U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

The Older Population: 2010

2010 Census Briefs

By

Carrie A. Werner

C2010BR-09

Issued November 2011

INTRODUCTION

The older population is 

an important and growing segment of the United 

States population.1 In fact, 

more people were 65 years 

and over in 2010 than 

in any previous census.2 

Between 2000 and 2010, 

the population 65 years 

and over increased at a 

faster rate (15.1 percent) 

than the total U.S population (9.7 percent). 

In addition to growth in the older population, pronounced growth in the male population 65 years and over occurred during 

the decade. The disproportionate increase 

in the older male population has not only 

contributed to the growth of the overall 

population 65 years and over, but has also 

led to a narrowing of the gap between 

males and females at the older ages. As 

larger numbers of males and females 

reach age 65 years and over, it becomes 

increasingly important to understand this 

population as well as the implications 

population aging has for various family, 

social, and economic aspects of society.

1 In this report, the term “older” population refers 

to the population 65 years and over. 2 Although the decennial censuses collected data 

on age since 1790, the specific age of a person in complete years (as of last birthday) was not collected until 

1850, and data on the population 65 years and over 

was not published until 1870. Prior to 1850, enumerators marked people as being in a particular age group. 

Thus, comparisons of the population 65 years and over 

using historical census data are made with years in 

which the 65 years and over population was specifically published. In 1870, the population 65 years and 

over totaled 1.2 million and represented 3.0 percent of 

the total U.S. population. Source: <www.census.gov

/prod/www/abs/decennial/1870.html>.

This report describes the older population 

of the United States in 2010. It is part of 

a series that provides an overview of the 

population and housing data collected from 

the 2010 Census. It also provides information on the age and sex structure and geographic distribution of the population 65 

years and over at the national and subnational levels.3 The data for this report are 

based on the 2010 Census Summary File 1, 

which is among the first data products 

released from the 2010 Census.4

AGE QUESTION

Data on the age composition of the United 

States and your community are derived 

from the 2010 Census question on age 

and date of birth (Figure 1). 

Information on age has been collected 

from respondents since the first census in 

1790. The 2010 Census data on age were 

3 This report discusses data for the 50 states and 

the District of Columbia as well as lower levels of 

geography within the states. Data for Puerto Rico are 

not discussed in this report. 4 The 2010 Census Summary File 1 (SF1) contains 

data on age, sex, race, Hispanic origin, group quarters, relationship, tenure, and households at a variety 

of geographic levels down to the block level. For a 

detailed schedule of 2010 Census data products and 

release dates, visit <www.census.gov/population

/www/cen2010/glance/index.html>.

Figure 1.

Reproduction of the Question on Age and 

Date of Birth From the 2010 Census

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census questionnaire.
2 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 1.

Population 65 Years and Older by Age and Sex: 2000 and 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Sex and age

2000 2010 Change, 

2000 to 2010

Number 

Percentage 

of 65 years 

and over 

population

Percentage 

of U.S. total 

population Number 

Percentage 

of 65 years

 and over 

population

Percentage 

of U.S. total 

population Number Percentage

Both sexes, all ages . . . 281,421,906 (X) 100.0 308,745,538 (X) 100.0 27,323,632 9.7

65 years and over. . . . . . . 34,991,753 100.0 12.4 40,267,984 100.0 13.0 5,276,231 15.1

65 to 74 years. . . . . . . . . . 18,390,986 52.6 6.5 21,713,429 53.9 7.0 3,322,443 18.1

65 to 69 years. . . . . . . . 9,533,545 27.2 3.4 12,435,263 30.9 4.0 2,901,718 30.4

70 to 74 years. . . . . . . . 8,857,441 25.3 3.1 9,278,166 23.0 3.0 420,725 4.7

75 to 84 years. . . . . . . . . . 12,361,180 35.3 4.4 13,061,122 32.4 4.2 699,942 5.7

75 to 79 years. . . . . . . . 7,415,813 21.2 2.6 7,317,795 18.2 2.4 –98,018 –1.3

80 to 84 years. . . . . . . . 4,945,367 14.1 1.8 5,743,327 14.3 1.9 797,960 16.1

85 to 94 years. . . . . . . . . . 3,902,349 11.2 1.4 5,068,825 12.6 1.6 1,166,476 29.9

85 to 89 years. . . . . . . . 2,789,818 8.0 1.0 3,620,459 9.0 1.2 830,641 29.8

90 to 94 years. . . . . . . . 1,112,531 3.2 0.4 1,448,366 3.6 0.5 335,835 30.2

95 years and over. . . . . . . 337,238 1.0 0.1 424,608 1.1 0.1 87,370 25.9

95 to 99 years. . . . . . . . 286,784 0.8 0.1 371,244 0.9 0.1 84,460 29.5

100 years and over. . . . 50,454 0.1 – 53,364 0.1 – 2,910 5.8

Median age, 65 years

and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.5 (X) (X) 74.1 (X) (X) –0.4 (X)

Male, all ages . . . . . . . . . 138,053,563 (X) 49.1 151,781,326 (X) 49.2 13,727,763 9.9

65 years and over. . . . . . . 14,409,625 41.2 5.1 17,362,960 43.1 5.6 2,953,335 20.5

65 to 74 years. . . . . . . . . . 8,303,274 23.7 3.0 10,096,519 25.1 3.3 1,793,245 21.6

65 to 69 years. . . . . . . . 4,400,362 12.6 1.6 5,852,547 14.5 1.9 1,452,185 33.0

70 to 74 years. . . . . . . . 3,902,912 11.2 1.4 4,243,972 10.5 1.4 341,060 8.7

75 to 84 years. . . . . . . . . . 4,879,353 13.9 1.7 5,476,762 13.6 1.8 597,409 12.2

75 to 79 years. . . . . . . . 3,044,456 8.7 1.1 3,182,388 7.9 1.0 137,932 4.5

80 to 84 years. . . . . . . . 1,834,897 5.2 0.7 2,294,374 5.7 0.7 459,477 25.0

85 to 94 years. . . . . . . . . . 1,158,826 3.3 0.4 1,698,254 4.2 0.6 539,428 46.5

85 to 89 years. . . . . . . . 876,501 2.5 0.3 1,273,867 3.2 0.4 397,366 45.3

90 to 94 years. . . . . . . . 282,325 0.8 0.1 424,387 1.1 0.1 142,062 50.3

95 years and over. . . . . . . 68,172 0.2 – 91,425 0.2 – 23,253 34.1

95 to 99 years. . . . . . . . 58,115 0.2 – 82,263 0.2 – 24,148 41.6

100 years and over. . . . 10,057 – – 9,162 – – –895 –8.9

Median age, 65 years

and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.5 (X) (X) 73.2 (X) (X) –0.3 (X)

Female, all ages . . . . . . . 143,368,343 (X) 50.9 156,964,212 (X) 50.8 13,595,869 9.5

65 years and over. . . . . . . 20,582,128 58.8 7.3 22,905,024 56.9 7.4 2,322,896 11.3

65 to 74 years. . . . . . . . . . 10,087,712 28.8 3.6 11,616,910 28.8 3.8 1,529,198 15.2

65 to 69 years. . . . . . . . 5,133,183 14.7 1.8 6,582,716 16.3 2.1 1,449,533 28.2

70 to 74 years. . . . . . . . 4,954,529 14.2 1.8 5,034,194 12.5 1.6 79,665 1.6

75 to 84 years. . . . . . . . . . 7,481,827 21.4 2.7 7,584,360 18.8 2.5 102,533 1.4

75 to 79 years. . . . . . . . 4,371,357 12.5 1.6 4,135,407 10.3 1.3 –235,950 –5.4

80 to 84 years. . . . . . . . 3,110,470 8.9 1.1 3,448,953 8.6 1.1 338,483 10.9

85 to 94 years. . . . . . . . . . 2,743,523 7.8 1.0 3,370,571 8.4 1.1 627,048 22.9

85 to 89 years. . . . . . . . 1,913,317 5.5 0.7 2,346,592 5.8 0.8 433,275 22.6

90 to 94 years. . . . . . . . 830,206 2.4 0.3 1,023,979 2.5 0.3 193,773 23.3

95 years and over. . . . . . . 269,066 0.8 0.1 333,183 0.8 0.1 64,117 23.8

95 to 99 years. . . . . . . . 228,669 0.7 0.1 288,981 0.7 0.1 60,312 26.4

100 years and over. . . . 40,397 0.1 – 44,202 0.1 – 3,805 9.4

Median age, 65 years

and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.2 (X) (X) 74.8 (X) (X) –0.4 (X)

(X) Not applicable

– Percentage rounds to 0.0

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1 and 2010 Census Summary File 1. 
U.S. Census Bureau 3

derived from a two-part age question in which both age and date 

of birth were asked of all people. 

Similar to Census 2000, the age 

question in the 2010 Census asked 

for age in complete years as well 

as month, day, and year of birth. 

In 2010, however, an instruction 

was added to the age question 

that guided respondents to report 

babies less than one year old as 

age 0.

THE 65 YEARS AND OLDER 

POPULATION: A SNAPSHOT

Data from the 2010 Census provide 

detailed age statistics on the total 

population as well as the population 65 years and over.5 According 

5 For additional 2010 Census age and 

sex information, see U.S. Census Bureau, 

2011, Age and Sex Composition: 2010, by 

Lindsay M. Howden and Julie A. Meyer, 2010 

Census Briefs, C2010BR-03, available at 

<www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs

/c2010br-03.pdf>.

to the 2010 Census, there were 

40.3 million people who were 65 

years and over on April 1, 2010 

(Table 1). This is an increase of 5.3 

million over Census 2000, when 

this population numbered 35.0 

million. The percentage of the 

population 65 years and over also 

increased from 2000 to 2010. In 

2010, the older population represented 13.0 percent of the total 

population, an increase from 12.4 

percent found in 2000.

When compared with the number of 

older people in the past, the population 65 years and over has notably increased over time. In 1900, 

there were 3.1 million people aged 

65 and over in the United States 

(Figure 2). As the population 65 

years and over steadily increased 

throughout the twentieth century, 

the older population reached its 

highest level at 40.3 million in 

2010—up from 31.2 million in 

1990 and 35.0 million in 2000.

The older population’s share of 

the total population has also been 

trending upward. The population 

65 years and over made up just 

4.1 percent of the total population 

in 1900, and since then steadily 

increased except for the period 

between 1990 and 2000. The 

population aged 65 and over grew 

slower than that of younger ages 

during the 1990 to 2000 decade 

and resulted in a smaller share of 

the older population in 2000 than 

1990. In 1990, the older population represented 12.6 percent of 

the total population compared with 

12.4 percent in 2000. However, in 

2010, the population 65 years and 

over was larger than in any other 

decennial census at 13.0 percent.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Figure 2.

Population 65 Years and Older by Size and Percent of Total Population: 

1900 to 2010

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census of population, 1900 to 2000; 2010 Census Summary File 1. 

(For more information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov

/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Millions Percent Number (in millions) Percentage (of total population)
4 U.S. Census Bureau

The 65 years and over 

population grew at a faster 

rate than the total population. 

Between 2000 and 2010, the total 

population increased by 9.7 percent, from 281.4 million to 308.7 

million. Growth over the decade 

was even faster for the population 

65 years and over, which grew 

15.1 percent. This is the opposite 

of what happened between 1990 

and 2000 when the growth of the 

older population was slower than 

the growth of the total population. 

From 1990 to 2000, the total population grew by 13.2 percent and the 

population 65 years and over grew 

by only 12.0 percent.

Population size and growth 

varied among the older age 

groups. 

Table 1 presents data on the 

distribution of the population for 

selected older age groups. In 2010, 

the number of people aged 65 to 

74 was 21.7 million and represented 53.9 percent of the population 65 years and over. The number 

of people 75 to 84 years old totaled 

13.1 million and made up 32.4 percent of the population 65 years and 

over. The population 85 to 94 years 

old contained 5.1 million people 

and made up 12.6 percent of the 

population 65 years and over. 

Finally, the population 95 years and 

over was roughly 425,000 persons 

and represented 1.1 percent of the 

older population.

An examination of the growth of 

ten-year age groups among the 

older population shows that the 85 

to 94 year old group experienced 

the fastest growth between 2000 

and 2010. This group grew by 29.9 

percent, increasing from 3.9 million to 5.1 million. Within this age 

group, 85 to 89 year olds increased 

by 29.8 percent and 90 to 94 year 

olds increased by 30.2 percent. The 

population 95 years and over experienced a similar rate of growth 

(25.9 percent), and increased from 

337,000 to 425,000 between 2000 

and 2010. 

As shown in Table 1, the population 65 to 74 years experienced 

relatively slower growth (18.1 

percent) than the other older tenyear age groups. However, within 

the 65 to 74 year old age group, 65 

to 69 year olds experienced faster 

growth than any other five-year age 

group within the older population. 

The 65 to 69 year old age group 

grew by 30.4 percent and increased 

from 9.5 million to 12.4 million. 

This age group represents the leading edge of the Baby Boom and is 

expected to grow more rapidly over 

the next decade as the first Baby 

Boomers start turning 65 in 2011.6

The ten-year age group with the 

slowest growth between 2000 and 

2010 was the group 75 to 84 years 

(5.7 percent), which increased 

from 12.4 million to 13.1 million. 

Growth in this age group was 

mainly due to those aged 80 to 

84, which grew by 16.1 percent. 

During the decade, a decrease was 

noted in the number of people 

aged 75 to 79 from 7.4 million to 

7.3 million, resulting in a decline of 

1.3 percent.7

6 The Baby Boom includes people born 

from mid-1946 to 1964. The Baby Boom 

is distinguished by a dramatic increase in 

birth rates following World War II, and is 

one of the largest generations in U.S. history. For more information, see: Hogan, 

Perez, and Bell, 2008, Who (Really) Are 

the First Baby Boomers? In Joint Statistical 

Meetings Proceedings, Social Statistics 

Section, Alexandria, VA: American Statistical 

Association, pp. 1009–1016. 7 The changes in the 75 to 79 year old 

age group mainly reflect the relatively low 

number of births during the late 1920s and 

early 1930s. The relatively low number of 

births during that period has resulted in fewer 

numbers of people entering these older ages 

during the previous decade. Between 1990 

and 2000, decreases were noted in the 65 to 

69 year old age group, and this population 

has aged forward to now show decreases in 

the 75 to 79 year old population.

Evidence of varied growth in the 

older ages can also be seen in the 

median age of the population 65 

years and over, which decreased 

from 74.5 in 2000 to 74.1 in 2010. 

Median age indicates the age at 

which half of the population is 

above and half of the population is 

below a certain age. While the rapid 

rate of growth has been occurring 

in the oldest ages, growth in the 65 

to 69 year old age group has contributed to lowering the median age 

of the population 65 years and over. 

Males experienced more rapid 

growth than females in the 

older ages. 

Males show more rapid growth in 

the older population than females 

over the decade. While females 

continue to outnumber males in 

the older ages, males continued 

to close the gap over the decade 

by increasing at a faster rate than 

females. The largest growth rate for 

a ten-year age group was for males 

85 to 94 years old (46.5 percent). 

Females in this age group also 

increased but to a smaller degree 

(22.9 percent). When five-year age 

groups are compared, males 90 to 

94 years old had the largest growth 

rate (50.3 percent) while females 

in this age group grew by 23.3 

percent. 

The age group that experienced 

the largest growth for females was 

65 to 69 year olds (28.2 percent). 

When ten-year age groups are compared, the age group that experienced the largest growth rate for 

females was for those 95 years and 

over (23.8 percent). The only fiveyear age group in which females 

experienced larger growth than 

males was the age group 100 years 

and older. This age group grew 

by 9.4 percent for females and 

declined by 8.9 percent for males.
U.S. Census Bureau 5

Figure 3.

Population by Age and Sex: 2000 and 2010

Note: The lighter shade of blue represents ages 0 to 64 in the 2010 Census. The darker shade of blue represents ages 65 years and 

over in the 2010 Census. 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1 and 2010 Census Summary File 1.

(For more information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

3.0 2.0 1.0 0 1.0 2.0 3.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100+

2000

2010

Male Female

Age

Millions

In addition to examining the 

number, percent, and growth rate 

of certain age groups, the agesex pyramid is another key tool 

for assessing a population’s age 

and sex composition (Figure 3). 

The age-sex pyramid shows the 

numeric distribution of males 

(on the left) and females (on the 

right) by single years of age. Both 

the 2000 and 2010 pyramids are 

shown together so that population 

shifts in the shape of the pyramid 

can be more easily assessed. The 

older population is also shaded 

darker for easier identification. 

As the pyramid shows, there was 

notable growth in the older ages 

between 2000 and 2010 for both 

males and females. The population 

pyramid also gives some context 

to how the population distribution 

will likely shift in the near future. 

The Baby Boom population in 2010 
6 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 4.

Sex Ratio by Age: 1990, 2000, and 2010

Note: Sex ratio is calculated as the number of males per 100 females.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census Summary File 2C, Census 2000 Summary File 1, and 2010 Census Summary File 1.

(For more information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2010 2000 1990

65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100+

Age

Ratio

appears as a bulge in the middle 

of the pyramid (at ages 46 to 64). 

This bulge will begin aging into the 

65 and older ages in coming years, 

and indicates that future growth of 

the older population is both highly 

probable and unprecedented in the 

United States. 

Females continue to 

outnumber males at older 

ages, but the gap is narrowing.

The lines at the topmost part of 

the age-sex pyramid display the 

differences that exist between the 

number of males and the number of females at the older ages. 

In both 2000 and 2010, women 

outnumbered men in the older 

population at every single year of 

age (i.e., 65 to 100 years and over). 

This is apparent by the longer 

lines at the top of the pyramid 

for females when compared with 

males. While this gender-gap has 

been narrowing, females continue 

to outpace males with longer life 

expectancy and lower mortality 

rates at older ages.8 The disparity 

between males and females at the 

older ages is also apparent in the 

sex ratio at older ages.

The sex ratio is a common measure 

used to indicate the balance of 

males and females in a population. 

It is derived by taking the number 

of males divided by the number of 

females and multiplying by 100. 

Simply stated, the sex ratio is the 

8 Kochanek, Kenneth, et al., 2011, Deaths: 

Preliminary Data for 2009, National Center 

for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics 

Reports, Vol. 59, No. 4.

number of males per 100 females. 

For example, a sex ratio of exactly 

100 would indicate equal numbers 

of males and females. A sex ratio 

higher than 100 shows more males 

in a population, and a sex ratio 

under 100 shows more females. 

Typically, the sex ratio at birth 

is about 105 males to every 100 

females. Then, as males experience higher rates of mortality than 

females at almost every age, the 

sex ratio declines as age increases. 

This results in more women than 

men in the older populations.

As the results in Figure 4 illustrate, 

there have been more females than 

males in the older population across 

the last three censuses. This is 

evidenced by the lines on the graph 
U.S. Census Bureau 7

Figure 5.

Percent Distribution of the Oldest-Old Population by Age and Sex: 

1990, 2000, and 2010

Note: Percentages may not add to 100.0 due to rounding.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census Summary File 2C, Census 2000 Summary File 1, and 2010 Census Summary File 1.

(For more information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

85 to 89 years 90 to 94 years 95 to 99 years 100 years and over

1990

2000

2010

1990

2000

2010

1990

2000

2010

Total Male Female

65.9 26.4 6.8 1.0

65.8 26.2 6.8 1.2

66.9 25.0 6.9 1.2

71.2 23.7 4.6 0.5

71.4 23.0 4.7 0.8

71.6 22.2 5.3 0.9

63.4 27.6 7.8 1.2

63.5 27.6 7.6 1.3

65.1 26.1 7.5 1.3

being below the 100 mark for all 

data points. The graph also reveals 

a noteworthy increase in the sex 

ratio over time as male and female 

mortality differentials continue to 

narrow and more males enter and 

age into the older population. For 

single years of age above age 65, 

the sex ratios were higher in 2010 

than in 2000 and 1990.9 This 

means that there are increasing 

numbers of males per females in the 

older ages. 

9 The sex ratio at age 99 and above is 

lower in 2010 than it was in 2000 or 1990. 

This could be due to a variety of factors 

associated with the centenarian population, 

including data quality. For additional information on the centenarian population, see U.S. 

Census Bureau, 1999, Centenarians in the 

United States: 1990 by Constance Krach and 

Victoria Velkoff, Current Population Reports, 

Series P23-199RV, available at <www.census

.gov/prod/99pubs/p23-199.pdf>.

In 2010, there were 90.5 males 

per 100 females in the 65 year 

old population, an increase from 

2000 and 1990 when the sex 

ratios were 88.1 and 82.7, respectively (Figure 4). Increases are also 

apparent in the older ages where 

the sex ratio for the population at 

age 75 was 80.2 in 2010, up from 

72.8 in 2000 and 68.2 in 1990. 

The population 85 years old also 

experienced increases in the sex 

ratio over the past three censuses. 

The population at the age of 85 

had 58.3 males per 100 females in 

2010, 50.5 males per 100 females 

in 2000, and 45.6 males per 100 

females in 1990.

Of the oldest-old, 90 to 94 year 

olds had the greatest increase 

in percentage.

In addition to examining the sex 

ratio, the percent distribution of the 

population aged 85 and over (the 

oldest-old) by sex can provide additional findings about differences 

that exist in the oldest ages of the 

population (Figure 5).10 Among the 

oldest-old, the age group 85 to 89 

years made up the greatest share 

of the distribution in 1990, 2000, 

and 2010. The largest percentage point increase for the oldestold population over the previous 

two decades was concentrated in 

the 90 to 94 year old age group, 

which increased from 25.0 percent 

10 In this report, the term “oldest-old” 

population refers to the population 85 years 

and over.
8 U.S. Census Bureau

in 1990 to 26.2 percent in 2000, 

and 26.4 percent in 2010. The age 

group 95 to 99 years, while showing numeric increase and positive 

percent change, maintained the 

same share of the oldest-old age 

distribution in 2010 as it did in 

2000. Similarly, the population 100 

years and over increased in number from 1990 to 2000 to 2010. 

However, due to larger growth in 

the other “oldest-old” ages, the 

share of the oldest-old population 

that was 100 years and over in the 

2010 Census has decreased since 

Census 2000.

For both males and females 85 

years and over, the majority of 

the oldest-old population was 

concentrated in the 85 to 89 year 

old age group. However, differences emerge between the sexes 

when the distribution of the male 

population 85 years and over is 

compared with the distribution of 

the female population 85 years and 

over. For males, a greater portion 

of the population 85 years and over 

was concentrated in the 85 to 89 

year old age group than the female 

population. In 2010, 71.2 percent 

of the oldest-old male population 

was in the 85 to 89 year old age 

group, compared with 63.4 percent 

of the oldest-old female population 

in the 85 to 89 year old age group. 

These differences in percentages 

between males and females were 

due to larger shares of the female 

population living longer and experiencing lower mortality in the older 

ages than males. 

The proportion of males 90 to 

94 years old increased more 

than females within the oldestold distribution between 2000 

and 2010.

Even though females still outnumber males in the oldest-old ages, 

the gap between males and females 

in the oldest ages is narrowing. 

Males 90 to 94 years have been 

increasing so that in 2010, 23.7 

percent of males who were 85 

years and over were in the 90 to 94 

year old age group. This is up from 

23.0 percent in 2000 and 22.2 percent in 1990. Females, while still 

increasing in number for this age 

group, did not have as large a gain 

between 2000 and 2010. Females 

85 years and over that were ages 

90 to 94 maintained a share of 

27.6 percent in both 2010 and 

2000. This is an increase from 26.1 

percent in 1990. 

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION

In addition to providing national 

level population statistics, the 

census also provides data for lower 

levels of geography. The following 

section contains information on the 

older population by regions, states, 

inside or outside metropolitan/

micropolitan areas, counties, and 

places with a total population of at 

least 100,000.

REGION AND STATE

The South had the largest 

number of people in the older 

ages, while the Northeast 

had the largest percentage of 

people in the older ages.

Comparisons across the four census regions in 2010 show that the 

South contained the greatest number of people 65 years and over 

and 85 years and over (Table 2).11

The Midwest contained the second 

largest number of people 65 years 

and over and 85 years and over 

11 The Northeast region includes 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. 

The Midwest includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 

Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, 

and Wisconsin. The South includes Alabama, 

Arkansas, Delaware, the District of Columbia, 

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, 

Virginia, and West Virginia. The West includes 

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, 

Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, 

Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

while the West contained the third 

largest number of people 65 years 

and over and the smallest number of people 85 years and over. 

The Northeast, on the other hand, 

contained the smallest number of 

people 65 years and over and the 

third largest number of people 85 

years and over.

In addition to comparing the older 

population by number in each 

region, a comparison of the older 

population by percentage yields a 

different ranking. The Northeast 

had the largest percentage of 

people 65 years and over (14.1 

percent), followed by the Midwest 

(13.5 percent), the South (13.0 percent), and the West (11.9 percent). 

The Northeast also contained the 

largest percentage of people 85 

years and over (2.2 percent), followed by the Midwest (2.0 percent), and the West and South (each 

with 1.6 percent).

The West had the fastest 

growth in the population 

65 years and over and the 

population 85 years and over.

When compared with Census 2000, 

all regions show positive growth 

in both the 65 years and over and 

85 years and over population. The 

region with the most rapid growth 

in the population 65 years and 

over was the West (23.5 percent), 

increasing from 6.9 million in 2000 

to 8.5 million in 2010. The region 

with the fastest growth in the population 85 years and over was also 

the West (42.8 percent), increasing 

from 806,000 in 2000 to 1.2 million in 2010. To note, the South had 

the fastest total population growth 

between 2000 and 2010 followed 

by the West (14.3 percent and 13.8 

percent, respectively).
U.S. Census Bureau 9

Table 2.

Population 65 Years and Older and Population 85 Years and Older for the United States, 

Regions, and States, and for Puerto Rico: 2000 and 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Area

2000 2010

Percent change, 

2000 to 2010

Total 

population 

65 years 

and over

85 years 

and over

Total 

population 

65 years 

and over

85 years 

and over

Number

Percent NumberPercent NumberPercent NumberPercent Total 

population

65 years 

and over 

85 years 

and over

 United States. . . 281,421,906 34,991,753 12.4 4,239,587 1.5 308,745,538 40,267,984 13.0 5,493,433 1.8 9.7 15.1 29.6

REGION

Northeast. . . . . . . . . 53,594,378 7,372,282 13.8 938,459 1.8 55,317,240 7,804,833 14.1 1,199,702 2.2 3.2 5.9 27.8

Midwest. . . . . . . . . . 64,392,776 8,259,075 12.8 1,064,295 1.7 66,927,001 9,022,334 13.5 1,320,640 2.0 3.9 9.2 24.1

South. . . . . . . . . . . . 100,236,820 12,438,267 12.4 1,430,546 1.4 114,555,744 14,893,985 13.0 1,821,982 1.6 14.3 19.7 27.4

West. . . . . . . . . . . . 63,197,932 6,922,129 11.0 806,287 1.3 71,945,553 8,546,832 11.9 1,151,109 1.6 13.8 23.5 42.8

STATE

Alabama. . . . . . . . . 4,447,100 579,798 13.0 67,301 1.5 4,779,736 657,792 13.8 75,684 1.6 7.5 13.5 12.5

Alaska. . . . . . . . . . . 626,932 35,699 5.7 2,634 0.4 710,231 54,938 7.7 4,711 0.7 13.3 53.9 78.9

Arizona. . . . . . . . . . 5,130,632 667,839 13.0 68,525 1.3 6,392,017 881,831 13.8 103,400 1.6 24.6 32.0 50.9

Arkansas. . . . . . . . . 2,673,400 374,019 14.0 46,492 1.7 2,915,918 419,981 14.4 51,402 1.8 9.1 12.3 10.6

California. . . . . . . . . 33,871,648 3,595,658 10.6 425,657 1.3 37,253,956 4,246,514 11.4 600,968 1.6 10.0 18.1 41.2

Colorado. . . . . . . . . 4,301,261 416,073 9.7 48,216 1.1 5,029,196 549,625 10.9 69,613 1.4 16.9 32.1 44.4

Connecticut. . . . . . . 3,405,565 470,183 13.8 64,273 1.9 3,574,097 506,559 14.2 84,898 2.4 4.9 7.7 32.1

Delaware. . . . . . . . . 783,600 101,726 13.0 10,549 1.3 897,934 129,277 14.4 15,744 1.8 14.6 27.1 49.2

District of Columbia. . 572,059 69,898 12.2 8,975 1.6 601,723 68,809 11.4 10,315 1.7 5.2 –1.6 14.9

Florida. . . . . . . . . . . 15,982,378 2,807,597 17.6 331,287 2.1 18,801,310 3,259,602 17.3 434,125 2.3 17.6 16.1 31.0

Georgia. . . . . . . . . . 8,186,453 785,275 9.6 87,857 1.1 9,687,653 1,032,035 10.7 113,823 1.2 18.3 31.4 29.6

Hawaii. . . . . . . . . . . 1,211,537 160,601 13.3 17,564 1.4 1,360,301 195,138 14.3 30,238 2.2 12.3 21.5 72.2

Idaho. . . . . . . . . . . . 1,293,953 145,916 11.3 18,057 1.4 1,567,582 194,668 12.4 25,242 1.6 21.1 33.4 39.8

Illinois. . . . . . . . . . . . 12,419,293 1,500,025 12.1 192,031 1.5 12,830,632 1,609,213 12.5 234,912 1.8 3.3 7.3 22.3

Indiana. . . . . . . . . . . 6,080,485 752,831 12.4 91,558 1.5 6,483,802 841,108 13.0 115,272 1.8 6.6 11.7 25.9

Iowa. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,926,324 436,213 14.9 65,118 2.2 3,046,355 452,888 14.9 74,658 2.5 4.1 3.8 14.7

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . 2,688,418 356,229 13.3 51,770 1.9 2,853,118 376,116 13.2 59,318 2.1 6.1 5.6 14.6

Kentucky. . . . . . . . . 4,041,769 504,793 12.5 58,261 1.4 4,339,367 578,227 13.3 69,208 1.6 7.4 14.5 18.8

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . 4,468,976 516,929 11.6 58,676 1.3 4,533,372 557,857 12.3 65,686 1.4 1.4 7.9 11.9

Maine. . . . . . . . . . . . 1,274,923 183,402 14.4 23,316 1.8 1,328,361 211,080 15.9 29,136 2.2 4.2 15.1 25.0

Maryland. . . . . . . . . 5,296,486 599,307 11.3 66,902 1.3 5,773,552 707,642 12.3 98,126 1.7 9.0 18.1 46.7

Massachusetts. . . . . 6,349,097 860,162 13.5 116,692 1.8 6,547,629 902,724 13.8 145,199 2.2 3.1 4.9 24.4

Michigan. . . . . . . . . 9,938,444 1,219,018 12.3 142,460 1.4 9,883,640 1,361,530 13.8 191,881 1.9 –0.6 11.7 34.7

Minnesota. . . . . . . . 4,919,479 594,266 12.1 85,601 1.7 5,303,925 683,121 12.9 106,664 2.0 7.8 15.0 24.6

Mississippi. . . . . . . . 2,844,658 343,523 12.1 42,891 1.5 2,967,297 380,407 12.8 44,359 1.5 4.3 10.7 3.4

Missouri. . . . . . . . . . 5,595,211 755,379 13.5 98,571 1.8 5,988,927 838,294 14.0 113,779 1.9 7.0 11.0 15.4

Montana. . . . . . . . . . 902,195 120,949 13.4 15,337 1.7 989,415 146,742 14.8 20,021 2.0 9.7 21.3 30.5

Nebraska. . . . . . . . . 1,711,263 232,195 13.6 33,953 2.0 1,826,341 246,677 13.5 39,308 2.2 6.7 6.2 15.8

Nevada. . . . . . . . . . 1,998,257 218,929 11.0 16,989 0.9 2,700,551 324,359 12.0 30,187 1.1 35.1 48.2 77.7

New Hampshire. . . . 1,235,786 147,970 12.0 18,231 1.5 1,316,470 178,268 13.5 24,761 1.9 6.5 20.5 35.8

New Jersey. . . . . . . 8,414,350 1,113,136 13.2 135,999 1.6 8,791,894 1,185,993 13.5 179,611 2.0 4.5 6.5 32.1

New Mexico. . . . . . . 1,819,046 212,225 11.7 23,306 1.3 2,059,179 272,255 13.2 31,993 1.6 13.2 28.3 37.3

New York. . . . . . . . . 18,976,457 2,448,352 12.9 311,488 1.6 19,378,102 2,617,943 13.5 390,874 2.0 2.1 6.9 25.5

North Carolina. . . . . 8,049,313 969,048 12.0 105,461 1.3 9,535,483 1,234,079 12.9 147,461 1.5 18.5 27.3 39.8

North Dakota. . . . . . 642,200 94,478 14.7 14,726 2.3 672,591 97,477 14.5 16,688 2.5 4.7 3.2 13.3

Ohio. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,353,140 1,507,757 13.3 176,796 1.6 11,536,504 1,622,015 14.1 230,429 2.0 1.6 7.6 30.3

Oklahoma. . . . . . . . 3,450,654 455,950 13.2 57,175 1.7 3,751,351 506,714 13.5 61,912 1.7 8.7 11.1 8.3

Oregon. . . . . . . . . . . 3,421,399 438,177 12.8 57,431 1.7 3,831,074 533,533 13.9 77,872 2.0 12.0 21.8 35.6

Pennsylvania. . . . . . 12,281,054 1,919,165 15.6 237,567 1.9 12,702,379 1,959,307 15.4 305,676 2.4 3.4 2.1 28.7

Rhode Island. . . . . . 1,048,319 152,402 14.5 20,897 2.0 1,052,567 151,881 14.4 26,750 2.5 0.4 –0.3 28.0

South Carolina. . . . . 4,012,012 485,333 12.1 50,269 1.3 4,625,364 631,874 13.7 70,717 1.5 15.3 30.2 40.7

South Dakota. . . . . . 754,844 108,131 14.3 16,086 2.1 814,180 116,581 14.3 19,226 2.4 7.9 7.8 19.5

Tennessee. . . . . . . . 5,689,283 703,311 12.4 81,465 1.4 6,346,105 853,462 13.4 99,917 1.6 11.5 21.3 22.7

Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . 20,851,820 2,072,532 9.9 237,940 1.1 25,145,561 2,601,886 10.3 305,179 1.2 20.6 25.5 28.3

Utah. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,233,169 190,222 8.5 21,751 1.0 2,763,885 249,462 9.0 30,991 1.1 23.8 31.1 42.5

Vermont. . . . . . . . . . 608,827 77,510 12.7 9,996 1.6 625,741 91,078 14.6 12,797 2.0 2.8 17.5 28.0

Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . 7,078,515 792,333 11.2 87,266 1.2 8,001,024 976,937 12.2 122,403 1.5 13.0 23.3 40.3

Washington. . . . . . . 5,894,121 662,148 11.2 84,085 1.4 6,724,540 827,677 12.3 117,271 1.7 14.1 25.0 39.5

West Virginia. . . . . . 1,808,344 276,895 15.3 31,779 1.8 1,852,994 297,404 16.0 35,921 1.9 2.5 7.4 13.0

Wisconsin. . . . . . . . 5,363,675 702,553 13.1 95,625 1.8 5,686,986 777,314 13.7 118,505 2.1 6.0 10.6 23.9

Wyoming. . . . . . . . . 493,782 57,693 11.7 6,735 1.4 563,626 70,090 12.4 8,602 1.5 14.1 21.5 27.7

Puerto Rico . . . . . 3,808,610 425,137 11.2 47,706 1.3 3,725,789 541,998 14.5 62,596 1.7 –2.2 27.5 31.2

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1 and 2010 Census Summary File 1. 
10 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 3.

Residence in Metrop

(For information on confidenti

Area of residence and age

olitan or Microp

ality protection, nonsam

Total population

olitan Statistic

pling error, and defin

Northeast

al Areas by A

itions, see 

Midwest

ge and by Region:

www.census.gov/prod/cen20

South

 2010

10/doc/sf1.pdf)

West

Number 

Percent NumberPercent NumberPercent NumberPercent NumberPercent

Total population

All ages1

 ...................... 308,745,538 100.0 55,317,240 17.9 66,927,001 21.7 114,555,744 37.1 71,945,553 23.3

65 years and over ........... 40,267,984 13.0 7,804,833 2.5 9,022,334 2.9 14,893,985 4.8 8,546,832 2.8

85 years and over ...........

Inside metropolitan or 

micropolitan statistical area

5,493,433 1.8 1,199,702 0.4 1,320,640 0.4 1,821,982 0.6 1,151,109 0.4

All ages1

 ................... 289,261,315 100.0 53,868,425 18.6 60,443,283 20.9 105,279,729 36.4 69,669,878 24.1

65 years and over ........... 36,917,778 12.8 7,554,783 2.6 7,831,177 2.7 13,358,307 4.6 8,173,511 2.8

85 years and over ..........

Outside metropolitan or 

micropolitan statistical area

5,065,675 1.8 1,167,488 0.4 1,142,622 0.4 1,646,940 0.6 1,108,625 0.4

All ages1

 ................... 19,484,223 100.0 1,448,815 7.4 6,483,718 33.3 9,276,015 47.6 2,275,675 11.7

65 years and over .......... 3,350,206 17.2 250,050 1.3 1,191,157 6.1 1,535,678 7.9 373,321 1.9

85 years and over .......... 427,758 2.2 32,214 0.2 178,018 0.9 175,042 0.9 42,484 0.2

1

 Percentage shown for all ages is the regional distribution. Percentages shown for age groups 65 years and over and 85 years and over for the total population, 

inside metropolitan/micropolitan, and outside metropolitan/micropolitan are based on the total U.S. population in each area.

Note: Metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009 <www.whitehouse.gov/sites 

/default/files/omb/assets/bulletins/b10-02.pdf>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Summary File 1. 

Rhode Island was the only 

state to exhibit numeric 

decline in the population 

65 years and over.

Among the 50 states, Rhode Island 

was the only one to exhibit a 

decrease in the number of people 

65 years and over, declining from 

152,402 in 2000 to 151,881 in 

2010 (–0.3 percent). The decrease 

in the older population in Rhode 

Island was largely driven by 

decreases in the 70 to 74 and 75 to 

79 year old age groups.12 

Compared with other states, Florida 

had the greatest share of the 

population that was 65 years and 

over in both 2000 and 2010 (17.6 

percent and 17.3 percent, respectively). In 2010, it was followed by 

12 The decreases noted in the 70 to 74 

and 75 to 79 year old age groups in Rhode 

Island between 2000 and 2010 could be due 

to several factors. Changes could reflect the 

relatively low number of births during the late 

1920s and early 1930s. The lower fertility 

rates for that time period resulted in a smaller 

generation of people who are now aging into 

the 70 to 74 and 75 to 79 year old age groups. 

Out-migration of older adults from the state 

may also be contributing to decreases noted in 

selected older population age groups.

West Virginia (16.0 percent), Maine 

(15.9 percent), Pennsylvania (15.4 

percent), and Iowa (14.9 percent). 

The state with the lowest share 

of the population 65 years and 

over was Alaska in both 2000 and 

2010 (5.7 percent and 7.7 percent, 

respectively). Alaska is also notable 

as the state with the largest growth 

rate for the population 65 years 

and over. The state’s older population grew from 35,699 in 2000 

to 54,938 in 2010, resulting in a 

percent change of 53.9 percent. 

The District of Columbia’s older 

population declined from 69,898 

in 2000 to 68,809 in 2010, resulting in a decrease of 1.6 percent. 

The percentage of the population 

that was 65 years and over also 

decreased from 12.2 percent in 

2000 to 11.4 percent in 2010. 

The population 85 years and 

over increased in all states.

Between 2000 and 2010, all states 

experienced increases in the number of people that were 85 years 

and over. However, the magnitude 

of growth varied among the states 

for the oldest-old population. 

Alaska had the largest percent 

change between 2000 and 2010 

for the population 85 years and 

over, which grew 78.9 percent by 

increasing from 2,634 in 2000 to 

4,711 in 2010. Mississippi had the 

slowest growth (3.4 percent) and 

increased from 42,891 in 2000 to 

44,359 in 2010. Alaska was also 

the state with the lowest number 

and percentage of the population 

85 years and over when compared 

with other states. 

The state containing the largest 

percentage of the population 85 

years and over in 2010 was Rhode 

Island. In 2010, people 85 years 

and over made up 2.5 percent of 

the total state population compared 

with 2.0 percent in 2000. This 

increase in the share of total state 

population in the oldest-old ages 

moved Rhode Island from being 

ranked fifth in 2000 to first in 2010 

among states ranked by percentage 
U.S. Census Bureau 11

of the population in the age group 

85 years and over. North Dakota, 

which had been ranked first in 

2000, was ranked second in 2010.

Only two states, Mississippi and 

Oklahoma, maintained the same 

share of the total state population 

that was 85 years and over in 2010 

as in 2000 (1.5 percent and 1.7 

percent, respectively). However, as 

noted earlier, the size of the oldestold population still grew between 

2000 and 2010 in these states. 

METROPOLITAN 

AND MICROPOLITAN 

STATISTICAL AREAS

The older population was 

more likely to live inside a 

metropolitan or micropolitan 

statistical area than outside a 

metropolitan or micropolitan 

statistical area.

In 2010, 36.9 million people aged 

65 and over lived inside a metropolitan or micropolitan statistical 

area and 3.4 million lived outside 

of a metropolitan or micropolitan 

area (Table 3).13 However, the older 

population, which made up 13.0 

percent of the total population in 

2010, accounted for a disproportionally larger share of the population that lived outside metro or 

13 There were 942 metropolitan or micropolitan statistical areas defined by the U.S. 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as of 

December 2009. Metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas—metro and micro areas—

are geographic entities defined by the OMB for 

use by federal statistical agencies in collecting, 

tabulating, and publishing federal statistics. 

Metro and micro areas are collectively known 

as core based statistical areas (CBSAs). A metro 

area contains a core urban area population of 

50,000 or more. A micro area contains a core 

urban area population of at least 10,000 (but 

less than 50,000). Each metro or micro area 

consists of one or more counties and includes 

the counties containing the core urban area, 

as well as any adjacent counties that have a 

high degree of social and economic integration 

(as measured by commuting to work) with the 

urban core. A metro or micro area’s geographic 

delineation, or list of geographic components 

at a particular point in time, is referred to 

as its definition. This report uses metro and 

micro area definitions published by OMB as of 

December 2009. For additional information 

see <www.census.gov/geo/www/2010census

/GTC_10.pdf>.

micro areas. Of the 19.5 million 

people that lived outside metro 

or micro areas, 17.2 percent were 

aged 65 and older. Of the 289.3 

million people that lived inside 

metro or micro areas, 12.8 percent 

were 65 years and over. 

The population 85 years and over 

follows a similar pattern as the 

population 65 years and over. They 

were most likely to live inside a 

metropolitan or micropolitan area. 

In 2010, 427,758 people aged 85 

and over lived outside of a metro 

or micro statistical area while 5.1 

million people aged 85 and over 

lived inside these areas. Although 

a larger number of people 85 

years and over lived inside metro 

or micro areas, people in these 

ages made up a greater share of 

the population that lived outside a 

metro or micro area. The oldest-old 

population made up 2.2 percent 

of the population that lived outside a metro or micro area and 1.8 

percent of the population that lived 

inside a metro or micro area.

The older population was 

more likely to live inside a 

metropolitan or micropolitan 

statistical area in the South 

when compared with other 

regions.

The metropolitan or micropolitan 

statistical area distribution of the 

older population further varies by 

region. Of the total population that 

lived inside a metro or micro area, 

36.4 percent were located in the 

South, 24.1 percent in the West, 

20.9 percent in the Midwest, and 

18.6 percent in the Northeast. 

The population 65 years and over 

that lived inside metro or micro 

areas was 4.6 percent in the South, 

2.8 percent in the West, 2.7 percent 

in the Midwest, and 2.6 percent in 

the Northeast. 

In contrast to the regional patterns 

for the total population and older 

population that lived inside a metropolitan or micropolitan statistical 

area, the population 85 years and 

over maintained the same share 

of the population across three of 

the four census regions. In the 

Northeast, the Midwest, and the 

West, the population 85 years and 

over made up 0.4 percent of the 

total population that lived inside a 

metro or micro area. In the South, 

the population 85 years and over 

made up 0.6 percent. 

When the population living outside 

a metropolitan or micropolitan 

statistical area is examined, different findings emerge. Of the total 

population living outside a metro 

or micro area, 47.6 percent were 

located in the South, 33.3 percent 

in the Midwest, 11.7 percent in 

the West, and 7.4 percent in the 

Northeast. 

Of the U.S. population that lived 

outside metro or micro areas, 7.9 

percent were 65 years and over 

and in the South, 6.1 percent in the 

Midwest, 1.9 percent in the West, 

and 1.3 percent in the Northeast. 

Of the U.S. population that lived 

outside metro or micro areas, 0.9 

percent were 85 years and over and 

in the Midwest, 0.9 percent in the 

South, 0.2 percent in the West, and 

0.2 percent in the Northeast.

COUNTIES AND PLACES

Three of the top five counties 

with the greatest percentage 

of the population in the 

65 years and over age group 

are found in Florida.

When the older population is 

viewed at the county-level, patterns of distribution of people 65 

years and over generally follow 

the state and regional trends noted 
12 U.S. Census Bureau

earlier.14 Higher shares of the older 

population can be seen in counties across the Midwest, particularly the Great Plains and Northern 

Rocky Mountain area as well as the 

Northeastern Appalachia areas and 

clustered in states such as Florida 

and Arizona (Figure 6). The relatively high percentages of the population 65 years and over in much 

of the Great Plains and Appalachia 

areas is largely due to continued 

out-migration of the younger population and population aging of the 

older residents, known as “aging 

in place.” Clusters of counties with 

high percentages of the population 

65 years and over in states such as 

Florida and Arizona reflect a growing in-migration of retirees as these 

states also have notable growth 

in the size of the older population 

between 2000 and 2010.

In 2010, three of the top five 

counties with the highest percentages of the population in the age 

group 65 years and over were in 

Florida. The county with the highest share of the population 65 

years and over was Sumter County, 

Florida (43.4 percent), followed 

by Charlotte County, Florida (34.1 

percent), McIntosh County, North 

Dakota (34.0 percent), La Paz 

County, Arizona (32.6 percent), and 

Highlands County, Florida (32.2 

percent).

14 The primary legal divisions of most 

states are termed “counties.” In Louisiana, 

these divisions are known as parishes. In 

Alaska, which has no counties, the statistically equivalent entities are census areas, 

city and boroughs (as in Juneau City and 

Borough), a municipality (Anchorage), and 

organized boroughs. Census areas are 

delineated cooperatively for data presentation purposes by the state of Alaska and the 

U.S. Census Bureau. In four states (Maryland, 

Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia), there are one 

or more incorporated places that are independent of any county organization and thus 

constitute primary divisions of their states; 

these incorporated places are known as “independent cities” and are treated as equivalent 

to counties for data presentation purposes. 

The District of Columbia has no primary 

divisions, and the entire area is considered 

equivalent to a county and a state for data 

presentation purposes.

In Sumter County, Florida, Charlotte 

County, Florida, La Paz County, 

Arizona, and Highlands County, 

Florida the population 65 years 

and over increased between 2000 

and 2010. The high percentage 

of residents in these counties 

that were 65 years and over thus 

largely reflects the fact that these 

areas were popular retiree destinations. Conversely, in McIntosh 

County, North Dakota, the older 

population decreased between 

2000 and 2010. Although still 

maintaining a large share of the 

older population, the population 

decline in this county likely indicates that a degree of out-migration 

is occurring for younger ages and 

the remaining older adults are 

“aging in place.”

Similar to patterns noted with the 

population 65 years and over, the 

percentage of the population in 

the oldest-old ages also clusters 

in the Great Plains area as well as 

areas in Southern Florida (Figure 6). 

Reflective of the “aging in place” 

of the older population in the 

Midwest, the county with the highest percentage of the population 85 

years and over was Hooker County, 

Nebraska (8.3 percent), followed 

by McIntosh County, North Dakota 

(7.5 percent), Divide County, North 

Dakota (6.5 percent), Traverse 

County, Minnesota (6.2 percent) 

and Jerauld County, South Dakota 

(6.1 percent).

Among counties that contained 

a population of at least 100 

people in the 65 and over age 

group in 2010, the number of 

people 65 years and over more 

than doubled in 20 counties 

in the United States between 

2000 and 2010. 

Growth in the number of people 65 

years and over was primarily in the 

Sierra Nevada and Rocky Mountain 

areas of the nation (Figure 7). 

Counties in Texas, Georgia, Alaska, 

and Virginia also experienced notable growth in the older population. 

Of these twenty counties that experienced at least a doubling of their 

population 65 years and over when 

the 65 and over population contained at least 100 people in 2010, 

four were located in Colorado, five 

in Georgia, five in Texas, three in 

Alaska, two in Virginia, and one in 

Florida. The five counties with the 

greatest percent change between 

2000 and 2010 are as follows: 

Summit County, Colorado, (180.3 

percent), Douglas County, Colorado 

(177.8 percent), Sumter County, 

Florida (177.3 percent), Denali 

Borough, Alaska (136.2 percent), 

and Eagle County, Colorado (135.2 

percent).

As shown in Figure 7, many counties in the Great Plains experienced 

population decline in the older 

ages as the number of people 65 

years and over decreased over the 

decade. Contributing to this decline 

in the Great Plains area was cohort 

aging, older age mortality, and 

out-migration.15

Patterns of growth for the oldestold population also follow patterns 

noted with the population 65 years 

and over (Figure 7). Counties in the 

Sierra Nevada and Rocky Mountain 

areas experienced the most pronounced growth while counties in 

the Great Plains to Central Texas 

areas and counties extending 

into areas of Louisiana, southern 

Arkansas, Mississippi, and Alabama 

display the most pronounced population decline in ages 85 years and 

over. 

15 A cohort is a group of people born 

during a specified period of time. For example, the relatively low number of births during the 1930s resulted in a small generation 

of people who aged into the 70 to 74 and 75 

to 79 year old age groups by 2010. 
U.S. Census Bureau 13

23.0 or more

19.0 to 22.9

15.0 to 18.9

11.0 to 14.9

Less than 11.0

U.S. percent 13.0

Percent 

Figure 6.

Percent 65 Years and Older and 85 Years and Older

by County: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Summary File 1.

3.5 or more

2.5 to 3.4

1.5 to 2.4

Less than 1.5

U.S. percent 1.8

Percent

85 Years and Older

65 Years and Older
14 U.S. Census Bureau

70.0 or more

35.0 to 69.9

15.1 to 34.9

0.0 to 15.0

Less than 0.0

Percent change

65 Years and Older

U.S.

change

15.1

Comparable data

not available

Figure 7.

Percent Change in Population 65 Years and Older and 

85 Years and Older by County: 2000 to 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

100.0 or more

29.6 to 99.9

0.0 to 29.5

-10.0 to -0.0

Less than -10.0

Not applicable

U.S.

change

29.6

Percent change

85 Years and Older 

Comparable data

not available

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1 and 2010 Census Summary File 1.
U.S. Census Bureau 15

All counties in Rhode Island 

and Maine contained higher 

percentages of the 65 years 

and older population than the 

nation.

Following similar regional level 

analyses earlier in the report, 

the Northeast and the Midwest 

contained large percentages of 

counties where the percentage 

of the population 65 years and 

over exceeded that of the nation. 

However, while the Northeast 

region of the United States showed 

the largest overall percentage 

of the population 65 years and 

over, there were higher percentages of counties in the Midwest 

that had shares of the population 

in the older age group (Table 4). 

Specifically, 83.4 percent of the 

counties in the Northeast and 

85.7 percent of the counties 

in the Midwest exceeded the 

U.S. percentage of the population 

65 years and over.16

There were also two states, both 

located in the Northeast, where the 

percentage of the population that 

was 65 years and over exceeded 

the U.S. percent in all counties. In 

both Maine and Rhode Island, 100 

percent of the counties within the 

states had shares of the population 

in the older ages that were greater 

than the national percentage of 

13.0 percent.

In addition to containing the greatest percentage of counties that 

had shares of the population 65 

years and over that were higher 

than the nation, the Northeast and 

the Midwest also contained the 

greatest share of counties with 

16 In 2010, the percentage of the population in the age group 65 years and over was 

13.0 percent for the nation. Of the 3,143 

total counties in the United States, 2,378 

counties (75.7 percent) exceeded the national 

percentage.

Table 4.

Counties Exceeding the U.S. Percent 65 Years and Older 

and 85 Years and Older by Region and State: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Area Total 

counties

Counties exceeding 

U.S. percent 65 years and over1

Counties exceeding 

U.S. percent 85 years and over2

Number Percent Number Percent

 United States . . . . . 3,143 2,378 75.7 1,871 59.5

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 181 83.4 183 84.3

Connecticut. . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6 75.0 7 87.5

Maine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 16 100.0 16 100.0

Massachusetts. . . . . . . . . . 14 10 71.4 12 85.7

New Hampshire. . . . . . . . . 10 7 70.0 7 70.0

New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9 42.9 16 76.2

New York. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 53 85.5 50 80.6

Pennsylvania. . . . . . . . . . . 67 63 94.0 61 91.0

Rhode Island. . . . . . . . . . . 5 5 100.0 5 100.0

Vermont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 12 85.7 9 64.3

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,055 904 85.7 854 80.9

Illinois. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 87 85.3 88 86.3

Indiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 75 81.5 55 59.8

Iowa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 93 93.9 95 96.0

Kansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 89 84.8 92 87.6

Michigan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 72 86.7 60 72.3

Minnesota. . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 67 77.0 75 86.2

Missouri. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 100 87.0 86 74.8

Nebraska. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 87 93.5 82 88.2

North Dakota. . . . . . . . . . . 53 47 88.7 48 90.6

Ohio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 73 83.0 58 65.9

South Dakota. . . . . . . . . . . 66 54 81.8 51 77.3

Wisconsin. . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 60 83.3 64 88.9

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,423 1,026 72.1 618 43.4

Alabama. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 55 82.1 29 43.3

Arkansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 64 85.3 47 62.7

Delaware. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 66.7 1 33.3

District of Columbia. . . . . . 1 – – – –

Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 51 76.1 31 46.3

Georgia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 91 57.2 39 24.5

Kentucky. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 87 72.5 38 31.7

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 30 46.9 12 18.8

Maryland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 12 50.0 11 45.8

Mississippi. . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 48 58.5 30 36.6

North Carolina. . . . . . . . . . 100 78 78.0 51 51.0

Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 65 84.4 46 59.7

South Carolina. . . . . . . . . . 46 36 78.3 10 21.7

Tennessee. . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 82 86.3 38 40.0

Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 175 68.9 128 50.4

Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 98 73.1 70 52.2

West Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . 55 52 94.5 37 67.3

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448 267 59.6 216 48.2

Alaska. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3 10.3 – –

Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10 66.7 5 33.3

California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 28 48.3 27 46.6

Colorado. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 34 53.1 28 43.8

Hawaii. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 80.0 3 60.0

Idaho. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 28 63.6 21 47.7

Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 49 87.5 43 76.8

Nevada. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 10 58.8 3 17.6

New Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . . 33 23 69.7 14 42.4

Oregon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 29 80.6 30 83.3

Utah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 11 37.9 7 24.1

Washington. . . . . . . . . . . . 39 26 66.7 25 64.1

Wyoming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 12 52.2 10 43.5

– Represents zero or rounds to 0.0

1

U.S. percent 65 years and older was 13.0 percent.

2

U.S. percent 85 years and older was 1.8 percent.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Summary File 1. 
16 U.S. Census Bureau

percentages of the population 

85 years and over that exceeded 

the national percentage.17 In the 

Northeast, 84.3 percent of counties 

exceeded the U.S. percentage 85 

years and over. In the Midwest, 

80.9 percent of counties exceeded 

the U.S. percentage 85 years and 

over. 

While more than half of the counties in the West and the South did 

exceed the national proportion of 

the population 65 years and over, 

the share of counties in the West 

and the South that exceeded the 

national percentage for both the 

65 years and older and 85 years 

and older population was lower 

than the share of counties in the 

Northeast and the Midwest. Higher 

rates of in-migration and fertility 

patterns in the West and the South 

for many counties contribute to 

the lower share of counties having proportions of the population 

65 years and over that exceeded 

the national figure.

Among places with a population 

of 100,000 or more, four of 

the ten places with the highest 

percentage of the population 

65 years and over were located 

in Florida.

Table 5 lists the ten places (among 

places with a population of 

100,000 or more) with the highest and lowest percentage of the 

population 65 years and over in 

2010.18 Of the ten places with the 

highest percentage of the population 65 years and over, five places 

were located in the South (four of 

which were in Florida), three in the 

West, and two in the Midwest. All 

17 In 2010, the percentage of the population in the age group 85 years and over was 

1.8 percent. Of the 3,143 total counties in the 

United States, 1,871 counties (59.5 percent) 

exceeded the national percentage. 18 The 2010 Census showed 282 places in 

the United States with 100,000 or more population. They included 273 incorporated places 

(including 5 city/county consolidations) and 

9 census designated places (CDPs) that were 

not legally incorporated.

ten places had percentages of the 

population in the age group 65 

years and over that were higher 

than the national percentage of 

13.0 percent.

Scottsdale city, Arizona contained 

the highest percentage of people 

65 years and over among places 

with 100,000 or more people in 

2010 (20.0 percent). Reflective of 

the growth in the older population between 2000 and 2010, the 

share of the population in the 65 

and over age group increased from 

2000, when the city was ranked 

ninth among places with the highest proportion of their population 

65 years and over.

Of the ten places with the lowest percentage of the population 

65 years and over, seven places 

were located in the West, two in 

the South, and one in the Midwest. 

Utah, Texas, and California each 

contained two places where the 

percentage of the population in 

the 65 years and over age group 

ranked in the bottom ten.

West Jordan city, Utah, contained 

the lowest percentage of people 65 

years and over among places with 

100,000 or more people in 2010 

(4.6 percent), followed by Killeen 

city, Texas (5.2 percent) and Frisco 

city, Texas (5.4 percent). In these 

places, as well as other places 

listed as having the lowest percentage of people 65 years and older, 

higher concentrations of people 

in the younger ages resulted in 

a smaller relative share of older 

adults in 2010. Many of the places 

listed in the lower panel of Table 5 

were suburbs of large metropolitan 

Table 5.

Ten Places With the Highest and Lowest Percentage of 

Their Population 65 Years and Older: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, 

see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Place1

Total population

Population 65 years and over

Number Percent

Highest percent 

65 years and over

Scottsdale city, AZ. . . . . . . . . . 217,385 43,471 20.0

Clearwater city, FL. . . . . . . . . . 107,685 21,330 19.8

Hialeah city, FL. . . . . . . . . . . . 224,669 42,864 19.1

Surprise city, AZ. . . . . . . . . . . 117,517 22,327 19.0

Urban Honolulu CDP, HI. . . . . 337,256 60,162 17.8

Metairie CDP, LA. . . . . . . . . . . 138,481 23,716 17.1

Cape Coral city, FL. . . . . . . . . 154,305 26,180 17.0

Warren city, MI. . . . . . . . . . . . . 134,056 21,644 16.1

Independence city, MO. . . . . . 116,830 18,769 16.1

Miami city, FL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399,457 63,987 16.0

Lowest percent 

65 years and over

West Jordan city, UT. . . . . . . . 103,712 4,817 4.6

Killeen city, TX. . . . . . . . . . . . . 127,921 6,618 5.2

Frisco city, TX. . . . . . . . . . . . . 116,989 6,298 5.4

Fontana city, CA. . . . . . . . . . . 196,069 11,084 5.7

Provo city, UT. . . . . . . . . . . . . 112,488 6,570 5.8

Gilbert town, AZ. . . . . . . . . . . . 208,453 12,628 6.1

Enterprise CDP, NV. . . . . . . . . 108,481 6,734 6.2

Moreno Valley city, CA. . . . . . . 193,365 12,134 6.3

Aurora city, IL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197,899 12,789 6.5

Thornton city, CO. . . . . . . . . . . 118,772 7,726 6.5

1

 Places of 100,000 or more total population. The 2010 Census showed 282 places in the United 

States with 100,000 or more population. They included 273 incorporated places (including 5 consolidated 

cities) and 9 census designated places (CDPs) that were not legally incorporated.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Summary File 1. 
U.S. Census Bureau 17

Table 6.

Ten Places With the Highest and Lowest Percentage of 

Their Population 85 Years and Older: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, 

see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Place1 Total 

population

Population 85 years and over

Number Percent

Highest percent 

85 years and over

Urban Honolulu CDP, HI. . . . . 337,256 11,781 3.5

Clearwater city, FL. . . . . . . . . . 107,685 3,725 3.5

Santa Rosa city, CA. . . . . . . . . 167,815 4,654 2.8

Warren city, MI. . . . . . . . . . . . . 134,056 3,636 2.7

Scottsdale city, AZ. . . . . . . . . . 217,385 5,821 2.7

Metairie CDP, LA. . . . . . . . . . . 138,481 3,665 2.6

Pueblo city, CO. . . . . . . . . . . . 106,595 2,818 2.6

Billings city, MT. . . . . . . . . . . . 104,170 2,749 2.6

Springfield city, MO. . . . . . . . . 159,498 4,209 2.6

Rockford city, IL. . . . . . . . . . . . 152,871 3,970 2.6

Lowest percent 

85 years and over

West Jordan city, UT. . . . . . . . 103,712 390 0.4

Enterprise CDP, NV. . . . . . . . . 108,481 423 0.4

Frisco city, TX. . . . . . . . . . . . . 116,989 470 0.4

Killeen city, TX. . . . . . . . . . . . . 127,921 524 0.4

Gilbert town, AZ. . . . . . . . . . . . 208,453 999 0.5

North Las Vegas city, NV. . . . . 216,961 1,068 0.5

Fontana city, CA. . . . . . . . . . . 196,069 1,020 0.5

West Valley City city, UT. . . . . 129,480 689 0.5

Moreno Valley city, CA. . . . . . . 193,365 1,083 0.6

Miramar city, FL. . . . . . . . . . . . 122,041 725 0.6

1

 Places of 100,000 or more total population. The 2010 Census showed 282 places in the United 

States with 100,000 or more population. They included 273 incorporated places (including 5 consolidated 

cities) and 9 census designated places (CDPs) that were not legally incorporated.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Summary File 1. 

areas where residents aged 18 

to 64 (working ages) and under 

18 years made up greater shares 

of the total population. To note, 

Killeen city, Texas was associated 

with the Fort Hood military base, 

which contributed to the lower 

percentage of people 65 years and 

over. Provo city, Utah is home to a 

large university that contributes to 

the lower share of older adults.

Among places with a 

population of 100,000 or 

more, the places with the 

highest and lowest proportion 

of their population in the 

85 and over age group were 

located in the West. 

Of the ten places with a population of 100,000 or more with 

the highest percentage of their 

population 85 years and over, five 

were located in the West, three 

in the Midwest, and two in the 

South (Table 6). Four of the places 

appearing among the top ten in 

Table 6 for having a high percentage of their population in the 85 

years and over age group are also 

listed among the top ten places 

for percentage of the population in 

the 65 years and over age group. 

This includes Urban Honolulu CDP, 

Hawaii; Clearwater city, Florida; 

Warren city, Michigan; and Metairie 

CDP, Louisiana. 

The place with the highest percentage of its population in 

the 85 and over age group was 

Urban Honolulu CDP, located in 

Hawaii (3.5 percent), followed by 

Clearwater city, Florida (3.5 percent) and Santa Rosa city, California 

(2.8 percent).19 Interestingly, 

Florida, which contained more 

places among the top ten places 

with the highest proportion of their 

population in the 65 years and over 

age group than other states, contains only one place on the list of 

the top ten places for the highest 

percentage of their population in 

the 85 years and over age group.

While the West contained the most 

places among the top ten places 

with the highest proportion of their 

population 85 years and over, the 

West also had seven cities listed 

among the top ten places with the 

lowest percentage of their population 85 years and over (Table 6). 

Specifically, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, 

and California were states in the 

West that contained places with low 

percentages of their population 85 

years and over. The place with the 

lowest percentage of its population in the 85 and over age group, 

West Jordan city, Utah (0.4 percent), 

was also the place with the lowest 

percentage of its population in the 

65 years and over age group.

The South had three places appearing on the list of the ten places 

with the lowest proportion of their 

population in the oldest-old age 

group. Two of the southern places 

were located in Texas while one 

was located in Florida. 

19 Urban Honolulu CDP, Hawaii, has a 

higher percentage of its population in the 85 

years and over age group than Clearwater 

city, Florida, when the percent is rounded to 

two decimal places. However, for data presentation purposes, only one decimal place 

appears in the table.
18 U.S. Census Bureau

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON 

THE OLDER POPULATION

At what age were there almost 

twice as many women as 

men?20

In the 2010 Census, there were 

approximately twice as many 

women as men at age 89 (361,309 

compared with 176,689, respectively). This point occurred about 

4 years older than it did in 2000, 

and 6 years older than it did in 

1990. This increase is further 

evidence of the narrowing gap in 

mortality between men and women 

occurring at the older ages.

How many people 65 years and 

over lived in skilled-nursing 

facilities in 2010?

Approximately 1.3 million people 65 years and over were in 

skilled-nursing facilities in 2010 

(Table 7).21 This represents 3.1 

percent of the total population 65 

years and over. 

Of the population 65 years and 

over in skilled-nursing facilities in 

2010, there were about 2.5 times 

the number of women 65 years and 

over than men 65 years and over 

(891,873 and 360,762, respectively). Males were most likely to be 

concentrated in the 75 to 84 year 

old age group in skilled-nursing 

facilities (137,850) followed by 

the 85 to 94 year old age group 

(120,089) and then the 65 to 74 

year old group (88,814). Women, 

on the other hand, were more 

concentrated in the 85 to 94 year 

old age group (409,600), followed 

by the 75 to 84 year old group 

20 This finding originally appeared in the 

U.S. Census Bureau brief on age and sex, 

issued May 2011. See U.S. Census Bureau, 

2011, Age and Sex Composition: 2010, by 

Lindsay M. Howden and Julie A. Meyer, 2010 

Census Briefs, C2010BR-03, available at 

<www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs

/c2010br-03.pdf>. 21 Skilled-nursing facilities are considered 

group quarters. The 2010 Census definition 

for group quarters can be found at 

<www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1

.pdf>.

(282,940) and the 65 to 74 year old 

age group (108,496).

As age increases, the share of the 

older population in a skilled-nursing 

facility also increases. In 2010, 0.9 

percent of the total population 65 

to 74 years old resided in a nursing 

home compared with 24.7 percent 

of the population 95 and over, and 

32.3 percent of the population 100 

and above. Females were more 

likely to be in a nursing home as 

they aged compared with males. 

In 2010, 3.9 percent of females 

65 years and over were in skillednursing facilities compared with 2.1 

percent of males 65 years and over. 

For both males and females, 0.9 

percent of people 65 to 74 years old 

were in a nursing home. However, 

only 15.3 percent of males 95 years 

and over were in a nursing home 

compared with 27.3 percent of 

females 95 years and over.

How many centenarians were 

there in the 2010 Census?22

In the 2010 Census, there were 

53,364 centenarians, defined as 

people 100 years and over. This is 

a 5.8 percent increase from 2000 

when there were 50,454 people 

who were at least 100 years old. 

Of the total population in 2010, 

1 out of every 5,786 people was a 

centenarian. 

Females outnumbered males in the 

centenarian population. In 2010, 

there were 9,162 males and 44,202 

females who were 100 years and 

over. Females made up 82.8 percent 

22 The centenarian population can potentially be affected by data quality issues, such 

as age misreporting by respondents. For 

more information about data quality at the 

extreme older ages, please see U.S. Census 

Bureau, 1999, Centenarians in the United 

States: 1990 by Constance Krach and Victoria 

Velkoff, Current Population Reports, Series 

P23-199RV, available at <www.census.gov

/prod/99pubs/p23-199.pdf>.

Table 7.

Population 65 Years and Older in Skilled-Nursing Facilities 

by Selected Age Groups and Sex: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, 

see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Sex and age Total population 

In skilled-nursing facilities

Number Percent

Both sexes, all ages . . . . . . . . . . . 308,745,538 1,502,264 0 .5

 Total 65 years and over . . . . . . . 40,267,984 1,252,635 3 .1

65 to 74 years ................. 21,713,429 197,310 0.9

75 to 84 years ................. 13,061,122 420,790 3.2

85 to 94 years ................. 5,068,825 529,689 10.4

95 years and over .............. 424,608 104,846 24.7

 95 to 99 years ............... 371,244 87,621 23.6

 100 years and over ........... 53,364 17,225 32.3

Male, all ages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151,781,326 500,185 0 .3

 Total 65 years and over . . . . . . . 17,362,960 360,762 2 .1

65 to 74 years ................. 10,096,519 88,814 0.9

75 to 84 years ................. 5,476,762 137,850 2.5

85 to 94 years ................. 1,698,254 120,089 7.1

95 years and over .............. 91,425 14,009 15.3

 95 to 99 years ............... 82,263 12,345 15.0

 100 years and over ........... 9,162 1,664 18.2

Female, all ages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156,964,212 1,002,079 0 .6

 Total 65 years and over . . . . . . . 22,905,024 891,873 3 .9

65 to 74 years ................. 11,616,910 108,496 0.9

75 to 84 years ................. 7,584,360 282,940 3.7

85 to 94 years ................. 3,370,571 409,600 12.2

95 years and over .............. 333,183 90,837 27.3

 95 to 99 years ............... 288,981 75,276 26.0

 100 years and over ........... 44,202 15,561 35.2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Summary File 1. 
U.S. Census Bureau 19

of the total centenarian population 

while males made up 17.2 percent. 

Of the total U.S. female population, 

1 out of every 3,551 females was a 

centenarian. Of the total U.S. male 

population, 1 out of every 16,566 

males was a centenarian.

ABOUT THE 2010 CENSUS

Why was the 2010 Census 

conducted?

The U.S. Constitution mandates 

that a census be taken in the 

United States every 10 years. This 

is required in order to determine 

the number of seats each state 

is to receive in the U.S. House of 

Representatives. Age data are used 

to determine the voting age population (age 18 and older) for use in 

the legislative redistricting process.

Why did the 2010 Census ask 

the question on age?

The Census Bureau collects data on 

age to support a variety of legislative and program requirements. 

These data are also used to aid in 

the allocation of funds from federal 

programs, in particular to programs 

targeting the older population. This 

includes planning for hospitals, 

roads, and housing assistance. 

For example, the Department of 

Veterans Affairs uses census data 

to plan for nursing homes, hospitals, cemeteries, domiciliary 

services, and veterans benefits; the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services uses age data as part of 

the formula used to allocate funds 

for services to seniors with low 

incomes under the Older Americans 

Act; and the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission uses age 

data to enforce equal employment 

opportunities. These data are also 

used to forecast the number of 

people eligible for Social Security 

and Medicare benefits.

How are data on age beneficial?

Federal, state and local governments need information on age 

to implement, evaluate, and aid 

programs that plan and develop 

services for older adults. This 

includes, but is not limited to, the 

Equal Employment Opportunity 

Act, the Older Americans Act, the 

Nutrition Education Program, the 

Rehabilitation Act, the Long Term 

Care Ombudsman Services for 

Older Americans Program, and the 

Supportive Housing for the Elderly 

Program.

Other important uses for census 

data on age are in the planning and 

funding of services for the older 

population, such as health service 

centers, retirement homes, assisted 

living or skilled-nursing facilities, 

transportation availability, Social 

Security, and Medicare benefits. 

Census data can also be used by 

the private sector to determine 

business locations and advertising 

for goods and services targeting 

older adults, investment planning, employment opportunities, 

and specialized consumer needs. 

Researchers can use age data to 

project future population trends, 

assess mortality patterns, evaluate 

shifts in the geographic distribution 

of the older population, and plan 

ways to better serve the needs of a 

given community.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

For more information on age in the 

United States, visit the U.S. Census 

Bureau’s Internet site at

<www.census.gov/population

/www/socdemo/age/>.

Data on age and sex from the 

2010 Census Summary File 1 provide information at the state level 

and below and are available on 

the Internet at <factfinder2

.census.gov/main.html> and on 

DVD. Information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, 

and definitions is available on the 

Census Bureau’s Internet site at 

<www.census.gov/prod/cen2010

/doc/sf1.pdf>.

Information on other population 

and housing topics is presented 

in the 2010 Census Briefs series, 

located on the U.S. Census Bureau’s 

Web site at <www.census.gov

/prod/cen2010/>. This series 

presents information about race, 

Hispanic origin, age, sex, household 

type, housing tenure, and people 

who reside in group quarters.

For more information about the 

2010 Census, including data products, call the Customer Services 

Center at 1-800-923-8282. You 

can also visit the Census Bureau’s 

Question and Answer Center at 

<ask.census.gov> to submit your 

questions online.