I for one, am against the Eden alternative. The original research findings [i.e., the alleged benefits] were really not all that statistically significant. It's a HUGE price to be 'Edenized.' I have a problem with it's developer 'selling' the program, since it was researched and developed using New York state grant monies. I think that anything that is developed and can be beneficial, that comes from grant monies, belongs to the people, and thus, should be given free of charge [with the exception of mailing and photocopy fees, etc.].
There was recently a whole article in Provider magazine that discussed the development of the Eden alternative. I knew some of it-- but not as much as the article in Provider magazine knew!!! VERY INTERESTING STUFF.
Also, in terms of the 'mechanics' of it, I know a few facilities in New York that are on their way 'back' from Eden. In theory the residents are the ones who should care for the plants/animals, etc. However, it usually turns out that activity staff get stuck maintaining the menagerie. This is unfortunate when those staff members could be better utilized providing one to one visits to residents who NEED such interventions.
A properly constructed pet therapy program [which could be coordinated by a good C.T.R.S.] is usually a better alternative.
In my humble opinion, if your facility has the money to spend 'edenizing'- spend it instead on increasing staffing, and hiring additional activity professionals to provide more individualized care to the residents.
Tis with our judgements as our watches, none go just alike, yet, each believes his own.