Total nonfarm employment for the Chicago-Naperville-Joliet Metropolitan Statistical Area stood at 4,478,900 in February 2008, an increase of 28,600, or 0.6 percent, over the year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. (See table 2.) The employment increase in the Chicago metropolitan area marked its 42^nd consecutive month of over-the-year growth. Chicago’s job growth also mirrored that for the nation, which grew at a 0.6-percent pace from February a year ago. (See table 1.) (All data in this release are not seasonally adjusted; accordingly, over-the-year analysis is used throughout.)

Regional Commissioner Jay A. Mousa noted that from February 2007 to February 2008 employment growth in the Chicago metropolitan area was led by the education and health services industry supersector which added 11,000 jobs. Two supersectors added more than 8,000 jobs: trade, transportation, and utilities and professional and business services. Of the area’s eight remaining supersectors, three reported job gains ranging from 1,800 to 4,300, three experienced little change, and two lost jobs.

Chart A. Total nonfarm employment, over-the-year percent change in the Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, Ill., Lake County-Kenosha County Ill.-Wis., and Gary, Ind. Metropolitan Divisions, January 2003-February 2008

The Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, Ill.-Ind.-Wis. Metropolitan Statistical Area is comprised of three metropolitan divisions—separately identifiable employment centers within the larger metropolitan area. All three of the metropolitan divisions gained jobs over the year. The Chicago-Naperville-Joliet Metropolitan Division, the area’s largest division accounting for 85 percent of total employment, added the most jobs over-the-year with 23,100. The substantially smaller divisions of Lake County-Kenosha County and Gary, Indiana, added 3,900 and 1,500 jobs, respectively. (See table 2; the Technical Note at the end of the release contains metropolitan area definitions.)

Employment growth in the eight-county Chicago-Naperville-Joliet Metropolitan Division was led by education and health services, which added 7,800 jobs over the year. Other employment gains occurred in trade, transportation, and utilities (7,000); professional and business services (5,800); government (4,800); leisure and hospitality (3,900); and other services (1,700). Two of the division’s supersectors reported over-the-year job losses with manufacturing down 3,800 and financial services down 3,700. The remaining three supersectors—natural resources and mining; information; and construction—reported little or no change over the year.

From February 2007 to February 2008, employment growth in the Lake County-Kenosha County Metropolitan Division was largely limited to professional and business services (1,700) and trade, transportation, and utilities (1,600). The area’s nine remaining supersectors had little change in their job counts.

The Gary Metropolitan Division added 1,500 jobs over the year. The education and health services supersector experienced strong growth, adding 2,600 jobs. However, this gain was partially offset by a decline of 1,600 jobs in government.

Jobs in education and health services grew by 11,000 in the Chicago metropolitan area from February 2007 to February 2008, a gain of 1.9 percent. While this growth rate was the fastest in the area among industries adding at least 1,000 jobs, it was still a decline from the 3.0-percent increase experienced May through July in 2007. Nationally, this supersector added jobs at a 3.0-percent pace from February a year ago.

Employment in trade, transportation, and utilities, the area’s largest supersector, increased by 8,800. This marked a 1.0-percent increase from February a year ago, above the industry’s national growth rate of 0.2 percent. While the bulk of the industry’s growth was in the larger Chicago-Naperville-Joliet division, 7,000, the Lake County-Kenosha County division also contributed 1,600 jobs.

Professional and business services jobs in the Chicago area were up 8,100 or 1.1-percent over the year. Still, the Chicago area’s growth rate for this supersector has slowed considerably since peaking at 4.4 percent over-the-year growth in November 2004. Nationally, professional and business services expanded at a 1.2-percent rate from February a year ago.

Over-the-year, employment in the leisure and hospitality supersector increased by 4,300, or 1.1 percent, in the Chicago area, well below the nationwide average of 2.5 percent. The Chicago division accounted for almost all of the job growth in February adding 3,900 jobs.

Government had the area’s next-largest job growth in the Chicago area, adding 3,100 new jobs over the year, an increase of 0.5 percent. The annual growth rate was less than half the rate of the national increase of 1.1 percent.

Other services, with an employment gain of 1,800, was the only other industry in the Chicago metropolitan area to add more than 1,000 jobs over the year. This growth was heavily concentrated in the Chicago-Naperville-Joliet division which added 1,700 jobs. This supersector includes establishments engaged in repair and maintenance activities, personal care and laundry services, and membership associations and organizations.

The manufacturing supersector in the Chicago area lost 4,400 jobs over the year, continuing a long downward trend. The last time the manufacturing supersector in the area added more than 1,000 jobs over the year was in July 1998.

Locally, the financial activities supersector reported an over-the-year employment drop of 4,100 or 1.2 percent. Nationally, the industry also experienced an employment decline, losing 1.4 percent of its jobs. February 2008 marked the eighth consecutive month that the Chicago area’s financial activities supersector lost at least 2,000 jobs over the year.

Employment in the remaining three Chicago area supersectors—natural resources and mining, construction, and information—changed little over the year.

The Chicago-Naperville-Joliet area was 1 of the nation’s 12 largest metropolitan statistical areas in February 2008. Nine of these 12 areas experienced over-the-year job growth equal to or greater than the national increase of 0.6 percent. The top two high-growth areas experienced employment gains greater than 2.0 percent—Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, Tex. (3.4 percent) and Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Tex. (2.5 percent). Seven areas had employment growth in the range from 1.2 to 0.6 percent.

Three of the largest areas lost employment over the year. Detroit-Warren-Livonia, Mich., had the sharpest decline (-2.2 percent). Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, Calif., and Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, Fla., recorded smaller contractions of 0.7 and 0.4 percent, respectively. (See chart B and table 3.)

For six of the largest metropolitan areas—Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Miami, and Washington D.C.—the largest percent increase in employment, among those industries adding at least 1,000 jobs, was education and health services in February 2008. Natural resources and mining was the growth leader in Houston and in Dallas. Among those industries losing at least 1,000 jobs from February a year ago, financial activities had the largest percentage decline in 5 of the 12 areas—Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C.—and manufacturing in 4 others—Dallas, Detroit, New York, and Philadelphia.

Of the 12 metropolitan areas, Houston had the largest increase in jobs from February a year ago, 86,000. Both New York and Dallas added over 70,000 jobs. No other area had an employment increase over 30,000. By contrast, both Los Angeles and Detroit shed more than 30,000 jobs.

This release presents nonfarm payroll employment estimates from the Current Employment Statistics (CES) program for the Chicago-Naperville-Joliet Metropolitan Statistical Area, 1 of the 12 largest metropolitan areas. The rankings were based on population estimates by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2007. The CES program is a Federal-State cooperative endeavor.

Definitions. Employment data refer to persons on establishment payrolls who receive pay for any part of the pay period that includes the 12th of the month. Persons are counted at their place of work rather than at their place of residence; those appearing on more than one payroll are counted on each payroll. Industries are classified on the basis of their principal activity in accordance with the 2007 version of the North American Industry Classification System.

Method of estimation. The employment data are estimated using a "link relative" technique in which a ratio (link relative) of current-month employment to that of the previous month is computed from a sample of establishments reporting for both months. The estimates of employment for the current month are obtained by multiplying the estimates for the previous month by these ratios. Small-domain models are used as the official estimators for the approximately 39 percent of CES published series which have insufficient sample for direct sample-based estimates.

Annual revisions. Employment estimates are adjusted annually to a complete count of jobs, called benchmarks, derived principally from tax reports that are submitted by employers who are covered under state unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The benchmark information is used to adjust the monthly estimates between the new benchmark and the preceding one and also to establish the level of employment for the new benchmark month. Thus, the benchmarking process establishes the level of employment, and the sample is used to measure the month-to-month changes in the level for the subsequent months.

The estimates presented in this release are based on sample survey, administrative data, and modeling and, thus, are subject to sampling and other types of errors. Sampling error is a measure of sampling variability—that is, variation that occurs by chance because a sample rather than the entire population is surveyed. Survey data also are subject to nonsampling errors, such as those which can be introduced into the data collection and processing operations. Estimates not directly derived from sample surveys are subject to additional errors resulting from the specific estimation processes used. The sums of individual items may not always equal the totals shown in the same tables because of rounding.