Demographic Profile of Senior in Wayne County, Michigan

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
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 Living Arrangements 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. A Demographic Profile of Seniors in PSA 1-C 9
Page 1 and 2:
Demographic Profile of Seniors in W
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Executive Summary A Demographic Pro
Page 7 and 8:
One component of this tabulation th
Page 9 and 10:
In addition to the factors summariz
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14: A Demographic Profile of Seniors in
Page 15 and 16: Total Population Trends Populations
Page 17 and 18: A further analysis of the county’
Page 19 and 20: accounting for just over half the t
Page 21 and 22: Table 11. Share of Wayne County’s
Page 23 and 24: Disability Status The 2000 Census i
Page 25 and 26: out-Wayne County - particularly Dea
Page 27 and 28: Index to Demographic Profile of Sen
Page 29 and 30: The comparison factor, the usual wa
Page 31 and 32: Detroit (sector 2) and in the downt
Page 33 and 34: losses for both, though percentage
Page 35 and 36: The racial/ethnic composition of th
Page 37 and 38: Table 8. Percent of the Population
Page 39 and 40: elow that of 1-C at 11.3 percent, a
Page 41 and 42: Poverty Trends Table 13 allows for
Page 43 and 44: One community that needs to be look
Page 45 and 46: The east side of the City experienc
Page 47 and 48: The largest numerical decrease, 3,0
Page 49 and 50: Table 24. Population 65+ Living in
Page 51 and 52: Table 27 provides data on the total
Page 53 and 54: Table 29. Educational Attainment of
Page 55 and 56: Demographic Profile of Seniors in W
Page 57 and 58: A Demographic Profile of Seniors in
Page 59 and 60: Total Population Trends At the Stat
Page 61 and 62: Minority Population Trends The move
Page 63: egions, across all age groups. Only
Page 67 and 68: Population Trends Region 1-C has ex
Page 69 and 70: Table 13. Ratio of Income to Povert
Page 71 and 72: egional average in all age categori
Page 73 and 74: for 86 percent of group quarters re
Page 75 and 76: Table 18 provides data on the total
Page 77 and 78: Table 20. Educational Attainment of
Page 79 and 80: whether these seniors are owning or
Page 81 and 82: Conclusions and Recommendations Whi
Page 83 and 84: TABLE 1. GENERAL POPULATION TRENDS
Page 85 and 86: TABLE 1. GENERAL POPULATION TRENDS
Page 87 and 88: TABLE 2. LIVING ARRANGEMENT TRENDS
Page 95 and 96: Appendix B Wayne County Maps
Page 97 and 98: Northville Harper Woods Grosse Poin
Page 99 and 100: 96 96 75 10 10 39 39 Telegraph Gran
Page 107 and 108: Number of Persons 60 Years of Age a
Page 109 and 110: Percent of Population 60 Years and
Page 111 and 112: Population 60 Years of Age and Over
Page 113: Percent of Population 60 Years and
show all

Demographic Profile of Senior in Wayne County, Michigan

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?