Non‐take up of the supplemental child benefit for children with a disability in Belgium: A mixed‐method approach

Abstract

Families with disabled children run a great risk of being poor.Although policies providing poor families with financial benefits should be effective in reducing poverty, the actual effectiveness is often jeopardized by the issue of non-take up (NTU). Yet, NTU of benefits aimed at disabled children is for the most part uncharted territory. In this article, we fill this gap using a mixed-methods approach to (a) estimate the magnitude and characteristics of NTU in the Belgian "supplemental child benefit" by drawing on a large-scale administrative dataset on childhood disabilities and (b) explore the determinants of NTU by means of semistructured interviews with experts and parents. We estimate an NTU rate of at least 10%, a substantial figure given that the benefit is not income tested. This mainly concerns children with "less visible disabilities" (autism spectrum disorder and other intellectual and psychological disorders) and results from insufficient information provision about the benefit's existence and eligibility criteria; process costs, for instance, the complexity of the procedure; and the way the scale to assess a child's disability is constructed.

A Critical Analysis of Disability Policy and Practice in Flanders: Toward Differentiated Manifestations of Interdependency

“…No reference is made whatsoever to social class differentials and inequalities. Disabilities usually sit at the intersection of other inequalities, and research has shown that disabled persons and their families run a higher risk to be poor, have less labor market opportunities, and have smaller informal networks (Vinck, Lebeer, & Van Lancker, ). In short, they are less able to draw on their natural resources and social capital to safeguard their wellbeing.…”

An Intersectional Approach towards Parental Employment in Families with a Child with a Disability: The Case of Belgium

“…Such recognised disability presumably does not capture all disabled children. In Vinck et al (2019), the non-take-up rate of the supplemental child benefit is estimated to be at least 10%. However, the results reported in this article are in line with previous research on Flemish data (Sebrechts and Breda, 2012; Van Landeghem et al, 2007).…”

“…Related to the previous point, (semi-)residential or ambulatory care arrangements and enrolment in a special or inclusive educational setting (for which recognitions from the Flemish Agency for Persons with a Disability (FAPD) and the Pupil Guidance Centre are needed in Flanders) are important sources of care support for families with disabled children. Yet, only 47% of Flemish children receiving the supplemental child benefit make use of any FAPD care provision (Vinck et al, 2019). Additionally, even in families who combine the two collective types of care arrangements (special education and (semi-)residential care), nearly half the mothers are not participating in the labour market (Van Landeghem et al, 2007).…”

“…The purpose of these criteria is to gauge the consequence of the child’s disability for the child’s (1) physical and mental health; (2) self-reliance; and (3) family. There is no income test, but the benefit amount is related to the score on the 36-point scale (see Vinck et al (2019) for more information on the recognition procedure). The benefit varies between €80 and more than €500 per month.…”

Uptake of Attendance Benefit for Children with a Disability in Norway: Impact of Socioeconomic Status and Immigrant Background

“…However, very few studies have examined the uptake of benefits targeting children with disabilities. Apart from one study on the uptake of cash benefits for disabled children in Belgium (Vinck, Lebeer, and Van Lancker 2019) and one Norwegian study examining children with asthma (Finnvold 2009), research on the uptake of cash benefits amongst the parents of children with disability is limited.…”