Author Topic: Benefit expenditure tables  (Read 2112 times)

AccessOfficer

  • Charter Member and Volunteer Building Regs and Inclusive Design
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1261
Benefit expenditure tables
« on: December 22, 2011, 02:33:24 PM »
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd4/index.php?page=expenditure

Includes totals spent on DLA by catagory of disability

Sofie

  • Charter Member and Volunteer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
Re: Benefit expenditure tables
« Reply #1 on: December 22, 2011, 04:25:18 PM »
I've looked through this and it's confusing:
It says that x amount of people get higher mobility for being deaf - you can't get higher mobility if you're just deaf.

I won't be surprised if it was something like x receive DLA due to one disability, yet, also have another disability and are counted twice. (once for each disability)

TemporallyLoopy

  • Charter Member
  • Diamond member
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
Re: Benefit expenditure tables
« Reply #2 on: December 22, 2011, 05:50:09 PM »
I won't be surprised if it was something like x receive DLA due to one disability, yet, also have another disability and are counted twice. (once for each disability)

I couldn't agree more Sofie.  I have always thought that this is what they do when newspapers like the dreaded DM come up with the numbers of people who get benefits for migraines, acne, facial hair and other things.  Although I am not denigrating the affect of these (and they were merely the examples I can remember seeing) they always sounded to me, in the most case, like additional things that people would have listed on their ESA / DLA forms. 

I know my own forms would include things like: irritable bowel, hair loss and (conversely) excess facial hair, weight gain, migraine, skin rashes, exhaustion, nausea and many of the other things which, one by one, could be use by someone who wished to make the point that people were being given IB / ESA for skin rashes, irritable bowel etc. rather than acknowledging that most are side effects.

Who knows just how many times some of us are counted in the supposedly official figures .
Life is what happens to you when you're making other plans.

(Betty Talmadge, b. 1924)

DarthVector

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1164
Re: Benefit expenditure tables
« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2011, 05:06:09 AM »
I was interested by this quote from that page:

The benefit expenditure tables are currently under review. As a result of this the tables published since 21 April do not contain the same breakdowns of expenditure as those previously published. The tables will be further developed over the coming months.

In other words, "we are going to present you with a continually moving target". Less charitable persons (like myself) might be tempted to add "so that you can't figure out how we're gaming the statistics this time."

I subsequently downloaded the DLA-specific spreadsheet, and it says that:

Where more than one disability is present only the main disabling condition is recorded.

I wonder how they handle deafblind people, given that the spreadsheet only has categories for "Blindness" and "Deafness"? Do they:
  • just pick one;
  • double-count us;
  • or fall back on the ever-useful "Other" category?
I don't see entries for tabloid favourites like migraine, weight gain, drug addiction or alcoholism, either. Those figures must be produced on an ad-hoc, unaudited basis, purely for the use of DWP press releases. What a surprise.

Finally, the method for calculating real terms benefit expenditures in 2011-2012 prices for previous years is not described. That matters, because those are the figures upon which the DWP base their claim that DLA expenditures have risen by a factor of 4 in real terms. Over the period, RPI outran CPI by about 14%, so if they used CPI when they should have used RPI, the actual real-terms increase could be as low as a factor of 3.5, which would make the DWP's factor of 4 a serious error.

I did try to run the numbers backward to work out what index the DWP actually used, but my results didn't match CPI or RPI. Instead, they came out somewhere in between, which suggested that the DWP might have used actual benefit uprating figures. I would have tried to verify that, but neither the DWP nor the ONS seem to publish historical benefit rates.

By the way, while I was poking around looking for information on the DWP's definition of "real terms", I found another spreadsheet on this page with forecasts of the expected DLA caseload up until 2016 (it's in the very last worksheet, "Table C1"). I presume that PIP is being counted as equivalent to DLA. Here are the numbers:

Code: [Select]
Year            DLA Claimant Count (in thousands)
2008/09         3009
2009/10         3106
2010/11         3177
2011/12         3279
2012/13         3350
2013/14         3253
2014/15         3124
2015/16         3096
2016/17         3150

This implies that the Government expect to make their 20% cut to DLA by two routes:
  • reducing the number of claimants from 3350k to 3096k, or 7.6%, presumably during the reassessment of existing DLA claimants for PIP from 2013 onwards.
  • reducing the average expenditure per claimant, whether by moving people onto lower rates, reducing the rates themselves, or a combination of these.

hossylass

  • Guest
Re: Benefit expenditure tables
« Reply #4 on: December 23, 2011, 09:11:07 AM »
Thanks Darth.

I used to be able to juggle around with figures many years ago, but now I seem to get confused and lose my way within one or two calculations.

I cant thank you enough for your number crunching skills. :)

KizzyKazaer

  • Global Moderator
  • Super Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
Re: Benefit expenditure tables
« Reply #5 on: December 23, 2011, 09:32:06 AM »
I don't do numbers very well these days either, so  >tah< from me as well!

Looking at the disability categories, I thought to myself, 'what the devil is 'frailty' ????  An online dictionary produced this definition:  (I thought the second example was pretty apt  >biggrin<)

Definition of FRAILTY
1
: the quality or state of being frail
2
: a fault due to weakness especially of moral character

Examples of FRAILTY

    the frailty of her voice
    We can no longer be surprised by the frailties of our political leaders.


DLA is surely not being paid out for 'a fault due to weakness of moral character, is it? >confused<

hossylass

  • Guest
Re: Benefit expenditure tables
« Reply #6 on: December 23, 2011, 09:57:20 AM »
Well it wont be in the future!
I think given that things are now termed maligering, or "all inyour head" then that could be argued to be morally wrong when the economy needs you.
In other words - stop being so fragile, gets some back bone and get to the job centre! Only your sacrifice can save the country!

Only joking, though there is some substance to my joke, sadly :(

DarthVector

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1164
Re: Benefit expenditure tables
« Reply #7 on: December 23, 2011, 10:01:16 AM »
You're both very welcome. Since I first became aware of the way this Government persistently slants its statistics, more than a year ago, my first reaction to anything they release is "do the numbers stack up?"

The only Government statistics I trust nowadays come from the arms-length offices that can reject political interference. For example, I trust information that comes directly from the ONS, but not the DWP's subsequent interpretation of it. Even then, I make sure I have a least a rough idea of what the ONS are doing with the statistics in question.

The fact that the DWP are now responsible for publishing reports based on the Life Opportunities Survey (and not the ONS) means that I no longer trust the reported results. In my book, responsibility for the survey and all reports based on it should have remained with the ONS.

I do remember other people crunching the numbers on BBC Ouch - DavidG comes immediately to mind, and I know there were others - but they don't seem to be posting here anymore?

DLA is surely not being paid out for 'a fault due to weakness of moral character, is it? >confused<

It all makes sense now - DLA is the new MPs' expenses.

hossylass

  • Guest
Re: Benefit expenditure tables
« Reply #8 on: December 23, 2011, 10:05:25 AM »
Quote
It all makes sense now - DLA is the new MPs' expenses.

 >lol<

Sofie

  • Charter Member and Volunteer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
Re: Benefit expenditure tables
« Reply #9 on: December 23, 2011, 10:16:49 AM »
Where more than one disability is present only the main disabling condition is recorded.

How do they decide what the main disabling condition is?

hossylass

  • Guest
Re: Benefit expenditure tables
« Reply #10 on: December 23, 2011, 10:42:42 AM »
I dont know about that Sofie - I have no idea which of my conditions they consider the most disabling, and I have no idea which I consider to be the most disabling either.

I think I get night care because of the mental health (sleep disorder) and the mobility due to the dislocations, and the daytime care due to the combination of all, but I could be wrong.

I cant imagine which catagory I come under.

seegee

  • Charter Member and Volunteer
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5166
Re: Benefit expenditure tables
« Reply #11 on: December 23, 2011, 02:31:14 PM »
My "main disabling condition" varies! 
Most of the time there's no doubt it's the brain injury causing fatigue, forgetfulness & confusion...
but when my joints are playing silly beggars so I can't use my hands properly or walk without lots of pain, that's worse than my "normal, with brain injury", so then it's the hypermobility or psoriasis stopping me from doing things...
but if I am depressed I can't do much even if my joints are fine and it's depression that's most disabling...
 >yikes<  >lol<  ;-)