Bringing children and older adults together has always been an exciting idea. The harder question is why some intergenerational programs create meaningful connection while others become occasional activities with mixed results.
A new realist evaluation published in The Gerontologist shifts attention from whether intergenerational programming “works” in the abstract to the conditions that allow it to work. Its central message is practical: co-location creates an opportunity, not an outcome.
The Research
Lee and colleagues studied one of Australia’s relatively uncommon shared-site programs, where residential aged care and early-childhood services were located together. Their purpose was to explain how program context interacted with participants’ responses to generate outcomes for residents, staff, and the organization.
This was a realist evaluation, a methodology designed to investigate what works, for whom, under what circumstances, and through which mechanisms. Evidence came from interviews with aged-care residents, care staff, early-childhood educators, and senior managers. The team also examined organizational policies and procedures and used staff observation notes.
Researchers combined inductive analysis with theory-guided and explanatory reasoning. Instead of reducing the program to a single average outcome, they developed context–mechanism–outcome configurations: propositions describing how particular conditions could activate particular responses and lead to particular results.
Research Findings
- Physical proximity was insufficient. Positive experiences depended on environments being safe, accessible, and suitable for participation by residents and children.
- Facilitation mattered. Skilled staff helped shape interactions that residents experienced as genuine and worthwhile rather than passive or performative.
- Meaning activated the apparent benefits. When residents felt that their participation was valued, interactions could promote belonging, reciprocity, and purpose.
- Identity was part of the outcome. The program supported continuity between residents’ present lives and valued identities, roles, and relationships from earlier life.
- Reported resident outcomes included emotional wellbeing and social connection. These were qualitative findings within the program’s context, not standardized estimates of effectiveness.
- Staff outcomes were tied to implementation conditions. Staff described professional fulfillment and motivation when they had support to facilitate high-quality engagement.
- Organizational culture influenced sustainability. Leadership and everyday institutional practices helped determine whether intergenerational engagement became embedded or remained fragile.
- Outcomes varied when supports were constrained. The study therefore does not support an assumption that any contact between children and residents will be beneficial.
Why Does This Matter for Kansas Providers?
For Kansas nursing homes, assisted-living communities, adult day programs, and community organizations, the study suggests that the first planning question should not be, “Can we bring children into the building?” It should be, “Can we consistently create safe, accessible, meaningful, and well-facilitated interaction?”
That distinction affects staffing, space, scheduling, leadership, and evaluation. A program may need preparation time, staff capable of reading residents’ preferences and children’s cues, accessible activity design, and organizational permission to prioritize relationship-building. A pleasant special event may still have value, but it is not equivalent to an integrated program built around reciprocity and continuity.
The research also suggests that workforce benefits deserve consideration. Staff fulfillment was connected to having the conditions needed to facilitate quality engagement. Intergenerational programming therefore may affect staff experience as well as resident experience, but the study did not measure retention, burnout, or staffing outcomes quantitatively.
What Can You Do?
If you are considering intergenerational programming or activities:
- Assess whether proposed spaces are safe, accessible, and comfortable for both residents and children.
- Define what “meaningful participation” would look like from residents’ perspectives, rather than evaluating attendance alone.
- Identify who will facilitate interactions and whether that person has adequate time, preparation, and organizational support.
- Design opportunities for reciprocity, purpose, and valued social roles—not only entertainment.
- Monitor when engagement is less successful and document the environmental, staffing, scheduling, or leadership conditions present.
- Include resident, aged-care staff, educator, and leadership perspectives when evaluating the program.
Read more here: Oxford Academic
