Demographic Profile of Senior in Wayne County, Michigan

Demographic Profile of Seniors in Wayne County 

Implications for Funding and Service Delivery 

Final Report 

Prepared for: 

The Detroit Area Agency on Aging 

Prepared by: 

Wayne State University Center for Urban Studies 

Michigan Metropolitan Information Center 

Funded by the U.S. Administration on Aging through the 

County of Wayne Office of Senior Citizens Services 

June, 2004 

v

Demographic Profile of Seniors in Wayne County: 


Table of Contents 

Wayne County Executive Summary xi - xvi 

Background xi 

Key Findings xi 

Wayne County Report 

Index to Wayne County Report Tables & Figures 

Key Findings 1 

Total Population Trends 3 

Minority Population Trends 4 

Poverty Trends 7 

Living Arrangements 11 

Education Attainment and Spoken Language 12 

Conclusions 13 

Demographic Profile of Seniors in Planning & Service Area 1-A Report 

Index to PSA 1-A Report Tables & Figures 






Further Analyses of Region 1-A 12 

Community Analysis 

Population Trends 12 

Minority Trends 13 



Sector Analysis 





Housing Trends 22 

Disability Status 23 

Educational Attainment and Spoken Language 25 

Conclusions and Recommendations 27 

vii


Implication for Funding and Service Delivery 


Demographic Profile of Seniors in PSA 1-C Report 

Index to PSA 1-C Tables & Figures 







Population and Socioeconomic Characteristics 10 





Disability Status 17 

Educational Attainment and Language Spoken 20 

Housing Characteristics 22 

Conclusions and Recommendations 25 

Appendix A: Wayne County Tables 

Table 1 General Population Trends by Community in Wayne County, 1990 – 2000 

Table 2 Living Arrangement Trends by Community in Wayne County, 1990 – 2000 

Appendix B: Wayne County Maps 

Reference Maps 

Michigan Area Agencies on Aging Planning and Service Areas 

Wayne County by Area Agency on Aging Service Area 

Sector Map: Detroit Area Agency on Aging – Region 1-A 

Communities in PSA 1-A: Detroit Area Agency on Aging 

Communities in PSA 1-C – The Senior Alliance 

Wayne County Data Maps by Community 

Percent Change in Total Population, 1990 to 2000 for Wayne County Communities 

Percent Change and Number Change in Population 60 Years and Over, 1990 - 2000 

Population 60 Years of Age and Over as Share of Total Population, 2000 

Minorities 60 Years of Age and Over as Share of All Persons 60 Years and Over, 2000 

Percent of Population 60 Years and Over, at, or Below 150% of Poverty 

viii


Implication for Funding and Service Delivery 


PSA 1-A Data Maps by Community 

Number of Persons 60 Years of Age and Over, 2000 

Percent Change and Number Change in Population 60 Years of Age and Over, 1990 – 2000 

Minorities 60 Years of Age and Over as Share of All Persons 60 Years and Over, 2000 

Percent of Population 60 Years and Over at or Below 150% of Poverty 

PSA 1-C Data Maps by Community 

Population 60 Years of Age and Over, 2000 

Percent Change and Number Change in Population 60 Years of Age and Over, 1990 – 2000 

Percent Minority in the Population 60 Years of Age and Over, 2000 

Percent of Population 60 Years and Over at or Below 150% of Poverty 

ix

Executive Summary 

A Demographic Profile of Seniors in Wayne County: 


Background 

The following three reports present demographic changes occurring in the senior 

population in Wayne County, as revealed by an analysis of census data. In an effort to 

better plan service delivery in times of diminishing resources, this analysis was designed 

to: 

1. Understand the demographic changes occurring within the senior population in 

the county as a whole, as well as in the two service areas, PSAs 1-A and 1-C, that 

serve the elderly; 

2. Understand how these changes compare to Michigan as a whole, as well as the 

other 14 regions in the State; and 

3. Develop a detailed geographic analysis of the senior distribution within the 

county and each of the service areas. 

Key findings centered on the following topics: 

• Calculation of the area agencies’ standing on the key funding formula factors 

relative to the other 14 regions in the state; 

• Analysis of other census data related to the demographic, socioeconomic and 

housing characteristics of the area agencies’ senior population; 

• Development of detailed profiles of seniors by community and sector within PSA 

1-A’s service area, and by community in PSA 1-C’s service area; 

• Mapping of selected variables by community and sector; and, in the case of PSA 

1-A, 

• Mapping of service provider locations, by selected categories, in order to study 

alignment of service needs with provider resources. 

Key Findings 

While the individual reports explore the senior population on a number of dimensions, 

this summary is only intended to summarize the major demographic findings that 

describe recent trends and highlight areas of need. 

Population shifts within the State of Michigan in general, and within the inner core of the 

Detroit metropolitan area specifically, have resulted in a steady decline in Wayne 

County’s share of state seniors over the last 40 years, from 33 to 20 percent. This decline 

of 13 percentage points has not been experienced evenly throughout the county. Trends 

Executive Summary to Senior Analysis 

xi

in the movement of the elderly have followed those of the general population, as older 

communities - Detroit, Highland Park, River Rouge, Ecorse, etc. – have lost large 

numbers of elderly, while newer, growing communities – Brownstown, Canton, 

Northville and Plymouth townships – have experienced significant gains. The large 

population losses in Detroit over the period led to a 15.6 percentage point decrease in 

share for PSA 1-A from 24.9 to 9.3 percent, while movement to the suburbs led to a 

slight increase of 2.5 percentage points in PSA 1-C’s share from 8.2 to 10.7. In spite of 

the overall 30-year gain, PSA 1-C experienced its first loss in share during the 1990s. 

Wayne County and Area Agencies’ Shares of State’s 60+ Population, 1970 - 2000 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Wayne County 

1-A 

1-C 

1970 1980 1990 2000 

A special analysis, utilizing the Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) file from the 2000 

Census, 1 reveals the migration patterns of Wayne and Monroe County seniors 2 in the 

second half of the 1990s – between 1995 and 2000. A total of 68,048 persons 60 years 

and over who resided in Wayne and Monroe counties in 1995 had moved by 2000 (does 

not include seniors leaving the State of Michigan). Of this total, 45,107, or 66 percent, 

moved within the Wayne/Monroe area. While we cannot identify specific communities 

of residence in 1995, we do know that 18,090 (40 percent of movers) were residing in the 

City of Detroit in 2000, while 27,017 (60 percent of movers) were elsewhere in the twocounty 

area. The destinations of the 22,941, or 34 percent, who moved out were 

distributed as follows: 5,491 moved to Oakland County; 4,764 moved to Macomb 

County; 5,409 moved to the remainder of Southeast Michigan (Lapeer, Lenawee, 

Livingston, St. Clair and Washtenaw counties); 349 moved to Genesee County; and, 

6,366 moved somewhere else in the State of Michigan. 

1 PUMS files contain individual records of the characteristics for a 5 percent sample of people and housing 

units. The data are delivered by Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs) – geographic areas containing a 

minimum population of 100,000 persons. The individual records allow researchers to develop data 

analyses, such as migration patterns, that are not available in standard census releases. 

2 The PUMS migration file identified PUMAs for both 1995 and 2000. The 1995 PUMA area combined 

Wayne and Monroe counties, while the 2000 PUMAs provided great sub-county detail. 


xii

One component of this tabulation that is discussed in the next section – race - deserves 

additional discussion in light of the PUMS analysis. While the vast majority of minority 

seniors (primarily Black) who moved remained in Wayne County (primarily Detroit), a 

significant number did choose Oakland County as their home. Thirty percent of seniors 

who moved to Oakland County were non-White. This contrasts with the 6 percent non- 

White component that moved to Macomb County. 

Migration Trends of Wayne and Monroe County Seniors Between 1995 and 2000 

Total Movers White Black Other Where Did They Go? 

45,107 27,244 16,413 1,450 Moved Within Area 

18,090 3,151 14,194 745 Detroit 

27,017 24,093 2,219 705 Wayne County remainder/Monroe County 

22,941 19,572 2,994 375 Moved Out of Area 

4,764 4,483 229 52 Macomb County 

5,491 3,850 1,532 109 Oakland County 

5,971 5,409 522 40 Remainder of Southeast Michigan 

349 309 40 0 Flint/Genesee County 

6,366 5,521 671 174 State Remainder 

Wayne County also experienced a 7.7 percentage point drop in its share of the State’s 

minority elderly over the decade of the 1990s, from 68.1 to 60.4 percent. Once again the 

driving force was population loss in Detroit which, coupled with increasing numbers of 

minority elderly in the Detroit suburbs, led to an 8.4 percentage point decrease in PSA 1- 

A’s share from 62.9 to 54.5 percent, and a 0.7 percentage point increase in PSA 1-C’s 

share from 5.2 to 5.9 percent. 

Wayne County and Area Agencies’ Shares of State’s Minority Seniors, 1990 and 2000 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

1990 2000 


1-A 

1-C 

A detailed look at the composition of this population shows differing shares across 

groups. While Wayne County accounted for just over 60 percent of Michigan’s total 


xiii

minority elderly population, 68 percent of the State’s African American seniors resided 

there, followed by 30 percent of Multi-race, 27 percent of Other race, 24 percent of Asian 

and Pacific Islanders, and 17 percent of Native Americans. While not included in the 

calculations of minority seniors, it should be noted that both Hispanics and Arab 

Americans comprise growing segments of the county’s elderly population. Wayne 

County contained 37 percent of the State’s Arab American seniors and 29 percent of it 

Latino/Hispanic seniors. Minority seniors accounted for 37 percent of all seniors in 

Wayne County, with African Americans representing 92.5 percent of this total. 

Wayne County Shares of State’s Minority Seniors by Detailed Group, 2000 

Michigan 

Wayne 

County 

Share of 

State 



Seniors 

Minority 

Share within 



Total Minority 195,459 118,041 60.4% 37.0% 

African American 160,741 109,175 67.9% 34.2% 92.5% 

Native American 4,658 776 16.7% 0.2% 0.7% 

Asian and Pacific Islander 12,298 2,913 23.7% 0.9% 2.5% 

Other Race 5,260 1,428 27.1% 0.4% 1.2% 

Multi-Race 12,502 3,749 30.0% 1.2% 3.2% 

Hispanic 18,653 5,379 28.8% 1.7% 4.6% 

Arab American 10,047 3,718 37.0% 1.2% 3.1% 

Wayne County’s share of the State’s elderly in poverty grew slightly between 1979 and 

1989, as the increase in Region 1-C’s share, due to increased population, outdistanced the 

decrease experienced in Region 1-A. This trend reversed itself between 1989 and 1999. 

While Region 1-C was increasing its overall share, in spite of a decrease in the total 

number of seniors, Region 1-A was losing at a rate eight times that of the previous 

decade (the State share fell by 0.4 percentage points between 1979 and 1989, as 

compared to 3.3 percentage points between 1989 and 1999). The overall result was a 2.4 

percentage point loss in State share for the county from 30.9 percent to 28.5 percent. 

Wayne County and Area Agencies’ Shares of State’s Elderly in Poverty, 1979 – 1999 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

1979 1989 1999 


1-A 

1-C 


xiv

In addition to the factors summarized above, the three reports also delved into other 

variables that could be used to document need for service. Among these factors were 

living arrangements, specifically seniors living alone, disability status, with concentration 

on multiple disabilities, educational attainment and language spoken. 

The condition of living alone often removes a senior from social networks and other 

service access. This is particularly true in poorer urban areas such as Detroit and selected 

Wayne County communities. On the whole, the living arrangements of Wayne County 

seniors closely mirrored those of the State. In terms of all seniors 60 years and over, a 

slightly higher share of the county’s seniors lived alone and represented almost 22 

percent of the State’s total (slightly higher than its share of the population 60 and over). 

Living arrangements for the subset of 65 years and over showed the county’s seniors 

mirroring those across the state, but also showed a divergence within the county. By the 

age of 75 years and over, the county’s rate of living alone drops below that of the State. 

The split within the county widens as PSA 1-A’s seniors live alone at a rate well below 

that of the State, while PSA 1-C’s seniors’ rate essentially mirrors that of the State. 

Living Arrangements of Seniors by Age, 2000 

60 Years and over 65 Years and over 75 Years and over 

Percent of State Living Percent of State Living Percent of 

Total Share alone Total Share alone Total 

Living 

alone 

State 

Share 

Michigan 417,430 38.0 355,414 41.2 211,517 48.8 

Wayne County 91,022 39.2 21.8 76,792 41.5 21.6 43,888 46.7 20.7 

1-A 43,714 39.2 10.5 35,891 40.6 10.1 19,330 44.0 9.1 

1-C 47,308 39.2 11.3 40,901 42.2 11.5 24,558 49.0 11.6 

An analysis of the responses to the Census Bureau’s questions on disability, showed that 

Wayne County seniors – particularly those in PSA 1-A – reported a much higher rate of 

disability than the statewide average. While the rate of reporting one disability was 

similar across areas, it is important to consider the higher rate of Wayne County seniors 

reporting a disability that prevents them from going outside their home. More than 1 of 

every 3 seniors in PSA 1-A reported this problem. This becomes even more critical when 

disabled seniors live alone. 


xv

Percentage of Seniors (65+) Reporting Disability, by Type, 2000 

No 

Disability* 

Persons Reporting One Disability 

by Type 

Total* 

Physical** 

Gooutsidehome** 

Persons Reporting More Than One 

Disability 

Total* Includes 

Selfcare** 

Does not 

include Selfcare** 

Michigan 57.7 20.6 49.0 25.2 21.7 42.6 57.4 

Wayne County 53.1 21.8 48.3 30.9 25.1 45.6 54.4 

1-A 47.8 22.6 48.4 34.1 29.6 48.6 51.4 

1-C 57.6 21.0 48.1 27.9 21.3 42.2 57.8 

* Percent of all Seniors (65+) within the designated geographic area. 

** Percent of Seniors (65+) within specific disability category (one disability; more than one disability) 

Even more significant is the large share of Wayne County seniors (particularly in PSA 1- 

A again) who reported more than one disability, and for whom a self-care disability was 

included as one of those disabilities 3 . These results clearly point out a significant need for 

in-home services for a large segment of the elderly population who cannot be expected to 

travel to a “central” location. 

These results clearly show the contrasts facing the agencies serving seniors in Wayne 

County. While the population in PSA 1-A becomes older and needier, based on 

disability, poverty and other characteristics, numerical losses signal decreased funding. It 

is important that services be targeted to the areas of most need. The PSA 1-A report 

documents such need by dividing the region into 12 Sectors – 10 in the City of Detroit, 

one covering Highland Park and Hamtramck and one covering the five Grosse Pointes 

and Harper Woods. The results clearly show the ranking of need, as the downtown 

corridor (Sector 4) and Highland Park/Hamtramck (Sector 11) lead in poverty, living 

alone and multiple disabilities. The analysis of PSA 1-C provides a roadmap for 

targeting resources by analyzing the individual communities in the region. Such an 

analysis shows that the communities with the highest shares of minority population – 

Inkster, Ecorse, River Rouge, etc. – also tend to have the higher rates of need, based on 

the same variables of poverty, living alone and multiple disabilities. 

The issue of providing comprehensive services to a smaller, but older and needier, senior 

population in light of diminishing resources is one that all of Wayne County must tackle. 

Innovative solutions will require both PSA 1-A and PSA 1-C working together to analyze 

need and develop innovative solutions. These reports are designed to provide some of 

the baseline data necessary to begin the dialogue. 

3 The Census Bureau only documented self-care disability as a component of a multiple disability response. 

While totals for the other disabilities are reported in general, they are not differentiated as being reported 

singularly or as part of a multiple response. 


xvi



Section 1 

Wayne County Summary 

Prepared for: 


Prepared by: 





June, 2004

Index to Demographic Profile of Seniors in Wayne County Report 

Tables & Figures 

State Comparison Data – Executive Summary 

Wayne County and Area Agencies’ Shares of State’s 60+ Population, 1970 – 2000 

Wayne County and Area Agencies’ Share of State’s Minority Seniors, 1990 – 2000 

Wayne County and Area Agencies’ Share of State’s Elderly in Poverty, 1979 – 1999 

Wayne County Data 

Table 1. Share of State’s 60+ Population, 1970 – 2000 

Table 2. Trends in Total and Elderly Population in Wayne County, 1970 – 2000 

Table 3. Trends in Selected Age Categories in Wayne County, 1990 – 2000 

Table 4. Share of State’s Minority Population 60+Years. 1990 – 2000 

Table 5. Racial Distribution of Wayne County’s Total and 60+ Population, 2000 

Table 6. Seniors of Arab Ancestry in Wayne County, 2000 

Table 7. Seniors of Arab Ancestry, by Subgroup, in Wayne County, 2000 

Table 8. Seniors of Chaldean Ancestry in Wayne County, 2000 

Table 9. Share of State’s 60+ Population At or Below 100% of Poverty, 

1979 – 1999 

Table 10. Share of State’s 60 + Population Below 150% of Poverty, 1999 

Table 11. Share of Wayne County’s Elderly (65+) in Poverty and Below 150% of 

Poverty by Region and Community, 1999 

Table 12. Share of Persons 60Years and Over Living Alone, 2000 

Table 13. Living Arrangements by Detailed Age Group in Wayne County, 2000 

Table 14. Group Quarter Population, 65 Years and Over, in Wayne County, 2000 

Table 15. Disability Status of Population 65+ in Wayne County, 2000 

Table 16. Detailed Disability of the Population 65+ in Wayne County, 2000 

Table 17. Educational Attainment of the Population 65+ in Wayne County, 2000 

Table 18. Language Spoken by the Population 65+ in Wayne County, 2000

A Demographic Profile of Seniors in Wayne County 



Population shifts within the State of Michigan in general, and within the inner core of the 

Detroit metropolitan area specifically, have resulted in a steady decline in Wayne 

County’s share of state seniors over the last 30 years, from 33 to 20 percent. This decline 

has not been experienced evenly throughout the county. The large population losses in 

Detroit over the period led to a decrease of 15.6 percentage points in share for PSA 1-A 

from 24.9 to 9.3 percent, while movement to the suburbs led to a slight increase of 2.5 

percentage points in PSA 1-C’s share from 8.2 to 10.7. In spite of the overall 30-year 

gain, PSA 1-C experienced its first loss in share during the 1990s. 

Wayne County and Area Agencies’ Shares of State’s 60+ Population, 1970 - 2000 

35 

30 

25 


1-A 

1-C 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

1970 1980 1990 2000 

Wayne County also experienced a 7.7 percentage point drop in its share of the State’s 

minority elderly over the decade of the 1990s, from 68.1 to 60.4 percent. Once again the 

driving force was population loss in Detroit which, coupled with increasing numbers of 

minority elderly in the Detroit suburbs, led to a decrease of 8.4 percentage points in PSA 

1-A’s share from 62.9 to 54.5 percent, and an increase of 0.7 percentage points in PSA 1- 

C’s share from 5.2 to 5.9 percent. 

Wayne County and Area Agencies’ Shares of State’s Minority Seniors, 1990 and 2000 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

1990 2000 


1-A 

1-C 

Demographic Summary for Wayne County 1



decrease experienced in Region 1-A. This trend reversed itself between 1989 and 1999. 

While Region 1-C was increasing its overall share, in spite of a decrease in the total 

number of seniors, Region 1-A was losing at a rate eight times that of the previous 


compared to 3.3 percentage points between 1989 and 1999). . The overall result was a 

loss of 2.4 percentage points in State share for the county from 30.9 percent to 28.5 

percent. 

Wayne County and Area Agencies’ Shares of State’s Elderly in Poverty, 1979 – 1999 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

1979 1989 1999 


1-A 

1-C 

This report, coupled with separate reports for PSA 1-A and PSA 1-C, provides a great 

deal more detail on the demographic, socioeconomic and housing trends of seniors in 

Wayne County. Many of the tables and maps also provide geographic detail – 

community-level in Wayne County and PSA 1-C, and community and subcommunity 

level for PSA 1-A. 


Total Population Trends 

Populations shifts within the State of Michigan in general, and within the inner core of 

the Detroit metropolitan area specifically, have resulted in a steady decline in Wayne 

County’s share of state seniors over the last 30 years (Table 1). While the county 

contained one of every three (33 percent) Michigan seniors in 1970, only one of five (20 

percent) resided there as of 2000. This pattern did not occur uniformly throughout the 

county however. While Detroit and its core communities of Highland Park and 

Hamtramck 1 experienced losses over the three decades, rapidly growing communities in 

the suburbs of Wayne County (Livonia, Canton Township, etc.) led to increases in 

Region 1-C’s share in 1980 and 1990. The majority of available land was developed in 

many of these rapidly growing areas by 1990. Less land for development resulted in 

fewer new households and allowed the demographic trend of decreasing household size 

to lead to decreased rates of growth or, in some cases, population loss. This trend, 

combined with the continued decrease in Region 1-A, resulted in a four-percentage point 

drop for the county. 

Table 1. Share of State’s 60+ Population, 1970 - 2000 

While general population trends in the state would predict such a shift, the 1990’s 

brought a variation in the region’s trend that is both disturbing and, unfortunately, not 

fully understandable. The rate of loss for seniors trailed that of the general population 

during the 1970s and 1980s. In fact, the number of seniors in Wayne County actually 

increased during the 1980s while the overall population was dropping by 10 percent. In 

the 1990s, however, a large variance occurred. While the rate of loss for the general 

population slowed to a quarter that of the 1980’s (2.4 vs. 9.7 percent), the 1.4 percent 

gain in seniors that occurred during the 1980s turned to an 11.4 percent loss during the 

1990s, outdistancing general loss almost five-fold (Table 2). 

Table 2. Trends in Total and Elderly Population in Wayne County, 1970 – 2000 

Year 

Region 1970 1980 1990 2000 

Wayne County 33.0 27.2 23.9 20.0 

1-A 24.9 17.2 12.7 9.3 

1-C 8.2 10.0 11.2 10.7 

Population Totals, by Decade 

Percent Change, Decade to Decade 

Michigan Wayne County Michigan Wayne County 

Total 60+ Total 60+ Total 60+ Total 60+ 

1970 8,875,083 1,089,225 2,666,751 359,954 

1980 9,262,078 1,305,636 2,337,891 355,224 4.4% 19.9% -12.3% -1.3% 

1990 9,295,297 1,510,397 2,111,687 360,304 0.4% 15.7% -9.7% 1.4% 

2000 9,938,444 1,596,162 2,061,162 319,085 6.9% 5.7% -2.4% -11.4% 

1 While Hamtramck’s population losses continued through 1990, the large immigration wave of the 1990s 

led to a population turnaround and a resultant population increase of 25 percent between 1990 and 2000. 

While Detroit experienced an increase in its immigrant population, it was not enough to reverse the 

population losses that began during the 1950s. 


Table 3 presents a summary, by age category, of Wayne County’s population 60+ in 1990 

and 2000. While the overall 60+ population experienced a loss of 41,219, or 11.4 

percent, the majority of this loss occurred in the 60-64 years and 65-74 years cohorts. 

There were 29 percent fewer 60-64 year olds and 27 percent fewer 65-74 year olds in the 

county in 2000 than a decade earlier. While losses were also experienced by the 75-84 

years and 85 years+ cohorts, these losses were considerably less – 16 and 10 percent, 

respectively. The 55-59 year cohort experienced a slight gain over the decade, and its 

total of 90,785 is almost 23,000 higher than the 60-64 year cohort just ahead of it. Baring 

large losses due to death and/or migration, this group, coupled with the first wave of 

“baby-boomers” that follow, will bring overall growth in the county’s 60+ population in 

the decade to come. 

Table 3. Trends in Selected Age Categories in Wayne County, 1990 – 2000 

Age Group 

Wayne County Totals 1990-2000 Change 

1990 2000 Number Percent 

45-54 years 201,658 269,333 67,675 33.6 

55-59 years 88,403 90,785 2,382 2.7 

60 years+ 360,304 319,085 -41,219 -11.4 

60-64 years 95,802 67,896 -27,906 -29.1 

65 years+ 264,502 235,573 -28,929 -10.9 

65-74 years 160,699 116,629 -44,070 -27.4 

75-84 years 79,101 91,726 12,625 16.0 

85 years+ 24,702 27,218 2,516 10.2 

Minority Population Trends 

Decreases in Wayne County’s share of the state’s minority population, while much less, 

have also been the rule. Table 4 shows that the county lost almost 8 percentage points in 

share over the decade, attributable entirely to losses in Region 1-A 2 . While the elderly 

minority population in Detroit and Highland Park, primarily, was decreasing, much of 

this loss was moving to other communities in the tri-county area. Out-Wayne County 

communities benefited from this shift and Region 1-C’s share of state minority elderly 

increased. This increase was not enough, however, to make up for 1-A’s large losses. 

Table 4. Share of State’s Minority Population 60 Years+, 1990 - 2000 

Region 1990 2000 

Wayne County 68.1 60.4 

1-A 62.9 54.5 

1-C 5.2 5.9 

2 The 2000 Census allowed respondents for the first time to choose more than one race. The Office of 

Services to the Aging tabulated minority population to include these multi-race respondents, in addition to 

the single-race respondents who listed African-American, Native American, Asian, Native Hawaiian or 

other Pacific Islander, or Other Race. 


A further analysis of the county’s racial/ethnic makeup (see Table 5) details the 

composition of the county’s minority population. Just under 93 percent of Wayne 

County’s minority elderly population is African-American. 3 Asians represented 2.5 

percent of the minority elderly, while Native Americans and Other (undefined) races 

accounted for less than 1 percent each. Multi-racial responses (primarily attributable to 

seniors of Arab descent) accounted for 3.2 percent. While not included in the count of 

minorities, 5,379 elderly (1.7 percent) identified themselves as Latino/Hispanic. 

The racial/ethnic composition of the elderly differs from that of the general population. 

The racial/ethic composition of the elderly population tends to be more White, non- 

Hispanic – 62 vs. 50 percent, and trails in all minority categories. In spite of the large 

decrease in White, non-Hispanic elderly in Detroit (a trend not experienced out-county) 

over the last decade (just over 50 percent 4 ), the White share of Detroit’s elderly 

population (19 percent – 24,400 out of 128,400) was almost double its representation in 

the total population (10.5 percent – 99,921 out of 951,270). 

Table 5. Racial Distribution of Wayne County’s Total and 60+ Populations, 2000 

Total Population 60+ Population % of County 

Number Percent Number Percent Minority 

Total Population 2,061,162 319,085 

Minority Population 995,555 48.3 118,041 37.0 100.0 

African-American 868,992 42.2 109,175 34.2 92.5 

Native American 7,627 0.4 776 0.2 0.7 

Asian & PI 35,647 1.7 2,913 0.9 2.5 

Other Race 32,020 1.6 1,428 0.4 1.2 

Multi-Race 51,269 2.5 3,749 1.2 3.2 

Latino/Hispanic 77,207 3.7 5,379 1.7 4.6 

White, non-Hispanic 1,028,984 49.9 197,671 61.9 

While research shows that the sample ancestry question used in the 2000 Census results 

in underreporting of specific ethnic groups, the results that it does provide help to “get a 

handle” on the size and geographic distribution of various ethnic groups. Table 6 shows 

that 3,718 of Wayne County residents who identified themselves as having Arab ancestry 

were 60 years of age or older. This represented 37 percent of Michigan’s 60+ Arab 

population, a share considerably smaller than Wayne County’s 48.4 percent share of the 

total Arab population. While the vast majority resided in the cities of Dearborn and 

Dearborn Heights, increasing numbers were also found in Detroit and Hamtramck. 

While not considered a minority by the standards of the Office of Services to the Aging, 

3 Race identification in Table 5 is associated with single race responses. In other words, the count of 

African-Americans is based on the number of respondents who listed only African-American on their 

census questionnaire. If they listed African-American and another race they were counted as Multi-racial. 

4 Additional research, not included in this document, revealed that 56,572 Detroit residents 60 years and 

over identified their race as White, non-Hispanic in 1990. By 2000, that number had dropped to 24,400. 

This represented a loss of 32,172 or 57 percent. 


Arab seniors represent a growing segment of the county’s (and tri-county’s) senior 

population – one with unique language and service needs. 

Table 6. Seniors of Arab Ancestry in Wayne County, 2000 

Region Total 60+ 65+ 75+ 85+ 

Michigan 115,284 10,047 7,104 2,823 538 

Wayne County 55,809 3,718 2,527 970 159 

% of State 48.4 37.0 35.6 34.4 29.6 

1-A 12,277 1,010 758 298 52 


1-C 39,699 2,370 1,496 525 92 


As the Arab population of Wayne County is comprised of a number of subgroups, with 

differing cultures, immigration patterns, English language ability and community 

involvement, Table 7 is designed to provide further detail on these subgroups. It is 

readily apparent that Lebanese represent the largest subgroup in the Arab community, 

Table 7. Seniors of Arab Ancestry, by Subgroup, in Wayne County, 2000 

Total 60+ 65+ 75+ 85+ 

Arab/Arabic 

Wayne County 13,144 701 458 135 23 

1-A 4,899 247 180 51 16 

1-C 6,562 373 217 58 7 

Egyptian 

Wayne County 663 56 27 8 8 

1-A na na na na na 

1-C na na na na na 

Iraqi 


1-A 966 47 27 13 0 

1-C 2,042 22 11 0 0 

Jordanian 



1-C 501 3 3 0 0 

Lebanese 

Wayne County 28,598 2,065 1,450 637 97 

1-A 2,809 300 241 100 10 

1-C 22,377 1,411 907 345 72 

Palestinian 



1-C 1,278 65 40 15 0 

Syrian 



1-C 567 25 15 0 0 

na – The Census Bureau employs numerical thresholds that must be reached before 

disclosing characteristics. The “na” designation identifies groups for which the 

threshold was not reached, and the data, therefore, not available. 


accounting for just over half the total in Wayne County. While the numbers of Arabs, in 

subgroups, for Region 1-A are usually too small to be detailed, the largest numbers come 

in for persons choosing the general term of Arab/Arabic, followed by Lebanese. 

Another group, often confused with Arabs, is the Chaldean population. These are 

Christian Iraqis who identify separately from Muslim Iraqis and other Arabs. Though 

concentrated in Macomb and Oakland counties, they do have a presence in Wayne 

County – primarily in the City of Detroit, in the 7 Mile area between Woodward Ave. and 

John R. Table 7, which provides some detail on their age structure in Region 1-A, shows 

a reversal of the pattern that was shown for Arabs, in that a higher share of the State’s 

Chaldeans 60+ reside in Wayne County than for the overall Chaldean population. Due to 

their small numbers and confidentiality measures imposed by the Census Bureau, no 

information exists on Chaldeans living in Wayne County outside the City of Detroit. As 

a result, one cannot subtract the PSA 1-A total from the Wayne County total to determine 

representation in PSA 1-C. 

Table 8. Seniors of Chaldean Ancestry in Wayne County, 2000 

Region Total 60+ 65+ 75+ 85+ 

Michigan 34,408 3,269 2,256 684 166 



1-A 1,957 276 208 65 22 

1-C na na na na na 

Poverty Trends 



decrease experienced in Region 1-A (Table 9). This trend reversed itself between 1989 

and 1999. While Region 1-C was increasing its overall share, in spite of a decrease in the 

total number of seniors, Region 1-A was losing at a rate eight times that of the previous 


compared to 3.3 percentage points between 1989 and 1999). . The overall result was a 

loss of 2.4 percentage points in State share for the county from 30.9 percent to 28.5 

percent. 

Table 9. Share of State’s 60+ Population At or Below 100% of Poverty, 1979 – 1999 5 

Region 1979 1989 1999 

Wayne County 30.5 30.9 28.5 

1-A 24.1 23.7 20.4 

1-C 6.4 7.2 8.1 

5 Due to the fact that the Census Bureau did not use 60 years of age as a cut point for poverty calculations, 

the author produced estimates, the methodology of which is included in regional reports. 


While the Michigan Office of Services to the Aging utilizes, as their poverty component, 

persons 60 years and over below 150% of poverty, the standard tabulations for the 2000 

Census, unlike previous censuses, did not provide for such a tabulation. Rather, the data 

tables as produced only allowed calculations to be made for persons 55 years and over or 

65 years and over. Michigan was forced to request, and pay for, a special tabulation. 6 

The results of this tabulation are shown in Table 10. 

Table 10. Share of State’s 60+ Population Below 150% of Poverty, 1999 

Region 

Special Tabulation 

Total ST Share 

Wayne County 64,852 24.5 

1-A 42,530 16.1 

1-C 22,322 8.4 

This calculation resulted in an increase in Region 1-C’s share of the State, relative to the 

previous calculation of “less than poverty” (8.4 vs. 8.1 percent), and a large decrease of 

4.3 percentage points in Region 1-A’s share, from 20.4 to 16.1 percent. The result was a 

four-percentage point decrease, from 28.5 to 24.5 percent, in Wayne County’s share of 

the State. 

One more assessment of poverty and the elderly is to look at how the number of persons 

65 years and over, both in poverty and at less than 150% of poverty, distribute across the 

county. Such an analysis provides a picture of need and whether that need is distributed 

evenly across the county or concentrated in several areas. Table 11 provides an overall 

summary of this distribution. 

The first point to be made is that Region 1-A accounts for 71 percent of the poor elderly 

(65+ below poverty) and a slightly lower 65 percent of those below 150% of poverty. 

This drop in share as one increases the income threshold indicates that Region 1-A’s 

elderly tend to be more economically deficient than those in Region 1-C. Detroit, as 

would be predicted, leads all other communities in the county and accounts for 65 percent 

of the poor elderly of the county (60 percent at the 150% threshold). Region 1-C 

provides the next four communities in numbers of persons below 150%, though their 

combined share of the total – 14 percent – is less than one quarter that of Detroit. Elderly 

poverty is shown to be more geographically concentrated than the general population 65 

years and over, as the top 6 cities (Detroit through Highland Park), while containing 62.5 

percent of the county’s elderly, house 80 percent of the poor and 76 percent of those 

below 150 percent of poverty. 

6 The special tabulation only provided counts of total persons 60+ at or below 150% of poverty by region. 

While such counts allow us to calculate each region’s share of the State total, as well as the share for 

Wayne County by summing Regions 1-A and 1-C, there is not enough information provided to allow for 

the calculation of a rate within a particular region – such as the percent of persons 60+ in Region 1-A that 

fall below 150% of poverty. 


Table 11. Share of Wayne County’s Elderly (65+) in Poverty and Below 150% of Poverty by Region 

and Community, 1999* 

Region/Community 

Total In Poverty Share of 


Below 

150% 



Wayne County 240,778 27,267 51,079 

1-A 110,917 19,299 70.8 33,004 64.6 

1-C 129,861 7,968 29.2 18,075 35.4 

Detroit city 95,695 17,762 65.1 30,423 59.6 

Dearborn city 15,134 1,150 4.2 2,579 5.0 

Livonia city 16,018 835 3.1 1,793 3.5 

Westland city 10,884 752 2.8 1,671 3.3 

Dearborn Heights city 10,550 501 1.8 1,105 2.2 

Highland Park city 2,279 701 2.6 1,046 2.0 

Taylor city 6,823 442 1.6 970 1.9 

Redford township 7,602 396 1.5 935 1.8 

Southgate city 4,846 410 1.5 904 1.8 

Hamtramck city 2,606 471 1.7 828 1.6 

Inkster city 3,142 422 1.5 783 1.5 

Lincoln Park city 5,590 262 1.0 729 1.4 

Wyandotte city 4,408 175 0.6 638 1.2 

Garden City city 4,068 266 1.0 586 1.1 

Allen Park city 5,901 265 1.0 574 1.1 

* Table includes those communities with at least 500 elderly below 150% of poverty. 

Living Arrangements 

One final variable was assessed that has a significant impact on the daily lives of the 

elderly. That variable deals with the living arrangements of the elderly – specifically the 

share that live alone. Such a living arrangement often leads to loneliness and a lack of 

interaction with others. If recreational and health-related services are not located in the 

neighborhood, and one has no vehicle available, or one that is unreliable, or if one has 

difficulty performing activities of daily living, it requires strong connections with others 

to be able to maintain a quality of life. 

Table 12. Share of Persons 60 Years and Over Living Alone, 2000 

Region 

Total 

Households 

With 1 or 

more persons 

60+ 

Percent of 

Total 

Households 

60+ Living 

alone 


60+ 

State 

Share 

State of Michigan 3,785,661 1,099,509 29.0 417,430 38.0 

Wayne County 768,440 232,192 30.2 91,022 39.2 21.8 

1-A 375,509 111,602 29.7 43,714 39.2 10.5 

1-C 392,931 120,590 30.7 47,308 39.2 11.3 

The analysis of living arrangements across the State showed that the elderly tend to live 

alone in similar degrees throughout the State. The share is slightly higher in Wayne 

County (39.2 vs. 38.0 percent) leading to a State share of 21.8 percent (last column), as 


compared to its 20 percent share of total population 60 and over (Table 12). As can be 

seen in the table, there is virtually no difference between Regions 1-A and 1-C. 

Table 13 takes this analysis a little further by looking at the living arrangements of 

subgroups of the elderly. Here we see a slight divergence between the regions as age 

increases. While 39.2 percent of the population 60+ lives alone in both regions, the share 

increases more rapidly with age in Region 1-C than in Region 1-A. While we have no 

firm reasons for this occurrence, we can assume that the factors of a healthier, less 

economically distressed population and more elderly housing in the suburbs may play 

major roles in this effect. 

Table 13. Living Arrangements by Detailed Age Group in Wayne County, 2000 

Region 


alone 


60+ 


alone 


65+ 


alone 


75+ 

Wayne County 91,022 39.2 76,792 41.5 43,888 46.7 

1-A 43,714 39.2 35,891 40.6 19,330 44.0 

1-C 47,308 39.2 40,901 42.2 24,558 49.0 

People who do not reside in households live in group quarters. The most frequent form of 

group quarter’s arrangement for seniors is that of nursing homes. Wayne County had a 

total of 10,738 seniors (65+) living in group quarters in 2000. Just over half (51 percent) 

resided in Region 1-C. Nursing homes accounted for 81 percent of group quarters 

residents. The City of Detroit accounted for 89 percent of group quarters residents in 

Region 1-A, and 44 percent of the county total. The second highest number of group 

quarters residents lived in Livonia. 

Table 14. Group Quarters Population, 65 Years and Over, in Wayne County, 2000 

Region 

Total Institutional Nursing 

Homes 

Non- 

Institutional 

Wayne County 10,738 9,057 8,723 1,681 

1-A 5,256 4,359 4,265 897 

1-C 5,482 4,698 4,458 784 

Detroit city 4,696 3,822 3,733 874 

Dearborn Heights city 425 339 339 86 

Livonia city 1,448 1,041 952 407 

Riverview city 459 456 456 3 

Taylor city 482 451 409 31 

Westland city 615 612 560 3 


Disability Status 

The 2000 Census included “disability questions” that were asked in the following 

manner: 

16. Does this person have any of the following long-lasting conditions: 

a. Blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing impairment? 

b. A condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical activities such as walking, climbing 

stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying? Yes No 

17. Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more, does this person 

have any difficulty in doing any of the following activities: 

a. Learning, remembering, or concentrating? Yes No 

b. Dressing, bathing, or getting around inside the home? Yes No 

c. (Answer if this person is 16 years old or over.) Going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor’s 

office? Yes No 

d. (Answer if this person is 16 years old or over.) Working at a job or business? Yes No 

Table 15 provides data on the total number of yes responses gathered from persons 65 

years of age and over in Wayne County. Table 16 allows for the isolation of persons 

reporting single and multiple disabilities. 

Table 15. Disability Status of the Population 65+ in Wayne County, 2000 

Region 

Total disabilities 

tallied 

Sensory Physical Mental Self-care 

Gooutsidehome 

Wayne County 227,518 14.6 34.2 12.7 12.4 26.1 

1-A 120,309 13.0 33.9 12.9 13.6 26.5 

1-C 107,209 16.4 34.5 12.3 11.0 25.7 

The “picture” of reported disabilities was quite similar between regions in Wayne 

County. The only differences were that the elderly in Region 1-C reported having 

sensory disabilities at a slightly higher rate, while Region 1-A residents reported self-care 

disabilities at a higher rate. 

Table 16. Detailed Disability Status of the Population 65+ in Wayne County, 2000 

No 

Disability 

* 


Total* 

Go- 

Physical** outside- 

home** 

Persons Reporting 2 or More Disabilities 


Selfcare** 

Does not include 

Self-care** 

Wayne County 53.1 21.8 48.3 30.9 25.1 45.6 54.4 

1-A 47.8 22.6 48.4 34.1 29.6 48.6 51.4 

1-C 57.6 21.0 48.1 27.9 21.3 42.2 57.8 


** Percent of Seniors (65+) within specific disability category (one disability; two or more disabilities) 


The results detailed in Table 16 are consistent with the needier population previously 

identified in Region 1-A. The first point to make is that a higher percentage of Region 1- 

A’s seniors reported at least one disability – 58 vs. 48 percent. Of those reporting only 

one disability, Region 1-A’s seniors designated a limitation in going outside the home 

more frequently – 34 vs. 28 percent. Finally, Region 1-A seniors were more likely to 

report 2 or more disabilities – 30 vs. 21, and with a self-care disability being included as 

one of these – 49 vs. 42 percent. 

Education and Language 

The final two demographic tables look at persons 65 years and over in terms of their 

educational attainment and language usage. While educational attainment is an important 

indicator of socioeconomic status and potential need, the relationship is not always clear 

due to the fact that many of the area’s elderly were able to come to the Detroit area 

during the last century and get good jobs in the auto plants with minimal education. 

Nevertheless, educational attainment is an important indicator, and the lack of a high 

school diploma can signal potential illiteracy. Language spoken at home and the ability 

to speak English are quite important indicators for service providers. There continues to 

be a large segment of immigrants from the mid-1900s who never learned English well, 

who are being joined by recent immigrants with little English capability. Providers of 

aging services need to know where these people live and develop procedures to reach 

them in their language. 

Table 17 shows a significantly higher high school graduation rate for the elderly living in 

Region 1-C. It is known that the great migration of African Americans to Detroit in the 

mid-1900s brought a large pool of persons without high school diplomas. As of 2000, 54 

percent of Detroit’s African American population 65 years and over report having no 

high school degree. Once a person has received a high school diploma, the share going on 

for some college or college degrees is similar for both regions. 

Table 17. Educational Attainment of the Population 65+ in Wayne County, 2000 

Region 

Percent High 

School Grad or 

higher 

Some College, 

no degree 

Percent College 

Grad or higher 1 

Wayne County 57.1 13.8 11.9 

1-A 50.0 13.4 11.7 

1-C 63.1 14.2 12.0 

1 - Associate degrees included in tabulation 

The effect of the different racial/ethnic makeup of the two regions is most apparent in 

language spoken at home and the ability to speak English. While Region 1-A has a large, 

and growing, Hispanic population, and a relatively similar share of English only speakers 

than Region 1-C, it is the higher number of recent Arab and other ethnic immigrants in 


out-Wayne County – particularly Dearborn – that drives the significantly larger share of 

persons who report not speaking English well, or not at all. 

Table 18. Language Spoken by the Population 65+ in Wayne County, 2000 

Region 

Persons 

65 years 

and over 

Only 

English 

Percent 

of total 

Spanish 

Indo 

European 

Asian and 

Pacific 

Other 

Speak 

English 

not well, 

not at all 

Wayne County 249,881 222,751 89.1 4,021 18,112 968 4,029 13.3 

1-A 115,424 105,117 91.1 2,267 6,573 396 1,071 4.3 

1-C 134,457 117,634 87.5 1,754 11,539 572 2,958 18.8 

Conclusion 

A summary at the county level provides a broad view of the demographic, socioeconomic 

and housing trends of Wayne County’s elderly and how these trends compare with those 

across the State. This view makes clear that, while the County’s numerical share is 

decreasing, the needs of its elderly are increasing. It is obvious that the incidences of 

poverty, disability and living alone are greater in PSA 1-A than in PSA 1-C, and the 

detailed reports that follow will further delineate the trends within each region. Pockets 

of strong need exist in both regions, and it is only through a detailed geographic analysis 

of each that these pockets can be revealed. The following reports take each region in turn 

and analyze the characteristics of the elderly by geographic sub area. The PSA 1-A 

analysis looks at communities, sectors and Detroit subcommunities. The PSA 1-C 

analysis utilizes the component communities – cities and townships. 




Section 2 

PSA 1-A Report 

Prepared for: 


Prepared by: 





June, 2004

Index to Demographic Profile of Seniors in 

Planning and Service Area 1-A Report 


Table 1. Share of the State’s 60+ Population by Region 

Table 2. Trends in Total and Elderly Population in Region 1-A, 1970 - 2000 

Table 3. Trends in Selected Age Categories in Region 1-A, 1990 - 2000 

Table 4. Share of Minority Population 60+ Years by Region, 1990 - 2000 

Table 5. Racial Distribution of Region 1-A’s Total and 60 + Years Populations, 

2000 

Table 6. Poverty Rate by Age Category, 1999 

Table 7. Trends in Poverty Rate of 60+ Population by Region, 1979 - 1999 

Table 8. Percent of the Population 65+ by Ratio to Poverty, by Region, 1999 

Table 9. Population 60+ Years At or Below 150% Poverty, by Region, 1999 

Table 10. Share of Persons 60 Years and Over Living Alone by Region, 2000 

Table 11. Region 1-A’s 60+ Population by Community, 1970 - 2000 

Table 12. Region 1-A’s Minority 60+ Population By Community, 2000 

Table 13. Ratio of Income to Poverty in Region 1-A by Community, 1999 

Table 14. Population 60+ Years At or Below 150% Poverty in Region 1-A by 

Community, 1999 

Table 15. Living Arrangements of 60+ in Region 1-A by Community, 2000 

Table 16. Living Arrangements by Detailed Age Group in Region 1-A, 2000 

Table 17. Group Quarters Population, 65 Years and Over, in Region 1-A, 2000 

Table 18. Population 60 Years and Over by Sector,* 1990 - 2000 

Table 19. 

Percent Change in Population 60 Years and Over, by Detailed Cohort, by 

Sector, 1990 - 2000 

Table 20. Change in Population 60 Years and Over, by Race, by Sector, 1990 - 2000 

Table 21. Population 60 Years and Over in Poverty by Sector, 1989 - 1999 

Table 22. Percent of the Population 60+ by Ratio to Poverty by Sector, 1999 

Table 23. Living Arrangements of the Population 60+ by Sector, 2000 

Table 24. Population 65+ Living in Group Quarters by Sector, 2000 

Table 25. Homeownership Rates by Age by Sector, 2000 

Table 26. Population 55+ by Tenure by Sector, 2000 

Table 27. Disability Status of the Population 65+ by Sector, 2000 

Table 28. Detailed Disability Status of the Population 65+ by Sector, 2000 

Table 29. Educational Attainment of the Population 65+ by Sector, 2000 

Table 30. Language Spoken by the Population 65+ by Sector, 2000

A Demographic Profile of Seniors in PSA 1-A: 



PSA 1-A contained one of every four (24.9 percent) Michigan seniors in 1970, but less 

than one in ten (9.3 percent) resided there as of 2000. While general population trends in 

the state would predict such a shift, the 1990’s brought a variation in the region’s trend 

that is both disturbing and, unfortunately, not fully understandable. The rate of loss for 

seniors mirrored that of the general population during the 1970s and 1980s. In the 1990s, 

however, a large variance occurred. While the rate of loss for the general population 

slowed to half that of the 1980’s (6.9 vs. 14.4 percent), the rate of loss for seniors 

accelerated (22.8 vs. 14.6 percent), outdistancing the general population loss by a factor 

of three. 

There are three potential reasons for such loss. 

1. A companion study, “Health Status of Seniors: Implications for Funding and 

Service Delivery,” describes the impact of excess deaths in PSA 1-A. This is 

certainly a major factor in the declining population of seniors in PSA 1-A, but 

does not fully explain the change that occurred during the 1990’s. 

2. A second factor, and one for which data have yet to be released from the 2000 

Census, is that of out-migration. While one anticipates a general movement of 

seniors out-of-state, particularly to the South and West, it is also a fact that the 

growth in PSA 1-B, a region which encompasses the counties immediately north 

of the Detroit city limits, was driven, in part, by the movement of seniors out of 1- 

A. An analysis of the 2000 Census Public Use Microdata file estimates 

movement of almost 5,000 seniors from Wayne County into Macomb County 

between 1995 and 2000. While we are unable to determine whether all 5,000 

lived specifically in PSA 1-A in 1995, general migration patterns over the year 

would suggest that the vast majority did. An additional 5,500 are estimated to 

have moved to Oakland County, and almost 6,000 to other areas in southeast 

Michigan (more likely affecting PSA 1-C as well). 

3. The final factor is one of cohort replacement. This entails looking at population 

groups in 1990 that represent the seniors of 2000 and seeing the retention levels of 

those groups. The table below views changes in the senior population in two 

ways. 

Numerical Change, 90-00 Percent Change, 90-00 

60-69 70-79 80+ 60-69 70-79 80+ 

Total Age Forward -24,268 -40,265 -66,931 -27.6 -42.2 -69.6 

Total Comparison -31,728 -10,244 -1,646 -33.3 -15.7 -5.3 

White Age Forward -12,513 -18,904 -33,648 -47.3 -54.5 -76.8 

White Comparison -20,747 -13,167 -4,713 -59.8 -45.5 -31.6 

Black age Forward -13,185 -21,945 -33,199 -22.1 -37.1 -64.7 

Black Comparison -12,845 1,568 2,515 -21.7 4.4 16.1 

Other Age Forward 1,430 584 -84 77.7 41.5 -9.0 

Other Comparison 1,864 1,568 552 3.1 4.4 3.5 

A Demographic Profile of Seniors in PSA 1-A 1

The comparison factor, the usual way of looking at population change, simply 

looks at age cohorts at two points in time. For example, we compare the number 

of seniors 60-69 years of age in 2000 to the number of 60-69 year olds in 1990. 

The age forward factor looks at an age cohort over time. For example, we 

compare the number of seniors 60-69 years of age in 2000 with the number of 50- 

59 year olds in 1990. 

The results of this analysis provide a better understanding of some of the factors 

contributing to the population loss. The major points that can be gleaned from this 

analysis are the following: 

a. A smaller cohort moving up exacerbated losses in the total population 60-69. 

This is demonstrated by the fact that the age forward loss was almost 7,500 

fewer than the strict age cohort comparison. While this still signals a probable 

migration factor (in addition to excess death), the degree of migration is less 

than a straight comparison would convey. This fact was especially true for 

whites where the difference is more than 8,000, or 40 percent of the registered 

loss. The difference for African Americans was very small, but in the 

opposite direction. This would bolster the argument that African Americans 

are dieing before reaching the age of 60. 

b. Once we move into the cohorts over the age of 70 we find cohort survival (age 

forward) falling behind the cohort comparison. In other words, the aging of 

the elderly has resulted in small losses, and some gains, in the 70-79 and 80+ 

cohorts. However, when one takes 1990’s 60-69 year cohort and ages them 

forward both whites and African Americans show large losses. While outmigration 

still must be considered to be a factor in these losses, it is much 

more likely that the excess death component in leading to the fact that fewer 

seniors are surviving into their 70s. This fact is supported by the large 

discrepancy in the two methods that shows up for African Americans. A 

straight comparison of cohorts shows that African American seniors are aging 

as the number of 70-79 and 80+ seniors showed growth between 1990 and 

2000. However, when one looks at the 60-69 year olds in 1990 and compares 

that with 2000’s 70-79 year cohort, the gain of 1,568 becomes a loss of 

21,945. This reversal is even larger for the 80+ population. Such variations, 

particularly for African Americans, can be directly tied to chronic disease and 

excess deaths. Such a trend indicates a senior population with a high degree 

of need. 

While the representation of minorities in PSA 1-A’s senior population increased over the 

decade (due to high losses of white seniors), numerical losses of minorities, coupled with 

growing numbers of minorities in other regions of the Detroit metropolitan area and the 

State, resulted in an 8.4 percentage point loss of minority share in the State from 62.9 to 

54.5 percent. 

Finally, we analyze the socioeconomic status of seniors by calculating each PSA’s share 

of seniors living below 150% of the poverty threshold. 2000 Census tabulations did not 


allow for poverty status calculations for the population 60+, as tabular age breaks were 

set at 55-64, 65-74 and 75+. Calculations made by the author estimated a decreasing rate 

of poverty (19.0 percent in 1989 and 17.8 percent in 1999) for seniors in PSA 1-A. 

While this put PSA 1-A’s rate almost twice that of any other region, the numerical losses 

resulted in a drop in State share from 23.7 to 20.4 percent. Since the Office of Services 

to the Aging (OSA) uses 150% of poverty as their measure of socioeconomic distress, the 

author also made calculations of this factor. Subsequent to these calculations, OSA 

requested that the Census Bureau produce a special tabulation at 150% of poverty. This 

special tabulation, essentially mirroring the author’s tabulation, showed that PSA 1-A’s 

State share was 16.1 percent, representing another decrease over the decade, and had 

once again been surpassed by PSA 1-B which now contained 19.5 percent of the State 

share. 

PSA 1-A experienced significant decreases in State share of total senior population, 

minority population, and persons below 150% of poverty. While other research attempts 

to understand the health-related factors that contributed to this loss, the present study 

dissects PSA 1-A’s service area geographically to in order to understand the differing 

geographic components of change so that services can be better targeted to areas of need. 

While the full report features detailed tables for Detroit’s subcommunities, and a brief 

review of the Empowerment Zone, this summary dissects the region by its nine 

communities, and then breaks out the City of Detroit by its 10 CRS Sectors, and creates 

two additional sectors comprised of the other 8 communities – Hamtramck and Highland 

Park in one, Harper Woods and the five Grosse Pointes in the other. 

Sector Analysis 

In 1997 the City of Detroit launched a community-wide effort called the Community 

Reinvestment Strategy (CRS). This effort divided the city into 10 sectors, which have 

now been identified as the official sub-zones for city departments to plan and deliver 

services. As of 2002, the new city administration has initiated a citywide planning effort 

based on these sectors, with planning staff assigned to sectors. In addition to the 

Planning Department, these sectors are now recognized by Detroit’s Health Department, 

Neighborhood City Halls, Youth Services and Senior Services as their planning/service 

delivery areas. The Health Department has started to deliver health profiles by sector and 

the Senior Citizens Department commissioned a survey, through Wayne State 

University’s Institute of Gerontology, that was designed to gather data at the sector level. 

The Detroit Area Agency on Aging, recognizing the opportunity to utilize multiple 

sources of information to assist in planning, has accepted these sectors as a reasonable 

geography for service planning. As DAAA’s service area includes more than just the City 

of Detroit, the additional cities have been combined (Highland Park and Hamtramck; 

Harper Woods and the five Grosse Pointes) to form an additional two sectors. 

The major findings of the sector analysis were the following: 

• Population change varied greatly among the sectors. Eleven of the 12 lost 

population, with the largest decreases occurring on the far northeast side of 


Detroit (sector 2) and in the downtown sector (sector 4). Losses on the west side 

of town were considerably less, with the one sector (sector 9) showing growth 

(9.9 percent) lying in the mid-Northwest section and having Eight Mile Rd. as its 

northern boundary. 

• The number of White, non-Hispanic seniors decreased in all 12 sectors, while the 

number of minority seniors decreased in only 5. 

• While the number of poor seniors decreased in all 12 sectors, the percentage of 

seniors in poverty rose in six and dropped in six. The highest incidence of 

poverty was 29.8 percent in the downtown sector (down from 35.4 percent in 

1989). The lowest poverty rate, 3.4 percent, was found in the sector 

encompassing Harper Woods and the Pointes. This rate was virtually unchanged 

from 3.6 percent ten years earlier. 

• The high rate of poverty in Sector 4 (downtown) corresponded with the highest 

incidence of seniors living alone – 62 percent. This association also held for the 

sector (11) comprised of Highland Park and Hamtramck – a poverty rate of 25.3 

percent and a living alone rate of 49.4 percent. 

• The 2000 Census asked two questions on its long form (sent to one of every six 

households) that addressed disability issues. All sectors showed similar 

distributions of the five major disability categories: sensory, physical, mental, 

self-care, and going outside alone. However, sectors 11, 4 and 3 (southeast 

Detroit) showed the highest incidence rates of multiple disabilities, with the 

highest rates of self-care disability as well. Such a fact compounds the issues for 

seniors in sectors 4 and 11. The high rate of multiple disabilities in Sector 3 can 

be tied to the fact that this area has the highest number of nursing home residents 

– almost double that of any other. 


A Demographic Profile of Seniors in PSA 1-A: 


The Detroit Area Agency on Aging Region 1-A is comprised of the following cities: 

Detroit, the five Grosse Pointes, Hamtramck, Harper Woods, and Highland Park. In 

order to analyze the agency’s population base (persons 60 years and over), both with 

regard to current residential distribution and trends over time, we have utilized several 

different geographic structures. 


At the State level we have analyzed Region 1-A in relation to the other 15 regions in the 

State. The primary variables that will be examined in this analysis are: share of State’s 

population 60 years and over; share of State’s minority population 60 years and over; 

share of State’s population 60 years and over in poverty. An additional set of variables, 

judged as relevant measures of the health and well-being of seniors, will also be 

reviewed. The analysis has shown that the population losses that the region has 

experienced over the last 30 years has resulted in its overall share of the total population 

decreasing from 24.9 percent in 1970 to 9.3 percent in 2000 (see Table 1). 


Region 1970 1980 1990 2000 

1-A 24.9 17.2 12.7 9.3 

1-B 17.9 21.8 24.7 26.3 

1-C 8.2 10.0 11.2 10.7 

2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 

3-A 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.2 

3-B 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 

3-C 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 

4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 

5 5.1 5.2 5.4 5.7 

6 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.7 

7 7.1 7.6 7.6 8.0 

8 8.4 8.6 8.5 8.8 

9 2.4 3.0 3.3 3.7 

10 2.5 2.8 3.0 3.5 

11 4.7 4.7 4.4 4.2 

14 3.3 3.6 3.8 4.1 

While this loss in share is attributable, to some degree, to gains throughout the State, it is 

more the case of losses in Region 1-A. Table 2 shows population trends in Region 1-A, 

both total and just the 60 years and over population, from 1970 to 2000. Both groups 

suffered large losses, in both number and percent, between 1970 and 1980. While the 

region’s total population fell by 332,000, or 20.1 percent, the 60+ population dropped by 

over 56,000, or 17.2 percent. The decade of the 1980s brought a slight slowing to the 


losses for both, though percentage losses remained in double-digits – between 14 and 15 

percent. The decade of the 1990s brought the first significant divergence in these trends. 

While the Region’s total population loss slowed to just under 7 percent, the rate of loss 

for persons 60 and over accelerated to 22.8 percent – highest of any period. While 

Region 1-A’s total population fell by just under 78,000 persons, more than half of this 

loss (56 percent) was attributable to losses in the 60+ population, which fell by almost 

44,000. 

Table 2. Trends in Total and Elderly Population in Region 1-A, 1970 - 2000 

Year 

Population Totals, by Decade 

Percent Change, Decade to Decade 

Michigan Region 1-A Michigan Region 1-A 


1970 8,875,083 1,089,225 1,653,065 270,940 

1980 9,262,078 1,305,636 1,320,898 224,257 4.4% 19.9% -20.1% -17.2% 

1990 9,295,297 1,510,397 1,130,565 191,424 0.4% 15.7% -14.4% -14.6% 

2000 9,938,444 1,596,162 1,052,946 147,806 6.9% 5.7% -6.9% -22.8% 

Table 3 presents a summary, by age category, of Region 1-A’s population 60+ in 1990 

and 2000. While the overall 60+ population experienced a loss of 43,618, or 22.8 

percent, the majority of this loss occurred in the 60-64 years and 65-74 years cohorts. 

There were 31 percent fewer 60-64 year olds and 29 percent fewer 65-74 year olds in 

Region 1-A in 2000 than a decade earlier. While losses were also experienced by the 75- 

84 years and 85 years+ cohorts, these losses were considerably less – 6.5 and 10 percent, 

respectively. The 55-59 year cohort experienced a very small loss over the decade, and 

its total of 42,843 is almost 10,000 higher than the 60-64 year cohort just ahead of it. 

Baring large losses due to death and/or migration, this group, coupled with the first wave 

of “baby-boomers” that follow, will bring overall growth in the region’s 60+ population 

in the decade to come. 

Table 3. Trends in Selected Age Categories in Region 1-A, 1990 - 2000 

Age Group 

Region 1-A Totals 1990-2000 Change 


45-54 years 99,251 130,599 31,348 31.6 

55-59 years 43,703 42,843 -860 -2.0 

60 years+ 191,424 147,806 -43,618 -22.8 

60-64 years 47,885 32,999 -14,886 -31.1 

65 years+ 143,539 114,807 -28,732 -20.0 

65-74 years 84,819 60,385 -24,434 -28.8 

75-84 years 44,376 41,475 -2,901 -6.5 

85 years+ 14,344 12,947 -1,397 -9.7 



Decreases in Region 1-A’s share of the state’s minority population, while much less, 

have also been the rule. Table 4 summarizes the trend in minority share across the 

State’s 16 regions between 1990 and 2000 1 . 

While Region 1-A’s minorities increased their share of the 60+ population (from 60 to 72 

percent), due primarily to a loss of over half the region’s white, non-Hispanic elderly, the 

region’s share of the State’s minority elderly decreased from 62.9 to 54.5 percent. This 

decrease was a result of growing numbers of minority elderly in most areas of the state – 

particularly in the greater Detroit metropolitan area - as measured by growth in Regions 

1-B, 1-C and 5. 

Table 4. Share of Minority Population 60 Years+ by Region, 1990 - 2000 

Region 

1990 2000 

Reg Share ST Share Reg Share ST Share 

1-A 60.0 62.9 72.1 54.5 

1-B 4.5 9.3 6.6 14.1 

1-C 5.6 5.2 6.7 5.9 

2 4.0 1.1 3.7 1.0 

3-A 5.5 1.0 7.1 1.3 

3-B 7.0 1.3 7.6 1.3 

3-C 3.0 0.3 2.5 0.2 

4 9.9 2.8 10.0 2.7 

5 11.1 5.0 12.8 5.9 

6 6.1 1.8 7.3 2.2 

7 5.4 3.4 5.2 3.4 

8 4.6 3.2 5.3 3.8 

9 0.7 0.2 1.1 0.3 

10 1.1 0.3 1.3 0.4 

11 1.6 0.6 2.7 0.9 

14 6.0 1.9 5.9 2.0 

A further analysis of the region’s racial/ethnic makeup (see Table 5) details the 

composition of the region’s minority population. Just under 96 percent of the region’s 

total minority elderly population is African-American. 2 Native Americans, Asians and 

Other (undefined) races accounted for less than 1 percent each. Multi-racial responses 

accounted for 1.4 percent. While not included in the count of minorities, 3,014 elderly 

(2.0 percent) identified themselves as Latino/Hispanic. 









The racial/ethnic composition of the elderly differs from that of the general population. 

The elderly population tends to be much more heavily White, non-Hispanic – 27 vs. 16 

percent, and trails in all minority categories. In spite of the large decrease in White, non- 

Hispanic elderly in Detroit over the last decade (just over 50 percent), their share of 

Detroit’s elderly population (19 percent) was almost double their representation in the 

total population (10.5 percent). 

Table 5. Racial Distribution of Region 1-A’s Total and 60 Years+ Populations, 2000 

Total Population 

60+ Population 

Number Percent 


Share 

within 1-A Number Percent 


Share 

within 1-A 


Minority Population 863,835 82.0 106,499 72.1 

African-American 796,952 75.7 92.3 101,816 68.9 95.6 

Native American 3,406 0.3 0.4 435 0.3 0.4 

Asian & PI 13,076 1.2 1.5 1,045 0.7 1.0 

Other Race 24,668 2.3 2.9 1,080 0.7 1.0 

Multi-Race 25,733 2.4 3.0 2,123 1.4 2.0 

Latino/Hispanic 48,410 4.6 5.6 3,014 2.0 2.8 

White, non-Hispanic 171,630 16.3 39,880 27.0 


Measurement of trends in the elderly poor have been complicated by the way age-related 

poverty data were tabulated by the Census Bureau in the 2000 Census. Rather than 

breaking out the 55-64 year age cohort into two groups – 55-59 and 60-64 – allowing for 

tabulations of the 60 and over population (as done in 1980 and 1990), the Census Bureau 

chose to keep it as one. Table 6 shows the distribution of poverty by age groups from the 

2000 Census. It is clear that Region 1-A’s poverty rates far exceed those of any other 

region in all age categories. The poverty rate for the total population in Region 1-A 

stands at 24.9 percent, more than double that of the next highest, Region 7, at 12.1 

percent. This 2:1 ratio essentially holds for the 65+ cohort (17.4 vs. 9.4 percent), but 

drops slightly in the 75+ cohort – 17.8 vs. 10.4 percent. The largest ratio exists for 65-74 

year olds – 2.8:1 (17 percent for Region 1-A and 6.1 percent for Region 4). 

Due to 2000 Census tabulation issues, the only way to approximate the tabulation for 60+ 

is to perform an allocation based on population share. 3 Utilizing this estimation method 

we find that the poverty rate for seniors in Region 1-A fell slightly to 17.8 percent from 

the previous value of 19 percent (see Table 7). This decrease followed the significant rise 

that occurred during the 1980s. The decrease in the overall poverty rate, coupled with the 

numbers of seniors moving out into the Detroit suburbs, led to a decreasing share of poor 

seniors in Region 1-A and increasing state shares for regions 1-B and 1-C. 

3 

In order to approximate the 60-64 year cohort in poverty, an allocation was performed based on each 

region’s share of total population 55-64 years represented by the 60-64 subgroup. Each share was then 

applied to the number of poor in the 55-64 year range, with the result being an estimate of poor between 60 

and 64 years. 



Region Total 55-64 65+ 65-74 75+ 

1-A 24.9 11.9 17.4 17.0 17.8 

1-B 6.3 2.9 6.5 3.5 6.8 

1-C 7.5 3.6 6.1 4.4 6.1 

2 8.2 4.2 7.5 4.8 7.5 

3-A 12.0 3.7 6.3 4.5 5.7 

3-B 9.6 5.3 8.2 5.6 7.6 

3-C 10.5 6.0 7.1 4.5 6.9 

4 11.8 5.9 9.4 6.1 9.1 

5 11.3 5.4 7.7 5.2 6.3 

6 11.0 3.6 6.4 3.4 6.5 

7 12.1 6.1 8.8 5.6 8.9 

8 9.5 4.8 7.9 5.1 7.6 

9 11.9 9.3 7.8 5.9 6.7 

10 7.9 5.4 6.8 3.9 7.0 

11 11.8 6.4 9.3 6.0 10.4 

14 8.4 3.9 6.7 3.7 7.3 

Table 7. Trends in Poverty Rate of Population 60+ Population by Region, 1979 - 1999 

Region 

1979 1989 1999 

Reg Share ST Share Reg Share ST Share Reg Share ST Share 

1-A 15.5 24.1 19.0 23.7 17.8 20.4 

1-B 7.5 14.9 6.7 16.3 6.1 19.8 

1-C 7.0 6.4 6.6 7.2 6.1 8.1 

2 11.0 3.2 10.2 3.1 7.2 2.8 

3-A 8.4 1.5 8.6 1.8 6.3 1.7 

3-B 10.2 2.0 9.2 1.9 8.1 2.1 

3-C 9.9 1.1 9.3 1.0 7.4 1.1 

4 12.7 4.0 11.4 3.8 9.2 3.8 

5 10.5 4.9 9.4 4.9 7.9 5.6 

6 9.7 3.0 8.7 3.0 6.3 2.9 

7 12.5 8.6 11.4 8.5 8.8 8.7 

8 11.8 9.0 10.1 8.3 7.9 8.4 

9 15.9 4.4 13.5 4.3 8.3 3.9 

10 14.8 3.7 10.7 3.1 7.0 3.0 

11 14.7 6.3 13.9 5.9 9.2 4.8 

14 9.1 3.0 8.7 3.1 6.6 3.3 

Table 8 attempts to assess the severity of poverty that exists in the regions for the 

population 65 years and over. While one can determine the share that fall below the 

poverty guidelines (as in Table 6), it is also informative to assess how far below they fall. 

This can be done by subdividing the poor into the categories 50% or less of poverty and 

75% or less. When we do this we see that 5.7 percent of Region 1-A’s population falls 

below the 50% mark – more than twice that of the next region in line. Results at less than 

75% show the same trend. Region 1-A has a truly needy elderly population. 



Region 

Total 

Persons 

Percent of Persons Less than _ % of Poverty 

50 75 100 125 150 

1-A 110,917 5.7 9.6 17.4 23.9 29.8 

1-B 306,987 2.2 3.5 6.5 9.8 13.8 

1-C 129,861 2.3 3.7 6.1 9.7 13.9 

2 37,139 2.5 4.0 7.5 12.6 18.5 

3-A 25,741 2.1 3.5 6.3 11.2 16.1 

3-B 24,665 2.3 4.0 8.2 13.5 19.4 

3-C 13,373 1.8 3.5 7.1 12.8 18.8 

4 38,587 2.6 4.8 9.4 15.3 22.1 

5 65,656 2.5 4.2 7.7 12.1 16.3 

6 43,008 2.2 3.5 6.4 10.1 14.5 

7 93,167 2.5 4.5 8.8 14.1 20.2 

8 101,138 2.2 3.8 7.9 13.0 18.7 

9 43,724 2.4 4.0 7.8 13.5 20.1 

10 40,365 2.0 3.4 6.8 12.4 18.3 

11 49,620 2.2 3.9 9.3 16.4 23.8 

14 47,132 2.2 3.8 6.7 11.0 16.9 

Table 9 represents data developed as a special tabulation by the Census Bureau, under 

contract with the Michigan Office of Services to the Aging. In order to carry out future 

planning and funding allocations, the State requested a tabulation of the 60+ population at 

or below 150% of poverty. 4 While the representation of elderly at or below 150% of 

poverty was highest in Region 1-A at 28.3 percent (as calculated in previous estimates), 

its share of the State total fell more than 3 points below Region 1-B as a result of the 

large influx of elderly into Region 1-B over the last decade. A comparison of the 

regional shares calculated as part of the estimates process with those provided in the 

special tabulation shows very little difference. Only six of the sixteen regions showed 

any difference between the two, and none of the differences was more than one-tenth of 

one percent. In the case of Region 1-A, special tabulation results produced a State share 

of 16.1 percent, compared to the estimate of 16.2 percent. These results provide the 

supporting documentation necessary to conclude that the estimate methodology works. 

Therefore, while the special tabulation provides no numbers below the community level, 

estimates of the population 60+ both at or below poverty and at or below 150% will be 

reported for smaller geographies. 

4 The tabulation only provided total persons 60+ at or below 150% of poverty. There were no universes 

included so regional shares cannot be tabulated. Based on the closeness of the estimates that were 

developed prior to this tabulation, the regional shares reported as part of the estimates should still hold true. 


Table 9. Population 60 Years+ At or Below 150% Poverty by Region, 1999 

Region 

Special Tabulation WSU Estimate 

Total ST Share Reg. Share ST Share 

1-A 42,530 16.1 28.3 16.2 

1-B 51,599 19.5 12.0 19.4 

1-C 22,322 8.4 12.7 8.4 

2 8,342 3.2 16.1 3.2 

3-A 5,040 1.9 14.0 1.9 

3-B 6,147 2.3 17.6 2.3 

3-C 3,265 1.2 17.1 1.2 

4 10,510 4.0 19.7 4.0 

5 14,120 5.3 15.1 5.3 

6 8,088 3.1 12.9 3.0 

7 23,665 8.9 18.2 9.0 

8 23,965 9.1 16.6 9.0 

9 11,575 4.4 19.0 4.4 

10 9,300 3.5 16.4 3.5 

11 14,215 5.4 20.9 5.5 

14 10,122 3.8 14.9 3.8 


One final variable was assessed that has an impact on the daily lives of the elderly. That 

variable deals with the living arrangements of the elderly – specifically the share that live 

Table 10. Share of Persons 60 Years 

and Over Living Alone by Region, 2000 

Region 

2000 

Reg Share ST Share 

State 38.0 

1-A 39.2 10.5 

1-B 37.4 26.1 

1-C 39.2 11.3 

2 36.5 3.0 

3-A 39.7 2.2 

3-B 37.6 2.1 

3-C 37.8 1.1 

4 37.0 3.2 

5 37.7 5.7 

6 38.8 3.8 

7 38.1 7.8 

8 37.2 8.3 

9 36.1 3.4 

10 35.5 3.1 

11 42.3 4.6 

14 36.6 3.7 

alone. Such a living arrangement often 

leads to loneliness and a lack of interaction 

with others. If recreational and healthrelated 

services are not located in the 

neighborhood, and one has no vehicle 

available, or one that is unreliable, or if 

one has difficulty performing activities of 

daily living, it requires strong connections 

with others to be able to maintain a quality 

of life. 

Table 6 shows that the percent living alone 

was very similar across the 16 regions, 

with Region 11 in the Upper Peninsula 

having the highest (42.3 percent) and 

Region 10 in the western portion of the 

Northern Lower peninsula having the 

lowest (35.5 percent). 

While Region 1-A’s share was the same as that of 1-C, and slightly higher than 1-B, 

shear numbers led the way as Region1-A’s share of the State total, 10.5 percent, fell just 


elow that of 1-C at 11.3 percent, and well behind Region 1-B. In fact, Region 1-B 

accounted for more than 1 of every 4 State seniors who lived alone. 

Further Analyses of Region 1-A 

In order to better understand the changes that have occurred in Region 1-A, the analysis 

now addresses the region’s geographic components. Learning more about where the 

losses (and gains) have occurred, as well as the characteristics of the persons who reside 

in the region, will allow for a better understanding of these trends and a more focused 

approach to service delivery. 

Our sub-regional analysis is being conducted on two levels. 

1. Community-level – An analysis of changes in the 60 and over population in each 

of the 9 communities in the region. 

2. Sector-level – An analysis is done by dividing the City of Detroit into the 10 

Planning Sectors that were developed by the City Planning Department in 1997, 

and have become the focus of all planning in the City. To extend the geography 

region-wide, two other sectors have been developed – one made up of Hamtramck 

and Highland Park; the other comprised of the five Grosse Pointes and Harper 

Woods. 

Population Trends 

COMMUNITY ANALYSIS 

Region 1-A has experienced a steady decline in its elderly population since 1970. The 

decade of the 1990s represented the largest loss percentage loss, and second largest 

numerical loss over this 30-year period. While the majority of the loss occurred in 

Detroit, which accounts for 87 percent of the region’s population, all communities in the 

region, with the exception of the smallest community in the region, Grosse Pointe Shores 

village, experienced loss. As already documented in Table 3, the heaviest losses occurred 

in the cohorts between 60 and 74 years of age. 

While the analysis to this point has demonstrated a loss of the 60+ population in Region 

1-A, resulting in a loss of State share, as well as a loss in the number and State share of 

Minorities 60+, we still need to better understand the demographic and socioeconomic 

characteristics of this population. In order to do that we turn to the 2000 Census and seek 

to mine the applicable data. 5 

5 The age categories that will be used for this analysis are dependent upon the tabulations offered by the 

Census Bureau. As is the case with poverty calculations, many of the tabulations do not allow for the 

complete universe of 60+ to be used. In most cases one is limited to universes of 65+ and 75+. 


Table 11. Region 1-A’s 60+ Population by Community, 1970-2000 

1970 1980 1990 2000 

Region 1-A Total 270,940 224,257 191,424 147,806 

% Change by Decade -17.2 -14.6 -22.8 

Detroit city 245,112 198,838 167,219 128,400 

Grosse Pointe city 1,481 1,390 1,222 1,156 

Grosse Pointe Farms city 2,594 2,429 2,406 2,194 

Grosse Pointe Park city 2,921 2,392 2,080 1,790 

Grosse Pointe Shores 537 626 786 847 

Grosse Pointe Woods city 3,107 3,911 4,317 3,804 

Hamtramck city 5,675 5,592 4,572 3,375 

Harper Woods city 3,264 4,827 5,067 3,218 

Highland Park city 6,249 4,252 3,755 3,022 

Minority Trends 

Table 12 provides the racial (minority 6 overall) composition of Region 1-A by 

community. Minorities account for 73 percent of the Region’s population 60+, but only 

67 percent of those 75+. This discrepancy is the result of a White, non-Hispanic 

population that is represented in higher numbers in the older age categories – particularly 

in Detroit. The table also shows the wide variation in the racial makeup of the Region’s 

seniors across communities. Detroit and Highland Park provide the bulk of minority 

seniors, with Hamtramck coming in a distant third. 

Table 12. Region 1-A’s Minority Population 60+ Population by Community, 2000 


Percent Minority 

60+ 65+ 75+ 60+ 65+ 75+ 

Region 1-A Total 147,806 114,807 54,422 73.0 71.5 66.9 

Detroit city 128,400 99,056 46,193 81.0 79.8 75.8 

Grosse Pointe city 1,156 889 477 1.8 1.5 0.8 

Grosse Pointe Farms city 2,194 1,749 810 1.2 0.9 0.9 

Grosse Pointe Park city 1,790 1,345 623 5.3 4.5 3.7 

Grosse Pointe Shores 847 660 279 4.4 3.0 1.4 

Grosse Pointe Woods city 3,804 3,108 1,568 2.3 2.0 0.9 

Hamtramck city 3,375 2,734 1,604 22.2 20.8 18.7 

Harper Woods city 3,218 2,831 1,750 4.1 3.3 2.3 

Highland Park city 3,022 2,435 1,118 92.0 91.0 88.6 

6 The definition of minority in this discussion is slightly different than that used in the previous discussion. 

Here we are excluding White, non-Hispanics from the total population. The overall share is slightly higher 

than that shown in Table 4 (73.0 vs. 72.1 percent) due to the fact that the definition used by the State Office 

of Services to the Aging includes Hispanics who also listed a race other than White. 



Table 13 allows for a finer analysis of the region’s poor seniors. While there are pockets 

of poverty in all communities, 98 percent of the poor live in the three communities of 

Detroit, Hamtramck and Highland Park. The economic status of seniors differs greatly 

from community to community. Highland Park has by far the highest rate of poverty in 

Table 13. Ratio of Income to Poverty in Region 1-A by Community, 1999 

Region 

Total Persons 

65+ 

Persons Less than _ % of Poverty 

50 75 100 125 150 

Region 1-A Total 110,917 6,300 10,684 19,299 26,533 33,004 

Detroit city 95,695 5,779 9,829 17,762 24,511 30,423 

Grosse Pointe city 887 4 11 17 30 48 

Grosse Pointe Farms city 1,730 18 18 25 25 43 

Grosse Pointe Park city 1,326 8 8 25 36 60 

Grosse Pointe Shores 661 13 21 21 29 33 

Grosse Pointe Woods city 3,039 19 58 85 101 124 

Hamtramck city 2,606 174 250 471 670 828 

Harper Woods city 2,694 65 116 192 284 399 

Highland Park city 2,279 220 373 701 847 1,046 

Percent by Ratio to Poverty 

Region 1-A Total 5.7 9.6 17.4 23.9 29.8 

Detroit city 6.0 10.3 18.6 25.6 31.8 

Grosse Pointe city 0.5 1.2 1.9 3.4 5.4 

Grosse Pointe Farms city 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.4 2.5 

Grosse Pointe Park city 0.6 0.6 1.9 2.7 4.5 

Grosse Pointe Shores 2.0 3.2 3.2 4.4 5.0 

Grosse Pointe Woods city 0.6 1.9 2.8 3.3 4.1 

Hamtramck city 6.7 9.6 18.1 25.7 31.8 

Harper Woods city 2.4 4.3 7.1 10.5 14.8 

Highland Park city 9.7 16.4 30.8 37.2 45.9 

the region with one-third (30.8 percent) of its seniors falling below the poverty threshold, 

and almost half falling below 150 percent. One of ten seniors in Highland Park lives on 

an annual income that is less than half the poverty threshold. While Hamtramck has the 

second highest share of very poor seniors (6.7 percent), Detroit surpasses it for overall 

poverty (18.6 vs. 18.1 percent, respectively). Both cities have a third (31.8 percent) of 

their seniors living below the150 percent threshold. Harper Woods falls well behind the 

others with 14.8 percent below 150 percent, while none of the five Grosse Pointes even 

approaches 6 percent. 

The Census Bureau’s special tabulation also provides counts of persons 60+ at or below 

150% of poverty by community within Region 1-A (see Table 14). While the counts add 

little to the discussion, they do serve to reinforce the way need is distributed in the region. 

Detroit accounts for 92.4 percent of all seniors at or below 150%, with Highland Park and 

Hamtramck accounting for another 5.5 percent. Such concentrations make more refined 

geographic analysis that follows critical for determining targeting of diminishing service 

dollars and programs. 


Table 14. Population 60 Years+ At or Below 150% Poverty in Region 1-A by Community, 1999 

Number 


Region 

Region 1-A 42,530 

Detroit city 39,315 92.4 

Grosse Pointe city 90 0.2 

Gross Pointe township 35 0.1 

Grosse Point Farms city 50 0.1 

Gross Pointe Park city 85 0.2 

Gross Point Woods city 185 0.4 

Hamtramck city 1,041 2.4 

Harper Woods city 420 1.0 

Highland Park city 1,308 3.1 


Three out of every ten households in the region have at least one person 60 years and 

over as a member. The share ranges between 29 and 39 percent across eight of the 

communities, with Grosse Pointe Shores village being the outlier at 53.4 percent. When 

a household contains at least one person 60+, there is a 4 in 10 chance (39.2 percent) that 

it will be a one-person household. This rate is highest in Hamtramck, Harper Woods and 

Highland Park where it reaches 1 out of 2, and lowest in Grosse Pointe Shores where the 

high ratio of elderly tend to live in married-couple units. 

A further analysis of living arrangements for persons 65+ and 75+ (see Table 15) shows a 

correlation between increasing age and the percent that live alone. While 39 percent of 

households with persons 60 years and over are one-person households, the share rises to 

41 percent at 65+ and 44 percent at 75+. While this is a significant percentage, it needs 

to be emphasized that more than at least 60 percent of persons 60+ and 56 percent of 

persons 75+ share their household with at least one other person. 

Table 15. Living Arrangements of 60+ in Region 1-A by Community, 2000 

Total 

Households 

With 1 or 

more persons 

60+ 


Total 

Households 


alone 


60+ 

Region 1-A Total 375,509 111,602 29.7 43,714 39.2 

Detroit city 336,428 97,725 29.0 37,874 38.8 

Grosse Pointe city 2,388 842 35.3 375 44.5 

Grosse Pointe Farms city 3,804 1,493 39.2 513 34.4 

Grosse Pointe Park city 4,816 1,267 26.3 428 33.8 

Grosse Pointe Shores 1,018 544 53.4 138 25.4 

Grosse Pointe Woods city 6,531 2,503 38.3 800 32.0 

Hamtramck city 8,033 2,539 31.6 1,247 49.1 

Harper Woods city 6,292 2,317 36.8 1,158 50.0 

Highland Park city 6,199 2,372 38.3 1,181 49.8 


One community that needs to be looked at more closely is Highland Park. Previous data 

demonstrated that its elderly residents had the highest need, based on high levels of 

poverty. Table 15 shows that half of all age categories are also living alone. 

Table 16. Living Arrangements by Detailed Age Group in Region 1-A, 2000 


alone 


60+ 


alone 


65+ 


alone 


75+ 

Region 1-A Total 43,714 39.2 35,891 40.6 19,330 44.0 

Detroit city 37,874 38.8 30,824 40.1 16,185 43.2 

Grosse Pointe city 375 44.5 330 48.7 212 53.3 

Grosse Pointe Farms city 513 34.4 458 37.1 274 42.4 

Grosse Pointe Park city 428 33.8 364 36.6 213 42.3 

Grosse Pointe Shores 138 25.4 124 28.2 81 37.7 

Grosse Pointe Woods city 800 32.0 705 33.6 461 38.5 

Hamtramck city 1,247 49.1 1,065 51.4 690 55.9 

Harper Woods city 1,158 50.0 1,056 51.2 741 54.8 

Highland Park city 1,181 49.8 965 50.0 473 52.1 

People who do not reside in households live in group quarters. The most frequent form of 

group quarters arrangement for seniors is that of nursing homes. Region 1-A had a total 

of 5,256 seniors (65+) living in group quarters in 2000. Nursing homes accounted for 81 

percent of group quarters residents and the City of Detroit accounted for 89 percent of the 

total group quarters population. 

Table 17. Group Quarters Population, 65 Years and Over, in Region 1-A, 2000 

Total 

Institutional Correctional 

Institutions 

Nursing 

Homes 

Non- 

Institutional 

Region 1-A Total 5,256 4,359 33 4,265 897 

Detroit city 4,696 3,822 30 3,733 874 

Grosse Pointe city 0 0 0 0 0 

Grosse Pointe Farms city 0 0 0 0 0 

Grosse Pointe Park city 2 0 0 0 2 

Grosse Pointe Shores 0 0 0 0 0 

Grosse Pointe Woods city 62 58 0 58 4 

Hamtramck city 199 193 3 190 6 

Harper Woods city 130 124 0 124 6 

Highland Park city 167 162 0 160 5 


SECTOR ANALYSIS 

In 1997 the City of Detroit launched a community-wide effort called the Community 

Reinvestment Strategy (CRS). This effort divided the city into 10 sectors (see Map 

Appendix), as recommended by a previous land use task force study, and brought 

together people who either worked or lived in these sectors to construct development 

plans. These 10 sectors have continued to be used for planning purposes and service 

delivery (i.e. the Health Department has moved its structure from Health Planning Areas 

to CRS sectors). 

The Detroit Area Agency on Aging, recognizing the importance of these sectors to the 

City of Detroit, has chosen to use this geography as one of their levels of analysis 7 . In 

order to bring the rest of Region 1-A’s territory into this analysis, two additional sectors 

have been identified – one that combines Hamtramck and Highland Park, and the other 

that includes the five Grosse Pointes and Harper Woods. 


Only 1 of the 12 sectors experienced growth over the decade. Sector 9, located in the 

near northwest area of the City grew by 9.9 percent – approximately 1,300 people. This 

resulted in an increase in its share of Region 1-A’s population from 6.7 percent to 9.5 

percent. Sector 10, situated just to the north of Sector 9, experienced the smallest loss of 

the decade – 1.8 percent, or 230 people. The other two sectors on the city’s west side, 

Sectors 7 and 8, experienced much larger losses but still fell below the citywide average. 

Table 18. Population 60 Years and Over by Sector,* 1990 – 2000 

Sectors 

1990 2000 Percent Change, 1990-2000 

Population 60 years and Over 


Number 

Region 

Population 60 years and Over 


Number 

Region 

Number of 

Persons 60+ 


Region 

1 17,639 9.2% 12,858 8.7% -27.1% -0.5% 

2 13,882 7.3% 8,238 5.6% -40.7% -1.7% 

3 23,246 12.1% 17,306 11.7% -25.6% -0.4% 

4 18,931 9.9% 12,535 8.5% -33.8% -1.4% 

5 15,716 8.2% 10,635 7.2% -32.3% -1.0% 

6 23,657 12.4% 16,497 11.2% -30.3% -1.2% 

7 17,469 9.1% 14,151 9.6% -19.0% 0.4% 

8 10,883 5.7% 9,343 6.3% -14.2% 0.6% 

9 12,776 6.7% 14,047 9.5% 9.9% 2.8% 

10 13,020 6.8% 12,790 8.7% -1.8% 1.9% 

11 8,327 4.4% 6,397 4.3% -23.2% 0.0% 

12 15,878 8.3% 13,009 8.8% -18.1% 0.5% 

Region Totals 191,424 147,806 -22.8% 

* The sector designation recognizes the 10 Detroit CRS Sectors. Sector 11 is comprised of Hamtramck and Highland 

Park. Sector 12 encompasses the 5 Grosse Pointes and Harper Woods. 

7 

While this analysis will further dissect the City of Detroit into its subcommunities and census tracts - 

both of which allow for more detailed targeting – sectors provide a unit of analysis, in terms of both 

population and land area, which is ideal for the structuring of service delivery. 


The east side of the City experienced very different results. Sectors 1, 2 and 3 all lost 

better than one-forth of their senior population, as did Sector 4, which encompasses the 

downtown core. Significant losses also occurred in Sector 5 in southwest Detroit, where 

an increasingly younger Hispanic population is replacing older residents, and in Sector 6 

in the central corridor of the city. Because the percentage loss in each of these areas 

exceeded that of the region as a whole, their shares of the regional total also fell. While 

significant losses also occurred in the non-Detroit Sectors 11 and 12, the percentage loss 

in 11 mirrored that of the region, thus leaving its share unchanged, while that in 12 was 

less than that of the region leading to increase in its share from 8.3 to 8.8 percent. 

While the significant losses that occurred on the east side of Detroit resulted in losses for 

each of the cohorts (see Table 19), the losses decreased in the older cohorts, and in some 

cases were quite minimal. In sectors where the overall loss was not as great, increasing 

numbers occurred in some of the older cohorts. These trends reinforce the regional trend 

discussed earlier that Region 1-A’s population, while decreasing, has become older and 

more needy. 

Table 19. Percent Change in the Population 60 Years and Over, by Detailed Age Cohort, by Sector, 

1990 - 2000 

Sectors 60 to 64 65 to 69 70 to 74 75 to 79 80 to 84 85+ 

1 -32.1 -39.5 -28.9 -18.4 -5.4 -1.7 

2 -30.6 -47.0 -45.3 -40.4 -38.9 -41.5 

3 -37.9 -39.8 -20.2 -12.6 -8.0 -9.0 

4 -34.2 -43.1 -35.4 -26.9 -28.9 -22.8 

5 -40.1 -44.5 -29.9 -20.1 -9.7 -16.7 

6 -49.9 -47.1 -22.6 -9.9 2.8 -6.0 

7 -26.9 -34.3 -21.3 -5.1 25.9 2.8 

8 -10.5 -22.0 -7.1 -7.1 -10.6 -29.6 

9 -2.4 4.0 23.0 30.2 30.2 -0.4 

10 -25.1 -15.3 9.6 38.6 45.5 13.8 

11 -30.0 -41.5 -32.3 -15.7 23.4 16.1 

12 -36.8 -38.9 -11.4 6.9 10.1 2.9 

Region Totals -31.1 -35.5 -20.3 -9.5 -1.5 -9.7 


A more detailed look at the racial/ethnic dynamics of the population trends reveals the 

fact that the losses occurred disproportionately among the White population. While all 

sectors experienced a loss of Whites, losses exceeded 50 percent in Sectors 1 through 9. 

Though this report will not describe each sector’s change in detail (Table 20 provides that 

information), the specific changes that occurred in two of the sectors, 2 and 9, are 

illustrative of the trends occurring throughout the region. Sector 2, in the northeast 

corner of Detroit, led all others in population loss over the decade. The racial trends 

show that this loss occurred totally in the White population. Almost 7,500 fewer white 


seniors lived in Sector 2 in 2000 than in 1990 – a decrease of 72 percent. This loss was 

partially offset by an increase (1,844, or 54%) in minority population – primarily 

African-American. This sector, above all others, demonstrates the changing racial 

composition of Region 1-A’s senior population. Sector 9, the only sector to show 

population gain, shared common trends with Sector 2, as it also lost white seniors but 

gained enough minority seniors, enough in its case to overcome that loss. The white 

population loss, in percentage terms, was second only to Sector 2 at 63.5 percent. 

However, the minority population increase of 22.6 percent (2,466 persons) resulted in an 

overall population gain. 

Table 20. Change in the Population 60 Years and Over, by Race, by Sector, 1990 - 2000 

Sectors 

Minority Minority 

Minority 60+ White 60+ 

75+ 85+ 

White 

75+ 

White 

85+ 

1 -535 -5.0 527 130 -4,246 -60.8 -1,121 -149 

2 1,844 53.7 494 50 -7,488 -71.6 -2,345 -499 

3 -2,019 -12.7 762 318 -3,921 -53.5 -1,584 -515 

4 -4,140 -27.6 -1,094 -149 -2,256 -57.0 -676 -236 

5 -84 -1.4 384 18 -4,997 -52.3 -1,133 -178 

6 -6,808 -29.6 -183 -20 -352 -55.8 -217 -89 

7 1,430 17.7 797 101 -4,748 -50.7 -565 -73 

8 2,474 62.3 850 253 -4,014 -58.1 -1,384 -582 

9 2,466 22.6 1,214 172 -1,195 -63.5 -498 -175 

10 161 1.3 1,261 170 -391 -41.4 -191 -73 

11 -100 -2.8 185 104 -1,830 -39.0 -140 -7 

12 320 415.6 68 23 -3,207 -20.2 291 13 

Region Totals -4,991 -4.4 5,265 1,170 -38,645 -49.2 -9,563 -2,563 


Table 21 shows that the total number of poor in Region 1-A decreased over the decade by 

almost 10,000 persons, or 28 percent 8 . This percentage loss was just slightly higher than 

that of total population loss in the 60+ category, as a result of the decrease in the region’s 

overall poverty rate from 19.0 to 17.7 percent. The poverty rate in 1989 varied greatly 

across sectors – ranging from 3.6 percent in Sector 12 (the Grosse Pointes) to 35.4 

percent in Sector 4, which covers Detroit’s downtown. Three sectors – 3, 4 and 6 – 

together accounted for almost half of the poor seniors in the region. 

The Region’s drop in poverty among seniors was not reflected in all sectors. In fact, only 

six sectors experienced decreases in poverty, while six experienced increases. The 

ranking of Sector 12 as lowest and Sector 2 as highest held, though the gap between them 

decreased slightly. The largest decrease occurred in Sector 4, which, while remaining the 

sector with the highest percentage of seniors in poverty, saw its rate drop from 35.4 to 

29.8 percent. Sector 9 came next with a decrease of 2.4 percentage points, from 17.8 to 

15.4. The greatest increases were experienced in Sectors 1 and 2. In spite of increases in 

poverty rates in half the sectors, the number of seniors in poverty decreased in all sectors. 

8 The poverty data for 1999 represent an estimate prepared by the author. Because the Census Bureau did 

not tabulate poverty for persons 60+, an allocation was made to the 55-64 years in poverty category based 

on each sector’s share of the 55-64 years cohort that fell between 60 and 64 years of age. 


The largest numerical decrease, 3,037, occurred in Sector 4, while Sectors 6 and 3 also 

experienced large declines – 1,832 and 1,406, respectively. 

Table 21. Population 60 Years and Over in Poverty by Sector, 1989 - 1999 

Sectors 

Total 

Persons 

Poverty in 1989 Poverty in 1999 

Above Below Percent Total Above Below 

Poverty poverty below Persons Poverty poverty 

Percent 

below 

1 17,335 14,198 3,137 18.1% 12,640 10,101 2,539 20.1% 

2 13,416 11,497 1,919 14.3% 8,179 6,862 1,317 16.1% 

3 21,735 16,460 5,275 24.3% 15,968 12,099 3,869 24.2% 

4 18,661 12,062 6,599 35.4% 11,969 8,406 3,562 29.8% 

5 15,799 12,626 3,173 20.1% 10,723 8,537 2,186 20.4% 

6 23,106 17,958 5,148 22.3% 16,083 12,767 3,316 20.6% 

7 17,134 14,641 2,493 14.6% 13,866 11,781 2,085 15.0% 

8 10,043 8,609 1,434 14.3% 8,852 7,555 1,298 14.7% 

9 11,882 9,762 2,120 17.8% 13,726 11,616 2,110 15.4% 

10 12,908 11,409 1,499 11.6% 12,720 11,435 1,285 10.1% 

11 8,000 6,025 1,975 24.7% 6,046 4,516 1,531 25.3% 

12 15,871 15,294 577 3.6% 12,781 12,341 440 3.4% 

Region Totals 185,890 150,541 35,349 19.0% 143,552 118,016 25,537 17.8% 

As the State of Michigan uses 150% of poverty as a criterion of need, the author has 

extended the estimates of poverty to include poverty ratios. Table 22 provides an 

analysis of the population 60+ with regard to the ratio of their income to the poverty 

threshold. This table brackets the poverty data from Table 21 by including the population 

falling below 50 percent of poverty (extreme poverty) and ending with the population at 

150% of poverty. While reflecting the same trends as were seen in Table 20, one is able 

to see in more detail the degree of poverty that exists in Region 1-A. Of particular note 

are Sectors 3, 4 and 11 where well over 1/3 of all seniors (almost half in Sector 4) fall 

below 150% of poverty. 

Table 22. Percent of the Population 60+ by Ratio to Poverty by Sector, 1999 

Sectors 

Total Persons 

65+ 


50 75 100 125 150 

1 12,640 7.7 12.1 20.1 27.6 33.4 

2 8,179 5.7 9.8 16.1 21.6 27.3 

3 15,968 8.3 14.4 24.2 31.5 38.1 

4 11,969 8.7 17.6 29.8 39.6 45.7 

5 10,723 8.1 13.4 20.4 27.1 34.0 

6 16,083 8.2 13.2 20.6 27.3 33.5 

7 13,866 5.6 9.2 15.0 20.5 27.1 

8 8,852 5.6 8.5 14.7 19.9 24.4 

9 13,726 5.5 9.0 15.4 20.5 25.8 

10 12,720 3.6 6.1 10.1 14.5 18.0 

11 6,046 8.7 14.4 25.3 32.0 38.6 

12 12,781 1.3 2.3 3.4 4.6 6.4 

Region Totals 143,552 6.4 10.8 17.8 23.7 29.2 


Now that we have looked at the fundamental demographic and socioeconomic patterns of 

Region 1-A’s population by sector, it is time to highlight other characteristics 9 . 


Table 22 describes the living arrangements of the 60+ population. The most important 

characteristic, from a service/need standpoint, is the degree to which the population is 

living alone. Living alone is often associated with poverty, disability and other 

characteristics that translate to a higher need for services. The correlation between living 

alone and poverty is quite clearly illustrated by the fact that our highest poverty sectors, 4 

and 11, also contain the highest proportions of seniors living alone. 

Table 23. Living Arrangements of the Population 60+ by Sector, 2000 

Sectors 

Households 

with 1 or 

more persons 

60 years+ 


Alone 

Number of Households 

In 2 or 

more 

person 

household 

Family 

household 

Non-family 

household 


Alone 

Percent of Households 

In 2 or 

more 

person 

household 

Family 

household 

Non-family 

household 

1 9,848 3,444 6,404 6,037 367 35.0 65.0 61.3 3.7 

2 6,549 1,966 4,583 4,324 259 30.0 70.0 66.0 4.0 

3 12,550 5,367 7,183 6,631 552 42.8 57.2 52.8 4.4 

4 10,130 6,284 3,846 3,355 491 62.0 38.0 33.1 4.8 

5 8,233 3,106 5,127 4,763 364 37.7 62.3 57.9 4.4 

6 12,544 5,078 7,466 6,944 522 40.5 59.5 55.4 4.2 

7 10,772 3,795 6,977 6,627 350 35.2 64.8 61.5 3.2 

8 6,945 2,494 4,451 4,199 252 35.9 64.1 60.5 3.6 

9 10,710 3,373 7,337 6,987 350 31.5 68.5 65.2 3.3 

10 9,444 2,967 6,477 6,231 246 31.4 68.6 66.0 2.6 

11 4,911 2,428 2,483 2,300 183 49.4 50.6 46.8 3.7 

12 8,991 3,420 5,571 5,420 151 38.0 62.0 60.3 1.7 

Region Totals 111,627 43,722 67,905 63,818 4,087 39.2 60.8 57.2 3.7 

When a person does not live in a house or apartment (an occupied housing unit or 

household, as defined by the Census), he/she is said to live in group quarters. While the 

Census Bureau did not tabulate the group quarters population for 60 years and above, 

they did tabulate it for 65 and above. Table 24 provides the detail by sector. The 

majority of sectors, with the exception of 2 and 5, have a fairly large number of group 

quarters – primarily nursing homes – population. The heaviest concentration is in Sector 

3 on the lower east side of Detroit, where the concentration of nursing home facilities 

along E. Grand Blvd. gives this sector 31 percent of the group quarters total. As would 

be expected, females account for 65 to 70 percent of the total group quarters population. 

9 The data highlighted in the report are included in the detailed appendix tables. These tables also contain 

additional data that were viewed to be beyond the scope of the written report. 


Table 24. Population 65+ Living in Group Quarters by Sector, 2000 

Sectors 

Total Group 

Qtrs 

Population 

Institutional 

GQ 


homes 

Noninstitutional 

GQ 


homes (% 

female) 

1 268 257 238 11 55.9 

2 116 96 96 20 46.9 

3 1,614 1,173 1,171 441 70.5 

4 658 457 415 201 51.3 

5 32 0 0 32 0.0 

6 543 480 454 63 73.3 

7 359 321 321 38 66.7 

8 645 600 600 45 72.5 

9 291 278 278 13 65.1 

10 170 160 160 10 61.9 

11 366 355 350 11 71.1 

12 194 182 182 12 69.8 

Region Totals 5,256 4,359 4,265 897 66.4 

Housing Trends 

Table 25 returns to the elderly population living in households and focuses on 

householders and tenure. While older householders are more likely to own their home, 

rather than rent, there are obviously areas in the region where this is less likely the case. 

Looking at the table in detail shows us that, while ownership rates for all age groups tend 

to run in the 75 percent and over range, the sectors in which we have previously 

recognized issues of poverty and living alone also show up as low ownership areas. 

Highlighting Sector 4 once again, we see that no group exceeds a 34 percent ownership 

rate. This stands out in sharp contrast even with Sector 11 that has high rates of poverty 

and living alone but ownership rates of better than 50 percent across all age groups. 

Table 25. Homeownership Rates by Age by Sector, 2000 

Sectors 

Percent Homeowners 

55-64 years 65-74 years 75-84 years 85+ years 

1 75.8 84.1 87.4 88.1 

2 76.5 82.2 88.2 89.1 

3 63.2 67.6 69.7 63.0 

4 27.1 30.1 33.7 32.7 

5 64.4 74.3 81.1 80.6 

6 52.2 68.9 73.8 71.9 

7 77.3 84.5 88.3 88.0 

8 80.5 77.4 77.2 73.4 

9 82.2 82.0 78.1 66.9 

10 82.0 88.7 88.5 83.4 

11 52.7 56.7 66.3 59.2 

12 91.8 92.7 92.7 88.4 

Region Totals 69.7 73.9 76.2 71.3 


Looking further at housing tenure, Table 26 allows one to determine the impact of seniors 

on the region’s housing market by showing the share of owner- and renter-occupied 

housing that is headed by persons 55 years and over. As a way of illustrating the 

information that can be derived from this table, let us look at Sector 6 as an example. 

Sector 6 lies on the near northwest side of Detroit, with the Lodge Fwy. And the City of 

Highland Park forming its eastern boundary and I-94 on its southern boundary. 

Householders 65 years of age and above account for 48 percent of the owner-occupied 

housing and 14 percent of the rentals. When you add in the 55-64 years cohort the rates 

increase to 63 and 24 percent, respectively. Such shares indicate that the senior 

population represents a significant investment in this sector – one that a city in need of a 

strong owner-occupancy housing stock needs to support. Sector 2 provides a stark 

contrast. The data presented earlier demonstrated that Sector 2 experienced the largest 

loss of seniors. The tenure rates support this trend, as persons 65 years and over 

represent only 14.6 percent of the owners and 5 percent of the renters. Adding in the 55- 

64 years cohort only increases these rates to 21 and 11 percent, respectively. 

Table 26. Population 55+ By Tenure by Sector, 2000 

Sectors 

Percent of Total Owner Units 

Percent of Total Renter Units 

55-64 years 65-74 years 75-84 years 85+ years 55-64 years 65-74 years 75-84 years 85+ years 

1 16.5 16.2 12.3 3.2 7.7 4.5 2.6 0.6 

2 12.2 7.7 5.4 1.6 6.6 2.9 1.3 0.3 

3 14.8 15.1 11.7 3.3 9.5 8.0 5.6 2.2 

4 17.6 17.6 14.7 4.9 11.6 10.1 7.1 2.5 

5 13.8 15.2 12.7 3.3 8.1 5.6 3.1 0.8 

6 14.7 22.4 19.9 5.6 9.6 7.3 5.1 1.6 

7 15.4 13.2 9.7 2.2 7.7 4.1 2.2 0.5 

8 16.5 8.9 4.8 1.1 7.3 4.7 2.6 0.7 

9 20.9 15.6 7.1 1.3 8.4 6.3 3.7 1.2 

10 19.8 20.5 12.4 2.3 10.0 6.0 3.7 1.1 

11 14.3 15.0 15.0 4.2 10.5 9.3 6.2 2.4 

12 14.7 13.7 12.8 3.8 8.3 6.8 6.4 3.1 



manner: 














years of age and over in Region 1-A. Table 28 allows for the isolation of persons 

reporting single and multiple disabilities. 

Table 27. Disability Status of the Population 65+ by Sector, 2000 

Sectors 

Total 

disabilities 

tallied 

Percent Reporting by Type of Disability 

Sensory Physical Mental Self-care Go-outsidehome 

1 11,540 12.9 33.7 13.3 13.3 26.8 

2 6,303 13.1 34.3 11.7 13.2 27.7 

3 16,741 13.1 33.1 13.8 14.6 25.4 

4 11,698 13.1 34.4 12.0 14.5 25.9 

5 9,173 12.9 34.9 13.6 12.6 25.9 

6 15,279 12.9 33.5 13.5 14.0 26.1 

7 10,931 13.6 33.5 11.8 12.2 28.9 

8 6,555 13.1 35.3 13.1 12.9 25.7 

9 10,374 13.5 33.6 12.2 14.1 26.6 

10 9,020 10.5 34.0 13.6 13.0 29.0 

11 6,114 12.0 33.8 14.0 14.6 25.7 

12 6,581 15.9 34.5 11.6 12.7 25.3 

While the number of responses varied across the sectors, the general pattern of responses 

is quite similar. The disability most often acknowledged, representing 1/3 of responses in 

each sector, was physical. This was followed by a limitation for going outside the home 

– representing ¼ of all responses in each sector. Sensory, self-care and mobility 

disabilities were each mentioned in the order of 10-15 percent of the time. 

A more detailed look at the responses given to the disability questions allows for a better 

understanding of the health conditions of seniors across the 12 sectors. 

One might expect from the household structure and income level that seniors in Sector 12 

would show themselves to be the healthiest in Region 1-A. The data in Table 28 show 

this to indeed be the case, as more than 2/3 of seniors reported no disability. This was 16 

percent higher than the next closest – Sector 10. In addition, when disabilities were 

reported, Sector 12 residents were more likely to list only one disability as opposed to 

multiples. Elderly residents of Sectors 3, 4 and 11 reported the highest share of persons 

having at least one disability, and led all others in the share of seniors listing multiple 

disabilities. These results also track with the higher levels of poverty and living alone 

that were reported previously for these sectors. 

I all sectors, persons responding with only one disability were most likely to identify it as 

physical or related to going outside the home. Another common thread across the vast 

majority of the sectors was the higher percentage of persons with multiple disabilities not 

including self-care as one of them. 


Table 28. Detailed Disability Reporting Rate of the Population 65+ by Sector, 2000 

Sectors 

No 

Disability* 


Total* 

Go- 


home** 



Self-care** 


Self-care** 

1 43.3 23.6 10.8 8.7 33.0 15.5 17.5 

2 47.8 22.8 10.3 8.6 29.4 13.5 15.9 

3 39.9 24.6 13.0 7.4 35.5 18.8 16.7 

4 41.8 23.6 12.1 8.1 34.6 17.6 17.1 

5 46.9 22.0 11.7 6.9 31.1 13.7 17.4 

6 45.5 22.9 10.8 7.7 31.7 15.6 16.0 

7 47.8 24.6 10.7 9.8 27.6 12.3 15.3 

8 49.9 21.6 11.2 6.5 28.6 13.2 15.3 

9 48.8 22.4 10.5 8.5 28.8 14.4 14.4 

10 51.9 23.8 10.9 8.7 24.3 11.6 12.7 

11 42.9 20.8 10.8 6.8 36.2 18.0 18.3 

12 67.5 16.7 8.0 4.2 15.8 7.9 8.0 

Region Totals 47.8 22.6 10.9 7.7 29.6 14.4 15.2 



Educational Attainment and Spoken Language 

The final table in this section looks at the educational attainment of the 65 years and over 

population. While the pattern is not a surprise, following the patterns set up throughout 

this section, the range of differences across sectors is quite informative. As would be 

expected, Sector 12 contains the most highly educated seniors with 81 percent graduating 

from high school and 33 percent having at least a college diploma. Since a high school 

diploma was often the most that one needed to acquire a good paying job when the 

seniors were starting out in the workforce, low levels of post-high school education are to 

be expected. Sector 10 and, to a lesser extent, Sector 4 show relatively high levels of 

post-secondary education. Sector 5 in Southwest Detroit had the lowest rates of 

education with only 36 percent graduating from high school and 3 percent receiving a 

college diploma. Considering many of the other results, one would not be likely to 

predict that seniors in Sector 5 would have the least education. However, when one 

realizes that this is a heavily Latino population with many of the seniors being Mexican 

immigrants, the lack of education becomes more understandable. Unfortunately, the 

issue of dropping out of high school and not going on to college continues to be a 

problem in the Latino community – even with American-born youth. Lower levels of 

education are also evident in those sectors where poverty is highest – 2 and 11. 


Table 29. Educational Attainment of the Population 65+ by Sector, 2000 

Sectors 

Percent High 

School Grad or 

higher 

Some College, 

no degree 

Percent College 

Grad or higher 

1 43.8 11.7 3.7 

2 43.9 10.1 3.3 

3 44.7 12.2 5.8 

4 44.5 11.8 12.3 

5 36.3 8.3 2.9 

6 47.3 14.8 8.4 

7 46.6 11.8 4.0 

8 52.8 13.0 10.5 

9 47.3 14.4 5.1 

10 63.4 19.7 17.3 

11 42.1 7.3 5.2 

12 81.3 19.9 33.3 

Region Totals 50.0 15.4 9.7 

The last variable we will look at is the language that the elderly speak at home and, if it is 

other than English, their perceived ability to speak English. 

Table 30. Language Spoken by the Population 65+ by Sector, 2000 

Sectors 

Persons 65 

years and 

over 

Only 

English 


total 

Spanish 

Indo 

European 

Asian and 

Pacific 

Other 

% of Other 

Language 

Speakers who 

Speak English 

not well, not at 

all 

1 9,988 8,821 88.3 41 812 39 275 4.7 

2 6,018 5,429 90.2 21 455 91 22 2.2 

3 14,081 13,485 95.8 55 495 25 21 0.6 

4 9,822 9,349 95.2 191 157 72 53 1.0 

5 8,208 6,064 73.9 1,134 778 24 208 8.2 

6 13,630 13,374 98.1 94 122 32 8 0.3 

7 10,897 9,441 86.6 242 1,040 32 142 1.6 

8 6,925 6,548 94.6 69 240 6 62 0.8 

9 10,149 9,925 97.8 83 89 26 26 0.2 

10 9,940 9,670 97.3 127 83 33 27 0.4 

11 5,237 3,737 71.4 110 1,267 5 118 9.1 

12 10,529 9,274 88.1 100 1,035 11 109 2.0 

It is the general rule that at least 90 percent of the residents of each sector speak English 

at home. This is the case in all sectors with the exception of 5 and 11. As discussed in 

the section on education, Sector 5’s elderly population contains a large number of Latino 

immigrants with little education. In addition, southwest Detroit also contains older 

eastern European immigrants and residents from the Middle East. These factors 

combined to produce 26 percent of the elderly speaking a language other than English 

and 8 percent of the total 65 years admitting to speaking English less than well or not at 


all. Region 11 had a larger percentage – 28.6 percent – speaking another language and 9 

percent speaking English less than well or not at all. This region contains Hamtramck, 

which, in addition to having remnants of the older Polish-speaking population still in the 

area, experienced population growth for the first time in decades during the 1990’s due to 

large numbers of recent immigrants. These immigrants – from Bangladesh, India, 

Pakistan, Yemen, Bosnia, Serbia, and numerous other countries – have brought back the 

flavor the city had in the early 20 th Century. 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

The cumulative effects of a decreasing senior population and decreasing statewide shares 

of minority and poor seniors necessitate that the Detroit Area Agency on Aging will be 

required to provide services to a needier population with fewer resources. Such a fact 

makes it critical that services are provided in a targeted, efficient manner. 

While providing the context for viewing seniors in PSA 1-A, demographic analysis can 

only go so far. Additional secondary and primary data collection are necessary to fill out 

this context. Fortunately, such data collection has been performed. Health status 

indicators have been compiled for the region and for sectors, and agency program 

participation data have been analyzed as well. The Institute of Gerontology at Wayne 

State University conducted a large-scale survey of seniors in Detroit and has produced a 

citywide analysis, as well as limited sector analyses. It is recommended that the survey 

responses be further analyzed at the sector level so as to provide the greatest amount of 

information possible for these important, and diverse, sub-areas of the city. 

While each of these studies stands alone as an important component of the “picture” of 

seniors in PSA 1-A, it is strongly recommended that they be brought together at both the 

region and sector level so that the picture contains a “depth of field.” To the extent 

possible, sector-based profiles of seniors should be compiled. These profiles could then 

be used as the basis for program planning in the region. 

In summary, the Center for Urban Studies hopes that this work marks the beginning of a 

continuing relationship with DAAA as the agency works to understand the needs of its 

seniors in order to strategically plan its services. 




Section 3 

PSA 1-C Report 

Prepared for: 


Prepared by: 





June, 2004

Index to Demographic Profile of Seniors in 

Planning and Service Area 1-C Report 



Table 2. Trends in Total and Elderly Population in Region 1-C, 1970 - 2000 

Table 3. Trends in Selected Age Categories in Region 1-C, 1990 - 2000 

Table 4. Share of Minority Population 60+ Years by Region, 1990 - 2000 

Table 5. Racial Distribution of Region 1-C’s Total and 60 + Years Populations, 

2000 


Table 7. Trends in Poverty Rate of 60+ Population by Region, 1979 - 1999 


Table 9. Population 60+ Years At or Below 150% Poverty, by Region, 1999 

Table 10. Share of Persons 60 Years and Over Living Alone by Region, 2000 

Table 11. Region 1-C’s 60+ Population by Community, 1980 - 2000 

Table 12. Region 1-C’s Minority 60+ Population By Community, 2000 

Table 13. Ratio of Income to Poverty in Region 1-C by Community, 1999 

Table 14. Population 60+ Years At or Below 150% Poverty in Region 1-C by 

Community, 1999 

Table 15. Living Arrangements of 60+ in Region 1-C by Community, 2000 

Table 16. Living Arrangements by Detailed Age Group in Region 1-C, 2000 

Table 17. Group Quarters Population, 65 Years and Over, in Region 1-C, 2000 

Table 18. Percent Disability By Type for the Population 65+, in Region 1-C, 2000 

Table 19 Detailed Disability Status of the Population 65+, in Region 1-C, 2000 

Table 20. Educational Attainment of the Population 65+, in Region 1-C, 2000 

Table 21. Language Spoken by the Population 65+, in Region 1-C, 2000 

Table 22. Homeownership Rates by Age, in Region 1-C, 2000 

Table 23. 

Percent of the Population 55+, by Detailed Cohort, By Tenure, in Region 

1-C, 2000

A Demographic Profile of Seniors in PSA 1-C: 

Analysis of the 60+ Population 


While PSA 1-C’s overall population has experienced gains and losses over the last three 

decades, its senior population has seen a steady, though slowing, increase. This 

numerical growth translated to an increase in PSA 1-C’s share of state seniors until 1990. 

Between 1990 and 2000, the region’s rate of gain did not keep pace with that of the state 

and its overall share declined for the first time. 

Share of State’s 60+ Population 

12.0 

10.0 

8.0 

6.0 

4.0 

2.0 

0.0 

1970 1980 1990 2000 

While the 60+ population of the region grew by only 1.4 percent, driven in large part by 

decreases in the ‘60-64 year’ and ‘65-74 year’ cohorts of 27 and 26 percent, respectively, 

75-84 year olds increased their numbers by 45 percent and the ’85 years and over’ cohort 

grew by 38 percent. Such an aging of the senior population signals higher degrees of 

need and increased service delivery needs. 

The increase in total number of seniors was accompanied by an increase in the number of 

minority seniors. This resulted in both an increase in the minority share of PSA 1-C’s 

overall senior population between 1990 and 2000 (5.6 to 6.7 percent) and an increase in 

PSA 1-C’s share of the state’s minority population (5.2 to 5.9 percent). While African- 

Americans accounted for the majority of minority seniors with 64 percent, Latinos 

represented a growth group, accounting for 20 percent, as did Asians with 16 percent. 

The multi-race category was new in the 2000 Census and accounted for 14 percent of 

PSA 1-C’s minority senior population and 19 percent of its total population. These high 

shares can be attributed largely to the area’s Middle Eastern population – primarily Arab 

– who, often selected a standard race category – usually White – and added a write-in 

response for the Other Race category. a 

a The Wayne County summary report provides further details on the Arab and Chaldean population counts. 

This group will become increasingly import for aging service delivery over the years to come. Discussions 

will need to be held with the State to determine how best to account for this population in future funding 

allocations. 

A Demographic Profile of Seniors in PSA 1-C 1

The State of Michigan measures the socioeconomic status of seniors by calculating each 

PSA’s share of seniors living below 150% of the poverty threshold. 2000 Census 

tabulations did not allow for poverty status calculations for the population 60+, as tabular 

age breaks were set at 55-64, 65-74 and 75+. Calculations made by the author estimated 

a decreasing rate of poverty (6.6 percent in 1989 and 6.1 percent in 1999) for seniors in 

PSA 1-C. In spite of this decrease, overall trends across the State, and the increase in 

total seniors in the region, resulted in an estimated increase in state share for the region 

from 7.2 to 8.1 percent. Since the Office of Services to the Aging (OSA) uses 150% of 

poverty as their measure of socioeconomic distress, the author also made calculations of 

this factor. Subsequent to these calculations, OSA requested that the Census Bureau 

produce a special tabulation at 150% of poverty. This special tabulation, essentially 

mirroring the author’s tabulation, showed that PSA 1-A’s State share was 8.4 percent, a 

rise in share over the straight poverty level calculations. 

The results for PSA 1-C are mixed. While their overall share of the State’s senior 

population decreased over the decade, its share of both minority seniors and seniors at or 

below 150% of poverty increased. The expectation is that final funding allocations 

should not show much change from the 1990-based funding. 

The remainder of this report details a wide variety of characteristics for seniors in each 

community in PSA 1-C. 

The Senior Alliance ® (TSA) is a private non-profit agency that was established in 1980, 

and designated by the Michigan Commission on Services to the Aging to operate as the 

Area Agency on Aging (AAA) for the 34 suburban communities 1 in Southern and 

Western Wayne County. In order to analyze the agency’s population base (persons 60 

years and over), both with regard to current residential distribution and trends over time, 

we will look at both the region as a whole, in relation to the other 15 regions in the state, 

and its 34 component communities. 

1 The 34 communities are as follows: Allen Park, Belleville, Brownstown twp, Canton twp, Dearborn, Dearborn 

Heights, Ecorse, Flat Rock, Garden City, Gibraltar, Grosse Ile twp, Huron charter twp, Inkster, Lincoln Park, 

Livonia, Melvindale, Northville, Northville twp, Plymouth, Plymouth twp, Redford twp, River Rouge, Riverview, 

Rockwood, Romulus, Southgate, Sumpter twp, Taylor, Trenton, Van Buren twp, Wayne, Westland, Woodhaven, 

and Wyandotte 



At the State level we have analyzed Region 1-C in relation to the other 15 regions in the 

State. This analysis has concentrated on the major factors of: share of State’s population 

60 years and over; share of State’s minority population 60 years and over; share of 

State’s population 60 years and over in poverty. The analysis has shown that, while 

increases in the region’s 60+ population resulted in an increase in State share between 

1970 and 1990 (from 8.2 to 11.2 percent), the growth during the 1990s did not keep up 

with overall State growth and resulted in a decrease in share from 11.2 to 10.7 percent. 

(Table 1) 


Region 1970 1980 1990 2000 

1-A 24.9 17.2 12.7 9.3 

1-B 17.9 21.8 24.7 26.3 

1-C 8.2 10.0 11.2 10.7 

2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 

3-A 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.2 

3-B 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 

3-C 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 

4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 

5 5.1 5.2 5.4 5.7 

6 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.7 

7 7.1 7.6 7.6 8.0 

8 8.4 8.6 8.5 8.8 

9 2.4 3.0 3.3 3.7 

10 2.5 2.8 3.0 3.5 

11 4.7 4.7 4.4 4.2 

14 3.3 3.6 3.8 4.1 

Table 2 shows population trends in Region 1-C, both total and just the 60 years and over 

population, from 1970 to 2000. The growth in State share that Region 1-C experienced 

during the 1970s and 1980s can be easily understood by examining the percentage 

growth in the population 60 and over. While the region’s total population was increasing 

by only 0.3 percent during the 1970s (3,307 persons), its elderly population grew by 47.1 

percent, adding almost 42,000 to its 60 years and over total. This compared to a State 

increase of less than half – 19.9 percent. The recession years of the 1980s hit Wayne 

County very hard and led to a loss in Region 1-C’s total population. Nevertheless, the 

population 60 years and over continued to grow, adding almost 38,000 (28.9 percent) to 

its 1980 total. Once again this represented a rate of increase nearly twice that of the State. 

The decade of the 1990s brought a reversal to these trends, and thus resulted in the first 

drop in State share. While the Region’s total population grew faster than in either of the 

previous two decades, adding 127,000 persons or 2.8 percent, the population 60 years and 

over grew at half that rate – adding only 2,399 persons or 1.4 percent. For the first time, 

the region’s rate of growth trailed that of the State. 


Table 2. Trends in Total and Elderly Population in Michigan and Region 1-C, 1970 - 2000 

Year 

Population Totals, by Decade Percent Change, Decade to Decade 

Michigan Region 1-C Michigan 

Region 1-C 


1970 8,875,083 1,089,225 1,013,686 89,014 

1980 9,262,078 1,305,636 1,016,993 130,967 4.4% 19.9% 0.3% 47.1% 

1990 9,295,297 1,510,397 981,122 168,880 0.4% 15.7% -3.5% 28.9% 

2000 9,938,444 1,596,162 1,008,216 171,279 6.9% 5.7% 2.8% 1.4% 

Table 3 presents a summary, by age category, of Region 1-C’s population 60+ in 1990 

and 2000. While the overall 60+ population experienced a slight gain of 2,399, or 1.4 

percent, the gain was not evenly spread across age cohorts. In fact, the region 

experienced losses in the cohorts below 75 years of age and large gains in those above 75 

years. The youngest cohort, 60–64 years, dropped by more than 13,000 persons, or 27.2 

percent, over the decade, while the 65-74 years cohort lost almost 20,000 persons or 25.9 

percent. 

Table 3. Trends in Selected Age Categories in Region 1-C, 1990 - 2000 

Age Group 

Region 1-C Totals 1990-2000 Change 


45-54 years 102,407 138,734 36,327 35.5 

55-59 years 44,700 47,942 3,242 7.3 

60 years+ 168,880 171,279 2,399 1.4 

60-64 years 47,917 34,897 -13,020 -27.2 

65 years+ 120,963 120,766 -197 -0.2 

65-74 years 75,880 56,244 -19,636 -25.9 

75-84 years 34,725 50,251 15,526 44.7 

85 years+ 10,358 14,271 3,913 37.8 

The picture was quite different for the two oldest cohorts. The total number of persons 

between 75 and 84 years of age grew by 15,526 persons (44.7 percent), while the total 85 

years and over added almost 4,000, or 37.8 percent. The result of such trends is a 

marginally smaller, but considerably older, clientele for Region 1-C’s services. 

A quick view of the future shows that the 55-59 year cohort experienced an increase over 

the decade, with its total of 47,942 being just over 13,000 higher than the 60-64 year 

cohort just ahead of it. Baring large losses due to premature death and/or migration, this 

group, coupled with the first wave of “baby-boomers” that follow, will bring overall 

growth in the region’s 60+ population in the decade to come. 



The movement of minorities out of Detroit and Highland Park into the suburbs of Wayne 

County has resulted in an increase in both the minority share of Region 1-C’s 60+ 

population, from 5.6 to 6.7 percent, and the region’s share of the State’s total minority 

elderly, from 5.2 to 5.9 percent. Table 4 summarizes the trend in minority share across 

the State’s 16 regions between 1990 and 2000 2 . 

Table 4. Share of Minority Population 60 Years+ by Region, 1990 - 2000 

Region 

1990 2000 

Reg Share ST Share Reg Share ST Share 

1-A 60.0 62.9 72.1 54.5 

1-B 4.5 9.3 6.6 14.1 

1-C 5.6 5.2 6.7 5.9 

2 4.0 1.1 3.7 1.0 

3-A 5.5 1.0 7.1 1.3 

3-B 7.0 1.3 7.6 1.3 

3-C 3.0 0.3 2.5 0.2 

4 9.9 2.8 10.0 2.7 

5 11.1 5.0 12.8 5.9 

6 6.1 1.8 7.3 2.2 

7 5.4 3.4 5.2 3.4 

8 4.6 3.2 5.3 3.8 

9 0.7 0.2 1.1 0.3 

10 1.1 0.3 1.3 0.4 

11 1.6 0.6 2.7 0.9 

14 6.0 1.9 5.9 2.0 

A further analysis of the region’s racial/ethnic makeup (see Table 5) details the 

composition of the region’s minority population. Just under 64 percent of the region’s 

total minority elderly population is African-American. 3 Asian and Pacific Islanders 

comprised 16.2 percent of the total, while Multi-racial responses accounted for 14.1 

percent. Native Americans and Other (undefined) races accounted for 3 percent each. 

While not included in the count of minorities, 2,365 elderly (20.5 percent) identified 

themselves as Latino/Hispanic. 

The racial/ethnic composition of the elderly of Region 1-C differs from that of the 

general population. The elderly population is more White, non-Hispanic than the 

population as a whole – 92 vs. 85 percent, and tends to run at about half the overall share 

in most minority categories. The elderly share for African-Americans is slightly higher 









than half that of the general population, while that of multi-race respondents is 

considerably less. This fact is due to the large numbers of multi-race responses that 

occurred in Dearborn and Dearborn Heights, home to large numbers of persons of Arab 

ancestry. An analysis of this population shows that it trends toward a younger age 

distribution, thus resulting in a higher likelihood for multi-race respondents to be younger 

as well. 

Table 5. Racial Distribution of Region 1-C’s Total and 60+ Populations, 2000 

Number 



Percent Share within 

1-C 

Number 

60+ Population 


Percent Share within 

1-C 


Minority Population 131,720 13.1 11,542 6.7 

African-American 72,040 7.1 54.7 7,359 4.3 63.8 

Native American 4,221 0.4 3.2 341 0.2 3.0 

Asian & PI 22,571 2.2 17.1 1,868 1.1 16.2 

Other Race 7,352 0.7 5.6 348 0.2 3.0 

Multi-Race 25,536 2.5 19.4 1,626 0.9 14.1 

Latino/Hispanic 28,797 2.9 21.9 2,365 1.4 20.5 

White, non-Hispanic 857,354 85.0 157,791 92.1 


Measurement of trends in the elderly poor have been complicated by the way age-related 

poverty data were tabulated by the Census Bureau in the 2000 Census. Rather than 

breaking out the 55-64 year age cohort into two groups – 55-59 and 60-64 – allowing for 

tabulations of the 60 and over population (as done in 1980 and 1990), the Census Bureau 

chose to keep it as one. Table 6 shows the distribution of poverty by age groups from the 

2000 Census. Region 1-C’s poverty rates were relatively low, compared to the other 


Region Total 55-64 65+ 65-74 75+ 

1-A 24.9 11.9 17.4 17.0 17.8 

1-B 6.3 2.9 6.5 3.5 6.8 

1-C 7.5 3.6 6.1 4.4 6.1 

2 8.2 4.2 7.5 4.8 7.5 

3-A 12.0 3.7 6.3 4.5 5.7 

3-B 9.6 5.3 8.2 5.6 7.6 

3-C 10.5 6.0 7.1 4.5 6.9 

4 11.8 5.9 9.4 6.1 9.1 

5 11.3 5.4 7.7 5.2 6.3 

6 11.0 3.6 6.4 3.4 6.5 

7 12.1 6.1 8.8 5.6 8.9 

8 9.5 4.8 7.9 5.1 7.6 

9 11.9 9.3 7.8 5.9 6.7 

10 7.9 5.4 6.8 3.9 7.0 

11 11.8 6.4 9.3 6.0 10.4 

14 8.4 3.9 6.7 3.7 7.3 


egions, across all age groups. Only one region (1B) had a lower poverty rate, and one (6) 

the same, in the 55-64 year cohort. Region 1-C had the lowest rate of any region for all 

persons 65 years of age and over. Looking further at this age group’s component cohorts, 

we see that Region 1-C was surpassed by four regions (1-B, 6, 10 and 14) in the 65-74 

year cohort, and only one (3A) for persons 75 years and over. Due to 2000 Census 

tabulation issues, the only way to approximate the tabulation for 60+ is to perform an 

allocation based on population share. 4 Utilizing this estimation method we find that the 

poverty rate for seniors in Region 1-C continued the gradual decline that occurred in the 

previous decade (see Table 7). The drop of 0.5 percentage points (from 6.6 to 6.1 

percent) during the 1990s followed a similar drop of 0.4 percentage points (from 7.0 to 

6.6 percent) that occurred during the 1980s. In spite of the decrease in the region’s senior 

poverty rate during the 1990s, the larger decrease that occurred in Detroit (Region 1-A), 

coupled with the numbers of seniors moving out into the Detroit suburbs, led to a 

decreasing share of poor seniors in Region 1-A and increasing state shares for regions 1- 

C and 1-B. Region 1-C’s share of the State increased from 7.2 to 8.1 percent. This 

followed a similar percentage point increase of 0.8 (from 6.4 to 7.2 percent) during the 

1970s. This increase occurred primarily because of the large growth in the region’s 

senior population, as Detroit’s poverty rate went up during this time. Region 1-B also 

experienced growth in State share for similar reasons. 

Table 7. Trends in Poverty Rate of Population 60+ Population by Region, 1979 - 1999 

Region 

1979 1989 

1999 

Reg Share ST Share Reg Share ST Share Reg Share ST Share 

1-A 15.5 24.1 19.0 23.7 17.8 20.4 

1-B 7.5 14.9 6.7 16.3 6.1 19.8 

1-C 7.0 6.4 6.6 7.2 6.1 8.1 

2 11.0 3.2 10.2 3.1 7.2 2.8 

3-A 8.4 1.5 8.6 1.8 6.3 1.7 

3-B 10.2 2.0 9.2 1.9 8.1 2.1 

3-C 9.9 1.1 9.3 1.0 7.4 1.1 

4 12.7 4.0 11.4 3.8 9.2 3.8 

5 10.5 4.9 9.4 4.9 7.9 5.6 

6 9.7 3.0 8.7 3.0 6.3 2.9 

7 12.5 8.6 11.4 8.5 8.8 8.7 

8 11.8 9.0 10.1 8.3 7.9 8.4 

9 15.9 4.4 13.5 4.3 8.3 3.9 

10 14.8 3.7 10.7 3.1 7.0 3.0 

11 14.7 6.3 13.9 5.9 9.2 4.8 

14 9.1 3.0 8.7 3.1 6.6 3.3 

Table 8 attempts to assess the severity of poverty that exists in the regions for the 

population 65 years and over. While one can determine the share that fall below the 

4 In order to approximate the 60-64 year cohort in poverty, an allocation was performed based on each 

region’s share of total population 55-64 years in the 60-64 years subgroup. Each share was then applied to 

the number of poor in the 55-64 year range, with the result being an estimate of poor between 60 and 64 

years. 


poverty guidelines (as in Table 6), it is also informative to assess how far below they fall. 

This can be done by subdividing the poor into the categories 50% or less of poverty and 

75% or less. When we do this we see that 2.3 percent of Region 1-C’s population falls 

below the 50% mark – quite similar to most of the other regions, with the exception of 1- 

A. Results at less than 75% show the same trend. Region 1-C has one of the lowest 

shares of truly needy elderly population in the State. 


Region 

Total 

Persons 


50 75 100 125 150 

1-A 110,917 5.7 9.6 17.4 23.9 29.8 

1-B 306,987 2.2 3.5 6.5 9.8 13.8 

1-C 129,861 2.3 3.7 6.1 9.7 13.9 

2 37,139 2.5 4.0 7.5 12.6 18.5 

3-A 25,741 2.1 3.5 6.3 11.2 16.1 

3-B 24,665 2.3 4.0 8.2 13.5 19.4 

3-C 13,373 1.8 3.5 7.1 12.8 18.8 

4 38,587 2.6 4.8 9.4 15.3 22.1 

5 65,656 2.5 4.2 7.7 12.1 16.3 

6 43,008 2.2 3.5 6.4 10.1 14.5 

7 93,167 2.5 4.5 8.8 14.1 20.2 

8 101,138 2.2 3.8 7.9 13.0 18.7 

9 43,724 2.4 4.0 7.8 13.5 20.1 

10 40,365 2.0 3.4 6.8 12.4 18.3 

11 49,620 2.2 3.9 9.3 16.4 23.8 

14 47,132 2.2 3.8 6.7 11.0 16.9 

Table 9 represents data developed as a special tabulation by the Census Bureau, under 

contract with the Michigan Office of Services to the Aging. In order to carry out future 

planning and funding allocations, the State asked for a tabulation of the 60+ population at 

or below 150% of poverty. 5 The percentage of elderly in Region 1-C at or below 150% 

of poverty was 12.7 percent (as calculated in previous estimates), second lowest, behind 

Region 1-B, of the 16 regions. Its share of the State total – 8.4 percent – placed it in 5 th 

place, behind its adjacent regions (1-A and 1-B), Region 7 (the Thumb, Bay City and 

Saginaw), and Region 8 (Grand Rapids area). A comparison of the regional shares 

calculated as part of the estimates process with those provided in the special tabulation 

shows very little difference. Only six of the sixteen regions showed any difference 

between the two, and none of the differences was more than one-tenth of one percent. In 

the case of Region 1-C, special tabulation results and estimates produced identical State 

shares of 8.4 percent. These results provide the supporting documentation necessary to 

conclude that the estimate methodology works. Therefore, while the special tabulation 

provides no numbers below the community level, estimates of the population 60+ both at 

or below poverty and at or below 150% will be reported for Region 1-C’s component 

communities. 

5 The tabulation only provided total persons 60+ at or below 150% of poverty. There were no universes 

included so regional shares cannot be tabulated. Based on the closeness of the estimates that were 

developed prior to this tabulation, the regional shares reported as part of the estimates should still hold true. 


Table 9. Population 60 Years+ At or Below 150% Poverty by Region, 1999 

Region 

Special Tabulation WSU Estimate 

Total ST Share Reg. Share ST Share 

1-A 42,530 16.1 28.3 16.2 

1-B 51,599 19.5 12.0 19.4 

1-C 22,322 8.4 12.7 8.4 

2 8,342 3.2 16.1 3.2 

3-A 5,040 1.9 14.0 1.9 

3-B 6,147 2.3 17.6 2.3 

3-C 3,265 1.2 17.1 1.2 

4 10,510 4.0 19.7 4.0 

5 14,120 5.3 15.1 5.3 

6 8,088 3.1 12.9 3.0 

7 23,665 8.9 18.2 9.0 

8 23,965 9.1 16.6 9.0 

9 11,575 4.4 19.0 4.4 

10 9,300 3.5 16.4 3.5 

11 14,215 5.4 20.9 5.5 

14 10,122 3.8 14.9 3.8 


Table 10. Share of Persons 60 Years 

and Over Living Alone by Region, 2000 

Region 

2000 

Reg Share ST Share 

1-A 39.2 10.5 

1-B 37.4 26.1 

1-C 39.2 11.3 

2 36.5 3.0 

3-A 39.7 2.2 

3-B 37.6 2.1 

3-C 37.8 1.1 

4 37.0 3.2 

5 37.7 5.7 

6 38.8 3.8 

7 38.1 7.8 

8 37.2 8.3 

9 36.1 3.4 

10 35.5 3.1 

11 42.3 4.6 

14 36.6 3.7 

One final variable was assessed that has an 

impact on the daily lives of the elderly. 

That variable deals with the living 

arrangements of the elderly – specifically 

the share that live alone. Such a living 

arrangement often leads to loneliness and 

a lack of interaction with others. If 

recreational and health-related services are 

not located in the neighborhood, and one 

has no vehicle available, or one that is 

unreliable, or if one has difficulty 

performing activities of daily living, it 

requires strong connections with others to 

be able to maintain a quality of life. 

Table 10 shows that the percent living 

alone was very similar across the 16 

regions, with Region 11 in the Upper 

Peninsula having the highest (42.3 

percent) and Region 10 in the western 

portion of the Northern Lower peninsula 

having the lowest (35.5 percent). 

Region 1-C’s share was the same as that of 1-A, and slightly higher than 1-B, shear 

numbers led the way as Region1-C’s share of the State total, 11.3 percent, fell slightly 

higher than that of 1-A at 10.5 percent, and well behind Region 1-B. In fact, Region 1-B 

accounted for more than 1 of every 4 State seniors who lived alone. 



Population and Socioeconomic Characteristics 

In order to better understand the changes that have occurred in Region 1-C, the analysis 

now addresses the region’s geographic components. Learning more about where the 

losses (and gains) have occurred, as well as the characteristics of the persons who reside 

in the region, will allow for a better understanding of these trends and a more focused 

approach to service delivery. Our sub-regional analysis is being conducted at the 

community-level, through an analysis of changes in the 60 and over population in each 

of the 34 communities in the region. 

Table 11. Region 1-C’s 60+ Population by Community, 1980-2000 

Community 

Number 60 Years and Over Percent of Total Pop. 

1980 1990 2000 1980-90 1990-00 

Region 1-C 130,967 168,880 171,279 29% 1% 

Allen Park city 6,413 8,436 7,245 32% -14% 

Belleville city 482 700 757 45% 8% 

Brownstown township 1,051 1,430 1,988 36% 39% 

Canton township 2,457 4,002 6,469 63% 62% 

Dearborn city 20,648 20,687 18,391 0% -11% 

Dearborn Heights city 10,294 14,265 13,515 39% -5% 

Ecorse city 2,093 2,057 1,808 -2% -12% 

Flat Rock city 642 1,021 1,054 59% 3% 

Garden City city 3,318 5,089 5,162 53% 1% 

Gibraltar city 382 446 593 17% 33% 

Grosse Ile township 1,020 1,414 1,897 39% 34% 

Huron township 986 1,216 1,541 23% 27% 

Inkster city 4,181 4,823 4,252 15% -12% 

Lincoln Park city 7,156 8,301 6,965 16% -16% 

Livonia city 12,521 19,315 21,325 54% 10% 

Melvindale city 1,781 2,209 1,829 24% -17% 

Northville city 663 571 580 -14% 2% 

Northville township 1,375 2,488 3,899 81% 57% 

Plymouth city 1,848 2,004 1,741 8% -13% 

Plymouth township 2,192 3,479 4,600 59% 32% 

Redford township 10,151 12,066 9,263 19% -23% 

River Rouge city 2,068 1,819 1,403 -12% -23% 

Riverview city 1,681 2,691 3,232 60% 20% 

Rockwood city 277 402 451 45% 12% 

Romulus city 2,079 2,403 2,587 16% 8% 

Southgate city 3,448 5,967 6,133 73% 3% 

Sumpter township 1,078 1,187 1,261 10% 6% 

Taylor city 5,992 8,505 9,862 42% 16% 

Trenton city 2,889 4,368 4,774 51% 9% 

Van Buren township 1,506 2,102 2,286 40% 9% 

Wayne city 2,746 3,222 2,945 17% -9% 

Westland city 8,685 12,695 14,803 46% 17% 

Woodhaven city 557 912 1,288 64% 41% 

Wyandotte city 6,307 6,588 5,380 4% -18% 



Region 1-C has experienced a steady increase in its elderly population since 1970, though 

the decade of the 1990s brought with it the smallest numerical and percentage increases 

over the 30-year period. A review of Table 11 shows that, while three communities 

(Ecorse, Northville and River Rouge) lost elderly during the 1980s, eleven communities 

experienced losses during the 1990s. While both Ecorse and River Rouge experienced 

increases in their rate of loss, and Northville showed a slight gain, communities such as 

Allen Park, Lincoln Park and Melvindale experienced major reversals from double-digit 

gains in the 1980s to double-digit losses in the 1990s. 


The analysis to this point has looked at Region 1-C in terms of its overall characteristics 

and relation to the other regions in the State. However, we still need to better understand 

the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of this population. In order to do that 

we turn to the 2000 Census and seek to mine the applicable data. 6 Table 12 provides the 

racial (minority 7 overall) composition of Region 1-C by community. Minorities account 

for 7.9 percent of the Region’s population 60+, but only 6.1 percent of those 75+. This 

discrepancy is the result of a White, non-Hispanic population that is represented in higher 

numbers in the older age categories – particularly in the communities of Canton 

township, Dearborn, Inkster, Redford township, and most of the smaller downriver 

communities. The only communities to go counter to this trend were Ecorse, Romulus, 

Sumpter township and Wayne. The table also shows the wide variation in the racial 

makeup of the Region’s seniors across communities. Ecorse and Inkster were the only 

communities where minorities represented more than half of all seniors, while River 

Rouge, Romulus, Sumpter township and Wayne were the only other communities with 

minority shares, in any age group, that exceeded 10 percent. Nineteen of the 34 

communities had minority elderly shares of less than 5 percent. 


Table 13 allows for a finer analysis of the region’s poor seniors. While there are pockets 

of poverty in all communities, when communities are ranked by the number of seniors in 

poverty, it can be seen that more than half (4,512 out of 7,968, or 57 percent) live in just 

seven communities – Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, Inkster, Livonia, Southgate, Taylor 

and Westland. The economic status of seniors differs greatly from community to 

community, with the highest rate of poverty found in Inkster, at 13.4 percent, and the 

lowest rate, 0 percent, in Rockwood. Only five other communities – Belleville, Ecorse, 

6 The age categories that will be used for this analysis are dependent upon the tabulations offered by the 

Census Bureau. As is the case with poverty calculations, many of the tabulations do not allow for the 

complete universe of 60+ to be used. In most cases one is limited to universes of 65+ and 75+. 

7 The definition of minority in this discussion is slightly different than that used in the previous discussion. 

Here we are excluding White, non-Hispanics from the total population. The overall share is slightly higher 

than that shown in Table 4 (73.0 vs. 72.1 percent) due to the fact that the definition used by the State Office 

of Services to the Aging includes Hispanics who also listed a race other than White. 


River Rouge, Romulus and Sumpter township – have poverty rates exceeding 10 percent. 

Fourteen communities, in addition to Rockwood, have rates less than 5 percent. 

When the poverty analysis moves up to the 150% threshold, all communities, with the 

exception of Allen Park, and the townships of Grosse Ile, Northville and Plymouth, have 

rates exceeding 10 percent, with Belleville, Ecorse and Romulus sharing the highest rate 

of 28 percent. 

Table 12. Region 1-C’s Minority Population 60+ Population by Community, 2000 

Community 


Percent Minority 

60+ 65+ 75+ 60+ 65+ 75+ 

Region 1-C 171,279 134,175 64,522 7.9 7.2 6.1 

Allen Park city 7,245 6,136 3,434 3.5 3.3 3.0 

Belleville city 757 606 295 3.0 3.5 2.7 

Brownstown township 1,988 1,333 547 7.8 7.6 7.5 

Canton township 6,469 4,531 1,953 11.2 9.5 6.3 

Dearborn city 18,391 15,232 8,842 5.9 5.0 3.2 

Dearborn Heights city 13,515 10,914 5,232 4.6 4.1 4.0 

Ecorse city 1,808 1,385 583 53.4 54.4 55.6 

Flat Rock city 1,054 809 377 2.6 2.3 1.6 

Garden City city 5,162 4,065 1,513 3.2 2.9 2.5 

Gibraltar city 593 381 137 2.4 1.3 0.7 

Grosse Ile township 1,897 1,292 491 3.3 2.2 1.8 

Huron township 1,541 1,063 408 2.9 2.4 2.0 

Inkster city 4,252 3,251 1,422 66.0 63.8 60.3 

Lincoln Park city 6,965 5,640 2,784 5.9 5.5 5.2 

Livonia city 21,325 16,988 8,027 3.0 2.8 2.4 

Melvindale city 1,829 1,448 686 9.4 9.2 8.2 

Northville city 580 448 262 1.7 1.3 0.4 

Northville township 3,899 2,920 1,387 3.2 2.5 2.5 

Plymouth city 1,741 1,465 839 2.3 1.9 1.3 

Plymouth township 4,600 3,420 1,449 3.6 2.6 2.3 

Redford township 9,263 7,698 4,205 4.8 3.9 2.7 

River Rouge city 1,403 1,053 484 42.6 41.4 41.5 

Riverview city 3,232 2,619 1,380 4.0 3.5 3.4 

Rockwood city 451 324 128 2.7 2.5 0.8 

Romulus city 2,587 1,804 749 26.9 28.7 28.0 

Southgate city 6,133 4,890 2,347 3.6 3.2 2.9 

Sumpter township 1,261 876 350 24.5 24.7 25.7 

Taylor city 9,862 7,237 2,798 6.2 5.6 5.5 

Trenton city 4,774 3,837 1,630 1.8 1.7 1.6 

Van Buren township 2,286 1,551 593 8.8 7.2 6.1 

Wayne city 2,945 2,230 1,071 11.5 11.7 13.1 

Westland city 14,803 11,456 5,436 7.8 7.6 6.6 

Woodhaven city 1,288 872 399 6.4 4.8 2.5 

Wyandotte city 5,380 4,401 2,284 2.0 1.7 1.3 


Table 13. Ratio of Income to Poverty in Region 1-C by Community, 1999 

Community 

Total 65+ 

Persons Less than _ % of 

Percent by Ratio to 

50 

P 

75 

t 

100 125 150 50 

P 

75 

t 

100 125 150 

Region 1-C 129,861 3,040 4,820 7,968 12,628 18,075 2.3 3.7 6.1 9.7 13.9 

Allen Park city 5,901 165 214 265 372 574 2.8 3.6 4.5 6.3 9.7 

Belleville city 595 29 34 79 118 171 4.9 5.7 13.3 19.8 28.7 

Brownstown township 1,332 43 59 99 157 182 3.2 4.4 7.4 11.8 13.7 

Canton township 4,579 95 165 253 346 435 2.1 3.6 5.5 7.6 9.5 

Dearborn city 15,134 421 759 1,150 1,857 2,579 2.8 5.0 7.6 12.3 17.0 

Dearborn Heights city 10,550 260 354 501 800 1,105 2.5 3.4 4.7 7.6 10.5 

Ecorse city 1,366 50 86 167 223 385 3.7 6.3 12.2 16.3 28.2 

Flat Rock city 798 25 25 38 106 124 3.1 3.1 4.8 13.3 15.5 

Garden City city 4,068 108 170 266 449 586 2.7 4.2 6.5 11.0 14.4 

Gibraltar city 379 0 12 12 19 56 0.0 3.2 3.2 5.0 14.8 

Grosse Ile 

1,306 5 18 34 110 115 0.4 1.4 2.6 8.4 8.8 

t 

Huron 

hi 

township 1,062 0 5 52 60 118 0.0 0.5 4.9 5.6 11.1 

Inkster city 3,142 126 297 422 595 783 4.0 9.5 13.4 18.9 24.9 

Lincoln Park city 5,590 86 123 262 461 729 1.5 2.2 4.7 8.2 13.0 

Livonia city 16,018 398 492 835 1,351 1,793 2.5 3.1 5.2 8.4 11.2 

Melvindale city 1,448 41 71 133 189 284 2.8 4.9 9.2 13.1 19.6 

Northville city 420 8 16 16 51 74 1.9 3.8 3.8 12.1 17.6 

Northville township 2,785 58 68 92 138 179 2.1 2.4 3.3 5.0 6.4 

Plymouth city 1,337 15 41 48 91 175 1.1 3.1 3.6 6.8 13.1 

Plymouth township 3,320 17 26 60 74 160 0.5 0.8 1.8 2.2 4.8 

Redford township 7,602 152 231 396 668 935 2.0 3.0 5.2 8.8 12.3 

River Rouge city 1,061 28 57 111 149 195 2.6 5.4 10.5 14.0 18.4 

Riverview city 2,209 68 76 115 219 307 3.1 3.4 5.2 9.9 13.9 

Rockwood city 312 0 0 0 14 42 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 13.5 

Romulus city 1,756 44 76 217 329 498 2.5 4.3 12.4 18.7 28.4 

Southgate city 4,846 122 190 410 539 904 2.5 3.9 8.5 11.1 18.7 

Sumpter township 882 25 60 109 166 185 2.8 6.8 12.4 18.8 21.0 

Taylor city 6,823 172 233 442 690 970 2.5 3.4 6.5 10.1 14.2 

Trenton city 3,708 39 87 151 278 431 1.1 2.3 4.1 7.5 11.6 

Van Buren township 1,545 27 57 94 154 198 1.7 3.7 6.1 10.0 12.8 

Wayne city 1,951 85 126 188 262 392 4.4 6.5 9.6 13.4 20.1 

Westland city 10,884 255 479 752 1,134 1,671 2.3 4.4 6.9 10.4 15.4 

Woodhaven city 744 16 24 24 87 102 2.2 3.2 3.2 11.7 13.7 

Wyandotte city 4,408 57 89 175 372 638 1.3 2.0 4.0 8.4 14.5 

The Census Bureau’s special tabulation also provides counts of persons 60+ at or below 

150% of poverty by community within Region 1-C (see Table 14). While the counts add 

little to the discussion, they do serve to reinforce the way need is distributed in the region. 

Dearborn accounts for the highest share of all seniors at or below 150% at 14.4 percent, 

followed by Livonia and Westland at 9.1 and 9.2 percent, respectively. Only Dearborn 

Heights, Redford township and Taylor, among the remaining 31 communities, account 

for more than 5 percent. 


Table 14. Population 60 Years+ At or Below 150% Poverty in Region 1-C by Community, 1999 

Community 

Number 


Region 

Community 

Number 


Region 

Region 1-C 22,322 

Allen Park city 648 2.9 Northville township 220 1.0 

Belleville city 194 0.9 Plymouth city 189 0.8 

Brownstown township 236 1.1 Plymouth township 196 0.9 

Canton township 564 2.5 Redford township 1,113 5.0 

Dearborn city 3,221 14.4 River Rouge city 306 1.4 

Dearborn Heights city 1,407 6.3 Riverview city 333 1.5 

Ecorse city 509 2.3 Rockwood city 66 0.3 

Flat Rock city 150 0.7 Romulus city 638 2.9 

Garden City city 700 3.1 Southgate city 1,057 4.7 

Gibraltar city 69 0.3 Sumpter township 250 1.1 

Grosse Ile township 152 0.7 Taylor city 1,298 5.8 

Huron township 151 0.7 Trenton city 516 2.3 

Inkster city 1,049 4.7 Van Buren township 264 1.2 

Lincoln Park city 965 4.3 Wayne city 505 2.3 

Livonia city 2,029 9.1 Westland city 2,043 9.2 

Melvindale city 370 1.7 Woodhaven city 131 0.6 

Northville city 81 0.4 Wyandotte city 737 3.3 


Three out of every ten households 8 in the region have at least one person 60 years and 

over as a member (see Table 15). The share ranges from a low of 16.8 percent in Van 

Buren township to highs of 39.8 and 39.7 percent in Dearborn Heights and Trenton, 

respectively. When a household contains at least one person 60+, there is a 4 in 10 

chance (39.2 percent) that it will be a one-person household. This rate is highest in 

Plymouth where it reaches better than 1 out of 2 (54 percent), and lowest in Sumpter 

township at 25.3 percent. 

A further analysis of living arrangements for persons 65+ and 75+ (see Table 16) shows a 

correlation between increasing age and the percent that live alone. While 39 percent of 

households with persons 60 years and over are one-person households, the share rises to 

42 percent at 65+ and 49 percent at 75+. While this is a significant percentage, it needs 

to be emphasized that more than at least 60 percent of persons 60+ and 51 percent of 

persons 75+ share their household with at least one other person. 

One community that needs to be looked at more closely is Dearborn. Previous data 

demonstrated that its elderly residents had some of the highest need, based on their level 

of poverty. Table 16 shows that Dearborn’s rate of seniors living alone is higher than the 

8 Household - Includes all the persons who occupy a housing unit. Persons not living in households are 

classified as living in group quarters. Households are subdivided into family households and non-family 

households. The occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living 

together, or any other group of related or unrelated persons who share living arrangements. 


egional average in all age categories, with this being the case for more than half the 75 

years+ population. 

Table 15. Living Arrangements of 60+ in Region 1-C by Community, 2000 

Total 

Households 

With 1 or more 

persons 60+ 

Percent of Total 

Households 


alone 


60+ 

Region 1-C 392,931 120,590 30.7 47,308 39.2 

Allen Park city 11,974 4,928 41.2 1,952 39.6 

Belleville city 1,842 576 31.3 305 53.0 

Brownstown township 8,322 1,471 17.7 466 31.7 

Canton township 27,490 4,793 17.4 1,617 33.7 

Dearborn city 36,770 13,500 36.7 5,968 44.2 

Dearborn Heights city 23,276 9,256 39.8 3,441 37.2 

Ecorse city 4,339 1,414 32.6 562 39.7 

Flat Rock city 3,181 782 24.6 323 41.3 

Garden City city 11,479 3,659 31.9 1,287 35.2 

Gibraltar city 1,728 422 24.4 127 30.1 

Grosse Ile township 4,122 1,304 31.6 366 28.1 

Huron township 4,745 1,088 22.9 295 27.1 

Inkster city 11,169 3,260 29.2 1,245 38.2 

Lincoln Park city 16,204 5,131 31.7 2,115 41.2 

Livonia city 38,089 13,704 36.0 4,773 34.8 

Melvindale city 4,499 1,410 31.3 677 48.0 

Northville city 1,417 405 28.6 187 46.2 

Northville township 8,119 2,518 31.0 862 34.2 

Plymouth city 4,322 1,195 27.6 646 54.1 

Plymouth township 10,757 3,232 30.0 1,152 35.6 

Redford township 20,182 6,531 32.4 2,620 40.1 

River Rouge city 3,640 1,089 29.9 392 36.0 

Riverview city 5,352 1,990 37.2 885 44.5 

Rockwood city 1,318 327 24.8 129 39.4 

Romulus city 8,439 1,957 23.2 735 37.6 

Southgate city 12,836 4,506 35.1 2,054 45.6 

Sumpter township 4,110 908 22.1 230 25.3 

Taylor city 24,776 6,856 27.7 2,322 33.9 

Trenton city 8,137 3,232 39.7 1,317 40.7 

Van Buren township 9,867 1,660 16.8 491 29.6 

Wayne city 7,373 1,993 27.0 834 41.8 

Westland city 36,533 10,676 29.2 4,913 46.0 

Woodhaven city 4,708 839 17.8 263 31.3 

Wyandotte city 11,816 3,978 33.7 1,757 44.2 


Table 16. Living Arrangements by Detailed Age Group in Region 1-C, 2000 


alone 


60+ 


alone 


65+ 


alone 


75+ 

Region 1-C 47,308 39.2 40,901 42.2 24,558 49.0 

Allen Park city 1,952 39.6 1,781 42.0 1,162 45.3 

Belleville city 305 53.0 260 55.2 149 60.1 

Brownstown township 466 31.7 355 34.8 180 39.5 

Canton township 1,617 33.7 1,325 38.3 721 44.5 

Dearborn city 5,968 44.2 5,416 47.2 3,816 53.6 

Dearborn Heights city 3,441 37.2 3,033 39.3 1,796 45.0 

Ecorse city 562 39.7 465 41.7 232 44.6 

Flat Rock city 323 41.3 274 44.6 157 50.0 

Garden City city 1,287 35.2 1,115 37.3 552 43.3 

Gibraltar city 127 30.1 95 33.7 48 42.5 

Grosse Ile township 366 28.1 303 33.0 165 42.0 

Huron township 295 27.1 235 30.2 127 36.7 

Inkster city 1,245 38.2 1,029 40.4 545 45.3 

Lincoln Park city 2,115 41.2 1,828 43.0 1,084 46.9 

Livonia city 4,773 34.8 4,216 37.8 2,536 45.5 

Melvindale city 677 48.0 570 49.7 340 57.1 

Northville city 187 46.2 164 51.4 123 61.5 

Northville township 862 34.2 730 37.6 412 43.5 

Plymouth city 646 54.1 574 56.3 381 65.0 

Plymouth township 1,152 35.6 994 39.8 585 49.0 

Redford township 2,620 40.1 2,342 42.3 1,576 48.3 

River Rouge city 392 36.0 325 38.4 178 41.7 

Riverview city 885 44.5 803 49.2 545 62.2 

Rockwood city 129 39.4 108 44.1 56 51.4 

Romulus city 735 37.6 604 42.3 313 48.0 

Southgate city 2,054 45.6 1,810 49.0 1,092 56.1 

Sumpter township 230 25.3 187 28.1 85 29.2 

Taylor city 2,322 33.9 1,878 36.7 895 43.3 

Trenton city 1,317 40.7 1,151 43.1 642 51.5 

Van Buren township 491 29.6 355 30.8 174 34.9 

Wayne city 834 41.8 685 45.4 406 53.9 

Westland city 4,913 46.0 4,134 48.9 2,439 57.1 

Woodhaven city 263 31.3 183 32.6 76 33.6 

Wyandotte city 1,757 44.2 1,574 47.0 970 51.3 

People who do not reside in households live in group quarters 9 . The most frequent form 

of group quarters arrangement for seniors is that of nursing homes. Region 1-C had a 

total of 5,482 seniors (65+) living in group quarters in 2000. Nursing homes accounted 

9 

Group Quarters - The group quarters population includes all people not living in households. Two 

general categories of people in group quarters are recognized: (1) the institutionalized population and (2) 

the non-institutionalized population. The institutionalized population includes people under formally 

authorized, supervised care or custody in institutions at the time of enumeration; such as correctional 

institutions, nursing homes, and juvenile institutions. The noninstitutionalized population includes all 

people who live in group quarters other than institutions, such as college dormitories, military quarters, and 

group homes. Also, included are staff residing at institutional group quarters. 


for 86 percent of group quarters residents and Livonia contained the highest number of 

group quarters residents, housing just over one-quarter of the region’s total. 

Table 17. Group Quarters Population, 65 Years and Over, in Region 1-C, 2000 

Total Institutional Nursing 

Homes 

Non- 

Institutional 

Region 1-C 5,482 4,698 4,458 784 

Allen Park city 273 272 272 1 

Belleville city 8 0 0 8 

Brownstown township 11 0 0 11 

Canton township 4 0 0 4 

Dearborn city 189 157 154 32 

Dearborn Heights city 425 339 339 86 

Ecorse city 1 1 0 0 

Flat Rock city 5 0 0 5 

Garden City city 7 1 0 6 

Gibraltar city 1 0 0 1 

Grosse Ile township 1 0 0 1 

Huron township 8 0 0 8 

Inkster city 67 62 62 5 

Lincoln Park city 80 80 80 0 

Livonia city 1,448 1,041 952 407 

Melvindale city 5 0 0 5 

Northville city 33 32 32 1 

Northville township 231 153 126 78 

Plymouth city 171 166 166 5 

Plymouth township 11 10 0 1 

Redford township 228 217 217 11 

River Rouge city 0 0 0 0 

Riverview city 459 456 456 3 

Rockwood city 4 0 0 4 

Romulus city 31 13 0 18 

Southgate city 95 80 80 15 

Sumpter township 0 0 0 0 

Taylor city 482 451 409 31 

Trenton city 154 153 153 1 

Van Buren township 6 0 0 6 

Wayne city 276 270 270 6 

Westland city 615 612 560 3 

Woodhaven city 132 130 130 2 

Wyandotte city 21 2 0 19 



manner: 













Table 18. Percent Disability by Type for the Population 65+, in Region 1-C, 2000 

Community 

Total 

disabilities 

tallied 

Sensory Physical Mental Self-care* Go-outsidehome 

Region 1-C 107,209 16.4 34.5 12.3 11.0 25.7 

Allen Park city 4,010 16.7 32.8 10.7 11.1 28.7 

Belleville city 519 15.6 31.6 16.6 8.7 27.6 

Brownstown township 1,180 18.0 38.1 5.6 8.1 30.2 

Canton township 3,312 16.4 35.0 13.6 9.9 25.0 

Dearborn city 12,601 16.8 32.7 12.6 11.5 26.4 

Dearborn Heights city 8,738 15.8 33.6 11.3 11.2 28.2 

Ecorse city 1,471 14.1 34.3 15.2 13.7 22.7 

Flat Rock city 809 16.8 39.4 14.5 7.7 21.6 

Garden City city 2,961 15.6 37.1 10.8 9.9 26.6 

Gibraltar city 273 22.3 28.6 10.3 8.4 30.4 

Grosse Ile township 896 14.4 38.2 11.4 12.7 23.3 

Huron township 942 16.0 30.7 14.0 14.2 25.1 

Inkster city 3,233 11.4 34.9 14.6 13.7 25.3 

Lincoln Park city 5,314 17.7 33.3 11.6 10.3 27.2 

Livonia city 10,952 16.3 32.5 13.0 10.9 27.4 

Melvindale city 1,417 16.6 36.3 12.0 10.0 25.1 

Northville city 314 13.4 36.6 6.1 3.5 40.4 

Northville township 2,034 15.7 33.5 12.6 12.8 25.3 

Plymouth city 1,030 20.6 40.5 7.3 10.8 20.9 

Plymouth township 2,537 15.6 34.5 11.1 11.4 27.4 

Redford township 5,799 19.2 34.5 12.0 11.4 23.0 

River Rouge city 1,181 11.8 33.6 13.9 11.9 28.9 

Riverview city 2,153 16.8 32.0 15.4 12.2 23.6 

Rockwood city 214 10.7 30.4 11.2 9.3 38.3 

Romulus city 2,073 14.3 34.0 12.3 10.7 28.8 

Southgate city 4,340 18.2 36.1 13.3 9.7 22.7 

Sumpter township 871 16.6 35.4 9.2 12.6 26.2 

Taylor city 5,961 16.0 35.6 12.8 11.3 24.3 

Trenton city 2,493 15.8 40.7 10.5 9.4 23.5 

Van Buren township 1,408 18.5 36.9 13.1 10.8 20.7 

Wayne city 1,982 20.0 34.0 10.1 15.3 20.5 

Westland city 9,571 15.7 36.3 12.9 10.2 24.9 

Woodhaven city 753 15.0 32.7 14.6 15.8 21.9 

Wyandotte city 3,867 17.6 35.8 12.6 10.3 23.7 

* A self-care disability is one that affects activities of daily living, such as getting around inside the 

home,getting in or out of a bed or chair, bathing, dressing, eating, and toileting. 



years of age and over in Region 1-C, while Table 19 allows for the isolation of persons 

reporting single and multiple disabilities. One can see in Table 18 that, while the number 

of responses varied across the communities, the general pattern of responses was quite 

similar. The disability most often acknowledged, representing one-third (34.5 percent) of 

responses in the region, was physical. This was followed by a limitation for going 

outside the home – representing one quarter (25.7 percent) of all responses in each sector. 

Sensory, self-care and mobility disabilities were each mentioned in the order of 11-16 

percent of the time. 

Table 19. Detailed Disability Rates of the Population 65+, in Region 1-C, 2000 

Community 

No 

Disability* 


Total* 

Go- 


home** 



Selfcare** 


Self-care** 

Region 1-C 57.6 21.0 10.1 5.9 21.3 9.0 12.3 

Allen Park city 64.3 17.7 7.6 5.7 18.0 7.6 10.5 

Belleville city 51.8 25.7 11.1 3.2 22.5 7.6 15.0 

Brownstown township 51.0 22.6 11.7 5.9 26.4 7.2 19.2 

Canton township 61.4 20.1 10.0 4.8 18.5 7.2 11.3 

Dearborn city 57.6 21.2 9.0 6.9 21.2 9.2 11.9 

Dearborn Heights city 55.9 23.7 10.7 7.7 20.4 9.1 11.3 

Ecorse city 48.8 21.6 11.2 6.7 29.6 14.8 14.8 

Flat Rock city 46.6 24.4 16.4 4.9 28.9 7.8 21.2 

Garden City city 61.1 20.4 10.4 6.1 18.6 7.0 11.5 

Gibraltar city 60.7 21.6 5.0 7.9 17.7 6.1 11.6 

Grosse Ile township 65.8 17.4 10.0 3.6 16.8 8.7 8.0 

Huron township 54.8 25.4 8.7 9.5 19.8 12.6 7.2 

Inkster city 49.2 21.7 10.8 7.9 29.1 13.9 15.1 

Lincoln Park city 51.1 24.8 11.4 8.2 24.1 9.4 14.7 

Livonia city 64.5 18.1 8.2 5.3 17.4 7.4 10.1 

Melvindale city 49.9 26.7 14.3 7.9 23.5 9.7 13.7 

Northville city 52.4 28.3 10.7 13.1 19.3 2.6 16.7 

Northville township 64.1 16.1 8.2 4.1 19.8 9.3 10.5 

Plymouth city 57.9 23.5 13.9 2.8 18.6 8.3 10.3 

Plymouth township 60.3 22.2 11.5 5.8 17.5 8.7 8.8 

Redford township 59.7 21.0 9.7 4.0 19.3 8.6 10.7 

River Rouge city 48.8 19.2 9.0 6.1 32.0 12.7 19.2 

Riverview city 56.4 15.9 7.0 2.2 27.7 11.9 15.8 

Rockwood city 65.4 13.1 4.5 7.1 21.5 6.4 15.1 

Romulus city 45.4 21.5 10.4 6.8 33.1 12.3 20.8 

Southgate city 55.0 21.9 10.7 5.9 23.1 8.7 14.4 

Sumpter township 48.2 23.8 11.6 6.9 28.0 12.5 15.5 

Taylor city 55.6 21.1 10.5 5.9 23.3 9.5 13.8 

Trenton city 63.7 18.5 11.1 3.9 17.8 6.3 11.5 

Van Buren township 54.6 23.6 13.2 4.7 21.8 9.8 12.0 

Wayne city 53.5 21.6 10.7 4.4 24.9 14.9 10.0 

Westland city 54.1 23.6 12.7 5.8 22.3 8.9 13.4 

Woodhaven city 58.5 12.0 5.4 4.7 29.6 16.0 13.6 

Wyandotte city 55.7 20.6 11.1 4.6 23.7 9.0 14.7 




A more detailed look at the responses given to the disability questions allows for a better 

understanding of the health conditions of seniors across the region. The correlation 

between economic status and living arrangements with disability reporting is quite clear. 

Communities with higher shares of low income seniors, and seniors living alone, come in 

with higher rates of reported disabilities. These higher rates also translate to greater 

numbers of seniors reporting the presence of more than one disability. 

In all communities, persons responding with only one disability were most likely to 

identify it as physical or related to going outside the home. Another common thread 

across the vast majority of communities was the higher percentage of persons with 

multiple disabilities not including self-care as one of them. 

Educational Attainment and Language Usage 

The final two demographic tables look at persons 65 years and over in terms of their 

educational attainment and language usage. While educational attainment is an important 

indicator of socioeconomic status and potential need, the relationship is not always clear 

due to the fact that many of the area’s elderly were able to come to Detroit during the last 

century and get good jobs in the auto plants with minimal education. Nevertheless, 

educational attainment is an important indicator, and the lack of a high school diploma 

can signal potential illiteracy. Language spoken at home and the ability to speak English 

are quite important indicators for service providers. There continues to be a large 

segment of immigrants from the mid-1900s who never learned English well, who are 

being joined by recent immigrants with little English capability. Providers of aging 

services need to know where these people live and develop procedures to reach them in 

their language. 

Table 20 shows a wide discrepancy in educational attainment across the communities. 

While persons 65 years and over across the region reported a 63 percent high school 

graduation rate, residents of Ecorse reported a rate of 41 percent (lowest among the 34 

communities) while those in Grosse Ile and Northville townships reported rates of 85 and 

83 percent, respectively. Inkster, Melvindale, River Rouge and Sumpter township all 

reported rates of 50 percent or less, demonstrating that the correlation between education 

(at least at the high school graduate level) and socioeconomic status is strong. 

Table 21 summarizes data on the language that the elderly speak at home and, if it is 

other than English, their perceived ability to speak English. Across the region, 87.5 

percent of the residents reported speaking only English at home. However, in 

communities such as Dearborn and Dearborn Heights, with their large numbers of Middle 

Eastern residents, the share drops to 78 percent and more than 20 percent of the non 

English-exclusive speakers report problems with speaking English at all. It is also worth 

pointing out that there are other communities with high shares of English-only speakers, 

which have high percentages of persons with difficulty speaking English. Examples of 

such communities are Canton township, Southgate and Woodhaven. 

The Senior Alliance will need to be aware of all the characteristics that have been 

documented in this section to prioritize and plan the services that they deliver. 


Table 20. Educational Attainment of the Population 65+, in Region 1-C, 2000 

Community 

Percent High 

School Grad 

or higher 

Some 

College, no 

degree 

Percent 

College 

Grad or 

higher 

Region 1-C 63.1 14.2 12.0 

Allen Park city 71.9 16.7 11.0 

Belleville city 50.6 8.4 7.2 

Brownstown township 56.0 11.0 10.9 

Canton township 68.1 17.5 13.2 

Dearborn city 68.0 15.3 17.3 

Dearborn Heights city 60.8 12.6 10.7 

Ecorse city 40.6 9.1 4.0 

Flat Rock city 55.4 14.2 5.6 

Garden City city 55.3 12.7 6.7 

Gibraltar city 50.1 5.5 14.0 

Grosse Ile township 85.4 21.4 38.1 

Huron township 52.5 9.6 10.3 

Inkster city 48.0 12.5 7.6 

Lincoln Park city 50.5 6.6 4.2 

Livonia city 73.3 16.5 18.4 

Melvindale city 48.7 9.1 1.9 

Northville city 73.2 23.9 25.2 

Northville township 83.2 25.5 26.0 

Plymouth city 69.5 19.9 13.0 

Plymouth township 78.1 19.5 25.3 

Redford township 70.8 16.9 11.1 

River Rouge city 50.0 13.1 8.0 

Riverview city 62.4 14.8 7.9 

Rockwood city 65.4 17.9 8.7 

Romulus city 44.6 11.0 4.1 

Southgate city 53.9 10.0 6.2 

Sumpter township 43.4 9.4 8.3 

Taylor city 54.5 10.3 5.6 

Trenton city 67.9 16.7 11.9 

Van Buren township 57.6 15.3 13.3 

Wayne city 58.4 13.8 9.6 

Westland city 58.6 12.0 9.4 

Woodhaven city 59.4 12.7 3.2 

Wyandotte city 54.8 11.9 6.1 


Table 21. Language Spoken by the Population 65+, in Region 1-C, 2000 

Community 

Persons 

65 years 

and over 

Only 

English 

Percent 

of total 

Spanish 

Indo 

European 

Asian and 

Pacific 

Other 

% of Other 

Language 

Speakers 

who Speak 

English not 

well, not at 

all 

Region 1-C 134,457 117,634 87.5 1,754 11,539 572 2,958 18.8 

Allen Park city 6,190 5,456 88.1 132 505 0 97 8.9 

Belleville city 595 543 91.3 0 42 0 10 23.1 

Brownstown township 1,332 1,194 89.6 13 90 0 35 0.0 

Canton township 4,579 3,873 84.6 107 422 112 65 23.8 

Dearborn city 15,289 11,923 78.0 218 2,049 35 1,064 28.8 

Dearborn Heights city 10,877 8,498 78.1 138 1,800 55 386 20.7 

Ecorse city 1,366 1,214 88.9 86 66 0 0 31.6 

Flat Rock city 798 765 95.9 10 13 0 10 15.2 

Garden City city 4,068 3,742 92.0 29 249 0 48 14.4 

Gibraltar city 379 340 89.7 0 26 4 9 23.1 

Grosse Ile township 1,306 1,143 87.5 27 102 6 28 14.1 

Huron township 1,062 967 91.1 7 80 0 8 7.4 

Inkster city 3,207 3,042 94.9 29 107 13 16 18.8 

Lincoln Park city 5,662 5,067 89.5 141 302 6 146 13.9 

Livonia city 16,965 14,990 88.4 112 1,515 93 255 16.0 

Melvindale city 1,448 1,247 86.1 86 115 0 0 17.4 

Northville city 444 425 95.7 0 19 0 0 0.0 

Northville township 2,926 2,678 91.5 17 199 22 10 6.0 

Plymouth city 1,506 1,391 92.4 19 50 7 39 6.1 

Plymouth township 3,349 3,090 92.3 12 165 21 61 17.0 

Redford township 7,831 7,023 89.7 77 580 32 119 14.0 

River Rouge city 1,061 960 90.5 25 71 0 5 16.8 

Riverview city 2,676 2,420 90.4 29 178 0 49 6.6 

Rockwood city 312 298 95.5 0 0 0 14 0.0 

Romulus city 1,776 1,670 94.0 19 87 0 0 25.5 

Southgate city 4,916 4,182 85.1 111 497 4 122 20.7 

Sumpter township 882 841 95.4 9 21 0 11 22.0 

Taylor city 7,267 6,645 91.4 98 377 32 115 10.5 

Trenton city 3,854 3,567 92.6 37 219 0 31 8.4 

Van Buren township 1,545 1,460 94.5 6 36 10 33 31.8 

Wayne city 2,226 2,117 95.1 0 28 81 0 67.0 

Westland city 11,474 10,393 90.6 98 837 33 113 10.3 

Woodhaven city 875 736 84.1 14 105 6 14 38.8 

Wyandotte city 4,414 3,734 84.6 48 587 0 45 13.2 

Housing Characteristics 

The final issue that we will address is that of tenure – whether the seniors live in owneroccupied 

or renter-occupied housing. The previous section described the numbers of 

seniors living in households vs. group quarters. It also described the living arrangements 

– living alone or with others – of the senior population in households. Now we look at 


whether these seniors are owning or renting their living quarters. 10 Table 22 shows that 

seniors are primarily homeowners. Almost 9 of every 10 householders between 55 and 

75 years of age own their home. This share drops slightly to 79 percent for householders 

Table 22. Homeownership Rates by Age, in Region 1-C, 2000 

Community 55-64 years 65-74 years 75-84 years 85+ years 

Region 1-C 86.1 86.0 79.3 63.2 

Allen Park city 91.4 92.3 89.7 80.5 

Belleville city 77.1 70.8 65.7 54.3 

Brownstown township 85.5 84.0 84.4 81.3 

Canton township 89.9 85.5 75.8 56.8 

Dearborn city 81.7 82.3 78.2 69.0 

Dearborn Heights city 91.8 92.5 88.1 77.5 

Ecorse city 78.7 80.5 81.6 89.1 

Flat Rock city 84.8 79.7 75.1 52.2 

Garden City city 92.1 92.3 85.4 67.2 

Gibraltar city 90.5 89.1 89.2 94.1 

Grosse Ile township 96.4 94.9 94.6 96.9 

Huron township 97.0 95.1 92.3 98.0 

Inkster city 75.1 76.7 74.0 55.7 

Lincoln Park city 82.7 88.4 88.7 85.4 

Livonia city 94.5 91.9 83.1 59.1 

Melvindale city 71.3 82.6 76.2 77.2 

Northville city 76.5 73.2 47.0 33.3 

Northville township 88.5 88.6 77.6 59.3 

Plymouth city 75.3 76.3 66.4 58.9 

Plymouth township 94.0 90.8 76.8 50.9 

Redford township 92.7 94.5 91.5 71.0 

River Rouge city 71.5 77.2 84.5 82.0 

Riverview city 83.5 77.8 48.0 14.7 

Rockwood city 81.6 76.6 60.3 62.5 

Romulus city 81.9 78.2 73.2 63.9 

Southgate city 83.0 80.5 68.0 47.3 

Sumpter township 96.4 95.4 97.4 94.1 

Taylor city 84.9 87.0 79.2 69.9 

Trenton city 87.1 86.9 80.8 65.8 

Van Buren township 80.8 88.8 87.8 86.0 

Wayne city 75.9 76.6 70.7 56.3 

Westland city 77.3 76.4 59.5 30.1 

Woodhaven city 83.2 84.7 67.1 46.4 

Wyandotte city 83.0 80.4 80.5 76.2 

75-84 years of age, and remains at better than 6 of 10 for persons 85 years and over. 

While home ownership is an important asset, these numbers indicate a large segment of 

the senior population living in single-family dwellings, often quite separate from 

neighbors and family. Home health care and chore services become a very important part 

of a service portfolio. 

10 The tenure data are based on senior householders by age, rather than all seniors living in households. 

Seniors who are not householders are not included in this analysis. 


Table 23 highlights the importance of seniors to each of the region’s communities by 

looking at the share of owner and renter units that they head. Such a tabulation is also 

important to a community when it is planning for the future and gauging the potential for 

turnover of housing stock. One can see from the table that persons 55 and over head 39 

percent of the region’s owner-occupied housing and 26 percent of its rental stock. In the 

communities of Allen Park, Dearborn Heights, Ecorse and Trenton ownership rates reach 

close to half of all units. A clear knowledge of the living arrangements of the senior 

population is extremely important in order to maximize service delivery. 

Table 23. Percent of the Population 55+, by Detailed Age Cohort, By Tenure, in Region 1-C, 2000 

Community 

Owner-Occupied units 

Renter-Occupied Units 

55-64 years 65-74 years 75-84 years 85+ years 55-64 years 65-74 years 75-84 years 85+ years 

Region 1-C 14.8 12.8 9.3 1.9 7.7 6.7 7.8 3.6 

Allen Park city 12.5 14.5 16.7 3.3 8.6 8.8 13.9 5.7 

Belleville city 13.5 11.8 9.0 1.9 10.1 12.2 11.9 4.0 

Brownstown township 14.3 6.7 3.9 0.8 7.5 4.0 2.2 0.6 

Canton township 13.8 6.2 3.6 0.6 5.8 4.0 4.3 1.8 

Dearborn city 12.7 12.2 14.0 4.4 7.9 7.3 10.8 5.4 

Dearborn Heights city 14.3 16.8 12.9 2.4 7.5 8.0 10.2 4.1 

Ecorse city 17.5 17.0 11.2 3.1 7.7 6.7 4.1 0.6 

Flat Rock city 13.6 10.0 7.5 1.0 6.4 6.7 6.5 2.5 

Garden City city 13.8 15.5 8.1 1.2 7.3 8.1 8.6 3.7 

Gibraltar city 21.8 11.0 5.8 1.3 6.3 3.7 2.0 0.2 

Grosse Ile township 22.0 12.4 6.3 1.6 12.6 10.3 5.5 0.8 

Huron township 15.5 8.8 4.4 1.1 6.8 6.5 5.2 0.3 

Inkster city 17.7 15.1 9.8 1.6 8.1 6.3 4.7 1.7 

Lincoln Park city 12.0 12.7 11.9 2.5 9.5 6.3 5.7 1.6 

Livonia city 15.2 14.9 9.7 1.6 6.9 10.4 15.6 9.0 

Melvindale city 14.8 14.5 10.6 2.9 12.3 6.4 6.9 1.8 

Northville city 17.6 10.3 6.3 2.5 8.6 6.0 11.3 8.0 

Northville township 21.0 14.3 9.2 1.2 7.6 5.1 7.4 2.3 

Plymouth city 11.8 11.2 9.3 3.3 7.3 6.6 8.9 4.4 

Plymouth township 19.2 12.8 6.8 1.3 6.1 6.5 10.4 6.4 

Redford township 10.4 11.3 11.7 2.6 7.5 6.0 10.0 9.6 

River Rouge city 16.0 14.3 11.9 3.5 8.7 5.8 3.0 1.0 

Riverview city 19.2 16.9 8.1 0.9 6.9 8.8 15.8 9.5 

Rockwood city 16.1 10.2 4.9 1.0 9.9 8.5 8.7 1.7 

Romulus city 16.4 9.5 5.5 1.2 8.6 6.3 4.8 1.6 

Southgate city 15.5 15.0 11.1 1.5 7.6 8.7 12.5 4.1 

Sumpter township 14.2 8.7 4.8 0.8 6.6 5.2 1.6 0.7 

Taylor city 17.2 14.3 6.5 1.2 7.4 5.2 4.1 1.2 

Trenton city 15.3 18.7 11.6 2.0 9.6 12.0 11.6 4.3 

Van Buren township 15.5 9.2 4.8 0.8 5.7 1.8 1.0 0.2 

Wayne city 15.5 11.5 7.9 1.6 9.2 6.6 6.1 2.3 

Westland city 15.2 13.4 7.4 1.2 7.5 7.0 8.5 4.8 

Woodhaven city 18.2 7.6 3.0 0.4 9.7 3.6 3.9 1.2 

Wyandotte city 12.3 13.3 13.2 2.9 6.8 8.8 8.6 2.4 


Conclusions and Recommendations 

While the rate of growth in Region 1-C’s senior population has slowed in recent years, 

trends within this group will be important to consider when planning services over the 

coming years. 

The overall population 60 and over is aging, within significant increases in both the “75 – 

84 years” and “85 and over” age cohorts. The increasing disability rate among these 

groups point to the increased necessity of differential service planning across 

communities. The minority component of the elderly is growing, fueled by migration of 

African Americans and Hispanics from Detroit and the continued growth of the Arab 

population in Dearborn, Dearborn Heights and other communities. While poverty among 

seniors has decreased across PSA 1-C’s service area, there are pockets (communities) 

where the share continues to be large. Similar discrepancies among communities show 

up for other factors such as share living alone, disability rates and educational attainment. 

PSA 1-C encompasses a variety of communities with very different population 

characteristics. This demographic analysis is only one component of what is necessary 

for a proper understanding of the characteristics and needs of the Region’s seniors. 


Appendix A 

Wayne County Tables

TABLE 1. GENERAL POPULATION TRENDS BY COMMUNITY IN WAYNE COUNTY, 1990 - 2000 

COMMUNITIES 



Allen Park 

city 

Belleville 

city 

Brownstown 

township 

Canton 

township 

Dearborn 

city 

Dearborn 

Heights 

city 

Detroit 

city 

Ecorse city Flat Rock 

city 

Garden 

City city 

Gibraltar 

city 

Grosse Ile 

township 

2000 AGE DISTRIBUTION 

Total Population 2,061,162 29,376 3,997 22,989 76,366 97,775 58,264 951,270 11,229 8,488 30,047 4,264 10,894 

Total 60 years and over 319,085 7,245 757 1,988 6,469 18,391 13,515 128,400 1,808 1,054 5,162 593 1,897 

60 to 64 years 70,103 1,109 151 655 1,938 3,159 2,601 29,344 423 245 1,097 212 605 

Total 65 years and over 130,038 2,702 311 786 2,578 6,390 5,682 52,863 802 432 2,552 244 801 

65 to 69 years 64,715 1,108 149 415 1,385 2,896 2,747 27,054 412 216 1,284 142 442 

70 to 74 years 65,323 1,594 162 371 1,193 3,494 2,935 25,809 390 216 1,268 102 359 

Total 75 years and over 118,944 3,434 295 547 1,953 8,842 5,232 46,193 583 377 1,513 137 491 

75 to 79 years 55,695 1,669 136 294 958 3,769 2,557 21,560 298 196 861 78 248 

80 to 84 years 36,031 1,067 104 149 620 2,898 1,635 13,653 171 120 408 36 146 

Total 85 years and over 27,218 698 55 104 375 2,175 1,040 10,980 114 61 244 23 97 


Total Population 2,111,687 31,092 3,270 18,811 57,040 89,286 60,838 1,027,974 12,180 7,290 31,846 4,297 9,781 

Total 60 years and over 360,304 8,436 700 1,430 4,002 20,687 14,265 167,219 2,057 1,021 5,089 446 1,414 

60 to 64 years 95,802 2,131 162 449 1,244 4,631 4,040 42,286 573 305 1,936 158 476 

Total 65 years and over 264,502 6,305 538 981 2,758 16,056 10,225 124,933 1,484 716 3,153 288 938 

65 to 69 years 91,027 2,354 176 386 1,077 5,084 3,838 41,574 550 294 1,385 109 359 

70 to 74 years 69,672 1,768 151 290 742 4,422 2,860 32,464 406 200 834 82 258 

Total 75 years and over 103,803 2,183 211 305 939 6,550 3,527 50,895 528 222 934 97 321 

75 to 79 years 49,756 1,122 112 165 486 3,354 1,819 24,161 280 112 499 53 176 

80 to 84 years 29,345 590 63 97 294 1,860 970 14,228 148 62 241 28 91 

Total 85 years and over 24,702 471 36 43 159 1,336 738 12,506 100 48 194 16 54 

1990 - 2000 CHANGE - NUMBER 

Total 60 years and over -41,219 -1,191 57 558 2,467 -2,296 -750 -38,819 -249 33 73 147 483 

60 to 64 years -25,699 -1,022 -11 206 694 -1,472 -1,439 -12,942 -150 -60 -839 54 129 

Total 65 years and over -134,464 -3,603 -227 -195 -180 -9,666 -4,543 -72,070 -682 -284 -601 -44 -137 

65 to 69 years -26,312 -1,246 -27 29 308 -2,188 -1,091 -14,520 -138 -78 -101 33 83 

70 to 74 years -4,349 -174 11 81 451 -928 75 -6,655 -16 16 434 20 101 

Total 75 years and over 15,141 1,251 84 242 1,014 2,292 1,705 -4,702 55 155 579 40 170 

75 to 79 years 5,939 547 24 129 472 415 738 -2,601 18 84 362 25 72 

80 to 84 years 6,686 477 41 52 326 1,038 665 -575 23 58 167 8 55 

Total 85 years and over 2,516 227 19 61 216 839 302 -1,526 14 13 50 7 43 

1990 - 2000 CHANGE - PERCENT 

Total 60 years and over -11.4 -14.1 8.1 39.0 61.6 -11.1 -5.3 -23.2 -12.1 3.2 1.4 33.0 34.2 

60 to 64 years -26.8 -48.0 -6.8 45.9 55.8 -31.8 -35.6 -30.6 -26.2 -19.7 -43.3 34.2 27.1 

Total 65 years and over -50.8 -57.1 -42.2 -19.9 -6.5 -60.2 -44.4 -57.7 -46.0 -39.7 -19.1 -15.3 -14.6 

65 to 69 years -28.9 -52.9 -15.3 7.5 28.6 -43.0 -28.4 -34.9 -25.1 -26.5 -7.3 30.3 23.1 

70 to 74 years -6.2 -9.8 7.3 27.9 60.8 -21.0 2.6 -20.5 -3.9 8.0 52.0 24.4 39.1 

Total 75 years and over 14.6 57.3 39.8 79.3 108.0 35.0 48.3 -9.2 10.4 69.8 62.0 41.2 53.0 

75 to 79 years 11.9 48.8 21.4 78.2 97.1 12.4 40.6 -10.8 6.4 75.0 72.5 47.2 40.9 

80 to 84 years 22.8 80.8 65.1 53.6 110.9 55.8 68.6 -4.0 15.5 93.5 69.3 28.6 60.4 

Total 85 years and over 10.2 48.2 52.8 141.9 135.8 62.8 40.9 -12.2 14.0 27.1 25.8 43.8 79.6 

Source: 1990 Census: STF1A; 2000 Census: SF1 1 Wayne County - Aging Profile by Community


COMMUNITIES 

Grosse 

Pointe city 

G. Pointe 

township 


Farms city 


Park city 


Woods city 

Hamtramck 

city 

Harper 

Woods city 

Highland 

Park city 

Huron 

charter 

township 

Inkster 

city 

Lincoln 

Park city 

Livonia 

city 

Melvindale 

city 



Total 60 years and over 

60 to 64 years 







































5,670 2,743 9,764 12,443 17,080 22,976 14,254 16,746 13,737 30,115 40,008 100,545 10,735 

1,156 847 2,194 1,790 3,804 3,375 3,218 3,022 1,541 4,252 6,965 21,325 1,829 

267 187 445 445 696 641 387 587 478 1,001 1,325 4,337 381 

412 381 939 722 1,540 1,130 1,081 1,317 655 1,829 2,856 8,961 762 

203 168 465 367 682 566 426 648 351 965 1,260 4,335 368 

209 213 474 355 858 564 655 669 304 864 1,596 4,626 394 

477 279 810 623 1,568 1,604 1,750 1,118 408 1,422 2,784 8,027 686 

189 131 384 302 730 675 780 484 215 718 1,447 3,740 331 

158 85 240 183 514 529 543 335 116 431 861 2,316 214 

130 63 186 138 324 400 427 299 77 273 476 1,971 141 

5,681 2,850 10,092 12,857 17,715 18,372 14,903 20,121 10,447 30,772 41,832 100,850 11,216 

1,222 786 2,406 2,080 4,317 4,572 5,067 3,755 1,216 4,823 8,301 19,315 2,209 

293 268 621 555 1,139 840 969 914 412 1,337 2,277 6,135 628 

929 518 1,785 1,525 3,178 3,732 4,098 2,841 804 3,486 6,024 13,180 1,581 

258 189 562 473 1,042 1,155 1,249 919 302 1,303 2,261 4,923 547 

241 134 426 380 878 1,107 1,053 715 225 944 1,661 3,345 451 

430 195 797 672 1,258 1,470 1,796 1,207 277 1,239 2,102 4,912 583 

183 95 335 263 623 791 852 584 155 604 1,127 2,103 316 

131 55 268 210 380 379 517 321 71 367 592 1,414 178 

116 45 194 199 255 300 427 302 51 268 383 1,395 89 

-66 61 -212 -290 -513 -1,197 -1,849 -733 325 -571 -1,336 2,010 -380 

-26 -81 -176 -110 -443 -199 -582 -327 66 -336 -952 -1,798 -247 

-517 -137 -846 -803 -1,638 -2,602 -3,017 -1,524 -149 -1,657 -3,168 -4,219 -819 

-55 -21 -97 -106 -360 -589 -823 -271 49 -338 -1,001 -588 -179 

-32 79 48 -25 -20 -543 -398 -46 79 -80 -65 1,281 -57 

47 84 13 -49 310 134 -46 -89 131 183 682 3,115 103 

6 36 49 39 107 -116 -72 -100 60 114 320 1,637 15 

27 30 -28 -27 134 150 26 14 45 64 269 902 36 

14 18 -8 -61 69 100 0 -3 26 5 93 576 52 

-5.4 7.8 -8.8 -13.9 -11.9 -26.2 -36.5 -19.5 26.7 -11.8 -16.1 10.4 -17.2 

-8.9 -30.2 -28.3 -19.8 -38.9 -23.7 -60.1 -35.8 16.0 -25.1 -41.8 -29.3 -39.3 

-55.7 -26.4 -47.4 -52.7 -51.5 -69.7 -73.6 -53.6 -18.5 -47.5 -52.6 -32.0 -51.8 

-21.3 -11.1 -17.3 -22.4 -34.5 -51.0 -65.9 -29.5 16.2 -25.9 -44.3 -11.9 -32.7 

-13.3 59.0 11.3 -6.6 -2.3 -49.1 -37.8 -6.4 35.1 -8.5 -3.9 38.3 -12.6 

10.9 43.1 1.6 -7.3 24.6 9.1 -2.6 -7.4 47.3 14.8 32.4 63.4 17.7 

3.3 37.9 14.6 14.8 17.2 -14.7 -8.5 -17.1 38.7 18.9 28.4 77.8 4.7 

20.6 54.5 -10.4 -12.9 35.3 39.6 5.0 4.4 63.4 17.4 45.4 63.8 20.2 

12.1 40.0 -4.1 -30.7 27.1 33.3 0.0 -1.0 51.0 1.9 24.3 41.3 58.4 



COMMUNITIES 

Northville 

city 

Northville 

township 

Plymouth 

city 

Plymouth 

township 

Redford 

township 

River 

Rouge city 

Riverview 

city 

Rockwood 

city 

Romulus 

city 

Southgate 

city 

Sumpter 

township 

Taylor city 

Trenton 

city 











































3,107 21,036 9,022 27,798 51,622 9,917 13,272 3,442 22,979 30,136 11,856 65,868 19,584 

580 3,899 1,741 4,600 9,263 1,403 3,232 451 2,587 6,133 1,261 9,862 4,774 

132 979 276 1,180 1,565 350 613 127 783 1,243 385 2,625 937 

186 1,533 626 1,971 3,493 569 1,239 196 1,055 2,543 526 4,439 2,207 

86 784 288 1,037 1,505 304 611 99 582 1,154 291 2,432 1,050 

100 749 338 934 1,988 265 628 97 473 1,389 235 2,007 1,157 

262 1,387 839 1,449 4,205 484 1,380 128 749 2,347 350 2,798 1,630 

92 668 286 669 1,941 211 542 81 356 1,250 166 1,372 849 

79 452 279 446 1,303 158 414 26 241 680 118 819 473 

91 267 274 334 961 115 424 21 152 417 66 607 308 

2,859 17,313 9,560 23,648 54,387 11,314 13,894 3,141 22,897 30,771 10,891 70,811 20,586 

571 2,488 2,004 3,479 12,066 1,819 2,691 402 2,403 5,967 1,187 8,505 4,368 

126 782 438 1,144 3,094 461 686 133 743 1,828 383 2,873 1,410 

445 1,706 1,566 2,335 8,972 1,358 2,005 269 1,660 4,139 804 5,632 2,958 

96 713 380 846 3,224 445 555 101 596 1,733 307 2,229 1,143 

94 457 352 614 2,397 396 423 57 480 1,077 229 1,436 780 

255 536 834 875 3,351 517 1,027 111 584 1,329 268 1,967 1,035 

106 284 328 466 1,452 272 360 58 296 700 141 965 476 

78 166 238 263 924 138 305 29 196 355 71 561 285 

71 86 268 146 975 107 362 24 92 274 56 441 274 

9 1,411 -263 1,121 -2,803 -416 541 49 184 166 74 1,357 406 

6 197 -162 36 -1,529 -111 -73 -6 40 -585 2 -248 -473 

-259 -173 -940 -364 -5,479 -789 -766 -73 -605 -1,596 -278 -1,193 -751 

-10 71 -92 191 -1,719 -141 56 -2 -14 -579 -16 203 -93 

6 292 -14 320 -409 -131 205 40 -7 312 6 571 377 

7 851 5 574 854 -33 353 17 165 1,018 82 831 595 

-14 384 -42 203 489 -61 182 23 60 550 25 407 373 

1 286 41 183 379 20 109 -3 45 325 47 258 188 

20 181 6 188 -14 8 62 -3 60 143 10 166 34 

1.6 56.7 -13.1 32.2 -23.2 -22.9 20.1 12.2 7.7 2.8 6.2 16.0 9.3 

4.8 25.2 -37.0 3.1 -49.4 -24.1 -10.6 -4.5 5.4 -32.0 0.5 -8.6 -33.5 

-58.2 -10.1 -60.0 -15.6 -61.1 -58.1 -38.2 -27.1 -36.4 -38.6 -34.6 -21.2 -25.4 

-10.4 10.0 -24.2 22.6 -53.3 -31.7 10.1 -2.0 -2.3 -33.4 -5.2 9.1 -8.1 

6.4 63.9 -4.0 52.1 -17.1 -33.1 48.5 70.2 -1.5 29.0 2.6 39.8 48.3 

2.7 158.8 0.6 65.6 25.5 -6.4 34.4 15.3 28.3 76.6 30.6 42.2 57.5 

-13.2 135.2 -12.8 43.6 33.7 -22.4 50.6 39.7 20.3 78.6 17.7 42.2 78.4 

1.3 172.3 17.2 69.6 41.0 14.5 35.7 -10.3 23.0 91.5 66.2 46.0 66.0 

28.2 210.5 2.2 128.8 -1.4 7.5 17.1 -12.5 65.2 52.2 17.9 37.6 12.4 



COMMUNITIES 

Van Buren 

township 

Wayne city Westland 

city 

Woodhaven 

city 

Wyandotte 

city 











































23,559 19,051 86,602 12,530 28,006 

2,286 2,945 14,803 1,288 5,380 

735 715 3,347 416 979 

958 1,159 6,020 473 2,117 

509 569 3,166 247 947 

449 590 2,854 226 1,170 

593 1,071 5,436 399 2,284 

317 500 2,340 175 1,130 

178 331 1,641 114 747 

98 240 1,455 110 407 

21,010 19,899 84,724 11,631 30,938 

2,102 3,222 12,695 912 6,588 

701 799 3,573 271 1,578 

1,401 2,423 9,122 641 5,010 

518 770 3,049 228 1,725 

373 609 2,250 155 1,456 

510 1,044 3,823 258 1,829 

231 459 1,730 104 958 

144 315 1,126 66 530 

135 270 967 88 341 

184 -277 2,108 376 -1,208 

34 -84 -226 145 -599 

-443 -1,264 -3,102 -168 -2,893 

-9 -201 117 19 -778 

76 -19 604 71 -286 

83 27 1,613 141 455 

86 41 610 71 172 

34 16 515 48 217 

-37 -30 488 22 66 

8.8 -8.6 16.6 41.2 -18.3 

4.9 -10.5 -6.3 53.5 -38.0 

-31.6 -52.2 -34.0 -26.2 -57.7 

-1.7 -26.1 3.8 8.3 -45.1 

20.4 -3.1 26.8 45.8 -19.6 

16.3 2.6 42.2 54.7 24.9 

37.2 8.9 35.3 68.3 18.0 

23.6 5.1 45.7 72.7 40.9 

-27.4 -11.1 50.5 25.0 19.4 


TABLE 2. LIVING ARRANGEMENT TRENDS BY COMMUNITY IN WAYNE COUNTY, 1990 - 2000 

COMMUNITIES 



Allen Park 

city 

Belleville 

city 

Brownstown 

township 

Canton 

township 

Dearborn 

city 

Dearborn 

Heights 

city 

Detroit 

city 


city 

Garden 

City city 

Gibraltar 

city 

Grosse Ile 

township 

2000 LIVING ARRANGEMENTS 

Households with 1 or more 

persons 60 years+ 232,192 4,928 576 1,471 4,793 13,500 9,256 97,725 1,414 782 3,659 422 1,304 

Living Alone 91,022 1,952 305 466 1,617 5,968 3,441 37,874 562 323 1,287 127 366 

In 2 or more person 141,170 2,976 271 1,005 3,176 7,532 5,815 59,851 852 459 2,372 295 938 

Family household 134,708 2,912 245 966 3,058 7,319 5,669 56,098 808 442 2,304 282 911 

Nonfamily household 6,462 64 26 39 118 213 146 3,753 44 17 68 13 27 


persons 65 years+ 185,205 4,245 471 1,019 3,460 11,463 7,715 76,862 1,115 615 2,993 282 919 

Living Alone 76,792 1,781 260 355 1,325 5,416 3,033 30,824 465 274 1,115 95 303 

In 2 or more person 108,413 2,464 211 664 2,135 6,047 4,682 46,038 650 341 1,878 187 616 




persons 75 years+ 93,989 2,563 248 456 1,620 7,124 3,989 37,442 520 314 1,275 113 393 

Living Alone 43,888 1,162 149 180 721 3,816 1,796 16,185 232 157 552 48 165 

In 2 or more person 50,101 1,401 99 276 899 3,308 2,193 21,257 288 157 723 65 228 

Family household 48,021 1,378 91 268 871 3,223 2,141 20,036 270 154 706 63 218 


Living in Group Quarters 10,738 273 8 11 4 189 425 4,696 1 5 7 1 1 

Institutional group quart 9,057 272 0 0 0 157 339 3,822 1 0 1 0 0 

Noninstitutional group qu 1,681 1 8 11 4 32 86 874 0 5 6 1 1 



persons 60 years+ 255,496 5,508 542 1,043 2,940 14,683 9,724 121,859 1,563 744 3,598 330 949 

Living Alone 94,222 1,808 289 331 1,007 5,823 3,182 46,136 583 299 984 108 235 





persons 65 years+ 195,656 4,400 436 747 2,133 12,013 7,369 94,223 1,178 547 2,411 225 674 

Living Alone 77,610 1,559 249 252 811 5,133 2,695 37,105 472 247 793 88 198 




Living in Group Quarters 11,645 170 0 14 0 23 320 5,811 0 0 0 0 0 

Institutional group quart 10,514 170 0 14 0 0 298 4,886 0 0 0 0 0 

Noninstitutional group qu 1,131 0 0 0 0 23 22 925 0 0 0 0 0 

WSU/Center for Urban Studies/MIMIC 5 Wayne County - Aging Profile by Community


COMMUNITIES 

Grosse 



township 


Farms city 


Park city 


Woods city 

Hamtramck 

city 

Harper 

Woods city 

Highland 

Park city 

Huron 

charter 

township 

Inkster 

city 


Park city 

Livonia 

city 


city 



persons 60 years+ 

Living Alone 

In 2 or more person 

Family household 

Nonfamily household 













Living in Group Quarters 

Institutional group quart 

Noninstitutional group qu 

















842 544 1,493 1,267 2,503 2,539 2,317 2,372 1,088 3,260 5,131 13,704 1,410 

375 138 513 428 800 1,247 1,158 1,181 295 1,245 2,115 4,773 677 

467 406 980 839 1,703 1,292 1,159 1,191 793 2,015 3,016 8,931 733 

446 399 947 818 1,679 1,185 1,116 1,115 765 1,916 2,925 8,726 706 

21 7 33 21 24 107 43 76 28 99 91 205 27 

677 439 1,236 995 2,101 2,073 2,064 1,931 779 2,547 4,253 11,165 1,146 

330 124 458 364 705 1,065 1,056 965 235 1,029 1,828 4,216 570 

347 315 778 631 1,396 1,008 1,008 966 544 1,518 2,425 6,949 576 

330 308 750 618 1,374 924 977 906 524 1,447 2,364 6,803 559 

17 7 28 13 22 84 31 60 20 71 61 146 17 

398 215 646 504 1,197 1,234 1,353 907 346 1,202 2,313 5,570 595 

212 81 274 213 461 690 741 473 127 545 1,084 2,536 340 

186 134 372 291 736 544 612 434 219 657 1,229 3,034 255 

176 128 352 287 724 490 591 409 212 626 1,206 2,970 247 

10 6 20 4 12 54 21 25 7 31 23 64 8 

0 0 0 2 62 199 130 167 8 67 80 1,448 5 

0 0 0 0 58 193 124 162 0 62 80 1,041 0 

0 0 0 2 4 6 6 5 8 5 0 407 5 

886 518 1,610 1,466 2,865 3,356 3,496 2,833 859 3,648 5,943 12,567 1,652 

386 116 477 489 797 1,615 1,543 1,416 230 1,511 2,179 3,687 695 

500 402 1,133 977 2,068 1,741 1,953 1,417 629 2,137 3,764 8,880 957 

477 397 1,095 948 2,034 1,600 1,916 1,334 618 2,028 3,663 8,707 918 

23 5 38 29 34 141 37 83 11 109 101 173 39 

705 363 1,267 1,128 2,240 2,804 2,961 2,181 608 2,739 4,588 9,026 1,252 

335 100 396 412 704 1,384 1,392 1,119 189 1,233 1,822 3,109 571 

370 263 871 716 1,536 1,420 1,569 1,062 419 1,506 2,766 5,917 681 

358 260 838 693 1,506 1,306 1,540 998 411 1,438 2,683 5,798 652 

12 3 33 23 30 114 29 64 8 68 83 119 29 

0 0 0 0 0 147 145 238 0 83 18 1,048 0 

0 0 0 0 0 147 127 224 0 83 18 924 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 18 14 0 0 0 124 0 



COMMUNITIES 

Northville 

city 

Northville 

township 

Plymouth 

city 

Plymouth 

township 

Redford 

township 

River 

Rouge city 

Riverview 

city 

Rockwood 

city 

Romulus 

city 

Southgate 

city 

Sumpter 

township 

Taylor city 

Trenton 

city 







































405 2,518 1,195 3,232 6,531 1,089 1,990 327 1,957 4,506 908 6,856 3,232 

187 862 646 1,152 2,620 392 885 129 735 2,054 230 2,322 1,317 

218 1,656 549 2,080 3,911 697 1,105 198 1,222 2,452 678 4,534 1,915 

208 1,604 537 2,020 3,791 665 1,070 188 1,164 2,373 647 4,347 1,873 

10 52 12 60 120 32 35 10 58 79 31 187 42 

319 1,940 1,019 2,495 5,536 847 1,633 245 1,429 3,692 666 5,121 2,669 

164 730 574 994 2,342 325 803 108 604 1,810 187 1,878 1,151 

155 1,210 445 1,501 3,194 522 830 137 825 1,882 479 3,243 1,518 

145 1,179 436 1,463 3,111 506 804 133 792 1,834 458 3,117 1,492 

10 31 9 38 83 16 26 4 33 48 21 126 26 

200 948 586 1,195 3,264 427 876 109 652 1,948 291 2,069 1,246 

123 412 381 585 1,576 178 545 56 313 1,092 85 895 642 

77 536 205 610 1,688 249 331 53 339 856 206 1,174 604 

70 521 200 591 1,651 241 321 51 324 834 191 1,127 596 

7 15 5 19 37 8 10 2 15 22 15 47 8 

33 231 171 11 228 0 459 4 31 95 0 482 154 

32 153 166 10 217 0 456 0 13 80 0 451 153 

1 78 5 1 11 0 3 4 18 15 0 31 1 

404 1,713 1,372 2,428 7,939 1,392 1,583 294 1,795 4,227 852 5,939 2,933 

221 563 690 768 2,493 534 643 113 593 1,591 226 1,844 1,041 

183 1,150 682 1,660 5,446 858 940 181 1,202 2,636 626 4,095 1,892 

176 1,131 656 1,621 5,315 807 918 175 1,151 2,589 598 3,950 1,856 

7 19 26 39 131 51 22 6 51 47 28 145 36 

327 1,244 1,086 1,736 6,239 1,089 1,154 211 1,309 3,152 608 4,043 2,097 

197 460 603 643 2,132 436 557 96 496 1,320 177 1,419 872 

130 784 483 1,093 4,107 653 597 115 813 1,832 431 2,624 1,225 

124 772 468 1,063 4,007 612 584 110 775 1,800 411 2,540 1,197 

6 12 15 30 100 41 13 5 38 32 20 84 28 

34 0 160 0 431 0 516 0 6 81 0 512 187 

34 0 160 0 431 0 516 0 6 81 0 512 187 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 



COMMUNITIES 

Van Buren 

township 


city 

Woodhaven 

city 

Wyandotte 

city 







































1,660 1,993 10,676 839 3,978 

491 834 4,913 263 1,757 

1,169 1,159 5,763 576 2,221 

1,112 1,109 5,528 560 2,155 

57 50 235 16 66 

1,153 1,510 8,453 561 3,352 

355 685 4,134 183 1,574 

798 825 4,319 378 1,778 

760 792 4,174 367 1,736 

38 33 145 11 42 

498 753 4,275 226 1,889 

174 406 2,439 76 970 

324 347 1,836 150 919 

312 331 1,775 148 900 

12 16 61 2 19 

6 276 615 132 21 

0 270 612 130 2 

6 6 3 2 19 

1,380 1,997 8,835 552 4,679 

384 791 3,752 162 1,887 

996 1,206 5,083 390 2,792 

957 1,162 4,933 376 2,700 

39 44 150 14 92 

938 1,487 6,565 393 3,760 

288 662 3,126 129 1,629 

650 825 3,439 264 2,131 

634 802 3,332 255 2,061 

16 23 107 9 70 

160 535 816 144 46 

160 535 816 144 41 

0 0 0 0 5 



COMMUNITIES 



Allen Park 

city 

Belleville 

city 

Brownstown 

township 

Canton 

township 

Dearborn 

city 

Dearborn 

Heights 

city 

Detroit 

city 


city 

Garden 

City city 

Gibraltar 

city 

Grosse Ile 

township 



persons 60 years+ -23,304 -580 34 428 1,853 -1,183 -468 -24,134 -149 38 61 92 355 

Living Alone -3,200 144 16 135 610 145 259 -8,262 -21 24 303 19 131 

In 2 or more person -20,104 -724 18 293 1,243 -1,328 -727 -15,872 -128 14 -242 73 224 

Family household -19,041 -735 5 278 1,178 -1,308 -731 -14,519 -121 6 -261 65 214 

Nonfamily household -1,063 11 13 15 65 -20 4 -1,353 -7 8 19 8 10 


persons 65 years+ -10,451 -155 35 272 1,327 -550 346 -17,361 -63 68 582 57 245 

Living Alone -818 222 11 103 514 283 338 -6,281 -7 27 322 7 105 

In 2 or more person -9,633 -377 24 169 813 -833 8 -11,080 -56 41 260 50 140 

Family household -8,536 -380 15 162 773 -827 5 -9,850 -52 34 249 44 136 

Nonfamily household -1,097 3 9 7 40 -6 3 -1,230 -4 7 11 6 4 

Living in Group Quarters -907 103 8 -3 4 166 105 -1,115 1 5 7 1 1 

Institutional group quart -1,457 102 0 -14 0 157 41 -1,064 1 0 1 0 0 

Noninstitutional group qu 550 1 8 11 4 9 64 -51 0 5 6 1 1 



persons 60 years+ -9.1 -10.5 6.3 41.0 63.0 -8.1 -4.8 -19.8 -9.5 5.1 1.7 27.9 37.4 

Living Alone -3.4 8.0 5.5 40.8 60.6 2.5 8.1 -17.9 -3.6 8.0 30.8 17.6 55.7 

In 2 or more person -12.5 -19.6 7.1 41.2 64.3 -15.0 -11.1 -21.0 -13.1 3.1 -9.3 32.9 31.4 

Family household -12.4 -20.2 2.1 40.4 62.7 -15.2 -11.4 -20.6 -13.0 1.4 -10.2 30.0 30.7 

Nonfamily household -14.1 20.8 100.0 62.5 122.6 -8.6 2.8 -26.5 -13.7 88.9 38.8 160.0 58.8 


persons 65 years+ -5.3 -3.5 8.0 36.4 62.2 -4.6 4.7 -18.4 -5.3 12.4 24.1 25.3 36.4 

Living Alone -1.1 14.2 4.4 40.9 63.4 5.5 12.5 -16.9 -1.5 10.9 40.6 8.0 53.0 

In 2 or more person -8.2 -13.3 12.8 34.1 61.5 -12.1 0.2 -19.4 -7.9 13.7 16.1 36.5 29.4 

Family household -7.6 -13.6 8.5 34.0 60.2 -12.3 0.1 -18.5 -7.8 11.6 15.7 32.8 29.5 

Nonfamily household -19.2 7.0 90.0 36.8 105.3 -3.4 2.8 -31.0 -10.8 116.7 32.4 200.0 26.7 

Living in Group Quarters -7.8 60.6 n.a. -21.4 n.a. 721.7 32.8 -19.2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Institutional group quart -13.9 60.0 n.a. -100.0 n.a. n.a. 13.8 -21.8 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Noninstitutional group qu 48.6 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 39.1 290.9 -5.5 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 



COMMUNITIES 

Grosse 



township 


Farms city 


Park city 


Woods city 

Hamtramck 

city 

Harper 

Woods city 

Highland 

Park city 

Huron 

charter 

township 

Inkster 

city 


Park city 

Livonia 

city 


city 

































-44 26 -117 -199 -362 -817 -1,179 -461 229 -388 -812 1,137 -242 

-11 22 36 -61 3 -368 -385 -235 65 -266 -64 1,086 -18 

-33 4 -153 -138 -365 -449 -794 -226 164 -122 -748 51 -224 

-31 2 -148 -130 -355 -415 -800 -219 147 -112 -738 19 -212 

-2 2 -5 -8 -10 -34 6 -7 17 -10 -10 32 -12 

-28 76 -31 -133 -139 -731 -897 -250 171 -192 -335 2,139 -106 

-5 24 62 -48 1 -319 -336 -154 46 -204 6 1,107 -1 

-23 52 -93 -85 -140 -412 -561 -96 125 12 -341 1,032 -105 

-28 48 -88 -75 -132 -382 -563 -92 113 9 -319 1,005 -93 

5 4 -5 -10 -8 -30 2 -4 12 3 -22 27 -12 

0 0 0 2 62 52 -15 -71 8 -16 62 400 5 

0 0 0 0 58 46 -3 -62 0 -21 62 117 0 

0 0 0 2 4 6 -12 -9 8 5 0 283 5 

-5.0 5.0 -7.3 -13.6 -12.6 -24.3 -33.7 -16.3 26.7 -10.6 -13.7 9.0 -14.6 

-2.8 19.0 7.5 -12.5 0.4 -22.8 -25.0 -16.6 28.3 -17.6 -2.9 29.5 -2.6 

-6.6 1.0 -13.5 -14.1 -17.6 -25.8 -40.7 -15.9 26.1 -5.7 -19.9 0.6 -23.4 

-6.5 0.5 -13.5 -13.7 -17.5 -25.9 -41.8 -16.4 23.8 -5.5 -20.1 0.2 -23.1 

-8.7 40.0 -13.2 -27.6 -29.4 -24.1 16.2 -8.4 154.5 -9.2 -9.9 18.5 -30.8 

-4.0 20.9 -2.4 -11.8 -6.2 -26.1 -30.3 -11.5 28.1 -7.0 -7.3 23.7 -8.5 

-1.5 24.0 15.7 -11.7 0.1 -23.0 -24.1 -13.8 24.3 -16.5 0.3 35.6 -0.2 

-6.2 19.8 -10.7 -11.9 -9.1 -29.0 -35.8 -9.0 29.8 0.8 -12.3 17.4 -15.4 

-7.8 18.5 -10.5 -10.8 -8.8 -29.2 -36.6 -9.2 27.5 0.6 -11.9 17.3 -14.3 

41.7 133.3 -15.2 -43.5 -26.7 -26.3 6.9 -6.3 150.0 4.4 -26.5 22.7 -41.4 

n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 35.4 -10.3 -29.8 n.a. -19.3 344.4 38.2 n.a. 

n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 31.3 -2.4 -27.7 n.a. -25.3 344.4 12.7 n.a. 

n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. -66.7 -64.3 n.a. n.a. n.a. 228.2 n.a. 



COMMUNITIES 

Northville 

city 

Northville 

township 

Plymouth 

city 

Plymouth 

township 

Redford 

township 

River 

Rouge city 

Riverview 

city 

Rockwood 

city 

Romulus 

city 

Southgate 

city 

Sumpter 

township 

Taylor city 

Trenton 

city 

































1 805 -177 804 -1,408 -303 407 33 162 279 56 917 299 

-34 299 -44 384 127 -142 242 16 142 463 4 478 276 

35 506 -133 420 -1,535 -161 165 17 20 -184 52 439 23 

32 473 -119 399 -1,524 -142 152 13 13 -216 49 397 17 

3 33 -14 21 -11 -19 13 4 7 32 3 42 6 

-8 696 -67 759 -703 -242 479 34 120 540 58 1,078 572 

-33 270 -29 351 210 -111 246 12 108 490 10 459 279 

25 426 -38 408 -913 -131 233 22 12 50 48 619 293 

21 407 -32 400 -896 -106 220 23 17 34 47 577 295 

4 19 -6 8 -17 -25 13 -1 -5 16 1 42 -2 

-1 231 11 11 -203 0 -57 4 25 14 0 -30 -33 

-2 153 6 10 -214 0 -60 0 7 -1 0 -61 -34 

1 78 5 1 11 0 3 4 18 15 0 31 1 

0.2 47.0 -12.9 33.1 -17.7 -21.8 25.7 11.2 9.0 6.6 6.6 15.4 10.2 

-15.4 53.1 -6.4 50.0 5.1 -26.6 37.6 14.2 23.9 29.1 1.8 25.9 26.5 

19.1 44.0 -19.5 25.3 -28.2 -18.8 17.6 9.4 1.7 -7.0 8.3 10.7 1.2 

18.2 41.8 -18.1 24.6 -28.7 -17.6 16.6 7.4 1.1 -8.3 8.2 10.1 0.9 

42.9 173.7 -53.8 53.8 -8.4 -37.3 59.1 66.7 13.7 68.1 10.7 29.0 16.7 

-2.4 55.9 -6.2 43.7 -11.3 -22.2 41.5 16.1 9.2 17.1 9.5 26.7 27.3 

-16.8 58.7 -4.8 54.6 9.8 -25.5 44.2 12.5 21.8 37.1 5.6 32.3 32.0 

19.2 54.3 -7.9 37.3 -22.2 -20.1 39.0 19.1 1.5 2.7 11.1 23.6 23.9 

16.9 52.7 -6.8 37.6 -22.4 -17.3 37.7 20.9 2.2 1.9 11.4 22.7 24.6 

66.7 158.3 -40.0 26.7 -17.0 -61.0 100.0 -20.0 -13.2 50.0 5.0 50.0 -7.1 

-2.9 n.a. 6.9 n.a. -47.1 n.a. -11.0 n.a. 416.7 17.3 n.a. -5.9 -17.6 

-5.9 n.a. 3.8 n.a. -49.7 n.a. -11.6 n.a. 116.7 -1.2 n.a. -11.9 -18.2 

n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 



COMMUNITIES 

Van Buren 

township 


city 

Woodhaven 

city 

Wyandotte 

city 

































280 -4 1,841 287 -701 

107 43 1,161 101 -130 

173 -47 680 186 -571 

155 -53 595 184 -545 

18 6 85 2 -26 

215 23 1,888 168 -408 

67 23 1,008 54 -55 

148 0 880 114 -353 

126 -10 842 112 -325 

22 10 38 2 -28 

-154 -259 -201 -12 -25 

-160 -265 -204 -14 -39 

6 6 3 2 14 

20.3 -0.2 20.8 52.0 -15.0 

27.9 5.4 30.9 62.3 -6.9 

17.4 -3.9 13.4 47.7 -20.5 

16.2 -4.6 12.1 48.9 -20.2 

46.2 13.6 56.7 14.3 -28.3 

22.9 1.5 28.8 42.7 -10.9 

23.3 3.5 32.2 41.9 -3.4 

22.8 0.0 25.6 43.2 -16.6 

19.9 -1.2 25.3 43.9 -15.8 

137.5 43.5 35.5 22.2 -40.0 

-96.3 -48.4 -24.6 -8.3 -54.3 

-100.0 -49.5 -25.0 -9.7 -95.1 

n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 280.0 


Appendix B 

Wayne County Maps

Reference Map 

Michigan Area Agencies on Aging Planning and Service Areas 

Lake Superior 

11 

10 9 

Lake 

Huron 

Saginaw 

Bay 

14 7 

8 

Lake 


4 

3b 

3a 

3c 

6 

2 

5 

1b 

1a 

1c 

WSU/CUS/Michigan Metropolitan Information Center/jcb

Northville 

Harper 

Woods 

Grosse 

Pointe 

Woods 

Northville Twp 

Plymouth Twp 

Livonia 

Redford 

Twp 

Detroit 

Highland 

Park 

Hamtramck 

Grosse 


Farms 

Grosse 


Shores 

Plymouth 

Westland 

Dearborn 

Heights 

1-A 

Grosse 


Park 

Grosse 


Garden City 

Canton Twp. 

Inkster 

Dearborn 


1-C 

Allen Park 



Park 

Ecorse 

River 

Rouge 

Van Buren Twp 

Belleville 

Romulus 

Taylor 

Southgate 

Wyandotte 

Sumpter Twp 

Huron Twp 

Woodhaven 

Riverview 

Trenton 

Grosse 

Ile 

Twp 


by Area Agency on 

Aging Service Area 

Flat Rock 

Gibraltar 

Rockwood 

Brownstown Twp 


Sector Map 

Detroit Area Agency on Aging - Region 1-A 

8 Mile Road 

39 

10 

75 

8 

10 

1 

2 

94 

12 

Van Dyke 

Telegraph 

Grand River 

9 

10 

11 

Gratiot 

96 

96 

6 

75 

94 

3 

Woodward 

39 

7 

10 

4 

75 

94 


96 

75 

75 

375 

Belle Isle 

Legend 

5 

Detroit River 

Freeways 

Divided Roads 

Major Roads 

Sectors 

75 


96 

96 

75 

10 

10 

39 

39 

Telegraph 

Grand River 

Van Dyke 

75 

8 Mile Road 

Woodward 

94 

96 

94 

75 

75 

75 

375 

10 


94 

75 

Gratiot 

Belle Isle 

Detroit River 

WSU/CUS/Michigan Metropolitan Information Center/jcb 

Communities in PSA 1-A 

Detroit Area Agency on Aging - Region 1-A 

Freeways 

Divided Roads 

Major Roads 

Legend 

Cities 

Detroit 

Detroit 

Detroit 

Detroit 

Detroit 

Detroit 

Detroit 

Detroit 

Detroit 

Highland 

Highland 

Highland 

Highland 

Highland 

Highland 

Highland 

Highland 

Highland 

Park 

Park 

Park 

Park 

Park 

Park 

Park 

Park 

Park 

Hamtramck 

Hamtramck 

Hamtramck 

Hamtramck 

Hamtramck 

Hamtramck 

Hamtramck 

Hamtramck 

Hamtramck 

Harper 

Harper 

Harper 

Harper 

Harper 

Harper 

Harper 

Harper 

Harper 

Woods 

Woods 

Woods 

Woods 

Woods 

Woods 

Woods 

Woods 

Woods 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 










Woods 

Woods 

Woods 

Woods 

Woods 

Woods 

Woods 

Woods 

Woods 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 










Shores 

Shores 

Shores 

Shores 

Shores 

Shores 

Shores 

Shores 

Shores 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 










Farms 

Farms 

Farms 

Farms 

Farms 

Farms 

Farms 

Farms 

Farms 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 










Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 

Grosse 










Park 

Park 

Park 

Park 

Park 

Park 

Park 

Park 

Park

The Senior Alliance 

Area Agency on Aging 1-C Service Area by Community 

Northville 


Livonia 

Redford 

Twp 

Plymouth Twp 

Plymouth 

Westland 

Dearborn 

Heights 

Garden City 

Dearborn 

Canton Twp. 

Inkster 



River 

Rouge 

Allen Park 

Ecorse 


Park 

Van Buren Twp 

Belleville 

Romulus 

Taylor 

Southgate 

Wyandotte 

Riverview 

Sumpter Twp 

Huron Twp 

Woodhaven 

Trenton 

Grosse 

Ile 

Twp 

Flat Rock 

Gibraltar 

Rockwood 



Northville 

Harper 

Woods 

Grosse 


Woods 


Plymouth Twp 

Livonia 

Redford 

Twp 

Detroit 

Highland 

Park 

Hamtramck 

Grosse 


Farms 

Grosse 


Shores 

Plymouth 

Westland 

Dearborn 

Heights 

Grosse 


Park 

Grosse 


Garden City 

Canton Twp. 

Inkster 

Dearborn 


Allen Park 


River 

Rouge 

Van Buren Twp 

Belleville 

Romulus 

Taylor 

Southgate 


Park 

Riverview 

Ecorse 

Wyandotte 

Percent Change 

in Total Population, 

1990 to 2000 

for Wayne County Communities 

Sumpter Twp 

Huron Twp 

Flat Rock 

Woodhaven 

Gibraltar 

Trenton 

Grosse 

Ile 

Twp 


17% to 34% 

8% to 16.9% 

0% to 7.9% 

-1% to -7.9% 

-8% to -17% 

Rockwood 



Canton Twp. 

Plymouth 


Plymouth Twp 

Northville 

Van Buren Twp 

Belleville 

Sumpter Twp 

Westland 

Romulus 

Huron Twp 


Inkster 

Livonia 

Garden City 


Flat Rock 

Redford 

Twp 

Dearborn 

Heights 

Woodhaven 

Rockwood 

Taylor 

Dearborn 

Gibraltar 

Southgate 

Allen Park 

Trenton 

Riverview 



Park 

Detroit 

Wyandotte 

Ecorse 

Grosse 

Ile 

Twp 

River 

Rouge 

Highland 

Park 

Hamtramck 

Grosse 


Park 

Grosse 


Grosse 


Shores 

Grosse 


Farms 

Grosse 


Woods 

Harper 

Woods 

-57 

-57 

-57 

-57 

-57 

-57 

-57 

-57 

-57 

290 

290 

290 

290 

290 

290 

290 

290 

290 

66 

66 

66 

66 

66 

66 

66 

66 

66 212 

212 

212 

212 

212 

212 

212 

212 

212 

263 

263 

263 

263 

263 

263 

263 

263 

263 

-147 

-147 

-147 

-147 

-147 

-147 

-147 

-147 

-147 

-166 

-166 

-166 

-166 

-166 

-166 

-166 

-166 

-166 

1,208 

1,208 

1,208 

1,208 

1,208 

1,208 

1,208 

1,208 

1,208 

-541 

-541 

-541 

-541 

-541 

-541 

-541 

-541 

-541 

-406 

-406 

-406 

-406 

-406 

-406 

-406 

-406 

-406 

-33 

-33 

-33 

-33 

-33 

-33 

-33 

-33 

-33 

-184 

-184 

-184 

-184 

-184 

-184 

-184 

-184 

-184 

-1,357 

-1,357 

-1,357 

-1,357 

-1,357 

-1,357 

-1,357 

-1,357 

-1,357 

1,336 

1,336 

1,336 

1,336 

1,336 

1,336 

1,336 

1,336 

1,336 

249 

249 

249 

249 

249 

249 

249 

249 

249 

1,191 

1,191 

1,191 

1,191 

1,191 

1,191 

1,191 

1,191 

1,191 

2,296 

2,296 

2,296 

2,296 

2,296 

2,296 

2,296 

2,296 

2,296 

-73 

-73 

-73 

-73 

-73 

-73 

-73 

-73 

-73 

750 

750 

750 

750 

750 

750 

750 

750 

750 

-2,108 

-2,108 

-2,108 

-2,108 

-2,108 

-2,108 

-2,108 

-2,108 

-2,108 

571 

571 

571 

571 

571 

571 

571 

571 

571 

277 

277 

277 

277 

277 

277 

277 

277 

277 

-184 

-184 

-184 

-184 

-184 

-184 

-184 

-184 

-184 

-74 

-74 

-74 

-74 

-74 

-74 

-74 

-74 

-74 -325 

-325 

-325 

-325 

-325 

-325 

-325 

-325 

-325 

-558 

-558 

-558 

-558 

-558 

-558 

-558 

-558 

-558 

-376 

-376 

-376 

-376 

-376 

-376 

-376 

-376 

-376 

-483 

-483 

-483 

-483 

-483 

-483 

-483 

-483 

-483 

380 

380 

380 

380 

380 

380 

380 

380 

380 

416 

416 

416 

416 

416 

416 

416 

416 

416 

1,197 

1,197 

1,197 

1,197 

1,197 

1,197 

1,197 

1,197 

1,197 

733 

733 

733 

733 

733 

733 

733 

733 

733 

38,819 

38,819 

38,819 

38,819 

38,819 

38,819 

38,819 

38,819 

38,819 

2,803 

2,803 

2,803 

2,803 

2,803 

2,803 

2,803 

2,803 

2,803 

-2,010 

-2,010 

-2,010 

-2,010 

-2,010 

-2,010 

-2,010 

-2,010 

-2,010 

-2,467 

-2,467 

-2,467 

-2,467 

-2,467 

-2,467 

-2,467 

-2,467 

-2,467 

-1,121 

-1,121 

-1,121 

-1,121 

-1,121 

-1,121 

-1,121 

-1,121 

-1,121 

-1,411 

-1,411 

-1,411 

-1,411 

-1,411 

-1,411 

-1,411 

-1,411 

-1,411 

-9 

-9 

-9 

-9 

-9 

-9 

-9 

-9 

-9 

513 

513 

513 

513 

513 

513 

513 

513 

513 

-61 

-61 

-61 

-61 

-61 

-61 

-61 

-61 

-61 

1,849 

1,849 

1,849 

1,849 

1,849 

1,849 

1,849 

1,849 

1,849 



56% to 62% 

26% to 55.9% 

0% to 25.9% 

-1% to -16.9% 

-17% to -37% 

Percent Change in 

Population 60 Years 

and Over, 1990 to 2000 

for Wayne County Communities

Northville 

Harper 

Woods 

Grosse 


Woods 


Plymouth Twp 

Livonia 

Redford 

Twp 

Detroit 

Highland 

Park 

Hamtramck 

Grosse 


Farms 

Grosse 


Shores 

Plymouth 

Westland 

Dearborn 

Heights 

Grosse 


Park 

Grosse 


Garden City 

Canton Twp. 

Inkster 

Dearborn 


Allen Park 


River 

Rouge 

Van Buren Twp 

Belleville 

Romulus 

Taylor 

Southgate 


Park 

Riverview 

Ecorse 

Wyandotte 

Population 60 Years 

and Over as a Share 

of Total Population, 2000 


Sumpter Twp 

Huron Twp 

Flat Rock 

Woodhaven 

Trenton 

Gibraltar 

Grosse 

Ile 

Twp 

Share of Total Population 

22% to 31% 

18% to 21.9% 

16% to 17.9% 

12% to 15.9% 

8% to 11.9% 

Rockwood 



Canton Twp. 

Plymouth 


Plymouth Twp 

Northville 

Van Buren Twp 

Belleville 

Sumpter Twp 

Westland 

Romulus 

Huron Twp 


Inkster 

Livonia 

Garden City 


Flat Rock 

Redford 

Twp 

Dearborn 

Heights 

Woodhaven 

Rockwood 

Taylor 

Dearborn 

Gibraltar 

Southgate 

Allen Park 

Trenton 

Riverview 



Park 

Detroit 

Wyandotte 

Ecorse 

Grosse 

Ile 

Twp 

River 

Rouge 

Highland 

Park 

Hamtramck 

Grosse 


Park 

Grosse 


Grosse 


Shores 

Grosse 


Farms 

Grosse 


Woods 

Harper 

Woods 

385 

385 

385 

385 

385 

385 

385 

385 

385 

76 

76 

76 

76 

76 

76 

76 

76 

76 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

147 

147 

147 

147 

147 

147 

147 

147 

147 

105 

105 

105 

105 

105 

105 

105 

105 

105 

726 

726 

726 

726 

726 

726 

726 

726 

726 

2,774 

2,774 

2,774 

2,774 

2,774 

2,774 

2,774 

2,774 

2,774 

131 

131 

131 

131 

131 

131 

131 

131 

131 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

57 

57 

57 

57 

57 

57 

57 

57 

57 

92 

92 

92 

92 

92 

92 

92 

92 

92 

107 

107 

107 

107 

107 

107 

107 

107 

107 

67 

67 

67 

67 

67 

67 

67 

67 

67 

887 

887 

887 

887 

887 

887 

887 

887 

887 

587 

587 

587 

587 

587 

587 

587 

587 

587 

272 

272 

272 

272 

272 

272 

272 

272 

272 

130 

130 

130 

130 

130 

130 

130 

130 

130 

99 

99 

99 

99 

99 

99 

99 

99 

99 

104 

104 

104 

104 

104 

104 

104 

104 

104 

447 

447 

447 

447 

447 

447 

447 

447 

447 

2,791 

2,791 

2,791 

2,791 

2,791 

2,791 

2,791 

2,791 

2,791 

312 

312 

312 

312 

312 

312 

312 

312 

312 

188 

188 

188 

188 

188 

188 

188 

188 

188 

303 

303 

303 

303 

303 

303 

303 

303 

303 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

77 

77 

77 

77 

77 

77 

77 

77 

77 

121 

121 

121 

121 

121 

121 

121 

121 

121 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

653 

653 

653 

653 

653 

653 

653 

653 

653 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

481 

481 

481 

481 

481 

481 

481 

481 

481 

8 

860 

860 

860 

860 

860 

860 

860 

860 

860 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

670 

670 

670 

670 

670 

670 

670 

670 

670 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

61 

61 

61 

61 

61 

61 

61 

61 

61 

102,670 

102,670 

102,670 

102,670 

102,670 

102,670 

102,670 

102,670 

102,670 

985 

985 

985 

985 

985 

985 

985 

985 

985 

446 

446 

446 

446 

446 

446 

446 

446 

446 


Share of Population 

69% to 92% 

46% to 68.9% 

23% to 45.9% 

Less than 23% 

Minorities 60 Years of Age and 

Over as Share of All Persons 

60 Years and Over 

for Wayne County Communities

Northville 

Harper 

Woods 

Grosse 


Woods 


Plymouth Twp 

Livonia 

Redford 

Twp 

Detroit 

Highland 

Park 

Hamtramck 

Grosse 


Farms 

Grosse 


Shores 

Plymouth 

Westland 

Dearborn 

Heights 

Grosse 


Park 

Grosse 


Garden City 

Canton Twp. 

Inkster 

Dearborn 


Allen Park 


River 

Rouge 

Van Buren Twp 

Belleville 

Romulus 

Taylor 

Southgate 


Park 

Riverview 

Ecorse 

Wyandotte 

Percent of Population 

60 Years and Over at 

or Below 150% of Poverty 


Sumpter Twp 

Huron Twp 

Flat Rock 

Woodhaven 

Trenton 

Gibraltar 

Grosse 

Ile 

Twp 


24% to 46% 

17% to 23.9% 

12% to 16.9% 

8% to 11.9% 

2% to 7.9% 


Rockwood 

Note: Data for 60+ not available in 

standard Census releases. 

Special tabulation was performed by 

MIMIC/CUS. 


Percentage Change in Population 60 Years 

of Age and Over, 1990 - 2000 

Sectors in Detroit Area Agency on Aging Region 1-A 

8 Mile Road 

39 

10 

75 

-230 

-4,781 

-5,644 

94 

Van Dyke 

Telegraph 

-1,394 

-1,394 10 

-2,869 

Grand River 

1,271 

-1,930 

Gratiot 

-2,869 

96 

75 

94 

96 

39 

-3,464 

-7,160 

Woodward 

-6,285 

-5,952 

10 

75 

94 


96 

75 

75 

375 

Belle Isle 

Detroit River 

-5,180 


10% 

-14.9% to -2% 

-27.9% to -15% 

-41% to -28% 

75 


Number of Persons 60 Years of Age and Over, 2000 


8 Mile Road 

Van Dyke 

39 

10 

75 

Woodward 

12,790 

12,858 

8,238 

94 

13,009 

Telegraph 

8,956 

Grand River 

14,047 

10 

6,397 

Gratiot 

96 

75 

94 

96 

39 

14,538 

16,497 

12,380 

17,294 

10 

75 

94 


96 

75 

75 

375 

Belle Isle 

Detroit River 

10,802 


75 

14,700 to 17,300 

11,900 to 14,699 

10,802 

6,300 to 9,099 

Source: US Census Bureau 


Minorities 60 Years of Age and Over 

as Share of All Persons 60 Years and Over 


8 Mile Road 

Van Dyke 

39 

10 

75 

Woodward 

12,237 

10,117 

5,275 

94 

Telegraph 

6,445 

Grand River 

13,361 

10 

3,529 

Gratiot 

397 

96 

75 

94 

96 

16,218 

13,901 

39 

9,525 

10,835 

10 

75 

94 


96 

75 

75 

375 

Belle Isle 

6,086 

Detroit River 

Share of Population 

80% to 99.9% 

60% to 79.9% 

41% to 59.9% 

3% 

75 


Percent of Population 60 Years and 

Over at or Below 150% of Poverty 


8 Mile Road 

Van Dyke 

39 

10 

75 

Woodward 

2,167 

2,282 

4,231 

2,231 

94 

823 

Telegraph 

10 

2,335 

Gratiot 

Grand River 

96 

75 

94 

96 

5,390 

6,103 

3,748 

39 

5,483 

10 

75 

94 


96 

75 

75 

375 

Belle Isle 

3,645 

Detroit River 


75 

38% to 46% 

30% to 37.9% 

22% to 29.9% 

18% 

6% 

Note: Data for 60+ not available in 

standard Census releases. 

Special tabulation was performed by 

MIMIC/CUS. 


Population 60 Years of Age and Over, 1990 to 2000 


-9 

Northville 


-1,411 

Livonia 

Redford 

Twp 

Plymouth Twp 

-1,121 

Plymouth 

263 

-2,010 

2,803 

Westland 

-2,108 

-73 

Garden City 

Dearborn 

Heights 

750 

Dearborn 

Canton Twp. 

-2,467 

277 


Inkster 

571 

2,296 

Allen Park 

380 


River 

Rouge 

416 

Van Buren Twp 

-184 

1,191 


Park 

1,336 

Ecorse 

249 

-57 

Belleville 

Romulus 

-184 

Taylor 

-1,357 

Southgate 

-166 

Wyandotte 

1,208 

-74 

-325 

Riverview 

-558 -541 

Sumpter Twp 

Huron Twp 

Woodhaven 

-406 -483 

Trenton 

Grosse 

Ile 

Twp 

-376 

Flat Rock 

-33 

-147 

Gibraltar 


45% to 62% 

30% to 44.9% 

15% to 29.9% 

1% to 14.9% 

-23% to -1% 


Rockwood 

-49 


Population 60 Years of Age and Over, 2000 


Northville 


Livonia 

Redford 

Twp 

Plymouth Twp 

Plymouth 

Westland 

Dearborn 

Heights 

Garden City 

Canton Twp. 

Inkster 

Dearborn 



River 

Rouge 

Allen Park 


Park 

Ecorse 

Van Buren Twp 

Belleville 

Romulus 

Taylor 

Southgate 

Wyandotte 

Riverview 

Sumpter Twp 

Huron Twp 

Woodhaven 

Trenton 

Grosse 

Ile 

Twp 

0 

Flat Rock 

Gibraltar 

0 

Total Persons 

17,200 to 21,400 

13,000 to 17,199 

8,800 to 12,999 

4,600 to 8,799 

400 to 4,599 


Rockwood 

0 


Percent Minority in the Population 60 Years of Age 

and Over, 2000 


Northville 


Livonia 

Redford 

Twp 

Plymouth Twp 

Plymouth 

Westland 

Dearborn 

Heights 

Garden City 

Dearborn 

Canton Twp. 

Inkster 



River 

Rouge 

Allen Park 

Ecorse 


Park 

Van Buren Twp 

Belleville 

Romulus 

Taylor 

Southgate 

Wyandotte 

Riverview 

Sumpter Twp 

Huron Twp 

Woodhaven 

Trenton 

Grosse 

Ile 

Twp 

Flat Rock 

Gibraltar 


24% to 66% 

6% to 23.9% 

3% to 5.9% 

2% to 2.9% 

1% to 1.9% 


Rockwood 


Percent of Population 60 Years and Over at 

or Below 150% of Poverty 


Northville 


Livonia 

Redford 

Twp 

Plymouth Twp 

Plymouth 

Westland 

Dearborn 

Heights 

Garden City 

Dearborn 

Canton Twp. 

Inkster 



River 

Rouge 

Allen Park 

Ecorse 


Park 

Van Buren Twp 

Belleville 

Romulus 

Taylor 

Southgate 

Wyandotte 

Riverview 

Sumpter Twp 

Huron Twp 

Woodhaven 

Trenton 

Grosse 

Ile 

Twp 

Flat Rock 

Gibraltar 


Rockwood 

24% to 28% 

19% to 23.9% 

14% to 18.9% 

9% to 13.9% 

4% to 8.9% 

Note: Data for 60+ not available in standard Census releases. 

Special tabulation was performed by MIMIC/CUS.

Demographic Profile of Senior in Wayne County, Michigan

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?