Housing of persons with disabilities: what can be learned from the introduction of more demand-driven subsidies in Flanders?

Abstract

Aiming to offer persons with disabilities more opportunities to live independently and more inclusively, Flanders radically revised its subsidies for care and care infrastructure for persons with disabilities. Since 2017, subsidies for care are no longer allocated to care providers, but directly to the person with disabilities as a Personal Care Budget (PCB). In 2018, up-front bricks-and-mortar subsidies for care infrastructure were replaced with subsidies granted upon effective use of the accommodation and varying with the user’s specific needs. The results of surveys of PCB holders, licensed care providers and social housing providers suggest that on average receiving a PCB stimulated persons with disabilities to move, had a positive impact on housing quality outcomes for those who moved, and triggered changes in the provision of housing. On the other hand, housing costs for users increased and the positive effects on housing choice may be hampered by issues of housing supply. Effects differed according to the context and characteristics of the persons involved. Apart from these findings on the effects of more demand-driven subsidies, the study provides insight into the cross-policy effects of subsidies and therefore stresses the need for a more transversal approach in policy-making and research.

Keywords:

• Disability
• housing subsidies
• personal care budget
• care infrastructure
• independent living

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 Sweden was one of the pioneers to entitle persons with severe disabilities to a personal assistance budget (Swedish Personal Assistance Act of 1994: https://www.independentliving.org/docs1/ratzka1998lass.html)

2 Full report: Schepers et al. (2020)

3 Either 1,800 euro or 3,600 euro per year, depending on the level of the budget.

4 https://extranet.vaph.be/jaarverslag/2020/pages/1/index.html

5 Other housing situations are collective housing not owned by an LCP 5%, private rental via organisations 2%, 1 SRA social rental 1%, social rental owned by commune 2%, living for free 4%.

6 The housing cost overburden is the proportion (of singles) who pay more than 40% of their income for housing after deducting housing subsidies. The indicator is based on the Eurostat indicator, with the difference that housing costs in our calculation also include additional housing costs.

7 Some of those who moved since 2017, already wish to move again.

8 Based on 2019 data (persons +16 years): https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Disability_statistics_-_poverty_and_income_inequalities#Being_at-risk-of-poverty_or_social_exclusion_.28AROPE.29:_higher_prevalence_among_the_population_with_activity_limitation

9 For comparison with the terminology above: group living is small-scale collective housing, but is not necessarily owned by a LCP. It does not belong to segregated but to dispersed housing.

Additional information

Funding

This study was supported by Vlaamse Overheid.