1987
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2214.1987.tb00534.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Attendance allowance at age 16: time for review

Abstract: At the age of 16 years, young disabled people receiving attendance allowance are required to reapply for the benefit to establish their entitlement. As a consequence a substantial minority lose the benefit altogether or have it reduced. If this happens they can ask for a review of the decision and about two-thirds of those who do so are successful in having the allowance restored. This paper is concerned with the reassessment and review of attendance allowance at 16 years and is based on a study of a sample of… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

1992
1992
1997
1997

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 5 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In 1994/5 nearly half a million initial claims for DLA were decided: almost half resulted in a first award and a majority were rejected (Department of Social Security 1995). From the outset, concern was expressed about possible variations in the administration of DLA (Hadjipateras 1993) reflecting earlier debates about the former attendance allowance and the problem of administering tests of disability consistently and equitably (Bradshaw and Lawton 1980;Brown 1984;Buckle 1986;Cooke et al 1987;Duckworth 1984;Hirst 1986;National Audit Office 1992). More recently, evidence of anomalies in the distribution of DLA awards (Daly and Noble 1996) and the treatment of claimants with mental health problems (Hirst and Sainsbury 1996) have been examined.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In 1994/5 nearly half a million initial claims for DLA were decided: almost half resulted in a first award and a majority were rejected (Department of Social Security 1995). From the outset, concern was expressed about possible variations in the administration of DLA (Hadjipateras 1993) reflecting earlier debates about the former attendance allowance and the problem of administering tests of disability consistently and equitably (Bradshaw and Lawton 1980;Brown 1984;Buckle 1986;Cooke et al 1987;Duckworth 1984;Hirst 1986;National Audit Office 1992). More recently, evidence of anomalies in the distribution of DLA awards (Daly and Noble 1996) and the treatment of claimants with mental health problems (Hirst and Sainsbury 1996) have been examined.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%