The Five Charter 25 Community Clusters

The Charter 25 counties share one important characteristic: each has an unusually high percentage of residents age 65 and older. But they did not arrive there in the same way—and they do not face the same planning challenges.

To better understand those differences, the 25 counties are organized into five clusters. Each county is placed according to the planning condition that speaks the loudest, while recognizing that many counties share characteristics with more than one group.

Functionally Stable Growth Counties

These counties show a pattern of *two-tiered growth. Their older population is increasing significantly, but the county as a whole is also continuing to grow and attract new residents. At the same time, older households have comparatively strong annual incomes, giving many older residents greater financial stability as the community changes.

This combination sets these counties apart from communities where the older population is growing while the overall population, workforce, or economic base is shrinking. Here, population growth is occurring across the community while the expanding older population also brings meaningful purchasing power and economic activity.

Frontier Survivor

Communities where very small populations, extreme distances, and limited service capacity make everyday systems difficult to sustain.

These counties show the planning challenge of serving older residents when workers, health care, transportation, businesses, emergency services, and community supports may be spread across enormous distances.

Counties:
Catron County, New Mexico
Prairie County, Montana
Wheeler County, Oregon
Sierra County, New Mexico
La Paz County, Arizona

Frontier Plus: It should also be noted that several additional Charter 25 counties meet recognized characteristics of frontier communities. They are shown under different clusters because other distinctive county conditions provide an additional and particularly important planning lesson.

• Custer County, Idaho — shown under Geographic Access Constraint
• Keweenaw County, Michigan — shown under Geographic Access Constraint
• Ontonagon County, Michigan — shown under Legacy Stress Zone
• Real County, Texas — shown under Legacy Stress Zone

Their placement elsewhere does not remove their frontier identity. Rather, it reflects the fact that these communities have additional characteristics that warrant separate attention.

Legacy Stress Zone

Communities where a very large older population is placing added pressure on an already limited economic, workforce, and service base.

These counties show what can happen when communities with existing workforce shortages, limited incomes, higher levels of disability, limited affordable housing , or reduced institutional capacity face the challenges posed by the continued aging of a large pool of existing, moderate to lower income older residents, combined with an influx of older residents from other states.

Counties:
Highlands County, Florida
Alcona County, Michigan
Ontonagon County, Michigan (FT+)
Quitman County, Georgia
Real County, Texas (FT+)

Geographic Access Constraint

Communities where the physical landscape itself makes reaching people and services more difficult.

Mountains, islands, peninsulas, coastlines, ferries, severe winter conditions, limited roads, isolation and other geographic barriers can make a service technically available—but practically difficult to reach.

Counties:
Jefferson County, Washington
San Juan County, Washington
Curry County, Oregon
Keweenaw County, Michigan (FT+)
Custer County, Idaho (FT+)

FT+ = Frontier Plus

Two-World Hybrid

Communities where different economic and population realities exist side by side.

Retirement or amenity populations, newer residents, or higher-resource areas may coexist with long-established rural communities that experience very different housing, workforce, infrastructure, and service conditions. Countywide averages may hide those differences.

Counties:
McCormick County, South Carolina
Lancaster County, Virginia
Northumberland County, Virginia
Llano County, Texas
Citrus County, Florida

DATA SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS) 2020–2024 5-Year Estimates, Table S0101
(Age and Sex), using the percentage of residents age 65 and older.
(Counties with population of 1,000 or greater)

For more information, contact Laurie Murphy, National Director at [email protected]