an examination of best practice in multi

AN EXAMINATION OF BEST PRACTICE IN
MULTI-SERVICE SENIOR CENTRES
Submitted to:
The Kerby Centre
Submitted by:
Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family
Prepared by:
Leslie D. MacRae-Krisa, M.A.
Joanne J. Paetsch, B.A.
March 8, 2013
The views expressed in this report are those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent the views of the
Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family or
The Kerby Centre.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ v
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... ix
1.0
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1
1.1
Background................................................................................................ 1
1.2
Purpose and Objectives ............................................................................. 1
1.3
Methodology .............................................................................................. 1
1.3.1 Best Practice Literature Review ....................................................... 2
1.3.2 Environmental Scan ........................................................................ 2
1.4
2.0
Organization of the Report ......................................................................... 2
Best Practice Literature Review............................................................................ 3
2.1
Introduction ................................................................................................ 3
2.1.1 Multi-Purpose Senior Centre Models ............................................... 3
2.1.2 Senior Centre Participation .............................................................. 7
2.2
Best Practice in Multi-Purpose Senior Centres ........................................ 11
2.2.1 Facility Amenities/Components ..................................................... 15
2.2.2 Programs and Services ................................................................. 17
2.3
Accommodating the Baby Boomers ......................................................... 22
2.3.1 Public Perception .......................................................................... 22
2.3.2 Program Implications .................................................................... 25
2.4
Strategic Partnerships.............................................................................. 27
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3
2.4.4
Community Involvement ................................................................ 27
Intergenerational Programming ..................................................... 28
Diversification ................................................................................ 31
Sustainability ................................................................................. 33
iii
3.0
4.0
Environmental Scan ........................................................................................... 37
3.1
Fergus Falls Senior Citizens Program Inc................................................ 37
3.2
Fort Collins Senior Center........................................................................ 40
3.3
Good Neighbours Active Living Centre .................................................... 42
3.4
Evergreen Commons ............................................................................... 44
3.5
Hithergreen Center .................................................................................. 46
3.6
North Shore Senior Center ...................................................................... 48
Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................. 51
4.1
Introduction .............................................................................................. 51
4.2
Summary ................................................................................................. 51
4.3
Conclusions ............................................................................................. 55
References .................................................................................................................... 59
Appendix A: Fergus Falls Senior Citizens Program’s 2011 Annual Report
Appendix B: Good Neighbours Active Living Centre’s 2011-2012 Annual Report
Appendix C: Hithergreen Center’s 2011 Annual Report
Appendix D: North Shore Senior Center’s 2012 Annual Report
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since 1976, the Kerby Centre has provided a one-stop-shop for educational,
social, wellness, and recreational services and supports for Calgary’s seniors, with the
vision of “a happy, healthy senior population.” With plans to relocate its programs and
services to a new facility to better serve older Calgarians, the Kerby Centre sought
information regarding best practice models in multi-service senior centres. The Kerby
Centre contracted the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family to conduct a
best practice literature review and environmental scan of best practice models for multipurpose senior centres. It is expected that this report will aid the Kerby Centre in future
planning with regard to the new facility.
The purpose of this project was to examine emerging trends and best practices
(e.g., commonly implemented and/or innovative practices) for multi-purpose senior
centres in other jurisdictions. Specifically, this project had the following objectives:
(1)
To determine key facility/amenity components for an ideal multi-purpose senior
centre;
(2)
To determine key programs for an ideal multi-purpose senior centre;
(3)
Recommend strategic partnerships that could better position senior centres for
success; and
(4)
Develop five to seven profiles of leading-edge multi-purpose senior centres as
recommended targets for further investigation.
Summary
The popularity of the multi-purpose model of senior centres has become
increasingly apparent in recent decades. Multi-purpose senior centres are at a unique
crossroads due to the changing composition of the older adult population. Centres must
address challenges related to the service needs of a diverse clientele, appealing to a
rapidly changing senior population, addressing stereotypes, competition with other
service organizations, and funding. It is clear that there is no “best” model of a multipurpose senior centre, though multi-purpose senior centres are linked by a common
goal: to assist a diverse clientele in aging successfully and productively.
It is important in the development of any multi-purpose senior centre model to
thoroughly examine the characteristics of the local older adult population, the service
needs of current and future participants, and perceptions of senior centres by both
users and non-users. Centres must thoroughly examine what users and non-users
perceive as barriers to participation, and the role that the centre could and should play
in the greater community. Special attention to unique needs and desires by age,
ethnicity, and gender of older adults is crucial, particularly given baby boomers are
v
approaching retirement and the increasing diversity of the population. Targeted
marketing campaigns that promote centre offerings and benefits while dispelling the
stigma and myths regarding senior centres, are likely the most effective. Centres must
be innovative in their use of various forms of media, particularly social media.
Studies examining best practice in facility design and amenities stress the
importance of age friendly spaces that are barrier free, offer opportunities for social
connectivity and engagement in social activities, and are open, inviting, receptive, and
appealing as opposed to institutional. Organizations constructing or renovating facilities
are strongly advised to enlist the expertise of architects, designers, and product
representatives who are familiar with the population and the organization’s needs.
Selection of amenities should be based on a balance between space, resources, and
user needs and desires.
Diverse programming is, by definition, central to the success of the multi-purpose
senior centre. A multi-purpose senior centre should offer a range of programs and
services representing the broad categories of nutritional support, health promotion,
recreation, information and education, volunteerism, and social activities. Program
developers must address the demographic diversity of its participant pool, scheduling,
and socialization, while being flexible to the changing needs of the population.
Strategic partnerships are vital, in that they facilitate the development of a
diverse range of programs, help to minimize service duplication, and support
awareness-raising efforts in the community. Community collaboration also supports the
sustainability of the organization through opportunities for resource sharing, fund
development, and advocacy. Innovation in fund development and revenue generation
is critical to the sustainability of multi-purpose senior centres.
Conclusions
This comprehensive review of best practice in multi-purpose senior centres
yielded a number of important learnings for the Kerby Centre as it moves into a new era
in serving Calgarians:
(1)
The foundation of developing a best practice model is awareness of the needs of
the specific community. As the Kerby Centre moves forward, utilizing information
gained from stakeholder engagement activities is vital in the development of its
facility, programs, and services.
(2)
Research on best practice in the United States has yielded standards for
accreditation by the National Council of Senior Centres. These standards may
act as a helpful framework as the Kerby Centre moves forward.
(3)
There is no one-size-fits-all model for best practice multi-purpose senior centres.
Developing a best practice model involves balancing facility space, resources,
and participant needs and desires.
vi
(4)
Facility design should be approached using the expertise of architects, designers,
and product representatives who are experienced with relevant populations. This
will ensure safety, accessibility, and appeal of the new Kerby Centre facility.
(5)
Strategic partnerships are critical to best practice models and sustainability.
Collaboration promotes senior centres as active participants in the continuum of
care for Calgary seniors, and will allow the Kerby Centre to offer a diverse range
of programs and services to meet the needs of an equally diverse current and
future senior population.
(6)
Building a best practice model requires rigorous and ongoing evaluation of
programs and services. As the Kerby Centre constructs a new facility and
develops new programs and services, it is imperative to consult with experienced
program evaluators to ensure that proper mechanisms for data collection are in
place from the beginning.
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Kerby Centre for funding this project.
Specifically from the Kerby Centre, the authors gratefully acknowledge Luanne
Whitmarsh, Chief Executive Officer, and Brandon Powell, Director, Kerby Centre
Relocation Project, for their support and guidance.
The authors would like to give special thanks to the centre representatives who
personally shared information on their organizations: Cynthia Fraley, Executive Director,
Hithergreen Center; Kathy Sporre, Program Supervisor, Fergus Falls Senior Citizens
Program; and Susan Sader, Executive Director, Good Neighbours Active Living Centre.
The authors also acknowledge Dr. Joseph P. Hornick, Executive Director,
Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family, for overseeing this project.
Finally, the authors acknowledge the Alberta Law Foundation for its ongoing
support of the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family.
ix
1.0
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Background
Senior centres are a key component in the continuum of care for seniors who are
aging in place. Given statistics projecting a doubling of the senior population by 2041
(Government of Alberta, 2010), increasing life expectancy, and improved health of the
older adult population, senior centres will be increasingly vital in providing communitybased health and social services in decades to come. Since 1976, the Kerby Centre
has provided a one-stop-shop for educational, social, wellness, and recreational
services and supports for Calgary’s seniors, with the vision of “a happy, healthy senior
population.” The Kerby Centre has reached a critical juncture in its history, with plans to
relocate its programs and services to a new facility to better serve older Calgarians. In
order to make informed decisions about its future, it is imperative that best practice
models in multi-service senior centres be examined. In response to this need, the
Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family conducted a best practice literature
review and environmental scan of best practice models for multi-purpose senior centres.
It is expected that this report will aid the Kerby Centre in future planning with regard to
the new facility.
1.2
Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of this project was to examine emerging trends and best practices
(e.g., commonly implemented and/or innovative practices) for multi-purpose senior
centres in other jurisdictions. Specifically, this project had the following objectives:
(1)
To determine key facility/amenity components for an ideal multi-purpose senior
centre;
(2)
To determine key programs for an ideal multi-purpose senior centre;
(3)
Recommend strategic partnerships that could better position senior centres for
success; and
(4)
Develop five to seven profiles of leading-edge multi-purpose senior centres as
recommended targets for further investigation.
1.3
Methodology
This project involved two methodologies: a best practice literature review, and an
environmental scan of best practice models.
1
1.3.1 Best Practice Literature Review
The best practice literature review was conducted using both academic
databases and online search engines, yielding a combination of academic (published)
and gray (unpublished) material. Research and evaluation research were reviewed to
examine emerging trends, issues, and best practices in multi-purpose senior centres.
Specifically, the review examined facility amenities, programs, and strategic
partnerships, as well as literature on the potential impact of the baby boomer generation
on senior centre operations.
1.3.2 Environmental Scan
Based on information acquired from the best practice literature review, the
researchers identified a number of multi-purpose senior centre models in Canada and
the United States that demonstrate best practice. Examples from the literature and
online searches yielded a preliminary sample of approximately 20 models. Using the
information available (e.g., websites, annual reports, articles, evaluation materials), the
models were more closely examined to reduce the sample to six. Profiles of each
model were developed from publicly available information as well as follow-up contact
with each organization, and included name, location, name of organizational head/lead,
contact information, date of establishment, number of employees, annual budget, target
clientele, physical description, scope of programs and services, strategic partnerships,
other relevant information, and evaluation findings. Sources of relevant supplementary
information (e.g., annual reports, evaluation reports) are provided where available.
1.4
Organization of the Report
Chapter 2.0 of the report will present findings from the best practice literature
review, including a brief examination of senior centre participants, and best practice in
facility components and amenities and programming. In addition, Chapter 2.0
discusses the impact of the baby boomer generation on senior centres, as well as the
role of strategic partnerships. Chapter 3.0 presents profiles of the six best practice
models selected in the environmental scan. Chapter 4.0 presents a summary of the
findings.
2
2.0
2.1
BEST PRACTICE LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
It is estimated that by the year 2041, 1 in 5 Albertans will be over the age of 65,
this compared to 1 in 10 reported in 2010 (Government of Alberta, 2010). In addition, it
is expected that with Alberta’s aging population, demographic changes among Alberta’s
seniors will also occur, including increasing levels of education, increasing income
levels, employment beyond retirement age, more seniors living in private residences,
increasing health, and increasing diversity (including in-migration from other provinces
and countries). Recognizing the implications of this changing demographic, in 2010 the
Government of Alberta released the Aging Population Policy Framework, formulating
the roles and responsibilities of the provincial government as this change unfolds.
Articulated in these roles and responsibilities was the need for coordinated policy
development, partnership, and resource allocation to ensure that the services and
supports required by Alberta’s aging population would be available affordably. This
would include engaging the non-profit sector and community partners in identifying and
responding “to the changing needs and priorities of Albertans as they age,” as well as
supporting “the provision of effective, efficient and affordable programs and services
that have a meaningful impact in improving outcomes for Albertans as they age”
(Government of Alberta, 2010, p. ii-iii). An important aspect of this is the need to
“provide support for an appropriate level of services to facilitate aging-in-place” among
those who continue living in their own homes, as well as to encourage healthy aging
through active living, good nutrition, and social, recreational, and cognitive activities
(Government of Alberta, 2010, p. 26). As identified by the Alberta Network of SeniorRelated Organizations (ANSRO) (2011), local senior centres are a key factor in the
delivery of these services, recommending the networking of such centres for better
integration of strategies. As observed by O’Hanlon and Copic (2007), senior centres
“exemplify the increasing role that human service, community-based organizations play
in the overall continuum of care for the elderly,” particularly in recent years (p. 5).
2.1.1 Multi-Purpose Senior Centre Models
In recent decades, a variety of senior centre models have emerged, ranging from
spaces for social activities, restaurant/café-type settings, recreational facilities, etc.
However, none have been more popular than the multi-purpose senior centre
(Pardasani, 2004a; Turner, 2004). As revealed in Pardasani’s (2004a) survey of senior
centre directors in New York, over half represented multi-purpose senior centres, with
this type of centre having the highest average number of participants. Though there is
little consensus on what exactly constitutes a multi-purpose senior centre, the primary
goal is that they play an essential role in “assisting a diverse group of older adults to
age in a successful and productive manner” (Aday, 2003, p. 6). Thus, to be successful,
a multi-purpose senior centre must meet the needs of a variety of clients (Rill, 2011).
As articulated by Pardasani and Thompson in their study of new and emerging models
in multi-purpose senior centres, “senior centres play a critical role on the aging
3
continuum of care by offering a diverse array of recreational, nutritional, health, and
social service programs” (2010, p. 52). Successful multi-purpose senior centres not
only promote the health and well-being of older adults by offering a diversity of program
and service options, but do so while engaging them in the community (Pardasani &
Thompson, 2010).
As observed by Pardasani and Thompson, seniors centres are at a “unique
crossroads” giving the increasing heterogeneity of the senior population and competition
for funding and resources from other services and programs (2010, p. 53). In addition,
as the New York City Department for the Aging (NYCDA) observes, “[R]esearch
increasingly suggests that today’s and tomorrow’s seniors may have different
expectations and needs than those that shaped the current system” (2011, p. 50). In
their review of new models of seniors centres, Pardasani, Sporre, and Thompson
(2009) summarized the challenges for senior centres as follows (p. 28):
(1)
Continuing to serve the current participants effectively while trying to engage
non-participating older adults;
(2)
Attracting baby-boomers and “younger” seniors;
(3)
Re-conceptualizing participation in the new era of increased consumer choices;
(4)
Competing with other community options and alternatives available to senior
centers;
(5)
Re-inventing the image of senior centers and re-position them as community
focal points through marketing and outreach;
(6)
Developing strategic partnerships and collaborations with other services
providers;
(7)
Re-designing and re-building of modern facilities; and
(8)
Attracting potential funders – individuals and foundations – to expand and
innovate facilities and programs.
New York is a community that has been particularly active in seeking innovative
senior centre models. The Council for Senior Centers and Services (CSCS) of New
York City, Inc. (2010) conducted a study to determine the impact of senior centres on
participants, evaluate how senior centres have evolved in the 21st century, and
examine the challenges faced by administrators in serving their clientele. The findings
from the study produced three distinct issues for consideration by senior centres moving
forward:
(1)
Senior centres must have the capacity to serve a diverse population;
4
(2)
Senior centres must diversify programs/services and hire qualified staff; and
(3)
Senior centres must enhance their capacity to meet the changing needs of the
older adult population.
In addressing the issues facing senior centres, the CSCS observed a number of
weaknesses among current senior centres, including: a lack of understanding among
the community, including individuals, businesses, and service providers of the relevance
of senior centres; the negative perception of senior centres by younger seniors; lack of
space, resources, and funding; and lack of collaboration.
Increasingly, recognizing the changing composition of the senior population and
the need for innovation among senior centres, studies have attempted to identify
emerging and innovative models (e.g., New York City Department for the Aging, 2011;
Pardasani, 2004a; Pardasani & Thompson, 2010; Pardasani et al., 2009). Pardasani
(2004a) identified three general types of models: the social agency model, which
provides services (e.g., financial assistance, case management, nutrition, and referrals)
to the poor and frail elderly; the voluntary organization model, which attracts the
relatively affluent, more educated and socially active older adults, providing access to
social and recreational opportunities; and a new model, combining the services of these
models to serve the interests of a broader cross-section of seniors. In its search for
innovative senior centre models, the NYCDA (2011) identified two innovative centre
categories: geographically-based centres, which serve the broader community of older
adults over a large geographic area; and special population/citywide centres, which
serve special populations (e.g., lesbian, gay, hearing/visual impaired, etc.) and provide
similar services to geographically based centers. In a national study of emerging senior
centre models in the United States (Pardasani & Thompson, 2010; Pardasani et al.,
2009), six distinct innovative models were identified:
(1)
Community Centre: having a multigenerational focus, this model is meant to be a
hub of programs and services for all ages, addressing the issue of age
segregation and fulfilling the needs of those who wish to interact with other
generations.
These facilities often include recreational facilities (e.g.,
gymnasium, fitness centre, pool), operate from one site, have multiple spaces
and extensive resources, and depend on public funding. The Community Centre
Model attracts older adults of middle/upper income who wish to improve mental
and physical health, and acts as a community focal point to all.
(2)
Wellness Centre: having a focus on the healthy and mobile older adult, this
model focusses on improving the health/well-being of its clientele by providing a
range of recreational programs, professionally developed health and fitness
programs, and a state of the art fitness facility. These facilities primarily operate
from one site with extensive resources and space but have linkages,
collaborations, and coordinated programs with other community organizations
and service providers. The Wellness Centre model typically attracts those of
middle/upper income, 55-75 years of age who want to improve their mental and
5
physical health.
adults.
It is particularly popular among the younger cohort of older
(3)
Lifelong Learning/Arts Centre: having a focus on the healthy and mobile older
adult, the Lifelong Learning/Arts model provides a range of programs, including
classes, workshops, and travel, aimed at providing intellectual stimulation and
creative pursuits. This model is generally not connected to one site given the
nature of the programming, often needing multiple sites to fulfill program
requirements, and has linkages, collaborations, and coordinated programs with
other community organizations. The Lifelong Learning/Arts model typically
attracts those of middle/upper income, age 55-75, who wish to improve their
health and well-being.
(4)
Continuum of Care/Transitions Centre: having a focus on older adults of various
ages, the Continuum of Care/Transitions Centre model focuses on the health and
well-being of older adults of all levels of health and ability by providing
recreational, education, and health literacy programs. This model generally
operates out of one facility with the ability to provide service at clients’
residences. Medical and social services staff may be available at the centre
during the day and on-call after hours. This model also provides case
coordination, coordinates with community agencies to provide services that are
not available on-site, and may use public transportation for those with disabilities.
While the Continuum of Care/Transitions Centre model is available to all older
adults, it is often used by those who are over age 75 who are frail and/or
homebound. This model has the most structured and elaborate network of
community linkages to ensure a continuum of supports and services is provided,
and relies on public funding.
(5)
Entrepreneurial Centre: having a focus on healthy and mobile older adults, the
Entrepreneurial Centre model focuses on civic engagement, volunteerism, and
resource generation by mobilizing the skills and expertise of older adults.
Primarily operating from one site with extensive resources and space, this model
offers a range of recreational programs, structured volunteer programs, and
entrepreneurial (income-generating) opportunities.
These centres have a
number of community linkages, collaborations, and coordinated programs. The
Entrepreneurial Centre model generally attracts more men, newly retired and
active adults who are interested in civic engagement, volunteering, and
vocational opportunities, and relies on public funding.
(6)
Café Program: having a focus on the healthy and mobile older adult, the Café
Program model offers a restaurant-style experience for all members of the
community, and opportunities for intellectual stimulation and creative pursuits for
older adults. Café Programs offer a meal service, a few recreational and
educational programs focused on intellectual stimulation, exercise, performing
arts, health, and literacy, and generally operate around meal times. The Café
Program model is generally privately funded, through sponsors and charging for
6
meals and programs, and attracts those who live nearby and are interested in
community dining.
Each type of model offers a unique approach to multi-purpose service delivery,
however, it is evident that each appeals to a different demographic. Thus, it is important
in the selection of any model, or combination of models, to understand the local
population as well as the overall trends in senior centre participation among older
adults. As Rill (2011) argues, “it is important to know the characteristics of the older
adult population; but knowing who they are, senior centers can then serve them
effectively” (p. 59).
2.1.2 Senior Centre Participation
The question of who participates in these senior centre models is a critical one as
best practice is examined, indicating both the characteristics and needs of the current
clientele as well as those who are not using senior centres but could be. Pardasani and
colleagues (2009) discuss typologies of the elderly based on age: the young-old (6574), currently the largest proportion of the elderly population; the old-old/middle elderly
(75-84); and the oldest-old/frail elderly (84+), currently the smallest portion of the older
adult population but expected to experience the biggest increase by 2050. Pardasani
(2010) observed that there has been a reconceptualization of aging and retirement –
people are working longer, living longer, etc. – and therefore they have changing needs
from senior centres, with recreation and volunteering being of greater interest to newer
retirees. As articulated by Pardasani et al. (2009), “…any programs or services offered
to the elderly population will have to take into account the differences within the aging
cohort, as well as the specific needs of each sub-group” in order to preserve the
longevity of the clientele (p. 11).
A number of studies have closely examined senior centre participation, proposing
user typologies (NYCDA, 2011; Pardasani, 2010; Pardasani, et al., 2009; Rill, 2011;
Turner 2004). The NYCDA (2011) suggests that “current senior center users are older,
poorer, and more likely to live alone than the general older adult population” (p. 50).
Pardasani’s (2010) study concluded that participants generally have limited income,
minimal disabilities, and few work, caregiving or parenting responsibilities. Rill’s (2011)
comprehensive examination of a multi-purpose senior centre in Florida showed that
participants tended to be younger, married, retired, well-educated, Caucasian females
of above average income. The typologies presented by various studies raise a number
of questions regarding participant profiles, warranting closer demographic examination.
Participant age has been of particular interest to researchers, given the changing
older adult demographic. Recent studies have repeatedly found that most senior centre
users are over 70 years of age, with a majority being between 75 and 84 (Pardasani
2004a; Pardasani, 2010; Tuner, 2004); however, findings by Rill (2011) are an
exception, with a majority of participants at the centre under study being under age 70.
However, Rill’s (2011) study further showed that older participants attend senior centres
more frequently than younger participants, likely due to older participants not being
7
involved in as many activities outside the centre, and the fact that the activities they
enjoy are offered more often. Further, older adults are more likely to be long-time
participants in senior centres (Rill, 2011). As Turner (2004) observes, the high rate of
participation by older seniors is encouraging, in that they are actively participating in
senior centres and are living independently in the community, however, there is also the
issue of “age-creep” among participants in senior centres – an increase in the median
age of participants (p. 44). As Pardasani (2010) observes, the aging population of
senior centre participants without replacement from younger cohorts presents funding
obstacles, particularly for publicly-funded centres of which funding is dependent on
rates of participation.
Turner (2004) argues that the solution to age creep may be to “use the senior
center as a hub or base of operation to link individuals to a wider array of activities and
services in their communities” (p. 45). Results presented by Rill (2011) show that
centres that offer a variety of activities, appealing to both young and old, may attract the
younger cohort of seniors. Pardasani (2004a) elaborates on this discussing the
importance of coordination and linkages with other community organizations, with
linkages allowing centres to serve a wider demographic of older adults and offer more
programs and services, potentially resulting in cost-savings. For example, connecting
with nursing homes and adult residential programs will improve the continuum of care
for seniors. This would require an assessment of current user and future user needs
and preferences (Turner, 2004).
Padasani (2004a; 2010) and Walker, Bisbee, Porter, and Flanders (2004) argue
that the fact that the aging participant pool is not being replaced by younger cohorts
may be due to stigma of socializing with significantly older people, as well as
education/socioeconomic differences among the future older adult population.
Pardasani (2010) terms this phenomenon the “stigma of ageism” – the younger-old are
limited in their desire to participate in activities with older-old (particularly those who
have dementia or Alzheimers) due to preconceived perceptions. As observed by
Walker et al. (2004), “centers are criticized for not doing more to reach older people who
are frail, of low income, or disabled (p. 355). Further, centres must also offer programs
that attract young-old, while retaining middle-old and old-old, striking a balance between
diversification and integration.
Regarding gender, studies have revealed that on average, women are far more
likely to participate in senior centres than men (Pardasani, 2010; Rill, 2011; Turner,
2004). Studies by Rill (2011) and Turner (2004) found that female participants
exceeded males by a ratio of 2 to 1. Turner (2004) explains this using research
suggesting that women are more likely to participate in group activities than men,
pointing to the importance of balancing group and individual activities to attract more
men to senior centres. Pardasani (2010) observes that women also have a longer lifeexpectancy, however, this gap is narrowing, with Pardasani arguing that greater
consideration needs to be paid to attracting and encouraging senior centre participation
among older adult men.
8
In terms of race and ethnicity, Pardasani (2010) explains that findings have been
contradictory regarding participation of ethnic minorities, with some studies suggesting
that the multicultural nature of the senior population is represented in the senior centre
usership, while others indicate the opposite. The Council of Senior Centers and
Services of New York City, Inc. (2010), in their study of senior centres in New York,
argued that centre participants are “increasingly ethnically and racially diverse, including
many first-generation immigrants and bilingual seniors” (p. iv). However, Rill’s study
revealed that 89% of users were Caucasian. Participation by ethnic minority seniors
may be directly related to the services offered by senior centres. A majority of
administrators (75%) in Pardasani’s (2004a) study reported that they are not offering
culturally specific programs, nor programs in more than one language. Given findings
of a low rate of participation among minorities, and research suggesting that minorities
are more likely to participate if there is culturally and linguistically-specific programming,
this is an important consideration.
Studies (e.g., Pardasani, 2010; Turner, 2004) have examined the predictors of
senior centre use. A survey by Walker et al. (2004) revealed that participation in faithbased activities was the biggest predictor of participation in senior centre activities,
suggesting that those who are already active in the community are more likely to be
users. Consequently, surveys of seniors by both Pardasani (2010) and Turner (2004)
have found that a majority of those surveyed participate for the benefits of socialization.
Pardasani (2010) found that this rationale is equally common among men and women,
and ethnic minorities. Pardasani’s research also found that meal programs, recreational
programs, cost effectiveness, and health promotion were also among the main reasons
why seniors accessed senior centres. Rill (2011) surveyed senior centre participants
regarding what they wanted to gain from participation, yielding five general domains:
social; psychological support; physical health; activities; and spirituality. In terms of the
social domain, making new friends, belonging to a group, and maintaining friendships at
the centre were the most important social gains.
Participants reported that
bereavement, relaxation, support with problems, and improving mental health were the
most important gains in the psychological support domain. Improving physical health,
staying physically active and eating healthy meals were expressed as important gains in
the physical health domains. Regarding the activities domain, leaning new ideas/skills,
having fun, having a place to go, and keeping busy were the most important gains
reported. Finally, help with spiritual beliefs was reported as an important gain in the
spirituality domain (Rill, 2011).
In contrast, Pardasani (2010) surveyed seniors who did not use senior centres.
One in five seniors surveyed identified lack of interest, lack of need, and lack of
transportation as the reasons they did not participate, respectively. Other reasons
included failure of the senior centre to provide programs and services they needed, a
lack of volunteer opportunities, and language or cultural barriers as their main reason
for not accessing senior centres. When asked what would attract non-users, the
seniors in Pardasani’s sample cited “educational courses, performing arts/drama, choral
music, fitness programs, evidence-based health programs, nutritional education, and
health screenings…” (2010, p. 61). Demographically, non-users were typically minority
9
older adults, those who are married or working, those with higher incomes, or those who
are frail with disabilities.
Studies have also examined what older adults perceive as barriers to
participation (ANSRO, 2011, Pardasani, 2004a; Walker et al., 2004). Pardasani’s
(2004a) survey of users found that the biggest obstacles identified include lack of
transportation (31.1%), lack of interest (25.6%), lack of access (7.3%), and fear of
stigma (7.3%). Walker et al.’s (2004) survey produced similar results, but also found
that large groups and a lack of space negatively affected participation, as did a lack of
knowledge of the programs and services offered. Similarly, ANSRO (2011) identified a
number of difficulties experienced by the current population of seniors attempting to
access service, including service gaps, lack of awareness, lack of service coordination,
the complexity of their needs, transportation and mobility, and lack of affordable
housing.
Diversity and heterogeneity in the population have also been linked to barriers to
access and participation rates. Pardasani and colleagues (2009) specifically identified
barriers to participating in seniors centres among ethnic minority seniors, including lack
of transportation, lack of adequate facilities, and relevant programming. Importantly, a
lack of ethnically diverse staff and culturally sensitive programmers and/or leaders was
also identified (Pardasani et al., 2009, p. 16). As Pardasani (2010) asserts, it is
important for senior centres to acknowledge the increasing diversity of the senior
population, and in turn address the diversity and relevance of the programs offered for a
variety of populations.
Promoting Participation
Participation and usership are key to the success of any service organization,
including senior centres. A number of studies (Beard, 2012; Hickerson, Moore, Oakleaf,
Edward, James, Swanson, & Henderson, 2008; Walker et al., 2004) stress the
importance of successful marketing strategies to increase awareness regarding centres
and the programs, services, and activities offered. According to Walker and colleagues
(2004) a good marketing strategy would clearly communicate the benefit of senior
centres.
As previously discussed, a significant barrier to participation in senior centres,
particularly among the younger-old, is the stigma attached. As found by Pardasani
(2004a), the younger-old often avoid using senior centres due to the perception of them
being for the “elderly.” Further, in their survey of senior centre users and directors,
Walker et al. (2004) found that there is a perception by many that senior centres are
welfare programs, and therefore want to avoid “the stigma attached to receiving
welfare,” as well as to being “elderly” (p. 363). Promoting senior centres in a way that
does not typify them as only for the “elderly” would reduce the stigma that some
younger-old may have against these facilities. Walker et al. (2004) stress the
importance of close ties with local media in helping to promote the message that
centres would like to convey.
10
The Michigan Association of Seniors Centers and Area Agency on Aging 1-B
Senior Center Enhancement and Promotion Task Force, in their study of ways to
enhance their senior centres to meet the needs of the today’s senior population, stress
the importance of marketing senior centres in a way that makes them preferred
destinations for older adults (2006). The Task Force also found that senior centre
websites are often lacking in information, difficult to find, or non-existent. The report
recommended that senior centres in that state develop a branding campaign that
changes public perception and dispels negative stigma about senior centres, as well as
promotes programs and services to both current and future user cohorts. In addition,
given the greater likelihood that younger seniors and future senior cohorts use the
internet, the importance of easily searched websites with comprehensive information
was expressed. Hickerson and colleagues (2008), in their study of the promotion of
physical activity in senior centres, suggest that the best way to market programming to
older adults is to promote the social aspect, specifically, the development of
relationships with other participants. Beard (2012) uses the term “ageless marketing” to
describe a successful approach to market senior centres. Ageless marketing uses
language of “customers,” “classes,” and “events,” and approaches older adults in an
asset-oriented manner, rather than with a focus on limitations.
Most of the available data on senior centre participation comes from the United
States. Therefore, it is important for senior centres to thoroughly examine and evaluate
their own usership to ensure the needs of their clientele are being met, as well as to
determine gaps in usership and develop strategies to address these gaps.
2.2
Best Practice in Multi-Purpose Senior Centres
In recent years, discussions regarding best practice in senior centres has been at
the forefront, particularly given the changing demographic of older adults discussed
previously. In ensuring best practice in designing senior centres, Gallow Jr. stresses
awareness of the core value of any senior centre: “the desire to support independence
and social engagement (and thus the quality of life) of older adults, through a broad mix
of programs, services, and amenities (2012: online). Pardasani (2010) suggests a
number of strategies for centres to undertake toward establishing local best practice.
First, centres should conduct comprehensive assessments in the service community –
of both users and non-users – to determine the programs and services that seniors in
the area require, making centres responsive and adaptive to their potential clientele.
Second, recognizing the possibility of declining public funds, centres could consider
targeting a particular clientele, given the possibility that “their appeal is limited to a
specific segment of the aging population” (Pardasani, 2010, p. 67). Third, centres
should consider reaching out to municipalities to advocate for lower transportation costs
to increase access to senior centres. Finally, centres should consider reacting to the
increasing interest in volunteer opportunities among younger users.
A number of studies have attempted to identify specific best practice elements for
senior centres (New York City Department for Aging, 2011; Pardasani et al., 2009). A
11
2003 review of the literature on best practices in community-based programs for seniors
(Simces & Associates & CCS/RESORS Consulting Ltd., 2003) suggested a number of
important characteristics, including: senior driven; partnerships to leverage resources,
active networking, and outreach; social engagement opportunities; inclusive
programming options to appeal to the spectrum of senior participants; innovative
recruitment; promotion/marketing to a broad range of community organizations; local
champions to provide credibility; accessibility for those who are difficult to attract;
grassroots involvement; multi-faceted approach; multiple stakeholder involvement;
strong leadership; holistic approach; hands on approach by the organization through
training and investment in goals; and integration of project activities with other units
within the sponsoring organization.
Pardasani et al.’s (2009) recent study of innovative practice among seniors
centres in the United States yielded some “common themes that unify forward thinking
senior center directors and administrators” (p. 52). These themes included:
(1)
Collaboration: strategic partnerships with external community agencies,
institutions, and groups were found to be essential: “if senior centers want to be
viewed as community focal points, they must position themselves as available
and legitimate community agencies” (Pardasani et al., 2009, p. 52). According to
the authors, not only do collaborations with post-secondary institutions, social
services, businesses, the healthcare sector (e.g., hospitals, clinics, etc) expand
the influence of senior centres, but they also expand their ability to offer
programs and services to a diverse population of older adults.
(2)
Responsiveness: engaging in “strategic assessments,” including demographic
profiles, and needs, interest and resource assessment, was found to be common
among innovative senior centres (Pardasani et al., 2009, p. 52). Centres with
evidence-based or “data-driven” programming were found to have higher
participation and revenue.
(3)
Accountability: implementing “structures for consistent feedback from Board of
Directors, staff, consumers, and community members” was found to be an
important factor in ensuring accountability and responsivity (Pardasani et al.,
2009, p. 52). Central to this finding is a coordinated and streamlined data
collection process, as well as program evaluation to ensure best practice.
Incorporating these components into the model lead to greater recognition,
funding, and membership.
(4)
Creativity: Pardasani et al. (2009) pointed to the importance of ingenuity in senior
centre design and programming, particularly given resource limitations.
(5)
Passion: Pardasani et al. (2009) found that innovative senior centres had
managers and administrators that “demonstrated a high level of confidence in the
overall purpose and future of senior centers” (p. 54), feeling strongly about their
clients, community, and organization.
12
The New York City Department for Aging (NYCDA) engaged in a thorough,
systematic procurement of ideas for innovative senior centres, seeking proposals for
leading edge ideas that align with the diverse population of New York City. In their
search for innovative models, NYCDA (2011) identified a number of key characteristics
for consideration:
(1)
Site based, with the flexibility to deliver services in multiple locations;
(2)
Basic standard services such as provision of food, basic education, and
nutritional information;
(3)
Education and recreation classes;
(4)
Collaborations with other organizations, including neighbourhood senior centres,
providing more options for seniors and filling gaps without duplicating services;
(5)
Transportation to ensure seniors may fully participate in the centre activities and
linkages with other organizations;
(6)
Flexible operating schedules to ensure that they best meet the needs of their
clientele – e.g., full time with the option for evening and weekend hours; and
(7)
Data collection and evaluation.
Based on known best practice research, and in an attempt to effectively
standardize best practice among senior centres in the United States, the National
Council on Aging (NCOA) developed an accreditation program for senior centres so that
they may have official acknowledgement of their use of best practices. As part of this
process, the NCOA (2012) developed nine standards, as follows:
(1)
Purpose: senior centres must have a clear and definitive purpose, with mission
statement, goals and objectives.
(2)
Community: “senior centres shall participate in cooperative community planning,
establish service delivery arrangements with other community agencies and
organizations, and serve as a focal point in the community” (NCOA, 2012,
online). According to the NCOA, senior centres should act as a community
resource, provide services for their clientele reflective of community diversity, and
provide linkages to resources in the community.
(3)
Governance: “a senior center shall be organized to create effective relationships
among participants, staff, governing structure, and the community in order to
achieve its mission and goals” (NCOA, 2012, online). The NCOA stresses that
effective relationships and communication throughout the organization,
13
participant involvement, and sound, transparent governing documents are key to
good senior centre governance, as well as open and receptive leadership.
(4)
Administration and Human Resources: “a senior center shall have clear
administrative and human resources policies and procedures that contribute to
the effective management of its operation” (NOCA, 2012, online). The NCOA
insists that a qualified administrator is vital to the effective and efficient day-today operations of the senior centre, as are sound and transparent human
resource policies and procedures.
Opportunities for staff and volunteer
development through educational and training opportunities are essential.
(5)
Program Planning: “a senior center shall provide a broad range of group and
individual activities and services that respond to the needs and interests of older
adults, families, and caregivers in its community or service area” (NCOA, 2012,
online). The NCOA states that good program planning is an extension of the
organization’s goals and objectives, target population, community demographic,
and changing needs. Participant, stakeholder, and community feedback is
instrumental in program planning, as is addressing the diversity of the older adult
population.
(6)
Evaluation: “a senior center shall have appropriate and adequate arrangements
to evaluate and report on its operation and program” (NCOA, 2012, online).
Sound and thorough evaluation methodologies are key to measuring outcomes
and identifying any operational issues, according to the NCOA (2012). Centre
leadership is responsible for ensuring evaluation is conducted regularly.
(7)
Fiscal Management: “a senior center shall practice sound fiscal planning and
management, financial record keeping, and reporting” (NCOA, 2012, online).
The NCOA stresses that sound fiscal planning, financial leadership, and
accountability is important to best practice.
(8)
Records and Reports: “a senior center shall keep complete records required to
operate, plan, and review its program” (NCOA, 2012, online). According to the
NCOA (2012), rigorous record keeping is essential to the effective management
of the organization, and are to be reviewed on a regular basis.
(9)
Facility: “a senior center shall make use of facilities that promote effective
program operation and that provide for the health, safety, and comfort of
participants, staff, and community” (NCOA, 2012, online).
An unbiased
assessment of building design, equipment, and furnishings, potentially conducted
by members of the community, is a good approach to ensuring an effective, safe
facility, according to the NCOA (2012).
The aforementioned factors provide a general framework by which senior centres
may adopt a best practice approach. The following sections specifically discuss best
14
practice in facility design and amenity components, as well as programming and
services.
2.2.1 Facility Amenities/Components
The past decade has witnessed increasing interest and research regarding older
adult friendly spaces. As observed by Manheimer (2009), in discussing his own
experience in planning an older adult-friendly space, elder-friendly spaces must be both
safe and comfortable, but also user friendly, open and receptive to participants, and
“exude warmth and vitality” as opposed to being institutional (p. 62). A number of
factors must be considered: thermal comfort, glare free surfaces, carpet patterns,
balanced lighting, acoustics and noise abatement, traction, accessibility, comfortable
furniture (“two hour chairs” as opposed to “one hour chairs”), tables that can easily be
moved, etc. Manheimer (2009) also discusses the importance of open and inviting
conversation spaces to encourage socialization, open accessibility to the staff area to
encourage collaboration, wheelchair access, speech amplification equipment, Braille
room numbers, and importantly, art and decorative elements. Manheimer stresses that
“an environment is age-friendly when you don’t have to think about obstacles and
barriers” (2009, p. 63). A survey of senior centre participants by Walker et al. (2004)
revealed that a lack of space negatively affects seniors’ likelihood to participate in
centre activities given there is not enough room to enjoy them, particularly if there is a
large group.
As specifically discussed by architect Douglas Gallow Jr., “there are a number of
fundamental architectural principles and processes that apply to all senior center design
and renovation projects” (2012: online). With regard to flooring, Gallow Jr. insists that
there are no fail-safe solutions. Given the broad range of abilities among older adults,
and varying types of footwear and assistance devices, flooring must be carefully
selected with the assistance of a product representative who understands the
specialized needs of the client group. Further, working with a similarly knowledgeable
designer is important in ensuring that the flooring patterns are amenable to the
population, avoiding dizziness and confusion for those with visual or cognitive
impairments. Gallow Jr. (2012) also discusses ceilings and acoustics. It is important
that ceilings in food preparation areas are cleanable, as well as moisture, sag, and stain
resistant. Further, ceiling height should be considered in the design, as high ceilings
may result in the space feeling alienating, while low ceilings may make a room feel
crowded. Regarding acoustics, Gallow Jr. (2012) stresses the importance of the
building design, ensuring the architect is aware of the purpose of various spaces, the
sound-related needs of the clientele, and the possible grouping of various spaces to
avoid sound transference. Gallow Jr. also discusses fixed versus flexible-use spaces,
suggesting that “it always makes sense to strive to create spaces that are universally
accessible and user-friendly, flexible to accommodate a variety of activities, and
adaptable to facilitate future needs” (2012: online). However, there must also be
awareness that other spaces – e.g., computer rooms, fitness centres, cafes – have
specific technical and legal requirements that must be met, and are therefore likely to be
15
fixed spaces. Gallow Jr. (2012) stresses that a qualified professional be consulted
when designing such spaces to ensure proper lighting and effect.1
The 2012 ICAA Wellness Industry Development Survey specifically examined the
physical spaces used by senior facilities to promote wellness.
The results
demonstrated that agencies offering formal wellness programs often have diverse
physical spaces to promote all dimensions of wellness – physical, intellectual,
vocational, environmental, emotional and spiritual – while also encouraging social
interaction. Survey respondents reported the following indoor physical spaces and
amenities that are used for their wellness programs (ICAA, 2012, p. 34):














Billiards room (60%)
Business centre or computer room (78%)
Casual café or juice bar (60%)
Changing or locker rooms (53%)
Crafts room, hobby shops (74%)
Dining room (84%)
Fitness centre in a stand-alone or attached building (32%)
Fitness room (82%)
Library (81%)
Movie or performance theater (42%)
Multi-purpose room (86%)
Sauna or steam area (11%)
Dance/group exercise studio (50%)
Wellness center in stand-alone or attached building (33%)
Survey respondents also reported the following outdoor spaces related to their
wellness activities (ICAA, 2012, p. 35):








Full-size swimming pool (39%)
Games courts (e.g., shuffleboard, croquet, putting green) (43%)
Meditation garden, gardening area (57%)
Outdoor areas for physical activity (60%)
Smaller pool used for various types of exercise (23%)
Sports courts (18%)
Walking trails or paths (63%)
Warm water therapy pool (24%)
The survey also found that a number of agencies provide physical spaces for
specialized service, including occupational therapy rooms and equipment (47%),
physical therapy rooms and equipment (59%), beauty salons (70%), and spas (43%).
1
For more information about considerations in design for aging, see Gallow Jr., D., Murphy, M.K., Gallow,
E.R., and Garten, R. (2007). Let’s Rethink Design: Invitation to a Revolution. ASA/NCOA Joint
Conference. Available online: http://www.ncoa.org/assets/files/pdf/revolution-handout-w-cover-douggallow-2.pdf.
16
Overall, those that offer formal wellness programs offer more of the various physical
spaces and amenities.
Parking and building accessibility has also been identified as an issue that must
be mindfully addressed by senior centres. As observed by Walker et al. (2004), centres
must ensure that they have enough parking to accommodate the usership, and that the
building is easily accessible from the parking lot. However, as observed by Manheimer
(2009), barrier free access from the parking lot or street to the building may create
safety issues (e.g., cars infringing on the sidewalk), with possible solutions being metal
posts as barriers and tire stops to prevent parking cars from running into them.
2.2.2 Programs and Services
The mission of many seniors centres is to offer programming in such a way that
seniors can “age in place,” or live independently in the community (Pardasani, 2004a, p.
37). Pardasani’s (2004a) study of senior centres in New York revealed that of the
various types of senior centres, multi-purpose senior centres have the greatest diversity
of programs and services, categorized as recreational programming, volunteer
programs, health programs, nutrition services, and social services. Nearly 50% of the
administrators surveyed by Pardasani (2004a) revealed that their centre offered a
combination of all programs, with a majority offering between 11 and 20 programs.
As stated by the NYCDA (2011), programming in innovative senior centre models
must consider various characteristics of the older adult, and those approaching older
adulthood, as well as demographics of the local population including gender,
socioeconomic status, diversity, education, health conditions, and special populations
(e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, visual and hearing impairments, etc). NYCDA
(2011) identified five core service areas in which a diversity of programming should be
offered by innovative senior centres: nutritional support; link to public services and
benefits; linkages to community resources (e.g., health services, social services,
community-based activities, volunteer opportunities); health promotion (e.g., exercise
activities, blood pressure monitoring, chronic disease self-management, nutrition
education, health education, mental health screening, vision, dental, hearing, and
diabetes screening); and social activities that engage and inspire seniors intellectually,
spiritually, socially, artistically (e.g., trips, classes, discussion groups, special events,
theater groups, book clubs, etc.). Pardasani (2004a) points to the importance of
innovation in senior centres for all cohorts – for example, offering health and social
programs for frail or isolated seniors and supports for caregivers, as well as health
promoting activities to attract the younger cohorts.
Given the purpose of most multi-purpose seniors centres is to encourage healthy
aging in the community, wellness promotion is critical in the development of centre
programs and services. The 2012 ICAA Wellness Industry Development Survey
examined trends among facilities and programs for older adults that promote health and
wellness, and active aging. According to the ICAA (2012), the dimensions of “wellness”
are all-encompassing, including physical, social, intellectual, spiritual, emotional,
17
environmental, and vocational. The results revealed that among the seniors and
community centres surveyed, 59% offered a formal wellness program, while an
additional 39% offered wellness activities only. A majority of wellness programs are
inclusive of all wellness dimensions. Representatives of senior centres were asked why
they invest in wellness programs and facilities, with the most common responses being
to increase life satisfaction among their clientele (93%), the fact that it’s the right thing to
do (70%), and to attract new clientele (68%). One of the recommendations from the
survey was the inclusion of employees in the wellness program to ensure services and
facilities are well-utilized. Approximately 67% of those centres surveyed offered their
wellness program and facilities to employees (ICAA, 2012).
The social element offered by senior centres is critical to successful
programming. As found in Turner’s (2004) study, a majority (90%) of seniors surveyed
felt that the personal contacts they make at the centre they visit are important.
Pardasani’s (2010) survey echoed this finding, with 61% of seniors surveyed reporting
that the most important reason that they utilized their senior centre was for socialization.
Thus, as previously discussed, marketing seniors centres on the basis of opportunities
for socialization is important. Beard (2012) discusses the success of the café concept
as a means to attract participants to senior centres, using an open restaurant to attract
older adults and subsequently promoting centre programs and services. Results of this
approach, as reported by Beard (2012) show that 77% of those who began by using the
café tried new activities, and 73% increased healthy behaviour.
Studies have pointed to the importance of the structure of programs and activities
to encourage participation (Rill, 2011; Walker et al., 2004). Rill (2011) argues that the
success of the programming at her study centre was due to the flexibility – instead of a
one-size-fits-all program, the centre was open to change and expansion. Strategic
scheduling is also important to the success of various programs. As found by Walker
et al. (2004), more popular activities that are scheduled at night may not be wellattended due to seniors not driving or not wanting to be out at night.
As observed by O’Hanlon and Copic (2007, p. 5), senior centres “serve as
models of collaborate governance,” given their programs and services often depend on
support and coordination among various agencies, organizations, and sectors. Aday
(2003) stresses that while some centres may not have the capacity to provide
comprehensive programs and services, they have the potential to do so by partnering
with community agencies and resources, using local resources to the fullest potential.
In its recommendations, the Michigan Association of Seniors and Area Agency on Aging
1-B Senior Center Enhancement & Promotion Task Force (2006) stressed the
importance of partnerships with area agencies, particularly given the increasing demand
for service from an increasingly diverse senior population, including the retiring baby
boomer generation. The Task Force cautioned that ignoring community partnerships
may result in service duplication, inefficient use of available resources, limitations of
service, and overall fragmentation of community-based service delivery to seniors.
Pardasani (2004a) discusses the importance of partnerships in relation to the concept of
aging in place. He asserts that community partnerships are particularly vital for those
18
who are frail with limited mobility, stating that it is important for senior centres to develop
working relationships with nursing homes, supported housing, assisted living centres to
facilitate referrals and transfers and ensure continuity of care (Pardasani, 2004a, p. 40).
Strategic partnerships will be discussed more thoroughly later in this chapter.
As previously discussed, one of the major barriers to senior centre participation is
adequate transportation. User surveys by both Pardasani (2004a) and Walker et al.
(2004) revealed the importance of transportation alternatives to increasing usership.
Walker et al. (2004) suggest that regularly scheduled transportation provided by the
centre (e.g., vans, buses), close partnerships with city transit and planning, and sharea-ride/carpooling programs where those with transportation are matched with those
without in their neighbourhoods, and partnerships with senior-serving organizations that
provide transportation services are innovative means to address transportation issues.
The following section specifically discusses best practice among various types of
programs: health and nutritional; physical fitness and recreation; information, education,
and volunteer opportunities.
Health and Nutrition
As part of wellness promotion, health and nutrition programs have become
central to the program offerings by multi-purpose senior centres. Pardasani’s (2004a)
survey of centre directors found that nutritional education programs were offered by
78.1% of centres, and on-site meals were offered by 72.6% of centres. Nearly 50% of
centres offered home-delivered meals 47.9%.
In addition, health education
opportunities were offered by 72.6% of centres, and health screening by nearly 60.7%
of centres.
Specifically regarding meal and nutrition programs, Turner’s (2004) survey of
participants found that 91% eat weekly at their centre, with almost two-thirds (65%)
eating at the centre three or more times per week. Just over half considered the meals
they had at the centre to be their best source of nutritious food, and three-quarters
considered the nutrition education program to be helpful in selecting healthy foods.
Pardasani (2010) found that nearly half the seniors he surveyed made use of meal
programs offered by centres, and 22% expressed that meal programs were the most
important reason why they utilized the senior centre. Walker et al. (2004) closely
examined food service usage in their survey of senior centre participants. The survey
revealed that participation in meal programs increased when certain foods were being
served. These findings suggest the importance of nutrition education programs, offering
nutritious meals on a regular basis, and consulting the usership on meal planning and
the foods being served for increasing participation.
Health screening and education programs are also popular among senior users.
In Rill’s (2011) study, health screening was among the most popular program that
participants engaged in at the centre under study. Similarly, over half the sample in
Turner’s (2004) study participated in the health assessments offered by the centre. A
19
study by Skarupski and Pelkowski (2003) examined the role of Community Health
Nurses in senior centres. The authors concluded that regular monitoring of the health
and well-being of older adult clients by Community Health Nurses acts as a preventative
strategy, allowing for intervention in problem areas that may be solved with practical,
community-based solutions. The authors specifically identified loneliness and social
support, diet and nutrition, oral health, and exercise as possible areas for intervention,
with health care providers in senior centres being uniquely positioned to identify and
intervene on a preventative basis, as well as promote good health by encouraging
strengths and positive behaviour.
Physical Fitness and Recreation
Physical fitness and recreational programming continue to be an important and
popular offering by senior centres. As previously discussed, the new era of senior
centres is increasingly focused on health and wellness. As discussed by Beard (2012),
these innovative new wellness focused senior centres combine both indoor recreational
facilities – fitness rooms, exercise studios, pools, gymnasiums – and outdoor recreation
opportunities, such as walking paths, gardens, fields, courts, and picnic areas. Outdoor
recreational programs that focus on experiencing local natural areas are also
increasingly popular (Beard, 2012; Milner, 2007).
A number of studies have found that participation in fitness and recreation
programs often varies by age (Pardasani, 2010; Walker et al., 2004). Active physical
fitness opportunities and health promotion programs are particularly popular among
younger participants. Walker et al.’s (2004) study revealed younger seniors (age 60-70)
were more likely to be interested in exercise equipment and activities that those over
age 70. Further, having a large, modern exercise facility is more likely to attract the
younger cohort of seniors, who may attend senior centres for meals and other activities
but are drawn to larger exercise facilities in the area to avoid crowding that may occur in
a small senior centre exercise facility. An article by Milner (2007) suggests that offering
short-term classes, punch passes, and evening/weekend hours may attract those older
adults who are still employed.
A senior centre case study conducted by Hickerson et al. (2008) specifically
examined how the environmental factors of the senior centre and personal
characteristics of the participants resulted in engagement in physical activity. The
authors found that organizational (e.g., facilities, programs, instructors), relational (e.g.,
social support) and personal (e.g., health, motivation experience) factors all influence an
older adult’s likelihood to both enjoy and participation in physical activity at the
community senior centre they studied. Further, through participation in these activities
and the senior centre, the authors found that it became a “third place,” an important and
enjoyable place for them to go. Given that for some, the senior centre is the primary
place where seniors participate in recreation, the authors recommended that managers
create schedules that provide opportunities on a daily, as opposed to weekly, basis,
allowing older adults to develop a routine around regular physical activity. In addition,
the authors emphasized that having a large recreational facility for older adults only
20
created a perception of safe, comfortable, and enjoyable activity with their peers, in a
place that they were proud of and felt recognized. Also important to the success of
recreational activities was appropriate instructors, with the authors finding that the key
to older adults’ enjoyment of activities were instructors who were patient, encouraging,
and inclusive (Hickerson et al., 2008).
Traditional recreational activities also continue to be popular among older senior
centre participants. Studies by Pardasani (2004a), Turner (2004), and Rill (2011)
revealed that arts and crafts, cards, and bingo are among the most popular activities
that users participate in. Field trips are also quite popular, as found by Pardasani
(2004a) and Turner (2004), indicating the importance of partnerships and collaboration
with local attractions and organizations.
Information, Education, and Volunteerism
In addition to physical health, the wellness model of senior centres is also
inclusive of intellectual wellness. As discussed by Beard (2012), the focus on life-long
learning opportunities is important, particularly among upcoming generations of seniors.
Further, continuing to contribute to their community is also important among older
adults, particularly those who are entering retirement. Turner (2004) found that just
over 54% of the senior participants surveyed participated in community volunteer work
and a large majority felt it enriched their lives.
A study by Eaton and Salari (2005) examined the critical role that educational
and life-long learning opportunities may have in the future of multi-purpose senior
centres, and the relationship to physical space. Examining three different models of
multi-purpose senior centres, the authors stress that a triad of learning, leadership, and
volunteer opportunities are important components of an adult education model, but their
findings outline the importance of the fit between learning and physical space. Physical
space models that promote active learning, provide opportunities to showcase
participant products, and allow for knowledge sharing and socialization were found to be
most conducive to participation. Eaton and Salari (2005) specifically examined learning
opportunities with computers, finding that computer labs should be equipped with
current technologies and be structured and placed in such a way that they are not
minimized. Eaton and Salari’s study is particularly important given evidence (previously
discussed) regarding higher levels of education among the future cohort of retirees, and
the changing face of continuing education (e.g., computers, internet).
Information services continue to be an important offering by senior centres,
Turner (2004) found that approximately half of the seniors surveyed take advantage of
various information services, including power of attorney, wills, income, medical
insurance, health care, and financial assistance. Pardasani’s study (2010) found that
the use of information services was most common among older seniors.
21
2.3
Accommodating the Baby Boomers
The baby boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, represent the largest birth
cohort in the United States, estimated at 76 million people (Fitzpatrick & McCabe,
2008). The baby boom began with the return of soldiers from World War II and
continued until the 1960s with the advent of the women’s movement and related factors
such as birth control, increased education, and women’s increased participation in the
work force (Sperazza & Banerjee, 2010). In the United States, the number of seniors is
expected to nearly double between 2004 and 2030 (MaloneBeach & Langeland, 2010).
In Canada, Statistics Canada (2010) reports that as of July 1, 2009, there were 4.7
million seniors aged 65 and older, accounting for 13.9% of the population. As the baby
boomers enter this age group (which began in 2011), the proportion of seniors is
projected to account for 25% of the Canadian population by 2030.
In addition to the large increases in the numbers of seniors, it is also well
documented in the literature that the baby boomers are qualitatively different from older
senior citizens (MaloneBeach & Langeland, 2010; Poetker, 2009; Roth et al., 2012;
Sperazza & Banerjee, 2010). Baby boomers are better educated, have higher incomes,
are more likely to work longer, and are more likely to volunteer than prior cohorts. They
are also healthier, more physically fit, and expected to live longer than any other
generation. While Fitzpatrick and McCabe (2008) agree that baby boomers are a
healthier group of aging individuals, they also caution that decreased vision, cognitive
impairment, decreased mobility, and slower reaction times remain ongoing concerns,
and predict that the number of individuals suffering from Alzheimer’s disease and other
cognitive diseases will definitely increase. These factors present new challenges for
senior centres to design activities and programs to meet the changing needs of the
older population.
2.3.1 Public Perception
The image of senior centres is an unappealing one, where old people sit around
eating bland meals and playing cards while waiting to die. Baby boomers, while aging,
do not see themselves as old. Senior centres need to redefine their image and provide
activities that will serve the needs of the more active baby boomers. In its Blueprint for
the Future, the Ohio Department of Aging (2002) acknowledges that image is a tough
issue that senior centres must address and negative images must be dispelled. In an
examination of future marketing strategies, policy implications and program needs to
attract the baby boomer generation, Turner (2012) argues that the name “senior centre”
alone could be a deterrent to baby boomer participation. In conducting her research,
Turner interviewed directors from nine senior centres. One director, who is also a baby
boomer, said, “With the name Senior Center out on the door, Baby Boomers aren’t as
readily ready to come….I don’t think the Baby Boomers want to be identified as seniors”
(Turner, 2012, pp. 68-69).
A unique project in Montgomery County, PA called BoomerANG (Boomers –
Aging’s Next Generation) involved a partnership of several foundations with the
22
Montgomery County Office of Aging and Adult Services (MCAAS). BoomerANG
undertook a year-long project of research into the status, needs and opportunities that
exist for the senior population, and investigated the programs and services that senior
centres or other community-based organizations should provide in the next decade.
The project also recognized the need for senior centres “to understand how their
organizations must adapt, how current facilities must be reconfigured and how
community partnerships must be created to meet these needs” (Marcus & Migliaccio,
2006, p. 1). To address the stigma associated with senior centres, the BoomerANG
Project suggested a number of approaches to restructure the identity of senior centres
in the consumer’s mind. The first step (but not a sufficient response) is to change the
centre name to one that conveys a more generic, non-age-related identity (e.g., West
Suburban Senior Services in suburban Boston changed its name to Springwell), or to
choose a name that has cultural relevance. Interestingly, in looking up senior centres
cited previously in the literature, it was discovered that many simply dropped “senior”
from their names.
In addition to changing its name, another important factor related to the image of
a senior centre is its physical appearance. The BoomerANG Project offers the following
recommendations (Marcus & Migliaccio, 2006, p. 43):






Seek opportunities to make the senior center’s physical plant more
appealing by updating with a fresh paint job, murals, wallpapering,
curtains, and landscaping. Involve the participants, as much as possible,
in planning and making these changes.
Offer donors opportunities to contribute to physical plant changes with
specific requests for paint, wallpaper, tables, chairs, light fixtures, and
other supplies.
Offer tours of the senior center to potential donors and have improvement
plans readily available.
Make an effort to provide a noninstitutional, homelike, and healthy
atmosphere.
If possible, provide dedicated spaces for eating, food preparation,
socialization, recreation, exercise and multipurpose use.
If possible, make physical changes that “open up” the facility, for example,
installing a skylight in the eating area.
An interesting Canadian study by Rotenberg (2011) sought to identify how
architecture could reduce the reliance of formal care by providing social connectivity
within an intergenerational setting. The result was a reinterpretation of ways to design
for the aging baby boomer population by creating unique spatial relationships that
encourage engagement in social activities. The initiatives for the design included:
providing a place for people to work post retirement; offering healthcare services for all
ages; opening the centre to all ages in the surrounding community; providing rest stops
that present opportunities for social engagement; and placing interstitial spaces to act
as prime locations for social interactions. The resultant design includes a “Living
Room,” that is intended to be the main area of connectivity, and invites the public into
23
the site. Interstitial spaces provide areas for interaction, as well as rest opportunities,
and the elevational plane allows for easy access from the street level making access
easier for the less mobile.
The building includes five additional areas that respond directly to the needs of
baby boomers as they age in place:
Healthcare, Wellness, Communication,
Community, and Housing. The healthcare wing offers services for all ages to bring a
mix of generations to the site for their medical needs. The wellness centre, including
workout rooms, swimming pool, therapy pool, locker rooms, weight rooms, and physical
therapy rooms, is also available to the entire community to create positive generational
integration. It is expected that elderly or retired people would use the wellness centre
during the day, while students would come after school and professionals would use it
in the evening. The communication centre would include conference rooms, a copy
centre, and computer labs. The community space is designed to offer extra services to
support the residents, including day care, a marketplace, and flexible spaces. Seniors
housing would be available, and would be designed to allow for privacy of the
residential units, as well as access to the amenities of the site. According to Rotenberg
(2011, p. 63), “This new way of designing becomes part of the community fabric rather
than a segregated building placed within a neighbourhood setting.”
Another part of the strategy to attract baby boomers is to undertake a significant
social-marketing and public relations project to raise public awareness of the available
programs and the diversity of the people using the services (Fitzpatrick & McCabe,
2008; Marcus & Migliaccio, 2006). Pat Bohse, a consultant cited in the BoomerANG
Project report stated, “Marketing has to do with everything a program does from its
signage, stationery, how the staff answers the telephone, quality of service, name of the
center, location, etc….marketing is the key to success for [senior centers] in the future”
(Marcus & Migliaccio, 2006, pp. 36-37). She emphasized that the message must be
consistent, out there all the time, and noticed on a regular basis. Specifically, Ms Bohse
suggested the following tactics for marketing (p. 37):




Develop media relationships with television, radio and print personnel.
Provide them with press releases, develop public service announcements
and get television and radio coverage of special events.
Develop a speaker’s bureau and have subject matter experts.
Work with participants to be program ambassadors.
Take your message directly to the audience you want to serve. This
means leaving the center and getting into the community.
While advertising is key to attracting baby boomers to senior centres, Turner
(2012) appreciates that one of the major problems with advertising is funding, and
therefore creative means of spreading the word need to be established. She suggests
that since the marketing needs to be directed to baby boomers, social media outlets
such as Facebook and Twitter could be used as an inexpensive means of advertising.
Likewise, Cochran, Rothschadl, and Rudick (as cited in Sperazza & Banerjee, 2010)
24
found that the majority of baby boomers prefer to get information from multiple sources,
including newspapers, radio, e-mail, Facebook, the Internet, and word of mouth.
2.3.2 Program Implications
In order to serve the new population of older adults, senior centres need to
change their service paradigm. Rather than accommodating deficits, centres should
provide seniors with opportunities and adopt an “asset-based” development approach.
A recommendation from the BoomerANG Project is that “senior centers and other
providers must offer more responsive programming that includes a greater variety of
health and wellness programs to accommodate the growing preference for this type of
offering” (Marcus & Migliaccio, 2006, p. 52).
A telephone survey of 475 residents of Montgomery County aged 50 and older
was conducted for the BoomerANG Project. Almost two-thirds of respondents (64%)
aged 50 to 59 indicated they would or do participate in a program that offered wellness,
exercise, travel and social opportunities primarily to those over the age of 50. The
services considered most relevant by all respondents were: personal fitness/exercise;
wellness/health programs; dieting/nutrition and benefits information/guidance (Marcus &
Migliaccio, 2006). Although the 50 to 59 age group expressed a desire for the services
offered by senior centres, they were not attracted to them as a location for the services.
This finding led to the recommendation to restructure the focus of existing and future
centres to become enrichment centres rather than senior centres. As stated by Marcus
and Migliaccio (2006, p. 25):
Developing strategies to attract significant numbers of the younger cohort
to get involved in senior centers will require more dramatic and
substantive change than simply renaming existing senior centers.
However, the fact that there are numerous examples of this successful
transition to a multigenerational program for both boomers and seniors
indicates that such a transition is achievable.
The idea of a senior centre as a multipurpose centre that delivers a broad
spectrum of services is also supported by MaloneBeach and Langeland (2010), whose
study suggested that service providers rethink age-segregated programs for elders and
promote community centres rather than senior centres. Residents of an upper
Midwestern county in the US aged 50-59 were randomly selected to participate in a
survey of their visions of retirements, what aging services they expected to use, and
what alternatives they would prefer. Over two-thirds of the respondents (68%) indicated
they would use a senior centre, primarily as a place to engage socially, and secondly as
a place for activities. Regarding their retirement, respondents expected continuity in
family involvement, and reported they wanted to increase travel, work, education and
civic engagement. Although almost all respondents indicated they would like to learn
new things, fewer than half viewed senior centres as a place to learn. The authors
speculated that the respondents may be uninformed about the educational opportunities
offered by senior centres. The respondents did however, have concerns about
25
managing their health and maintaining a healthy life style, and wanted more and easy
access to health information. Other concerns raised by the respondents were becoming
a caregiver and meeting their own needs as they age in their current home. Of those
currently involved in caregiving, less than a third sought guidance from a senior centre,
indicating a need for more outreach and public information.
Sperazza and Banerjee (2010) compared community recreation program
preferences between today’s seniors (those born before 1946) and tomorrow’s seniors
(those born between 1946 and 1964), and found significant differences in four types of
leisure programming activities. Boomers were more likely than seniors to choose
aquatic activities, sports-related activities, outdoor activities, and leisure activities for the
sake of self-improvement. Both groups reported preferring programming that was
related to the arts, social recreation, health and wellness, hobbies, and travel/tourism.
In the Ohio Department of Aging (2002) study, survey respondents were asked
what they look for in an organization, and the responses of the 50-55 year olds were
compared to those aged 65-70. Both groups agreed on the following criteria: “to relax
in a friendly environment, to be with people like themselves, and to maintain a
challenging environment where they can group and learn” (p. 44). The younger group
also wanted opportunities to learn and serve, and the older group wanted to have a
place to express their faith. When comparing the offerings of senior centres to the
interests of the 50-55 year olds, the greatest disparity was gardening. The authors
suggested that it would be worth exploring as a useful centre activity in the future, and
that centres that were building new facilities should consider land for gardening in their
building plans.
Related to health and wellness programs, it is also suggested in the literature
that food services in senior centres should be improved. Marcus and Migliaccio (2006)
found that more active older seniors were interested in nutritional programming
emphasizing the preventive aspects of good nutrition, and younger seniors would be
attracted by “lighter fare” on the menu, as well as “grab and go” options. According to
Marcus and Migliaccio (2006, p. 38), “Offering greater menu selection and choices, time
of service, and a pleasant dining atmosphere all play a part in attracting participants.”
Turner (2012) also found that directors of senior centres indicated a need for more of a
Cyber Café style of food delivery, as well as healthier food choices with fresh fruits and
vegetables, and senior centre planners suggested centres of the future should include a
Starbucks (Vann, 2003 as cited in Fitzpatrick & McCabe, 2008).
One of the challenges for senior centres is facilitating services that will
encourage continued participation from the older adults, as well as the more active baby
boomers (Fitzpatrick & McCabe, 2008). Outreach programs are necessary to keep
older seniors from becoming too isolated, and new programs such as tai chi, reiki,
Pilates, and health and wellness workshops are developing across the US to attract the
younger seniors.
26
A consultant for the BoomerANG Project, Nancy Luttropp, said timing, notice and
variety may be critical when developing programs to attract younger seniors. She
recommends offering some programs twice, e.g., run programs from 8:30 to 3:30 for
older seniors, and from 5:30 to 9:30 for working seniors and younger participants
(Marcus & Migliaccio, 2006). The Ohio Department of Aging (2002, p. 48) also found
that “the one thing centers can do now to attract more active seniors is to be open
beyond typical working hours.”
A study by Hostetler (2011) explored the views of senior centre service providers
in Northeastern United States regarding their philosophies of service provision as well
as future goals and visions. Not surprisingly, the new programs and services the
directors hoped to add were the same activities believed to appeal to the baby boomers,
i.e., computer and other classes, expanded health and fitness programs, and travel and
outdoor recreation opportunities. However, Hostetler (2011, p. 175) cautioned against
senior centres placing the needs of baby boomers in opposition to those of older
generations:
If senior centers primarily target young seniors or implicitly encourage age
segregation, they compound the problem posed by already excluding
seniors in need of assistance or supervision. When they promote a
glamorous image of an eternally-vibrant old age, they mask some of the
undeniable realities of aging.
Hostetler (2011) recommends that centres not alienate seniors who are
interested in more traditional offerings, and suggests that centres combat ageist
stereotypes by rehabilitating activities like knitting, quilting and bingo. Knitting has
renewed popularity with younger women, and quilting provides unique opportunities for
preserving our heritage. “Both could be promoted as intergenerational activities….and if
the image of knitting can be rehabilitated, why can’t appeal of bingo be broadened, for
example by recruiting local celebrity callers, offering ‘family bingo’ nights, and/or by
packaging it as one of several gaming opportunities?” (p. 175). Similar to the
architectural ideas put forth by Rotenberg (2011), Hostetler recommends that centres
create more spaces and opportunities for older and younger seniors to interact.
2.4
Strategic Partnerships
2.4.1 Community Involvement
A major recommendation that emerged from the BoomerANG Project is that
establishing partnerships should be the key element in all activities undertaken by
senior centres. Marcus and Migliaccio (2006) suggest that senior centres seek
partnerships with local, regional and national businesses, other service providers,
schools and universities, faith communities, and civic organizations. Professionals in
the community could be approached to see if they would be willing to contribute their
expertise in exchange for free advertising for their practice or service. For example, a
“cooking for one” class could generate business for a chef, and a financial expert could
27
gain new clients through an information seminar. According to the BoomerANG Project,
part of affirming the new role for senior centres is finding ways to engage seniors in the
community, e.g., working with local schools to have older adults talk about significant
events to make history come alive for the children. Likewise, Hostetler (2011)
advocates partnerships with schools and universities to offer educational programs,
develop learning opportunities, and promote volunteer exchanges. Hostetler also
suggests that police departments should increase their presence in senior centres,
particularly in urban areas.
Turner (2012) recommends building community partnerships because they can
provide valuable resources to the centre, as well as help support and promote the
senior centre in the community. She suggests partnering with local businesses and
corporations such as Wal-Mart, churches, elected officials, health organizations,
hospitals, public schools, and universities. According to Turner (p. 70), “The greater the
number of partnerships, the stronger each Senior Center will be, particularly in terms of
its core support mechanisms. In addition, these partnerships could provide needed
funding and/or supplies that could be used by the Senior Center, which would also cut
costs.” An added benefit is that partnerships will assist the centre in being aware of the
community’s needs and wants, thereby making the centre more viable and increasing
participation.
2.4.2 Intergenerational Programming
Intergenerational programming refers to initiatives that bring young people and
older adults together to interact, stimulate, educate, support and provide care for one
another (Kaplan, Liu, & Radhakrishna, 2003). In a needs assessment study conducted
in Pennsylvania, a sample of educators were provided with descriptions of nine
demonstration programs involving intergenerational initiatives and were asked to rank
them in terms of priority. “Intergenerational activities in retirement centers” received the
second highest ranking, following “Grandparents raising grandchildren” (Kaplan et al.,
2003).
The importance of intergenerational programming is documented in the literature
(Ayala & Hewson, 2005; Ayala, Hewson, Bray, Jones, & Hartley, 2007; Hostetler, 2011;
Ohio Department of Aging, 2002; Rotenberg, 2011). For example, linking the
generations was identified as one of five critical areas by the Ohio Department of Aging
(2002). In focus groups, seniors in Ohio were asked about their level of interest in
intergenerational activities, both formal and informal, and the results were generally
positive. However, disinterest, and even fear, was expressed about having older
children (mid- and high-schoolers) around. Focus groups reported (p. 73):


Seniors are generally “for” intergenerational activities but if they were
housed in a community center, they wished to preserve a space of their
own.
Community centers could help care for grandchildren, an activity some say
limits their opportunities for involvement with senior centers.
28


Community centers and intergenerational activities would help break down
barriers between generations and eliminate ageist ideas.
By virtue of their life experiences which broaden their views, older persons
are likely the catalysts for intergenerational interaction. Older adults
should be the ones to initiate contact with younger members of the
community.
The directors’ survey conducted by the Ohio Department of Aging (2002) found
that 55% of the senior centres offered intergenerational programming, and 85% offered
volunteer opportunities (including mentoring younger generations).
The
OhioReads/STARS program was provided as an example of a successful
intergenerational program. In STARS (Seniors Teaching and Reaching Students),
seniors aged 55 and older volunteer to tutor at-risk children in elementary schools.
Seniors volunteer an average of 11 hours per week, and (in 2000-2001) there were
approximately 600 volunteers in 47 schools, benefiting both the students and the
seniors. Another example provided was the Strongsville Recreation and Senior
Complex. The Senior Complex occupies a distinct area, but seniors can access the
entire complex, including swimming pools and fitness facilities. Woodworking classes
are open to all ages, and seniors help chaperone teen dances and operate a snack bar
that is open to everybody. A Backyard Preserve also encourages intergenerational
activities. Given the apprehension expressed in the focus group about intergenerational
events, however, the Ohio Department of Aging (2002, p. 78) acknowledges that “senior
centers will need to handle such efforts thoughtfully, and provide seniors with
opportunities to create, innovate and lead such events.”
The goal of Rotenberg’s (2011) Canadian thesis was to establish architectural
strategies that encourage ageing in a place within the community, allowing for a “society
for all ages” (p. v). Rotenberg sought to identify how architecture could reduce the
reliance of formal care by providing social connectivity within an intergenerational
setting, thereby promoting independence and community support. She recognized that
easily accessible spaces that allow seniors to informally interact with people of all ages
on a regular basis would help prevent senior isolation. In addition, a community that is
designed to support senior mobility can benefit from the talents of the seniors. Her
resultant design uses interstitial spaces to encourage multigenerational connectivity.
An Internet search of intergenerational programs in Canada revealed some
interesting examples.
In Calgary, LINKages provides “the careful recruitment,
screening and matching of both youth and seniors with ongoing training and support,
structured activities and high expectations for regular and ongoing contact”
(http://www.link-ages.ca). LINKages seeks to find ways for youth to stay connected with
seniors through an environment of respect, sensitivity and caring. Its intergenerational
programs include: school-based programs; Young Adults Connecting with Seniors
(YACS); and community initiatives.
A literature review and environmental scan prepared for LINKages by Ayala and
Hewson (2005) identified four types of programs: (1) older people supporting youth
29
(e.g., mentors); (2) youth supporting older people (e.g., friendly visitors); (3) older
people and youth collaborating to support their community; and (4) older people and
youth engaging together in learning and social activities. Intergenerational programs
were found to have benefits for both youth and seniors, i.e., they “reduce negative
stereotypes and attitudes; increase knowledge, skills, personal and social development,
and contribute to the health and well-being (e.g., increased self-esteem, reduced
isolation) of both populations” (Ayala & Hewson, 2005, p. 4).
A manual on
intergenerational programs on Fredericton’s St. Thomas University website also lists the
following benefits for the community: promoting healthy attitudes towards aging, as
youth are exposed to healthy and active seniors; linking cultures as well as generations,
and fighting violence, crime and dysfunctional behaviour that may exist in the
community (http://www.stu.ca/research/youth/manual/program.htm).
In a study of intergenerational programs in Calgary, Ayala et al. (2007) surveyed
youth and seniors’ organizations and found that more than a third of the organizations
offered intergenerational programs, and the majority perceived their program to be
successful.
The respondents identified the following gaps pertaining to
intergenerational programming:
(1)
Lack of awareness and information about existing programs among the
organizations and the public indicating a need for advertising and promotion;
(2)
Need for a more diverse range of intergeneration programs, particularly in light of
the baby boomer age;
(3)
Need for more seniors, youth and children to become involved in
intergenerational programs, including immigrants, children with disabilities,
grandparents, and seniors in care facilities; and
(4)
Need for more communication, networking, and partnerships among seniors and
youth agencies.
When asked about the barriers to intergenerational programming that need to be
addressed, respondents identified resource barriers (e.g., funding, staffing, time and
facilities), accessibility barriers (e.g., transportation, safety, language/culture), and
barriers relating to knowledge, skills, and attitudes (e.g., creating interest in developing
programs). The service providers also identified “a need for leadership in the area of
intergenerational programs, particularly in supporting organizations to overcome
barriers and to develop the skills, commitment, connections, and resources to
successfully offer intergenerational programs in the future” (Ayala et al., 2007, p. 16).
It appears that LINKages was prepared to take on this leadership role, as it
developed Intergenerational Best Practice Guidelines in 2008 (LINKages Society of
Alberta, 2008) and recommended other resources such as United Generations
Ontario’s Best Practices in Intergenerational Programming (2006). This latter resource
30
has identified 12 principles as key elements of successful intergenerational
programming (Cox, Croxford, & Edmonds, 2006, p. 19):
(1)
The program is a partnership between stakeholders representing each of
the generations involved.
(2)
There are clear and realistic goals that address the needs of all
stakeholders involved.
(3)
Roles and responsibilities are clearly defined.
(4)
Planning of the program is collaborative.
(5)
Each generation derives benefits from the experience.
(6)
The specific needs, abilities and preferences of each generation are
considered and addressed during the planning and delivery stages of the
program.
(7)
The overall program is planned, and can include both structured and
unstructured sessions and activities.
(8)
The intergenerational program consists of multiple interactions between
the generations over a period of time.
(9)
The program allows flexibility to accommodate various levels of
participation.
(10)
Age specific orientation is provided for participants as well as ongoing
skills development for staff.
(11)
Genuine commitment to the IG program is demonstrated at all levels.
(12)
The program is evaluated cyclically.
2.4.3 Diversification
As previously discussed, it is projected that the aging baby boomers will increase
the proportion of seniors in Canada from 13.9% in 2009 to 25% by 2030 (Statistics
Canada, 2010). Further, in a study prepared for Statistics Canada on Projections of the
Diversity of the Canadian Population, Malenfant, Lebel and Martel (2010) predict that by
2031, the proportion of persons who are foreign-born will range between 25% and 28%.
Approximately three Canadians in ten could be a member of a visible minority group in
2031, with South Asians and Chinese being the largest visible minority groups in
Canada. Arabs and West Asians are expected to be the fastest growing visible minority
groups, and persons whose mother tongue was neither English nor French is projected
31
to account for almost one-third of the population in 2031. As the racial-ethnic diversity
of the senior population increases, senior centres will need to offer more diverse,
multicultural programming (Giunta, Morano, Parikh, Freidman, Fahs, & Gallo, 2012).
To study the level of minority elder participation in senior centres, Pardasani
(2004b) surveyed senior centres, recreation clubs, nutrition sites, and local Area
Agencies of Aging in New York State. He found that increasing the representation of
minority staff and offering diverse programming increases the level of participation of
minority elders in senior centres. Multipurpose senior centres were the most likely to
serve the largest proportion of minority elders. Further, senior centres that offered
programs targeted to ethnic, religious or racial groups had nearly three times minority
participation and senior centres that offered programs in more than one language had
more than four times minority participation.
For senior centres to thrive in the future, they need to provide a supportive
environment for the elderly with different interests and from different backgrounds.
Pardasani (2004b) recognizes that one of the most significant challenges for senior
centres seeking to increase the participation of minority elders is to do so without
isolating their traditional membership and suggests sensitivity training for management,
staff, and members. Pardasani (2004b, p. 54) makes the following recommendations to
increase minority participation in senior centres:



Senior centers can make a concerted effort to offer programs in languages
other than English to attract minority elders who are not fluent in the
English language.
Senior center leaders and staff can offer programs that are culturally
diverse and appeal to the interests of their minority constituents. This will
help retain their patronage and also influence other non-participating
elderly to seek out services and programs being offered.
To create a capacity for offering culturally and linguistically diverse
programs, senior centers need to hire diverse staff that mirror the
ethnic/racial distribution of the minority elders in their communities.
The challenge of balancing diversity with the interests of the senior population is
echoed in the Ohio study, which found that many seniors seek out places that are
homogeneous, although younger seniors were more open to being around people who
are different than older seniors (Ohio Department of Aging, 2002). In addition to ethnic
differences, the Ohio study defines diversity as encompassing gender, income,
education, geography, and level of disability differences. Some of the findings from the
seniors and senior centre directors surveyed in Ohio include:


Women were more inclined to join a senior centre than men.
Regarding what would attract them to a senior centre, both men and women
mentioned friends and companionship, but women were more likely to be
interested in educational programs, exercise, and hobbies.
32



Women were more likely than men to report looking for a place to grow, and an
organization in which they could express their faith.
Centres that served a majority of low-income seniors provided more in-home
services and adult day services, while centres that served more high-income
seniors offered more social and recreational opportunities and financial
counselling.
In general, “high-income” centres offered more activities, with the exception of
religious activities.
The Ohio study concluded that there is evidence that senior centres are meeting
the diverse needs in their community, particularly in terms of economic diversity. The
recommendation from this study is that, in order to meet the needs of older adults,
senior centres need to tailor activities to match the interests of its aging population. “To
grow, senior centers will need to better understand the needs of their potential
consumers” (Ohio Department of Aging, 2002, p. 68).
2.4.4 Sustainability
Funding is a major policy concern for senior centres. Since changes to facilities
and programs are expensive, Turner (2012) stresses that creative ways to increase
revenue or decrease expenses are important. One senior centre director she
interviewed suggested that rooms with computer or updated technology could be rented
out to the public as an income source. Another director said its centre’s entrepreneurial
activities included growing a vegetable garden, which served as both a cost savings
mechanism for the centre, as well as an income source by selling vegetables to the
public.
Other senior centres have used their resources to generate funding. Evergreen
Commons, in Holland, Michigan, operates a family fitness centre, and Indian Valley’s
Senior Adult Activity Center rents its space for weddings and other celebrations (Marcus
& Migliaccio, 2006). The Low Country Senior Center in Charleston, South Carolina also
actively markets its center to the community as a venue for special events, and another
centre has developed a mini health club to attract community members (Fitzpatrick &
McCabe, 2009).
A conclusion from the BoomerANG Project is that charging for programs is a
necessity, even if the fee is nominal (Marcus & Migliaccio, 2006). The cost could be an
annual membership fee, or it could be a fee for particular programs or services. To
address concerns about lower-income seniors being able to pay the fees, the authors
provide the example of the North Shore Senior Center in Winnetka, Illinois, where a
waiver program was instituted, and more affluent seniors were asked to contribute to a
fund to ensure the participation of less affluent seniors. The Ohio Department of Aging
(2002) also stresses the need to senior centres to seek support from those who
regularly attend senior centres.
33
From a policy standpoint, Turner (2012) said it is critical that senior centre
representatives make themselves visible to legislators, and lobby for increased funding.
She states (p. 67):
With budget cuts likely due to the economic times, it is imperative that
Senior Centers continue to monitor the number of clients served and the
value-added to their constituents. This may mean additional work in the
beginning, but the payoff could be large in the end, if detailed records and
evaluations are maintained.
The Ohio Department of Aging (2002) found that many senior centres rely
heavily on limited sources of funding, making them vulnerable to political changes, and
recommended that centres diversify their funding base as much as possible. According
to Fitzpatrick and McCabe (2009), in some centres, board members are solely
responsible for resource development rather than providing direction for programs and
services.
According to Pardasani and Goldkind (2012, p. 375), in order to effectively serve
older adults, senior centres “need to demonstrate their relevance to the community and
advocate for increased funding support.” In their recent study, they surveyed 376 senior
centre administrators, the majority of whom represented multipurpose senior centres.
Almost all respondents reported that they engaged in policy advocacy efforts, and the
most common reason for engaging in advocacy was related to funding issues for
programs and services. The senior centre administrators were asked what their barriers
were to engaging in policy advocacy, and the most common responses were lack of
knowledge or awareness of issues, lack of experience in policy advocacy, and lack of
support from funding sources. When asked what their most successful methods of
advocating with legislators were, respondents reported having the most success with
personal meetings, as well as visits by the legislators to the centre. Respondents
reported having the least success with generating interest from television and radio
sources. The senior centre administrators reported having minimal success with
newspaper press releases, but more success if they had personal relationships with
reporters and presented human interest stories.
Three themes emerged from Pardasani and Goldkind’s (2012) study: a lack of
comprehensive collaboration and planning; a need to integrate effective policy advocacy
techniques into daily operations; and a lack of training in policy advocacy for senior
centre administers. The researchers highlighted the following implications of their
findings for practice and education (p. 387):
(1)
Senior centers need to create wide-ranging coalitions with diverse
constituents to expand their advocacy efforts and ensure better outcomes.
Additionally, by collaborating with other senior centers, administrators can
share knowledge, effective techniques and their limited resources for
greater impact.
34
(2)
Senior centers need to work closely with the aging establishment…to
create a strategic, coordinated plan for collaborative advocacy. This will
ensure that the concerns of senior centers are at the forefront of all
decision-making at the highest levels.
(3)
Administrators need to incorporate a wider array of techniques, including
modern technologies, to ensure that their advocacy efforts reach out to a
larger audience. Utilization of effective social marketing and sophisticated
public relations campaigns will strengthen relationships with stakeholders
and improve their chances for success. Given their limited budgets, senior
centers could collectively pool their resources to finance large-scale
advocacy efforts.
(4)
Administrators need substantive training in effective policy advocacy or
practice techniques. Senior center associations could provide training or
continuing education programs for administrators who are interested in
enhancing their skills. Similarly, community coalitions could provide a
venue for information-sharing, dialog, and consultation.
(5)
There needs to be a concerted effort for leadership development in senior
centers.
Such peer-led efforts could enhance the capacities of
administrators to transform their senior centers.
(6)
Educational programs that prepare students for a career in gerontology
need to enhance their curriculum to include content on policy issues
related to aging and current advocacy techniques.
(7)
Organizations [national and provincial]…could create a clearing house for
best practice case examples, web-based training, and updated information
on policy issues to empower and educate practitioners.
35
3.0
ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN
Using information acquired from the best practice literature review, an
environmental scan was conducted to identify potential best practice multi-purpose
senior centres. Information was primarily found in public documents, and follow-up
contact was made with each centre to fill any outstanding information gaps. Information
is missing where attempts to contact the centre were not returned.
3.1
Fergus Falls Senior Citizens Program, Inc.2
Location:
Fergus Falls, MN
Executive Director/CEO:
Kathy Sporre, Program Supervisor
Contact Information:
Phone: (218) 736-6842
Fax: (218) 739-9063
e-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.ffsenior.org/
Date of Establishment:
1987
Number of Employees:
4, plus approximately 30 part-time volunteers
Annual Budget:
$216,673
The City of Fergus Falls pays $197,663 for administrative staff, building utilities
and local bus service. The Senior Center raises $19,010 through memberships,
fundraisers, contributions, grants, and minimal fees for service.
Target Clientele:
Members must be 55 years of age and older, and their spouse may become a
member regardless of their age. Membership fees are established by the Fergus Falls
Senior Citizens Board of Directors, and are currently $15 per person per year. A paid
membership entitles the member to the monthly newsletter, free notary service, voting
privileges and reduced prices on activities. All money received from memberships goes
into the Senior Citizens Activity Fund. The Fergus Falls Senior Citizens Program
currently has approximately 500 members.
Centre Physical Description:
The Fergus Falls Senior Citizens Program is housed in a former store that was
donated to the City of Fergus Falls by a local businessman in 1991 and was given for
2
Information in this section was obtained from the Fergus Falls Senior Citizens Program website at:
http://www.ffsenior.org/ and through personal communication with Kathy Sporre, Program Supervisor.
37
the purpose of housing the program. It is centrally located in downtown Fergus Falls
near many apartments where older adults live. The Senior Citizens Program occupies
the main floor, lower level and a portion of the upper level for a total of 14,550 square
feet. Following its re-accreditation in 2007 and a recommendation to make sure facility
areas are fully maximized, room dividers were added that could section the upper level
into smaller areas conducive to smaller group gatherings. The exercise area in the
lower level was expanded and the size of the library was decreased based on use and
need.
Scope of Programs/Services:
The mission of the Fergus Falls Senior Citizens Program, Inc. is to enrich the
lives and promote the independent lifestyles of the senior Citizens of the Fergus Falls
area, including, but not limited to, providing programs and classes dealing with nutrition,
outreach, social service or employment opportunities. The Center offers a variety of
programs to fit the needs of all senior citizens from 55 years of age and older. Some
activities offered are: quilting, pinochle, bridge, whist, hand and foot, Red Hat group,
Adopt-a-Class, entertainment, special events, exercise classes, bingo, greeting card
recycling, Kitchen Band, bunco, discussion groups, knit and crochet class, Dakim Brain
Fitness, memory screenings, library with magnifying reading machine, pool and
snooker, paint classes, informational seminars, and volunteer opportunities.
Services beyond the walls of the Center are offered through the Senior
Companion Program. Through their assistance and friendship, Senior Companions
help others live independently in their homes rather than having to move to expensive,
institutional care. Senior Companions assist clients with paying bills, grocery shopping,
and finding transportation to medical appointments. They offer contact with the outside
world and help make the lives of the people they serve less lonely. There are
approximately 12,000 Senior Companions serving 37,000 individuals in communities
across the United States.
Nutrition Services, Inc. operates a congregate nutrition program at the Senior
Center Monday through Friday at 12:00 noon. Nutritionally balanced meals consist of
such entrees as barbecued ribs, pork chops, chicken, roast beef, beef stew, casseroles,
plus all the trimmings. Frozen meals are also available. Special events like birthday
parties and entertainment are planned on a monthly basis. Suggested price of a meal is
$4.00 for people who are 60 and older. People under 60 years of age are welcome to
attend for a suggested price of $6.50. This program is funded by the Older Americans
Act and administered by the Land of the Dancing Sky Area Agency on Aging.
Strategic Partnerships:
Partnerships include the City of Fergus Falls, who funds the staff, custodian and
utility expenses for the building; and Nutrition Services, Inc., who provides a nutritious
noon meal to the members Monday through Friday. The YMCA provides chair
exercises, and Lakeland Mental Health offers memory screenings. The Senior
38
Companion Program is hosted in collaboration with Lutheran Social Service and the
National Senior Service Corps. The Center also partners with aging organizations at
the national and international level through memberships in their organizations.
Other Relevant Information:
Fergus Falls Senior Citizens Program serves a rural area in Fergus Falls with a
population of about 13,100 and a county population of 57,200. The Center is a nonprofit organization, and has a Board of Directors consisting of 16 members of the
Fergus Falls Senior Citizens Program. Board members are elected for three-year terms
and can hold only two consecutive terms. Board meetings are held monthly in addition
to the annual meeting.
Evaluation:
Fergus Falls Senior Citizens Program is the first senior centre in Minnesota to be
nationally accredited by the National Institute of Senior Centers, a unit of the National
Council on Aging.
In its 2007 accreditation letter, the Center was noted as
demonstrating outstanding leadership and commitment to quality programs and
services. The Peer Reviewer observed the following strengths of the Fergus Falls
Senior Citizens Program:

Dedicated, highly professional, creative and forward thinking staff.

Good use of the Mission Statement posted throughout the center at
various locations as well as on the website and newsletter.

Highly involved and dedicated board of directors shown through their
involvement in multiple committees, initiatives and fundraisers.

Very well thought out gift acceptance policy.

Extensive space
programming.

The center, through its members and staff, provides a vibrant, warm
welcome upon entering the facility.

The Outreach program, through the Chore Corp, is very good and
provides a great service to the community, especially to those that may
be homebound.

The records of the center are very organized and easily accessed.

Very strong strategic planning process.
within
the
senior
39
center
for
expansion
of

Excellence in operations as evidenced by the receipt of the 2005 MN
Nonprofit award and the MN Charities Review Council Seal based on
meeting 16 standards for charities.
The following recommendations were provided:

Expand programming to continue to meet needs of the new
generations of older adults and to offer more programs per day.
Collaborations with community colleges, library, and health systems
could result in more evidence-based programming, civic engagement
offerings, spiritual and intellectual programming.

Addition of a staff person as a volunteer coordinator to formalize the
Volunteer Program adding recruitment, recognition, and regular inservice training. The addition of this position would leverage many
more resources in the area of volunteer group leaders, civic
engagement opportunities and many others. It’s clear that the current
staff does a terrific job and has little or no time for additional duties,
new initiatives, or to handle expanded hours for programming. To take
the center to the next level, the addition of a volunteer coordinator
would be a next step.

Build on marketing plan to identify goals, objectives, and plans on an
annual basis. In addition, look at ways to distribute the annual report
to market the center to various businesses and organizations.

Include more community and business representatives and non-senior
center users in the various planning and evaluation processes of the
center as well as include a variety of age groups. This allows for
outside feedback as well as providing input on attracting different age
groups to the center.

Consider integrating the accreditation self-assessment process into the
long-range planning process. The self-assessment process and
completion of the action plan can provide a long-range plan for the
center.

Study facility use to make sure that areas are fully maximized and
allows for a variety of programming and enhanced programming to
attract new or younger members.
Annual Report:
The 2011 Annual Report is contained in Appendix A.
40
3.2
Fort Collins Senior Center3
Location:
Fort Collins, CO
Executive Director/CEO:
Barbara Schoenberger, Recreation Supervisor
Contact Information:
Phone: (970) 221-6655
Fax: (970) 221-6586
e-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.fcgov.com/recreation/seniorcenter.php
Date of Establishment:
1995
Target Clientele:
Aging adults 50+ and their families
Centre Physical Description:
The current centre has the following features: 25-yard, 4-lane pool; 10-person
spa; jog/walk track; gymnasium; multi-use area with stage; classrooms; pool/snooker;
art rooms; kitchen and lounge; media centre and library; and community gardens. The
Center has served as a vital gathering space for Fort Collins’ adult community, including
individuals with special needs. Facing a growing need due to an increasing population,
a citizen-led expansion committee is working to raise funds so that the existing Senior
Center may expand and continue to bring the community together. A dedicated website
on the Expansion Initiative is available at: http://www.seniorcenterexpansion.org/. The
City of Fort Collins has already allocated $5.6 million to this taxpayer-supported project,
and the Senior Center Expansion Committee has raised $100,000 towards its $500,000
campaign goal.
Plans for the expansion include an approximately 12,000 square foot state-ofthe-art addition to the existing 40,000 square foot facility, with an expanded parking lot
accommodating an additional 150 vehicles. The Center is “dreaming big,” and states
that expanding the Senior Center is about more than just square footage. It’s about
creating a place that reflects the community’s values; a newly-imagined place where
more seniors can “engage in aging” in ways that are exciting, meaningful, and fulfilling.
Plans for the expansion include: cardio fitness room; wellness center; dance and
exercise studios; multipurpose education rooms; Community Gathering Place;
additional storage space; and the ability to further expand on the property in the future.
Scope of Programs/Services:
Fort Collins Senior Center provides essential wellness, fitness and social
activities that pre-emptively reduce public dependence on, and expense related to, care.
With adaptive fixtures such as specialized carpeting and sound system, the Center is
3
Information in this section was obtained from the Fort Collins Senior Center website at:
http://www.fcgov.com/recreation/seniorcenter.php.
41
designed to accommodate the individualized needs of adults with diminishing mobility,
eyesight or hearing. Because the Fort Collins Senior Center maintains such a strong
focus on accessibility to people with physical or mental challenges, it has become a
cornerstone community resource in facilitating wellness, social engagement and lifestyle
independence. Even though the primary mission of the Senior Center is to offer
superior services to our aging adult population, its facilities are also heavily used by
residents of all ages for physical, mental and spiritual wellness.
Fort Collins Senior Center offers a wide variety of classes for 50+ community
members including: aqua fitness; arts and crafts; dance and movement; education and
enrichment programs (e.g., computer skills, CPR, blogging, social media, sign
language, relationship skills, music, theater, cooking and meditation); fitness (e.g.,
karate, tai chi, aerobics, spinning, strength training, balance classes); outdoor recreation
(e.g., hikes, downhill skiing, snowshoeing, rafting, fishing); and trips and travel (e.g.,
casino trips, restaurant nights, Broadway shows).
The Senior Center serves nearly 1,000 community members each day, with a
diverse schedule of over 60 daily activities. Many services and activities are limited to
members only, and aone-year memberships for 50+ are a minimum of $25 per year.
Other Relevant Information:
The Fort Collins Senior Center rents out its space for special events or activities.
Its website advertises it as “perfect for small intimate meetings or large scale events up
to 300 people. The Senior Center offers modular rooms to fit any size activity,
incredible views, excellent customer service and a beautifully landscaped courtyard.
The Senior Center is a full service facility that is affordable, attractive and convenient.”
The Center also offers opportunities to volunteers, who play a vital role in the Senior
Center operation.
Evaluation:
The Fort Collins Senior Center has been recognized as one of the top 12 senior
centers in the nation by the National Council on Aging (NCOA), and one of only two
NCOA-accredited senior centers in Colorado.
3.3
Good Neighbours Active Living Centre4
Location:
Winnipeg, MB
Executive Director/CEO:
Susan Sader, Executive Director
4
Information in this section was obtained from the Good Neighbours Active Living Centre website at:
http://www.gnalc.ca/ and personal communication with Susan Sader, Executive Director.
42
Contact Information:
Phone: (204) 669-1710
Fax: (204) 661-0750
e-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.gnalc.ca/
Date of Establishment:
1993
Number of Employees:
3 full-time and 4 part-time, plus 270 volunteers
Annual Budget:
$362,885 (operating) and $349,172 (project specific)
It takes approximately $1,000 a day to keep the doors open at the Centre, which
is partially funded by the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority (approximately 10%).
Funding is received from the United Way to promote outreach efforts, and other funds
come from program and membership fees and fundraising efforts. The fundraising
committee approaches local businesses and corporations to make donations, and the
Centre hosts special events and sells merchandise like cards and books to raise funds.
Target Clientele:
55+
Centre Physical Description:
The Good Neighbours Active Living Centre moved into a new facility in 2009.
The facility is shared with Bronx Park Community Centre, and is the first of its kind in
Winnipeg. With 28,000 sq. ft., a variety of programs and services are available to all
ages. The cost of the facility was $6.9 million and it was funded through the City of
Winnipeg. The facility includes a regulation size gymnasium, multi-purpose room,
creative arts studio, computer lab, HobNobs Café (full service café open Monday to
Friday from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.) and a used bookstore. The Millennium Gardens is a subcommittee of Good Neighbours, providing opportunities for seniors to continue
gardening by renting raised garden beds.
Scope of Programs/Services:
Good Neighbours Active Living Centre is a non-profit, charitable organization that
provides opportunities for older adults 55+ to stay active, connected to the community
and to meet new friends. The Centre’s vision is: Individuals aged 55 and older will
maintain active, independent, and meaningful lives with a connection to the community
and with each other through programs and social interaction.
Over 40 programs taught by qualified instructors are offered monthly such as
active living/fitness (e.g., aqua fitness, baseball, pilates, yoga, making muscles, Tai Chi,
Zumba), creative expressions (e.g., art, painting, creative writing), computers, dance,
music and song, and drop-in (e.g., games, hobbies). Participants pay a fee for classes,
usually $40 for 8 weeks. If program fees cause a financial hardship, members can
discuss this confidentially with staff who will waive fees. Other services are provided to
43
members such as: individual health consultations, Kildonan Home Maintenance
Program, information and referral, tax clinics, reflexology, foot care, counselling and
HobNobs Café.
Strategic Partnerships:
Good Neighbours has a number of strategic partnerships. The Winnipeg
Regional Health Authority (WRHA) provides an operating grant for the centre, and also
fully funds the Supports to Seniors in Group Living Program, where two staff provide
support around independent activities of daily living to residents in four elderly persons
housing apartment buildings. Funding is also received from the United Way of
Winnipeg to do outreach and program development in Elmwood – an area of Winnipeg
where financial limitations, safety and crime, and social isolation have been identified as
barriers to participation for older adults. Good Neighbours also receives funding from
the Manitoba Seniors and Healthy Aging Secretariat (SHAS) to provide leadership to
the Manitoba Network for the Prevention of the Abuse of Older Adults (MNPAOA),
which is a clearinghouse of elder abuse information in the province, and provides
support to service providers. Through Good Neighbours and the MNPAOA, funding is
being received for three years for a project that focuses on the prevention of financial
abuse. Credit Unions in Manitoba will be key strategic partners in this project. SHAS
also funds a one-year pilot project addressing the needs of the older worker with a
home maintenance focus.
Good Neighbours also partners with Hospice and Palliative Care Manitoba to
provide a bereavement support group twice a year, with the Manitoba Housing Authority
(particularly with the United Way funded project), with A&O Support Services to Seniors
as a referral source for seniors needing to connect with social workers or legal aid, and
with the WRHA’s Healthy Aging Resource Team.
The River East Council for Seniors is a sub-committee of Good Neighbours that
offers such services as information/referral, assistance with forms, Daily Hello
(daily/weekly phone calls), Emergency Response Information Kit, River East Rides for
Seniors, River East Congregate Meal Program, and the Parkside Plaza Meal Program.
The Millennium Gardens is also a sub-committee of Good Neighbours that provides
opportunities for seniors to continue gardening by renting raised garden beds. The
Healthy Aging Resource Team (HART) is made up of a nurse and occupational
therapist with an office at Good Neighbours. HART runs health clinics at various sites,
presents on health-related topics, facilitates support groups and give community
referrals and resource information.
Other Relevant Information:
Good Neighbours Active Living Centre is the largest senior centre in the city, and
over 1,150 people are paid members. Membership is $30 per year.
44
Evaluation:
A comprehensive evaluation of Good Neighbours Active Living Centre has not
been done. However, an evaluation may be one of the goals identified in a strategic
planning session to be held in April 2013 to plan for 2013 – 2016.
Annual Report:
3.4
The 2011-2012 Annual Report is contained in Appendix B.
Evergreen Commons5
Location:
Holland, MI
Contact Information:
Phone: (616) 396-7100
Fax: (616) 396-9736
e-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://evergreencommons.org/
Date of Establishment:
1985
Target Clientele:
50+
Centre Physical Description:
Evergreen Commons began in a remodeled and expanded Holland Christian
Middle School with 45,000 sq. ft. in the heart of Holland. In 1998, a 20,000 sq. ft.
expansion was added to include a swimming pool, fitness centre, expanded wood shop,
seminar room, billiards area, and rehabilitation treatment centre.
Scope of Programs/Services:
Evergreen Commons provides a place, platforms, and opportunities for older
adults to participate in living life to the fullest by encouraging a healthy, active,
purposeful lifestyle in all its dimensions: physical, social, intellectual, vocational,
emotional and spiritual. A variety of classes and activities are offered including: art,
computer, crafts, dance, faith lessons, languages, music, travelogue, and woodshop.
The centre also has clubs (e.g., cards, bridge, cribbage, poker), games (e.g., bingo,
bowling without a ball, mah-jong, scrabble, shuffleboard), and groups (book club,
chorale, crochet and knitting, writing club, stamp club).
Fitness classes and programs are offered in the 1,300 sq. ft. fitness room, which
features the best in strength and cardiovascular machines as well as special therapy
equipment. The Center has a 14’ square whirlpool spa, as well as a 30’ x 60’ leisure
and lap swimming pool for water aerobics, arthritis exercise, and aquatic therapy
classes.
5
Information in this section was obtained from the Evergreen Commons website at:
http://evergreencommons.org/.
45
Evergreen Commons also provides Care-Services for adults who need
assistance and support both In-Home and at their Day Center. Adult day services
include: safe and social environment; health monitoring; activities; transportation; and
part- and full-day programs. In-home services include: home delivered meals; respite
care; medication set-up; doctor visits; hair care services; personal care; and
homemaking services.
Other Relevant Information:
Evergreen Commons is a thriving, private, non-profit community centre serving
nearly 3,300 members in the greater Holland/Zeeland area.
3.5
Hithergreen Center6
Location:
Dayton, OH
Executive Director/CEO:
Cynthia Fraley, Executive Director
Contact Information:
Phone: (937) 435-2415
Fax: (937) 435-2427
e-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.hithergreen.org/
Date of Establishment:
1982
Number of Employees:
4 full-time, 5 part-time, over 350 volunteers
Annual Budget:
$430,000 (2012)
Hithergreen Center is funded by the City of Centerville, Washington Township,
and Hithergreen dues, donations, fundraisers and program fees. Washington Township
and the City of Centerville currently provide $133,000 of the total budget.
Target Clientele:
Although Hithergreen Center focuses on older adults, there are no geographical
restrictions or age requirements for becoming a member. Membership dues for 2013
are $60 for residents of Centerville and Washington Township and $90 for nonresidents. Most Hithergreen programs are free to members; others have nominal costs
to cover expenses.
6
Information in this section was obtained from the Hithergreen Center website at:
http://www.hithergreen.org/ and through personal community with Cynthia Fraley, Executive Director.
46
Centre Physical Description:
The 45,000 sq. ft. facility that houses Hithergreen Center is owned and
maintained by Washington Township. The facility is located on 15 acres in a safe,
residential neighbourhood and includes an auditorium, gymnasium, full-service kitchen,
dining room, state-of-the-art fitness room, library and multiple activity and meeting
rooms.
Scope of Programs/Services:
The mission of Hithergreen Center is to enrich the lives of older adults in the
community. The Center provides creative and enjoyable programs in a relaxed and
friendly atmosphere. Hithergreen provides opportunities for seniors to meet new
friends, promote their health and vitality, learn new skills, travel, actively participate in
the community, and share their talents and interests. Over 125 programs are offered
annually to Hithergreen members to promote healthy body, healthy mind, and healthy
spirit.
Education and personal growth programs include a book club, discussion group,
education classes, Aviation Club, computer and photography classes, and various art
classes. Fitness and sports programs include basketball, billiards, bicycling, bowling,
fishing, golfing, short tennis, softball, table tennis, tai chi and yoga. The fitness room
offers classes in aerobics, stretch, strength training or Zumba. Seniors can also keep fit
by working in the butterfly garden, nature garden, and rock garden. Health and
wellness services include regular blood pressure and blood sugar checks and annual flu
shots. Medical concerns can also be discussed with healthcare professionals during
annual wellness festivals and regularly scheduled seminars.
Social and recreational programs include vocal and dance classes, as well as
games (e.g., bingo, cards, chess, Mahjongg, Scrabble). Nutritionally balanced lunches
are available, and special events are held annually, like the Spaghetti Dinner, Holiday
Gift Shoppe and Bake Sale, and summer garage sale. A transportation program
arranges for volunteer drivers to take seniors to personal appointments, and rides to the
centre for activities or to grocery stores are also available for a fee. Lastly, one-day and
multi-day trips are offered through the travel program.
Strategic Partnerships:
Hithergreen Center’s key partnerships are with the city and township
governments. Washington Township provides the large facility plus utilities and building
maintenance, and the Township and the City of Centerville both provide a portion of the
annual operating revenue. In addition, the Center partners with over 225 local
businesses each year for sponsorships and donations of products and services – this is
considered to be one of the Center’s strengths and is mutually beneficial for the
members and the businesses that want to market to them.
47
Special programs are held at the Center by other community organizations like
the Centerville Washington Park District, Centerville-Washington Township Historical
Society and Washington Centerville Public Library. Hithergreen Center trips are
provided by Joy Tour & Travel, and representatives are available at the centre. Other
collaborators in 2011 were: BBB Consumer Fair; Centerville Rotary Pancake Breakfast;
Diversity Council Great Religions of the World series; Library Money Sense program;
Historical Society monthly programs; Kettering Medical Center Health Day; and Senior
Olympics Table Tennis Tourney.
Other Relevant Information:
Hithergreen is governed by a 15-member Board of Trustees, and is a private,
non-profit corporation. It has 2,130 members, and in 2011, there were over 76,000
visits to the Center. Over 300 people per day some to the Center for a wide variety of
activities and opportunities.
Evaluation:
Hithergreen Center recently completed a review of its governance and ethical
practices using a tool developed by the Panel on the Nonprofit Sector. It was a board
activity and the results were recorded in meeting minutes rather than in a separate
document. It was found that the Center meets all standards in regard to effective
governance, legal compliance and public disclosure, strong financial oversight, and
responsible fundraising.
Annual Report:
3.6
The 2011 Annual Report is contained in Appendix C.
North Shore Senior Center7
Location:
Chicago, IL
Executive Director/CEO:
Jordan Luhr, Executive Director
Contact Information:
Phone: (847) 784-6000
e-mail (services): [email protected] (for services)
e-mail (media): [email protected] (Kathleen Geraghty,
Sr. Communications Specialist)
Website: http://www.nssc.org/
Date of Establishment:
1956
Number of Employees:
130, plus 806 volunteers
7
Information in this section was obtained from the North Shore Senior Center website at:
http://www.nssc.org/.
48
Annual Budget:
$7,026,188 (Total expenses in 2012)
Target Clientele:
Although North Shore Senior Center focuses on providing services for seniors,
members do not need to fulfill any geographical or age requirements. Three
membership options are offered, ranging from $20 (individual)/$35 (household) to $75
(individual)/$140 (household) for the Premier Package. Members have exclusive
opportunities to feel a sense of community with other seniors, participate in memberonly programs, and receive special discounts. North Shore Senior Center also has
limited scholarships for individual membership packages, which provides a
complimentary membership based on financial need.
Centre Physical Description:
North Shore Senior Center has multiple locations in the North Shore of Chicago
including: (1) Arthur C. Nielsen Jr. Campus (flagship location); (2) Evanston Social
Services Office; (3) House of Welcome; and (4) American Legion Memorial Civic
Center. The Arthur C. Nielsen Jr. Campus offers a senior-focused fitness community,
where seniors can become healthier or stay fit while enjoying the camaraderie of other
seniors and reap the benefits of working with the trained, professional staff. The Fitness
Center has: a variety of cardio machines including treadmills, ellipticals, recumbent
bikes and rowing machines; full Nautilus circuit of weight machines for strength training;
free weights and balance equipment; fitness assessment, orientation and personalized
fitness program for members; small group specialized fitness classes; one-on-one
training with a fitness specialist; and locker room, towel service and shower amenities.
Scope of Programs/Services:
The mission of North Shore Senior Center is to foster the independence and
well-being of older adults, enhance their dignity and self-respect, and promote their
participation in and contribution toward all aspects of community life. A 64-page
catalogue of lifelong learning offers a wide variety of programs, including armchair
travel, art, clubs, computer and technology, crafts, current events, driver education,
fitness and dance, games, health programs and services, history, language, music
classes, religion, sports, support groups, and special events. The expanding array of
fitness programs includes Yoga for the Rest of Us and Pickle Ball, the newest racket
game craze.
To foster the independence and well-being of older adults, various support
services are also offered, including; Alzheimer’s/Early Memory Loss programs;
counseling services; emergency response systems for seniors; escorted transportation
services; geriatric care management; home delivered meals; income tax assistance; inhome help; lending closet for durable medical equipment; Medicare information and
assistance; powerful tools for caregivers; and support groups for hearing loss, low
vision, and Parkinson’s Disease.
49
Strategic Partnerships:
North Shore Senior Center partners with many organizations, including OASIS
and Age Options.
Other Relevant Information:
North Shore Senior Center is a non-profit organization that serves more than
30,000 individuals a year. In 2012, 3,705 members took part in the more than 100
programs and events offered each week.
Evaluation:
The National Institute of Senior Centers and the Commission on Accreditation of
Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) have accredited North Shore Senior Center as meeting
the highest standards for the industry.
In October and November 2011, the North Shore Senior Center held ten
Visioning Sessions, and listened to more than 100 members, clients, employees,
donors and community leaders. Their input helped the Center chart its future so that it
could serve the next generation of seniors. The diverse group shared clear priorities for
North Shore Senior Center to pursue:
Priority 1:
Ensure North Shore Senior Center’s financial independence.
Priority 2:
Market programs and services to active seniors and caregivers.
Priority 3:
Determine what staff and facilities North Shore Senior Center needs to fulfill
its mission to a growing and more diverse population of older adults, and
whether it should explore the possible advantages of providing programs
and services to older adults in a larger geographical area.
Priority 4:
Attract and retain the highest quality leadership (Board, Staff and
Volunteers).
Priority 5:
Proactively respond to new competitive challenges in the marketplace.
Annual Report:
The 2012 Annual Report is contained in Appendix D.
50
4.0
4.1
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
The Kerby Centre has been serving the older adult population of Calgary since
1976. As the Kerby Centre enters a new era in its operations through the construction
of a new, state-of-the art facility, it is important to consider emerging best practices in
multi-purpose senior centres in determining the best fit for the Calgary community. The
success of the future Kerby Center is particularly vital given the recent recognition that
senior centres have been given in their role in the continuum of care for older adults in
Alberta, and the emerging discourse of “aging in place.”
To support the planning of the new Kerby Centre, the Canadian Research
Institute for Law and the Family was contracted to conduct a best practice literature
review and environmental scan. The purpose of this project was to examine emerging
trends and best practices for multi-purpose senior centres, including commonly
implemented and/or innovative practices. Specifically, the objectives of the study were
to:
(1)
Determine key facility/amenity components for an ideal multi-purpose senior
centre;
(2)
Determine key programs for an ideal multi-purpose senior centre;
(3)
Recommend strategic partnerships that could better position senior centres for
success; and
(4)
Develop five to seven profiles of leading-edge multi-purpose senior centres as
recommended targets for further investigation.
The findings from the study are summarized in the following section.
4.2
Summary
The popularity of the multi-purpose model of senior centres has become
increasingly apparent in recent decades, with some studies suggesting that it is perhaps
the most popular model (Pardasani, 2004a; Turner, 2004). A number of authors
(NYCDA, 2011; Pardasani & Thompson, 2010; Pardasani et al., 2009) have noted that
multi-purpose senior centres are at a unique crossroads due to the changing
composition of the older adult population, facing challenges related to the service needs
of a diverse clientele, appealing to a rapidly changing senior population, addressing
stereotypes, competition with other service organizations, and funding.
As revealed in the literature review, multi-purpose senior centres come in all
shapes, sizes, and types. Evidence as to what constitutes best practice in multi51
purpose senior centres has begun to appear in the past decade. It is clear that there is
no “best” model of a multi-purpose senior centre, though multi-purpose senior centres
are linked by a common goal: to assist a diverse clientele in aging successfully and
productively (Aday, 2003, p. 6). The appeal of the multi-purpose senior centre is, by
definition, in the fact that they can offer an array of facility amenities, programs, and
services that are relevant and responsive to the community and the population they
serve. Pardasani et al. (2009), having conducted perhaps the most comprehensive
review of multi-purpose senior centre models to date, presented six distinct models.
However, given the purpose of each model and the varying clientele that they appeal to,
it is likely that a combination of these models might best serve the goals and objectives
of a new facility in a particular community. Thus, it is important in the development of
any multi-purpose senior centre model to thoroughly examine the characteristics of the
local older adult population, the service needs of current and future participants, and
importantly, perceptions of both users and non-users regarding the appeal (or lack of
appeal, as the case may be) of senior centres. Further, centres must also thoroughly
examine what users and non-users perceive as barriers to participation, and the role
that the centre could and should play in the greater community.
Studies examining senior centre usership have yielded varying results. However,
patterns that have been observed provide important lessons for multi-purpose senior
centres as they move forward. Age creep is perhaps the most obvious issue currently
facing senior centres, as is the gender gap in usership (with women being nearly twice
as likely to participate as men) and the seeming lack of participation by ethnic minority
seniors. Multi-purpose senior centres are faced with the challenge of addressing these
gaps, potentially having to increase the scope of their programming. In expanding the
range of services offered, Pardasani (2010) suggests that, particularly in times of limited
resources, this challenge may be best addressed through community partnerships and
collaboration, reducing the likelihood of service duplication and presenting a
comprehensive range of services that appeal to all older adult cohorts.
Increasing participation, particularly among the future (baby boomer) and nonuser demographic, is vital to the future success of multi-purpose senior centres. The
role of marketing is critical to these ends. In general, successful marketing of multipurpose senior centres involves communicating what the centre offers and how these
offerings benefit particular target populations. However, one ever increasing challenge
to senior centre marketing is decreasing the stigma attached to senior centres among
the “younger-old” and the baby boomers. Even the term “senior centre” may act as a
deterrent to the future generation of potential users (Turner, 2012). Walker et al. (2004)
suggest that promoting seniors centres in a way that does not label them “welfare
institutions” or for the “elderly,” what Beard (2012) terms “ageless marketing,” may
reduce some of this stigma. Appropriately and actively targeting communications to
particular audiences is also important (Marcus & Migliaccio, 2006). Awareness of the
demographic use of particular mediums of communication may assist in this strategy.
Senior centres must not only develop close connections with traditional forms of media
(television, print, radio), but also ensure their websites are easily located and provide
comprehensive, up-to-date information on their program and service offerings. The use
52
of digital and social media in particular would assist in appealing to the baby boomer
cohort given the use of technology by this generation. Social media also acts as an
inexpensive means of advertising.
Best practice in facility design and amenities is an emerging topic, particularly
given the changing face of multi-purpose senior centres. Studies stress the importance
of age friendly spaces that are barrier free, offer opportunities for social connectivity and
engagement in social activities, and are open, inviting, receptive, and appealing as
opposed to institutional (Manheimer, 2009; Rotenberg, 2011). Findings from the
BoomerANG project suggest the physical appearance of a centre may change the
image of “senior centres” for future generations (Marcus & Migliaccio, 2006). Architect
Douglas Gallow Jr. (2012) suggests a number of important principles and processes
that are important to consider in senior centre design, but stresses the importance of
enlisting the assistance of architects, designers, and product representatives who are
familiar with the population served, the goals and objectives of the organization, and the
ultimate purpose of the space.
Selecting amenities is particularly challenging for new centres, given the need to
strike a balance between limited space and resources, a wide range of options, and
efforts to appeal to a diverse clientele. Given the central role of wellness promotion for
senior centres, the 2012 ICAA Wellness Industry Development Survey suggests the
importance of having a diverse range of physical spaces to promote wellness including
physical, intellectual, vocational, environmental, emotional, and spiritual wellness
activities, both indoor and outdoor. Rotenberg (2011), with special consideration of the
changing population of seniors, suggests five important facility areas that would respond
to changing needs of the senior population, including healthcare, wellness,
communication, community, and housing. Physical spaces may also be designed with
community participation in mind, providing options for community use or rental
(Rotenberg, 2011). It is important that the selection of physical spaces and amenities
be based on the needs and desires of both current and future usership, bearing in mind
that those amenities that cannot be offered in-house may be offered through close
collaboration and partnerships with external community agencies. Centres must also be
cognizant of physical accessibility in its design, both external (e.g., parking, barrier-free
entry, street level access) and internal (e.g., wheelchair access, safe transitions, etc.).
Diverse programming is, by definition, central to the success of the multi-purpose
senior centre. Generally, a best practice multi-purpose senior centre would offer a
range of programs and services representing the broad categories of nutritional support,
health promotion, recreation, information and education, volunteerism, and social
activities. Programming must address the demographic diversity of its participant pool,
particularly age differences in interests and language and cultural needs. Evidence
suggests that the baby boomer generation may be more interested in active and
educational programs as well as travel and volunteer opportunities, while older seniors
may be more interested in traditional programs (e.g., dance, cards, crafts). Appealing to
ethnic minority seniors may require culturally specific activities, programming in multiple
languages, and ethnic diversity among staff. Researchers stress the role of the social
53
element in program development, citing evidence implying that participants value the
personal and social connections they make through centre activities (Beard, 2012;
Turner, 2004). Beard (2012) suggests that the social appeal of a café acts as a
gateway to participation in other centre programming. According to Hostetler (2011),
centres could also consider the possible appeal of intergenerational programming,
offering activities that are of interest to multiple generations to encourage interaction
between younger and older generations and to engage the community. Programmers
must also be cognizant of the importance of flexibility and appropriate scheduling in
program design, with awareness to the different lifestyles of various older adult cohorts.
While multi-purpose senior centres must appeal to a changing demographic of seniors,
it is important that they are aware that the new demographic of seniors will eventually
develop challenges common to an aging population, and will have to respond
accordingly (Fitzpatrick and McCabe, 2008).
An important consideration in operating a successful best practice multi-purpose
senior centre is strategic partnerships. Awareness of and connection to activities,
programs, and services in the community maximize the resources available, minimize
duplication of service, and promote centre participation in the continuum of care for
older adults as opposed to acting as a sole provider. The literature suggests that
partnerships with businesses, schools and universities, faith communities, civic
organizations, and other service providers promote the development of innovative and
diverse program opportunities, as well as resource sharing (Marcus & Migliaccio, 2006).
Close ties with the community also increases awareness of the needs and desires of
participants which, as previously discussed, is critical to the development of a best
practice centre.
Transportation considerations are critical in relation to program access and
participation. Studies have suggested that a lack of appropriate transportation often
acts as a barrier to participation (ANSRO, 2011; Pardasani, 2004a; Walker et al., 2004).
In consideration of best practice, researchers stress the importance of innovative ideas
to improve transportation, such as shared ride or carpooling programs and partnerships
with municipal transit and private transportation providers.
In the development of best practice models, studies have suggested a number of
factors for consideration (Pardasani et al., 2009; NYCDA, 2011). In an effort to
standardize and recognize best practice among senior centres, the National Council on
Aging in the United States offers an accreditation process that is based on nine
standards. These standards generally relate to clear purpose, community collaboration,
good governance, strong administration and human resources, effective program
planning, sound evaluation, good fiscal management, rigorous recording and reporting,
and safe and efficient facility design and planning. A number of the best practice
models discussed in Chapter 3.0 have been accredited according to these standards.
The successful future of multi-purpose senior centres relies heavily on their
ability to be sustainable. Given increasing competition for public funds, centres must be
innovative in generating revenue and decreasing expenses (Turner, 2012). Resource
54
sharing with other organizations, sales of centre-grown and made products, facility
rental, and fee-for-service programs are some examples from the literature and
environmental scan of innovative ways to sustain organizations. Ongoing advocacy
regarding the important role of senior centres in the continuum of care is also vital.
The environmental scan yielded six strong model examples that incorporate a
number of the best practice elements discussed (a summary of these centres is
presented in Table 4.1). Just as there is no one-size-fits-all model for multi-purpose
senior centres, each centre provides a strong example of goodness of fit for that
particular community, which is critical to best practice. They also offer good examples
for other organizations of effective design, planning, and programming.
4.3
Conclusions
This comprehensive review of best practice in multi-purpose senior centres has
yielded a number of important learnings for the Kerby Centre as it moves into a new era
in serving Calgarians:
(1)
The foundation of developing a best practice model is awareness of the needs of
the specific community. As the Kerby Centre moves forward, utilizing information
gained from stakeholder engagement activities is vital in the development of its
facility, programs, and services.
(2)
Research on best practice in the United States has yielded standards for
accreditation by the National Council of Senior Centres. These standards may
act as a helpful framework as the Kerby Centre moves forward.
(3)
There is no one-size-fits-all model for best practice multi-purpose senior centres.
Developing a best practice model involves balancing facility space, resources,
and participant needs and desires.
(4)
Facility design should be approached using the expertise of architects, designers,
and product representatives who are experienced with relevant populations. This
will ensure safety, accessibility, and appeal of the new Kerby Centre facility.
(5)
Strategic partnerships are critical to best practice models and sustainability.
Collaboration promotes senior centres as active participants in the continuum of
care for Calgary seniors, and will allow the Kerby Centre to offer a diverse range
of programs and services to meet the needs of an equally diverse current and
future senior population.
6)
Building a best practice model requires rigorous and ongoing evaluation of
programs and services. As the Kerby Centre constructs a new facility and
develops new programs and services, it is imperative to consult with experienced
program evaluators to ensure that proper mechanisms for data collection are in
place from the beginning.
55
Table 4.1
Summary of Best Practice Examples of Multi-service Senior Centres
Name
Location
Date
Established
1987
Fergus Falls
Senior
Citizens
Program
Fergus
Falls, MN
Fort Collins
Senior Center
Fort
Collins, CO
1995
Good
Neighbours
Active Living
Centre
Winnipeg,
MB
1993
Evergreen
Commons
Holland, MI
Annual
Budget
$216,673
$362,885
(operating)
Number of
Employees
4
3 FT, 4 PT
Target
Clientele
55+
Centre Physical
Description
14,550 sq. ft.
Housed in a
former store
donated to the
City for the
Program
50+
40,000 sq. ft.
facility, currently
undergoing
12,000 sq. ft.
addition
55+
28,000 sq. ft.
shared with the
Bronx Park
Community
Centre
50+
45,000 sq.ft.
remodeled
school with a
20,000 sq.ft.
expansion added
in 1998
$349,172
(projects)
1985
Scope of Programs/
Services
Variety of programs
and classes dealing
with nutrition,
outreach, social
service and
employment
opportunities
Provides essential
wellness, fitness and
social activities that
pre-emptively reduce
public dependence on,
and expense related
to, care
Non-profit, charitable
organization that
provides opportunities
for older adults to stay
active, connected to
the community and to
meet new friends.
Offers a variety of
programs and other
services
Provides a place,
platforms, and
opportunities for older
adults to participate in
living life to the fullest
by encouraging a
healthy, active
purposeful lifestyle in
all its dimensions:
physical, social,
intellectual, vocational,
emotional and spiritual
Strategic Partnerships
- The City of Fergus Falls
- Nutrition Services
- YMCA
- Lakeland Mental Health
- Lutheran Social Service
- National Senior Service
Corps
- Wpg. Regional Health
Authority
- United Way of Wpg.
- MB Seniors & Healthy
Aging Secretariat
- Credit Unions
- River East Council for
Seniors
- Millennium Gardens
- Hospice and Palliative
Care Manitoba
- Healthy Aging
Resource Team
Table 4.1 (continued)
Name
Location
Hithergreen
Center
Dayton, OH
Date
Established
1982
North Shore
Senior Center
Chicago, IL
1956
Annual
Budget
$430,000
(2012)
Number of
Employees
4 FT, 5 PT
Target
Clientele
Focus is
on older
adults,
but no
age restrictions
Centre Physical
Description
45,000 sq. ft.
facility on 15
acres. Includes
an auditorium,
gym, kitchen,
dining room,
fitness room,
library and
activity and
meeting rooms
$7,026,188
(2012)
130
Focus is
on older
adults,
but no
age restrictions
4 locations –
Flagship location
is Arthur C.
Nielsen Jr.
Campus
Scope of Programs/
Services
Mission is to enrich the
lives of older adults in
the community.
Provides opportunities
for seniors to meet
new friends, promote
their health and vitality,
learn new skills, travel,
actively participate in
the community and
share their talents and
interests
Mission is to foster the
independence and
well-being of older
adults, enhance their
dignity and selfrespect, and promote
their participation in
and contribution
toward all aspects of
community life.
Strategic Partnerships
Many, including
Centerville Washington
Park District, CentervilleWashington Township
Historical Society,
Washington Centerville
Public Library, Joy Tour
and Travel, Kettering
Medical Center
Partners with many
organizations, including
OASIS and Age Options
REFERENCES
Aday, R. (2003). The Evolving Role of Senior Centers in the 21st Century. Washington,
DC: Senate Special Committee on Aging.
Alberta Network of Senior-Related Organizations (ANSRO). (2011). Supporting George
and Betty: An Integrated Management Strategy for Senior Supports, Housing and
Care in Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta: ANSRO.
Ayala, J., & Hewson, J. (2005). Intergenerational Programs in Calgary: Literature
Review and Environmental Scan: Executive Summary. Calgary, AB: University
of Calgary, Centre for Social Work Research and Development.
Ayala, J.S., Hewson, J.A., Bray, D., Jones, G., & Hartley, D. (2007). Intergenerational
Programs: Perspectives of Service Providers in One Canadian City. Journal of
Intergenerational Relationships, 5(2), 45-60.
Beard, E. (2012). Rejuvenating the Senior Center: Municipalities and Nonprofits
Rethink Senior Facilities and Programming. Parks and Recreation, May 2012,
41-45.
Council of Senior Centers and Services of New York City, Inc. (2010). 21st Century
Senior Centers: Changing the Conversation. A Study of New York City’s Senior
Centers. New York City: CSCS.
Cox, R., Croxford, A., & Edmonds, D. (2006). Connecting Generations Tool Kit: Best
Practices in Intergenerational Programming. Toronto, ON: United Generations
Ontario.
Eaton, J. & Salari, S. (2005). Environments for Lifelong Learning in Senior Centers.
Educational Gerontology, 31, 461-480.
Fitzpatrick, T.R., & McCabe, J. (2008).
Future Challenges for Senior Center
Programming to Serve Younger and More Active Baby Boomers. Activities,
Adaptation and Aging, 32(3-4), 198-213.
Gallow Jr., D. (2012). Design and Renovation of Senior Centers – Fundamental Issues.
National Council on Aging. Available online: http://www.ncoa.org/nationalinstitute-of-senior-centers/research-promising-practices/design-and-renovationof.html.
Giunta, N., Morano, C., Parikh, N.S., Friedman, D., Fahs, M.C., & Gallo, W.T. (2012).
Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Senior Centers:
Comparing Participant
Characteristics in More and Less Multicultural Settings.
Journal of
Gerontological Social Work, 55(6), 467-483.
59
Government of Alberta. (2010). Aging Population Policy Framework. Available online:
http://www.health.alberta.ca/documents/Aging-Population-Framework-2010.pdf.
Hickerson, B., Moore, A., Oakleaf, L., Edwards, M., James, P., Swanson, J., &
Henderson, K. (2008). The Role of the Senior Center in Promoting Physical
Activity for Older Adults. Journal of Park and Recreation, 26(1), 22-39.
Hostetler, A.J. (2011). Senior Centers in the Era of the “Third Age”: Country Clubs,
Community Centers, or Something Else? Journal of Aging Studies, 25, 166-176.
International Council on Active Aging. (2012). Wellness Industry Development Survey
2012: Trends in Programs and Services for Older Adults. Vancouver, BC: ICAA.
Kaplan, M., Liu, S-T., & Radhakrishna, R. (2003). Intergenerational Programming in
Extension: Needs Assessment as Planning Tool. Journal of Extension, 41(4),
available at http://www.joe.org/joe/2003august/a5.php.
LINKages Society of Alberta. (2008). “LINK Project: Linking Intergenerational Needs
and Knowledge – train the Trainer”: Intergenerational Best Practices Guidelines.
Calgary, AB: LINKages Society of Alberta.
Malenfant, E.C., Lebel, A., & Martel, L. (2010). Projections of the Diversity of the
Canadian Population, 2006 to 2031. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada.
Manheimer, R. (2009). Creating Meaningful Senior-Friendly Spaces: A Way of Being at
Home in the World. Generations: Journal of the American Society on Aging,
33(2), p. 60-65.
Marcus, M., & Migliaccio, J. (2006). Final Report BoomerANG Project Montgomery,
County, PA. Montgomery County Office of Aging and Adult Services.
MaloneBeach, E.E., & Langeland, K.L. (2010). Boomers’ Prospective Needs for Senior
Centers and Related Services: A Survey of Persons 50-59. Journal of
Gerontological Social Work, 54(1), 116-130.
Michigan Association of Senior Centers & Area Agency on Aging 1-B Senior Center
Enhancement & Promotion Task Force. (2006). Healthy Aging. Available online:
http://www.aaa1b.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Senior_Center_Task_Force_
Report.pdf.
Milner, J. (2007). Recreation and the Age Wave.
March/April 2007, 72-77.
60
The Journal on Active Aging,
National Council on Aging. (2012). Standards and Accreditation: Self-Assessment
Guidelines.
Available online: http://www.ncoa.org/national-institute-of-seniorcenters/standards-accreditation/nisc-self-assessment.html.
New York City Department for the Aging. (2011). Innovative Senior Centers. Care
Management Journals, 12(2), 50-53.
O’Hanlon, J. & Copic, G. (2007). Leading the Way? Senior Centers in the New Era of
Aging. Paper presented at Leading the Future of the Public Sector: the Third
Transatlantic Dialogue, Newark, Delaware.
Ohio Department of Aging. (2002). Senior Centers: Ohio’s Blueprint for the Future.
Ohio Department of Aging.
Pardasani, M.P. (2004a). Senior Centers: Focal Points of Community-Based Services
for the Elderly. Activities, Adaptation, and Aging, 28(4), 27-44.
Pardasani, M.P. (2004b). Senior Centers: Increasing Minority Participation Through
Diversification. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 43(2-3), 41-56.
Pardasani, M.P. (2010).
Senior Centers: Characteristics of Participants and
Nonparticipants. Activities, Adaptation, and Aging, 43(1), 48-70.
Pardasani, M.P., & Goldkind, L. (2012). Senior Centers and Policy Advocacy:
Changing Public Perceptions, Educational Gerontology, (6), 375-390.
Pardasani, M.P. & Thompson, P. (2010). Senior Centers: Innovative and Emerging
Models. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 31(1), 52-77.
Pardasani, M.P., Sporre, K., & Thompson, P.M. (2009). New Models of Senior Centers
Taskforce: Final Report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Senior Centers.
Poetker, J.I. (2009). Tapping the Power of Boomers as Senior Volunteers. Calgary,
AB: Kerby Centre.
Rill, J. (2011). An Examination of Senior Center Efficacy: Variation in Participation and
Benefits. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from Electronic Theses, Treatises,
and Dissertations. (Paper 1853).
Rotenberg, J.F. (2011). Integrated Ageing: An Architectural Strategy for the Ageing
Baby Boomers. Doctoral Dissertation, Ryerson University.
Roth, E.G., Keimig, L., Rubinstein, R.L., Morgan, L., Eckert, J.K., Goldman, S., &
Peeples, A.D. (2012). Baby Boomers in an Active Adult Retirement Community:
Comity Interrupted. The Gerontologist, 52(2), 189-198.
61
Simces, Z. & Associates & CS/RESORS Consulting Ltd. (2003). Report of SmartFunded Projects Focusing on Seniors and Assisted Living. Presented to
Vancouver Coastal Health: Health System Policy Development and Community
Involvement.
Skarupski, K.A. & Pelkowski, J.J. (2003). Multipurpose Senior Centers: Opportunities
for Community Health Nursing. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 20(2),
119-132.
Sperazza, L.J., & Banerjee, P. (2010). Baby Boomers and Seniors: Understanding
their Leisure Values Enhances Programs. Activities, Adaptation and Aging,
34(3), 196-215.
Statistics Canada. (2010). Canada Year Book 2010: Seniors. Ottawa: ON: Statistics
Canada, Catalogue No. 11-402-X.
Turner, K. (2004). Senior Citizens Centers: What They Offer, Who Participates, and
What They Gain. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 43(1), 37-47.
Turner, W.F.D. (2012). Senior Center Participation in Northwest Arkansas: An
Examination of Future Marketing Strategies, Policy Implications, and Program
Needs to Attract the Baby-Boomer Generation. Doctoral Dissertation, University
of Arkansas.
Walker, J., Bisbee, C., Porter, R. & Flanders, J. (2004). Increasing Practitioners’
Knowledge of Participation Among Elderly Adults in Senior Center Activities.
Educational Gerontology, 30, 353-366.
62
APPENDIX A
FERGUS FALLS SENIOR CITIZENS PROGRAM’S
2011 ANNUAL REPORT
Audrey Brown gets ready for knitting and crocheting class.
Fergus Fal/s
Senior Citizens Program, Inc.
20 11
Annual Report
Mission: to enrich the lives and promote the independent
lifestyles of the senior citizens in the Fergus Falls area.
r\{'
\} l\\)
fu'+-
i
t
tL
J'Ch$rilsa
o or
\j
ffiEffi
m Cc{rr1*;t "
Ng
.
. Nls'
WRFS
&R::ffi ttflrf*
'?
W$ffi
mw
wlN-\
\*ffi*\wN
N
E
n
'.
$&s R
& mrm n
I
s$$NFBI$&t$$Sls
ltnlililrVUf ti"trtQ:
\"-
\
-.,/
Program Highlights
The following served on the board for
201 l: Allegra Anderson, Eleanor Auseth,
Audrey Brown, CarolDonley, Mae Harthun, Carolyn Johnson
(Vice President), Bev Lambert (resigned), Jean Lemmon, Helen
Pederson (Secretary), Loren Richards, Virginia Robertson, Irvin
Sandahl, Jim Tenneson, Sonny Tjaden (President), Arlen Wahl,
Jean Zahler (Treasurer). Stan Synstelien served as the City Council
representative.
Partnerships
I
WwwwwwW
HNffiWffi
g,WW-N,W
The lnternational Council on Active
Aging is one of our partners.
Not pictured: Allegra Anderson,
Arlen Wahl and Stan Synstelien
lThe City of Fergus Falls is our longest and strongest partner. They fund
staff, custodian and utility expenses for our building. We continue to paftner with Nutrition Services, Inc. to bring a nutritious
noon meal to the members Monday through Friday at noon. Diane Scott from the YMCA provides Monday chair exercises fall
through spring. We also partner with aging organizations at the
national and international level through memberships in their organizations. In 201l, Kathy began serving as a Champion for the
International Council on Active Aging's "Changing the Way We
Age" Campaign which has greatly benefitted our members.
The nutrition program was provided
by Nutrition Services, Inc. (NSI)
through a grant provided by Older American Act funding and
administered by the MN Deparlment of Aging through the
Land of the Dancing Sky Area Agency on Aging. Staff were:
Rosalie Albertson (Food Service Manager), Diane Nelson
(Cook's Assistant), Diane Severson (Cook's Assistant-Sub.),
and Arlen Wahl (High Rise Delivery).
]I
Fundraisers
Rosie Albertson & Diane Nelson
Formal fundraisers consisted
of two bake sales, a white elephant
People crowd Roosevelt Park for concerts,
sale, two concerts in the park, one raffle, and Sun Marl receipts. Memberships, memorials, donations for exercise
equipment and use, and the Annual Giving Campaign raised
additional funds. The sale of quilts, crafts, recycled greeting
cards, and donated items also raised funds. Thanks to everyone who donated time or money to benefit the program with
these essential funds.
Holistic programs that address the whole
person are planned at the Senior Center.
These activities provide socialization that's been proven to be bene'
ficial for people's health. Programs and activities include: brain and
physical fitness opporlunities, seminars of interest, medication management, memory screenings (in partnership with Lakeland Mental
Health), intergenerational Adopt-a-Class and Team, movies, painting classes, a variety of games (cards, bingo, dice, Wii), greeting
card recycling, quilting, pool, snooker, library, computer classes,
Kitchen Band, Red Hats, entertainment, special events, and more,
The Runestone Rockettes
entertain at our Christmas party.
Carol Hanson along with a handful of
other volunteers stuffed Chamber of
ffirTi#Hii *fffilff;;rft 'yri[ih?jl;1#
ft :t ffiii1Tnr#:l1*:r*#iiffir', T,,ffi ilJ*t
the Underwood Lions and serving grilled pork
Kathy Sporre
Kim Shea
chops.
W
ffi
carol Hanson stuffins chambei pact<ets
Kathy raised matching funds for a new treadmill. She
began serving as a Champion for the International
Council on Active Aging's (ICAA) "Changing the
Way We Age" Campaign and had an article on age
discrimination (ageism) published in their "Journal on
Active Aging." She also attended the ICAA annual
conference thanks to angel investor funds. Kim continues to teach exercise, balance and fall prevention clas*
ses and provide orientation to the exercise equipment
in her role as certified older adult exercise leader,
We take great pride in our Senior Center,
which was donated bv Gordon and Joan
Bakken. The City of Fergus Falls pays for the administrative stafi
custodians and utilities. The Senior Center Activity Fund pays fbr
building maintenance. Improvements to the building in 201lwere:
an additional treadmill was added to the exercise area with funds
raised by members and the other half donated by the Floyd and
Harriett Miller fund managed by the West Central initiative Fund. sheet rock
& shetves in N. sroreroom
Sixteen new emergency lights were installed throughout the building. Panic hardware was installed on five doors (four nofth, one south) that serve as entrances/exits to the Senior Center.
The chair lift door interlocks were upgraded as required by the state for safety purposes. Two
new computers were purchased for the office staff. More desktop was added to Rosie's desk.
The Senior Companion Pro'
gram had four Senior Companions who served over 40 clients. Annette Contos served
Volunteer Leader through Lutheran Social Service.
The third year of a three-year grant from the Otto
Bremer Foundation was used to support this program.
The Fergus Chore Corps was dissolved with proceeds
as
Alexis Rosentreter and Elaine Johnson show off
their Halloween hands during the October AdoptA-Class Program at the Senior Center.
from equipment sales through a silent auction going to
the Senior Companion Program. Otter Tail County Triad
presented safe driving programs in towns throughout the
county. Programs were planned at Cleveland School or
the Senior Center through the Adopt-a-Class Program
on a rotating basis throughout the school year.
Statistical Summary
Members
General Events
Independent Living
Classes
Seminars
516 (-3e)
6,663
5,697
667
392
Nutrition Program
29"407
TOTAL SERVICE LINITS
42,826
Total Unduplicated
Service Recipients
485
Does not include
nuftitionrecipients
Fergus Falls Senior Citizens Program, lnc.
Welcome to the Financial Section of this year's Annual Report:
l.
Statements of Financial Position
ll,
Statements of Activities and Changes in Net Assets
lll. Sta_tements of Cash
Flows
lV. Notes to Financial Statements
See notes to financial statements
Fergus Falls Senior Citizens Program, lnc.
Statements of Financial Position
As of December 31, 2011 and 201A
2011
201 0
ASSETS
Gurrent Assets:
Ghecking account
Bank Certificates of Deposit
Total cash and cash equivalents
9,327.06
111,105.70
120,432.76
Fixed Assets:
Building lmprovements
Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment
100,372.44
63,249.45
52,000,02
Exercise Equipment
Accumulated Depreciation-Eq uipment
Total Fixed Assets
91,894.87
-.12?-?rffi
63,249,45
47,043.80
(80,294.00)
121,894.12
$
TOTAL ASSETS
17,060.52
110.715.95
241,215.67
$
249,670.59
LIABILITIES & NET ASSETS
Liabilities
Net Assets:
Unrestricted Net Assets
Equity in Fixed Assets
120,782.91
nated-availab le for general activities
Total Unrestricted Net Assets
U
ndesi
179,855.81
6,571.86
11,626.15
54,788.00
54,788.00
241,215.67
249,670.59
Temporary Restricted Funds
Permanent Restricted Fund-Endowment Fund
Total Net Assets
TOTAL LIABILITIES & NET ASSETS
121,894.12
59,072.90
g
:$
241,215.67
See notes to financial statements,
_g_____4g6r!.5g_
Fergus Falls Senior Citizens Program, lnc.
Statements of Activities and Changes in Net Assets
Forthe Years Ended December 31,2011 and 2010
2011
Temporarily Permanently
REVENUE AND SUPPORT:
contributions
Membershio Dues
Restricted Contributions
Memorials
Grants & Temporarily Restricted
Received
Disbursed
Net
Unrestricted
Restricted
$
$:$
6,536.00
6,998.00
Restricted
260.00
9,024.02
#-5,0-?i5f
7,859.67
(12,913.96)
(5,054.29)
Activities
Revenue and Support
Expenses
Net Activities Gain (Loss)
4,2O5.43
(2,908.04)
1,297.39
Fund Raisers
Revenue and Support
Expenses
Net Fund Raisers Gain (Loss)
Programs
Revenue and Support
Expenses
Net Programs Gain (Loss)
lnterest lncome
Miscellaneous lncome
Total Revenue and Support
EXPENSES:
Office Supplies
Telephone
lnsurance
Dues and Subscriptions
Donations
Flowers, Plants & cards
Repair & maintenance
Furn iture/Fixture/ Equipment
Sales Tax
General operatin g expense
Depreciation
Total Expenses
CHANGE IN NET ASSETS
NET ASSETS, BEGINNING OF YEAR
NET ASSETS, END OF YEAR
8,420.55
(2,156.92)
6,263.63
2,965.27
(3,316.'t 9)
(350.e2)
389.75
115.18
30,533.05
(5,054.29)
1,716.81
1,206.87
2,322.49
989.20
225.A0
7,787.85
2,958.97
135.00
2,046.49
14,545,00
33,933.68
(3,400.63)
183,256.44
-$l-29'q$41-
(5,054.29)
1
1,626.15
54,788.00
-$--q'qz1'89* -$.-*---gl9!'09-
See notes to financial statements
Fergus Falls Senior Citizens Program, lnc.
Statements of Activities and Changes in Net Assets
For the Years Ended December J'|, 201,1 and 2010
2010
Temporarily Termanentiy
Unrestricted Restricted
REVENUE AND SUPPORT:
Contributions
Membershin Dues
Restricted Contributions
$
Memorials
Restricted
2,239.10
7 Lqa 4n
848.00
Grants & Temporarily Restricted
Received
Disbursed
9,000,00
9,000.00
Net
8,912.70
(5,507.96)
3,304.74
Activities
Revenue and Support
Expenses
Net Activities Gain (Loss)
3,933.31
(3,678.92)
254.39
Fund Raisers
Revenue and Support
Expenses
Net Fund Raisers Gain {Loss)
Programs
Revenue and Suppofi
Expenses
Net Programs Gain (Loss)
lnterest lncome
5,722.91
(1,758.92)
3,963.99
3,478.10
(3,389.20)
88.90
4,481.89
38.69
Miscellaneous lncome
Total Revenue and Support
28,407.46
EXPENSES:
Office Supplies
1,877.36
1,217.84
2,285.14
1,065.20
Telephone
lnsurance
Dues and Subscriptions
Donations
225.00
239.48
Flowers, Plants & Gards
Repair & maintenance
5,063.85
Furniture/Fixture/ Equi pment
1,215.A2
129.00
Sales Tax
General operating expense
Depreciation
2,388.95
13,277 -00
Total Expenses
28,983.84
(576.38)
CHANGE IN NET ASSETS
NET ASSETS, BEGINNING OF YEAR
NETASSETS, END OFYEAR
3,304.74
{
83,832.82
_s_1_!3,25941_
3,304.74
8,321.41
54,788.00
_$l1f39Jg_ _$_!1J!!.9!_
See notes to financial statements
Fergus Falls Senior Citizens Program, lnc.
Statements of Cash Flows
For the Years Ended December 31, 201,1 and 201 0
201'l
201 0
,4
14,545.00
(576.38)
13,277.00
(5,054.29)
3,304.74
6,090.08
16,005.36
(13,433.79)
(13,208.12)
0J4'e?1t
2,797.24
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES
akaa^^
vttqlrgE
!^
t-,^^a,i^a^J
rlt Ivtttt)lttLrcu
f,t^a A^^^.^
tvEt AJcglS
v6
Depreciation
Decrease {lncrease) in prepaid expense
lncrease (Decrease) in Temporary Restricted Funds
lncrease (Decrease) in Permanent Restricted Fund
Net cash flows from operating activities
,^a
^ar
tJ,+uu,o\t,
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Purchase of property and equipment
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Net change in cash
Cash at beginning of year
Cash at end of year
127,776.47
$
120,432.76
124,979.23
@
Fergus Falls Senior Citizens Program, lnc.
Notes to Financial Statements
For the Years Ended December 31, 201'l and
NOTE
A.
201 0
ORGANIZATION
The Fergus Falls Senior Gitizens Program, lnc. ("the Program") located in Fergus Falls, Minnesota was
ineorporated in 1987. lt is the first senior center in M in nesota to be nationally accredited by the National
lnstitute of Senior Centers, a unit of the National Council on Aging. lt also meets all sixteen standards of the
Minnesota Charities Review Gouncil, "The Program" is a nonprofit organization established to enrich the
lives and promote the independent lifestyles of the senior citizens in the Fergus Falls area. "The Program"
has no staff of its own, with administrative staff provided by the City of Fergus Falls, nutrition staff provided
by Nutrition Services, lnc. and custodial services provided through a contract with Productive Alternatives,
lnc. The activities and programs of "the Program" are supported primarily by membership fees, donations,
grants and various fund raising activities and events.
NOTE B . SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Basis of Accountinq:
The financial statements have been prepared on the modified cash basis, which is a comprehensive basis of
accounting other than generally accepted accounting principals, Under the modified cash basis, revenues
are generally recorded when cash is received and expenses are generally recorded when cash is disbursed.
Modifications to the cash basis of accounting include recording:
1. Buildingimprovements,furniture,fixturesandequipmentpurchasedasassets (effectiveJanuary'1,2007
purchases under $1,000 are expensed)
2, Accumulated depreciation and depreciation expense on fixed assets
The modilied cash basis of accounting does not give affect to accounts receivable, pledges receivable,
inventories, accounts payable and accrued expenses,
nancial Statement Presentation :
Revenues and support are classified on the presence or absence of donor restrictions and reported in the
following net asset categories:
Unrestricted Net Assets
Net assets that are not subject to donor restrictions.
Fi
Temporarilv Restricted Net Assets
Net assets that are restricted by donors for specific purposes or time periods.
Permanentlv Restricted Net Assets
Net assets that are permanently restricted by donors for specific purposes.
Concentration of Credit Risk:
"The Program" places its cash with various banking intuitions. All of the banks are insured bythe FDIC and
no one bank has more than $100,000 of "the Program's" cash.
inq improvements, fu rnitu r-er fixtures and equipment:
Fixed assets are valued at actual cost, "The Program" is housed in a former store that was donated to the
City of Fergus Falls and was given for the purpose of housing "the Program"'
Depreciation has been computed on the straight-line basis'
Bu i ld
Fergus Falls Senior Citizens program, lnc.
Notes to Financial Statements
Forthe Years Ended December 31,2011 and 2010
NOTE
C. CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT & SAVINGS
INTEREST
BANK
MATURES
Security State Bank
Securit;t State Bank
American National Bank
Security State Bank
American National Bank
Security State Bank
Bank of the West Savings
RATE
08t10t11
2.040/o
08!10!1.1
n tqo/^
03t04t12
02t10t12
03t04/12
08t10t12
2.350/0
o.200/o
2.35%
0.55olo
Dec 31,2011
Dec 31, 2010
10,000.00
an14A-1
JU,' t+./ /
60,000.00
---
to,tzi.sz
60,000.00
30,97s.79
10,009,39
$ 1 1 '1 ,'t 05.70
$
10,001 .18
110,7'r5.95
NOTE D - TEMPORARY RESTRICTED FUNDS
Temporary restricted funds are designated for specific activities or programs, and consist of the following:
2011
2010
-
Dakim Brain Fitness
Building Repair Donations
Senior Companion Program Fund
Certified Fitness Trainer
LRH Older Adult Fitness
Exercise Equipment Contribution
TotalTemporary Restricted Assets
$
39s,00
4,274.O7
1,902.79
$
200.00
3,947.80
2,878.22
2,299.9s
578.00
1,722.18
-$--€-md6- T'm'zd 5:
Fergus Falls Senior Citizens Program, lnc.
Notes to Financial Statements
For the Years Ended December 31,2011 and 2010
NOTE E - ACTIVITIES
Activities are primarily in house functions for "the Program's" members. Activities consists of the following:
2011
Coffee fund
Receipts
Disbursed
Net gain (loss)
$ 1,532.48 $
(259.68)
1,272.80
Quilting
Receipts
Disbursed
Net gain (loss)
Crafls
Receipts
Disbursed
Net gain (loss)
201 0
770.40
979.95
(123.33)
856.62
(1
13,7e)
Tffi
Recycling (greeting cards)
Receipts
Disbursed
Net gain (loss)
25.1 8)
645.22
1,422.70
(1
1,319.46
(841.21)
478.25
1,337.25
(173.07)
Ta-rf
125"50
126.25
(80,e3)
45.32
Trips
Receipts
125.50
-
Disbursed
Net gain (loss)
200.00
(300.00)
(100.00)
,136.82)
(1,225.57)
Entertainment
Receipts
Disbursed
Net gain (loss)
74.55
(s0s.33)
(430.78)
81.50
(225.00)
(143,s0)
Volunteer recognition
Other activities
(33e.53)
(27e.13)
(2e3.37)
(3e6.32)
Newsletter
TotalActivities
(1
TEz55- -$--54F-
Fergus Falls Senior Gitizens Program, lnc.
Notes to Financial Statements
For the Years Ended December g1,20,11and 2010
NOTEF-FUNDRAISERS
Fund raisers consists of the following:
Spaghetti Feed
Receipts
Disbursed
Net gain (loss)
2011
$
500.00
Rummage Sale
Receipts
Disbursed
1,553.10
976.97
832.35
(411.28)
421.07
Net gain (loss)
Bake Sale
Receipts
Disbursed
Net gain (loss)
500.00 $
2A10
.
2,302.70
(281.57)
2,021.13
Summer concerts
Receipts
Disbursed
Net gain (loss)
Raffles
Sun Mart contribution
Total Fund Raisers
3,756.50
(1,464.07)
2,292.43
29.00
1,000.00
3,139.81
(1,182.79)
1,957.02
30.00
1,000.00
TE6,s- Tffi65,.
Fergus Falls Senior Gitizens program, lnc.
Notes to Financial Statements
For the Years Ended December 31,
ZO11
and 2010
NOTE G . PROGRAMS
Programs are activities to help the senior community at large:
Senior Companion
Receipts (from a grant)
Disbursed
Net gain (loss)
Fergus Chore Corps
Receipts
Disbursed
Net gain (loss)
2011
2010
$ 1,314.15 $ 1,374.S5
_ (1,314.1s) (1 ,374.85)
-(5,00)
325.00
(73.00)
(s.00)
252.O0
Certified Fitness Trainer
Receipts
Disbursed
Net gain (loss)
LRH Older Adult Fitness
Receipts
Disbursed
Net gain (loss)
Classes
Receipts
Disbursed
Net gain (loss)
-
_
Nutrition program
Adopt-A-Class
Total Programs
343.75
433.72
(343.7s)
-
(433.72)
(6?l.37)
627.37
819.53
(81s.53)
680.00
525.00
(4so.oo)
(720.00)
(40.00)
75.00
(7.00)
(22.2s)
(2e8.e2)
(21s,85)
$ (350.e2) $
€930-
NOTE H . GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSE
Bank fees
Computer software
Training
Decorating
Marketing
Postage and delivery
Professional fees
Supplies
Miscellaneous
Total Generat operating
2011
-$--T-228.60
2010
48.08
193.21
67.76
38.05
350.05
294,64
505.00
388.07
51,43
48.87
504.86
843.84
600.76
272.22
Expense T--m46-:?U'- -$-Es-835-
NOTB I _ GRANTS
GRANTS HELP F'UND THE SENIOR CENTER
Grants from various foundations and even an angel investor have played a key role
in funding a
variety of things at the Senior Center. Kathy Sporre, Program Supervisor, has been in charge
writing grant proposals since 2000, and has written nearly $300,000 worth of successful proposals. The total of successful grants by category is:
TOTAL BY CATEGORY
Equipment g 101,229
Building
$
52,850
Endowment $
50,000
Programs $ 66,960
City-HPC $
7,500
Training S 7,620
Awards $ 3.000
TOTAL $289,159
of
APPENDIX B
GOOD NEIGHBOURS ACTIVE LIVING CENTRE’S
2011-2012 ANNUAL REPORT
APPENDIX C
HITHERGREEN CENTER’S
2011 ANNUAL REPORT
2011 ANNUAL REPORT
education & recreation | socialization | health & wellness | travel | sports & fitness | volunteer opportunities
SAILING THROUGH THE STORM
You look back on some years and breathe a sigh of relief that the storm has passed and your
sail is only tattered; not ripped from its mast.
For Hithergreen, one of those years was 2011. The Ohio Budget Bill, with its repeal of
the Ohio Estate Tax and Personal Tangible Property Tax Reimbursement, had a profound
impact on our community and on the ability of our local governments to support the center
at prior levels. As a result, we ended the year knowing that we would receive 25% less funding
from both the City of Centerville and Washington Township beginning in 2012, for a total
loss of $58,000 in annual revenue. We also knew that the City would reduce our 2013
allocation by another 25%, or $21,750.
These are drastic cuts for a small, non-profit organization. But, because of the foresight of
our board of trustees, we were as prepared as we could be to face these financial challenges,
having established a development program that took sail in 2011. Our first Annual Fund
Drive, Keeping Hither‘Green’, was launched in the spring; followed by our second Member
Plus Campaign during the fall. The generous response of our members to both appeals
raised $30,478 and our appreciation cannot be overstated: especially when you consider that
they were giving these donations even as membership fees were increasing by 50%.
Higher voluntary giving by members; an increase in membership fees; continued City
and Township support; and cutting expenses (i.e., switching to a bi-monthly versus monthly
newsletter): all have allowed us to not only maintain needed staff and service levels but to
also upgrade the center in 2011. New furniture was purchased with grants from the
DMH-Dayton Fund of the Dayton Foundation and the Leland Foundation; and a coffee bar
was installed with a targeted donation from members Fran Doster and Dwight Griswold.
Rather than let our funding challenges slow us down in 2011, our talented staff and
volunteers continued to provide high quality services to our members and the community,
and our dedicated board of trustees continued to provide forward-thinking governance of the
organization.
The board began the process of reviewing center practices as compared to standards
set forth in Principles for Good Governance and Ethical Practice, by the Panel on the
Nonprofit Sector. It is with great pride that we can report that the center meets all standards
in regard to effective governance; legal compliance and public disclosure; strong financial
oversight; and responsible fundraising.
Staff and volunteers not only maintained popular annual programming but also
added new activities of interest; hosted more events in collaboration with other community
entities; and maintained an extremely high level of donations and services from outside
organizations, despite a sluggish economy.
There is a great quote by Louisa May Alcott, “I am not afraid of storms, for I am learning
how to sail my ship.” We extend our sincere appreciation to all members, volunteers, donors
and supporters who helped us learn how to sail our ship through some rough waters in
2011. It may not be all calm seas and blue skies ahead, but we know we can get through
any storm–together.
ROLLING IN THE DEEP
n
Hithergreen was home to 2,130 members.
n
There were 76,372 member visits to the center.
n
An average of 310 different people participated in center activities every day.
n
Staff and volunteers coordinated 139 different programs and 6,092 duplicated programs.
n
Programs enriched lives by providing opportunities to meet new friends, maintain health
and fitness, continue learning and having fun, remain active in the community, and share
talents and interests. The benefit of these opportunities is increased social networks,
regular physical activity, lifelong learning and cultural enrichment, and increased
community involvement: all solid predictors of healthy aging and longevity.
HITHERGREEN CENTER
2011 ANNUAL REPORT
n
New programs added were the Lean on Me weight management series; monthly diabetes
and Tech Talk groups; weekly yoga and Zumba classes; genealogical research on request;
and History with Mayor Kingseed. WiFi was installed in the center.
n
Collaborated on the following events held at Hithergreen: BBB Consumer Fair; Centerville
Rotary Pancake Breakfast; Diversity Council Great Religions of the World series; Library
Money Sense program; Historical Society monthly programs; Kettering Medical Center
Health Day; and Senior Olympics Table Tennis Tourney.
n
365 volunteers provided 22,567 hours of service as board and committee members,
receptionists, class instructors, activity coordinators, gardeners, librarians, performers,
special event leaders, and drivers for our transportation service.
n
55% of annual revenue was raised through dues, donations and fundraising to
complement the 45% received from the City of Centerville and Washington Township.
n
Raised $37,537 in net revenue from 4 fundraisers: Golf Outing, Garage Sale, Spaghetti
Dinner; and Holiday Gift Shoppe.
n
Obtained grants and designated donations totaling $16,175 to assist in the replacement of
furniture throughout the building and to install a coffee bar.
n
229 different organizations assisted the center and its members by contributing $29,800 in
donations and sponsorships; plus $90,115 in products and services.
MISSION:
To enrich the lives of older
adults in our community.
n
Strengthened board of trustee engagement through committee work: Executive,
Development, Finance, Marketing, Nominating, and Program & Facility.
Continued to achieve our mission to enrich the lives of older adults
in our community.
n
3
Dues/Donations - 26%
Government - 45%
Fundraising/Interest - 16%
Program Fees - 13%
2011 CASH REVENUE
City of Centerville
Washington Township
Dues and Donations
Program Fees
Fundraising/Interest
$116,000
$116,000
$135,614
$70,141
$81,593
$519,348
2011 CASH EXPENSE
Capital - 7%
Program - 67%
Fundraising - 14%
Administration - 12%
Program$327,599
Administration
$58,517
Fundraising
$68,239
Capital
$35,319
$489,674
ASSETS & LIABILITIES
20112010
Current Assets
$247,447
$182,653
Fixed Assets
$88,602
$80,774
Other Assets$154,392$162,714
$490,441$426,141
Liabilities
$96,465
$60,414
$393,976$365,727
2011 CENTER SUPPORTERS
PRIMARY FUNDERS
City of Centerville
Washington Township
ANNUAL
FUND DRIVE
Platinum Protector:
$1000+
Bob & Edith Corbin
Nan Parrott
Golden Giver:
$500-$999
Mark & Joan Kingseed
Ron & Shirley Parsons
Silver Supporter:
$100 - $499
Jack & Carol Adam
Avery & Christine Allen
Charles & Kathryn Bailey
Dick & Marge Beach
Dale Berry
Verna Bertsche
Jim & Margaret Brooks
Joanne Callahan
John & Beverly Callander
Pam Cochran
Bob & Berneta Daley
Virginia Daum
Stan & Mary Lou Dawicke
MaryAnn DeYoung
Robert & Charlotte Eigel
Bette Fiore
Louis & Carol Fischer
Cynthia Fraley
Marjorie Glaser
Mary Glisson
Marianne Gorczyca
Jack & Kathy Graft
Carroll & Evelyn Grant
Arthur & Joan Greenfield
Dwight Griswold
Jon & Marge Hazelton
Russ & Mary Ann Hedderly
Paul & Shirley Heintz
Karl & Annette Henkels
Mary Lou Hiatt
Dick & Marilyn Hoback
John & June Hoffmaier
Jack & Jean Horan
Cathleen & Greg Horn
Mary Hufnagle
Winnie Hung
Ray Jenkins
Don & Sandy Kelley
Bob & Jinny Kyvik
Richard & Ruth Lee
William & Joan Lehn
Ann Lehrner
Bob & Nita Leland
Karen Livingston
Mary Ann Mauch
Sharon Medlock
Mary Lee Moberg
Darlene Murray
Bob & Judith Petrokas
Carole Pierce
Mike Pivarnik
James Pollock
Jennie Porter
Jim & Sandy Rachal
Mary Reed
Marlyn & Edith Reno
Frank Root
Daniel & Lois Schild
Marjorie Schollenberger
Violet Sharpe
Ken & June Shooter
Ken Smith
Doris Speyer
Bill Speyer
Mary Stahley
Bill & Charion Stewart
Scot Stone
Marlene & Thomas Tiernan
Bob & Joyce Trepanier
Myra Uhlfelder
Richard Welch
Mary White
Marcella Wright
Marilee Zartman
Caring Contributor:
$10 - $99
Gayle Bach
Tom Bachmann
Willard & Rose Barnett
Ellen Beck
Bob & Dorothy Berner
Harriett Blackmore
Kathryn Buhrman
Wilma Burkett
Sue Butler
Robert & Marjorie Caporal
Dan Carfagno
Rita Carnal
Ray & Donna Copenheaver
Joan Corless
Marlene Currier
Dottie Cyr
Nancy Dancer
Genevieve Danis
Sondra Dittoe
Fran Doster
Sylvia Dugan
Earl & Sharon Elston
Carol Firchow
Mariann Fisher
Donna Flavin
Jessie & Mamie Garrett
Robert & Patricia Gilbert
Narasimh Gopalswamy
Mary Greeley
James Greiner
Jane Hall
Leonard & Patricia
Heimbuecher
Robert Henry
Sue Hill
Robert & Delores Hipp
Louise Hoover
Phyllis Horton
Maggie Houtz
Jackie Hutton
Wilbur & Letitia Johnston
Betty Kaufman
Tony & Phyllis
Lallow-Shepherd
Nita Leland
Diane Luker
Roberta Manz
Jerry Martin
Armand & Sally Martino
Wayne Mathes
Janet McCullough
Carolyn McGee
JoAnne McKenna
Phillip McLaughlin
Cletus Miller
Jack & Betty Moyer
Donald & Phyllis Moyer
Richard & Joyce Noggle
Janet Ousley
Bill & Irene Pangos
Irene Paris
Florence Parmenter
Roberta Patterson
Louise Peters
Emma Pleasant
Larry & Clara Rezash
Betty Risner
MaryAnn Robinson
Bettie Savage
George & Donna Scheu
HITHERGREEN CENTER
2011 ANNUAL REPORT
William & Nancy Schneberger
Rosalie Schoenfeld
Gerry Schramm
Helen Schwier
Ruth Shelton
Barbara Shinn
Ted Sickle
Pat Siggins
Linda Spears
William & Alice Spohn
Sid & Jan Stansel
Robert & Dorothy Stickrath
Sam & Sue Strother
Fred & Esther Tan
Jean Tarr
William Tokar
Ted & Terry Trzaska
Agnes VanSchaik
Louise VanVliet
Anita Violette
Eugene & Marilyn Weaver
John Weber
Don & Caryl Weckstein
Dorothy Weidinger
Rose Williams
Susan Winstandley
Robert Woehrmyer
Roger Wurtzbacher
Berta Yenney
Joyce Young
Leonard & Mary Zimmermann
MEMBER PLUS
CAMPAIGN
Silver Supporter
$100 - $499
Patrick Alexander
Dale Berry
Anne Bradrick
Ray Copenheaver
Bob Corbin
Fran Doster
Donna Glover
Marianne Gorczyca
Dwight Griswold
Marjorie Hazelton
Jon Hazelton
Shirley Heintz
Paul Heintz
Mary Lou Hiatt
Janet Johnston
Eleanor Kautz
Irene Kulka
Karen Livingston
June Mathewson
Gail Norris
Melva Peck
Sandi Rachal
Lois Roberts
Arnold Sandness
Igors Skriblis
Mary White
Marilee Zartman
Caring Contributor:
$10 - $99
Gayle Bach
Thomas Bachmann
Cathleen Barrington
David Barrington
Laura Bash-Denslow
Marjorie Beach
Richard Beach
Verna Bertsche
Margaret Brooks
James Brooks
June Burnett
William Cahoon
Marilyn Calondis
Mary Clifford
Bob Coleman
Doris Constantine
Jeanne Costales
Mannie Costales
Berneta Daley
Robert Daley
Sandra Daum
Arlene Diercks
Robert Diercks
Marion Falvey
Betty Jane Fiore
Carol Fischer
Louis Fischer
Jessie Garrett
Marjorie Gillingham
Evelyn Grant
Carroll Grant
Joan Greenfield
Arthur Greenfield
Gretchen Halderman
John Harrison
Nancy Hartzell
Mary Ann Hedderly
Russ Hedderly
Patricia Hemmelgarn
Robert Henry
Sue Hill
Louise Hoover
Delbert Horn
Maggie Houtz
2011 CENTER SUPPORTERS
Joe Jenkins
Mary Kane
John Kautz
Ophelia Krewedl
Virginia Kyvik
Robert Kyvik
Ruth Latva
Jeanne Lavoie
Robert Lavoie
Ann Lehrner
Nita Leland
Robert Leland
Pat Lundy
Dave Lundy
Elaine Lyons
Lois McCoy
John Meanor
Betty Menk
Mel Menk
Mary Lee Moberg
Ursula Mohler
Stanley Mohler
Jane Monturo
Francis Monturo
Marjorie O’Neil
James O’Neil
Irene Pangos
William Pangos
Shirley Parsons
Ronald Parsons
Marycarol Pretorius
Jim Rachal
Clara Rezash
Lawrence Rezash
Frank Root
Carolyn Sayers
Larry Sayers
Millie Schafer
Carl Schafer
Marjorie Schollenberger
Linda Schroth
Bill Schroth
Helen Schwier
Kim Senft-Paras
Violet Sharpe
Edward Sickle
Wajid Siddiqi
Caroline Snell
Cynthia Spargur
Doris Speyer
Nancy Stahl
William Stahl
Mary Stahley
Jan Stansel
Sid Stansel
Bill Stewart
Charion Stewart
Anna Szewczyk
Dale Thaxton
Myra Uhlfelder
Carol Wade
Jeffrey Wade
Barbara Weldon
William Weldon
Dolores Wilson
Louise Wilson
Brenda Zell
MEMORIAL FUND
Marlene Black
Ruey Chow
Crocker Technical
Ken & Virginia Evers
Ann & George Fahnline
Cynthi Fraley
Karen Freelon
Karen Gelsomini
Marjorie Glaser
Jack Graft
Paul & Shirley Heintz
Frank & June Herschede
Bob & Carol Hildebrecht
Hithergreen Bridge Group
Hithergreen Chime & Vocal
Choirs
Hithergreen Civic Discussion
Group
Hithergreen Staff
Hithergreen Stained Glass
Group
Victoria Korosei
Phil McLaughlin
Barbara Medley
Mary Lee Moberg
Jean Pauzar
Virginia Renner
Nancy Roehrig
Pat Siggins
Joyce Trepanier
Dorothy Walker
Mary White
Phyllis Yarema
Marie Zephir
INDIVIDUALS:
CASH AND INKIND
Carol Glaser-Atkins
Avery & Christine Allen
Kathy Bauer
Richard Blessing
Pat Buckingham
Bob Cooper
Bob & Ede Corbin
Berneta & Bob Daley
Sondra Dittoe
Fran Doster
Carol Echols
Velma Fansler
Carol & Lou Fischer
Cynthi Fraley
Erma Gebhart
Nancy & Richard Gregory
Dwight Griswold
Jon Hazelton
Paul & Shirley Heintz
Mary Agnes Hochwalt
Helen Jackson
Bill James
Ray Jenkins
Carol Kennard
Daniel & Roberta Kvenvold
Ronald & Sally LaFayette
Rick Lewis
Harry Matheny
Phil McLaughlin
Michael Millonig
Correne Moran
Phyllis Morris
Arthur Mussett
Judith Nassmacher
Gail Norris
Robert Pancoast
Ron & Shirley Parsons
Don Patterson
Wynn Rollert
Pauline Touchman
Sandra Steinmetz
Hal & Carol Swift
Carolyn Wahrer
Judith & Phillip Whittaker
Janet Williams
Joyce Young
Marilee Zartman
ORGANIZATIONS:
CASH
AAA Miami Valley
AAbel
Aesthetic Laser Surgery
Apple Property Management
Barker, Beck, Collins & Kronauge
Beavercreek Church of
the Nazarene
Bethany Lutheran Village
Bill’s Donuts
Buckeye Home Healthcare
Buckingham Financial
Services
Burns Accounting Services
Callahan Financial
Management Group
Centerville Service Center
Centerville UMC
Centerville Women’s Civic Club
Clark’s Pharmacy
Clark, Schaefer, Hackett & Co.
Countryside Living
Clearcreakers
Comfort Keepers
Crossroads Hospice
Dayton Power & Light
Dayton Women’s Club
DMH-Dayton Fund
Dorothy Lane Market
Dynamic Pension Services
Family Bridges
First Light Home Care
Flexbank Inc.
Gem City Home Care
Gem Real Estate Group
GoodSearch
Hithergreen Board of Trustees
Hithergreen Staff
Holton Chiropractic Center
Home Instead Senior Care
Hospice of Dayton
Immaculate Conception
Free Spirits
Kettering Medical Center
Kroger
Lebanon Community
National Bank
Leland Foundation
Liberty Retirement Community
Lifestages- Good Samaritan
Lincoln Park Manor
Loud ‘n’ Clear
McDonald’s- Debray
Enterprises
Masonic Center
Miami Valley Hospital South
Mt. Zion Church
Oak Creek Terrace
Oaks of West Kettering
One Lincoln Park
Otterbein of Springboro
Packaging Corporation
of America
Penbrooke Garden Club
Right at Home
Rotary Club of Centerville
Sanctuary at Wilmington Place
St. Albert Church
St. Andrew UMC
St. Leonard
Scott’s Co.
Senior Pathway Consultants
Spectrum Home Care
Speede Car Wash
Sterling House
Sulphur Grove UMC
Sycamore Glen Retirement
Community
Synergy Home Care
10 Wilmington Place
Tatum Healthcare
Management Services
Town & Country Shopping
Center
Trinity Community of
Beavercreek
United Way
Walnut Creek
The Wellington
WesBanco
Wood Glen
ORGANIZATIONS:
PRODUCTS
Acclaim Hospice
Adventure Golf/Laser Web
Alcor Supply
Amelia’s
Anthem
Archer’s
Area Agency on Aging, PSA 2
Arrow Wine
Bagel Cafe
Barleycorn’s
Bellbrook Rehab
Beavercreek Country Club
Bethany Village
BD’s Mongolian Grill
Bill’s Donuts
Bob Ross Buick-GMC
Bonefish Grill
Boston Stoker
Brandewie Photography
Brighton Gardens
Brio Tuscan Grille
Brookdale Place-Oakwood
Buckeye Home Health Care
HITHERGREEN CENTER
2011 ANNUAL REPORT
Caring Senior Service
Carrabba’s
Carvers
Centerville Pizza & Barbecue
CW Park District
CWT Historical Society
Cheesecake Factory
Choice Healthcare
City Barbecue
City of Centerville
Clark’s Pharmacy
Club 51
Comfort Keepers
Countryside Living
Cracker Barrel
Creative Impressions
Crestview Manor
Crossroads Hospice
Day Air Credit Union
Dayton Dragons
Dewey’s Pizza
Earth Fare
Elmcreek
Elmcroft
Elsa’s
El Toro
Family Bridges
Far Hills Florist
Fast Signs
Faulkner & Co., CPA
Fazoli’s
Fifth Third Bank
Figlio
First Light Homecare
First Watch
Forest Glen Health Campus
Fresco
Friesinger’s
Galan’s Fine Gifts
Gardenland
Gem City Homecare
Goffe Chiropractic Center
Golden Heart Senior Care
Grub Steak
Health Foods Unlimited
Heartland
Hillspring of Springboro
Home Instead
Hospice of Dayton
Infoscitex
Interim Healthcare
Jersey Mike’s Subs
JoJo’s Salon
Joy Tour & Travel
Kingston of Miamisburg
LaPinata
LaRosa’s
Lavendar Home Health Care
Liberty Retirement Community
Logan’s Roadhouse
Lonestar Steakhouse
Loud ‘n’ Clear Hearing
Meadowlark
MediGold
Mimi’s
NCR Country Club
Next Steps Senior Transitions
Nurses Care
Oak Creek Terrace
Oaks of West Kettering
Odyssey Hospice
Olive Garden
Otterbein of Springboro
Outback Steakhouse
Panera Bread
Paragon
Pasha Grill
Poelking Lanes
Rave Cinemas
Right at Home
Rollandia
Rotary Club of Centerville
Rumbleseat Wine
St. Leonard
Sanctuary at Wilmington Place
Sam’s Club
Schlegel Creative Resources
Senior Helpers
Seniors Helping Seniors
Sidebar
Smashburger
Spectrum Home Care
Sterling House
Sweeney’s Seafood
Sycamore Creek Country Club
Synergy Home Care
Target
Tatum Healthcare
Management Service
Tender Heart Home
Health Care
10 Wilmington Place
The Greene
Town & Country
Shopping Centre
Treasure Island
Vitas Hospice
Walgreen
WalMart
Walnut Creek
Washington Township
Waterford Retirement Living
WesBanco
What’s Poppin’
Wood Glen Alzheimers’s
Community
ORGANZATIONS:
SERVICES
AARP
Alzheimer’s Association
Amedisys
Arcadia Home Health
Avada Hearing
Back to Health
Belltone
Bethany Village
Better Business Bureau
Boy Scouts
Dr. Dennis Brown
Bull Family Diabetes Center
CW Park District
CWT Historical Society
Comfort Keepers
Coolidge Wall
Consumer Credit Counseling
Services
Crestview Manor
Crossroads Hospice
Day Air Credit Union
Dynamic Senior Solutions
Edward Jones
Essential Tremor Support
Friendship Force
Gem City Homecare
Golden Heart Senior Care
Hearing Healthcare of Ohio
Hospice of Dayton
Inner Dance Yoga Studio
Kettering Medical Center
Liberty Retirement Community
Life Stages Center for Women
Long Term Care Insurance
Loud ‘n’ Clear
Miami Valley Hospital
Michael Millonig
Moraine Country Club
Dr. Vannah Nantz
Next Steps Senior Transitions
Nurses Care
Oak Creek Terrace
Oaks of West Kettering
Ohio Attorney General’s Office
Ohio Consumer Counsel
Ohio Department of Insurance
OSHIIP
OSU Extention
Osborn Optical
Otterbein
ProSeniors
Public Health Department
Dr. Gloria Ross
Dr. William Rush
St. Leonard
Seniors Helping Seniors
Senior Resource Connection
Sinclair Community College
Spectrum Homecare
Synergy Homecare
Tatum Healthcare
Taxpayer Advocate Service
Dr. Frank Troha
Webwise Seniors
The Wellington
10 Wilmington Place
University of Dayton
Walnut Creek
Waterford Retirement Living
WC Library
Wells Institute
WesBanco
Wood Glen
7
2011 ANNUAL REPORT
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
MAY 2011 – MAY 2012
Bob Daley, President
Carol Fischer, 1st Vice-President
Jon Hazelton, 2nd Vice-President
Don Kelley, Treasurer
Dan Carfagno, Secretary
CENTER REPRESENTATIVES
Christine Allen
Dan Carfagno
Bob Daley
Fran Doster
Jon Hazelton
Paul Heintz
Nita Leland
Linda Spears
COMMUNITY
REPRESENTATIVES
Pam Cochran
Carol Fischer
Don Kelley
Georgia Mergler
Scot Stone
GOVERNMENT LIAISONS
Mark Kingseed, City of Centerville
Joyce Young, Washington Township
2011 STAFF
Cynthia Fraley, Executive Director
Cathy Shoup, Administrative Assistant/Bookkeeper
Kara Ware, Health & Fitness Coordinator
Rick Lewis, Education & Recreation Coordinator
Tricia Gohlke, Personal Appt. Transportation & Volunteer Coordinator
Glenda Russell, Van Driver
Tom Senne, Van Driver
Mary Warbutton, Van Driver
David Perry, Custodian
APPENDIX D
NORTH SHORE SENIOR CENTER’S
2012 ANNUAL REPORT
Our Framework for the Future
volunteers
employees
donors
caregivers
members
Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Report
employees
members
members
The mission of North Shore Senior Center is to foster the independence and
well-being of older adults, enhance their dignity and self-respect, and promote
their participation in and contribution toward all aspects of community life.
Members: Our 3,705 members take part in the more
than 100 programs and events we offer each week.
Employees: Our 130 employees are the people who fuel
our mission and make our continued excellence possible.
Volunteers: Our 806 volunteers donate their time
and talents so that we can serve thousands of seniors
and families.
Donors: Our donors fund our mission with their
“Impactful Philanthropy” and provide almost one-third
of our total operating revenue.
Caregivers: Our caregivers come to us for information
and assistance; we partner with them to support seniors
in times of need.
donors
volunteers
caregivers
Our policy of
impactful philanthropy
North Shore Senior Center is dedicated to fostering
No matter where your donation is utilized, please
the independence and well-being of older adults. We
know that any contribution you make to North Shore
accomplish this by providing educational programs,
Senior Center will be allocated in keeping with our
volunteer opportunities and support services for
policy of “Impactful Philanthropy.” Your generosity
seniors and caregivers.
will impact the quality of care for thousands of older
Our mission becomes reality through the day-to-day
efforts of our 130 staff members and 806 volunteers.
adults who have limited financial resources and
equally limited support systems.
The majority of their work is performed onsite at
North Shore Senior Center is grateful for your support.
the Arthur C. Nielsen, Jr. Campus in Northfield, the
Rest assured that we will always serve as stewards
Evanston Social Services Office, the House of Welcome
of your generosity, working with you to enrich the lives
in Northfield, and the Morton Grove Location.
of older adults in the surrounding communities.
You can help North Shore Senior Center continue its
Please join us in expressing our thanks to the many
legacy of service to the community by making a gift to
donors who supported our mission in Fiscal Year 2012,
our Annual Fund. Donations of this kind allow us to put
and whose names are listed in this publication.
your gift to work in an area where the need is greatest.
3
To our donors,
It can’t be said too frequently—thank you for your generosity in Fiscal Year
2012! Your partnership means a great deal to us and allows every senior, regardless of their financial
resources, to experience the care and community of North Shore Senior Center.
What your philanthropy has done, at its most basic level, is to improve the
quality of day-to-day living for older adults in our area. A great many of the individuals
we serve struggle with health issues, financial concerns and isolation. Your gifts have helped provide for
them, whether they needed just a bit of support in a time of crisis, or more complex forms of assistance
from our professional social services staff.
Every single donor gift is meaningful to us. Collectively, they power the organization
that is North Shore Senior Center, and make it possible for us to provide individualized care and
advocacy for older adults and their families. In the face of the ongoing cuts in government funding,
many of these people would simply be adrift. Instead, your contributions to North Shore Senior Center
have sustained them.
Our seniors are very fortunate to have your support and commitment. We will continue to implement
your gifts in ways that celebrate the life experience and wisdom of our communities’ older adults.
Again, thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Molly D’Esposito
Chair, Board of Directors
4
Dear friends,
Fiscal Year 2012 taught us an important lesson: Our mission can withstand any challenges
we face. This past year has been another tough one financially. Changes in the economy and the
government have forced us to find innovative solutions and think creatively. I am proud to say that we not
only sustained our organization during these difficult times, but we were successful in maintaining the
programs and services that keep our seniors independent and active.
Our past has set the framework for our future. We stand ready for the next challenge of
expanding our services to meet the needs of the ever-growing senior population. Our mission spurs us
on to discover ways to shorten the waiting list for our dementia day services programming; to extend
our offerings into other communities, much like we have done in Morton Grove; and to keep pace with
the demand for new and interesting Lifelong Learning classes as well as the support services so vital
to many of our participants.
In keeping with our efforts to meet these challenges, I am pleased to let you know that we
are developing a new support program that features a menu of care management options
provided on a sliding fee scale. This inventive solution will provide a bridge between our Private Geriatric
Care Management program and our no-fee services that are funded by the State of Illinois and the federal
government, thus bringing North Shore Senior Center services to a wider and more diverse population.
I look forward to the future and invite you to join us as we strive to meet the goal of serving our seniors
and our community.
S incerely,
Jordan Luhr
Executive Director 5
North Shore Senior Center Statement of
Operating Revenue & Expenses
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2012
% of Total Revenue
Total Revenue $7,031,648
State & Federal Funds Fundraising
Service Fees – Private Pay Lifelong Learning Other % of Total Expenses
Total Allocated Expenses $7,026,188
Social Services
Lifelong Learning Adult Day Services 6
Revenue
Expenses
Contributions from Participating Members $ 607,469
Other Gifts – Individuals and Organizations* 1,086,773
Special Fundraising Activities:
Buyer’s Guide
57,165
Annual Benefit
134,083
Antique Show and Mim’s Gift Shop
98,411
Support from United Way Funds
108,000
Community Education
Comprehensive Care – Individual Services
Counseling and Case Management
Group Services and Activities
Adult Day Services – HOW
Management and Development
$ 119,740
2,741,220
1,078,558
1,077,430
881,842
1,127,398
Total Expenses
$7,026,188
Government Support:
Townships:
Maine
New Trier
Niles
Northfield
Revenue Over Expenses
$5,460
Municipalities:
Evanston-CDBG
Evanston Mental Health Board
Village of Glenview
Village of Skokie-CDBG
City of Des Plaines
Village of Northfield
Park Ridge
1,000
120,798
1,500
4,200
Net assets as of June 30, 2012
127,498
20,740
37,850
65,650
8,845
7,700
1,500
4,465
146,750
AgeOptions Grants
691,582
Unrestricted – Undesignated
– Property & Equipment
– Board Designated
Total Unrestricted
Temporarily Restricted
Permanently Restricted
$
913,967
3,341,949
1,243,379
5,499,295
420,027
61,581
Total Net Assets
$5,980,903
Activity Revenue (Lifelong Learning, OASIS)
467,009
Contracts
97,652
Service Fees and Community Education 3,407,339
Investment Income
1,917
Total Revenue
$ 7,031,648
*Social Services are underwritten, in part, by The Harry and Jeanette Weinberg
Endowment Fund of the NSSC Foundation. We acknowledge with gratitude
in-kind contributions from friends and organizations and volunteer services
from individuals. Audited by CJBS, LLC.
7
Skylight Society
We are grateful to the individuals and community
partners who supported the North Shore Senior Center
with gifts of $500 or more.
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2012
$1,000,000 and Over
Barbara B. Barrett Trust
$100,000 - $999,999
New Trier Township
NSSC Foundation
United Way of Metropolitan Chicago
$50,000 - $99,999
Martin and Mary L. Boyer Foundation
Healthcare Foundation of
Highland Park
Village of Glenview
Ann S. Wolff
$25,000 - $49,999
Astellas USA Foundation
Evanston Mental Health Board
Carol and Bert Maxon
Elinor R. Thaviu
Walter and Betty Wallin
Everett “Tuck” P. Weaver
$10,000 - $24,999
Buehler Family Foundation
Kathryn J. Chieger
City of Evanston - CDBG
Crown Family Philanthropies
Joan Golder
Elizabeth Hampton Declaration of Trust
Kenilworth United Fund
Russell and Josephine Kott Memorial Charitable Trust
Charlotte Lindon
Luhr Family
Elinor and Maynard Marks Family Fund of The Chicago Community Trust
Nan McMillen
Colonel Stanley R. McNeil
Foundation, Bank of
America, N.A.
8
Reed Parker
Elinor and Quentin G. Swiger
USG Foundation, Inc.
Pat and Arnie Karr
Sharon L. King
Chris and Reyn Leutz
Richard J. Loewenthal
$5,000 - $9,999
Lois Grauer Melvoin and
William Blair & Company, LLC
Hugo Melvoin
Florence Boone
Missionary Sisters Servants
Shirley and Roland Calhoun
of the Holy Spirit
City of Des Plaines
William Muenster
Robert H. and Terri L. Cohn Family Mr. Leo P. Niemiec
Myrna and John Cruikshank
Richard and Dorothy Nopar
Molly and Julian D’Esposito
Northfield Township
Mr. and Mrs. Warren Hayford
North Shore Community Bank Beverly P. Joutras
and Trust Company
Mazza Foundation
NorthShore University
McGraw Foundation
HealthSystem Foundation
Mr. and Mrs. Arthur B. Muir
Margo and Michael Oberman
Mr. and Mrs. Gregg S. Neiman
Peggy Redding
Arthur C. Nielsen, Jr. Family Nancy and John Robinson
Charitable Trust
Susan B. and Dr. Myron E. Rubnitz
NorthShore University
Christie L. Savage
HealthSystem
Maureen Schuerman
John and Betsey Puth
Nancy and Dr. Ronald Semerdjian
David and Jean Stremmel Fund at Arnold and Edna Weber
The Chicago Community Trust
Whitehall of Deerfield
Mr. and Mrs. Gerald A. Spore
Winnetka Congretional Church Village of Skokie – CDBG
Woman’s Society Benevolence Committee
$2,500 - $4,999
Joan G. Adler
$1,000 - $2,499
Mr. and Mrs. John Burke
Margaret B. Allyn
Mary Anne and Joe Cappo
Mr. and Mrs. Charles
Church of the Holy Comforter
Aschauer, Jr.
Dewey and Nancy Crawford
Dodie Baumgarten
Martha M. Cray
Joan and Julian Berman
Mr. and Mrs. Richard C. Crist, Jr. Mr. and Mrs. John Berry
Evanston Community Foundation Bethany Homes and
Martha and Lloyd Ferguson
Methodist Hospital
Louise and Rick Fisher
Mehroo and Keki Bhote
Francoise and Fred Gougler
Nancy and George Bodeen
Mr. and Mrs. William D. Hagerty
Edwin and Vicki Bosler
Kay and Kenneth Hamel
Richard J. Bowman
Margaret Hamilton
Dr. Jack Buffington and
Mr. and Mrs. Terrance Holt
Mrs. Jean S. Sampson
Home Instead Senior Care
Illinois Tool Works Foundation
Mr. and Mrs. John B. Cashion
Alice Childs
Mr. Richard W. Colburn
Mr. and Mrs. N. Fredric Crandall
Harriet D. and John W. Damisch
Rose Donnell
Nancy Florsheim
Mr. and Mrs. John Flynn
Elaine S. Frank
Fred’s Winnetka Service
Mr. and Mrs. Richard K. Frey
Glencoe Union Church
Scott and Chris Gordon
The Sheila Grannan Family
Mary W. Green
Molly L. Green
Mr. and Mrs. Burton W. Hales, Jr.
Marie and Ken Harris
HCR ManorCare
Ms. Holly S. Heap
Kay Hengelmann
Barbara and Jim Herst
Mrs. Mary P. Hines
IBM
Mayer & Morris Kaplan
Family Foudnation
Kip Kelley
Laura and Paul Lapping
Nancy Liebschutz
Tom Lillard
Judy and George Lowman
Mrs. Janet Lyman
Mr. and Mrs. James D. Lyons
Martha and John Mabie
Mardie Mackimm
Maine Township
Ms. Suzanne E. Massey
Kathryn and Tim McDonnell
Mrs. Barbara S. Mengel
George and Janet Metzger
Joan and John Newman
Alexandra C. and John D. Nichols
Niles Township
Marilyn and Armand O. Norehad
Northbrook Woman’s Club Foundation, Inc.
Northfield Community Church
Geraldi Norton Foundation
NSSC Men’s Club
Oakmark Funds
David Peterson
Thomas and Sue Pick
Mr. Warde C. Pierson
Henry Pope Foundation
Ruth B. Powell
Presbyterian Homes
Mr. and Mrs. John Raitt
Diana and Bruce Rauner
Mrs. Merle Reskin
Babs Rosenthal
Rotary Club of Evanston
Anne and Barry Sabloff
Lois and John Sachs
Mrs. Barbara Steinschneider
Suzanne and Fred Stitt
James H. Stone
Suzanne M. Timble and
Scott Ellwood
Village of Northfield
Omer G. Voss
Carolyn H. Weinstein
Wells Fargo Wealth Management
Leah Westerman
Lynette Wile
William M. Hales Foundation
Bobbie Zacharias
$500 - $999
Mr. and Mrs. Gil Adams
Robert C. Anderson
Judith L. and Robert D. Appelbaum
Jean H. Babson
Mrs. Julie Baer
Lun Ye Crim Barefield
Charles and Ann Bartling
Susanne B. Bush-Wilcox
Mr. and Mrs. Nicholas D. Chabraja
Mrs. Jean R. Cleland
Companions For Seniors, Inc.
Charles W. Connors
Covenant Village of Northbrook
Claire and Edward Cross
Jane & John Colman
Mr. David R. Denis
James and Patricia Dietz
Denis and Penny Dunne
Joan and Robert Feitler
Stan and Mary Ferguson
First Choice Senior Homecare, Inc.
Jean Gelbort
Mr. Robert H. Goldberg
Rabbi and Mrs. Douglas H. Goldhamer
Jay Goldman
Larry Green
Maryann Gregory
Phyllis Heyman
Miriam Hoover
Nancy Witt Jacobs
Sandi and Bruce Johnson
Mr. and Mrs. Frank Karger
Charles and Donna Kitchen
Susan Klingenstein
Rosemary Krieger
Irwin Lapping
Bob Leopold
Ferne Levy
Patricia M. Livingston
Ms. Susan Martin
Mather LifeWays
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Mauk
Mr. and Mrs. Frank D. Mayer, Jr.
Ms. Caroline C. Maynard
Doris and Jeremiah McAuliffe
Donald and Lorena Meier
Mrs. Margot T. Merrick
Mrs. Iris A. Miller
Mr. and Mrs. John Mjoseth
Nancy S. and Robert R. Lipsky
Carolyn J. Mueller
The Neighbors of Kenilworth
Mr. and Mrs. Daniel A. Nimer
Mr. and Mrs. Thomas H. Nolan, Jr.
Northbrook Covenant Church
Mina W. Ogden
Hershel Oliff
Katherine L. Olson
Gwen & Donald Packard
Carolyn Noonan Parmer
Peggy Pendry
Polk Brothers Foundation
Mr. and Mrs. Michael E. Pollak
Mr. and Mrs. Lon W. Ramsey
Eleanor and William Revelle
Mrs. Mary Frances Reynolds
Right at Home
Mr. and Mrs. Ciro Rossini
Mrs. Donald I. Roth
Ms. Evelyn Salk
Mary Sample
Mrs. Lawrence K. Schnadig
Marcia G. Schneider
Schwartz Foundation
Fred and Ellie Schwimmer
Ann and John Searles
Sienna Home Care
Mr. and Mrs. John Slater
Audrey and Edward Spiegel
The Spinney Family
Mrs. Suzanne K. Stein
Fay Stern
Mr. and Mrs. Ireland Stewart
Eric and Christine Strobel
John and Ellen Thomas
Mrs. Wilma P. Tunick
Mrs. Lois Ware
Christine Watson Interiors
The Wealshire
Sara and Horst Schastok
Joan and H. Blair White
Nancy and Don Whiteman
Barbara and Tom Wick
Leigh and John Wilber
Clyde F. Willian
Elizabeth H. Winston
Mrs. Charlene S. Wiss
Jane Woldenberg
Mrs. Roswitha S. Wood
Mr. and Mrs. Theodore Zelewsky
The Development Department
has made every effort to make this
list inclusive. If you discover an
error, please accept our apology
and contact Patrick Price at
847.784.6057 or [email protected].
Heritage Society
The Heritage Society honors members and friends who share a commitment to North Shore Senior Center’s
future by providing financial support through an endowment gift of a minimum of $5,000, or through their estate
plans or other forms of planned gifts. A commitment to the Heritage Society now is a legacy for the future and
guarantees continued quality service to our community.
Anonymous
Constance G. Anderson
Robert C. Anderson
Judith L. and Robert D.
Appelbaum
Barbara B. Barrett and
Roger S. Barrett
Joan and Julian Berman
John Bertrand
Mehroo and Keki R. Bhote
Marilyn Bodine in memory
of Earl C. Bodine
The Bogolub Family
Lillian Bogolub
Camilla Boitel
Richard J. Bowman
Edwin J. Brach Foundation
Harold Brainard
Hazel and Bertram Brodie
Constance Byrne
Shirley and Roland Calhoun
Loucinda H. Clark
Terri L. Cohn
Kenneth H. Cooke in memory
of Joyce A. Cooke
Nancy and Dewey Crawford
Myrna and John Cruikshank
Harriet D. and John W. Damisch
Edna Carol Davis
Betty Dustman
Erna Ericson
Marie Feddeler
Martha and Lloyd Ferguson
John M. Field
Rhoda and Lewis Freyer
Hortense Friedman
10
Joan and Stanley Golder
Joy and Mike Gordon
Lawrence W. Gougler
Barcy and Millard Grauer
Robert F. Gudmundsen
Mrs. Paul W. Guenzel
Marie W. and Kenneth A. Harris
Junia and Andy Hedberg
Zilpha and Wilfrid Helms
Denise H. Hinchman
Ann M. Hook
Joannie S. Howland
Jack Jadel in memory of
Mim Jadel
Jack and Louise Jadel
The Jadel Youth Fund
Diane H. and Robert M. Johnson
Sandi and Bruce R. Johnson
Fred R. Jones
Richard L. and Beverly P. Joutras
Philo P. Kane, Jr.
Jean and Robert S. Karger
Kip Kelley
Sharon L. King
Burt Kleinman
Gerry and Dick Koretz
Robert W. Kuipers
Louise Landau
Ruth G. and Ralph A. Lindauer
Charlotte and Elick Lindon
Renee and Jordan Luhr
Mardie Mackimm
Maynard Marks
Barbara and Irl Marshall
Carol and Bert Maxon
Nan McMillen
Mr. and Mrs. Frederick H. Meeder
Lois and Hugo Melvoin
Carl F. and Nancy B. Mueller
William R. Muenster
Mrs. Thomas Mulroy
Alexandra C. and John D. Nichols
Reed and Catherine Parker
Genevieve F. Phelps
Margaret W. and George H. Redding
Lucy and Martin Reinheimer
Paula E. Renkert
Frances W. Robinson
John W. Robinson
Susan B. and Dr. Myron Rubnitz
Eleanor and Larry Russell
Dr. and Mrs. Steven O. Schwartz
Max Segel and Julia L. Segel
Sidley Austin Foundation
Carol L. Sittler
Mary M. Smithers
Barbara and Carl Stanley
Richard Stiffler
Jean P. and David Stremmel
Henry G. Swain
Elinor and Quentin G. Swiger
Patricia L. Taylor
Elinor R. Thaviu
Annabelle and Omer G. Voss
Walter and Betty Wallin
C. O. Waters
Rita and Everett “Tuck” Weaver
Edna and Arnold Weber
Leah Westerman
Barbara and Tom Wick
Arnold R. and Ann S. Wolff
Gloria M. and A. William
Youngberg
James and Bobette Zacharias
Our Leadership
Executive Director
President of the Board
Jordan Luhr
Board of Directors
Chair
Molly D’Esposito
First Vice Chair
Arthur B. Muir
Second Vice Chair
Fred Gougler
Vice Chair &
General Counsel
Sharon L. King
Associate General
Counsel
Dewey B. Crawford
Secretary
Charles Bartling
Assistant Secretary
Paula A. Haynes
Treasurer
Elizabeth Taylor
Assistant Treasurer
J. Richard Fisher, Jr.
Associate Board Chair
Peggy Redding
President Emeritus
Joan Golder
Past Chairs
John W. Cruikshank III
Barbara Wick
Members of the Board
Joan Berman
Patricia Blankenship
Fred Crandall
Martha Cray, RN
Claire Copping Cross
Martha Ferguson
Kay M. Hamel
Fern Kamen
Pat Karr
Nancy Ann King
Muriel N. Lederer
George S. Lowman
William K. Lustig
Ron Mantegna
Richard L. Muller
Gregg S. Neiman
Joan W. Newman
Susan B. Rubnitz
Ronald A. Semerdjian, MD
Linda L. Tam
Wilma Tunick
John W. Wilber
Associate Board Members
Robert D. Appelbaum, Glencoe
Lun Ye Crim Barefield, Glencoe
Dodie Baumgarten, Northfield
Mary Anne Cappo, Wilmette
Leon Carrow, Evanston
Terri L. Cohn, Kenilworth
Carla M. Dehmlow, Glenview
Eleanor DeVries, Evanston
Gene and Jack Flynn, Evanston
Dolores C. Fucik, Northfield
Muriel and Maurice Fulton, Highland Park
Joan Golder, Winnetka
Jay N. Goldman, Skokie
Joyce A. Gordon, Winnetka
Barcy & Millard Grauer, Evanston
Molly L. Green, Winnetka
Margaret Hamilton, Evanston
Kenneth and Marie Harris, Winnetka
Kip Kelley, Glenview
Ann M. Laudermilk, Glenview
Christine and Reyn Leutz, Wilmette
Nancy Liebschutz, Northbrook
Charlotte Lindon, Glenview
Fran Mabley, Glenview
Mardie P. MacKimm,
Highland Park
Doris D. and Jeremiah McAuliffe, Northbrook
Jack Melamed, Winnetka
Lois and Hugo Melvoin, Highland Park
Virginia and Clifton Merry, Evanston
Seymour Nordenberg, Glencoe
Peggy Redding, Evanston
Myron Rubnitz, Winnetka
Ann and John Searles, Evanston
Mitchell and Valerie Slotnick, Northbrook
Elizabeth Taylor, Glenview
Elinor R. Thaviu, Highland Park
Omer G. Voss, Wilmette
Walter and Betty Wallin,
Lake Forest
Richard Weiner, Highland Park
Carolyn Weinstein, Winnetka
Leah Westerman, Wilmette
Ralph L. Westfall, Evanston
Mary Clare P. White, Wilmette
Nancy G. Whiteman, Northfield
Leigh and John Wilber,
Northbrook
Ann S. Wolff, Winnetka
www.nssc.org even
If you would like to make a contribution through our program of “Impactful Philanthropy,” please contact Patrick Price,
Director of Development and Marketing, at 847.784.6057 or [email protected].
Arthur C. Nielsen, Jr. Campus
161 Northfield Road, Northfield, Illinois 60093 847.784.6000
Evanston Social Services Office
840 Dodge Avenue, Evanston, Illinois 60202 847.864.3721
House of Welcome
1779 Winnetka Road, Northfield, Illinois 60093 847.242.6250
Celebrating Seniors!
American Legion Memorial Civic Center
6140 Dempster Street, Morton Grove, IIlinois 60053 847.470.5223
Community Services Coordination
Respite Services
Adult Day Services
North Shore Senior Center is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization, a United Way partner agency, NCOA/NISC and CARF accredited.
We are grateful for the work of these professionals, who helped us create this publication:
K&M Printing, Schaumburg, Illinois • Maraldi Design, Lisa Maraldi, Graphic Designer/Owner, Chicago, Illinois