Ohio Trends

Home

Publications

Profiles

FAQ's

Contacts

Links

Volume 1, Number 3
July 2000

Ohio's Geographic Mobility

National Mobility

Millions of people move every year. Between March 1997 and March 1998, 42.5 million Americans moved, with most of them, 27.1 million, moving from one residence to another within the same county, which is known as local movement. (Current Population Reports, 1997-1998). The movement of people where both origin and destination are within the United States (excluding Puerto Rico) is referred to as domestic migration. Migration occurs when there is a change of residence. In essence, net migration is defined as the number of in-migrants (people moving into an area) minus the number of out-migrants (people moving out of an area). A positive net migration number indicates an area had more people move in than move out; conversely, a negative number indicates more people moved out of an area than moved in.

Demographics of Migration

Nationally, people in their twenties moved more than any other age group. Generally, as age increases, the moving rate declines. Non-Hispanic whites had the lowest overall moving rates (14.5%) than African Americans or Asians and Pacific Islanders (18.9% for both groups). People of Hispanic origin, who may be of any race, had the highest rates of moving (21.2%). Nationally, regional net internal migration (movement within the United States) revealed that more people moved from the North to the South. (Current Population Reports, March 1997-1998). The Midwest region, which includes Ohio, did not have any significant population changes due to migration. Migration affects a state's population in the following ways: its size, direction, and source. The migration flow can be comprised of immigrants from abroad or internal migrants from other states. The influx of minority immigration can change the demographic composition of a state or county. For example, California has a large, unskilled immigrant flow while Florida attracts a skilled, internal migration flow. Generally, as minorities move into an area, non-Hispanic whites move out - this trend is referred to as "white flight" (Frey, 1994). In general, people who move from state to state tend to be better educated and more affluent than non-movers. In the late 1980s, net non-Hispanic white migrant gains occurred in the South, Pacific, and the Mountain regions of the country. Net out-migration occurred in states with high international immigration or declining economies. This trend may be one reason why non-Hispanic whites left the Midwest.

Ohio's Migration Pattern

Of particular interest to Ohio is the net out-migration of 163,876 people from 1986-1997 (Figure 1). Ohio's migration information originates from the U.S. Census Bureau. A concern for Ohio with a loss this size is the possibility that Ohio is losing its college graduates - a trend referred to as the "brain drain" (Frey, 1994). Well-educated, highly skilled people tend to be more mobile than the rest of the population. Ohio and other northern, industrial states are losing many of their college-educated graduates (Frey, 1994). This group tends to migrate to Florida, California, and both coasts. Why did Ohio experience a net out-migration of 163,876 from 1986 to 1997? One reason may be Ohio's declining economy from 1985 to 1990. The decline of industrial growth and the loss of manufacturing jobs slowed the economy, so college graduates looked for employment outside the state. From 1986 to 1990, Ohio had a net out-migration of 103,504 but the migration pattern slowed from 1991 to 1997 and Ohio had a net out-migration of 60,372. Ohio is considered a high out-migration state as was Louisiana, Michigan, and Oklahoma from 1985-1990 (Frey, 1994). Migration is a main source of demographic change. States with high out-migration such as Ohio may experience a speeding up of the aging of its population. Economically, employers are left trying to fill job vacancies with a shrinking pool of younger people to take those jobs. The geographic movement of people increases the gaps among rich, poor, minority, and white. States such as California attract many immigrants from abroad but also may lose lower income non-Hispanic whites.

Ohio's County Migration Patterns

Forty of Ohio's 88 counties had more people move out than move in from 1986 to 1997 (Table 1). Not surprising, all of Ohio's major urban core counties had a net out-migration which means that more people moved out than moved in. Those counties are as follows: Cuyahoga (-114,753), Hamilton (-62,860), Montgomery (-42,673), Lucas (-36,385), Mahoning (-11,799), Allen (-8,008), Summit (-3,369), and Franklin (-180). Besides the urban areas, some counties in the north central region, on the western border, and on the southeastern border of the state lost population due to out-migration. Counties in the north central region that experienced net out-migration were mostly urban counties such as, Richland (-5,577), Marion (-2,621), Crawford (-1,904), and Hancock (-1,390). Perhaps the slowing down of industrial growth along with the loss of manufacturing jobs was a factor in explaining this decline. On the western border almost all of the counties that experienced a net out-migration were rural counties such as Van Wert (-1,189), Putnam

(-1,188), Darke (-977), and Henry (-342). Generally, rural counties experience the greatest net out-migration as young adults leave to pursue an education or a career. Along the southeastern border of the state eight counties experienced net out-migration. Of those eight counties only Jefferson (-5,253) is considered urban. The loss of people in these counties may be due to economic (high unemployment) as well as social (higher than average number of residents 65 years of age and older) reasons.

Counties that gained up to 4,000 residents were generally located in the southern part of the state or contiguous to a major urban area. Rural counties in the southern area such as Ross (3,676), Pike (3,483), and Hocking (2,384) all experienced a net in-migration, which follows the trend of the 1990s referred to as the rural rebound. This trend partially explains the shift in population from metropolitan areas to rural, nonmetropolitan counties. The 11 counties that gained 4,000 or more residents through migration were generally a part of a metropolitan area except for Knox county, which is close to but not a part of the Columbus metropolitan area. These suburban counties continue to attract people who desire to live in areas of lower population density while commuting to a job in a large, urban core county. This trend is evident by the population growth of the counties surrounding the three major urban areas in Ohio (Figure 1).

Migration differences are much more dramatic at the county and regional level than at the state level as a whole (Minnesota Migration, 1993). The differences in migration rates in the state may explain why some areas grew while some areas declined. Net out-migration is of concern for Ohio since typically the better-educated, highly skilled people tend to move from state to state seeking better career opportunities. Is Ohio losing its best and brightest? If so, this trend may lead to major changes in Ohio's racial and socio-demographic characteristics, which may adversely affect Ohio's economy as well as impacting the social programs necessary to sustain an aging population.

Sources

Frey, W. H. (April 1994). The New White Flight. American Demographics.

Minnesota Migration (1993). University of Minnesota, Children, Youth, & Family Consortium.

Ohio Department of Development, Migration Flows, 1986-1997.

U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports. Geographical Mobility, March 1997 to March 1998.

Written by: Rosemary R. Gliem
Maps by: Lori Bolton
Reviewed by: Dr. Don Thomas,
Department of Human and Community Resource Development

Back to Homepage

Please direct comments, suggestions and corrections to the Data Center.