Journal of Aging Research group was held in the same location as the community forum approximately two months after the forum was convened and was made up of ﬁve individuals (approximately 20% of forum members). Like the forum participants, most focus group participants were female and Caucasian, with one or two individuals representing communities of color. Focus group participants also ranged in age from early 50s to mid- 70s. The focus group participants reviewed, clariﬁed, and added data to the transcripts and conﬁrmed that the themes identiﬁed by the researchers were reﬂective of the community meeting. The review by the focus groups provided credibility and trustworthiness (validity) to the qualitative ﬁndings, reinforcing a ﬁt between the respondents’ views and the researchers’ interpretation as well as being conﬁrmatory, for example, demonstrating that the study’s ﬁndings were not imagined [22]. This process, known as member checking, not only serves to validate ﬁndings but is empowering to the participants and reinforces the close relationship between the researchers and the informants in qualitative research [22]. 6. Results The researchers identiﬁed three major themes that emanated directly from the data and were conﬁrmed by the focus group. All three themes emerged from the open coding and were ultimately labeled as follows: social reciprocity, meaningful interactions, and structural needs/barriers. The three themes were identiﬁed and conﬁrmed by both boomers and older participants. 6.1. Social Reciprocity. This theme was directly related to the overarching focus on social connectedness but illustrated the importance of added value in these relationships. Within the theme of social reciprocity, giving and receiving to/from one’s community were both seen to be of equal importance. Some participants were currently volunteering or communicated an interest in doing so (giving). While exact ages were not available, it appeared that older adults (65+) were more likely to be active volunteers than their younger counterparts. Baby boomers expressed interest in volunteerism, while older adults may have already engaged in that process if they were interested. Many participants expressed an interest in receiving through such things as enhanced educational opportunities (e.g., more age-friendly options from the local community college and public university). The idea of educational opportunities at no or low cost was initially mentioned by younger participants. Participants also indicated that venues for creating social connectedness could come from both formal and informal entities. Formal entities are those which would require some infrastructure involving an organization or business, such as theater, outdoor concerts, or free movie nights. An example might be the initiation of social activities through city government, the local Chamber of Commerce, or even a local business. Informal entities would include activities that require limited resources, such as the creation of book clubs or neighborhood gatherings. Participants also suggested that such activities aimed at increasing social connectedness could be sponsored or inﬂuenced by community resources. 5 For example, through the Senior Activity Center, the city might sponsor a new boomer or senior walking group. Communities also could advocate for the development of social venues through inﬂuence. The city government, for example, could attempt to inﬂuence the policy of a not- for- proﬁt community organization regarding how cumbersome and degrading the process is for older adults with limited income to obtain reduced membership fees. Reciprocity between formal and informal systems could also occur. For example, a nongovernmental organization such as a church could recruit older volunteers from their congregation to volunteer in local schools. The theme of social reciprocity can and should conceptually occur at multiple levels, such as between governmental and non- governmental organizations, as well as between individuals and their community. In all aspects of the data, reciprocity (the mutual exchange of commercial or other privileges) was exempliﬁed as the willingness to give and receive in order to foster social connectedness. No one suggested getting something for nothing. Inherent in the discussion of social reciprocity was the notion that the relationship between the individual older persons may occur at multiple levels of community and environment. Relationships and mutual exchange might occur at the level of neighborhood, a community organization, or at the level of city government or policy advocacy. For example, some forum participants suggested helping others by providing space for a communal garden (neighborhood), while some suggested that develop- ing a volunteer position to work as a senior ombudsman related to negotiating city services would be beneﬁcial to the whole (city government level). This exchange improves the well-being of those being helped while fostering a sense of accomplishment and service. 6.2. Meaningful Interactions. While participants discussed the desire to give and receive in order to maintain social con- nectedness, they were clear, however, that these experiences should be meaningful both to themselves and others. While a high number of forum participants expressed a desire to volunteer in their community, they clearly stated that the activity should be meaningful to them and important to the community. This sentiment communicates the view that these individuals see themselves as having social capital (whether or not it is recognized by others). Volunteerism was seen as an important way to give back to the community. As one participant put it, “we should all volunteer, even if it is in the home—respite, visitor, chores.” The participants shared a collective view that the purpose of volunteering was not to kill time. Rather, participants were interested in sharing their passions, time, sense of history, and even sharing personal space to accomplish this end. One participant suggested that people share their gardens with others or help others to do crafts in their homes. Participants also viewed volunteering as a way they could advocate for others and for their commu- nity. Finally, if participants were to be involved in meaningful interactions through volunteering, they wanted to feel appreciated for the work they did. They voiced the concern that organizations often diminished or ignored the value of their time as volunteers and took volunteers for granted. It is