Age strongly affects the likelihood that a

person will move. Rates of moving usually peak between the ages of 18 and 30

and generally decrease until very late in

life, perhaps because failing health

forces some people to change their living arrangements.1 Migration of older

people interests researchers, government, public agencies, the media, and

other organizations because of its potential effects on the economic, social, and

demographic composition of local areas.

This report discusses the internal migration of the older population, using Census

2000 data. “Older population” in this

report is defined as those aged 65 and

over in 2000.2 Census 2000 data are

uniquely able to provide the basis for statistically reliable migration analysis of relatively small populations, such as the

older population, at detailed levels of

geography.3 This report is limited to

internal migration of the older population

U S C E N S U S B U R E A U

Helping You Make Informed Decisions

U.S.Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Issued August 2003

CENSR-10

Internal Migration of the Older

Population: 1995 to 2000

Census 2000 Special Reports

By 

Wan He 

and

Jason P. Schachter

1 For examples of moving rates by age, see U.S.

Census Bureau, 2001, Geographical Mobility: March

1999 to March 2000, by Jason Schachter, Current

Population Reports P20-538, Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office. 2 Age in this analysis is defined as how old the

respondents were at the time of Census 2000. Since

Census 2000 asked where they had lived on April 1,

1995, their migration could have occurred at any time

during those 5 years. 3 Current residence is measured as of April 1,

2000, while previous residence is measured as of

April 1, 1995; thus, the census does not track any

moves made within that 5-year period. Similarly, the

residence-5-years-ago question does not capture

those who moved away from a place of residence and

later returned to that same residence during that 

5-year period. Older people who made seasonal

moves — moving between two residences at specific

times during a year due to preferences in climate or

other reasons — could be counted as nonmigrants,

depending on where they lived on April 1, 2000.

Common Migration Terms

Movers can be classified by type of

move and are categorized as to

whether they moved within the

same county, to a different county

within the same state, to a different county from a different state or

region, or were movers from

abroad. Migration is commonly

defined as moves that cross jurisdictional boundaries (counties in

particular), while moves within a

jurisdiction are referred to as residential mobility. Moves between

counties are often referred to as

intercounty moves, while moves

within the same county are often

referred to as intracounty moves.

Further, migration can be differentiated as movement within the

United States (domestic, or

internal, migration) and movement

into and out of the United States

(international migration).

Inmigration is the number of

migrants who moved into an area

during a given period, while outmigration is the number of migrants

who moved out of an area during

a given period. Net migration is

the difference between inmigration

and outmigration during a given

time. A positive net, or net inmigration, indicates that more

migrants entered an area than left

during that time. A negative net,

or net outmigration, means that

more migrants left an area than

entered it.
2 U.S. Census Bureau

between 1995 and 2000 and does

not include movers from abroad.4

The report first examines the general mobility of the older population — how many moved and what

type of move they made — and

compares different age groups

among the older population.

Given that mobility patterns of the

older population may differ from

those of the rest of the population,

people 65 years and older are

compared with those under age

65, especially the “near old,” who

are aged 55 to 64.5 In addition,

because women outnumber men at

older ages, this report evaluates

differences in mobility patterns

between older men and women. 

The second part of the report discusses the redistribution of the

older population in the United

States between 1995 and 2000 by

examining net migration rates and

flow numbers at the region, division, and state levels, in order to

identify areas that experienced the

largest net migration gain or loss

of older people, as well as the

most popular destinations and origins of older migrants. Finally, a

map of county-level net migration

rates complements the state-level

migration analysis with a finer

degree of geographic detail.

GENERAL MOBILITY OF THE

OLDER POPULATION

Older people were much less

likely to have moved than

younger people, although,

among the older population,

the oldest old had the highest

mobility.

Most older people did not move

between 1995 and 2000. Among

the 34.7 million people aged 65

and over who lived in the United

States in 1995 and in 2000, only

7.9 million lived in a different residence at the end of the 5-year period (Table 1). In contrast, people 

5 to 64 years old in 2000 were

more than twice as likely as the

older population to have moved

during that same 5-year period

(47.7 percent compared with 

22.8 percent, respectively). 

Among the older population, the

“oldest old,” people 85 years and

older in 2000, were most mobile.

Between 1995 and 2000, almost

one-third (32.3 percent) of the oldest old moved, which was much

higher than the percentages of

movers 65 to 74 or 75 to 84 years

old (21.2 percent and 21.9 percent, respectively). At advanced

ages, health concerns may force

some people to move closer to or

in with their children, to assistedcare facilities, or to nursing homes.

Most older movers moved

within the same county.

Among moves made by the older

population, the majority were within the same county (59.7 percent),

while about one-fifth (21.5 percent) were to a different county in

the same state, and almost onefifth (18.8 percent) were to a different state. Among older movers,

the “young old,” people 65 to 74

years old in 2000, were slightly

less likely than their older counterparts to have moved within a

county (57.9 percent), but more

likely to have moved to a different

state (21.2 percent). In contrast,

the oldest old were least likely to

have moved to a different state

(14.9 percent). The implied distances the 65 and older population

moved were quite similar to those

of people under 65, even though

people 65 to 74 years old were

slightly more likely to have made

an interstate move (most likely

retirement migration) than those

under 65.6

The mobility patterns of the

population 55 to 64 years old

were similar to those of 65 to

74 year olds.

People 55 to 64 years old are near

retirement age, and some have

retired already. Census 2000 data

show that the mobility of the near

old was somewhat higher than that

of the older population, but much

lower than that of younger populations — only a little over onequarter (26.1 percent) of them

moved between 1995 and 2000. 

General mobility patterns of the

near old were similar to those of

older movers, but the near old

were slightly less likely to have

made an intracounty move and

more likely to have moved to a different state. However, the distribution of moves for those 65 to 74

and those 55 to 64 years old was

almost the same: about 21 percent

(21.2 and 21.4 percent, respectively) of each group had moved to a

different state. This broad age

range includes many moves associated with retirement. 

The fact that neither the near old

nor the younger old were as

mobile as the oldest old sheds

light on older people’s mobility

patterns. Although Census 2000

4 National, regional, and state level data

on movers from abroad by age are available

at the U.S. Census Bureau’s Web site at

www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/

migration.html. 5 In this report, “older population” is

defined as ages 65 or older, and “near old” is

ages 55-64. Among the older population,

“young old” is defined as ages 65-74, “old

old” is ages 75-84, and “oldest old” is ages

85 or older.

6 This report treats moves within counties, between counties within a state, and

between states as if they form a distance

continuum, although sometimes they do not.
U.S. Census Bureau 3

Table 1.

General Mobility for the Population 5 Years and Over by Sex and Age: 1995 to 2000

(Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

Characteristic

65 and over 5 to 64*

Total 65 to 74 75 to 84 85 and over Total 55 to 64

NUMBER

Total. . ............................. 34,734,844 18,348,433 12,252,211 4,134,200 220,148,839 23,891,509

Nonmovers ............................... 26,831,885 14,462,754 9,568,507 2,800,624 115,195,593 17,652,103

Movers................................... 7,902,959 3,885,679 2,683,704 1,333,576 104,953,246 6,239,406

Same county ........................... 4,719,418 2,248,962 1,655,197 815,259 60,720,000 3,557,862

Different county, same state .............. 1,697,327 813,174 564,679 319,474 23,630,000 1,346,423

Different state........................... 1,486,214 823,543 463,828 198,843 20,603,246 1,335,121

Different state, same region ............ 650,664 349,893 207,998 92,773 9,783,423 596,451

Different state, different region .......... 835,550 473,650 255,830 106,070 10,819,823 738,670

Male..................................... 14,282,654 8,288,447 4,798,383 1,195,824 109,856,123 11,438,319

Nonmovers ............................... 11,237,627 6,528,935 3,842,609 866,083 57,140,000 8,404,803

Movers................................... 3,045,027 1,759,512 955,774 329,741 52,716,123 3,033,516

Same county ........................... 1,764,980 981,247 580,114 203,619 30,060,000 1,710,257

Different county, same state . ............. 657,836 380,868 202,368 74,600 12,090,000 669,525

Different state........................... 622,211 397,397 173,292 51,522 10,566,123 653,734

Different state, same region ............ 266,547 167,145 76,012 23,390 4,986,909 295,477

Different state, different region .......... 355,664 230,252 97,280 28,132 5,579,214 358,257

Female .................................. 20,452,190 10,059,986 7,453,828 2,938,376 110,277,123 12,453,190

Nonmovers ............................... 15,594,258 7,933,819 5,725,898 1,934,541 58,050,000 9,247,300

Movers................................... 4,857,932 2,126,167 1,727,930 1,003,835 52,227,123 3,205,890

Same county ........................... 2,954,438 1,267,715 1,075,083 611,640 30,650,000 1,847,605

Different county, same state . ............. 1,039,491 432,306 362,311 244,874 11,540,000 676,898

Different state........................... 864,003 426,146 290,536 147,321 10,037,123 681,387

Different state, same region ............ 384,117 182,748 131,986 69,383 4,796,514 300,974

Different state, different region .......... 479,886 243,398 158,550 77,938 5,240,609 380,413

PERCENT

Total. . ............................. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nonmovers ............................... 77.2 78.8 78.1 67.7 52.3 73.9

Movers................................... 22.8 21.2 21.9 32.3 47.7 26.1

Same county1

........................... 59.7 57.9 61.7 61.1 57.9 57.0

Different county, same state1 ............. 21.5 20.9 21.0 24.0 22.5 21.6

Different state1 .......................... 18.8 21.2 17.3 14.9 19.6 21.4

Different state, same region2

............ 43.8 42.5 44.8 46.7 47.5 44.7

Different state, different region2 ......... 56.2 57.5 55.2 53.3 52.5 55.3

Male..................................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nonmovers ............................... 78.7 78.8 80.1 72.4 52.0 73.5

Movers................................... 21.3 21.2 19.9 27.6 48.0 26.5

Same county1

........................... 58.0 55.8 60.7 61.8 57.0 56.4

Different county, same state1 ............. 21.6 21.6 21.2 22.6 22.9 22.1

Different state1 .......................... 20.4 22.6 18.1 15.6 20.0 21.6

Different state, same region2

............ 42.8 42.1 43.9 45.4 47.2 45.2

Different state, different region2 ......... 57.2 57.9 56.1 54.6 52.8 54.8

Female .................................. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nonmovers ............................... 76.2 78.9 76.8 65.8 52.6 74.3

Movers................................... 23.8 21.1 23.2 34.2 47.4 25.7

Same county1

........................... 60.8 59.6 62.2 60.9 58.7 57.6

Different county, same state1 ............. 21.4 20.3 21.0 24.4 22.1 21.1

Different state1 .......................... 17.8 20.0 16.8 14.7 19.2 21.3

Different state, same region2

............ 44.5 42.9 45.4 47.1 47.8 44.2

Different state, different region2 ......... 55.5 57.1 54.6 52.9 52.2 55.8

* Migration data are for the population aged 5 years and over, since the question in Census 2000 asked about residence 5 years ago.

1

Percent based on number of movers.

2

Percent based on number of movers between states.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
4 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 2.

Inmigration, Outmigration, and Net Internal Migration for the Population 65 Years and

Over by Region, Division, State, and Age: 1995 to 20001

(Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

Area

Total, 65 and over 65 to 74 75 to 84 85 and over

Inmigrants2 Outmigrants2

Net migra- tion

Net

migra- tion

rate

Inmigrants2 Outmigrants2

Net migra- tion

Net

migra- tion

rate

Inmigrants2 Outmigrants2

Net migra- tion

Net

migra- tion

rate

Inmigrants2 Outmigrants2

Net migra- tion

Net

migra- tion

rate

Northeast ....... 89,564 265,378 -175,814 –23.5 40,005 162,254 -122,249 –31.5 33,545 74,531 -40,986 –15.2 16,014 28,593 -12,579 –13.6

New England ........ 46,341 68,627 -22,286 –11.7 20,950 42,145 -21,195 –21.9 16,375 19,040 -2,665 –3.9 9,016 7,442 1,574 6.4

Maine ............. 9,347 7,697 1,650 9.1 4,987 4,792 195 2.0 2,868 2,119 749 11.9 1,492 786 706 31.9

Vermont ............ 4,736 4,717 19 0.2 2,472 2,702 –230 –5.6 1,438 1,408 30 1.1 826 607 219 22.6

New Hampshire....... 11,588 10,868 720 4.9 6,200 6,139 61 0.8 3,543 3,375 168 3.3 1,845 1,354 491 27.1

Massachusetts ....... 22,350 36,784 -14,434 –16.6 10,269 21,283 -11,014 –25.2 8,066 10,685 -2,619 –8.3 4,015 4,816 –801 –7.0

Rhode Island ........ 5,339 6,087 –748 –4.9 2,368 3,397 -1,029 –13.8 1,861 1,871 –10 –0.2 1,110 819 291 14.4

Connecticut ......... 16,691 26,184 -9,493 –20.0 6,769 15,947 -9,178 –38.4 6,141 7,124 –983 –5.6 3,781 3,113 668 10.7

Middle Atlantic....... 70,101 223,629 -153,528 –27.5 31,451 132,505 -101,054 –34.7 26,416 64,737 -38,321 –19.2 12,234 26,387 -14,153 –20.8

New York . . . . . . . . . . . 35,491 149,662 -114,171 –45.0 15,632 87,353 -71,721 –53.6 13,106 42,772 -29,666 –33.6 6,753 19,537 -12,784 –40.5

New Jersey ......... 42,405 65,556 -23,151 –20.6 20,637 38,876 -18,239 –31.0 14,434 18,930 -4,496 –11.1 7,334 8,072 –738 –5.5

Pennsylvania ........ 43,599 59,483 -15,884 –8.2 21,457 32,551 -11,094 –11.3 14,900 19,059 -4,159 –5.8 7,242 7,873 –631 –2.7

Midwest ........ 132,723 241,324 -108,601 –13.0 61,752 146,788 -85,036 –31.5 48,023 67,313 -19,290 –6.5 22,948 27,223 -4,275 –4.1

East North Central .... 97,317 191,251 -93,934 –16.3 44,158 116,283 -72,125 –23.8 35,949 53,300 -17,351 –8.5 17,210 21,668 -4,458 –6.5

Ohio .............. 33,063 51,652 -18,589 –12.2 14,944 30,272 -15,328 –18.9 12,324 15,041 -2,717 –5.0 5,795 6,339 –544 –3.2

Indiana ............ 24,260 30,575 -6,315 –8.3 11,357 17,913 -6,556 –16.3 8,594 8,380 214 0.8 4,309 4,282 27 0.3

Illinois ............. 30,294 73,413 -43,119 –28.1 13,740 43,240 -29,500 –36.9 11,013 21,060 -10,047 –18.5 5,541 9,113 -3,572 –18.8

Michigan ........... 26,227 48,176 -21,949 –17.7 12,391 29,088 -16,697 –25.3 9,252 13,637 -4,385 –10.1 4,584 5,451 –867 –6.1

Wisconsin........... 19,046 23,008 -3,962 –5.6 9,164 13,208 -4,044 –11.2 6,347 6,763 –416 –1.7 3,535 3,037 498 5.4

West North Central.... 60,042 74,709 -14,667 –5.7 29,343 42,254 -12,911 –9.9 20,308 22,247 -1,939 –2.1 10,391 10,208 183 0.5

Minnesota .......... 14,923 21,060 -6,137 –10.3 6,567 12,674 -6,107 –20.2 5,210 6,036 –826 –3.9 3,146 2,350 796 9.4

Iowa .............. 10,843 15,770 -4,927 –11.2 5,073 8,533 -3,460 –16.0 3,457 4,965 -1,508 –9.4 2,313 2,272 41 0.6

Missouri ............ 27,897 27,384 513 0.7 14,721 14,135 586 1.5 9,058 8,519 539 2.1 4,118 4,730 –612 –6.3

North Dakota ........ 2,402 3,948 -1,546 –16.1 1,271 1,895 –624 –13.4 711 1,297 –586 –17.0 420 756 –336 –22.5

South Dakota ........ 4,084 4,330 –246 –2.3 2,159 2,389 –230 –4.3 1,284 1,300 –16 –0.4 641 641 0 0.0

Nebraska ........... 6,780 8,669 -1,889 –8.1 3,436 4,913 -1,477 –12.6 2,227 2,499 –272 –3.3 1,117 1,257 –140 –4.2

Kansas ............ 14,357 14,792 –435 –1.2 6,365 7,964 -1,599 –9.0 5,335 4,605 730 5.7 2,657 2,223 434 8.7

South .......... 436,567 203,788 232,779 19.2 274,495 94,420 180,075 27.6 119,109 74,630 44,479 10.6 42,963 34,738 8,225 5.9

South Atlantic ....... 370,822 171,664 199,158 30.0 233,133 79,116 154,017 43.7 101,316 63,578 37,738 16.0 36,373 28,970 7,403 9.8

Delaware ........... 8,268 5,589 2,679 27.2 5,127 2,986 2,141 39.4 2,209 1,893 316 9.3 932 710 222 21.9

Maryland ........... 25,979 30,367 -4,388 –7.3 10,984 18,862 -7,878 –24.0 9,801 8,225 1,576 7.6 5,194 3,280 1,914 30.5

District of Columbia .... 2,860 8,047 -5,187 –69.5 1,471 3,706 -2,235 –58.5 943 2,642 -1,699 –63.7 446 1,699 -1,253 –128.9

Virginia ............ 38,977 32,040 6,937 8.9 20,582 18,787 1,795 4.2 12,328 9,655 2,673 10.0 6,067 3,598 2,469 29.8

West Virginia ........ 9,574 10,505 –931 –3.4 5,253 5,009 244 1.6 3,107 3,596 –489 –5.1 1,214 1,900 –686 –21.2

North Carolina........ 50,655 29,733 20,922 22.1 29,874 16,407 13,467 25.7 14,790 9,917 4,873 15.1 5,991 3,409 2,582 26.0

South Carolina ....... 31,789 16,029 15,760 33.6 20,011 8,129 11,882 45.6 8,512 5,754 2,758 17.3 3,266 2,146 1,120 23.2

Georgia ............ 42,444 28,518 13,926 18.1 22,436 15,846 6,590 15.2 14,061 8,929 5,132 20.3 5,947 3,743 2,204 26.3

Florida ............. 286,808 137,368 149,440 56.9 186,587 58,576 128,011 97.8 76,270 53,672 22,598 22.8 23,951 25,120 -1,169 –3.6

East South Central .... 69,538 54,972 14,566 6.9 41,039 27,532 13,507 11.7 20,255 18,275 1,980 2.8 8,244 9,165 –921 –3.8

Kentucky ........... 15,782 17,179 -1,397 –2.8 8,914 8,661 253 0.9 4,869 5,623 –754 –4.4 1,999 2,895 –896 –15.6

Tennessee .......... 33,062 22,563 10,499 15.2 18,626 12,421 6,205 16.4 10,096 7,005 3,091 13.2 4,340 3,137 1,203 15.4

Alabama ........... 19,765 16,734 3,031 5.3 11,712 8,050 3,662 11.6 5,747 5,820 –73 –0.4 2,306 2,864 –558 –8.4

Mississippi .......... 13,437 11,004 2,433 7.1 8,457 5,070 3,387 18.3 3,538 3,822 –284 –2.5 1,442 2,112 –670 –15.4

West South Central . . . 94,827 75,772 19,055 5.7 53,826 41,275 12,551 6.8 29,137 24,376 4,761 4.2 11,864 10,121 1,743 4.5

Arkansas ........... 20,002 17,506 2,496 6.7 12,721 8,339 4,382 22.5 5,142 6,278 -1,136 –8.8 2,139 2,889 –750 –16.3

Louisiana ........... 11,677 14,149 -2,472 –4.8 6,161 7,626 -1,465 –5.1 3,749 4,442 –693 –4.0 1,767 2,081 –314 –5.4

Oklahoma .......... 18,162 17,088 1,074 2.4 10,331 8,802 1,529 6.3 5,419 5,668 –249 –1.6 2,412 2,618 –206 –3.7

Texas ............. 71,373 53,416 17,957 8.8 38,683 30,578 8,105 7.2 23,232 16,393 6,839 10.1 9,458 6,445 3,013 13.3

West . . . . . . . . . . . 176,696 125,060 51,636 7.6 97,398 70,188 27,210 7.6 55,153 39,356 15,797 6.6 24,145 15,516 8,629 11.1

Mountain........... 177,353 91,676 85,677 44.4 108,022 48,447 59,575 56.8 51,069 30,815 20,254 30.1 18,262 12,414 5,848 28.0

Montana ........... 6,911 6,020 891 7.4 3,678 3,367 311 5.0 2,098 1,715 383 9.0 1,135 938 197 13.1

Idaho.............. 11,218 8,423 2,795 19.6 6,206 4,491 1,715 23.1 3,608 2,789 819 16.1 1,404 1,143 261 14.8

Wyoming ........... 3,902 3,931 –29 –0.5 2,078 2,250 –172 –5.5 1,208 1,244 –36 –1.8 616 437 179 27.4

Colorado ........... 28,104 26,110 1,994 4.8 14,593 15,688 -1,095 –4.8 9,410 8,128 1,282 9.2 4,101 2,294 1,807 40.0

New Mexico ......... 16,382 13,882 2,500 12.0 9,691 7,534 2,157 18.6 4,642 4,549 93 1.3 2,049 1,799 250 11.1

Arizona ............ 95,481 42,240 53,241 87.4 60,526 20,155 40,371 125.5 26,801 15,400 11,401 51.5 8,154 6,685 1,469 22.2

Utah .............. 10,897 8,801 2,096 11.2 6,216 5,288 928 9.2 3,359 2,555 804 12.3 1,322 958 364 17.3

Nevada ............ 41,857 19,668 22,189 114.2 26,998 11,638 15,360 132.7 11,542 6,034 5,508 86.6 3,317 1,996 1,321 88.0

Pacific ............ 109,554 143,595 -34,041 –7.0 54,150 86,515 -32,365 –12.7 37,664 42,121 -4,457 –2.6 17,740 14,959 2,781 4.9

Washington ......... 33,893 32,723 1,170 1.8 16,826 19,104 -2,278 –6.8 11,419 10,175 1,244 5.2 5,648 3,444 2,204 27.7

Oregon ............ 28,551 27,211 1,340 3.1 15,276 14,690 586 2.7 9,139 9,137 2 0.0 4,136 3,384 752 13.6

California ........... 94,557 128,728 -34,171 –9.6 46,775 75,465 -28,690 –15.2 33,061 38,444 -5,383 –4.3 14,721 14,819 –98 –0.2

Alaska ............. 2,406 3,834 -1,428 –39.4 1,315 2,690 -1,375 –59.3 778 989 –211 –20.0 313 155 158 62.5

Hawaii ............. 5,719 6,671 –952 –6.0 3,456 4,064 –608 –7.1 1,781 1,890 –109 –1.9 482 717 –235 –13.3

1The net migration rate is based on an approximated 1995 older population, which is the sum of people in specific age categories (based on age in 2000) who reported living in an

area in both 1995 and 2000 and who reported living in that area in 1995 but had moved elsewhere. The net migration rate divides net migration, which is inmigration minus outmigration,

by the approximated 1995 population and multiplies the result by 1,000. 2Values for in- and outmigrants for regions, divisions, and states were calculated independently. Thus, within a region, numbers for states do not sum to the number for each division,

which in turn do not sum to the number for the region.

Note: A negative value for net migration or the net migration rate is indicative of net outmigration, meaning more migrants left an area than entered it. Positive numbers reflect net

inmigration to an area.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
did not ask reasons for move, the

data suggest that retirement

(among the near old and the

younger old) is a less powerful

stimulus to migration than increasing frailty and the need for old-age

care (among the oldest old).

Mobility patterns of the older

population differed by sex. 

Because of women’s higher life

expectancy, there were about 

1.4 times as many women than

men aged 65 and over in the United

States in 2000. The disproportionate share of women was even more

pronounced among older movers —

about 1.6 women per man. Census

2000 data show that 4.9 million

older women and 3.0 million older

men moved between 1995 and

2000 (Table 1). Older women were

more likely than older men to have

moved (23.8 percent compared

with 21.3 percent). Although

young-old women were about

equally mobile as young-old men,

oldest-old women were much more

likely to have moved (34.2 percent)

than their male counterparts 

(27.6 percent). 

Older women were more likely than

older men to have moved within

the same county and less likely to

have moved to another state. This

was particularly true of young-old

women. Once people reached the

oldest-old ages, however, gender

differences in the proportions moving various implied distances were

substantially reduced. At this age

(85 years and over), changes in

health or living arrangements may

result in stressful relocations to be

near other family members or to

institutional settings. 

INTERNAL MIGRATION OF

OLDER MOVERS

The South experienced the

greatest net migration gain of

older people.

The frequency and distance of

moves made by the older population revealed one aspect of migration. Another aspect involves

where they moved to and from. At

the regional level, migration patterns of older people were quite

similar to those of the general population, as older movers tended to

move to the South and the West

and away from the Northeast and

the Midwest.7

The South experienced the greatest

net migration gain (and net migration rate) of the older population of

all four regions (Table 2). Between

1995 and 2000, 437,000 older people moved to the South from other

regions.8 This number was much

higher than the number moving to

the Northeast (90,000), the Midwest

(133,000), or the West (177,000).

Older people moving out of the

South during this same period numbered 204,000, resulting in a net

migration gain of 233,000 older

people, the highest gain among the

four regions. This net gain translates into a net migration rate of

19.2 for the South of the older population, indicating that the region

gained about 19 older people

through migration for every 1,000

older individuals living there in

1995.9 The South experienced net

inmigration for all three age subgroups of older people, but most of

the overall gain could be attributed

to the young old.

Within the South, the South

Atlantic division enjoyed the

largest migration gains of the older

population. Of the eight states

and the District of Columbia in the

South Atlantic division, five

(Virginia, North Carolina, South

Carolina, Georgia, and Florida)

were ranked among the top 10 in

terms of net migration gain.10

Outmigration of older people

from the Pacific division was

the main reason why the West

had a low net migration

increase.

Of the two divisions in the West,

one (the Mountain division) experienced net inmigration of older people and the other (the Pacific division) had net outmigration. The

Mountain division’s older net

migration rate was the highest

among the nine divisions and was

primarily attributable to older people migrating to Nevada and

Arizona. In contrast, the Pacific

division had a net loss of over

30,000 older people and a net

migration rate of about -7.0, indicating that the Pacific division lost

U.S. Census Bureau 5

7 For migration patterns for the total population, see U.S. Census Bureau, 2003,

Domestic Migration Across Regions, Divisions,

and States: 1995 to 2000, by Rachel S.

Franklin, Census 2000 Special Reports,

CENSR-7, Washington, DC: Government

Printing Office. 8 For discussion purposes, the number of

people is rounded to the nearest thousand.

9 The net migration rate in this report is

based on an approximated 1995 older population, which is the sum of people 65 years and

over in 2000 who reported living in an area in

both 1995 and 2000 and those who reported

living in that area in 1995 but had moved

elsewhere. The net migration rate divides net

migration, which is inmigration minus outmigration, by the approximated 1995 population

and multiplies the result by 1,000. 10 Because of sampling error, the top ten

point estimates may not be significantly different from one another or from other point

estimates outside these ten.
6 U.S. Census Bureau

7 older people due to migration for

every 1,000 older people living

there in 1995. California alone

had a net migration loss of 34,000

older people, the majority of

whom were the young old. 

The Middle-Atlantic division

lost the largest number of

older people.

The Middle-Atlantic division, consisting of New York, New Jersey,

and Pennsylvania, lost the largest

number of older people due to

migration between 1995 and 2000,

most of them in the young-old age

group. Between 1995 and 2000,

224,000 older people moved out

of the Middle-Atlantic division,

while only 70,000 moved in,

resulting in a net outmigration of

just over 150,000 and a net outmigration rate of 27.5.

Florida gained the largest

number of older movers, but

Nevada had the highest net

migration rate.

For discussion purposes, states are

classified as “gaining states” if they

experienced an increase in their

older population through migration, “losing states” if they saw

their older population decline

through migration, and “stable

states” if they had had very little

change in their older population

due to migration. Florida was the

leading gaining state, as it received

149,000 more older people than it

lost through migration. This

increase was almost three times

the number of second-ranked gaining state Arizona (53,000 net

migration gain) and about seven

times that of Nevada (22,000).

The top gaining states were in the

South and the West (Table 2). 

In terms of net migration rates of

the older population, Nevada

ranked first among the states with

a net migration rate of 114.2, gaining about 114 older people for

every 1,000 in 1995. Arizona was

again second in ranking, with a net

migration rate of 87.4, while

Florida was third at 56.9 (Figure 1).

New York lost the largest

number of older movers.

New York lost the largest number

of older people through migration

(114,000), which was much higher

than the second- and third-highest

losing states (Illinois at 43,000,

and California at 34,000). Five of

the top-ten losing states were in

the Northeast, while several others

were in the Midwest.11 As well as

losing the largest number of older

people through net migration, New

York had one of the highest net

outmigration rates of the older

population, 45.0 (see Figure 1).

The District of Columbia had a

greater net outmigration rate 

(69.5) than New York, due perhaps

to its small size and functional status as a central city. 

Figure 1.

States With the Highest and Lowest Net Migration Rates1

for the Population 65 Years and Over: 1995 to 2000

1

 See text for definition of net migration rate.

Note: Because of sampling error, the estimates in this figure may not be significantly 

different from one another or from rates for other states not shown in this figure.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. 

(Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, 

nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

-45.0

114.2

-69.5

87.4

56.9

33.6

27.2

22.1

19.6

18.1

15.2

12.0

-12.2

-16.1

-16.6

-17.7

-20.0

-20.6

-28.1

-39.4

Nevada

Arizona

Florida

South Carolina

Delaware

North Carolina

Idaho

Georgia

Tennessee

New Mexico

Ohio

North Dakota

Massachusetts

Michigan

Connecticut

New Jersey

Illinois

Alaska

New York

District of Columbia

11 Because of sampling error, the top ten

point estimates may not be significantly different from one another or from other point

estimates outside these ten. 
States gaining older migrants

usually were in close

proximity to or had milder

climates than the states with

net losses of older migrants. 

State-to-state migration flows illustrate the geographic origin of the

gain or loss of a particular state.12

The top gaining state, Florida,

received many migrants from the

Northeast and the Midwest. Close

to one-third of all older movers to

Florida came from New York

(61,000) and New Jersey (23,000,

see Figure 2). Other top sending

states to Florida were the northeastern states of Pennsylvania and

Massachusetts, and the midwestern states of Ohio, Michigan, and

Illinois. Florida absorbed a large

number of older movers from the

colder Northeast and Midwest

regions, who may have moved in

search of a milder climate in which

to retire. 

Both Arizona and Nevada had a

high net migration gain of older

people, indicating that geographic

proximity may also influence

migration. One-quarter of older

movers to Arizona came from

California and Washington. Other

top sending states to Arizona were

western states like Colorado, as

well as midwestern states like

Illinois. Similarly, Nevada gained

mostly from inmigration from

other western states like California

(17,000), which represented 

40 percent of its older inmigrants,

and Arizona. Nevada also received

a large number of older inmigrants

from Florida and Illinois. 

Patterns of top losing 

states varied.

About three-fourths (72.8 percent)

of New York’s outmigrants moved

to southern states along the eastern seaboard — Florida (61,000),

North Carolina, Virginia, and South

Carolina, — or neighboring northeastern states — New Jersey

(19,000), Pennsylvania, and

Connecticut. 

Illinois was the second-largest losing state, although its older outmigrants were more evenly distributed across the country than New

York’s outmigrants. Florida

(15,000) received the largest number of older outmigrants from

Illinois, while Arizona (7,000),

Wisconsin, Indiana, and California

also received many.13 Geographic

proximity (and perhaps cost of living) seemed to play a greater role

than climate for older California

outmigrants, as more than half settled in other western states.

Arizona (18,000), Nevada (17,000),

Oregon (12,000), and Washington

(10,000), along with Texas (8,000)

and Florida (7,000), were favorite

destinations for older people leaving California.14

State-level migration rates

varied by the age of the older

population, suggesting a

pattern of “return migration”

at the oldest ages for 

some states.

State-level migration rates varied

by age within the older population.

Many states that gained large numbers of the young old saw migration rates drop by age, while other

U.S. Census Bureau 7

Figure 2.

States of Origin for the Population 65 Years 

and Over Who Moved to Florida, Arizona, 

and Nevada: 1995 to 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. 

(Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, 

nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Florida Arizona Nevada

Thousands of inmigrants

OH

NY

NJ

IL

CA

WA

IL

CA

FL

Destination state

12 Tables with complete state-to-state

migration flows of the older population are

available on the Census Bureau’s Web site at

www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/

migration.html.

13 The difference among the Illinois outflows to California, Texas, and Missouri were

not statistically significant. 14 The difference between the California

outflows to Arizona and Nevada, to

Washington and Texas, and to Texas and

Florida were not statistically significant.
8 U.S. Census Bureau

states that lost the young old saw

migration rates increase by age.

These changes in migration rates

by age suggest that, at the oldest

ages, many older people who initially moved away at retirement

may have returned to their states

of origin, perhaps to be closer to

family or simply to return home.15

Figure 3 shows net migration rates

for selected states for the older

population by age. Popular

retirement states such as Florida

and Arizona had net migration rates

that decreased among their older

populations. In fact, Florida experienced net outmigration of those

aged 85 and over. On the other

hand, many states that had high net

outmigration of the young old saw

decreasing losses or even gains of

advanced-age groups. Examples of

states with decreasing net outmigration by the age of the population

included California, Massachusetts,

Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, and

Pennsylvania. States that had a net

loss of the young old and a net gain

of the oldest old included Alaska,

Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland,

Minnesota, and Washington. 

County-level migration rates

of the older population

followed patterns similar to

state and regional findings.

Figure 4 shows county-level net

migration rates for the population

65 years and older, providing

greater geographic detail than the

results described above. In general, county net migration rates for

the population 65 years and older

coincide with patterns found for

regions and states, with migration

gains in the South and the West,

and migration losses in the

Northeast and the Midwest.

However, even in those states that

lost older population, some counties gained older people, such as

Figure 3.

Selected State Net Migration Rates1 for the Population 

65 Years and Over by Age: 1995 to 2000 

1

 See text for definition of net migration rate.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. 

(Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and 

definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

-75

-50

-25

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

AZ FL NV CA IL MA MI NJ NY OH PA AK CO CT MD MN RI VT WA WY

Per 1,000 people in specific age category 65-74 75-84 85+

15 For an example of research on oldestold people’s return migration, see Stoller,

Eleanor Palo and Charles F. Longino, Jr.,

2001, “‘Going Home’ or ‘Leaving Home’? The

Impact of Person and Place Ties on

Anticipated Counterstream Migration,” The

Gerontologist, 2001, Vol. 41, No. 1, 96-102.
U.S. Census Bureau

9

Net Migration Rates for the Population 65 Year1995 to 2000

0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles

0 100 Miles

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.

Figure 4.

(Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)
10 U.S. Census Bureau

Riverside County in California,

Ocean County in New Jersey,

Barnstable County in

Massachusetts, and Eaton County

in Michigan. Within states that

gained older people, of particular

notice were the dichotomies

between northeastern Arizona

(lost) and the southwestern part of

the state (gained), southern Florida

(lost) and central Florida (gained),

and northwestern Arkansas

(gained) and southeastern

Arkansas (lost). 

The counties with the largest net

gain of older people were Maricopa

County, AZ, and Palm Beach

County, FL. Many of the counties

in Florida exhibited high net migration rates, led by Sumter County.

Other counties with high net inmigration rates for the older population included Williamson County,

TX; James City County, VA; and Nye

County, NV. In terms of net migration loss, counties that lost the

largest number of older people

were Los Angeles County, CA, and

Cook County, IL, followed by Kings

County, NY. Counties with high net

outmigration rates of the older

population included Chattahoochee

County, GA; Prairie County, MT;

and Pope County, IL. 

SUMMARY

People 65 years and older were

much less mobile than those under

the age of 65, but the oldest old

were the most mobile of the older

population. Older women were

more likely to move than older

men. Movers aged 65 to 74 were

slightly more likely than movers

under 65 to have made an interstate move, probably associated

with retirement. The older population tended to move to the West

and the South, leaving the colder

climates of the Northeast and the

Midwest. 

At a state level, Florida, Arizona,

and Nevada gained the largest

numbers of people 65 years and

older, while New York lost the

most. State-to-state migration patterns of the older population varied across the country, with much

of the outmigration from New York

going to Florida, and much of the

inmigration to Nevada coming

from California. There was some

evidence of return migration at

advanced ages (85 and over), perhaps “reversing” their retirement

move. This seems to explain why

Florida experienced net inmigration of people 65-84 years old but

not of people 85 years and older.

ACCURACY OF THE

ESTIMATES

The data contained in this report

are based on the sample of households who responded to the

Census 2000 long form.

Nationally, approximately 1 out of

every 6 housing units was included

in this sample. As a result, the

sample estimates may differ somewhat from the 100-percent figures

that would have been obtained if

all housing units, people within

those housing units, and people

living in group quarters had been

enumerated using the same questionnaires, instructions, enumerators, and so forth. The sample

estimates also differ from the values that would have been obtained

from different samples of housing

units, people within those housing

units, and people living in group

quarters. The deviation of a sample estimate from the average of

all possible samples is called the

sampling error. 

In addition to the variability that

arises from the sampling procedures, both sample data and 

100-percent data are subject to

nonsampling error. Nonsampling

error may be introduced during any

of the various complex operations

used to collect and process data.

Such errors may include: not enumerating every household or every

person in the population, failing to

obtain all required information from

the respondents, obtaining incorrect

or inconsistent information, and

recording information incorrectly.

In addition, errors can occur during

the field review of the enumerators’

work, during clerical handling of

the census questionnaires, or during the electronic processing of the

questionnaires.

Nonsampling error may affect the

data in two ways: (1) errors that

are introduced randomly will

increase the variability of the data

and, therefore, should be reflected

in the standard errors, and 

(2) errors that tend to be consistent in one direction will bias both

sample and 100-percent data in

that direction. For example, if

respondents consistently tend to

underreport their incomes, then

the resulting estimates of households or families by income category will tend to be understated

for the higher income categories

and overstated for the lower

income categories. Such biases

are not reflected in the standard

errors.

While it is impossible to completely

eliminate error from an operation

as large and complex as the decennial census, the Census Bureau

attempts to control the sources of

such error during the data collection and processing operations.

The primary sources of error and

the programs instituted to control

error in Census 2000 are described

in detail in Summary File 3

Technical Documentation under

Chapter 8, “Accuracy of the Data,”

located at www.census.gov

/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf. 
U.S. Census Bureau 11

All statements in this Census 2000

report have undergone statistical

testing and all comparisons are

significant at the 90-percent confidence level, unless otherwise

noted. The estimates in tables,

maps, and other figures may vary

from actual values due to sampling

and nonsampling errors. As a

result, estimates in one category

may not be significantly different

from estimates assigned to a different category. Further information on the accuracy of the data is

located at www.census.gov/prod

/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf. For further

information on the computation

and use of standard errors, contact

the Decennial Statistical Studies

Division at 301-763-4242. 

This report was partially supported

by the Behavioral and Social

Research Program, U.S. National

Institute on Aging.

FOR MORE INFORMATION 

More detailed information on

decennial migration products,

including additional tables and

other product announcements, is

available on the Internet and can

be accessed via the Census

Bureau’s decennial migration Web

page at www.census.gov

/population/www/cen2000

/migration.html.

The decennial migration Web page

contains additional detailed migration tables not included in this

report, a schedule of upcoming

migration data releases, and

migration-related Census 2000

Special Reports.

For more information on decennial

migration products, please contact:

Population Distribution Branch

Population Division

U.S. Census Bureau

301-763-2419

or send e-mail to pop@census.gov.

Information on other population

and housing topics is presented in

the Census 2000 Brief and Special

Reports Series, located on the U.S.

Census Bureau’s Web site at

www.census/gov/population/www

/cen2000/briefs.html. These

series present information about

race, Hispanic origin, age, sex,

household type, housing tenure,

and other social, economic, and

housing characteristics.

Census 2000 information and data

can also be accessed via the

Census 2000 Gateway Web page at

www.census.gov/main/www

/cen2000.html.

For more information about

Census 2000, including data products, call our Customer Services

Center at 301-763-INFO (4636) or

e-mail webmaster@census.gov.

For questions related to aging

studies, please contact:

Aging Studies Branch 

Population Division

U.S. Census Bureau

301-763-1371