Demographic Profile of Senior in Wayne County, Michigan

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.
Table 8. Percent of the Population 65+ by Ratio to Poverty, by Region, 1999
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 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.
A Demographic Profile of Seniors in PSA 1-C 8