Home · Case studies · CCRC labor stabilization
Case study · Continuing care retirement community · Michigan
A continuing care retirement community whose labor spend had drifted from its budget, with agency staff filling the gaps and department leaders without a daily view of their own productivity. The owner needed the operation stabilized — and needed it to hold through the annual survey and a sale.
Labor savings, sustained for eight months
Cumulative savings over the engagement
Agency staffing by the end
Operation stabilized; owner completed the sale
The situation
Labor spending and staffing practices were not consistently aligned with approved budgets. Agency staffing had become routine, adding avoidable expense. Department leaders had no daily measure of paid hours per resident day, so variances were discovered at month-end, not on the day they happened.
Staffing models had not kept pace with the local labor market or with residents’ care needs. All of it had to be fixed while preparing for the annual regulatory survey.
What had to happen
What was done
Reliance on agency staffing removed and internal staffing controls strengthened, shift by shift.
Staffing models recalibrated to the approved budget, residents’ needs and the local workforce.
Department leaders trained to read paid hours per resident day every day and act on variances the same day.
Unnecessary spending cut and management accountability reinforced.
Staff and operations prepared for the annual inspection as the changes went in, not after.
What changed
Roughly $40,000 a month in labor savings was sustained for eight months — $320,000 in all. At that rate the annualized equivalent is about $480,000; that is a projection, not additional realized savings.
The community completed its annual regulatory survey (an 8-point result under CMS scoring). With the operation stable and the numbers credible, ownership completed its sale.
About these results
This engagement reflects the individual operating experience of Mainspring’s leadership before the firm was formed; it was not delivered as a Mainspring corporate engagement. Figures are as reported by the leader responsible for the period, and survey results are as recorded by the state survey agency. The community is not named; references are available to serious enquiries.
Your building
One conversation: what we see, how we would approach it, and exactly what it would involve.