Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Further Investigations of the Social and Material Convoy: Exploring Relationships between Race, Volunteering, and Relocation

Further Investigations of the Social and Material Convoy: Exploring Relationships between Race,... Abstract This study used the social and material convoy framework to explore how individual and social resources, including volunteer engagement, inform household transitions in later life by race. Data from the 2008 and 2010 Health and Retirement Study compared non-Hispanic whites’ and non-Hispanic blacks’ relocation patterns in 2010 (N = 8,361). Multinomial logistic regression models tested the relationships between economic, home environment, health, social, and sociodemographic variables with relocation by race. Greater household assets, poorer health, and changing marital status reduced the likelihood of moving out of area among older white adults. However, home ownership and education reduced older black adults’ likelihood of out-of-area relocation. The social and material convoy framework demonstrated racial heterogeneity as older white adults who formally volunteered in 2008 were less likely to move out of area in 2010. Although policies on formal volunteering could help older white adults age in place, the same approach may not influence older black adults. Relocation in older adulthood has health, economic, and social implications for older adults, their family members, and their community. Relocation itself may be a stressful process, which may, in turn, generate negative physical and psychological reactions (Bekhet, Zauszniewski, & Nakhla, 2009). There are many costs associated with relocation, compounded by even higher costs if the relocation is into a long-term care facility. Between 2011 and 2012, 3.3% of older adults (65 years and older) relocated, which represents approximately 1.5 million older people in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015a). The majority (80.1%) of those who moved were white, followed by older African Americans (12.7%), Asians (5.0%) and all remaining racial–ethnic groups (1.5%). Given that 22% of older adults are racial and ethnic minorities (U.S. Census, 2015b) and the number of older adults in coming decades is projected to grow, understanding diverse pathways of aging in place or relocation among different racial–ethnic groups can lead to optimal allocation of scarce resources (for example, social services, financial support). There is also very little known about differences by race and relocation when investigating factors such as health, marital status, and educational levels. We see this as one of the first studies to address this issue with nationally representative data. Knowledge gained from this study can enhance recognition of the various ways older adults of diverse backgrounds can best contribute to society (for example, by volunteering) and enhance service provision of the multifaceted needs and concerns of older adults (for example, assistance with housing needs). As researchers pursue tailored investigations of gerontological inquiry, science must refrain from isolating these investigations to specialized knowledge. In fact, greater understanding of how subfields are related is needed to offer contributions for both practitioners and policymakers. In this article, we link two fields in gerontology as we explore intersecting aspects of productive aging and aging in place. Specifically, we examine the relationships between an individual’s social and material convoy with a focus on volunteering to better assess the relocation circumstances of diverse populations. Social and Material Convoy Factors Associated with Relocation The Social Convoy: Volunteering as Part of One’s Social Network Kahn and Antonucci (1980) proposed a social convoy model to understand the importance of social relations on an older individual’s well-being. One’s social convoy reflects the people who an older adult supports and who provide support to the older adult. In addition to partners, adult children, and other family members and friends who are all outlined in the original model, connections made through volunteering may be important to include when using the social convoy model to understand relocation in old age (Shen & Perry, 2016). Particularly important is the role of volunteering when other key relationships are lost (for example, when widowhood occurs). For example, volunteering has been shown to support social integration after disruptions or key life events (Johnson, 2014). It has also been found that volunteers are likely to have greater social ties, which in turn reduces the likelihood for older adults to move out of the area (Shen & Perry, 2014). This study’s use of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) opened up new ways of thinking about volunteering as a possible stabilizing force in later life. Findings show that volunteering significantly reduces the likelihood of relocating out of the area and that the relationship between volunteering and relocating out of the area is partially mediated by civic engagement. The Material Convoy: One’s Home as an Important Possession to Older Adults As people age, their relationship with their home and larger community changes. Theoretical and empirical studies have identified relocation triggers when remaining in one’s home becomes unsafe or unmanageable (Haas & Serow, 1993; Longino, Bradley, Stoller, & Haas, 2008; Wiseman, 1980). Wiseman’s (1980) model of relocation is a long-established model of how older adults make decisions to relocate. The first step in the model includes various triggering mechanisms, a change in one’s health status or becoming a widow or widower. Other scholars have considered triggering mechanisms in terms of what factors “push” an older adult to relocate and what factors “pull” or ground the older adult in his or her current residence. The weighing of these factors may lead to decisions to relocate or to remain in their current residence. Haas and Serow (1993) added additional levels of concern to considering push and pull factors. Some push factors addressing social network were whether an older adult had family in the area and, on a community level, concerns of crime, pollution, or problems found in urban areas (Haas & Serow, 1993). Factors that may pull an older adult away from his or her current residence might be a desire to be near family or friends and a desire to live in places where the older adult had lived or visited previously. Longino et al. (2008) examined geographical proximity to current residences where greater distances involved finding new friends, places of worship, and medical care. Waldron, Gitelson, Kelley, and Regalado (2005) examined both local and nonlocal moves in their study of “snowbirds,” finding that those who moved a long distance experienced a decrease in social support while those who moved locally had an increase in social relationships. Recently, scholarship has coined new terms such as “aging in community” as a way to recognize that changing one’s residence within a community may entail benefits for older adults; to remain connected to their social network; just being able to either move to a different, more accessible and sometimes smaller square footage; or to modify their current residence to promote aging in place (Davitt, Lehning, Scharlach, & Greenfield, 2015; Scharlach & Lehning, 2015; Watson, 2016). On the basis of feedback from older adults, Black, Dobbs, and Young (2015) proposed a new model of aging in community, with older adults’ contributions as a centerpiece, that included social inclusion and meaningful involvement in addition to aging-in-place supports, such as assistance with medication and home and lawn maintenance. Scholars have emphasized that we must consider how other systems of care inhibit the ability to promote aging in community. Discussing the health care system, Davitt, Madigan, Rantz, and Skemp (2016) noted, “The present model of individualized care fails to connect to the factors that influence well-being, from healthy communities with adequate resources to safe spaces that promote healthy living and social engagement” (p. 11). Sometimes relocation is voluntary, prompted by a desire to live in a new residence with greater ability to navigate spaces for safety and mobility reasons (Perry, 2014). Relocation in older adulthood can also occur because of a desire to live in a different community either away from unsafe or undesirable settings or moving toward a place where one has desired to live, as described by Litwak and Longino (1987) as an “amenity” move (for example, retirement to the Sunbelt of the United States). However, little is known about relocation patterns and experiences of various racial–ethnic groups (Perry, Andersen, & Kaplan, 2014). Recent studies have looked at what happens when urban African Americans are involuntarily relocated as their building is converted to market-rate apartments (Perry et al., 2015). Although this work examines changes in social networks after relocation, little is known about the effect of relocation from volunteering, which is part of the older adult’s social convoy. Intersections between the Social and Material Convoy: Investigating Racial Differences The present study incorporates the interest in social networks that strengthen older adults’ ties to their community by examining the role of volunteering in the relocation process and specifically exploring whether race moderates such a process. Some scholars have shown that there is disparity in who participates in volunteering by race (Gonzales, Shen, Wang, Sprague Martinez, & Norstrand, 2016; Musick & Wilson, 2007) and that those who do not volunteer do not receive the associated health and economic benefits. Race has also been shown to affect how older adults access volunteer opportunities (Tang & Morrow-Howell, 2008). Tang, Copeland, and Wexler’s (2012) study found that whites volunteer more in formal organizations and yet when blacks volunteer, they may perceive more benefits. Others, such as Morrow-Howell, Hinterlong, Rozario, and Tang (2005), found that no significant relationship exists between race, volunteering, and well-being. Many studies have found the importance of sociohistorical context in who participates in volunteering. For instance, Ferree et al. (1998) and Musick et al. (2000) (both cited in Wilson, 2000) show that volunteering is more likely to be influenced by their church for blacks than for whites. Scholars in the field of productive aging suggest that more investigation is warranted (Gonzales, Matz-Costa, & Morrow-Howell, 2015). We hope that this article contributes to our understanding of the variation in the volunteering experiences of older adults. This article also builds on an intersection of the social and material convoy proposed in previous work (Ekerdt & Baker, 2014; Ekerdt, Sergeant, Dingel, & Bowen, 2004; Shen & Perry, 2016). In Shen and Perry’s (2016) study, using multiple waves of the HRS, researchers found that widows and widowers who were not volunteering were more likely to move out of area two years later than their married counterparts, whereas the relationship between widowhood and relocation was not detected among those involved in volunteering. This existing work acknowledges the importance of home and neighborhood and the relationship with the social roles of older adults. Recent research suggests that volunteering is a protective factor to aging in place, noting that volunteering may act as a stabilizing factor to relocation (Shen & Perry, 2014). Whether such a relationship exists across different racial groups remains unknown. Thus, for this study, we examine the relationships between volunteering and relocation with attention to whether this relationship varies by different racial groups. Method Data and Sample We used two waves (2008 and 2010) of data from the HRS to investigate whether racial differences existed in the relationship between formal volunteering and relocation. HRS is a nationally representative data set, which has surveyed older adults 50 years of age and over biannually starting in 1992. HRS uses a multistage-area probability sample design, which oversamples African Americans, Hispanics, and Floridians. In the present study, community-dwelling older adults who were 65 years and older in 2008 and self-reported as being black or white were included. With all the study variables available, the final sample consisted of 8,361 individuals. Measures Dependent Variable: Relocation in 2010 The present study included older adults who lived in community in 2008, and their relocation types in 2010 included “no move since 2008” (coded 0), “moved within area” (coded 1), and “moved out of area” (coded 2). This variable was constructed by the HRS using several interview questions. When older adults relocated, they could move to either a community-based setting or an institutional-based setting. Independent Variables Independent variables were as follows—volunteering in 2008: Volunteering work referred to any unpaid work that older adults did for religious, educational, health-related, or other charitable organizations. Older adults who self-reported spending any time in the past 12 months doing volunteer work in 2008 (coded 1) were compared with those who did not do so (coded 0). Race: Two racial groups were considered in the present study. Those who were white (coded 0) were compared with those who were black (coded 1). Control Variables All control variables were measured in 2008. Financial resources: We considered two variables to indicate respondents’ financial resources: household income and home ownership. Household income was measured in four ordered categories: $0–20,000, $20,001–40,000, $40,001–60,000, and $60,001+. Home ownership indicated whether respondents own their home. Those who did not own homes (coded 0) were compared with those who owned or were buying a home or who lived on a farm (coded 1). Environment: We used two indicators to measure home environment. The variable accessible home indicated whether a participant’s house was disability accessible. We compared those living in a house that was accessible (coded 1) with those who were not (coded 0). Neighborhood safety was self-reported perception of how safe respondents felt about their neighborhood. We measured it with four levels (from 0 to 3): excellent, very good, good, and fair/poor. Health: To capture respondents’ health, we included five variables. First, number of instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) limitations counted how many tasks respondents were not able to perform without assistance or were not carrying out as a result of health reasons. The four IADL tasks included preparing a hot meal, shopping for groceries, making a telephone call, and taking medications. Second, number of activities of daily living (ADL) limitations was the sum of the tasks an older person reported getting help with, not conducting, or having difficulty performing. The six ADL tasks were dressing, bathing, eating, toileting, walking, and getting in and out of bed. Third, number of chronic health conditions was the number of nine health problems an older adult reported: diabetes, heart condition, stroke, lung disease, cancer, arthritis, psychiatric problems, urine control, and legal blindness or very poor eyesight. Fourth, we considered whether an older person had severe cognitive problems. A person was identified as having a cognitive problem (coded 1) if he or she failed to correctly answer 50% or more of the questions in the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status. Finally, we dichotomously coded the variable indicating a spouse with care needs. An older adult was considered having a spouse with care needs (coded 1) if the spouse had any ADL or IADL limitations, any chronic health conditions, or severe cognitive problems as defined here. Social supports: We considered social supports as the availability of social supports for an older individual, because direct measures of the social support older individuals received were not available in the present data set. We measured this concept with two indicators, both dichotomously coded: relatives living nearby and friends living nearby. Older adults who reported having relatives living in the neighborhood (coded 1) were compared with those who did not (coded 0). If older people reported having good friends living in the neighborhood, they were coded 1 on the variable friends living nearby; otherwise, they were coded 0. Demographics: We took four demographic characteristics into consideration. Gender was female or male. Education referred to years of education completed (0 to 17 years). Age was the respondent’s age in 2008, ranging from 65 to 106 years old. Age2 was included to capture a possible nonlinear relationship between age and relocation. Change of marital status was dichotomously coded. A respondent was identified as changing his or her marital status if the marital status differed between 2008 and 2010 (for example, from being married to being widowed) (coded 1). Analytical Strategies To understand whether racial differences existed in the relationship between volunteering and relocation, we took the following strategies. First, we conducted unweighted univariate and bivariate analysis for the dependent variable and independent variables. Second, because HRS used complex multistage sample design, we obtained accurate statistics and standard errors by performing all significance tests for bivariate analysis using SVY commands in Stata (Version 12.0). SVY is a survey prefix command in Stata; applying such a command allows our statistical models to adjust for complex survey data (sampling weights, clustering, and stratification of the sample by geographic location and size of place) (StataCorp, 2011). To test differences between did not move, moved within area, and moved out of area (the dependent variable), we used chi-square tests for categorical predictors. We used regression procedures for continuous predictor variables as no procedure analogous to analysis of variance was available when SVY commands were applied. Next, we used multinomial logistic regression to elucidate the relationships between race, volunteering status in 2008, and relocation in 2010. Because of the relatively small numbers of black older adults who relocated (56 moved within area and 44 moved out of area; detailed findings are presented in the next section), we conducted both bivariate and multivariate multinomial logistic regression analyses. Sixteen bivariate multinomial logistic regression models were conducted separately for older black and white adults. We then conducted three multivariate multinomial logistic regression models to better capture the role race played in volunteering and moving: one with the whole sample, one with black adults, and one with white adults. Although SVY commands in Stata are applied to all multinomial logistic regression models, typical goodness-of-fit information (for example, pseudo R2) cannot be obtained after such commands are applied. Results Descriptive Findings Univariate Findings Among 8,361 older adults, 486 (5.8%) moved out of area, 351 (4.2%) moved within area, and 7,524 (90.0%) did not move. More than 75% of older adults in the sample had annual income greater than $20,001 (2010 poverty threshold for a family of one person 65 years and over was $10,458), and 78.4% of them owned a home. With respect to the living environment, 15.3% of older adults lived in an accessible home, and more than 70% of them rated neighborhood safety as very good or excellent. In terms of their health, the average numbers of IADL limitations, ADL limitations, and health conditions were 0.2, 0.4, and 1.7, respectively. More than 97% of respondents did not have any cognitive problems, and about half of them had a spouse with care needs. In regard to social networks, about 30% of older adults had relatives living nearby, and 70% had friends nearby. Approximately 42% of the study sample was male, and 4.7% changed their marital status between 2008 and 2010. On average, they received 12.6 years of education and were 74.4 years old. More than 36% of older adults volunteered in 2008 (see Table 1). Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for All Variables (N = 8,361) Variable All Race Blacks Whites % or M (SD) (14.7%; n = 1,226) (85.3%; n = 7,135) p Type of relocation **  No move 90.0 91.8 89.7  Move within area 4.2 4.6 4.1  Move out of area 5.8 3.6 6.2 Household income ($) ***  0–20,000 24.7 50.4 20.3  20,001–40,000 30.0 24.3 31.0  40,001–60,000 18.4 10.9 19.7  60,001+ 26.8 14.3 29.0 Own home 78.4 67.6 80.2 *** Accessible home 15.3 14.6 15.4 Neighborhood safety ***  Excellent 38.8 14.9 42.9  Very good 33.3 25.8 34.6  Good 20.1 35.2 17.4  Fair/poor 7.8 24.1 5.0 Number of IADL limitations (0–4) 0.2 (0.6) 0.3 (0.8) 0.2 (0.6) *** Number of ADL limitations (0–6) 0.4 (1.0) 0.7 (1.3) 0.4 (1.0) *** Number of health conditions (0–9) 1.7 (1.2) 1.7 (1.2) 1.7 (1.2) ** With cognitive problems 2.85 93.1 97.9 *** Spouse with care needs 49.0 33.2 51.7 *** Relatives living nearby 29.9 30.7 29.8 Friends living nearby 69.9 66.2 70.5 Male 42.2 36.2 43.2 *** Years of education (0–17) 12.6 (2.8) 11.3 (3.3) 12.9 (2.6) *** Age (65–106) 74.4 (6.8) 73.4 (6.6) 74.5 (6.9) ** Change of marital status 4.7 4.2 4.8 Volunteering status 36.2 33.0 36.7 Variable All Race Blacks Whites % or M (SD) (14.7%; n = 1,226) (85.3%; n = 7,135) p Type of relocation **  No move 90.0 91.8 89.7  Move within area 4.2 4.6 4.1  Move out of area 5.8 3.6 6.2 Household income ($) ***  0–20,000 24.7 50.4 20.3  20,001–40,000 30.0 24.3 31.0  40,001–60,000 18.4 10.9 19.7  60,001+ 26.8 14.3 29.0 Own home 78.4 67.6 80.2 *** Accessible home 15.3 14.6 15.4 Neighborhood safety ***  Excellent 38.8 14.9 42.9  Very good 33.3 25.8 34.6  Good 20.1 35.2 17.4  Fair/poor 7.8 24.1 5.0 Number of IADL limitations (0–4) 0.2 (0.6) 0.3 (0.8) 0.2 (0.6) *** Number of ADL limitations (0–6) 0.4 (1.0) 0.7 (1.3) 0.4 (1.0) *** Number of health conditions (0–9) 1.7 (1.2) 1.7 (1.2) 1.7 (1.2) ** With cognitive problems 2.85 93.1 97.9 *** Spouse with care needs 49.0 33.2 51.7 *** Relatives living nearby 29.9 30.7 29.8 Friends living nearby 69.9 66.2 70.5 Male 42.2 36.2 43.2 *** Years of education (0–17) 12.6 (2.8) 11.3 (3.3) 12.9 (2.6) *** Age (65–106) 74.4 (6.8) 73.4 (6.6) 74.5 (6.9) ** Change of marital status 4.7 4.2 4.8 Volunteering status 36.2 33.0 36.7 Notes: Means and percentages are based on raw data. All significance tests take design effects into account. IADL = instrumental activities of daily living; ADL = activities of daily living. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001. Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for All Variables (N = 8,361) Variable All Race Blacks Whites % or M (SD) (14.7%; n = 1,226) (85.3%; n = 7,135) p Type of relocation **  No move 90.0 91.8 89.7  Move within area 4.2 4.6 4.1  Move out of area 5.8 3.6 6.2 Household income ($) ***  0–20,000 24.7 50.4 20.3  20,001–40,000 30.0 24.3 31.0  40,001–60,000 18.4 10.9 19.7  60,001+ 26.8 14.3 29.0 Own home 78.4 67.6 80.2 *** Accessible home 15.3 14.6 15.4 Neighborhood safety ***  Excellent 38.8 14.9 42.9  Very good 33.3 25.8 34.6  Good 20.1 35.2 17.4  Fair/poor 7.8 24.1 5.0 Number of IADL limitations (0–4) 0.2 (0.6) 0.3 (0.8) 0.2 (0.6) *** Number of ADL limitations (0–6) 0.4 (1.0) 0.7 (1.3) 0.4 (1.0) *** Number of health conditions (0–9) 1.7 (1.2) 1.7 (1.2) 1.7 (1.2) ** With cognitive problems 2.85 93.1 97.9 *** Spouse with care needs 49.0 33.2 51.7 *** Relatives living nearby 29.9 30.7 29.8 Friends living nearby 69.9 66.2 70.5 Male 42.2 36.2 43.2 *** Years of education (0–17) 12.6 (2.8) 11.3 (3.3) 12.9 (2.6) *** Age (65–106) 74.4 (6.8) 73.4 (6.6) 74.5 (6.9) ** Change of marital status 4.7 4.2 4.8 Volunteering status 36.2 33.0 36.7 Variable All Race Blacks Whites % or M (SD) (14.7%; n = 1,226) (85.3%; n = 7,135) p Type of relocation **  No move 90.0 91.8 89.7  Move within area 4.2 4.6 4.1  Move out of area 5.8 3.6 6.2 Household income ($) ***  0–20,000 24.7 50.4 20.3  20,001–40,000 30.0 24.3 31.0  40,001–60,000 18.4 10.9 19.7  60,001+ 26.8 14.3 29.0 Own home 78.4 67.6 80.2 *** Accessible home 15.3 14.6 15.4 Neighborhood safety ***  Excellent 38.8 14.9 42.9  Very good 33.3 25.8 34.6  Good 20.1 35.2 17.4  Fair/poor 7.8 24.1 5.0 Number of IADL limitations (0–4) 0.2 (0.6) 0.3 (0.8) 0.2 (0.6) *** Number of ADL limitations (0–6) 0.4 (1.0) 0.7 (1.3) 0.4 (1.0) *** Number of health conditions (0–9) 1.7 (1.2) 1.7 (1.2) 1.7 (1.2) ** With cognitive problems 2.85 93.1 97.9 *** Spouse with care needs 49.0 33.2 51.7 *** Relatives living nearby 29.9 30.7 29.8 Friends living nearby 69.9 66.2 70.5 Male 42.2 36.2 43.2 *** Years of education (0–17) 12.6 (2.8) 11.3 (3.3) 12.9 (2.6) *** Age (65–106) 74.4 (6.8) 73.4 (6.6) 74.5 (6.9) ** Change of marital status 4.7 4.2 4.8 Volunteering status 36.2 33.0 36.7 Notes: Means and percentages are based on raw data. All significance tests take design effects into account. IADL = instrumental activities of daily living; ADL = activities of daily living. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001. When looking at older black and older white adults separately, the distribution of the variables for each group was similar to that for the whole sample (see Table 1). Among 8,361 older adults, 14.7% were older black adults, and 85.3% were older white adults. For older black adults, 91.8% did not move, 4.6% moved within area, and 3.6% moved out of area (p ≤ .01). For older white adults, 89.7% did not move, 4.1% moved within area, and 6.2% moved out of area (p ≤ .01). However, when compared with older white adults, older black adults were less likely to move out of area, had lower household income (p ≤ .001), and were less likely to own a home (p ≤ .001) and to rate the safety of their neighborhood as excellent (p ≤ .001). Older black adults had worse health (that is, more IADL and ADL limitations; p ≤ .001) but were less likely to have cognitive problems (p ≤ .001) or to have a spouse with care needs (p ≤ .001). As for the demographics, older black adults were less likely to be male (p ≤ .001), had fewer years of education (p ≤ .001), and were younger (p ≤ .01). Bivariate Findings Table 2 shows the bivariate relationship between type of relocation and each independent variable by race. All assessed predictor variables differed significantly among the three types of relocation among older white adults, with an exception of home accessibility and neighborhood safety. Older white adults were less likely to move if they (a) had less than $20,000 household income (p ≤ .01), (b) owned a home (p ≤ .001), (c) had fewer IADL limitations (p ≤ .001), (d) had fewer ADL limitations (p ≤ .001), (e) had fewer health conditions (p ≤ .001), (f) had no cognitive problems (p ≤ .001), (g) had a spouse needing care (p ≤ .001), (h) had relatives nearby (p ≤ .001), (i) had friends nearby (p ≤ .001), (j) were male (p ≤ .05), (k) were more educated (p ≤ .01), (l) were younger (p ≤ .001), (m) did not change marital status (p ≤ .001), and (n) were volunteers (p ≤ .001). Older black adults were less likely to move if they (a) owned a home (p ≤ .001), (b) reported that neighborhood safety was excellent (p ≤ .01), (c) had fewer IADL limitations (p ≤ .05), and (d) had no cognitive problems (p ≤ .001). Table 2: Bivariate Relationship between Independent Variables and Type of Relocation, All and by Race Variable All (N = 8,361) Blacks (n = 1,226) Whites (n = 7,135) No Move (n = 7,524; 90.0%) Move within Area (n = 351; 4.2%) Move out of Area (n = 486; 5.8%) p No Move (n = 1,126; 91.8%) Move within Area (n = 56; 4.6%) Move out of Area (n = 44; 3.6%) p No Move (n = 6,398; 89.7%) Move within Area (n = 295; 4.1%) Move out of Area (n = 442; 6.2%) p Household income ($) ** **  0–20,000 23.8 31.9 34.4 48.7 72.7 67.9 19.4 25.1 30.5  20,001–40,000 30.1 29.3 29.2 25.0 18.2 16.1 31.0 31.9 30.3  40,001–60,000 18.8 14.0 16.1 11.5 4.6 5.4 20.1 15.6 17.2  60,001+ 27.4 24.8 20.4 14.9 4.6 10.7 29.5 27.5 22.0 Own home 81.0 58.1 52.7 *** 71.2 23.2 31.8 *** 82.7 64.8 54.8 *** Accessible home 14.8 19.1 20.0 * 14.1 19.6 20.5 14.9 19.0 19.9 Neighborhood safety **  Excellent 38.9 40.2 36.8 14.6 25.0 9.1 43.1 43.1 39.6  Very good 33.3 31.6 35.0 25.8 21.4 31.8 34.6 33.6 35.3  Good 20.2 16.0 20.8 36.0 12.5 45.5 17.4 16.6 18.3  Fair/poor 7.7 12.3 7.4 23.7 41.1 13.6 4.8 6.8 6.8 Number of IADL  limitations (0–4) 0.2 (0.6)a 0.3 (0.8)b 0.4 (0.9)b *** 0.3 (0.8)a 0.6 (1.2)b 0.7 (1.3)b * 0.2 (0.5)a 0.2 (0.6) 0.3 (0.8)b *** Number of ADL  limitations (0–6) 0.4 (1.0)a 0.6 (1.2)b 0.8 (1.4)c *** 0.7 (1.3) 0.7 (1.4) 1.4 (1.8) 0.4 (0.9)a 0.5 (1.1)b 0.7 (1.4)c *** Number of health  conditions (0–9) 1.6 (1.2)a 1.8 (1.3)b 1.9 (1.3)b *** 1.7 (1.2) 1.8 (1.3) 2.0 (1.2) 1.6 (1.1)a 1.8 (1.3)b 1.9 (1.3)b *** With cognitive problems 2.4 5.1 8.0 *** 5.8 17.9 22.7 *** 1.8 2.7 6.6 *** Spouse with care needs 50.2 40.5 37.7 *** 34.7 21.4 9.1 52.9 40.5 44.1 *** Relatives living nearby 30.4 31.9 21.4 *** 31.2 30.4 18.2 30.2 32.2 21.7 *** Friends living nearby 70.8 66.1 57.8 *** 66.5 62.5 61.4 71.6 66.8 57.5 *** Male 42.7 37.6 37.5 * 36.7 30.4 31.8 43.8 39.0 38.0 * Black 15.0 16.0 9.1 ** Years of education  (0–17) 12.7 (2.8)a 12.5 (2.8) 12.4 (2.9)b * 11.3 (3.3) 10.5 (3.9) 11.0 (3.6) 12.9 (2.6)a 12.8 (2.5) 12.5 (2.8)b ** Age (65–106) 74.2 (6.7)a 75.4 (7.4)b 76.5 (8.3)c *** 73.3 (6.5) 73.3 (6.8) 76.6 (9.4) 74.3 (6.7)a 75.8 (7.4)b 76.6 (8.2)b *** Change of marital status 4.2 10.0 8.9 *** 3.9 7.1 6.8 4.2 10.5 9.1 *** Volunteering status 37.0 33.9 24.7 *** 33.0 39.3 25.0 43.8 39.0 38.0 *** Variable All (N = 8,361) Blacks (n = 1,226) Whites (n = 7,135) No Move (n = 7,524; 90.0%) Move within Area (n = 351; 4.2%) Move out of Area (n = 486; 5.8%) p No Move (n = 1,126; 91.8%) Move within Area (n = 56; 4.6%) Move out of Area (n = 44; 3.6%) p No Move (n = 6,398; 89.7%) Move within Area (n = 295; 4.1%) Move out of Area (n = 442; 6.2%) p Household income ($) ** **  0–20,000 23.8 31.9 34.4 48.7 72.7 67.9 19.4 25.1 30.5  20,001–40,000 30.1 29.3 29.2 25.0 18.2 16.1 31.0 31.9 30.3  40,001–60,000 18.8 14.0 16.1 11.5 4.6 5.4 20.1 15.6 17.2  60,001+ 27.4 24.8 20.4 14.9 4.6 10.7 29.5 27.5 22.0 Own home 81.0 58.1 52.7 *** 71.2 23.2 31.8 *** 82.7 64.8 54.8 *** Accessible home 14.8 19.1 20.0 * 14.1 19.6 20.5 14.9 19.0 19.9 Neighborhood safety **  Excellent 38.9 40.2 36.8 14.6 25.0 9.1 43.1 43.1 39.6  Very good 33.3 31.6 35.0 25.8 21.4 31.8 34.6 33.6 35.3  Good 20.2 16.0 20.8 36.0 12.5 45.5 17.4 16.6 18.3  Fair/poor 7.7 12.3 7.4 23.7 41.1 13.6 4.8 6.8 6.8 Number of IADL  limitations (0–4) 0.2 (0.6)a 0.3 (0.8)b 0.4 (0.9)b *** 0.3 (0.8)a 0.6 (1.2)b 0.7 (1.3)b * 0.2 (0.5)a 0.2 (0.6) 0.3 (0.8)b *** Number of ADL  limitations (0–6) 0.4 (1.0)a 0.6 (1.2)b 0.8 (1.4)c *** 0.7 (1.3) 0.7 (1.4) 1.4 (1.8) 0.4 (0.9)a 0.5 (1.1)b 0.7 (1.4)c *** Number of health  conditions (0–9) 1.6 (1.2)a 1.8 (1.3)b 1.9 (1.3)b *** 1.7 (1.2) 1.8 (1.3) 2.0 (1.2) 1.6 (1.1)a 1.8 (1.3)b 1.9 (1.3)b *** With cognitive problems 2.4 5.1 8.0 *** 5.8 17.9 22.7 *** 1.8 2.7 6.6 *** Spouse with care needs 50.2 40.5 37.7 *** 34.7 21.4 9.1 52.9 40.5 44.1 *** Relatives living nearby 30.4 31.9 21.4 *** 31.2 30.4 18.2 30.2 32.2 21.7 *** Friends living nearby 70.8 66.1 57.8 *** 66.5 62.5 61.4 71.6 66.8 57.5 *** Male 42.7 37.6 37.5 * 36.7 30.4 31.8 43.8 39.0 38.0 * Black 15.0 16.0 9.1 ** Years of education  (0–17) 12.7 (2.8)a 12.5 (2.8) 12.4 (2.9)b * 11.3 (3.3) 10.5 (3.9) 11.0 (3.6) 12.9 (2.6)a 12.8 (2.5) 12.5 (2.8)b ** Age (65–106) 74.2 (6.7)a 75.4 (7.4)b 76.5 (8.3)c *** 73.3 (6.5) 73.3 (6.8) 76.6 (9.4) 74.3 (6.7)a 75.8 (7.4)b 76.6 (8.2)b *** Change of marital status 4.2 10.0 8.9 *** 3.9 7.1 6.8 4.2 10.5 9.1 *** Volunteering status 37.0 33.9 24.7 *** 33.0 39.3 25.0 43.8 39.0 38.0 *** Notes: Means and percentages are based on raw data. All significance tests take design effects into account. When overall p values were significant, additional tests examining the differences between any two of the three groups were performed (groups that have different subscripts, a, b, or c, differed from one another at least at p < .05). IADL = instrumental activities of daily living; ADL = activities of daily living. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001. Table 2: Bivariate Relationship between Independent Variables and Type of Relocation, All and by Race Variable All (N = 8,361) Blacks (n = 1,226) Whites (n = 7,135) No Move (n = 7,524; 90.0%) Move within Area (n = 351; 4.2%) Move out of Area (n = 486; 5.8%) p No Move (n = 1,126; 91.8%) Move within Area (n = 56; 4.6%) Move out of Area (n = 44; 3.6%) p No Move (n = 6,398; 89.7%) Move within Area (n = 295; 4.1%) Move out of Area (n = 442; 6.2%) p Household income ($) ** **  0–20,000 23.8 31.9 34.4 48.7 72.7 67.9 19.4 25.1 30.5  20,001–40,000 30.1 29.3 29.2 25.0 18.2 16.1 31.0 31.9 30.3  40,001–60,000 18.8 14.0 16.1 11.5 4.6 5.4 20.1 15.6 17.2  60,001+ 27.4 24.8 20.4 14.9 4.6 10.7 29.5 27.5 22.0 Own home 81.0 58.1 52.7 *** 71.2 23.2 31.8 *** 82.7 64.8 54.8 *** Accessible home 14.8 19.1 20.0 * 14.1 19.6 20.5 14.9 19.0 19.9 Neighborhood safety **  Excellent 38.9 40.2 36.8 14.6 25.0 9.1 43.1 43.1 39.6  Very good 33.3 31.6 35.0 25.8 21.4 31.8 34.6 33.6 35.3  Good 20.2 16.0 20.8 36.0 12.5 45.5 17.4 16.6 18.3  Fair/poor 7.7 12.3 7.4 23.7 41.1 13.6 4.8 6.8 6.8 Number of IADL  limitations (0–4) 0.2 (0.6)a 0.3 (0.8)b 0.4 (0.9)b *** 0.3 (0.8)a 0.6 (1.2)b 0.7 (1.3)b * 0.2 (0.5)a 0.2 (0.6) 0.3 (0.8)b *** Number of ADL  limitations (0–6) 0.4 (1.0)a 0.6 (1.2)b 0.8 (1.4)c *** 0.7 (1.3) 0.7 (1.4) 1.4 (1.8) 0.4 (0.9)a 0.5 (1.1)b 0.7 (1.4)c *** Number of health  conditions (0–9) 1.6 (1.2)a 1.8 (1.3)b 1.9 (1.3)b *** 1.7 (1.2) 1.8 (1.3) 2.0 (1.2) 1.6 (1.1)a 1.8 (1.3)b 1.9 (1.3)b *** With cognitive problems 2.4 5.1 8.0 *** 5.8 17.9 22.7 *** 1.8 2.7 6.6 *** Spouse with care needs 50.2 40.5 37.7 *** 34.7 21.4 9.1 52.9 40.5 44.1 *** Relatives living nearby 30.4 31.9 21.4 *** 31.2 30.4 18.2 30.2 32.2 21.7 *** Friends living nearby 70.8 66.1 57.8 *** 66.5 62.5 61.4 71.6 66.8 57.5 *** Male 42.7 37.6 37.5 * 36.7 30.4 31.8 43.8 39.0 38.0 * Black 15.0 16.0 9.1 ** Years of education  (0–17) 12.7 (2.8)a 12.5 (2.8) 12.4 (2.9)b * 11.3 (3.3) 10.5 (3.9) 11.0 (3.6) 12.9 (2.6)a 12.8 (2.5) 12.5 (2.8)b ** Age (65–106) 74.2 (6.7)a 75.4 (7.4)b 76.5 (8.3)c *** 73.3 (6.5) 73.3 (6.8) 76.6 (9.4) 74.3 (6.7)a 75.8 (7.4)b 76.6 (8.2)b *** Change of marital status 4.2 10.0 8.9 *** 3.9 7.1 6.8 4.2 10.5 9.1 *** Volunteering status 37.0 33.9 24.7 *** 33.0 39.3 25.0 43.8 39.0 38.0 *** Variable All (N = 8,361) Blacks (n = 1,226) Whites (n = 7,135) No Move (n = 7,524; 90.0%) Move within Area (n = 351; 4.2%) Move out of Area (n = 486; 5.8%) p No Move (n = 1,126; 91.8%) Move within Area (n = 56; 4.6%) Move out of Area (n = 44; 3.6%) p No Move (n = 6,398; 89.7%) Move within Area (n = 295; 4.1%) Move out of Area (n = 442; 6.2%) p Household income ($) ** **  0–20,000 23.8 31.9 34.4 48.7 72.7 67.9 19.4 25.1 30.5  20,001–40,000 30.1 29.3 29.2 25.0 18.2 16.1 31.0 31.9 30.3  40,001–60,000 18.8 14.0 16.1 11.5 4.6 5.4 20.1 15.6 17.2  60,001+ 27.4 24.8 20.4 14.9 4.6 10.7 29.5 27.5 22.0 Own home 81.0 58.1 52.7 *** 71.2 23.2 31.8 *** 82.7 64.8 54.8 *** Accessible home 14.8 19.1 20.0 * 14.1 19.6 20.5 14.9 19.0 19.9 Neighborhood safety **  Excellent 38.9 40.2 36.8 14.6 25.0 9.1 43.1 43.1 39.6  Very good 33.3 31.6 35.0 25.8 21.4 31.8 34.6 33.6 35.3  Good 20.2 16.0 20.8 36.0 12.5 45.5 17.4 16.6 18.3  Fair/poor 7.7 12.3 7.4 23.7 41.1 13.6 4.8 6.8 6.8 Number of IADL  limitations (0–4) 0.2 (0.6)a 0.3 (0.8)b 0.4 (0.9)b *** 0.3 (0.8)a 0.6 (1.2)b 0.7 (1.3)b * 0.2 (0.5)a 0.2 (0.6) 0.3 (0.8)b *** Number of ADL  limitations (0–6) 0.4 (1.0)a 0.6 (1.2)b 0.8 (1.4)c *** 0.7 (1.3) 0.7 (1.4) 1.4 (1.8) 0.4 (0.9)a 0.5 (1.1)b 0.7 (1.4)c *** Number of health  conditions (0–9) 1.6 (1.2)a 1.8 (1.3)b 1.9 (1.3)b *** 1.7 (1.2) 1.8 (1.3) 2.0 (1.2) 1.6 (1.1)a 1.8 (1.3)b 1.9 (1.3)b *** With cognitive problems 2.4 5.1 8.0 *** 5.8 17.9 22.7 *** 1.8 2.7 6.6 *** Spouse with care needs 50.2 40.5 37.7 *** 34.7 21.4 9.1 52.9 40.5 44.1 *** Relatives living nearby 30.4 31.9 21.4 *** 31.2 30.4 18.2 30.2 32.2 21.7 *** Friends living nearby 70.8 66.1 57.8 *** 66.5 62.5 61.4 71.6 66.8 57.5 *** Male 42.7 37.6 37.5 * 36.7 30.4 31.8 43.8 39.0 38.0 * Black 15.0 16.0 9.1 ** Years of education  (0–17) 12.7 (2.8)a 12.5 (2.8) 12.4 (2.9)b * 11.3 (3.3) 10.5 (3.9) 11.0 (3.6) 12.9 (2.6)a 12.8 (2.5) 12.5 (2.8)b ** Age (65–106) 74.2 (6.7)a 75.4 (7.4)b 76.5 (8.3)c *** 73.3 (6.5) 73.3 (6.8) 76.6 (9.4) 74.3 (6.7)a 75.8 (7.4)b 76.6 (8.2)b *** Change of marital status 4.2 10.0 8.9 *** 3.9 7.1 6.8 4.2 10.5 9.1 *** Volunteering status 37.0 33.9 24.7 *** 33.0 39.3 25.0 43.8 39.0 38.0 *** Notes: Means and percentages are based on raw data. All significance tests take design effects into account. When overall p values were significant, additional tests examining the differences between any two of the three groups were performed (groups that have different subscripts, a, b, or c, differed from one another at least at p < .05). IADL = instrumental activities of daily living; ADL = activities of daily living. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001. Regression Findings To gauge the relationship between race, volunteering, and relocation, we used multinomial logistic regression models (see Table 3). Although there were relatively low numbers of black older adults who moved within and out of area, we first conducted bivariate multinomial logistic regression models (without controlling for other variables) and then applied multivariate multinomial logistic regression analysis (with all other variables being controlled) to better assess whether and how race was associated with volunteering and moving. These models were used to model the log odds of making one of two types of moves (within area or out of area) versus making no move at all from the predictor variables. Relative risk ratios (RRRs) were used to demonstrate the likelihood of either an out-of-area or in-area move for older adults. Table 3: Bivariate Multinomial Logistic Regression Models (Move out of Area versus Move within Area versus No Move), by Race Variable Blacks (n = 1,226) Whites (n = 7,135) Move within Area Move out of Area Move within Area Move out of Area versus versus versus versus No Move No Move No Move No Move B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR Household income −0.21 (0.12) 0.81 −0.43 (0.30) 0.65 −0.08 (0.08) 0.92 −0.26*** (0.06) 0.77 Own home −1.97*** (0.42) 0.14 −1.56*** (0.33) 0.21 −0.94*** (0.14) 0.39 −1.34*** (0.10) 0.26 Accessible home 0.47 (0.36) 1.61 0.46 (0.48) 1.59 0.21 (0.19) 1.23 0.30* (0.15) 1.35 Neighborhood safety −0.07 (0.23) 0.94 −0.05 (0.14) 0.95 0.02 (0.09) 1.02 0.17** (0.05) 1.18 Number of IADL limitations 0.36** (0.13) 1.43 0.56*** (0.16) 1.75 0.21* (0.10) 1.23 0.41*** (0.06) 1.52 Number of ADL limitations 0.08 (0.11) 1.08 0.27** (0.09) 1.32 0.13** (0.05) 1.14 0.32*** (0.04) 1.37 Number of health conditions 0.19 (0.14) 1.21 0.20* (0.10) 1.22 0.11 (0.06) 1.12 0.21*** (0.05) 1.23 With cognitive problems 1.28* (0.54) 3.59 1.58*** (0.44) 4.86 0.36 (0.42) 1.44 1.45*** (0.21) 4.27 Spouse with care needs −0.18 (0.31) 0.84 −1.30 (0.70) 0.27 −0.35* (0.15) 0.71 −0.49*** (0.12) 0.61 Relatives living nearby 0.17 (0.30) 1.19 −0.97* (0.47) 0.38 0.12 (0.16) 1.12 −0.49*** (0.13) 0.61 Friends living nearby −0.32 (0.32) 0.72 −0.59 (0.36) 0.56 −0.28* (0.13) 0.76 −0.64*** (0.12) 0.53 Male −0.20 (0.30) 0.82 −0.24 (0.39) 0.79 −0.20 (0.12) 0.82 −0.24** (0.09) 0.79 Years of education −0.06 (0.04) 0.95 0.01 (0.05) 1.01 −0.01 (0.03) 0.99 −0.06** (0.02) 0.95 Age 0.00 (0.02) 1.00 0.06* (0.03) 1.05 0.03** (0.01) 1.03 0.04*** (0.01) 1.04 Change of marital status 0.76 (0.58) 2.14 0.70 (0.69) 2.01 1.09*** (0.28) 2.98 0.78*** (0.19) 2.18 Volunteering status −0.07 (0.38) 0.93 −0.37 (0.36) 0.69 −0.16 (0.18) 0.85 −0.71*** (0.13) 0.49 Variable Blacks (n = 1,226) Whites (n = 7,135) Move within Area Move out of Area Move within Area Move out of Area versus versus versus versus No Move No Move No Move No Move B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR Household income −0.21 (0.12) 0.81 −0.43 (0.30) 0.65 −0.08 (0.08) 0.92 −0.26*** (0.06) 0.77 Own home −1.97*** (0.42) 0.14 −1.56*** (0.33) 0.21 −0.94*** (0.14) 0.39 −1.34*** (0.10) 0.26 Accessible home 0.47 (0.36) 1.61 0.46 (0.48) 1.59 0.21 (0.19) 1.23 0.30* (0.15) 1.35 Neighborhood safety −0.07 (0.23) 0.94 −0.05 (0.14) 0.95 0.02 (0.09) 1.02 0.17** (0.05) 1.18 Number of IADL limitations 0.36** (0.13) 1.43 0.56*** (0.16) 1.75 0.21* (0.10) 1.23 0.41*** (0.06) 1.52 Number of ADL limitations 0.08 (0.11) 1.08 0.27** (0.09) 1.32 0.13** (0.05) 1.14 0.32*** (0.04) 1.37 Number of health conditions 0.19 (0.14) 1.21 0.20* (0.10) 1.22 0.11 (0.06) 1.12 0.21*** (0.05) 1.23 With cognitive problems 1.28* (0.54) 3.59 1.58*** (0.44) 4.86 0.36 (0.42) 1.44 1.45*** (0.21) 4.27 Spouse with care needs −0.18 (0.31) 0.84 −1.30 (0.70) 0.27 −0.35* (0.15) 0.71 −0.49*** (0.12) 0.61 Relatives living nearby 0.17 (0.30) 1.19 −0.97* (0.47) 0.38 0.12 (0.16) 1.12 −0.49*** (0.13) 0.61 Friends living nearby −0.32 (0.32) 0.72 −0.59 (0.36) 0.56 −0.28* (0.13) 0.76 −0.64*** (0.12) 0.53 Male −0.20 (0.30) 0.82 −0.24 (0.39) 0.79 −0.20 (0.12) 0.82 −0.24** (0.09) 0.79 Years of education −0.06 (0.04) 0.95 0.01 (0.05) 1.01 −0.01 (0.03) 0.99 −0.06** (0.02) 0.95 Age 0.00 (0.02) 1.00 0.06* (0.03) 1.05 0.03** (0.01) 1.03 0.04*** (0.01) 1.04 Change of marital status 0.76 (0.58) 2.14 0.70 (0.69) 2.01 1.09*** (0.28) 2.98 0.78*** (0.19) 2.18 Volunteering status −0.07 (0.38) 0.93 −0.37 (0.36) 0.69 −0.16 (0.18) 0.85 −0.71*** (0.13) 0.49 Notes: RRR = relative risk ratio; IADL = instrumental activities of daily living; ADL = activities of daily living. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001. Table 3: Bivariate Multinomial Logistic Regression Models (Move out of Area versus Move within Area versus No Move), by Race Variable Blacks (n = 1,226) Whites (n = 7,135) Move within Area Move out of Area Move within Area Move out of Area versus versus versus versus No Move No Move No Move No Move B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR Household income −0.21 (0.12) 0.81 −0.43 (0.30) 0.65 −0.08 (0.08) 0.92 −0.26*** (0.06) 0.77 Own home −1.97*** (0.42) 0.14 −1.56*** (0.33) 0.21 −0.94*** (0.14) 0.39 −1.34*** (0.10) 0.26 Accessible home 0.47 (0.36) 1.61 0.46 (0.48) 1.59 0.21 (0.19) 1.23 0.30* (0.15) 1.35 Neighborhood safety −0.07 (0.23) 0.94 −0.05 (0.14) 0.95 0.02 (0.09) 1.02 0.17** (0.05) 1.18 Number of IADL limitations 0.36** (0.13) 1.43 0.56*** (0.16) 1.75 0.21* (0.10) 1.23 0.41*** (0.06) 1.52 Number of ADL limitations 0.08 (0.11) 1.08 0.27** (0.09) 1.32 0.13** (0.05) 1.14 0.32*** (0.04) 1.37 Number of health conditions 0.19 (0.14) 1.21 0.20* (0.10) 1.22 0.11 (0.06) 1.12 0.21*** (0.05) 1.23 With cognitive problems 1.28* (0.54) 3.59 1.58*** (0.44) 4.86 0.36 (0.42) 1.44 1.45*** (0.21) 4.27 Spouse with care needs −0.18 (0.31) 0.84 −1.30 (0.70) 0.27 −0.35* (0.15) 0.71 −0.49*** (0.12) 0.61 Relatives living nearby 0.17 (0.30) 1.19 −0.97* (0.47) 0.38 0.12 (0.16) 1.12 −0.49*** (0.13) 0.61 Friends living nearby −0.32 (0.32) 0.72 −0.59 (0.36) 0.56 −0.28* (0.13) 0.76 −0.64*** (0.12) 0.53 Male −0.20 (0.30) 0.82 −0.24 (0.39) 0.79 −0.20 (0.12) 0.82 −0.24** (0.09) 0.79 Years of education −0.06 (0.04) 0.95 0.01 (0.05) 1.01 −0.01 (0.03) 0.99 −0.06** (0.02) 0.95 Age 0.00 (0.02) 1.00 0.06* (0.03) 1.05 0.03** (0.01) 1.03 0.04*** (0.01) 1.04 Change of marital status 0.76 (0.58) 2.14 0.70 (0.69) 2.01 1.09*** (0.28) 2.98 0.78*** (0.19) 2.18 Volunteering status −0.07 (0.38) 0.93 −0.37 (0.36) 0.69 −0.16 (0.18) 0.85 −0.71*** (0.13) 0.49 Variable Blacks (n = 1,226) Whites (n = 7,135) Move within Area Move out of Area Move within Area Move out of Area versus versus versus versus No Move No Move No Move No Move B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR Household income −0.21 (0.12) 0.81 −0.43 (0.30) 0.65 −0.08 (0.08) 0.92 −0.26*** (0.06) 0.77 Own home −1.97*** (0.42) 0.14 −1.56*** (0.33) 0.21 −0.94*** (0.14) 0.39 −1.34*** (0.10) 0.26 Accessible home 0.47 (0.36) 1.61 0.46 (0.48) 1.59 0.21 (0.19) 1.23 0.30* (0.15) 1.35 Neighborhood safety −0.07 (0.23) 0.94 −0.05 (0.14) 0.95 0.02 (0.09) 1.02 0.17** (0.05) 1.18 Number of IADL limitations 0.36** (0.13) 1.43 0.56*** (0.16) 1.75 0.21* (0.10) 1.23 0.41*** (0.06) 1.52 Number of ADL limitations 0.08 (0.11) 1.08 0.27** (0.09) 1.32 0.13** (0.05) 1.14 0.32*** (0.04) 1.37 Number of health conditions 0.19 (0.14) 1.21 0.20* (0.10) 1.22 0.11 (0.06) 1.12 0.21*** (0.05) 1.23 With cognitive problems 1.28* (0.54) 3.59 1.58*** (0.44) 4.86 0.36 (0.42) 1.44 1.45*** (0.21) 4.27 Spouse with care needs −0.18 (0.31) 0.84 −1.30 (0.70) 0.27 −0.35* (0.15) 0.71 −0.49*** (0.12) 0.61 Relatives living nearby 0.17 (0.30) 1.19 −0.97* (0.47) 0.38 0.12 (0.16) 1.12 −0.49*** (0.13) 0.61 Friends living nearby −0.32 (0.32) 0.72 −0.59 (0.36) 0.56 −0.28* (0.13) 0.76 −0.64*** (0.12) 0.53 Male −0.20 (0.30) 0.82 −0.24 (0.39) 0.79 −0.20 (0.12) 0.82 −0.24** (0.09) 0.79 Years of education −0.06 (0.04) 0.95 0.01 (0.05) 1.01 −0.01 (0.03) 0.99 −0.06** (0.02) 0.95 Age 0.00 (0.02) 1.00 0.06* (0.03) 1.05 0.03** (0.01) 1.03 0.04*** (0.01) 1.04 Change of marital status 0.76 (0.58) 2.14 0.70 (0.69) 2.01 1.09*** (0.28) 2.98 0.78*** (0.19) 2.18 Volunteering status −0.07 (0.38) 0.93 −0.37 (0.36) 0.69 −0.16 (0.18) 0.85 −0.71*** (0.13) 0.49 Notes: RRR = relative risk ratio; IADL = instrumental activities of daily living; ADL = activities of daily living. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001. Bivariate Multinomial Logistic Regression Findings For black older adults, those who owned a home were less likely to move either within area (B = −1.97; RRR = 0.14) or out of area (B = −1.56; RRR = 0.21). In general, older adults with more health problems were more likely to move; this was especially true for those who moved out of area as was reflected by the significant findings of the four indicators of health (IADL, ADL, health conditions, and cognitive problems). Two more variables were related to older blacks’ out-of-area relocation: Those with relatives living nearby were less likely to move (B = −0.97; RRR = 0.38), whereas those who were older were more likely to do so (B = 0.06; RRR = 1.05). For whites, more variables were related to older adults’ relocation. Owning a home, having a spouse with care needs, and having friends living nearby reduced the likelihoods of an in-area move (Bs = −0.94, −0.35, and −0.28, respectively; RRRs = 0.39, 0.71, and 0.76, respectively), whereas having more IADL limitations, having more ADL limitations, being older, and changing marital status increased such likelihoods (Bs = 0.21, 0.13, 0.03, and 1.09, respectively; RRRs = 1.23, 1.14, 1.03, and 2.98, respectively). Moving out of area among white older adults was related to all predictor variables that we considered in the study. Multivariate Multinomial Logistic Regression Findings Among all older people in the sample (first two columns in Table 4), only two variables influenced the likelihood of moving within an area: owning a home (B = −1.00; RRR = 0.37) and changing marital status (B = 1.18; RRR = 3.25). More variables, however, were related to the likelihood of out-of-area relocation: home ownership (B = −1.11; RRR = 0.33), number of ADL limitations (B = 0.13; RRR = 1.14), cognitive problems (B = 0.99; RRR = 2.70), relatives and friends nearby (Bs = −0.51 and −0.44, respectively; RRRs = 0.60 and 0.64, respectively), race (B = −0.92; RRR = 0.40), age (B = −0.32; RRR = 0.73), and change of marital status (B = 0.97; RRR = 2.65). Those who volunteered in 2008 were less likely to move out of area in 2010 (B = −0.33; RRR = 0.71). Such a relationship, however, differed when blacks and whites were examined separately. Table 4: Multivariate Multinomial Logistic Regression Models (Move out of Area versus Move within Area versus No Move), All and Stratified by Race Variable All (N = 8,361) Blacks (n = 1,226) Whites (n = 7,135) Move within Area Move out of Area Move within Area Move out of Area Move within Area Move out of Area versus versus versus versus versus versus No Move No Move No Move No Move No Move No Move B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR Household income 0.80 (0.07) 1.08 −0.01 (0.06) 0.99 0.07 (0.13) 1.07 −0.21 (0.27) 0.81 0.07 (0.07) 1.09 0.04 (0.06) 1.00 Own home −1.00*** (0.13) 0.37 −1.11*** (0.12) 0.33 −2.19*** (0.42) 0.11 −1.28** (0.40) 0.28 −0.88*** (0.13) 0.42 −1.10*** (0.13) 0.34 Accessible home 0.07 (0.16) 1.07 −0.02 (0.15) 0.98 0.46 (0.38) 1.59 0.16 (0.51) 1.17 0.04 (0.19) 1.04 −0.04 (0.17) 0.96 Neighborhood safety −0.01 (0.08) 0.99 0.08 (0.06) 1.09 −0.02 (0.21) 0.98 −0.00 (0.16) 1.00 0.01 (0.09) 1.00 0.08 (0.06) 1.09 Number of IADL limitations 0.10 (0.13) 1.10 −0.02 (0.10) 0.98 0.33 (0.23) 1.39 0.33 (0.27) 1.39 0.06 (0.15) 1.07 −0.06 (0.11) 0.94 Number of ADL limitations −0.01 (0.06) 0.99 0.13* (0.07) 1.14 −0.17 (0.13) 0.84 −0.00 (0.12) 1.00 0.02 (0.07) 1.02 0.15* (0.07) 1.16 Number of health conditions 0.06 (0.05) 1.06 0.08 (0.05) 1.09 0.11 (0.18) 1.11 0.06 (0.15) 1.06 0.05 (0.05) 1.05 0.09 (0.05) 1.09 With cognitive problems 0.32 (0.42) 1.37 0.99*** (0.24) 2.70 1.13 (0.72) 3.10 1.05 (0.63) 2.86 0.03 (0.50) 1.02 0.96*** (0.25) 2.66 Spouse with care needs −0.23 (0.16) 0.80 −0.15 (0.15) 0.86 0.42 (0.29) 1.52 −0.83 (0.82) 0.44 −0.26 (0.17) 0.77 −0.15 (0.15) 0.88 Relatives living nearby 0.15 (0.16) 1.16 −0.51*** (0.12) 0.60 0.19 (0.35) 1.21 −0.96 (0.51) 0.38 0.15 (0.16) 1.16 −0.49*** (0.12) 0.61 Friends living nearby −0.22 (0.11) 0.80 −0.44*** (0.12) 0.64 −0.19 (0.36) 0.83 −0.37 (0.35) 0.69 −0.22 (0.12) 0.80 −0.45*** (0.13) 0.64 Male −0.04 (0.10) 0.96 0.01 (0.10) 1.01 −0.06 (0.29) 0.94 0.31 (0.36) 1.37 −0.05 (0.11) 0.95 −0.01 (0.10) 1.00 Black 0.12 (0.17) 1.13 −0.92*** (0.19) 0.40 Years of education 0.02 (0.02) 1.02 0.03 (0.02) 1.03 −0.01 (0.05) 0.99 0.12* (0.05) 1.13 0.03 (0.03) 1.03 0.01 (0.02) 1.02 Age −0.08 (0.16) 0.93 −0.32* (0.15) 0.73 0.08 (0.46) 1.08 −0.69 (0.41) 0.50 −0.09 (0.16) 0.91 −0.29 (0.16) 0.74 Age2 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 0.00* (0.00) 1.00 −0.00 (0.00) 0.99 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 Change of marital status 1.18*** (0.28) 3.25 0.97*** (0.23) 2.65 0.84 (0.68) 2.31 1.51 (0.87) 4.54 1.20*** (0.29) 3.32 0.95*** (0.23) 2.60 Volunteering status 0.00 (0.17) 1.00 −0.33** (0.15) 0.71 0.59 (0.42) 1.80 0.21 (0.38) 1.23 −0.04 (0.19) 0.96 −0.37** (0.15) 0.70 Constant −0.25 (6.04) 0.78 9.15 (6.03) 9393.33 −4.42 (17.22) 0.01 22.13 (15.86) 4.1e+09 −0.05 (6.28) 1.04 8.21 (6.44) 5070.48 Model statistics F(36, 13) = 37.04, p ≤ .001 F(34, 15) = 8.79, p ≤ .001 F(34, 15) = 24.87, p ≤ .001 Variable All (N = 8,361) Blacks (n = 1,226) Whites (n = 7,135) Move within Area Move out of Area Move within Area Move out of Area Move within Area Move out of Area versus versus versus versus versus versus No Move No Move No Move No Move No Move No Move B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR Household income 0.80 (0.07) 1.08 −0.01 (0.06) 0.99 0.07 (0.13) 1.07 −0.21 (0.27) 0.81 0.07 (0.07) 1.09 0.04 (0.06) 1.00 Own home −1.00*** (0.13) 0.37 −1.11*** (0.12) 0.33 −2.19*** (0.42) 0.11 −1.28** (0.40) 0.28 −0.88*** (0.13) 0.42 −1.10*** (0.13) 0.34 Accessible home 0.07 (0.16) 1.07 −0.02 (0.15) 0.98 0.46 (0.38) 1.59 0.16 (0.51) 1.17 0.04 (0.19) 1.04 −0.04 (0.17) 0.96 Neighborhood safety −0.01 (0.08) 0.99 0.08 (0.06) 1.09 −0.02 (0.21) 0.98 −0.00 (0.16) 1.00 0.01 (0.09) 1.00 0.08 (0.06) 1.09 Number of IADL limitations 0.10 (0.13) 1.10 −0.02 (0.10) 0.98 0.33 (0.23) 1.39 0.33 (0.27) 1.39 0.06 (0.15) 1.07 −0.06 (0.11) 0.94 Number of ADL limitations −0.01 (0.06) 0.99 0.13* (0.07) 1.14 −0.17 (0.13) 0.84 −0.00 (0.12) 1.00 0.02 (0.07) 1.02 0.15* (0.07) 1.16 Number of health conditions 0.06 (0.05) 1.06 0.08 (0.05) 1.09 0.11 (0.18) 1.11 0.06 (0.15) 1.06 0.05 (0.05) 1.05 0.09 (0.05) 1.09 With cognitive problems 0.32 (0.42) 1.37 0.99*** (0.24) 2.70 1.13 (0.72) 3.10 1.05 (0.63) 2.86 0.03 (0.50) 1.02 0.96*** (0.25) 2.66 Spouse with care needs −0.23 (0.16) 0.80 −0.15 (0.15) 0.86 0.42 (0.29) 1.52 −0.83 (0.82) 0.44 −0.26 (0.17) 0.77 −0.15 (0.15) 0.88 Relatives living nearby 0.15 (0.16) 1.16 −0.51*** (0.12) 0.60 0.19 (0.35) 1.21 −0.96 (0.51) 0.38 0.15 (0.16) 1.16 −0.49*** (0.12) 0.61 Friends living nearby −0.22 (0.11) 0.80 −0.44*** (0.12) 0.64 −0.19 (0.36) 0.83 −0.37 (0.35) 0.69 −0.22 (0.12) 0.80 −0.45*** (0.13) 0.64 Male −0.04 (0.10) 0.96 0.01 (0.10) 1.01 −0.06 (0.29) 0.94 0.31 (0.36) 1.37 −0.05 (0.11) 0.95 −0.01 (0.10) 1.00 Black 0.12 (0.17) 1.13 −0.92*** (0.19) 0.40 Years of education 0.02 (0.02) 1.02 0.03 (0.02) 1.03 −0.01 (0.05) 0.99 0.12* (0.05) 1.13 0.03 (0.03) 1.03 0.01 (0.02) 1.02 Age −0.08 (0.16) 0.93 −0.32* (0.15) 0.73 0.08 (0.46) 1.08 −0.69 (0.41) 0.50 −0.09 (0.16) 0.91 −0.29 (0.16) 0.74 Age2 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 0.00* (0.00) 1.00 −0.00 (0.00) 0.99 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 Change of marital status 1.18*** (0.28) 3.25 0.97*** (0.23) 2.65 0.84 (0.68) 2.31 1.51 (0.87) 4.54 1.20*** (0.29) 3.32 0.95*** (0.23) 2.60 Volunteering status 0.00 (0.17) 1.00 −0.33** (0.15) 0.71 0.59 (0.42) 1.80 0.21 (0.38) 1.23 −0.04 (0.19) 0.96 −0.37** (0.15) 0.70 Constant −0.25 (6.04) 0.78 9.15 (6.03) 9393.33 −4.42 (17.22) 0.01 22.13 (15.86) 4.1e+09 −0.05 (6.28) 1.04 8.21 (6.44) 5070.48 Model statistics F(36, 13) = 37.04, p ≤ .001 F(34, 15) = 8.79, p ≤ .001 F(34, 15) = 24.87, p ≤ .001 Notes: RRR = relative risk ratio; IADL = instrumental activities of daily living; ADL = activities of daily living. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001. Table 4: Multivariate Multinomial Logistic Regression Models (Move out of Area versus Move within Area versus No Move), All and Stratified by Race Variable All (N = 8,361) Blacks (n = 1,226) Whites (n = 7,135) Move within Area Move out of Area Move within Area Move out of Area Move within Area Move out of Area versus versus versus versus versus versus No Move No Move No Move No Move No Move No Move B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR Household income 0.80 (0.07) 1.08 −0.01 (0.06) 0.99 0.07 (0.13) 1.07 −0.21 (0.27) 0.81 0.07 (0.07) 1.09 0.04 (0.06) 1.00 Own home −1.00*** (0.13) 0.37 −1.11*** (0.12) 0.33 −2.19*** (0.42) 0.11 −1.28** (0.40) 0.28 −0.88*** (0.13) 0.42 −1.10*** (0.13) 0.34 Accessible home 0.07 (0.16) 1.07 −0.02 (0.15) 0.98 0.46 (0.38) 1.59 0.16 (0.51) 1.17 0.04 (0.19) 1.04 −0.04 (0.17) 0.96 Neighborhood safety −0.01 (0.08) 0.99 0.08 (0.06) 1.09 −0.02 (0.21) 0.98 −0.00 (0.16) 1.00 0.01 (0.09) 1.00 0.08 (0.06) 1.09 Number of IADL limitations 0.10 (0.13) 1.10 −0.02 (0.10) 0.98 0.33 (0.23) 1.39 0.33 (0.27) 1.39 0.06 (0.15) 1.07 −0.06 (0.11) 0.94 Number of ADL limitations −0.01 (0.06) 0.99 0.13* (0.07) 1.14 −0.17 (0.13) 0.84 −0.00 (0.12) 1.00 0.02 (0.07) 1.02 0.15* (0.07) 1.16 Number of health conditions 0.06 (0.05) 1.06 0.08 (0.05) 1.09 0.11 (0.18) 1.11 0.06 (0.15) 1.06 0.05 (0.05) 1.05 0.09 (0.05) 1.09 With cognitive problems 0.32 (0.42) 1.37 0.99*** (0.24) 2.70 1.13 (0.72) 3.10 1.05 (0.63) 2.86 0.03 (0.50) 1.02 0.96*** (0.25) 2.66 Spouse with care needs −0.23 (0.16) 0.80 −0.15 (0.15) 0.86 0.42 (0.29) 1.52 −0.83 (0.82) 0.44 −0.26 (0.17) 0.77 −0.15 (0.15) 0.88 Relatives living nearby 0.15 (0.16) 1.16 −0.51*** (0.12) 0.60 0.19 (0.35) 1.21 −0.96 (0.51) 0.38 0.15 (0.16) 1.16 −0.49*** (0.12) 0.61 Friends living nearby −0.22 (0.11) 0.80 −0.44*** (0.12) 0.64 −0.19 (0.36) 0.83 −0.37 (0.35) 0.69 −0.22 (0.12) 0.80 −0.45*** (0.13) 0.64 Male −0.04 (0.10) 0.96 0.01 (0.10) 1.01 −0.06 (0.29) 0.94 0.31 (0.36) 1.37 −0.05 (0.11) 0.95 −0.01 (0.10) 1.00 Black 0.12 (0.17) 1.13 −0.92*** (0.19) 0.40 Years of education 0.02 (0.02) 1.02 0.03 (0.02) 1.03 −0.01 (0.05) 0.99 0.12* (0.05) 1.13 0.03 (0.03) 1.03 0.01 (0.02) 1.02 Age −0.08 (0.16) 0.93 −0.32* (0.15) 0.73 0.08 (0.46) 1.08 −0.69 (0.41) 0.50 −0.09 (0.16) 0.91 −0.29 (0.16) 0.74 Age2 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 0.00* (0.00) 1.00 −0.00 (0.00) 0.99 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 Change of marital status 1.18*** (0.28) 3.25 0.97*** (0.23) 2.65 0.84 (0.68) 2.31 1.51 (0.87) 4.54 1.20*** (0.29) 3.32 0.95*** (0.23) 2.60 Volunteering status 0.00 (0.17) 1.00 −0.33** (0.15) 0.71 0.59 (0.42) 1.80 0.21 (0.38) 1.23 −0.04 (0.19) 0.96 −0.37** (0.15) 0.70 Constant −0.25 (6.04) 0.78 9.15 (6.03) 9393.33 −4.42 (17.22) 0.01 22.13 (15.86) 4.1e+09 −0.05 (6.28) 1.04 8.21 (6.44) 5070.48 Model statistics F(36, 13) = 37.04, p ≤ .001 F(34, 15) = 8.79, p ≤ .001 F(34, 15) = 24.87, p ≤ .001 Variable All (N = 8,361) Blacks (n = 1,226) Whites (n = 7,135) Move within Area Move out of Area Move within Area Move out of Area Move within Area Move out of Area versus versus versus versus versus versus No Move No Move No Move No Move No Move No Move B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR Household income 0.80 (0.07) 1.08 −0.01 (0.06) 0.99 0.07 (0.13) 1.07 −0.21 (0.27) 0.81 0.07 (0.07) 1.09 0.04 (0.06) 1.00 Own home −1.00*** (0.13) 0.37 −1.11*** (0.12) 0.33 −2.19*** (0.42) 0.11 −1.28** (0.40) 0.28 −0.88*** (0.13) 0.42 −1.10*** (0.13) 0.34 Accessible home 0.07 (0.16) 1.07 −0.02 (0.15) 0.98 0.46 (0.38) 1.59 0.16 (0.51) 1.17 0.04 (0.19) 1.04 −0.04 (0.17) 0.96 Neighborhood safety −0.01 (0.08) 0.99 0.08 (0.06) 1.09 −0.02 (0.21) 0.98 −0.00 (0.16) 1.00 0.01 (0.09) 1.00 0.08 (0.06) 1.09 Number of IADL limitations 0.10 (0.13) 1.10 −0.02 (0.10) 0.98 0.33 (0.23) 1.39 0.33 (0.27) 1.39 0.06 (0.15) 1.07 −0.06 (0.11) 0.94 Number of ADL limitations −0.01 (0.06) 0.99 0.13* (0.07) 1.14 −0.17 (0.13) 0.84 −0.00 (0.12) 1.00 0.02 (0.07) 1.02 0.15* (0.07) 1.16 Number of health conditions 0.06 (0.05) 1.06 0.08 (0.05) 1.09 0.11 (0.18) 1.11 0.06 (0.15) 1.06 0.05 (0.05) 1.05 0.09 (0.05) 1.09 With cognitive problems 0.32 (0.42) 1.37 0.99*** (0.24) 2.70 1.13 (0.72) 3.10 1.05 (0.63) 2.86 0.03 (0.50) 1.02 0.96*** (0.25) 2.66 Spouse with care needs −0.23 (0.16) 0.80 −0.15 (0.15) 0.86 0.42 (0.29) 1.52 −0.83 (0.82) 0.44 −0.26 (0.17) 0.77 −0.15 (0.15) 0.88 Relatives living nearby 0.15 (0.16) 1.16 −0.51*** (0.12) 0.60 0.19 (0.35) 1.21 −0.96 (0.51) 0.38 0.15 (0.16) 1.16 −0.49*** (0.12) 0.61 Friends living nearby −0.22 (0.11) 0.80 −0.44*** (0.12) 0.64 −0.19 (0.36) 0.83 −0.37 (0.35) 0.69 −0.22 (0.12) 0.80 −0.45*** (0.13) 0.64 Male −0.04 (0.10) 0.96 0.01 (0.10) 1.01 −0.06 (0.29) 0.94 0.31 (0.36) 1.37 −0.05 (0.11) 0.95 −0.01 (0.10) 1.00 Black 0.12 (0.17) 1.13 −0.92*** (0.19) 0.40 Years of education 0.02 (0.02) 1.02 0.03 (0.02) 1.03 −0.01 (0.05) 0.99 0.12* (0.05) 1.13 0.03 (0.03) 1.03 0.01 (0.02) 1.02 Age −0.08 (0.16) 0.93 −0.32* (0.15) 0.73 0.08 (0.46) 1.08 −0.69 (0.41) 0.50 −0.09 (0.16) 0.91 −0.29 (0.16) 0.74 Age2 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 0.00* (0.00) 1.00 −0.00 (0.00) 0.99 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 Change of marital status 1.18*** (0.28) 3.25 0.97*** (0.23) 2.65 0.84 (0.68) 2.31 1.51 (0.87) 4.54 1.20*** (0.29) 3.32 0.95*** (0.23) 2.60 Volunteering status 0.00 (0.17) 1.00 −0.33** (0.15) 0.71 0.59 (0.42) 1.80 0.21 (0.38) 1.23 −0.04 (0.19) 0.96 −0.37** (0.15) 0.70 Constant −0.25 (6.04) 0.78 9.15 (6.03) 9393.33 −4.42 (17.22) 0.01 22.13 (15.86) 4.1e+09 −0.05 (6.28) 1.04 8.21 (6.44) 5070.48 Model statistics F(36, 13) = 37.04, p ≤ .001 F(34, 15) = 8.79, p ≤ .001 F(34, 15) = 24.87, p ≤ .001 Notes: RRR = relative risk ratio; IADL = instrumental activities of daily living; ADL = activities of daily living. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001. For blacks, owning a home was the only predictor that influenced in-area relocation (B = −2.19; RRR = 0.11). As for out-of-area relocation, those who owned a home (B = −1.28; RRR = 0.28) and those who were less educated (B = 0.12; RRR = 1.13) were less likely to move out of area. For white older adults, owning a home reduced the likelihood of moving within area (B = −0.88; RRR = 0.42), but changing marital status increased it (B = 1.20; RRR = 3.32). More predictors were associated with older whites’ out-of-area relocation. Those who had more ADL limitations, had cognitive problems, and changed marital status were more likely to move out of area (Bs = 0.16, 0.96, and 0.95, respectively; RRRs = 1.16, 2.66, and 2.60, respectively). There were four variables that reduced the likelihood of moving out of area: owning a home (B = −1.10; RRR = 0.34), having relatives nearby (B = −0.49; RRR = 0.61), having friends nearby (B = 0.45; RRR = 0.64), and volunteering (B = −0.37; RRR = 0.70). In short, results showed that those who volunteered in 2008 were less likely to move out of area in 2010, when all other variables were controlled. Such a relationship remained true for white older adults, but the effect of volunteering on relocation disappeared for black older adults. Discussion As we explored the social and material convoy factors by race, multivariate logistic regression findings suggested that older black adults were more likely to relocate in older adulthood if they did not own their home and were more educated. Older white adults were more likely to relocate if they did not own their home, had more health problems, changed marital status, did not have relatives or friends living nearby, and did not volunteer. Whereas more educational attainment for older black adults correlated with them being more likely to relocate, education was not found to be related to relocation for older white adults. These findings can be organized along three lines: the role of volunteering and social networks, the role of health problems, and the role of education. First, volunteering reduces relocation among white older adults, but among black older adults, volunteering is not related to relocation. Although volunteering is associated with greater social networks (Brown, Hoye, & Nicholson, 2012; Pilkington, Windsor, & Crisp, 2012), the configurations of social networks may be considered differently for blacks and whites as well as within each group. Whereas white study participants may relocate due to change in marital status, having no friends or relatives nearby, or not being involved in volunteer work, the same does not hold for black study participants. The meaning of relationships and the meaning of their absence may differ depending on an individual’s social network. There may be supplemental networks that blacks may have in place (for example, church or other places of worship) that may be as important as other relationships. This supports Tang et al.’s (2012) study finding showing that whites contribute by volunteering more in formal organizations, yet blacks perceive more rewards when they do volunteer. These benefits may buffer relocation, so that change in marital status or the lack of friends or relatives nearby would not be as influential to blacks as to whites. However, recent studies (Gonzales et al., 2016) underscore the need to understand sociohistorical and economic contexts of those who volunteer. Second, when considering the role of health problems as a predictor of relocation for whites but not blacks, we must consider the differential meanings and experiences of health problems in the lives of older adults. There is a documented difference in access to both preventive and acute health care for minorities. Schrader and Lewis (2013) documented the average wait time in emergency departments as experienced by blacks and whites. Blacks waited 68 minutes on average and whites waited 50 minutes. Blacks waited 21 more minutes after reporting symptoms of chest pains and 23 more minutes after reporting shortness of breath. Related to these real differences in how health conditions can be addressed on an acute scale may be differing expectations for wellness. According to Spanakis and Golden (2013), non-Hispanic blacks’ prevalence of diabetes (12.6%) is second to that of Native Americans (33%) and greater than that in non-Hispanic whites (7.1%). Given these factors, perhaps relocation as a result of health problems is not considered or feasible for blacks compared with whites. However, Kawachi, Daniels, and Robinson (2005) cautioned against conflating race and class in understanding health differences. The authors of this article also suggest that better understanding of the intersection of race and class will further enhance understanding of who moves within and out of their community and who ages in their current residence. Last, the more educated blacks were, the more likely they were to relocate in older adulthood. To explain this finding, the formative years of black Americans should be placed in sociohistorical contexts: as students, older blacks may have experienced segregation in educational settings, community change following migration from the South to various parts of the country, and redlining practices that barred racial minorities from home ownership. An older adult’s early experiences learning that only certain populations were welcome to dwell in specific neighborhoods might later influence whether that older adult relocates from a neighborhood. Jarris, Savage-Narva, and Lupi (2016) examined the relationships among redlining practices, lower property values, and substandard education and access to health care. With greater education, more social mobility, including relocation in older adulthood, becomes possible. These findings serve only as a starting point to intersect physical mobility in terms of relocation in older adulthood with social and educational mobility across a lifetime and larger instances of when black communities migrated north because of job opportunity (for example, auto jobs in the North) and to leave behind institutionally sanctioned racial segregation. Study Limitations The HRS examines volunteering in terms of whether one engages in formal volunteer activities with an educational, religious, or health organization. However, the type of volunteering and whether volunteering is considered formally organized or informal, such as caregiving, are important distinctions to be understood. We must also go beyond understanding the setting where an older adult volunteers, to better capture what skills each type of volunteering job requires and the number of hours contributed. Only with this background can we ask the crucial question, What aspects of volunteering and mechanisms provide benefits? Possible aspects include physical activity, social engagement, or psychological motivations. In addition, HRS constructs “relatives and friends nearby” as relatives and friends living in the neighborhood. This construction of the variables may exclude relatives or friends who are not in the immediate neighborhood but live, say, only 20 minutes away and could easily provide supports when needed. Finally, the present study looked at older adults’ relocation only within a time frame of two years. Older adults’ willingness to move or to stay, however, is unknown. Without knowing the degree of choice to move, we are not able to distinguish nonmovers who choose to remain in their community from those who lack the resources to relocate. Implications and Conclusion We need to consider how different groups may be affected by different policies and programs. These findings suggest that for white older adults, policymakers and practitioners can continue to promote community engagement, which in turn help them remain in the community. The ties that keep them connected to volunteering opportunities may also connect them to their communities. However, we must underscore that more research is needed on the role of volunteering for older black adults and their moving experiences, to better understand the intersection of the two. Qualitative research is needed to comprehend the major reasons that older black adults of all socioeconomic levels relocate and do not relocate. Moreover, we must explore how moving choices (for example, triggers to moving, criteria for choosing where to move) are made and experienced among older black adults. Interdisciplinary work using a life course perspective to investigate the complexities of social and physical mobility of older black adults will also enhance our understanding of the intersection of volunteering and relocation in older adulthood. In many ways, this study shows the importance of examining racial differences in gerontological research that transcends the disciplinary silos of productive aging and environmental gerontology. We build on the work of those in each field committed to understanding the variable pathways of aging and how sociohistorical, health, and economic legacies that perpetuate disparities intersect with the personal: the development and maintenance of one’s social and material convoy. By analyzing the changing of a centerpiece of one’s material convoy (relocation from one’s home), to understand whether aspects of the social convoy (for example, volunteering experiences) influence home transitions, and by attending to racial difference in this intersection, we have begun to break down dominant narratives of who volunteers and who relocates. We call for the development of future research projects that innovatively ask questions promoting trans-gerontological frameworks and hope that we can benefit from the richness of these scholarly endeavors. Tam E. Perry, PhD, MSSW, MA, is associate professor, School of Social Work, Wayne State University, 5447 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, MI 48202; e-mail: teperry@wayne.edu. Huei-Wern Shen, PhD, MSW, MA, is associate professor, Graduate Institute of Social Work, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei. Ernest Gonzales, PhD, MSSW, is assistant professor, Silver School of Social Work, New York University. References Bekhet , A. K. , Zauszniewski , J. A. , & Nakhla , W. E. ( 2009 ). Reasons for relocation to retirement communities: A qualitative study . Western Journal of Nursing Research , 31 , 462 – 479 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Black , K. , Dobbs , D. , & Young , T. L. ( 2015 ). Aging in community mobilizing a new paradigm of older adults as a core social resource . Journal of Applied Gerontology , 34 , 219 – 243 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Brown , K. M. , Hoye , R. , & Nicholson , M. ( 2012 ). Self-esteem, self-efficacy, and social connectedness as mediators of the relationship between volunteering and well-being . Journal of Social Service Research , 38 , 468 – 483 . doi:10.1080/01488376.2012.687706 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Davitt , J. K. , Lehning , A. J. , Scharlach , A. , & Greenfield , E. A. ( 2015 ). Sociopolitical and cultural contexts of community-based models in aging: The Village Initiative . Public Policy & Aging Report , 25 , 15 – 19 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Davitt , J. K. , Madigan , E. A. , Rantz , M. , & Skemp , L. ( 2016 ). Aging in community: Developing a more holistic approach to enhance older adults’ well-being . Research in Gerontological Nursing , 9 , 6 – 13 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Ekerdt , D. J. , & Baker , L. A. ( 2014 ). The material convoy after age 50 . Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 69 , 442 – 450 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Ekerdt , D. J. , Sergeant , J. F. , Dingel , M. , & Bowen , M. E. ( 2004 ). Household disbandment in later life . Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 59 , S265 – S273 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Gonzales , E. , Matz-Costa , C. , & Morrow-Howell , N. ( 2015 ). Increasing opportunities for the productive engagement of older adults: A response to population aging . Gerontologist , 55 , 252 – 261 . doi:10.1093/geront/gnu176 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Gonzales , E. , Shen , H.-W. , Wang , Y. , Sprague Martinez , L. S. , & Norstrand , J. ( 2016 ). Race and place: Exploring the intersection of inequity and volunteerism among older black and white adults . Journal of Gerontological Social Work , 59 , 381 – 400 . doi:10.1080/01634372.2016.1224787 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Haas , W. H. , & Serow , W. J. ( 1993 ). Amenity retirement migration process: A model and preliminary evidence . Gerontologist , 33 , 212 – 220 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Jarris , P. , Savage-Narva , Y. , & Lupi , M. V. ( 2016 ). Promoting health equity and optimal health for all . Journal of Public Health Management and Practice , 22 , S5 – S7 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Johnson , K. J. ( 2014 ). Volunteering among surviving spouses: The impact of volunteer activity on the health of the recently widowed. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A, 74. Kahn , R. L. , & Antonucci , T. C. ( 1980 ). Convoys over the life course: Attachment, roles, and social support. In P. B. Baltes & O. G. Brim (Eds.), Lifespan development and behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 253 – 286 ). New York : Academic Press . Kawachi , I. , Daniels , N. , & Robinson , D. ( 2005 ). Health disparities by race and class: Why both matter . Health Affairs , 24 , 343 – 352 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Litwak , E. , & Longino , C. F. ( 1987 ). Migration patterns among the elderly: A developmental perspective . Gerontologist , 27 , 266 – 272 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Longino , C. F. , Bradley , D. E. , Stoller , E. P. , & Haas , W. H. ( 2008 ). Predictors of non-local moves among older adults: A prospective study . Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 63 , S7 – S14 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Morrow-Howell , N. , Hinterlong , J. , Rozario , P. , & Tang , F. ( 2005 ). The effects of volunteering on the well-being of older adults . Journal Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 60 , S137 – S145 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Musick , M. A. , & Wilson , J. ( 2007 ). Volunteers: A social profile . Bloomington : Indiana University Press . Perry , T. E. ( 2014 ). The rite of relocation: Social and material transformations in the Midwest U.S . Signs and Society , 2 ( 1 ), 28 – 55 . doi:10.1086/675433 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Perry , T. E. , Andersen , T. C. , & Kaplan , D. B. ( 2014 ). Relocation remembered: Perspectives on senior transitions in the living environment . Gerontologist , 54 , 75 – 81 . doi:10.1093/geront/gnt070 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Perry , T. E. , Wintermute , T. , Carney , B. C. , Leach , D. E. , Sanford , C. , & Quist , L. E. ( 2015 ). Senior housing at a crossroads: A case study of a university/community partnership in Detroit, Michigan . Traumatology , 21 , 244 – 250 . doi:10.1037/trm0000043 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Pilkington , P. D. , Windsor , T. D. , & Crisp , D. A. ( 2012 ). Volunteering and subjective well-being in midlife and older adults: The role of supportive social networks . Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 67 , 249 – 260 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Scharlach , A. , & Lehning , A. ( 2015 ). Creating aging-friendly communities. New York : Oxford University Press . Schrader , C. D. , & Lewis , L. M. ( 2013 ). Racial disparity in emergency department triage . Journal of Emergency Medicine , 44 , 511 – 518 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Shen , H.-W. , & Perry , T. E. ( 2014 ). Giving back and staying put: Volunteering as a stabilizing force in relocation . Journal of Housing for the Elderly , 28 , 310 – 328 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Shen , H.-W. , & Perry , T. ( 2016 ). Interdependence between the social and material convoy: Links between volunteering, widowhood, and housing transitions . Social Work Research , 40 , 71 – 82 . doi:10.1093/swr/svw002 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Spanakis , E. K. , & Golden , S. H. ( 2013 ). Race/ethnic difference in diabetes and diabetic complications . Current Diabetes Reports , 13 , 814 – 823 . doi:10.1007/s11892-013-0421-9 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed StataCorp . ( 2011 ). Statistical software: Release 12 . College Station, TX : Author . Tang , F. , Copeland , V. C. , & Wexler , S. ( 2012 ). Racial differences in volunteer engagement by older adults: An empowerment perspective . Social Work Research , 36 , 89 – 100 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Tang , F. , & Morrow-Howell , N. ( 2008 ). Involvement in volunteer organization: How older adults access volunteer roles? Journal of Gerontological Social Work , 51 , 210 – 227 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS U.S. Census Bureau . ( 2015 a). Annual estimates of the resident population by sex, age, race alone or in combination, and Hispanic origin for the United States and States: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.aoa.acl.gov/Aging_Statistics/Profile/2015/7.aspx U.S. Census Bureau . ( 2015 b). Geographical mobility: 2013–2014, Table 1. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/migration/data/cps/cps2014.html Waldron , V. R. , Gitelson , R. , Kelley , D. , & Regalado , J. ( 2005 ). Losing and building supportive relationships in later life: A four-year study of migrants to a planned retirement community . Journal of Housing for the Elderly , 19 , 5 – 25 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Watson , W. ( 2016 , Fall). Aging in community: How an older couple helped launch a new multi-generational ecovillage neighborhood . Communities , 172 , 59 – 62 . Wilson , J. ( 2000 ). Volunteering . Annual Review of Sociology , 26 , 215 – 240 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Wiseman , R. F. ( 1980 ). Why older people move: Theoretical issues . Research on Aging , 2 , 141 – 154 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS © 2018 National Association of Social Workers This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Social Work Research Oxford University Press

Further Investigations of the Social and Material Convoy: Exploring Relationships between Race, Volunteering, and Relocation

Download PDF
12 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/further-investigations-of-the-social-and-material-convoy-exploring-eJnrOt0Opu

References (42)

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© 2018 National Association of Social Workers
ISSN
1070-5309
eISSN
1545-6838
DOI
10.1093/swr/svy024
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract This study used the social and material convoy framework to explore how individual and social resources, including volunteer engagement, inform household transitions in later life by race. Data from the 2008 and 2010 Health and Retirement Study compared non-Hispanic whites’ and non-Hispanic blacks’ relocation patterns in 2010 (N = 8,361). Multinomial logistic regression models tested the relationships between economic, home environment, health, social, and sociodemographic variables with relocation by race. Greater household assets, poorer health, and changing marital status reduced the likelihood of moving out of area among older white adults. However, home ownership and education reduced older black adults’ likelihood of out-of-area relocation. The social and material convoy framework demonstrated racial heterogeneity as older white adults who formally volunteered in 2008 were less likely to move out of area in 2010. Although policies on formal volunteering could help older white adults age in place, the same approach may not influence older black adults. Relocation in older adulthood has health, economic, and social implications for older adults, their family members, and their community. Relocation itself may be a stressful process, which may, in turn, generate negative physical and psychological reactions (Bekhet, Zauszniewski, & Nakhla, 2009). There are many costs associated with relocation, compounded by even higher costs if the relocation is into a long-term care facility. Between 2011 and 2012, 3.3% of older adults (65 years and older) relocated, which represents approximately 1.5 million older people in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015a). The majority (80.1%) of those who moved were white, followed by older African Americans (12.7%), Asians (5.0%) and all remaining racial–ethnic groups (1.5%). Given that 22% of older adults are racial and ethnic minorities (U.S. Census, 2015b) and the number of older adults in coming decades is projected to grow, understanding diverse pathways of aging in place or relocation among different racial–ethnic groups can lead to optimal allocation of scarce resources (for example, social services, financial support). There is also very little known about differences by race and relocation when investigating factors such as health, marital status, and educational levels. We see this as one of the first studies to address this issue with nationally representative data. Knowledge gained from this study can enhance recognition of the various ways older adults of diverse backgrounds can best contribute to society (for example, by volunteering) and enhance service provision of the multifaceted needs and concerns of older adults (for example, assistance with housing needs). As researchers pursue tailored investigations of gerontological inquiry, science must refrain from isolating these investigations to specialized knowledge. In fact, greater understanding of how subfields are related is needed to offer contributions for both practitioners and policymakers. In this article, we link two fields in gerontology as we explore intersecting aspects of productive aging and aging in place. Specifically, we examine the relationships between an individual’s social and material convoy with a focus on volunteering to better assess the relocation circumstances of diverse populations. Social and Material Convoy Factors Associated with Relocation The Social Convoy: Volunteering as Part of One’s Social Network Kahn and Antonucci (1980) proposed a social convoy model to understand the importance of social relations on an older individual’s well-being. One’s social convoy reflects the people who an older adult supports and who provide support to the older adult. In addition to partners, adult children, and other family members and friends who are all outlined in the original model, connections made through volunteering may be important to include when using the social convoy model to understand relocation in old age (Shen & Perry, 2016). Particularly important is the role of volunteering when other key relationships are lost (for example, when widowhood occurs). For example, volunteering has been shown to support social integration after disruptions or key life events (Johnson, 2014). It has also been found that volunteers are likely to have greater social ties, which in turn reduces the likelihood for older adults to move out of the area (Shen & Perry, 2014). This study’s use of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) opened up new ways of thinking about volunteering as a possible stabilizing force in later life. Findings show that volunteering significantly reduces the likelihood of relocating out of the area and that the relationship between volunteering and relocating out of the area is partially mediated by civic engagement. The Material Convoy: One’s Home as an Important Possession to Older Adults As people age, their relationship with their home and larger community changes. Theoretical and empirical studies have identified relocation triggers when remaining in one’s home becomes unsafe or unmanageable (Haas & Serow, 1993; Longino, Bradley, Stoller, & Haas, 2008; Wiseman, 1980). Wiseman’s (1980) model of relocation is a long-established model of how older adults make decisions to relocate. The first step in the model includes various triggering mechanisms, a change in one’s health status or becoming a widow or widower. Other scholars have considered triggering mechanisms in terms of what factors “push” an older adult to relocate and what factors “pull” or ground the older adult in his or her current residence. The weighing of these factors may lead to decisions to relocate or to remain in their current residence. Haas and Serow (1993) added additional levels of concern to considering push and pull factors. Some push factors addressing social network were whether an older adult had family in the area and, on a community level, concerns of crime, pollution, or problems found in urban areas (Haas & Serow, 1993). Factors that may pull an older adult away from his or her current residence might be a desire to be near family or friends and a desire to live in places where the older adult had lived or visited previously. Longino et al. (2008) examined geographical proximity to current residences where greater distances involved finding new friends, places of worship, and medical care. Waldron, Gitelson, Kelley, and Regalado (2005) examined both local and nonlocal moves in their study of “snowbirds,” finding that those who moved a long distance experienced a decrease in social support while those who moved locally had an increase in social relationships. Recently, scholarship has coined new terms such as “aging in community” as a way to recognize that changing one’s residence within a community may entail benefits for older adults; to remain connected to their social network; just being able to either move to a different, more accessible and sometimes smaller square footage; or to modify their current residence to promote aging in place (Davitt, Lehning, Scharlach, & Greenfield, 2015; Scharlach & Lehning, 2015; Watson, 2016). On the basis of feedback from older adults, Black, Dobbs, and Young (2015) proposed a new model of aging in community, with older adults’ contributions as a centerpiece, that included social inclusion and meaningful involvement in addition to aging-in-place supports, such as assistance with medication and home and lawn maintenance. Scholars have emphasized that we must consider how other systems of care inhibit the ability to promote aging in community. Discussing the health care system, Davitt, Madigan, Rantz, and Skemp (2016) noted, “The present model of individualized care fails to connect to the factors that influence well-being, from healthy communities with adequate resources to safe spaces that promote healthy living and social engagement” (p. 11). Sometimes relocation is voluntary, prompted by a desire to live in a new residence with greater ability to navigate spaces for safety and mobility reasons (Perry, 2014). Relocation in older adulthood can also occur because of a desire to live in a different community either away from unsafe or undesirable settings or moving toward a place where one has desired to live, as described by Litwak and Longino (1987) as an “amenity” move (for example, retirement to the Sunbelt of the United States). However, little is known about relocation patterns and experiences of various racial–ethnic groups (Perry, Andersen, & Kaplan, 2014). Recent studies have looked at what happens when urban African Americans are involuntarily relocated as their building is converted to market-rate apartments (Perry et al., 2015). Although this work examines changes in social networks after relocation, little is known about the effect of relocation from volunteering, which is part of the older adult’s social convoy. Intersections between the Social and Material Convoy: Investigating Racial Differences The present study incorporates the interest in social networks that strengthen older adults’ ties to their community by examining the role of volunteering in the relocation process and specifically exploring whether race moderates such a process. Some scholars have shown that there is disparity in who participates in volunteering by race (Gonzales, Shen, Wang, Sprague Martinez, & Norstrand, 2016; Musick & Wilson, 2007) and that those who do not volunteer do not receive the associated health and economic benefits. Race has also been shown to affect how older adults access volunteer opportunities (Tang & Morrow-Howell, 2008). Tang, Copeland, and Wexler’s (2012) study found that whites volunteer more in formal organizations and yet when blacks volunteer, they may perceive more benefits. Others, such as Morrow-Howell, Hinterlong, Rozario, and Tang (2005), found that no significant relationship exists between race, volunteering, and well-being. Many studies have found the importance of sociohistorical context in who participates in volunteering. For instance, Ferree et al. (1998) and Musick et al. (2000) (both cited in Wilson, 2000) show that volunteering is more likely to be influenced by their church for blacks than for whites. Scholars in the field of productive aging suggest that more investigation is warranted (Gonzales, Matz-Costa, & Morrow-Howell, 2015). We hope that this article contributes to our understanding of the variation in the volunteering experiences of older adults. This article also builds on an intersection of the social and material convoy proposed in previous work (Ekerdt & Baker, 2014; Ekerdt, Sergeant, Dingel, & Bowen, 2004; Shen & Perry, 2016). In Shen and Perry’s (2016) study, using multiple waves of the HRS, researchers found that widows and widowers who were not volunteering were more likely to move out of area two years later than their married counterparts, whereas the relationship between widowhood and relocation was not detected among those involved in volunteering. This existing work acknowledges the importance of home and neighborhood and the relationship with the social roles of older adults. Recent research suggests that volunteering is a protective factor to aging in place, noting that volunteering may act as a stabilizing factor to relocation (Shen & Perry, 2014). Whether such a relationship exists across different racial groups remains unknown. Thus, for this study, we examine the relationships between volunteering and relocation with attention to whether this relationship varies by different racial groups. Method Data and Sample We used two waves (2008 and 2010) of data from the HRS to investigate whether racial differences existed in the relationship between formal volunteering and relocation. HRS is a nationally representative data set, which has surveyed older adults 50 years of age and over biannually starting in 1992. HRS uses a multistage-area probability sample design, which oversamples African Americans, Hispanics, and Floridians. In the present study, community-dwelling older adults who were 65 years and older in 2008 and self-reported as being black or white were included. With all the study variables available, the final sample consisted of 8,361 individuals. Measures Dependent Variable: Relocation in 2010 The present study included older adults who lived in community in 2008, and their relocation types in 2010 included “no move since 2008” (coded 0), “moved within area” (coded 1), and “moved out of area” (coded 2). This variable was constructed by the HRS using several interview questions. When older adults relocated, they could move to either a community-based setting or an institutional-based setting. Independent Variables Independent variables were as follows—volunteering in 2008: Volunteering work referred to any unpaid work that older adults did for religious, educational, health-related, or other charitable organizations. Older adults who self-reported spending any time in the past 12 months doing volunteer work in 2008 (coded 1) were compared with those who did not do so (coded 0). Race: Two racial groups were considered in the present study. Those who were white (coded 0) were compared with those who were black (coded 1). Control Variables All control variables were measured in 2008. Financial resources: We considered two variables to indicate respondents’ financial resources: household income and home ownership. Household income was measured in four ordered categories: $0–20,000, $20,001–40,000, $40,001–60,000, and $60,001+. Home ownership indicated whether respondents own their home. Those who did not own homes (coded 0) were compared with those who owned or were buying a home or who lived on a farm (coded 1). Environment: We used two indicators to measure home environment. The variable accessible home indicated whether a participant’s house was disability accessible. We compared those living in a house that was accessible (coded 1) with those who were not (coded 0). Neighborhood safety was self-reported perception of how safe respondents felt about their neighborhood. We measured it with four levels (from 0 to 3): excellent, very good, good, and fair/poor. Health: To capture respondents’ health, we included five variables. First, number of instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) limitations counted how many tasks respondents were not able to perform without assistance or were not carrying out as a result of health reasons. The four IADL tasks included preparing a hot meal, shopping for groceries, making a telephone call, and taking medications. Second, number of activities of daily living (ADL) limitations was the sum of the tasks an older person reported getting help with, not conducting, or having difficulty performing. The six ADL tasks were dressing, bathing, eating, toileting, walking, and getting in and out of bed. Third, number of chronic health conditions was the number of nine health problems an older adult reported: diabetes, heart condition, stroke, lung disease, cancer, arthritis, psychiatric problems, urine control, and legal blindness or very poor eyesight. Fourth, we considered whether an older person had severe cognitive problems. A person was identified as having a cognitive problem (coded 1) if he or she failed to correctly answer 50% or more of the questions in the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status. Finally, we dichotomously coded the variable indicating a spouse with care needs. An older adult was considered having a spouse with care needs (coded 1) if the spouse had any ADL or IADL limitations, any chronic health conditions, or severe cognitive problems as defined here. Social supports: We considered social supports as the availability of social supports for an older individual, because direct measures of the social support older individuals received were not available in the present data set. We measured this concept with two indicators, both dichotomously coded: relatives living nearby and friends living nearby. Older adults who reported having relatives living in the neighborhood (coded 1) were compared with those who did not (coded 0). If older people reported having good friends living in the neighborhood, they were coded 1 on the variable friends living nearby; otherwise, they were coded 0. Demographics: We took four demographic characteristics into consideration. Gender was female or male. Education referred to years of education completed (0 to 17 years). Age was the respondent’s age in 2008, ranging from 65 to 106 years old. Age2 was included to capture a possible nonlinear relationship between age and relocation. Change of marital status was dichotomously coded. A respondent was identified as changing his or her marital status if the marital status differed between 2008 and 2010 (for example, from being married to being widowed) (coded 1). Analytical Strategies To understand whether racial differences existed in the relationship between volunteering and relocation, we took the following strategies. First, we conducted unweighted univariate and bivariate analysis for the dependent variable and independent variables. Second, because HRS used complex multistage sample design, we obtained accurate statistics and standard errors by performing all significance tests for bivariate analysis using SVY commands in Stata (Version 12.0). SVY is a survey prefix command in Stata; applying such a command allows our statistical models to adjust for complex survey data (sampling weights, clustering, and stratification of the sample by geographic location and size of place) (StataCorp, 2011). To test differences between did not move, moved within area, and moved out of area (the dependent variable), we used chi-square tests for categorical predictors. We used regression procedures for continuous predictor variables as no procedure analogous to analysis of variance was available when SVY commands were applied. Next, we used multinomial logistic regression to elucidate the relationships between race, volunteering status in 2008, and relocation in 2010. Because of the relatively small numbers of black older adults who relocated (56 moved within area and 44 moved out of area; detailed findings are presented in the next section), we conducted both bivariate and multivariate multinomial logistic regression analyses. Sixteen bivariate multinomial logistic regression models were conducted separately for older black and white adults. We then conducted three multivariate multinomial logistic regression models to better capture the role race played in volunteering and moving: one with the whole sample, one with black adults, and one with white adults. Although SVY commands in Stata are applied to all multinomial logistic regression models, typical goodness-of-fit information (for example, pseudo R2) cannot be obtained after such commands are applied. Results Descriptive Findings Univariate Findings Among 8,361 older adults, 486 (5.8%) moved out of area, 351 (4.2%) moved within area, and 7,524 (90.0%) did not move. More than 75% of older adults in the sample had annual income greater than $20,001 (2010 poverty threshold for a family of one person 65 years and over was $10,458), and 78.4% of them owned a home. With respect to the living environment, 15.3% of older adults lived in an accessible home, and more than 70% of them rated neighborhood safety as very good or excellent. In terms of their health, the average numbers of IADL limitations, ADL limitations, and health conditions were 0.2, 0.4, and 1.7, respectively. More than 97% of respondents did not have any cognitive problems, and about half of them had a spouse with care needs. In regard to social networks, about 30% of older adults had relatives living nearby, and 70% had friends nearby. Approximately 42% of the study sample was male, and 4.7% changed their marital status between 2008 and 2010. On average, they received 12.6 years of education and were 74.4 years old. More than 36% of older adults volunteered in 2008 (see Table 1). Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for All Variables (N = 8,361) Variable All Race Blacks Whites % or M (SD) (14.7%; n = 1,226) (85.3%; n = 7,135) p Type of relocation **  No move 90.0 91.8 89.7  Move within area 4.2 4.6 4.1  Move out of area 5.8 3.6 6.2 Household income ($) ***  0–20,000 24.7 50.4 20.3  20,001–40,000 30.0 24.3 31.0  40,001–60,000 18.4 10.9 19.7  60,001+ 26.8 14.3 29.0 Own home 78.4 67.6 80.2 *** Accessible home 15.3 14.6 15.4 Neighborhood safety ***  Excellent 38.8 14.9 42.9  Very good 33.3 25.8 34.6  Good 20.1 35.2 17.4  Fair/poor 7.8 24.1 5.0 Number of IADL limitations (0–4) 0.2 (0.6) 0.3 (0.8) 0.2 (0.6) *** Number of ADL limitations (0–6) 0.4 (1.0) 0.7 (1.3) 0.4 (1.0) *** Number of health conditions (0–9) 1.7 (1.2) 1.7 (1.2) 1.7 (1.2) ** With cognitive problems 2.85 93.1 97.9 *** Spouse with care needs 49.0 33.2 51.7 *** Relatives living nearby 29.9 30.7 29.8 Friends living nearby 69.9 66.2 70.5 Male 42.2 36.2 43.2 *** Years of education (0–17) 12.6 (2.8) 11.3 (3.3) 12.9 (2.6) *** Age (65–106) 74.4 (6.8) 73.4 (6.6) 74.5 (6.9) ** Change of marital status 4.7 4.2 4.8 Volunteering status 36.2 33.0 36.7 Variable All Race Blacks Whites % or M (SD) (14.7%; n = 1,226) (85.3%; n = 7,135) p Type of relocation **  No move 90.0 91.8 89.7  Move within area 4.2 4.6 4.1  Move out of area 5.8 3.6 6.2 Household income ($) ***  0–20,000 24.7 50.4 20.3  20,001–40,000 30.0 24.3 31.0  40,001–60,000 18.4 10.9 19.7  60,001+ 26.8 14.3 29.0 Own home 78.4 67.6 80.2 *** Accessible home 15.3 14.6 15.4 Neighborhood safety ***  Excellent 38.8 14.9 42.9  Very good 33.3 25.8 34.6  Good 20.1 35.2 17.4  Fair/poor 7.8 24.1 5.0 Number of IADL limitations (0–4) 0.2 (0.6) 0.3 (0.8) 0.2 (0.6) *** Number of ADL limitations (0–6) 0.4 (1.0) 0.7 (1.3) 0.4 (1.0) *** Number of health conditions (0–9) 1.7 (1.2) 1.7 (1.2) 1.7 (1.2) ** With cognitive problems 2.85 93.1 97.9 *** Spouse with care needs 49.0 33.2 51.7 *** Relatives living nearby 29.9 30.7 29.8 Friends living nearby 69.9 66.2 70.5 Male 42.2 36.2 43.2 *** Years of education (0–17) 12.6 (2.8) 11.3 (3.3) 12.9 (2.6) *** Age (65–106) 74.4 (6.8) 73.4 (6.6) 74.5 (6.9) ** Change of marital status 4.7 4.2 4.8 Volunteering status 36.2 33.0 36.7 Notes: Means and percentages are based on raw data. All significance tests take design effects into account. IADL = instrumental activities of daily living; ADL = activities of daily living. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001. Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for All Variables (N = 8,361) Variable All Race Blacks Whites % or M (SD) (14.7%; n = 1,226) (85.3%; n = 7,135) p Type of relocation **  No move 90.0 91.8 89.7  Move within area 4.2 4.6 4.1  Move out of area 5.8 3.6 6.2 Household income ($) ***  0–20,000 24.7 50.4 20.3  20,001–40,000 30.0 24.3 31.0  40,001–60,000 18.4 10.9 19.7  60,001+ 26.8 14.3 29.0 Own home 78.4 67.6 80.2 *** Accessible home 15.3 14.6 15.4 Neighborhood safety ***  Excellent 38.8 14.9 42.9  Very good 33.3 25.8 34.6  Good 20.1 35.2 17.4  Fair/poor 7.8 24.1 5.0 Number of IADL limitations (0–4) 0.2 (0.6) 0.3 (0.8) 0.2 (0.6) *** Number of ADL limitations (0–6) 0.4 (1.0) 0.7 (1.3) 0.4 (1.0) *** Number of health conditions (0–9) 1.7 (1.2) 1.7 (1.2) 1.7 (1.2) ** With cognitive problems 2.85 93.1 97.9 *** Spouse with care needs 49.0 33.2 51.7 *** Relatives living nearby 29.9 30.7 29.8 Friends living nearby 69.9 66.2 70.5 Male 42.2 36.2 43.2 *** Years of education (0–17) 12.6 (2.8) 11.3 (3.3) 12.9 (2.6) *** Age (65–106) 74.4 (6.8) 73.4 (6.6) 74.5 (6.9) ** Change of marital status 4.7 4.2 4.8 Volunteering status 36.2 33.0 36.7 Variable All Race Blacks Whites % or M (SD) (14.7%; n = 1,226) (85.3%; n = 7,135) p Type of relocation **  No move 90.0 91.8 89.7  Move within area 4.2 4.6 4.1  Move out of area 5.8 3.6 6.2 Household income ($) ***  0–20,000 24.7 50.4 20.3  20,001–40,000 30.0 24.3 31.0  40,001–60,000 18.4 10.9 19.7  60,001+ 26.8 14.3 29.0 Own home 78.4 67.6 80.2 *** Accessible home 15.3 14.6 15.4 Neighborhood safety ***  Excellent 38.8 14.9 42.9  Very good 33.3 25.8 34.6  Good 20.1 35.2 17.4  Fair/poor 7.8 24.1 5.0 Number of IADL limitations (0–4) 0.2 (0.6) 0.3 (0.8) 0.2 (0.6) *** Number of ADL limitations (0–6) 0.4 (1.0) 0.7 (1.3) 0.4 (1.0) *** Number of health conditions (0–9) 1.7 (1.2) 1.7 (1.2) 1.7 (1.2) ** With cognitive problems 2.85 93.1 97.9 *** Spouse with care needs 49.0 33.2 51.7 *** Relatives living nearby 29.9 30.7 29.8 Friends living nearby 69.9 66.2 70.5 Male 42.2 36.2 43.2 *** Years of education (0–17) 12.6 (2.8) 11.3 (3.3) 12.9 (2.6) *** Age (65–106) 74.4 (6.8) 73.4 (6.6) 74.5 (6.9) ** Change of marital status 4.7 4.2 4.8 Volunteering status 36.2 33.0 36.7 Notes: Means and percentages are based on raw data. All significance tests take design effects into account. IADL = instrumental activities of daily living; ADL = activities of daily living. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001. When looking at older black and older white adults separately, the distribution of the variables for each group was similar to that for the whole sample (see Table 1). Among 8,361 older adults, 14.7% were older black adults, and 85.3% were older white adults. For older black adults, 91.8% did not move, 4.6% moved within area, and 3.6% moved out of area (p ≤ .01). For older white adults, 89.7% did not move, 4.1% moved within area, and 6.2% moved out of area (p ≤ .01). However, when compared with older white adults, older black adults were less likely to move out of area, had lower household income (p ≤ .001), and were less likely to own a home (p ≤ .001) and to rate the safety of their neighborhood as excellent (p ≤ .001). Older black adults had worse health (that is, more IADL and ADL limitations; p ≤ .001) but were less likely to have cognitive problems (p ≤ .001) or to have a spouse with care needs (p ≤ .001). As for the demographics, older black adults were less likely to be male (p ≤ .001), had fewer years of education (p ≤ .001), and were younger (p ≤ .01). Bivariate Findings Table 2 shows the bivariate relationship between type of relocation and each independent variable by race. All assessed predictor variables differed significantly among the three types of relocation among older white adults, with an exception of home accessibility and neighborhood safety. Older white adults were less likely to move if they (a) had less than $20,000 household income (p ≤ .01), (b) owned a home (p ≤ .001), (c) had fewer IADL limitations (p ≤ .001), (d) had fewer ADL limitations (p ≤ .001), (e) had fewer health conditions (p ≤ .001), (f) had no cognitive problems (p ≤ .001), (g) had a spouse needing care (p ≤ .001), (h) had relatives nearby (p ≤ .001), (i) had friends nearby (p ≤ .001), (j) were male (p ≤ .05), (k) were more educated (p ≤ .01), (l) were younger (p ≤ .001), (m) did not change marital status (p ≤ .001), and (n) were volunteers (p ≤ .001). Older black adults were less likely to move if they (a) owned a home (p ≤ .001), (b) reported that neighborhood safety was excellent (p ≤ .01), (c) had fewer IADL limitations (p ≤ .05), and (d) had no cognitive problems (p ≤ .001). Table 2: Bivariate Relationship between Independent Variables and Type of Relocation, All and by Race Variable All (N = 8,361) Blacks (n = 1,226) Whites (n = 7,135) No Move (n = 7,524; 90.0%) Move within Area (n = 351; 4.2%) Move out of Area (n = 486; 5.8%) p No Move (n = 1,126; 91.8%) Move within Area (n = 56; 4.6%) Move out of Area (n = 44; 3.6%) p No Move (n = 6,398; 89.7%) Move within Area (n = 295; 4.1%) Move out of Area (n = 442; 6.2%) p Household income ($) ** **  0–20,000 23.8 31.9 34.4 48.7 72.7 67.9 19.4 25.1 30.5  20,001–40,000 30.1 29.3 29.2 25.0 18.2 16.1 31.0 31.9 30.3  40,001–60,000 18.8 14.0 16.1 11.5 4.6 5.4 20.1 15.6 17.2  60,001+ 27.4 24.8 20.4 14.9 4.6 10.7 29.5 27.5 22.0 Own home 81.0 58.1 52.7 *** 71.2 23.2 31.8 *** 82.7 64.8 54.8 *** Accessible home 14.8 19.1 20.0 * 14.1 19.6 20.5 14.9 19.0 19.9 Neighborhood safety **  Excellent 38.9 40.2 36.8 14.6 25.0 9.1 43.1 43.1 39.6  Very good 33.3 31.6 35.0 25.8 21.4 31.8 34.6 33.6 35.3  Good 20.2 16.0 20.8 36.0 12.5 45.5 17.4 16.6 18.3  Fair/poor 7.7 12.3 7.4 23.7 41.1 13.6 4.8 6.8 6.8 Number of IADL  limitations (0–4) 0.2 (0.6)a 0.3 (0.8)b 0.4 (0.9)b *** 0.3 (0.8)a 0.6 (1.2)b 0.7 (1.3)b * 0.2 (0.5)a 0.2 (0.6) 0.3 (0.8)b *** Number of ADL  limitations (0–6) 0.4 (1.0)a 0.6 (1.2)b 0.8 (1.4)c *** 0.7 (1.3) 0.7 (1.4) 1.4 (1.8) 0.4 (0.9)a 0.5 (1.1)b 0.7 (1.4)c *** Number of health  conditions (0–9) 1.6 (1.2)a 1.8 (1.3)b 1.9 (1.3)b *** 1.7 (1.2) 1.8 (1.3) 2.0 (1.2) 1.6 (1.1)a 1.8 (1.3)b 1.9 (1.3)b *** With cognitive problems 2.4 5.1 8.0 *** 5.8 17.9 22.7 *** 1.8 2.7 6.6 *** Spouse with care needs 50.2 40.5 37.7 *** 34.7 21.4 9.1 52.9 40.5 44.1 *** Relatives living nearby 30.4 31.9 21.4 *** 31.2 30.4 18.2 30.2 32.2 21.7 *** Friends living nearby 70.8 66.1 57.8 *** 66.5 62.5 61.4 71.6 66.8 57.5 *** Male 42.7 37.6 37.5 * 36.7 30.4 31.8 43.8 39.0 38.0 * Black 15.0 16.0 9.1 ** Years of education  (0–17) 12.7 (2.8)a 12.5 (2.8) 12.4 (2.9)b * 11.3 (3.3) 10.5 (3.9) 11.0 (3.6) 12.9 (2.6)a 12.8 (2.5) 12.5 (2.8)b ** Age (65–106) 74.2 (6.7)a 75.4 (7.4)b 76.5 (8.3)c *** 73.3 (6.5) 73.3 (6.8) 76.6 (9.4) 74.3 (6.7)a 75.8 (7.4)b 76.6 (8.2)b *** Change of marital status 4.2 10.0 8.9 *** 3.9 7.1 6.8 4.2 10.5 9.1 *** Volunteering status 37.0 33.9 24.7 *** 33.0 39.3 25.0 43.8 39.0 38.0 *** Variable All (N = 8,361) Blacks (n = 1,226) Whites (n = 7,135) No Move (n = 7,524; 90.0%) Move within Area (n = 351; 4.2%) Move out of Area (n = 486; 5.8%) p No Move (n = 1,126; 91.8%) Move within Area (n = 56; 4.6%) Move out of Area (n = 44; 3.6%) p No Move (n = 6,398; 89.7%) Move within Area (n = 295; 4.1%) Move out of Area (n = 442; 6.2%) p Household income ($) ** **  0–20,000 23.8 31.9 34.4 48.7 72.7 67.9 19.4 25.1 30.5  20,001–40,000 30.1 29.3 29.2 25.0 18.2 16.1 31.0 31.9 30.3  40,001–60,000 18.8 14.0 16.1 11.5 4.6 5.4 20.1 15.6 17.2  60,001+ 27.4 24.8 20.4 14.9 4.6 10.7 29.5 27.5 22.0 Own home 81.0 58.1 52.7 *** 71.2 23.2 31.8 *** 82.7 64.8 54.8 *** Accessible home 14.8 19.1 20.0 * 14.1 19.6 20.5 14.9 19.0 19.9 Neighborhood safety **  Excellent 38.9 40.2 36.8 14.6 25.0 9.1 43.1 43.1 39.6  Very good 33.3 31.6 35.0 25.8 21.4 31.8 34.6 33.6 35.3  Good 20.2 16.0 20.8 36.0 12.5 45.5 17.4 16.6 18.3  Fair/poor 7.7 12.3 7.4 23.7 41.1 13.6 4.8 6.8 6.8 Number of IADL  limitations (0–4) 0.2 (0.6)a 0.3 (0.8)b 0.4 (0.9)b *** 0.3 (0.8)a 0.6 (1.2)b 0.7 (1.3)b * 0.2 (0.5)a 0.2 (0.6) 0.3 (0.8)b *** Number of ADL  limitations (0–6) 0.4 (1.0)a 0.6 (1.2)b 0.8 (1.4)c *** 0.7 (1.3) 0.7 (1.4) 1.4 (1.8) 0.4 (0.9)a 0.5 (1.1)b 0.7 (1.4)c *** Number of health  conditions (0–9) 1.6 (1.2)a 1.8 (1.3)b 1.9 (1.3)b *** 1.7 (1.2) 1.8 (1.3) 2.0 (1.2) 1.6 (1.1)a 1.8 (1.3)b 1.9 (1.3)b *** With cognitive problems 2.4 5.1 8.0 *** 5.8 17.9 22.7 *** 1.8 2.7 6.6 *** Spouse with care needs 50.2 40.5 37.7 *** 34.7 21.4 9.1 52.9 40.5 44.1 *** Relatives living nearby 30.4 31.9 21.4 *** 31.2 30.4 18.2 30.2 32.2 21.7 *** Friends living nearby 70.8 66.1 57.8 *** 66.5 62.5 61.4 71.6 66.8 57.5 *** Male 42.7 37.6 37.5 * 36.7 30.4 31.8 43.8 39.0 38.0 * Black 15.0 16.0 9.1 ** Years of education  (0–17) 12.7 (2.8)a 12.5 (2.8) 12.4 (2.9)b * 11.3 (3.3) 10.5 (3.9) 11.0 (3.6) 12.9 (2.6)a 12.8 (2.5) 12.5 (2.8)b ** Age (65–106) 74.2 (6.7)a 75.4 (7.4)b 76.5 (8.3)c *** 73.3 (6.5) 73.3 (6.8) 76.6 (9.4) 74.3 (6.7)a 75.8 (7.4)b 76.6 (8.2)b *** Change of marital status 4.2 10.0 8.9 *** 3.9 7.1 6.8 4.2 10.5 9.1 *** Volunteering status 37.0 33.9 24.7 *** 33.0 39.3 25.0 43.8 39.0 38.0 *** Notes: Means and percentages are based on raw data. All significance tests take design effects into account. When overall p values were significant, additional tests examining the differences between any two of the three groups were performed (groups that have different subscripts, a, b, or c, differed from one another at least at p < .05). IADL = instrumental activities of daily living; ADL = activities of daily living. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001. Table 2: Bivariate Relationship between Independent Variables and Type of Relocation, All and by Race Variable All (N = 8,361) Blacks (n = 1,226) Whites (n = 7,135) No Move (n = 7,524; 90.0%) Move within Area (n = 351; 4.2%) Move out of Area (n = 486; 5.8%) p No Move (n = 1,126; 91.8%) Move within Area (n = 56; 4.6%) Move out of Area (n = 44; 3.6%) p No Move (n = 6,398; 89.7%) Move within Area (n = 295; 4.1%) Move out of Area (n = 442; 6.2%) p Household income ($) ** **  0–20,000 23.8 31.9 34.4 48.7 72.7 67.9 19.4 25.1 30.5  20,001–40,000 30.1 29.3 29.2 25.0 18.2 16.1 31.0 31.9 30.3  40,001–60,000 18.8 14.0 16.1 11.5 4.6 5.4 20.1 15.6 17.2  60,001+ 27.4 24.8 20.4 14.9 4.6 10.7 29.5 27.5 22.0 Own home 81.0 58.1 52.7 *** 71.2 23.2 31.8 *** 82.7 64.8 54.8 *** Accessible home 14.8 19.1 20.0 * 14.1 19.6 20.5 14.9 19.0 19.9 Neighborhood safety **  Excellent 38.9 40.2 36.8 14.6 25.0 9.1 43.1 43.1 39.6  Very good 33.3 31.6 35.0 25.8 21.4 31.8 34.6 33.6 35.3  Good 20.2 16.0 20.8 36.0 12.5 45.5 17.4 16.6 18.3  Fair/poor 7.7 12.3 7.4 23.7 41.1 13.6 4.8 6.8 6.8 Number of IADL  limitations (0–4) 0.2 (0.6)a 0.3 (0.8)b 0.4 (0.9)b *** 0.3 (0.8)a 0.6 (1.2)b 0.7 (1.3)b * 0.2 (0.5)a 0.2 (0.6) 0.3 (0.8)b *** Number of ADL  limitations (0–6) 0.4 (1.0)a 0.6 (1.2)b 0.8 (1.4)c *** 0.7 (1.3) 0.7 (1.4) 1.4 (1.8) 0.4 (0.9)a 0.5 (1.1)b 0.7 (1.4)c *** Number of health  conditions (0–9) 1.6 (1.2)a 1.8 (1.3)b 1.9 (1.3)b *** 1.7 (1.2) 1.8 (1.3) 2.0 (1.2) 1.6 (1.1)a 1.8 (1.3)b 1.9 (1.3)b *** With cognitive problems 2.4 5.1 8.0 *** 5.8 17.9 22.7 *** 1.8 2.7 6.6 *** Spouse with care needs 50.2 40.5 37.7 *** 34.7 21.4 9.1 52.9 40.5 44.1 *** Relatives living nearby 30.4 31.9 21.4 *** 31.2 30.4 18.2 30.2 32.2 21.7 *** Friends living nearby 70.8 66.1 57.8 *** 66.5 62.5 61.4 71.6 66.8 57.5 *** Male 42.7 37.6 37.5 * 36.7 30.4 31.8 43.8 39.0 38.0 * Black 15.0 16.0 9.1 ** Years of education  (0–17) 12.7 (2.8)a 12.5 (2.8) 12.4 (2.9)b * 11.3 (3.3) 10.5 (3.9) 11.0 (3.6) 12.9 (2.6)a 12.8 (2.5) 12.5 (2.8)b ** Age (65–106) 74.2 (6.7)a 75.4 (7.4)b 76.5 (8.3)c *** 73.3 (6.5) 73.3 (6.8) 76.6 (9.4) 74.3 (6.7)a 75.8 (7.4)b 76.6 (8.2)b *** Change of marital status 4.2 10.0 8.9 *** 3.9 7.1 6.8 4.2 10.5 9.1 *** Volunteering status 37.0 33.9 24.7 *** 33.0 39.3 25.0 43.8 39.0 38.0 *** Variable All (N = 8,361) Blacks (n = 1,226) Whites (n = 7,135) No Move (n = 7,524; 90.0%) Move within Area (n = 351; 4.2%) Move out of Area (n = 486; 5.8%) p No Move (n = 1,126; 91.8%) Move within Area (n = 56; 4.6%) Move out of Area (n = 44; 3.6%) p No Move (n = 6,398; 89.7%) Move within Area (n = 295; 4.1%) Move out of Area (n = 442; 6.2%) p Household income ($) ** **  0–20,000 23.8 31.9 34.4 48.7 72.7 67.9 19.4 25.1 30.5  20,001–40,000 30.1 29.3 29.2 25.0 18.2 16.1 31.0 31.9 30.3  40,001–60,000 18.8 14.0 16.1 11.5 4.6 5.4 20.1 15.6 17.2  60,001+ 27.4 24.8 20.4 14.9 4.6 10.7 29.5 27.5 22.0 Own home 81.0 58.1 52.7 *** 71.2 23.2 31.8 *** 82.7 64.8 54.8 *** Accessible home 14.8 19.1 20.0 * 14.1 19.6 20.5 14.9 19.0 19.9 Neighborhood safety **  Excellent 38.9 40.2 36.8 14.6 25.0 9.1 43.1 43.1 39.6  Very good 33.3 31.6 35.0 25.8 21.4 31.8 34.6 33.6 35.3  Good 20.2 16.0 20.8 36.0 12.5 45.5 17.4 16.6 18.3  Fair/poor 7.7 12.3 7.4 23.7 41.1 13.6 4.8 6.8 6.8 Number of IADL  limitations (0–4) 0.2 (0.6)a 0.3 (0.8)b 0.4 (0.9)b *** 0.3 (0.8)a 0.6 (1.2)b 0.7 (1.3)b * 0.2 (0.5)a 0.2 (0.6) 0.3 (0.8)b *** Number of ADL  limitations (0–6) 0.4 (1.0)a 0.6 (1.2)b 0.8 (1.4)c *** 0.7 (1.3) 0.7 (1.4) 1.4 (1.8) 0.4 (0.9)a 0.5 (1.1)b 0.7 (1.4)c *** Number of health  conditions (0–9) 1.6 (1.2)a 1.8 (1.3)b 1.9 (1.3)b *** 1.7 (1.2) 1.8 (1.3) 2.0 (1.2) 1.6 (1.1)a 1.8 (1.3)b 1.9 (1.3)b *** With cognitive problems 2.4 5.1 8.0 *** 5.8 17.9 22.7 *** 1.8 2.7 6.6 *** Spouse with care needs 50.2 40.5 37.7 *** 34.7 21.4 9.1 52.9 40.5 44.1 *** Relatives living nearby 30.4 31.9 21.4 *** 31.2 30.4 18.2 30.2 32.2 21.7 *** Friends living nearby 70.8 66.1 57.8 *** 66.5 62.5 61.4 71.6 66.8 57.5 *** Male 42.7 37.6 37.5 * 36.7 30.4 31.8 43.8 39.0 38.0 * Black 15.0 16.0 9.1 ** Years of education  (0–17) 12.7 (2.8)a 12.5 (2.8) 12.4 (2.9)b * 11.3 (3.3) 10.5 (3.9) 11.0 (3.6) 12.9 (2.6)a 12.8 (2.5) 12.5 (2.8)b ** Age (65–106) 74.2 (6.7)a 75.4 (7.4)b 76.5 (8.3)c *** 73.3 (6.5) 73.3 (6.8) 76.6 (9.4) 74.3 (6.7)a 75.8 (7.4)b 76.6 (8.2)b *** Change of marital status 4.2 10.0 8.9 *** 3.9 7.1 6.8 4.2 10.5 9.1 *** Volunteering status 37.0 33.9 24.7 *** 33.0 39.3 25.0 43.8 39.0 38.0 *** Notes: Means and percentages are based on raw data. All significance tests take design effects into account. When overall p values were significant, additional tests examining the differences between any two of the three groups were performed (groups that have different subscripts, a, b, or c, differed from one another at least at p < .05). IADL = instrumental activities of daily living; ADL = activities of daily living. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001. Regression Findings To gauge the relationship between race, volunteering, and relocation, we used multinomial logistic regression models (see Table 3). Although there were relatively low numbers of black older adults who moved within and out of area, we first conducted bivariate multinomial logistic regression models (without controlling for other variables) and then applied multivariate multinomial logistic regression analysis (with all other variables being controlled) to better assess whether and how race was associated with volunteering and moving. These models were used to model the log odds of making one of two types of moves (within area or out of area) versus making no move at all from the predictor variables. Relative risk ratios (RRRs) were used to demonstrate the likelihood of either an out-of-area or in-area move for older adults. Table 3: Bivariate Multinomial Logistic Regression Models (Move out of Area versus Move within Area versus No Move), by Race Variable Blacks (n = 1,226) Whites (n = 7,135) Move within Area Move out of Area Move within Area Move out of Area versus versus versus versus No Move No Move No Move No Move B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR Household income −0.21 (0.12) 0.81 −0.43 (0.30) 0.65 −0.08 (0.08) 0.92 −0.26*** (0.06) 0.77 Own home −1.97*** (0.42) 0.14 −1.56*** (0.33) 0.21 −0.94*** (0.14) 0.39 −1.34*** (0.10) 0.26 Accessible home 0.47 (0.36) 1.61 0.46 (0.48) 1.59 0.21 (0.19) 1.23 0.30* (0.15) 1.35 Neighborhood safety −0.07 (0.23) 0.94 −0.05 (0.14) 0.95 0.02 (0.09) 1.02 0.17** (0.05) 1.18 Number of IADL limitations 0.36** (0.13) 1.43 0.56*** (0.16) 1.75 0.21* (0.10) 1.23 0.41*** (0.06) 1.52 Number of ADL limitations 0.08 (0.11) 1.08 0.27** (0.09) 1.32 0.13** (0.05) 1.14 0.32*** (0.04) 1.37 Number of health conditions 0.19 (0.14) 1.21 0.20* (0.10) 1.22 0.11 (0.06) 1.12 0.21*** (0.05) 1.23 With cognitive problems 1.28* (0.54) 3.59 1.58*** (0.44) 4.86 0.36 (0.42) 1.44 1.45*** (0.21) 4.27 Spouse with care needs −0.18 (0.31) 0.84 −1.30 (0.70) 0.27 −0.35* (0.15) 0.71 −0.49*** (0.12) 0.61 Relatives living nearby 0.17 (0.30) 1.19 −0.97* (0.47) 0.38 0.12 (0.16) 1.12 −0.49*** (0.13) 0.61 Friends living nearby −0.32 (0.32) 0.72 −0.59 (0.36) 0.56 −0.28* (0.13) 0.76 −0.64*** (0.12) 0.53 Male −0.20 (0.30) 0.82 −0.24 (0.39) 0.79 −0.20 (0.12) 0.82 −0.24** (0.09) 0.79 Years of education −0.06 (0.04) 0.95 0.01 (0.05) 1.01 −0.01 (0.03) 0.99 −0.06** (0.02) 0.95 Age 0.00 (0.02) 1.00 0.06* (0.03) 1.05 0.03** (0.01) 1.03 0.04*** (0.01) 1.04 Change of marital status 0.76 (0.58) 2.14 0.70 (0.69) 2.01 1.09*** (0.28) 2.98 0.78*** (0.19) 2.18 Volunteering status −0.07 (0.38) 0.93 −0.37 (0.36) 0.69 −0.16 (0.18) 0.85 −0.71*** (0.13) 0.49 Variable Blacks (n = 1,226) Whites (n = 7,135) Move within Area Move out of Area Move within Area Move out of Area versus versus versus versus No Move No Move No Move No Move B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR Household income −0.21 (0.12) 0.81 −0.43 (0.30) 0.65 −0.08 (0.08) 0.92 −0.26*** (0.06) 0.77 Own home −1.97*** (0.42) 0.14 −1.56*** (0.33) 0.21 −0.94*** (0.14) 0.39 −1.34*** (0.10) 0.26 Accessible home 0.47 (0.36) 1.61 0.46 (0.48) 1.59 0.21 (0.19) 1.23 0.30* (0.15) 1.35 Neighborhood safety −0.07 (0.23) 0.94 −0.05 (0.14) 0.95 0.02 (0.09) 1.02 0.17** (0.05) 1.18 Number of IADL limitations 0.36** (0.13) 1.43 0.56*** (0.16) 1.75 0.21* (0.10) 1.23 0.41*** (0.06) 1.52 Number of ADL limitations 0.08 (0.11) 1.08 0.27** (0.09) 1.32 0.13** (0.05) 1.14 0.32*** (0.04) 1.37 Number of health conditions 0.19 (0.14) 1.21 0.20* (0.10) 1.22 0.11 (0.06) 1.12 0.21*** (0.05) 1.23 With cognitive problems 1.28* (0.54) 3.59 1.58*** (0.44) 4.86 0.36 (0.42) 1.44 1.45*** (0.21) 4.27 Spouse with care needs −0.18 (0.31) 0.84 −1.30 (0.70) 0.27 −0.35* (0.15) 0.71 −0.49*** (0.12) 0.61 Relatives living nearby 0.17 (0.30) 1.19 −0.97* (0.47) 0.38 0.12 (0.16) 1.12 −0.49*** (0.13) 0.61 Friends living nearby −0.32 (0.32) 0.72 −0.59 (0.36) 0.56 −0.28* (0.13) 0.76 −0.64*** (0.12) 0.53 Male −0.20 (0.30) 0.82 −0.24 (0.39) 0.79 −0.20 (0.12) 0.82 −0.24** (0.09) 0.79 Years of education −0.06 (0.04) 0.95 0.01 (0.05) 1.01 −0.01 (0.03) 0.99 −0.06** (0.02) 0.95 Age 0.00 (0.02) 1.00 0.06* (0.03) 1.05 0.03** (0.01) 1.03 0.04*** (0.01) 1.04 Change of marital status 0.76 (0.58) 2.14 0.70 (0.69) 2.01 1.09*** (0.28) 2.98 0.78*** (0.19) 2.18 Volunteering status −0.07 (0.38) 0.93 −0.37 (0.36) 0.69 −0.16 (0.18) 0.85 −0.71*** (0.13) 0.49 Notes: RRR = relative risk ratio; IADL = instrumental activities of daily living; ADL = activities of daily living. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001. Table 3: Bivariate Multinomial Logistic Regression Models (Move out of Area versus Move within Area versus No Move), by Race Variable Blacks (n = 1,226) Whites (n = 7,135) Move within Area Move out of Area Move within Area Move out of Area versus versus versus versus No Move No Move No Move No Move B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR Household income −0.21 (0.12) 0.81 −0.43 (0.30) 0.65 −0.08 (0.08) 0.92 −0.26*** (0.06) 0.77 Own home −1.97*** (0.42) 0.14 −1.56*** (0.33) 0.21 −0.94*** (0.14) 0.39 −1.34*** (0.10) 0.26 Accessible home 0.47 (0.36) 1.61 0.46 (0.48) 1.59 0.21 (0.19) 1.23 0.30* (0.15) 1.35 Neighborhood safety −0.07 (0.23) 0.94 −0.05 (0.14) 0.95 0.02 (0.09) 1.02 0.17** (0.05) 1.18 Number of IADL limitations 0.36** (0.13) 1.43 0.56*** (0.16) 1.75 0.21* (0.10) 1.23 0.41*** (0.06) 1.52 Number of ADL limitations 0.08 (0.11) 1.08 0.27** (0.09) 1.32 0.13** (0.05) 1.14 0.32*** (0.04) 1.37 Number of health conditions 0.19 (0.14) 1.21 0.20* (0.10) 1.22 0.11 (0.06) 1.12 0.21*** (0.05) 1.23 With cognitive problems 1.28* (0.54) 3.59 1.58*** (0.44) 4.86 0.36 (0.42) 1.44 1.45*** (0.21) 4.27 Spouse with care needs −0.18 (0.31) 0.84 −1.30 (0.70) 0.27 −0.35* (0.15) 0.71 −0.49*** (0.12) 0.61 Relatives living nearby 0.17 (0.30) 1.19 −0.97* (0.47) 0.38 0.12 (0.16) 1.12 −0.49*** (0.13) 0.61 Friends living nearby −0.32 (0.32) 0.72 −0.59 (0.36) 0.56 −0.28* (0.13) 0.76 −0.64*** (0.12) 0.53 Male −0.20 (0.30) 0.82 −0.24 (0.39) 0.79 −0.20 (0.12) 0.82 −0.24** (0.09) 0.79 Years of education −0.06 (0.04) 0.95 0.01 (0.05) 1.01 −0.01 (0.03) 0.99 −0.06** (0.02) 0.95 Age 0.00 (0.02) 1.00 0.06* (0.03) 1.05 0.03** (0.01) 1.03 0.04*** (0.01) 1.04 Change of marital status 0.76 (0.58) 2.14 0.70 (0.69) 2.01 1.09*** (0.28) 2.98 0.78*** (0.19) 2.18 Volunteering status −0.07 (0.38) 0.93 −0.37 (0.36) 0.69 −0.16 (0.18) 0.85 −0.71*** (0.13) 0.49 Variable Blacks (n = 1,226) Whites (n = 7,135) Move within Area Move out of Area Move within Area Move out of Area versus versus versus versus No Move No Move No Move No Move B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR Household income −0.21 (0.12) 0.81 −0.43 (0.30) 0.65 −0.08 (0.08) 0.92 −0.26*** (0.06) 0.77 Own home −1.97*** (0.42) 0.14 −1.56*** (0.33) 0.21 −0.94*** (0.14) 0.39 −1.34*** (0.10) 0.26 Accessible home 0.47 (0.36) 1.61 0.46 (0.48) 1.59 0.21 (0.19) 1.23 0.30* (0.15) 1.35 Neighborhood safety −0.07 (0.23) 0.94 −0.05 (0.14) 0.95 0.02 (0.09) 1.02 0.17** (0.05) 1.18 Number of IADL limitations 0.36** (0.13) 1.43 0.56*** (0.16) 1.75 0.21* (0.10) 1.23 0.41*** (0.06) 1.52 Number of ADL limitations 0.08 (0.11) 1.08 0.27** (0.09) 1.32 0.13** (0.05) 1.14 0.32*** (0.04) 1.37 Number of health conditions 0.19 (0.14) 1.21 0.20* (0.10) 1.22 0.11 (0.06) 1.12 0.21*** (0.05) 1.23 With cognitive problems 1.28* (0.54) 3.59 1.58*** (0.44) 4.86 0.36 (0.42) 1.44 1.45*** (0.21) 4.27 Spouse with care needs −0.18 (0.31) 0.84 −1.30 (0.70) 0.27 −0.35* (0.15) 0.71 −0.49*** (0.12) 0.61 Relatives living nearby 0.17 (0.30) 1.19 −0.97* (0.47) 0.38 0.12 (0.16) 1.12 −0.49*** (0.13) 0.61 Friends living nearby −0.32 (0.32) 0.72 −0.59 (0.36) 0.56 −0.28* (0.13) 0.76 −0.64*** (0.12) 0.53 Male −0.20 (0.30) 0.82 −0.24 (0.39) 0.79 −0.20 (0.12) 0.82 −0.24** (0.09) 0.79 Years of education −0.06 (0.04) 0.95 0.01 (0.05) 1.01 −0.01 (0.03) 0.99 −0.06** (0.02) 0.95 Age 0.00 (0.02) 1.00 0.06* (0.03) 1.05 0.03** (0.01) 1.03 0.04*** (0.01) 1.04 Change of marital status 0.76 (0.58) 2.14 0.70 (0.69) 2.01 1.09*** (0.28) 2.98 0.78*** (0.19) 2.18 Volunteering status −0.07 (0.38) 0.93 −0.37 (0.36) 0.69 −0.16 (0.18) 0.85 −0.71*** (0.13) 0.49 Notes: RRR = relative risk ratio; IADL = instrumental activities of daily living; ADL = activities of daily living. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001. Bivariate Multinomial Logistic Regression Findings For black older adults, those who owned a home were less likely to move either within area (B = −1.97; RRR = 0.14) or out of area (B = −1.56; RRR = 0.21). In general, older adults with more health problems were more likely to move; this was especially true for those who moved out of area as was reflected by the significant findings of the four indicators of health (IADL, ADL, health conditions, and cognitive problems). Two more variables were related to older blacks’ out-of-area relocation: Those with relatives living nearby were less likely to move (B = −0.97; RRR = 0.38), whereas those who were older were more likely to do so (B = 0.06; RRR = 1.05). For whites, more variables were related to older adults’ relocation. Owning a home, having a spouse with care needs, and having friends living nearby reduced the likelihoods of an in-area move (Bs = −0.94, −0.35, and −0.28, respectively; RRRs = 0.39, 0.71, and 0.76, respectively), whereas having more IADL limitations, having more ADL limitations, being older, and changing marital status increased such likelihoods (Bs = 0.21, 0.13, 0.03, and 1.09, respectively; RRRs = 1.23, 1.14, 1.03, and 2.98, respectively). Moving out of area among white older adults was related to all predictor variables that we considered in the study. Multivariate Multinomial Logistic Regression Findings Among all older people in the sample (first two columns in Table 4), only two variables influenced the likelihood of moving within an area: owning a home (B = −1.00; RRR = 0.37) and changing marital status (B = 1.18; RRR = 3.25). More variables, however, were related to the likelihood of out-of-area relocation: home ownership (B = −1.11; RRR = 0.33), number of ADL limitations (B = 0.13; RRR = 1.14), cognitive problems (B = 0.99; RRR = 2.70), relatives and friends nearby (Bs = −0.51 and −0.44, respectively; RRRs = 0.60 and 0.64, respectively), race (B = −0.92; RRR = 0.40), age (B = −0.32; RRR = 0.73), and change of marital status (B = 0.97; RRR = 2.65). Those who volunteered in 2008 were less likely to move out of area in 2010 (B = −0.33; RRR = 0.71). Such a relationship, however, differed when blacks and whites were examined separately. Table 4: Multivariate Multinomial Logistic Regression Models (Move out of Area versus Move within Area versus No Move), All and Stratified by Race Variable All (N = 8,361) Blacks (n = 1,226) Whites (n = 7,135) Move within Area Move out of Area Move within Area Move out of Area Move within Area Move out of Area versus versus versus versus versus versus No Move No Move No Move No Move No Move No Move B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR Household income 0.80 (0.07) 1.08 −0.01 (0.06) 0.99 0.07 (0.13) 1.07 −0.21 (0.27) 0.81 0.07 (0.07) 1.09 0.04 (0.06) 1.00 Own home −1.00*** (0.13) 0.37 −1.11*** (0.12) 0.33 −2.19*** (0.42) 0.11 −1.28** (0.40) 0.28 −0.88*** (0.13) 0.42 −1.10*** (0.13) 0.34 Accessible home 0.07 (0.16) 1.07 −0.02 (0.15) 0.98 0.46 (0.38) 1.59 0.16 (0.51) 1.17 0.04 (0.19) 1.04 −0.04 (0.17) 0.96 Neighborhood safety −0.01 (0.08) 0.99 0.08 (0.06) 1.09 −0.02 (0.21) 0.98 −0.00 (0.16) 1.00 0.01 (0.09) 1.00 0.08 (0.06) 1.09 Number of IADL limitations 0.10 (0.13) 1.10 −0.02 (0.10) 0.98 0.33 (0.23) 1.39 0.33 (0.27) 1.39 0.06 (0.15) 1.07 −0.06 (0.11) 0.94 Number of ADL limitations −0.01 (0.06) 0.99 0.13* (0.07) 1.14 −0.17 (0.13) 0.84 −0.00 (0.12) 1.00 0.02 (0.07) 1.02 0.15* (0.07) 1.16 Number of health conditions 0.06 (0.05) 1.06 0.08 (0.05) 1.09 0.11 (0.18) 1.11 0.06 (0.15) 1.06 0.05 (0.05) 1.05 0.09 (0.05) 1.09 With cognitive problems 0.32 (0.42) 1.37 0.99*** (0.24) 2.70 1.13 (0.72) 3.10 1.05 (0.63) 2.86 0.03 (0.50) 1.02 0.96*** (0.25) 2.66 Spouse with care needs −0.23 (0.16) 0.80 −0.15 (0.15) 0.86 0.42 (0.29) 1.52 −0.83 (0.82) 0.44 −0.26 (0.17) 0.77 −0.15 (0.15) 0.88 Relatives living nearby 0.15 (0.16) 1.16 −0.51*** (0.12) 0.60 0.19 (0.35) 1.21 −0.96 (0.51) 0.38 0.15 (0.16) 1.16 −0.49*** (0.12) 0.61 Friends living nearby −0.22 (0.11) 0.80 −0.44*** (0.12) 0.64 −0.19 (0.36) 0.83 −0.37 (0.35) 0.69 −0.22 (0.12) 0.80 −0.45*** (0.13) 0.64 Male −0.04 (0.10) 0.96 0.01 (0.10) 1.01 −0.06 (0.29) 0.94 0.31 (0.36) 1.37 −0.05 (0.11) 0.95 −0.01 (0.10) 1.00 Black 0.12 (0.17) 1.13 −0.92*** (0.19) 0.40 Years of education 0.02 (0.02) 1.02 0.03 (0.02) 1.03 −0.01 (0.05) 0.99 0.12* (0.05) 1.13 0.03 (0.03) 1.03 0.01 (0.02) 1.02 Age −0.08 (0.16) 0.93 −0.32* (0.15) 0.73 0.08 (0.46) 1.08 −0.69 (0.41) 0.50 −0.09 (0.16) 0.91 −0.29 (0.16) 0.74 Age2 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 0.00* (0.00) 1.00 −0.00 (0.00) 0.99 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 Change of marital status 1.18*** (0.28) 3.25 0.97*** (0.23) 2.65 0.84 (0.68) 2.31 1.51 (0.87) 4.54 1.20*** (0.29) 3.32 0.95*** (0.23) 2.60 Volunteering status 0.00 (0.17) 1.00 −0.33** (0.15) 0.71 0.59 (0.42) 1.80 0.21 (0.38) 1.23 −0.04 (0.19) 0.96 −0.37** (0.15) 0.70 Constant −0.25 (6.04) 0.78 9.15 (6.03) 9393.33 −4.42 (17.22) 0.01 22.13 (15.86) 4.1e+09 −0.05 (6.28) 1.04 8.21 (6.44) 5070.48 Model statistics F(36, 13) = 37.04, p ≤ .001 F(34, 15) = 8.79, p ≤ .001 F(34, 15) = 24.87, p ≤ .001 Variable All (N = 8,361) Blacks (n = 1,226) Whites (n = 7,135) Move within Area Move out of Area Move within Area Move out of Area Move within Area Move out of Area versus versus versus versus versus versus No Move No Move No Move No Move No Move No Move B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR Household income 0.80 (0.07) 1.08 −0.01 (0.06) 0.99 0.07 (0.13) 1.07 −0.21 (0.27) 0.81 0.07 (0.07) 1.09 0.04 (0.06) 1.00 Own home −1.00*** (0.13) 0.37 −1.11*** (0.12) 0.33 −2.19*** (0.42) 0.11 −1.28** (0.40) 0.28 −0.88*** (0.13) 0.42 −1.10*** (0.13) 0.34 Accessible home 0.07 (0.16) 1.07 −0.02 (0.15) 0.98 0.46 (0.38) 1.59 0.16 (0.51) 1.17 0.04 (0.19) 1.04 −0.04 (0.17) 0.96 Neighborhood safety −0.01 (0.08) 0.99 0.08 (0.06) 1.09 −0.02 (0.21) 0.98 −0.00 (0.16) 1.00 0.01 (0.09) 1.00 0.08 (0.06) 1.09 Number of IADL limitations 0.10 (0.13) 1.10 −0.02 (0.10) 0.98 0.33 (0.23) 1.39 0.33 (0.27) 1.39 0.06 (0.15) 1.07 −0.06 (0.11) 0.94 Number of ADL limitations −0.01 (0.06) 0.99 0.13* (0.07) 1.14 −0.17 (0.13) 0.84 −0.00 (0.12) 1.00 0.02 (0.07) 1.02 0.15* (0.07) 1.16 Number of health conditions 0.06 (0.05) 1.06 0.08 (0.05) 1.09 0.11 (0.18) 1.11 0.06 (0.15) 1.06 0.05 (0.05) 1.05 0.09 (0.05) 1.09 With cognitive problems 0.32 (0.42) 1.37 0.99*** (0.24) 2.70 1.13 (0.72) 3.10 1.05 (0.63) 2.86 0.03 (0.50) 1.02 0.96*** (0.25) 2.66 Spouse with care needs −0.23 (0.16) 0.80 −0.15 (0.15) 0.86 0.42 (0.29) 1.52 −0.83 (0.82) 0.44 −0.26 (0.17) 0.77 −0.15 (0.15) 0.88 Relatives living nearby 0.15 (0.16) 1.16 −0.51*** (0.12) 0.60 0.19 (0.35) 1.21 −0.96 (0.51) 0.38 0.15 (0.16) 1.16 −0.49*** (0.12) 0.61 Friends living nearby −0.22 (0.11) 0.80 −0.44*** (0.12) 0.64 −0.19 (0.36) 0.83 −0.37 (0.35) 0.69 −0.22 (0.12) 0.80 −0.45*** (0.13) 0.64 Male −0.04 (0.10) 0.96 0.01 (0.10) 1.01 −0.06 (0.29) 0.94 0.31 (0.36) 1.37 −0.05 (0.11) 0.95 −0.01 (0.10) 1.00 Black 0.12 (0.17) 1.13 −0.92*** (0.19) 0.40 Years of education 0.02 (0.02) 1.02 0.03 (0.02) 1.03 −0.01 (0.05) 0.99 0.12* (0.05) 1.13 0.03 (0.03) 1.03 0.01 (0.02) 1.02 Age −0.08 (0.16) 0.93 −0.32* (0.15) 0.73 0.08 (0.46) 1.08 −0.69 (0.41) 0.50 −0.09 (0.16) 0.91 −0.29 (0.16) 0.74 Age2 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 0.00* (0.00) 1.00 −0.00 (0.00) 0.99 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 Change of marital status 1.18*** (0.28) 3.25 0.97*** (0.23) 2.65 0.84 (0.68) 2.31 1.51 (0.87) 4.54 1.20*** (0.29) 3.32 0.95*** (0.23) 2.60 Volunteering status 0.00 (0.17) 1.00 −0.33** (0.15) 0.71 0.59 (0.42) 1.80 0.21 (0.38) 1.23 −0.04 (0.19) 0.96 −0.37** (0.15) 0.70 Constant −0.25 (6.04) 0.78 9.15 (6.03) 9393.33 −4.42 (17.22) 0.01 22.13 (15.86) 4.1e+09 −0.05 (6.28) 1.04 8.21 (6.44) 5070.48 Model statistics F(36, 13) = 37.04, p ≤ .001 F(34, 15) = 8.79, p ≤ .001 F(34, 15) = 24.87, p ≤ .001 Notes: RRR = relative risk ratio; IADL = instrumental activities of daily living; ADL = activities of daily living. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001. Table 4: Multivariate Multinomial Logistic Regression Models (Move out of Area versus Move within Area versus No Move), All and Stratified by Race Variable All (N = 8,361) Blacks (n = 1,226) Whites (n = 7,135) Move within Area Move out of Area Move within Area Move out of Area Move within Area Move out of Area versus versus versus versus versus versus No Move No Move No Move No Move No Move No Move B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR Household income 0.80 (0.07) 1.08 −0.01 (0.06) 0.99 0.07 (0.13) 1.07 −0.21 (0.27) 0.81 0.07 (0.07) 1.09 0.04 (0.06) 1.00 Own home −1.00*** (0.13) 0.37 −1.11*** (0.12) 0.33 −2.19*** (0.42) 0.11 −1.28** (0.40) 0.28 −0.88*** (0.13) 0.42 −1.10*** (0.13) 0.34 Accessible home 0.07 (0.16) 1.07 −0.02 (0.15) 0.98 0.46 (0.38) 1.59 0.16 (0.51) 1.17 0.04 (0.19) 1.04 −0.04 (0.17) 0.96 Neighborhood safety −0.01 (0.08) 0.99 0.08 (0.06) 1.09 −0.02 (0.21) 0.98 −0.00 (0.16) 1.00 0.01 (0.09) 1.00 0.08 (0.06) 1.09 Number of IADL limitations 0.10 (0.13) 1.10 −0.02 (0.10) 0.98 0.33 (0.23) 1.39 0.33 (0.27) 1.39 0.06 (0.15) 1.07 −0.06 (0.11) 0.94 Number of ADL limitations −0.01 (0.06) 0.99 0.13* (0.07) 1.14 −0.17 (0.13) 0.84 −0.00 (0.12) 1.00 0.02 (0.07) 1.02 0.15* (0.07) 1.16 Number of health conditions 0.06 (0.05) 1.06 0.08 (0.05) 1.09 0.11 (0.18) 1.11 0.06 (0.15) 1.06 0.05 (0.05) 1.05 0.09 (0.05) 1.09 With cognitive problems 0.32 (0.42) 1.37 0.99*** (0.24) 2.70 1.13 (0.72) 3.10 1.05 (0.63) 2.86 0.03 (0.50) 1.02 0.96*** (0.25) 2.66 Spouse with care needs −0.23 (0.16) 0.80 −0.15 (0.15) 0.86 0.42 (0.29) 1.52 −0.83 (0.82) 0.44 −0.26 (0.17) 0.77 −0.15 (0.15) 0.88 Relatives living nearby 0.15 (0.16) 1.16 −0.51*** (0.12) 0.60 0.19 (0.35) 1.21 −0.96 (0.51) 0.38 0.15 (0.16) 1.16 −0.49*** (0.12) 0.61 Friends living nearby −0.22 (0.11) 0.80 −0.44*** (0.12) 0.64 −0.19 (0.36) 0.83 −0.37 (0.35) 0.69 −0.22 (0.12) 0.80 −0.45*** (0.13) 0.64 Male −0.04 (0.10) 0.96 0.01 (0.10) 1.01 −0.06 (0.29) 0.94 0.31 (0.36) 1.37 −0.05 (0.11) 0.95 −0.01 (0.10) 1.00 Black 0.12 (0.17) 1.13 −0.92*** (0.19) 0.40 Years of education 0.02 (0.02) 1.02 0.03 (0.02) 1.03 −0.01 (0.05) 0.99 0.12* (0.05) 1.13 0.03 (0.03) 1.03 0.01 (0.02) 1.02 Age −0.08 (0.16) 0.93 −0.32* (0.15) 0.73 0.08 (0.46) 1.08 −0.69 (0.41) 0.50 −0.09 (0.16) 0.91 −0.29 (0.16) 0.74 Age2 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 0.00* (0.00) 1.00 −0.00 (0.00) 0.99 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 Change of marital status 1.18*** (0.28) 3.25 0.97*** (0.23) 2.65 0.84 (0.68) 2.31 1.51 (0.87) 4.54 1.20*** (0.29) 3.32 0.95*** (0.23) 2.60 Volunteering status 0.00 (0.17) 1.00 −0.33** (0.15) 0.71 0.59 (0.42) 1.80 0.21 (0.38) 1.23 −0.04 (0.19) 0.96 −0.37** (0.15) 0.70 Constant −0.25 (6.04) 0.78 9.15 (6.03) 9393.33 −4.42 (17.22) 0.01 22.13 (15.86) 4.1e+09 −0.05 (6.28) 1.04 8.21 (6.44) 5070.48 Model statistics F(36, 13) = 37.04, p ≤ .001 F(34, 15) = 8.79, p ≤ .001 F(34, 15) = 24.87, p ≤ .001 Variable All (N = 8,361) Blacks (n = 1,226) Whites (n = 7,135) Move within Area Move out of Area Move within Area Move out of Area Move within Area Move out of Area versus versus versus versus versus versus No Move No Move No Move No Move No Move No Move B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR B (SE) RRR Household income 0.80 (0.07) 1.08 −0.01 (0.06) 0.99 0.07 (0.13) 1.07 −0.21 (0.27) 0.81 0.07 (0.07) 1.09 0.04 (0.06) 1.00 Own home −1.00*** (0.13) 0.37 −1.11*** (0.12) 0.33 −2.19*** (0.42) 0.11 −1.28** (0.40) 0.28 −0.88*** (0.13) 0.42 −1.10*** (0.13) 0.34 Accessible home 0.07 (0.16) 1.07 −0.02 (0.15) 0.98 0.46 (0.38) 1.59 0.16 (0.51) 1.17 0.04 (0.19) 1.04 −0.04 (0.17) 0.96 Neighborhood safety −0.01 (0.08) 0.99 0.08 (0.06) 1.09 −0.02 (0.21) 0.98 −0.00 (0.16) 1.00 0.01 (0.09) 1.00 0.08 (0.06) 1.09 Number of IADL limitations 0.10 (0.13) 1.10 −0.02 (0.10) 0.98 0.33 (0.23) 1.39 0.33 (0.27) 1.39 0.06 (0.15) 1.07 −0.06 (0.11) 0.94 Number of ADL limitations −0.01 (0.06) 0.99 0.13* (0.07) 1.14 −0.17 (0.13) 0.84 −0.00 (0.12) 1.00 0.02 (0.07) 1.02 0.15* (0.07) 1.16 Number of health conditions 0.06 (0.05) 1.06 0.08 (0.05) 1.09 0.11 (0.18) 1.11 0.06 (0.15) 1.06 0.05 (0.05) 1.05 0.09 (0.05) 1.09 With cognitive problems 0.32 (0.42) 1.37 0.99*** (0.24) 2.70 1.13 (0.72) 3.10 1.05 (0.63) 2.86 0.03 (0.50) 1.02 0.96*** (0.25) 2.66 Spouse with care needs −0.23 (0.16) 0.80 −0.15 (0.15) 0.86 0.42 (0.29) 1.52 −0.83 (0.82) 0.44 −0.26 (0.17) 0.77 −0.15 (0.15) 0.88 Relatives living nearby 0.15 (0.16) 1.16 −0.51*** (0.12) 0.60 0.19 (0.35) 1.21 −0.96 (0.51) 0.38 0.15 (0.16) 1.16 −0.49*** (0.12) 0.61 Friends living nearby −0.22 (0.11) 0.80 −0.44*** (0.12) 0.64 −0.19 (0.36) 0.83 −0.37 (0.35) 0.69 −0.22 (0.12) 0.80 −0.45*** (0.13) 0.64 Male −0.04 (0.10) 0.96 0.01 (0.10) 1.01 −0.06 (0.29) 0.94 0.31 (0.36) 1.37 −0.05 (0.11) 0.95 −0.01 (0.10) 1.00 Black 0.12 (0.17) 1.13 −0.92*** (0.19) 0.40 Years of education 0.02 (0.02) 1.02 0.03 (0.02) 1.03 −0.01 (0.05) 0.99 0.12* (0.05) 1.13 0.03 (0.03) 1.03 0.01 (0.02) 1.02 Age −0.08 (0.16) 0.93 −0.32* (0.15) 0.73 0.08 (0.46) 1.08 −0.69 (0.41) 0.50 −0.09 (0.16) 0.91 −0.29 (0.16) 0.74 Age2 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 0.00* (0.00) 1.00 −0.00 (0.00) 0.99 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 Change of marital status 1.18*** (0.28) 3.25 0.97*** (0.23) 2.65 0.84 (0.68) 2.31 1.51 (0.87) 4.54 1.20*** (0.29) 3.32 0.95*** (0.23) 2.60 Volunteering status 0.00 (0.17) 1.00 −0.33** (0.15) 0.71 0.59 (0.42) 1.80 0.21 (0.38) 1.23 −0.04 (0.19) 0.96 −0.37** (0.15) 0.70 Constant −0.25 (6.04) 0.78 9.15 (6.03) 9393.33 −4.42 (17.22) 0.01 22.13 (15.86) 4.1e+09 −0.05 (6.28) 1.04 8.21 (6.44) 5070.48 Model statistics F(36, 13) = 37.04, p ≤ .001 F(34, 15) = 8.79, p ≤ .001 F(34, 15) = 24.87, p ≤ .001 Notes: RRR = relative risk ratio; IADL = instrumental activities of daily living; ADL = activities of daily living. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001. For blacks, owning a home was the only predictor that influenced in-area relocation (B = −2.19; RRR = 0.11). As for out-of-area relocation, those who owned a home (B = −1.28; RRR = 0.28) and those who were less educated (B = 0.12; RRR = 1.13) were less likely to move out of area. For white older adults, owning a home reduced the likelihood of moving within area (B = −0.88; RRR = 0.42), but changing marital status increased it (B = 1.20; RRR = 3.32). More predictors were associated with older whites’ out-of-area relocation. Those who had more ADL limitations, had cognitive problems, and changed marital status were more likely to move out of area (Bs = 0.16, 0.96, and 0.95, respectively; RRRs = 1.16, 2.66, and 2.60, respectively). There were four variables that reduced the likelihood of moving out of area: owning a home (B = −1.10; RRR = 0.34), having relatives nearby (B = −0.49; RRR = 0.61), having friends nearby (B = 0.45; RRR = 0.64), and volunteering (B = −0.37; RRR = 0.70). In short, results showed that those who volunteered in 2008 were less likely to move out of area in 2010, when all other variables were controlled. Such a relationship remained true for white older adults, but the effect of volunteering on relocation disappeared for black older adults. Discussion As we explored the social and material convoy factors by race, multivariate logistic regression findings suggested that older black adults were more likely to relocate in older adulthood if they did not own their home and were more educated. Older white adults were more likely to relocate if they did not own their home, had more health problems, changed marital status, did not have relatives or friends living nearby, and did not volunteer. Whereas more educational attainment for older black adults correlated with them being more likely to relocate, education was not found to be related to relocation for older white adults. These findings can be organized along three lines: the role of volunteering and social networks, the role of health problems, and the role of education. First, volunteering reduces relocation among white older adults, but among black older adults, volunteering is not related to relocation. Although volunteering is associated with greater social networks (Brown, Hoye, & Nicholson, 2012; Pilkington, Windsor, & Crisp, 2012), the configurations of social networks may be considered differently for blacks and whites as well as within each group. Whereas white study participants may relocate due to change in marital status, having no friends or relatives nearby, or not being involved in volunteer work, the same does not hold for black study participants. The meaning of relationships and the meaning of their absence may differ depending on an individual’s social network. There may be supplemental networks that blacks may have in place (for example, church or other places of worship) that may be as important as other relationships. This supports Tang et al.’s (2012) study finding showing that whites contribute by volunteering more in formal organizations, yet blacks perceive more rewards when they do volunteer. These benefits may buffer relocation, so that change in marital status or the lack of friends or relatives nearby would not be as influential to blacks as to whites. However, recent studies (Gonzales et al., 2016) underscore the need to understand sociohistorical and economic contexts of those who volunteer. Second, when considering the role of health problems as a predictor of relocation for whites but not blacks, we must consider the differential meanings and experiences of health problems in the lives of older adults. There is a documented difference in access to both preventive and acute health care for minorities. Schrader and Lewis (2013) documented the average wait time in emergency departments as experienced by blacks and whites. Blacks waited 68 minutes on average and whites waited 50 minutes. Blacks waited 21 more minutes after reporting symptoms of chest pains and 23 more minutes after reporting shortness of breath. Related to these real differences in how health conditions can be addressed on an acute scale may be differing expectations for wellness. According to Spanakis and Golden (2013), non-Hispanic blacks’ prevalence of diabetes (12.6%) is second to that of Native Americans (33%) and greater than that in non-Hispanic whites (7.1%). Given these factors, perhaps relocation as a result of health problems is not considered or feasible for blacks compared with whites. However, Kawachi, Daniels, and Robinson (2005) cautioned against conflating race and class in understanding health differences. The authors of this article also suggest that better understanding of the intersection of race and class will further enhance understanding of who moves within and out of their community and who ages in their current residence. Last, the more educated blacks were, the more likely they were to relocate in older adulthood. To explain this finding, the formative years of black Americans should be placed in sociohistorical contexts: as students, older blacks may have experienced segregation in educational settings, community change following migration from the South to various parts of the country, and redlining practices that barred racial minorities from home ownership. An older adult’s early experiences learning that only certain populations were welcome to dwell in specific neighborhoods might later influence whether that older adult relocates from a neighborhood. Jarris, Savage-Narva, and Lupi (2016) examined the relationships among redlining practices, lower property values, and substandard education and access to health care. With greater education, more social mobility, including relocation in older adulthood, becomes possible. These findings serve only as a starting point to intersect physical mobility in terms of relocation in older adulthood with social and educational mobility across a lifetime and larger instances of when black communities migrated north because of job opportunity (for example, auto jobs in the North) and to leave behind institutionally sanctioned racial segregation. Study Limitations The HRS examines volunteering in terms of whether one engages in formal volunteer activities with an educational, religious, or health organization. However, the type of volunteering and whether volunteering is considered formally organized or informal, such as caregiving, are important distinctions to be understood. We must also go beyond understanding the setting where an older adult volunteers, to better capture what skills each type of volunteering job requires and the number of hours contributed. Only with this background can we ask the crucial question, What aspects of volunteering and mechanisms provide benefits? Possible aspects include physical activity, social engagement, or psychological motivations. In addition, HRS constructs “relatives and friends nearby” as relatives and friends living in the neighborhood. This construction of the variables may exclude relatives or friends who are not in the immediate neighborhood but live, say, only 20 minutes away and could easily provide supports when needed. Finally, the present study looked at older adults’ relocation only within a time frame of two years. Older adults’ willingness to move or to stay, however, is unknown. Without knowing the degree of choice to move, we are not able to distinguish nonmovers who choose to remain in their community from those who lack the resources to relocate. Implications and Conclusion We need to consider how different groups may be affected by different policies and programs. These findings suggest that for white older adults, policymakers and practitioners can continue to promote community engagement, which in turn help them remain in the community. The ties that keep them connected to volunteering opportunities may also connect them to their communities. However, we must underscore that more research is needed on the role of volunteering for older black adults and their moving experiences, to better understand the intersection of the two. Qualitative research is needed to comprehend the major reasons that older black adults of all socioeconomic levels relocate and do not relocate. Moreover, we must explore how moving choices (for example, triggers to moving, criteria for choosing where to move) are made and experienced among older black adults. Interdisciplinary work using a life course perspective to investigate the complexities of social and physical mobility of older black adults will also enhance our understanding of the intersection of volunteering and relocation in older adulthood. In many ways, this study shows the importance of examining racial differences in gerontological research that transcends the disciplinary silos of productive aging and environmental gerontology. We build on the work of those in each field committed to understanding the variable pathways of aging and how sociohistorical, health, and economic legacies that perpetuate disparities intersect with the personal: the development and maintenance of one’s social and material convoy. By analyzing the changing of a centerpiece of one’s material convoy (relocation from one’s home), to understand whether aspects of the social convoy (for example, volunteering experiences) influence home transitions, and by attending to racial difference in this intersection, we have begun to break down dominant narratives of who volunteers and who relocates. We call for the development of future research projects that innovatively ask questions promoting trans-gerontological frameworks and hope that we can benefit from the richness of these scholarly endeavors. Tam E. Perry, PhD, MSSW, MA, is associate professor, School of Social Work, Wayne State University, 5447 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, MI 48202; e-mail: teperry@wayne.edu. Huei-Wern Shen, PhD, MSW, MA, is associate professor, Graduate Institute of Social Work, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei. Ernest Gonzales, PhD, MSSW, is assistant professor, Silver School of Social Work, New York University. References Bekhet , A. K. , Zauszniewski , J. A. , & Nakhla , W. E. ( 2009 ). Reasons for relocation to retirement communities: A qualitative study . Western Journal of Nursing Research , 31 , 462 – 479 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Black , K. , Dobbs , D. , & Young , T. L. ( 2015 ). Aging in community mobilizing a new paradigm of older adults as a core social resource . Journal of Applied Gerontology , 34 , 219 – 243 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Brown , K. M. , Hoye , R. , & Nicholson , M. ( 2012 ). Self-esteem, self-efficacy, and social connectedness as mediators of the relationship between volunteering and well-being . Journal of Social Service Research , 38 , 468 – 483 . doi:10.1080/01488376.2012.687706 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Davitt , J. K. , Lehning , A. J. , Scharlach , A. , & Greenfield , E. A. ( 2015 ). Sociopolitical and cultural contexts of community-based models in aging: The Village Initiative . Public Policy & Aging Report , 25 , 15 – 19 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Davitt , J. K. , Madigan , E. A. , Rantz , M. , & Skemp , L. ( 2016 ). Aging in community: Developing a more holistic approach to enhance older adults’ well-being . Research in Gerontological Nursing , 9 , 6 – 13 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Ekerdt , D. J. , & Baker , L. A. ( 2014 ). The material convoy after age 50 . Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 69 , 442 – 450 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Ekerdt , D. J. , Sergeant , J. F. , Dingel , M. , & Bowen , M. E. ( 2004 ). Household disbandment in later life . Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 59 , S265 – S273 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Gonzales , E. , Matz-Costa , C. , & Morrow-Howell , N. ( 2015 ). Increasing opportunities for the productive engagement of older adults: A response to population aging . Gerontologist , 55 , 252 – 261 . doi:10.1093/geront/gnu176 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Gonzales , E. , Shen , H.-W. , Wang , Y. , Sprague Martinez , L. S. , & Norstrand , J. ( 2016 ). Race and place: Exploring the intersection of inequity and volunteerism among older black and white adults . Journal of Gerontological Social Work , 59 , 381 – 400 . doi:10.1080/01634372.2016.1224787 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Haas , W. H. , & Serow , W. J. ( 1993 ). Amenity retirement migration process: A model and preliminary evidence . Gerontologist , 33 , 212 – 220 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Jarris , P. , Savage-Narva , Y. , & Lupi , M. V. ( 2016 ). Promoting health equity and optimal health for all . Journal of Public Health Management and Practice , 22 , S5 – S7 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Johnson , K. J. ( 2014 ). Volunteering among surviving spouses: The impact of volunteer activity on the health of the recently widowed. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A, 74. Kahn , R. L. , & Antonucci , T. C. ( 1980 ). Convoys over the life course: Attachment, roles, and social support. In P. B. Baltes & O. G. Brim (Eds.), Lifespan development and behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 253 – 286 ). New York : Academic Press . Kawachi , I. , Daniels , N. , & Robinson , D. ( 2005 ). Health disparities by race and class: Why both matter . Health Affairs , 24 , 343 – 352 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Litwak , E. , & Longino , C. F. ( 1987 ). Migration patterns among the elderly: A developmental perspective . Gerontologist , 27 , 266 – 272 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Longino , C. F. , Bradley , D. E. , Stoller , E. P. , & Haas , W. H. ( 2008 ). Predictors of non-local moves among older adults: A prospective study . Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 63 , S7 – S14 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Morrow-Howell , N. , Hinterlong , J. , Rozario , P. , & Tang , F. ( 2005 ). The effects of volunteering on the well-being of older adults . Journal Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 60 , S137 – S145 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Musick , M. A. , & Wilson , J. ( 2007 ). Volunteers: A social profile . Bloomington : Indiana University Press . Perry , T. E. ( 2014 ). The rite of relocation: Social and material transformations in the Midwest U.S . Signs and Society , 2 ( 1 ), 28 – 55 . doi:10.1086/675433 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Perry , T. E. , Andersen , T. C. , & Kaplan , D. B. ( 2014 ). Relocation remembered: Perspectives on senior transitions in the living environment . Gerontologist , 54 , 75 – 81 . doi:10.1093/geront/gnt070 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Perry , T. E. , Wintermute , T. , Carney , B. C. , Leach , D. E. , Sanford , C. , & Quist , L. E. ( 2015 ). Senior housing at a crossroads: A case study of a university/community partnership in Detroit, Michigan . Traumatology , 21 , 244 – 250 . doi:10.1037/trm0000043 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Pilkington , P. D. , Windsor , T. D. , & Crisp , D. A. ( 2012 ). Volunteering and subjective well-being in midlife and older adults: The role of supportive social networks . Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 67 , 249 – 260 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Scharlach , A. , & Lehning , A. ( 2015 ). Creating aging-friendly communities. New York : Oxford University Press . Schrader , C. D. , & Lewis , L. M. ( 2013 ). Racial disparity in emergency department triage . Journal of Emergency Medicine , 44 , 511 – 518 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Shen , H.-W. , & Perry , T. E. ( 2014 ). Giving back and staying put: Volunteering as a stabilizing force in relocation . Journal of Housing for the Elderly , 28 , 310 – 328 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Shen , H.-W. , & Perry , T. ( 2016 ). Interdependence between the social and material convoy: Links between volunteering, widowhood, and housing transitions . Social Work Research , 40 , 71 – 82 . doi:10.1093/swr/svw002 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Spanakis , E. K. , & Golden , S. H. ( 2013 ). Race/ethnic difference in diabetes and diabetic complications . Current Diabetes Reports , 13 , 814 – 823 . doi:10.1007/s11892-013-0421-9 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed StataCorp . ( 2011 ). Statistical software: Release 12 . College Station, TX : Author . Tang , F. , Copeland , V. C. , & Wexler , S. ( 2012 ). Racial differences in volunteer engagement by older adults: An empowerment perspective . Social Work Research , 36 , 89 – 100 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Tang , F. , & Morrow-Howell , N. ( 2008 ). Involvement in volunteer organization: How older adults access volunteer roles? Journal of Gerontological Social Work , 51 , 210 – 227 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS U.S. Census Bureau . ( 2015 a). Annual estimates of the resident population by sex, age, race alone or in combination, and Hispanic origin for the United States and States: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.aoa.acl.gov/Aging_Statistics/Profile/2015/7.aspx U.S. Census Bureau . ( 2015 b). Geographical mobility: 2013–2014, Table 1. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/migration/data/cps/cps2014.html Waldron , V. R. , Gitelson , R. , Kelley , D. , & Regalado , J. ( 2005 ). Losing and building supportive relationships in later life: A four-year study of migrants to a planned retirement community . Journal of Housing for the Elderly , 19 , 5 – 25 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Watson , W. ( 2016 , Fall). Aging in community: How an older couple helped launch a new multi-generational ecovillage neighborhood . Communities , 172 , 59 – 62 . Wilson , J. ( 2000 ). Volunteering . Annual Review of Sociology , 26 , 215 – 240 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Wiseman , R. F. ( 1980 ). Why older people move: Theoretical issues . Research on Aging , 2 , 141 – 154 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS © 2018 National Association of Social Workers This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)

Journal

Social Work Research – Oxford University Press

Published: Dec 1, 2018

There are no references for this article.