(non-agency based), and the remaining two-fifths were almost evenly split between accessing day services (agency based) or congregated accommodation. Congregated care was only being accessed by those with severe or profound intellectual disabilities. Table-3: Type of Disability by Type of Service Provision Type of Service provided Type of Disability Mild/ Moderate intellectual Severe/ Profound intellectual Neurological Physical Sensory Total % % % % % % Day services (agency based) 7 0 5 8 0 21 Congregated 0 19 0 0 0 19 Group Home 28 1 0 5 0 34 Day services (non-agency 7 0 5 9 5 27 Total % (n) 42 47 20 22 11 12 22 25 5 6 100* 112 Source: SQW *Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding Correlation between RAS and SIS results There is a clear positive relationship between the SIS and RAS scores for individual service users (Figure 3-3). Service users with disabilities classed as severe/profound intellectual disabilities tended to have the highest scores on both needs assessments (although there were a small number of exceptions).
be trained. This, coupled with data related to licensing and adaptation costs, allows us to give a crude estimate of national rollout costs for a three year period, as demonstrated in Table 5-1 below. This indicates that the likely rollout cost for the SIS would be more than twice that of the RAS, at just under €2.9m versus just under €1.3m (using the higher hourly average interviewer rate). These figures do not include costs for appropriate IT systems and associated hardware. Whether or not the interview cost represents a cash cost or implicit cost would depend on whether the assessment process becomes part of the core duties of existing staff or if staff are hired for the purpose of carrying out assessments. Table 5-1: Estimated roll out costs to a cohort of 42,000 service users over three years Assessment Process Interview Cost – excluding travel (€) Other associated Costs (€) Total (€) (lower interviewer hourly rate) Total (€) (upper interviewer hourly rate) RAS 840,000 to 1,155,000 131,000 971,000 1,286,000 SIS 1,932,000 to 2,625,000 272,000 2,204,000 2,897,000 Source: SQW Summary of the strengths, weaknesses and similarities between the RAS and SIS needs assessment tools In Table 1 below, we provide a summary of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the two assessment tools, as well as highlighting areas of similarity. This builds upon the earlier work done by the National Disability Authority, complementing this with key findings from the feasibility study. Items in the Table arising from the previous National Disability Authority paper are indicated ‘(NDA)’.
away from a deficit model through systematic resource allocation may change this. It will be important to manage the resource allocation process effectively, and a transitional arrangement may need to be implemented to limit the extent to which an existing package of services can be adjusted in the short term. Service providers will also be affected by changing service users budgets – existing support packages are based on historic service allocations that have been funded by the HSE and others. A move towards a resource allocation driven model could see greater consistency across service providers in relation to the cost of services provided, but this could lead to funding being reduced for some service providers. Again, it will be important to manage the expectations of service providers. There are also likely to be a series of challenges around ensuring that the allocation of resources through the tool is suitable. In England, the move to resource allocation tools has been made more complex by the need for an indicative budget, which is then subject to change before the final budget is agreed. However, if the eventually agreed final budgets are significantly different from those calculated as indicative, then it will call in to question the extent to which the initial process is robust. If it is thought robust and yet the level of variance is large it would suggest that the ‘negotiation’ around the final budget is not being well managed. However, it may be that the price points or weightings derived are not sufficient. The extent of any such variance should be assessed as part of any further testing of the resource allocation process.