admin
Tue, 02/10/2026 - 20:26
Edited Text
Transfer Student Home
County Mapping
Prepared for Clarion University of Pennsylvania
October 2013

In the following report, Hanover Research presents maps that compare the wealth of the
counties in Pennsylvania with the average number of transfer students enrolled at Clarion
University of Pennsylvania from those counties.

Hanover Research | October 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary and Key Findings ............................................................................... 3
Introduction ...........................................................................................................................3
Key Findings ...........................................................................................................................3
Section I: Methodology .................................................................................................... 6
Section II: Maps ............................................................................................................... 7
Appendix A: Counties without Transfer Students ............................................................ 11
Appendix B: County Codes ............................................................................................. 13
Appendix C: Transfer Students By County and Year......................................................... 14

© 2013 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice

2

Hanover Research | October 2013

EXECUTIVE S UMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS
INTRODUCTION
In the following report, Hanover Research presents maps that compare wealth of counties
in Pennsylvania (PA) with the number of transfer students enrolled at Clarion University of
Pennsylvania in Fall 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 from these counties. For this analysis, we
use county-level per capita income as an indicator for the amount of wealth of these
counties. In total, we created four different maps, with the first map (Figure 2.1) providing
an overview of the distribution of per capita income among the counties in PA. The second
and third maps (Figures 2.2 and 2.3) compare the wealth of the counties with the number of
transfer enrollments1 at the university from the counties in PA. The final map (Figure 2.4)
shows how the number of transfer students at Clarion University from the various counties
in PA changed between Fall 2010 and Fall 2013 in comparison to the wealth of the counties.

KEY FINDINGS



Table 1 shows the counties with the highest and lowest per capita income in PA with
the average number of transfer freshmen and average overall transfer enrollment
between 2010 and 2013. Between the top three wealthiest counties in terms of per
capita income, Clarion University enrolls slightly more transfer students from
Montgomery County (four) than either Chester County (one) or Bucks County
(three).
Table 1: Wealthiest and Poorest PA Counties

1

$42,042

AVERAGE NUMBER OF
TRANSFER FRESHMEN
(2010-13)
0

AVERAGE TRANSFER
ENROLLMENT
( 2010-13)
1

Montgomery County

$41,163

1

4

Bucks County

$36,601

BOTTOM THREE

PER CAPITA
INCOME

Forest County

$14,306

2
AVERAGE NUMBER OF
TRANSFER FRESHMEN
( 2010-13)
1

3
AVERAGE TRANSFER
ENROLLMENT
( 2010-13)
1

Fayette County

$19,717

0

0

Mifflin County

$19,758

0

0

PA

$27,824

117

281

TOP THREE

PER CAPITA
INCOME

Chester County

Average number of transfer freshmen and total transfer enrollment at the University are mapped separately. For
each of the years, total transfer enrollment takes into account students admitted to Clarion University in that fall
semester at any grade level. Transfer enrollments are not applicable for graduate programs.

© 2013 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice

3

Hanover Research | October 2013



Table 2 indicates that on average, approximately 45 percent of new transfer
students from PA who enrolled in an undergraduate program at Clarion University
between 2010 and 2013 are from Allegheny County, Venango County, and Clarion
County. Only Allegheny is considered a wealthy county, as its average per capita
income is higher than the state average. There are several counties from which
Clarion University did not enroll any new transfer students between 2010 and 20132.
Table 2: Average Number of Transfer Freshmen (2010 to 2013)

Allegheny County

AVERAGE NUMBER OF TRANSFER
FRESHMEN (2010-13)
117
AVERAGE NUMBER OF TRANSFER
FRESHMEN (2010-13)
21 (17.7%)

Venango County

18 (15.6%)

Below State Average

Clarion County

13 (11.3%)

Below State Average

PA
TOP



PER CAPITA INCOME
$27,824
COUNTY PER CAPITA INCOME
Above State Average

In terms of both undergraduate and graduate transfer enrollments at Clarion
University, approximately 37 percent of the all in-state transfer students come from
Allegheny County, Venango County, and Clarion County. Between 2010 and 2013, an
average of 44 transfer students enrolled from Allegheny County, which is considered
a wealthy county. There are several counties from which Clarion University did not
enroll any transfer students between 2010 and 20133.
Table 3: Average Transfer Enrollment (2010 to 2013)

Allegheny County

AVERAGE TRANSFER ENROLLMENT
(2010-13)
281
AVERAGE TRANSFER ENROLLMENT
(2010-13)
44 (15.6%)

Venango County

33 (11.8%)

Below State Average

Clarion County

28 (10.0%)

Below State Average

PA
TOP

PER CAPITA INCOME
$27,824
COUNTY PER CAPITA INCOME
Above State Average

2

Please refer to Figure A.1 in Appendix A for the full list of counties from which Clarion University did not enroll any
new transfer students between 2010 and 2013.
3
Please refer to Figure A.2 in Appendix A for the full list of counties from which Clarion University did not enroll any
transfer students between 2010 and 2013.

© 2013 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice

4

Hanover Research | October 2013



Between 2010 and 2013, Clarion University experienced the highest increases in
transfer enrollment figures from Allegheny County, Clarion County, and Venango
County. However, over the same time period, the number of transfer students
enrolled at Clarion University from Clearfield County, Elk County, Dauphin County,
and Center County decreased.
Table 4: Difference in Enrollment Between 2010 and 2013
CHANGE FROM 2010 TO 2013

PER CAPITA INCOME

PA

-26

$27,824

INCREASE IN ENROLLMENT

CHANGE FROM 2010 TO 2013

COUNTY PER CAPITA INCOME

Allegheny County

13

Above State Average

Clarion County

10

Below State Average

Venango County

4

Below State Average

DECREASE IN ENROLLMENT

CHANGE FROM 2010 TO 2013

COUNTY PER CAPITA INCOME

Clearfield County

-11

Below State Average

Elk County

-7

Below State Average

Dauphin County

-5

Above State Average

Centre County

-5

Below State Average

© 2013 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice

5

Hanover Research | October 2013

SECTION I: METHODOLOGY
Clarion University of Pennsylvania provided Hanover Research with student level data for
Fall 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, which were used to compute the number of new transfer
students as well as the total number of transfer students enrolled at Clarion University from
each county in PA. In this report, we compare the four year average number of transfer
freshman and the four year average transfer enrollment with the wealth of each of the
counties in the state. In addition to this, we also created a separate map which indicates
how the number of transfer students enrolled at the university from PA counties varied
between 2010 and 2013.
We used per capita income of each county as a standard indicator of the “wealth” of a
county. County level per capita income is available from the U.S. Census Bureau, and is
defined as the mean money income received in the past 12 months computed for everyone
over the age of 15 in the geographic area.4 The per capita income data used in this report
use a five year estimate (2007-2011) in 2011 inflation adjusted dollars.
Figure 2.1 is a simple choropleth map that shows the distribution of per capita income
among the various counties in PA (darker shade of blue indicating wealthier counties). In
Figures 2.2 through 2.4, counties with per capita income higher than the state average are
highlighted in green, while counties with per capita income lower than the state average are
highlighted in orange. For each of the counties, different shades of green and orange are
used to indicate the average number of new transfer students, the average number of
transfer students enrolled at Clarion University, and the difference in the number of transfer
students enrolled between 2010 and 2013. In our maps, darker shades of green or orange
indicate higher transfer enrollment or higher differences in transfer enrollment between
years.

4

These data are collected in the American Community Survey (ACS). The data are estimates and are subject to
sampling variability. The data for each geographic area are presented together with margins of error at
factfinder2.census.gov. The data are period estimates, that is, they represent the characteristics of the population
over a specific 60-month data collection period.

© 2013 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice

6

Hanover Research | October 2013

SECTION II: MAPS
Figure 2.1: Pennsylvania per Capita Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2011 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars), 2007-2011 by County5

5

Please refer to Figure B.1 in Appendix B for the county codes.

© 2013 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice

7

Hanover Research | October 2013

Figure 2.2: Per Capita Income and Average Number of Transfer Freshmen at Clarion University of Pennsylvania between 2010 and
2013 by Counties in Pennsylvania

*Please refer to Figure C.1 in Appendix C for detailed transfer freshmen numbers by county and year.

© 2013 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice

8

Hanover Research | October 2013

Figure 2.3: Per Capita Income and Average Number of All Transfer Students Enrolled at Clarion University of Pennsylvania between
2010 and 2013 by Counties in Pennsylvania

*Please refer to Figure C.2 in Appendix C for detailed transfer enrollment numbers by county and year.

© 2013 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice

9

Hanover Research | October 2013

Figure 2.4: Per Capita Income and the Difference in Transfer Student Enrollment at Clarion University of Pennsylvania between 2010
and 2013 by Counties in Pennsylvania

© 2013 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice

10

Hanover Research | October 2013

APPENDIX A: COUNTIES WITHOUT TRANSFER
STUDENTS
Figure A.1: Counties from Which There Were No Freshmen Transfer Students at Clarion
between 2010 and 2013
COUNTY
Adams County
Bedford County
Berks County
Blair County
Bradford County
Carbon County
Fulton County
Greene County
Huntingdon County
Juniata County
Luzerne County
Mifflin County
Monroe County
Montour County
Perry County
Snyder County
Sullivan County
Susquehanna County
Union County
Wayne County
Wyoming County

© 2013 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice

COUNTY PER CAPITA INCOME
Below State Average
Below State Average
Below State Average
Below State Average
Below State Average
Below State Average
Below State Average
Below State Average
Below State Average
Below State Average
Below State Average
Below State Average
Below State Average
Below State Average
Below State Average
Below State Average
Below State Average
Below State Average
Below State Average
Below State Average
Below State Average

11

Hanover Research | October 2013

Figure A.2: Counties from Which There Were No Transfer Students Enrolled at Clarion
between 2010 and 2013.
COUNTY
Greene County
Huntingdon County
Juniata County
Montour County
Snyder County
Sullivan County
Susquehanna County
Wayne County

© 2013 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice

COUNTY PER CAPITA INCOME
Below State Average
Below State Average
Below State Average
Below State Average
Below State Average
Below State Average
Below State Average
Below State Average

12

Hanover Research | October 2013

APPENDIX B: COUNTY CODES
Figure B.1: County Codes Used in the Maps
COUNTY NAMES

CODE

COUNTY NAMES

CODE

Adams County

AD

Juniata County

JU

Allegheny County

AL

Lackawanna County

LA

Armstrong County

AR

Lancaster County

LN

Beaver County

BE

Lawrence County

LW

Bedford County

BD

Lebanon County

LE

Berks County

BR

Lehigh County

LH

Blair County

BL

Luzerne County

LZ

Bradford County

BF

Lycoming County

LY

Bucks County

BU

McKean County

MK

Butler County

BT

Mercer County

ME

Cambria County

CA

Mifflin County

MI

Cameron County

CM

Monroe County

MO

Carbon County

CR

Montgomery County

MT

Centre County

CE

Montour County

MU

Chester County

CH

Northampton County

NO

Clarion County

CI

Northumberland County

NT

Clearfield County

CL

Perry County

PE

Clinton County

CN

Philadelphia County

PH

Columbia County

CO

Pike County

PI

Crawford County

CW

Potter County

PO

Cumberland County

CU

Schuylkill County

SC

Dauphin County

DA

Snyder County

SN

Delaware County

DL

Somerset County

SO

Elk County

EL

Sullivan County

SU

Erie County

ER

Susquehanna County

SQ

Fayette County

FA

Tioga County

TI

Forest County

FO

Union County

UN

Franklin County

FR

Venango County

VE

Fulton County

FU

Warren County

WA

Greene County

GR

Washington County

WS

Huntingdon County

HU

Wayne County

WY

Indiana County

IN

Westmoreland County

WE

Jefferson County

JE

Wyoming County

WO

York County

YO

© 2013 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice

13

Hanover Research | October 2013

APPENDIX C: TRANSFER STUDENTS BY COUNTY
AND Y EAR
Figure C.1: Transfer Freshmen by County and Year
COUNTY

2010

2011

2012

2013

Adams County
Allegheny County
Armstrong County
Beaver County
Bedford County
Berks County
Blair County
Bradford County
Bucks County
Butler County
Cambria County
Cameron County
Carbon County
Centre County
Chester County
Clarion County
Clearfield County
Clinton County
Columbia County
Crawford County
Cumberland County
Dauphin County
Delaware County
Elk County
Erie County
Fayette County
Forest County
Franklin County
Fulton County
Greene County
Huntingdon County
Indiana County
Jefferson County
Juniata County
Lackawanna County
Lancaster County

0
17
3
3
0
0
0
0
1
5
0
1
0
2
0
8
6
0
1
2
0
4
0
4
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
6
0
0
1

0
17
3
6
0
0
0
0
1
5
1
0
0
0
1
17
7
0
0
1
1
0
1
4
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
2

0
14
2
2
0
0
0
0
3
3
2
0
0
1
0
13
4
0
0
3
1
1
1
4
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
8
0
2
1

0
35
2
6
0
0
0
0
1
6
0
2
0
0
0
15
1
1
0
4
0
1
1
3
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
1

© 2013 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice

FOUR YEAR
AVERAGE
0
21
3
4
0
0
0
0
2
5
1
1
0
1
0
13
5
0
0
3
1
2
1
4
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
7
0
1
1

14

Hanover Research | October 2013

COUNTY

2010

2011

2012

2013

Lawrence County
Lebanon County
Lehigh County
Luzerne County
Lycoming County
McKean County
Mercer County
Mifflin County
Monroe County
Montgomery
Montour County
Northampton County
Northumberland County
Perry County
Philadelphia County
Pike County
Potter County
Schuylkill County
Snyder County
Somerset County
Sullivan County
Susquehanna County
Tioga County
Union County
Venango County
Warren County
Washington County
Wayne County
Westmoreland County
Wyoming County
York County
Total

2
1
0
0
1
1
5
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
22
2
3
0
6
0
4
123

3
1
0
0
2
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
15
1
1
0
2
0
0
113

1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
1
4
0
3
0
0
106

1
0
1
0
0
1
5
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
1
0
5
0
1
127

© 2013 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice

FOUR YEAR
AVERAGE
2
1
0
0
1
1
4
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
1
2
0
4
0
1
117

15

Hanover Research | October 2013

Figure C.2: All Transfer Enrollments by County and Year
DIFFERENCE

COUNTY

2010

2011

2012

2013

FOUR YEAR
AVERAGE

BETWEEN 2010

Adams County

1

1

1

0

1

-1

Allegheny County

43

33

43

56

44

13

Armstrong County

9

16

12

6

11

-3

Beaver County

8

9

11

8

9

0

Bedford County

0

1

0

0

0

0

Berks County

0

0

0

1

0

1

AND 2013

Blair County

2

1

1

0

1

-2

Bradford County

1

0

0

0

0

-1

Bucks County

2

4

4

3

3

1

Butler County

17

16

19

20

18

3

Cambria County

1

3

2

2

2

1

Cameron County

2

0

2

2

2

0

Carbon County

1

2

2

0

1

-1

Centre County

5

0

1

0

2

-5

Chester County

0

1

2

1

1

1

Clarion County

18

32

34

28

28

10

Clearfield County

19

21

14

8

16

-11

Clinton County

0

0

0

1

0

1

Columbia County

1

0

2

0

1

-1

Crawford County

5

3

10

7

6

2

Cumberland County

3

3

7

1

4

-2

Dauphin County

6

6

3

1

4

-5

Delaware County

0

4

1

2

2

2

Elk County

10

10

8

3

8

-7

Erie County

5

10

8

4

7

-1

Fayette County

0

0

0

1

0

1

Forest County

1

1

2

0

1

-1

Franklin County

1

0

0

1

1

0

Fulton County

0

0

1

0

0

0

Greene County

0

0

0

0

0

0

Huntingdon County

0

0

0

0

0

0

Indiana County

2

3

3

0

2

-2

Jefferson County

12

18

17

13

15

1

Juniata County

0

0

0

0

0

0

Lackawanna County

0

0

2

0

1

0

Lancaster County

3

6

5

2

4

-1

Lawrence County

4

4

1

4

3

0

© 2013 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice

16

Hanover Research | October 2013

COUNTY

2010

2011

2012

2013

DIFFERENCE

FOUR YEAR
AVERAGE

BETWEEN 2010
AND 2013

Lebanon County

1

1

0

0

1

-1

Lehigh County

0

2

3

2

2

2

Luzerne County

0

2

1

1

1

1

Lycoming County

2

3

1

0

2

-2

McKean County

1

3

5

2

3

1

Mercer County

11

8

8

7

9

-4

Mifflin County

1

0

0

0

0

-1

Monroe County

0

0

1

0

0

0

Montgomery

4

6

3

3

4

-1

Montour County

0

0

0

0

0

0

Northampton County

4

1

2

1

2

-3

Northumberland County

2

0

0

0

1

-2

Perry County

0

1

0

0

0

0

Philadelphia County

7

2

3

5

4

-2

Pike County

1

1

1

0

1

-1

Potter County

1

1

2

0

1

-1

Schuylkill County

1

0

3

2

2

1

Snyder County

0

0

0

0

0

0

Somerset County

0

1

0

0

0

0

Sullivan County

0

0

0

0

0

0

Susquehanna County

0

0

0

0

0

0

Tioga County

1

0

0

0

0

-1

Union County

0

0

1

0

0

0

Venango County

28

33

40

32

33

4

Warren County

5

3

4

2

4

-3

Washington County

3

5

6

2

4

-1

Wayne County

0

0

0

0

0

0

Westmoreland County

11

13

8

9

10

-2

Wyoming County

1

0

0

0

0

-1

York County

5

1

2

3

3

-2

Total

272

295

312

246

281

-26

© 2013 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice

17

Hanover Research | October 2013

PROJECT EVALUATION FORM
Hanover Research is committed to providing a work product that meets or exceeds partner
expectations. In keeping with that goal, we would like to hear your opinions regarding our
reports. Feedback is critically important and serves as the strongest mechanism by which we
tailor our research to your organization. When you have had a chance to evaluate this
report, please take a moment to fill out the following questionnaire.
http://www.hanoverresearch.com/evaluation/index.php

CAVEAT
The publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this brief. The publisher
and authors make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or
completeness of the contents of this brief and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of
fitness for a particular purpose. There are no warranties which extend beyond the
descriptions contained in this paragraph. No warranty may be created or extended by
representatives of Hanover Research or its marketing materials. The accuracy and
completeness of the information provided herein and the opinions stated herein are not
guaranteed or warranted to produce any particular results, and the advice and strategies
contained herein may not be suitable for every partner. Neither the publisher nor the
authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but
not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Moreover, Hanover
Research is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services.
Partners requiring such services are advised to consult an appropriate professional.

© 2013 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice

18

Hanover Research | October 2013

1750 H Street NW, 2nd Floor
Washington, DC 20006

P 202.756.2971 F 866.808.6585
www.hanoverresearch.com

© 2013 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice

19