Where Do Older Americans Live? Geographic Distribution of the Older Population

Where Do Older Americans Live? Geographic Distribution of the Older Population

ȱ
‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ
’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
’›œ?Ž—ȱ ǯȱ˜•Ž••˜ȱ
—Š•¢œ?ȱ’—ȱ Ž›˜—?˜•˜?¢ȱ
Š›Œ‘ȱśǰȱŘŖŖŝȱ
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
   ǯŒ›œǯ?˜Ÿȱ
řřŞşŝȱ
ȱŽ™˜›?ȱ?˜›ȱ˜—?›Žœœ
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
ȱ
ž––Š›¢ȱ
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.

˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
ȱ
˜—?Ž—?œȱ
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

’?ž›Žœȱ
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

Š‹•Žœȱ
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
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
ȱ
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

™™Ž—?’¡Žœȱ
Appendix. Data Collection and Rankings of the Older Population by State................................. 18

˜—?ŠŒ?œȱ
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 25

˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
ȱ
—?›˜?žŒ?’˜—ȱ
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.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗȱ

‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
ȱ
Figure 1. U.S. Population Age 65 and Older and 85 and Older, 1990 to 2030
(projected)
100
90
s
80
n
oill 70
i
m 60
n
Age 85+
i 50
n
o
Age 65-74
it 40
al
u 30
p
o 20
P
10
0
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030

Source: Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics, Older Americans 2004.
Note: Data for 1990 and 2000 are Census estimates of the population 65 and older and 85 and older. Data for
2010, 2020, and 2030 are Census population projections.
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.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Řȱ

‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
ȱ
Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
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.
?Š?Žȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
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.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
řȱ

‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
ȱ
one-third of the entire U.S. older population (31%). The remaining six states each had more than
1 million older Americans.
Table 1. Top Ten States Ranked by Population and Percent of U.S. Population Age 65
and Older, 2005
Percent of U.S.
Rank State
Number
population 65
and older
1. California
3,868,574
10.52
2. Florida
2,993,160
8.14
3. New
York
2,515,064
6.84
4. Texas
2,271,845
6.18
5. Pennsylvania
1,892,847
5.14
6. Ohio
1,530,074
4.16
7. Illinois
1,529,430
4.16
8. Michigan
1,258,494
3.42
9. New
Jersey
1,129,356
3.07
10. North
Carolina
1,054,098
2.87

Total
20,042,942 54.50
Source: CRS compilation based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
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.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Śȱ

‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
ȱ
Figure 2. U.S. Population Age 65 and Older by State, 2005
Un
U it
i ed St
S ates
e
Total
a :
l 36,
36 7
, 90
7
,
90 1
, 1
1 3
1
DC
Number
0 to 499,999
500,000 to 999,999
1,000,000 or more

Source: CRS compilation based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
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.
Table 2. Top 10 and Bottom 10 States Ranked by Percent of State Resident
Population Age 65 and Older, 2005
Rank Top 10 states with percent of resident Rank Bottom 10 states with percent of resident
population 65 and over
population 65 and over
State Percent
State Percent
1. Florida
16.83
42. Idaho
11.47
2. West
Virginia
15.32
43. Washington
11.46
3. Pennsylvania
15.23
44. Virginia
11.43
4. North
Dakota
14.71
45. Nevada
11.31
5. Iowa
14.67
46. California 10.71
6. Maine
14.58
47. Colorado
9.97
7. South
Dakota
14.24
48. Texas
9.94

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.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
śȱ

‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
ȱ
Rank Top 10 states with percent of resident Rank Bottom 10 states with percent of resident
population 65 and over
population 65 and over
State Percent
State Percent
8. Rhode
Island
13.92
49. Georgia
9.59
9. Arkansas
13.83
50. Utah
8.75
10. Montana
13.77
51. Alaska
6.63
Source: CRS compilation based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Note: Percent of the U.S. population age 65 and older is 12.4%.
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.
Figure 3. Percent of State Resident Population Age 65 and Older, 2005
Un
U i
n t
i ed S
ed
t
S ates
ates
es
e
Av
A erage: 12.4%
2
DC
10.7% or le
0
ss
10.8% t
0
o 12.4%
12.5% t
2
o 14.1%
14.2% or m
4
ore

Source: CRS compilation based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
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.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Ŝȱ

‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
ȱ
?Š?Žȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ ›˜ ?‘ȱ
Several states have experienced dramatic growth in their older population over the past five years.
States such as Nevada and Alaska have experienced more than four times the average growth rate,
with population increases of 24.8% and 23.3%, respectively. Another seven states have more than
two times the average growth: Utah, Arizona, Idaho, Colorado, Georgia, New Mexico, and
Delaware. All of these states are in the South and West regions. Another group of states and the
District of Columbia have experienced overall declines in their older populations: Iowa,
Massachusetts, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. These states were either in the
Midwest or Northeast regions of the country. Figure 4 shows a map of the United States with
five-year growth of the population age 65 and older by state. A detailed table with the percent
changes in the population age 65 and older for all the states is provided in Appendix Table A-4.
Figure 4. Growth Rate of the Population Age 65 and Older by State, 2000 to 2005
United States
Av
A erag
r
e: 5.1%
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000
000000
00000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000
00000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000
DC
00000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000 0 or les
r
s
s
0.1% t
% o 5.1%
5.2% t
% o 10.2%
10.3% o
3% r
r mo

re

Source: CRS compilation based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Dramatic growth of the oldest-old population occurred in several states between 2000 and 2005.
Nine states experienced increases in their population age 85 and older of about one-third or more:
Hawaii, Nevada, Alaska, Delaware, Connecticut, Maryland, Arizona, Rhode Island, and
Washington. However, five of these states have less than 30,000 individuals age 85 and older
(Hawaii, Nevada, Alaska, Delaware, and Rhode Island). The remaining four states had more than
80,000 oldest-old residents.
The same states that experienced overall declines in their population age 65 and older had
increases in their oldest-old population during the same five-year time period. This further
suggests that retirement migration of a “younger” senior population, that is, those age 65 to 74,
may leave some states with an increasing oldest-old population that is aging in place and more
likely to be frail or in need of health and supportive services. Two states, Oklahoma and
Mississippi, experienced declines in their oldest-old population over the same five-year period.
Figure 5 shows a map of the United States with the five-year growth of the population age 85 and
older by state. A detailed table with the percent changes in the population age 85 and older for all
the states is provided in Appendix Table A-5.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŝȱ

‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
ȱ
Figure 5. Growth Rate of the Population Age 85 and Older by State, 2000 to 2005
Un
U i
n t
i ed S
ed
t
S ates
ates
es
e
Av
A erage: 20.2%
0
DC
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000 0 or
r le
ss
00000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
0.1% t
1% o 10.

1%
0000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
10.2% to 20.2%
20.3% t
% o 30.3%
30.4% o
% r more

Source: CRS compilation based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
There are several reasons why some states may be experiencing higher-than-average growth
among the older population. Historically, migration of the older population has been concentrated
geographically in a few states, such as Florida, Arizona, California, and Texas. While recent
trends suggest a wider variation in retirement destinations among older interstate migrants, states
experiencing high growth, such as Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia, were among the leading
destination states in 2000.12 Other states are experiencing higher-than-average growth of their
older populations due to increasing longevity among the older residents who have remained in
these states and aged in place.
Ž?’˜—Š•ȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
The Census divides the United States into four geographic regions: the Northeast, Midwest,
South, and West.13 In 2005, the largest number of older Americans lived in the South, followed by
the Midwest, Northeast, and West regions. More than 13.3 million older Americans, or one-third
(36%) of the total U.S. population age 65 and older, lived in the Southern region. Almost one-
quarter of the older population lived in the Midwest (24%), and about one-fifth each lived in the
Northeast and the West (21% and 20%, respectively) (see Figure 6).

12 Longino, A First Look at Retirement Migration Trends, 2003.
13 States in the Northeast region include Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut,
New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania; states in the Midwest region include: Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan,
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas; states in the Southern
region include Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, and Oklahoma; states in the
Western region include Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington,
Oregon, California, Alaska, and Hawaii.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Şȱ

‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
ȱ
Figure 6. Percent of U.S. Population Age 65 and Older by Region, 2005
DC
Wes
e t (20%)
Northeast (21%)
21%
Mid
i w
d est (24
2 %)
%
South (36%)

Source: CRS compilation based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Note: Due to rounding, percentages in Figure 6 total to more than 100%.
Ž?’˜—Š•ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ ›˜ ?‘ȱ
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.
Table 3. Growth Rate of the Population Age 65 and Older by Region, 2000 to 2005
Region
Population 65+
Population 65+
Growth Rate
in 2000
in 2005
(%)
Northeast 7,372,282
7,451,769
1.1
Midwest 8,259,075
8,443,504
2.2
South 12,438,267
13,314,798
7.0
West 6,922,129
7,580,042
9.5
Total
34,991,753 36,790,113
5.1
Source: CRS compilation based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
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.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
şȱ

‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
ȱ
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.
Table 4. Growth Rate of the Population Age 85 and Older by Region, 2000 to 2005
Region
Population 85+
Population 85+
Growth Rate
2000
2005
(%)
Northeast 938,459
1,163,838
24.0
Midwest 1,064,295
1,265,765
18.9
South 1,430,546
1,624,958
13.6
West 806,287
1,041,377
29.2
United States
4,239,587 5,095,938
20.2
Source: CRS compilation based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ’—ȱŽ?›˜™˜•’?Š—ȱ›ŽŠœȱ
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.
Figure 7. Percent of the Population Age 65 and Older in Metropolitan Regions, 2003
27%
Metropolitan: Suburban
50%
Metropolitan: City
Non-metropolitan
23%

Source: AOA, A Profile of Older Americans: 2005.
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).
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŖȱ

‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
ȱ
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
˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ ›˜ ?‘ȱ’—ȱŽ?›˜™˜•’?Š—ȱ›ŽŠœȱ
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.
Table 5. Growth Rate of the Population Age 65 and Older in Major and Small
Metropolitan Areas, 1990 to 2000
Rank Metropolitan
Areaa
Growth Rate
(%)
Major Metropolitan Area
1.
Las Vegas, NV-AZ
86.2
2. Phoenix-Mesa,
AZ
38.0
3.
Austin-San Marcos, TX
37.3
4. Houston-Galveston-Brazoria,
TX
31.8
5. Atlanta,
GA
30.8
6. Orlando,
FL
28.8
7. Sacramento-Yolo,
CA
27.8
8.
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC
25.8
9. Denver-Boulder-Greeley,
CO
25.8
10.
Dallas-Forth Worth, TX
25.1

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.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŗȱ

‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
ȱ
Rank Metropolitan
Areaa
Growth Rate
(%)
Small Metropolitan Area
1. Naples,
FL
77.9
2. Anchorage,
AK
72.5
3.
Myrtle Beach, SC
61.7
4.
Las Cruces, NM
55.7
5.
Fort Walton Beach, FL
55.1
6. Ocala,
FL
47.0
7. Flagstaff,
AZ-UT
46.3
8. Wilmington,
NC
45.7
9. McAllen-Edinburg-Mission,
TX
43.8
10.
Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay, FL
42.6
Source: Frey, William H., Seniors in Suburbia, American Demographics, Nov. 2001, p. 19.
a. Metropolitan areas are CMSAs, MSAs, and (in New England) NECMAs, as defined by OMB in June 2000.
Major metropolitan areas have total populations exceeding 1 million in the year 2000; small metropolitan
areas have total populations of less than 1 million in the year 2000.
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
˜ž—?¢ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
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.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŘȱ

‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
ȱ
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.
Table 6. Counties Ranked by Resident Population Age 65 and Older, 2000

Percent of resident population
65 and older
Rank County
State Percent
1. Charlotte
FL
34.7
2. McIntosh
ND
34.2
3. Highlands
FL
33.0
4. Citrus
FL
32.2
5. Kalawao
HI
32.0
6. Sarasota
FL
31.5
7. Hernando
FL
30.9
8. Llano
TX
30.7
9. McPherson
SD
29.6
10. Divide
ND
29.5
11.
Indian River
FL
29.2

United States
12.4
Source: CRS compilation based on data from He, 65+ in the United States: 2005.
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.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗřȱ

‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
ȱ
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.
Table 7. Counties Ranked by Resident Population Age 85 and Older, 2000

Percent of resident population
age 85 and older
Rank County
State Percent
1. McIntosh
ND
6.64
2. Hooker
NE
6.26
3. Divide
ND
5.69
4. Smith
KS
5.47
5. Osborne
KS
5.28
6. Cloud
KS
5.27
7. Traverse
MN
5.20
8.
Foard TX
5.18
9. Elk
KS
5.15
10. Garfield
NE
5.10
11. Hutchinson
SD
5.08
12. Gregory
SD
4.99
13. Nemaha
KS
4.98
14. Washington
KS
4.97
15. Wells
ND
4.86
16. Stonewall
TX
4.84
17. Comanche
KS
4.78
18. Griggs
ND
4.76

Unites States
1.72
Source: CRS compilation based on data from He, 65+ in the United States: 2005.
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.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŚȱ

‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
ȱ
Table 8. Counties Exceeding the U.S. Proportion Age 65 Years and Older by Region,
2000
Counties exceeding
U.S. proportion
Region
Total
counties
Number Percent
Northeast 217
170
78.3
Midwest 1,055
869
82.4
South 1,424
980
68.8
West 445
244
54.8
United States
3,141
2,263
72.0
Source: Hetzel, Lisa and Annetta Smith, The 65 Years and Over Population: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR/01-
10, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. Oct. 2001.
Note: Proportion of the U.S. population age 65 years and over was 12.4%.
˜•’Œ¢ȱ –™•’ŒŠ?’˜—œȱ
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.
Ž?Ž›Š•ȱ ˜ŸŽ›—–Ž—?ȱ
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.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗśȱ

‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
ȱ
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
?Š?ŽȱŠ—?ȱ˜ŒŠ•ȱ ˜ŸŽ›—–Ž—?ȱ
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.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŜȱ

‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
ȱ
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
˜—ȬŽ?›˜™˜•’?Š—ȱ›ŽŠœȱ
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.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŝȱ

‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
ȱ
™™Ž—?’¡ǯ Š?Šȱ˜••ŽŒ?’˜—ȱŠ—?ȱŠ—”’—?œȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ
•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ‹¢ȱ?Š?Žȱ
Š?Šȱ˜••ŽŒ?’˜—ȱ
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.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŞȱ

‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
ȱ
Table A-1. States Ranked by the Number and Percent of U.S. Population Age 65 and
Older, 2005
Number of Percent of U.S.
Rank State
people 65 population 65
and older
and older
1. California
3,868,574
10.52
2. Florida
2,993,160
8.14
3. New
York
2,515,064
6.84
4. Texas
2,271,845
6.18
5. Pennsylvania
1,892,847
5.14
6. Illinois
1,530,074
4.16
7. Ohio
1,529,430
4.16
8. Michigan
1,258,494
3.42
9. New
Jersey
1,129,356
3.07
10. North
Carolina
1,054,098
2.87
11. Georgia
870,422
2.37
12.
Virginia 865,103
2.35
13. Massachusetts
852,826
2.32
14. Indiana
777,506
2.11
15. Missouri
773,171
2.10
16. Arizona
758,181
2.06
17. Tennessee
749,951
2.04
18. Wisconsin
721,633
1.96
19. Washington
720,874
1.96
20. Maryland
644,560
1.75
21. Minnesota
623,241
1.69
22. Alabama
603,733
1.64
23. South
Carolina
534,980
1.45
24. Louisiana
531,581
1.44
25. Kentucky
525,764
1.43
26. Connecticut
474,150
1.29
27. Oregon
469,906
1.28
28. Oklahoma
468,968
1.27
29. Colorado
465,096
1.26
30. Iowa
435,220
1.18
31. Arkansas
384,450
1.04
32. Mississippi
358,393
0.97
33. Kansas
357,005
0.97
34. West
Virginia
278,368
0.76
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗşȱ

‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
ȱ
Number of Percent of U.S.
Rank State
people 65 population 65
and older
and older
35. Nevada
273,136
0.74
36. New
Mexico
234,902
0.64
37. Nebraska
233,550
0.63
38. Utah
216,021
0.59
39. Maine
192,664
0.52
40. Hawaii
174,538
0.47
41. Idaho
163,917
0.45
42. New
Hampshire
163,105
0.44
43. Rhode
Island
149,775
0.41
44. Montana
128,834
0.35
45. Delaware
112,214
0.31
46. South
Dakota
110,530
0.30
47. North
Dakota
93,650
0.25
48. Vermont
81,982
0.22
49.
District of Columbia
67,208
0.18
50. Wyoming
62,037
0.17
51. Alaska
44,026
0.12

United States
36,790,113
100.00
Source: CRS compilation based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Table A-2. States Ranked by the Percent of Their Resident Population Age 65 and
Older, 2005
Percent of
Percent of
Rank State
residents 65 Rank State
residents 65
and older
and older
1. Florida
16.83
27. Kentucky
12.60
2. West
Virginia
15.32
28. Tennessee
12.58
3. Pennsylvania
15.23
29. South
Carolina
12.57
4. North
Dakota 14.71
30. New Hampshire
12.45
5. Iowa
14.67 31. Michigan
12.43
6. Maine
14.58 32. Indiana
12.40
7. South
Dakota 14.24 33. Mississippi
12.27
8.
Rhode Island
13.92
34. District of Columbia
12.21
9. Arkansas
13.83 35. New
Mexico
12.18
10. Montana
13.77
36. Wyoming
12.18
11. Hawaii
13.69
37. Minnesota
12.14
12. Connecticut
13.51
38. North
Carolina
12.14
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŘŖȱ

‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
ȱ
Percent of
Percent of
Rank State
residents 65 Rank State
residents 65
and older
and older
13. Ohio
13.34
39. Illinois
11.99
14. Missouri
13.33
40. Louisiana
11.75
15. Massachusetts 13.33
41. Maryland
11.51
16. Delaware
13.30
42. Idaho
11.47
17. Nebraska
13.28
43. Washington
11.46
18. Alabama
13.25
44. Virginia
11.43
19. Oklahoma
13.22
45. Nevada
11.31
20. Vermont
13.16
46. California
10.71
21. New
York
13.06
47. Colorado
9.97
22. Wisconsin
13.03
48. Texas 9.94
23. Kansas
13.01
49. Georgia
9.59
24. New
Jersey
12.95
50. Utah
8.75
25. Oregon
12.91
51. Alaska
6.63
26. Arizona
12.77
United States
12.41
Source: CRS compilation based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Table A-3. States Ranked by the Percent of Their Resident Population Age 85 and
Older, 2005
Percent of
Percent of
Rank State
residents 85 Rank State
residents 85
and older
and older
1. North
Dakota
2.69
27. Washington
1.76
2. Rhode
Island
2.56
28. Arkansas
1.75
3. Iowa
2.54
29. Indiana
1.73
4. Connecticut
2.46
30. Delaware
1.70
5. Pennsylvania
2.46
31. Idaho
1.64
6. South
Dakota
2.41
32. Maryland
1.59
7. Florida
2.25
33. Oklahoma
1.56
8. Massachusetts
2.22
34. Arizona
1.54
9. Hawaii
2.17
35. California 1.50
10. Kansas
2.10
36. South
Carolina
1.49
11. Nebraska
2.10
37. Alabama
1.49
12. Wisconsin
2.08
38. Wyoming
1.48
13. Montana
2.05
39. North
Carolina
1.47
14. Oregon
2.05
40. Kentucky
1.45
15. Minnesota
2.01
41. Tennessee
1.45
16. Maine
1.98
42. Virginia
1.44
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Řŗȱ

‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
ȱ
Percent of
Percent of
Rank State
residents 85 Rank State
residents 85
and older
and older
17. New
Jersey
1.96
43. New
Mexico
1.43
18. New
York
1.92
44. Mississippi
1.39
19. Vermont
1.91
45. Louisiana
1.38
20. Ohio
1.90
46. Colorado
1.28
21. Michigan
1.82
47. Texas
1.13
22. West
Virginia
1.81
48. Utah
1.11
23. New
Hampshire
1.79
49. Georgia 1.11
24. Missouri
1.79
50. Nevada
1.06
25. Illinois
1.78
51. Alaska
0.59
26. District of Columbia
1.76

United States
1.72
Source: CRS compilation based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Table A-4. States Ranked by Growth Rate of Population Age 65 and Older, 2005
Number of
Number of
Change in
Percent change
people 65
people 65
number of
in number of
Rank
State
and older,
and older,
people 65
people 65
2000
2005
and older,
and older,
2000 to 2005
2000 to 2005
1. Nevada
218,929 273,136
54,207
24.76
2. Alaska
35,699
44,026
8,327
23.33
3. Utah
190,222 216,021
25,799
13.56
4. Arizona
667,839 758,181
90,342
13.53
5. Idaho
145,916 163,917
18,001
12.34
6. Colorado
416,073 465,096
49,023
11.78
7. Georgia
785,275 870,422
85,147
10.84
8.
New Mexico
212,225
234,902
22,677
10.69
9. Delaware
101,726 112,214
10,488
10.31
10. South
Carolina
485,333 534,980
49,647
10.23
11. New
Hampshire
147,970 163,105
15,135
10.23
12. Texas
2,072,532 2,271,845
199,313
9.62
13. Virginia
792,333 865,103
72,770
9.18
14. Washington
662,148 720,874
58,726
8.87
15. North
Carolina
969,048 1,054,098
85,050
8.78
16. Hawaii
160,601 174,538
13,937
8.68
17. California
3,595,658 3,868,574
272,916
7.59
18. Maryland
599,307 644,560
45,253
7.55
19. Wyoming
57,693
62,037
4,344
7.53
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŘŘȱ

‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
ȱ
Number of
Number of
Change in
Percent change
people 65
people 65
number of
in number of
Rank State
and older,
and older,
people 65
people 65
2000
2005
and older,
and older,
2000 to 2005
2000 to 2005
20. Oregon
438,177 469,906
31,729
7.24
21. Tennessee
703,311 749,951
46,640
6.63
22. Florida
2,807,597 2,993,160
185,563
6.61
23. Montana
120,949 128,834
7,885
6.52
24. Vermont
77,510
81,982
4,472
5.77
25. Maine
183,402 192,664
9,262
5.05
26. Minnesota
594,266 623,241
28,975
4.88
27. Mississippi
343,523 358,393
14,870
4.33
28.
Kentucky 504,793
525,764
20,971 4.15
29. Alabama
579,798 603,733
23,935
4.13
30. Indiana
752,831 777,506
24,675
3.28
31. Michigan
1,219,018 1,258,494
39,476
3.24
32. Oklahoma
455,950 468,968
13,018
2.86
33. Louisiana
516,929 531,581
14,652
2.83
34. Arkansas
374,019 384,450
10,431
2.79
35. New
York
2,448,352 2,515,064
66,712
2.72
36. Wisconsin
702,553 721,633
19,080
2.72
37. Missouri
755,379 773,171
17,792
2.36
38. South
Dakota
108,131 110,530
2,399
2.22
39. Illinois
1,500,025 1,530,074
30,049
2.00
40. New
Jersey
1,113,136 1,129,356
16,220
1.46
41. Ohio
1,507,757 1,529,430
21,673
1.44
42. Connecticut
470,183 474,150
3,967
0.84
43. Nebraska
232,195 233,550
1,355
0.58
44. West
Virginia
276,895 278,368
1,473
0.53
45. Kansas
356,229 357,005
776
0.22
46. Iowa
436,213 435,220
(993)
-0.23
47. Massachusetts
860,162 852,826
(7,336)
-0.85
48. North
Dakota
94,478
93,650
(828)
-0.88
49. Pennsylvania
1,919,165 1,892,847
(26,318)
-1.37
50. Rhode
Island
152,402 149,775
(2,627)
-1.72
51. District
of
69,898
67,208
(2,690)
-3.85

United States
34,991,753
36,790,113
1,798,360
5.14
Source: CRS compilation based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Řřȱ

‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
ȱ
Table A-5. States Ranked by Growth Rate of Population Age 85 and Older, 2005
Percent
Number of Number of
Change in
change in
people 85
people 85
number of
number of
Rank
State
and older,
and older,
people 85
people 85
2000
2005
and older,
2000 to 2005
and older,
2000 to 2005
1. Hawaii
17,564
27,653
10,089
57.44
2.
Nevada
16,989
25,700 8,711 51.27
3.
Alaska
2,634
3,907 1,273 48.33
4.
Delaware
10,549
14,338 3,789 35.92
5.
Connecticut 64,273
86,310
22,037
34.29
6. Maryland
66,902 89,325
22,423
33.52
7. Arizona
68,525 91,207
22,682
33.10
8.
Rhode
Island
20,897
27,554 6,657 31.86
9. Washington
84,085 110,519
26,434
31.44
10. Oregon
57,431
74,529
17,098
29.77
11.
Idaho
18,057
23,420 5,363 29.70
12. Michigan
142,460 184,074
41,614
29.21
13.
New
Hampshire
18,231
23,503 5,272 28.92
14. Pennsylvania
237,567 305,404
67,837
28.55
15. California
425,657 543,323
117,666
27.64
16. South
Carolina
50,269
63,570
13,301
26.46
17.
Utah
21,751
27,337 5,586 25.68
18. New
Jersey
135,999 170,896
34,897
25.66
19.
Montana
15,337
19,187 3,850 25.10
20. Virginia
87,266 109,003
21,737
24.91
21. Colorado
48,216
59,564
11,348
23.54
22. Ohio
176,796 217,462
40,666
23.00
23. Massachusetts
116,692 142,336
25,644
21.98
24. North
Carolina
105,461 127,415
21,954
20.82
25. Florida
331,287 399,410
68,123
20.56
26. Wisconsin
95,625 115,269
19,644
20.54
27. Minnesota
85,601 103,012
17,411
20.34
28.
Vermont
9,996
11,917 1,921 19.22
29. New
York
311,488 369,722
58,234
18.70
30. Indiana
91,558 108,635
17,077
18.65
31. Illinois
192,031 227,797
35,766
18.63
32.
New
Mexico
23,306
27,516 4,210 18.06
33.
North
Dakota
14,726
17,139 2,413 16.39
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŘŚȱ

‘Ž›Žȱ˜ȱ•?Ž›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—œȱ’ŸŽǵȱ Ž˜?›Š™‘’Œȱ’œ?›’‹ž?’˜—ȱ˜?ȱ?‘Žȱ•?Ž›ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱ
ȱ
Percent
Number of Number of
Change in
change in
people 85
people 85
number of
number of
Rank State
and older,
and older,
people 85
people 85
2000
2005
and older,
2000 to 2005
and older,
2000 to 2005
34.
South
Dakota
16,086
18,663 2,577 16.02
35. Iowa
65,118
75,357
10,239
15.72
36. Georgia
87,857 100,395
12,538
14.27
37.
Maine
23,316
26,196 2,880 12.35
38. Wyoming
6,735
7,515
780
11.58
39.
Kansas
51,770
57,665 5,895 11.39
40.
Nebraska 33,953
36,940
2,987
8.80
41. Texas
237,940 257,368
19,428
8.17
42.
District of Columbia
8,975
9,677
702
7.82
43. Louisiana
58,676
62,274
3,598
6.13
44. Tennessee
81,465
86,286
4,821
5.92
45. Missouri
98,571 103,752
5,181
5.26
46. Arkansas
46,492
48,548
2,056
4.42
47. Kentucky
58,261
60,584
2,323
3.99
48. West
Virginia
31,779
32,827
1,048
3.30
49. Alabama
67,301
67,975
674
1.00
50. Oklahoma
57,175
55,298
-1,877
-3.28
51. Mississippi

42,891
40,665
-2,226
-5.19

United States
4,239,587
5,095,938
856,351
20.20
Source: CRS compilation based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

ž?‘˜›ȱ˜—?ŠŒ?ȱ —?˜›–Š?’˜—ȱ

Kirsten J. Colello

Analyst in Gerontology
kblack@crs.loc.gov, 7-7839

˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Řśȱ