Doing It My Way
Doing It My Way
Purpose. Historically, hotels and single-room occupancy residences have provided room, board, and social support services to elders, in particular the poor and the disenfranchised. This article presents the results of a case study drawn from a larger ethnographic community study that set forth to describe how and why elders from one rural community chose to live in a motel in that same rural community. The focus of this study is a description of 7 middle-income and affluent rural elders living in a motel setting as a housing option that enabled them to remain independent in their community.
Design and Methods. Using a community study ethnographic design and the strategies of formal and informal interviews, participant observation, and inductive comparative case study analysis, this study provides a description of why these elders decided to live in the motel and how this facilitated their living in the community.
Results and Implications. Reasons that these elders decided to live at the motel included "saving my energy for living," "safety," "connections and privacy," and "the freedom to come and go." This study informs elder care policy, emphasizing the importance of naturally occurring networks to develop community capacity for healthy aging in one rural setting.
Aging of the United States' (U.S.) population and concerns about current and future financing of elder care are well known (CMS, 2012). This demographic trend is especially significant in the rural Midwest, which is experiencing one of the largest increases in the proportion of elderly persons in the United States (Johnson & Carsey Institute, 2006). During the period of this research, Medicare and Medicaid expenditures for institutional elder care totaled $52.4 billion (Holtz-Eakin, 2005). Yet most of the assistance that is provided to elders continues to be informal, uncompensated care from family, friends, and neighbors (AARP, 2007; Administration on Aging, 2011). Community-based elder care services, home care, and assisted living programs are intended to assist elders and their family members with meeting needs, maintaining at least a minimal quality of life, and preventing more costly institutional care. In many rural areas, however, these care and living options are not available, and in both urban and rural communities, many older persons cannot afford these options or are required to be impoverished to qualify for federal assistance (Johnson & Carsey Institute, 2006). Further, some elders, even if they can afford to pay for institutional care privately, are unwilling to relinquish the degree of independence and self-control over their lives that would be required (Stafford, 2009). These circumstances prompt a substantial number of elders to seek and create other options, such as service cooperatives and senior cohousing, where elders are "taking hold of their own destiny" and organizing ways to age in place (Stafford, 2009). However, the ways elders have constructed and are constructing these natural systems of care made up of diverse living arrangements with formal and informal care support, remains understudied (Skemp Kelley, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c; Stafford, 2009). The research reported here describes how some community-dwelling middle-income and affluent elders chose to live in a motel setting and construct their own system of care support. The research shows how this choice helped them remain independent in their local rural community and describes the advantages they perceive for the quality of their lives.
Hotels and boarding houses have provided residence for elders and others since the 1790s (Brownrigg, 2006). In a historical review of hotel living since the early 20 Century, Groth (1994) describes how hotels have provided both permanent and temporary housing to persons of financial means, as well as the poor and homeless. Different kinds of elder residence hotels were available for the different social classes. "Palace" hotels for the affluent anticipated residents' needs, including servants to clean and maintain their rooms, sophisticated meals, and services to make social arrangements. At the other end of the spectrum, lower class hotels and "flophouses" provided little more than a place to sleep.
Single-room occupancy (SRO) hotels provide inexpensive single-room housing to transient laborers, urban elders, and with the deinstitutionalization movement in the 1960s, the chronically mentally ill. SRO housing is defined differently by state and local ordinance (for an extensive overview of hotel, motel, SRO, and different housing definitions, see Brownrigg, 2006). Generally, SROs, for a short-term rental fee, provide a room, in-room or shared bathrooms, and kitchen facilities (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2012). The SRO may have 24-hr desk service, housekeeping, lounge, and a dining area (Groth, 1994; Linhorst, 1991). Building conditions range from well managed, clean, and safe to poorly managed, dilapidated, and dangerous. Historically, urban SRO districts have included Old Minneapolis's Skid Row (Hart & Hirschoff, 2002), San Diego's urban district and "skid row" (Eckert, 1980), San Francisco's Tenderloin District and Gray Ghetto (Minkler, 1985, 2006), Manhattan's West Side (Burnett & Walsh, 1973), and Chicago's West Side Main Stem, or Skid Row (http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/613.html).
Although some SRO residents historically reported feelings of social isolation (Eckert, 1980; Hoch & Slayton, 1989; Stephens, 1976), there is an extensive body of research on the sense of support, social engagement, improved health status, and sense of community that may develop for hotel-dwelling elders, including those with chronic mental illnesses (Cohen & Sokolovsky, 1979, 1980, 1983; Cohen, Teresi, & Holmes, 1985; Eckert, 1980; Greer, 1986; Hoch & Slayton, 1989; Minkler, 2006; Siegal, 1978; Sokolovsky & Cohen, 1978). In a survey of 485 New York SRO residents, Crystal and Beck (1992, p. 688) found that elders preferred to remain as SRO residents because they could stay in their downtown neighborhoods, maintain independence, and feel safe, "despite some adverse personal experiences."
Typically, SROs are not regulated through special rules; instead they are an unregulated, low-cost housing option. Section 8 SROs are defined and regulated differently by each state and local government (Brownrigg, 2006), but many other SROs, those located in rural areas and those that serve elders with adequate income, are not regulated. Gentrification of inner cities destroyed many SROs, resulting in a simultaneous rise in homelessness, but this has not been the case in many rural communities.
In an ethnographic exploration of people who live in hotels, motels, and SROs, Brownrigg (2006, p. 10) describes two basic patterns of residence: (a) the person either settles in permanently or sojourns on open-ended stays where they believe the stay is temporary; or (b) the person moves between a particular hotel and other places. However, little is known about rural elders living in motels. It may be instructive to providers of current long-term care institutions and policy makers to learn more about why some rural elders choose to live in hotels, motels, or SROs.
This study reports on seven rural elders who chose to live in the motel and how this facilitated their living in the community. These elders also participated in a larger research project to describe the community care systems of rural elders in the Midwest. Specifically, analysis addressed the question: Why are the elders living in the motel?
Abstract and Introduction
Abstract
Purpose. Historically, hotels and single-room occupancy residences have provided room, board, and social support services to elders, in particular the poor and the disenfranchised. This article presents the results of a case study drawn from a larger ethnographic community study that set forth to describe how and why elders from one rural community chose to live in a motel in that same rural community. The focus of this study is a description of 7 middle-income and affluent rural elders living in a motel setting as a housing option that enabled them to remain independent in their community.
Design and Methods. Using a community study ethnographic design and the strategies of formal and informal interviews, participant observation, and inductive comparative case study analysis, this study provides a description of why these elders decided to live in the motel and how this facilitated their living in the community.
Results and Implications. Reasons that these elders decided to live at the motel included "saving my energy for living," "safety," "connections and privacy," and "the freedom to come and go." This study informs elder care policy, emphasizing the importance of naturally occurring networks to develop community capacity for healthy aging in one rural setting.
Introduction
Aging of the United States' (U.S.) population and concerns about current and future financing of elder care are well known (CMS, 2012). This demographic trend is especially significant in the rural Midwest, which is experiencing one of the largest increases in the proportion of elderly persons in the United States (Johnson & Carsey Institute, 2006). During the period of this research, Medicare and Medicaid expenditures for institutional elder care totaled $52.4 billion (Holtz-Eakin, 2005). Yet most of the assistance that is provided to elders continues to be informal, uncompensated care from family, friends, and neighbors (AARP, 2007; Administration on Aging, 2011). Community-based elder care services, home care, and assisted living programs are intended to assist elders and their family members with meeting needs, maintaining at least a minimal quality of life, and preventing more costly institutional care. In many rural areas, however, these care and living options are not available, and in both urban and rural communities, many older persons cannot afford these options or are required to be impoverished to qualify for federal assistance (Johnson & Carsey Institute, 2006). Further, some elders, even if they can afford to pay for institutional care privately, are unwilling to relinquish the degree of independence and self-control over their lives that would be required (Stafford, 2009). These circumstances prompt a substantial number of elders to seek and create other options, such as service cooperatives and senior cohousing, where elders are "taking hold of their own destiny" and organizing ways to age in place (Stafford, 2009). However, the ways elders have constructed and are constructing these natural systems of care made up of diverse living arrangements with formal and informal care support, remains understudied (Skemp Kelley, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c; Stafford, 2009). The research reported here describes how some community-dwelling middle-income and affluent elders chose to live in a motel setting and construct their own system of care support. The research shows how this choice helped them remain independent in their local rural community and describes the advantages they perceive for the quality of their lives.
Living in Hotels and Single Room Occupancy Buildings
Hotels and boarding houses have provided residence for elders and others since the 1790s (Brownrigg, 2006). In a historical review of hotel living since the early 20 Century, Groth (1994) describes how hotels have provided both permanent and temporary housing to persons of financial means, as well as the poor and homeless. Different kinds of elder residence hotels were available for the different social classes. "Palace" hotels for the affluent anticipated residents' needs, including servants to clean and maintain their rooms, sophisticated meals, and services to make social arrangements. At the other end of the spectrum, lower class hotels and "flophouses" provided little more than a place to sleep.
Single-room occupancy (SRO) hotels provide inexpensive single-room housing to transient laborers, urban elders, and with the deinstitutionalization movement in the 1960s, the chronically mentally ill. SRO housing is defined differently by state and local ordinance (for an extensive overview of hotel, motel, SRO, and different housing definitions, see Brownrigg, 2006). Generally, SROs, for a short-term rental fee, provide a room, in-room or shared bathrooms, and kitchen facilities (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2012). The SRO may have 24-hr desk service, housekeeping, lounge, and a dining area (Groth, 1994; Linhorst, 1991). Building conditions range from well managed, clean, and safe to poorly managed, dilapidated, and dangerous. Historically, urban SRO districts have included Old Minneapolis's Skid Row (Hart & Hirschoff, 2002), San Diego's urban district and "skid row" (Eckert, 1980), San Francisco's Tenderloin District and Gray Ghetto (Minkler, 1985, 2006), Manhattan's West Side (Burnett & Walsh, 1973), and Chicago's West Side Main Stem, or Skid Row (http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/613.html).
Although some SRO residents historically reported feelings of social isolation (Eckert, 1980; Hoch & Slayton, 1989; Stephens, 1976), there is an extensive body of research on the sense of support, social engagement, improved health status, and sense of community that may develop for hotel-dwelling elders, including those with chronic mental illnesses (Cohen & Sokolovsky, 1979, 1980, 1983; Cohen, Teresi, & Holmes, 1985; Eckert, 1980; Greer, 1986; Hoch & Slayton, 1989; Minkler, 2006; Siegal, 1978; Sokolovsky & Cohen, 1978). In a survey of 485 New York SRO residents, Crystal and Beck (1992, p. 688) found that elders preferred to remain as SRO residents because they could stay in their downtown neighborhoods, maintain independence, and feel safe, "despite some adverse personal experiences."
Typically, SROs are not regulated through special rules; instead they are an unregulated, low-cost housing option. Section 8 SROs are defined and regulated differently by each state and local government (Brownrigg, 2006), but many other SROs, those located in rural areas and those that serve elders with adequate income, are not regulated. Gentrification of inner cities destroyed many SROs, resulting in a simultaneous rise in homelessness, but this has not been the case in many rural communities.
In an ethnographic exploration of people who live in hotels, motels, and SROs, Brownrigg (2006, p. 10) describes two basic patterns of residence: (a) the person either settles in permanently or sojourns on open-ended stays where they believe the stay is temporary; or (b) the person moves between a particular hotel and other places. However, little is known about rural elders living in motels. It may be instructive to providers of current long-term care institutions and policy makers to learn more about why some rural elders choose to live in hotels, motels, or SROs.
This study reports on seven rural elders who chose to live in the motel and how this facilitated their living in the community. These elders also participated in a larger research project to describe the community care systems of rural elders in the Midwest. Specifically, analysis addressed the question: Why are the elders living in the motel?
Source...