Tag Archives: Columbus Ohio population

2017 County Population Estimates

Posted on by
Reply




2017 county population estimates

Early this morning, the Census released the most recent population figures for counties, Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Consolidated Statistical Areas. The 2017 county population estimates, among others, cover the year from July 1, 2016 to July 1, 2017.


Here are Ohio’s 88 counties and their population Census 2010, July 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017.
Census 2010——————————July 1, 2016————————-July 1, 2017
1. Cuyahoga: 1,280,122———–1. Franklin: 1,269,998———–1. Franklin: 1,291,981
2. Franklin: 1,163,414————2. Cuyahoga: 1,253,454——–2. Cuyahoga: 1,248,514
3. Hamilton: 802,374 ————–3. Hamilton: 810,087————-3. Hamilton: 813,822
4. Summit: 541,781—————-4. Summit: 540,394—————4. Summit: 541,228
5. Montgomery: 535,153——5. Montgomery: 531,395——–5. Montgomery: 530,604
6. Lucas: 441,815——————6. Lucas: 432,562—————–6. Lucas 430,887
7. Stark: 375,586——————-7. Butler: 377,933——————7. Butler: 380,604
8. Butler: 368,130——————8. Stark: 373,528——————8. Stark: 372,542
9. Lorain: 301,356—————–9. Lorain: 306,590——————9. Lorain: 307,924
10. Mahoning: 238,823———10. Mahoning: 230,169————10. Lake: 230,117
11. Lake: 230,041—————–11. Lake: 229,270——————11. Mahoning: 229,796
12. Warren: 212,693————-12. Warren: 226,476—————12. Warren: 228,882
13. Trumbull: 210,312———–13. Clermont: 203,016————13. Clermont: 204,214
14. Clermont: 197,363———–14. Trumbull: 201,701————-14. Delaware: 200,464
15. Delaware: 174,214———–15. Delaware: 196,777————15. Trumbull: 200,380
16. Medina: 172,332————-16. Medina: 176,903—————16. Medina: 178,371
17. Licking: 166,492————–17. Licking: 171,822—————17. Licking: 173,448
18. Greene: 161,573————–18. Greene: 165,109—————-18. Greene: 166,752
19. Portage: 161,419————-19. Portage: 162,162—————19. Portage: 162,277
20. Fairfield: 146,156————20. Fairfield: 152,681—————-20. Fairfield: 154,733
21. Clark: 138,333—————–21. Clark: 134,621——————–21. Clark: 134,557
22. Wood: 125,488—————22. Wood: 129,704——————-22. Wood: 130,492
23. Richland: 124,475————23. Richland: 121,167—————-23. Richland: 120,589
24. Wayne: 114,520————–24. Wayne: 116,422——————24. Wayne: 116,038
25. Columbiana: 107,841——-25. Miami: 104,382——————–25. Miami: 105,122
26. Allen: 106,331—————-26. Columbiana: 103,744————26. Allen: 103,198
27. Miami: 102,506————–27. Allen: 103,626——————27. Columbiana: 103,077
28. Ashtabula: 101,497———28. Ashtabula: 98,169————–28. Ashtabula: 97,807
29. Geauga: 93,389————-29. Geauga: 93,848—————–29. Geauga: 93,918
30. Tuscarawas: 92,582——–30. Tuscarawas: 92,485————30. Tuscarawas: 92,297
31. Muskingum: 86,074———31. Muskingum: 85,929————-31. Muskingum: 86,149
32. Scioto: 79,499—————-32. Ross: 76,910———————32. Ross: 77,313
33. Ross: 78,064—————–33. Scioto: 76,240——————–33. Scioto: 75,929
34. Erie: 77,079——————34. Hancock: 75,590—————–34. Hancock: 75,754
35. Hancock: 74,782————35. Erie: 74,944———————–35. Erie: 74,817
36. Belmont: 70,400————-36. Belmont: 68,568—————–36. Belmont: 68,029
37. Jefferson: 69,709————37. Jefferson: 66,914—————37. Athens: 66,597
38. Marion: 66,501—————38. Athens: 66,320——————38. Jefferson: 66,359
39. Athens: 64,757—————39. Marion: 65,334——————39. Marion: 64,967
40. Lawrence: 62,450———–40. Knox: 60,832———————40. Knox: 61,261
41. Washington: 61,778———41. Lawrence: 60,729————–41. Washington: 60,418
42. Sandusky: 60,944————42. Washington: 60,535———–42. Lawrence: 60,249
43. Knox: 60,921——————43. Sandusky: 59,281————–43. Sandusky: 59,195
44. Huron: 59,626—————–44. Huron: 58,391——————-44. Huron: 58,494
45. Seneca: 56,745—————45. Pickaway: 57,530—————45. Pickaway: 57,830
46. Pickaway: 55,698————-46. Union: 55,456——————-46. Union: 56,741
47. Ashland: 53,139—————47. Seneca: 55,357—————–47. Seneca: 55,243
48. Darke: 53,139—————–48. Ashland: 53,417—————–48. Ashland: 53,628
49. Union: 52,300——————49. Darke: 51,636——————-49. Darke: 51,536
50. Shelby: 49,423—————–50. Shelby: 48,726—————–50. Shelby: 48,759
51. Auglaize: 45,949————–51. Auglaize: 45,797—————-51. Auglaize: 45,778
52. Logan: 45,858—————–52. Logan: 45,171——————-52. Logan: 45,325
53. Brown: 44,846—————–53. Holmes: 43,832—————–53. Madison: 44,036
54. Crawford: 43,784————-54. Brown: 43,644——————-54. Holmes: 43,957
55. Highland: 43,589————-55. Madison: 43,354—————–55. Brown: 43,576
56. Madison: 43,435————-56. Highland: 42,993—————–56. Highland: 42,971
57. Fulton: 42,698—————-57. Fulton: 42,325——————–57. Fulton: 42,289
58. Holmes: 42,366————–58. Crawford: 42,037—————–58. Clinton: 42,009
59. Preble: 42,270—————-59. Clinton: 41,881——————-59. Crawford: 41,746
60. Clinton: 42,040—————60. Preble: 41,105——————–60. Preble: 41,120
61. Ottawa: 41,428—————61. Mercer: 40,710——————-61. Mercer: 40,873
62. Mercer: 40,814—————62. Ottawa: 40,495——————-62. Ottawa: 40,657
63. Champaign: 40,097———63. Guernsey: 39,200—————63. Guernsey: 39,093
64. Guernsey: 40,087———–64. Champaign: 38,737————-64. Champaign: 38,840
65. Defiance: 39,037————65. Defiance: 38,121—————–65. Defiance: 38,156
66. Williams: 37,642————66. Williams: 36,921——————66. Williams: 36,784
67. Coshocton: 36,901———-67. Coshocton: 36,644————-67. Coshocton: 36,544
68. Perry: 36,058—————–68. Perry: 36,019——————–68. Perry: 36,024
69. Morrow: 34,827————–69. Morrow: 34,827——————69. Morrow: 34,994
70. Putnam: 34,499————–70. Putnam: 34,016—————–70. Putnam: 33,878
71. Jackson: 33,225————-71. Jackson: 32,534—————–71. Jackson: 32,449
72. Hardin: 32,058—————72. Hardin: 31,407——————-72. Hardin: 31,364
73. Gallia: 30,934—————-73. Gallia: 29,996———————73. Gallia: 29,973
74. Hocking: 29,380————-74. Fayette: 28,662——————74. Fayette: 28,752
75. Fayette: 29,030————–75. Hocking: 28,386—————–75. Hocking: 28,474
76. Carroll: 28,836—————76. Pike: 28,237———————–76. Pike: 28,270
77. Van Wert: 28,744————77. Van Wert: 28,166—————-77. Van Wert: 28,217
78. Pike: 28,709——————-78. Adams: 27,832——————-78. Adams: 27,726
79. Adams: 28,550—————79. Carroll: 27,637——————–79. Carroll: 27,385
80. Henry: 28,215—————-80. Henry: 27,269———————80. Henry: 27,185
81. Meigs: 23,770—————-81. Meigs: 23,177———————81. Meigs: 23,080
82. Wyandot: 22,615————-82. Wyandot: 22,042—————-82. Wyandot: 22,029
83. Paulding: 19,614————83. Paulding: 18,839——————83. Paulding: 18,845
84. Harrison: 15,864————-84. Harrison: 15,257——————84. Harrison: 15,216
85. Morgan: 15,054————–85. Morgan: 14,762——————-85. Morgan: 14,709
86. Noble: 14,645—————–86. Noble: 14,443———————86. Noble: 14,406
87. Monroe: 14,642————–87. Monroe: 14,097——————–87. Monroe: 13,946
88. Vinton: 13,435—————-88. Vinton: 13,021———————88. Vinton: 13,092

Columbus’ counties tended to move up in the rankings 2010-2017.




Let’s now take a look at total growth for the periods July 1, 2016-July 1, 2017 and Census 2010 to July 1, 2017.
Census 2010-July 1, 2017————————-July 1, 2016-July 1, 2017
1. Franklin: +128,452—————————–1. Franklin: +21,983
2. Delaware: +26,275—————————–2. Hamilton: +3,735
3. Warren: +16,049——————————–3. Delaware: +3,687
4. Butler: +12,474———————————-4. Butler: +2,671
5. Hamilton: +11,435——————————5. Warren: +2,406
6. Fairfield: +8,556——————————–6. Fairfield: +2,052
7. Licking: +6,956———————————7. Greene: +1,643
8. Clermont: +6,862——————————-8. Licking: +1,626
9. Lorain: +6,555———————————–9. Medina: +1,468
10. Medina: +6,038——————————-10. Lorain: +1,334
11. Greene: +5,178——————————-11. Union: +1,285
12. Wood: +5,003———————————12. Clermont: +1,198
13. Union: +4,482———————————13. Lake: +847
14. Miami: +2,621———————————14. Summit: +834
15. Pickaway: +2,152—————————–15. Wood: +788
16. Athens: +1,833——————————–16. Miami: +740
17. Holmes: +1,593——————————–17. Madison: +682
18. Wayne: +1,522———————————18. Knox: +429
19. Hancock: +965———————————19. Ross: +403
20. Portage: +856———————————-20. Pickaway: +300
21. Madison: +598———————————21. Athens: +277
22. Geauga: +508———————————-22. Muskingum: +220
23. Ashland: +489———————————23. Ashland: +211
24. Knox: +331————————————-24. Hancock: +164
25. Morrow: +167———————————25. Mercer: +163
26. Lake: +67————————————–26. Ottawa: +162
27. Muskingum: +63—————————–27. Logan: +154
28. Mercer: +59———————————-28. Montgomery: +147
29. Perry: -15————————————-29. Clinton: +128
30. Clinton: -28———————————–30. Holmes: +125
31. Auglaize: -171——————————-31. Portage: +115
32. Noble: -239———————————–32. Champaign: +103
33. Fayette: -273——————————–33. Huron: +103
34. Tuscarawas: -285————————–34. Fayette: +90
35. Vinton: -338———————————35. Hocking: +88
36. Morgan: -347——————————-36. Vinton: +71
37. Coshocton: -354—————————37. Geauga: +70
38. Fulton: -409———————————38. Van Wert: +51
39. Pike: -432———————————–39. Morrow: +40
40. Van Wert: -526—————————-40. Defiance: +35
41. Logan: -529———————————41. Pike: +33
42. Summit: -554——————————-42. Shelby: +33
43. Wyandot: -586——————————43. Preble: +15
44. Putnam: -618——————————-44. Paulding: +6
45. Highland: -629—————————–45. Perry: +5
46. Harrison: -646——————————46. Wyandot: -13
47. Shelby: -659——————————–47. Auglaize: -19
48. Meigs: -687———————————48. Highland: -22
49. Hardin: -696——————————–49. Gallia: -23
50. Monroe: -696——————————-50. Fulton: -36
51. Ross: -752———————————-51. Noble: -37
52. Paulding: -770——————————52. Harrison: -41
53. Jackson: -777——————————53. Hardin: -43
54. Ottawa: -777——————————-54. Morgan: -53
55. Adams: -826——————————-55. Clark: -64
56. Williams: -864—————————–56. Brown: -68
57. Defiance: -875—————————-57. Henry: -84
58. Hocking: -899—————————–58. Jackson: -85
59. Gallia: -973——————————–59. Sandusky: -86
60. Guernsey: -998————————–60. Meigs: -97
61. Henry: -1,030—————————–61. Coshocton: -100
62. Huron: -1,131—————————–62. Darke: -100
63. Preble: -1,139—————————-63. Adams: -106
64. Champaign: -1,253———————64. Guernsey: -107
65. Brown: -1,267—————————-65. Seneca: -114
66. Washington: -1,360———————66. Washington: -117
67. Darke: -1,433—————————-67. Erie: -127
68. Carroll: -1,451—————————68. Williams: -137
69. Seneca: -1,499————————-69. Putnam: -138
70. Marion: -1,534————————–70. Monroe: -151
71. Sandusky: -1,751———————-71. Tuscarawas: -188
72. Crawford: -2,039———————–72. Carroll: -252
73. Lawrence: -2,199———————-73. Crawford: -291
74. Erie: -2,249—————————–74. Scioto: -311
75. Belmont: -2,373————————75. Ashtabula: -362
76. Stark: -3,050—————————-76. Marion: -367
77. Allen: -3,128—————————-77. Mahoning: -373
78. Jefferson: -3,350———————-78. Wayne: -384
79. Scioto: -3,568————————–79. Allen: -428
80. Montgomery: -3,634——————80. Lawrence: -480
81. Ashtabula: -3,681———————81. Belmont: -539
82. Clark: -3,790—————————82. Jefferson: -555
83. Richland: -3,887———————-83. Richland: -578
84. Columbiana: -4,764——————84. Columbiana: -667
85. Mahoning: -9,011———————85. Stark: -986
86. Trumbull: -9,938———————-86. Trumbull: -1,321
87. Lucas: -10,928————————87. Lucas: -1,675
88. Cuyahoga: -31,595——————88. Cuyahoga: -4,940

Finally, let’s examine the components of population change, but top 15 only.

Top 15 Counties with the Most Births Census 2010-July 1, 2017 and July 1, 2016-July 1, 2017
Census 2010-July 1, 2017——————————–July 1, 2016-July 1, 2017
1. Franklin: +134,9580———————————–1. Franklin: +19,039
2. Cuyahoga: +107,949———————————-2. Cuyahoga: +14,637
3. Hamilton: +79,087————————————-3. Hamilton: +10,787
4. Montgomery: +48,275——————————–4. Montgomery: +6,576
5. Summit: +44,151—————————————5. Summit: +5,945
6. Lucas: +40,874—————————————–6. Lucas: +5,494
7. Butler: +32,888—————————————–7. Butler: +4,531
8. Stark: +30,188——————————————8. Stark: +4,163
9. Lorain: +24,497—————————————-9. Lorain: +3,329
10. Warren: +17,492————————————-10. Mahoning: +2,382
11. Mahoning: +17,312———————————11. Warren: +2,376
12. Clermont: +16,980———————————-12. Clermont: +2,307
13. Lake: +16,465—————————————–13. Lake: +2,244
14. Delaware: +15,662———————————-14. Delaware: +2,146
15. Trumbull: +15,153———————————–15. Trumbull: +2,059

Top 15 Counties with the Fewest Births Census 2010-July 1, 2017 and July 1, 2016-July 1, 2017
Census 2010-July 1, 2017——————————–July 1, 2016-July 1, 2017
1. Noble: +1,020——————————————-1. Noble: +131
2. Morgan: +1,050—————————————–2. Monroe: +135
3. Vinton: +1,051——————————————-3. Morgan: +139
4. Monroe: +1,083—————————————–4. Vinton: +144
5. Harrison: +1,150—————————————-5. Harrison: +149
6. Paulding: +1,595—————————————-6. Paulding: +213
7. Meigs: +1,762——————————————-7. Meigs: +228
8. Wyandot: +1,849—————————————8. Wyandot: +240
9. Carroll: +2,011—————————————–9. Carroll: +271
10. Hocking: +2,282————————————-10. Henry: +291
11. Henry: +2,295—————————————–11. Hocking: +309
12. Van Wert: +2,373————————————-12. Adams: +322
13. Adams: +2,431—————————————-13. Pike: +328
14. Ottawa: +2,489—————————————-14. Van Wert: +328
15. Pike: +2,504——————————————–15. Ottawa: +334

Top 15 Counties with the Most Deaths Census 2010-July 1, 2017 and July 1, 2016-July 1, 2017
Census 2010-July 1, 2017——————————–July 1, 2016-July 1, 2017
1. Cuyahoga: -98,692———————————–1. Cuyahoga: -13,439
2. Franklin: -65,458————————————–2. Franklin: -9,542
3. Hamilton: -56,157————————————-3. Hamilton: -7,768
4. Montgomery: -42,353——————————-4. Montgomery: -5,883
5. Summit: -40,895————————————–5. Summit: -5,735
6. Lucas: -31,778—————————————-6. Lucas: -4,465
7. Stark: -29.531—————————————–7. Stark: -4,077
8. Butler: -22,747—————————————-8. Butler: -3,347
9. Mahoning: -22,021———————————–9. Lorain: -2,947
10. Lorain: -21,265————————————-10. Mahoning: -2,920
11. Trumbull: -18,189———————————-11. Trumbull: -2,459
12. Lake: -17,265—————————————-12. Lake: -2,444
13. Clark: -12,267—————————————-13. Warren: -1,785
14. Clermont: -11,924———————————-14. Clermont: -1,706
15. Warren: -11,411————————————-15. Clark: -1,680

Top 15 Counties with the Fewest Deaths Census 2010-July 1, 2017 and July 1, 2016-July 1, 2017
Census 2010-July 1, 2017——————————–July 1, 2016-July 1, 2017
1. Noble: -916————————————————1. Noble: -131
2. Vinton: -1,025———————————————2. Vinton: -147
3. Morgan: -1,215——————————————-3. Morgan: -152
4. Monroe: -1,260——————————————-4. Harrison: -186
5. Paulding: -1,405—————————————–5. Paulding: -186
6. Harrison: -1,449——————————————6. Monroe: -189
7. Wyandot: -1,756—————————————–7. Wyandot: -246
8. Meigs: -2,004———————————————8. Henry: -249
9. Henry: -2,007———————————————9. Carroll: -289
10. Hocking: -2,131—————————————10. Meigs: -290
11. Putnam: -2,153—————————————–11. Hocking: -294
12. Carroll: -2,191—————————————–12. Putnam: -303
13. Holmes: -2,191—————————————–13. Van Wert: -306
14. Van Wert: -2,275—————————————14. Morrow: -308
15. Hardin: -2,284——————————————-15. Fayette: -318

Top 15 Counties with the Highest Natural Increase (Births vs. Deaths) Census 2010-July 1, 2017 and July 1, 2016-July 1, 2017
Census 2010-July 1, 2017——————————–July 1, 2016-July 1, 2017
1. Franklin: +69,500————————————-1. Franklin: +9,497
2. Hamilton: +22,930————————————2. Hamilton: +3,019
3. Butler: +10,141—————————————-3. Cuyahoga: +1,198
4. Cuyahoga: +9,257————————————4. Butler: +1,184
5. Lucas: +9,096——————————————5. Lucas: +1,029
6. Delaware: +8,339————————————-6. Delaware: +1,013
7. Warren: +6,081—————————————-7. Montgomery: +693
8. Montgomery: +5,922——————————–8. Clermont: +601
9. Clermont: +5,056————————————-9. Warren: +591
10. Holmes: +3,410————————————–10. Holmes: +445
11. Fairfield: +3,380————————————-11. Guernsey: +414
12. Wayne: +3,313—————————————12. Licking: +408
13. Summit: +3,256————————————-13. Wayne: +406
14. Lorain: +3,232—————————————14. Lorain: +382
15. Licking: +3,173————————————–15. Fairfield: +378

Top 15 Counties with the Lowest Natural Increase (Births vs. Deaths) Census 2010-July 1, 2017 and July 1, 2016-July 1, 2017
Census 2010-July 1, 2017——————————–July 1, 2016-July 1, 2017
1. Mahoning: -4,709—————————————1. Mahoning: -538
2. Trumbull: -3,036—————————————-2. Trumbull: -400
3. Jefferson: -2,097—————————————–3. Jefferson: -276
4. Belmont: -1,370——————————————4. Lake: -200
5. Erie: -990————————————————–5. Belmont: -197
6. Ottawa: -977———————————————-6. Ottawa: -171
7. Columbiana: -891—————————————7. Washington: -134
8. Washington: -829—————————————8. Erie: -132
9. Lake: -800———————————————–9. Columbiana: -130
10. Clark: -694———————————————10. Clark: -119
11. Scioto: -493——————————————–11. Scioto: -68
12. Crawford: -363—————————————-12. Lawrence: -67
13. Ashtabula: -354—————————————13. Meigs: -62
14. Harrison: -299—————————————–14. Monroe: -54
15. Lawrence: -285—————————————15. Harrison: -37

Top 15 Counties with the Most Domestic Migration Census 2010-July 1, 2017 and July 1, 2016-July 1, 2017
Census 2010-July 1, 2017——————————–July 1, 2016-July 1, 2017
1. Franklin: +18,270———————————-1. Franklin: +5,861
2. Delaware: +15,671———————————2. Delaware: +2,346
3. Warren: +6,996————————————-3. Fairfield: +1,491
4. Fairfield: +4,106————————————4. Warren: +1,332
5. Licking: +3,332————————————-5. Licking: +1,137
6. Medina: +2,900————————————-6. Medina: +1,058
7. Union: +1,953—————————————7. Union: +871
8. Pickaway: +1,489———————————-8. Greene: +763
9. Wood: +1,447—————————————9. Lake: +748
10. Clermont: +1,372——————————–10. Butler: +668
11. Miami: +1,293————————————-11. Madison: +639
12. Ottawa: +224————————————–12. Miami: +547
13. Madison: +177————————————13. Clermont: +515
14. Morgan: -186————————————–14. Ross: +379
15. Lorain: -271—————————————-15. Ottawa: +337

Top 15 Counties with the Least Domestic Migration Census 2010-July 1, 2017 and July 1, 2016-July 1, 2017
Census 2010-July 1, 2017——————————–July 1, 2016-July 1, 2017
1. Cuyahoga: -65,672————————————-1. Cuyahoga: -10,087
2. Hamilton: -25,292—————————————2. Lucas: -3,249
3. Lucas: -23,401——————————————-3. Montgomery: -1,656
4. Montgomery: -16,752———————————-4. Hamilton: -1,533
5. Summit: -10,630—————————————–5. Stark: -1,232
6. Trumbull: -6,852—————————————–6. Trumbull: -923
7. Mahoning: -6,113—————————————7. Wayne: -897
8. Allen: -4,673———————————————–8. Allen: -618
9. Stark: -4,510———————————————-9. Richland: -613
10. Richland: -4,240—————————————-10. Columbiana: -528
11. Columbiana: -3,802————————————11. Portage: -425
12. Ashtabula: -3,779—————————————12. Ashtabula: -412
13. Scioto: -3,267——————————————–13. Lawrence: -392
14. Clark: -3,198———————————————14. Marion: -389
15. Portage: -2,797—————————————–15. Tuscarawas: -382

Top 15 Counties with the Most International Migration Census 2010-July 1, 2017 and July 1, 2016-July 1, 2017
Census 2010-July 1, 2017——————————–July 1, 2016-July 1, 2017
1. Franklin: +40,914—————————————1. Franklin: +6,584
2. Cuyahoga: +24,799————————————2. Cuyahoga: +3,961
3. Hamilton: +14,063————————————–3. Hamilton: +2,288
4. Montgomery: +7,418————————————4. Montgomery: +1,131
5. Summit: +7,132——————————————5. Summit: +1,101
6. Butler: +5,226——————————————–6. Butler: +839
7. Lorain: +3,810——————————————–7. Lorain: +641
8. Greene: +3,443——————————————8. Portage: +546
9. Portage: +3,281—————————————–9. Lucas: +539
10. Lucas: +3,247——————————————10. Warren: +499
11. Warren: +3,140—————————————-11. Greene: +473
12. Delaware: +2,178————————————-12. Delaware: +336
13. Athens: +2,081—————————————–13. Athens: +326
14. Mahoning: +1,917————————————-14. Mahoning: +326
15. Lake: +1,740——————————————–15. Lake: +314

Top 15 Counties with the Least International Migration Census 2010-July 1, 2017 and July 1, 2016-July 1, 2017
Census 2010-July 1, 2017——————————–July 1, 2016-July 1, 2017
1. Lawrence: -168——————————————1. Lawrence: -19
2. Belmont: -113——————————————–2. Belmont: -18
3. Jefferson: -108——————————————-3. Jefferson: -16
4. Columbiana: -44—————————————–4. Columbiana: -7
5. Williams: -40———————————————-5. Williams: -6
6. Brown: -39————————————————6. Brown: -4
7. Holmes: -16———————————————–7. Holmes: -3
8. Monroe: -5————————————————8. Monroe: -1
9. Vinton: -2————————————————–9. Van Wert: -1
10. Meigs: 0————————————————10. Harrison: 0
11. Trumbull: +2——————————————-11. Ottawa: 0
12. Harrison: +4——————————————-12. Vinton: 0
13. Adams: +7———————————————13. Meigs: +1
14. Van Wert: +10—————————————-14. Noble: +1
15. Noble: +10——————————————–15. Pike: +1
16. Morgan: +10

Top 15 Counties with the Most Net Migration Census 2010-July 1, 2017 and July 1, 2016-July 1, 2017
Census 2010-July 1, 2017——————————–July 1, 2016-July 1, 2017
1. Franklin: +59,184—————————————1. Franklin: +12,445
2. Delaware: +17,849————————————–2. Delaware: +2,682
3. Warren: +10,136—————————————-3. Warren: +1,831
4. Fairfield: +5,274—————————————–4. Fairfield: +1,686
5. Licking: +3,928——————————————5. Butler: +1,507
6. Lorain: +3,539——————————————–6. Greene: +1,236
7. Medina: +3,492——————————————-7. Licking: +1,225
8. Wood: +2,720———————————————8. Medina: +1,142
9. Butler: +2,527——————————————–9. Lake: +1,062
10. Union: +2,415—————————————–10. Lorain: +969
11. Greene: +2,038—————————————-11. Union: +952
12. Clermont: +1,975————————————-12. Hamilton: +755
13. Miami: +1,662——————————————-13. Madison: +679
14. Pickaway: +1,556————————————-14. Summit: +649
15. Athens: +1,285——————————————15. Clermont +609

Top 15 Counties with the Least Net Migration Census 2010-July 1, 2017 and July 1, 2016-July 1, 2017
Census 2010-July 1, 2017——————————–July 1, 2016-July 1, 2017
1. Cuyahoga: -40,873————————————1. Cuyahoga: -6,126
2. Lucas: -20,154——————————————2. Lucas: -2,710
3. Hamilton: -11,229————————————–3. Stark: -1,061
4. Montgomery: -9,334———————————–4. Trumbull: -918
5. Trumbull: -6,850—————————————-5. Wayne: -794
6. Allen: -4,504———————————————6. Allen: -596
7. Mahoning: -4,196————————————–7. Richland: -587
8. Richland: -4,087—————————————-8. Columbiana: -535
9. Columbiana: -3,846————————————9. Montgomery: -525
10. Summit: -3,496—————————————-10. Lawrence: -411
11. Stark: -3,408——————————————-11. Marion: -379
12. Ashtabula: -3,327————————————-12. Belmont: -341
13. Scioto: -3,064——————————————13. Ashtabula: -336
14. Clark: -3,032——————————————–14. Tuscarawas: -326
15. Huron: -2,359——————————————-15. Holmes: -319

So there you have it for counties. Visit here for the 2017 metro statistics.




Columbus Domestic Migration Origins

Posted on by
Reply



Columbus domestic migration origins

Most people seem to recognize that the Columbus domestic migration origins are often based in Ohio. Many rural counties and downtrodden cities are seeing residents move to Columbus and the greater metro for better economic and other opportunities. But how much of that domestic migration is actually from Ohio?


Top 30 Largest Net Domestic In-Migration Origins (Ohio Counties and States)

Numbers are based on estimates. Updated 1/24/2018 with 2011-2015 data.

2006-2010————————2009-2013—————————-2011-2015
1. Cuyahoga: 1602———-1. Cuyahoga: 1905————–1. Cuyahoga: 1842
2. Montgomery: 1020——-2. Michigan: 1425—————-2. Michigan: 1239
3. Michigan: 893————-3. Montgomery: 1123————3. Montgomery: 1088
4. Maryland: 745————-4. Summit: 744——————–4. Summit: 764
5. Lorain: 740—————–5. Lorain: 715———————-5. Lucas: 626
6. Virginia: 636—————6. Indiana: 694———————6. New Jersey: 608
7. Mahoning: 603————7. Lucas: 569———————–7. New York: 575
8. Stark: 584——————8. Maryland: 512——————-8. Medina: 572
9. Lucas: 554—————–9. Hamilton: 504——————–9. Stark: 484
10. Summit: 531————-10. Clermont: 466—————–10. Trumbull: 465
11. Highland: 499———–11. Stark: 466———————–11. Maryland: 464
12. New Jersey: 497——-12. Arizona: 463——————–12. Allen: 406
13. Hamilton: 483———–13. Alabama: 431——————-13. Washington (state): 399
14. New York: 419———-14. Trumbull: 401——————-14. Erie: 386
15. Allen: 384—————-15. Mahoning: 387——————15. Indiana: 386
16. Tennessee: 375——–16. Fayette: 354———————16. Massachusetts: 384
17. Logan: 328—————17. Washington (state): 353—–17. Pennsylvania: 371
18. Trumbull: 325————18. Coshocton: 346—————-18. Kentucky: 368
19. Coshocton: 310———19. Medina: 322——————–19. W. Virginia: 339
20. Jefferson: 290———–20. Allen: 302————————20. Lake: 316
21. Scioto: 259—————21. Erie: 290————————-21. Belmont: 314
22. Belmont: 254————22. Highland: 270——————-22. Wayne: 298
23. Huron: 245—————23. Puerto Rico: 265—————23. Fayette: 290
24. Darke: 217—————24. Adams: 260———————24. Mahoning: 289
25. Lake: 212—————-25. Warren: 260———————25. New Hampshire: 288
26. Tuscarawas: 202——-26. Massachusetts: 259———-26. Alaska: 282
27. Iowa: 200—————–27. Wayne: 259———————27. Alabama: 280
28. Shelby: 199————–28. Morgan: 255——————–28. Lorain: 277
29. Medina: 196————-29. Tuscarawas: 253————–29. Tuscarawas: 277
30. Massachusetts: 192—30. Ashtabula: 244—————–30. Geauga: 261

Top 30 Largest Net Domestic Out-Migration Destinations (Ohio counties and States)
2006-2010——————————-2009-2013—————————-2011-2015
1. Texas: -1371———————-1. Georgia: -1024—————-1. Florida: -1333
2. Knox: -942————————-2. Florida: -1013——————2. Missouri: -703
3. North Carolina: -782————3. Greene: -524——————-3. Georgia: -680
4. Georgia: -718———————4. Missouri: -516——————4. Athens: -607
5. Athens: -679———————-5. Colorado: -448—————–5. Knox: -506
6. Kentucky: -516——————-6. California: -436—————–6. Tennessee: -442
7. South Carolina: -499———–7. South Carolina: -431———-7. Colorado: -435
8. California: -364——————-8. Knox: -418———————-8. California: -391
9. Florida: -360———————-9. North Carolina: -417———-9. Greene: -388
10. Wood: -351———————10. Wisconsin: -395————–10. South Carolina: -362
11. Richland: -344——————11. Athens: -336——————11. Marion: -329
12. Greene: -239——————–12. Minnesota: -308————-12. Hamilton: -312
13. West Virginia: -236————13. Utah: -290———————13. Logan: -306
14. Missouri: -219——————-14. Richland: -266—————14. Utah: -300
15. Crawford: -209——————15. Portage: -265—————–15. Wood: -282
16. Hardin: -179———————16. Kentucky: -257—————16. Scioto: -249
17. Noble: -177———————-17. Logan: -242——————-17. Seneca: -183
18. Muskingum: -175—————18. Pennsylvania: -242———18. Champaign: -174
19. Butler: -173———————-19. Tennessee: -200————19. Oregon: -158
20. Holmes: -163——————–20. Oregon: -187—————-20. New Mexico: -157
21. Marion: -138———————21. Wood: -166——————21. Meigs: -150
22. Portage: -134——————-22. Sandusky: -157————–22. Mississippi: -146
23. Ottawa: -131——————–23. Mississippi: -151————-23. Portage: -142
24. Sandusky: -124—————-24. Jefferson: -127—————24. Idaho: -137
25. Oregon: -120——————-25. Kansas: -98——————-25. Minnesota: -125
26. Indiana: -116——————-26. Delaware (state): -88——-26. North Dakota: -112
27. Idaho: -115———————27. Idaho: -74———————-27. Wisconsin: -111
28. Utah: -103———————- 28. Crawford: -73—————–28. Darke: -103
29. Fayette: -93———————29. Hardin: -68——————–29. Texas: -95
30. Kansas: -90———————30. Seneca: -66——————-30. Hardin: -87

Top 25 Largest Positive Swings Between 2006-2010 and 2011-2015
1. Texas: +1276
2. North Carolina: +982
3. Kentucky: +884
4. West Virginia: +575
5. Indiana: +502
6. Washington (state): +466
7. Knox: +436
8. Richland: +406
9. Butler: +395
10. Fayette: +383
11. Medina: +376
12. Alaska: +364
13. Michigan: +346
14. Alabama: +298
15. Clinton: +282
16. Erie: +263
17. New Hampshire: +261
18. Lawrence: +241
19. Cuyahoga: +240
20. Summit: +233
21. Wayne: +226
22. Crawford: +221
23. Muskingum: +211
24. Clermont: +198
25. Nevada: +197

Top 25 Largest Negative Swings Between 2006-2010 and 2011-2015
1. Florida: -973
2. Tennessee: -817
3. Hamilton: -795
4. Logan: -634
5. Colorado: -598
6. Scioto: -508
7. Highland: -491
8. Missouri: -484
9. Lorain: -463
10. Virginia: -437
11. Darke: -320
12. Mahoning: -314
13. Champaign: -310
14. Jefferson: -301
15. Maryland: -281
16. New Mexico: -261
17. Minnesota: -249
19. Coshocton: -233
20. Washington (county): -208
21. Ashland: -202
22. Utah: -197
23. Marion: -191
24. Seneca: -181
25. Iowa: -158

Total Counts By Period
Positive Ohio Counties
2006-2010: 53
2009-2013: 57
2011-2015: 50

Positive States, including DC and Puerto Rico
2006-2010: 21
2009-2013: 24
2011-2015: 28

Total Net In-Migration
Ohio
2006-2010: +8,008
2009-2013: +11,366
2011-2015: +7,895

Outside Ohio
2006-2010: -1,158
2009-2013: -466
2011-2015: +1,598

Ohio and Outside Ohio
2006-2010: +6,850
2009-2013: +10,900
2011-2015: +9,493

All these figures show that the Columbus metrohas net positive domestic migration. While the majority of that comes from within the state, Columbus’ previously negative net total from outside the state has more recently become positive as well. For a long time, Columbus’ relative success was not well-known outside of the state, but perhaps word is finally getting out.

Where Racial Groups are Growing Fastest in Franklin County

Posted on by
Reply



The US Census recently released updated estimates for 2016 for smaller-area designations like tracts and blocks. Looking at them, I wanted to see where racial groups were growing the fastest at that level.
The first map is based on the % change from 2010 to 2016.
where racial groups are growing
What’s interesting about this map is that it is such a hodgepodge. No single part of the county is dominated by growth in any specific racial group. However, a few things can be generally determined. For example, almost all of the tracts where the White population is growing the fastest are within I-270, and the majority of those within the eastern half of the Columbus in what have long been dominated by Black majority populations. These areas include parts of Linden, the Near South and Near East sides. That said, the White population was growing the fastest in just 30 census tracts by % change. This compared to 53 for the Black population, 83 for the Asian population and 107 for the Hispanic population.

The next map takes a slightly different approach, measuring the TOTAL change in population, rather than by %.

Again, a hodgepodge, but much less so than before. Instead of being the fastest-growing in just 30 tracts, the White population rockets up to 108 tracts. This shows that, while Asian and Hispanic populations have respectable % growth, this is largely based on comparatively small population bases. Still, non-White populations are clearly making inroads throughout Franklin County.

Young Adults Prefer Density in Franklin County

Posted on by
Reply



I’ve seen several articles across the internet lately questioning the idea that Millennials and young adults prefer density and urban areas. I decided to see how this played out in Franklin County overall. I first looked at the total population aged 20-34 in the year 2000 and the year 2015 by Census Tract.
Here were the maps for those years.
young adults prefer density

After looking at the numbers for both years, I came up with this map for how that age group had changed in the 2000-2015 period.

Unfortunately, some tracts, particularly in the eastern suburban areas, did not exist in 2000, and so I was not able to figure out the change for them during the period. The rest of the map, however, shows that the strongest growth in this age group was not only inside 270, but closest to Downtown and central corridors along Broad and High Streets.
These maps don’t tell us about the relationship between those changes and the population density of the census tracts. So I went further and broke the tracts into increments of density to see where the strongest growth was occurring.

With a few exceptions, there appears to be a correlation between average 20-34 aged population growth and the density of the census tracts it occurs in. This suggests that this age group, at least in Franklin County, prefers areas with moderate to high density, which typically translates to urban living.

Franklin County Gentrification Trends 1990-2015

Posted on by
Reply




I saw this postthe other day about changing neighborhood demographics in certain cities, particularly when it comes to racial segregation and gentrification. Surprisingly, of all the maps and posts I’ve done on demographics, I hadn’t thought to do one that showed Franklin County gentrification trends. Well, now I have.

Franklin County gentrification trends
A bit of an explanation is needed for the color coding:
-For those categories marked “Steady”, the demographic listed has been the majority throughout the period, with little to no change of other demographics.
-For those mixed categories of one decline and one rise, it means that the majority demographic has declined at least 5 percentage points, while a secondary demographic has risen at least 5 percentage points.
-For the category of recent or steady integration, there are at least 2 demographics at 10% or more of the total population, as well as a 3rd demographic reaching at least 5% of the population.

A few things that stand out to me: The eastern half of the county is in much greater flux than the western half, and integration is respectable county-wide. These neighborhoods of demographic equilibrium are largely the result of increasing Hispanic and Asian populations, particularly on the Northeast and West Sides, as well as the Whitehall area. In the center core, almost all of the High Street corridor has remained Steady White, suggesting that other demographics have, so far, been unable to tap into the building boom along and adjacent to this corridor. One other thing I notice is that there are FAR more tracts with a growing black population than there are with a growing White population, suggesting that perhaps the idea of Whites moving into neighborhoods and displacing residents is not quite as big of an issue as some might believe.

Here are the integrated tracts by year, based the above criteria, and their racial breakdown.

Top 10 Tracts with the Highest White Population
1990
1. 7205: 99.6%
2. 98: 99.1%
3. 7207: 98.9%
4. 120, 9240: 98.8%
5. 7201, 7203, 80: 98.7%
6. 7922, 9440, 9752: 98.6%
7. 9751, 10601: 98.5%
8. 110, 8141, 8821, 9711, 9740: 98.4%
9. 9450, 9800: 98.3%
10. 6230, 7210: 98.2%
2015
1. 65: 98.7%
2. 6810: 97.4%
3. 6822, 9712: 97.0%
4. 98: 96.0%
5. 6721, 6950: 95.9%
6. 220: 95.8%
7. 9497: 95.6%
8. 66: 95.5%
9. 6330: 94.8%
10. 7394: 94.7%

Breakdown of # of Tracts by % of White Population
1990
95% or Higher: 80
90%-94.9%: 73
80%-89.9%: 64
70%-79.9%: 10
60%-69.9%: 11
50%-59.9%: 6
Total Majority White Tracts: 244
40%-49.9%: 7
30%-39.9%: 9
20%-29.9%: 5
10%-19.9%: 9
0.1%-9.9%: 9
0%: 0
Total Minority White Tracts: 39
2015
95% or Higher: 11
90%-94.9%: 35
80%-89.9%: 62
70%-79.9%: 52
60%-69.9%: 30
50%-59.9%: 19
Total Majority White Tracts: 209
40%-49.9%: 11
30%-39.9%: 17
20%-29.9%: 25
10%-19.9%: 15
0.1%-9.9%: 6
0%: 0
Total Minority White Tracts: 74

Top 10 Tracts with the Highest Black Population
1990
1. 730: 94.2%
2. 5420: 93.4%
3. 15, 28: 92.3%
4. 36: 91.8%
5. 5410: 91.4%
6. 7551: 91.1%
7. 7512: 90.9%
8. 23: 89.0%
9. 2520: 87.4%
10. 29: 87.2%
2015
1. 7512: 88.1%
2. 9337: 87.7%
3. 730: 84.9%
4. 7511: 83.6%
5. 23: 82.2%
6. 15: 81.9%
7. 55: 81.4%
8. 5420, 9332: 81.0%
9. 29: 80.9%
10. 8813: 79.1%

Breakdown of # of Tracts by % of Black Population
1990
95% or Higher: 0
90%-94.9%: 7
80%-89.9%: 10
70%-79.9%: 4
60%-69.9%: 8
50%-59.9%: 6
Total Majority Black Tracts: 35
40%-49.9%: 7
30%-39.9%: 10
20%-29.9%: 9
10%-19.9%: 32
0.1%-9.9%: 190
0%: 0
Total Minority Black Tracts: 248
2015
95% or Higher: 0
90%-94.9%: 0
80%-89.9%: 9
70%-79.9%: 8
60%-69.9%: 28
50%-59.9%: 9
Total Majority Black Tracts: 52
40%-49.9%: 20
30%-39.9%: 17
20%-29.9%: 24
10%-19.9%: 44
0.1%-9.9%: 126
0%: 0
Total Minority Black Tracts: 231

Top 10 Tracts with the Highest Asian Population
1990
1. 7820: 23.3%
2. 1122: 11.2%
3. 1110: 10.8%
4. 105: 9.0%
5. 1810: 8.2%
6. 6372: 7.6%
7. 6384: 7.3%
8. 1121: 7.2%
9. 6386: 6.9%
10. 6395: 6.8%
2015
1. 7820: 34.1%
2. 7721: 26.8%
3. 6230: 26.7%
4. 1122: 21.9%
5. 7830: 17.0%
6. 1110: 16.6%
7. 105: 16.2%
8. 6395: 15.5%
9. 6372: 15.3%
10. 6386: 14.9%

Breakdown of # of Tracts by % of Asian Population
1990
95% or Higher: 0
90%-94.9%: 0
80%-89.9%: 0
70%-79.9%: 0
60%-69.9%: 0
50%-59.9%: 0
Total Majority Asian Tracts: 0
40%-49.9%: 0
30%-39.9%: 0
20%-29.9%: 1
10%-19.9%: 2
0.1%-9.9%: 273
0%: 7
Total Minority Asian Tracts: 283
2015
95% or Higher: 0
90%-94.9%: 0
80%-89.9%: 0
70%-79.9%: 0
60%-69.9%: 0
50%-59.9%: 0
Total Majority Asian Tracts: 0
40%-49.9%: 0
30%-39.9%: 1
20%-29.9%: 4
10%-19.9%: 17
0.1%-9.9%: 215
0%: 46
Total Minority Asian Tracts: 283

Top 10 Tracts with the Highest Hispanic Population
1990
1. 7820: 2.9%
2. 1122, 7209: 2.5%
3. 1810, 30: 2.3%
4. 8163, 9323, 9336: 2.1%
5. 6352, 7830: 2.0%
6. 1110, 1121, 2750: 1.9%
7. 10, 32, 40, 42, 7533: 1.8%
8. 12, 17, 1901, 6353, 7041, 7199: 1.7%
9. 6, 1820, 6945, 7531, 7551, 7721, 9326, 99: 1.6%
10. 13, 2710, 6933, 7120, 7532, 8164, 8230, 8730, 103: 1.5%
2015
1. 8230: 39.3%
2. 8164: 28.7%
3. 8163: 26.4%
4. 26: 24.2%
5. 9321: 22.7%
6. 8210: 22.6%
7. 99: 21.4%
8. 9230: 21.0%
9. 7043: 19.8%
10. 6945: 18.9%

Breakdown of # of Tracts by % of Hispanic Population
1990
95% or Higher: 0
90%-94.9%: 0
80%-89.9%: 0
70%-79.9%: 0
60%-69.9%: 0
50%-59.9%: 0
Total Majority Hispanic Tracts: 0
40%-49.9%: 0
30%-39.9%: 0
20%-29.9%: 0
10%-19.9%: 0
0.1%-9.9%: 278
0%: 5
2015
95% or Higher: 0
90%-94.9%: 0
80%-89.9%: 0
70%-79.9%: 0
60%-69.9%: 0
50%-59.9%: 0
Total Majority Hispanic Tracts: 0
40%-49.9%: 0
30%-39.9%: 1
20%-29.9%: 7
10%-19.9%: 33
0.1%-9.9%: 241
0%: 9

Integrated Tracts By Year
1990: 2
2015: 98

Most Integrated Tract by Year
1990
1122: White: 76.6% Black: 9.6% Asian: 11.2% Hispanic: 2.5%
2015
7721: White: 33.9% Black: 31.2% Asian: 26.8% Hispanic: 10.1%

All in all, the data shows that the county is much less racially stratified/segregated now than it was in 1990, and that it doesn’t appear that gentrification is really affecting many areas in terms of forcing out one racial group for another.