E-097 · Theme 2 · Intergenerational & Life Stage Support
Age-Friendly Meeting Review
Meetings are easier to hear, reach, follow and participate in across life stages.
Developed further: this summary now draws on an initiative-specific internal editorial draft and attributed references. Human review has not started and will open only at the Full-Corpus Review Build.
What could this idea change?
It makes follow-up more caring and consistent, while leaving people in control of how they respond.
It may suit: Members who may welcome support or renewed contact, and the trusted club members following up.
A simple way to start
- Map the current meeting journey and identify which venue, timing, information and participation decisions the club can change or must negotiate. Who could lead it: Meeting lead and club board sponsor
- Invite member input through accessible and private routes, asking about helpful conditions and barriers rather than age, diagnosis or personal explanation. Who could lead it: Access contact
- Complete a practical walk-through at the real meeting time, checking arrival, venue, sensory conditions, materials, technology, breaks and emergency information. Who could lead it: Review team and venue contact
- Prioritise immediate fixes, short trials and longer negotiations, name owners and avoid postponing low-cost behavioural changes while waiting for major work. Who could lead it: Club board sponsor
- Tell members what is changing, provide accurate access information and trial the revised meeting with a private route for further adjustments. Who could lead it: Meeting lead and communications lead
What should we look for?
- After 90 days, review Age-Friendly Meeting Review. Look for members choosing workable forms of participation and staying connected without pressure to disclose private circumstances.
- Priority barriers assigned an owner, decision and review date.
- Meeting invitations providing accurate timing, transport, venue, access and participation information.
- Members able to request conditions privately without diagnosis or proof.
- Trialled changes retained, revised or replaced using experience and participation evidence.
Before we say yes
- Does it fit a real local need?
- Can people take part safely and fairly?
- Are the facts, permissions and Rotary branding right?
- Who will lead it, and when will we review it?