HOUSING, AGE-SEGREGATED

Any discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of age-segregated housing must be placed within the context of several important facts. Ninety percent of older adults live independently in age-integrated communities. Age-segregated housing options are marked by great diversity, ranging from inner-city housing projects to trailer parks to upscale continuing care retirement communities. Elders who moved to age-segregated settings generally express satisfaction with their housing situation, but so do older adults living in age-integrated settings. The vast majority of community-dwelling older adults would prefer to remain in their current home and never move (American Association of Retired Persons, 1992).

The debate

Given the great heterogeneity of age-segregated housing types, an abstract and global discussion of the pros and cons of such settings is of limited value because the debatable issues vary greatly from setting to setting. (For a detailed description of the advantages and disadvantages associated with each type of living arrangement for older adults, see Folts and Yeatts; Golant, 1992; and Tilson). One of the overarching themes in the debate has centered around older persons' ability to face their own aging.

Golant (1985) identified three types of elders whose attitude toward their own aging does or does not make them good candidates for age-segregated living. Those who strongly identify with age peers and who cannot relate to a youth culture would feel comfortable in an age-segregated setting. Elders of the second type, too, would prefer an age-segregated setting, but for very different reasons: Comparing themselves to younger persons and trying to measure up to their standards, these elders escape such unfavorable comparison by preferring to live among age peers. Elders of Golant's third type flat-out deny their oldness and can continue to do so by avoiding association with age mates and by seeking out age-integrated settings. Foster and Anderson present a similar argument in which they contrast the "escape-the-system" model of adaptation with the "confront-the-system" model of adaptation. They argue that elders who seek age-segregated settings try to ignore or deny old age by living in places that foster "pseudoactivity" although the authors concede that such settings may enhance the self-image of elders. While both of these models stress individual characteristics and make sense intuitively, they beg the question of why elders might have these feelings.

Jaber Gubrium's socio-environmental model stresses the fit between the level of functioning (activity resources) of a person and the environmental demands (activity norms) of a setting and provides some clues as to why elders might seek out or avoid settings with a given age composition. Age-integrated settings have high activity norms, that is, expectations for a wide variety of activities, while age-segregated settings have low activity norms. Older adults with high activity resources (health, money, social relations, social support, physical mobility) would feel comfortable in a setting with high activity norms but bored in one with low activity norms. Similarly, older adults with low activity resources would feel overwhelmed in a setting with high activity norms but comfortable in one with low activity norms. This model assumes that old persons living in either setting restrict their activities to that setting, which is clearly not the case. Elders living in age-integrated settings often form age-based subgroups, and many elders living in retirement communities have far-reaching ties beyond their housing environment.

Critics of age-segregated settings for older adults argue that such arrangements reflect the profound agism of our society, which pushes elders out of the mainstream of society and causes them to retreat into safe havens, thus isolating them from the rest of society, depriving them of community, preventing them from sharing their skills and wisdom, causing them to lead sad and lonely lives with low morale and no purpose, discouraging them from interacting with young people, and accelerating their mental and physical decline.

Such assertions reflect uninformed prejudice and ignorance of the empirical evidence. Most older persons living in age-segregated settings experience none of these problems. In some sense, many experience the best of two worlds: continued contact with the "outside world" and the benefits of living in a community of persons who have many other things than age in common. Age-segregated housing environments are most successful when their residents come from similar backgrounds and have had similar life experiences. For example, Arlie Hochschild's ethnography of Merrill Court, a congregate housing complex for working class widows, is one of many accounts we have of such settings. Hochschild's study revealed Merrill Court as offering its residents many opportunities for community creation: a rich life of social relations, subgroup formation, continued adherence to the work ethic, shared reminiscence, the freedom of joking about their own aging and impending death as well as continued contact with family and friends outside of Merrill Court.

All age-segregated settings provide opportunities for activities, and many are increasingly incorporating the concept of wellness, which encompasses physical functioning, and psychological, emotional, and spiritual well-being. The presence of age-mates mitigates the suffering caused by some of the losses associated with aging. Elders within age-segregated communities of all types develop networks of informal support. Continuing care retirement communities attract active and well elders who do not end their vital engagement in the community at large. Many find meaning in volunteering, travel, and continued involvement in political activities and civic matters. Early literature on the subject suggested that one of the attractions of retirement communities was that they allowed elders to escape from the world of the work ethic and to pursue leisure activities without being criticized. Subsequent research has shown that there are many other motivating factors for such a move, the most important one being the assurance of long-term care down the road.

Of course, service-rich age-segregated settings will have a considerable number of elders in ill or declining health. It would be absurd to suggest, as some early critics have done (Mumford), that age segregation accelerated such decline. Anticipation of and preparation for the need for care is one major reason older persons move to age-segregated settings. Similarly, studies comparing residents in age-segregated and age-integrated settings on such variables as social cognition (Cohen, Bearison, and Muller) or emotional closeness (Adams) hardly warrant the conclusion that any observed differences are the result of the setting rather than of a variety of individual attributes.

Age-segregated settings bestow on residents a sense of security and a lessened fear of crime, although age segregation by itself is no guarantee for safety. A very visible concentration of elders may actually invite attacks on persons considered easy victims if the housing is located in an unsafe neighborhood. Another benefit of age-segregated living is elders' ability to talk about and even prepare for death in the company of age-mates. On the physical-practical side, such settings offer an array of services and amenities all in one place—transportation, social activities, physical exercise, religious services, chore services, health care—that would be difficult and costly to obtain by frail elders in the community. Residents in such settings also look out for each other, and many derive a sense of well-being by helping frailer residents.

Types of age-segregated housing

One way of exploring the advantages and disadvantages of age-segregated housing is to ask who moves to such settings and why. A brief overview of the array of housing options for older adults will make it clear that the age structure of a setting is probably not the only consideration elders take into account when they choose among the many options available on the housing market. Resources and preferences (health, functional abilities, economic resources, informal support, embeddedness in community) and housing characteristics (availability, location, cost, amenities) are as important as age. One could even argue that for some older adults' age segregation is the accidental result of having opted for a number of amenities—most often the assurance of nursing care in the future—that happen to attract other older adults.

The continuum of housing options for older adults is most often described in terms of levels of independence, ranging from independent households at one end to nursing homes at the other end of the continuum, with each offering different levels of supportive services (Atchley, 1999). This difference in supportive services is reflected in the definition of three categories of retirement housing: age-segregated communities for active retirees with minimal or no services; congregate housing with a service package that most typically includes meals and socialization; and life care communities offering extensive long-term care (Stockman and Fletcher). Settings vary also in their willingness to accommodate residents' increasing frailty and thus allow them to age in place (Tilson).

Another important distinction is that between publicly and privately sponsored settings. Recent developments in the market for senior housing have largely been limited to the private sector while already inadequate public housing programs have experienced even greater losses, much to the detriment of poor elders who have few real choices amid the proliferating array of new options in senior housing (Golant, 1992). Among the five major types of affordable housing identified by Golant, low-rent apartment projects, either with or without some congregate services, are low-income elders' only age-segregated housing option. The demand for such housing vastly exceeds the supply and has resulted in long waiting lists of eligible elders who have few other options. Finally, there is the distinction between planned and naturally occurring (Hunt and Ross) or de facto age-segregated settings (Golant). While the former are quite visible and receive most of the publicity, the latter are evolving slowly and often imperceptibly in many places throughout the United States, shaped by demographic forces such as out-migration of the young, elders choosing to age in place or moving into apartment complexes where many older adults already reside (Sykes), and by other push and pull factors such as proximity to friends, physical features of the building, and increasing dissatisfaction with previous housing (Hunt and Ross).

Settings designed for active and independent retirees include continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), retirement villages, and retirement towns of varying sizes, with a selection of housing type and cost. Settings designed for frail elders include a number of types of congregate housing variously described as board and care homes, group homes, personal care homes, or adult care facilities, many of which provide adult care services in a home-like setting at relatively low cost. The recently developed concept of assisted living facilities is rapidly gaining in popularity. Designed for elders of varying levels of frailty, such facilities provide the level of care that meets individual needs short of continuous nursing care.

Future trends in senior housing

It is uncertain how the aging baby boomers will affect the housing market, given analysts' conflicting views of boomers' levels of savings and debts (Benjamin and Anikeeff). Demand for specific types of senior housing will vary by age, as it does now, with young, well, active, and mostly married elders opting for retirement communities and frail elders seeking more service-rich environments. During the first two decades of the twenty-first century, assisted living facilities will experience the largest growth in demand (Edelstein and Lacayo). Need or desire for care is the first and major housing decision elders have to make before they select a specific type of housing. This second decision will depend on a number of economic, demographic, sociological, and health factors. Edelstein and Lacayo predict that while up until 2020, the senior housing demand will grow considerably, there will be a shift from "intensive personal service [to] less personal-intensive congregate care and assisted living housing types" (p. 215). Growing attention to design issues exemplified by the concept of universal design and home modification, combined with a proliferation of in-home services, may widen elders' housing choices (Lanspery and Hyde). As in the past, preference for age-segregated or age-integrated settings will be one of many considerations entering into older adults' housing decisions.

Lisa Groger

See also Age Integration and Age Segregation; Continuing Care Retirement Communities; Long-Term Care; Retirement Communities.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, R. G. "Emotional Closeness and Physical Distance Between Friends: Implications for Elderly Women Living in Age-Segregated and Age-Integrated Settings." International Journal of Aging and Human Development 22 (1985–1986): 55–76.

American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). Understanding Senior Housing for the 1990s. Washington, D.C.: AARP, 1992.

Atchley, R. C. Social Forces and Aging—An Introduction to Social Gerontology, 9th ed. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Pub. Co., 1999.

Benjamin, J. D., and Anikeeff, M. A. "Primer on Key Issues in Seniors Housing." In Senior Housing. Edited by M. A. Anikeeff and G. R. Muller. Norwell, Mass.: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998. Pages 5–19.

Cohen, F.; Bearison, D. J.; and Muller, C. "Interpersonal Understanding in the Elderly: The Influence of Age-Integrated and Age-Segregated Housing." Research on Aging 9 (1987): 79–100.

Edelstein, R. H., and Lacayo, A. J. "Forecasting Seniors Housing Demand." In Senior Housing. Edited by M. A. Anikeeff and G. R. Mueller. Norwell, Mass.: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998. Pages 205–235.

Folts, W. E., and Yeatts, D. E. Housing and the Aging Population—Options for the New Century. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1994.

Foster, G. M., and Barbara, G. A. Medical Anthropology. New York: Wiley, 1978.

Golant, S. M. Housing America's Elderly—Many Possibilities/Few Choices. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1992.

Golant, S. M. "In Defense of Age-Segregated Housing." Aging 348 (1985): 22–26.

Golant, S. M. "Locational-Environmental Perspectives on Old-Age Segregated Residential Areas in the United States." In Geography and the Urban Environment. Edited by D. T. Herbert and R. J. Johnston. New York: Wiley, 1980. Pages 257–294.

Gubrium, J. F. "Toward a Socio-Environmental Theory of Aging." The Gerontologist 12 (1972): 281–284.

Hochschild, A. R. The Unexpected Community—Portrait of an Old Age Subculture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973.

Hunt, M. E., and Ross, L. E. "Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities: A Multi-attribute Examination of Desirability Factors." The Gerontologist 30 (1990): 667–674.

Lanspery, S., and Hyde, J., eds. Staying Put—Adapting the Places Instead of the People. Amityville, N.Y.: Baywood Publishing Company, 1997.

Mumford, L. "For Older People: Not Segregation But Integration." In Housing the Elderly. Edited by J. A. Hancock. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, 1987. Pages 39–47.

Stockman, L. E., and Fletcher, J. "Retirement Housing: A Maturing Market." Builder 8 (1985): 70–91.

Sykes, J. T. "Living Independently with Neighbors Who Care: Strategies to Facilitate Aging in Place." In Aging in Place: Supporting the Frail Elderly in Residential Environments. Edited by D. Tilson. Glenville, Ill.: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1990. Pages 53–74.

Tilson, D., ed. Aging in Place: Supporting the Frail Elderly in Residential Environments. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1990.