Economic Distress Scores for the US and Ohio
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
An Analysis of Economic Well-being: Economic Distress Scores for the U.S. and Ohio Prepared by: The Ohio Alliance for Innovation in Population Health January 24th, 2019 The Ohio Alliance for Innovation in Population Health is a collaborative effort initiated by the Ohio University College of Health Sciences and Professions and University of Toledo College of Health and Human Services. By aligning the resources and expertise of state universities, researchers, hospital associations, healthcare providers and public health experts, the alliance works to solve the most complex and pressing health problems in the state. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Using the Appalachian Regional Commission’s (ARC) index-based county economic classification system, the Ohio Alliance for Innovation in Population Health (OAIPH) compared economic distress score for all U.S. states for 2009 and 2019. OAIPH also compared economic distress scores for all Ohio counties over the two measurement periods. The following findings are noted: Among U.S. States, Ohio scored in the middle range of economic distress for both 2009 (rank = 32) and 2019 (rank = 33). In 2009, Delaware, Geauga, and Warren were the three least economically distressed Ohio Counties. During that same period, Meigs, Morgan, and Vinton Counties were the most distressed. Appalachian Ohio Counties were significantly more likely to be rated distressed than their non-Appalachian Counterparts. In 2019, Delaware, Warren, and Geauga Counties were the least distressed and Monroe, Adams and Meigs were the most distressed. Once again, Appalachian counties were significantly more likely to exhibit high levels of economic distress than their non- Appalachian counterparts. A comparison of change in economic distress shows that while economic distress remains higher throughout the Appalachian Ohio, the region also recorded greater improvement than the aggregate of remaining Ohio Counties. INTRODUCTION The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) uses an index-based county economic classification system to identify and monitor the economic status of Appalachian counties. The system compares each county's averages for three economic indicators—three-year average unemployment rate, per capita market income, and poverty rate—with national averages. The resulting values are summed and averaged to create a composite index value for each county. Higher scores represent serious levels of economic distress. Lower scores indicate more desirable economic conditions. For a more detailed description of ARC’s methodology see the following link: https://www.arc.gov/appalachian_region/countyeconomicstatusanddistressedareasinappalachia. asp To determine Ohio’s economic performance relative to other states, the Ohio Alliance for Innovation in Population Health (OAIPH) also reviewed economic distress scores for the entire U.S. by state. These scores were also prepared by the Appalachian Regional Commission. The state economic distress score is analogous to the individual county scores prepared by ARC and can be used as a measure to assess the overall economic health of a state. FINDINGS For the purposes of this study, state economic distress scores prepared for 2009 and 2019 were reviewed. Table 1 displays distress scores, state ranks and percent change statistics for all states. In 2009, economic conditions as measured by the ARC Index scores were most favorable in New Hampshire, Connecticut and Maryland and least favorable in Mississippi, Louisiana, and West Virginia. Ohio scored in the middle range of states with a distress score rank of 32 for that year. In 2019 New Hampshire maintained its rank as the least economically distressed state, followed by North Dakota, and Hawaii. Mississippi also maintained its status as the most economically distressed state, followed by New Mexico and West Virginia. Ohio remained in the middle range with a state rank of 33. A review of Ohio county level data for 2009 reveals that Delaware, Geauga and Warren Counties (affluent communities adjacent to Ohio’s three largest metropolitan counties) exhibited the most favorable economic conditions. Meigs, followed by Morgan, and Vinton Counties had the most challenging economic conditions. It is worth noting that none of the highest economic performing counties were in Appalachia and the most seriously economically challenged counties were all found in the Appalachian region. In 2019, Delaware continued to be the highest performing Ohio County, followed by Warren, and Geauga. Three Appalachian Counties (Monroe, Adams and Meigs) were rated as the most economically distressed counties for that year. Independent-samples t-test were conducted to compare Appalachian status by: 1) 2009 distress, 2) 2019 distress, and 3) percent change between the two measurement periods. Analysis of 2009 distress scores by Appalachian status reveals a significant difference in the scores for Appalachian Counties (M=142.55, SD=23.96) and non-Appalachian Counties (M=99.63, SD=13.35); t (86) = 10.82, p < .001. These results suggest that in 2009, Ohioans living in the Appalachian region were significantly more likely to experience economic distress than Ohioans living in non-Appalachian communities. Analysis of 2019 distress scores by Appalachian status demonstrates that Appalachian communities continue to struggle with significantly greater economic challenges than residents from other Ohio counties. Appalachian Counties (M=138.62, SD=21.90) and non-Appalachian Counties (M=100.67, SD=16.11); t (86) = 9.306, p < .001. The final T-Test compared the percentage change in distress scores between 2009 and 2019 for Appalachian and non-Appalachian counties. This analysis reveals that, while serious endemic poverty continues to prevail in Appalachia, economic conditions improved throughout the region relative to the remainder of the state. Appalachian Counties (M=-2.35, SD=7.83) and non-Appalachian Counties (M=.79, SD=6.45); t (86) = -2.032, p = .045. Table 1: Economic Distress Scores by State for 2009 and 2019 Sorted by 2019 Distress Scores 2009 2009 2019 2019 Percent Change NAME Index Rank Index Rank Change Rank New Hampshire 70.8 1 68.8 1 -2.9 20 North Dakota 91.0 17 70.9 2 -22.1 1 Hawaii 79.4 7 78.1 3 -1.5 24 Nebraska 84.3 10 78.7 4 -6.6 8 Minnesota 79.0 5 79.0 5 0.0 29 Massachusetts 84.2 9 79.2 6 -6.0 10 Maryland 76.1 3 80.1 7 5.3 38 Connecticut 75.3 2 81.0 8 7.6 43 Vermont 84.8 12 81.8 9 -3.6 18 Wyoming 84.3 11 81.8 10 -3.0 19 Colorado 86.7 13 81.8 11 -5.6 12 Virginia 77.3 4 83.0 12 7.3 42 South Dakota 93.7 19 83.4 13 -11.0 4 New Jersey 79.0 6 85.5 14 8.2 44 Utah 91.9 18 86.2 15 -6.1 9 Iowa 88.8 15 86.9 16 -2.1 22 Kansas 94.6 21 89.8 17 -5.1 15 Wisconsin 89.4 16 92.0 18 2.8 34 Alaska 103.4 31 92.0 19 -11.0 3 Washington 97.1 25 92.4 20 -4.8 16 Delaware 80.8 8 92.6 21 14.7 49 New York 102.2 29 95.3 22 -6.7 7 Pennsylvania 96.8 23 96.6 23 -0.2 28 Maine 99.8 27 97.8 24 -2.0 23 Montana 104.4 34 98.5 25 -5.6 11 Illinois 95.7 22 100.3 26 4.8 37 Texas 111.7 43 100.5 27 -10.0 5 Idaho 98.4 26 102.1 28 3.8 36 California 104.8 36 102.3 29 -2.3 21 Rhode Island 99.8 28 103.0 30 3.2 35 Indiana 96.8 24 103.2 31 6.6 40 Oklahoma 108.2 39 103.9 32 -4.0 17 Ohio 103.8 32 104.0 33 0.1 30 Missouri 104.2 33 105.3 34 1.0 31 Florida 93.8 20 106.2 35 13.2 48 Oregon 108.2 38 107.1 36 -1.0 26 Michigan 109.2 40 110.7 37 1.4 32 Tennessee 110.0 41 111.8 38 1.7 33 Nevada 87.1 14 112.0 39 28.5 50 North Carolina 104.6 35 112.1 40 7.2 41 Georgia 103.3 30 115.8 41 12.1 47 Arkansas 123.8 45 117.3 42 -5.3 14 South Carolina 124.3 46 117.4 43 -5.5 13 Arizona 105.9 37 118.4 44 11.8 45 Kentucky 123.3 44 121.9 45 -1.1 25 Louisiana 147.6 49 122.9 46 -16.8 2 Alabama 111.5 42 124.6 47 11.8 46 West Virginia 131.6 48 131.0 48 -0.4 27 New Mexico 125.8 47 133.5 49 6.2 39 Mississippi 152.9 50 141.8 50 -7.3 6 Table 2. Economic Distress Scores by Ohio County for 2009 and 2019 Sorted by 2019 Distress Scores ARC 2009 2009 2019 2019 Percent Change NAME County Index Rank Index Rank Change Rank Delaware 63.7 1 55.7 1 -12.47 4 Warren 76.0 3 68.0 2 -10.54 8 Geauga 69.6 2 68.2 3 -2.04 32 Medina 77.7 4 73.9 4 -4.94 20 Union 80.9 5 75.4 5 -6.87 16 Mercer 84.1 7 76.4 6 -9.17 9 Putnam 92.3 14 78.2 7 -15.32 2 Hancock 87.4 10 79.5 8 -9.06 10 Auglaize 84.8 8 81.3 9 -4.16 24 Clermont ARC 88.8 12 85.4 10 -3.81 27 Lake 81.8 6 85.6 11 4.63 70 Shelby 86.3 9 88.3 12 2.31 58 Fairfield 87.7 11 90.1 13 2.78 61 Holmes ARC 111.9 49 90.4 14 -19.22 1 Greene 92.6 15 92.3 15 -0.32 41 Miami 92.8 16 92.6 16 -0.25 43 Wyandot 95.6 21 92.9 17 -2.83 30 Madison 97.7 25 93.1 18 -4.75 22 Wood 99.7 29 94.9 19 -4.88 21 Licking 94.9 18 96.0 20 1.16 50 Fulton 93.4 17 96.9 21 3.74 68 Wayne 97.3 24 97.1 22 -0.20 45 Franklin 95.6 22 97.5 23 1.99 55 Butler 95.2 19 98.8 24 3.82 69 Hamilton 95.4 20 98.9 25 3.64 67 Van Wert 91.3 13 99.6 26 9.02 82 Champaign 101.4 34 99.9 27 -1.52 35 Summit 98.3 26 100.2 28 2.01 56 Henry 101.5 35 100.3 29 -1.13 37 Erie 98.5 27 101.4 30 2.98 64 Darke 103.3 38 102.4 31 -0.82 38 Logan 98.8 28 103.5 32 4.74 71 Paulding 103.5 39 103.8 33 0.36 48 Ottawa 103.2 37 104.7 34 1.39 52 Pickaway 115.5 53 105.1 35 -9.02 12 Sandusky 105.0 40 105.9 36 0.91 49 Williams 100.5 31 106.4 37 5.80 76 Portage 100.0 30 106.7 38 6.75 79 Stark 107.3 42 107.0 39 -0.29 42 Tuscarawas ARC 110.4 45 107.2 40 -2.92 29 Lorain 103.1 36 108.5 41 5.27 74 Morrow 110.8 47 108.7 42 -1.87 33 Defiance 95.7 23 108.8 43 13.70 85 Knox 110.7 46 108.8 44 -1.66 34 Cuyahoga 106.0 41 109.2 45 3.07 66 Preble 101.0 32 109.3 46 8.26 81 Seneca 111.6 48 113.1 47 1.34 51 Allen 117.8 56 113.8 48 -3.43 28