title: A tale of two community initiatives for promoting aging in place: similarities and differences in the national implementation of NORC programs and villages.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Villages and Naturally Occurring Retirement Community (NORC) Supportive Service Programs (NORC programs) are among the most prominent community-based models for promoting aging in place. To advance systematic understanding of their development, this study examined how these models have been implemented nationally and the models' similarities and differences.
  
  
  METHODS
  A survey of program leaders representing 69 Villages and 62 NORC programs was conducted from January to June of 2012. Bivariate analyses compared measures of the initiatives' services/activities, beneficiaries, service delivery processes, and funding sources.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Village members were reportedly more likely than NORC program participants to be younger, to be less functionally impaired, to be more economically secure, and to reside in higher socioeconomic communities. Reflecting these differences in populations served, NORC programs reported offering more traditional health and social services, had more paid staff, and relied more on government funding than Villages.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Findings indicate that Villages and NORC programs both aim to promote aging in place by offering a diverse range of supports and services to older adults within a locally defined geographic area. Nevertheless, key differences were found in the means through which they seek to achieve these aims, as well as the populations likely to benefit from their efforts. These differences raise questions regarding the models' inclusivity, sustainability, expansion, and effectiveness and have implications for community aging in place initiatives more broadly.
authors.affiliation: *Address correspondence to Emily A. Greenfield, School of Social Work, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 536 George Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08904. E-mail: egreenf@ssw.rutgers.edu.
authors.forename: Emily A
authors.initials: EA
authors.lastname: Greenfield
authors.forename: Andrew E
authors.initials: AE
authors.lastname: Scharlach
authors.forename: Amanda J
authors.initials: AJ
authors.lastname: Lehning
authors.forename: Joan K
authors.initials: JK
authors.lastname: Davitt
authors.forename: Carrie L
authors.initials: CL
authors.lastname: Graham
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D019058:Community Networks / Q000458:organization & administration*; D003256:Community Participation; D005260:Female; D006299:Health Services for the Aged / Q000458:organization & administration*; D016852:Housing for the Elderly / Q000458:organization & administration*; D006801:Humans; D057187:Independent Living; D007398:Interpersonal Relations; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D026684:Personal Autonomy; D011788:Quality of Life; D012111:Residence Characteristics; D012179:Retirement; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012944:Social Support; D012947:Social Work; D014481:United States
keywords: Home and community-based care and services; Interpersonal relations; Long-term services and supports; Social capital; Social services; Social work