Friday, November 22, 2013
A fascinating article in The Gerontologist analyzes Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities (NORCs) and a similar community-based model for aging in place, known as the Village. Frankly, it was only recently that I realized these labels may be used for developments with different identities.
Researchers in social work, welfare and public health programs at Rutgers, Berkeley, Michigan, and Maryland surveyed program leaders representing 69 Villages and 62 NORCS in early 2012, gathering data on services, activities, beneficiaries and funding sources.
Their analysis, presented in "A Tale of Two Community Initiatives for Promoting Aging in Place: Similarities and Differences in the National Implementation of NORC Programs and Villages," suggests that while both programs "aim to promote aging in place by offering a diverse range of supports and services to older adults within a locally defined geographic area," the means by which they achieve their aims differ. For example, "NORC programs reported offering more traditional health and social services, had more paid staff, and relied more on government funding than Villages."
The article also identified topics for further study, including the potential for longitudinal studies. Regional differences may also exist. "For example, NORC programs in New York likely differ in some ways from NORC programs nationally, given different organizations overseeing their development, . . . as well as distinct public policies defining the programs and eligibility criteria."
As a bit of history, Beacon Hill Village in Boston was begun in 2001 by a group of seniors who wanted to remain at home as long as possible in their neighborhood. An early model for NORCs is widely attributed to a co-op in New York City, begun in 1986 with support from private philanthropy and local government funding.