Coming Together: Intergenerational Dialogues On The Deficit, Social Security & Beyond
Coming Together: Intergenerational Dialogues
On The Deficit, Social Security & Beyond
Public Agenda, in partnership with Generations United and two colleges, successfully conducted intergenerational dialogues about Social Security, health care and other issues relating to America’s fiscal future, in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania in early April 2009. Each half-day session - which included introductory presentations and small-group discussions, using materials and guides developed by Public Agenda under a grant from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation - brought together 40 to 50 college-age and older Americans through the Intergenerational Urban Institute of Worcester State College and the Penn State Intergenerational Program.
After four hours of engaged, often heated discussion and questioning, the 20-something students and over-65 participants at both Worcester State and Penn State agreed that seeking common ground and avoiding intergenerational conflict were essential to building public support for entitlement, other spending, tax and government reforms.
A participant in an intergenerational dialogue in Worcester, Massachusetts, takes notes on the group discussion, April 2, 2009.
“We can’t have two generations put up against each other; we need to promote generations working together,” as one Worcester student said. Indeed, younger college students and older participants were broadly enthusiastic about the opportunity to share ideas with those who were not their age peers and felt that the very concept of intergenerational dialogues was refreshing, inspiring and worthy of widespread replication.
After presentations by Andrew Yarrow of Public Agenda and Donna Butts and Wendy Heiges of Generations United, the sessions organized by Professor Maureen Power of Worcester and Professor Matt Kaplan of Penn State broke into four groups of about 10 participants each. Facilitators from Public Agenda, Generations United and both colleges led each group in dialogues using three Choicework Discussion Starters developed and written by Public Agenda: “America’s Health Challenge: How Can We Best Contain Costs, Increase Access, and Maintain Quality,” “Social Security, the Budget, and An Aging Population” and “Making Sure Our Government Manages Our Money Responsibly,” a guide to government accountability. Moderator guides carefully plotted out the timeline for each day’s discussion and report.
“I think we agree that the government spends too much money,” said Ayla Detwiler, a 21-year-old Penn State student, in discussion with her peers and elders at the Foxdale Village Senior Center near State College, Pennsylvania, on April 6th.
“We know that Social Security is in big trouble,” said Lynn, an older woman participating in the April 2 dialogue at Worcester State College in Worcester, Massachusetts. “We need to all get politically involved.”
Misperceptions About Federal Finances
Comments on the dialogue materials were broadly positive: “They were very helpful in presenting various views to consider in discussing the issues.” “They were understandable and easy to read.” “I was very uneducated about this issue, so having background on it and possible solutions made great guidelines to go by.”
Despite misperceptions about federal finances (as one 78-year-old man in Penn State said, “I was surprised how lacking students are in basic economic understanding”), a natural tendency to stray into topical issues such as the financial crisis, and some initial shyness, the groups of young college students and older retirees soon realized that they could share worries, questions and ideas for working together - across generations and across the political spectrum - to deal with the policy and philosophical implications of America’s fiscal problems.
Pre- and post-session questionnaires elicited high and rising concerns about the parlous state of federal finances, and the post- questionnaires reflected progress on a learning curve to greater awareness of which problems are more substantial and which are more marginal in terms of America’s long-term fiscal well-being.
Indeed, the concerns of young and old dovetailed in the comments of a 22-year-old and a retiree at Penn State. Student Ann Mesavage expressed worries about her ability to save for the future, while retiree Ed Klevans said he was concerned about the legacy that was being created for his five grandchildren. But both agreed that Americans need to come together—now—to create an economically sustainable future. All ages also found common ground in the importance of investing in and taking care of people of all ages in a fiscally responsible manner. In the surveys, participants almost unanimously said they were “very worried about the size of the federal debt.”
While groups talked about the challenges and policy options embedded in the three sets of choices in the Public Agenda discussion guides, group reporters scrupulously recorded pages upon pages of flip-chart notes of common ground, disagreements and questions. The nearly 100 participants in the two locations also completed pre- and post-dialogue questionnaires that explored their beliefs and elicited feedback on the dialogues themselves. During the final 45 minutes of each session, a member of each group presented conclusions to the full group of participants.
Donna Butts, president of Generations United, addresses students and older citizens involved in the intergenerational dialogue at Worcester State College in Worcester, Massachusetts, on April 2, 2009.
In Worcester, one group focused on reforming Social Security while another discussed making government more accountable through political and budget-process reforms. The “accountability” group found common ground in urging the establishment and enforcement of stronger budget rules, increased information and transparency on spending and taxes, and greater oversight to “remove temptations” from political leaders. Many expressed concern over government “bailouts,” but participants recognized that to address long-term problems of fiscal solvency, we need “to sacrifice for the common good.” The Social Security group differed on the relative responsibilities of government and families to provide retirement security, but agreed that “no one should be excluded.” Alice, a student participant, remarked: “We should increase the age of eligibility.”
At the Foxdale Village in Pennsylvania, the health care group grappled with fundamental issues facing policymakers: “Is health care a moral right or about individual choice? What are social obligations and what are individual ones? What is our social contract to each other? Should there be incentives for good health behaviors and consequences for ‘bad’ behavior?” Reacting to perceived market failures in health care, the group supported a Medicare-plus style system with a minimum standard of guaranteed care. The Social Security group argued whether it should be a universal or more means-tested program, but found three broad areas of agreement: everyone should pay into the system, individuals should save more and there should be basic protection for all.
Conversation in the Penn State group using the Choicework discussion starter on government accountability reflected broader societal fears about “moral decline” and “pessimism” as well as faith in American “resilience” and strength. While blaming politicians for being “corrupt” or too insulated from public opinion, participants recognized that “we want more services, but aren’t willing to pay for it.” One participant concluded: “We haven’t hit a crisis yet, but we may need to hit a crisis mentality.”
Learning From Each Other
In addition to discussing policy options, those in Worcester and Penn State learned not only from the presentations and written materials, but also from each other. Many younger participants, with previously little knowledge about how Social Security and Medicare work, learned from older members of the groups, altering their perceptions and the nature of the discussion. For example, in the Penn State health care group, younger people had significant misperceptions about what benefits one received under Medicare until older participants informed them.
For all, discussions and educational sessions such as these were seen as essential, not only in building awareness and galvanizing citizens to demand change, but also in bridging real and perceived divides between generations. Participants were enthusiastic about what they learned and the process of discussing issues with people of different generations. They recognized that they began the sessions with significant lacunae in their knowledge of federal finances, with most initially underestimating the vast proportion of federal spending on Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. “I realized I did not know as much about our fiscal policies as I thought,” a Penn State participant said. “I’d like to research more about what the government is doing right or wrong.”
“The most shaking fact I learned was just how in debt this country is,” one said. Another said that “government spending and the looming crisis are serious problems, but discussion and civic engagement like this are important.”
Andrew Yarrow, vice president and Washington Director of Public Agenda, talks about federal finances and Public Agenda's Students Face Up to the Nation's Finances initiative at the Worcester, Massachusetts, intergenerational dialogue.
The intergenerational dialogues differed from those in college classrooms using Students Face Up to the Nation’s Finances - Public Agenda's interactive curriculum on the deficit, debt and potential solutions to the problem - in several important ways. Participants were not as prepared or informed as students in college economics or public policy classes. Rather, they represented more of a general cross-section of the population, less initially engaged or informed about the issues.
Less focused on policy details than college students, these intergenerational groups grasped the moral issues and principles underlying intergenerational fiscal responsibility and equity. Most importantly, they did not just reflect the concerns of young Americans about the fiscal future to be bequeathed them, but rather exemplified younger and older generations coming together to realize that they have a common interest in reforming the nation’s finances. The interpersonal dynamics—respectful and recognizing “we’re all in this together”—differed somewhat from young Americans more likely to blame older generations.
Participants made a few suggestions to improve the process, such as having participants read information in advance (which actually had been encouraged), adding middle-aged people, and ensuring that important points didn’t get lost in the discussion. Public Agenda and Generations United organizers agreed that several changes could enhance future dialogues, including: additional training of facilitators, tailoring the discussion guides more for intergenerational audiences, having time for informal introductions among participants, updating the short film, ensuring that materials are available to all in advance and better accommodating visual and hearing difficulties of participants.
At the end of each day, participants were given information on how to remain informed and involved with these issues. Many said that despite their prior lack of knowledge or concern for federal finances, they were energized by the sessions to try to educate others and do what they could to effect change.
Stephen Watkins, a 23-year-old Penn State student, told his 90-year-old fellow group member, Jo Ward, that he was “hopeful that average citizens will be able to pull together to make the changes necessary to fix the problems facing the nation.”
“We all must contribute to make a difference for our futures,” two Worcester participants said. “The more people involved, the better.”
“Government and others should educate people about these issues, as in these dialogues, making more information and data available,” said the young woman who summarized the conclusions of the government accountability group in Worcester. “Bringing awareness to colleges, through a program like this, would help people like us.”
Another Penn State participant said, “While the problems are very complex, people are passionate about this, not apathetic, and need to stay engaged.”
In short, young and old concurred that not only was it extremely valuable to become informed and discuss issues such as Social Security, health care costs and taxes, but also that it was especially rewarding to share ideas and perspectives across generations. Many marveled that there were so few opportunities to do so, and wished that there were more—in their communities and elsewhere. As one participant wrote in the evaluation: “This is a tremendous idea and effort. Thanks so much and keep it up.”
For more on Public Agenda's work empowering citizens to explore solutions to the problem of the budget deficit and national debt, see Students Face Up to the Nation's Finances, our curriculum for college students and other concerned citizens, which is online at FacingUp.org, our web site dedicated to the issue.
And for more on Choicework Discussion Starters, Public Agenda's core approach for citizen engagement, check out the public engagement section of this web site.
All photos courtesy of Robert Israelian.
