Once it had all the statistics in hand, it classified them into four basic categories: affordability, activities, quality of life and health care.

Here's a look at WalletHub's 10 worst cities to retire: A poor ranking for health care contributes to Fontana's overall poor retirement setting rating.

10. Fontana, Calif.

Fontana finished at the very bottom of the pile for having the lowest percentage of its population aged 65 and older.

Although maybe that's actually a good thing, considering that the city got a dismal 149 for quality of life, an almost-equally poor 132 for health care, a 99 for affordability (well, it is California, after all — which tied Florida for having four of its cities make a list, although that list is the bottom 10, not the top) and a 75 for activities. Rancho Cucamonga, in the San Gabriel valley, ranked poorly in part because of its lack of affordability.

9. Rancho Cucamonga, Calif.

Another California city to make the bottom 10, Rancho Cucamonga did marginally better than Fontana with a 148 for quality of life, although it did worse — 115 — for affordability. That's probably not surprising, because three of California's cities (San Jose, San Francisco and Fremont) tied with New York and Honolulu for the highest adjusted cost of living. Oh, and four of California's cities (San Jose, San Francisco, Fremont, and Oakland) tied with Anchorage for the highest annual cost of in-home services.

Health care was a discouraging 114, while activities did the best at 51. Not your best choice. Bakersfield may have mild weather, but those wind farms are near it for a reason.

8. Bakersfield, Calif.

Bakersfield actually made the top 10 in something good: It finished third for best “mild weather” ranking.

Other than that, it finished at 139 for health care; 129 for quality of life; 85 for affordability and 63 for activities. Wichita ranked quite low on the “offering a variety of activities” scale.

7. Wichita, Kan.

Apparently there's not much to do for retirees in Wichita; it scored a discouraging 147 for activities.

It's also somewhat pricey, coming in at 110 for affordability, although it does do somewhat better when it comes to quality of life — 85 — and health care — 71. Detroit's best ranking on this survey was quality of life, which should tell retirees something.

6. Detroit

Detroit's standout category is health care — and not in a good way. It finished with a score of 138 out of 150. Oh, and wait, it finished at the absolute bottom for having the lowest percentage of employed people aged 65 and older.

Activities didn't do all that well, either, with a 133; affordability did a bit better, at 95, while quality of life was the city's top category at 76. Lack of affordability and low quality of life ratings contributed to Aurora's low ranking.

5. Aurora, Ill.

Most of Aurora's categories finished solidly in the bottom third, with a 121 for affordability, a 110 for quality of life and a 109 for health care. Just activities made it to the middle third, with a ranking of 70.

It also doesn't have many seniors among its population; the city tied for third from the bottom, along with Irving, Texas and Moreno Valley, Calif., for having the lowest percentage of its population among the 65-and-older set. Although it ranks poorly for affordability, Chula Vista, south of San Diego, does offer sunny vistas such as Mountain Hawk Park.

4. Chula Vista, Calif.

Chula Vista must not be into history; it's among the five cities with the fewest museums per capita, sharing that dubious distinction with Garland, Texas; fellow California city Garden Grove; Gilbert, Ariz.; and Henderson, Nev. So retirees hoping for a docent position somewhere are probably out of luck.

The city also had a very poor quality of life rank, at 147, and an only slightly better affordability ranking, at 136. It did do better on health care, at 56, and activities, at 36. In spite of its poor ranking for quality of life, Newark does offer small beauties, such as flowering trees in springtime.

3. Newark, N.J.

Third-from-the-bottom, Newark did lousy when it came to health care, only able to come up with a score of 140.

Not that it did all that well in the other categories. Affordability was a struggling 123, while quality of life was 98 and its best category — activities — was 95. A poor quality of life ranking makes Worcester a less-than-desirable relocation move for retirees.

2. Worcester, Mass.

Worcester outdid Newark (not in a good way) in the quality of life and activities categories — spectacularly so — getting only a 136 for the former and a 138 for the latter.

It did, however, improve on affordability, with a 120 rating, and on health care, with a 122 rank. Ranking poorly in almost all areas of the survey, including a very poor ranking for affordability, Providence may not be a first choice in retirement locations for many people.

1. Providence, Rhode Island

Providence has not been looking out for Providence — at least not in the weather department. The city got the third-worst “mild weather” ranking out of 150.

Aside from that, it didn't do too well in the four major categories, either. It finished a frightening 148 for health care, an almost equally scary 145 for affordability, a boring 119 for activities and a dubious 88 for quality of life.