Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 59, No. 3, 2003, pp. 547--568

Double Indemnity or Double Delight? The HealthConsequences of Shared Housing and “Doubling Up”

Sherry Ahrentzen∗University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

With “doubling up” and shared housing increasing in the United States, it is timeto revisit and reconsider the research literature on the physical, psychological,social, and economic health consequences of these living conditions; and to con-sider how specific social and physical environmental factors of shared housingmay foster or deter healthy living situations for various household arrangements.In this light, this article examines the existing research in order to identify criticalconstructs and factors, and to craft research questions that can best guide futureinvestigations of homesharing in a direction that points towards viable and healthyhousing solutions, particularly for those in transitional life stages.

Since implementation of the U.S. government’s 1996 welfare reform act (thePersonal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act), and coupledwith increasing scarcity of affordable housing, reports of “doubling up” (i.e., twoor more households in one dwelling unit) have appeared in the press, often claimingdetrimental health consequences. While at first glance identifying the number andgrowth of these living conditions may seem relatively straightforward, it is not.And assessing the health consequences of such housing arrangements is even morecomplicated. As Koebel and Murray (1999) contend,

Household extension, often labeled “doubling-up,” is automatically considered an undesir-able reflection of high housing costs and inadequate incomes and a problem to be solved.However, evidence documenting this problem is scarce. To others, extension represents amore complex pattern of sharing economic and emotional resources and is complicated byrace, ethnicity and culture. (p. 126)

∗Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sherry Ahrentzen at the De-partment of Architecture, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53211[e-mail: sherrya@uwm.edu].

Nisha Fernando, Kapila Silva, and Lynne Dearborn assiduously located many of the referencescited in this article. My thanks to them all.

547

C© 2003 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues

548 Ahrentzen

Interestingly, Koebel and Murray’s analysis of data from the 1989 AmericanHousing Survey (AHS) showed that 26% of family households include personsoutside the householder’s nuclear family. (The most prevalent extensions are byadult progeny and by other relatives.) “Homesharing” thus appears to be moreprevalent than normally assumed. As such, it is time to revisit and reconsiderthe research literature on the likely physical, psychological, social, and economichealth consequences of homesharing arrangements; and importantly, consider thespecific physical and social environmental conditions of shared housing that fosteror deter healthy living situations for various household arrangements. In the popularpress and in public discussions, statements are often casually made about thedeleterious effects of such living arrangements. But such opinions are sometimesfounded on unsubstantiated or slanted interpretations of the research literatureon crowding, extrapolated to suggest that doubling-up circumstances—reflectingincreased household density—thus result in poorer health. Some of this researchdoes suggest the deleterious health consequences of doubling up under certainconditions. But another arena of research that is often ignored in considering thehealth outcomes of doubling up is that one examining the benefits and detrimentsof living in alternative forms of housing, including shared housing. Interest insuch living situations is growing among single-parent families, single adults, andthe elderly (e.g., see Daniel, 1998; Fioravante, 1993; Long, 1994; McLeod, 1996;Peterson, 1989; Quiason, 1987; Stock, 1997) in both match-ups in private homesas well as shared residences run by nonprofit organizations.

Thus, instead of proclaiming that doubling up or homesharing is an unhealthyliving condition—and often invoking crowding research to suggest such—thisarticle pursues a more productive line of discussion, by examining the social andphysical environmental conditions that can exacerbate or enhance healthy livingconditions among homesharers. Exploring the extant research literature, this articleaddresses the following questions:

• How is this living situation—reflected in the commonly used terms dou-bling up, household extension, shared housing, or homesharing—mostcommonly, but also most productively, characterized?

• How pervasive is this living situation in the United States?

• Why do people homeshare?

• What do we know about the effects of shared housing arrangements on theeconomic, social, psychological, and physical health of residents?

• What psychosocial, cultural, and physical design factors play a role (andhow) in the promotion or to the detriment of such health outcomes?

This inquiry does not lead to any definitive statements or guidelines. Rather,the goal here is to examine the existing research in order to identify critical con-structs and factors, and to craft research questions that can best guide future

Shared Housing and “Doubling Up” 549

investigation in a direction that points towards viable and healthy housing so-lutions, particularly for those in transitional life stages.

Characterizing Doubling Up and Homesharing

That health outcomes of doubling up or homesharing are often conflated withthose of crowding is problematic on two counts. First, there are few attemptedefforts to establish the concurrent validity of these two constructs—assumptionsare typically made, but rarely empirically examined. But while crowding is gener-ally conceptualized as a negative, subjective perception of density, the constructsof doubling up and homesharing may represent nonevaluative living conditions.Nearly two decades ago, Baldassare (1981) demonstrated that the social com-position of the household and certain role positions within it may facilitate orinhibit social adjustments to high density. Indeed, it is this factor—the nature ofthe social relationships of the occupants of a single housing unit—that typicallycharacterizes doubled-up or shared households. Yet the nature of these social re-lationships is generally not explicitly measured when examining the effects ofdoubling up.

A second difficulty of conflating crowding research with expected outcomesof doubling up and homesharing is the manner in which policy standards involvingcrowding are currently constructed. While one may think that health, safety, andwelfare concerns should be the sole or primary basis of regulatory standards ofcrowding or housing occupancy, this is not the case (Pader, 1998). Since the 1980s,numerous studies have been conducted examining the mental and physical effectsof residential crowding (for brief reviews, see Evans, in press; Halpern, 1995;Myers, Baer, & Choi, 1996). Scientific findings about the relationships betweencrowding and health have been inconsistent—some demonstrating links betweenhousehold density and disease or stress, others finding no such links. Innumerableresearch studies suggest that other physical environmental factors (e.g., confound-ing factors such as inadequate plumbing or roach infestation, or availability tooutside areas), personal variables (e.g., perceived control, age), and social condi-tions (e.g., socioeconomic status, social support, ethnic background, institutionalor residential context) mediate or moderate health outcomes in light of householddensity. Methodologies also result in different findings. Some researchers suggestthat in the absence of scientific evidence that substantiates health and safety out-comes, nationally applying a singular, uniform crowding standard that reflects aparticular, middle-class, culture-specific standard makes little sense (e.g., Pader,1994; Myers et. al. 1996). As Baer (1976) expressed a quarter century ago,

This is not to argue that selection of indicators and standards is completely arbitrary. It isnot. But their choice in the housing field is dictated as much by the political, economic, andsocial context of society as by absolute scientific findings. . . . Because there is no sufficientscientific basis for setting a PPR [person per room] standard in the way that engineers

550 Ahrentzen

rely upon science for setting standards for the span of a bridge, the opinion of expertstraditionally has been used . . . . In only one case was expert opinion tempered by a surveyof how housing occupants themselves felt about room densities, and by the context of thesituation. This study concluded that many households living with more than 1 person perroom do not consider themselves overcrowded. (pp. 365–366, 380–381)

As researchers have noted in pointing out the cultural bias in defining “crowded”households and establishing standards reflecting these biases (e.g., Pader, 1994,1998; Myers et al., 1996), the terms doubling up, shared housing, co-mingling,homesharers, and the like often have hidden judgments or values embedded withinthem. For example, doubling up is often used in a derogatory manner; co-minglingsometimes implies a loose moral standard. Yet households representing sharedliving arrangements can take many forms: several single farm workers in a one-bedroom apartment; young and unrelated venture capitalists who share a SiliconValley tract home, and whose only communication with each other is simply pass-ing each other in the hallway on their ways to work; two recently divorced womenwith their children sharing a townhouse; several elderly singles sharing a flat; andmany others.

Hemmens, Hoch, and Carp (1996) provide a typology of shared housing thatdepicts the variety of such living conditions based on what and how residentsshare—whether that be physical space, social life, tenure, or rent. This typologyhelps to situate the types of living arrangements that often fall under the termdoubling up or shared housing. In this article, I consider only those instances (a)by which homesharing occurs when multiple individuals or families—related ornot related—inhabit the same housing unit (i.e., house, flat, apartment), and usethe same kitchen, living space, and possibly bathroom; (b) where sociality andreciprocity occurs; (c) where tenure can be absentee or resident ownership; and(d) where rent sharing can involve in-kind services or cash rent. I have chosento include, also, those situations that are sometimes described in the literature asvoluntary and involuntary (e.g., see Wright, Caspi, Moffitt, & Silva, 1998). Vol-untary involves cohabiting for various social, romantic, and economic reasons ofconvenience, benefit, and pleasure, and each person usually considers that lodgingto be his or her home. Involuntary involves moving in with another because thereis no other desirable place to stay due to financial and social difficulties. In thesesituations, the person taken in does not consider the situation to be home (Wrightet al., 1998). However, as will be discussed later, such absolute “involuntariness”is often difficult to assess since homesharing may not be the most desired livingsituation but it is still preferred over other types of housing conditions, such ashomeless shelters or public housing. Henceforth, I will refer to people and hous-ing conditions that reflect the above characteristics as homesharers and sharedhousing, respectively.

However, my inclusive definition is not consistently shared in the research anddemographic literature. Counts of homesharing (e.g., Koebel & Murray, 1999; Lee,

Shared Housing and “Doubling Up” 551

1998; Link, Phelan, Bresnahan, Stueve, Moore, & Stuening, 1995) vary becauseof different definitions and classifications (e.g., some studies distinguish betweenvoluntary and involuntary homesharing, include or exclude nonfamilies), methodsof calculations and projections, and sampling procedures. Using U.S. census es-timates for 1996, for example, Lee (1998) claims that of the 153 million people18 years or older who belong to family groups, one-fifth live in housing units theydo not own or rent—a percentage somewhat lower than what Koebel and Murray(1999) found but still one reflecting a sizeable proportion of the U.S. housingpopulation. Many of the estimates of homesharers focus exclusively on the low-income or homeless population. Some researchers even consider homesharing atype of homelessness (e.g., Wright et al., 1998) since shared housing is not seen asa permanent or ideal living situation within dominant American housing norms.

Why Homeshare?

As Hemmens and Hoch (1996) point out, homesharing is conventionally seenas a reaction to an extraordinary circumstance, generally a lack of money (and theconditions that created this), such that one is unable to maintain one’s own indepen-dent home. But from their research of housing experiences of low-income familiesin Chicago, they identify four major reasons for homesharing. The emergencysituation and need is one type whereby households take in others for temporaryperiods to help them cope with a variety of calamities that may have occurred.Studies that focus on precursors to homelessness generally depict homesharing asa temporary strategy prior to seeking emergency shelter or living on the streets(e.g., Dehavenon, 1996; Wasson & Hill, 1998; Wright et. al., 1998).

But other studies have noted that homesharing sometimes reflects an oppor-tunity to live in a better quality home and/or neighborhood than one could affordwithout homesharing. This is what Hemmens and Hoch (1996) call subsidy butwhich I call residential improvement. While these situations are sometimes pre-cipitated by emergency needs, the intent is more than a temporary respite in adownward spiral. For example, Koebel and Rives (1993) found in their statewide(Virginia) survey of welfare-assisted families living in private, unassisted housingthat homesharing not only reduced the rent burden on these households, but it alsoimproved their housing quality: Homesharing households resided in homes withfewer physical problems than did those in nonhomesharing households. In con-trast though, Koebel and Murray’s (1999) assessment of the 1991 AHS data didnot indicate an improved housing condition among poor homesharing householdscompared to those who were not poor or homesharing. But for those not receiv-ing some form of housing assistance, homesharers did appear to live in betterneighborhoods, suggesting that these poor families sought living in better qualityneighborhoods or were at least free to search for housing in the wider market. Inher survey of 70 homesharers in Chicago and Milwaukee (discussed in more detail

552 Ahrentzen

in a later section), Despres (1991) found many respondents referred to the safetyof their neighborhood as a benefit of homesharing. By sharing the cost of housingwith others, some homesharers could then afford to live in safer neighborhoods.

A third incentive for homesharing is that such living arrangements promotewhat Hemmens and Hoch (1996) call growth and change but which I term socialsupport. I include here both instrumental and emotional support. Instrumentalsupport refers to things such as material and financial assistance, practical advice,assistance with domestic tasks and responsibilities, and child care. Emotionalsupport refers to things such as encouragement, the opportunity to express feelings,companionship, the affirmation of self-worth, and so forth (Halpern, 1995).

Despres (1991, 1994) discovered that homesharers’ experiences were quitepositive and minimally frustrating. When first deciding to homeshare, her respon-dents claimed that the main reason was economic, with a desire for companionshipsecond. Yet, the respondents found in shared housing the extra psychological, phys-ical, and financial security they needed as well as the company they wanted at thatpoint in their lives. Despres claims that once experienced, shared housing for thissample (of low-to-moderate income, highly educated, and with strong values ofwork, friendship, and leisure travel) was more valued for its social benefits thaneconomic ones.

A fourth incentive for homesharing is what Hemmens and Hoch (1996) calldependency but which I call caretaking. Some persons are unable to physicallyprovide for themselves, often due to age or infirmity, and are housed and oftentaken care of by others. This is particularly prevalent among elderly persons. Anational survey of the housing preferences of those over the age of 55 revealedthat 85% would prefer to stay in their homes, but financial as well as maintenanceconcerns made a shared housing arrangement the next most popular alternative.Unfortunately, few suburban communities today have either land use plans or zon-ing ordinances that encourage the development of the shared housing arrangementsthat many of these elderly seek (Cooper, 1993; Weinstein, 1996–97).

These four reasons for homesharing are not mutually exclusive nor exhaustive.Yet they demonstrate that homesharing decisions are more multifaceted than theperception that such living arrangements are simply a last stand before enteringa homeless shelter (e.g., Wright et al., 1998). Economic factors do play a rolein households choosing such living arrangements, but so too does lifestyle, life-cycle stage, and ethnic-racial background. Various immigrant and ethnic groupsin the United States would not characterize homesharing as nonnormative (seeConquergood, 1992; Pader, 1998).

In their analysis of the AHS data, Koebel and Murray (1999) found that home-sharing was not an exclusively or even exceptionally low-income phenomenon, butsome forms of homesharing were related to ethnic-racial composition of the house-hold. While the relative frequency of household extension by adult progeny wasapproximately the same for all racial/ethnic groups (about 10%), White householdswere much less likely to homeshare in other ways than were other ethnic-racial

Shared Housing and “Doubling Up” 553

households. Outside of those instances of homesharing with adult progeny, only14% of family households headed by Whites homeshared. But this contrastedsharply with 29% of African American households, 25% of Hispanic, and 28%of other racial groups. And with both income and race combined, White familyhouseholds were less likely to homeshare than African Americans, Hispanics, andother racial groups in all income levels. This difference was more pronounced athigher incomes.

As with the cultural analyses of residential crowding, these trends suggestthat such living arrangements are not the exclusive predilection of household eco-nomic factors. Myers, Baer, and Choi (1996) explain the greater propensity forhigher density in Asian and Hispanic households in the United States, comparedto non-Hispanic White and Black households (while controlling for income andhousehold size), on the basis of their cultural heritage in “close-contact” soci-eties, suggesting greater tolerance for higher density in the home. This may be thecase also for the greater propensity of certain cultural-ethnic groups, regardless ofincome level, to homeshare. It may also be the case that certain households or eth-nic groups prioritize housing choices differently than others. Some may be muchmore willing to homeshare if it affords them the opportunity to live in better qualityhomes or neighborhoods. Others may prefer a reverse trade-off. However, these re-main untested hypotheses. Housing trade-offs that take into account homesharingoptions have not yet been researched.

While there still remains much to further ponder and investigate in terms ofincentives (and the prioritizing of these) to homeshare, much less is known aboutthe health consequences of shared housing. This is the focus of the review in thenext section.

Health Effects of Shared Housing

The little research that does examine the health consequences of shared hous-ing tends to consider deleterious effects. But while positive health outcomes mayalso be likely, even less research has focused on such. In this section, I will coverthe research literature that has examined the health effects of shared housing, alongfour different dimensions of health: (a) physical, (b) psychological, (c) social, and(d) economic. While I have partitioned discussion of the literature by these fourdimensions, the division is simply for heuristic purposes at this time. Clearly, thesefour dimensions of health intermingle.

Physical health. There is very little public health research that has explicitlyfocused on shared housing conditions. Nonetheless, we might consider and ex-trapolate from some of the research on other housing deficiencies that seems tosuggest feasible connections between shared housing and physical health.

One critical line of investigation is that of childhood asthma. In a study ofover 15,000 children, Weitzman, Gortmaker, and Sobel (1990) discovered that

554 Ahrentzen

African American and poor children had higher rates of asthma, and that social andenvironmental factors exert substantial influences on these rates. Race, poverty, andsingle-parent households were highly correlated among children in this sample.Although their crowding measure (PPR) did not predict rates of asthma, childrenliving in families with six or more people were almost twice as likely to haveasthma, whereas residence in a large home (i.e., eight or more rooms) was as-sociated with a protective effect. A report issued by the Boston Medical Centerthat summarized public health research on housing effects on children’s healthsuggested two ways in which housing costs can indirectly increase rates of asthmaattacks (Sharfstein & Sandel, 1998). First, when families move in together to shareexpenses, the resulting density can increase the number of respiratory infectionsand reduce air quality. Second, more money spent for rent can reduce availablefunds for asthma treatment since families of children with asthma can spend from2% to 30% of their income on medications. While their evidence for homeshar-ing effects was speculative, these studies do suggest that families who share rentmay have more money available to spend for medical treatments, but can exacer-bate respiratory problems also if the size of the home they choose to share is notsufficiently spacious and the number of household members is too large.

Malnutrition may be an indirect effect of housing conditions (e.g., houses with-out good heating systems and hot water supplies) and housing costs if the amountallocated to food decreases to compensate for rent. In winter months, the trade-offbetween rent and food, or other household expenditures, becomes even more se-rious. Conversely, if rent can be reduced through homesharing, it may allow thatmoney to be spent on other household necessities, such as food. However, a studyof homeless families who had previously homeshared indicated that while most(86%) of the families were able to cook in the host’s home, some reported difficultydoing so (e.g., needing to ask permission to use the kitchen; Dehavenon, 1996).

A number of gerontologists attest to the health benefits of shared living amongthe elderly, whether the arrangement is intergenerational or between older peopleclose in age. A study of over 100 older Midwestern homesharers by Altus andMathews (2000; also see Grimes, 1999) found that reported health improved forthe older (age 70 and above) residents after they found a (generally younger)roommate: They felt happier and healthier, and felt their lives were better. Theyreported that they ate and slept better, had higher activity and energy levels, worriedless about money and safety, liked their homes more, and more closely followedthe news and current public events. Men reported being significantly better offthan did women. (The younger homesharers, those between 50 and 69, reportedmore financial benefits from homesharing, likely because the primary purpose oftheir homesharing match was for the collection of rent.)

In sum, we know very little of how shared housing can exacerbate or amelioratephysical health conditions—by either placing increased demands on the housingsystems that lead to conditions that foster asthma or other illnesses; by reducing

Shared Housing and “Doubling Up” 555

living costs or sharing domestic responsibilities so that money and time can be al-located to enhance nutrition, reduce parental fatigue, and the like; or by facilitatinggreater social interaction and subsequent physical health and competence amongindividuals who would otherwise socially withdraw and live isolated. There aremany important questions to be answered. If shared housing resulted in improvedhousing-quality conditions, would such improved housing quality compensate forany detrimental effects resulting from increased density? If homesharing allowsfamilies to live in better quality neighborhoods, what might be the impact of im-proved schooling, safer neighbors, and more supportive neighborhood conditionsand relations on children’s development? When families do homeshare, are therent savings used in a way to ameliorate or enhance other health conditions? Whatquality of ventilation and heating systems is needed to reduce respiratory problemsamong homesharers, and are such even financially feasible for poorer households?

On a final note, one physical health outcome sorely overlooked in the researchliterature of housing impacts on health is domestic violence. There is popularspeculation that overcrowding leads to increases in domestic violence (e.g., Martin,1999). When other social support mechanisms are unavailable and women mustface as their only alternative to violent homes the emergency shelter system—which often exposes children to health and social risks—many mothers choose tostay in violent homes (Sharfstein & Sandel, 1998). Would increased opportunitiesfor homesharing exacerbate or hasten departure from violent homes, particularlyin communities in which adequate shelters are in short supply? Might homesharingreduce domestic violence even more directly, since such violence is often abettedby social isolation?

Psychological health. Very little of the research literature considers the psy-chological health effects of homesharing, and most of this focuses on the effectsof crowding. In 1971, Mitchell analyzed three large-scale sample surveys of HongKong households, examining the relationship between residential crowding andintrahousehold social relationships and emotional strain. While in most of thesehomes there were both related and nonrelated household members beyond thenuclear family, Mitchell considered households as doubled up only when non-related members were sharing the spaces. (Thirty-nine percent reported homeshar-ing with nonrelatives.) He found that those with less square footage per personand those homesharing (with nonrelatives) were most dissatisfied with the amountof space they had. But he also found that household density (measured by squarefootage per person) affects emotional strain only in low-income families. Butwhile the emotional strain of one-family households was constant regardless of thefloor on which they lived, in homesharing households emotional strain increasedas floor level increased (at least up to six stories). From his findings, Mitchellconcludes that housing affects patterns of social relationships, and individualsrespond to the system of social relationships that housing conditions have helped to

556 Ahrentzen

create. While his study concentrated only on the physical dimensions of floor level,density, number of rooms (no effect), and household amenities (also no effect), thisstudy remains one of the few that have examined the relationship between specifichousing design characteristics and health outcomes among homesharing families.Later we will see other studies that have proposed other physical dimensions toconsider.

A few studies have examined “objective crowding,” or density, among home-sharers. In their analysis of the AHS data set, Koebel and Murray (1999) found thatthe homesharers most likely to live in crowded (i.e., more than 1 PPR) conditionswere households with subfamilies, unrelated individuals, and multiple extensions.But these crowded conditions declined as income increased. However, the effectof this density on psychological distress or other health outcomes was not assessedin the data set. It should not be presumed that psychological distress is an auto-matic result of these high-density situations. For example, in his review of theresearch on crowding and mental health, Halpern (1995) notes that the effects ofhigh density in living arrangements of unrelated people in dormitories and otherstudent accommodations may or may not be negative depending on the varioussituational factors and the individual orientations of the residents. When the resi-dents are highly individualistic, or if there is a clash of personalities, for instance,then a lack of control over social interaction induced by higher densities can re-sult in adverse effects and the experience of crowding. But if residents tend to becooperative, then few negative effects are seen in dense residences.

Aside from density or crowding, another housing condition that may affectpsychological health among homesharers is the connotative nature of such liv-ing arrangements. Labeling theory suggests that individuals or households can beclassified by others according to some surface characteristics, including the envi-ronments in which they reside, and then these labels and their associated meaningsare presumed to hold true for all such residents (see Halpern, 1995, for reviewof labeling theory and stigmatization in housing studies). Given the social andcultural norms of the society or community in which one resides, shared housingmay carry a stigma. In the United States, the socially dominant ideal of the single-family dwelling often stigmatizes the meaning of shared accommodations. So toodoes the belief about the moral influence of home ownership that links possessionof a single-family home with ideals of self-reliance, according to Hemmens, Hoch,and Carp (1996). They claim that the stigma of residential sharing also flows fromassociation with other forms of group quarters such as dormitories, barracks, jails,prisons, halfway houses, group homes, nursing homes, and the like. Shared ten-ancy may be considered socially acceptable if it is the result of necessity or amongcertain age groups (e.g., college-age students). In certain contexts then, labelingand stigmatization may have an indirect effect on the self-image and mental healthof residents, although the results from research studies examining this are, to date,not conclusive (Halpern, 1995).

Shared Housing and “Doubling Up” 557

In sum, the little research evidence that does examine psychological out-comes in shared housing suggests that high-density residences coupled with intra-household conflict may result in emotional strain under housing characteristics thatmake it difficult to physically distance oneself from undesired social interaction inthe home. However, whether or not such intrahousehold conflict is more prominentamong related homesharers, nonrelated homesharers, and even nonhomesharingfamilies has not been adequately identified in these studies. Further, other thanfloor level, there is little examination of the effects of other physical qualities,such as the layout of rooms, existence of corridors and other nonroom spaces, thesize of the unit and rooms in terms of square footage, the extent of natural andmechanical ventilation, and so forth. We will begin to see more attention to this inthe next section on social health.

Social health. While the World Health Organization (1946) defines health asa “state of total mental, physical and social well being,” it is difficult to measurethese, particularly the latter. However, I use the term social health here to referto satisfying and generative social relationships, including parenting. In manyinstances, social health contributes to other physical and psychological healthconditions (see, e.g., Stokols, 1992; The Healthcare Forum, 1994). While somemay conceptualize it as an intervening variable between housing conditions andhealth outcomes, I suggest that it can be valued as a desirable aspect of well-beingin its own right.

Once again, research on homesharing’s effect on this aspect of health is rare.In a study of elderly homesharers, Jaffe (1989) showed that companionship was theprimary reason for sharing their homes with an unrelated adult, not simply amongunmarried persons in the sample but also among married couples. Varady (1988)provides similar evidence that shared housing (along with accessory apartments)facilitates domestic help, companionship, and greater security for elderly. Home-sharing was also an alternative to premature institutionalization of the elderly, anda means to help maintain the personal attachment to one’s home. Both of thesestudies involve elderly with low and moderate incomes, and those willing to havea social relationship with an unrelated adult in their home.

Comparing the social support of low-income, African American motherswith preschool children in four different housing conditions (independent hous-ing, emergency shelters, transitional housing, and shared housing arrangements),Letiecq, Anderson, and Koblinsky (1998) found that homeless mothers in emer-gency shelters and in transitional housing had significantly less contact with friendsand relatives, could count on fewer people in times of need, and received less helpfrom their families over a six-month period than independently housed mothers.Mothers in shared housing fell in between these others on these support measures.However, mothers in shared housing, compared to those in emergency shelters,had more people to care for their children when needed.

558 Ahrentzen

The effect of homesharing arrangements on parenting behavior is little studied,but one in which social and environmental strategies may be particularly prominentin effecting good child-rearing outcomes in low-income circumstances. Indeed,one of the dilemmas of U.S. welfare reform is that given the low wages that many ofthese individuals (primarily mothers) earn, they lack sufficient financial resourcesto live in safer neighborhoods (e.g., Catholic Charities, 1999). If these mothers enterthe workforce and cannot substantially increase their income, they may be left inthe position of leaving their children unsupervised in unsafe neighborhoods. Oliker(1995) found that in areas with high crime, staying at home is a self-protective,child-rearing strategy among many poor mothers. In ground-level apartments orsingle-family homes, mothers want to occupy their homes as much as possiblebecause of the potential of burglary. In addition they want to walk their childrento the school or bus stop (or have others they trust do so). They seek ways to notleave their children alone at home in dealing with the urban ecology of crime.Networks of kin, friends, and neighbors are often sources of aid in this regard.For these parents, these situations create a difficult and stressful trade-off betweentheir child’s supervision and wage-earning responsibilities.

While these few studies suggest homesharing’s role in social health is neg-ligible, none examines how housing features of shared housing may also play arole in promoting positive social relationships and hence social health. But onestudy, although not examining homesharers, may be quite suggestive in this regard.Since one major reason for crowding’s adverse psychological effects appears to bethe disruption of socially supportive relationships among residents of high-densityhomes, Evans, Lepore, and Schroeder (1996) suggest that architectural elementssuch as floor plan—believed to influence social interaction patterns within thehome—may also play a role in the residential crowding–psychological distresslink. Looking at architectural depth (i.e., the number of spaces one must passthrough to get from one point to another), household density, distress, and so-cial behavior of over 200 college students, the researchers found that residents ofcrowded homes with greater architectural depth were less likely to socially with-draw or to be psychologically distressed than residents in crowded homes withrelatively low depth. Greater depth appeared to act as a buffer between residen-tial crowding and psychological distress by reducing social withdrawal amongresidents of crowded homes. When environmental opportunities to regulate so-cial interaction are available, use of cognitive coping strategies to minimize socialinteraction may be curtailed. The researchers speculate that other physical envi-ronmental features—room brightness, subunit size, visual access and exposure,window views, proximity to outdoor spaces—may similarly influence human re-sponses to crowded residential conditions.

Economic health. Economic health is often not mentioned in the literature asan outcome measure, but as a mitigating or moderating factor. But given the many

Shared Housing and “Doubling Up” 559

psychological and physical conditions resulting from poverty, I have listed it herefor a separate discussion.

As seen in the statistics calculated by Koebel and Murray (1999), homesharingis not the exclusive province of the poor, but it may be a viable economic solutionfor those suffering severe housing expenses. During the 1990s when the U.S.housing industry was booming, the poor, being steadily priced out of an upgradedhousing stock, were unable to ride this economic tide. HUD data indicate that thenumber of low-rent apartments decreased by 900,000 from 1991 to 1995, whilethe number of very low-income families in these same years increased by 370,000(U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1998). The number ofvery low-income renters with severe housing needs remains at an all-time high inthe United States: 5.3 million. And the fastest growth of severe housing needs isamong working families (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,1998). These are unassisted renters with incomes below 50% of the local medianwho pay more than half of their income for rent or live in severely substandardhousing. When spending more than half of one’s budget on shelter, a middle-classfamily is making a lifestyle choice. But for low-income families, such expensescourt health disasters. In 282 of America’s 393 largest metropolitan areas, onethird of all renters cannot afford the local market rent for a modest one-bedroomapartment without forgoing other basic needs (Oxford & Barrett, 1997).

Sharing common facilities in a home can reduce the rent burden of each home-sharer. For instance, an elderly homeowner receives rent from the homesharingtenant to offset mortgage and property tax expenses, while the tenant may enjoya rent significantly below market rates for studio and one-bedroom apartments.Such arrangements may provide economic support and health not only during thehomesharing arrangement but even afterwards. Using the Panel Study of IncomeDynamics, a nationally representative, longitudinal data set that has followed in-dividuals and families since 1968, Sandfort and Hill (1996) examined data on asample of 302 young women who had their first child when they were between theages of 16 and 22 and who were unmarried at the time of the birth. Examining howdifferent types of economic support received soon after the first child was borncontributed to later self-sufficiency (excluding enhancing economic sufficiencyby marrying), they found that homesharing and child support were important fac-tors in improving the economic prospects of young mothers by enhancing theirchances of getting more education and of having fewer children.

In a study in four metropolitan U.S. cities (Chicago, San Antonio, Charleston,Boston), Edin and Lein (1997) extensively interviewed a stratified sample of un-skilled, poor single mothers (and their children), including those who were primar-ily reliant on welfare assistance and those who relied on waged work for financialsupport. About 25% of their sample had homeshared with a friend or relative forfinancial reasons. Of both wage-reliant and welfare-reliant mothers, 25% had atleast two housing-quality problems (e.g., stove or refrigerator that did not work;

560 Ahrentzen

leaky toilet or other plumbing problem; faulty electricity; broken heating system;rat or roach infestation), ranging from 46% in San Antonio to 13% in Chicago.But compared to those in public housing, those in shared housing had fewer ofthese housing-quality problems (31% to 22%, respectively).

Among the wage-reliant mothers in their study, shared housing was highest inChicago: 43% of Chicago respondents reported sharing their residence (the lowestwas in Charleston, at 15%). Interestingly, having two housing-quality problemswas quite low among wage-reliant mothers in Chicago (7%) and the lowest of allfour cities, although the authors did not look further into a link between this and thehigh percentage of homesharing among their respondents there. However, home-sharing hosts often threatened to put single mothers and their children out whenthey had trouble getting along, and sometimes they made good on these threats.Yet despite the instability of shared housing arrangements, Edin and Lein foundthat welfare-reliant mothers who homeshared felt better off than those motherswho lived in public housing developments.

From a national survey conducted by the Shared Housing Resource Center(SHRC) in 1988, Myers (1989) found that those who opted for shared housingwere elderly persons (36%), single-parent families, college students, and homelesspersons (15%), and an unclassified number of other people (49%). Myers points outthat shared housing is not only a cost-saving, affordable solution to home seekers,but a significant income and financial benefit for the home providers as well. Whilethose home seekers who share a home can provide services in exchange for fullor partial rent, the home providers may get service from those who move in andalso may use additional income for maintenance and repair. Myers demonstratedthat shared housing is a cost-effective housing solution. The cost of five sharedhousing facilities in Philadelphia ranged from $17,375 to $35,000 per householdserved, while under HUD Section 202 projects, the average cost per householdwas $53,591.

Clearly, many household factors affect economic support in different home-sharing arrangements. For example, Angel and Tienda (1982) investigated theextent to which homesharing helped buffer the effects of labor market disadvan-tages faced by minority household heads. Using the 1976 Survey of Income andEducation database, a public-use microdata file of over 150,000 households, theyfound that the economic contributions of nonnuclear homesharing members dif-fered according to the race, ethnicity, and sex of the household head. For example,in contrast to minority households, the presence of homesharing members in ma-jority group households had little to do with a household’s income generation. Butin extended minority households, the earnings of homesharing members exert astronger positive effect on total household income.

Housing affordability among homesharers may be also partially explained bythe housing type itself. In a survey of 470 Spokane residents who were seekingenergy assistance (i.e., these respondents had few financial means to pay their

Shared Housing and “Doubling Up” 561

heating bills), Vacha and Marin (1993) discovered that 17% were currently shel-tering someone (friend, relative, mate, etc.) while 41% had provided shelter tosomeone in their home at one time or another. The persons being sheltered wereoften poorer than the provider, but they often provided some nonmonetary servicein the form of doing household chores, providing companionship, and babysit-ting. The home providers, compared to the others, tended to live in slightly lesscrowded homes, but had higher monthly housing costs ($373 vs. $334), and weremore likely to spend over 60% of their family income on housing. But the higherhousing costs among the home providers might be explained by the fact that theywere more likely to live in single-family dwellings (63%) than were nonproviders(43%). Houses generally have more room and greater flexibility than apartments,and are more suitable for housing more than one family. Because they were morelikely to reside in houses, these shelter providers were also more likely to spendmore of their household income on housing. In addition, the home providers livedin the same quality or better quality neighborhoods than nonproviders, althoughthey were more likely to be dissatisfied with crime in their neighborhoods (37%vs. 33%).

Another dimension of economic health involves that of the community, animportant consideration at a time when the affordable housing stock is dwin-dling in many cities. Hemmens and Hoch (1996) suggest that informal housingchanges—such as shared housing—can help stabilize housing prices by provid-ing ways to adapt the existing housing stock to meet new demands. Conversionsand mergers may offer important housing improvements in different geographicareas. Conversions, for example, can help meet demand for small rentals in olderneighborhoods with much prewar housing stock that is large and often more flex-ible for homesharing than postwar housing (see next section). But still we knowvery little about how such informal housing additions can assist in the economichealth of a community by being a viable source of affordable housing. In theirChicago study, Hemmens and Hoch (1996) figured that if the families composingthe homesharing households lived in separate dwellings, an additional 54 housingunits—of the 89 households they studied—would need to be added to the housingstock. Given decreasing private market incentives for building affordable housingand a recent reduction in the number of government-subsidized housing units,conversions of existing housing stock—whether formal or informal—may be afactor in contributing to the short-range economic health of a community.

Identifying Prominent Social-Psychological, Cultural,and Physical Design Factors

The review of the research on the health outcomes of homesharing is notewor-thy more for its nuance and conjecture than for any definitive conclusions. How-ever, the review does point to some social-psychological, cultural, and physical

562 Ahrentzen

environmental conditions that may play an important role—perhaps mediating,perhaps interacting—in facilitating or deterring healthy outcomes for homeshar-ers. In this section, I would like to briefly highlight some of these factors that canhelp direct future research.

Clearly household composition and relationships need more serious attentionin our future research endeavors. Cultural-ethnic background, shared or conflict-ing household goals and practices, and other factors need to be explicitly measuredrather than casually assumed in depicting and characterizing all or certain types ofhomesharers. Controlling, regulating, and managing healthy, compatible, and gen-erative intrahousehold social relationships seem to be central to enhancing healthyenvironments in shared housing. As Hemmens, Hoch, and Carp (1996) concludein their book, each shared housing situation has unique characteristics reflectingthe circumstances and the setting. But the need for social interaction and the abilityto share successfully cut across income, age, and ethnic and racial backgrounds. Ifwe consider crowding as an experience of unwanted social interaction, then issuesof privacy, of control over space and related resources, and of management of stim-ulus overload seem to be important factors in enhancing healthy intrahouseholdsocial relationships in shared housing.

The issues of control and choice are important ones in the research of envi-ronment stress. The dichotomy of “voluntary vs. involuntary” choice in depictinghomesharing that occurs in some research studies can be too simplistic to portraythe complexities of housing decisions. Choices occur in a world of constraints andavailabilities, and many other factors influence the extent to which one’s decisionreflects the best or most desired alternative available, or simply the best of allevils. In contrast, the four-part typology presented here and in Hemmens, Hoch,and Carp (1996) reflects the diversity and complexity of what may be consideredhousing choice. While in this article I have often revealed many of the advantagesindividuals and households accrue in certain homesharing circumstances, there arealso those individuals whose “choice” of homesharing reflects a more desperateact and who do equate their homesharing situation with homelessness. While theexisting research literature shows that homesharing is not the exclusive domainof low-income households, poor homesharers often suffer higher rates of physicalillness and possibly psychological distress than those homesharers in better eco-nomic conditions. However, whether their rates differ much from similarly poorbut nonsharing households has not yet been substantiated—and unfortunately,rarely empirically examined. Research and theory is needed that more insightfullyconsiders the impact and influence of choice of homesharing along a continuum,or even within a matrix, since housing decisions are often based on multifacetedconditions. Further, the role of future plans and expectations is likely an importantmoderating factor.

Seriously neglected in this research is the role of the physical environment ofthe home. Research examining physical health outcomes of homesharing would

Shared Housing and “Doubling Up” 563

be greatly aided by more attentive measurement and analysis of housing condi-tions, such as type and nature of heating and ventilation systems; volume of space(not just square footage); building materials; circulation systems; proximate out-door amenities such as porches; and the like. Future research should build upon,also, the environmental concepts examined in the studies by Despres (1991, 1994,1997) and Evans, Lepore, and Schroeder (1996). In perhaps the only study ex-amining spatial properties of dwellings occupied by homesharers, Despres (1991,1994, 1997) interviewed and documented the physical properties of the homesof 70 homesharers, over half living in dwellings built before 1950 (called “pre-war”), and the others living in housing, mostly suburban, built after 1950, withspatial qualities that often reflected the dominant ideologies about nuclear family,functionality, and hygiene. The physical properties of the “postwar” apartmentbuildings and detached houses in the sample were found to be more difficult toadapt to homesharing arrangements, because of their small sizes and spatial or-ganizations. Rather, the prewar housing was more suitable for homesharing, per-haps not surprising since many such homes were originally designed for extendedhouseholds, either three-generation living or for also sheltering boarders and ser-vants. The spatial properties that appear conducive to shared housing included(a) interior spaciousness; (b) privacy of the circulation paths within the home (i.e.,position of staircases and hallways); (c) multiple living spaces (dining room, livingroom, eat-in kitchen) and the greater degree of enclosure of these living spacesthrough the use of walls, doors, and transition spaces; and (d) the relative positionof the bedrooms. In general, multiple, distinct, and enclosed living spaces helpedmaintain the autonomy of homesharers, as did adequate separation between bed-rooms and living spaces, and between bedrooms themselves. Hallways, doors andturnaround spaces—physical features often eliminated in postwar, cost-cuttinghousing construction—helped to increase opportunities for privacy and territo-rial definition. Circulation patterns that allowed private paths from the entranceto bedrooms, from bedrooms to kitchen, and from bedrooms to bathroom(s) alsofacilitated territorial definition and privacy among homesharers. The capacity forcontrolling social interaction and defining territories was an important factor inenhancing the meaning of home for these homesharers.

While not focusing on shared housing per se, the previously described studyof college students by Evans, Lepore, and Schroeder (1996), examining the role ofarchitectural depth in social withdrawal and residential crowding, supports manyof Despres’ conclusions. Indeed, their conceptual model suggests that when envi-ronmental opportunities to regulate social interaction are available, use of cogni-tive coping strategies to minimize social interaction may be curtailed. Additionalenvironmental factors to consider that have been examined in other studies ofprivacy and crowding include room configuration (e.g., long, rectangular roomsprovide more opportunities for distancing of separate, defined areas than do squarerooms of the same square footage; e.g., Mostoller, 1989); open plan housing in

564 Ahrentzen

comparison to semiopen and closed plan designs, all of the same square footage(e.g., Gruel, 1993, found that respondents perceived greater crowding for house-hold-oriented social interaction in scaled house models of an open plan than ofthe other two types); and availability of views and natural lighting (bright spacesappear larger; also views may provide opportunities to mentally distance oneselffrom the present condition; e.g., Mandel, Baron, & Fisher, 1980).

Towards a More Informed Housing Policy of Shared Housing

Shared housing, not being a common or normative housing arrangement in theUnited States except among certain population groups (e.g., college students), isoften looked upon by the press, researchers, and policymakers as an inappropriateor unacceptable housing condition. Yet homesharers reflect a range of incomegroups, ethnicities, ages, and household composition. And, as Hemmens, Hoch,and Carp (1996) conclude, these people’s homesharing does not simply reflectpassive accommodation to necessity. Many actively seek out homes that providenot only adequate shelter, but social and economic support as well. But thosewho desire to live in shared housing arrangements are often at a disadvantage.As Despres (1991) demonstrated, not every house can successfully accommodateshared living so that conflicts are minimized and territorial definition and privacyare enhanced. Seeking those homes most conducive to homesharing may involvea great deal of time, effort, and money—resources that many of these householdshave little of.

But having such housing options is important today. Shared housing can bean aid during critically changing life circumstances, such as caring for an elderlyparent, losing income, having a child, coping with disability, leaving a marriageor a violent home, and the like (Hemmens, Hoch, & Carp, 1996; Despres, 1991).Welfare reform, too, is a significant life-change event for many families. As peo-ple’s lives involve transition from one life circumstance to another, certain formsof housing may be more supportive than others. As Koebel and Murray (1999)conclude in their study, if public policy continues to rely on relatives and friendshelping each other (as a “compassionate conservatism” approach to policy seemsto suggest), then it is important to learn how to improve households’ abilities toassist each other and to ameliorate negative consequences of such help and socialexchange—particularly when research demonstrates the mediating effect of socialrelationships in the crowding–distress link. They suggest that a progressive housingpolicy would seek to assist extended households in meeting their current needs,including conflict management and assistance in redesigning and appropriatingspace.

Increasingly, individuals and families consider homesharing as a viable hous-ing option. A number of nonprofit programs that match residents who desire toshare housing (such as SHRC in Philadelphia and Innovative Housing in California)

Shared Housing and “Doubling Up” 565

have witnessed increased demand in recent years, not simply among their tradi-tional target market (elderly) but increasingly among families, particularly single-parent families. Demand outstrips supply, however; in the San Francisco–Oaklandarea, nearly twice as many families apply as there are vacancies (Herman, 1995).Staff of SHRC say that many of the single parents who choose this shared hous-ing do so to share not only costs, but also child-rearing responsibilities (Peterson,1989).

Yet communities have often responded to shared housing arrangements byincorporating more specific and restrictive “family definitions” into their zoningordinances (Pollack, 1996). Marris (1996) points out that many kinds of sharingthat are potentially desirable and convenient turn out to be illegal. This illegality isrelated to the perpetuation of the single-family house as not simply a social ideal,but even more so as an investment. In his analysis of housing of the last decade,Rowe (1993) claims that “. . . similarity and standardization, rather than differenceand variation, seem to be most appreciated socially” (p. 63). But the importantquestion is, who creates that appreciation (social as well as financial)? And forwhose benefit? As Ritzdorf (1994) claims in her analysis of zoning ordinances’definitions of family:

. . . the power of a municipality to deny the rights of extended families and unrelatedindividuals to live together represents a potent form of exclusion, affecting not only theminority and poor members of society, but all who live alternate life-styles, either throughchoice or necessity. Single parents and the elderly are two groups for whom the benefitsof homesharing are obvious. Ironically, by forbidding or limiting this option, communitiesare denying them what may be their only opportunity to live as a family in the house,neighborhood, and community with which they are familiar. (p. 123)

While not negating some of the detrimental conditions that accompany home-sharing, particularly among low-income families and individuals, a more produc-tive and generative focus would seem to be clearer identification of the particularsources that contribute to detrimental health conditions and also to those sourcesthat help families and individuals move towards health and resilience in such hous-ing arrangements. Such thinking may help direct a more careful analysis of housingpolicies and standards that have been primarily targeted to only one socially dom-inant segment of U.S. society. Such may also help in rethinking incentives andways for providing a greater number of housing options in our residential land-scape (Ahrentzen, 1996, 1999).

References

Ahrentzen, S. (1996). Housing alternatives for new forms of households. In G. C. Hemmens, C. J.Hoch, & J. Carp (Eds.), Under one roof: Issues and innovations in shared housing (pp. 42–62).Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Ahrentzen, S. (1999, Summer). Choice in housing. Harvard Design Magazine, 62–67.

566 Ahrentzen

Altus, D. E., & Mathews, R. M. (2000). Examining satisfaction of older home owners with intergen-erational homesharing. Journal of Clinical Geropsychology, 6(2), 139–147.

Angel, R., & Tienda, M. (1982). Determinants of extended household structure: Cultural pattern oreconomic need? American Journal of Sociology, 87(6), 1360–1383.

Baer, W. C. (1976). The evolution of housing indicators and housing standards: Some lessons for thefuture. Public Policy, 24(3), 361–393.

Baldassare, M. (1981). The effects of household density on subgroups. American Sociological Review,46, 110–118.

Catholic Charities, Archdiocese of Milwaukee (1999). Raising children in a world of work not welfare.Milwaukee, WI: Author.

Conquergood, D. (1992). Life in Big Red: Struggles and accommodations in a Chicago polyethnictenement. In L. Lamphere (Ed.), Structuring diversity: Ethnographic perspectives on the NewImmigration (pp. 95–144). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cooper, J. (1993, August 14). Older people prefer “aging in place”: Survey finds seniors staying inown homes as long as possible. The Washington Post, p. E11.

Daniel, J. (1998, September 30). Feeling at home. Chicago Tribune, pp. C1, C13.Dehavenon, A. L. (1996). Doubling-up and New York City’s policies for sheltering homeless fam-

ilies. In A. L. Dehavenon (Ed.), There’s no place like home: Anthropological perspectiveson housing and homelessness in the United States (pp. 51–66). Westport, CT: Bergen &Garvey.

Despres, C. (1991). The form, experience and meaning of home in shared housing. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Despres, C. (1994). The meaning and experience of shared housing: Companionship, security and ahome. Power by design: Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth Annual Conference of the Environ-mental Design Research Association (pp. 119–127). Oklahoma City, OK: EDRA.

Despres, C. (1997). Homesharing in U.S. pre- and post-war housing: A comparative floor plan anal-ysis. In C. Despres & D. Piche (Eds.), Housing surveys: Advances in theory and methods(pp. 143–155). Quebec, Quebec, Canada: CRAD, Universite Laval.

Edin, K., & Lein, L. (1997). Making ends meet: How single mothers survive welfare and low-wagework. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Evans, G. W. (in press). Environmental stress and health. In A. Baum, T. Revenson, & J. E. Singer(Eds.), Handbook of health psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Evans, G. W., Lepore, S. J., & Schroeder, A. (1996). The role of interior design elements in humanresponses to crowding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 41–46.

Fioravante, J. (1993, December 12). Shared housing for the elderly is making gains. The New YorkTimes, p. 5, sec. 10.

Grimes, A. (1999, December 31). More elders find having roommates improves their lives. The WallStreet Journal, p. B1.

Gruel, N. L. (1993). Effects of open-plan housing on perceived household crowding among familieswith children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Housing, Interior Design andResource Management, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Halpern, D. (1995). More than bricks and mortar? Mental health and the built environment. London:Taylor & Francis.

The Healthcare Forum. (1994). What creates health? Individuals and communities respond. SanFrancisco: Author.

Hemmens, G. C., & Hoch, C. J. (1996). Shared housing in low income households. In G. C. Hemmens,C. J. Hoch, & J. Carp (Eds.), Under one roof: Issues and innovations in shared housing(pp. 17–32). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Hemmens, G. C., Hoch, C. J., & Carp, J. (Eds.). (1996). Under one roof: Issues and innovations inshared housing. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Herman, L. (1995, October 4). Shared housing for single parents. San Francisco Chronicle, p. 1Z.Jaffe, D. (1989). Caring strangers: The sociology of intergenerational homesharing. Greenwich, CT:

JAI Press.Koebel, C. T., & Murray, M. S. (1999). Extended families and their housing in the U.S. Housing

Studies, 14, 124–143.

Shared Housing and “Doubling Up” 567

Koebel, C. T., & Rives, M. E. (1993). Poor families and poor housing: The search for decent housing inVirginia’s private, unassisted market. Blacksburg, VA: Center for Housing Research, VirginiaTech.

Lee, B. A. (1998). Doubling up. In W. van Vliet (Ed.), The encyclopedia of housing (pp. 124–125).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Letiecq, B. L., Anderson, E. A., & Koblinsky, S. A. (1998). Social support of homeless and housedmothers: A comparison of temporary and permanent housing arrangements. Family Relations,47, 415–421.

Link, B., Phelan, J., Bresnahan, M., Stueve, A., Moore, R., & Stuening, E. (1995). Lifetime and five-year prevalence of homelessness in the United States: New evidence on an old debate. AmericanJournal of Orthopsychiatry, 65(3), 347–354.

Long, J. (1994). Family home share. The Single Parent, 37(4), 31–33.Mandel, D. R., Baron, R. M., & Fisher, J. D. (1980). Room utilization and dimensions of density:

Effects of height and view. Environment and Behavior, 12, 308–319.Marris, P. (1996). The trouble with sharing. In G. C. Hemmens, C. J. Hoch, & J. Carp (Eds.), Under one

roof: Issues and innovations in shared housing (pp. 115–123). Albany, NY: State Universityof New York Press.

Martin, H. (1999, December 19). Housing strained at seams in parts of L.A. county. The Los AngelesTimes, p. A1.

McLeod, B. (1996, August 11). Seniors share housing to avoid nursing homes. Houston Chronicle,p. 4.

Mitchell, R. E. (1971). Social implications of high density housing. American Sociological Review, 36,18–29.

Mostoller, M. (1989). The design of a single room with furniture for a residential hotel. In K. A. Franck& S. Ahrentzen (Eds.), New households, new housing (pp. 263–283). New York: Van NostrandReinhold.

Myers, D. T. (1989). Shared housing: An adaptable affordable housing option. Journal of Housing,46(6), 297–305.

Myers, D., Baer, W. C., & Choi, S.-Y. (1996). The changing problem of overcrowded housing. Journalof the American Planning Association, 62, 66–84.

Oliker, S. J. (1995). The proximate contexts of workfare and work: A framework for studying poorwomen’s economic choices. The Sociological Quarterly, 36(2), 251–272.

Oxford, J. M., & Barrett, L. (1997, September 23). Housing out of reach for many of the working poor.St. Louis Post-Dispatch, p. B7:2.

Pader, E.-J. (1994). Spatial relations and housing policy: Regulations that discriminate against Mexican-origin households. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 13, 119–135.

Pader, E.-J. (1998). Housing occupancy codes. In W. van Vliet (Ed.), The encyclopedia of housing(pp. 288–290). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Peterson, K. S. (1989, February 20). Shared housing booms for single parents. USA Today, p. 4D.Pollak, P. B. (1996). Zoning as a tool for shared housing. In G. C. Hemmens, C. J. Hoch, & J. Carp

(Eds.), Under one roof: Issues and innovations in shared housing (pp. 107–114). Albany, NY:State University of New York Press.

Quiason, M. (1987, September 23). Home sharing makes living easier all around. Christian ScienceMonitor, 89/209, pp. 15, 1C.

Ritzdorf, M. (1994). Zoning as a tool for regulating family type in American communities. In K.A. Franck & L. H. Schneekloth (Eds.), Ordering space: Types in architecture and design(pp. 117–126). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Rowe, P. (1993). Modernity and housing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Sandfort, J. R., & Hill, M. S. (1996). Assisting young, unmarried mothers to become self-sufficient:

The effects of different types of early economic support. Journal of Marriage and the Family,58, 311–326.

Sharfstein, J., & Sandel, M. (1998). Not safe at home: How America’s housing crisis threatens thehealth of its children. Boston: Boston Medical Center, Department of Pediatrics.

Stock, R. W. (1997, December 18). Living independently, but not going it alone. The New York Times,pp. F1, F9.

568 Ahrentzen

Stokols, D. (1992). Establishing and maintaining healthy environments: Toward a social ecology ofhealth promotion. American Psychologist, 47, 6–22.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1998). Rental housing assistance: The crisiscontinues. Washington, DC: Author.

Vacha, E. F., & Marin, M. V. (1993). Doubling up: Low income households sheltering the hiddenhomeless. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 20(3), 25–41.

Varady, D. P. (1988). Elderly independence: Promise and reality. Journal of Housing, 45(6), 289–295.Wasson, R. R., & Hill, R. P. (1998). The process of becoming homeless: An investigation of female-

headed families living in poverty. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 32(2), 320–342.Weinstein, A. C. (1996–97). Essay: The challenge of providing adequate housing for the elderly. . .

along with everyone else. Journal of Law and Health, 11(1,2), 133–143.Weitzman, M., Gortmaker, S., & Sobel, A. (1990). Racial, social, and environmental risks for childhood

asthma. American Journal of Diseases of Children, 144, 1189–1194.World Health Organization. (1946). Constitution. Geneva: Author.Wright, B. R. E., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1998). Factors associated with doubled-up

housing—A common precursor to homelessness. Social Service Review, 72, 92–110.

SHERRY AHRENTZEN, Ph.D. (Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine),is Professor of Architecture at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Her re-search, focusing on housing that accommodates and enhances the social and eco-nomic diversity of the United States (e.g., multigenerational living, home-basedwork, etc.), has been published extensively in journals and magazines, such as Jour-nal of Architectural and Planning Research, Environment and Behavior, Journalof Environmental Psychology, Harvard Design Magazine, and Progressive Ar-chitecture. With Karen A. Franck, she edited the book New Households, NewHousing. Her research has been funded by the U.S. Department of Housing andUrban Development, the National Science Foundation, the National Endowmentfor the Arts, the Fannie Mae Foundation, and the Graham Foundation for the Studyof the Arts. Her teaching efforts at UWM are directed towards demonstrating theapplication of research and social theory to architectural design, emphasizing abroad range of methodologies applicable to architectural inquiry. She teaches atundergraduate, master’s, and doctoral levels.