No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-03-06 Council on Aging MinutesRECEIVED TOWN CLERK READING, MA. %OF.0 4 Town of Reading 2823 MAY -4 PM 3: 07 Meeting Minutes Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Date: 2023-03-06 Time: Building: Location: Zoom Address: Session: Purpose: Council on Aging Version: Final Attendees: Members - Present: Debbie Small Joan Coco Karen Pinette Marilyn Shaplelgh Karen Janowski Sally Hoyt Sandy Shafer Nancy Tawadros Jackie Behenna lean Prato John Parsons Nancy Ziemlak Rosemarie DeBenedetto Member - Not Present: Karen Fotino Beverly Cunio Other Present: Chris Kowoloski, Jenna Fiorente, Karen Herrick, Mark Dockser, Michelle Clopper Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Nancy Ziemlak Topics of Discussion: Meeting Called to Order: 6:30 Approve February 6 & 13 Minutes: All members present voted in favor after making corrections to 2/6 attendance ReCalc liaison Report- John Parsons Finalizing Summary Report- seeking input ReCalc will be presenting to Select Board final report on 3/21/23 Next Meeting 3/9 at 4pm via Zoom to accept report Select Board Liaison Report: Mark Dockser Architectural Update for Harden Street was presented at joint meeting of ReCalc/COA last week. Timellne Discussed- SB expecting to be able to report on 3/21 progress of negotiations to date with Harden St. Sellers, next step will be to hire Project Manager and then post RFP for Architect (summer),Special Town Meeting( September), Election Townwlde (November). A building committee will ultimately be formed to advise during the process. COA discussed forming a work group to write up specs that would be Included in the RFP for the architect. Symonds Way Liaison Report: Karen Janowski Survey developed and posted on the town website for distribution Paper copies are available at the Library, PSC, and Town Hall There are 2.5 acres of buildable land of the 15 acres purchased by the town Elder and Human Services Report: Chris Kowloski Attendance has increased at Pleasant Street Center programs/events. In looking at past years in Feb 2019 we reached 1906 participants and for Feb 2023 we reached 2179 participants. New receptionist has been hired, Linda Antinoro. Community lunches are starting again every Monday starting 3/6. The plan Is to eventually add lunches on Wednesday. Continuing to explore options for delivering this service Including Mystic Valley Pape 1 1 Senior Services. Trips are starting again. Volunteer Coordinator contract position in the works and may be hired within a couple of months. A request of up to $1500 was made to fund programs for 4 programs during March: pizza/movie, opening day/Fenway party, Birthday lunch, St Patrick's Day Lunch. Motion made to approve funding request from Burbank Trust, all members voted in favor to funding the request. Trust Fund Financial Report was distributed with Agenda. Treasurer will join meeting In April/May to review reports. Senior Center Communication Update: ideas were discussed at the last meeting Including but volunteers are needed to make these activities happen: update display boards at the library, PSC, and Tannerville, add display boards at Peter Sanborn, Cedar Glen, Reading Commons, create and place an Insert in PSC Newsletter with update, Survey or Postcard for Outreach, update COA town website. The video, Tour of the Pleasant Street Center, is under development and draft may be available on 3/15 for review. UMASS Report & ReCalc Summary Report: There is a concern that the data as presented in the UMASS Final Report Is misleading so continue to read the report with caution. Please view recorded video for more detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch7v=uGIYXWrWD s (forward to 1:23:46 mark) COA discussed forming a work group to write up specs that would be included in the RFP for the architect as well as Identifying needs of a future Senior Center (what would success look like?) 6 people volunteered for this workgroup. Friends of Reading Elder & Human Services First meeting is scheduled for 3/22 from Slam-12pm at the Reading Public Library. Board of Health Survey and Diversity Committee Update Both groups are planning to conduct surveys. Marilyn is attending meetings and will represent the COA. Merrimack Valley Elder Services Provided overview of 4 pieces of legislation that are related to aging. Details are included below. Motion to Adjourn: Motion was made and all members voted in favor to adjourn at 8:16pm A recorded video of the meeting is available at httos•//wwwyoutubecom/watch?v=uCIYXWrWD s Page 1 3 02/27/2023 16:36 IITAId 0E BOOINGIP 79 lobrien IYRAR- DATR BUDGET REPORAS OF 02/28/23 191YTmBN FOR 2023 09 ACCOUNTS FOR: 4920 ELDER SEBVECES ORIGINAL APPROP TRA9VR8/ABOB & A SED BUDGET YTD EXPENDED ZKCC aRRN=/RPQ AVATL9RLA B90G6S 9 USED 085D TRUST FUND COMI5SIONER9 0541 HUNAN/ELDER SERVICES 05 EXPENSES 49201501 500010 ELDSVC SCHROEDER BUM AVAIL 21,623.02 592.91 22,165.93 0.00 0.00 22,165.93 .01 49205577 577530 ELDER SCHROEDER SDC SVC 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 -10C.00 100.01. TOTAL EXPENSES 21,623.02 542.91 22,165.93 100.00 0.00 22,065.93 .51 TOTAL. HUMAN/F.1.OF.R SF.RVTCT.S 21,623.02 542.91 22,165.93 100.00 0.00 22,065.93 .51 TOTAL TRUST FUND CONHISSIONERS 21,623.02 542.91 22,165.93 100.00 0.00 22,065.93 .51 02/27/2023 16:36 ITDw OE REXDINO 1PDE14m IYEAR-TO-DATE ROOGET REPORT AS OF 02/28/23 ►OR 2023 00 RCC009T9 90R: 6920 ELDER SERVICES - SCHROEDER OR2011AL APPROP TRAN2R8/ADSSI92S REVISED BUDGET D851 NONEXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS D541 HUNAN/ELDER SERVICES 09 OTHER FINANCING USES 492OP598 598000 ELD SCHRDR NONEXPENDFUNDS 10,000.00 0.00 -ORAL OTHER FINANCING USES .09 10,000.00 0.00 TOTAL HUMAN/ELDER SERVICES 10,000.00 10,000.00 0.00 TOTAL NONEXPENDARLE TRUST FUND 0.00 10,000.00 0.00 TOTAL ELDER SERVICES - SCHRORD 0.00 31,623.02 542.91 TOTAL EXPENSES 32,165.93 31.623.02 542.91 v so 91Yt®uA YTD EXPENDED EIR'OIOREMCE/REO AVAILERT2: EOORT i USED 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 10,000.00 .09 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 10,000.00 .03 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 10,000.00 .06 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 10,000.00 .0% 32,165.93 100.00 0.00 32,065.93 .34 32,165.93 100.00 0.00 32,065.93 02/27/2023 16:36 ITOIDI OT BEADING'Y 81 106x1An ITEAR-TO-DATE BODGET REPORT Glr% AS OF 02/28/23 BOR 2023 08 ACCOUNTS YON: 4921 ELDER BERVECES - BURBAtl1I MGM, ADDROY TRARYR8/a11J816'8 REUIS49 B T m f119911DID ARCp001AWWREG avaILABIE BUDGET 4 USED 0850 TRUST FUND CONNISSIONERS 0541 HUNAN/ELDER SERVICES 299,497.55 5,193.40 05 EXPENSES 5,314.30 0.00 299,376.65 49 11c� ELDSVC BURBANK SUM AVAILABLE 1.7% TOTAL HUMAN/ELDER SERVICES 299,491.55 5,193.40 304,690.95 0.00 0.00 304,690.95 .0% 49215535 535000 BURBANK RECREATIONAL 5,193.40 304,690.95 5,314.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 299,376.65 5,097.46 0.00 -5,097.46 100.0%. 49215578 578009 BURBANX OTHER EXPENSES 0.00 0.00 0.00 216.84 0.00 -216.84 100.0%• TOTAL EXPENSES 299,497.55 5,193.40 304,690.95 5,314.30 0.00 299,376.65 1.7% TOTAL HUMAN/ELDER SERVICES 299,497.55 5,193.40 304,690.95 5,314.30 0.00 299,376.65 1.7% TOTAL TRUST FUND COINIISSIONERS 299,497.55 5,193.40 304,690.95 5,314.30 0.00 299,376.65 1.7% TOTAL ELDER SERVICES - BURBANK 299,497.55 5,193.40 304,690.95 5,314.30 0.00 299,376.65 1.7% TOTAL EXPENSES 299,497.55 5,193.40 304,690.95 5,314.30 0.00 299,376.65 02/27/2023 16:36 ITOY OI BANDING lobsiau, ITAAR-TO-DATE BUDGET REPORT AS OF 02/28/23 FOR 2023 OP ACCOUNTS FOR; 4922 PATRONS FOR OLDER ADULTS ORIGINAL APPROP TANNRB/ID.THMP9 REV28E0 ROUGES OS50 TRUST FUND COMMISSIONERS 0541 RUNRN/ELVER SERVICES 05 EXPENSES 49 21 074 1 `sOOOIO PENN ELDER PATRONS OLDR RUOGAV 45,520.63 42,646.10 2,673.93 45,520.63 45,520.63 TOTAL EXPENSES 0.00 0.00 45,520.63 42,646.70 2,873.93 45,520.63 45,520.63 TOTAL HUMAN/ELDER SERVICES 42,646.70 2,873.93 45,520.63 TOTAL TRUST FUND COMMISSIONERS 42,646.70 2,873.93 45,520.63 YTO EXPENDED ENCMMRANCE/AEQ AVAILAALE WDOES E ONso 0.00 O.Do 45,520.63 .0t 0.00 0.00 45,520.63 .06 0.00 0.00 45,520.63 .04 0.00 0.00 45,520.63 .Ot 02/21/2023 16:36 TOWN OF READING IF 83 lYbzLn (TEAR-TD-DATE BOUGHT REPORT IgLytdw6 AS OF 02/28/23 POR 2023 OB ACCOUNTS FOR: 6922 PATRONS FOR OLDER ADULTS CMXQ "PROP TRAWRS/ADJSNTR REVISED 201X= SSD EXPENDED EMCONPRAPCE/REQ AVALLAEii NW 9 UEID 0851 NONEXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS 0541 HUNAN/ELDER SERVICES 09 OTHER FINANCING USES 4922P598 598000 PERM ELDER PATRONS OLDR NONEXP 126,482.38 0.00 126,482.38 TOTAL OTHER FINANCING USES 126,482.38 .Ok 126,482.38 0.00 126,482.38 TOTAL HUMAN/ELDER SERVICES 0.00 0.00 126,482.38 0.00 126,482.38 TOTAL NONEXPENDARLE TRUST FOND 172,003.01 .Dt 126,482.38 0.00 126,482.38 TOTAL PATRONS MR OLDER MOLTS 169,129.08 2,873.93 172,003.01 TOTAL RXPRMSRS 169,129.08 2,873.93 172,003.01 0.D0 0.00 126,482.38 .0% 0.00 0.00 126,482.38 .Ok D.00 0.00 126,482.38 .D% 0.00 0.00 126,482.38 .09 0.00 0.00 172,003.01 .Dt 0.00 0.00 172,003.01 02/27/2023 16:36 1TONK OF IOt6Dmp I µ l9bTSen ITEAR-TO-DATE BUDGET REPORT p1yCdbu4 AS OF 02/28/23 POR 2023 08 ACCOUNTS FOR: 4923 LAURA S PARSONS TRUST OmalxA APPROP TRAIDIRB/ADJB•ITE RRVIM YpOGRT Y'D MP=DW MMMMARNIM a� 1Mp DE® 0851 NONEXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS 0541 HU /ELDER SERVICES 09 OTHER FINANCING USES 0.00 4923PE98 998000 NONERPENDRBLE FUNDS 0.00 10,000.00 TOTAL OTHER FINANCING USES 0.00 0.00 10,000.00 TOTAL HUMN/ELDER SERVICES 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 TOTAL NONEXPENDABLE TRUST FUND 0.00 10,000.00 TOTAL LAURA 8 PARSONS TRUST 0.00 0.00 10,000.00 TOTAL EXPENSES 0.00 0.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 0.00 O.Co 10,000.00 .0e 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 10,000.00 .03 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 10,000.00 .09 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 10,000.00 .01 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 10,000.00 .O/ 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 10,000.00 Community Engagement and Planning: Reading Center for Active Living (ReCal) December 2022 Commissioned by the Town of Reading Center for Social and Demographic Research on Aging Gerontology Institute John W. McCormack Graduate School of Policy & Global Studies University of Massachusetts Boston UMas Boston OP 'D �Ow �otl l Office of the Town Manager 781-942-9043 16 Lowell Street townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us Reading, MA 01867 www.readinama.goy/town-manager Dear Reading Residents, I am pleased to share with you the report prepared by the Gerontology Institute at the University of Massachusetts which culminates a year-long planning process for a new senior/community center. The UMASS Gerontology Institute was hired to facilitate a planning and community engagement effort to identify the communitys desire for a new senior/community center. As the population of residents age 60+ in Reading continues to grow it is vitally important that the services provided continually evolve to deliver in a facility that is safe, accessible, and meets the needs of the community. The Pleasant Street Center (PSC) is a community resource (senior center) that has served the Town well over several decades albeit with constraints. In 2017 the Wass Gerontology Institute conducted a Needs Assessment of the PSC and concluded that the buildings limitations impact the ability to fully serve seniors. Both the programs that on be offered, and the number of participants that can be accommodated are restricted by the Pleasant Street Centers size and configuration. Prior to the pandemic in 2020, the PSC benefited from small upgrades including an upgraded front desk area, a refurbished computer room, new window treatments, Interior painting, and some new furnishings. A seasonal tent was added in 2021 which helped to bring people together outdoors in a safer way during the pandemic Oust installed for 2022). In the Fall of 2021, the Select Board created a 7 -member Ad Hoc Committee known as ReCalc (Reading Center for Active Living Committee). ReCalc's charge was to explore the current and future needs of the community and initiate planning for a potential new senior/community center in town that will focus on residents age 60+ and possibly other members of the community. ReCalc is focused on two main activities for collecting data: 1) benchmarking neighboring communities with both senior (age 60+) and multigenerational centers and 2) gathering community input and feedback on ideas for what should be included in the design of any new center. ReCalc conducted site visits to sixteen area centers to collect data in a uniform manner. In the Spring of 2022 three (3) public forums were held and were one of the tools to gather community input into the planning process. The Wass team also conducted four (4) focus groups, attended several ReCalc meetings to get feedback and conducted a community survey. Special thanks to ReCalc, the UMass Gerontology Institute and staff who worked tirelessly to create this community engagement work and of course thanks to our residents for your ideas, suggestions, and feedback) Well done everyonell Sincerely, F"" '/'_ Fidel Maltez Town Manager Table of Contents Contributors and Acknowledgements.......................................................................................... IV ExecutiveSummary ................................................................................................................................1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................................4 Methods......................................................................................................................................................4 Results........................................................................................................................................................6 CommunityForums ................................ _........................................................... _...................... _.................. _6 Findingsfrom Focus Groups ................ ............................................................ _...................... _................. 10 Resultsfrom Community Survey ..... ._................. ...._..................................................... ._...._................. 14 Conclusionsand Recommendations.............................................................................................37 References.............................................................................................................................................. 40 Appendix A: Demographic Profile of Reading...........................................................................41 AppendixB: Survey Results.............................................................................................................. 52 Contributors and Acknowledgements This report was produced by the Center for Social and Demographic Research on Aging (CSDRA), a research unit within the Gerontology Institute at UMass Boston's McCormack School. The CSDRA provides resources and research expertise to communities, nongovernmental organizations, and other agencies throughout the Commonwealth. Ceara Somerville, Caitlin Coyle, and Beth Rouleau are primarily responsible for the contents of this report. Other contributors include Saralyn Collins, Adriana Hernandez, Josef Kijewsld, LMSW, and undergraduate students Daniel Caron, Benda David, Raisin O'Keefe, Himani Pachchigar, and Sabrin Zahid. We would like to acknowledge the Town of Reading for their support of this project. Specifically, we offer our appreciation to Jean Cellos, Kevin Bohmiller, and Genevieve Fiorente for their leadership and guidance through this process. We thank the Reading Center for Active Living Committee (ReCalc) and the Council on Aging for their input and collaboration through every step of this project. As well, we are deeply grateful for every Reading resident that took time to participate in this endeavor. For more information, contact: The Center for Social and Demographic Research on Aging Gerontology Institute University of Massachusetts Boston CSDRACa)umb.edu 1617.287.7413 Recommended Citation Somerville, C., Coyle, C., & Rouleau, B. "Community Engagement and Planning: Reading Center for Active Living (ReCal)" (2022). Center for Social and Demographic Research on Aging Publications. Executive Summary This report describes research undertaken by the Center for Social & Demographic Research on Aging (CSDRA) within the Gerontology Institute at the University of Massachusetts Boston, on behalf of the Town of Reading. The goals of this project were to (1) engage the community and (2) investigate the needs, interests, preferences, and opinions of Reading residents regarding the possibility of a new community or senior center. The content of this report is meant to inform the Reading Center for Active Living Committee (ReCalc) on its mission to "explore the current and future needs of the community and initiate planning far a potential new senior/community center in town that will focus on residents aged 60+ and possibly other members of the community". Data for this assessment were drawn from several sources, including • 3 public community forums, conducted in various locations in Reading with virtual participation optional; 172 residents participated across the forums. • 4 focus groups held with 54 key stakeholders who reside in Reading or work on behalf of the community. • A resident survey developed and distributed for all Reading residents aged 18 and older, based on the most recent Town Census list. The survey was predominantly online, with options to pick up and drop off a paper copy at 3 locations in town, or to complete the survey over the phone with a member of the research team. A postcard encouraging participation and detailing access points was mailed to every individual resident aged 18 and older. A total of 1,470 residents took the time to complete a survey. Additional information obtained through the U.S. Census Bureau and other publicly available sources to contextualize the sociodemographic profile of Reading. A broad range of findings are reported in this document, highlighting positive feedback as well as concerns about the potential for a new senior or community center, expressed by residents and other stakeholders. Many of our findings, and the recommendations that follow, intersect with the scope of responsibility held by many Boards and Departments in Reading; such that adequately responding to needs and concerns expressed in the community will require the involvement of other municipal offices and community stakeholders, and some will require a substantial collaborative effort. Thus, this report is intended to inform planning by the Reading Center for Active Living Committee as well as other Town offices, private and public organizations that provide services and advocate for older people within Reading, and the community at large. Key Findings in Bdef • When asked about preference for a new senior or community center, 49% of survey respondents preferred an "all -ages community center including designated sl2ace and programming for residents age 60+." o More than half of respondents under age 60 preferred an all -ages community center. In contrast, 36% of those in their 60s, 49% of those in their 70s, and 57% of respondents age 80 or older selected "senior center for residents age 60+" as their preference. o Results from all data sources indicate that older residents are open to the idea of an all -ages community center, but value having their own space and experiences with peers. • As well, 68% of all survey respondents reported that they would be likely or very likely to utilize an wsenior/community center. • Community forum participants highlighted the need for more information about the proposed new building prior to making a decision. As well, residents want to know how this initiative fits into the existing network of assets in the community. • Cultivating an accessible and inclusive environment is necessary. Among the top priorities for a new space include low or no cost to participate. ample parking, and hours of operation that reflect the fact that more than half of survey respondents are working full or part time. • Residents want to access space to participate in a variety of activities. Across age groups, multi-purpose .spaces for both large and small group programs, area for indoor exercise classes and cafe or meal space are among the top choices for how to design a new space. • Beyond the physical space limitations (e.g., inability to host simultaneous programs, lack of a bathroom on the entry level, etc.), there was wide -recognition among focus group and forum participants that the _staff of the Pleasant Street Center are maxedout in their ability to meet the demands of the community. Suggestions for supporting and expanding the human services staff will be necessary to meet the wide array of resident needs and interests in a future space. Recommendations for the Town of Reading The following recommendations are made based on the information gathered from all components of this process. Although numbered for organizational purposes, the recommendations are not presented in no prioritized order. 1. Expand community awareness through active communication & public education about the planning process. • Address strategies to improve awareness of and need for ReCalc and new community space. o For example, offer public tours of the Pleasant Street Center, highlighting the limitations of the space and equip members of ReCalc, COA, and Select Board with shared messaging about the project to ensure consistency in public education. • Develop an inventory of existing programs and services available to Reading residents. o Consider resources by need (e.g., social services, healthcare, recreation) and age. o Document existing relationships with other organizations that serve Reading. Consider regular meetings with PSC staff and other local organizations (e.g., the Reading Public Library, the Burbank YMCA, local clergy, Reading Recreation, etc.) to improve collaboration and coordination of programs and services. 2. improve accessibility and programming to ensure equitable access. • Establish appropriate hours of operation that can accommodate working residents. • Consider a multi -feature approach to transportation to improve accessibility: o Adequate parking spots o Satellite parking lot with shuttle transportation o Accessible via MBTA services o Develop door-to-door transportation services • Develop infrastructure from an inclusive design perspective. o Consult existing resources for key design principles, such as those available through the Massachusetts Age- and Dementia Friendly Integration Toolkit I Mass.gov • Maintain some separate space, programs, and services for older residents. • Maintain core programs and services provided through Elder & Human Services. • Maintain adequate access to foo nutrition services for older residents. • Ensure that older residents have designated lounge space for informal ea h rin . • Consider the development of inter -generational programmingin partnership with other town resources (e.g., Reading Public Library, Reading School Department). 3. Plan for a new center, including staffing levels consistent with demand. • Include spaces that will support: o Small group or independent activities, such as book clubs, games, arts, and crafts o Exercise classes for large groups o Outdoor areas to relax or for light activity (e.g., lawn games, walking) o Regular opportunity to share a meal with others (e.g., congregate meals, cafe area) o Informal gathering and socialization • Include large rooms that can accommodate many participants and that can be divided into multiple smaller rooms as well as be used for large community events. • Account for classrooms and program rooms that have the technology for audio and visual presentations and the capability to receive participants who are participa ing virtua4>r • Secure adequate private office spaces for staff to conduct 1-1 appointments with residents. 3 • Confirm ample staffing levels and appropriate positions to adequately serve residents. Introduction Aneeds assessment of older Reading residents was conducted in 2017, in collaboration with the Town of Reading's Public Services Department and the Center for Social & Demographic Research on Aging. Results suggested that the Pleasant Street Center (PSC) yields significant challenges in accessibility and the layout is not conducive to the volume and variety of programs and services that residents want to participate in (Coyle & Mutchler, 2017). Conclusions and recommendations reflected that the PSC can no longer meet the demand of Reading's older population. Given the continued growth of the older population in Reading, and overwhelming limitations of the PSC, the Reading Center for Active Living Committee (ReCalc) was convened by the Town in 2021, charged with assessing resident needs and interests to inform development of a potential new senior/community center, focused on residents age 60+ and possibly other members of the community. This report presents results from a comprehensive evaluation of preferences, ideas, and concerns relating to the development of a new community or senior center. A community engagement process was undertaken to support the mission and planning process of ReCalc. By focusing on the needs and interests of residents regarding community gathering space, results presented in this report will inform Reading officials and staff, boards, and community organizations that interact with residents. Methods Methods used in compiling this report include analysis of existing data and primary data collection. Demographic material used in this report was drawn from the U.S. Census Bureau (the decennial censuses and the American Community Survey) and from projections generated by the Donahue Institute at the University of Massachusetts. Primary data was collected through qualitative methods, including community forums and focus groups, and through a community survey. Community Forums Between April and June 2022,3 community forums were conducted in Reading—two in the Reading Public Library (RPL) and one at the PSC—with virtual participation optional. The purpose of the forums was to develop a better understanding of the needs and interests of Reading residents as they relate to programs, services, and the associated building space needs. Information gathered from community forum input was designed to inform subsequent development of survey and focus group instruments used in this assessment. Discussion at the forum focused on envisioning a Reading Center for Active Living in terms of populations served, programs and services offered, types and location of space, and � Refer to Appendix for a full demographic profile of the Reading population. opportunities and challenges. Across forums, over 100 people attended in person, with an additional 72 participants via Zoom. Focus Groups Four focus groups were conducted between June and July 2022, with the purpose of gathering rich feedback from different perspectives in Reading. Participants were recruited in collaboration with the Town. One focus group (n=16) was conducted in-person with representatives of Town government (e.g., town management, public safety, public works, RPL); the goal of this group was to learn how the development of a community center or new senior center may impact the Town. Another focus group was conducted in-person with key organizational stakeholders (n=8) that serve Reading residents, such as the food pantry, Mystic Valley Elder Services, local faith communities, and town services (e.g., COA, Recreation). An additional focus group consisting of community leaders and COA volunteers (n=14) was conducted at Town Hall to capture the input of those intimately familiar with the Town and its services. Lastly, a fourth focus group conducted remotely via Zoom included 13 adults who are approaching later life or who are not familiar with the Pleasant Street Center. Community Survey A survey for Reading residents aged 18 and older was developed in collaboration with the Reading Center for Active Living Committee and Council on Aging. The survey was made available online through Qualtrics, an online survey platform. A postcard encouraging participation and detailing access points was mailed to every individual resident aged 18 and older (n=20,460), with additional outreach conducted through established Town mechanisms (e.g., COA newsletter, social media, bulletin boards). Residents could participate in one of 3 ways. First, an anonymous link was generated and accessible on the Town of Reading homepage. The mailed postcard also included a QR code, that when scanned by a smart device camera, would bring up the survey webpage. Second, 600 paper copies of the survey were made available for pick up and drop off at Town Hall, the Reading Public Library, and the Pleasant Street Center for those who could not or chose not to participate online. Lastly, residents were encouraged to call the research team at UMass Boston who would go through the survey over the phone. A total of 1,470 responses were recorded, with 11% (n=163) returned as paper copies. This yields approximately a 7% response rate, which is consistent with surveys conducted predominantly online. Data Analysis Data collected for the resident survey were analyzed using simple descriptive statistics, including frequencies and cross -tabulations, and are reported in full in Appendix B and throughout the results section of this report. Some responses elicited through open-ended questions were extracted and cited verbatim within this report (e.g., "what are your greatest concerns about your ability to continue living in Reading?"). Detailed notes taken during the study's qualitative components (e.g., focus groups, community forums) were reviewed by multiple project staff and used to characterize and categorize the needs of older residents in Reading as they relate to the design and operation of a new senior/community center. We used information from all sources of data to develop recommendations reported in the final section of this report Results Community Forums Between April and June 2022,3 community forums were conducted in Reading—two at the Reading Public Library (RPL) and one at the Pleasant Street Center (PSC)—with virtual participation optional. All three forums were well -attended with participants eager to share their thoughts about Reading and the possibilities of a Center for Active Living. Participants were first asked about Reading as a place to grow up and grow old, followed by questions specific to envisioning a Center for Active Living. Common themes are summarized below. Reading as a place to live Residents who attended the community forums cited a number of features of the Town that make Reading an ideal place to live. There was a strong sense of "community" among participants, with many citing the close-knit feel of the community and a sense of stability and neighborliness among residents. Reading is close to majorhighways and to Boston while maintaining a small-town feel, offering a valued balance between city and small-town living. Residents feel safe in Town, citing the Reading Police and Fire Departments as excellent services, including the Town alert system for communicating important information. Reading has many resources already available to the community, such as the Burbank YMCA, the RPL, PSC, and RCTV. The Reading Public School Department not only offers educational and recreational opportunities for school-age children, but also for the community at large through high school sports events, music ensemble concerts, and theater performances. Some other features of the Town identified as strengths also yielded discussion about opportunities for improvement For example, while many noted the "close knit" feel of the community as an asset, others countered by noting how difficult it can be for a new resident to get integrated into the community. It can be difficult to find an in -way to connect with other residents and what is happening in Town. Participants felt like there's a good amount of social and cultural events in Town (e.g., The Art Walk Downtown, Shop the Block, holiday events), but noted that greater variety and visibility would be ideal. Having a dedicated space for such events would be beneficial (e.g., cultural center, new community center). Reading is not geographically large or spread out but getting around town was identified as a challenge for many. Although the downtown area was identified as an asset, with shops, restaurants, and Town services being centrally located, getting to downtown can be difficult between traffic and parking availability. For neighborhoods outside of the downtown area, lack of maintained sidewalks and other infrastructure make walkability, difficult. Although people can walk around downtown, people cannot easily walk to downtown. Forum participants were glad to have access to public transportation (2 MBTA bus routes,1 commuter rail stop) and PSC transportation, but noted challenges: not enough transportation options, like door-to-door; not enough Flexibility in scheduling and destinations (e.g., out of town, medical appointments); figuring out routes and schedules can be confusing; getting around without a car can be difficult. Although these services do exist already, greater awareness and access to transportation options is needed. A primary challenge identified across forums and for residents of all ages was housing and cost of living. Forum participants cited varying lengths of time living in the community and a desire to continue to age in Reading. One barrier to that is the lack of affordable housing, with some citing a need for more subsidized and senior housing. Similarly, forum participants wanted to see more options for senior independent living or opportunities to downsize and remain in the community. The tax rate and overall cost of living was described as high, with concerns of increasing costs pushing individuals and families out of the community. Envisioning a Reading Center for Active Living The crux of the forum discussions was centered on envisioning what a Reading Center for Active Living could look like, including thinking through who would participate, what Town Departments could be staffed there, what activities could be offered there, and brainstorming ideas for its location. Overall, participants supported the notion of an age -inclusive space but noted the importance of maintaining dedicated attention and space for older adults. Participants described existing opportunities for children through the school system, extra -curricular activities, their social networks, and the Burbank YMCA, but noted that the PSC is currently the main source of programs and services for older adults in the community. Older participants were clear that although they do not oppose having a space that incorporates younger ages, they do not want to be forgotten or cast aside in planning and programming. Participants noted that the majority of daytime clientele would be older adults, but with so many seniors continuing to work, it is important to make night and weekend programming available for older adults, not just for children or young adults. Although most participants emphasized the importance of keeping at least some space and programming age -restricted, many participants discussed some opportunities to engage with children and young adults as important programs to include in a new Center for Active Living. Older participants want the opportunity to socialize with younger residents, through volunteer programs with the schools, or bringing younger people into programs with older adults at a Center for Active Living. Some examples shared included movie nights, storytelling, and informal socializing. Also discussed were opportunities for younger residents to teach older adults new skills and vice versa and opportunities for tutoring or mentoring of younger students with their homework In terms of activities, events, and services to be offered by a Center for Active Living, a number of significant provisions were noted by forum participants. The idea that this Center will have to meet a vast variety of needs and interests—even just among the 60+ population—was discussed, with implications that programs and space design will need to be flexible and adaptable. It is important that social and health services (e.g., application assistance, health clinics, health insurance counselling) continue to be offered. A number of participants described the need for challenging, interesting, and active programs for older adults. There is still a sizeable share of older people who would like to engage in more intense physical activity, like dance or Zomba, and more thought-provoking activities, like enriching courses in cooking, technology, lectures, etc. Food was noted several times as a key feature of a Center for Active Living. Not simply the provision of meals, but participants noted regular/frequent provision of meals with an improved kitchen space as important. The quality of the food was discussed—having high quality nutritious and delicious food is essential to continued meal programs. Programming to target some populations would be helpful, like programing to bring in older men, to bring in both single and coupled adults, and efforts to reach and include immigrant residents. Moreover, participants recognized the need for caregiver support, such as respite or adult day programs, or even childcare for working parents. Upon discussing programs and activities that would draw people into a Center for Active Living, participants brainstormed the implications on what the space would need to include. An overarching idea about the space was that it needs to be accessible and inclusive in both structure and culture. Residents with mobility or cognitive impairment should be able to get around the Center easily and feel welcomed and respected. Most agreed that a Center for Active Living needs to be flexible to adapt to a wide range of current and future planning efforts. It should have space that is multipurpose (e.g., moving walls for division, large and open to serve many needs) and space for informal socializing—there is no current space at the PSC where residents can drop-in and relax with peers. Capacity to offer multiple programs at the same time was preferred by many. In addition to flexibility, a few key features most emphasized among residents included: adequate parking, and/or improved transportation options to get there; accessible egress, hallways, and rooms; dedicated space for art classes; equipment and space for physical activity; and private space for one-on-one appointments. Other important space features that came up included comfortable and accessible furniture (e.g., chairs with armrests for ease getting up and down), employment opportunities for older adults, and low to no cost programs and services. When asked to consider where a Center for Active Living could be located in Reading, participants offered a few possible locations around Town. Many participants noted that the current PSC building is still a loved asset of the community, though it no longer serves effectively as a senior center. While some asked about opportunities to renovate and expand the current space, most participants agreed that a new location would be best for a new Center. Participants liked that the current PSC is located downtown and would like to see a new Center located downtown, but challenges associated with the downtown area—lack of parking, already densely developed—exist. An empty Walgreens building and space near the Reading Depot were discussed as opportunities close to downtown. Near schools (e.g., Birch Meadow area) was suggested by some, noting opportunities to be on a 'campus' model with other town assets and proximity to schools for volunteer and engagement opportunities. Some noted cons included congestion in the area at school dropoff and pick-up times and being removed from the downtown area. Participants would be open to a location outside of downtown but having adequate transportation would need to be in place to access the Center. Other spaces discussed were near the Market Basket—in a plaza with other shops and restaurants—Oakland Road, or Symonds Way. Realizing a Center for Active Living Many forum participants were eager to discuss the potential of a new senior community center space but were aware of potential barriers to development. These focused on (1) addressing immediate need, (2) transparency and communication, (3) clarity on the center's role, and (4) managing other priorities. The interim period Opportunities for short-term adaptations were discussed to expand the programs and services offered until a new space could be developed. Forum participants asked about using meeting spaces in the library for programs, especially since the RPL has undergone a renovation and has better temperature control, technology, and accessibility than the PSC2. Others discussed the possibility of having satellite locations through Town for programming, so that residents across town may have greater access compared to getting downtown. Continuing or expanding virtual programming was considered to be an inclusive and effective way to keep residents engaged. Transparency and communication about the process A common theme that ran through all three forums was the need for clearer and more consistent communication between the Town and its residents. On some occasions, forum participants brought up a need for a program and then were quickly informed by other participants that it was already available either through the Town, the Burbank YMCA, or another local organization. Clarify the role in the community Some participants found it difficult to envision a Center for Active Living without knowing the full range of what is already available in the community. In the same vein, participants at every forum identified the need to recognize and inventory the resources and opportunities presently available to residents before continuing with planning efforts. Participants agreed that efforts to improve communication and coordination of existing resources was crucial � In October 2022, a pilot program—Wellness Wednesdays—was launched hosting programming for older adults at the Reading Public Library (October -2022 -Pleasantries -Newsletter -PDF (readinema.envlj. 9 for all residents of Reading. Examples included coordination with the Burbank YMCA for programs and use of their space and pool and tighter connection with the Public Library and all that they offer. Managing other priorities Additionally, other Town planning processes were brought up as possibly competing interests with the ReCal project. Forum participants made it clear that this effort to develop a Reading Center for Active Living is a priority and should be considered as such. Other planning projects or Town space assessments should be conducted after the ReCal committee can finalize their recommendations for moving forward with a new Center. Residents agreed that the process of engaging the community is crucial to the efficacy of planning projects as large as this one. Findings from Focus Groups A total of 54 people participated in one of four focus groups that were conducted in support of this project. Representatives from Town Departments, community organizations, and residents of a variety of ages participated in a group conversation that lasted between 60-90 minutes. Three focus groups were conducted in-person at various locations in Reading and one was conducted remotely via Zoom video conference. A notetaker was present at each focus group. Themes were derived from these notes and are reported below. Strengths and Challenges Living in Reading Reading is described as a safe and generous community, full of residents willing to give their time to volunteer, and organizations working together to support residents. Its proximity to Boston, and all that it offers—including healthcare and arts, as well as its greenspaces and walkability—were named as features valued by many focus group participants. As well, existing community assets such as the Reading Public Library, the Pleasant Street Center, the Reading Public School Department, and the Burbank YMCA form a network of programs and services that enhance quality of life for many in Town. Things that make it challenging to live, and age, in Reading were identified as being the rising cost of property taxes and other essential costs of living (e.g., utilities, food, gas etc.) and the availability of housing options for those wishing to downsize from their large single-family homes. Access to housing that is affordable to those in middle-income brackets is needed as well as the opportunity to access housing with features like transportation, meals, or access to other in-home supports that can enable a person to remain living independently are most preferred, according to focus group participants. Those caring for a person with disabilities, or an aging family member face levels of stress that can be overwhelming and can make navigating the systems of care difficult as they support their care partner through the life course. Another challenge identified by focus group participants is the prevalence of mental health conditions and a general lack of available and accessible supports and services. 10 Another challenge that was identified across focus groups is the lack of transportation for those who no longer drive or those who would prefer to reduce their driving. Currently, the Pleasant Street Center coordinates transportation, with medical transportation provided by a vendor, and there are limited public transportation options. Despite the small geography of Reading, walkability is spotty. Some areas near downtown have networks of sidewalks that enable residents to get around; but many parts of the community are not as well connected via sidewalks. This is problematic, especially in winter months, for those wishing to walk as a means of activity or mobility. Traffic in Reading has also created a barrier for residents who drive, as many choose to drive only during certain times of day to avoid congestion. One implication of these transportation barriers is that some residents, particularly those who don't drive or live with mobility limitations, do not participate in the community as much as they d like, which can lead to social isolation—which is known for its negative physical and mental health side-effects. Finally, a common theme raised by focus group participants was eloquently described by one participant as a "lack of a'third space'"—space that is not home nor work where people can engage in meaningful activity and be in community with others. The Reading Public Library has two community meeting spaces that can be reserved for programs or meetings; but it lacks space for dropping in or gathering in groups socially. The Burbank YMCA is a great resource for physical activity; but there is a cost associated with these programs that can be prohibitive. There is also a common understanding that the Pleasant Street Center has been operating at its maximum capacity for several years and has serious limitations in its ability to host large groups of older adults for any single program (e.g., limited parking, no bathroom on the entry-level), few program rooms that limit the ability to host programs simultaneously and limited private counseling space to provide services to residents. Taken together, these challenges highlight necessary considerations for the Town of Reading to take as they continue planning for the future. Envisioning a Center for Active Living Considerations of new space were offered and have been organized into four dimensions of a potential new space: the physical design of the building to support resident wellness, the importance of accessibility elements that will ensure that all are welcome, and programming and branding that will entice residents to engage in new ways. Among Town staff, the consideration of a new multigenerational community center has multiple benefits across departments. For example, new space could serve as a heating/cooling shelter during extreme weather events, and overall function as a place for large community events to be held that would fill a need of the community. As well, a new multigenerational center could offer a centralized place for Town departments to "meet a lot more faces" and really widen the front door of municipal services. For example, one participant suggested that things like compost stickers could be sold at a future center; many others noted that they could communicate their activities and resources through a new center as a way of reaching new and more residents than the current Pleasant Street Center 11 accommodates. General sentiments about the need for universal design and space that can serve multiple purposes was clearly communicated by focus group participants. Designed to Promote Resident Wellness As well, several suggestions made by focus group participants focused on how the physical space can be organized to promote the holistic wellness that Reading residents of all ages are working towards. Outdoor seating, shade, walking paths, and gardens were acknowledged as a valuable aspect of community space and can serve as an outward facing amenity that could attract passersby to participate. On the inside of the building, having specific types of space would ensure that programming could be delivered on a number of topics that are important to middle and older aged residents. For example, quiet. and tranquil space for practices like yoga, meditation, reiki, taichi, and gigong was mentioned as a space type that would accommodate the preferences of Reading residents. Professional and personal development are also key goals for those aging in Reading, according to focus group participants. Space that can accommodate educational programs— including presentation capabilities, sinks and storage for art supplies, and adequate seating for students to engage—is of high value to residents. As well, working space for those in the workforce or who mentor was mentioned as filling a gap in the community, as the RPL doesn't have sufficient quiet work or study spaces for individuals or small groups. Finally, access to healthy food is an aspect of the potential new center that was identified as a need by focus group participants. The food pantry is currently operated out of a local church and there were suggestions that bringing this valuable resource into a more neutral public space could increase the uptake of such services. The opportunity to share meals with others was also noted as a highly valuable contribution of this potential new space. Having a commercial kitchen that could prepare meals on-site would allow not only for congregate meals to happen regularly but could also be used to host community -wide events, potentially offer opportunities for renting the space out and generating revenue, offering cooking classes or demonstrations, offering casual "drop in" caM style space that many noted would be valued for those who cannot access local restaurants and cafes because of cost, physical accessibility, and dietary need. Accessibility The need for "drop-in" space where residents can socialize and get out of the house was mentioned not only as a preference but also as a dimension of accessibility to the offerings of the Town. Not all residents feel comfortable or confident in attending formal programs alone or without prior experience. Thus, this informal drop-in space would offer an opportunity for those residents who may not want to participate in programming to engage in the community. Suggestions for a rotating public art gallery in this space were offered as an idea. 12 Rising costs of living can mean that residents need to work longer to maintain their standard of living; but also, residents may be actively providing childcare or eldercare to family members or friends during the work hours. Consequently, having communal space that is open in the evenings and on weekends would further ensure access to all. As well, opportunities for intergenerational and multigenerational activities outside of school hours is valued by focus group participants. While no strong preference for the physical location of a new center was clear among focus group participants, it was noted that access would hinge on either the production of sufficient parking at a new facility or the investment in local transportation that would accommodate residents. For example, designating a parking lot far away from a downtown area and providing a regularly scheduled shuttle service that would get residents, including those with mobility impairments, to and from the center safely and on schedule with programs, meals, and appointments. A final element of accessibility that was raised by focus group participants relates to the costs associated with a new facility. Both the financing costs that would impact residents tax bill but also the extent to which the sustainability of the facility included program or service fees that would fall to the consumer. There was resounding agreement that the financial security of older residents of Reading is the number one concern; and if a new facility was intended to provide equitable access, costs associated with participation would need to be small or could be subsidized in some way. Programming As far as the activities that would take place at a potential multigenerational center, focus group participants emphasized multiple forms of exercise—classes, equipment, outdoor, strength training, Flexibility/mobility training etc. Additionally, trips both local and nonlocal would be attractive to residents of a variety of ages. Lifelong learning programs—beyond a one-time event—are desired, as well as to the arts, including singing, acting, dancing, are appealing. Intergenerational opportunities were welcomed by many focus group participants, with an emphasis on having these things available but not forced. Volunteer opportunities were identified as something that would provide purpose and meaning to resident's lives; but that in order to develop meaningful volunteer opportunities, investments must be made by staff. Finally, it was understood that programmatic ideas could be generated by residents and would also offer a valuable way for residents to share their skills, talents, and experiences. Branding A final element of focus group discussions had to do with the extent to which residents would participate in a multigenerational community center. Participants acknowledged that many older residents of Reading do not participate at the Pleasant Street Center because they don't feel old enough or have enough "need" to attend. It was clear that the messaging and branding of such a new place would require thoughtful investment in the building's name, its mission or the missions of the entities housed there. Whether the name becomes the 13 Center for Active Living (CAL), it was clear that a new name that allows residents from all walks of life "see themselves" or identify with the place is necessary to its success. As well, changing the narrative that you must demonstrate a "need" to take advantage of Town services may require an investment in public awareness, communication, and the creation of more shared spaces in Reading a way for the Town to fully realize the impact of its investment in a new multigenerational community center. Results from Community Survey In this section, we report key findings from each section of the survey. Tables illustrating results in detail are included in Appendix B. Respondent Characteristics A postcard invitation to participate with instructions for accessing the survey was mailed to every Reading resident aged 18 or older as of September 1, 2022. Respondents to the community survey included 1,470 adult residents, representing a 7% response rate (Table 1). This response rate is expected for a survey conducted predominantly online. Compared to the age distribution of all adult Reading residents, survey response rates were higher among those age 60 and older (see Table 1). Given the small number of respondents age 1829, results will be reported for age groups 18-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, and 80+. Response distributions by age group are shown for all survey questions in Appendix B. 14 Nearly two-thirds of the sample identified as female and 37% identified as males (Appendix B). About 40% of the sample is working full-time, with over half of those under age 60 reporting full-time work (Figure 1). More than half of those age 60-69 are still working either full- or part-time, as well as a small share of those age 70-79, indicating either a need or desire to remain in the workforce. About 4% of respondents selected 'other," as their employment status, with write-in responses including stay at home caregiver, student, currently unemployed, and limited, seasonal, or per diem employment (Appendix B). 3 A small number of respondents selected "Other" as their gender identity, totaling less than 1%ofthe sample. 15 Figure 1. What is your employment status? 4% All ages M Working full-time 0 Working part-time Retired • Other Figure 2. 1 have adequate resources to meet my financial needs, including home maintenance, personal healthcare, and other expenses' Age 80+26o/a 64% O/ Age 70-79 34% 5S% 11% Age 60-69 38% 540/ 8% Age 50-59 45% M 14r/, o Age 18-49 6 /0 32% 6% All ages 42% 490/ 9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% • Strongly Agree Agree • Disagree or Strongly Disagree The vast majority of respondents agree that they have adequate resources to meet their financial needs, though the strength of agreement decreases with age. In Figure 2, 62% of those age 18-49 selected "Strongly Agree,' compared to 45% of those age 50-59, 38% of those age 60-69, and 34% of those age 70-79; a quarter of respondents age 80 or older selected "strongly agree." Although most respondents report having adequate resources, there is a share of residents—largely older residents—who may be at risk of financial insecurity. 16 Community and Neighborhood A commonly expressed goal of older adults is to remain living in their own homes for as long as possible. Aging in place implies remaining in familiar home and community settings, with supports as needed, as opposed to moving to institutional settings, such as nursing homes. By aging in place, older adults can retain their independence, as well as maintain valued social relationships and engagement with the community. Survey respondents included lifelong residents as well as relative newcomers (Figure 3). Indeed, a near even distribution of responses to duration of time living in Reading emerged, with 3546 of respondents having lived in Reading for 35 or more years, 35% living in Reading for 15-34 years, and 30% living in Reading for fewer than 14 years. These results suggest a diverse population in terms of experience living in the Town of Reading which can provide a ruuusa seL u1 Figure 3. How long have you lived in the Town of Reading? • Fewer than 5 years • 5-14 years 15-24 years • 25-34 years '-` 35-44 years • 45 years or longer Nearly half of respondents reported that continuing to live in Reading is "very important" as they get older (Figure 4). Another 35% reported "slightly important," and just 7% suggested remaining in Reading is "not at all important" When compared by age group, stark differences emerge. About 3 out of 4 residents age 80+ reported remaining in Reading is very important, compared to half of residents age 50-59, and 22% of residents age 18-49. In contrast, 62% of younger residents (age 18-49) reported remaining in Reading is somewhat or slightly important, which is nearly twice the share of those aged 70-79 and 80+. In essence, those who are reaching old age in Reading are committed to staying. 17 Figure 4. How important is it to you to remain living in Reading as you get older? Age 80+ Age 70-79 65% Age 60-6950°k 35° 1 ° 5% Age 50-59 32% 42° 11 15% Age 18-49 22% 43 19% 16% All ages 46% 35% 12% 7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% • Veryimportant • Somewhat important Slightly important • Not at all important Figure 5. Do you plan to stay in Reading for the next 5 years or more? • Yes, I plan to stay in Reading in my current home • Yes, l plan to stay in Reading but would move to smaller home or apartment • No, I plan to move out of Reading When it comes to plans for staying in Reading, most respondents intend to stay, either in their current home or to move to a smaller home or apartment. Figure S demonstrates that 88% of respondents plan to stay in their current home, and a small share (7%) aim to remain in Town but would downsize their living arrangement. These results are consistent when compared by age group (Appendix B), suggesting that residents of all ages plan to stay in Reading for the foreseeable future. 18 Survey participants were asked to share their greatest concerns about their ability to continue living in Reading through an open-ended question. Most respondents (1,234; 84%) provided a written response. Table 2 presents common themes that emerged, with demonstrative verbatim quotes. Half of the written responses reported cost of living being a challenge, with many concerned about being able to continue to afford to live in Reading. A quarter of respondents who wrote in identified concerns about getting around town. These included notes about the quality of roads and sidewalks, road congestion and availability of parking, and concerns about availability of alternative modes of transportation. Nearly 20% identified access to resources to maintain wellbeing and independence as a top concern as they age. Comments included needing access to basic needs and amenities, such as grocery stores, healthcare services, and home maintenance supports (e.g., yardwork, shoveling, small repairs). Also included were comments about remaining socially and intellectually engaged with the community, citing the need for opportunities to engage with others through activities, classes, and events. Table 2. Sample responses to the question, "What are your greatest concerns about your ability to continue living in Reading as you get older?" "Concerned that we will be priced out of Reading with increased taxes, electric and water bills." "It keeps getting more expensive, I'm afraid in a year we won't be able to live here." Transportation and Getting Around Town "If/when I lose the ability to drive. How will l get around in my community. How will I be able to get to a store, visit friends, attend medical appointments." "The public transportation to resources is poor ... Even as an able bodied person with a car, I wish this resource existed." "I am concerned that the roads and sidewalks in town do not get repaired often or quickly when showing disrepair." "Having support from the community in order to stay in my home. I wish there was a group which aided in handyman projects, medical transportation, and more social activities." "Having a place to gather with people my age. During the pandemic, isolation was of great concern. Having activities with people of my age group is very important for mental health." 19 Future Senior Center/Community Center Senior centers serve as community focal points for older adults, offering a variety of programs and services designed to meet the needs and interests of the local community. Enveloping senior services into an allages community center may have organizational benefits (e.g., more diverse funding streams), participation benefits (e.g., attracting new residents), and community benefits (e.g., streamlined access to human services and erosion of ageist stereotypes), but core services for older adults remain essential (Pardasani & Thompson, 2012). Nonetheless, feedback from community stakeholders is crucial to planning and development related to community and senior services. When asked about preference for a new senior or community center, about half of survey respondents preferred an all -ages community center, though responses vary considerably by age group (Figure 6). About 72% of younger respondents (age 18-49) reported preference for a community center, and a small share (11%) preferred a senior center. As age increases, as does the share of residents who prefer a senior center, increasing to nearly half of respondents age 70-79 and 57% of respondents age 80+. Consistent across age groups, a small share (10%) reported no preference. Over 100 respondents selected "Other" and wrote -in their preference. Among write-in responses, most reported that they do not perceive a need for a new senior or community center, citing sufficient existing opportunities, concerns about town development, and financial implications. Survey respondents were provided the space to expand upon their selection with an openended question; about half of all respondents wrote in a response. Table 3 shares the common themes that emerged, as well as verbatim quotes that illustrate each theme. A quarter of written responses identified important attributes of a center, including parking, variety of programming, adaptable space, and having some age -segregated space and programs. Among write-ins, 21% suggested that a community center could serve as an opportunity for community cohesion and inclusion. Responses centered on the idea of bringing residents together from all backgrounds and generations to share experiences, knowledge, and skills. Nearly 1 in 5 written responses expressed resistance to a new building or development. These included concerns about how development costs will influence their own expenses (e.g., increased tax bill) as well as perceptions that there are other priorities for town funding (e.g., improving school facilities, addressing road and sidewalk repairs). Those expressing resistance to a new development also reported the perception that are adequate existing resources in town that can be rehabbed or repurposed. 20 Age 80+ Age 70-79 Age 60-69 Age 50-59 Figure 6. Most preferred scenario, by age I EEO/0 FU 36% 5% Age 18-49 11% 72% All ages I I 0% 20% 40% 60% •A Senior Center for residents age 60+ _"ZM 10% I 80% 100% 1 0 An all -ages Community Center including designated space and programming for residents age 60+ 1 have no preference 0 Other (please specify): Table 3. Sample responses to the question, "please tell us more about your preference for a new senior center or community center." "1 would like a community center that all citizens can access and multi -generational activities could be hosted, including youth and individuals with disabilities," 21 "Done well, an all -ages Community Center can help keep ties between generations strong, which is good for all. I'd love to see Reading taking care of our seniors while providing opportunities for positive interactions with the broader community." Maintaining space and programs for older residents "If the town is considering a facility that offers services to those other than seniors, I think it a great idea to... make it a vibrant and exciting facility for all, provided seniors are not pushed out or cast aside in the process. The facility should be built for, around and in support of our senior population." "Since seniors have more time during the day, I believe that the space should be designed with them in mind - activities, accessibility, interests and needs, etc. However, if the town is investing in this building, some of the gathering spaces should be available to the community at times and on days where it is not otherwise in planned use." Adaptable and variety of features "Center must be set up for the physically challenged, not just for wheelchair accessibility, but for those with limited walking/standing capacity ... railings ... elevators... automatic door openers... bathroom access... hallway/room setup width for wheelchair bound citizens... sound proofing if children are to be a part... flooring important -nothing slippery... communal space so both young and old can associate together..." "A new center should have considerable configurable space for events or community meetings. It should also have smaller, dedicated rooms for small events and lockable storage for clubs or similar groups. It should have hanging -out space like a lobby. It should have kitchen facilities -- also maybe a short order service. It should have good wifi and computer facilities with printers, copiers, and office equipment that people may not have at home." "I think a new senior center would be duplicative to existing options already available to seniors. Would prefer to see the money spent elsewhere." "I don't really want a new senior center (see taxing -out senior residents on prior question) but if we aren't able to remodel the current one to fit needs, we should build/rent space for all community members with programming for all." 22 Figure 7. Location preference for a future senior/community center 0 Located in the downtown area • Located outside of the downtown area I have no preference on location in Reading • Other (please specify): Nearly half of respondent had no preference for location of a new senior or community center (Figure 7). About a third prefer having a space near downtown Reading, close to shops, restaurants, Town Hall, and other amenities. A small share (10%) prefers a space outside of the downtown area. Among the 15% who selected "Other" as their preference, responses centered around being able to access the space, such as need for parking and physical accessibility, and being close to other amenities, not necessarily in the immediate downtown district. A quarter of respondents who select "other" for location preference wrote in that they do not want a new senior or community center. Given that the development of a new senior or community center in Reading would impact Town expenditures, gathering feedback from residents about potential tax burden was an important item to include on this survey. Figure 8 presents results, broken down by space preference, to the question: "For FY22, the average tax bill was $9,313. If it meant an increase to your household taxes during a set period of time, please indicate the maximum amount you might support for a new senior center or community center." Regardless of preference, most respondents would be willing to accommodate modest increases in taxes to gain a new gathering space in Reading. About 41% would support an increase of less than $200. Nearly a quarter of respondents would support an increase to their household tax bill of $200 or more. A small share of respondents reported not being responsible for household taxes (e.g., renters). For those who prefer a senior center, 60% would be willing to pay an additional $100 or more annually; and for those who prefer a community center, 74% would be willing to pay at least $100 or more, annually. Most of those who selected "other" as their preference for reported they would only support a new development if it came at no cost, which aligns with the reasons given for selecting other (e.g., do not need a new center). Results suggest that residents may be more willing to pay for an all -ages community center compared to a senior center, but individual cost burden should be limited. 23 Figure 8. Maximum household tax increase supported, by senior or community center preference i All respondents 5 0 310o 170/ ' 24% 120/ 11% A Senior Center 6% 34% 200/ I 24% 99' 7% An all -ages Community Center 6% 200/ 1 29% 16% 14% 1 have no preference 90/ 320/ 240/ 160/% 80/ 11% Other 800/a 5 0 9% 5% 1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% • N/A, I am not responsible for paying property taxes at this time No increase; I would only support a new building if it came at no additional cost to residents Less than $100 per year $100-$200 per year •$201-$300 per year '0 $301+ per year M N Survey respondents were asked to prioritize the types of spaces as part of a new senior or community center4. The following tables present the most frequently selected types of gilaces. with the range of top selected choices among each age group reported in parentheses, Table 4 displays the top 5 most frequently selected indoor spaces, by age. Descriptive statistics for the complete set of response options by age is presented in Appendix B. Across age groups, multipurpose space for independent, small group, and large group activities were most selected as priority. Among residents age 60 and older, access to food was ranked highly, with almost half of respondents age 60-79 selecting caf6 or dining space, and more than 50% of respondents age 80+ selecting kitchen and dining space." Similarly, respondents were asked to prioritize types of outdoor space that they would like to see in a new senior or community center (Table 5). Benches or comfortable outdoor seating and picnic tables/outdoor dining space were the top selections across age groups, with more than half of respondents selecting each. Survey respondents identified outdoor +Full tabulations for Tables 4-6 are presented in Appendix B. 27 spaces to relax, socialize, and engage in light activity as top priorities. Descriptive statistics for the complete set of response options by age is presented in Appendix B. Following types of space, respondents were asked to prioritize accessibility features to be considered in a new senior or community center (Table 6). Descriptive statistics for the complete set of response options by age is presented in Appendix B. The top two selections were little to no cost for participation and ample parking, though residents age 18-49 less frequently identified parking as a priority compared to older age groups. Having enough space to run multiple programs at once was selected frequently across age groups. Programming for all ages was a top priority among residents age 18-49, whereas dedicated space was a top selection among respondents age 60 and older. Taken together, residents of all ages and abilities need to be able to get to the center and have sufficient choices about when they go and what programs they can attend. 29 i 1 1 2 1 1 1 (69%) (684'0) (73%) (77%) (80%) 2 (6246) 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 (31%) 5 (2440) 5 5 5 3 3 (3 %) (30%) (34%) 5 (33%) 29 When asked, "if a new senior or community center was developed, how likely would you or members of your household be to use the facility7" the response was largely positive, with 68% responding with very or somewhat likely (Figure 9). Respondents who preferred the senior center for residents age 60+ scenario responded similarly on this question as those who preferred the all -ages community center including designated space and programming for residents age 60+5. Among those who reported no preference for facility type, 42% reported it likely that they or members of their household would use a new facility. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of respondents who selected "other" as facility preference also reported low likelihood of attending a new senior or community center, which aligns with the reasons given for selecting Other (i.e., no need for new development). Those who previously reported no preference for a new senior or community center also repotted higher shares of uncertainty and unlikelihood of attending a new facility, suggesting that there are community members who may not care, may not know enough, or may have concerns regarding a new senior or community center in Town. 5 Note: This figure does not demonstrate likelihood to attend a senior center vs. likelihood to attend a community center. Rather, the statistics presented demonstrate the share of respondents reporting likelihood to attend a "new senior or community center within each stated scenario preference. 29 Figure 9. Likelihood of using a new senior or community center, by scenario preference All respondents A Senior Center for residents age 60+ An all -ages Community Center including designated space and programming for residents age 60+ I have no preference Other (please specify): 0/6 N 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% • Very or Somewhat likely • Unsure Somewhat or Very Unlikely Programs and Services Programs and services are important to support residents' ability to age in place and in community. For example, those with mobility limitations and those who experience challenges with driving may need medical and social services that can be easily accessed or delivered within their homes. Programs that connect older homeowners with affordable assistance for maintaining their homes and yards can help protea the value of investments and improve the neighborhoods in which older people live. Elder care services play a part in helping residents age in place and in community. Involvement with municipal services and programs can help community members maintain social support, remain active, prolong independence, and improve quality of life. Some 30 research suggests that participating in a Senior Center may reduce one's sense of isolation, a highly significant outcome given the negative consequences of being disconnected socially (Hudson, 2017). An important provision from a new senior or community center may include services to support independence and wellbeing among residents. Figure 10 displays the age breakdown respondents who rated services as important or very important to them or a member of their family. Professional services (36%), transportation (314'0), and support group and caregiver referrals (31%) were most highly rated among all respondents. Among younger respondents, childcare was most frequently selected as important (3345), however this was least frequently selected by residents in their 50s (10%) and 60+ (645). Similar shares of respondents identified caregiver support programs—adult day health, support groups, caregiver referrals—as important, suggesting that residents of all ages may be experiencing challenges related to caregiving and may benefit from different supports. 31 Figure 10. Important or Very Important services at this time, by age Childcare program Adult day health program Support group and caregiver referrals Professional services (e.g., health insurance counseling, tax, legal) i programs (e.g., regular lunches, home -delivered meals) Wellness services (e.g., friendly calls/visiting, mental health referrals) Transportation Assistance with local or state support programs (e.g., financial, fuel) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% • Age 60+ ■ Age 50-59 • Age 18-49 Information about communication, information, and access to programs and services was collected from survey respondents to inform the development of a new senior or community 32 center. Figure 11 presents the preferred methods for learning about programs and services offered through the Town. Almost half of respondents reported the official Town of Reading website (58%) and newsletters (53%)—such as Pleasantries, distributed by the Pleasant Street Center—as preferred information sources. Other electronic means of communication were preferred by respondents, including social media (35%) and the local online newspaper (33%). A notable share of respondents identified word of mouth (18%) and the local print newspaper (16%) as preferred sources, suggesting that utilizing a variety of :ommumcauons ouueui win De enecnve in reacnmg a wore array or i own resmems. Figure 11. Where do you prefer to find information about the activities and services offered by the Town? Town of Reading websites (e.g., monthly newsletter for Reading's 60+) Facebook or other social media sites Local online newspaper (The Reading Post or The Patch) Word of mouth Local print newspaper (The Daily Times Chronicle) Local cable television Other (please specify): 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% In considering accessibility, survey respondents were asked if they have a condition that limits their ability to access public spaces, buildings, or programs in Reading. A small share of respondents-54'0—responded "yes," and identified the type of condition (Figure 12). Physical mobility limitations (80%) were most frequently cited as challenging, as well as 33 hearing impairment (21%) and Other (16%) conditions. Among those with a condition limiting access around Town, 34% selected two or more conditions (not shown), suggesting that there are Reading residents managing multiple conditions that limit their ability to participate fully in the community. Figure 12. Reason for difficulty accessing public spaces, buildings, or programs in Reading Other (please specify): Dementia or cognitive changes Mental health conditions Vision impairment Hearing impairment Physical mobility limitations 80% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% A small share (28%) of survey respondents have traveled to other senior or community centers, though that share increases with age (Appendix B). The top reasons for traveling to senior or community centers in other towns to participate in programs are reported in Figure 13. Among those who have traveled to other centers for programs, 63% reported going for a program not offered in Reading. Other reasons include attending with friends (45%) and finding the other center more welcoming or inviting (32%). Accessibility was key for some respondents, with 18% reporting easier parking and 12% reporting more convenient hours. A fifth of respondents who have traveled to other centers selected "Other," and wrote -in their reason; common other reasons included greater variety of offerings, attending for a specific program (e.g., men's breakfast, ballroom dance) and prior knowledge and previous experience with another center. 34 The final question of the survey was an open-ended question, inviting participants to share any additional thoughts, comments, or concerns about the future of the Pleasant Street Center or the development of a new senior or community center. Almost a third (n=470) of survey respondents provided feedback Respondents provided several recommendations for programs and services to offer, indicating the need for a varied and robust set of offerings to attract a diverse arrayof residents. Relatedly, others considered key infrastructure components to be included, such as parking, accessibility, and staffing. Many respondents identified the Pleasant Street Center as a loved resource, offering suggestions to renovation the existing space or maintain it as a community asset. Relatedly, a number of residents expressed curiosity about the need for new space, unaware of the limitations of the Pleasant Street Center. Others felt that more coordinated use of other facilities in Reading would be sufficient. The concern about expected cost for development centered on almost all responses expressing resistance. Table 7. Additional thoughts or comments about the future of the Pleasant Street Center or potential new senior/community center 35 Figure 13. Reasons for attending a neighboring senior or community center 70% 63% 60% 50% 45% 40% 32% 30% 18% 20% 20% 12% 10% 0% The hours of The other Other (please The other Attended the The program the other Center is specify): Center space other Center was not Center are easier to get is more with friends offered in more to (e.g., welcoming / Reading convenient parkingand inviting access) The final question of the survey was an open-ended question, inviting participants to share any additional thoughts, comments, or concerns about the future of the Pleasant Street Center or the development of a new senior or community center. Almost a third (n=470) of survey respondents provided feedback Respondents provided several recommendations for programs and services to offer, indicating the need for a varied and robust set of offerings to attract a diverse arrayof residents. Relatedly, others considered key infrastructure components to be included, such as parking, accessibility, and staffing. Many respondents identified the Pleasant Street Center as a loved resource, offering suggestions to renovation the existing space or maintain it as a community asset. Relatedly, a number of residents expressed curiosity about the need for new space, unaware of the limitations of the Pleasant Street Center. Others felt that more coordinated use of other facilities in Reading would be sufficient. The concern about expected cost for development centered on almost all responses expressing resistance. Table 7. Additional thoughts or comments about the future of the Pleasant Street Center or potential new senior/community center 35 "Though our family does not need these services at this time, I would very much favor offering door-to-door transportation, food services, programming directed towards seniors." "I would appreciate age-appropriate activities and day trips that are not overly expensive but interesting. I would like to see more educational programs so I can be challenged mentally and entertained. 1 want to keep learning." "Programming for adults and children that is available for working parents. Many programs at library, etc. are only offered during the workday." "I suggest testing out the viability of some programming in a more temporary space before making a permanent capital commitment. Offer some state-of-the art programming opportunities -- professional cooking classes, professional arts, and wellness, and see what the appetite is for them." "It is important to have staff who plan and advertise activities. Full-time responsibility should be given to someone to make the center a vibrant place for seniors and the community." "If the community decides on a multi-age community center, what if the PSC was used as an adult art center" "This is a great opportunity to think holistically about what sort of experience we want to deliver in our downtown... Let's make sure we think not only about the new space itself, but how we can design the spaces around it to encourage use, get people there safely, and ultimately bring our community together." Resources already exist "Focus should be on utilizing current facilities and not duplicating (i.e., we have a great preforming arts space at the high school, we don't need another one), but creating something we don't have in town." "I'm not convinced the current center is inadequate. Could it still be used with some renovation? 1 haven't seen an analysis." Cost concerns "What we have now is fine. No extra taxes especially with the cost of everything being so high. I'd rather have food in my refrigerator than a place to play games." "This will need to be balanced with several other items that have already been added to the tax base (high school, library, etc.) that are supposed to be limited in time frame for payback... There needs to be a plan to honestly finish paying for things before tacking on something else, so the taxes don't grow even more." 0. Conclusions and Recommendations This report describes research undertaken by the Center for Social & Demographic Research on Aging within the Gerontology Institute at the University of Massachusetts Boston, on behalf of the Town of Reading. The goals of this project were to (1) engage the community and (2) investigate the needs, interests, preferences, and opinions of Reading residents regarding the possibility of a new community or senior center. The content of this report is meant to inform the Reading Center for Active Living Committee (ReCalc) on its mission to "explore the current and future needs of the community and initiate planning for a potential new senior/community center in town that will focus on residents aged 60+ and possibly other members of the community". A broad range of findings are reported in this document, highlighting positive feedback as well as concerns about the potential for a new senior or community center, expressed by residents and other stakeholders. Many of our findings, and the recommendations that follow, intersect with the scope of responsibility held by many Boards and Departments in Reading; such that adequately responding to needs and concerns expressed in the community will require the involvement of other municipal offices and community stakeholders, and some will require a substantial collaborative effort Thus, this report is intended to inform planning by Reading Center for Active Living Committee as well as other Town offices, private and public organizations that provide services and advocate for older people within Reading, and the community at large. The current limits of the Pleasant Street Center building, the demands on current elder and human services staff, and anticipation of residents aging in Reading make timely the Reading Center for Active Living Committee's charge. Findings from this study are clear that additional community space in Reading is desired and that to meet the diverse elder and human service needs of the population, different space is needed. Specifically, findings from this study inform the types of space that will accommodate the future needs of Reading and sustain it as a community in which residents have the opportunity to age well. We summarize key findings and make the following recommendations to ReCalc and the Town of Reading: Key Findings in Brief • When asked about preference for a new senior or community center, 49% of survey respondents preferred an "all -ages community center including designated space and programming for residents age 60+." o More than half of respondents under age 60 preferred an all -ages community center. In contrast, 36% of those in their 60s, 49% of those in their 70s, and 57% of respondents age 80 or older selected "senior center for residents age 60+" as their preference. 37 o Results from all data sources indicate that older residents are open to the idea of an all -ages community center, but value having their own space and experiences with peers. • As well, 68% of all survey respondents reported that they would be likely or very likely to utilize a new sgnior/community center. • Community forum participants highlighted the need for more information about the proposed new building prior to making a decision. As well, residents want to know how this initiative fits into the existing network of assets in the community. • Cultivating an accessible and inclusive environment is necessary. Among the top priorities for a new space include low or no cost to participate. ample parking and hours of operation that reflect the fact that more than half of _survey respondents are working full or part time. • Residents want to access space to participate in a variety of activities. Across age groups, multi -Durno a spaces for both large and small group programs area far indoor exercise classes and cafe or meal sl2ace are among the top choices for how to design a new space. • Beyond the physical space limitations (e.g., inability to host simultaneous programs, lack of a bathroom on the entry level, etc.), there was wide -recognition among focus group and forum participants that the staff of the Pleasant Street Center are maxedout in their ability to meet the demands of the community. Suggestions for supporting and expanding the human services staff will be necessary to meet the wide array of resident needs and interests in a future space. Recommendations for the Town of Reading The following recommendations are made based on the information gathered from all components of this process. Although numbered for organizational purposes, the recommendations are not presented in no prioritized order. 1. Expand community awareness through active communication & public education about the planning process. • Address strategies to improve awareness of and need for ReCalc and new community space. o For example, offer public tours of the Pleasant Street Center, highlighting the limitations of the space and equip members of ReCalc, COA, and Select Board with shared messaging about the project to ensure consistency in public education. • Develop an inventory of existing programs and services available to Reading residents. o Consider resources by need (e.g., social services, healthcare, recreation) and age. o Document existing relationships with other organizations that serve Reading. 38 • Consider regular meetings with PSC staff and other local organizations (e.g., the Reading Public Library, the Burbank YMCA, local clergy, Reading Recreation, etc.) to improve collaboration and coordination of programs and services. 2. Improve accessibility and programming to ensure equitable access. • Establish appropriate hours of operation that can accommodate working residents. • Consider a multi -feature approach to transportation to improve accessibility: o Adequate parking spots o Satellite parking lot with shuttle transportation o Accessible via META services o Develop door-to-door transportation services Develop infrastructure from an inclusive design perspective. o Consult existing resources for key design principles, such as those available through the Massachusetts Age- and Dementia Friendly Integration Toolkit I Mass.eov Maintain some separate space, programs, and services for older residents. Maintain core programs and services provided through Elder & Human Services. Maintain adequate access to food/nutrition services for older residents. Ensure that older residents have designated lounge Spare for informal gathering. Consider the development of inter -generational {�rogramminein partnership with other town resources (e.g., Reading Public Library, Reading School Department) 3. Plan for a new center, including staging levels consistent with demand. • Include spaces that will support: o Small group or independent activities, such as book clubs, games, arts, and crafts o Exercise classes for large groups o Outdoor areas to relax or for light activity (e.g., lawn games, walking) o Regular opportunity to share a meal with others (e.g., congregate meals, cafE area) o Informal gathering and socialization Include laree rooms that can accommodate many participants and that can be divided into multiple smaller rooms as well as be used for large community events. Account for classrooms and program rooms that have the technology for audio and visual presentations and the capability to receive participants who are participating virtually. Secure adequate private office spaces for staff to conduct 1-1 appointments with residents. Confirm ample staffing levels and appropriate positions to adequately serve residents. 39 References Coyle, C. & Mutchler, J. (2017) "Aging in Reading, Massachusetts: A community needs assessment" Center for Social & Demographic Research on Aging Publications. Hudson, R. (2017). Lack of social connectedness and its consequences. Public Policy & Aging Report, 27(4), 121-123. Metropolitan Area Planning Council (n.d.) Regional Growth Projections. Available online: htti2s,//www.mapc,orE/Iearn/12roqections/ Pardasani, M., & Thompson, P. (2012). Senior centers: Innovative and emerging models. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 31(l),52-77. Renski, H. & Strate, S. (March 2015). Section IV. Technical discussion of methods and assumptions. Report prepared by the Donahue Institute. Retrieved from http://pep.donahue-Institute.org/downloads/2015/new/ UMDI LongTermPopulationProjectionsRepor[_SECTION_4.pdf U.S. Census Bureau (n.d.). The American Community Survey. Available online: http://www.Census.gov 40 Appendix A: Demographic Profile of Reading As an initial step toward understanding characteristics of the Town of Reading's population through quantitative data, we generated a demographic profile of the Town using data from the decennial U.S. Census and the American Community Survey (ACS)—a large, annual survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. For purposes of this assessment, we primarily used information drawn from the most current 5 -year ACS files (2016-2020), along with U.S. Census data for the Town of Reading to summarize demographic characteristics including growth of the older population, shifts in the age distribution, gender, race and education distributions, householder status, living arrangements, household income, and disability status. Age Structure and Population Growth According to American Community Survey (ACS), there were about 25,236 residents living in the Town of Reading in 2020. About 41% of the population (10,291 individuals) were age 50 and older (See Table Al). Residents who were age 50 to 59 (3,803 individuals) made up 15% of the population; residents age 60 to 79 (5,266 individuals) comprised around 21%, and another 1,222 residents (5%) were age 80 and older. The gender distribution in Reading is on average ten men for each ten women (ACS 2016- 2020, Table B01001). Table Al. Number and percentage distribution of Reading's population by age category, 2020 Under age 18 6,187 24% Age 18 to 49 8,758 35% Age 50 to 59 3,803 15% Age 60 to 79 5,266 21% Age 80 and older 1,222 5% Total 25,236 100% Source: American Community Survey, 2016-2020, Table B01001. Numbers ore calculated from 5 -year survey estimates. The share of Reading population age 50 and older is larger than the overall state of Massachusetts (Figure AI). About 36% of the Massachusetts population was in the 50+ age 41 group in 2020, compared to 41% of the Reading population. Compared to the Commonwealth, Reading had a slightly higher portion of residents age 60 and older. However, the share of Reading residents age 80 and over is almost equal to the one estimated for the state as a whole. In 2020, Massachusetts residents age 60 and over comprised about 21% of the population, including 4% age 80 and over. In Reading, about 26% of the population was 60 or older, including 5% who were 80 years or older. Figure Al. Age distribution in Reading and Massachusetts Massachusetts Reading 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 11 Age 50 to 59 • Age 60 to 79 M Age 80+ Source: American Community Survey, 2016-1020, Table 801001. Numbers are calculated from 5 -year survey estimates Population growth in both Massachusetts and the Town of Reading has been concentrated in older age groups. During 2000 and 2010, population of all ages increased by 4% in Reading as well as 3% in the state as whole. In both Reading and Massachusetts, the absolute numbers of residents age 50 and over, also grew substantially during this time period (US Census, Table QT -PI). The segment of Reading's population age 50 to 59 increased in size by 33%, a rate of growth higher than in Massachusetts overall (29%). The population of residents who are age 60 and older increased by 15% in Reading, comparable to a 16% increase for the state. The increments in the share of older residents are projected to continue in the following decade. Figure A2 shows four sets of projections for Reading population age 60 and over. Two sets are generated by the Donahue Institute at the University of Massachusetts, and two 42 by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC). All of them suggest steady increments in the share of older population between Zulu and iusu Figure A2. Alternative Reading projections; number of residents age 60 and older 2010, 2020 with projections to and 2030* 8,500 7 937 fMAPC SQ 8,000 7 772 7,500 7 657 fMAPC SR 7,000 F6,488 6,500 F6,9341 Donahue Alternative 6,000 5,500 (Donahue 4 954 Vintage 5,000 z 4,500 2010 2020 2030* Source: Population figures for 2010 are from the U.S. Census. Estimates for 1020 come from Americon CommunitySurvey, 2016-2020, Table 1101001. Numbers are calculated from S -year survey estimates. * The four sets of projections for 1030 are from two different sources: 1. Donahue Alternative and Vintage projections are estimated by the Donahue Institute, University of Massachusetts http://Pep.donahue-institute.org/1. MAPCStatus Quo (SOJ and Stronger Region (SR) Scenarios projections are prepared by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council httas.//www mapc.ora/learn/aroiections/ Figure A3 shows the age distribution of Reading's population from 2010 to 2020 and population projections for 20306. In 2010, about 20% of the Town's population was age 60 and older; this percentage increased to 26% by 2020. According to projections created by 6 Population projections are shaped by assumptions about birth rates and death rates, as well as domestic and international in -migration and out -migration. The Donahue Institute projections used here also account for population change associated with aging of the population, which is a strong predictor of future growth and decline of population levels. For more information on the methods used to create Donahue Institute projections, see Rensld, Koshgarian, & Strate (March 2015). 43 the Donahue Institute at the University of Massachusetts, a trend toward an older population is expected in future decades. Donahue Institute vintage projections suggest that by 2030, roughly one out of three Reading residents will be age 60 or older -23% of the Town's population will be between the ages of 60 and 79, with an additional 6% age 80 and older. Figure A3. Population trends; age distribution of Reading residents under age 50, age 50-59, 60-79, and age 80 and older, 2010 to 2020 with projections to 2030* 5% Si 60% 21% , 2010 2020 2030* • Under age 50 - Age 50 to 59 Age 60 to 79 Age 80 and older Source: Population figures for 1990 thru 2010 ore from the U.S. Census. Figures for 2020 arefrom American Community Survey, 2016-2010 ' Figures for2035 are the Vintage Population Projections generated by the Donahue Institute, University of Massachusetts: http://pep.donahue-institute.org/ Socio -Demographic Composition of Reading's Older Population Reading is less diverse than the state with respect to race. For all ages combined, about 89% of Reading residents report their race as White non -Hispanic, compared to 73% in Massachusetts (ACS, 2016-2020, Table B01001). Concurrently, among older adults, Reading is less diverse. Table A2 displays the race and ethnicity of Reading residents age 65 and older. The large majority of older residents report their race as white (92%). The remaining MI. percentage of the population 65 and older reported Asian (79'0), Black (<l%), or other race (<1%). Approximately 1% of older Reading residents report Hispanic ethnicity, regardless of racial identity. Table A2. Race distribution of residents who are age 65 and older in Reading White 4,583 92% Black 24 <1% Asian 369 7% Other 0 <1% Total 5,002 100% Hispanic 57 1% Source: American Community Survey, 2016-2020, Tables a01001A4 Numbers are calculated from 5 -year survey estimates. Additionally, almost 15% of older Reading residents speak a language other than English at home (ACS, 2016-2020, Table B16004). Those who speak another language other than English at home most commonly speak an Indo-European language (8%) followed by an additional 7% who speak an Asian and Pacific Island language. 45 Figure A4. Age structure of Reading householders Source: American Community Survey, 2016-2020, Table 025007. Numbers are calculated from 5 -year surveyestimates. A majority of Reading's 9,374 households have householders who are middle-aged or older. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a "householder" is the person reported as the head of household, typically the person in whose name the home is owned or rented. Residents age 45 and older are householders of 72% of all households in Reading? including 32% of those who are age 65 and over (Figure A4). Most Reading residents live in homes that they own or are purchasing (85%; Figure AS). Nearly 90% of residents age 45 to 64 own their homes, and 81% of householders 65 and older own their homes. A sizeable share of Reading residents who are 65 and older and live alone, also own their home (63%). The much higher number of older homeowners has implications for what amenities and services are likely to be needed and valued by members of the community. Home maintenance and supports are often necessary for older homeowners—especially those who live alone—in order to maintain comfort and safety in their homes. 7 Many available Census data on the older population of Reading are based on ages 45 and 65 as reference points rather than ages 50 and 60, as are used elsewhere in this report. -f: Figure AS. Percent of Reading householders who are homeowners by age category 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% All householders 85% Householder 90% age 45 to 59 Householders 81% age 60+ One-person 63% households (aged 65+) Source. American Community Survey, 2016-2010, Tables 825007 and 925011. Numbers are calculated from 5 -year survey estimates. Additionally, 46% of Reading's 9,374 households have at least one individual who is age 60 or older (ACS 2016-2020, Table B11006). This high proportion— which is likely to increase in the future— generally reflects the widespread demand for programs, services, and other considerations that address aging -related concerns, including health and caregiving needs, transportation options, and safe home environments. Among the 9,584 housing structures in Reading (Figure A6), 76% are single unit structures and the remaining 24% are housing structures that contain two or more housing units, which include apartment complexes. 47 Figure A6. Number of units in Reading housing structures Source: American Community Survey, 2016-2020, Table 815024. Numbers are calculated from 5 -year survey estimates. A large proportion of Reading residents who are age 65 and older (25%) live alone in their household whereas 72% live in households that include other people, such as a spouse, parents, children, or grandchildren (Figure A7). Additionally, around 3% of older Reading residents live within group quarters, such as nursing homes. Figure A7. Living arrangements of Reading residents, age 65 and older Source: American Community Survey, 2016-1020, Table 809020. Numbers are calculated from 5 -year survey estimates. American Community Survey estimates on education suggest that Reading residents are well educated on average. About 43% of persons 65 and older have either a bachelor's degree 48 (23%) or a graduate/professional (19%; ACS, 2016-2020, Table B15OO1). This educational profile contributes to the vitality and character of the community, which depends on older adults who value opportunities to be involved through volunteer and civic engagement activities, as well as late -life learning opportunities— activities that are often present in highly educated communities (Fitzgerald & Caro, 2014). Similar to older adults living in communities throughout the U.S., a sizeable proportion of Reading residents aged 65 and over remain in the workforce. Almost 37% of adults age 64 to 74 are participating in the labor force. Of those age 75 and older, nearly 9% remain in the workforce (ACS, 2016-2020, Table 52301). Nearly 31% of men age 65 and older report veteran status (ACS, 2016-2020, Table B21OO1). As a result, many of the Town's older residents may be eligible to receive some benefits and program services based on their military service or that of their spouses. With respect to household income, there is some comparative disadvantage of some older residents in Reading (Figure All). Reading residents' median household income is considerably higher than the one estimated for Massachusetts as a whole, $131,515 compared to $74,167. Among Reading's householders, those aged 45 to 64 have a median income at $162,434—which is greater than the statewide median for this age group ($92,096). Among householders 65 and older, the median income is $56,276, also higher than the statewide median for this age group ($45,167), and much lower than the median income of younger Reading householders. Older residents living alone are at the greatest disadvantage in terms of household income. Older men living alone have considerably lower median income ($24,219) than women ($40,750) Given that about 25% of older residents age 65 and older live alone in Reading, these figures suggest that a sizeable number of residents are at risk of economic insecurity. 49 Source: American Community Survey, 2016-2020, Tables 819049 and 819215. Numbers are calculated from 5 -year survey estimates. Note: Includes only community households, not group quarters such as nursing homes. The economic profile of older Reading residents relative to younger residents is further illustrated in Figure A9, which shows that the older adult population lives on a modest income. Almost a quarter of Reading residents age 65 and older report incomes of $100,000 or more. By comparison, 75% of households headed by younger residents report this level of income. Nevertheless, a large share of households headed by someone age 65 and older (21%) report annual incomes under $25,000. This compares with just 7% of households headed by individuals age 45 to 64 having incomes under $25,000. Thus, there is a sizeable segment of Reading's older population that is at risk of financial insecurity or economic disadvantage. 50 Figure A9. Household income distribution in Reading by age of householder (in 2020 inflation-adjusted dollars) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Age 45 to 64 6% 5% 144'a 75% Age 65+ 21% 20% 36% 23% 13 Under $25,000 0 $25,000 to $49,999 0 $50,000 to $99,999 0 $100,000 or more Source., Source: American Community Survey, 2016-2020, Table 839037. Numbers are calculated from 5year survey estimates. Note: Includes only community households, not group quarters such as nursing homes. The increased likelihood of acquiring disability with age is evident in data from the ACS. Many Reading residents age 65 and older experience some level of disability that could impact their ability to function independently in the community. About 12% of Reading's residents age 65 and older have one disability, and nearly 17% report two or more disabilities (Figure A10). Among the different types of disability that are assessed in ACS, the most commonly cited by Reading residents 65 and older were ambulatory issues (19%), followed by independent living limitations (14%; difficulty doing errands alone, such as visiting a doctor's office or shopping), and hearing issues (13%). Other disabilities experienced by older Reading residents include cognitive difficulty (6%), self-care difficulties (4%), and vision impairment (4%; ACS 2016-2020, Table S1810). 51 Figure A10. Percentage of Reading residents age 65+ reporting at least one disability Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2016-2020, Table C18108. Percentages by age group do not sum to 100% because people may report multiple difficulties and do not include those with no dffculties assessed by the ACS. Appendix B: Survey Results K=: Appendix tables are based on 1,470 responses to the Town of Reading Survey of Residents, conducted in September 2022. The survey was predominantly online, with 11% completed by hand. See text for additional details. Section 1. Community & Neighborhood How Ione have von lived in the Town Fewer than 5 years 10% 26% 6% 4% 7% 4% 5-14 years 19% 45% 17% 9% 10% 16% 52 15-24 years 16% 17% 404613% Somewhat important 10% 5% 25-34 years 19% 7% 20% 39% 12% 4% 35-44years 16% 5% 3% 23% 30% 8% 45 years or longer 20% 0% 14% 12% 31% 63% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Q2. How im ortant is i[ to ou m remain livin in Readin as you et older? All Age Age Age Age Age Very important 47% 22% 32% 50% 65% 72% Somewhat important 35% 43% 42% 35% 29% 23% Slightly important 11% 19% 15% 10% 5% 5% Not at all important 7% 16% 11% 5% 1% 0% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Q5. The Town of Reading is considering a new Senior/Community Center. Please select your most preferred scenario. 53 A Senior Center for residents 32% 1 33% 30% 319% 1 34% 35% age 60+ 33% 11% 21% 36% 49% 57% An all -ages Community 42% 44% 45% 44% 37% 46% Center including designated 16% 14% 17% 15% 18% 11% space and programming for 49% 72% 54% 45% 36% 30% residents age 60+ 1 have no preference 10% 8% 12% 10% 9% 10% Other (please specify): 8% 9% 13% 9% 6% 3% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% wnat Is your preference Tor me location of a future Located in the downtown area 32% 1 33% 30% 319% 1 34% 35% Located outside of the downtown area 10% 9% 8% 10% 1% r 8% 1 have no preference on location in Reading 42% 44% 45% 44% 37% 46% Other (please specify): 16% 14% 17% 15% 18% 11% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Q8. Cost is a major consideration. For FY22, the average tax bill was $9,313. If it meant an increase to your household taxes during a set period of time, please indicate the maximum amount you might support for a new senior center or community center. All Age Age Age Age Age iiges 18-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80+ Less than $100 per year 17% 15% 14% 20% 19% 12% $100-$2O0 per year 24% 23% 26% 26% 22% 21% $201- $300 per year 12% 13% 14% 11% 11% 12% $301-$400 per year 4% 4% 4% 5% 6% 4% $401-$500 per year 3% 5% 4% 2% 2% 4% $501+ per year 3% 4% 2% 2% 3% 3% 54 No increase; l would only support a new building if it came at no additional cost to 3196 30% 34% 304'0 30% 30% residents N/A, I am not responsible for paying property taxes at this 6% 6% 2% 4% 7% 14% time Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 55 Q9. which of the following types of indoor space would you prioritize in a new senior or community center? (Please select no more than 7) Kitchen and dining space Teaching kitchen cafE or "drop In" food space Dedicated arts and crafts space (e.g., painting, fiber arts, pottery equipment) Dedicated shop space (e.g., woodworking, machine shop) Multipurpose space for small group activities (e.g., book club, meetings, card games) Multipurpose space for large group activities (e.g., concerts, lectures, parties) Space for games (e.g., mah-jongg, bridge, chess) and billiards Performance space (e.g., stage, large screen, seating for an, Lobby or lounge space for informal socializing Technology space (e.g., public computers, video games, printiog) Quiet space (e.g., library, reading, studying rooms) Multipurpose team exercise space (e.g., basketball, tennis, pickleball) Indoor exercise space for classes (e.g., yoga, Zumba, Palates) 43% 1 29% 1 40% 11 42% 1 4946 1 63% 14% 21% 1696 14% 7% 6% 45% 41% 47% 48% 46% 40% 42% 43% 47% 40% 41% 41% 18% 21% 20% 19% 16% 10% 68% 68% 67% 67% 69% 69% 48% 42% 48% 48% 51% 51% 40% 44% 38% 40% 38% 41% 23% 23% 22% 22% 23% 28% 39% 35% 38% 35% 41% 50% 33% 33% 32% 31% 35% 35% 16% 15% 16% 14% 18% 15% 21% 34% 20% 21% 15% 8% 59% 52% 54% 60% 67% 60% indoor exercise with fitness equipment [e.g., weights, treadmill) swimming pool Other (please specify): vn,..rns do not sum to 100% 52 26% 22%i6 1996 26% 34% 28% 14% 25% 10% 137u 9% 8% 14% 11% I 6% 6% Q10. Which of the following types of outdoor space would you prioritize in a new senior or community center? (Please select no more than 5) *Figures do not sum to 100% Q31. Which of the following accessibility features would you prioritize in considering a future senior center or community center? (Please select no more than 5) 6.1:1 All ages Age 18-49 Age i Age i Age i Age :0 Picnic tables/outdoor dining space 62% 62% 58% 61% 62% 67% Benches or comfortable outdoor seating 69% 53% 68% 73% 77% 80% Gardening area 37% 45% 43% 36% 31% 24% Outdoor exercise space (e.g., outdoor gym equipment) 11% 9% 8% 11% 15% 11% Team exercise space (e.g., basketball, tennis, or baseball fields, pickleball 21% 29y0 25% 23% 13% 7% courts) Grass area for lawn games (e.g., bocce, cornhole, 44% 52% 52% 44% 37% 31% croquet) Swimming pool 14% 29% 12% 10% 9% 8% Awalking/running track 34% 31% 30% 34% 38% 35% Playground 14% 31% 14% 13% 5% 2% Splash pad 12% 33% 11% 7% 5% 2% Other (please specify): 8% 9% 11% 7% 8% 4% *Figures do not sum to 100% Q31. Which of the following accessibility features would you prioritize in considering a future senior center or community center? (Please select no more than 5) 6.1:1 No or little cost to participate 6646 63% 62% 32% 70^/0 66% in programs 22% Unsure 19% 25% 24% 15% Ample parking 64% 48% 54% r44% 78% 81% Dedicated space for older 2% Very unlikely 9% 11% 14% 9% 5% 44% 35% 46% 100% 48% 54% residents 100% The facility being open In the evenings and on weekends 49% 58% 53% 44% 30% Enough space for multiple programs to be running 48% 49% 50% 46% 52% 42% simultaneously Programming that integrated residents of all ages 31% 53% 34% 28% 22% 14% More remote (online) 7% 5% 6% 7% 9% 6% programming Free wi-fiaccess 37% 40% 39% 39% 37% 27% Other (please specify): 6% 1 646 9% 5% 3% 60% "Figures do not sum to 100% Q12. If a new senior or community center was developed, how likely would you or members of your household be to use the facility? All Age Age ages 18-49 SO -S9 Very likely 41% 27% 26% Age Age Age i i :0 42% 55% 58% Somewhat likely 28% 32% 31% 30% 22% 22% Unsure 19% 25% 24% 15% 16% 15% Somewhat unlikely 3% 5% 5% 4% 2% 2% Very unlikely 9% 11% 14% 9% 5% 3% Total 100% 100% 100% 1 100% 100% 100% Section III: Proerams & Services Q13. Where do you prefer to find information about the activities and services offered by the Town? 59 Newsletters (e.g., monthly newsletter for Reading's 60+) All ages 59% Age 18-49 34% Ae 0- 44% Age 0- 58% e 0" 82% Age 80 84% Local cable television 8% 1% 7% 8% 11% 20% Word of mouth 20% 33% 21% 15% 13% 18% Town of Reading websites 65% 71% 68% 72% 61% 38% Local print newspaper (The Daily Times Chronicle) 18% 7% 19% 20% 21% 25% Local online newspaper (The Reading Post or The Patch) 37% 30% 40% 43% 42% 22% Facebook or other social media sites 39% 64% 55%36% 22% 10% Other (please specify): 8% 9% 9% 8% 5% 6% -Figures do not sum to 100% Q14. Have you ever traveled to senior or community centers in other towns to participate in their programs? QIS. For what reason(s) did you attend the neighboring senior or community center? (Check all that apply) ISU The other Center is easier to get to (e.g., parking and access) 19% 11% 14% 18% 22% 23% Attended the other Center with support programs (e.g, 27% 18% friends 45% 35% 30% 53% 45% 53% The hours of the other Center Transportation 31% 21% 25% 30% are more convenient 12% 12% 14% 170/% 12% 3% The other Center space is more friendly calls/visiting, mental 29% 27% 33% 31% welcoming/inviting 33% 11% 30% 42% 43% 22% Other (please specify): 21% 25% 22% 15% 18% 28% This table only includes respondents who reported traveling to senior or community centers in other towns. Figures do not sum to 100%. Q16. Please rate the importance of the following services to you or a member of your family at this time. % rated "very important" or "important". *Figures do not sum to 100% Q17. Do you have a condition that limits you from being able to access public spaces, buildings, or programs in Reading? 61 ages 18-49 I 1 Assistance with local or state support programs (e.g, 27% 18% 27% 29% 32% 32% financial, fuel) Transportation 31% 21% 25% 30% 35% 56% Wellness services (e.g., friendly calls/visiting, mental 29% 27% 33% 31% 28% 32% health referrals) Nutrition programs (e.g., regular lunches, 26% 19% 25% 29% 27% 37% homedelivered meals) Professional services (e.g., health insurance counseling, 36% 27% 39% 39% 36% 41% tax, legal) Support group and caregiver referrals 31% 29% 33% 32% 29% 32% Adult day health program 25% 21% 27% 29% 24% 21% Childcare program 13% 33% 10% 8% 5% 4% *Figures do not sum to 100% Q17. Do you have a condition that limits you from being able to access public spaces, buildings, or programs in Reading? 61 Yes Hearing impairment 6% 1% 30/a 4% 8% 1 20% No Other (please specify): 94% 99% 97% 960/a 92% 80% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 1000/a 100% Q38. Please select which of the following conditions best describes the reason why you have difficulty accessing public spaces, buildings, or programs in Reading. Physical mobility limitations 80% Hearing impairment 21% Vision impairment 11% Mental health conditions 9% Dementia or cognitive changes 9% Other (please specify): 16% -1his come only includes respondents who reported having a condition that limits their access to public spaces, buildings, and programs in Reading. Age breakdown is not provided due to small cell sizes. Figures do not sum to 100%. Section IV: Demographic information Q39. Please select your gender identity. 62 18-29 1% 30-49 18% SO -59 14% 60-69 23% 70.79 22% 80+ 9% No Response 12% Total 100% Q21. What is your employment status? (Check all that apply) Working full-time 39% 82% 73% 33% 4% 040 Working part-time 13% 13% 18% 18% 10% 0% Refired 45% 0% 3% 49% 86% 100% Other (please specify): 4% 6% 7% 5% 2% 0% Maures do not sum to 100% Q22. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statement: "I have adequate resources to meet my financial needs, including home maintenance, personal healthcare, and other expenses." ages 18-49 i i 80+ Strongly Agree 42% 62% 45% 38% 34% 26% Agree 49% 32% 46% 54% 55% 64% Disagree 7% 5% 6% 6% 9% 7% Strongly Disagree 2% 1% 3% 2% 2% 2% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 63 DATE: February 13, 2023 UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON GERONTOLOGY INSTITUTE JOHN W. MCCORM CHGRADUATE SCHOOL OFPOLICYSTUDIES TO: Jenna Fiorente, Community Services Director, Town of Reading FROM: Caitlin Coyle, PhD, and Ceara Somerville, MS, Center for Social & Demographic Research in Aging, Gemmology Institute RE: Responding to questions regarding the ReCal Final Report This memo is the second of two responses to feedback about the final report presented to the Reading Center for Active Living Committee (ReCalc) and the Council on Aging (COA). We appreciate the questions and thoughtful review of the report Over the course of the past year, we have engaged with the Reading community in multiple ways to solicit input about a future senior/community center as it relates to the needs and preferences of the residents. The survey was one of these mechanisms, which also included focus groups and for uns as well as multiple meetings with both COA and ReCalc. We believe the contents of the report to be crucial in building the base upon which to plan and we also acknowledge that there may be multiple interpretations and inferences made about the results. We would like to emphasize that the survey results are one piece of the data collected and still are only based on responses from a small segment of the Reading community—therefore, they should be interpreted judiciously. Based on these additional questions about report, we provide detailed responses on the following pages. The format of these responses is as follows: first we list the question or comment followed by our written responses and we explicitly identify where changes to the report have been made. Attached to this memo is an updated copy of the final report reflecting the clarifications outlined below. Sincerely, 6 : A J Caitlin Coyle, PhD CENTER FOR SccW &DRMO MMIC RESEARCH IN AGING GRRONTOIAGY INSIt WAss BOSTON CONTACT: VOICE: 617.287.7413 Question: Regarding Figure 9, I now understand that Figure 9 is a cross -tabulation of Q5 with Q12. The revised heading is better, but the abbreviated labels are still misleading. The question was "If a new senior or community center was developed, how likely would you or members of your household be to use the facility". The question should be stated exactly this way in the heading. In addition, the legend at the bottom should reflect that the levels of likelihood are based on likelihood of jou or a member of Nor household using a new senior or community center. While I realize that it was not UMass's intent, in its current form, the reader sees a table that is easily misread to show, for example, how likely it is that someone who preferred a senior center for residents age 60+ would be to use that senior center. As we all know, the survey did not collect this information. But, in the absence of precise labels, members of the community at large who are not deeply involved with this data are likely to reach incorrect conclusions unless precise labels are supplied. UMB response: The verbatim text of Q12, "If a new senior or community center was developed, how likely would you or members of your household be to use the facility," is included in the narrative description above Figure 9. There is a foomme directly below the figure that explains what is presented in Figure 9. The labels in Figure 9 are verbatim response options from the survey questions. Question: Tables 4, 5, and 6 appear to present respondents' rankings among lists of possible preferences. The questions (as worded in Appendix B) did not ask respondents to rank their preferences. It asked them to select priority items (up to 5 or 7, depending on the question, out of as many as 17 choices ). I am guessing that the numbers in the summary tables represent the % of respondents who selected each item on the Est. And I am further guessing that, for example, the item most frequently selected by the respondents as a whole in each column is displayed in the table with rank "I" and so forth. Please clarify. If I am correct. the tables misrepresent the data as follows: For example, if we could explore further, we might learn that "cafe or drop in food space" is actually the highest priority of those who selected it, rather than a lower priority, ...but, we have no way of knowing this from the survey. We only know that it is among the top 7 priorities out of list of 17 choices for those who selected it. And all items that were not selected are of lower priority. We also know that larger numbers of respondents selected "multipurpose space for small group activities" than the" cafe or drop in food space". But again, among those who selected b2t1 the cafe and the multipurpose room, we do not know, how they would rank these two selections. This may seem like setnantics, but to talk about the data as though these were ranked preferences of individuals gives a false impression. In particular, it lends itself to unsubstantiated conclusions that, relatively speaking, items the table displays as rank #5 are not very important because they are only #5. I would argue that to the contrary, if an age bracket prioritizes the need for a cafe or drop in food space among its top priorities, compared to a dozen or so items of lesser priority, that is very important (even if it is the lowest % among the top priorities). Also, please remember we are talking about small numbers when we get down to individual table cells. The difference between the cells labelled 1 and those labelled 5 can be as small as about 20 people... hardly adequate basis for interpreting significant differences among the importance of our residents' interests or needs. As an alternative, I recommend highlighting the background in the cells of the most frequently selected options in each column using a single color to avoid implying ranking among them. Then, statements, such as "the 5 most frequently selected priorities out of 17 indoor options include: multipurpose space for small and for large groups, indoor exercise space for classes, cafe and drop in food space, and kitchen and dining space"... would be accurate and insightful. UMB Response: You are correct that the numbers in the summary tables represent the percent of respondents who selected each item on the list, and the item most frequently selected by the respondents as a whole in each column is displayed in the table with rank "1", etc. We have made the following edits (in red) to the narrative around each table: p. 24. before Table 4- "Survey respondents were asked to prioritize the Mrs of spaces as pan of a 4 displays the ardet-e€ eettoo 5 most frequently selected indoor spaces, by age. Descriptive sSa tI I for the coMete set of resp options age is presented in Aonendiu B -Across age groups, multipurpose space for independent, small group, and large group activities were most selected as priority. Among residents age 60 and older, access to food was ranked highly, with almost half of respondents age 60-79 selecting cafe or dining space, and more than 50% of respondents age 80+ selecting kitchen and dining space." o. 24. after Table 4: 'Similarly, respondents were asked to prioritize types of outdoor space that they would like to see in a new senior or community center (Table 5). Benches or comfortable outdoor seating and picnic tables/outdoor dining space were the top selections across age groups, with more than half of respondents selecting each. Survey respondents identified outdoor spaces to relax, socialize, and engage in light activity as top priorities." DesQdptive statistics for the complete set of response options 4 agc is presented in Alilzendix B 8 Full tabulations for Tables 4-6 are presented in Appendix B. p 24-25. before Table 5: "Following types of space, respondents were asked to prioritize accessibility features to be considered in a new senior or community center (Table 6). Descriptive statistics for the, complete t et of response options -by agc is Msented in Appendix B The top two most frequently selected responses were little to no cost for participation and ample puking, though residents age 1849 less frequently identified puking as a priority compared to older age groups. Having enough space to runt multiple programs at once was selected frequently across age groups. Programming for all ages was a top priority among residents age 18-49, whereas dedicated space was a top selection among respondents age 60 and older. Taken together, residents of all ages and abilities need to be able to get to the center and have sufficient choices about when they go and what programs they can attend." Question: I see that 12% of respondents did not provide an age range. Are these responses included in the "All Ages' data? UMB Response: Yes. Question: How many of the responses included in the report were collected by phone? UMB Response: 2 surveys were completed by phone. February 2023 Monthly Report COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT ELDER/HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION Pleasant Street Center Monthly Highlights: • Winter Wellness Wednesday series ended on February 15i° with great success • Held our first Multi -Generational movie on February 251h • Valentine's lunch was on February 14'^ • Birthday lunch was hosted on February 91b with great numbers Duplicated/Undupliceted • Next lunch and learn is on March 21" • Next birthday lunch in on March 9'" • Hosting a St. Patrick's lunch on March 23'^ • Memory Caf6 on March 10 • Trips have started back up. Irish Celebration trip in on March 15'^ 2022 STATISTICS . J10 A — Dec... Jan. Feb. Mar. A , Ma im,, Cultural and Social Events 67/43 108/82 51/37 5889 186/169 59/42 52/35 136/81 Educational Programming 4888 5228 65/57 22 100/42 29/24 Groups and Clubs 208/83 300/92 195/80 234/82 250/95 243/90 254/94 260/88 Health, Wellness and Fitness 240/53 247/66 376/117 514/141 513/160 333/90 540/146 569/166 Non -Clinical Support Services 15/15 49/49 20/19 4/4 1 10/10 Support Groups 19 21/21 15/15 1 15/15 2423 1 2424 2929 3686 Multi -Generational 24 17 Events Total $49/181 702234 727/223 956/297 1121/456 760287 1063/3M 1129/348 Social Services 281/116 328/150 407212 342/184 348/163 301/138 392/172 341/159 Transportation 321/42 372/45 330/47 302/54 374/50 389/43 354/44 336/48 Trips 45 53 42 49 0 ManNly Report Walk-ins 12/10 2620 37/26 23/21 34/31 34/31 56/49 72/64 Phone log 203/161 221/144 290/201 349235 Total People Served 1165/310 1425!373 1530/423 1667/507 2110/639 1741/479 2113/510 2179/532 Tot People Served: Yr. to Date 1165/310 2590/471 4120/661 5787/854 7897/1089 7897/1089 11764/1367 13949/1477 ManNly Report ReCalc Summary Report READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING COMMITTEE (ReCalc) SUMMARY REPORT February 22, 2023 Presented by: ReCalc Members • John O'Neill — Chair • John Sasso—Vice Chair • Ron Assini Page 1 of 4 ReCalc Summary Report Nora Bucko Michael Coltman Mark Dockser John Parsons Acknowledgement: The members of ReCalc would like to acknowledge the efforts and support of the following boards, committees, commissions, town government departments, organizations and individuals. This report, and the efforts it represents, would not have been possible without the cooperation of those named below. - Reading Council on Aging - Centerfor Social and Demographic Research on Aging Gerontology Institute at UMASS Boston - Reading Select Board - Local SSRjQr/Community Centers Visited Jean Delios, Assistant Town Manager (Retired 1/23) Jenna Tiorente, Community Services Director Kevin Bohmiller, Community Services Director (Retired 6/22) Lastly, we want to acknowledge Elder Services Town staff who have served the community well; albeit constrained by a building that presents challenges. Executive Summary & Recommendations: The Reading Center for Active Living Committee (ReCalc) was charged with the following: The charge of ReCalc is to explore the current and future needs of the Community, and initiate planningfor a potential new Senior/Community Center in town that will focus on residents aged 60+ and possibly other members of the Community ReCalc has determined that the issues identified in the 2017 Report (Aging in Reading, Massachusetts: A community needs assessment), still exist. The current Senior Center is inadequate. Thecommunityis In support of upgrading its facility and service/program offerings to meet the needs of the growing elder population. This must include an accessible, inclusive building and that has sufficient space to provide support services, programs, events for reading residents age 60+ now and into the future. Therefore; The primary recommendation from ReCalc is to identify AND implement a solution to the facility needs for the Senior population in the Immediate (2 to 3 year) timeframe. Through its efforts, which included the hiring of a consultant (Center for Social and Demographic Research on Aging Gerontology Institute at WASS Boston), ReCalc accomplished two majorgoals: Page 2 of 4 ReCalc Summary Report (1) Identified current and future needs of the entire community for a Senior/Community Center (with a dedicated senior space) (2) Solicited the community's preference for addressing facility needs Note: Although not originally defined, the premise of an all ages "Intergenerational" Community Center (hereafter referred to as an ICC) is intended to mean a facility(or facilities) with dedicated senior (ages 60+) space. This was explicitly included as a basis for the preferences in the Community Survey. For readability purposes, when referring to the ICC throughout this report, it includes the assumption of dedicated senior space. Summary information for both goals can be found in the first two sections of this report. ReCalc implemented the following strategies in support of these goals: (1) Engaged the community, with assistance from the UMass Consultant, through several forums and focus groups, culminating with a survey of 1470 residents (see Attachment A) (2) Collaborated with other community partners and volunteer boards including but not limited to: the Select Board; the Council on Aging; the Reading Public Library (provided meeting room use) and RCN (recorded ReCalc meetings, public forums, and provided additional support). (3) Benchmarked twelve Senior Center (12) and three Community Centers (3) in 15 local communities (see Attachment B) (4) Established lines of communication and began the process of educating the community about the need for an accessible, inclusive Senior Center that has sufficient square footage to provide support services, programs, events for reading residents age 60+ for now and into the future (see Attachment Q. (5) Explored a combined option of an all age ICC. In addition to the primary recommendation (above), the following are supporting recommendations based on the work performed by ReCalc (1) Review the identified needs, perform a more detailed assessment of priorities, and then define explicit plans to address the needs. This should include all aspects of facility, staffing, services, programs, transportation, financial, etc., and should consider centralized and distributed approaches to service/program delivery whenever possible. (2) Perform feasibility study (studies) on potential Senior Center/ICC solutions that may include renovation or construction of buildings. Ensure any proposed facility satisfies all ADA requirements and inclusivity recommendations for all populations. (3) Advocate for continued investment in Elder Services (to support capital and operational expenses) aligned with thefacility investments resulting from (1) and (2) above. (4) Develop communication strategies and tools to keep the community informed of efforts and the rationale/priority for addressing the identified issues and unmet needs. (5) Support the concept of an ICC ensuring first that the needs of the Seniors are being met. Implicit in this recommendation is to consider the "inventory" of currently provided Reading services and facilities to determine how best to meet the needs of the community. Whenever possible Page 3 of 4 ReCalc Summary Report space in the ICC would be available for the community at large to use as is the option with current space at the Senior Center which is ava liable for groups to reserve and use. In addition to the above, although not something that can be implemented by the Town, ReCalc has encountered several communities that have established non-profit organizations (e.g., Friends group) for the purpose of fundraising for Senior activities. Many have used these organizations to fund furniture, fixtures and equipment In new and/or renovated Senior Center/ICC. ReCalc encourages the creation of a non-profit organization independent of town government that can raise funds for seniors. This model has been used successfully in other communities and provides an added resource to meet the needs of the senior population Page 4 of 4 2023-2024 Priority Legislation SD245/HD18S, An Act to Establish Personal Care Homes for Older Adults Lead Sponsors: Senator Joan Lovely and Representative Sally Kerans • This bill will enable the ASAP network to partner with housing providers to convert houses into small group homes where older adults and individuals with disabilities can receive both housing and long-term care services in smaller, residential settings. • The language establishes licensing procedures for Personal Care Homes (also known as HEART Homes) through the Massachusetts Executive Office of Elder Affairs (EDEA) that is separate from the processes established for Assisted Living facility certification. • This legislation will also create a spending model for these small group homes that includes two distinct funding lines to ensure the financial viability of the program —resources to provide necessary long term care services and supports, and resources to cover room and board expenses. • The language forthis bill was developed to align with licensure requirements for similar Provider -owned homes in several other states. SD402/HD834, An Act Relative to Intensive Case Management for Clinically Complex Older Adults Lead Sponsors: Senator Adam Gomez and Representative Danielle Gregoire • This legislation will enable the Commonwealth's network of Aging Services Access Points (ASAPs) to provide Intensive Case Management to individuals with complex care needs such as mental illness, substance abuse, hoarding, dysfunctional families, and dementia. • Within the current program guidelines, these individuals, in the greatest need of support, have a hard time accepting or sustaining the services necessary to enable them to remain safely in the community. • Many of these individuals are subjects of reports to the Elder Protective Services program and cycle in and out because their care coordination requires more time and attention than the current case management service provides. • It is estimated that between 1,800 to 3,600 individuals each month, or between 5 to 10% of individuals enrolled in the State Home Care program, would benefit from the enhanced case management services that would be offered through this new program. If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Michael Banville, Mass Home Care, Executive Director at mbanville.mhced@email.com or (781) 930-0258. 2023-2024 Priority Legislation SD1974/HD3294, An Act Allowing Spouses to Serve as Caregivers Lead Sponsor: Senator Joanne Comerford and Representative Adam Scanlon • This legislation would instruct the Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS) to include "spouses" within the definition of family member for home and community-based services funded through MassHealth. • It would also require EOHHS to file a state plan amendment or waiver application to allow spouses to serve as paid caregivers for the Personal Care Attendant (PCA) and Adult Foster Care (AFC) programs. • Our state and nation are facing a significant crisis in our ability to recruit and retain enough home care workers to meet the needs of older adults and persons with disabilities. • This bill will allow MassHealth to compensate spouses willing and able to serve as paid caregivers to their partners. SD854/HD213, An Act Clarifying Rate Setting Processes for Home Health and Home Care Services Lead Sponsors: Senator Patricia Jehlen and Representative Carmine Gentile • The goal of this legislation is to clarify established rate setting processes for home health and home care services to ensure that rates that accurately reflect the true cost of providing home care and home health services to consumers across the Commonwealth. • The single largest cost factor impacted by the rate setting process is staffing - the ability for providers to ensure fair and adequate wages and benefits for their dedicated homebased workforce. • The rate setting process directly impacts and determines the ability of providers to retain and recruit sufficient staff to meet the Commonwealth's need to ensure the provision of home health and home care services to vulnerable elders, persons with disabilities and children and individuals with medically complex needs. • If this bill is passed, the Legislature will no longer need to fund supplemental rate add-ons for home care and home health workers every year through the state budget process. If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Michael Banville, Mass Home Care, Executive Director at mbanville.mhced2gmail.com or (781) 930-0258.