Developing intergenerational learning programs in Australia a report

Developing intergenerational learning programs in Australia: a report on an active aging program bringing together the young and the old

Gold Coast Australia

Lead Investigators Dr Katrina Radford Chief Investigator & Workforce Lead Prof Anneke Fitzgerald Chief Investigator & Program Evaluation Lead: Fidelity and Sustainability Dr Nerina Vecchio Dr Jennifer Cartmel A Prof Neil Harris Chief Investigator & Economic Evaluation Lead Education Lead Program Evaluation Lead: Participant Outcomes

Intergenerational Learning

Co-location Models of care Visitation model

Intergenerational Learning Program

Evaluation framework Outcome evaluation (program impact) • Participant outcomes • Education outcomes • Workforce outcomes Economic evaluation • Socio-economic outcomes Process evaluation (program effectiveness) • Program fidelity and sustainability

Surveys Video ethnography Sources of data Reflective journals from workforce Participant interviews Cost information

Key findings from the Intergenerational Care Project

Senior Participants’ Outcomes

the cting with a r e t in d e “I lik little st e they're ju s u a c e b n e childr e got stic, they'v ot ia s u h t n e so 've g , and they ions fresh ideas ed bad not iv e c n o c e r ? no p , have they g in h t y n a e. ” about at that ag g in it c x e 's Life Senior Participants’ Outcomes • Interacting with children the best part of the program • Special bonds with children • Improved Mood scores • Recreate their life’s meaning by connecting to their past • Reaffirm feelings of importance • Reflect on their achievements Meaningful Relationships Reciprocity in Learning Reminisce and Reflect Positive sense of well-being “Beca u some se you lea thing , you rn up as pi y We le ou go alo ck ng. other arn from each when we co me” • Re-learned things they already knew about or had forgotten • Lack of understanding around what learning is to older people • Cognitive functions of older people with cognitive decline did not deteriorate during the 16 week intervention • Willingness to continue with program

Senior Participants’ Outcomes “The type of activity influenced how much time the children stayed with us” – Older Participant LOW ENERGY ACTIVITIES HIGH ENERGY ACTIVITIES MEDIUM ENERGY ACTIVITIES

Children’s Outcomes

Have a strong sense of identity Feel connected with and be able to contribute to their world Strong sense of well-being

Neurosequential Model of Education (NME) • Neurodevelopmentallyinformed, biologically respectful perspective • NME is not a specific “intervention”; it is a way to educate staff about brain development and developmental trauma and apply that knowledge to their work

Workforce Outcomes

JOB PERCEPTIONS JOB CHARACTERISTICS 1. Added more value and meaning 1. Adds extra workload and responsibilities 2. Expanded knowledge 3. Positive work perceptions 4. More satisfied in their roles seeing impact on older people and children 5. Clearer and more realistic understanding of what the other job sector requires 2. Expands carers’ capacity of care 3. Compensation needed to remunerate for added role

JOB SATISFACTION 1. Carers from both sectors indicated that meaning in what they do is important 2. Intergenerational learning programs open up opportunities to influence clients JOB RETENTION 1. Did not change carers’ intentions to stay or leave 2. Primary reasons include for family or mental health

Socio-Economic Outcomes

Program costs Number of adults & children Scenario Childcare centre 22 1 $11 K 8 2 Aged care centre $15 K 16 3 $16 K 24 4 Shared centre $8 K 22 5 $0 $5 000 $6 K $10 000 Program costs (initial year) $15 000

Program cost PER PARTICIPANT? Adults : Kids Childcare centre Aged care centre Shared centre 11: 11 Scenario 1 4: 4 Scenario 2 8: 8 Scenario 3 12: 12 Scenario 4 11: 11 Scenario 5 $ 365 $ 1 435 $ 964 $ 663 $ 303 $0 $500 $1 000 $1 500

Program cost PER SESSION? Adults : Kids Childcare centre Aged care centre 11: 11 Scenario 1 4: 4 Scenario 2 8: 8 Scenario 3 12: 12 Shared centre 11: 11 $ 223 $ 319 $ 429 Scenario 4 $ 442 $ 185 Scenario 5 $0 $500 $1 000

Program cost PER PARTICIPANT PER SESSION? Adults : Kids Childcare centre 11: 11 Scenario 1 [VALUE] Willing to pay? Aged care centre 4: 4 Scenario 2 8: 8 Scenario 3 12: 12 Shared centre 11: 11 $ 40 $ 27 $6. 90 Adults $6. 30 Carers $4. 40 Parents Scenario 4 $ 18 Scenario 5 $ 8 $75

• Low cost program • Key cost driver: Labour (staff: child ratios) • Lowest cost scenarios • Shared centre • Childcare centre • Best model? • Depends on context • New or existing service

Developed fidelity summary table as a guide to evaluation Implementation Fidelity Evaluation • To ensure key aspects that should be included were • No existing guidance available that met our needs • Definition of fidelity an issue • Systematic review and review of seminal works • Definition development, which led to…. • Content for our fidelity evaluation Included key areas: • Operational (process), Theoretical, End User and Sustainability Fidelity

RESEARCH TEAM PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROGRAM GENERAL COMMUNITY 5 KEY IMPACT AREAS AGED CARE AND CHILDCARE SECTORS IN AUSTRALIA INTERNATIONAL STAKEHOLDERS

Connect with us Newsletter: Sent via email and on our website intergenerationalcare. org Email: intergenerationalcare. org@gmail. com facebook. com/Intergenerationalcareproject/ linkedin. com/company/the-intergenerational-care-project/about/ You Tube: youtube. com/channel/UCN 7 k. Bhu. D 3 sa. OTh. YRr. AYh. IGg Twitter: twitter. com/The. Intergenera 1