New York City Senior Centers: Who Participates and Why?

Abstract

Purpose: Senior centers are focal points of services and programs. Study aims were to describe the frequency of and benefits of attending senior centers and nonmembers’ reasons for nonattendance. Methods: A total of 597 senior center members and 298 community-residing nonmembers in New York City were interviewed. Males and age of 75+ years members were oversampled. Results: Mean days attended weekly = 3.00 days/week (SD = 1.71). Latinx seniors attended 1 day > White non-Latinx seniors. Seniors in poor/bad health attended .67 fewer days than seniors in excellent health. Almost all members (96.3%) reported benefiting from attendance. The most common benefits were socialization/making friends, educational programs, something to do, being with people like them, meals, and improved mental and physical health. Reasons nonmembers gave for nonattendance were too busy with social/leisure activities or work, not interested or do not need programs/services, do not want/need socialization, and members were older or more disabled than them. Conclusion: Implications for recruiting underserved and isolated seniors are discussed.

Keywords

senior centers New York City health benefits of attendance socialization ethnicity

Background

Senior Center: The Evolution

In 1943, the first publicly funded senior center, the William Hodson Senior Center, opened in New York City (NYC). Soon, senior centers were established in other major cities, to provide social services and assistance, especially to immigrants arriving in the United States after World War II (Krout, 1998). Currently, there are an estimated 11,000 publicly funded senior centers in the United States (National Institute of Senior Centers [NISC], 2019). The core focus of most traditional senior centers is congregate meal programs, as well as programs in the five major categories of nutrition, health and fitness, recreational, volunteer opportunities, and social services (National Council on Aging, 2015; Pardasani, 2004b, 2010; Pardasani & Sackman, 2014).

Senior centers have made their mark not just in the United States, but in many countries around the world as an effective model for engaging community-dwelling older adults in health and recreation activities. Studies documenting their impact have been conducted in Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, South Korea, Norway, and Sweden (Ingvaldsen & Balandin, 2011; Kadowaki & Mahmood, 2018; Liu et al., 2017; Marhánková, 2014; Yoo, 2015). Although senior centers continue to be focal points of community-based services for older adults, their relevance has been decreasing (Pardasani, 2019). This is surprising to policy makers, senior center administrators, and gerontologists as the population of older adults continues to grow. As of 2017, the number of adults aged 65 years and older was estimated to be 49.2 million and expected to grow to 98 million by 2060 (Administration for Community Living, 2018). Several studies have shown that younger older adults are not as interested in attending senior centers as their older counterparts (Kadowaki & Mahmood, 2018; Pardasani & Sackman, 2014; Weil, 2014). Most publicly funded senior centers are reimbursed based on participation rates, and subsequently, decreased attendance impacts them negatively.

New York is home to more than 1.64 million older adults (aged 60 years and over) and a network of 249 senior centers (New York City Department for the Aging, 2018). However, only a small fraction of this aging cohort (approximately 30,000) attends senior centers regularly (New York City Department for the Aging, 2018). Given the major expense of operating these senior centers, administrators and policy makers are interested in learning who attends these senior centers, reasons for attendance, and how to recruit nonparticipating older adults. A previous study by one of the authors examined the characteristics of participants by surveying senior center administrators (Pardasani & Sackman, 2014). However, participants and nonparticipants were not interviewed. The current study surveyed older adults in NYC to understand their experiences and concerns regarding senior centers.

The purpose of this study was to describe the frequency of attendance at senior centers and the characteristics of older adults associated with this, perceived benefits of attendance, and the reasons for nonparticipation among nonmembers residing in NYC.

Literature Review

Characteristics of Senior Center Members

Studies conducted over several decades have consistently found that senior center members tend to be older women who were never married or are widowed, with medium to low incomes, and minimal physical disabilities (Calsyn & Winter, 2000; Krout, 1998; Pardasani, 2004b; Turner, 2004). The average age of senior center members has been increasing over the years, raising concern that younger seniors are not using these services (Kadowaki & Mahmood, 2018; Krout, 1998; Pardasani, 2004b, 2010; Pardasani & Sackman, 2014; Turner, 2004; Walker et al., 2004). This trend has shown no signs of reversal in the last two decades. Studies conducted in NYC, Indiana, and the state of New York and suburban Connecticut found that regular attendees of senior centers were in their mid-to-late 70s and overwhelmingly female (New York City Department for the Aging, 2002; Pardasani, 2004a, 2010, 2018; Pardasani & Sackman, 2014). Studies about utilization patterns of minority older adults have been inconclusive. Some have found that race was not associated with participation (Calsyn & Winter, 2000; Lun, 2004; Miller et al., 1996; Tuckman, 1967). Others have found that African American and Latinx older adults are less likely to participate in senior centers (Giunta et al., 2012; Marshall et al., 2013; Ortiz, 2015; Ralston, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1991; Taylor-Harris & Zhan, 2011).

Only two studies have examined the sociodemographic characteristics of senior center participants and reasons for participation in the last 5 years, including one conducted in suburban Connecticut (Pardasani, 2019) and one in NYC (Pardasani & Sackman, 2014).

Reasons 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; Krout, 1998; Pardasani, 2004a, 2010; Pardasani & Sackman, 2014; Turner, 2004; Walker et al., 2004). The socialization aspect of participation is important as Choi and McDougal (2007) found that homebound older adults were more likely than senior center participants to experience depressive symptoms. Decreased involvement was due to health problems and lack of transportation to centers (New York City Department for the Aging, 2002; Pardasani, 2004a; Strain, 2001; Walker et al., 2004). Two common reasons given for the lack of involvement of nonmembers and former members were “being too busy” and “lack of interest” (Krout, 1998; Pardasani, 2004b; Pardasani & Sackman, 2014; Turner, 2004). Other reasons given were lack of need and the perception that senior centers were primarily for “older” individuals (MaloneBeach & Langeland, 2011; Markwood, 2013; Pardasani, 2018).

Method

Study Design

This analysis uses the baseline data from a cohort study of senior center members and nonmembers. There were two groups of study participants, those attending a senior center and those who had not done so in the last year or longer. The senior center members were interviewed in person at the senior center and nonmembers were interviewed by telephone. Interviews were conducted in English, Mandarin, and Spanish. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was granted on May 18, 2012.

Sampling Plan

There were different sampling plans used for the senior center samples and the nonmember sample.

Senior center sample

There were 16 senior centers selected from the five boroughs of NYC at which this study was conducted, including one specialized center for blind and low-vision seniors and one with programming for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) seniors. These senior centers were selected because they were participating in a program to implement additional programming in health and well-being or because they were fairly comparable to these centers based on the sociodemographic characteristics of members. The sampling frame was constructed by selecting the names of members who had joined most recently, to increase the likelihood of selecting members who were current and active. The sampling frame was stratified on gender to ensure adequate representation of males. The inclusion criteria were age 60 years or old because this is the age of eligibility to join a senior center in NYC; able to be interviewed in English, Mandarin, or Spanish; currently attending that senior center at least once a week; and cognitively able to give informed consent and participate in the interview. The exclusion criterion was not being a spouse or sibling of another member at that senior center.

Three methods were used to recruit study participants based on the director’s preference:

Method 1: An invitation letter was sent to all seniors in the sampling frame, followed by a phone call to check that the letter was received, to answer questions, and to determine whether the senior wanted to participate in the study.

Method 2: Same as Method 1, but phone numbers were given to the researcher only after senior center staff received permission from the seniors who were invited to participate.

Method 3. For seniors with low vision or blind, a research assistant called the senior to ask permission to read the letter. A letter with large type was also mailed if requested.

Nonmember sample

The nonmember sample was a nonprobability sample of seniors in more than 50 locations throughout NYC. These included senior housing, religious institutions, neighborhood centers, parks, fast-food restaurants, and other locations in the community. In congregate settings, announcements were made and flyers were distributed. Flyers were also distributed in grocery stores, health care settings, libraries, and other places frequented by seniors.

The inclusion criteria were aged 60 years or older; able to be interviewed in English, Mandarin, or Spanish; have never or not attended a senior center in the last year; and cognitively able to give informed consent and participate in the interview. The exclusion criterion was not being a spouse or sibling of another study participant. All study participants were compensated US$20 for the interview.

Measures

Senior center attendance

Senior center members were asked the number of days per week the senior usually attended a senior center, reasons for attending the senior center, and the benefits of attending a senior center. Nonmembers were asked the reasons why they do not attend a senior center.

Physical and mental health

Self-rated physical health was measured by asking the senior to rate their physical health compared with others their own age, with five response categories ranging from excellent to poor. Self-rated mental or emotional health was asked similarly.

Depression was measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9; Kroenke et al., 2001). Respondents are asked how often during the past 2 weeks they experienced each of nine symptoms corresponding to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5), with four response categories ranging from not at all ( = 0) to nearly every day ( = 3). The possible range is 0 to 27 and is also categorized into four categories of diagnostic severity. Generalized anxiety disorder was measured using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7; Spitzer et al., 1999), which is scored the same way as the PHQ-9 for the seven symptoms in this measure. Alcohol use disorder was measured using the three-item version of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-C (AUDIT-C; Bush et al., 1998). The possible range is from 0 to 12. Life satisfaction was measured by asking the senior to consider their life as a whole and to choose a rating from 0 to 10, where 0 represents the worst life they could have had and 10 represents the best life.

Sociodemographic characteristics

The following sociodemographic characteristics were measured: age (calculated based on birthdate), gender, sexual orientation, language of the interview, ethnicity with which senior identifies (more than one answer could be selected), marital status, income, household composition, whether born in the United States, and educational attainment.

Data Analysis Plan

Univariate analyses were conducted to identify categorical variables for which it was necessary to collapse categories to address problems with small cell sizes. Continuous variables were examined to assess the assumption of normality. Due to either deviations from normality and/or in the interest of facilitating interpretation of the findings, we have created categorical variables for several of the variables measured as continuous variables. Bivariate analyses included chi-square test, t test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and correlation, depending on the level of measurement. Regression analyses were conducted on the number of days per week that members attended a senior center and for each of the nine benefits of attendance that were reported by at least 100 of the seniors. Variables that were significant at α = .20 in bivariate analyses were entered in the model. The final model was selected by retaining these variables to control for all variables that were considered to be substantively meaningful.

Results

Characteristics of Senior Center Members and Nonmembers

Table 1 shows that the senior center sample was almost evenly divided between male and female study participants due to the sampling plan, while the nonmember sample is predominantly female. Both samples had adequate representation throughout the age distribution. English was the predominant interview language for both samples.

Table 1.

Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Sample.

Sociodemographic characteristic	Group				p value on χ²
	Senior center member		Nonmembers
	N	%	N	%
Gender
Male	224	45.0	73	24.6	<.01
Female	274	55.0	224	75.4	<.01
Age (years)
60–64	120	24.3	69	23.5	<.01
65–69	151	30.6	70	23.9
70–74	103	20.9	51	17.4
75+	120	24.3	103	35.2
Sexual orientation
Lesbian	14	2.8	3	1.0	<.01
Gay male	42	8.5	5	1.7
Bisexual	19	3.8	1	0.3
Heterosexual	419	84.8	286	96.9
Language
English	401	80.4	203	68.4	<.01
Mandarin	48	9.6	47	15.8
Spanish	50	10.0	47	15.8
Ethnicity
White non-Latinx	255	53.0	152	51.7	<.01
Latinx	63	13.1	57	19.4
Black/African American	74	15.4	26	8.8
Asian	63	13.1	54	18.4
Other	26	5.4	5	1.7
Income
<US$17,000	167	36.4	91	34.7	.86
US$17,000–US$34,000	134	29.2	81	30.9
>US$34,000	158	34.4	90	34.4
Marital status
Married	166	33.4	92	31.6	.20
Living together as a couple	13	2.6	5	1.7
Widowed	38	7.6	19	6.5
Divorced	100	20.1	56	19.2
Separated	90	18.1	75	25.8
Never married	90	18.1	44	15.1
Household composition
Lives alone	250	50.3
Lives with others	247	49.7
Born in the United States
Yes	201	40.4	130	43.8	.35
No	297	59.6	167	56.2	.35
Highest educational attainment completed
Some elementary school	2	0.4	1	0.3	.06
<Elementary school	7	1.4	11	3.8
Elementary school	18	3.6	13	4.4
Middle school	19	3.8	23	7.8
High school or GED	138	27.7	86	29.4
Associate degree of vocational school	88	17.6	47	16.0
Undergraduate college degree	109	21.8	56	19.1
Graduate professional degree (Masters or Doctorate)	118	23.6	56	19.1
Self-rated physical health
Excellent	67	13.6	54	18.2	.34
Good	149	30.2	87	29.4
Fair	152	30.8	88	29.7
Poor or bad	126	25.5	67	22.6
Self-rated mental or emotional health
Excellent	92	18.6	64	21.6	.41
Good	170	34.3	98	33.1
Fair	140	28.3	90	30.4
Poor or bad	93	18.8	44	14.9
Depression level
No depression (0–4)	335	67.8	236	80.8	<.01
Mild (5–9)	106	21.5	44	15.1
Moderate to severe (10+)	33	10.7	12	4.1
Anxiety level
No anxiety (0–4)	386	78.5	252	84.8	.06
Mild (5–9)	80	16.3	31	10.4
Moderate to severe (10+)	26	5.3	14	4.7
Alcohol use^a
No alcohol abuse	439	88.0
Alcohol abuse	60	12.0
Frequency feel isolated from others
Hardly ever	350	71.1	239	81.0	<.01
Sometimes	115	23.4	41	13.9
Often	27	5.5	15	5.1

Only 114 of nonmembers received a score on the AUDIT-C due to missing data on this measure.

The majority in both samples identified as heterosexual, although 15.1% of members identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual due to members from the senior center that serves LGBTQ seniors. The majority were White non-Latinx, but there was good representation from Latinx, Black/African American, and Asian populations. All income groups and marital statuses were well-represented in both samples. Household composition was included only in the members’ questionnaire, and the sample was split very evenly between living alone and living with others. The majority in both samples was not born in the United States reflecting the diversity of NYC. Few seniors did not have at least a high-school diploma and were diverse through the range of educational attainment beyond high school.

Seniors in both samples varied in the range of self-rated physical health and mental health. Compared to nonmembers, a relatively high proportion of members had moderate to severe depression symptoms, and more than one-fifth had mild depression symptoms. The proportion with mild depression was lower in nonmembers, almost 20% had mild to severe symptoms. The findings were similar for anxiety disorder for nonmembers. The percent of anxiety was lower than that for depression among members, but still relatively high. Alcohol abuse was measured only for members where the prevalence was 12%. More than 5% of both samples report that they are often lonely, and even more in both groups report being sometimes lonely.

Senior Center Attendance

Both the mean and median number of days that senior center members attended a senior center, including the center at which they were interviewed and others that they attended, was 3.00 days (SD = 1.71 days). In bivariate analyses, the mean number of days attending a senior center varied by marital status, with significantly more days for widowed seniors as compared with those who were divorced or separated (Table 2). Seniors who were Latinx attended a senior center, on average, significantly more days that those who were White non-Latinx and Asian. Seniors who rated their physical health as good attended more often those who said their health was poor or bad. Attendance did not vary by gender, age, whether the senior was born in the United States or not, whether the senior lived alone or not, degree of loneliness, self-rated mental or emotional health, depression level, anxiety level, or whether the senior reported alcohol abuse.

Table 2.

Bivariate and Multivariable Analyses on the Relationship Between Senior Center Member Characteristics and Number of Days Per Week Attending a Senior Center.

Sociodemographic characteristic	Bivariate on number of days attended				Linear regression model^aAdjusted R² = .06p ≤ .001
	n	M	SD	p value	B	p value	95% CI
	n	M	SD	p value	B	p value	Lower	Upper
Gender
Male	222	3.09	1.85	.30
Female	272	2.93	1.58	.30
Age (years)
60–64	119	3.13	1.76	.63
65–69	149	2.95	1.71
70–74	103	2.85	1.70
75+	119	3.04	1.68
Marital status
Married/Living Together	179	2.90	1.65	.02Widowed and divorced/separated	Reference group
Divorced/separated	136	3.37	1.81		.35	.09	−.05	.75
Widowed	90	2.70	1.41		−.13	.59	−.58	.33
Never married	88	2.91	1.88		.17	.49	−.32	.66
Ethnicity
White non-Latinx	253	2.86	1.71	<.01Latinx and:1. White non-LatinxAsian	Reference group
Latinx	63	3.72	1.82		.81	.003	.28	1.35
Black/African American	72	3.13	1.49		.16	.51	−.31	.62
Asian	63	2.71	1.67		.08	.79	−.50	.66
Other	26	3.25	1.66		.33	.37	−.39	1.06
Born in the United States
Born in the United States	293	2.90	1.69	.15	Reference group
Not born in the United States	201	3.13	1.74	.15	.09	.66	−.31	.49
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual	13	3.06	1.65	.09	Reference group
Lesbian	41	2.37	1.99		−.67	.18	−1.64	.30
Gay male	19	2.49	1.77		−.44	.14	−1.03	.14
Bisexual	417	3.32	2.51		.13	.75	−.67	.93
Lives alone
Lives alone	247	3.04	1.70	.56
Lives with others	246	2.95	1.72	.56
Ever feel lonely
Hardly ever	347	3.03	1.68	.73
Sometimes	115	2.89	1.70
Often	27	3.08	2.16
SRH
Excellent	66	3.20	1.70	.02Good vs. poor/bad	Reference group
Good	147	3.23	1.80		.15	.55	−.39	.66
Fair	151	2.97	1.61		−.18	.49	−.67	.32
Poor or bad	126	2.63	1.68		−.65	.02	−1.17	−.12
SRMH
Excellent	90	2.74	1.61	.46
Good	168	3.09	1.68
Fair	140	3.01	1.61
Poor or bad	93	2.91	1.89
Depression
No depression (0–4)	333	2.99	1.67	.87
Mild (5–9)	106	3.04	1.81
Moderate to severe (10+)	51	2.88	1.80
Anxiety
No anxiety (0–4)	384	2.93	1.69	.37
Mild (5–9)	79	3.20	1.70
Moderate (10–14)	26	3.14	1.76
Alcohol use
Negative score	435	2.96	1.71	.21
Positive score	60	3.25	1.67	.21

SRH = self-rated health; SRMH = self-rated mental health.

Variables significant at p ≤ .20 were entered in the regression analysis.

In the model regressing number of days per week attending a senior center, only ethnicity and self-rated physical health were significant. In this model, Latinx seniors attended a senior center almost 1 day more than White non-Latinx seniors. Those in poor or bad health attended a senior center two-thirds of a day less than seniors in excellent health. Marital status was no longer significant when controlling for the other variables in the model. This model explained only 6% of the variance in number of days attending a senior center.

Benefits of Senior Center Attendance

The vast majority (96.3%) of senior center members stated that they had benefited from attending a senior center. Table 3 shows that the most common benefit of senior center attendance was socialization, reported by almost two-thirds of the seniors. The next most common reasons were participating in classes and other educational programs and making friends. More than a quarter of the members mentioned having something to do and to pass the time, being with people like them, eating meals at the senior center, and with some emphasizing having healthy meals and opportunities to exercise. Of the remaining 14 other benefits mentioned by members, six of these were related to mental and emotional, including improved mental and emotional health, intellectual and mental stimulation, achieving a more positive outlook on life, having higher self-esteem and feeling better about themselves, having higher life satisfaction, and lowering their depression. Learning new skills, going on trips, and volunteering were also identified as benefits. In addition to healthy meals and exercise, the members also reported improved physical health, improved health practices and behaviors, and learning about health and nutrition.

Table 3.

Most Frequently Cited Benefits of Attending a Senior Center, Among Senior Center Members.

Benefits of attending	N	%
Socialization/avoid isolation	309	65.7
Classes/educational programs	215	45.6
Making friends	199	42.4
Something to do/pass the time	135	28.7
Being with people like me	126	26.9
Meals/eating healthy meals	125	26.5
Exercise	119	25.3
Improved mental and emotional health	106	22.6
Learning new skills (e.g., pottery, computer)	100	21.3
Improved physical health	82	17.4
Intellectual and mental stimulation	81	17.2
Improved health practices and behaviors	75	15.9
Likes the staff	65	13.9
More positive outlook on life	63	13.4
Higher self-esteem/feel better about myself	57	12.1
Higher life satisfaction	57	12.1
Going on trips	53	11.3
Information and referral	53	11.3
Learning about health and nutrition	52	11.1
Opportunity to volunteer	22	4.7
Lower depression	20	4.3

Regression analyses were conducted on each of the benefits that were reported by at least 100 seniors. We regressed each of the same variables as for the models for number of days attended. For all seven of these benefits, none of the variables entered were significant. In the remaining two models, only one category of one variable was significant, the effect size was small and imprecise, and was not the same variable for these two models. These two findings are inconsistent and do not appear to be stable estimates. The variables in our study do not appear to contribute to explaining the benefits reported.

Reasons for Not Attending a Senior Center

The most common reasons given by nonmembers who had not previously attended a senior center were they were too busy with social and leisure activities, they were not interested or did not need the programs or services, they did not want or need socialization, they were too busy working, and they felt that the other members were not similar to them in age or functional ability (Table 4).

Table 4.

Reasons Mentioned by Nonmembers for Not Attending a Senior Center, by Whether or Not they Have Previously Attended.

Reason	Did not previously attend a senior centerN = 18963.9%		Previously attended a senior centerN = 10736.1%		p value on χ²
Reason	N	%	N	%	p value on χ²
Too busy working	50	27.2	11	10.5	.001
Too busy with social and leisure activities	50	27.0	33	31.4	.43
Not interested/do not need programs or services	50	26.6	24	22.6	.45
Do not need or want socialization	41	21.8	11	10.5	.02
Other members are not like me: age, function	19	10.2	11	10.4	.97
Inconvenient to get to	9	4.8	15	14.2	<.01

Those who had not previously attended a senior center were more likely than those who had to say that the reason they did not currently attend was because they did not need or want socialization and that they were too busy working.

Four of the top five reasons given by nonmembers who had not previously attended a senior center were the same as for those who had previously attended. They did not list too busy working as one of their top five reasons, but instead mentioned that the senior center is inconvenient to get to. The mean number of reasons given by nonmembers for not attending a senior center was 1.4 (SD = 1.2) and the median = 1.

Discussion

Senior Center Members and Nonmembers

The findings of this study are important to understand the relevance of senior centers to the aging continuum-of-care for community-dwelling older adults. Previous studies have consistently found that women far outnumber men in senior centers (Kadowaki & Mahmood, 2018; Krout, 1998; Pardasani, 2004b, 2010, 2019; Pardasani & Sackman, 2014). But the almost even distribution of men and women in our sample was due to oversampling men to achieve this. Our finding that more than half of the participants were below the age of 70 years (54.9%) is contrary to previous findings of the age distribution and will be heartening news to senior center administrators (Kadowaki & Mahmood, 2018; Krout, 1998; Pardasani, 2004b, 2010; Pardasani & Sackman, 2014; Turner, 2004). Having younger participants likely means that they will continue to patronize senior centers as they age.

Refelecting the ethnic and racial diversity of NYC, senior center participants are diverse. The many Asian, Latinx, Black/African American, and first-generation immigrant older adults challenges senior centers to design programs that are culturally relevant and appeal to this diverse clientele. As noted in previous studies, a majority of senior center participants (66.6%) are currently single (never married, divorced, separated, or widowed) and half (50.3%) live alone (Kadowaki & Mahmood, 2018; Pardasani, 2010, 2019; Pardasani & Sackman, 2014; Turner, 2004). This highlights how senior centers might be a source of socialization and companionship for participants.

Almost half of participants (45.4%) reported having an undergraduate or post-graduate degree, but 27.7% had only a high school degree or GED. This wide range of educational attainment could be challenging for senior centers with respect to programming. As the number of older adults with higher education continues to grow, innovative programs need to be offered by senior centers to engage them.

One in four (25.5%) senior center participants reported poor to bad physical health and nearly one in five (18.8%) reported poor to bad mental health. It is a positive finding that these adults attend a senior center, but it does require senior centers to offer programs and services that screen for poor physical and mental health and provide linkages to these services, as well as focus on health promotion activities.

Prior studies have found small numbers of LGBTQ members, which is a concern, particularly in urban areas with large LGBTQ populations. Providing a safe, inviting, and inclusive environment is critical for senior centers, sensitivity trainings for current participants and staff are necessary to attract and retain LGBTQ older adults.

Approximately one-third of members (36.4%) in this sample earned an annual income of less than US$17,000. This highlights the need for assistance with entitlements, case management, and other social services provided by senior centers. The meals provided by the senior centers may also be crucial, given the food insecurities that persist among older adults in NYC.

Senior Center Attendance

The mean attendance of 3 days per week indicates a major investment of time spent in senior centers by members. Members in poorer health were less likely to attend as frequently as those reporting better health. This is consistent with a previous study (Rosso et al., 2013); however, it raises an important concern about keeping members engaged as they age and their health and functional ability decline. Members in poor health who cannot travel to the senior center or participate in many of the activities are excluded from the benefits of participation. More frequent attendance by Latinx older adults may point to the lack of other culturally specific programs/services within their communities and/or this population of older adults is more receptive to senior centers.

Regression analyses on number of days attending a senior center explained only 6% of the variance, despite controlling for a wide range of sociodemographic characteristics and depression and anxiety. This indicates that there are other important variables that influence frequency of attendance that were not measured in this study. Understanding what these are would be helpful to program planning to increase attendance.

Reasons for and Benefits of Attendance in Senior Centers

As in previous studies, socialization, educational programs, and activities were also the primary reasons cited for participation by members in this study (Eaton & Salari, 2005; Krout, 1998; Pardasani, 2004a, 2010; Pardasani & Sackman, 2014; Turner, 2004; Walker et al., 2004). However, improved mental and physical health have not been identified as benefits in previous studies (Pardasani, 2004a, 2018; Pardasani & Sackman, 2014; Pardasani & Thompson, 2012). Although only 5.5% of participants reported often feeling isolated or lonely, socialization and avoiding isolation were the most commonly reported benefit of participation. This underscores the importance of senior centers in reducing isolation and thereby lowering the related mortality risk. Teo et al. (2015) reported that in-person contact in socialization efforts was directly related to lower depressive symptoms in older adults. Miyawaki (2015) found that older adults who were socially isolated or disconnected were more likely to report reduced physical and mental health. Our findings and prior research suggest that participation in senior centers is likely to reduce social isolation and thereby improve health outcomes in older adults.

Some of the mental health improvements that members reported were gains in intellectual stimulation, self-esteem, positive outlook on life, and life satisfaction. The increase in quality of life for these seniors, enhanced mental stimulation, and lowering depression are important for maintaining cognitive health and preventing major depression, respectively; 15.9% of the members reported engaging in improved health practices and behaviors as a result of their participation in a senior center. As senior centers attempt to demonstrate positive health outcomes for members, this finding is crucial to their continued relevance. Over one quarter reported meals as an important benefit, and this is particularly important for the many low-income older adults (36.3%) who are members.

Reasons for Non-Attendance

Nonmembers reported that involvement with other social and leisure activities kept them away from senior centers. The increased competition from service providers who also cater to older adults, including libraries, town halls, American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), adult day centers, and many other programs, provide other options for seniors (Pardasani, 2019; Pardasani & Sackman, 2014). In addition, not attending a senior center may be due to senior center programs not catering to all older adults, older adults being unaware of the richness of programming in senior centers, or not feeling comfortable at the senior centers in their neighborhood (Pardasani, 2010, 2019). One of the reasons for nonparticipation cited was that attendance would compete with paid employment. Most senior centers operate on weekdays between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. This may not be conducive to the schedules of working seniors.

Implications

Characteristics of Senior Center Participants

Senior centers can be designed to serve segments of the older adult population that are underserved or neglected in traditional senior centers. Perhaps traditional senior centers could expand programming, have representatives from underserved groups serve on advisory boards or engage in targeted marketing to attract these seniors.

Our finding that members are in better health than the population of seniors in NYC leads to a concern about seniors who are unable to attend due to functional decline. These individuals may be at risk of social isolation, inadequate socialization, and are known to have higher levels of depression and anxiety (Golden et al., 2009). Senior centers could use technology to connect homebound older adults to programs and services at a senior center, thereby keeping them engaged and slow the progression of cognitive and emotional decline.

Senior Center Attendance

As competition for older adults in communities grows, senior centers have to vie with libraries, museums, intergenerational community centers, religious institutions, and adult daycare centers. Our study found that participants attend a senior center, on average, 3 days a week. In the future, senior centers may witness a decrease in the number of days attended due to an increase in alternative outlets for seniors. Senior centers could benefit from focusing on older adults who do not attend regularly by providing specialized programs, such as continuing education, health promotion, or the arts. Increasing the number of participants will offset the lower frequency of attendance. In addition, offering health education on the benefits of socialization and engagement would encourage older adults to stay connected to senior centers.

Reasons for Attendance

Senior centers should focus on documenting the benefits of participation. Most administrators and participants understand the health and wellness benefits provided by senior centers. Highlighting the socialization benefits of senior centers and documenting their impact on the health of older adults would be beneficial for senior centers. However, communicating those outcomes to funders and policy makers is very important. Thus, empirical evidence is important for senior centers’ efforts to inform public opinion, strengthen policy advocacy, increase funding, and attract nonparticipating seniors.

Reasons for Nonparticipation

There are likely to be older adults who currently do not participate in a senior center who could benefit from their programs and services. A lack of knowledge about what they offer, limited programs of cultural and intellectual relevance, or not feeling welcome might be potential barriers. Similarly, the stigma of ageism might keep seniors away. Senior centers must meet these challenges head-on. Marketing campaigns that illustrate the range of programs and services offered, specialized recruitment for underserved seniors, and engagement and training of diverse staff and inclusive environments might increase participation. In some communities, intergenerational programs have helped yield a new cohort of seniors who do not wish to be age-segregated (Pardasani, 2019). Finally, nontraditional hours of operation might attract those seniors who work (part-time or full-time) or have other responsibilities like volunteering, child care, and so on.

Limitations and Strengths

The sample of senior center members in our study is not a representative sample of all senior center members in NYC due to the sampling plan that included stratification on gender and the nonrandom selection of senior centers. The nonmember sample is a convenience sample and is also not a representative sample. Neither sample includes seniors who spoke languages other than English, Spanish, or Mandarin.

Despite these limitations, this was a large sample of senior center members selected from sites throughout the five boroughs of NYC. The sample was diverse by gender, age, ethnicity, and income levels. The nonmember group was selected from very diverse neighborhoods and settings throughout NYC. There are a wider range of study measures used in this study, including physical health and mental health, which have not been assessed in prior studies. Reasons for not attending was measured for nonmembers. Questions about reasons for and benefits of attending or not attending were asked as open-ended questions, allowing study participants to generate their responses in their own words. Interviews were conducted in person, minimizing missing data or problems with low literacy.

Future Research

Future studies should replicate these findings about the perceived benefits of senior center membership, including physical and mental health and quality of life. Implementing and evaluating innovative programs to extend the benefits of senior centers to seniors who are unable to travel to the senior center, such as using technology to bring educational programs and socialization activities to these seniors, could contribute to evidence-based interventions for these seniors. Future studies should also include additional measures to better explain frequency of attendance. Finally, it would be useful to evaluate whether a marketing campaign with funding shared by local area agencies on aging and community senior centers promoting the benefits of attending senior centers would attract and retain unaffiliated older adults.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

Approval by the Full Board of the Institutional Review Board at Fordham University was received in writing on May 8, 2012. No number or code was assigned to the approval form.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was jointly funded by the New York Community Trust and the Fan Fox & Leslie Samuels Foundation (Grant no. P12-000112).

ORCID iD

Manoj Pardasani

References

Administration for Community Living. (2018). 2018 profile of older Americans. https://acl.gov/sites/default/files/Aging%20and%20Disability%20in%20America/2018OlderAmericansProfile.pdf

Bush

Kivlahan

D. R.

McDonell

M. B.

Fihn

S. D.

Bradley

K. A.

(1998). The AUDIT alcohol consumption questions (AUDIT-C): An Effective Brief Screening Test for problem drinking: Ambulatory Care Quality Improvement Project (ACQUIP): Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. Archives of Internal Medicine, 158(16), 1789–1795.

Calsyn

R. J.

Winter

(2000). Who attends senior centers? Journal of Social Service Research, 26(2), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1300/J079v26n02_03

Choi

McDougal

(2007). Comparison of depressive symptoms between homebound older adults and ambulatory older adults. Aging & Mental Health, 11(3), 310–322.

Eaton

Salari

(2005). Environments for lifelong learning in senior centers. Educational Gerontology, 31(6), 461–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601270590928189

Giunta

Morano

Parikh

N. S.

Friedman

Fahs

M. C.

Gallo

W. T.

(2012). Racial and ethnic diversity in senior centers: Comparing participant characteristics in more and less multicultural settings. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 55(6), 467–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2011.653519

Golden

Conroy

R. M.

Bruce

Denihan

Greene

Kirby

Lawlor

B. A.

(2009). Loneliness, social support networks, mood and wellbeing in community-dwelling elderly. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 24(7), 694–700. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.2181

Ingvaldsen

A. K.

Balandin

(2011). “If we are going to include them we have to do it before we die”: Norwegian seniors’ views of including seniors with intellectual disability in senior centres. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 24(6), 583–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3148.2011.00636.x

Kadowaki

Mahmood

(2018). Senior centres in Canada and the United States: A scoping review. Can J Aging, 37(4), 420–441. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0714980818000302

10.

Kroenke

Spitzer

R. L.

Williams

J. B. W.

(2001). The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606–613.

11.

Krout

J. A.

(1998). Senior centers in America (5th ed.). Greenwood.

12.

Liu

Eggleston

K. N.

Min

Y. A. N.

(2017). Village senior centres and the living arrangements of older people in rural China: Considerations of health, land, migration and intergenerational support. Ageing & Society, 37(10), 2044–2073. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X16000714

13.

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 Health Care, 22, 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0275-4959(04)22007-5

14.

MaloneBeach

E. E.

Langeland

K. L.

(2011). Boomers’ prospective needs for senior centers and related services: A survey of persons 50-59. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 54(1), 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2010.524283

15.

Marhánková

J. H.

(2014). “Women are just more active”: Gender as a determining factor in involvement in senior centres. Ageing & Society, 34(9), 1482–1504. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X13000275

16.

Markwood

(2013). Is the senior center here to stay? Generations, 37(4), 75–76. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asag/gen/2013/00000037/00000004/art00015

17.

Marshall

S. E.

Cheng

Northridge

M. E.

Kunzel

Huang

Lamster

I. B.

(2013). Integrating oral and general health screening at senior centers for minority elders. American Journal of Public Health, 103(6), 1022–1025. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2013.301259

18.

Miller

Campbell

R. T.

Davis

Furner

Giachello

Prohaska

. . . Perez

(1996). Minority use of community long-term care services: A comparative analysis. Journals of Gerontology. Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 51(2), S70–S81. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/51b.2.s70

19.

Miyawaki

(2015). Association of social isolation and health across different racial and ethnic groups of older Americans. Ageing & Society, 35(10), 2201–2228.

20.

National Institute of Senior Centers. (2019). Facts and benefits of senior centers you probably didn’t know. https://www.ncoa.org/national-institute-of-senior-centers/tips-for-senior-centers/what-you-dont-know-about-your-local-senior-center/

21.

National Council on Aging. (2015). Senior centers fact sheet. https://d2mkcg26uvg1cz.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/FactSheet_SeniorCenters.pdf

22.

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

23.

New York City Department for the Aging. (2018). Annual plan summary.

24.

Ortiz

(2015). Mental health services structure: The case of older Puerto Ricans in senior centers. Journal of Social Service Research, 41(2), 204-215.

25.

Pardasani

(2004a). Senior centers: Focal points of community-based services for the elderly. Activities, Adaptation & Aging, 28(4), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1300/J016v28n04_03

26.

Pardasani

(2004b). Senior centers: Patterns of programs and services [Doctoral dissertation]. Yeshiva University.

27.

Pardasani

(2010). Senior centers: Characteristics of participants and nonparticipants. Activities, Adaptation & Aging, 34(1), 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/01924780903552295

28.

Pardasani

(2018). Motivation to volunteer among senior center participants. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 61(3), 313–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2018.1433259

29.

Pardasani

(2019). Senior centers: If you build will they come? Educational Gerontology, 45(2), 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2019.1583407

30.

Pardasani

Sackman

(2014). New York City senior centers: A Unique, grassroots, collaborative advocacy effort. Activities, Adaptation & Aging, 38(3), 200–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/01924788.2014.935907

31.

Pardasani

Thompson

(2012). Senior centers: Innovative and emerging models. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 31(1), 52–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464810380545

32.

Ralston

P. A.

(1982). Perception of senior centers by the black elderly. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 4(3–4), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1300/J083V04N03_11

33.

Ralston

P. A.

(1983). Levels of senior centers: A broadened view of group-based programs for the elderly. Activities, Adaptation & Aging, 3(2), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1300/J016v03n02_12

34.

Ralston

P. A.

(1984). Senior center utilization by black elderly adults: Social, attitudinal and knowledge correlates. Journal of Gerontology, 39(2), 224–229. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/39.2.224

35.

Ralston

P. A.

(1991). Senior centers and minority elders: A critical review. The Gerontologist, 31(3), 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/31.3.325

36.

Rosso

A. L.

Taylor

J. A.

Tabb

L. P.

Michael

Y. L.

(2013). Mobility, disability, and social engagement in older adults. Journal of Aging and Health, 25(4), 617–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264313482489

37.

Spitzer

R. L.

Kroenke

Williams

J. B. W.

(1999). Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: The PHQ Primary Care Study: Primary care evaluation of mental disorders. Patient Health Questionnaire. Journal of the American Medical Association, 282(18), 1737–1744.

38.

Strain

L. A.

(2001). Senior centres: Who participates? Canadian Journal on Aging/La Revue Canadienne du Vieillissement, 20(4), 471–492. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0714980800012277

39.

Taylor-Harris

Zhan

H. J.

(2011). The third-age African American seniors: Benefits of participating in senior multipurpose facilities. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 54(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2010.539588

40.

Teo

Choi

Andrea

Valenstein

Newsom

Dobscha

Zivin

(2015). Does mode of contact with different types of social relationships predict depression in older adults? Evidence from a nationally representative survey. Journal of American Geriatrics Society, 63(10), 2014–2022.

41.

Tuckman

(1967). Factors related to attendance in a center for older people. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 15(5), 474–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1967.tb02080.x

42.

Turner

K. W.

(2004). Senior citizens centers: What they offer, who participates, and what they gain. Journal of Geron- tological Social Work, 43(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1300/J083v43n01_04

43.

Walker

Bisbee

Porter

Flanders

(2004). Increasing practitioners’ knowledge of participation among elderly adults in senior center activities. Educational Gerontology, 30(5), 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601270490433549

44.

Weil

(2014). The new neighborhood senior center: Redefining social and service roles for the baby boom generation. Rutgers University Press.

45.

Yoo

S. H.

(2015). Predictors of senior center attendance in Korea: Findings from a national analysis. Journal of Social Service Research, 41(4), 530–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2015.1049398