The Cost and Financing of Home Modifications in the United States

Abstract

Home modifications can aid in the performance of tasks and support independent living. However, obtaining funding in the United States is difficult for both individuals and home modification programs. For individuals, cost is an important factor in the decision of whether to obtain home modifications, along with the perceived need and perceived effectiveness of the modifications. Home modification programs face budget limitations and a lack of stable sources of funding. The public and private sources of financing are far from comprehensive and have confusing eligibility requirements. Several action steps by policymakers and practitioners will increase the availability of home modifications. Ideally, the future would bring a housing stock that incorporates visitability and universal design concepts.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Association of Retired Persons. ( 2000). Fixing to stay: A national survey on housing and home modification issues. Washington, DC: Author.

Atlanta Visitability Ordinance, Art. F Div.3 § 8-2182 (1992).

Austin Visitability Ordinance, No. 981007-A Ch. 7-1 (1998).

Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (1988).

La Plante, M.P. , Hendershot, G.E. , & Moss, A.J. (1992). Assistive technology devices and home accessibility features: Prevalence, payment, need and trends. Advance Data , 217, 1—12.

La Plante, M.P. , Hendershot, G.E. , & Moss, A.J. (1997). The prevalence of need for assistive technology devices and home accessibility features. Technology and Disability , 6, 17—28.

Newman, S. (in press). The living conditions of America's elderly. Gerontologist.

Newman, S. , Struyk, R. , Wright, P. , & Rice, M. (1990). Overwhelming odds: Caregiving and the risk of institutionalization. Journal of Gerontology— Social Sciences, 45(5), S173—S183.

Ohta, R.J. , & Ohta, B.M. (1997). The elderly consumer's decision to accept or reject home adaptations: Issues and perspectives. In S. Lanspery & J. Hyde (Eds.), Staying put: Adapting the places instead of the people (pp. 79—89). Amityville, NY: Baywood.

10.

Older Americans Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq. (1965).

11.

Pynoos, J. , Liebig, P. , Overton, J. , & Calvert, E. (1997). The delivery of home modification and repair services . In S. Lanspery & J. Hyde (Eds.), Staying put: Adapting the places instead of the people (pp. 171—191). Amityville, NY: Baywood.

12.

Pynoos, J. , & Matsuoka, C. (2001). Housing and the continuum of care. In C. Evashwick (Ed.), The long-term continuum of care (pp. 115—131). Albany, NY: Delmar-Thompson Learning.

13.

Pynoos, J. , Tabbarah, M. , Angelelli, J. , & Demiere, M. (1998). Improving the delivery of home modifications. Technology and Disability, 8, 3—14.

14.

Scholen, K. (2000). Home-made money: Consumer's guide to home equity conversion. Washington, DC: American Association of Retired Persons.

15.

Tabbarah, M. , Silverstein, M. , & Seeman, T. (2000). A health and demographic profile of non-institutionalized older Americans residing in environments with home modifications. Journal of Aging and Health, 12(2), 204—228.

16.

Texas Visitability Ordinance, Code Ann. § 2306 (1999).

17.

Urbana, Illinois, Visitability Ordinance, No. 2000-09-105 (2000).