• 가정과삶의질연구
• /
• 제19권4호
• /
• pp.49-68
• /
• 2001

The purpose of this study was 1) to review communal housing in the UK, 2) to consider the policy implications for elderly communal housing in Korea. The research methods used were 1) literature review about communal housing and related policy in the UK 2) field survey in the UK 3) interpretative suggestion for the proper policy implication to develope communal housing for the elderly in Korea. Sheltered housing in the UK had been developed as communal housing for the elderly with special needs since the 1970s. The type of sheltered housing were category 1 and category 2. Very sheltered housing with more facilities and meal services was added in 1980s. Sheltered housing was evaluated as the most humanistic solution for older people in the UK in 1980s. Because of the policy of moving institutional care to community care, sheltered housing became less in demand because of more options for older people including being able to stay in their own home. So new completion of sheltered housing by registered social landlords reduced saliently. Sheltered housing already totalled over half million units in which 5% of all elderly over 65 still lived and a small quantity of private sector for sale schemes emerged in the 1990s. The reason why the residents moved to sheltered housing was for sociable, secure, and manageable living arrangements. In general the residents were satisfied with these characteristics but dissatisfied with the service charge and quality of meals, especially in category 2.5 schemes. The degree of utilisation of communal spaces and facilities depended on the wardens ability and enthusiasm. Evaluation of sheltered housing indicated several problems such as wardens duty as a \"good neighbour\" ; difficult-to-let problems with poor location or individual units of bedsittiing type with shared bathroom ; and the under use of communal spaces and facilities. Some ideas to solve these problems were suggested by researchers through expanding wardens duty as a professional, opening the scheme to the public, improving interior standards, and accepting non-elderly applicants who need support. Some researchers insisted continuing development of sheltered housing, but higher standards must be considered for the minority who want to live in communal living arrangement. Recently, enhanced sheltered housing with greater involvement of relatives and with tied up policy in registration and funding suggested as an alternative for residential care. In conclusion, the rights of choice for older people should be policy support for special needs housing. Elderly communal housing, especially a model similar to sheltered housing category 2 with at least 1 meal a day might be recommended for a Korean Model. For special needs housing development either for rent or for sale, participation of the public sector and long term and low interest financial support for the private sector must be developed in Korea. Providing a system for scheme managers to train and retrain must be encouraged. The professional ability of the scheme manager to plan and to deliver services might be the most important factor for the success of elderly communal housing projects in Korea. In addition the expansion of a public health care service, the development of leisure programs in Senior Citizens Centre, home helper both for the elderly in communal housing and the elderly in mainstream housing of the community as well. Providing of elderly communal housing through the modified general Construction Act rather than the present Elderly Welfare Act might be more helpful to encourage the access of general people in Korea. in Korea.