Shared Site Intergenerational Programs: A National Profile

ABSTRACT

Shared site intergenerational programs deliver ongoing services and shared programming to youth and older adults in a single setting. With the potential to benefit youth, older adults, families, and communities, they attract growing attention from practitioners, researchers, funders, and policy makers. Using national survey data we profile characteristics of 95 shared sites. Responding programs connected over 25,000 youth and older persons in 2017. The most common models consisted of adult day services and early childhood programs (i.e., preschool or childcare), though unique models offered diverse opportunities. Current priorities and challenges can be addressed with systematic data collection and access to resources, including incentives in the 2020 reauthorized Older Americans Act.

Key Points

• Americans prefer to receive care where multiple generations are served.

• Shared site intergenerational models vary; child and adult day programs are common.

• Practitioners need access to evaluation, interprofessional, and programming resources.

• The reauthorized Older Americans Act can help address the needs of shared site programs.

KEYWORDS:

• Intergenerational
• inter-generational
• multi-generational
• shared site
• community-based service
• youth
• older adults
• older americans act

Introduction

The average age of Americans is increasing, with rapid growth of the older adult population, whose members are enjoying, on average, more years of health with greater life expectancy (Administration for Community Living, 2018). They seek meaningful roles, which may involve employment, leisure, and civic activities, and which are associated with physical, mental, and financial health benefits (Stav et al., 2012). Many desire generative opportunities that allow them to share their talents with younger persons (Erikson, 1982; Tang et al., 2010). Simultaneously, young people benefit from relationships with consistent, caring adults who can provide care, instruction, and mentoring relative to the developmental tasks they face (Elder, 1998; Graves & Larkin, 2006). With families taking many shapes due to single parenthood, divorce, and immigration, among other factors, individuals may need to look outside of their kin network for close, trusting intergenerational relationships. Given the demonstrated benefit of these relationships (e.g., Bagnasco et al., 2020; Erikson, 1982), they should be encouraged in non-familial, as well as familial, contexts.

Intergenerational programs facilitate the formation of close, trusting relationships between youth (usually 24 years of age and younger) and older adults (usually 50 and older) by bringing them together for mutual benefit. Programs take many shapes, achieving an array of goals with varied groups across the United States and around the world (e.g., Gerritzen et al., 2020). Intergenerational relationships, involving members of non-adjacent generational cohorts, can simultaneously support varied goals and needs of youth, older adults, and their families while utilizing the assets that each generation contributes (e.g., Bagnasco et al., 2020; Gerritzen et al., 2020). Over time, close, affectionate relationships frequently develop among participants (e.g., Chua et al., 2013), adding value beyond single generation programs.

Some intergenerational programs have operated for decades, and new ones crop up every year, such as Sharing Smiles, a pen pal program launched in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (empoweringtheages.org). Due to the diverse forms intergenerational programs take, finding them can be challenging (Generations United, 2018). They operate in varied settings, may not advertise intergenerational efforts, or may be short-lived, discontinuing when they encounter obstacles (Azevedo & Sánchez, 2019).

In 2018, a grant from The Eisner Foundation allowed Generations United to launch a national study focused on one type of intergenerational program, shared sites. Shared sites are those in which youth- and older adult-serving organizations offer ongoing services and shared programming in a co-located setting (Goyer & Zuses, 1998). Typically, these co-located services are situated in the same building; in the case of long-term care communities, a youth program may share an address with one or more older adult services and be surrounded by other buildings whose occupants also join intergenerational programming. Participants receiving services may choose to join (or refrain from) intergenerational activities offered at the site. The study included a public opinion poll and a survey of shared site representatives. The study aimed to: (1) assess public preference for and awareness of shared sites, (2) locate shared sites currently operating in the United States, and (3) create a profile of current shared sites. These objectives supported a larger goal of optimizing the development and operations of shared sites to meet public needs and preferences. We present here profiles of shared sites to address aims 2 and 3 (see, Generations United, 2018 for a report on aim 1).

Literature review

Diverse factors point to the potential value of intergenerational shared sites. From an early age, youth routinely utilize community-based services for care, education, health, and recreation programming (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). Among older adults, who are living longer and typically aim to age within their communities (Harris-Kojetin et al., 2013), providers have found home- and community-based services a desirable, cost-effective means to deliver needed supports (Generations United, 2019). This confluence of need creates the potential for young and old to receive services and interact with persons diverse in age and other characteristics, which developmental theorists have associated with successful development across the lifecourse (Elder, 1998; Erikson, 1982). Middle-age adults are also experiencing a growing need for intergenerational shared sites. With trends toward delayed marriage and childbirth and greater life expectancy, more middle age adults find themselves in the sandwich generation (Wiemers & Bianchi, 2015), providing support for their children and parents, in-laws, and/or grandparents. The ability to access services for young and older adult relatives in a single space can ease demands on family carers. Researchers highlighted the importance of intergenerational supports in a framework of aging-friendly services designed to help fill gaps that have emerged during the Covid-19 pandemic (Hoffman et al., 2020).

Intergenerational shared sites take many shapes. An early survey of 281 shared site representatives revealed that the most common model consisted of nursing homes or adult day services co-located with childcare centers (Goyer & Zuses, 1998). Intergenerational programming at these sites was typically planned and ongoing, providing benefits of enhanced participant engagement, attitudes toward the other age group, and positive affect. Most shared sites were affiliated with public nonprofit corporations. Respondents named funding as the greatest challenge their programs faced.

Contemporary shared sites include unique partnerships like the Swampscott, Massachusetts senior center and high school. This co-location of youth and older adult services allows students to complement classroom instruction with experiential learning by working with the senior center participants (Generations United, 2018). Students may conduct interviews with participants to gain perspective on lived experience of historical events; older adults may inform the work of students in vocational technology courses as they construct items for use by the older adults.

Shared site programs benefit varied stakeholders (Jarrott et al., 2019; Weeks et al., 2016). For example, interviews with family caregivers and older residents involved with an intergenerational playgroup hosted at a nursing home reflected mutual benefit for residents, parents, and children alike through the creation of personal ties involving reciprocal exchange, shared affection, and increased awareness between the generations (Skropeta et al., 2014). Benefits of participation in intergenerational activities at shared sites can extend long-term, as demonstrated in a study in which elementary school age children who had attended a shared site preschool exhibited higher levels of empathy than age peers who lacked such supplemental intergenerational contact (Femia et al., 2008).

Shared sites offer some unique advantages compared to intergenerational programs where one group travels to visit the other. Eliminating transportation barriers fosters frequency and continuity of shared programming for those who choose to join the intergenerational activities (Goyer & Zuses, 1998). Some shared sites employ staff who are credentialed to work across centers, which can help centers maintain staff-to-client ratios (Weaver et al., 2019). Co-locating services can result in cost-savings (Generations United, 2019; Jarrott et al., 2008) if providers share costs (e.g., marketing or housekeeping). Staff may also experience benefits; nursing home staff named improved productivity and reduced stress as potential benefits of opening a childcare at the site (Weeks et al., 2016).

Despite the potential advantages shared sites represent, intergenerational programming frequently discontinues (Henkin & Patterson, 2017), reflecting financial and logistic challenges (Weaver et al., 2019). Changes in organizational culture or administrators, or cuts in one program’s budget, can lead to termination of intergenerational partnerships (Henkin & Patterson, 2017). Deeper understanding of stakeholders’ priorities, requirements, and capacity is needed to promote their development and sustainability (Jarrott et al., 2019). Results presented here offer an initial step toward optimizing the number and operation of shared sites so more individuals, families, and communities can benefit from them.

Study overview

The Eisner Foundation is committed to identifying, advocating for, and investing “in high-quality and innovative programs that unite multiple generations for the enrichment of our communities” (eisnerfoundation.org). To assess awareness of, interest in, and characteristics of shared sites, a nationwide initiative was launched in 2018, consisting of two studies. A public opinion poll, was conducted online by The Harris Poll on behalf of Generations United from February 27-March 1, 2018 among 2,041 American adults ages 18 and older (Aim 1). Respondents were asked their perceptions about the benefits of shared sites, interest in accessing such services, familiarity with shared sites in their area, and perceptions of whether and how the government should be involved in developing shared sites (Generations United, 2018). Respondents revealed strong support for intergenerational shared sites. The majority agreed that there are mutual benefits of young and older people interacting with each other, such as reducing loneliness across ages (92%). Though only about 1 in 10 identified as caregiver to a young or older person, more than 4 in 5 stated a preference to receive care for themselves (85%) or a loved one (86%) where people of different ages could interact, rather than in a single generation setting, if they needed care services. However, most (74%) did not know where to find a shared site in their community.

When asked what kinds of community institutions should be co-located as shared sites, respondents frequently named senior centers and schools/ universities, teen/youth centers, places of worship, and recreational facilities, along with senior residences (Generations United, 2018). Additionally nearly 9 in 10 believed serving both youth and older adults at the same location would be a good use of resources, with 82% supporting their tax dollars going toward the creation of shared sites (Generations United, 2018). Tables summarizing these data and prepared by The Harris Poll are available as supplemental materials, along with the link to an infographic presenting poll results.

As part of the larger initiative by The Eisner Foundation, we conducted an online survey of intergenerational programs. Survey results permitted identification of shared sites (Aim 2) and creation of intergenerational program profiles (Aim 3). The profiles include characteristics of the organizations, their participants, and activities, as well as the priorities and challenges they navigate in relation to intergenerational programming.

Methods

Study design and sample

We gathered quantitative and qualitative survey data from shared sites currently offering intergenerational programming for Aims 2 and 3 (IRB: OSU#2018E00508). Representatives completed the survey. Of these, duplicate responses (n = 11), non-US programs (n = 2), and programs not qualifying as shared sites (n = 145) were deleted. The current study presents results from 95 shared sites (38.5% of the total responses) located in 30 states and the District of Columbia. Program directors (63%) and managers (15%) most commonly completed the survey.

Procedure

The survey was developed collaboratively. Generations United convened an advisory committee of representatives from youth and older adult health, education, social service, and civic groups nationwide. Researchers developed and revised the survey based on the committee’s input. Shared site administrators tested the revised survey and offered feedback on length and ease of completion. The final survey was formatted for online completion via Qualtrics; a print version was available, which one program completed.

The survey of shared sites was launched through multiple avenues to organizations believed to be shared sites, including programs that completed the 1995 survey (Goyer & Zuses, 1998) and self-identified shared sites in a Generations United database. Generations United and advisory committee members distributed announcements through routine communications with network members, such as newsletters, e-mails, and social media posts. Surveys were completed February 16 – June 3, 2018; over 90% of surveys were completed by April 24.

Measures

The 25-item survey covered three topics: (a) organizational profile, (b) participant profile, and (c) intergenerational programming profile. Most items were close-ended, allowing respondents to select, for example, what services their organization provided. One set of dichotomous items measured use of intergenerational strategies to support organizational priorities (e.g., “Promoting participants’ health and wellness”); respondents could select multiple responses reflecting their organization’s context. A set of Likert-scale items addressed challenges associated with intergenerational programs (e.g., “Documenting impact of intergenerational programming;” 1 = not a challenge, 2 = somewhat of a challenge, and 3 = major challenge); respondents indicated all relevant challenges they perceived in operating intergenerational programming. Open-ended prompts captured “other” answers and the organization’s purpose (“What is the purpose of your intergenerational programming?”) and greatest challenge (“What has been the biggest challenge for your intergenerational program?”) of offering intergenerational programming. Along with closed-ended responses, we excerpted key words from open-ended prompts to present a list of perceived priorities and challenges of intergenerational programming. The survey is provided in supplemental materials.

Analysis

First, we conducted descriptive analyses to create organizational, participant, and program profiles. Responses to the challenge items were dichotomized to represent challenge/not a challenge, where a response of “somewhat of a challenge” or “major challenge” was coded as “challenge.” Next, the second author and a trained research assistant analyzed open-ended responses to questions about the purpose and greatest challenge of offering intergenerational programming. Using Excel, they imported responses verbatim, conducting a content analysis to identify main themes inductively (Weber, 1990). The coders individually analyzed responses and reviewed the final codes with the first author. Audit trails and debriefing helped ensure unbiased results.

Results

Organizational profile

The physical proximity of youth and older adult services distinguishes shared sites from other intergenerational programs. Among the 95 responding shared sites, youth and older adult programs typically occupied separate spaces in a single building (51.1%). Additionally, nearly one in four operates on a shared campus, such as Kendal at Oberlin, whose childcare center is housed within an assisted living building that is part of a retirement community with other residences nearby. Finally, 25% of respondents served youth and older participants in the same space, such as Hope & A Future therapeutic residential community that is home to focal populations, such as older adults with care needs and at-risk families. Responding to an item about the building’s design, nearly two-thirds of the shared sites were designed for use by youth and older adults.

The most common services provided at shared sites were adult day services (offered at 43.2% of the shared sites) and preschool (54.7%; See, Table 1). Some shared sites involved school-age children (e.g., Hope Meadows residential community), providing youth summer programs (40.0%), before-after school programs (32.6%), and primary or secondary learning (18.9%). Shared sites engaging university students (10.5%) usually consisted of services aimed at other youth and older adult groups. Other shared sites (11.6%) included co-learning opportunities, such as choir programs, where older adults and youth received training together. Nearly half of the shared sites offered multiple youth and multiple older adult services.

Table 1. Services provided by shared sites (N = 95).

Variable	Frequency	Percent
For older adults
Adult day services	41	43.2
Residential care (e.g., assisted living)	37	38.9
Nursing home care	37	38.9
Independent senior housing	30	31.6
Short-term rehabilitation	30	31.6
Senior center services and activities	27	28.4
Congregate meal	20	21.1
Recreation center activities	20	21.1
Other (e.g., co-learning opportunities)	10	9.5
For youth
Preschool	52	54.7
Child daycare	42	44.2
Youth summer programs	38	40.0
Before-after school programs	31	32.6
Primary or secondary learning	18	18.9
Recreational center activities	14	14.7
Youth higher education	10	10.5
Other (e.g., co-learning or mentoring)	11	11.6

Note. Respondents indicated they offered multiple youth and/or older adult services at a responding site; therefore, percentages can add up to greater than 100%.

Respondents reported the number of youth and older adults served at their shared site in 2017. Responses varied greatly, reflecting the diversity of shared site component programs. Across the sites that reported number of youth and/or older adult participants (74 reported youth data and 70 reported older adult data), the range of youth served ranged from eight to 10,000 (Mean = 390); it stretched from 10 to 3,000 (Mean = 298) for older adults served. Typically, city parks and recreation programs reported large numbers served, while co-learning programs served a small number of participants. In total, 37,000 youth and 28,000 older adults received services across the 95 shared sites in 2017.

Because persons receiving services at shared sites may not participate in intergenerational programming, either because they receive services when intergenerational programming is not scheduled or they choose not to participate, respondents were asked to indicate what percentage of their clients participated in intergenerational programming. Across the 95 sites, the mean level of intergenerational program participation was 78.2% of youth and 57.3% of older adults receiving services at the shared site.

Asked about their organization’s financial status, the majority of respondents described the shared site as private not-for-profit (68.4%); others reported public (16.8%), private for-profit (12.6%), or other (3.2%; e.g., volunteer) status. As seen in Table 2, 80% of respondents indicated that offering intergenerational programming generated expenses – anything not typically built into a component program’s budget. Examples of expenses associated with an intergenerational program include the wages of an intergenerational coordinator or equipment to facilitate programming. Nearly half of the respondents said that youth and older adult programs funded intergenerational expenses jointly. A few shared sites relied on funds from the youth programs (6.3%) or older adult programs (5.3%) for intergenerational program expenses. We turn next to characteristics of youth and older adults served at these sites.

Table 2. Major funding source for intergenerational programming (N = 88).

Funding source	Frequency	Percent
No additional funding source	19	21.5
Additional funding for shared sites	69	78.4
Youth and older adult programs fund jointly	45	51.1
Youth programs	6	6.8
Older adult programs	5	5.7
Grants and donations	13	14.8

Participant profile

Among youth and older adults served, at least some were deemed vulnerable, or at risk of not having their basic needs met, at most shared sites. Among the 89.2% of shared sites indicating that they serve vulnerable persons a mean of 28.4% of youth and 41.1% of older adult participants were considered vulnerable.

Respondents also indicated whether they provided programming for focal participant groups such as those who have been historically marginalized (e.g., LGBTQ+ individuals; 26%) or who warrant specialized care due to a diagnosis (e.g., persons with dementia; 60%). From veterans (36%) to homeless persons (12%), shared sites offered programming and services for diverse populations.

Intergenerational programming profile

All respondents offered opportunities for participants to join intergenerational programming, but the frequency of such offerings varied. Table 3 summarizes characteristics of intergenerational programming. The majority of respondents reported offering intergenerational programming at least weekly, with some shared sites offering intergenerational activities once or more per day (38.6%). As intergenerational activity offerings varied in frequency, so did responsibility for facilitating the activities. The most commonly identified method involved staff from the youth and older adult programs sharing responsibility (31.1%), though in some instances a single staff member (affiliated with a youth or older adult service) bore that responsibility. A dedicated coordinator may have supported intergenerational programming on their own or in collaboration with staff or students/volunteers.

Table 3. Intergenerational (IG) program characteristics (N = 95).

Variable	Frequency	Percent
IG program frequency
Once or more per day	34	38.6
1–4 times per week	17	19.3
2–3 times per month	19	21.6
Monthly or seasonally	15	17.0
Person(s) facilitating programming
Youth and older adult program staff	28	31.1
Staff with students/volunteers	15	16.7
IG coordinator and program staff	10	11.1
IG coordinator	10	11.1
IG coordinator and students/volunteers	9	10.0
Older adult program staff	8	8.9
Youth program staff	5	5.6
Volunteers and/or students	5	5.6

Shared sites applied intergenerational strategies to support varied priorities. Table 4 indicates which priorities were supported by intergenerational strategies among respondents. Considering the five highest rated priorities, most used intergenerational programming to support positive relationships (93%), positive attitudes toward youth (88.4%) and older adults (93%), participant health (87.2%), and to utilize community members’ talents (79.1%).

Table 4. Perceived priorities and challenges of intergenerational (IG) programming (N = 95).

Survey Item	Frequency	Percent
Priority supported by IG programming
Fostering positive IG relationships	80	93.0
Improving attitudes toward older adults	80	93.0
Improving attitudes toward youth	76	88.4
Promoting participant health/development	75	87.2
Utilizing community members’ talents	68	79.1
Building community capacity	56	65.1
Improving attitudes toward other groups	55	64.0
Financial stability	42	48.8
Relieving caregiver stress	42	48.8
Optimizing use of physical space	41	47.7
Improving workplace climate	41	47.7
IG programming challenges
Demonstrating impact of IG program	63	74.1
Finding/connecting with peer IG programs	62	72.9
Funding IG programming	55	64.7
Staffing IG programming	48	56.5
Locating staff IG training resources	46	54.1
Communicating about the IG program	45	52.9
Locating IG programming resources	40	47.1
Older adults’ interest	37	43.5
Addressing safety or health issues	34	40.03
Space (e.g., sharing or maintaining)	33	38.8
Staff interest	28	32.9
Youth interest	24	28.3
Establishing IG partnerships	24	28.3
Administrators’ interest	14	16.5
Family interest	14	16.5
Other (e.g., licensing regulations)	3	3.5

Note. Respondents indicated multiple responses to two open-ended questions.

Respondents also indicated which challenges of intergenerational programming they had experienced at their shared site (see, Table 4). The three challenges endorsed by the most respondents were demonstrating program impact (74.1%), connecting with intergenerational peers (72.9%), and funding the intergenerational program (64.7%).

Table 5 presents themes and illustrative quotes from two open-ended survey questions reflecting the purpose and greatest challenge for the intergenerational program. Describing the purpose of their intergenerational program, the majority of respondents expanded on the list of potential priorities, for example, alleviating social isolation, supporting learning goals, and building compassion for one another, including by challenging stereotypes. The respondents elaborated that intergenerational programs promoted older adults as “valued members of the community” and helped youth develop “critical skills” and “deeper understanding” of older adults while “building mutual respect between generations.” With regards to the greatest challenge associated with offering intergenerational programming, answers related to funding (e.g., school grant and contract requirements limiting time children had to interact with older adults), engaging diverse participants in programming, staffing (e.g., high turnover), intergenerational training for staff, communication, demonstrating impact (e.g., a lack of quantitative data), and timing or scheduling of intergenerational programming. Next, we address the implications of opinion poll and survey responses from shared site representatives in relation to previous findings.

Table 5. Qualitative themes of shared sites’ intergenerational (IG) purpose and challenge.

Theme	Representative Quotes
Purpose
Alleviate social isolation	Alleviate social isolation and help older adults live as valued members of the community.
Support learning goals	Help youth develop critical skills as they engage with older adults. Provide adult education that allows for cultural enrichment.
Build compassion and challenge stereotypes	Build mutual respect between the generations. Sharing stories to help them find common ground and develop a deeper understanding of each other.
Challenge
Funding	School grant and contract requirements limit children’s ability to interact with older adults.
Engaging participants	Independent living adults are less interested in organized programming with the children. Some adults cannot engage with children due to their abilities.
Staffing	The biggest challenge is getting childcare staff interested, comfortable engaging with older adults and rec therapy staff.
IG training	High staff turnover requires continuous training.
Communicating	Internal communication is inefficient, limiting opportunities.
Demonstrating impact	Inability to generate quantitative data indicating program value. Much of our data is anecdotal.
Timing	Preschool is 2.5 hours; it’s hard to fit IG in with curriculum.

Discussion

The current study represents the first effort in over 20 years to systematically identify and profile shared sites in the United States – programs currently promoted by the reauthorized Older Americans Act (Supporting Older Americans Act). Contemporary shared sites offer intergenerational programming for reasons similar to those described by Goyer and Zuses (1998), including positive intergenerational relationships and attitudes, community building by utilizing community members’ talents, and financial stability, which may be achieved by sharing expenses and resources. The current survey offers some points of comparison to the 1995 AARP survey (Goyer & Zuses, 1998). As then, most contemporary shared sites consist of preschool programs co-located with adult day services or residential care programs. Still, programs responding to the 2018 survey reflect increasing diversity in use of shared sites to support varying community needs.

The shared site representatives completing our survey highlight the value of their work and frustration that it is often unrecognized by funders and other potential stakeholders who could provide much needed resources to aid their capacity to connect generations. Challenges reported in 2018 also echo those documented by Goyer and Zuses (1998), such as availability of funding and professional development resources (e.g., peers and staff training resources). While the need to demonstrate impact of intergenerational programming emerged as the most common challenge in the current study, it ranked eighth in 1998, likely reflecting increasing competition for limited funds that lead grantors to specify documented impact as a condition of support. The next section offers recommendations on how to respond to needs and capitalize on existing assets.

Recommendations to optimize shared sites

Data from two studies conducted as part of a larger initiative focused on awareness of, interest in, and characteristics of shared sites are encouraging. Responding to the opinion poll (Aim 1; Generations United, 2018), Americans indicate a preference for shared site service delivery, seeing the benefit of linking generations. They endorse the dedication of government resources and oversight to develop and promote shared sites. The programs that would be good locations for shared sites are already collaborating, but most people do not know where to find them. Generations United (2018) concludes that work needs to be done to raise awareness of shared sites among potential clients and among providers serving just one age group.

Survey data from 95 current shared site representatives (Aim 2) reinforce conclusions based on the Aim 1 opinion poll and indicate next steps that will see these programs grow in prevalence, visibility, and proven effectiveness. The 95 responding shared sites engage people from all means and walks of life in intergenerational programming – over 25,000 in 2017. While this figure undercounts engagement in shared site intergenerational programming as we lacked 100% participation, it indicates a high level of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of intergenerational strategies. Goals supported by co-locating youth and older adult services extend beyond intergenerational relationships. Respondents identified a broad range of objectives, such as participant health, community building, and cost-savings, which have been evidenced in previous research (Gerritzen et al., 2020; Gruenewald et al., 2016). However, more empirical data will be required to develop our knowledge around shared sited programming.

Resources need to be developed and shared widely. In turn, empirical data on the achievement of participant and organizational outcomes using intergenerational strategies must be gathered and disseminated to varied stakeholders. Research should encompass common and unique shared site models. Recommendations for integrating the 2018 opinion poll and the program survey data follow. These macro-level supports center on creating science-based resources and distributing them widely, attending both to the most common shared site arrangement as well as newer models.

Documenting and disseminating evidence of impact

Documenting impact represents the number one challenge of shared sites, which reflects the pressure they face to detail outcomes to current and potential funders, advisory boards, and other stakeholders. Practitioners qualitative feedback indicates their awareness that photos and stories depicting positive intergenerational interactions must be complemented by rigorous evaluation data. Practitioners should partner with evaluators or researchers to measure how shared site service delivery impacts participant and organizational outcomes. Gaps exist in both of these areas of inquiry. Regarding participant outcomes, organizations frequently aim to optimize participant health and development, yet intergenerational research typically focuses on participant satisfaction and attitudes (Gerritzen et al., 2020). Evaluation partners (practitioners and trained evaluators) need to investigate outcomes of interest to stakeholders, comparing these across shared sites and single generation settings. Research should concentrate on the most common shared sites – care programs – and the outcomes they aim to achieve. Innovative models for example, New York City’s Grandparent Family Apartments (https://pssusa.org/gfa/), which offers affordable housing and kinship care services to grandparents raising grandchildren also warrant researchers’ attention for the potential benefits they offer. If evidence indicates an advantage of shared site compared to single generation programming (e.g., Gruenewald et al., 2016), administrators may pursue shared sites as a worthwhile investment.

When evaluation partners disseminate program outcomes expansively, they address another challenge that more than half of shared sites experience – communicating about their intergenerational program. Practitioners can share evidence of best intergenerational practice through initiatives like Generations United’s Program of Distinction (https://www.gu.org/projects/programs-of-distinction/) and their staff and participants’ preferred social media platform(s). Researchers can, and should, share their work in an accessible manner (Coates, 2016). Briefs, podcasts, editorials, and infographics summarize data for diverse audiences. Pinterest boards, YouTube videos, and Instagram posts reach a multitude of interested parties. As diverse as shared sites are, so should be the means of communicating their impact.

Supporting staff and program development

Shared sites are more than the co-location of youth and older adult services staffed by persons with expertise with the component programs. Integrating groups requires proficiencies and experience that many respondents struggle to locate. Shared sites need access to peer programs and program development resources.

Professional organizations

Some professional organizations incorporate intergenerational initiatives, such as an interest group, dedicated to intergenerational topics (e.g., the Gerontological Society of America’s Intergenerational Learning, Research, and Community Engagement interest group). Organizations may offer a track for intergenerational presentations at their annual conference (e.g., American Society on Aging). Whereas such initiatives were previously limited to registered conference goers, Covid-19 has spurred organizations to offer free participation to some networking events, which may allow intergenerational professionals to connect with peer programs.

Online resources

Several online resources support shared site and intergenerational staff development (See Supplemental Materials). For example, university, Extension, and advocacy groups have created intergenerational cross-training modules and program development and evaluation materials. Program webpages and social media offer resources to help groups find counterparts. Organizations can make it easier for their counterparts to locate them by making their programs searchable (e.g., intergenerational, inter-generational, multigenerational, multi-generational, and cross-age) to enhance search engine optimization. Promoting shared sites online would raise visibility and support network development and resource exchanges (Weaver et al., 2019).

Results from the 2018 survey point to the potential value of both focusing and expanding development and distribution of online resources. First, with older adult and early childhood care programs comprising the majority of shared sites, resources should be developed with these client and staff characteristics in mind. Second, although small in number, resources describing diverse shared sites should be communicated to illustrate the wide range of needs and opportunities addressed by shared sites.

Expanding funding

Shared sites frequently rely on grants, even as they pursue cost-savings by co-locating services. Funders typically focus on one group of participants, but practitioners can increasingly find support for intergenerational strategies. The Eisner Foundation, RRF: Foundation for Aging, and Children Youth and Families at Risk (CYFAR) grantors have recently funded intergenerational program and research grants. Other groups may not offer grants but instead provide free or low-cost training, curricula, technical assistance, and/or network connections, such as the Extension system, which serves every county in the US. Whether exclusive to or inclusive of intergenerational approaches, funders can promote delivery and study of shared sites. Funders should make awards with conditions of evaluating and disseminating findings – and offer technical assistance for grantees to meet these conditions.

The unanimously re-authorized Older Americans Act (Supporting Older Americans Act, 2020) describes incentives for community service providers to collaborate on shared sites. Consistent with opinion poll data endorsing government support of shared sites (Generations United, 2018), Section 306 describes grants to projects serving younger and older individuals together. Recipients will promote “(A) meaningful roles for participants; (B) reciprocity in relationship building; (C) reduced social isolation and improved participant social connectedness; (D) improved economic well-being for older individuals; (E) increased lifelong learning; or (F) support for caregivers of families.” Grant recipients must evaluate their efforts to indicate effectiveness and impact on older adults, the community being served, and the organization (Sec. 306). The Supporting Older Americans Act represents a confluence of need and opportunity that can significantly advance shared sites, bringing to bear the talents that youth and older adults have to share with each other and their larger community.

Other policies influence shared site funding and operations. Licensing bodies responsible for operation of common shared site partners are typically segregated by client age group. These authorities could collaborate, identifying strategies to share across program types to ensure safety without categorical age segregation. Championing cost-effective, value-added service delivery, authorities could help Reframe Aging © and expand their circle of influence via shared sites.

Data strengths and limitations

The current study possesses limitations and strengths. Our ties to intergenerational research, practice, and policy professionals enabled construction and dissemination of a concise survey that generated organizational, participant, and program profiles. Despite extensive and direct recruitment efforts, a number of programs that appear to be operating as shared sites did not complete the survey. In researching the 281 sites in Goyer and Zuses database for contact information, it appears that at least 32 shared sites have closed, at least 90 are still operating either a youth or older adult service but offer no evidence of intergenerational activities. At least 70 appear to still be open and offering intergenerational programming – several of them responded to our survey. Discontinuation of services for youth and/or older adults at these sites reflects the challenges current survey respondents indicated of locating resources (funding, peer support, and evaluation data) essential to program sustainability. Despite non-response from extant programs, with our findings mirroring those of the 1998 Goyer and Zuses study, we are confident that the current study represents the landscape of shared sites. Qualitative responses to survey items were limited in richness; however they reflected responses to the survey’s close-ended items as well as findings of in-depth qualitative studies investigating the challenges experienced by shared sites (e.g., Skropeta et al., 2014; Weaver et al., 2019).

Conclusion

Shared sites address issues of contemporary critical concern, such as ageism, isolation, health, and community cohesion. These organizations pursue numerous goals while navigating routine and extraordinary challenges. We must respond to their request for science and funding support. As shared sites renew the intergenerational relationships their participants have missed, they deserve to have resources to aid evaluation, funding, and programming and staff development. Challenges shared sites face today may lead to solutions used well into the future.

Data sharing

Due to the nature of this research, not all respondents to the shared site representative survey agreed for their data to be shared publicly, so supporting data are not available. The Harris Poll data are available.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge contributions of: Dr. Holly Dabelko-Schoeny (OSU) to help develop the instrument and procedures; Sheri Steinig (Generations United) and the advisory group she convened to inform the survey; Brieanne Beaujolais and Mikaela Haney (OSU), who identified and recruited respondents; Senior Research Analyst Christina Lojek (The Harris Poll), who advised authors to ensure accurate representation of the opinion poll; and, the shared sites practitioners who completed the survey.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website

Additional information

Funding

This work was funded by The Eisner Foundation #60063671.