Developing Age-Friendly Communities: Evidence from Multiple Case Studies

Population aging brings opportunities and challenges for local community and economic development. One policy solution that has been adopted by 325+ jurisdictions in the United States is joining the AARP Network of Age-Friendly States and Communities or the WHO Global Network of Age-Friendly States and Communities. Although the age-friendly movement is gaining momentum in the US, few studies have looked at what influences municipal decision-making about joining a network or making age-friendly changes. The purpose of this multiple case study was to explore what influences municipal decision-making about joining a formal age-friendly network and how communities mobilize the resources at their disposal to make age-friendly changes after joining. The conceptual model that guided this multiple case study incorporated Kingdon’s policy change model to frame municipal decision-making about joining a formal age-friendly network and resource mobilization theory to frame factors that influence implementation of age-friendly changes after a community joins an age-friendly network. The study was based on three in-depth case studies of jurisdictions in New England that had joined an age-friendly network-- Brookline, Massachusetts; Newport, Vermont; and Ellsworth Maine. Data from the three in-depth cases were brought together in multiple case analysis. The study offers partial support for the conceptual model. In all three cases, the policy entrepreneur was key to municipal decision-making. However, the policy entrepreneur’s role differed if the individual or organization was part of the community or not. Kingdon posits that agreement on a single problem definition increases the likelihood that a policy will be adopted. However, in these cases, the policy entrepreneur defined the problem differently for different audiences, framing the problem differently for municipal government than for organizations and residents, a departure from Kingdon’s model. Resource mobilization theory posits that collaborations are more likely to form when an initiative has resources, opportunities for collaboration, and when stakeholders share a strong commitment to the work. Each case had access to different resources and opportunities for collaboration; collaborations were key to moving the work forward. The primary resources utilized were relational and ideological. Material resources were less likely to move the work forward than other resources