1

The Ageing Minority Ethnic Population

in Perth and Kinross

Research Report – 2014

Research Undertaken by:

Project Funded by Perth & Kinross Change Fund:

2

Contents Page No

1. Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..p3

2. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………p6

3. Demography in Perth and Kinross……………………………………………………………………………………….p6

4. Research Methodology……………………………………………………………………………………………………….p7

5. Participant Details……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..p8

6. Research Findings……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..p10

7. Focus Group Findings…………………………………………………………………………………………………………p21

8. Service Provider Summary Responses………………………………………………………………………………..p24

9. Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….p29

10. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………p29

11. Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....p30

3

1. Executive Summary

This report details the findings of a Research Project to identify the health and wellbeing needs of

Perth & Kinross’ increasing older-aged minority ethnic, including Gypsy/Travellers, population, with

a view to informing future service provision and commissioning and to addressing health

inequalities. Research was commissioned by The Reshaping Care for Older People Change Fund and

led by Third Sector organisations PKAVS Services for Minority Communities (MEAD) and Minority

Ethnic Carers of People Project (MECOPP) with support from all Change Fund partners.

Research targeted 73 adults aged 50+ from minority ethnic communities living in Perth & Kinross,

primarily Eastern European, Chinese, South Asian and Gypsy/ Travellers. Research sought to

understand individual awareness of and engagement with difference services; identify barriers to

access; and capture people’s lived experiences of services. 48 participants also took part in Focus

Groups.

90 staff from statutory and Third Sector providers completed a survey to gauge their current

involvement and experience of working with minority ethnic communities locally. 51% indicated

infrequent contact with minority ethnic older people and/or their families/ carers in their roles and

33% no contact.

Research found that service awareness levels in minority ethnic communities were highest around

health services, with GP, Hospitals, Pharmacy, Dentist and Optician known by over 75%. Health

services with lower recognition tended to be those not accessed directly by the public but via

referral. The primary concern of people when accessing these services is that their medical needs

are addressed; most responses indicated that this is happening. Common issues in health services

were:

Language difficulties and the need for interpreters, particularly in relation to GPs. People are

still being asked to bring relatives to interpret. Individuals reported being given wrong

medication as a result of no interpreting support.

Perception of poor attitudes towards minority ethnic individuals, although this was also

mixed with positive comment. Long-standing relationships with individual GPs were valued

and individual attitude was cited as important in a person’s experience.

A few people felt they were not properly listened to as the patient. It was also noted that

sometimes things are understood different in ethnic minority communities.

Social Services including Welfare advice, Housing and Care homes were known to more than 50% of

respondents, and Community alarm and Care at Home to over 40%. Awareness of their entitlement

to access these services was low in Gypsy/ Traveller responses.

The most widely recognised social service was Welfare benefits advice, with access often through

language support from MEAD. Housing services received positive feedback in terms of experience

however it was found that interpreting provision was sometimes inconsistent. Positive experiences

were noted by all of the 22% who had accessed Housing Association support.

4

Awareness of Care at Home was relatively high but only one person reported using this service; this

was deemed surprising given the age of the research group. For some minority ethnic communities

there can be cultural difficulties in having non-family members looking after older relatives in the

home. 16% identified themselves as unpaid Carers however only 1 person had accessed Carer

Support services

No respondents had used Self Directed Support. MECOPP has undertaken separate work

surrounding uptake of SDS within minority ethnic communities and this corresponds with their

findings, with a ‘suspicion’ of traditional Social Work services and a lack of knowledge about the

possibility of using SDS to employ families being significant causal factors. Some Gypsy /Travellers

noted that lunch clubs, day care and mental health services were not appropriate for their

community.

The most recognised and used Third Sector services were minority ethnic advice and support

services MEAD and MECOPP. All who accessed found the service beneficial and that their cultural

needs were understood. Language was a key issue in enabling people to feel comfortable and access

the service. This was also true of Advocacy Services.

Access to ESOL (English as a Second Language) support was cited a number of times and participants

noted the positive atmosphere, quality of tutors and opportunity to learn with peers. It should be

noted that a number of Gypsy /Travellers were concerned that health and social care literature

offered to them was of little use or relevance due to literacy difficulties or use of jargon.

37% reported being in employment (including self-employment). Experiences of employment

services highlight differences between voluntary sector provision, where they felt treated fairly and

supported, and public sector, where equalities awareness of staff and availability of interpreters

were criticised.

Nearly 40% were involved in community lunch clubs or faith groups and 20% in leisure services, with

all but one reporting benefits. A few people noted that leisure services did not sufficiently recognise

cultural needs, such as women-only activities.

The research also considered social connectedness of minority ethnic older people. The majority

reported feeling closest to immediate family, with some also noting community members or MEAD

and MECOPP as being in their inner circles. 35% of respondents across all communities identified

loneliness as an issue, with key factors ranging from illness or mobility to lack of family support or

activities. 32% reported feeling isolated at some point in their lives; this rose to 56% in Gypsy/

Traveller interviews, often due to accommodation. 75% of respondents aspired to live in their own

home in later life. The Chinese community in particular noted a preference for their own sheltered

housing or care home.

Across the research, four key barriers to service access emerged from both user and provider

perspective:

5

Language: For individuals whose first language isn’t English or who may have literacy difficulties, the

‘bureaucratic’ language used in official documentation was highlighted strongly as a key barrier to

access. Lack of offering and consistency in interpreting services was also noted. 93% of service

providers were aware of how to access interpreting/ translation services; while encouraging

feedback, this is inconsistent with feedback from users that this is actually being offered.

Lack of awareness: Awareness of both availability of services and their entitlement them is variable

and can be down to differences in understanding or not knowing how to access information. 47% of

service providers noted that their service had not undertaken specific promotion to minority ethnic

communities.

Attitude: Individual attitude of the provider can play an important part in a person’s experience of a

service. Culture was noted as a barrier by a number of service providers, with 49% feeling they

would benefit from Cultural Awareness Training.

Culturally specific services: It was identified that culture needs to be considered to improve service

access. Some suggestions included Chinese Sheltered Housing or dedicated staff required to work

with those from their own culture/ ethnicity.

Having fully considered the research findings, the Steering Group recommends that:

Communication – A communication programme should be agreed across statutory agencies (Perth

& Kinross Council and NHS Tayside), which clarifies the process for accessing Interpreting and

Translation Services. Feedback on the customer experience after accessing services should be

encouraged.

Training – A programme of cultural awareness training for staff in a front-line/customer facing role

(including key decision-makers) should be embedded in key organisations.

Service Awareness – A short promotional video clip for 3-4 priority services across sectors should be

produced and promoted online and via existing community groups

Access – Options should be explored for a dedicated project targeted at bridging the gap’ to access

to mainstream services. This should consider all aspects of the assessment process to the cultural,

trust and language barriers identified at service delivery stage.

Engagement – Existing work by those projects that are known, trusted and already successful in

engaging with local minority ethnic communities should continue to be supported. This includes

MEAD, MECOPP, Ethnic Minorities Law Centre (EMLC) and English as a Second or other Language

(ESOL) provision. Work should continue to further promote partnership work to enable on-going

engagement around the specific issues identified in this research.

It is recommended that the final version of this report be submitted for approval to the Change Fund

Board and for wider circulation and publication.

6

2. Introduction – setting the context

Third Sector organisations PKAVS Services for Minority Communities (MEAD) and Minority Ethnic

Carers of People Project (MECOPP) identified the pressing need to articulate the health and social

needs of the increasing older-aged minority ethnic population in Perth and Kinross; needs that are

influenced by diverse factors including culture, traditions, language and literacy, gender,

employment history, accommodation conditions, health status and family. There are different rates

of ageing among different cultural groups with some populations ageing faster than others; these

differences are reflected in their diverse needs for support and services.

The current Joint Commissioning Strategy and Change Fund investments had not considered fully

the needs of this growing demographic within Perth and Kinross. In October 2013, a Research

Project was commissioned by the Reshaping Care for Older People Change Fund to identify the

health and wellbeing needs of Perth and Kinross’ increasing older-aged minority ethnic, including

Gypsy/Travellers, population with a view to informing future service provision and commissioning

and to addressing health inequalities. MEAD and MECOPP jointly led this research project which

integrates with, and extends, the local work already being undertaken by these two agencies. It was

agreed that the research would be shaped around localities focussing on health and wellbeing needs

but also including wider needs (e.g. accommodation, social isolation, language and literacy,

transport, access to services, etc.) that impact on an individual’s wellbeing and ability to live

independently and within their own home.

3. Demography in Perth and Kinross

Perth and Kinross is a predominantly rural area with a population of 146,652 (Census, 2011) living

and working across its 5,000 square kilometres. The main minority ethnic communities residing and

working in Perth and Kinross are Eastern European, Chinese, South Asian and Gypsy/Travellers.

Since the expansion of the European Union over the past decade, Scottish local authorities have

experienced an increase in migrant populations and there has been a similar trend in Perth & Kinross

Council area. Migrant populations include a combination of seasonal migrant workers, new migrants

and settled communities from different minority ethnic communities. In 2010, in response to this

demographic change, MEAD established a ‘one-stop-shop’ for minority ethnic communities and in

2011, as part of the Scottish Government’s aim to identify ‘hidden carers’ MECOPP began working

across Perth and Kinross with the Gypsy/Traveller community. Both services work holistically with

all ages across Perth and Kinross, providing advice, information, advocacy and support for

individuals, including those with disabilities and long-term conditions and carers.

The 2011 Census figures show that 97.97% of the population of Perth and Kinross categorised

themselves as ‘White‘ (slightly above the national average of 96.02%) however, this figure included

some 2,482 people categorised as ‘White Polish’ (1.69% of the total population above the national

average of 1.16% and the 4th highest local authority population in Scotland), 3, 130 categorised as

‘Other White’ which would include other Eastern European countries of origin (2.13% of the total

7

population above the national average of 1.93%) and 415 categorised as ‘Gypsy/Traveller’.

‘Gypsy/Traveller’ as a classification, was included in the Scottish Census figures for 2011 for the first

time. Nationally 4,212 people were recorded as Gypsy/Travellers, with Perth and Kinross having the

highest individual local authority population. It is widely acknowledged however, that those figures

are likely to be an underestimate.

The Asian population in Perth and Kinross totalled 1,852 (1.26% of the total population below the

national average of 2.66%) – this figure includes 585 Indian, 461 Chinese and 331 Pakistani. Similar

figures at the 2001 Census were 135 Indian, 310 Chinese and 135 Pakistani. Across all groups

covered by this research it is clear that there has been a significant increase over the last 10 years.

With regards to the age-related breakdown from the 2011 Census a relatively small proportion of

the total population aged over 60 were from minority ethnic groups. The total population aged over

60 represented some 27.4 % of the total population (40,184) and of that 39,522 were classified as

‘White Scottish’ (33,600), ‘White Other British’ (5,515) or ‘White Irish’ (407). The numbers from the

communities within this research aged over 60 were ‘White Polish’ (63), ‘White Gypsy/Traveller’ (60)

and the various ‘Asian’ classifications (238) – these figures do not include the ‘mixed’ ethnic or the

‘White other’ classifications. It should be noted that although the numbers may not seem significant

demand is high, in the last year for example, MEAD handled 271 requests for support relating to

physical/mental wellbeing or social/community participation from the 60+ age-group. The Chinese

population was the most prevalent older population requiring support from MEAD (although total

only 45 people aged over 60 according to the 2011 Census figures).

4. Research Methodology

The research was undertaken by project staff from MEAD and MECOPP working with identified

groups from the respective communities. The overall project was managed by a Steering Group

consisting of representatives from PKAVS; Perth & Kinross Council and NHS Tayside as well as MEAD

and MECOPP. Professional social work input to the group was provided at the outset when planning

the research content and methodology whilst training and support to the project staff undertaking

the research was given by a member of the Housing & Community Care Planning and Policy Team.

The Steering Group met on a monthly basis during the project lifespan (February 2014 – December

2014).

Methods: A number of methods were used during the research. (i) Individual questionnaires -

carried out on a 1-1 basis in people’s homes and in lead agency offices. Questionnaires were

comprehensive and semi-structured with prompts to guide discussion. Questionnaires supported the

collation of both quantitative and qualitative information. (ii) Focus Group engagement and

consultation – undertaken with a mix of specific and general groups, using networks already

established with case studies used to stimulate discussion (iii) Service providers – an online survey

was issued to range of statutory and voluntary sector providers to gauge their current involvement

and experience of working with minority ethnic communities locally.

Target Population: For the purposes of this research, the agreed definition of ‘older person’ was 50+

years, acknowledging that the traditional 65+ age bracket would not be appropriate. This takes into

8

account the cultural, health inequalities and genetic factors that can produce different rates of

ageing within the target population. Research targeted individuals within the 50+ age-bracket but

also incorporated the views of the wider community and family unit, including the critical role of

unpaid Carers. The research sought to engage with those individuals who are registered clients with

MEAD or MECOPP as users of services, as well as those individuals not currently in crisis or with

known support needs.

Localities: A Perth and Kinross-wide approach was adopted to ensure that settlements of specific

communities within both rural areas and Perth city were captured. Activities were targeted in Perth

City, Pitlochry, Kinross, Crieff, Bridge of Earn and Blairgowrie/ Coupar Angus.

Demographic Data: The research sought to capture: Ethnicity, Gender, Age, Accommodation, Marital

Status, Disability, Carer Status, Residency (length of residency), Location, Language, Faith/Belief,

Literacy and Employment Status.

5. Participant Details

73 people were interviewed and the details follow:

5.1 Ethnicity

Ethnicity Total Respondents out of 73

Chinese 20

South Asian 20 (5 Indians and 15 Pakistanis)

Eastern European 10

Gypsy/Travellers 23

5.2 Gender

Gender Total Respondents out of 73

Female 40

Male 33

5.3 Age

Age Groups Total Respondents out of 73

50-55 13

56-60 16

61-65 25

66-70 8

71-75 6

75-80 3

81+ 2

9

5.4 Accommodation

Accommodation Total Respondents out of 73

Social Housing 18

Private Rental 8

Owner Occupied 25

Staying with family/friends 7

Caravan/chalet located at the private site 5

Caravan/chalet located at the council site 8

Other - Shared ownership 2

5.5 Marital Status

Marital Status Total Respondents out of 73

Married/Cohabiting 46

Single 9

Divorced 5

Widowed 9

Prefer not to say 2

Other - Separated 1

No Response 1

5.6 Disability

Disability Total Respondents out of 73

Identified themselves as disabled 18 (25%)

Identified themselves as not disabled 52 (71%)

Prefer not to say 3

5.7 Carers

12 (16%) of the participants identified themselves as Carers.

5.8 Length of Residency in UK/Perth and Kinross

Chinese and South Asian groups are the longest settled here, while Eastern Europeans are generally settled here more recently. Chinese participants have resided here from 12 years upwards to 50 years; Eastern Europeans have all been here for less than 10 years (3 months to 9 years) whilst 1 South Asian person has been here for only 1 year, but the next shortest stay is 8 years, going up to 40 years. All Gypsy/Travellers had been born in the UK, the majority said they had lived in Perth and Kinross “on and off all my life”. 5 said that they had lived their whole lives in Perth and Kinross and 1 person had only lived here for the last 2 years. 3 Gypsy/Travellers had lived in their current accommodation for over 30 years and the majority had lived there for several years but 2 people had lived there for only a few weeks.

10

5.9 Location

48 (65%) live in Perth City while 22 (30%) live outside including Dunkeld, Pitlochry, Crieff,

Blairgowrie, Coupar Angus, Scone and St Madoes. 3 people did not respond.

5.10 First Language

All Chinese identified Cantonese as their first language. All Eastern Europeans identified Polish

as their first language. Among South Asians, Pakistanis speak as their first language either

Punjabi or Urdu. Indians identified a range of languages as their first language, including Hindi,

Punjabi, Malayan and Swahili. 35% of Gypsy/Travellers identified Cant as their first language

and others said it was English.

5.11 Faith and Religious Beliefs

It is worth noting that none of the Indians interviewed identified Hinduism as their religion,

despite the large majority of Indians in India being Hindus. This is likely to be because Perth

College and local employers (e.g. Aviva) are recruited from South India which is largely Christian

and Muslim. The majority of Indians identified as Christian, with one identifying as Sikh.

Pakistanis all identified as Muslim. Chinese people identified Buddhism as their religion,

although 8 (40%) said they had no religion. All Eastern Europeans identified as Christian. 61% of

Gypsy/Travellers identified their religion as Christian, 22% said they were Atheist and 17%

preferred not to say.

5.12 Literacy

Only 2 out of 20 Chinese people said that they find it easy to read a formal letter indicating

widespread lack of literacy in English in this community. 4 of the Chinese community also

reported that they find it difficult to read formal letter in their own language. 35% of

Gypsy/Travellers said they did not find it easy to read or understand formal letters in English.

Most Eastern Europeans also reported difficulty in reading formal letters in English but nearly all

have no problem in their own language. Amongst South Asians a significant majority reported

no difficulty in reading formal letters in English.

5.13 Employment status

Employment Status Total Respondents out of 73

Employed 16

Self-employed 11

Unemployed 12

Retired 29

Volunteering 0

Other 2

No Response 3

6. Research findings

The research findings are extremely comprehensive and are available in full however, a detailed

summary across each of the service sectors covered now follows.

11

6.1 Health Services

Several services were well known (over 50%). These included GP (100%), Hospitals (95%),

Community Pharmacy (75%), Dentist (86%), Optician (82%), Physiotherapy (58%) and Dietician

(52%). 100% of respondents had heard of GP and 95% had heard of Hospitals. Other services were

known about by less than 50% of people. Marie Curie and Macmillan cancer care had low

recognition despite the abundance of national advertising and promotion of these services carried

out by these charitable organisations and who have nurses working within NHS Tayside. Other NHS

services that had low recognition were those not accessed directly by the public and were reliant on

referral from another professional, such as dietician, or Community psychiatric nurse. Although

patients can self-refer to services such as district nurse and podiatry, the numbers accessing them

was found to be low. Responses about experience of services were broadly similar. The primary

concern of people when accessing these services is that their medical needs are addressed. Most

responses indicated that this is happening. There were some common issues mentioned. These

include:

• Language difficulties and the need for interpreters were mentioned frequently. People are

still being asked to bring relatives to interpret. One example involved a patient for whom an

interpreter was not provided. They were given wrong medicine which led to them being

hospitalized. This was particularly prevalent in responses about GP surgeries, and less so in relation

to Hospital, Pharmacy and other services.

• There is some perception of poor attitudes toward those from ethnic minorities. This is

mixed with positive comments. It seems that some staff (GPs and others) are better than others in

this regard. 6 Gypsy/Traveller respondents noted that it was the attitude of the individual at a

service that made the difference.

• Sometimes things may be understood differently in ethnic minority communities, especially

among older members of these communities.

• A number of respondents felt that they were not properly listened to as the patient whilst 1

male Gypsy/Traveller said he experienced ‘gaps’ in accessing services because he did not have a

permanent address.

6.1.1 GP Services

Generally comments about GP services seemed to depend on the personal experience with

individual GPs. Comments such as “GP is very nice, meets my needs, even visits my home” and “GP

explains well” were countered with “I suppose I was discriminated on the grounds of my ethnicity, I

feel that the doctor treats me worse.” 5 Gypsy/Traveller respondents cited some good long standing

relationships with their GPs which they valued, usually with an individual GP rather than a practice.

However, 2 Gypsy/Travellers expressed concerns at GPs prescribing generic medications despite

pointing out the side effects when moved from their usual medication (often replaced by cheaper

European substitutes) whilst 6 individuals complained about what they perceived to be hostile

attitudes of some GPs and frontline service staff. Interestingly, the researcher also experienced this

attitude when phoning to make an appointment for someone from the Gypsy/Traveller community,

noticing a significant change in attitude when he gave a site address. 2 Gypsy/Travellers were

12

concerned that they could not get a home visit from their GP and felt that this was reluctance on the

part of professionals to come to a site. 3 Gypsy/Travellers were concerned that their GPs refused to

refer them on to other services (all dietician requests) and they felt that they were not listened to in

this respect. 2 participants expressed extreme concerns that they were not allowed a second opinion

when they asked for one and felt that the ‘patient’s charter’ did not help them.

6.1.2 Hospital

55 (75%) have used and were happy with the service. At hospitals there were some appreciative

comments about the availability of interpretation, as well as several others regarding the lack of

interpretation. Provision of interpreting services at hospitals, as well as GPs, seems to be patchy.

6.1.3 Pharmacy

25% said they had not heard of Community Pharmacy. This seems very high considering that

everyone has heard of the GP, and all but one person has used GP services. The research team

suspect this is a matter of understanding of terminology. An alternative description such as Chemist

may be better understood. Home Delivery and Repeat Prescription Service would benefit from

increasing promotion in other languages. Some respondents, mainly Polish, get medicines sent to

them by family back in Poland. 3 Gypsy/Travellers gave instances of inappropriate/wrong medication

being prescribed until errors were pointed out. 1 Gypsy/Traveller respondent had a concern about a

pharmacist having an “attitude” with them when they questioned them about the best method of

taking their medication, but wanted to point out that they did not feel that this was because of their

ethnicity.

6.1.4 Dentistry

Only 38 (52%) had used Dentistry services. Considering that it is recommended that everyone have 6

monthly check-ups, this seems very low. Such check-ups may not be common in some countries of

origin and more work may be needed to encourage a greater take up among minority ethnic

communities. 1 Gypsy/Traveller who had never used the dentist said “No need – never had any

problems with teeth and I brush them with a bit of coal every day!” This may include translation of

information. There were also concerns about the lack of interpretation availability. Those who did

use dentist were generally happy with their services.

6.1.5 Optician

41 (55%) had used the optician and all but one felt that the service had been of benefit and

comments were very positive. Some opticians have ethnic minority staff which is appreciated. 1

Gypsy/Traveller respondent mentioned an optician that was particularly good and really took their

time getting to know their needs.

6.1.6 Dietician

Most respondents said that they did not need this service. 1 complained that “I have requested an

appointment through my GP but have been refused this. I am told that my diet is responsible for

periodic weight gain but I eat a very healthy diet and believe other factors are responsible.” Another

commented that they “Have tried without success to get a referral”.

13

6.1.7 District Nurse

Only 8 (11%) had used the service but they we very happy with the service they had had. Most said

that they had not required this service.

6.1.8 Health Visitor

Only 8 (11%) had used the service but they were very happy with the service they had had. Most

said that they had not required this service rather, those that had, had accessed it for their

grandchildren. 1 Gypsy/Traveller expressed concern about assumptions being made about

Gypsy/Travellers and cited an experience when a community-based health professional asked them

“if they were a Traveller because they had a Traveller name?”

6.1.9 Podiatry

Only 9 (12%) had used the service but they we very happy with the service they had had. Most said

that they had not required this service. 3 Gypsy/Traveller individuals were however, upset at the

withdrawal of ‘valued’ community based home visit services (such as chiropody) due to ‘cuts’, “I was

told to get a neighbour to cut my toes which I found to be insulting and inappropriate.”

6.1.10 Other Services

Only 27 (37%) have heard of Macmillan and none had used their services. No responses were

recorded regarding Marie Curie although 28% had heard of the organisation.

6.2 Social Services

Welfare benefits advice, Housing, and Care homes were all known to more than 50% of respondents.

Community alarm and Care at home were all known to more than 40% of respondents. The Access

Team had only been heard of by 27% of respondents. This may be a matter of understanding of

terminology.

6.2.1 Welfare benefits advice

This was the most widely recognised of the Social Services. 44 (60%) had accessed the service. Those

that did so often did so through MEAD. Generally people felt they had benefited but 2 did not.

• “They don't understand you and sent complicated forms which I need help to complete.”

• “They didn't tell me anything that I didn't already know.”

A key part of the success of this service is provision in appropriate languages:

• “help in native language”

• “MEAD has Chinese officer”

• “no barrier in language”

Other comments included, “approachable”, “nice staff”, “I felt I was treated like a normal citizen”,

friendly.

14

One of the complications seems to be that people do not understand the system and how it works.

Other positive comments included:

• “workers are Polish”

• “I could speak in my language”

• “same nationality workers there”

6.2.2 Housing

Only 15 (21%) of respondents had used housing services. 1 Eastern European respondent

complained that “I felt intimidated; I wasn't given any alternative option by the Housing officer”

Others commented:

• “good and quick service”

• “good state of the offered property and good living conditions”

1 person felt that the service did not meet their needs because “I wasn't given interpreter, I felt

misunderstood” while another said that “They understood our queries, we were given interpreter”.

These were among other comments about the provision or otherwise of interpreters and indicates

what an important issue this is.

6.2.3 Access Team

Only 5 people said they had used the Access Team, but there were more who indicated that they

had used services that are often accessed via the Access Team. It may be that many people are not

aware of the term Access Team, perhaps identifying it simply as ‘the Council’. Of those who did use

the team most said it was of benefit but 3 Gypsy/Travellers raised concern that after having phoned

the Access Team that simple care and repair requests were either not actioned at all or significantly

delayed.

Generally respondents felt comfortable using the service, appreciating the helpfulness and cultural

awareness, for example: “They ask should we take their foot wear off before entering my house.”

1 person commented that they had had a problem accessing the Access Team due to lack of time

and little support from their GP.

6.2.4 Adaptions

6 MEAD respondents had used the service and were happy with it. Others had not needed it

although uptake seems low given the age range of the respondents. 3 Gypsy/Travellers raised

concerns about delays with requests for adaptations or refusals for adaptations.

6.2.5 Blue Badge

10 people had used the Blue Badge service. Most were very happy with the service but one

commented “I am carer but he has badge so I can’t use without him.” 2 people felt uncomfortable

15

accessing this service, both due to the application form asking a lot of questions. This may have been

a language issue. 1 of these people mentioned the personal nature of the questions.

6.2.6 Care at home

Only 1 person responded that they have used this service even though 53% of respondents had

heard of it. Bearing in mind the group that were interviewed this is surprising. In some minority

ethnic communities having non family members coming in to the home to look after older members

of the family may be seen to be culturally difficult. The 1 person who had used the service said that it

was not of benefit because the service was “Not culturally appropriate”. It may be that if services for

older people are going to be provided in the home further consideration of this issue is required.

6.2.7 Care Homes

Only 1 Eastern European reported using a Care Home and this was because their “friend is there”. No

one else from other communities reported that they had used a Care Home with comments received

including “not really for the Traveller community” and “wouldn’t use one even if needed – too many

bad stories.”

6.2.8 Community Alarm

3 South Asian respondents have community alarms. They were all happy with a “good” and

“accessible” service.

6.2.9 Mental Health Service

1 South Asian had used the service and found it helpful in addressing their depression.

6.2.10 Other Services

None of the respondents had used any of the other services listed. These included Frozen Meals due

to concerns about frozen food not meeting cultural requirements; Day Services or Adult Support and

Protection whilst no respondents had used Self Directed Support (SDS). MECOPP have undertaken

separate work surrounding uptake of SDS within minority ethnic communities and this corresponds

with their findings with a ‘suspicion’ of traditional Social Work services and lack of knowledge about

the possibility of using SDS to employ family members, for example, being significant causal factors.

4 Gypsy/Traveller respondents commented that they believed day care, lunch clubs and mental

health services were not appropriate services for the Gypsy/Traveller community.

6.3 Voluntary Sector

6.3.1 Minority Ethnic Advice and Support

This was the most heard of which is perhaps not surprising and 54 (73%) had used some form of

service. Services providing this support locally are MEAD, MECOPP and the Ethnic Minorities Law

Centre (EMLC). All those who reported said they found the organisations beneficial and all felt that

the service understood their cultural needs. The organisations were thought to be “friendly and

approachable,” “trusted,” “known for a long time”, “know our ways” and “they have built up trust

16

with us and know about Gypsy/Travellers.” Language was also seen as a key issue on enabling

people to feel comfortable to access the service.

6.3.2 Faith Group/ Church/Mosque

29 (39%) saw themselves as part of a faith group and all felt that they benefited. St John’s RC Church

in Perth and Perth Islamic Centre were the 2 most commonly attended. Other churches in Crieff and

Coupar Angus were mentioned as well as the Dundee Islamic Centre. 1 person mentioned the

Dundee Gurudwara. Language was frequently mentioned as a reason people felt comfortable in

these places.

6.3.3 English as a Second Language (ESOL)

13 people reported attending ESOL classes. MEAD was the most commonly mentioned provider. All

who reported said they benefited. There were many comments about the high quality of the tutors.

The main barrier to ESOL was timing of classes at the appropriate level.

6.3.4 Employment

8 people had used an employment service, including the Job Centre and the Council’s Employability

Hub as well as Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) and MEAD. 3 of those respondents found the service

they used to be of benefit and 3 did not. Complaints included:

• “Jobcentre - staff didn't accept my sick leave, lack of full information and help”

• “Rude staff, ask me to bring my own interpreter”

• “Language required”

This again highlights attitude of staff and access to interpreting support.

It seems that there is difference between voluntary sector provision and public sector provision as in

these comments:

• “Jobcentre uncomfortable - they lost my documents and the guard didn't let me in the

building to discuss it cause they hadn't my files. MEAD comfortable - I received help in my language

and I was treated fairly”.

• “Jobcentre - they sanctioned me even when the reason that I couldn't go to Jobcentre was

because I was admitted to hospital MEAD - I felt I was listened to and my issued were resolved”

6.3.5 Community Lunch Club

27 people had been to Community lunch clubs. Several organisations were mentioned as running

these clubs including the Council, MEAD, Perthshire Chinese Community Association (PCCA) and the

Malyali community. All but 1 felt they had benefited from the lunch clubs. Many of these were from

the Chinese community who particularly seem to appreciate the Clubs. A lot of mention was made of

the support from MEAD and the interpretation of talks. 2 people were disappointed that they could

not always attend because of work.

17

A Polish person commented “there is a Community Lunch Club in Woodside, I've seen adverts but I

can't join because it's all in English,” again highlighting the language issue for many minority

members. Transport was also mentioned as a barrier.

6.3.6 Housing Association

16 people used this service. All who reported felt comfortable accessing the service.

6.3.7 Sport/ Leisure/ Recreation

15 (20%) reported that they had used these services. Nearly all mentioned Live Active and some

mentioned MEAD walking groups. All but one felt they had benefited. 2 felt that there was not

sufficient recognition of cultural needs, citing more need for women only activities. The benefit of

Chinese staff was also mentioned.

Several people mentioned cultural appropriateness as a barrier to their participation, in particular

activities appropriate for Muslim women. 2 female Gypsy/Travellers were also concerned about the

lack of female only exercise classes locally.

6.3.8 Other Services

None of the respondents had used any of the other services listed. These included dementia,

domestic violence or Alzheimer’s. Counselling, Victim Support or Palliative Care had also not been

used by anyone.

6.3.9 Addictions

1 Chinese person reported being helped to reduce smoking. They felt comfortable accessing the

service because “I was given an interpreter”.

6.3.10 Carers

Despite 18% identifying as a carer only 1 person used this support and it was reported as delivered

by the Council rather than a voluntary organisation. They found that it was “not appropriate”.

6.3.11 Health (Learning Disability)

1 person reported using this service provided by Perth Royal Infirmary (PRI).

6.3.12 Adult Learning and Literacy

5 respondents had used this in some form either the Council services or MEAD. Most of the

comments related to ESOL and people appreciated the “nice atmosphere” and “feel positive and

learning skills with Chinese friends”. It should be noted that 8 Gypsy/Traveller respondents were

concerned that Health and Social care literature given to them was of little use or relevance due to

reading or writing difficulties (3 people) and use of too much jargon (5 people).

6.3.13 Health (Long-term Condition)

9 people advised that they had used a service for this with Perth Royal Infirmary and the Council

were identified as providers.

18

6.3.14 Community Transport

3 people reported that they had used community transport, but also reported that this was provided

by the Council and the National Entitlement Card.

6.3.15 Shop-mobility

1 person had used this but thought it was provided directly by the Council.

6.3.16 Volunteering support

4 people had used this service, through the Royal Voluntary Service (RVS), MEAD and the Council.

They felt it had benefited them and that it was culturally appropriate.

6.3.17 Health (Physical Disability)

6 people had used this service that was provided either by a hospital or the Council.

6.3.18 Health (Mental Health)

1 person had experience of this service at hospital.

6.3.19 Family Support

1 Pakistani person accessed this service which was provided by the Council.

6.3.20 Advocacy

9 people had experience of using an advocacy service. Organisations providing the service included

Independent Advocacy, CAB and MEAD. 1 person felt they did not benefit because “My surname was

wrongly spelt and my case was closed at Insolvency Service”. The others were all very happy.

• “receive real, practical support”

• “We received help with making a complaint to our employer about no day off in a week, with

CAB's help we received 1 day off”.

Several people mentioned as positives support in their own language while 1 person mentioned lack

of language support. This again highlights the significance of language support in people’s

experience of services.

6.3.21 Befriending

1 person used this via MEAD and Perth Polish Support Group

6.3.22 Community Lunch Club

2 people reported using this service, one provided by MEAD and the other by the Council. 1 felt

there was benefit and the other did not. Again, mention was made of the benefit of “Chinese

interpreter and translation.”

19

For MECOPP the research carried out with Gypsy Travellers highlighted both positive and negative

experiences across all services although it was noted that there were some individuals who perhaps

wanted to say more at times but did not. This was often evident in body language or a wry smile or

comment, as 2 participants said, “I don’t want to really say too much”, and “what’s the point I speak

to no one”. Perhaps indicating a kind of fear in saying too much, or being labelled a ‘trouble-maker’

and for others a sense of apathy that nothing would change anyway. In some respects it appeared

that these individuals were indicating that any service, even a bad one, was better than no service at

all.

The researcher also felt that there was a general lack of awareness of their rights to certain services

(e.g. Blue Badge, community transport, meals, etc.).

6.4 Loneliness and Social Isolation

A section of the research also focussed on the social networks which individuals had and whether this impacted on their sense of loneliness or social isolation. This section summarises the responses to each individual question. 6.4.1. Who do you feel closest to?

The vast majority reported feeling closest to immediate family (husband, wife, children). 5

mentioned feeling closest to friends. For the Chinese, Eastern Europeans and Gypsy/Travellers many

participants also regularly mentioned other members of their own community and/or community

groups “Chinese Community Association”, “other Travellers”, “Polish shops”, “Cantonese opera”.

In response to who interviewees would contact in an emergency, again most participants said a

member of their immediate family; although not always the same person they felt closest too. MEAD

and MECOPP were also mentioned in response to both questions.

6.4.2. Do you feel lonely?

35% of respondents, across all communities, identified loneliness as an issue. Several people

mentioned missing family and a perceived lack of support/understanding from family, others cited

illness as a reason for reduced mobility. Other reasons included “language barrier”, “business

failure” and a Gypsy/Traveller felt being “shut up in a house as that is not our way”. Those who

reported feeling lonely most of the time or always may be at significant risk of mental health issues.

6.4.3. Do you feel isolated?

32% of respondents, across all communities said that they felt isolated at some point in their lives. In

contrast to other communities however, 56% of Gypsy/Traveller interviewees said they felt isolated

in some way, often this related to their accommodation. For example, 13%, all of whom lived on a

council site, mentioned the “lack of a landline” or “internet”. Another person said “like on this site,

I'm here and they think I am happy but I am hiding really on this private holiday site”. Others

mentioned the way they feel treated by others – “the settled community don't mix and you are last

to know anything”, “sometimes the way folk treat you” and “isolated from fair treatment”.

Those from other communities who said they felt isolated noted the following reasons:

20

- “Language made me feel isolated and local people too”

- “Lack of utilities”

- “Lack of help from services”

- “I felt like I was not needed and a burden for the country, all doors were closed for me”

6.4.4. At what age do you think older age begins in your community?

Answer Total Respondents out of 73

45+ 1

50+ 11

55+ 1

60+ 27

65+ 5

70+ 7

Depends on individual 21

90% of Chinese said 60+, Eastern European citizens gave mixed responses from 45+ to 70+, 57% of

Gypsy/Travellers said “depends on the individual”, 26% said 70+ and the rest said 50+ or 60+, 35% of

South Asians said 50+, 35% said 60+ and 30% “depends on individual”.

6.4.5. Where do you hope to live in later life?

Answer Total Respondents out of 73

Sheltered housing 5

Chinese care home 3

Own home* 55

Care home* 1

Relative’s home 2

Country of origin 3

Other 4

No response 1

*One person said own home and care home

Apart from specific comments by the Chinese community regarding their preference for their own

sheltered housing or care home the other communities overwhelmingly stated that they hoped to

be living in their own home in future.

Eastern Europeans 80%

Gypsy/Travellers 91%

South Asians 85%

21

6.4.6. How would you manage social networks/personal care/transport/housework and

shopping in the future?

Most respondents said “do it myself” or “with family/friends”. There were no significant differences

between communities other than those noted below. In relation to housework in the future, 5

Chinese interviewees mentioned external services, 3 people mentioned a council worker and 2 said

voluntary/charity, 1 South Asian person also said a council worker. Similarly in relation to shopping

in the future 5 Chinese people said voluntary/charity. The other communities did not mention

external support for shopping or housework.

For transport, 45% of Chinese said they would use public transport, compared to 40% Eastern

Europeans, 35% South Asian. No Gypsy/Travellers mentioned public transport.

6.4.7. Any other services of benefit?

A few people mentioned improved language services, such as “face to face interpretation”, and most

Chinese people mentioned the need for Chinese specific services such as sheltered accommodation

(8 people).

7. Focus Group findings (summarised)

7.1 Introduction 4 specific focus groups were held with each participating community i.e. Chinese, South Asian, Eastern European and Gypsy/Traveller. The Focus Groups were intended to give a wider community (and family) perspective across the age ranges in particular in relation to:

1. Finding out participants’ views on service provided by local organisations.

2. Finding out participants’ views on how service provision could be improved. A case study example was used to stimulate discussion which took place within a relaxed setting such as a community lunch club or group outing.

7.2 Participant demographics Details of the participants at each focus group are as follows: 7.2.1 Chinese - 12 participants took part in the focus group:

8 females and 4 males

Age group between 50 years old - 80 years old

Participants were originally from Hong Kong, Chinese Community only.

Participants living in Perth city centre. 7.2.2 South Asian - 12 participants took part in the focus group:

10 females and 2 males

Age group between 26 years old - 61 years old

22

Participants’ countries of origin differed including Pakistan, India, Syria and Jordan.

Participants living in Perth city and rural Perthshire.

7.2.3. Eastern European - 17 participants took part in the focus group:

14 females and 3 males

Age group between 28 years old - 55 years old

Participants were from Polish community only

Participants living in Perth city centre and rural Perthshire: Blairgowrie, Coupar Angus, Bridge of Earn.

7.2.4 Gypsy/Travellers – 7 participants took part in the focus group:

5 females and 2 males made up of a combination of travellers from Perth and Pitlochry

Age group between 16 years old – 70 years old

Participants were living in Perth and Pitlochry

7.3 Participants perspectives

Whilst the full individual focus group reports are available some common themes emerged from the individual focus groups and it is worth summarising them here.

7.3.1 Lack of Awareness – generally focus group participants from minority ethnic groups have little awareness of both availability of services and their entitlement to them. This can be because of differences in understanding what the service actually is (particularly if it differs significantly from the country of origin) or not knowing where to access information about services. Participants advised that it can be “hard to grasp all aspects of the welfare state” and that they “depended on getting advice and information from friends and families rather than seeking assistance from professionals.” This can lead to misinformation or people not seeking the proper support or advice until it is too late with participants noting that “many services could be of huge help” but “information about them did not reach people on time”.

7.3.2 Language – for those focus groups participants whose first language isn’t English or who may have literacy difficulties the ”bureaucratic” language used in official documentation or in explanations given by professionals was highlighted strongly in the focus groups as a barrier to accessing services. It was noted that interpreting services are available but are not always offered and when offered do not meet expectations. If individuals have to ask for interpreting support they feel like “second class customers”. Some community members rely on assistance from family and friends at medical appointments which breaches patient confidentiality. NHS services in particular came in for some criticism within the focus groups for its inconsistent approach to supporting those with additional language requirements. Concern was also expressed about the challenges of accessing services or advice over the telephone “where to reach a specific department you must speak to automatic voice recognition system” or similar. It was also noted that cultural needs could be better met if “carers from their community can speak their language and prepare a traditional meal” and accessing traditional services such as Sheltered Housing or a care home would be a concern as they would feel isolated if language and cultural needs could not be met. In some instances people are referred to organisations such as MEAD and MECOPP purely on the basis of an individual’s ethnicity rather than try and address the issue directly by the service provider.

23

7.3.3 Inter-generational work – both the Chinese and South Asian communities noted that there is no specific place for younger community members to meet which can make it harder to engage with younger members of the respective communities and participate in inter-generational activities. Participants expressed a potential concern about this impacting on future family support which may be available to them in later life.

Participants did however note that some experiences of local services were “very positive.” Features highlighted were the professional and friendly approach, a willingness to resolve issues and patience in dealing with clients who can find it “difficult and baffling while settling in a new place.”

7.4 Participants suggestions

Participants welcomed the opportunity to share their views on service provision in Perth and Kinross and willingly offered several ideas about changes they believe would make it more manageable to use services. These can be summarised as follows:

7.4.1 Attitudinal changes - it was noted that some individual attitudes need to change amongst certain service providers but also amongst the communities themselves who may have a “false belief they can do it themselves.” It was noted that a lack of emergency or out of hours appointments were difficult for some people to attend particularly if working but this is undoubtedly an issue common to everyone not just minority ethnic communities.

7.4.2 Partnership working – it was suggested that services should “work together and share information between each other” with some suggestions for areas of training (such as dementia) or engaging with younger community members which could be explored further.

7.4.3 Interpreting and translation support – it was suggested that there needs to be a consistent approach to the provision and offer of a professional interpreting and translation support service where it is required.

7.4.4 Service information – it was noted that information about services needs to be made available in a format which is understandable to possible service users. This may mean more use of visual/audio formats than just a translated version of an English leaflet to explain how a service actually works in practice.

7.4.5 Culturally specific services – some suggestions around specific culturally appropriate services

such as Chinese Sheltered Housing, a community space or dedicated staff recruited to work with

those from their own culture/ethnicity (where appropriate). The positive experience of the multi-

cultural events programme, as a means of bringing communities together from across the

generational divide, was noted. On the issue of cultural competency of services almost all of the

Gypsy/Traveller participants found this a difficult question to answer with one individual

commenting “it’s not really about whether it meets my cultural needs and that’s a difficult one to

answer as it really only matters if it meets my needs”. The researcher noted on this matter that

people sometimes expressed that they only wanted their needs to be met as an individual and did

not always see it as a specific cultural issue.

24

8. Responses from survey of service providers (summarised)

This summarises the responses from the survey of service providers. 90 responses were received.

Question 1: Please identify your organisation type

Question 2: Do you have contact with Minority Ethnic older people and/or their families/ carers

within your role?

31.7%

58.5%

1.2%

0.0%

8.5%

Please identify your organisation type

Perth & Kinross Council

NHS Tayside

Police Scotland

Scottish Fire and Rescue

Voluntary Sector

15.9%

51.1%

33.0%

Do you have contact with Minority Ethnic older people and/or their families/ carers within your role?

Yes, regularly

Yes, but infrequently

No

25

Question 2: Summary of Key Points

Relatives acting as translators can reduce professional/ patient rapport - other respondents had no concerns over this

Regular attendance at treatments can be intermittent - communication is a barrier

Interpreters accompanying service user to appointments enhanced attendance

Language difficulties if English is not first language, exacerbated by dementia

Challenge with demanding attitudes from travellers (relating to installation of equipment/ home adaptations)

Gypsy/ Travellers can be resistant to receive support from services - continually breaking down barriers

Telephone translation at home is difficult due to hearing difficulties

Difficulty in differentiating between ethnic minorities as ethnicity doesn't register unless unusual

Managing expectations around tests/ treatments available on NHS or investigations not available to GPs

No difficulties encountered by District Nurse carrying out home visits with Gypsy/ Traveller families

Very positive experiences in relation to delivery of direct care/ support

Challenges around culture differences

Challenge is encouraging clients to use services - reluctance to seek help except in crisis

Interactions with ESOL students are always positive. Use humour to work around language difficulties

Request to see more cultural events making use of the great knowledge of older aged students

Ensuring that cultural requests relating to gender can be supported

Expertise of MEAD/ MECOPP is invaluable in advising on cultural issues and in getting the message out to the community members.

Working with people in a Care Home - no difficulties as service users spoke English

Contact with older minority ethnic carer for a short period - no challenges faced

Having information available in their first language is important

Bringing people together in peer group with others who speak their language or are of similar age, helps to encourage participation in activities

Extremely positive experience of facilitating a peer support group with MEAD supporting interpreting needs. Interpreting was key to the success of the group and essential to the delivery.

Question 3: Can you identify any barriers that in your opinion may be preventing people from

minority ethnic communities from accessing your service? Please give details.

(54 responses)

Summary Response No. of people

Highlights of the detailed responses

"No / None" 8

"Language/ Communication" 20 Language is so important to communication. We have phone interpreters but this can ruin the nuances of communication.

Language used to be an issue but we now have contact numbers for translators where necessary

26

Although we have language line, some translated literature, and some access to interpreters, there may be issues around getting the information to the communities in the first place, especially where people come from cultures where social services are organised or delivered very differently and don't have a basic understanding of what might be available to them.

Language would be the main barrier, I have help through MEAD who would be my first port of call

My service tends to be Business to Business, for business people from minority ethnic communities I believe the obstacles to be a lack of translated documents.

Most of our contacts are received via telephone because we have a dedicated advice line therefore people who have difficulty using a telephone due to language/health problems may find this a barrier.

We possibly need to have our information leaflets in more languages and having these in places that these clients may visit. i.e. Pullar House paying rent, schools etc.

"Lack of awareness/ understanding of services available and how to access"

19 Lack of awareness potentially though this applies equally to the rest of the community

Needing to understand how to navigate through the bureaucracy

"Culture"

7 Cultural beliefs that Gypsy/Travellers "look after their own"

Cultural and not wishing to access support.

Their awareness of the services available to them - how they find out about services and how they access them. This is challenging for individuals from within our locality irrespective of the culture and background

"Service Accessibility"

4 To access district nursing has to be registered to a GP practice.

As long as they are GP attached patients - no problems

"Trust" 3 A general distrust of a service that asks questions they may not want to answer

"Isolation" 2 Sense of isolation and of not being accepted.

"Lack of information" 2 More information, examples from other clients/families

"Stigma" 2 Stigma in dealing with a statutory service

May not feel confident to use such services as it may be frowned upon by their community.

"Confidence" 2

Other barriers identified 1 person each

Their mobile life-style.

Previous personal experience

Lack of understanding of staff engaging with minority ethnic communities

Busy looking after grandchildren

Lack of suitable activities for their age/ ethnicity

27

Question 4: Are you aware of how to access interpreting/ translation services if required to

support clients who do not speak English as their first language?

Question 5: Do you feel your role/team would benefit from Cultural Awareness Training?

93.2%

6.8%

Are you aware of how to access interpreting/ translation services if required to support clients who do not speak English as their first

language?

YesNo

48.3%

18.4%

33.3%

Do you feel your role/team would benefit from Cultural Awareness Training?

Yes

No

Not sure

28

Question 6: Has your service undertaken any specific promotion /publicity around events or

general service provision to members of Minority Ethnic communities?

Some points from the service provider responses are worth noting.

Only 15.9% of respondents have regular contact with minority ethnic older people and their

families/carers (Question 2) which backs up the general findings from the research with community

members in terms of low uptake and access to many services. Specific comments are also worth

noting in response to this question in relation to perceived “challenges” from Gypsy/Travellers with

“demanding attitudes” and with claims that they are “resistant to receive support” with further

general “cultural differences” also noted as a challenge. However, in response to Question 5 only

48.3% of responses indicate they felt that their team would benefit from Cultural Awareness

Training.

In Question 4 93.2% of respondents advised that they were aware of how to access

interpreting/translation services if required which is an interesting comparison to the comments

made by research participants about their personal experiences of using interpreting/translation

services (if it is offered at all).

Only 28.4% of respondents advised that their service had undertaken any specific

promotion/publicity around their service provision to minority ethnic communities (Question 6)

which would again suggest that this may be a reason why many of the research participants were

not fully aware of the range and nature of services on offer.

28.4%

46.6%

25.0%

Has your service undertaken any specific promotion /publicity around events or general service provision to members of Minority Ethnic

communities?

Yes

No

Not sure

29

9. Recommendations

Having fully considered the research findings the steering group make the following

recommendations:

Communication – A communication programme should be agreed across statutory agencies (Perth

& Kinross Council and NHS Tayside), which clarifies the process for accessing Interpreting and

Translation Services. Feedback on the customer experience after accessing services should be

encouraged.

Training – A programme of cultural awareness training for staff in a front-line/customer facing role

(including key decision-makers) should be embedded in key organisations.

Service Awareness – A short promotional video clip for 3-4 priority services across sectors should be

produced and promoted online and via existing community groups

Access – Options should be explored for a dedicated project targeted at bridging the gap’ to access

to mainstream services. This should consider all aspects of the assessment process to the cultural,

trust and language barriers identified at service delivery stage.

Engagement – Existing work by those projects that are known, trusted and already successful in

engaging with local minority ethnic communities should continue to be supported. This includes

MEAD, MECOPP, EMLC and ESOL provision. Work should continue to further promote partnership

work to enable on-going engagement around the specific issues identified in this research.

It is recommended that the final version of this report be submitted for approval to the Change Fund

Board and for wider circulation and publication.

10. Conclusion

This research is only the start of a process of identifying the current and future needs of older-age

minority communities and their families with a view to feeding in to the on-going development of

the Joint Commissioning Strategy.

Work should continue to be undertaken by those projects working with communities to further

promote the partnership work and multi-cultural/community events which already take place to

ensure that opportunities for further engagement and new developments may be identified at an

early stage. In particular, early engagement with communities should take place to look in more

detail at the issues identified by this research surrounding inter-generational work (perhaps

considering some form of reminiscence work); the lack of a community space to meet ; and options

surrounding increased use of SDS, developing a care workforce from the same communities and

the specific issue surrounding Chinese Sheltered Housing .

It should be remembered however, that many of the issues and barriers identified could be

overcome by service providers getting the small things right which can in turn help build confidence

in services.

30

11. Appendix 1 - Steering Group Membership

Helen MacKinnon (Chair) Chief Executive PKAVS

Mohammed Afzal Project Manager MEAD

Hannah Kettles

Graduate Trainee Perth & Kinross Council *(from October)

Michelle Lloyd Programme Manager MECOPP

Lisa Millard

Social Worker Perth & Kinross Council *(Specialist input initial meetings)

Nicholas Morris Project Co-ordinator MEAD *(from October)

David McPhee Senior Commissioning and Contracts Officer Perth & Kinross Council

Barbara Taylor Clinical Nurse Specialist NHS Tayside

The Steering Group would like to thank all participants from the minority ethnic groups who gave

their time to take part in the research and to thank the staff from MEAD and MECOPP who

undertook the research.

31

Appendix 2 – Literature Review

The following documents were referred to during the research and should continue to be cross-

referenced where appropriate as the recommendations are taken forward.

Bindel, J., The big fat truth about Gypsy life, The Guardian, (25th Feb 2011). Available: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/feb/25/truth-about-gypsy-traveller-life-women Accessed: October 2014. Bowes, A., Dar, N., ‘Family Support and Community Care: A Study of South Asian Older People’, University of Stirling, Scottish Executive Central Research Unit (2000) Bowpitt, G., Chan, C. K., Cole, B., ‘Beyond silent organisations’: A reflection of the UK Chinese people

and their community organisations, Critical Social Policy (2007); 27; 509. Available:

http://csp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/27/4/509

Cadman, M., Chakrabati, M., ‘Survey of Needs of Minority Ethnic Elders and Carers for Social Work

Support in Tayside’, University of Strathclyde (undated)

Chau, R. C. M., ‘The involvement of Chinese older people in policy and practice’, Aspirations and

expectations, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, University of Sheffield (2007)

Communities and Local Government, Progress report by the ministerial working group on tackling inequalities experienced by Gypsies and Travellers, London, (April 2012), P13. Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), Common Ground: Equality, good race relations and sites for Gypsies and Irish Travellers: Report of a CRE inquiry in England and Wales, (2006), P1. Equality and Human Rights Commission, Research Report 12: Inequalities Experiences by Gypsy and Traveller Communities: A Review, Manchester, EHRC, (2009), PP235-241. Equal Opportunities Committee, Gypsy/Travellers and Care, (2012), (25). Frances, G., Developing the cultural competence of health professionals working with Gypsy/Travellers, Department of Health, (2010), P4. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Perspectives on aging Gypsy families, York, JRF, (2012). Kent County Council, ‘Culturally Competent Care: a good practice guide for care management’,

(2002)

Lloyd, M., Equally Connected: Edinburgh and the Lothians, (49), 2011.

MECOPP Submission to EOC inquiry, Hidden Carers, Unheard Voices: Informal Caring within the Gypsy/Traveller Community in Scotland (03), (2012). MECOPP, Submission to EOC inquiry, Hidden Carers, Unheard Voices: Informal Caring within the Gypsy/Traveller Community in Scotland (04), (2012). MECOPP, Submission to EOC inquiry, Hidden Carers, Unheard Voices: Informal Caring within the Gypsy/Traveller Community in Scotland (04), (2012), P5.

32

Okley, J., The Dale Farm Eviction: Interview with Judith Okely on Gypsies and Travellers 24 ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY VOL 27 NO 6, (DECEMBER 2011). Schweitzer, P., ‘Mapping Memories: Reminiscence with Ethnic Minority Elders’, Age Exchange, (March 2004) Shared Care Scotland, ‘Breaking Through, Improving access to short break and respite care services for black and minority ethnic communities’, (undated) Shelter, Good practice: briefing, Gypsies and Travellers: An overview of the issues faced by Gypsy and Traveller communities in accessing housing services, (2007), P1. Available: http://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/39547/Gypsies_and_Travellers.pdf Accessed: October 2014. Smith, A., ‘Equality and human rights in practice: a guide for practitioners and commissioners of services for older people’, Age UK (June 2011) Available: http://www.ageuk.org.uk/Documents/EN-GB/For-professionals/Equality-and-human-rights/Expert_Guide_Equalities_In_Services_pro.pdf?dtrk=true Vernon, A., ‘User-defined outcomes of community care for Asian disabled people’, The Policy Press and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2002)

Version Control – 16 December 2014 V8 (final). (Authors D. McPhee/H. Kettles)