Senior Centers

Abstract

Nationally, 11,000 senior centers play a vital role in supporting community-dwelling older adults by offering a diverse array of recreational, nutritional, health, and social service programs. The purpose of this study was to identify innovative models of senior centers nationwide and evaluate their impact on the communities they serve. Applying a multiple-case study approach to a national survey sample, six innovative models were identified by members of the New Models Taskforce (NMTF), a project sponsored by the National Institute of Senior Centers (NISC). The NMTF hoped to document the innovative efforts of senior centers to reimagine and reposition themselves within the aging services field. This article will highlight the defining characteristics of each model and discuss their implications for the field. The potential impact of each model on the senior center field will be illustrated.

Keywords

senior centers innovative models community centers health and wellness aging continuum of care

Senior centers play a critical role on the aging continuum of care by offering a diverse array of recreational, nutritional, health, and social service programs (Aday, 2003). Senior centers were designed to promote the health and well-being of older adults while effectively engaging them in their communities (Fitzpatrick, Gitelson, Andereck, & Mesbur, 2005; Krout, 1998; Leanse & Wagener, 1975; Linn & Knapp, 1980). However, in the last few decades, administrators and funders have noted with concern the phenomenon of participants “aging in place” within their senior centers (Calsyn, Burger, & Roades, 1996; Calsyn & Winter, 1999; Krout, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1994; New York City Department for the Aging, 2002; Pardasani, 2004c; Strain, 2001; Turner, 2004). Faced with growing competition from other providers of older adult services and programs, as well as the increasing heterogeneity of the aging population, senior centers find themselves at unique crossroads in their evolution as organizations (Krout, 1998; National Institute of Senior Centers [NISC], 2005; Turner, 2004). Although a few senior centers have redesigned and reconceptualized their organizations to meet the challenges of the new millennium, there are limited data on new, promising, thriving, and innovative models of senior centers across the nation.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to identify new and emerging models of multipurpose senior centers (nutrition sites and senior clubs are excluded from this study) nationwide. Applying a multiple-case study approach to a national survey sample, six innovative models were identified by members of the New Models Taskforce (NMTF), a project sponsored by the NISC. This article will highlight the defining characteristics and structure of each of the six models and illustrate their impact on their target populations.

Literature Review¹

Significance of Senior Centers

The Older Americans Act (OAA) of 1965 was the catalyst for the growth and spread of senior centers nationwide. One of the chief goals of OAA was to enhance the well-being of community-dwelling older adults and delay or prevent institutionalization. To this day, the OAA is the largest funding source for senior centers, and its allocations are supplemented at the local level by state, county, and municipal governments. In addition, many senior center budgets are supported and/or supplemented by private sources of funding. The OAA inspired the creation of multipurpose senior centers that were designed to offer a broad spectrum of services (recreational, health, nutritional, and social services). According to the OAA, senior centers are to be considered as “focal points” in the delivery of services to the elderly, thus, emphasizing the need for coordinated and comprehensive service-delivery models. Although all individuals above the age of 60 are eligible for senior center programs (there is no means-testing), the recent amendments call for an increased focus on addressing the needs of the most vulnerable constituents of their communities, that is, individuals with low incomes, multiple needs, and limited resources (National Council on the Aging [NCOA], 2007).

The Expansion and Growth of Senior Centers

Programming in senior centers has gradually evolved in relation to changing needs and user characteristics (Calsyn & Winter, 1999; Demko, 1979; Harris & Associates, 1975; Lun, 2004; Miller, Campbell, Davis, Furner, & Giachello, 1996; Mitchell, 1995; Netzer et al., 1997; Ralston, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1991; Tuckman, 1967). The major reason that senior centers are so diverse in their operating profiles is that they have proven to be quite responsive to the needs of their constituents. Senior centers, depending on their size, budget, and programmatic focus, may range in design from recreational clubs or nutrition sites to traditional community-based senior centers and large, multipurpose senior centers (Krout, 1985; Leanse & Wagener, 1975; Ralston, 1983; Taietz, 1976). Taietz (1976) identified two basic types of senior center models: (a) the social agency model that primarily serves the poor and disengaged populations are in need of services to meet their basic survival needs and (b) the voluntary organization model that tends to attract relatively affluent, better educated, and socially active elders. The five most common categories of senior center programs are nutrition, health and fitness, recreation, volunteer opportunities, and social services (Aday, 2003; Eaton & Salari, 2005; Gavin & Myers, 2003; Gelfand, Bechil, & Chester, 1991; Krout, 1985; Leanse & Wagener, 1975; Pardasani, 2004a; Skarupski & Pelkowski, 2003). Regardless of the individual program designs, meal programs form the core service for the majority of senior centers (Krout, 1998).

So Who Participates in Senior Centers?

Krout, a leading researcher of senior centers, has systematically demonstrated the “graying” of the senior center participant pool from the 1960s to the 1990s (Krout, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1994, 1998). Longitudinal studies lend credence to the belief among senior center administrators that their participants are “aging in place” and are not being replaced by their younger cohorts (Aday, 2003; Krout, 1988, 1994; Turner, 2004; Walker, Bisbee, Porter, & Flanders, 2004). Researchers have documented that senior center participants are most likely White, single or widowed, older women with medium to low incomes and minimal physical disabilities (Calsyn et al., 1996; Calsyn & Winter, 1999, Krout, Cutler, & Coward, 1990; Pardasani, 2004b; Ralston & Griggs, 1985; Turner, 2004). Participation trends resemble a bell curve. In other words, participation peaks among those in the 75 to 84 age category and then declines as the participants grow increasingly frail or develop limitations.

Rationale for Participation

Reasons offered generally for participation center around the theme of social interaction and companionship, whereby an increase in participation is linked to a greater need for companionship and enhanced quality of programs (Eaton & Salari, 2005; Gitelson, McCabe, Fitzpatrick, & Case, 2005; Krout, 1988; Pardasani, 2004c; Turner, 2004; Walker et al., 2004). Decreased involvement was found to be linked to health problems and lack of transportation to sites (Aday, 2003; New York City Department for the Aging, 2002; Pardasani, 2004c; Strain, 2001; Walker et al., 2004). Men, older adults with higher levels of income and/or education, and those with an extensive social circle were found least likely to participate (Krout, 1988; Lun, 2004; Walker et al., 2004).

Benefits of Participation in Senior Centers

Some studies have found that senior center participants have better psychological well-being across several measures than nonparticipants, including perceived social and health benefits (Gitelson et al., 2005), depression (Choi & McDougall, 2007), friendships (Aday, Kehoe, & Farney, 2006), and stress levels (Farone, Fitzpatrick, & Tran, 2005; Maton, 2002). Aday et al. (2006) found that women who lived alone were most likely to participate in senior centers, develop friendships, and expand their social networks outside of the senior center. Support received through advice from friends and staff at a senior center was directly linked to positive perceptions of health among participants (Fitzpatrick et al., 2005). Skarupski and Pelkowski (2003) found that structured health and nursing programs offered at senior centers increased social support, improved diet and nutrition as well as enhanced the perception of general health. Maton (2002) reported that senior center participation contributed to a heightened perception of general well-being. Meis (2005) and Carey (2004) found that senior centers members felt less isolated and experienced a greater level of social support than their nonparticipating counterparts. Aday (2003) conducted a survey of 734 senior center participants from five states and reported that 90% of the participants felt that their health was better since attending a senior center, and 75% of them reported that the senior center was allowing them to stay independent. Eaton and Salari (2005), Perkinson (1992), and Williams, Haber, Weaver, and Freeman (1998) found that volunteering at a senior center or in activities that benefited the community increased life satisfaction among the members.

Health and wellness programs are at the core of many large, multipurpose senior centers (Beisgen & Kraitchman, 2003; Hayunga, 2004; NCOA, 2001; Pardasani, Sporre, & Thomspon, 2008; Ryzin, 2005). A recent nationwide study of emerging senior center models highlighted the “health and wellness” model as a popular and critical trend (Pardasani et al., 2008). Most recent studies have focused on prevention of falls and minimization of injury risks among older adults (Baker, Gottschalk, & Bianco, 2007; Li et al., 2008; Reinsch, MacRae, Lachenbruch, & Tobis, 1992). Other studies have evaluated the impact of specific health programs offered in senior centers on participants’ physical activity and functioning, including Tai Chi (Li et al., 2008), physical activity and exercise (Fitzpatrick et al., 2005; Wallace et al., 1998), nurse-managed wellness program (Campbell & Aday, 2001), falls and injury prevention (Reinsch et al., 1992), walking (Sarkisian, Prohaska, Davis, & Weiner, 2007), resistance training (Manini et al., 2007), line dancing (Hayes, 2006), increasing healthy eating habits (Hendrix et al., 2008b), and diabetes self-management (Hendrix et al., 2008a). All the studies listed above have demonstrated a positive impact on the health and well-being of their respective participants.

Need for Innovation and Change

Researchers (Calsyn & Winter, 1999; Krout, 1998, Pardasani, 2004c, Turner, 2004, Young, 2006) have summarized the following challenges for the continued relevance and existence of senior centers: (a) continue to serve the current participants effectively while trying to engage nonparticipating older adults, especially the “baby boomers”; (b) people in their 60s are different in their educational and work histories, political attitudes, and recreational/social needs than their older counterparts; (c) reconceptualization of retirement in our society with many older adults preferring or needing to work and many preferring to volunteer and engage creatively with their communities; (d) reconceptualize participation in the new era of increased consumer choices; (e) reduce the negative stigma associated with participation in senior centers (such as only vulnerable seniors need or attend senior centers) and reinvent their image; (f) redesign and rebuild modern facilities; (g) decrease reliance on shrinking public funding sources and explore private resource alternatives; and (h) attract new sources of potential funders—individual and foundations—to expand and innovate.

Method

The NMTF

A taskforce comprised of 21 senior center directors and administrators from around the country was established in 2007 by the NISC, the nation’s premier advocacy and membership organization for senior centers. Eight members of the taskforce also served on the Delegate Council of NISC, while other taskforce members were recruited nationally by the chair of the taskforce, Peter Thompson. The non-NISC members of the taskforce comprised administrators of private and public, not-for-profit senior centers from around the country. The primary author of this study was invited to lead the research efforts of the taskforce. The taskforce was charged with identifying and defining the new, emerging models of senior centers in the country.

Study Questionnaires

An initial 14-item questionnaire was developed by the taskforce. This questionnaire asked respondents to provide information on the demographic characteristics of participants, funding size and sources, and the philosophical mission of their senior centers, as well as to describe the process and product of innovation that they had undertaken. Additional questions attempted to assess the reaction to the innovation from funders, staff, and participants (stakeholders); the involvement of the stakeholders in the process; the resources utilized for the project; the potential for sustainability and replication; and the outcomes of its implementation.

A second questionnaire comprising 10 items was developed as a follow-up to the first questionnaire. Evaluating the responses to the first questionnaire, the members of the taskforce worked collaboratively to identify senior centers with the most impactful and sustainable innovations. Members of the taskforce then conducted phone interviews with the selected respondents. The second questionnaire was utilized for this follow-up interview. This questionnaire allowed for a more in-depth assessment of the innovative model, including the delineation of its chief characteristics, its overall impact, and implications for practice.

Sampling

The first questionnaire was posted online at a website provided by Indiana University Northwest. An introductory letter was drafted by the taskforce. This letter explained the purpose of the study and directed interested respondents to the website. The letter was sent out as an e-mail to 751 members of the NISC. NISC members comprise a diverse range of senior centers with reference to location (urban/suburban/rural), characteristics of participants, and types of programs. Due to the limited resources available, the study could not be expanded to non-NISC members and may therefore have impacted the reliability/validity of the findings. This type of sampling could be best described as a nonrandom type of convenience sampling as it was limited to NISC members. A total of 187 respondents completed the online survey, yielding a 24.9% response rate.

Based on the selection criteria described in the next section, 35 respondents were selected to represent the most innovative senior centers. The second questionnaire was administered in person (interviews) by members of the taskforce.

Data Collection and Analysis Process

Data collection and analysis occurred in two stages. The initial data were collected by an online questionnaire and then transferred to an Excel file. In the first stage, six critical concepts for assessment were determined—expansiveness of innovation, feasibility and sustainability, utilization of resources for implementation, potential for replication, impact on participation, and cooperation from stakeholders. After identifying the six critical concepts, the taskforce developed working definitions for each of them and a 3-point scoring system was created (as described in Table 1). The 187 responses were categorized by the authors of this study into five major foci of innovation—programmatic, fundraising, and resource development; marketing and outreach; facilities; volunteer and staff development; and community collaborations. Each of the 21 members was then assigned to one category (through self-selection). Each member of the taskforce then evaluated each entry in that particular category on a 3-point scale for every critical concept (six in all) and gave the entry an overall score (range 6-18). The individual evaluator scores for each category were then combined to create composite, mean scores. There was minimal variation in the mean scores among members. In the final step of the first stage, the entries with the highest scores were identified, which led to the final list of 35 senior centers.

Table 1.

Criteria for Selection of Innovative Senior Centers

	Criteria	Conceptualization	Score 1	Score 2	Score 3
Criterion No. 1	Expansiveness of innovation	The breadth of the innovation. Was the innovation limited to a specific program/activity or multiple programs and endeavors? Was there a rethinking of a significant proportion of the program model?	If the innovation was limited to one specific program/activity	If the innovation was related to 2-5 programs/activities	If the innovation resulted in a rethinking of mission, a conceptual model was identified (health and fitness, education, intergenerational, etc.) and program offerings redesigned
Criterion No. 2	Cooperation from stakeholders	How many stakeholders were involved in the planning process—board, staff, participants, funders, etc.?	If only one set of stakeholders were involved in planning	If more than one set of stakeholders were involved in planning	If all possible stakeholders were involved in the planning process
Criterion No. 3	Utilization of resources	What was the extent and type of resources (monetary and material) utilized for this innovation? Respondents were asked to place a monetary value on the manpower and nonmaterial resources utilized	Less than US$10,000	Between US$10,000 and US$100,000	More than US$100,000
Criterion No. 4	Impact on participation	Did participation increase as a result of this innovation?	Participation increased by 10%	Participation increased between 10% and 20%	Participation increased by greater than 20%
Criterion No. 5	Potential for replication	What is the probability that this idea/innovation can be replicated in other senior centers?	Replication was difficult—with reference to cost, location, and nature of participants	Replication was possible with some conditions/restrictions—such as the cost, type of participants, location, and public funding policies. The replication would be relevant to most senior centers	Highly replicable—with reference to cost, ease of adaptation, relevance for a broad range of participants, and locations
Criterion No. 6	Feasibility and sustainability	What are the long-term prospects of this innovation at the senior center? Are there concrete and well-thought-out plans for continuation?	The innovation will be sustained in the short term (1-3 years)—by evidence of funding, board support, staff ability, and demonstrated need for program	The innovation will be sustained for more than 3 years but less than 5 years—by evidence of funding, board support, staff ability, and demonstrated need for program	The innovation will be sustained for more than 5 years—by evidence of funding, board support, staff ability, and demonstrated need for program

In the second stage, the 35 finalists were interviewed (via telephone or in person) by members of the taskforce (through assignment by study authors). The responses of the finalists, as well as their interpretation by taskforce members, were purely subjective. Reviewing the interviews of the 35 finalists, the taskforce noticed common themes with respect to programming, operating philosophy, and service perspectives. Based on the common themes of innovation and programming that were found in the 35 short-listed senior centers, six models or categories of emerging senior centers were identified by members of the taskforce in two follow-up meetings (postinterviews). The members then decided (by consensus) to attach each of the 35 senior centers to a specific model. Using the multiple case study method of analysis, specific defining characteristics of the various emerging models, their service/program design, and impact on community were identified and highlighted.

Findings

Based on the initial and follow-up interviews with survey respondents, some broad patterns of models emerged. The taskforce identified six emerging models of senior centers (see Table 2). While some of the models identified are not entirely new, they have been reimagined and reconceptualized by the senior centers in this study. We also use the term models loosely in this study as we understand that there is limited empirical validation for them. Table 2 provides a summary of the defining characteristics of the six models. The six models of emerging senior centers as highlighted by our nationwide study are as follows: community center (CC), wellness center (WC), lifelong learning/arts (LLA), continuum of care/transitions (CCT), entrepreneurial center (EC), and the café program (CP). In the following discussion, we compare the various models with reference to the characteristics of organizational mission, consumer profile, program design, operating profiles, funding sources, and impact.

Table 2.

Defining Characteristics of Emerging Senior Center Models

	Community center	Wellness center	Lifelong learning/arts	Continuum of care/transitions	Entrepreneurial center	Café program
No. of agencies/model	8	9	5	5	6	2
Consumer profile	Children, youth, adults, and active older adults	Active older adults 50+	Active older adults 50+. Working seniors	Older adults 50+. Specific programs and services for frail and homebound older adults	Active older adults 50+	Active older adults 50+
Organizational mission and philosophical focus	Center for all ages under one roof	Health & wellness is a major concern for all seniors	Seniors want to continue to learn and grow postretirement	Providing services on a gradual continuum as older adults age	Seniors want to utilize their skills and expertise postretirement. Utilize senior productivity as sources of income	Provide a noninstitutional, non-age-segregating community gathering space
Program design and offerings	Recreation, arts & cultural, fitness, meals, education, after-school, summer day camps, intergeneration programs, grandparent caregiver support	Health and wellness, meals, arts & cultural, recreation	Education, travel, cultural events, performing arts	Recreation, arts & cultural, fitness, meals, adult day health centers, caregiver respite, home-bound support services, medical transportation	Senior employment placement, vocational training, hand-crafted goods for sale, recreation, arts & cultural, fitness, meals, education	Café-style meals, recreational and health information programs, entertainment, information & referral
Hours of operation	Early morning to late evenings—daily. Open on weekends	Early morning to late evenings—daily. Open on weekends	Daytime, evening hours, and weekends	Daytime only	Early morning to late afternoons	Breakfast and lunch only. Limited programs in the daytime and early evenings
Service sites	One main site	One main site	Multiple	Multiple (including senior centers, home-based and assisted living)	One main site	One main site (café)
Location	Suburban or new developments. Could be in a rural region with a growing population	Urban or suburban	Urban or suburban	Urban or suburban	Urban, suburban, or rural	Urban or suburban
Main sources of funding	Public mainly. Partly funded by membership dues	Mainly funded by membership dues and service fees	Service fees	Service fees, private insurance, and limited public funding	Income generated through various services/projects, fundraising, and limited public funding	Service and meal fees, and private fundraising
Identification as “senior center”	No	Sometimes	No	No	Sometimes	No

Consumer Profile

The CC model differs significantly from all the other models in its focus on a multigenerational consumer base. In this model, various generations—children, adults, and older adults—are served under one roof. While specific programs are designed for each age cohort, several programs and services are available to all age groups. The other models (WC, LLA, EC, and CP) all focus on the relatively healthy and mobile older adult. Only the CCT model with its focus on a continuum of care concept allows for specific programming for older adults at various stages of aging. Although the CP model provides a restaurant-style experience for all members of the community (regardless of age), most recreational and educational programs are limited to older adults only. An important aim of all the models (with perhaps the exception of the CCT model) is to attract the “younger” older adults or the baby boomers that are in short supply in traditional senior centers as noted earlier in the review of literature.

With reference to race and ethnicity, the consumer profile is highly dependent on the location of the senior center models. While the CC, EC, and WC models tend to be located in suburban areas or new developments, the LLA and the CP have been located in both suburban and urban areas. The latter two models attract a diverse clientele, although Hispanic older adults are the least likely to attend, even when present in the community. The CCT model also tends to attract a diverse consumer base but is highly dependent on the location of these programs. Programs located in the southern United States report a significantly higher African American participation rate than those in the northern United States.

Organizational Mission and Philosophical Focus

The names assigned to each model underscore their organizational missions. As with a traditional senior center, all models provide an environment for socialization, social support, resource information, and interpersonal engagement. The organizational mission of the CC model is to be a focal point of services and programs within a community regardless of age. The proponents of this model believe that providing multigenerational programming achieves two outcomes—it prevents age segregation (thereby reducing stigma) and addresses the needs of older adults who want to engage in activities with other generations. However, the mission of the WC, LLA, CCT, EC, and CP models is to cater only to the needs of the older adult population. While the WC’s mission is to focus on improving the health and well-being of older adults, the LLA and CP models focus on intellectual stimulation and creative pursuits for older adults. The CCT model also focuses on the health and well-being of older adults, but its mission is to serve older adults at every stage in their aging process. Proponents of this model believe in an incremental, gradually expanding service that meets the increasing needs (health, support, and social service) of older adults as they age. The EC model focuses on civic engagement, volunteerism, and resource generation through the utilization of the skills and expertise of the older adult population. Another focus of the EC model is to create programs that generate income through various entrepreneurial ventures.

Program Design and Offerings

Of all the models, the CP model has the most limited range of programs. In addition to the meal service (in a café-style environment), a few recreational and educational programs are provided in the afternoons and early evenings. Most of these programs are restricted to older adults (55+) and focus on intellectual stimulation, limited exercise, performing arts, or health literacy. The CC, WC, EC, and LLA models offer a range of recreational programs such as arts and crafts, cards, board games, trips, performances, cultural programs, and meals. All the models also offer some level of health education and screenings, information and referral services to other community-based programs, and varying degrees of exercise programs. However, the CC model specifically provides non-age-segregated programs to a greater extent than those offered by other models. As with the WC model, the CC model is built around a state-of-the art recreational facility that includes a gym, indoor and outdoor sports courts, pools, and sports leagues. In many cases, the intergenerational mingling occurs organically in the CC model rather than having to be scheduled as in some traditional senior centers.

The WC model has the most structured and well-defined slate of programs/services geared toward health and fitness. At the core of the WC model is a state-of-the-art fitness facility that may include a fitness center, basketball and tennis courts, indoor running tracks, personal training and fitness classes, saunas, and swimming pools. While traditional recreational and information/referrals programs are also offered in the WC, a concerted effort is made to provide evidence-based and professional (supported by licensed health care and fitness professionals) health-based programs such as workshops, screenings, testing, and interventions that enhance the well-being of their participants.

The LLA model focuses on continuing education and caters to the knowledge acquisition needs of their members. Programs (for-credit and noncredit courses), workshops (e.g., culinary, pottery, arts), and travel are geared specifically to meet the learning needs of the older adults. While all models provide for a diverse range of volunteer opportunities, the EC model creates the most structured program that provides training, placement, and coordination services for volunteers/older workers in the community.

The CCT model, in addition to providing the recreational, educational, and health literacy programs mentioned above, also focus on the needs of the frail and disabled older adult. In this model, similar to the assisted living facility model, services are provided at a central location as well as at the residence of the older adult. In other words, along with home-delivered meals (that are offered directly by or through contract by many traditional senior centers), the CCT model also provides for home health care, chore assistance, nursing, medical, physical therapy, and any other services that allow the individual to remain safely and comfortably in their own homes.

Hours of Operation

The issue of hours of operation has been a thorny one for most senior centers. Due to limited funding and resources, most traditional senior centers open in the early morning and close around 5:00 p.m. or even earlier. Traditional senior centers also remain closed on weekends and holidays. Most of the models cited here have expanded hours and days of service. While the CC and WC models open early and remain open until late in the evenings (as well as weekends), the CP model operates around the breakfast and lunch program. Therefore, the CP model closes early (by 4:00 p.m.) except on a rare occasion when there are artistic performances or lectures, which is similar to the EC model that also has traditional hours of service—early morning to early evenings (4:00 or 5:00 p.m.). However, due to their fitness centers and recreational facilities, the CC and WC models need to remain open for longer hours and on weekends/holidays to cater to the paying customer (members or nonmembers).

The LLA model may operate on a flexible schedule as many classes and travel are scheduled in the evenings or weekends to accommodate the younger older adult with work or family responsibilities. The hours of operation of the CCT model depends on where the services are being provided. On-site hours of operation are the same as other models—early morning to early afternoon. But in this model, there may be a dedicated phone service or professional available after hours to coordinate home-based and medical needs.

Service Sites and Location

Many proponents of change have called for the “senior center without walls” concept where programs and services are offered at multiple sites in partnerships with various community providers (Pardasani, 2004c; Ryzin, 2005; Young, 2006). The benefits of this concept are threefold: it increases the range of programs/services available to a consumer, avoids duplication and waste of resources, and allows for an integrated system of community-based care. However, nervousness about losing consumers to “rival” agencies, funding policies, and traditional turf battles pose a challenge to this idea. Researchers have already demonstrated that most senior centers work with diverse providers through structured and informal collaborations, but the scope of such partnerships could be expanded further (Krout, 1998; Pardasani, 2004b, 2004c).

The CC, WC, EC, and CP models all operate primarily from one main site. In the CC, WC, and EC models, there is usually one large facility with extensive resources and functional spaces. In the CP model, all programs are centered on a café that is centrally located in a downtown area. All four models may offer referrals to services at other facilities and sites, but the central focus of programming is their own facility. The LLA is one model that is least connected to the one-site policy. Because of the nature of programming—educational courses, performing arts, cultural events, and connections with educational institutions—multiple sites may be more relevant to their needs.

In the case of the CCT model, services may be provided at one main site, but then home-based services are also provided for the frail or homebound older adult. Also, medical and social work staff may be available at one site during the day but may be connected through a professional service after hours. In this model, it is entirely possible that the main site only offers traditional programs during daytime hours like meals, recreational programs, assessments, and information and referrals, but all other services are provided through linkages and coordination with other providers. However, case coordination still takes place at the main site.

One critical factor in the location of service sites is access. While most of these models tend to be located primarily in urban or suburban regions, they may be less frequent in rural regions due to the reasons cited above. The CP model also locates cafés in urban, downtown areas to be more accessible to the community rather than only to older adults. In the LLA model, transportation may be provided for a fee. The CCT model may also utilize public transportation services such as para-transit, but its clients’ needs are significantly different and in many cases maybe more critical.

Main Sources of Funding

Most of these models, except the LLA and CP models, depend on public sources of funding. Furthermore, OAA, state, and county allocations remain stagnant (Ryzin, 2005; Young, 2006), senior centers have to devise strategies to supplement their incomes. One of the chief hurdles for resource generation is that public funders may have stipulations on the type and scope of additional (external) funding sought by the senior center. For instance, if a senior center receives funding to provide meals to older adults, they cannot charge them for the meals. However, they are allowed (with certain restrictions) to accept voluntary contributions from consumers.

While the extensive facilities operated by CC’s are usually publicly funded (e.g., parks and recreation departments, taxes, special bonds/levies, etc.), some funds may be generated through the charging of nominal fees. These subsidized fees could be charged for use of the recreational facilities (depending on the policies of the public funder), specific programs, or for space rentals. If the CC model receives OAA funding or has contracts with the department of aging in their counties, then the meals and some other programs are provided at no cost to the older adults.

The LLA and WC models may operate a traditional senior center program with public funding, but the fitness and educational programs are sustained through consumer fees. The CCT model may receive traditional funding support for their onsite programs but are also able to access public or private health care funds (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) for specific home care, case management, and health care services.

The CP model has been created entirely through private funding support. While the consumers (both older adults and nonolder adults) are charged for their meals and participation in some programs designed for older adults only, this income is supplemented by support from the sponsoring organization. There has been an attempt to explore public funding for such a program, especially in regions where there are no senior centers.

Identification as “Senior Center”

It should be noted that many of the emerging models (CC, WC, LLA, CCT, and CP) shy away from the use of the term senior centers to identify themselves. They all report the rationale for their choice to be the negative image of senior centers. Frequently, these models use nondistinguishing names to identify themselves.

Impact

The impact of these models can be delineated on multiple levels.

Participants

With reference to consumers, the WC, LLA, and CC models all report an increase in the number of overall participants but especially from the “younger” cohort. They tend to attract the middle- to upper-income older adults (55-75) who would like to focus on their health and mental well-being. The EC model tends to attract more men (usually a minority in traditional senior centers), newly retired individuals, and active adults with an emphasis on civic engagement, volunteering, or vocational opportunities than do the other models. The CP model attracts a broad range of older adults as they are usually centrally located on a main street. They also tend to attract older adults who may not attend a senior center but are more open to a community dining and café experience offered by this model. The CCT model has seen a greater increase in adults over the age of 75, especially frail or home-bound older adults who may not be served by traditional senior centers (due to limited programming and access). However, some senior centers utilizing this model report a decline or no increase in the “younger” older adult cohort and complaints from this cohort about the senior center resembling a nursing home.

Community

All models report having a positive impact on the communities they serve. The CC model, however, with its outreach to all age groups, has had the most far-reaching impact. The CC model serves as a community focal point for all constituents. The WC, LLA, and EC models have had a greater impact on other providers and organizations within their communities due to their focus on collaborations, linkages, and coordinated programming (especially LLA and EC). The CCT, with its comprehensive service model, has had the most coordinated and structured system of linkages to provide a continuum of services for community-dwelling older adults. However, assisted-living facilities and retirement communities with specialized care programs have come to see this model as potential competition.

Funding

All models have reported an increase in funding, both in size and nature. All the models report active mechanisms for fundraising—grants, fees for services, planned giving ventures, and targeted fundraisers. Program fees, membership dues, sponsorships from for-profit entities, income-generating businesses, and Medicare/Medicaid have been utilized to supplement senior center budgets.

Public image

One of the by-products of these models is the changing image of senior centers among older adults as well as in the larger community. All the models, except for the CCT model, have developed the image that they cater to the energetic, mobile, educated, and informed older adult. Traditional senior centers have focused (justifiably) their attention on meeting the needs of those who are most vulnerable. As a result, senior centers may have developed the image that they are here to serve older adults with low incomes and significant needs that may dissuade the middle- and upper-income older adults who have greater resources and more choices at their disposal. Yet to supplement their budgets, senior centers do need these relatively affluent older adults who are able to subsidize their programs/services. The proponents of all the models state that they are serving a broader cross-section of older adults and meeting diverse needs, including those of the low-income, vulnerable consumers. The physical facilities created by the CC, WC, and CP models are exciting, expansive, and modern. In defense of traditional publicly funded senior centers, the support for maintenance or upgrading of facilities has been nonexistent in the last few decades (Gross, 2008; Pardasani, 2004c; Ryzin, 2005).

Limitations of the Study

This study has several limitations. The low response rate (24.9%) to our study may influence the generalizability and validity of our findings. As there are approximately 11,000 senior centers nationally, the responses represent a relatively small pool. However, there is no single, reliable database of senior centers. Area Agencies of Aging (AAA), state offices of aging, parks and recreation departments, and state associations of senior centers all maintain separate lists. The wide array of databases and the limited resources available for this study curtailed our sample selection process.

Some of the models identified, such as the community center, are not entirely new. In fact, readers may recognize their similarity to the Jewish Community Center (JCC) model of service (funded mainly through private, Jewish philanthropies). But these models have not been widely applied to publicly funded senior centers until recently as in our case studies. Another limitation is the level of overlap between some of the models. The authors believe that many innovative senior centers may reflect the characteristics of several models (model overlap).

One critical limitation is the lack of examples of innovations in rural senior centers in our study. The characteristics and needs of rural centers and their participants may be different than their counterparts in urban or suburban regions. Our methodology, as well as our sampling frame, may have inadvertently limited the participation of rural senior centers. More focus needs to be paid to these regions in any future studies. Similarly, traditional senior centers that serve low-income individuals may be underrepresented in our study. Given their limited resources and the significant demand for social services, their ability to redesign may be curtailed, although innovative practices may have been initiated in these centers and need to be evaluated.

Finally, the definition of innovation as applied to the senior centers and the specific models identified was a subjective exercise. Although every effort was made to make the membership of the taskforce diverse and representative of the senior center field, the personal experiences and preferences of the taskforce members may have influenced the decisions and findings of this study.

Implications

One of the major strengths of senior centers across the country is their ability to adapt to the environments in which they function to respond to the needs of their constituents. We believe that the core strength of these emerging models is that they are adaptable and responsive to the changing needs of the aging cohort.

A critical challenge for the adoption of these new models is the limited resources available to senior centers. A majority of senior centers still rely on public funding for a significant portion of their budgets. Given the limited allocations and growing needs, it is very hard for stakeholders to engage in a reimagining or redesigning of senior centers when they are struggling daily to survive. On the one hand, if we do not engage in dialogue and strategic planning, then we may risk the continued relevance and sustainability of senior centers as a whole. On the other hand, how do we engage in this dialogue if we know there is no potential for public support for such endeavors? Another challenge for senior centers is to define their target audience. Since there is no means-testing for senior centers, everyone above the age of 60 is eligible for services. However, if senior centers are here to serve the needs of vulnerable older adults and those most in need, then their programs, services, and outreach should be planned accordingly. Instead of trying to attract seniors from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, senior centers could focus on this specific segment of the population. The only concern with this approach is that the vulnerable cohort has limited means and would be unable to supplement the operating budgets of the senior centers, which in turn would entail greater support from public and private sources.

Finally, a significant challenge for senior centers is the lack of a standard, consistent system of data collection about effectiveness and impact. Most senior centers maintain data on services provided and the characteristics of users. However, very little data (except anecdotal) are collected on the impact of participation. We believe that this information is vital to establishing the relevance of senior centers to a community at large. These data would also be critical for grant applications and obtaining support from private foundations, funders, and individuals. A multistate project to develop standardized processes could be initiated and coordinated by national organizations such as NISC.

The debate over the design and future models of senior centers has implications for public policy. In the past, senior centers thrived due to OAA and local public support, but these legislations were enacted in a different era. The older adult world is now vastly different and rapidly changing. If senior centers are to be responsive to the changing needs of the older adult population, policy makers and legislators need to examine the current funding levels available to senior centers. The current allocations are inadequate to provide “quality” service. In addition to funding, attention also needs to be paid to new and alternative models of service such as the continuum of care, café, entrepreneurial, and wellness models. There might be aspects of these models that are beneficial to the well-being of all older adults and should be supported in all senior centers.

Conclusion

Senior centers have a long, illustrious record of service to older adults and communities across the nation. However, as the aging cohort becomes increasingly diverse, their needs and interests are bound to expand exponentially. Traditional senior center programs and services will always be in demand by a specific segment of the aging population—low-income seniors with social service needs. We believe that these traditional models provide a critical service and will remain relevant in many communities. However, with overall decreasing attendance among “younger” elders and reduced public support, senior centers have to modernize their facilities, create new programs and services for varied interests/needs, combat stereotypical negative images of senior centers, and reposition senior centers as community focal points of service delivery. The innovative models are broadening the conceptual continuum of social service agency and voluntary organization. We hope that the framework provided in this study to evaluate senior center models can be used by senior centers nationally to assess their functioning and operating philosophies. In concert with comprehensive needs assessments, we believe that such a critical self-examination (involving administrators, staff, consumers, nonconsumers, and policy makers) will strengthen senior centers and clarify their position on the aging continuum of care.

Footnotes

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

Notes

References

Aday

R. H.

(2003, March 16). Identifying important linkages between successful aging and senior center participation. Joint Conferences of the National Council on Aging/American Society on Aging, Chicago.

Aday

Kehoe

Farney

(2006). The impact of senior center friendships on aging women who live alone. Journal of Women & Aging, 18, 57-73.

Baker

Gottschalk

Bianco

(2007). Step by step: Integrating evidence-based fall-risk management into senior centers. The Gerontologist, 47, 548-554.

Beisgen

Kraitchman

(2003). Senior centers: Opportunities for successful aging. New York: Springer Publishing.

Calsyn

Burger

Roades

(1996). Cross-validation of differences between users and non-users of senior centers. Journal of Social Service Research, 21, 39-56.

Calsyn

Winter

(1999). Who attends senior centers? Journal of Social Service Research, 26(2), 53-69.

Campbell

Aday

(2001). Benefits of a nurse-managed wellness program: A senior center model. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 20, 34-43.

Carey

(2004). The lived experiences of the independent oldest-old in community-based programs: A Heideggerian Hermeneutical Analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.

Choi

McDougall

(2007). Comparison of depressive symptoms between homebound older adults and ambulatory older adults. Aging Mental Health, 11, 310-322.

10.

Demko

(1979). Utilization, attrition, and senior centers. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 2, 87-93.

11.

Eaton

Salari

(2005). Environments for lifelong learning in senior centers. Educational Gerontology, 31, 461-480.

12.

Farone

Fitzpatrick

Tran

(2005). Use of senior centers as a moderator of stress-related distress among Latino elders. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 46, 65-83.

13.

Fitzpatrick

Gitelson

Andereck

Mesbur

(2005). Social support factors and health among a senior center population in Southern Ontario, Canada. Social Work in Healthcare, 40(3), 15-38.

14.

Gavin

Myers

(2003). Characteristics, enrollment, attendance, and dropout patterns of older adults in Tai-Chi and Line-Dancing programs. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 11, 123-141.

15.

Gelfand

Bechil

Chester

(1991). Core programs and services at senior centers. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 17, 145-161.

16.

Gitelson

McCabe

Fitzpatrick

Case

(2005). Factors that influence perceived social and health benefits of attendance at senior centers. Activities, Adaptation & Aging, 30, 23-45.

17.

Gross

(2008, March 25). It’s appeal slipping, the senior center steps livelier. New York Times, p. 1.

18.

Harris

, & Associates. (1975). The myth and reality of aging in America. Washington, DC: The National Council on the Aging, Inc.

19.

Hayes

(2006). High-functioning: Line dancing with dementia. Directors’ Quarterly for Alzheimer’s and Other Dementia, Summer, 31-34.

20.

Hayunga

(2004). NCOA helps promote evidence-based prevention programs. Innovations, 3, 13-14.

21.

Hendrix

Fischer

Reddy

Lommel

Speer

Stephens

. (2008a). Diabetes self-management behaviors and A1c improved following a community-based intervention in older adults in Georgia senior centers. Journal of Nutrition for the Elderly, 27(1/2), 44-60.

22.

Hendrix

Fischer

Reddy

Lommel

Speer

Stephens

. (2008b). Fruit and vegetable intake and knowledge increased following a community-based intervention in older adults in Georgia senior centers. Journal of Nutrition for the Elderly, 27(1/2), 27-43.

23.

Krout

(1982). Determinants of service use by the aged (Final report to the AARP Andrus Foundation). Fredonia, NY: Author.

24.

Krout

(1985). Senior center activities and services: Findings from a national survey. Research on Aging, 7, 455-471.

25.

Krout

(1986). The aged in rural America (1st ed.). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

26.

Krout

(1988). The frequency, duration, stability, and discontinuation of senior center participation: Causes and consequences (Final report to the AARP Andrus Foundation). Fredonia, NY: Author.

27.

Krout

(1994). Changes in senior center participant characteristics during the 1980s. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 22(1/2), 41-60.

28.

Krout

(1998). Senior centers in America (5th ed.). New York: Greenwood Press.

29.

Krout

Cutler

Coward

(1990). Correlates of senior center participation: A national analysis. The Gerontologist, 30, 72-79.

30.

Leanse

Wagener

(1975). Senior centers: A report of senior group programs in America. Washington, DC: The National Council on the Aging.

31.

Harmer

Glasgow

Mack

Sleet

Fisher

. (2008). Translation of an effective Tai-Chi intervention into a community-based falls-prevention program. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 1195-1198.

32.

Linn

J. A.

Knapp

D. L.

(1980). Senior centers in the continuum of services: Linking the aging and mental health systems. Detroit, MI: Adult Service Centers, Inc.

33.

Lun

(2004). The effects of race and gender on predicting in-home and community-based service use by older adults. Research in the Sociology of Healthcare, 22, 121-139.

34.

Manini

Marko

VanAmam

Cook

Fernhall

Burke

. (2007). Efficacy of resistance and task-specific exercise in older adults who modify tasks of everyday life. Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 62, 616.

35.

Maton

(2002). Community settings as buffers of life stress? Highly supportive churches, mutual help groups and senior centers. In Revenson

D’Augelli

French

Hughes

Livert

(Ed.), A quarter century of community psychology: Readings from the American Journal of Community Psychology (pp. 205-235). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

36.

Meis

M. S.

(2005). Geriatric orphans, A study of severe isolation in an elderly population. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fielding Graduate Institute.

37.

Miller

Campbell

Davis

Furner

Giachello

(1996). Minority use of community long-term care services—A comparative analysis. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 51, 71-80.

38.

Mitchell

(1995). Service awareness and use among older North Carolinians. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 14, 193-209.

39.

The National Council on the Aging. (2001). A national survey of health and supportive services in the aging network. Washington, DC: Center for Healthy Aging.

40.

The National Council on the Aging. (2007). Older Americans Act appropriations-supportive services. Washington, DC: Author.

41.

The National Institute of Senior Centers. (2005). Facts about senior centers. Washington, DC: Author.

42.

Netzer

Coward

Peek

Henretta

Duncan

Dougherty

(1997). Race and residence differences in the use of formal services by older adults. Research on Aging, 19, 300-332.

43.

New York City Department for the Aging. (2002). Senior center utilization study. New York: Author.

44.

Older Americans Act of 1965, Public Law, No. 89-73, 42 U.S.C. et seq. (amended in 1973 and 2000).

45.

Pardasani

(2004a). Senior centers: Focal points of community-based services for the elderly. Activities, Adaptation & Aging, 28(4), 27-44.

46.

Pardasani

(2004b). Senior centers: Increasing minority participation through diversification. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 43(2/3), 41-56.

47.

Pardasani

(2004c). Senior centers: Patterns of programs and services. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yeshiva University, New York.

48.

Pardasani

Sporre

Thompson

(2009). New models taskforce: Final report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Senior Centers. Available from http://www.ncoa.org

49.

Perkinson

(1992). Maximizing personal efficacy in older adults: The empowerment of volunteers in a multipurpose senior center. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics, 10(3), 57-72.

50.

Ralston

(1982). Perceptions of senior centers by the Black elderly: A comparative study. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 4, 127-137.

51.

Ralston

(1983). Levels of senior centers: A broadened view of group based programs for the elderly. Activities, Adaptation & Aging, 3, 79-91

52.

Ralston

(1984). Senior center utilization by Black elderly adults: Social, attitudinal and knowledge correlates. Journal of Gerontology, 39, 224-229.

53.

Ralston

(1991). Senior centers and minority elders: A critical review. The Gerontologist, 31, 325-331.

54.

Ralston

Griggs

(1985). Factors affecting utilization of senior centers: Race, sex & socioeconomic differences. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 9, 99-111.

55.

Reinsch

MacRae

Lachenbruch

Tobis

(1992). Attempts to prevent falls and injury: A prospective community study. The Gerontologist, 32, 450-456.

56.

Ryzin

(2005). Senior centers on the cutting edge. Innovations in Aging, 34(2), 15-20.

57.

Sarkisian

Prohaska

Davis

Weiner

(2007). Pilot test of an attribution retraining intervention to raise walking levels in sedentary older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 55, 1842-1846.

58.

Skarupski

Pelkowski

(2003). Multipurpose senior centers: Opportunities for community health nursing. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 20, 119-132.

59.

Strain

(2001). Senior centers: Who participates? Canadian Journal of Aging, 20, 471-491.

60.

Taietz

(1976). Two conceptual models of the senior center. Journal of Gerontology, 31, 219-222.

61.

Tuckman

(1967). Factors related to attendance in a center for older people. Journal of American Geriatrics Society, 15, 474-479.

62.

Turner

(2004). Senior citizens centers: What they offer, who participates, and what they gain? Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 43, 37-47.

63.

Walker

Bisbee

Porter

Flanders

(2004). Increasing practitioners’ knowledge of participation among elderly adults in senior center activities. Educational Gerontology, 30, 353-366.

64.

Wallace

Buchner

Grothaus

Leveille

Tyll

LeCroix

. (1998). Implementation and effectiveness of a community-based health promotion program for older adults. Journal of Gerontology, 53A, 301-306.

65.

Williams

Haber

Weaver

Freeman

(1998). Altruistic activity: Does it make a difference in a senior center? Activities, Adaptation & Aging, 22(4), 31-38.

66.

Young

(2006). Centers (don’t say senior) look to get hip! Where to Retire, 15(1), 1-10.

Senior Centers

Abstract

Keywords

Purpose of the Study

Literature Review 1

Significance of Senior Centers

The Expansion and Growth of Senior Centers

So Who Participates in Senior Centers?

Rationale for Participation

Benefits of Participation in Senior Centers

Need for Innovation and Change

Method

The NMTF

Study Questionnaires

Sampling

Data Collection and Analysis Process

Findings

Consumer Profile

Organizational Mission and Philosophical Focus

Program Design and Offerings

Hours of Operation

Service Sites and Location

Main Sources of Funding

Identification as “Senior Center”

Impact

Participants

Community

Funding

Public image

Limitations of the Study

Implications

Conclusion

Footnotes

Notes

References

Literature Review¹