ALBANY COUNTY — With 20 percent of its population expected to be over the age of 60 by the end of the decade, New York state has begun developing its Master Plan for Aging, which the state says will “ensure older New Yorkers can live fulfilling lives, in good health, with freedom, dignity and independence to age in place for as long as possible.”

The task is gargantuan, since addressing the needs of older adults requires insights and innovations across a wide range of areas. 

Work on the plan has thus been split between eight subcommittees focused on the following domains: long-term services and support; home- and community-based services; informal caregivers; formal caregivers; health and wellness; housing, community development, and transportation; safety, security, and technology; and economic security. 

Mary Moller, executive director of the Albany Guardian Society, which is part of the safety, security and technology subcommittee, told The Enterprise this week that the way the subcommittees are structured is “breaking down silos, breaking down barriers, and bringing all the experts together to improve the lives of older adults.”

Some of the more specific goals of the plan are to develop public-private partnerships, increase access to information about services, increase the availability of those services, and make community health systems more age friendly, according to the state. 

The subcommittees will be engaging directly with the public primarily through surveys and town hall-style meetings, the state says, and New Yorkers can also email feedback or suggestions to MPATownHall@health.ny.gov. 

The first town hall meeting was held in New York City earlier this month, and the state says there will be more held elsewhere as the public engagement period of the plan’s development continues through 2023. The state currently projects the plan to be adopted in early 2025. 

Local intersections

Several of the foci of the plan at this point are relevant to communities in the Enterprise coverage area, particularly the rural Hilltowns, which, in addition to being less well-resourced than large suburbs like Guilderland, have a higher proportion of older residents. 

As The Enterprise has previously reported, Berne planning board member Mike Vincent has once again raised the issue of affordable senior housing, which is being held up by a lack of available municipal water, according to developer Jeff Thomas, who had first proposed plans for two senior housing facilities over a decade ago.

And broadband has been recognized as a critical component in accessing quality healthcare and other services. In Knox, many older residents spoke up at a meeting last month about their poor internet connections, and also about their vulnerability online. 

Gretchen Moore, community outreach specialist for the Albany Guardian Society, told The Enterprise that other issues like isolation and mental health are less likely to be recognized in areas like the Hilltowns, because of the “fiercely independent” identity that is common in those communities.

When Moore worked for LifePath, the not-for-profit group had tried to start an adult day program after years of hearing about how much it was needed but, once the program was up and running, Moore said, “The people who we think needed it absolutely wouldn’t come, and wouldn’t admit to being isolated or being in need of socialization.” 

State of aging 

While much is expected to be uncovered about the needs of the state’s older population through the development of the master plan, the New York State Office of Aging already has significant data collected through a first-of-its-kind needs-assessment survey of senior New Yorkers. 

In the first quarter of 2023, more than 26,000 New Yorkers over the age of 60 responded to the survey, which was sent out by mail and also could be filled out on the computer. 

The survey asked for demographic information, along with rankings of  respondents’ experiences with different things under the categories of housing, community, ease of travel, employment, affordability, recreation, daily activities, resource availability, services and care, mental wellness, personal safety, social engagement, and civic engagement. 

Based on the preliminary results, seniors who answered the survey were most likely to be white (72 percent), female (55 percent), fully retired (67 percent), have a household income between $25,000 and $50,000 (24 percent), rate their physical health as excellent/good (72 percent), and feel positively about their mental health (82 percent). 

Most own a home without a mortgage (42 percent), live with one other person (44 percent), feel their housing is sufficient for their needs (61 percent), have lived in their community for over 20 years (68 percent) and have enough money for taxes (54 percent). 

They generally do not attend local public meetings (82 percent), or participate in civic groups (88 percent), religious activities (56 percent), clubs (73 percent), or recreation programs (74 percent), but they do mostly vote (84 percent). 

In terms of their community, most respondents felt positively about things like the living conditions, navigability, access to arts and culture, and the quality of the natural environment, but the majority (56 percent) rated their “connection and engagement with the community” as fair/poor. 

They also mostly rated as fair/poor the overall level of services provided to them by the community (53 percent). 

Most respondents felt positively about their ability to get from place to place, except when it came to public transportation, which most felt was fair/poor (54 percent). 

Feelings about employment were much more negative overall, with most respondents feeling there was not enough opportunity to build work skills (69 percent), low-quality employment options (81 percent), and poor variety of options (83 percent). 

Most felt that finding work in retirement was not a problem (54 percent), though a significant portion felt it was a moderate/major problem (34 percent), with the remainder finding it to be a minor problem (13 percent). 

Despite the positive feelings reported about their communities, respondents were broadly negative when it came to the affordability aspect, with a large majority rating the cost of living in their community as fair/poor (82 percent), along with the availability of quality food (57 percent), quality housing (79 percent), public places where they want to spend time (60 percent), accessible housing (78 percent), mixed-use neighborhoods (60 percent), and the variety of housing (76 percent).

Feelings about recreational options were generally split down the middle when it came to things like fitness, volunteer, and social opportunities, but were more positive when it came to religious opportunities (69 percent) and more negative about educational opportunities (67 percent). 

Despite this, most who wanted to were able to find some kind of meaningful volunteer work (65 percent) or some other kind of activity (60 percent).

Resource availability was generally ranked negatively, with most respondents rating as fair/poor the availabilities of information about resources (71 percent), financial/legal planning services (72 percent), long-term care options (74 percent), daytime care options (76 percent), affordable physical health care (59 percent), and affordable mental health care (71 percent).