Community Planning for Intergenerational Programming: Program Innovations in Aging, Volume VIII. (unknown). Washington, D.C.: National Council on Aging.

The States Speak: A Report on Intergenerational Initiatives. (unknown). Ann Arbor, MI: Lifespan Resources.

Angelis, J. (1992). The genesis of an intergenerational program. Educational Gerontology, 18(4), 317-327.
Abstract: The origins of intergenerational programs have received little attention in comparison to intergenerational topics such as the benefits, satisfaction of young and old, attitude change, impact, and developing programs. This article explores the force, factors, or sequence of events that culminated in an intergenerational program. A qualitative study was conducted to examine the beginnings of 6 diverse intergenerational programs. The findings point to four common components present in the creation of an intergenerational program: a need, crisis, or problem; a committed responsive leader; a source of encouragement and support; and an accessible system for linking young and old. Each of the programs involved a creative process that generated an idea and a system bringing young and old together to solve problems to address needs.

Angelis, J. (unknown). Getting Started Now: A Concise Guide to Developing Effective Intergenerational Programs. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

Bagby, B., & Snyder, J. (1992). Youth and Seniors: The Dynamic Duo. Illinois Senior Series. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Cooperative Extension Service.
Abstract: This manual discusses planning and implementation of intergenerational programs, including how to identify community needs, program goals, resources, volunteers, and funding. Program and project ideas are included.

Block, H. (1986). How to start and operate an intergenerational program. Child Care Center, September, 30-32.

Brummel, S. (1989). Developing an intergenerational program. Journal of Children in Contemporary Society, 20(3/4), 119-133.
Abstract: In this paper, the author describes in some detail the following steps in the development of an intergenerational program: needs assessment, planning, implementation, assuring longevity, and supporting a national focus. Inherent in each of these steps is an articulated reminder that thoughtful program development needs to consider, at all stages of development, opportunities for building positive self-esteem among the younger and older participants in the program.

Donnelly, D. (2003). LRES and R & P Intergenerational Partnership. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 1(2), 105-106.

Grogan, M. (2004). The Friends of Seniors Foundation: "Fostering friendships between teens and seniors through visits and activities". Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 2(1), 97-99.

Jacobs, B. (1976). A Guide to Intergenerational Programming. Washington, D.C.: National Council on the Aging.

Kaplan, M., and Lawrence-Jacobson, A. (2006). Intergenerational programs and practices. In Sherrod, L. R., Flanagan, C., & Kassimir, R. (Editors). Youth Activism: An International Encyclopedia. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Company, p. 357-361.

Kaplan, M., & Larkin, E. (2004). Launching intergenerational programs in early childhood settings: A comparison of explicit intervention with an emergent approach. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(3), 157-163.
Abstract: What began as a case study of intergenerational initiatives in university-based early childhood programs evolved into a comparative study of two different program implementation processes. Despite operating with the same goals, university partners, and resources, two early childhood centers pursued fundamentally different strategies for launching their intergenerational programs. One site followed what we call an "explicit intervention" with a set timeline and series of planned steps for finding, placing, and involving seniors in classroom activities. The other pursued what we can an "emergent" (or "organic") strategy with no predetermined plan for finding senior volunteers and integrating them into classroom activities. Drawing on data collected from interviews with program staff and parents, and observations of intergenerational activities, this study serves to describe, compare, and contrast these alternative program initiation strategies. Both models are effective, but represent different approaches to valuing the contributions of older adults in the lives of young children.

Kaplan, M. S., Henkin, N. Z., & Kusano, A. T. (2002). Linking Lifetimes: A Global View of Intergenerational Exchanges. Lanham, Maryland: University Press.
Abstract: In many developing and post-industrialized nations, there are powerful demographic and social changes that are endangering the natural ways that old and young have traditionally interacted. The current growth in the young and elderly populations of most countries is leading to new challenges in terms of providing health care, education, financial support, and social support systems for both groups. An important set of strategies for addressing these trends and the quality of life concerns they generate is the facilitation of intergenerational programs. These are defined by the International Consortium on Intergenerational Programs as "social vehicles that create purposeful and ongoing exchange of resources and learning among older and younger generations." In Linking Lifetimes, the contributors explore the range of intergenerational programs and policies found across the globe, and examine their role in enhancing the lives of people of all ages, strengthening families, and ensuring the transmission of cultural values from generation to generation.

Larkin, E., Friedlander, D., Newman, S., & Goff, R. (2005). Intergenerational Relationships: Conversations on Practice and Research Across Cultures. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.
Abstract: Published simultaneously as the Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, volume 2, number 3/4

Caring for Each Other... A Way of Life. (1989). T. V. D. I. Lucy Jones (Producer): Generations Together.
Abstract: This video is designed to inspire, encourage, and inform care providers who are interested in starting intergenerational programs.

Lyons, M. (1992). A Guide to Developing Intergenerational Programs. Glenn H. Woods Corp.

Mendelson, M. (2001). Bridging Cultures for Intergenerational Collaborations: Conference Report, Hawaii Intergenerational Network Hawaii: Hawaii Intergenerational Network.

Moody, H. R., & Disch, R. (1989). Intergenerational programming between young and old. The Generational Journal, 1(3), 25-27.

Newman, S. (1997). Creating effective intergenerational programs. Unpublished Paper.

Newman, S. (1983). Intergenerational programs: Their role in American society. Unpublished Paper.

Newman, S., & Brummel, S. (1989). Intergenerational Programs: Imperatives, Strategies, Impacts, Trends. New York: Haworth Press, Inc.

Prosper, V. (1987). Intergenerational Programming: Overview and Sample Programs. New York: New York State Office for the Aging.

Readdick, C. A. (2004). Should participants in intergenerational programs be paid or should they be volunteers? Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 2(1), 105-108.

Schreter, C. (1989). Intergenerating America: The Final Report on the Administration on Aging Public/Private National Intergenerational Initiative. Sparks, Nevada: Elvirita Lewis Forum.
Abstract: This report summarizes nine intergenerational programs throughout the country that make contributions to the field of intergenerational programming and to the ...of public/private partnerships on the federal, state, and local levels.

Seedsman, T., & Feldman, S. (2003). Living and learning together: a place for all ages. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 1(1), 165-167.

Seefeldt, C. (1987b). Intergenerational programs: Making them work. Childhood Education, 64(1), 14-18.

Segrist, K. (2003). AngelWorx: An intergenerational best practices model. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 1(2), 101-102.

Tice, C. (1981). Linking the Generations: Intergenerational Programs, A Wingspread Report. Racine, WI: The Johnson Foundation.

VanderVen, K. (2003). A powerful social construct, social capital, and cultural universals. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 1(4), 1-3.

Ventura-Merkel, C., Liederman, D. S., & Ossofsky, J. (1989). Exemplary intergenerational programs. In S. Newman, & S. Brummel (Editors), Intergenerational Programs: Imperatives, Strategies, Impacts, Trends (pp. 173-183). New York: Haworth Press, Inc.
Abstract: In times of shrinking resources and growing needs, service providers of the young and the old must work together to increase intergenerational cooperation and exchange through programs which can most effectively and efficiently meet the needs of persons from all social and economic walks of life. Successful and exemplary intergenerational programs appear to have numerous similar characteristics that set them apart from others -- they address major social issues or problems, rebuild natural helping relationships, are mutually supportive and beneficial to all generations involved, provide optimum use of financial resources, build on existing services of institutions and provide opportunities for communities to design programs appropriate to local needs. Such exemplary intergenerational programs can be found in almost all areas of human services. This paper discusses the characteristics of exemplary intergenerational programs as well as program models addressing a variety of needs, serving many different populations and representing creative responses to a range of community problems.

Weinstein, L. B. (2004). An intergenerational journey to remember. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 2(1), 101-104.

Wrenn, R. M., Merdinger, J., Parry, J. K., & Miller, D. (1991). The elderly and the young: A cooperative endeavor. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 17(1/2), 93-103.
Abstract: This paper examines intergenerational programs which connect the elderly and the young. The authors explore the relationship of social work to this important field. Although the literature has reported that social workers are involved professionally in the fields of gerontology and children's services, there is much less reported about the connection between the elderly and the young. Research in the intergenerational field will be discussed, and programs in California will be reviewed. The social work community should be alerted to the richness of intergenerational programming and should collaborate with child development specialists and gerontologists to develop such programs.