Housing the Northern California Geographies: A Comparative Case Study of Two Homeshare Organizations

Background: California, like much of the nation, is experiencing a housing crisis with great diversity among homelessness experiences, including more older adults and disproportionate rates of minoritized communities accessing services across rural and urban communities. Therefore, solutions to the crisis must not be uniform, but responsive across social identities and geographies. Homesharing, a model of pairing homeowners as providers with home seekers through a third-party organization, utilizes current housing stock that helps homeowners age in place by providing a home to another individual in exchange for financial and/or minor daily living support. The purpose of this comparative case study is to examine the impact of two homeshare organizations that serve completely different geographies and their approach to ensuring that home seekers and providers have access to safe, affordable, and quality housing.

Methods: This paper utilized a comparative case study approach to analyze two homeshare organizations in Northern California. This work is part of a larger qualitative study on the experiences of homesharing in Northern California. Two organizations were examined for this case study: A#1 and A#2. A#1 serves the Bay Area and is part of a larger non-profit organization. A#2 is a small grass-roots, stand-alone organization that was founded by social workers and serves a rural community in Northern California. The analysis for this case study included an ethnographic exploration of program data, organizational materials and staff interviews to examine each program seeking to explore differences and similarities of the program models and its outcomes across different geographies.

Results: Three main themes regarding the two homeshare organizations emerged. First, each organization has a structured and refined matching process that takes into account home seekers and providers’ life experiences and shared space preferences to build quality matches. Yet, the social work frame of A#2 and liability concerns of A#1 create a tension around whether and how to make in-service referrals for non-eligible applicants. Second, despite a resource differential between organizations, each successfully matches providers and seekers in their respective geography, and each plays a role in conflict resolution when needed. Third, the reasons for cost-burdened households are unique to each region and influence home options. A#1 navigates a housing market of urban economic pressures of gentrification and growth, which limits housing options based on land access/use and zoning. A#2 is located in a rural region that has been heavily impacted by environmental disasters that have displaced a significant number of individuals yet has additional homeshare options including different land use access and manufactured homes.

Conclusions and Implications: Homesharing is an innovative model to help alleviate the housing crisis. The findings highlighted the ability of each organization to be responsive to the housing needs of the population in their geographical region, despite the differences in organizational models. Additionally, social work plays a significant role in person-centered homeshare matching and referral, however larger nonprofit organizations are potentially more constrained by liability and risk. Finally, more research and infrastructure are needed to continue to assess model application as a tool to alleviate housing insecurity.