[This is part 2 of a 2-part reflection by guest author Harry Hammond on how Kendal’s founding values impacted both its physical design and its organizational structure. Harry’s writing shows how values, when translated into action, can have long-lasting consequences. This part is focused on Kendal’s organizational structure. Part 1 (which is focused on the physical aspects of the campus) is here. ]

Kendal’s founding director, Lloyd Lewis, took full advantage of the residents’ capacity to form a self-governing resident community. He kickstarted Kendal’s residents association by recruiting a resident to serve as its temporary president and handing her a draft bylaws statement (perhaps borrowed from Foulkeways). No chief executive since understood as well as he that for “community” to be authentic and to thrive, the administration needs to get out of the way. A New York Times article that later compared the offerings of three different CCRC’s reported that Lloyd Lewis said,

“The first residents came to me and asked what we were going to do with all those rooms?  I told them it was up to them. We don’t do for people here. People do.“

Before it was replaced by a Marketing Department, Kendal’s Admissions Committee, composed of staff and residents, reviewed applications and interviewed prospective residents. Kendal wanted to be certain that newcomers knew what made Kendal unique, as not everyone would be satisfied with those features, which included: the atypical role of the residents association; not having an activities director for the independent-living residents; the attention to economies; and the commitment to Quaker values and practices, one of which is for all to have voice in the processes that inform major decisions. Those who wanted gourmet meals, resort amenities, and manicured lawns would not have been happy at Kendal at Longwood. The success of competitor CCRCs impacted that early idealism.

Organizational growth. Kendal’s financial plan was also unusual. Even before it opened, Kendal was equipped with a big enough waiting list for a second CCRC. So Kendal built and opened Crosslands. Having two communities on an abutting property, but out of sight and over a ridge, gave the board the opportunity to double the number of seniors being served and double its charitable impact, while cutting costs, by having, for the two communities, only one board, one set of insurance and other contracts, one commercial-size laundry operation, one sewage facility, one finance department, one HR department, one maintenance department, one transportation department, one membership in each of the many organizations it had become involved in, and so on. All that and more was accomplished without having to expand its first community, and through doing that undermine its values. Having a single bloated, overly-populated CCRC would have done that. 

Combining the governance of the two communities became official when the board filed incorporation papers that changed the corporate name, “Kendal,” to “Kendal-Crosslands” (just those two words). 

The same directors (for the most part), changed the organization’s name again in 1989, to “The Kendal Corporation.” By then the board was already providing management services to some of the Chester County Quaker homes for the aged; was involved in a university research consortium; was converting Barclay Friends Hall in West Chester into a CCRC; and at the request of other Quaker CCRC enthusiasts was developing CCRC communities in New Hampshire and Ohio. The board had learned that serving more seniors, in other locations, bolstered Kendal’s reputation, bolstered cooperation among like-minded non-profit organizations, and was responsive to those, elsewhere, who wanted their own Kendal. And management and development fees produced adequate revenue for those off-campus projects. The annual reports for the years before and after 1989 discuss the complicated realities and the trade-offs involved in various ways forward. A persistent worry was how to keep the communities financially sustainable over future decades, as for-profit operators were flooding Pennsylvania and other areas with new communities. In 1996, the on-going experiment was refined again, without having to abandon Kendal’s unique offering:  locally governed, financially independent, face-to-face size communities. Extensive planning within and among the communities produced the insight and the Kendal System. But that’s another story….

Defining the role of residents. Lewis made it clear to the first cohort of Kendal at Longwood residents and staff that the residents association was to manage the indoor common areas and co-develop, with his consultant, if residents were interested, the still muddy grounds. The KRA board recruited committee leaders. The KRA president, partnering with each committee chair approved committee members and developed a process for approving (after funds were requested) activity groups and interest groups.  Each such group was required to have a chair, a co-chair (the succession plan), submit a budget request for the following year, and agree to have its meetings and happenings open to all interested residents.

Lloyd Lewis, not wanting to impinge on the resident associations, regularly directed resident committee chairs and others wanting favors to the KRA board. Some things couldn’t be dealt with that way. For instance, when the KRA president, on behalf of the KRA Board, inquired about transportation service, Lloyd Lewis (this wouldn’t have happened in a typical CCRC) supplied a stretched Pontiac (the ancestor of today’s long limos) and 40 hours of a driver’s time (per month, I assume). He asked the KRA to develop the transportation schedule for that driver. Lewis’s comfort with delegating oversight of resident life to the KRA relieved him, for the most part, from having to deal with residents’ individual preferences and differences. He empowered the residents association, giving it clear and bounded authority regarding resident life. That healthy and respectful mutuality deteriorated during the 1990’s.

Quakers learned long ago that differences within a community (ideas, concerns, preferences, opinion, interpretations, etc.) can be productive, rather than destructive, not only for the issue at hand but for the community itself.  When a community has the capacity to share and “hold” differences, openly and respectfully and with patience, well-led and slow-paced discussion often reveals an optimal way forward, without creating winners and losers, and without dividing the community.  In many ways – documented in its records – Kendal at Longwood residents benefitted from listening to one-another, with Kendal’s values in mind. At other times, there wasn’t the opportunity to listen because there wasn’t the opportunity to speak.

Some residents, of course, choose not to participate in any of those ways; they avoid participating. Others prefer solitude, eating alone, walking alone, enjoying the quiet of their cottage. That is respected too. Although there are no expectations for involvement, there are expectations for using the common spaces (“don’t hang laundry outside”; “do pick up after your dog”; “do park between the lines,” etc.). As is the case in many Quaker-influenced settings, the community and the administration prefer guidelines and avoid rules, allowing individuals to be themselves. Of course, for safety, rules are necessary, and there are more than a few of those.  

Engagement of residents, staff, and board. During Lewis’s time, board engagement with residents and with the KRA, staff/resident relationships, KRA/Lewis engagement, individual resident/Lewis engagement naturally occurred. In 1973, Kendal Board members greeted each new resident. Subsequently, until 2012 at Kendal at Longwood, the executive director greeted each new resident, in her or his cottage. The KRA and KCC presidents reported to each other’s group at the KRA annual meetings and particular other times. And the board’s 2/3rds Quaker make-up (reduced in 2016) resulted in directors and residents encountering each other in other settings. With a staff that was tiny compared to what KCC has now, much was accomplished, including knowledge of one another and awareness of resident perspectives.

During Lloyd Lewis’s time, numerous residents were among those putting their shoulders to the wheel.  There was much to do. They assessed what was, looked into the future, and were responsive to his leadership. Not long after Kendal opened, Lewis suggested to a resident (an attorney) that residents form a fund, earnings of which would be used to help residents who otherwise would have to scrimp in order to pay their monthly fees. Working with several other residents, Robert James (a retired attorney) prepared a draft “Resolution” that, after a few minor changes, and with both KCC and KRA approval, was used to establish the “Kendal Reserve Fund Administration Committee.” It was an independent committee of five (three residents appointed by the KRA and two board members appointed by the Kendal board), which was to choose its own chair and administer the fund. In stages, Lewis’ successors seem to have taken control of administering that fund, and five or so years after I moved to Kendal, the KRA either allowed the Kendal Reserve Fund Administration Committee to be dissolved or didn’t notice that it had been dissolved.  Was it a not-disclosed action that should have been disclosed? A breakdown of communication of an important administration intention?  Or A KRA failure to minute an action?  That sort of drift is not uncommon here.  Important resident roles are sometimes thought of as busy work, optional activity that keep individuals “engaged,” rather than as essential to a well-structured, functioning community. 

Other early examples of authentic resident engagement at Kendal:

  • Kendal’s water supply was monitored daily by resident chemists. 
  • The KRA asked Lewis to request that the board open the long-dormant outside pool that came with the farmhouse and offered to pay a lifeguard’s salary for the first year. 
  • Residents designed, funded, constructed, and installed lighting improvements for the auditorium and improved other common areas in the Center (shelving in the library, partitions on the lower level, etc.), all of it paid for by the KRA.
  • Residents solved a non-medical problem in the Health Center by having KRA purchase “pillow speakers” for those residents whose need for high volume TV disturbed neighbors.
  • The KRA bought TVs and floor lamps for those rooms In the Health Center that had none.
  • Residents created community garden areas inside and at the rear and front of the health center, and in some courtyards.
  • During Lewis’ time and until the 2010s, residents funded and arranged, it seems, all social events, instead of depending on staff to do for them those things they could do for themselves.
  • The KRA Board resolved community issues and created/maintained guidelines intended to prevent conflict. 

As in Quaker-founded schools, respecting individuals here included honoring their individual abilities, interests, and readiness to volunteer.

When there wasn’t a KRA committee or a particular staff member to respond to a resident’s concern or wishes, and when that individual, using normal pathways, hadn’t been able to settle the matter, the resident could go to the “KRA Listening Post,” which was established to help such residents (confidentially, if requested) to have their question answered, or their need responded to. That later social design was in the spirit of Lewis’ approach.

Revisiting the role of residents. The sharing aspect of life at Kendal reminds us that the leadership, labor, gifts, and bequests of the founders and of numerous area Quakers and other board members, residents, and staff, created, preserved, and improved the conditions that now benefit us. The work is ongoing, as is the responsibility. The overarching story of Kendal at Longwood is one of commitment to shared values and – despite some recent claims to the contrary – a commitment to welcoming rather than fearing the agency of residents.

I sense that what the founders created requires board members who have first-hand knowledge of residents and their experiences here; senior administrators who are able and want to “plan with residents rather than for residents” (what KCC’s long-range plans have called for since 2006); and a welcoming of resident voice.  Residents are stakeholders, literally. A bottom-line reality is that each purchased and continues to purchase services that are yet to be delivered. 

Pennsylvania law sets CCRC’s apart from typical landlords and health care providers (hospitals, homes for the aged, and “pay as you go” providers). Here’s the language of ACT 82, Section 15 (1982):

Pennsylvania does not yet require that residents have actual representation (a director who is expected to represent and allowed to represent residents) on the CCRC’s governing board, as is the case in a small number of other states. However, PA residents do have the “right of self-organization,” which could, if ever necessary, be a way forward. 

The “participative, non-paternal” resident community that used to exist here has faded. The residents association frequently aligns itself with the administration and allows the CEO to refer to the KRA President and Board as part of her team.  Residents never see the KRA Board discussing current issues.  A third of more of each of the KRA monthly meeting is indistinguishable from the every-second month CEO Forum (administrative announcements and updates). Differences in the resident community, are tamped down rather than openly discussed, and often divide rather than unite residents. 

This year, our KRA fell silent while the administration and board quickly, after a less than transparent, process, approved a new values statement (for good reason, but apart from open resident discussion).  Residents were invited to submit their individual reactions to a draft rephrasing of KCC’s values, but there was no impartially-led opportunity to discuss the major changes to the values statement or to the vision, which was also changed, without any known involvement of residents. The new values statement eliminated almost all of the defining commentary that existed in the particular values publication that is part of the resident contract with KCC (see section 25 of your contract). Among the elements not present in the new values publication is the delineation of Kendal’s “Commitments,” and most of the written commentary that gave concrete meaning to what are now mostly bare, abstract concepts. 

Harry Hammond