| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 319
Demography of Aging
9
Geographic Concentration, Migration, and Population Redistribution Among the Elderly
Frank D. Bean, George C. Myers, Jacqueline L. Angel, and Omer R. Galle
This chapter examines what is known about patterns of geographic distribution (and redistribution) of the elderly population, focusing mainly on the United States. At a national level, the general pattern of population aging around which spatial variations occur is relatively well known. From 1980 to 1990 the population of the United States increased by 9.8 percent, while among those aged 65 years or older, the increase was substantially greater (22.3 percent). Hence, as a result of its more rapid growth, the population aged 65 and over increased from 11.3 percent of the total U.S. population in 1980 to 12.6 percent in 1990 (Taeuber, 1992). In the future, the U.S. population is expected to continue to age slowly for the next several years and then to age more rapidly as the large birth cohorts of the ''baby-boom" years begin to reach retirement (Soldo and Agree, 1988; Uhlenberg, 1992). Bureau of the Census population projections forecast that the proportion of the population aged 65 and over will grow to 13.2 percent by 2010 and then jump to 20.2 percent in 2030 (Day, 1992: Medium variant).
The occurrence and effects of aging are not evenly experienced throughout the country. The public policy implications of population aging are felt not
The authors gratefully acknowledge the research assistance of Jiwon Jeon and Kyung Tae Park, as well as helpful comments from Glenn Fuguitt, Larry Long, William Serow, Alden Speare, and Cynthia Taeuber.
OCR for page 320
Demography of Aging
only at the national level, but are also important at the state and local levels (Zedlewski et al., 1990; Crown, 1988; Longino, 1990), where the provision and funding of many health and social service programs occur (Sternlieb, 1991; Mayer, 1991). A noteworthy example is Medicaid, the major federal and state program for providing medical care to the poor. Even though the elderly comprised only about one-seventh of Medicaid beneficiaries in fiscal year 1987, they accounted for one-third of Medicaid payments to health care providers (Kane and Kane, 1990; Ward-Simon and Glass, 1988). States whose populations are disproportionately made up of the aged will accordingly shoulder larger relative financial responsibilities for Medicaid (and other state and locally funded programs) because of their age structure.
The relative contributions of fertility, mortality, and migration to population aging differ at the subnational compared to the national levels. Although geographic variations in fertility and mortality patterns make small contributions to differential rates of aging among states and regions, patterns of internal migration seemingly account for most of the variation (Rogers, 1992a; Serow et al., 1990; Frey and Speare, 1988). And given the rising levels of immigration experienced by the United States since World War II, the age pattern of net international migration is likely to exert an increasing effect on population age composition. This factor is undoubtedly more important for explaining subnational temporal and geographic variations in population aging than it is for explaining population aging at the level of the nation as a whole. The reasons are that the postwar growth in net international migration is relatively recent (occurring mostly over the past 20 years) and that immigrants tend to concentrate in only a few states (Bean et al., 1989; Bean and Tienda, 1987).
The purpose of this review is to examine the geographic distribution of the elderly population in the United States and the factors that contribute to its change over time (especially migration). The first section of the chapter summarizes patterns of elderly geographic concentration in the country, including regional and urban/metropolitan patterns. The second section focuses on patterns of elderly and nonelderly population redistribution and on patterns of migration that contribute to redistribution at various spatial levels of analysis. The third section examines the results of research about migration, focusing on both elderly and nonelderly migration behavior, each of which holds implications for patterns of population redistribution by age. A fourth section introduces international comparisons, not only for what they reveal about migration and redistribution in other countries, but also for what they imply about U.S. patterns and their explanation. The fifth section specifies some of the major remaining gaps in knowledge about elderly migration and redistribution, and assesses the extent to which newly developed and recently available data sets might contribute to their resolution.
OCR for page 321
Demography of Aging
PATTERNS OF GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION
Examining the geographic distribution of the older U.S. population requires establishing a meaningful and useful operational definition of the elderly. Demographers typically define the elderly population as those individuals aged 65 years or older, whereas gerontologists sometimes use age 60 as the cutoff. Some agencies within the U.S. government (e.g., the Administration on Aging) and within the United Nations (e.g., the Population Division) use age 60 as a cutoff point, whereas others (e.g., the National Institute on Aging) use age 65 (Myers, 1990). Some migration researchers advocate 60 years as a boundary (Longino et al., 1984), and others argue that 65 is preferable for measuring elderly population stocks, even though acknowledging that for some purposes 60 may constitute a preferred delineation for assessing elderly migration flows (Rogers, 1992b). In this chapter we use 65 years or over, in part because it is consistent with the usage of the Bureau of the Census in recent reports on the aged population (Taeuber, 1992). In the final analysis, however, the multiple definitions used by different researchers and agencies serve as a reminder (1) that any definition of the elderly population is somewhat arbitrary and (2) that the elderly population has diverse characteristics. For example, researchers and policy makers are paying increasing attention to the so-called oldest-old, a group usually (but not always) defined as those aged 85 years or over. The importance of this group derives not only from its rapidly growing size but also from the fact that it differs substantially in a number of ways from the younger-old (65-74 years) and the middle-old (75-84) (Suzman et al., 1992; Taeuber and Rosenwaike, 1992; Binstock, 1992). In recognition of the increasing significance of the oldest-old, we also introduce data pertaining to the geographic distribution of the population aged 85 and over.
The extent of aging in different populations can be compared by calculating the proportions of individuals in those populations who have reached age 65. Calculating a mean or a median age provides an alternative method for assessing population aging (e.g., Preston et al., 1989). It is important to remember that these measures—the proportion 65 years and over and mean age—provide information about different aspects of population aging (Liao, 1993). The former provides a better measure of old-age concentration than the latter to the extent that the age distributions under comparison are differentially affected by changing age patterns of migration, which might occur as a result of substantial net international immigration to some states but not others. In general, it is increasingly important to consider both measures as the volumes of net migration and net international migration increase and as the age structures of in-migrants and out-migrants, and of immigrants and emigrants, change in relation to that of the host population. And at another level, neither the proportion of elderly nor the mean age
OCR for page 322
Demography of Aging
may suffice for some purposes. Organizations interested in social service planning or in targeting certain marketing strategies may need information about the absolute size of the elderly population living in a given geographic area (Myers, 1990). In what follows, we at times make use of each of these alternative measures.
Patterns of Regional Concentration
The geographic distribution of the elderly may be approached in either of two ways. The first, called geographic concentration (Rogers, 1992b), focuses on the share of a nation's total elderly population residing within given geographic boundaries. Viewed in this way, more than half (52.2 percent) of the elderly population of the United States in 1990 resided in just nine states (California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas; see appendix to this chapter). In some respects, however, this pattern is less interesting than it might at first seem because these same states in 1990 contained 51.8 percent of the country's total population, a share nearly identical to their percentage of the elderly. For our purposes, a second approach for examining geographic distribution, termed age concentration (Rogers, 1992b), is preferable because it provides an indication of the extent of aging within an area. This approach calculates the proportion of elderly within given geographic boundaries. Thus, for example, in 1990 the elderly constituted 18.3 percent of the total population of Florida, whereas this age group made up only 4.1 percent of the population of Alaska (see appendix).
Generally speaking, in moving from smaller to larger geographic units (from counties to states to regions, for example), differences in the proportion of the elderly among areas become less pronounced (United Nations, 1992). Examining the proportion of elderly in 1990 in aggregations as large as Census Bureau regions, however, reveals several interesting patterns (Table 9-1). First, all regions of the country experienced growth rates among their elderly populations between 1980 and 1990 that exceeded their rates of population growth (see also Siegel, 1993). Thus, in all parts of the country, the number of elderly grew faster than the rest of the population. Second, although in 1980 the elderly were appreciably overrepresented only in the Northeast, in 1990 they were overrepresented in both the Northeast and the Midwest. Third, on a regional basis in 1980, the oldest-old were distributed more or less in proportion to population, whereas by 1990 the Northeast and Midwest showed disproportionately high numbers of persons in this age group. Fourth, between 1980 and 1990, the oldest-old population grew substantially and increasingly became overrepresented in the Northeast (especially in the New England states) and in the Midwest (especially in the Great Plains states). Although the rate of growth in the oldest-old popula-
OCR for page 323
Demography of Aging
TABLE 9-1 Measures of Population Aging for Regions, 1980-1990
Number of Persons 65 and Over
Number of Persons 85 and Over
Median Age (years)
Region
1980
1990
1980
1990
1990
U.S. total
25,549
31,242
2,240
3,080
32.9
Northeast
6,071
6,995
547
710
34.2
Midwest
6,692
7,749
649
840
33.0
South
8,488
10,724
664
992
32.8
West
4,298
5,774
380
539
31.8
Percentage 65 and Over
Percentage 85 and Over
1980
1990
1980
1990
U.S. Total
11.3
12.6
1.0
1.2
Northeast
12.4
13.8
1.1
1.4
Midwest
11.4
13.0
1.1
1.4
South
11.3
12.6
0.9
1.2
West
10.0
10.9
0.9
1.0
65 and Over
85 and Over
Relative Change
Absolute Change
Relative Change
Absolute Change
U.S. total
11.5
22.3
20.0
37.5
Northeast
11.3
15.2
27.3
29.9
Midwest
14.0
15.8
27.3
29.3
South
11.5
26.3
33.3
49.5
West
9.0
34.3
11.1
41.6
SOURCES: 1980 and 1990: Bureau of the Census (1992b); median age, 1990: Bureau of the Census (1992a).
tion was sizable, the relative and absolute size of this group is not very large in relation to the younger- and middle-old groups. But the oldest-old use a substantially disproportionate share of health and social services (Binstock, 1992). For example, those aged 85 and older are more than 20 times as likely to reside in nursing homes as persons aged 65-74 (Hing, 1987).
It is also interesting that at the level of aggregation of states the data reveal the complex nature of the processes generating patterns of elderly population distribution. For example, several of the states of the industrial midwest (e.g., Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan) show above-average rates of growth in their proportion of elderly, even though their proportions of eld-
OCR for page 324
Demography of Aging
erly and median ages are about the same as the country as a whole. The midwestern farm states, however, show high proportions of elderly but not unusually high rates of growth (see appendix). California shows a below-average rate of increase in its proportion of elderly, at the same time that its growth in the absolute number of elderly is far above average and its median age is below average. And New York reveals a quite high median age, but a proportion of elderly not much above average.
A number of different processes generate these patterns. In the case of the midwestern farm states, it is likely that outmigration of nonelderly during the 1980s contributed to population aging (Frey, 1993). In California's case, the large (in absolute numbers) aged population that grew during the 1970s in part as a result of high inmigration of the elderly is not readily discernible in either 1980 or 1990 census data in the proportion aged 65 and over. Part of the reason is that California experienced outmigration of the elderly during the 1980s that was nearly as great as inmigration (DeAre, 1992). Also, in both 1980 and 1990, substantial immigration—the age distribution for which is somewhat younger than that of the general population (Arthur and Espenshade, 1988)—masked the increase in California's large aged population, as did the high fertility of the state's large Hispanic population (Bean and Tienda, 1987). Similarly, New York's figures are also influenced by immigration, with a substantial negative net internal migration balanced by positive net international migration.
Patterns by Size and Type of Place
The elderly population is also variously distributed according to size and type of place. Since 1950, the United States population has increasingly resided in cities. In broad outline, this is true of the elderly population as well, although in part it depends on what is meant by the term "city." If the focus is only on urban versus rural residence (on whether people live in incorporated places of more than 2,500 inhabitants versus living in smaller places), then in 1990 the percentage of the elderly living in urban places is almost exactly the same (75.8 percent) as the percentage of the total population living in urban places (75.2 percent). Furthermore, both of these figures have changed by almost the same amount over the past 40 years, moving from about 64 percent urban in 1950 to about 75 percent urban in 1990 (Serow et al., 1990; Bureau of the Census, unpublished tabulations). By contrast, if the focus is on residence in metropolitan versus nonmetropolitan areas (roughly on living in localities with more than 100,000 inhabitants), the elderly are somewhat less likely to live in metropolitan areas than the total population (74.0 percent for the elderly versus 77.5 percent for the total), although both groups have become increasingly metropolitan since 1950 (Golant, 1992; Bureau of the Census, unpublished
OCR for page 325
Demography of Aging
tabulations). Thus, the elderly are somewhat more likely than the general population to live in nonmetropolitan urban places (i.e., in smaller towns and cities), a tendency that is also reflected in their migration behavior, as we note below. Within metropolitan areas, however, the elderly are about as likely as the general population to live in central cities (31.0 versus 31.3 percent, respectively, in 1990; Bureau of the Census, unpublished tabulations). However, 40 years ago the elderly were much more likely to reside in central cities, a difference that has diminished as larger proportions of the elderly have come to reside in suburbs. By 1990, for example, 43.0 percent of the elderly, as compared to 46.2 percent for the total population, were living in suburbs (Bureau of the Census, unpublished tabulations; Golant, 1992).
Broadly speaking, these patterns reflect the general urbanization and suburbanization tendencies characteristic of postindustrial societies in the post-World War II period (Champion, 1989; Frey, 1988; Hall and Hay, 1980). One of these has consisted of increasing urbanization and metropolitanization, although the latter process slowed down and in some cases slightly reversed itself during the 1970s, before reemerging in the 1980s (Frey, 1992b). The other has consisted of increasing suburbanization within metropolitan areas, as movement has occurred away from central cities outward to suburban areas (Frey, 1992a). These trends, however, are less characteristic of the elderly than of the nonelderly, thus reinforcing the point that the redistribution patterns of these groups require separate study.
Population Redistribution and Migration
Populations defined on the basis of geographic boundaries are constantly involved in the process of redistributing their members from one geographic subarea to another. When the concern is with the distribution of population characteristics and their change over time (as is the case here, given the interest in age structure), it can be somewhat misleading to speak in terms of "redistribution" because the term implies the geographic mobility of persons defined as making up the population. However, geographic mobility is only one of several mechanisms that can affect the distribution of population characteristics such as age. As noted above, the age structures of states and regions are affected by fertility, the age pattern of mortality, the age pattern of net internal migration, and the age pattern of net international migration. As a result of the former two processes acting alone, the proportion of elderly within an area can change over time without any geographic mobility occurring.
Little research on the magnitude of the contribution of each of these components to population aging at the region or state level has been carried out. Studies have been conducted that distinguish the contributions to aging
OCR for page 326
Demography of Aging
of (1) net migration and (2) natural increase (often called aging-in-place; Rogers and Woodward, 1988; Clifford et al., 1983; Lichter et al., 1981; Fuguitt and Beale, 1993; Siegel, 1993). The contribution of net migration reflects the extent to which the proportion of elderly in a given area is affected by the net geographic movement of older persons to that area, whereas that of aging-in-place reflects the extent to which the proportion of elderly in a given area is affected by persons already living in the area reaching age 65. It is important to note that this latter component, the aging-in-place component, will itself consist of fertility, mortality, internal migration, and international migration subcomponents. The latter two factors influence the size of the nonelderly population "at risk" of reaching age 65. To our knowledge, no research has sought to estimate the magnitude of each of these separate subcomponents of aging-in-place.
Despite the relative lack of research on the magnitude of these components, it seems likely that fertility and mortality differences will not account for a great deal of the contemporary variation in age structure among U.S. subnational geographic units because of recent geographic convergence over time in fertility and mortality patterns (Serow et al., 1990; Frey and Speare, 1988; Goldstein, 1976). The major determinant of both cross-sectional and dynamic geographic variations in population aging thus is probably the age pattern of net internal migration, which affects the proportion of elderly within a geographic area in two ways. As noted above, one is by virtue of the elderly themselves moving into or out of an area in sufficient numbers to change the age structure appreciably. Given that outmigration among the elderly is not nearly as location-specific as inmigration (Rogers, 1992a), the latter makes by far the greater difference. States and areas that have attracted large numbers of elderly in-migrants are Florida, Arizona, California, the lake regions of Michigan and Minnesota, the Ozarks region of Arkansas and Missouri, Oregon, and Washington (Rogers and Watkins, 1987; Rowles, 1986). By far the most significant of these in terms of the numbers involved is Florida, which has been a destination for elderly migrants for at least three decades (Rogers and Woodward, 1988).
A second way aging can occur through internal migration is as a consequence of migration of the nonelderly (Frey, 1986; Graf and Wiseman, 1978; Fuguitt and Beale, 1993). For example, states and regions that have experienced substantial outmigration of the nonelderly, often apparently seeking better employment opportunities as a result of industrial restructuring, have experienced aging as a result of this process. These include the farm states of the Midwest and the New England states of the Northeast, all of which experienced outmigration of nonelderly during the 1970s and early 1980s, as well as the industrial midwestern states which experienced increases in outmigration during the 1980s (Long, 1988). Moreover, the influence of this type of migration on U.S. population aging over the past
OCR for page 327
Demography of Aging
10 years has been much more significant than outmigration of the elderly. It has involved many more movers than is the case among the elderly, both because the numbers of nonelderly are larger and because younger persons are much more likely to move (Long, 1988; Frey, 1986). This difference in behavior by age emphasizes the need to adopt a life-course migration perspective in the assessment of the influence of migration on the aging patterns of states and regions, especially to the extent that nonelderly groups display different life-course migration patterns than the elderly (Frey, 1986).
In addition to differing in number and in the propensity to migrate, the elderly are more focused than the nonelderly on their preferred migration destinations, which has implications for population redistribution (Rogers, 1992b). In broad outline, the two major patterns of post-World War II migration consist of (1) movements away from the Northeast and Midwest toward the West and South, and (2) a tendency toward increasing metropolitanization (a pattern as we note below that was reversed for some segments of the population during the 1970s). In the case of movement to the West and South, the elderly and the nonelderly have shown similar tendencies to move to these destinations, although the elderly have been more likely to migrate to areas attractive to retirees. As the most recently available census data in Table 9-2 show, these include the states of the South Atlantic division (especially Florida) in the South and the states of the Mountain division (especially Arizona) in the West (Rogers, 1992a). Within the general postwar pattern of westward and southward movement, Longino (1985) notes a "Continental Divide" pattern involving movement south of persons originating east of the Mississippi River and movement west of persons originating west of the Mississippi River (see also Friedsam, 1951). This tendency characterizes both the elderly and the nonelderly, although it emerges in somewhat more exaggerated form among the elderly.
The greater tendency of the elderly than of the nonelderly to move to the South and the West in recent decades implies a migration on their part that is motivated more by nonlabor market factors than is the case among the working-age nonelderly. This inference is also supported when we turn to an examination of data relevant to the second major postwar pattern—increasing metropolitanization. Compiled by Frey (1992b), these data are displayed in Table 9-3, and show the percentage distribution of the elderly and nonelderly across regional and metropolitan categories from 1960-1990, as well as the percentage change in the distribution by decade. Because they show similar patterns, the Northeast and Midwest regions are combined into one (labeled North), and within regions, metropolitan residence is split into large (1 million residents or more) and other (less than 1 million residents) categories. The movement of both the elderly and the nonelderly from the North to the South and West is again evident here in the declines over the three decades in the concentration of persons residing in the North
OCR for page 328
Demography of Aging
TABLE 9-2 Division of Residence of Total and Elderly (65 and over at census year) Migrants by Division of Residence 5 Years Earlier: 1975-1980
Region of Residence in 1980
Region of Residence in 1975
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Total
New England
Total
—
22.7
9.4
3.3
32.1
2.8
6.7
7.4
15.7
100.0
Elderly
—
10.7
3.1
1.2
64.4
1.3
2.5
6.0
10.6
100.0
Middle Atlantic
Total
12.2
—
11.0
2.8
43.2
3.0
7.3
7.2
13.4
100.0
Elderly
6.9
—
4.4
0.9
68.4
1.9
2.9
5.5
9.0
100.0
East North Central
Total
3.1
7.5
—
11.8
26.1
11.2
12.7
12.1
15.6
100.0
Elderly
1.0
3.3
—
6.0
46.2
8.6
8.7
13.9
12.4
100.0
West North Central
Total
1.9
3.7
21.6
—
11.1
4.3
20.8
19.5
17.2
100.0
Elderly
0.7
1.5
13.9
—
14.3
3.4
22.1
24.1
20.0
100.0
South Atlantic
Total
6.3
17.9
17.5
5.4
—
17.1
15.2
7.0
13.5
100.0
Elderly
6.7
22.8
20.4
4.0
—
15.8
9.8
7.4
13.1
100.0
East South Central
Total
1.6
4.1
22.9
5.3
33.4
—
20.3
4.4
8.0
100.0
Elderly
1.1
3.2
24.4
4.0
40.3
—
16.4
4.0
6.6
100.0
West South Central
Total
2.2
4.6
12.2
13.4
17.1
12.3
—
16.7
21.4
100.0
Elderly
1.5
2.9
10.1
13.6
16.6
14.0
—
18.3
23.1
100.0
Mountain
Total
2.1
4.3
9.7
12.9
8.6
2.6
18.3
—
41.4
100.0
Elderly
1.5
2.8
8.6
12.6
8.2
2.2
18.0
—
46.0
100.0
Pacific
Total
3.7
6.4
11.0
9.6
13.9
4.0
17.8
33.6
—
100.0
Elderly
1.9
3.7
8.1
11.0
11.6
3.8
18.1
41.7
—
100.0
SOURCE: Rogers (1992a).
OCR for page 329
Demography of Aging
TABLE 9-3 Change in Distribution of Elderly Populations Across Region and Metropolitan Categories, 1960-1970, 1970-1980, and 1980-1990
Region and Metropolitan Categories
Distribution
Change in Distribution
1960
1970
1980
1990
1960-1970
1970-1980
1980-1990
Elderly population North
Large metro
30.6
29.8
26.9
25.5
-0.8
-2.9
-1.4
Other metro
12.4
11.6
10.9
10.7
-0.8
-0.7
-0.2
Nonmetro
14.9
13.3
12.3
11.2
-1.6
-11.0
-1.1
South
Large metro
6.6
8.1
9.3
9.7
1.5
1.2
0.4
Other metro
9.2
10.3
11.7
12.8
1.1
1.4
1.1
Nonmetro
11.7
11.5
12.1
11.6
-0.2
0.6
-0.5
West
Large metro
9.4
10.0
10.6
11.3
0.6
0.6
0.7
Other metro
2.5
2.7
3.3
3.8
0.2
0.6
0.5
Nonmetro
2.6
2.6
3.0
3.4
0.0
0.3
0.4
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Nonelderly population North
Large metro
30.8
30.4
27.0
25.3
-0.4
-3.4
-1.7
Other metro
11.7
11.5
10.9
10.3
-0.2
-0.6
-0.5
Nonmetro
11.0
10.0
9.7
9.1
-1.0
-0.3
-0.6
South
Large metro
8.1
9.3
10.3
11.3
1.2
1.0
1.0
Other metro
11.5
11.6
12.5
12.8
0.1
0.9
0.3
Nonmetro
11.2
9.9
10.3
10.0
-1.3
0.4
-0.3
West
Large metro
9.9
11.3
12.2
13.6
1.4
0.9
1.4
Other metro
3.0
3.3
4.0
4.4
0.3
0.7
0.4
Nonmetro
2.8
2.7
3.2
3.3
-0.1
0.5
0.1
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
SOURCE: Frey (1992b).
OCR for page 345
Demography of Aging
provide the kinds of detailed life history data that will allow stronger inferences to be drawn about causal relationships between life events and migration behavior among the elderly.
REFERENCES
Angel, J.L., G.F. De Jong, G.T. Cornwell, and J.M. Wilmoth 1991 Diminished Health and Living Arrangements of Rural Elderly. Paper presented at the 44th annual meeting of the Gerontological Society of America, San Francisco, Calif.
Angel, R.J., J.L. Angel, and C.L. Himes 1992 Minority group states, health transitions, and community living arrangements among the elderly. Research on Aging 14:496-521.
Arthur, W.B., and T.J. Espenshade 1988 Immigration policy and immigrants' ages. Population and Development Review 14(2):315-326.
Baglioni, A.J. 1989 Residential relocation and health of the elderly. Pp. 119-137 in K.S. Markides and C.L. Cooper, eds., Aging, Stress, and Health. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Bean, F.D., and M. Tienda 1987 The Hispanic Population of the United States. New York: Russell Sage.
Bean, F.D., G. Vernez, and C.B. Keely 1989 Opening and Closing the Doors: Evaluating Immigration Reform and Control. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.
Biggar, J.C. 1980 Who moved among the elderly, 1965-1970: A comparison of types of older movers. Research on Aging 2:73-91.
Binstock, R.H. 1992 The oldest old and "Intergenerational Equity." Pp. 394-417 in R.M. Suzman, D.P. Willis, and K.G. Manton, eds., The Oldest Old. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bradsher, J.E., C.F. Longino, D.J. Jackson, and R.S. Zimmerman 1992 Health and geographic mobility among the recently widowed. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences 47:S261-S268.
Bureau of the Census 1992a 1990 Census of Population and Housing: Summary. Social, Economic and Housing Characteristics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce.
1992b Sixty-Five Plus in America. Current Population Reports, Special Studies Series, P23-178. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce.
Burr, J.A., and J.E. Mutchler 1992 The living arrangements of unmarried elderly Hispanic females. Demography 29:93-112.
Champion, A.G., ed. 1989 Counterurbanization: The Changing Pace and Nature of Population Deconcentration. London: Edward Arnold.
Clark, R.L., and D.A. Wolf 1992 Proximity of children and elderly migration. Pp. 77-96 in A. Rogers, ed., Elderly Migration and Population Redistribution: A Comparative Perspective. London: Belhaven.
OCR for page 346
Demography of Aging
Clifford, W.B., T.B. Heaton, D.T. Lichter, and G.V. Fuguitt 1983 Components of change in the age composition of nonmetropolitan America. Rural Sociology 48(3):458-470.
Cornwell, G.T., G.F. De Jong, J.M. Wilmoth, and J.L. Angel 1992 The Implications of Changes in Health and Marital Status for Coresidence. Paper presented at the meeting of the Gerontological Society of America, Washington, D.C.
Crown, W.H. 1988 State implications of elderly interstate migration. The Gerontologist 28(4):533-539.
Da Vanzo, J. 1981 Microeconomic approaches to studying migration decisions. Pp. 90-129 in G.F. De Jong and R.W. Gardner, eds., Migration Decision Making. New York: Pergamon Press.
Day, J.C. 1992 Population Projections of the United States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1992 to 2050. Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 1092. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce.
DeAre, D. 1992 Geographical Mobility: March 1990 to March 1991. Current Population Reports. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce.
De Jong, G.F., and J.T. Fawcett 1981 Motivations for migration: An assessment and a value-expectancy research model . Pp. 13-58 in G.F. De Jong and R.W. Gardner, eds., Migration Decision Making. New York: Pergamon Press.
De Jong, G.F., J.M. Wilmoth, J.L. Angel, and G.T. Cornwell 1992 Geographic Mobility of the Very Old: Motives and Explanations. Unpublished manuscript, Pennsylvania State University.
Fournier, G.M., D.W. Rasmussen, and W.J. Serow 1988 Elderly migration as a response to economic incentives. Social Science Quarterly 69:245-260.
Frey, W.H. 1986 Lifecourse migration and redistribution of the elderly across U.S. regions and metropolitan areas. Economic Outlook USA 13(2):10-16.
1988 Migration and metropolitan decline in developed countries: A Comparative Perspective. Population and Development Review 14(4):595-628.
1992a Metropolitan migration in developed countries: A cross-national data base. In C. Goldscheider, ed., Migration, Population Structure and Redistribution Policies. Boulder, Co: Westview Press.
1992b Metropolitan redistribution of the U.S elderly, 1960-70, 1970-80, 1980-90. In A. Rogers, ed., Elderly Migration and Population Redistribution: A Comparative Perspective. London: Belhaven.
1993 U.S. elderly population becoming more concentrated. Population Today 21(4):6-9.
Frey, W.H., and A. Speare, Jr. 1988 Regional and Metropolitan Growth and Decline in the United States. New York: Russell Sage.
Friedsam, H.J. 1951 Interregional migration of the aged in the U.S. Journal of Gerontology 6:237-242.
Fuguitt, G.V., and C.L. Beale 1993 The changing concentration of the older nonmetropolitan population, 1960-90. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences 48(6):S278-S288.
OCR for page 347
Demography of Aging
Fuguitt, G.V., D.L. Brown, and C.L. Beale 1989 Rural and Small Town America. New York: Russell Sage.
Golant, S.M. 1980 Future directions for elderly migration research. Research on Aging 2:271-280.
1992 The suburbanization of the American elderly. Pp. 163-180 in A. Rogers, ed., Elderly Migration and Population Redistribution: A Comparative Perspective. London: Belhaven.
Goldstein, A., S. Goldstein, and S. Guo 1991 Temporary migrants in Shanghai households, 1984. Demography 28(2):275-291.
Goldstein, S. 1976 Facets of redistribution: Research challenges and opportunities. Demography 13:423-434.
Graff, T.O., and R.F. Wiseman 1978 Changing concentrations of older Americans. The Geographical Review 68(4):379-393.
Graves, P.E., and P.D. Linneman 1979 Household migration: Theoretical and empirical results. Journal of Urban Economics 6:383-404.
Greenwood, M.J. 1975 Research on internal migration in the United States: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature 13:397-433.
1985 Human migration: Theory, models, and empirical studies. Journal of Regional Science 25(4):521-544.
Greenwood, M.J., and G.L. Hunt 1989 Jobs versus amenities in the analysis of metropolitan migration. Journal of Urban Economics 25:1-16.
Haag, G., M. Munz, R. Reiner, and W. Weidlich 1988 Comparative analysis of interregional migration. Pp. 285-311 in W. Weidlich and G. Haag, eds., Interregional Migration: Dynamic Theory and Comparative Analysis. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Haas, W.H., and L.A. Crandall 1988 Physicians' view of retirement migrants' impact on rural medical practice. The Gerontologist 28:663-666.
Hall, P., and D. Hay 1980 Growth Centres in the European Urban System. London: Heinemann.
Heer, D.M. 1963 The attractiveness of the South to whites and nonwhites: An ecological study. American Sociological Review 28:101-107.
Hing, E. 1987 Use of Nursing Homes by the Elderly: Preliminary Data from the 1985 National Nursing Home Survey. DHHS Pub. No. PHS 87-1250. Hyattsville, Md: U.S. Public Health Service.
Hogan, D.T. 1987 Determinants of the seasonal migration of the elderly to Sunbelt states. Research on Aging 9:115-133.
Hugo, G. 1987 The Changing Urban Situation in Southeast Asia and Australia: Some Implications for the Elderly. Paper presented at the United Nations Conference on Aging Populations in the Context of Urbanization, Sendai, Japan.
Kane, R.L., and R.A. Kane 1990 Health care for older people: Organizational and policy issues. Pp. 415-437 in R.H.
OCR for page 348
Demography of Aging
Binstock and L. George, eds., Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences, 3rd ed. New York: Academic Press.
King, A.G. 1978 Industrial structure, the flexibility of working hours, and women's labor force participation. Review of Economics and Statistics 60:399-407.
Kinsella, K., and C.M. Taeuber 1993 An Aging World II. International Population Reports, Series P-95, No. 92-3. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce.
Kovar, M.G., J.E. Fitti, and M.M. Chyba 1992 The Longitudinal Study of Aging: 1984-90. Vital Health Statistics 1(28).
Krout, J.A. 1988 Rural versus urban differences in elderly parents' contact with their children. The Gerontologist 28:198-203.
Law, C., and A. Warnes 1982 The destination decision in retirement migration. Pp. 53-81 in A.M. Warnes, ed., Geographic Perspectives on the Elderly. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Lee, E.S. 1966 A theory of migration. Demography 3:47-57.
1980 Migration of the aged. Research on Aging 2:131-135.
Lee, G.R., J.W. Dwyer, and R.T. Coward 1990 Residential location and proximity to children among impaired elderly parents. Rural Sociology 55:579-589.
Liao, T.F. 1993 Demographic Conditions Responsible for Population Aging as Reflected in Five Aging Measures. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Cincinnati.
Lichter, D.T., G.V. Fuguitt, T.B. Heaton, and W.B. Clifford 1981 Components of change in the residential concentration of the elderly population: 1950-1975. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences 36:480-489.
Litwak, E., and C.F. Longino, Jr. 1987 Migration patterns among the elderly: A developmental perspective. Gerontologist 27:266-272.
Long, L. 1988 Migration and Residential Mobility in the United States. New York: Russell Sage.
Longino, C.F. Jr. 1982 Changing aged nonmetropolitan migration patterns, 1955-1960 and 1965-1970. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences 37:S228-S234.
1985 Returning from the Sunbelt: Myths and realities of migratory patterns among the elderly. Pp. 7-21 in A. Monk, ed., Returning from the Sunbelt: Myths and Realities of Migration Patterns Among the Elderly. New York: Brookdale Institute on Aging and Adult Human Development, Columbia University.
1988 The gray peril mentality and the impact of retirement migration. Journal of Applied Gerontology 7:448-455.
1990 Geographical distribution and migration. Pp. 45-63 in R.H. Binstock and L. George, eds., Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences, 3rd ed. New York: Academic Press.
Longino, C.F., Jr., and K.J. Smith 1991 Black retirement migration in the United States. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences 46:S125-S132.
Longino, C.F., Jr., J.C. Biggar, C.B. Flynn, and R.F. Wiseman 1984 The Retirement Migration Project: A Final Report to the National Institute on
OCR for page 349
Demography of Aging
Aging. Mimeo, University of Miami Center for Social Research in Aging, Coral Gables, Fla.
Manton, K,G. 1988 A longitudinal study of functional change and mortality in the United States. Journal of Gerontology 43:S153-S161.
Marshall, V., C.F. Longino Jr., R. Tucker, and L.G. Mullins 1989 Health care utilization of Canadian snowbirds: An example of strategic planning. Journal of Aging and Health I:150-168.
Mayer, M.J. 1991 Role of the New York City government in providing support for the elderly . Pp. 439-447 in Ageing and Urbanization. New York: United Nations.
Myers, G.C. 1985 Aging and worldwide population change. Pp. 173-198 in R.H. Binstock and E. Shanas, eds., Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
1990 Demography of aging. Pp. 19-44 in L. George and R.H. Binstock, eds., Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences, 3rd ed. New York: Academic Press.
Myers, G.C., and D.O. Clark 1991 Population Redistribution and Migration of Older Persons in Developing Countries. Paper presented at the conference on Elderly Migration Transition, Estes Park, Colo.
Noin, D., and A. Warnes, eds. 1987 Personnes agées et vieillessement/Elderly People and Ageing. Espace, Populations, Societies 1.
Preston, S.H., C. Himes, and M. Eggers 1989 Demographic conditions responsible for population aging. Demography 26:691-704.
Rindfuss, R.R., C.G. Swicegood, and R.A. Rosenfeld 1987 Disorder in the life course: How common and does it matter. American Sociological Review 52:785-801.
Rogers, A. 1988 Age patterns of elderly migration: An international comparison. Demography 25(3):355-70.
1989 The elderly migration transition: Growth, concentration, and tempo. Research on Aging 11(1):3-32.
1992a Elderly migration and population redistribution in the United States. Pp. 226-248 in A. Rogers, ed., Elderly Migration and Population Redistribution: A Comparative Perspective. London: Belhaven.
1992b Introduction. Pp. 1-15 in A. Rogers, ed., Elderly Migration and Population Redistribution: A Comparative Perspective. London: Belhaven.
Rogers, A., and J.F. Watkins 1987 General versus elderly interstate migration and population redistribution in the United States. Research on Aging 9(4):483-529.
Rogers, A., and F. Willekens, eds. 1986 Migration and Settlement: A Comparative Study. Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel.
Rogers, A., and J.A. Woodward 1988 The sources of regional elderly population growth: Migration and aging-in-place. The Professional Geographer 40(4):450-459.
Rogers, A., J.F. Watkins, and J.A. Woodward 1990 Interregional elderly migration and population redistribution in four industrialized countries: A comparative analysis. Research on Aging 12(3):251-293.
OCR for page 350
Demography of Aging
Rowles, G.D. 1986 The geography of ageing and the ages: Toward an integrated perspective. Progress in Human Geography 10(4):511-539.
Serow, W.J., and D.A. Charity 1988 Return migration of the elderly in the United States: Recent trends. Research on Aging 10:155-168.
Serow, W., D.A. Charity, G.M. Fournier, and D.W. Rasmussen 1986 Cost of living differentials and elderly interstate migration. Research on Aging 8(2):317-327.
Serow, W., D.F. Sly, and J.M. Wrigley 1990 Population Aging in the United States. New York: Greenwood Press.
Siegel, J.S. 1993 A Generation of Change: A Profile of America's Older Population, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Soldo, B.J., and E. Agree 1988 America's elderly. Population Bulletin 43:1-51.
Speare, A., Jr., and J.W. Meyer 1988 Types of elderly residential mobility and their determinants. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences 43:S74-S71.
Speare, A., R. Avery, and L. Lawton 1991 Disability, residential mobility, and changes in living arrangements. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences 46:S133-S142.
Spitze, G., J.R. Logan, and J. Robinson. 1992 Family structure and living arrangements among elderly nonmarried parents. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences 47:S289-S296.
Steinnes, D.N., and T.M. Hogan 1992 Take the money and sun: Elderly migration as a consequence of gains in unaffordable housing market. Journal of Gerontology 47:197-203.
Sternlieb, G. 1991 The elderly and municipal housing policies in the United States. Pp. 339-352 in Ageing and Urbanization. New York: United Nations.
Stillwell, J. 1991 Spatial interaction models and the propensity to migrate over distance. Pp. 34-56 in J. Stillwell and P. Congdon, eds., Migration Models: Macro and Micro Approaches. London: Belhaven Press.
Stinner, W.F., and G.F. De Jong 1969 Southern Negro migration: Social and economic components of an ecological model. Demography 6:455-471.
Suzman, R., D. Willis, and K. Manton 1992 The Oldest Old. New York: Oxford University Press.
Taueber, C.M. 1992 Sixty-Five Plus in America. Current Population Reports, Special Studies. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce.
Taueber, C.M., and I. Rosenwaike 1992 A demographic portrait of America's oldest old. Pp. 17-49 in R.M. Suzman, D.P. Willis, and K.G. Manton, eds., The Oldest Old. New York: Oxford University Press.
Uhlenberg, P. 1992 Population aging and social policy. Annual Review of Sociology 18:449-474.
OCR for page 351
Demography of Aging
United Nations 1991 World Urbanization Prospects 1990. New York: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
1992 Preparing Migration Data for Subnational Population Projections. New York: United Nations.
Ward-Simon, M., and K. Glass 1988 A Statistical Report on Medical Care as Reported by the States and Territories on the HCFA 2082 Form for the 1987 State Medicaid Programs . Mimeo, Office of Medicaid Estimates and Statistics, Office of the Actuary, Health Care Financing Administration.
Warnes, T. 1992 Migration and the life course. Pp. 175-187 in A.G. Champion and A. Fielding, eds., Migration Processes and Patterns, Vol. 1. London: Belhaven Press.
Wiseman, R.F. 1980 Why older people move: Theoretical issues. Research on Aging 2:141-154.
Wiseman, R.F., and C.C. Roseman 1979 A typology of elderly migration based on the decision-making process. Economic Geography 55:324-337.
Worobey, J.L., and R.J. Angel 1990a Functional capacity and living arrangements of unmarried elderly persons. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences 45:S95-S 101.
1990b Poverty and health: Older minority women and the rise of the female-headed household. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 31:370-383.
Zedlewski, S.R., R.O. Barnes, M.R. Burt, T.D. McBride, and J.A. Meyer 1990 The Needs of the Elderly in the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.
Zimmerman, R.S., D.J. Jackson, C.F. Longino, and J.E. Bradsher 1993 Interpersonal and economic resources as mediators of the effects of health decline on the geographic mobility of the elderly. Journal of Aging and Health 5:37-57.
OCR for page 352
Demography of Aging
APPENDIX
Number (in 1,000s), Percentage, and Percent Change of Persons 65 and Over, 85 and Over, and Median Age in the United States by Region, Division, and State, 1980-1990
65 and Over
85 and Over
Region
1980
1990
Percent Change
1980
1990
Percent Change
Median Age, 1990
U.S. total
25,549
31,242
22.3
2,240
3,080
37.5
32.9
(11.3)
(12.6)
(11.5)
(1.0)
(1.2)
(20.0)
Northeast
6,071
6,995
15.2
547
710
29.9
34.2
(12.4)
(13.8)
(11.3)
(1.1)
(1.4)
(27.3)
New England
1,520
1,770
16.4
151
194
28.3
33.7
(12.3)
(13.4)
(8.9)
(1.2)
(1.5)
(25.0)
Maine
141
163
15.9
14
18
29.3
33.9
(12.5)
(13.3)
(6.4)
(1.3)
(1.5)
(15.4)
Vermont
58
66
13.7
6
8
25.2
33.0
(11.4)
(11.8)
(3.5)
(1.2)
(1.3)
(8.3)
New Hampshire
103
125
21.4
10
13
37.7
32.8
(11.2)
(11.3)
(0.9)
(1.0)
(1.2)
(20.0)
Massachusetts
727
819
12.8
74
92
24.8
33.6
(12.7)
(13.6)
(7.1)
(1.3)
(1.5)
(15.4)
Rhode Island
127
151
18.6
12
16
33.7
34.0
(13.4)
(15.0)
(11.9)
(1.3)
(1.6)
(23.1)
Connecticut
365
446
22.2
36
47
31.5
34.4
(11.7)
(13.4)
(16.2)
(1.1)
(1.4)
(27.3)
Middle Atlantic
4,551
5,225
14.8
395
516
30.5
34.4
(12.4)
(13.9)
(12.1)
(1.1)
(1.4)
(27.3)
New York
2,160
2,364
9.4
193
248
28.6
33.9
(12.3)
(13.1)
(6.5)
(1.1)
(1.4)
(27.3)
New Jersey
860
1,032
20.0
72
96
32.3
34.5
(11.7)
(13.4)
(14.5)
(1.0)
(1.2)
(20.0)
Pennsylvania
1,531
1,829
19.5
130
172
32.2
35.0
(12.9)
(15.4)
(19.4)
(1.1)
(1.4)
(27.3)
Midwest
6,692
7,749
15.8
649
840
29.3
33.0
(11.4)
(13.0)
(14.0)
(1.1)
(1.4)
(27.3)
East North Central
4,493
5,299
17.9
415
539
29.8
32.9
(10.8)
(12.6)
(16.7)
(1.0)
(1.3)
(30.0)
Ohio
1,169
1,407
20.3
108
138
27.3
33.3
(10.8)
(13.0)
(20.4)
(1.0)
(1.3)
(30.3)
Indiana
585
696
18.9
54
72
31.9
32.8
(10.7)
(12.6)
(17.8)
(1.0)
(1.3)
(30.3)
Illinois
1,262
1,437
13.8
115
148
28.7
32.8
(11.0)
(12.6)
(14.5)
(1.0)
(1.3)
(30.0)
OCR for page 353
Demography of Aging
Number (in 1,000s), Percentage, and Percent Change of Persons 65 and Over, 85 and Over, and Median Age in the United States by Region, Division, and State, 1980-1990
65 and Over
85 and Over
Region
1980
1990
Percent Change
1980
1990
Percent Change
Median Age, 1990
Michigan
912
1,108
21.5
82
107
30.9
32.6
(9.8)
(11.9)
(21.4)
(0.9)
(1.0)
(33.3)
Wisconsin
564
651
15.4
56
74
33.5
32.9
(12.0)
(13.3)
(10.8)
(1.2)
(1.5)
(25.0)
West North Central
2,199
2,450
11.4
235
301
28.5
33.1
(12.8)
(13.9)
(8.6)
(1.4)
(1.7)
(21.4)
Minnesota
480
547
14.0
53
69
30.4
32.5
(11.8)
(12.5)
(5.9)
(1.3)
(1.6)
(23.1)
Iowa
388
426
9.9
45
55
23.0
34.2
(13.3)
(15.3)
(15.0)
(1.5)
(2.0)
(33.3)
Missouri
648
718
10.7
61
81
33.0
33.5
(13.2)
(14.0)
(6.1)
(1.2)
(1.6)
(33.3)
North Dakota
80
91
13.2
8
11
38.1
32.4
(12.3)
(14.3)
(16.3)
(1.2)
(1.8)
(33.3)
South Dakota
91
102
12.4
10
13
28.0
32.5
(13.2)
(14.7)
(11.4)
(1.5)
(1.9)
(26.7)
Nebraska
206
223
8.5
24
29
23.0
33.0
(13.1)
(14.1)
(7.6)
(1.5)
(1.9)
(26.7)
Kansas
306
343
11.9
33
42
26.3
32.9
(13.0)
(13.8)
(6.2)
(1.4)
(1.7)
(21.4)
South
8,488
10,724
26.3
664
992
49.5
32.8
(11.3)
(12.6)
(11.5)
(0.9)
(1.2)
(33.3)
South Atlantic
4,367
5,834
33.6
327
515
57.5
33.7
(11.8)
(13.4)
(13.6)
(0.9)
(1.2)
(33.3)
Delaware
59
81
36.4
5
7
35.5
32.9
(10.0)
(12.1)
(21.0)
(0.9)
(1.1)
(22.2)
Maryland
396
517
30.8
33
46
42.3
33.0
(9.4)
(10.8)
(14.9)
(0.8)
(1.0)
(25.0)
District Columbia
74
78
4.8
6
8
22.9
33.5
(11.6)
(12.8)
(10.3)
(1.0)
(1.3)
(30.0)
Virginia
505
664
31.5
41
60
45.2
32.6
(9.5)
(10.7)
(12.6)
(0.8)
(1.0)
(25.0)
West Virginia
238
269
13.0
19
25
31.1
35.4
(12.2)
(15.0)
(12.6)
(1.0)
(1.4)
(40.0)
North Carolina
603
804
33.3
45
70
54.8
33.1
(10.3)
(12.1)
(17.5)
(0.8)
(1.1)
(37.5)
South Carolina
287
397
38.1
20
31
53.7
32.0
(9.2)
(11.4)
(24.0)
(0.6)
(0.9)
(50.0)
OCR for page 354
Demography of Aging
Number (in 1,000s), Percentage, and Percent Change of Persons 65 and Over, 85 and Over, and Median Age in the United States by Region, Division, and State, 1980-1990
65 and Over
85 and Over
Region
1980
1990
Percent Change
1980
1990
Percent Change
Median Age, 1990
Georgia
517
654
26.6
39
57
45.2
31.6
(9.5)
(10.1)
(6.6)
(0.7)
(0.9)
(28.6)
Florida
1,688
2,369
40.4
117
210
79.1
36.4
(17.3)
(18.3)
(5.8)
(1.2)
(1.6)
(33.3)
East South Central
1,657
1,930
16.5
134
186
38.8
32.9
(11.3)
(12.7)
(12.4)
(0.9)
(1.2)
(33.3)
Kentucky
410
467
13.9
35
46
32.3
33.0
(11.2)
(12.7)
(13.4)
(11.2)
(12.7)
(30.0)
Tennessee
518
619
19.6
41
59
41.9
33.6
(11.3)
(12.7)
(12.4)
(11.3)
(12.7)
(33.3)
Alabama
440
523
18.9
34
49
42.6
33.0
(11.3)
(12.9)
(14.2)
(11.3)
(12.9)
(33.3)
Mississippi
289
321
11.0
24
32
37.5
31.2
(11.5)
(12.5)
(8.7)
(11.5)
(12.5)
(44.4)
West South Central
2,464
2,960
20.1
203
291
43.6
31.3
(10.4)
(11.1)
(6.7)
(0.9)
(1.1)
(22.2)
Arkansas
312
350
12.0
26
35
33.6
33.8
(13.7)
(14.9)
(8.8)
(13.7)
(14.9)
(25.0)
Louisiana
404
469
16.0
31
44
42.9
31.0
(9.6)
(11.1)
(15.6)
(9.6)
(11.1)
(42.9)
Oklahoma
376
424
12.8
34
46
34.9
33.2
(12.4)
(13.5)
(8.9)
(12.4)
(13.5)
(36.4)
Texas
1,371
1,717
25.2
112
167
48.7
30.8
(9.6)
(10.1)
(5.2)
(9.6)
(10.1)
(25.0)
West
4,298
5,774
34.3
380
539
41.6
31.8
(10.0)
(10.9)
(9.0)
(0.9)
(1.0)
(11.1)
Mountain
1,061
1,524
43.6
86
133
53.6
31.6
(9.3)
(11.2)
(20.4)
(0.8)
(1.0)
(25.0)
Montana
85
106
25.9
9
11
20.8
33.8
(10.7)
(13.3)
(24.3)
(10.7)
(13.3)
(18.2)
Idaho
94
121
29.4
8
11
34.5
31.5
(9.9)
(12.0)
(21.2)
(9.9)
(12.0)
(22.2)
Wyoming
37
47
27.0
3
5
31.0
32.0
(7.9)
(10.4)
(29.1)
(7.9)
(10.4)
(42.9)
Colorado
247
392
33.2
24
33
35.3
32.5
(8.6)
(10.0)
(16.3)
(8.0)
(10.0)
(25.0)
OCR for page 355
Demography of Aging
Number (in 1,000s), Percentage, and Percent Change of Persons 65 and Over, 85 and Over, and Median Age in the United States by Region, Division, and State, 1980-1990
65 and Over
85 and Over
Region
1980
1990
Percent Change
1980
1990
Percent Change
Median Age, 1990
New Mexico
116
163
40.7
9
14
62.0
31.3
(8.9)
(10.8)
(21.3)
(8.9)
(10.9)
(28.6)
Arizona
307
479
55.8
20
38
89.7
32.2
(11.3)
(13.1)
(15.9)
(11.3)
(13.1)
(42.9)
Utah
109
150
37.2
9
14
53.8
26.2
(7.5)
(8.7)
(16.0)
(7.5)
(8.7)
(33.3)
Nevada
66
128
94.1
4
7
105.0
33.3
(8.2)
(10.6)
(29.3)
(8.2)
(10.6)
(20.0)
Pacific
3,237
4,250
31.3
294
506
38.0
31.9
(10.2)
(10.9)
(6.9)
(0.9)
(1.0)
(11.1)
Washington
432
575
33.3
41
56
35.7
33.1
(10.4)
(11.8)
(13.4)
(10.4)
(11.8)
(20.0)
Oregon
303
391
29.0
28
39
36.5
34.5
(11.5)
(13.8)
(20.0)
(11.5)
(13.8)
(27.3)
California
2,414
3,136
29.9
218
300
37.2
31.5
(10.2)
(10.5)
(2.9)
(10.2)
(10.5)
(11.1)
Alaska
12
22
93.7
1
1
102.1
29.4
(2.9)
(4.1)
(41.4)
(2.9)
(4.1)
(0.0)
Hawaii
76
125
64.2
6
10
87.0
32.6
(7.9)
(11.3)
(43.0)
(7.9)
(11.3)
(50.0)
SOURCE: 1980 and 1990: Bureau of the Census, (1992b); median age, 1990: Bureau of the Census (1992a).
Representative terms from entire chapter:
elderly population
Items in cart [1]
