COMM 440

Caring for the young and the old:

the importance of innovative, mixed age

care facilities

By: Toby P. Newstead

Our families are disintegrating. Due to mobility and divorce both the

extended and the nuclear family are fragmenting, this and the fact that many

mothers have jointed the workforce has created an unprecedented need for

child and elderly care. The conventional and most common solution to these

needs is age specific care facilities. There are myriad models of child daycare

facilities; public, private, for profit, and not for profit. However, most childcare

facilities tend to roughly follow the organizational framework of schools.

There are numerous styles of centers for the elderly; nursing homes, quasi

hospitals, age exclusive communities, and retirement villages. But, most

elderly care facilities tend to roughly follow the organizational framework of

hospitals.

Age specific care facilities are the conventional answer to the need for

child and elderly care, but they are not the best answer. Research illustrates

the negative consequences of age specific isolation and the vast benefits of

age integration (Benek-Higgins, et al., 2008; Conyers, 1996; Kuehne &

Collins, 1997; Powell & Arquitt, 2001Salari, 2002;). This paper will reflect on

said research and demonstrate that innovative care facilities, such as The

Glenwood, can eradicate the pitfalls of age specific isolation by following a

 Newstead 2

more familial, human relations based organizational framework, instead of

the framework of school or hospital.

Presently, over 58% of mothers with children under the age of six work

outside the home (Cornille, et al., 2005, p.631). And, as a result, about 40%

of preschool aged children in Canada are cared for outside of the home by a

non-family member (Library of Parliament, 2004). It is estimated that the

average woman will spend 17 years rearing children and 18 years caring for

aging parents (Chamberlain, et al., 1994, p. 194), and these trends will only

increase as the baby boomers age. It is evident and indisputable that there is

now, more than ever, a desperate need for child and elderly care. This is not

because our children need to enter school earlier, nor because our aging

populations need hospital care, but rather because the family settings within

which these two age groups were once cared for no longer exist (Hopkins,

2000; Chamberlain, et al., 1994).

Conventional age specific care facilities generally fail to provide

intergenerational contact between the elderly and the young. This missing

contact has detrimental affects. Senior citizens represent the most depressed

demographic in North America, accounting for 19% of suicides in the US

(Benek-Higgins, 2008, p. 284). Depression in elders is often related to

feelings of isolation, low personal worth, low social contact, and the loss of a

significant other. Depression in elders can manifest as loss of energy and

concentration, fatigue, shortness of breath, changes in appearance, social

withdrawal, hostility, slowed speech and movement, suspiciousness, picking

of skin, pacing, and angry outbursts (Benek-Higgins, 2008, p. 285).

Depression in elders commonly impacts emotional, motivational, behavioural,

 Newstead 3

cognitive, and physical aspects of life and can be most effectively treated

with communication, with human contact, and especially contact with

children (Benek-Higgins, 2008, p. 286).

It has been well documented that a lack of contact between

generations leads to negative stereotyping among children (Chaimberlain, et

al., 1994, p. 195). But, when intergenerational contact is fostered children’s

negative stereotyping of the elderly decreases (Powell, 2001). Children

having participated in facilitated intergenerational activities tend to score

higher in social development (Chaker, 2003, p. D1). The benefits of

intergenerational contact include decreased age stereotyping, diminished

depression in elders, and additional nurturing and attention for children

(Kaplan & Larkin, 2004, p. 157). These benefits of intergenerational contact

can be fostered by innovative mixed age care facilities such as The

Glenwood, an organization that more resembles a family than a large

institution such as a school or hospital.

The Glenwood is a mixed age care facility run out of a four-bedroom

farmhouse in Bridgewater, Vermont. The Glenwood has six low-care senior

residents, and one fulltime live-in caregiver. During the day, with additional

staff support, The Glenwood cares for 14 preschool aged children. The elderly

residents interact with the children as much or as little as they like; it is

common for the elders to read to and play games with the children. In time

close relationships between the elderly and the young at The Glenwood came

to resemble those of grandparents and grandchildren (Chaimberlain, et al.,

1994). The Glenwood is an economically profitable organization, but the

 Newstead 4

setting, atmosphere, and culture of the organization closely resemble that of

an extended family.

The Glenwood is a small facility with staffing, organizational structure,

and communications patterns that closely resemble the human relations

model. The human relations model recognizes the importance of individual

needs, such as Maslow’s Hierarch of Needs Theory, which seems imperative

in an organization entrusted with caring for the young and the aged. Being a

small organization, the Glenwood has the capacity to respect individual needs

and to be flexible in meeting them, whereas care provided in larger, more

formal institutions that resemble schools and hospitals, tend to follow strict

policies and procedures which can limit the autonomy of staff members in

accommodating individual needs.

At The Glenwood staff members have much autonomy, and

communication flows freely and predominantly horizontally; traits of a human

relations style organization. This is demonstrated by the adaptability of daily

routines. In the early stages of The Glenwood interactive activities were

formally arranged, however, when it became apparent that more

spontaneous and organic interactions were occurring between the old and

the young, the staff had the autonomy to drop the structured activities

(Chamberlain, et al., 1994). The Glenwood operates as a very organic

organization, as opposed to large nursing homes, which tend to be more

mechanical.

The classical approach likens organizations to machines, the human

relations approach likens organizations to organisms, and the human

relations approach likens organizations to families (Miller, 2006, p. 37-38). It

 Newstead 5

would seem appropriate that facilities designed to provide a family service

follow a model that assumes a family metaphor. The family metaphor is used

to illustrate that within organizations there are those that are charged with

responsibility, such as parents and managers, and those that are somewhat

limited in the power they wield, such as children and workers. The Glenwood

is an organization of caregivers delivering a service to clients; it is also an

organization that includes those whom are cared for. The caregivers and

those in care have a common and coordinated purpose: the effective and

integrated care of old and young. So, while some pay to be at The Glenwood,

and others are paid to be there, it does reason that both caregivers and care-

receivers are members of the same organization. And, within this

organization, the family power allocation metaphor holds; the caregivers at

The Glenwood are charged with responsibility, and those in care are

somewhat limited by the codes of behaviour and conduct endorsed by the

caregivers.

The Glenwood, which operates along the organizational structures of

the human relations model, provides a quasi-family setting for the elderly and

young people in care. The elderly and the young people cared for at The

Glenwood have the opportunity to develop rich and lasting intergenerational

relationships, that have myriad benefits both the children and the elderly. By

embracing innovative organizational structure, by employing the human

relations model, by allowing open communication among staff and between

staff and those in care, and by fostering contact across the generations, The

Glenwood answers to the pitfalls of conventional age specific care facilities.

 Newstead 6

References:

Benek-Higgins, M., McReynolds, C., Hogan, E., & Savickas, S. (2008)

Depression and the elder person: the enigma of misconceptions, stigma, and
treatment. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 30(4), 283-296.

Chaker, A. (2003) Putting toddlers in a nursing home; day care programs for
young and old grow in popularity, but kids’ germs are a worry. Wall Street
Journal, September, D.1

Chamberlain, V., Fetterman, E., & Maher, M. (1994) Innovation in elder and
child care: an intergenerational experience. Educational Gerontology, 20(2),
193 – 204.

Cool, J. (2004) Child care in Canada: regulated, unregulated, private or public.

Publication List, Library of Parliament.
www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0418-e.htm

Conyers, J. (1996) Building bridges between generations. Educational

Leadership, April, 14-16.

Cornille, T., Mullis, R., Mullis, A., & Shriner, M. (2005) An examination of
childcare teachers in for-profit and non-profit childcare centers. Early Child
Development and Care, 176(6), 631-641.

Hopkins, G. (2000) How important are intergenerational programs in today’s

schools? Phi DeltaKappan, 82(4), 317-319.

Kuehne, V., & Collins, C. (1997) Observational research in intergenerational

programming. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 28(3), 183-
193.

Kaplan, M. & Larkin, E. (2004) Launching intergenerational programs in early

childhood settings: a comparison of explicit intervention with an emergent
approach. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(3), 157-

Miller, K. (2006) Organizational Communication, approaches and processes.

Thomson Wadsworth.

Powell, J. & Arquitt, G. (1978) Getting the generations back together: a

rationale for development of community based intergenerational interaction
programs. The Family Coordinator, October, 421-426.

Salari, S. (2002) Intergenerational partnerships in adult day centers

importance of age appropriate environments and behaviors. The
Gerontologist, (42), 321-333.
Newstead 7