an examination of best practice in multi
Transcription
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