Workforce Analysis. Erie Lorain. Stark Richland. Coshocton Delaware. Muskingum Clark Madison. Noble Greene. Monroe Fayette.

Transcription

1 Workforce Analysis One Stop Employment & Training Network Williams Defiance Fulton Henry Putnam Lucas Wood Hancock Ottawa Sandusky Paulding Seneca Huron Medina Erie Lorain Cuyahoga Summit Lake Geauga Portage Ashtabula Trumbull Mahoning Van Wert Wyandot Crawford Ashland Wayne Allen Stark Richland Columbiana Hardin Mercer Auglaize Marion Morrow Holmes Knox Logan Shelby Union Coshocton Delaware Darke Champaign Licking Miami Franklin Muskingum Clark Madison Carroll Jefferson Tuscarawas Harrison Guernsey Belmont Preble Montgomery Fairfield Perry Noble Greene Monroe Fayette Pickaway Morgan Butler Warren Clinton Hocking Washington Ross Athens Vinton Hamilton Highland Clermont Pike Meigs Jackson Brown Gallia Adams Scioto Lawrence Workforce Analysis WORKFORCE

2 Workforce Analysis Table of Contents Preface... ii Highlights...iii I. Understanding the Local Labor Market... 1 Figure 1: Regional Commuting Patterns... 1 Figure 2: Net Flow of Ohio Commuters... 2 II. Key Trends... 3 Figure 3: Population Trends... 3 Figure 4: Demographic Characteristics... 3 Figure 5: Employment Trends... 4 Figure 6: Employment in the One Stop Area by Major Industry... 4 Figure 7: Unemployment Trends... 5 Figure 8: Per Capita Income... 6 Figure 9: Number of New Residential Building Permits... 7 Figure 10: Valuation of New Residential Building Permits... 7 III. Industry Analysis... 8 Figure 11: Employment by Major Sector, Figure 12: Employment by Industry Sector, Figure 13: Employment Prospects by Industry Sector Figure 14: Sectors Ranked by 2005 Average Weekly Earnings IV. Educational Infrastructure Figure 15: Educational Attainment Technical Notes References Appendix A: Ohio Workforce Investment Areas Appendix B: Metropolitan and Micropolitan Areas Appendix C: Major County-to-County Commuting Patterns Appendix D: Major Employers by County... 20

3 Preface Over the last few years, the Bureau of Labor Market Information (BLMI) has prepared several sets of customized regional publications to help workforce professionals and others gain a better understanding of their local economy and how it has fared compared to other areas. In June 2002, Demographic, Labor Force and Industry Trends were published for Ohio s 12 Economic Development Regions; Market Analysis of Key Workforce Trends was published for all of Ohio s Workforce Investment Areas in This current set of Workforce Analysis publications is an update of these efforts to produce reports for all nineteen WIAs in the state, including all One-Stops in WIA 7. This workforce analysis report provides a summary snapshot of the One Stop Employment & Training Network ( One Stop area ), the Workforce Investment Area for Auglaize, Hardin, Mercer and Van Wert Counties. This presentation also examines some of the key trends compared to state and national trends. The first section begins with a review of the area s basic demographic and economic characteristics. The second section shows trends in important statistics for the area, including population, employment, unemployment rates, income and housing. Employment characteristics by industry receive a detailed examination in the third section. The fourth and final section looks briefly at the area s educational characteristics. A careful review of this information can yield important insights about the local economy. One may assess the health of the local economy by examining key economic trends and comparing them to the state or the nation. Or an examination of industry composition will yield insights into the strengths and weaknesses that local economic development policy might address. Please refer to the Technical Notes and References sections at the end of this publication for reference and documentation of the wide variety of statistical data presented. Keith Ewald, Ph.D., Chief Bureau of Labor Market Information Office of Workforce Development Ohio Department of Job and Family Services ii

4 Highlights While no county in the area exhibits any clear economic or demographic dominance, Auglaize County shows some leadership in several indicators. Overall, the is a net out-commuting area, with most commuters entering nearby Allen County to work. Population has only grown 0.3 percent in the last ten years. Demographically, the four counties differ significantly from one another in their age distributions. Employment rolls in the four counties in this region reacted differently to the 2001 recession. Unemployment rates also differed significantly between 1995 and Nominal per capita income has grown at an annual compound rate of 3.8 percent. Auglaize County had the highest income levels during this period. The One Stop area underwent a building boom in 1998 and Average valuations for new residential units have been increasing in recent years. The three dominant employment sectors in 2005 were manufacturing; trade, transportation and utilities; and government. is more prevalent here than it is statewide. Retail trade, finance and insurance and other services were the three sectors to add the most jobs between 2000 and State government, manufacturing and federal government had the area s top three average weekly earnings. The highest-paying industry to have added jobs was finance and insurance. Generally, the One Stop region has a lower level of overall educational attainment than the rest of Ohio. iii

5 Workforce Analysis I. Understanding Local Labor Markets Labor economists define a labor market as a geographic area in which both the demand and supply for labor are met primarily within that region. 1 In other words, it is an area where there are jobs and the majority of workers needed for those jobs. An important first step in identifying local labor markets is to examine the commuting patterns of individuals who live or work in the area. These patterns are one of the primary inputs used to define metropolitan and micropolitan areas. 2 Overall, the One Stop region is an out-commuting area. Mercer County has the strongest net outflow of commuters: nearly 4,000. Mercer County also has the greatest number of people commuting across the state border into Indiana. Auglaize County has both the largest percentage of workers leaving the county to work nearly two in five and entering the county to work about a third. Figure 1: Regional Commuting Patterns Auglaize Hardin Mercer Van Wert In Commuters Total Working in the County 21,159 11,044 15,850 12,653 In Commuters 7,029 2,164 2,840 3,234 Percent of In Commuters 33.2% 19.6% 17.9% 25.6% Out Commuters Total Employed Living in the County 23,282 14,390 19,742 14,375 Out Commuters 9,152 5,510 6,732 4,956 Percent of Out Commuters 39.3% 38.3% 34.1% 34.5% Net Comparison Statistics Commuting Balance: Net Flow -2,123-3,346-3,892-1,722 Percent of Total Commuters -13.1% -43.6% -40.7% -21.0% Figure 2 on the next page shows a visual summary of the net flow of commuters from the 2000 decennial census. Most workers commuting into a county to work usually do so from adjacent counties. Detailed county-to-county commuting is shown in Appendix C. 1 Goldstein 2005, p Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Area definitions are excerpted from the Office of Management and Budget s Federal Register Notice (65 FR ). See Appendix B for detailed definitions.

6 Understanding Local Labor Markets, continued Figure 2: Net Flow of Ohio Commuters *Net flow equals in commuters minus out commuters. A negative number means more people are commuting to work outside the county than are in commuting. For more detailed information, please visit on the web. Source: Bureau of Labor Market Information 2

7 II. Key Trends Population: Population has stayed stable in the last ten years, growing only three tenths of a percent during that time. Auglaize County had the most population growth, but only 1.7 percent. Van Wert County experienced losses during this time with population dropping 3.6 percent. For comparison, Ohio s population increased 2.3 percent during this period. Figure 3: Employment Trends 160,000 One Stop Auglaize Hardin Mercer Van Wert 140, , ,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20, One Stop 149, , , , , , , , , , ,630 Auglaize 46,454 46,682 46,583 46,671 46,663 46,625 46,721 46,683 46,742 46,892 47,242 Hardin 31,719 31,733 31,890 31,910 31,966 31,945 31,711 31,756 31,621 32,164 32,032 Mercer 40,695 40,776 40,872 41,025 40,958 40,921 40,832 40,919 41,005 41,059 41,202 Van Wert 30,252 30,173 30,206 29,864 29,825 29,639 29,447 29,335 29,290 29,259 29,154 Demographic Traits: Data from the 2000 Census, shown in Figure 4 below, reveal some interesting differences between the counties. Hardin County may have the lowest median age, but Mercer County has the highest proportion of minors under 18 (30.0%). Hardin County has the highest proportion of working-age adults between 18 and 64 (61.6%). Figure 4: Demographic Characteristics Age Demographics One Stop Auglaize Hardin Mercer Van Wert Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total Population 149, % 47, % 31, % 41, % 30, % Under 5 years 10, % 3, % 1, % 3, % 1, % 5 to 17 years 31, % 9, % 6, % 9, % 6, % 18 to 24 years 13, % 3, % 4, % 3, % 2, % 25 to 44 years 41, % 13, % 8, % 11, % 8, % 45 to 64 years 31, % 9, % 6, % 8, % 6, % 65 years or older 21, % 7, % 4, % 5, % 4, % Median Age

8 Key Trends, continued Employment: There have been some significant differences between counties employment rolls in the last decade and how they have reacted to economic cycles. Hardin and Mercer Counties have both recovered from job losses from the 2001 recession, with employment growing 9.0 and 9.5 percent, respectively. Van Wert County saw the greatest relative job loss: 4.4 percent. Figure 5: Employment Trends 60,000 One Stop Auglaize Hardin Mercer Van Wert 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10, One Stop 54,642 55,148 55,615 55,935 55,894 56,135 54,259 53,485 53,755 54,779 56,262 Auglaize 19,338 19,835 19,695 19,733 19,255 19,400 18,562 18,025 18,409 18,509 19,270 Hardin 8,164 8,287 8,382 8,713 8,944 8,912 8,632 8,481 8,449 8,641 8,901 Mercer 15,405 15,301 15,707 15,570 15,325 15,401 15,294 15,450 15,984 16,433 16,874 Van Wert 11,735 11,725 11,831 11,919 12,370 12,422 11,771 11,529 10,913 11,196 11,217 After the 2001 recession and subsequent recovery, total employment levels for all sectors have remained essentially unchanged. sustained the greatest losses, while education and health services added the most jobs: about 1,300. Figure 6: Employment in the One Stop Area by Major Sector Major Sector Net Growth Percent Growth Total All Sectors 56,135 56, % Natural Resources and Mining % Construction 2,560 2, % 18,897 17,836-1, % Trade, Transportation and Utilities 9,366 9, % Information % Financial Activities 2,067 2, % Professional and Business Services 1,662 1, % Education and Health Services 4,678 5,974 1, % Leisure and Hospitality 5,080 4, % Other Services, except Public Administration 2,075 2, % Government, including Public Schools 8,701 8, % 4

9 Key Trends, continued Unemployment: The region has seen significant variation in unemployment rates between 1995 and The area s unemployment has fallen below state and national rates in recent years, reaching 4.7 percent by Auglaize County, with its slightly higher population and workforce, has driven the area trends throughout this period. The jump in Mercer County s unemployment rate in 1998 and 1999 was primarily due to global competition leading to the shutdown of a major employer in the area. Since that time, however, the county unemployment rate has fallen below state and national rates. Figure 7: Unemployment Trends 10.0% U.S. Ohio One Stop Auglaize Hardin Mercer Van Wert 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% U.S. 5.6% 5.4% 4.9% 4.5% 4.2% 4.0% 4.7% 5.8% 6.0% 5.5% 5.1% Ohio 4.9% 5.0% 4.6% 4.3% 4.3% 4.0% 4.4% 5.7% 6.2% 6.2% 5.9% One Stop 6.0% 5.9% 4.6% 4.8% 4.9% 3.8% 4.6% 5.6% 5.4% 5.2% 4.7% Auglaize 5.1% 5.2% 4.4% 4.2% 4.0% 3.3% 4.3% 5.8% 5.2% 5.1% 4.5% Hardin 4.9% 5.6% 5.2% 3.9% 3.6% 4.1% 4.7% 5.8% 6.1% 6.2% 5.9% Mercer 9.0% 7.9% 5.4% 7.2% 8.0% 4.0% 4.5% 5.2% 4.6% 4.5% 4.0% Van Wert 4.4% 4.9% 3.5% 3.6% 3.6% 4.1% 5.3% 5.8% 6.1% 5.4% 5.1% 5

10 Key Trends, continued Income: Per capita income has been rising steadily over the past ten years at a 3.8 percent annual compound rate of growth. For comparison, statewide income has grown 3.7 percent and national income at 4.1 percent during the same period. Auglaize County had the highest incomes during this time, reaching $29,600 per capita by Hardin County had the lowest income at $22,200 per capita in Figure 8: Per Capita Income $35,000 U.S. Ohio One Stop Auglaize Hardin Mercer Van Wert $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $ U.S. $23,076 $24,175 $25,334 $26,883 $27,939 $29,845 $30,574 $30,810 $31,484 $33,050 Ohio $22,495 $23,322 $24,656 $26,017 $26,859 $28,207 $28,601 $29,212 $29,954 $31,161 One Stop $19,537 $20,846 $22,289 $23,576 $23,874 $25,106 $24,626 $24,923 $26,440 $27,258 Auglaize $21,517 $22,204 $23,980 $25,441 $26,252 $28,002 $26,892 $27,378 $28,854 $29,599 Hardin $16,044 $17,470 $18,583 $19,671 $19,925 $20,872 $20,726 $20,948 $22,127 $22,206 Mercer $20,237 $22,286 $23,549 $24,869 $24,384 $25,435 $25,410 $26,095 $27,732 $28,677 Van Wert $19,221 $20,350 $21,889 $23,060 $23,688 $24,661 $24,147 $23,689 $25,436 $27,073 6

11 Key Trends, continued Housing Permits: New permits for residential construction are shown in Figure 9 below. While individually the counties did not show much fluctuation in the number of permits (except for Hardin County), there has been considerable aggregate change, including a building boom in 1998 and The average valuation of these new units, shown in Figure 10, has been increasing in recent years. Figure 9: Number of New Residential Building Permits 700 One Stop Auglaize Hardin Mercer Van Wert One Stop Auglaize Hardin Mercer Van Wert Figure 10: Valuation of New Residential Building Permits $180,000 One Stop Auglaize Hardin Mercer Van Wert $160,000 $140,000 $120,000 $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 $ One Stop $98,709 $102,551 $113,335 $99,656 $97,306 $112,479 $132,664 $132,688 $137,792 $143,739 $137,819 Auglaize $99,227 $101,181 $121,423 $120,145 $111,464 $129,164 $141,818 $138,807 $137,117 $145,378 $134,119 Hardin $75,761 $69,203 $64,732 $52,176 $59,680 $77,761 $95,448 $104,705 $98,168 $119,254 $117,894 Mercer $117,147 $120,676 $134,363 $134,340 $114,591 $119,754 $154,038 $147,786 $160,594 $154,118 $159,275 Van Wert $88,663 $95,848 $109,493 $98,398 $90,461 $93,827 $102,333 $111,892 $111,619 $131,120 $113,477 7

12 III. Industry Analysis Employment by Sector: Figure 11 below shows the distribution of industry employment in These statistics do not include most farmers, other self-employed workers and others not covered by unemployment insurance. This pie chart shows an employment profile in the One Stop Employment & Training Network area dominated by manufacturing; trade, transportation and utilities; and government, including public schools. Together these three major sectors account for nearly two thirds of all local workers. Other categories shown on this chart are education and health services, which includes hospitals, clinics, universities and private schools (10.6%); leisure and hospitality, including restaurants, hotels and certain recreation facilities (7.9%); financial activities such as banking, insurance and real estate (4.0%); construction (3.9%); other defined service industries like laundries, repair shops and certain non-profit organizations (3.9%); professional and business services, which includes law and accounting firms, corporate offices and administrative support (3.5%); information, including publishing and telecommunications (0.9%); and finally natural resources and mining (0.9%). Figure 11: Employment by Major Sector, 2005 Government 15.0% Natural Resources and Mining 0.9% Construction 3.9% Other Services 3.9% Leisure and Hospitality 7.9% 31.7% Education and Health Services 10.6% Professional and Business Services 3.5% Financial Activities 4.0% Information 0.9% Trade, Transportation and Utilities 17.7% Figure 12 on the next page shows more detailed information about sector employment in the One Stop Employment & Training Network region and how it compares with the state. In addition to the area s industry mix relative to the state, the proportion of total state employment for each sector helps identify the importance of a sector s employment in Ohio. One sector that really stands out in this regard is manufacturing, which employs 31.7 percent of workers in this area 8

13 Industry Analysis, continued compared to only 15.3 percent statewide. Another category that is slightly more concentrated in this region is local government, employing 13.7 percent here and only 10.3 percent statewide. Figure 12: Employment by Industry Sector, 2005 Industry Sector Employment Percent State State Percent of Distrib Employment Distrib. State Total Total All Sectors 56, % 5,308, % 1.1% Natural Resources and Mining % 24, % 2.1% Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting NA NA 14, % NA Mining NA NA 10, % NA Construction 2, % 232, % 0.9% 17, % 811, % 2.2% Trade, Transportation and Utilities 9, % 1,035, % 1.0% Wholesale Trade NA NA 235, % NA Retail Trade 6, % 613, % 1.0% Transportation and Warehousing NA NA 165, % NA Utilities NA NA 20, % NA Information % 89, % 0.6% Financial Activities 2, % 299, % 0.7% Finance and Insurance 1, % 229, % 0.8% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing % 69, % 0.6% Professional and Business Services 1, % 643, % 0.3% Professional, Scientific and Technical Services NA NA 231, % NA Management of Companies and Enterprises NA NA 98, % NA Administrative and Waste Services NA NA 313, % NA Education and Health Services 5, % 750, % 0.8% Education Services NA NA 85, % NA Health Care and Social Assistance NA NA 664, % NA Leisure and Hospitality 4, % 499, % 0.9% Arts, Entertainment and Recreation % 67, % 0.9% Accommodation and Food Services 3, % 431, % 0.9% Other Services, except Public Administration 2, % 165, % 1.3% Government, including Public Schools 8, % 753, % 1.1% Federal Government % 76, % 0.5% State Government % 132, % 0.3% Local Government 7, % 544, % 1.4% NA-Data not available due to confidentiality restrictions. 9

14 Industry Analysis, continued Employment Prospects: The table below looks at industry classifications and is color coded to more quickly identify those sectors most important to the region. The left column ranks fourteen sectors shown by their employment levels in The top six sectors in this column are printed in blue. The right column ranks sectors by the net number of new jobs created since The growth sectors in the second column are printed in red. Sectors that appear at the top of both lists are printed in purple. Sectors with high employment levels are often a major source of job openings because seven of ten openings are expected to be replacement needs. 3 In terms of employment, the largest single sector in the region is manufacturing, accounting for nearly 18 thousand workers in Unfortunately, this sector also saw the area s biggest job losses in the last five years. Local government was the area s second-largest employer with 7,700 workers. Four of the large employment sectors education and health services; professional and business services; retail trade; and other services, except public administration also added jobs between 2000 and Education and health services created nearly 1,300 positions during this period (27.7%). Professional and business services also saw significant growth of about 280 jobs (16.8%). Figure 13: Employment Prospects by Industry Sector 2005 Employment New Jobs: Education and Health Services Local Government Professional and Business Services Retail Trade Retail Trade Education and Health Services Finance and Insurance Accommodation and Food Services Other Services, except Public Administration Other Services, except Public Administration Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Construction Information Professional and Business Services Arts, Entertainment and Recreation Finance and Insurance State Government Arts, Entertainment and Recreation Federal Government Information Local Government Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Construction Federal Government Accommodation and Food Services State Government 3 Ohio Job Outlook to 2012, p

15 Industry Analysis, continued Average Weekly Earnings: Figure 14 below ranks the sectors in the One Stop Employment & Training Network by their average weekly earnings total wage or salary regardless of hours worked and shows how much the sectors have grown or declined in Statewide average weekly earnings for all employers were $718 in 2005, compared to $585 for this region. This table also uses the same color-coding system as Figure 13 on the previous page, with sectors printed in purple being large sectors with growth. The highest paying sector in 2005 was state government, which had average weekly earnings of $911. was the highest-paying large employment sector, with the average worker making $780 per week. Federal government was the last sector to pay higher than the state average at $762 per week. The highest-paying sector to have added jobs in the last five years was finance and insurance at $699. Figure 14: Sectors Ranked by 2005 Average Weekly Earnings Industry Sector 2000 Employment 2005 Employment Net Change Percent Change Average Weekly Earnings State Government % $911 18,897 17,836-1, % $780 Federal Government % $762 Finance and Insurance 1,670 1, % $699 Construction 2,560 2, % $634 Local Government 7,896 7, % $561 Information % $557 Education and Health Services 4,678 5,974 1, % $528 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing % $515 Professional and Business Services 1,662 1, % $505 Retail Trade 6,232 6, % $363 Other Services, except Public Administration 2,075 2, % $341 Arts, Entertainment and Recreation % $187 Accommodation and Food Services 4,494 3, % $168 Bear in mind that industry size and growth do not always coincide with earnings potential. All of the large sectors to have added jobs that is, sectors color-coded purple were below the regional average. The two lowest-paying large employment growth sectors retail trade and other services at $363 and $341 per week respectively tend to hire large numbers of part time workers, driving average earnings down. 11

16 IV. Educational Infrastructure Figure 15 below shows educational attainment for persons 25 and older in the area, according to data from the 2000 decennial census. Generally, the area has a lower overall level of educational attainment than statewide, especially in terms of postsecondary education. Auglaize County has the highest educational attainment: it has the lowest proportion of adults without a high school diploma (14.3%) and the highest proportion of people with at least some postsecondary education (38.1%). Mercer County has the highest proportion of people holding a master s degree or better (5.1%). Figure 15: Educational Attainment 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Ohio One Stop Auglaize Hardin Mercer Van Wert Master's Degree or Higher 547,276 4,335 1, , Bachelor's Degree 1,016,258 7,471 2,658 1,345 1,925 1,543 Associate Degree 436,608 6,552 2, ,672 1,431 Some College 1,471,964 14,463 4,912 2,657 3,852 3,042 High School Graduate 2,674,551 46,799 14,317 9,690 12,739 10,053 No High School Diploma 1,262,085 14,760 4,311 3,738 4,110 2,601 There are three postsecondary schools in the One Stop region: Ohio Northern University in Ada, Wright State University Lake Campus at Celina and Vantage Career Center in Van Wert. In addition, the area is host to several apprenticeship programs covering a variety of trades. 12

17 Technical Notes Commuting data are from the 2000 Census of Population and Housing, County-to-County Worker Flow Files. Data is available at Population and demographic estimates were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. The figures are available online at Employment data were obtained from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), Bureau of Labor Market Information, Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. The data are based on reports filed by employers subject to the Ohio Unemployment Compensation Law, as well as those covered under Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees, by place of work. See the NAICS-based Economic Development Profiles at or the data query menu for Employment and Wages by Industry at Because data for some industry sectors in some counties have not been released due to confidentiality requirements, we were not able to report data for these sectors in the region. Total employment may include employment and wage data for non-classifiable establishments. Unemployment statistics are produced by the Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) section, Bureau of Labor Market Information, Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. Data for One-Stop areas are available for query at or for other geographies at Per capita income figures are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and are downloadable from Information on residential construction permits and their valuation are from the U.S. Census Bureau, Construction Reports: Housing Authorized by Building Permits and Public Contracts. Data are available online at Data on education were obtained from the Ohio Department of Development, Office of Strategic Research, based on information from the 2000 decennial census. Detailed information on each of Ohio s counties is available at The Bureau of Labor Market Information also collects data on programs for the Integrated Postsecondary Educational Data System (IPEDS). These data are posted on the internet by the National Center for Education Statistics at The list of major employers in each county is available in the Ohio County Profiles produced by the Ohio Department of Development s Office of Strategic Research at For more information on Ohio workforce statistics, visit the Ohio Workforce Informer online at or the Ohio Labor Market Information Classic website at 13

18 References Goldstein, Harvey, University of North Carolina. Projecting State and Area Industry Employment. Prepared through a grant from the Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. Projections Workgroup, August Ohio Department of Development. Office of Strategic Research. Commuting Patterns by County. March Internet August Ohio Department of Development. Office of Strategic Research. Ohio County Profiles. October Internet August Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. Bureau of Labor Market Information. Demographic, Labor Force and Industry Trends. June Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. Bureau of Labor Market Information. Market Analysis of Key Workforce Trends United States. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Local Area Personal Income. Internet August United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. June United States. Census Bureau. Building Permits. Internet August United States. Census Bureau. Population Estimates. Internet August United States. Census Bureau. Current Lists of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas and Definitions. 23 August Internet August

19 Appendix A Ohio s Workforce Investment Areas 15

20 Appendix B Metropolitan and Micropolitan Areas 16

21 Appendix B, continued Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) have at least one urbanized area with a population of 50,000 or more, plus adjacent territory that has a high degree of social and economic integration with the core as measured by commuting ties. Micropolitan Statistical Areas have at least one urban cluster with a population of at least 10,000 but less than 50,000, plus adjacent territory that has a high degree of social and economic integration with the core, measured by commuting ties. For further information on the Office of Management and Budget s 2000 Standards for Defining Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas, please visit Metropolitan Statistical Areas in Ohio and Adjacent States A. Akron MSA: Portage and Summit Counties. B. Canton-Massillon MSA: Carroll and Stark Counties. C. Cincinnati-Middletown MSA*: Brown, Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and Warren Counties in Ohio; Dearborn, Franklin and Ohio Counties in Indiana; and Boone, Bracken, Campbell, Gallatin, Grant, Kenton and Pendleton Counties in Kentucky. D. Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor MSA: Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain and Medina Counties. E. Columbus MSA: Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, Licking, Madison, Morrow, Pickaway and Union Counties. F. Dayton MSA: Greene, Miami, Montgomery and Preble Counties. G. Huntington-Ashland MSA*: Cabell and Wayne Counties in West Virginia; Boyd and Greenup Counties in Kentucky; and Lawrence County in Ohio. H. Lima MSA: Allen County. I. Mansfield MSA: Richland County. J. Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna MSA*: Pleasants, Wirt and Wood Counties in West Virginia and Washington County in Ohio. K. Sandusky MSA: Erie County. L. Springfield MSA: Clark County. M. Toledo MSA: Fulton, Lucas, Ottawa and Wood Counties. N. Weirton-Steubenville MSA*: Jefferson County in Ohio and Brooke and Hancock Counties in West Virginia. O. Wheeling MSA*: Marshall and Ohio Counties in West Virginia and Belmont County in Ohio. P. Youngstown-Warren-Boardman MSA*: Mahoning and Trumbull Counties in Ohio and Mercer County in Pennsylvania. *Statistical areas in other states that include Ohio counties. 17

22 Appendix B, continued 1. Ashland 2. Ashtabula 3. Athens 4. Bellefontaine: Logan County 5. Bucyrus: Crawford County 6. Cambridge: Guernsey County 7. Celina: Mercer County 8. Chillicothe: Ross County 9. Coshocton 10. Defiance 11. East Liverpool-Salem: Columbiana County 12. Findlay: Hancock County 13. Fremont: Sandusky County 14. Greenville: Darke County 15. Marion 16. Mount Vernon: Knox County 17. New Philadelphia-Dover: Tuscarawas County 18. Norwalk: Huron County Micropolitan Statistical Areas in Ohio 19. Point Pleasant*: Mason County in West Virginia and Gallia County in Ohio 20. Portsmouth: Scioto County 21. Sidney: Shelby County 22. Tiffin-Fostoria: Seneca County 23. Urbana: Champaign County 24. Van Wert 25. Wapakoneta: Auglaize County 26. Washington Court House: Fayette County 27. Wilmington: Clinton County 28. Wooster: Wayne County 29. Zanesville: Muskingum County The micropolitan area name is the same as the county name unless otherwise noted. *Statistical areas in other states that include Ohio counties. 18

23 Appendix C Major County-to-County Commuting Patterns Auglaize Percent of workers that work outside the county % Average commute time in minutes Number of workers 16+ years of age Number of workers 16+ years of age living in Auglaize County 23,282 working in Auglaize County 21,159 Commute Out To Number Percent Commute In From Number Percent Allen Co. OH 3, % Mercer Co. OH 2, % Shelby Co. OH 3, % Allen Co. OH 1, % Mercer Co. OH % Shelby Co. OH 1, % Logan Co. OH % Darke Co. OH % Miami Co. OH % Van Wert Co. OH % Darke Co. OH % Miami Co. OH % Montgomery Co. OH % Hardin Co. OH % Van Wert Co. OH % Putnam Co. OH % Hardin Percent of workers that work outside the county % Average commute time in minutes Number of workers 16+ years of age Number of workers 16+ years of age living in Hardin County 14,390 working in Hardin County 11,044 Commute Out To Number Percent Commute In From Number Percent Allen Co. OH 1, % Allen Co. OH % Hancock Co. OH 1, % Hancock Co. OH % Logan Co. OH % Logan Co. OH % Union Co. OH % Wyandot Co. OH % Wyandot Co. OH % Marion Co. OH % Marion Co. OH % Auglaize Co. OH % Franklin Co. OH % Union Co. OH % Shelby Co. OH % Putnam Co. OH % Mercer Percent of workers that work outside the county % Average commute time in minutes Number of workers 16+ years of age Number of workers 16+ years of age living in Mercer County 19,742 working in Mercer County 15,850 Commute Out To Number Percent Commute In From Number Percent Auglaize Co. OH 2, % Auglaize Co. OH % Van Wert Co. OH % Darke Co. OH % Shelby Co. OH % Jay Co. IN % Darke Co. OH % Van Wert Co. OH % Allen Co. OH % Shelby Co. OH % Adams Co. IN % Adams Co. IN % Jay Co. IN % Randolph Co. IN % Allen Co. IN % Allen Co. OH % Van Wert Percent of workers that work outside the county % Average commute time in minutes Number of workers 16+ years of age Number of workers 16+ years of age living in Van Wert County 14,375 working in Van Wert County 12,653 Commute Out To Number Percent Commute In From Number Percent Allen Co. OH 1, % Allen Co. OH % Adams Co. IN % Mercer Co. OH % Allen Co. IN % Paulding Co. OH % Paulding Co. OH % Putnam Co. OH % Putnam Co. OH % Allen Co. IN % Mercer Co. OH % Auglaize Co. OH % Auglaize Co. OH % Adams Co. IN % Source: Ohio Department of Development, Office of Strategic Research, 2000 Census Data. 19

24 Appendix D Major Employers by County Auglaize Crown Equipment Corp. Danone Group/Dannon Co. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Hitachi Metals/AAP St. Mary's Corp. Joint Township District Memorial Hospital Minster Machine Co. Parker Hannifin Corp. Setex, Inc. St. Mary's City Board of Education Wapokoneta City Board of Education Hardin Amer Grp plc/wilson Sporting Goods Durez Corp. Hardin County Government Hardin Memorial Hospital International Paper Co. Kenton City Board of Education Ohio Northern University Precision Strip, Inc. Sypris Technologies Triumph Thermal Systems, Inc. Mercer Celina Aluminum Precision Technology Celina City Board of Education Cooper Farms Crown Equipment Corp. Fort Recovery Industries, Inc. Mercer County Joint Township Community Hospital Pax Machine Works Relizon Co. Renoir Visions, LLC Reynolds & Reynolds Co., Inc. Tuway Products Co. Van Wert Central Mutual Insurance Co. Eaton Corp. Federal-Mogul Corp. Greif, Inc. KAM, Inc. Kennedy Co., Inc. Teleflex, Inc. Toledo Molding & Die, Inc. Van Wert City Board of Education Van Wert County Hospital Association Health Care Government Government Government Health Care Government Education Government Health Care Insurance Government Health Care Source: Ohio Department of Development. Ohio County Profiles. Employers are listed in alphabetical order. 20

25 Office of Workforce Development P.O. Box 1618 Columbus, OH Bureau of Labor Market Information Business Principles for Workforce Development Partner with the workforce and economic development community. Develop and deploy new information solution tools and systems for the workforce and economic development community. Provide products and services that are customer and demand driven. Be known as an important and reliable source for information solutions that support workforce development goals and outcomes. Acknowledgements: The Workforce Research Section, under the direction of Labor Economist Larry Less, was responsible for the composition of this report. Labor Market Analyst Jonathan Calig was primarily responsible for production. Thanks are extended to the many other analysts who developed and reviewed the data presented in this report. This publication was prepared under the supervision of Labor Market Information Bureau Chief Keith Ewald and Assistant Bureau Chief Rudy Wilkinson. This report was prepared by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Office of Workforce Development. For further information, visit our website at or contact the Ohio Bureau of Labor Market Information at WORK-411 or Ted Strickland, Governor State of Ohio Helen E. Jones-Kelley, Director Ohio Department of Job and Family Services Office of Workforce Development Bureau of Labor Market Information ODJFS is an Equal Opportunity Employer and Service Provider (4/2007)