The Connecting Caring Communities
Partnership

For information, contact:
Stephanie Sue Stein
414-289-6876
sstein@milwaukeecounty.com

Chapter 1: How did this Partnership get started? How are they structured?  What have they been doing?

Chapter 2: What Difference Did the Community Partnership Make Here?

Chapter 1: How did this Partnership get started? How are they structured?  What have they been doing?

I. WHY Did the Partnership Happen Here?

The Connecting Caring Communities Partnership was conceived by a planning group of service providers who wanted to try new approaches to meet the needs of Milwaukee County’s older adults. They believed the CPFOA grant could offer the neutral space they needed to generate local solutions, take risks and re-think “the way we talk about long-term care.”

Milwaukee County’s high density population includes an older adult population of 153,000. This challenge and opportunity moved local leaders from thinking about elder services to the broader perspective of “what is it like to live here with a need for supports?” The core group of leaders believed they would be able to do more together than alone and so the Connecting Caring Communities Partnership was built on the existing informal consortium base which has since become the Milwaukee Aging Consortium.

Demographics: Milwaukee County’s older adult population is diverse and growing and it faces complex social and economic challenges. The state of Wisconsin’s older population will grow from 13.1% of the total in the year 2000 to 20.8% of the total by 2030 as “Baby Boomers” age. In Milwaukee County, by the year 2030, the number of older adults will grow to 241,984 or 23.5% of the total population. Population growth is especially significant among minority elders (who are also at a greater risk of living in poverty), and among those who are 85 or older. Nearly one third of all older adults live alone, remaining in long-term homes after the death of a spouse or partner, while their neighborhoods became more diverse. (More than 65% of older adults here are home owners.)

Learning About the Issues
Milwaukee has experienced significant population shifts in recent decades. Many older adults, who have aged in place in life-long neighborhoods, feel isolated, disconnected from their new more diverse neighbors and less sure about their ability to travel safely for errands, groceries, or companionship.

The Partnership undertook neighborhood planning rooted in the asset-based community development approach of Kretzmann and McKnight. A graduate student class at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee used GIS technology and the city’s COMPASS program providing local crime data to create maps in the first neighborhood showing where older adults live, gender, age, ethnic background, crime rates; and then also showing the community assets – meal sites, stores, parks, health care clinics, restaurants, etc.

This research by the Connecting Caring Communities Partnership clarified that personal safety concerns were more perception than reality for older adults– that fear was based more upon the differences in age and cultural background between the elders and newer residents than the actual occurrence of crime in proximity to them. The Partnership learned “that while older adults want to stay in the communities in which they’ve lived for most of their lives, the necessary supports and connections they need are not always there. Neighborhoods differ greatly, not only in terms of their older adult population but also in terms of available resources.”

Best practices surrounding the strategy of planning for and creating “Corridors of Aging Excellence” by neighborhood were later documented for replication in the Partnership’s publication “Won’t You Be My Neighbor? A Guide to Connecting Caring Communities”.

II. Getting Started: What Vision and Structure emerged?

Vision of Connecting Caring Communities Partnership: is that stakeholders will work together to improve the care and services available to older adults, resulting in a community where older people are able to draw upon and contribute to the resources of their neighborhoods and the community at large. When older people need long term care, it is available, easily accessible, affordable and of high quality.

Goals of the Partnership

• (Original)Reducing isolation by creating four elder-friendly neighborhoods based upon needs identified by local elders, to promote stronger connections between older adults and their communities and offer them choices. (Later) Strengthening the ability of older adults to stay in their neighborhoods by connecting them with the resources and people they need to remain in and contribute to their community.
• Improving caregiver retention and quality of caregiving to stem the high rate of turnover in direct care workers to older adults
• Increasing public awareness both about what long term care is and how to access services, while promoting planning for the future to decrease the confusion and barriers many older citizens and their adult children were experiencing.

Structure
As the Connecting Caring Communities Partnership moved forward through priority development and creation of a work plan, the Partnership grew to 125 individuals from organizations as diverse as major corporations, labor unions, for-profit advertising firms, hospitals, law enforcement, schools and older adult consumers.

The Core Leadership of the Partnership is comprised of representatives of the Milwaukee County Department on Aging, Marquette University, Community Care Organization, Interfaith Older Adult Programs and the Milwaukee Aging Consortium. Because members of the Partnership are committed to consumer inclusion, older adults are integral participants at all levels from the core leadership to the workgroups. Four major workgroups were formed; two of them based upon the neighborhood components: 1) the Layton Boulevard workgroup, 2) the Sherman Park workgroup, 3) the Caregiver Retention workgroup, and 4) the Communications workgroup. Each Workgroup has Ad hoc task forces which form periodically for more focus on specific issues.

III. WHAT: Implementing initiatives to address issues. What did they do?

Priority 1: Neighborhood Partnerships – Layton Boulevard Corridor of Excellence –

• With a revitalized neighborhood gathering place, the Oasis, 77% more older adults are meeting there on a daily basis. The Oasis has been re-designed, with new furnishings, a new fitness center, and a computer lab; and a sheriff’s sub-station moved in. Because neighborhood older adults are more aware of available services, calls have jumped significantly to the Interfaith Neighborhood Outreach program servicing this community.
• Layton Boulevard also became home to a new “Senior Warriors” initiative founded by a user of the Gathering Place, Esther Hussey; which successfully advocated for a new neighborhood traffic light and organized monthly Town Hall meetings at the Oasis with elected officials.
• To address some of the safety concerns expressed by local elders regarding being uncomfortable with neighborhood young people, the Partnership developed a series of “peacemaking circles” which gave these two groups of residents a creative, structured and safe process in which to talk and develop relationships. After an opportunity to talk safely and respectfully, misperceptions and fears between older adults and local teenagers were greatly reduced, and some worked together to plant a garden at the Oasis.

Priority 2: Neighborhood Partnerships – Sherman Park –

• As a result of an opportunity offered by a local Lutheran church, a part time “Gathering Place” was created in this neighborhood, reducing the isolation of older residents, and increasing the awareness of businesses and neighbors about elders in their midst.
• In one instance, the manager of a local coffee shop identified an older customer as being at risk and involved protective service staff after the Partnership’s communications campaign raising awareness of elder issues.
• An elder watch program and travel training program were established here, and requests for services and information have increased 182%.

Priority 3: Neighborhood Partnerships – Additional neighborhoods –

• Nine more neighborhoods are in various stages of Partnership development, and all have received the guide to lessons learned, “Won’t you be my neighbor? A Guide to Connecting Caring Communities.” A neighborhood communications template is under development so that future neighborhood partnerships will know how to get the word out, both about the partnership and about services & opportunities for local older adults.

Priority 4: Caregiver Retention - To improve caregiver retention and quality, the Partnership undertook a multi-faceted strategy of:

• Creating a home care providers network, and developing a training series for managers of caregivers which reached 120 caregiver supervisors.
• Caregiver Resource events, offering training on topics such as dealing with grief & loss, body mechanics & lifting, dementia care and challenging behaviors; these events typically attract 80+ direct care workers when offered.
• In November, 2007, 160 people came together for the day-long conference, “Caring for the Caregiver: An Event for Mind, Body, Spirit.”

Priority 5: Communications

• The Lets Take Care communications campaign created important tools ranging from a graphic symbol to a DVD, posters, Public Service Announcements, billboards, and a Long Term Care planning guide for consumers that equipped consumers and their adult children with clear information for planning and decision making about options in older age.
• In year 3, a complementary Let’s Take Care consumer website was launched. (www.letstakecare.org). Several neighborhoods also launched specific newsletters for older residents or inserts about issues and options for older adults that were added to community newspapers.
• Senior Resource Calendar for 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 – was published for the Sherman Park Gathering Place and included resource and telephone contact information as well as the activities planned for the Gathering Place. Production of the calendar was underwritten by a Partner, St. Joseph’s Regional Medical Center.
• Perspectives on Aging Film Series: Student film makers from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee created 7 short films about aging which were shown and discussed in the neighborhoods where the Partnership work is focused. The El Paso Partnership created its own film festival based on Milwaukee’s. The Milwaukee film series won an Innovations Award from the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging.

New Priority – Older Adult Housing with Supportive Services

• In year 4, the Partnership began convening a variety of stakeholders to discuss “housing with services” in an effort to increase the availability and affordability of housing for older adults in the region, and will continue with the support of a local foundation in the next year.

Chapter 2: What Difference Did the Community Partnership Make Here?

The Connecting Caring Communities Partnership of Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Interview between Stephanie Sue Stein, Project Director, Connecting Caring Communities Partnership, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Phyllis Bailey, Senior Information Manager of the National Program Office of Community Partnerships for Older Adults, Portland, Maine; on November 13, 2008.

What Difference Has Working in Partnership Made in Your Community?

• It is very subtle – people involved now introduce themselves as being a part of the Connecting Caring Communities Partnership, which is really interesting. We are not an institution, but people really identify with us and with our work – many different kinds of people and organizations like religious people or faith groups, older adults, and many kinds of agencies. One lady, who is retiring and is the CEO of a small non-profit organization, said “it was one of the things she is most proud of being involved in, during her long career.”
• We have two initiatives now going on with two sets of people – who were not with us at the start – people we did not necessarily expect to join us.
  Our Housing Partnership
  • Is working on affordable housing for older adults that includes services they need.
  • We wanted to create both an architecturally interesting building and services to support elders. Our Partnership started a dialogue that would never have happened otherwise, including architects, bankers, developers, and planners in the conversation.
  • So now we are opening a new building in 2009 which will be affordable and will allow older adults to live across from grocery and drug stores. It’s design is really beautiful, convenient and allows them to stay in their community. They do not have to move out to the edge of the community where older senior buildings are.
• We worked closely with developers who wanted tax credits. Some people considered this a blighted area. One state agency called me and the Partnership leaders and asked questions about the site and crime. “Will seniors be safe there, will their adult children and families come to visit?” Some state officials were very suburban oriented. I told them “we are building for folks in neighborhood, who already live here”. This would never have happened before. Now we constantly looking for opportunities to develop housing for low and moderate income older adults.

Our New Wellness Council

• A new opportunity arose when [County or Partnership?] Council members said to us “You’ve done great job at getting folks together, so could we look at strategic planning on wellness, gaps people encounter, etc.? “ Wellness, not disease!
• We initially brought a few folks together in the Partnership and brainstormed who to invite and how to get them to table to think strategically about wellness.
• We have just started and have had one meeting so far.
• We reached the libraries, and brought 60 people & organizations together.
• It was very inspiring. The library told us “we never knew how to get to the aging community. All of the organizations and individuals talked about assets they had to bring to table to think strategically about wellness.
• GE Medical Incorporated came and we had never known how to get them involved. As a company, they are working on some of the most innovative technology to help people “age in place” and they really want to work with us in their hometown.
• All of the disease organizations – such as those focused on Alzheimer’s and cancer, came together with us to talk and brainstorm. We now have a Health Fellow from the University Public Health Program who will staff the Wellness Council, as well as support from some other health organizations.
• Before the Partnership existed, we might have reached the Senior Center, the YMCA or YWCA and the Health clinics. Now we brainstorm and think outside of the older adult arena. We ask “Who has vested interest in this?”
• We have developed a new method of convening our Community Partnership beyond the older adult population and organizations. Many other people and organizations now see the power of Partnership in all of our past work.
• Before this, all we did was bitch about how no one would ever do affordable housing in the city, in our community. Now we talk to developers!

How did you make this happen – for example, the new housing initiatives?

• We convened two big planning meetings and invited lots of people. We got them talking.
• Working with our County Board and the Area Agency on Aging, we identified 10 parcels of publicly owned vacant land we’d be willing to donate to a developer with the condition of non-profit agency oversight. The developers would have to meet our goals as they created the new housing and then the property would go back on tax rolls to generate revenue after it was completed.
• So we got the staff at Public Works and GPS people to go with us and we found vacant non-Parkland which the county could make available for development. We think this approach will prosper. We specify the terms and the developers have to meet these terms; especially, architecturally good design, affordable to more than the affluent, and design which supports community building between the residents rather than isolation.

Have you experienced any serendipities of Opportunity?

• We discovered the fact that in the graduate certificate program of the University’s School of Social Welfare, students have a “capstone requirement” before graduation which requires them to do something in the local community. The graduate school has now has taken on the Connecting Caring Communities Partnership as the setting for the capstone requirement on an ongoing basis on any related topic for the next few years. It will give us lots of data.
• This year’s capstone students are part of the development of the new Agape neighborhood initiative right from the beginning: doing assessments of community assets, collecting data, conducting forums with older adults about their needs and wants, & then doing evaluation of what has transpired later on.
• Sue K. and Rob M. are guides and work with the students. The Capstones usually result in a report and give findings. So we do a “big splash” meeting about what we have learned through this. Now older adults here are much more aware of their neighborhood assets and where to go for information and help. This Capstone and Partnership relationship is now imbedded in the University School of Social Welfare and will benefit us for a long time to come.

Are there any other ways that the Partnership has made a Difference in your community? Other things you found out?

• I know there was a divide between aging organizations for affluent people vs. organizations serving low & moderate income elders. As a county, these organizations were never structured to work together. In the Prospect Farwell neighborhood, we took a big chance. Three large, expensive aging developments were on the same street as subsidized and low income housing. We asked “Will these guys come together? Will they recognize they and the others both have assets and could work together?”
• On September 11, one building offered an ice cream social in the Wisconsin Conservatory of Music with a choir of older adults from all income levels. Would elders from all income levels and buildings come? Yes they did! A very exclusive building here – St. Johns on the Lake, is connecting their old and new housing towers with a wellness center. There are lots of classes in the wellness center and they are opening it up to all the older people in the neighborhood. This would never have happened before! (The services include massage, their library, yoga classes, a reflection, pool, a café). They did this because they were asked to be a part of our Partnership Prospect Farwell neighborhood initiative. Now they publish a calendar of all the offerings and events at all of older adult buildings. The developments with money take turns producing the calendar and have opened their classes and activities.

Another thing we did not initially see power of:

• In the Shorewood and West Allis neighborhoods, we did not anticipate the interest of the cities and how they would get others to the neutral table of the Partnership.
• We saw a high school principal say “my students need community service credits”. So we planned a “Day of Caring”. Our first flyer said “come and help your neighbor”. The high school students said to us “No, instead tell our classmates to “come and earn your service credits”. So students did come, did 46 houses and a big apartment complex in first seasonal clean-up. We now have 14 young people on snow shoveling detail.
• Lots of people would stereotype these area as semi-wealthy, but there are lots of needy elders and they wanted us to know that as we worked in the neighborhood.
• We have 19 municipalities. We will clearly ask formal city governments to help us convene from here on out.
• We learned: find a champion! In Shorewood it was a senior center director. In West Allis it was the public health department. What hooked them? They came to us after going to an event or reading of us and called us.
• We also found that Partnership involvement gives lots of meaning to the older adults who participate – it is a way to give back.

We have also learned that we need to involve communications people from beginning. They ask:

• What communication vehicles exist here, in this neighborhood or municipality?
• How do people get information?
• What reaches the most people?
• Where is it that businesses connect? (a newsletter was very valuable to reach them).
• While the Community Partnership is developing, you need to figure out how to make sure the neighborhood knows about it.

What Encouraged Investment in the Partnership?

• Our three foundation funders now say to any requestors of funding “are you involved in the Connecting Caring Communities Partnership?” If the answer is no, they tell them to talk to us and then come back to the funder.
• This happened in the West Layton Boulevard neighborhood project of a historic preservation group, the LISC and a neighborhood organization regarding a home modification program. The funders convened a meeting between all of them and the CCC Partnership through Stephanie.
• When they wanted to expand to another neighborhood – called Agape- they asked me to identify community leaders who could potentially be involved. We did an asset map and found lots of assets, when not everyone expected there to be assets.
• An activity branch of the organization “Rebuilding Together” does one day of major repairs in our region. Because the Partnership has connected to their organization, it has connected us to volunteer Plumbers, and tradespersons to help with home repairs, especially for elders with less resources.
• So funders in our region are thinking in a much more integrated fashion across neighborhoods.
• Three funders are giving $30,000 each for two years ( a total of $90,000 a year) so that our Partnership, its neutral table and the Partnership staff still exist.
• We have learned that having dedicated staff is critical, but when we go away – we are creating templates so we can still do technical assistance and consulting. The city of Sherwood is putting lots of money in this. Next year we will identify two neighborhoods in Milwaukee, two municipalities we will go to, and ask them to do this.

Were there other things you learned or challenges?

• Nontraditional partners have to be imbedded in the Partnership – it cannot all be social service providers.
• On Evaluation of what you do - we shot too high initially, promising too much without enough dollars dedicated to it.
• On Communication about the Partnership. We created great communications materials but did not have enough money for implementation. Because we had little sense of marketing, so we did not use the materials as much as we could have. But the Fremont CPFOA Partnership borrowed and used our materials fabulously. They really knew how to market.

What about Sustainability of this Partnership – where are you?

• There will be a legacy – a way to do this when we have no money. That is why we published our first guide to creating caring neighborhoods.
• Parts of all grants we do, etc. will always find a way to sustain this. The Area Agency on Aging and the Partnership are very committed to keeping it going.
• Our yearly celebration is great way to show what we have done and to bring people into Partnership

Awards:

• We received an “Innovations In Aging” award from the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (N4A) in July, 2008.
• We also got a monetary award which was unexpected. It was very competitive.
• The N4A has just sent out an announcement of our Guide. We got 35-40 requests for it from around the country.
• We look ahead and see the state has 5 billion dollar deficit. It is so wonderful to think differently. Resources are not just dollars, but other assets too. We have to think differently with the size of these shortfalls.