By Jack Cumming
You’re so lovable. Your mission is to be “the trusted voice for aging,” and I’m aging. More precisely, I’m old, so trust matters. Even more, I want to be one of you. I know you feel misunderstood. Your premise seems to be that if only people understood all the wonderful things that nonprofit providers do for them, they would love you too.
Sometimes, what seems radical at the time can be the wisest path of all.
My questions. Can you be both the trusted voice of aging and the association that promotes the business interests of not-for-profit providers? Wouldn’t it be better to be an organization of and for those who are aging and want their final years to be meaningful?
Trusted aging means happy customers. That goes beyond the narrow prerogatives of providers. Just as citizens are paramount in a democracy, so residents should be the primary purpose in senior housing, especially if their entrance fees contribute to the equity ownership capital.
Semantics
In pursuit of positive understanding, you’ve turned to semantics. In conjunction with Mather, you coined the term “life plan communities” to mean the same as CCRC. I like semantics, too. The way we speak can change the way we think.
That semantic power led me to think of how much more effective it could be for LeadingAge to speak of “we together” instead of “our residents.” The one phrase is inclusive. The other isn’t. “We who are aging” might be even more inclusive and more powerful. You, LeadingAge, could truly become the trusted voice for aging.
A Bold Ask
Ever since I moved into senior living, I wondered why LeadingAge, which then was the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aged (AAHSA), wasn’t an organization of residents. Then, I was approached to join the California Continuing Care Residents Association (CALCRA), and the woman who solicited me explained that tensions existed between providers and residents and that residents needed their own association.
Think of how much more effective we could make “homes and services for the aged” if providers and residents were not in tension but were working together for better living. In a democracy, grassroots advocacy can be more effective than special interest lobbying. Even more important, providers will be more successful if they empower residents rather than themselves. Successful entrepreneurs instinctively put customers first. Businesses need customers to thrive, and the more the better.
Thus, this letter is to implore you, LeadingAge, to consider becoming a consumer organization. As not-for-profits, you are already committed to public service.
A Bold Reversal
It’s surprising how often reversing the power structure is the best path. The United States replaced a monarch with popular sovereignty. Christianity responded to imperial domination with a human God, a father, capable of walking with us and relating to us. We are best when we are together.
As a first step, charge a board committee to explore this strategic possibility and prepare a recommendation. Be sure to include qualified resident experts on the committee if you have such on your board. If you don’t, include qualified residents anyway. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Action evidences love.
AMEN!
Exactly right.
The pronounced lack of advocacy from Leading Age for residents during the pandemic was so disappointing, and very telling.
Agree, mostly. But whenever money changes hands, tension exists and rightly so. Trust is earned over time and can be quickly broken. I still think the nonprofit model wins over time, but only if leaders are guided by compassionate religious faith — and i’m an ardent agnostic! But it’s what I have experienced as a resident in a faith-based nonprofit CCRC. Alas, the pool of such people is probably shrinking. What moral principles will guide the industry in the future? Hopefully more than AI and algorithms. When “management” replaces “compassion,” you’re in trouble.
We are developing tech to add years of contentment to residents & staff to change paradigms around aging in place & assisted communities.
Jack,
As an investment banker, and now as a registered municipal advisor to the non-profit Senior Living Sector, I have seen the Associating actual serve the needs of for-profit vendors even over their own members. Where money exchanges hands, it is difficult sometimes to stay on the moral high ground. That is the reality. But I do agree with your premise entirely. But is will never happen.
I just want to say, I really appreciate you putting into words what so many of us have been thinking since moving into a CCRC. You nailed it—while staff and providers are important, it’s residents who actually live here day in and day out, and our voices should really matter when it comes to how things are run.
Not only is there tension, there is outright opposition especially at the state level. When the management of a CCRC doesn’t listen or want to work with the resident association leadership, residents join together and seek a legislative answer. There are CCRCs that do model partnership (mine is one) but not enough based upon the feedback I hear from other communities. Imagine how much better things could be if we all worked together, listened to each other, and made decisions as a team. Like you said, the best organizations are the ones that actually pay attention to the people they serve.
Your idea for LeadingAge to shift toward being more resident-focused is long overdue, but I think it’s exactly what we need. We’re not just here to be taken care of—we actually know a lot about what works and what doesn’t in our own community. Letting us have a real say in things isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s the smart thing.