research-l Mailing List: Re: Any work on quantifying value of cohousing for seniors?

[Susan Elster (elster.sm]

Thank you Angela. Great leads. I’ll let you know if I need help accessing full texts (thanks for that offer too).

 

And Cheryl, It’s an interesting question: do opportunities for social interaction impact health/mental health, no matter what form those interactions take (e.g., active participation in a neighborhood or religious community; living with a partner and nobody else; living with parents/children/grandchildren; living with a pet; living , and if so, how? It would be interesting to develop a typology of housing variations based on level and kind of social interaction.  

 

Thank you!

 

From: research-l <research-l-bounces+elster.sm=gmail.com [at] cohousingresearchnetwork.org> On Behalf Of Angela Sanguinetti
Sent: 28 May, 2019 6:54 AM
To: Susan Elster <elster.sm [at] gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [research-l] Any work on quantifying value of cohousing for seniors?

 

Hi Susan,

 

Below is a short rough summary I wrote about benefits of cohousing for aging, along with references, so maybe something in there is a good lead. Let me know if you need any help finding full texts of these articles.

 

AGING BETTER

Individual. Several conceptual papers lay out the theoretical benefits of senior cohousing and aging in community. Individual benefits are the focus and center on well-being and independence/aging in place supported by activities of mutual assistance, e.g., doing errands, driving, cooking, or going for a walk with a neighbor, social capital, and a sense of safety. Rodman (2013) notes that senior cohousing facilities can include housing for a caregiver for residents. Coele (2014) suggests that intergenerational cohousing can address the changing assistance needs of disabled and older residents whilst giving younger resident assistants an equity stake in the housing market.

 

Several empirical studies support these hypotheses. Choi (2004) surveyed residents in 28 senior cohousing communities throughout Denmark and Sweden, with a resultant sample of 536. He found that most respondents were healthy, 70‐year‐olds, and satisfied with their life in community. Kang, Lyon, and Kramp (2012) studied residents motivations for moving into senior cohousing and the top three themes were community, autonomy, and downsizing. Glass and colleagues (2009, 2013) studied ElderSpirit senior cohousing, from its birth and longitudinally. Founding residents were more likely to be childless and/or divorced/never married compared to the general older population. Mutual support was again a significant motivation for residents. Glass noted ElderSpirit Community is important given the caregiver shortage and desire for nursing home alternatives. She interviewed 26 residents to develop a conceptual model of aging better together intentionally, then surveyed residents three years later. Quantitative analysis of survey data supported the existence of mutual support, increased acceptance of aging, and feelings of safety/comfort/less worry/lessening of social isolation as benefits of this type of living arrangement.

Wider Community. Borgloh and Westerheide (2012) considered the broader impact of mutually supportive housing for seniors via a comparative cost analysis of four housing projects in Germany. They used a propensity score matching approach to compare costs for support of older people in mutual support based housing projects with a control group of people living in conventional settings. Their results, based on a sample of more than 700 residents, suggest improvements in living satisfaction and a substantial potential for socioeconomic cost savings, partially explained by better development of residents' health status. I think there is much more to be done along these lines, and even just in terms of replication among US cohousing and pulling in data on the aging baby boomer population and shortage of other appropriate housing options.

 

Borgloh, Sarah, and Peter Westerheide. "The Impact of Mutual Support Based Housing Projects on the Costs of Care." Housing Studies 27.5 (2012): 620-42.

Choi, Jung Shin. "Evaluation of Community Planning and Life of Senior Cohousing Projects in Northern European Countries 1." European Planning Studies 12.8 (2004): 1189-216.

Glass, A. P. "Aging in a Community of Mutual Support: The Emergence of an Elder Intentional Cohousing Community in the United States." Journal of Housing for the Elderly 23.4 (2009): 283,303 21p.

Glass, Anne P., and Rebecca S. Vander Plaats. "A Conceptual Model for Aging Better Together Intentionally." Journal of Aging Studies 27.4 (2013): 428-42.

Glass, Anne P. "Lessons Learned from a New Elder Cohousing Community." Journal of Housing for the Elderly 27.4 (2013): 348,368 21p.

Kang, Mihyun, Melinda Lyon, and Jessy Kramp. "Older Adults' Motivations and Expectations Toward Senior Cohousing in a Rural Community." Housing & Society 39.2 (2012): 187-202.

Angela Sanguinetti, Ph.D.

Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA)

Behavioral Scientist, Consumer Energy Interfaces Lab at UC Davis

Director, Cohousing Research Network

 

 

On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 12:37 AM Susan Elster <elster.sm [at] gmail.com> wrote:

Hello all,

 

We are seeking government assistance and are exploring the possibility of employing social impact bonds to help finance a cohousing project in Israel. I’m aware of lots of research on impacts of isolation on morbidity and mortality – just haven’t seen estimates of the economic value of these impacts.

 

Is anyone aware of any work quantifying cohousing’s impact for this demographic? It would help quantify the savings of investing in cohousing – which could make a difference in this single-payer country.

 

Thanks much,

Susan Elster

_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
https://lists.cohousingresearchnetwork.org/mailman/options/research-l/angelasanguinetti%40gmail.com