Fellowship News

Going Public: Can Intentional Communities Make a Difference in Public Policy for Elders?

By Laird Sandhill

R EMEMBER THE TV PROGRAM, "The Golden Girls"? In one of its episodes the character Rose became so ill she required surgery. Hospital policy would only allow immediate family members (who lived more than 36 hours away) to visit Rose in intensive care or make medical decisions for her. Even though Rose considered her roomates as "family," the hospital would not listen. This episode of the TV program inspired the staff of the Women's Initiative of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) to look at the issues facing their constituency (those 50+ yrs) who lived in non-traditional situations--unrelated adults, gay and lesbian couples, residents in group homes, children being raised by grandparents--any grouping outside the traditional single family unit.

As administrator for the Fellowship for Intentional Community, I was invited to participate in a conference to gather information and insights to assist AARP in making recommendations to the White House Conference on Aging. We looked at ways non-traditional households do not receive the same benefits as traditional households in areas of health care, retirement, financial assistance, and housing. Not only did we look at the relationship to government programs, but also at roadblocks in other social areas (such as the hospital rules Rose faced.) Even though our discussions centered on challenges for the elderly in nontraditional households, many of the problems they experience are also experienced by people of all ages living in intentional communities.

Many of the problems we discussed--home healthcare needs, assistance for childcare, retirement benefits to a significant other who might not be a legal spouse, zoning rules which prevent non-family members from sharing a home, etc.--are frequently solved (or at least addressed) by the social structures in intentional communities. Often the root cause of these problems stems from people living in isolation or from society's lack of recognition of very "real" relationships outside the immediate blood family.

The degree to which intentional communities have developed interactive life-support systems is often a measure of community members' lack   of dependence on federal or state aid to meet those needs. How many times have we, in our community living experience, provided health care for the seriously ill or dying? How many seniors in our communities have their shelter and food needs met? How many elderly communitarians have opportunities for lively interaction with people of all ages? How many older people can continue to contribute to community life in a productive way? Our lifestyles, our social systems, and our living skills as members of intentional communities can offer a positive model for aging in the larger culture.

Before the AARP conference, I knew that public policies and social structures are often oblivious and even hostile to recognizing nontraditional households in areas of public benefits, housing, zoning, domestic relations, consumer rights, tax policy, property ownership, etc. I did not, however, appreciate just how significant the sector of non-traditional living really is. Each person present at the conference represented a large segment of society which lives in nontraditional living situations.

Research gathered by AARP has found that sixteen percent (more than 40 million) of all Americans live in nontraditional households. More than 11 million (or 12 percent) of the nation's nearly 96 million homes are non-traditional households.* (Please see note below.)In this context "non-traditional households" refers every kind of household other  than traditional households (single-parent families, married couples with or without children, and individuals living alone). Additionally, this non-traditional segment is divided into four categories1 which do not readily categorize intentional communities:

1. Grandparent caregivers--grandparents caring for grandchilden with no parents present.

2. Extended families--traditional families with at least one non-lineal relative, for example, siblings or cousins.

3. Partner or roomate--one person identified as the main householder and one as the partner/roommate (no distinction made). Some intentional communties could fall into this group.

4. Miscellaneous--every other case else, such as group homes, households with boarders, an older person renting to a college student. Some intentional communties might be hidden in this group.

The number of nontraditional households has grown sharply over the past 25 years and is expected to grow even more as the baby boom generation ages.* (Please see note below.) However, official definitions of "family" have not kept up with changing family structures and living arrangements. Family is still defined as people who are related by blood, marriage, or adoption.

This definition is still firmly entrenched in the legal system and our social sturctures. There is a cultural blindness to the reality of family-like connections between non-related people, which often lead to regulations such as those Rose discovered at the hospital, or with those which affect gay partners find when it comes time for retirement benefits, or when grandparents find they cannot enroll their grandchild in the local school because they are not the parents, or when a group of adults seeks to live in a single-family housing area. Nontraditional living situations are generally not recognized in public or social policy, which results in less favorable treatment than that received by traditional family units.

So what can the Fellowship for Intentional Community do about this situation?

Current policies on the family grow out of long-held assumptions and idealogies about the role of the family in our culture, the kinds of families which are desirable, and the role society should play in nurturing them. This may be the time to reexamine these assumptions? Isn't evolution pushing our society to address these issues? Can the FIC help the intentional communities' experience "come out of the closet" to ask these questions?

While I am aware that many communities have chosen to "lie low" and not bring attention to a lifestyle which is not sanction ed by the larger society, I wonder what we might gain by letting our numbers become more public? The AARP conference showed me that much of the legislation for this country is driven by the statistical results from the Census taken every ten years. The larger a particular group, the more pressure it can bring to enact legislation to meet the group's needs. For example, the grandparent caregivers have influenced legislation in the recent past because the census has shown that over the past 25 years, their numbers have increased 50 percent.

Right now, the numbers of people in intentional communities, cohousing communities, and ecovillages, and the age-range in these communities are not even identified by the questions asked on the Census forms. Could significant numbers be influential in erasing some of the cultural misconceptions of non-related adults living together? Could we have a stronger voice in effecting zoning regulations, bank loan policies, medical care decisions, hospital visiting rules, and financial assistance for childcare workers, hospice care givers, and assisted living?

The FIC has struggled over the years to get an accurate handle on the numbers of people who live in intentional communities. We can only guess, based on the numbers we have in our database of communties How many other groups are out there? How many people live in shared living situations who might benefit from finding solutions to some of our common problems? What role can the FIC play to raise public awareness of the number of people living in intentional communities? Should the FIC work to influence the design of the consensus questions for the year 2000? What questions do we want to ask? Do we want to influence legislation? If so, in what areas? Let us know your thoughts.

"Negative attitudes may be more of a barrier to nontraditional living arrangements than hostile public policies," wrote Deborah Chalfie in the AARP's report, The Real Golden Girls.   "American culture defines independence in 'either-or' terms--either one does everything alone and without help, or one needs some help and is dependent. For many other people maintaining independence and aging in place means living alone, possibly in a home that has become unmanageable or unaffordable, and accompishing everyday tasks without any help or services whatsoever. As a result, many older people, espccially those in rural areas and the suburbs, become isolated, restricted, and endangered. By failing to consider options in between controlling everything alone and controlling nothing, some older people lose their independence unnecessarily. A cultural change redefining independence to mean interdepence with others would allow for mutual assistance so that older persons can have control over as much of their lives as possible for as long as possible."* (Please see note below.)

As the percentage of our aging population increases and Social Security other benefits suffer more and more cuts, intentional community living may offer simple, obvious, relatively low-cost solutions to this important, and growing, societal problem.

* Passages excerpted from Chalfie, Deborah, "The Real Golden Girls: The Prevalence and Policy Treatment of Midlife and Older People Living in Nontraditional Households," AARP, 1995.

Communities magazine is published by the nonprofit Fellowship for Intentional Community (FIC). Laird Sandhill is the FIC's Publication Manager.