When policy-makers give their views on the sustainability of intergenerational programmes’, they often emphasise the responsibility of societies, institutions and people in general to promote behaviours that are increasingly sustainable. By sustainable development, I mean a balanced model that meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Intergenerational Programmes (IPs) are growing in number and scope. Numerous different studies published in the Journal of Intergenerational Relationships (JIR) highlight many benefits of IPs worldwide (Kuehne, 2003; Kuehne, 2003; Femia, Zarit, Blair, Jarrott, & Bruno, 2007; Jarrot, 2011). Some of them focus on the requirement of evaluating these programmes, advising and directing the way in which they should be conducted (Kuehne, 2003a; Kuehne, 2003b). However, the literature is not very good at coming up with ways of measuring the sustainability of the IPs. So we have a major challenge in the field - how do we encourage the development of tools or instruments that can be used to make comparative assessments of the sustainability of such programmes?
We also need to conduct more research with robust evaluations to help find new ways of making IPs sustainable. The insights, which we will gain from serious attempts to measure the sustainability of IP programmes, will contribute to the development of the intergenerational field. One thing that always struck me was the fact that every time an IP is established, it offers its participants the opportunity to start new relationships and experience new forms of learning, dialogue and interacting with people from a different generation. And yet after the IP ends, we (the researchers, I mean) move on and continue with our lives without knowing what happened to the people who were asked by us to participate in the IP. As a researcher, I believe that we have a responsibility to ensure the process does not end there.
When I think of sustainability in this context, what I have in mind is the ability of an intervention to deliver lasting benefits by setting up a new social network that stays in existence (Shediac-Rizkallah, 1998; Swerissen, 2004). Hence the duration of an IP is the first dimension of sustainability, but not the fundamental one. Pinazo & Kaplan (2007) state that for efficiency and effectiveness [Sustainability] of a IP, it must contain the following elements: i) respond to the real needs of the participants and the communities in which they live; ii) fit in to a strict design; iii) should be well planned and managed; and finally, iv) should involve different partners contributing a variety of knowledge and resources.
Let me say something about the first and on the fourth of Pinazo & Kaplan’s requirements. I accept that the sustainability of IPs has duration as its basis. I would want to define it, however, in a broader framework in which the meaningful initiatives undertaken for the generational participants have mutual and reciprocal benefits for all, which is the best guarantee of continuing motivate to participate. Moreover, a project in which the participants are fully involved in shaping the activities and feel a sense of ownership - connecting the generations – is the best way of making sure that participants’ needs will be entirely answered.
Therefore the direct relationship between decision-making and shared leadership are significant aspects of sustainability. For me, the idea of partnership should extend beyond the institutional partnerships that Pinazo & Kaplan have I mind to include the strengthening of community bonds and promotion of active citizenship. The sustainability of IPs does not depend on a single person, but on the contribution of various partners that encourage a shared coordination. The engagement across multiple partners emphasises positive connections with the aim of building stronger, better connected communities with increased social capital and citizenship. Likewise, a cross-disciplinary approach facilitates a better involved in working in an inclusive way and to think much more broadly about how they undertake their work. A sustainable IP does not lead necessarily to sustained results. In addition, programmes’ coordinators should consider that the sustainability of the results is relevant to the aims of the intervention. If this is the case, scholars and practitioners should consider what results should measure, their duration and what type of results they should get over time. An IP that relies solely on the coordinator may lead to its extinction.
We need to rethink what we understand by sustainability in relation to IP if we are to allow the field to grow as it should. Of course, we need more IPs doing different things, but we also need to deepen the way we think about their potential contribution to integral human development.
References
Femia, E. E., Zarit, S. H., Blair, C., Jarrott, S. E., & Bruno, K. (2007). Impact of intergenerational programming on child outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 272–287.
Kuehne, V. S. (2003a). The State of Our Art, Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 1:1, 145-161, DOI: 10.1300/J194v01n01_12
Kuehne, V. S. (2003b). The State of Our Art, Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 1:2, 79-94, DOI: 10.1300/J194v01n02_07
Jarrott, S. E. (2011). Where Have We Been and Where are We Going? Content Analysis of Evaluation Research of Intergenerational Programs, Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 9:1, 37-52, DOI: 10.1080/15350770.2011.544594.
Pinazo, S., & Kaplan, M. (2007). Los beneficios de los programas intergeneracionales. In M. Sánchez (Dir.), Programas Intergeracionales. Hacia una sociedad para todas las edades. (pp. 70-101). Colección de Estudios Sociales, n. 23. Barcelona, España: Fundación La Caixa.
Shediac-Rizkallah MC, Bone LR. (1998). Planning for the sustainability of community-based health programs: conceptual frameworks and future directions for research, practice and policy. Health Education Research, 13: 87-108.
Swerissen H, Crisp BR. (2004). The sustainability of health promotion interventions for different levels of social organization. Health Promotion International, 19: 123-130.
About the Author:
Cláudia Azevedo is a Visiting Fellow at the Oxford Institute of Population Ageing and the Research Officer for LARNA (Latin American Research Network on Ageing. Claudia is PhD student from Porto University, Portugal.
Comments Welcome:
We welcome your comments on this or any of the Institute's blog posts. Please feel free to email comments to be posted on your behalf to administrator@ageing.ox.ac.uk or use the Disqus facility linked below.
Opinions of the blogger is their own and not endorsed by the Institute
Comments Welcome: We welcome your comments on this or any of the Institute's blog posts. Please feel free to email comments to be posted on your behalf to administrator@ageing.ox.ac.uk or use the Disqus facility linked below.
