The New Neighborhood Senior Center by Joyce Weil

Author:Joyce Weil [Weil, Joyce]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Social Science, Gerontology, Sociology, General
ISBN: 9780813562964
Google: hBseBQAAQBAJ
Publisher: Rutgers University Press
Published: 2014-11-03T04:25:03+00:00

Macrolevel Relationships: Types of Organizational Embeddedness between the Center and Larger Organizations

The center had embedded relationships with organizations much larger than itself in terms of weight, power, and class. While these organizations directly influenced events at the center and the center’s existence, the relationship was mostly unidirectional—the center had little direct effect upon these greater entities. Organizations and other factors at this level included center advocacy groups, the larger national media, DFTA’s policies, mayoral- or city-level policies, state-based politicians and state policies, the Administration on Aging, and the OAA. These larger organizations had three types of relationships with the center: positive, negative, and mixed/neutral.

Centers had huge advocates at the city and national levels. Nationally, the nonprofit National Institute of Senior Centers (NISC, part of NCOA) organizationally rallied to protect and support centers, while CSCS’s advocacy focused on the New York City area. NISC, as suggested by its name, has been a proponent of senior centers. Its support ranges from the production of senior center facts sheets to that of legislation briefs. During the hardships of center closings in fall 2011 and OAA reauthorization, NCOA and NISC’s issue brief “Older Americans Act Reauthorization: Multipurpose Senior Centers for Positive Aging” argued for the necessity of neighborhood centers and Aging and Disability Resource Centers as one-stop-shop service points for elders. NCOA did not dismiss charter or innovative models. In fall 2012, the organization embraced those changes, as well, calling for centers to rebrand and change with the times and reach more isolated persons. NCOA set policy priorities for the 113th Congress (2013–2014) and created an online form for centers to record the effects of the sequester on them in March 2013. NISC provided resources for members and also accredited centers, which could improve their stability and solvency. NCOA and NISC not only advocated for senior centers but also provided a platform where elders could advocate for themselves (at the center and legislative levels) and tell their own stories about how changes in laws and funding directly affect their individual centers.

Taking up the cause of centers in New York City is CSCS. The leadership of this organization has been an outspoken supporter of senior centers. The nonprofit is best seen as an activist body fighting injustice done to centers. The titles of its reports and other texts reflect its mission: Hunger Hurts (2007), More with Less Is Impossible (2010a), “The Shoe Drops” (2010b), 21st Century Senior Centers: Changing the Conversation (2010c). This group is not afraid of telling it like it is using facts and strong visual images. CSCS produced an infographic, “How Age-Friendly Is NYC?” (n.d.a), which tracks proposed cuts to all age-based services in New York City (with about twenty million dollars in cuts from 2008–2012 for senior centers alone). The infographic predicts an overall spending cut of ninety million dollars and tracks the losses, using images of an elder with a cane and another in a wheelchair in the last bar of the chart reflecting the most loss.

CSCS advocates on multiple levels.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.