For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL33897 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ¢ ¢ Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress ¢ The U.S. population age 65 and older grew steadily through most of the last century. U.S. Census Bureau population projections to 2030 indicate that further and more dramatic growth is still to come. This increase is, in part, due to longer life expectancies and the aging of the baby boom generation. As the older population continues to increase in size and proportion, and as individuals continue to live longer post-retirement, changes in where older Americans live, or the "geographic distribution" of the older population, will likely have broad policy implications for federal, state, and local governments. Older Americans are not unlike the rest of the U.S. population in that they live in the most populous states (California, Florida, New York, and Texas). The majority of the population age 65 and older lives within major metropolitan areas. However, the older population accounts for a larger proportion of the total U.S. population living in non-metropolitan or rural areas. Some experts have expressed concern over the level of access older rural residents have to affordable housing and transportation options, health and social services, and medical providers and specialists. Older Americans are less likely to move than the younger population, and of those who do move, most move within the same county or state. Among those moving to different states, the pattern has been to relocate from colder to warmer climates, from larger metropolitan areas to smaller cities and towns, and from higher to lower cost of living areas. Over the past few decades, migration patterns among the older population have led to an increase in the 65-and-older population in some states in the Southern and Western regions of the country. Other states in the Midwest and Northeast have relatively high proportions of their resident population age 65 and older, which is likely due to younger workers having left these regions combined with a pattern of many older individuals remaining in these communities. Population shifts affect important aging policy issues that concern both the government and private sector, including social services, housing, health care, and transportation. At the federal level, funds for federal programs, such as nutrition and supportive services under the Older Americans Act (OAA) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 202 housing program for the elderly, are disbursed according to state population estimates. At the state and local levels, understanding geographic patterns and changes in population distribution can assist policy makers in targeting public funds for needed services, improve service delivery, and aid in community planning efforts. In order to inform Congress about important patterns and changes in the older U.S. population, this report presents estimates of the geographic distribution of the older population and population growth rates by state, region, and selected major metropolitan statistical areas and counties. The report also provides a brief discussion of the policy implications of population growth as it relates to the federal government. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Geographic Distribution of the Older Population............................................................................ 3 State Distribution of Population.......................................................................................... 3 State Population Growth ..................................................................................................... 7 Regional Distribution of Population ................................................................................... 8 Regional Population Growth............................................................................................... 9 Population in Metropolitan Areas ..................................................................................... 10 Population Growth in Metropolitan Areas .........................................................................11 County Population ............................................................................................................ 12 Policy Implications........................................................................................................................ 15 Federal Government.......................................................................................................... 15 State and Local Government............................................................................................. 16 Figure 1. U.S. Population Age 65 and Older and 85 and Older, 1990 to 2030 (projected) ............. 2 Figure 2. U.S. Population Age 65 and Older by State, 2005 ........................................................... 5 Figure 3. Percent of State Resident Population Age 65 and Older, 2005 ........................................ 6 Figure 4. Growth Rate of the Population Age 65 and Older by State, 2000 to 2005 ...................... 7 Figure 5. Growth Rate of the Population Age 85 and Older by State, 2000 to 2005 ...................... 8 Figure 6. Percent of U.S. Population Age 65 and Older by Region, 2005 ...................................... 9 Figure 7. Percent of the Population Age 65 and Older in Metropolitan Regions, 2003 ................ 10 Table 1. Top Ten States Ranked by Population and Percent of U.S. Population Age 65 and Older, 2005................................................................................................................................... 4 Table 2. Top 10 and Bottom 10 States Ranked by Percent of State Resident Population Age 65 and Older, 2005................................................................................................................ 5 Table 3. Growth Rate of the Population Age 65 and Older by Region, 2000 to 2005 .................... 9 Table 4. Growth Rate of the Population Age 85 and Older by Region, 2000 to 2005 .................. 10 Table 5. Growth Rate of the Population Age 65 and Older in Major and Small Metropolitan Areas, 1990 to 2000...............................................................................................11 Table 6. Counties Ranked by Resident Population Age 65 and Older, 2000................................. 13 Table 7. Counties Ranked by Resident Population Age 85 and Older, 2000................................. 14 Table 8. Counties Exceeding the U.S. Proportion Age 65 Years and Older by Region, 2000............................................................................................................................................ 15 Table A-1. States Ranked by the Number and Percent of U.S. Population Age 65 and Older, 2005................................................................................................................................. 19 Table A-2. States Ranked by the Percent of Their Resident Population Age 65 and Older, 2005............................................................................................................................................ 20 Table A-3. States Ranked by the Percent of Their Resident Population Age 85 and Older, 2005............................................................................................................................................ 21 Table A-4. States Ranked by Growth Rate of Population Age 65 and Older, 2005 ...................... 22 Table A-5. States Ranked by Growth Rate of Population Age 85 and Older, 2005 ...................... 24 ¡ Appendix. Data Collection and Rankings of the Older Population by State................................. 18 Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 25 The U.S. population age 65 and older grew steadily through most of the 20th century. U.S. Census Bureau population projections to 2030 indicate that further and more dramatic growth is still to come. This increase is, in part, due to longer life expectancies and the aging of the baby boom generation (those born between 1946 and 1964).1 In 2005, the "older population," defined as those individuals age 65 and older, was estimated at 37 million, marking a 5% increase from the 2000 decennial Census estimate of 35 million. Between 2005 and 2010, the older population is expected to increase by another 10%, to 40 million, and then by an additional 36%, to 55 million, by 2020. This dramatic growth in the older population is expected to begin in 2011, when the first of the baby boomers turn 65 years of age, and to continue beyond 2029, when the youngest of the boomers reach age 65. The Census projects that in 2030 the U.S. population will have an estimated 72 million older Americans, more than twice as many as the number estimated in 2000.2 In 2003, those who reached age 65 could expect to live an additional 18.5 years, on average (19.8 for women and 16.8 for men), or until 83.5 years of age.3 And while the population age 85 and older represents a small segment of the older population, the "oldest-old," defined as those individuals age 85 and older, are in fact the fastest-growing segment of the older population. Between 2000 and 2005, the population age 85 and older increased by 20%, and is projected to increase by another 20%, to 6.1 million, by 2010. Between 2010 and 2020 the population age 85 and older is expected to increase an additional 20% to 7.3 million (see Figure 1).4 1 For further information on U.S. demographic trends, see CRS Report RL32701, The Changing Demographic Profile of the United States, by Laura B. Shrestha. 2 Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics, Older Americans 2004: Key-Indicators of Well-Being, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2004. (Hereafter cited as: Federal Interagency Forum on Aging- Related Statistics, Older Americans 2004). 3 Administration on Aging (AOA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, A Profile of Older Americans: 2005. (Hereafter cited as: AOA, A Profile of Older Americans: 2005). For further information, see CRS Report RL32792, Life Expectancy in the United States, by Laura B. Shrestha. 4 Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics, Older Americans 2004. 1 erugiF 0302 ot 0991 ,redlO dna 58 dna redlO dna 56 egA noitalupoP .S.U . )detcejorp( 100 90 Population in millions 80 70 60 Age 85+ 50 Age 65-74 40 30 20 10 0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 4002 snaciremA redlO ,scitsitatS detaleR-gnigA no muroF ycnegaretnI laredeF :ecruoS . rof ataD .redlo dna 58 dna redlo dna 56 noitalupop eht fo setamitse susneC era 0002 dna 0991 rof ataD :etoN .snoitcejorp noitalupop susneC era 0302 dna ,0202 ,0102 Today, the older population represents just over 12% of the U.S. population; about one in every eight Americans is age 65 or older. By 2030, the Census projects that one in every five, or 20% of the U.S. population, will be age 65 or older.5 As the older population continues to increase in size and proportion, and as individuals continue to live longer post-retirement, changes in where older Americans live, or the "geographic distribution" of the older population, will likely have broad policy implications for federal, state, and local governments. Population shifts affect important aging policy issues that concern both the government and private sector, including social services, housing, health care, and transportation. At the federal level, funds for federal programs, such as nutrition and supportive services under the Older Americans Act (OAA) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 202 housing program for the elderly, are disbursed according to state population estimates.6 Furthermore, understanding geographic patterns and changes in population distribution at the state and local levels can assist policymakers in targeting public funds for needed services, help improve service delivery, and aid in community planning efforts. In order to inform Congress about important patterns and changes in the older U.S. population, this report presents estimates of the geographic distribution of the older population and population growth rates by state, region, and selected major metropolitan statistical areas and counties. This report also provides a brief discussion of the policy implications of population growth as it relates to the federal government. 5 He, Wan, et al., U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P23-209, 65+ in the United States: 2005, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2005. (Hereafter referred to as: He, 65+ in the United States: 2005). 6 For further information on Older Americans Act funding formulas, see CRS Report RS22549, Older Americans Act: Funding Formulas, by Kirsten J. Colello. For further information on HUD Section 202 funding formula, see CRS Report RL33508, Section 202 and Other HUD Rental Housing Programs for Low-Income Elderly Residents, by Libby Perl. Older Americans are not unlike the rest of the U.S. population in that they live in the most populous states and within major metropolitan areas. While older Americans are less likely to move than the younger population, of those who do move, most move within the same county or state.7 Among those moving to a different state, their pattern has been to relocate from colder to warmer climates, from larger metropolitan areas to smaller cities and towns, and from higher to lower cost of living areas.8 Over the past few decades, this has led to increases in the older population in some states in the South and West, and in major metropolitan areas and counties within these states. Changes in the geographic distribution of the older population affect not only the states on the receiving end of retirement migration, but states experiencing population change due to older and younger residents leaving the state, often referred to as "out-migration." For example, out- migration has had a large impact on the age distribution of the population in some states in the Midwest and Northeast, particularly as young workers have left work in the farming and mining industries. In some of these states, a greater share of the state's resident population is growing older, but not moving, a concept often referred to as "aging in place."9 In addition to migration patterns among older and younger residents, differences in the proportion of a state's older resident population are determined by patterns of fertility. Generally, states with high fertility rates have a higher proportion of younger residents and a lower proportion of older residents. According to some researchers, the changing geographic distribution of the older population may result in disparities between resources and needs, including medical services, social services, housing, and long-term care.10 This section of the report presents estimates of the older population by state and region, as well as data on population change by region and selected metropolitan statistical areas and counties. In general, the most populous states account for the largest number of older Americans; conversely, the least populous states have the fewest number of older Americans. In 2005, just over half of the total U.S. population age 65 and older (54%) lived in 10 states--California, Florida, New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and North Carolina (see Table 1). With the exception of North Carolina, these 10 states also happen to be the ten most populous states. The top four states with respect to total population size (California, Florida, New York, and Texas) each had over 2 million older Americans and accounted for almost 7 He, 65+ in the United States: 2005. 8 Longino, Charles F. and Don E. Bradley, A First Look at Retirement Migration Trends in 2000, The Gerontologist, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 904-907, 2003. (Hereafter referred to as: Longino, A First Look at Retirement Migration Trends, 2003). 9 Himes, Christine L., Population Bulletin: Elderly Americans, vol. 56, no. 4, Population Reference Bureau, December 2001. (Hereafter referred to as Himes, Elderly Americans, 2001). 10 Rogers, Carolyn C., Changes in the Older Population and Implications for Rural Areas, Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Research Report, no. 90, Washington, DC, December 1999. (Hereafter referred to as Rogers, Changes in the Older Population, 1999). This report defines the older population as 60 and older. one-third of the entire U.S. older population (31%). The remaining six states each had more than 1 million older Americans. 1 elbaT 56 egA noitalupoP .S.U fo tnecreP dna noitalupoP yb deknaR setatS neT poT. 5002 ,redlO dna .S.U fo tnecreP knaR etatS rebmuN 56 noitalupop redlo dna .1 ainrofilaC 475,868,3 25.01 .2 adirolF 061,399,2 41.8 .3 kroY weN 460,515,2 48.6 .4 saxeT 548,172,2 81.6 .5 ainavlysnneP 748,298,1 41.5 .6 oihO 470,035,1 61.4 .7 sionillI 034,925,1 61.4 .8 nagihciM 494,852,1 24.3 .9 yesreJ weN 653,921,1 70.3 .01 aniloraC htroN 890,450,1 78.2 latoT 249,240,02 05.45 .uaeruB susneC .S.U eht morf atad no desab noitalipmoc SRC :ecruoS States with small populations, such as South Dakota, North Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, and Alaska and the District of Columbia had fewer older Americans. In 2005, just 1% of the older population lived in these five states and the District of Columbia. The size of the older population in these states ranged between 44,000 in Alaska and 110,000 in South Dakota. Figure 2 shows a map of the U.S. population age 65 and older by state. A complete list of states ranked by the number of older residents and percent of the U.S. population age 65 and older is presented in Appendix Table A-1. .2 erugiF 5002 ,etatS yb redlO dna 56 egA noitalupoP .S.U United States Total: 36,790,113 DC Number 0 to 499,999 500,000 to 999,999 1,000,000 or more .uaeruB susneC .S.U eht morf atad no desab noitalipmoc SRC :ecruoS Generally, the states that had the largest number of older Americans in 2005 were not the same states with the largest proportion of older residents (with the exception of Florida and Pennsylvania). The first population statistic refers to the distribution of the total U.S. population age 65 and older by state, the second statistic refers to the distribution of the population age 65 and older within a state, that is, the proportion of the state's older residents relative to the state's total resident population.11 Table 2 shows the top 10 states ranked by percent of the state's resident population age 65 and older, and the bottom 10 states with the smallest proportion of older residents. 2 elbaT tnediseR etatS fo tnecreP yb deknaR setatS 01 mottoB dna 01 poT. 5002 ,redlO dna 56 egA noitalupoP tnediser fo tnecrep htiw setats 01 poT knaR tnediser fo tnecrep htiw setats 01 mottoB knaR revo dna 56 noitalupop revo dna 56 noitalupop tnecreP etatS tnecreP etatS .1 adirolF 38.61 .24 ohadI 74.11 .2 ainigriV tseW 23.51 .34 notgnihsaW 64.11 .3 ainavlysnneP 32.51 .44 ainigriV 34.11 .4 atokaD htroN 17.41 .54 adaveN 13.11 .5 awoI 76.41 .64 ainrofilaC 17.01 .6 eniaM 85.41 .74 odaroloC 79.9 .7 atokaD htuoS 42.41 .84 saxeT 49.9 11 This report refers to the proportion of the state's population age 65 and older relative to the total U.S. population age 65 and older as the percent of the U.S. population 65 and older by state. The proportion of the state's population age 65 and older relative to the total state population, in this report, is referred to as the percent of the state's resident population age 65 and older. tnediser fo tnecrep htiw setats 01 poT knaR tnediser fo tnecrep htiw setats 01 mottoB knaR revo dna 56 noitalupop revo dna 56 noitalupop tnecreP etatS tnecreP etatS .8 dnalsI edohR 29.31 .94 aigroeG 95.9 .9 sasnakrA 38.31 .05 hatU 57.8 .01 anatnoM 77.31 .15 aksalA 36.6 .uaeruB susneC .S.U eht morf atad no desab noitalipmoc SRC :ecruoS .%4.21 si redlo dna 56 ega noitalupop .S.U eht fo tnecreP :etoN States such as California and Texas have relatively lower shares of older residents due to increases in fertility and in-migration of younger residents. While California has the largest number of older people, at 3.8 million, it is among the states with the lowest proportion of older residents, with 10.7% of the resident population age 65 and older. In contrast, North Dakota and South Dakota are two of the bottom 10 states with the lowest number of older people, but among the states with the highest proportion of older residents (14.7% and 14.2%, respectively, well above the national average of 12.4%). Figure 3 shows a map of the United States with the percent of each state's resident population age 65 and older in 2005. A complete list of state rankings by percent of the state resident population age 65 and older is seen in Appendix Table A-2. 5002 ,redlO dna 56 egA noitalupoP tnediseR etatS fo tnecreP .3 erugiF United States Average: 12.4% DC 10.7% or less 10.8% to 12.4% 12.5% to 14.1% 14.2% or more .uaeruB susneC .S.U eht morf atad no desab noitalipmoc SRC :ecruoS More than 5 million U.S. residents were age 85 and older in 2005, representing 1.7% of the total U.S. population. North Dakota has the highest proportion of a resident population age 85 and older, with 2.7% of its resident population among the oldest-old. Several New England and Midwestern states were among those with the highest proportion of oldest-old residents, including Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts in the Northeastern region of the country, and Iowa, Kansas, and the Dakotas in the Midwest. A complete list of state rankings by percent of the state resident population age 85 and older is seen in Appendix Table A-3. the states is provided in Appendix Table A-5. older by state. A detailed table with the percent changes in the population age 85 and older for all Figure 5 shows a map of the United States with the five-year growth of the population age 85 and Mississippi, experienced declines in their oldest-old population over the same five-year period. likely to be frail or in need of health and supportive services. Two states, Oklahoma and may leave some states with an increasing oldest-old population that is aging in place and more suggests that retirement migration of a "younger" senior population, that is, those age 65 to 74, increases in their oldest-old population during the same five-year time period. This further The same states that experienced overall declines in their population age 65 and older had 80,000 oldest-old residents. (Hawaii, Nevada, Alaska, Delaware, and Rhode Island). The remaining four states had more than Washington. However, five of these states have less than 30,000 individuals age 85 and older Hawaii, Nevada, Alaska, Delaware, Connecticut, Maryland, Arizona, Rhode Island, and Nine states experienced increases in their population age 85 and older of about one-third or more: Dramatic growth of the oldest-old population occurred in several states between 2000 and 2005. .uaeruB susneC .S.U eht morf atad no desab noitalipmoc SRC :ecruoS 10.3% or more 5.2% to 10.2% 0.1% to 5.1% 0 or less 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 DC 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Average: 5.1% United States 5002 ot 0002 ,etatS yb redlO dna 56 egA noitalupoP eht fo etaR htworG .4 erugiF changes in the population age 65 and older for all the states is provided in Appendix Table A-4. five-year growth of the population age 65 and older by state. A detailed table with the percent Midwest or Northeast regions of the country. Figure 4 shows a map of the United States with Massachusetts, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. These states were either in the District of Columbia have experienced overall declines in their older populations: Iowa, Delaware. All of these states are in the South and West regions. Another group of states and the two times the average growth: Utah, Arizona, Idaho, Colorado, Georgia, New Mexico, and with population increases of 24.8% and 23.3%, respectively. Another seven states have more than States such as Nevada and Alaska have experienced more than four times the average growth rate, Several states have experienced dramatic growth in their older population over the past five years. Oregon, California, Alaska, and Hawaii. Western region include Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, and Oklahoma; states in the region include Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas; states in the Southern New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania; states in the Midwest region include: Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, States in the Northeast region include Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, 13 Longino, A First Look at Retirement Migration Trends, 2003. 12 Northeast and the West (21% and 20%, respectively) (see Figure 6). quarter of the older population lived in the Midwest (24%), and about one-fifth each lived in the (36%) of the total U.S. population age 65 and older, lived in the Southern region. Almost one- the Midwest, Northeast, and West regions. More than 13.3 million older Americans, or one-third South, and West.13 In 2005, the largest number of older Americans lived in the South, followed by The Census divides the United States into four geographic regions: the Northeast, Midwest, these states and aged in place. older populations due to increasing longevity among the older residents who have remained in destination states in 2000.12 Other states are experiencing higher-than-average growth of their experiencing high growth, such as Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia, were among the leading trends suggest a wider variation in retirement destinations among older interstate migrants, states geographically in a few states, such as Florida, Arizona, California, and Texas. While recent among the older population. Historically, migration of the older population has been concentrated There are several reasons why some states may be experiencing higher-than-average growth .uaeruB susneC .S.U eht morf atad no desab noitalipmoc SRC :ecruoS 30.4% or more 20.3% to 30.3% 10.2% to 20.2% 0000000000000 0.1% to 10.1% 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 or less 0000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 DC 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Average: 20.2% United States 5002 ot 0002 ,etatS yb redlO dna 58 egA noitalupoP eht fo etaR htworG . 5 erugiF 6 erugiF 5002 ,noigeR yb redlO dna 56 egA noitalupoP .S.U fo tnecreP . DC West (20%) Northeast (21%) Midwest (24%) South (36%) .uaeruB susneC .S.U eht morf atad no desab noitalipmoc SRC :ecruoS .%001 naht erom ot latot 6 erugiF ni segatnecrep ,gnidnuor ot euD :etoN Between 2000 and 2005, growth of the U.S. population age 65 and older has largely occurred in the Southern and Western regions (see Table 3). Compared to the national average of 5.1%, these regions have experienced higher-than-average growth, with a 7.0% increase in the population age 65 and older in the South, and a 9.5% increase in the West. 3 elbaT 5002 ot 0002 ,noigeR yb redlO dna 56 egA noitalupoP eht fo etaR htworG . +56 noitalupoP +56 noitalupoP etaR htworG noigeR 0002 ni 5002 ni )%( tsaehtroN 282,273,7 967,154,7 1.1 tsewdiM 570,952,8 405,344,8 2.2 htuoS 762,834,21 897,413,31 0.7 tseW 921,229,6 240,085,7 5.9 latoT 357,199,43 311,097,63 1.5 .uaeruB susneC .S.U eht morf atad no desab noitalipmoc SRC :ecruoS Growth of the oldest-old population between 2000 and 2005 has largely occurred in the West (29%) and Northeast (24%) (see Table 4). The average growth rate for the United States is 20%. Higher-than-average growth of the population age 85 and older in the Northeast and West is likely due to increases in longevity and the pattern of many older individuals to age-in-place.14 Increases in the oldest-old population in the Northeast region may also be affected by "counterstream" migration patterns, where older individuals who retired to Southern states when 14 Himes, Elderly Americans, 2001. economic and health conditions were more favorable return to their state of origin or locations closer in proximity to family and friends.15 Many Western states, such as Arizona, California, and Nevada, were among the leading retirement destination states in 2000, attributing to growth among the older population in the West. 4 elbaT 5002 ot 0002 ,noigeR yb redlO dna 58 egA noitalupoP eht fo etaR htworG . +58 noitalupoP +58 noitalupoP etaR htworG noigeR 0002 5002 )%( tsaehtroN 954,839 838,361,1 0.42 tsewdiM 592,460,1 567,562,1 9.81 htuoS 645,034,1 859,426,1 6.31 tseW 782,608 773,140,1 2.92 setatS detinU 785,932,4 839,590,5 2.02 .uaeruB susneC .S.U eht morf atad no desab noitalipmoc SRC :ecruoS Similar to other age groups, most individuals age 65 and older live inside metropolitan areas. In 2004, more than three-fourths (77%) of the U.S. population age 65 and older lived inside metropolitan area, an increase from 74% in 1990 (see Figure 7). Of the older population living inside metropolitan areas, half (50%) lived in the suburbs, while 27% lived in central cities. 3002 ,snoigeR natiloporteM ni redlO dna 56 egA noitalupoP eht fo tnecreP .7 erugiF 27% Metropolitan: Suburban 50% Metropolitan: City Non-metropolitan 23% .5002 :snaciremA redlO fo eliforP A ,AOA :ecruoS However, the older population accounted for a larger proportion of the total U.S. population living in non-metropolitan or rural areas (14.7%) than inside metropolitan areas (11.9%). This pattern holds true for the population age 85 and older, who also represented a slightly larger 15 Stoller, Eleanor P. and Charles F. Longino Jr., "Going Home" or "Leaving Home"? The Impact of Person and Place Ties on Anticipated Counterstream Migration, The Gerontologist, vol. 41, no. 1, 2001, pp. 96-102. (Hereafter referred to as: Stoller, "Going Home" or "Leaving Home"?, 2001). proportion of the total U.S. population living outside of metropolitan areas (1.8% versus 1.4%, respectively) in 2000.16 While the older population tends to be concentrated in both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in the South, a large proportion of non-metropolitan elderly reside in the Midwest and Northeast. Compared to other regions, the non-metropolitan Midwest has the largest proportion of its population age 85 and older. This reflects both out-migration of young adults and aging in place of older residents in the Midwest. In general, non-metropolitan areas have a greater proportion of older individuals that have lower educational attainment, lower incomes and fewer sources of retirement income, and less adequate housing and transportation, compared to older individuals living in metropolitan areas.17 Several large metropolitan areas experienced high growth of the older population between 1990 and 2000. For example, the over-65 population in Las Vegas, NV, grew by 86% during the 1990s. Major metropolitan areas such as Phoenix, AZ, and Austin, TX, each experienced an increase of more than one-third in their older resident population (see Table 5). Smaller metropolitan areas such as Naples, FL, and Anchorage, AK, also experienced high growth. Much of the growth of the older population in metropolitan areas is due to population increases in suburban areas, particularly in expanding metropolitan areas such as Dallas and Atlanta. llamS dna rojaM ni redlO dna 56 egA noitalupoP eht fo etaR htworG .5 elbaT 0002 ot 0991 ,saerA natiloporteM knaR aerA natiloporteM a etaR htworG )%( aerA natiloporteM rojaM .1 ZA-VN ,sageV saL 2.68 .2 ZA ,aseM-xineohP 0.83 .3 XT ,socraM naS-nitsuA 3.73 .4 XT ,airozarB-notsevlaG-notsuoH 8.13 .5 AG ,atnaltA 8.03 .6 LF ,odnalrO 8.82 .7 AC ,oloY-otnemarcaS 8.72 .8 CN ,lliH lepahC-mahruD-hgielaR 8.52 .9 OC ,yeleerG-redluoB-revneD 8.52 .01 XT ,htroW htroF-sallaD 1.52 16 The metropolitan areas were defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as of June 30, 1999. All metropolitan areas are either metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) or consolidated metropolitan statistical areas (CMSAs). For further information, see He, 65+ in the United States: 2005. 17 Rogers, Changes in the Older Population, 1999. This report defines the older population as 60 and older. knaR aerA natiloporteM a etaR htworG )%( aerA natiloporteM llamS .1 LF ,selpaN 9.77 .2 KA ,egarohcnA 5.27 .3 CS ,hcaeB eltryM 7.16 .4 MN ,securC saL 7.55 .5 LF ,hcaeB notlaW troF 1.55 .6 LF ,alacO 0.74 .7 TU-ZA ,ffatsgalF 3.64 .8 CN ,notgnimliW 7.54 .9 XT ,noissiM-grubnidE-nellAcM 8.34 .01 LF ,yaB mlaP-ellivsutiT-enruobleM 6.24 .91 .p ,1002 .voN ,scihpargomeD naciremA ,aibrubuS ni sroineS ,.H mailliW ,yerF :ecruoS .0002 enuJ ni BMO yb denifed sa ,sAMCEN )dnalgnE weN ni( dna ,sASM ,sASMC era saera natiloporteM .a natiloportem llams ;0002 raey eht ni noillim 1 gnideecxe snoitalupop latot evah saera natiloportem rojaM .0002 raey eht ni noillim 1 naht ssel fo snoitalupop latot evah saera The "graying of the suburbs" has occurred as once young adults who first moved to the suburbs in the 1950s to start families have aged in place into their retirement years. In the 1990s, senior growth in suburban areas was 20%, compared to just over 2% in central cities.18 Suburbs with the fastest-growing population age 65 and older were located in "sunbelt" states such as Arizona and Texas. Suburbs with the largest proportion of their resident population age 65 and older were located in popular retirement states such as Florida. These suburbs tend to have "younger" senior populations, members of which are more likely to live with a spouse, have fewer disabilities, and higher incomes. Suburbs with the largest share of older residents were also located in "rustbelt" states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio and upstate New York. Members of the older population in these suburbs were, in general, more likely to be "older" seniors, more likely to be female, and more likely to being living alone.19 ¢ In 2000, 11 of the 3,141 counties in the United States had more than 250,000 residents age 65 and older: Los Angeles (CA), Cook (IL), Maricopa (AZ), San Diego (CA), Miami-Dade (FL), Queens (NY), Kings (NY), Orange (CA), Palm Beach (FL), Broward (FL), and Harris (TX). Counties with the largest population sizes had from approximately 250,000 to more than 900,000 older individuals. Not surprisingly, many of these counties are located in states with large numbers of older residents (California, Florida, Illinois, New York, Texas) and include major metropolitan areas such as Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Diego, Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, Chicago, New York City, 18 Frey, William H., Seniors in Suburbia, American Demographics, vol. 23, no.11, November 2001, pp. 18-21. 19 Frey, William H., Boomers and Seniors in the Suburbs: Aging Patterns in Census 2000, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, January 2003, p. 13. Hereafter cited as: Frey, Boomers and Seniors in the Suburbs, 2003. and Houston. In 2000, 331 counties had 20% or more of their population age 65 and older, a decline from 393 counties in 1990.20 None of the 11 counties that were largest in size of the population age 65 and older were among the counties with the greatest proportion of older residents (see Table 6). Counties with the largest proportion of residents age 65 and older were concentrated in the Midwest and the South, with six in Florida. None were in the Northeast. In these counties almost one-third or more of county residents were age 65 and older. 6 elbaT 0002 ,redlO dna 56 egA noitalupoP tnediseR yb deknaR seitnuoC . noitalupop tnediser fo tnecreP redlo dna 56 knaR ytnuoC etatS tnecreP .1 ettolrahC LF 7.43 .2 hsotnIcM DN 2.43 .3 sdnalhgiH LF 0.33 .4 surtiC LF 2.23 .5 oawalaK IH 0.23 .6 atosaraS LF 5.13 .7 odnanreH LF 9.03 .8 onalL XT 7.03 .9 nosrehPcM DS 6.92 .01 ediviD DN 5.92 .11 reviR naidnI LF 2.92 setatS detinU 4.21 ,eH morf atad no desab noitalipmoc SRC :ecruoS .5002 :setatS detinU eht ni +56 The number of counties with at least 25,000 residents age 85 and older more than doubled between 1990 and 2000, from 8 counties to 18. These counties include all of the 11 counties with more than 250,000 residents age 65 and older, as well as Pinellas (FL), Allegheny (PA), Cuyahoga (OH), Philadelphia (PA), Wayne (MI), New York City (NY), and Middlesex (MA).21 The size of the oldest-old population in the top counties ranged from just over 25,000 in Middlesex (MA) to 109,000 in Los Angeles (CA). Three states--New York, California, and Florida--each had 3 counties that were among the largest in terms of size of the oldest-old population.22 However, as shown in Table 7, none of the 18 counties with the largest population age 85 and older were among the top 18 counties with the largest proportion of their resident population age 20 He, 65+ in the United States: 2005. 21 Philadelphia County, PA, consolidated with the City of Philadelphia in 1854. New York County, NY, consolidated with the City of New York in 1874. For further information see, National Association of Counties, at http://www.naco.org. 22 Ibid. 85 and older. With the exception of two Texas counties (Foard and Stonewall), all counties with the highest proportion of the oldest-old were in the Midwest, specifically Kansas (7), North Dakota (4), South Dakota (2), Nebraska (2), and Minnesota (1). Between 1990 and 2000, 121 counties experienced 100% or more growth of the oldest-old population. Counties that experienced high growth among the oldest-old were primarily concentrated in the South and West, none of these counties were in the Northeast. 7 elbaT 0002 ,redlO dna 58 egA noitalupoP tnediseR yb deknaR seitnuoC . noitalupop tnediser fo tnecreP redlo dna 58 ega knaR ytnuoC etatS tnecreP .1 hsotnIcM DN 46.6 .2 rekooH EN 62.6 .3 ediviD DN 96.5 .4 htimS SK 74.5 .5 enrobsO SK 82.5 .6 duolC SK 72.5 .7 esrevarT NM 02.5 .8 draoF XT 81.5 .9 klE SK 51.5 .01 dleifraG EN 01.5 .11 nosnihctuH DS 80.5 .21 yrogerG DS 99.4 .31 ahameN SK 89.4 .41 notgnihsaW SK 79.4 .51 slleW DN 68.4 .61 llawenotS XT 48.4 .71 ehcnamoC SK 87.4 .81 sggirG DN 67.4 setatS setinU 27.1 ,eH morf atad no desab noitalipmoc SRC :ecruoS .5002 :setatS detinU eht ni +56 Of all 3,141 counties in the United States, 72% had a proportion of their resident population age 65 and older that exceeded the national average of 12.4% in 2000 (see Table 8). The Midwest had the highest percentage of counties (82%) with an above-average older resident population, followed by the Northeast (78%), South (69%), and West (55%). This further suggests that the trends of out-migration of young workers and aging in place in the Midwest and Northeast have had a disproportionate effect on these regions. While most states (43) have a majority of counties with a proportion of residents age 65 and older that is greater than the national value of 12.4%, in seven states more than 90% of the counties had proportions greater than this value. Not surprisingly, these states were in either the Midwest or Northeast and include: Rhode Island, Maine, Nebraska, Iowa, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and North Dakota. 8 elbaT ,noigeR yb redlO dna sraeY 56 egA noitroporP .S.U eht gnideecxE seitnuoC . 0002 gnideecxe seitnuoC noigeR latoT noitroporp .S.U seitnuoc tnecreP rebmuN tsaehtroN 712 071 3.87 tsewdiM 550,1 968 4.28 htuoS 424,1 089 8.86 tseW 544 442 8.45 setatS detinU 141,3 362,2 0.27 -10/RBK2C ,feirB 0002 susneC ,0002 :noitalupoP revO dna sraeY 56 ehT ,htimS attennA dna asiL ,lezteH :ecruoS .1002 .tcO .CD ,notgnihsaW ,uaeruB susneC .S.U ,01 .%4.21 saw revo dna sraey 56 ega noitalupop .S.U eht fo noitroporP :etoN ¢ The geographic distribution of older Americans and changes in population distribution over the past few decades have implications for federal policy directly and for state and local policy that could, in turn, affect federal policy decisions. The following section describes some implications for federal, state, and local policy. The federal government relies on population data from the U.S. Census Bureau to distribute almost $200 billion in federal, state, local, and tribal funds.23 Targeting federal funds to areas of the country with large numbers of older Americans depends on accurate data collection (see Appendix). For example, allotments to states for OAA Title III supportive services and senior centers, congregate nutrition and home-delivered nutrition services, and disease prevention and health promotion services are based on a population formula factor that is defined as each state's relative share of the total U.S. population age 60 years and older. Funds for the family caregiver support program are allotted to states based on each state's relative share of the population age 70 years and older. States in turn distribute their federal allotment to local area agencies on aging using an intrastate funding formula. In addition, the HUD Section 202 program distributes funds for rental housing for those age 62 and older based, in part, on Census population estimates.24 The federal government can also assist state and local governments in preparing and planning for resources in anticipation of the aging baby boom generation. The OAA Amendments of 2006 (P.L. 109-365) recognized the importance of state and local efforts to plan for these coming demographic changes. P.L. 109-365 requires each state agency on aging, at the election of the 23 U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Basics, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2002. 24 For comparability with published estimates from the U.S. Census and other sources, the older population in this report is defined as age 65 and older. state, to include in state plans on aging an assessment of how prepared the state is for changes in the elderly population. The assessment may include · an analysis of how demographic changes may affect older individuals, including those with low incomes, those with greatest economic need, minority older individuals, those residing in rural areas, and those with limited English proficiency; · an analysis of how the programs, policies, and services provided by states and area agencies can be improved, and how resource levels can be adjusted to meet the needs of the changing population of older individuals in the state; and · an analysis of how the change in the number of persons age 85 years and older is expected to affect the need for supportive services. The law also authorizes area agencies on aging to conduct similar activities and to make recommendations to government officials on actions to build their capacity to respond to the needs of the growing aging population, including health and human services, land use, housing, transportation, public safety, workforce and economic development, and emergency preparedness, among others.25 Many state and local communities face increases both in the size and proportion of their older resident population, due in part to longer life expectancy and the aging of the baby boom generation. Additionally, some states and communities have been identified as retirement "magnets," that is, they are popular retirement destination spots. These retirement hot spots, many in sunbelt states such as Florida, Arizona, and Nevada, are popular typically because they have warmer climates, a lower cost of living, and lower population density, relative to the retiree's state of origin. Popular destination states have experienced an influx of older migrants who are typically in their immediate post-retirement years, between the ages of 65 and 74, with considerable disposable income, married, and in favorable health. Some experts believe that areas experiencing growth from a "younger" senior population are likely to benefit from increases in consumption of local goods and services, a net increase in the state and local tax base, and greater community involvement, including volunteerism, from an active retirement population.26 Other states and local communities may face increases in the share of their older resident population due to younger working-age residents leaving for jobs in other states, leaving an ever- increasing older population. As the economic and health status of older individuals declines with advanced age, states and local communities with higher concentrations of older Americans, particularly those age 85 and older, may face increased demands for public support for resources such as medical and health services, social services, housing, transportation, and long-term care. The ability of state and local governments to pay for these services may be difficult. Communities with a greater proportion of older individuals aging in place may face greater financial responsibilities than communities with a higher proportion of young retirees both because those 25 For further information, see CRS Report RL31336, The Older Americans Act: Programs, Funding, and 2006 Reauthorization (P.L. 109-365), by Carol O'Shaughnessy and Angela Napili. 26 Frey, Seniors in Suburbia, 2001. who are among the oldest-old generally have lower incomes and greater health and social service needs, and because they have fewer young people to count on for support.27 A related concern involves older persons who return from popular retirement destination states to their state of origin possibly due to changes in their economic, social, or health status, such as widowhood or onset of chronic disease or disability. These so-called counterstream migrants have been found to be, on average, somewhat older, and more often widowed and living dependently with relatives and others than other migrants.28 The proportion of the older population in non-metropolitan or rural areas has increased over the past two decades due to several factors: older individuals aging in place; out-migration of younger workers leaving behind an older resident population; and, the movement of older individuals from metropolitan areas to smaller communities or, "in-migration" of retirees. According to researchers, the older population, particularly the oldest-old, in rural or non- metropolitan areas are more likely to be poor than those living in urban or metropolitan areas.29 Many observers believe that rural health services can be more costly to deliver and are less accessible, either due to the recipients lack of close proximity to services or to fewer providers and less specialized services. Furthermore, the range of health care services may be limited with few alternatives for patients. Given that the older population accounts for a larger proportion of the total population in non-metropolitan areas, some experts have expressed concern about ongoing problems with the delivery of medical and social services to rural residents.30 As a result, Congress has passed legislation that specifically includes provisions focusing on the special needs of the rural elderly. For example, under the OAA, Title III services are available to all persons age 60 and over, but are targeted to those with the greatest economic or social need, particularly low-income and minority persons and older persons residing in rural areas. The law also requires that states, in developing their intrastate funding formulas, take into account the distribution of people with those characteristics. The law further requires that the agencies set specific objectives for serving target groups and that program development, advocacy, and outreach efforts be focused on these groups. Service providers are required to meet specific objectives set by area agencies for providing services to target groups, including the rural elderly, and area agencies are required to describe in their area plans how they have met these objectives. 27 Frey, Boomers and Seniors in the Suburbs, 2003. 28 Stoller, "Going Home" or "Leaving Home"?, 2001. 29 Rogers, Changes in the Older Population, 1999. This report defines the older population as 60 and older. 30 Ibid. ¡ ¢ The primary source of data for this report is the U.S. Census Bureau.31 Data used in this report are from Census population estimates for 2005 and published data from the 2000 Decennial census. Another source of population data cited in this report is the Current Population Survey (CPS), a nationally representative sample survey of households conducted monthly by the U.S. Census Bureau. Monthly CPS supplements provide demographic and social data. Given that a large amount of federal spending for programs and services to vulnerable older populations is distributed based on Census population data, the accuracy of data collection methods is important. However, some individuals, including older individuals, may be counted incorrectly or not captured in the Census at all. The Census may not accurately capture older individuals who travel frequently or have multiple residences in one year. For example, this may affect the so-called "snow-bird" population, who choose to spend part of the year, typically the winter months, in a state with a warmer climate. These older individuals would be identified in the state where they were residing on April 1, regardless of their permanent address. Alternatively, some older Americans choose to have no permanent residence and instead travel continuously in the United States and/or abroad, live in a vacation home, or live and travel in recreational vehicles. While it is difficult to quantify the number of older individuals who choose these lifestyles, some observers indicate this population is increasing.32 According to experts, reliable data at the state and local levels are needed to help governments accurately assess the well-being of their older populations.33 Information on the older population may also be difficult to obtain due to lack of data collection or specification by residential setting. Like many large national household-based surveys that rely on Census population data, the CPS does not sample the institutionalized population, including those in nursing homes. This exclusion can be an issue for researchers and policymakers who are interested in information on the entire older population, particularly among the oldest-old age group. And, as the use of assisted-living facilities and other types of residential settings as alternatives to institutional care has increased over the past 15 years, data collection efforts that distinguish these types of non-institutional community residences from institutional facilities will be important for state and local long-term care planning and service delivery.34 31 The federal government is mandated by the U.S. Constitution to conduct a census, or count, of the entire U.S. population every 10 years. In 2000 the census occurred on April 1. 32 Longino, Charles F. Jr., "Geographic Mobility and the Baby Boom," Generations, Spring 1998, vol. 22, no. 1, pg. 50. 33 Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics, Older Americans 2004. 34 Ibid. 67.0 863,872 ainigriV tseW .43 79.0 500,753 sasnaK .33 79.0 393,853 ippississiM .23 40.1 054,483 sasnakrA .13 81.1 022,534 awoI .03 62.1 690,564 odaroloC .92 72.1 869,864 amohalkO .82 82.1 609,964 nogerO .72 92.1 051,474 tucitcennoC .62 34.1 467,525 ykcutneK .52 44.1 185,135 anaisiuoL .42 54.1 089,435 aniloraC htuoS .32 46.1 337,306 amabalA .22 96.1 142,326 atosenniM .12 57.1 065,446 dnalyraM .02 69.1 478,027 notgnihsaW .91 69.1 336,127 nisnocsiW .81 40.2 159,947 eessenneT .71 60.2 181,857 anozirA .61 01.2 171,377 iruossiM .51 11.2 605,777 anaidnI .41 23.2 628,258 sttesuhcassaM .31 53.2 301,568 ainigriV .21 73.2 224,078 aigroeG .11 78.2 890,450,1 aniloraC htroN .01 70.3 653,921,1 yesreJ weN .9 24.3 494,852,1 nagihciM .8 61.4 034,925,1 oihO .7 61.4 470,035,1 sionillI .6 41.5 748,298,1 ainavlysnneP .5 81.6 548,172,2 saxeT .4 48.6 460,515,2 kroY weN .3 41.8 061,399,2 adirolF .2 25.01 475,868,3 ainrofilaC .1 redlo dna redlo dna 56 noitalupop 56 elpoep etatS knaR .S.U fo tnecreP fo rebmuN 5002 ,redlO dna 56 egA noitalupoP .S.U fo tnecreP dna rebmuN eht yb deknaR setatS .1-A elbaT 41.21 aniloraC htroN .83 15.31 tucitcennoC .21 41.21 atosenniM .73 96.31 iiawaH .11 81.21 gnimoyW .63 77.31 anatnoM .01 81.21 ocixeM weN .53 38.31 sasnakrA .9 12.21 aibmuloC fo tcirtsiD .43 29.31 dnalsI edohR .8 72.21 ippississiM .33 42.41 atokaD htuoS .7 04.21 anaidnI .23 85.41 eniaM .6 34.21 nagihciM .13 76.41 awoI .5 54.21 erihspmaH weN .03 17.41 atokaD htroN .4 75.21 aniloraC htuoS .92 32.51 ainavlysnneP .3 85.21 eessenneT .82 23.51 ainigriV tseW .2 06.21 ykcutneK .72 38.61 adirolF .1 redlo dna redlo dna 56 stnediser etatS knaR 56 stnediser etatS knaR fo tnecreP fo tnecreP 5002 ,redlO dna 56 egA noitalupoP tnediseR riehT fo tnecreP eht yb deknaR setatS .2-A elbaT .uaeruB susneC .S.U eht morf atad no desab noitalipmoc SRC :ecruoS 00.001 311,097,63 setatS detinU 21.0 620,44 aksalA .15 71.0 730,26 gnimoyW .05 81.0 802,76 aibmuloC fo tcirtsiD .94 22.0 289,18 tnomreV .84 52.0 056,39 atokaD htroN .74 03.0 035,011 atokaD htuoS .64 13.0 412,211 erawaleD .54 53.0 438,821 anatnoM .44 14.0 577,941 dnalsI edohR .34 44.0 501,361 erihspmaH weN .24 54.0 719,361 ohadI .14 74.0 835,471 iiawaH .04 25.0 466,291 eniaM .93 95.0 120,612 hatU .83 36.0 055,332 aksarbeN .73 46.0 209,432 ocixeM weN .63 47.0 631,372 adaveN .53 redlo dna redlo dna 56 noitalupop 56 elpoep etatS knaR .S.U fo tnecreP fo rebmuN 44.1 ainigriV .24 89.1 eniaM .61 54.1 eessenneT .14 10.2 atosenniM .51 54.1 ykcutneK .04 50.2 nogerO .41 74.1 aniloraC htroN .93 50.2 anatnoM .31 84.1 gnimoyW .83 80.2 nisnocsiW .21 94.1 amabalA .73 01.2 aksarbeN .11 94.1 aniloraC htuoS .63 01.2 sasnaK .01 05.1 ainrofilaC .53 71.2 iiawaH .9 45.1 anozirA .43 22.2 sttesuhcassaM .8 65.1 amohalkO .33 52.2 adirolF .7 95.1 dnalyraM .23 14.2 atokaD htuoS .6 46.1 ohadI .13 64.2 ainavlysnneP .5 07.1 erawaleD .03 64.2 tucitcennoC .4 37.1 anaidnI .92 45.2 awoI .3 57.1 sasnakrA .82 65.2 dnalsI edohR .2 67.1 notgnihsaW .72 96.2 atokaD htroN .1 redlo dna redlo dna 58 stnediser etatS knaR 58 stnediser etatS knaR fo tnecreP fo tnecreP 5002 ,redlO dna 58 egA noitalupoP tnediseR riehT fo tnecreP eht yb deknaR setatS .3-A elbaT .uaeruB susneC .S.U eht morf atad no desab noitalipmoc SRC :ecruoS 14.21 setatS detinU 77.21 anozirA .62 36.6 aksalA .15 19.21 nogerO .52 57.8 hatU .05 59.21 yesreJ weN .42 95.9 aigroeG .94 10.31 sasnaK .32 49.9 saxeT .84 30.31 nisnocsiW .22 79.9 odaroloC .74 60.31 kroY weN .12 17.01 ainrofilaC .64 61.31 tnomreV .02 13.11 adaveN .54 22.31 amohalkO .91 34.11 ainigriV .44 52.31 amabalA .81 64.11 notgnihsaW .34 82.31 aksarbeN .71 74.11 ohadI .24 03.31 erawaleD .61 15.11 dnalyraM .14 33.31 sttesuhcassaM .51 57.11 anaisiuoL .04 33.31 iruossiM .41 99.11 sionillI .93 43.31 oihO .31 redlo dna redlo dna 56 stnediser etatS knaR 56 stnediser etatS knaR fo tnecreP fo tnecreP 35.7 443,4 730,26 396,75 gnimoyW .91 55.7 352,54 065,446 703,995 dnalyraM .81 95.7 619,272 475,868,3 856,595,3 ainrofilaC .71 86.8 739,31 835,471 106,061 iiawaH .61 87.8 050,58 890,450,1 840,969 aniloraC htroN .51 78.8 627,85 478,027 841,266 notgnihsaW .41 81.9 077,27 301,568 333,297 ainigriV .31 26.9 313,991 548,172,2 235,270,2 saxeT .21 32.01 531,51 501,361 079,741 erihspmaH weN .11 32.01 746,94 089,435 333,584 aniloraC htuoS .01 13.01 884,01 412,211 627,101 erawaleD .9 96.01 776,22 209,432 522,212 ocixeM weN .8 48.01 741,58 224,078 572,587 aigroeG .7 87.11 320,94 690,564 370,614 odaroloC .6 43.21 100,81 719,361 619,541 ohadI .5 35.31 243,09 181,857 938,766 anozirA .4 65.31 997,52 120,612 222,091 hatU .3 33.32 723,8 620,44 996,53 aksalA .2 67.42 702,45 631,372 929,812 adaveN .1 5002 ot 0002 5002 ot 0002 5002 0002 ,redlo dna ,redlo dna ,redlo dna ,redlo dna 56 elpoep 56 elpoep etatS knaR fo rebmun ni fo rebmun 56 elpoep 56 elpoep egnahc tnecreP ni egnahC fo rebmuN fo rebmuN 5002 ,redlO dna 56 egA noitalupoP fo etaR htworG yb deknaR setatS .4-A elbaT .uaeruB susneC .S.U eht morf atad no desab noitalipmoc SRC :ecruoS 27.1 setatS detinU 67.1 aibmuloC fo tcirtsiD .62 95.0 aksalA .15 87.1 sionillI .52 60.1 adaveN .05 97.1 iruossiM .42 11.1 aigroeG .94 97.1 erihspmaH weN .32 11.1 hatU .84 18.1 ainigriV tseW .22 31.1 saxeT .74 28.1 nagihciM .12 82.1 odaroloC .64 09.1 oihO .02 83.1 anaisiuoL .54 19.1 tnomreV .91 93.1 ippississiM .44 29.1 kroY weN .81 34.1 ocixeM weN .34 69.1 yesreJ weN .71 redlo dna redlo dna 58 stnediser etatS knaR 58 stnediser etatS knaR fo tnecreP fo tnecreP .uaeruB susneC .S.U eht morf atad no desab noitalipmoc SRC :ecruoS 41.5 063,897,1 311,097,63 357,199,43 setatS detinU 58.3- )096,2( 802,76 898,96 fo tcirtsiD .15 27.1- )726,2( 577,941 204,251 dnalsI edohR .05 73.1- )813,62( 748,298,1 561,919,1 ainavlysnneP .94 88.0- )828( 056,39 874,49 atokaD htroN .84 58.0- )633,7( 628,258 261,068 sttesuhcassaM .74 32.0- )399( 022,534 312,634 awoI .64 22.0 677 500,753 922,653 sasnaK .54 35.0 374,1 863,872 598,672 ainigriV tseW .44 85.0 553,1 055,332 591,232 aksarbeN .34 48.0 769,3 051,474 381,074 tucitcennoC .24 44.1 376,12 034,925,1 757,705,1 oihO .14 64.1 022,61 653,921,1 631,311,1 yesreJ weN .04 00.2 940,03 470,035,1 520,005,1 sionillI .93 22.2 993,2 035,011 131,801 atokaD htuoS .83 63.2 297,71 171,377 973,557 iruossiM .73 27.2 080,91 336,127 355,207 nisnocsiW .63 27.2 217,66 460,515,2 253,844,2 kroY weN .53 97.2 134,01 054,483 910,473 sasnakrA .43 38.2 256,41 185,135 929,615 anaisiuoL .33 68.2 810,31 869,864 059,554 amohalkO .23 42.3 674,93 494,852,1 810,912,1 nagihciM .13 82.3 576,42 605,777 138,257 anaidnI .03 31.4 539,32 337,306 897,975 amabalA .92 51.4 179,02 467,525 397,405 ykcutneK .82 33.4 078,41 393,853 325,343 ippississiM .72 88.4 579,82 142,326 662,495 atosenniM .62 50.5 262,9 466,291 204,381 eniaM .52 77.5 274,4 289,18 015,77 tnomreV .42 25.6 588,7 438,821 949,021 anatnoM .32 16.6 365,581 061,399,2 795,708,2 adirolF .22 36.6 046,64 159,947 113,307 eessenneT .12 42.7 927,13 609,964 771,834 nogerO .02 5002 ot 0002 5002 ot 0002 5002 0002 ,redlo dna ,redlo dna ,redlo dna ,redlo dna 56 elpoep 56 elpoep etatS knaR fo rebmun ni fo rebmun 56 elpoep 56 elpoep egnahc tnecreP ni egnahC fo rebmuN fo rebmuN 93.61 314,2 931,71 627,41 atokaD htroN .33 60.81 012,4 615,72 603,32 ocixeM weN .23 36.81 667,53 797,722 130,291 sionillI .13 56.81 770,71 536,801 855,19 anaidnI .03 07.81 432,85 227,963 884,113 kroY weN .92 22.91 129,1 719,11 699,9 tnomreV .82 43.02 114,71 210,301 106,58 atosenniM .72 45.02 446,91 962,511 526,59 nisnocsiW .62 65.02 321,86 014,993 782,133 adirolF .52 28.02 459,12 514,721 164,501 aniloraC htroN .42 89.12 446,52 633,241 296,611 sttesuhcassaM .32 00.32 666,04 264,712 697,671 oihO .22 45.32 843,11 465,95 612,84 odaroloC .12 19.42 737,12 300,901 662,78 ainigriV .02 01.52 058,3 781,91 733,51 anatnoM .91 66.52 798,43 698,071 999,531 yesreJ weN .81 86.52 685,5 733,72 157,12 hatU .71 64.62 103,31 075,36 962,05 aniloraC htuoS .61 46.72 666,711 323,345 756,524 ainrofilaC .51 55.82 738,76 404,503 765,732 ainavlysnneP .41 29.82 272,5 305,32 132,81 erihspmaH weN .31 12.92 416,14 470,481 064,241 nagihciM .21 07.92 363,5 024,32 750,81 ohadI .11 77.92 890,71 925,47 134,75 nogerO .01 44.13 434,62 915,011 580,48 notgnihsaW .9 68.13 756,6 455,72 798,02 dnalsI edohR .8 01.33 286,22 702,19 525,86 anozirA .7 25.33 324,22 523,98 209,66 dnalyraM .6 92.43 730,22 013,68 372,46 tucitcennoC .5 29.53 987,3 833,41 945,01 erawaleD .4 33.84 372,1 709,3 436,2 aksalA .3 72.15 117,8 007,52 989,61 adaveN .2 44.75 980,01 356,72 465,71 iiawaH .1 5002 ot 0002 5002 ot 0002 ,redlo dna ,redlo dna 5002 0002 58 elpoep 58 elpoep ,redlo dna ,redlo dna etatS knaR fo rebmun fo rebmun 58 elpoep 58 elpoep ni egnahc ni egnahC fo rebmuN fo rebmuN tnecreP 5002 ,redlO dna 58 egA noitalupoP fo etaR htworG yb deknaR setatS .5-A elbaT kblack@crs.loc.gov, 7-7839 Analyst in Gerontology Kirsten J. Colello .uaeruB susneC .S.U eht morf atad no desab noitalipmoc SRC :ecruoS 02.02 153,658 839,590,5 785,932,4 setatS detinU 91.5- 622,2- 566,04 198,24 ippississiM .15 82.3- 778,1- 892,55 571,75 amohalkO .05 00.1 476 579,76 103,76 amabalA .94 03.3 840,1 728,23 977,13 ainigriV tseW .84 99.3 323,2 485,06 162,85 ykcutneK .74 24.4 650,2 845,84 294,64 sasnakrA .64 62.5 181,5 257,301 175,89 iruossiM .54 29.5 128,4 682,68 564,18 eessenneT .44 31.6 895,3 472,26 676,85 anaisiuoL .34 28.7 207 776,9 579,8 aibmuloC fo tcirtsiD .24 71.8 824,91 863,752 049,732 saxeT .14 08.8 789,2 049,63 359,33 aksarbeN .04 93.11 598,5 566,75 077,15 sasnaK .93 85.11 087 515,7 537,6 gnimoyW .83 53.21 088,2 691,62 613,32 eniaM .73 72.41 835,21 593,001 758,78 aigroeG .63 27.51 932,01 753,57 811,56 awoI .53 20.61 775,2 366,81 680,61 atokaD htuoS .43 5002 ot 0002 5002 ot 0002 ,redlo dna ,redlo dna 5002 0002 58 elpoep 58 elpoep ,redlo dna ,redlo dna etatS knaR fo rebmun fo rebmun 58 elpoep 58 elpoep ni egnahc ni egnahC fo rebmuN fo rebmuN tnecreP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL33897