Demographic Profile of Seniors in PSA 1-A - Detroit Area Agency on ...

<strong>Demographic</strong> <strong>Pr<strong>of</strong>ile</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Seniors</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>PSA</strong> 1-A 

Implications for Fund<strong>in</strong>g and Service Delivery 

F<strong>in</strong>al Report 

Prepared for: 

The <strong>Detroit</strong> <strong>Area</strong> <strong>Agency</strong> on Ag<strong>in</strong>g 

Prepared by: 

Wayne State University Center for Urban Studies 

Michigan Metropolitan Information Center 

Funded by the U.S. Adm<strong>in</strong>istration on Ag<strong>in</strong>g through the 

County <strong>of</strong> Wayne Office <strong>of</strong> Senior Citizens Services 

May, 2003

<strong>Demographic</strong> <strong>Pr<strong>of</strong>ile</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Seniors</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>PSA</strong> 1-A: 


Table <strong>of</strong> Contents 

Executive Summary i - iv 

Total Population 1 

M<strong>in</strong>ority Population Trends 3 

Poverty Trends 4 

Further Analyses <strong>of</strong> Region 1-A 8 

Community Analysis 8 

Sector Analysis 13 

Empowerment Zone Analysis 23 

Sub-community Analysis 26 

Tables & Figures 

Table 1. Share <strong>of</strong> the State’s 60+ Population by Region 

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

Table 3. Trends <strong>in</strong> Selected Age Categories <strong>in</strong> Region 1-A, 1990 - 2000 

Table 4. M<strong>in</strong>ority Population 60 Years + by Region, 1990 - 2000 

Table 5. Racial Distribution <strong>of</strong> Region 1-A’s Total and 60 Years+ Population 

Table 6. Poverty Rate by Age Category, 1999 

Table 7. Poverty Trends <strong>in</strong> the 60+ Population by Region, 1979 - 1999 

Table 8. Percent <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> Persons 60 Years and Over Liv<strong>in</strong>g Alone by Region, 2000 

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

Table 12. Region 1-A’s M<strong>in</strong>ority 60+ Population By Community, 2000 

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

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

Community, 1999 

Table 15. Liv<strong>in</strong>g Arrangements <strong>of</strong> 60+ <strong>in</strong> Region 1-A by Community, 2000 

Table 16. Liv<strong>in</strong>g Arrangements by Detailed Age Group <strong>in</strong> Region 1-A, 2000 

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

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

Table 19. Population 60 Years and Over, by Detailed Cohort, by Sector, 1990 - 2000 

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

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

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

Table 23. Liv<strong>in</strong>g Arrangements <strong>of</strong> the Population 60+ by Sector, 2000 

Table 24. Population 65+ Liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the Population 65+ by Sector, 2000 

Table 28. Detailed Disability Status <strong>of</strong> the Population 65+ by Sector, 2000



Table <strong>of</strong> Contents (cont’d) 

Table 29. Educational Atta<strong>in</strong>ment <strong>of</strong> the Population 65+ by Sector, 2000 

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

Table 31. Population Trends <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Detroit</strong> Empowerment Zone, 1990 - 2000 

Table 32. Racial/Ethnic Composition <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Detroit</strong> Empowerment Zone, 2000 

Table 33. Liv<strong>in</strong>g Arrangements <strong>of</strong> 60+ Population <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Detroit</strong> Empowerment 

Table 34. 

Zone, 2000 

Poverty Rates for <strong>Seniors</strong>, by Age Group, <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Detroit</strong> Empowerment 


Table 35. Ratio <strong>of</strong> Income to Poverty <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Detroit</strong> Empowerment Zone, 1999 

Table 36. Rank<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> Sub-communities on 2000 Population 60+ 

Table 37. Rank<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> Sub-communities on Percentage <strong>of</strong> the Population 60+, 2000 

Table 38. 

Rank<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> Sub-community by Percentage <strong>of</strong> Change <strong>in</strong> the Population 

60+, 1990 - 2000 

Table 39. Rank<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> Sub-communities by Percentage Change <strong>in</strong> Population 60+, 

1990 - 2000 

Table 40. Rank<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> Sub-communities by Percentage <strong>of</strong> 60+ <strong>in</strong> Poverty, 1999 

Table 41. Rank<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> Sub-communities by Percentage <strong>of</strong> 60+ Below 150% <strong>of</strong> 

Poverty, 1999 

Appendices 

Appendix 1 

Data Tables 

Table 1. General Population Trends By Sector <strong>in</strong> Region 1-A, 1990 - 2000 

Table 2. Liv<strong>in</strong>g Arrangement Trends By Sector <strong>in</strong> Region 1-A, 1990 - 2000 

Table 3. Households Headed by Persons 55 Years and Over, By Sector <strong>in</strong> Region 

1-A, 2000 

Table 4. Socioeconomic Characteristics By Sector <strong>in</strong> Region 1-A 

Table 1. General Population Trends By Subcommunity, 1990 - 2000 

Table 2. Liv<strong>in</strong>g Arrangement Trends By Subcommunity, 1990 - 2000 

Table 3. Households Headed By Persons 55 Years and Over By Type and Tenure, 

2000



Table <strong>of</strong> Contents (cont’d) 

Appendix 2: 

Maps 

Reference Maps 

State <strong>of</strong> Michigan by Plann<strong>in</strong>g Regions 

Region 1-A by Sectors 

Region 1-A by Subcommunities 

Region 1-A by Census Tracts 

Region 1-A by ZCTAs 

Region 1-A by Medically Underserved <strong>Area</strong>s (MUAs) 

<strong>Detroit</strong> Empowerment Zone 

Thematic Maps 

State <strong>of</strong> Michigan by Region - Share <strong>of</strong> State Population 60 Years and Over 

State <strong>of</strong> Michigan by Region – Percent M<strong>in</strong>ority 60 Years and Over 

State <strong>of</strong> Michigan by Region – Share <strong>of</strong> State Population 60+ Below 150% <strong>of</strong> Poverty 

Number <strong>of</strong> Persons 60 Years and Over, 2000 - Sectors 

Number <strong>of</strong> Persons 60 Years and Over, 2000 - Subcommunities 

Number <strong>of</strong> Persons 60 Years and Over, 2000 - Census Tracts 

Numerical Change <strong>in</strong> Population 60+, 1990 – 2000 - Sectors 

Numerical Change <strong>in</strong> Population 60+, 1990 – 2000 - Subcommunities 

Numerical Change <strong>in</strong> Population 60+, 1990 – 2000 - Census Tracts 

Persons 65 Years and Over Liv<strong>in</strong>g Below Poverty, 1999 - Sectors 

Persons 65 Years and Over Liv<strong>in</strong>g Below Poverty, 1999 - Subcommunities 

Persons 65 Years and Over Liv<strong>in</strong>g Below Poverty, 1999 - Census Tracts 

Number <strong>of</strong> Persons 60 Years and Over Liv<strong>in</strong>g Alone, 2000 - Sectors 

Number <strong>of</strong> Persons 60 Years and Over Liv<strong>in</strong>g Alone, 2000 - Subcommunities 

Number <strong>of</strong> Persons 60 Years and Over Liv<strong>in</strong>g Alone, 2000 - Census Tracts 

Number <strong>of</strong> Persons 65+ with Two or More Disabilities, 2000 - Sectors 

Number <strong>of</strong> Persons 65+ with Two or More Disabilities, 2000 - Subcommunities 

Number <strong>of</strong> Persons 65+ with Two or More Disabilities, 2000 - Census Tracts 

Service Maps 

Assisted Liv<strong>in</strong>g Sites 

Nurs<strong>in</strong>g Homes 

Senior Centers 

Congregate Meal Sites 

Adult Day Care Sites 

Information Services 

Community Focal Po<strong>in</strong>ts

A <strong>Demographic</strong> <strong>Pr<strong>of</strong>ile</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Seniors</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>PSA</strong> 1-A: 


Executive Summary 

The purposes <strong>of</strong> this report, “A <strong>Demographic</strong> <strong>Pr<strong>of</strong>ile</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Seniors</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>PSA</strong> 1-A: 

Implications for Fund<strong>in</strong>g and Service Delivery,” are to assist the <strong>Detroit</strong> <strong>Area</strong> <strong>Agency</strong> on 

Ag<strong>in</strong>g (DAAA): 

1. Understand the demographic changes occurr<strong>in</strong>g with<strong>in</strong> the senior population <strong>in</strong> its 

service area; 

2. Understand how these changes compare to the other 15 regions <strong>in</strong> the State <strong>of</strong> 

Michigan; and 

3. Develop a detailed geographic analysis <strong>of</strong> the senior distribution with<strong>in</strong> <strong>PSA</strong> 1-A 

so as to better plan service delivery <strong>in</strong> times <strong>of</strong> dim<strong>in</strong>ish<strong>in</strong>g resources. 

Key f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs centered on the follow<strong>in</strong>g topics: 

• Calculation <strong>of</strong> <strong>PSA</strong> 1-A’s stand<strong>in</strong>g on the key fund<strong>in</strong>g formula factors relative to 

the other 15 regions <strong>in</strong> the state; 

• Development <strong>of</strong> other census data related to the demographic, socioeconomic and 

hous<strong>in</strong>g characteristics <strong>of</strong> <strong>PSA</strong> 1-A’s senior population; 

• Development <strong>of</strong> detailed pr<strong>of</strong>iles <strong>of</strong> seniors by community (8) and sector (12) 

with<strong>in</strong> <strong>PSA</strong> 1-A’s service area; 

• Mapp<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> selected variables by sector, subcommunity and census tract; and 

• Mapp<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> service provider locations, by selected categories, <strong>in</strong> order to study 

alignment <strong>of</strong> service needs with providers. 

Key F<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs 

Population shifts with<strong>in</strong> the State <strong>of</strong> Michigan <strong>in</strong> general, and with<strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>ner core <strong>of</strong> the 

<strong>Detroit</strong> metropolitan area specifically, have resulted <strong>in</strong> a steady decl<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> <strong>PSA</strong> 1-A’s 

share <strong>of</strong> state seniors over the last 40 years. While <strong>PSA</strong> 1-A conta<strong>in</strong>ed one <strong>of</strong> every four 

(24.9 percent) Michigan seniors <strong>in</strong> 1970, less than one <strong>in</strong> ten (9.3 percent) resided there 

as <strong>of</strong> 2000. While general population trends <strong>in</strong> the state would predict such a shift, the 

1990’s brought a variation <strong>in</strong> the region’s trend that is both disturb<strong>in</strong>g and, unfortunately, 

not fully understandable. The rate <strong>of</strong> loss for seniors mirrored that <strong>of</strong> the general 

population dur<strong>in</strong>g the 1970s and 1980s. In the 1990s, however, a large variance 

occurred. While the rate <strong>of</strong> loss for the general population slowed to half that <strong>of</strong> the 

1980’s (6.9 vs. 14.4 percent), the rate <strong>of</strong> loss for seniors accelerated (22.8 vs. 14.6 

percent), outdistanc<strong>in</strong>g general loss three-fold. 

There are three potential reasons for such loss. 

1. A companion study, “Health Status <strong>of</strong> <strong>Seniors</strong>: Implications for Fund<strong>in</strong>g and 

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

i

certa<strong>in</strong>ly a major factor <strong>in</strong> the decl<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g population <strong>of</strong> seniors <strong>in</strong> <strong>PSA</strong> 1-A, but 

does not fully expla<strong>in</strong> the change that occurred dur<strong>in</strong>g the 1990’s. 

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

Census, is that <strong>of</strong> out-migration. The growth <strong>in</strong> <strong>PSA</strong> 1-C, a region which 

encompasses the counties immediately north <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Detroit</strong> city limits, was driven, 

<strong>in</strong> part, by the movement <strong>of</strong> seniors out <strong>of</strong> 1-A, though the extent <strong>of</strong> this 

movement awaits migration files scheduled for release <strong>in</strong> late summer, 2003. 

3. The f<strong>in</strong>al factor is one <strong>of</strong> cohort replacement. This entails look<strong>in</strong>g at population 

groups <strong>in</strong> 1990 that represent the seniors <strong>of</strong> 2000 and see<strong>in</strong>g the retention levels <strong>of</strong> 

those groups. The table below views changes <strong>in</strong> the senior population <strong>in</strong> two 

ways. 

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 

The comparison factor, the usual way <strong>of</strong> look<strong>in</strong>g at population change, simply 

looks at age cohorts at two po<strong>in</strong>ts <strong>in</strong> time. For example, we compare the number 

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

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

compare the number <strong>of</strong> seniors 60-69 years <strong>of</strong> age <strong>in</strong> 2000 with the number <strong>of</strong> 50- 

59 year olds <strong>in</strong> 1990. 

The results <strong>of</strong> this analysis provide a better understand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> the factors 

contribut<strong>in</strong>g to the population loss. The major po<strong>in</strong>ts that can be gleaned from this 

analysis are the follow<strong>in</strong>g: 

a. A smaller cohort mov<strong>in</strong>g up exacerbated losses <strong>in</strong> 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 (<strong>in</strong> addition to excess death), the degree <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the registered 

loss. The difference for Blacks was very small, but <strong>in</strong> the opposite direction. 

This would bolster the argument that Blacks are dy<strong>in</strong>g before reach<strong>in</strong>g the 

age <strong>of</strong> 60. 

b. Once we move <strong>in</strong>to the cohorts over the age <strong>of</strong> 70 we f<strong>in</strong>d cohort survival (age 

forward) fall<strong>in</strong>g beh<strong>in</strong>d the cohort comparison. In other words, the ag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> 

the elderly has resulted <strong>in</strong> small losses, and some ga<strong>in</strong>s, <strong>in</strong> the 70-79 and 80+ 

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

forward both whites and blacks show large losses. While out-migration still 

ii

must be considered to be a factor <strong>in</strong> these losses, it is much more likely that 

the excess death component <strong>in</strong> lead<strong>in</strong>g to the fact that fewer seniors are 

surviv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to their 70s. This fact is supported by the large discrepancy <strong>in</strong> the 

two methods that shows up for Blacks. A straight comparison <strong>of</strong> cohorts 

shows that Black seniors are ag<strong>in</strong>g as the number <strong>of</strong> 70-79 and 80+ seniors 

showed growth between 1990 and 2000. However, when one looks at the 60- 

69 year olds <strong>in</strong> 1990 and compares that with 2000’s 70-79 year cohort, the 

ga<strong>in</strong> <strong>of</strong> 1,568 becomes a loss <strong>of</strong> 21,945. This reversal is even larger for the 

80+ population. Such variations, particularly for Blacks, can be directly tied 

to chronic disease and excess deaths. Such a trend <strong>in</strong>dicates a senior 

population with a high degree <strong>of</strong> need. 

While the representation <strong>of</strong> m<strong>in</strong>orities <strong>in</strong> <strong>PSA</strong> 1-A’s senior population <strong>in</strong>creased over the 

decade (due to high losses <strong>of</strong> white seniors), numerical losses <strong>of</strong> m<strong>in</strong>orities, coupled with 

grow<strong>in</strong>g numbers <strong>of</strong> m<strong>in</strong>orities <strong>in</strong> other regions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Detroit</strong> metropolitan area and the 

State, resulted <strong>in</strong> a loss <strong>of</strong> m<strong>in</strong>ority share (Factor 2) <strong>in</strong> the State from 62.9 to 54.5 percent. 

The last factor <strong>in</strong> the state fund<strong>in</strong>g formula addresses the socioeconomic status <strong>of</strong> seniors 

by calculat<strong>in</strong>g each <strong>PSA</strong>’s share <strong>of</strong> seniors liv<strong>in</strong>g below 150% <strong>of</strong> 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 decreas<strong>in</strong>g rate <strong>of</strong> poverty (19.0 percent <strong>in</strong> 1989 and 17.8 percent <strong>in</strong> 

1999) for seniors <strong>in</strong> <strong>PSA</strong> 1-A. While this put <strong>PSA</strong> 1-A’s rate almost twice that <strong>of</strong> any 

other region, the numerical losses resulted <strong>in</strong> a drop <strong>in</strong> State share from 23.7 to 20.4 

percent. S<strong>in</strong>ce the Office <strong>of</strong> Services to the Ag<strong>in</strong>g (OSA) uses 150% <strong>of</strong> poverty as their 

measure <strong>of</strong> socioeconomic distress, the author also made calculations <strong>of</strong> this factor. 

Subsequent to these calculations, OSA requested that the Census Bureau produce a 

special tabulation at 150% <strong>of</strong> poverty. This special tabulation, essentially mirror<strong>in</strong>g the 

author’s tabulation, showed that <strong>PSA</strong> 1-A’s State share was 16.1 percent, represent<strong>in</strong>g 

another decrease over the decade, and had once aga<strong>in</strong> been surpassed by <strong>PSA</strong> 1-B which 

now conta<strong>in</strong>ed 19.5 percent <strong>of</strong> the State share. 

<strong>PSA</strong> 1-A experienced significant decreases <strong>in</strong> State share on all three fund<strong>in</strong>g formula 

factors. It is understood that the result will be a loss <strong>in</strong> overall fund<strong>in</strong>g. While other 

research attempts to understand the health-related factors that contributed to this loss, the 

present study went on to dissect <strong>PSA</strong> 1-A’s service area to further understand the 

geographic components <strong>of</strong> change so that services could be better targeted to areas <strong>of</strong> 

need. 

While the report features additional analyses for the n<strong>in</strong>e communities that comprise the 

region, detailed tables for <strong>Detroit</strong>’s subcommunities, and a brief review <strong>of</strong> the 

Empowerment Zone, this summary will only touch upon the primary unit <strong>of</strong> analysis – 

the twelve sectors. 

iii

Sector Analysis 

In 1997 the City <strong>of</strong> <strong>Detroit</strong> launched a community-wide effort called the Community 

Re<strong>in</strong>vestment Strategy (CRS). This effort divided the city <strong>in</strong>to 10 sectors, which have 

now been identified as the <strong>of</strong>ficial sub-zones for city departments to plan and deliver 

services. As <strong>of</strong> 2002, the new city adm<strong>in</strong>istration has <strong>in</strong>itiated a citywide plann<strong>in</strong>g effort 

based on these sectors, with plann<strong>in</strong>g staff assigned to sectors. In addition to the 

Plann<strong>in</strong>g Department, these sectors are now recognized by <strong>Detroit</strong>’s Health Department, 

Neighborhood City Halls, Youth Services and Senior Services as their plann<strong>in</strong>g/service 

delivery areas. The Health Department has started to deliver health pr<strong>of</strong>iles by sector and 

the Senior Citizens Department commissioned a survey, through Wayne State 

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

The <strong>Detroit</strong> <strong>Area</strong> <strong>Agency</strong> on Ag<strong>in</strong>g, recogniz<strong>in</strong>g the opportunity to utilize multiple 

sources <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation to assist <strong>in</strong> plann<strong>in</strong>g, has accepted these sectors as a reasonable 

geography for service plann<strong>in</strong>g. As DAAA’s service area <strong>in</strong>cludes more than just the City 

<strong>of</strong> <strong>Detroit</strong>, the additional cities have been comb<strong>in</strong>ed (Highland Park and Hamtramck; 

Harper Woods and the five Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>tes) to form an additional two sectors. 

The major f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> the sector analysis were the follow<strong>in</strong>g: 

• Population change varied greatly among the sectors. Eleven <strong>of</strong> the 12 lost 

population, with the largest decreases occurr<strong>in</strong>g on the far northeast side <strong>of</strong> 

<strong>Detroit</strong> (sector 2) and <strong>in</strong> the downtown sector (sector 4). Losses on the west side 

<strong>of</strong> town were considerably less, with the one sector (sector 9) show<strong>in</strong>g growth 

(9.9 percent) ly<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the mid-Northwest section and hav<strong>in</strong>g Eight Mile Rd. as its 

northern boundary. 

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

number <strong>of</strong> m<strong>in</strong>ority seniors decreased <strong>in</strong> only 5. 

• While the number <strong>of</strong> poor seniors decreased <strong>in</strong> all 12 sectors, the percentage <strong>of</strong> 

seniors <strong>in</strong> poverty rose <strong>in</strong> six and dropped <strong>in</strong> six. The highest <strong>in</strong>cidence <strong>of</strong> 

poverty was 29.8 percent <strong>in</strong> the downtown sector (down from 35.4 percent <strong>in</strong> 

1989). The lowest poverty rate, 3.4 percent, was found <strong>in</strong> the sector 

encompass<strong>in</strong>g Harper Woods and the Po<strong>in</strong>tes. This rate was virtually unchanged 

from 3.6 percent ten years earlier. 

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

<strong>in</strong>cidence <strong>of</strong> seniors liv<strong>in</strong>g alone – 62 percent. This association also held for the 

sector (11) comprised <strong>of</strong> Highland Park and Hamtramck – a poverty rate <strong>of</strong> 25.3 

percent and a liv<strong>in</strong>g alone rate <strong>of</strong> 49.4 percent. 

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

households) that addressed disability issues. All sectors showed similar 

distributions <strong>of</strong> the five major disability categories: sensory, physical, mental, 

self-care, and go<strong>in</strong>g outside alone. However, sectors 11, 4 and 3 (southeast 

<strong>Detroit</strong>) showed the highest <strong>in</strong>cidence rates <strong>of</strong> multiple disabilities, with the 

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

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

be tied to the fact that this area has the highest number <strong>of</strong> nurs<strong>in</strong>g home residents 

– almost double that <strong>of</strong> any other. 

iv

A <strong>Demographic</strong> <strong>Pr<strong>of</strong>ile</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Seniors</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>PSA</strong> 1-A: 


The <strong>Detroit</strong> <strong>Area</strong> <strong>Agency</strong> on Ag<strong>in</strong>g Region 1-A is comprised <strong>of</strong> the follow<strong>in</strong>g cities: 

<strong>Detroit</strong>, the five Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>tes, 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. 

Total Population Trends 

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

State. This analysis has concentrated on the major factors <strong>in</strong> the State fund<strong>in</strong>g formula: 

share <strong>of</strong> State’s population 60 years and over; share <strong>of</strong> State’s m<strong>in</strong>ority population 60 

years and over; share <strong>of</strong> State’s population 60 years and over <strong>in</strong> poverty. The analysis 

has shown that the population losses that the region has experienced over the last 30 

years has resulted <strong>in</strong> its overall share <strong>of</strong> the total population decreas<strong>in</strong>g from 24.9 percent 

<strong>in</strong> 1970 to 9.3 percent <strong>in</strong> 2000 (see Table 1). 

Table 1. Share <strong>of</strong> the State’s 60+ Population by Region 

Region 1970 1980 1990 2000 

1A 24.9 17.2 12.7 9.3 

1B 17.9 21.8 24.7 26.3 

1C 8.2 10.0 11.2 10.7 

2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 

3A 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.2 

3B 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 

3C 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 <strong>in</strong> share is attributable, to some degree, to ga<strong>in</strong>s throughout the State, it is 

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

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

suffered large losses, <strong>in</strong> both number and percent, between 1970 and 1980. While the 

1

egion’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 <strong>of</strong> the 1980s brought a slight slow<strong>in</strong>g to the 

losses for both, though percentage losses rema<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> double-digits – between 14 and 15 

percent. The decade <strong>of</strong> the 1990s brought the first significant divergence <strong>in</strong> these trends. 

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

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

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

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

44,000. 

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

Year 

Total 

Population 


60+ 

Decade to Decade 

Total 60+ 

1970 1,653,065 270,940 

1980 1,320,898 224,257 -20.1% -17.2% 

1990 1,130,565 191,424 -14.4% -14.6% 

2000 1,052,946 147,806 -6.9% -22.8% 

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

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

percent, the majority <strong>of</strong> this loss occurred <strong>in</strong> 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 <strong>in</strong> 

Region 1-A <strong>in</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 42,843 is almost 10,000 higher than the 60-64 year cohort just ahead <strong>of</strong> it. 

Bar<strong>in</strong>g large losses due to death and/or migration, this group, coupled with the first wave 

<strong>of</strong> “baby-boomers” that follow, will br<strong>in</strong>g overall growth <strong>in</strong> the region’s 60+ population 

<strong>in</strong> the decade to come. 

Table 3. Trends <strong>in</strong> Selected Age Categories <strong>in</strong> Region 1-A, 1990 - 2000 

Age Group 

Region 1-A Totals 1990-2000 Change 

1990 2000 Number Percent 

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 

2

M<strong>in</strong>ority Population Trends 

Decreases <strong>in</strong> Region 1-A’s share <strong>of</strong> the state’s m<strong>in</strong>ority population, while much less, 

have also been the rule. Table 4 summarizes the trend <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>ority share across the 

State’s 16 regions between 1990 and 2000 1 . 

While Region 1-A’s m<strong>in</strong>orities <strong>in</strong>creased their share <strong>of</strong> the 60+ population (from 60 to 72 

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

region’s share <strong>of</strong> the State’s m<strong>in</strong>ority elderly decreased from 62.9 to 54.5 percent. This 

decrease was a result <strong>of</strong> grow<strong>in</strong>g numbers <strong>of</strong> m<strong>in</strong>ority elderly <strong>in</strong> most areas <strong>of</strong> the state – 

particularly <strong>in</strong> the greater <strong>Detroit</strong> metropolitan area - as measured by growth <strong>in</strong> Regions 

1-B, 1-C and 5. 

Table 4. M<strong>in</strong>ority Population 60 Years+ by Region, 1990 - 2000 

Region 

1990 2000 

Reg Share ST Share Reg Share ST Share 

1A 60.0 62.9 72.1 54.5 

1B 4.5 9.3 6.6 14.1 

1C 5.6 5.2 6.7 5.9 

2 4.0 1.1 3.7 1.0 

3A 5.5 1.0 7.1 1.3 

3B 7.0 1.3 7.6 1.3 

3C 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 <strong>of</strong> the region’s racial/ethnic makeup (see Table 5) details the 

composition <strong>of</strong> the region’s m<strong>in</strong>ority population. Just under 96 percent <strong>of</strong> the region’s 

total m<strong>in</strong>ority elderly population is African-American. 2 Native Americans, Asians and 

Other (undef<strong>in</strong>ed) races accounted for less than 1 percent each. Multi-racial responses 

1 The 2000 Census allowed respondents for the first time to choose more than one race. The Office <strong>of</strong> 

Services to the Ag<strong>in</strong>g tabulated m<strong>in</strong>ority population to <strong>in</strong>clude these multi-race respondents, <strong>in</strong> addition to 

the s<strong>in</strong>gle-race respondents who listed African-American, Native American, Asian, Native Hawaiian or 

other Pacific Islander, or Other Race. 

2 Race identification <strong>in</strong> Table 5 is associated with s<strong>in</strong>gle race responses. In other words, the count <strong>of</strong> 

African-Americans is based on the number <strong>of</strong> respondents who listed only African-American on their 

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

3

accounted for 1.4 percent. While not <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> the count <strong>of</strong> m<strong>in</strong>orities, 3,014 elderly 

(2.0 percent) identified themselves as Lat<strong>in</strong>o/Hispanic. 

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

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

percent, and trails <strong>in</strong> all m<strong>in</strong>ority categories. In spite <strong>of</strong> the large decrease <strong>in</strong> White, non- 

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

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

total population (10.5 percent). 

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

Total Population 60+ Population 

Number Percent Number Percent 

Total Population 1,052,946 147,806 

M<strong>in</strong>ority Population 863,835 82.0 106,499 72.1 

African-American 796,952 75.7 101,816 68.9 

Native American 3,406 0.3 435 0.3 

Asian & PI 13,076 1.2 1,045 0.7 

Other Race 24,668 2.3 1,080 0.7 

Multi-Race 25,733 2.4 2,123 1.4 

Lat<strong>in</strong>o/Hispanic 48,410 4.6 3,014 2.0 

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

Poverty Trends 

Measurement <strong>of</strong> trends <strong>in</strong> the elderly poor have been complicated by the way age-related 

poverty data were tabulated by the Census Bureau <strong>in</strong> the 2000 Census. Rather than 

break<strong>in</strong>g out the 55-64 year age cohort <strong>in</strong>to two groups – 55-59 and 60-64 – allow<strong>in</strong>g for 

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

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

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

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

stands at 24.9 percent, more than double that <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>in</strong> 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 Utiliz<strong>in</strong>g this estimation method 

we f<strong>in</strong>d that the poverty rate for seniors <strong>in</strong> Region 1-A fell slightly to 17.8 percent from 

3 

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

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

applied to the number <strong>of</strong> poor <strong>in</strong> the 55-64 year range, with the result be<strong>in</strong>g an estimate <strong>of</strong> poor between 60 

and 64 years. 

4

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

that occurred dur<strong>in</strong>g the 1980s. The decrease <strong>in</strong> the overall poverty rate, coupled with the 

numbers <strong>of</strong> seniors (many poor) mov<strong>in</strong>g out <strong>in</strong>to the <strong>Detroit</strong> suburbs, led to a decreas<strong>in</strong>g 

share <strong>of</strong> poor seniors <strong>in</strong> Region 1-A and <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g state shares for regions 1-B and 1-C. 

Table 6. Poverty Rate by Age Category, 1999 

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

1A 24.9 11.9 17.4 17.0 17.8 

1B 6.3 2.9 6.5 3.5 6.8 

1C 7.5 3.6 6.1 4.4 6.1 

2 8.2 4.2 7.5 4.8 7.5 

3A 12.0 3.7 6.3 4.5 5.7 

3B 9.6 5.3 8.2 5.6 7.6 

3C 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 8 attempts to assess the severity <strong>of</strong> poverty that exists <strong>in</strong> the regions for the 

population 65 years and over. While one can determ<strong>in</strong>e the share that fall below the 

poverty guidel<strong>in</strong>es (as <strong>in</strong> Table 6), it is also <strong>in</strong>formative to assess how far below they fall. 

This can be done by subdivid<strong>in</strong>g the poor <strong>in</strong>to the categories 50% or less <strong>of</strong> poverty and 

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

below the 50% mark – more than twice that <strong>of</strong> the next region <strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>e. Results at less than 

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

Table 7. Poverty Trends <strong>in</strong> the 60+ Population by Region, 1979 - 1999 


1979 

1989 1999 

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

1A 15.5 24.1 19.0 23.7 17.8 20.4 

1B 7.5 14.9 6.7 16.3 6.1 19.8 

1C 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 

3A 8.4 1.5 8.6 1.8 6.3 1.7 

3B 10.2 2.0 9.2 1.9 8.1 2.1 

3C 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 

5

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


Total Persons 

65+ 

Percent <strong>of</strong> Persons Less than _ % <strong>of</strong> Poverty 

50 75 100 125 150 

1A 110,917 5.7 9.6 17.4 23.9 29.8 

1B 306,987 2.2 3.5 6.5 9.8 13.8 

1C 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 

3A 25,741 2.1 3.5 6.3 11.2 16.1 

3B 24,665 2.3 4.0 8.2 13.5 19.4 

3C 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 <strong>of</strong> Services to the Ag<strong>in</strong>g. In order to carry out the 

reallocation <strong>of</strong> funds, based on the fund<strong>in</strong>g formula, the State asked for a tabulation <strong>of</strong> the 

60+ population at or below 150% <strong>of</strong> poverty. 4 While the representation <strong>of</strong> elderly at or 

below 150% <strong>of</strong> poverty was highest <strong>in</strong> Region 1-A at 28.3 percent (as calculated <strong>in</strong> 

previous estimates), its share <strong>of</strong> the State total fell more than 3 po<strong>in</strong>ts below Region 1-B 

as a result <strong>of</strong> the large <strong>in</strong>flux <strong>of</strong> elderly <strong>in</strong>to Region 1-B over the last decade. A 

comparison <strong>of</strong> the regional shares calculated as part <strong>of</strong> the estimates process with those 

provided <strong>in</strong> the special tabulation shows very little difference. Only six <strong>of</strong> the sixteen 

regions showed any difference between the two, and none <strong>of</strong> the differences was more 

than one-tenth <strong>of</strong> one percent. In the case <strong>of</strong> Region 1-A, special tabulation results 

produced a State share <strong>of</strong> 16.1 percent, compared to the estimate <strong>of</strong> 16.2 percent. These 

results provide the support<strong>in</strong>g documentation necessary to conclude that the estimate 

methodology works. Therefore, while the special tabulation provides no numbers below 

the community level, estimates <strong>of</strong> 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% <strong>of</strong> poverty. There were no universes 

<strong>in</strong>cluded so regional shares cannot be tabulated. Based on the closeness <strong>of</strong> the estimates that were 

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

6

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


Special Tabulation WSU Estimate 

Total ST Share Reg. Share ST Share 

1A 42,530 16.1 28.3 16.2 

1B 51,599 19.5 12.0 19.4 

1C 22,322 8.4 12.7 8.4 

2 8,342 3.2 16.1 3.2 

3A 5,040 1.9 14.0 1.9 

3B 6,147 2.3 17.6 2.3 

3C 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 f<strong>in</strong>al variable was assessed that, while not part <strong>of</strong> the fund<strong>in</strong>g formula, has an impact 

on the daily lives <strong>of</strong> the elderly. That variable deals with the liv<strong>in</strong>g arrangements <strong>of</strong> the 

Table 10. Share <strong>of</strong> Persons 60 Years 

and Over Liv<strong>in</strong>g Alone by Region, 2000 

Service 

<strong>Area</strong> 

2000 

Reg Share ST Share 

1A 39.2 10.5 

1B 37.4 26.1 

1C 39.2 11.3 

2 36.5 3.0 

3A 39.7 2.2 

3B 37.6 2.1 

3C 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 

elderly – specifically the share that live 

alone. Such a liv<strong>in</strong>g arrangement <strong>of</strong>ten 

leads to lonel<strong>in</strong>ess and a lack <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>teraction 

with others. If recreational and healthrelated 

services are not located <strong>in</strong> the 

neighborhood, and one has no vehicle 

available, or one that is unreliable, or if 

one has difficulty perform<strong>in</strong>g activities <strong>of</strong> 

daily liv<strong>in</strong>g, it requires strong connections 

with others to be able to ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> a quality 

<strong>of</strong> life. 

Table 6 shows that the percent liv<strong>in</strong>g alone 

was very similar across the 16 regions, 

with Region 11 <strong>in</strong> the Upper Pen<strong>in</strong>sula 

hav<strong>in</strong>g the highest (42.3 percent) and 

Region 10 <strong>in</strong> the western portion <strong>of</strong> the 

Northern Lower pen<strong>in</strong>sula hav<strong>in</strong>g the 

lowest (35.5 percent). 

7

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

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

below that <strong>of</strong> 1-C at 11.3 percent, and well beh<strong>in</strong>d Region 1-B. In fact, Region 1-B 

accounted for more than 1 <strong>of</strong> every 4 State seniors who lived alone. 

Further Analyses <strong>of</strong> Region 1-A 

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

now addresses the region’s geographic components. Learn<strong>in</strong>g more about where the 

losses (and ga<strong>in</strong>s) have occurred, as well as the characteristics <strong>of</strong> the persons who reside 

<strong>in</strong> the region, will allow for a better understand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> these trends and a more focused 

approach to service delivery. 

Our sub-regional analysis is be<strong>in</strong>g conducted on several levels. 

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

<strong>of</strong> the 9 communities <strong>in</strong> the region. 

2. Sector-level – An analysis is done by divid<strong>in</strong>g the City <strong>of</strong> <strong>Detroit</strong> <strong>in</strong>to the 10 

Plann<strong>in</strong>g Sectors that were developed by the City Plann<strong>in</strong>g Department <strong>in</strong> 1997, 

and have become the focus <strong>of</strong> all plann<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the City. To extend the geography 

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

and Highland Park; the other comprised <strong>of</strong> the five Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>tes and Harper 

Woods. 

3. Empowerment Zone – by Census Tract and Sub-Zone 

4. City <strong>of</strong> <strong>Detroit</strong> (only) – Subcommunities - 37 Neighborhood divisions. 

5. City <strong>of</strong> <strong>Detroit</strong> (only) – Census Tracts – 313 units, averag<strong>in</strong>g about 4,000 people 

each. 

Community Analysis 

Region 1-A has experienced a steady decl<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> its elderly population s<strong>in</strong>ce 1970. The 

decade <strong>of</strong> the 1990s represented the largest loss percentage loss, and second largest 

numerical loss over this 30-year period. While the majority <strong>of</strong> the loss occurred <strong>in</strong> 

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

region, with the exception <strong>of</strong> the smallest community <strong>in</strong> the region, Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te Shores 

village, experienced loss. As already documented <strong>in</strong> Table 3, the heaviest losses occurred 

<strong>in</strong> the cohorts between 60 and 74 years <strong>of</strong> age. 

While the analysis to this po<strong>in</strong>t has demonstrated a loss <strong>of</strong> the 60+ population <strong>in</strong> Region 

1-A, result<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a loss <strong>of</strong> State share, as well as a loss <strong>in</strong> the number and State share <strong>of</strong> 

M<strong>in</strong>orities 60+, we still need to better understand the demographic and socioeconomic 

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

to m<strong>in</strong>e the applicable data. 5 

5 The age categories that will be used for this analysis are dependent upon the tabulations <strong>of</strong>fered by the 

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

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

8

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 

<strong>Detroit</strong> city 245,112 198,838 167,219 128,400 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te city 1,481 1,390 1,222 1,156 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te Farms city 2,594 2,429 2,406 2,194 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te Park city 2,921 2,392 2,080 1,790 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te Shores 537 626 786 847 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te 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 

Table 12 provides the racial (m<strong>in</strong>ority 6 overall) composition <strong>of</strong> Region 1-A by 

community. M<strong>in</strong>orities account for 73 percent <strong>of</strong> the Region’s population 60+, but only 

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

population that is represented <strong>in</strong> higher numbers <strong>in</strong> the older age categories – particularly 

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

seniors across communities. <strong>Detroit</strong> and Highland Park provide the bulk <strong>of</strong> m<strong>in</strong>ority 

seniors, with Hamtramck com<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a distant third. 

Table 12. Region 1-A’s M<strong>in</strong>ority Population 60+ Population by Community, 2000 

Total Population 

Percent M<strong>in</strong>ority 

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

Region 1-A Total 147,806 114,807 54,422 73.0 71.5 66.9 

<strong>Detroit</strong> city 128,400 99,056 46,193 81.0 79.8 75.8 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te city 1,156 889 477 1.8 1.5 0.8 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te Farms city 2,194 1,749 810 1.2 0.9 0.9 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te Park city 1,790 1,345 623 5.3 4.5 3.7 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te Shores 847 660 279 4.4 3.0 1.4 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te 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 

Table 13 allows for a f<strong>in</strong>er analysis <strong>of</strong> the region’s poor seniors. While there are pockets 

<strong>of</strong> poverty <strong>in</strong> all communities, 98 percent <strong>of</strong> the poor live <strong>in</strong> the three communities <strong>of</strong> 

<strong>Detroit</strong>, Hamtramck and Highland Park. The economic status <strong>of</strong> seniors differs greatly 

from community to community. Highland Park has by far the highest rate <strong>of</strong> poverty <strong>in</strong> 

6 The def<strong>in</strong>ition <strong>of</strong> m<strong>in</strong>ority <strong>in</strong> this discussion is slightly different than that used <strong>in</strong> the previous discussion. 

Here we are exclud<strong>in</strong>g White, non-Hispanics from the total population. The overall share is slightly higher 

than that shown <strong>in</strong> Table 4 (73.0 vs. 72.1 percent) due to the fact that the def<strong>in</strong>ition used by the State Office 

<strong>of</strong> Services to the Ag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>cludes Hispanics who also listed a race other than White. 

9

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


Total Persons 

65+ 

Persons Less than _ % <strong>of</strong> Poverty 

50 75 100 125 150 

Region 1-A Total 110,917 6,300 10,684 19,299 26,533 33,004 

<strong>Detroit</strong> city 95,695 5,779 9,829 17,762 24,511 30,423 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te city 887 4 11 17 30 48 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te Farms city 1,730 18 18 25 25 43 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te Park city 1,326 8 8 25 36 60 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te Shores 661 13 21 21 29 33 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te 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 

<strong>Detroit</strong> city 6.0 10.3 18.6 25.6 31.8 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te city 0.5 1.2 1.9 3.4 5.4 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te Farms city 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.4 2.5 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te Park city 0.6 0.6 1.9 2.7 4.5 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te Shores 2.0 3.2 3.2 4.4 5.0 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te 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) <strong>of</strong> its seniors fall<strong>in</strong>g below the poverty threshold, 

and almost half fall<strong>in</strong>g below 150 percent. One <strong>of</strong> ten seniors <strong>in</strong> Highland Park lives on 

an annual <strong>in</strong>come that is less than half the poverty threshold. While Hamtramck has the 

second highest share <strong>of</strong> very poor seniors (6.7 percent), <strong>Detroit</strong> surpasses it for overall 

poverty (18.6 vs. 18.1 percent, respectively). Both cities have a third (31.8 percent) <strong>of</strong> 

their seniors liv<strong>in</strong>g below the150 percent threshold. Harper Woods falls well beh<strong>in</strong>d the 

others with 14.8 percent below 150 percent, while none <strong>of</strong> the five Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>tes even 

approaches 6 percent. 

The Census Bureau’s special tabulation also provides counts <strong>of</strong> persons 60+ at or below 

150% <strong>of</strong> poverty by community with<strong>in</strong> Region 1-A (see Table 14). While the counts add 

little to the discussion, they do serve to re<strong>in</strong>force the way need is distributed <strong>in</strong> the region. 

<strong>Detroit</strong> accounts for 92.4 percent <strong>of</strong> all seniors at or below 150%, with Highland Park and 

Hamtramck account<strong>in</strong>g for another 5.5 percent. Such concentrations make more ref<strong>in</strong>ed 

geographic analysis that follows critical for determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g target<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> dim<strong>in</strong>ish<strong>in</strong>g service 

dollars and programs. 

10

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

Community, 1999 

Number 

Share <strong>of</strong> 


Region 1A 42,530 

<strong>Detroit</strong> city 39,315 92.4 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te city 90 0.2 

Gross Po<strong>in</strong>te township 35 0.1 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>t Farms city 50 0.1 

Gross Po<strong>in</strong>te Park city 85 0.2 

Gross Po<strong>in</strong>t 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 <strong>of</strong> every ten households <strong>in</strong> the region have at least one person 60 years and 

over as a member. The share ranges between 29 and 39 percent across eight <strong>of</strong> the 

communities, with Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te Shores village be<strong>in</strong>g the outlier at 53.4 percent. When 

a household conta<strong>in</strong>s at least one person 60+, there is a 4 <strong>in</strong> 10 chance (39.2 percent) that 

it will be a one-person household. This rate is highest <strong>in</strong> Hamtramck, Harper Woods and 

Highland Park where it reaches 1 out <strong>of</strong> 2, and lowest <strong>in</strong> Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te Shores where the 

high ratio <strong>of</strong> elderly tend to live <strong>in</strong> married-couple units. 

A further analysis <strong>of</strong> liv<strong>in</strong>g arrangements for persons 65+ and 75+ (see Table 15) shows a 

correlation between <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g age and the percent that live alone. While 39 percent <strong>of</strong> 

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 <strong>of</strong> persons 60+ and 56 percent <strong>of</strong> 

persons 75+ share their household with at least one other person. 

Table 15. Liv<strong>in</strong>g Arrangements <strong>of</strong> 60+ <strong>in</strong> Region 1-A by Community, 2000 

Total 

Households 

With 1 or 

more persons 

60+ 

Percent <strong>of</strong> 

Total 

Households 

60+ Liv<strong>in</strong>g 

alone 


60+ 

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

<strong>Detroit</strong> city 336,428 97,725 29.0 37,874 38.8 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te city 2,388 842 35.3 375 44.5 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te Farms city 3,804 1,493 39.2 513 34.4 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te Park city 4,816 1,267 26.3 428 33.8 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te Shores 1,018 544 53.4 138 25.4 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te 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 

11

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 <strong>of</strong> 

poverty. Table 15 shows that half <strong>of</strong> all age categories are also liv<strong>in</strong>g alone. 

Table 16. Liv<strong>in</strong>g Arrangements by Detailed Age Group <strong>in</strong> Region 1-A, 2000 




60+ 




65+ 




75+ 

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

<strong>Detroit</strong> city 37,874 38.8 30,824 40.1 16,185 43.2 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te city 375 44.5 330 48.7 212 53.3 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te Farms city 513 34.4 458 37.1 274 42.4 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te Park city 428 33.8 364 36.6 213 42.3 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te Shores 138 25.4 124 28.2 81 37.7 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te 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 <strong>in</strong> households live <strong>in</strong> group quarters. The most frequent form <strong>of</strong> 

group quarters arrangement for seniors is that <strong>of</strong> nurs<strong>in</strong>g homes. Region 1-A had a total 

<strong>of</strong> 5,256 seniors (65+) liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> group quarters <strong>in</strong> 2000. Nurs<strong>in</strong>g homes accounted for 81 

percent <strong>of</strong> group quarters residents and the City <strong>of</strong> <strong>Detroit</strong> accounted for 89 percent <strong>of</strong> the 

total group quarters population. 

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

Total 

Institutional Correctional 

Institutions 

Nurs<strong>in</strong>g 

Homes 

Non- 

Institutional 

Region 1-A Total 5,256 4,359 33 4,265 897 

<strong>Detroit</strong> city 4,696 3,822 30 3,733 874 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te city 0 0 0 0 0 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te Farms city 0 0 0 0 0 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te Park city 2 0 0 0 2 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te Shores 0 0 0 0 0 

Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>te 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 

12

Sector Analysis 

In 1997 the City <strong>of</strong> <strong>Detroit</strong> launched a community-wide effort called the Community 

Re<strong>in</strong>vestment Strategy (CRS). This effort divided the city <strong>in</strong>to 10 sectors (see Map 

Appendix), as recommended by a previous land use task force study, and brought 

together people who either worked or lived <strong>in</strong> these sectors to construct development 

plans. These 10 sectors have cont<strong>in</strong>ued to be used for plann<strong>in</strong>g purposes and service 

delivery (i.e. the Health Department has moved its structure from Health Plann<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Area</strong>s 

to CRS sectors). 

The <strong>Detroit</strong> <strong>Area</strong> <strong>Agency</strong> on Ag<strong>in</strong>g, recogniz<strong>in</strong>g the importance <strong>of</strong> these sectors to the 

City <strong>of</strong> <strong>Detroit</strong>, has chosen to use this geography as one <strong>of</strong> their levels <strong>of</strong> analysis 7 . In 

order to br<strong>in</strong>g the rest <strong>of</strong> Region 1-A’s territory <strong>in</strong>to this analysis, two additional sectors 

have been identified – one that comb<strong>in</strong>es Hamtramck and Highland Park, and the other 

that <strong>in</strong>cludes the five Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>tes and Harper Woods. 

Only 1 <strong>of</strong> the 12 sectors experienced growth over the decade. Sector 9, located <strong>in</strong> the 

near northwest area <strong>of</strong> the City grew by 9.9 percent – approximately 1,300 people. This 

resulted <strong>in</strong> an <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> its share <strong>of</strong> Region 1-A’s population from 6.7 percent to 9.5 

percent. Sector 10, situated just to the north <strong>of</strong> Sector 9, experienced the smallest loss <strong>of</strong> 

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 


Population 60 years and Over 


Number 


Number <strong>of</strong> 

Persons 60+ 



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 

* The sector designation recognizes the 10 <strong>Detroit</strong> CRS Sectors. Sector 11 is comprised <strong>of</strong> Hamtramck and Highland 

Park. Sector 12 encompasses the 5 Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>tes and Harper Woods. 

7 

While this analysis will further dissect the City <strong>of</strong> <strong>Detroit</strong> <strong>in</strong>to its subcommunities and census tracts - 

both <strong>of</strong> which allow for more detailed target<strong>in</strong>g – sectors provide a unit <strong>of</strong> analysis, <strong>in</strong> terms <strong>of</strong> both 

population and land area, which is ideal for the structur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> service delivery. 

13

The east side <strong>of</strong> the City experienced very different results. Sectors 1, 2 and 3 all lost 

better than one-forth <strong>of</strong> their senior population, as did Sector 4, which encompasses the 

downtown core. Significant losses also occurred <strong>in</strong> Sector 5 <strong>in</strong> southwest <strong>Detroit</strong>, where 

an <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>gly younger Hispanic population is replac<strong>in</strong>g older residents, and <strong>in</strong> Sector 6 

<strong>in</strong> the central corridor <strong>of</strong> the city. Because the percentage loss <strong>in</strong> each <strong>of</strong> these areas 

exceeded that <strong>of</strong> the region as a whole, their shares <strong>of</strong> the regional total also fell. While 

significant losses also occurred <strong>in</strong> the non-<strong>Detroit</strong> Sectors 11 and 12, the percentage loss 

<strong>in</strong> 11 mirrored that <strong>of</strong> the region, thus leav<strong>in</strong>g its share unchanged, while that <strong>in</strong> 12 was 

less than that <strong>of</strong> the region lead<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> its share from 8.3 to 8.8 percent. 

While the significant losses that occurred on the east side <strong>of</strong> <strong>Detroit</strong> resulted <strong>in</strong> losses for 

each <strong>of</strong> the cohorts (see Table 19), the losses decreased <strong>in</strong> the older cohorts, and <strong>in</strong> some 

cases were quite m<strong>in</strong>imal. In sectors where the overall loss was not as great, <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g 

numbers occurred <strong>in</strong> some <strong>of</strong> the older cohorts. These trends re<strong>in</strong>force the regional trend 

discussed earlier that Region 1-A’s population, while decreas<strong>in</strong>g, has become older and 

more needy. 

Table 19. Population 60 Years and Over, by Detailed 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 

A more detailed look at the racial/ethnic dynamics <strong>of</strong> the population trends reveals the 

fact that the losses occurred disproportionately among the White population. While all 

sectors experienced a loss <strong>of</strong> Whites, losses exceeded 50 percent <strong>in</strong> Sectors 1 through 9. 

Though this report will not describe each sector’s change <strong>in</strong> detail (Table 20 provides that 

<strong>in</strong>formation), the specific changes that occurred <strong>in</strong> two <strong>of</strong> the sectors, 2 and 9, are 

illustrative <strong>of</strong> the trends occurr<strong>in</strong>g throughout the region. Sector 2, <strong>in</strong> the northeast 

corner <strong>of</strong> <strong>Detroit</strong>, led all others <strong>in</strong> population loss over the decade. The racial trends 

show that this loss occurred totally <strong>in</strong> the White population. Almost 7,500 fewer white 

seniors lived <strong>in</strong> Sector 2 <strong>in</strong> 2000 than <strong>in</strong> 1990 – a decrease <strong>of</strong> 72 percent. This loss was 

partially <strong>of</strong>fset by an <strong>in</strong>crease (1,844, or 54%) <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>ority population – primarily 

African-American. This sector, above all others, demonstrates the chang<strong>in</strong>g racial 

14

composition <strong>of</strong> Region 1-A’s senior population. Sector 9, the only sector to show 

population ga<strong>in</strong>, shared common trends with Sector 2, as it also lost white seniors but 

ga<strong>in</strong>ed enough m<strong>in</strong>ority seniors, enough <strong>in</strong> its case to overcome that loss. The white 

population loss, <strong>in</strong> percentage terms, was second only to Sector 2 at 63.5 percent. 

However, the m<strong>in</strong>ority population <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>of</strong> 22.6 percent (2,466 persons) resulted <strong>in</strong> an 

overall population ga<strong>in</strong>. 

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

Sectors 

M<strong>in</strong>ority M<strong>in</strong>ority 

M<strong>in</strong>ority 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 

Table 21 shows that the total number <strong>of</strong> poor <strong>in</strong> Region 1-A decreased over the decade by 

almost 10,000 persons, or 28 percent 8 . This percentage loss was just slightly higher than 

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

Sectors 

Total 

Persons 

Poverty <strong>in</strong> 1989 Poverty <strong>in</strong> 1999 

Below Percent Total Above 

poverty below Persons Poverty 

Above 

Poverty 

Below 

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 185,890 150,541 35,349 19.0% 143,552 118,016 25,537 17.8% 

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 <strong>in</strong> poverty category based 

on each sector’s share <strong>of</strong> the 55-64 years cohort that fell between 60 and 64 years <strong>of</strong> age. 

15

that <strong>of</strong> total population loss <strong>in</strong> the 60+ category, as a result <strong>of</strong> the decrease <strong>in</strong> the region’s 

overall poverty rate from 19.0 to 17.7 percent. The poverty rate <strong>in</strong> 1989 varied greatly 

across sectors – rang<strong>in</strong>g from 3.6 percent <strong>in</strong> Sector 12 (the Grosse Po<strong>in</strong>tes) to 35.4 

percent <strong>in</strong> Sector 4, which covers <strong>Detroit</strong>’s downtown. Three sectors – 3, 4 and 6 – 

together accounted for almost half <strong>of</strong> the poor seniors <strong>in</strong> the region. 

The Region’s drop <strong>in</strong> poverty among seniors was not reflected <strong>in</strong> all sectors. In fact, only 

six sectors experienced decreases <strong>in</strong> poverty, while six experienced <strong>in</strong>creases. The 

rank<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> Sector 12 as lowest and Sector 2 as highest held, though the gap between them 

decreased slightly. The largest decrease occurred <strong>in</strong> Sector 4, which, while rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the 

sector with the highest percentage <strong>of</strong> seniors <strong>in</strong> poverty, saw its rate drop from 35.4 to 

29.8 percent. Sector 9 came next with a decrease <strong>of</strong> 2.4 percentage po<strong>in</strong>ts, from 17.8 to 

15.4. The greatest <strong>in</strong>creases were experienced <strong>in</strong> Sectors 1 and 2. In spite <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>creases <strong>in</strong> 

poverty rates <strong>in</strong> half the sectors, the number <strong>of</strong> seniors <strong>in</strong> poverty decreased <strong>in</strong> all sectors. 

The largest numerical decrease, 3,037, occurred <strong>in</strong> Sector 4, while Sectors 6 and 3 also 

experienced large decl<strong>in</strong>es – 1,832 and 1,406, respectively. 

As the State <strong>of</strong> Michigan uses 150% <strong>of</strong> poverty as a criterion <strong>in</strong> their fund<strong>in</strong>g formula, the 

author has extended the estimates <strong>of</strong> poverty to <strong>in</strong>clude poverty ratios. Table 22 provides 

an analysis <strong>of</strong> the population 60+ with regard to the ratio <strong>of</strong> their <strong>in</strong>come to the poverty 

threshold. This table brackets the poverty data from Table 21 by <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g the population 

fall<strong>in</strong>g below 50 percent <strong>of</strong> poverty (extreme poverty) and end<strong>in</strong>g with the population at 

150% <strong>of</strong> poverty. While reflect<strong>in</strong>g the same trends as were seen <strong>in</strong> Table 20, one is able 

to see <strong>in</strong> more detail the degree <strong>of</strong> poverty that exists <strong>in</strong> Region 1-A. Of particular note 

are Sectors 3, 4 and 11 where well over 1/3 <strong>of</strong> all seniors (almost half <strong>in</strong> Sector 4) fall 

below 150% <strong>of</strong> poverty. 

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

Sectors 

Total 



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 

16

Now that we have looked at the fund<strong>in</strong>g formula characteristics <strong>of</strong> Region 1-A’s 

population by sector, it is time to highlight other characteristics 9 . 

Table 22 describes the liv<strong>in</strong>g arrangements <strong>of</strong> the 60+ population. The most important 

characteristic, from a service/need standpo<strong>in</strong>t, is the degree to which the population is 

liv<strong>in</strong>g alone. Liv<strong>in</strong>g alone is <strong>of</strong>ten associated with poverty, disability and other 

characteristics that translate to a higher need for services. The correlation between liv<strong>in</strong>g 

alone and poverty is quite clearly illustrated by the fact that our highest poverty sectors, 4 

and 11, also conta<strong>in</strong> the highest proportions <strong>of</strong> seniors liv<strong>in</strong>g alone. 

Table 23. Liv<strong>in</strong>g Arrangements <strong>of</strong> the Population 60+ by Sector, 2000 

Sectors 

Households 

with 1 or more 

persons 60 

years+ 

Liv<strong>in</strong>g 

Alone 

In 2 or 

more 

person 

household 

Family Nonfamily 

household household 



In 2 or 

more 


household 

Family Nonfamily 

household 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 

When a person does not live <strong>in</strong> a house or apartment (an occupied hous<strong>in</strong>g unit or 

household, as def<strong>in</strong>ed by the Census), he/she is said to live <strong>in</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> sectors, with the exception <strong>of</strong> 2 and 5, have a fairly large number <strong>of</strong> group 

quarters – primarily nurs<strong>in</strong>g homes – population. The heaviest concentration is <strong>in</strong> Sector 

3 on the lower east side <strong>of</strong> <strong>Detroit</strong>, where the concentration <strong>of</strong> nurs<strong>in</strong>g home facilities 

along E. Grand Blvd. gives this sector 31 percent <strong>of</strong> the group quarters total. As would 

be expected, females account for 65 to 70 percent <strong>of</strong> the total group quarters population. 

Table 25 returns to the elderly population liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> households and focuses on 

householders and tenure. While older householders are more likely to own their home, 

rather than rent, there are obviously areas <strong>in</strong> the region where this is less likely the case. 

9 The data highlighted <strong>in</strong> the report are <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> the detailed appendix tables. These tables also conta<strong>in</strong> 

additional data that were viewed to be beyond the scope <strong>of</strong> the written report. 

17

Table 24. Population 65+ Liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Group Quarters by Sector, 2000 

Sectors 

Total Group 

Qtrs 


Institutional 

GQ 


homes 

Non<strong>in</strong>stitutional 

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 

Look<strong>in</strong>g at the table <strong>in</strong> detail shows us that, while ownership rates for all age groups tend 

to run <strong>in</strong> the 75 percent and over range, the sectors <strong>in</strong> which we have previously 

recognized issues <strong>of</strong> poverty and liv<strong>in</strong>g alone also show up as low ownership areas. 

Highlight<strong>in</strong>g Sector 4 once aga<strong>in</strong>, we see that no group exceeds a 34 percent ownership 

rate. This stands out <strong>in</strong> sharp contrast even with Sector 11 that has high rates <strong>of</strong> poverty 

and liv<strong>in</strong>g alone but ownership rates <strong>of</strong> better than 50 percent across all age groups. 

Table 25. Homeownership Rates by Age by Sector, 2000 

Sectors 

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 

Look<strong>in</strong>g further at hous<strong>in</strong>g tenure, Table 26 allows one to determ<strong>in</strong>e the impact <strong>of</strong> seniors 

on the region’s hous<strong>in</strong>g market by show<strong>in</strong>g the share <strong>of</strong> owner- and renter-occupied 

hous<strong>in</strong>g that is headed by persons 55 years and over. As a way <strong>of</strong> illustrat<strong>in</strong>g the 

<strong>in</strong>formation that can be derived from this table, let us look at Sector 6 as an example. 

Sector 6 lies on the near northwest side <strong>of</strong> <strong>Detroit</strong>, with the Lodge Fwy. And the City <strong>of</strong> 

Highland Park form<strong>in</strong>g its eastern boundary and I-94 on its southern boundary. 

18

Householders 65 years <strong>of</strong> age and above account for 48 percent <strong>of</strong> the owner-occupied 

hous<strong>in</strong>g and 14 percent <strong>of</strong> the rentals. When you add <strong>in</strong> the 55-64 years cohort the rates 

<strong>in</strong>crease to 63 and 24 percent, respectively. Such shares <strong>in</strong>dicate that the senior 

population represents a significant <strong>in</strong>vestment <strong>in</strong> this sector – one that a city <strong>in</strong> need <strong>of</strong> a 

strong owner-occupancy hous<strong>in</strong>g stock needs to support. Sector 2 provides a stark 

contrast. The data presented earlier demonstrated that Sector 2 experienced the largest 

loss <strong>of</strong> seniors. The tenure rates support this trend, as persons 65 years and over 

represent only 14.6 percent <strong>of</strong> the owners and 5 percent <strong>of</strong> the renters. Add<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the 55- 

64 years cohort only <strong>in</strong>creases these rates to 21 and 11 percent, respectively. 

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

Sectors 

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 

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 

Disability Status 

The 2000 Census <strong>in</strong>cluded “disability questions” that were asked <strong>in</strong> the follow<strong>in</strong>g 

manner: 

16. Does this person have any <strong>of</strong> the follow<strong>in</strong>g long-last<strong>in</strong>g conditions: 

a. Bl<strong>in</strong>dness, deafness, or a severe vision or hear<strong>in</strong>g impairment? 

b. A condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical activities such as walk<strong>in</strong>g, climb<strong>in</strong>g 

stairs, reach<strong>in</strong>g, lift<strong>in</strong>g, or carry<strong>in</strong>g? Yes No 

17. Because <strong>of</strong> a physical, mental, or emotional condition last<strong>in</strong>g 6 months or more, does this person 

have any difficulty <strong>in</strong> do<strong>in</strong>g any <strong>of</strong> the follow<strong>in</strong>g activities: 

a. Learn<strong>in</strong>g, remember<strong>in</strong>g, or concentrat<strong>in</strong>g? Yes No 

b. Dress<strong>in</strong>g, bath<strong>in</strong>g, or gett<strong>in</strong>g around <strong>in</strong>side the home? Yes No 

c. (Answer if this person is 16 years old or over.) Go<strong>in</strong>g outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor’s 

<strong>of</strong>fice? Yes No 

d. (Answer if this person is 16 years old or over.) Work<strong>in</strong>g at a job or bus<strong>in</strong>ess? Yes No 

19

Table 27 provides data on the total number <strong>of</strong> yes responses gathered from persons 65 

years <strong>of</strong> age and over <strong>in</strong> Region 1-A. Table 28 allows for the isolation <strong>of</strong> persons 

report<strong>in</strong>g s<strong>in</strong>gle and multiple disabilities. 

Table 27. Disability Status <strong>of</strong> the Population 65+ by Sector, 2000 

Sectors 

Total 

disabilities 

tallied 

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 <strong>of</strong> responses varied across the sectors, the general pattern <strong>of</strong> responses 

is quite similar. The disability most <strong>of</strong>ten acknowledged, represent<strong>in</strong>g 1/3 <strong>of</strong> responses <strong>in</strong> 

each sector, was physical. This was followed by a limitation for go<strong>in</strong>g outside the home 

– represent<strong>in</strong>g ¼ <strong>of</strong> all responses <strong>in</strong> each sector. Sensory, self-care and mobility 

disabilities were each mentioned <strong>in</strong> the order <strong>of</strong> 10-15 percent <strong>of</strong> the time. 

A more detailed look at the responses given to the disability questions allows for a better 

understand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the health conditions <strong>of</strong> seniors across the 12 sectors. 

One might expect from the household structure and <strong>in</strong>come level that seniors <strong>in</strong> Sector 12 

would show themselves to be the healthiest <strong>in</strong> Region 1-A. The data <strong>in</strong> Table 28 show 

this to <strong>in</strong>deed be the case, as more than 2/3 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> Sectors 3, 4 and 11 reported the highest share <strong>of</strong> persons 

hav<strong>in</strong>g at least one disability, and led all others <strong>in</strong> the share <strong>of</strong> seniors list<strong>in</strong>g multiple 

disabilities. These results also track with the higher levels <strong>of</strong> poverty and liv<strong>in</strong>g alone 

that were reported previously for these sectors. 

I all sectors, persons respond<strong>in</strong>g with only one disability were most likely to identify it as 

physical or related to go<strong>in</strong>g outside the home. Another common thread across the vast 

majority <strong>of</strong> the sectors was the higher percentage <strong>of</strong> persons with multiple disabilities not 

<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g self-care as one <strong>of</strong> them. 

The f<strong>in</strong>al table <strong>in</strong> this section looks at the educational atta<strong>in</strong>ment <strong>of</strong> the 65 years and over 

population. While the pattern is not a surprise, follow<strong>in</strong>g the patterns set up throughout 

20

Table 28. Detailed Disability Status <strong>of</strong> the Population 65+ by Sector, 2000 

Sectors 

No 

Disability 

1 

Disability 

Physical Gooutsidehome 

2 or more 

Disabilities 

Includes 

Self-care 

Does not 

<strong>in</strong>clude 

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 

this section, the range <strong>of</strong> differences across sectors is quite <strong>in</strong>formative. As would be 

expected, Sector 12 conta<strong>in</strong>s the most highly educated seniors with 81 percent graduat<strong>in</strong>g 

from high school and 33 percent hav<strong>in</strong>g at least a college diploma. S<strong>in</strong>ce a high school 

diploma was <strong>of</strong>ten the most that one needed to acquire a good pay<strong>in</strong>g job when the 

seniors were start<strong>in</strong>g out <strong>in</strong> the workforce, low levels <strong>of</strong> post-high school education are to 

be expected. Sector 10 and, to a lesser extent, Sector 4 show relatively high levels <strong>of</strong> 

post-secondary education. Sector 5 <strong>in</strong> Southwest <strong>Detroit</strong> had the lowest rates <strong>of</strong> 

education with only 36 percent graduat<strong>in</strong>g from high school and 3 percent receiv<strong>in</strong>g a 

college diploma. Consider<strong>in</strong>g many <strong>of</strong> the other results, one would not be likely to 

predict that seniors <strong>in</strong> Sector 5 would have the least education. However, when one 

realizes that this is a heavily Lat<strong>in</strong>o population with many <strong>of</strong> the seniors be<strong>in</strong>g Mexican 

Table 29. Educational Atta<strong>in</strong>ment <strong>of</strong> 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 

21

immigrants, the lack <strong>of</strong> education becomes more understandable. Unfortunately, the 

issue <strong>of</strong> dropp<strong>in</strong>g out <strong>of</strong> high school and not go<strong>in</strong>g on to college cont<strong>in</strong>ues to be a 

problem <strong>in</strong> the Lat<strong>in</strong>o community – even with American-born youth. Lower levels <strong>of</strong> 

education are also evident <strong>in</strong> those sectors where poverty is highest – 2 and 11. 

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 

Percent 

<strong>of</strong> total 

Spanish 

Indo 

European 

Asian and 

Pacific 

Other 

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 <strong>of</strong> the residents <strong>of</strong> each sector speak English 

at home. This is the case <strong>in</strong> all sectors with the exception <strong>of</strong> 5 and 11. As discussed <strong>in</strong> 

the section on education, Sector 5’s elderly population conta<strong>in</strong>s a large number <strong>of</strong> Lat<strong>in</strong>o 

immigrants with little education. In addition, southwest <strong>Detroit</strong> also conta<strong>in</strong>s older 

eastern European immigrants and residents from the Middle East. These factors 

comb<strong>in</strong>ed to produce 26 percent <strong>of</strong> the elderly speak<strong>in</strong>g a language other than English 

and 8 percent <strong>of</strong> the total 65 years admitt<strong>in</strong>g to speak<strong>in</strong>g English less than well or not at 

all. Region 11 had a larger percentage – 28.6 percent – speak<strong>in</strong>g another language and 9 

percent speak<strong>in</strong>g English less than well or not at all. This region conta<strong>in</strong>s Hamtramck, 

which, <strong>in</strong> addition to hav<strong>in</strong>g remnants <strong>of</strong> the older Polish-speak<strong>in</strong>g population still <strong>in</strong> the 

area, experienced population growth for the first time <strong>in</strong> decades dur<strong>in</strong>g the 1990’s due to 

large numbers <strong>of</strong> recent immigrants. These immigrants – from Bangladesh, India, 

Pakistan, Yemen, Bosnia, Serbia, and numerous other countries – have brought back the 

flavor the city had <strong>in</strong> the early 20 th Century. 

The <strong>Detroit</strong> <strong>Area</strong> <strong>Agency</strong> on Ag<strong>in</strong>g will need to be aware <strong>of</strong> all the characteristics that 

have been documented <strong>in</strong> this section to prioritize and plan the services that they deliver. 

22

Empowerment Zone Analysis 

In 1994, the Cl<strong>in</strong>ton Adm<strong>in</strong>istration enacted legislation through the <strong>of</strong>fice <strong>of</strong> Hous<strong>in</strong>g and 

Urban Development (HUD) that designated (7) seven urban cities as Empowerment 

Zones (EZ). These Empowerment Zones, which provided $100 million <strong>in</strong> federal funds 

over a ten-year period, were designed to restore economic opportunity to various 

distressed communities throughout the nation. The Zones were an <strong>in</strong>novative approach to 

revitalization because they brought communities together through public and private 

partnerships <strong>in</strong> order to attract the <strong>in</strong>vestment necessary for susta<strong>in</strong>able economic and 

community development. This new approach recognized that local communities, work<strong>in</strong>g 

together, can best identify and develop solutions to the problems they face. 

The <strong>Detroit</strong> Empowerment Zone covers 18.35 square miles and is divided <strong>in</strong>to (3) three 

sub-zones - east, central and southwest. Its boundaries were drawn accord<strong>in</strong>g to federal 

criteria, which <strong>in</strong>cluded total population, land area and poverty levels. The Zone was, 

when orig<strong>in</strong>ally designated, home to over 100,000 residents and 9,000 bus<strong>in</strong>esses. 

Currently, over (90) n<strong>in</strong>ety economic development and human services programs operate 

<strong>in</strong> the Empowerment Zone with<strong>in</strong> the Clean & Safe, Healthy & Smart and Liv<strong>in</strong>g & 

Work<strong>in</strong>g umbrella. These programs range from job tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g and placement, educational 

and economic development, self-help and after-school programs, recreational activities, 

health care and child care services, hous<strong>in</strong>g assistance and programs for the disabled and 

seniors. 

The <strong>Detroit</strong> <strong>Area</strong> <strong>Agency</strong> on Ag<strong>in</strong>g Region 1-A has a number <strong>of</strong> programs operat<strong>in</strong>g 

with<strong>in</strong> the Empowerment Zone and, therefore, has a need to better understand trends <strong>in</strong> 

its client population over the last 10 years. 

Table 31. Population Trends <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Detroit</strong> Empowerment Zone, 1990 - 2000 

EZ Sub- 

Zones 

1990 2000 

Total Pop. 60+ 65+ 75+ Total Pop. 60+ 65+ 75+ 

Total 101,279 20,346 15,601 6,870 86,769 13,101 10,421 5,179 

East 41,669 7,941 6,155 2,669 33,616 5,834 4,767 2,437 

Central 22,100 5,931 4,727 2,260 19,919 3,459 2,786 1,504 

Southwest 37,510 6,474 4,719 1,941 33,234 3,808 2,868 1,238 

EZ Sub- 

Zones 

1990 - 2000 Numerical Change 1990 - 2000 Percentage Change 

Total Pop. 60+ 65+ 75+ Total Pop. 60+ 65+ 75+ 

Total -14,510 -7,245 -5,180 -1,691 -14.3% -35.6% -33.2% -24.6% 

East -8,053 -2,107 -1,388 -232 -19.3% -26.5% -22.6% -8.7% 

Central -2,181 -2,472 -1,941 -756 -9.9% -41.7% -41.1% -33.5% 

Southwest -4,276 -2,666 -1,851 -703 -11.4% -41.2% -39.2% -36.2% 

Population trends <strong>in</strong> the Empowerment Zone reflect those that have occurred throughout 

the City, though the rate <strong>of</strong> loss is considerably higher. The Zone experienced a loss <strong>of</strong> 

almost 15,000 persons (14.3 percent) over the last 10 years. The loss <strong>of</strong> persons 60 years 

and over was much greater. More than a third <strong>of</strong> the senior population resident <strong>in</strong> the 

23

Zone <strong>in</strong> 1990 was not there 10 years later. This dropped slightly to a loss <strong>of</strong> 33 percent <strong>of</strong> 

persons 65 and over, and to 25 percent <strong>of</strong> persons 75 years and over. 

Look<strong>in</strong>g at the three sub-zones it is apparent that the loss <strong>of</strong> elderly well outpaced general 

population losses <strong>in</strong> the Central and Southwest zones, while the East zone, which lost the 

highest percent <strong>of</strong> total residents, was better able to hold on to its elderly. 

Table 32. Racial/Ethnic Composition <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Detroit</strong> Empowerment Zone, 2000 

EZ Sub-Zones 

Total 

M<strong>in</strong>ority* 

White 

African 

American 

Non-Hispanic 

Native Asian / PI 

American 

Other 

race 

Two or 

more 

races 

Hispanic / 

Lat<strong>in</strong>o 

Total 86,769 75,207 11,562 56,662 343 758 123 1,318 16,003 

East 33,616 32,378 1,238 31,576 64 59 51 360 268 

Central 19,919 17,421 2,498 16,097 86 565 24 352 297 

Southwest 33,234 25,408 7,826 8,989 193 134 48 606 15,438 

Total 86.7 13.3 65.3 0.4 0.9 0.1 1.5 18.4 

East 96.3 3.7 93.9 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.1 0.8 

Central 87.5 12.5 80.8 0.4 2.8 0.1 1.8 1.5 

Southwest 76.5 23.5 27.0 0.6 0.4 0.1 1.8 46.5 

* M<strong>in</strong>ority is def<strong>in</strong>ed as anyone who is not White, non-Hispanic 

The racial/ethnic composition <strong>of</strong> the empowerment zone’s sub-zones showed a great deal 

<strong>of</strong> difference. The East sub-zone had the largest share <strong>of</strong> m<strong>in</strong>ority elderly – 96 percent – 

which was made up almost entirely <strong>of</strong> African-Americans. The Central sub-zone 

conta<strong>in</strong>ed a mix very similar to the city as a whole. M<strong>in</strong>orities made up 87.5 percent <strong>of</strong> 

the population, with African-Americans represent<strong>in</strong>g 81 percent. Asians were slightly 

over represented at 2.8 percent, while Lat<strong>in</strong>os were slightly underrepresented. The 

Southwest sub-zone reflected the Lat<strong>in</strong>o <strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>in</strong> southwest <strong>Detroit</strong>, as Lat<strong>in</strong>os 

accounted for 46.5 percent <strong>of</strong> the area’s seniors. The white population, conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g a 

number <strong>of</strong> ethnic groups, came <strong>in</strong> with a share double that <strong>of</strong> the city as a whole, while 

African Americans accounted for just 27 percent <strong>of</strong> the total. 

Table 33 charts the liv<strong>in</strong>g arrangements <strong>of</strong> seniors <strong>in</strong> the empowerment zone. Overall we 

see a match between the numbers liv<strong>in</strong>g alone and those liv<strong>in</strong>g with at least one other 

person. However, this distribution does not hold true across the sub-zones. The Central 

sub-zone is worthy <strong>of</strong> attention because 69 percent <strong>of</strong> its seniors live alone. Such a liv<strong>in</strong>g 

situation, as we have seen previously, tends to have a great deal <strong>of</strong> need associated with 

it. There is an obvious need for target<strong>in</strong>g services to these, <strong>of</strong>ten isolated, seniors. 

Table 34 looks at the poverty status <strong>of</strong> the zone’s seniors. The issue that becomes 

immediately apparent is that seniors <strong>in</strong> the zone are <strong>in</strong> much worse f<strong>in</strong>ancial shape than 

seniors as a whole <strong>in</strong> the city. The poverty rate for seniors across the city was shown to 

have fallen from 19.0 percent <strong>in</strong> 1989 (1990 Census) to 17.8 percent <strong>in</strong> 1999. Poverty <strong>in</strong> 

24

Table 33. Liv<strong>in</strong>g Arrangements <strong>of</strong> 60+ Population <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Detroit</strong> Empowerment 



Households 

with 1 or 

more 

persons 60+ 



In 2 or 

more 


hhld 

Family 

hhld 

Nonfamily 

hhld 



In 2 or 

more 


hhld 

Family 

hhld 

Nonfamily 

hhld 

Total 9,624 4,815 4,809 4,283 526 50.0 50.0 44.5 5.5 

East 3,850 1,596 2,254 2,053 201 41.5 58.5 53.3 5.2 

Central 2,799 1,927 872 715 157 68.8 31.2 25.5 5.6 

Southwest 2,975 1,292 1,683 1,515 168 43.4 56.6 50.9 5.6 

the Empowerment Zone was almost twice the city’s rate, com<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> at 30.9 percent. The 

poverty rate for seniors 75 years and above was 33.3 percent. It was the Central sub-zone 

that drove the poverty rate to this level. On average, four <strong>of</strong> every ten seniors, regardless 

<strong>of</strong> age, had an <strong>in</strong>come less than the poverty threshold. This was considerably higher than 

either <strong>of</strong> the other sub-zones and an additional burden placed on a population that is 

already isolated by liv<strong>in</strong>g alone. 

Table 34. Poverty Rates for <strong>Seniors</strong>, by Age Group, <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Detroit</strong> Empowerment 



60 and over 65 and over 75 and over 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

Total 3,687 30.9 2,864 30.9 1,409 33.3 

East 1,393 28.3 1,143 29.1 544 30.6 

Central 1,368 41.2 1,037 39.8 561 41.0 

Southwest 926 25.0 684 25.1 304 28.1 

Table 35 takes the poverty analysis a little further by gaug<strong>in</strong>g the share <strong>of</strong> seniors liv<strong>in</strong>g 

below 150% <strong>of</strong> poverty – the factor used <strong>in</strong> the state fund<strong>in</strong>g formula. We now see that 

almost half <strong>of</strong> all seniors <strong>in</strong> the zone, and three <strong>of</strong> six <strong>in</strong> the central sub-zone, fall below 

150%. This tabulation also allows one to look at seniors <strong>in</strong> extreme poverty (less than 

50% and 75% <strong>of</strong> poverty). Across the Zone we see the rate at 75% matches the citywide 

rate for 100% <strong>of</strong> poverty – 17.8 percent. We are also able to see the extent <strong>of</strong> the need <strong>in</strong> 

the central sub-zone, as ¼ <strong>of</strong> all seniors fall below 75% <strong>of</strong> poverty. 

Table 35. Ratio <strong>of</strong> Income to Poverty <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Detroit</strong> Empowerment Zone, 1999 


Total 



50 75 100 125 150 

Total 11,938 10.2 17.8 30.9 40.4 47.4 

East 4,920 9.0 15.4 28.3 38.3 46.2 

Central 3,318 13.4 25.4 41.2 51.5 58.5 

Southwest 3,700 8.9 14.4 25.0 33.1 39.1 

25

Subcommunity Analysis 

S<strong>in</strong>ce 1951, United Way Community Services has ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed a geographic identification 

system <strong>in</strong>corporat<strong>in</strong>g divisions with<strong>in</strong> <strong>Detroit</strong> called “subcommunities.” Subcommunities 

are geographic areas represent<strong>in</strong>g aggregations <strong>of</strong> census tracts 10 and compris<strong>in</strong>g multiple 

neighborhoods. Subcommunities are <strong>in</strong>tended to reflect geographic areas <strong>of</strong> similar 

social and economic conditions, conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g compatible residents and hous<strong>in</strong>g structures 

and hav<strong>in</strong>g little variation <strong>in</strong> total population and hous<strong>in</strong>g units. Subcommunities are 

redrawn every decade to correspond with population and hous<strong>in</strong>g shifts that have 

occurred with<strong>in</strong> the City <strong>of</strong> <strong>Detroit</strong>. In 2000, there were 39 subcommunities. 

This report will only touch on the basic formula characteristics <strong>of</strong> the subcommunities, 

though additional data can be found <strong>in</strong> the Appendix tables. 

Table 36. Rank<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> Subcommunities on 2000 Population 60+ 

Mackenzie 6,015 Belle Isle 3,180 

Ketter<strong>in</strong>g/ Butzel 5,762 Central 3,125 

State Fair/ Nolan 5,637 Airport 2,842 

Harmony Village 5,175 Cerveny 2,768 

Cody/ Rouge 4,757 Redford 2,678 

Pembroke 4,692 University 2,613 

Durfee 4,515 Osborn 2,350 

Rosa Parks 4,501 Connor 2,322 

Vernor 4,387 Grandmont 2,290 

Persh<strong>in</strong>g 4,379 Boynton 2,224 

Bagley 4,297 McNichols 2,013 

Chadsey/ Condon 4,024 Mack 1,821 

Downtown 3,905 Burbank 1,809 

Tireman 3,833 Palmer Park 1,788 

Greenfield 3,814 Denby 1,757 

W<strong>in</strong>terhalter 3,648 Chene 1,738 

Evergreen 3,607 Rosedale Park 1,662 

Brooks 3,379 Brightmoor 1,396 

F<strong>in</strong>ney 3,281 Jeffries 1,154 

St. Jean 3,262 

Four subcommunities conta<strong>in</strong> more than 5,000 seniors, while an additional eight conta<strong>in</strong> 

between 4,000 and 5,000. While there is no clear geographic pattern, one can see that, as 

was the case with sectors, subcommunities on the near west and northwest side <strong>of</strong> the city 

tend to dom<strong>in</strong>ate. As a numerical rank<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong>ten merely reflects subcommunities with 

larger total populations, we also take a look at the share <strong>of</strong> each subcommunity that is 60 

10 Census tracts are small, relatively permanent statistical subdivisions <strong>of</strong> a county or statistically equivalent 

entity, del<strong>in</strong>eated for data presentation purposes by a local group <strong>of</strong> census data users <strong>in</strong> accordance with 

U.S. Census Bureau guidel<strong>in</strong>es. Designed to be relatively homogeneous units with respect to population 

characteristics, economic status, and liv<strong>in</strong>g conditions at the time they are established, census tracts 

generally conta<strong>in</strong> between 1,000 and 8,000 people, with an optimum size <strong>of</strong> 4,000 people. Census tract 

boundaries are del<strong>in</strong>eated with the <strong>in</strong>tention <strong>of</strong> be<strong>in</strong>g stable over many decades, so they generally follow 

relatively permanent visible features. However, they may follow governmental unit boundaries (city limits) 

and other <strong>in</strong>visible features <strong>in</strong> some <strong>in</strong>stances. 

26

years and over. This allows an agency to target services to areas <strong>of</strong> client concentration. 

Table 37 shows the results <strong>of</strong> this analysis. 

Table 37. Rank<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> Subcommunities on Percentage <strong>of</strong> the Population 60+, 2000 

Boynton 24.9 Greenfield 14.7 

Pembroke 23.1 Cerveny 13.4 

Belle Isle 22.0 Persh<strong>in</strong>g 12.7 

Ketter<strong>in</strong>g/ Butzel 21.9 Redford 11.7 

Bagley 21.8 Chadsey/ Condon 11.6 

Downtown 19.6 Evergreen 10.9 

W<strong>in</strong>terhalter 18.9 Airport 10.8 

Rosa Parks 17.8 Grandmont 10.7 

Central 17.8 Cody/ Rouge 10.6 

Durfee 17.7 Brooks 10.6 

St. Jean 17.4 Mack 10.4 

Tireman 17.2 F<strong>in</strong>ney 10.2 

McNichols 16.6 Vernor 10.0 

Jeffries 16.6 Rosedale Park 8.6 

Chene 16.4 Denby 7.2 

Mackenzie 16.1 Connor 7.1 

Harmony Village 15.8 Osborn 7.1 

University 15.5 Brightmoor 7.0 

State Fair/ Nolan 15.0 Burbank 6.7 

Palmer Park 14.9 

While the Ketter<strong>in</strong>g/Butzel (southeast) and Pembroke (northwest) subcommunities 

rema<strong>in</strong> near the top, smaller subcommunities such as Boynton (the city’s “boot” to the 

south) and Belle Isle move up the list. Boynton leads all others with a ratio <strong>of</strong> 1 out <strong>of</strong> 

every 4 residents be<strong>in</strong>g at least 60 years <strong>of</strong> age, while five others come <strong>in</strong> at 20 percent or 

better. 

The f<strong>in</strong>al analysis <strong>of</strong> the population 60 years looks at change over the last 10 years. 

Previous data showed that the City <strong>of</strong> <strong>Detroit</strong> lost 23.2 percent <strong>of</strong> its seniors between 

1990 and 2000, but that the trends varied across the city. Table 38 shows that 7 <strong>of</strong> the 39 

subcommunities experienced growth, rang<strong>in</strong>g from 44 to 615 persons. By far the largest 

growth, <strong>in</strong> both number and percent, occurred <strong>in</strong> the Cerveny subcommunity, bounded by 

McNichols (N), Grand River (S), Greenfield (E) and Southfield (W). The other growth 

areas surrounded Cerveny – all west <strong>of</strong> Woodward Ave. and north <strong>of</strong> I-96. 

Previous analysis had shown a large exodus (result<strong>in</strong>g from both death and migration) 

from Sector 2 on the city’s northeast side. This loss is detailed even further at the 

subcommunity level. With the exception <strong>of</strong> the Jeffries subcommunity, which 

experienced broad population loss as a result <strong>of</strong> the demolition <strong>of</strong> a large public hous<strong>in</strong>g 

project, northeast subcommunities experienced all major losses. Burbank, Denby, and 

Osborn all share the city limits <strong>of</strong> <strong>Detroit</strong> as their northern boundary and form together 

the northeast corner <strong>of</strong> the city. Each lost almost half <strong>of</strong> its seniors <strong>in</strong> the last ten years. 

Losses were <strong>in</strong> no way conf<strong>in</strong>ed to this area but spread to all areas <strong>of</strong> the city. 

27

Table 38. Rank<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> Subcommunities by Percentage Change <strong>in</strong> the Population 

60+, 1990 - 2000 


Cerveny 615 28.6 Ketter<strong>in</strong>g/ Butzel -2,224 -27.8 

Palmer Park 286 19.0 St. Jean -1,318 -28.8 

Grandmont 228 11.1 Persh<strong>in</strong>g -1,855 -29.8 

Harmony Village 354 7.3 Tireman -1,723 -31.0 

Bagley 131 3.1 Airport -1,281 -31.1 

Greenfield 74 2.0 Durfee -2,093 -31.7 

Pembroke 44 0.9 Cody/ Rouge -2,300 -32.6 

Mackenzie -105 -1.7 Vernor -2,145 -32.8 

Rosedale Park -61 -3.5 Brightmoor -683 -32.9 

Evergreen -154 -4.1 F<strong>in</strong>ney -1,655 -33.5 

Downtown -360 -8.4 Rosa Parks -2,343 -34.2 

Belle Isle -307 -8.8 Chadsey/ Condon -2,393 -37.3 

Connor -283 -10.9 University -1,588 -37.8 

Mack -436 -19.3 Central -1,960 -38.5 

Redford -642 -19.3 Chene -1,263 -42.1 

Boynton -543 -19.6 Osborn -2,030 -46.3 

Brooks -913 -21.3 Denby -1,559 -47.0 

W<strong>in</strong>terhalter -1,001 -21.5 Burbank -1,772 -49.5 

State Fair/ Nolan -1,645 -22.6 Jeffries -1,225 -51.5 

McNichols -691 -25.6 

Table 39 addresses the second factor <strong>in</strong> the fund<strong>in</strong>g formula – percent m<strong>in</strong>ority seniors. 

Twenty-five subcommunities have m<strong>in</strong>ority shares <strong>of</strong> 80 percent or more. There is a 

geographic pattern to those that have the low shares <strong>of</strong> m<strong>in</strong>orities, <strong>in</strong> that they tend to be 

located on the outer edges <strong>of</strong> the city. Population trends have shown that <strong>Detroit</strong>’s large 

African-American population first located <strong>in</strong> the central corridor <strong>of</strong> the city – just east <strong>of</strong> 

Woodward Ave. As the city has lost population – primarily whites – over the last 50 

years, the African-American population has moved east and west. As <strong>of</strong> the 2000 

Census, there was no subcommunity with a majority white population. It is the 

subcommunities such as Brightmoor, F<strong>in</strong>ney, Redford and Cody/Rouge that have seen 

their total populations turn to majority m<strong>in</strong>ority. The decreas<strong>in</strong>g numbers <strong>of</strong> whites that 

have rema<strong>in</strong>ed tend to be older, long-time, residents who elect to stay for a variety <strong>of</strong> 

reasons. It is the younger white families with weaker neighborhood ties and sufficient 

resources that have left the city. 

The last subcommunity tables address the issue <strong>of</strong> poverty. The subcommunities 

distributed evenly around the city’s rate <strong>of</strong> 17.8 percent, with n<strong>in</strong>eteen above and 19 

below and Brooks right at the city average. By far the highest poverty rate (45.6 percent) 

was <strong>in</strong> the University subcommunity, which has freeways (Lodge, I-94 and I-75/375) as 

its boundaries on all sides. Three southeast subcommunities (St. Jean, Ketter<strong>in</strong>g/Butzel 

and Mack) that all share I-94 as their northern boundaries and the Jeffries subcommunity 

round out the top five. On the low end are the well-to-do subcommunities <strong>of</strong> Palmer 

Park, Pembroke and Bagley that lay next to one another, between Woodward Ave. (E), 

the Lodge Fwy. (W), Eight Mile Rd. (N) and Six Mile (McNichols) Rd. (S). 

28

Table 39. Rank<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> Subcommunities by Percentage Change <strong>in</strong> the Population 

60+, 1990 – 2000 


Boynton 2,209 99.3 Jeffries 985 85.4 

Tireman 3,797 99.1 Downtown 3,279 84.0 

W<strong>in</strong>terhalter 3,603 98.8 State Fair/ Nolan 4,634 82.2 

Durfee 4,454 98.6 University 2,109 80.7 

Bagley 4,225 98.3 Palmer Park 1,432 80.1 

McNichols 1,979 98.3 Persh<strong>in</strong>g 3,460 79.0 

Pembroke 4,601 98.1 Belle Isle 2,428 76.4 

Harmony Village 5,043 97.4 Rosedale Park 1,231 74.1 

St. Jean 3,168 97.1 Airport 2,023 71.2 

Rosa Parks 4,364 97.0 Brooks 2,078 61.5 

Mackenzie 5,725 95.2 Osborn 1,443 61.4 

Cerveny 2,631 95.1 Denby 958 54.5 

Central 2,937 94.0 Redford 1,422 53.1 

Greenfield 3,580 93.9 Brightmoor 708 50.7 

Ketter<strong>in</strong>g/ Butzel 5,313 92.2 Burbank 870 48.1 

Grandmont 2,107 92.0 Chadsey/ Condon 1,928 47.9 

Mack 1,647 90.4 Vernor 1,949 44.4 

Chene 1,525 87.7 F<strong>in</strong>ney 1,345 41.0 

Connor 2,004 86.3 Cody/ Rouge 1,722 36.2 

Evergreen 3,084 85.5 

Table 40. Rank<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> Subcommunities by Percentage <strong>of</strong> 60+ <strong>in</strong> Poverty, 1999 


University 1,104 45.6 Mackenzie 997 17.1 

Mack 539 29.3 Osborn 401 17.0 

Ketter<strong>in</strong>g/Butzel 1,446 29.3 W<strong>in</strong>terhalter 557 16.5 

Jeffries 308 29.2 McNichols 334 15.9 

St. Jean 839 28.4 Persh<strong>in</strong>g 662 15.1 

Chene 439 26.9 Redford 358 14.7 

Central 810 26.7 Burbank 258 14.4 

Rosa Parks 1,092 25.3 Evergreen 469 14.2 

Downtown 902 23.5 Grandmont 320 14.2 

St. Fair/Nolan 1,255 23.0 Greenfield 506 13.2 

Chadsey/Condon 949 23.0 Denby 228 13.1 

Airport 623 22.2 Boynton 282 12.8 

Belle Isle 700 21.9 Rosedale Park 208 12.6 

Vernor 957 21.8 Cerveny 316 12.1 

Tireman 797 20.3 F<strong>in</strong>ney 358 11.8 

Durfee 873 19.5 Cody/Rouge 540 10.9 

Harmony Village 972 19.3 Pembroke 466 9.9 

Connor 430 18.8 Bagley 396 9.6 

Brightmoor 267 18.2 Palmer Park 89 5.0 

Brooks 550 17.8 <strong>Detroit</strong> 23,520 18.9 

Table 41 completes the poverty analysis by calculat<strong>in</strong>g the share <strong>of</strong> 60+ population that 

falls at various ratios <strong>of</strong> the poverty threshold – end<strong>in</strong>g at the State formula’s value <strong>of</strong> 

150%. While the rank<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> subcommunities shows no change, the table does allow one 

29

to view both extreme poverty as well as the degree to which subcommunity populations 

fall below the state-mandated threshold. Four subcommunities have at least 1 <strong>of</strong> 10 

seniors <strong>in</strong> extreme poverty (less than 50%) and 23 subcommunities have a similar ratio at 

less than 75%. Fifteen subcommunities have at least one-third <strong>of</strong> their seniors with 

<strong>in</strong>comes below 150%. 

Table 41. Rank<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> Subcommunities by Percentage <strong>of</strong> 60+ Below 150% <strong>of</strong> 

Poverty, 1999 

Subcommunities 

Total 



50 75 100 125 150 

University 2,418 14.6 28.2 45.6 55.4 61.9 

Jeffries 1,053 9.8 16.4 29.2 41.5 47.8 

Chene 1,634 9.4 14.6 26.9 41.0 46.1 

St. Jean 2,953 9.6 18.2 28.4 36.5 45.7 

Mack 1,839 9.2 16.5 29.3 36.2 43.7 

Ketter<strong>in</strong>g/Butzel 4,936 10.7 17.6 29.3 36.4 43.1 

Central 3,029 9.4 16.4 26.7 35.6 42.5 

Rosa Parks 4,310 10.1 15.1 25.3 33.1 40.2 

Airport 2,801 9.3 13.5 22.2 31.3 38.1 

St. Fair/Nolan 5,449 8.2 13.8 23.0 31.9 38.1 

Downtown 3,837 3.8 13.2 23.5 31.9 37.3 

Chadsey/Condon 4,131 10.6 16.1 23.0 30.0 37.2 

Vernor 4,390 7.4 12.5 21.8 29.1 36.2 

Tireman 3,919 8.5 13.3 20.3 27.4 35.3 

Belle Isle 3,200 7.8 12.0 21.9 29.5 33.7 

Brightmoor 1,465 8.5 12.6 18.2 26.0 31.9 

Connor 2,289 7.0 10.8 18.8 25.4 30.9 

Harmony Village 5,032 7.5 12.2 19.3 25.7 30.4 

Durfee 4,475 8.3 13.2 19.5 25.4 30.3 

Brooks 3,096 8.0 13.0 17.8 23.6 29.6 

Osborn 2,356 6.6 11.9 17.0 23.0 28.7 

Mackenzie 5,829 6.9 10.2 17.1 22.4 28.6 

W<strong>in</strong>terhalter 3,378 5.5 10.8 16.5 22.6 27.2 

Redford 2,432 4.5 6.8 14.7 21.1 26.3 

McNichols 2,100 4.1 8.9 15.9 23.0 26.0 

Burbank 1,791 4.8 8.2 14.4 20.0 24.8 

Persh<strong>in</strong>g 4,391 6.1 9.3 15.1 19.9 24.6 

F<strong>in</strong>ney 3,031 3.2 7.3 11.8 18.3 24.4 

Greenfield 3,836 4.6 7.7 13.2 17.0 24.3 

Cody/Rouge 4,943 2.6 5.8 10.9 16.3 23.6 

Boynton 2,202 4.8 10.2 12.8 17.9 23.5 

Denby 1,742 3.8 7.5 13.1 16.3 23.2 

Grandmont 2,253 5.4 7.8 14.2 18.6 22.7 

Evergreen 3,294 5.5 7.5 14.2 19.1 22.1 

Cerveny 2,606 3.2 5.8 12.1 17.1 22.0 

Rosedale Park 1,660 5.0 9.6 12.6 14.9 20.0 

Pembroke 4,699 3.9 6.6 9.9 14.0 19.3 

Bagley 4,126 3.8 5.3 9.6 14.0 16.2 

Palmer Park 1,794 2.3 3.7 5.0 7.3 9.1 

30

This analysis, while assist<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the target<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> resources by po<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g out areas <strong>of</strong> need, 

shows that need is widespread and, thus, the targets are many. In an era <strong>of</strong> dim<strong>in</strong>ish<strong>in</strong>g 

resources for Region 1-A, due to an economy that has reduced all state-level resources 

and demographic trends that have reduced Region 1-A’s share <strong>of</strong> the State, <strong>in</strong>novative 

and well-targeted programs will be the key to success. 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

The cumulative effects <strong>of</strong> a decreas<strong>in</strong>g senior population and decreas<strong>in</strong>g statewide shares 

<strong>of</strong> m<strong>in</strong>ority and poor seniors necessitate that the <strong>Detroit</strong> <strong>Area</strong> <strong>Agency</strong> on Ag<strong>in</strong>g will be 

required to provide services to a needier population with fewer resources. Such a fact 

makes it critical that services are provided <strong>in</strong> a targeted, efficient manner. 

This demographic analysis allows for the development <strong>of</strong> geographic priorities. The 

tabular and mapped <strong>in</strong>formation, at geographic levels as small as the census tract, allow 

the agency to “see” where the pockets <strong>of</strong> need are. In addition, the maps <strong>of</strong> present 

service delivery po<strong>in</strong>ts provide the ability to review whether current services are properly 

aligned with areas <strong>of</strong> need. 

While provid<strong>in</strong>g the context for view<strong>in</strong>g seniors <strong>in</strong> <strong>PSA</strong> 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 

<strong>in</strong>dicators have been compiled for the region and for sectors, and agency program 

participation data have been analyzed as well. The Institute <strong>of</strong> Gerontology at Wayne 

State University conducted a large-scale survey <strong>of</strong> seniors <strong>in</strong> <strong>Detroit</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 

<strong>in</strong>formation possible for these important, and diverse, sub-areas <strong>of</strong> the city. 

While each <strong>of</strong> these studies stands alone as an important component <strong>of</strong> the “picture” <strong>of</strong> 

seniors <strong>in</strong> <strong>PSA</strong> 1-A, it is strongly recommended that they be brought together at both the 

region and sector level so that the picture conta<strong>in</strong>s a “depth <strong>of</strong> field.” To the extent 

possible, sector-based pr<strong>of</strong>iles <strong>of</strong> seniors should be compiled. These pr<strong>of</strong>iles could then 

be used as the basis for program plann<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the region. 

In summary, the Center for Urban Studies hopes that this work marks the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> a 

cont<strong>in</strong>u<strong>in</strong>g relationship with DAAA as the agency works to understand the needs <strong>of</strong> its 

seniors <strong>in</strong> order to strategically plan its services. 

31

Appendix 1 

Data Tables

TABLE 1. GENERAL POPULATION TRENDS BY SECTOR IN REGION 1-A, 1990 - 2000 

SECTORS 

2000 AGE DISTRIBUTION 

Total 60 years and over 

60 to 64 years 


















1990 - 2000 CHANGE - NUMBER 










1990 - 2000 CHANGE - PERCENT 










1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

12,858 8,238 17,306 12,535 10,635 16,497 14,151 9,343 14,047 12,790 6,397 13,049 

2,962 2,215 3,370 2,667 2,420 2,891 3,369 2,568 3,941 2,941 1,228 2,436 

9,896 6,023 13,936 9,868 8,215 13,606 10,782 6,775 10,106 9,849 5,169 10,613 

2,681 1,727 3,293 2,535 2,209 3,186 2,947 2,028 3,392 3,056 1,214 2,314 

2,551 1,547 3,495 2,416 2,209 3,539 2,859 1,750 2,793 2,650 1,233 2,771 

4,664 2,749 7,148 4,917 3,797 6,881 4,976 2,997 3,921 4,143 2,722 5,528 

2,194 1,283 3,093 2,181 1,846 3,151 2,344 1,357 1,985 2,126 1,159 2,525 

1,382 834 2,054 1,435 1,152 2,008 1,603 856 1,111 1,218 864 1,726 

1,088 632 2,001 1,301 799 1,722 1,029 784 825 799 699 1,277 

17,639 13,882 23,246 18,931 15,716 23,657 17,469 10,883 12,776 13,020 8,327 15,936 

4,362 3,191 5,431 4,051 4,040 5,774 4,608 2,868 4,037 3,924 1,754 3,854 

13,277 10,691 17,815 14,880 11,676 17,883 12,861 8,015 8,739 9,096 6,573 12,082 

4,429 3,261 5,467 4,455 3,981 6,027 4,484 2,601 3,263 3,606 2,074 3,787 

3,590 2,830 4,378 3,738 3,149 4,575 3,633 1,883 2,271 2,417 1,822 3,126 

5,258 4,600 7,970 6,687 4,546 7,281 4,744 3,531 3,205 3,073 2,677 5,169 

2,690 2,153 3,539 2,982 2,311 3,497 2,470 1,461 1,524 1,534 1,375 2,361 

1,461 1,366 2,233 2,019 1,276 1,953 1,273 957 853 837 700 1,567 

1,107 1,081 2,198 1,686 959 1,831 1,001 1,113 828 702 602 1,241 

-4,781 -5,644 -5,940 -6,396 -5,081 -7,160 -3,318 -1,540 1,271 -230 -1,930 -2,887 

-1,400 -976 -2,061 -1,384 -1,620 -2,883 -1,239 -300 -96 -983 -526 -1,418 

-3,381 -4,668 -3,879 -5,012 -3,461 -4,277 -2,079 -1,240 1,367 753 -1,404 -1,469 

-1,748 -1,534 -2,174 -1,920 -1,772 -2,841 -1,537 -573 129 -550 -860 -1,473 

-1,039 -1,283 -883 -1,322 -940 -1,036 -774 -133 522 233 -589 -355 

-594 -1,851 -822 -1,770 -749 -400 232 -534 716 1,070 45 359 

-496 -870 -446 -801 -465 -346 -126 -104 461 592 -216 164 

-79 -532 -179 -584 -124 55 330 -101 258 381 164 159 

-19 -449 -197 -385 -160 -109 28 -329 -3 97 97 36 

-27.1 -40.7 -25.6 -33.8 -32.3 -30.3 -19.0 -14.2 9.9 -1.8 -23.2 -18.1 

-32.1 -30.6 -37.9 -34.2 -40.1 -49.9 -26.9 -10.5 -2.4 -25.1 -30.0 -36.8 

-25.5 -43.7 -21.8 -33.7 -29.6 -23.9 -16.2 -15.5 15.6 8.3 -21.4 -12.2 

-39.5 -47.0 -39.8 -43.1 -44.5 -47.1 -34.3 -22.0 4.0 -15.3 -41.5 -38.9 

-28.9 -45.3 -20.2 -35.4 -29.9 -22.6 -21.3 -7.1 23.0 9.6 -32.3 -11.4 

-11.3 -40.2 -10.3 -26.5 -16.5 -5.5 4.9 -15.1 22.3 34.8 1.7 6.9 

-18.4 -40.4 -12.6 -26.9 -20.1 -9.9 -5.1 -7.1 30.2 38.6 -15.7 6.9 

-5.4 -38.9 -8.0 -28.9 -9.7 2.8 25.9 -10.6 30.2 45.5 23.4 10.1 

-1.7 -41.5 -9.0 -22.8 -16.7 -6.0 2.8 -29.6 -0.4 13.8 16.1 2.9 

Source: 1990 Census: STF1A; 2000 Census: SF1 1 WSU/Center for Urban Studies


SECTORS 

1990 AGE BY GENDER 

M<strong>in</strong>ority 60 years and over 



M<strong>in</strong>ority Males 60+ 

M<strong>in</strong>ority Females 60+ 

White 60 years and over 



White Males 60+ 

White Females 60+ 























1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

10,652 3,431 15,920 14,975 6,170 23,026 8,095 3,971 10,895 12,076 3,629 77 

2,821 731 4,626 5,388 1,687 6,943 1,799 915 2,405 2,700 1,106 25 

648 198 1,050 1,315 414 1,689 427 232 569 584 251 5 

4,475 1,454 6,373 5,874 2,701 9,152 3,448 1,671 4,654 5,254 1,427 32 

6,177 1,977 9,547 9,101 3,469 13,874 4,647 2,300 6,241 6,822 2,202 45 

6,987 10,451 7,326 3,956 9,546 631 9,374 6,912 1,881 944 4,698 15,859 

2,437 3,869 3,344 1,299 2,859 338 2,945 2,616 800 373 1,571 5,144 

459 883 1,148 371 545 142 574 881 259 118 351 1,236 

2,935 4,176 2,749 1,775 4,116 230 3,808 2,753 724 378 1,933 6,520 

4,052 6,275 4,577 2,143 5,430 401 5,566 4,159 1,157 566 2,765 9,339 

-535 1,844 -2,019 -4,140 -84 -6,808 1,430 2,474 2,466 161 -100 320 

527 494 762 -1,094 384 -183 797 850 1,214 1,261 185 68 

130 50 318 -149 18 -20 101 253 172 170 104 23 

-335 807 -1,151 -1,618 -93 -2,961 517 1,006 687 -380 -99 140 

-200 1,037 -868 -2,522 9 -3,847 913 1,468 1,779 541 -1 180 

-4,246 -7,488 -3,921 -2,256 -4,997 -352 -4,748 -4,014 -1,195 -391 -1,830 -3,207 

-1,121 -2,345 -1,584 -676 -1,133 -217 -565 -1,384 -498 -191 -140 291 

-149 -499 -515 -236 -178 -89 -73 -582 -175 -73 -7 13 

-1,770 -2,926 -1,455 -941 -2,170 -117 -1,952 -1,521 -434 -130 -772 -1,228 

-2,476 -4,562 -2,466 -1,277 -2,827 -235 -2,796 -2,493 -761 -261 -1,058 -1,979 

-5.0 53.7 -12.7 -27.6 -1.4 -29.6 17.7 62.3 22.6 1.3 -2.8 415.6 

18.7 67.6 16.5 -20.3 22.8 -2.6 44.3 92.9 50.5 46.7 16.7 272.0 

20.1 25.3 30.3 -11.3 4.3 -1.2 23.7 109.1 30.2 29.1 41.4 460.0 

-7.5 55.5 -18.1 -27.5 -3.4 -32.4 15.0 60.2 14.8 -7.2 -6.9 437.5 

-3.2 52.5 -9.1 -27.7 0.3 -27.7 19.6 63.8 28.5 7.9 0.0 400.0 

-60.8 -71.6 -53.5 -57.0 -52.3 -55.8 -50.7 -58.1 -63.5 -41.4 -39.0 -20.2 

-46.0 -60.6 -47.4 -52.0 -39.6 -64.2 -19.2 -52.9 -62.3 -51.2 -8.9 5.7 

-32.5 -56.5 -44.9 -63.6 -32.7 -62.7 -12.7 -66.1 -67.6 -61.9 -2.0 1.1 

-60.3 -70.1 -52.9 -53.0 -52.7 -50.9 -51.3 -55.2 -59.9 -34.4 -39.9 -18.8 

-61.1 -72.7 -53.9 -59.6 -52.1 -58.6 -50.2 -59.9 -65.8 -46.1 -38.3 -21.2 



SECTORS 


Males 60 years and over 



Females 60 years and over 



































1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

5,305 3,511 6,516 5,090 4,554 6,304 5,821 3,909 5,631 5,122 2,489 5,464 

1,804 1,072 2,378 1,672 1,469 2,491 1,900 1,055 1,495 1,585 916 2,079 

377 207 493 358 241 513 320 203 255 260 203 395 

7,553 4,727 10,790 7,445 6,081 10,193 8,330 5,434 8,416 7,668 3,908 7,585 

2,860 1,677 4,770 3,245 2,328 4,390 3,076 1,942 2,426 2,558 1,806 3,449 

711 425 1,508 943 558 1,209 709 581 570 539 496 882 

7,410 5,630 9,122 7,649 6,817 9,382 7,256 4,424 5,378 5,632 3,360 6,552 

2,032 1,636 2,695 2,345 1,721 2,622 1,800 1,114 1,152 1,187 942 1,770 

362 361 656 585 329 598 315 290 251 205 163 364 

10,229 8,252 14,124 11,244 8,899 14,275 10,213 6,459 7,398 7,388 4,967 9,384 

3,226 2,964 5,275 4,328 2,825 4,659 2,944 2,417 2,053 1,886 1,735 3,399 

745 720 1,542 1,099 630 1,233 686 823 577 497 439 877 

-2,105 -2,119 -2,606 -2,559 -2,263 -3,078 -1,435 -515 253 -510 -871 -1,088 

-228 -564 -317 -673 -252 -131 100 -59 343 398 -26 309 

15 -154 -163 -227 -88 -85 5 -87 4 55 40 31 

-2,676 -3,525 -3,334 -3,799 -2,818 -4,082 -1,883 -1,025 1,018 280 -1,059 -1,799 

-366 -1,287 -505 -1,083 -497 -269 132 -475 373 672 71 50 

-34 -295 -34 -156 -72 -24 23 -242 -7 42 57 5 

-28.4 -37.6 -28.6 -33.5 -33.2 -32.8 -19.8 -11.6 4.7 -9.1 -25.9 -16.6 

-11.2 -34.5 -11.8 -28.7 -14.6 -5.0 5.6 -5.3 29.8 33.5 -2.8 17.5 

4.1 -42.7 -24.8 -38.8 -26.7 -14.2 1.6 -30.0 1.6 26.8 24.5 8.5 

-26.2 -42.7 -23.6 -33.8 -31.7 -28.6 -18.4 -15.9 13.8 3.8 -21.3 -19.2 

-11.3 -43.4 -9.6 -25.0 -17.6 -5.8 4.5 -19.7 18.2 35.6 4.1 1.5 

-4.6 -41.0 -2.2 -14.2 -11.4 -1.9 3.4 -29.4 -1.2 8.5 13.0 0.6 

10,117 5,275 13,901 10,835 6,086 16,218 9,525 6,445 13,361 12,237 3,529 397 

3,348 1,225 5,388 4,294 2,071 6,760 2,596 1,765 3,619 3,961 1,291 93 

778 248 1,368 1,166 432 1,669 528 485 741 754 355 28 

4,140 2,261 5,222 4,256 2,608 6,191 3,965 2,677 5,341 4,874 1,328 172 

5,977 3,014 8,679 6,579 3,478 10,027 5,560 3,768 8,020 7,363 2,201 225 

2,741 2,963 3,405 1,700 4,549 279 4,626 2,898 686 553 2,868 12,652 

1,316 1,524 1,760 623 1,726 121 2,380 1,232 302 182 1,431 5,435 

310 384 633 135 367 53 501 299 84 45 344 1,249 

1,165 1,250 1,294 834 1,946 113 1,856 1,232 290 248 1,161 5,292 

1,576 1,713 2,111 866 2,603 166 2,770 1,666 396 305 1,707 7,360 


TABLE 2. LIVING ARRANGEMENT TRENDS BY SECTOR IN REGION 1-A, 1990 - 2000 

SECTORS 

2000 LIVING ARRANGEMENTS 

Households with 1 or more persons 60 years+ 

Liv<strong>in</strong>g Alone 

In 2 or more person household 

Family household 

Nonfamily household 











Liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Group Quarters 

Institutional group quarters 

Non<strong>in</strong>stitutional group quarters 















1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

9,848 6,549 12,550 10,130 8,233 12,544 10,772 6,945 10,710 9,444 4,911 8,991 

3,444 1,966 5,367 6,284 3,106 5,078 3,795 2,494 3,373 2,967 2,428 3,420 

6,404 4,583 7,183 3,846 5,127 7,466 6,977 4,451 7,337 6,477 2,483 5,571 

6,037 4,324 6,631 3,355 4,763 6,944 6,627 4,199 6,987 6,231 2,300 5,420 

367 259 552 491 364 522 350 252 350 246 183 151 

7,780 4,881 10,214 8,108 6,538 10,545 8,340 5,039 7,949 7,468 4,004 7,534 

2,829 1,565 4,485 5,124 2,573 4,306 3,064 1,928 2,583 2,367 2,030 3,045 

4,951 3,316 5,729 2,984 3,965 6,239 5,276 3,111 5,366 5,101 1,974 4,489 

4,676 3,144 5,315 2,621 3,691 5,843 5,042 2,939 5,114 4,910 1,830 4,369 

275 172 414 363 274 396 234 172 252 191 144 120 

3,861 2,333 5,278 4,160 3,262 5,678 4,062 2,170 3,236 3,402 2,141 4,330 

1,579 838 2,464 2,659 1,411 2,414 1,665 899 1,106 1,150 1,163 1,986 

2,282 1,495 2,814 1,501 1,851 3,264 2,397 1,271 2,130 2,252 978 2,344 

2,155 1,433 2,619 1,334 1,727 3,083 2,310 1,204 2,030 2,141 899 2,269 

127 62 195 167 124 181 87 67 100 111 79 75 

131 56 504 325 11 169 131 191 99 70 366 194 

124 51 346 221 0 135 107 165 97 61 355 182 

7 5 158 104 11 34 24 26 2 9 11 12 

12,888 10,257 16,133 14,944 11,842 17,275 12,458 7,719 9,187 9,156 6,189 10,878 

4,238 3,652 6,292 9,142 4,510 6,544 4,111 2,806 2,492 2,349 3,031 3,818 

8,650 6,605 9,841 5,802 7,332 10,731 8,347 4,913 6,695 6,807 3,158 7,060 

8,122 6,275 9,080 4,899 6,791 9,962 7,954 4,673 6,358 6,503 2,934 6,893 

528 330 761 903 541 769 393 240 337 304 224 167 

10,067 8,177 12,670 12,049 9,203 13,580 9,501 5,758 6,497 6,721 4,985 8,699 

3,459 3,091 5,133 7,430 3,682 5,123 3,284 2,239 1,863 1,801 2,503 3,348 

6,608 5,086 7,537 4,619 5,521 8,457 6,217 3,519 4,634 4,920 2,482 5,351 

6,208 4,832 6,917 3,897 5,088 7,827 5,945 3,353 4,388 4,690 2,304 5,220 

400 254 620 722 433 630 272 166 246 230 178 131 

298 140 1,928 808 72 516 541 808 607 251 287 128 

295 134 1,367 670 0 496 541 769 600 243 276 115 

3 6 561 138 72 20 0 39 7 8 11 13 

WSU/Center for Urban Studies/MIMIC 4 Ag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Pr<strong>of</strong>ile</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Detroit</strong> Subcommunities

TABLE 2. LIVING ARRANGEMENT TRENDS BY SECTOR IN REGION 1-A, 1990 - 2000 

SECTORS 





























1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

-3,040 -3,708 -3,583 -4,814 -3,609 -4,731 -1,686 -774 1,523 288 -1,278 -1,887 

-794 -1,686 -925 -2,858 -1,404 -1,466 -316 -312 881 618 -603 -398 

-2,246 -2,022 -2,658 -1,956 -2,205 -3,265 -1,370 -462 642 -330 -675 -1,489 

-2,085 -1,951 -2,449 -1,544 -2,028 -3,018 -1,327 -474 629 -272 -634 -1,473 

-161 -71 -209 -412 -177 -247 -43 12 13 -58 -41 -16 

-2,287 -3,296 -2,456 -3,941 -2,665 -3,035 -1,161 -719 1,452 747 -981 -1,165 

-630 -1,526 -648 -2,306 -1,109 -817 -220 -311 720 566 -473 -303 

-1,657 -1,770 -1,808 -1,635 -1,556 -2,218 -941 -408 732 181 -508 -862 

-1,532 -1,688 -1,602 -1,276 -1,397 -1,984 -903 -414 726 220 -474 -851 

-125 -82 -206 -359 -159 -234 -38 6 6 -39 -34 -11 

-167 -84 -1,424 -483 -61 -347 -410 -617 -508 -181 79 66 

-171 -83 -1,021 -449 0 -361 -434 -604 -503 -182 79 67 

4 -1 -403 -34 -61 14 24 -13 -5 1 0 -1 

-23.6 -36.2 -22.2 -32.2 -30.5 -27.4 -13.5 -10.0 16.6 3.1 -20.6 -17.3 

-18.7 -46.2 -14.7 -31.3 -31.1 -22.4 -7.7 -11.1 35.4 26.3 -19.9 -10.4 

-26.0 -30.6 -27.0 -33.7 -30.1 -30.4 -16.4 -9.4 9.6 -4.8 -21.4 -21.1 

-25.7 -31.1 -27.0 -31.5 -29.9 -30.3 -16.7 -10.1 9.9 -4.2 -21.6 -21.4 

-30.5 -21.5 -27.5 -45.6 -32.7 -32.1 -10.9 5.0 3.9 -19.1 -18.3 -9.6 

-22.7 -40.3 -19.4 -32.7 -29.0 -22.3 -12.2 -12.5 22.3 11.1 -19.7 -13.4 

-18.2 -49.4 -12.6 -31.0 -30.1 -15.9 -6.7 -13.9 38.6 31.4 -18.9 -9.1 

-25.1 -34.8 -24.0 -35.4 -28.2 -26.2 -15.1 -11.6 15.8 3.7 -20.5 -16.1 

-24.7 -34.9 -23.2 -32.7 -27.5 -25.3 -15.2 -12.3 16.5 4.7 -20.6 -16.3 

-31.3 -32.3 -33.2 -49.7 -36.7 -37.1 -14.0 3.6 2.4 -17.0 -19.1 -8.4 

-56.0 -60.0 -73.9 -59.8 -84.7 -67.2 -75.8 -76.4 -83.7 -72.1 27.5 51.6 

-58.0 -61.9 -74.7 -67.0 0.0 -72.8 -80.2 -78.5 -83.8 -74.9 28.6 58.3 

133.3 -16.7 -71.8 -24.6 -84.7 70.0 nc -33.3 -71.4 12.5 0.0 -7.7 


TABLE 3. HOUSEHOLDS HEADED BY PERSONS 55 YEARS AND OVER BY SECTOR IN REGION 1-A, 2000 

SECTORS 

HHLD TYPE BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER 

Total Households 

Total Family households 

Householder 55-64 years 



Householder 85+ years 

Total NonFamily households 





Percent <strong>of</strong> Family households 





Percent <strong>of</strong> NonFamily households 





HOUSING TENURE BY AGE OF HHLDR 

Total Owner-occupied hous<strong>in</strong>g units 





Total Renter-occupied hous<strong>in</strong>g units 






Percent <strong>of</strong> Owner-occupied hous<strong>in</strong>g units 





Percent <strong>of</strong> Renter-occupied hous<strong>in</strong>g units 





1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

25,747 35,819 45,444 32,712 28,029 34,669 40,163 33,940 35,466 24,439 14,232 24,889 

17,726 26,861 28,378 13,022 18,995 21,310 27,793 23,166 24,917 16,315 8,373 17,319 

2,144 2,513 3,142 1,445 1,825 2,189 3,219 2,915 3,916 2,700 871 2,527 

1,821 1,321 2,843 1,162 1,672 2,641 2,456 1,400 2,781 2,637 776 2,065 

1,160 773 1,832 773 1,105 2,005 1,403 642 1,154 1,389 530 1,542 

243 156 444 247 233 478 287 115 207 237 157 310 

8,021 8,958 17,066 19,690 9,034 13,359 12,370 10,774 10,549 8,124 5,859 7,570 

1,189 1,123 2,449 2,747 1,257 1,884 1,826 1,575 1,949 1,411 865 914 

1,116 810 2,469 2,634 1,283 2,081 1,502 1,108 1,601 1,293 916 1,101 

989 620 2,157 2,052 1,148 1,903 1,377 729 942 1,003 922 1,426 

305 258 821 728 349 650 357 220 243 233 301 620 

12.1 9.4 11.1 11.1 9.6 10.3 11.6 12.6 15.7 16.5 10.4 14.6 

10.3 4.9 10.0 8.9 8.8 12.4 8.8 6.0 11.2 16.2 9.3 11.9 

6.5 2.9 6.5 5.9 5.8 9.4 5.0 2.8 4.6 8.5 6.3 8.9 

1.4 0.6 1.6 1.9 1.2 2.2 1.0 0.5 0.8 1.5 1.9 1.8 

14.8 12.5 14.4 14.0 13.9 14.1 14.8 14.6 18.5 17.4 14.8 12.1 

13.9 9.0 14.5 13.4 14.2 15.6 12.1 10.3 15.2 15.9 15.6 14.5 

12.3 6.9 12.6 10.4 12.7 14.2 11.1 6.8 8.9 12.3 15.7 18.8 

3.8 2.9 4.8 3.7 3.9 4.9 2.9 2.0 2.3 2.9 5.1 8.2 

15,289 22,881 23,852 6,475 14,402 14,501 25,311 21,865 23,044 17,027 6,403 21,460 

2,527 2,782 3,535 1,137 1,984 2,127 3,899 3,614 4,823 3,372 915 3,158 

2,471 1,752 3,590 1,142 2,196 3,255 3,345 1,941 3,594 3,487 960 2,934 

1,879 1,228 2,782 952 1,828 2,883 2,454 1,059 1,638 2,118 963 2,750 

483 369 797 319 469 811 567 246 301 392 271 822 

10,458 12,938 21,592 26,237 13,627 20,168 14,852 12,075 12,422 7,412 7,829 3,429 

806 854 2,056 3,055 1,098 1,946 1,146 876 1,042 739 821 283 

466 379 1,722 2,654 759 1,467 613 567 788 443 732 232 

270 165 1,207 1,873 425 1,025 326 312 458 274 489 218 

65 45 468 656 113 317 77 89 149 78 187 108 

16.5 12.2 14.8 17.6 13.8 14.7 15.4 16.5 20.9 19.8 14.3 14.7 

16.2 7.7 15.1 17.6 15.2 22.4 13.2 8.9 15.6 20.5 15.0 13.7 

12.3 5.4 11.7 14.7 12.7 19.9 9.7 4.8 7.1 12.4 15.0 12.8 

3.2 1.6 3.3 4.9 3.3 5.6 2.2 1.1 1.3 2.3 4.2 3.8 

7.7 6.6 9.5 11.6 8.1 9.6 7.7 7.3 8.4 10.0 10.5 8.3 

4.5 2.9 8.0 10.1 5.6 7.3 4.1 4.7 6.3 6.0 9.3 6.8 

2.6 1.3 5.6 7.1 3.1 5.1 2.2 2.6 3.7 3.7 6.2 6.4 

0.6 0.3 2.2 2.5 0.8 1.6 0.5 0.7 1.2 1.1 2.4 3.1 

Source: 2000 Census: SF1 6 WSU/Center for Urban Studies

TABLE 4. SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS BY SECTOR IN REGION 1-A 

SECTORS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

DISABILITY - TOTALS FOR 65+ 

Total disabilities tallied 11,540 6,303 16,741 11,698 9,173 15,279 10,931 6,555 10,374 9,020 6,114 6,581 

Sensory 1,485 823 2,198 1,535 1,182 1,971 1,492 860 1,399 944 734 1,047 

Physical 3,891 2,159 5,538 4,027 3,205 5,125 3,663 2,312 3,483 3,066 2,065 2,268 

Mental 1,534 739 2,314 1,405 1,251 2,063 1,285 856 1,268 1,226 854 762 

Self-care 1,539 835 2,436 1,697 1,159 2,133 1,337 844 1,467 1,170 891 837 

Go-outside-home 3,091 1,747 4,255 3,034 2,376 3,987 3,154 1,683 2,757 2,614 1,570 1,667 

Sensory 12.9 13.1 13.1 13.1 12.9 12.9 13.6 13.1 13.5 10.5 12.0 15.9 

Physical 33.7 34.3 33.1 34.4 34.9 33.5 33.5 35.3 33.6 34.0 33.8 34.5 

Mental 13.3 11.7 13.8 12.0 13.6 13.5 11.8 13.1 12.2 13.6 14.0 11.6 

Self-care 13.3 13.2 14.6 14.5 12.6 14.0 12.2 12.9 14.1 13.0 14.6 12.7 

Go-outside-home 26.8 27.7 25.4 25.9 25.9 26.1 28.9 25.7 26.6 29.0 25.7 25.3 

DISABILITY - NUMBER AND TYPE 

Persons 65 years and over 9,744 5,955 12,777 9,312 8,208 13,203 10,584 6,306 9,819 9,787 4,885 10,337 

1 Disability 2,304 1,355 3,138 2,199 1,805 3,019 2,607 1,359 2,196 2,332 1,017 1,726 

Sensory 224 150 315 187 155 355 268 181 215 212 83 367 

Physical 1,050 612 1,661 1,126 957 1,421 1,136 705 1,032 1,065 526 830 

Mental 151 48 186 70 98 151 129 52 65 169 61 75 

Self-care 27 31 28 61 31 72 38 9 49 36 13 21 

Go-outside-home 852 514 948 755 564 1,020 1,036 412 835 850 334 433 

2 or more Disabilities 3,216 1,751 4,542 3,224 2,555 4,179 2,918 1,801 2,831 2,377 1,770 1,638 

Includes Self-care 1,512 804 2,408 1,636 1,128 2,061 1,299 835 1,418 1,134 878 816 

Does not <strong>in</strong>clude Self-care 1,704 947 2,134 1,588 1,427 2,118 1,619 966 1,413 1,243 892 822 

No Disability Reported 4,224 2,849 5,097 3,889 3,848 6,005 5,059 3,146 4,792 5,078 2,098 6,973 

1 Disability 23.6 22.8 24.6 23.6 22.0 22.9 24.6 21.6 22.4 23.8 20.8 16.7 

Sensory 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.0 1.9 2.7 2.5 2.9 2.2 2.2 1.7 3.6 

Physical 10.8 10.3 13.0 12.1 11.7 10.8 10.7 11.2 10.5 10.9 10.8 8.0 

Mental 1.5 0.8 1.5 0.8 1.2 1.1 1.2 0.8 0.7 1.7 1.2 0.7 

Self-care 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 

Go-outside-home 8.7 8.6 7.4 8.1 6.9 7.7 9.8 6.5 8.5 8.7 6.8 4.2 

2 or more Disabilities 33.0 29.4 35.5 34.6 31.1 31.7 27.6 28.6 28.8 24.3 36.2 15.8 

Includes Self-care 15.5 13.5 18.8 17.6 13.7 15.6 12.3 13.2 14.4 11.6 18.0 7.9 

Does not <strong>in</strong>clude Self-care 17.5 15.9 16.7 17.1 17.4 16.0 15.3 15.3 14.4 12.7 18.3 8.0 

No Disability Reported 43.3 47.8 39.9 41.8 46.9 45.5 47.8 49.9 48.8 51.9 42.9 67.5 



SECTORS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT 


Less than 9th grade 2,385 1,295 3,103 2,339 2,528 2,696 2,110 1,173 2,034 1,309 1,301 643 

9th-12th grade, no diploma 3,231 2,079 4,687 3,113 2,697 4,490 3,709 2,096 3,319 2,332 1,733 1,328 

High school graduate 2,728 1,731 3,445 1,812 2,011 2,951 3,212 1,787 2,601 2,307 1,376 2,768 

Some College, no degree 1,172 610 1,720 1,161 678 2,024 1,288 899 1,458 1,957 382 2,097 

Associate degree 102 106 306 193 56 330 138 241 218 314 173 185 

Bachelor's degree 179 118 390 489 93 584 305 473 183 768 111 1,991 

Graduate or Pr<strong>of</strong>essional degree 191 79 430 715 145 555 135 256 336 953 161 1,517 

Percent High School Grad or higher 43.8 43.9 44.7 44.5 36.3 47.3 46.6 52.8 47.3 63.4 42.1 81.3 

Percent College Grad or higher 3.7 3.3 5.8 12.3 2.9 8.4 4.0 10.5 5.1 17.3 5.2 33.3 

LANGUAGE SPOKEN/ABILITY TO SPEAK ENGLISH 


Only English 8,821 5,429 13,485 9,349 6,064 13,374 9,441 6,548 9,925 9,670 3,737 9,274 

Percent <strong>of</strong> total 88.3 90.2 95.8 95.2 73.9 98.1 86.6 94.6 97.8 97.3 71.4 88.1 

Spanish 41 21 55 191 1134 94 242 69 83 127 110 100 

Not well, not at all 23 0 13 34 452 14 24 11 0 16 12 17 

Indo European 812 455 495 157 778 122 1,040 240 89 83 1,267 1,035 


Asian and Pacific 39 91 25 72 24 32 32 6 26 33 5 11 


Other 275 22 21 53 208 8 142 62 26 27 118 109 


Speak English not well, not at all 4.7 2.2 0.6 1.0 8.2 0.3 1.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 9.1 2.0 

HOUSEHOLD INCOME 

Householders 55-64 years 4,232 3,770 4,776 4,240 3,122 4,324 5,060 4,526 5,890 4,055 1,711 3,371 

Less than $10,000 848 514 1,056 1,399 843 1,155 768 497 750 327 483 104 

$10,000 to $19,999 636 581 669 645 467 601 739 474 724 301 342 136 

$20,000 to $29,999 727 515 774 492 478 650 596 579 770 401 214 124 

$30,000 to $49,999 645 747 733 588 584 781 1,231 950 1,286 850 296 477 

$50,000 to $74,999 759 741 715 484 410 691 845 754 1,062 768 203 590 

$75,000 to $99,999 268 393 345 312 148 209 489 591 574 481 90 418 

$100,000 or more 349 242 390 273 158 167 327 584 590 813 72 1,522 

Less than $10,000 20.0 13.6 22.1 33.0 27.0 26.7 15.2 11.0 12.7 8.1 28.2 3.1 

$10,000 to $19,999 15.0 15.4 14.0 15.2 15.0 13.9 14.6 10.5 12.3 7.4 20.0 4.0 

$20,000 to $29,999 17.2 13.7 16.2 11.6 15.3 15.0 11.8 12.8 13.1 9.9 12.5 3.7 

$30,000 to $49,999 15.2 19.8 15.3 13.9 18.7 18.1 24.3 21.0 21.8 21.0 17.3 14.2 

$50,000 to $74,999 17.9 19.7 15.0 11.4 13.1 16.0 16.7 16.7 18.0 18.9 11.9 17.5 

$75,000 to $99,999 6.3 10.4 7.2 7.4 4.7 4.8 9.7 13.1 9.7 11.9 5.3 12.4 

$100,000 or more 8.2 6.4 8.2 6.4 5.1 3.9 6.5 12.9 10.0 20.0 4.2 45.1 



SECTORS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Householders 65 years+ 7,096 3,951 9,345 7,578 5,692 9,610 7,581 4,405 7,049 6,955 3,779 6,960 

Less than $10,000 1,740 686 2,498 2,866 1,343 2,326 1,313 853 1,240 966 1,153 407 

$10,000 to $19,999 1,558 910 2,379 1,878 1,559 2,261 1,805 960 1,569 1,241 973 1,020 

$20,000 to $29,999 1,335 753 1,468 966 996 1,509 1,453 727 1,052 1,277 539 901 

$30,000 to $49,999 1,295 821 1,434 980 892 1,823 1,518 856 1,524 1,462 552 1,450 

$50,000 to $74,999 618 397 739 437 595 906 759 598 938 909 258 1,186 

$75,000 to $99,999 334 117 417 204 144 344 333 196 394 528 180 662 

$100,000 or more 216 267 410 247 163 441 400 215 332 572 124 1,334 

Less than $10,000 24.5 17.4 26.7 37.8 23.6 24.2 17.3 19.4 17.6 13.9 30.5 5.8 

$10,000 to $19,999 22.0 23.0 25.5 24.8 27.4 23.5 23.8 21.8 22.3 17.8 25.7 14.7 

$20,000 to $29,999 18.8 19.1 15.7 12.7 17.5 15.7 19.2 16.5 14.9 18.4 14.3 12.9 

$30,000 to $49,999 18.2 20.8 15.3 12.9 15.7 19.0 20.0 19.4 21.6 21.0 14.6 20.8 

$50,000 to $74,999 8.7 10.0 7.9 5.8 10.5 9.4 10.0 13.6 13.3 13.1 6.8 17.0 

$75,000 to $99,999 4.7 3.0 4.5 2.7 2.5 3.6 4.4 4.4 5.6 7.6 4.8 9.5 

$100,000 or more 3.0 6.8 4.4 3.3 2.9 4.6 5.3 4.9 4.7 8.2 3.3 19.2 

SOCIAL SECURITY INCOME 

Total Households 32,054 35,832 39,089 32,712 28,053 34,601 40,176 33,969 35,491 24,505 14,226 24,886 

With Social Security Income 8,979 7,301 11,268 8,683 7,396 10,905 10,223 6,874 9,988 8,181 4,362 7,370 

Average Social Security Income $9,811 $9,651 $9,736 $9,278 $10,082 $10,382 $10,250 $10,130 $10,290 $11,533 $9,593 $14,292 

POVERTY BY AGE 

55 to 64 years 1,405 1,091 1,624 2,004 1,442 1,813 1,335 786 1,224 500 794 177 

65 to 74 years 984 459 1,491 1,308 764 1,360 889 557 952 651 625 138 

75 years+ 930 434 1651 1375 749 1125 616 441 619 407 547 227 

55 to 64 years 21.6 19.1 22.8 33.1 26.7 28.9 17.7 11.8 13.8 7.7 30.9 3.1 

65 to 74 years 18.3 14.7 22.7 27.7 17.6 20.3 15.3 15.4 15.3 11.3 24.4 2.8 

75 years+ 21.3 15.4 26.6 29.9 19.3 17.3 12.9 16.4 17.1 10.1 23.5 4.2 

RATIO TO POVERTY 

55 to 64 years 6,513 5,724 7,129 6,054 5,391 6,284 7,552 6,679 8,870 6,471 2,571 5,773 

Less than 50 percent 646 450 740 782 710 836 682 402 619 293 297 87 

Less than 75 percent 1,099 757 1,173 1,653 1,237 1,392 1,044 581 939 408 546 148 

Below poverty threshold 1,405 1,091 1,624 2,004 1,442 1,813 1,335 786 1,224 500 794 177 

Less than 125 percent 1,738 1,364 1,941 2,399 1,689 2,032 1,635 1,087 1,594 663 921 197 

Less than 130 percent 1,811 1,471 2,032 2,465 1,755 2,077 1,680 1,133 1,638 694 948 246 

Less than 150 percent 2,077 1,641 2,301 2,663 1,996 2,379 2,025 1,292 1,899 799 1,022 274 



Less than 200 percent 2,689 2,083 2,993 3,147 2,586 3,038 2,620 1,683 2,488 1,105 1,319 410 

Over 200 percent <strong>of</strong> poverty 6,513 5,724 7,129 6,054 5,391 6,284 7,552 6,679 8,870 6,471 2,571 5,773 



SECTORS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Less than 50 percent 9.9 7.9 10.4 12.9 13.2 13.3 9.0 6.0 7.0 4.5 11.6 1.5 


Below poverty threshold 21.6 19.1 22.8 33.1 26.7 28.9 17.7 11.8 13.8 7.7 30.9 3.1 







Over 200 percent <strong>of</strong> poverty 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

65 years and over 9,744 5,955 12,777 9,312 8,208 13,203 10,584 6,306 9,819 9,787 4,885 10,337 

Less than 50 percent 686 293 987 695 538 937 482 344 486 331 394 127 

Less than 75 percent 1,047 509 1,776 1,376 862 1,489 827 529 817 597 623 232 

Below poverty threshold 1,914 893 3,142 2,683 1,513 2,485 1,505 998 1,571 1,058 1,172 365 




Less than 175 percent 3,819 1,933 5,774 4,994 3,261 5,186 3,405 2,032 3,204 2,301 2,204 1,045 



Over 200 percent <strong>of</strong> poverty 9,744 5,955 12,777 9,312 8,208 13,203 10,584 6,306 9,819 9,787 4,885 10,337 



Below poverty threshold 19.6 15.0 24.6 28.8 18.4 18.8 14.2 15.8 16.0 10.8 24.0 3.5 







Over 200 percent <strong>of</strong> poverty 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 



SECTORS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

POVERTY STATUS BY 

Householder 60-64 years 367 174 561 715 406 415 310 191 279 162 195 41 

Nonfamily household 316 135 508 638 382 359 266 178 246 162 181 41 

Liv<strong>in</strong>g alone 261 97 445 523 298 294 197 146 202 125 169 34 

Householder 65-74 years 565 249 916 1111 460 790 463 290 483 336 377 103 



Householder 75 years+ 665 215 1185 1158 554 633 416 324 402 273 464 195 



Householder 60-64 years 40.6 28.7 44.4 47.0 54.4 41.3 32.3 26.2 28.9 25.7 43.4 10.3 

Nonfamily household 37.6 25.9 43.0 45.8 56.0 38.2 29.7 26.6 27.5 27.1 43.6 10.5 

Liv<strong>in</strong>g alone 39.2 23.4 44.3 43.8 55.6 36.0 27.3 24.6 26.0 24.4 45.6 9.7 

Householder 65-74 years 34.1 27.4 35.9 38.0 33.6 33.0 26.9 26.2 28.0 21.3 35.6 9.0 



Householder 75 years+ 37.3 24.2 38.6 40.2 35.1 25.2 22.2 28.8 30.7 19.6 36.6 9.6 




TABLE 1. GENERAL POPULATION TRENDS BY SUBCOMMUNITY, 1990 - 2000 

City <strong>of</strong> 

<strong>Detroit</strong> 

Airport Bagley Belle Isle Boynton Brightmoor Brooks Burbank Central Cerveny Chadsey/ 

Condon 


Total 60 years and over 128,400 2,842 4,297 3,180 2,224 1,396 3,379 1,809 3,125 2,768 4,024 

60 to 64 years 29,344 716 974 610 309 405 858 441 626 887 951 

Total 65 years and over 99,056 2,126 3,323 2,570 1,915 991 2,521 1,368 2,499 1,881 3,073 

65 to 69 years 27,054 582 1,035 604 454 321 703 356 574 714 771 

70 to 74 years 25,809 565 923 619 552 279 625 321 593 486 788 

Total 75 years and over 46,193 979 1,365 1,347 909 391 1,193 691 1,332 681 1,514 

75 to 79 years 21,560 470 714 594 508 202 546 327 541 331 683 

80 to 84 years 13,653 299 397 363 260 117 367 197 403 186 474 

Total 85 years and over 10,980 210 254 390 141 72 280 167 388 164 357 



60 to 64 years 42,286 1,059 1,293 753 723 606 1,091 725 1,104 694 1,474 


65 to 69 years 41,574 1,114 1,182 764 862 530 1,029 828 1,229 523 1,554 

70 to 74 years 32,464 848 745 602 551 376 872 784 962 343 1,366 

Total 75 years and over 50,895 1,102 946 1,368 631 567 1,300 1,244 1,790 593 2,023 

75 to 79 years 24,161 591 446 564 337 270 629 601 795 255 1,054 

80 to 84 years 14,228 296 246 416 170 149 369 377 546 152 525 

Total 85 years and over 12,506 215 254 388 124 148 302 266 449 186 444 


Total 60 years and over -38,819 -1,281 131 -307 -543 -683 -913 -1,772 -1,960 615 -2,393 

60 to 64 years -12,942 -343 -319 -143 -414 -201 -233 -284 -478 193 -523 

Total 65 years and over -25,877 -938 450 -164 -129 -482 -680 -1,488 -1,482 422 -1,870 

65 to 69 years -14,520 -532 -147 -160 -408 -209 -326 -472 -655 191 -783 

70 to 74 years -6,655 -283 178 17 1 -97 -247 -463 -369 143 -578 

Total 75 years and over -4,702 -123 419 -21 278 -176 -107 -553 -458 88 -509 

75 to 79 years -2,601 -121 268 30 171 -68 -83 -274 -254 76 -371 

80 to 84 years -575 3 151 -53 90 -32 -2 -180 -143 34 -51 

Total 85 years and over -1,526 -5 0 2 17 -76 -22 -99 -61 -22 -87 


Total 60 years and over -23.2 -31.1 3.1 -8.8 -19.6 -32.9 -21.3 -49.5 -38.5 28.6 -37.3 

60 to 64 years -30.6 -32.4 -24.7 -19.0 -57.3 -33.2 -21.4 -39.2 -43.3 27.8 -35.5 

Total 65 years and over -20.7 -30.6 15.7 -6.0 -6.3 -32.7 -21.2 -52.1 -37.2 28.9 -37.8 

65 to 69 years -34.9 -47.8 -12.4 -20.9 -47.3 -39.4 -31.7 -57.0 -53.3 36.5 -50.4 

70 to 74 years -20.5 -33.4 23.9 2.8 0.2 -25.8 -28.3 -59.1 -38.4 41.7 -42.3 

Total 75 years and over -9.2 -11.2 44.3 -1.5 44.1 -31.0 -8.2 -44.5 -25.6 14.8 -25.2 

75 to 79 years -10.8 -20.5 60.1 5.3 50.7 -25.2 -13.2 -45.6 -31.9 29.8 -35.2 

80 to 84 years -4.0 1.0 61.4 -12.7 52.9 -21.5 -0.5 -47.7 -26.2 22.4 -9.7 

Total 85 years and over -12.2 -2.3 0.0 0.5 13.7 -51.4 -7.3 -37.2 -13.6 -11.8 -19.6 











































Chene 

Cody/ 

Rouge 

Connor Denby Downtown Durfee Evergreen F<strong>in</strong>ney Grandmont Greenfield Harmony 

Village 

1,738 4,757 2,322 1,757 3,905 4,515 3,607 3,281 2,290 3,814 5,175 

334 989 723 443 927 756 948 720 743 999 1,312 

1,404 3,768 1,599 1,314 2,978 3,759 2,659 2,561 1,547 2,815 3,863 

348 829 568 336 873 837 776 534 561 871 1,246 

343 960 448 351 759 944 655 572 452 752 1,103 

713 1,979 583 627 1,346 1,978 1,228 1,455 534 1,192 1,514 

319 919 311 258 665 903 522 489 289 598 767 

225 685 150 228 377 597 353 435 135 346 444 

169 375 122 141 304 478 353 531 110 248 303 

3,001 7,057 2,605 3,316 4,265 6,608 3,761 4,936 2,062 3,740 4,821 

632 1,623 817 703 963 1,578 952 1,026 740 1,047 1,556 

2,369 5,434 1,788 2,613 3,302 5,030 2,809 3,910 1,322 2,693 3,265 

684 1,881 662 717 1,018 1,719 852 971 533 980 1,227 

621 1,580 420 691 880 1,315 659 944 361 667 900 

1,064 1,973 706 1,205 1,404 1,996 1,298 1,995 428 1,046 1,138 

482 1,132 338 509 649 1,009 501 792 217 496 556 

306 499 171 396 412 512 326 580 133 270 298 

276 342 197 300 343 475 471 623 78 280 284 

-1,263 -2,300 -283 -1,559 -360 -2,093 -154 -1,655 228 74 354 

-298 -634 -94 -260 -36 -822 -4 -306 3 -48 -244 

-965 -1,666 -189 -1,299 -324 -1,271 -150 -1,349 225 122 598 

-336 -1,052 -94 -381 -145 -882 -76 -437 28 -109 19 

-278 -620 28 -340 -121 -371 -4 -372 91 85 203 

-351 6 -123 -578 -58 -18 -70 -540 106 146 376 

-163 -213 -27 -251 16 -106 21 -303 72 102 211 

-81 186 -21 -168 -35 85 27 -145 2 76 146 

-107 33 -75 -159 -39 3 -118 -92 32 -32 19 

-42.1 -32.6 -10.9 -47.0 -8.4 -31.7 -4.1 -33.5 11.1 2.0 7.3 

-47.2 -39.1 -11.5 -37.0 -3.7 -52.1 -0.4 -29.8 0.4 -4.6 -15.7 

-40.7 -30.7 -10.6 -49.7 -9.8 -25.3 -5.3 -34.5 17.0 4.5 18.3 

-49.1 -55.9 -14.2 -53.1 -14.2 -51.3 -8.9 -45.0 5.3 -11.1 1.5 

-44.8 -39.2 6.7 -49.2 -13.8 -28.2 -0.6 -39.4 25.2 12.7 22.6 

-33.0 0.3 -17.4 -48.0 -4.1 -0.9 -5.4 -27.1 24.8 14.0 33.0 

-33.8 -18.8 -8.0 -49.3 2.5 -10.5 4.2 -38.3 33.2 20.6 37.9 

-26.5 37.3 -12.3 -42.4 -8.5 16.6 8.3 -25.0 1.5 28.1 49.0 

-38.8 9.6 -38.1 -53.0 -11.4 0.6 -25.1 -14.8 41.0 -11.4 6.7 











































Jefferies 

Ketter<strong>in</strong>g/ 

Butzel 

Mack Mackenzie McNichols Osborn Palmer 

Park 

Pembroke Persh<strong>in</strong>g Redford Rosa Parks 

1,154 5,762 1,821 6,015 2,013 2,350 1,788 4,692 4,379 2,678 4,501 

255 893 546 1,522 322 608 599 1,046 1,074 651 791 

899 4,869 1,275 4,493 1,691 1,742 1,189 3,646 3,305 2,027 3,710 

244 1,094 429 1,415 453 467 432 1,136 913 523 788 

242 1,212 335 1,274 454 427 350 923 882 546 944 

413 2,563 511 1,804 784 848 407 1,587 1,510 958 1,978 

184 1,117 268 879 356 387 224 832 698 442 880 

129 749 131 551 264 259 103 454 473 271 585 

100 697 112 374 164 202 80 301 339 245 513 

2,379 7,986 2,257 6,120 2,704 4,380 1,502 4,648 6,234 3,320 6,844 

510 1,786 676 1,894 744 946 560 1,327 1,437 812 1,495 

1,869 6,200 1,581 4,226 1,960 3,434 942 3,321 4,797 2,508 5,349 

577 1,927 593 1,574 704 1,054 389 1,331 1,503 799 1,717 

465 1,556 396 1,181 531 935 240 901 1,371 572 1,356 

827 2,717 592 1,471 725 1,445 313 1,089 1,923 1,137 2,276 

344 1,244 275 709 364 705 127 597 993 455 1,038 

267 726 181 405 220 422 96 275 529 338 621 

216 747 136 357 141 318 90 217 401 344 617 

-1,225 -2,224 -436 -105 -691 -2,030 286 44 -1,855 -642 -2,343 

-255 -893 -130 -372 -422 -338 39 -281 -363 -161 -704 

-970 -1,331 -306 267 -269 -1,692 247 325 -1,492 -481 -1,639 

-333 -833 -164 -159 -251 -587 43 -195 -590 -276 -929 

-223 -344 -61 93 -77 -508 110 22 -489 -26 -412 

-414 -154 -81 333 59 -597 94 498 -413 -179 -298 

-160 -127 -7 170 -8 -318 97 235 -295 -13 -158 

-138 23 -50 146 44 -163 7 179 -56 -67 -36 

-116 -50 -24 17 23 -116 -10 84 -62 -99 -104 

-51.5 -27.8 -19.3 -1.7 -25.6 -46.3 19.0 0.9 -29.8 -19.3 -34.2 

-50.0 -50.0 -19.2 -19.6 -56.7 -35.7 7.0 -21.2 -25.3 -19.8 -47.1 

-51.9 -21.5 -19.4 6.3 -13.7 -49.3 26.2 9.8 -31.1 -19.2 -30.6 

-57.7 -43.2 -27.7 -10.1 -35.7 -55.7 11.1 -14.7 -39.3 -34.5 -54.1 

-48.0 -22.1 -15.4 7.9 -14.5 -54.3 45.8 2.4 -35.7 -4.5 -30.4 

-50.1 -5.7 -13.7 22.6 8.1 -41.3 30.0 45.7 -21.5 -15.7 -13.1 

-46.5 -10.2 -2.5 24.0 -2.2 -45.1 76.4 39.4 -29.7 -2.9 -15.2 

-51.7 3.2 -27.6 36.0 20.0 -38.6 7.3 65.1 -10.6 -19.8 -5.8 

-53.7 -6.7 -17.6 4.8 16.3 -36.5 -11.1 38.7 -15.5 -28.8 -16.9 











































Rosedale 

Park 

State Fair/ 

Nolan 

St. Jean Tireman University Vernor W<strong>in</strong>terhalter 

1,662 5,637 3,262 3,833 2,613 4,387 3,648 

564 1,172 601 684 525 1,160 660 

1,098 4,465 2,661 3,149 2,088 3,227 2,988 

408 1,186 632 804 496 984 757 

270 1,104 757 833 479 869 818 

420 2,175 1,272 1,512 1,113 1,374 1,413 

191 1,026 625 702 472 655 666 

115 610 376 433 301 418 393 

114 539 271 377 340 301 354 

1,723 7,282 4,580 5,556 4,201 6,532 4,649 

498 1,866 1,190 1,380 842 1,843 1,321 

1,225 5,416 3,390 4,176 3,359 4,689 3,328 

420 1,812 1,212 1,405 947 1,565 1,186 

276 1,371 880 1,016 810 1,232 888 

529 2,233 1,298 1,755 1,602 1,892 1,254 

235 1,106 664 817 712 920 633 

144 636 330 498 488 581 322 

150 491 304 440 402 391 299 

-61 -1,645 -1,318 -1,723 -1,588 -2,145 -1,001 

66 -694 -589 -696 -317 -683 -661 

-127 -951 -729 -1,027 -1,271 -1,462 -340 

-12 -626 -580 -601 -451 -581 -429 

-6 -267 -123 -183 -331 -363 -70 

-109 -58 -26 -243 -489 -518 159 

-44 -80 -39 -115 -240 -265 33 

-29 -26 46 -65 -187 -163 71 

-36 48 -33 -63 -62 -90 55 

-3.5 -22.6 -28.8 -31.0 -37.8 -32.8 -21.5 

13.3 -37.2 -49.5 -50.4 -37.6 -37.1 -50.0 

-10.4 -17.6 -21.5 -24.6 -37.8 -31.2 -10.2 

-2.9 -34.5 -47.9 -42.8 -47.6 -37.1 -36.2 

-2.2 -19.5 -14.0 -18.0 -40.9 -29.5 -7.9 

-20.6 -2.6 -2.0 -13.8 -30.5 -27.4 12.7 

-18.7 -7.2 -5.9 -14.1 -33.7 -28.8 5.2 

-20.1 -4.1 13.9 -13.1 -38.3 -28.1 22.0 

-24.0 9.8 -10.9 -14.3 -15.4 -23.0 18.4 








Males 60 years and over 51,763 1,196 1,699 1,149 887 632 1,399 776 1,272 1,129 1,710 

Males 75 years and over 16,921 388 532 431 369 152 448 265 471 255 559 


Females 60 years and over 76,637 1,646 2,598 2,031 1,337 764 1,980 1,033 1,853 1,639 2,314 

Females 75 years and over 29,272 591 833 916 540 239 745 426 861 426 955 



Males 60 years and over 68,700 1,839 1,808 1,278 1,204 901 1,729 1,465 2,111 902 2,784 



Females 60 years and over 98,481 2,284 2,358 2,209 1,563 1,178 2,563 2,116 2,974 1,251 3,633 

Females 75 years and over 32,577 626 600 940 369 350 838 773 1,113 398 1,242 



Males 60 years and over -16,937 -643 -109 -129 -317 -269 -330 -689 -839 227 -1,074 

Males 75 years and over -1,383 -88 186 3 107 -65 -14 -206 -206 60 -222 

Males 85 years and over -725 1 7 8 -5 -29 3 -35 -43 -12 -38 

Females 60 years and over -21,844 -638 240 -178 -226 -414 -583 -1,083 -1,121 388 -1,319 

Females 75 years and over -3,305 -35 233 -24 171 -111 -93 -347 -252 28 -287 

Females 85 years and over -799 -6 -7 -6 22 -47 -25 -64 -18 -10 -49 


Males 60 years and over -24.7 -35.0 -6.0 -10.1 -26.3 -29.9 -19.1 -47.0 -39.7 25.2 -38.6 

Males 75 years and over -7.6 -18.5 53.8 0.7 40.8 -30.0 -3.0 -43.7 -30.4 30.8 -28.4 

Males 85 years and over -18.3 1.3 9.9 8.4 -10.4 -54.7 3.5 -37.6 -26.5 -20.7 -25.7 

Females 60 years and over -22.2 -27.9 10.2 -8.1 -14.5 -35.1 -22.7 -51.2 -37.7 31.0 -36.3 

Females 75 years and over -10.1 -5.6 38.8 -2.6 46.3 -31.7 -11.1 -44.9 -22.6 7.0 -23.1 

Females 85 years and over -9.3 -4.4 -3.8 -2.0 28.9 -49.5 -11.6 -37.0 -6.3 -7.8 -16.6 


M<strong>in</strong>ority 60 years and over 104,000 2,023 4,225 2,428 2,209 708 2,078 870 2,937 2,631 1,928 

M<strong>in</strong>ority 75 years and over 35,027 600 1,335 1,005 901 138 534 211 1,258 626 647 

M<strong>in</strong>ority 85 years and over 8,169 130 245 282 138 25 124 50 368 151 164 

M<strong>in</strong>ority Males 60+ 41,535 851 1,677 833 880 328 880 372 1,194 1,071 817 

M<strong>in</strong>ority Females 60+ 62,465 1,172 2,548 1,595 1,329 380 1,198 498 1,743 1,560 1,111 

White 60 years and over 24,400 819 72 752 15 688 1,301 939 188 137 2,096 

White 75 years and over 11,166 379 30 342 8 253 659 480 74 55 867 


White Males 60+ 10,228 345 22 316 7 304 519 404 78 58 893 

White Females 60+ 14,172 474 50 436 8 384 782 535 110 79 1,203 










































Chene 

Cody/ 

Rouge 


Village 

690 1,963 1,009 700 1,565 1,705 1,374 1,236 956 1,499 2,047 

257 741 230 224 436 714 390 430 225 441 574 

55 122 40 36 84 144 82 110 41 76 92 

1,048 2,794 1,313 1,057 2,340 2,810 2,233 2,045 1,334 2,315 3,128 

456 1,238 353 403 910 1,264 838 1,025 309 751 940 

114 253 82 105 220 334 271 421 69 172 211 

1,277 2,867 1,111 1,237 1,614 2,605 1,493 1,848 911 1,536 2,029 

431 773 240 381 444 750 387 622 166 349 442 

112 111 60 102 99 163 116 171 24 72 97 

1,721 4,190 1,494 2,079 2,650 4,003 2,268 3,088 1,151 2,204 2,792 

633 1,200 466 824 960 1,246 911 1,373 262 697 696 

164 231 137 198 244 312 355 452 54 208 187 

-587 -904 -102 -537 -49 -900 -119 -612 45 -37 18 

-174 -32 -10 -157 -8 -36 3 -192 59 92 132 

-57 11 -20 -66 -15 -19 -34 -61 17 4 -5 

-673 -1,396 -181 -1,022 -310 -1,193 -35 -1,043 183 111 336 

-177 38 -113 -421 -50 18 -73 -348 47 54 244 

-50 22 -55 -93 -24 22 -84 -31 15 -36 24 

-46.0 -31.5 -9.2 -43.4 -3.0 -34.5 -8.0 -33.1 4.9 -2.4 0.9 

-40.4 -4.1 -4.2 -41.2 -1.8 -4.8 0.8 -30.9 35.5 26.4 29.9 

-50.9 9.9 -33.3 -64.7 -15.2 -11.7 -29.3 -35.7 70.8 5.6 -5.2 

-39.1 -33.3 -12.1 -49.2 -11.7 -29.8 -1.5 -33.8 15.9 5.0 12.0 

-28.0 3.2 -24.2 -51.1 -5.2 1.4 -8.0 -25.3 17.9 7.7 35.1 

-30.5 9.5 -40.1 -47.0 -9.8 7.1 -23.7 -6.9 27.8 -17.3 12.8 

1,525 1,722 2,004 958 3,279 4,454 3,084 1,345 2,107 3,580 5,043 

630 430 455 211 1,138 1,945 932 370 466 1,070 1,457 

153 79 91 38 259 463 260 103 91 212 287 

605 735 864 395 1,247 1,684 1,177 539 873 1,399 1,998 

920 987 1,140 563 2,032 2,770 1,907 806 1,234 2,181 3,045 

213 3,035 318 799 626 61 523 1,936 183 234 132 

83 1,549 128 416 208 33 296 1,085 68 122 57 

16 296 31 103 45 15 93 428 19 36 16 

85 1,228 145 305 318 21 197 697 83 100 49 

128 1,807 173 494 308 40 326 1,239 100 134 83 










































Jefferies 


Butzel 


Park 


453 2,159 732 2,459 748 1,026 836 1,839 1,822 1,140 1,677 

132 852 174 711 281 353 160 612 587 363 667 

30 160 29 109 43 73 22 117 110 65 133 

701 3,603 1,089 3,556 1,265 1,324 952 2,853 2,557 1,538 2,824 

281 1,711 337 1,093 503 495 247 975 923 595 1,311 

70 537 83 265 121 129 58 184 229 180 380 

869 3,201 906 2,660 1,093 1,817 706 2,025 2,567 1,335 2,613 

240 956 189 565 265 544 113 463 707 344 752 

68 236 48 118 42 106 25 67 126 76 189 

1,510 4,785 1,351 3,460 1,611 2,563 796 2,623 3,667 1,985 4,231 

587 1,761 403 906 460 901 200 626 1,216 793 1,524 

148 511 88 239 99 212 65 150 275 268 428 

-416 -1,042 -174 -201 -345 -791 130 -186 -745 -195 -936 

-108 -104 -15 146 16 -191 47 149 -120 19 -85 

-38 -76 -19 -9 1 -33 -3 50 -16 -11 -56 

-809 -1,182 -262 96 -346 -1,239 156 230 -1,110 -447 -1,407 

-306 -50 -66 187 43 -406 47 349 -293 -198 -213 

-78 26 -5 26 22 -83 -7 34 -46 -88 -48 

-47.9 -32.6 -19.2 -7.6 -31.6 -43.5 18.4 -9.2 -29.0 -14.6 -35.8 

-45.0 -10.9 -7.9 25.8 6.0 -35.1 41.6 32.2 -17.0 5.5 -11.3 

-55.9 -32.2 -39.6 -7.6 2.4 -31.1 -12.0 74.6 -12.7 -14.5 -29.6 

-53.6 -24.7 -19.4 2.8 -21.5 -48.3 19.6 8.8 -30.3 -22.5 -33.3 

-52.1 -2.8 -16.4 20.6 9.3 -45.1 23.5 55.8 -24.1 -25.0 -14.0 

-52.7 5.1 -5.7 10.9 22.2 -39.2 -10.8 22.7 -16.7 -32.8 -11.2 

985 5,313 1,647 5,725 1,979 1,443 1,432 4,601 3,460 1,422 4,364 

358 2,346 433 1,632 772 348 309 1,545 1,005 443 1,926 

89 626 95 325 161 69 55 293 206 134 489 

383 1,984 667 2,350 727 630 659 1,811 1,441 596 1,624 

602 3,329 980 3,375 1,252 813 773 2,790 2,019 826 2,740 

169 449 174 290 34 907 356 91 919 1,256 137 

55 217 78 172 12 500 98 42 505 515 52 

11 71 17 49 3 133 25 8 133 111 24 

70 175 65 109 21 396 177 28 381 544 53 

99 274 109 181 13 511 179 63 538 712 84 










































Rosedale 

Park 

State Fair/ 

Nolan 


763 2,287 1,240 1,460 1,110 1,957 1,462 

150 829 491 554 376 541 556 

32 188 91 113 70 88 123 

899 3,350 2,022 2,373 1,503 2,430 2,186 

270 1,346 781 958 737 833 857 

82 351 180 264 270 213 231 

695 3,004 1,889 2,256 1,778 2,829 1,908 

166 849 500 666 553 678 454 

45 158 106 164 144 133 82 

1,028 4,278 2,691 3,300 2,389 3,703 2,741 

363 1,384 798 1,089 1,035 1,214 800 

105 333 198 276 256 258 217 

68 -717 -649 -796 -668 -872 -446 

-16 -20 -9 -112 -177 -137 102 

-13 30 -15 -51 -74 -45 41 

-129 -928 -669 -927 -886 -1,273 -555 

-93 -38 -17 -131 -298 -381 57 

-23 18 -18 -12 14 -45 14 

9.8 -23.9 -34.4 -35.3 -37.6 -30.8 -23.4 

-9.6 -2.4 -1.8 -16.8 -32.0 -20.2 22.5 

-28.9 19.0 -14.2 -31.1 -51.4 -33.8 50.0 

-12.5 -21.7 -24.9 -28.1 -37.1 -34.4 -20.2 

-25.6 -2.7 -2.1 -12.0 -28.8 -31.4 7.1 

-21.9 5.4 -9.1 -4.3 5.5 -17.4 6.5 

1,231 4,634 3,168 3,797 2,109 1,949 3,603 

252 1,743 1,234 1,500 910 523 1,389 

66 442 262 372 297 130 345 

576 1,848 1,199 1,443 827 911 1,440 

655 2,786 1,969 2,354 1,282 1,038 2,163 

431 1,003 94 36 504 2,438 45 

168 432 38 12 203 851 24 

48 97 9 5 43 171 9 

187 439 41 17 283 1,046 22 

244 564 53 19 221 1,392 23 








M<strong>in</strong>ority 60 years and over 109,211 2,168 3,993 1,995 2,735 438 1,703 501 4,720 1,757 2,081 

M<strong>in</strong>ority 75 years and over 30,015 476 847 652 621 90 405 109 1,670 396 711 

M<strong>in</strong>ority 85 years and over 7,126 107 226 130 122 27 109 31 418 112 197 

M<strong>in</strong>ority Males 60+ 45,056 969 1,746 751 1,183 185 699 207 1,952 763 910 

M<strong>in</strong>ority Females 60+ 64,155 1,199 2,247 1,244 1,552 253 1,004 294 2,768 994 1,171 

White 60 years and over 58,008 1,955 173 1,492 32 1,641 2,589 3,080 365 396 4,336 

White 75 years and over 20,880 626 99 716 10 477 895 1,135 120 197 1,312 


White Males 60+ 23,644 870 62 527 21 716 1,030 1,258 159 139 1,874 

White Females 60+ 34,326 1,085 111 965 11 925 1,559 1,822 206 257 2,462 


M<strong>in</strong>ority 60 years and over -5,211 -145 232 433 -526 270 375 369 -1,783 874 -153 

M<strong>in</strong>ority 75 years and over 5,012 124 488 353 280 48 129 102 -412 230 -64 

M<strong>in</strong>ority 85 years and over 1,043 23 19 152 16 -2 15 19 -50 39 -33 

M<strong>in</strong>ority Males 60+ -3,521 -118 -69 82 -303 143 181 165 -758 308 -93 

M<strong>in</strong>ority Females 60+ -1,690 -27 301 351 -223 127 194 204 -1,025 566 -60 

White 60 years and over -33,608 -1,136 -101 -740 -17 -953 -1,288 -2,141 -177 -259 -2,240 

White 75 years and over -9,714 -247 -69 -374 -2 -224 -236 -655 -46 -142 -445 

White 85 years and over -2,569 -28 -19 -150 1 -74 -37 -118 -11 -61 -54 

White Males 60+ -13,416 -525 -40 -211 -14 -412 -511 -854 -81 -81 -981 

White Females 60+ -20,154 -611 -61 -529 -3 -541 -777 -1,287 -96 -178 -1,259 


M<strong>in</strong>ority 60 years and over -4.8 -6.7 5.8 21.7 -19.2 61.6 22.0 73.7 -37.8 49.7 -7.4 

M<strong>in</strong>ority 75 years and over 16.7 26.1 57.6 54.1 45.1 53.3 31.9 93.6 -24.7 58.1 -9.0 

M<strong>in</strong>ority 85 years and over 14.6 21.5 8.4 116.9 13.1 -7.4 13.8 61.3 -12.0 34.8 -16.8 

M<strong>in</strong>ority Males 60+ -7.8 -12.2 -4.0 10.9 -25.6 77.3 25.9 79.7 -38.8 40.4 -10.2 

M<strong>in</strong>ority Females 60+ -2.6 -2.3 13.4 28.2 -14.4 50.2 19.3 69.4 -37.0 56.9 -5.1 

White 60 years and over -57.9 -58.1 -58.4 -49.6 -53.1 -58.1 -49.7 -69.5 -48.5 -65.4 -51.7 

White 75 years and over -46.5 -39.5 -69.7 -52.2 -20.0 -47.0 -26.4 -57.7 -38.3 -72.1 -33.9 

White 85 years and over -47.8 -25.9 -67.9 -58.1 50.0 -61.2 -19.2 -50.2 -35.5 -82.4 -21.9 

White Males 60+ -56.7 -60.3 -64.5 -40.0 -66.7 -57.5 -49.6 -67.9 -50.9 -58.3 -52.3 

White Females 60+ -58.7 -56.3 -55.0 -54.8 -27.3 -58.5 -49.8 -70.6 -46.6 -69.3 -51.1 




































Chene 

Cody/ 

Rouge 


Village 

2,415 995 1,613 516 3,048 6,485 2,058 764 1,663 2,948 4,527 

865 224 331 100 992 1,938 457 147 294 710 1,005 

215 47 94 25 220 454 101 34 49 160 248 

1,032 381 663 220 1,064 2,561 864 316 735 1,224 1,932 

1,383 614 950 296 1,984 3,924 1,194 448 928 1,724 2,595 

586 6,062 992 2,800 1,217 123 1,703 4,172 399 792 294 

199 1,749 375 1,105 412 58 841 1,848 134 336 133 

61 295 103 275 123 21 370 589 29 120 36 

245 2,486 448 1,017 550 44 629 1,532 176 312 97 

338 3,576 544 1,783 666 79 1,074 2,640 223 480 197 

-890 727 391 442 231 -2,031 1,026 581 444 632 516 

-235 206 124 111 146 7 475 223 172 360 452 

-62 32 -3 13 39 9 159 69 42 52 39 

-427 354 201 175 183 -877 313 223 138 175 66 

-463 373 190 267 48 -1,154 713 358 306 457 450 

-373 -3,027 -674 -2,001 -591 -62 -1,180 -2,236 -216 -558 -162 

-116 -200 -247 -689 -204 -25 -545 -763 -66 -214 -76 

-45 1 -72 -172 -78 -6 -277 -161 -10 -84 -20 

-160 -1,258 -303 -712 -232 -23 -432 -835 -93 -212 -48 

-210 -1,769 -371 -1,289 -358 -39 -748 -1,401 -123 -346 -114 

-36.9 73.1 24.2 85.7 7.6 -31.3 49.9 76.0 26.7 21.4 11.4 

-27.2 92.0 37.5 111.0 14.7 0.4 103.9 151.7 58.5 50.7 45.0 

-28.8 68.1 -3.2 52.0 17.7 2.0 157.4 202.9 85.7 32.5 15.7 

-41.4 92.9 30.3 79.5 17.2 -34.2 36.2 70.6 18.8 14.3 3.4 

-33.5 60.7 20.0 90.2 2.4 -29.4 59.7 79.9 33.0 26.5 17.3 

-63.7 -49.9 -67.9 -71.5 -48.6 -50.4 -69.3 -53.6 -54.1 -70.5 -55.1 

-58.3 -11.4 -65.9 -62.4 -49.5 -43.1 -64.8 -41.3 -49.3 -63.7 -57.1 

-73.8 0.3 -69.9 -62.5 -63.4 -28.6 -74.9 -27.3 -34.5 -70.0 -55.6 

-65.3 -50.6 -67.6 -70.0 -42.2 -52.3 -68.7 -54.5 -52.8 -67.9 -49.5 

-62.1 -49.5 -68.2 -72.3 -53.8 -49.4 -69.6 -53.1 -55.2 -72.1 -57.9 




































Jefferies 


Butzel 


Park 


1,829 7,094 1,791 5,397 2,652 801 1,004 4,427 3,431 729 6,560 

684 2,262 420 1,170 711 191 154 988 893 202 2,107 

178 553 93 271 139 48 29 190 220 61 530 

646 2,837 704 2,368 1,071 364 497 1,940 1,460 304 2,514 

1,183 4,257 1,087 3,029 1,581 437 507 2,487 1,971 425 4,046 

550 892 466 723 52 3,579 498 221 2,803 2,591 284 

143 455 172 301 14 1,254 159 101 1,030 935 169 

38 194 43 86 2 270 61 27 181 283 87 

223 364 202 292 22 1,453 209 85 1,107 1,031 99 

327 528 264 431 30 2,126 289 136 1,696 1,560 185 

-844 -1,781 -144 328 -673 642 428 174 29 693 -2,196 

-326 84 13 462 61 157 155 557 112 241 -181 

-89 73 2 54 22 21 26 103 -14 73 -41 

-263 -853 -37 -18 -344 266 162 -129 -19 292 -890 

-581 -928 -107 346 -329 376 266 303 48 401 -1,306 

-381 -443 -292 -433 -18 -2,672 -142 -130 -1,884 -1,335 -147 

-88 -238 -94 -129 -2 -754 -61 -59 -525 -420 -117 

-27 -123 -26 -37 1 -137 -36 -19 -48 -172 -63 

-153 -189 -137 -183 -1 -1,057 -32 -57 -726 -487 -46 

-228 -254 -155 -250 -17 -1,615 -110 -73 -1,158 -848 -101 

-46.1 -25.1 -8.0 6.1 -25.4 80.1 42.6 3.9 0.8 95.1 -33.5 

-47.7 3.7 3.1 39.5 8.6 82.2 100.6 56.4 12.5 119.3 -8.6 

-50.0 13.2 2.2 19.9 15.8 43.8 89.7 54.2 -6.4 119.7 -7.7 

-40.7 -30.1 -5.3 -0.8 -32.1 73.1 32.6 -6.6 -1.3 96.1 -35.4 

-49.1 -21.8 -9.8 11.4 -20.8 86.0 52.5 12.2 2.4 94.4 -32.3 

-69.3 -49.7 -62.7 -59.9 -34.6 -74.7 -28.5 -58.8 -67.2 -51.5 -51.8 

-61.5 -52.3 -54.7 -42.9 -14.3 -60.1 -38.4 -58.4 -51.0 -44.9 -69.2 

-71.1 -63.4 -60.5 -43.0 50.0 -50.7 -59.0 -70.4 -26.5 -60.8 -72.4 

-68.6 -51.9 -67.8 -62.7 -4.5 -72.7 -15.3 -67.1 -65.6 -47.2 -46.5 

-69.7 -48.1 -58.7 -58.0 -56.7 -76.0 -38.1 -53.7 -68.3 -54.4 -54.6 




































Rosedale 

Park 

State Fair/ 

Nolan 


746 5,053 4,276 5,444 2,963 1,354 4,537 

166 1,452 1,145 1,702 1,177 355 1,196 

43 321 240 429 284 95 276 

318 2,046 1,765 2,213 1,180 608 1,864 

428 3,007 2,511 3,231 1,783 746 2,673 

977 2,229 304 112 1,238 5,178 112 

363 781 153 53 425 1,537 58 

107 170 64 11 118 296 23 

377 958 124 43 598 2,221 44 

600 1,271 180 69 606 2,957 68 

485 -419 -1,108 -1,647 -854 595 -934 

86 291 89 -202 -267 168 193 

23 121 22 -57 13 35 69 

258 -198 -566 -770 -353 303 -424 

227 -221 -542 -877 -501 292 -510 

-546 -1,226 -210 -76 -734 -2,740 -67 

-195 -349 -115 -41 -222 -686 -34 

-59 -73 -55 -6 -75 -125 -14 

-190 -519 -83 -26 -315 -1,175 -22 

-356 -707 -127 -50 -385 -1,565 -45 

65.0 -8.3 -25.9 -30.3 -28.8 43.9 -20.6 

51.8 20.0 7.8 -11.9 -22.7 47.3 16.1 

53.5 37.7 9.2 -13.3 4.6 36.8 25.0 

81.1 -9.7 -32.1 -34.8 -29.9 49.8 -22.7 

53.0 -7.3 -21.6 -27.1 -28.1 39.1 -19.1 

-55.9 -55.0 -69.1 -67.9 -59.3 -52.9 -59.8 

-53.7 -44.7 -75.2 -77.4 -52.2 -44.6 -58.6 

-55.1 -42.9 -85.9 -54.5 -63.6 -42.2 -60.9 

-50.4 -54.2 -66.9 -60.5 -52.7 -52.9 -50.0 

-59.3 -55.6 -70.6 -72.5 -63.5 -52.9 -66.2 


TABLE 2. LIVING ARRANGEMENT TRENDS BY SUBCOMMUNITY, 1990 - 2000 






Households with 1 or more persons 60 years+ 97,725 2,226 3,048 2,586 1,681 1,128 2,500 1,434 2,277 2,054 3,113 

Liv<strong>in</strong>g Alone 37,874 726 879 1,521 557 404 845 463 1,041 565 1,213 

In 2 or more person household 59,851 1,500 2,169 1,065 1,124 724 1,655 971 1,236 1,489 1,900 

Family household 56,098 1,398 2,099 967 1,087 656 1,559 922 1,090 1,436 1,745 

Nonfamily household 3,753 102 70 98 37 68 96 49 146 53 155 

Households with 1 or more persons 65 years+ 76,862 1,722 2,419 2,134 1,470 818 1,855 1,108 1,868 1,431 2,453 

Liv<strong>in</strong>g Alone 30,824 585 705 1,303 490 292 656 378 861 392 1,015 

In 2 or more person household 46,038 1,137 1,714 831 980 526 1,199 730 1,007 1,039 1,438 

Family household 43,295 1,067 1,656 754 950 476 1,145 692 891 1,005 1,322 


Households with 1 or more persons 75 years+ 37,442 844 1,042 1,133 769 341 898 584 1,061 525 1,286 

Liv<strong>in</strong>g Alone 16,185 336 320 754 272 135 366 210 500 144 610 

In 2 or more person household 21,257 508 722 379 497 206 532 374 561 381 676 

Family household 20,036 473 686 339 479 185 514 359 502 366 627 


Liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Group Quarters 1,687 23 61 40 0 14 69 1 82 36 2 

Institutional group quarters 1,307 19 61 0 0 0 68 0 67 36 0 

Non<strong>in</strong>stitutional group quarters 380 4 0 40 0 14 1 1 15 0 2 



Liv<strong>in</strong>g Alone 46,136 973 605 1,471 598 608 1,048 903 1,715 395 1,928 

In 2 or more person household 75,723 2,112 2,181 1,181 1,393 1,010 2,001 1,702 2,011 1,148 2,895 

Family household 70,617 1,977 2,103 1,078 1,349 950 1,906 1,627 1,721 1,100 2,637 



Liv<strong>in</strong>g Alone 37,105 785 483 1,222 497 474 831 792 1,385 294 1,613 

In 2 or more person household 57,118 1,591 1,525 890 1,066 701 1,485 1,366 1,649 786 2,244 

Family household 53,145 1,493 1,468 804 1,026 663 1,423 1,306 1,412 751 2,030 


Liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Group Quarters 5,969 2 243 216 0 27 229 2 189 120 21 

Institutional group quarters 5,115 0 243 216 0 0 229 0 130 120 0 

Non<strong>in</strong>stitutional group quarters 854 2 0 0 0 27 0 2 59 0 21 




































Chene 

Cody/ 

Rouge 


Village 

1,356 3,745 1,883 1,427 3,379 3,442 2,540 2,312 1,789 3,004 3,863 

597 1,494 514 483 2,400 1,328 868 890 452 1,149 1,207 

759 2,251 1,369 944 979 2,114 1,672 1,422 1,337 1,855 2,656 

686 2,142 1,272 898 871 1,983 1,597 1,333 1,270 1,763 2,518 

73 109 97 46 108 131 75 89 67 92 138 

1,110 3,023 1,337 1,085 2,624 2,919 1,836 1,775 1,259 2,282 2,977 

497 1,283 401 387 1,900 1,125 675 724 325 919 947 

613 1,740 936 698 724 1,794 1,161 1,051 934 1,363 2,030 

560 1,667 875 669 645 1,686 1,110 993 890 1,296 1,923 

53 73 61 29 79 108 51 58 44 67 107 

574 1,676 525 558 1,233 1,652 761 944 472 1,027 1,212 

257 772 171 240 921 658 299 417 107 436 419 

317 904 354 318 312 994 462 527 365 591 793 

290 876 338 302 285 936 443 500 351 560 753 

27 28 16 16 27 58 19 27 14 31 40 

48 0 9 0 43 33 98 65 0 2 61 

36 0 6 0 10 26 94 49 0 0 61 

12 0 3 0 33 7 4 16 0 2 0 

2,181 5,128 1,990 2,507 3,647 4,778 2,454 3,340 1,588 2,598 3,458 

807 1,900 559 1,063 2,672 1,780 798 1,275 410 841 846 

1,374 3,228 1,431 1,444 975 2,998 1,656 2,065 1,178 1,757 2,612 

1,231 3,119 1,342 1,361 854 2,796 1,572 1,942 1,122 1,672 2,464 

143 109 89 83 121 202 84 123 56 85 148 

1,767 4,130 1,404 2,059 2,899 3,763 1,786 2,687 1,069 1,927 2,421 

652 1,596 414 922 2,168 1,361 617 1,100 289 670 610 

1,115 2,534 990 1,137 731 2,402 1,169 1,587 780 1,257 1,811 

995 2,448 929 1,067 642 2,238 1,107 1,495 744 1,197 1,696 

120 86 61 70 89 164 62 92 36 60 115 

163 0 52 3 43 192 563 408 0 257 230 

152 0 51 0 14 185 563 408 0 257 223 

11 0 1 3 29 7 0 0 0 0 7 




































Jefferies 


Butzel 


Park 


959 3,762 1,486 4,527 1,572 1,805 1,324 3,500 3,328 1,981 3,424 

576 1,545 542 1,456 554 506 383 1,151 1,125 895 1,587 

383 2,217 944 3,071 1,018 1,299 941 2,349 2,203 1,086 1,837 

329 2,039 870 2,926 967 1,232 898 2,267 2,097 1,014 1,685 

54 178 74 145 51 67 43 82 106 72 152 

756 3,219 1,083 3,462 1,340 1,351 915 2,794 2,569 1,517 2,865 

463 1,317 415 1,125 482 399 255 925 911 735 1,343 

293 1,902 668 2,337 858 952 660 1,869 1,658 782 1,522 

255 1,758 617 2,230 815 908 635 1,804 1,569 734 1,410 

38 144 51 107 43 44 25 65 89 48 112 

373 1,711 461 1,488 685 666 345 1,330 1,253 705 1,601 

227 724 185 527 270 217 88 472 495 368 779 

146 987 276 961 415 449 257 858 758 337 822 

129 923 255 920 389 434 244 822 723 317 772 

17 64 21 41 26 15 13 36 35 20 50 

21 313 7 62 8 46 0 1 39 72 81 

9 242 0 39 0 45 0 0 37 71 55 

12 71 7 23 8 1 0 1 2 1 26 

1,922 5,072 1,817 4,281 2,006 3,155 1,096 3,268 4,340 2,382 5,048 

1,251 1,810 691 1,163 618 1,127 330 796 1,426 1,073 2,154 

671 3,262 1,126 3,118 1,388 2,028 766 2,472 2,914 1,309 2,894 

563 2,996 1,036 2,929 1,297 1,945 731 2,372 2,765 1,239 2,621 

108 266 90 189 91 83 35 100 149 70 273 

1,543 4,037 1,324 3,055 1,523 2,556 729 2,461 3,449 1,863 4,075 

1,024 1,478 510 857 487 963 221 610 1,165 904 1,740 

519 2,559 814 2,198 1,036 1,593 508 1,851 2,284 959 2,335 

434 2,327 749 2,074 958 1,530 488 1,776 2,177 911 2,112 

85 232 65 124 78 63 20 75 107 48 223 

128 1,080 2 312 0 83 8 0 295 210 105 

120 582 0 312 0 83 0 0 295 206 96 

8 498 2 0 0 0 8 0 0 4 9 




































Rosedale 

Park 

State Fair/ 

Nolan 


1,296 4,294 2,404 3,011 2,159 3,439 2,667 

327 1,593 869 1,121 1,670 1,336 1,042 

969 2,701 1,535 1,890 489 2,103 1,625 

932 2,542 1,422 1,766 379 1,931 1,510 

37 159 113 124 110 172 115 

868 3,489 2,003 2,545 1,750 2,615 2,216 

226 1,333 726 975 1,403 1,068 863 

642 2,156 1,277 1,570 347 1,547 1,353 

619 2,040 1,193 1,477 270 1,419 1,270 

23 116 84 93 77 128 83 

363 1,764 1,029 1,325 919 1,207 1,100 

97 748 384 533 754 529 444 

266 1,016 645 792 165 678 656 

259 959 602 755 128 621 620 

7 57 43 37 37 57 36 

7 69 79 1 131 9 54 

0 68 55 0 99 0 54 

7 1 24 1 32 9 0 

1,265 5,463 3,252 4,110 3,468 5,028 3,339 

327 1,839 1,045 1,326 2,697 1,984 1,284 

938 3,624 2,207 2,784 771 3,044 2,055 

912 3,380 2,028 2,615 530 2,805 1,930 

26 244 179 169 241 239 125 

934 4,242 2,510 3,264 2,806 3,783 2,478 

244 1,509 823 1,072 2,201 1,572 950 

690 2,733 1,687 2,192 605 2,211 1,528 

672 2,538 1,542 2,050 414 2,032 1,427 

18 195 145 142 191 179 101 

8 1 222 3 285 51 216 

0 0 161 0 254 0 215 

8 1 61 3 31 51 1 








Households with 1 or more persons 60 years+ -24,134 -859 262 -66 -310 -490 -549 -1,171 -1,449 511 -1,710 

Liv<strong>in</strong>g Alone -8,262 -247 274 50 -41 -204 -203 -440 -674 170 -715 

In 2 or more person household -15,872 -612 -12 -116 -269 -286 -346 -731 -775 341 -995 

Family household -14,519 -579 -4 -111 -262 -294 -347 -705 -631 336 -892 

Nonfamily household -1,353 -33 -8 -5 -7 8 1 -26 -144 5 -103 

Households with 1 or more persons 65 years+ -17,361 -654 411 22 -93 -357 -461 -1,050 -1,166 351 -1,404 

Liv<strong>in</strong>g Alone -6,281 -200 222 81 -7 -182 -175 -414 -524 98 -598 

In 2 or more person household -11,080 -454 189 -59 -86 -175 -286 -636 -642 253 -806 

Family household -9,850 -426 188 -50 -76 -187 -278 -614 -521 254 -708 

Nonfamily household -1,230 -28 1 -9 -10 12 -8 -22 -121 -1 -98 

Liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Group Quarters -4,282 21 -182 -176 0 -13 -160 -1 -107 -84 -19 

Institutional group quarters -3,808 19 -182 -216 0 0 -161 0 -63 -84 0 

Non<strong>in</strong>stitutional group quarters -474 2 0 40 0 -13 1 -1 -44 0 -19 


Households with 1 or more persons 60 years+ -19.8 -27.8 9.4 -2.5 -15.6 -30.3 -18.0 -45.0 -38.9 33.1 -35.5 

Liv<strong>in</strong>g Alone -17.9 -25.4 45.3 3.4 -6.9 -33.6 -19.4 -48.7 -39.3 43.0 -37.1 

In 2 or more person household -21.0 -29.0 -0.6 -9.8 -19.3 -28.3 -17.3 -42.9 -38.5 29.7 -34.4 

Family household -20.6 -29.3 -0.2 -10.3 -19.4 -30.9 -18.2 -43.3 -36.7 30.5 -33.8 

Nonfamily household -26.5 -24.4 -10.3 -4.9 -15.9 13.3 1.1 -34.7 -49.7 10.4 -39.9 

Households with 1 or more persons 65 years+ -18.4 -27.5 20.5 1.0 -6.0 -30.4 -19.9 -48.7 -38.4 32.5 -36.4 

Liv<strong>in</strong>g Alone -16.9 -25.5 46.0 6.6 -1.4 -38.4 -21.1 -52.3 -37.8 33.3 -37.1 

In 2 or more person household -19.4 -28.5 12.4 -6.6 -8.1 -25.0 -19.3 -46.6 -38.9 32.2 -35.9 

Family household -18.5 -28.5 12.8 -6.2 -7.4 -28.2 -19.5 -47.0 -36.9 33.8 -34.9 

Nonfamily household -31.0 -28.6 1.8 -10.5 -25.0 31.6 -12.9 -36.7 -51.1 -2.9 -45.8 

Liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Group Quarters -71.7 1050.0 -74.9 -81.5 0.0 -48.1 -69.9 -50.0 -56.6 -70.0 -90.5 

Institutional group quarters -74.4 n.c. -74.9 -100.0 0.0 0.0 -70.3 0.0 -48.5 -70.0 0.0 

Non<strong>in</strong>stitutional group quarters -55.5 100.0 0.0 n.c. 0.0 -48.1 n.c. -50.0 -74.6 0.0 -90.5 































Chene 

Cody/ 

Rouge 


Village 

-825 -1,383 -107 -1,080 -268 -1,336 86 -1,028 201 406 405 

-210 -406 -45 -580 -272 -452 70 -385 42 308 361 

-615 -977 -62 -500 4 -884 16 -643 159 98 44 

-545 -977 -70 -463 17 -813 25 -609 148 91 54 

-70 0 8 -37 -13 -71 -9 -34 11 7 -10 

-657 -1,107 -67 -974 -275 -844 50 -912 190 355 556 

-155 -313 -13 -535 -268 -236 58 -376 36 249 337 

-502 -794 -54 -439 -7 -608 -8 -536 154 106 219 

-435 -781 -54 -398 3 -552 3 -502 146 99 227 

-67 -13 0 -41 -10 -56 -11 -34 8 7 -8 

-115 0 -43 -3 0 -159 -465 -343 0 -255 -169 

-116 0 -45 0 -4 -159 -469 -359 0 -257 -162 

1 0 2 -3 4 0 4 16 0 2 -7 

-37.8 -27.0 -5.4 -43.1 -7.3 -28.0 3.5 -30.8 12.7 15.6 11.7 

-26.0 -21.4 -8.1 -54.6 -10.2 -25.4 8.8 -30.2 10.2 36.6 42.7 

-44.8 -30.3 -4.3 -34.6 0.4 -29.5 1.0 -31.1 13.5 5.6 1.7 

-44.3 -31.3 -5.2 -34.0 2.0 -29.1 1.6 -31.4 13.2 5.4 2.2 

-49.0 0.0 9.0 -44.6 -10.7 -35.1 -10.7 -27.6 19.6 8.2 -6.8 

-37.2 -26.8 -4.8 -47.3 -9.5 -22.4 2.8 -33.9 17.8 18.4 23.0 

-23.8 -19.6 -3.1 -58.0 -12.4 -17.3 9.4 -34.2 12.5 37.2 55.2 

-45.0 -31.3 -5.5 -38.6 -1.0 -25.3 -0.7 -33.8 19.7 8.4 12.1 

-43.7 -31.9 -5.8 -37.3 0.5 -24.7 0.3 -33.6 19.6 8.3 13.4 

-55.8 -15.1 0.0 -58.6 -11.2 -34.1 -17.7 -37.0 22.2 11.7 -7.0 

-70.6 0.0 -82.7 -100.0 0.0 -82.8 -82.6 -84.1 0.0 -99.2 -73.5 

-76.3 0.0 -88.2 0.0 -28.6 -85.9 -83.3 -88.0 0.0 -100.0 -72.6 

9.1 0.0 200.0 -100.0 13.8 0.0 n.c. n.c. 0.0 n.c. -100.0 































Jefferies 


Butzel 


Park 


-963 -1,310 -331 246 -434 -1,350 228 232 -1,012 -401 -1,624 

-675 -265 -149 293 -64 -621 53 355 -301 -178 -567 

-288 -1,045 -182 -47 -370 -729 175 -123 -711 -223 -1,057 

-234 -957 -166 -3 -330 -713 167 -105 -668 -225 -936 

-54 -88 -16 -44 -40 -16 8 -18 -43 2 -121 

-787 -818 -241 407 -183 -1,205 186 333 -880 -346 -1,210 

-561 -161 -95 268 -5 -564 34 315 -254 -169 -397 

-226 -657 -146 139 -178 -641 152 18 -626 -177 -813 

-179 -569 -132 156 -143 -622 147 28 -608 -177 -702 

-47 -88 -14 -17 -35 -19 5 -10 -18 0 -111 

-107 -767 5 -250 8 -37 -8 1 -256 -138 -24 

-111 -340 0 -273 0 -38 0 0 -258 -135 -41 

4 -427 5 23 8 1 -8 1 2 -3 17 

-50.1 -25.8 -18.2 5.7 -21.6 -42.8 20.8 7.1 -23.3 -16.8 -32.2 

-54.0 -14.6 -21.6 25.2 -10.4 -55.1 16.1 44.6 -21.1 -16.6 -26.3 

-42.9 -32.0 -16.2 -1.5 -26.7 -35.9 22.8 -5.0 -24.4 -17.0 -36.5 

-41.6 -31.9 -16.0 -0.1 -25.4 -36.7 22.8 -4.4 -24.2 -18.2 -35.7 

-50.0 -33.1 -17.8 -23.3 -44.0 -19.3 22.9 -18.0 -28.9 2.9 -44.3 

-51.0 -20.3 -18.2 13.3 -12.0 -47.1 25.5 13.5 -25.5 -18.6 -29.7 

-54.8 -10.9 -18.6 31.3 -1.0 -58.6 15.4 51.6 -21.8 -18.7 -22.8 

-43.5 -25.7 -17.9 6.3 -17.2 -40.2 29.9 1.0 -27.4 -18.5 -34.8 

-41.2 -24.5 -17.6 7.5 -14.9 -40.7 30.1 1.6 -27.9 -19.4 -33.2 

-55.3 -37.9 -21.5 -13.7 -44.9 -30.2 25.0 -13.3 -16.8 0.0 -49.8 

-83.6 -71.0 250.0 -80.1 n.c. -44.6 -100.0 n.c. -86.8 -65.7 -22.9 

-92.5 -58.4 0.0 -87.5 0.0 -45.8 0.0 0.0 -87.5 -65.5 -42.7 

50.0 -85.7 250.0 n.c. n.c. n.c. -100.0 n.c. n.c. -75.0 188.9 































Rosedale 

Park 

State Fair/ 

Nolan 


31 -1,169 -848 -1,099 -1,309 -1,589 -672 

0 -246 -176 -205 -1,027 -648 -242 

31 -923 -672 -894 -282 -941 -430 

20 -838 -606 -849 -151 -874 -420 

11 -85 -66 -45 -131 -67 -10 

-66 -753 -507 -719 -1,056 -1,168 -262 

-18 -176 -97 -97 -798 -504 -87 

-48 -577 -410 -622 -258 -664 -175 

-53 -498 -349 -573 -144 -613 -157 

5 -79 -61 -49 -114 -51 -18 

-1 68 -143 -2 -154 -42 -162 

0 68 -106 0 -155 0 -161 

-1 0 -37 -2 1 -42 -1 

2.5 -21.4 -26.1 -26.7 -37.7 -31.6 -20.1 

0.0 -13.4 -16.8 -15.5 -38.1 -32.7 -18.8 

3.3 -25.5 -30.4 -32.1 -36.6 -30.9 -20.9 

2.2 -24.8 -29.9 -32.5 -28.5 -31.2 -21.8 

42.3 -34.8 -36.9 -26.6 -54.4 -28.0 -8.0 

-7.1 -17.8 -20.2 -22.0 -37.6 -30.9 -10.6 

-7.4 -11.7 -11.8 -9.0 -36.3 -32.1 -9.2 

-7.0 -21.1 -24.3 -28.4 -42.6 -30.0 -11.5 

-7.9 -19.6 -22.6 -28.0 -34.8 -30.2 -11.0 

27.8 -40.5 -42.1 -34.5 -59.7 -28.5 -17.8 

-12.5 6800.0 -64.4 -66.7 -54.0 -82.4 -75.0 

0.0 n.c. -65.8 0.0 -61.0 0.0 -74.9 

-12.5 0.0 -60.7 -66.7 3.2 -82.4 -100.0 


TABLE 3. HOUSEHOLDS HEADED BY PERSONS 55 YEARS AND OVER BY TYPE AND TENURE, 2000 






Total Households 336,428 7,601 7,224 6,736 3,443 6,925 10,886 8,130 6,959 7,232 10,999 

Total Family households 218,483 5,279 5,157 3,065 2,294 4,572 7,692 6,143 3,486 5,122 7,440 

Householder 55-64 years 26,008 666 869 419 260 378 870 499 392 917 692 



Householder 85+ years 2,647 60 64 51 55 16 63 40 109 34 92 

Total NonFamily households 117,945 2,322 2,067 3,671 1,149 2,353 3,194 1,987 3,473 2,110 3,559 






Householder 55-64 years 11.9 12.6 16.9 13.7 11.3 8.3 11.3 8.1 11.2 17.9 9.3 



Householder 85+ years 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.7 2.4 0.3 0.8 0.7 3.1 0.7 1.2 







Total Owner-occupied hous<strong>in</strong>g units 184,647 4,230 5,586 2,679 2,501 3,136 6,459 5,325 2,460 5,043 5,630 

Householder 55-64 years 29,800 769 1,078 488 310 411 1,020 566 382 1,130 766 

Householder 65-74 years 26,773 666 1,220 420 613 295 710 374 413 700 744 



Total Renter-occupied hous<strong>in</strong>g units 151,781 3,371 1,638 4,057 942 3,789 4,427 2,805 4,499 2,189 5,369 








































Chene 

Cody/ 

Rouge 


Village 

3,660 16,121 9,584 8,217 10,682 9,598 11,284 11,056 7,347 9,641 11,246 

2,185 11,118 7,182 5,952 3,461 5,965 8,170 7,539 5,255 6,639 7,901 

240 971 849 490 468 598 1,129 729 827 1,003 1,169 

235 681 437 267 330 729 539 388 482 664 1,081 

177 561 183 166 178 588 245 254 183 330 463 

58 108 24 29 38 159 44 76 32 59 82 

1,475 5,003 2,402 2,265 7,221 3,633 3,114 3,517 2,092 3,002 3,345 

229 565 340 260 1,138 491 541 436 372 523 612 

261 541 263 158 1,016 511 399 334 240 514 583 

222 614 139 176 721 538 248 302 89 354 370 

56 180 47 74 222 166 69 134 29 106 82 

11.0 8.7 11.8 8.2 13.5 10.0 13.8 9.7 15.7 15.1 14.8 

10.8 6.1 6.1 4.5 9.5 12.2 6.6 5.1 9.2 10.0 13.7 

8.1 5.0 2.5 2.8 5.1 9.9 3.0 3.4 3.5 5.0 5.9 

2.7 1.0 0.3 0.5 1.1 2.7 0.5 1.0 0.6 0.9 1.0 

15.5 11.3 14.2 11.5 15.8 13.5 17.4 12.4 17.8 17.4 18.3 

17.7 10.8 10.9 7.0 14.1 14.1 12.8 9.5 11.5 17.1 17.4 

15.1 12.3 5.8 7.8 10.0 14.8 8.0 8.6 4.3 11.8 11.1 

3.8 3.6 2.0 3.3 3.1 4.6 2.2 3.8 1.4 3.5 2.5 

1,284 11,120 4,912 5,952 1,767 4,061 7,755 7,994 4,616 6,725 6,660 

187 1,237 852 606 402 554 1,419 984 982 1,280 1,431 

267 1,012 549 369 321 841 738 624 612 890 1,392 

254 1,034 266 308 194 853 363 509 224 482 674 

81 248 56 93 34 234 70 182 50 89 116 

2,376 5,001 4,672 2,265 8,915 5,537 3,529 3,062 2,731 2,916 4,586 

282 299 337 144 1,204 535 251 181 217 246 350 

229 210 151 56 1,025 399 200 98 110 288 272 

145 141 56 34 705 273 130 47 48 202 159 

33 40 15 10 226 91 43 28 11 76 48 




































Jefferies 

Ketter<strong>in</strong>g/B 

utzel 


Park 


2,984 9,213 5,717 13,156 4,193 9,888 4,924 8,098 11,772 9,121 9,448 

1,402 5,407 3,820 8,983 2,751 7,584 3,020 5,387 8,403 5,395 5,523 

150 529 477 1,378 285 675 622 924 1,049 625 539 

120 801 322 1,245 417 350 351 940 753 347 597 

80 622 153 544 263 227 130 545 455 197 518 

15 138 29 116 50 63 16 107 97 33 120 

1,582 3,806 1,897 4,173 1,442 2,304 1,904 2,711 3,369 3,726 3,925 

245 527 310 764 195 293 319 512 525 450 562 

254 659 258 644 225 204 180 482 463 389 621 

173 574 145 464 226 161 79 404 385 289 601 

68 195 53 96 67 63 17 95 132 93 215 

10.7 9.8 12.5 15.3 10.4 8.9 20.6 17.2 12.5 11.6 9.8 

8.6 14.8 8.4 13.9 15.2 4.6 11.6 17.4 9.0 6.4 10.8 

5.7 11.5 4.0 6.1 9.6 3.0 4.3 10.1 5.4 3.7 9.4 

1.1 2.6 0.8 1.3 1.8 0.8 0.5 2.0 1.2 0.6 2.2 

15.5 13.8 16.3 18.3 13.5 12.7 16.8 18.9 15.6 12.1 14.3 

16.1 17.3 13.6 15.4 15.6 8.9 9.5 17.8 13.7 10.4 15.8 

10.9 15.1 7.6 11.1 15.7 7.0 4.1 14.9 11.4 7.8 15.3 

4.3 5.1 2.8 2.3 4.6 2.7 0.9 3.5 3.9 2.5 5.5 

713 3,986 2,252 7,732 2,367 6,692 2,882 6,192 8,040 5,196 3,281 

129 498 459 1,642 338 758 740 1,216 1,291 770 459 

116 974 377 1,623 532 460 451 1,284 1,091 511 696 

79 843 213 875 427 358 172 851 780 356 705 

35 227 45 185 97 113 23 173 213 84 191 

2,271 5,227 3,465 5,424 1,826 3,196 2,042 1,906 3,732 3,925 6,167 

266 558 328 500 142 210 201 220 283 305 642 

258 486 203 266 110 94 80 138 125 225 522 

174 353 85 133 62 30 37 98 60 130 414 

48 106 37 27 20 13 10 29 16 42 144 




































Rosedale 

Park 

St. Jean 

State Fair/ 

Nolan 

Tireman University Vernor W<strong>in</strong>terhalter 

6,610 6,374 12,722 8,076 8,427 13,587 7,547 

5,029 4,044 8,547 5,289 2,488 9,261 4,533 

783 429 988 552 195 873 500 

289 558 947 687 122 644 628 

107 408 596 486 68 364 413 

22 86 150 120 27 86 79 

1,581 2,330 4,175 2,787 5,939 4,326 3,014 

307 317 641 390 684 637 441 

140 380 633 486 688 595 463 

75 326 583 392 550 421 372 

26 90 210 168 228 141 101 

15.6 10.6 11.6 10.4 7.8 9.4 11.0 

5.7 13.8 11.1 13.0 4.9 7.0 13.9 

2.1 10.1 7.0 9.2 2.7 3.9 9.1 

0.4 2.1 1.8 2.3 1.1 0.9 1.7 

19.4 13.6 15.4 14.0 11.5 14.7 14.6 

8.9 16.3 15.2 17.4 11.6 13.8 15.4 

4.7 14.0 14.0 14.1 9.3 9.7 12.3 

1.6 3.9 5.0 6.0 3.8 3.3 3.4 

5,778 3,019 6,941 3,977 251 6,271 3,182 

1,014 467 1,106 607 37 908 507 

397 714 1,195 925 25 839 793 

168 581 948 735 18 574 590 

47 145 283 241 8 175 145 

832 3,355 5,781 4,099 8,176 7,316 4,365 

76 279 523 335 842 602 434 

32 224 385 248 785 400 298 

14 153 231 143 600 211 195 

1 31 77 47 247 52 35 































Chene 

Cody/ 

Rouge 


Village 

14.6 11.1 17.3 10.2 22.8 13.6 18.3 12.3 21.3 19.0 21.5 

20.8 9.1 11.2 6.2 18.2 20.7 9.5 7.8 13.3 13.2 20.9 

19.8 9.3 5.4 5.2 11.0 21.0 4.7 6.4 4.9 7.2 10.1 

6.3 2.2 1.1 1.6 1.9 5.8 0.9 2.3 1.1 1.3 1.7 

11.9 6.0 7.2 6.4 13.5 9.7 7.1 5.9 7.9 8.4 7.6 

9.6 4.2 3.2 2.5 11.5 7.2 5.7 3.2 4.0 9.9 5.9 

6.1 2.8 1.2 1.5 7.9 4.9 3.7 1.5 1.8 6.9 3.5 

1.4 0.8 0.3 0.4 2.5 1.6 1.2 0.9 0.4 2.6 1.0 














Jefferies 

Ketter<strong>in</strong>g/B 

utzel 


Park 


18.1 12.5 20.4 21.2 14.3 11.3 25.7 19.6 16.1 14.8 14.0 

16.3 24.4 16.7 21.0 22.5 6.9 15.6 20.7 13.6 9.8 21.2 

11.1 21.1 9.5 11.3 18.0 5.3 6.0 13.7 9.7 6.9 21.5 

4.9 5.7 2.0 2.4 4.1 1.7 0.8 2.8 2.6 1.6 5.8 

11.7 10.7 9.5 9.2 7.8 6.6 9.8 11.5 7.6 7.8 10.4 

11.4 9.3 5.9 4.9 6.0 2.9 3.9 7.2 3.3 5.7 8.5 

7.7 6.8 2.5 2.5 3.4 0.9 1.8 5.1 1.6 3.3 6.7 

2.1 2.0 1.1 0.5 1.1 0.4 0.5 1.5 0.4 1.1 2.3 














Rosedale 

Park 

St. Jean 

State Fair/ 

Nolan 

Tireman University Vernor W<strong>in</strong>terhalter 

17.5 15.5 15.9 15.3 14.7 14.5 15.9 

6.9 23.7 17.2 23.3 10.0 13.4 24.9 

2.9 19.2 13.7 18.5 7.2 9.2 18.5 

0.8 4.8 4.1 6.1 3.2 2.8 4.6 

9.1 8.3 9.0 8.2 10.3 8.2 9.9 

3.8 6.7 6.7 6.1 9.6 5.5 6.8 

1.7 4.6 4.0 3.5 7.3 2.9 4.5 

0.1 0.9 1.3 1.1 3.0 0.7 0.8 


Appendix 2 

Maps

Reference Map 

Michigan <strong>Area</strong> Agencies on Ag<strong>in</strong>g Plann<strong>in</strong>g and Service <strong>Area</strong>s 

Lake Superior 

11 

10 9 

Lake 

Huron 

Sag<strong>in</strong>aw 

Bay 

14 7 

8 

Lake 

Michigan 

4 

3b 

3a 

3c 

6 

2 

5 

1b 

1a 

1c 

WSU/CUS/Michigan Metropolitan Information Center/jcb

Sector Map 

<strong>Detroit</strong> <strong>Area</strong> <strong>Agency</strong> on Ag<strong>in</strong>g - 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 

Michigan 

96 

75 

75 

375 

Belle Isle 

Legend 

5 

<strong>Detroit</strong> River 

Freeways 

Divided Roads 

Major Roads 

Sectors 

75 


United Way Community Services Subcommunities 


Telegraph 

Brightmoor 

Cody/Rouge 

39 

10 

96 

96 

39 

Grand River 

Grandmont 

Pembroke 

8 Mile Road 

Palmer 

Evergreen 

Greenfield 

Park 

St. Fair/Nolan 

Bagley 

Redford 

Harmony Village 

10 

Cerveny 

McNichols 

Highland 

Rosedale Park 

Park 

Woodward 

Durfee 

94 

Chadsey/Condon 

Michigan 

75 

Jeffries 

96 

75 

10 

Persh<strong>in</strong>g 

Airport 

Hamtramck 

75 

94 

W<strong>in</strong>terhalter 

Central 

St. Jean 

Mackenzie 

Chene 

Ketter<strong>in</strong>g/Butzel 

Rosa Parks 

Brooks 

Belle Isle 

Tireman 

University 

75 

75 

Downtown 

375 

Van Dyke 

Grosse 

Po<strong>in</strong>te 

Woods 

Osborn 

Burbank 

Harper 

Grosse 

Woods 


Shores 

94 


Denby 

Conner 

Grosse 

F<strong>in</strong>ney 


Farms 

Grosse 

Mack 


Gratiot 

Belle Isle 

Grosse 


Park 

Legend 


Freeways 

Vernor 

Divided Roads 

Major Roads 

UWCS 

Subcommunities 

Cities 

75 

Boynton 


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 

Michigan 

94 

75 

Gratiot 

5413 

5415 

5417 

5418 

5443 

5414 

5463 

5441 

5438 

5439 

5440 

5436 

5442 

5432 

5435 

5462 

5461 

5466 

5409 

5412 

5410 

5411 

5406 

5434 

5429 

5437 

5464 

5465 

5427 

5468 

5459 

5458 

5457 

5460 

5467 

5401 

5407 

5408 

5402 

5403 

5405 

5431 5421 

5404 

5469 

5426 

5451 

5452 

5422 

5428 

5423 

5430 

5424 

5425 

5454 

5453 

5455 

5456 

5397 

5376 

5375 

5377 

5372 

5373 

5378 

5371 

5352 

5351 

5355 

5350 

5353 

5354 

5396 

5369 

5370 

5395 

5392 

5394 

5393 

5356 

5342 

5344 

5347 

5357 

5343 

5391 

5387 

5388 

5390 

5386 

5389 

5368 

5367 

5362 5361 

5363 

5364 

5365 

5366 

5341 

5385 

5345 

5346 

5308 

5337 

5301 

5302 

5384 

5335 

5310 

5304 

5316 

5303 

5317 

5318 

5305 

5314 

5315 

5307 

5311 

5383 

5381 

5080 

5382 

5251 

5332 

5334 

5336 

5312 

5313 

5319 

5533 

5534 

5531 

5532 

5222 

5331 

5333 

5204 

5218 

5079 

5076 

5077 

5115 

5245 

5247 

5248 

5263 

5261 

5260 

5262 

5265 

5257 

5258 

5264 

5237 

5240 

5242 

5241 

5243 

5252 

5253 

5254 

5256 

5238 

5236 

5232 

5234 

5255 

5221 

5211 

5231 

5233 

5235 

5223 

5213 

5220 

5224 

5326 

5330 

5327 

5325 

5201 

5073 

5078 

5104 

5530 

5322 

5323 

5116 

5117 

5324 

5536 

5538 

5069 

5074 

5075 

5070 

5068 

5215 

5214 

5219 

5209 

5112 

5181 

5202 

5521 

5520 

5071 

5072 

5105 

5103 

5523 

5522 

5203 

5175 

5205 

5174 

5206 

5111 

5180 

5179 

5526 

5208 

5207 

5177 

5176 

5172 

5178 

5185 

5188 

5184 

5065 

5066 

5067 5061 

5062 

5108 

5102 

5106 

5107 

5109 

5524 

5527 

5166 

5170 

5171 

5165 

5167 

5169 

5064 

5049 

5063 

5036 

5037 

5186 

5162 

5161 

5168 

5163 

5151 

5145 

5152 

5154 

5150 

5156 

5149 

5148 

5046 

5047 

5147 

5143 

5141 

5045 

5146 

5035 

5051 

5050 

5033 

5052 

5048 

5053 

5044 

5164 

5153 

5158 

5039 

5139 

5136 

5157 

5032 

5034 

5043 

5040 

5004 

5042 

5031 

5006 

5002 

5003 

5124 

5122 

5123 

5121 

5140 5126 

5041 

5005 

5011 

5135 

5134 

5129 

5001 

5007 

5516 

5013 

5014 

5012 

5010 

5009 

5503 

5132 

5133 

5501 

5502 

5008 

5016 

5015 

5017 

5515 

5514 

5019 

5020 

5018 

5505 

5504 

5506 

5511 

5507 

5508 

5512 

5509 

5517 

5518 

Belle Isle 


WSU/CUS/Michigan Metropolitan Information Center/jcb 

Census Tracts, 2000 


Freeways 

Divided Roads 

Major Roads 

Census Tracts 

Legend 

Cities 










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

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 

Michigan 

94 

75 

Gratiot 

48219 

48239 

48235 

48223 

48228 

48221 

48238 

48227 

48206 

48204 

48210 

48209 

48217 

48234 

48203 

48212 

48202 

48208 

48216 

48211 

48207 

48201 

48226 

48205 

48213 

48214 

48207 

48230 

48215 

48236 

48225 

48224 

Belle Isle 



Zip Code Tabulation <strong>Area</strong>s (ZCTAs) 


Freeways 

Divided Roads 

Major Roads 

Zip Code 

Tabultation <strong>Area</strong>s 

Legend 

Cities 










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

Medically Underserved <strong>Area</strong>s (MUAs) 


8 Mile Road 

Grosse 


Woods 

Van Dyke 

39 

10 

Woodward 

75 

Harper 

Woods 

Grosse 


Shores 

Telegraph 

Grand River 

96 

10 

Highland 

Park 

75 

Hamtramck 

94 


Gratiot 

94 

Grosse 


Farms 

Grosse 


96 

39 

Grosse 


Park 

10 

75 

94 

Michigan 

96 

75 

75 

375 

Belle Isle 

Legend 


Freeways 

Divided Roads 

Major Roads 

Medically 

Underserved <strong>Area</strong>s 

Cities 

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 

Michigan 

94 

75 

Gratiot 










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 

Belle Isle 



<strong>Detroit</strong> Empowerment Zone 

<strong>Detroit</strong> <strong>Area</strong> <strong>Agency</strong> on Ag<strong>in</strong>g Region 1-A 

Southwest Zone 

Central Zone 

East Zone

2000 

Share <strong>of</strong> State Population 

60 Years <strong>of</strong> Age and Over 


Lake Superior 

11 

4.2% 

3.5% 

10 9 

3.7% 

Lake 


Share <strong>of</strong> Population* 

26% 

5% to 11% 

1% to 4.9% 

Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 

*Michigan Population = 9,938,444 

Lake 

Michigan 

4.1% 

3.3% 

8.8% 

2.2% 2.1% 

1.2% 

3.7% 

3.2% 


Bay 

8 

14 7 

4 

3b 

3a 

3c 

6 

2 

5.7% 

1b 

26.3% 

8.0% 

5 

9.3% 

10.7% 

1a 

1c 


2000 

Percent <strong>of</strong> M<strong>in</strong>ority Population 

60 Years <strong>of</strong> Age and Over 


Lake Superior 

11 

2.9% 

1.6% 

10 9 

1.4% 

Lake 


Percent <strong>of</strong> Population 

73% 

8% to 13% 

4% to 7.9% 

1% to 3.9% 


Lake 

Michigan 

6.8% 

10.6% 

6.1% 

7.5% 

3.2% 

8.2% 

8.5% 

4.7% 


Bay 

8 

14 7 

4 

3a 3b 

6 

3c 2 

13.4% 

1b 

6.3% 

5 

7.2% 

7.9% 

73.0% 

1a 

1c 


1999 

Share <strong>of</strong> State Population <strong>of</strong> Persons 60 

Years <strong>of</strong> Age and Over Liv<strong>in</strong>g Below 150% <strong>of</strong> Poverty 


Lake Superior 

11 

5.4% 

3.5% 

10 9 

4.4% 

Lake 


Share <strong>of</strong> Population 

19.5% 

16.1% 

5% to 9% 

1% to 4.9% 


Lake 

Michigan 

14 

14 9.1% 

7 

3.8% 

4.0% 

4 

8 

3b 

3a 

1.9% 

1.2% 

2.3% 

3.1% 

6 

3c 2 

3.2% 


Bay 

5.3% 

1b 

19.5% 

8.4% 

8.9% 

5 

16.1% 

1a 

1c 


Number <strong>of</strong> Persons 60 Years <strong>of</strong> Age and Over, 2000 

Sectors <strong>in</strong> <strong>Detroit</strong> <strong>Area</strong> <strong>Agency</strong> on Ag<strong>in</strong>g Region 1-A 

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 

Michigan 

96 

75 

75 

375 

Belle Isle 


10,802 


75 

14,700 to 17,300 

11,900 to 14,699 

10,802 

6,300 to 9,099 

Source: US Census Bureau 


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 

Michigan 

94 

75 

Gratiot 

4,024 

4,024 

4,024 

4,024 

4,024 

4,024 

4,024 

4,024 

4,024 

1,662 

1,662 

1,662 

1,662 

1,662 

1,662 

1,662 

1,662 

1,662 

1,396 

1,396 

1,396 

1,396 

1,396 

1,396 

1,396 

1,396 

1,396 

5,637 

5,637 

5,637 

5,637 

5,637 

5,637 

5,637 

5,637 

5,637 

3,168 

3,168 

3,168 

3,168 

3,168 

3,168 

3,168 

3,168 

3,168 

3,262 

3,262 

3,262 

3,262 

3,262 

3,262 

3,262 

3,262 

3,262 

5,762 

5,762 

5,762 

5,762 

5,762 

5,762 

5,762 

5,762 

5,762 

3,917 

3,917 

3,917 

3,917 

3,917 

3,917 

3,917 

3,917 

3,917 

1,738 

1,738 

1,738 

1,738 

1,738 

1,738 

1,738 

1,738 

1,738 

3,125 

3,125 

3,125 

3,125 

3,125 

3,125 

3,125 

3,125 

3,125 

2,613 

2,613 

2,613 

2,613 

2,613 

2,613 

2,613 

2,613 

2,613 

4,387 

4,387 

4,387 

4,387 

4,387 

4,387 

4,387 

4,387 

4,387 

2,224 

2,224 

2,224 

2,224 

2,224 

2,224 

2,224 

2,224 

2,224 

4,379 

4,379 

4,379 

4,379 

4,379 

4,379 

4,379 

4,379 

4,379 

1,154 

1,154 

1,154 

1,154 

1,154 

1,154 

1,154 

1,154 

1,154 

4,501 

4,501 

4,501 

4,501 

4,501 

4,501 

4,501 

4,501 

4,501 

3,833 

3,833 

3,833 

3,833 

3,833 

3,833 

3,833 

3,833 

3,833 

3,648 

3,648 

3,648 

3,648 

3,648 

3,648 

3,648 

3,648 

3,648 

4,515 

4,515 

4,515 

4,515 

4,515 

4,515 

4,515 

4,515 

4,515 

2,013 

2,013 

2,013 

2,013 

2,013 

2,013 

2,013 

2,013 

2,013 

5,175 

5,175 

5,175 

5,175 

5,175 

5,175 

5,175 

5,175 

5,175 

6,015 

6,015 

6,015 

6,015 

6,015 

6,015 

6,015 

6,015 

6,015 

3,379 

3,379 

3,379 

3,379 

3,379 

3,379 

3,379 

3,379 

3,379 

4,757 

4,757 

4,757 

4,757 

4,757 

4,757 

4,757 

4,757 

4,757 

2,842 

2,842 

2,842 

2,842 

2,842 

2,842 

2,842 

2,842 

2,842 

2,290 

2,290 

2,290 

2,290 

2,290 

2,290 

2,290 

2,290 

2,290 

2,768 

2,768 

2,768 

2,768 

2,768 

2,768 

2,768 

2,768 

2,768 

2,678 

2,678 

2,678 

2,678 

2,678 

2,678 

2,678 

2,678 

2,678 

3,607 

3,607 

3,607 

3,607 

3,607 

3,607 

3,607 

3,607 

3,607 3,814 

3,814 

3,814 

3,814 

3,814 

3,814 

3,814 

3,814 

3,814 

4,692 

4,692 

4,692 

4,692 

4,692 

4,692 

4,692 

4,692 

4,692 

4,297 

4,297 

4,297 

4,297 

4,297 

4,297 

4,297 

4,297 

4,297 

1,788 

1,788 

1,788 

1,788 

1,788 

1,788 

1,788 

1,788 

1,788 

2,322 

2,322 

2,322 

2,322 

2,322 

2,322 

2,322 

2,322 

2,322 

2,350 

2,350 

2,350 

2,350 

2,350 

2,350 

2,350 

2,350 

2,350 1,809 

1,809 

1,809 

1,809 

1,809 

1,809 

1,809 

1,809 

1,809 

1,757 

1,757 

1,757 

1,757 

1,757 

1,757 

1,757 

1,757 

1,757 

3,281 

3,281 

3,281 

3,281 

3,281 

3,281 

3,281 

3,281 

3,281 

1,821 

1,821 

1,821 

1,821 

1,821 

1,821 

1,821 

1,821 

1,821 

1,156 

1,156 

1,156 

1,156 

1,156 

1,156 

1,156 

1,156 

1,156 

3,804 

3,804 

3,804 

3,804 

3,804 

3,804 

3,804 

3,804 

3,804 

3,375 

3,375 

3,375 

3,375 

3,375 

3,375 

3,375 

3,375 

3,375 

847 

847 

847 

847 

847 

847 

847 

847 

847 

1,790 

1,790 

1,790 

1,790 

1,790 

1,790 

1,790 

1,790 

1,790 

3,218 

3,218 

3,218 

3,218 

3,218 

3,218 

3,218 

3,218 

3,218 

3,022 

3,022 

3,022 

3,022 

3,022 

3,022 

3,022 

3,022 

3,022 

2,194 

2,194 

2,194 

2,194 

2,194 

2,194 

2,194 

2,194 

2,194 

Belle Isle 





5,200 to 6,100 

4,100 to 5,199 

3,000 to 4,099 

1,900 to 2,999 

800 to 1,899 


Communities <strong>in</strong> <strong>Detroit</strong> <strong>Area</strong> <strong>Agency</strong> on Ag<strong>in</strong>g Region 1-A


Census Tracts <strong>in</strong> <strong>Detroit</strong> <strong>Area</strong> <strong>Agency</strong> on Ag<strong>in</strong>g Region 1-A 

39 

10 

8 Mile Road 

Woodward 

75 

Van Dyke 


Harper 

Woods 

94 

Grosse 


Woods 

Grosse 


Shores 

Telegraph 

96 

Grand River 

96 

10 

Highland 

Park 

75 

Hamtramck 

94 

Gratiot 

Grosse 


Park 

Grosse 


Farms 

Grosse 


39 

10 

75 

94 

Michigan 

96 

75 

75 

375 

Belle Isle 



75 

1,360 to 1,700 

1,020 to 1,359 

680 to 1,019 

340 to 679 

Less than 340 



Numerical Change <strong>in</strong> Population 60 Years 

<strong>of</strong> Age and Over, 1990 - 2000 


8 Mile Road 

Van Dyke 

39 

10 

75 

Woodward 

-230 

-4,781 

-5,644 

94 

Telegraph 

-1,394 

Grand River 

1,271 

10 

-1,930 

Gratiot 

-2,869 

96 

75 

94 

96 

39 

-3,464 

-7,160 

-6,285 

-5,952 

10 

75 

94 

Michigan 

96 

75 

75 

375 

Belle Isle 

-5,180 


Total Change 

75 

1,271 

-2,099 to 1 

-3,799 to -2,100 

-5,499 to -3,800 

-7,200 to -5,500 



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 

Michigan 

94 

75 

Gratiot 

-2,393 

-2,393 

-2,393 

-2,393 

-2,393 

-2,393 

-2,393 

-2,393 

-2,393 

-61 

-61 

-61 

-61 

-61 

-61 

-61 

-61 

-61 

-683 

-683 

-683 

-683 

-683 

-683 

-683 

-683 

-683 

-1,645 

-1,645 

-1,645 

-1,645 

-1,645 

-1,645 

-1,645 

-1,645 

-1,645 

-319 

-319 

-319 

-319 

-319 

-319 

-319 

-319 

-319 

-1,318 

-1,318 

-1,318 

-1,318 

-1,318 

-1,318 

-1,318 

-1,318 

-1,318 

-2,224 

-2,224 

-2,224 

-2,224 

-2,224 

-2,224 

-2,224 

-2,224 

-2,224 

-348 

-348 

-348 

-348 

-348 

-348 

-348 

-348 

-348 

-1,263 

-1,263 

-1,263 

-1,263 

-1,263 

-1,263 

-1,263 

-1,263 

-1,263 

-1,960 

-1,960 

-1,960 

-1,960 

-1,960 

-1,960 

-1,960 

-1,960 

-1,960 

-1,588 

-1,588 

-1,588 

-1,588 

-1,588 

-1,588 

-1,588 

-1,588 

-1,588 

-2,145 

-2,145 

-2,145 

-2,145 

-2,145 

-2,145 

-2,145 

-2,145 

-2,145 

-543 

-543 

-543 

-543 

-543 

-543 

-543 

-543 

-543 

-1,855 

-1,855 

-1,855 

-1,855 

-1,855 

-1,855 

-1,855 

-1,855 

-1,855 

-1,225 

-1,225 

-1,225 

-1,225 

-1,225 

-1,225 

-1,225 

-1,225 

-1,225 

-2,343 

-2,343 

-2,343 

-2,343 

-2,343 

-2,343 

-2,343 

-2,343 

-2,343 

-1,723 

-1,723 

-1,723 

-1,723 

-1,723 

-1,723 

-1,723 

-1,723 

-1,723 

-1,001 

-1,001 

-1,001 

-1,001 

-1,001 

-1,001 

-1,001 

-1,001 

-1,001 

-2,093 

-2,093 

-2,093 

-2,093 

-2,093 

-2,093 

-2,093 

-2,093 

-2,093 

-691 

-691 

-691 

-691 

-691 

-691 

-691 

-691 

-691 

354 

354 

354 

354 

354 

354 

354 

354 

354 

-105 

-105 

-105 

-105 

-105 

-105 

-105 

-105 

-105 

-913 

-913 

-913 

-913 

-913 

-913 

-913 

-913 

-913 

-2,300 

-2,300 

-2,300 

-2,300 

-2,300 

-2,300 

-2,300 

-2,300 

-2,300 

-1,281 

-1,281 

-1,281 

-1,281 

-1,281 

-1,281 

-1,281 

-1,281 

-1,281 

228 

228 

228 

228 

228 

228 

228 

228 

228 

615 

615 

615 

615 

615 

615 

615 

615 

615 

-642 

-642 

-642 

-642 

-642 

-642 

-642 

-642 

-642 

-154 

-154 

-154 

-154 

-154 

-154 

-154 

-154 

-154 74 

74 

74 

74 

74 

74 

74 

74 

74 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

131 

131 

131 

131 

131 

131 

131 

131 

131 

286 

286 

286 

286 

286 

286 

286 

286 

286 

-283 

-283 

-283 

-283 

-283 

-283 

-283 

-283 

-283 

-2,030 

-2,030 

-2,030 

-2,030 

-2,030 

-2,030 

-2,030 

-2,030 

-2,030 -1,772 

-1,772 

-1,772 

-1,772 

-1,772 

-1,772 

-1,772 

-1,772 

-1,772 

-1,559 

-1,559 

-1,559 

-1,559 

-1,559 

-1,559 

-1,559 

-1,559 

-1,559 

-1,655 

-1,655 

-1,655 

-1,655 

-1,655 

-1,655 

-1,655 

-1,655 

-1,655 

-436 

-436 

-436 

-436 

-436 

-436 

-436 

-436 

-436 

-66 

-66 

-66 

-66 

-66 

-66 

-66 

-66 

-66 

-531 

-531 

-531 

-531 

-531 

-531 

-531 

-531 

-531 

-1,197 

-1,197 

-1,197 

-1,197 

-1,197 

-1,197 

-1,197 

-1,197 

-1,197 

61 

61 

61 

61 

61 

61 

61 

61 

61 

-290 

-290 

-290 

-290 

-290 

-290 

-290 

-290 

-290 

-1,831 

-1,831 

-1,831 

-1,831 

-1,831 

-1,831 

-1,831 

-1,831 

-1,831 

-733 

-733 

-733 

-733 

-733 

-733 

-733 

-733 

-733 

-212 

-212 

-212 

-212 

-212 

-212 

-212 

-212 

-212 

Belle Isle 



Total Change 

1 to 615 

-599 to -1 

-1,199 to -600 

-1,799 to -1,200 

-2,400 to -1,800 








39 

10 

8 Mile Road 

Woodward 

75 

Van Dyke 


Harper 

Woods 

94 

Grosse 


Woods 

Grosse 


Shores 

Telegraph 

96 

Grand River 

96 

10 

Highland 

Park 

75 

Hamtramck 

94 

Gratiot 

Grosse 


Park 

Grosse 


Farms 

Grosse 


39 

10 

75 

94 

Michigan 

96 

75 

75 

375 

Belle Isle 

75 


Total Change 

1 to 170 

-169 to 0 

-349 to -170 

-529 to -350 

-710 to -530 



Persons 65 Years <strong>of</strong> Age and Over 

Liv<strong>in</strong>g Below Poverty, 1999 


8 Mile Road 

Van Dyke 

39 

10 

75 

Woodward 

1,058 

1,914 

893 

94 

Telegraph 

947 

Grand River 

1,571 

10 

1,172 

Gratiot 

365 

96 

75 

94 

96 

39 

1,556 

2,485 

2,650 

3,142 

10 

75 

94 

Michigan 

96 

75 

75 

375 

Belle Isle 


1,546 


2,400 to 3,200 

1,914 

1,000 to 1,700 

300 to 999 

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 

Michigan 

94 

75 

Gratiot 

638 

638 

638 

638 

638 

638 

638 

638 

638 

157 

157 

157 

157 

157 

157 

157 

157 

157 

178 

178 

178 

178 

178 

178 

178 

178 

178 

955 

955 

955 

955 

955 

955 

955 

955 

955 

579 

579 

579 

579 

579 

579 

579 

579 

579 

683 

683 

683 

683 

683 

683 

683 

683 

683 

1,211 

1,211 

1,211 

1,211 

1,211 

1,211 

1,211 

1,211 

1,211 

726 

726 

726 

726 

726 

726 

726 

726 

726 

322 

322 

322 

322 

322 

322 

322 

322 

322 

590 

590 

590 

590 

590 

590 

590 

590 

590 

811 

811 

811 

811 

811 

811 

811 

811 

811 

661 

661 

661 

661 

661 

661 

661 

661 

661 

214 

214 

214 

214 

214 

214 

214 

214 

214 

494 

494 

494 

494 

494 

494 

494 

494 

494 

234 

234 

234 

234 

234 

234 

234 

234 

234 

786 

786 

786 

786 

786 

786 

786 

786 

786 

647 

647 

647 

647 

647 

647 

647 

647 

647 

370 

370 

370 

370 

370 

370 

370 

370 

370 

682 

682 

682 

682 

682 

682 

682 

682 

682 

286 

286 

286 

286 

286 

286 

286 

286 

286 

700 

700 

700 

700 

700 

700 

700 

700 

700 

726 

726 

726 

726 

726 

726 

726 

726 

726 

398 

398 

398 

398 

398 

398 

398 

398 

398 

381 

381 

381 

381 

381 

381 

381 

381 

381 

465 

465 

465 

465 

465 

465 

465 

465 

465 

211 

211 

211 

211 

211 

211 

211 

211 

211 

242 

242 

242 

242 

242 

242 

242 

242 

242 

286 

286 

286 

286 

286 

286 

286 

286 

286 

377 

377 

377 

377 

377 

377 

377 

377 

377 418 

418 

418 

418 

418 

418 

418 

418 

418 

368 

368 

368 

368 

368 

368 

368 

368 

368 

349 

349 

349 

349 

349 

349 

349 

349 

349 

55 

55 

55 

55 

55 

55 

55 

55 

55 

303 

303 

303 

303 

303 

303 

303 

303 

303 

259 

259 

259 

259 

259 

259 

259 

259 

259 183 

183 

183 

183 

183 

183 

183 

183 

183 

148 

148 

148 

148 

148 

148 

148 

148 

148 

285 

285 

285 

285 

285 

285 

285 

285 

285 

384 

384 

384 

384 

384 

384 

384 

384 

384 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

85 

85 

85 

85 

85 

85 

85 

85 

85 

471 

471 

471 

471 

471 

471 

471 

471 

471 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

192 

192 

192 

192 

192 

192 

192 

192 

192 

701 

701 

701 

701 

701 

701 

701 

701 

701 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

Belle Isle 




1,211 

730 to 970 

490 to 729 

250 to 489 

Less than 250 








39 

10 

8 Mile Road 

Woodward 

75 

Van Dyke 


Harper 

Woods 

94 

Grosse 


Woods 

Grosse 


Shores 

Telegraph 

96 

Grand River 

96 

10 

Highland 

Park 

75 

Hamtramck 

94 

Gratiot 

Grosse 


Park 

Grosse 


Farms 

Grosse 


39 

10 

75 

94 

Michigan 

96 

75 

75 

375 

Belle Isle 

75 



320 to 400 

252 

160 to 239 

80 to 159 

Less than 80 



Number <strong>of</strong> Persons 60 Years <strong>of</strong> Age 

and Over Liv<strong>in</strong>g Alone, 2000 


8 Mile Road 

Van Dyke 

39 

10 

75 

Woodward 

2,967 

3,444 

1,966 

94 

Telegraph 

2,383 

Grand River 

3,373 

10 

2,428 

Gratiot 

3,412 

96 

75 

94 

96 

5,078 

5,367 

39 

3,906 

6,213 

10 

75 

94 

Michigan 

96 

75 

75 

375 

Belle Isle 


3,177 


5,200 to 6,300 

5,078 

3,000 to 4,100 

1,900 to 2,999 

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 

Michigan 

94 

75 

Gratiot 

2,400 

2,400 

2,400 

2,400 

2,400 

2,400 

2,400 

2,400 

2,400 

1,213 

1,213 

1,213 

1,213 

1,213 

1,213 

1,213 

1,213 

1,213 

327 

327 

327 

327 

327 

327 

327 

327 

327 

404 

404 

404 

404 

404 

404 

404 

404 

404 

1,593 

1,593 

1,593 

1,593 

1,593 

1,593 

1,593 

1,593 

1,593 

1,521 

1,521 

1,521 

1,521 

1,521 

1,521 

1,521 

1,521 

1,521 

869 

869 

869 

869 

869 

869 

869 

869 

869 

1,545 

1,545 

1,545 

1,545 

1,545 

1,545 

1,545 

1,545 

1,545 

597 

597 

597 

597 

597 

597 

597 

597 

597 

1,041 

1,041 

1,041 

1,041 

1,041 

1,041 

1,041 

1,041 

1,041 

1,670 

1,670 

1,670 

1,670 

1,670 

1,670 

1,670 

1,670 

1,670 

1,336 

1,336 

1,336 

1,336 

1,336 

1,336 

1,336 

1,336 

1,336 

557 

557 

557 

557 

557 

557 

557 

557 

557 

1,125 

1,125 

1,125 

1,125 

1,125 

1,125 

1,125 

1,125 

1,125 

576 

576 

576 

576 

576 

576 

576 

576 

576 

1,587 

1,587 

1,587 

1,587 

1,587 

1,587 

1,587 

1,587 

1,587 

1,121 

1,121 

1,121 

1,121 

1,121 

1,121 

1,121 

1,121 

1,121 

1,042 

1,042 

1,042 

1,042 

1,042 

1,042 

1,042 

1,042 

1,042 

1,328 

1,328 

1,328 

1,328 

1,328 

1,328 

1,328 

1,328 

1,328 

554 

554 

554 

554 

554 

554 

554 

554 

554 

1,207 

1,207 

1,207 

1,207 

1,207 

1,207 

1,207 

1,207 

1,207 

1,456 

1,456 

1,456 

1,456 

1,456 

1,456 

1,456 

1,456 

1,456 

845 

845 

845 

845 

845 

845 

845 

845 

845 

1,494 

1,494 

1,494 

1,494 

1,494 

1,494 

1,494 

1,494 

1,494 

726 

726 

726 

726 

726 

726 

726 

726 

726 

452 

452 

452 

452 

452 

452 

452 

452 

452 

565 

565 

565 

565 

565 

565 

565 

565 

565 

895 

895 

895 

895 

895 

895 

895 

895 

895 

868 

868 

868 

868 

868 

868 

868 

868 

868 1,149 

1,149 

1,149 

1,149 

1,149 

1,149 

1,149 

1,149 

1,149 

1,151 

1,151 

1,151 

1,151 

1,151 

1,151 

1,151 

1,151 

1,151 

879 

879 

879 

879 

879 

879 

879 

879 

879 

383 

383 

383 

383 

383 

383 

383 

383 

383 

514 

514 

514 

514 

514 

514 

514 

514 

514 

506 

506 

506 

506 

506 

506 

506 

506 

506 463 

463 

463 

463 

463 

463 

463 

463 

463 

483 

483 

483 

483 

483 

483 

483 

483 

483 

890 

890 

890 

890 

890 

890 

890 

890 

890 

542 

542 

542 

542 

542 

542 

542 

542 

542 

375 

375 

375 

375 

375 

375 

375 

375 

375 

800 

800 

800 

800 

800 

800 

800 

800 

800 

1,247 

1,247 

1,247 

1,247 

1,247 

1,247 

1,247 

1,247 

1,247 

138 

138 

138 

138 

138 

138 

138 

138 

138 

428 

428 

428 

428 

428 

428 

428 

428 

428 

1,158 

1,158 

1,158 

1,158 

1,158 

1,158 

1,158 

1,158 

1,158 

1,181 

1,181 

1,181 

1,181 

1,181 

1,181 

1,181 

1,181 

1,181 

513 

513 

513 

513 

513 

513 

513 

513 

513 

Belle Isle 




2,400 

1,480 to 1,930 

1,030 to 1,479 

580 to 1,029 

Less than 580 








39 

10 

8 Mile Road 

Woodward 

75 

Van Dyke 


Harper 

Woods 

94 

Grosse 


Woods 

Grosse 


Shores 

Telegraph 

96 

Grand River 

96 

10 

Highland 

Park 

75 

Hamtramck 

94 

Gratiot 

Grosse 


Park 

Grosse 


Farms 

Grosse 


39 

10 

75 

94 

Michigan 

96 

75 

75 

375 

Belle Isle 

75 



1,100 

660 to 880 

440 to 659 

220 to 439 

Less than 220 



Number <strong>of</strong> Persons 65 Years <strong>of</strong> Age and Over 

with Two or More Disabilities, 2000 


8 Mile Road 

Van Dyke 

39 

10 

75 

Woodward 

2,377 

3,216 

1,751 

94 

Telegraph 

1,723 

Grand River 

2,831 

10 

1,770 

Gratiot 

1,638 

96 

75 

94 

96 

39 

2,996 

4,179 

3,192 

4,542 

10 

75 

94 

Michigan 

96 

75 

75 

375 

Belle Isle 

2,587 



4,000 to 4,600 

3,216 

2,400 to 3,200 

1,600 to 2,399 

75 





Communities <strong>in</strong> <strong>Detroit</strong> <strong>Area</strong> <strong>Agency</strong> on Ag<strong>in</strong>g Region 1-A 

8 Mile Road 

Van Dyke 

895 

Telegraph 

39 

10 

868 1,149 

1,151 

879 

383 

Woodward 

75 

1,593 

1,125 

506 463 

483 

1,158 

94 

800 

138 

327 

404 

1,494 

96 

39 

565 

Grand River 

452 

845 

1,207 

96 

1,456 

10 

554 

1,181 

1,328 

1,042 

1,587 

1,121 

1,213 

94 

96 

Michigan 

75 

10 

75 

94 

1,041 

597 

576 

726 

1,247 

1,670 

75 

75 

2,400 

375 


1,545 

Gratiot 

514 

869 

Belle Isle 

542 

1,521 

890 

428 

375 

513 


75 

1,336 

1,310 to 1,600 

1,000 to 1,309 

690 to 999 

380 to 689 

Less than 380 


557 





39 

10 

8 Mile Road 

Woodward 

75 

Van Dyke 


Harper 

Woods 

94 

Grosse 


Woods 

Grosse 


Shores 

Telegraph 

96 

Grand River 

96 

10 

Highland 

Park 

75 

Hamtramck 

94 

Gratiot 

Grosse 


Park 

Grosse 


Farms 

Grosse 


39 

10 

75 

94 

Michigan 

96 

75 

75 

375 

Belle Isle 

75 



400 to 700 

200 to 300 

100 to 199 

Less than 100 



96 

96 

75 

10 

10 

39 

39 

Telegraph 

Grand River 

75 

8 Mile Road 

96 

94 

Michigan 

Woodward 

94 

75 

75 

75 

375 

10 

94 

75 

Gratiot 

Van Dyke 

1 

2 

3 

4 










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 

Belle Isle 






Freeways 

Divided Roads 

Major Roads 

Cities 

Legend

23 

23 

23 

23 

23 

23 

23 

23 

23 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

4 

9 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

45 

45 

45 

45 

45 

45 

45 

45 

45 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

41 

41 

41 

41 

41 

41 

41 

41 

41 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

6 

19 

19 

19 

19 

19 

19 

19 

19 

19 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

3 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

8 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

39 

39 

39 

39 

39 

39 

39 

39 

39 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

29 

29 

29 

29 

29 

29 

29 

29 

29 

37 

37 

37 

37 

37 

37 

37 

37 

37 

7 

36 

36 

36 

36 

36 

36 

36 

36 

36 

38 

38 

38 

38 

38 

38 

38 

38 

38 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

43 

43 

43 

43 

43 

43 

43 

43 

43 

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 

Michigan 

94 

75 

Gratiot 

Mack 

Mack 

Mack 

Mack 

Mack 

Mack 

Mack 

Mack 

Mack 

Gratiot 

Gratiot 

Gratiot 

Gratiot 

Gratiot 

Gratiot 

Gratiot 

Gratiot 

Gratiot 

Vernor 

Vernor 

Vernor 

Vernor 

Vernor 

Vernor 

Vernor 

Vernor 

Vernor 

Grand Blvd. 

Grand Blvd. 

Grand Blvd. 

Grand Blvd. 

Grand Blvd. 

Grand Blvd. 

Grand Blvd. 

Grand Blvd. 

Grand Blvd. 

Van Dyke 

Van Dyke 

Van Dyke 

Van Dyke 

Van Dyke 

Van Dyke 

Van Dyke 

Van Dyke 

Van Dyke 

Mount Elliott 

Mount Elliott 

Mount Elliott 

Mount Elliott 

Mount Elliott 

Mount Elliott 

Mount Elliott 

Mount Elliott 

Mount Elliott 

Jefferson 









5 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

1 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 2 

See 

Inset 










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 

Belle Isle 




<strong>Detroit</strong> <strong>Area</strong> <strong>Agency</strong> on Ag<strong>in</strong>g - <strong>Area</strong> 1A 


Freeways 

Divided Roads 

Major Roads 

Cities 

Legend

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

6 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

29 

29 

29 

29 

29 

29 

29 

29 

29 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

47 

47 

47 

47 

47 

47 

47 

47 

47 

50 

50 

50 

50 

50 

50 

50 

50 

50 

19 

19 

19 

19 

19 

19 

19 

19 

19 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

36 

36 

36 

36 

36 

36 

36 

36 

36 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

41 

41 

41 

41 

41 

41 

41 

41 

41 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

45 

45 

45 

45 

45 

45 

45 

45 

45 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

39 

39 

39 

39 

39 

39 

39 

39 

39 52 

52 

52 

52 

52 

52 

52 

52 

52 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 51 

51 

51 

51 

51 

51 

51 

51 

51 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

2 

8 

3 

9 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

1 

7 

23 

23 

23 

23 

23 

23 

23 

23 

23 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

43 

43 

43 

43 

43 

43 

43 

43 

43 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

37 

37 

37 

37 

37 

37 

37 

37 

37 

38 

38 

38 

38 

38 

38 

38 

38 

38 46 

46 

46 

46 

46 

46 

46 

46 

46 

4 

5 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

49 

49 

49 

49 

49 

49 

49 

49 

49 

48219 

48239 

48235 

48223 

48228 

48221 

48238 

48227 

48206 

48204 

48210 

48209 

48217 

48234 

48203 

48212 

48202 

48208 

48216 

48211 

48207 

48201 

48226 

48205 

48213 

48214 

48207 

48230 

48215 

48236 

48225 

48224 

Belle Isle 



Senior Centers 


Senior Centers (Misc. Source) 

Freeways 

Divided Roads 

Major Roads 

Zip Codes 

Legend 

Senior Center (DAAA Source)

8 21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

23 

23 

23 

23 

23 

23 

23 

23 

23 

37 

37 

37 

37 

37 

37 

37 

37 

37 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

41 

41 

41 

41 

41 

41 

41 

41 

41 

45 

45 

45 

45 

45 

45 

45 

45 

45 

43 

43 

43 

43 

43 

43 

43 

43 

43 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

56 

56 

56 

56 

56 

56 

56 

56 

56 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

50 

50 

50 

50 

50 

50 

50 

50 

50 

51 

51 

51 

51 

51 

51 

51 

51 

51 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

52 

52 

52 

52 

52 

52 

52 

52 

52 

53 

53 

53 

53 

53 

53 

53 

53 

53 

54 

54 

54 

54 

54 

54 

54 

54 

54 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

36 

36 

36 

36 

36 

36 

36 

36 

36 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

46 

46 

46 

46 

46 

46 

46 

46 

46 

39 

39 

39 

39 

39 

39 

39 

39 

39 

9 

38 

38 

38 

38 

38 

38 

38 

38 

38 

49 

49 

49 

49 

49 

49 

49 

49 

49 

47 

47 

47 

47 

47 

47 

47 

47 

47 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

1 

3 

5 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

19 

19 

19 

19 

19 

19 

19 

19 

19 

55 

55 

55 

55 

55 

55 

55 

55 

55 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

2 

4 

6 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

29 

29 

29 

29 

29 

29 

29 

29 

29 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

7 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

96 

96 

75 

10 

10 

39 

39 

Telegraph 

Grand River 

75 

8 Mile Road 

96 

94 

Michigan 

Woodward 

94 

75 

75 

75 

375 

10 

94 

75 

Gratiot 

Van Dyke 










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 

Belle Isle 



Congregate Sites 


Congregate Sites 

Freeways 

Divided Roads 

Major Roads 

Cities 

Legend

5 

7 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

1 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

2 

3 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

8 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

4 

6 

9 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

96 

96 

75 

10 

10 

39 

39 

Telegraph 

Grand River 

75 

Woodward 

8 Mile Road 

Michigan 

94 

96 

94 

75 

75 

75 

375 

10 

94 

75 

Gratiot 

Van Dyke 










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 

Belle Isle 



Adult Day Care Sites 


Adult Day Care 

Sites 

Freeways 

Divided Roads 

Major Roads 

Cities 

Legend

50 

50 

50 

50 

50 

50 

50 

50 

50 

43 

43 

43 

43 

43 

43 

43 

43 

43 

23 

23 

23 

23 

23 

23 

23 

23 

23 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

36 

36 

36 

36 

36 

36 

36 

36 

36 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

38 

38 

38 

38 

38 

38 

38 

38 

38 

37 

37 

37 

37 

37 

37 

37 

37 

37 

51 

51 

51 

51 

51 

51 

51 

51 

51 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

9 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

8 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

3 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

39 

39 

39 

39 

39 

39 

39 

39 

39 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

47 

47 

47 

47 

47 

47 

47 

47 

47 

5 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

2 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

41 

41 

41 

41 

41 

41 

41 

41 

41 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

29 

29 

29 

29 

29 

29 

29 

29 

29 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

4 

19 

19 

19 

19 

19 

19 

19 

19 

19 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

46 

46 

46 

46 

46 

46 

46 

46 

46 

52 

52 

52 

52 

52 

52 

52 

52 

52 

96 

96 

75 

10 

10 

39 

39 

Telegraph 

Grand River 

75 

8 Mile Road 

Woodward 

94 

96 

94 

75 

75 

75 

375 

10 

Michigan 

94 

75 

Gratiot 

Van Dyke 

See 

See 

See 

See 

See 

See 

See 

See 

See 

Inset 

Inset 

Inset 

Inset 

Inset 

Inset 

Inset 

Inset 

Inset 










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 

Belle Isle 



John C Lodge 

John C Lodge 

John C Lodge 

John C Lodge 

John C Lodge 

John C Lodge 

John C Lodge 

John C Lodge 

John C Lodge 

Grand River 

Grand River 

Grand River 

Grand River 

Grand River 

Grand River 

Grand River 

Grand River 

Grand River 

Michigan 

Michigan 

Michigan 

Michigan 

Michigan 

Michigan 

Michigan 

Michigan 

Michigan 

I-94 

I-94 

I-94 

I-94 

I-94 

I-94 

I-94 

I-94 

I-94 

Gratiot 

Gratiot 

Gratiot 

Gratiot 

Gratiot 

Gratiot 

Gratiot 

Gratiot 

Gratiot 

I-75 

I-75 

I-75 

I-75 

I-75 

I-75 

I-75 

I-75 

I-75 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

6 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

49 

49 

49 

49 

49 

49 

49 

49 

49 

7 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

53 

53 

53 

53 

53 

53 

53 

53 

53 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

1 

45 

45 

45 

45 

45 

45 

45 

45 

45 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

Information Services 


Information Sites 

Freeways 

Divided Roads 

Major Roads 

Cities 

Legend

Community Focal Po<strong>in</strong>ts 


8 Mile Road 

Telegraph 

8 

9 26 

4 

18 

39 

10 

36 

15 

Grand River 

9 

10 

29 

10 

35 

75 

17 

11 

13 

1 

23 

25 

Van Dyke 

Gratiot 

34 

2 

21 

94 

5 

32 

12 

28 

96 

20 

39 

7 

96 

6 

31 

19 

27 

94 

96 

Michigan 

Woodward 

75 

16 

10 

6 

75 

4 

33 

75 

11 

75 

375 

94 

30 

14 

8 

1 

2 

3 

Belle Isle 

12 

Legend 

Focal Po<strong>in</strong>ts 

Freeways 

Divided Roads 

Major Roads 

Sectors 

22 

75 

5 

24 

3 

10 

7 


Sector Descriptions 

1. State Fair/Nolan, Persh<strong>in</strong>g & Airport 

2. Osborn, Burbank, Denby & Conner 

3. Ketter<strong>in</strong>g/Butzel, St. Jean, Mack, F<strong>in</strong>ney & Belle Isle 

4. Central, Chene, University, Jefferies adn Downtown 

5. Chadsey/Condon, Vernor & Boyton 

6. W<strong>in</strong>terhalter, Durfee, Rosa Parks & Tireman 

7. MacKenzie, Cody/Rouge & Brooks 

8. Redford, Evergreen, Rosedale Park & Brightmoor 

9. Greenfield, Cerveny, Grantmont & Harmony Village 

10. Pembrooke, Palmer Park, McNichols & Bagley 

11. Highland Park & Hamtramck 

12. Harper Woods & The Po<strong>in</strong>tes

Demographic Profile of Seniors in PSA 1-A - Detroit Area Agency on ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?