Residential aged care in Australia 
2008–09
A statistical overview

November 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 978-1-74249-086-1

Suggested citation 
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2010. Residential aged care in Australia 2008–09: a statistical overview. Aged care statistics series no. 31. Cat. no. AGE 62. 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) 6249 1050
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
Acknowledgments
Abbreviations
Symbols
Summary
1	Introduction
2	Residential aged care services and provision
2.1	Residential aged care
2.2	Community care
2.3	Allocated places
2.4	Operational places
2.5	How are places distributed nationally?
2.6	National target ratio and provision ratio
2.7	Aged care facilities
2.8 	Extra Service
2.9	Recurrent expenditure
3	Resident characteristics
3.1	Number of residents
3.2	Age and sex of residents
3.3	Marital status
3.4	How many residents identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander?
3.5	Country of birth
3.6	Preferred languages
3.7	Income source
3.8	Financial support
3.9	Hospital leave
3.10	Newly admitted residents
4	Older residents
4.1	Number of older people in Australia
4.2	Number of residents aged 90 years and over
4.3	Older resident admissions
4.4	Marital status at admission
4.5	Completed length of stay
4.6	Separations
4.7	Dementia and mental illness in older residents
4.8	Aged Care Funding Instrument (ACFI) care level
5	Patterns of use
5.1	Admissions
5.2	Separations
5.3	Length of stay
5.4	Average length of stay
5.5	Resident turnover
5.6	Usage rates
5.7	Occupied place-days
5.8	Occupancy rate
5.9	Is there evidence of ageing in place?
6	Care level of residents
6.1	Aged Care Funding Instrument (ACFI)
6.2	ACFI dependency levels
6.3	ACFI care level at admission
6.4	ACFI care levels for permanent residents
6.5	ACFI for younger people (aged under 65 years)
6.6	ACFI care level for permanent residents by age
6.7	ACFI care level at admission by age
6.8	Separation mode by ACFI level of care
6.9	Length of stay by ACFI level of care
6.10	Health conditions
6.11	Dementia and mental illness
7	Time series
7.1	Trends in resident numbers
7.2	Proportion of residents aged 80 years and over
7.3	Admissions, separations, and completed length of stay
7.4	Transition from respite care to permanent care
7.5	Permanent residents by age and usage rates
Appendix 1: Residential aged care services and provision
Appendix 2: Resident characteristics
Appendix 3: Older residents
Appendix 4: Patterns of use
Appendix 5: Aged Care Funding Instrument
Appendix 6:	Population data
Appendix 7: Financial support arrangements
Appendix 8: Data and their limitations
Resident information
Application for classification
Admission and separation date
Calculation of provision ratios
Populations used in the tables in this report
Data limitations
Glossary
References
List of tables
List of figures
List of boxes

Preface
Residential aged care in Australia 2008–09 is the twelfth 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 residential aged care industry in Australia over the period 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009. Overall, residential aged care provision continued to increase, with over 178,000 operational residential places at 30 June 2009. 
Funding provided by DoHA to produce this year’s report has enabled a review of the style and content of the Residential aged care in Australia series. Stakeholders for this report, including from the non-government sector, provided a range of suggestions regarding content, style and analysis, of which a large number were implemented. The ability to which all suggestions could be implemented was constrained by available resources. However, the full body of ideas collated in the planning of this report remains a resource for future reports in this series.
While past reports 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 simplified way through expanded use of figures, simplified language and case stories to provide examples and give context to the information provided. New topics in the 2008–09 edition include: Extra Service, expenditure, older residents (aged 90 years and over), ageing in place, transition from respite to permanent care, as well as dementia and mental illness in residential aged care.
A very useful inclusion in the reporting format this year is the presentation of online ‘data cubes’. Data cubes are interactive tables that allow variables to be added and manipulated to provide specific information that the user requests. These data presentations are available online and provide specific data contained within this report. 
I congratulate everyone involved in the revision of this important report. 

Penny Allbon
November 2010

Acknowledgments
The report was written and prepared by Agnes Tzimos. Data extraction was provided by Peter Braun, who also prepared the online data cubes that complement this report. Assistance and comments were provided by Gail Brien, Jancine Szukalski, Simon Margrie, Sam Topalidis, Teresa Dickinson, Jess Cummings, Fadwa Al-Yaman and Vicki Bennett within the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
Supporting comments were 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 Australia; 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.
Thanks are also due to colleagues in the Ageing and Aged Care Division of the 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
ACAR 			Aged Care Approvals Round
ACAT			Aged Care Assessment Team(s)
ACFI			Aged Care Funding Instrument
ACCMIS		Aged and Community Care Management Information System 
ADL			Activities of Daily Living
AIHW			Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
ARIA 			Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia
ASGC			Australian Standard Geographical Classification
BEH			Behaviour
CACP			Community Aged Care Package(s)
CD			Census Collection District
CHC			Complex Health Care
CHIPS			Commonwealth Hostel Information Payment System (the previous 			payment system for hostels)
DoHA 			Department of Health and Ageing (Australian Government)
DVA			Department of Veterans’ Affairs (Australian Government)
EACH			Extended Aged Care at Home Package(s)
EACH D		Extended Aged Care at Home Dementia Package(s)
HACC			Home and Community Care
ICD–10–AM	International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health
 Problems – Tenth Revision – Australian Modification 2008
MPS			Multi-Purpose Service(s)
NAPS			National Approved Provider System
NHPS			Nursing Home Payment System (the previous payment system for 			nursing homes)
RCS 			Resident Classification Scale
SEIFA			Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas
SPARC		System for the Payment of Aged Residential Care (the current				payment system for residential care)
TCP			Transition Care Program
Symbols
. .			Not applicable
<			Less than
n.p.	not publishable because of small numbers, confidentiality concerns or 
other concerns about the quality of the data
—	Nil or rounded to zero.
Summary
This report focuses on the residential aged care system in Australia, which is regulated and principally funded by the Australian Government. 
Note: In addition to residential aged care, the Australian Government subsidises and regulates community care services provided to older people in their own homes such as Community Aged Care Packages (CACP), Extended Aged Care at Home (EACH) packages and Extended Aged Care at Home Dementia (EACH D) packages.
More aged care places, but provision ratios down slightly
•	The number of residential aged care places continues to increase, with over 178,000 operational residential places at 30 June 2009 compared with around 175,500 places in 2008. 
•	The provision ratio for residential aged care places fell slightly compared with the previous year, but is near the government’s target for 2011. At 30 June 2009, the provision ratio for residential aged care places was 87.0 places per 1,000 people aged 70 years or more, compared with 87.7 places the previous year. The government’s planning target is 88 places per 1,000 by June 2011.
•	The provision ratio for residential aged care places and community aged care packages combined was 110.1 places per 1,000 people aged 70 years or over in 2009 compared with 110.9 in 2008. The government’s target is 113 places per 1,000 by June 2011.
Residents—mostly women, most have high-care needs, over half are 85+
•	At 30 June 2009, there were nearly 162,300 residents in mainstream residential aged care services. Female residents outnumbered male residents by more than 2 to 1. Over half of all residents (55%) were aged 85 years or over. Three-quarters of permanent residents (75%) were assessed as ‘high-care’ and the remainder as ‘low-care’. 
•	Government-allocated high-care residential places to approved providers in 2009 outnumbered low-care places (3,765 and 1,983 respectively). 
•	Usage rates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were considerably higher at younger ages (65 years and under) than for the corresponding non-Indigenous population (6.7 per 1,000 compared to 2.6 per 1,000 respectively). 
Spending on aged care services—over $10 billion a year, mostly residential care
•	In 2008–09, the total of all recurrent Australian and state and territory government expenditure on aged care services was $10.1 billion. An estimated $6.6 billion of this amount was spent on residential aged care, with the Australian Government the dominant funder (estimated $6.5 billion).
•	Australian Government expenditure on residential aged care per person aged 70 years and over was higher in South Australia and New South Wales compared with other states and territories.

2	Introduction
In Australia, the growth of the aged population has demanded formal care services that assist older Australians (Borowski & McDonald 2007). Australian Government-subsidised residential aged care is one of the main types of formal care delivery for frail or disabled older people administered under the Aged Care Act 1997. The other main types of care are provided through CACP, flexible care provided through EACH, EACH D, and the Transition Care Program (TCP). Multi-Purpose Services (MPS) also provide residential places and community aged care. Outside the Aged Care Act 1997, flexible places are provided under the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program. 
To access to assistance from each of these types of care, requires approval from a multidisciplinary Aged Care Assessment Team (ACAT). ACATs operate throughout Australia as a single point of entry to these aged care services, and act as a source of advice and referral about other community services. In addition, care recipients may sometimes receive assistance from more than one aged care program, for example, a CACP and residential respite care. As their care needs change, care recipients may also move from a CACP or EACH package to a residential aged care facility. 
Residential aged care
The Australian Government funds aged care facilities to provide residential aged care to older Australians whose care needs are such that they can no longer remain in their own homes. Facilities provide suitable accommodation and related services (such as laundry, meals and cleaning) as well as personal care services (such as assistance with the activities of daily living). Nursing care and equipment are provided to residents requiring such assistance.
Residential respite gives short-term care in aged care facilities on a planned or emergency basis to elderly people who need temporary care, but intend to return to their own home. 
Community care and flexible care
There is a continuing strong emphasis on the provision of innovative and flexible community care to help people stay in their own homes. The largest source of community care assistance is provided through the Australian Government and state/territory-funded Home and Community Care (HACC) program administered under the Home and Community Care Act 1985. In 2008–09, an estimated 862,488 people received assistance from the HACC program (DoHA 2010c). 
Community care in a person’s home is also provided as tailored packages through CACP. These packages provide care for frail or disabled older people whose dependency and complex care needs would qualify them for entry to an aged care facility, at least for low-level care. CACPs are complemented by EACH and EACH D packages which aim to deliver care at home that is equivalent to high-level residential care. EACH D packages are individually tailored packages of care for approved care recipients who have complex care needs because of behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia that affect their ability to live independently in the community.

The TCP is a relatively new program which is jointly funded by the Australian Government and the state and territory governments. TCP provides time-limited, goal-oriented and therapy-focused care for older people after a hospital stay. TCP provides older people with a package of services that includes low-intensity therapy (such as physiotherapy), care management, nursing support and personal care. Transition care can be provided for up to 12 weeks (with a possible extension of another 6 weeks) either in a home-like residential setting or in a person’s home. The places are aimed at older people who have been assessed as eligible for residential aged care during a hospital stay. This gives care recipients, their families and carers, time to consider long-term care arrangements. It also aims to optimise the independence level of those older people prior to their making longer-term arrangements.
MPS’s are also a joint initiative between the Australian Government and those states and territories that need such services. They deliver a mix of aged care, health and community services in rural and remote communities, many of which cannot sustain separate services. The services may be delivered at central locations or out in the community.
In addition, flexible models of care are provided under the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program. The services funded under this program provide culturally appropriate residential and community aged care, mainly in rural and remote areas. Services delivered under this program are outside the Aged Care Act 1997. 
About this report
Chapter 2 reports on residential aged care services, and provision of aged care packages: CACP, EACH and EACH D, plus TCP. This chapter also includes information on Extra Services and expenditure. Chapter 3 describes characteristics of residents at 30 June 2009, including newly admitted residents, while Chapter 4 reports on older Australians in care aged 90 years and over. Chapter 5 contains data on patterns of service use by residents, including admitted and separated residents during 2008–09. Chapter 6 provides information on the Aged Care Funding Instrument (ACFI), and discusses resident care levels. Chapter 7 presents time series tables, providing an overview of trends over the last 10 years, as well as data on residents’ transition from respite to permanent care.
Throughout this report, data on residential aged care places and aged care packages provided in the community have been extracted from the Department of Health and Ageing’s (DoHA) Aged and Community Care Management Information System (ACCMIS) data warehouse. Source information is provided for data from other systems.
Cases where data are not applicable, unknown or not reported have mostly been excluded in relevant calculations of percentages and rates presented in the text, which may create minor variance to the totals in relevant tables. 
Additional statistical tables are located on the AIHW publications website with the electronic version of this report. Where these are the source tables for any figures in this report the table number is prefixed by ‘S’; e.g., Table S1.1, would be the first source reference to an internet table appearing in Chapter 1.
2	Residential aged care services and provision
This chapter describes the residential aged care program and other aged care services. It provides a brief overview of permanent and respite care, as well as community services in aged care. It includes descriptions of the aged care approvals process with information on approved, allocated and operational places. The chapter examines the distribution of places across Australia. It also includes analysis and discussion of provision ratios to determine if the current number of places in residential aged care meets the expected demands of an increasingly ageing Australian population. Information on aged care facilities is also included, as well as details of Extra Service places, expenditure and accommodation bonds. 
2.1	Residential aged care
The residential aged care program is provided on a permanent or respite basis. It provides supported accommodation for frail, older people who have been assessed and approved as aged care recipients (DoHA 2009f). 
Permanent care
Permanent residential aged care is offered to people who are no longer able to be supported living in the community. Permanent care is offered at two levels of care: low-care and high-care (depending on a person’s assessed needs) (DoHA 2009e). Assessments focus on a person’s physical, medical, psychological, cultural and social needs. Permanent residents receiving low-level care require accommodation and personal care, and residents receiving high-level care require 24-hour nursing and accommodation in addition to their low-care needs (see Box 2.1 example 1) (DoHA 2009f). 
Respite care
Residential respite care provides short-term care. It supports elderly people in transition stages of health, and is used by carers to provide them with a break from their caring duties (see Box 2.1 example 2) (DoHA 2009f). Residential respite care is either planned or emergency based, and is provided as either low- or high-care. 
Multi-Purpose Services 
MPS’s deliver a range of aged care, health and community services in rural and remote communities. The program provides health and aged care services in small rural or remote communities (DoHA 2009e). 

At 30 June 2009:
•	There were 126 MPS’s in Australia, providing 2,671 residential care places (AIHW analysis of ACCMIS data).
•	This number increased from the previous year, when there were 117 MPS’s, providing 2,429 places (at 30 June 2008).
National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program
The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program is a flexible model of care providing culturally appropriate aged care to older Indigenous people. It is delivered mainly in rural and remote areas, close to Indigenous communities.
At 30 June 2009:
•	There were 29 services funded under the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program, delivering 394 residential care places (AIHW analysis of ACCMIS data).  In the previous year, there were 30 services, providing 386 places. 

Box 2.1: Permanent and respite care case scenarios
Example 1: Permanent residential high-care
Mavis is an 83 year-old female, and has lived in permanent residential care for 3 years. 
Prior to entering residential care, Mavis lived by herself in the family home she shared with her late husband Roger. Mavis’ health condition slowly worsened after Roger died (about 15 years ago). Her family noticed that she was struggling with basic tasks, and had started showing symptoms of dementia. 
Although Mavis’ family tried to look after her (and wanted her to remain in her own home), as she approached her 80th birthday, her health was deteriorating even more. 
Mavis is now very frail, and needs continuous nursing care. Her dementia has worsened, and she finds it almost impossible to walk without assistance. She also needs help with basic chores such as showering, cooking, and remembering to take her medication. She struggles to dress herself, and has serious continence issues. 
Registered nurses are available at the aged care facility around the clock to help Mavis with her care needs. 
Example 2: Residential respite care
Vinh is a 75 year-old Vietnamese male with multiple sclerosis. His wife died quite suddenly from illness about 2 years ago and Vinh now lives with his daughter and her family. Because Vinh is in a wheelchair, his daughter Thanh is his primary carer, and his son-in-law Minh also assists with his care. 
Thanh and Minh have decided to take a 4-week holiday with their two young children. They are concerned about leaving Vinh on his own. Thanh has spoken with Vinh about his care needs, and suggested that he enters residential respite care for the time they are away.
2.2	Community care 
In addition to residential aged care, the Australian Government subsidises and regulates some community care directly, mostly in the form of CACP, EACH and EACH D packages 
(see Box 2.2) (DoHA 2009a). The aim of community care is to enable older residents to remain in their homes, despite the effects of ageing. Community care services offer packaged care at different levels of assistance, depending on the needs of the client. An ACAT determines a client’s needs for the various packaged care services available (DoHA 2009a).

Box 2.2: Aged care packages in the community 
CACP
CACP’s low-care community care places are designed to meet the daily care needs of frail older people, allowing them to stay in their own homes and community without having to enter low-level residential care. Care planning and case management are provided, including assistance with personal care, meals and domestic duties, such as cleaning (DoHA 2009a).
EACH and EACH D packages
The EACH package provides care to older, frail people with more complex care needs. A customised program is developed for each individual. The aim of the EACH program is to allow older people to stay in their own homes and community instead of entering high-level residential care. EACH packages may include clinical care (nursing services), personal assistance, meal preparation, continence management, therapy services, home safety and medication (DoHA 2009a). 
The EACH D package provides high-level care for frail older people with dementia so they can remain at home. The EACH D package offers the same type of assistance as the EACH package, but is specific to the needs of people with dementia (DoHA 2009a).
2.3	Allocated places 
Each year, the planning process aims to identify community needs and allocate places in a way that best meets the identified needs of the community. That is, annual planning decides on the types and regional distribution of new aged care places to be made available 
(DoHA 2009e) (See Box 2.3).
Australian Government planning of service provision aims to maintain a national planning level of operational aged care places for every 1,000 people aged 70 years and over across the programs administered under the Aged Care Act 1997. The current target ratio is 113 places per 1,000 persons aged 70 years and over to be achieved by June 2011 (DoHA 2009e). In addition, the planning process aims to provide access to an array of care options to meet the needs and preferences of care recipients. 
The approval process caters for the ongoing provision of new places that are needed to achieve the target ratio. Service providers who receive an allocation of new places are required under the Aged Care Act 1997 to make them operational within two years, otherwise the places lapse or the provider needs to apply for an extension. As such, there are time lags from the date residential aged care, CACP, EACH and EACH D places are approved, allocated and then made operational. 
Box 2.3: Allocation of places
Aged Care Approvals Round (ACAR)
Nearly all new aged care places are made available every year in each state and territory, based on the national target and provision ratio (see Box 2.5) (DoHA 2008).
The ACAR is a competitive, annual application process that enables organisations to apply for a number of different Australian Government subsidised aged care places. Places are allocated to applicants who can demonstrate they best meet the needs of the ageing population within a community and an aged-care planning region (DoHA 2008). 
To obtain an allocation of places under the Aged Care Act 1997, the applicant must be an Approved Provider. For example, organisations that wish to provide residential aged care services need to apply for the relevant Approved Provider status for the type of care they wish to provide (DoHA 2010a). Places cannot be allocated to a provider without the necessary Approved Provider status (DoHA 2008). Places for MPS, National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program, and TCPs are not allocated in the ACAR process. 

The number of new aged care places allocated relates to a comparison with the national target of 113 places per 1,000 people aged 70 years and over in the general population, as well as current levels of service provision, including newly allocated places that have not yet become operational (DoHA 2009e).
In the 2008–09 ACAR, the overall allocation of new places included:
•	1,983 low-care residential places 
•	3,765 high-care residential places 
•	2,944 CACPs
•	1,755 EACH/EACH D packages.
Allocated high-care residential places to approved providers in 2008–09 were greater than allocated low-care places (3,765 and 1,983 respectively), as occurred in the 2007–08 allocations, although there were fewer allocations than in the previous year. Allocations of both high and low aged care places in the community were higher than in the previous year (Figure 2.1; Table A1.1). 
Figure 2.1: Number of new residential aged care places, CACP, EACH and EACH D places allocated to approved providers, 1995–96 to 2008–09 in the ACAR process
Vertical bar chart showing, for places, number on y-axis and year on x-axis.
Source: Table A1.1.

2.4	Operational places 
Residential aged care places continued to increase, with around 178,300 operational places at 30 June 2009. In the previous year, there were nearly 175,500 places (Table 2.1). The increase in provision of places is intended to correspond to the future needs of an ageing population. 
•	Places for CACP, EACH and EACH D, and TCP also continued to increase compared to the previous year: 
•	CACP increased from 40,280 to 40,859 places.
•	EACH and EACH D increased from 6,240 to 6,514 places.
•	TCP increased from 1,963 to 2,228 places. 
Table 2.1: Number of operational residential aged care places, CACP, EACH, EACH D and TCP, 30 June 1995 to 30 June 2009
Year	 Residential aged care (a)  	CACP 	EACH and   EACH D	TCP	        Total	
1995	134,810	2,542	. .	. .	137,352	
1996	136,851	4,431	. .	. .	141,282	
1997	139,058	6,124	. .	. .	145,182	
1998	139,917	10,046	. .	. .	149,963	
1999	141,697	13,896	. .	. .	155,593	
2000	142,342	18,308	. .	. .	160,650	
2001	144,013	24,629	. .	. .	168,642	
2002	146,268	26,425	. .	. .	172,693	
2003	151,181	27,881	255	. .	179,062	
2004	156,580	29,063	860	. .	186,503	
2005	161,765	30,973	1,673	. .	194,411	
2006	166,291	35,383	3,181	595	205,450	
2007	170,071	37,997	4,573	1,609	214,250	
2008	175,472	40,280	6,240	1,963	223,955	
2009	178,290	40,859	6,514	2,228	227,891	
 (a) From 1999, the data in this table include places provided by MPS’s, and those funded under the National Aboriginal                                              and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program. Non-residential flexible care packages are counted under CACP.
. .  Not applicable.
2.5	How are places distributed nationally?
Distribution of population aged 70 years and over across Australia
Where older people live is important information for planning purposes, given that the provision of places for residential aged care is targeted to people aged 70 years and over. The attempt is made to distribute aged care services in an equitable way according to this criterion.
At 30 June 2009, there were just over 2 million people aged 70 years and over (Table 2.2). About one-third (34%) lived in New South Wales and the majority lived in Major cities (66%), with only 1% of this age group residing in Remote areas, and 0.3% in Very remote areas.
Box 2.4: 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 2009b). The ASGC uses measures of access and distance to services offered in urban areas to determine classifications of Australian remoteness. These classifications include:
•		Major cities
•		Inner regional
•		Outer regional
•		Remote
•		Very remote
Tasmania has no classification of Major cities, as Hobart is classified as Inner regional. Similarly, the Australian Capital Territory does not have a classification for Outer regional, Remote, or Very remote areas. In addition, Remote and Very remote areas, and states and territories such as the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory have low population numbers. So, comparisons of proportions and interpretation of data between these states and other larger states must be exercised with caution due to small numbers.
Table 2.2: Distribution of population aged 70 years and over by state/territory and remoteness(a), 30 June 2009 (‘000).
State/territory 	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	All areas	
	Number	
NSW	  472.1	  168.8	  55.6	  3.2	  0.3	  699.9	
Vic	  372.8	  117.4	  33.1	  0.7	. .	  524.1	
Qld	  223.1	  94.4	  48.7	  5.6	  2.9	  374.6	
WA	  132.8	  28.6	  17.3	  4.6	  1.6	  184.9	
SA	  131.8	  22.1	  21.6	  4.8	  0.9	  181.3	
Tas	. .	  34.9	  17.6	  0.7	  0.3	  53.5	
ACT	  24.1	. .	. .	. .	. .	  24.1	
NT	. .	. .	  4.1	  1.4	  0.9	  6.4	
Australia	 1,356.6	  466.4	  197.9	  20.9	  6.9	 2,048.7	
	Per cent (row)	
NSW	  67.4	  24.1	  7.9	  0.5	—	  100.0	
Vic	  71.1	  22.4	  6.3	  0.1	. .	  100.0	
Qld	  59.5	  25.2	  13.0	  1.5	  0.8	  100.0	
WA	  71.8	  15.5	  9.3	  2.5	  0.9	  100.0	
SA	  72.7	  12.2	  11.9	  2.6	  0.5	  100.0	
Tas	. .	  65.3	  32.8	  1.3	  0.6	  100.0	
ACT	  100.0	. .	. .	. .	. .	  100.0	
NT	. .	. .	  64.1	  21.9	  14.1	  100.0	
Australia	  66.2	  22.8	  9.7	  1.0	  0.3	  100.0	
	Per cent (column)	
NSW	34.8	36.2	28.1	15.2	4.3	34.2	
Vic	27.5	25.2	16.7	3.3	—	25.6	
Qld	16.4	20.2	24.6	26.7	42.0	18.3	
WA	9.8	6.1	8.7	21.9	23.2	9.0	
SA	9.7	4.7	10.9	22.9	13.0	8.8	
Tas	. .	7.5	8.9	3.3	4.3	2.6	
ACT	1.8	—	. .	. .	—	1.2	
NT	. .	. .	2.1	6.7	13.0	0.3	
Australia	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
(a) Refers to the location of the services. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
. . Not applicable.
— Nil or rounded to zero.
Note: The remoteness classification used in this report is based on the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (ABS 2009b). This 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) (ABS 2009b).
Source: ABS population data (2009a).

Distribution of places by state and territory
The distribution of places across states and territories in 2009 matched the distribution of the population aged 70 years and over across Australia (Table 2.2). Just over one-third (34%) of the population aged 70 years and over lived in New South Wales (Table 2.2) and a similar proportion of places were in New South Wales (34%) (Table 2.3). Around a quarter of the population aged 70 years and over lived in Victoria (26%), and likewise, 26% of residential aged care places were located in Victoria. The Northern Territory had the least places at 0.6%, followed by the Australian Capital Territory (1%).
Table 2.3: Residential aged care, CACP, EACH/EACH D, and TCP places, by state/territory(a), 30 June 2009
State/territory	Residential	CACP	EACH and 
EACH D	TCP	Total places (Number)	Total places          (Per cent)	
							
NSW	61,224	13,677	2,107	772	77,780	34.1	
Vic	46,216	10,218	1,617	570	58,621	25.7	
Qld	31,755	7,087	1,048	389	40,279	17.7	
WA	15,056	4,088	751	178	20,073	8.8	
SA	17,028	3,523	529	193	21,273	9.3	
Tas	4,623	1,091	193	67	5,974	2.6	
ACT	1,768	514	156	37	2,475	1.1	
NT	620	661	113	22	1,416	0.6	
Australia 	178,290	40,859	6,514	2,228	227,891	100.0	
(a) Refers to the location of the services. 
Note: These figures include places provided by MPS’s, and places funded under the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander 
Flexible Aged Care Program. 
Distribution of places by remoteness
The current distribution of places by remoteness also corresponds to the distribution of the population aged 70 years and over by remoteness. Two-thirds of the population aged 
70 years and over were located in Major cities (66%), and just under a quarter (23%) were in Inner regional areas (Table 2.2).  
Similarly, close to two-thirds of all the total places provided nationally were located in Major cities (68%), and just under a quarter of all places were located in Inner regional areas (22%) (Table 2.4). Around 10% of the population aged 70 years and over were living in Outer regional areas, and 1% was living in Remote regions (Table 2.2). Remote and Very remote areas had the least amount of places, at 1.0%, and 0.6% respectively (Table 2.4).
Table 2.4: Residential aged care, CACP, EACH /EACH D, and TCP places, by remoteness(a)
30 June 2009
Remoteness	Residential	CACP	EACH and EACH D(b)	TCP	Total places (Number)	 Total places (Per cent)	
Major cities	120,540	27,355	4,346	1,627	153,868	67.5	
Inner regional	39,878	8,706	1,526	432	50,542	22.2	
Outer regional	15,505	3,420	587	157	19,669	8.6	
Remote	1,632	696	50	4	2,382	1.0	
Very remote	735	682	5	8	1,430	0.6	
All regions	178,290	40,859	6,514	2,228	227,891	100.0	
(a) Refers to the location of the services. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure as developed by the ABS. 
(b) Includes 2,036 EACH D packages. See also AIHW 2010a; AIHW 2010c.
Note: These figures include places provided by MPS’s, and places funded under the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander 
Flexible Aged Care Program. 

For further information regarding specific allocations, please refer to: <http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ageing-acar2008–2009.htm>.
Further information on CACP, EACH/EACH D and TCP over the same reporting period are published as separate reports in this series (AIHW 2010a; AIHW 2010c). Other detailed information about CACP and EACH recipients and the type of assistance they receive was collected in 2002 (AIHW 2004). An updated Community Care Census was conducted early in 2008. The results of this census will be available on the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing website by the end of 2010 or early 2011, http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ageing-communitycare-census-2007.htm. 
2.6	National target ratio and provision ratio
In Australia, a specified national target ratio is used to determine the geographic distribution and types of aged care places to be made available. The aim of the target ratio is to ensure that there is equity of access to services between metropolitan, regional, rural and remote areas. It also aims to ensure that the growth in the number of aged care places available across Australia matches the growth in the aged population. Under this target ratio, the Australian Government seeks to achieve and maintain a national provision level of subsidised operational aged care places for every 1,000 people aged 70 years and over. The national target ratio for aged care provision is 113 aged care places per 1,000 persons aged
70 years and over, consisting of 88 residential aged care places, and 25 community care places, to be achieved by June 2011. This target ratio does not include TCP (see Box 2.5).

Box 2.5: National target ratio and provision ratio
What is the Australian Government target ratio?
In 2007, the target ratio was lifted from 108 to 113 places per 1,000 persons aged 70 years and over. This target was set to be achieved by 30 June 2011.
Of those 113 places: 
•	  88 are for residential aged care
	–	44 for high-care places
	–	44 for low-care places
•	  25 are for community care places
–	 	4 for high-care (EACH and EACH D)
  –	21 for low-care (CACPs). 
What does the provision ratio measure?
The provision ratio compares the amount of places 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 70 years and over. 
Number of places and provision ratio
For this report, provision ratios have been recalculated using revised Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS 2009a) population data. They are calculated for residential aged care, CACP, EACH and EACH D, TCP, MPS’s and places funded under the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program, and the combined totals are reported. 
•	The combined provision ratio of residential aged care places, CACP, EACH, and EACH D per 1,000 persons aged 70 years and over was 110.1 at 30 June 2009 (Table 2.5). The provision ratio for residential places was 87.0 at 30 June 2009. 
Table 2.5: Provision ratio per 1,000 persons aged 70 years and over,
30 June 1995 to 30 June 2009
Year	Residential   	CACP  	EACH and     EACH D	Total(a)	
1995	92.2	1.7	. .	93.9	
1996	90.6	2.9	. .	93.5	
1997	89.2	3.9	. .	93.1	
1998	87.1	6.3	. .	93.3	
1999	85.6	8.4	. .	94.0	
2000	83.6	10.8	. .	94.4	
2001	82.2	14.0	. .	96.2	
2002	81.9	14.8	. .	96.7	
2003	83.3	15.4	0.1	98.8	
2004	85.0	15.8	0.5	101.2	
2005	86.3	16.5	0.9	103.7	
2006	87.0	18.5	1.7	107.2	
2007	86.9	19.4	2.3	108.6	
2008	87.7	20.1	3.1	110.9	
2009	87.0	19.9	3.2	110.1	
(a)     The ratios are based on ABS population estimates released in December 2009 (ABS 2009a). 
Total provision may vary from the sum of the component parts because of rounding.
Note: Small discrepancies in ratios may exist to those published by DoHA due to differences in                                                                                         dates the ACCMIS data warehouse was accessed.
. .       Not applicable. 
Provision ratio by state/territory and remoteness
•	The Northern Territory had the highest residential aged care provision ratio of 97.1 places per 1,000 persons aged 70 years and over, followed by South Australia (93.9), and Victoria (88.2) (Table 2.6). 
•	The lowest provision ratio for residential aged care was in the Australian Capital Territory at 73.2, followed by Western Australia at 81.4. 
•	The Northern Territory had the highest combined ratio of all aged care places at 221.8, followed by South Australia (117.4) and Victoria (111.8) (Table 2.6).
•	The lowest combined ratio of all aged care places was in the Australian Capital Territory at 102.5, followed by Queensland (107.5).
•	Equality of access to services between metropolitan, regional, rural and remote areas can also be assessed using the provision ratio. The provision of residential aged care places met the target ratio in Major cities (88.9), and Very remote areas (106.8). Provision ratios in Inner regional, Outer regional and Remote areas fell just under target (85.5, 78.3, and 
77.9 respectively) (Table S1.1).
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 50 to 69 years
Health conditions related to ageing often affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people earlier than other Australians. Therefore, Indigenous Australians often access aged care programs at a younger age compared to non-Indigenous Australians. As mentioned at the beginning of Section 2.6, the provision ratio is based on all Australians aged 70 years and over. However, planning for services also includes the Indigenous population aged 50–69 years. 
If the provision of residential aged care places per 1,000 population aged 70 years and over includes Indigenous Australians aged 50 to 69 years, then the provision ratio reduces. Since the Northern Territory has a much higher proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people than other states or territories (29% compared to, at most, 4% in any other state or territory), the ratio for residential aged care places reduces from 97.1 to 47.7. Similarly, the combined ratio reduces from 221.8 to 109.1, while the ratio for Australia reduces from 
111.2 to 108.3 (Table 2.6).
Table 2.6: Aged care places(a) per 1,000 persons by state/territory, 30 June 2009
	Residential places	Combined places	
State/territory	Total (70+ years)	Total (70+ and Indigenous population aged 50–69 years)	Total (70+ years)	Total (70+ and Indigenous population aged 
50–69 years)	
NSW	87.5	85.4	111.1	108.5	
Vic	88.2	87.5	111.8	111.0	
Qld	84.8	81.6	107.5	103.5	
WA	81.4	78.3	108.6	104.4	
SA	93.9	92.5	117.4	115.6	
Tas	86.5	83.2	111.7	107.5	
ACT	73.2	72.0	102.5	100.9	
NT	97.1	47.7	221.8	109.1	
Australia	87.0	84.7	111.2	108.3	
(a)    Comprises residential aged care, TCP, CACP, EACH and EACH D places.
Notes
1. 	These figures include places provided by MPS’s and places funded under the 
National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program.
2. 	The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population aged 50–69 years uses ABS projections (ABS 2004).
2.7	Aged care facilities
Number of facilities 
•	Compared to the previous year, there was an increased number of operational places at 30 June 2009, despite a decrease in the number of facilities. That is, there were a higher number of places on average per facility. Numbers in this section exclude places provided by MPS’s and under the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program.
•	At 30 June 2009, there were 2,783 residential aged care facilities with 175,225 operational places compared with 2,830 residential aged care facilities, providing 172,657 places at 30 June 2008 (tables 2.1 and A1.3). 
Location of facilities
The location of residential aged care facilities across Australia is designed to match the population distribution of people aged 70 years and over (Figure 2.2). 
At 30 June 2009:
•	Across Australia, most facilities were located in Major cities (61%), and a quarter of facilities (25%) were located in Inner regional areas. 
•	Remote and Very remote areas had a small number of facilities (2% in total).
•	Tasmania and the Northern Territory’s capital cities were classified as Inner and Outer regional areas respectively. Tasmania had the largest number of its facilities in Inner regional area (49). In contrast, the Northern Territory had more facilities in Remote and Very Remote areas (9) than in Outer regional areas (5) (Figure 2.2; Table A1.2). 
Figure 2.2: Residential aged care facilities by state/territory and remoteness,   30 June 2009 (per cent)
Vertical bar chart showing, for remoteness areas, per cent on y-axis and state/territory on x-axis.
   Source: Table A1.2.
Number of places per facility
•	There have been some noticeable changes in service structure from 1999–2008. In 1999, there were just over 3,000 facilities providing residential aged care. By 30 June 2008, the number of facilities had decreased to 2,830 (Table A1.3). 
•	In 1999, about half of all facilities had 1–40 places (52%) (Figure 2.3). Since then, the trend in the proportion of facilities with 40 places or less has continued to drop (32% at 
30 June 2008). 
Facilities with 61 places or more have increased from 1999–2008 (Table A1.3; Figure 2.3). Although there are fewer facilities, each facility now offers an increased number of places. At 30 June 2008, 39% of facilities had 61 places or more, and 30% had 41–60 places (Table A1.3).

Figure 2.3: Changes in the size of residential aged care facilities, 1999–2009 (per cent)
Vertical bar chart showing, for amount changed, per cent on y-axis and year on x-axis.
     Source: Table A1.3.

Size of facilities 
•	The Australian Capital Territory had the highest proportion of facilities with over 
60 places (60%), while the Northern Territory had the lowest (14%). New South Wales had the second highest proportion of facilities with over 60 places (41%) and the national average was 33% (Table A1.4; Figure 2.4). 
•	Of the larger facilities, New South Wales and Queensland had the highest proportion of facilities with over 120 places (4% each) compared with the national average of 3% (Table A1.4). 
•	Of the smaller facilities, half of all facilities (50%) in the Northern Territory had 
1–20 places. Tasmania also had a high proportion of small facilities; the majority (79%) of all facilities in Tasmania had 60 places or less (Figure 2.4).
•	As could be expected, large aged care facilities were more common in Major cities, with the average number of places in each facility decreasing as the location became more remote (Figure 2.4; Table A1.5). Two in five (40%) aged care facilities in Major cities had more than 60 places. However, in Remote areas almost all aged care facilities had 
60 places or less (92%). There were no aged care facilities with over 60 places in Very remote areas.
Figure 2.4: : Size of residential aged care facilities by state/territory and remoteness, 30 June 2009 (per cent).
Two vertical bar charts showing, for 61+ places, , 21-60 places and 1-20 places, on the y-axes per cent and for the first chart on the x-axis state/territory, and for the second chart on the x-axis remoteness.
Sources: Tables A1.4 and A1.5.
Providers of residential aged care services 
Residential aged care services in Australia are delivered across a range of sectors. These include private, government (local and state government), and not-for-profit (comprising religious, community-based, and charitable) providers.
•	Not-for-profit and private organisations were the main providers of residential aged care services in Australia across all states and territories (60% and 29% respectively) (Table A1.6). 
•	Compared to other states and territories, private ownership of these services was highest in Victoria (39%) (Figure 2.5; Table A1.6).
•	In the Australian Capital Territory, the majority (84%) of services were provided by not-for-profit organisations, with 48% of all residential aged care services provided by religious organisations. In the Northern Territory, all services were provided by not-for-profit organisations, with 57% provided by religious organisations (Table A1.6).
•	The highest proportion of services provided by private organisations was in Major cities (40%), where only 4% of services were provided by government organisations compared with 33% in Remote areas. Very remote areas had the highest proportion of services provided by not-for-profit organisations (70%) (Figure 2.5; Table A1.7).  
  Figure 2.5: Providers of services by state/territory and remoteness, 30 June 2009 
(per cent)
Vertical bar chart showing, for providers, per cent on y-axis and state/territory and remoteness on x-axis.
Sources: Tables A1.6 and A1.7.
2.8 	Extra Service
Extra Service is designed to include a higher than average standard of accommodation, services and food for residents in aged care (DoHA 2009e). Residents who choose Extra Service should expect high quality personal accommodation and furnishings, a greater choice of recreational and communal space, and a wider range of food and meal options (DoHA 2009d). 
Extra Service does not involve the provision of extra care to meet a resident’s assessed care needs. Instead, Extra Service gives residents greater choice with ‘lifestyle’ extras (see Box 2.6). Aged care facilities are only approved to offer Extra Service if the quality of these extras is significantly higher than average. 
Up to 15% of places in each state or territory may be approved as Extra Service (DoHA 2004). Extra Service also attracts a reduced residential care subsidy from the Australian Government, and residents may also be charged an accommodation bond for high-care and low-care places.
Box 2.6: Extra Service case scenario
Salvatore has been a permanent low-care resident in the same aged care facility for about two years. Recently, the facility has been approved to offer Extra Service places. Salvatore was curious about this option, and enquired to find out more information from staff. He was informed that Extra Service was not about getting a higher standard of care. Rather, it included a higher standard of accommodation than average, with an Extra Service charge involved. 
This appealed to Salvatore greatly. Salvatore used to be a chef, and was very excited about the idea of having a greater range of meal options. He also liked to have wine with his meals. 
Salvatore also found out that he could have a bigger room, furniture with superior fabric and designer-selected décor and fittings. Salvatore was quite taken with the idea of sitting outside in the gazebo. Based on these options, Salvatore decided he would be happy to pay an Extra Service daily amount.
Facilities with Extra Service status
•	Around 9% of all residential aged care facilities in Australia provided Extra Service places at 30 June 2009. There were around 260 residential aged care facilities providing Extra Service places Australia-wide. Close to 60 aged care facilities provided Extra Service low-care places, and around 250 facilities provided Extra Service high-care places (Table 2.7). 
Table 2.7: Number of facilities with Extra Service places,                                                                              high-care and low-care places, 30 June 2009
Residential care facilities	Number	
All residential care facilities	2,783	
Facilities providing Extra Service places	261	
Facilities providing high-care Extra Service places	253	
Facilities providing low-care Extra Service places	57	

•	Facilities with Extra Service status were concentrated in Major cities and Inner regional areas, and there were no Extra Service facilities in the Northern Territory. 
•	There were just under 11,500 Extra Service places across Australia comprising 6% of all operational places (178,290). Around one-third were located in Victoria (32%) and a further third in New South Wales (32%) (Table A1.8).
•	The majority of Extra Service places were in Major cities (86%). A small proportion of places were located in Inner and Outer regional areas (12% and 2% respectively). Nearly one-third of Extra Service places in the Outer regional areas were located in Western Australia (31%), followed by one-quarter in Queensland (25%) (Figure 2.6; Table A1.8).
Extra Service low-care and high-care places
Residential aged care facilities approved for Extra Services may charge residents an additional Extra Service daily amount (DoHA 2009f). Extra Service places are available as low-care or high-care. 
•	The distribution of high-care places across remoteness was 87% in Major cities, 11% in Inner regional, and 2% in Outer regional areas (Table A1.9; Figure 2.6). For low-care places, it was 78% for Major cities, and 22% for Inner regional areas. There were no Extra Service low-care places in Outer regional areas (Figure 2.6).
•	Western Australia had the highest proportion of high-care places located in Inner and Outer regional areas (15% and 8%), and the highest proportion of low-care places located in Inner regional areas (29%) compared to other states and territories (with the exception of Tasmania, which has no Major city classification) (Figure 2.6). 
•	There were no Extra Service high-care places in Remote and Very remote areas, and no low-care places in Outer regional, Remote and Very remote areas (tables A1.9 and A1.10).
Figure 2.6: Extra Service places (high- and low-care) by state/territory and 
remoteness, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Three vertical bar charts (extra service, extra service high-care and extra service low-care) showing, for remoteness area, per cent on y-axes and state/territory on x-axes.
Sources: Tables A1.8, A1.9, and A1.10. 
2.9	Recurrent expenditure 
Aged care services expenditure continues to be a significant area of government spending. In 2008–09, the total Australian, state and territory government expenditure on aged care services was around $10.1 billion. The majority of all government expenditure on aged care services is spent on residential aged care services (66%) (SCRGSP 2010). 
Of the $6.6 billion spent on residential aged care services:
•	Around $5.5 billion was provided by the Department of Health and Ageing (SCRGSP 2010).
•	Around $950 million was provided by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (SCRGSP 2010).
•	State and territory expenditure was $180.0 million (which included the Adjusted subsidy reduction supplement, Enterprise Bargaining Agreement supplement, and Rural Small nursing home supplement) (SCRGSP 2010).
Expenditure data in this section are broad estimations of expenditure relating to residential aged care services. Small discrepancies between the above numbers and those listed below are due to differences in dates the ACCMIS data warehouse was accessed.
•	Australian Government recurrent expenditure on residential aged care services was estimated to be $6.5 billion in 2008–09. This does not include any funding or subsidies paid by state or territory governments (Table 2.8). 
•	More than two-thirds of all recurrent expenditure on residential aged care (69%) was spent in Major cities ($4.5 billion). Expenditure in Very remote areas was just over 
$11.0 million. 
Table 2.8: Australian Government-estimated recurrent expenditure on residential aged care by state/territory and remoteness area(a), 2008–09 ($M)
State/territory	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	Australia	
NSW	1,580.8	531.7	132.0	3.5	—	2,248.1	
Vic	1,182.3	364.2	83.9	1.9	. .	1,632.3	
Qld	694.1	281.3	141.1	9.1	4.9	1,130.6	
WA	417.3	69.7	37.9	7.3	4.6	536.8	
SA	536.6	73.1	64.0	7.0	—	680.7	
Tas	. .	126.8	38.6	2.0	0.6	168.0	
ACT	61.4	—	. .	. .	. .	61.4	
NT	. .	. .	9.3	8.2	1.0	18.5	
Australia	4,472.6	1,446.8	506.7	39.0	11.2	6,476.4	
(a) Refers to the location of the services. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
— Nil or rounded to zero.
. .   Not applicable.
Source: SCRGSP 2010.
In Australia, the highest amount spent per person of the population aged 70 years and over was in Remote Northern Territory ($5,879), and the lowest amount spent was in Remote New South Wales ($1,108). The national average was just under $3,200 (Table 2.9). 
Table 2.9: Australian Government-estimated recurrent expenditure on residential aged care per person aged 70 years and over(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 ($)
State/territory	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	Australia	
NSW	3,348.9	3,150.3	2,374.8	1,108.3	—	3,212.0	
Vic	3,171.4	3,101.6	2,534.0	2,754.1	. .	3,114.4	
Qld	3,111.8	2,981.1	2,898.8	1,634.9	1,702.1	3,018.3	
WA	3,143.1	2,432.9	2,196.9	1,580.2	2,904.1	2,903.9	
SA	4,072.1	3,302.1	2,954.2	1,458.2	—	3,755.3	
Tas	. .	3,632.3	2,196.6	2,874.8	2,080.1	3,142.3	
ACT	2,543.8	—	. .	. .	. .	2,543.8	
NT	. .	. .	2,264.0	5,879.2	1,142.3	2,897.1	
Australia	3,296.9	3,102.4	2,560.1	1,863.9	1,628.2	3,161.2	
(a) Refers to the location of the services. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure as developed by the ABS.
— Nil or rounded to zero.
. .   Not applicable.
Source: SCRGSP 2010.
Recurrent expenditure by state/territory and remoteness
•	Australian Government recurrent expenditure on residential aged care was higher in South Australia and New South Wales compared to other states and territories (Table 2.9).
•	Expenditure in Major cities was in line with the proportion of people aged 70 years and over, where around 66% of the total population aged 70 years and over in Australia lived in Major cities, and 69% of expenditure was in Major cities (Figure 2.7). 
•	The proportion of expenditure in Inner and Outer regional areas was slightly lower than the proportion of the population aged 70 years and over in these areas (Figure 2.7; 
Table 2.8).
Figure 2.7: Recurrent expenditure on residential aged care 2008–09, and distribution of population aged 70 years and over, by state/territory and remoteness (per cent)
Two vertical bar charts showing, for population and recurrent expenditure, per cent on y-axes and state/territory and remoteness on x-axes.
  Sources: Tables 2.2 and 2.8.
Recurrent expenditure per occupied place-day
Occupied place-days refer to the number of days places are assigned to residents admitted to an aged care facility. The Australian Government provided a national average subsidy per occupied place-day of $110 at 30 June 2009 (Table 2.10). 
The highest amount of Commonwealth recurrent funding spent per occupied place-day was in Very remote Northern Territory at $155 per occupied place-day, $131 in Remote Northern Territory, and $130 in Very remote Western Australia. Meanwhile, the lowest cost was in Remote Tasmania at $88 per occupied place-day (Table 2.10). 
Table 2.10: Australian Government recurrent funding per occupied place-day(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 ($)
State/territory	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	Australia	
NSW	113	109	108	100	0(b)	112	
Vic	110	103	104	125	. .	108	
Qld	107	109	111	101	120	108	
WA	110	107	111	109	130	109	
SA	121	114	113	109	0(b)	119	
Tas	. .	111	107	88	90	109	
ACT	101	0(b)	. .	. .	. .	101	
NT	. .	. .	117	131	155	124	
Australia	111	108	109	109	124	110	
(a) Refers to the location of the facilities. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
(b) No places in this region.
. . Not applicable.	
Sources: Tables 2.8 and 5.9.
Accommodation bonds
Box 2.7: Accommodation bonds
What is an accommodation bond?
An accommodation bond is a payment permanent residents may be asked to pay when they enter low-level residential care, or are admitted to an Extra Service place (with low- or high-care status) (DoHA 2010b). If residents cannot afford to pay an accommodation bond, then they are not asked to pay (DoHA 2009e). 
How much bond does a resident pay?
There is no fixed bond amount to pay. The bond amount is negotiated between an approved provider and a resident (DoHA 2009f). The maximum bond a resident can be asked to pay depends on the level of a resident’s assets when they entered the facility as a permanent resident (DoHA 2009e). Residents have the option of paying an accommodation bond as a lump sum, a regular periodic payment, or a combination of both (DoHA 2009f). 
What is the accommodation bond used for?
The residential aged care facility is able to deduct monthly amounts, called retention amounts, from the bond for up to five years (DoHA 2010b). There is a maximum retention amount, and the balance of the bond is refunded to the resident when they leave the home. Providers must use the income from accommodation bonds and retention amounts to undertake capital works and improve the quality and range of aged care services (DoHA 2009e). Providers can also keep any interest earned from accommodation bonds (DoHA 2009f).
Bond payments received from contributing residents 
Between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009: 
•	Aged care providers received over $3.9 billion in accommodation bonds from around 15,600 permanent residents admitted during this period (Table 2.11). Of these, just over 70% were female (Table 2.12).
•	Just over one-third of permanent residents who paid a bond were aged 85–89 years (34%), and each paid an average of around $238,200. For those aged 80–84 years, their average bond was $267,500 (Table 2.12).
•	Across all ages, the average bond was around $253,000 (Table 2.12). Those aged 
90–94 years paid the highest average bond of nearly $282,500. 
•	Residents contributing to bonds in Major cities on average paid a higher amount than those in Regional and Remote areas. Around 11,300 residents in Major cities paid an average bond of nearly $276,600, compared with around 40 people in Remote areas who each paid about $116,600 (Table 2.13). 
Table 2.11: Bonds received from permanent aged care residents admitted between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009, by state/territory and remoteness(a), ($M)
State/territory	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	Australia	
NSW	1,168.9	258.2	37.0	0.3	0.0(b)	1,464.4	
Vic	894.7	175.9	25.7	0.4	. .	1,096.7	
Qld	415.1	123.5	46.6	1.2	—	586.3	
WA	358.1	43.0	19.3	0.3	—	420.7	
SA	214.1	24.7	9.8	1.6	0.0(b)	250.2	
Tas	. .	32.8	18.6	0.9	0.1	52.4	
ACT	69.0	0.0(b)	. .	. .	. .	69.0	
NT	. .	. .	1.6	—	—	1.6	
Australia	3,119.9	658.1	158.6	4.7	0.1	3,941.3	
(a) Refers to the location of the services. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
(b) No places in this region.
. . Not applicable.
— Nil or rounded to zero.
Table 2.12: Total bond size for permanent admissions by age and sex (bond-contributing 
residents) 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 
	Females	Males	Persons	
Age group (years)	Number	Average bond size ($)	Number	Average bond size ($)	Number	Average bond size ($)	
under 65	89	233,116	80	246,292	169	239,353	
65–69   	151	219,040	102	219,523	253	219,235	
70–74   	412	232,699	214	235,136	626	233,532	
75–79   	1,152	244,646	522	215,457	1,674	235,544	
80–84   	2,660	256,819	1,120	292,941	3,780	267,522	
85–89   	3,763	238,225	1,530	237,990	5,293	238,157	
90–94   	2,219	296,909	805	242,609	3,024	282,454	
95+     	580	235,816	182	232,018	762	234,909	
All ages	11,026	254,555	4,555	249,095	15,581	252,959	

Table 2.13: Average bond size by remoteness for bonds paid 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009(a)
	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote/
 Very remote	Australia	
Number of bonds paid	11,280	3,425	835	42	15,581	
Average bond ($)	276,590	192,135	189,932	216,560	252,959	
(a) Refers to the location of the facilities. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
Bond payments averaged across all newly admitted permanent residents
The average bond size across all newly admitted permanent residents from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 was nearly $70,600. That is, if the total bond payments made within the year were averaged across the 55,800 newly admitted residents, each resident would be paying around $70,600 in bond accommodation payments (Table 2.14).
The average bond size decreased as remoteness increased. The average bond in Major cities was around $82,000 for about 38,000 resident admissions, in Outer regional areas it was around $37,000 for 4,300 residents, and in Very remote areas there were 80 resident admissions with an average bond payment of $1,250 (Table 2.15).
Table 2.14: Average bond size for permanent residents admitted between 
1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009 by age group and sex (all residents) 
	Females	Males	Persons	
Age group (years)	Number	Average bond size	Number	Average bond size	Number	Average bond size	
under 65	929	22,333	1,121	17,577	2,050	19,732	
65-69   	871	37,974	1,076	20,810	1,947	28,488	
70-74   	1,800	53,262	1,830	27,497	3,630	40,273	
75-79   	4,165	67,667	3,195	35,202	7,360	53,573	
80-84   	8,438	80,960	5,299	61,916	13,737	73,614	
85-89   	10,200	87,886	5,445	66,873	15,645	80,573	
90-94   	6,206	106,162	2,679	72,901	8,885	96,133	
95+     	1,955	69,961	633	66,710	2,588	69,166	
All ages	34,564	81,204	21,278	53,324	55,842	70,580	

Table 2.15: Average bond size by remoteness for permanent resident admissions 
1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009(a)
	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	Australia	
Resident admissions	38,011	13,137	4,299	315	80	55,842	
Average bond ($)	82,080	50,092	36,891	14,801	1,250	70,580	
(a) Refers to the location of the facilities. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
3	Resident characteristics
This chapter explores permanent and respite resident characteristics. It provides an overview of a range of demographic details, such as the number of residents in care, their age and sex, and their marital and Indigenous status. The chapter also includes information on pension status, financial support and hospital leave. 
3.1	Number of residents 
•	At 30 June 2009, there were nearly 162,300 residents in mainstream residential aged care services (Table 3.1). Compared to last year (30 June 2008), this was an increase of approximately 2,050 residents (Table 7.1).
•	Of the 162,300 residents in care, just under 158,900 were in permanent care (98%), and just over 3,400 were in respite care (2%).
Table 3.1: Permanent, respite and all residents by age and sex, 30 June 2009
	Permanent	Respite	All residents	
Age group (years)	Number	Per cent	Number	Per cent	Number 	Per cent	
Females		
under 65	3,009	2.7	59	2.8	3,068	2.7	
65–69	2,516	2.2	56	2.6	2,572	2.2	
70–74	4,696	4.2	121	5.7	4,817	4.2	
75–79	10,593	9.4	247	11.5	10,840	9.5	
80–84	22,947	20.4	511	23.9	23,458	20.5	
85–89	33,647	29.9	668	31.2	34,315	29.9	
90–94	24,102	21.4	355	16.6	24,457	21.3	
95+	10,961	9.7	123	5.7	11,084	9.7	
Total females	112,471	100.0	2,140	100.0	114,611	100.0	
Males		
under 65	3,500	7.5	64	5.1	3,564	7.5	
65–69	2,678	5.8	63	5.0	2,741	5.7	
70–74	4,060	8.7	131	10.4	4,191	8.8	
75–79	6,701	14.4	207	16.4	6,908	14.5	
80–84	10,155	21.9	301	23.8	10,456	21.9	
85–89	11,055	23.8	318	25.2	11,373	23.9	
90–94	6,236	13.4	148	11.7	6,384	13.4	
95+	2,029	4.4	32	2.5	2,061	4.3	
Total males	46,414	100.0	1,264	100.0	47,678	100.0	
Total persons	158,885	100.0	3,404	100.0	162,289	100.0	

3.2	Age and sex of residents
At 30 June 2009:
•	There was more than double the number of female residents compared to male residents in residential aged care (approximately 114,600 females and 47,700 males) (Table 3.1). 
•	The highest proportion of residents in residential aged care was aged 85–89 years (28%). The lowest proportion was aged 65–69 years (3%) (Table A2.1). 
•	In 1999, 49% of permanent residents were aged 85 years and over. At 30 June 2009, this proportion increased to 55% (Table 7.5) reflecting an increase in the proportion of older permanent residents in residential aged care. Respite residents had a younger age profile than permanent residents with less than half aged 85 years and over (48%) (Table A2.1). A small proportion of all residents were aged under 65 years (4%) (Table 3.2).
•	The Northern Territory had a higher proportion of younger people in residential aged care compared to other states and territories with 13% of residents aged under 65 years—more than three times as high as the national average of 4% (Table 3.2). Consequently, there was a lower proportion of residents in the Northern Territory aged 85 years and over (30%) compared to the national average in this age group (55%). The proportion of older residents (aged 90 years or more) nationally was 27%—in the Northern Territory it was 11% (Table 3.2). 
•	Residents using services in Remote and Very remote areas had a younger age profile than residents living in Inner regional and Major cities (Table 3.3). There was a higher proportion of residents aged under 65 years in Remote (9%) and Very remote areas (23%), compared with Major cities (4%), Inner regional areas (4%) and Outer regional areas (5%) (Table 3.3).
•	Given the younger age profile of residents in more Remote areas, there was also a smaller representation of residents aged 85 years and over in these areas—44% in Remote areas and 32% in Very remote—compared to the national average for this age group (55%) (Table 3.3). 

Table 3.2: All residents by age, sex and state/territory(a), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Age group (years)	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
Females		
under 65	2.7	2.4	3.2	2.7	2.1	2.7	2.4	12.3	2.7	
65–69	2.2	2.2	2.3	2.5	2.0	2.4	2.9	8.3	2.2	
70–74	4.2	4.1	4.2	4.5	3.9	4.8	4.5	8.3	4.2	
75–79	9.5	9.4	9.7	9.2	9.2	9.9	9.0	13.8	9.5	
80–84	20.5	20.6	20.5	20.0	20.3	19.5	22.5	20.2	20.5	
85–89	30.0	30.3	29.6	29.2	30.4	29.8	29.7	23.3	29.9	
90–94	21.4	21.3	21.2	21.3	21.5	22.9	19.7	10.3	21.3	
95+	9.5	9.7	9.4	10.7	10.6	8.0	9.4	3.6	9.7	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	39,200	29,742	20,185	9,623	11,422	2,997	1,189	253	114,611	
Males		
under 65	7.9	7.2	7.7	7.6	5.6	7.1	8.0	15.0	7.5	
65–69	5.7	5.4	6.1	6.5	5.0	6.5	6.2	12.5	5.7	
70–74	9.1	8.3	9.6	9.8	7.1	7.3	6.6	15.0	8.8	
75–79	14.7	14.8	14.2	14.4	13.6	14.2	12.4	17.5	14.5	
80–84	22.0	22.0	21.4	22.0	22.7	22.0	20.4	22.5	21.9	
85–89	23.7	24.1	23.2	21.9	26.6	24.8	26.4	10.6	23.9	
90–94	13.0	13.5	13.6	13.0	14.7	13.8	14.4	5.6	13.4	
95+	4.0	4.6	4.2	4.8	4.6	4.4	5.6	1.3	4.3	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	16,501	12,274	8,811	3,897	4,315	1,205	515	160	47,678	
Persons		
under 65	4.3	3.8	4.6	4.1	3.1	4.0	4.0	13.3	4.1	
65–69	3.2	3.2	3.4	3.7	2.8	3.6	3.9	9.9	3.3	
70–74	5.7	5.3	5.8	6.0	4.8	5.5	5.1	10.9	5.6	
75–79	11.0	11.0	11.1	10.7	10.4	11.1	10.0	15.3	10.9	
80–84	21.0	21.0	20.7	20.6	21.0	20.2	21.9	21.1	20.9	
85–89	28.1	28.5	27.7	27.1	29.3	28.4	28.7	18.4	28.2	
90–94	18.9	19.0	18.9	18.9	19.6	20.3	18.1	8.5	19.0	
95+	7.8	8.2	7.8	9.0	9.0	7.0	8.3	2.7	8.1	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	55,701	42,016	28,996	13,520	15,737	4,202	1,704	413	162,289	
(a) Refers to the location of the services.
Note: Totals may very due to rounding.

Table 3.3: All residents by age, sex and remoteness(a), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Age group (years)	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	Australia	
Females		
under 65	2.7	2.4	3.1	6.0	19.5	2.7	
65–69	2.2	2.2	2.4	4.3	6.0	2.2	
70–74	4.2	4.3	4.2	6.0	7.5	4.2	
75–79	9.4	9.6	9.9	10.1	13.5	9.5	
80–84	20.7	19.9	20.3	22.0	14.3	20.5	
85–89	29.9	30.3	29.4	25.3	24.8	29.9	
90–94	21.2	22.0	21.2	18.1	9.8	21.3	
95+	9.8	9.4	9.5	8.1	4.5	9.7	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	78,957	26,130	8,746	645	133	114,611	
Males		
under 65	7.6	6.3	8.4	15.1	26.5	7.5	
65–69	5.9	5.0	6.0	9.5	12.4	5.7	
70–74	8.7	8.9	9.0	9.2	13.3	8.8	
75–79	14.3	14.4	15.9	15.7	10.6	14.5	
80–84	21.8	22.6	21.3	21.3	14.2	21.9	
85–89	23.9	24.3	22.9	16.6	15.9	23.9	
90–94	13.3	14.2	12.6	9.8	5.3	13.4	
95+	4.4	4.3	3.9	3.0	1.8	4.3	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	32,203	11,008	4,016	338	113	47,678	
Persons		
under 65	4.1	3.6	4.8	9.2	22.8	4.1	
65–69	3.3	3.1	3.5	6.1	8.9	3.3	
70–74	5.5	5.7	5.7	7.1	10.2	5.6	
75–79	10.8	11.0	11.8	12.0	12.2	10.9	
80–84	21.0	20.7	20.6	21.8	14.2	20.9	
85–89	28.2	28.5	27.4	22.3	20.7	28.2	
90–94	18.9	19.6	18.5	15.3	7.7	19.0	
95+	8.3	7.9	7.7	6.3	3.3	8.1	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	111,160	37,138	12,762	983	246	162,289	
(a) Refers to the location of the services. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS. 
Note: Totals may very due to rounding.
At 30 June 2009:
•	The majority of residents in residential aged care were female (71% of permanent residents and 63% for respite residents) (Table A2.1). 
•	Of all female residents, 61% were aged 85 years and over, compared to 42% of their male counterparts (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1: All residents by age and sex, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Vertical bar chart showing, for males and females, per cent on y-axis and age group (years) on x-axis.
 Source: Table A2.1.
3.3	Marital status
•	Nearly all (98%) permanent residents had their marital status recorded at their admission time. Within the population of female permanent residents, two-thirds (66%) reported being widowed compared with just over a quarter (27%) of their male counterparts. Given that married females often outlive their male spouses, they are more likely to lack support at home as they age, and may then need to be admitted to residential aged care services. A smaller proportion of female permanent residents were married or in a de facto relationship (19%) compared with their male counterparts (43%) (Table A2.2; Figure 3.2). 
•	A higher proportion of male respite residents were married (56%) compared with those who were permanent residents (43%) (Figure 3.2). Similarly, there was nearly twice the proportion of male permanent residents (15%) who were single compared with those who were respite residents (8%).
•	Northern Territory had a lower proportion of permanent and respite residents who were in a married or de facto relationship (18% and 17% respectively) compared with the national average of 26% and 35% respectively (tables S2.1 and S2.2). Correspondingly, a higher proportion of respite residents were single (13%) compared with the national average (6%) (Table S2.2). 
Figure 3.2: Permanent and respite residents by marital status and sex, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Four pie charts.
Source: Table A2.2
3.4	How many residents identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander? 
At 30 June 2009:
•	Of the 156,136 permanent aged care residents who identified their Indigenous status, just under 1,000 identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (0.6%) (Table 3.4). 
•	The Northern Territory had the highest proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples among its permanent residents (36%). Among respite residents, 39% identified as Indigenous, compared with the national average of 0.9% (tables S2.3 and S2.4).
•	Western Australia had the highest number of Indigenous permanent residents (260), followed by Queensland with 250 permanent residents (1%) (Table S2.3).
Table 3.4: Permanent and respite residents by Indigenous status and sex, 
30 June 2009
	Permanent	Respite	
Indigenous status	Number	Per cent	Number	Per cent	
Females		
Indigenous	578	0.5	17	0.8	
Non-Indigenous	109,909	97.7	2,123	99.2	
Unknown	1,984	1.8	—	—	
Total females	112,471	100.0	2,140	100.0	
Males		
Indigenous	398	0.9	15	1.2	
Non-Indigenous	45,251	97.5	1,249	98.8	
Unknown	765	1.6	—	—	
Total males	46,414	100.0	1,264	100.0	
Persons		
Indigenous	976	0.6	32	0.9	
Non-Indigenous	155,160	97.7	3,372	99.1	
Unknown	2,749	1.7	—	—	
Total persons	158,885	100.0	3,404	100.0	
— Nil or rounded to zero.

3.5	Country of birth
At 30 June 2009:
•	A very small proportion of permanent (0.5%) and respite (0.3%) residents did not state their country of birth before admission (Table 3.5). 
•	Just over a quarter (27%) of permanent residents and 30% of respite residents reported being born overseas (Table 3.5). Approximately 10% of permanent residents, and 11% of respite residents were born in the United Kingdom and Ireland, representing the highest proportion of permanent and respite residents born overseas.
•	The highest proportion of permanent residents born in non-English speaking countries was from South Eastern and Eastern Europe, and Southern Europe (5% and 3% respectively of all permanent residents). There were similar findings among respite residents (6% and 4% respectively) (Table 3.5).
•	Victoria had the highest proportion of permanent and respite residents who reported being born in Southern Europe (5% permanent and 6% respite) (Table 3.5). Similarly, 7% of permanent and 8% of respite residents reported South Eastern and Eastern Europe as their region of birth. 
•	The region of Southern Europe includes Italy, while South Eastern and Eastern Europe includes Greece. Italy and Greece have been emphasised because a large group of migrants from these countries came to Australia after World War II. 3% of permanent and respite residents were born in Italy and 1% in Greece (Table 3.5). 
•	Victoria had the highest proportion of permanent residents born in Italy (4%), and 2% in Greece (Table 3.5). There were similar results for respite residents (5% Italy and 2% Greece). 

Table 3.5: Permanent and respite residents, birthplace(a) by sex and state/territory, 30 June 2009 (per cent) 
Birthplace	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
	Permanent residents	
Australia	73.8	69.5	78.4	61.1	70.0	83.4	66.1	75.1	72.3	
UK and Ireland	8.2	9.2	10.1	20.0	14.0	9.1	14.5	6.9	10.4	
Southern Eastern & Eastern Europe	5.4	7.4	2.3	4.1	6.1	1.9	6.7	4.1	5.2	
Greece(b)	1.0	1.9	0.3	0.5	1.3	n.p.	n.p.	n.p.	1.1	
Southern Europe	3.1	5.0	1.7	4.1	3.6	0.5	2.2	2.1	3.4	
Italy(b)	2.4	4.2	1.5	3.7	3.2	0.4	1.5	1.8	2.8	
Northern/Western Europe	2.5	3.4	2.8	3.1	3.6	2.6	4.4	3.8	3.0	
Other Oceania/New Zealand/Antarctica	1.1	0.6	2.0	0.7	0.4	0.8	0.8	0.8	1.0	
Northeast Asia	1.6	0.7	0.4	0.4	0.2	0.2	0.7	2.1	0.9	
North Africa/Middle East	1.2	0.9	0.2	0.4	0.4	n.p.	n.p.	n.p.	0.8	
Southeast Asia	0.9	0.8	0.4	1.9	0.4	n.p.	1.1	n.p.	0.8	
Southern Asia/Central Asia	0.7	1.1	0.4	1.8	0.5	0.2	1.2	1.3	0.8	
Sub-Saharan Africa/South Africa	0.5	0.5	0.4	1.3	0.2	0.4	0.5	0.8	0.5	
North America	0.2	0.2	0.3	0.3	0.2	n.p.	0.4	n.p.	0.3	
Other America/Caribbean	0.4	0.2	0.2	0.1	0.1	n.p.	0.2	n.p.	0.2	
Other	—	—	—	—	—	—	n.p.	n.p.	—	
Not stated/Not classified	0.5	0.5	0.4	0.6	0.5	0.3	0.4	—	0.5	
Total persons 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total persons (number)	54,190	41,245	28,591	13,317	15,375	4,126	1,651	390	158,885	
	Respite residents	
Australia	70.5	69.4	74.3	62.6	67.1	81.6	64.2	82.6	70.1	
UK and Ireland	9.9	6.6	10.6	22.7	16.0	14.5	15.1	—	10.8	
Southern Eastern & Eastern Europe	5.1	8.3	3.5	6.4	6.1	n.p.	9.4	n.p.	5.8	
Greece(b)	1.1	1.8	0.7	n.p.	1.9	n.p.	n.p.	n.p.	1.3	
Southern Europe	3.8	6.1	1.5	3.9	5.2	—	—	—	4.0	
Italy(b)	2.9	4.7	1.2	3.9	4.7	n.p.	n.p.	n.p.	3.2	
Northern/Western Europe	2.4	3.1	4.4	2.0	3.9	n.p.	n.p.	n.p.	2.9	
Other Oceania/New Zealand/Antarctica	1.7	0.9	2.5	—	n.p.	—	5.7	n.p.	1.4	
North Africa/Middle East	1.5	1.2	n.p	—	—	—	—	—	1.0	
Northeast Asia	1.9	0.8	n.p	—	—	—	—	—	1.0	
Southeast Asia	1.1	0.6	1.2	—	n.p.	—	—	n.p.	0.9	
Southern Asia/Central Asia	1.0	1.2	n.p	n.p.	n.p.	—	—	—	0.9	
North America	0.4	0.4	n.p	—	n.p.	—	—	—	0.3	
Sub-Saharan Africa/South Africa	0.4	0.4	n.p.	—	—	—	—	—	0.3	
Other America/Caribbean	0.2	0.4	n.p.	—	—	—	n.p.	—	0.2	
Other	—	—	n.p.	—	—	—	—	—	—	
Not stated/Not classified	0.2	0.6	n.p.	—	—	—	n.p.	—	0.3	
Total persons 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total persons (number)	1,511	771	405	203	362	76	53	23	3,404	
(a) This table uses Australian standard classification of countries (ABS 2008b).
(b) Greece is a subset category of ‘Southern and Eastern Europe’ and Italy is a subset category of ‘Southern Europe”. Neither countries are included separately in the total. 
n.p. Not published.
—   Nil or rounded to zero.
3.6	Preferred languages
At 30 June 2009:
•	A very small proportion of permanent and respite residents did not record their preferred language before admission (0.1% for both) (Table 3.6).
•	English was the preferred language for the majority of permanent and respite residents (90% for both) (Table 3.6). Other stated preferred languages included Southern European languages (4% of permanent residents and 5% of respite residents), and Eastern European languages (3% and 2%).
•	3% of all permanent residents spoke Italian, and 1% spoke Greek (Table 3.6). There were similar results for permanent residents (3% spoke Italian and 1% spoke Greek). 
•	Victoria reported the highest proportion of permanent and respite residents speaking a Southern European language (7% each) (Table 3.6). Of permanent residents in Victoria, 4% spoke Italian, and 2% spoke Greek. Similarly, among respite residents in Victoria, 
3% spoke Italian and 2% spoke Greek (Table 3.6). South Australia had the highest proportion of respite residents speaking Italian (5%) of all states and territories in Australia. 
Table 3.6: Permanent and respite residents, preferred language(a) by sex and state/territory, 30 June 2009 (per cent) 
Preferred language	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
	Permanent residents	
English                           	89.2	86.7	96.4	90.6	89.8	97.4	90.1	64.4	90.2	
Southern European                 	4.3	6.5	1.5	4.0	4.4	0.6	2.4	3.1	4.2	
Italian(b)	2.1	3.8	0.9	3.2	2.9	0.4	1.3	1.5	2.5	
Greek(b)	1.1	1.8	0.2	0.3	1.2	0.1	0.5	n.p.	1.0	
Eastern European                  	2.8	3.7	1.0	2.3	3.2	0.8	4.2	1.5	2.7	
Other Northern European           	0.9	1.4	0.6	1.0	1.6	1.0	1.7	0.8	1.1	
Eastern Asian                     	1.4	0.7	0.3	0.4	0.2	0.1	0.4	3.1	0.8	
Southeast Asian                  	0.4	0.3	0.1	0.4	0.2	—	0.4	—	0.3	
Southwest and Central Asian 	0.5	0.3	—	0.1	0.1	—	0.2	n.p.	0.3	
Australian Indigenous             	—	—	0.1	1.0	—	—	—	25.6	0.2	
African (excluding North African) 	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.1	0.1	n.p.	0.1	
Other(c)                             	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	—	0.1	0.8	0.1	
Not stated                        	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.1	0.1	0.3	0.1	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total persons (number)	54,190	41,245	28,591	13,317	15,375	4,126	1,651	390	158,885	
(continued)

Table 3.6 (continued): Permanent and respite residents, preferred language(a) by sex and state/territory, 30 June 2009 (per cent) 	
Preferred language	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
	Respite residents	
English                           	88.7	89.1	94.8	91.6	90.9	98.7	90.6	69.6	90.0	
Southern European                 	4.6	6.6	2.0	3.9	6.4	—	n.p.	—	4.7	
Italian(b)	2.3	3.4	0.7	3.0	4.7	n.p.	n.p.	n.p.	2.6	
Greek(b)	1.4	2.1	n.p.	n.p.	1.7	n.p.	n.p.	n.p.	1.4	
Eastern European                  	2.5	2.5	1.7	3.9	1.7	n.p.	5.7	—	2.4	
Eastern Asian                     	1.9	0.6	n.p.	n.p.	—	—	—	—	1.0	
Other Northern European           	0.8	n.p.	n.p.	n.p.	1.1	—	—	—	0.6	
Southwest and Central Asian 	n.p.	n.p.	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.5	
Australian Indigenous             	—	—	n.p.	—	—	—	—	30.4	0.2	
Southeast Asian                  	n.p.	n.p.	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.2	
Other(c)                             	n.p.	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.1	
Not stated                        	0.1	n.p.	n.p.	—	—	—	—	—	0.1	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total persons (number)	1,511	771	405	203	362	76	53	23	3,404	
(a)   This table uses Australian standard classification of languages (ABS 2005–06).
(b)   Greece and Italy are a subset of the category ‘Southern European’ and are not included separately in the total. 
(c)   Other includes Southern Asian and Oceanic.
n.p. Not published.
—   Nil or rounded to zero.
3.7	Income source
At 30 June 2009:
•	A very high proportion of permanent residents (89%) received a government pension (includes combined DVA and Centrelink pension). Nearly three-quarters of these residents (71%) received a Centrelink pension, and 18% received an Australian Government Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) pension (Figure 3.3). There was no difference between males and females.
•	Self-funded retirees comprised 9% of permanent residents, and there was little difference between males and females. 
•	The Australian Capital Territory had a much higher proportion of self-funded retirees (20%) compared with other states and territories, followed by New South Wales (10%), Western Australia and Victoria (9% each) (Table A2.3). The Northern Territory had the highest proportion of permanent residents receiving the Centrelink pension at 86%, compared with the national average of 71% (Table S2.5).

Figure 3.3: Permanent residents by income source, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Pie chart.
Note: Not stated (0.2%) has been excluded. 
Source: Table A2.3.
3.8	Financial support
•	Since 1 October 1997, the conditions around financial eligibility have changed. Appendix 7 provides a detailed description of the different conditions and terminology used for residents receiving financial help across three different time periods (appendix tables A2.4 and A2.5 provide a detailed breakdown of concessional, assisted, and supported residents). The tables below describe ‘Residents receiving financial help’ which includes concessional, assisted, supported and partially supported residents. Similarly, ‘Residents not receiving financial help’ refers to residents not eligible for support and those who do not receive support. 
At 30 June 2009:
•	Nationally, just over one-third of permanent residents received financial help (37%) (after removing the ‘pre-reform’ group, see Appendix 7) (Table 3.7).
•	The Northern Territory had the highest proportion of permanent residents receiving financial help (65%), while the Australian Capital Territory had the lowest proportion (32%) (Table 3.7). All other jurisdictions had proportions receiving financial help ranging from 35% to 40%.
Table 3.7: Financial support status of permanent residents by state and territory at 30 June 2009
Financial support status	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia 	
	Number	
Residents receiving financial help	19,242	13,895	10,724	5,204	6,028	1574	520	238	57,425	
Residents not receiving financial help	32,951	26,215	16,820	7,761	8,924	2,438	1094	128	96,331	
Total persons	52,193	40,110	27,544	12,965	14,952	4,012	1,614	366	153,756	
	Per cent	
Residents receiving financial help	36.9	34.6	38.9	40.1	40.3	39.2	32.2	65.0	37.3	
Residents not receiving financial help	63.1	65.4	61.1	59.9	59.7	60.8	67.8	35.0	62.7	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Note: The numbers above are calculated by first subtracting pre-reform numbers from total permanent persons in care. Secondly, all ‘Residents receiving financial help’ refers to the sum of concessional, assisted, supported and partially supported residents, and ‘Residents not receiving financial help’ refers to the sum of residents not eligible for support and unsupported residents.
At 30 June 2009:
•	As remoteness increased, financial support for residents also increased. A greater proportion of residents living in Remote and Very remote areas received help (50% and 73% respectively) than those in more urban areas (Table 3.8).
Table 3.8: Financial support status of permanent residents by remoteness at 30 June 2009(a)
Financial support status	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	Australia	
	Number	
Residents receiving financial help	38,664	13,075	5,072	452	162	57,425	
Residents not receiving financial help	66,920	22,003	6,892	455	61	96,331	
Total persons	105,584	35,078	11,964	907	223	153,756	
	Per cent	
Residents receiving financial help	36.6	37.3	42.4	49.8	72.6	37.3	
Residents not receiving financial help	63.4	62.7	57.6	50.2	27.4	62.7	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
(a) Refers to the location of the services. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
3.9	Hospital leave
Hospital leave enables a permanent aged care resident to take unlimited days of leave to receive hospital treatment. Table 3.9 presents the proportion of residents who took hospital leave among all permanent residents in residential care between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009. Overall, there were approximately 158,900 permanent residents, and close to a quarter (24%) of these residents used hospital leave (Table 3.9). 
One in 4 (25%) permanent residents in Major cities took hospital leave, compared to 1 in 6 (17%) in Very remote areas (Table 3.9). 
Table 3.9: Permanent residents with hospital leave between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009(a) 
(per cent)
State/territory	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	Australia	
NSW	26.5	21.8	23.9	38.3	—	25.2	
Vic	22.9	20.1	21.7	14.6	. .	22.2	
Qld	25.3	22.9	20.5	27.9	22.3	24.1	
WA	24.2	23.0	25.0	10.1	12.9	23.8	
SA	25.9	17.0	24.7	18.3	—	24.7	
Tas	. .	13.8	16.4	19.7	—	14.4	
ACT	25.4	—	. .	. .	. .	25.6	
NT	. .	. .	25.0	30.1	13.3	26.7	
Total persons	25.0	20.7	22.2	23.2	16.5	23.8	
Total person (number)	109,015	36,262	12,421	950	237	158,885	
(a) Refers to the location of the services. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
. .  Not applicable.
— Nil or rounded to zero.
3.10	Newly admitted residents
Around 55,800 people were admitted at least once to permanent residential aged care during 2008–09 and around 39,500 people for respite care (tables A2.6 and A2.7).
In 2008–09, a higher proportion of people admitted into residential aged care were aged 80 years or more, compared with 1999–00. In 1999–00, 65% of people admitted for permanent care, and 60% of people admitted for respite were aged 80 years and over (Table 7.2). 
In 2008–09, around three-quarters of newly admitted permanent and respite residents were aged 80 years and over (73% and 70% respectively) (Table 7.2). 
Marital status
•	Just over half of permanent and respite residents (51% each), admitted between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009 were widowed. 
•	A slightly higher percentage of respite residents (37%) were married or in de facto relationships compared to permanent residents (33%) (tables A2.6 and A2.7). 
•	The majority (66%) of permanent female residents were widowed, while approximately a quarter were married (22%) (Figure 3.4). In contrast, a smaller proportion of permanent male residents were widowed (27%) and the majority were married (51%). 
Figure 3.4: People admitted to residential aged care for permanent care by marital status and sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Vertical bar chart showing, for males and females, per cent on y-axis and marital status on x-axis.
Sources: Tables A2.6 and A2.7.
Housing status
The majority of newly admitted residents in 2008–09 had been living in a house or flat before admission (around 80% of permanent residents and 87% of respite residents) (Figure 3.5; Table A2.8).
Figure 3.5: People admitted to residential aged care for permanent and respite care by usual housing status, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Vertical bar chart showing, for permanent and respite, per cent on y-axis and usual housing status on x-axis.
Source: Table A2.8.
Prior living arrangements
•	Nearly half (47%) of all newly admitted permanent residents lived alone before their admission; 45% lived with family and 3% lived with others (Figure 3.6).  
•	A slightly higher proportion of those permanent residents lived alone (47%), compared with respite residents (39%) (Figure 3.6). The majority of admitted respite residents lived with family (57%), compared with admitted permanent residents (45%).
•	Prior to admission during 2008–09, more females lived alone compared to males. Of the 34,600 females admitted to permanent care—just over half (53%) were living alone (Figure 3.7; Table A2.9). Of the 21,300 males admitted to permanent care over half (55%) lived with their family. Thus, the majority of females admitted to permanent care lived alone, while the majority of males lived with their family (Figure 3.7).
Figure 3.6: People admitted to permanent and respite residential aged care by 
prior living arrangement, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Vertical bar chart showing, for permanent and respite, per cent on y-axis and living arrangements on x-axis.
Note: Unknown and not applicable (6% permanent and 1% respite) have been excluded.
 Source: Table A2.9.
Figure 3.7: People admitted to permanent residential care by prior living arrangement and sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Vertical bar chart showing, for male and female, per cent on y-axis and living arrangements on x-axis.
Note: Unknown and not applicable (6% females and 5% males) have been excluded.  
    Source: Table A2.9.
Income source
Between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009:
•	The majority of newly admitted permanent residents (68%) received a Centrelink pension, and 19% received the Australian Government DVA pension (Figure 3.8).
•	Among states and territories, the Northern Territory had the highest proportion of admitted permanent residents receiving the Centrelink pension at 86%, compared with the national average of 68% (Table S2.6).
Figure 3.8: People admitted to residential aged care for permanent care by income source, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Pie chart.
Source: Table A2.10.

4	Older residents
This chapter describes older people in residential aged care. Given the change in age distribution, with a greater number of people now living longer, the focus of this chapter is on residents aged 90 years and over. It provides an overview of the number of older people living in Australia and includes demographic information, such as marital status, and information on admissions and separations, specific health conditions, as well as levels of care provided. 
4.1	Number of older people in Australia
Over the last 30 years, there have been noticeable age demographic changes in Australia. A greater number of people are now living longer, with the average life expectancy at birth being 78.5 years for males, and 83.3 for females (in 2003–05) (ABS 2009a). As the average life expectancy increases, a greater number of people are now living over the age of 85 years. 
In 1970, 0.5 per cent of Australia’s population was aged 85 years and over (63,000 people) (Table 4.1). By comparison, on 30 June 2009 an estimated 383,000 people were aged 85 years and over, a six-fold increase in almost four decades (nearly 2% of the total population) (Table 4.1). These changes reflect the ageing of Australia’s population.  
Table 4.1: Population distribution by age and sex, 1970 and 2009 (‘000)
Age group (years)	1970	2009	
	Number	Per cent	Number 	Per cent	
Females		
64 and under	5,608	90.2	9,339	85.6	
65–74	366	5.9	794	7.2	
75–84	198	3.2	542	4.9	
85+	43	0.7	252	2.3	
Total females	6,215	100.0	10,987	100.0	
Males		
64 and under	5,855	93.1	9,558	87.8	
65–74	297	4.7	761	7.0	
75–84	119	1.9	437	4.0	
85+	20	0.3	132	1.2	
Total males	6,292	100.0	10,888	100.0	
Persons		
64 and under	11,464	91.7	18,957	86.7	
65–74	664	5.3	1,555	7.1	
75–84	317	2.5	979	4.5	
85+	63	0.5	383	1.8	
Total persons	12,507	100.0	21,875	100.0	
Source: ABS 2009a.

4.2	Number of residents aged 90 years and over 
Older permanent residents
At 30 June 2009:
•	There were around 43,300 older permanent residents in residential aged care. Of these, the majority (70%) were aged 90–94 years (Figure 4.1). 
•	Just over a quarter of residents were aged 95–99 years (26%), and around 4% were aged 100 years and over (Figure 4.2). There were no major differences between states and territories for age group distribution (tables 4.1 and A3.1). 
•	Of the 43,300 residents, 4 out of 5 were female (81%) and a slightly higher proportion were aged 100 years and over (4%) compared to their male counterparts (3%) (Table A3.1).
Older respite residents 
•	Of the 658 older respite residents in residential aged care, 73% were female (Table A3.1). 
•	The majority of residents were aged 90–94 years (76%), while around 3% were aged 100 years or over (Table A3.1).
•	Nearly two-thirds of older respite residents were located in Major cities (65%) 
(Table A3.2).
Figure 4.1: Older permanent and respite residents by age group (years), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Two pie charts.
Source: Table A3.1.
4.3	Older resident admissions
Between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009:
•	There were nearly 11,700 admissions to permanent residential aged care for people aged 90 years and over, and the majority (78%) of these were for people aged 90–94 years (Table A3.3). Approximately 2% of admissions during this period were for people aged 100 years or over (Table A3.3).
•	There were few permanent admissions for the 90 years and over age group in Remote/Very remote areas (48 or 0.4% of all older permanent admissions) (Table A3.4). In contrast, nearly 8,000 admissions were for older people admitted to permanent residential care in Major cities. 
•	There were nearly 10,200 older respite resident admissions, of which 72% were for females (Table A3.4). Just over three-quarters (78%) of these admissions were for people aged 
90–94 years, around 20% were for those aged  95–99 years and 2% were for people aged 100 years and over. 
•	The majority of older respite admissions occurred in Major cities (61%), with very few in Remote/Very remote areas (0.9%) (Table A3.4). 
4.4	Marital status at admission
At 30 June 2009:
•	Of the approximately 43,300 older permanent residents, around 500 did not report their marital status (1.2%). The majority reported being widowed (75%) and 16% reported being married (Table A3.5).
•	A higher proportion of older female permanent residents reported being widowed compared to males (82% and 46% respectively). In contrast, a higher proportion of males said they were married compared to females (44% and 10% respectively) (Figure 4.2).
•	Around 650 older respite residents reported their marital status at admission. The majority (78%) of these residents reported being widowed, while 17% said they were married (Table A3.5). 
•	The majority of older female and male respite residents reported being widowed 
(87% and 54% respectively). While 42% of males said they were married, only a small proportion of females said they were married (7%) (Figure 4.2).
Figure 4.2: Older permanent and respite residents by marital status at admission,               30 June 2009 (per cent)
Two vertical bar charts (respite and permanent) showing, for males and females, per cent on y-axes and marital status on x-axes.
Note: Not stated (1.2% permanent and 0.6% respite) has been excluded.  
   Source: Table A3.5.
4.5	Completed length of stay
•	Between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009, nearly three-quarters (73%) of older permanent residents who left residential care had reported a length of stay of at least one year or more. Just under 20% of older residents had stayed in residential care between 3–5 years, and 16% of older residents remained in care between 5–8 years (Figure 4.3). A small proportion (5%) of older residents completed less than 4 weeks in residential care (tables A3.6 and A3.7). Refer to Box 5.2 for information on measurements for length of stay. 
Figure 4.3: Completed length of stay for older permanent residents separating, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Vertical bar chart showing per cent on y-axis and length of stay on x-axis.
Sources: Tables A3.6 and A3.7.
4.6	Separations 
Between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009:
•	There were around 18,600 separations of older permanent residents (tables 4.2 and 4.3). The majority of these residents separated due to death (92%). For a definition of separations, refer to Box 5.1. 
•	There were nearly 10,300 separations of older respite residents. Almost two-thirds (62%) of these residents returned to the community. Tasmania had the highest proportion of older respite residents returning to the community (81%) as did respite residents in Remote areas (71%) (tables 4.2 and 4.3). 
Table 4.2: Separation of older permanent and respite residents by separation reason and state/territory(a) from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Separation reason	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
	Permanent 	
Death	90.6	93.3	94.3	86.5	95.7	98.0	94.4	90.3	92.3	
Return to community	1.7	1.3	1.5	0.9	0.9	0.9	n.p.	n.p.	1.4	
Hospital	3.5	2.1	2.2	5.3	0.8	n.p.	—	n.p.	2.7	
Residential aged care	3.0	2.7	1.5	6.3	1.0	0.5	n.p.	n.p.	2.7	
Other	1.2	0.5	0.4	1.0	1.7	n.p.	3.7	n.p.	0.9	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	6,431	4,788	3,205	1,635	1,773	552	216	31	18,631	
	Respite 	
Death	4.1	1.0	2.1	1.4	3.1	2.2	n.p.	n.p.	2.6	
Return to community	50.6	71.9	71.5	68.4	55.1	80.8	70.4	61.3	61.8	
Hospital	4.6	3.4	2.5	4.3	7.0	3.0	3.3.	n.p.	4.1	
Residential aged care	14.4	11.7	15.9	17.4	14.7	2.2	11.2	n.p.	13.6	
Other	26.3	11.9	8.1	8.5	20.2	11.8	14.5	25.8	17.8	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	4,114	2,630	1,343	702	933	365	152	31	10,270	
(a)	Refers to the location of services.
n.p. Not published.
— Nil or rounded to zero.
Table 4.3: Separation of older permanent and respite residents by separation reason and remoteness(a) from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Separation reason	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	Australia	
	Permanent	
Death	92.2	93.6	90.1	90.6	75.0	92.3	
Return to community	1.5	1.2	1.1	n.p.	n.p.	1.4	
Hospital	2.6	2.5	4.1	3.5.	n.p.	2.7	
Residential aged care	2.9	1.8	3.0	n.p.	n.p.	2.7	
Other	0.8	0.9	1.7	n.p.	—	0.9	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	12,704	4,338	1,480	85	24	18,631	
	Respite	
Death	2.9	2.0	2.6	n.p.	n.p.	2.6	
Return to community	59.6	66.0	62.9	71.3	62.5	61.8	
Hospital	4.4	3.5	4.3	n.p.	n.p.	4.1	
Residential aged care	13.7	13.0	15.3	5.0.	—	13.6	
Other	19.3	15.5	14.9	17.5.	—	17.8	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	6,262	2,877	1,043	80	8	10,270	
(a) Refers to the location of services. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
n.p. Not published.
— Nil or rounded to zero.
4.7	Dementia and mental illness in older residents
At 30 June 2009:
•	5 out of 6 assessments contained information on older residents’ dementia status (84%). Approximately 6,800 (16%) of older residents did not report a health condition. 
•	Around 29,400 older permanent residents (68% of all older permanent residents) reported having dementia or a mental illness (Table 4.4).
•	Approximately 60% of older residents had at least one diagnosis of dementia.
•	Just over a fifth (21%) of residents had a diagnosis of ‘mental illness only’.
•	The proportion of older residents with a diagnosis of dementia was similar across all age groups. 
•	From this information it cannot be inferred that dementia was the primary health condition of a resident.
Table 4.4: Dementia and mental illness in older permanent residents, 30 June 2009
Sex/age group 	Dementia and mental illness	Dementia only	Mental illness only	No dementia, no mental illness	Total	
	Number	
90–94	5,414	10,076	5,411	4,690	25,591	
95–99	1,735	3,907	1,857	1,822	9,321	
100+	200	580	241	334	1,355	
Total 	7,349	14,563	7,509	6,846	36,267	
	Per cent	
90–94	21.2	39.4	21.1	18.3	100.0	
95–99	18.6	41.9	19.9	19.5	100.0	
100+	14.8	42.8	17.8	24.6	100.0	
Total 	20.3	40.2	20.7	18.9	100.0	
Note: The table reports numbers which are reported in the ACFI appraisal process.
4.8	Aged Care Funding Instrument (ACFI) care level
The majority of older permanent residents were assessed as requiring high-level care after completing an ACFI appraisal (refer to Chapter 6 for information on the ACFI). In particular, the majority (84%) of those aged 100 years and over were evaluated as needing high-care. Similarly, the majority of permanent residents aged 90–94 years, and those aged 95–99 years also had high-care needs (72% and 76% respectively) (Table 4.5). 
Table 4.5: ACFI classification for older permanent residents, 30 June 2009
Age group (years)	ACFI high-care	ACFI low-care	Total	
	Number 	Per cent	Number 	Per cent	Number	Per cent	
90–94	21,603	71.7	8,509	28.3	30,112	100.0	
95–99	8,521	75.7	2,738	24.3	11,259	100.0	
100+ 	1,385	83.5	274	16.5	1,659	100.0	
Total persons	31,509	73.2	11,521	26.8	43,030	100.0	

Activities of Daily Living (ADL)
Among older permanent residents, the need for high-level ADL care increased with age. A third of residents aged 90–94 years (33%) were classified as needing high-level care for ADLs, around 38% of residents aged 95–99 years  and nearly half of all residents (48%) aged 100 years and over (Figure 4.4; Table A3.8).
Behaviour (BEH)
There were no real age related differences or patterns within the behaviour domain. Around one-third of older permanent residents across the three age groups required high-level behaviour care (Table A3.9; Figure 4.4). 
About 1 in 4 (26%) older residents across all age groups were classified as needing medium-level care and a similar proportion (25%) needed low-level behaviour care. One in 6 (17%) did not require any behaviour care (Table A3.9).
Complex health care (CHC)
There were no real age-related differences or patterns within the complex health care domain. Around 42% of older residents were classified as needing low-level complex health care (Figure 4.4). This was a higher proportion compared to those requiring medium-level care (28%), and high-level care (11%) (Figure 4.4; Table A3.10).
Figure 4.4: ACFI care levels of older residents, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Three vertical bar charts (Activities of daily living, Behaviour and Complex health care) showing, for level, per cent on y-axes and age group (years) on x-axes.
Sources: Tables A3.8, A3.9 and A3.10.
5	Patterns of use
This chapter explores a number of areas relating to residential aged care use, including admissions to residential aged care, separations and length of stay. In addition, it analyses measures of use such as usage rates of residential aged care, turnover, occupied place-days, and average occupancy between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009. 
5.1	Admissions 
Between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009:
•	There were just over 111,500 admissions to residential aged care (Table 5.1):
–	around 57,000 were for permanent care (51%)
–	about 54,500 were for respite care (49%).
•	By comparison, in 1998–99 there were fewer admissions, but nearly the same proportion of admissions were for permanent care (53%) (Table 7.3).
•	The majority of residents admitted to care in 2008–09 were aged 80 years and over (72%). Nearly three-quarters (73%) of permanent admissions, and 70% of respite admissions were aged 80 years and over (Figure 5.1).
•	Just under 30% of permanent and respite residents admitted to care were aged 
85–89 years (28% and 27% respectively) (Figure 5.1). 
•	Among states and territories, the Northern Territory had a greater proportion of younger residents admitted to residential care; 14% permanent and 16% respite residents were aged less than 65 years (compared with the national average of around 4-5%) (tables 5.1 and A4.2). 
Figure 5.1: Permanent and respite admissions, age at admission, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Vertical bar chart showing, for permanent and respite, per cent on y-axis and age group (years) on x-axis.
Source: Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Permanent, respite and all admissions, age at admission by sex, 1 July 2008 to 
30 June 2009
Age group (years)	Permanent	Respite	All admissions	
	Number	Per cent	Number 	Per cent	Number 	Per cent	
Females		
under 65	958	2.7	1,193	3.6	2,151	3.1	
65–69	891	2.5	1,059	3.2	1,950	2.8	
70–74	1,842	5.2	1,971	5.9	3,813	5.6	
75–79	4,259	12.1	4,053	12.1	8,312	12.1	
80–84	8,593	24.4	8,029	24.0	16,622	24.2	
85–89	10,384	29.5	9,815	29.3	20,199	29.4	
90–94	6,308	17.9	5,646	16.9	11,954	17.4	
95+	1,989	5.6	1,710	5.1	3,699	5.4	
Total females	35,224	100.0	33,476	100.0	68,700	100.0	
Males		
under 65	1,155	5.3	1,330	6.3	2,485	5.8	
65–69	1,102	5.1	1,210	5.7	2,312	5.4	
70–74	1,875	8.6	2,122	10.1	3,997	9.3	
75–79	3,277	15.1	3,457	16.4	6,734	15.7	
80–84	5,424	24.9	5,160	24.5	10,584	24.7	
85–89	5,552	25.5	4,952	23.5	10,504	24.5	
90–94	2,732	12.6	2,274	10.8	5,006	11.7	
95+	642	3.0	554	2.6	1,196	2.8	
Total males	21,759	100.0	21,059	100.0	42,818	100.0	
Persons		
under 65	2,113	3.7	2,523	4.6	4,636	4.2	
65–69	1,993	3.5	2,269	4.2	4,262	3.8	
70–74	3,717	6.5	4,093	7.5	7,810	7.0	
75–79	7,536	13.2	7,510	13.8	15,046	13.5	
80–84	14,017	24.6	13,189	24.2	27,206	24.4	
85–89	15,936	28.0	14,767	27.1	30,703	27.5	
90–94	9,040	15.9	7,920	14.5	16,960	15.2	
95+	2,631	4.6	2,264	4.2	4,895	4.4	
Total persons	56,983	100.0	54,535	100.0	111,518	100.0	
Note: Includes residents who may have been admitted more than once.

5.2	Separations
Box 5.1: Separations
What is a separation?
Occurs when a resident leaves residential aged care and has not re-entered the same or another service within 2 days.
The reasons for separation are: 
- death
- return to community
- admission to hospital
- move to another aged care service  
- other. 

Between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009:
•	There were approximately 109,600 separations from residential aged care. Just over 55,300 separations were of permanent residents, which accounted for half the total separations (50%), and around 54,300 were respite separations (Table A4.3). 
•	There were fewer separations from residential aged care in 1998–99 (around 85,000), but a similar proportion (52%) occurred after a period of permanent care (Table 7.3).
•	Among permanent residents between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009:
–	death was the major reason for separation from permanent care (88%)
–	a small proportion returned to the community (3%)
–	3% moved to a different residential aged care setting
–	3% were discharged to hospitals
–	1.5% of permanent separations were classified as ‘other’ (Figure 5.2; Table A4.5).
•	Across state and territories, Tasmania, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory had the highest proportion of permanent separations through death (94%, 92% and 92% respectively) (Table A4.5). Western Australia and the Northern Territory had the lowest proportions (83% and 81%, respectively) (Table A4.5). 
•	Among respite residents between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009:
–	the majority of residents returned to the community (64%)
–	13% continued to other residential care
–	about 4% were discharged to hospital
–	a small proportion of residents (2%) had died
–	about 17% of respite separations were classified as ‘other’ (Table A4.6).
•	Tasmania, Victoria and Queensland had the highest proportions of respite residents returning to the community (83%, 73%, and 72% respectively). The national average was 64% (Table A4.6).
•	South Australia and New South Wales had the lowest proportion of respite residents returning to the community (58% and 53% respectively). In these two states, a high proportion of residents continued to residential care (both 14%), as did residents in Western Australia and Queensland (17% and 16% respectively). The national average was 13% (Table A4.6). 
Figure 5.2: Permanent and respite separations by separation mode, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Vertical bar chart showing, for permanent and respite, per cent on y-axis and separation mode on x-axis.
Source: Tables A4.5 and A4.6.
5.3	Length of stay
Box 5.2: Measurements for length of stay
There are two standard measurements for length of stay:
1.  Length of stay of an existing resident up to a particular point in time (in this publication, up to 30 June 2009). For existing residents, length of stay is an incomplete measure. It shows the amount of time residents have already spent in residential aged care, but not how much more time will be spent before leaving. 
2.  Total or completed length of stay of a separated resident up to the point of leaving residential aged care. If a resident moves from one service to another in less than 2 days (known as a transfer), then this is ignored, and the admission date used in the measure is the earlier admission date, or the first admission considering all transfers. 
Length of stay of existing permanent residents
At 30 June 2009:
•	29% of existing permanent residents had been in residential aged care for less than 1 year.
•	20% of residents had a length of stay between 1 to less than 2 years.
•	52% of residents had been in care for 1–5 years.
•	19% of residents were in care for 5 years or more.
•	The distribution of length of stay was similar across remoteness (Table 5.2). 
Table 5.2: Existing permanent residents, length of stay to date by sex and remoteness(a), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Length of stay	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	Australia	
Persons		
<4 weeks	2.7	2.4	2.8	2.9	2.3	3.5	
4–<8 weeks	2.5	2.5	2.4	2.3	2.2	2.5	
8–<13 weeks	2.7	2.9	2.9	2.8	2.9	2.4	
13–<26 weeks	6.6	6.9	6.6	7.0	6.6	6.4	
26–<39 weeks	6.2	6.4	6.0	6.1	5.9	7.3	
39–<52 weeks	6.3	6.2	6.3	6.8	6.1	6.8	
1–<2 years	19.5	19.7	19.5	19.9	19.5	20.3	
2–<3 years	14.2	14.5	14.0	13.9	14.2	13.6	
3–<4 years	10.3	10.7	10.2	10.6	11.0	10.6	
4–<5 years	7.7	7.4	7.5	8.0	7.9	7.9	
5–<8 years	12.1	12.7	13.0	12.5	13.7	11.7	
8+ years	9.1	7.7	8.7	7.3	8.0	7.1	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total persons (number)	109,015	36,262	12,421	950	237	158,885	
(a) Refers to the location of the services. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.		
Completed length of stay
For permanent residents who left residential care during 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009:
•	38% were in residential care for less than 1 year (27% for less than 6 months) (Table 5.3).
•	44% remained for between 1 year and just under 5 years.
•	Almost half of all male residents had been in residential care for less than 1 year 
(48% compared with 32% of females).
•	88% left due to death and of these:
•	17% had stayed for less than 3 months 
•	19% had stayed from 3 months to less than 1 year 
•	45% had stayed 1 year to less than 5 years
•	20% had stayed 5 years or more (Table A4.7).
•	3% returned to the community and almost half of these (46%) stayed under 3 months.
•	3% went to hospital and over a quarter (26%) of these stayed between 1 and up to 3 years.
Table 5.3: Separations of permanent residents, completed length of stay, by sex and state/territory(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Length of stay	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
Females		
<4 weeks	7.0	5.5	5.3	5.5	6.2	5.8	5.2	n.p.	6.1	
4–<8 weeks	5.3	4.2	4.2	3.6	4.8	4.9	2.9	3.7	4.6	
8–<13 weeks	4.4	4.5	3.6	4.1	3.9	3.9	4.2	n.p.	4.2	
13–<26 weeks	7.3	7.2	7.1	7.0	7.4	6.5	8.6	n.p.	7.2	
26–<39 weeks	5.3	5.2	5.2	6.1	5.0	5.4	7.0	6.2	5.3	
39–<52 weeks	4.4	4.9	4.9	5.2	4.1	4.6	3.6	3.7	4.6	
1–<2 years	15.0	15.9	15.0	15.6	14.1	14.8	17.4	16.0	15.2	
2–<3 years	11.6	12.5	12.0	12.4	11.8	13.4	10.6	11.1	12.0	
3–<4 years	9.7	9.5	10.1	10.4	10.2	8.9	9.9	14.8	9.8	
4–<5 years	7.8	8.2	8.3	8.0	8.8	7.4	7.3	11.1	8.1	
5–<8 years	13.4	13.6	14.6	13.2	14.1	15.1	14.3	11.1	13.8	
8+ years	8.9	8.7	9.7	9.0	9.7	9.3	9.1.	6.2	9.1	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total females (number)	12,105	8,621	5,846	2,991	3,344	1,046	385	81	34,419	
Males		
<4 weeks	12.2	9.5	9.7	9.4	11.3	9.8	6.9	—	10.6	
4–<8 weeks	7.9	7.2	7.0	7.2	8.0	8.6	7.4	8.9	7.5	
8–<13 weeks	6.3	5.8	5.9	5.5	6.4	5.0	5.9	n.p.	6.0	
13–<26 weeks	10.8	10.6	9.5	12.1	9.3	10.3	12.4.	n.p.	10.4	
26–<39 weeks	7.1	7.5	7.6	7.8	7.4	6.9	6.4	19.6	7.4	
39–<52 weeks	5.3	5.4	6.1	6.1	4.9	8.1	5.9.	n.p.	5.6	
1–<2 years	16.0	17.9	16.9	17.7	15.6	16.2	20.8	14.3	16.8	
2–<3 years	10.3	11.7	11.5	11.1	11.0	12.9	12.9	17.9	11.1	
3–<4 years	7.5	7.1	7.8	7.0	8.5	6.9	5.0	7.1	7.5	
4–<5 years	5.5	6.1	6.2	5.6	5.6	4.1	5.4	10.7	5.8	
5–<8 years	6.8	7.5	7.8	7.1	8.0	7.9	5.4	7.1	7.3	
8+ years	4.3	3.6	4.1	3.5	3.8	3.1	5.4	n.p.	4.0	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total males (number)	7,270	5,206	3,834	1,766	1,977	580	202	56	20,891	
Persons		
<4 weeks	9.0	7.0	7.0	6.9	8.1	7.3	5.8	n.p.	7.8	
4–<8 weeks	6.2	5.3	5.3	4.9	6.0	6.2	4.4	5.8	5.7	
8–<13 weeks	5.1	5.0	4.5	4.6	4.8	4.3	4.8	n.p.	4.9	
13–<26 weeks	8.6	8.5	8.1	8.9	8.1	7.9	9.9	8.0	8.4	
26–<39 weeks	6.0	6.1	6.2	6.7	5.9	6.0	6.8	11.7	6.1	
39–<52 weeks	4.7	5.1	5.4	5.5	4.4	5.8	4.4	3.6	5.0	
1–<2 years	15.4	16.6	15.8	16.4	14.7	15.3	18.6	15.3	15.8	
2–<3 years	11.1	12.2	11.8	11.9	11.5	13.2	11.4	13.9	11.7	
3–<4 years	8.9	8.6	9.2	9.1	9.6	8.2	8.2	11.7	8.9	
4–<5 years	6.9	7.4	7.5	7.1	7.6	6.2	6.6	10.9	7.2	
5–<8 years	10.9	11.3	11.9	11.0	11.8	12.5	11.2	9.5	11.3	
8+ years	7.1	6.8	7.5	7.0	7.5	7.1	7.8	5.1	7.1	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total persons (number)	19,375	13,827	9,680	4,757	5,321	1,626	587	137	55,310	
(a) Refers to the location of the services. 
n.p. not published.
— Nil or rounded to zero.
5.4	Average length of stay
Permanent residents
Between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009:
•	The average (mean) length of stay for permanent residents leaving residential care was:
–	169.5 weeks for females 
–	109.9 weeks for males
–	147.0 weeks in total (just under 3 years). 
•	The average length of stay of residents at the time of separation varied slightly among the states and territories. Permanent separations in Queensland had the longest average length of stay (153.4 weeks) and those in Western Australia had the shortest 
(143.9 weeks) (Table 5.4).
•	There was variation in length of stay across remoteness. The longest average length of stay was in Very remote areas at 237.3 weeks, while Inner regional areas had the shortest at 
141.8 weeks (Table 5.4). 
Respite residents
Between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009:
•	The average (mean) length of stay for respite residents leaving residential care was: 
–	3.5 weeks for females
–	3.2 weeks for males
–	3.4 weeks in total.
•	Within the respite group, the average length of stay varied from 4.3 weeks in the Northern Territory to 2.2 weeks in Tasmania (Table 5.5). 
•	The longest average length of stay was in Very remote areas (6 weeks), with the lowest in Remote areas at 2.9 weeks. Major cities had an average length of respite stay of 3.6 weeks (Table 5.5).
From 1998–99 to 2008–09, the average completed length of stay for permanent residents had increased from 131.3 weeks to 147.0 weeks (Table 7.3). On the other hand, average completed length of stay for respite care had initially declined from 3.5 weeks and then stabilised at 
3.1 weeks, before increasing to 3.4 weeks by 2008–09 (Table 7.3).

Table 5.4: Average (mean) length of stay (weeks), separations of permanent residents, by sex, state/territory and remoteness(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
State/territory	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	All regions	
Females		
NSW	170.4	155.4	169.4	146.1	—	166.6	
Vic	164.7	165.6	176.3	112.6	. .	165.5	
Qld	176.0	181.3	185.7	228.3	298.9	179.2	
WA	168.4	151.3	173.3	201.1	334.9	167.3	
SA	173.7	173.4	181.3	154	—	174.3	
Tas	. .	173.5	169.6	125.9	89.9	171.6	
ACT	172.4	—	. .	. .	. .	172.4	
NT	. .	. .	182.8	125.3	221.4	162.2	
Total females	170.0	165.0	176.5	172.3	276.9	169.5	
Males	        	
NSW	112.4	100.6	118.8	97.2	—	109.7	
Vic	111.3	99.9	124.0	143.0	. .	109.4	
Qld	107.4	116.1	140.8	177.6	141.8	114.2	
WA	104.6	92.9	104.7	88.0	251.1	104.3	
SA	107.9	110.7	127.9	100.3	—	110.1	
Tas	. .	101.6	114.0	92.9	131.8	104.9	
ACT	109.4	—	. .	. .	. .	109.4	
NT	. .	. .	101.5	129.7	587.0	126.9	
Total males	110.0	103.6	124.6	121.9	203.7	109.9	
Persons	        	
NSW	148.8	134.3	150.1	127.3	—	145.2	
Vic	144.4	141.6	156.1	127.8	. .	144.4	
Qld	149.2	155.4	167.1	206.6	222.3	153.4	
WA	144.9	129.7	148.8	140.2	281.8	143.9	
SA	149.1	150.0	162.9	129.3	—	150.4	
Tas	. .	147.6	150.7	111.2	112.8	147.8	
ACT	150.7	—	. .	. .	. .	150.7	
NT	. .	. .	146.5	126.8	367.7	147.8	
Total persons	147.4	141.8	156.8	150.1	237.3	147.0	
(a)   	Refers to the location of the services. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
. .    Not applicable.			
— Nil or rounded to zero.

	

Table 5.5: Average length of stay (weeks), separations of respite residents, by sex, state/territory and remoteness(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
State/territory	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	Australia	
Females		
NSW	4.2	3.4	3.7	4.9	—	4.0	
Vic	3.1	2.7	2.9	4.3	. .	3.0	
Qld	3.2	3.0	3.2	3.5	3.6	3.1	
WA	3.1	3.2	3.2	2.8	3.3	3.1	
SA	4.1	3.1	3.2	2.2	—	3.8	
Tas	. .	2.2	2.5	2.5	2.9	2.3	
ACT	3.1	—	. .	. .	. .	3.1	
NT	. .	. .	4.5	3.1	18.7	4.6	
Total females	3.7	3.0	3.3	2.9	6.2	3.5	
Males		
NSW	4.1	3.2	3.5	2.2	—	3.8	
Vic	2.9	2.7	2.9	1.7	. .	2.8	
Qld	2.9	2.8	3.1	4.0	3.7	2.9	
WA	2.7	3.1	3.0	2.9	6.0	2.9	
SA	3.7	2.9	3.1	2.1	—	3.4	
Tas	. .	2.1	2.2	3.5	5.3	2.2	
ACT	3.1	—	. .	. .	. .	3.1	
NT	. .	. .	3.7	3.3	22.9	3.9	
Total males	3.4	2.9	3.1	2.9	5.8	3.2	
Persons		
NSW	4.2	3.4	3.6	3.6	—	3.9	
Vic	3.0	2.7	2.9	3.2	. .	2.9	
Qld	3.0	2.9	3.1	3.7	3.7	3.0	
WA	2.9	3.1	3.1	2.8	4.4	3.0	
SA	3.9	3.1	3.2	2.2	—	3.6	
Tas	. .	2.2	2.3	2.9	4.2	2.2	
ACT	3.1	—	. .	. .	. .	3.1	
NT	. .	. .	4.1	3.2	19.6	4.3	
Total persons	3.6	3.0	3.2	2.9	6.0	3.4	
(a)  Refers to the location of the services. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.			
. .    Not applicable.			
— Nil or rounded to zero.

				
5.5	Resident turnover
The amount of turnover in the residential aged care system is a function of the number of admissions, length of stay and the overall growth or reduction in the type and number of places in the system. Generally, the turnover for permanent and respite residents has been relatively stable from 2000–01 to 2008–09, with rates fluctuating in narrow bands (Table 5.6). Approximately one-third of permanent places are associated with new admissions in a year, whereas respite places are used about 15 to 17 times per year (Table 5.6). 
Table 5.6: Admissions and turnover, by type of care in residential aged care services, 2000–01 to 2008–09
Type of care	2000–01	2001–02	2002–03	2003–04	2004–05	2005–06	2006–07	2007–08	2008–09	
Permanent care	
Admissions	46,545	47,345	51,200	53,356	52,462	52,964	52,196	53,737	56,983	
Turnover	0.33	0.33	0.36	0.35	0.34	0.33	0.32	0.32	0.33	
Respite care	
Admissions	43,606	43,309	45,445	46,632	48,295	49,727	50,987	51,293	54,535	
Turnover	16.04	17.17	17.07	16.84	16.32	14.98	15.34	15.05	14.84	
Permanent and respite care	
Admissions	90,151	90,654	96,645	99,988	100,757	102,691	103,183	105,030	111,518	
Turnover	0.63	0.63	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.64	
Note: Turnover is calculated separately for permanent and respite residents by firstly allocating permanent and respite places according to the number of residents in each category as at 30 June 2009. Turnover is defined as admissions over the financial year divided by places.
5.6	Usage rates
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, as a proportion 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 were 10 people for every 1,000 people in that age group who were using residential aged care during a particular time period. A provision ratio of 10 would mean that, at a specific point in time there were 10 places available for every 1,000 people aged 70 years or more.
Usage rates for permanent residential aged care have been calculated by English-speaking status (based on country of birth), and by Indigenous status. 
At 30 June 2009:
•	Total usage rates for permanent residents were 23.1 per 1,000 persons aged 50 years and over (Table 5.7). The Australian-born group had the highest usage rates at 25.6 compared with overseas-born English speaking (20.7), and overseas-born non-English speaking groups (17.2). The number of Australian-born people receiving permanent care was estimated to be 53.2 per 1,000 persons aged 75–84 years and 238.4 per 1,000 aged 85 years and over. Overseas-born people whose main language was not English, had usage rates of 44.7 for those aged 75–84 years, and 215.6 per 1,000 for 85 years and over. 
•	Usage rates for permanent care increased with age. Residents aged 85 years and over had the highest usage rate, 235 persons for every 1,000 in permanent care (Table 5.7). 
•	Usage rates were higher for females (31.5) than males (14.1), particularly among older age groups.
•	Usage rates for Indigenous Australians were higher at younger ages than the non-Indigenous population (Table 5.8). Indigenous people aged 60 to 64 years had usage rates of 6.7 per 1,000, while the non-Indigenous rate was 2.6. The overall non-Indigenous usage rate (7.4) was 4 times as high as the overall rate of Indigenous peoples (1.8). 
Table 5.7: Age- and sex-specific usage rates for permanent residents, by English-speaking 
status, based on country of birth, 30 June 2009 (per 1,000 population)
Age (years)	Australian-born	Overseas-born, English-speaking	Overseas-born, language other than English	Total	
Females		
50–64	1.6	0.9	0.8	1.3	
65–74	10.5	7.3	6.7	9.2	
75–84	62.7	56.6	54.6	60.4	
85+	278.5	284.8	260.9	276.8	
Total females (50+)	34.8	29.3	22.5	31.5	
Males		
50–64	1.9	1.0	1.0	1.6	
65–74	10.5	6.5	6.8	9.0	
75–84	40.5	33.4	33.8	38.0	
85+	154.3	155.9	144.6	152.8	
Total males (50+)	15.3	12.2	11.6	14.1	
Persons		
50–64	1.7	1.0	0.9	1.5	
65–74	10.5	6.9	6.7	9.1	
75–84	53.2	45.5	44.7	50.5	
85+	238.4	238.8	215.6	235.0	
Total persons (50+)	25.6	20.7	17.2	23.1	
Notes	
1. 	Recipients with unknown status have been pro-rated.				
2. 	Usage rates were calculated at the AIHW using ABS migration statistics and the ABS population estimates released in 
December 2009 (ABS 2008a; ABS 2009a).			
3. 	Due to the unavailability of regular population estimates by language preference, English-speaking status is based on
country of birth. People born in Australia, Ireland, United Kingdom, New Zealand, United States of America, Canada and
South Africa are assumed to be from an English‑speaking background. 	

Table 5.8: Age- and sex-specific usage rates for permanent residents, by
Indigenous status(a), 30 June 2009 (per 1,000 population)(b)
	Indigenous	Non-Indigenous	
Age (years)	Females	Males	Persons	Females	Males	Persons	
0–49	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.1	
50–54	1.7	1.9	1.8	0.5	0.6	0.6	
55–59	4.5	5.3	4.9	1.2	1.4	1.3	
60–64	6.9	6.5	6.7	2.4	2.8	2.6	
65+ 	45.0	35.5	40.9	69.1	32.2	52.3	
Total  	2.1	1.5	1.8	10.4	4.3	7.4	
(a)    Recipients with unknown status have been pro-rated.
(b)    Ratios are calculated using ABS projections released in December 2004 (ABS 2004) and the Australian population
 figures released in December 2009 (ABS 2009a).
5.7	Occupied place-days
The number of occupied place-days in a year is a good indicator of the level of activity in residential aged care. 
•	58.7 million place-days were used in mainstream aged care facilities (excluding MPS and National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program) in Australia. Of these:  
–	57.4 million place-days were for permanent care. 
–	1.3 million place-days were for respite care. Just over 2% of occupied place-days were for respite purposes (tables 5.9 and A4.8). 
•	Across remoteness, the highest proportion of permanent days were in Major cities (69%), and just under a quarter in Inner regional areas (23%) (Table 5.9). There was a similar pattern for respite days, with a high proportion of occupied place-days in Major cities (64%), followed by Inner regional (25%). These proportions reflect the distribution of the older Australian population (Table 2.2).
•	Among states and territories, the Northern Territory had the highest proportion of permanent occupied place-days in Very remote areas (4%), followed by Western Australia (0.7%) (tables 5.9 and A4.8). In the Northern Territory, a high proportion of respite occupied place-days were in Remote areas (34%). This proportion is amplified because the Northern Territory has no Major city or Inner regional classifications. 

Table 5.9: Occupied place-days, type of care by state/territory and remoteness(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)					
State/territory	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	All regions	
Permanent care	
NSW	69.6	24.2	6.0	0.2	—	100.0	
Vic	71.3	23.3	5.3	0.1	. .	100.0	
Qld	62.1	24.6	12.1	0.8	0.4	100.0	
WA	77.8	13.2	6.9	1.4	0.7	100.0	
SA	77.9	11.1	9.9	1.1	—	100.0	
Tas	. .	74.8	23.4	1.4	0.4	100.0	
ACT	100.0	—	. .	. .	. .	100.0	
NT	. .	. .	53.3	42.9	3.7	100.0	
Australia	68.5	22.9	7.9	0.6	0.2	100.0	
Australia (number)	39,318,420	13,113,583	4,516,493	344,832	86,263	57,379,591	
Respite care	
NSW	68.0	23.7	8.1	0.1	—	100.0	
Vic	61.9	30.5	7.5	0.1	. .	100.0	
Qld	52.9	29.4	15.2	1.7	0.8	100.0	
WA	64.7	20.0	12.4	1.8	1.1	100.0	
SA	72.6	13.7	11.5	2.3	—	100.0	
Tas	. .	68.9	25.9	3.8	—	100.0	
ACT	100.0	—	. .	. .	. .	100.0	
NT	. .	. .	51.6	33.6	14.8	100.0	
Australia	63.5	25.2	10.1	1.0	0.3	100.0	
Australia (number)	812,364	321,858	128,913	12,325	3,969	1,279,429	
Permanent and respite care	
NSW	69.6	24.2	6.1	0.2	—	100.0	
Vic	71.2	23.4	5.3	0.1	. .	100.0	
Qld	62.0	24.6	12.1	0.9	0.4	100.0	
WA	77.6	13.3	7.0	1.4	0.7	100.0	
SA	77.7	11.2	9.9	1.1	—	100.0	
Tas	. .	74.7	23.4	1.5	—	100.0	
ACT	100.0	—	. .	. .	. .	100.0	
NT	. .	. .	53.2	42.3	4.5	100.0	
Australia	68.4	22.9	7.9	0.6	0.2	100.0	
Australia (number)	40,130,784	13,435,441	4,645,406	357,157	90,232	58,659,020	
(a) 	Refers to the location of the services. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS. 
. .      Not applicable.
— Nil or rounded to zero.

5.8	Occupancy rate
An occupancy rate is a number that tells us how much a program is being used. It differs from a provision ratio or a usage rate, as these compare the proportion of the population using a residential aged care facility, where an occupancy rate measures how ‘full’ a service is. 
At 30 June 2009: 
•	Australia-wide, the occupancy rate was 93%, a slight decrease from the previous year (94%) (tables 5.10 and A4.9). 
•	The overall occupancy rate ranged from 89% in the Northern Territory to 96% in South Australia, with Tasmania and Western Australia (94% each) also averaging high occupancy rates and Victoria averaging lower occupancy rates (91%). 
•	Inner regional areas had the highest average occupancy (94%) and Very remote areas the lowest average occupancy (79%). 
Between 1998-00 and 2008-09: 
•	The occupancy rate at the national level fluctuated in a narrow band between 93% and 96%, but with a declining trend since 2002-03 (Table A4.9).
•	Over this period, South Australia and Tasmania averaged the highest occupancy rates and among the most stable, within the range of 98% to 96% and 98% to 94% respectively. 
•	The Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory showed the greatest variability over the period (6 percentage points each).
•	Victoria had occupancy rates consistently below, and the Northern Territory generally below, the national average. 
Table 5.10: Average occupancy rate, by state/territory and remoteness(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
State/territory	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	All regions	
NSW	92.4	93.3	92.2	91.4	—	92.6	
Vic	90.3	94.5	94.2	80.1	. .	91.4	
Qld	92.1	94.2	91.5	79.9	69.8	92.3	
WA	94.6	92.7	93.5	89.2	88.7	94.1	
SA	96.1	97.3	93.7	94.5	—	96.0	
Tas	. .	94.7	91.2	95.1	82.6	93.8	
ACT	92.4	—	. .	. .	. .	92.4	
NT	. .	. .	85.2	93.4	95.9	89.0	
Australia	92.4	94.0	92.4	88.3	78.9	92.7	
(a)   	Refers to the location of the services. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.				
Note: The average occupancy rate = (The sum of resident bed-days in the period/The sum of approved places in the period) ×100, for each cell,    where / represents division. Occupancy will be underestimated to the extent that current places are temporarily offline.
. .  	Not applicable.
— Nil or rounded to zero.
5.9	Is there evidence of ageing in place?
What is ageing in place?
Ageing in place is a policy that was introduced as part of the amendments made to the Australian aged care system when the Aged Care Act 1997 was set up (AIHW 2002). 
Ageing in place allows permanent residents to remain in the same service facility as their care needs increase (for those facilities that offer both low-level and high-level care). That is, low-care residents can remain in the same facility even if their care needs increase (see Box 5.3). This means that residents do not have to negotiate moving to a new service, nor do they have to adjust to a new environment with new staff and co-residents. The advantages of ageing in place are considerable because they include less disruption for residents and a greater continuity of care in an already familiar environment (AIHW 2002). 
Prior to the 1997 reforms, residents with low-care needs were accommodated in hostels, and residents with high-care needs were accommodated in nursing homes. The funding arrangements at the time for these two types of facilities were different, and once low-care residents became high-care, they had to be transferred to another facility. 

Box 5.3: Case scenario: Ageing in place
Helga is 89 years old and has been receiving low-level care at the same facility for 2 years. In recent times, nurses have noticed changes in Helga’s behaviour, and believe that her care needs have increased. For example, nurses found her wandering around the facility trying to leave the building, and at times sneaking out of her room. Other residents and staff could see that she was agitated because she was always moving around in her seat. Furthermore, her speech and reaction times were much slower than usual. Some nurses noticed that Helga was having difficulty falling asleep, and often woke up numerous times throughout the night. 
In response to these changes, nurses did an ACFI appraisal to determine Helga’s needs (see Chapter 5 for more information on the ACFI). Helga’s appraisal indicated that she required greater care, so she was reclassified as high-care. Since the facility is designed to cater for residents with a variety of care needs, Helga can continue receiving high-level care at the same facility. Helga’s family is happy to hear that she won’t have to move to another facility. They wanted Helga to remain in a familiar environment, so she can maintain the relationships she has already developed with staff and other residents. 
Changing from low-care to high-care
•	Over the past decade, the proportion of residents who were reclassified from low- to high-care increased. In 2008–09, 10% of residents were reclassified from low-care to high-care, compared with 8% in 1999–00 (Table 5.11). In addition, the number of residents who were reclassified from low- to high-care, and then changed facility has decreased over 10 years. In 2008–09, around 450 residents (0.2%) went from low- to high-care and changed facility. This was lower than the number of residents in 1999–00, around 770 (0.4%) (Table 5.11). 
The odds of a permanent resident changing aged care facility after reclassification were much lower in 2008–09 (1 in 45) compared with 1999–00 (1 in 17) (Table 5.11). In terms of proportions, 2% of residents in 2008–09, compared with 6% in 1999–00 changed facility following reclassification. The overall decrease in odds and proportions provides some evidence to suggest that where necessary residents are able to transition from low to high care. However, as a higher proportion of residents enter residential aged care facilities at the high care level, this obscures accurate identification of ageing in place. 
Table 5.11: Permanent resident movement with reclassification from low-care to high-care,                       1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Year	Permanent residents in care during year 	Per cent of residents changing from low-care to high-care in year	Total residents changing facility and low/high status	Residents changing facility (odds)	Residents changing facility (%)	
1999–00	174,154	7.5	768	1 in 17	5.8	
2000–01	176,221	7.8	775	1 in 18	5.5	
2001–02	178,160	7.5	748	1 in 18	5.5	
2002–03	184,176	8.0	742	1 in 20	5.0	
2003–04	190,153	8.2	769	1 in 21	4.8	
2004–05	194,171	8.8	724	1 in 24	4.2	
2005–06	199,198	8.7	653	1 in 27	3.7	
2006–07	202,677	8.9	647	1 in 28	3.5	
2007–08	208,243	9.3	598	1 in 33	3.0	
2008–09	211,494	9.7	455	1 in 45	2.2	

6	Care level of residents 
This chapter describes current dependency levels of residents, and provides an overview of the varying ACFI care levels across all three domains as assessed for permanent residents. It explains ACFI care levels for permanent residents at admission and for younger residents (aged less than 65 years). It includes information on age and sex at separation, and length of stay. In addition, the chapter describes residents’ health conditions and the recorded diagnoses of dementia and mental illness amongst residents.
6.1	Aged Care Funding Instrument (ACFI)
The ACFI replaced the Resident Classification Scale (RCS) on 20 March 2008. From 20 March 2008, residents who were initially classified using the RCS have been gradually appraised using the ACFI. 

Box 6.1: The ACFI
What is the ACFI?
The ACFI is a funding tool used to assess the level of Australian Government care payments for residents in residential aged care. It focuses on care needs and reflects the average cost of care in longer stay environments. ‘While based on the differential resource requirements of individual persons, the ACFI is primarily intended to deliver funding to the financial entity providing the care environment. This entity for most practical purposes is the residential aged care home.’ (DoHA 2009c:1) 
How does the ACFI work?
An assessment undertaken with the ACFI is called an appraisal. Each ACFI appraisal uses information from 12 questions, and 2 categories of diagnosis (mental and behavioural disorders, and medical conditions) to place a resident in the low, medium, or high category of each of the three funding domains (DoHA 2009b).
The three domains are: 
1.	Activities of daily living (ADL): comprises ACFI questions on nutrition, mobility, personal hygiene, toileting and continence. 
2.	Behaviour (BEH): comprises ACFI questions on cognitive skills, wandering, verbal behaviour, physical behaviour and depression.
3.	Complex health care (CHC): comprises ACFI questions on medication and complex health care procedures.
The outcome of questions 1 to 12 is a rating of A, B, C, or D. This information is then used to categorise resident’s needs as nil, low, medium, or high within each of the three domains. If a resident has been assessed as having nil or low-care needs in that domain, then no funding is provided for that domain. 

Box 6.1 (continued): The ACFI
For a resident to be assessed as high-care, they must be classified at one or more of the following levels: 
• Activities of daily living (ADL): medium or high
• Behaviour (BEH): high
• Complex health care (CHC): medium or high.
6.2	ACFI dependency levels
Resident dependency levels are determined by the ACFI. From 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009, three-quarters of female and male permanent residents required high-level care (75% each) 
(Table 6.1), representing a slight decrease since 2007–08 (76% and 77% respectively) 
(Table A5.1).

Table 6.1: Dependency levels of permanent residents in residential aged care services, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Sex	High-care	Low-care	Total	
Females	74.7	25.3	100.0	
Males	75.2	24.8	100.0	
Persons	74.9	25.1	100.0	
			
Distribution of ACFI high- and low-care scores
Overall, there were nearly 117,900 permanent residents in residential aged care services with a high-care appraisal (Table A5.2). Just under 6,000 residents (5%) had a high-care classification across all three domains. Around 9% of residents who had a high-care appraisal were classified as high-care in both ADL and BEH, and medium care in CHC (the highest proportion of residents evaluated as high-care received this particular appraisal combination). Of those who received a high-care appraisal, the least likely combination of scores was nil for ADL, and high for both BEH and CHC, where 28 residents had this score (Table A5.2). 
At 30 June 2009, there were just over 39,600 residents with a low-care appraisal (Table A5.3). 

6.3	ACFI care level at admission 
From 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 there were nearly 54,000 permanent resident admissions with an ACFI appraisal. Of these:
•	Just over one-third (35%) were appraised as needing low ADL care, and 30% needed high ADL care (Figure 6.1).  
•	Less than one-third (30%) were classified as high BEH care, and around a quarter required medium care (26%) (Figure 6.1; Table A5.4b). 
•	Around 4 in 10 were classified as having low CHC needs (38%) (Table A5.4c). 
•	Northern Territory had the highest proportion of females with a high ADL care appraisal (33%) and their male counterparts had the lowest proportion (25%) (Table S5.1a).
•	South Australia had the highest proportion with a high-care BEH classification (36% for females, and 39% for males). The national averages were 28% for females and 33% for males. Tasmania had a higher proportion with a nil BEH score compared with other states (29% compared with a national average of 19%) (Table S5.1b). 
•	South Australia had the highest proportion with a high CHC care classification 
(25% compared with the national average of 19% (Table S5.1c).
Figure 6.1: Level of care across the ACFI domains for permanent residents at admission, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Vertical bar chart showing, for level, per cent on y-axis and care level in ACFI domain on x-axis.
Sources: Tables A5.4a, A5.4b and A5.4c.
Box 6.2: ACFI Case scenario 
Georgiana is an 86 year-old female who has recently been admitted to residential care. Her ACFI appraisal has indicated her different care level needs across the three domains. She has been classified as low ADL needs, high BEH needs, and low CHC needs. 
Georgiana only requires minimal care in relation to her daily living needs. She is able to manage eating and take care of her personal hygiene needs. She can dress herself, and wash up without assistance. At times she finds it difficult to walk from her room to other parts of the facility, but generally she is quite mobile. However, her need for behaviour care is high. That is, Georgiana swears quite loudly, and is verbally uncooperative. The nurse completing the appraisal also observed Georgiana performing repetitious mannerisms. For example, she was constantly picking at her clothes, as well as other objects that were in her surrounding area. This indicates that Georgiana’s behaviour warrants high-levels of assistance. Georgiana’s need for assistance with complex health care is minimal; she requires some help with remembering to take her medication, however she does not require any complex health care procedures.
6.4	ACFI care levels for permanent residents
At 30 June 2009:
•	One in three permanent residents were classified as high ADL care (33%) and 37% as high BEH care. About 40% of permanent residents in the CHC domain were classified as low-care (Figure 6.2; Table A5.5).
•	Among states and territories, South Australia had the highest proportion of residents with a high-care BEH classification (45%), compared with the national average of 37% (Table S5.2b). In Tasmania, almost a quarter (24%) of permanent residents had nil BEH classifications. This was higher than the national average of 15% (Table S5.2b).
  Figure 6.2: Level of care across ACFI domains, permanent residents, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Vertical bar chart showing, for level, per cent on y-axis and care level in ACFI domains on x-axis.
Source: Table A5.5.
6.5	ACFI for younger people (aged under 65 years) 
At 30 June 2009 in permanent residential aged care:
•	Just over one-third (36%) of younger permanent residents were classified as high ADL care (Figure 6.3). Around half the residents aged 40–44 years were classified as high ADL care (51%) (Table A5.6a). Higher proportions of younger female residents needed high ADL care compared to their male counterparts (42% and 32% respectively).
•	Around 45% of younger permanent residents required high BEH care; as did just under half of those aged between 45–49 years (48%), the highest of all age groups under 65 years (Figure 6.3; Table A5.6b). 
•	About 1 in 5 younger residents needed high CHC care (20%). However, as age increased within the CHC domain, the need for high-level care decreased (from 46% of those aged under 40 years to 17% of those aged 60–64 years) (Table A5.6c). About 1 in 3 younger residents (34%) assessed in permanent aged care were classified as low CHC care.
For more information on younger people in residential care, refer to a separate report on Younger people with disability in residential aged care program: Report on the 2008–09 minimum data set (AIHW 2010d).
Figure 6.3: Level of care across the ACFI domains for younger people (aged under 65 years) appraised permanent residential aged care, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Vertical bar chart showing, for level, per cent on y-axis and care level in ACFI domains on x-axis.
Sources: Tables A5.6a, A5.6b, and A5.6c.

6.6	ACFI care level for permanent residents by age 
At 30 June 2009:
•	Across all age groups, one in three (33%) permanent residents required high ADL care, and a further 30% required low ADL care (30%) (Table 6.2).
•	The 95 years and over age group had the highest proportion of residents classified as high ADL care (39%) (Table 6.2). Within this age group, 41% of females were classified as high-care; this proportion was higher than for males (31%) (Table A5.7a). 
•	Within the BEH domain, as age increased, the proportion of residents requiring high-care decreased. Less than half of residents aged under 65 years required high-level care (45%). This proportion steadily decreased to 32% for those aged 95 years and over (Table 6.2). 
•	Within the CHC domain, as age increased, high CHC care generally decreased. One in five (20%) residents aged under 65 years required high-care, compared to one in nine (11%) of residents aged 95 years and over (Table 6.2).
Table 6.2: ACFI care level for permanent residents, by age group at 30 June 2009 (per cent)
ACFI care level	<65	65–69	70–74	75–79	80–84	85–89	90–94	95+	Total	
	Activities of daily living	
High	36.3	31.6	34.5	34.5	32.8	31.8	32.6	39.3	33.4	
Medium	29.6	30.4	27.8	28.6	28.2	27.6	27.6	28.6	28.1	
Low	25.4	27.8	27.8	28.1	30.0	31.3	31.1	26.0	29.7	
Nil	8.7	10.2	9.9	8.7	9.0	9.3	8.6	6.1	8.8	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	6,452	5,139	8,662	17,123	32,770	44,318	30,112	12,918	157,494	
	Behaviour	
High	44.9	43.5	42.3	41.7	38.5	36.1	32.6	32.2	37.1	
Medium	26.7	25.1	25.3	25.0	25.2	24.8	25.4	26.7	25.3	
Low	18.5	20.1	20.2	20.3	21.7	22.7	24.7	25.5	22.5	
Nil	9.9	11.2	12.2	13.0	14.6	16.4	17.3	15.6	15.1	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	6,452	5,139	8,662	17,123	32,770	44,318	30,112	12,918	157,494	
	Complex health care	
High	19.7	16.5	15.6	14.5	12.6	11.4	11.2	11.3	12.7	
Medium	27.6	28.4	28.7	28.3	27.5	27.1	26.9	28.9	27.6	
Low	33.8	36.3	37.0	38.3	40.7	42.0	42.0	41.6	40.5	
Nil	18.9	18.8	18.7	18.9	19.2	19.5	19.8	18.1	19.2	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	6,452	5,139	8,662	17,123	32,770	44,318	30,112	12,918	157,494	
Note:  The table is for clients whose last appraisal at 30 June 2009 was from the ACFI.

6.7	ACFI care level at admission by age
For permanent residents admitted from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009:
•	There were just under 54,000 residents with an ACFI appraisal at admission, and the most common age group was residents aged 85–89 years (28%) (Table 6.3).
•	Within the BEH domain, as age increased high BEH care requirements decreased. Over one-third (38%) of residents aged less than 65 years required high-level care, compared to 23% of residents aged 95 years and over. The need for CHC care generally followed the same pattern—30% of residents aged less than 65 years required high-level care, compared to 17% of residents aged 95 years and over (Table 6.3).
Table 6.3: ACFI level of care level at admission for activities of daily living, new permanent residents admitted from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009, by age group at admission (per cent)
ACFI care level	<65	65–69	70–74	75–79	80–84	85–89	90–94	95+	Total	
	Activities of daily living	
High	36.2	32.0	32.0	31.1	29.2	28.7	30.0	38.8	30.4	
Medium	30.4	29.8	30.5	28.3	27.4	26.3	27.6	28.4	27.7	
Low	26.4	30.4	30.7	32.7	35.8	37.3	35.9	28.9	34.6	
Nil	7.0	7.8	6.8	7.8	7.6	7.7	6.5	3.8	7.3	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	1,968	1,882	3,504	7,131	13,284	15,150	8,582	2,497	53,998	
	Behaviour	
High	38.0	36.0	34.7	34.8	30.7	27.2	24.2	23.3	29.6	
Medium	27.1	25.7	25.9	25.1	25.9	25.5	26.1	27.8	25.8	
Low	20.7	24.0	22.0	22.9	24.7	26.2	27.7	29.2	25.2	
Nil	14.3	14.4	17.4	17.2	18.7	21.1	22.0	19.7	19.3	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	1,968	1,882	3,504	7,131	13,284	15,150	8,582	2,497	53,998	
	Complex health care	
High	30.1	25.8	24.1	20.7	18.0	16.1	15.4	17.1	18.5	
Medium	23.7	24.0	24.4	23.5	22.7	22.2	22.8	26.5	23.0	
Low	28.3	32.2	33.9	36.4	38.7	40.8	40.4	38.1	38.3	
Nil	17.9	18.0	17.6	19.3	20.7	20.9	21.4	18.3	20.2	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	1,968	1,882	3,504	7,131	13,284	15,150	8,582	2,497	53,998	
Note: The table is for clients whose last appraisal during the time period was from the ACFI.

6.8	Separation mode by ACFI level of care
Of residents with an ACFI appraisal, 41,821 left residential care between 1 July 2008 and 
30 June 2009. The main reason for separation was death (90%) (Table 6.4). A small proportion (3%) returned to the community, while 3% were discharged to hospital. Two per cent remained in residential care, and 1% reported ‘other’ as the reason for separation (Table 6.4). 
For residents appraised as high-care within the ADL, BEH, and CHC domains the most common reason for separation was death (96%, 92% and 95% respectively) (Table 6.4). As requirements for care decreased, residents were less likely to separate due to death. In addition, residents with high-level care needs were less likely to return to the community or move to residential care than those with medium, low and nil care needs. 
As the need for ADL care decreased, the proportion of residents returning to the community increased. Of those who needed no ADL care, 14% returned to the community, whereas those who required high, medium and low ADL care were less likely to do so (2%, 4% and 8% respectively) (Table 6.4).
Table 6.4: ACFI level of care for ADL, BEH and CHC at separation, for permanent residents separating between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009, by separation mode (per cent)
 	ACFI care level 	
Separation mode	High	Medium	Low	None	Total	
	Activities of daily living	
Death	95.5	88.5	76.2	65.3	90	
Return to community	1.5	3.5	7.8	13.9	3.3	
To hospital	1.5	3.6	6.6	5.7	2.9	
To other residential care	0.9	3.0	6.3	5.8	2.4	
Unknown	0.6	1.4	3.1	9.3	1.4	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	23,346	11,346	5,977	1,152	41,821	
	Behaviour	
Death	91.8	90.6	88.9	84.9	90.0	
Return to community	2.1	3.2	3.9	6.3	3.3	
To hospital	2.6	2.8	3.1	3.6	2.9	
To other residential care	2.4	2.1	2.5	2.8	2.4	
Unknown	1.2	1.2	1.6	2.5	1.4	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	16,214	11,541	9,092	4,974	41,821	
	Complex health care	
Death	94.7	90.4	88.5	77.4	90.0	
Return to community	1.8	3.0	3.8	7.9	3.3	
To hospital	1.8	3.0	3.2	5.2	2.9	
To other residential care	0.9	2.3	3.1	5.6	2.4	
Unknown	0.8	1.3	1.4	3.9	1.4	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	12,672	12,574	12,994	3,581	41,821	
Note:  The table is for clients whose last appraisal during the time period was from the ACFI.
6.9	Length of stay by ACFI level of care 
For permanent residents separating between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009 who had an ACFI appraisal:
•	The majority of residents (61%) stayed in residential care for over a year (Table 6.5).
•	Within the ADL domain, the highest proportion of residents to spend less than one year in residential care before separating were those with low-care needs (44%), the lowest proportion were those requiring no care (36%). Residents with high-level care needs had the highest proportion of longer periods of stay (5 years and over) (21%) compared with an average of 12% for those with lower level care needs (Table A5.9).
•	As level of care decreased within the BEH domain from high-care to nil care, the proportion of residents in care for less than a year steadily increased. Around one-third (34%) of residents needing high BEH care were in residential care for less than a year prior to separation, compared to 54% of those needing no care (Table A5.10). Residents with high-care needs had longer periods of stay in residential care (5 years and over) compared to those needing no care (19% compared to 10% respectively) (Table A5.10).
•	Within the CHC domain, the highest proportion of residents to spend less than one year in residential care before separating was high-care residents (51%); the lowest was low-care residents (33%) (Table A5.11). The highest proportion of residents to stay longer 
(5 years and over) were residents needing medium or low levels of care (20% each) (Table A5.11).
Table 6.5: ACFI level of care for ADL, BEH, and CHC at separation, for permanent residents separating between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009, by length of stay (number)
	ACFI care level	
Length of stay	High	Medium	Low	Nil	Total	
	Activities of daily living	
<4 wks	2,270	829	269	27	3,395	
4–<8 wks	1,760	640	338	56	2,794	
8–<13 wks	1,277	771	417	61	2,526	
13–<26 wks	1,813	1,331	875	149	4,168	
26–<39 wks	1,056	694	449	83	2,282	
39–<52 wks	550	467	282	44	1,343	
1–<2 yrs	3,174	1,970	1,141	236	6,521	
2–<3 yrs	2,590	1,331	694	128	4,743	
3–<4 yrs	2,167	941	438	110	3,656	
4–<5 yrs	1,793	754	345	76	2,968	
5–<8 yrs	3,032	990	464	105	4,591	
8+ yrs	1,864	628	265	77	2,834	
Total 	23,346	11,346	5,977	1,152	41,821	
	(continued)	

Table 6.5 (continued): ACFI level of care for ADL, BEH, and CHC at separation, for permanent residents separating between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009, by length of stay (number)
	ACFI care level	
Length of stay	High	Medium	Low	Nil	Total	
	Behaviour	
<4 wks	747	800	992	856	3,395	
4–<8 wks	932	824	622	416	2,794	
8–<13 wks	883	715	600	328	2,526	
13–<26 wks	1,517	1,133	900	618	4,168	
26–<39 wks	919	569	474	320	2,282	
39–<52 wks	552	358	278	155	1,343	
1–<2 yrs	2,610	1,771	1,347	793	6,521	
2–<3 yrs	2,014	1,317	963	449	4,743	
3–<4 yrs	1,622	974	759	301	3,656	
4–<5 yrs	1,305	860	583	220	2,968	
5–<8 yrs	1,965	1,360	943	323	4,591	
8+ yrs	1,148	860	631	195	2,834	
Total 	16,214	11,541	9,092	4,974	41,821	
	Complex health care	
<4 wks	2,050	684	517	144	3,395	
4–<8 wks	1,401	646	563	184	2,794	
8–<13 wks	918	698	706	204	2,526	
13–<26 wks	1,146	1,243	1,329	450	4,168	
26–<39 wks	646	688	697	251	2,282	
39–<52 wks	347	422	425	149	1,343	
1–<2 yrs	1,581	2,067	2,162	711	6,521	
2–<3 yrs	1,126	1,502	1,716	399	4,743	
3–<4 yrs	947	1,174	1,211	324	3,656	
4–<5 yrs	701	971	1,040	256	2,968	
5–<8 yrs	1,103	1,543	1,617	328	4,591	
8+ yrs	706	936	1,011	181	2,834	
Total 	12,672	12,574	12,994	3,581	41,821	
Note:  The table is for residents whose last appraisal during the time period was from the ACFI. The length of stay is the length of stay evaluated from  the last separation in the period. Transfers are not regarded as separations.
6.10	Health conditions
The main health categories reported for resident’s health conditions (excluding mental and behavioural disorders) for permanent residents at 30 June 2009 are provided in Table 6.6.
Nearly 157,500 permanent residents were listed with a main medical condition. The most common health condition listed was Circulatory system diseases (27%). Circulatory system diseases include heart disease, cerebrovascular disease and hypertension. Diseases of the Musculoskeletal system and connective tissue (which includes rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis and osteoporosis) were the main condition for 17% of residents. Around 9% of residents listed endocrine, nutritional and metabolic disorders, such as diabetes, as their main medical condition (Table 6.6). There were no relevant state and territory differences with each main condition. 
The Northern Territory had the highest proportion of residents with Nervous system/ Parkinson’s disease (11%) and Respiratory system diseases (6%) compared to the national average of 6% and 4% respectively. 
Table 6.6: Main medical conditions for permanent residents with an ACFI classification, 30 June 2009 (excludes - mental and behavioural disorders) (per cent)
Diseases (excludes mental and behavioural disorders)	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
Circulatory system        	26.8	26.5	27.5	25.4	26.1	26.5	27.2	29.0	26.7	
Musculoskeletal & connective tissue	15.9	15.0	18.0	19.3	21.9	19.7	18.5	15.3	17.0	
Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic disorders	8.0	9.6	7.9	8.1	9.5	7.6	7.1	10.5	8.5	
Nervous system/Parkinsons 	5.5	6.3	6.0	6.1	6.4	6.7	5.9	10.7	6.0	
Eye and adnexa	5.8	5.1	5.6	5.4	4.9	5.3	5.5	4.3	5.4	
Genitourinary system	5.3	4.7	4.9	5.2	4.3	4.8	4.7	4.8	4.9	
Respiratory system        	3.4	4.0	4.4	4.0	4.6	4.0	2.9	6.2	3.9	
Digestive system          	3.5	3.4	4.6	3.5	3.1	3.2	4.6	n.p.	3.6	
Injury/poisoning/external 	3.1	3.0	2.9	3.2	2.6	3.0	2.4	3.2	3.0	
Neoplasms  (tumours/cancers)	3.0	2.9	2.9	2.9	2.9	2.8	2.1	2.7	2.9	
Ear and mastoid process	2.1	2.1	2.0	2.1	1.7	2.1	3.6	—	2.1	
Skin and subcutaneous tissue	1.4	1.1	1.3	1.1	1.6	1.8	1.0	n.p.	1.3	
Diseases of the blood	0.8	0.9	0.9	0.7	0.9	0.9	0.9	n.p.	0.8	
Other	15.5	15.5	11.2	12.9	9.6	11.6	13.7	11.0	13.8	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	53,628	40,895	28,359	13,226	15,296	4,086	1,631	373	157,494	
n.p. Not published.
— Nil or rounded to zero.
6.11	Dementia and mental illness
Due to the ageing of Australia’s population, dementia and mental illness have been acknowledged as important challenges to health and aged care policy. Dementia is a highly disabling neurological disorder and is most often experienced by those aged 80 years and over (AIHW 2007).  
Diagnoses of dementia and other mental illness were recorded separately from other conditions (in the ACCMIS database). At 30 June 2009, almost all permanent residents had been appraised using the ACFI. Almost 9 out of 10 assessments contained information on residents’ dementia status (88%). More than half (59%) of these had at least one diagnosis of dementia (Table A5.13) and over one-quarter (27%) had a diagnosis of ‘other mental illness only’ (Figure 6.4). However, from this information it cannot be inferred that dementia was the primary health condition of a resident.
Coding of health conditions in the ACFI comes from codes used in the Aged Care Assessment Program and these codes map to equivalent codes in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems – Tenth Revision – Australian Modification (2008) (also known as ICD-10-AM). Further information about dementia in aged care residents is available in the AIHW report Dementia among aged care residents: first information from the Aged Care Funding Instrument (AIHW 2010b). 
Figure 6.4: Diagnosed dementia/mental illness for residents with an ACFI appraisal  which included information on dementia status, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Pie chart.
Source: Table A5.12.

7	Time series
7.1	Trends in resident numbers
Over the past decade, there has been an increase in the number of permanent and respite residents in residential aged care due to the ageing of the population. Furthermore, the number of older residents aged 85 years and over has increased (Table 7.1). 
From 1999 to 2009:
•	Permanent resident numbers increased by nearly 26,500 (20%).
•	Respite resident numbers increased by 925 (37%).
•	The number of permanent residents aged 85 years and over rose by 23,400 permanent residents, a 36% increase.
•	The number of respite residents aged 85 years and over rose by just under 750, an 
82% increase. 
•	The proportion of permanent and respite residents who were aged 85 years and over rose 7 and 12 percentage points respectively. 
Table 7.1: Trends in resident numbers at 30 June, 1999–2009
Year	All permanent residents	All respite residents	Permanent residents 
(85+ years)	Respite residents 
(85+ years)	Permanent residents (85+ years)
(per cent)	Respite residents (85+ years)
(per cent)	
1999	132,420	2,479	64,638	903	48.8	36.4	
2000	133,387	2,604	66,503	1,034	49.9	39.7	
2001	134,004	2,604	67,402	1,008	50.3	38.7	
2002	136,507	2,422	69,258	1,035	50.7	42.7	
2003	140,297	2,549	71,397	1,024	50.9	40.2	
2004	144,994	2,646	74,229	1,097	51.2	41.5	
2005	149,091	2,819	77,285	1,174	51.8	41.6	
2006	151,737	3,135	80,099	1,334	52.8	42.6	
2007	153,426	3,123	82,871	1,445	54.0	46.3	
2008	157,087	3,163	85,912	1,487	54.7	47.0	
2009	158,885	3,404	88,030	1,644	55.4	48.3	

7.2	Proportion of residents aged 80 years and over
The proportion of residents admitted in the age groups 80 years and over and 90 years and over has increased over the last ten years (Table 7.2).
From 1998–99 to 2008–09:
•	The proportion of permanent residents aged 80 years and over increased by 9 percentage points. For respite residents aged 80 years and over, the increase was about 10 percentage points (Table 7.2).
•	The proportion of permanent and respite residents aged 90 years and increased by about 6 percentage points for both groups (Table 7.2). 
Table 7.2: Proportion of residents aged 80 years and over, and aged 90 years and
over at admission, 1998–99 to 2008–09 (per cent)
Year	Permanent (80+ years)	Respite (80+ years)	Permanent (90+ years)	Respite (90+ years)	
1998–99	64.1	59.7	14.8	12.4	
1999–00	65.2	60.0	15.8	13.5	
2000–01	67.0	61.9	16.8	14.0	
2001–02	68.3	62.6	17.5	14.4	
2002–03	69.0	64.2	18.2	15.2	
2003–04	70.0	65.2	18.3	16.0	
2004–05	70.0	65.0	18.9	16.4	
2005–06	70.9	66.3	19.4	17.0	
2006–07	71.5	67.9	19.9	18.0	
2007–08	72.7	68.9	20.3	18.5	
2008–09	73.0	69.9	20.5	18.7	
Note: Transfers are excluded from admissions.	

7.3	Admissions, separations, and completed length of stay
From 1998–99 to 2008–09, both permanent and respite admissions increased in residential aged care, as did the number of separations in permanent and respite care (Table 7.3). Average completed length of stay in permanent care also increased, while length of stay in respite care remained much the same during this period (3.1 to 3.5 weeks).
Between 1998–1999 and 2008–2009: 
•	Permanent admissions increased by just over 11,700 (26%), and respite admissions increased by just over 13,700 (34%) (Table 7.3).
•	Permanent separations increased by around 11,200 (25%), and respite separations increased by just over 13,400 (33%).
•	Average completed length of stay for permanent residents increased by approximately 4 months from 2 years and 6 months, to 2 years and 10 months (12%). 
•	Average completed length of stay for respite residents remained almost the same with a decrease of less than one day.
Table 7.3: Admissions, separations and completed length of stay in residential aged care,
 1998–99 to 2008–09
Year	Permanent admissions	Respite admissions	Permanent separations	Respite separations	Average completed length of stay (permanent, weeks)	Average completed length of stay (respite, weeks)	
1998–99	45,258	40,806	44,079	40,939	131.3	3.5	
1999–00	45,476	42,531	44,615	42,422	137.0	3.3	
2000–01	46,545	43,606	45,481	43,586	142.4	3.2	
2001–02	47,345	43,309	45,284	43,503	145.5	3.2	
2002–03	51,200	45,445	47,467	45,334	143.0	3.1	
2003–04	53,356	46,632	48,723	46,544	143.7	3.1	
2004–05	52,462	48,295	48,503	48,120	143.3	3.1	
2005–06	52,964	49,727	50,720	49,402	145.8	3.1	
2006–07	52,196	50,987	51,026	50,977	145.9	3.3	
2007–08	53,737	51,293	53,819	51,280	147.8	3.3	
2008–09	56,983	54,535	55,310	54,291	147.0	3.4	
Note: Transfers are excluded from admissions and separations.

7.4	Transition from respite care to permanent care
How many respite residents move to permanent residential care?
Residential respite care plays an important function in the aged care system. Nearly half (49%) of all admissions were for respite care, and a substantial proportion of respite residents were admitted into permanent residential care (tables 5.1 and 7.4). However, this does not mean that all residents who use respite care are admitted to permanent aged care (AIHW 2006).
•	In 2008–09, close to 42,000 persons were admitted to residential respite aged care at least once. Of these, just under half (46%) were then admitted to permanent care. This figure was slightly higher compared with the 1999–00 proportion of 43% (Table 7.4). 
•	The total number of respite admissions in 2008–09 was 54,535 (Table 7.4). Just under one-third (32%) of these respite admissions resulted in permanent admissions. 
Table 7.4: Respite residents and permanent residential aged care activity, 1999–00 to 2008–09
Year	Number of respite admissions 	Respite residents	Permanent admissions following respite admission            (1 per resident)	Permanent admissions following respite admission (%)	Respite residents admitted for permanent care (%)	
1999–00	40,806	32,902	14,017	30.1	42.6	
2000–01	42,531	33,263	14,288	30.0	43.0	
2001–02	43,606	32,871	13,934	29.5	42.4	
2002–03	43,309	34,193	14,661	29.6	42.9	
2003–04	45,445	35,021	15,098	29.8	43.1	
2004–05	46,632	36,181	15,361	29.2	42.5	
2005–06	48,295	37,505	16,325	30.0	43.5	
2006–07	49,727	38,919	17,341	31.0	44.6	
2007–08	50,987	39,530	17,729	31.5	44.8	
2008–09	54,535	41,972	19,250	32.2	45.9	
7.5	Permanent residents by age and usage rates
Between 1999–2009, the proportion of permanent residents increased, with the exception of residents in the age groups 70–74 years and 75–79 years (an 11% and 8% decrease respectively) (Table 7.5). The largest increase was for those in the 85 years and over age group (around 23,400 or 36%).
Usage rates per 1,000 population in each age group remained relatively stable between 
1999–2009, with only a slight increase to 7.3 in 2009 compared with 7.0 in 1999 (Table 7.6). Across the different age groups, usage rates generally decreased during this period. The largest decrease was in the 80–84 years age group which decreased from 96.9 per 1,000 in this age group to 76.8 per 1,000 (a 21% decrease). For residents aged 85 years and over the usage rate was 270.6 in 1999, and this decreased in 2009 to 229.6 (a 15% decrease).
Table 7.5: Permanent aged care residents at 30 June, by age group, 1999–2009		
Age group (years)	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	
	Number	
<65	5,942	6,004	5,948	5,984	6,073	6,240	6,483	6,562	6,467	6,606	6,509	
65–69	4,576	4,395	4,237	4,317	4,389	4,439	4,613	4,705	4,840	4,951	5,194	
70–74	9,824	9,578	9,368	8,999	8,783	8,720	8,503	8,344	8,298	8,626	8,756	
75–79	18,783	18,936	18,450	18,286	18,457	18,454	18,614	18,591	18,005	17,764	17,294	
80–84	28,657	27,971	28,599	29,663	31,198	32,912	33,593	33,436	32,945	33,228	33,102	
85+	64,638	66,503	67,402	69,258	71,397	74,229	77,285	80,099	82,871	85,912	88,030	
Total	132,420	133,387	134,004	136,507	140,297	144,994	149,091	151,737	153,426	157,087	158,885	
	Per cent	
<65	4.5	4.5	4.4	4.4	4.3	4.3	4.3	4.3	4.2	4.2	4.1	
65–69	3.5	3.3	3.2	3.2	3.1	3.1	3.1	3.1	3.2	3.2	3.3	
70–74	7.4	7.2	7.0	6.6	6.3	6.0	5.7	5.5	5.4	5.5	5.5	
75–79	14.2	14.2	13.8	13.4	13.2	12.7	12.5	12.3	11.7	11.3	10.9	
80–84	21.6	21.0	21.3	21.7	22.2	22.7	22.5	22.0	21.5	21.2	20.8	
85+	48.8	49.9	50.3	50.7	50.9	51.2	51.8	52.8	54.0	54.7	55.4	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	

Table 7.6: Permanent aged care residents at 30 June, by usage within age group per 1,000 population, 1999–2009
Age group (years)	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	
<65	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.3	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.3	
65–69	6.7	6.5	6.2	6.2	6.1	6.0	6.0	6.0	5.9	6.0	6.0	
70–74	15.6	15.1	14.7	14.1	13.9	13.9	13.6	12.9	13.2	13.0	12.8	
75–79	38.1	37.3	35.5	34.6	34.2	33.6	33.7	32.7	33.3	32.3	31.5	
80–84	96.9	90.5	86.7	85.1	85.0	85.2	83.7	79.5	81.2	78.5	76.8	
85+	270.6	263.2	254.1	250.2	249.2	248.8	245.3	240.3	237.0	235.5	229.6	
Total	7.0	7.0	6.9	7.0	7.1	7.2	7.3	7.3	7.4	7.4	7.3	
Appendix 1: Residential aged care services and provision
Table A1.1: The number of new aged care places in the ACAR process
allocated to approved providers, 1995–96 to 2008–09
Year	Low-care residential places	High-care residential places	CACPs	EACH and EACH D  	
1995–96	929	324	2,055	. .	
1996–97	948	310	2,825	. .	
1997–98	—	—	—	. .	
1998–99	1,981	285	3,657	. .	
1999–00	2,551	395	4,275	. .	
2000–01	7,164	478	6,532	. .	
2001–02	4,245	2,041	1,711	. .	
2002–03	3,373	2,206	982	255	
2003–04	3,784	2,105	911	860	
2004–05	5,315	3,590	2,020	900	
2005–06	3,099	2,129	4,307	1,567	
2006–07	2,692	2,043	1,976	1,202	
2007–08	2,110	4,415	2,377	1,616	
2008–09	1,983	3,765	2,944	1,755	
. .  Not applicable. 
—  Nil or rounded to zero.

Table A1.2: Residential aged care facilities, by state/territory and remoteness(a), 30 June 2009
State/territory	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	All regions	
	Number	
NSW	557	237	88	7	—	889	
Vic	491	214	71	4	. .	780	
Qld	256	132	70	11	8	477	
WA	182	29	24	4	6	245	
SA	188	36	44	3	—	271	
Tas	. .	49	26	3	4	82	
ACT	25	—	. .	. .	. .	25	
NT	. .	. .	5	7	2	14	
Australia	1,699	697	328	39	20	2,783	
	Per cent (row)	
NSW	62.7	26.7	9.9	0.8	—	100.0	
Vic	62.9	27.4	9.1	0.5	. .	100.0	
Qld	53.7	27.7	14.7	2.3	1.7	100.0	
WA	74.3	11.8	9.8	1.6	2.4	100.0	
SA	69.4	13.3	16.2	1.1	—	100.0	
Tas	. .	59.8	31.7	3.7	4.9	100.0	
ACT	100.0	—	. .	. .	. .	100.0	
NT	. .	. .	35.7	50.0	14.3	100.0	
Australia	61.0	25.0	11.8	1.4	0.7	100.0	
(a)     Refers to the location of the facilities. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
. .  Not applicable.
—  Nil or rounded to zero.
Table A1.3: Trends in the number and size of residential aged facilities, 30 June 1998 to 
30 June 2008
 	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	
Places	
1–20	396	378	362	335	322	284	266	246	230	213	196	
21–40	1,194	1,188	1,163	1,120	1,069	999	939	874	834	762	695	
41–60	831	852	867	880	888	885	901	921	927	887	848	
61–80	322	325	337	357	376	403	434	458	455	469	475	
81–100	141	146	146	149	164	188	200	220	240	252	270	
101–120	64	70	71	75	77	87	95	107	123	140	174	
121+	67	59	59	61	65	81	97	107	122	149	172	
Total	3,015	3,018	3,005	2,977	2,961	2,927	2,932	2,933	2,931	2,872	2,830	
 	
1–40	52.7	51.9	50.7	48.9	47.0	43.8	41.1	38.2	36.3	33.9	31.5	
41–60	27.6	28.2	28.9	29.6	30.0	30.2	30.7	31.4	31.6	30.9	30.0	
61+	19.7	19.9	20.4	21.6	23.0	25.9	28.2	30.4	32.1	35.2	38.6	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Notes 
1.     Break in series for 30 June 2009. Series will be re-calculated for Residential Aged Care in Australia: 2009-10 publication.
2.     Residential facilities exclude MPS and National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program.

Table A1.4: Size of aged care facilities, by state and territory(a), 30 June 2009
Places	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
	Number	
1–20	43	67	34	13	7	12	1	7	184	
21–40	172	192	95	65	77	19	3	3	626	
41–60	252	248	133	71	86	25	5	2	822	
61–80	183	105	88	48	42	9	9	1	485	
81–100	97	81	53	24	31	7	2	0	295	
101–120	58	51	36	14	10	5	3	0	177	
121+	84	36	38	10	18	5	2	1	194	
Total	889	780	477	245	271	82	25	14	2,783	
	Per cent	
1–20	4.8	8.6	7.1	5.3	2.6	14.6	4.0	50.0	6.6	
21–40	19.3	24.6	19.9	26.5	28.4	23.2	12.0	21.4	22.5	
41–60	28.3	31.8	27.9	29.0	31.7	30.5	20.0	14.3	29.5	
61–80	20.6	13.5	18.4	19.6	15.5	11.0	36.0	7.1	17.4	
81–100	10.9	10.4	11.1	9.8	11.4	8.5	8.0	0.0	10.6	
101–120	6.5	6.5	7.5	5.7	3.7	6.1	12.0	0.0	6.4	
121+	9.4	4.6	8.0	4.1	6.6	6.1	8.0	7.1	7.0	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
(a)	Refers to the location of the facilities.

Table A1.5: Size of aged care facilities, by remoteness(a), 30 June 2009
Number of places	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	Australia	
	Number	
1–20	25	60	65	19	15	184	
21–40 	302	192	117	11	4	626	
41–60 	529	203	84	5	1	822	
61–80 	323	124	35	3	0	485	
81–100 	219	58	17	1	0	295	
101–120 	144	29	4	0	0	177	
121+ 	157	31	6	0	0	194	
Australia	1,699	697	328	39	20	2,783	
	Per cent	
1–20	1.5	8.6	19.8	48.7	75.0	6.6	
21–40 	17.8	27.5	35.7	28.2	20.0	22.5	
41–60 	31.1	29.1	25.6	12.8	5.0	29.5	
61–80 	19.0	17.8	10.7	7.7	0.0	17.4	
81–100 	12.9	8.3	5.2	2.6	0.0	10.6	
101–120 	8.5	4.2	1.2	0.0	0.0	6.4	
121+ 	9.2	4.4	1.8	0.0	0.0	7.0	
Australia	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
(a)	Refers to the location of the facilities. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.

Table A1.6: Residential aged care facilities by provider type and state/territory(a), 30 June 2009
Organisation type	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
	Number	
Not-for-profit		
Charitable                                 	199	55	54	41	62	15	7	2	435	
Community-based                            	160	118	69	34	48	23	2	4	458	
Religious                                  	251	113	215	90	71	27	12	8	787	
Total not-for-profit	610	286	338	165	181	65	21	14	1,680	
Government		
Local government                           	24	14	9	8	6	2	—	—	63	
State government                           	15	177	20	2	23	8	—	—	245	
Total government	39	191	29	10	29	10	—	—	308	
Private		
Total private	240	303	110	70	61	7	4	—	795	
Total services	889	780	477	245	271	82	25	14	2,783	
	Per cent	
Not-for-profit		
Charitable                                 	22.4	7.1	11.3	16.7	22.9	18.3	28.0	14.3	15.6	
Community-based                            	18.0	15.1	14.5	13.9	17.7	28.0	8.0	28.6	16.5	
Religious                                  	28.2	14.5	45.1	36.7	26.2	32.9	48.0	57.1	28.3	
Total not-for-profit	68.6	36.7	70.9	67.3	66.8	79.3	84.0	100.0	60.4	
Government		
Local government                           	2.7	1.8	1.9	3.3	2.2	2.4	—	—	2.3	
State government                           	1.7	22.7	4.2	0.8	8.5	9.8	—	—	8.8	
Total government	4.4	24.5	6.1	4.1	10.7	12.2	—	—	11.1	
Private		
Total private	27.0	38.8	23.1	28.6	22.5	8.5	16.0	—	28.6	
Total services	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
(a) Refers to the location of the facilities. 
—  Nil or rounded to zero.

Table A1.7: Residential aged care facilities by provider type and remoteness(a), 30 June 2009
Organisation type	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	Australia	
	Number	
Not-for-profit		
Charitable                                 	282	102	46	3	2	435	
Community-based                            	149	181	107	15	6	458	
Religious                                  	529	182	62	8	6	787	
Total not-for-profit	960	465	215	26	14	1,680	
Government		
Local government                           	22	14	22	4	1	63	
State government                           	45	118	69	9	4	245	
Total government	67	132	91	13	5	308	
Private		
Total private	672	100	22	—	1	795	
Total services	1,699	697	328	39	20	2,783	
	Per cent	
Not-for-profit							
Charitable                                 	16.6	14.6	14.0	7.7	10.0	15.6	
Community-based                            	8.8	26.0	32.6	38.5	30.0	16.5	
Religious                                  	31.1	26.1	18.9	20.5	30.0	28.3	
Total not-for-profit	56.5	66.7	65.5	66.7	70.0	60.4	
Government		
Local government                           	1.3	2.0	6.7	10.3	5.0	2.3	
State government                           	2.6	16.9	21.0	23.1	20.0	8.8	
Total government	3.9	18.9	27.7	33.3	25.0	11.1	
Private		
Total private	39.6	14.3	6.7	—	5.0	28.6	
Total services	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
(a) Refers to the location of the services. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
Note: Residential facilities exclude MPS and National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program.
—  Nil or rounded to zero.

Table A1.8: Operational Extra Service places by state/territory and remoteness(a), 30 June 2009
State/territory	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	All regions	
	Number	
NSW	3,162	445	23	3,630	
Vic	3,407	236	36	3,679	
Qld	1,676	206	55	1,937	
WA	783	184	68	1,035	
SA	706	55	—	761	
Tas	—	237	38	275	
ACT	146	—	—	146	
Australia	9,880	1,363	220	11,463	
	Per cent (row)	
NSW	87.1	12.3	0.6	100.0	
Vic	92.6	6.4	1.0	100.0	
Qld	86.5	10.6	2.8	100.0	
WA	75.7	17.8	6.6	100.0	
SA	92.8	7.2	—	100.0	
Tas	0.0	86.2	13.8	100.0	
ACT	100.0	—	—	100.0	
Australia	86.2	11.9	1.9	100.0	
	Per cent (column)	
NSW	32.0	32.6	10.5	31.7	
Vic	34.5	17.3	16.4	32.1	
Qld	17.0	15.1	25.0	16.9	
WA	7.9	13.5	30.9	9.0	
SA	7.1	4.0	—	6.6	
Tas	—	17.4	17.3	2.4	
ACT	1.5	—	—	1.3	
Australia	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
(a) Refers to the location of the facilities. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
—  Nil or rounded to zero.

Table A1.9: Operational Extra Service high-care places by state/territory and remoteness(a), 30 June 2009
State/territory	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	All regions	
	Number	
NSW	2,807	360	23	3,190	
Vic	3,193	196	36	3,425	
Qld	1,494	190	55	1,739	
WA	646	127	68	841	
SA	616	45	—	661	
Tas	—	154	38	192	
ACT	112	—	—	112	
Australia	8,868	1,072	220	10,160	
	Per cent (row)	
NSW	88.0	11.3	0.7	100.0	
Vic	93.2	5.7	1.1	100.0	
Qld	85.9	10.9	3.2	100.0	
WA	76.8	15.1	8.1	100.0	
SA	93.2	6.8	—	100.0	
Tas	—	80.2	19.8	100.0	
ACT	100.0	—	—	100.0	
Australia	87.3	10.6	2.2	100.0	
	Per cent (column)	
NSW	31.7	33.6	10.5	31.4	
Vic	36.0	18.3	16.4	33.7	
Qld	16.8	17.7	25.0	17.1	
WA	7.3	11.8	30.9	8.3	
SA	6.9	4.2	—	6.5	
Tas	—	14.4	17.3	1.9	
ACT	1.3	—	—	1.1	
Australia	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
(a) Refers to the location of the facilities. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
—  Nil or rounded to zero.

Table A1.10: Operational Extra Service low-care places by state/territory and remoteness(a), 30 June 2009
State/territory	Major cities	Inner regional	All regions	
	Number	
NSW	355	85	440	
Vic	214	40	254	
Qld	182	16	198	
WA	137	57	194	
SA 	90	10	100	
Tas	—	83	83	
ACT	34	—	34	
Australia	1,012	291	1,303	
	Per cent (row)	
NSW	80.7	19.3	100.0	
Vic	84.3	15.7	100.0	
Qld	91.9	8.1	100.0	
WA	70.6	29.4	100.0	
SA 	90.0	10.0	100.0	
Tas	—	100.0	100.0	
ACT	100.0	—	100.0	
Australia	77.7	22.3	100.0	
	Per cent (column)	
NSW	35.1	29.2	33.8	
Vic	21.1	13.7	19.5	
Qld	18.0	5.5	15.2	
WA	13.5	19.6	14.9	
SA 	8.9	3.4	7.7	
Tas	—	28.5	6.4	
ACT	3.4	—	2.6	
Australia	100.0	100.0	100.0	
(a) Refers to the location of the facilities. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
—  Nil or rounded to zero.
Appendix 2: Resident characteristics
Table A2.1: All residents by sex and age group, 30 June 2009
	Permanent	Respite	All residents	
Age (years)	Number	Per cent	Number	Per cent	Number 	Per cent	
Females		
under 65	3,009	2.7	59	2.8	3,068	2.7	
65–69	2,516	2.2	56	2.6	2,572	2.2	
70–74	4,696	4.2	121	5.7	4,817	4.2	
75–79	10,593	9.4	247	11.5	10,840	9.5	
80–84	22,947	20.4	511	23.9	23,458	20.5	
85–89	33,647	29.9	668	31.2	34,315	29.9	
90–94	24,102	21.4	355	16.6	24,457	21.3	
95+	10,961	9.7	123	5.7	11,084	9.7	
Total females	112,471	100.0	2,140	100.0	114,611	100.0	
Males		
under 65	3,500	7.5	64	5.1	3,564	7.5	
65–69	2,678	5.8	63	5.0	2,741	5.7	
70–74	4,060	8.7	131	10.4	4,191	8.8	
75–79	6,701	14.4	207	16.4	6,908	14.5	
80–84	10,155	21.9	301	23.8	10,456	21.9	
85–89	11,055	23.8	318	25.2	11,373	23.9	
90–94	6,236	13.4	148	11.7	6,384	13.4	
95+	2,029	4.4	32	2.5	2,061	4.3	
Total males	46,414	100.0	1,264	100.0	47,678	100.0	
Persons		
under 65	6,509	4.1	123	3.6	6,632	4.1	
65–69	5,194	3.3	119	3.5	5,313	3.3	
70–74	8,756	5.5	252	7.4	9,008	5.6	
75–79	17,294	10.9	454	13.3	17,748	10.9	
80–84	33,102	20.8	812	23.9	33,914	20.9	
85–89	44,702	28.1	986	29.0	45,688	28.2	
90–94	30,338	19.1	503	14.8	30,841	19.0	
95+	12,990	8.2	155	4.6	13,145	8.1	
Total persons	158,885	100.0	3,404	100.0	162,289	100.0	
Note: Excludes residents in MPS and National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program.

Table A2.2: Permanent and respite residents by sex and marital status, 30 June 2009
 	Permanent	Respite	
Marital status	Number	Per cent	Number	Per cent	
Females		
Divorced	5,670	5.0	71	3.3	
Married/de facto	21,717	19.3	476	22.2	
Separated	1,327	1.2	22	1.0	
Single	8,116	7.2	96	4.5	
Widowed	74,022	65.8	1,455	68.0	
Not reported	1,619	1.4	20	0.9	
Total females	112,471	100.0	2,140	100.0	
Males		
Divorced	4,533	9.8	77	6.1	
Married/de facto	19,857	42.8	711	56.3	
Separated	1,663	3.6	27	2.1	
Single	7,038	15.2	98	7.8	
Widowed	12,388	26.7	339	26.8	
Not reported	935	2.0	12	0.9	
Total males	46,414	100.0	1,264	100.0	
Persons		
Divorced	10,203	6.4	148	4.3	
Married/de facto	41,574	26.2	1,187	34.9	
Separated	2,990	1.9	49	1.4	
Single	15,154	9.5	194	5.7	
Widowed	86,410	54.4	1,794	52.7	
Not reported	2,554	1.6	32	0.9	
Total persons	158,885	100.0	3,404	100.0	
Note: Excludes residents in MPS and National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program.

Table A2.3: Permanent residents, income source, by sex and state/territory(a), 30 June 2009
Income source	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
	Number	
Females		
Centrelink pension	26,836	21,051	14,100	6,717	8,168	2,051	681	207	79,811	
DVA pension	6,523	5,000	3,980	1,657	2,059	668	188	18	20,093	
Self-funded retirees	3,992	2,526	1,505	925	770	195	225	15	10,153	
Means not disclosed	870	663	304	194	192	32	52	—	2,307	
Unknown	38	28	21	11	4	3	2	—	107	
Total females	38,259	29,268	19,910	9,504	11,193	2,949	1,148	240	112,471	
Males		
Centrelink pension	11,419	8,680	6,197	2,678	2,946	790	298	129	33,137	
DVA pension	2,696	1,962	1,763	720	851	281	79	8	8,360	
Self-funded retirees	1,405	1,014	557	331	305	92	103	10	3,817	
Means not disclosed	376	308	152	81	77	12	22	2	1,030	
Unknown	35	13	12	3	3	2	1	1	70	
Total males	15,931	11,977	8,681	3,813	4,182	1,177	503	150	46,414	
Persons		
Centrelink pension	38,255	29,731	20,297	9,395	11,114	2,841	979	336	112,948	
DVA pension	9,219	6,962	5,743	2,377	2,910	949	267	26	28,453	
Self-funded retirees	5,397	3,540	2,062	1,256	1,075	287	328	25	13,970	
Means not disclosed	1,246	971	456	275	269	44	74	2	3,337	
Unknown	73	41	33	14	7	5	3	1	177	
Total persons	54,190	41,245	28,591	13,317	15,375	4,126	1,651	390	158,885	
	Per cent	
Females		
Centrelink pension	70.1	71.9	70.8	70.7	73.0	69.5	59.3	86.3	71.0	
DVA pension	17.0	17.1	20.0	17.4	18.4	22.7	16.4	7.5	17.9	
Self-funded retirees	10.4	8.6	7.6	9.7	6.9	6.6	19.6	6.3	9.0	
Means not disclosed	2.3	2.3	1.5	2.0	1.7	1.1	4.5	—	2.1	
Unknown	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.2	—	0.1	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Males		
Centrelink pension	71.7	72.5	71.4	70.2	70.4	67.1	59.2	86.0	71.4	
DVA pension	16.9	16.4	20.3	18.9	20.3	23.9	15.7	5.3	18.0	
Self-funded retirees	8.8	8.5	6.4	8.7	7.3	7.8	20.5	6.7	8.2	
Means not disclosed	2.4	2.6	1.8	2.1	1.8	1.0	4.4	1.3	2.2	
Unknown	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.2	0.7	0.2	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Persons		
Centrelink pension	70.6	72.1	71.0	70.5	72.3	68.9	59.3	86.2	71.1	
DVA pension	17.0	16.9	20.1	17.8	18.9	23.0	16.2	6.7	17.9	
Self-funded retirees	10.0	8.6	7.2	9.4	7.0	7.0	19.9	6.4	8.8	
Means not disclosed	2.3	2.4	1.6	2.1	1.7	1.1	4.5	0.5	2.1	
Unknown	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	—	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.1	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
(a) Refers to the location of the services.
Notes:
1.     ‘DVA’ refers to the Australian Government Department of Veterans' Affairs. Other pensions are administered by Centrelink.
2.     The category ‘Unknown’ refers to residents not yet assessed by Centrelink or DVA at the time of reporting.
3.     The table supplied by DoHA has been adjusted slightly due to differences in dates the data warehouse was accessed.
4.      Excludes residents in MPS and National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program.
—  Nil or rounded to zero.
Table A2.4: Financial support status of permanent residents by admission date, sex and state/territory(a), 30 June 2009 (number)
Admission date/Financial status	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
Females	
Admitted pre October 1997	1,459	812	755	266	332	81	30	12	3,747	
Admitted 1 October 1997– 19 March 2008	
Concessional	8,237	6,032	4,338	2,267	2,613	667	202	105	24,461	
Assisted	804	641	609	275	382	74	17	3	2,805	
Not eligible for support	16,339	12,795	8,347	3,747	4,595	1,210	504	45	47,582	
Total females	25,380	19,468	13,294	6,289	7,590	1,951	723	153	74,848	
Admitted 20 March 2008–30 June 2009	
Supported	2,439	1,716	1,390	666	860	233	79	31	7,414	
Partially supported	771	602	485	216	291	80	22	5	2,472	
Not supported	8,210	6,670	3,986	2,067	2,120	604	294	39	23,990	
Total females	11,420	8,988	5,861	2,949	3,271	917	395	75	33,876	
Males	
Admitted pre October 1997	538	323	292	86	91	33	7	12	1,382	
Admitted 1 October 1997– 19 March 2008	
Concessional	4,214	2,886	2,220	1,022	1,078	278	108	57	11,863	
Assisted	400	316	261	107	141	36	n.p.	n.p.	1,275	
Not eligible for support	4,699	3,983	2,558	1,056	1,312	346	n.p.	n.p.	14,141	
Total males	9,313	7,185	5,039	2,185	2,531	660	291	75	27,279	
Admitted 20 March 2008–30 June 2009	
Supported	1,768	1,240	1,037	510	486	164	63	30	5,298	
Partially supported	609	462	384	141	177	42	16	6	1,837	
Not supported	3,703	2,767	1,929	891	897	278	126	27	10,618	
Total males	6,080	4,469	3,350	1,542	1,560	484	205	63	17,753	
Persons										
Admitted pre October 1997	1,997	1,135	1,047	352	423	114	37	24	5,129	
Admitted 1 October 1997– 19 March 2008	
Concessional	12,451	8,918	6,558	3,289	3,691	945	310	162	36,324	
Assisted	1,204	957	870	382	523	110	30	4	4,080	
Not eligible for support	21,038	16,778	10,905	4,803	5,907	1,556	674	62	61,723	
Total eligible persons	34,693	26,653	18,333	8,474	10,121	2,611	1,014	228	102,127	
Admitted 20 March 2008–30 June 2009	
Supported	4,207	2,956	2,427	1,176	1,346	397	142	61	12,712	
Partially supported	1,380	1,064	869	357	468	122	38	11	4,309	
Not supported	11,913	9,437	5,915	2,958	3,017	882	420	66	34,608	
Total persons	17,500	13,457	9,211	4,491	4,831	1,401	600	138	51,629	
Total persons in permanent care	54,190	41,245	28,591	13,317	15,375	4,126	1,651	390	158,885	
      (continued)

Table A2.4 (continued): Financial support status of permanent residents by admission date, sex and state/territory(a), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Admission date/Financial status	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
Females	
Admitted pre October 1997	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Admitted 1 October 1997– 19 March 2008	
Concessional	32.5	31.0	32.6	36.0	34.4	34.2	27.9	68.6	32.7	
Assisted	3.2	3.3	4.6	4.4	5.0	3.8	2.4	2.0	3.7	
Not eligible for support	64.4	65.7	62.8	59.6	60.5	62.0	69.7	29.4	63.6	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Admitted 20 March 2008–30 June 2009	
Supported	21.4	19.1	23.7	22.6	26.3	25.4	20.0	41.3	21.9	
Partially supported	6.8	6.7	8.3	7.3	8.9	8.7	5.6	6.7	7.3	
Not supported	71.9	74.2	68.0	70.1	64.8	65.9	74.4	52.0	70.8	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Males	
Admitted pre October 1997	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Admitted 1 October 1997– 19 March 2008	
Concessional	45.2	40.2	44.1	46.8	42.6	42.1	37.1	76.0	43.5	
Assisted	4.3	4.4	5.2	4.9	5.6	5.5	n.p.	n.p.	4.7	
Not eligible for support	50.5	55.4	50.8	48.3	51.8	52.4	n.p.	n.p.	51.8	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Admitted 20 March 2008–30 June 2009	
Supported	29.1	27.7	31.0	33.1	31.2	33.9	30.7	47.6	29.8	
Partially supported	10.0	10.3	11.5	9.1	11.3	8.7	7.8	9.5	10.3	
Not supported	60.9	61.9	57.6	57.8	57.5	57.4	61.5	42.9	59.8	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Persons										
Admitted pre October 1997	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Admitted 1 October 1997– 19 March 2008	
Concessional	35.9	33.5	35.8	38.8	36.5	36.2	30.6	71.1	35.6	
Assisted	3.5	3.6	4.7	4.5	5.2	4.2	3.0	1.8	4.0	
Not eligible for support	60.6	62.9	59.5	56.7	58.4	59.6	66.5	27.2	60.4	
Total eligible persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Admitted 20 March 2008–30 June 2009	
Supported	24.0	22.0	26.3	26.2	27.9	28.3	23.7	44.2	24.6	
Partially supported	7.9	7.9	9.4	7.9	9.7	8.7	6.3	8.0	8.3	
Not supported	68.1	70.1	64.2	65.9	62.5	63.0	70.0	47.8	67.0	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total persons in permanent care	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
(a) Refers to the location of the services.
Note: Excludes residents in MPS and National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program.
Table A2.5: Financial support status of permanent residents by admission date, sex and remoteness(a), 30 June 2009 (number)
Admission date/Financial status	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	Australia	
Females	
Admitted pre October 1997	
Total females pre reform	2,541	850	324	25	7	3,747	
Admitted 1 October 1997– 19 March 2008	
Concessional	16,721	5,445	2,046	190	59	24,461	
Assisted	1,736	747	298	21	3	2,805	
Not eligible for support	33,238	10,813	3,305	205	21	47,582	
Total females	51,695	17,005	5,649	416	83	74,848	
Admitted 20 March 2008–30 June 2008	
Supported	5,042	1,625	675	54	18	7,414	
Partially supported	1,520	668	260	20	4	2,472	
Not supported	16,806	5,433	1,626	110	15	23,990	
Total females	23,368	7,726	2,561	184	37	33,876	
Males	
Admitted pre October 1997	
Total males pre reform	890	334	133	18	7	1,382	
Admitted 1 October 1997– 19 March 2008	
Concessional	8,099	2,561	1,035	111	57	11,863	
Assisted	765	368	134	8	—	1,275	
Not eligible for support	9,625	3,299	1,126	79	12	14,141	
Total males	18,489	6,228	2,295	198	69	27,279	
Admitted 20 March 2008–30 June 2008	
Supported	3,601	1,179	464	n.p.	n.p.	5,298	
Partially supported	1,180	482	160	n.p.	n.p.	1,837	
Not supported	7,251	2,458	835	61	13	10,618	
Total males	12,032	4,119	1,459	109	34	17,753	
Persons	
Admitted pre October 1997	
Total persons pre reform	3,431	1,184	457	43	14	5,129	
Admitted 1 October 1997– 19 March 2008	
Concessional	24,820	8,006	3,081	301	116	36,324	
Assisted	2,501	1,115	432	29	3	4,080	
Not eligible for support	42,863	14,112	4,431	284	33	61,723	
Total eligible persons	70,184	23,233	7,944	614	152	102,127	
Admitted 20 March 2008–30 June 2008	
Supported	8,643	2,804	1,139	89	37	12,712	
Partially supported	2,700	1,150	420	33	6	4,309	
Not supported	24,057	7,891	2,461	171	28	34,608	
Total persons	35,400	11,845	4,020	293	71	51,629	
Total persons in permanent care	109,015	36,262	12,421	950	237	158,885	
						    				      (continued)				
Table A2.5 (continued): Financial support status of permanent residents by admission date, sex 
and remoteness(a), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Admission date/Financial status	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	Australia	
Females	
Admitted pre October 1997	
Total females pre reform	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Admitted 1 October 1997– 19 March 2008	
Concessional	32.3	32.0	36.2	45.7	71.1	32.7	
Assisted	3.4	4.4	5.3	5.0	3.6	3.7	
Not eligible for support	64.3	63.6	58.5	49.3	25.3	63.6	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Admitted 20 March 2008–30 June 2008	
Supported	21.6	21.0	26.4	29.3	48.6	21.9	
Partially supported	6.5	8.6	10.2	10.9	10.8	7.3	
Not supported	71.9	70.3	63.5	59.8	40.5	70.8	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Males	
Admitted pre October 1997	
Total males pre reform	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Admitted 1 October 1997– 19 March 2008	
Concessional	43.8	41.1	45.1	56.1	82.6	43.5	
Assisted	4.1	5.9	5.8	4.0	—	4.7	
Not eligible for support	52.1	53.0	49.1	39.9	17.4	51.8	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Admitted 20 March 2008–30 June 2008	
Supported	29.9	28.6	31.8	32.1	55.9	29.8	
Partially supported	9.8	11.7	11.0	n.p.	n.p.	10.3	
Not supported	60.3	59.7	57.2	n.p.	n.p.	59.8	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Persons	
Admitted pre October 1997	
Total persons pre reform	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Admitted 1 October 1997– 19 March 2008	
Concessional	35.4	34.5	38.8	49.0	76.3	35.6	
Assisted	3.6	4.8	5.4	4.7	2.0	4.0	
Not eligible for support	61.1	60.7	55.8	46.3	21.7	60.4	
Total eligible persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Admitted 20 March 2008–30 June 2008	
Supported	24.4	23.7	28.3	30.4	52.1	24.6	
Partially supported	7.6	9.7	10.4	11.3	8.5	8.3	
Not supported	68.0	66.6	61.2	58.4	39.4	67.0	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total persons in permanent care	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
(a) Refers to the location of the services. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
Note: Excludes residents in MPS and National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program.
n.p. Not published.
—  Nil or rounded to zero.

Table A2.6: People admitted to residential aged care services for permanent care(a) by 
marital status, sex and state/territory(b), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Marital status	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
	Number	
Females	
Divorced	577	378	289	152	159	52	23	9	1,639	
Married/de facto	2,505	2,015	1,274	588	746	218	81	10	7,437	
Separated	124	95	63	52	23	13	7	6	383	
Single	659	525	273	125	151	50	17	7	1,807	
Widowed	7,975	5,825	3,892	2,015	2,198	649	250	47	22,851	
Unknown	103	204	79	20	29	4	7	1	447	
Total females	11,943	9,042	5,870	2,952	3,306	986	385	80	34,564	
Males	
Divorced	568	333	346	186	136	50	23	9	1,651	
Married/de facto	3,721	2,795	1,952	871	1,046	310	120	19	10,834	
Separated	201	125	135	61	43	16	6	7	594	
Single	777	475	368	170	149	48	17	14	2,018	
Widowed	2,069	1,455	1,028	482	547	161	63	16	5,821	
Unknown	102	133	79	20	18	4	3	1	360	
Total males	7,438	5,316	3,908	1,790	1,939	589	232	66	21,278	
Persons	
Divorced	1,145	711	635	338	295	102	46	18	3,290	
Married/de facto	6,226	4,810	3,226	1,459	1,792	528	201	29	18,271	
Separated	325	220	198	113	66	29	13	13	977	
Single	1,436	1,000	641	295	300	98	34	21	3,825	
Widowed	10,044	7,280	4,920	2,497	2,745	810	313	63	28,672	
Unknown	205	337	158	40	47	8	10	2	807	
Total persons	19,381	14,358	9,778	4,742	5,245	1,575	617	146	55,842	
	Per cent	
Females	
Divorced	4.8	4.2	4.9	5.1	4.8	5.3	6.0	11.3	4.7	
Married/de facto	21.0	22.3	21.7	19.9	22.6	22.1	21.0	12.5	21.5	
Separated	1.0	1.1	1.1	1.8	0.7	1.3	1.8	7.5	1.1	
Single	5.5	5.8	4.7	4.2	4.6	5.1	4.4	8.8	5.2	
Widowed	66.8	64.4	66.3	68.3	66.5	65.8	64.9	58.8	66.1	
Unknown	0.9	2.3	1.3	0.7	0.9	0.4	1.8	1.1	1.3	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Males	
Divorced	7.6	6.3	8.9	10.4	7.0	8.5	9.9	13.6	7.8	
Married/de facto	50.0	52.6	49.9	48.7	53.9	52.6	51.7	28.8	50.9	
Separated	2.7	2.4	3.5	3.4	2.2	2.7	2.6	10.6	2.8	
Single	10.4	8.9	9.4	9.5	7.7	8.1	7.3	21.2	9.5	
Widowed	27.8	27.4	26.3	26.9	28.2	27.3	27.2	24.2	27.4	
Unknown	1.4	2.5	2.0	1.1	0.9	0.7	1.3	1.8	1.7	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Persons	
Divorced	5.9	5.0	6.5	7.1	5.6	6.5	7.5	12.3	5.9	
Married/de facto	32.1	33.5	33.0	30.8	34.2	33.5	32.6	19.9	32.7	
Separated	1.7	1.5	2.0	2.4	1.3	1.8	2.1	8.9	1.7	
Single	7.4	7.0	6.6	6.2	5.7	6.2	5.5	14.4	6.8	
Widowed	51.8	50.7	50.3	52.7	52.3	51.4	50.7	43.2	51.3	
Unknown	1.1	2.3	1.6	0.8	0.9	0.5	1.6	1.3	1.4	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
(a) Characteristics are for the last permanent admission in the period. Transfers are excluded.
(b) Refers to the location of the services.
Note: Excludes residents in MPS and National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program.

Table A2.7: People admitted to residential aged care services for respite care(a) by marital status, sex and state/territory(b), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Marital status	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
	Number	
Females	
Divorced	469	207	113	83	107	30	22	9	1,040	
Married/de facto	2,129	1,512	765	417	554	154	89	17	5,637	
Separated	112	61	40	26	23	n.p.	n.p.	5	275	
Single	517	235	103	36	92	28	16	11	1,038	
Widowed	6,780	3,841	2,046	1,015	1,664	511	250	88	16,195	
Unknown	62	105	38	11	10	n.p.	n.p.	—	234	
Total females	10,069	5,961	3,105	1,588	2,450	731	385	130	24,419	
Males	
Divorced	383	130	91	64	66	23	8	14	779	
Married/de facto	3,307	2,332	1,345	676	831	294	131	44	8,960	
Separated	162	63	51	32	29	n.p.	n.p.	8	356	
Single	546	208	122	68	62	15	16	13	1,050	
Widowed	1,662	805	444	234	418	119	55	23	3,760	
Unknown	46	64	22	8	10	n.p.	n.p.	1	154	
Total males	6,106	3,602	2,075	1,082	1,416	457	218	103	15,059	
Persons	
Divorced	852	337	204	147	173	53	30	23	1,819	
Married/de facto	5,436	3,844	2,110	1,093	1,385	448	220	61	14,597	
Separated	274	124	91	58	52	12	7	13	631	
Single	1,063	443	225	104	154	43	32	24	2,088	
Widowed	8,442	4,646	2,490	1,249	2,082	630	305	111	19,955	
Unknown	108	169	60	19	20	2	9	1	388	
Total persons	16,175	9,563	5,180	2,670	3,866	1,188	603	233	39,478	
	Per cent	
Females	
Divorced	4.7	3.5	3.6	5.2	4.4	4.1	5.7	6.9	4.3	
Married/de facto	21.1	25.4	24.6	26.3	22.6	21.1	23.1	13.1	23.1	
Separated	1.1	1.0	1.3	1.6	0.9	n.p.	n.p.	3.8	1.1	
Single	5.1	3.9	3.3	2.3	3.8	3.8	4.2	8.5	4.3	
Widowed	67.3	64.4	65.9	63.9	67.9	69.9	64.9	67.7	66.3	
Unknown	0.6	1.8	1.2	0.7	0.4	n.p.	n.p.	—	1.0	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Males	
Divorced	6.3	3.6	4.4	5.9	4.7	5.0	3.7	13.6	5.2	
Married/de facto	54.2	64.7	64.8	62.5	58.7	64.3	60.1	42.7	59.5	
Separated	2.7	1.7	2.5	3.0	2.0	n.p.	n.p.	7.8	2.4	
Single	8.9	5.8	5.9	6.3	4.4	3.3	7.3	12.6	7.0	
Widowed	27.2	22.3	21.4	21.6	29.5	26.0	25.2	22.3	25.0	
Unknown	0.8	1.8	1.1	0.7	0.7	n.p.	n.p.	1.0	1.0	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Persons	
Divorced	5.3	3.5	3.9	5.5	4.5	4.5	5.0	9.9	4.6	
Married/de facto	33.6	40.2	40.7	40.9	35.8	37.7	36.5	26.2	37.0	
Separated	1.7	1.3	1.8	2.2	1.3	1.0	1.2	5.6	1.6	
Single	6.6	4.6	4.3	3.9	4.0	3.6	5.3	10.3	5.3	
Widowed	52.2	48.6	48.1	46.8	53.9	53.0	50.6	47.6	50.5	
Unknown	0.7	1.8	1.2	0.7	0.5	0.2	1.5	0.4	1.0	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
(a) Characteristics are for the last permanent admission in the period. Transfers are excluded.
(b) Refers to the location of the services.	
Note: Excludes residents in MPS and National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program.
n.p. Not published.
— Nil or rounded to zero.
Table A2.8: People admitted to residential aged care for permanent and 
respite care by usual housing status and sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Housing status	Permanent	Respite	
 	Number 	Per cent	Number 	Per cent	
Females	
House or flat	27,060	78.3	21,176	86.7	
Residential aged care	1,597	4.6	181	0.7	
Independent unit	4,315	12.5	2,487	10.2	
Other	1,550	4.5	496	2.0	
Not reported	42	0.1	79	0.3	
Total females	34,564	100.0	24,419	100.0	
Males	
House or flat	17,430	81.9	13,351	88.7	
Residential aged care	790	3.7	84	0.6	
Independent unit	1,944	9.1	1,220	8.1	
Other	1,081	5.1	345	2.3	
Not reported	33	0.2	59	0.4	
Total males	21,278	100.0	15,059	100.0	
Persons	
House or flat	44,490	79.7	34,527	87.5	
Residential aged care	2,387	4.3	265	0.7	
Independent unit	6,259	11.2	3,707	9.4	
Other	2,631	4.7	841	2.1	
Not reported	75	0.1	138	0.3	
Total persons	55,842	100.0	39,478	100.0	
Note: Excludes residents in MPS and National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program.

Table A2.9: People admitted to residential aged care for permanent and 
respite care by prior living arrangements and sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Living arrangements	Permanent	Respite	
 	Number 	Per cent	Number 	Per cent	
Females	
Lives alone	18,459	53.4	11,626	47.6	
Lives with family	13,225	38.3	12,001	49.1	
Lives with others	925	2.7	486	2.0	
Undetermined	—	—	306	1.3	
Not applicable	1,955	5.7	—	0.0	
Total females	34,564	100.0	24,419	100.0	
Males	
Lives alone	7,676	36.1	3,960	26.3	
Lives with family	11,634	54.7	10,454	69.4	
Lives with others	845	4.0	469	3.1	
Undetermined	—	—	176	1.2	
Not applicable	1,123	5.3	—	—	
Total males	21,278	100.0	15,059	100.0	
Persons	
Lives alone	26,135	46.8	15,586	39.5	
Lives with family	24,859	44.5	22,455	56.9	
Lives with others	1,770	3.2	955	2.4	
Undetermined	—	—	482	1.2	
Not applicable	3,078	5.5	—	—	
Total persons	55,842	100.0	39,478	100.0	
Note: Excludes residents in MPS and National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program.
—  Nil or rounded to zero.

Table A2.10: People admitted to permanent residential 
aged care by income source and sex, 1 July 2008 to 
30 June 2009
	Permanent	
Income source	Number	Per cent	
Females	
Centrelink pension	23,598	68.3	
DVA pension	6,429	18.6	
Self-funded retirees	3,067	8.9	
Means not disclosed	937	2.7	
Unknown	533	1.5	
Total females	34,564	100.0	
Males	
Centrelink pension	14,197	66.7	
DVA pension	3,988	18.7	
Self-funded retirees	1,987	9.3	
Means not disclosed	585	2.7	
Unknown	521	2.4	
Total males	21,278	100.0	
Persons	
Centrelink pension	37,795	67.7	
DVA pension	10,417	18.7	
Self-funded retirees	5,054	9.1	
Means not disclosed	1,522	2.7	
Unknown	1,054	1.9	
Total persons	55,842	100.0	
Note: Excludes residents in MPS and National Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Flexible Aged Care Program.
Appendix 3: Older residents
Table A3.1: Older permanent and respite residents by sex, age and state/territory(a), 30 June 2009 
(per cent)
Age (years)	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
	Permanent residents	
Females		
90–94	69.2	68.7	69.4	66.5	66.8	74.2	67.6	72.7	68.7	
95–99	26.7	27.1	26.6	29.0	28.8	22.1	28.5	n.p.	27.1	
100+ 	4.1	4.2	4.0	4.5	4.4	3.7	3.8	n.p.	4.1	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total females (number)	11,880	9,118	6,111	3,044	3,622	915	340	33	35,063	
Males		
90–94	76.4	74.5	76.3	72.8	75.7	75.2	71.6	81.8	75.5	
95–99	21.4	22.8	21.0	23.2	22.4	22.0	24.5	n.p.	22.0	
100+ 	2.2	2.7	2.7	3.9	1.9	2.8	3.9	n.p.	2.6	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total males (number)	2,723	2,184	1,539	685	807	214	102	11	8,265	
Persons		
90–94	70.5	69.8	70.8	67.7	68.5	74.4	68.6	75.0	70.0	
95–99	25.7	26.3	25.5	27.9	27.6	22.1	27.6	20.5	26.1	
100+ 	3.7	3.9	3.7	4.4	3.9	3.5	3.8	4.5	3.8	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total persons (number)	14,603	11,302	7,650	3,729	4,429	1,129	442	44	43,328	
	Respite residents	
Females		
90–94	77.1	71.6	71.6	74.1	74.0	60.0	66.7	n.p.	74.3	
95–99	18.7	25.5	28.4	25.9	22.0	40.0	n.p.	—	22.8	
100+ 	4.2	2.9	—	—	4.0	0.0	—	—	2.9	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total females (number)	214	102	67	27	50	10	6	n.p.	478	
Males		
90–94	82.7	76.9	83.3	70.0	88.5	100.0	100.0	—	82.2	
95–99	16.0	23.1	8.3	30.0	11.5	—	—	—	16.1	
100+ 	1.3	—	8.3	—	—	—	—	—	1.7	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	—	100.0	
Total males (number)	75	39	24	10	26	5	n.p.	—	180	
Persons		
90–94	78.5	73.0	74.7	73.0	78.9	73.3	71.4	n.p.	76.4	
95–99	18.0	24.8	23.1	27.0	18.4	26.7	28.6	—	21.0	
100+ 	3.5	2.1	2.2	—	2.6	—	—	—	2.6	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total persons (number)	289	141	91	37	76	15	7	n.p.	658	
(a) Refers to the location of the services.
n.p. Not published.
— Nil or rounded to zero.

Table A3.2: Older permanent and respite residents by sex, age and remoteness(a), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Age (years)	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	Australia	
	Permanent residents	
Females		
90–94	68.3	70.0	69.1	69.1	66.7	68.7	
95–99	27.5	26.1	26.4	26.7	27.8	27.1	
100+ 	4.2	3.9	4.5	4.2	5.6	4.1	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total females (number)	24,182	8,053	2,645	165	18	35,063	
Males		
90–94	75.0	76.6	76.2	74.4	75.0	75.5	
95–99	22.5	20.8	21.5	20.5	12.5	22.0	
100+ 	2.5	2.7	2.3	5.1	12.5	2.6	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total males (number)	5,578	1,992	648	39	8	8,265	
Persons		
90–94	69.5	71.3	70.5	70.1	69.2	70.0	
95–99	26.6	25.1	25.4	25.5	23.1	26.1	
100+ 	3.9	3.6	4.1	4.4	7.7	3.8	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total persons (number)	29,760	10,045	3,293	204	26	43,328	
	Respite residents	
Females		
90–94	73.4	76.9	71.1	n.p.	n.p.	74.3	
95–99	23.3	20.0	28.9	n.p.	—	22.8	
100+ 	3.3	3.1	—	—	—	2.9	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total females (number)	305	130	38	n.p.	n.p.	478	
Males		
90–94	80.8	80.5	93.3	100.0	—	82.2	
95–99	17.5	17.1	6.7	—	—	16.1	
100+ 	1.7	2.4	—	—	—	1.7	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	—	100.0	
Total males (number)	120	41	15	4	—	180	
Persons		
90–94	75.5	77.8	77.4	87.5	n.p.	76.4	
95–99	21.6	19.3	22.6	12.5	—	21.0	
100+ 	2.8	2.9	—	—	—	2.6	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total persons (number)	425	171	53	8	n.p.	658	
(a) Refers to the location of the services. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
n.p. Not published.
— Nil or rounded to zero.
.

Table A3.3: Admissions of older permanent and respite residents by sex, age and state/territory(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Age (years)	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
	Permanent residents	
Females		
90–94	76.2	76.2	76.7	74.7	75.4	75.4	76.8	n.p.	76.0	
95–99	20.9	20.9	20.6	20.9	23.3	20.5	22.0	n.p.	21.1	
100+ 	2.8	2.9	2.7	4.3	1.3	4.0	1.2	n.p.	2.9	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	2,927	2,188	1,338	764	767	224	82	7	8,297	
Males		
90–94	80.4	81.5	80.5	77.0	81.7	92.5	83.7	100.0	81.0	
95–99	18.4	17.6	17.7	21.6	17.3	5.4	14.0	—	17.8	
100+ 	1.1	0.9	1.7	1.4	0.9	2.2	2.3	—	1.2	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	1,134	866	631	278	323	93	43	6	3,374	
Persons		
90–94	77.4	77.7	77.9	75.3	77.2	80.4	79.2	69.2	77.5	
95–99	20.2	19.9	19.7	21.1	21.6	16.1	19.2	23.1	20.2	
100+ 	2.4	2.4	2.4	3.6	1.2	3.5	1.6	7.7	2.4	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	4,061	3,054	1,969	1,042	1,090	317	125	13	11,671	
	Respite residents	
Females		
90–94	76.7	76.8	77.7	78.6	77.3	71.1	67.0	90.5	76.8	
95–99	20.2	20.8	20.1	17.8	21.3	26.4	22.9	9.5	20.5	
100+ 	3.1	2.4	2.2	3.6	1.4	2.4	10.1	—	2.8	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	2,963	1,913	961	499	644	246	109	21	7,356	
Males		
90–94	78.8	81.1	81.8	80.0	81.3	86.5	83.3	66.7	80.4	
95–99	19.9	18.3	15.6	19.5	17.7	12.6	11.1	33.3	18.3	
100+ 	1.3	0.6	2.6	0.5	1.0	0.9	5.6	—	1.3	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	1,128	684	384	185	288	111	36	12	2,828	
Persons		
90–94	77.3	78.0	78.9	78.9	78.5	75.9	71.0	81.8	77.8	
95–99	20.1	20.1	18.8	18.3	20.2	22.1	20.0	18.2	19.9	
100+ 	2.6	1.9	2.3	2.8	1.3	2.0	9.0	—	2.4	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	4,091	2,597	1,345	684	932	357	145	33	10,184	
Refers to the location of services.
n.p. Not published.
— Nil or rounded to zero.

Table A3.4: Admissions of older permanent and respite residents by sex, age and remoteness(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Age (years)	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	Australia	
	Permanent residents	
Females		
90–94	76.0	76.3	75.1	81.5	60.0	76.0	
95–99	21.0	21.5	21.8	11.1	—	21.1	
100+ 	3.0	2.2	3.0	7.4	40.0	2.9	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total females (number)	5,724	1,946	595	27	5	8,297	
Males		
90–94	80.8	81.3	81.3	83.3	75.0	81.0	
95–99	18.1	17.4	16.5	16.7	25.0	17.8	
100+ 	1.1	1.2	2.2	—	—	1.2	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total males (number)	2,271	815	272	12	4	3,374	
Persons		
90–94	77.4	77.8	77.0	82.1	66.7	77.5	
95–99	20.1	20.3	20.2	12.8	11.1	20.2	
100+ 	2.5	1.9	2.8	5.1	22.2	2.4	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total persons (number)	7,995	2,761	867	39	9	11,671	
	Respite residents	
Females		
90–94	76.6	77.2	75.6	86.5	75.0	76.8	
95–99	20.4	20.7	21.5	7.7	—	20.5	
100+ 	3.0	2.1	2.9	5.8	25.0	2.8	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total females (number)	4,466	2,137	697	52	4	7,356	
Males		
90–94	81.2	79.0	81.1	65.6	50.0	80.4	
95–99	17.4	19.7	17.9	34.4	50.0	18.3	
100+ 	1.3	1.3	0.9	—	—	1.3	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total males (number)	1,731	743	318	32	4	2,828	
Persons		
90–94	77.9	77.7	77.3	78.6	62.5	77.8	
95–99	19.5	20.5	20.4	17.9	25.0	19.9	
100+ 	2.6	1.9	2.3	3.6	12.5	2.4	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total persons (number)	6,197	2,880	1,015	84	8	10,184	
Refers to the location of the services. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS. 
— Nil or rounded to zero.

Table A3.5: Older permanent and respite residents by sex, marital status
and admission, 30 June 2009
Marital status	Permanent	Respite	
	Number	Per cent	Number	Per cent	
Females		
Divorced/separated	700	2.0	12	2.5	
Married	3,437	9.8	35	7.3	
Single	1,949	5.6	11	2.3	
Widowed	28,569	81.5	417	87.2	
Not stated	408	1.2	3	0.6	
Total females	35,063	100.0	478	100.0	
Males		
Divorced/separated	324	3.9	3	1.7	
Married	3,597	43.5	75	41.7	
Single	435	5.3	4	2.2	
Widowed	3,815	46.2	97	53.9	
Not stated	94	1.1	1	0.5	
Total males	8,265	100.0	180	100.0	
Persons		
Divorced/separated	1024	2.4	15	2.3	
Married	7,034	16.2	110	16.7	
Single	2,384	5.5	15	2.3	
Widowed	32,384	74.7	514	78.1	
Not stated	502	1.2	4	0.6	
Total persons	43,328	100.0	658	100.0	

Table A3.6: Completed length of stay for older permanent residents by sex and state/territory(a), separating from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Length of stay	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
Females		
<4 Weeks      	4.8	3.4	3.1	3.6	3.1	3.9	1.9	—	3.8	
4–< 26 Weeks 	12.2	11.9	9.8	10.3	11.1	9.4	7.6	n.p.	11.3	
26–< 52 Weeks	7.5	8.2	8.7	9.6	7.1	8.4	9.5	22.2	8.1	
1–<2 Years   	13.8	13.6	12.9	14.0	11.9	12.3	15.2	11.1	13.4	
2–<3 Years   	11.6	13.6	11.5	12.4	11.8	12.1	10.1	11.1	12.2	
3–< 5 Years   	19.7	20.1	20.6	21.2	21.8	20.7	19.0	33.3	20.3	
5–<8 Years   	17.4	17.1	18.9	16.5	19.6	18.5	22.8	n.p.	17.8	
8+ Years         	13.0	12.1	14.5	12.5	13.6	14.8	13.9	11.1	13.1	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	4,838	3,515	2,338	1,234	1,331	406	158	18	13,838	
Males		
<4Weeks      	8.6	7.0	6.2	6.5	7.2	6.8	5.2	—	7.3	
4–< 26 Weeks 	18.9	18.6	16.8	21.2	20.8	13.0	22.4	15.4	18.7	
26–< 52 Weeks	12.4	12.8	12.1	13.5	12.4	16.4	15.5	n.p.	12.7	
1–<2 Years   	16.7	18.9	18.1	18.7	14.3	18.5	13.8	n.p.	17.5	
2–<3 Years   	13.2	12.8	14.1	10.2	11.3	16.4	10.3	23.1	12.9	
3–< 5 Years   	15.4	16.4	18.3	16.2	17.6	16.4	15.5	23.1	16.5	
5–<8 Years   	9.1	10.0	10.4	9.2	10.0	9.6	8.6	15.4	9.7	
8+  Years       	5.6	3.5	3.9	4.5	6.3	2.7	8.6	n.p.	4.7	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	1,593	1,273	867	401	442	146	58	13	4,793	
Persons		
<4 Weeks      	5.8	4.4	3.9	4.3	4.1	4.7	2.8	—	4.7	
4–< 26 Weeks 	13.9	13.7	11.7	13.0	13.5	10.3	11.6	n.p.	13.2	
26–< 52 Weeks	8.7	9.4	9.6	10.6	8.4	10.5	11.1	16.1	9.3	
1–<2 Years   	14.5	15.0	14.3	15.2	12.5	13.9	14.8	n.p.	14.4	
2–<3 Years   	12.0	13.4	12.2	11.9	11.7	13.2	10.2	16.1	12.4	
3–< 5 Years   	18.6	19.2	20.0	19.9	20.8	19.6	18.1	29.0	19.4	
5–<8 Years   	15.3	15.2	16.6	14.7	17.2	16.1	19.0	n.p.	15.7	
8+ Years         	11.2	9.8	11.6	10.5	11.8	11.6	12.5	n.p.	10.9	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	6,431	4,788	3,205	1,635	1,773	552	216	31	18,631	
(a)  Refers to the location of services. 
n.p. Not published.
— Nil or rounded to zero.

Table A3.7: Completed length of stay for older permanent residents by sex and remoteness(a), separating from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Length of stay	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote/
Very remote	Australia	
Females		
<4 Weeks      	4.0	4.0	2.3	—	3.8	
4–< 26 Weeks 	11.6	11.0	9.4	8.6	11.3	
26–< 52 Weeks	8.3	7.5	7.4	11.4	8.1	
1–<2 Years   	13.5	13.0	13.5	15.7	13.4	
2–<3 Years   	11.8	13.1	12.6	11.4	12.2	
3–< 5 Years   	20.0	21.1	20.8	22.9	20.3	
5–<8 Years   	17.5	17.8	21.0	14.3	17.8	
8+ Years        	13.3	12.5	13.0	15.7	13.1	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	9,497	3,193	1,078	70	13,838	
Males		
<4 Weeks      	7.2	8.3	5.5	n.p.	7.3	
4–< 26 Weeks 	19.4	17.5	15.9	20.5	18.7	
26–< 52 Weeks	12.9	12.6	12.4	n.p.	12.7	
1–<2 Years   	17.4	18.3	15.2	17.9	17.5	
2–<3 Years   	12.3	13.8	14.7	17.9	12.9	
3–< 5 Years   	16.2	16.6	19.7	n.p.	16.5	
5–<8 Years   	9.6	9.1	10.9	17.9	9.7	
8+ Years        	4.8	3.8	5.7	n.p.	4.7	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	3,207	1,145	402	39	4,793	
Persons		
<4 Weeks      	4.8	5.1	3.2	2.8	4.7	
4–< 26 Weeks 	13.6	12.7	11.1	12.8	13.2	
26–< 52 Weeks	9.5	8.9	8.8	8.3	9.3	
1–<2 Years   	14.5	14.4	14.0	16.5	14.4	
2–<3 Years   	11.9	13.3	13.2	13.8	12.4	
3–< 5 Years   	19.0	19.9	20.5	17.4	19.4	
5–<8 Years   	15.5	15.5	18.2	15.6	15.7	
8+ Years         	11.1	10.2	11.0	12.8	10.9	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	12,704	4,338	1,480	109	18,631	
(a) Refers to the location of services. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
n.p. Not published.
— Nil or rounded to zero.

Table A3.8: ACFI care levels, activities of daily living of older permanent 
residents by age, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Age (years)	High	Medium	Low	Nil	Total	
90–94	32.6	27.6	31.1	8.6	100.0	
95–99	37.9	28.5	27.1	6.5	100.0	
100+ 	48.3	29.7	19.0	2.9	100.0	
Total 	34.6	27.9	29.6	7.8	100.0	
Total (numbers)	14,904	12,021	12,739	3,366	43,030	

Table A3.9: ACFI care levels, behaviour of older permanent residents 
by age, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Age (years)	High	Medium	Low	Nil	Total	
90–94	32.6	25.4	24.7	17.3	100.0	
95–99	32.2	26.4	25.5	16.0	100.0	
100+ 	32.2	28.8	25.9	13.2	100.0	
Total 	32.5	25.8	24.9	16.8	100.0	
Total (number)	13,971	11,100	10,729	7,230	43,030	

Table A3.10: ACFI care levels, complex health care of older permanent 
residents by age, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Age (years)	High	Medium	Low	Nil	Total	
90–94	11.2	26.9	42.0	19.8	100.0	
95–99	11.0	28.8	41.4	18.7	100.0	
100+ 	13.2	29.2	43.0	14.5	100.0	
Total 	11.2	27.5	41.9	19.3	100.0	
Total (number)	4,840	11,838	18,040	8,312	43,030	

Appendix 4: Patterns of use
Table A4.1: Permanent admissions, age at admission by state/territory(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Age (years)	 NSW 	 Vic 	 Qld 	 WA 	 SA 	 Tas 	 ACT 	 NT 	 Australia 	
	Number	
under 65	752	477	383	208	179	71	22	21	2,113	
65–69	671	451	398	185	174	77	24	13	1,993	
70–74	1,320	874	732	329	304	99	37	22	3,717	
75–79	2,663	1,922	1,368	636	675	182	62	28	7,536	
80–84	4,868	3,682	2,359	1,162	1,365	382	166	33	14,017	
85–89	5,557	4,133	2,769	1,288	1,522	457	192	18	15,936	
90–94	3,143	2,373	1,534	785	842	255	99	9	9,040	
95+	918	681	435	257	248	62	26	4	2,631	
Total 	19,892	14,593	9,978	4,850	5,309	1,585	628	148	56,983	
	Per cent	
under 65	3.8	3.3	3.8	4.3	3.4	4.5	3.5	14.2	3.7	
65–69	3.4	3.1	4.0	3.8	3.3	4.9	3.8	8.8	3.5	
70–74	6.6	6.0	7.3	6.8	5.7	6.2	5.9	14.9	6.5	
75–79	13.4	13.2	13.7	13.1	12.7	11.5	9.9	18.9	13.2	
80–84	24.5	25.2	23.6	24.0	25.7	24.1	26.4	22.3	24.6	
85–89	27.9	28.3	27.8	26.6	28.7	28.8	30.6	12.2	28.0	
90–94	15.8	16.3	15.4	16.2	15.9	16.1	15.8	6.1	15.9	
95+	4.6	4.7	4.4	5.3	4.7	3.9	4.1	2.7	4.6	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
(a)    Refers to the location of the facilities.
Table A4.2: Respite admissions, age at admission by state/territory(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Age (years)	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
	Number	
under 65	919	588	364	215	219	122	41	55	2,523	
65–69	812	534	363	191	186	104	33	46	2,269	
70–74	1,530	1,102	599	313	298	128	58	65	4,093	
75–79	2,874	1,974	998	618	654	249	96	47	7,510	
80–84	5,171	3,522	1,679	876	1,253	396	239	53	13,189	
85–89	5,866	3,775	1,869	855	1,560	523	268	51	14,767	
90–94	3,161	2,025	1,061	540	732	271	103	27	7,920	
95+	930	572	284	144	200	86	42	6	2,264	
Total 	21,263	14,092	7,217	3,752	5,102	1,879	880	350	54,535	
	Per cent	
under 65	4.3	4.2	5.0	5.7	4.3	6.5	4.7	15.7	4.6	
65–69	3.8	3.8	5.0	5.1	3.6	5.5	3.8	13.1	4.2	
70–74	7.2	7.8	8.3	8.3	5.8	6.8	6.6	18.6	7.5	
75–79	13.5	14.0	13.8	16.5	12.8	13.3	10.9	13.4	13.8	
80–84	24.3	25.0	23.3	23.3	24.6	21.1	27.2	15.1	24.2	
85–89	27.6	26.8	25.9	22.8	30.6	27.8	30.5	14.6	27.1	
90–94	14.9	14.4	14.7	14.4	14.3	14.4	11.7	7.7	14.5	
95+	4.4	4.1	3.9	3.8	3.9	4.6	4.8	1.7	4.2	
Total 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
(a)    Refers to the location of the facilities.
Table A4.3: Separations of permanent, respite, and all residents by sex and separation mode, 
1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Separation mode	Permanent	Respite	All separations	
 	Number 	Per cent	Number	Per cent	Number	Per cent	
Females		
Death	30,583	88.9	594	1.8	31,177	           46.0 	
Return to community	1,061	3.1	21,101	63.3	22,162	           32.7 	
To hospital	1,137	3.3	1,358	4.1	2,495	             3.7 	
To residential  aged care 	1,179	3.4	4,617	13.8	5,796	             8.6 	
Other	459	1.3	5,686	17.0	6,145	             9.1 	
Total females	34,419	100.0	33,356	100.0	67,775	         100.0 	
Males		
Death	18,291	87.6	560	2.7	18,851	           45.1 	
Return to community	831	4.0	13,439	64.2	14,270	           34.1 	
To hospital	768	3.7	1,047	5.0	1,815	             4.3 	
To residential  aged care 	623	3.0	2,519	12.0	3,142	             7.5 	
Other	378	1.8	3,370	16.1	3,748	             9.0 	
Total males	20,891	100.0	20,935	100.0	41,826	         100.0 	
Persons		
Death	48,874	88.4	1,154	2.1	50,028	           45.6 	
Return to community	1,892	3.4	34,540	63.6	36,432	           33.2 	
To hospital	1,905	3.4	2,405	4.4	4,310	             3.9 	
To residential  aged care 	1,802	3.3	7,136	13.1	8,938	             8.2 	
Other	837	1.5	9,056	16.7	9,893	             9.0 	
Total persons	55,310	100.0	54,291	100.0	109,601	      100.0 	

Table A4.4: All separations, separation mode by sex and state/territory(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Separation mode	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
Females	Number	
Death	10,895	7,788	5,394	2,502	3,165	1,005	361	67	31,177	
Return to community	7,315	6,575	3,203	1,613	1,971	962	399	124	22,162	
To hospital	1,103	523	297	244	260	26	19	23	2,495	
To continuing residential care	2,404	1,337	820	590	513	62	52	18	5,796	
Other	3,572	1,064	378	201	657	117	108	48	6,145	
Total females	25,289	17,287	10,092	5,150	6,566	2,172	939	280	67,775	
Males		
Death	6,545	4,651	3,492	1,492	1,876	551	193	51	18,851	
Return to community	4,538	4,175	2,317	1,174	1,090	641	219	116	14,270	
To hospital	799	391	217	170	183	30	16	9	1,815	
To continuing residential care	1,214	733	495	349	270	36	31	14	3,142	
Other	2,125	641	271	167	381	80	60	23	3,748	
Total males	15,221	10,591	6,792	3,352	3,800	1,338	519	213	41,826	
Persons		
Death	17,440	12,439	8,886	3,994	5,041	1,556	554	118	50,028	
Return to community	11,853	10,750	5,520	2,787	3,061	1,603	618	240	36,432	
To hospital	1,902	914	514	414	443	56	35	32	4,310	
To continuing residential care	3,618	2,070	1,315	939	783	98	83	32	8,938	
Other	5,697	1,705	649	368	1,038	197	168	71	9,893	
Total persons	40,510	27,878	16,884	8,502	10,366	3,510	1,458	493	109,601	
Females	Per cent	
Death	43.1	45.1	53.4	48.6	48.2	46.3	38.4	23.9	46.0	
Return to community	28.9	38.0	31.7	31.3	30.0	44.3	42.5	44.3	32.7	
To hospital	4.4	3.0	2.9	4.7	4.0	1.2	2.0	8.2	3.7	
To continuing residential care	9.5	7.7	8.1	11.5	7.8	2.9	5.5	6.4	8.6	
Other	14.1	6.2	3.7	3.9	10.0	5.4	11.5	17.1	9.1	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Males		
Death	43.0	43.9	51.4	44.5	49.4	41.2	37.2	23.9	45.1	
Return to community	29.8	39.4	34.1	35.0	28.7	47.9	42.2	54.5	34.1	
To hospital	5.2	3.7	3.2	5.1	4.8	2.2	3.1	4.2	4.3	
To continuing residential care	8.0	6.9	7.3	10.4	7.1	2.7	6.0	6.6	7.5	
Other	14.0	6.1	4.0	5.0	10.0	6.0	11.6	10.8	9.0	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Persons		
Death	43.1	44.6	52.6	47.0	48.6	44.3	38.0	23.9	45.6	
Return to community	29.3	38.6	32.7	32.8	29.5	45.7	42.4	48.7	33.2	
To hospital	4.7	3.3	3.0	4.9	4.3	1.6	2.4	6.5	3.9	
To continuing residential care	8.9	7.4	7.8	11.0	7.6	2.8	5.7	6.5	8.2	
Other	14.1	6.1	3.8	4.3	10.0	5.6	11.5	14.4	9.0	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
(a)    Refers to the location of the services.	

Table A4.5: Separations of permanent residents, separation mode by sex and state/territory(a), 
1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Separation mode	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
Females	Number	
Death	10,551	7,713	5,341	2,477	3,088	995	356	62	30,583	
Return to community	409	257	193	82	75	30	9	6	1,061	
To hospital	475	256	157	177	50	7	8	7	1,137	
To continuing residential care	467	321	116	201	56	10	3	n.p.	1,179	
Other	203	74	39	54	75	4	9	n.p.	459	
Total females	12,105	8,621	5,846	2,991	3,344	1,046	385	81	34,419	
Males		
Death	6,237	4,578	3,425	1,465	1,809	542	186	49	18,291	
Return to community	323	189	175	61	58	13	8	4	831	
To hospital	327	171	112	99	43	10	4	n.p.	768	
To continuing residential care	218	190	74	111	20	7	2	n.p.	623	
Other	165	78	48	30	47	8	2	—	378	
Total males	7,270	5,206	3,834	1,766	1,977	580	202	56	20,891	
Persons		
Death	16,788	12,291	8,766	3,942	4,897	1,537	542	111	48,874	
Return to community	732	446	368	143	133	43	17	10	1,892	
To hospital	802	427	269	276	93	17	12	9	1,905	
To continuing residential care	685	511	190	312	76	17	5	n.p.	1,802	
Other	368	152	87	84	122	12	11	n.p.	837	
Total persons	19,375	13,827	9,680	4,757	5,321	1,626	587	137	55,310	
Females	Per cent	
Death	87.2	89.5	91.4	82.8	92.3	95.1	92.5	76.5	88.9	
Return to community	3.4	3.0	3.3	2.7	2.2	2.9	2.3	7.4	3.1	
To hospital	3.9	3.0	2.7	5.9	1.5	0.7	2.1	8.6	3.3	
To continuing residential care	3.9	3.7	2.0	6.7	1.7	1.0	0.8	n.p.	3.4	
Other	1.7	0.9	0.7	1.8	2.2	0.4	2.3	n.p.	1.3	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Males		
Death	85.8	87.9	89.3	83.0	91.5	93.4	92.1	87.5	87.6	
Return to community	4.4	3.6	4.6	3.5	2.9	2.2	4.0	7.1	4.0	
To hospital	4.5	3.3	2.9	5.6	2.2	1.7	2.0	n.p.	3.7	
To continuing residential care	3.0	3.6	1.9	6.3	1.0	1.2	1.0	n.p.	3.0	
Other	2.3	1.5	1.3	1.7	2.4	1.4	1.0	—	1.8	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Persons		
Death	86.6	88.9	90.6	82.9	92.0	94.5	92.3	81.0	88.4	
Return to community	3.8	3.2	3.8	3.0	2.5	2.6	2.9	7.3	3.4	
To hospital	4.1	3.1	2.8	5.8	1.7	1.0	2.0	6.6	3.4	
To continuing residential care	3.5	3.7	2.0	6.6	1.4	1.0	0.9	n.p.	3.3	
Other	1.9	1.1	0.9	1.8	2.3	0.7	1.9	n.p.	1.5	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
(a)    Refers to the location of the services.
n.p. Not published.
— Nil or rounded to zero.

Table A4.6: Separations of respite residents, separation mode, by sex and state/territory(a), 
1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Separation mode	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
Females	Number	
Death	344	75	53	25	77	10	5	5	594	
Return to community	6,906	6,318	3,010	1,531	1,896	932	390	118	21,101	
To hospital	628	267	140	67	210	19	11	16	1,358	
To continuing residential care	1,937	1,016	704	389	457	52	49	13	4,617	
Other	3,369	990	339	147	582	113	99	47	5,686	
Total females	13,184	8,666	4,246	2,159	3,222	1,126	554	199	33,356	
Males		
Death	308	73	67	27	67	9	7	n.p.	560	
Return to community	4,215	3,986	2,142	1,113	1,032	628	211	112	13,439	
To hospital	472	220	105	71	140	20	12	n.p.	1,047	
To continuing residential care	996	543	421	238	250	29	29	13	2,519	
Other	1,960	563	223	137	334	72	58	23	3,370	
Total males	7,951	5,385	2,958	1,586	1,823	758	317	157	20,935	
Persons		
Death	652	148	120	52	144	19	12	7	1,154	
Return to community	11,121	10,304	5,152	2,644	2,928	1,560	601	230	34,540	
To hospital	1,100	487	245	138	350	39	23	23	2,405	
To continuing residential care	2,933	1,559	1,125	627	707	81	78	26	7,136	
Other	5,329	1,553	562	284	916	185	157	70	9,056	
Total persons	21,135	14,051	7,204	3,745	5,045	1,884	871	356	54,291	
Females	Per cent	
Death	2.6	0.9	1.2	1.2	2.4	0.9	0.9	2.5	1.8	
Return to community	52.4	72.9	70.9	70.9	58.8	82.8	70.4	59.3	63.3	
To hospital	4.8	3.1	3.3	3.1	6.5	1.7	2.0	8.0	4.1	
To continuing residential care	14.7	11.7	16.6	18.0	14.2	4.6	8.8	6.5	13.8	
Other	25.6	11.4	8.0	6.8	18.1	10.0	17.9	23.6	17.0	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Males		
Death	3.9	1.4	2.3	1.7	3.7	1.2	2.2	n.p.	2.7	
Return to community	53.0	74.0	72.4	70.2	56.6	82.8	66.6	71.3	64.2	
To hospital	5.9	4.1	3.5	4.5	7.7	2.6	3.8	n.p.	5.0	
To continuing residential care	12.5	10.1	14.2	15.0	13.7	3.8	9.1	8.3	12.0	
Other	24.7	10.5	7.5	8.6	18.3	9.5	18.3	14.6	16.1	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Persons		
Death	3.1	1.1	1.7	1.4	2.9	1.0	1.4	2.0	2.1	
Return to community	52.6	73.3	71.5	70.6	58.0	82.8	69.0	64.6	63.6	
To hospital	5.2	3.5	3.4	3.7	6.9	2.1	2.6	6.5	4.4	
To continuing residential care	13.9	11.1	15.6	16.7	14.0	4.3	9.0	7.3	13.1	
Other	25.2	11.1	7.8	7.6	18.2	9.8	18.0	19.7	16.7	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
(a)    Refers to the location of the services.
n.p. Not published.

Table A4.7: Separations of permanent residents, length of stay, by separation mode, 1 July 2008 
to 30 June 2009
Length of stay	Death 	Return to community	To hospital	To another aged care service	Other	Total	
	Number	
<4 weeks 	3,419	439	205	128	109	4,300	
4–<8 weeks 	2,592	240	145	101	67	3,145	
8–<13 weeks 	2,207	194	138	101	58	2,698	
13–<26 weeks 	3,913	321	185	172	81	4,672	
26–<39 weeks 	2,840	174	155	126	89	3,384	
39–<52 weeks 	2,370	108	114	121	56	2,769	
1–<2 years 	7,866	209	288	264	117	8,744	
2–<3 years 	5,850	82	200	234	97	6,463	
3–<4 years 	4,529	48	151	168	43	4,939	
4–<5 years 	3,696	28	117	122	25	3,988	
5–<8 years 	5,857	39	142	172	56	6,266	
8+ years 	3,735	10	65	93	39	3,942	
Total	48,874	1,892	1,905	1,802	837	55,310	
	Per cent (column)	
<4 weeks 	7.0	23.2	10.8	7.1	13.0	7.8	
4–<8 weeks 	5.3	12.7	7.6	5.6	8.0	5.7	
8–<13 weeks 	4.5	10.3	7.2	5.6	6.9	4.9	
13–<26 weeks 	8.0	17.0	9.7	9.5	9.7	8.4	
26–<39 weeks 	5.8	9.2	8.1	7.0	10.6	6.1	
39–<52 weeks 	4.8	5.7	6.0	6.7	6.7	5.0	
1–<2 years 	16.1	11.0	15.1	14.7	14.0	15.8	
2–<3 years 	12.0	4.3	10.5	13.0	11.6	11.7	
3–<4 years 	9.3	2.5	7.9	9.3	5.1	8.9	
4–<5 years 	7.6	1.5	6.1	6.8	3.0	7.2	
5–<8 years 	12.0	2.1	7.5	9.5	6.7	11.3	
8+ years 	7.6	0.5	3.4	5.2	4.7	7.1	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
	Per cent (row)	
<4 weeks 	79.5	10.2	4.8	3.0	2.5	100.0	
4–<8 weeks 	82.4	7.6	4.6	3.2	2.1	100.0	
8–<13 weeks 	81.8	7.2	5.1	3.7	2.1	100.0	
13–<26 weeks 	83.8	6.9	4.0	3.7	1.7	100.0	
26–<39 weeks 	83.9	5.1	4.6	3.7	2.6	100.0	
39–<52 weeks 	85.6	3.9	4.1	4.4	2.0	100.0	
1–<2 years 	90.0	2.4	3.3	3.0	1.3	100.0	
2–<3 years 	90.5	1.3	3.1	3.6	1.5	100.0	
3–<4 years 	91.7	1.0	3.1	3.4	0.9	100.0	
4–<5 years 	92.7	0.7	2.9	3.1	0.6	100.0	
5–<8 years 	93.5	0.6	2.3	2.7	0.9	100.0	
8+ years 	94.7	0.3	1.6	2.4	1.0	100.0	
Total	88.4	3.4	3.4	3.3	1.5	100.0	

Table A4.8: Occupied place-days, type of care by state/territory and remoteness(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Type of care	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	All regions	
Permanent care	Number	
NSW	13,623,564	4,738,058	1,173,721	34,572	—	19,569,915	
Vic	10,590,543	3,452,853	785,877	15,102	. .	14,844,375	
Qld	6,408,011	2,535,634	1,245,704	87,619	39,919	10,316,887	
WA	3,753,851	638,161	331,838	65,170	34,629	4,823,649	
SA	4,352,914	623,058	553,638	61,046	—	5,590,656	
Tas	. .	1,125,819	351,710	21,730	6,533	1,505,792	
ACT	589,537	—	. .	. .	. .	589,537	
NT	. .	. .	74,005	59,593	5,182	138,780	
Australia	39,318,420	13,113,583	4,516,493	344,832	86,263	57,379,591	
Respite care	          	
NSW	393,066	136,877	46,999	690	—	577,632	
Vic	175,110	86,286	21,293	340	. .	283,029	
Qld	81,057	45,012	23,332	2,569	1,235	153,205	
WA	51,024	15,768	9,815	1,388	900	78,895	
SA	93,311	17,585	14,743	2,902	—	128,541	
Tas	. .	20,330	7,649	1,127	381	29,487	
ACT	18,796	—	. .	. .	. .	18,796	
NT	. .	. .	5,082	3,309	1,453	9,844	
Australia	812,364	321,858	128,913	12,325	3,969	1,279,429	
Permanent and respite care	          	
NSW	14,016,630	4,874,935	1,220,720	35,262	—	20,147,547	
Vic	10,765,653	3,539,139	807,170	15,442	. .	15,127,404	
Qld	6,489,068	2,580,646	1,269,036	90,188	41,154	10,470,092	
WA	3,804,875	653,929	341,653	66,558	35,529	4,902,544	
SA	4,446,225	640,643	568,381	63,948	—	5,719,197	
Tas	. .	1,146,149	359,359	22,857	6,914	1,535,279	
ACT	608,333	—	. .	. .	. .	608,333	
NT	. .	. .	79,087	62,902	6,635	148,624	
Australia	40,130,784	13,435,441	4,645,406	357,157	90,232	58,659,020	
       										            (continued)

Table A4.8 (continued): Occupied place-days, type of care by state/territory and remoteness(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009

Type of care	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote	Very remote	All regions	
Permanent care	Per cent (row)	
NSW	69.6	24.2	6.0	0.2	—	100.0	
Vic	71.3	23.3	5.3	0.1	. .	100.0	
Qld	62.1	24.6	12.1	0.8	0.4	100.0	
WA	77.8	13.2	6.9	1.4	0.7	100.0	
SA	77.9	11.1	9.9	1.1	—	100.0	
Tas	. .	74.8	23.4	1.4	0.4	100.0	
ACT	100.0	—	. .	. .	. .	100.0	
NT	. .	. .	53.3	42.9	3.7	100.0	
Australia	68.5	22.9	7.9	0.6	0.2	100.0	
Respite care		
NSW	68.0	23.7	8.1	0.1	—	100.0	
Vic	61.9	30.5	7.5	0.1	. .	100.0	
Qld	52.9	29.4	15.2	1.7	0.8	100.0	
WA	64.7	20.0	12.4	1.8	1.1	100.0	
SA	72.6	13.7	11.5	2.3	—	100.0	
Tas	. .	68.9	25.9	3.8	—	100.0	
ACT	100.0	—	. .	. .	. .	100.0	
NT	. .	. .	51.6	33.6	14.8	100.0	
Australia	63.5	25.2	10.1	1.0	0.3	100.0	
Permanent and respite care		
NSW	69.6	24.2	6.1	0.2	—	100.0	
Vic	71.2	23.4	5.3	0.1	. .	100.0	
Qld	62.0	24.6	12.1	0.9	0.4	100.0	
WA	77.6	13.3	7.0	1.4	0.7	100.0	
SA	77.7	11.2	9.9	1.1	—	100.0	
Tas	. .	74.7	23.4	1.5	—	100.0	
ACT	100.0	—	. .	. .	. .	100.0	
NT	. .	. .	53.2	42.3	4.5	100.0	
Australia	68.4	22.9	7.9	0.6	0.2	100.0	
(a)     Refers to the location of the services. The table uses the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the ABS.
. .        Not applicable.
—       Nil or rounded to zero.

Table A4.9: Average residential occupancy rate by state/territory, 1998–99 to 2008–09 (per cent)
Year	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
1998–99	95.9	94.5	96.3	94.8	96.4	97.8	94.8	94.7	95.7	
1999–00	95.6	94.4	95.9	95.1	97.3	97.8	93.2	95.1	95.5	
2000–01	95.9	94.8	96.6	94.7	97.6	97.5	95.6	93.5	95.9	
2001–02	95.3	94.9	96.4	92.9	97.7	97.7	97.7	91.9	95.5	
2002–03	96.4	94.7	96.4	95.6	97.3	97.8	97.7	94.7	96.0	
2003–04	96.1	94.4	96.5	95.7	97.2	97.5	98.0	90.9	95.9	
2004–05	95.2	94.1	96.2	94.8	97.5	96.9	98.3	93.9	95.3	
2005–06	95.4	93.0	96.0	94.9	97.6	96.0	97.9	95.1	95.1	
2006–07	94.3	92.5	94.9	94.6	97.6	95.9	96.3	94.9	94.3	
2007–08	93.4	92.2	93.5	94.2	96.8	95.1	93.2	92.2	93.5	
2008–09	92.6	91.4	92.3	94.1	96.0	93.8	92.4	89.0	92.7	
Notes
1.    Refer to Table 4.10 for the method of calculating annual average occupancy rates.
2.    Excludes residents in MPS and National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program.

Appendix 5: Aged Care Funding Instrument 
The Aged Care Funding Instrument (ACFI) replaced the Residential Classification Scale (RCS) for determining the level of care payments for residents in aged care homes from 20 March 2008. It is designed to provide a simpler method that better matches funding to the needs of people with dementia and those with complex health care needs. All new permanent admissions from 20 March 2008 are appraised using the ACFI and conversion from the RCS for existing residents occurs as residents require a review of their classification.
The ACFI measures the need for care using standard assessment tools and the completion of ACFI checklists. It involves the appraisal of residents in relation to three separate domains that are considered to contribute to the costs of care: Activities of Daily Living, Behaviour, and Complex Health Care supplement. Each of these domains has three funded levels—low, medium and high. In addition, there is a ‘lowest applicable classification level’ in each domain, which results in nil funding.
•	Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) evaluate client needs with nutrition, mobility, personal hygiene, toileting and continence.
•	Behaviour (BEH) assesses resident care needs in respect of cognitive skills, wandering, verbal behaviour, physical behaviour and depression.
•	Complex Health Care (CHC) measures the needs of a client for medication and complex health care.
In addition, there are two categories of health condition diagnosis (Mental & Behavioural and Medical) which result in a record of diagnosed disorders. Diagnosis data are used to support other ratings and to determine whether supplementary funding is required.
ACFI classifications will be defined as high- or low-care. To be considered high-care, the resident must be classified at one or more of the following levels:
•	medium or high in the CHC supplement; OR
•	medium or high in the ADL domain; OR
•	high in the BEH supplement.
If a resident appraisal score does not satisfy these conditions, they will be classified as low-care. 
ACFI classifications will not generally expire, except in certain circumstances including:
•	6 months after a resident enters care directly from hospital
•	6 months after a major change in care needs
•	upon return from extended hospital leave
•	6 months after return from extended hospital leave
•	upon departure from care.
Following implementation of the ACFI, ACATs will continue to make recommendations for either high- or low-level residential care. 

Table A5.1: Dependency levels of permanent residents by sex, 30 June 1998 to                                             30 June 2009 (per cent)
Year	High-care	Low-care	Total	
Females		
1998	57.1	42.9	100.0	
1999	60.2	39.8	100.0	
2000	61.2	38.8	100.0	
2001	62.5	37.5	100.0	
2002	63.1	36.9	100.0	
2003	64.2	35.8	100.0	
2004	65.4	34.6	100.0	
2005	67.4	32.6	100.0	
2006	68.7	31.3	100.0	
2007	70.0	30.0	100.0	
2008 (RCS)	70.3	29.7	100.0	
2008 (ACFI)	76.0	24.0	100.0	
2009	74.7	25.3	100.0	
Males		
1998	59.6	40.4	100.0	
1999	62.2	37.8	100.0	
2000	63.1	36.9	100.0	
2001	64.1	35.9	100.0	
2002	64.6	35.4	100.0	
2003	64.8	35.2	100.0	
2004	66.0	34.0	100.0	
2005	67.7	32.3	100.0	
2006	69.0	31.0	100.0	
2007	70.4	29.6	100.0	
2008 (RCS)	70.0	30.0	100.0	
2008 (ACFI)	76.6	23.4	100.0	
2009	75.2	24.8	100.0	
Persons		
1998	57.8	42.2	100.0	
1999	60.8	39.2	100.0	
2000	61.8	38.2	100.0	
2001	63.1	36.9	100.0	
2002	63.6	36.4	100.0	
2003	64.4	35.6	100.0	
2004	65.6	34.4	100.0	
2005	67.5	32.5	100.0	
2006	68.7	31.3	100.0	
2007	70.1	29.9	100.0	
2008 (RCS)	70.2	29.8	100.0	
2008 (ACFI)	76.1	23.9	100.0	
2009	74.9	25.1	100.0	
Note: The classification of permanent residents was in transition from the Resident Classification Scale (RCS) to the 
Aged Care Funding Instrument (ACFI) between March 2008 and March 2009. At 30 June 2008 available records showed 
106,933 residents with a current RCS and 47,338 with a current ACFI classification. There were 2,816 permanent clients 
at 30 June 2008 whose current appraisal was not available. 

Table A5.2: Distribution of high-care appraisal scores under the ACFI of permanent, 30 June 2009
ACFI appraisal level	Number	Per cent	Activities of daily living	Behaviour	Complex health care	
High	10,338	8.8	High  	High  	Medium	
High	10,116	8.6	High  	High  	Low	
High	8,387	7.1	Medium	High  	Low	
High	6,381	5.4	Medium	High  	Medium	
High	5,964	5.1	High  	High  	High	
High	5,526	4.7	High  	Medium	Low	
High	4,927	4.2	High  	Medium	Medium	
High	4,577	3.9	Medium	Medium	Low	
High	4,128	3.5	Low   	High  	Low	
High	3,517	3.0	High  	Low   	Low	
High	3,485	3.0	Medium	Low   	Low	
High	3,399	2.9	Medium	Medium	Medium	
High	3,269	2.8	High  	Medium	High	
High	3,030	2.6	Medium	High  	Nil	
High	2,795	2.4	High  	Low   	Medium	
High	2,788	2.4	Low   	High  	Nil	
High	2,560	2.2	Low   	Low   	Medium	
High	2,496	2.1	Medium	Low   	Medium	
High	2,320	2.0	Low   	Medium	Medium	
High	2,282	1.9	Low   	High  	Medium	
High	2,209	1.9	Medium	High  	High	
High	1,982	1.7	Low   	Nil   	Medium	
High	1,883	1.6	High  	Low   	High	
High	1,844	1.6	Medium	Nil   	Low	
High	1,805	1.5	Medium	Medium	High	
High	1,568	1.3	Medium	Medium	Nil	
High	1,415	1.2	Medium	Nil   	Medium	
High	1,346	1.1	Medium	Low   	High	
High	1,145	1.0	High  	High  	Nil	
High	1,061	0.9	Medium	Low   	Nil	
High	879	0.7	High  	Nil   	Low	
High	756	0.6	High  	Nil   	Medium	
High	721	0.6	Medium	Nil   	High	
 											    (continued)

Table A5.2 (continued): Distribution of high-care appraisal scores under the ACFI of permanent residents, 30 June 2009
ACFI appraisal level	Number	Per cent	Activities of daily living	Behaviour	Complex health care	
High	690	0.6	Nil   	Nil   	Medium	
High	663	0.6	High  	Nil   	High	
High	600	0.5	Nil   	High  	Nil	
High	549	0.5	Nil   	Low   	Medium	
High	545	0.5	Medium	Nil   	Nil	
High	529	0.4	Low   	Medium	High	
High	473	0.4	High  	Medium	Nil	
High	472	0.4	Low   	Low   	High	
High	460	0.4	Nil   	High  	Low	
High	453	0.4	Low   	High  	High	
High	443	0.4	Low   	Nil   	High	
High	318	0.3	Nil   	Medium	Medium	
High	313	0.3	High  	Low   	Nil	
High	198	0.2	Nil   	High  	Medium	
High	71	0.1	Nil   	Nil   	High	
High	70	0.1	High  	Nil   	Nil	
High	67	0.1	Nil   	Low   	High	
High	43	—	Nil   	Medium	High	
High	28	—	Nil   	High  	High	
Total persons 	117,884	100.0				
— Nil or rounded to zero.
Table A5.3: Distribution of low-care appraisal scores under the ACFI of permanent residents, 30 June 2009
ACFI appraisal level	Number	Per cent	Activities of daily living	Behaviour	Complex health care	
Low	6,466	16.3	Low   	Low   	Low	
Low	5,432	13.7	Low   	Medium	Low	
Low	4,910	12.4	Low   	Nil   	Low	
Low	4,620	11.7	Low   	Low   	Nil	
Low	3,696	9.3	Low   	Medium	Nil	
Low	3,652	9.2	Low   	Nil   	Nil	
Low	3,377	8.5	Nil   	Nil   	Nil	
Low	2,258	5.7	Nil   	Low   	Nil	
Low	1,775	4.5	Nil   	Nil   	Low	
Low	1,472	3.7	Nil   	Low   	Low	
Low	1,100	2.8	Nil   	Medium	Nil	
Low	852	2.2	Nil   	Medium	Low	
Total persons	39,610	100.0				

Table A5.4a: ACFI level of care at admission for activities of daily living, permanent residents 
admitted from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009, by sex and age group at admission
Level of care (ADL)	<65	65–69	70–74	75–79	80–84	85–89	90–94	95+	Total	
	Number	
Females		
High	369	266	529	1,172	2,154	2,641	1,748	714	9,593	
Medium	269	252	533	1,053	2,163	2,534	1,645	552	9,001	
Low	211	266	576	1,490	3,222	4,009	2,280	554	12,608	
Nil	50	64	116	345	663	748	354	67	2,407	
Total females	899	848	1,754	4,060	8,202	9,932	6,027	1,887	33,609	
Males		
High	343	337	591	1,049	1,726	1,701	823	255	6,825	
Medium	330	309	537	966	1,475	1,453	725	158	5,953	
Low	308	306	499	842	1,531	1,648	800	168	6,102	
Nil	88	82	123	214	350	416	207	29	1,509	
Total males 	1,069	1,034	1,750	3,071	5,082	5,218	2,555	610	20,389	
Persons		
High	712	603	1,120	2,221	3,880	4,342	2,571	969	16,418	
Medium	599	561	1,070	2,019	3,638	3,987	2,370	710	14,954	
Low	519	572	1,075	2,332	4,753	5,657	3,080	722	18,710	
Nil	138	146	239	559	1,013	1,164	561	96	3,916	
Total persons	1,968	1,882	3,504	7,131	13,284	15,150	8,582	2,497	53,998	
	Per cent	
Females		
High	41.0	31.4	30.2	28.9	26.3	26.6	29.0	37.8	28.5	
Medium	29.9	29.7	30.4	25.9	26.4	25.5	27.3	29.3	26.8	
Low	23.5	31.4	32.8	36.7	39.3	40.4	37.8	29.4	37.5	
Nil	5.6	7.5	6.6	8.5	8.1	7.5	5.9	3.6	7.2	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Males		
High	32.1	32.6	33.8	34.2	34.0	32.6	32.2	41.8	33.5	
Medium	30.9	29.9	30.7	31.5	29.0	27.8	28.4	25.9	29.2	
Low	28.8	29.6	28.5	27.4	30.1	31.6	31.3	27.5	29.9	
Nil	8.2	7.9	7.0	7.0	6.9	8.0	8.1	4.8	7.4	
Total males 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Persons		
High	36.2	32.0	32.0	31.1	29.2	28.7	30.0	38.8	30.4	
Medium	30.4	29.8	30.5	28.3	27.4	26.3	27.6	28.4	27.7	
Low	26.4	30.4	30.7	32.7	35.8	37.3	35.9	28.9	34.6	
Nil	7.0	7.8	6.8	7.8	7.6	7.7	6.5	3.8	7.3	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
    Note: The table is for clients whose last appraisal during the time period is from the ACFI.

Table A5.4b: ACFI level of care at admission for behaviour, permanent residents admitted from
1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009, by sex and age group at admission
Level of care (BEH) 	<65	65–69	70–74	75–79	80–84	85–89	90–94	95+	Total	
	Number	
Females			
High	331	291	605	1,324	2,398	2,562	1,405	433	9,349	
Medium	247	221	445	1,035	2,109	2,494	1,529	503	8,583	
Low	187	196	391	942	2,056	2,649	1,706	567	8,694	
Nil	134	140	313	759	1,639	2,227	1,387	384	6,983	
Total females	899	848	1,754	4,060	8,202	9,932	6,027	1,887	33,609	
Males		
High	416	386	611	1,159	1,679	1,563	675	149	6,638	
Medium	286	262	462	755	1,337	1,370	708	191	5,371	
Low	220	255	379	690	1,219	1,322	671	162	4,918	
Nil	147	131	298	467	847	963	501	108	3,462	
Total males 	1,069	1,034	1,750	3,071	5,082	5,218	2,555	610	20,389	
Persons		
High	747	677	1,216	2,483	4,077	4,125	2,080	582	15,987	
Medium	533	483	907	1,790	3,446	3,864	2,237	694	13,954	
Low	407	451	770	1,632	3,275	3,971	2,377	729	13,612	
Nil	281	271	611	1,226	2,486	3,190	1,888	492	10,445	
Total persons	1,968	1,882	3,504	7,131	13,284	15,150	8,582	2,497	53,998	
	Per cent	
Females		
High	36.8	34.3	34.5	32.6	29.2	25.8	23.3	22.9	27.8	
Medium	27.5	26.1	25.4	25.5	25.7	25.1	25.4	26.7	25.5	
Low	20.8	23.1	22.3	23.2	25.1	26.7	28.3	30.0	25.9	
Nil	14.9	16.5	17.8	18.7	20.0	22.4	23.0	20.3	20.8	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Males		
High	38.9	37.3	34.9	37.7	33.0	30.0	26.4	24.4	32.6	
Medium	26.8	25.3	26.4	24.6	26.3	26.3	27.7	31.3	26.3	
Low	20.6	24.7	21.7	22.5	24.0	25.3	26.3	26.6	24.1	
Nil	13.8	12.7	17.0	15.2	16.7	18.5	19.6	17.7	17.0	
Total males 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Persons		
High	38.0	36.0	34.7	34.8	30.7	27.2	24.2	23.3	29.6	
Medium	27.1	25.7	25.9	25.1	25.9	25.5	26.1	27.8	25.8	
Low	20.7	24.0	22.0	22.9	24.7	26.2	27.7	29.2	25.2	
Nil	14.3	14.4	17.4	17.2	18.7	21.1	22.0	19.7	19.3	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
 Note: The table is for clients whose last appraisal during the time period is from the ACFI.

Table A5.4c: ACFI level of care at admission for complex health care, permanent residents admitted 
from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009, by sex and age group at admission
Level of care (CHC)	<65	65–69	70–74	75–79	80–84	85–89	90–94	95+	Total	
	Number	
Females		
High	272	227	399	730	1,258	1,391	878	304	5,459	
Medium	227	195	421	876	1,790	2,173	1,364	508	7,554	
Low	251	270	606	1,560	3,320	4,166	2,446	737	13,356	
Nil	149	156	328	894	1,834	2,202	1,339	338	7,240	
Total females	899	848	1,754	4,060	8,202	9,932	6,027	1,887	33,609	
Males		
High	321	259	447	747	1,132	1,042	441	123	4,512	
Medium	239	256	433	801	1,220	1,192	595	154	4,890	
Low	306	336	581	1,039	1,816	2,017	1,019	215	7,329	
Nil	203	183	289	484	914	967	500	118	3,658	
Total males 	1,069	1,034	1,750	3,071	5,082	5,218	2,555	610	20,389	
Persons		
High	593	486	846	1,477	2,390	2,433	1,319	427	9,971	
Medium	466	451	854	1,677	3,010	3,365	1,959	662	12,444	
Low	557	606	1,187	2,599	5,136	6,183	3,465	952	20,685	
Nil	352	339	617	1,378	2,748	3,169	1,839	456	10,898	
Total persons	1,968	1,882	3,504	7,131	13,284	15,150	8,582	2,497	53,998	
	Per cent	
Females		
High	30.3	26.8	22.7	18.0	15.3	14.0	14.6	16.1	16.2	
Medium	25.3	23.0	24.0	21.6	21.8	21.9	22.6	26.9	22.5	
Low	27.9	31.8	34.5	38.4	40.5	41.9	40.6	39.1	39.7	
Nil	16.6	18.4	18.7	22.0	22.4	22.2	22.2	17.9	21.5	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Males		
High	30.0	25.0	25.5	24.3	22.3	20.0	17.3	20.2	22.1	
Medium	22.4	24.8	24.7	26.1	24.0	22.8	23.3	25.2	24.0	
Low	28.6	32.5	33.2	33.8	35.7	38.7	39.9	35.2	35.9	
Nil	19.0	17.7	16.5	15.8	18.0	18.5	19.6	19.3	17.9	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Persons		
High	30.1	25.8	24.1	20.7	18.0	16.1	15.4	17.1	18.5	
Medium	23.7	24.0	24.4	23.5	22.7	22.2	22.8	26.5	23.0	
Low	28.3	32.2	33.9	36.4	38.7	40.8	40.4	38.1	38.3	
Nil	17.9	18.0	17.6	19.3	20.7	20.9	21.4	18.3	20.2	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
    Note:  The care level is that associated with the last admission during the period.

Table A5.5: ACFI level of care for activities of daily living, behaviour care and complex 
health care for permanent residents by sex(a) at 30 June 2009
Level of care	Activities of daily living	Behaviour 	Complex health care	
	Number 	Per cent	Number 	Per cent	Number 	Per cent	
Females		
High	38,034	34.1	40,882	36.6	13,510	12.1	
Medium	31,154	27.9	27,956	25.1	30,915	27.7	
Low	33,269	29.8	25,287	22.7	46,093	41.3	
Nil	9,122	8.2	17,454	15.6	21,061	18.9	
Total females	111,579	100.0	111,579	100.0	111,579	100.0	
Males		
High	14,600	31.8	17,625	38.4	6,456	14.1	
Medium	13,115	28.6	11,878	25.9	12,491	27.2	
Low	13,464	29.3	10,073	21.9	17,733	38.6	
Nil	4,736	10.3	6,339	13.8	9,235	20.1	
Total males 	45,915	100.0	45,915	100.0	45,915	100.0	
Persons		
High	52,634	33.4	58,507	37.1	19,966	12.7	
Medium	44,269	28.1	39,834	25.3	43,406	27.6	
Low	46,733	29.7	35,360	22.5	63,826	40.5	
Nil	13,858	8.8	23,793	15.1	30,296	19.2	
Total persons	157,494	100.0	157,494	100.0	157,494	100.0	
(a) Refers to the location of the services. 
Note: The table is for clients whose last appraisal at 30 June 2009 was from the ACFI.

Table A5.6a: ACFI level of care for activities of daily living, younger people assessed in permanent residential aged care, by age and sex, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Level of care (ADL)	<40	40–44	45–49	50–54	55–59	60–64	<65	
Females		
High	44.0	56.2	46.6	44.5	40.6	39.7	41.7	
Medium	37.3	29.2	31.4	31.7	31.8	28.5	30.2	
Low	16.0	11.2	16.1	19.4	20.0	24.4	21.4	
Nil	2.7	3.4	5.8	4.3	7.6	7.4	6.7	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total females (number)	75	89	223	391	790	1,418	2,986	
Males		
High	40.2	45.8	39.1	35.8	30.5	28.7	31.6	
Medium	37.3	32.5	28.5	29.3	29.4	28.2	29.1	
Low	19.6	18.1	24.3	24.0	29.5	31.7	28.9	
Nil	2.9	3.6	8.1	10.9	10.6	11.4	10.5	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total males (number)	102	83	235	467	933	1,646	3,466	
Persons		
High	41.8	51.2	42.8	39.7	35.2	33.8	36.3	
Medium	37.3	30.8	29.9	30.4	30.5	28.3	29.6	
Low	18.1	14.5	20.3	21.9	25.1	28.3	25.4	
Nil	2.8	3.5	7.0	7.9	9.2	9.6	8.7	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total persons (number)	177	172	458	858	1,723	3,064	6,452	
         Note:  The table is for clients whose last appraisal at 30 June 2009 was from the ACFI.

Table A5.6b: ACFI level of care for behaviour, younger people assessed in permanent 
residential aged care, by age and sex, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Level of care (BEH)	<40	40–44	45–49	50–54	55–59	60–64	<65	
Females		
High	38.7	41.6	48.0	46.8	42.8	46.2	45.2	
Medium	30.7	24.7	30.0	28.4	25.7	26.6	26.9	
Low	24.0	21.3	16.1	16.1	20.3	17.1	18.1	
Nil	6.7	12.4	5.8	8.7	11.3	10.1	9.9	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total females (number) 	75	89	223	391	790	1,418	2,986	
Males		
High	27.5	45.8	47.7	45.6	43.6	45.5	44.6	
Medium	38.2	30.1	27.2	24.2	28.1	25.4	26.6	
Low	29.4	16.9	16.6	18.8	18.0	19.3	19.0	
Nil	4.9	7.2	8.5	11.3	10.3	9.8	9.8	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total males (number)	102	83	235	467	933	1,646	3,466	
Persons		
High	32.2	43.6	47.8	46.2	43.2	45.8	44.9	
Medium	35.0	27.3	28.6	26.1	27.0	25.9	26.7	
Low	27.1	19.2	16.4	17.6	19.0	18.3	18.5	
Nil	5.6	9.9	7.2	10.1	10.7	9.9	9.9	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total persons (number)	177	172	458	858	1,723	3,064	6,452	
             Note:  The table is for clients whose last appraisal at 30 June 2009 was from the ACFI.

Table A5.6c: ACFI level of care for complex health care, younger people assessed in permanent residential aged care, by age group and sex, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Level of care (CHC)	<40	40–44	45–49	50–54	55–59	60–64	<65	
Females		
High	42.7	37.1	26.5	24.3	20.8	17.6	21.2	
Medium	26.7	29.2	32.7	24.0	30.4	29.5	29.2	
Low	20.0	24.7	28.3	34.0	33.8	34.7	33.2	
Nil	10.7	9.0	12.6	17.6	15.1	18.2	16.4	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total females (number)	75	89	223	391	790	1,418	2,986	
Males		
High	48.0	33.7	17.0	18.6	16.8	16.6	18.3	
Medium	15.7	20.5	31.1	25.9	28.1	25.6	26.3	
Low	25.5	27.7	31.5	31.7	33.3	37.1	34.4	
Nil	10.8	18.1	20.4	23.8	21.8	20.7	21.0	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total males (number)	102	83	235	467	933	1,646	3,466	
Persons		
High	45.8	35.5	21.6	21.2	18.6	17.1	19.7	
Medium	20.3	25.0	31.9	25.1	29.1	27.4	27.6	
Low	23.2	26.2	29.9	32.8	33.5	36.0	33.8	
Nil	10.7	13.4	16.6	21.0	18.7	19.5	18.9	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total persons (number)	177	172	458	858	1,723	3,064	6,452	
         Note:  The table is for clients whose last appraisal at 30 June 2009 was from the ACFI.

Table A5.7a: ACFI level of care for activities of daily living, all permanent residents, by age group and sex, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Level of care (ADL)	<65	65–69	70–74	75–79	80–84	85–89	90–94	95+	Total	
Females		
High	41.7	33.8	36.1	34.2	32.7	32.3	33.4	40.8	34.1	
Medium	30.2	30.8	27.6	28.1	27.8	27.4	27.8	28.9	27.9	
Low	21.4	26.7	27.2	29.2	30.8	31.5	30.9	25.0	29.8	
Nil	6.7	8.8	9.0	8.5	8.7	8.8	7.9	5.3	8.2	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total females (number)	2,986	2,494	4,653	10,498	22,736	33,379	23,935	10,898	111,579	
Males		
High	31.6	29.6	32.6	35.0	33.1	30.3	29.5	31.3	31.8	
Medium	29.1	30.1	28.1	29.4	29.1	28.2	27.2	27.3	28.6	
Low	28.9	28.8	28.5	26.4	28.2	30.8	32.0	31.4	29.3	
Nil	10.5	11.5	10.9	9.1	9.6	10.7	11.2	10.0	10.3	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total (number)	3,466	2,645	4,009	6,625	10,034	10,939	6,177	2,020	45,915	
Total persons (number)	6,452	5,139	8,662	17,123	32,770	44,318	30,112	12,918	157,494	
        Note:  The table is for clients whose last appraisal at 30 June 2009 was from the ACFI.

Table A5.7b: ACFI level of care for behaviour, all permanent residents, by age group and sex, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Level of care (BEH)	<65	65–69	70–74	75–79	80–84	85–89	90–94	95+	Total	
Females		
High	45.2	43.9	42.6	41.3	38.0	36.0	32.8	33.0	36.6	
Medium	26.9	25.3	25.2	24.6	24.9	24.5	25.3	26.3	25.1	
Low	18.1	19.1	19.9	20.2	21.9	22.8	24.5	25.5	22.7	
Nil	9.9	11.7	12.3	13.9	15.2	16.7	17.4	15.2	15.6	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total females (number)	2,986	2,494	4,653	10,498	22,736	33,379	23,935	10,898	111,579	
Males		
High	44.6	43.1	41.9	42.2	39.6	36.2	31.8	27.8	38.4	
Medium	26.6	25.0	25.3	25.6	25.9	25.6	25.9	28.7	25.9	
Low	19.0	21.1	20.7	20.5	21.3	22.4	25.3	25.4	21.9	
Nil	9.8	10.8	12.1	11.7	13.2	15.7	16.9	18.1	13.8	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total males (number)	3,466	2,645	4,009	6,625	10,034	10,939	6,177	2,020	45,915	
Total persons (number)	6,452	5,139	8,662	17,123	32,770	44,318	30,112	12,918	157,494	
Note:  The table is for clients whose last appraisal at 30 June 2009 was from the ACFI.
Table A5.7c: ACFI level of care for complex health care, all permanent residents, by age group and 
sex, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Level of care (CHC)	<65	65–69	70–74	75–79	80–84	85–89	90–94	95+	Total	
Females		
High	21.2	16.8	15.1	13.7	12.1	11.0	11.1	11.5	12.1	
Medium	29.2	29.8	28.7	28.3	27.6	27.1	27.0	29.3	27.7	
Low	33.2	36.3	38.5	38.8	41.4	42.5	42.6	41.8	41.3	
Nil	16.4	17.2	17.7	19.2	19.0	19.4	19.4	17.4	18.9	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total females (number)	2,986	2,494	4,653	10,498	22,736	33,379	23,935	10,898	111,579	
Males		
High	18.3	16.3	16.2	15.9	13.7	12.5	11.8	10.5	14.1	
Medium	26.3	27.1	28.7	28.2	27.3	26.8	26.6	26.5	27.2	
Low	34.4	36.3	35.2	37.5	39.3	40.6	40.0	40.7	38.6	
Nil	21.0	20.2	19.8	18.4	19.8	20.1	21.6	22.2	20.1	
Total males 	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total males (number)	3,466	2,645	4,009	6,625	10,034	10,939	6,177	2,020	45,915	
Total persons  (number)	6,452	5,139	8,662	17,123	32,770	44,318	30,112	12,918	157,494	
  Note:  The table is for clients whose last appraisal at 30 June 2009 was from the ACFI.

Table A5.8a: ACFI level of care at admission for activities of daily living, by sex and age group at admission, permanent residents admitted from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Level of care (ADL)	<65	65–69	70–74	75–79	80–84	85–89	90–94	95+	Total	
Females		
High	41.0	31.4	30.2	28.9	26.3	26.6	29.0	37.8	28.5	
Medium	29.9	29.7	30.4	25.9	26.4	25.5	27.3	29.3	26.8	
Low	23.5	31.4	32.8	36.7	39.3	40.4	37.8	29.4	37.5	
Nil	5.6	7.5	6.6	8.5	8.1	7.5	5.9	3.6	7.2	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total females (number)	899	848	1,754	4,060	8,202	9,932	6,027	1,887	33,609	
Males		
High	32.1	32.6	33.8	34.2	34.0	32.6	32.2	41.8	33.5	
Medium	30.9	29.9	30.7	31.5	29.0	27.8	28.4	25.9	29.2	
Low	28.8	29.6	28.5	27.4	30.1	31.6	31.3	27.5	29.9	
Nil	8.2	7.9	7.0	7.0	6.9	8.0	8.1	4.8	7.4	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total males (number)	1,069	1,034	1,750	3,071	5,082	5,218	2,555	610	20,389	
Total persons (number)	1,968	1,882	3,504	7,131	13,284	15,150	8,582	2,497	53,998	
    Note: The table is for clients whose last appraisal during the time period is from the ACFI.

Table A5.8b: ACFI level of care at admission for behaviour, by sex and age group at admission, permanent residents admitted from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Level of care (BEH)	<65	65–69	70–74	75–79	80–84	85–89	90–94	95+	Total	
Females		
High	36.8	34.3	34.5	32.6	29.2	25.8	23.3	22.9	27.8	
Medium	27.5	26.1	25.4	25.5	25.7	25.1	25.4	26.7	25.5	
Low	20.8	23.1	22.3	23.2	25.1	26.7	28.3	30.0	25.9	
Nil	14.9	16.5	17.8	18.7	20.0	22.4	23.0	20.3	20.8	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total  females (number)	899	848	1,754	4,060	8,202	9,932	6,027	1,887	33,609	
Males		
High	38.9	37.3	34.9	37.7	33.0	30.0	26.4	24.4	32.6	
Medium	26.8	25.3	26.4	24.6	26.3	26.3	27.7	31.3	26.3	
Low	20.6	24.7	21.7	22.5	24.0	25.3	26.3	26.6	24.1	
Nil	13.8	12.7	17.0	15.2	16.7	18.5	19.6	17.7	17.0	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total males  (number)	1,069	1,034	1,750	3,071	5,082	5,218	2,555	610	20,389	
Total persons (number)	1,968	1,882	3,504	7,131	13,284	15,150	8,582	2,497	53,998	
    Note: The table is for clients whose last appraisal during the time period is from the ACFI.

Table A5.8c: ACFI level of care at admission for complex health care, by sex and age group at 
admission, permanent residents admitted from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Level of care (CHC)	<65	65–69	70–74	75–79	80–84	85–89	90–94	95+	Total	
Females		
High	30.3	26.8	22.7	18.0	15.3	14.0	14.6	16.1	16.2	
Medium	25.3	23.0	24.0	21.6	21.8	21.9	22.6	26.9	22.5	
Low	27.9	31.8	34.5	38.4	40.5	41.9	40.6	39.1	39.7	
Nil	16.6	18.4	18.7	22.0	22.4	22.2	22.2	17.9	21.5	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total females (number)	899	848	1,754	4,060	8,202	9,932	6,027	1,887	33,609	
Males		
High	30.0	25.0	25.5	24.3	22.3	20.0	17.3	20.2	22.1	
Medium	22.4	24.8	24.7	26.1	24.0	22.8	23.3	25.2	24.0	
Low	28.6	32.5	33.2	33.8	35.7	38.7	39.9	35.2	35.9	
Nil	19.0	17.7	16.5	15.8	18.0	18.5	19.6	19.3	17.9	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total males (number)	1,069	1,034	1,750	3,071	5,082	5,218	2,555	610	20,389	
Total persons (number)	1,968	1,882	3,504	7,131	13,284	15,150	8,582	2,497	53,998	
    Note: The table is for clients whose last appraisal during the time period is from the ACFI.

Table A5.9: ACFI level of care at separation for activities of daily living, by sex and length of stay 
for permanent residents separating between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009 (per cent)
	Level of care (Activities of daily living)	
Length of stay	High 	Medium	Low	Nil	Total	
	Per cent (row)	
Females		
<4 weeks	7.6	5.7	3.6	2.7	6.4	
4–<8 weeks	6.2	4.5	4.6	4.3	5.5	
8–<13 weeks	4.6	5.9	6.6	5.0	5.2	
13–<26 weeks	6.5	10.3	13.2	11.2	8.6	
26–<39 weeks	3.9	5.4	7.1	5.6	4.8	
39–<52 weeks	2.2	4.0	4.6	4.2	3.1	
1–<2 years	12.9	17.3	19.0	20.2	15.1	
2–<3 years	11.2	12.4	12.3	10.7	11.7	
3–<4 years	10.1	9.4	8.2	9.3	9.6	
4–<5 years	8.6	7.5	6.1	8.6	8.0	
5–<8 years	15.9	10.7	9.3	10.6	13.5	
8+ years	10.3	6.9	5.5	7.7	8.7	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total females (number)	14,822	6,862	3,551	625	25,860	
Males		
<4 weeks	13.3	9.8	5.9	1.9	10.8	
4–<8 weeks	9.9	7.4	7.3	5.5	8.7	
8–<13 weeks	6.9	8.2	7.6	5.7	7.3	
13–<26 weeks	9.9	13.9	16.7	15.0	12.2	
26–<39 weeks	5.5	7.2	8.2	9.1	6.5	
39–<52 weeks	2.6	4.3	4.8	3.4	3.5	
1–<2 years	14.9	17.4	19.3	20.9	16.5	
2–<3 years	10.9	10.7	10.6	11.6	10.8	
3–<4 years	7.9	6.6	6.1	9.9	7.3	
4–<5 years	6.1	5.3	5.2	4.2	5.7	
5–<8 years	8.0	5.6	5.5	7.4	6.9	
8+ years	3.9	3.5	2.9	5.5	3.7	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total males (number)	8,524	4,484	2,426	527	15,961	
Persons		
<4 weeks	9.7	7.3	4.5	2.3	8.1	
4–<8 weeks	7.5	5.6	5.7	4.9	6.7	
8–<13 weeks	5.5	6.8	7.0	5.3	6.0	
13–<26 weeks	7.8	11.7	14.6	12.9	10.0	
26–<39 weeks	4.5	6.1	7.5	7.2	5.5	
39–<52 weeks	2.4	4.1	4.7	3.8	3.2	
1–<2 years	13.6	17.4	19.1	20.5	15.6	
2–<3 years	11.1	11.7	11.6	11.1	11.3	
3–<4 years	9.3	8.3	7.3	9.5	8.7	
4–<5 years	7.7	6.6	5.8	6.6	7.1	
5–<8 years	13.0	8.7	7.8	9.1	11.0	
8+ years	8.0	5.5	4.4	6.7	6.8	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total persons (number)	23,346	11,346	5,977	1,152	41,821	
					                                                                                                     (continued)					
Table A5.9 (continued): ACFI level of care at separation for activities of daily living, by sex and length of stay for permanent residents separating between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009 (per cent)
		Level of care (Activities of daily living)		
Length of stay	High 	Medium	Low	Nil	Total	
	Per cent (column)	
Females		
<4 weeks	68.0	23.3	7.6	1.0	100.0	
4–<8 weeks	64.8	21.8	11.5	1.9	100.0	
8–<13 weeks	50.8	29.7	17.2	2.3	100.0	
13–<26 weeks	43.7	31.9	21.2	3.2	100.0	
26–<39 weeks	47.1	29.9	20.3	2.8	100.0	
39–<52 weeks	41.1	34.7	20.9	3.3	100.0	
1–<2 years	48.9	30.5	17.3	3.2	100.0	
2–<3 years	55.1	28.2	14.4	2.2	100.0	
3–<4 years	60.0	26.0	11.7	2.3	100.0	
4–<5 years	61.7	25.1	10.6	2.6	100.0	
5–<8 years	67.5	21.2	9.5	1.9	100.0	
8+ years	68.1	21.0	8.7	2.1	100.0	
Total females	57.3	26.5	13.7	2.4	100.0	
Males		
<4 weeks	65.7	25.5	8.2	0.6	100.0	
4–<8 weeks	61.1	24.1	12.7	2.1	100.0	
8–<13 weeks	50.2	31.5	15.7	2.6	100.0	
13–<26 weeks	43.2	32.0	20.7	4.0	100.0	
26–<39 weeks	45.3	31.1	19.0	4.6	100.0	
39–<52 weeks	40.7	34.9	21.2	3.3	100.0	
1–<2 years	48.3	29.7	17.8	4.2	100.0	
2–<3 years	53.7	27.8	15.0	3.5	100.0	
3–<4 years	57.8	25.2	12.6	4.5	100.0	
4–<5 years	57.6	26.0	14.0	2.4	100.0	
5–<8 years	61.6	22.8	12.1	3.5	100.0	
8+ years	56.9	26.4	11.8	4.9	100.0	
Total males	53.4	28.1	15.2	3.3	100.0	
Persons		
<4 weeks	66.9	24.4	7.9	0.8	100.0	
4–<8 weeks	63.0	22.9	12.1	2.0	100.0	
8–<13 weeks	50.6	30.5	16.5	2.4	100.0	
13–<26 weeks	43.5	31.9	21.0	3.6	100.0	
26–<39 weeks	46.3	30.4	19.7	3.6	100.0	
39–<52 weeks	41.0	34.8	21.0	3.3	100.0	
1–<2 years	48.7	30.2	17.5	3.6	100.0	
2–<3 years	54.6	28.1	14.6	2.7	100.0	
3–<4 years	59.3	25.7	12.0	3.0	100.0	
4–<5 years	60.4	25.4	11.6	2.6	100.0	
5–<8 years	66.0	21.6	10.1	2.3	100.0	
8+ years	65.8	22.2	9.4	2.7	100.0	
Total persons	55.8	27.1	14.3	2.8	100.0	
    Note: The table is for clients whose last appraisal during the time period is from the ACFI. The length of stay is the length of stay evaluated from the last separation in the period. Transfers are not regarded as separations.

Table A5.10: ACFI level of care at separation for behaviour, by sex and length of stay for permanent residents separating between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009 (per cent)
	Level of care (Behaviour)	
Length of stay	High	Medium	Low	Nil	Total	
	Per cent (column)	
Females		
<4 weeks	3.4	5.4	8.4	15.2	6.4	
4–<8 weeks	4.6	6.1	5.2	7.3	5.5	
8–<13 weeks	4.5	5.1	5.9	6.5	5.2	
13–<26 weeks	7.4	8.5	9.1	11.3	8.6	
26–<39 weeks	4.8	4.2	4.8	6.1	4.8	
39–<52 weeks	3.3	2.8	2.9	3.0	3.1	
1–<2 years	15.1	14.8	14.7	16.2	15.1	
2–<3 years	12.8	11.3	11.3	9.9	11.7	
3–<4 years	11.1	9.2	9.1	6.9	9.6	
4–<5 years	9.1	8.2	7.3	5.0	8.0	
5–<8 years	14.9	14.7	12.5	7.7	13.5	
8+ years	9.0	9.7	8.9	4.9	8.7	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total females (number)	9,816	7,184	5,778	3,082	25,860	
Males		
<4 weeks	6.5	9.5	15.4	20.6	10.8	
4–<8 weeks	7.5	8.9	9.8	10.0	8.7	
8–<13 weeks	6.9	8.0	7.8	6.7	7.3	
13–<26 weeks	12.3	11.9	11.3	14.2	12.2	
26–<39 weeks	7.0	6.1	5.9	7.0	6.5	
39–<52 weeks	3.6	3.5	3.3	3.3	3.5	
1–<2 years	17.6	16.3	15.0	15.5	16.5	
2–<3 years	11.9	11.7	9.4	7.7	10.8	
3–<4 years	8.3	7.2	7.1	4.7	7.3	
4–<5 years	6.4	6.2	4.9	3.4	5.7	
5–<8 years	7.8	7.0	6.6	4.5	6.9	
8+ years	4.1	3.8	3.5	2.4	3.7	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total males (number)	6,398	4,357	3,314	1,892	15,961	
Persons		
<4 weeks	4.6	6.9	10.9	17.2	8.1	
4–<8 weeks	5.7	7.1	6.8	8.4	6.7	
8–<13 weeks	5.4	6.2	6.6	6.6	6.0	
13–<26 weeks	9.4	9.8	9.9	12.4	10.0	
26–<39 weeks	5.7	4.9	5.2	6.4	5.5	
39–<52 weeks	3.4	3.1	3.1	3.1	3.2	
1–<2 years	16.1	15.3	14.8	15.9	15.6	
2–<3 years	12.4	11.4	10.6	9.0	11.3	
3–<4 years	10.0	8.4	8.3	6.1	8.7	
4–<5 years	8.0	7.5	6.4	4.4	7.1	
5–<8 years	12.1	11.8	10.4	6.5	11.0	
8+ years	7.1	7.5	6.9	3.9	6.8	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total persons (number)	16,214	11,541	9,092	4,974	41,821	
                                                                                                                                                                                (continued)
Table A5.10 (continued): ACFI level of care at separation for behaviour, by sex and length of stay for permanent residents separating between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009 (per cent)
	Level of care (Behaviour)	
Length of stay	High	Medium	Low	Nil	Total	
	Per cent (row)	
Females		
<4 wks	19.8	23.2	29.0	28.0	100.0	
4–<8 wks	32.0	30.9	21.1	16.0	100.0	
8–<13 wks	32.8	27.2	25.2	14.8	100.0	
13–<26 wks	32.8	27.7	23.7	15.8	100.0	
26–<39 wks	37.9	24.5	22.4	15.2	100.0	
39–<52 wks	40.9	25.8	21.5	11.8	100.0	
1–<2 yrs	38.1	27.3	21.8	12.8	100.0	
2–<3 yrs	41.6	26.8	21.6	10.1	100.0	
3–<4 yrs	43.8	26.6	21.1	8.5	100.0	
4–<5 yrs	43.4	28.6	20.4	7.5	100.0	
5–<8 yrs	42.1	30.3	20.8	6.8	100.0	
8+ yrs	39.4	30.9	23.0	6.7	100.0	
Total females	38.0	27.8	22.3	11.9	100.0	
Males		
<4 wks	24.2	23.9	29.4	22.5	100.0	
4–<8 wks	34.8	28.1	23.4	13.7	100.0	
8–<13 wks	37.5	29.6	22.0	10.8	100.0	
13–<26 wks	40.4	26.6	19.2	13.8	100.0	
26–<39 wks	43.1	25.4	18.8	12.7	100.0	
39–<52 wks	41.4	27.8	19.5	11.2	100.0	
1–<2 yrs	42.9	27.0	19.0	11.2	100.0	
2–<3 yrs	44.0	29.5	18.1	8.4	100.0	
3–<4 yrs	45.5	26.7	20.1	7.6	100.0	
4–<5 yrs	45.2	29.7	18.0	7.2	100.0	
5–<8 yrs	45.0	27.4	19.8	7.8	100.0	
8+ yrs	44.7	28.1	19.6	7.6	100.0	
Total males	40.1	27.3	20.8	11.9	100.0	
Persons		
<4 wks	22.0	23.6	29.2	25.2	100.0	
4–<8 wks	33.4	29.5	22.3	14.9	100.0	
8–<13 wks	35.0	28.3	23.8	13.0	100.0	
13–<26 wks	36.4	27.2	21.6	14.8	100.0	
26–<39 wks	40.3	24.9	20.8	14.0	100.0	
39–<52 wks	41.1	26.7	20.7	11.5	100.0	
1–<2 yrs	40.0	27.2	20.7	12.2	100.0	
2–<3 yrs	42.5	27.8	20.3	9.5	100.0	
3–<4 yrs	44.4	26.6	20.8	8.2	100.0	
4–<5 yrs	44.0	29.0	19.6	7.4	100.0	
5–<8 yrs	42.8	29.6	20.5	7.0	100.0	
8+ yrs	40.5	30.3	22.3	6.9	100.0	
Total persons	38.8	27.6	21.7	11.9	100.0	
Note:  The table is for clients whose last appraisal during the time period is from the ACFI. The length of stay is the length of stay evaluated from the 
last separation in the period. Transfers are not regarded as separations.

Table A5.11: ACFI level of care at separation for complex health care, by sex and length of stay for permanent residents separating between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009 (per cent)
	Level of care (Complex health care)	
Length of stay	High	Medium	Low	Nil	Total	
	Per cent (column)	
Females		
<4 wks	13.1	4.3	3.3	3.3	6.4	
4–<8 wks	9.4	4.1	3.3	4.9	5.5	
8–<13 wks	6.7	4.4	4.7	5.4	5.2	
13–<26 wks	8.1	8.3	8.4	11.4	8.6	
26–<39 wks	4.6	4.7	4.7	6.3	4.8	
39–<52 wks	2.6	3.3	2.9	4.2	3.1	
1–<2 yrs	12.6	15.9	15.7	18.3	15.1	
2–<3 yrs	9.4	12.0	13.5	11.2	11.7	
3–<4 yrs	8.6	10.2	10.1	9.6	9.6	
4–<5 yrs	6.2	8.6	9.0	7.9	8.0	
5–<8 yrs	10.9	15.1	14.8	11.1	13.5	
8+ yrs	7.7	9.1	9.7	6.5	8.7	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total females (number)	7,471	7,900	8,337	2,152	25,860	
Males		
<4 wks	20.6	7.3	5.3	5.1	10.8	
4–<8 wks	13.4	6.9	6.2	5.5	8.7	
8–<13 wks	8.0	7.5	6.8	6.2	7.3	
13–<26 wks	10.4	12.5	13.4	14.3	12.2	
26–<39 wks	5.8	6.8	6.6	8.1	6.5	
39–<52 wks	2.9	3.4	4.0	4.1	3.5	
1–<2 yrs	12.3	17.4	18.3	22.3	16.5	
2–<3 yrs	8.1	11.9	12.6	11.1	10.8	
3–<4 yrs	5.9	7.9	8.0	8.2	7.3	
4–<5 yrs	4.6	6.2	6.3	6.0	5.7	
5–<8 yrs	5.5	7.4	8.2	6.3	6.9	
8+ yrs	2.6	4.6	4.3	2.9	3.7	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total males (number)	5,201	4,674	4,657	1,429	15,961	
Persons		
<4 wks	16.2	5.4	4.0	4.0	8.1	
4–<8 wks	11.1	5.1	4.3	5.1	6.7	
8–<13 wks	7.2	5.6	5.4	5.7	6.0	
13–<26 wks	9.0	9.9	10.2	12.6	10.0	
26–<39 wks	5.1	5.5	5.4	7.0	5.5	
39–<52 wks	2.7	3.4	3.3	4.2	3.2	
1–<2 yrs	12.5	16.4	16.6	19.9	15.6	
2–<3 yrs	8.9	11.9	13.2	11.1	11.3	
3–<4 yrs	7.5	9.3	9.3	9.0	8.7	
4–<5 yrs	5.5	7.7	8.0	7.1	7.1	
5–<8 yrs	8.7	12.3	12.4	9.2	11.0	
8+ yrs	5.6	7.4	7.8	5.1	6.8	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Total persons (number)	12,672	12,574	12,994	3,581	41,821	
                                                                                                                                                                                      (continued)
Table A5.11 (continued): ACFI level of care at separation for complex health care, by sex and length 
of stay for permanent residents separating between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009 (per cent)
	Level of care (Complex health care)	
Length of stay	High	Medium	Low	Nil	Total	
	Per cent (row)	
Females		
<4 wks	58.9	20.5	16.3	4.3	100.0	
4–<8 wks	50.1	22.8	19.6	7.5	100.0	
8–<13 wks	37.0	25.7	28.7	8.6	100.0	
13–<26 wks	27.4	29.8	31.8	11.1	100.0	
26–<39 wks	27.9	29.7	31.5	10.9	100.0	
39–<52 wks	24.7	33.4	30.5	11.4	100.0	
1–<2 yrs	24.1	32.2	33.6	10.1	100.0	
2–<3 yrs	23.4	31.3	37.3	8.0	100.0	
3–<4 yrs	25.7	32.3	33.7	8.3	100.0	
4–<5 yrs	22.5	33.0	36.3	8.3	100.0	
5–<8 yrs	23.4	34.3	35.5	6.8	100.0	
8+ yrs	25.5	32.1	36.1	6.2	100.0	
Total females	28.9	30.5	32.2	8.3	100.0	
Males		
<4 wks	61.8	19.8	14.2	4.2	100.0	
4–<8 wks	50.2	23.4	20.7	5.6	100.0	
8–<13 wks	35.5	29.9	27.1	7.5	100.0	
13–<26 wks	27.6	29.9	32.0	10.5	100.0	
26–<39 wks	28.8	30.7	29.4	11.1	100.0	
39–<52 wks	27.5	28.6	33.3	10.7	100.0	
1–<2 yrs	24.4	31.0	32.5	12.1	100.0	
2–<3 yrs	24.4	32.3	34.2	9.2	100.0	
3–<4 yrs	26.3	31.8	31.9	10.0	100.0	
4–<5 yrs	26.2	32.0	32.3	9.5	100.0	
5–<8 yrs	26.0	31.4	34.5	8.1	100.0	
8+ yrs	22.5	36.4	34.2	6.9	100.0	
Total males	32.6	29.3	29.2	9.0	100.0	
Persons		
<4 wks	60.4	20.1	15.2	4.2	100.0	
4–<8 wks	50.1	23.1	20.2	6.6	100.0	
8–<13 wks	36.3	27.6	27.9	8.1	100.0	
13–<26 wks	27.5	29.8	31.9	10.8	100.0	
26–<39 wks	28.3	30.1	30.5	11.0	100.0	
39–<52 wks	25.8	31.4	31.6	11.1	100.0	
1–<2 yrs	24.2	31.7	33.2	10.9	100.0	
2–<3 yrs	23.7	31.7	36.2	8.4	100.0	
3–<4 yrs	25.9	32.1	33.1	8.9	100.0	
4–<5 yrs	23.6	32.7	35.0	8.6	100.0	
5–<8 yrs	24.0	33.6	35.2	7.1	100.0	
8+ yrs	24.9	33.0	35.7	6.4	100.0	
Total persons	30.3	30.1	31.1	8.6	100.0	
Note: The table is for clients whose last appraisal during the time period is from the ACFI. The length of stay is the length of stay evaluate from the     
last separation in the period. Transfers are not regarded as separations.

Table A5.12: Diagnosed dementia/mental illness for residents with an ACFI appraisal(a), by sex and state/territory(b), 30 June 2009
Conditions	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
	Number	
Females	        	
Dementia and mental illness	8,008	5,981	3,890	2,131	3,012	531	240	25	23,818	
Dementia only             	12,670	8,927	6,240	3,044	3,169	901	369	109	35,429	
Mental Illness only       	8,194	6,916	4,620	2,112	2,754	659	238	32	25,525	
No Dementia/no mental illness	4,593	3,485	2,669	948	1,244	422	169	30	13,560	
Total females	33,465	25,309	17,419	8,235	10,179	2,513	1,016	196	98,332	
Males	        	
Dementia and mental illness	3,031	2,028	1,461	774	976	204	107	22	8,603	
Dementia only             	4,938	3,550	2,684	1,160	1,173	369	165	51	14,090	
Mental Illness only       	3,847	3,193	2,131	878	1,083	261	102	25	11,520	
No Dementia/no mental illness	1,890	1,451	1,272	378	510	172	62	22	5,757	
Total males	13,706	10,222	7,548	3,190	3,742	1,006	436	120	39,970	
Persons	        	
Dementia and mental illness	11,039	8,009	5,351	2,905	3,988	735	347	47	32,421	
Dementia only             	17,608	12,477	8,924	4,204	4,342	1,270	534	160	49,519	
Mental Illness only       	12,041	10,109	6,751	2,990	3,837	920	340	57	37,045	
No Dementia/no mental illness	6,483	4,936	3,941	1,326	1,754	594	231	52	19,317	
Total persons	47,171	35,531	24,967	11,425	13,921	3,519	1,452	316	138,302	
	Per cent	
Females		
Dementia and mental illness	23.9	23.6	22.3	25.9	29.6	21.1	23.6	12.8	24.2	
Dementia only             	37.9	35.3	35.8	37.0	31.1	35.9	36.3	55.6	36.0	
Mental Illness only       	24.5	27.3	26.5	25.6	27.1	26.2	23.4	16.3	26.0	
No Dementia/no mental illness	13.7	13.8	15.3	11.5	12.2	16.8	16.6	15.3	13.8	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Males		
Dementia and mental illness	22.1	19.8	19.4	24.3	26.1	20.3	24.5	18.3	21.5	
Dementia only             	36.0	34.7	35.6	36.4	31.3	36.7	37.8	42.5	35.3	
Mental Illness only       	28.1	31.2	28.2	27.5	28.9	25.9	23.4	20.8	28.8	
No Dementia/no mental illness	13.8	14.2	16.9	11.8	13.6	17.1	14.2	18.3	14.4	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Persons		
Dementia and mental illness	23.4	22.5	21.4	25.4	28.6	20.9	23.9	14.9	23.4	
Dementia only             	37.3	35.1	35.7	36.8	31.2	36.1	36.8	50.6	35.8	
Mental Illness only       	25.5	28.5	27.0	26.2	27.6	26.1	23.4	18.0	26.8	
No Dementia/no mental illness	13.7	13.9	15.8	11.6	12.6	16.9	15.9	16.5	14.0	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
(a) Comprises clients with an ACFI appraisal that contains information on their dementia status (88% of all ACFI appraised clients).
(b) Refers to the location of the services.
Appendix 6:	Population data 
Table A6.1: Population, by age, sex and state/territory, 30 June 2009
Age group (years)	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
	Number

Females		
under 65	3,040,038	2,333,439	1,912,630	958,452	681,953	212,891	157,060	102,604	9,399,067	
65–69	146,251	108,935	85,927	41,348	35,970	11,775	5,989	2,390	438,586	
70–74	120,693	90,496	65,596	33,075	30,184	9,428	4,483	1,336	355,293	
75–79	101,401	76,428	52,313	26,421	25,965	7,823	3,426	845	294,623	
80–84	85,926	64,020	43,197	21,066	23,196	6,311	2,920	558	247,195	
85–89	57,117	42,793	28,224	13,839	15,657	4,229	1,933	299	164,092	
90–94	23,096	16,354	11,452	5,458	6,115	1,726	682	110	64,995	
95–99	6,824	4,984	3,436	1,828	2,002	454	n.p.	n.p.	19,745	
100+	1,013	720	556	280	263	72	n.p.	n.p.	2,939	
Total females	3,582,361	2,738,170	2,203,332	1,101,768	821,305	254,710	176,713	108,175	10,986,535	
Males
		
under 65	3,070,230	2,356,756	1,948,822	1,010,790	689,992	212,885	158,308	110,317	9,558,100	
65–69	142,023	105,002	86,994	42,123	33,831	11,719	5,666	3,095	430,453	
70–74	111,005	82,341	64,290	31,776	26,988	8,762	4,019	1,662	330,843	
75–79	86,578	64,795	46,948	23,302	21,742	6,667	2,921	865	253,820	
80–84	63,074	47,324	32,978	16,147	16,773	4,686	2,064	502	183,548	
85–89	33,143	24,828	17,277	8,348	8,980	2,384	1,135	185	96,284	
90–94	9,674	7,149	5,326	2,257	2,654	670	310	65	28,108	
95–99	2,144	1,716	1,197	571	542	169	n.p.	n.p.	6,429	
100+	265	199	150	70	82	30	n.p.	n.p.	800	
Total males	3,518,139	2,690,113	2,203,984	1,135,384	801,585	247,972	174,509	116,699	10,888,385	
Persons
		
under 65	6,110,268	4,690,195	3,861,452	1,969,241	1,371,944	425,776	315,368	212,921	18,957,167	
65–69	288,274	213,938	172,922	83,471	69,800	23,494	11,655	5,485	869,039	
70–74	231,698	172,838	129,886	64,851	57,172	18,190	8,503	2,998	686,136	
75–79	187,980	141,223	99,262	49,723	47,707	14,491	6,347	1,710	548,443	
80–84	149,000	111,344	76,175	37,214	39,970	10,997	4,984	1,060	430,743	
85–89	90,260	67,621	45,501	22,187	24,637	6,613	3,068	484	260,376	
90–94	32,770	23,503	16,778	7,715	8,769	2,396	992	175	93,103	
95–99	8,968	6,700	4,633	2,399	2,544	623	n.p.	n.p.	26,174	
100+	1,278	919	706	350	345	102	n.p.	n.p.	3,739	
Total persons	7,100,500	5,428,283	4,407,317	2,237,152	1,622,890	502,682	351,222	224,874	21,874,920	
(continued)
                                                      
    Table A6.1 (continued): Population, by age, sex and state/territory, 30 June 2009
Age (years)	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
	Per cent

Females		
under 65	84.9	85.2	86.8	87.0	83.0	83.6	88.9	94.8	85.6	
65–69	4.1	4.0	3.9	3.8	4.4	4.6	3.4	2.2	4.0	
70–74	3.4	3.3	3.0	3.0	3.7	3.7	2.5	1.2	3.2	
75–79	2.8	2.8	2.4	2.4	3.2	3.1	1.9	0.8	2.7	
80–84	2.4	2.3	2.0	1.9	2.8	2.5	1.7	0.5	2.2	
85–89	1.6	1.6	1.3	1.3	1.9	1.7	1.1	0.3	1.5	
90–94	0.6	0.6	0.5	0.5	0.7	0.7	0.4	0.1	0.6	
95–99	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	n.p.	n.p.	0.2	
100+	—	—	—	—	—	—	n.p.	n.p.	—	
Total females	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Males
		
under 65	87.3	87.6	88.4	89.0	86.1	85.8	90.7	94.5	87.8	
65–69	4.0	3.9	3.9	3.7	4.2	4.7	3.2	2.7	4.0	
70–74	3.2	3.1	2.9	2.8	3.4	3.5	2.3	1.4	3.0	
75–79	2.5	2.4	2.1	2.1	2.7	2.7	1.7	0.7	2.3	
80–84	1.8	1.8	1.5	1.4	2.1	1.9	1.2	0.4	1.7	
85–89	0.9	0.9	0.8	0.7	1.1	1.0	0.7	0.2	0.9	
90–94	0.3	0.3	0.2	0.2	0.3	0.3	0.2	0.1	0.3	
95–99	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	n.p.	n.p.	0.1	
100+	—	—	—	—	—	—	n.p.	n.p.	—	
Total males	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Persons
		
under 65	86.1	86.4	87.6	88.0	84.5	84.7	89.8	94.7	86.7	
65–69	4.1	3.9	3.9	3.7	4.3	4.7	3.3	2.4	4.0	
70–74	3.3	3.2	2.9	2.9	3.5	3.6	2.4	1.3	3.1	
75–79	2.6	2.6	2.3	2.2	2.9	2.9	1.8	0.8	2.5	
80–84	2.1	2.1	1.7	1.7	2.5	2.2	1.4	0.5	2.0	
85–89	1.3	1.2	1.0	1.0	1.5	1.3	0.9	0.2	1.2	
90–94	0.5	0.4	0.4	0.3	0.5	0.5	0.3	0.1	0.4	
95–99	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.1	n.p.	n.p.	0.1	
100+	—	—	—	—	—	—	n.p.	n.p.	—	
Total persons	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
n.p. Not published.
— Nil or rounded to zero.
Source: ABS estimated resident population at 30 June 2009, estimates released in December 2009, excluding external territories (ABS 2009a).

Appendix 7: Financial support arrangements
The financial support arrangements are recorded by referring to the time a resident first entered aged care. All permanent residents in aged care at 30 June 2009 were assessed under different financial eligibility criteria, depending on when they were first admitted to care. The Aged Care Act 1997 introduced major changes to the structure and funding of aged care services. The criteria used to assess financial assistance have changed three times since October 1997 when the Aged Care Act 1997 was first passed. The three different times changes occurred in: 
1.	pre-reform (pre-October 1997)
2.	1 October 1997–19 March 2008
3.	20 March 2008–30 June 2009.
Pre-reform
This time period refers to financially disadvantaged permanent residents who were admitted to care prior to 1 October 1997. 
1 October 1997–19 March 2008
Permanent residents receiving financial support during this time were referred to as concessional and assisted residents. 
Concessional residents who met the criteria for concessional status were eligible for a concessional supplement, which was paid to the service provider. Concessional residents are exempt from accommodation changes or bonds. In addition, a concessional supplement to the basic subsidy is paid to the service provider. The minimum requirements for concessional status were that the resident must:
•	be receiving an income support payment
•	not have owned a home for the past 2 years 
•	have assets of less than 2.5 times the annual single basic aged pension, rounded to the nearest $500. 
Assisted residents were also eligible for a supplement; however, this was lower than for concessional residents. Assisted residents may have also been required to pay an accommodation bond or an accommodation charge, subject to certain conditions. 
Service providers received a lower supplement for assisted residents. The criteria for determining assisted resident status are the same as concessional resident status except that:
•	an assisted resident has assets of between 2.5 and 4 times the annual single basic aged pension amount, rounded to the nearest $500.
20 March 2008–30 June 2009
Financially disadvantaged permanent residents admitted to care from 20 March 2008 are referred to as supported residents. Existing residents prior to 20 March 2008 retain their conditions and benefits for being financially disadvantaged unless they separate from residential aged care for more than 28 days. Clients entering permanent residential aged care may be eligible to be supported residents (on or after 20 March 2008) depending on the value of their assets.
An assets test is undertaken to determine eligibility for a supported resident. Fully supported residents are similar to concessional residents, but a sliding scale of accommodation charges applies as their assets increase. Partially supported residents pay some level of accommodation charge depending on their assets. 
A client’s home is excluded from this assets test if the home is occupied by either:
•	their partner or a dependent child
•	their carer, who is eligible for an income support payment, and has occupied the home for the past two years
•	a close relation, who is eligible for an income support payment, and has occupied the home for the past five years.
For a full description of details for residents and providers about assisted and concessional status, see The residential aged care manual maintained by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, available on their website at <www.health.gov.au>.
Facilities are expected to meet regional targets for places for concessional, assisted and supported residents. These targets range from 16% to 40% and are calculated using the Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) applied to aged care planning regions.
Appendix 8: Data and their limitations
The main source of resident data in this report is administrative by-product data from the System for the Payment of Aged Residential Care (SPARC) and the National Approved Provider System (NAPS).
SPARC contains information gathered through a number of instruments. Among those instruments, the following three are directly relevant to this report:
•	Aged Care Application and Approval—a form completed by a person applying for admission to an aged care service or by someone (normally a carer) on behalf of the applicant.
•	Application for Classification—a form containing client evaluation on the RCS and completed by the aged care service to determine the resident’s overall level of care needs (used up to 20 March 2008). From 20 March 2008, this form was revised to adjust to client appraisal using the ACFI.
•	Monthly Claim Form—a form for claiming Australian Government benefits completed by the aged care service as part of the monthly funding cycle.
•	The initial transfer of this information is moving from paper copy to electronic transfer. The word ‘form’ thus needs to be interpreted accordingly. 
Residential aged care in Australia was restructured in 1997–98. The two separate categories of residential care (nursing homes and hostels) were combined into a single program from 1 October 1997. As a result, from that date, SPARC replaced the two previous data collection systems (the Nursing Home Payment System (NHPS) and the Commonwealth Hostel Information Payment System (CHIPS)).
The new system inherited all records on NHPS. For CHIPS data, only those records that related to the following two groups of people were carried over:
•	Those who were in a hostel at 1 October 1997.
•	Those who had a valid ACAT assessment covering 1 October 1997, as they were regarded as potential residents.
In other words, the records for residents discharged from hostels, and all payment details for all hostel residents before 1 October 1997, are not available on SPARC although they are still available on CHIPS. 
Under the amalgamated residential aged care system, length of stay refers to the period spent in the combined system, which may include both time spent under low-care (previously hostel) and high-care (previously nursing home). This is not comparable to combining length of stay measures from the previous separate nursing home and hostel measures of length of stay.
Population data are from the AIHW’s general population databases supplied by the ABS, and other ABS published data. 
Resident information
All residents admitted to residential aged care must have a valid Aged Care Application and Approval form completed by an authorised ACAT officer. This form is valid for 12 months from the date of the approval. 
The information entered into SPARC from the Aged Care Application and Approval form is the major source for the following data items in the tables:
•	sex
•	date of birth
•	marital status
•	pension status
•	Indigenous status 
•	country of birth
•	preferred language
•	resident’s usual residence (before admission) 
•	resident’s usual living arrangement (before admission).
Not all residents have all the above characteristics reported in SPARC.
Application for classification
These forms are now sent directly to Medicare Australia in either electronic or paper form and processed for funding purposes according to the information provided. On the old RCS, a client would normally be reappraised annually on the anniversary of admission by the service provider. The RCS has been replaced with the ACFI from 20 March 2008 and the ACFI was phased in over a year as client RCS appraisals become due. There is no automatic reappraisal of clients in the ACFI appraisal system.
Admission and separation date
The monthly claim form is sent to approved residential aged care facilities each calendar month, either electronically or as a paper form, as part of the payment cycle. It shows claim details for the previous month plus a forecast schedule for the current month. The facility checks the information and records data on separations and absences (hospital and social leave) for these residents. The facility also adds information on any newly admitted residents for the current month.
The monthly claim form is sent to Medicare Australia.
The claim form is the source for the following data items in the tables:
•	date of admission
•	date of separation
•	separation mode  
•	admission type.
Calculation of provision ratios
The ratios may differ slightly from those output by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, due to a difference in the date of calculation and the population numbers used. ABS estimated resident population data at 30 June 2009, released in December 2009, has been used in this report. 
In addition, TCP is not included in the planning framework, and hence the provision ratio is recorded separately to other aged care and community places. 
Populations used in the tables in this report
It should be noted that tables in this publication refer to several different sub-populations and, consequently, may not be directly comparable. The subpopulations covered in the tables in this report are summarised below. Excluding the reporting on provision, the data presented relate to mainstream services and their residents, and exclude residents in places provided by MPS’s or funded through the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program, and Innovative Pool places. 
Residents at 30 June 2009
All tables on this topic relate to the number of residents who were in mainstream aged care services on 30 June 2009. This population includes all approved residents and totalled 162,289.
All admissions and separations, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 
There were 56,983 admissions for permanent care (permanent admissions) and 54,535 admissions for respite care (respite admissions) over the period 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009. Over the same period, there were 55,310 separations of permanent residents and 54,291 separations of respite residents. Transfers within type of admission are excluded.
Admitted residents, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Each person is counted once. For the full year reporting, there were 55,842 distinct resident admissions for permanent care and 39,478 distinct resident admissions for respite care. Transfers within type of admission are excluded.
Separated permanent residents, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Each person is counted once. For the full year reporting, there were 54,494 distinct resident separations. Transfers of a similar type are excluded.
Tables on dependency 
The data on the ACFI invariably excludes some clients due to the time lag in data entering the warehouse from which the tables are derived, and the programming structure which cannot allow for the full range of unusual data entry. The general trends in these tables are not altered by the missing data.
Data limitations
•	It should be noted that the accuracy of some specific data items might be limited. Such cases are listed below:
•	A reported date of birth implying that a resident is aged less than or equal to 10 years is regarded as an input error and 100 years is added to the age. This only alters a handful of entries in any one year.
•	Death indicator: in some cases, aged care services may not be equipped to care for some terminally ill residents. Accordingly, such residents are transferred to acute-care institutions before death; hence, there is an under-enumeration of discharges due to death.
•	Length of stay: complete length of stay of a resident is the time between the date of admission and the date of separation; and for residents at 30 June 2009, incomplete length of stay is the time between the date of admission and 30 June 2009. When a person is transferred from one service to another, the date of admission to the first service is the date from which the length of stay is calculated.
•	The data on the number of residential places and community care packages stored in the ACCMIS is sourced from the National Approved Provider System (NAPS) and are sensitive to dates of entry. Consequently, the reader may find minor reporting variations depending on the version of ACCMIS used in the variety of reports on aspects of residential aged care.
•	Information on whether an admission was from an acute hospital is not available in SPARC. 
Glossary
Aged Care Funding Instrument (ACFI)
The ACFI is a resource allocation instrument and focuses on three domains that discriminate care needs among residents. The ACFI assesses core needs as a basis for allocating funding. It was phased in over a year starting from 20 March 2008 to replace the RCS. See Chapter 6 for more detail.
Admission day
The first day of a person’s stay in an aged care service. In the case of a person transferring between services, where the time between leaving one service and entering another is less than 2 days, it is the date of the initial admission. Permanent and respite admissions are treated separately. For example, if a person transfers from a respite stay to a permanent stay, a new permanent admission is created.
Aged Care Assessment Team (ACAT)
A multidisciplinary team of health professionals responsible for determining eligibility for entry to residential aged care.
Care recipient
A person assessed by an ACAT as having significant care needs, which can be appropriately met through the provision of residential care, community care, and/or flexible care.
High-care resident
A permanent resident who was assigned to classification levels 1–4 using the RCS or who is appraised as ACFI high-care.
Length of stay
The length of stay of a separated resident is based upon the time between the date of admission and the date of separation, allowing for transfers. For a current resident, it is the time between the date of admission and 30 June 2009. The admission day and the specified day (30 June 2009) are included, but the separation day is excluded, from the calculation of length of stay.
Low-care resident
A permanent resident who was assigned to classification levels 5–8 using the RCS or who is appraised as ACFI low-care. 
Mainstream places
Residential aged care places that exclude residents in MPS’s and National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Programs. 
Permanent admission
An admission to residential aged care for expected long-term care. 
Permanent care
A resident in residential aged care is under permanent care if this resident entered the service as a permanent admission.
Permanent resident
A resident who is admitted to residential aged care for permanent care (long-term care).
Place-day
A day on which a care recipient is occupying a place and the provider is paid an Australian Government subsidy. The day that a care recipient enters residential aged care and the day he or she leaves are counted as one day.
Remoteness 
The remoteness classification used in this report is based on the ASGC Remoteness Structure developed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This 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) (ABS 2009a). 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.
Resident
A person who has been assessed by an ACAT as requiring residential care and who resides in an Australian Government-funded aged care service.
Resident Classification Scale (RCS)
An instrument which assesses a care recipient’s care needs. This scale has eight classification levels ranging from low-care (RCS 8) to high-care (RCS 1), with each level having a specified subsidy level which is paid to the provider for providing the required care to the care recipient. The RCS was introduced with the amalgamation of hostels and nursing homes into one system of care on 1 October 1997, replacing the Resident Classification Instrument for nursing homes and the Personal Classification Assessment Instrument for hostels. The RCS was replaced by the ACFI from 20 March 2008.
Residential aged care service
A service that consists of a number of approved places at a specific location.
Residential care
Personal and/or nursing care that is provided to a person in a residential care service in which the person is also provided with accommodation that includes meals, cleaning services, furniture and equipment. The residential aged care service must meet certain building standards and appropriate staffing in supplying the provision of that care and accommodation. 
Respite admission
A short-term admission to residential aged care for respite care purposes.
Respite care
Care given as an alternative care arrangement with the primary purpose of giving the carer or a care recipient a short-term break from their usual care arrangement.
Respite resident
A resident who is admitted to residential aged care for respite care.
Separation
Occurs when a resident leaves residential aged care and has not re-entered the same or another service within 2 days.
Separation day
The last day of a person’s stay in an aged care service; that is, the day on which the person leaves the service. Transfers between services were not viewed as separations in terms of length of stay calculations if the time between leaving one service and entering another was less than 2 days.
Separation mode
Indicates the destination of a resident at separation, including death. 
Supported resident
Following the Aged Care Amendment Act 2008 clients entering permanent residential aged care with assets below a certain level are eligible to be supported residents (on or after 20 March 2008). The client’s level of assets determines the amount of any accommodation charges they pay (see Appendix 7).
System for the Payment of Aged Residential Care (SPARC)
The current payment system for residential aged care.
Transfer
Occurs where a person leaves an aged care service on 1 day and is admitted to another within 2 days. 
Usual housing status
Refers to housing tenure before the resident’s application for admission to residential aged care.
References
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2004. Experimental estimates and projections, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians 1991–2021. Cat. no. 3238.0. Canberra: ABS. 
ABS 2005–06. Australian standard classification of languages. Cat. no. 1267.0. Canberra: ABS.
ABS 2008a. Migration Australia 2007–08. Cat. no. 3412.0. Canberra: ABS.
ABS 2008b. Standard Australian classification of countries. Cat. no. 1269.0. Canberra: ABS.
ABS 2009a. Australian demographic statistics. Cat. no. 3101.0. Canberra: ABS.
ABS 2009b. Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC) 2009. Cat. no. 1216.0. Canberra: ABS.
AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) 2002. Ageing in place: Before and after the 1997 aged care reforms. Bulletin no. 1. Cat. no. AUS 26. Canberra: AIHW.
AIHW 2004. Community aged care packages census 2002. Aged care statistics series no. 17. Cat. no. AGE 35. Canberra. AIHW. 
AIHW 2006. The ins and outs of residential respite care. Bulletin no. 43. Cat. no. AUS 80. Canberra: AIHW.
AIHW 2007. Dementia in Australia: national data analysis and development. Cat no. AGE 53. Canberra: AIHW.
AIHW 2010a. Aged care packages in the community 2008–2009: a statistical overview. Cat no. AGE 61. Canberra: AIHW.
AIHW 2010b (in press). Dementia among aged care residents: first information from the Aged Care Funding Instrument. Cat. No. AGE 63. Canberra: AIHW. 
AIHW 2010c (in press). Transition Care 2008–09: a statistical overview. Cat. no. AGE 64. Canberra: AIHW.
AIHW 2010d. Younger people with disability in residential aged care program report on the 
2008-09 minimum data set. Cat. no. DIS 57. Canberra: AIHW.
Borowski A & McDonald P 2007. The dimensions and implications of Australian population ageing. In: Borowski A, Encel S & Ozanne E (eds). Longevity and social change in Australia. New South Wales: University of New South Wales Press, 15-39.
DoHA (Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing) 2004. Extra service benchmarks. Canberra: DoHA. Viewed on 14 April 2010, <http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/426965ABE6FE5D33CA256F1900105018/$File/Extra_Service_Guidelines_for_Applicants_including_the_Extra_Service_Benchmarks.pdf >. 
DoHA 2008. 2008–09 Aged Care Approvals Round – Information Session. Canberra: DoHA. Viewed on 16 April 2010, <http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/D6C6EF2712A566F5CA2574F9008128C0/$File/2008%20Info%20session.ppt>.
DoHA 2009a. Ageing and aged care in Australia 2008. Canberra: DoHA. Viewed on 22 January 2010, <http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ageing-publicat-aged-care-australia.htm>.
DoHA 2009b. Aged Care Funding Instrument. Canberra: DoHA. Viewed on 20 January 2010, <www.health.gov.au/acfi>.
DoHA 2009c. Aged Care Funding Instrument user guide. Canberra: DoHA. Viewed on 20 January 2010, <http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ageing-acfi-1007-userguide.htm>.
DoHA 2009d. Extra Service status. Canberra: DoHA. Viewed on 3 February 2010, <http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ageing-rescare-ess-essprov.htm>.
DoHA 2009e. Report on the Operations of the Aged Care Act 1997, I July 2008–30 June 2009. Canberra: DoHA.
DoHA 2009f. The residential care manual. Canberra: DoHA. 
DoHA 2010a. 2008–2009 Aged Care Approvals Round. Canberra: DoHA. Viewed on 16 April 2010, <http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ageing-acar2008-2009.htm>.
DoHA 2010b. Accommodation bonds. Canberra: DoHA. Viewed on 12 April 2010, <www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ageing-publicat-qcoa-16info.htm>.
DoHA 2010c. Home and Community Care Program Minimum Data Set 2008–09 Annual Bulletin. Canberra: DoHA. Viewed on 16 April 2010, <http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ageing-hacc-mds-annual-bulletin.htm>.
SCRGSP (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision) 2010. Report on Government Services 2010. Canberra: Productivity Commission. 

List of tables

Table 2.1: Number of operational residential aged care places, CACP, EACH, EACH D and TCP, 30 June 1995 to 30 June 2009
Table 2.2: Distribution of population aged 70 years and over by state/territory and remoteness(a), 30 June 2009 (‘000).
Table 2.3: Residential aged care, CACP, EACH/EACH D, and TCP places, by state/territory(a), 30 June 2009
Table 2.4: Residential aged care, CACP, EACH /EACH D, and TCP places, by remoteness(a) 30 June 2009
Table 2.5: Provision ratio per 1,000 persons aged 70 years and over, 30 June 1995 to 30 June 2009
Table 2.6: Aged care places(a) per 1,000 persons by state/territory, 30 June 2009
Table 2.7: Number of facilities with Extra Service places,                                                                              high-care and low-care places, 30 June 2009
Table 2.8: Australian Government-estimated recurrent expenditure on residential aged care by state/territory and remoteness area(a), 2008–09 ($M)
Table 2.9: Australian Government-estimated recurrent expenditure on residential aged care per person aged 70 years and over(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 ($)
Table 2.10: Australian Government recurrent funding per occupied place-day(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 ($)
Table 2.11: Bonds received from permanent aged care residents admitted between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009, by state/territory and remoteness(a), ($M)
Table 2.12: Total bond size for permanent admissions by age and sex (bond-contributing  residents) 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Table 2.13: Average bond size by remoteness for bonds paid 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009(a)
Table 2.14: Average bond size for permanent residents admitted between  1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009 by age group and sex (all residents)
Table 2.15: Average bond size by remoteness for permanent resident admissions  1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009(a)
Table 3.1: Permanent, respite and all residents by age and sex, 30 June 2009
Table 3.4: Permanent and respite residents by Indigenous status and sex,  30 June 2009
Table 3.5: Permanent and respite residents, birthplace(a) by sex and state/territory, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table 3.6: Permanent and respite residents, preferred language(a) by sex and state/territory, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table 3.6 (continued): Permanent and respite residents, preferred language(a) by sex and state/territory, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table 3.7: Financial support status of permanent residents by state and territory at 30 June 2009
Table 3.8: Financial support status of permanent residents by remoteness at 30 June 2009(a)
Table 3.9: Permanent residents with hospital leave between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009(a)  (per cent)
Table 4.1: Population distribution by age and sex, 1970 and 2009 (‘000)
Table 4.3: Separation of older permanent and respite residents by separation reason and remoteness(a) from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table 4.4: Dementia and mental illness in older permanent residents, 30 June 2009
Table 4.5: ACFI classification for older permanent residents, 30 June 2009
Table 5.2: Existing permanent residents, length of stay to date by sex and remoteness(a), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table 5.6: Admissions and turnover, by type of care in residential aged care services, 2000–01 to 2008–09
Table 5.7: Age- and sex-specific usage rates for permanent residents, by English-speaking  status, based on country of birth, 30 June 2009 (per 1,000 population)
Table 5.8: Age- and sex-specific usage rates for permanent residents, by Indigenous status(a), 30 June 2009 (per 1,000 population)(b)
Table 5.10: Average occupancy rate, by state/territory and remoteness(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Table 5.11: Permanent resident movement with reclassification from low-care to high-care,                       1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Table 6.3: ACFI level of care level at admission for activities of daily living, new permanent residents admitted from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009, by age group at admission (per cent)
Table 6.4: ACFI level of care for ADL, BEH and CHC at separation, for permanent residents separating between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009, by separation mode (per cent)
Table 6.5: ACFI level of care for ADL, BEH, and CHC at separation, for permanent residents separating between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009, by length of stay (number)
Table 6.5 (continued): ACFI level of care for ADL, BEH, and CHC at separation, for permanent residents separating between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009, by length of stay (number)
Table 6.6: Main medical conditions for permanent residents with an ACFI classification, 30 June 2009 (excludes - mental and behavioural disorders) (per cent)
Table 7.1: Trends in resident numbers at 30 June, 1999–2009
Table 7.2: Proportion of residents aged 80 years and over, and aged 90 years and over at admission, 1998–99 to 2008–09 (per cent)
Table 7.3: Admissions, separations and completed length of stay in residential aged care,  1998–99 to 2008–09
Table 7.4: Respite residents and permanent residential aged care activity, 1999–00 to 2008–09
Table 7.5: Permanent aged care residents at 30 June, by age group, 1999–2009
Table 7.6: Permanent aged care residents at 30 June, by usage within age group per 1,000 population, 1999–2009
Table A1.1: The number of new aged care places in the ACAR process allocated to approved providers, 1995–96 to 2008–09
Table A1.2: Residential aged care facilities, by state/territory and remoteness(a), 30 June 2009
Table A1.3: Trends in the number and size of residential aged facilities, 30 June 1998 to  30 June 2008
Table A1.4: Size of aged care facilities, by state and territory(a), 30 June 2009
Table A1.5: Size of aged care facilities, by remoteness(a), 30 June 2009
Table A1.6: Residential aged care facilities by provider type and state/territory(a), 30 June 2009
Table A1.7: Residential aged care facilities by provider type and remoteness(a), 30 June 2009
Table A1.8: Operational Extra Service places by state/territory and remoteness(a), 30 June 2009
Table A1.9: Operational Extra Service high-care places by state/territory and remoteness(a), 30 June 2009
Table A1.10: Operational Extra Service low-care places by state/territory and remoteness(a), 30 June 2009
Table A2.1: All residents by sex and age group, 30 June 2009
Table A2.2: Permanent and respite residents by sex and marital status, 30 June 2009
Table A2.3: Permanent residents, income source, by sex and state/territory(a), 30 June 2009
Table A2.4: Financial support status of permanent residents by admission date, sex and state/territory(a), 30 June 2009 (number)
Table A2.4 (continued): Financial support status of permanent residents by admission date, sex and state/territory(a), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A2.5: Financial support status of permanent residents by admission date, sex and remoteness(a), 30 June 2009 (number)
Table A2.5 (continued): Financial support status of permanent residents by admission date, sex  and remoteness(a), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A2.6: People admitted to residential aged care services for permanent care(a) by  marital status, sex and state/territory(b), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Table A2.7: People admitted to residential aged care services for respite care(a) by marital status, sex and state/territory(b), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Table A2.8: People admitted to residential aged care for permanent and  respite care by usual housing status and sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Table A2.9: People admitted to residential aged care for permanent and  respite care by prior living arrangements and sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Table A2.10: People admitted to permanent residential  aged care by income source and sex, 1 July 2008 to  30 June 2009
Table A3.1: Older permanent and respite residents by sex, age and state/territory(a), 30 June 2009  (per cent)
Table A3.2: Older permanent and respite residents by sex, age and remoteness(a), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A3.3: Admissions of older permanent and respite residents by sex, age and state/territory(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A3.4: Admissions of older permanent and respite residents by sex, age and remoteness(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A3.5: Older permanent and respite residents by sex, marital status and admission, 30 June 2009
Table A3.6: Completed length of stay for older permanent residents by sex and state/territory(a), separating from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A3.7: Completed length of stay for older permanent residents by sex and remoteness(a), separating from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A3.8: ACFI care levels, activities of daily living of older permanent  residents by age, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A3.9: ACFI care levels, behaviour of older permanent residents  by age, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A3.10: ACFI care levels, complex health care of older permanent  residents by age, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A4.1: Permanent admissions, age at admission by state/territory(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Table A4.2: Respite admissions, age at admission by state/territory(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Table A4.3: Separations of permanent, respite, and all residents by sex and separation mode,  1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Table A4.4: All separations, separation mode by sex and state/territory(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Table A4.5: Separations of permanent residents, separation mode by sex and state/territory(a),  1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Table A4.6: Separations of respite residents, separation mode, by sex and state/territory(a),  1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Table A4.7: Separations of permanent residents, length of stay, by separation mode, 1 July 2008  to 30 June 2009
Table A4.8: Occupied place-days, type of care by state/territory and remoteness(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Table A4.8 (continued): Occupied place-days, type of care by state/territory and remoteness(a), 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Table A4.9: Average residential occupancy rate by state/territory, 1998–99 to 2008–09 (per cent)
Table A5.1: Dependency levels of permanent residents by sex, 30 June 1998 to                                             30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A5.2: Distribution of high-care appraisal scores under the ACFI of permanent, 30 June 2009
Table A5.2 (continued): Distribution of high-care appraisal scores under the ACFI of permanent residents, 30 June 2009
Table A5.3: Distribution of low-care appraisal scores under the ACFI of permanent residents, 30 June 2009
Table A5.4a: ACFI level of care at admission for activities of daily living, permanent residents  admitted from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009, by sex and age group at admission
Table A5.4b: ACFI level of care at admission for behaviour, permanent residents admitted from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009, by sex and age group at admission
Table A5.4c: ACFI level of care at admission for complex health care, permanent residents admitted  from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009, by sex and age group at admission
Table A5.5: ACFI level of care for activities of daily living, behaviour care and complex  health care for permanent residents by sex(a) at 30 June 2009
Table A5.6a: ACFI level of care for activities of daily living, younger people assessed in permanent residential aged care, by age and sex, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A5.6b: ACFI level of care for behaviour, younger people assessed in permanent  residential aged care, by age and sex, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A5.6c: ACFI level of care for complex health care, younger people assessed in permanent residential aged care, by age group and sex, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A5.7a: ACFI level of care for activities of daily living, all permanent residents, by age group and sex, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A5.7b: ACFI level of care for behaviour, all permanent residents, by age group and sex, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A5.7c: ACFI level of care for complex health care, all permanent residents, by age group and  sex, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A5.8a: ACFI level of care at admission for activities of daily living, by sex and age group at admission, permanent residents admitted from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A5.8b: ACFI level of care at admission for behaviour, by sex and age group at admission, permanent residents admitted from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A5.8c: ACFI level of care at admission for complex health care, by sex and age group at  admission, permanent residents admitted from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A5.9: ACFI level of care at separation for activities of daily living, by sex and length of stay  for permanent residents separating between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A5.9 (continued): ACFI level of care at separation for activities of daily living, by sex and length of stay for permanent residents separating between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A5.10: ACFI level of care at separation for behaviour, by sex and length of stay for permanent residents separating between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A5.10 (continued): ACFI level of care at separation for behaviour, by sex and length of stay for permanent residents separating between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A5.11: ACFI level of care at separation for complex health care, by sex and length of stay for permanent residents separating between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A5.11 (continued): ACFI level of care at separation for complex health care, by sex and length  of stay for permanent residents separating between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Table A5.12: Diagnosed dementia/mental illness for residents with an ACFI appraisal(a), by sex and state/territory(b), 30 June 2009
Table A6.1: Population, by age, sex and state/territory, 30 June 2009
Table A6.1 (continued): Population, by age, sex and state/territory, 30 June 2009

List of figures
Figure 2.1: Number of new residential aged care places, CACP, EACH and EACH D places allocated to approved providers, 1995–96 to 2008–09 in the ACAR process
Figure 2.2: Residential aged care facilities by state/territory and remoteness,     30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 2.3: Changes in the size of residential aged care facilities, 1999–2009 (per cent)
Figure 2.4: : Size of residential aged care facilities by state/territory and remoteness,    30 June 2009 (per cent
Figure 2.5: Providers of services by state/territory and remoteness, 30 June 2009  (per cent)
Figure 2.6: Extra Service places (high- and low-care) by state/territory and  remoteness, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 2.7: Recurrent expenditure on residential aged care 2008–09, and distribution of population aged 70 years and over, by state/territory and remoteness (per cent)
Figure 3.1: All residents by age and sex, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 3.2: Permanent and respite residents by marital status and sex, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 3.3: Permanent residents by income source,  30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 3.4: People admitted to residential aged care for permanent care by marital status and sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 3.5: People admitted to residential aged care for permanent and respite care by usual housing status, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 3.6: People admitted to permanent and respite residential aged care by  prior living arrangement, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 3.7: People admitted to permanent residential care by prior living   arrangement and sex, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 3.8: People admitted to residential aged care for permanent care by income source, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 4.1: Older permanent and respite residents by age group (years), 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 4.2: Older permanent and respite residents by marital status at admission,               30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 4.3: Completed length of stay for older permanent residents separating, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 4.4: ACFI care levels of older residents, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 5.1: Permanent and respite admissions, age at admission, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 5.2: Permanent and respite separations by separation mode, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 6.1:Level of care across the ACFI domains for permanent residents at admission, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 6.2: Level of care across ACFI domains, permanent residents, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 6.3: Level of care across the ACFI domains for younger people (aged under 65 years) appraised  permanent residential aged care, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
Figure 6.4: Diagnosed dementia/mental illness for residents with an ACFI appraisal  which included information on dementia status, 30 June 2009 (per cent)
List of boxes
Box 2.1: Permanent and respite care case scenarios
Box 2.2: Aged care packages in the community
Box 2.3: Allocation of places
Box 2.4: How is remoteness defined?
Box 2.5: National target ratio and provision ratio
Box 2.6: Extra Service case scenario
Box 2.7: Accommodation bonds
Box 5.1: Separations
Box 5.2: Measurements for length of stay
Box 5.3: Case scenario: Ageing in place
Box 6.1: The ACFI
Box 6.2: ACFI Case scenario