A recent blog post on the Kendal-Crosslands corporate site caught my eye. It is titled “Why Wait? To Live at Kendal-Crosslands Communities”. It tells why Pete and Nat Thomas moved to Kendal when Pete was 66 and Nat was 68. Nothing forced them to make the move, but it was an opportune time in their lives and the right housing was available.

That reminded me of our own decision to move. I was just turning 70, and my wife Jan was 72. The perfect cottage was available, and we looked forward to leaving behind the home-maintenance hassles and getting on with the next phase of our lives.

Another incident that got me thinking about this topic was a recent conversation with Nick Ball, our new Directory of Sales & Marketing. He told me that he thought residents are moving in younger and staying in Independent Living longer, with the result that we have more demand for Independent Living residences than we can accommodate (but lower occupancy in Assisted Living than previously).

I don’t have any really long-term trend data that would show if there is a shift toward moving in younger.

What I do have is some voter registration data for Kendal and Crosslands from 2021 and 2025. By selecting residents who are on the 2025 list but not the 2021 list, I can limit the analysis to recent move-ins. The data shows the residents’ ages, which gives me a way to calculate average age at move-in for those years. That can be compared with the national average for all CCRCs.

The best source I have found for national data is a 2019 report from Leading Age, the national association for non-profit organizations providing senior care, including retirement communities. In that report, Leading Age gives 81 as the average age at move-in for CCRC residents.

How different are we? According to my data (which compares voter registration between May 2021 and March 2025), Kendal residents during that period moved in at age 78.4 on average. Crosslands residents were slightly younger at move-in: 78.2 on average. So overall, we are almost 3 years younger at move-in than the national average. (This data comes with a caveat: only registered voters are included in my data. But virtually all residents here are registered to vote.)

What might account for that 3-year difference? It’s impossible to say for sure. But here’s one possibility. Retirement options range from “Active Adult” or “55+” communities on one hand, to “Nursing Homes” on the other. The Active Adult communities have lots of activities and amenities, but no health care. The nursing homes have the health care, but limited amenities. People don’t move there until their health requires it. CCRCs are in the middle: they offer both a range of activities for active residents and support for more care as it becomes necessary.

Could it be that Kendal and Crosslands are more successful than most other CCRCs in appealing to those who want the security of health care when needed, but who would like to stay fully active and involved as long as possible? To me, that feels like a plausible explanation.