Project Lift Improvement and Facilities Enhancement for the elderly
Housing and Development Board
Singapore

The Problem

In the early 1990s, out of the about 55,000 households living in Housing and Development Board (HDB) public rental flats, about 10,800 (i.e. 20%) were elderly households. Of these, about 6,000 were living in 1-room flats.

This group of elderly households living in 1-room rental flats comprised many Singapore’s early immigrants, who had contributed to the country’s economy in their earlier years by doing largely jobs requiring immense physical strengths, as they were illiterate. As they age, they were not able to cope with the physical requirements of the job and were forced to retire. These immigrants, when they were economically active, sent most of their earnings back to their homeland in China, India, etc. Thus when they retire, many of them hardly had much savings left to see them into their old age. Furthermore, many of them who had remained single, decided to remain in Singapore as they had been here for many years and had formed new bonds and kinships. Thus the profile of this group of elderly households typically comprised economically inactive elderly persons aged 60 years and above, either elderly single persons sharing a flat, or an elderly couple. They were also cash strapped and had to fend for themselves.

Many of these 1-room rental blocks were designed in the 1960s and 1970s. To lower costs, these blocks and units had a simple and compact design to house as many households as possible. Lifts were provided only on certain floors. As Singapore had a generally young population at that time, these designs and basic amenities served the purpose.

Nevertheless, in the 1990s, as the population started to age, designs, amenities and arrangements to facilitate the mobility of elderly persons, particularly the elderly poor, became more pressing. There were also increasing concerns about some of the elderly poor persons who were living alone (after their partner or room mate passed away) in 1-room rental flats been found dead in their flats. If nothing was done to assist them in their living arrangements and facilities so as to enhance their mobility and independence, many of them would be prematurely forced to go into institutional care, which they resisted as it uprooted them from their familiar environment.

In 1992, the Ministry of National Development (MND) asked HDB to look into the problem. Bearing in mind that the elderly persons were generally more comfortable with a familiar environment and preferred to continue living in their flats than staying in a home, HDB identified 2 main needs – firstly, to upgrade the physical environment to make it elder-friendly and secondly, to take care of their emotional aspect by having befriender services.

Thus, Project LIFE (Lift Improvement and Facilities Enhancement for the elderly), was connived and implemented in Aug 1993, to help the elderly poor residents to continue to live independently in the same community for as long as they could.

Solution and Key Benefits

 What is the initiative about? (the solution)
Project LIFE has been jointly implemented by MND/HDB and MCYS/NCSS since Aug 1993 at selected one-room rental blocks with relatively high concentrations of elderly households (at least 20% or more of the units are occupied by elderly persons aged 60 years or above).

MND/HDB carries out the physical upgrading to the blocks/units such as modifying the lifts to stop at every floor (where technically feasible), installing an alert alarm system for the elderly residents to call for help in an emergency and installing handrails to facilitate the movement of the elderly. The Ministry of Community, Youth and Sports (MCYS)/National Council of Social Service (NCSS) has been roped in to appoint Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) to provide community-based care and support services.

Since its implementation, Project LIFE has received very positive feedback from the elderly poor residents and also strong support from the grassroots organisations. The benefits of the initiative are tremendous compared with the relatively little capital outlay. To the elderly poor residents, the benefits are:

a) Flat Improvements: The residents living in these flats are very poor, with little or no income. As they age, they would need their environment to be modified to cater to their old-age physical needs.Upgrading brings these rental flats, built mostly in the 1960s and 1970s, up to current standards in terms of the facilities, design and finishes, with elderly-friendly fittings installed. The tenants do not have to pay higher rentals for the improvement works.

b) Support Services: Besides the physical upgrading, the social and psychological dimensions of the residents, are not left out. The VWOs provide community and social support from purpose-built centres. They also take on the extended role of managing the alert alarm system and monitor the well being of the elderly persons. Opportunities are created for social interaction through activities such as keep-fit programmes, mutual help and befrienders' scheme and social outings.

c) Ageing In Place: Project LIFE is significant in its elderly housing approach by facilitating ageing in place. The elderly are more comfortable within a familiar environment. They do not have to be uprooted because of the upgrading works. This approach allows them to retain their sense of belonging to the community, well into old age amidst family and community support.

To MND/HDB and MCYS/NCSS, Project LIFE has:

a) Enhanced our image by giving us the opportunities to show that we are caring organizations,

b) Allowed us to help with community bonding,

c) Build good rapport between us as we work closely together

The joint partners – MND/HDB and MCYS/NCSS have agreed that Project LIFE is a good project and has served its purpose well in enabling the elderly poor to live independently.

By Mar 2008, 52 one-room rental blocks comprising 15,400 units would have been upgraded under Project LIFE. Of these units, about 9,300 units (about 60%) are households with at least 1 elderly tenant and would benefit from the programme.

Actors and Stakeholders

 Who proposed the solution, who implemented it and who were the stakeholders?
MND/HDB came up with the initiative Project LIFE and MCYS/NCSS supported it. Hence Project LIFE has been jointly implemented by MND/HDB and MCYS/NCSS, at selected 1-room rental blocks where there is a relatively high concentration of elderly households. HDB undertakes the hardware aspect of improving the physical living conditions. NCSS complements by arranging to appoint a VWO who will provide the community-based care and support services, and take care of the welfare of the elderly residents in these blocks.

(a) Strategies

 Describe how and when the initiative was implemented by answering these questions
 a.      What were the strategies used to implement the initiative? In no more than 500 words, provide a summary of the main objectives and strategies of the initiative, how they were established and by whom.
Singapore’s public housing policies support “ageing-in-place”, ie growing old in the home and community that one is familiar with. Thus to improve the mobility of the elderly, HDB improves the accessibility and elderly-friendliness of the living environment to facilitate ageing-in-place. There is also a need for a strong welfare support system so that services are extended to them if needed, such as the Befriender service, etc.

MAIN OBJECTIVES

With the above considerations, the main objectives of Project LIFE are:

a) To help the elderly tenants achieve better mobility and give them greater independence with the elderly-friendly fittings installed at their rental flats;

b) To provide them with the community-based care and support services; and

c) To enable them to age in place and remain integrated with the community.

STRATEGIES

To achieve the objectives, a multi-pronged approach has been adopted. Firstly, as the problem of an ageing population was not new to other countries such as Finland, Hong Kong, Japan and Korea, there was no need to reinvent the wheel. Studies were made of how these countries tried to solve their problems and whether their solutions could be used or adapted for Singapore.

Secondly, the key implementers of the initiative were identified and their roles clearly defined. MND/ HDB was to carry out physical improvements to the flats to make them more convenient for the elderly to live independently. HDB was to retrofit the 1-room rental blocks with elderly-friendly fittings such as lifts that stop at every floor, non-slip tiles, hand bars and alert alarm systems. HDB also needed to facilitate the establishment of community care and support by creating clusters of elderly households so that VWOs can find it easier to provide care to a large number of elderly persons. When all these had been done, MCYS/NCSS was to arrange for VWOs to provide community-based care and support services for the elderly tenants.

Thirdly, to guard against a situation where the whole block might eventually be occupied wholly by elderly people, a cap was imposed on the number of elderly families in the block. By allowing non elderly households to reside in the block, this would enable a balance to be kept so that the block could remain lively and retain some youthfulness.

Fourthly, as these are elderly residents belonging to the lower income strata, to ease their financial burden, the Government would fully fund the project.

Lastly, a pilot programme on Project LIFE was implemented in 3 selected 1-room rental blocks first. Feedback was then obtained from all the stakeholders to improve on the programme before full implementation on a wider scale.

(b) Implementation

 b.      What were the key development and implementation steps and the chronology? No more than 500 words
Project LIFE has been implemented since Aug 1993. The first batch comprising 3 blocks of flats was completed in Apr 1996. Due to very positive feedback, more blocks were implemented with this initiative.

Up-to-date, 52 blocks have been implemented/works-in-progress. A summary of the chronology of implementation details are shown in the table.

TABLE

<Batch> <No. of Blocks> <Total No. of Units> <No. of Households with at least 1 Elderly> <Completion Date>
1 3 966 630 Apr 1996
2 6 1804 1188 Jul 1999
3 4 1098 652 Aug 1998
4 5 1467 998 Oct 1999
5 7 2428 1434 Aug 2000
6 6 1416 862 Apr 2001
7 3 1044 666 Dec 2002
8 4 1171 698 Oct 2005
9 5 1340 722 May 2007
10 5 1268 711 Mar 2008 (Estimated)
11 4 1372 724 Jan 2008 (Estimate)
Total 52 15,374 9285

(c) Overcoming Obstacles

 c.      What were the main obstacles encountered? How were they overcome? No more than 500 words
Some of the main obstacles encountered and how they were overcome are elaborated below:

a) Some relocation of existing households were carried out within each Project LIFE blocks so that all existing elderly households were regrouped on the lowest floors and the other non elderly households occupied the higher floors. Although the relocation activities were confined within the block and hence minimized, some non-elderly households who have to move to the upper floors resented having to make way for the elderly residents. For those who refused to move, they were allowed to remain as in time, as the neighbouring units were all occupied by elderly households, the dissenting non elderly tenants would move out on their own accord.

b) Some of the elderly themselves refused to be relocated to the lower floors because of emotional attachment to their units, pride and an unwillingness to be stigmatized as requiring help. When persuasion failed in such cases, they were left aside to let them observe the benefit of the programme, hoping in time, they would change their minds and request to the included in the programme.

c) The non elderly households remaining in the block objected that the block was identified as an aged residents block. However, with proper education and explanation by HDB and MCYS, the objections were usually minimized, especially as rental flat tenants were generally more tolerant.

d) Residents of adjacent sold flats, who were generally better off financially, objected to a rental block being converted for use by aged residents due to concerns on the impact on the value of the flats. However, as the proposal only involved regrouping of existing elderly tenants in the block, there were no strong justifications for objections.

e) Some tenants refused to allow the improvement works to be carried out in the flats. The soft approach was used to explain and coerce them to allow the improvements to be done. When all else failed, tenancy action was invoked to obtain compliance.

f) Occasionally, no VWO could be found to man the alert alarm system. So far, in such instances, the grassroots organizations have come forward to volunteer to man the alert alarm system.

(d) Use of Resources

 d.      What resources were used for the initiative and what were its key benefits? In no more than 500 words, specify what were the financial, technical and human resources’ costs associated with this initiative. Describe how resources were mobilized
The technical, human and financial resources associated with Project LIFE are elaborated below.

Technical Resources: MND/HDB carry out the physical improvements to the flats to make them more elderly friendly. The final scope of work is adjusted based on actual requirements on site. Private architects, engineers, contract managers and project managers are engaged to provide technical advice, contract management and project management service. After the completion of the works, a private consultant is employed to oversee and ensure the smooth day-to-day running of the alert alarm system.

Human Resources: The MCYS/NCSS appoints a VWO to provide community-based care and support services for the elderly tenants e.g. befriender service, keep-fit programmes. The same VWO also helps to man the alert alarm system and responds to the distress calls.

Financial Resources: MND/HDB pays for the initial improvements works costs and also the recurrent costs of maintaining the alert alarm system. The MCYS/NCSS subsidises a portion of the VWO’s running cost. The 11 batch is in the process of being completed and by then, the total estimated cost to be incurred would be about S$220 million. All the costs are fully funded by the Singapore government.

Sustainability and Transferability

  Is the initiative sustainable and transferable?
The Project LIFE initiative is sustainable from the following aspects:

a) Socially: Populations in many developed countries are ageing, and Singapore is no exception. By year 2030, the number of residents aged 65 or older is expected to reach about 900,000, which is about 1 out of 5 residents. To prepare for the aging population, the Singapore government even set up the Committee on Ageing Issues (CAI) in Dec 2004 to look into how growing old in Singapore can be a pleasant and fulfilling experience.

b) Culturally: In general, the Government’s housing policies also support "ageing-in-place" i.e. growing old in the home and community that one is familiar with. This has eased the transition into old age as there is no cultural issue, any ethnicity can subscribe to staying in our Project LIFE flats.

c) Environmentally: One of the main thrusts of the recommendations of the CAI is to make Singapore an “Accessible City” by having an enabling environment to provide seniors with unhindered access from homes to public amenities, communal and recreational facilities. The Project LIFE programme, which involves retrofitting of existing housing facilities to make them elder-friendly so that the elderly residents can continue to reside in an environment they are familiar with.

d) Institutionally: MND/HDB provides the “hardware” by retrofitting the blocks/flats to make them elder-friendly and MCYS/NCSS, supported by the VWOs takes care of the “software” by providing community-based care services. All the participating government agencies are committed to meeting the government’s objectives of taking care of the elderly poor. The government is also in full support of Project LIFE.

The programme is also replicable at the following levels:

a) At the local level, it is possible to replicate the Project LIFE model at other housing developments, such as the private, provided the interested parties are committed to the resources entailed.

b) At the international level, HDB has also shared with delegates from China, Finland, Hong Kong and Korea on Project LIFE and they were impressed with this programme

Lessons Learned

 What are the impact of your initiative and the lessons learned?
When coming out with a solution to solve a problem, it is always good to see what has been implemented in other countries so that we can learn from them the strengths, weaknesses and pitfalls of their solutions. When we find a suitable solution, we can adapt it for local use. In this way, we are more ensured of successfully coming out with an effective solution in a short time and implementing it smoothly.

Secondly, doing it alone, HDB may not be able to implement the initiative so successfully and effectively. With a common national objective in mind, we realize that it is possible for different government agencies, and even grassroots organizations, to work together to achieve the desired result. MND/HDB and MCYS/NCSS collaborated and worked closely to ensure the successful implementation of the programme.

Thirdly, the design of Project LIFE took into consideration the physical and emotional needs of the targeted group – the elderly. It retrofits the physical living environment of the elderly residents to enhance their mobility. It also arranges for community-based care services. All these facilitate the elderly residents to continue to live as part of the family and community in an elderly friendly environment. As the elderly residents are able to see and also receive the direct benefits of the programme eg some of the salient features being the alert alarm system and the community-based care services, the participation rate for Project LIFE is very high, contributing to the success of the programme.

Lastly, as people age, coupled with the economy moving ahead, the government has to ensure that this group of elderly poor is not left behind. As Singapore is not a welfare state, it does not subscribe to giving out handouts liberally. Instead, it makes a commitment to improve the basic physical infrastructure to enable the elderly poor to be more mobile and independent and at the same time creates opportunities for them to lead a more active lifestyle.

Contact Information

Institution Name:   Housing and Development Board
Institution Type:   Government Agency  
Contact Person:   Chan Hein Wah, Mike
Title:   Deputy Director (Rental Housing)  
Telephone/ Fax:   64902288
Institution's / Project's Website:   68543493
E-mail:   mc2@hdb.gov.sg  
Address:   Atrium 3rd Storey, HDB Hub 480 Lorong 6 Toa Payoh
Postal Code:   310480
City:  
State/Province:  
Country:   Singapore

          Go Back

Print friendly Page