Aging-in-Place Programs - Grants - Multigenerational Third Places (Village Multigenerational Third Places Act)
Summary
SB530 expands Maryland’s aging-in-place grant program by authorizing the Department of Aging to award grants to nonprofit organizations and area agencies on aging for programs that help older adults remain safely and comfortably in their homes and communities. The bill keeps the existing grant purposes—such as in-home personal care, care coordination, transportation, home modifications, and access to services—and adds a new purpose focused on social connection through events and gatherings held at “multigenerational third places.”
The bill defines a “multigenerational third place” as a community space other than a home or workplace that supports social connection among people of different ages. It also allows grant funds to be used for operational costs, including administrative expenses and lease or rental costs, for senior villages that provide access to these spaces. The Governor must include at least $100,000 annually in the budget for these grants, and at least 20% of that funding must support senior villages.
Impact
SB530 amends Section 10-1201 of the Human Services Article to broaden the Department of Aging’s grant authority and to add new statutory definitions and funding requirements. It creates a new category of eligible grant use for multigenerational third places, requires public notice of grant opportunities, and directs the Department to notify local area agencies on aging when grants are awarded within their jurisdictions. The bill also establishes a minimum annual appropriation and a set-aside for senior villages, affecting how state aging-services funds are allocated and administered.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad support. It was reported favorably from committee and passed the Senate 45-0, then passed the House 118-13. The strong vote totals suggest general agreement with the bill’s goals of supporting older adults, social connection, and aging in place, with only limited opposition in the House.
Contention
The main policy question is whether state grant funds should be used not only for direct aging-in-place services but also for social programming and operating costs tied to multigenerational third places and senior villages. Supporters likely view these spaces as a way to reduce isolation and strengthen community-based aging supports, while opponents may have concerns about expanding grant eligibility, setting aside a portion of funds for a specific model, or using public money for lease and administrative costs rather than direct services. The recorded votes show little controversy overall, but the House’s 13 no votes indicate some disagreement with the funding approach or scope of the program.