1. Age-Friendly Communities: Moving Beyond Our Campus Borders Concepts and Early Data Karen Adams, Gerontological Services, Inc. Los Angeles, CA www.gsi.org

2. ALTERNATIVES Modifying communities to be senior friendly Identifying ideal locations (or near ideal) and add the resources ◦ Housing ◦ Services ◦ Navigators ◦ Care managers Expediency and cost effectiveness

3. CHANGING COMMUNITIES IS EXPENSIVE AND PROLONGED How Do We Use What We Have? Integrate supportive housing into urban, village…all environments ◦ Autonomy and flexibility of service use ◦ Support residents in remaining integrated Smaller sites ◦ Less risk ◦ Serve smaller neighborhood environments ◦ Still have a concentration for efficient service delivery Make existing resources hospitable

4. THE STORY OF Ursula: The 80% Who Want to (and will) Stay at Home In her 70s, lives alone, 13 miles out of town, modest income Where is Ursula? What is Ursula sitting on? What is Ursula doing? Use of Her Community Getting ready for hip surgery Fears and How She Resolved Them Learning about the surgery Rehab Under Health Care Reform 2-day stay in the hospital 3-day stay required for reimbursement The Rehab facilities “The web sites are C_ _ _” “What use is a fancy picture to me?” “I found hundreds of comments and reviews” on line What Was She Looking For? The Quality of Care Close to Home Wireless

5. Mary’s Woods’ Environment Market penetration estimated 21% to 35% for CCRCs Downtown Lake Oswego Within 3 Miles of the CCRC Campus University adjacent and affiliated

6. Mary’s Woods’ Pioneering Spirit Provide New Models Integrate with the University Work with the City, for: ◦ A Site ◦ Zoning ◦ Concept Expand Services Modified Data Collection Strategies

7. Consumer Data Set the direction Measure consumer desires Test assumptions Minimize trial by fire

8. Consumer Data Set the direction Measure consumer desires Test assumptions … Minimize trial by fire

9. PROCESS On-line survey Develop a list of age and income targeted households Send an invitation Go on-line Participate in the planning process

10. Why On-Line? Targeting younger households Structure a more complex inquiry Use of skip patterns More questions without negative impact Only relevant questions for each individual Cost Significantly greater coverage

11. The Outcome Not As High As Any Of Us Would Like People had to: Open the invitation Decide to participate Go on-line Get the address right Complete the questionnaire

12. Plans For The Future Stay in the current residence as long as possible 80% yes Move to be near children62% no 34% yes Move for climate 72% no24% yes Consider housing alternative91% yes ◦ CCRC campus65% ◦ Village/urban model 83%

13. When Will You Move? Need remains a key driver Our ability to deliver services could be critical Before needing assistance14% When I need to reduce home maintenance44% When I feel the need for support and assistance41%

14. Model Choice By Age AgeCampusVillage/Urban Less Than 7064%89% 70-7467%87% 75+54%63% Higher Interest In Village Model At All Ages Drop At Age 80+

15. Model Choice By Income IncomeCampusVillage/Urban LT $35K33%67% $35K-$75K59%73% $75K-$99K50%79% $100K+63%93% Higher Interest At All Incomes Significantly Higher Among Those With Incomes $100K+

16. Age Mix Preference Age restricted22% Not age restricted23% It does not matter53% No response2%

17. Walking Distance Shopping and services, very important: ◦ Restaurants75% ◦ Coffee shop/deli64% ◦ Fitness center59% ◦ Fitness classes50% of those who would use ◦ Pool58% of those who would use Distance Choices: Walking (3-4 blocks), Short Drive (1-3 miles), Further

18. On-Site Amenities % Rating Very Important Dining67%-75% Small fitness room70%-59% Emergency call system72% Room for educational programs69% Courtyard or rooftop garden61%

19. Factors Influencing Decision to Move to an Adult Community Quality of services90% Location in walking distance of shopping and services81% Services available73% Size of accommodations70% All services in one location55%

20. CONCLUSIONS There is interest in the model, maybe deep Younger households express interest, but services appear to remain a key driver for moving The move still appears to be “need” driven Challenges of the desire for on-site amenities: ◦ Dining ◦ Fitness

21. NEXT STEPS Further consumer research ◦ Ask ◦ Methodologies ◦ Discussion Groups  Self Directed  Leadership in City Planning processes ◦ ENGAGEMENT Insights of CCRC Residents ◦ Affiliated ◦ Proximate but Urban

22. THE STORY OF URSULA: What Isn’t Visible Very private Won’t allow home health workers in her home Pride Friendships and Exchange