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

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.