Shared Values, Contested Spaces: Staff Perspectives on How Policy Shapes Participation In Non-Profit Homeshareorganizations In California

Background and Purpose:
In recent decades, rising housing costs have been challenging for older adults. Staying in one’s home can allow individuals to remain independent and connected to their communities. However, for those seeking independence in their own home but needing companionship or light assistance, affording in-home support can be difficult. One option available is to become a “host” through a non-profit homesharing program. These organizations carefully vet and match older homeowners with an extra room in their home with “home seekers,” or individuals who are in need of housing. Arrangements may involve a “service exchange,” where the host requests light assistance with daily tasks in exchange for reduced rent. Emerging research suggests that many homeowners indicate that the background checks and careful vetting of potential tenants provides peace of mind. However, some older adult homeowners are hesitant to participate due to uncertainty about living with a stranger, even when supported by a homeshare organization. Policy can shape older homeowners’ motivations and level of comfort with homesharing. In this study, we interviewed staff and directors of homesharing organizations in California to gain insight about how policy impacts their work and older homeowners’ motivations to participate in homesharing.

Methods:
This study is a community-engaged qualitative research project. As part of the larger study, researchers conducted 60-90 minute in-depth semi-structured interviews via Zoom with 19 staff and directors from 14 home sharing organizations across California, and two 2-hour focus groups with eight directors representing seven organizations. The researchers used constant comparison techniques to identify patterns and unique perspectives in the transcripts (Strauss &Corbin, 1998).

Results:
Staff and directors discussed a range policies that impact non-profit homesharing organizations, particularly as they relate to recruitment of hosts. They discussed fear by many potential homeowners that they would not be protected bylaw if their tenant needed to be removed. Some discussed their experience of seeing very little legal support available for low-income homeowners. Further, some discussed misleading, inaccurate, or confusing guidance provided to homeowners about their rights and responsibilities related to fair housing laws. Directors disagreed about how to handle implementation of the “Lodger Law” (California Civil Code Section 1946.5), which outlines how homeowners with a person living within their own occupied dwelling can terminate the person’s occupancy differently than the usual eviction process. They discussed the fragmented enforcement across jurisdictions, while also expressing varied perspectives of how to address this problem. Lastly, they indicated a need for income tax exemption for homeowners who participate in non-profit homeshare organizations.

Conclusions and Implications:
Staff and directors shared concerns around consistency in interpretation and enforcement of tenancy law, the need for legal support for low-income “hosts” in homesharing organizations, and a desire for policy that would help incentivize homeowners to participate. In a state where many local jurisdictions hold similar values and priorities related to aging and homelessness, inconsistent approaches to tenancy law in the context of shared housing presents complex challenges. Local and state policymakers should consider policy solutions to these challenges.