25.8	
Qld	16.2	15.2	15.9	
WA	8.5	9.5	8.8	
SA	8.9	8.4	8.9	
Tas	2.6	2.7	3.5	
ACT	1.3	2.6	2.3	
NT	1.5	1.8	1.1	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	38,055	4,157	1,871	
(a)	Refers to location of service outlets.
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%
 Figure 3.1: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by remoteness, 30 June 2009
Vertical bar chart showing, for CACP, EACH and EACH D, per cent on y-axis and remoteness area on x-axis.
Source: Table A2.1.

•	The highest proportion of CACP clients in Very remote areas was in the Northern Territory (43%). EACH had a small proportion of Queensland clients in Very remote areas, and EACH D had no clients in any Very remote areas across Australia (Figure 3.2). 
Figure 3.2: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by state/territory, and remoteness, 30 June 2009
Three vertical bar charts (CACP, EACH and EACH D) showing, for remoteness area, per cent on y-axes and state/territory on x-axes.
Source: Table A2.1.
3.2	Age and sex profiles of clients
On average, Australian women live longer than Australian men. This section looks at the age and sex of community aged care clients. Also, as previously noted, the Australian Government aged care provision ratio uses the population of people aged 70 years and older to plan for the release of new community aged care packages (Box 2.2). Younger people can access CACP, EACH, and EACH D packages under special circumstances, such as when no other service exists in their area that can provide the care required. 
At 30 June 2009:
•	for CACP there were about 27,000 females and 11,100 males
•	for EACH there were about 2,600 females and 1,500 males
•	for EACH D there were about 1,200 females and 700 males. 
•	Females outnumbered males for CACP, EACH, and EACH D. About 3 in every 4 CACP clients were females and just over 1 in 4 were males. For EACH and EACH D about 2 in every 3 people were females, and about 1 in 3 was male (Figure 3.3). 
Figure 3.3: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by sex, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Three pie carts showing: CACP, male 29.1% and female 70.9%; EACH, male 36.3% and female 63.7%; and EACH D, male 36% and female 64%.
Source: Table 3.2.

•	Within the states and territories, the Northern Territory had the smallest difference in proportion between the sexes for CACP (63% females, 37% male), EACH (54% females, 46% males), and EACH D (55% and 45%) (Table 3.2).
•	The greatest difference between male and female proportions was in Tasmania for CACP (77% females, 24% males), Western Australia for EACH (68% females, 32% males), and Tasmania for EACH D (74% females, 26% males) (Table 3.2). 
Table 3.2: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by sex and state/territory(a), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Package/sex	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
	Per cent	
CACP 		
Females	72.9	67.8	70.7	69.5	73.2	76.5	73.4	62.9	70.9	
Males	27.1	32.2	29.3	30.5	26.8	23.5	26.6	37.1	29.1	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	13,211	9,979	6,155	3,249	3,385	1,008	512	556	38,055	
EACH 		
Females	65.7	60.5	61.3	68.4	66.7	64.6	64.2	54.1	63.7	
Males	34.3	39.5	38.7	31.6	33.3	35.4	35.8	45.9	36.3	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	1,390	1,095	630	395	351	113	109	74	4,157	
EACH D 		
Females	67.6	58.2	62.3	64.2	66.9	73.8	67.4	55.0	64.0	
Males	32.4	41.8	37.7	35.8	33.1	26.2	32.6	45.0	36.0	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	632	483	297	165	166	65	43	20	1,871	
(a)	Refers to location of service outlets.
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
•	For CACP clients: 
–	Major cities had the highest proportion of females (72%, males 28%) compared with other areas (Table 3.3)
–	Very remote areas had the highest proportion for males (38%, females 62%). 
•	For EACH clients:
–	Remote areas had the highest proportion of females (71%, males 29%). However, these figures should be looked at with caution as they are based on a small number of people (34)
–	Outer regional areas had the highest proportion for males (38%, females 62%) (Table 3.3). 
•	For EACH D clients:
–	Inner regional areas had the highest proportion of females (65%, males 35%). However, there was not much difference between the remoteness areas. 
–	Outer regional areas had the highest proportion for males (37%, females 64%) (Table 3.3). However, again the proportions were similar across remoteness areas. 
Table 3.3: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by sex and remoteness(a), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Package/sex	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	Australia	
	Per cent	
CACP		
Females	71.5	70.6	68.8	66.3	62.1	70.9	
Males	28.5	29.4	31.3	33.7	37.9	29.1	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	25,818	8,320	2,992	498	427	38,055	
EACH		
Females	64.3	62.7	62.0	70.6	n.p.	63.7	
Males	35.7	37.3	38.0	29.4	n.p.	36.3	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	2,731	1,031	358	34	3	4,157	
EACH D 		
Females	63.9	64.7	63.5	n.p.	— 	64.0	
Males	36.1	35.3	36.5	n.p.	—	36.0	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	—	100.0	
Total (number)	1,292	402	170	7	— 	1,871	
(a)	Refers to location of service outlets. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS. 
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
n.p.	Not published.	
— 	Nil or rounded to zero. 
•	CACP clients generally had the oldest age profile followed by EACH D, then EACH. The median ages for the three packages were:
–	83 years for CACP 
–	82 years for EACH D 
–	81 years for EACH (Table A2.2). 
•	Younger community aged care clients (younger than 65) made up a small proportion of overall clients. The highest proportion was for EACH with 7%, followed by CACP with 5%, and lastly EACH D with 4% (Table A2.4). 
•	The age group 80 years and older made up roughly 66% of CACP clients, 63% of EACH D clients and 55% of EACH clients (Table A2.4).
•	The proportion of clients in the age group 90 years and over was even across all three programs. CACP and EACH had 16% of clients in this category, and EACH D had just fewer than 16% (Table A2.4).
•	Females generally had an older age-profile than males for all three programs (Figure 3.4), and the female and male median age range was fairly similar across programs for females and with more variation for males (Table A2.3). 
–	For CACP, the median age by sex was 83 years for females and 82 years for males
–	For EACH, the median age by sex was 82 years for females and 79 years for males 
–	For EACH D, the median age by sex was 83 years for females and 81 years for males.
•	Females in the category 80 years and older made up 48% of total CACP clients and males only 18%. For the same age group in EACH, females again made up a higher proportion than males (38% and 17% respectively). Older female EACH D clients, aged 80 years and over also made up a higher proportion of total clients than did males (43% compared to 20% respectively) (Table A2.4).
•	There were also a higher proportion of females compared to males in the age group 
90 years and over. For CACP, EACH, and EACH D females aged 90 years and over made up about 11–12% of total clients, and males around 4% (Table A2.4).
Figure 3.4: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients’ age and sex, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Three horizontal bar chart showing, for males and females, age group (years) on y-axes and recipients (per cent) on y-axes.
Source: Table A2.4.

Location
At 30 June, 2009:
•	For CACP clients across the states and territories the median ages were similar to the national figure (83 years), except for the Northern Territory which was 10 years younger (73 years) (Table A2.2). Across Australia, 25% of CACP clients were in the age group 
85–89 years. All the states and territories had a similar proportion of clients in the 85–89 year age categories except the Northern Territory, which was lower at 7%. The Northern Territory in general had a younger age profile than the other jurisdictions with the biggest proportion of clients in the 70–74 year age group (19%). In addition, 57% of Northern Territory CACP clients were aged less than 75 years, compared with 19% of total Australian CACP clients in the same age group (Table 3.4).
•	For EACH clients in the state and territories, the median age ranged from 76 years in the Northern Territory to 84 years in South Australia (Table A2.2). Most of the states and territories had the highest proportion of clients in the age group 80–84 years, which was also the highest proportion nationally (21%). EACH clients in the Australian Capital Territory had the highest proportion in the 85–89 age group. The result for the Northern Territory was similar to that of CACP clients, with the highest proportion of EACH clients in the 70–74 age group (23%) (Table 3.4).
•	The lowest median age in the states and territories for EACH D clients was 75 years in the Northern Territory and the highest was 83 years in Western Australia and South Australia (Table A2.2). The highest proportion of EACH D clients across Australia was in the 80–84 year age group (25%), as it was for New South Wales (27%), Victoria (25%), Queensland (23%), Tasmania (28%), and the Australian Capital Territory (28%). For Western Australia and South Australia an older age group, 85–89 years, had a higher proportion of clients (29% and 30% respectively). The Northern Territory again had the highest proportion in a younger age group. For the Northern Territory EACH D clients, 25% were in the age group 70–74 years (Table 3.4).
•	Across remoteness areas, the median age for CACP clients in Very remote (73 years) was 10 years below the Australian median age (83 years) (Table A2.3). Consistent with this, the highest proportion of clients was in a lower age category for Very remote (19% in 
70–74 years) than that for Australia (25% in 85–89 years) (Table 3.5). Remote areas had the next lowest median age of 78 years for CACP clients. 
•	It is important to keep in mind that location information such as state and territory, and remoteness are closely linked. For example, CACP in the Northern Territory has 43% of clients located in Very remote areas (Table A2.1). This would be a factor in the median age of both the Northern Territory and Very remote areas (73 years each) (Table A2.2; Table A2.3). 
•	For EACH clients, the median ages ranged from 78 years in Remote areas, to 81 years in Major cities and Outer regional (Table A2.3). Across Australia, the age group 80–84 years had the highest proportion of EACH clients from 20% in Inner regional to 23% in Outer regional (Table 3.5). 
•	The median age for EACH D clients was lowest in the Remote area (78 years) and highest in Major cities (83 years) (Table A2.3). There were no EACH D clients in Very remote areas. Across Australia, the highest proportion of EACH D clients was in the 80–84 year age category. This age group had the highest proportion for Major cities and Inner regional (25% each) and Outer regional (27%) (Table 3.5). 
•	For CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients in general, the older the age category, the more likely the client was in Major cities. Also, as age increased for CACP clients there was a decline in the proportion found in Very remote areas (Figure 3.5).
Table 3.4: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients, by age and state/territory(a), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Package/age (years)	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
	Per cent 	
CACP		
0–59	1.8	2.3	2.6	1.9	1.4	n.p. 	2.0	13.3	2.2	
60–64	2.0	2.7	3.0	2.8	1.6	1.1	2.7	9.7	2.5	
65–69 	4.2	6.5	5.4	5.4	4.7	5.1	4.7	14.6	5.3	
70–74 	8.3	10.2	8.4	8.2	7.2	8.1	7.4	19.2	8.9	
75–79 	14.7	16.2	14.5	16.0	14.3	16.0	12.7	16.0	15.2	
80–84 	25.6	25.0	23.6	24.2	25.6	24.9	24.4	15.6	24.8	
85–89 	26.3	23.4	25.4	24.2	27.8	26.2	28.9	7.2	25.1	
90+ 	17.1	13.6	17.2	17.2	17.3	18.5	17.2	4.3	16.1	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	13,211	9,979	6,155	3,249	3,385	1,008	512	556	38,055	
EACH 		
0–59	1.9	3.3	3.0	3.0	0.6	3.5	1.8	n.p.	2.5	
60–64	3.3	5.1	7.5	3.5	1.1	12.4	3.7	n.p.	4.5	
65–69 	6.4	9.6	8.9	9.4	4.6	8.8	11.9	14.9	8.1	
70–74 	12.8	15.6	11.7	13.4	7.4	8.8	10.1	23.0	13.0	
75–79 	16.1	17.4	15.9	17.5	15.7	17.7	11.9	17.6	16.5	
80–84 	21.4	20.7	20.5	18.7	27.6	21.2	14.7	13.5	21.0	
85–89 	19.5	16.3	17.8	17.7	21.1	11.5	25.7	14.9	18.2	
90+ 	18.6	12.1	14.8	16.7	21.9	15.9	20.2	9.5	16.2	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	1,390	1,095	630	395	351	113	109	74	4,157	
EACH D 		
0–59	1.1	1.2	1.7	—	—	n.p.	n.p.	n.p.	1.2	
60–64	1.6	4.3	3.4	3.6	n.p.	7.7	—	—	2.9	
65–69 	4.7	6.6	5.4	6.1	3.0	6.2	n.p.	15.0	5.5	
70–74 	7.6	10.6	7.7	5.5	9.6	4.6	16.3	25.0	8.7	
75–79 	15.8	19.5	21.2	19.4	21.7	16.9	14.0	20.0	18.5	
80–84 	27.2	25.1	23.2	18.8	25.3	27.7	27.9	n.p.	25.0	
85–89 	24.1	20.9	22.9	28.5	29.5	24.6	23.3	n.p.	23.8	
90+ 	17.9	11.8	14.5	18.2	9.6	9.2	11.6	15.0	14.6	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	632	483	297	165	166	65	43	20	1,871	
(a)	Refers to location of service outlets. 
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
n.p. 	Not published.
— 	Nil or rounded to zero. 

Table 3.5: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients, by age and remoteness(a), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Package/
age (years)	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	All regions	
	Per cent	
CACP		
0–59	1.3	2.9	4.5	9.4	13.6	2.2	
60–64	2.0	2.6	3.9	7.2	12.2	2.5	
65–69 	4.8	5.8	7.3	10.6	13.1	5.3	
70–74 	8.4	8.9	10.8	10.4	19.0	8.9	
75–79 	15.0	15.7	15.0	17.1	15.7	15.2	
80–84 	25.4	24.7	23.3	17.7	14.1	24.8	
85–89 	26.5	23.4	21.6	16.3	8.2	25.1	
90+ 	16.7	16.0	13.6	11.2	4.2	16.1	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	25,818	8,320	2,992	498	427	38,055	
EACH 		
0–59	2.0	2.9	5.0	n.p.	—	2.5	
60–64	4.1	5.7	3.9	n.p.	—	4.5	
65–69 	7.7	8.9	8.1	17.6	—	8.1	
70–74 	12.9	13.6	12.6	11.8	—	13.0	
75–79 	16.0	18.2	14.2	17.6	n.p.	16.5	
80–84 	21.3	19.8	22.6	20.6	n.p.	21.0	
85–89 	19.1	15.5	19.3	17.6	—	18.2	
90+ 	16.9	15.3	14.2	n.p.	—	16.2	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	2,731	1,031	358	34	3	4,157	
EACH D 		
0–59	0.9	1.7	1.8	—	—	1.2	
60–64	2.9	3.2	2.4	—	—	2.9	
65–69 	5.0	5.5	8.2	n.p.	—	5.5	
70–74 	8.6	8.5	10.0	—	—	8.7	
75–79 	18.0	19.7	19.4	n.p.	—	18.5	
80–84 	24.8	25.1	26.5	—	—	25.0	
85–89 	23.8	23.9	23.5	n.p.	—	23.8	
90+ 	16.1	12.4	8.2	n.p.	—	14.6	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0			—	100.0	
Total (number)	1,292	402	170	7	—	1,871	
(a)	Refers to location of service outlets. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS. 
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
n.p.	Not published.
—	Nil or rounded to zero.
Figure 3.5: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients’ age by remoteness 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Three vertical bar charts (CACP, EACH and EACH D) showing, for remoteness area, per cent on y-axes and age group (years) on x-axes.
Source: Table A2.5.

What about younger clients?
Younger people with disabilities (aged less than 65 years) receive assistance with their care needs through the Commonwealth State Territory Disability Agreement. However, if services for these people are not available in their area, and they fit the criteria for a community aged care package, they may receive a CACP, EACH, or EACH D package (DoHA, 2007). 
At 30 June 2009:
•	Clients under 65 years of age who received an aged care package in the community made up:
–	5% of CACP clients
–	7% of EACH clients
–	4% of EACH D clients.
•	Male clients younger than 65 years from CACP, EACH, and EACH D made up a higher proportion than females from the same age group (Figure 3.6). 
•	The proportion of female CACP and EACH D clients that were younger than 65 years was similar, however CACP had a higher proportion of males in this age group than did EACH D (Figure 3.6). 
Figure 3.6: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients under 65 years of age by sex, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Vertical bar chart showing, for CACP, EACH and EACH D, per cent on y-axis and sex on x-axis.
Source: Table 3.6.

As noted in Box 2.2, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders may need to access aged care packages provided in the community at an earlier age than non-Indigenous people, especially those aged 50–69 years. With this in mind, this section examines the Indigenous status of younger community aged care clients. 
•	A high proportion of Indigenous clients were under 65 years of age, with just over 1 in 3 Indigenous Australians using CACP and EACH in this age group. In contrast, non-Indigenous clients younger than 65 years accounted for about 1 in 29 clients for CACP and 1 in every 15 clients for EACH (Table 3.6). 
•	EACH D had a lower overall total number of clients that were aged less than 65 years and had no identified Indigenous clients in this age group (Table 3.6). This could be due to the smaller size of the EACH D packages in comparison to CACP, and EACH. It may also be due to EACH D services not being located in Very remote areas, which have a higher proportion of Indigenous Australians (Figure 4.2). 
Table 3.6: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients, Indigenous status by sex and age, 30 June 2009 
Age group (years)	Indigenous	Per cent	Non-
Indigenous	Per cent	Total	Per cent 	
CACP 		
Females		
0–64	306	34.9	706	2.7	1,012	3.8	
65+	571	65.1	25,368	97.3	25,939	96.2	
Total females	877	100.0	26,074	100.0	26,951	100.0	
Males		
0–64	182	39.8	563	5.3	745	6.7	
65+	275	60.2	10,040	94.7	10,315	93.3	
Total males	457	100.0	10,603	100.0	11,060	100.0	
Persons		
0–64	488	36.6	1,269	3.5	1,757	4.6	
65+	846	63.4	35,408	96.5	36,254	95.4	
Total persons	1,334	100.0	36,677	100.0	38,011	100.0	
EACH		
Females		
0–64	12	31.6	137	5.3	149	5.6	
65+	26	68.4	2,472	94.7	2,498	94.4	
Total females	38	100.0	2,609	100.0	2,647	100.0	
Males		
0–64	10	41.7	131	8.8	141	9.4	
65+	14	58.3	1,353	91.2	1,367	90.6	
Total males	24	100.0	1,484	100.0	1,508	100.0	
Persons		
0–64	22	35.5	268	6.5	290	7.0	
65+	40	64.5	3,825	93.5	3,865	93.0	
Total persons	62	100.0	4,093	100.0	4,155	100.0	
EACH D 		
Females		
0–64	—	—	44	3.7	44	3.7	
65+	13	100.0	1,141	96.3	1,154	96.3	
Total females	13	100.0	1,185	100.0	1,198	100.0	
Males		
0–64	—	—	32	4.8	32	4.8	
65+	4	100.0	637	95.2	641	95.2	
Total males	4	100.0	669	100.0	673	100.0	
Persons		
0–64	—	—	76	4.1	76	4.1	
65+	17	100.0	1,778	95.9	1,795	95.9	
Total persons	17	100.0	1,854	100.0	1,871	100.0	
Notes
1.	Table does not include those with unknown Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander status, of which there were 44 in CACP, 2 in EACH and none in EACH D. 
2.	Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
—	Nil or rounded to zero. 
3.3	Client background
Australia’s population is very diverse with over 25% of its population being born overseas (ABS 2008a). Even within Australia, people may have a variety of different backgrounds. As a result, CACP, EACH, and EACH D needs to cater for clients from a wide range of different circumstances. 
Indigenous status
Clients receiving aged care packages in the community can identify as being of Aboriginal and Torres Strait origin on the application form completed by the client. 
At 30 June, 2009:
•	The proportion of clients indicating they were of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander origin (Table A3.1a, b, c) was:
–	4% for CACP
–	2% for EACH
–	1% for EACH D. 
•	In all jurisdictions but the Northern Territory, CACP clients who identified as Indigenous Australians made up a much smaller proportion than non-Indigenous Australians. In the Northern Territory the proportion was higher for Indigenous than for non-Indigenous Australians (60% and 40% respectively) (Table 3.7). 
•	EACH clients across states and territories had small proportions of Indigenous Australians compared to non-Indigenous clients. The highest Indigenous proportion was in the Northern Territory and made up 15% of all EACH clients (Table 3.7).

Table 3.7: CACP and EACH client’s Indigenous status by state/territory(a), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Package/Indigenous status	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
	Per cent	
CACP		
Indigenous	2.6	1.6	3.2	5.8	2.0	1.8	5.3	60.3	3.5	
Non-Indigenous	97.3	98.2	96.7	94.2	97.9	98.2	94.7	39.7	96.4	
Unknown/not reported	0.1	0.3	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.1	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	13,211	9,979	6,155	3,249	3,385	1,008	512	556	38,055	
EACH 		
Indigenous	2.2	0.5	0.6	1.5	n.p.	n.p.	n.p.	14.9	1.5	
Non-Indigenous	97.8	99.5	99.0	98.5	n.p.	n.p.	n.p.	85.1	98.5	
Unknown/not reported	—	—	0.3	—	—	—	—	—	—	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	1,390	1,095	630	395	351	113	109	74	4,157	
(a)	Refers to location of service outlets.
Notes
1.	EACH D numbers are not given due to small numbers. 
2.	Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%.
—	Nil or rounded to zero
n.p.	Not published. 
Clients’ birthplaces
CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients were also born in a wide range of countries.
At 30 June, 2009:
•	The majority of community aged care clients were born in Australia—66% for CACP, 63% for EACH and 59% for EACH D. 
•	The community aged care package with the highest proportion of people born overseas was EACH D with 41%. This was followed by EACH (37%) and CACP (33%) 
(Figure 3.7). 
Figure 3.7: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by country of birth, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Vertical bar chart showing, for CACP, EACH and EACH D, per cent on y-axis and country of birth on x-axis.
Source: Table A2.6.
•	Excluding Australia, the birthplace with the highest proportion of clients was Southern and Eastern Europe for CACP (12%), EACH (14%), and EACH D (18%). This was followed by the United Kingdom and Ireland with 10% of clients for CACP and EACH, and 9% for EACH D (Table 3.8). Clients from Greece and Italy represented a major portion of those from Southern and Eastern Europe comprising 2% and 4% respectively of total CACP clients, 3% and 5% of EACH clients and 4% and 6% of EACH D clients. 
•	For CACP clients:
–	The state or territory with the highest proportion of clients born in Australia was Northern Territory (87%) and lowest was Western Australia (55%) (Table 3.8). 
–	Within the states and territories, the highest proportion of clients not born in Australia were those from the United Kingdom and Ireland with 19% of clients in Western Australia, 14% each for South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory, 12% in Tasmania, 9% Queensland, and 3% in Northern Territory (Table 3.8). 
–	Within New South Wales and Victoria, the highest proportions of clients born overseas were from Southern and Eastern Europe (11% and 18% respectively) (Table 3.8). Victoria had the highest proportion of clients born in Greece and Italy (3% and 6% respectively).
•	For EACH clients:
–	Most EACH clients were born in Australia (63%). This proportion ranged from 46% of clients in Western Australia to 79% of clients in Tasmania (Table 3.8). 
–	Within the states and territories, the highest proportion of clients not born in Australia were those from Southern and Eastern Europe (14%) with 22% of clients in Victoria, 18% in South Australia and 14% in Western Australia. Victoria and South Australia had the highest proportion of clients born in Italy (both 9% of all EACH clients). Victoria had the highest proportion of clients born in Greece (6%).
–	The remaining states and territories had a higher proportion from the United Kingdom and Ireland with 22% of clients in Western Australia, 19% in the Australian Capital Territory, 14% in South Australia, 11% in the Northern Territory, and 9% each in Queensland and Tasmania (Table 3.8). 
•	For EACH D clients:
–	As with CACP and EACH, most were born in Australia (59%) with the proportions varying within the states and territories from 49% in Victoria and Western Australia to 75% in the Northern Territory (Table 3.8). 
–	For those born elsewhere, the highest proportion were from Southern and Eastern Europe with 28% of clients in Victoria , 21% in Western Australia , 16% in New South Wales, and 15% of clients in South Australia (Table 3.8). 
–	Similar to CACP and EACH clients, Victoria had the highest proportion of EACH D clients born in Greece and Italy (6% and 11% respectively).
–	In the other states and territories, those from the United Kingdom and Ireland formed the highest proportion of clients within Tasmania (12%), Queensland (11%), Northern Territory (10%), and the Australian Capital Territory (9%) 
(Table 3.8). 
•	Across all three aged care packages delivered in the community, the Northern Territory had the highest proportion of clients born in Australia (87% CACP, 66% EACH, and 75% EACH D). Western Australia had the highest proportion of clients born outside Australia across all three packages (45% CACP, 54% EACH, and 52% EACH D) (Figure 3.7).
Table 3.8: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by birthplace(a) and state/territory(b), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Birthplace 	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
	Per cent	
CACP 		
Australia	68.8	62	71.9	54.7	64.3	73.1	62.1	87.1	66.2	
Southern/Eastern Europe	11.0	17.6	7.1	11.9	13.5	5.4	7.4	2.9	12.1	
 Greece(c)	1.5	2.5	0.7	1.1	1.9	0.4	n.p.	0.9	1.6	
 Italy(c)	3.7	5.6	2.3	5.5	5.4	1.5	1.8	0.7	4.2	
UK and Ireland	7.6	8.5	9.2	19.4	14.3	12.2	13.5	3.4	9.9	
Northern/Western Europe	2.7	4.0	2.9	3.7	4.0	5.1	6.4	2.0	3.4	
Southeast Asia	1.4	1.7	0.8	3.0	0.8	0.4	2.5	1.6	1.5	
Northeast Asia	2.4	1.0	1.2	0.8	0.4	1.5	1.8	0.5	1.5	
North Africa/Middle East	2.1	1.5	0.5	0.7	0.6	0.5	n.p.	—	1.3	
Other	3.0	2.8	3.6	5.4	1.4	1.1	5.3	2.0	3.1	
Not stated/not classified	0.9	0.9	2.6	0.4	0.6	0.8	0.8	0.5	1.1	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	13,211	9,979	6,155	3,249	3,385	1,008	512	556	38,055	
EACH 		
Australia	66.3	57.8	76.7	45.6	58.1	78.8	57.8	66.2	63.1	
Southern/Eastern Europe 	10.9	22.2	4.0	14.2	17.9	7.1	8.3	5.4	13.5	
 Greece(c)	2.0	5.7	— 	2.3	2.3	n.p.	— 	n.p.	2.6	
 Italy(c)	3.7	9.1	1.9	6.6	9.1	n.p.	3.7	— 	5.5	
UK and Ireland	7.4	6.8	9.2	21.8	14.2	8.8	19.3	10.8	9.9	
Northern/Western Europe	1.8	2.6	4.0	4.1	4.0	3.5	4.6	5.4	2.9	
Southeast Asia	2.5	2.4	0.6	3.0	1.4	—	n.p.	5.4	2.1	
North Africa/Middle East	3.5	1.3	0.8	1.3	1.4	—	—	—	1.9	
Southern/Central Asia	1.7	2.4	n.p.	5.3	0.9	—	n.p.	—	1.9	
Other	5.6	4.3	4.4	4.6	1.4	1.8	7.3	6.8	4.6	
Not stated/not classified	0.3	0.3	—	0.3	0.6	—	—	—	0.2	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	1,390	1,095	630	395	351	113	109	74	4,157	
(continued)
Table 3.8 (continued): CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by birthplace(a) and state/territory(b), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Birthplace 	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
	Per cent	
EACH D 		
Australia	61.6	49.3	66.0	48.5	65.7	72.3	65.1	75	58.9	
Southern/Eastern Europe Europe	15.7	28.0	9.8	20.6	15.1	7.7	7.0	n.p.	17.7	
 Greece(c)	3.8	6.4	n.p.	4.2	5.4	—	n.p.	n.p.	4.0	
 Italy(c)	3.8	10.8	2.7	10.3	5.4	n.p.	n.p.	— 	6.0	
UK and Ireland	7.3	7.9	10.8	15.2	12.0	12.3	9.3	n.p.	9.4	
Northern/Western Europe	2.4	3.5	4.0	5.5	3.6	n.p.	n.p.	n.p.	3.4	
North Africa/Middle East	3.6	2.7	1.0	n.p.	n.p.	—	n.p.	—	2.3	
Southeast Asia	2.4	3.1	1.3	1.8	n.p.	n.p.	—	—	2.1	
Southern/Central Asia	1.9	1.7	n.p.	3.0	n.p.	n.p.	n.p.	—	1.6	
Other	5.2	3.7	6.4	4.2	1.8	1.5	2.3	5.0	4.4	
Not stated/not classified	—	0.2	0.3	—	—	—	4.7	—	0.2	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	632	483	297	165	166	65	43	20	1,871	
(a)	ABS 2008b.
(b)	Refers to location of service outlets.
(c)	Greece and Italy are a subset of the category ‘Southern and Eastern Europe’ and are not included separately in the total. 
Notes
1.	The CACP category ‘Other’ includes Southern Asia/Central Asia, Other Oceania/New Zealand/Antarctica, Sub-Saharan Africa/South Africa, North America, and Other America/Caribbean. 
2.	The EACH and EACH D categories ‘Other’ includes Other Oceania/New Zealand/Antarctica, Northeast Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa/South Africa, North America, and Other America/Caribbean. 
3.	Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
n.p.	Not published.	
— 	Nil or rounded to zero.
Language
The majority of community aged care clients were born in Australia, and as such, it is likely that English would be the preferred language of many clients. Yet, considerable proportions were born in countries outside Australia, and may prefer a language other than English, having not grown up with English as their main language.
At 30 June 2009:
•	English was the preferred language for clients of all three programs. Those who preferred to speak a language other than English made up 15% of CACP clients, 17% of EACH clients, and 20% of EACH D clients (Table 3.9 and Figure 3.8). 
•	Less than 1% of CACP clients and less than 0.5% of EACH and EACH D clients did not say which language they preferred (Figure 3.8). 

Figure 3.8: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by preferred language, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Vertical bar chart showing, for CACP, EACH and EACH D, per cent on y-axis and preferred language on x-axis.

•	Of preferred languages other than English, the highest proportion was for Southern European languages for CACP (6%), EACH (8%), and EACH D (11%). Within those languages, Greek and Italian were common preferred languages comprising 2% and 3% respectively of total CACP clients, 3% and 5% of EACH clients and 43% and 5% of EACH D clients. This was followed by Eastern European languages with 3% for CACP, EACH, and EACH D (Table 3.9). 
•	Of the small proportion that preferred to speak Indigenous languages in Australia, CACP had the highest proportion with 1%, followed by 0.2% of EACH clients.
Table 3.9: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by preferred language(a), 
30 June 2009 (per cent)
Preferred language	CACP	EACH	EACH D	
	Per cent	
English	84.5	82.5	79.6	
Language other than English: 				
Southern European	6.3	8.3	10.5	
Greek(b)	1.7	2.6	4.0	
Italian(b)	3.5	4.6	5.3	
Eastern European	3.3	2.7	3.4	
Eastern Asian	1.4	1.6	1.4	
Australian Indigenous	1.0	0.2	n.p.	
Other Northern European	1.0	1.0	0.9	
Southwest and Central Asian	0.7	1.3	1.8	
Southeast Asian	0.7	1.2	1.1	
Other	0.3	0.8	0.9	
Total language other than English 	14.6	17.1	20.1	
Not stated	0.9	0.4	n.p.	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total clients (number)	38,055	4,157	1,871	
(a)	ABS 1997. 
(b)	Greece and Italy are a subset of the category ‘Southern European’ and are not included separately in 
the total. 
Notes
1.	‘Other’ preferred languages include Southern Asian, African (excluding North African) and Oceanic. 
2.	Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and as such may add up to slightly more or less 
than 100%. 
n.p.	Not published.	
3.4	What were their living arrangements?
As for all Australians, CACP clients have a variety of residential options open to them (these data were not available for EACH or EACH D clients). As at 30 June, 2009:
•	The usual residence for the majority of CACP clients was in a home that they owned or were in the process of buying (64%), followed by public housing (12%) and private rental (6%) (Figure 3.9)
•	Only a very small proportion (0.3%) were living in board or lodging accommodation.

Figure 3.9: CACP clients by residential status, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Pie chart showing: home owner/purchaser 64.1%; public housing 11.6%; private rental 5.8%; board/lodging 0.3% other (a) 12.6%; and missing/not started 5.6%.
(a)	Where the category 'Other' is largely coded as such in ACCMIS, small numbers of defined categories such as hospital and residential aged care are also included in this category.
Source: Table A2.7.

•	The Northern Territory had the highest proportion of CACP clients living in public housing of all states and territories (28%). The Northern Territory also had the lowest proportion of clients living in accommodation they owned or were buying (52%) 
(Figure 3.10). 
•	Victoria and Queensland had a high rate of missing/not stated for their ‘usual residence status’ (9% and 14% respectively) which could affect the distribution across the categories if this information were available, and their position for each category relative to other states and territories.

Figure 3.10: CACP clients’ residential status by state/territory, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Vertical bar chart showing, for residential status, per cent on y-axis and state/territory on x-axis.
(a)	Where the category 'Other' is largely coded as such in ACCMIS, small numbers of defined categories such as hospital and residential aged care are also included in this category. 
Source: Table A2.7.
Who did community aged care clients live with?
Living arrangements vary for community aged care package clients, from living alone, living with family members (including marriage and de facto relationships), and living with others. 
At 30 June 2009:
•	The highest proportion of CACP clients lived alone (54%). However, female clients were more likely to live alone than their male counterparts (58% and 45% respectively). Males were more likely to live with other family members (51%) than females (38%) 
(Figure 3.11). This is because females tend to live longer than males, and as such their male partners are more likely to die before them. 
•	Overall, about 2 in every 3 EACH clients were living with family. The proportion of clients living with family was higher for males (77%) than for females (64%). Also, female EACH clients were more likely to live alone, about 1 in 3, compared to about 1 in 5 for males (Figure 3.11).
•	EACH D clients were most likely to be living with family (74%), for both females (69%) and males (84%). As was the trend for both CACP and EACH clients, females were more likely to be living alone (28%) than their male counterparts (14%) (Figure 3.11).
•	When all three packages are compared, EACH and EACH D had a higher proportion of clients living with family (69% and 74% respectively) than did CACP clients (42%). CACP had a higher proportion of clients living alone (54%) compared with EACH (28%) and EACH D (23%) (Figure 3.11). These findings could be related to the fact that CACP clients require less care than EACH and EACH D clients, and as such, are less reliant on others for support. 
Figure 3.11: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by sex and living arrangements, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Three vertical bar charts (CACP, EACH and EACH D) showing, for males and females, per cent on y-axes and living arrangements on x-axes.
Source: Table A2.8.
3.5	Do community aged care clients have carers?
A carer is a person that helps with activities that the care recipient may no longer be able to do by themselves. The carer can be paid or unpaid and can be a friend, family member or a professional, such as a nurse. 
Carer information was only available for EACH and EACH D clients.
As at 30 June 2009:
•	A clear majority of clients with EACH packages had a carer, with EACH D (95%) having a higher proportion than EACH (88%). 
•	 A higher proportion of EACH D clients had a carer, both living with (75%) and living apart from the client (20%), than EACH clients (69% and 19% respectively) (Figure 3.12). 
Figure 3.12: EACH and EACH D clients by carer status, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Vertical bar chart showing, for EACH and EACH D, per cent on y-axis and carer status on x-axis.
Source: Table A2.9.

•	Of EACH clients in New South Wales, just less than 1 in 10 did not have a carer. In contrast, just over 1 in every 3 EACH clients in the Northern Territory had no carer (38%) 
(Figure 3.13). However, it must be kept in mind that Northern Territory data are based on small numbers.
•	EACH D clients differed from EACH clients in that a larger proportion of EACH D clients in the Northern Territory had a carer. The highest proportion without a carer was in Tasmania (15%).
•	For EACH D clients, Victoria and the Northern Territory had the highest proportions with a live-in carer (91% and 90% respectively) and Tasmania had the lowest (46%).
Figure 3.13: EACH and EACH D clients by carer status and state/territory, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Two vertical bar charts (EACH and EACH D) showing, for carer status, per cent on y-axes and state/territory on x-axes.
Source: Table A2.9.

•	For EACH female clients, a smaller proportion had a co-resident carer (65%) than their male counterparts (77%). Yet, females were more likely to have a carer that did not live with them (23%) than their male counterparts (13%). A slightly higher proportion of females than males were without a carer (13% and 11% respectively) (Figure 3.14). 
•	The pattern for female and male EACH D clients was similar to that of EACH. A smaller proportion of females (70%) than males (83%) had a co-resident carer. A higher proportion of females had a carer they did not live with (25%) compared to males (13%). A similar proportion of females and males were without a carer (5%) (Figure 3.14).
Figure 3.14: EACH and EACH D clients by carer status and sex, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Two vertical bar charts (EACH and EACH D) showing, for females and males, per cent on y-axes and carer status on x-axes.
Source: Table A2.9.

•	For EACH and EACH D, across all age groups, there were a higher proportion of clients with a live-in carer compared to those with a non-resident carers or no carer (Table 3.10). 
•	EACH and EACH D clients in the aged 90 years and over age group had the highest proportion of those with a non-resident carer (29% and 27% respectively) (Table 3.10).
•	The highest proportion for those with no carer in EACH was for the age group 0–59 years of age (15%). For EACH D it was for the age group 85–89 years of age (6%) (Table 3.10).
Table 3.10: EACH and EACH D clients by carer status/living arrangements and age group (years), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Package/carer status	0–59	60–64	65–69	70–74	75–79	80–84	85–89	90+	Total	
	Per cent	
EACH 		
Resident carer	70.5	77.4	75.1	75.9	75.0	70.6	61.6	57.5	68.9	
Non-resident carer	14.3	11.8	11.9	11.5	15.1	18.4	26.4	29.3	19.2	
No carer	15.2	10.8	13.1	12.6	9.9	11.0	12.0	13.2	11.8	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total persons (number)	105	186	337	540	684	875	757	673	4,157	
EACH D 		
Resident carer	90.9	85.2	86.3	80.9	78.9	74.9	67.9	68.1	74.6	
Non-resident carer	0.0	11.1	9.8	14.2	17.1	19.3	25.8	27.1	20.1	
No carer	n.p.	3.7	3.9	4.9	4.0	5.8	6.3	4.8	5.2	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total persons (number)	22	54	102	162	346	467	445	273	1,871	
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
n.p.	Not published.	

4	Special needs groups
Some groups of people in Australia are recognised as needing extra or different assistance than that needed by other Australians. In the context of aged care, the Aged Care Act 1997 identifies some of these groups as those in Outer regional, Remote and Very remote areas, those in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, and those from non-English-speaking backgrounds (Box 4.1). This chapter describes some of the characteristics of these groups including:
•	clients in Outer regional, Remote and Very remote areas in comparison to those from Major cities and Inner regional areas 
•	clients who identify as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, such as their remoteness, and usage rates in comparison to other Australians
•	clients from a non-English-speaking background, their age breakdown and usage rates in comparison to Australian-born clients.

Box 4.1: What is the Aged Care Act 1997?
The Aged Care Act 1997 details how funding for aged care services is provided. It was intended, amongst other things, to take into account:
•		the type of care, including providing a choice in type of care 
•	 	the importance of an aged care system that responds to both clients’ needs and their families/carers’ needs 
•	 	fair access by all groups of people to aged care services
•		the responsibilities of service providers for their clients’ outcomes 
•	 	the outcomes for clients of aged care services
•	 	how to plan for targets and meet the needs of the aged care system.
Other special needs groups
Other groups of people have been identified as having different care needs in the Aged Care Act 1997 that are not covered in this report. These include:
•		people who are disadvantaged either financially or socially
•	 	veterans—including partners or widows and widowers of somebody in the Australian Defence force or allied defence force
•	 	homeless people and those at risk of becoming homeless
•	 	care-leavers, who are people that as children lived in out-of-home care or foster care. 

4.1	Outer regional, Remote and Very remote areas
Remoteness areas are defined by distance and access to services (Box 2.1). Because of this, Outer regional, Remote and Very remote areas are, by their nature, at a disadvantage due to difficulty accessing services. Those community aged care clients living in these areas appear to have a younger age profile than those in Major cities and Inner regional areas. 
Age of clients 
At 30 June 2009:
•	CACP clients who lived in Outer regional, Remote, and Very remote areas made up a relatively small proportion of total clients (1 person in every 10). Yet, clients aged less than 60 years from these areas made up close to 1 in 3 clients in this age group. As age increased, the proportion of those in Outer regional, Remote and Very remote areas reduced to just over 1 in every 12 clients for those aged 90 years and over (Table 4.1).
•	EACH clients in Outer regional, Remote, and Very remote areas also made up about 1 in every 10 EACH clients. The highest proportion for these areas was in the age group below 60 years, at about 1 in 5 total clients. Yet, differently from CACP, the proportion of older clients aged 60 years and over remained fairly constant, at around 1 in 10.
•	EACH D clients also had about 1 in every 10 clients in Outer regional, Remote, and Very remote areas. And again, the highest proportion of clients in these areas was in the youngest age group (about 1 in 7 clients). As age increased, there was a decrease in the proportion of clients in these areas to about 1 in 20 for those aged 90 years and over. 

Table 4.1: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients’ age group (years) by remoteness(a), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Package/remoteness	0–59	60–69	70–79	80–89	90+	Total	
	Per cent	
CACP		
Major cities and Inner regional	70.7	82.2	88.4	91.5	92.1	89.7	
Outer regional, Remote, and Very remote	29.3	17.8	11.6	8.5	7.9	10.3	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	822	2,975	9,144	18,997	6,117	38,055	
EACH		
Major cities and Inner regional	81.0	90.4	91.3	89.9	92.1	90.5	
Outer regional, Remote, and Very remote	19.0	9.6	8.7	10.1	7.9	9.5	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	105	523	1,224	1,632	673	4,157	
EACH D 		
Major cities and Inner regional	86.4	87.2	89.8	90.5	94.5	90.5	
Outer regional, Remote, and Very remote	13.6	12.8	10.2	9.5	5.5	9.5	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	22	156	508	912	273	1,871	
(a)	Refers to location of service outlets. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS. 
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%.
4.2	Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people may differ in their aged care needs to other Australians. Table 3.6 suggested that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people represent a higher proportion of younger community aged care recipients when compared to other Australians. This may be because Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a higher level of disability and ill health at younger ages than other Australians (Box 2.2). Their care needs may also differ as a high proportion of Indigenous community aged care recipients live in Outer regional, Remote and Very remote areas.
At 30 June 2009:
•	A small proportion of CACP clients identified as Indigenous (4%) compared to non-Indigenous (96%). The Very remote area was the only remoteness location to have a higher proportion of Indigenous Australian CACP clients (74%) than non-Indigenous (26%) (Figure 4.1). 
•	For EACH clients, those identifying as Indigenous made up a small proportion of overall clients (2%). Combined Remote and Very remote areas had the highest proportion of Indigenous clients with 18%, followed by Outer regional with 6% (Figure 4.1). 
•	EACH D Indigenous clients only made up a very small proportion of all EACH D clients (1%). Combined Outer regional and Remote areas had the highest number of clients identifying as Indigenous (5%). 
 
Figure 4.1: CACP, EACH, and EACH D by Indigenous status and remoteness, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Three vertical bar charts (CACP, EACH and EACH D) showing, for indigenous status, per cent on y-axes and remoteness area on x-axes.
Notes
1.	Figure does not include those with unknown Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander status, of which there were 44 in CACP, 2 in EACH and none in EACH D. 
2.	EACH D had no clients in Very remote areas. 
Source: Tables A3.1a, A3.1b and A3.1c. 

At 30 June 2009:
•	Of CACP clients, 57% who identified as Indigenous lived in Outer regional, Remote and Very remote areas, which was much higher than the proportion of non-Indigenous who lived in the same area (9%) (Table A3.2). 
•	For EACH Indigenous clients, 47% lived in Outer regional, Remote and Very remote areas, higher than their non-Indigenous counterparts (9%) (Table A3.2). 
•	EACH D Indigenous clients also had a higher proportion of Indigenous clients living in Outer regional, Remote and Very remote areas, compared to their non-Indigenous counterparts (53% compared to 9%) (Table A3.2).
Usage rates by Indigenous status
For CACP clients:
•	The usage rates for the younger groups (64 years and younger) of Indigenous people were much higher than that for other Australians. For example, 15.9 people per 1,000 of the Indigenous population aged 60 to 64 years of age were using CACP, compared with 0.6 in every 1,000 for the other Australian population (Table 4.2).
•	The usage rate for the Indigenous population aged 65 years and over was 47.4 people in every 1,000. This rate was nearly 4 times as high as their other Australian counterparts, at 12.2 in 1,000 (Table 4.2).
•	Overall, Indigenous females used CACPs at a rate of 3.2 people for every 1,000, higher than the rate for Indigenous males which was 1.7 people in 1,000 (Table 4.2).
Table 4.2: Usage rates by age and sex for CACP recipients(a), by Indigenous status, 30 June 2009 (per 1,000 population)(b)
 	Indigenous	Other Australian	
Age group (years)	Females	Males	Persons	Females	Males	Persons	
0–49	0.1	0.1	0.1	—	—	—	
50–54	5.2	4.0	4.6	0.1	0.1	0.1	
55–59	10.4	6.6	8.6	0.3	0.2	0.2	
60–64	19.2	12.3	15.9	0.7	0.6	0.6	
65+	56.2	35.8	47.4	16.1	7.6	12.2	
Total	3.2	1.7	2.4	2.4	1.0	1.7	
(a)	Recipients with unknown status have been proportioned across categories.
(b)	Ratios are calculated using ABS projections released in December 2004 (ABS 2004) and the Australian population figures released in December 2009 (ABS 2009b).
Note: EACH and EACH D numbers are not given due to small numbers. 
— 	Nil or rounded to zero. 
4.3	People from non-English-speaking background
This section examines non-English-speaking status to see if there is a difference between those with different language needs, compared to those who have not experienced language barriers (Box 4.1). People from countries where English is not the main language may have difficulties associated with communication. This may lead to lack of knowledge about available services, or even reluctance to use a service if they are worried about being understood. 
Box 4.1: English and non-English-speaking background
Classifying English-speaking status is done by looking at country of birth. Countries that are considered to have English as the main language are:
•		Australia 
•		New Zealand
•		The United Kingdom
•		Ireland
•		The United States of America
•		Canada
•		South Africa.
If a client is born in a country other than these, they are classified as from a non-English-speaking country.

At 30 June 2009:
•	CACP clients: 
–	Australian born CACP clients and those from an English-speaking background were most likely to be aged 85 years or more (42% and 48% respectively) followed by those aged 75–84 years (38% and 39% respectively). There were few CACP clients from either of these backgrounds in the 50-64 year age group (5% and 2% respectively) (Figure 4.2).
–	In contrast, CACP clients born overseas with a non-English-speaking background were most likely to be aged 75–84 years (47%) followed by those aged 85 years or more (36%). Again, there were few in the 50–64 year age group (2%).
•	EACH clients: 
–	Australian-born EACH clients and those from an English-speaking background had similar proportions in the 75–84 years age group (37% and 33% respectively) and those aged 85 years or more (34% and 35% respectively) (Figure 4.2).
–	However, EACH clients born overseas with a non-English-speaking background were most likely to be aged 75–84 years (43%) followed by those aged 85 years or more (35%). 
•	EACH D clients:
–	As with EACH clients, Australian-born EACH D clients had similar proportions in the 75–84 years age group (40%) and those aged 85 years or more (41%). 
–	EACH D clients born overseas, from both English and non-English-speaking backgrounds, were most likely to be aged between 75 and 84 years (47% each).
•	Of the three types of packages, EACH clients had the highest proportion in the age group 50–64 years (8%, 7% and 4% respectively).

Figure 4.2: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by age and English-speaking status, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Three vertical bar charts showing, for English speaking status, per cent on y-axes and age group (years) on x-axes.
Source: Table A3.3. 
Usage rates by English-speaking background
The population for EACH D was too small to meaningfully calculate usage rates. As such, numbers for EACH and EACH D were combined. 
At 30 June 2009:
•	The CACP usage rates for every 1,000 people aged 50 years and over were:
–	5.6 for Australian-born
–	4.8 for those born in another English-speaking country
–	5.8 for those born in a country where English was not the main language 
–	5.6 for total CACP clients (Table 4.3)
•	The combined EACH and EACH D usage rates for every 1,000 people aged 50 years and over were:
–	0.8 for Australian-born
–	0.8 for those born in another English-speaking country
–	1.1 for those born in a country where English was not the main language 
–	0.9 for total EACH and EACH D clients (Table 4.3)
•	Overall, people aged 50 years or more born in non-English-speaking countries generally had higher usage rates for all packages compared with those born in English-speaking countries or in Australia. This was most pronounced for the non-English speaking background group aged 85 years or more who used CACP (54.4 per 1,000 compared with 43.7 and 38.8 per 1,000 of English-speaking background and Australian-born respectively in this age group) (Table 4.3) . 

Table 4.3: Age-specific usage rates for CACP and EACH clients by English-speaking 
status(a) based on country of birth, 30 June 2009 (per 1,000 population)
 	 	Overseas-born	 	
Package/
age group (years)	Australian-born	English
-speaking	Non-English
-speaking	Total	
CACP 		
50–64	0.5	0.2	0.2	0.4	
65–74	3.9	2.2	3.3	3.5	
75–84	14.4	13.9	18.7	15.2	
85+	38.8	43.7	54.4	41.8	
Total persons (50+)	5.6	4.8	5.8	5.6	
EACH and EACH D 		
50–64	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	
65–74	0.8	0.7	0.7	0.7	
75–84	2.1	2.2	3.3	2.4	
85+	4.9	5.3	10.0	5.7	
Total persons (50+)	0.8	0.8	1.1	0.9	
(a)	English-speaking status is based on country of birth.
Notes
1.	Recipients with unknown status have been pro rated.				
2.	Usage rates were calculated at the AIHW using ABS migration statistics (ABS 2008a) and the ABS population estimates 
released in December 2009 (ABS 2009b).
3.	EACH and EACH D numbers are combined due to small numbers. 

5	Admissions, separations, and leave
A client starting a community aged care package is counted as an admission. That is, an admissions number is the count of new packages started in a specified time period. A separation is counted when somebody stops using a package. The reason given for leaving a community aged care package, or separation mode can include going into another form of care, the client pulling out of the package, or the death of a client. This section looks at:
•	the number of admissions and separations of CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by state, age, and sex
•	why clients left community aged care
•	how long CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients received care 
•	how much, and what type of leave was taken from CACP, EACH, and EACH D packages.
5.1	Admissions
How many admissions were there?
During the period 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009:
•	There were about:
–	18,900 CACP admissions
–	2,700 EACH admissions
–	1,700 EACH D admissions
•	New South Wales had around 1 in every 3 admissions across Australia for CACP, EACH, and EACH D (Table 5.1)
•	The Northern Territory had the lowest proportion of admissions for CACP (1%), EACH (2%) and EACH D (1%) (Table 5.1)

Table 5.1: Admissions to CACP, EACH, and EACH D by 
state/territory(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
State/territory	CACP	EACH	EACH D	
 	Per cent	
NSW	35.0	38.0	31.6	
Vic	22.6	19.8	24.8	
Qld	18.8	16.5	18.3	
WA	10.7	10.0	9.9	
SA	8.2	7.4	8.2	
Tas	2.0	3.2	3.7	
ACT	1.7	2.8	2.4	
NT	1.0	2.3	1.0	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	18,905	2,678	1,719	
(a)	Refers to location of service outlets. 
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
•	For CACP, there were about:
–	12,800 female admissions and 6,100 male admissions
•	For EACH, there were about: 
–	1,600 female admissions and 1,000 male admissions
•	For EACH D, there were about:
–	1,000 female admissions and 700 male admissions.
•	The highest proportion of those being admitted to a CACP, EACH, or EACH D package was in the age group 80 to 89 years (Figure 5.1). This age group made up 1 out of every 2 clients admitted to CACP and EACH D and 2 in every 5 EACH client admissions
•	Across all three community aged care packages, proportions for females were higher than males for admissions in the older ages of 80 years and over. Male proportions were higher than females for admissions in the younger age groups, up to 79 years of age.
Figure 5.1: CACP, EACH, and EACH D admissions by age and sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Three vertical bar charts (CACP, EACH and EACH D) showing, for males and females, per cent on y-axes and age group (years) on x-axes.
Source: Table A4.1.

5.2	Separations
How many separations were there?
During the period 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009:
•	There were about:
–	17,800 CACP separations
–	2,400 EACH separations
–	1,500 EACH D separations
•	New South Wales had around 1 in every 3 separations across Australia for CACP, EACH, and EACH D (Table 5.2)
•	The Northern Territory had the lowest proportion of separations for CACP (1%), EACH (2%) and EACH D (1%)
Table 5.2: Separations for CACP, EACH, and EACH D by state/territory(a), 
1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
State/territory	CACP	EACH	EACH D	
 	Per cent	
NSW	34.9	38.2	30.5	
Vic	22.9	21.6	26.6	
Qld	18.8	16.4	18.6	
WA	10.1	9.1	8.5	
SA	8.5	7.2	8.5	
Tas	2.1	2.8	3.3	
ACT	1.7	2.4	2.9	
NT	1.1	2.2	1.2	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	17,830	2,415	1,464	
(a)	Refers to location of service outlets. 
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and as such may add up to slightly more or less 
than 100%. 
•	For CACP, there were about:
–	12,000 female separations and 5,900 male separations
•	For EACH, there were about: 
–	1,500 female separations and 1,000 male separations
•	For EACH D, there were about: 
–	900 female separations and 600 male separations
•	For CACP and EACH separations, during the 2008–09 financial year, female proportions were higher than males for separations in the older ages of 80 years plus. Male proportions were higher than females for separations in the younger age groups, up to 79 years of age (Figure 5.2)
•	For EACH D separations, the proportion for females (2%) aged less than 60 years was slightly above that for their male counterparts (1%). Males had a higher proportion than females in the age range 60 to 79 years, and females had a higher proportion aged 90 years and over. The group aged 80 to 89 years had the highest proportion of separations, with the same proportion for both females and males (50%) (Figure 5.2)
•	The highest proportion of separations from CACP, EACH, and EACH D were in the age group 80 to 89 years (Figure 5.2). This age group made up about 50% of clients separated from CACP and EACH D, and 43% of EACH. 
Figure 5.2: CACP, EACH, and EACH D separations by age and sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Three vertical bar charts (CACP, EACH and EACH D) showing, for females and males, per cent on y-axes and age group (years) on x-axes.
Source: Table A4.2.
5.3	Separation modes
It is important to note that separation mode is measured differently for CACP than it is for EACH or EACH D. For this reason, the data for CACP are presented separately.
Why did clients leave community aged care?
Between 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009:
•	Close to half of all CACP separations occurred because the client moved into residential aged care (Figure 5.3).
•	For EACH and EACH D, a move to residential aged care was also the major reason for separation, accounting for about half of all EACH clients, and two-thirds of all EACH D clients (Figure 5.4). 
•	Death was also a common cause of separation accounting for about 1 in every 5 CACP separations (Figure 5.3).
•	Death accounted for one in five EACH D separations. For EACH, the proportion of separations by death was higher, accounting for about 1 in every 3 separations 
(Figure 5.4). 
Figure 5.3: CACP separations by separation mode, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Pie chart showing: death 17.6%; hospital 4.0%; residential aged care 47.5%; other CACP 7.6%; other community/holiday 5.4%; and other 17.9%.
Note: ‘Other’ is a separate category in ACCMIS. 
Source: Table A4.3.

Figure 5.4: EACH and EACH D separations by separation mode, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Two pie charts for EACH and EACH D.
EACH: death 34.7%; hospital 6.8%; residential aged care 45.2%; other community care 2.9%; withdrew 5.1%; and other 5.3%.
EACH D: death 20.0%; hospital 5.0%; residential aged care 66.4%; other community care 0.8%; withdrew 4.0%; and other 3.8%.
Note: ‘Other’ is a separate category in ACCMIS. 
Source: Table A4.4.

•	The CACP separation mode with the highest proportion was for those that left and went into residential aged care for all states and territories except the Northern Territory. In the Northern Territory people were more likely to have died (30%) or separated by ‘other’ reasons (24%) than have gone into residential aged care (22%) (Figure 5.5).
Figure 5.5: CACP separation modes by state/territory, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Vertical bar chart showing, for separation modes, per cent on y-axis and state/territory on x-axis.
Note: ‘Other’ is a separate category in ACCMIS. 
Source: Table A4.3.

•	The most common EACH separation mode was a move to residential aged care in all states and territories except the Northern Territory. As with CACP separations, EACH separations in the Northern Territory were more likely to be due to death, making up a high proportion (46%) (Figure 5.6). 
•	Across the state and territories, the highest proportion that left EACH D went into residential aged care and ranged from 56% of separations in the Northern Territory to 70% in South Australia. 
Figure 5.6: EACH and EACH D separation modes by state/territory, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Two vertical bar charts (EACH and EACH D) showing per cent on y-axes and state/territory on x-axes.
Note: ‘Other’ is a separate category in ACCMIS. 
Source: Table A4.4.

•	Separating to go to residential aged care had the highest proportion for all CACP separations (48%). Yet, females were more likely than males to go to residential aged care (50% and 43% respectively). Separation by death was the second highest proportion for separation modes of male CACP clients who were more likely than females to separate because of death (23% and 15% respectively) (Figure 5.7). 
•	Similarly, EACH clients separating to go to residential aged care had the highest proportion for separated females and males. Still, females were more likely to have gone into residential aged care than their male counterparts (47% and 42%). This pattern was the same for EACH D (71% for females and 60% for males) (Figure 5.8).
•	Separation by death also accounted for a high proportion of EACH and EACH D separations. However, males were again more likely to separate this way than females for both EACH (37% males and 33% females), and to a lesser extent EACH D (24% and 17%) (Figure 5.8). 
Figure 5.7: CACP separation modes by sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Vertical bar chart showing, for males and females, per cent on y-axis and separation modes on x-axis.
Note: ‘Other’ is a separate category in ACCMIS. 
Source: Table A4.5.
Figure 5.8: EACH and EACH D separation modes by sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Two vertical bar charts (EACH and EACH D) showing, for males and females, per cent on y-axes and separation mode on x-axes.
Note: ‘Other’ is a separate category in ACCMIS. 
Source: Table A4.6. 
5.4	Length of stay
Length of stay describes how long a person was using a specific community aged care package. It is calculated by counting the days between when a package was started and when the client separated from the package. 
During the financial year 2008–09:
•	For CACP clients that separated, just over half had been using the package for more than a year (51%) and 4% of clients had been receiving care for 6 or more years (Table 5.3).
•	Of EACH clients that separated, 38% had been in the package for less than 6 months and 39% had been in the package for more than a year. Only 0.2% of EACH clients that separated had been in care for 6 or more years. While this is a very small proportion, it is important to keep in mind that the EACH packages began in 2002.
•	Of EACH D clients that had separated, 41% had been in the package for less than 6 months while 28% had been in it for over a year. EACH D has been running since 2006, and had a small proportion of separated clients that had been receiving care for three to four years. 
Table 5.3: CACP, EACH, and EACH D separations by length of stay, 
1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Length of stay	CACP	EACH	EACH D	
 	Per cent	
<4 weeks	4.0	5.5	5.0	
4 to 8 weeks	5.9	6.8	9.0	
8 to 13 weeks	6.4	7.8	8.7	
13 to <26 weeks	13.7	17.4	18.2	
26 to <39 weeks	10.6	14.2	18.0	
39 to <52 weeks	8.5	9.5	12.6	
1 to <2 years	22.3	22.7	22.9	
2 to <3 years	11.5	10.3	5.5	
3 to <4 years	6.2	3.8	—	
4 to <5 years	3.6	1.4	. .	
5 to <6 years	3.1	0.3	. .	
6+ years	4.3	0.2	. .	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	17,830	2,415	1,464	
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
— 	Nil or rounded to zero. 
. . 	Not applicable.
•	Of CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients that separated, higher proportions of males had been receiving care for less than one year. On the other hand, higher proportions of females had been in the programs for more than one year (Figure 5.9). 
Figure 5.9: CACP, EACH, and EACH D length of stay by sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Three vertical bar charts (CACP, EACH and EACH D) showing, for males and females, per cent on y-axes and length of stay on x-axes.
Source: Table A4.7. 
Length of stay and separation mode
This was analysed to find out if the amount of time spent in a community aged care package had an impact on the way a person separated from the package. 
During the financial year 2008–09:
•	Across length of stay, the most common CACP separation mode was to go into residential aged care. Also, as length of stay increased, so did the proportion separating due to death (Figure 5.10). 
•	For CACP clients, an increase in length of stay suggested a drop in separations to go to hospital, ‘other community/holiday’, and ‘other’.

Figure 5.10: CACP separation modes by length of stay, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Horizontal bar chart showing, for separation modes, length of stay on y-axis and per cent on x-axis.
Note: ‘Other’ is a separate category in ACCMIS. 
Source: Table A4.8.

•	Similar to CACP, the main separation mode for EACH was to go into residential aged care (45%, Figure 5.4). Separation due to death was 35% but this varied with length of stay from 44% for stays less than 4 weeks, to a low of 26% for stays between 8 and 13 weeks. Following this, the proportion of those separating due to death rose steadily up to 57% for stays greater than 4 years (Figure 5.11). 
•	The trend for EACH D differed from that in EACH in that separations due to death were much lower (20%). Yet as for CACP and EACH, a move to residential aged care was the most common separation mode, and this was consistent for all lengths of stay. 
•	For EACH and EACH D clients, longer length of stay saw a reduction of clients separating because they withdrew, or because they went to another type of community aged care. 
Figure 5.11: EACH and EACH D separation modes by length of stay, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Two horizontal bar charts (EACH and EACH D) showing, for separation modes, length of stay on y-axes and per cent on x-axes.
Note: ‘Other’ is a separate category in ACCMIS. 
Source: Table A4.9.

5.5	Leave
Leave is important for community aged care recipients (Box 5.1). It gives them the option of time away from their package without worrying whether it will be available to them when they return. It also allows them to be socially active and visit family and friends, which encourages social inclusion.
Box 5.1: What is leave?
For community aged care packages, leave means that any services being provided through a package are put on hold for five or more days in a row (DoHA 2006, 2007). The three types of leave are social and respite leave, hospital leave, and transition care leave. 
Social and respite leave
For each financial year, CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients can have up to 56 days of social and respite leave, with a maximum of 28 days off for social leave (DoHA 2006, 2007). For example, if Ivy (see Box 1.1) wanted to visit her son for his birthday, she could take some time away, without losing her place in the package. This would be the case as long as the length of leave did not take her over her total of 28 days social leave. On the other hand, Ivy may want 2 weeks’ break from the package she is getting. If her son could come and care for her during this time it would be classed as respite leave. This is because she has made other care arrangements independent of the package with which she is being provided. 
Hospital leave
 CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients also have access to unlimited days of hospital leave, as long as they do not spend more than 28 continuous days in any one stay per financial year (DoHA 2006, 2007). An example of this type of leave would be if Alan (see Box 1.1) needed to spend some time in hospital. He could do this without worrying if he would be able to get the same services when he returned home (that is, as long as he was not in hospital for any longer than 28 days in a row). 
Transition care leave
CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients who have been to hospital and immediately go into Transition care can have up to 84 days leave per financial year (plus extra time if their Transition care is extended) for this purpose (DoHA 2006, 2007). For example, Alan could be released from hospital, and receive Transition care in either his home or in another facility. Once he had completed his time with Transition care he could return to his package. 
Source: DoHA 2006, 2007.

Leave for CACP is recorded differently than for EACH and EACH D. For CACP, there is no breakdown by claimable or non-claimable leave (Box 5.2). For this reason, data are reported for CACP separately to EACH and EACH D. Only the first leave event was examined and therefore actual use of leave may be higher than reported. 

Box 5.2: What is the difference between claimable and non-claimable leave?
Service providers may receive funding from the Australian Government for the packages they provide. The terms claimable leave and non-claimable leave are partly related to the service provider’s ability to obtain funding for the time the client is on leave (DoHA 2006, 2007). 
Claimable leave is:
•		leave that falls into an approved category of leave
•	 	leave that does not add up to more than the maximum leave days per financial year for the client 
•		leave for which the service provider will still be funded for that package during the absence of their client.
Non-claimable leave is:
•		leave that does not fall under any of the approved leave categories	
•		leave that falls under one of the leave categories, yet exceeds the maximum days allowed per financial year for the client
•		leave for which the service provider will not be funded for that package during the absence of their client.
In most circumstances, if a client had already used their maximum leave and wanted to take more, they may either lose their place in the package or may be asked to pay their service provider more, to make up for any lost funds (DoHA 2006, 2007). 
Source: DoHA 2006, 2007.
During 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009:
•	Leave was taken by about:
–	13,300 clients for CACP 
–	2,100 clients for EACH 
–	750 clients for EACH D 
•	For CACP, the most common form of leave was hospital leave, which accounted for about 1 in every 2 clients’ leave (Figure 5.12).
•	The majority of EACH leave was claimable, with 91% of social leave claimable, 96% of hospital leave, and 98% of respite leave. The most common leave type for EACH was claimable hospital leave, again accounting for nearly 1 in every 2 leave clients (Figure 5.13).
•	For EACH D leave, 91% of social leave was claimable, 96% of hospital leave, and 99% of respite leave. The most frequent type of leave for EACH D clients was claimable respite leave, accounting for about 2 in every 5 leave events (Figure 5.13). 
Figure 5.12: CACP clients by leave type, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Pie chart showing: hospital 52.7%, respite 18%; transition care 1.3%; and social on 28.0%.
Source: Table A4.10.
Figure 5.13: EACH and EACH D clients by leave type, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Two pie charts.
EACH: hospital claimable 47.9%; hospital non-claimable 1.9%; respite claimable 32.8%; respite non-claimable 0.8%; transition care claimable 0.7%; social claimable 14.3%; and social non-claimable 1.5%.
EACH D: hospital claimable 36.0%; hospital non-claimable 1.3%; respite claimable 41.6%; respite non-claimable 0.4%; transition care claimable 0.5%; social claimable 18.4%; and social non-claimable 1.7%.
Source: Table A4.11.
•	For CACP, most of the states and territories followed the same leave pattern as the Australian total except for the Northern Territory (Figure 5.12 and 5.14). Of leave in the Northern Territory, nearly half was social leave (48%). This was followed by hospital leave which accounted for one-third of clients’ leave (33%) (Figure 5.14).
Figure 5.14: CACP clients leave events by state/territory, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Vertical bar chart showing, for leave events, per cent on y-axis and state/territory on x-axis.
Source: Table A4.10.

•	For EACH leave, the states and territories reflected the national pattern except for Victoria (Figure 5.13 and Figure 5.15). Leave in this state was most commonly claimable respite leave (42%), followed closely by claimable hospital leave (41%) (Figure 5.15). 
•	For EACH D, leave for the states and territories varied from the national pattern for Queensland and Western Australia (Figure 5.13). Claimable hospital leave was the most common form of leave for Queensland (41%) and Western Australia (50%), followed by claimable respite leave (28% and 35% respectively) and claimable social leave (25% and 13%) (Figure 5.15). 
Figure 5.15: EACH and EACH D clients’ leave by state/territory, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Two vertical bar charts (ECAH and EACH D) showing, for per cent on y-axes and state/territory on x-axes.
Source: Table A4.11.

•	The proportion of CACP clients’ social leave increased as the remoteness areas moved from Major cities (26%) to Very remote areas (59%). In contrast, the proportion of clients taking hospital leave decreased as remoteness areas moved from Major cities (55%) to Very remote (25%) (Figure 5.16). 
Figure 5.16: CACP leave type by remoteness, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Vertical bar chart showing, for leave type, per cent on y-axis and remoteness area on x-axis.
Source: Table A4.12.

•	The proportions of EACH clients’ leave type by remoteness generally reflected the national pattern (Figure 5.13; Figure 5.17). That is, the majority of leave was claimable hospital leave, followed by claimable respite leave and then claimable social leave. 
•	Outer regional, Remote, and Very remote included 197 EACH clients taking leave. Claimable hospital leave was the most common (52%), followed by claimable respite (32%) and claimable social leave (12%) (Figure 5.17).
•	The EACH D clients’ proportions for leave were highest for claimable respite leave, followed by claimable hospital leave and then claimable social leave for Major cities, Inner regional, and Outer regional, Remote and Very remote areas. 
Figure 5.17: EACH and EACH D clients leave by remoteness, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Two vertical bar charts (EACH and EACH D) showing, for leave type, per cent on y-axes and remoteness areas on x-axes.
Note: EACH D had no clients in Very remote areas. 
Source: Table A4.13.
Leave and sex
In the financial year 2008–09:
•	For CACP clients’ leave, the proportion of females that used social leave (30%) was higher than their male counterparts (24%). A higher proportion of male clients had hospital leave (57%) than female clients (51%) (Figure 5.18). Respite leave and transition care leave were similar for both sexes.
 Figure 5.18: CACP leave type by sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Two vertical bar charts showing, for males and females, per cent on y-axes and leave type on x-axes.
Source: Table A4.14.

•	The male and female proportions for EACH leave were fairly even across leave type. Yet, a higher proportion of females than males took claimable social leave (16% compared to 11%). On the other hand, a higher proportion of males took claimable respite leave (36%) than their female counterparts (31%) (Figure 5.19). 
•	In regards to EACH D leave, there was little difference between males and females and leave type. 
Figure 5.19: EACH and EACH D leave type by sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Two vertical bar charts showing, for males and females, per cent on y-axes and leave type on x-axes.
Source: Table A4.15. 

Glossary 
Admission	The occasion on which the client begins to receive community aged care from the outlet. Admission date may also be referred to as ‘date of commencement’.	
Aged Care Assessment Team (ACAT)	Multidisciplinary team of health professionals responsible for determining eligibility for care.	
Birthplace (country of birth)	
Countries other than Australia are grouped as follows (ABS 2008b):	
Other Oceania/New Zealand/Antarctica	Includes American Samoa, Antarctica, Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, New Zealand, New Caledonia, Pacific Islands, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu.	
United Kingdom and Ireland	England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Channel Islands, Isle of Man and Ireland.	
North-West Europe	Includes Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greenland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland.	
Southern and Eastern Europe	Includes Albania, Andorra, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Gibraltar, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Ukrainian SSR, former USSR and former Yugoslavia.	
North Africa and the Middle East	Includes Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and Upper Volta.	
Southeast Asia 	Includes Brunei, Cambodia, Myanmar, East Timor, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.	
Northeast Asia 	Includes China, Mongolia, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Macau and Taiwan.	
Southern and Central Asia	Includes Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.	
North America 	Bermuda, Canada, St Pierre and Miquelon and the United States of America.	
Other America/Caribbean	Includes Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Grenada, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Netherlands Antilles, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela.	
Sub-Saharan Africa	Includes Botswana, British Indian Ocean Territory, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Comoros, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mauritania, Mauritius, Namibia, Nigeria, Réunion, Seychelles, Somalia, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo and Zimbabwe.	
Care client	A person assessed by an Aged Care Assessment Team as having significant care needs that can be appropriately met through the provision of residential care, community care and/or flexible care.	
Leave	A situation where the client temporarily ceases to receive services from the outlet to take a holiday, to enter hospital or to temporarily receive alternative care.	
Length of stay	The time between the date of admission and the date of separation.	
Living arrangements	Refers to the normal cohabitation of the client at the time of assessment.	
Median	The middle number in a series after all values have been arranged or sorted from highest to lowest or lowest to highest. There are equal numbers of values above the median as below. For example the median for the group 75, 76, 80, 81, 81, 81, and 82 is 81. Where there is an even number of values in a group, the median is the midpoint between the two central values. For example, the median of 1, 2, 4 and 8 is 3.	
Multi-Purpose Services	Operating in rural and remote communities, these provide a mix of Australian Government- and state-funded services, including aged care services, best suited to the needs of each community.	
Preferred language		
Languages other than English are grouped as follows:		
Australian Indigenous	Includes all Australian Indigenous languages.	
Other Northern European	Includes Danish, Dutch, German, Irish, Norwegian, Swedish, Welsh and Yiddish.	
Southern European	Includes French, Greek, Italian, Maltese, Portuguese and Spanish.	
Eastern European	Includes Albanian, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Macedonian, Polish, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Slovak and Ukrainian.	
Southwest Asian and North African	Includes Arabic, Turkish, Hebrew and Persian.	
Southern Asian	Includes Hindi, Tamil, Bengali, Sinhalese and Urdu.	
Southeast Asian	Includes Burmese, Khmer, Lao, Thai, Filipino, Bahasa (Indonesian and Malay), Timorese and Vietnamese.	
Eastern Asian	Includes Chinese (various dialects), Japanese and Korean.	
African (excluding North African)	Includes Afrikaans, Asante, Mauritian Creole, Oromo, Shona, Somali, Swahili, Yoruba and Zulu.	
Oceanic	Includes Fijian, Samoan, Tongan and other South Pacific languages.	
Remoteness		
The geographical areas used in this report are based on the ASGC Remoteness Structure, developed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS 2009a). This classification categorises all Census Collection Districts (CDs) in Australia according to their remoteness, based on physical road distance to the nearest urban centre. Remoteness is measured by the Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA). The structure of the classification is as follows:	
Major cities 	CDs with an average ARIA index value of 0 to 0.2	
Inner regional	CDs with an average ARIA index value greater than 0.2 and less than or equal to 2.4	
Outer regional	CDs with an average ARIA index value greater than 2.4 and less than or equal to 5.92	
Remote	CDs with an average ARIA index value greater than 5.92 and less than or equal to 10.53	
Very remote	CDs with an average ARIA index value greater than 10.53.	
Separation	The point at which a client ceases to receive community aged care from an outlet.	
Separation mode	Indicates the destination of a care client at separation, including death.	
Service outlet	An organisation or incorporated body which has been approved to provide Community Aged Care Package services, Extended Aged Care at Home or Extended Aged Care at Home Dementia services. The outlet also has the responsibility to plan, coordinate and manage the provision of community care services to its care clients.	
Supplementary care recipients	Care clients receiving regular Community Aged Care Package assistance, but for whom their service providers are not entitled to claim the Community Care Subsidy.	
Usual residence status 	Refers to the housing tenure before the client’s application for a Community Aged Care Package.	
Appendix 1: Service providers and provision
Table A1.1: CACP, EACH, EACH D service outlet size, 30 June 2009 
(per cent)
 Outlet size	CACP	EACH	EACH D	
 	Per cent	
1–20	43.9	79.5	92.1	
21–40	26.3	15.8	n.p.	
41–60	12.2	3.6	n.p.	
61–80	7.5	1.1	— 	
81–100	3.8	— 	— 	
101–120	2.8	— 	— 	
121+	3.4	— 	— 	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	1,091	278	189	
Notes 
1.	Some service outlets may provide more than one type of care. 
2.	Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
n.p.	Not published.	
— 	Nil or rounded to zero. 

Table A1.2: CACP, EACH, and EACH D service outlet size by remoteness(a), 
30 June 2009 (per cent)
Number of packages	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	All regions	
	Per cent	
CACP 		
1–20	28.2	50.2	60.1	76.2	100.0	43.9	
21–40	29.3	27.2	25.9	19	—	26.3	
41–60	15.5	11.5	7.7	4.8	—	12.2	
61–80	10.4	5.6	5.6	—	—	7.5	
81–100	5.9	3.1	—	—	—	3.8	
101–120	4.8	1.4	—	—	—	2.8	
121+	5.9	1.0	0.7	—	—	3.4	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
CACP total outlets	560	287	143	42	59	1,091	
EACH 		
1–20	74.4	85.5	84.4	100.0(b)	—	79.5	
21–40	17.3	14.5	15.6	—	—	15.8	
41–60	6.4	—	—	—	—	3.6	
61–80	1.9	—	—	—	—	1.1	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0(b)	100.0	100.0	
EACH total outlets	156	83	32	7(b)	1	278	
EACH D		
1–20	87.5	97.9	100.0(c)	—	—	92.1	
21–40	11.6	2.1	—	—	—	n.p.	
41–60	n.p.	—	—	—	—	n.p.	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0(c)	100.0	—	100.0	
EACH D total outlets	112	48	29(c)	2	—	189	
(a)	The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
(b)	Includes Remote and Very remote.
(c)	Includes Outer regional and Remote.
Notes 
1.	Some service outlets may provide more than one type of care. 
2.	Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
— 	Nil or rounded to zero. 
n.p.	Not published.	

Table A1.3: CACP, EACH, and EACH D outlets, state/territory by remoteness(a), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
State/territory	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	All regions	All regions (number)	
	Per cent	
CACP		
NSW	55.7	32.5	10.8	0.6	0.3	100.0	314	
Vic	70.0	23.6	5.5	0.8	. .	100.0	237	
Qld	41.4	26.1	20.3	5.0	7.3	100.0	261	
WA	55.4	14.1	15.2	10.9	4.3	100.0	92	
SA	66.2	17.6	12.2	2.7	1.4	100.0	74	
Tas	. .	71.4	22.4	4.1	2.0	100.0	49	
ACT	100.0	—	. .	. .	. .	100.0	11	
NT	. .	. .	17.0	20.8	62.3	100.0	53	
Australia	51.3	26.3	13.1	3.8	5.4	100.0	1,091	
EACH 		
NSW	57.0	34.4	8.6	—	—	100.0	93	
Vic	64.3	26.8	7.1	1.8	. .	100.0	56	
Qld	50.0	35.2	11.1	1.9	1.9	100.0	54	
WA	57.1	23.8	14.3	4.8	—	100.0	21	
SA	66.7	13.3	16.7	3.3	—	100.0	30	
Tas	. .	72.7	18.2	9.1	—	100.0	11	
ACT	100.0	—	. .	. .	. .	100.0	8	
NT	. .	. .	80.0	20.0	—	100.0	5	
Australia	56.1	29.9	11.5	2.2	0.4	100.0	278	
EACH D 		
NSW	57.6	31.8	10.6	—	—	100.0	66	
Vic	68.4	26.3	5.3	—	. .	100.0	38	
Qld	66.7	20.0	13.3	—	—	100.0	30	
WA	50.0	25.0	25.0	—	—	100.0	12	
SA	68.0	8.0	20.0	4.0	—	100.0	25	
Tas	. .	66.7	33.3	—	—	100.0	9	
ACT	100.0	—	. .	. .	. .	100.0	5	
NT	. .	. .	75.0	25.0	—	100.0	4	
Australia	59.3	25.4	14.3	1.1	—	100.0	189	
(a)	The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS. 
Notes 
1.	Some service outlets may provide more than one type of care. 
2.	Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
. . 	Not applicable.
—	Nil or rounded to zero. 

Table A1.4: CACP, EACH, and EACH D services, organisation type by state/territory(a), 
30 June 2009 (per cent)
Organisation type	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
	Per cent	
CACP		
Not-for-profit	79.9	72.6	80.1	76.1	82.4	79.6	90.9	50.9	76.9	
Government	12.1	23.6	13.4	15.2	13.5	12.2	—	45.3	16.8	
Private	8.0	3.8	6.5	8.7	4.1	8.2	9.1	3.8	6.3	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	314	237	261	92	74	49	11	53	1,091	
EACH 		
Not-for-profit	86.0	76.8	94.4	85.7	93.3	72.7	100.0	80.0	86.3	
Government	2.2	21.4	1.9	4.8	3.3	9.1	—	—	6.5	
Private	11.8	1.8	3.7	9.5	3.3	18.2	—	20.0	7.2	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	93	56	54	21	30	11	8	5	278	
EACH D 		
Not-for-profit	89.4	89.5	96.7	83.3	92.0	77.8	100.0	75.0	89.9	
Government	1.5	10.5	—	—	4.0	11.1	—	—	3.7	
Private	9.1	—	3.3	16.7	4.0	11.1	—	25.0	6.3	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	66	38	30	12	25	9	5	4	189	
(a)	Refers to location of service outlet. 
Notes 
1.	Some service outlets may provide more than one type of care. 
2.	Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
— 	Nil or rounded to zero. 

Table A1.5: Number of CACP, EACH, and EACH D packages, 30 June 1992 to 30 June 2009
 (per cent)
 Year 	CACP	EACH	EACH D	Combined	
1992	235	. .	. .	235	
1993	470	. .	. .	470	
1994	1,227	. .	. .	1,227	
1995	2,542	. .	. .	2,542	
1996	4,431	. .	. .	4,431	
1997	6,124	. .	. .	6,124	
1998	10,046	. .	. .	10,046	
1999	13,753	. .	. .	13,753	
2000(a)	18,309	. .	. .	18,309	
2001(a)	24,630	. .	. .	24,630	
2002(a)	26,425	171	. .	26,596	
2003(a)	27,881	255	. .	28,136	
2004(a)	29,048	860	. .	29,908	
2005(a)	30,973	1,673	. .	32,646	
2006(a)	35,383	2,580	601	38,564	
2007(a)	37,997	3,302	1,271	42,570	
2008(a)	40,280	4,244	1,996	46,520	
2009(a)	40,859	4,478	2,036	47,373	
(a)	CACPs provided by Multi-Purpose Services and service outlets receiving flexible funding under the National Aboriginal and 
Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Strategy are included. 
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
. . Not applicable. 

Table A1.6: Provision ratio by state/territory(a), 30 June 2009 
 	CACP	EACH/ EACH D	Combined	
State/Territory	Total (70+)	Total (70+ and Indigenous population aged 50–69 years)	Total (70+)	Total (70+ and Indigenous population aged 50–69 years)	Total (70+)	Total (70+ and Indigenous population aged 50–69 years)	
NSW	 19.5	19.1	 3.0	2.9	22.6	22.0	
Vic	 19.5	19.4	 3.1	3.1	22.6	22.4	
Qld	 18.9	18.2	 2.8	2.7	21.7	20.9	
WA	 22.1	21.3	 4.1	3.9	26.2	25.2	
SA	 19.4	19.1	 2.9	2.9	22.4	22.0	
Tas	 20.4	19.6	 3.6	3.5	24.0	23.1	
ACT	 21.3	20.9	 6.5	6.4	27.8	27.3	
NT	 103.5	50.9	 17.7	8.7	121.2	59.6	
Australia	 19.9	19.4	 3.2	3.1	23.1	22.5	
(a)	Refers to location of service outlet. 
Notes
1.	The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population aged 50–69 years uses ABS projections (ABS 2004).
2.	Ratios are calculated using ABS projections released in December 2004 (ABS 2004) and Australian population figures released 
in December 2009 (ABS 2009b).

Table A1.7: Average occupancy rate for CACPs, EACH and EACH D, by state/territory and remoteness(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Package/
state/territory	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	All regions	
CACP		
NSW	96.9	95.6	95.8	80.8	99.0	96.5	
Vic	98.2	96.9	96.7	50.9	. .	97.8	
Qld	86.0	90.6	92.2	65.4	73.9	87.1	
WA	88.8	94.8	96.6	99.0	64.9	90.4	
SA	98.0	99.5	90.7	98.7	98.5	97.5	
Tas	. .	98.4	97.8	95.0	66.4	98.1	
ACT	96.4	—	. .	. .	. .	96.4	
NT	. .	. .	97.1	94.0	93.1	94.6	
Australia	94.9	95.5	94.6	87.7	84.6	94.8	
EACH 		
NSW	95.5	94.3	96.8	—	—	95.3	
Vic	99.0	97.9	92.0	65.5	. .	98.3	
Qld	90.9	92.2	92.8	37.8	87.7	91.2	
WA	90.1	97.2	96.0	86.6	—	91.2	
SA	99.0	99.8	92.2	67.8	—	97.5	
Tas	. .	91.2	81.5	96.7	—	91.0	
ACT	96.2	—	. .	. .	. .	96.2	
NT	. .	. .	81.3	91.2	—	83.1	
Australia	95.6	94.8	91.7	78.2	87.7	94.9	
EACH D		
NSW	90.7	84.2	91.9	—	—	89.1	
Vic	97.0	90.2	89.8	—	. .	95.3	
Qld	79.7	88.1	81.7	—	—	81.6	
WA	85.5	82.8	80.8	—	—	84.8	
SA	96.7	88.0	94.8	—	—	94.9	
Tas	. .	85.0	77.7	—	—	83.1	
ACT	92.6	—	. .	. .	. .	92.6	
NT	. .	. .	63.9	81.5	—	66.8	
Australia	90.6	86.4	84.4	72.2	—	89.0	
(a)	Refers to location of service outlet. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS. 
. . 	Not applicable. 
— 	Nil or rounded to zero. 

Appendix 2: Characteristics of clients
Table A2.1: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients, state/territory by remoteness(a), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
State/territory	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	All regions	All regions (number)	
	Per cent		
CACP 		
NSW	68.7	25.7	5.3	0.2	0.1	100.0	13,211	
Vic	77.3	18.4	4.3	0.1	. .	100.0	9,979	
Qld	59.0	22.7	14.9	1.4	2.1	100.0	6,155	
WA 	75.0	11.4	7.7	5.3	0.7	100.0	3,249	
SA 	72.3	16.6	8.6	1.8	0.6	100.0	3,385	
Tas 	. .	75.2	21.6	n.p.	n.p.	100.0	1,008	
ACT 	100.0	—	. .	. .	. .	100.0	512	
NT 	. .	. .	35.3	21.4	43.3	100.0	556	
Australia	67.8	21.9	7.9	1.3	1.1	100.0	38,055	
EACH 		
NSW 	65.9	26.5	7.6	—	—	100.0	1,390	
Vic 	71.1	23.4	n.p.	n.p.	. .	100.0	1,095	
Qld 	57.0	31.3	11.0	n.p.	n.p.	100.0	630	
WA 	79.5	13.7	5.1	1.8	—	100.0	395	
SA 	72.6	14.0	10.8	2.6	—	100.0	351	
Tas 	. .	94.7	n.p.	n.p.	—	100.0	113	
ACT 	100.0	—	. .	. .	. .	100.0	109	
NT 	. .	. .	82.4	17.6	—	100.0	74	
Australia	65.7	24.8	8.6	0.8	0.1	100.0	4,157	
EACH D 		
NSW 	67.2	24.8	7.9	—	—	100.0	632	
Vic	76.0	20.5	3.5	—	. .	100.0	483	
Qld 	66.7	21.5	11.8	—	—	100.0	297	
WA 	78.8	12.7	8.5	—	—	100.0	165	
SA 	77.7	6.6	13.9	1.8	—	100.0	166	
Tas 	. .	76.9	23.1	—	—	100.0	65	
ACT 	100.0	—	. .	. .	. .	100.0	43	
NT 	. .	. .	80.0	20.0	—	100.0	20	
Australia	69.1	21.5	9.1	0.4	—	100.0	1,871	
(a)	Refers to location of service outlet. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
 . . 	Not applicable. 
n.p.	Not published.	
— 	Nil or rounded to zero. 

Table A2.2: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients’ median age (years) by sex and state/territory(a), 30 June 2009
Package	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
CACP 		
Females	84.0	82.0	84.0	84.0	84.0	84.0	84.0	73.0	83.0	
Males	82.0	81.0	82.0	81.0	83.0	81.0	82.0	72.0	82.0	
Persons	83.0	82.0	83.0	83.0	84.0	83.0	84.0	73.0	83.0	
EACH		
Females	83.0	81.0	81.0	82.0	84.0	79.0	86.0	79.5	82.0	
Males	80.0	77.0	79.0	77.0	81.0	79.0	79.0	73.0	79.0	
Persons	82.0	79.0	81.0	80.0	84.0	79.0	83.0	76.0	81.0	
EACH D 		
Females	83.0	83.0	83.0	85.0	84.0	81.5	82.0	75.0	83.0	
Males	82.0	79.0	81.0	81.0	81.0	83.0	81.5	74.0	81.0	
Persons	83.0	81.0	82.0	83.0	83.0	82.0	82.0	75.0	82.0	
(a)	Refers to location of service outlet.

Table A2.3: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients’ median age (years) by sex and remoteness(a), 
30 June 2009
Package	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	Australia	
CACP 		
Females	84.0	83.0	82.0	79.0	73.0	83.0	
Males	82.0	81.0	80.0	77.0	73.5	82.0	
Persons	83.0	83.0	81.0	78.0	73.0	83.0	
EACH		
Females	83.0	81.0	83.0	80.0	82.0	82.0	
Males	79.0	78.0	78.0	75.5	78.0	79.0	
Persons	81.0	80.0	81.0	78.0	80.0	81.0	
EACH D 		
Females	84.0	83.0	81.5	78.0	. .	83.0	
Males	81.0	80.0	80.5	76.0	. .	81.0	
Persons	83.0	81.0	81.0	78.0	. .	82.0	
(a)	Refers to location of service outlet. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
. . Not applicable. 

Table A2.4: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by sex and age group 
(years), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Sex/age group (years)	CACP	EACH	EACHD	
Females	Per cent	
0-54	0.8	0.8	0.3	
55-59	1.0	1.2	0.7	
60-64	2.0	3.7	2.7	
65-69	4.6	7.4	4.8	
70-74	8.3	11.4	7.1	
75-79	15.1	15.3	16.7	
80-84	25.0	21.0	24.8	
85-89	26.4	19.9	25.6	
90-94	13.3	13.2	12.7	
95+	3.6	6.2	4.6	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total females (number)	26,988	2,649	1,198	
Males		
0-54	1.5	1.5	n.p.	
55-59	1.7	2.0	n.p.	
60-64	3.6	5.9	3.3	
65-69	7.2	9.4	6.5	
70-74	10.2	15.8	11.4	
75-79	15.4	18.6	21.7	
80-84	24.3	21.2	25.3	
85-89	22.0	15.2	20.5	
90-94	11.5	7.6	8.0	
95+	2.6	3.0	1.8	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total males (number)	11,067	1,508	673	
Persons		
0-54	1.0	1.0	0.3	
55-59	1.2	1.5	0.9	
60-64	2.5	4.5	2.9	
65-69	5.3	8.1	5.5	
70-74	8.9	13.0	8.7	
75-79	15.2	16.5	18.5	
80-84	24.8	21.0	25.0	
85-89	25.1	18.2	23.8	
90-94	12.8	11.1	11.0	
95+	3.3	5.1	3.6	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total persons (number)	38,055	4,157	1,871	
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
n.p.	Not published.	

Table A2.5: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by age group (years) and remoteness(a), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
 Age group (years)	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	All regions	All regions (number)	
 	Per cent	
CACP		
0–54	36.7	30.9	18.7	4.5	9.2	100.0	379	
55–59	45.8	27.5	14.7	6.8	5.2	100.0	443	
60–64	54.8	23.4	12.4	3.8	5.5	100.0	941	
65–69 	60.3	23.6	10.7	2.6	2.8	100.0	2,034	
70–74 	64.4	22.0	9.6	1.5	2.4	100.0	3,369	
75–79 	67.0	22.6	7.8	1.5	1.2	100.0	5,775	
80–84 	69.3	21.8	7.4	0.9	0.6	100.0	9,447	
85–89 	71.6	20.4	6.8	0.8	0.4	100.0	9,550	
90–94 	69.8	22.2	6.8	1.0	0.3	100.0	4,854	
95+	72.6	20.0	6.3	0.7	0.4	100.0	1,263	
Total	67.8	21.9	7.9	1.3	1.1	100.0	38,055	
EACH 		
0–54	53.5	30.2	16.3	—	—	100.0	43	
55–59	51.6	27.4	17.7	n.p.	—	100.0	62	
60–64	60.2	31.7	7.5	n.p.	—	100.0	186	
65–69 	62.3	27.3	8.6	1.8	—	100.0	337	
70–74 	65.0	25.9	8.3	0.7	—	100.0	540	
75–79 	64.0	27.5	7.5	n.p.	n.p.	100.0	684	
80–84 	66.4	23.3	9.3	n.p.	n.p.	100.0	875	
85–89 	69.0	21.1	9.1	0.8	—	100.0	757	
90–94 	67.0	24.8	8.2	—	—	100.0	463	
95+	72.4	20.5	n.p.	n.p.	—	100.0	210	
Total	65.7	24.8	8.6	0.8	0.1	100.0	4,157	
EACH D 		
0–54	n.p.	50.0	n.p.	—	—	100.0	6	
55–59	62.5	25.0	n.p.	—	—	100.0	16	
60–64	68.5	24.1	7.4	—	—	100.0	54	
65–69 	62.7	21.6	13.7	n.p.	—	100.0	102	
70–74 	68.5	21.0	10.5	—	—	100.0	162	
75–79 	67.1	22.8	9.5	n.p.	—	100.0	346	
80–84 	68.7	21.6	9.6	—	—	100.0	467	
85–89 	69.0	21.6	9.0	n.p.	—	100.0	445	
90–94 	75.7	18.9	4.9	n.p.	—	100.0	206	
95+	77.6	16.4	6.0	—	—	100.0	67	
Total	69.1	21.5	9.1	0.4	—	100.0	1,871	
(a)	Refers to location of service outlet. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
— 	Nil or rounded to zero. 
n.p.	Not published.	

Table A2.6: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by birthplace(a), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Birthplace	CACP	EACH	EACH D	
	Per cent	
Australia	66.2	63.1	58.9	
Born outside Australia: 		
Other Oceania/New Zealand/Antarctica	0.9	1.7	1.4	
UK and Ireland	9.9	9.9	9.4	
North-West Europe	3.4	2.9	3.4	
Southern and Eastern Europe	12.1	13.5	17.7	
North Africa/Middle East	1.3	1.9	2.3	
Sub-Saharan Africa/South Africa	0.5	0.8	1.1	
Southeast Asia	1.5	2.1	2.1	
Northeast Asia	1.5	1.3	1.4	
Southern Asia/Central Asia	1.0	1.9	1.6	
North America	0.3	0.4	0.3	
Other America/Caribbean	0.4	0.3	0.2	
Other	—	—	—	
Total born outside Australia 	32.7	36.7	40.9	
Not stated/not classified	1.1	0.2	0.2	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	38,055	4,157	1,871	
(a)	ABS 2008b. 
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
— 	Nil or rounded to zero. 

Table A2.7: CACP clients, usual residence status(a) and state/territory (b), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Usual residential status	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
	Per cent	
Home owner/purchaser	68.4	64.8	54.9	66.5	61.2	68.6	62.5	51.6	64.1	
Public housing	12.3	10.3	7.6	12.8	14.9	11.8	15.2	28.2	11.6	
Private rental	5.7	5.9	6.4	5.5	5.1	8.0	2.7	5.4	5.8	
Board/lodging	0.2	0.3	0.6	0.3	0.1	—	—	0.5	0.3	
Other(c)	11.8	9.5	16.7	13.7	17.5	5.9	19.5	13.8	12.6	
Missing/not stated	1.6	9.2	13.8	1.3	1.2	5.8	—	0.4	5.6	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	13,211	9,979	6,155	3,249	3,385	1,008	512	556	38,055	
(a)	Usual residence status is that prior to admission. 
(b)	Refers to the location of the service outlet.
(c)	Where the category 'Other' is largely coded as such in ACCMIS, small numbers of defined categories such as hospital and residential aged care are also included in this category.
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
— 	Nil or rounded to zero. 
Table A2.8: CACP, EACH, and EACH D, living arrangements by sex, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
 	CACP	EACH	EACH D	
Living arrangements	Females	Males	Persons	Females	Males	Persons	Females	Males	Persons	
 	Per cent	Per cent	Per cent	
Lives alone	58.1	44.7	54.2	33.4	19.2	28.2	28.2	14.4	23.2	
Lives with family	38.3	50.5	41.8	63.9	77.1	68.7	69.3	83.5	74.4	
Lives with others	2.8	3.7	3.1	2.1	3.1	2.4	2.1	1.3	1.8	
Undetermined	—	0.1	—	 — 	 — 	 — 	 — 	 — 	 — 	
Not applicable	0.7	1.1	0.8	0.6	0.7	0.6	0.4	0.7	0.5	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	26,988	11,067	38,055	2,649	1,508	4,157	1,198	673	1,871	
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
— 	Nil or rounded to zero. 

Table A2.9: EACH and EACH D clients’ carer status by state/territory(a), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Carer status	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
	Per cent	
EACH 		
Females		
Has a carer:		
Co-resident carer	67.3	72.4	60.6	64.4	44.4	41.1	68.6	62.5	64.5	
Carer not co-resident	23.4	17.8	26.4	19.3	33.8	39.7	18.6	7.5	23.0	
Total with a carer	90.7	90.2	87.0	83.7	78.2	80.8	87.1	70.0	87.5	
Does not have a carer	9.3	9.8	13.0	16.3	21.8	19.2	12.9	30.0	12.5	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total females (number)	913	663	386	270	234	73	70	40	2,649	
Males		
Has a carer:		
Co-resident carer	78.0	83.3	72.1	76.8	70.9	52.5	84.6	44.1	76.7	
Carer not co-resident	13.0	7.9	16.0	11.2	19.7	30.0	7.7	8.8	12.6	
Total with a carer	91.0	91.2	88.1	88.0	90.6	82.5	92.3	52.9	89.3	
Does not have a carer	9.0	8.8	11.9	12.0	9.4	17.5	7.7	47.1	10.7	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total males (number)	477	432	244	125	117	40	39	34	1,508	
Persons		
Has a carer:		
Co-resident carer	70.9	76.7	65.1	68.4	53.3	45.1	74.3	54.1	68.9	
Carer not co-resident	19.9	13.9	22.4	16.7	29.1	36.3	14.7	8.1	19.2	
Total with a carer	90.8	90.6	87.5	85.1	82.3	81.4	89.0	62.2	88.2	
Does not have a carer	9.2	9.4	12.5	14.9	17.7	18.6	11.0	37.8	11.8	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total persons (number)	1,390	1,095	630	395	351	113	109	74	4,157	
(continued)

Table A2.9 (continued): EACH and EACH D clients’ carer status by state/territory(a), 30 June 2009 (per cent)	
Carer status	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
	Per cent	
EACH D 		
Females		
Has a carer:		
Co-resident carer	68.6	87.2	68.1	66.0	52.3	41.7	65.5	81.8	70.1	
Carer not co-resident	25.5	9.6	28.6	29.2	37.8	43.8	n.p.	n.p.	24.5	
Total with a carer	94.1	96.8	96.8	95.3	90.1	85.4	n.p.	n.p.	94.6	
Does not have a carer	5.9	3.2	3.2	4.7	9.9	14.6	n.p.	n.p.	5.4	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total females (number)	427	281	185	106	111	48	29	11	1,198	
Males		
Has a carer:		
 Co-resident carer	79.0	96.0	78.6	83.1	58.2	58.8	85.7	100.0	82.6	
 Carer not co-resident	14.1	2.0	17.0	16.9	30.9	23.5	n.p.	—	12.5	
Total with a carer	93.2	98.0	95.5	100.0	89.1	82.4	n.p.	100.0	95.1	
Does not have a carer	6.8	2.0	4.5	—	10.9	17.6	n.p.	—	4.9	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total males (number)	205	202	112	59	55	17	14	9	673	
Persons		
Has a carer:		
 Co-resident carer	72.0	90.9	72.1	72.1	54.2	46.2	72.1	90.0	74.6	
 Carer not co-resident	21.8	6.4	24.2	24.8	35.5	38.5	20.9	n.p.	20.1	
Total with a carer	93.8	97.3	96.3	97.0	89.8	84.6	93.0	n.p.	94.8	
Does not have a carer	6.2	2.7	3.7	3.0	10.2	15.4	7.0	n.p.	5.2	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total persons (number)	632	483	297	165	166	65	43	20	1,871	
(a)	Refers to location of the service outlet. 
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
n.p.	Not published.	
— 	Nil or rounded to zero. 

Appendix 3: Special needs groups
Table A3.1a: CACP clients by Indigenous status and remoteness(a), 30 June (per cent)
Indigenous status	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote 	Very remote	All regions	
	Per cent 	
Indigenous	1.0	3.8	8.7	38.0	74.0	3.5	
Other Australian	98.9	96.2	91.2	62.0	26.0	96.4	
Unknown/not reported	0.1	—	0.2	—	—	0.1	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	25,818	8,320	2,992	498	427	38,055	
(a)	Refers to location of service outlet. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
— 	Nil or rounded to zero. 
Table A3.1b: EACH clients by Indigenous status and remoteness(a), 30 June (per cent)
Indigenous status	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote and Very remote	All regions	
EACH		
Indigenous	99.4	98.3	93.6	16.2	1.5	
Other Australian	0.5	1.7	6.4	83.8	98.5	
Unknown/not reported	0.1	—	—	—	—	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	2,731	1,031	358	37	4,157	
(a)	Refers to location of service outlet. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
— 	Nil or rounded to zero. 
Table A3.1c: EACH D clients by Indigenous status and remoteness(a), 30 June (per cent)
Indigenous status	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional and Remote	Very remote	All regions	
EACH D 		
Indigenous	0.3	1.0	5.1	—	0.9	
Other Australian	99.7	99.0	94.9	—	99.1	
Unknown/not reported	—	—	—	—	—	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	—	100.0	
Total (number)	1,292	402	177	—	1,871	
(a)	Refers to location of service outlet. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
— 	Nil or rounded to zero. 

Table A3.2: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by Indigenous status and remoteness groups(a), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Package/region 	Indigenous	Non-Indigenous	Unknown/
not reported	Total	
	Per cent	
CACP		
Major cities and inner regional	42.7	91.4	88.6	89.7	
Outer regional, remote, and very remote	57.3	8.6	11.4	10.3	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	1,334	36,677	44	38,055	
EACH 		
Major cities and inner regional	53.2	91.1	100.0	90.5	
Outer regional, remote, and very remote 	46.8	8.9	—	9.5	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0.	100.0	
Total (number)	62	4,093	2	4,157	
EACH D 		
Major cities and inner regional	47.1	90.9	—	90.5	
Outer regional, remote, and very remote	52.9	9.1	—	9.5	
Total	100.0	100.0	—	100.0	
Total (number)	17	1,854	—	1,871	
(a)	Refers to location of the service outlet. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
—	 Nil or rounded to zero.
Table A3.3: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by age and English-speaking status(a), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
 	 	Overseas-born	 	
Package/age group (years)	Australian-born	English- speaking background	Non-English-speaking background	Total care clients	
	Per cent	
CACP		
50–64 	5.3	2.3	2.3	4.3	
65–74	14.8	11.1	14.1	14.2	
75–84	38.0	38.5	47.3	40.1	
85+	41.8	48.1	36.4	41.3	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	25,075	4,377	8,472	37,924	
EACH		
50–64	7.8	6.8	4.3	6.8	
65–74	21.6	24.7	18.3	21.1	
75–84	36.5	33.1	42.5	37.6	
85+	34.1	35.3	35.0	34.5	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	2,613	496	1,038	4,147	
EACH D 		
50–64	4.5	3.3	3.2	4.0	
65–74	14.7	12.9	13.4	14.1	
75–84	41.1	46.6	47.1	43.5	
85+	39.7	37.2	36.3	38.4	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	1,101	211	558	1,870	
(a)	English-speaking status is based on country of birth. 
Note: Recipients with unknown status have been pro rated.
Appendix 4: Admissions, separations and leave
Table A4.1: CACP, EACH, and EACH D admissions by age, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Age group (years)	Females	Males	Total persons	
	Per cent	
CACP		
0–59	1.2	1.9	1.4	
60–69	6.2	8.9	7.1	
70–79	25.1	27.1	25.7	
80–89	52.7	49.2	51.6	
90+	14.8	13.0	14.2	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	12,782	6,123	18,905	
EACH 		
0–59	1.9	4.0	2.7	
60–69	10.5	13.5	11.7	
70–79	25.8	31.2	27.9	
80–89	43.1	38.7	41.4	
90+	18.7	12.5	16.3	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	1,640	1,038	2,678	
EACH D 		
0–59	1.4	1.5	1.5	
60–69	6.8	7.9	7.2	
70–79	26.5	31.9	28.7	
80–89	50.2	48.8	49.6	
90+	15.1	10.0	13.0	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	1,036	683	1,719	
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
Table A4.2: CACP, EACH, and EACH D separations by age, 
1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Age group (years)	Females	Males	Total persons	
	Per cent	
CACP		
0–59	0.9	1.7	1.1	
60–69	4.4	6.3	5.0	
70–79	19.2	23.8	20.7	
80–89	52.6	49.8	51.7	
90+	22.9	18.4	21.4	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	11,977	5,853	17,830	
EACH 		
0–59	1.9	2.5	2.2	
60–69	7.1	10.7	8.5	
70–79	22.1	29.7	25.1	
80–89	44.7	41.4	43.4	
90+	24.3	15.8	20.9	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	1,458	957	2,415	
EACH D 		
0–59	1.8	1.3	1.6	
60–69	4.8	6.4	5.5	
70–79	24.5	31.5	27.4	
80–89	50.0	49.7	49.9	
90+	19.0	11.1	15.7	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	854	610	1,464	
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add 100%. 

Table A4.3: CACP separation modes by state/territory(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Separation mode	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
	Per cent	
Death	17.4	19.8	15.6	15.9	17.4	19.0	14.2	29.8	17.6	
Hospital	3.7	1.5	6.9	6.5	2.5	4.5	3.0	6.4	4.0	
Residential aged care	45.0	52.0	45.4	46.8	54.1	53.5	40.4	22.3	47.5	
Other CACP	7.9	7.3	7.4	7.4	6.7	9.9	6.0	10.6	7.6	
Other community/holiday	5.2	4.3	5.0	7.0	7.5	6.4	8.3	6.9	5.4	
Other	20.7	15.0	19.7	16.5	11.7	6.7	28.1	23.9	17.9	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	6,219	4,078	3,356	1,804	1,509	374	302	188	17,830	
(a)	Refers to location of the service outlet. 
Notes
1.	‘Other’ is a separate category in ACCMIS. 
2.	 Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
Table A4.4: EACH and EACH D separation modes by state/territory(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Separation mode	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
	Per cent	
EACH		
Death	33.5	41.8	32.1	34.5	28.2	29.4	25.4	46.3	34.7	
Hospital	6.2	5.0	7.3	7.7	6.9	8.8	18.6	11.1	6.8	
Residential aged care 	44.9	45.7	48.0	42.3	54.6	50.0	28.8	18.5	45.2	
Other type of community care	3.1	3.1	1.0	2.7	3.4	n.p.	11.9	n.p.	2.9	
Withdrew	5.0	2.1	6.8	8.6	n.p.	5.9	11.9	11.1	5.1	
Other	7.4	2.3	4.8	4.1	5.2	n.p.	3.4	9.3	5.3	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	923	521	396	220	174	68	59	54	2,415	
EACH D 		
Death	22.9	21.3	14.3	23.4	14.4	25.0	16.7	16.7	20.0	
Hospital	3.1	3.3	7.0	5.6	7.2	10.4	7.1	16.7	5.0	
Residential aged care 	63.9	69.7	66.2	66.9	70.4	62.5	59.5	55.6	66.4	
Other type of community care 	0.9	n.p.	1.1	—	n.p.	—	n.p.	—	0.8	
Withdrew	4.3	2.1	7.0	2.4	2.4	—	9.5	n.p.	4.0	
Other	4.9	n.p.	4.4	n.p.	n.p.	2.1	n.p.	n.p.	3.8	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	446	389	272	124	125	48	42	18	1,464	
(a)	Refers to location of the service outlet. 
Notes
1.	‘Other’ is a separate category in ACCMIS. 
2.	Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
n.p.	Not published.	
—	 Nil or rounded to zero.

Table A4.5: CACP separation modes by sex, 1 July 2008 to 
30 June 2009 (per cent)
Separation mode	Females	Males	Total persons	
	Per cent	
Death	14.8	23.2	17.6	
Hospital	3.8	4.4	4.0	
Residential aged care	49.6	43.3	47.5	
Other CACP	7.6	7.4	7.6	
Other community/holiday	5.7	4.9	5.4	
Other	18.5	16.7	17.9	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	11,977	5,853	17,830	
Notes
1.	‘Other’ is a separate category in ACCMIS. 
2.	Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%.
Table A4.6: EACH and EACH D separation modes by sex, 1 July 2008 to 
30 June 2009 (per cent)
Separation mode	Females	Males	Total persons	
	Per cent	
EACH 		
Death	33.1	37.3	34.7	
Hospital	6.7	6.9	6.8	
Residential aged care 	47.4	41.8	45.2	
Other type of community care: 		
HACC	0.8	0.3	0.6	
CACP	0.5	1.3	0.8	
EACH D	1.7	1.1	1.5	
Total other type of community care	3.1	2.7	2.9	
Recipient withdrew	4.5	6.0	5.1	
Other	5.2	5.3	5.3	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	
EACH separations (number)	1,458	957	2,415	
EACH D 		
Death	17.4	23.6	20.0	
Hospital	4.1	6.2	5.0	
Residential aged care 	70.8	60.2	66.4	
Other type of community care: 		
HACC	0.4	n.p.	0.3	
CACP	n.p.	n.p.	0.3	
EACH 	n.p.	n.p.	0.2	
Total other type of community care	0.8	0.8	0.8	
Recipient withdrew	3.4	4.8	4.0	
Other	3.4	4.4	3.8	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	
EACH D separations (number)	854	610	1,464	
Notes
1.	‘Other’ is a separate category in ACCMIS. 
2.	 Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%.
n.p.	Not published.	

Table A4.7: CACP, EACH, and EACH D length of stay by sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Length of stay 	Females	Males	Total persons	
	Per cent	
CACP		
<4 weeks	3.8	4.4	4.0	
4–<8 weeks	5.5	6.5	5.9	
8–<13 weeks	6.2	6.8	6.4	
13–<26 weeks	13.1	14.9	13.7	
26–<39 weeks	10.3	11.1	10.6	
39–<52 weeks	8.4	8.5	8.5	
1–<2 years	22.6	21.7	22.3	
2–<3 years	11.5	11.4	11.5	
3–<4 years	6.7	5.3	6.2	
4–<5 years	3.8	3.1	3.6	
5–<6 years	3.3	2.8	3.1	
6+ years	4.7	3.4	4.3	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	11,977	5,853	17,830	
EACH 		
<4 weeks	5.3	5.7	5.5	
4–<8 weeks	6.1	7.9	6.8	
8–<13 weeks	7.0	9.1	7.8	
13–<26 weeks	17.2	17.8	17.4	
26–<39 weeks	13.6	15.3	14.2	
39–<52 weeks	9.7	9.2	9.5	
1–<2 years	24.5	20.1	22.7	
2–<3 years	10.8	9.5	10.3	
3–<4 years	3.6	4.0	3.8	
4–<5 years	1.7	1.0	1.4	
5–<6 years	0.3	n.p.	0.3	
6+ years	0.2	n.p.	0.2	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	1,458	957	2,415	
								(continued)

Table A4.7 (continued): CACP, EACH, and EACH D length of stay by sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)			
Length of stay 	Females	Males	Total persons	
	Per cent	
EACH D		
<4 weeks	4.9	5.1	5.0	
4–<8 weeks	8.1	10.3	9.0	
8–<13 weeks	7.8	10.0	8.7	
13–<26 weeks	17.2	19.7	18.2	
26–<39 weeks	18.4	17.5	18.0	
39–<52 weeks	13.8	10.8	12.6	
1–<2 years	23.3	22.3	22.9	
2–<3 years	6.4	4.3	5.5	
3–<4 years	—	—	—	
4–<5 years	. .	. .	 . .	
5–<6 years	. .	. .	. .	
6+ years	. .	. .	. .	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	854	610	1,464	
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
n.p.	Not published.	
—	Nil or rounded to zero.
. . 	Not applicable. 

Table A4.8: CACP separation modes by length of stay, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Length of stay	Death	Hospital	Residential aged care	Other CACP outlet	Other community/
holiday	Other	Total	Total (number)	
	Per cent		
CACP		
<4 weeks	16.0	5.9	31.9	7.6	6.3	32.4	100.0	714	
4 to <8 weeks	16.6	5.4	36.2	5.4	5.7	30.6	100.0	1,046	
8 to <13 weeks	15.0	5.5	44.7	4.9	6.3	23.6	100.0	1,137	
13 to <26 weeks	16.0	4.1	46.3	7.5	5.6	20.5	100.0	2,443	
26 to <39 weeks	15.3	4.0	51.6	6.3	6.0	16.9	100.0	1,887	
39 to <52 weeks	16.5	3.0	51.4	6.8	5.9	16.4	100.0	1,507	
1 to <2 years	17.2	3.7	51.4	8.0	5.2	14.5	100.0	3,982	
2 to <3 years	19.0	4.2	49.0	8.1	4.8	14.8	100.0	2,052	
3 to <4 years	20.2	3.4	50.0	8.9	4.8	12.7	100.0	1,113	
4 to <5 years	18.9	3.1	50.3	8.5	5.2	14.0	100.0	636	
5 to <6 years	23.4	3.1	41.8	10.6	4.3	16.8	100.0	555	
6+ years	25.9	3.8	41.8	10.6	4.9	13.1	100.0	758	
Total	17.6	4.0	47.5	7.6	5.4	17.9	100.0	17,830	
Notes
1.	‘Other’ is a separate category in ACCMIS. 
2.	Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 

Table A4.9: EACH and EACH D separation mode by length of stay, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 
(per cent)

Length of stay	Death	Hospital	Residential aged care	Other type of community care	Care client withdrew	Other	Total	Total (number)	
	Per cent	
EACH		
<4 weeks	43.9	6.1	29.5	7.6	8.3	4.5	100.0	132	
4 to <8 weeks	33.3	8.5	38.8	3.6	7.3	8.5	100.0	165	
8 to <13 weeks	25.9	11.1	47.6	3.2	6.9	5.3	100.0	189	
13 to <26 weeks	29.0	5.0	49.6	2.9	6.4	7.1	100.0	421	
26 to <39 weeks	31.7	5.8	48.5	2.3	5.2	6.4	100.0	344	
39 to <52 weeks	34.5	5.2	49.8	1.7	5.2	3.5	100.0	229	
1 to <2 years	34.6	7.3	46.8	3.3	3.5	4.6	100.0	549	
2 to <3 years	42.7	7.3	42.7	n.p.	n.p.	3.6	100.0	248	
3 to <4 years	48.4	5.5	37.4	4.4	n.p.	n.p.	100.0	91	
4 to <5 years	57.1	8.6	28.6	—	n.p.	n.p.	100.0	35	
5 to <6 years	50.0	n.p.	n.p.	n.p.	—	—	100.0	8	
6+ years	n.p.	—	—	—	n.p.	—	100.0	4	
Total	34.7	6.8	45.2	2.9	5.1	5.3	100.0	2,415	
EACH D 		
<4 weeks	19.2	8.2	57.5	5.5	6.8	n.p.	100.0	73	
4 to <8 weeks	12.1	5.3	68.9	n.p.	6.8	n.p.	100.0	132	
8 to <13 weeks	13.3	5.5	71.9	n.p.	4.7	n.p.	100.0	128	
13 to <26 weeks	19.9	5.2	64.0	n.p.	4.9	n.p.	100.0	267	
26 to <39 weeks	19.3	4.5	67.8	—	3.0	5.3	100.0	264	
39 to <52 weeks	17.9	3.3	74.5	—	2.2	2.2	100.0	184	
1 to <2 years	22.7	5.7	65.1	1.2	3.0	2.4	100.0	335	
2 to <3 years	40.7	2.5	51.9	—	3.7	n.p.	100.0	81	
3 to <4 years	—	—	—	—	—	—	100.0	—	
4 to <5 years	. .	. .	. .	. .	. .	. .	. .	. .	
5 to <6 years	. .	. .	. .	. .	. .	. .	. .	. .	
6+ years	. .	. .	. .	. .	. .	. .	. .	. .	
Total	20.0	5.0	66.4	0.8	4.0	3.8	100.0	1,464	
Notes
1.	‘Other’ is a separate category in ACCMIS. 
2.	 Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
n.p.	Not published.	
—	Nil or rounded to zero.
. . 	Not applicable. 

Table A4.10: CACP clients’ leave by state/territory(a) and leave type, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Leave type	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA 	SA 	Tas	ACT	NT 	Australia	
	Per cent	
CACP		
Social	31.3	21.1	31.9	27.4	26.4	26.1	28.0	48.2	28.0	
Hospital	49.8	56.7	54.0	55.1	53.2	49.2	41.7	33.1	52.7	
Respite care	17.6	21.5	13.3	16.0	17.5	22.6	26.1	n.p.	18.0	
Transition care	1.3	0.7	0.9	1.5	2.9	2.2	4.3	n.p.	1.3	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	4,713	3,488	2,202	1,047	1,174	372	211	139	13,346	
(a)	Refers to location of the service outlet. 
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
n.p.	Not published.	

Table A4.11: EACH and EACH D clients’ leave by state/territory(a) and leave type, 1 July 2008 
to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Leave type	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA 	SA 	Tas	ACT	NT 	Australia	
	Per cent	
EACH		
Social leave		
Claimable	15.6	11.2	16.5	15.5	13.2	11.8	20.0	14.7	14.3	
Non-claimable	2.3	n.p.	1.8	n.p.	n.p.	n.p.	—	8.8	1.5	
Hospital leave		
Claimable	51.2	40.9	48.1	50.0	54.0	51.0	50.9	47.1	47.9	
Non-claimable	1.8	3.0	2.1	n.p.	—	—	—	n.p.	1.9	
Respite leave		
Claimable	27.5	42.3	30.4	32.0	31.0	31.4	27.3	23.5	32.8	
Non-claimable	1.2	0.9	1.2	—	—	—	—	—	0.8	
Transition care leave		
Claimable	n.p.	1.2	—	n.p.	n.p.	n.p.	n.p.	—	0.7	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	654	562	339	194	174	51	55	34	2,063	
EACH D 		
Social leave		
Claimable	19.4	11.4	25.2	13.3	19.7	30.8	47.6	n.p.	18.4	
Non-claimable	n.p.	1.3	4.7	—	n.p.	n.p.	—	n.p.	1.7	
Hospital leave		
Claimable	36.7	34.2	41.1	50.0	27.9	23.1	33.3	—	36.0	
Non-claimable	2.1	n.p.	n.p.	n.p.	—	—	n.p.	—	1.3	
Respite leave		
Claimable	40.5	50.9	28.0	35.0	45.9	42.3	14.3	75.0	41.6	
Non-claimable	n.p.	n.p.	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.4	
Transition care leave		
Claimable	n.p.	n.p.	—	—	n.p.	—	—	—	0.5	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	237	228	107	60	61	26	21	8	748	
(a)	Refers to location of the service outlet. 
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
n.p.	Not published.	
—	Nil or rounded to zero.

Table A4.12: CACP leave type by remoteness(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Leave type	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	All	
	Per cent	
Social 	25.5	31.7	32.7	43.3	59.0	28.0	
Hospital	55.1	48.8	48.7	37.2	25.0	52.7	
Respite care	18.2	18.0	17.3	n.p.	16.0	18.0	
Transition care	1.3	1.5	1.3	n.p.	—	1.3	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	8,904	3,074	1,104	164	100	13,346	
(a)	Refers to location of the service outlet. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
n.p.	Not published.	
—	Nil or rounded to zero.
Table A4.13: EACH and EACH D leave type by remoteness(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 
(per cent)
Leave type	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional, Remote and Very remote	All	
	Per cent	
EACH		
Social leave		
Claimable	13.7	17.1	11.7	14.3	
Non-claimable	1.2	1.8	3.0	1.5	
Hospital leave		
Claimable	48.7	44.6	51.8	47.9	
Non-claimable	1.9	2.1	1.5	1.9	
Respite leave		
Claimable	32.9	32.7	32.0	32.8	
Non-claimable	0.7	1.6	—	0.8	
Transition Care leave		
Claimable	1.0	0.2	—	0.7	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	1,352	514	197	2,063	
EACH D 		
Social leave		
Claimable	17.3	22.2	17.6(b)	18.4	
Non-claimable	1.6	n.p.	n.p.(b)	1.7	
Hospital leave		
Claimable	38.8	29.8	31.1(b)	36.0	
Non-claimable	n.p.	n.p.	n.p.(b)	1.3	
Respite leave		
Claimable	39.8	45.6	44.6(b)	41.6	
Non-claimable	n.p.	n.p.	—(b)	0.4	
Transition Care leave		
Claimable	0.8	—	—(b)	0.5	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0(b)	100.0	
Total (number)	503	171	74(b)	748	
(a)	Refers to location of the service outlet. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
(b)	EACH D had no clients in Very remote areas. 
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
—	Nil or rounded to zero.
n.p.	Not published.	

Table A4.14: CACP leave type by sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Leave type	Females	Males	Total persons	
	Per cent	
Social	29.6	23.9	28.0	
Hospital	51.1	56.6	52.7	
Respite	17.9	18.5	18.0	
Transition care	1.4	1.0	1.3	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	9,629	3,717	13,346	
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 

Table A4.15: EACH and EACH D leave type by sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Leave type	Females	Males	Total persons	
	Per cent	
EACH		
Social leave		
Claimable	16.2	11.3	14.3	
Non-claimable	1.1	2.2	1.5	
Hospital leave		
Claimable	47.9	47.9	47.9	
Non-claimable	1.8	2.2	1.9	
Respite leave		
Claimable	31.0	35.7	32.8	
Non-claimable	1.0	n.p.	0.8	
Transition care leave		
Claimable	1.0	n.p.	0.7	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	1,285	778	2,063	
EACH D 		
Social leave		
Claimable	18.6	18.2	18.4	
Non-claimable	1.7	1.8	1.7	
Hospital leave		
Claimable	35.7	36.5	36.0	
Non-claimable	1.3	1.5	1.3	
Respite leave		
Claimable	42.0	40.9	41.6	
Non-claimable	n.p.	n.p.	0.4	
Transition care leave		
Claimable	n.p.	n.p.	0.5	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	474	274	748	
Note: Per cents have been rounded to one decimal place and may not add to 100%. 
n.p.	Not published.	

Appendix 5: Data sources and limitations
The data presented in this report are from the Aged and Community Care Management Information System (ACCMIS). This data repository has information gathered through a number of instruments. Two are directly relevant to this report:
•	The Aged Care Client Record (Form 3020). This is a form used for the assessment and approval of a care recipient for residential aged care, a CACP, or flexible care (for example, an EACH or EACH D package). This form is completed by a delegate of an Aged Care Assessment Team (ACAT) in consultation with the applicant, and signed either by the applicant or by someone on behalf of the applicant.
•	The Provider Claim Form. This form is completed by the service provider for claiming the Community Care Subsidy that is payable for the service for a payment period: normally one calendar month. 
The information is received on paper and is then transferred to the computer. The word ‘form’ thus needs to be interpreted accordingly.
Other instruments through which information on the service providers is gathered include the Approved Provider Status Application and the Community Care Service Agreement between the Australian Government and the service provider. 
General population data are taken from the latest AIHW population databases supplied by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. 
Care recipients’ personal details 
All care recipients receiving a CACP, an EACH package or an EACH Dementia package must have a valid Aged Care Client Record (that is, the recipient must have an ‘approved’ status). This record is normally valid for a period of 12 months from the date of approval. Approval of applications is the responsibility of ACATs and their delegates.
The information entered into ACCMIS from the Aged Care Client Record is the source of the following data items:
•	sex
•	date of birth
•	Indigenous status
•	birthplace
•	preferred language
•	usual residence status (before admission) OR usual accommodation (before admission)
•	living arrangements (before admission)
•	initial information on carer status.
Some recipient details, such as financial hardship status and carer support status, are obtained from the Provider Claim Form, which are submitted monthly and should be regularly updated.
The response categories for the characteristic ‘usual living arrangements before becoming a recipient of a package’ changed, with the introduction of a revised ACAT form on 1 January 2003 and the Aged Care Assessment Program data dictionary. At the same time, some response categories for information about the care recipients’ type of residence changed with the discontinuation of the ‘usual residence status’ data item and the introduction of the ‘usual accommodation’ data item and subsequent minor amendments. 
Care recipients’ admission and separation details
The Provider Claim Form is sent to approved service providers at the beginning of a payment period. This form has the details of existing recipients under the care of service providers (the form would be blank for a new provider). It is the responsibility of service providers to check this form for accuracy and record new data and changes relating to new admissions, separations and leave for their care recipients. 
The Provider Claim Form is the original source for the following data items:
•	date of admission
•	date of separation
•	separation mode
•	length of stay (derived from date of admission and date of separation)
•	updates to financial hardship status
•	updates to carer status.
Service providers’ details
Details about community aged care service providers are collected through the Approved Provider Status Application and the Community Care Service Agreement between the Australian Government and the service provider. These documents are the main source for the following data items:
•	Location of service outlets (by both state/territory and geographical area)
•	Number of approved places in service outlets. 
Limitations of the data
The following points should be noted when interpreting the data presented in this report.
The data used for this report were those available in ACCMIS in November 2009. However, as ACCMIS is ‘refreshed’ periodically, minor differences in some data will occur, depending on the version used for reporting.
•	The basis for the general population figure used in the calculation of the service provision ratio was the ABS estimated resident population at 30 June 2009, released in December 2009. The service provision ratios presented in this report may be different from those calculated by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, due to differences in the population figures used.
•	Some sociodemographic characteristics of care recipients are recorded at the time of application, and hence may not reflect their true characteristics while receiving care from these programs. These include usual residence status and living arrangements. 
•	Due to the non-compulsory nature of self-identified Indigenous status, the number of people presented in this report who identified themselves as having Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander origin may be an underestimation of the true number using these programs. 
•	Although the location of service outlets can be used to infer the location of CACP, EACH, and EACH D recipients, it is possible that outlets provide services to care recipients who live outside the outlets’ jurisdictions or geographical areas. 
•	The lack of information on areas such as type of assistance received by care recipients, their levels of dependency and (for CACP recipients) carer support means that analysis of recipients’ care needs was outside the scope of this report. 
•	Each allocated package is provided to one specific service recipient, referred to as a funded care recipient. However, when all the allocated packages provided by a service are filled but the funding for these packages allows for additional services to be provided to other people, outlets may provide services to additional people, referred to as supplementary recipients. The Community Aged Care Packages census 2002, noted earlier, reported just over 3% of all CACP recipients as supplementary care recipients (AIHW 2004). Such recipients are not represented in the CACP reporting. 
References
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 1997. Australian standard classification of languages (ASCL). Cat. no. 1267.0. Canberra: ABS.
ABS 2004. Experimental estimates and projections, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. Cat. no. 3238.0. Canberra: ABS. 
ABS 2008a. Migration Australia 2007–08. ABS cat. no. 3412.0. Canberra: ABS.
ABS 2008b. Standard Australian classification of countries (SACC) Australia, Second Edition. ABS Cat. no. 1269.0. Canberra: ABS.
ABS 2009a. Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC), July 2009. Cat. no. 1216.0. Canberra: ABS.
ABS 2009b. Australian demographic statistics Cat. no. 3101.0. Canberra: ABS.
AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) 2004. Community aged care packages Census 2002. Aged care statistics series no. 17. Cat. no. AGE 35. Canberra: AIHW.
AIHW 2009. Australia’s welfare 2009. Australia’s welfare series no. 9. Cat. no. AUS 117. Canberra: AIHW. 
DoHA (Department of Health and Ageing) 2006. Aged care assessment and approval guidelines. Canberra: DoHA. Viewed 17 May 2010, <http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ageing-acat-acapaag.htm>.
DoHA 2007. Community packaged care guidelines: incorporating Community Aged Care Packages, Extended Aged Care at Home Packages and Extended Aged Care at Home Dementia packages (Draft Guidelines). Canberra: DoHA. Viewed 17 May 2010, <http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ageing-cacp-guidelines.htm1 >.
DoHA 2008. Ageing and aged care in Australia. Canberra: DoHA. Viewed 17 March 2010, <http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ageing-publicat-aged-care-australia.htm>.
DoHA 2009a. The 2007–08 Home and Community Care (HACC) Program Annual Report. Viewed 12 August 2010, <http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/1AF232FF1958BCB6CA2575F40009C0EA/$File/HACCAnnReport0708.pdf>.
DoHA 2009b. Report on the operation of the Aged Care Act 1997 1 July 2008–30 June 2009. Canberra: DoHA. Viewed 17 March 2010, <http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/05554311F10CBEC3CA25767800189A30/$File/ROACA09.pdf>.			
List of tables
Table 1.1: Differences between CACP, EACH, and EACH D
Table 2.1: CACP EACH and EACH D packages by state/territory, 30 June 2009
Table 2.2: CACP and EACH packages available per 1,000 persons aged 70 years and over by remoteness, 30 June 2009
Table 3.1: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by state/territory, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table 3.2: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by sex and state/territory, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table 3.3: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by sex and remoteness, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table 3.4: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients, by age and state/territory, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table 3.5: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients, by age and remoteness, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table 3.6: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients, Indigenous status by sex and age, 30 June 2009
Table 3.7: CACP and EACH client’s Indigenous status by state/territory, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table 3.8: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by birthplace and state/territory(b), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table 3.8 (continued): CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by birthplace and state/territory(b),
 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table 3.9: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by preferred language, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table 3.10: EACH and EACH D clients by carer status/living arrangements and 
age group (years), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table 4.1: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients’ age group (years) by remoteness, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table 4.2: Usage rates by age and sex for CACP recipients, by Indigenous status, 30 June 2009 
(per 1,000 population)(b)
Table 4.3: Age-specific usage rates for CACP and EACH clients by English-speaking status 
based on country of birth, 30 June 2009 (per 1,000 population)
Table 5.1: Admissions to CACP, EACH, and EACH D by state/territory, 1 July 2008 to 
30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table 5.2: Separations for CACP, EACH, and EACH D by state/territory, 1 July 2008 to 
30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table 5.3: CACP, EACH, and EACH D separations by length of stay, 1 July 2008 to
 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A1.1: CACP, EACH, EACH D service outlet size, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A1.2: CACP, EACH, and EACH D service outlet size by remoteness, 30 June 2009 
(per cent)
Table A1.3: CACP, EACH, and EACH D outlets, state/territory by remoteness, 30 June 2009
(per cent)
Table A1.4: CACP, EACH, and EACH D services, organisation type by state/territory, 
30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A1.6: Provision ratio by state/territory, 30 June 2009
Table A1.7: Average occupancy rate for CACPs, EACH and EACH D, by state/territory and remoteness, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Table A2.1: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients, state/territory by remoteness, 
30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A2.2: CACP, EACH, and EACH D client’s median age (years) by sex and state/territory, 30 June 2009
Table A2.3: CACP, EACH, and EACH D client’s median age (years) by sex and remoteness, 
 30 June 2009
Table A2.4: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by sex and age group (years), 30 June 2009 
(per cent)
Table A2.5: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by age group (years) and remoteness, 
30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A2.6: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by birthplace, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A2.7: CACP clients, usual residence status and state/territory (b), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A2.8: CACP, EACH, and EACH D, living arrangements by sex, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A2.9: EACH and EACH D clients’ carer status by state/territory, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A2.9 (continued): EACH and EACH D clients’ carer status by state/territory, 
30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A3.1a: CACP clients by Indigenous status and remoteness, 30 June (per cent)
Table A3.1b: EACH clients by Indigenous status and remoteness, 30 June (per cent)
Table A3.1c: EACH D clients by Indigenous status and remoteness, 30 June (per cent)
Table A3.2: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by Indigenous status and remoteness groups, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A3.3: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by age and English-speaking status, 
30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A4.1: CACP, EACH, and EACH D admissions by age, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
 (per cent)
Table A4.2: CACP, EACH, and EACH D separations by age, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
 (per cent)
Table A4.3: CACP separation modes by state/territory, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A4.4: EACH and EACH D separation modes by state/territory, 1 July 2008 to 
30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A4.5: CACP separation modes by sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A4.6: EACH and EACH D separation modes by sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 
(per cent)
Table A4.7: CACP, EACH, and EACH D length of stay by sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 
(per cent)
Table A4.7 (continued): CACP, EACH, and EACH D length of stay by sex, 1 July 2008 to 
30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A4.8: CACP separation modes by length of stay, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A4.9: EACH and EACH D separation mode by length of stay, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A4.10: CACP clients’ leave by state/territory and leave type, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A4.11: EACH and EACH D clients’ leave by state/territory and leave type, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A4.12: CACP leave type by remoteness, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A4.13: EACH and EACH D leave type by remoteness, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 
(per cent)
Table A4.14: CACP leave type by sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A4.15: EACH and EACH D leave type by sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
List of figures
Figure 2.1: CACP, EACH, and EACH D service outlets by number of packages, 30 June 2009
 (per cent)
Figure 2.2: CACP, EACH, and EACH D service outlets by state/territory and remoteness, 
30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 2.3: CACP, EACH, and EACH D service outlet type by state/territory and remoteness, 
30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 2.4: Number of CACP, EACH, and EACH D packages, 30 June 1999 to 30 June 2009
Figure 2.5: Combined packages provision ratio by state/territory, 30 June 2009 
(per 1,000 population)
Figure 2.6: CACP, EACH, and EACH D average occupancy rate by state/territory, 1 July 2008
 to 30 June 2009
Figure 2.7: CACP, EACH, and EACH D average occupancy rate by remoteness, 1 July 2008 to 
30 June 2009
Figure 3.1: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by remoteness, 30 June 2009
Figure 3.2: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by state/territory, and remoteness, 30 June 2009
Figure 3.3: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by sex, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 3.4: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients’ age and sex, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 3.5: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients’ age by remoteness 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 3.6: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients under 65 years of age by sex, 30 June 2009 
(per cent)
Figure 3.7: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by country of birth, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 3.8: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by preferred language, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 3.9: CACP clients by residential status, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 3.10: CACP clients’ residential status by state/territory, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 3.11: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by sex and living arrangements, 30 June 2009
 (per cent)
Figure 3.12: EACH and EACH D clients by carer status, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 3.13: EACH and EACH D clients by carer status and state/territory, 30 June 2009 
(per cent)
Figure 3.14: EACH and EACH D clients by carer status and sex, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 4.1: CACP, EACH, and EACH D by Indigenous status and remoteness, 30 June 2009 
(per cent)
Figure 4.2: CACP, EACH, and EACH D clients by age and English-speaking status, 30 June 2009 
(per cent)
Figure 5.1: CACP, EACH, and EACH D admissions by age and sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 5.2: CACP, EACH, and EACH D separations by age and sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 5.3: CACP separations by separation mode, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 5.4: EACH and EACH D separations by separation mode, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
 (per cent)
Figure 5.5: CACP separation modes by state/territory, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 5.6: EACH and EACH D separation modes by state/territory, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 5.7: CACP separation modes by sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 5.8: EACH and EACH D separation modes by sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 5.9: CACP, EACH, and EACH D length of stay by sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 
(per cent)
Figure 5.10: CACP separation modes by length of stay, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 5.11: EACH and EACH D separation modes by length of stay, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 5.12: CACP clients by leave type, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 5.13: EACH and EACH D clients by leave type, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 5.14: CACP clients leave events by state/territory, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 5.15: EACH and EACH D clients’ leave by state/territory, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 
(per cent)
Figure 5.16: CACP leave type by remoteness, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 5.17: EACH and EACH D clients leave by remoteness, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 5.18: CACP leave type by sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 5.19: EACH and EACH D leave type by sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
List of boxes
Box 1.1: Case stories
Box 1.2: What is an ACAT assessment?
Box 2.1: How is remoteness defined?
Box 2.2: What is a provision ratio or usage rate?
Box 2.3: What is an occupancy rate?
Box 4.1: What is the Aged Care Act 1997?
Box 5.1: What is leave?
Box 5.2: What is the difference between claimable and non-claimable leave?