Tools For Building Empowered Communities.
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES
Aging Futures Partnership (2004). Broome County, NY. Aging futures …older adults living well as they define it: Strategic Plan.
A strategic plan is provided that was developed as a part of the Aging Futures Project of Broome County. Through a community planning process, older adults and service providers in Broome County identified ten priority concerns that affect their ability to remain independent. The issues are: Caregiver Support through Transitions; Managing Chronic Illness; Staying Socially Connected; Understanding and Accessing Services; Home Repair and Modification; Finding Affordable and Appropriate Housing; Legal and Financial Planning; Maintaining Health and Wellness; Mental Health; and Transportation. This comprehensive website details ways to empower seniors. It encompasses a myriad of ideas for services and engaging seniors in a fulfilling life by offering a wide range of opportunities including innovative programs. Their goal is the integration of organizational and financial sustainability. Systemic change is achieved by empowering members to assume responsibility and share the fruits of their labor. Lastly, an extensive list of partnerships is included. The project was funded by the Community Partnerships for Older Adults Initiative of The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Beacon Hill Village.
The Beacon Hill Village is an organization that began in 2001 to help persons age 50 plus age in place. A membership fee is charged for residents to have access to social/cultural activities, household and home maintenance, medical care and assisted living at home. This website provides information on the program and services, and has created a publication, The Village Concept: A Founder’s Manual, available for purchase to assist in duplicating the village concept. A Conference DVD and Workbook are also available.
Feldman, P.H. & Oberlink, M.R. (2003).
The advantage initiative: Developing community indicators to promote the health and well-being of older people. Family Community Health. 26(4):268-274.
As the number of older adults “aging in place” increases, communities face challenges as well as opportunities to address the needs of this population and create “elder-friendly” communities. A qualitative research study was conducted for the AdvantAge Initiative, a project of the Center for Home Care Policy and Research, to introduce the elder-friendly community model, and a set of objective measures or indicators of elder friendliness. Local communities can use these indicators to estimate their readiness, and to help plan action steps to increase their capacity to support the health and well-being of seniors. A total of 14 focus groups were conducted in four geographical locations; Chicago, IL; Allentown, PA; Asheville, NC; and Long Beach, CA. At each location, the focus groups included three to four specific population groups: older-old (ages 75+), younger–old (60-74), younger (35-59), and community leaders. Focus group participants indicated that they wanted to remain active and engaged in their communities as they age. Participants identified five factors as being necessary for successful aging in place: financial security; health and health care; social connections; housing and supportive services; and, transportation and safety. The categories were organized into four domains; address basic needs, optimizes physical and mental health well-being, maximizes independence for the frail and disabled, and promotes social and civic engagement. Each one of these domains contained indicators that are essential elements of an elder-friendly community.
Guengerich, T. (2008). 2007 Westchester County, New York livable communities fact sheet annotation, and methodology. AARP Knowledge Management. AARP Policy and Research for professionals in Aging.
This 30 page research report is based on survey results of telephone interviews of 800 residents ages 50 and over who reside in Westchester County, NY. The survey questions were focused on residents who lived in the County for an average of 30 years and desired to age in place. They were asked about the satisfaction with their community and quality of life of issues. Nineteen percent said their homes needed major repair or modification. Only three in ten people utilized public transportation. Fact sheets highlight what was or was not perceived as a problem by the residents. Fifteen percent favored more affordable housing. Results of the 43 questions and methodology used are included.
Kochera, A, and Bright, K. (2006). Livable communities for older people. Generations. 29 (4), 32-36.
A review of an AARP detailed study is provided by the authors that involved a1000 people aged 50 and older. Those who felt isolated tended to view their home as inadequate for aging generally didn’t know many neighbors and were less likely to want to remain in their homes as they aged. Those who felt their homes were adequate for aging desired to age in place. Another issue the authors explore is what people need to age in place (i.e. lifts, pull down cupboards, accessible countertops, and doorway widths). However, the article does not address who will pay for the cost of the modifications.
MetLife Foundation. (2007). A blueprint for action: Developing a livable community for all ages. National Association of Area Agencies on Aging and Partners for Livable Communities.
Although similar in many ways to existing publications for livable communities, some special features are included in the document, such as: “How to Use Icons: listing facts, best practices, key challenges and action steps. Side articles were also inserted that highlight examples of strategies already in place. This guide can be used as a quick reference kit for those who are looking for tools and best practices. Several charts throughout the publication make it easy to follow and can be used by the general public. Community based experiences and challenges serve as examples of real solutions. A comprehensive list of resources and their websites are included.
Michigan Certified Elder Friendly Communities (2005). Michigan Vital Aging Think Tank (supported by MSU Extension) and Michigan Commission on Services to the Aging.
This website is a project of the Michigan Vital Aging Think Tank and Michigan Commission on Services to the Aging. It defines an Elder Friendly Community, describes their certification process, and gives links to related articles. Two assessment tools are available to help build these communities: “Communities for a Life Time” whose application includes ten basic questioning categories, and “Community for a Life Time Toolkit” which includes resources and best practices.
National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, Partners for Livable Communities and the MetLife Foundation: A Blue Print for Action: Developing Communities for All Ages
This guide provides local leaders with procedures for assessing the readiness of a community to meet the goals and objectives of the livable communities premise. Creating livable communities for all ages calls for partnerships across agencies and among different sectors within communities. The guide provides a quick-reference kit for practitioners looking for tools, resources, and best practices to assess its needs. It includes an effective tool for assessing the resources available in a community to create livable community for all ages. In addition, it provides a topic-specific list of studies, articles, and leading organizations.
National Council on Disability (2004). Livable communities for adults with disabilities.
This document is a product of the National Council on Disability stressing the importance to integrate older and disabled individuals into the community, especially those seniors coping with sensory disability involving sight or hearing. This study suggests that the disability community and aging network need to collaborate. Bringing resources to people is a good way to address those who have difficulty going outside their home. People with disabilities feel more isolated and many experience difficulty leaving their homes. Highlights of several communities are illustrated. They have all made strides, but none have overcome all the barriers.
Oberlink, M. R. (April 2008). Independent living in brief: opportunities for creating livable communities. AARP Policy and Research for Professionals in Aging.
A detailed outline of recommendations for making communities livable is offered in this policy brief that focus on need for required multi-faceted local planning and decision-making. Areas include: housing policy; road design; land development; and zoning. The goal of this report is to provide the framework for planners, policymakers, regulators, and community advocates to understand how to assess what needs to be done to overcome these barriers that affect older adults. It can also spark new ideas to make their community age-friendly.
Public Health Agency of Canada. (2007). Age-friendly rural and remote communities guide.
This report focuses on several factors unique to Canada that impact the older population including; population aging experience, degree of remoteness, economic status (agricultural based, tourism) and ethnic diversity. Findings were based on ten communities in 8 provinces. It discusses the importance of preventing social isolation, qualities of an age-friendly community, identification of barriers, and suggestions for improvement.
United Hospital Fund (2008) NORC Blueprint- A Guide to Community Action.
The Blueprint provides a step-by-step guide to developing and managing naturally occurring retirement communities. The information is well organized and includes helpful tools such as forms and checklists, templates for creating minutes of community meetings, and guides for conducting surveys. The site also features “Stories from the Field” with information about successful NORCs projects.
Westchester County Livable Community Initiative Survey. and Westchester County, NY Livable Communities Survey of Residents 50+ Fact Sheet
This Livable Community Interests/Needs Survey will help communities learn more about what issues are important to local stakeholders. It also encourages groups to tap into the skills and talents of their members so that stronger ties are made and better communities are built. The survey is easy to complete and serves as an excellent planning tool as well as a catalyst for discussion about making a community more livable for persons of all ages.
World Health Organization (2007). Global age-friendly cities: A guide.
This publication explores a broad spectrum of international approach to building age-friendly communities. It is based on interviews with citizens aged 60 plus in 33 cities in all World Health Organization regions. Interviewers asked older people in focus groups to describe the advantages and barriers they experience in eight areas of city living. In most cities the reports were compiled from focus groups of caregivers and service providers in the public, voluntary and private sectors. This study provides information on advantages and barriers of aging in cities, and an explanation of how this guide was developed, and how to use it. Major focuses include: outdoor spaces and buildings; transportation; housing; social participation; respect and social inclusion; civic participation and employment; communication and information; community support and health services; and a summary to help move forward and help implement the programs.
World Health Organization (Jan. 2007) Checklist of essential features of age-friendly cities.
A checklist is provided in this short document of the essential features in age-friendly communities based on results of the World Health Organization Global Age-Friendly Cities project consultation in 33 cities in 22 countries. It is used as a tool for a city’s self assessment and a map for charting their progress. Older people must be involved as full partners in this checklist as it matches their perception of livability. This report addresses outdoor spaces and buildings; transportation; housing; social participation; respect and social inclusion; civic participation and employment; communication and information; and community health services.