GIA_photo_contest_park_lake_400pThe house is burning with a child and his elderly grandmother inside. Which one should be saved?

Too often, this feels like the question being posed when thinking about the allocation of resources, whether through policy action or philanthropic investments. But this is the wrong question. In most cases, there is no need for this intergenerational Sophie’s choice.

This false war-between-the-generations framing gets used both in the media—as we saw last year from one of health care’s favorite provocateurs—and in everyday conversations with people who are generally supportive of our mission to improve the health of older adults.

Despite ample evidence to the contrary, we frequently run up against this idea that older people have already gotten their share. That older adults have and will continue to gobble up resources, endangering the next generation’s future. They are already rich from “entitlement” benefits through Social Security and Medicare. They are simply “greedy geezers.”

First, while not taking anything away from the real and pressing needs of many of the country’s children, it is important to continually debunk this myth about older adults and wealth. The median income of older persons in 2012 was only $27,612 for males and $16,040 for females (it is well-documented that women are at greater risk for poverty, particularly as they age). More than 3.9 million older people were below the federal poverty line—which is based on outdated assumptions about the cost of living from the 1960s and even 1950s—in 2012.

The figure is really closer to 6.4 million older adults, or 15 percent of the 65-plus population, who are living in poverty as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau’s new Supplemental Poverty Measure. The measure offers a more accurate accounting than the official poverty rate by looking at regional differences in cost of living and adding in the value of non-cash benefits, such as food stamps and low-income tax credits.

Secondly, the accounting for what the government spends on older adults versus children, which is sometimes reported as steeply tilting in favor of the former, isn’t straightforward and requires thoughtful analysis. As Chris Langston wrote last year, considering Social Security income as a federal outlay for elders—and not viewing it as a benefit system we all pay into and which will serve children who will one day grow up and retire—doesn’t make sense. Sometimes, even when the analysis is correct, the media still buys into the attention-grabbing headlines that pit older people versus kids.

Third, when it comes to philanthropy, the trend remains very clear. Foundations overall are much more interested in funding programs that specifically benefit children and youth relative to older adults specifically. The crude measure we have for philanthropic dollars going to aging issues has remained steady at around 2 percent.

So even though the myth of the “greedy geezers” has shown itself to be seemingly impervious to facts, it’s important that those of us in the aging and health field continue to vigorously counter the false notion that somehow older adults are taking resources away from children.

The right question, the one we should be discussing, is what level of support is required to meet the needs of older Americans? The same question applies regarding children and youth. This is not an either-or proposition.

Next week, we’ll get a chance to meet for the annual gathering of Grantmakers In Aging (GIA), a membership organization of funders interested in the broad well-being of older adults, which fortunately has been growing in numbers. This group also has the right perspective about the allocation of resources: While we do want to see growth in philanthropic dollars toward aging-related programs, it doesn’t need to be at the expense of children or other populations.

In fact, GIA’s Community AGEnda project, which aims to help communities become age-friendly, is a great example. “Great Places to Grow Up and Grow Old”—that very nicely frames the issue as we see it. (The accompanying photo was the first prize winner in the Parks and Community category of GIA's "Friendly Places, Friendly Faces" photo contest.) And it’s not like GIA is a newcomer to intergenerational programs. There are always very good sessions on the topic at the annual meeting.

As certain as I am that no one in GIA believes we should reduce spending or investments on children, I am as certain that our colleagues at Grantmakers for Children, Youth and Families would take the corollary stance. The trick is to more efficiently use the resources we have toward programs that work, and to find solutions that have benefits for multiple populations. Foundations, the government, and other entities that make investments in improving society need to work together, across populations and sectors.

And we need to get rid of the false choices that pit one generation against another.