Aging in a Community of Mutual Support and Spiritual Growth
ElderSpirit Community1
Aging in a Community of Mutual Support and Spiritual Growth:
The Case of ElderSpirit Community
Corresponding Author:
Anne P. Glass, Ph.D.
Assistant Director, Institute of Gerontology
Assistant Professor, Health Policy & Management
College of Public Health
University of Georgia
110 Slaughter Building
255 East Hancock Avenue
Athens, GA 30602-5775
706-425-3222
Acknowledgements: Both ElderSpirit Community and this research have received grant support from the Retirement Research Foundation.
The author would like to highlight the important role of several individuals in making ElderSpirit Community a reality, including Dene Peterson, Catherine Rumschlag, and Kathy Hutson. Monica Appleby, Anne Leibig, and Jean Marie Luce worked with the author in 2001 to create the model of late life spirituality included in this article. Special thanks go to Monica Appleby, a resident of ESC, for opening up her home to the author during on-site research and coordinating the interview schedule. The author appreciates all the residents of ESC who generously agreed to give of their time to participate in the study. Finally, the author would like to acknowledge the assistance of Marilyn Schroeder with data management and helpful comments on the manuscript.
Aging in a Community of Mutual Support and Spiritual Growth: The Case of ElderSpirit Community
Abstract
Purpose: This article describes an innovative alternative now emerging for older adults: the elder-only cohousing community. ElderSpirit Community (ESC) in Virginia, among the first such communities in the U.S., is a resident-managed, mixed-income, mixed-ownership model, focusing on mutual support within a broad spiritual context. This portrait of ESC’s origin and “charter residents” demonstrates that elders can proactively preplan to intentionally live “in community” to help take care of themselves.
Design and methods: The overall project design of this case study includes a collection of baseline descriptive data followed by a three-year longitudinal study. An ethnographic approach with in-depth interviews is being used to understand how this opportunity to live in community is interpreted by residents. Baseline quantitative data collected via a written questionnaire are reported here.
Results: The sample of 32 residents was white and most were female (78.13%), with an average age of 70.38 (range: 63-84). Compared to the general older population, they were more likely to be childless and to be divorced or never married. They were diverse in religion and occupational backgrounds and, similar to European cohousers, largely homogeneous in social class, education, and race. They were unlike cohousers with their generally lower income levels.
Implications: The desire for alternatives to nursing homes and the shortage of traditional caregivers make this study important. Little research has been done on elder non-kin caregiving, but mutual support was a significant motivation to choose ESC. Lessons learned from ESC may help facilitate “aging in community.” (245 words)
KEYWORDS: nonkin caregiving, cohousing, sense of community
Aging in a Community of Mutual Support and Spiritual Growth: The Case of ElderSpirit Community
Introduction
A growing number of older adults and baby boomers are rebelling against the threat of spending their final years lonely and bored, wondering who will take care of them, and ending life in a conventional nursing home. A new alternative now emerging is the intentional cohousing community for elders. This article describes the origin of one of the first such communities, ElderSpirit Community (ESC) in Abingdon, Virginia, which opened in 2006, and provides a portrait of the “charter residents” of ESC. ESC is additionally unique as it is the only low to moderate income and mixed ownership elder cohousing community in the United States. Cohousing has existed in the United States for over 30 years, but is only now being adopted for elder-only communities. Cohousing communities are characterized by resident management and decision making (Durrett, 2005) and are designed to encourage a sense of community among residents. With these attributes, elder cohousing has the potential to provide a better quality of living for many older adults. ESC is the vanguard of a nascent movement that has recently gained a name: “aging in community.”
Another goal of some elder cohousing communities, which could prove to become a benefit with significant consequences, is the provision of mutual support. The population over 65 will double by 2030, but the population of traditional caregivers – generally women in the middle age ranges – will increase only slightly during the same period (Day, 1996), and the baby boom generation is more likely than past generations to have only one or no children (Gironda, Lubben, & Atchison, 1999; National Center for Health Statistics, 2005). With the shortage of traditional caregivers already beginning to cause challenges, the question of whether elders could possibly help take care of each other becomes a very important area of research. In the United States, where there is such an emphasis on independence, we seldom choose to live in a group setting, but this arrangement might be exactly what is needed when we are low in resources. Furthermore, many elders fail to plan ahead and instead wait until a crisis occurs that makes them dependent, and they wind up in institutions. There is little work thus far that has explored the potential of non-kin, non-paid caregiving (e.g., Barker, 2002; Johnson & Barer, 1990), especially among older peers. How do we cultivate and nurture such care? These questions are among those to be addressed in the case study of ESC as it evolves. What is already proven, and will be demonstrated in this article, is that preplanning can occur, and elders can proactively choose a new option: living and aging intentionally “in community.”
The Elder Cohousing Concept
Cohousing communities are especially designed to encourage the development of a sense of neighborhood and community. McCamant and Durrett (1994) are credited with coining the term “cohousing” and launching the idea in the United States in the 1970s. Since that time, intergenerational cohousing communities have developed in at least 21 states, with about 5,000 Americans living in over 90 cohousing communities (Perrigan, 2006; Williams, 2005). The original cohousing concept is associated with Denmark, although similar communal living developments could also be found in Sweden and the Netherlands during the same period (Meltzer, 2005). Key common features identified by Fromm (1991) and cited in Brenton (2001) include: “common facilities; private dwellings; resident-structured routines; resident management; design for social contact; resident participation in the development process; and pragmatic social objectives” (p.171). While cohousing has been touted as a solution to empower women and single parents (Horelli & Vespa, 1994), and to overcome suburban alienation (Scanzoni, 2000), relatively little has been written about the role of cohousing for older adults. The research literature that does exist focuses on developments outside of the United States (see for example, Andresen & Runge, 2002; Brenton; Choi, 2004). Elder cohousing is more common in Europe; there are 2,800 elder cohousing units in Sweden and 2,100 in the Netherlands, with at least 28 such communities (Choi, 2004) in Denmark and Sweden.
In these countries, it is not viewed as an alternative to the nursing home, but residents may receive home help around the clock, if needed. It is also possible that neighbors will provide support to each other, and in fact, residents do appear to help each other more than in conventional housing (Choi, 2004). A pilot group in the United Kingdom was described as advantageous because “it is addressing the challenge of ageing society in promoting continued independence, an active life and mutual support by means of a self-help formula which should reduce demands made on local services”(Brenton, 2001, p. 183).
As a group, older adults in the Dutch CoHousing Communities committed to the concept of mutual support for their members (Brenton, 2001). About 200 communities have formed since 1981, ranging from six to 70 units. In their experience, the number most conducive to promoting this sense of community is between 30 and 40 individuals. Women outnumber male residents about three to one, and the average age is approximately 70. Most European older cohousers are among the relatively “young old.” An overview of Danish elder cohousing shows the average resident age is 62 at the time of moving in (Andresen & Runge, 2002) and the average age of residents overall is 70 (Choi, 2004), similar to the Dutch. Limited early research in Europe shows that residents feel positively about both the social and physical environment (Andresen & Runge) and the majority (75.7%) would strongly recommend this option to others (Choi).
Much has been written about the physical design of intergenerational cohousing communities (Durrett, 2005; Meltzer, 2005; Williams, 2005) and the usage of social contact design (SCD). The neighborhood design and the inclusion of communal facilities, such as a common house where meals can be shared, are key elements. The common house may also contain a mail room, a laundry, a crafts room, and other features, with the goals of promoting the interaction of residents as well as sharing space and function in order to live more simply. The community is also typically designed with green space between the houses, rather than a paved street in the center, in contrast to the traditional suburban neighborhood where people drive home, park in their garages, and may not see their neighbors at all. Cars in cohousing communities are parked away from the units; some communities are car free (Williams).
The notion of sharing facilities, such as washing machines and televisions, is also part of the philosophy of cohousing. Generally, cohousing residents are interested in living more gently on the land; thus there is often a lesser emphasis on materialism and ownership (Marcus & Dovey, 1991; Meltzer, 2005; Williams, 2005). Building the units close together and sharing common green spaces are another part of this orientation. Units are typically smaller than average, with the idea that some functions can be conducted in the common spaces.
Among the other features characteristic of cohousing (Durrett, 2005; Fromm, 1991), there are four of note that are organizational. The first is a participatory process, which optimally begins before or during the design phase. Second is resident management, and the third is non-hierarchal structure and decision making. In many communities, decisions must be reached by consensus, which may require more effort than simply voting on issues. The fourth feature is that there is no shared community economy, which separates this model from the traditional “communes.”
Making the Elder Cohousing Concept Operational
A small group of pioneers launched an experiment in the rural setting of Abingdon, Virginia, to provide an alternative to traditional options for older adults: a community of mutual support. They created ESC, one of the first two elder cohousing communities in the nation. The first is Glazier Circle in Davis, California, which opened in December 2005, and a third, Silver Sage, opened in October 2007, in Boulder, Colorado. The first residents began to move into ESC in February 2006.
Philosophical and Cultural Dimensions
The founders of ESC are members of a community service and action group called the Federation of Communities in Service (FOCIS), which has been in existence since 1967. One member, Dene Peterson, challenged the group to think about how they would like to live as they got older. A committee was formed in 1995 called FOCIS FUTURES. They recognized that not all caregiving answers are going to come from families and corporations, and they were the catalyst for the development of ESC. Inspired in part by an article by Drew Leder (1996) about spiritual communities for elders, the founders have made ESC unique from other options for older adults in several ways.
First, ESC was created by a group of elders who had a vision, wanted something different, participated in the planning and design, and created the reality, overcoming many obstacles along the way. Second, they chose to use the cohousing format, which had not been previously tested in an elder-only model; other cohousing in the United States has been intergenerational. Third, ESC is designed for moderate to low income residents, again an anomaly as most cohousing, and indeed, most traditional retirement communities, target middle to higher income individuals. Fourth, it is self-managed by the residents and encompasses both owners and renters in the same community. Consistent with the cohousing model, there is no shared economy. Fifth, ESC invokes an emphasis on spirituality, described as a “dynamic process involving openness to activities of one’s soul or spirit that foster a sense of meaning and purpose in life” (ESC brochure, 2005). Finally, and arguably most importantly, ESC aspires to be a community of mutual support. This project differs from the past because such an intentional cohousing community for elders has never before existed in the United States. Their mission statement (ESC website, 2007) reads:
ElderSpirit Community is a participatory membership organization for older adults that provides opportunities for growth through later life spirituality programs and the formation of communities and residential centers.
Consistent with the characteristics outlined in overviews of Danish and Dutch elder cohousing (Andresen & Runge, 2002), ESC is newly-built and units face the common area. It has 29 units, comparable to the Danish average of 20 to 30 units, where they found 24 units to be ideal in size (Brenton, 2001). At ESC, the 13 owned houses are one story and grouped in duplexes and triplexes on one side of the common green space, while there are two floors of rental units in two separate buildings on the other side. The latter design was determined by the steepness of the site, which allows all units to be entered from ground level. The units on the upper level have parking at the door, while all other residents must park in lots at either end of the community. Four small apartments are in the common house and were completed after the other units. The common house is toward one end, rather than in the middle. Residents may have gardens in front or back of their units; they may also have additional garden plots in a community garden. Additionally, there is a house adjacent to the ESC property in which two FOCIS members have lived for several years as the plans for ESC developed and became a reality. Two other women have recently moved into an apartment in this house as well, drawn by the ESC model. While physically located slightly “up the hill” from ESC, these four individuals are very involved with and part of the cohousing community; in effect, adding two more units to make the total number of 31.
As part of an early visioning process, five years before ESC took physical form, a model of Late Life Spirituality, broadly defined, was created (see Figure 1). A review of relevant literature was conducted, but no adequate model was found to be of use for the desired purpose. Thus, a model was created by Monica Appleby, Anne Leibig, and Jean Marie Luce, working with the author, as an ESC Strategic Planning Task Force. In this model, six dimensions of spirituality are identified: Inner Work, Caring for Oneself, Mutual Support, Community Service, Reverence for Creation, and Creative Life. These six dimensions are viewed as the embodiment of the values of ESC and aspects of each dimension are outlined. In addition, examples of how these dimensions might be “lived out” are included in the “exemplified by” section. This model was part of an effort to begin to articulate how ESC might look, and provides a conceptualization of the underlying philosophy. The concept of mutual support has been further described by Appleby, Leibig, and Luce as part of an ESC Extension Project to be a dynamic relationship that involves three actions/interactions: (1) care of self, (2) asking for support, and (3) giving support.
[Figure 1 about here]
Associated with this model, a “Goodness of Fit” tool (see Figure 2) was developed to help elders decide if this type of community might be appropriate for them. This tool is included on the ESC website as well as in the application packet, and can be used by interested individuals to “self-select” those who are looking for a community that holds the values outlined in the spirituality model.
[Figure 2 about here]
Before construction began, many efforts were made by those associated with ESC to involve potential residents through courses, retreats, informal meals and get-togethers, and formal planning sessions. These efforts created opportunities to begin to build a sense of community during the lengthy construction period. Potential residents also had opportunities to play a role in the design process, and in fact, owners were given many individual choices in the construction and lay-out details of their units.
An avowed hope of ESC founders was that residents could remain at home until they died, if at all possible. Will neighbors help with hands-on care when that time comes? While some researchers (Jason & Kobayashi, 1995) believe that the “sense of community” has diminished in our society over time, elder cohousing offers a way to build and strengthen that sense. In the Danish cohousing study, “Being close to each other also implies taking part in the happy events of each other’s lives as well as in more sorrowful times” (Andresen & Runge, 2002, p. 161). Can a group of elders develop a sense of community that will be strong enough to see them through difficult times? The answers to these questions are crucial to the well-being and quality of life for those adults in their later years.