Penetration Rate Methodology: How Senior Living, Childcare, and Medical Office Feasibility Studies Prove Demand

Penetration Rate Methodology: How Senior Living, Childcare, and Medical Office Feasibility Studies Prove Demand

A defensible assisted living feasibility study, memory care feasibility study, childcare center feasibility study, or medical office demand analysis rests on a single analytical engine: the penetration rate. Unlike a gas station or a car wash, where demand is counted in vehicles passing the site, demographic-driven asset classes draw their demand from a qualified population: households old enough and wealthy enough to afford care, children young enough to need it, patients generating visits at age-specific rates. The feasibility question is therefore not how much traffic the corner carries but what share of a counted, qualified pool the subject must capture, and whether that share is plausible against the supply already serving it. This article sets out the penetration rate methodology our analytical team applies across senior living, childcare, and medical office feasibility studies: the qualification math, the equilibrium bands, the worked sizing examples, and the data sources a credit reviewer can independently verify.

Section 1: The Penetration Engine

In our reference on the SOP 50 10 8 special-purpose property list, we grouped the listed asset classes by demand engine: traffic-driven, demographic-driven, destination-driven, and commodity or extraction. This article is the methodology companion for the demographic-driven group, extended to two adjacent categories (childcare and medical office) that share the engine even where they sit off the special-purpose list.

The engine has four moving parts, and every defensible study makes each one explicit. The qualified pool: not population, but the subset that can actually demand the service — households aged 75 or 80 and older with qualifying income for senior living; children under age 6 with working parents for childcare; patients weighted by age-specific visit rates for medical office. The utilization or propensity rate: the share of the qualified pool that uses the service category at all, anchored to published national or state rates, then adjusted for local conditions. The competitive net: existing supply, plus the pipeline, subtracted before any unmet demand is claimed. The penetration test: the share of the remaining pool the subject must capture to hit its pro forma, judged against what comparable projects have actually achieved.

A study that hides any of these four steps inside a single asserted occupancy figure has not analyzed demand; it has decorated an assumption. The sections below run the four steps for each asset class, with the numbers current as of mid-2026.

[EXHIBIT 1: Penetration metrics across the three demographic-driven asset classes]

Asset class — qualified pool — utilization anchor — supply metric — penetration test. Senior living (IL, AL, memory care): households 75+ or 80+, income and asset qualified; 11.4% of 75+ households, 18% of 80+ households nationally (NIC); units per qualified household in PMA; post-project market penetration vs. national bands, project penetration in single digits. Childcare: children under 6, weighted to working-parent households; desert line of more than 3 children per licensed slot (CAP); licensed slots per 100 children under 6; subject slots vs. unmet demanded slots in service area. Medical office: population weighted by age-specific visit rates; roughly 2.6 office visits per person per year, more than doubling at 65+ (NCHS); occupied MOB sq ft vs. supportable sq ft; subject sq ft vs. residual supportable sq ft.

Section 2: The Lender Context

The three asset classes split across the regulatory map, and the split matters for equity, appraisal, and the weight the feasibility study must carry.

Senior living sits squarely on the special-purpose list. SOP 50 10 8 enumerates nursing homes, including assisted living facilities, which triggers the 15 percent SBA 504 borrower contribution under 13 CFR 120.910 (20 percent with a new-business overlay), the going-concern appraisal performed by a Certified General Real Property Appraiser with four equivalent assignments in the prior 36 months, and the land, building, equipment, and intangibles allocation. Hospitals, surgery centers, and urgent care centers carry the same treatment. The feasibility study for these assets is not a supplement to the appraisal; it is the document that makes the going-concern value believable.

Childcare sits on the other side of the line. Daycare facilities are expressly treated as multipurpose property, which preserves the standard 10 percent contribution and conventional appraisal treatment. The feasibility burden shifts accordingly: less about collateral character, more about whether the enrollment ramp and tuition assumptions survive contact with the licensed-capacity math in Section 4.

Medical office buildings, as generic multi-tenant assets, are likewise multipurpose, although a building purpose-built around a surgery center or imaging suite can pull special-purpose treatment back in, and the CDC credit memorandum must document the classification either way.

Two program notes complete the picture. USDA Community Facilities financing reaches childcare centers, clinics, and other essential community facilities in eligible rural communities, and its review framework asks precisely the questions this article's worksheets answer: essential community need, service-area definition, and revenue sustainability. And across SBA and USDA alike, startup projects in these categories face the standard projection discipline: breakeven within roughly 24 months of opening and debt-service coverage near 1.25x at stabilization, with the ramp assumptions evidenced rather than asserted.

Section 3: Senior Living, the Original Penetration Asset Class

1. 1 The national arithmetic

Senior housing is where penetration rate methodology was codified, and the National Investment Center's published framework remains the anchor. NIC has traditionally computed market penetration as total inventory divided by households aged 75 and older, which yields roughly 11.4 percent nationally; computed against households 80 and older, the same inventory yields approximately 18 percent (about 1.59 million units against 8.86 million households in NIC's baseline analysis). Both denominators are legitimate; what is not legitimate is switching between them mid-study to flatter a conclusion. State the denominator, hold it constant, and benchmark against the matching national figure.

The demand backdrop is the strongest of any asset class covered in this series. The population aged 80 and older stood near 14.7 million in 2025 and is projected to reach 18.8 million by 2030 and roughly 23 million by 2035, growth of more than 55 percent in a decade. Against that wave, construction starts have fallen to approximately 0.25 percent of inventory per quarter, near the lowest rate of the century. NIC MAP projects a shortfall of roughly 550,000 units by 2030 at the current development pace, a gap valued near $275 billion, with only about 191,000 units on track for delivery against the need. Occupancy data confirms the tightening: 88.7 percent nationally in the third quarter of 2025, the seventeenth consecutive quarterly increase, with independent living above 90 percent.

1. 2 The qualification math

National tailwinds do not qualify a site. The primary market area for senior living is typically a 10-to-15-minute drive-time in urban and suburban markets, widening toward 25 miles in rural ones, and within it the study must count, not estimate, the qualified pool. Age qualification: households 75 and older, with the 80-and-older cohort broken out separately because the median move-in age for assisted living sits in the mid-80s. Income and asset qualification: households able to fund the proposed monthly rate, conventionally screened at annual income thresholds in the $50,000-to-$75,000 range for assisted living, supplemented by home-equity capacity, since a large share of move-ins are funded by a home sale. The income screen must match the subject's actual proposed rates, not a generic threshold. The adult-child adjustment: placement decisions are heavily influenced by adult children, so the presence of 45-to-64-year-old households in and around the PMA functions as a secondary demand indicator, particularly for memory care.

[EXHIBIT 2: Senior living penetration worksheet, illustrative suburban PMA]

Step 1: households 75+ within PMA — 6,200. Step 2: income and asset qualified share (rate-matched), 55% — 3,410 households. Step 3: existing competitive units (IL, AL, MC as relevant) — 480. Step 4: pipeline units, probability weighted — 60. Step 5: current market penetration (row 3 / row 2) — 14.1%. Step 6: subject units proposed — 90. Step 7: post-project market penetration ((rows 3+4+6) / row 2) — 18.5%. Step 8: project penetration required at stabilized occupancy (row 6 × 90% / (row 2 − row 3 − row 4)) — 2.8%.

The bands our analytical team applies: post-project market penetration on income-qualified 75-plus households in the low-to-mid teens is generally supportable in growing markets; readings pushing past the high teens demand either an evidenced acuity gap (for example, no memory care within the PMA) or an explicit absorption-risk discussion. Project penetration, the share of remaining qualified households the subject alone must capture, should sit in the low single digits; a pro forma that requires 8 or 10 percent of every unserved qualified household in the market is describing hope. Acuity segmentation runs the same math three times, because independent living, assisted living, and memory care draw on different age and need subsets, and a blended penetration figure conceals more than it reveals.

Section 4: Childcare, the Desert Math

1. 1 The national supply gap

Childcare is the rare asset class where the saturation metric was invented by policy researchers rather than lenders, and the 2025 update is current and citable. The Center for American Progress, with the W.E. Upjohn Institute and Stanford University, defines a childcare desert as an area with more than three children under age 6 per local licensed slot. By that measure, 46 percent of American children under 6 lived in a licensed childcare desert in 2025, an improvement from 51 percent in 2018, but with rural communities moving backward to more than 70 percent. State dispersion is extreme: roughly 5 percent of young children in Washington, D.C. live in a desert against 83 percent in Idaho, 95 percent in Hawaii, and 96 percent in Alaska. Supply attrition compounds the picture in some states; Texas, for example, recorded a 24 percent loss of licensed and registered family childcare homes between 2019 and 2024.

For a feasibility study, the desert framework supplies both the supply metric (licensed slots per child under 6) and the threshold (the 3-to-1 desert line, equivalent to fewer than 33 slots per 100 children). What it does not supply is the demand side of the ledger, which requires the workforce adjustment.

1. 2 The demand worksheet

Children do not demand licensed care; working parents do. Roughly two-thirds of mothers with children under 6 participate in the labor force per Bureau of Labor Statistics data, and the share of young children with all available parents working is the honest demand base. From there, formal-care preference (versus family, friend, and neighbor care) and age-band capacity weighting complete the math, because infant slots are the scarcest and costliest to operate and a center's licensed capacity is not fungible across age groups.

[EXHIBIT 3: Childcare demand worksheet, illustrative suburban service area]

Step 1: children under 6 within service area (ACS) — 4,800. Step 2: share with all available parents in labor force, 66% — 3,170 children. Step 3: formal licensed-care preference share, 60% — 1,900 demanded slots. Step 4: existing licensed slots (state licensing database) — 1,150. Step 5: slots per 100 children under 6 (row 4 / row 1) — 24 (desert territory). Step 6: unmet demanded slots (row 3 − row 4) — ~750. Step 7: subject capacity proposed — 120. Step 8: subject share of unmet demand — 16%.

The derived equilibrium band our analytical team applies, stated transparently because no lender-facing convention exists: 50 to 65 licensed slots per 100 children under 6 represents balanced supply in metropolitan service areas once workforce participation and formal-care preference are applied; below the CAP desert line of 33, a correctly sized and priced center faces a structural tailwind; above roughly 70, enrollment ramps lengthen and tuition pricing power erodes. Tuition assumptions must then be tested against area median income, because a center can be simultaneously undersupplied and unaffordable, and the feasibility study that ignores the affordability ceiling has only answered half the question. Subsidy programs and employer partnerships belong in the revenue analysis explicitly, with their reimbursement rates, not as a vague upside.

Section 5: Medical Office, Visits as the Demand Unit

1. 1 The sector backdrop

Medical outpatient buildings enter 2026 as the most defensive corner of the office market, and the fundamentals are well documented. CBRE's tracking shows national MOB vacancy near 9.5 percent against roughly 14 percent for conventional office, average asking rents at a record near $25.20 per square foot triple net, repeated quarters of positive net absorption, and an average sale price of $298 per square foot, a 51 percent premium to traditional office. Demand has outrun supply for four consecutive years; 2024 alone absorbed roughly 18 million square feet against 14.3 million delivered. The structural drivers are an aging population, the migration of procedures from inpatient to outpatient settings, and healthcare employment growth running near 4.7 percent year over year against 1.8 percent for the economy as a whole. Specialty-provider occupancy holds near 93 percent.

1. 2 The supportable-square-footage model

Sector strength is not site feasibility, and the medical office demand model converts population into square feet through visits. The CDC's National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey places office-based physician visits near 2.6 per person per year overall, with rates for adults 65 and older running more than double the all-ages figure, which is why the age structure of the PMA, not its raw population, drives the model.

[EXHIBIT 4: Medical office supportable-square-footage worksheet, illustrative 10-minute drive-time PMA]

Step 1: PMA population, age-banded (ACS) — 85,000. Step 2: annual office visits (age-weighted rates) — 255,000. Step 3: visits per provider FTE per year — 3,800. Step 4: supportable provider FTEs (row 2 / row 3) — 67. Step 5: square feet per provider FTE (planning convention) — 1,400 to 1,800. Step 6: supportable occupied MOB sq ft (row 4 × row 5) — 94,000 to 121,000. Step 7: existing occupied MOB sq ft plus pipeline — 88,000. Step 8: residual supportable sq ft — 6,000 to 33,000.

Three adjustments keep the model honest. Out-of-PMA referral draw belongs only where the tenancy justifies it: a multi-specialty or surgical tenant base pulls patients across PMA lines, a primary-care building does not. Payer mix shapes effective demand, since visit rates and realized revenue diverge across Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial populations, and the 2025 federal reconciliation legislation's projected reductions in healthcare spending make payer assumptions a stress-test variable rather than a constant. And telehealth substitution, while it plateaued well below pandemic-era predictions, still warrants a sensitivity case on visit volumes for primary care and behavioral health tenancies.

The decision rule: a proposed MOB whose square footage fits inside the residual of row 8, with a tenancy plan matched to the specialty gaps actually observed in the PMA, is feasible on demand; a building that requires the PMA to generate visits at rates its age structure cannot support is a leasing-risk memo wearing a feasibility study's clothing.

For the cross-asset framework, demand regimes, valuation methods and reviewer tests, see the 2026 Feasibility Methodology Atlas.

Section 6: Comparable Supply and Data Sources

The verification standard is the same across all three asset classes: every competitor named, geocoded, and characterized; every demand input traceable to a source the reviewer can pull independently.

Senior living: NIC MAP published occupancy, inventory, and penetration benchmarks; state licensing rosters for unit counts and acuity mix; ACS age-by-income tables for qualification; local planning departments for the pipeline.

Childcare: state childcare licensing databases for slots by provider and age band; CAP's desert mapping for the service-area baseline; ACS tables for children under 6 and parental employment; BLS for workforce participation; state subsidy reimbursement schedules for revenue inputs.

Medical office: CBRE and peer brokerage research for vacancy, rents, and absorption; CMS provider and facility files for the existing clinical footprint; NCHS NAMCS for visit rates; ACS age structure for the weighting; municipal permits for the pipeline.

Where licensed datasets supplement a study, the credit file should still rest on these public anchors, precisely so the arithmetic can be rebuilt by anyone who doubts it.

Section 7: Financial Benchmarks at Stabilization

[EXHIBIT 5: Stabilized operating benchmarks across the three asset classes]

Senior living: high 80s to low 90s percent stabilized occupancy; monthly rates by acuity, private pay weighted; labor-dominant cost structure with care staffing ratios setting the floor; 18 to 36 months ramp to stabilization. Childcare: 85 to 95 percent of licensed capacity; weekly or monthly tuition by age band; labor-dominant cost structure with ratios mandated by licensing; 12 to 24 months ramp. Medical office: low 90s percent stabilized occupancy; long-term NNN leases with high renewal; tenant-driven cost structure with thin landlord opex; lease-up 12 to 36 months by preleasing.

The shared signature of the two operating formats is labor. Senior living and childcare both run mandated or de facto staffing ratios, which makes wage inflation the dominant margin variable and makes any pro forma that holds labor cost growth below revenue growth for five straight years immediately suspect. Medical office is the inverse: a real estate cash flow whose risk lives in tenancy concentration and renewal, which is why the feasibility emphasis shifts from operations to lease-up evidence, preleasing, letters of intent, and the specialty-gap analysis from Section 5.

Section 8: Risk Factors

For senior living: labor availability and wage pressure first, always; the affordability boundary of the private-pay model against middle-income seniors; the acuity creep that turns an assisted living pro forma into a de facto nursing operation; and the temptation to borrow national shortfall headlines for a PMA whose qualified-household math does not support them. For childcare: regulatory ratio changes that reprice the entire cost base overnight; the post-pandemic funding cliff that removed stabilization subsidies many operators had quietly absorbed into margins; tuition affordability ceilings; and workforce scarcity in a sector whose wages compete with retail. For medical office: tenant concentration and health-system consolidation; reimbursement policy, with the projected federal spending reductions through 2034 as the live stress case; and the pipeline discipline that the sector's current strength makes easy to forget.

Section 9: What Makes the Study Defensible

A defensible demographic-driven feasibility study does five things, and a reviewer can check each in minutes. It defines the qualified pool with named ACS, licensing, or registry sources rather than gross population. It anchors utilization to a published national rate (NIC's 11.4 and 18 percent penetration figures, CAP's 3-to-1 desert line, NCHS visit rates) before adjusting locally, and shows the adjustment. It nets existing and pipeline supply before claiming unmet demand. It states the penetration the subject requires and benchmarks that figure against what real projects achieve, in the low single digits for a senior living project's share of qualified households, as a bounded share of unmet slots for childcare, inside the residual square footage for medical office. And it stresses the variable that actually breaks each asset class: labor cost for the operating formats, payer and tenancy risk for medical office, affordability for all three.

Penetration math is publishable precisely because it is checkable. That is the standard a feasibility study should meet before it reaches a credit committee, an SBA reviewer, or a USDA Community Facilities file.

To commission a feasibility study for a senior living, childcare, or medical office project, contact our analytical team.

Sources

1. National Investment Center for Seniors Housing and Care, Looking into the Future: How Much Seniors Housing Will Be Needed? https://info.nic.org/hubfs/Insider/White%20Paper_NIC_Looking_into_the_Future_How_Much_Seniors_Housing_Will_Be_Needed.pdf
2. NIC, How Much Future Senior Housing Inventory Is Needed to Meet Demographic Demand? https://www.nic.org/blog/how-much-future-senior-housing-inventory-is-needed-to-meet-demographic-demand/
3. NIC MAP, Senior Housing Market Outlook Report. https://www.nicmap.com/insights/senior-housing-market-outlook-report/
4. NIC MAP, The Impending Age Wave, 2026. https://www.nicmap.com/blog/the-impending-age-wave-navigating-the-urgent-need-for-senior-housing/
5. NIC MAP, Senior Housing Industry's Next Challenge: A Demand Surge Without the Supply to Match, 2025. https://www.nicmap.com/blog/senior-housing-industrys-next-challenge-a-demand-surge-without-the-supply-to-match/
6. NIC MAP Vision, Senior Housing Outlook press release, Business Wire, 2024. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240626227634/en/
7. NIC MAP, Independent Living Occupancy Rate Tops 90% in 3Q While Inventory Growth Sets Record Low, 2025. https://www.nicmap.com/blog/independent-living-occupancy-rate-tops-90-in-3q-while-inventory-growth-sets-record-low/
8. Seniors Housing Business, NIC MAP Vision: Seniors Housing Needs $275B in New Investment by 2030. https://seniorshousingbusiness.com/nic-map-vision-seniors-housing-needs-275b-in-new-investment-by-2030-to-meet-demand/
9. Center for American Progress, America's Licensed Child Care Deserts, 2025-2026. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/americas-licensed-child-care-deserts/
10. Center for American Progress, Executive Summary: America's Licensed Child Care Deserts. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/executive-summary-americas-licensed-child-care-deserts/
11. Center for American Progress, Measuring America's Licensed Child Care Supply (methodology). https://www.americanprogress.org/article/measuring-americas-licensed-child-care-supply/
12. First Five Years Fund, New Report Shows Nearly Half of All Young Children Live in Child Care Deserts, May 2026. https://www.ffyf.org/2026/05/27/new-report-shows-nearly-half-of-all-young-children-live-in-child-care-deserts/
13. CHILDREN AT RISK, 2025 Analysis: Texas Child Care Deserts. https://childrenatrisk.org/2025-analysis-texas-child-care-deserts/
14. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Characteristics of Families. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/famee.toc.htm
15. CDC National Center for Health Statistics, National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ahcd/index.htm
16. CBRE, 2025 U.S. Healthcare Real Estate Outlook. https://www.cbre.com/insights/reports/2025-us-healthcare-real-estate-outlook
17. CBRE, Q3 2025 U.S. Medical Outpatient Buildings Figures. https://www.cbre.com/insights/figures/q3-2025-us-medical-outpatient-buildings-figures
18. CBRE press release, 2025 Medical Outpatient Building Trends. https://www.cbre.com/press-releases/long-term-healthcare-trends-strong-2024-performance-bolster-outlook-medical-outpatient-buildings
19. PwC and ULI, Emerging Trends in Real Estate: Medical Office property type outlook. https://www.pwc.com/us/en/industries/financial-services/asset-wealth-management/real-estate/emerging-trends-in-real-estate-pwc-uli/property-type-outlook/medical-office.html
20. Colliers, Greater Phoenix Medical Office Market Report, Q1 2025. https://www.colliers.com/en/research/phoenix/2025-q1-greater-phoenix-medical-office-building-market-report
21. Inland Investments / JLL / GlobeSt data, Shifting Care Preferences Driving Demand for Medical Outpatient Buildings, 2025. https://blog.inland-investments.com/shifting-care-preferences-driving-demand-for-medical-outpatient-buildings
22. U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey age, income, and family tables. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs
23. eCFR, 13 CFR 120.910, Borrower contributions. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-13/chapter-I/part-120/subpart-H/subject-group-ECFRc64be25e87f1150/section-120.910
24. U.S. Small Business Administration, SOP 50 10 8, Lender and Development Company Loan Programs, effective June 1, 2025. https://www.sba.gov/document/sop-50-10-lender-development-company-loan-programs
25. USDA Rural Development, Community Facilities Direct Loan and Grant Program. https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/community-facilities/community-facilities-direct-loan-grant-program
26. eCFR, 7 CFR Part 5001, OneRD Guarantee Loan Initiative. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-L/part-5001
27. Becker's ASC Review, The Number of ASCs in All 50 States (ASCA data). https://www.beckersasc.com/leadership/the-number-of-ascs-in-all-50-states-2025/
28. CLA, Why Ambulatory Surgery Centers Are on the Rise, 2025. https://www.claconnect.com/en/resources/articles/25/ambulatory-surgery-centers