1. Trends for the Extension North District Rosemary R. Gliem, Ph.D. Director, Extension Data Center January 23, 2004

2. Metro and Micro-politan Statistical Areas Source: US Census Statistical Areas Not defined Metropolitan Micropolitan

3. Definitions I metropolitan area – one urbanized area of 50,000 or more; adjacent county has a high degree of social and economic integration with the core measured by commuting ties micropolitan areas – new; at least one urban cluster of 10,000 but less than 50,000; adjacent county high degree of social and economic integration with core measured by commuting patterns combined areas – groupings of two or more adjacent metro and micro areas when employment interchange exceeds 15%

4. Extension North

6. Rural Population Centers 0.8% - 16.5% 16.6% - 33.9% 34.0% - 54.4% 54.5% - 73.4% 73.5% - 97.8% Source: US Census Ohio: 22.7%

7. Population Change Apr 2000-July 2002 Source: US Census Ohio: +0.6% -16.2% - -3.4% -3.3% - 0.0% +0.1% - +5.9% +6.0% - +11.7% +11.8% - +21.0% +21.1% - +41.6%

9. Source: US Census Projected Population Change, 2000-2030 Ohio: +8.5% -24.4% - -4.9% -4.8% - 0% +0.1% - +14.1% +14.2% - +28.2% +28.3% - +63.7% +63.8% - +142.0%

11. Fastest Growing States, 1995 - 2025

12. People Migrating -134,995 - -90,313 -90,312 - -42,918 -42,917 - -14,326 -14,325 - -2,475 -2,474 - +2,069 +2,070 - +9,579 +9,580 - +22,720 +22,721 - +52,070 Net Migration, 1988-2002 Source: IRS; Ohio Department of Development Ohio: -222,602

14. Characteristics of Movers – National Level 20 – 29 year olds have highest moving rates Hispanics and Asians had highest moving rate followed by African Americans; White non-Hispanics had lowest Bachelor degree holders moved farther away than high school diploma holders Single and divorced people more likely to move than married people – age Long distance moves – work-related;short distance moves – housing Source: Current Population Reports – March 1999 – March 2000

15. Net Migration of Surrounding States, 2001 Michigan - 30,422 Indiana -12,522 Kentucky 1,378 West Virginia - 5,853 Pennsylvania - 30,640 Ohio - 49,578

16. Non-White Population 194 - 10,470 10,471 - 48,828 48,829 - 130,978 130,979 - 262,127 262,128 - 454,982 Source: Ohio Department of Development

17. Non-White Population Source: Ohio Department of Development 1.0% - 3.1% 3.2% - 6.1% 6.2% - 10.8% 10.9% - 19.0% 19.1% - 32.6% Ohio: 15.0% U.S.: 19.3%

18. Population 65 and over 1,551 - 9,463 9,464 - 21,262 21,263 - 59,441 59,442 - 113,898 113,899 - 217,161 Source: US Census

19. % of Population 8.2% - 11.0% 11.1% - 12.7% 12.8% - 14.2% 14.3% - 15.7% 15.8% - 18.6% Population 65/over

21. Median Household Income, 1999 Source: US Census $27,287.00 - $31,649.00 $31,649.01 - $37,397.00 $37,397.01 - $42,304.00 $42,304.01 - $51,743.00 $51,743.01 - $67,258.00 Ohio: $40,956

23. 2000 Personal Income Per Capita Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis 2000 PIPC (Unadjusted) $15,308.00 - $19,703.00 $19,703.01 - $23,061.00 $23,061.01 - $26,540.00 $26,540.01 - $30,108.00 $30,108.01 - $35,146.00 Ohio: $27,977

24. Bachelor's Degrees Source: US Census Population 25/over 3.9% - 6.6% 6.7% - 9.0% 9.1% - 12.6% 12.7% - 17.8% 17.9% - 28.2%

26. Unemployment, November 2003 Source: ODJFS/LMI Unemployment Rate 2.8% - 4.4% 4.5% - 5.5% 5.6% - 6.9% 7% - 9.7% 9.8% - 14.9% Ohio: 5.3% (unadj.)

27. Females, Head of Household Source: US Census Households 6.5% - 8.1% 8.2% - 9.3% 9.4% - 10.7% 10.8% - 12.8% 12.9% - 15.7%

28. All Persons in Poverty, 2000 Source: US Census 4.2% - 6.8% 6.9% - 8.9% 9% - 10.7% 10.8% - 13.4% 13.5% - 19.3% Ohio: 9.8%

29. 4.8% - 9.5% 9.6% - 12.4% 12.5% - 15.8% 15.9% - 20.7% 20.8% - 26.2% Minors in Poverty, 2000 Source: US Census Ohio: 14.1%

30. 3.8% - 7.5% 7.6% - 10.2% 10.3% - 13% 13.1% - 17% 17.1% - 22.5% Children in Poverty, 2000 Source: US Census Ohio: 11.7%

31. OSUEDC Sample Chart

32. National Trends Aging population – average life span is 77 First generation immigrants – Hispanics living in the metro. areas Generation Y 1979 to 1994 – large generation will have an effect in the next decade but a shortage of young people will follow Revival of urban living in the next 20 years Peak in U.S. population by 2050 –to about 325 – 350 million so communities will gradually decline

33. 20 th century paradigm… everyone will have job people will retire at 65 people will live in homes, eat one meal there, commute to work social problems will be solved by the government families will be small, on the move, isolated from their extended families

34. Beyond 2001… a growing number of people will not work for organizations but for themselves partly due to the information revolution end of retirement – longer life span means the need for money as well as productivity

35. Beyond 2001… homes become centers for work, learning, entertainment and possibly health care – implications for community development End of government solutions for large social problems – who will help solve problems? individuals, families, nonprofits, communities?

36. Beyond 2001… End of isolated families – industrialization created small, isolated families but the cybereconomy and the lack of government solutions along with an aging population may cause families to become closer, including extended members

37. Towards Services and Trade

38. Ohio Trends less rural and more urban large number of metro areas – strength 81% reside in metro. area, 15% micro. area 29 Appalachian counties with unique circumstances – high poverty, low wages, aging population slow population growth out-migration of college educated, young adults

39. Ohio Trends emergence of rust belt in north central Ohio – loss of manufacturing jobs 65 years and older, Ohio 13.3% in 2000, U.S. 12.4% in 2000, Ohio gained 7.2% from 1990 - 2000

40. Areas for Extension to Consider less small to medium farms may mean more concentration on value-added agricultural products more interest in travel and tourism issues programming around entrepreneurship issues shift in paradigms from ag. to industrial to service, trade, technology and knowledge paradigms will need different workers with different skills – workforce development

41. Areas for Extension to Consider aging population may require different programs appropriate for their needs such as nutrition classes to minimize the effects of obesity educating local leaders on business retention and expansion with an emphasis on their local economies first locating audiences via GIS mapping for various types of programs

42. North District Metro areas – strong point Rural Population – mostly urban Population Chg. – medina, geauga, lorain, portage, wayne, huron, lake, ashland above state average Migration – medina, geauga, portage, wayne ashland, huron, ashtabula all gained Median Income – medium to high

43. North District PIPC –high Bachelor’s and higher – high Unemployment – an issue Female HH – ashtabula, trumbull, mahoning, cuyahoga, summit, stark, lorain, richland, erie, marion poverty – problem areas

44. North District 65 and over – 15 counties above state average Projected Population – medina, wayne, geauga, ashland, lorain, huron above the state average

45. Thank You www.osuedc.org