Senior Centre Participants and Non-participants

Fourteen studies (10 American and 4 Canadian) focused on characteristics of senior centre participants and non-participants, and on barriers and facilitators of participation. Most of these studies were quantitative (n = 11) and relied on cross-sectional surveys for their data.

First, in examining general senior centre participation in the United States, both Pardasani (Reference Pardasani2010) and Schneider, Ralph, Olson, Flatley, and Thorpe (Reference Salari, Brown and Eaton2014) have conducted studies comparing participants and non-participants. Pardasani (Reference Pardasani2010) surveyed a purposive sample of older adults in Northwest Indiana, and identified that participants were more likely to be female, Caucasian, older, lower income, living in a rural area, living alone, not requiring assistance with ambulation, and not being a caregiver. Schneider et al. (Reference Salari, Brown and Eaton2014) analysed data from a sample of senior public housing residents (approximately 1/3 of whom had used a senior centre in the past 3 months). Predictors of use included race/language (Chinese-speaking Asians had the highest rates of use), living alone, being at risk of depression, housing type, and being older with no activities of daily living (ADL) limitations. In a Canadian study, Strain (Reference Skarupski and Pelkowski2001) analysed data from a cohort study of older adults living in Manitoba. The proportion who had visited a senior centre in the past 6 months remained consistent over a 4-year period (approximately 1/5 of the sample). Participants were more likely to be female, lower income, having few instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) limitations, living alone, and living in a rural area.

Although there are some inconsistencies, these studies suggest that participants are more likely to be female, older, lower income, living alone, living in rural areas, and having few functional limitations. In other studies that have surveyed senior centre participants (but that did not compare them to non-participants), similar demographic profiles have been found (e.g., Fitzpatrick, Gitelson, Andereck, & Mesbur, Reference Fitzpatrick, Gitelson, Andereck and Mesbur2005a; Fitzpatrick, McCabe, Gitelson, & Andereck, Reference Fitzpatrick, McCabe, Gitelson and Andereck2005b; Turner Reference Tobias, Lama, Parker, Henderson, Nickerson and Reid2004; etc.). It is worth noting that older adults with functional limitations and higher health needs were less likely to participate, suggesting there is an important portion of the older adult population that senior centres are not reaching but who may benefit from their services. Almost half (43%) of Canadians aged 75 and older have a disability (Statistics Canada, 2017), suggesting there is a growing population of older adults who would benefit from targeted programming and outreach.

In addition to these studies comparing participants and non-participants, a Canadian study by Lai (Reference Lai2006) specifically examined predictors of participation in a sample of elderly Chinese immigrants (approximately 1/3 of whom had used a senior centre in the past year). Predictors of use were older age; having a religion; living alone; having a medium (secondary) education level; immigrating from Vietnam; and having stronger Chinese ethnic identity, stronger social support, and lower English competency. Although some of these predictors are the same as those identified in the studies with general populations (e.g., older, live alone), others are unique to Chinese older adults (e.g., stronger Chinese ethnic identity, stronger social support). Another study by Lai (Reference Lai2001) found that although Chinese older adults made use of recreational, acculturation (e.g., English classes), and task assistance (e.g., filling out forms) programs at a Calgary senior centre, support services (e.g., counselling, friendly visiting) were underutilized.

The level of participation of ethnic minorities at senior centres has been an important concern in the literature, and two studies specifically addressed the diversity of participants. In a survey of 219 senior centres in New York, it was estimated that about 80 per cent of participants were Caucasian and 20 per cent were from minority groups; however, participation by minority groups varied significantly by centre (Pardasani, Reference Pardasani2004b). Senior centres offering programs targeted at minority groups or in other languages and with minority group staff were more likely to have diverse participants (Pardasani, Reference Pardasani2004b). Another study from New York by Giunta et al. (Reference Giunta, Morano, Parikh, Friedman, Fahs and Gallo2012) compared older adults attending racially/ethnically diverse senior centres versus those attending non-diverse centres. Out of the 56 senior centres in the sample, 11 were classified as diverse. Participants attending diverse centres were more likely to be African American/Latino, speak Spanish, live alone, and not have family/social support. Miyawaki (2013) took a different approach to studying diversity by surveying Japanese Americans on their preferences for ethnic and non-ethnic senior centres. The majority of respondents preferred a mixed environment with both Japanese and non-ethnic specific activities, likely reflecting their high levels of acculturation as second- or third-generation Japanese Americans, coupled with their wish to maintain aspects of their ethnic culture. However, for individuals for whom Japanese was their native language and had limited English proficiency (most of whom came to the United States following WWII), there was a strong preference for Japanese-specific environments.

Based on the mixed findings from the studies examining participation and diversity, it is difficult to draw conclusions on the diversity of senior centre participants. It seems, however, that whereas underrepresentation of ethnic minority older adults may be a systemic issue at some senior centres, there are high rates of participation at some “diverse” senior centres. In addition, certain ethnic groups (e.g., Chinese older adults) have high rates of participation. These studies also suggest that language and acculturation may be factors more important than ethnicity in affecting participation. This highlights the importance of offering culturally relevant programming in the languages spoken by ethnic groups in the communities surrounding senior centres and hiring staff who speak these languages in order to increase participant diversity.

Both Pardasani (Reference Pardasani2010) and Strain (Reference Skarupski and Pelkowski2001) also reported in their studies that the primary motivation for senior centre participation was the desire for socialization. Ashida and Heaney (Reference Ashida and Heaney2008) surveyed older adults on their intention to participate at a new senior centre and found that higher intention to participate was associated with fewer social network members living in close proximity, and higher levels of social support but lower levels of social connectedness. When the new centre opened, 19 per cent of those surveyed actually participated at the centre (however, stated intention to participate was not associated with actual participation; therefore, it is difficult to draw conclusions on the basis of this study).

Although the studies described above focused on participant characteristics, five additional studies identified factors that facilitate or act as barriers to participation. Walker, Bisbee, Porter, and Flanders (Reference Wacker and Roberto2004) found higher levels of participation were associated with participating in faith-based activities; having appropriate size groups for activities; knowing about activities; and having transportation availability. In a case study examining physical activity at a senior centre, Hickerson et al. (Reference Hickerson, Moore, Oakleaf, Edwards, James, Swanson and Karla2008) identified three major factors that contribute to physical activity participation and enjoyment: organizational resources, personal capital (i.e., an individual’s motivation, competence, etc.), and relational capital (i.e., social support and social structure). Jung et al. (Reference Jung, Peng, Moran, Jin, McLaughlin, Cody and Silverstein2010) surveyed low-income minority older adults to identify barriers to their participation in internet training classes at a senior centre. Only one-fifth of the older adults surveyed ended up participating in the internet training classes, and psychological barriers were the key barriers to enrollment.

In a Canadian study, Gavin and Myers (Reference Gavin and Myers2003) examined participation in beginner tai chi and line dancing classes. Participation in these classes was highest in the fall and then declined over the other seasons. Both the tai chi and line dancing classes had average attendance rates of around 70 per cent and average dropout rates of 10 to 20 per cent. Interestingly, age, health limitations, activity, and overall limitations were not predictors of attendance or dropouts. Finally, Dondzila et al. (Reference Dondzila, Swartz, Keenan, Harley, Azen and Strath2014) surveyed older adults living within 5 miles of seven senior centres and found that proximity did not affect awareness or utilization of community-based fitness resources (gym, exercise classes, etc.) at the senior centres. Taken together, these five studies suggest that a number of factors may influence senior centre participation and should be considered when offering programs, such as availability of transportation, season, comfortableness with activities, and so on.

Benefits of Senior Centre Participation

The most common theme in this review (n = 18) was investigating the benefits of general senior centre participation or participation in specific senior centre activities. Only one of these studies was Canadian (Fitzpatrick et al., Reference Fitzpatrick, Gitelson, Andereck and Mesbur2005a). The majority of the studies relied on quantitative methods (n = 17), and specifically cross-sectional surveys as their source of data (n = 16).

Several studies examined the impacts of senior centre participation on the health and well-being of older adults. Key benefits included the following:

• • Provision of meals (Gitelson, Ho, Fitzpatrick, Case, & McCabe, Reference Gitelson, Ho, Fitzpatrick, Case and McCabe2008; Turner, Reference Tobias, Lama, Parker, Henderson, Nickerson and Reid2004)

• • Increased independence (Aday, Kehoe, & Farney, Reference Aday, Kehoe and Farney2006)

• • Improved quality of life (Rhynes, Hayslip, Caballero, & Ingman, Reference Peters, Godfrey, Khalil, McInerney, Parker and Soares2013)

• • Improved mental or psychological well-being (Aday et al., Reference Aday, Kehoe and Farney2006; Cerino & Leszczynski, Reference Cerino and Leszczynski2015; Farone, Fitzpatrick, & Tran, Reference Farone, Fitzpatrick and Tran2005; Fitzpatrick et al., Reference Fitzpatrick, Gitelson, Andereck and Mesbur2005a; Fulbright, Reference Fulbright2010; Rhynes et al., Reference Peters, Godfrey, Khalil, McInerney, Parker and Soares2013; Taylor-Harris & Zhan, Reference Tang, Heo and Weissman2011)

• • Improved physical health (Fitzpatrick et al., Reference Fitzpatrick, Gitelson, Andereck and Mesbur2005a; Fitzpatrick et al., Reference Fitzpatrick, McCabe, Gitelson and Andereck2005b; Taylor-Harris & Zhan, Reference Tang, Heo and Weissman2011)

• • Lower caregiver burden (Rhynes et al., Reference Peters, Godfrey, Khalil, McInerney, Parker and Soares2013)

• • Fewer functional limitations and chronic conditions (Tang, Heo, & Weissman, Reference Swan, Turner, Shashidhara and Sanders2011)

• • Socialization (Aday et al., Reference Aday, Kehoe and Farney2006; Fitzpatrick et al., Reference Fitzpatrick, McCabe, Gitelson and Andereck2005b; Gitelson et al., Reference Gitelson, Ho, Fitzpatrick, Case and McCabe2008; Taylor-Harris & Zhan, Reference Tang, Heo and Weissman2011; Turner, Reference Tobias, Lama, Parker, Henderson, Nickerson and Reid2004).

In addition, several of the studies attempted to identify who benefits most from participation. Aday et al. (Reference Aday, Kehoe and Farney2006) found that women living alone reported greater impacts of participation than women not living alone. Fitzpatrick et al. (Reference Fitzpatrick, McCabe, Gitelson and Andereck2005b) found that being female, younger, having lower income, living closer to the centre, working at the centre, and attending lunch at the centre were all associated with increased likelihood of perceiving benefits. In a survey of congregate meal program participants, Gitelson et al. (Reference Gitelson, Ho, Fitzpatrick, Case and McCabe2008) found that older women, low-income older adults, and ethnic minority older adults were more likely to perceive benefits.

Three studies specifically investigated the benefits of participating in physical activity at senior centres. A study comparing older adults who used the centre fitness facility to those who attended the centre but did not use the fitness facility found there was no difference between the groups for number of steps taken (Turner, Schmitt, & Hubbard-Turner, Reference Turner2016). On the other hand, in a cohort study by Hand et al. (Reference Hand, Cavanaugh, Forbes, Govern and Cress2012) previously inactive older adults who engaged in exercise for 12 weeks at senior centre fitness facilities experienced improvements in body mass index and weight, functional fitness, and health-related quality of life whereas the control group did not. Swan, Turner, Shashidhara, and Sanders (Reference Swan, Severance and Turner2010) surveyed senior centre participants as a part of the annual program evaluations, and 53 per cent of those participants reported they had increased their level of physical activity.

Four studies specifically examined the benefits of meal program participation at senior centres. Kirk and Alessi (Reference Kirk and Alessi2002) surveyed meal program participants and found that although participants were more likely to live alone and be widowed, they reported more social contact, lower levels of loneliness, and higher quality of life than non-participants. Another study by Kirk, Waldrop, and Rittner (Reference Kirk, Waldrop and Rittner2001) in rural Louisiana reported similar findings. In a survey of senior centre participants in Texas, Turner (Reference Turner2006) found no relationship between level of meal program participation and body mass index; however, obese and overweight individuals had lower participation rates in physical activity programs. In another Texas study surveying meal program participants, Swan, Severance, and Turner (2016) found that 58 per cent of meal program participants felt the program was important to improving their diet, and 39 per cent felt it had improved their health. In addition, 38 per cent said the senior centre was their only source of social interaction. Ethnic older adults were more likely to eat frequently at the centre, attend nutrition classes, and attend to improve their diet, all of which were associated with increased odds of perceiving improvements to health.

Overall, these studies suggest that senior centre participation provides benefits to older adults in the areas of socialization, physical health, and mental/psychological well-being. One of the most common findings in these studies was the important role of socialization at senior centres. Several of the studies found that vulnerable populations of older adults (e.g., older women, low-income older adults, ethnic minority older adults) receive greater benefits from participation (e.g., Aday et al., Reference Aday, Kehoe and Farney2006; Fitzpatrick et al., Reference Fitzpatrick, McCabe, Gitelson and Andereck2005b; Gitelson et al., Reference Gitelson, Ho, Fitzpatrick, Case and McCabe2008; Swan et al., 2016), suggesting that senior centres benefit some of those with the greatest needs. The majority of the studies utilized data from cross-sectional surveys; therefore, although positive associations were found, the temporality of these relationships cannot be established. Only the study by Hand et al. (Reference Hand, Cavanaugh, Forbes, Govern and Cress2012) utilized a longitudinal approach. There was also the potential for bias in some of the studies due to lack of control groups, potential bias in recruitment processes, failing to control for confounding variables, and the measures of participation utilized (e.g., classifying someone who had visited a senior centre once in the past year as a participant). It is apparent that there is a need for more rigorous research on the benefits of senior centre participation.

It should be noted, however, that there is already a sizeable body of high-quality literature, which does not focus on senior centres but links their key programming areas to the health and well-being of older adults. For example, literature reviews have found physical activity (e.g., de Vries et al., Reference de Vries, Ravenberg, Hobbelen, Olde Rikkert, Staal and Nijhuis-van der Sanden2012; Wayne et al., Reference Walker, Bisbee, Porter and Flanders2014), recreational activities (e.g., O’Neill & Dogra, 2016), and creative arts (e.g., Noice, Noice, & Kramer, 2013) to all be positively linked to the health and well-being of older adults.

Experiences and Perceptions of Senior Centre Participation

Nine studies (seven American and two Canadian) focused on experiences and perceptions of senior centre participation. All but two of these studies used qualitative methods. The majority of studies focused on the perceptions and experiences of participants or staff, while three focused on the perceptions of older adults (or baby boomers) who were not currently participating at senior centres.

The perceptions and experiences of marginalized populations (LGBTQ, immigrants, and older adults with intellectual disabilities) were explored in three studies. Reference McCaffreyMcCaffrey (2008) interviewed Haitian older adults on their experiences at a senior centre in Florida where a project had been initiated to encourage them to use the centre. Two themes were identified: feeling accepted, welcomed, and valued, and creating hope for a good life. McGovern, Brown, and Gasparro (Reference McGovern, Brown and Gasparro2016) explored the impact of the opening of an LGBTQ senior centre in the Bronx, and three themes emerged: the centre as family, feeling accepted, and being connected to the Bronx (in terms of location and culture). In a Canadian study, Rossow-Kimball and Goodwin (Reference Rhynes, Hayslip, Caballero and Ingman2014) sought to understand the experiences of older adults with intellectual disabilities at a senior centre that had a program designed to facilitate their participation. Although the older adults with intellectual disabilities felt included and happy with their experiences, the mainstream older adults were ambivalent towards them and made limited efforts to connect with and include them. These three studies show that programming at senior centres, if designed to be inclusive, can be successful in including marginalized members of older adult populations.

Two studies focused on perceptions of specific aspects of senior centres: leisure (Dattilo et al., Reference Dattilo, Lorek, Mogle, Sliwinski, Freed, Frysinger and Schuckers2015) and power within a senior centre (Gallant & Hutchinson, Reference Gallant and Hutchinson2016). Dattilo et al. (Reference Dattilo, Lorek, Mogle, Sliwinski, Freed, Frysinger and Schuckers2015) conducted focus groups with senior centre participants and found leisure engagement was perceived as a way to achieve self-determination. In a Canadian study, Gallant and Hutchinson (Reference Gallant and Hutchinson2016) engaged in community-based participatory research to explore perceptions of power at a senior centre. At the senior centre where the study took place, older adults were treated as “clients” and provided with few opportunities for leadership or decision-making. The members generally felt powerless over the activities and functions of the centre, although over the course of the research project they did try to claim power in some small ways.

Hostetler (Reference Hostetler2011) explored how the role of senior centres is conceptualized by staff. The study found that while creating a sense of community for older adults remained a key concept; in many cases, the focus at centres is shifting towards providing individual choice and appealing to younger generations of older adults. Building on this desire to attract younger generations, three studies surveyed senior centre non-participants and/or potential future participants to explore how to encourage their participation. Marken (Reference Marken2005) interviewed pre-retirees about their perceptions of senior centres, and key features that were important to them were desirable environments, quality activities, facilitation of healthy aging, and intergenerational contact. Cohen-Mansfield, Parpura-Gill, Campbell-Kotler, Vass, and Rosenberg (Reference Cohen-Mansfield, Parpura-Gill, Campbell-Kotler, Vass and Rosenberg2005) surveyed residents of senior apartments and found the most preferred topics for discussion/groups at senior centres were music groups, games, and health and legal issues. MaloneBeach and Langeland (Reference MaloneBeach and Langeland2011) surveyed baby boomers, 68 per cent of whom reported they would use a senior centre. Respondents primarily perceived senior centres as places to engage socially and participate in activities. These studies on non-participants and potential future participants provide useful information for future planning for senior centres; however, none of the studies explored perceptions of non-participants and potential future participants in-depth, as all relied on cross-sectional surveys. Thus, without further research, it remains unclear what the true reasons for non-participation are (e.g., lack of stimulating programs, misconceptions about senior centres, etc.) and how to attract baby boomer participants.

Senior Centres and the Socio-physical Environment

Four American studies (qualitative) focused on the physical environment of senior centres. Two studies drew on data from a comparative ethnography study of three senior centres in the western United States. The first study focused on the fit between the physical environment and lifelong learning activities (Eaton & Salari, Reference Eaton and Salari2005), and the second study focused on territoriality in senior centres (Salari, Brown, & Eaton, Reference Ruggiano2006). A key finding in both of the studies was that a lack of dedicated space for activities (e.g., dining rooms that also doubled as activity areas) created challenges for delivering activities and contributed to displays of territoriality. The studies also emphasized the importance of participant empowerment and leadership in order to create a positive environment.

Cohen et al. (Reference Cohen, Sehgal, Williamson, Marsh, Golinelli and McKenzie2009) studied how aspects of the built environment affected usage at a senior centre that underwent major renovations, including the addition of a gymnasium and new fitness equipment. A number of organizational changes also occurred during this time period (i.e., introduction of a new director, reduction in program hours, and introduction of new fees). After the renovation, the number of participants significantly decreased (from 478 to 198) whereas at a comparison senior centre there were no changes in participation. The authors concluded that improving the structure of recreation facilities does not necessarily increase use, and other organizational factors must also be taken into consideration. Ruggiano (Reference Rossow-Kimball and Goodwin2012) examined the experiences of older adults at two intergenerational-shared sites (senior centres co-located with childcare programs). Although some positive informal interactions occurred at the shared spaces, at both sites there were issues of intergenerational inequity (prioritization of children’s programs over those of older adults) and environmental stressors (sound).

Although there are not enough studies to draw conclusions about the optimal socio-physical environments for senior centres, these studies highlight the complexity of their environments. It is not just the physical environment that contributes to the quality and success of a senior centre – social and organizational factors (e.g., activity fees, member empowerment, etc.) also have a significant impact.

Organizational Models of Senior Centres

Two American studies examined different organizational models of senior centres. Velez Ortiz (2015) explored whether integrating mental health services into senior centres was effective for delivering mental health services to Puerto Rican older adults. The study compared older adults attending a senior centre in New York offering integrated mental health services to a regular senior centre in Puerto Rico, and found that awareness of mental health services was increased in the integrated model. Pardasani and Thompson (Reference Pardasani and Sackman2012) assembled a taskforce to identify new and emerging models of senior centres as a part of a project for the National Institute of Senior Centres. They identified six innovative models: community centres, wellness centres, lifelong learning/arts, continuum of care/transitions, entrepreneurial centres, and cafe programs. Community centres are multigenerational models, which offer a broad range of programs and include a recreation facility. Wellness centres offer a range of programs with health and wellness as the focus. Lifelong learning/arts centres offer programs, generally at multiple sites, for older adults to learn and grow. Continuum of care/transitions provides care to older adults as they age, with private insurance and service fees providing most of the funding. Entrepreneurial centres operate using business principles and provide opportunities for senior employment, skill development, and productivity. Cafe programs offer meals as their main service with a limited range of additional programs.

Senior Centre Programming

The programming offered at senior centres is a key aspect of the organizational environment on which seven studies (all American) focused. Five of the studies were quantitative and two were mixed methods. A survey of 219 senior centres in New York by Pardasani (Reference O’Neill and Dogra2004a) provides a broad overview of the types of programming offered. Most centres offered programming in the key areas of recreation, volunteering, health, nutrition, and social services. The most popular services were meals, exercise, and information and referral.

A key focus of the research on programming has been health and wellness programs. Skarupski and Pelkowski (Reference Sheppard, Myers and Dubé2003) surveyed older adults at a senior centre and identified areas for targeted programming: loneliness and social support, diet and nutrition, oral health, health, and exercise. Two studies reported on health and wellness programs from a survey of 500 U.S. senior centres (Casteel, Nocera, & Runyan, Reference Casteel, Nocera and Runyan2013; Zachary, Casteel, Nocera, & Runyan, Reference Weil2012). Casteel et al. (Reference Casteel, Nocera and Runyan2013) reported the most commonly offered health and wellness programs were nutrition programs and blood pressure monitoring. Zachary et al. (Reference Weil2012) examined the prevalence of multi-component falls prevention education programs (balance exercise class, medication management, and home safety information) and found that only 33 per cent of centres offered all three components. The key barriers to offering multi-component falls prevention were lack of staff, lack of time, and lack of experience with falls prevention. In a survey of 195 senior centres in New York, Tobias et al. (Reference Taylor-Harris and Zhan2014) found that, on average, senior centres offered 9 pain management-related programs (programs with potential benefits for chronic pain management). The most common pain management–related programs were exercise, handicrafts, dance, and walking clubs.

Despite the significant number of health and wellness programs being offered, there is generally considered to be a lack of evidence-based programming at senior centres. Bobitt and Schwingel (Reference Bobitt and Schwingel2016) have found the majority of health and wellness programs are not evidence-based. Senior centres generally lack familiarity with evidence-based programs and are skeptical of whether they are effective and desired by clients. The major perceived barrier to implementing evidence-based programs is funding (Bobitt & Schwingel, Reference Bobitt and Schwingel2016). Felix et al. (Reference Felix, Adams, Cornell, Fausett, Krukowski, Love and West2014) explored the barriers and facilitators of senior centres offering lay health education programs as a part of a randomized controlled trial, and found the primary barriers to be staffing and perceived inability to recruit participants.

Overall, these studies suggest that senior centres offer a wide variety of programs, with health and wellness a key cornerstone of programming. Indeed, several studies suggest that senior centres have been shifting their focus to health and fitness programs in a bid to appeal to younger older adults (e.g., Hostetler, Reference Hostetler2011; Pardasani, Reference Pardasani2004b). Health and fitness programs tend to be more complex than other types of programming, and if senior centres are expected to take on an increased role in this area, more support will be needed. The studies by Bobitt and Schwingel (Reference Bobitt and Schwingel2016) and Felix et al. (Reference Felix, Adams, Cornell, Fausett, Krukowski, Love and West2014) suggest that funding and staffing are key areas where support is needed.

Senior Centre Policy Issues and Advocacy

Four American studies related to policy and advocacy at senior centres. Two of the studies were quantitative, one qualitative, and one mixed-methods. Two of the studies broadly explored policy issues and advocacy through large cross-sectional surveys (Pardasani & Goldkind, Reference Pardasani2012; Pardasani & Sackman, Reference Pardasani and Goldkind2014). In a national sample of 376 senior centres, Pardasani and Goldkind (Reference Pardasani2012) found that 88.5 per cent of administrators reported engaging in policy advocacy, most commonly to advocate for funding. A second study by Pardasani and Sackman (Reference Pardasani and Goldkind2014) was developed out of a grassroots need for advocacy and research, prompted by the New York City Department for the Aging’s generation of a list of 50 senior centres for potential closure. A survey was conducted of senior centres in New York that provided data on numerous aspects of such centres. The top challenges for daily operations identified in the survey were lack of funding, lack of space, need for more staff, and need for centre improvements. The findings from this survey and the related recommendations were shared with the Department for the Aging, and several positive outcomes resulted, including increased funding for senior centres, commissioning of a longitudinal study of senior centre participants, and development of an innovative senior centres initiative.

Two additional studies focused on the specific policy issue of gambling and senior centres (Higgins Reference Higgins2001; Reference Higgins2005). In the first study, Higgins (Reference Higgins2001) conducted a comprehensive policy analysis of senior centre gambling trips in Massachusetts and identified three policy options: discontinuing the trips, limiting the trips, or offering gambling education programs. In the second study, Higgins (Reference Higgins2005) explored gambling at seven case study sites across the United States. At some senior centres, gambling (e.g., bingo, keno, etc.) emerged as an important source of revenue for the centres, which raises ethical questions about gambling activities at senior centres.

The number of studies focusing on senior centre policy issues and advocacy is limited; however, as the study by Pardasani and Sackman (Reference Pardasani and Goldkind2014) illustrates, there is an urgent need for more data on senior centres, and these data can play an important role in influencing policy decisions and advocacy efforts.