trials and tribulations

is a trial system a good idea?

Recruiting is one of the hardest things a house does, and picking a new housemate who ends up not being a great fit can tear apart communities. Many houses reduce the risk of this decision by having a trial period, usually 2-3 months, after which the house formally decides if a new recruit will be a full member or if they’ll be asked to move out.

There are pros and cons to a trial period, and I don’t think trials are universally good or bad. A good system will look different for different houses depending on their values, vibes, and capacity for emotional work, and considering the tradeoffs of having a trial can help a house figure out the best fit for them.

benefits of a trial

(1) Trials gather more information before the long-term decision

A trial essentially extends the interview process, allowing everyone in the house to get to live with them for a while before making a decision. It allows the candidate to feel out the ebbs and flows of a community, and allows the house to see the ebbs and flows of the candidate’s daily life. It’s a lot easier to see what collaboration and communication look like over months living together than through a written application form or a two-hour conversation.

(2) Trials ensure housemates provide feedback soon after someone moves in.

Most trial systems involve a feedback phase where everyone intentionally considers how good a fit the new housemate is for the community. The candidate then gets a chance to address feedback before a decision is made, and sometimes the house might also make changes to better integrate the new person into the community. Trials also help address issues before resentment builds, through encouraging everyone to voice issues and address them earlier than they might in a house without a trial system.

(3) Trials give a house an opportunity to remove someone if they’re not a good fit.

Sometimes people will need to be asked to move out, and this will almost always be an unpleasant conversation. If it’s much easier for a house to do it through a trial than outside of a trial, then that’s a serious benefit of having a trial. If not, a general procedure for kicking someone out is probably good enough.


downsides of a trial

(1) It can be hard to know enough to ask someone to leave after 2-3 months

I prefer conflict escalation processes that give people a fair chance to understand and address issues. In my experience, 2-3 months often isn’t long enough to notice a clear pattern, communicate it clearly with someone, and see if they’re able to address the feedback. And sometimes people are stressed by moving and don’t show up as their full self (for better or for worse) until several months into living somewhere.

(2) Some people won’t want to move in if they know there’s a real possibility of being asked to leave after 2-3 months.

Moving takes a lot of time, energy and money. Some people want to feel fully accepted when they move in and trust that the community will be willing to find long-term solutions to live together. People often give up great housing situations (and furniture, and even pets) to join a community house and might not do that if there was a serious possibility that they’d be asked to leave shortly after getting there. Moving out shortly after moving in could be especially destabilizing for kids and not worth it for parents. These feelings can also be exacerbated in cities where it’s harder and more stressful to find housing.

(3) It’s stressful to be in a trial

New housemates might feel generally less settled and comfortable until they know they’re a permanent member. This actually might exacerbate issues that come up during a trial, since people who are stressed often have less capacity to engage in conflict resolution. It’s also common that people on trials feel nervous bringing up issues after moving in because they don’t want to jeopardize their trials, leading to issues building up and becoming bigger problems after the trial ends.

keep the pros without the cons?

Given the downsides, I’m curious how much the benefits could be gained without actually having a trial. My guess is it’s only possible if people prefer doing long-term emotional labor over dealing with the downsides of a trial. Here are some ideas on bringing in two of the benefits I listed above in non-trial ways:

Encourage feedback outside of formal trials

Perhaps feedback could be required from everyone for new members after they’ve lived there for two months. And more generally, it seems helpful to reduce barriers to giving feedback to anyone in the house, including long-term members.

The trickiest thing I’ve found here is finding ways to develop a house culture where people feel more comfortable engaging in feedback conversations. Some things I’ve seen help:

Ask people to leave outside of formal trials

I prefer a conflict escalation process that applies to both new and established housemates. This could include 1:1 conversations, mediations, house-wide conversations, house feedback with requests to change behavior, and a couple months to iterate on that feedback. This takes time, and usually takes longer than 2-3 months. It also only works if everyone is willing to participate in a longer-form conflict escalation process as an alternative to participating in a trial process, which might not be the case since longer processes often take more emotional labor!

I’ve found it helpful to ponder these questions, to see if just a long-form process is enough:


if you’re doing it, really do it

A failure mode of a trial system is formally having a trial but in practice never rejecting people even if they don’t seem like a great fit -- this has many of the disadvantages of a trial system (people being wary of moving in, stress while they’re on trial) without the advantages.

When I say “really do it”, I mean everyone, including incoming housemates, should be aware of and on board with the possibility of a trial member being asked to leave after a specified number of months. Ideally everyone also has a shared understanding of what could cause someone to be asked to leave.


closing thoughts

I’ve seen trial systems where almost everyone is told “no” and that’s the default expectation. I’ve seen trial systems that occasionally ask people to leave but are mostly low-stress. I’ve heard of houses adding trial systems after regretting not having one, and I’ve seen The Village strongly consider removing a trial system after having one for three years (though we’ve never asked someone to leave). I know of several houses with no trial system ast all.

I’ve become more anti-trial and pro “only conflict escalation process” while living at The Village, but I still respect a trial system that effectively removes housemates that aren’t a good fit early on, especially if those people feel like they consented to that possibility. I think houses could work well with or without a trial as long as they’re considering the tradeoffs and choosing a system that works well for them. If you have thoughts to share on trial systems, or stories about how they’ve worked (or not), I’d love to hear them!


Thanks to Elliot Cobb for his workshop on trial systems at the 2023 Community Living Wisdom Exchange (also called "Trials and Tribulations") that inspired some of the content of this post.

thanks for reading <3 this was a post from thought clippings on community housing