6.c SUPPORTING DOC 2014 Senior Housing Demand Assessment
Prepared
Conso
Woodb
Novem
d for:
ortium of
bury, Min
mber 20
Affor
f Housin
nnesota
14
An
dable S
ng Autho
n Asses
Senior
orities an
ssment
Housin
nd Privat
t of Dem
ng in M
te Devel
1221
Suite
Minne
612.3
www.
mand F
Minneso
opers
Nicollet Aven
218
eapolis, MN 5
38.0012
.maxfieldrese
For
ota
nue
55403
earch.com
612‐338‐0012 (fax) 612‐904‐7979
1221 Nicollet Mall, Suite 218, Minneapolis, MN 55403
www.maxfieldresearch.com
November 20, 2014
Consortium of Housing Authorities and Private Developers
c/o Ms. Barbara Dacy
Executive Director
Washington County HRA
7525 Currell Boulevard
Woodbury, MN 55125
Dear Ms. Dacy:
Attached is our report “An Assessment of Demand for Affordable Senior Housing in Minneso‐
ta.” Based on an analysis of older adult population and household estimates and projections,
an analysis of incomes, tenure trends, home values, and existing affordable housing units in
Minnesota, we find:
The number of age‐ and income‐qualified one‐ and two‐person households 55+ in Minnesota
that can qualify for affordable age‐restricted housing in 2014 is estimated at 149,723 house‐
holds after accounting for a supply of 23,472 units. This figure is expected to rise to 219,873 by
2020 after accounting for an increase in the supply to 23,750 units. Utilizing a short‐term cap‐
ture rate of 10% of age and income‐qualified households results in a need for 15,000 units of af‐
fordable senior housing in 2014, increasing to 23,000 by 2020.
“Affordable” is defined as renter households (55+) with estimated 2014 incomes of $30,000 or
less for one and two‐person households and one‐ and two‐person owner households with in‐
comes of $20,000 or less. The income‐qualified household base was adjusted for 2020 to ac‐
count for inflation to include 55+ renter households with incomes of $35,000 or less and 55+
owner households with incomes of $25,000 or less.
At a minimum, the construction of 400 units per year split between the Twin Cities Metro Area
and Greater Minnesota for the next five years, (2,000 total units), would result in a market pen‐
etration rate of the age/income‐qualified household base of only 0.3% in 2014, increasing to
0.9% by 2020.
Since the early 2000s, the Department of Human Services (DHS) has surveyed counties in Min‐
nesota to provide information on service capacity for various programs. Between 2008 and
2012, the responding counties combined had a 15% increase in the use of Elderly Waivers1 in
1 Elderly Waivers are available to households age 65+ who are Medicaid eligible and have personal care needs that are at the
level of a skilled nursing facility, but the household elects to receive these services in a home or community‐based setting.
Consortiu
MAXFIELD
Minneso
assistanc
Independ
particula
pected to
must at l
some lim
Independ
$35,000
in severa
ing lists,
idents of
such as t
provide m
Therefor
Those mo
the high
or are un
Sincerely
MAXFIEL
Mary Buj
Presiden
Attachm
um of Housi
D RESEARCH I
ta demonstr
ce to pay for
dent housing
rly for low‐i
o need a lev
east provide
mited health
dent age‐res
have already
al locations t
but their ava
f these prope
hose mentio
more efficien
e, the need
ost difficult t
cost of priva
nable to obta
y,
LD RESEARCH
jold
t
ent
ng Authoriti
NC.
rating that a
support ser
g with limite
ncome senio
el of service
e some basic
care oversig
stricted hous
y proven hig
hroughout t
ailability is s
erties would
oned above
ncy of servic
for these fa
to serve are
ate pay mark
ain affordab
H INC.
ies and Priva
an increasing
rvices.
ed services a
or household
e that may no
c services su
ght.
sing affordab
ghly popular
the State. Th
everely limit
d be able to b
could be ad
ce delivery, b
cilities woul
older adult
ket rate seni
le age‐restri
ate Develope
g number of
nd features
ds. As senio
ot require as
ch as transp
ble to 55+ h
with older a
hese units re
ted due to lo
be better se
ded to these
but would al
d increase w
households
ior housing,
icted housin
ers
seniors (65+
targeted to
ors age in pla
ssisted living
portation, ho
ouseholds w
adult househ
emain in hig
ow turnover
erved if some
e facilities. T
lso reduce t
with the add
s in the midd
but do not i
ng because t
No
+) need add
o seniors is in
ace, the maj
g or higher c
ousekeeping
with incomes
holds in the
gh demand, m
r and growin
e limited, bu
This would r
urnover to s
ition of basi
dle, those wh
income‐qua
he propertie
ovember 20,
P
itional finan
n high dema
ority are ex‐
care facilities
g, meals and
s of less than
Metro Area
many with w
ng demand.
ut basic serv
reduce costs
some degree
c services.
ho cannot af
lify for Secti
es are full.
2014
age 2
cial
nd,
‐
s, but
n
a and
wait‐
Res‐
ices
s,
e.
fford
on 8
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 1
Key Findings ............................................................................................................. 3
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ................................................................................... 7
Study Purpose ................................................................................................................. 7
Scope of Services ............................................................................................................. 7
OLDER ADULT GROWTH TRENDS .................................................................................. 8
Aging Baby Boomers ....................................................................................................... 8
Retirement ...................................................................................................................... 8
MINNESOTA SENIOR GROWTH TRENDS AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS ......... 11
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 11
Total Population – 55+ .................................................................................................... 11
Older Adult Population and Household Estimates ......................................................... 11
Median Incomes and Income Ranges of Older Adults in Minnesota ............................. 15
Older Adult Households (65+ Housing Cost Burdens) .................................................... 16
Household Tenure of Older Adults ................................................................................. 17
OLDER ADULT HOUSING SUPPLY .................................................................................. 20
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 20
Housing Options for Older Adults in Minnesota ............................................................. 20
Housing Programs for Older Adults ................................................................................ 21
Section 8/Section 202 ..................................................................................................... 21
Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) ......................................................................... 21
USDA Rural Development (Section 515) ........................................................................ 22
County HRA and CDA Affordable Senior Housing Programs .......................................... 22
MN Housing Assisted Older Adult Households ............................................................... 23
Senior Housing with Services .......................................................................................... 27
Elderly Waiver Program .................................................................................................. 28
OLDER ADULT AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEMAND .......................................................... 31
Housing Demand ............................................................................................................. 31
Rental Costs in the Twin Cities Metro and in Greater Minnesota .................................. 31
Renter and Owner Households 55+ (2014) .................................................................... 31
Principal Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 37
ADDENDUM: Elderly Waivers and Alternative Care Grants .......................................... 39
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
APPENDIX ..................................................................................................................... 41
Minnesota Estimated Older Adult (55+) Populations by County .................................... 42
Proportion of Renter and Owner Households‐ Minnesota Counties ............................. 44
Number of 55+ Renter Households w/Incomes of $30,000 or Less, 2014 (1ph/2ph) .... 46
Number of 55+ Renter Households w/Incomes of $35,000 or Less, 2020 (1ph/2ph) .... 48
Median Household Incomes by Adult Age Cohort, Minnesota Counties, 2014 ............. 50
Counties with the Lowest Median Household Incomes by Older Age Cohort, 2014 ..... 52
Counties with Median Home Sales Price of Less than $100,000 (2014) ....................... 53
Elderly Rental – Rural Development, November 2014 ................................................... 54
Elderly Waiver Recipients by County for Minnesota, State Fiscal Year 2014 ................. 56
Alternative Care Grant Recipients by County for Minnesota, State Fiscal Year, 2014 ... 58
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number and Title Page
1. Total Population (55+) by Age Cohort, 2015 and 2030 ................................................... 12
2. Growth in Population (55+) by Age Cohort, 2015 to 2030 .............................................. 12
3. Estimated Number of Older Adults, 55+ Populations over 20,000, 2015 ....................... 13
4. Estimated Number of Older Adults, 55+ Populations 40% or More of Total, 2015 ........ 14
5. Counties with the Highest Proportion of Renter Households 55+, 2014 ........................ 19
6. Minnesota Care Costs, 2014 ............................................................................................ 27
7. Tabulation of Age/Income‐Qualified Households, Affordable Senior Housing, Minnesota,
November 2014 ............................................................................................................... 33
Chart Number and Title
1. 55+ Population in Minnesota, 2015 to 2030 ................................................................... 11
2. Total Population (55+) by Age Cohort, 2015 and 2030 ................................................... 12
3. Total Household Income 65+ Households – Minnesota .................................................. 15
4. Share of 65+ Households by Income Group, Minnesota ................................................. 16
5. Percent Homeownership and Renting by Age ................................................................. 19
6. Highest Number of Elderly Waivers, State Fiscal Year ’14 .............................................. 40
7. Percent of EW to 65+ Population, State Fiscal Year ’14 .................................................. 41
Figure Number and Title
3. Share of Section 8 Householders who are Age 62 or Older by County, 2012 ................. 25
4. Share of Householders in Properties Financed by Minnesota Housing (Non‐Section 8)
Who Are Age 62 or Older, by County .............................................................................. 26
Map Number and Title
1. 2014 Projected 55+ Households with Incomes of $30,000 or less .................................. 35
2. 2020 Projected 55+ Households with Incomes of $35,000 or less .................................. 36
SUMMARY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 1
Principal Conclusions
Based on the analysis, Maxfield Research identifies the following key conclusions:
People age 55 years and older are projected to increase from an estimated 1.57 million
in 2015 to 1.83 million by 2020, an increase of 260,000 people, an increase of 16.6% in
five years.
This increase in the senior population will create significant additional demand for hous‐
ing and care services;
Households age and income‐qualified for “affordable” senior housing are estimated to
total 149,723 in 2014, increasing to 219,879 by 2020. Using a short‐term capture rate of
10% of age and income‐qualified households, we conservatively estimate demand for
14,972 units of affordable age‐restricted housing in 2014 increasing to 22,988 by 2020,
an increase of 54%.
Older adults need housing with rent levels that are affordable to their incomes and in‐
creased access to chore and care services;
Rental costs in the Twin Cities continue to escalate and vacancies are low; in
some areas, severely low;
The high cost of rental housing production throughout the State has greatly lim‐
ited the construction of independent living senior units in Greater Minnesota.
Cost burden rates for seniors are higher than for non‐seniors and they increase as
households get older. Fifty‐four percent (54%) of senior renters and 26% of senior own‐
ers spend 30% or more of their income on housing versus 46% of non‐senior renters and
24% of non‐senior owner households. As households age, they pay a higher proportion
of their income on housing. The current gap is expected to widen as the proportion of
older adults increases.
According to the Wilder Foundation’s Statewide 2012 Homeless Study, older adults
(55+) had the largest percentage increase in homelessness since the 2009 study.
Statewide, 777 homeless adults age 55 or older were counted in the 2012 study, up
from 526 in 2009, a 48% increase. Adults 55+ represent 8% of the homeless population
and 26% of the total population in Minnesota. In Greater Minnesota, the survey found
double the number of homeless older adults (55+) not using shelter. Shelters in Greater
Minnesota are often found to be at capacity. Older adults on fixed incomes are often in
precarious economic situations and when rents are increased, they may find themselves
not being able to pay rent, buy food and take care of medical expenses on small in‐
comes.
SUMMARY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 2
Many seniors are likely to outlive their assets or may not be able to access those assets
(selling their single‐family homes) because of:
lack of demand for the single‐family home from younger households
higher levels of debt on existing homes (continued mortgage balances)
lack of affordable housing options in their communities
The highest proportion of households age 65 or older have household incomes of
$10,000 to $30,000.
A majority of low income seniors that have a disability, rent their housing.
Housing cost burdens increase the older the household.
Affordable housing options are scarce.
Federal funding has been cut back and further cuts are anticipated.
Existing housing typically has long waiting lists.
SUMMARY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 3
Key Findings
Dramatic population growth
Housing an aging population and providing “affordable” housing for older adults is already a
prevalent topic of discussion and research across the Nation, involving some of the largest elder
organizations in the country. These concerns will rapidly become a reality over the next 15
years as the baby boom generation becomes the largest older adult population in our nation’s
history.
In Minnesota, people age 55 and over are projected to increase from an estimated 1.5 million in
2015 to more than 2.1 million by 2030, an increase of 39% versus an overall increase in the to‐
tal population during this same period of 8.9%. In terms of sheer volume alone, the number of
older adults that will need assistance with housing and those that will need services will rise
dramatically.
Market Rate Age‐Restricted (55+) Housing
Market rate age‐restricted housing has continued to proliferate in the U.S. with healthcare or‐
ganizations and private developers that have responded to demand from upper‐middle income
and affluent households to provide housing and services. However, the rapidly rising costs of
providing this housing are often beyond the reach of low‐ and moderate income older adult
households, particularly older adult renter households, whose average net worth is estimated
at $6,100 (Survey of Consumer Finances – 2010). Costs for housing with services are increasing
at rates of between 3% and 6% annually according to national surveys. Minnesota’s cost in‐
creases at private pay facilities also fall within this range.
Older Adults Owning and Renting
Maxfield Research Inc. has been documenting household tenure trends in the Twin Cities Metro
Area and in the State of Minnesota for 30 years through our real estate consulting practice. Be‐
tween 2000 and 2010, Maxfield Research Inc. has noted a modest shift downward in a number
of submarkets in the proportion of those ages 55 to 64 that own their housing. Typically very
high, the proportion of ownership in this age category has started to decrease. Some of this
decrease can be attributed to baby boomers making a shift in their living arrangements, from
owning to renting at an earlier age than did their parents. While more affluent baby boomers
are able to support their retirement years through investments and home equity, the increased
longevity of the baby boom generation may result in a portion of boomers exhausting their as‐
sets earlier than planned. With the sheer size of this generation, even a small proportion (10%
to 15%) could result in a large number of people that will not be able to afford their housing
and service needs.
SUMMARY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 4
Households Living Alone
Currently more than 28% of households now live alone in the US and demographers project
that his figure will rise substantially due to the aging of the baby boom generation an increase
in more people’s preferences for living alone. While the figure above includes a high propor‐
tion of young people, many baby boomers are living alone because they have either remained
single all of their lives or are divorced or widowed. For those that have never had children,
there will be no generation below them to provide care and financial support as has been the
case with most of the current generation. Inevitably, this responsibility will fall to the State and
Federal government. There are predictions that some baby boomers may never be able to re‐
tire or at least not retire until they are will into their 70s and possibly 80s.
Disability and Housing Cost Burdens
In Minnesota, older adult households at lower incomes are more likely to have disabilities. Of
households age 65 or older with incomes of 50% or less of AMI and a disability, 62% rent their
housing. For those with incomes between 51% and 80% of AMI and a disability, 51% rent their
housing. Households age 65 or older that have a disability at all income levels consistently rent
their housing.
Housing cost burdens increase the older the senior household. In Minnesota, an estimated 25%
of 85+ households spend 50% or more of their income for housing. An estimated 31% of 65+
household with incomes of 50% or less of AMI spend 50% or more of their income for housing.
Typically, households that are renting an apartment are not allowed to make alterations to
their units. If there is a need for additional accessibility, this may not be available to the tenant
in a typical apartment.
Affordable Older Adult Housing and Services
The need for affordable housing and affordable care services for the upcoming generation is
likely to reach critical proportions within the next 25 years, but already boomers with limited
resources, including lower wages and those that have never owned a home, are turning to af‐
fordable housing. Those with the lowest incomes, 30% or less of Area Median Income (AMI)
are seeing options become increasingly scarce. No new Federally‐funded Section 8 housing is
being constructed and many properties that were once restricted to those 62+ are now at least
partially or in some cases, mostly filled with those under age 62 that have physical or cognitive
limitations. Many have waiting lists that extend for several months up to five years or more.
Housing Choice Voucher waiting lists are also five or more years and many waiting lists have
been closed to new applications in the Twin Cities for several years.
SUMMARY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 5
Survey Data and Census Data
Some surveys of empty‐nesters 55 to 64, indicate that they would prefer to remain in their
homes rather than relocate. However, national data is not bearing out this finding. Since the
inception of the senior housing industry (late 1970s/early 1980s), the benchmark level of sen‐
iors living in senior housing was projected at 15% as market saturation. With the broad spec‐
trum of product that is now available to 55+ households in the market, many communities have
surpassed this benchmark and the proportion of those 55 or older living in age‐restricted hous‐
ing is still rising.
Changes in lifestyles and the proliferation of housing products to serve populations age 55
years or older has resulted in increased market penetration by older adults that have elected to
reside in properties that provide features and services targeted to serve their needs. As of
2013, the number of age 65+ households residing in age‐restricted housing in the Twin Cities
Metro Area had reached 18%, excluding housing that serves very low‐income seniors, which
would raise this proportion even higher.
As older adults age into their 70s, they are more likely to move from their single‐family homes
and are more likely to rent their housing, according to national statistics from the US Census
American Community Survey. Therefore, despite many preference surveys that identify 55+
older adult households as desiring to remain in their single‐family homes indefinitely, the reality
is that increasing numbers of older adults relocate either voluntarily or involuntarily because of
a health issue or the death of a spouse.
According to data provided by the American Community Survey through the US Census Bureau,
the highest proportion of households age 65 or older have household incomes of $10,000 to
$30,000. Roughly 180,000 age 65+ households in Minnesota or xx% of the total had annual in‐
comes of less than $28,000 (roughly half of the state median income).
Rental Housing Costs Increasing
For 65+ households with incomes of less than $28,000, their median annual income is only
$16,000. Therefore, housing costs for those earning the median would need to be $400 per
month to be considered affordable. While some apartment rental rates in greater Minnesota
are at this level, the housing product is typically not accessible (i.e. does not have an elevator,
may only have stairs, may not be wheelchair accessible or other factors which limit the ability of
seniors to be able to reside in these general market properties. In the Twin Cities, the average
rental rate for a studio apartment is $759 per month and the average rental rate for a one‐
bedroom is $875. Clearly, average Twin Cities Metro Area rents are unaffordable to this group.
SUMMARY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 6
In Greater Minnesota, the lack of affordable housing options for low and moderate‐income sen‐
iors, especially those with homes that have modest values, creates a gap in the market whereby
a proportion of seniors have insufficient assets to relocate to market rate facilities. Although
Elderly Waivers provide an option for these households that need services, an increasing num‐
ber of market rate assisted living facilities will often not accept seniors that have not been ad‐
mitted first as private pay. This is primarily due to the low reimbursement rates under the El‐
derly Waiver program versus the cost of care.
Rise in Homelessness among Older Adults (55+)
According to the most recent Wilder Foundation Statewide Homeless Report (2012), older
adults (55+) experienced the largest percentage increase in homelessness among all of the age
cohorts since the 2009 study. The 2012 report counted 777 homeless older adults age 55 years
or older, up from 526 homeless older adults in 2009, a 48% increase.
The 2012 study also found that the number of homeless older adults (55+) not utilizing shelter
in Greater Minnesota had doubled since the last survey in 2009.
Additional key findings from the 2012 homeless report include:
Homeless older adults are the fastest growing segment of the homeless population.
Males, African Americans and military veterans continue to be overrepresented among
older homeless adults.
About half of older adults did not become homeless until they were age 50 or older;
most are unemployed.
Income support is a critical aspect of support for older homeless adults. While older
homeless adults had a higher median monthly income compared to homeless adults
under age 55 ($400 vs $342), they relied more on General Assistance and Social Security
for their income than homeless adults under age 55.
Sixty‐nine (69) percent of older homeless adults reported having chronic health prob‐
lems. High blood pressure, diabetes, and chronic lung problems were the conditions
most often reported. In addition, 41% reported having chronic or persistent mental
health problems.
Forty‐five (45) percent of older homeless adults reported they could pay $200 or less
per month for rent. The median amount that older homeless adults said they could pay
was $226.
SUMMARY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 7
More than one‐quarter of homeless adults said they needed assistance in applying or
reapplying for benefits. Older adults often turn to family for assistance in this area, but
43% of older homeless adults reported they were disconnected from their families.
Decline in Affordable Housing Funding for Older Adults and Seniors
Programs to provide affordable housing for 55+ and 62+ households have been substantially
reduced throughout the US and in Minnesota including project‐based Section 8 and Section
202. Minnesota Housing’s point system for LIHTC funding favors non‐senior affordable devel‐
opment. Rural Development funding is available, but is restricted to geographic areas outside
of the Twin Cities Metro Area. HRAs/CDAs have provided affordable senior units, but are also
trying to manage scarce resources among all of their constituencies. These units have largely
filled rapidly, maintain high occupancies and have substantial waiting lists. The need is much
greater than the available supply.
Age and Income‐Qualified Market and Market Penetration
As of 2012, there were an estimated 183,605 households with incomes of less than 50% of the
state’s adjusted median income (AMI)2. The median income for this group was approximately
$16,000 and accounted for 39% of all 65+ households.
In calculating the potential demand for affordable housing units that would serve low and
moderate income households age 55 or older in Minnesota, Maxfield Research identified a total
of 149,723 households that would be age and income/qualified in 2014. This figure is projected
to rise to 219,879 by 2020 or an increase of 70,156 new households over the period, an average
of 11,700 households annually. These figures account for low‐ and moderate‐income house‐
holds that are already being assisted through other units.
Developing a minimum of 400 units per year of affordable age‐restricted rental housing over
the next five years (from 2015 to 2020 – a total of 2,000 units) would result in a market pene‐
tration rate of the age and income‐qualified 55+ household group of 0.3%, increasing to 0.9%
by 2020. The age and income‐qualified market for affordable age‐restricted housing is project‐
ed to increase by 47% between 2014 and 2020.
2 MN Housing, Profile of Older Minnesotans, 2012.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 8
Study Purpose
Maxfield Research Inc. was engaged by a consortium of Housing and Redevelopment Authori‐
ties to complete an assessment of the potential demand for affordable senior housing in the
State of Minnesota. In the past, older adults and seniors with moderate and low incomes were
primarily assisted through the following housing programs: HUD Section 8 and HUD Section
202. Some additional programs such as the Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC)
were utilized for some properties in the mid‐to late 1990s or have been used very intermittent‐
ly in some locations in the State. Other programs that have been put in place to assist moder‐
ate‐income older adults and seniors include programs that are financed and operated through
local County HRAs including Dakota, Carver, Scott and Washington Counties in the Twin Cities
Metro Area. Rural Development’s 515 program has also provided assistance for the develop‐
ment of senior housing in greater Minnesota. Rural Development programs are not available
for urban areas such as the Twin Cities 7‐County Metro (except on the very fringes).
Scope of Services
The scope of this study includes current estimates of the older adult and senior populations in‐
cluding those age 55+, those age 65+ and age 75+. Those age 75 or older are often in need of
additional care services. Information was compiled on the number of senior households that
are assisted each year through MN Housing through Section 8 and non‐Section 8 properties. In
addition, we inventoried the number of Rural Development properties classified as elderly.
Many of the HUD properties that were at one time exclusively restricted to people age 62 or
older, now accept those 62 years or older and also accept those younger than age 62 that have
a proven limitation, either physical or cognitive. Depending on the location of these properties,
seniors are more reluctant to locate in properties that are mixed age because they perceive
they are more vunerable.
This report includes information gathered from the following sources:
o U.S. Census Bureau
o Ribbon Demographics
o ESRI Inc.
o Minnesota State Demographer
o USDA – Rural Development
o Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
o MN Housing
o Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors
o Minnesota Department of Health and Human Services
o AARP
OLDER ADULT GROWTH TRENDS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 9
Americans are aging as a society. Despite immigration and a modest increase in the birth rate
in recent years, the median age in the US also continues to climb (37.6 years as of 2014). The
Baby Boom generation, one of the largest in our Nation’s history (people born between 1946
and 1964) are now ages 50 to 68 years. Over the next ten years, this generation will be moving
fully into their senior years.
Some facts about the Baby Boom generation:
The first Baby Boomer turned 65 on January 1, 2011.
An American turns 50 every 7 seconds which is more than 12,500 people every day ac‐
cording to the US Census.
More people were age 65 or older in 2010 than in any previous census. The population
65 years or older increased at a faster rate (15.1%) than the total U.S. population (9.7%).
(US Census)
By 2015, those aged 50 and older will represent 45% of the US population (AARP).
Retirement
In the United States, retirement has reached a critical point. Seventy‐seven million baby boom‐
ers are slated to retire over the next 20 years, with approximately 10,000 reaching retirement
age every day, while 401k accounts have been drained by the recession, pension systems are
strained and Social Security coffers are being drained of money. The median amount of 401K
savings in baby boomer retirement accounts is $120,000. This would allow for an annual with‐
drawl of about 4% per year ($4,800 annually) not to exhaust savings in retirement.
Here are some worrisome facets of the looming U.S. retirement crisis:
The unplanned retirement
Americans have never excelled at retirement planning, but the economic downturn has made
them even less prepared. More than 60% of workers in a recent survey said they've lost confi‐
dence in their retirement plans since 2007, according to the Transamerica Center for Retire‐
ment Studies. The survey also found that more than half (54%) of workers in their 60s said they
haven't saved enough to sustain themselves for the rest of their life.
A recent report from the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) found similar results. Just
14% of those surveyed were very confident they will have enough money to live comfortably in
retirement. Even more shocking? Sixty percent of workers reported that the total value of their
households' savings and investments (not including the value of their homes and any official re‐
tirement benefit plans) was less than $25,000.
OLDER ADULT GROWTH TRENDS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 10
The 80‐year‐old worker
Though 65 is considered the official retirement age in the United States (the year someone
born in 1947 or earlier is eligible to receive Social Security benefits), the reality is much differ‐
ent. Eighty‐six percent of workers in their 60s predict they will work past age 65, according to
the Transamerica report. And one quarter of middle‐class Americans plan to delay retirement
until they are at least 80 years old (current life expectancy in the U.S. is 78), according to a
Wells Fargo poll in November 2013. Essentially, 25% of Americans are planning to work until
they die.
Too sick to retire
According to a recent report from Fidelity Investments, a 65‐year‐old couple this year would
need an estimated $240,000 to cover medical costs through retirement (and that is including
traditional Medicare coverage), a 50% increase since Fidelity first did the study in 2002, and up
from $230,000 last year.
At the same time, most people have no idea how much they need to save for medical costs in
old age. In a Nationwide Financial survey, boomers guessed they would need about $5,600 a
year to cover out‐of‐pocket costs (or about $112,000 in total), less than half of the Fidelity In‐
vestments estimate. Many of those interviewed in the survey reported being "terrified" of what
health care costs may do to their retirement plans.
A program in peril
The latest annual trustees' report for Social Security projected that the program's trust fund will
be exhausted by 2033, three years earlier than last year's estimate. When the fund runs dry,
the government will be able to pay only 75% of the promised benefits to retirees. Meanwhile,
the Medicare trust fund will be exhausted by 2024, according to the report. The main reason
for the accelerated timeline is the sluggish economy and high unemployment, causing total
earnings in 2011 to be 1.6% less than expected. "Lawmakers should address the financial chal‐
lenges facing Social Security and Medicare as soon as possible," the report said.
In a study prepared for the Bipartisan Policy Center in March 2012, “Demographic Challenges
and Opportunities for the US Housing Market,” the analysis identifies that “the sheer size of the
Baby Boom generation means that a large increase in the absolute numbers of seniors facing
housing affordability and independent living challenges is inevitable. Aging is likely to pose spe‐
cial housing challenges for renters, minorities and rural Americans.” The study also acknowl‐
edged that affordability is a serious problem for seniors, especially for renters. According to a
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) report to Congress earlier this year,
1.33 million elderly renters (where the householder or spouse is age 62 or over, with no chil‐
dren under 18 present) had “worst case” housing needs in 2009. This meant that they earned
OLDER ADULT GROWTH TRENDS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 11
less than half of their metropolitan area’s median income, received no government housing as‐
sistance and either paid more than half their income for rent, lived in severely inadequate hous‐
ing, or both. Compared to 2007, the number of older renters in this category had increased by
120,000 (10 percent) – a change that the HUD report attributes to fallout from the foreclosure
crisis and recession, as shrinking incomes drove increased competition for already scarce af‐
fordable housing. Fifty‐six percent3 of senior renters spend at least 30% of their income on
housing costs. Senior homeowners are not immune from affordability problems either: about
30% of senior homeowners spend at least 30% of their income on housing and 17% pay at least
50% of their income. Even seniors who own their houses free and clear face rising energy costs
and, in some locations, rising property taxes.
3 US Census: American Community Survey: 2013
MINNESOTA SENIOR GROWTH TRENDS AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 12
Introduction
This section discusses the current population and household estimates for older adults and sen‐
iors in Minnesota as of 2014 with projections of this segment to 2020 and 2030 from the Min‐
nesota State Demographer. All counties in the State of Minnesota were tabulated individually.
Total Population – Age 55+
The graph below shows the projected increase in the 55+ population in Minnesota between
2015 and 2030. Older adults in Minnesota are projected to grow from 1.57 million in 2015 to
2.18 million by 2030, an increase of 39%. The total population in Minnesota is expected to
grow by 8.9% during this same period (Minnesota State Demographer). The median age of
Minnesotans was 37.6 years (Census: American Community Survey‐2013).
Older Adult (55+) Population and Household Estimates
Table 1 shows the projected total 55+ population by age cohort in 2015 and 2030. Table 2
shows the projected growth by age cohort in Minnesota between 2015 and 2030. The data is
shown for the 7‐County Metro Area, Greater Minnesota and the State.
Table 1 and the accompanying chart shows the total 55+ population by age cohort in 2015 and
2030. The data shows that the 55 to 64 population will continue to move through each of the
successive age cohorts from 2015 to 2030. As of 2015, there will be an estimated 726,742 peo‐
ple. The significant number of people in this age cohort will affect growth in each successive
cohort moving forward to 2020, 2025 and 2030.
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
2015 2020 2030Number of PeopleChart 1: 55+ Population in Minnesota
2015 to 2030
Source: MN State Demographer
MINNESOTA SENIOR GROWTH TRENDS AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 13
Table 2 shows the projected growth in the 55+ population between 2015 and 2030 by geo‐
graphic areas including Twin Cities Metro, Greater Minnesota and Minnesota as a whole.
2015 2030 2015 2030 2015 2030 2015 2030
7‐County Metro 381,422 385,647 224,312 414,075 118,493 292,627 44,588 66,608
Greater Minnesota 345,320 234,351 224,717 215,079 117,085 121,423 72,632 81,335
Minnesota 726,742 619,998 449,029 629,154 235,578 414,050 117,220 147,943
Source: Minnesota State Demographer
TABLE 1
TOTAL POPULATION (55+) BY AGE COHORT
2015 and 2030
Total Population
55‐64 65‐74 75‐84 85+
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
2015 2030 2015 2030 2015 2030 2015 2030
55‐64 65‐74 75‐84 85+Number of PeopleChart 2: Total Population (55+) by Age Cohort
2015 and 2030
7‐County Metro Greater Minnesota Minnesota
Source: Minnesota State Demographer
7‐County Metro Greater Minnesota Minnesota
55 to 64 4,255 ‐110,999 ‐106,744
65 to 74 189,763 9,819 199,582
75 to 84 174,134 8,461 182,595
85+ 22,020 9,844 31,864
Source: Minnesota State Demographer
Growth in Population (2015 to 2030)
TABLE 2
GROWTH IN POPULATION (55+) BY AGE COHORT
2015 to 2030
MINNESOTA SENIOR GROWTH TRENDS AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 14
Table 2 shows that the majority of the “growth” is expected to be concentrated in the 7‐County
Metro Area over the next 15 years. Greater Minnesota is expected to experience a decline in
the number of people age 55 to 64 over the next 15 years as the baby boomers will be followed
by the “baby bust” generation, a period of much lower births (1965 to 1980).
Table 3 shows the counties in the Twin Cities Metro Area and in Greater Minnesota with the
highest number of older adults 55+ counties with more than 20,000 people. Data is for 2015
and was compiled from information published by the Minnesota State Demographer. Infor‐
mation for 2015 was reviewed along with total population estimates for 2013 from the State
Demographer and from 2010 Census data. These counties represent some of the largest in the
State. Many of these counties are in the Twin Cities Metro, but there are several counties that
are in Greater Minnesota including St. Louis, Olmsted, Ottertail, Crow Wing and Stearns.
Of those with the largest older adult populations, Ottertail’s 55+ population accounts for nearly
41% of the total population in that county. Ottertail is followed by Crow Wing County with its
55+ population accounting for 37.0% of its total population. The population in Minnesota age
55+ accounts for nearly 28% of the total population.
Table 4 shows the estimated number of older adults 55 years or older located in counties
where the 55+ population accounts for 40% or more of the total population of the county.
Nineteen counties in Minnesota have 55+ populations that exceed 40% of the total population.
Most are located in Greater Minnesota.
% of
Pop. 55+ Total Pop
Hennepin 307,854 25.1%
Ramsey 136,836 25.3%
Dakota 109,205 26.2%
Anoka 89,743 25.8%
Washington 70,234 27.3%
St. Louis 69,016 34.3%
Olmsted 41,469 27.0%
Stearns 40,327 26.4%
Wright 32,705 24.9%
Scott 31,421 21.8%
Ottertail 23,731 40.8%
Crow Wing 23,619 37.0%
Carver 23,432 23.6%
Total/Average 999,592 28.1%
Minnesota 1,528,569 27.8%
Source: Minnesota State Demographer
TABLE 3
Estimated Number of Older Adults
55+ Populations over 20,000
2015
MINNESOTA SENIOR GROWTH TRENDS AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 15
According to the State Demographer, the number of Minnesotans that will turn 65 in this dec‐
ade is greater than the number that has turned 65 in each of the past four decades. A total of
285,000 people are projected to turn 65 between 2010 and 2020.
By 2020, the number of people age 65 or older in Minnesota will eclipse the age groups 5 to 17
years (K‐12 population) for the first time in Minnesota’s history.
In addition, the number of older adults age 65+ is expected to double between 2010 and 2030.
By 2030, one in five (or effectively 20% of the total population) Minnesotans will be age 65
years or older, including all of the baby boom generation. By comparison, the proportion of
people in Minnesota age 65 years or older as of 2010 Census, compared to the total population
was almost 13%. Over the next 20 years, the proportion of people 65+ in Minnesota will in‐
crease by seven percentage points.
% of
Total 55+ Pop Total Pop
Aitkin 8,481 52.4%
Cook 2,438 47.1%
Lac Qui Parle 3,210 46.1%
Big Stone 2,334 46.0%
Lake of the Woods 1,768 45.7%
Lake 4,765 44.5%
Murray 3,681 43.5%
Kittson 1,966 43.7%
Traverse 4,578 43.2%
Cass 12,388 42.6%
Pope 1,486 41.6%
Lincoln 2,457 41.9%
Koochiching 5,431 41.0%
Hubbard 8,824 41.8%
Faribault 5,860 41.9%
Grant 2,482 40.9%
Ottertail 23,731 40.8%
Norman 2,679 40.7%
Martin 8,205 40.3%
Total/Average 106,764 43.5%
Minnesota 1,528,569 27.8%
Source: Minnesota State Demographer
TABLE 4
Estimated Number of Older Adults
55+ Populations 40% or more of Total
2015
MINNESO
MAXFIELD
At this tim
adult (62
years or
Median I
Accordin
income o
dollars. A
Security.
Some old
housing c
their hom
costs hav
residing i
Calculati
ments re
Census w
househo
65+ to no
4 MN Hous
5 2011 ACS
OTA SENIOR
D RESEARCH
me, multifam
2+ household
older accou
Incomes and
g to data fro
of seniors ha
According to
der adults ca
costs if they
mes or have
ve increased
in some type
ng the numb
esults in app
which was 44
lds age 65+
ot fall into p
Cha
sing, Housing A
S Percent of Inc
R GROWTH T
INC.
mily housing
ds) in Minne
nting for 21%
d Income Ra
om the US C
as changed li
o AARP, thre
an utilize the
decide to re
never owne
d or they may
e of assisted
ber of 65+ h
roximately 1
43,625. Soci
in Minnesot
overty.
rt 3: Total H
Assistance for O
come from SS‐
TRENDS AND
g programs f
esota4. As of
% of all hous
anges of Old
ensus (Ame
ittle and rem
ee in ten olde
e proceeds fr
elocate to ag
ed a home, t
y not have t
d housing.
ouseholds th
133,088 of th
ial Security m
ta.5 Social Se
Household I
Older Minneso
SPSS calculatio
D DEMOGRA
funded by M
f 2010, Minn
seholds in th
der Adults in
rican Comm
mains at abo
er Minnesot
rom their sin
ge‐restricted
hose funds m
he resource
hat would b
he total num
makes up 50
ecurity has m
ncome 65+
otans, Fall 2012
on by AARP Re
APHIC CHAR
MN Housing c
nesota had 4
he State.
n Minnesota
munity Survey
ut $37,400 i
tans age 65+
ngle‐family h
d housing. If
may be alrea
es to afford m
e living entir
mber of 65+
0% or more o
made it poss
Households
2
esearch for Min
RACTERISTIC
currently ser
443,625 hou
a
y), the medi
in 2013 infla
+ (30%) live s
homes to su
f they have a
ady deplete
market rate
rely on Socia
households
of the incom
sible for 45%
s‐Minnesota
nnesota.
CS
rve 19,600 o
seholds age
an househo
ation‐adjuste
solely on Soc
pport their
already sold
d as housing
housing and
al Security p
as of the 20
me for 61% o
% of older ad
a
16
older
65
ld
ed
cial
g
d are
ay‐
010
of
dults
MINNESOTA SENIOR GROWTH TRENDS AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 17
As of 2012, the income range of older adult households age 65+ or older shows a definite
weighting toward the lower end of the income spectrum. Most households’ incomes fall be‐
tween $10,000 and $50,000. The highest numbers of older adult households have incomes be‐
tween $10,000 and $30,000. As shown on the chart below, 39% of households in Minnesota
age 65+ have incomes of 50% or less of the state‐wide AMI or 183,605 households. This level
would enable most household to qualify for shallow‐subsidy (50% to 60% of AMI) and deep‐
subsidy housing (less than 50% AMI).
Older Adult Households (65+ Housing Cost Burdens)
According to Census data, 32% of households in Minnesota age 65+ are housing cost‐burdened,
meaning they pay more than 30% of their income for housing (American Community Survey,
2013). A portion of older adults that need services are likely to pay more than 30% of their in‐
come on housing because of additional cares that they may need due to health issues, disabili‐
ties or frailty.
According to 2013 American Community Survey data, 100,037 households age 65+ rented their
housing in Minnesota. Among those households, 54% or 54,473 households paid more than
30% of their income on housing. This compares to 47% of non‐senior renter households.
In addition to 65+ renter households, there were an estimated 361,165 owner households (65+)
in Minnesota as of 2013. Of these, 26% paid more than 30% of their income for housing or
90,986 households. This information shows that more than one‐fourth of 65+ homeowners
that are living in their own homes are considered to be cost‐burdened. MN Housing data also
confirms this by stating that 25% of all households age 65 or older have very low incomes and
spend more than 30% of their income on housing. One‐third of the poorest households over
age 65 spend at least 50% of their incomes on housing. Cost burden tends to be more promi‐
nent in urban areas because of the higher cost of rental housing.
106,838
85,892
96,865
183,605
<120% AMI
81%‐120% AMI
51%‐80% AMI
0‐50% AMI
Percent State Median IncomeChart 4: Share of 65+ Households by Income Group
$15,800
Median Income
in Group
$35,200
$54,390
$94,000
Source: US Census: American Community Survey, PUMS, 2010
MINNESOTA SENIOR GROWTH TRENDS AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 18
Current very low rental vacancy rates coupled with rising rents among affordable “all ages”
market rate rentals makes it difficult for low and moderate income older adults to afford
apartments in the general market; it also makes it difficult for older adults to find housing and
housing with appropriate accessibility features which are needed by this group as it ages.
Household Tenure of Older Adults
While higher homeownership rates are generally maintained in more rural counties in the
State, these higher homeownership rates often coincide with a lack of alternative housing
product or age‐restricted housing product available to older adults and seniors in rural commu‐
nities. Because of the low level of rental housing construction and/or the lack of any new rental
housing construction in many communities in Greater Minnesota, general market rate apart‐
ments are often older, located in buildings that have no elevator and/or where numerous steps
are required to reach upper floor units. If seniors are currently living in a home that has a bed‐
room on the main floor, there is a usually a preference to remain in that home where accessibil‐
ity is easier than try to relocate to housing which, while it may be affordable, has few, if any
features, that target the needs of older households.
By the time older adult households reach age 65, their buying and selling habits of residences
are generally in balance, selling as much as buying. However, after age 65, households selling
their residences increase exponentially rising from 2% at age 65 to 6% or higher by age 80, ac‐
cording to a study by Myers and Ryu6. There is some variation in these rates when location is
considered. For example, older adults are more likely to sell in colder climates or high‐priced
housing states, but then purchase in warmer climate states that have moderate prices. How‐
ever, in most of the Central Midwest and Upper Midwest states, older adults are less likely to
sell or buy between ages 65 to 69. Moving to new housing increases as households age into
their 70s and beyond. With the sheer size of the baby boom generation, the number of house‐
holds that would be selling their homes and either purchasing a smaller home or association‐
maintained unit or moving directly to rental housing will increase dramatically with the current
proportions remaining the same. If however, baby boom households elect to move to rental
housing sooner than did their parents (this is already happening now), then the proportion of
households moving to rental will rise substantially.
According to Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, PhD, FAICP and director of the Metropolitan Research Center
at the University of Utah, about 7% of households 65+ move each year and as people get older,
the likelihood that they will move from owning to renting increases to 79% of those that move
at age 85 or older elect to rent their housing. This data is based on an analysis completed by
Dr. Nelson using data from the American Community Survey (published by the US Census Bu‐
reau).
According to the Met Life Mature Institute from their preference survey of households age 55+,
49% want to remain in their homes while 38% want to move to a new home. The Met Life Ma‐
6 Dowell Myers and SungHo Ryu: Aging Baby Boomers and the Generational Housing Bubble: Foresight and Miti‐
gation of an Epic Transition, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 74 No. 1, Winter 2008
MINNESOTA SENIOR GROWTH TRENDS AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 19
ture survey suggests that 38% of households age 55 or older desire to leave their current home
for a new residence and coupled with the above research by the Metropolitan Research Center,
as they do so, an increasing number of these households are expected to rent rather than own
their housing.
Dr. Nelson recently completed a study for the Metropolitan Council titled “Twin Cities Metro‐
politan Council Area Trends, Preferences and Opportunities: 2010 to 2020, 2030 and 2040.” In
this analysis, Dr. Nelson projects a shift in households tenure (owner/renter) rates with declin‐
ing homeownership rates overall and fueled, in part, by the rapid aging of the population.
Homeownership rates are projected to fall in Minnesota from 73% in 2010, to 70% in 2030 and
69 percent by 2040. These rates are projected to be 70%, 68% and 67% for the Metro Area, re‐
spectively. There is also expected to be a larger discrepancy between the rates for the central
counties (Hennepin and Ramsey) and those of the non‐central counties (remaining five counties
of the Metro Area). Seniors, age 65+ are expected to account for 58% of the population change
between 2010 and 2040. This will break out between 70% for the central counties and 47% for
the non‐central counties. According to Dr. Nelson, “the aging of existing residents will be a
dominant demographic change (in the Twin Cities Metro).”7
Data published by MN Housing found that 4% of households age 65 to 74 moved in the last year
(2010). That proportion increased to 5% of households age 75 to 84 and to 10% of households
age 85+. Over 36,000 households age 65 or older moved in the past year.8
Table 5 shows Minnesota counties with the highest proportion of households age 55 and over
that are renting their housing. Counties with proportions of 23% or higher were selected.
McLeod is the highest at 46%. The proportions drop from there to 28% in Ramsey County and
27% in Carver County followed by a number of counties at 25% and 23%.
7 Twin Cities Metropolitan Council Area Trends, Preferences and Opportunities, 2010 to 2020, 2030 and 2040, Ar‐
thur C. Nelson, PhD, FAICP, June 10, 2014
8 MN Housing, Profile of Older Households in Minnesota, Summer 2012
MINNESOTA SENIOR GROWTH TRENDS AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 20
The following chart shows the percent homeownership and the percent renting by older age
cohort in Minnesota as a whole. This data was compiled by MN Housing from the US Census.
Proportion Renters
1 McLeod 46%
2 Ramsey 28%
3 Carver 27%
4 Hennepin 25%
5 Benton 25%
6 Chippewa 25%
7 Swift 25%
8 Lyon 25%
9 Wadena 24%
10 St. Louis 23%
11 Wilkin 23%
12 Polk 23%
13 Pennington 23%
14 Clay 23%
Source: Ribbon Demographics
TABLE 5
2014
COUNTIES WITH THE HIGHEST PROPORTIONS OF RENTER HOUSEHOLDS 55+
40%
17%15%12%20%
40%
55%
68%
58%
40%19%
9%
5%15%27%
48%60%51%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Under 45 45‐54 55‐64 65‐74 75‐84 85+PercentChart 5: Percent Homeownership and Renting by Age
With Cash Rent Owned w/Mortgage
Sources: MN Housing; US Census
OLDER ADULT HOUSING SUPPLY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 21
Introduction
This section discusses trends in the housing supply for older adults and seniors and the number
of senior households that are currently being assisted Federal and State programs that are ad‐
ministered and/or funded by MN Housing that serve those age 55 or older or age 62 or older in
Minnesota.
Housing Options for Older Adults in Minnesota
A shift in lifestyle preferences for people age 55 years or older and an increase in the availability
of multifamily housing products (townhomes, condominiums, rental apartments) has encour‐
aged a larger share of older adults and seniors to sell their single‐family homes and relocate to
housing that offers them more flexibility and greater convenience. For those that have never
owned their housing, they are more likely to take advantage of the age‐restriction allowed by
the Federal government for properties targeted to older adults.
Minnesota has traditionally been and generally continues to be a high homeownership state.
Over the past ten years however, the proportion of older adults 55 and over that have shifted
from owning to renting has increased. For the oldest Minnesotans 85+, the percentage renting
their housing has increased to 40%. This compares with 20% for households ages 75 to 84. 9
Housing experts agree that as the older adult population increases, a higher number of older
adults continues to move from their single‐family homes to other higher‐density options, often
because these properties have features and amenities that are desired by those 55 years or
older. For older adults with incomes less than 50% of AMI, their options have been severely
curtailed.
Housing products available to households age 55 years or older have proliferated in Minnesota,
which has been a front runner in providing housing that is not only age‐restricted, but that also
offers services. A high proportion of housing that is age‐restricted in Minnesota is independent
living with very limited or no services. Occupancy rates at these properties continue to remain
high. Maxfield Research Inc. has regularly conducted occupancy and rent surveys of age‐
restricted independent housing and housing with services in the Twin Cites Metro Area. The
findings of our surveys reveal that independent living is the most popular residential option for
older adults.
9 MN Housing, Profile of Older Households in Minnesota, Summer 2012
OLDER ADULT HOUSING SUPPLY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 22
Housing Programs for Older Adults
This section briefly discusses the housing programs that have been available in the past for the
development of housing targeted to households age 55 or older or age 62 or older. Most of
these programs are Federal programs that were implemented in the 1960s and 1970s. These
programs provided federally‐sponsored housing assistance to older adults that typically had ex‐
tremely low incomes. The following is a list of programs that have typically served seniors:
Project‐based Section 8 and Voucher‐based program
Section 202
Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
HRA/CDA Programs
Funding availability for Section 8 and Section 202 programs has been severely curtailed by the
Federal government.
Section 8/Section 202
There are few options for households that earn incomes of less than $20,000 per year. Project‐
based Section 8 properties are generally full, many with waiting lists and or qualifying lists that
are closed in the Metro Area. Section 8 allocations have been reduced to many counties.
Those with reserves have been able to continue to assist households, but cannot assist any new
households and if funding reductions continue, will have to reduce the number of households
they serve, those under 65 and those age 65 or older.
HUD Section 202 funding also has been substantially reduced and is being allocated predomi‐
nantly to urban census tracts that can achieve the highest priorities through the allocation pro‐
cess. Nevertheless, the properties that have been constructed have filled rapidly and have ex‐
tensive waiting lists.
Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
The Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program is a federally sponsored program that is adminis‐
tered by individual states. LIHTC provides tax credits to private developers in order to reduce
the rent levels so that they are affordable to households with moderate incomes. Typically, the
rent charged is 50% to 60% of the Area Median Family Income (AMFI). Many states allow for
the development of general occupancy (all ages) rental housing and housing restricted to
households age 55 or older using tax credits. A number of years ago, Minnesota made the deci‐
sion to focus its efforts and resources on developing affordable family housing because the
need was so great.
OLDER ADULT HOUSING SUPPLY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 23
In the early and mid‐1990s, several properties were developed in Ramsey and Washington
Counties under the LIHTC program which provided moderate income seniors with affordable
rentals and units that were designed to accommodate older adults that may have limitations.
These properties often provided attached garages and single‐level living in a townhome‐style of
unit and were usually referred to as “cottages.” Properties that were financed through this
program included: Cottage Villas (Arden Hills), Cottages of Aspen (Oakdale), Cottages of North
St. Paul (North St. Paul), Cottages of Vadnais Heights (Vadnais Heights) and Cottages of White
Bear Lake (White Bear Lake). Other properties that were also affordable included Eastwood Vil‐
lage in Oakdale, Village on Woodlyn (Maplewood) and Cottages of Cottage Grove (Cottage
Grove). These properties proved extremely popular with moderate income seniors and all of
these properties have remained full even though several of them have converted over entirely
to market rate and are no longer restricted only to moderate income older adults.
Since the 1990s, several Metro Area Housing and Redevelopment Authorities have implement‐
ed housing development programs to target moderate income older adults and/or provide age‐
restricted housing to older adults by reducing the rents to make them somewhat more afforda‐
ble. Dakota County operates its own program and has developed 1,543 units of age‐restricted
(55+) housing with another 66 units under construction in Inver Grove Heights. As of 2013, the
waiting list for units in Dakota County was nearly 1,200 households. Carver County has devel‐
oped three properties totaling 183 units that are age‐restricted to households 55+ and Scott
County has developed five properties that are age‐restricted totaling 370 units. Anoka County
has developed three properties totaling 149 units of age‐restricted housing for older adults
with reduced rents. The Washington County HRA has developed eight properties with 377
units of age‐restricted housing also at reduced rents.
USDA Rural Development (Section 515)
Rural Development provides mortgage financing and housing assistance to properties under
their multifamily program. Eligible communities must be located outside of the urbanized are‐
as. In many small cities, a rural development property is the only multifamily housing in the
community that offers affordable housing and in addition may offer additional assistance for
households that do not meet the minimum income threshold to pay the base rent. The table in
the Appendix lists the number of multifamily units funded under the Rural Development pro‐
gram in each County along with the number of units that have been allocated additional rent
assistance. Maxfield identified 3,672 units of housing targeted to older adult households with
funding through Rural Development. Of those, an estimated 2,206 units have rental assistance
which would reduce the base rent to provide additional housing assistance to older adults with
very low incomes.
County HRA and CDA Affordable Senior Housing Programs
Some of the larger Community Development and Housing and Redevelopment Authorities have
implemented their own “affordable” development programs targeted to serve households age
55 years or older with independent housing. No services are usually provided with this housing
OLDER ADULT HOUSING SUPPLY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 24
and households that need services must contract separately with a home care agency on their
own. Dakota County recently developed one property that provides “affordable” assisted living
and memory care housing to residents at Valley Ridge in Burnsville. Scott County is considering
the development of assisted living housing within an affordable 55+ development that would
be located in Shakopee. Peace Villa in Norwood Young America recently received financing
from Rural Development to construct assisted living and memory care senior housing in that
community. Construction is scheduled to begin in spring 2015 with occupancy scheduled for
2016.
Total Independent Living Affordable Units Operated by CDA/HRA targeted to households age 55
years or older:
Dakota County 1,543 units (66 units U/C)
Scott County 370 units
Carver County 183 units
Anoka County 149 units
Washington County 377 units
Additional affordable units may be available through private developers that have received
funding assistance.
MN Housing Assisted Older Adult Households
MN Housing programs serve approximately 19,600 senior households (62+) per year or 3.4% of
the total number of age 62+ households in the State of Minnesota (555,993 as of 2010). A total
of 13,400 senior households are assisted through project‐based Section 8. The remaining 6,200
senior households are served through MN Housing funded non‐Section 8 rental housing.
Two out of five households over age 65 have annual incomes of less than $28,000 (50% of the
state median)10. Many seniors live on fixed incomes although there are some cost of living ad‐
justments provided by Social Security. Housing costs continue to rise, especially for age‐
restricted and service‐based senior housing. For seniors that receive Section 8 assistance, addi‐
tional cost increases are generally absorbed by the assistance package received by the resident.
For older adults in non‐Section 8 housing, additional rent increases are typically paid by the res‐
ident provided that they remain under the qualifying income restrictions for tax‐credit housing.
The share of householders age 62+ that are assisted by Section 8 through MN housing was pre‐
pared by county and are shown on the following pages as Figures 3 and 4. Also shown is the
share of householders age 62+ that are assisted in properties financed by Minnesota Housing
but are non‐Section 8.
10 Profile of Older Households in Minnesota, Summer 2012
OLDER ADULT HOUSING SUPPLY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 25
High proportions of households age 62+ are shown to be assisted in Section 8 in many of the
state’s rural counties in the Northwest and West Central including Kittson, Roseau, Lake of the
Woods, Beltrami, Marshall, Pennington, Red Lake, Clearwater, Becker, Traverse, Lac Qui Parle,
Yellow Medicine. Near the Metro Area, high proportions are assisted in Sherburne, Pine and
Chisago Counties. Counties that have the lowest proportion of tenants served in Section 8
housing include Washington, Stearns, Itasca, Rice, Kandiyohi and several others in south central
Minnesota.
Demographic data for all Section 8 senior households show:
A median household income in 2012 of $12,732
55.3% of Section 8 senior householders were age 75 or older.
Of all households in Minnesota Housing‐funded developments (non‐Section 8) that reported in
2011, 14.7% were headed by a senior or an individual age 62 or older. According to MN Hous‐
ing, the demographics of these seniors showed:
A median household income of $15,160.
46.8% of these 62+ households were age 75 or older.
Ninety‐seven percent of households were comprised of one or two household mem‐
bers, consistent with industry analysis regarding age‐restricted housing for households
age 62 or older.
Properties serving a high percentage of older adult (65+) households are in the Central
and Southeast regions (see Figure 4);
The regions with the greatest number of assisted older adult (65+) households are in the
Metro Region followed by the Central and Southeast regions.
OLDER A
MAXFIELD
ADULT HOUS
D RESEARCH
SING SUPPLY
INC.
Y
26
OLDER A
MAXFIELD
ADULT HOUS
D RESEARCH
SING SUPPLY
INC.
Y
27
OLDER ADULT HOUSING SUPPLY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 28
Senior Housing with Services
The Minnesota Department of Human Services (MN DHS) licenses facilities that provide older
adult households with care services that may be needed as a household ages. In the early
1980s, housing with services developed by the private market as an alternative to traditional
board and care homes and skilled nursing facilities.
These number and type of these products expanded in Minnesota and throughout the Nation
as states worked to reduce their care costs in skilled nursing facilities and provide for older
adults that needed personal care and other moderate health services. Products such as con‐
gregate, assisted living and memory care facilities became more prevalent.
The private development community has invested heavily in these facilities, seeing an oppor‐
tunity to serve older adults as the State has eliminated lower acuity individuals from skilled
nursing facilities.
However, the costs of health care and services continue to rise. The following chart shows the
average cost of care for private market facilities that provide housing and services to older
adults in Minnesota and the average annual increase in the cost of these care segments over
the past five years.11
As shown, the average annual cost of homemaker services was $4,385 per month with an aver‐
age annual increase of 1%. Assisted living costs were an average of $3,403 per month but have
been increasing by 6% annually over the past five years.
For low‐income seniors and in particular, those that do not have a home to sell, these costs can
be prohibitive. The 2010 Survey of Consumer Finances an average household wealth of $6,100,
enough to provide for only about two months of care at the above level of costs.12
11 Genworth, Care Cost Survey 2014, Minnesota.
12 Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University, Special Tabulations of the 2010 Survey of Consumer Fi‐
nances.
Avg. Mo. Cost Avg. Annual Increase
Homemaker Services $4,385 1%
Home Health Aide $4,910 0%
Assisted Living $3,403 6%
Skilled Nursing‐Semi‐Pvt. $6,939 5%
Skilled Nursing ‐ Pvt. $7,378 4%
Source: Genworth 2014 Cost of Care Survey
MINNESOTA COST OF CARE
2014
TABLE 6
OLDER ADULT HOUSING SUPPLY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 29
Elderly Waiver Program
The Elderly Waiver program in Minnesota (also known as EW) funds home and community
based services for individuals age 65 years or older who are eligible for Medical Assistance (MA)
or Medicaid and require the level of care that would be provided in a nursing home but choose
to reside in the community. The Minnesota Department of Health and Human Services oper‐
ates the EW program under a federal waiver to Minnesota’s Medicaid State Plan. Counties,
tribal entities and health plan partners administer the program.
Services covered through EW include:
• Adult day service
• Case management
• Chore services
• Companion services
• Consumer‐directed community supports
• Home health aides
• Home‐delivered meals
• Homemaker services
• Licensed community residential services (customized living services / 24‐hour customized
living services, family and corporate foster care, residential care)
• Environmental accessibility adaptations
• Personal care
• Respite care
• Skilled nursing
• Specialized equipment and supplies
• Personal Emergency Response Systems
• Training and support for informal caregivers
• Transitional supports
• Nonmedical Transportation
Eligibility for EW is determined by the following:
Must be age 65 or older
Must be eligible for Medical Assistance
Must need nursing home care as identified through a Long‐Term Care Consultation pro‐
cess
The EW cost for care for an individual cannot exceed the nursing home care cost for that same
individual. The individual elects to receive home and community‐based services rather than
nursing care services.
OLDER ADULT HOUSING SUPPLY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 30
In fiscal year 2014, the EW program in Minnesota served 29,416 unduplicated clients. In 2013,
the EW program served 31,727 people at a total cost of $287.3 million. Approximately 92% of
EW recipients receive their care through a managed care organization. Managed care organiza‐
tions include Minnesota Senior Health Options (MSHO), an integrated Medicare/Medicaid long‐
term care program and Minnesota Senior Care Plus (MSC+), a Medicaid health and long‐term
care option.
Average monthly cost per participant was $1,507 under a fee‐for‐service program and $1,118
under a managed care program.
Alternatives to EW include Medicaid‐certified skilled nursing facilities and certified board‐and‐
care homes.
Beginning in the early 2000s, DHS has gathered local information about the current capacity
and gaps in services and housing needs to support older persons in Minnesota. The primary
source of the report is a survey completed by individual counties to describe their capacity for
these services. In 2008 and 2012, data from the survey revealed that the number of individuals
receiving Elderly Waivers for care in Minnesota among the counties that reported increased by
15.4%.
As shown previously on Table 6, the monthly average cost of care at an assisted living facility in
Minnesota is $3,403 and has risen an average of 6% annually over the past five years. Moreo‐
ver, the vast majority of assisted living facilities, while licensed by the State, are private pay fa‐
cilities. Private pay operators typically allow a small portion of their resident base to utilize El‐
derly Waivers. Our surveys of private pay assisted living facilities throughout the State have
found that most range between 15% and 20% of residents utilizing Elderly Waivers. As resi‐
dents spend down their assets, operators allow their existing residents to move over to Elderly
Waivers and currently everyone that applies for Elderly Waiver and qualifies under the guide‐
lines is allowed into the program.
Over the past two years, our surveys of private pay assisted living facilities have revealed that
many operators will no longer accept residents with Elderly Waivers on admission to the facili‐
ty. The resident must first enter as a private pay resident before transitioning over to Elderly
Waiver status. Some operators have implemented a minimum of two years of private pay prior
to moving over to the Elderly Waiver. Operators in the Twin Cities Metro Area have stated that
the need for waivered services is high and many assisted living properties have waiting lists for
residents to move over to Elderly Waivers. With the projected growth in the senior population
over the next 15 years, the number of people needing and qualifying for public assistance
through home and community‐based services is projected to increase.
In addition, moderate and low‐income seniors, while they can obtain services on their own
through a home care agency, the cost of those services is also increasing (see Table 6).
OLDER ADULT HOUSING SUPPLY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 31
The Appendix provides a table that shows the number of participants for the Elderly Waiver and
Alternative Care grant programs in Minnesota by county in State Fiscal Year 2014.
OLDER ADULT AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEMAND
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 32
Housing Demand
In 2010, there were more than 180,000 older households in Minnesota (containing a person
age 65 or older) with households incomes of less than $28,000, less than half of the state medi‐
an income. Of all households with incomes of less than $28,000, the median income was
$16,000; housing costs for a household earning the median would need to be $400 per month
or less to be considered affordable.
Rental Costs in the Twin Cities Metro and in Greater Minnesota
The average cost of a studio and a one‐bedroom unit in the Twin Cities Metro Area (7‐County)
as of 3rd Quarter 2014 was $772 and $884, respectively. For 65+ households that earn the me‐
dian $16,000 (of 65+ households w/incomes of 50% or less of AMI), the average monthly rent
for a studio or one‐bedroom unit is almost more than double the affordable rent that could be
paid. At this median income, 90,000 households in Minnesota would need a monthly housing
cost of $400 or less. In considering the maximum rent that could be charged under a traditional
9% LIHTC development, we selected two examples, one in Dakota County and one in St. Louis
County. The maximum monthly rent for a one‐person household qualifying at 50% of the Area
Median Family Income (earning no more than $29,950 annually) would be $778 per month for
a one‐bedroom unit in Dakota County. While a household could qualify from their income to
reside at the property, they could not qualify to pay the rent if they earned no more than the
median income of $16,000 as that would result in the household paying 58% of their income for
rent. In St. Louis County, the rent would be $603 per month for a one‐bedroom unit, with the
renter paying 45% of their income for rent at a $16,000 annual income.
Renter and Owner Households 55+ (2014)
Maxfield Research Inc. compiled information on households age 55 years or older living in one‐
or two‐person households that either rent or own their housing. An estimate is presented as of
2014 with a 2020 projection. The data calculations of 55+ households by income and house‐
hold size was compiled with the assistance of Ribbon Demographics, a private demographics
firm that receives special tabulations of Census data. Ribbon Demographics information is used
consistently in the tax credit industry to develop estimated of demand by household size for
various income levels. Ribbon Demographics is highly regarded and testing of the data has
shown it to be reasonably accurate.
In order to determine a threshold for affordable housing targeted to older adults, we consid‐
ered rent levels charged for properties in the Twin Cities and in Greater Minnesota. Renter
households with an income of $30,000 and paying 30% of their income for rent would be able
to afford a monthly rental payment of $750. This is below the average for the Twin Cities at
$884 for a one‐bedroom unit, but above the average that is being charged for rental units in
Greater Minnesota is $667 per month. In order to pay only 30% of income toward housing
costs and be able to meet the monthly rent of $667, a household would need an annual income
of $26,680.
OLDER ADULT AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEMAND
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 33
Table 7 below shows the number of one‐person and two‐person renter households in Minneso‐
ta as of 2014 with incomes of $30,000 or less. Also shown are owner households with incomes
of $20,000 or less that could qualify to rent an affordable apartment despite having the pro‐
ceeds from a home sale. The 2020 forecast adjusts the incomes upward by household size to
reflect inflation to $35,000 for renter households and $25,000 for owner households.
Over the next five years, the proportion of age/income‐qualified older adult households is pro‐
jected to grow by almost 47%, while the number of assisted units targeted to seniors is antici‐
pated to increase by only 1.2%. Beyond 2020, as the older adult population takes off in Minne‐
sota, an increasing gap is anticipated between the number of age‐ and income/qualified house‐
holds and the housing stock that is available to serve them.
As shown, the total number of age and income‐qualified older adult households (55+) in 2014 in
Minnesota is estimated at 173,195. By 2020, this number is projected to increase to 243,629
households. After subtracting the estimated number of assisted housing units that would be
available to these households, the potential age and income‐qualified market for affordable
housing would remain at 149,723 households as of 2014 rising to 219,879 households by 2020.
Using a short‐term capture rate of 10% of age and income‐qualified 55+ plus households results
in potential demand for 15,000 affordable units in 2014, increasing to nearly 23,000 units by
2020.
If 400 units were to be built over the next five years (2015 to 2020) or 2,000 units, these units
would account for 0.3% of the age‐ and income‐qualified older adult household base in 2014
(2,000 units), decreasing to 0.9% of the age‐ and income‐qualified older adult household base
in 2020, because of the significant growth expected.
OLDER ADULT AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEMAND
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 34
Estimate Forecast
2014 2020
Renter Households 55+
1 Person w/income $30K or less 81,795 97,406
2 Person w/income $30K or less 13,448 17,626
Owner Households 55+
1 Person w/income of $20K or less 50,955 78,307
2 Person w/income of $20K or less 26,997 50,290
Number of Renter Households Assisted**
Section 8 13,600 13,600
Non‐Section 8 (MN Housing) 6,200 6,400
Rural Development 3,672 3,750
Total Renter Households Assisted (Est.) 23,472 23,750
Increase in Assisted Stock
Total Potential Age/Income‐Qualified Base 149,723 219,879
Short‐Term Capture Rate (5%) 10.0% 10.0%
Total Potential Demand for Affordable Sr. Housing 14,972 21,988
Increase in Age/Income Qualified Base
400 units per year over five years (2,000 units)0.3% 0.9%
**Number of HHs Assisted Through Section 8 programs
expected to remain stable; those assisted by MN Housing
expected to increase modestly; those assisted by Rural
Development expected to remain stable.; Excludes households
assisted with services through Elderly Waivers or
Alternative Care Grants.
Income threshold is $30,000 or less for renter households and
$20,000 or less for owner households 55+ (1PP and 2PP)
Sources: MN Housing; Rural Development; Ribbon Demographics
Maxfield Research Inc.
TABLE 7
MINNESOTA
1.2%
46.9%
TABULATION OF AGE/INCOME‐QUALIFIED HOUSEHOLDS
AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING
November 2014
OLDER A
MAXFIELD
ADULT AFFO
D RESEARCH
RDABLE HO
INC.
USING DEMMAND
Map 1
35
OLDER A
MAXFIELD
ADULT AFFO
D RESEARCH
RDABLE HO
INC.
USING DEMMAND
Map 2
36
OLDER ADULT AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEMAND
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 37
Older adults are living longer. Therefore, as the older adult population increases, turnover will
be lower in existing facilities than previously as an increasing proportion of older adult house‐
holds elects to rent and to move to age‐restricted housing and then age in place until such time
as they may be forced to seek services outside of an independent living arrangement. This will
continue to place a heavier burden on the existing facilities and waiting lists are likely to in‐
crease rather than decrease. A portion of older adult households may elect to remain in their
single‐family homes, but the overall trend nationally and locally, is moving away from remain‐
ing in a single‐family home toward selecting housing products that provide greater flexibility,
more age‐appropriate features and a higher level of safety, security and convenience.
In considering the potential development of 400 units per year over the next five years would
result in a market penetration rate of the age and income‐qualified demand of 0.3% as of 2014
(2,000 total units over five years) increasing to 0.9% of age and income‐qualified demand after
accounting for the number of households that would be assisted through project‐based Section
8, households assisted through MN Housing financed programs and also through Rural Devel‐
opment based on an estimate of the increase in the housing supply under those programs over
the next five years.
As mentioned by MN Housing, assisted units (Section 8 and non‐Section 8 and homeowner pro‐
grams currently assist 6.3% of the state’s lower income older adult households. In addition, MN
Housing programs currently assist 9.1% of the state’s lower income households that are under
age 65 with incomes of $50,000 or less.
In conducting interviews with housing development authorities across Minnesota, providing af‐
fordable housing continues to be a top priority. In many communities, seniors would like to be
able to relocate either from their single‐family home which has become a financial and lifestyle
burden or relocate from an existing general market rental unit to one that offers services and
activities that coincide with that of their peer group. As they age, these age‐restricted facilities
are also more likely to be able to offer their residents additional services or convenient access
to services that would be more difficult in their single‐family homes or in a traditional apart‐
ment where the majority of the residents do not need or want them.
In conducting interviews with older adults throughout Minnesota, one of the reasons for elect‐
ing to move to an age‐restricted residence is the desire for increased interaction with those of
their own age. Many older households live alone and isolation is often cited as a strong reason
for electing to make a move.
OLDER ADULT AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEMAND
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 38
Principal Conclusions
Based on the analysis, Maxfield Research identifies the following key conclusions:
People age 55 years and older are projected to increase from an estimated 1.5 million in
2015 to 2.1 million by 2030, an increase of 39%. The population under age 55 is pro‐
jected to increase by only 9%.
This increase in the senior population will create significant additional demand for hous‐
ing and care services;
Households age and income‐qualified for “affordable” senior housing are estimated to
total 149,723 in 2014, increasing to 219,879 by 2020. Using a short‐term capture rate of
10% of age and income‐qualified households, we conservatively estimate demand for
14,972 units of affordable age‐restricted housing in 2014 increasing to 22,988 by 2020,
an increase of 54%.
Older adults need housing with rent levels that are affordable to their incomes and in‐
creased access to services (chore and care);
Rental costs in the Twin Cities continue to escalate and vacancies are low;
The high cost of rental housing production throughout the State has severely
limited the construction of independent living senior units in Greater Minnesota.
Cost burden rates for seniors are higher than for non‐seniors, and they increase as
households get older. Fifty‐four percent (54%) of senior renters and 26% of senior own‐
ers spend 30% or more of their income on housing versus 46% of non‐senior renters and
24% of non‐senior owner households. As households age, they pay a higher proportion
of their income on housing. The current gap is expected to widen as the proportion of
older adults increases.
Many seniors are likely to outlive their assets or they may not be able to access those
assets (selling their single‐family homes) because of:
lack of affordable housing options,
lack of demand for the single‐family home from younger households
higher levels of debt on existing homes (continued mortgage balances)
The highest proportion of households age 65 or older have household incomes of
$10,000 to $30,000.
A majority of low income seniors have a disability and rent their housing.
Housing cost burdens increase the older the household.
OLDER ADULT AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEMAND
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 39
Affordable housing options are scarce.
Federal funding has been cut back and further cuts are anticipated.
Existing housing typically has long waiting lists.
From the data shown on Table 7, we conclude that based on the number of age and income‐
qualified households and the projected growth in households in Minnesota to 2020 and by
2030, that additional affordable senior housing is greatly needed in the Twin Cities Metro Area
and in Greater Minnesota to serve older adult households with low and moderate incomes that
desire a safe and secure living arrangement and a residential environment that will provide
them with the features that they need to be able to live as independently as they are able with
their peers.
At a minimum, with the projected increase in the number of age and income‐qualified house‐
holds by 2020 of nearly 41% and a projected limited increase in the assisted housing stock for
these households, that at least 400 units per year for the next five years could be supported,
spread across the State in Metro Area and Greater Minnesota counties. The need is somewhat
greater in the Twin Cities Metro Area because of the rapid rise in rental rates and very low va‐
cancies, but numerous communities in Greater Minnesota have little to no housing that is
available for older adults, causing many of these households to remain in their single‐family
homes due to lack of suitable product. Those most difficult to serve are older adult households
in the middle, those who cannot afford the high cost of private pay market rate senior housing,
but do not income‐qualify for Section 8 or are unable to obtain affordable age‐restricted hous‐
ing because the properties are full.
ADDENDUM: ELDERLY WAIVERS AND ALTERNATIVE CARE GRANTS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 40
Addendum: Elderly Waivers and Alternative Care Grants
As older adult households age, they may need more health and personal care services. Minne‐
sota provides care for older adults (65+) that are eligible for Medical Assistance (MA). Increas‐
ingly, private market health care providers are limiting the number of residents they accept in
their facilities that utilize these programs. Reimbursement rates for these programs do not typ‐
ically cover the costs of care and providers must balance the care they provide to low‐income
households with the costs of care for private pay residents.
An increasing number of market rate senior facilities that provide services will no longer accept
any household on entry that has EW or ACG. The resident must enter first as private pay and
then spend down their assets. Most facilities have a cap of between 15% and 20% of residents
that are allowed to utilize EW. At many Metro Area senior housing facilities, there are waiting
lists to be able to utilize EW. Seniors currently residing in Section 8 housing or in other assisted
housing are often utilizing outside agencies to deliver services to them, exclusive of their resi‐
dence. Public housing authorities and local HRAs and CDAs are seeing their older residents age
in place and are concerned as to how these older residents will be able to access the services
they need. Residents do not want to relocate and even if they did, their incomes would inhibit
their ability to obtain services at a typical private pay facility.
The following charts show the counties in Minnesota with the highest number of Elderly Waiver
recipients and the counties with the highest proportion of the population age 65+ receiving El‐
derly Waivers.
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
Unique ClientsChart 6: Highest Number of Elderly Waivers
State Fiscal Year '14
Source: MN Department of Human Services
ADDENDUM: ELDERLY WAIVERS AND ALTERNATIVE CARE GRANTS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 41
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
7.00%Percent of EW to 65+ PopulationChart 7: Percent of EW to 65+ Population
State Fiscal Year '14
Source: MN Department of Human Services
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 42
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 43
MINNESOTA ESTIMATED OLDER ADULT POPULATIONS
87 Counties
55+ 55+ 55+
County 2015 Pop 2020 Pop 2030 Pop
Aitkin 8,481 8,958 7,991
Anoka 89,743 112,756 143,248
Becker 12,351 13,767 14,552
Beltrami 13,003 14,892 16,496
Benton 10,178 12,080 15,287
Big Stone 2,334 2,454 2,340
Blue Earth 15,825 17,815 20,782
Brown 9,434 10,335 10,888
Carlton 12,031 13,777 15,553
Carver 23,432 31,090 42,546
Cass 12,388 13,535 13,187
Chippewa 4,574 4,949 5,183
Chisago 16,276 20,479 25,913
Clay 15,368 17,527 20,520
Clearwater 3,267 3,629 3,758
Cook 2,438 2,681 2,703
Cottonwood 4,459 4,703 4,800
Crow Wing 23,619 26,340 27,444
Dakota 109,205 135,770 172,678
Dodge 5,741 6,877 8,496
Douglas 13,828 15,278 15,745
Faribault 5,860 6,256 6,279
Fillmore 7,729 8,469 8,661
Freeborn 11,713 12,733 13,259
Goodhue 16,193 18,622 20,838
Grant 2,482 2,680 2,666
Hennepin 307,854 360,399 444,755
Houston 7,132 7,989 8,615
Hubbard 8,824 9,745 9,625
Isanti 11,403 14,186 17,135
Itasca 18,431 20,163 20,821
Jackson 3,815 4,140 4,354
Kanabec 6,024 6,932 7,502
Kandiyohi 14,040 15,524 17,079
Kittson 1,966 2,076 2,089
Koochiching 5,431 5,924 6,124
Lac qui Parle 3,210 3,390 3,314
Lake 4,765 5,176 5,136
Lake of the Woods 1,768 1,969 1,978
Le Sueur 9,236 10,776 12,371
Lincoln 2,457 2,543 2,527
Lyon 7,158 8,181 9,319
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 44
MINNESOTA ESTIMATED OLDER ADULT POPULATIONS
87 Counties 55+ 55+ 55+
(continued)2015 Pop 2020 Pop 2030 Pop
McLeod 11,554 13,421 15,536
Mahnomen 1,810 1,993 2,083
Marshall 3,474 3,838 4,064
Martin 8,205 8,729 9,102
Meeker 8,215 9,302 10,128
Mille Lacs 8,878 10,289 11,546
Morrison 11,333 12,940 14,249
Mower 12,676 13,813 15,318
Murray 3,681 3,892 3,903
Nicollet 8,956 10,383 11,838
Nobles 6,165 6,844 7,712
Norman 2,679 2,914 3,002
Olmsted 41,469 49,156 58,577
Otter Tail 23,731 25,933 26,066
Pennington 4,659 5,193 5,788
Pine 10,652 12,167 13,068
Pipestone 3,487 3,787 4,038
Polk 10,822 11,996 12,911
Pope 4,578 4,931 5,051
Ramsey 136,836 156,028 185,086
Red Lake 1,487 1,656 1,740
Redwood 5,875 6,387 6,552
Renville 5,867 6,408 6,876
Rice 17,783 20,812 24,427
Rock 3,531 3,846 4,094
Roseau 4,761 5,669 6,607
St. Louis 69,016 76,429 82,032
Scott 31,481 42,097 61,186
Sherburne 21,498 28,131 38,985
Sibley 4,988 5,688 6,436
Stearns 40,327 46,979 55,249
Steele 11,302 13,145 15,420
Stevens 2,951 3,139 3,282
Swift 3,502 3,760 4,018
Todd 8,868 10,032 10,660
Traverse 1,486 1,524 1,492
Wabasha 7,814 8,852 9,719
Wadena 5,387 5,795 5,960
Waseca 6,036 6,749 7,522
Washington 70,234 87,205 110,058
Watonwan 3,905 4,276 4,489
Wilkin 2,402 2,737 2,979
Winona 14,711 16,340 18,146
Wright 32,705 41,339 55,442
Yellow Medicine 3,891 4,201 4,408
Total 1,571,134 1,838,310 2,181,402
Minnesota Projections 5,497,933 5,677,852 5,982,601
% of Total 28.6% 32.4% 36.5%
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 45
PROPORTION OF RENTER AND OWNER HOUSEHOLDS
MINNESOTA COUNTIES
2014 2014
% Rent % Own
County 55+ 55+
Aitkin 0.13 0.87
Anoka 0.16 0.84
Becker 0.18 0.82
Beltrami 0.22 0.78
Benton 0.25 0.75
Big Stone 0.21 0.79
Blue Earth 0.21 0.79
Brown 0.22 0.78
Carlton 0.20 0.80
Carver 0.27 0.73
Cass 0.11 0.89
Chippewa 0.25 0.75
Chisago 0.16 0.84
Clay 0.23 0.77
Clearwater 0.18 0.82
Cook 0.13 0.87
Cottonwood 0.17 0.83
Crow Wing 0.18 0.82
Dakota 0.19 0.81
Dodge 0.19 0.81
Douglas 0.18 0.82
Faribault 0.19 0.81
Fillmore 0.18 0.82
Freeborn 0.19 0.81
Goodhue 0.18 0.82
Grant 0.19 0.81
Hennepin 0.25 0.75
Houston 0.13 0.87
Hubbard 0.16 0.84
Isanti 0.15 0.85
Itasca 0.17 0.83
Jackson 0.17 0.83
Kanabec 0.18 0.82
Kandiyohi 0.20 0.80
Kittson 0.17 0.83
Koochiching 0.21 0.79
Lac qui Parle 0.18 0.82
Lake 0.16 0.84
Lake of the Woods 0.14 0.86
Le Sueur 0.12 0.88
Lincoln 0.18 0.82
Lyon 0.25 0.75
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 46
PROPORTION OF RENTER AND OWNER HOUSEHOLDS
MINNESOTA COUNTIES
87 Counties 2014 2014
(continued)% Rent % Own
County 55+ 55+
McLeod 0.46 0.54
Mahnomen 0.20 0.80
Marshall 0.18 0.82
Martin 0.22 0.78
Meeker 0.16 0.84
Mille Lacs 0.22 0.78
Morrison 0.18 0.82
Mower 0.21 0.79
Murray 0.13 0.87
Nicollet 0.21 0.79
Nobles 0.17 0.83
Norman 0.18 0.82
Olmsted 0.18 0.82
Otter Tail 0.20 0.80
Pennington 0.23 0.77
Pine 0.17 0.83
Pipestone 0.21 0.79
Polk 0.23 0.77
Pope 0.22 0.78
Ramsey 0.28 0.72
Red Lake 0.14 0.86
Redwood 0.21 0.79
Renville 0.19 0.81
Rice 0.20 0.80
Rock 0.19 0.81
Roseau 0.18 0.82
St. Louis 0.23 0.77
Scott 0.18 0.82
Sherburne 0.16 0.84
Sibley 0.15 0.85
Stearns 0.22 0.78
Steele 0.19 0.81
Stevens 0.18 0.82
Swift 0.25 0.75
Todd 0.17 0.83
Traverse 0.18 0.82
Wabasha 0.15 0.85
Wadena 0.24 0.76
Waseca 0.20 0.80
Washington 0.17 0.83
Watonwan 0.21 0.79
Wilkin 0.23 0.77
Winona 0.16 0.84
Wright 0.16 0.84
Yellow Medicine 0.16 0.84
Source: Ribbon Demographics
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 47
55+ Renter HH's (1pp/2pp)
County w/incomes $30K or less
Aitkin 384
Anoka 1,060
Becker 816
Beltrami 890
Benton 878
Big Stone 173
Blue Earth 1,072
Brown 738
Carlton 784
Carver 908
Cass 478
Chippewa 413
Chisago 538
Clay 1,040
Clearwater 258
Cook 97
Cottonwood 280
Crow Wing 1,552
Dakota 4,680
Dodge 310
Douglas 914
Faribault 428
Fillmore 506
Freeborn 802
Goodhue 1,008
Grant 191
Hennepin 23,397
Houston 409
Hubbard 502
Isanti 545
Itasca 1,183
Jackson 210
Kanabec 358
Kandiyohi 827
Kittson 142
Koochiching 487
Lac qui Parle 189
Lake 229
Lake of the Woods 65
Le Sueur 361
Lincoln 178
Lyon 635
NUMBER OF 55+ RENTER HOUSEHOLDS
W/INCOMES OF $30,000 OR LESS
1pp and 2pp Households
2014
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 48
55+ Renter HH's (1pp/2pp)
County w/incomes $30K or less
McLeod 586
Mahnomen 130
Marshall 228
Martin 646
Meeker 500
Mille Lacs 656
Morrison 811
Mower 1,045
Murray 118
Nicollet 495
Nobles 346
Norman 190
Olmsted 1,879
Otter Tail 1,685
Pennington 405
Pine 623
Pipestone 253
Polk 804
Pope 394
Ramsey 11,624
Red Lake 90
Redwood 418
Renville 341
Rice 1,040
Rock 247
Roseau 341
St. Louis 5,871
Scott 1,239
Sherburne 954
Sibley 265
Stearns 1,808
Steele 585
Stevens 192
Swift 316
Todd 605
Traverse 109
Wabasha 444
Wadena 586
Waseca 356
Washington 2,350
Watonwan 276
Wilkin 148
Winona 791
Wright 1,328
Yellow Medicine 210
Total 95,243
Source: Ribbon Demographics
1pp and 2pp Households
2014
(continued)
NUMBER OF 55+ RENTER HOUSEHOLDS
W/INCOMES OF $30,000 OR LESS
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 49
55+ Renter HH's (1pp/2pp)
County w/incomes $35K or less
Aitkin 528
Anoka 5,560
Becker 1,132
Beltrami 1,311
Benton 1,248
Big Stone 214
Blue Earth 1,520
Brown 953
Carlton 1,064
Carver 1,000
Cass 659
Chippewa 577
Chisago 856
Clay 1,428
Clearwater 224
Cook 171
Cottonwood 376
Crow Wing 2,030
Dakota 7,046
Dodge 389
Douglas 1,227
Faribault 543
Fillmore 691
Freeborn 1,047
Goodhue 1,430
Grant 235
Hennepin 32,229
Houston 527
Hubbard 724
Isanti 851
Itasca 1,530
Jackson 366
Kanabec 518
Kandiyohi 1,200
Kittson 176
Koochiching 644
Lac qui Parle 278
Lake 339
Lake of the Woods 93
Le Sueur 545
Lincoln 232
Lyon 853
NUMBER OF 55+ RENTER HOUSEHOLDS
W/INCOMES OF $35,000 OR LESS
1pp and 2pp Households
2020
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 50
55+ Renter HH's (1pp/2pp)
County w/incomes $35K or less
McLeod 1,167
Mahnomen 173
Marshall 320
Martin 864
Meeker 716
Mille Lacs 862
Morrison 1,025
Mower 1,395
Murray 184
Nicollet 777
Nobles 477
Norman 275
Olmsted 2,623
Otter Tail 2,112
Pennington 580
Pine 846
Pipestone 341
Polk 1,075
Pope 530
Ramsey 16,221
Red Lake 120
Redwood 562
Renville 479
Rice 1,454
Rock 321
Roseau 467
St. Louis 7,369
Scott 1,547
Sherburne 1,297
Sibley 391
Stearns 3,632
Steele 845
Stevens 254
Swift 458
Todd 726
Traverse 122
Wabasha 594
Wadena 665
Waseca 582
Washington 3,482
Watonwan 478
Wilkin 226
Winona 1,111
Wright 1,902
Yellow Medicine 278
Total 136,491
Source: Ribbon Demographics
1pp and 2pp Households
2014
(continued)
NUMBER OF 55+ RENTER HOUSEHOLDS
W/INCOMES OF $35,000 OR LESS
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 51
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOMES BY OLDER ADULT AGE COHORT
MINNESOTA COUNTIES
2014 2014 2014
Med. Inc. Med. Inc. Med. Inc.
County 55‐64 65‐74 75+
Aitkin $44,620 $37,851 $26,333
Anoka $75,869 $54,825 $35,901
Becker $52,237 $40,046 $26,579
Beltrami $43,884 $37,921 $24,709
Benton $55,358 $39,707 $27,192
Big Stone $39,855 $34,335 $22,145
Blue Earth $58,746 $47,022 $30,761
Brown $54,254 $39,709 $26,382
Carlton $57,074 $42,765 $27,213
Carver $96,786 $69,183 $40,668
Cass $46,946 $40,246 $29,067
Chippewa $55,104 $40,524 $27,419
Chisago $69,488 $53,497 $32,807
Clay $59,191 $45,862 $28,140
Clearwater $47,407 $34,752 $22,561
Cook $47,923 $48,636 $29,352
Cottonwood $52,549 $40,397 $26,121
Crow Wing $52,927 $43,625 $29,865
Dakota $85,903 $61,175 $38,963
Dodge $72,920 $49,763 $36,369
Douglas $59,152 $50,089 $29,637
Faribault $52,474 $40,493 $25,885
Fillmore $53,411 $39,759 $26,061
Freeborn $51,425 $39,872 $27,303
Goodhue $69,901 $51,754 $30,238
Grant $54,525 $37,412 $26,783
Hennepin $79,674 $56,975 $37,448
Houston $61,438 $48,944 $29,037
Hubbard $50,200 $43,031 $27,519
Isanti $64,103 $46,337 $31,485
Itasca $54,766 $42,197 $26,264
Jackson $57,963 $49,101 $29,488
Kanabec $46,722 $38,865 $25,320
Kandiyohi $60,443 $45,999 $29,109
Kittson $53,762 $38,059 $24,440
Koochiching $52,220 $36,727 $23,578
Lac qui Parle $54,235 $38,219 $27,087
Lake $58,086 $45,391 $28,358
Lake of the Woods $46,361 $33,712 $25,392
Le Sueur $64,296 $46,837 $30,182
Lincoln $46,913 $38,899 $27,676
Lyon $59,048 $46,526 $27,990
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 52
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOMES BY OLDER ADULT AGE COHORT
MINNESOTA COUNTIES
87 Counties 2014 2014 2014
(continued)Med. Inc. Med. Inc. Med. Inc.
County 55‐64 65‐74 75+
McLeod $37,787 $33,053 $23,166
Mahnomen $58,907 $44,528 $27,071
Marshall $54,601 $45,123 $28,799
Martin $63,711 $47,325 $29,840
Meeker $60,168 $42,815 $27,137
Mille Lacs $45,850 $36,902 $24,880
Morrison $50,791 $38,251 $23,397
Mower $55,260 $40,851 $27,420
Murray $60,069 $45,103 $29,750
Nicollet $68,596 $54,046 $32,149
Nobles $55,479 $45,644 $27,079
Norman $51,732 $39,077 $25,357
Olmsted $79,889 $55,588 $36,059
Otter Tail $52,022 $42,234 $27,186
Pennington $51,154 $35,259 $22,069
Pine $47,775 $36,967 $25,508
Pipestone $52,570 $40,645 $25,446
Polk $55,423 $43,768 $26,947
Pope $51,486 $42,493 $26,964
Ramsey $63,079 $48,282 $32,886
Red Lake $49,128 $33,818 $23,143
Redwood $58,206 $42,803 $28,231
Renville $57,915 $43,965 $28,425
Rice $66,800 $52,586 $34,759
Rock $51,366 $39,916 $26,796
Roseau $51,803 $39,694 $26,025
St. Louis $91,322 $66,725 $41,043
Scott $75,841 $58,741 $37,962
Sherburne $56,905 $36,758 $25,134
Sibley $52,643 $40,647 $27,731
Stearns $61,269 $43,516 $29,691
Steele $61,468 $47,145 $29,201
Stevens $56,745 $45,374 $27,111
Swift $52,763 $40,036 $26,132
Todd $47,628 $37,574 $25,067
Traverse $52,824 $36,657 $25,829
Wabasha $61,478 $44,547 $30,003
Wadena $41,976 $35,280 $22,249
Waseca $59,824 $45,192 $27,707
Washington $92,326 $66,656 $41,464
Watonwan $52,709 $40,098 $26,221
Wilkin $54,974 $44,789 $29,109
Winona $54,308 $41,916 $27,418
Wright $75,794 $56,815 $36,281
Yellow Medicine $54,358 $41,986 $27,072
Source: Ribbon Demographics
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 53
COUNTIES WITH THE LOWEST MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOMES (55‐64), 2014, Less than $50,000
1Aitkin
2Beltrami
3Big Stone
4Cass
5Clearwater
6Cook
7 Kanebec
8Lake of the Woods
9 Lincoln
10 McCleod
11 Mille Lacs
12 Pine
13 Red Lake
14 Todd
15 Wadena
COUNTIES WITH THE LOWEST MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOMES (65‐74), 2014 Less than $35,000
1Big Stone
2Clearwater
3Lake of the Woods
4McCleod
5Red Lake
COUNTIES WITH THE LOWEST MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOMES (75+), 2014 Less than $25,000
1Beltrami
2Big Stone
3Clearwater
4 Kittson
5Koochiching
6McCleod
7 Mille Lacs
8Morrison
9Pennington
10 Red Lake
11 Wadena
Source: Ribbon Demographics
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 54
COUNTIES WITH MEDIAN HOME SALES PRICE OF LESS THAN $100,000 (2014)
1Big Stone
2Chippewa
3 Cottonwood
4 Faribault
5 Fillmore
6 Freeborn
7Grant
8Jackson
9 Kittson
10 Koochiching
11 Lac Qui Parle
12 Lincoln
13 Mahnomen
14 Marshall
15 Martin
16 Mower
17 Murrary
18 Norman
19 Pipestone
20 Red Lake
21 Redwood
22 Renville
23 Rock
24 Roseau
25 Sibley
26 Stevens
27 Swift
28 Todd
29 Traverse
30 Watonwan
31 Yellow Medicine
Source: ESRI Inc.; Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 55
County Elderly Rent/Ass.
Aitkin 16 13
Anoka 21 17
Becker 96 67
Beltrami 51 49
Benton 33 25
Big Stone 40 19
Blue Earth 0 0
Brown 28 19
Carlton 41 27
Carver 145 92
Cass 8 7
Chippewa 32 25
Chisago 145 98
Clay 28 10
Clearwater 8 8
Cook 16 9
Cottonwood 0 0
Crow Wing 181 96
Dakota 37 24
Dodge 43 23
Douglas 65 31
Faribault 0 0
Fillmore 67 37
Freeborn 0 0
Goodhue 87 45
Grant 0 0
Hennepin 25 12
Houston 23 19
Hubbard 0 0
Isanti 60 30
Itasca 206 46
Jackson 0 0
Kanabec 24 8
Kandiyohi 50 22
Kittson 15 20
Koochiching 72 12
Lac qui Parle 0 0
Lake 0 0
Lake of the Woods 00
Le Sueur 7 3
Lincoln 8 4
Lyon 63 51
# of Units
APPENDIX
ELDERLY RENTAL‐RURAL DEVELOPMENT
November 2014
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 56
County Elderly Rent/Ass.
McLeod 79 52
Mahnomen 22 11
Marshall 0 0
Martin 34 24
Meeker 8 0
Mille Lacs 134 105
Morrison 59 47
Mower 11 8
Murray 0 0
Nicollet 12 7
Nobles 47 33
Norman 0 0
Olmsted 51 43
Otter Tail 119 77
Pennington 58 38
Pine 108 69
Pipestone 0 0
Polk 0 0
Pope 37 28
Ramsey 0 0
Red Lake 0 0
Redwood 0 0
Renville 0 0
Rice 126 73
Rock 0 0
Roseau 0 0
St. Louis 39 9
Scott 82 57
Sherburne 60 52
Sibley 0 0
Stearns 181 115
Steele 49 10
Stevens 13 4
Swift 0 0
Todd 50 18
Traverse 12 5
Wabasha 76 48
Wadena 21 18
Waseca 0 0
Washington 0 0
Watonwan 24 17
Wilkin 0 0
Winona 16 5
Wright 393 265
Yellow Medicine 10 0
Total Units 3,672 2,206
Source: MN Rural Development
ELDERLY RENTAL‐RURAL DEVELOPMENT
November 2014
# of Units
(continued)
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 57
County Number Unique Clients
AITKIN 1 148
ANOKA 2 1,037
BECKER 3 259
BELTRAMI 4 329
BENTON 5 215
BIG STONE 6 55
BLUE EARTH 7 309
BROWN 8 134
CARLTON 9 331
CARVER 10 238
CASS 11 163
CHIPPEWA 12 86
CHISAGO 13 199
CLAY 14 368
CLEARWATER 15 101
COOK 16 20
COTTONWOOD 17 81
CROW WING 18 413
DAKOTA 19 1,389
DODGE 20 106
DOUGLAS 21 265
FARIBAULT 22 69
FILLMORE 23 179
FREEBORN 24 144
GOODHUE 25 235
GRANT 26 45
HENNEPIN 27 7,095
HOUSTON 28 98
HUBBARD 29 153
ISANTI 30 147
ITASCA 31 420
JACKSON 32 62
KANABEC 33 104
KANDIYOHI 34 195
KITTSON 35 37
KOOCHICHING 36 52
LAC QUI PARLE 37 68
LAKE 38 81
LAKE OF THE WOODS 39 19
LE SUEUR 40 165
LINCOLN 41 39
LYON 42 174
ELDERLY WAIVER RECIPIENTS
BY COUNTY FOR MINNESOTA
STATE FISCAL YEAR 2014
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 58
ELDERLY WAIVER RECIPIENTS
BY COUNTY FOR MINNESOTA
STATE FISCAL YEAR 2014
(continued)
County Number Unique Clients
MCLEOD 43 191
MAHNOMEN 44 69
MARSHALL 45 89
MARTIN 46 161
MEEKER 47 167
MILLE LACS 48 152
MORRISON 49 283
MOWER 50 363
MURRAY 51 58
NICOLLET 52 171
NOBLES 53 107
NORMAN 54 60
OLMSTED 55 599
OTTER TAIL 56 419
PENNINGTON 57 115
PINE 58 231
PIPESTONE 59 63
POLK 60 300
POPE 61 94
RAMSEY 62 3,569
RED LAKE 63 40
REDWOOD 64 66
RENVILLE 65 60
RICE 66 326
ROCK 67 46
ROSEAU 68 100
ST. LOUIS 69 1,648
SCOTT 70 342
SHERBURNE 71 257
SIBLEY 72 127
STEARNS 73 635
STEELE 74 255
STEVENS 75 60
SWIFT 76 104
TODD 77 238
TRAVERSE 78 27
WABASHA 79 97
WADENA 80 132
WASECA 81 107
WASHINGTON 82 606
WATONWAN 83 66
WILKIN 84 53
WINONA 85 297
WRIGHT 86 449
YELLOW MEDICINE 87 75
White Earth 0B2 115
Total 29,416
Note: Total Unduplicated count for EW for SFY 2014 is 29,205
The client count for the table is slightly higher
as some clients resided in more than one county.
Source: MN Department of Health and Human Services
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 59
Name County Unique Clients
AITKIN 1 7
ANOKA 2 256
BECKER 3 19
BELTRAMI 4 50
BENTON 5 15
BIG STONE 6 23
BLUE EARTH 7 30
BROWN 8 8
CARLTON 9 38
CARVER 10 68
CASS 11 30
CHIPPEWA 12 22
CHISAGO 13 56
CLAY 14 36
CLEARWATER 15 5
COOK 16 3
COTTONWOOD 17 7
CROW WING 18 53
DAKOTA 19 463
DODGE 20 12
DOUGLAS 21 12
FARIBAULT 22 6
FILLMORE 23 15
FREEBORN 24 56
GOODHUE 25 58
GRANT 26 7
HENNEPIN 27 567
HOUSTON 28 12
HUBBARD 29 30
ISANTI 30 35
ITASCA 31 59
JACKSON 32 2
KANABEC 33 18
KANDIYOHI 34 18
KITTSON 35 7
KOOCHICHING 36 3
LAC QUI PARLE 37 13
LAKE 38 23
LAKE OF THE WOODS 39 9
LE SUEUR 40 13
LINCOLN 41 11
LYON 42 15
ALTERNATIVE CARE GRANT RECIPIENTS
BY COUNTY FOR MINNESOTA
STATE FISCAL YEAR 2014
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 60
ALTERNATIVE CARE GRANT RECIPIENTS
BY COUNTY FOR MINNESOTA
STATE FISCAL YEAR 2014
(continued)
Name County Unique Clients
MCLEOD 43 22
MAHNOMEN 44 3
MARSHALL 45 10
MARTIN 46 8
MEEKER 47 32
MILLE LACS 48 23
MORRISON 49 42
MOWER 50 70
MURRAY 51 9
NICOLLET 52 7
NOBLES 53 2
NORMAN 54 3
OLMSTED 55 59
OTTER TAIL 56 8
PENNINGTON 57 11
PINE 58 56
PIPESTONE 59 7
POLK 60 91
POPE 61 6
RAMSEY 62 451
RED LAKE 63 4
REDWOOD 64 1
RENVILLE 65 23
RICE 66 62
ROCK 67 11
ROSEAU 68 12
ST. LOUIS 69 251
SCOTT 70 40
SHERBURNE 71 62
SIBLEY 72 23
STEARNS 73 57
STEELE 74 24
STEVENS 75 5
SWIFT 76 11
TODD 77 29
TRAVERSE 78 4
WABASHA 79 21
WADENA 80 24
WASECA 81 19
WASHINGTON 82 160
WATONWAN 83 15
WILKIN 84 1
WINONA 85 31
WRIGHT 86 60
YELLOW MEDICINE 87 17
Leech Lake 0A4 4
White Earth 0B2 4
Total 4,085
Note: Total Unduplicated count for AC for SFY 2014 is 4073
The client count for the table below is slightly higher
as some clients resided in more than one county.
Source: Minnesota Department of Health and Human Services