Aging: it is our business!

While it might be argued that park and recreation departments, even with the addition of community services elements, are not "firms" in the for-profit business sense, the message currently conveyed by Tom Peters captures the essence of the park and recreation mission - and its strategy for implementation. This theme is echoed by Osborne and Gaebler, in the recently-published, Reinventing Government, where the Florida Speaker's Advisory Committee on the Future is quoted: "Strangely enough, in the midst of change, the present course may often be the most risky one. It may only serve to perpetuate irrelevancy."

What has this to do with parks and recreation? We accept as part of our mission a responsibility for maintaining maximum health throughout the lifespan. Aging issues cannot be viewed as separate from other planning imperatives. If we elect not to include older adults, then we have consciously chosen to exclude 13 percent (rising to 20 percent in 25 years) of our citizens from our responsibility. The number is actually larger than that. Older adults comprise 13 percent of the population; however, their babyboomer children account for another 33 percent, totalling 46 percent of all America looking at the full variety of issues-and problems - that involve those over 65. if we choose to ignore the existence of older adults in our priority planning, we are actually shutting out needs that touch nearly half of this country. Is this a decision we proudly elect to have our profession follow?

As parks and recreation finds its place in the 21 century, not just how to survive is an issue; the scope of responsibility is also in question. Open spaces, wetlands, public land trusts, municipal planning and greenbelts convey our responsibility to our environment. That caretaking mission, however, goes beyond the earth upon which we live to include the well-being of its occupants. While organizations such as the Sierra Club advocate for the living species who are our neighbors, the human responsibility adjures to us. We have an already-established successful history of promoting the well-being of humans, currently seen in anti-drug campaigns, youth positive-self-esteem programs; latchkey programs; youth, teen and young adult sports programs; and activities for adults.

It was acknowledged in the early Hull House model that good health within each human resulted from an integrated balance among lifestyle and environmental factors, including physical and cultural activities. This experience was specifically not restricted by exceptions, whether through socioeconomic status, physical ability, geographic location, gender, or age. In fact, a substantial body of literature has been developed and continues to be generated detailing the benefits for all from ongoing activity and a healthy environment. It is no accident that the National Recreation and Park Association's mission is built on this concept and that the organization promotes active support and encouragement for ongoing research to benefit all people and the professionals within our disciplines who plan and provide services for them.

Neither is it coincidental that in 1991, the NRPA Board of Trustees voted to establish a new section for professionals in this field. The Leisure and Aging Section's existence is an acknowledgement of a special area of expertise pertaining to the well-being of thousands of Americans in our communities. It extends the programming and service support basic to the National Recreation and Park Association philosophy, the commitment to research and education, and it exemplifies the thrust to develop partnerships at all levels to strengthen the quality of personal and environmental life. The recent award from the Administration on Aging to the Leisure and Aging Section of a 17-month grant for national research and educational activities extends the organization's ability to serve.

Osborne and Gaebler specify that in today's climate of doing more with less, the way to meet the call for more programs is to use "public leverage," to restructure the delivery of services from government by program to "market-oriented government." In order to accomplish this, governments must ensure that six critical market elements exist: Supply, demand, accessibility, information, rules and policing. The successful evolution of parks and recreation to its responsibility to communities and their residents includes an imperative to program for the entire adult lifespan continuum. This does not incorporate a prioritization process for selecting whom to leave out, but rather how to see people themselves as a continuum of opportunity for the profession that begins before birth (childbirth and exercise classes for mothers-to-be) through lifestyle and activity classes and grief and loss groups when these become more salient issues. The supply, particularly for those addressing older adulthood issues, is inadequate, the demand growing daily, accessibility limited and threatening to become more so, information about such programs inadequate, rules (and roles) governing their operation incomplete, and the policing (and functional processes) still undefined.

Simply put, while the profession concentrates on survival, need and priorities, the shape of the population itself is changing and the sharp age delineations we have used to define groups and needs are becoming less accurate as descriptives. We hear daily of the inexcusable and escalating tragedy of teen suicide, yet we set aside the fact that the suicide rate for men over the age of 65 is even higher. We mourn the tragedy of lost opportunity for those who die in their thirties, yet commonly accept physical and mental decline "post-retirement" (the average age of "retirement" in this country currently is 61.7 years) as normal. As a species, we have evolved to the point that 50 percent of the problems we accept as "normal aging" in this country are in fact declines due to disuse, not disease. We now describe this condition as "hypokinesia" ("hypo: under, beneath, less than," "kinesics: the study of bodily movements"), a condition of abnormally diminished muscular movement. We can even replicate it in the laboratory. Many of us are familiar with the findings that showed a five-week period of bed-bound inactivity duplicated the physical decline commonly experienced by many older adults in this country today. A decline considered acceptable for older adults but targeted for remediation (rehabilitation?) in earlier adulthood. The dollar cost is notable as well. A recent insurance company study showed that $4,500 per year can be saved on health care costs for older adults through the adoption of preventive lifestyle practices earlier. With a national average yearly income per couple over 65 years of age of approximately $16,000 per year, that savings is significant and substantial!

As communities and as a nation, we are grappling with a growing awareness of the loss of "quality of life," that "soft" issue deserving of human attention but frequently separated from harder "bottom-line" concerns. There is also a dawning realization that this "soft quality" issue now translates into an uncontrollable escalation in health care costs. This awareness is leading to some frightening ethical questions about who deserves remediation and care and how to prioritize these decisions. The holistic continuum perspective is inescapable. The role of park and recreation in prevention as well as restoration are implicity in the very definition of the profession. Life extension and quality within our communities, population diversity, and limited resources integrate naturally without historical accomplishments, expertise and philosophy to lend one element of direction to the current evolution underway in parks and recreation.

The demographic change driving this evolution further is further illustrated by a look at the overall population shift.

While we have been, segmenting out "market niches" according to need, the broad pattern of age distribution has been redesigning itself. Barring some tremendous upheaval, this new distribution is quite different. Until approximately age 75, within five-year increments, the age categories are equal in size. Priorities based on "bulges" are no longer functionally appropriate. With no discrete breaks between age activity categories, separation no longer serves any purpose.

Simultaneously, the realities facing our municipalities are growing in complexity. Entitlements remain the fastest growing portion of our budget, leaving less behind for other purposes. The National League of Cities, not surprisingly, found in a recent survey that stifling pressures are lessening the ability to serve, with 50 percent of cities experiencing expenditures in excess of revenues. The cost of crime, waste management, health care, in-frastructure reconstruction and maintenance and federal and statemandated programs press this imbalance. Notably, these key areas are not separate from parks and recreation programming mandates and facility needs, including adaptations to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and changing physical capabilities of an aging population.

Meanwhile, citizens are complaining that as fees move upwards, service quality and quantity plummet. Adjusting for survival requires a different strategy, one in which planning actions must be "mission driven." This broader customer/community services approach opens up incentive opportunities, frees up resources to test new ideas, creates autonomy to respond to changing circumstances, establishes some predictability in a dynamic environment, simplifies the budget process, saves money on auditors and budget officers and allows a focus on the "important issues." These "important issues" include adults as they develop from their 20s through their 100s, (by 2000 it is projected that there will be 100,000 people in this country who have attained the age of 100), an inescapable segment of our "mission."

It isn't enough to want to provide programs for "older people." Such an intent has to be founded on a genuine commitment to the continuum of need and opportunity, across generational barriers, and free from the ageism that permeates much of our thinking today. Despite the demographic evidence and some changes in media-generated images, the overall attitude toward programming for older adults essentially continues to remain negative. An emphasis on resource expenditure for youth, paralleling a bottom-line-maximum-return-on-investment principle, continues as a prioritizing guideline. Ignored is the strong relationship between the youth, elders and the "sandwich generation" in between. No group exists to the exclusion of another; no older person has become older without first being younger, and the hope for all youth is that they enjoy the longest possible lifetime.

Nonetheless, many communities, agencies and staff continue to relegate "old people" to the bottom of their priority list, neglecting their needs and separating them out as "different." indeed, some the worst perpetuators of this "less deserving" idea are today's "sandwich generation" - parents and grandparents who feel a moral responsibility to step aside and allow resources to be available for their children and grandchildren. This either/or altruistic concept is further reinforced by the continued reminder that "there isn't enough to go around," old people, especially retirees, are no longer contributing and thus no longer deserving of receiving, is a personal fear of aging by many who are making decisions. This potent concoction of mis-information and stereotypical syrup has trapped many new concepts in a sludge of inertia, where they eventually fade from consideration.

Despite considerable statements to the contrary, another damaging misconception is that all older adults are financially secure. This overgeneralization conveniently categorizes older adults as anyone 60 and above, thus describing a 50-year range bounded on one side with those still actively employed and at the other by those who have been out of the workforce for a considerable time, with one neat statistic (or label, such as "Greedy Geezer"). This masks additional data which show that nearly 40 percent of the older adult population lives within 200 percent of the poverty line. On the whole, the older age of an individual, the lower the average annual income. And because women still live, on the average, about 6.7 years longer than men and their pensions (if any) and survivor's benefits remain relatively modest, the oldest members of the population tend to be alone, female and living with small amounts of disposable income.

Income level and age have a statistically significant negative correlation, a finding repeatedly borne out by research. Simply put, the older one is, the less (s)he has to spend, yet longevity is resulting in more and more people living longer lifespans on incomes that were calculated on costs of two or more decades earlier. Even cost-of-living increases have not sustained retirement income buying power. Ironically, just when the retirement income stream is faced with its greatest increase in costs for health maintenance, its buying power is in its most severe decline and will continue in that direction. Ill health becomes extremely expensive, reducing money for other necessities such as food, heat and shelter. While quality of life is the goal, survival can become the more pressing issue.

What are the realities of aging? first of all, it is a process that begins at conception and does not end until death. And when does death occur? At the turn of the century, the average lifespan was 47. There has been a two-and-one-half year increase in projected longevity since the 1960s (Medicare increasing access to health care was implemented in 1965) and a five-month increase since 1970. While there is no agreement on projected lifespan, some gerontologists suggest that 85 is a realistic target. Others write that 115 to 120 years is an achievable individual goal. One flaw in these numbers is that they completely overlook the effects of ethnic, socioeconomic, gender, cohort and attitudinal differences.

A much stronger research base is needed within each of these factors. However, the trend toward longevity remains indisputable. This gift of time is the result of improved survival rates at birth, greater access to medical care, improved sanitation and transportation systems and better lifestyle practices. The effect of each individual's aging process results from interaction between hereditary, environmental, lifestyle, and attitudinal factors, with attitude - the extent of personal control and decision making - playing a particularly crucial part. The perception of what older adulthood should be provides the context for a self-fulfilling prophecy of the individual aging experience. People who believe they should be healthy and active are more likely to find their adult years to be exactly that. Unfortunately it also holds that those who believe the rest of their lives holds decline and deterioration will find their expectations met. It is a short jump to the reality that visionaries, planners, decision makers, administrators, managers, supervisors and program coordinators who also accept the old idea of limitation and decline, and allocate resources and prograrnming from that reduced level of expectation. Their expectations establish another self-fulfilling situation in which they experience what the situation is structured to produce, thus reinforcing stereotypes.

One problem that continues to exist is a restriction on program opportunities by those who report that "they (older adult participants) don't want to try anything new." The result is a span of service directly in proportion to that narrow scope and continuing to reinforce the stillexisting unpopularity of growing older. It also separates many aging adults from the good we can do for them and help them do for themselves. They don't want to be identified with "those old people," that mythical group of elderly incompetents that so many accept as the inevitable models of older adulthood. So long as we have older adults denying their own right to attention and resources and babyboomers denying their own aging through hair implants, liposuction, miracle wrinkle removers, proteins to improve mental functioning, special vitamins and restoratives and reconfigured Levis (to help keep the latest two decades from becoming reality), this problem will persist. All the benefits that can attend our increased longevity will be unavailable to us and others so long as we as a profession also prolong this negativism and refuse to include older adulthood as a respected, purposeful part of each lifespan.

Our community professional service firms will depend upon flexible, project-specific teams for most efficient customer service. These vehicles, in collaborative community partnerships, can counter the agerelated negativism through preventive and maintenance services and programs with shared interests. Hospitals, private recreation facilities, youth groups, YMCAs, schools, residential facilities, community corporate neighbors, social service and not-for-profit entities, anyone with resources and/or participants, are potentials for partnerships. Sharing resources, with the obvious advantage of reducing duplication, geometrically increases the outcome of that collaboration. It is badly needed.

Extended life for older Americans has become a test of time, with the quality of that life compromised by a sedentary lifestyle compounding its effect over the years. Even before "older adult" years, troubling data about activity-related behavior has appeared. About 60 percent of American adults currently live sedentary lives, spending on the average, six hours and 59 minutes per day in front of the television. Further, Americans are spending 90 percent of their time indoors, causing a sharp decline in muscular activity and a marked increase in smoking, coffee and soda drinking, and candy nibbling. Only 22 percent of adults engage in at least 30 minutes of light to moderate physical activity five or more times per week, and only 12 percent report that they are this active seven or more times a week. Less than ten percent of the population exercises thoroughly enough each week to improve cardiovascular fitness. Nearly 25 percent of adults have no leisure activity of any kind. The older adults become, the less likely they are to improve their health through exercise regiments. Instead, they overestimate the health risk of exercise participation and underestimate the benefits. In fact it is now clear that it is literally "never too late." Adults in their ninth decade who participated in a regular exercise program found their flexibility, stamina and lung capacity increased, muscle tone improved, and an overall general loss of fatty tissue.

One true fact of aging is that it follows the "more so" principle. We are at 85 what we are at 15, only "more so," having had 70 years of practice by that time. We know that young people are distressingly inactive today. We also know that people who enjoy exercising regularly when young tend to continue to do so in later life and that people who have exercised infrequently are more likely to stop altogether as they get older. Consider the effect on our communities of this lifestyle trend for an entire generation that will live longer than anyone ever before!

This disturbing thought is heightened by a review of the most common causes of death in this country. In descending order they are heart disease, cancer, stroke, accidents, lung disease, pheumonia and influenza, diabetes, suicide, chronic liver disease and cirrhosis, and atherosclerosis. What cannot be ignored in this list is the extent of involvement that diet and exercise have in most of these major health problems. With an attitude that says it is possible to prevent these problems or at least reduce the extent of the damage caused by them, and with deliberate lifestyle programs that directly counter the causes, these major killers can be reduced. Because it is possible to make a difference, people must have the conviction that they have some control over these diseases and that these diseases do not represent what normally occurs as one grows older. To be effective, there also must be some personal motivation to change and easily accessible, pleasant ways to incorporate healthy life practices without too much inconvenience.

Recreation is not an "end product" but a means to an end, with quality a part of the process of getting there. Our mission is broadening its meaning to become responsibly inclusive, and the current evolution is offering leverage points to create a preferred future. Newly recognized needs require the flexibility to incorporate new realities and a willingness to recognize and set aside personal and organizational biases. Our responsibility dictates an active leadership role within our communities, forging and working within new cooperative partnerships. Our future and success as a profession will directly result from the choices and actions we implement now. Adults in our communities will immediately benefit from this broadened perspective, while those in the future will be better prepared and more actively involved through education for adulthood and the existence of a working network of collaborative opportunities and supports.

Adulthood is not a separate experience from the rest of life. Becoming an older adult is not something that strikes overnight and suddenly renders a person different. Neither is it an eventual condition to be put off until it can no longer possibly be avoided, then its victims tucked discreetly behind others' more active, more worthwhile lives. Whether aging begins at 40 or 80, whether it ends at 55 or 115, all of adulthood is an opportunity to live. The parks and recreation profession exists to make the most of that life through protecting our environments and protecting the quality of the lives of those who inhabit them. Irrespective of economic, political, social or technological influences, the responsibility remains to utilize what we have learned and proven over the years. The National Recreation and Park Association is already actively reaching forward to shape change through the innovative leadership of its Leisure and Aging Section. Individual park and recreation departments, municipal systems, recreation and leisure professionals and collaborative relationships with new partners are the means to expand on that leadership and fulfill a wider vision that includes relevancy for all of life.