ELDERS AGING IN PLACE
PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY’S COMMUNITY WITHOUT WALLS
by Victoria Bergman
Those readers who received (and remember or can get your hands on) the Spring
1996 issue of Aging and the Human Spirit, read about how a group
of some 80 of us
in Princeton got together in 1992, to learn more about aging and to address some
of the issues confronting us as we grow older.
Now, in 2000,
we are the
incorporated entity of Community Without Walls, Inc. (CWW), with 250 members
organized in Houses (Chapters). Over the past eight years, we’ve
perienced the
joys of continuing life, of family and friends and travel and learning, and the
pain of the short and long term illnesses and deaths of members, and have lived
the specifics of supporting each other emotionally and practically.
We receive
regular requests for information about what we do and how people can become
members, and when I read the Spring 1999 issue of Aging and the Human Spirit
on the UN’s International Year of the Older Person (IYOP), it led me to consider
the larger context in which CWW exists.
My thinking was specifically inspired
by Thomas Cole’s editorial where he told about the IYOP goal of enlarging our
images of what ageing is and can be. He also noted that, “Since the 1982
World Assembly’s International Plan of Action on Ageing, there’s been an
awareness of the need to move beyond images of old people as static, vulnerable
individuals in need of help.” He further added that UN specialists have
written “"the problem of ageing today is not just one of providing protection
and care but of the involvement and participation of the elderly".”
Pondering
these words convinced me that in CWW, involved and participating elders are
moving toward achieving IYOP goals, and that we should tell a larger community
about what we are doing. His words also raised the question of how we might go
about replicating the CWW experience.
I decided that a first step was to offer
an update on CWW to A&HS readers, to invite your comments on whether you think
that CWW is helping achieve IYOP goals, and to find out what ideas you might
have on building CWWs in other places.
Let me tell you more about CWW and then
invite your comments.
CWW 1992 - 2000
My husband and I were driven to create CWW after we cared for his parents, from
when they were in their early 80s and becoming frail of body, until they each
died in their mid-80s. Our experience was exhausting and sad, and we hoped we
would be able to find a more satisfactory way to progress through the years at
the end of life, for ourselves, and our children.
The Omega Institute
Conference on Conscious Aging in 1992 was a good place to find out what others
were doing and thinking about taking charge of the aging process. A geriatric
social worker, who we had consulted about caring for my mother-in-law, was
also at the Conference, as was her husband, a semi-retired Princeton University
professor and stock car racer.
The four of us talked about how some of the
problems and heartaches of dealing with dependent parents might be alleviated.
We went on to discuss our own aging, ways to age how and where we want to, and
how to avoid putting our children in the same situation we had been.
After
the Conference, we, along with others, formed Community Without Walls as a
mutual support system for people who want to age in place. In 1992 some key
issues were:
- Overcoming the fear of aging alone,
- The need for a widened friendship network as longtime friends move
away or die, and
- The need for improved housing options and community infrastructure to meet
the special needs of the elderly.
To address the concerns about aging alone
and the need for an expanded friendship network, we knew we’d need to renew
our abilities to make friends, enhance and strengthen existing relationships,
get involved or reinvolved in community affairs, and be open to information
and innovations. Some might have seen this urge toward renewal as a tall order
for a group of people spread over three generations and ranging in age from
48 to 92!
Since 1992, we’ve incorporated and have held regular meetings
(monthly through most of the year) with invited speakers. We’ve also had
community-building discussions on topics such as size of membership and
members’ responsibilities to the community. Speakers have informed us about
retirement communities, quality of life issues as we age, retrofitting our
homes to make living in them easier, aging and sexuality, spiritual eldering,
and nutrition, among other topics. Members also provide programs, such as
new passions, including memoir and poetry writing and drumming.
In CWW,
seniors are learning about physical, mental, social, and emotional aspects
of aging, and we offer practical, emotional, informational, and social support
to one another. To create this community, it’s taken little money (our dues
have been $10 per person a year), but it has taken leadership, organizational
skills, time, a willingness to work in concert, humor, curiosity, and
acceptance of members’ interests and idiosyncrasies.
CWW has passed the
seventh anniversary of our founding and has grown from 80 members to 250,
about 5 percent of the population over age 60 of our town. CWW has also
become a respected influence in the community. In 1995 we sponsored two
White House Conference On Aging events; CWW members formed The Coalition
for Senior Housing in Princeton; and most recently, a Steering Committee
member testified at a County hearing on services for the aging.
Our
Community has three Houses and a waiting list of prospective members, which
we expect to become our fourth House later this year.
CWW HOUSES
A House is the equivalent of the chapter in many membership organizations.
We call our sub-groups “Houses” because each has their own members within
the larger community.
HOUSE 1
The original members of CWW, who were to become House 1, came together in
1992. A network of friends and their friends, many sharing the commonality
of religious belief (in this case, membership in The Jewish Center of
Princeton) formed CWW, though commonality of religion wasn’t a factor in
extending invitations to become members of CWW. Some of us had known one
another through our children, or membership in professional organizations,
or were alumni/ae of the same institutions of higher education, or shared
an interest in music or art or books or had worked together.
Membership grew
as we decided that we wanted the group to be more diverse (in
terms of
religion, culture, and ethnicity, for example) and we received requests to
join.
However, many members came to feel that the goal of getting to know
one another better so that we’d feel comfortable supporting each other in a
time of need was getting subverted by the continual addition of people who
many members didn’t know. The membership committee met, and recommended that
membership be capped at 100. When that number was met, anyone who wished to
join would be put on a waiting list, to be considered for membership when
vacancies occurred.
Some prospective members were on the waiting list for
several years, and they, and the members who had recommended them, were
unhappy about the long wait, and concerned that the benefits of membership
weren’t available to those who were anxious to join.
By 1995, a group of us
had started thinking and talking about how we might involve more people,
without losing the attributes of being a small enough group that we could
usually meet in a member’s house. Anticipating growth, we incorporated CWW
as a non-profit organization, and applied for and received 501(c)(3) tax-exempt
status.
In the spring of 1997, matters took on a life of their own when a
group of about a dozen people expressed interest in forming a second CWW
group.
HOUSE 2
CWW’s second house literally leaped into being out of an aerobics class.
Some number of CWW original members, all women and all over 50—with several
over 80—have been going for several years to a morning aerobics class run
by Princeton’s Recreation Department.
Of course we see non-CWW friends there,
and there’s lots of chatting, project planning, and information sharing
among members of the group. In February of 1997, some friends asked about
“this Community Without Walls.” In March 1997, founders of CWW were invited
to address a group, formed around a nucleus of aerobics participants and their
spouses.
Members of this group mostly had ties either through Princeton
University or shared religious beliefs, in this case, the Princeton
Friends-Quaker Meeting. Because of these preexisting ties, the fact that
this group was quite a bit smaller than the founding group of House 1 (about
a dozen vs. 80), and House 1 existed as a model, House 2 came together much
faster, and wanted to become a formal part of CWW.
CWW leadership then had
to figure out how best to do this. One of our members is an attorney who does
a commendable amount of pro bono work in the Princeton area. We asked him
what our options might be for having a larger membership while maintaining
smaller group cohesiveness. He suggested the “Chapters” model, and gave us
some guidelines on amending our bylaws to allow this organizational structure.
After a year of vigorous discussion, at the annual meeting in May 1998,
original members voted to revise bylaws to allow for Houses. The founding
group became House 1, and the Steering Committee (governing body) of House
1 became the first Corporate Steering Committee, while continuing as the
House 1 Steering Committee. Forming House 2 was invited to submit bylaws,
create a governing body, and apply to be chartered as a House of CWW. Our
bylaws now provide for representation of additional Houses on the Corporate
Steering Committee.
The group completed the process leading to a Charter as
House 2 of CWW in April 1999, and was welcomed by House 1 members at the
annual meeting in June 1999. Many of us were delighted to find that there
were friendships and acquaintanceships that cut across both Houses.
This
led us to consider cross-house activities, and a number of such activities
now exist. Cross-house activities include two groups discussing “Choice
in Dying,” and learning about what options might exist; a “Live Chat Room”
that meets in a local bookstore (as contrasted with virtual chat rooms on
the Internet); and a group exploring formation of a “Life Care At Home”
program.
HOUSE 3
Chartering House 2 didn’t solve the problem of House 1’s waiting list,
however, because House 2 met its membership target of 60 from among their
own friendship network, even before it became a Chartered House. When
House 2 established a waiting list, and members of both Houses began
receiving increasing numbers of phone calls asking about membership, we
decided to see if a third House could form based on the population of the
waiting lists of Houses 1 and 2 plus new callers. House 3 would be formed
from people who knew something about the goals and operation of CWW, had
expressed interest in belonging, but who might not know one another.
This was quite a different organizing concept from House 1 and 2, which
were created around existing friendship networks. Knowing something about
how organizations form and develop from my work as a community organizer
and activist, I was very curious to see if this strategy for creating
House 3 would work.
In November 1998, people on the waiting lists of
House 1 and forming House 2 were called by a membership committee
representative to see if they’d be interested in attending an exploratory
meeting for a third house. There was enough interest to warrant setting
up the meeting, which was held in February 1999 at my home. Between 30 and
35 people attended, plus several CWW founders and Steering Committee members
of Houses 1 and 2.
There was a great deal of discussion and enthusiasm,
and a number of attendees agreed to form a House 3 organizing committee,
which got quickly to work, and arranged a meeting in March 1999.
This group
got off to what one organizer described as a somewhat chaotic start. Several
founders met again with the group to talk about how CWW began, what our
reason for existence is, and how CWW had been managed to date. We handed out
the A&HS 1996 article, another article about CWW that appeared in a local
newspaper, sample bylaws, and the Houses Charter.
We encouraged them to
find their own way to become a community, noting that the other two Houses
had done some of that by sharing food and drink and information, listening
to speakers and then discussing these talks, creating smaller interest groups
from among members, and working on some projects, such as compiling a
“preferred provider list” of repair and maintenance people and service
providers.
We closed our presentation by saying we’d be available for
consultation and support, then pretty much left the group alone. I
figured it would fall apart or coalesce pretty quickly, and it did both.Prospective members appeared and some disappeared. The organizing committee
decided to let anyone who wished to attend meetings to see if they wanted
to be involved. A number of people came to several meetings and then didn’t
return. A core group of organizers was stable, but membership fluctuated.
The organizing committee decided to call itself the “Vision Committee,” and
to work toward a vision of what the group might look like in several years.
Starting off, this group seemed to be different from the membership of
Houses 1 and 2 in several ways. Most didn’t know each other, or were only
somewhat acquainted, although there were some friends who joined
together.
Members of forming House 3 were generally younger than Houses 1 and 2 are
now, and had more members willing to use their entrepreneurial experience
and motivations in the service of building community. They quickly began
cooperative projects and became the only group to communicate almost
exclusively by email, reflecting the relative youth and technological
savvy of members.
During the autumn of 1999 the group coalesced, requested
dues from those on their membership list, capped membership at 85-90, and
began to work on bylaws so that they could apply for their Charter as
House 3. Their application was completed and submitted to the Corporate
Steering Committee in February 2000. Corporate officers reviewed the
application and approved it in March 2000, so there are now three Chartered
Houses in our Community Without Walls.
CWW MEMBERS AS
AGENTS AND AVATARS OF
AGING
It appears clear that CWW member are “agents” as defined by IYOP, since
members engage in activities that promote development and prevent unnecessary
dependency. We develop through informational programs, social activities,
and community participation. By providing short term assistance in times of
need—for example, changing light bulbs and programming VCRs, giving rides
to health care providers or to shop, sharing meals with injured or ill
members—and by valuing each other and our relationships, we help prevent
unnecessary dependency.
By being active and visible in the physical
community we live in, we are avatars, embodying the changing image of aging.
When told “you don’t look your age,” we like to paraphrase Gloria Steinham’s
rejoinder “This is what 50 (55, 62, 74, or 88) looks like.”
As advertisers
use older models, manufacturers of consumer products incorporate design
features that are friendly to all age cohorts, and articles and programs
feature accomplished older people not just because they are older, but
because of their accomplishments, perceptions will change. It seems to me
that enlarging the image of what aging is and can be, is an issue of
making visible the continuum of life and lifestyle as we age. By our
activities and visibility in the physical community we live in, CWW members
are making the full and involved reality of elders’ lives known.
IN CLOSING
We are already living in IYOP’s “Society for All Ages”—but a society
with more room for organizations like CWW that are models for development
and growth.
I invite readers’ comments on (or questions about) CWW as
exemplifying a group of age-enhanced people who are agents. I would
appreciate suggestions readers might have on how the development of
CWW might best be documented, and on how CWW could be replicated in other
communities. Contact me at the snail mail or email address or phone number
at the end of this article. I’m looking forward to hearing from A&HS readers.
Victoria Bergman is Chair of the Houses Committee, Founding Member and
Past President of CWW. She can be reached at:
134 Leabrook Lane, Princeton, NJ, 08540;
By e-mail at: vicky.bergman@verizon.net; or
(609)921-0749.
Publishers note: Since this artical was published in 2000 CWW has grown to six chartered Houses with more being organized on a regular basis.
Click here to go back to the CWW home page