Multigenerational Care and Support Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Hassan, Margaret Wood [D-NH]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 10, 2026
Bottom line
The Multigenerational Care and Support Act aims to foster intergenerational connections and support by expanding volunteer opportunities for older Americans in a wider range of facilities serving both older and younger populations.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Older Americans Act of 1965 to expand opportunities for older individuals to volunteer in multigenerational settings. It explicitly broadens the scope of demonstration, support, and research projects to serve both younger and older individuals through multigenerational activities, including mentorship and volunteer roles at facilities. Additionally, it updates administrative reporting requirements and expands the types of facilities eligible to host these programs, while removing a previous special consideration for projects leveraging private resources.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill will enhance community well-being by leveraging the experience and wisdom of older adults, combating social isolation among seniors, and providing valuable support and mentorship to younger generations. They contend that expanding volunteer opportunities to more facilities, including long-term care and senior centers, will address critical needs in these settings and create meaningful engagement for older individuals.
Opponents contend
Critics might raise concerns that removing the special consideration for projects leveraging private resources could lead to increased reliance on federal funding without encouraging broader community investment. Some may also question whether expanding the program's scope without explicit new funding mechanisms could strain existing resources or dilute the effectiveness of current initiatives under the Older Americans Act.
The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for a quick read and understanding of its core provisions.
Section 2(1)(A)
Expanded Scope for Multigenerational Projects
This provision amends Section 417(a) of the Older Americans Act to explicitly state that demonstration, support, and research projects should serve both younger and older individuals. It clarifies that these projects should focus on developing, carrying out, and promoting participation in multigenerational activities, thereby formalizing an intergenerational focus for these programs.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that explicitly defining the scope to include both younger and older individuals ensures that federal resources are directed towards programs that foster valuable intergenerational connections, which benefit all participants and strengthen communities.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision, as the concept of intergenerational programming is broadly supported. Potential concerns might revolve around implementation details rather than the core intent.
Tradeoffs
The primary tension is ensuring that the broadened scope does not dilute the focus on specific needs of older adults, while still effectively serving younger generations.
Section 2(1)(C)
New Volunteer Opportunities at Facilities
This amendment adds a new subparagraph (B) to Section 417(a)(3) of the Older Americans Act, creating specific opportunities for older individuals to volunteer at facilities that serve either older individuals or individuals in younger generations. This expands the types of locations where these multigenerational activities can occur, moving beyond just mentorship roles to broader volunteer engagement.
Section 2(5)
Broadening Eligible Entities for Programs
This provision amends Section 417(h)(1) to expand the definition of 'eligible entity' for these multigenerational programs. It now explicitly includes multipurpose senior centers, long-term care facilities, and any other residential facility for older individuals, in addition to existing eligible entities like family support programs. This allows a wider range of organizations to apply for grants and host these activities.
This provision strikes paragraph (1) from subsection (d) of Section 417 of the Older Americans Act. The removed paragraph previously mandated that the Secretary give 'special consideration to projects that demonstrate the ability to leverage private resources and other non-Federal funds.'
Section 2(3)(A)
Why it matters:This change is likely a deliberate policy shift, but its placement as a deletion in a series of amendments might make its impact less immediately apparent to a casual reader.
Case for: Proponents of this change might argue that removing the 'special consideration' levels the playing field for organizations that may have strong program ideas but less access to private fundraising networks. It could allow for a broader range of community-based organizations to receive federal support.
Case against: Critics might contend that removing this incentive could reduce the overall financial sustainability of programs by making them more reliant on federal funds and discouraging private sector engagement. They might argue that leveraging private resources ensures greater community buy-in and expands the total funding available for these initiatives.
Estimated impact: This change could shift the funding landscape for grant applicants under Section 417, potentially increasing the proportion of federal funding for projects that previously might have sought private matching funds.
This provision strikes paragraph (4) from subsection (a) of Section 417 of the Older Americans Act. The deleted paragraph previously outlined a purpose for projects: 'to develop opportunities for older individuals to use their skills and experience to address the needs of their communities.'
Section 2(1)(D)
Why it matters:The removal might be intended to streamline the language or integrate this goal into the broader multigenerational activities, but its specific removal could be a subtle shift in emphasis.
Case for: Proponents might argue that the essence of this deleted paragraph is already captured within the broader goal of 'multigenerational activities' and 'mentorship opportunities' for older individuals, making the specific paragraph redundant. Streamlining the language can improve clarity.
Case against: Critics might argue that explicitly removing this language could be interpreted as a de-emphasis on the direct community service aspect of older adult engagement, potentially narrowing the perceived scope of valuable contributions from seniors beyond mentorship.
Estimated impact: The impact is likely subtle, as the general intent of older adults using their skills for community benefit is still implied by the bill's overall focus on multigenerational engagement. However, it removes a specific directive.