If aging in place was the answer, older adults, their families, and their communities would be THRIVING. And we know many are not. We are not. Older adults are struggling to remain in their homes, worried about being physically and financially devastated, and actually being so, while their communities and families struggle to meet their needs.
The Misconception of Aging in Place
90% of older adults in the US are already aging in place so why do we act as if we’re trying to make aging in place a reality? Aging in place is the reality because it’s the default.
As the default, aging in place requires no preparation and no planning. People just let it happen and hope that it will go smoothly. But that is not working out well for so many. Why? Because there are real barriers that making aging in place a danger to individuals’ physical and financial well-being, with negative impacts on their families and their communities.
A major misunderstood variable is the design of the built environment: housing, neighborhoods, public places, transportation, infrastructure. Because the status quo of these places are not designed for real people’s needs and abilities across the lifespan, they unnecessarily and expensively contribute to age-related decline and frailty.
If I can’t get to and from stores and services, how can I get food and medical care? Well, I become dependent on family or municipal services. If I have mobility needs, how can I age in my home when the doors are too narrow to access with a walker? If I can’t bathe myself because I can’t step over the tub or shower curb, who will provide care when we have a nationwide shortage of home health aides which existed long before the pandemic exacerbated it?
Home and community based services (HCBS) and programs that address these needs are immensely valuable but the need for them could be prevented or reduced. This is especially crucial as both private-pay and government-funded programs are struggling to meet the demands of a growing aging population. Communities must shift gears and prepare to not only meet the needs of today’s older adult population but the coming Millennials, who will begin turning 50 in 2030. Why 50? Because age-related changes to our senses and abilities are present by this age.
Some questions to ask your colleagues, friends, family, and yourself:
“Would you like to be dependent on others to meet your needs?”
“How do you feel about the fact that the design of your home + neighborhood increases the likelihood that you will be dependent? Would you like to spend your savings on fixing that?”
“Does your community want to spend their resources on programs to provide band-aid fixes when this is preventable?”
The Problems of Age-Biased Housing + Neighborhoods
they:
- create forced frailty
- cost municipalities money/impoverish individuals
- rob people of their independence and dignity
- create caregiving burdens on family and community
- cost municipalities money for preventable demands on HCBS and other programs for older adults
- cost municipalities money by taking thriving members out of society and stripping away their ability to participate
Eldercare attorney @NicoleWipp agrees that aging in place is not the answer. She has seen aging in place rob people of their physical and financial well-being:
“Aging in place creates unrealistic expectations that lead to poor decisions for people and their families. A large percentage of people will require additional care that just can’t be provided at home.
If you haven’t planned you won’t be prepared to successfully age in place.
When you prepare, you have more choice over how your life will be, and can avoid or limit crisis thinking and reactionary placements.”
The above advice applies to individuals, families, and communities. Some of the need for care as we age is actually created or exacerbated by the age-biased design of our housing, which unnecessarily dis-ables us. This results in forced frailty and sometimes eviction by design–meaning the need to move from your home because it is not designed to enable you as you age.
What if it doesn’t have to be this way?
The Better Way
Let’s shift our focus to
THRIVING IN PLACE
at any age.
We can stop building discriminatory housing and neighborhoods that are not designed for the lifespan. Few professionals, practitioners, municipal staff, and residents know that standard designs are age-biased and dis-abling, nor do they know the financial impacts. Unfortunately, age discrimination by design is the reality and this problem is being repeated with every new age-biased building project.
Why should a municipality and it’s citizens attempt to fix poorly designed housing with band-aid solutions of costly home modifications and the struggle to provide care and services at their own expense?
Municipalities can stop this now by acting as a pro-active client and positively shape their communities. Municipalities can collaborate with builders, developers, funders, and citizens to shift their housing and infrastructure to work for the real needs of the real people who live in their communities.
Simple Steps for Municipalities
1) Hold a Housing Summit: hear the needs and issues of all stakeholders. Get everyone on the same page to create solutions that work.
2) Conduct a Community Assessment: which programs, services, systems, and codes are working for your community, and which are not? Determine what incentives and/or mandates can be created to remove barriers and serve as levers for enabling independence.
3) Promote Existing Programs and Resources to your Citizens:
–AARP’s Home Fit Guide is a valuable tool for people to assess their own homes, their parents’ homes, and a vehicle for working with builders
–NAHB’s Certified Aging in Place Specialist (CAPS) program, created with AARP, has trained thousands of builders, developers, designers, occupational therapists, physical therapists and realtors throughout the nation. Do you know all of the CAPS professionals in your community? Enlist them, and similar practitioners, as a resource.
–Use the Guiding Principles for Creating Enabling + Equitable Housing + Multigenerational Communities: based on my Enabling Design Approach and the concept of Equity, these principles were developed to help built environment sector practitioners and related professionals positively shift the environments they are creating to address the real and preventable problems which the design of our communities have created.
4) Conduct a Cost-Benefit Analysis: what is it costing your municipality to have housing + infrastructure that dis-ables your citizens and increases their demands on services?
5) Enable People to Thrive: Watch and share this short video that summarizes the issues and provides solutions an eye-opening case study.
If you’d like to receive a journal article that explores the implications of age-biased housing + communities on financial and physical independence in retirement, please reach out to us at: info@S2Gold.com