A Strategic Framework for a National Plan on Aging: Part 1
The Framework Problem

Why a National Plan on Aging Needs a Framework Worthy of the Challenge

A national plan on aging is only as good as the framework that guides it. And a framework is only as good as its ability to map complexity, measure progress, and account for the forces — social, psychological, and structural — that shape how aging is actually experienced in the United States.

In May 2024, the federal government released A Strategic Framework for a National Plan on Aging — “a vision-setting document to raise awareness of key aging issues and outline goals for supporting the health and well-being of older adults” (p. 5). The solicitation noted (pp. 4–5),

“The National Plan on Aging Community Engagement Collaborative, which is comprised of three ICC partners — West Health, The SCAN Foundation, and The John A. Hartford Foundation — is seeking input [by September 15] from both individuals and organizations on the Strategic Framework and key aging issues.”

The Older Americans Act of 1965 as amended (March 25, 2020), authorized the creation of the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Healthy Aging and Age-Friendly Communities (ICC). That Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services has delegated authority to oversee and administer ICC operations to the Assistant Secretary for Aging and Administrator of the Administration for Community Living (ACL). The ICC was established to “foster coordination across the federal government on core aging issues.” The Strategic Framework notes (p. 5):

“In the U.S., the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Healthy Aging and Age-Friendly Communities (ICC) is leading the charge to develop a National Plan on Aging. Authorized by the Older Americans Act (OAA) and first funded in fiscal year 2023, the ICC is charged with fostering federal interagency collaboration to develop a national set of recommendations on key aging issues. The first step in developing the National Plan on Aging is creating a strategic framework.”

The Strategic Framework was its first major product — and the first step, as the document describes it, toward developing a national set of recommendations on key aging issues. The strategic framework was developed by leaders and experts from sixteen federal agencies and departments working through the ICC on Healthy Aging and Age-Friendly Communities.

That same summer, the National Plan on Aging Community Engagement Collaborative — a partnership of West Health, The SCAN Foundation, and The John A. Hartford Foundation — issued a call for public input. The solicitation asked individuals and organizations to respond to a survey by September 15, 2024, with specific questions about what the Strategic Framework should include and what it was missing.

I responded (via survey) — as an older adult, as someone who has acted against elder abuse, as a secondary victim of that abuse, and as an advocate who has spent years working at the intersection of elder justice and the rights of older Americans. What follows is drawn from my response to the survey's second question: What could be added to the Strategic Framework for a National Plan on Aging?

The short answer is: a framework worthy of the name.

What the Strategic Framework Gets Right

The Strategic Framework identifies four overarching domains — age-friendly communities, coordinated housing and supportive services, increased access to long-term services and supports, and aligned health care and supportive services — and articulates cross-cutting values of person-centeredness, inclusion, respect, and collaboration. These are commendable. Strategic Framework notes, “Aging is a dynamic process and the domains and key focus areas outlined throughout the Strategic Framework are often interconnected and interrelated.” (p. 9) 

What the Strategic Framework Is Missing

A framework, properly understood, is not a list of priorities. It is a tool for thinking — one that maps relationships between variables, identifies gaps in evidence, assigns roles and responsibilities, and provides a basis for accountability and course correction. 

The Strategic Framework acknowledges interconnection without providing the analytical scaffolding to examine it. It does not provide a graphic or structural framework for researching and analyzing how its domains and focus areas relate to one another. It references other frameworks — the U.S. Surgeon General's Framework for a National Strategy to Advance Social Connection (p. 16), and The John A. Hartford Foundation's Age-Friendly Health Systems 4Ms Framework (p. 21)— but does not incorporate either into its own structure. Both are cited. Neither is integrated.

The Strategic Framework explicitly relies on a framework. Yet a framework is not expressed on its own terms or that of other frameworks referenced, but only in the context of assessing select state Multisector Plans for Aging (pp. 11–12). For each domain, the “domain focus areas,” first identified in the MPA assessment, are later described in detail under each domain in a “focus area action Statement.” For example:

Domain 1: Age-Friendly Communities > Domain Focus Area: Purpose and Engagement > Focus Area Action Statement: Coordinate across sectors to cultivate opportunities for all older adults to participate in their communities in meaningful ways that align with their individual goals.