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

NAME ARC County

2009 Index

2009 Rank

2019 Index

2019 Rank

Percent Change

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

Montgomery 108.9 44 114.2 49 4.86 73

Clinton 101.2 33 116.5 50 15.14 86

Ashland 115.1 52 117.0 51 1.67 54

Huron 119.9 58 119.6 52 -0.21 44

Carroll ARC 126.8 64 120.0 53 -5.35 19

Washington ARC 117.1 54 120.5 54 2.90 62

Lucas 121.3 59 120.5 55 -0.68 39

Clark 113.4 51 122.0 56 7.65 80

Hardin 128.7 65 123.4 57 -4.14 25

Richland 117.8 55 123.4 58 4.76 72

Belmont ARC 133.9 70 124.9 59 -6.67 18

Mahoning ARC 124.9 62 125.1 60 0.21 47

Fayette 108.4 43 126.5 61 16.71 87

Muskingum ARC 136.3 72 126.9 62 -6.84 17

Columbiana ARC 130.7 69 127.2 63 -2.66 31

Crawford 124.1 61 127.4 64 2.65 60

Hocking ARC 137.8 73 128.2 65 -7.02 15

Marion 112.9 50 128.2 66 13.61 84

Trumbull ARC 118.9 57 130.5 67 9.79 83

Ross ARC 129.1 67 131.7 68 2.05 57

Coshocton ARC 128.8 66 132.6 69 2.99 65

Brown ARC 125.4 63 133.3 70 6.29 77

Noble ARC 156.1 80 134.8 71 -13.64 3

Harrison ARC 136.0 71 135.3 72 -0.50 40

Guernsey ARC 147.2 75 136.7 73 -7.14 14

Lawrence ARC 151.5 78 137.8 74 -9.03 11

Ashtabula ARC 129.8 68 138.0 75 6.35 78

Perry ARC 147.6 76 141.9 76 -3.84 26

Jefferson ARC 141.6 74 143.8 77 1.52 53

Highland ARC 122.8 60 147.7 78 20.25 88

Gallia ARC 148.2 77 147.9 79 -0.16 46

Vinton ARC 179.1 86 157.1 80 -12.24 6

Pike ARC 177.4 85 158.4 81 -10.73 7

Jackson ARC 154.6 79 159.2 82 2.97 63

Morgan ARC 181.9 87 159.3 83 -12.42 5

Athens ARC 172.7 83 164.5 84 -4.71 23

Scioto ARC 169.0 82 166.8 85 -1.30 36

Meigs ARC 187.1 88 171.0 86 -8.60 13

Adams ARC 164.9 81 174.3 87 5.74 75

Monroe ARC 173.3 84 177.5 88 2.43 59

Table 3. Independent Samples T-Test

Independent Samples T-Test

t df p

2009 Index 10.815 86.00 < .001 a

2019 Index 9.306 86.00 < .001

Percent Change -2.032 86.00 0.045

Note. Student's t-test.

ᵃ Levene's test is significant (p < .05), suggesting a violation of the equal variance assumption

Assumption Checks

Test of Equality of Variances (Levene's)

F df p

2009 Index 16.865 1 < .001

2019 Index 2.830 1 0.096

Percent Change 1.660 1 0.201

Group Descriptives

Group N Mean SD SE

2009 Index 1 32 142.550 23.956 4.235

2 56 99.625 13.347 1.784

2019 Index 1 32 138.622 21.896 3.871

2 56 100.668 16.106 2.152

Percent Change 1 32 -2.353 7.828 1.384

2 56 0.788 6.446 0.861