TABLE 5 - uploaded by Gloria M. Gutman
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
Context in source publication
Context 1
... shown in Table 5, eight of the existing agencies are in a downtown location, eight are in mixed residential -commercial -industrial areas, one is in an industrial/commercial area, while one, at the time of the site visit, was described as "in the middle of nowhere". This agency, it should be noted, was scheduled to move the next month to a downtown location. ...
Citations
... As there are fiscal and ethical concerns due to the high cost of long-term care and the risk of premature institutionalization for older populations (Rekart & Trevelyan, 1990), various alternative housing initiatives have been developed to prolong independence and to support aging in place. One such initiative is homesharing: "a living arrangement in which unrelated people, not necessarily seniors, occupy a single dwelling, sharing common areas such as a kitchen, bathroom, and living room, but each maintaining a private space as well" (Gutman, Doyle, Melliship, & Baldwin, 1989). ...
... Whereas boarding arrangements of this nature have existed throughout history, the use of formal programs to arrange homesharing matches as a means of providing older adults with the necessary income, companionship, and assistance with activities of living independently necessary for them to remain in their home has only existed in Canada since 1980 (Johnstone, 2001), and in the United States since the 1970s (Gutman et al., 1989). According to HomeShare International (n.d.), the first homesharing program was adopted in 1991 in Spain, 1992 in Germany, and1993 in the United Kingdom and, as of April 2017, there are formal homesharing programs in 16 countries across the globe, including Australia, North America (Canada, United States), across Europe (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Republic of Ireland, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom), and in Asia (Korea and Japan), commonly involving the matching of older home providers with younger home seekers. ...
... Beyond the simple sharing of space, homesharing is transactional, operating on principles of social exchange (Danigelis & Fengler, 1990) between the matched participants ("homesharers"), recognizing that each participant has both needs and something to offer. An exchange agreement between homesharers outlines the conditions of the homeshare arrangement, usually involving a person agreeing to provide shelter ("home provider") to a person seeking to move into the home ("home seeker") in exchange for money, service provision, or a combination of the two (Gutman et al., 1989). Research indicates that older adults are primarily motivated to participate in homeshare for companionship, financial assistance, help with household tasks, and increased sense of security (Danigelis & Fengler, 1991;Gutman et al., 1989;Howe, 1985;Jaffe, 1989a). ...
Background and Objectives
“Aging in place” is commonly defined as the ability to remain living safely and independently for as long as possible either in the home or community of one’s choosing. Yet, the literature indicates that older adults prefer to remain specifically in their own homes. Homesharing, an innovative exchange-based housing approach, is a means by which older adults can obtain additional income, companionship, and assistance by renting out a room to a home seeker, potentially increasing capacity to remain living independently in their homes. But what is known about their experiences of homesharing?
Research Design and Methods
A scoping review was conducted to map and consolidate the literature related to the experience of homeshare participation for adults aged 55 and older published from 1989 to 2018. Fifteen databases were searched, including 3 medical, 5 social science, and 7 gray literature databases. Following abstract and full-text review, 6 sources were retained for study inclusion. Thematic content analysis was used to identify major themes.
Results
Within included studies, 4 major themes were identified: (i) benefits of homeshare participation for older adults; (ii) challenges of participating in homeshare for older adults; (iii) intergenerational engagement as social exchange; and (iv) the key role of agency facilitation.
Discussion and Implications
Findings were used to derive practice, policy, and research implications. By focusing on older adults and the ways homesharing impacts their lives, we can better determine the viability of homeshare as a means for improving and prolonging experiences of living at home.
... Innovations in housing strategies for the elderly and the disabled helped many live with dignity without depending on their families. (Doyle, 1989;Gutman, 1989;Gutman & Blackie, 1988;Blackie et al., 1985;CMHC, 1983) Universal public education from kindergarten to high school also contributed to greater equality and thus to health. (Myles, 2000;Banting, 1982;Guest, 1980) Unhke most of the support in the nineteenth century, many of these pro grams were defined as rights of citizenship rather than as charity schemes targeted at the deserving. ...
... Homesharing can be initiated in four different ways. Firstly, homesharing matches can be self-initiated or naturally occurring, whereby home sharers negotiate their agreement privately with little or no outside involvement (Gutman and Doyle, 1989;Jaffe, 1989). A second situation involves a housing registry, whereby an organization provides contact information but the home sharers must rely on their own capacities and resources to create a match (Schreter, 1986, Thornton, 1995. ...
... Both these types of homesharing programs are formal organizations that provide specific matchmaking services such as screening, matching, and follow-up services (Gutman and Doyle, 1989;Jaffe, 1989). Finally, programs can offer shared housing, whereby the program owns or manages a group home (CMHC, 1989;Gutman and Doyle, 1989;Jaffe & Howe, 1988), such as an Abbeyfield. ...
... Both these types of homesharing programs are formal organizations that provide specific matchmaking services such as screening, matching, and follow-up services (Gutman and Doyle, 1989;Jaffe, 1989). Finally, programs can offer shared housing, whereby the program owns or manages a group home (CMHC, 1989;Gutman and Doyle, 1989;Jaffe & Howe, 1988), such as an Abbeyfield. The primary focus of this study was on the third type: programs that provide matching services and referral and/or counselling to its clients. ...
