Employment Rate

The Employment Rate indicator measures the proportion of working age population (i.e., residents aged 16 through 64) who are currently employed. It is an important indicator of economic well-being and access to health promoting resources. For example, employment increases access to health insurance coverage, and job loss often means the loss of health insurance. Studies show that employment is associated with better physical well-being and self-esteem, and a lower likelihood of mortality and psychological problems, such as distress, depression, and anxiety. Re-employment after a long period of unemployment is also associated with improved mental health. Employment ties individuals to social institutions that are important for health, and reduces suicide rates, homicides, and cardiovascular mortality. Although found in the Employment Opportunities domain, the Employment Rate indicator also influences, or is influenced by, the Housing, Economic Health, and Educational Opportunities domains. The Employment Rate indicator is extracted from the U.S. Census.

Neighborhoodsort ascending Indicator Value Rank
Zion City 76.9% 82
Wylam 75.0% 86
Woodlawn 84.5% 51
Woodland Park 79.9% 70
West Goldwire 84.3% 52
West End Manor 72.3% 91
West Brownville 77.5% 80
Wahouma 89.8% 19
Tuxedo 63.5% 97
Thomas 80.4% 65
Tarpley City 83.0% 60
Sun Valley 85.6% 44
Spring Lake 92.0% 16
Southside 53.7% 99
South Woodlawn 84.9% 47
South Titusville 92.2% 15
South Pratt 73.2% 89
South East Lake 89.1% 22
Smithfield Estates 87.6% 29
Smithfield 79.5% 72
Sherman Heights 86.9% 32
Sandusky 84.3% 52
Roosevelt 88.9% 24
Roebuck Springs 91.9% 17
Roebuck 88.6% 25
Rising - West Princeton 78.9% 75
Riley 88.6% 25
Redmont Park 96.7% 2
Powderly 86.6% 36
Pine Knoll Vista 86.9% 32
Penfield Park 86.6% 36
Oxmoor 96.2% 5
Overton 97.0% 1
Oakwood Place 83.5% 58
Oak Ridge Park 78.0% 78
Oak Ridge 89.1% 22
Norwood 73.8% 88
North Titusville 79.5% 72
North Pratt 85.3% 45
North East Lake 86.9% 32
North Birmingham 84.1% 55
North Avondale 56.9% 98
Mason City 88.1% 27
Maple Grove 86.6% 36
Liberty Highlands 93.3% 9
Kingston 69.3% 92
Killough Springs 87.4% 30
Jones Valley 82.0% 64
Inglenook 86.4% 39
Industrial Center 82.8% 61
Huffman 93.2% 11
Hooper City 82.6% 62
Hillman Park 80.4% 65
Hillman 79.3% 74
Highland Park 94.3% 8
Harriman Park 65.3% 95
Green Acres 83.3% 59
Graymont 64.7% 96
Grasselli Heights 68.5% 93
Glen Iris 93.2% 11
Germania Park 84.2% 54
Gate City 65.5% 94
Garden Highlands 84.6% 48
Fountain Heights 75.5% 85
Forest Park 93.1% 13
Five Points South 89.4% 20
Fairview 87.3% 31
Fairmont 78.1% 76
Evergreen 76.6% 84
Ensley Highlands 85.0% 46
Ensley 76.8% 83
Enon Ridge 93.3% 9
Echo Highlands 89.4% 20
Eastwood 84.6% 48
East Thomas 83.9% 57
East Lake 85.9% 43
East Brownville 79.8% 71
East Birmingham 80.0% 69
East Avondale 92.8% 14
Druid Hills 77.3% 81
Dolomite 73.9% 87
Crestwood South 95.1% 7
Crestwood North 96.6% 3
Crestline 95.8% 6
Collegeville 73.1% 90
College Hills 78.1% 76
Central Pratt 82.1% 63
Central Park 80.3% 67
Central City 96.4% 4
Bush Hills 84.0% 56
Brummitt Heights 86.9% 32
Brownsville Heights 86.0% 42
Brown Springs 80.1% 68
Bridlewood 90.6% 18
Belview Heights 86.3% 40
Arlington - West End 77.9% 79
Apple Valley 87.9% 28
Airport Highlands 86.2% 41
Acipco-Finley 84.6% 48

Key Citations:
1. An, Jane, et al. “Issue Brief #9 Exploring the Social Determinants of Health; Work, Workplaces and Health” (2011). Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
2. McKee-Ryan, Frances, et al. “Psychological and physical well-being during unemployment (2005). Journal of Applied Psychology.
3. Morris, J.K., et al. “Loss of employment and mortality” (1994). British Medical Journal.
4. Paul, Karsten I. and Klaus Moser. “Unemployment impairs mental health: Meta-analyses” (2009). Journal of Vocational Behavior.
5. Virtanen, Marianna, et al. “Temporary employment and health: a review” (2005). International Journal of Epidemiology.