Ideas for you.

How can you explore intergenerational programs in your work?

Take these seeds and water them in new soil.

If you are interested in finding ways to spark intergenerational connections in your work, this page can give you some starting points.

If you’d like further support exploring any of these ideas, please reach out to Good Flock, the new entity set up by Lively’s founder, Anna.

  • Intergenerational care programs offer tremendous potential for councils who are seeking to promote better ageing at home, encourage local youth employment and promote social cohesion.

    Councils offering CHSP services in their area can use these funds to cover a service mix similar to Lively’s, which can be classified under ‘social support and community engagement’ and/or ‘domestic assistance’.

    • One approach would be to undertake a tender process and seek submissions from external providers to offer intergenerational care to local residents. Providers may be new to aged care but should have a track record of working successfully with young people.

    • Alternatively, healthy ageing teams may wish to work with local youth services to source and employ young people directly in-house to offer this service mix, which could be advertised as ‘intergenerational care’. Additional mentorship may be provided by local youth services.

    The service mix should align with the skills of young people without previous aged care experience and allow flexibility and collaboration between Helper and resident (see ‘How it worked’ for more detail).

    Councils not providing CHSP services can explore engaging young people to provide technology help in community spaces with the support of a Be Connected Grant. Youngster.co provides similar tech support to Lively while employing young people.

    For support and advice in exploring this further, reach out to Good Flock.

  • Aged care support worker platforms such as Mable or Hireup which already provide many young people with flexible support work, could make intergenerational care a component of their brand with minimal adjustments to their model.

    • This could be achieved by establishing light-touch peer-learning networks, or periodic gatherings for workers aged 18–25 to receive training in ‘intergenerational practice’ and the minimum standards set out by the Australian Institute for Intergenerational Practice.

    • External marketing and storytelling on social media could spotlight intergenerational support relationships and promote flexible intergenerational care work as a viable option for young people whilst studying and finding their place in the world.

    • Intergenerational care could be advertised as a unique service offered by young workers which clients can opt into.

    These measures may not significantly change the care approach, but could help grow the pipeline of young people signing up to the platform and differentiate its brand.

    For the broader community, it strengthens the case for intergenerational care and challenges ageist stereotypes about the desirability of aged care work.

  • Aged care represents one of the most under-realised pathways for youth employment in Australia at scale, and with Lively’s departure from the landscape there are now no other actors exploring intergenerational in-home care employing young adults.

    Funders are uniquely positioned to invite new actors into this void by running grant rounds that support organisations like those listed on this page to pilot new intergenerational initiatives within their work, such as those described on this page.

    Lively’s experience demonstrates the difficulty of entering into the aged care sector as a new entrant, so a low-risk option for funders would be to explore a funding round aimed specifically at encouraging existing providers or intrapreneurs to pilot a new intergenerational program.

  • Given the difficulty of introducing new actors into the aged care sector, existing aged care providers have a high level of responsibility to keep undertaking innovation projects that have the potential to improve care.

    There are a number of things providers can try of different sizes and shapes, including:

    • Trialing a recruitment drive targeting young people using the hiring resources available on the How it worked page. Positions advertised should be casual and emphasise accessibility to those without prior experience. Avoid reference to ‘aged care’ and instead talk about ‘supporting an older person while building a connection’.

    • An extension of the above could include the development of a distinctly branded website without immediately obvious ties to the main company to receive applications. This again may help overcome negative perceptions of aged care work that sometimes deter young people from applying.

    • Pilot an ‘intergenerational care’ offering for clients, bringing together the mix of services also outlined in the How it worked page, and train a small group of younger employees in the approach. Run a small promotion drive advertising this to existing clients, highlighting social connection and service flexibility.

    Past Lively funders (see What Lively was) may have an interest in supporting innovation projects like these.

  • The Lively team was hoping to explore two iterations/extensions of the Lively concept over the long-term, which may be of interest to driven social entrepreneurs who understand the value of this work.

    • The Lively team had long been curious about a social franchise model in which enterprising groups of young people could set up self-organising teams in their local area underneath the Lively brand. Supported by a series of coaches, these networked teams could review incoming referrals fed through a central platform, submitted by aged care provider partners or directly by clients.

    • The team had also discussed the development of service that focused on connecting older people with the people on their street. The aspiration was that it would help tap into local informal support networks, lessening the pressure on Helpers/support workers to meet the social and emotional as well as practical needs of older people. This may fall under the service category of ‘Social support and community engagement’.

    For social entrepreneurs, it is possible that the aged care landscape may become less hostile to new entrants in the coming years.

    After 2027, the aged care sector will (in theory) transition to a single in-home support model as the Commonwealth Home Support Program (CHSP) is rolled into the new Support at Home program.

    Depending on the architecture of this change, it may create an opportunity for new entrants, particularly if the scheme transitions to a ‘multi-provider model’ similar to NDIS, as has been proposed. This may allow greater direct access to potential customers without having to go through large providers gatekeeping access to their clients.

    A multi-provider model could potentially also remove the obligation that all approved providers provide care management services, allowing providers to specialise in a single area of support without being responsible for all aspects of an older person’s care.

  • While there is growing research into the social, emotional and physical health benefits of intergenerational programs involving children, the unique relationship between older people and young adults is still under-studied.

    The Lively team was exploring research partnerships at the time of Lively’s closure in order to start to fill this gap. In particular, the team was keen to build an evidence base for:

    • The social and psychological benefits to older people of acting as mentors to young adults.

    • The attitudinal shifts in both young and older people towards one another when in a support relationship.

    • The emotional and professional benefits to young people of having relationships with older people.

    • The potential health and economic benefits of an intergenerational support approach that combines social support and practical support.