UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Housing British Columbia's small town elderly Guilbault, Lynn Marie 1989

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1989_A8_2 G84.pdf [ 6.01MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097972.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097972-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097972-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097972-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097972-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097972-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097972-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097972-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097972.ris

Full Text

HOUSING BRITISH COLUMBIA'S SMALL TOWN ELDERLY by LYNN MARIE GUILBAULT B.A., The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1986 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES School of Community and Regional Planning We accept th i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, 1989 ©Lynn Marie Guilbault, 1989 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. > Community and Region a l P l a n n i n g Department of — — The University of British Columbia Vancouver Canada Date October 13, 1989 -6 (2/88) ABSTRACT B r i t i s h Columbia's population i s aging. The percentage of people who are 65 years of age or older in t h i s province has increased from 10.9 percent in 1981 to 12.1 percent in 1986. By the year 2001, i t i s predicted that a f u l l 13.5 percent of B.C.'s population w i l l be 65 or over. An increasing number of these senior c i t i z e n s are choosing to l i v e in small towns (those with less than 10,000 population). A review of the l i t e r a t u r e reveals that l i t t l e i s known about the e l d e r l y in small towns, p a r t i c u l a r l y about the range of housing choices available to them. The purpose of t h i s research i s to determine the nature and extent of housing needs of the independent small town el d e r l y in B r i t i s h Columbia. The main source of information about the small town e l d e r l y , their housing, and their perception of conditions was through a survey of the seniors themselves that was conducted in 16 small towns in B.C.. The results of t h i s study reveal that housing a f f e c t s the 'environmental s a t i s f a c t i o n ' of the e l d e r l y and t h i s i s re f l e c t e d in th e i r a b i l i t y to cope with day to day l i v i n g , t h e i r own perception of health, and th e i r plans to move. The respondents in the survey who express the most d i s a t i s f a c t i o n with their housing conditions are those who l i v e in single family dwellings and mobile homes, those with low incomes, women, and those over 85 years of age. The single family detached house comprises the majority of the small town housing stock. While small towns vary in the range of housing choices available to seniors, choices tend to increase with the size of i i i the town. A review of current housing programs available in B.C. indicate that existing programs generally address urban housing needs, having l i t t l e impact on B.C.'s small towns. Future projections urge planners to work towards meeting the housing needs of a growing small town senior population in B.C. Recommendations to address present and future small town housing needs of the el d e r l y include: 1 . Expand the stock of senior's rental units geared to income. 2. Expand the private rental stock. 3 . Expand home support services to allow seniors to remain l i v i n g independently in th e i r own homes longer. 4. Involve the community in developing community goals for seniors. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT iv LIST OF TABLES v i i LIST OF FIGURES ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS X 1. HOUSING B.C.'S SMALL TOWN ELDERLY: AN INTRODUCTION ....1 1.1. THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE TOPIC 1 1.2. THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY 2 1.3. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS TOPIC 2 1.4. THE ORGANIZATION OF THIS STUDY 4 2. WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THE ELDERLY IN RURAL ENVIRONMENTS: A REVIEW 6 2.1. INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE 6 2.2. RESEARCH PROBLEMS IN RURAL HOUSING 7 2.2.1. Lack Of Information 7 2.2.2. Methodological Problems 8 2.2.2.1. Representation And Consistancy 8 2.2.2.2. Di v e r s i t y And D e f i n i t i o n Problems 9 2.2.2.3. Measurement Problems 10 2.3. THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE SMALL TOWN ELDERLY 14 2.3.1. Urban-Rural Differences 14 2.3.2. Aging In Rural Environments 15 2.4. THE SENIORS IN SMALL TOWNS 16 2.4.1. Seniors And The Rest Of Society 17 2.4.2. Differences Between The Seniors Themselves ....19 2.4.3. Differences Between Urban And Rural E l d e r l y ...20 2.5. HOUSING AND RELATED SERVICES 21 2 .5 .1 . Housing Choices 22 2 .5 .2 . Design Guidel ines 23 2 .5 .3 . Home Support Services 24 2.6. CONCLUSION 27 3. A METHOD TO EXAMINE SMALL TOWN ELDERLY 1S HOUSING 29 3 .1 . THE APPROACH OF THIS STUDY 29 3.2. THE LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 31 3.3. THE PROCEDURE 31 3 .3 .1 . Small Town Select ion 31 3 .3 .2 . The Se lect ion Of Seniors 34 3 .3 .3 . The Content Of The Questionnaires 35 3 .3 .4 . Subject Recruitment 37 3 .3 .5 . The Plan For Analys i s 37 4. SENIORS HOUSING IN SMALL TOWNS: RESULTS FROM THE STUDY .39 4 .1 . A PROFILE OF SENIORS IN B . C . ' S SMALL TOWNS 39 4 .1 .1 . Socio-demographic And Housing C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Respondents 39 4 .1 .2 . How Are These Respondents Housed? 44 4 .1 .3 . How Are Home Support Services U t i l i z e d ? 47 4 .1 .4 . Seniors' Housing Performance 49 4 .1 .4 .1 . Crowding/Affordabi l i ty /Adequacy 50 4 .1 .4 .2 . 'Environmental S a t i s f a c t i o n ' 53 4 .1 .5 . Summary 60 4.2. A PROFILE OF SMALL TOWNS IN B.C 61 4 .2 .1 . Small Town Rental Housing Stock 62 4 .2 .2 . Small Town Services And F a c i l i t i e s 65 4 .2 .3 . Why Live In A Small Town? 73 v i 4.3. CONCLUSIONS 78 V 5. PRESENT HOUSING PROGRAMS AND FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS 81 5.1. HOUSING PROGRAM REVIEW 81 5 .1 .1 . Rental Programs 82 5 .1 .1 .1 . Soc ia l Housing 82 5 .1 .1 .2 . Subsidies And Low Interest Loans 85 5 .1 .1 .3 . Rent Supplements 86 5 .1 .1 .4 . Homesharing 86 5 .1 .1 .5 . I n s t i t u t i o n a l Programs 87 5 .1 .2 . Home Ownership Programs 87 5 .1 .2 .1 . Home Improvement Grants 88 5 .1 .2 .2 . Mortgage Supplements 88 5 .1 .2 .3 . Homeowners Grant 89 5 .1 .2 .4 . Home Conversion Loans 89 5 .1 .2 . A Summary Of E x i s t i n g Housing Programs 89 5.2. THE FUTURE FOR SMALL TOWN SENIORS IN B.C 91 5 .2 .1 . Non-Prof i t Seniors' Housing Needs Indicator . . . 9 5 5 .2 .2 . Pr ivate Rental Apartment Needs Indicator 97 5 .2 .3 . Home Support Service Needs Indicator 99 6. TOWARDS INCREASED SENIORS' INDEPENDENCE IN SMALL TOWNS 102 6.1. INCREASE THE RANGE AND AMOUNT OF HOUSING 102 6 .1 .1 . The Role Of The Publ ic Sector 102 6 .1 .2 . The Role Of The Pr ivate Sector 106 6 .1 .3 . The Role Of The Community 107 6.2. PROVIDE ADEQUATE HOME SUPPORT SERVICES 109 6.3. CONCLUSION 111 BIBLIOGRAPHY 114 LIST OF TABLES TABLE I: SAMPLING FRAME FOR 16 SMALL TOWNS IN B.C 33 TABLE II : A PROFILE OF SENIOR RESPONDENTS FROM 16 SMALL TOWNS IN B . C . : 1 987 42 TABLE I I I : AUTOMOBILE ACCESSIBILITY OF SENIOR RESPONDENTS IN 16 SMALL TOWNS IN B . C . , 1987 48 TABLE IV: AMOUNT OF INCOME SPENT ON HOUSING IN 16 SMALL TOWNS IN B . C . , 1987 52 TABLE V - A : SELF REPORTED DIFFICULTIES COPING INSIDE THE HOME BY HOUSING TYPE 55 TABLE V - B : SELF REPORTED DIFFICULTIES COPING OUTSIDE THE HOME BY HOUSING TYPE 55 TABLE V I : PERCEPTION OF HEALTH COMPARED WITH HELP RECEIVED BY SENIOR RESPONDENTS IN 16 SMALL TOWNS IN B . C . , 1 987 58 TABLE V I I : EXISTING RENTAL HOUSING STOCK IN 16 SMALL TOWNS IN B.C 63 TABLE V I I I : EXISTING SUPPORT SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN 16 SMALL TOWNS IN B . C . , 1987 66 TABLE IX: POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF SMALL TOWN LIVING AS EXPRESSED BY SENIOR RESPONDENTS IN SMALL TOWNS IN B.C 74 TABLE X: PURPOSE OF MOVING TO THE PRESENT TOWN AS EXPRESSED BY SENIOR RESPONDENTS IN 16 SMALL TOWNS IN B . C . , 1987 76 TABLE XI: SENIOR POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR 16 SMALL TOWNS IN B . C . ,1987 93 v i i i TABLE XII : POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR 16 SMALL TOWNS IN B . C . , 1987 94 TABLE XIII : SENIOR HOUSING UNITS REQUIRED NOW AND IN 1991 AND 2001 FOR B . C . ' S SMALL TOWN ELDERLY SENIORS BASED ON A NEEDS INDICATOR 96 TABLE XIV: PRIVATE APARTMENT UNITS REQUIRED NOW AND IN 1991 AND 2001 FOR B . C . ' S SMALL TOWN SENIORS BASED ON A NEEDS INDICATOR 98 TABLE XV: SENIORS REQUIRING SUPPORT SERVICES NOW AND IN 1991 AND 2001 FOR B . C . ' S SMALL TOWN SENIORS BASED ON A NEEDS INDICATOR 100 LIST OF FIGURES ix FIGURE 1: MAP OF 16 SMALL TOWNS SURVEYED IN B.C., 1987...32 FIGURE 2: A PROFILE OF THREE SENIORS 40 FIGURE 3A: A PROFILE OF HOUSING AND SERVICES IN KASLO 70 FIGURE 3B: A PROFILE OF HOUSING AND SERVICES IN MIDWAY 71 FIGURE 3C: A PROFILE OF HOUSING AND SERVICES IN COMOX 72 X ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e to acknowledge s e v e r a l people who have c o n t r i b u t e d to the development of t h i s t h e s i s . F i r s t l y , I would l i k e to thank my a d v i s o r s , Dr. Ge r a l d Hodge, Dr. G l o r i a Gutman and Dr. David Hulchanski f o r t h e i r a d v i c e and guidance. As w e l l , G e r a l d Hodge pr o v i d e d support and encouragement al o n g the way t h a t was very much a p p r e c i a t e d . I would a l s o l i k e to extend my g r a t i t u d e to a l l the s e n i o r s who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s study. F i n a l l y , I would l i k e to express a p p r e c i a t i o n to my f a m i l y , Jean and Ken G u i l b a u l t , K e i t h G u i l b a u l t , and Edna and Stan Rogerson, fo r the endless support f o r a l l the c h o i c e s I have made. Thank you very much. 1 1. HOUSING B.C.'S SMALL TOWN ELDERLY: AN INTRODUCTION 1.1. THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE TOPIC B r i t i s h Columbia's p o p u l a t i o n i s aging ( S t a t i s t i c s Canada 1986) By 2001, a f u l l 13.5 percent of the p o p u l a t i o n w i l l be 65 years of age or over (Gutman et a l ,1986a:1) which means that a d d i t i o n a l support s e r v i c e s and housing s u i t e d to the e l d e r l y ' s needs must be developed. T h i s impending need has been recognized by r e s e a r c h e r s and, as a consequence, the e l d e r l y and t h e i r housing have been s t u d i e d e x t e n s i v e l y . However, the m a j o r i t y of t h i s r e s e a r c h has been conducted w i t h i n l a r g e urban s e t t i n g s while a review of Canadian census data i n d i c a t e s that there i s an i n c e a s i n g number of s e n i o r s l i v i n g i n s m a l l e r communities ac r o s s Canada. In f a c t , the u r b a n - t o - r u r a l m i g r a t i o n of s e n i o r s now exceeds r u r a l - t o - u r b a n m i g r a t i o n . "More persons are moving to the country 'from the c i t y than the reverse and t h i s has been r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a l a r g e p o r t i o n of r u r a l growth..." ( S t a t i s t i c s Canada 1 984:10)-. Stone (1981 :36) p o i n t s out that "...not only are the small towns and r u r a l non-farm areas, f o r Canada as a whole, those with the h i g h e s t percentages of persons aged 65 and over, but they are a l s o the areas with the sharpest i n c r e a s e i n that percentage s i n c e 1961." Are small town environments a b l e to meet the needs of the e l d e r l y ? Are the needs of s e n i o r s the same i n s m a l l towns as they are i n l a r g e r urban c e n t r e s ? A review of the l i t e r a t u r e r e v e a l s t hat l i t t l e i s known about the e l d e r l y i n small communities, p a r t i c u l a r l y about the range of housing c h o i c e s 2 a v a i l a b l e to them. (Corbett 1986:2; Coward and Lee 1985:3; Krout 1986:1). It i s that gap in information that motivates th i s s tudy . 1 1.2. THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY It i s general ly assumed that the housing needs of the e l d e r l y are not e f f e c t i v e l y met in small towns because smaller concentrations of people cannot support a broad range of housing opt ions . As w e l l , housing needs of seniors in r u r a l areas may not be the same as those in urban se t t ings . This study tested these common assumptions by: * determining the re la t ionsh ips between the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the e l d e r l y and the housing they occupy and * providing an inventory of housing options presently ava i lab le in several small B . C . towns. 1.3. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS TOPIC The housing options of the e l d e r l y i s a pert inent topic to study due to the aging of our populat ion. The percentage of Canadians 65 or older has increased from 9.5 percent in 1981 to 10.9 percent in 1986 ( S t a t i s t i c s Canada 1981:cat#94-129 and 1986: cat#94-H9) . 1 This study is part of a larger project c a r r i e d out 1988 to 1989 at the Centre For Human Settlements, Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, under the d i r e c t i o n of Dr . Gerald Hodge. 3 B r i t i s h Columbia i s a p a r t i c u l a r l y important p r o v i n c e i n which to examine the t o p i c of the e l d e r l y because i t , along with O n t a r i o , i s e x p e r i e n c i n g the l a r g e s t i n - m i g r a t i o n of e l d e r l y ( M a r s h a l l 1981:15). B.C.'s p r o p o r t i o n of the e l d e r l y a l r e a d y exceeds that of the n a t i o n at 12.1% i n 1986 and has grown from 10.9% i n 1981. Wiseman (1979:34) argues that l o c a t i o n s p r e s e n t l y a t t r a c t i n g s e n i o r s w i l l continue do so i n the f u t u r e . Hodge (1988:14) makes the same p r e d i c t i o n f o r B.C.'s small towns, where, he f e e l s , w i l l c o ntinue to experience an i n f l u x of s e n i o r s . Small town environments are an important focus f o r t h i s study because of the i n c r e a s i n g number of s e n i o r s choosing to l i v e i n them. "In 1981, of the people l i v i n g i n c e n t r e s between 1,000 and 5,000 p o p u l a t i o n , one-seventh were over 65 on average. T h i s compares with one i n ten s e n i o r s i n l a r g e c i t i e s " (Hodge and Qadeer '1 983:14). Of the urban e l d e r l y m i g r a t i n g to r u r a l areas, most are moving to s m a l l towns. " A l l i n a l l , these data i n d i c a t e t h at s e n i o r c i t i z e n s are more i n c l i n e d to choose e i t h e r small towns or c i t i e s than open country s e t t i n g s i n which to spend t h e i r r e tirement y e a r s " (Hodge and Qadeer 1983:15). Small town environments are p a r t i c u l a r l y important to examine because l i t t l e i s known about the a b i l i t y of a small p o p u l a t i o n to provide f o r the needs of a growing s e n i o r p o p u l a t i o n . Housing has been i d e n t i f i e d as one of the top f i v e i s s u e s of concern to s e n i o r s i n Canada (One V o i c e 1988:1). Considered a r i g h t by some, housing i s one of the most d i f f i c u l t of the 4 b a s i c needs to a t t a i n , p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r those e l d e r l y who have lower incomes and more h e a l t h c o n s t r a i n t s . In 1968, The F e d e r a l Task Force On Housing and Urban Development r e p o r t e d t h a t , on i t s own, the p r i v a t e market was not capable of p r o v i d i n g housing f o r low and middle income households (P.15). Although housing has not o f f i c i a l l y been d e c l a r e d as a r i g h t , i t has been a g o a l of government s i n c e 1946 to ensure that everyone has access to s h e l t e r . "Adequate housing f o r the Canadian people i s one of the major tasks before us" (Rt.Hon.CD.Howe statement i n House of Commons, House of Commons Debates O f f i c i a l Report 1946:3753). Joseph and F u l l e r (1988) s t a t e that housing should not be examined i n i s o l a t i o n . "Thus, the h i g h e s t q u a l i t y d w e l l i n g or neighborhood may not be usable i f the i n d i v i d u a l cannot o b t a i n b a s i c l i f e s u p p o r t i n g s e r v i c e s " (Lawton and Hoover 1981:6). For t h i s reason, the r o l e of home support s e r v i c e s f o r the e l d e r l y w i l l a l s o be examined i n t h i s study. 1.4. THE ORGANIZATION OF THIS STUDY The study began with a l i t e r a t u r e review. The f i n d i n g s from the l i t e r a t u r e review are o u t l i n e d i n chapter 2. From the l i t e r a t u r e review, the approach and methodology are developed f o r t h i s study and d e s c r i b e d i n chapter 3. Chapter 4 p r e s e n t s the r e s u l t s of the study. The r e s u l t s are d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e s e c t i o n s : small town e l d e r l y ; t h e i r housing; and the environments of s m a l l towns. E x i s t i n g housing programs i n B r i t i s h Columbia are o u t l i n e d i n Chapter 5, along with f u t u r e p o p u l a t i o n and housing need 5 projections for B.C.'s small town e l d e r l y . F i n a l l y , the planning implications of the study's findings for housing B r i t i s h Columbia's small town eld e r l y conclude t h i s study in Chapter 6 . 6 2. WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THE ELDERLY IN RURAL ENVIRONMENTS: A REVIEW 2.1. INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE L i t t l e i s known about Canada's r u r a l e l d e r l y , much l e s s about t h e i r housing. To o b t a i n a more complete p i c t u r e , the e x i s t i n g Canadian l i t e r a t u r e i s supplemented with American sources. There are three reasons behind the lack of i n f o r m a t i o n about housing small town s e n i o r s . The f i r s t reason i s th a t the growth of an e l d e r l y p o p u l a t i o n i n small towns has only r e c e n t l y been r e c o g n i z e d (Coward and Lee 1985:5). The second reason i s an i m p l i c i t assumption by most r e s e a r c h e r s that the needs of r u r a l s e n i o r s are the same as those of urban s e n i o r s ( N o l l 1981:90;; ;-Krout 1986:8; C o r b e t t 1986:2) . T h i r d , most housing programs and p o l i c i e s are aimed at urban needs. T h i s study a n t i c i p a t e s t h a t there are some very r e a l d i f f e r e n c e s between Canada's urban and r u r a l environments that must be understood i f r u r a l s e n i o r s ' housing needs are t o be adequately addressed. In t h i s review, the problems encountered i n the study of r u r a l housing f o r the e l d e r l y w i l l be examined f i r s t . T h i s w i l l be f o l l o w e d by a review of r e s e a r c h about small town environments, the e l d e r l y , and t h e i r housing. 7 2.2. RESEARCH PROBLEMS IN RURAL HOUSING The immediate problems one encounters i n the study of housing f o r r u r a l s e n i o r s are that there i s very l i t t l e p u b l i s h e d r e s e a r c h , no e s t a b l i s h e d d e f i n i t i o n s or approaches, and no consensus f o r a s s e s s i n g performance standards. Each problem w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n d i v i d u a l l y . 2.2.1.Lack of Information In 1979, Coward and Lee observed that "the amount of r e s e a r c h about the r u r a l e l d e r l y was meager when compared to that a v a i l a b l e about the aged who r e s i d e i n urban s e t t i n g s (P.275)." Recent i n t e r e s t i n t h i s t o p i c and the high c o s t of conducting r e s e a r c h are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the small amount of e x i s t i n g l i t e r a t u r e . A l s o , r u r a l housing needs u s u a l l y have been c o n s i d e r e d the same as those of urban ( N o l l 1981 : 1,05.; Krout 1986:8). I t was not u n t i l 1978 that r u r a l concerns were f i r s t i n c l u d e d i n American l e g i s l a t i o n through the Older Americans Act (Krout 1986:171). In Canada, r e s e a r c h about small town s e n i o r s was s t i m u l a t e d by the notable i n c r e a s e i n small town s e n i o r s p o p u l a t i o n s o c c u r i n g between 1971 and 1981 (Hodge 1987:17). However, there are few e x i s t i n g sources of i n f o r m a t i o n on t h i s t o p i c to date. 8 2.2.2.Methodologial Problems 2.2.2.1.Representation and Consi s t a n c y The d i v e r s i t y , d i s t r i b u t i o n and i s o l a t i o n of smal l town environments a l s o i n h i b i t s the a c c u l m u l a t i o n of f i r s t hand data (Corbett 1986:1). The d i v e r s i t y between towns demands t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t c r o s s s e c t i o n of communities be s t u d i e d , r e q u i r i n g much time and expense. While i t may be more f e a s i b l e to have t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d l o c a l l y , the e x p e r t i s e and f i n a n c i a l resources a v a i l a b l e vary i n each a r e a . As a r e s u l t , a l l communities may not be represented e q u a l l y and the r e s u l t s may not be comparable. Another problem that may occur i f i n f o r m a t i o n were to be c o l l e c t e d by l o c a l communities i s that the r e s u l t s may be based on the l o c a l p e r c e p t i o n and i n t u i t i o n of a v o l u n t a r y group of people who may not take i n t o account broader f a c t o r s (Gibson and Fl o o d 1982 :74 ) . A p o s s i b l e method f o r gen e r a t i n g l o c a l l y r e l e v a n t as w e l l as c o n s i s t a n t data a c r o s s r u r a l communities was o u t l i n e d i n a study done by the S o c i a l P l a n n i n g C o u n c i l of Ottawa-Carleton i n 1980 (P.2). T h e i r study d e v i s e d the L i s t i n g of O v e r a l l Goals And Needs System (LOGAN). T h i s system takes i n t o account the d i v e r s e needs of v a r i o u s r e g i o n s by having each community set out s i x o v e r a l l g o a l s and 18 subgoals. With a p r e s t r u c t u r e d o u t l i n e , i n d i v i d u a l communities are r e q u i r e d to i d e n t i f y and rank t h e i r own needs. In t u r n , a l o c a l i n f o r m a t i o n base i s produced that can be compared with that of other communities. The 9 information generated i s organized into standardized categor ies . 2 . 2 . 2 . 2 . D i v e r s i t y and D e f i n i t i o n Problems While research general ly seeks to redefine and delve deeper into a subject , past studies can serve to provide a perspective on the scope, d e f i n i t i o n s , and basic areas of concern within the t o p i c . This perspective i s useful for providing a context within which one can focus in on s p e c i f i c areas. Once areas are def ined, comparisons between studies and time periods are poss ib le (Martin-Matthews and Vanden-Heuvel 1985:4; Krout 1986:2). Comparisons are necessary i f r e la t ionsh ips to major problems are to be uncovered. The e x i s t i n g l i t e r a t u r e on the topic of housing small town e l d e r l y i s not extensive enough to provide a context and d e f i n i t i o n s . "The studies themselves are found in a wide range of pub l i ca t ions , reports , and papers, and so on, further i n h i b i t i n g the development of a coherent and integrated body of knowledge" (Krout I986:xiv) . Krout (1986:8) a l so states that r e s p o n s i b i l i t y has not been e x p l i c i t l y assumed by society and the resu l t i s l i t t l e in tegrat ion of services and no stated goals or standards for meeting the needs of the e l d e r l y . Inequity between r u r a l communities i s the r e s u l t of an undefined ro le for the publ ic to play in meeting the needs of the e lder ly (Lawton 1981:104). A committment from government could insure that research be conducted to f i l l in the gaps in information about the present and future 10 needs of the e l d e r l y . The area i s s t i l l i n a p i o n e e r i n g stage and an e f f e c t i v e method s t i l l needs to be e s t a b l i s h e d (Coward and Lee 1985:12; Corbet 1986:46). Ann Martin-Matthews and Audrey Vanden-Heuvel o u t l i n e the m e t h o d o l o g i c a l problems of stu d y i n g r u r a l s e n i o r s as compared with t h e i r urban c o u n t e r p a r t s (1985:4). They i d e n t i f y four major r e s e a r c h problems: 1. There i s no u n i v e r s a l d e f i n i t i o n f o r r u r a l . 2. There i s no comformity between the s i z e and nature of u n i t s to allow f o r comparison. 3. The d i v e r s i t y of r u r a l communities i s d i f f i c u l t to c a p t u r e . 4. The d u r a t i o n of experience w i t h i n a r u r a l community changes the p e r c e p t i o n of that community. U n t i l s t u d i e s of r u r a l e l d e r l y are s t a n d a r d i z e d t o some degree, comparisons w i l l be d i f f i c u l t . The problem of dev e l o p i n g an e f f e c t i v e method to study t h i s t o p i c depends on the accumulation and i n t e g r a t i o n of r e s e a r c h d ata. 2.2.2.3.Measurement Problems A problem a s s o c i a t e d with the study of housing i s the d i f f i c u l t y of measuring i t s performance. A d j e c t i v e s used to d e s c r i b e performance i n c l u d e adequacy, h a b i t a b i l i t y , s u i t a b i l i t y , user s a t i s f a c t i o n , and a f f o r d a b i l i t y . The l i t e r a t u r e suggests s e v e r a l methods of measuring housing performance. 'Use behavior,' ' l i f e s a t i s f a c t i o n , ' 'environmental f i t , ' and CMHC's ' t r a d i t i o n a l ' and 'core housing need' methods are some of these measures used to 11 asess housing. Howell (1980:22) c l a i m s that the 'use behavior' w i t h i n a p h y s i c a l design i s an important measure of performance. A d w e l l i n g i s " . . . h a b i t a b l e i f i t supports the d a i l y a c t i v i t y needs of a r e s i d e n t . " More important than the p h y s i c a l dimensions of housing i s the a c t u a l use of space. She i n c l u d e s s u b j e c t i v e and o b j e c t i v e c r i t e r i a i n her measure of the 'use behavior' of d w e l l i n g s . "For the o l d e r person, the l i v i n g u n i t i s a c o n t a i n e r f o r d a i l y a c t i v i t i e s and a storehouse of experience and memories". With t h i s i n mind, she uses s u b j e c t i v e c r i t e r i a , as w e l l as o b j e c t i v e o b s e r v a t i o n of the environment. The s u b j e c t i v e measures take i n t o account the p r o p e n s i t y to move, comfort, and the a b i l i t y to cope w i t h i n a d w e l l i n g . She f e l t that these measures helped to i n c o r p o r a t e the s u b j e c t i v e experience of values and a t t i t u d e s . O b j e c t i v e o b s e r v a t i o n s i n c l u d e a look at t e c h n i c a l standards that d e l i m i t space f o r v a r i o u s a c t i v i t i e s and ensure sound c o n s t r u c t i o n f o r s a f e t y , s a n i t a t i o n , weather, f i r e , f l o o d s , and crime. Howell a l s o takes i n t o account, the neighbourhood con t e x t , surrounding la n d uses and p a t t e r n s of a c t i v i t i e s o u t s i d e of the home. P e r c e p t i o n s and t e c h n i c a l standards combine to d e f i n e our o b j e c t i v e o b s e r v a t i o n with s e n i o r s ' s u b j e c t i v e e x p e r i e n c e . Howell's s o l u t i o n i s to have f l e x i b l e performance c r i t e r i a that can adapt to changes due to aging. Wallace, MacDonald and Rose (1984:4) found t h a t ' s u b j e c t i v e w e l l being' was hard to measure due to v a r i e d 12 p e r c e p t i o n s and methods of assessment. The measure that they found to be the most e x p l i c i t was a ' L i f e S a t i s f a c t i o n Index' or LSI (Edwards and Klemmack 1973:498). They c o r r e l a t e d w e l l being as measured by the LSI with : * formal and i n f o r m a l forms of he l p , * f a m i l i a l and n o n f a m i l i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and * h e a l t h . They found that socio-economic v a r i a b l e s had the l a r g e s t impact on ' l i f e s a t i s f a c t i o n ' and h e a l t h , i n f o r m a l and non-f a m i l i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n a l s o have much i n f l u e n c e . One c r i t i c i s m i s that t h i s method l i m i t s ' l i f e s a t i s f a c t i o n ' o p t i o n s to r e s t r i c t i v e c a t e g o r i e s with un c l e a r connections between each category. However, i t i s c o n s i d e r e d a u s e f u l method because i t i n c o r p o r a t e s both, formal and i n f o r m a l s e r v i c e s . The elements that Goldenberg (1981:1) o u t l i n e s as important f o r s e n i o r ' s housing i n c l u d e : i n t e g r a t i o n i n t o the community; s e c u r i t y , peace and q u i e t ; a non-i n s t i t u t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r ; a c o n t r o l l e d i s o l a t e d environment; remaining i n t h e i r neighborhood; comfort and convenience; a f f o r d a b i l i t y ; and independence. Goldenberg notes the importance of an a p p r o p r i a t e l e v e l of s e r v i c e s f o r s e n i o r s ; enough to allow independence i n t h e i r own home, but not too much to c r e a t e a f e e l i n g of u s e l e s s n e s s . Johnson and R e n z e l l a (1985:30) measure the 'environmental f i t ' of r u r a l Canadian s e n i o r s through a " c o s t - b e n e f i t weighting of s u b j e c t i v e value f a c t o r s . " S u b j e c t i v e c r i t e r i a i n c l u d e : f a m i l i a r attachment to the 13 environment; f a m i l y t r a d i t i o n and memories; s t a t u s of homeownership; comfort; and community attachment. A low 'environmental f i t ' i s r e f l e c t e d i n a s e n i o r ' s h i g h p r o p e n s i t y to move, which i s o f t e n the r e s u l t of i l l n e s s , the death of a spouse, or anything e l s e t hat reduces independence. Canada Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n (CMHC) uses s e v e r a l methods to measure housing performance (Burke et a l 1981:3). The t r a d i t i o n a l method uses crowding, a f f o r d a b i l i t y , and p h y s i c a l adequacy to e v a l u a t e housing. A household i s c o n s i d e r e d to be crowded i f there i s l e s s than one room per person, e x c l u d i n g bathrooms, hallways, v e s t i b u l e s , and rooms used p r i m a r i l y f o r b u s i n e s s . Housing i s c o n s i d e r e d to be a f f o r d a b l e i f 30 percent or l e s s of a household's income i s spent on i t . Adequacy r e f e r s to the e x t e r i o r c o n d i t i o n of the house i n terms of the r o o f , w a l l s , f o undations, and plumbing. 'Core Housing Need' i s another method developed by CMHC to i n s u r e t h a t those who choose to i n v e s t more than 30 percent of t h e i r income f o r housing t h a t exceeds the minimum standards are not counted as having a housing need. The t r a d i t i o n a l method does not take t h i s group i n t o account. 'Core Housing Need' i s c a l c u l a t e d by comparing market r e n t s with s h e l t e r c o s t s , d w e l l i n g s i z e , p h y s i c a l adequacy, household s i z e , and household income. T h i s method excludes those households who c o u l d pay market rent f o r minimum standard housing. N e i t h e r of CMHC's methods de a l with l o c a t i o n or s u b j e c t i v e c r i t e r i a about r u r a l 14 a r e a s . The i d e a l method to assess housing f o r the e l d e r l y , should take i n t o account a v a r i e t y of s u b j e c t i v e and o b j e c t i v e c r i t e r i a and be f l e x i b l e enough to adapt to changing times. Apart from i d e n t i f y i n g the problems encountered i n the study of smal l town housing f o r s e n i o r s , the review of the l i t e r a t u r e p r o v i d e d some background i n f o r m a t i o n about the r u r a l environment, i t s s e n i o r s , and t h e i r housing. These f i n d i n g s w i l l be examined next. 2.3. THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE SMALL TOWN ELDERLY Canada encompasses a vast a r r a y of environmental c o n d i t i o n s . Even w i t h i n B r i t i s h Columbia there i s much d i v e r s i t y both between urban and r u r a l environments and w i t h i n each of these c a t e g o r i e s . As w e l l as t h i s e x i s t i n g d i v e r s i t y , r u r a l environments are going through s i g n i f i c a n t changes. The environmental c o n d i t i o n s and the performance of housing depend on the s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the p a r t i c u l a r a r e a . The l i t e r a t u r e c l a i m s t h a t there are d i f f e r e n c e s both between urban and r u r a l environments and w i t h i n r u r a l environments themselves. 2.3.1.Urban-Rural D i f f e r e n c e s Urban c e n t r e s are a b l e to o f f e r many housing c h o i c e s because a l a r g e c o n c e n t r a t e d p o p u l a t i o n i s ab l e to pr o v i d e 15 enough support to u t i l i z e s p e c i a l i z e d f a c i l i t i e s and s e r v i c e s . In a small town, the p o p u l a t i o n i s not l a r g e enough to support the same v a r i e t y (Coward and Lee 1985:8). For t h i s reason, people i n small towns must t r a v e l to l a r g e r c e n t r e s t o r e c e i v e s p e c i a l s e r v i c e s and t h i s i s o f t e n a problem because l a r g e r c e n t r e s are not e a s i l y a c c e s s a b l e (Krout 1986:104). T r a n s p o r t a t i o n s e r v i c e s o f t e n do not e x i s t or are not convenient to allow r u r a l s e n i o r s to reach l a r g e r c e n t r e s (Krout 1986:6; Coward and Lee 1985:17). While there i s a c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f e r e n c e between urban and r u r a l environments, the l i t e r a t u r e a l s o r e c o g n i z e s a l a r g e d i v e r s i t y between r u r a l areas themselves (Krout 1986:11; Mark et a l . 1982:3). 2.3.2.Aging i n Rural Environments In a l l p r o v i n c e s , the s e n i o r s p o p u l a t i o n s of small towns grew at a f a s t e r r a t e between 1976 and 1981 than d i d the p o p u l a t i o n s of t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e p r o v i n c e s (Hodge 1987:8). The percentage of s e n i o r s i n B.C.'s small towns has doubled from 1961 to 1981 and as a r e s u l t , the 1981 percentage of s e n i o r s i n many small towns exceeded that of the p r o v i n c i a l average of 10.9 percent ( S t a t i s t i c s Canada 1981:cat#94-129). Some reasons behind t h i s i n c r e a s e i n c l u d e the out mi g r a t i o n of the young, the c h o i c e of e x i s t i n g small town s e n i o r s to age i n p l a c e , and the i n m i g r a t i o n of other e l d e r l y . Although s e n i o r s move much l e s s than young 16 people, B . C . has a high i n t e r p r o v i n c i a l migration rate of 10/1000 for those 65 and over, as compared with the Canadian rate being 5.3/1000 (Marshall 1981:16). This trend is also occuring in the United States . Krout (1986:30) claims that the three major reasons motivating seniors to migrate to r u r a l areas are to seek improved cl imate and increased recreat ion opportuni t i e s , to return to childhood communities, or to a t t a i n a better q u a l i t y of l i f e . The pattern of r u r a l aging var ies with the s ize of a town (Johnson and Renzel la 1985:31; Stone 1981:36; Krout 1986:18). Older seniors tend to l i v e in larger centres , but resource towns tend to have a younger populat ion. This may be due to larger centres general ly having more services and renta l u n i t s . Whatever the increasing growth rate i s for small town seniors , i t has not occurred evenly in a l l small towns. Therefore the impacts have var ied from community to community. These impacts are of a s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l and economic nature (Krout 1986:31). The changes in r u r a l environments af fect and are af fected by the people within them. The l i t e r a t u r e describes some of the basic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the e l d e r l y . 2 .4 .0 . THE SENIORS IN SMALL TOWNS There are some basic di f ferences between seniors and the rest of soc ie ty , between urban and r u r a l sen iors , and within the 17 category of r u r a l seniors themselves. Each of these d i f ferences w i l l be examined in turn . 2 .4 .1 .Seniors and the Rest of Society The e lder ly general ly d i f f e r from the rest of the population in terms of t h e i r f ixed income, personal care needs and withdrawal from the work force . A general perception of seniors by the rest of the population is that they are no longer productive contr ibutors to soc ie ty . Hence, seniors ' organizat ions such as the National Advisory Counci l on Aging (NACA) have been formed to advise and inform the publ ic about who seniors are , the ir needs and contr ibut ions . Genera l ly , seniors are more e a s i l y s a t i s f i e d than the rest of the population with the i r housing and services due to the i r lack of a l t e r n a t i v e s , lower asp ira t ions with age, and need for f a m i l i a r i t y (Lawton and Hoover 1981:22). Even though seniors express more s a t i s f a c t i o n , they are rare ly well housed or well off (Nol l 1981:90). The e l d e r l y , e s p e c i a l l y those in r u r a l se t t ings , occupy the poorest q u a l i t y of housing (Lawton and Hoover 1981:22; Coward and Lee 1985:4; Krout 1986:106). "In 1982, 24 percent of renter households with heads aged 65-69 and 32 percent of households with heads over 70 experienced 'core need', an indicator developed by CMHC which incorporates both a f f o r d a b i l i t y and adequacy" (Brink 1985:4). The e l d e r l y are the poorest in society with more income constra ints and larger health needs (Marshall 1981:12; Coward and Lee 18 1985:4; Krout 1986:39; N o l l 1981:90). This i s exemplif ied by the fact that 54 percent of the e l d e r l y in Canada receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), which brings the i r income up to a l e v e l that i s just below the poverty l i n e set by S t a t i s t i c s Canada (Wallace, MacDonald and Rose 1984:3). In 1987, th i s poverty l i n e for unincorporated areas was: * $8,224.00 for one person; and * $10,748.00 for a couple. For urban areas with less than 30,000 populat ion, the poverty l i n e was: * $9,160.00 for one person; and * $12,054.00 for a couple. Of these e lder ly poor, 74 percent are women (Wallace, MacDonald and Rose 1984:3). In B . C . , the average annual income in 1981, sex and age ( S t a t i s t i c s Canada 1986:Cat#94-119), was as fol lows: of the e l d e r l y aged 65-69; * males had $16, 802; and * females had $8,478: of the e l d e r l y aged 70 and over: * males had $10,649; and * females had $7,934. Factors that prompt the e l d e r l y to move tend to be more subject ive than for non-seniors . Seniors general ly move when the ir personal independence i s threatened by such things as the death of a family member or i l l n e s s . Seniors also consider , more than those less than 65 years of age, 19 f a m i l i a r i t y , t r a d i t i o n , memories, comfort, community attachment, f a m i l y , or s t a t u s of homeownership i n t h e i r d e c i s i o n s to move. (Johnson and R e n z e l l a 1985:30). While there are some v a l i d d i f f e r e n c e s between s e n i o r s and the r e s t of the p o p u l a t i o n , the d e s i r e to have a home and remain independent with a sense of d i g n i t y are shared by most people. S e n i o r s need an " . . . a c t i v e s o c i a l l i f e and i n t e g r a t i o n i n t o the community ...yet s e c u r i t y along with peace and q u i e t are important to the o l d e r person" (Goldenberg 1981:1). 2.4.2.Differences Between The S e n i o r s Themselves The focus on d i f f e r e n c e s between s e n i o r s and non-s e n i o r s and u r b a n - r u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s , c l o u d s the d i v e r s i t y between s e n i o r s themselves (Coward and Lee 1985:4; Krout 1986:6). " I f anything, the e f f e c t of d i f f e r e n t e x p e r i e n c e s , l i f e - s t y l e s and economic o p p o r t u n i t i e s endure and acculmulate over time, so that those who are the e l d e r l y may be the l e a s t homogeneous age group w i t h i n the p o p u l a t i o n " (Struyk, Soldo and DeVita 1980:15). There are s e v e r a l g e n e r a t i o n s of people 65 and over and t h e i r needs and a t t i t u d e s vary as much as yours, your parents and grandparents. While age i s not always an i n d i c a t i o n of h e a l t h needs, the s e n i o r s who are 75 and over g e n e r a l l y r e q u i r e more medical a t t e n t i o n . There are d i f f e r e n c e s between the sexes of those 65 and over as w e l l . There are more e l d e r l y women than men, 20 because of a longer l i f e expectancy (Johnson and R e n z e l l a 1985:24). T h e r e f o r e , e l d e r l y women are g e n e r a l l y the worst o f f because they are o f t e n l e f t to cope on t h e i r own with low incomes. Men u s u a l l y have a spouse to pr o v i d e care f o r them when i n need but, women are o f t e n on t h e i r own when t h e i r care needs develop ( M a r s h a l l 1981:13). A l s o , women have more of an income problem because they are not g e n e r a l l y covered by p r i v a t e pensions and, i f never married, women do not r e c e i v e the e q u i v a l e n t of a spouse's allowance (Guest 1985:223). 2.4.3.Differences Between Urban and Rur a l E l d e r l y "This tendency to ignore the r u r a l e l d e r l y r e f l e c t s a gener a l o r i e n t a t i o n to the study of aging that o v e r l o o k s the v a r i a b i l i t y found w i t h i n and between the aged p o p u l a t i o n s i n urban and r u r a l areas and i n s t e a d focuses on those a s p e c t s that set the aged, as a group, apart from the r e s t of s o c i e t y " (Krout 1986:1). As compared to t h e i r urban c o u n t e r p a r t s , r u r a l s e n i o r s i n the U.S. have l e s s income, poorer h e a l t h , poorer housing, poorer t r a n s p o r t a t i o n systems, l e s s a c c e s s i b i l i t y to s e r v i c e s and g e n e r a l l y more unmet needs (Krout 1986:7; Coward and Lee 1985:4; Lawton and Hoover 1981:90). Poor h e a l t h c o n d i t i o n s are a t t r i b u t e d to geographic i s o l a t i o n , poor t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , l a c k of knowledge of d i s e a s e or s e r v i c e s , independence, and the negative a t t i t u d e s towards h e a l t h p r o f e s s i o n a l s and medical f a c i l i t i e s (Krout 1986:81). 21 C o n t r a r y to popular b e l i e f , r u r a l s e n i o r s see l e s s of t h e i r f a m i l y than do urban s e n i o r s (Wallace,MacDonald and Rose 1984:23; Krout 1986:125; Coward and Lee 1985:4). Rural s e n i o r s tend to be more independent than urban s e n i o r s and d i f f e r i n the f a c t o r s that c o n t r i b u t e to ' s u b j e c t i v e w e l l being' (Wallace,MacDonald and Rose 1984:24). For example, such f a c t o r s as the p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n formal o r g a n i z a t i o n s , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s e r v i c e s and income tend to c o n t r i b u t e more to urban s e n i o r s ' s u b j e c t i v e w e l l being' than to that of r u r a l s e n i o r s . Although r u r a l s e n i o r s have lower incomes, they g e n e r a l l y express equal or more s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e i r f i n a n c e s . Krout (1986:47) f e e l s t h a t income i s not enough to determine economic d i f f e r e n c e s between urban and r u r a l e l d e r l y . Other v a r i a b l e s should be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n c l u d i n g the c o s t of l i v i n g , expenditure p a t t e r n s , i n f o r m a l support networks, supplemental incomes,, and' nonmonetary- sources of s u b s i s t e n c e . R u r a l s e n i o r s make up a d i v e r s e group of people. T h e i r housing and home support needs are j u s t as d i v e r s e . The types of housing that they l i v e i n w i l l be examined next. 2.5. HOUSING AND RELATED SERVICES S h e l t e r i s a b a s i c need that comes i n many forms and tenures. S h e l t e r should s a t i s f y the u s e r s ' needs. A person's income and c u l t u r e are r e f l e c t e d i n the type and 22 •condition of dwell ing they inhabit and t h e i r a t t i tude towards i t . Age a f fec t s a t t i tudes towards housing too. Because of decreased mobi l i ty that resu l t s from d e c l i n i n g health and income, the home becomes more than just a basic need for the aged. "The home represents a great economic and emotional investment" (Krout 1986:103). The development of housing choices , design gu ide l ines , and support services should recognize the spec ia l needs of seniors i f they are to be e f f e c t i v e . 2.5.1.Housing Choices Over two-thirds of Canadians 65 and over l i v e in a dwel l ing that they own and 90 percent of these are worth less than $75,000 (Goldblatt I986b:5). In small towns, there are fewer constra ints on land, lower costs of l i v i n g , and few renta l opt ions , r e s u l t i n g in s ingle family houses being the dominant housing type a v a i l a b l e . Therefore, we would expect to f ind more homeowners in small towns. For example, 82 percent of the seniors in small U .S . towns are homeowners as compared to only 70 percent in urban set t ings (Noll 1981:17; Krout 1986:104). This does not necessar i ly mean that seniors in small towns are better o f f . While seniors in Canada general ly occupy poorer q u a l i t y housing in terms of age and s t ruc ture , housing q u a l i t y i s much worse for r u r a l seniors than for that of the ir urban counterparts (Wallace,MacDonald and Rose 1984:24). For example, 60 percent of r u r a l homes in the U.S . are older than 40 years 23 ( N o l l 1981:17; Krout 1986:106). Older housing stock u s u a l l y r e q u i r e s r e h a b i l i t a t i o n , which i n c l u d e s measures that r a i s e the q u a l i t y of a b u i l d i n g , as opposed to r e p a i r s , which only address c r i t i c a l or emergency measures. Most Canadian programs are aimed at the p r o v i s i o n of r e p a i r s ( S t r e i c h 1981:2). Other government programs are aimed at i n c r e a s i n g the housing stock. S o c i a l housing encompasses that which has been a s s i s t e d by the government f o r low income r e s i d e n t s ( P a t t e r s o n et a l . 1977). S o c i a l housing programs r e q u i r e a sponsoring group to c a r r y out the development process and operate the housing a f t e r c o n s t r u c t i o n . T h i s i s sometimes a problem i n small towns because a sponsoring group i n t e r e s t e d i n dev e l o p i n g s p e c i a l housing f o r s e n i o r s may have too narrow a p e r s p e c t i v e of the task at hand and not be a b l e to c a r r y through with the l a r g e time commitment r e q u i r e d f o r such a t a s k . Krout (V986:110) f e e l s that small communities lack the personnel or e x p e r t i s e to p r o p e r l y d e a l with housing i s s u e s . Access to such e x p e r t i s e would allow f o r the development and i n t e r p r e t i o n of l o c a l l y r e l e v a n t design g u i d e l i n e s . 2.5.2.Design G u i d e l i n e s More housing design has been geared t o s u i t the needs of growing f a m i l i e s than the needs of s e n i o r s . Housing that serves s e n i o r s ' needs must be a c c e s s i b l e and secure (Parker 1984:57). Recommended design f e a t u r e s f o r o l d e r people i n c l u d e : s i n g l e s t o r e y s t r u c t u r e s with grade l e v e l 24 e n t r y ; grab bars i n bathrooms; n o n s l i p bathtub s u r f a c e s ; lower cupboards; p l e n t y of storage space; l e v e r handles on doors; higher e l e c t r i c a l w a l l sockets; and b r i g h t l i g h t i n g . The N a t i o n a l B u i l d i n g Code of Canada and P r o v i n c i a l b u i l d i n g codes o u t l i n e minimum standards f o r p h y s i c a l l y adequate c o n s t r u c t i o n and r e n o v a t i o n s . These standards do not r e f l e c t v a r i a t i o n s i n r e g i o n a l housing needs or the s u b j e c t i v e c r i t e r i a to e v a l u a t e housing performance. These standards can be i n t e r p r e t e d without t a k i n g i n t o account s u b j e c t i v e f a c t o r s (Howell 1980:23). In the U.S., Krout (1986:110) f e e l s that more f l e x i b i l i t y i s needed i n f e d e r a l and s t a t e housing r e g u l a t i o n s i n order to meet d i v e r s e needs. Much of the o l d e r housing stock needs to be r e h a b i l i t a t e d to s u i t s e n i o r s ' needs. As w e l l , new housing should i n c o r p o r a t e design f e a t u r e s s u i t a b l e f o r the e l d e r l y . Homes should be adaptable to s u i t the changes that occur, because aging i s a continuous p r o c e s s . One method of h e l p i n g s e n i o r s cope with inadequacies i n t h e i r housing i s to provide some b a s i c home support s e r v i c e s . 2.5.3.Home Support S e r v i c e s Only e i g h t percent of the e l d e r l y i n Canada are i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d ( S t a t i s t i c s Canada 1986:cat#94-119). As Soldo and Brotman (1981:36) note:"most s e n i o r s are not f r a i l , a s u b s t a n t i a l number are impairment f r e e . " However, as they a l s o note "a small p r o p o r t i o n of o l d e r non-i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d persons are housebound and t o t a l l y 25 d i s a b l e d . " These s e n i o r s can no longer depend s o l e l y on f a m i l y members to p r o v i d e care s e r v i c e s . Stone and F l e t c h e r ( I 9 8 0 : v i i ) c l a i m that changes to the ' r o l e and s t r u c t u r e of the n u c l e a r f a m i l y u n i t ' have t r a n s f e r r e d the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r medical and s o c i a l s e r v i c e s f o r the e l d e r l y from the f a m i l y to the government. The degree to which s e n i o r s r e c e i v e c a r e from t h e i r f a m i l i e s v a r i e s from zero to t o t a l care p r o v i s i o n . As a consequence, the s e r v i c e requirements from formal sources vary. Informal sources provide more pe r s o n a l than non-personal s e r v i c e s f o r the e l d e r l y (Powers and Bultena 1974:250). Personal s e r v i c e s i n c l u d e g e t t i n g i n and out of bed, c l i m b i n g s t a i r s , t a k i n g baths, medical care and d r e s s i n g . Non-p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e s i n c l u d e housework, cooking, shopping, t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , yard work, and r e a d i n g . In Canada, 80 percent of p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e s and 60 percent of the non-p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e s are d e l i v e r e d by f a m i l y members (Wallace,MacDonald and Rose 1984:15). Although home support s e r v i c e s may not be cheaper than i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n , they are f e l t to be more humane and e f f e c t i v e (Forbes et a l 1987:56). These s e r v i c e s are p r o v i d e d by i n f o r m a l and/or formal p r o v i d e r s and can make the d i f f e r e n c e between s e n i o r s remaining i n t h e i r own home or being i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d (Johnson and R e n z e l l a 1985:71). T r a n s p o r t a t i o n i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important to housing as i t i s the l i n k between a d w e l l i n g and needed s e r v i c e s and a m e n i t i e s . " T r a n s p o r t a t i o n . . . r e i n f o r c e s the adequacy of that housing by p r o v i d i n g a l i n k to a l l those b a s i c goods 26 and s e r v i c e s necessary f o r s u r v i v a l " (Krout 1986:118). Mark et a l . ( l 9 8 2 ) have i d e n t i f i e d four c a t e g o r i e s of ' t r a n s p o r t a t i o n disadvantaged': 1. those without a v e h i c l e , 2. those who cannot a f f o r d p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , 3. those p o o r l y served by p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , and 4. those who cannot manoeuver w i t h i n the design or s e r v i c e f e a t u r e s of p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . The e l d e r l y make up a l a r g e p o r t i o n of people i n every one of these c a t e g o r i e s . "...the poor, e l d e r l y , young and handicapped are p o t e n t i a l l y more l i k e l y to be t r a n s p o r t disadvantaged i n a r u r a l area than t h e i r urban c o u n t e r p a r t s because p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t i s simply not a v a i l a b l e " (Mark et a l . 1982:4). T r a n s p o r t a t i o n i s e s s e n t i a l i n r u r a l areas s i n c e there i s a widely d i s p e r s e d p o p u l a t i o n and s e r v i c e s u s u a l l y beyond walking d i s t a n c e . However, r u r a l s e n i o r s are the poorest served by p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , f u r t h e r i s o l a t i n g them (Krout 1986:11; Coward and Lee 1985:4). The r u r a l e l d e r l y o f t e n cannot a f f o r d to d r i v e or are not p h y s i c a l l y capable of d r i v i n g (Mark et a l . 1982:3) and i t i s the women who are the most l i k e l y to be t r a n s p o r t a t i o n disadvantaged (Krout 1986:113). Mark et a l . (1982:3) f e e l s that the most n e g l e c t e d area of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i s that which al l o w s the e l d e r l y to maintain i n f o r m a l networks and that a v a r i e t y of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s e r v i c e s are needed to allow f o r v a r i a t i o n s i n p h y s i c a l a b i l i t y and d e s t i n a t i o n . Access to t r a n s p o r t a t i o n l i n k s the small town e l d e r l y with necessary s e r v i c e s and f a c i l i t i e s . 27 Housing c h o i c e s f o r small town e l d e r l y are minimal. As w e l l as i n c r e a s i n g the housing stock, r e v i s e d design g u i d e l i n e s and home support s e r v i c e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , c o u l d ease the inadequacies of the housing s i t u a t i o n f o r r u r a l s e n i o r s (Coward and Lee 1985:4; Krout 1986:104). 2.6. CONCLUSION The i n c r e a s i n g percentage of s e n i o r s i n small towns draws a t t e n t i o n to the need f o r housing a l t e r n a t i v e s and support s e r v i c e s . While l i t t l e i s known about t h i s s u b j e c t to date, the l i t e r a t u r e suggests that the needs of the r u r a l e l d e r l y d i f f e r from those of the urban e l d e r l y . The r u r a l e l d e r l y g e n e r a l l y have lower incomes, poorer h e a l t h , and are l e s s w e l l housed when compared to urban s e n i o r s , and even more so., when compared t o the r e s t of s o c i e t y . As w e l l , r u r a l s e n i o r s tend to have fewer s e r v i c e s and f a c i l i t i e s i n t h e i r towns and l e s s a c c e s s i b i l i t y to them. 28 In an examination of housing f o r the smal l town e l d e r l y , the l i t e r a t u r e urges r e s e a r c h e r s to c o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g : 1. Include an examination of home support s e r v i c e s that a i d the e l d e r l y i n t h e i r homes. 2. Consider the d i v e r s i t y of r u r a l environments. 3. I f p o s s i b l e , s t r u c t u r e r e s e a r c h a c c o r d i n g to p a t t e r n s and d e f i n i t i o n s a l r e a d y e s t a b l i s h e d t o allow f o r conformity and comparison between s t u d i e s . 4. Include s u b j e c t i v e , as w e l l as, o b j e c t i v e c r i t e r i a when c o n s i d e r i n g the housing performance. These i n s i g h t s from the l i t e r a t u r e are i n c o r p o r a t e d i n the study o u t l i n e d i n the next c h a p t e r . 29 3. A METHOD TO EXAMINE SMALL TOWN ELDERLY'S HOUSING The l i t e r a t u r e review e s t a b l i s h e d a context and d i r e c t i o n to conduct a study of and analyse the housing needs of s e n i o r s i n 16 smal l towns i n B.C.. In t h i s chapter, an o u t l i n e of the approach f o r t h i s study i s presented f i r s t , f o l l o w e d by a d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of the methodology used. 3.1. THE APPROACH OF THIS STUDY The goal of t h i s study was to pro v i d e a p i c t u r e of the housing c o n d i t i o n s of the e l d e r l y i n small towns i n B.C. and the e l d e r l y ' s p e r c e p t i o n of these c o n d i t i o n s . The gen e r a l q u e s t i o n d i r e c t i n g t h i s study was: What are the housing c o n d i t i o n s of B.C.'s small town e l d e r l y ? A number of more s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s stem from t h i s i n i t i a l q u e s t i o n . They i n c l u d e : 1. What are the demographic, economic, s o c i a l , and h e a l t h c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of small town s e n i o r s ? 2. In what kind of housing do smal l town s e n i o r s p r e s e n t l y l i v e and why? 3. What home support s e r v i c e s do small town s e n i o r s p r e s e n t l y use? 4. What i s the present housing stock of small towns? 5. What are the present housing needs of smal l town s e n i o r s ? 6. What are the f u t u r e needs f o r housing the e l d e r l y i n 30 B.C.'s small towns? Answers to the above q u e s t i o n s r e q u i r e data from s e v e r a l primary and secondary sources. T h i s study u t i l i z e d data from a p r o j e c t conducted i n 1988 through the Centre f o r Human Settlements at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. My r o l e i n t h i s study was to gather background data, a s s i s t i n conducting the surveys and gather f i r s t hand i n f o r m a t i o n from town o f f i c i a l s , community l e a d e r s and other i n f o r m a t i o n sources. Although the q u e s t i o n n a i r e was, f o r the most p a r t , s u i t e d to the needs of t h i s study, i t was not custom made and as a r e s u l t , other i n f o r m a t i o n sources were used to f i l l i n any gaps. To account f o r the d i v e r s i t y of r u r a l communities ( M a r t i n -Matthews and Vanden-Heuvel,1985; Krout,1986), data has been gathered f o r a number of small towns (n=16) i n B.C.. F u r t h e r , the d i v e r s i t y w i t h i n the p r o v i n c e was accommodated by s e l e c t i n g towns i n four d i f f e r e n t r e g i o ns to provide a broad p r o f i l e of the small town e l d e r l y . The main source of i n f o r m a t i o n about the small town e l d e r l y , t h e i r housing, and t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n of c o n d i t i o n s i s through the s e n i o r s themselves. Methods f o r o b t a i n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n i n c l u d e d : surveys of the s e n i o r s , care p r o v i d e r s , and m u n i c i p a l o f f i c i a l s , f i r s t - h a n d r e s e a r c h to o b t a i n an inv e n t o r y of the housing stock; examination of census p o p u l a t i o n data and i n t e r v i e w s with key informants i n each town. A f t e r g a t h e r i n g the data, s e v e r a l methods i d e n t i f i e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e review were used to analyze housing performance. 31 3.2. THE LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY I t i s re c o g n i z e d that 16 towns do not repr e s e n t a l a r g e enough sample of the 500 or so towns i n B.C. to be i l l u s t r a t i v e of the f u l l spectrum of d i v e r s i t y t h a t e x i s t s . As w e l l , an inter-town comparison would r e q u i r e a much l a r g e r sampling of s e n i o r s w i t h i n each town than has been used here. F u r t h e r , t h i s study r e f l e c t s the housing needs of the independent e l d e r l y i n small towns and t h e r e f o r e , does not i n c l u d e the i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d e l d e r l y . T h e r e f o r e , the r e s u l t s of t h i s study can only be c o n s i d e r e d as p r o v i d i n g an overview of the housing c o n d i t i o n s of 130 independent s e n i o r s ' households i n 16 d i f f e r e n t s m a l l towns i n B r i t i s h Columbia. 3.3. THE PROCEEDURE 3.3.1.Small Town S e l e c t i o n To encompass the range of small town environments that e x i s t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia, four regions are i n c l u d e d : the Kootenays; the Okanagan; the Lower F r a s e r V a l l e y ; and Vancouver I s l a n d . Four towns w i t h i n each of the regions were s e l e c t e d , t o t a l l i n g 16 towns o v e r a l l . F i g u r e 1 p r o v i d e s a map of the l o c a t i o n of these towns. As shown i n Table 1, to compare s e n i o r s ' housing c o n d i t i o n s i n d i f f e r e n t types of towns, towns were s e l e c t e d i n two s i z e c a t e g o r i e s and these two c a t e g o r i e s were s u b d i v i d e d i n t o two groups a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r percentages of s e n i o r s . 32 FIGURE 1. LOCATION OF 16 SMALL B . C . TOWNS, 1987. 1 = SLOCAN 9 = GIBSONS 2 = HARRISON 10 = PRINCETON 3 MIDWAY 1 1 AGASSIZ 4 = KEREMEOS 12 CRESTON 5 = KASLO 13 = ROSSLAND 6 = SECHELT 14 = PARKSVILLE 7 = CUMBERLAND 15 = COMOX 8 = LK-COWICHAN 16 SUMMERLAND TABLE I: SAMPLING FRAME FOR 16 SMALL TOWNS IN B .C . SIZE (1981 POPULATION) SMALL LARGE (under 2,500) (2,500-10,000) LOW SLOCAN (14 .0%) ROSSLAND (9.9%) (7-14%) MIDWAY (11 .9%) PRINCETON (11 .0%) LK. COWICHAN (8 .6%) COMOX (8.9%) PERCENT HARRISON (12 .4%) AGASSIZ (N.A.) POPULATION OVER 65 KASLO (18 .7%) CRESTON (27.6%) KEREMEOS (24 .7%) SUMMERLAND (21.1%) HIGH CUMBERLAND (17 .2%) PARKSVILLE (20.3%) (OVER 14%) SECHELT (18 .7%) GIBSONS (15.8%) 34 The two s i z e c a t e g o r i e s were; 1. those with a p o p u l a t i o n between 2,500 and 10,000; and 2. those with a p o p u l a t i o n l e s s than 2,500. The two s e n i o r s ' percentage c a t e g o r i e s were: 1. those towns whose percentage of s e n i o r s was between 7 percent and 14 p e r c e n t ; and 2. those towns whose percentage of s e n i o r s exceeded 14 p e r c e n t . 3.3.2.The S e l e c t i o n of S e n i o r s The group of people t h a t are g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d to be the e l d e r l y or the s e n i o r s p o p u l a t i o n of a s o c i e t y are those 65 years of age and over. However, some r e t i r e d people are under 65 years of age and to o b t a i n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n from t h i s group, r e t i r e d people aged 55 and over have been i n c l u d e d i n t h i s survey. Recognizing that the 55 and over group i s not homogeneous, to a l l o w f o r a more d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s , the sample was d i v i d e d i n t o three groups (Gunn et a l , 1983). These three groups a r e : 1. the near e l d e r l y , who i n c l u d e those 55 through 64; 2. the younger e l d e r l y , who i n c l u d e those 65 through 74; and 3. the o l d e r e l d e r l y , who i n c l u d e those 75 and over. The data base i s made of between f i v e t o twelve s e n i o r s from each of the towns, s e l e c t e d with the h e l p of key informants i n each town. The aim was to have a 35 representative group of independent seniorsby age and marital status. Most seniors were interviewed at the l o c a l seniors' centre. 3.3.3.The Content of the Questionnaires There were two forms of the questionnaire: 1. A long form, which was a comprehensive questionnaire that was administered by an interviewer on a one-to-one basis with a senior respondent and took about 45 minutes. 2. A short form, which was a smaller self-administered mailback questionnaire. Topics covered in the long questionnaire were as follows: Housing: * type of dwelling, * number ,of years in dwelling, * household composition, * community previously l i v e d i n , * number of months spent per year in present home, * own or rent home, * monthly payment for mortgage or rent, * other housing costs, * number of d i f f i c u l t i e s with housing costs, * number of problems coping with the home, * use of any service to help maintain home, * greatest concern about the maintenance of home, * number of government housing programs used, * conditions of municipal f a c i l i t i e s , 36 * how convenient i s home to amenit ies , * any plans to move from home; A c t i v i t i es : * which services and f a c i l i t e s are used, where are services l o c a t e d , . * which services and f a c i l i t e s are important to be walking dis tance; Services and Ass is tance: * what people and community services do you use, * how many services are offered in your town, * which services may help you remain in your home, * how much could you af ford to pay for serv ices ; Personal Data: * sex, * mar i ta l s tatus , * number and locat ion of c h i l d r e n , * age, * how would you rate your own hea l th , * how would you rate your spouse's hea l th , * t o t a l annual household income las t year, * sources of income. A sample of both quest ionnaires i s included in Appendix A. In t o t a l , 130 quest ionnaires were completed; 99 of the long forms and 31 of the short forms. A d d i t i o n a l information was gathered from a v a r i e t y of other sources inc lud ing: * senior leaders; * municipal o f f i c i a l s ; 37 * care p r o v i d e r s ; * p r i v a t e s e c t o r people i n v o l v e d i n s e n i o r s p r o j e c t s ; and * S t a t i s t i c s Canada i n f o r m a t i o n . 3.3.4.Subject Recruitment The s e n i o r s were i d e n t i f i e d through key people i n each community. At l e a s t one key person was sought from each town through a s e n i o r s ' o r g a n i z a t i o n . I f no such o r g a n i z a t i o n e x i s t e d , a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e from an a c t i v e l o c a l s e r v i c e c l u b , home support s e r v i c e , or m u n i c i p a l agent was c o n t a c t e d . These r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s were b r i e f e d about the study and asked to pr o v i d e a c r o s s s e c t i o n of s e n i o r s to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study. J u s t p r i o r to a r r i v a l i n each town, i n d i v i d u a l or group meetings with s e n i o r s were arranged. At these meetings, the q u e s t i o n n a i r e was ad m i n i s t e r e d by an i n t e r v i e w e r on a one-to-one b a s i s with a s e n i o r respondent. Short form q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were l e f t with the key person i n each town f o r other s e n i o r s t o f i l l i n on t h e i r own and mail back. 3.3.5.The Plan For A n a l y s i s Information from the surveys i n the 16 small towns has been used f o r two purposes. F i r s t l y , an i n v e n t o r y of housing o p t i o n s p r e s e n t l y found i n the towns was developed u s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n from the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . . Secondly, the establishment of r e l a t i o n s h i p s between c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the e l d e r l y , the housing they occupy, the s i z e of the town, 38 the p r o p o r t i o n of s e n i o r s i n each town, and the environments i n which they l i v e was attempted u s i n g data from the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . The l i t e r a t u r e p o i n t e d out the importance of i n c l u d i n g s u b j e c t i v e , as w e l l as, o b j e c t i v e measures. T h e r e f o r e , housing was e v a l u a t e d using s e v e r a l methods o u t l i n e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e both, to p r o v i d e comparison with what has a l r e a d y been done and to i n c o r p o r a t e both types of measures. O b j e c t i v e measures i n c l u d e a f f o r d a b i l i t y , adequacy and crowding. S u b j e c t i v e measures i n c o r p o r a t e q u e s t i o n n a i r e respondents' r e p o r t e d p r o p e n s i t y to move, p e r c e p t i o n of h e a l t h and p e r c e p t i o n of a b i l i t y to cope. Since the s u b j e c t i v e measures are attempting to determine the s a t i s f a c t i o n expressed by the s e n i o r s about t h e i r l i v i n g environments, the s u b j e c t i v e measures w i l l be termed 'environmental s a t i s f a c t i o n . ' Chapter 4 p r e s e n t s the r e s u l t s o'f the study. 39 4. SENIORS HOUSING IN SMALL TOWNS: RESULTS FROM THE STUDY The r e s u l t s of the study are presented i n two s e c t i o n s : a p r o f i l e of the responding s e n i o r s and t h e i r housing; and a p r o f i l e of small towns i n B.C.. In p r e s e n t i n g f i n d i n g s , towns are compared by s i z e and percentage of s e n i o r s . P r o f i l e s of i n d i v i d u a l s e n i o r s and towns supplement the r e s u l t s . 4.1. A PROFILE OF SENIORS IN B.C.'S SMALL TOWNS. The c o l l e c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the 130 s e n i o r s i n c l u d e d i n t h i s survey provide a gene r a l p r o f i l e of B.C.'s small town e l d e r l y . So as not to l o s e the r i c h n e s s of the p e r s o n a l i t i e s encountered i n the course of t h i s survey and to prevent the pe r c e p t i o n of a s i n g l e small town s e n i o r s t e r e o t y p e , three i n d i v i d u a l s e n i o r s are p r o f i l e d i n F i g u r e 2. As these three examples and the other data w i l l i l l u s t r a t e , s m a l l town s e n i o r s are not a homogeneous group. Each town's c h a r a c t e r i s a l s o d i f f e r e n t . 4.1.1.Socio-demograhic and Housing C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Respondents General c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s used to d e s c r i b e respondents i n c l u d e , t h e i r age, sex, m a r i t a l s t a t u s , and income. For the e l d e r l y , income and h e a l t h are e s p e c i a l l y important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to i n c l u d e . 40 FIGURE 2. A PROFILE OF THREE SENIORS H a r r y was b o r n i n t h e m i n i n g town o f Rossland some 80 y e a r s a g o . He i s a r e t i r e d w h i t e c o l l a r w o r k e r . A s i d e f r o m s p e n d i n g t i m e w i t h h i s w i f e a n d d a u g h t e r , H a r r y s k i s a n d s t i l l p l a y s a v e r y a c t i v e r o l e i n t h e c o m m u n i t y t h r o u g h m e m b e r s h i p i n numerous s e r v i c e c l u b s . When he was t h e mayor o f R o s ' s l a n d , he i n i t i a t e d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f many o f t h e f a c i l i t i e s t h a t e x i s t t o d a y . H a r r y h a s b e e n r e c o g n i z e d by t h e c o m m u n i t y t h r o u g h t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a s q u a r e named a f t e r h i m a n d m a r k e d by a p l a q u e t h a t s i t s p r o m i n a n t l y i n t h e c e n t r e o f t o w n . H a r r y was r e c o g n i z e d a s B.C.'s ' S e n i o r o f t h e y e a r ' i n 1981. He i s p r e s e n t l y p u t t i n g t o g e t h e r a h i s t o r y o f t h e t o w n . A u d r e y i s p r e s i d e n t o f t h e S e n i o r s A s s o c i a t i o n i n S u mmerland. She a n d h e r h u s b a n d r e t i r e d t o Summerland s i x y e a r s a g o . S i n c e t h e n , A u d r e y ' s h u s b a n d h a s d i e d a n d she now l i v e s a l o n e . A u d r e y a n d t h e S u m m e r l a n d S e n i o r s A s s o c i a t i o n a r e v e r y p r o u d o f t h e n e w . S e n i o r s h a l l t h a t t h e y a l l h a d a h a n d i n d e v e l o p i n g . She b o a s t s t h a t t h e i r s i s t h e b e s t k i t c h e n a r o u n d b e c a u s e t h e y a l l c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e d e s i g n p r o c e s s . A u d r e y ' s v i t a l i t y a n d s p a r k l e t o u c h many p e o p l e t h r o u g h t h e e v e n t s s h e o r c h e s t r a t e s . One o f t h e e v e n t s w i t n e s s e d • was a S t . P a t r i c k ' s Day p o t l u c k d i n n e r a n d d a n c e a t t e n d e d by o v e r 100 s e n i o r s . E d , a r e t i r e d p r o s p e c t o r a n d t r u c k d r i v e r , l i v e s i n K a s l o . He i s a l s o t h e p r e s i d e n t o f K a s l o ' s S e n i o r C i t i z e n ' s O r g a n i z a t i o n a n d a l e a d i n g member o f t h e M a s o n s . Ed knew e v e r y o n e i n town a n d e n s u r e d t h a t no one was l e f t o u t o f t h i s s t u d y . E d , i n h i s q u i e t way, was aware o f t h e p r o b l e m s o f i n d i v i d u a l s e n i o r s i n t h e c o m m u n i t y . The i m p r e s s i o n l e f t was t h a t t h e s e n i o r s i n K a s l o t o o k c a r e o f e a c h o t h e r . 41 An o v e r a l l p r o f i l e of the responding e l d e r l y ' s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , c o l l a p s e d a c r o s s the 16 s m a l l towns, i s summarized i n Table I I . As can be seen, the average age of the respondents was 73 and t h e i r ages ranged from 59 t o 94. The age d i s t r i b u t i o n of the sample was as f o l l o w s : * ages 55 - 64 11% * ages 65 - 74 .56% * ages 75 & over ..33%. Of the e l d e r l y i n the l a t t e r category, o n l y 12 percent were 85 years of age or over. The h i g h percentage of the respondents i n the 65 through 74 age category may r e f l e c t the f a c t that o n l y independent e l d e r l y were i n t e r v i e w e d and they tend to be younger s e n i o r s . No d i f f e r e n c e s were found i n the age d i s t r i b u t i o n of respondents when towns were compared a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r s i z e and t h e i r percentage of e l d e r l y . Again, t h i s would probably not be r e f l e c t e d i n the sample as the people i n t e r v i e w e d were independent s e n i o r s . Over h a l f (51 percent) of the respondents were married and l i v i n g with t h e i r spouses. Of the s i n g l e s e n i o r s , 90 percent were women. For a l l of the towns i n the survey, the t y p i c a l respondent was a s i n g l e female. Females make up 66 percent of t h i s sample. No d i f f e r e n c e s were apparent i n the sex and m a r i t a l s t a t u s d i s t r i b u t i o n when towns were compared a c c o r d i n g to s i z e and the percentage of s e n i o r s . 42 TABLE I I : A PROFILE OF SENIOR RESPONDENTS FROM 16 SMALL TOWNS IN B.C.: 1987. N = 130 AVERAGE AGE: 73 years SEX: female 66% male 34% MARITAL STATUS: married 51% other s t a t u s 49% HEALTH: good or e x c e l l e n t 69% f a i r or poor 31% AVERAGE ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME: $12,500 MEAN LENGTH OF RESIDENCE: 17.5 years REASONS FOR MOVING TO TOWN: ret i r e m e n t 40% employment 22% f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s 16% h e a l t h 7% co s t of l i v i n g 6% born there 3% other 6% HOUSING: s i n g l e f a m i l y house 68% n o n - p r o f i t s e n i o r apartment 13% mobile home 10% p r i v a t e market apartment 7% other 2% SUPPORT SERVICE NEEDS: need home maintenance 45% ( m u l t i p l e responses) need housekeeping 39% need t r a n s p o r t a t i o n 33% SOURCE: F i e l d Survey, 1987. 43 The poverty l i n e for couples in urban areas with less than 30,000 population i s $12,054 annually ( S t a t i s t i c s Canada,1987) and 25 percent of those interviewed have incomes less than t h i s . Of the seniors in the sample with incomes below the poverty l i n e , 90 percent were women who are not presently married and/or l i v i n g with the i r spouse. In comparing the s ize of the town and the proportion of e l d e r l y with the ir t o t a l annual household income, there was no apparent r e l a t i o n s h i p . In fac t , the four towns with the highest percentage of respondents with incomes over $15,000 include a town from each of the four categories out l ined in Table I . These towns include Summerland, Rossland, Sechel t , and Harr i son . There i s a lso no obvious c o r r e l a t i o n between the town s ize and percentage of e l d e r l y with lower incomes. Half of the seniors interviewed had l i v e d in the ir town for more than 12 years . The amount of time spent in the 16 small towns ranged from 1 to 74 years, with the mean amount of time being 17.5 years . The amount of time spent in a community r e f l e c t s the reasons for moving to a p a r t i c u l a r small town. The 40 percent who have l i v e d in the ir town for less than 10 years corresponds with the 40 percent who have moved to t h e i r town for the purpose of ret irement. This short length of residence indicates that many seniors are choosing to migrate to small towns for the ir ret irement. Of the f ive towns where more than f i f t y percent of the seniors claimed to move there for the purpose of retirement, a l l had a high percentage of e l d e r l y 44 i n them and three were i n the l a r g e s i z e c a t e g o r y . These towns i n c l u d e Keremeos, Gibsons, C r e s t o n , P a r k s v i l l e , and Summerland. Employment a t t r a c t e d 22 percent of the e l d e r l y o r i g i n a l l y to t h e i r small towns and t h e i r l e n g t h of stay i s g e n e r a l l y over 12 ye a r s . F r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s a t t r a c t e d 16 percent of those i n t e r v i e w e d to t h e i r present homes. He a l t h reasons prompted 7 percent of the s e n i o r s to move to t h e i r present town. Only 6 percent were a t t r a c t e d to t h e i r towns by the low cost of l i v i n g and only 3 percent were a c t u a l l y born i n the town, they s t i l l l i v e i n . One of the most common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s shared by these sma l l town s e n i o r s i s the type of d w e l l i n g that they l i v e i n . An i n v e n t o r y of the housing occupied by the respondents w i l l be presented next. 4.1.2.How Are These Respondents Housed? Table II povides four c a t e g o r i e s of housing types that the respondents l i v e i n . Of the s e n i o r s i n t e r v i e w e d , 68 percent l i v e i n s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s , almost a l l of which they own. The number of home owners i s s l i g h t l y lower than found i n other surveys probably due to the high r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of respondents from s e n i o r s ' apartments. Renter r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s hig h because s e n i o r c e n t r e s , where the m a j o r i t y of surveys were completed, are o f t e n c l o s e l y l i n k e d with the s e n i o r apartments i n town. By comparison, i n the Un i t e d S t a t e s i t i s estimated t h a t 82 to 90 percent of s e n i o r s i n small towns l i v e i n s i n g l e f a m i l y homes (Noll,1981:91; Krout,1986:103). 45 The next most common housing type represented i n the sample was n o n - p r o f i t s e n i o r s ' apartments. Over 13 percent of the respondents l i v e d i n s o c i a l housing s p e c i f i c a l l y b u i l t f o r the e l d e r l y . These u n i t s are a v a i l a b l e i n twelve of the towns and most of these apartments have w a i t i n g l i s t s . The four s m a l l e s t towns have no s e n i o r apartments. Another o p t i o n r e p r e s e n t e d almost as f r e q u e n t l y i n t h i s sample of small town s e n i o r s are mobile homes, with 10 percent of the sample p r e s e n t l y l i v i n g i n t h i s type of d w e l l i n g . U n l i k e s i n g l e - f a m i l y homes, mobile home owners can e i t h e r own or rent the land that the home s i t s on. As w e l l , these homes are o f t e n more a f f o r d a b l e and have lower maintenance than s i n g l e f a m i l y detached d w e l l i n g s . P r i v a t e r e n t a l s u i t e s are occupied by only 5 percent of the sample. Although a l l of the towns except one have p r i v a t e r e n t a l s u i t e s , most towns have very few. T h i s accounts f o r the small percentage of s e n i o r respondents l i v i n g i n p r i v a t e r e n t a l u n i t s . Although t h i s sample i s not random or r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , some i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t s develop when the s i z e of the town i s compared with the types of housing that respondents l i v e i n . Of the f i v e towns where 40 percent or more of the respondents l i v e i n something other than a s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g , four are i n the l a r g e s i z e category. The town i n the l a r g e s i z e category has a h i g h percentage of s e n i o r s i n i t . 46 These towns include: TOWN SIZE % ELDERLY % NOT LIVING IN A SFD Agassiz large low 75 Cumberland small high 66.7 Summerland large high 44.4 Princeton large low 41.5 P a r k s v i l l e large high 40 In a l l of these towns, there are at least two other housing types ava i lab le apart from s ingle family houses. The comparison i s more s t r i c k i n g when towns where most of the respondents l i v e in s ingle family dwell ings are compared with the population s ize and the percentage of e l d e r l y . A l l four of the towns with both a small population and a low percentage of seniors have less than 20 percent of the respondents l i v i n g in housing other than a s ingle family dwel l ing . The one large town with the majority of the respondents l i v i n g in s ingle family dwellings has a low percentage of e l d e r l y . The towns with most of the respondents l i v i n g in s ingle family houses include: TOWN SIZE % ELDERLY % NOT LIVING Slocan small low 20 Midway small low 20 Lk Cowichan small low 16.7 Rossland large low 16.7 Harrison small low 0 Keremeos small high 0 Sechelt small high 0 47 If there i s an a l t e r n a t i v e form of housing that respondents l i v e i n , only one type is indicated in each of these towns. Therefore, population s ize and proport ion of e lder ly appear to have an impact on the var ie ty of housing types a v a i l a b l e to the respondents in these 16 small towns. 4.1.3.How Are Home Support Services U t i l i z e d ? Table II provides a l i s t of home support services that the respondents fee l would help them remain in t h e i r homes. It has been pointed out in the l i t e r a t u r e that housing for seniors cannot be looked at in i s o l a t i o n ( F u l l e r and Joseph 1988). Various support services help seniors remain independent in the i r own homes. Home support services refer to those services that help an older person to continue to l i v e in the i r own home, to enhance comfort and/or prevent i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n . Services are provided through informal sources such as, family and fr iends or formal sources such as, pro fes s iona l s , businesses, and volunteers . When asked which services would help them remain in t h e i r own homes, the most frequent response (by 45 percent of seniors) was help with home maintenance. Next was help with housekeeping (39 percent) , followed by transportat ion (33 percent) . However, gett ing help when needed was a problem for only 19 percent of the sample. Transportat ion is an important concern of 33 percent of these small town seniors and problems encountered are re la ted to age, sex, and income. As shown in Table I I I , of the seniors interviewed, only two-thirds presently d r i v e . 48 TABLE I I I : AUTOMOBILE ACCESSIBILITY OF SENIOR RESPONDENTS IN 16 SMALL TOWNS IN B.C., 1987. N = 130 THE PROPORTION WHO DRIVE: 65% AGE OF DRIVERS: l e s s than 75 years of age 60% 75 years of age and over 40% INCOME OF DRIVERS: an income g r e a t e r than $11,000 70% an income of $11,000 or l e s s 30% SEX OF DRIVERS: of female respondents, % who d r i v e . . 5 5 % of male respondents, % who d r i v e . . . . 9 7 % SOURCE: F i e l d Survey, 1987. 49 The remainder must depend on o t h e r s to get around. The 60 percent of the respondents who are d r i v e r s are under 75 years of age. As w e l l , of the spouses who d r i v e , 86 percent are under 75 years of age. While age i s a f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g the m o b i l i t y of s e n i o r s , income i s even more s i g n i f i c a n t . Of a l l the respondents who d r i v e , 70 percent have an average annual income that i s g r e a t e r than $11,000. As w e l l , 77 percent of the spouses who d r i v e r e c e i v e an annual income g r e a t e r than $1 1 ,000. Sex i s another v a r i a b l e i n m o b i l i t y . Out of a l l the fetnale respondents, only 55 percent d r i v e as compared to 97 percent of the males. Of the female spouses, 50 percent do not d r i v e . T h i s means that i f t h e i r husbands were suddenly unable to d r i v e , many would l i k e l y have a t r a n s p o r t a t i o n problem. The s e n i o r s with the most t r a n s p o r t a t i o n problems are women who are over 75 years of age with incomes l e s s than the poverty l i n e . The impact of the p o p u l a t i o n s i z e and percentage of e l d e r l y i n each town on the p r o v i s i o n of home support s e r v i c e s i s d i s c u s s e d i n s e c t i o n 4.2.2. 4.1.4. S e n i o r s ' Housing Performance. Housing performance r e f e r s to the a b i l i t y of housing to support the d a i l y a c t i v i t y needs of a r e s i d e n t and can be measured d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y . The d i r e c t measures take i n t o account the a f f o r d a b i l i t y , p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n , and crowding of a d w e l l i n g . I n d i r e c t measures aim to 50 determine 'environmental s a t i s f a c t i o n ' through the u s e r ' s p e r c e p t i o n of t h e i r a b i l i t y to cope with a s t r u c t u r e , t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n of t h e i r h e a l t h , and t h e i r p r o p e n s i t y to move. 4.1.4.1. C r o w d i n g / A f f o r d a b i l i t y / A d e q u a c y Three f a c t o r s used to measure housing need by Canada Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n are crowding, a f f o r d a b i l i t y , and p h y s i c a l adequacy. 1. CROWDING Housing i s c o n s i d e r e d to be crowded i f there i s not at l e a s t one room per person e x c l u d i n g bathrooms, v e s t i b u l e s , and h a l l w a y s . No q u e s t i o n s about crowding were i n c l u d e d i n t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e . However, the housing stock i n these s m a l l towns was made up p r i m a r i l y of l a r g e , s i n g l e f a m i l y houses. T h e r e f o r e , i t can be assumed that very few B.C. small town s e n i o r s l i v e i n crowded c o n d i t i o n s . G e n e r a l l y , small town houses are very l a r g e , as they have been the f a m i l y homes with l a r g e yards and m u l t i p l e l e v e l s . While not crowded, these homes are o f t e n d i f f i c u l t f o r the e l d e r l y to cope with by themselves. 2. AFFORDABILTY Housing i s c o n s i d e r e d a f f o r d a b l e i f l e s s than 30 percent of a household's income i s spent on s h e l t e r c o s t s . Only three percent of the respondents c l a i m to have d i f f i c u l t y keeping up with t h e i r housing 51 c o s t s because of low incomes and a l l of these p r e s e n t l y l i v e i n s i n g l e f a m i l y homes. However, 47 percent of those with annual incomes of $8,000 or l e s s pay more than 30 percent of t h e i r incomes on housing c o s t s , which i n c l u d e rent or mortgage, heat, e l e c t r i c i t y , and p r o p e r t y taxes. S e n i o r s with medium incomes a l s o pay more than 30 percent of t h e i r household incomes on housing. Of those with annual incomes between $8,000 and $11,000, 39 percent spend more than 30 percent on housing along with 31 percent of those with annual incomes between $11,000 and $15,000 (see Table I V ) . Only 1 percent with annual incomes over $15,000 pay more than 30 percent on housing. In t o t a l , 35 percent of the s e n i o r s surveyed do not l i v e i n housing that i s c o n s i d e r e d a f f o r d a b l e . Those who l i v e i n s e n i o r s housing only pay 30 percent of t h e i r incomes on rent and only 5 percent of the sample l i v e i n p r i v a t e apartments. T h e r e f o r e , most of the s e n i o r s i n u n a f f o r d a b l e housing are i n houses and mobile homes. T h i s number i s h i g h compared to Dunning's (1986) c l a i m that 12.1 percent of Canada's s e n i o r s i n 1981 l i v e d i n housing t h a t was not c o n s i d e r e d a f f o r d a b l e . 52 TABLE IV: AMOUNT OF INCOME SPENT ON HOUSING IN 16 SMALL TOWNS IN B . C . , 1 9 8 7 . TOTAL ANNUAL PERCENTAGE SPENDING HOUSEHOLD INCOME OVER 30% ON HOUSING $8,000 - $11,999 39% $1 1 ,000 - $14,999 31% $15,000 AND OVER 1% 53 3. ADEQUACY CMHC's measure of adequacy accounts f o r the e x t e r i o r c o n d i t i o n of the house. T h i s study d i d not i n c l u d e v i s i t s to a l l the homes and, t h e r e f o r e , the p h y s i c a l adequacy of the d w e l l i n g s c o u l d not be measured. In B.C., the percentage of d w e l l i n g s i n 1981 that needed major r e p a i r decreased as the household age i n c r e a s e d (Gutman et a l 1986a). For households headed by people aged 25-54, 5.8 percent of t h e i r homes needed major r e p a i r ; 4.8 percent of the households with heads aged 55-64 needed major r e p a i r ; 4.1 percent of household aged 65-74 r e q u i r e d major r e p a i r ; and of those 75 and over, only 3.5 percent of t h e i r homes needed major r e p a i r . However, another study i n 1981 r e p o r t e d that 8.5 percent of Canada's s e n i o r s l i v e d i n housing that was c o n s i d e r e d to be inadequate '(Dunning 1986). D i r e c t measures of housing performance r e v e a l that 35 percent of the s e n i o r s i n t h i s sample have an a f f o r d a b i l i t y problem. Other Canada wide s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e t hat 12 percent of small town s e n i o r s l i v e i n u n a f f o r d a b l e housing, between 1 and 2 percent l i v e i n crowded c o n d i t i o n s and 8.5 percent occupy d w e l l i n g s that are p h y s i c a l l y inadequate. 4.1.4.2. 'Environmental S a t i s f a c t i o n ' Another way to measure housing performance i s to determine the user's 'environmental s a t i s f a c t i o n . ' 54 'Environmental s a t i s f a c t i o n ' i s the s u b j e c t i v e measure of the a b i l i t y of housing to support d a i l y a c t i v i t y needs. T h i s measure i s obtained through p e r c e p t i o n s of the r e s i d e n t s about v a r i o u s f a c t o r s . Wallace, MacDonald, and Rose (1984:23) c l a i m t h a t the best i n d i c a t o r s of 'environmental s a t i s f a c t i o n ' are f o r m a l / i n f o r m a l support networks, h e a l t h , and income. Other s u b j e c t i v e p e r c e p t i o n s r e l a t e d to 'environmental s a t i s f a c t i o n ' are the a b i l i t y to cope, a v a i l a b i l i t y of s e r v i c e s , and the p r o p e n s i t y to move. Three measures of s a t i s f a c t i o n and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w i l l be examined. 1. COPING 'Environmental s a t i s f a c t i o n ' may be a f f e c t e d by the a b i l i t y to cope with l i v i n g c o n d i t i o n s i n the home. In t h i s study, coping i s found to be r e l a t e d to the type of housing the s e n i o r s occupied, t h e i r sex, and age. Table V o u t l i n e s the problems respondents have with the i n t e r i o r and e x t e r i o r of t h e i r homes. The people who expressed having d i f f i c u l t y coping i n t h e i r homes a l l l i v e i n s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s or mobile homes. They have more than double the problems coping with the e x t e r i o r of the home than with the i n t e r i o r of a home. TABLE V-A: SELF-REPORTED DIFFICULTIES COPING INSIDE THE HOME BY HOUSING TYPE. N=1 30 HOUSING TYPE PROBLEM HOUSEWORK PLUMBING REPAIRS TOTAL HOUSE 5 (3.8%) 2 (1.2%) 5 (3.8%) 12 (9.2%) MOBILE HOME 1 (.8%) 1 (.8%) 2 (1.2%) 4(3.1%) SENIOR APARTMT 0 PRIVATE APARTMT 0 TOTAL 4.6% 2.0% 5.0% TABLE V-B: SELF-REPORTED DIFFICULTIES COPING OUTSIDE THE HOME BY HOUSING TYPE. HOUSING TYPE PROBLEM YARDWORK LAWN SNOW MAINTENANC TOTAL HOUSE 13 (10%) 12 (9.2%) 3 (2.3%) 7 (5.4%) 35 (26.9%) MOBILE HOME 2 (1.2%) 1 (.8%) 1 (.8%) 4 (3.1%) SENIOR APARTMT 0 PRIVATE APARTMT 0 TOTAL 11.2% 10.0% 2.3% 6.2% SOURCE: F i e l d Survey, 1987. 56 R e p a i r s , c i t e d by 5 percent of the respondents, and heavy housework, c i t e d by 4 percent, are the most frequent problems s e n i o r s have coping with the i n s i d e of t h e i r homes. Yardwork and lawns are problems t h a t 12 percent and 10 percent r e s p e c t i v e l y , have with the e x t e r i o r of t h e i r homes. E x t e r i o r maintenance i s d i f f i c u l t f o r 6 perc e n t . The i n a b i l i t y to cope with housing tended to i n c r e a s e with age and was predominantly a problem f o r women. Out of 54 responses of having d i f f i c u l t y coping i n s i d e and o u t s i d e the home, 89 percent are expressed by women. Of these women, 81 percent are s i n g l e . The a b i l i t y to cope i n s i d e the home a l s o decreases with age. Of those c l a i m i n g to have d i f f i c u l t y c oping i n s i d e , 75 percent are i n the o l d e r e l d e r l y category (75 and o v e r ) . However, age does not appear to be r e l a t e d to coping o u t s i d e of the home. Only 25 percent of those having problems coping with the o u t s i d e of t h e i r homes are 75 years of age or over. 2. HEALTH The s e n i o r s ' own p e r c e p t i o n of t h e i r h e a l t h was compared t o the type of housing they occupy, the amount of hel p r e c e i v e d , and income. There was no r e l a t i o n s h i p between the type of housing occupied and the e l d e r l y ' s p e r c e p t i o n of h e a l t h . Rather, the amount of home support s e r v i c e s r e c e i v e d c o r r e l a t e s with t h e i r h e a l t h r a t i n g . Of a l l the respondents, 70 percent f e e l that t h e i r h e a l t h i s good or e x c e l l e n t . The 57 remaining 31 percent c l a s s i f y themselves i n the f a i r or poor h e a l t h c a t e g o r i e s . There were c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s between persons c l a s s i f y i n g themselves i n the c a t e g o r i e s . For example, one woman i s completely housebound and needs a s s i s t a n c e to move from room to room. She depends on her daughter and a homemaker to drop i n d a i l y to cook, c l e a n , and run errands fo r her. She r e c e i v e s a l l the necessary h e l p she needs and does not c o n s i d e r h e r s e l f t o be i n poor h e a l t h . On the other hand, some people i n much b e t t e r p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n c o n s i d e r themselves to be i n poorer h e a l t h . Whatever t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n of h e a l t h i s , s e v e r a l f a c t o r s may be i n f l u e n t i a l . Table VI shows h e a l t h r a t i n g s c r o s s - t a b u l a t e d by sources of h e l p . Those i n very poor h e a l t h c a t e g o r i e s i n d i c a t e d r e c i e v i n g fewer s e r v i c e s than those i n poor, f a i r and good h e a l t h which was s u r p r i z i n g . The respondents who f e e l t h a t t h e i r h e a l t h i s poor i d e n t i f y four sources of h e l p . I t should be noted, however, t h a t only one of these sources i s i n f o r m a l . 58 TABLE VI: PERCEPTION OF HEALTH COMPARED WITH HELP RECEIVED BY SENIOR RESPONDENTS IN 16 SMALL TOWNS IN B.C., 1987. N = 81 SOURCE OF HELP SELF-ASSESSED HEALTH RATING VERY POOR POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENT CHILDREN RELATIVE FRIENDS HOMENURSE HOMEMAKER COMMUNITY STUDENT BUSINESS VOLUNTEER SOURCE: Field Survey, 1987. 59 Respondents ra t ing the i r own health as f a i r receive help from eight sources and two of these sources are informal . Those in the good health category receive help from nine sources, three of these being informal . Those in excel lent health receive help form four sources, only one of which i s an informal source. Another factor re la ted to the perception of health i s income. Of the respondents in the poor health category, 75 percent have incomes less than $11,000 compared with only 17 percent of the respondents in the excel lent health category. The 66 percent of those with f a i r health and 51 percent of the seniors in the good health categories have incomes between $8,000 and $15,000. 3. PROPENSITY TO MOVE The 'environmental s a t i s f a c t i o n ' of e l d e r l y may be re f l ec ted in the i r propensity to move. The propensity to move is influenced by factors that af fect independence (Johnson and Renzel la,1985:29). These factors could include dec l in ing hea l th , loss of a spouse, reduced income, or the i n a b i l i t y to cope with housing. Just over 20 percent of those interviewed have plans to move, but only 38 percent of these plan to leave t h e i r present town. When asked why a move i s being considered, the most frequent response, by 42 percent of the 60 respondents, i s to be c l o s e r to s e r v i c e s . The next most frequent response (39 percent) i s due to a d e c l i n e i n h e a l t h . The s i z e of the home i s a problem f o r 19 percent of the respondents who pl a n t o move. Of the s e n i o r s p l a n n i n g to move, 76 percent p r e s e n t l y l i v e i n a s i n g l e f a m i l y house: 68 percent of these want a p r i v a t e or n o n - p r o f i t s e n i o r s apartment and 28 percent w i l l look f o r another house. Four respondents seeking another home p r e s e n t l y l i v e i n mobile homes and three of these w i l l look f o r a s e n i o r s apartment next. 4.1.5.Summary The independent e l d e r l y respondents i n the sample are mostly i n the e l d e r l y category (65 to 74), s i n g l e , and female. Within the l a s t 10 ye a r s , almost h a l f of these s e n i o r s have moved to t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e small towns f o r the purpose of r e t i r e m e n t . N e i t h e r the d i f f e r e n t p o p u l a t i o n s i z e s of the towns nor the percentage of s e n i o r s i n them are s t r o n g l y a s s o c i a t e d with d i f f e r e n c e s i n the age s t r u c t u r e , sex r a t i o s , the m a r i t a l s t a t u s , or income of the respondents. However, l a r g e r towns and towns with a l r e a d y high percentages of e l d e r l y tend to a t t r a c t more s e n i o r s seeking a p l a c e to r e t i r e i n . In l i g h t of the i n c r e a s i n g amount of r e t i r e e s moving to s m a l l e r communities f o r t h e i r r e t i r e m e n t , t h i s c o u l d have a l a r g e impact on these types of towns. P o p u l a t i o n s i z e and percentage of s e n i o r s do make a d i f f e r e n c e i n the v a r i e t y of housing types that the 61 respondents l i v e i n . More respondents from t owns with a large population and high percentage of e l d e r l y l i v e in housing types other than s ingle family dwel l ings . Housing performance is worse for those respondents who l i v e in s ing le - fami ly detached houses and mobile homes. Problems with a f f o r d a b i l i t y and coping are almost exc lus ive ly experienced by those in houses and mobile homes. These problems are further aggravated for o lder , lower income, and female respondents. Home support services help to enhance housing performance. The e l d e r l y ' s perception of personal health may r e f l e c t the number of sources of help received and income. One indicator of housing performance is the propensity to move. Those respondents who l i v e in s ingle family homes and mobile homes have a much larger propensity to move and most of these w i l l seek e i ther a pr ivate renta l apartment or a seniors' apartment in the same town. 4.2. A PROFILE OF SMALL TOWNS IN B . C . . An examination of these 16 small towns re inforces the impression that there i s considerable d i v e r s i t y between small communities. These f indings support those of Martin-Matthews and Vanden-Heuval (1985) and Krout (1986) who i d e n t i f i e d small town d i v e r s i t y as one of the major research problems in the study of r u r a l sen iors . While t h i s study has compared only two s ize groups and di f ferences in senior proportions in small towns, other var ia t ions e x i s t . "Towns and V i l l a g e s have a symbiotic r e l a t i o n s h i p with the area, the people, and the 62 a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e i r locale"(Hodge,1986:3). Krout (1986) p o i n t s out that the impact the e l d e r l y have on smal l towns v a r i e s s o c i a l l y , e c o n o m i c a l l y and p o l i t i c a l l y . 4.2.1.Small Town Rental Housing Stock These 16 small towns have a much narrower range of s e r v i c e s , f a c i l i t i e s , and housing c h o i c e s than l a r g e urban c e n t r e s . Table VII i l l u s t r a t e s the invento r y of r e n t a l o p t i o n s a v a i l a b l e . The towns are l i s t e d a c c o r d i n g to p o p u l a t i o n s i z e . While the dominant form of housing f o r the respondents i n a l l of the towns i s s i n g l e f a m i l y houses, the r e n t a l o p t i o n s tended to grow with the p o p u l a t i o n s i z e of the town. They o f t e n p r o v i d e the only a l t e r n a t i v e to a s i n g l e f a m i l y home. Except f o r the four s m a l l e s t towns, a l l of the towns i n t h i s study have s u b s i d i z e d s e n i o r apartments. While the l a r g e r towns have more u n i t s , they a l s o have more people to f i l l them. I f the amount of u n i t s a v a i l a b l e are compared to the number of people i n the town, most of the l a r g e r towns do not pr o v i d e much more than the s m a l l e r ones. Of the three towns that have enough s e n i o r ' s r e n t a l apartments f o r 7 percent or more of t h e i r s e n i o r p o p u l a t i o n , only one i s i n the l a r g e s i z e category and only one other i s i n the high s e n i o r percentage group. 63 TABLE VII: EXISTING RENTAL HOUSING STOCK IN 16 SMALL TOWNS IN B.C. 1986 TOTAL TOWNS HOUSING TYPES TOWN POP. (% 65 AND OVER) MARKET RENTAL UNITS SENIOR RENTAL UNITS 294 SLOCAN (14%) 552 HARRISON (12%) 22 -640 MIDWAY (12%) 4 839 KEREMEOS (25%) 6 858 KASLO (19%) 4 10 1224 SECHELT (19%) 38 40 1853 CUMBERLAND (17%) 50 28 2170 LK-COWICHAN (9%) 57 1 6 2675 GIBSONS (16%) 6 20 2910 PRINCETON (11%) 73 18 N.A. AGASSIZ (N.A.) 163 49 4098 CRESTON (28%) 121 19 3472 ROSSLAND (10%) 85 20 5828 PARKSVILLE (20%) 200 35 6873 COMOX (9%) 21 1 44 7755 SUMMERLAND (21%) 40 60 (Figures in last two columns indicate the number of units available) SOURCE: F i e l d Survey, 1987. 64 The three towns are: TOWN SIZE % ELDERLY % SENIOR'S APTS Agassiz large low 19 Cumberland small high 8 Lake Cowichan small low 7 On the other hand, the towns that provide s u f f i c i e n t units to house three percent or less of the town's senior population include three towns with both a large population and a high percentage of sen iors . At the other extreme, three towns with both a small population and a low percentage of e l d e r l y have no seniors apartments. The towns with three percent or less sen ior ' s apartments for the ir e l d e r l y include: TOWN SIZE % ELDERLY % SENIORS APTS Summerland large high 3 P a r k s v i l l e large high 2 Creston large high 2 Slocan small low 0 Harrison small low 0 Midway small low 0 Keremeos large high 0 The provis ion of sen ior ' s renta l uni ts i s d i f f i c u l t i f the population and proport ion of e l d e r l y i s e i ther too large or too smal l . A small population and low percentage of e lder ly does not create enough demand and a large population and high percentage may createmore demand than the town i s able to meet. While the large towns have a low percentage of sen ior ' s uni t s per e l d e r l y populat ion, the 65 smal l e r towns have no u n i t s a t . a l l . The amount of p r i v a t e r e n t a l u n i t s a l s o tends t o in c r e a s e with the p o p u l a t i o n s i z e of a town. However, i f the number of p r i v a t e r e n t a l u n i t s i s compared with the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n i n each town, only A g a s s i z has enough u n i t s f o r seven percent of i t s t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n . Only two of the other towns has p r i v a t e r e n t a l u n i t s f o r more than three percent of i t s p o p u l a t i o n and they i n c l u d e H a r r i s o n (4%) and S e c h e l t (3.1%). When comparing the housing stock a v a i l a b l e i n each town, a p a t t e r n emerges: the range of housing o p t i o n s a v a i l a b l e i n c r e a s e s with the s i z e of the town and, to a l e s s e r e x t e n t , with the percentage of e l d e r l y . The towns with e i t h e r a l a r g e p o p u l a t i o n and h i g h percentage of s e n i o r s or towns with a smal l p o p u l a t i o n and low percentage of e l d e r l y , p r o v i d e the l e a s t u n i t s of s e n i o r s apartments per t o t a l e l d e r l y p o p u l a t i o n i n the 16 towns. When comparing the number of p r i v a t e r e n t a l u n i t s with the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n i n each town, few r e n t a l o p t i o n s are a v a i l a b l e i n any of the towns whether they are l a r g e or small and whether they have a high or low percentage of e l d e r l y . 4.2.2.Small Town S e r v i c e s and F a c i l i t i e s Table VIII l i s t s the 14 s e r v i c e s and f a c i l i t i e s a v a i l a b l e f o r use p r i m a r i l y by s e n i o r s i n the towns surveyed. 66 TABLE VIII: EXISTING SUPPORT SERVICES AND FACILITES IN 16 SMALL TOWNS IN B.C., 1987. TOWNS AVAILABLE SUPPORT SERVICES AND FACILITIES (% 65 AND OVER) SENIOR CITIZENS CLUB HOMEMAKERS MEALS ON WHEELS ADULT DAY CARE HOME NURSE HANDYMAN TAXI COMMUNITY BUS PUBLIC BUS VOLUNTEER DRIVERS INTERMEDIATE CARE FAC. EXTENDED CARE FACILITY HOSPITAL HEALTH UNIT/CLINIC SLOCAN (14%) HARRISON (12%) MIDWAY (12%) KEREMEOS (25%) KASLO (19%) SECHELT (19%) I'lTl'mTi CUMBERLAND (17%) LK-COWICHAN (9%) GIBSONS (16%) KBft-Sfc?: • mi,---PRINCETON (11%) AGASSIZ (N.A.) CRESTON (28%) " f • • • ROSSLAND (10%) PARKSVILLE (20%) COMOX (9%) SUMMERLAND (21%) (Shaded areas indicate services that are available) SOURCE: Fiel d Survey, 1987. 67 Again, the a v a i l a b i l i t y var ies d i r e c t l y with the s ize of the town. A l l of the towns with a large population except Agassiz have seven or more home support serv ices . The smaller towns in th i s study that have a large range of support services also have a large percentage of sen iors . These towns include: TOWN SIZE % ELDERLY NUMBER OF SERVICES Sechelt small high 10 Cumberland small high 7 Kaslo small high 7 The types of services that require a f a c i l i t y for operation are general ly only found in half of the towns. These f a c i l i t i e s include: SERVICE OFFERED NUMBER OF TOWNS WITH SERVICE Intermediate Care 8 Extended Care 8 Hospi ta l 6 Health C l i n i c 6 The larger towns usual ly have both an intermediate and an extended care f a c i l i t y within the community. If seniors require such care in smaller towns, they must leave the community. This f inding i s in accordance with those of Johnson and Renzella (1985:55), who found that the larger the town, the larger the range of services in them. The services that are found in ten or more of the towns are the home nurse, meals on wheels, homemakers, and the seniors c lubs . The outside influences brought in by recent migrants may help generate more serv ices . As a previous 68 example i l l u s t r a t e d , the narrow range of s e r v i c e s f o r s e n i o r s i n Slocan may be a t t r i b u t e d to the f a c t t h at o u t s i d e r s are not m i g r a t i n g there and o u t s i d e e x p e c t a t i o n s are not being imported. The range of s e r v i c e s i n Summerland i s much wider and t h i s i s probably due to the i n - m i g r a t i o n of s e n i o r s from elsewhere. These m i g r a t i n g e l d e r l y o f t e n b r i n g with them higher e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y . A major s e r v i c e problem i d e n t i f i e d by s e n i o r s i n a l l the towns i s t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . T h e i r i s o l a t i o n and lack of s e r v i c e s means that small town s e n i o r s are much more dependent on v e h i c u l a r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n to l i n k them with d i s t a n t s e r v i c e s and f a c i l i t i e s . Only three towns had a p u b l i c bus or a v o l u n t e e r d r i v e r s s e r v i c e . While a community bus was operated i n 10 of the towns, the hours of o p e r a t i o n and d e s t i n a t i o n s are g e n e r a l l y very l i m i t e d . A t a x i s e r v i c e operates i n 11 towns, but the co s t of t a k i n g a t a x i i s hig h i f on a r e s t r i c t e d income. Two towns, Keremeos and Midway, had no t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s e r v i c e at a l l and only one town, Gibsons, had more than two t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s e r v i c e s . Due to hazardous r u r a l road c o n d i t i o n s , there i s r a r e l y any form of p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , and the d i s t a n c e s between many s e r v i c e s , f a m i l y , and f r i e n d s i s u s u a l l y l a r g e r f o r s m a l l town s e n i o r s . For these reasons, most small town s e n i o r s ' m o b i l i t y i s r e s t r i c t e d i f they cannot d r i v e and/or cannot a f f o r d a c a r . The p r o v i s i o n of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s e r v i c e s i n each town 69 does not r e f l e c t the need, l o c a l road c o n d i t i o n s , s i z e of the town, or percentage of s e n i o r s . The towns range from having e x t e n s i v e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s to having none at a l l . Table VIII o u t l i n e s the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s e r v i c e s a v a i l a b l e i n the 16 s m a l l towns. T r a n s p o r t a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s appear to r e f l e c t the a b i l i t y of l o c a l i n d i v i d u a l s or community groups to organize and fund v a r i o u s forms of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s e r v i c e s . For example, P r i n c e t o n has a community s e r v i c e s o f f i c e t h a t i n c l u d e s a c a l l - i n t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s e r v i c e f o r the whole community. Door-to-door s e r v i c e i s o f f e r e d at s u b s i d i z d r a t e s four days a week. The bus and a p a i d d r i v e r can be rented out f o r s p e c i a l events i n the evenings or on weekends. As w e l l , weekly s e r v i c e from P r i n c e t o n l i n k s s e v e r a l towns i n the region with P e n t i c t o n . In c o n t r a s t , the town of Midway and Keremeos have no t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s e r v i c e . Other towns, l i k e Kaslo, Slocan, and Creston have s e n i o r s buses that have been bought through community fund r a i s i n g , but the use of these depend on v o l u n t e e r d r i v e r s . Most of these are used mainly f o r weekly r e g i o n a l shopping t r i p s . One problem with these community buses i s t h a t the a f f o r d a b l e r a t e s charged do not cover maintainance c o s t s . Three towns have p u b l i c bus s e r v i c e and eleven have a t a x i s e r v i c e . While the t a x i p r o v i d e s an a l t e r n a t i v e , some s e n i o r s cannot a f f o r d the r a t e s . To i l l u s t r a t e the v a r i a t i o n between towns i n the housing and s e r v i c e s that they p r o v i d e , see F i g u r e 3 f o r p r o f i l e s of Kaslo, Midway, and Comox. 70 FIGURE 3. A PROFILE OF HOUSING AND SERVICES IN THREE TOWNS FIGURE 3-A. KASLO Out of 170 e l d e r l y r e s i d e n t s i n K a s l o , 126 of them are p r o p e r t y owners. Rental c h o i c e s i n c l u d e one p r i v a t e apartment b u i l d i n g with four s u i t e s of which a l l are rented. There i s a l s o one non p r o f i t S e n i o r C i t i z e n ' s apartment b u i l d i n g with ten f u l l y o c c upied s u i t e s and a w a i t i n g l i s t of e i g h t persons. I t i s l o c a t e d c l o s e to the downtown c e n t r e on the w a t e r f r o n t . The Kaslo H o s p i t a l has 10 beds with 2 extended care beds, but there i s no intermediate care f a c i l i t y and the n e a r e s t f a c i l i t y of t h i s type i s 70 k i l o m e t e r s away i n Nelson. There are a few s e r v i c e s i n Kaslo t h a t h e l p s e n i o r s remain i n t h e i r own homes, but they are l i m i t e d by funding. They i n c l u d e : 1. Home Support, which p r o v i d e s p e r s o n a l and housekeeping s e r v i c e s ; 2. Meals On Wheels, which operates out of the h o s p i t a l and d e l i v e r s meals to s e n i o r s i n t h e i r homes three times per week; 3. A P u b l i c H e a l t h Nurse, who has seven hours a week to devote to a l l s e n i o r home v i s i t s . 4. Community Bus s e r v i c e , which p r o v i d e s weekly t r i p s to Nelson and can be rented by any group i n the community. 71 FIGURE 3-B. MIDWAY V i r t u a l l y a l l of the s e n i o r s i n Midway l i v e i n s i n g l e f a m i l y houses because there are no p r i v a t e r e n t a l u n i t s , no s e n i o r apartments, no intermediate care f a c i l i t i e s , and no extended care f a c i l i t i e s . There are. only four p u b l i c housing u n i t s which were b u i l t p r i o r to 1979 and o n l y one of these i s occupied by a s e n i o r , at the present time. There are no v a c a n c i e s . In Midway, 21 percent of the pro p e r t y owners are s e n i o r s . Midway l a c k s the s e r v i c e s to h e l p s e n i o r s to stay i n t h e i r houses. Homemaker s e r v i c e s are d e l i v e r e d out of Greenwood, 13 kms away and a h e a l t h nurse v i s i t s the town once a month from P e n t i c t o n . S e n i o r s with any care needs that they cannot cope with i n t h e i r own homes must move at l e a s t 51 kms away. FIGURE 3-C. COMOX In 1981, 433 out of 585 s e n i o r s were p r o p e r t y owners. Although, at t h i s time, s e n i o r s made up onl y 8.97 percent of the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n , they account f o r 24 percent of a l l the property owners. While most of the s e n i o r s l i v e i n s i n g l e f a m i l y houses, there are s e v e r a l other o p t i o n s . The p r i v a t e - r e n t a l stock c o n s i s t s of 211 u n i t s , ranging from b a s i c to l u x u r i o u s . As w e l l , two s e n i o r housing p r o j e c t s provide 28 one-bedroom u n i t s and 16 townhouse u n i t s f o r s e n i o r s . However, the vacancy r a t e i s very low. Comox has an intermediate c a r e h o s p i t a l with 75 beds, but there i s a three year w a i t i n g l i s t of 173 persons. T h i s f a c i l i t y i s l o c a t e d four k i l o m e t e r s o u t s i d e of town on a h i l l , making the f a c i l i t y i n a c c e s s a b l e by f o o t . There are a l s o extended care f a c i l i t i e s i n the h o s p i t a l that p r o v i d e s 75 beds and has a s i x month w a i t i n g l i s t . There are p l a n s i n the works to develop a 55 acre s i t e b e side the i n t e r m e d i a t e care f a c i l i t y f o r s e n i o r s . T h i s p r o p o s a l i n c l u d e s some s e l f -c o n t a i n e d s e n i o r apartments, i n a d d i t i o n to i n t e r m e d i a t e c a r e , extended c a r e , and g e r i a t r i c h o s p i t a l f a c i l t i e s . A wide v a r i e t y of s e r v i c e s e x i s t i n the town i n c l u d i n g Homemakers, a Homenurse, Meals on Wheels, a Day Care Program, Taxi s e r v i c e s , v o l u n t e e r d r i v e r s f o r s e n i o r events at the Senior Centre, and a s e n i o r bus that makes a weekly t r i p to Courtenay, s i x k i l o m e t e r s away. 73 4.2.3.Why L i v e i n a Small Town? Although some small towns do not appear to p r o v i d e adequately f o r the needs of s e n i o r s , the percentage of e l d e r l y l i v i n g i n them co n t i n u e s to grow. The reasons behind t h i s a t t r a c t i o n are examined next. "Towns and V i l l a g e s are viewed as p e a c e f u l , f r i e n d l y , and h e a l t h y p l a c e s i n which to l i v e " (Hodge and Qadeer,1983). As shown i n Table IX, the s e n i o r s i n t h i s study i d e n t i f i e d s i m i l a r p o s i t i v e a s p e c t s about small towns. The strong sense of community a s s o c i a t e d with small towns was the a t t r a c t i v e f e a t u r e more f r e q u e n t l y mentioned by respondents (84%). T h i s sense of community was f e l t to f o s t e r n e i g h b o r l i n e s s , f a m i l i a r i t y , an i n f o r m a l support network and a s a f e r l i v i n g environment. However, a sm a l l p r o p o r t i o n of respondents (4%) f e l t t h a t a lack of p r i v a c y r e s u l t e d from t h i s c l o s e n e s s i n the community. Approximately one q u a r t e r (26%) of the respondents mentioned that the n a t u r a l environment, which i n c l u d e s c l e a n a i r , and a m i l d c l i m a t e , was a p o s i t i v e f e a t u r e of small town l i v i n g . T h i s aspect was e s p e c i a l l y a t t r a c t i v e to r e t i r e e s from other p r o v i n c e s and urban c e n t r e s . Approximately one q u a r t e r a l s o mentioned the q u i e t  l i f e s t y l e and slow pace (26%) and the the small s i z e (23%), a l l o w i n g f o r the p h y s i c a l p r o x i m i t y of a m e n i t i e s . 74 TABLE IX: POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF SMALL TOWN LIVING AS EXPRESSED BY SENIOR RESPONDENTS IN SMALL TOWNS IN B . C . . (N = 130) POSITIVE NEGATIVE SENSE OF COMMUNITY: 84% FEW SERVICES OR F A C I L I T I E S 68% NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: 2 6% NO PRIVACY 4% QUIET L I F E S T Y L E : 24% ISOLATION 2% S I Z E : 23% LOW COST OF L I V I N G : 11% SOURCE: F i e l d S u r v e y , 1987. 75 However, the small s i z e does not allow f o r a very l a r g e range of f a c i l i t i e s and s e r v i c e s and t h i s f a c t was i d e n t i f i e d by 68 percent of the s e n i o r s as the l a r g e s t drawback to l i v i n g i n a small town. The s p e c i f i c reasons respondents gave f o r moving to t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r town are o u t l i n e d i n Table X. Some towns a t t r a c t e d people f o r v a r i o u s reasons such as a low c o s t of l i v i n g , h e a l t h , jobs, b i r t h p l a c e , and to be near f r i e n d s and f a m i l y . Other towns o f f e r n a t u r a l amenities and f a c i l i t i e s that s u i t r e t i r e m e n t needs such as c l i m a t e , n a t u r a l beauty, and h e a l t h . These " q u a l i t y of l i f e " f a c t o r s a l s o have been i d e n t i f i e d by Krout (1986:30) as mo t i v a t i o n s f o r the e l d e r l y to move to smal l towns. Some towns a t t r a c t c e r t a i n types of people. For example, 42 percent of respondents who migrated to Creston were p r a i r i e farmers seeking a small town atmosphere with a mild e r c l i m a t e i n which to r e t i r e . T h i s accounts f o r the l a r g e percentage (64 percent) of respondents moving to Creston f o r the purpose of r e t i r e m e n t . Creston's appeal to t h i s group has been r e c o g n i z e d by the Chamber of Commerce who a d v e r t i s e Creston's r e t i r e m e n t p o t e n t i a l at r u r a l p r a i r i e f a i r s and rodeos. Creston f i t s Hodge's (1989) d e f i n i t i o n of an ' i t i n e r a n t r e t irement c e n t r e , ' a town that i s a t t r a c t i n g l a r g e numbers of r e t i r e e s t o i t . TABLE X: PURPOSE OF MOVING TO THE PRESENT TOWN AS EXPRESSED SENIOR RESPONDENTS IN 16 SMALL TOWNS IN B . C . , 1987. N = 116 1986 TOTAL TOWN % OF RESPONSES PER TOWN TOWN POP. (% 65 AND OVER) ! BORN HERE HEALTH REASONS FOR RETIREMENT FRIENDS AND RELATIVES EMPLOYMENT COST OF LIVING 294 SLOCAN 40 40 20 552 HARRISON 33 33 33 640 MIDWAY 60 40 839 KEREMEOS 1 0 60 1 0 20 858 KASLO 33 22 22 22 1 224 SECHELT 1 3 50 1 3 1 3 13 1853 CUMBERLAND 40 60 2170 LK-COWICHAN 50 50 2675 GIBSONS 1 7 83 291 0 PRINCETON 1 3 1 3 20 47 7 N . A . AGASSIZ 50 50 4098 CRESTON 9 64 9 9 9 3472 ROSSLAND 20 40 40 5828 PARKSVILLE 60 20 20 6873 COMOX 50 1 7 33 7755 SUMMERLAND 1 5 62 8 8 8 SOURCE: F i e l d Survey , 1987. 77 S e c h e l t i s a l s o an ' i t i n e r a n t r e t i r e m e n t c e n t r e , ' but i t a t t r a c t s a d i f f e r e n t group of people. Many s e n i o r s had cabins here p r i o r to retirement and d e c i d e d to make i t t h e i r permanent home. Of those surveyed, most have moved to S e c h e l t f o r the purpose of r e t i r e m e n t . T h i s i s r e f l e c t e d i n the l e n g t h of time the respondents have l i v e d here. For example, 2 have l i v e d here l e s s than 5 y e a r s , 1 l e s s than 10 years, 3 l e s s than 15 years and only 2 over 20 y e a r s . S e c h e l t ' s p r o x i m i t y to Vancouver, the good f e r r y s e r v i c e and the n a t u r a l c o a s t a l beauty, a t t r a c t r e t i r e e s from urban c e n t r e s . For example, the respondents have a l l moved from c i t i e s i n other p a r t s of the p r o v i n c e : Burnaby, Haney, North Vancouver, West Vancouver, Vernon, or Vancouver. By c o n t r a s t , Rossland i s a town whose r e t i r e e s have l i v e d t h e r e most of t h e i r l i f e . A l l of the respondents from t h i s town have been there f o r over 20 y e a r s . Only 20 percent of those surveyed moved to Rossland f o r the purpose of r e t i r e m e n t . A l l of the respondents have incomes over the poverty l i n e and t h i s i s a r e f l e c t i o n of the l a r g e pension b e n e f i t s from Cominco, the long time p r i n c i p a l employer i n Rossland. P r o x i m i t y to T r a i l means that s e n i o r s i n Rossland are c l o s e to most am e n i t i e s they need. Hodge (1989) c a l l s these p l a c e s 'indigenous' r e t i r e m e n t c e n t r e s , which are towns where s e n i o r s have l i v e d f o r a long time and have chosen to remain there f o r r e t i r e m e n t . D e s p i t e the d i f f e r e n c e s between towns, the most f r e q u e n t l y mentioned m o t i v a t i n g f a c t o r (40 percent of the 78 respondents) f o r moving to t h e i r present town was f o r the purpose of r e t i r e m e n t . Employment a t t r a c t e d 22 percent of the respondents to small towns and 16 percent were a t t r a c t e d to be near f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s a l r e a d y l i v i n g t h e r e . There i s no one answer to the q u e s t i o n of why l i v e i n a sma l l town. Rather, the most common reasons given f o r moving to a small town are r e t i r e m e n t , employment, and/or to be near f r i e n d s and f a m i l y . The most a t t r a c t i v e a s p e c t s of small town l i v i n g are the strong sense of community, the n a t u r a l environment and the small s i z e . B a s i c a l l y , s e n i o r s are a t t r a c t e d to d i f f e r e n t towns f o r d i f f e r e n t reasons. 4.3. CONCLUSIONS A common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of these small towns i s the i n c r e a s i n g p r o p o r t i o n of s e n i o r s l i v i n g i n them. Se n i o r s are choosing to remain i n or move to small towns f o r t h e i r s t r o n g sense of community, n a t u r a l environment, q u i e t l i f e s t y l e , small s i z e , and low co s t of l i v i n g . The l a r g e r towns are more f r e q u e n t l y chosen by s e n i o r s to r e t i r e i n . The dominant form of housing i n small towns i s s i n g l e -f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s . T h i s form of s t r u c t u r e may not be a p p r o p r i a t e to s e n i o r s ' needs i n the long run. Housing performance and s u p p o r t - s e r v i c e s have a l a r g e impact on small town e l d e r l y , a f f e c t i n g t h e i r 'environmental s a t i s f a c t i o n . ' Should s e n i o r s become unable to cope with t h e i r housing, t h e i r c h o i c e s are g e n e r a l l y l i m i t e d w i t h i n t h e i r own communities. The dilemma i n t h i s case may be to l i v e i n substandard c o n d i t i o n s or move out 79 of t h e i r present community. There are four major f i n d i n g s from the a n a l y s i s of the survey r e s u l t s . 1. Housing o p t i o n s i n small towns are s e v e r e l y l i m i t e d to a very few types, with the dominant form being s i n g l e - f a m i l y houses. While the amount of s e n i o r and p r i v a t e r e n t a l apartments i n c r e a s e with the s i z e of the town, when p r i v a t e r e n t a l u n i t s are examined on a per c a p i t a b a s i s , p o p u l a t i o n s i z e and the percentage of e l d e r l y do not i n f l u e n c e the amount of u n i t s a v a i l a b l e . 2. The a v a i l a b i l i t y of home support s e r v i c e s f o r the e l d e r l y v a r i e s among small towns. The s m a l l e s t p o p u l a t i o n and lowest percentage of s e n i o r s i n g e n e r a l having the fewest. T r a n s p o r t a t i o n s e r v i c e s and those s e r v i c e s that r e q u i r e medical f a c i l i t i e s are o f f e r e d l e s s than other s e r v i c e s . The most requested s e r v i c e s are f o r h e l p with home maintenance, heavy c l e a n i n g , and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . 3. Housing performance a f f e c t s the 'environmental s a t i s f a c t i o n ' of the e l d e r l y and i s r e f l e c t e d i n the a b i l i t y to cope with day-to-day l i v i n g , p e r c e p t i o n of h e a l t h , and p r o p e n s i t y to move. The respondents who have expressed the most d i s a t i s f a c t i o n i n these areas are those who l i v e i n s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s and mobile homes, those with lower incomes, women and those over 85 years of age. 4. T r a n s p o r t a t i o n i s a major s e r v i c e concern of s e n i o r s 80 i n s mall towns. M o b i l i t y and independence are most a f f e c t e d when there i s no l i n k between the home of the e l d e r l y to v a r i o u s s e r v i c e s and f a c i l i t i e s . Few smal l towns have any c o l l e c t i v e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s e r v i c e . 81 5. PRESENT HOUSING PROGRAMS AND FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS Housing has an impact on the e l d e r l y ' s a b i l i t y to function comfortably with average d a i l y l i f e . Single family dwellings make up the majority of housing stock in small towns. A l t e r n a t i v e types of housing must be developed and support services expanded to accommodate the housing needs of the small town e l d e r l y . The ef fect iveness of housing programs in meeting these needs can now be examined. A b r i e f review of past and present Canadian housing programs w i l l be followed by some future project ions for seniors ' housing needs in small towns in B . C . . 5 .1. HOUSING PROGRAM REVIEW There are several government programs designed to d i r e c t l y and i n d i r e c t l y a s s i s t the development of a range of shelter choices for seniors . Most of these programs have been developed to meet urban needs and l i t t l e i s known of the i r impact on small towns. The federal government recognized the market's f a i l u r e to provide low income housing as ear ly as 1938, when the National Housing Act was es tabl i shed with the agenda of providing low income renta l housing and a id for home ownership. Although government housing programs d id not a c t u a l l y take a tangible form u n t i l the mid 1950's, they have since provided loans for home improvement and new development, insurance for mortgage loans and renta l development loans, subsidies to owners, renters 82 and de v e l o p e r s , i n d i r e c t tax breaks to home owners, and management g u i d e l i n e s f o r new c o n s t r u c t i o n . For c l a r i t y sake, r e n t a l programs w i l l be presented f i r s t , f o l l o w e d by homeownership programs. 5.1.1.Rental Programs Rental programs i n c l u d e s o c i a l housing, s u b s i d i e s and low i n t e r e s t loans, rent supplements, homesharing, and i n s t i t u t i o n a l programs. 5.1.1.1. S o c i a l Housing S o c i a l housing encompasses that which has been a s s i s t e d by the government f o r low income r e s i d e n t s ( P a t t e r s o n et a l , 1977). Three types of s o c i a l housing e x i s t i n B.C. (McKee et a l , 1979): 1. P u b l i c housing i s housing b u i l t and operated by p r o v i n c i a l or m u n i c i p a l governments. 2. N o n - p r o f i t housing i s developed and operated by non-p r o f i t s o c i e t i e s , who r e c e i v e funds from the f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l governments. In B.C., the p r o v i n c i a l government o u t l i n e s r e g u l a t i o n s and g u i d e l i n e s i n a c o n s t r u c t i o n handbook. 3. Cooperative housing i s b u i l t and operated by c o o p e r a t i v e members and f i n a n c e d by the f e d e r a l government. In 1949, s e c t i o n 35 i n the N a t i o n a l Housing Act (NHA) e s t a b l i s h e d a p a r t n e r s h i p between The C e n t r a l 83 Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n (CMHC) 1 and p r o v i n c i a l government housing a g e n c i e s . The B r i t i s h Columbia Housing Management Commission (BCHMC) i s the housing agency f o r B.C.. T h i s p a r t n e r s h i p was to e s t a b l i s h a cos t s h a r i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n of p u b l i c  housing. CMHC was the a c t i v e l e n d e r , p r o v i d i n g a loan to the p r o v i n c e f o r 25 percent of c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s and CMHC pr o v i d e d the remaining 75 pe r c e n t . In 1954, the NHA was amended to change CMHC's r o l e from that of lender to an i n s u r e r of loans from other approved l e n d e r s . The NHA was again amended i n 1964 to all o w CMHC to i n s u r e loans to the p r o v i n c e s and m u n i c i p a l i t i e s f o r up to 90 percent of the c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s . T h i s amendment meant that the pro v i n c e s c o u l d r e t a i n f u l l ownership of the housing, while s h a r i n g only h a l f of the l o s s e s with the f e d e r a l l e v e l . Low i n t e r e s t loans to non p r o f i t s o c i e t i e s who developed low income housing were a l s o p a r t of t h i s amendment ( G o l d b l a t t , 1986a). T h i s f e d e r a l / p r o v i n c i a l s o c i a l housing program was ended because the method of t a r g e t i n g f o r low income r e s i d e n t s r e s u l t e d i n poor 'ghetto l i k e ' environments. The s o l u t i o n was the F e d e r a l S o c i a l Housing Program o u t l i n e d i n S e c t i o n 56.1 (Non P r o f i t Housing) of the NHA in 1979. S e c t i o n 56.1 attempts to pr o v i d e a mix of tenants by d e s i g n a t i n g a Maximum Un i t P r i c e (MUP) which 1 CMHC was founded i n 1944 and the name was l a t e r changed to Canada Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n . T h i s c o r p o r a t i o n i s the housing agency f o r the f e d e r a l government. 84 insures lower end of the market rents . This i s achieved by CMHC wri t ing down the mortgage in teres t rate to 2 percent for the housing soc ie ty . In a d d i t i o n , a number of uni ts are designated for further f i n a n c i a l ass istance with subsidies to cover the gap between 30 percent of the res ident ' s income and the MUP. Construct ion guidel ines for non p r o f i t housing soc ie t i e s are provided by BCHMC in The Senior C i t i z e n s Housing Construct ion Program  Sponsor's Handbook (B .C. M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing, 1980). This handbook out l ines the budget, design guide l ines , the type and s ize of units and allowable resident incomes. In 1986, the major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for s o c i a l housing was sh i f ted from the federal l e v e l to the p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l . The resul t of th i s s h i f t i s a return to the system in place p r i o r to 1978, which produces publ ic  housing that subsidizes a l l units for low income res idents . A s o c i a l mix i s no longer achieved. The province now issues a Proposal C a l l , which sets the regulat ions and guidel ines for s o c i a l housing developments. Non p r o f i t soc ie t i e s then submit t h e i r proposals which are evaluated on the basis of cost e f f i c i e n c y . CMHC issues a loan that covers 100 percent of the construct ion and land costs and provides 67 percent of the rent subsidy. E l i g i b i l i t y for tenure includes being over the age of 55, a Canadian c i t i z e n and residency for at least two years in the province p r i o r to a p p l i c a t i o n or any 5 85 consecutive years of residency in the province . The federal government s t i l l re ta ins the major authori ty under section 56.1 of the NHA for the development of non-prof i t co-operat ives . This housing option provides affordable uni ts which are rented by members from the i r co-ops usual ly at 25 percent of the ir income. C o l l e c t i v e ownership and decis ions for the whole development character ize t h i s type of housing. Therefore, a member cannot s e l l the i r sui te and make a p r o f i t . 5 .1 .1 .2 . Subsidies and Low Interest Loans Other types of government programs for affordable renta l units were those appl ied to the pr ivate renta l sector through d i r e c t and ind irec t subs id ies . The Ass i s ted Renters Program (ARP) was implemented by the federal government from 1975 to 1978 and provided d i r e c t subsidies to the renters of designated units which covered rent over 25 percent of the res idents income. ARP also provided a loan of up to $1200.00 per unit to the developer of new renta l accomodation. This low interes t loan diminishes each year for 10 years . Other federal programs were aimed at increas ing the renta l stock. The Canada Rental Supply Plan (CRSP), in place between 1981 and 1984, was r e a l l y an extention of the ARP with larger low income loans. The M u l t i p l e Unit  Res ident ia l Bui ld ing Program (MURB), implemented in 1974 to 1979 and again in 1980 to 1982, allowed the developers 86 of r e n t a l u n i t s to deduct t h e i r investments from t h e i r t a x a b l e income. 5.1.1.3. Rent Supplements The Rent Supplement Program was f i r s t implemented i n 1969 by the f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l governments, p r o v i d i n g s u b s i d i e s f o r e x i s t i n g u n i t s i n the p r i v a t e s e c t o r . In t h i s case, the subsidy i s given to the l a n d l o r d f o r c e r t a i n u n i t s that the p r o v i n c i a l government d e s i g n a t e s tenants f o r . The subsidy i s t i e d to the u n i t c o v e r i n g the gap between the rent and 30 percent of the tenants income. P r e s e n t l y the p r o v i n c i a l government of B.C. o f f e r s the S h e l t e r Allowance For E l d e r l y Renters (SAFER). SAFER covers 75 percent of the d i f f e r e n c e between 30 percent of the s e n i o r ' s income p a i d towards rent and a r e n t a l maximum of $330.00/month f o r a s i n g l e or $365.00/month fo r a couple. 5.1.1.4. Homesharing Homesharing i s another method of housing s e n i o r s . P r e s e n t l y , Vancouver Homesharers, a n o n - p r o f i t o r g a n i z a t i o n that i s funded by a l l three l e v e l s of government, seeks to serve s e n i o r s who wish to remain i n t h e i r own homes by matching compatible r e n t e r s who c o u l d share the home with them. 87 5.1.1.5. I n s t i t u t i o n a l Programs So f a r r e n t a l programs have been o u t l i n e d f o r the independent e l d e r l y . F a c i l i t i e s f o r the e l d e r l y that r e q u i r e i n t e r m e d i a t e or extended care are sponsored by B.C.'s M i n i s t r y of H e a l t h . Seniors are e l i g i b l e to r e c e i v e care i n i n s t i t u t i o n s with the same coverage as h o s p i t a l p a t i e n t s . Assessments by a p u b l i c h e a l t h nurse i s r e q u i r e d t o p l a c e a s e n i o r i n a care f a c i l i t y , as w e l l as r e c e i v e support s e r v i c e s i n t h e i r homes which i n c l u d e homemakers, meals on wheels, homecare nurses and handyman s e r v i c e s . Intermediate care f a c i l i t i e s i n c l u d e p e r s o n a l c a r e , d a i l y n u r s i n g and some p s y c h i a t r i c s u p e r v i s i o n . Extended care f a c i l i t i e s are f o r those with severe c h r o n i c d i a b i l i t i e s t h a t r e q u i r e 24 hour n u r s i n g s u p e r v i s i o n . P r i v a t e and p u b l i c h o s p i t a l s a l s o p r o v i d e extended care f a c i l i t i e s f o r the e l d e r l y . In 1980, the p r o v i n c i a l government i n t r o d u c e d the Renta l Housing A s s i s t a n c e For D i s a b l e d Persons Program. T h i s program enables n o n - p r o f i t s o c i e t i e s to renovate e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e s f o r d i s a b l e d persons, which i n c l u d e extended care p a t i e n t s . Operating funds are a l s o i n c l u d e d . 5.1.2.Homeownership Programs As w e l l as r e n t a l programs, CMHC develops programs and i n i t i a t i v e s f o r home owners. Homeownership programs take the form of home improvement gr a n t s , mortgage and tax supplements, and home c o n v e r s i o n . 88 5 .1 .2 .1 . Home Improvement Grants In 1973, CMHC developed the Res ident ia l  R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Assistance Program (RRAP) which continues to help low income home owners upgrade the i r houses with a maximum loan of $10,000, one hal f of which i s a grant and the remainder can be repaid over a per iod of 20 years (Gross, 1986). In Canada, 52 percent of the users are over the age of 65 (CMHC, 1979). This program i s usual ly administered by the l o c a l government, but sometimes through a l o c a l approved contrac tor . Like RRAP, the Canadian Home Insulat ion Program  (CHIP) was proposed in 1977 and las ted u n t i l 1986. Houses b u i l t before 1961 were e l i g i b l e for a 100 percent grant for materials used up to $350.00 and for one - th ird off of labour costs up to $150.00 from a contractor reg i s tered with the program. 5 .1 .2 .2 . Mortgage Supplements The Rural And Native Housing Program was introduced by CMHC in 1974 and can s t i l l be used by non-native-people in towns of less than 2,500 populat ion . This program has three components inc luding a renta l supplement covering the gap between 30 percent of the renter ' s income and the unit rent , a mortgage supplement which does the same for homeowner mortgage payments and loans for the same condit ions covered in RRAP. 89 5 .1 .2 .3 . Homeowners Grant The ex i s t ing p r o v i n c i a l program that d i r e c t l y addresses housing costs for seniors i s the Homeowners  Grant. This grant saves low income home owners $365.00 i f they are under 65 and $630.00 i f they are 65 and over. Maximum incomes must not exceed $14,000 in Vancouver or $13,000 in r u r a l areas. Seniors who own mobile homes and the property that they s i t on are a lso e l i g i b l e for th i s grant . 5 .1 .2 .4 . Home Conversion Loans A p r o v i n c i a l program that was s tarted in 1974 and s t i l l ex i s t s is the Home Conversion Loan Program. This program allows home owners low interes t loans to add renta l sui tes to t h e i r homes. 5 .1 .3 .A Summary of E x i s t i n g Housing Programs The programs that are presently ava i l ab l e for the independent e l d e r l y in the renta l sector inc lude: 1. The Non-Prof i t S o c i a l Housing Program. 2. Non-Profi t Cooperative Housing Program. 3. The Rent Supplement Program. 4. The Shelter Allowance For E l d e r l y Renters (SAFER). 5. Homesharing. The ex i s t ing programs that senior homeowners can u t i l i z e include: 1. The Res ident ia l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Assistance Program. 2. The Rural and Native Housing Program. 90 3. The Home Conversion Loan Program. 4. The Home Owners Grant. S e v e r a l housing programs have been developed i n Canada and B r i t i s h Columbia, but these programs g e n e r a l l y address urban housing needs. Regional d i v e r s i t y i s not taken i n t o account i n broad n a t i o n a l and p r o v i n c i a l housing programs. The r e s u l t i s that e x i s t i n g housing programs have l i t t l e or no impact on B.C.'s small towns. The N o n - P r o f i t S o c i a l Housing Program f o r s e n i o r s i s o f t e n the only a l t e r n a t i v e f o r s e n i o r s i n small towns. However, S e n i o r s ' housing i s d i f f i c u l t f o r a small community to develop due to l i m i t e d v o l u n t a r y and p r o f e s s i o n a l human r e s o u r c e s . As w e l l , the c o - o p e r a t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e i s l i t t l e known about and o f t e n , misunderstood. The remainder of the r e n t a l a s s i s t a n c e programs apply to p r i v a t e r e n t a l developments. 'Very few of the s e n i o r s i n t e r v i e w e d occupied p r i v a t e r e n t a l u n i t s and f o r the "few who d i d , none had heard of SAFER or the Rent a l Supplement Program. Most of the small town s e n i o r s are homeowners and t h e r e f o r e , more homeownership programs are u t i l i z e d . S t i l l , i n some small communities, e x i s t i n g programs are e i t h e r not known about or there i s no l o c a l person t o adm i n i s t e r the program. For example, RRAP i s widely used i n communities where there i s someone a c t i v e l y promoting the program. However, i f there was not someone a d m i n i s t e r i n g the program, RRAP was l i t t l e used. There are three types of changes needed t o improve 91 ex i s t ing housing programs in small towns: 1. The pr ivate renta l stock must be increased in small towns to provide an a l t e r n a t i v e to s ingle family houses and to make use of ex i s t ing renta l ass istance programs; 2. The non-prof i t housing process must be streamlined to accommodate the resources ava i lab le in small towns; and 3. Awareness about a v a i l a b l e housing programs must be increased i f they are to be more f u l l y u t i l i z e d . 5.2. THE FUTURE FOR SMALL TOWN SENIORS IN B . C . "By the year 2006, the ' l eading edge' of the baby boom generation w i l l enter the ranks of senior c i t i z e n , and population aging could then escalate rap id ly for seventy-f ive years"(Stone,1980:2). In small towns in B . C . , t h i s aging of the population is already evident . Present ly , 35 percent of Canada's e l d e r l y are r u r a l dwellers (Hodge,1987:15). The most notable population increase i s in the 80 years and over age group. It i s t h i s group that requires the most services and i t i s predicted that the older e l d e r l y w i l l continue to increase at a faster rate than those over 65 as a whole. For example, in 1981, those 80 and over made up 19.6 percent of B . C . ' s senior population and these older e l d e r l y are predicted to increase to 26.4 percent by the year 2001 (Gutman et a l , l 9 8 6 a : 4 ) . To provide an idea of the future housing and service needs in these 16 small towns, Table XI provides some population 92 p r o j e c t i o n s . 1 Table XII presents these same project ions for the senior population 65 years of age and over in the 16 towns. In t o t a l , these 16 small towns are projected to have a steady population growth. As w e l l , the seniors ' proport ion of the population w i l l increase . While the amount of growth in both the t o t a l population and seniors ' proport ion var ies for each town, the trend is for an increase in most cases. The exception being Midway, where the o v e r a l l population and the percentage of seniors i s predicted to decrease. In four of the towns a decrease in o v e r a l l population is accompanied by an increase in the proport ion of e l d e r l y . If the senior population continues to increase at the same rate , su i tab le housing a l t erna t ive s to s ingle family dwellings should a lso increase . It would be useful to determine the extent of ex i s t ing housing a l t erna t ive s in order to predic t the increased amounts needed for the future . Although the housing and services that exis t at the present time are not adequate, the e x i s t i n g amounts can serve as a base from which to provide an ind ica t ion of the future growth in need. The housing a l t e r n a t i v e s most demanded by the respondents are non-prof i t seniors ' housing, pr ivate renta l u n i t s , and support serv ices . Need Indicators for these three a l t erna t ive s have been developed to evaluate present and future housing needs for small town seniors . 1 The method used to ca l cu la t e population project ions i s taken from GLASS, GENE V . , and STANLEY, JULIAN C. 1970. S t a t i s t i c a l  Methods In Education And Psychology. Prentice H i l l Inc . : N . J . . 93 TABLE XI: SENIOR POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR 16 SMALL TOWNS IN B.C.,1987.* TOTAL SENIOR POPULATION TOWN ACTUAL FORECAST YEAR 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 2001 SLOCAN 41 36 49 56 62 77 HARRISON 54 52 68 94 102 148 MIDWAY 50 77 76 64 78 88 KEREMEOS 121 161 208 268 314 414 KASLO 98 128 162 172 200 248 SECHELT 100 1 48 208 306 354 478 CUMBERLAND 258 271 331 334 373 440 LK-COWICHAN 118 1 42 215 22 262 332 GIBSONS 252 290 415 348 421 498 PRINCETON 234 282 336 349 408 496 AGASSIZ+ N.A. N.A. N.A. 253 N.A. N.A. CRESTON 641 781 1 1 73 1229 1515 1 944 ROSSLAND 273 37 40 417 491 594 PARKSVILLE 521 701 1043 1 457 1691 2388 COMOX 279 322 595 825 983 1 424 SUMMERLAND 1000 1210 1570 1939 2266 2852 * Method used to p r o j e c t p o p u l a t i o n s i s taken from GLASS, GENE V., and STANLEY, JULIAN C. 1970. S t a t i s t i c a l Methods  In E d u c a t i o n And Psychology. P r e n t i c e H a l l Inc: N.J.. + A g a s s i z i s un i n c o r p o r a t e d and t h e r e f o r e census data are not a v a i l a b l e . F i g u r e i s estimated f o r 1986 based on f i e l d survey. SOURCE: A Review of S t a t i s t i c s Canada census s u b d i v i s i o n p o p u l a t i o n breakdowns f o r 1971, 1976, 1981, and 1986. 94 TABLE X I I : POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR 16 SMALL TOWNS IN B.C.,1987.* TOTAL POPULATION (% OF ELDERLY) TOWN ACTUAL FORECAST YEAR 1971 1976 1981 1 986 1 991 2001 SLOCAN 345(12%) 355(10%) 350(14%) 294(19%) 297(21%) 265(29%) HARRISON 595(9%) 575(9%) 565(12%) 552(17%) 537(19%) 509(29%) MIDWAY 500(10%) 590(13%) 630(12%) 640(10%) 705(11 %) 797(11%) KEREMEOS 605(20%) 700(23%) 830(25%) 839(32%) 952(33%) 1 1 18(37) KASLO 755(13%) 755(17%) 855(19%) 858(20%) 908(22%) 990(25%) SECHELT 590(17%) 820(18%) 1095(19) 1224(25) 1477(24) 1912(25) CUMBERLAND 1720(15) 1695(16) 1945(17) 1853(18) 1966(19) 2095(21) LK-COWICHAN 2360(5%) 2370(6%) 2390(9%) 2170(10) 2185(12) 2075(16) GIBSONS 1935{13) 2070(14) 2595(16) 2675(13) 3005(14) 3554(14) PRINCETON 2600(9%) 3130(9%) 3055(11 ) 2910(12) 3138(13) 3309(15) AGASSIZ+ N.A. N.A. N.A. 2300(11 ) N.A. N.A. CRESTON 3205(20) 3550(22) 4190(28) 4098(30) 4591(33) 5254(37) ROSSLAND 3900(7%) 3715(10) 3970(10) 3472(12) 3507(14) 3301(18) PARKSVILLE 2170(24) 3185(22) 5215(20) 5828(25) 7351(23) 9951(24) COMOX 3980(7%) 5360(6%) 6610(9%) 6873(12) 8188(12) 10174(14) SUMMERLAND 5555(18) 6720(18) 7475(21) 7755(25) 8715(26) 10186(28) AVERAGE OF 16 TOWNS 1926(13) 2224(14) 2611(16) 2628(19) 2971(20) 3469(22) * Method used to p r o j e c t p o p u l a t i o n s i s taken from GLASS, GENE V., and STANLEY, JULIAN C. 1970. S t a t i s t i c a l Methods In Education  And Psychology. P r e n t i c e H a l l Inc: N.J.. + A g a s s i z i s uni n c o r p o r a t e d and t h e r e f o r e census data are not a v a i l a b l e . F i g u r e i s estimated f o r 1986 based on f i e l d survey. SOURCE: A Review of S t a t i s t i c s Canada census s u b d i v i s i o n p o p u l a t i o n breakdowns f o r 1971, 1976, 1981, and 1986. 95 5.2.1.Non-Profit S e n i o r s ' Housing Needs I n d i c a t o r N o n - P r o f i t S e n i o r s ' housing i s an a f f o r d a b l e r e n t a l a l t e r n a t i v e . These u n i t s are geared to income and designed fo r the s p e c i a l p h y s i c a l needs of s e n i o r s . A Needs I n d i c a t o r has been developed by determining the number of s e n i o r s ' u n i t s that e x i s t e d per 100 s e n i o r s i n B.C. i n 1988. Approximately 10 percent of these u n i t s are occupied by e l d e r l y couples and t h i s i s taken i n t o account i n the c a l c u l a t i o n . The r e s u l t i n g needs i n d i c a t o r f o r n o n - p r o f i t s e n i o r s ' housing i s 6.8 percent. On average i n B.C. i n 1988, there were 6.8 u n i t s of s e n i o r s ' s o c i a l housing f o r every 100 s e n i o r s . Table XIII o u t l i n e s the r e s u l t s of a p p l y i n g t h i s i n d i c a t o r to the present and f u t u r e s e n i o r p o p u l a t i o n s i n the small towns i n c l u d e d i n t h i s study. Only three of the small towns p r e s e n t l y p r o v i d e the number of u n i t s r e q u i r e d by the needs i n d i c a t o r . The gap between e x i s t i n g u n i t s and those r e q u i r e d to meet the needs i n d i c a t o r vary from 2 u n i t s to 72 u n i t s . In t o t a l , an a d d i t i o n a l 210 s e n i o r s apartment u n i t s are needed at the present time in these 16 towns to meet the average p r o v i n c i a l p r o v i s i o n i n 1988. Using the p o p u l a t i o n p r o j e c t i o n s developed i n Table XI, the s e n i o r s ' housing needs i n d i c a t o r p r o j e c t s the amount of u n i t s that w i l l be needed in 1991 and 2001. With the e x c e p t i o n of Slocan, a l l of the towns w i l l need to i n c r e a s e t h e i r s e n i o r s ' apartment stock. The u n i t s that p r e s e n t l y e x i s t i n a l l 16 towns w i l l need to be i n c r e a s e d by 85 percent to meet the needs i n d i c a t o r requirements projected- f o r 1991. TABLE X I I I : SENIOR HOUSING UNITS REQUIRED NOW AND IN 1991 and 2001 FOR B.C.'S SMALL TOWN SENIORS BASED ON A NEEDS INDICATOR.* TOWN PRESENT NEEDS (# OF UNITS) FUTURE NEEDS YEAR EXISTING NEED NOW GAP NOW 1991 2001 SLOCAN 0 4 4 4 5 HARRISON 0 6 6 7 9 MIDWAY 0 4 4 5 6 KEREMEOS 0 18 18 21 28 KASLO 10 1 2 2 1 4 1 7 SECHELT 40 20 20 24 33 CUMBERLAND 28 23 0 25 29 LK-COWICHAN 16 1 5 0 18 23 GIBSONS 20 24 4 29 35 PRINCETON 18 24 6 27 33 AGASSIZ 49 17 0 N.A. N.A. CRESTON 19 85 66 103 1 33 ROSSLAND 20 28 8 33 40 PARKSVILLE 35 98 63 117 1 60 COMOX 44 58 1 4 68 94 SUMMERLAND 60 1 32 72 152 196 AVERAGE OF 16 TOWNS 359 569 210 665 858 *INDICATOR = # of s e n i o r s u n i t s i n 1988 i n BC ( s e n i o r s / u n i t ) 100 po p u l a t i o n 65 and over i n BC i n 1988 = 23564 (1.1) X 100 = 6.8 UNITS per 100 SENIORS 65+ 380800 SOURCES: -Senior u n i t s from BCHMC; -Person per u n i t from Hodge, 1984; and -1988 65 years and over p o p u l a t i o n f o r B.C. from B.C. C e n t r a l S t a t i s t i c s , Annual Report, June 1,1988. 97 5.2.2.Private R e n t a l Apartment Needs I n d i c a t o r A Needs I n d i c a t o r f o r p r i v a t e r e n t a l s u i t e s f o r s e n i o r s i n s m a l l towns i s d e r i v e d by c a l c u l a t i n g the percentage of s e n i o r s i n t h i s study p l a n n i n g to move and to seek a p r i v a t e r e n t a l apartment. Of the 130 respondents i n the 16 small towns, 6.9 percent say they w i l l seek a p r i v a t e r e n t a l apartment. Assuming t h a t the vacancy r a t e s i n a l l the towns are zero, as i s g e n e r a l l y the case, 6.9 percent m u l t i p l i e d by the s e n i o r p o p u l a t i o n produces the number of a d d i t i o n a l p r i v a t e r e n t a l u n i t s r e q u i r e d . These a d d i t i o n a l u n i t s are added to the e x i s t i n g p r i v a t e r e n t a l stock to p r o v i d e the number of u n i t s needed to meet the requirements of the needs i n d i c a t o r f o r p r i v a t e s u i t e s . Table XIV o u t l i n e s the r e s u l t s of a p p l y i n g t h i s needs i n d i c a t o r to the 16 small towns. The a d d i t i o n a l u n i t s r e q u i r e d at the p r e s e n t time ranges from 4 to 134 u n i t s . For a l l the 16 towns, 578 new p r i v a t e r e n t a l u n i t s are p r e s e n t l y needed to meet the requirements of the p r i v a t e r e n t a l needs i n d i c a t o r . The p r i v a t e r e n t a l stock i n these 16 small towns w i l l need to be i n c r e a s e d by 63 percent by 1991 to accommodate the growing s e n i o r s p o p u l a t i o n based on t h i s i n d i c a t o r and p o p u l a t i o n p r o j e c t i o n . 98 TABLE XIV: PRIVATE APARTMENT UNITS REQUIRED NOW AND IN 1991 AND 2001 FOR B.C.'s SMALL TOWN SENIORS BASED ON A NEEDS INDICATOR.* TOWN PRESENT NEEDS (# OF UNITS) FUTURE NEEDS YEAR EXISTING NEED NOW GAP NOW 1991 2001 SLOCAN 0 4 4 4 5 HARRISON 22 29 7 29 31 MIDWAY 4 4 0 5 6 KEREMEOS 6 25 1 9. 28 35 KASLO 4 16 1 2 18 21 SECHELT 38 59 21 63 72 CUMBERLAND 50 7 23 76 80 LK-COWICHAN 57 73 16 76 81 GIBSONS 6 30 24 36 41 PRINCETON 73 97 24 100 1 06 AGASSIZ 163 180 1 7 N.A. N.A. CRESTON 121 207 86 225 256 ROSSLAND 85 1 1 4 29 1 1 9 1 26 PARKSVILLE 200 300 1 00 319 362 COMOX 21 1 270 59 280 307 SUMMERLAND 40 174 1 34 195 239 AVERAGE OF 16 TOWNS 1080 1658 578 1755 1951 *INDICATOR = ( s e n i o r respondents seeking p r i v a t e units-1987) 100 t o t a l number of s e n i o r s surveyed 9 X 100 = 6.9 ADDITIONAL UNITS REQUIRED 130 SOURCES: F i e l d Survey, 1987. 99 5.2.3.Home Support Service Needs Indicator As housing for seniors should not be examined in i s o l a t i o n , a home support service needs indicator has a lso been der ived . The needs indicator for home support services i s taken from the Greater Vancouver Regional Hospi ta l D i s t r i c t ' s (GVRHD) model . 1 Home support for a l l care l eve l s i s about 7 percent for seniors who are aged 65 and over. While t h i s number may be more of an ind ica t ion of urban service needs, it. can serve as a reference point from which to measure home support service needs for small towns in the future . In r u r a l areas, another factor must be taken into account when c a l c u l a t i n g service needs. Each town i s a service centre for a surrounding reg ion. The service area population for towns less than 4000 i s approximately f ive times t h e i r own s ize and larger towns less than 10,000 serve s ix times t h e i r own s i z e . 2 The average amount of people who are 65 and over in r u r a l farm areas in B . C . in 1986 was 8.2 percent. Therefore, 8.2 percent of the surrounding region's population should be included when c a l c u l a t i n g home support service needs. 1 GVRHD,June,1987. Regional G e r i a t r i c Care Planning Model. 2 Information i s taken from MORRIL,R.L.and DORMITZER,J.M.1979. The S p a t i a l Order-An Introduction To Modern Geography. Duxbury Press:Massachusetts. 100 TABLE XV: SENIORS REQUIRING SUPPORT SERVICES NOW AND IN 1991 AND 2001 FOR B.C.'s SMALL TOWN SENIORS BASED ON A NEEDS INDICATOR.* TOWN PRESENT NEEDS(# OF CLIENTS) FUTURE NEEDS YEAR EXISTING NEED NOW GAP NOW 1991 2001 SLOCAN N.A. 1 1 N.A. 1 1 1 1 HARRISON N.A. 19 N.A. 20 21 MIDWAY N.A. 19 N.A. 22 24 KEREMEOS N.A. 38 N.A. 44 55 KASLO N.A. 32 N.A. 35 40 SECHELT N.A. 49 N.A. 59 78 CUMBERLAND N.A. 66 N.A. 71 78 LK-COWICHAN N.A. 66 N.A. 69 71 GIBSONS N.A. 86 N.A. 99 1 18 PRINCETON N.A. 92 N.A. 100 1 1 0 AGASSIZ N.A. 70 N.A. N.A. N.A. CRESTON N.A. 181 N.A. 21 1 258 ROSSLAND N.A. 109 N.A. 1 1 4 1 1 7 PARKSVILLE N.A. 277 N.A. 342 464 COMOX N.A. 267 N.A. 317 404 SUMMERLAND N.A. 369 N.A. 419 509 AVERAGE OF 16 TOWNS N.A. 1 604 N.A. 1 776 2556 •INDICATOR = .07 = 7.0% SOURCES: Greater Vancouver R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l D i s t r i c t , June, 1987. Re g i o n a l G e r i a t r i c Care P l a n n i n g Model. 101 While, the l e v e l of s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d at the present time has not been determined i n t h i s study, we can determine that 7 percent of the s e n i o r s l i v i n g i n the town and the surrounding region w i l l r e q u i r e some type of home support s e r v i c e . To i l l u s t r a t e , Table XV i n d i c a t e s that a t o t a l of 1604 s e n i o r s i n a l l 16 towns r e q u i r e the use of some home support s e r v i c e at the present time. In 1991, The number of s e n i o r s r e q u i r i n g care i s p r o j e c t e d to i n c r e a s e to 1776, which i s an i n c r e a s e of 44 perc e n t . An a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r to i n c l u d e i n c a l c u l a t i n g support s e r v i c e needs i s the age s t r u c t u r e of the s e n i o r p o p u l a t i o n . T h i s i s important to i n c l u d e , because s e r v i c e needs of the e l d e r l y i n c r e a s e with age. The s e r v i c e needs of those between the ages of 75 and 84 i s 3 times that of those between 65 and 74. Those over 85 r e q u i r e 5 times the amount of s e r v i c e s as those i n the younger s e n i o r category (GVRHD,1987). The p o p u l a t i o n p r o j e c t i o n s i n d i c a t e that the s e n i o r p o p u l a t i o n growth w i l l c o n t i n u e . The housing o p t i o n s and home support s e r v i c e s must a l s o grow to b e t t e r p r o v i d e f o r the housing needs of small town s e n i o r s now and i n the f u t u r e . By 1991, n o n - p r o f i t housing f o r s e n i o r s should i n c r e a s e by 85 percent, p r i v a t e r e n t a l u n i t s by 63 percent, and support s e r v i c e s by 44 percent to meet the f u t u r e housing needs of small town s e n i o r s i n B.C.. The next and f i n a l chapter w i l l o u t l i n e some recommendations f o r pl a n n i n g to meet these housing needs. 102 6 . TOWARDS INCREASED SENIORS'' INDEPENDENCE IN SMALL TOWNS There are two types of s o l u t i o n s to meet the housing needs of the e l d e r l y i n B.C.'s small towns: 1. Increase the range and amount of housing a l t e r n a t i v e s to s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s . 2. Provide adequate home support s e r v i c e s to allow s e n i o r s to both cope w i t h t h e i r housing and remain l i v i n g independently i n t h e i r own homes. 6 . 1 . INCREASE THE RANGE AND AMOUNT OF HOUSING I n c r e a s i n g the range and amount of housing a l t e r n a t i v e s i s one s o l u t i o n to meeting the housing needs of the e l d e r l y i n small towns. The p u b l i c s e c t o r , the p r i v a t e s e c t o r and the community can a l l play a r o l e i n i n c r e a s i n g the range and amount of housing a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r small town s e n i o r s . 6 . 1 . 1 . T h e Role of the P u b l i c Sector The p u b l i c s e c t o r can a s s i s t i n i n c r e a s i n g the range and amount of housing f o r s e n i o r s i n three ways: 1. by dev e l o p i n g p u b l i c housing; 2. by p r o v i d i n g i n c e n t i v e s and s u b s i d i e s to the s e n i o r s themselves; and 3. and by a s s i s t i n g the p r i v a t e s e c t o r i n dev e l o p i n g a d d i t i o n a l housing. One of the most demanded housing types i n small towns 103 i s f o r s e n i o r s ' s o c i a l housing. The demand f o r t h i s type of housing i n d i c a t e s that there i s a need f o r a f f o r d a b l e r e n t a l u n i t s . The e x i s t i n g N o n - P r o f i t S e n i o r s ' Housing Program produces such u n i t s . The Needs I n d i c a t o r used i n chapter IV i n d i c a t e d that there needs to be 6.8 rent geared to income u n i t s f o r every 100 s e n i o r s . The S e n i o r s ' housing program can be u t i l i z e d more f u l l y to i n c r e a s e the amount of u n i t s to meet the r e q u i r e d needs. Community groups c o u l d be encouraged to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the development process of n o n - p r o f i t u n i t s more e a s i l y i f the process were s t r e a m l i n e d to s u i t the resources a v a i l a b l e i n small towns. L o c a l governments should be encouraged to a d m i n i s t e r the n o n - p r o f i t housing program i f a community group i s not a v a i l a b l e . As w e l l , f u t u r e needs f o r s e n i o r apartment u n i t s should be accounted f o r i n the design of p o t e n t i a l developments, so that room f o r extensions are a llowed. As the development of the r e q u i r e d number of s o c i a l housing u n i t s may be expensive, there are other methods th a t the p u b l i c s e c t o r can implement to produce more a f f o r d a b l e r e n t a l accommodation. One method i s to u t i l i z e the Home Conversion Loan Program to develop more r e n t a l stock w i t h i n s i n g l e f a m i l y homes. T h i s type of development would be cheaper than new c o n s t r u c t i o n and c o u l d a l s o b r i n g i n a d d i t i o n a l income to homeowners. Granny F l a t s , otherwise known as Garden S u i t e s , are a p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e to b u i l d i n g apartments, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f there i s only a small s c a l e need. Garden S u i t e s are s i m i l a r to 104 mobile homes as they are p r e - b u i l t and moveable. T h e r e f o r e , a minimum number i s not r e q u i r e d to be economical as they are not permanent. If o n l y a few u n i t s are r e q u i r e d , a l l that i s needed i s land and s e r v i c i n g . A f f o r d a b l e r e n t a l housing can a l s o be p r o v i d e d through the use of e x i s t i n g r e n t a l subsidy programs that use p r i v a t e stock. The S h e l t e r Allowance For E l d e r l y Renters Program and The Rent Supplement Progam are two programs a v a i l a b l e now. The major problem i n h i b i t i n g the use of these programs in small towns i s that t h e r e i s l i t t l e p r i v a t e r e n t a l accommodation that e x i s t s . The survey of s e n i o r s i n d i c a t e s a demand f o r 6.9 u n i t s of p r i v a t e r e n t a l accommodation f o r every 100 s e n i o r s ' households. The p u b l i c s e c t o r can p l a y a r o l e i n encouraging the development of a d d i t i o n a l r e n t a l stock i n small towns i n d i r e c t l y , through i n c e n t i v e s to b u i l d e r s . A problem i n the past has been that there was no guarantee that the u n i t s developed p r i v a t e l y , would remain as r e n t a l s tock. Many u n i t s were converted i n t o condominiums. To i n c r e a s e r e n t a l stock, some guarantee must be b u i l t i n t o a p r i v a t e r e n t a l program to i n s u r e that i t remains i n the r e n t a l market. Because Canada i s g e o g r a p h i c a l l y d i v e r s e , n a t i o n a l housing standards and programs cannot e f f e c t i v e l y address s p e c i f i c r e g i o n a l c o n d i t i o n s . Not o n l y are there d i f f e r e n c e s between l a r g e r urban c e n t r e s and small towns, but there i s a l s o d i v e r s i t y between small town environments. 105 To begin with, c l i m a t e and topography vary and b u i l d i n g standards should r e f l e c t those r e g i o n a l c o n d i t i o n s . The needs of the e l d e r l y d i f f e r from those of the r e s t of the p o p u l a t i o n and s p e c i f i c standards f o r s e n i o r s ' housing c o u l d improve t h e i r l i v a b i l i t y and cut down on b u i l d i n g c o s t s . As w e l l , g e n e r a l design standards should i n c o r p o r a t e f l e x i b i l i t y to adapt to the needs of a l l ages en s u r i n g that f u t u r e housing stock w i l l adaquately accommodate an aging p o p u l a t i o n (Howell, 1980:10-13). F e d e r a l and P r o v i n c i a l housing programs do not address t h i s d i v e r s i t y and g e n e r a l l y aim at s o l v i n g housing problems i n l a r g e r urban c o n t e x t s . In the U.S., Krout f e e l s that "State l e v e l s t a t i s t i c s hide v a r i a t i o n s , and i t i s these v a r i a t i o n s that impact the pl a n n i n g and p r o v i s i o n of s e r v i c e s " ( 1 9 8 6 : 3 2 ) . " P o l i c i e s and programs and r e s e a r c h r e g a r d i n g towns and v i l l a g e s should be capable of responding t o d i f f e r e n c e s among i n d i v i d u a l s m a l l c e n t r e s " (Hodge and Qadeer,1983:224). In Belgium, f o r example, funds are d i s t r i b u t e d to l o c a l b u i l d i n g s o c i e t i e s who pl a n f o r the s p e c i a l needs of t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r areas (Goldenberg,1981:18). I t i s b e l i e v e d that programs are more e f f e c t i v e when they are developed by the community i t s e l f (B.C. Research,1986:5). One s o l u t i o n to e f f e c t i v e l y address the d i v e r s i t y between communities i n B.C. may be to d e c e n t r a l i z e some housing a u t h o r i t y to a lower l e v e l of government. To prevent i n e q u i t y between communities due to v a r y i n g resources and to p r o v i d e a broad enough p i c t u r e 106 without l o s i n g s i g h t of s p e c i f i c c o n d i t i o n s , the r e g i o n a l l e v e l of government may be the best l e v e l to most e f f e c t i v e l y address housing problems. Housing programs and b u i l d i n g standards c o u l d be developed at the r e g i o n a l l e v e l to s u i t the s p e c i f i c needs i n an area w hile m a i n t a i n i n g n a t i o n a l and p r o v i n c i a l g o a l s . By i n c o r p o r a t i n g l o c a l i n p u t , housing needs can best be determined and i n t e g r a t e d i n t o l o c a l and r e g i o n a l s e r v i c e networks, c o n d i t i o n s , and p u b l i c , p r i v a t e and community r e s o u r c e s . 6.1.2.The Role of the P r i v a t e Sector The p r i v a t e s e c t o r i s beginning to r e a l i z e the p o s s i b l e p o s i t i v e economic impact of r e t i r e e s on a community. Smaller B.C. c e n t r e s , which may otherwise be e c o n o m i c a l l y depressed, are a t t r a c t i n g s e n i o r s with t h e i r m i l d c l i m a t e s , s c e n i c mountain environments, ocean amenities and the small town community image. P r i v a t e d evelopers are beginning to respond with the development of housing f o r 'mature a d u l t s ' . Condominiums, apartments, and s i n g l e f a m i l y houses that s u i t the needs of the w e l l e l d e r l y are growing i n numbers, e s p e c i a l l y i n l a r g e r towns. For example, u n i t s i n Creston were p r i v a t e l y developed s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r 'mature r e s i d e n t s . ' Other luxury condominiums aimed at the s e n i o r market are a l s o under c o n s t r u c t i o n i n t h i s town. On Vancouver I s l a n d , a developer i n Comox i s buying e x i s t i n g apartments and c o n v e r t i n g them i n t o l u x u r y condominiums f o r a f f l u e n t s e n i o r s . These p r i v a t e l y developed u n i t s tend to be 107 expensive. Developers blame t h i s on having to meet g e n e r a l b u i l d i n g standards that do not n e c e s s a r i l y b e n e f i t e l d e r l y r e s i d e n t s , but add to b u i l d i n g c o s t s . These i n c l u d e e x c e s s i v e parking requirements, l a r g e f l o o r space r a t i o s , and open space r e s t r i c t i o n s . S p e c i f i c b u i l d i n g standards t h a t meet the needs of s e n i o r s c o u l d cut down on unnecessary c o s t s . The development of b u i l d i n g standards and design g u i d e l i n e s t a i l o r e d to both the town and i t s e l d e r l y r e s i d e n t s c o u l d address s p e c i f i c needs and reduce c o s t s . 6.1.3. The Role of the Community The community should be encouraged to p l a y a l a r g e r r o l e i n the p r o v i s i o n of housing and home s e r v i c e s f o r small town s e n i o r s . Community r e f e r s to the l o c a l l e v e l of government and i t s c i t i z e n r y . The community, e s p e c i a l l y i t s s e n i o r s , can pl a y d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t r o l e s i n the p r o v i s i o n of housing f o r the e l d e r l y . Some community r o l e s are o u t l i n e d by government agencies, while others are spontaneous and v o l u n t a r y . Whichever r o l e i s played, i t i s at t h i s l e v e l t h a t the s p e c i f i c needs of a town can most e a s i l y be recog n i z e d and s o l v e d . Community based p l a n n i n g f o r s e n i o r s would o f f e r f l e x i b i l i t y to meet l o c a l needs through the c o o r d i n a t i o n of l o c a l r e s o u r c e s . Small communities must be made aware of the programs a v a i l a b l e to them. A l o c a l or r e g i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n network c o u l d be set up by a community s e r v i c e group to h e l p s e n i o r s r e a l i z e t h e i r housing o p t i o n s to all o w them to make 108 optimal housing c h o i c e s f o r t h e i r needs. S e v e r a l of the small towns i n c l u d e d i n the study have orga n i z e d to pl a n f o r , and develop, needed forms of housing. However, the task of m o b i l i z i n g housing development i n v o l v e s a c c e s s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n , o r g a n i z i n g community groups and re s o u r c e s , d e a l i n g with government b u r e a c r a c i e s , working w i t h i n broad housing p o l i c i e s t h a t were designed to meet needs i n c i t i e s , and a c t i n g as de s i g n e r , b u i l d e r , and manager. T h i s i s no easy task and can q u i c k l y d r a i n the l i m i t e d human resources of a small town. The small town of Lake Cowichan d e a l t with the l a r g e task of dev e l o p i n g s e n i o r housing by c r e a t i n g a Senior C i t i z e n ' s Housing S o c i e t y . One community member got the three s e r v i c e c l u b s i n town to u n i t e f o r the purpose of o r g a n i z i n g s e n i o r housing. As i n Lake Cowichan, the success of many community o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n a c h i e v i n g t h e i r mandates i s o f t e n due to the m o t i v a t i o n and i n g e n u i t y of a s i n g l e motivated i n d i v i d u a l or a small s e r v i c e group. To prevent t h i s dependence on a few community members, a development process, which i n v o l v e s the whole community i n c l u d i n g the l o c a l government, should be f o s t e r e d . T h i s community process c o u l d be f a c i l i t a t e d by higher l e v e l s of government through i n c r e a s i n g access t o i n f o r m a t i o n and through a s t r e a m l i n i n g of the bureacracy i n v o l v e d with housing development. In t h i s way, housing o p t i o n s c o u l d be i n c r e a s e d . 109 6.2 PROVIDE ADEQUATE HOME SUPPORT SERVICES Another type of housing so lut ion is to provide adequate services to enable seniors to remain in t h e i r own homes i s a poss ib le housing so lut ion for the e l d e r l y . For small town seniors , such services are p a r t i c u l a r l y important in making up for unavai lable a l t e r n a t i v e housing types to s ingle family dwel l ings . Almost hal f of the seniors interviewed used some type of a home support service to help them cope in the i r homes. According to the Greater Vancouver Regional Hosp i ta l D i s t r i c t , about seven percent of the e l d e r l y receive some type of home serv i ce . Home support services are provided by informal and formal sources. Informal sources are important, providing around 40 percent of the support services to the respondents in th i s study. These sources should be recognized and f a c i l i t a t e d by formal sources. One method to encourage family support for the i r e lder ly i s through f i n a n c i a l incentives or respi te services that provide temporary assistance al lowing care givers a break. (Wallace, Macdonald, and Rose,1984:15; Goldenberg,1981:3). Thirteen of the towns surveyed have a homemaker serv ice , eleven have homecare, and th ir teen have a Meals-on-Wheels s erv i ce . A common complaint from respondents about the homemaker service was the recent cut-backs to the service l i m i t i n g the time and duties of homemakers. The e l iminat ion of the Handyman Serv ice , which in the past was part of the homemaker program, i s p a r t i c u l a r i l y hard on small town seniors who mostly l i v e in s ingle family homes which require more 110 maintenance and outdoor chores than other forms of housing. The l i m i t e d incomes of many s e n i o r s and the d i f f i c u l t y f i n d i n g h e l p in a small community means home maintenance and chores may not get done or s e n i o r s may f e e l f o r c e d to move to some other form of housing. While medical f a c i l i t i e s g e n e r a l l y e x i s t i n the l a r g e r towns, they are minimal or no n - e x i s t a n t i n the sm a l l e r communities. Emergencies must be d e a l t with immediately because the nearest medical f a c i l i t i e s may be some d i s t a n c e away from a small community. An emergency response system p r o v i d e s the e l d e r l y with some s e c u r i t y i n t h e i r own homes. The s e n i o r s can get a button i n s t a l l e d i n t h e i r homes th a t i s connected t o a c e n t r a l system elsewhere and can a l e r t the operator of an emergency. T r a n s p o r t a t i o n i s a component pa r t of most s e r v i c e s . A c c e s s i b i l i t y t o s e r v i c e s and f a c i l i t i e s t h a t do not e x i s t i n a town depend on access to t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . M o b i l i t y i s p a r t i c u l a r l y a problem f o r e l d e r l y women and those with lower incomes. While only some of the towns have a community bus, most are not w e l l u t i l i z e d due to c o s t s of o p e r a t i o n , no vol u n t e e r d r i v e r s , r e p a i r s needed, or someone to or g a n i z e more ex t e n s i v e use. For example, the community bus i n Kaslo i s only scheduled f o r r e g u l a r use once a week f o r a shopping t r i p to Nelson. Any a d d i t i o n a l use i n v o l v e s o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r s p e c i a l events, f i n d i n g a v o l u n t e e r d r i v e r with an a p p r o p r i a t e l i c e n s e and c o v e r i n g expenses. A bus s e r v i c e c o u l d be more u s e f u l and ec o n o m i c a l l y v i a b l e i f i t were more f u l l y u t i l i z e d . A r e g i o n a l bus s e r v i c e c o u l d 111 p r o v i d e f o r the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n needs of small town e l d e r l y and other community members f o r s e v e r a l towns i n a r e g i o n . A weekly c i r c u i t of a r e g i o n c o u l d l i n k people to the l a r g e r c e n t r e s f o r shopping and s e r v i c e amenities u n a v a i l a b l e i n the s m a l l e r towns and each community c o u l d have the bus one day each week f o r i t s community members to conduct t h e i r l o c a l b u s i n e s s . T h i s way, a bus c o u l d be more f u l l y u t i l i z e d while p r o v i d i n g f o r the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n needs of each community. Another s o l u t i o n to improve a c c e s s i b i l i t y t o medical s e r v i c e s would be to b r i n g the s e r v i c e s to the e l d e r l y by d e v e l o p i n g mobile medical c l i n i c s or pharmacies (Krout,1986:81; Goldenberg, 1981:7). The p r o v i s i o n and development of a p p r o p r i a t e s e r v i c e s which respond to the s p e c i a l needs of s e n i o r s i n small towns i s one method of p r o v i d i n g f o r t h e i r housing needs. 6.3. CONCLUSION There are i n c r e a s i n g numbers of s e n i o r s choosing to l i v e i n s m a l l B.C. towns. S i n g l e f a m i l y detached houses comprise the m a j o r i t y of s m a l l town housing stock at present and t h i s type of s t r u c t u r e i s the l e a s t accommodating to the needs of the e l d e r l y . The housing needs most i n demand are f o r n o n - p r o f i t s e n i o r s u n i t s , p r i v a t e r e n t a l apartment u n i t s , and home support s e r v i c e s . To allow s e n i o r s to remain l i v i n g independently i n t h e i r community, new s o l u t i o n s that address the s p e c i a l problems of small town s e n i o r s must be e x p l o r e d . F o l l o w i n g i s a summary of recommendations f o r improving s e n i o r s ' independence i n s m a l l towns. 1 12 1. Expand r e n t a l u n i t s that are geared t o income. There should be 6.8 u n i t s of rent-geared-to-income apartments f o r every 100 s e n i o r s i n a small town. Other means of p r o v i d i n g a f f o r d a b l e r e n t a l stock c o u l d be through the development of s u i t e s i n houses through the Home Conversion Loan Program. A l s o , i f there are not enough u n i t s r e q u i r e d t o j u s t i f y the development of a new apartment b u i l d i n g , Granny F l a t s , otherwise known as Garden s u i t e s , c o u l d be set up as r e q u i r e d . 2. Expand p r i v a t e r e n t a l u n i t s . There should be a minimum of 6.9 u n i t s per 100 s e n i o r s i n these small towns at the present time. A d d i t i o n a l p r i v a t e r e n t a l u n i t s w i l l a l s o allow low income s e n i o r s to make use of e x i s t i n g rent subsidy programs such as, the S h e l t e r Allowance For E l d e r l y Renters and the Rent Supplement Program. 3. Expand home support s e r v i c e s to allow s e n i o r s to remain l i v i n g independently i n t h e i r own homes lo n g e r . Support s e r v i c e s a l s o h e l p the e l d e r l y cope with substandard housing c o n d i t i o n s . There should be enough support s e r v i c e s a v a i l a b l e to serve every 7 out of 100 s e n i o r s . 4. Involve the l o c a l community i n d e v e l o p i n g community goals f o r s e n i o r s . L o c a l involvement w i l l h e l p to capture the d i v e r s i t y t h a t e x i s t s between communities and to generate more data about housing c o n d i t i o n s f o r s e n i o r s i n smal l towns. One method that may be 113 used to a c q u i r e l o c a l data i s the LOGAN system d e s c r i b e d i n chapter 2. The l o c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p l a n n i n g can a l s o serve to share i n f o r m a t i o n about housing o p t i o n s that are a v a i l a b l e . Not one, but s e v e r a l s o l u t i o n s must be developed to meet v a r i o u s housing needs of s e n i o r s i n small towns. Housing a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r the s m a l l town e l d e r l y can be expanded through r o l e s p l a y e d by the p r i v a t e s e c t o r , the p u b l i c s e c t o r , and the community. 1 14 BIBLIOGRAPHY BC RESEARCH 1986a. Community Reaction to Changes i n the S t r u c t u r e of i t s P o p u l a t i o n . Vancouver. BC RESEARCH 1986b. Community Based Planning For Seniors-A Review of the L i t e r a t u r e V o l . 1 . Vancouver. BLACKIE,NORMAN 1986. "The Option of 'Staying Put.'" IN Aging i n  P l a c e . E d i t e d by G l o r i a Gutman and Norman B l a c k i e . Burnaby, B.C.: Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y Gerontology Research Centre. BRINK,SATYA 1985. "Housing E l d e r l y People i n Canada: Working Towards a Continuum of Housing Choices A p p r o p r i a t e to t h e i r Needs." In Innovations i n Housing and L i v i n g  Arrangements For S e n i o r s . E d i t e d by G.Gutman and N. B l a c k i e . Burnaby, B.C.: Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y Gerontology Research Centre. BRINK,SATYA 1984. Inventory of Programs i n Canada For Housing  the E l d e r l y L i v i n g Independently. Report f o r CMHC. B.C.'s MINISTRY OF LANDS PARKS AND HOUSING 1980. Senior  C i t i z e n ' s Housing C o n s t r u c t i o n Program Sponsor's ' Handbook. V i c t o r i a , B.C.. BROWN,ARNOLD S. 1985. "Grassroots Advocacy For the E l d e r l y i n Small R u r a l Communities." In The G e r o n t o l o g i s t , 25:4 (August), 417-430. BURKE,P., CASEY,C, and DOEPNER,G. 1981. Housing A f f o r d a b i l i t y  Problems and Housing Need i n Canada and the Un i t e d S t a t e s : A Comparitive Study. Report f o r CMHC and HUD. CMHC 1979. An E v a l u a t i o n of RRAP. S o c i a l P o l i c y Research A s s o c i a t e s . CATES,FARLEY 1986. "Community Development and Housing For E l d e r l y C i t i z e n s : R e t h i n k i n g Program D e l i v e r y and R e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n the Urban Context." In Housing Canada's E l d e r l y . Winnipeg: U n i v e r s i t y of Winnipeg, I n s t i t u t e of Urban S t u d i e s . CORBET,T.RON 1986. A Community Response to Meeting the Needs of  the R u r a l Poor - A Case Study. S a c k v i l l e , N.B.: Mount A l l i s o n U n i v e r s i t y , R u r a l and Small Town Research and Stu d i e s Program. CORBET,T.RON 1986b. Housing A c c e s s i b i l i t y : Present and Future  Issues i n A t l a n t i c Canada. S a c k v i l l e , N.B.: Mount A l l i s o n U n i v e r s i t y , R u r a l and Small Town Research and St u d i e s Program. 115 COWARD,RAYMOND T. , and LEE,GARY R. 1985. The E l d e r l y i n R u r a l  S o c i e t y . New York:Springer P u b l i s h i n g . DUNNING,WILL 1986. "Housing Needs: Canadian and Regional P e r s p e c t i v e . " In Housing A c c e s s i b i l i t y : Present and Future Issues i n A t l a n t i c Canada. E d i t e d by Ron C o r b e t t . S a c k v i l l e , N.B.: Mount A l l i s o n U n i v e r s i t y , R u r a l and Small Town Research and S t u d i e s Program. EDWARD,J., and KLEMMACK,D., 1973. " C o r r e l a t i o n s of L i f e S a t i s f a c t i o n : A Re-Examination." In J o u r n a l of Gerontology 28:4, 497-502. FORBES,W.F., JACKSON,J.A., and KRAUS,A.S. 1987. I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of the E l d e r l y i n Canada. Butterworths P e r s p e c t i v e s on I n d i v i d u a l and Po p u l a t i o n Aging S e r i e s . Toronto: Butterworths. GIBSON,P., FLOOD,M.M. and ASSOCIATES 1982. E f f e c t i v e E v a l u a t i o n  Of Housing Needs For Se n i o r s In Non-Metropolitan Centres. Report f o r CMHC. GOLDBLATT,SYLVIA 1986a. "The F e d e r a l Government's Role i n Housing Older Canadians." In Aging i n P l a c e . E d i t e d by G l o r i a Gutman and Norman B l a c k i e . Burnaby, B.C.:Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y Gerontology Research Centre. GOLDBLATT,SYLVIA 1986b. "Current and Future L i v i n g Arrangements For Canada's S e n i o r s . " In Housing Canada's E l d e r l y . Winnipeg: U n i v e r s i t y of Winnipeg I n s t i t u t e of Urban S t u d i e s . GOLDENBERG,LEON 1981. Housing For the E l d e r l y : New Trends i n Europe. New York: Garland STPM Press. GRANT,PETER AND RICE,BRUCE 1983. " T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Problems of the Rural E l d e r l y : A Needs Assessment." In Canadian  J o u r n a l on Aging, 2:3, 107-124. GRIEVE,BEVERLY J . 1985. C o n t i n u i t y and Change: P r o v i n c i a l Housing P o l i c y i n B r i t i s h Columbia 1945-1985. Vancouver: U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia unpublished M.A. T h e s i s . GROSS,L.P. 1985. "F e d e r a l Housing Programs." In Innovations i n Housing and L i v i n g Arrangements For S e n i o r s T E d i t e d by G l o r i a Gutman and Norman B l a c k i e . Burnaby, B.C.: Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y , Gerontology Research C e n t r e . GUEST,DENNIS 1985. The Emergence of S o c i a l S e c u r i t y i n Canada." 2nd E d i t i o n . Vancouver: U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia P r e s s . GUNN,JONATHON P., VERKLEY,J. and NEWMAN,L. 1983. Older Canadian  Homeowners: A L i t e r a t u r e Review. Winnipeg: U n i v e r s i t y of Winnipeg, I n s t i t u t e of Urban S t u d i e s 116 GUTMAN,GLORIA M. et a l 1986a. Fact Book on Aging i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Burnaby, B.C.: Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y Gerontology Research Centre. GUTMAN,GLORIA M. 1986b. " M i g r a t i o n of the E l d e r l y : An Overview." In Aging In P l a c e . E d i t e d by G l o r i a Gutman and Norman B l a c k i e . Burnaby, B.C.: Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y Gerontology Research Centre. HODGE,G. AND GUTMAN,G. 1989a. Housing Needs of the E l d e r l y i n  Ru r a l Areas. Report to CMHC. HODGE,G AND GUTMAN,G. 1989b. Housing the Aged i n Rur a l Canada. Report to CMHC: Mimeo. HODGE,G. 1988. R e t i r e e s i n the Economy. A Report to the Powell R i v e r Business A s s o c i a t i o n . West Vancouver. HODGE,GERALD 1987. The E l d e r l y i n Canada's Small Towns. Vancouver: U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Centre For Human Settlements O c c a s i o n a l Paper 43. HODGE,GERALD 1984. S h e l t e r and S e r v i c e s For the Small Town E l d e r l y : The Role of A s s i s t e d Housing. Report f o r CMHC. HODGE,GERALD and QADEER, MOHAMMAD 1983. Towns and V i l l a g e s i n  Canada. Toronto: Butterworths. HOWELL,SANDRA C. 1980. Desig n i n g For Aging P a t t e r n s of Use. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT P r e s s . HOWELL,SANDRA C. 1978. Shared Spaces i n Housing For the E l d e r l y . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Pr e s s . HULCHANSKI,DAVID, AND GRIEVE,BEVERLY 1984. Housing Issues and  Canadian F e d e r a l Budgets, 1968 to 1984. U n i v e r s i t y of B.C. Canadian Planning Papers #12. Vancouver, B.C.: U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. JOHNSON,JULIA and RENZELLA,DOMENCO 1985. A s s e s s i n g Government  A s s i s t e d Housing For Senior C i t i z e n s i n O n t a r i o Small  Towns From a S o c i a l E c o l o g i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e . Kingston, Ont.: Queens U n i v e r s i t y , School of Urban and Regional Pl a n n i n g , Unpublished Master's Report. JOSEPH,A.E. and FULLER,A.M. 1987. Aging i n R u r a l Communities:  I n t e r r e l a t e d Issues i n Housing, S e r v i c e s and T r a n s p o r t a t i o n . Guelph, O n t . : P o l i c y Development and S t r a t e g i c P lanning Unit,Submitted to the O n t a r i o O f f i c e of Senior C i t i z e n s ' A f f a i r s . KROUT,JOHN A. 1986. The Aged i n Rur a l America. New York: Greenwood P r e s s . 1 17 LAWTON,M.P. and HOOVER,S.L. 1981. Community Housing Choices For  Older Americans. New York: Springer P u b l i s h i n g . LAWTON,M.P. and NAHEMOW,L. 1979. " S o c i a l Science Methods For E v a l u a t i n g the Q u a l i t y of Housing For the E l d e r l y . " In Jo u r n a l of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Research, 7, 5-11. MARK,SANDRA, HENDERSON,JANE and RICHARDSON,ANNABELLE 1982. T r a n s p o r t a t i o n - An Issue i n Planning For Long Term Care  i n Lanark, Leeds And G r e n v i l l e . Smith F a l l s , O n t a r i o : D i s t r i c t H e a l t h C o u n c i l of Lanark, Leeds, and G r e n v i l l e . MARSHALL,VICTOR W. 1981. " W i l l L i v i n g Longer Mean L i v i n g B e t t e r : A Research Agenda and P r i o r i t i e s i n the Context of C o n t i n u i n g U r b a n i z a t i o n . " In A Research Workshop i n Aging Communities V o l . 3 . U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia: Centre For Human Settlements. MARSHALL,VICTOR W. 1980. Aging i n Canada - S o c i a l P e r s p e c t i v e s . Don M i l l s , Ont.: F i t z h e n r y and Whiteside. MARTIN-MATTHEWS,ANNE M. and VANDEN-HEUVEL,AUDREY V. 1985. Met h o d o l o g i c a l Issues i n Research on Aging i n Rural  Versus Urban Environments. Papers on R u r a l Aging. Guelph, Ont: U n i v e r s i t y of Guelph, School of R u r a l P l a n n i n g and Development. McKEE,CHRISTINE et a l . 1979. Handbook For Managers of S o c i a l Housing. Winnipeg: U n i v e r s i t y of Winnipeg, I n s t i t u t e of Urban S t u d i e s . NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON AGING 1983. Moving Ahead With Aging i n Canada. Ottawa: NACA. NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON AGING 1981. P r i o r i t i e s For A c t i o n . Ottawa: M i n i s t r y of He a l t h and Welfare. NOLL,PAUL 1981. " F e d e r a l l y A s s i s t e d Housing Programs For the E l d e r l y i n Rur a l Areas: Problems and Pr o s p e c t s . " In Housing Choices For Older Americans. E d i t e d by M.P.Lawton and S.L.Hoover. New York: S p r i n g e r P u b l i s h e r s . OBERLANDER,H.P. 1981. "Pre f a c e " In A Research Workshop i n Aging  Communities V o l . 3 . Vancouver, B.C.: U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Centre For Human Settlements. ONE VOICE 1988. H a b i t a t : New P e r s p e c t i v e s , New Choices - Senior  Canadians Speak on Housing Issues. Ottawa: The Canadian S e n i o r s Network. O n t a r i o A d v i s o r y C o u n c i l on Senior C i t i z e n s 1980. Towards an  Understanding of the Rur a l E l d e r l y . 118 PARKER,ROSETTA E. 1984. Housing For the E l d e r l y , The Handbook  fo r Managers. Chicago: I n s t i t u t e of Real E s t a t e Management. PATTERSON,JEFFREY and STRIECH,PATRICIA 1977. A Review of Canadian S o c i a l Housing P o l i c y . Toronto, Ont.: Canadian C o u n c i l on S o c i a l Development. POLLACK,PATRICIA BARON 1985. Aging-In-Place: F i v e Housing A l t e r n a t i v e s For the E l d e r l y . M o n t i c e l l o , I l l . : V a n c e B i b l i o g r a p h i e s . POWERS,E.A. And BULTENA,G.C. 1974. "Correspondence Between A n t i c i p a t e d and A c t u a l Uses of P u b l i c S e r v i c e s by the Aged." In S o c i a l S e r v i c e s Review. V o l . 48, 245-254. Chicago, 111.: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s . SASKATCHEWAN HOUSING CORPORATION 1977, 1979, 1981, and 1983. Saskatchewan P u b l i c Housing Survey. Regina: P r o v i n c e of Saskatchewan. SOCIAL PLANNING COUNCIL OF OTTAWA-CARLETON 1980. A P r o j e c t to  Rank Community Needs. Ottawa: S o c i a l P l a n n i n g C o u n c i l of Ottawa-Carleton. SOLDO,BETH J . and BROTMAN,HERMAN B. 1981. "Housing Whom?" In Community Housing Choices For Older Americans. E d i t e d by M.P. Lawton and S.L Hoover. New York, N.Y.: Springer P u b l i s h i n g . SOCIAL PLANNING AND REVIEW COUNCIL OF B.C. (SPARK) 1976. Health  Needs of the Independent E l d e r l y : A Report From Four  Communities. Vancouver, B.C.. STATISTICS CANADA 1981. Urban and R u r a l Areas, Canada, Pr o v i n c e s and T e r r i t o r i e s Part 1. Cat #94-129. STATISTICS CANADA 1984. Urban Growth i n Canada. Based on 1981 S t a t i s t i c s . STATISTICS CANADA 1986. P r o f i l e s , Part 1. Cat #94-118 and #94-119. STONE,LEROY and FLETCHER,SUSAN 1986. The Senior Boom: Dramatic  Increase i n L o n g e v i t y and Prospects For B e t t e r H e a l t h . Ottawa, Ont.: S t a t i s t i c s Canada. STONE,LEROY and FLETCHER,SUSAN 1981. Aspects of P o p u l a t i o n Aging In Canada - A Chartbook. Ottawa: NACA. STREICH,P. 1981. Housing R e h a b i l i t a t i o n and Se n i o r C i t i z e n s . Report f o r CMHC. 119 STRUYK,R.T., SOLDO,B.J. and DEVITA,C. 1980. Improving the E l d e r l y ' s Housing. Cambridge, Mass.: B a l l i n g e r P u b l i s h i n g . TILQUIN,C. et a l . 1980. "The P h y s i c a l , Emotional and S o c i a l C o n d i t i o n s of an Aged P o p u l a t i o n i n Quebec." In Aging i n  Canada S o c i a l P e r s p e c t i v e s . E d i t e d by V.W.Marshall. Don M i l l s , Ont.: F i t s h e n r y and Whiteside . U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development 1980. Housing Needs  of the R u r a l E l d e r l y and the Handicapped. Washington:USGPO. WALLACE,R., MACDONALD,J.G., and ROSE,A. 1984. F a c t o r s I n f l u e n c i n g the Q u a l i t y of L i f e of Community Based  E l d e r l y - Part 1: L i t e r a t u r e Review. Toronto, Ont.: U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto, Centre f o r Urban and Community S t u d i e s , Research Paper #151. WISEMAN, R.F. 1979. "Regional P a t t e r n s of E l d e r l y C o n c e n t r a t i o n and M i g r a t i o n . " In L o c a t i o n and Environment of E l d e r l y  P o p u l a t i o n . New York: Wiley. 120 APPENDIX A Survey of The Activities and Needs of the Elderly i n Small B.C. Towns Centre for Human Settlements University of B.C. March 1987 Respondent: Female Male: Interviewer: Date: S E N I O R S I N S M A L L T O W N S Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to Learn about the activities and needs of senior citizens who live in small towns. A ) HOUSING I would like to start by asking you a few questions about your home. "'-'••Type of Dwelling 1. How Long have you Lived here? ? Years. Does anyone share your home with you? Yes - i f yes who? Reiacion Relation Relation No -how manv in total? 3. Before you moved here, what city/town/rural area did you live in? how Long had you lived there? - did vou own or rent Years. your previous home? what prompted you to move here? Do you live here a l l year round? Yes No. - how many months are you usually away? Months. 5. Do vou own or rent - is your home paid for? this home? Yes No. In round numbers, what is the total monthly payment for your: - Mortgage $ (does this include property taxes?) - Rent Do you pay for Electricity? Heat? Property Taxes ? Yes Yes Yes _So: About how much? ?_ No: About how much? $_ No: About how much? $ 3. Do you have any di f f i c u l t y meeting any of these costs of housing? no. Which ones? Whv? _/month /month /month ves U 3 9. Are there any aspects of your home (either iTiside or outside) which you find difficult to cope with? Iiiside: Outside: 10. Do you use any person/firm/service to help you maintain your heme? - yes what do they do for you - no why not? 11. What in your opinion, is the issue of greatest concern to you in relation Co maintenance and repair of your home? Check a l l that Check the single apply most important Property Taxes Water Rates Heating Costs Electricity Costs Repair Costs Adequate Income Gardening Getting Help Other 12. Have you ever used the following government program to assist you in caring for or improving your home? Yes No When Did not know about it RRAP/CMHC Housing Renovation Program .3 13. How do you find municipal f a c i l i t i e s and services? Excellent • Good Satisfactory Poor No such f a c i l i t y In General Sidewalks Street Lighting Street Signs Roads Recreation Snow Removal Other 14. Do you have any suggestions for improvements? 15. Is your home well-located with respect to your needs for: Yes No If No Why? a) Shopping b) Social Activities c) Church d) Relatives e! Friends f) Doctor g) Other Needs Specify: 16. Do you have any plans Co move from this home Yes (IF NO GO TO 20) 17. 18. 19. 20. No Why are you planning to move? (CIRCLE ONE ONLY) 1. Decline in Health 2. Decline in health of spouse 3. To be nearer to family 4. To be nearer to services 5. Size of home 6. Financial reasons 7. Other Where w i l l you be moving? (CIRCLE ONE ONLY) 1. Same town 2. Outside town 3. Elsewhere i n B.C. 4. Elsewhere in Canada 5. Other What type of accommodation w i l l you be seeking? (CIRCLE ONE ONLY) 1. House 2. Apartment 3. Senior citizen apartment 4. Nursing home 5. Chronic care hospital 6. Other If, for some reason, you HAD to move, would you: (CIRCLE ONE ONLY) 1. Remain in this town 2. Remain in this area 3. Move Elsewhere i n B.C. 4. Move elsewhere in Canada, Specify \Zd> B) ACTIVITIES I would Like Co ask you about services you use and activities you participate in and where you travel for them. First of a l l do you own (or have a family) car? Yes No and do you drive Yes No Partner drives Yes No -—•"The following 4 questions correspond to spaces 1 - 4 below. 1) Do you go to? (If yes, location) 2) (If yes) How often would you say you go there? 3) How do you usually get there? (mode of transport is the desired answer, but note details of any directions given.) 4) Does this differ i n winter? A . Corner variety store 1) Yes No 2) 3) 4) B. Family doctor/physician 1) Yes No 2) 3) 4) C. Drug store/pharmacy 1) Yes No 2) 3) • 4) D. Bank 1) Yes No 2) 3) 4) E. Vi s i t with family or other relatives 1) Yes No 2) 3) 4) Clothing/shoe stores 1) Yes No 2) 3) 4) G. Library 1) Yes No 2) 3) 4) H. Park 1) Yes No 2) 3) 4) b I. Beauty/barber shop . |  1) Yes No 2) 3) 4) J. Department store 1) Yes No 2) 3) 4) K. Dentist/denturist 1) Yes No 2) 3) 4) L. Specialist doctor/physician 1) Yes No 2) M. Supermarket or grocery store 1) Yes No 2) N. Restaurant/coffee shop 1) Yes No 2) 3) 4) 0. Post office 1) Yes No 2) 3) 4) P. Church services 1) Yes No 2) 3) 4) Q. Social groups/clubs a. 1) Yes No 2) 3) 4) b. 1) Yes No 2) 3) 4) c. 1) Yes No 2) 3) 4) d. 1) Yes No 2) 3) 4) R. Entertainment (e.g. movies, plays, concerts) 3) 4) 3) 4) 1) Yes No 2) 3) 4) 7 \Z8 S . Visit with friends 1) Yes No 2) 3) 4) _ T. Other (pLease specify) a. 1) Yes No 2) 3) 4) Other (pLease specify) b. 1) Yes No 2) 3) 4) Other (pLease specify) a- 1) Yes No 2) 3) 4) How important is i t to you that the following f a c i l i t i e s and services are accessible by waLking ? Very Somewhat Not at a l l Important Important Important a. Grocery store b. Variety store c. Bank d. Post Office e. Doctor f. Restaurant g. Seniors' centre h. Drug store i . Beauty Parlour/Barber j . Church k. Library 1. Park m. Clothing/shoe store Any others that very important to you? 8 C) SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE Could I now ask you about the people and conTnunity services which have  recently provided you with some help or support when you've had a problem, or have needed something. Can you please identify for me the people and/or the agencies which you have personally received help from during the last 2 months, (such as mowing your lawn, driving you to the doctor, visiting nursing services, etc.) Could you also t e l l me how often you see the people who provide you with the help, what specific kind of help you have received, and where you had to go to receive the help. A. Person or agency providing help. Type of help. Frequency of contact. Place help received. 3. Person or agency providing help. Type of help. Frequency of contact. Place help received. C. Person or agency providing help. Type of help. Frequency of contact. Place help received. D. Person or agency providing help. Type of help. Frequency of contact. Place help received. Person or agency providing help. Type of help. Frequency of contact. Place help received. Person or agency providing help. Type of help. Frequency of contact. Place help received. In general, how many services and agencies would you say there are to provide help and support for people your age i n this area? A great many A f a i r number A small number Very few, i f any Can you please l i s t for me the community services and agencies i n this area which provide help to people your age? a) b) .  c) d) 1 0 131 3) Continued: e) f) §) : h) i) j ) : 4) Which of the following services would be of the greatest heLp to you, to enable  you to remain in your home longer? (Check needed services) a. Personal care (bathing, dressing, hair and nails, etc.) b. Housekeeping (general cleaning, laundry, etc.) c. Home maintenance (snow removal, lawn, repairs, etc.) d. Transportation (to store, church, bank, medical app'ts, etc.) e. Assistance with food shopping f. Preparation of meals (Meals-on-Wheels) g. Help with understanding legal papers h. Aid with finding out about seniors' programs i . A home nurse for service you must now go to a c l i n i c or hospital to receive 5) If any of the above services were needed, how much could you afford to pay for them? Nothing at a l l Up to $10 weekly Up to $25 weekly Up to $50 weekly More than $50 weekly PERSONAL DATA We're just about to the end of the questionnaire but I s t i l l need to ask you a few questions about yourself. Female Male Please t e l l me which one of the following statements best describes your present marital status. I have never been married I am married and living with my spouse I am married, but separated from my spouse I am divorced I am widowed Other (Please specify) For how long has this been your marital status? Years. If you have children where do they live? What was your age at your last birthday? Years. What is your spouse's age? Years. Which one of the following phrases best describes yours/your spouse's health at the present time. Yours Your spouse Very poor ' Poor Fair Good Excellent In round numbers, what was your total income for last year? S Did vour income come a i l from one source, such as a pension? Yes Source No (Go to 9) Could you estimate the proportion of your total income which came from any of the following sources: CD Percent Paid Work (Kind) Old Age Pension Canada Pension Plan Veteran's Allowance Private Pension or Superannuation RRSP SAFER Stocks and Bonds Property Rental Children Other inn ?-Well, that concludes our interview. I'd like to thank you very much for a l l your interest, time and co-operation. You have been extremely helpful, and i t has been very pleasant talking with you. - Do you have any general comments you would like to make about the interview, or about the topics we have covered today? 134 Further Comments: Before I go I would like to reassure you again that a l l the information you have given me w i l l be kept in strictest confidence, and that your name wi l l i n no way be associated with any of the information. ELDERLY SHORT FORM A) HOUSING We would like to know a bit about your home. 1. What type of dwelling do you live in? (Check one) a. Your own house b. Your own apartment c. Share house/apartment d. Senior citizen apartment e. Mobile home f. With relatives g. Other 2. How long have you lived here? years. 3. Before you moved to your present home, i n - what city, town or rural area did you live? - how long? _ ^ - what prompted you to move here? 4. Do you own or rent this home? 5. In round numbers what is your total monthly payment for your: Mortgage $ /month Rent $ /month 6. Are there any aspects of your heme (either inside or outside) which you find d i f f i c u l t to cope with? Inside: Outside: Outside continued: Do you receive any assistance in maintaining your home? Type of help Help giver Do you pay? What, in your opinion is the issue of greatest concern in maintaining your home? CHECK ONE ONLY: a. Property taxes b. Water Rates c. Heating Costs d. Repair Costs e. Gardening ' f. Getting help g. Other (Specify) How do you find municipal f a c i l i t i e s and services? Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor a. In general b. Sidewalks c. Street Lights d. Street Signs e. Roads f. Recreation g. Snow removal Do you have any plaits to move from your home? Yes No 11. If you are planning to move, what is your reason? (CHECK ONE) a. Decline in health b. Decline in health of spouse c. To be nearer to family d. To be nearer to services e. Home/garden too large f. Financial reasons g. Other 12. What type of accomodation would you seek? (CHECK ONE) a. House b. Apartment c. Senior citizen apartment d. Nursing home e. Chronic care hospital f. Other 13. Would you leave this town? Yes No If yes, mere would you prefer to go? B) ACTIVITIES We would now like to know about your regular activities. 1. Is your home well-located with respect to your needs for: Activity Yes No Why? a. Shopping . b. Social Activities c. Church d. Relatives e. Friends f. Doctor g. Other S/4 V38 g. Other Activities Yes No Why? 2. Do you own a (or have a family) car? Yes No When you need a ride, who drives you? Self Spouse Relative Other (identify) 4. How important is i t to you that the following f a c i l i t i e s and services are accessible by walking? a. Grocery Store b. Variety Store c. Bank d. Post Office e. Doctor f. Restaurant g. Seniors' Centre h. Drug store i . Beauty Shop/Barber j . Church k. Library 1. Park m. Clothing/Shoe store C) SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE Could you now t e l l us about people or groups who have recently provided you with some help or support when you've had a problem or needed something, (such as driving you to the doctor, delivering groceries, etc.) Very Important Somewhat Important Not at a l l Important 1. Person or service providing help to you: S/5 1. Continued Type of help. Frequency of help. Place help received. 2. Person or service providing help to you: Type of help. Frequency of help. Place help received. 3. Person or service providing help to you: Type of help. Frequency of help. _ Place help received. 4. Person or service providing help to you: Type of help. Frequency of help. Place help received. 5. Can you please l i s t the community services i n this area that provide help to people your age. a. b. c. S / 6 \AO Continued d. f. Which of the following services would be of greatest help to enable you to remain in your own home? (CHECK NEEDED SERVICES) a. Personal care (bathing, hair, dressing, etc.) b. Housekeeping (cleaning, laundry, etc.) c. Home maintenance (lawn, repairs, snow, etc.) d. Transportation (to ) e. Food shopping help f. Meal preparation (Meals-on-Wheels) g. Understanding legal papers h. Finding out about seniors' programs i . Home nursing j . Other PERSONAL DATA To complete the survey could you t e l l us a bit about yourself. Female Male Age ( 0 1 1 your last birthday) years Marital status since (date) Are you living with your spouse? Yes No Which one of the following best describes yours/your spouse's health at the present time? Yours Your spouse excellent good Continued (best description of health at present time, yours/your spouse) Yours Your spouse fa i r poor very poor 5. In round numbers, what was your total household income last year? $ 8. What proportion (in round numbers) of your total income came from any of the following sources? Sources "L Paid work Old Age Pension Canada Pension Veteran's Allowance Private Pension/Superannuation RRSP SAFER Stocks and Bonds Property rental Children Other TDTJT THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097972/manifest

Comment

Related Items