Home From Home - Northern Ireland Housing Executive

Home from Home
Older Chinese People
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
NORTH WEST AREA

Acknowledgements
The Housing Executive’s Research Unit would like to thank all those involved in the
Older Chinese People Housing Needs Assessment, in particular the following:
the Chinese Community who gave up their time to assist the interviewers and
without whose co-operation the survey could not have been undertaken.
Anna Lo (CWA), Karen Scrivens (Sai Pak Project, Derry) Brendan Bonner
(Western Investing for Health) and Brendan Adams (NIHE) for their input
into the questionnaire and their support for the aims of the survey.
For further information on the research please contact:
Gillian Greer
Research Officer
The Research Unit
NI Housing Executive
2 Adelaide Street
Belfast BT2 8PB
Telephone: 028 90318553
Email: gillian.greer@nihe.gov.uk

Home from Home
Older Chinese People
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
NORTH WEST AREA
1

'The Chinese Welfare
Association will work to
enhance diversity
and good relations in Northern
Ireland and to develop the
participation of Chinese people
in all aspects of social, cultural,
economic and public life.'
2
(Mission Statement, CWA)

Contents
Foreword 4
1. Background to the research 5
1.1 Introduction 5
1.2 The Chinese Welfare Association (CWA) 6
1.3 Rationale 6
1.4 Research Objectives 7
1.5 Methodology 7
1.6 Response Rate 9
2. Executive Summary 11
3. Household Profile 17
4. Current Accommodation 25
5. Community Safety 29
6. Older Respondents (50+) 31
7. Conclusions And Recommendations 41
8. Location Of Respondents 45
Appendices
Appendix 1: presentation of findings 47
Appendix 2: tabular report 49
3

Foreword
It gives me great pleasure to write the foreword for this
report.
I recall the many barriers we experienced when the Chinese
Welfare Association (CWA) lobbied for the first ever sheltered
housing scheme for a minority ethnic community some ten
years ago. It was so different this time, which I believe reflects
the growing diversity in Northern Ireland.
I wish to commend the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) for its swift
and positive response to the request from the Chinese community in Derry/
Londonderry to establish a scheme for supported housing by conducting
this needs assessment. The partnership between the NIHE and the CWA, I
hope, was enriching for both organisations. The fact that four local bilingual
interviewers were trained and supported by the NIHE over the whole process
of the research ensures that skills developed within the community will
continue to benefit the community after the research is completed.
The findings clearly demonstrated a demand for supported accommodation
and I have no doubt that this scheme will be as successful as the one built in
Belfast to benefit many older Chinese people and their families.
Anna Lo, MBE, MLA
4

1. Background to the Research
1.1 Introduction
The Chinese community is the largest settled minority ethnic group in
Northern Ireland (approximately 8,000 people) 1 . Since the early 1960s,
Chinese people have been settling in Northern Ireland, mostly from Hong
Kong, but in recent years there have been significant numbers of new
immigrants from mainland China, including documented workers, students,
asylum seekers and illegal immigrants.
In Derry/Londonderry and surrounding areas, there are 32 registered Chinese
restaurants and takeaways. It is estimated that there are more than 1,000
Chinese people living in the North West of the province.
The settled Chinese population is into its second or even third generation.
They have been born and brought up in Northern Ireland, are generally well
integrated and work outside the Chinese community in different types of
employment.
The Chinese community has made significant economic and cultural
contributions to Northern Ireland. However, the majority of first generation
Chinese people (approximately 85%) do not speak English and consequently
have difficulty accessing public information and services. The language
difficulties also prevent many from integrating into the wider community,
which can lead to social isolation. Some 95% of first generation Chinese
people are engaged in the Chinese catering trade, working long and
unsociable hours. Racism is also a problem experienced by many
Chinese people.
1
www.cwa-ni.org
5

1.2 The Chinese Welfare Association (CWA)
The CWA, established in 1986, is the main support and representation
organisation for the Chinese community in Northern Ireland. Its legal
structure is that of a company limited by guarantee with charitable status.
The CWA's mission statement is:
'The Chinese Welfare Association will work to enhance diversity and good
relations in Northern Ireland and to develop the participation of Chinese
people in all aspects of social, cultural, economic and public life.'
The CWA runs a range of projects in Belfast: dealing with community
development, community relations, services for older people, youth clubs,
after-school clubs, interpreting and translation services, welfare and
immigration advice, health advocacy, information and communication
technology (ICT) training and English for speakers of other languages
(ESOL) teaching.
Since January 2000, the CWA has been running the Sai Pak Chinese
Community Project in Derry/Londonderry, promoting community capacity
building and community relations as well as providing interpreting and
advocacy services for Chinese people.
1.3 Rationale
Many first generation Chinese who came here in the 1960s have reached or
are nearing retirement age. Some of them also brought their parents from
Hong Kong to live with them in Northern Ireland. Due to language difficulties,
many older Chinese people have experienced problems with moving into
local supported housing schemes. There are several supported housing
6

schemes in England and Wales for older Chinese people and in the 1990s a
number of Chinese people left Northern Ireland to avail of these facilities. The
CWA consequently carried out two pieces of research (1995, 1997), to identify
the housing needs of older Chinese people in greater Belfast, and lobbied
the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE). BIH Housing Association
subsequently built a 41-unit sheltered housing scheme, Hong Ling Gardens,
in McAuley Street in South Belfast.
Hong Ling Gardens has been a success, with almost full occupancy within
the first year. Recently the Sai Pak Project received enquiries from Chinese
residents in Derry/Londonderry about the possibility of a similar scheme in
the North West and CWA approached NIHE in respect of the local interest for
supported accommodation. Subsequently, this study was co-funded by the
Northern Ireland Housing Executive and Western Investing for Health.
1.4 Research Objectives
The main aim of the survey was to conduct a housing needs assessment
of older Chinese people in the Greater Derry/Londonderry area. Findings
will determine the housing, health and support needs of the older Chinese
population and any social issues to be tackled. The survey will also provide
a socio-economic profile and inform future planning of supported
accommodation for older Chinese people in the Derry/Londonderry area.
1.5 Methodology
In June 2006, following a selection procedure carried out in conjunction with
NIHE, the CWA appointed four trained bilingual interviewers to undertake the
fieldwork for the Older Chinese People Housing Needs Assessment.
7

BIH PIC
Hong Ling Gardens, South Belfast.
8

Due to the nature of the survey, the Research Unit decided that face-toface
interviews were required to maximise the response rate. In view of the
significance of the project, it was felt that the involvement of people with
links to the Chinese Community in Derry/Londonderry was essential to
enable access to and participation from this community.
The questionnaire design, analysis and report writing were the responsibility
of the Housing Executive's Research Unit. The content of the questionnaire
was agreed in consultation with the Chinese Welfare Association and Western
Investing for Health. The bilingual interviewers carried out face-to-face
structured interviews between July and September 2006.
The CWA's Sai Pak Project used its current database of membership to
identify households for interview; in addition the Research Unit used a
'snowball 2 ' sampling technique to extend the CWA's known database.
1.6 Response Rate
In total, 100 Chinese households were identified. The interviewers
subsequently carried out 91 face-to-face interviews in the North West.
Of the 91 households surveyed, 34 included an older Chinese person
(aged 50 or older).
As a general rule, if an interview had not been achieved on the first visit to
an address, the fieldworker made at least three further attempts to interview
the household. These visits were made at varying times of the day and also
in the evenings. If, at the end of the fieldwork period, the fieldworker had
been unable to contact a household member, the address was recorded as a
non-contact. The research team was unable to contact only five households
in total and four households refused to take part in the survey.
2
Snowball sampling involves identifying respondents who are then asked to refer researchers to other respondents.
9

10
The Chinese community
has made significant
economic and cultural
contributions to
Northern Ireland.

2. Executive Summary
2.1 Profile of Household/Household Reference Person (HRP) 3 :
• The overwhelming majority (82%) of HRPs were male.
• Almost two-fifths (35; 39%) of HRPs were aged between 25 and 39 and
more than one-third (34; 37%) were aged 50 or older.
• Three-quarters (75%) of all HRPs were married.
• The most common household types 4 were small family (25%) and large
adult (22%).
• More than one-third (37%) of HRPs were working full-time and 36% were
self-employed.
• Most households (79%) contained one family unit.
• More than one-third (92; 34%) of household members were aged
between 25 and 39 and almost one-fifth (47; 18%) were aged 50 or older.
• The majority (78%) of HRPs had been born in Hong Kong or China.
• More than two-fifths (41%) of HRPs were educated to secondary level and
more than one-third (34%) to primary level.
• Almost half (47%) of HRPs spoke only a little English and one-third (33%)
spoke English well.
• More than one-third (34%) of HRPs could not read or write any English;
the same proportion could read and write only a little English.
• Seven per cent had a health problem/disability limiting day-to-day
activities.
3
See Appendix 1 for the definition of the term Household Reference Person.
4
See Appendix 2 (Table 11) for the definition of household types.
11

2.2 Current Accommodation
• Half (50%) of respondents were owner-occupiers and almost one-quarter
(24%) were private renters.
• Almost three-quarters (74%) of respondents lived in houses.
• Most respondents (71%) were very satisfied/satisfied with their current
accommodation.
2.3 Community Safety
• Almost all respondents felt safe in their own home (99%) and walking
around the area (97%) during the day.
• In terms of crime that had occurred in the previous 12 months, 14% of
respondents said their property had been vandalised and 11% said their
car had been vandalised.
2.4 Older Respondents (50+) - 34 respondents
• Around two-fifths of older respondents (14) said they were in receipt of
benefits. The main benefit received was Income Support (5 people).
• Almost two-thirds of older respondents (22) said that they knew only a
few people in their neighbourhood.
• Half of older respondents (17) thought neighbours looked out for each
other.
• The majority of older respondents (28) attended activities organised by
Sai Pak.
13

• The majority of older respondents (up to 27) used their own car for dayto-day
activities.
• More than half of older respondents (20) said that they need help with
interpretation or translation.
• The majority of older respondents (25) said that they would ask family for
help with day-to-day activities if they needed it.
• Almost two-thirds of older respondents (21) said they would ask Sai Pak
and over half (19) would ask friends for help with day-to-day activities if
they needed it.
• Almost three-quarters of older respondents (24) said they would like
assistance in obtaining information or advice about services for older
people.
• Twenty-three older respondents said they would like assistance with
home safety and security measures; the same number said they would
like help with interpretation and translation.
• The overwhelming majority of older respondents (32 out of 34) felt that
home security was an important factor which might influence where
they live in the future.
• More than one-third of older respondents (13) expected to remain in
their current accommodation for one year or more but less than five
years.
14

• Half of older respondents (17) saw themselves moving into supported
accommodation in the future ; the same number (17) stated that it would
be their preference to do so.
• Around three-quarters of older respondents (26) said they would prefer
to live in a bungalow.
• Almost three-quarters of older respondents (25) said that if a supported
accommodation scheme for older Chinese people was available in the
Derry/Londonderry city area they would consider living there.
15

16
The majority (78%) of
HRPs had been born
in Hong Kong or China

3. Household Profile
Household Reference Persons (HRPs)
3.1 Gender and Age of HRP
More than four-fifths of HRPs (75; 82%) were male and 16 (18%) were female
(Table 1).
Almost two-fifths (35; 39%) of HRPs were aged between 25 and 39; 34 (37%)
were aged 50+ and 21 (23%) were aged between 40 and 49. Small numbers
of HRPs were aged between 16 and 24 (

3.2 Employment Status of HRP
More than one-third (34; 37%) of HRPs were working full-time and 33 (36%)
were self-employed. Ten HRPs (11%) were retired and nine (10%) were
working part-time. Fewer HRPs were looking after family/home (

3.6 Competency of HRPs in English
Almost half of HRPs (43; 47%) spoke only a little English, one-third (30; 33%)
spoke English well and 18 (20%) spoke no English (Table 7).
More than one-third (31; 34%) of HRPs could not read or write any English;
the same proportion (31; 34%) could read and write only a little English. The
remainder (29; 32%) could read and write English well (Table 8).
3.7 HRPs with health problem/disability
Very few HRPs reported a health problem which limits day-to-day activities (5;
6%) or a disability which limits day-to-day activities (

Small family represented the largest household type (23; 25%), followed by
large adult (20; 22%) and two adult (17; 19%). Equal proportions (13; 14%)
were large family and lone adult households. Fewer households were lone
older (

3.10 Family Unit
A family unit cannot span more than two consecutive generations (e.g. a
young mother with child [family unit 2], living with her parents [family unit
1]). Ninety-one households took part in the survey, and findings show that
more than three-quarters of households (72; 79%) contained one family
unit and almost one-quarter (19; 21%) contained more than one family unit
(Table 12).
3.11 Age of household members
All respondents were asked how many people lived in their household and
the age of each member. In total, respondents provided information on age
for 268 household members. More than one-third (92; 34%) of household
members were aged between 25 and 39 and 47 (18%) were aged 50 or older.
More than one-tenth (42; 16%) of household members were aged between
40 and 49, 39 (15%) were aged between six and fifteen and 36 (13%) were
aged between 16 and 24. Fewer household members were aged five or
younger (12; 4%) (Figure 3: Table 13).
21

Figure 3: Age of Household Members
22

24
Almost three-quarters
of respondents (71%)
were satisfied with their current
accommodation.

4.0 Current Accommodation
4.1 Tenure
Half of respondents (45; 50%) were owner-occupiers and almost onequarter
(22; 24%) were private renters. Fifteen respondents (17%) lived in
tied accommodation provided by their employer and six (7%) were Housing
Executive tenants.
The remaining respondents (

4.2 Dwelling Type
Almost three-quarters (67; 74%) of respondents lived in houses and 15 (17%)
lived in flats/apartments; fewer respondents (9; 10%) lived in bungalows
(Table 15).
Equal proportions of respondents (30; 33%) lived in detached and mid-terrace
properties. The remainder lived in flats/apartments (15; 17%), semi-detached
(11; 12%) and end terrace properties (5; 6%) (Table 16).
Most properties (76; 84%) had three bedrooms or more, 14 (15%) had two
bedrooms and a small number (

28
Around one in three
respondents (29%) had
experienced at least
one crime.

5. Community Safety
5.1 The majority of respondents reported that they felt safe:
• at home during the day (90; 99%);
• walking around the area during the day (88; 97%);
• at home after dark (84; 92%); and
• walking around the area after dark (80; 88%) (Table 20).
5.2 Crime
Respondents were asked if they, or other members of their household,
had experienced specific crimes during the previous 12 months. Some
respondents had experienced vandalism to property (13; 14%), vandalism to
car (10; 11%), burglary (8; 9%) and racial harassment (5; 6%). Smaller numbers
of respondents had received verbal threats (

30
Half of older respondents
(17) saw themselves moving into
supported accommodation in
the future.

6. Older Respondents (50+)
6.1 Introduction
Of the 91 households that participated in the survey, more than one-third
(34; 37%) included a member aged 50 or older. The analysis in this chapter is
based on these 34 households.
The questionnaire included a section to be completed by either the
household member who was aged 50 or older, or by another responsible
member of the household who could speak on behalf of that person. For ease
of reporting, and to avoid unnecessary over-complication of the text, the 34
respondents are described as 'older respondents' throughout this chapter.
6.2 Benefits received by older respondents
There has always been a low uptake of benefits by the Chinese community
who, in general, are either unaware of their entitlements or unwilling to
access welfare benefits 5 . Findings from the survey show that, of the 34
older respondents, around two-fifths (14) were receiving benefits. The main
benefit received by older respondents was Income Support (5 people).
Few respondents (

their GP or consultant and a small number (

6.6 Transport
Respondents were asked to state the mode of transport they used for a
number of activities. Twenty-six older respondents used their own car to go
shopping and 21 used public transport. Eighteen respondents were collected
by a friend or relative to go shopping and the same number also walked.
Seventeen respondents used a taxi when they needed to go shopping and
fewer respondents (

The majority of older respondents (25 out of 34) used their own car for
socialising and visiting. Eighteen respondents used public transport and
the same number were collected by a friend or relative. Fifteen respondents
used a taxi for socialising and visiting and the same number walked. Fewer
older respondents (

Most older respondents (29) said they had never experienced any lack
of opportunity for regular health check-ups; five older respondents had
experienced problems occasionally in accessing regular health check-ups
(Table 28).
Almost three-quarters of older respondents (25) said they had never
experienced any lack of activities for older members of the household
who felt isolated and bored; five respondents had experienced problems
occasionally and a small number (

In order to live safely and comfortably in their home, almost three-quarters of
older respondents (24) said they would like assistance obtaining information
or advice about services for older people. Equal numbers of respondents
(23) said they would like assistance with home safety/security measures and
help with translation/interpretation. Almost two-thirds of respondents (22)
would like assistance filling in forms, 17 respondents would like help with
decorating, 14 respondents would like assistance with welfare adaptations
and 14 with gardening. More than one-third of respondents (13) stated they
would like help with housework (Table 33).
6.8 Future housing needs
Older respondents were asked to consider how important a number
of factors would be in influencing where they live in the future. The
overwhelming majority (32 out of 34 respondents) felt home security was
important and over four-fifths (28 respondents) felt it was important to be
close to family. Twenty-seven older respondents felt it was important to
have easy access to health services and more than two-thirds (23) felt it was
important to have their own place. Almost two-thirds of respondents (22)
felt it was important to have easy access to Sai Pak and the same number
felt it was important to have easy access to shops. More than half of older
respondents (20) felt it was important to be close to friends and the same
number felt it was important to have easy access to recreational facilities.
Half of older respondents (17) felt it was important to get help with
housework (Table 34).
36

More than one-third of older respondents (13) expected to remain in their
current accommodation for one to five years, 11 respondents for the rest
of their lives and five respondents expected to remain in their current
accommodation for five to 10 years. Fewer respondents (

38
Almost three-quarters of older respondents (25) said if a supported
accommodation scheme for older Chinese people was available in the Derry/
Londonderry city area they would consider living there. All older respondents
who lived outside Derry/Londonderry (six respondents) said that they would
be prepared to move there to live in a supported accommodation scheme for
older Chinese people (Tables 39 and 40).

40
Recommendation:
A supported housing
scheme for older Chinese
people should be included
in the Social Housing
Development Programme
as soon as possible.

7. Conclusions and Recommendations
7.1 The research confirms that there is already sufficient interest in and
support for a supported accommodation scheme for older Chinese
people in Derry/Londonderry City. Findings show the following:
• Half of older respondents (17) saw themselves moving into supported
accommodation in the future; the same number (17) stated that it would
be their preference to do so.
• Almost three-quarters of older respondents (25) said that, if a supported
accommodation scheme for older Chinese people was available in the
Derry/Londonderry City area, they would consider living there.
7.2 On the basis of these key findings in particular, the Steering Group for
the research project agreed the following recommendations:
• To undertake a follow-up survey of the 25 respondents who expressed
an interest in the proposed scheme, with a view to identifying more
clearly their housing requirements and putting them on the waiting list
for social housing.
• A supported housing scheme for older Chinese people should be
included in the Social Housing Development Programme as soon as
possible.
• The proposed scheme should comprise 16-20 dwellings, with the details
of scheme design to be agreed at a later date.
• A suitable site for the proposed scheme in the Waterside should be
identified, perhaps as part of the Ebrington Barracks complex.
41

• A champion to proactively guide the scheme through economic
appraisal stage should be agreed as soon as possible.
• A visit for interested respondents to the existing scheme in Hong Ling
Gardens, Belfast, and other schemes for older people to enable potential
residents to become aware of the appropriateness of such a scheme.
• To undertake a satisfaction survey of tenants currently living in Hong
Ling Gardens. The findings would provide guidance on the most
successful aspects of the scheme and those where improvement might
be needed, which could be applied to other future developments.
In addition, some qualitative research should be carried out with
community leaders and, for example, local shop staff.
42

44
The majority of
respondents (79%)
resided in the Derry/
Londonderry area.

8. Location of Respondents
8.1 The following map outlines the location of respondents by property type.
The majority of respondents (72:79%) resided in the Derry/Londonderry
area, 11% (10 respondents) resided in the Limavady area, 5%
(5 respondents) resided in Enniskillen, Omagh, Portrush or Strabane
and 4% (

46
Appendices

Appendix 1: Presentation of Findings
For data protection purposes it is the policy of the Research Unit that if
less than five people respond in a particular way to any given question, the
exact number is not reported, as it may be possible to identify individuals.
Therefore, regardless of the size of the sample or sub-sample, if the number of
responses is less than five, this is indicated throughout the report, in both the
textual and tabular analyses, by the sign '

The HRP is the household member who:
1) owns the dwelling/accommodation, or
2) is legally responsible for the rent of the dwelling/accommodation, or
3) is living in the dwelling/accommodation as an emolument or perquisite,
or
4) is living in the dwelling/accommodation by virtue of some relationship to
the owner or lessee, who is not a member of the household.
In the case of a joint tenancy or joint ownership of a dwelling, the person with
the higher annual income is the HRP. If both people have the same income,
the older of the two is the HRP.
48

Appendix 2: Tabular Report
(Note: Due to rounding some tables may not add to 100%. Also, where the number of
responses has been less than five, the actual figure has been omitted and these are
shown as

Table 3:
Employment status (Household Reference Person)
Number
Percentage
Working full-time 34 37
Self-employed 33 36
Retired (excludes looking after home) 10 11
Other (including looking after family/home, not
working long term, student - further/higher education)
Working part-time 9 10
5 5
Total 91 100
Base: 91 respondents
N.B. Due to rounding, percentages do not add to 100
Table 4:
Marital Status (Household Reference Person)
Number
Percentage
Married (first marriage) 68 75
Single (never married) 16 18
Other (including divorced/widowed
but not legally re-married)
7 7
Total 91 100
Base: 91 respondents
50

Table 5:
Country of Origin (Household Reference Person)
Number Percentage
Hong Kong 44 48
China 27 30
UK/Ireland 13 14
Malaysia 7 8
Total 91 100
Base: 91 respondents
Table 6:
Level of Education (Household Reference Person)
Number Percentage
No/low level education 6 7
Primary level 31 34
Secondary level 37 41
A level 8 9
Degree level 5 6
Postgraduate level

Table 7: Competency in Spoken English (Household Reference Person)
Number Percentage
Speaks no English 18 20
Speaks only a little English 43 47
Speaks English well 30 33
Total 91 100
Base: 91 respondents
Table 8:
Competency in Reading and Writing English
(Household Reference Person)
Number Percentage
Can't read or write any English 31 34
Can read and write a little English 31 34
Can read and write English well 29 32
Total 91 100
Base: 91 respondents
52

Table 9:
HRPs with health problem/disability
Number Percentage
Yes, has a health problem which limits activities 5 6
Yes, has a disability which limits activities

Table 11:
Household Types
Definition of Household Types: Number %
Small Family
Large Adult
Two Adult
Large Family
Lone Adult
Lone Older
Lone Parent
Two Older
Two adults, related or unrelated living with 1 or
2 dependent children under 16 years of age
Three or more adults, related or unrelated, with
or without one dependent child under 16 years
of age
Two adults, related or unrelated, below
pensionable age
Two adults, related or unrelated, living with
three or more dependent children under 16
years of age OR three or more adults, related or
unrelated, living with two or more dependent
children under 16 years of age
One person below pensionable age - 65 years
for men, 60 years for women
Lone person of pensionable age - 65 years or
older for men, 60 years older for women
One adult living with one dependent child or
more, under 16 years of age
Two people, related or unrelated, at least one
of whom is of pensionable age
23 25
20 22
17 19
13 14
13 14

Table 12:
Family Units 6 per Household
Number Percentage
One Family Unit 72 79
Concealed Family Unit 19 21
Total 91 100
Base: 91 respondents
Table 13:
Age of household members
Number Percentage
5 or younger 12 4
6 - 15 years old 39 15
16 - 24 years old 36 13
25 - 39 years old 92 34
40 - 49 years old 42 16
50 or older 47 18
Total 268 100
Base: 268 household members resident in 91households
6
A family unit cannot span more than two consecutive generations (e.g mother with child [family unit 2] living with parents [family unit 1]).
55

Table 14:
Tenure
Number
Percentage
Owner Occupier 45 50
Rent privately 22 24
Tied Accommodation (provided by employer) 15 17
Rent from Housing Executive 6 7
Other (including purchased through co-ownership
or living in a residential home)

Table 16:
Property Type
Number
Percentage
Detached 30 33
Mid-terrace 30 33
Flat/Apartment 15 17
Semi-detached 11 12
End terrace 5 6
Total 91 100
Base: 91 respondents
N.B. Due to rounding, percentages do not add to 100%
Table 17:
Number of bedrooms
Number Percentage
One bedroom

Table 18:
Overall satisfaction with current accommodation
Number Percentage
Very satisfied 12 13
Satisfied 53 58
Neither 15 17
Dissatisfied 10 11
Very dissatisfied - -
No response

Table 20:
Community Safety
Yes
No
Number % Number %
Feel safe in own home during the day 90 99 1 1
Feel safe walking around this
neighbourhood during the day
88 97 3 3
Feel safe in own home after dark 84 92 7 8
Feel safe walking around this
neighbourhood after dark
80 88 11 12
Base: 91 respondents
59

Table 21:
Household members who have experienced
crime within the last 12 months
Vandalism to
property*
Yes No Total Reported
to police
Number % Number % Number % Number
13 14 77 86 90 100

Older Respondents (50+)
NB: Of the 91 households represented in the survey, more than one-third (34; 37%)
included a member aged 50 or older. Section B of the questionnaire contained
questions applicable only to these 34 households and was completed by either the
household member who was aged 50 or older, or by another responsible member
of the household who could speak on behalf of that person. Responses of this subgroup
to the questions in Section B are detailed in Tables 22 to 40.
Table 22:
Benefits received by Older Household Members
Number
Income Support 5
A Disability Benefit

Table 23:
Do you suffer from any of the following impairments?
(If Yes...) What type of treatment are you currently receiving?
Total who
suffer from this
ailment
Receiving
treatment from
GP/Consultant
Alternative/
complementary
treatment
Impairments Number Number Number
Osteoporosis
(brittle bones)

Table 25:
Table 26:
Would you say that your neighbours 'look out' for one another?
Number
Yes 17
No 9
Don't know 8
Total 34
Base: 34 respondents
What social/community activities/clubs
do you take part in/attend?
Number
Activities organised by Sai Pak 28
English classes 8
Classes 7
Local church 5
None 5
Older people's group

Table 27:
What mode of transport do you or older members
of the household normally use for the following activities?
Mode of
transport
Shopping
Activity
GP/
Health
Services
Religious
Events
Recreation
& Leisure
Socialising/
Visiting
Number Number Number Number Number
Walk 18 16 5 17 15
Public transport 21 15 5 14 18
Community
transport

Table 28:
Work or other
commitments
can mean older
members are left on
their own
Cannot cope with
older members'
disabilities or illness
Older and other
members do not get
along
No opportunity
for regular health
check-up for older
members
No activities for
older members who
feel isolated and
bored
Have you or your household experienced
any of the following....?
Never Occasionally Frequently Often Always
Number Number Number Number Number
30

Table 29:
Do you or any older members need help
with any of the following....?
Yes
Number
No
Number
Interpretation or translation 20 14
Washing/bathing

Table 30:
Do you or any older members receive any outside
help with any of the activities listed above?
Number
Yes 22
No 12
Total 34
Base: 34 respondents
Table 31:
What are the sources of this outside help?
Yes
No
Number Number
CWA Sai Pak 20 2
Family 19 3
Friends 18 4
Neighbours 5 17
Home help

Table 32:
If you or any older members needed help,
who would you ask?
Yes
No
Number Number
Family 25 9
CWA Sai Pak 21 13
Friends 19 15
Wouldn't ask anyone

Table 33:
What sort of services would you or any older members
like assistance with to live comfortably in the home?
Obtaining information/advice
about services for older
people
Home safety and security
measures
Help with translation/
interpretation
Yes
Number
No
Number
24 10
23 11
23 11
Filling in forms 22 12
Help with decorating 17 17
Help with gardening 14 20
Welfare adaptations 14 20
Help with housework 13 21
Base: 34 respondents
69

Table 34:
How important do you consider the following
factors which might influence where you
or older members live in the future?
Important
Not very
important
Not
important
at all
Number Number Number
Home security 32 2 -
Being close to family 28 5

Table 35:
How long do you or other members of your household
expect to remain in your current accommodation?
Number
Less than 1 year -
1 year or more but less than 5 13
5 years or more but less than 10 5
10 years or more but less than 15

Table 37:
What type of accommodation arrangement
would you prefer?
Number
Move into supported accommodation 17
To remain in own home with external
support
To remain in own home - no support 5
Move in with family 5
6
No response

Table 39:
If a supported accommodation scheme for older
Chinese people was available in the Derry/
Londonderry City area would you consider living there?
Number
Yes 25
No 9
Total 34
Base: 34 respondents
Table 40:
(If you live outside Derry/Londonderry) would you
be prepared to move there to live in a supported
accommodation scheme for older Chinese people?
Number
Yes 6
N/A (lives in Derry/Londonderry) 28
Total 34
Base: 34 respondents
73

www.nihe.gov.uk
November 2007
CS/212/07/07