Grey Majority vs. Ipod Generation
11:56am Tuesday, 2nd October 2007
I was at Tory Conference yesterday speaking at a fringe event organised by the Smith Institute & Reform, entitled 'Advancing Opportunity: the grey majority versus the ipod generation', looking at economic and social fairness between generations.
The other speakers were Alan Duncan MP (Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform), Michelle Mitchell (Age Concern), Niall Dickson (Chief Executive, King’s Fund), Michelle Mitchell (Director of Communications, Age Concern), John Godfrey (Director of Communications, Legal & General), and it was excellently chaired by Andrew Haldenby (Director, Reform).
There were really interesting contributions from all the speakers, especially Niall Dickson's view of the need for a new social compact for health care and social care.
Below is the text from my talk. (Niamh spoke at the same event at the Labour & Lib Dem conferences, giving an excellent overview of participative public services in relation to the topic. I'll try to get her to post her presentation too).
When I was invited to take part in a discussion on the grey generation vs the ipod generation the thing that immediately caught my attention was the word versus.
There are very real reasons why this issue is discussed in terms of conflict and competition but what I would like to do is explore where we can create space for the two generations to co-operate instead of compete.
So what I’d like to do is look at a few examples of this co-operation in practice, outline some of the benefits and conclude with what the implications may be for public services.
I'll start with a great example, called the Active Ageing project in Speke in Liverpool. This is a community health initiative for older people that combines social events, health information sessions and exercise classes. During these sessions, the elderly residents expressed their concern about anti social behaviour in the area. So, in collaboration with local police and community groups the PCT brought children from the local school to actually participate in the sessions alongside the older participants.
Most of these children hadn’t spent much time with this older age group because the prevalence of teen pregnancy in the area actually meant most of their grandparents were only in their forties and fifties, so still relatively young. But the project had a number of successes; it improved health awareness and access, both generations came away with more positive perceptions of each other, the older participants felt less anxious about anti-social behaviour and so were more confident to go out into the community, and the children built up their confidence, social skills and self esteem.
A similar project runs in West Lothian called MOOD, which brings together children from the local school with elderly residents at risk of mental health problems. Again this led to improved mutual perceptions, social engagement, and increased children’s confidence and self esteem. As a result teachers reported that their behaviour in school had improved. The project was credited with helping an excluded child move back into mainstream schooling, and another in continuing post-16 education.
And I think that this highlights the incredibly important role of intergenerational contact in education. A recent Ofsted report published this summer emphasised the role grandparents had an in education after schools reported improvements in behaviour, motivation and attainment where grandparents were actively involved in formal school settings.
And these educational benefits can actually start even earlier; the One Generation centre in California is an intergenerational day-care facility that looks after elderly residents and pre-school children together. Early research seems to indicate that the children going through the centre show improved social development, language skills and confidence, compared to children in normal day-care settings.
There are lots more examples of these types of intergenerational project, but I think that they all share two common benefits:
The first is that these programmes create social capital within communities, bridging gaps and fostering empathy. And I think that that is really important, especially in the context of the respect agenda and the current debate on identity, citizenship and Britishness. There is a real role for these kind of initiatives in helping younger generations to develop a more tangible sense of shared history, experience and belonging.
Secondly, these programmes help to increase individuals’ capacity to help themselves and their wider community, in older groups that can be an increased confidence in interacting with their communities and improved issue awareness, and in the young it develops their confidence, social skills and empathy.
So to conclude, what does this mean for public services and the state?
There is of course, the obvious efficiency of meeting the differing needs of two groups through one intervention but I think the benefits are deeper than that. Ultimately, by increasing an individuals’ capacities and social engagement, we empower them to self manage and to contribute to the community around them, and reduce their reliance on the state; confident, engaged, elderly people are able to remain in their communities for longer instead of being in care facilities, and young people are helped to develop some of the skills necessary to succeed in education and the knowledge economy.
But for these intergenerational initiatives to truly thrive, we have to enable front line staff and voluntary organisations to overcome the organisational and funding divisions that separate services into those for the old and those for the young, divisions which can act as substantial barriers to intergenerational projects. This means we need to continue to rethink public services and continue to drive reform in the direction of joined up, collaborative government, so that co-operative intergenerational programmes can be part of the solution to coping with the demands on public services in the future.
The other speakers were Alan Duncan MP (Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform), Michelle Mitchell (Age Concern), Niall Dickson (Chief Executive, King’s Fund), Michelle Mitchell (Director of Communications, Age Concern), John Godfrey (Director of Communications, Legal & General), and it was excellently chaired by Andrew Haldenby (Director, Reform).
There were really interesting contributions from all the speakers, especially Niall Dickson's view of the need for a new social compact for health care and social care.
Below is the text from my talk. (Niamh spoke at the same event at the Labour & Lib Dem conferences, giving an excellent overview of participative public services in relation to the topic. I'll try to get her to post her presentation too).
When I was invited to take part in a discussion on the grey generation vs the ipod generation the thing that immediately caught my attention was the word versus.
There are very real reasons why this issue is discussed in terms of conflict and competition but what I would like to do is explore where we can create space for the two generations to co-operate instead of compete.
So what I’d like to do is look at a few examples of this co-operation in practice, outline some of the benefits and conclude with what the implications may be for public services.
I'll start with a great example, called the Active Ageing project in Speke in Liverpool. This is a community health initiative for older people that combines social events, health information sessions and exercise classes. During these sessions, the elderly residents expressed their concern about anti social behaviour in the area. So, in collaboration with local police and community groups the PCT brought children from the local school to actually participate in the sessions alongside the older participants.
Most of these children hadn’t spent much time with this older age group because the prevalence of teen pregnancy in the area actually meant most of their grandparents were only in their forties and fifties, so still relatively young. But the project had a number of successes; it improved health awareness and access, both generations came away with more positive perceptions of each other, the older participants felt less anxious about anti-social behaviour and so were more confident to go out into the community, and the children built up their confidence, social skills and self esteem.
A similar project runs in West Lothian called MOOD, which brings together children from the local school with elderly residents at risk of mental health problems. Again this led to improved mutual perceptions, social engagement, and increased children’s confidence and self esteem. As a result teachers reported that their behaviour in school had improved. The project was credited with helping an excluded child move back into mainstream schooling, and another in continuing post-16 education.
And I think that this highlights the incredibly important role of intergenerational contact in education. A recent Ofsted report published this summer emphasised the role grandparents had an in education after schools reported improvements in behaviour, motivation and attainment where grandparents were actively involved in formal school settings.
And these educational benefits can actually start even earlier; the One Generation centre in California is an intergenerational day-care facility that looks after elderly residents and pre-school children together. Early research seems to indicate that the children going through the centre show improved social development, language skills and confidence, compared to children in normal day-care settings.
There are lots more examples of these types of intergenerational project, but I think that they all share two common benefits:
The first is that these programmes create social capital within communities, bridging gaps and fostering empathy. And I think that that is really important, especially in the context of the respect agenda and the current debate on identity, citizenship and Britishness. There is a real role for these kind of initiatives in helping younger generations to develop a more tangible sense of shared history, experience and belonging.
Secondly, these programmes help to increase individuals’ capacity to help themselves and their wider community, in older groups that can be an increased confidence in interacting with their communities and improved issue awareness, and in the young it develops their confidence, social skills and empathy.
So to conclude, what does this mean for public services and the state?
There is of course, the obvious efficiency of meeting the differing needs of two groups through one intervention but I think the benefits are deeper than that. Ultimately, by increasing an individuals’ capacities and social engagement, we empower them to self manage and to contribute to the community around them, and reduce their reliance on the state; confident, engaged, elderly people are able to remain in their communities for longer instead of being in care facilities, and young people are helped to develop some of the skills necessary to succeed in education and the knowledge economy.
But for these intergenerational initiatives to truly thrive, we have to enable front line staff and voluntary organisations to overcome the organisational and funding divisions that separate services into those for the old and those for the young, divisions which can act as substantial barriers to intergenerational projects. This means we need to continue to rethink public services and continue to drive reform in the direction of joined up, collaborative government, so that co-operative intergenerational programmes can be part of the solution to coping with the demands on public services in the future.
LOGIN to add comments
Comments
I've had two ideas bouncing around my head for a while about this question of intergenerational collaboration.
The first is a recommendation we made in the New Statesman a while ago about using older people as the new public service workforce. Imagine some sort of voluntary national service at 65 that helped people become part time teachers, social workers, sure start workers. We could tap the well of creativity, care and energy that so many retirees still have.
The other idea is that we should set up participatory city-based pension funds, which invest their profits in social enterprises that make life better for older people. In other words, my pension is not only providing me money for the future, but it's also creating a world in which I'll be happier. Pension fund members could also invest their money in services for kids.
Anyone got any more impractical recommendations for a happier old age?