(HawaiiDRC.org2013)

In one study, 70 percent of older Americans said they had been insulted or mistreated because of their age. This can take the form of a server asking a senior’s younger companion what the senior would like rather than addressing the senior him/herself or by the numerous portrayals in popular media of elders as crabby, incompetent, and superfluous.

Ageism and Health

The negative impact of ageism has been well-documented. Stress, depression and a higher risk of heart disease result when seniors internalize negative messages from the media and from people around them. Older people who feel they are a burden to others see their lives as less valuable, increasing their risk of isolation and depression. Ageism can cause a damaging cycle: marginalization leads to low self-esteem, which in turn accelerates withdrawal and physical decline. A study from Yale showed that negative beliefs about aging may be linked to brain changes related to Alzheimer’s disease – specifically, people who had more negative thoughts about aging had a significantly greater number of amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, two conditions associated with Alzheimer’s. Another Yale study showed that positive attitudes about aging could extend one’s life by 7-1/2 years – a greater lifespan gain than from low cholesterol, low blood pressure, maintaining a healthy weight, or even being a nonsmoker!

The Economic Impact

Ageism causes damage in other meaningful ways. Age discrimination in the workforce is sending many seniors into poverty. While The Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA) makes it illegal to discriminate against workers age 40 and over, as many as 2/3 of workers between the ages of 45 and 74 say they have experienced age discrimination at work. Older workers who lose a job spend a longer time unemployed than their younger counterparts and if they do find another job, it usually pays less that the one they left. And while the “official” unemployment rate for those 55 and older hovers around 3.5 percent, an analysis by Time Magazine revealed that when you factor in those working part-time who would rather be working full-time and those who have given up looking for work altogether, the unemployment rates reaches a whopping 12 percent. According to the National Council on Aging, more than 25 million Americans aged 60 or older are economically insecure.

Ageism Is Harmful Even for the Young

If the health and emotional well-being of the seniors in our life isn’t motivation enough to check our attitudes, consider this – research by Yale School of Public Health shows that younger people also are damaged by these negative beliefs. The study found a striking link between ageism in early life and poor health later on. When younger people talk about seniors as “a burden,” make ugly jokes about the physical changes of aging, or hold unflattering stereotypes of the worth of older people, they reduce their own chances of healthy aging. Some experts believe this is because those who do not look forward to their later years are less likely to be mindful of their health. It’s never too late – or too early – to update our attitude and educate ourselves about age.

Changing Perceptions

Today, we have the opportunity to take steps toward a more positive way of portraying and relating to older adults. We are seeing efforts on the individual, institutional, national and global fronts to impress upon everyone that people of every stage of life are valuable. Intergenerational programs that break down age barriers, empathy-building exercises to help younger people gain greater understanding about aging, and changes to the infrastructure of cities and town to make them more accessible for everyone all make it more likely that future generations will be proud to call themselves seniors (or elders, older adults or Golden Agers). John Beard, WHO Director of Ageing and Life Course, says “Like sexism and racism, changing social norms is possible. It is time to stop defining people by their age. It will result in more prosperous, equitable and healthier societies.”

By Meera Senthilingam, CNN
Updated 12:09 PM ET, Mon October 15, 2018
How feeling young at heart can help you live to 100

The first intergenerational care facility in the UK opened in 2017
Residents are more engaged and “very often forget their own physical limitations”

(CNN)On the surface, Nightingale House in London looks like any other residential home for the elderly. With almost 200 residents, it’s one of the the largest care homes in the country.

It’s Tuesday morning, and more than 20 residents are seated around a room flooded with natural light, holding weights and performing moderate physical therapy exercises with an instructor.

The mood is calm, and people are engaged, yet there is excitement in the air. Every few minutes, residents glance toward the door in anticipation.

Their guests of honor are late.

“You can’t help but feel the infection,” said 90-year-old Fay Garcia, who was waiting patiently. It’s like someone comes in and turns the light on, she said.
The infection — and light — comes in the form of a class full of children 2 to 3 years old who frequent the physical therapy session — and many other parts of the daily lives of the residents at the Jewish care home.

In September, Nightingale House opened the doors to its on-site nursery, Apples and Honey Nightingale, the first co-located nursery in the UK. Children and elderly residents have access to a program filled with activities that include baking, gardening and art, as well as exercise. Residents can also access the nursery to spend time with the kids.

“The children work with and play with the residents every single day,” said Ali Somers, co-founder of Apples and Honey Nightingale, who also heads evaluation and impact for this program.

The premise is intergenerational care, providing wisdom to the young and relationships — and, in turn, longevity — to the old.

‘Good things are happening’

“When we bring children and residents together, the elderly together, you can see right away that good things are happening,” Somers said.

These “good things” are evident to any observer.

More than 10 children make their way along the garden paths into the lounge where the residents are stretching their arms and shaking their legs. Most faces in the room are smiling, and a few residents reach out to encourage the kids to come toward them specifically.

As small children roam about, trying the exercises themselves, cuddling up to residents and in some cases performing headstands, the rest of the room comes alive.

“They’re responding to an external stimulus, which is a toddler with an adorable grin fumbling towards them, carrying a toy, trying to interact,” Somers said.

The benefits in terms of health are also clear to see.
Residents “very often forget their own physical limitations, and they find that they are encouraged; they stretch themselves; they will lean up out of their chair, extend a hand, engage in conversation,” she added.

The average age of residents in the home is over 90, with 10% of them over 100, meaning issues regarding mobility and frailty are a priority, as well as loneliness.

If residents are more engaged, “they’re encouraged to walk from the home down to the nursery. They’re going outside more. They want to opt in to working with and spending time with and playing with the residents,” Somers said.

At first, “I couldn’t see the connection between early years and old age,” said Garcia, who moved into the home a little over three years ago, having lived in New York for most of her adult life.

The idea of intergenerational care didn’t mean much to her, she said, as she had never had children of her own. But once she was informed about the benefits and began spending time with the children, she soon changed her perspective.

“When the children come in, they recognize you after some time, and now I have all these adopted grandchildren and great-grandchildren,” Garcia said.

“It’s a whole new beginning for me,” she said.

The team at Nightingale has seen the change in Garcia and most of the home’s residents — both physical and psychological.

She has been going to the mother and toddler groups and visiting the nursery, walking around and just having fun with the little ones, said Simon Pedzisi, director of care services at Nightingale House. His daughter attends the nursery and spends a lot of time with Garcia.

“I see (Garcia) move round and round the building walking, going to different places,” he said. “That’s physical exercise with a purpose, because she’s got somewhere to go, and she’s got something that she’s doing, which is different from trying to motivate herself.”

The idea of intergenerational care is new to the UK, but the idea stems from similar centers in the United States and other parts of the world.

“People are becoming more and more aware of the age apartheid that we live with,” said Judith Horowitz, who co-founded the nursery with Somers.

Horowitz highlighted the fractured society that is increasingly dominant, “where people actually don’t mix, where you often don’t have extended family that are living close to you.”

“We’re not learning from each other,” she said. “Very small children are very nonjudgmental. They’re very accepting, and they’re also very interested and very creative. They see things often from rather quirky directions.”

Any significant differences made by the program are yet to be calculated, as the nursery has been in operation for only a few months. But a baby and toddler group preceded the creation of the nursery in January 2017, from which Somers is already seeing results — and expects to see more.

Improvements for the elderly participants include reduced depression, increased mobility, better communication and language, and lower levels of dementia and memory loss.

“The residents enjoy watching the children and observing them,” Somers said.

“They engage different parts of their brains.”

Somers believes the days of institutionalizing — and separating — child care and later life care are coming to an end.

Sarah Harper, professor of gerontology at the University of Oxford, agreed, adding that today, people go to school and work and often then live with people of a similar age.

The consequence? As partners, siblings, cousins and other lateral generations die, people “may find themselves very isolated and alone,” said Harper, who is not involved in the Nightingale project.

“In the old days, people used to live together in households … (or) with different generations just down the road,” she said. “In a way, it’s very sad that we have to set up intergenerational programs. It should be actually very natural thing for the generations to live together.”

While programs are typically set up to benefit the elderly, Harper believes they end up equally benefiting the younger ages: Both young children and teenagers having older people as role models.

“Love and relationships and getting into the world it isn’t new for (the older) generation. I think that can be really comforting and reassuring,” she said. “We should naturally try to get the generations to live together.”

One aspect of Montessori that was challenging for me to get my head around was the ideal class size. All I had ever heard was that small class size and small student-to-teacher ratios were good, while large classrooms were something to avoid. That made sense to me – the smaller the class, the easier it is for a teacher to provide individualized attention to each student. And that’s the goal, right?

Not according to Maria Montessori. Montessori classes thrive when the number of children in the class is substantial…

“We consider that in its best condition, the class should have between 28-35 children,
but there may be even more in number.” – Maria Montessori

The Montessori model of education is not traditional where children are grouped by age, the teacher is the focus of the class and the method of instruction is from teacher to children. Montessori classes place children in three-year age groups (3-6, 6-9, 9-12, and so on), forming communities in which the older children spontaneously share their knowledge with the younger ones. The larger group size in the Montessori class puts the focus less on the adult and encourages children to not only learn “with” each other, but “from” each other. By having enough children in each age group, all students will find others at their developmental level. This process is good for both the tutor and the younger child.

In a Montessori classroom, the guide presents new concepts and materials to individual children or small groups. Children pursue their own work independently or in a small group to practice concepts or to repeat activities shown in order to acquire mastery. The teacher moves throughout the classroom environment giving lessons, offering assistance, and directing children as needed. This creates a dynamic learning environment in which children see many different activities underway throughout the day.

It’s also important to remember that the Montessori classroom is a carefully prepared environment, filled with fascinating self-correcting educational materials. They allow children to work independently in a way that no school that is heavily dependent on texts and workbooks can.

By consciously bringing children together in a group that is large enough that it will allow for two-thirds of the children to return every year, the school environment promotes continuity and the development of a very different level of relationship between children and their peers, as well as between children and their teachers. The age range also allows the especially gifted child the benefit of intellectual peers, without requiring that she skip a grade and feel emotionally out of place. Classes tend to be fairly stable communities, with only the oldest third moving on to the next level each year.

Some parents worry that by having younger children in the same class as older ones, one group or the other will be shortchanged. They fear that the younger children will absorb the teachers’ time and attention, or that the importance of covering the kindergarten curriculum for the five-year-olds will prevent them from giving the three- and four-year-olds the emotional support and stimulation that they need. Both concerns are unfounded. To work in a Montessori environment is very unlike “teaching” in the traditional sense of the word. Montessori teachers do not teach. Instead, they guide; they observe; they create an environment of calm, order and joy. They know when to intervene, and above all, they know when to step back. This knowledge isn’t something most people are born with, but it is something that Montessori teachers learn in their training.

In a traditional classroom, whether teachers work with 10 children or 30, they spend most of their time either talking to the entire class or working with one or two children at a time while the other children listen, work, daydream, or sleep. Teacher time is a very limited resource. Time and again, research studies have shown that the most effective classrooms are not necessarily those with small numbers, but rather those that include a teacher who knows and can employ teaching strategies that really work. That is what you will find in a Montessori classroom.

Loneliness is seen by many as one of the largest health concerns we face. Why? Here are the the facts.

Health risks
Loneliness, living alone and poor social connections are as bad for your health as smoking 15 cigarettes a day. (Holt-Lunstad, 2010)

Loneliness is worse for you than obesity. (Holt-Lunstad, 2010)
Lonely people are more likely to suffer from dementia, heart disease and depression. (Valtorta et al, 2016) (James et al, 2011) (Cacioppo et al, 2006)

Loneliness is likely to increase your risk of death by 29% (Holt-Lunstad, 2015)
Loneliness and older people

There are 1.2 million chronically lonely older people in the UK (Age UK 2016, No-one should have no one).

Half a million older people go at least five or six days a week without seeing or speaking to anyone at all (Age UK 2016, No-one should have no one).

Over half (51%) of all people aged 75 and over live alone (Office for National Statistics 2010. General Lifestyle Survey 2008).

Two fifths all older people (about 3.9 million) say the television is their main company (Age, U.K., 2014. Evidence Review: Loneliness in Later Life. London: Age UK).

There are over 2.2 million people aged 75 and over living alone in Great Britain, an increase of almost a quarter (24%) over the past 20 years (ONS).
Loneliness and people of all ages

A study by The Co-op and the British Red Cross reveals over 9 million people in the UK across all adult ages – more than the population of London – are either always or often lonely.

Research commissioned by Eden Project initiative The Big Lunch found that disconnected communities could be costing the UK economy £32 billion every year.

Loneliness and families
A survey by Action for Children found that 43% of 17 – 25 year olds who used their service had experienced problems with loneliness, and that of this same group less than half said they felt loved.

Action for Children have also reported 24% of parents surveyed said they were always or often lonely.

Research by Sense has shown that up to 50% of disabled people will be lonely on any given day.

by Ashton Applewhite, ChangingAging Contributor

Most Americans aren’t optimistic about getting older, and think the source of the problem is aging itself. So do most policy wonks, framing population aging as a set of choices about how to care for an avalanche of “frail and needy elderly.” MIT’s Joseph F. Coughlin and I don’t share that myopia. His latest book, The Longevity Economy, is packed with big ideas about the “dramatic-yet-predictable” effects of the new longevity, which we think presents a remarkable opportunity to build a better old age. We also know that what stands between us and this brighter future is the culture itself. But he’s putting his faith in corporations to “do the right thing” while I envision a very different engine of change.

Coughlin founded the MIT AgeLab, which “applies consumer-centered systems . . . to catalyze innovation across business markets,” so it’s not surprising that his approach to the longevity boom is market-driven. “It’s as though a whole new continent were rising out of the sea, filled with more than a billion air-breathing consumers just begging for products that fulfill their demands,” he writes. Soon, he predicts, “the world’s most advanced economies will evolve around the needs, wants, and whims of grandparents.” The products and technologies that emerge to meet those needs won’t just be highly profitable. By improving the quality of life of older Americans in countless yet-to-be-imagined ways, the book predicts, they will enlarge and enrich the way we experience old age itself. It’s a bold proposition, and it’s also misguided.

What stands between us and this better old age?
Why are companies failing to “wake up, smell the Ensure”—which, Coughlin points out, is pretty much Soylent marketed to olders—and start courting older consumers with all the fervor they currently lavish on millennials?” Because of “our very idea of old age [emphasis mine], which is socially constructed, historically contingent and deeply flawed.” “Socially constructed,” as I often say, is sociology-speak for “we make it up,” and we’re in synch when Coughlin declares “Old age is made up” [emphasis his].

Not made up like a fun game, made up like a shared delusion. Call it a “collective case of blindness” as Coughlin does. Call it “implicit bias—prejudice so deeply ingrained that you might not even know you harbor it—against older people is the norm across age groups,” as he also describes it. Call it “ageism,” as I do, and why Coughlin fails to is beyond me; the word barely appears in The Longevity Economy. But although our approaches differ, we agree on the heart of the problem: an ageist culture that confines olders to the margins of society and sanctions only the blandest of “age appropriate” behaviors: relaxing, volunteering, grandparenting, and falling apart.

Who’s going to drive the necessary social change?
Not olders themselves, Coughlin writes, “because their ability to picture new, better ways to live is utterly constrained by our current, pernicious narrative.” The drivers, he says, will be the corporate visionaries who understand that olders aspire to the same stuff as everyone else does—work, romance, purpose, imagine that!—and create the products that enable those aspirations. “By building a vision of late life that is more than just a miserable version of middle age, companies won’t just be minting money . . . they’ll also be creating a cultural environment that values the contributions of older adults.” The result will create a virtuous circle: by enriching and enlarging our vision of late life, better products will bring it about.

I love Coughlin’s vision of “a new narrative of possibility in old age,” but I don’t think it’s going to emerge from the business community. Corporations can speed social change, and they can definitely commodify it, turning sisterhood into grrl power into the Spice Girls, for example. But they exist to profit, not provoke, and it’s easy to monetize fear and insecurity. Who says wrinkles are ugly? The multi-billion-dollar anti-aging skincare industry. Who says perimenopause and “low T” and mild cognitive impairment are medical conditions? The trillion-dollar pharmaceutical industry. Why would corporations be instrumental in overturning prejudices from which they profit on this scale?

So I stumble over Coughlin’s belief that “More than any other factor, this new story [of old age] will be built on the testimony of longevity-economy products.” Really? A seismic cultural shift driven by consumer behavior? The longevity economy will bequeath us lists of service providers and garages full of tools and toys. But olders want to downsize, and products will have to be both indispensable and affordable in order to reach a mass market. More importantly, products alone cannot transform the world in which we use them. For-profit ventures aren’t in the better-life-for-everyone business because the masses lack the disposable income to power wholesale culture change. If the goal is to go beyond meeting older people’s basic needs—to support growth and voice and visibility for all, lifelong—how do we develop the rituals, roles, and institutions that will be essential to achieving that goal? Why would we trust the private sector to start operating in the interests of the entire cohort, not just those in the 9.9%? (See this piece in TheAtlantic about the “new American aristocracy.”)

A consumer revolution requires a social revolution
We know that as time grows shorter, purpose becomes an ever-higher priority. As Coughlin observes, “Culture helps determine what older people find meaningful. And that raises a question: can . . . new, socially permissible routes to meaning open up?” Of course they can: look at the effect of the women’s movement on women’s lives around the world! Whether global or local, whether revolutionary or reactionary, social movements challenge our notion of what’s “normal,” equitable, and possible, and in the process transform society. The technology- and consumption-driven revolution described in The Longevity Economy cannot take place without a mass movement to raise awareness of ageism and to end it.

Changing the culture is hard, and it involves struggle. That struggle doesn’t start in a shopping cart, whether online or at Walmart. It starts between our ears, with the uncomfortable task of confronting our own, largely unconscious, age bias. It’s internalized ageism that keeps olders away from senior centers “because of all the old people there—I’m not like them.” (That and the fact that an ageist society doesn’t fund adequate, attractive, age-integrated gathering places.) Paired with ableism, ageism keeps olders from using walkers or wheelchairs because of the stigma, even when it means never leaving home. The same toxic combo scares off potential subscribers to the Village-to-Village aging-in-place movement, as Coughlin observes, because of “a serious perception barrier preventing people—even those evidently quite happy to join a service explicitly for older adults—from seeing themselves in a club designed to provide care for its oldest and frailest.”

Those “perception barriers” are based on fear and shame, the grotesque notion that to age is to fail. We’re going to stay mired in age shame until we take off our collective blinders and acknowledge, out loud and together, what we know to be true: that age enriches us. We’re not going to put these fears in perspective—to acknowledge, for example, that aging well and living with disability can and do coexist—without a shift in cultural values. That won’t happen without mass political action that provokes society-wide upheaval, because the dominant culture will push back hard, as it does against anything that threatens the status quo. A shift in consumer behavior isn’t going to do it. We need people in the streets, not waiting for the free market to rescue us or carry the ball.

From the personal to the political. (And back. And back again…)
Change begins with consciousness-raising, the tool that catalyzed the women’s movement. (Here’s a link to Who Me, Ageist? A Guide to Starting A Consciousness-Raising Group.) Women came together in the 1970s, compared stories, and realized that the obstacles they were facing—not getting heard, or hired, or respected—weren’t personal misfortunes but widely shared political problems that required collective action. Social change occurs only as we take that awareness out into the world and directly and explicitly confront the ageism that diminishes and segregates older Americans in every arena.

“The new, bespoke narrative of old age will emerge organically from our jobs as consumers. It will fit like a tailored suit,” Coughlin writes. Corporations are indeed going to do well by those of us who can afford tailors. There will be robots to hoist and help us, lovely communities to shield us from isolation, implants to enhance our senses (thank you, brand new cornea)—but only for those of us who can afford them. We can’t achieve equity without addressing the ways in which age intersects with race, class and gender. The movement needs to be much broader in order to bring about the richer and better old age that we all hope to lives long enough to enjoy.

Who gets this better old age?
Coughlin does acknowledge, almost in passing, that “we’re staring at a possible future in which the gift of extra years of life is diverted straight to the wealthiest people in the world,” Possible? In a historic and shameful reversal, lifespans in the U.S. are in decline, largely among poor white women. A 2017 report by the United Nations found growing numbers of Americans living in extreme poverty. The engine of that disparity is unfettered capitalism. The modern welfare state was born in response to that disparity, lifting millions out of poverty in the wake of the Great Depression. That safety net has since been shrunk, and all the cuts that late-stage capitalism requires in order to stay viable, including the current tax bill, promise to shred it further.

Capitalism is at best indifferent to the welfare of vulnerable populations, and more typically hostile to it. Pitting “disposable workers” against each other keeps salaries low, and the less economically productive people at both ends of the age spectrum are especially at risk. Gender disadvantages. Companies continue to pay women less than men and promote them less often, because it helps the bottom line and because they can still get away with it. Racism and homophobia also enter in. Older workers of color are most at risk for unemployment, with older African American men twice as likely to be unemployed as older white men, and LBGT olders fare even worse. Corporations are no more going to fix ageism than they’re going to fix racism or sexism.

Closing the inequality gap and moving towards age equity means “changing the fundamental rules of old age,” Coughlin writes. I couldn’t agree more, and technology and innovation will indeed help older Americans stay healthy and connected. But at best his proposal is a subset of the solution. At worst it’s a band-aid on the gaping wound of deep economic inequality and a dangerous distraction from the radical action necessary to catalyze real social change. A better life for older people means valuing human beings lifelong, independent of their ability to consume or produce. That’s a better world for everyone, only a grassroots social movement will bring it about, and it is underway.

Posted by Kendal at Home on January 28, 2016 at 8:30 AM

intergenerational-programs.jpgIntergenerational programming benefits the older adults who participate—and also benefits the youth participants and the community at large. The first intergenerational program of significance, the Foster Grandparent Program, was created in 1963 in response to social concerns surrounding poverty. The organization paired lower-income older adults (ages 60 and up) with special needs children. The goal was twofold: to provide one-on-one support to the children while reducing the sense of isolation among the adults. Since then, intergenerational programs have expanded to address numerous social concerns.

Benefits: Older Adults

Older adults who volunteer live longer and have better physical and mental health—and older adults who regularly volunteer with youth “burn 20% more calories per week, experienced fewer falls, were less reliant on canes, and performed better on a memory test,” according to Generations United. Even when the adults were dealing with dementia or other cognitive impairments, they demonstrated more positive effects when they interacted with children (compared with participating in non-intergenerational activities).

Intergenerational programming helps older adults be productive and engaged with the community. As they interact with youth, they also learn about new innovations and technologies.

Benefits: Youth

Children who are involved in intergenerational mentoring programs are:

46 percent less likely to begin using illegal drugs
27 percent less likely to begin using alcohol
52 percent less likely to skip school
They develop “skills, values, and a sense of empowerment, leadership, and citizenship … social networks, communication skills, problem-solving abilities, positive attitudes towards aging, a sense of purpose and community service . . . [and] good self-esteem.”

Benefits: Community
One of the major benefits of intergenerational programs, is bringing together diverse groups and helping to reduce inaccurate stereotypes as older adults and youth develop relationships with one another. They help to “build a sense of personal and societal identity while encouraging tolerance.”

Jun 29, 2017 10:39:00 AM

There was a time in this country when it was not unusual for three and sometimes four generations of one family to live near one another or even within the same household. Today, however, there is a rather different picture of the American family—one in which generations very commonly live in separate states and sometimes separate countries, thanks to a number of factors that have had societal benefits but have also created our current conundrum of generational segregation.

As unintentional as this separation may be, the fact is that technology, longer lifespans, and greater mobility, among other things, have resulted in adult children moving away from their parents for better work prospects, grandparents and grandchildren living hundreds of miles away from each other, and older adults living in isolated settings like nursing homes and retirement communities.

In its new report, Generations United examines this topic and makes an excellent and insightful case for bringing children and older adults together again. Generations United is a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the lives of “children, youth, and older adults through intergenerational collaboration, public policies, and programs for the enduring benefit of all.” The report highlights examples of pioneering programs that are reuniting the generations and making their communities better places to live.

Titled “I Need You, You Need Me: The Young, the Old, and What We Can Achieve Together,”the report also includes the findings of a national Harris Poll survey of 2,000 U.S. adults:
· 53 percent say that few of the people they regularly spend time with outside their family are much older or younger than they are;
· 93 percent agree that children and youth benefit from building relationships with elders in their communities;
· 92 percent believe that elders benefit from building relationships with children and youth; and
· 78 percent believe the federal government should invest in programs that bring together young and old Americans.

If you are a provider of long-term care and/or aging services, it would behoove you to take the survey result to heart and address the opportunities they present. Intergenerational programs are win-win for older adults and children. And our sector is uniquely positioned with the access and know-how to make such programs happen.

According to research cited in the report, intergenerational engagement offers many benefits:
· Elders become less isolated and feel less lonely.
· Elders who were previously cut off from their communities find connection and companionship.
· Kids introduce elders to new technology and cultural phenomena.
· Elders get more exercise—to keep up with kids, elders have to keep moving, which, in turn, boosts their cognitive, mental, and physical health.
· Young people help elders with chores and errands.
· Elders’ perceptions of young people change.
· New relationships and experiences enrich the lives of all involved.

Let’s add to the conversation that bringing young and old together helps to change perceptions about aging. With meaningful interaction comes a more positive view about being old.

Among the many programs highlighted in the report is DOROT, an initiative based in New York City that mobilizes more than 7,000 volunteers— many of them children, teens, and young adults—to serve 3,000 isolated elders each year. Volunteers visit with the same homebound elder every week. Others deliver holiday packages to elders, make birthday cards for them, and escort them to museums and movies, according to the report.

DOROT also operates a summer internship program that enables high school and college students to spend time with elders and explore the field of aging services. For many students, the experience is transformative.

Could intergenerational programs become the norm among long-term care/aging services providers? Imagine the potential benefits to elders, community youth, employees with children/elder family members. And imagine the possibilities for business development, programming, community engagement, and local support. It could change the paradigm and advance the notion that providers are an integral, multifaceted part of the greater community.