Ranking report card
What this ranking covers
Ranked results
Top state markets for occupational therapy assistants
Each card separates source data, scoring, fit guidance, and caveats so readers can scan quickly without losing the methodology behind the rank.
Rank #1
Texas
OTA students and assistants comparing statewide pay, job depth, employment density, and assistant-role concentration.
State averages are not cost-adjusted and do not show supervision models, setting mix, benefits, licensure timing, or local employer quality.
Rank #2
Ohio
OTA students and assistants comparing statewide pay, job depth, employment density, and assistant-role concentration.
State averages are not cost-adjusted and do not show supervision models, setting mix, benefits, licensure timing, or local employer quality.
Rank #3
California
OTA students and assistants comparing statewide pay, job depth, employment density, and assistant-role concentration.
State averages are not cost-adjusted and do not show supervision models, setting mix, benefits, licensure timing, or local employer quality.
Rank #4
Arkansas
OTA students and assistants comparing statewide pay, job depth, employment density, and assistant-role concentration.
State averages are not cost-adjusted and do not show supervision models, setting mix, benefits, licensure timing, or local employer quality.
Rank #5
Florida
OTA students and assistants comparing statewide pay, job depth, employment density, and assistant-role concentration.
State averages are not cost-adjusted and do not show supervision models, setting mix, benefits, licensure timing, or local employer quality.
Rank #6
Oklahoma
OTA students and assistants comparing statewide pay, job depth, employment density, and assistant-role concentration.
State averages are not cost-adjusted and do not show supervision models, setting mix, benefits, licensure timing, or local employer quality.
Rank #7
Connecticut
OTA students and assistants comparing statewide pay, job depth, employment density, and assistant-role concentration.
State averages are not cost-adjusted and do not show supervision models, setting mix, benefits, licensure timing, or local employer quality.
Rank #8
Maryland
OTA students and assistants comparing statewide pay, job depth, employment density, and assistant-role concentration.
State averages are not cost-adjusted and do not show supervision models, setting mix, benefits, licensure timing, or local employer quality.
Rank #9
Pennsylvania
OTA students and assistants comparing statewide pay, job depth, employment density, and assistant-role concentration.
State averages are not cost-adjusted and do not show supervision models, setting mix, benefits, licensure timing, or local employer quality.
Rank #10
Delaware
OTA students and assistants comparing statewide pay, job depth, employment density, and assistant-role concentration.
State averages are not cost-adjusted and do not show supervision models, setting mix, benefits, licensure timing, or local employer quality.
Rank #11
Missouri
OTA students and assistants comparing statewide pay, job depth, employment density, and assistant-role concentration.
State averages are not cost-adjusted and do not show supervision models, setting mix, benefits, licensure timing, or local employer quality.
Rank #12
New Jersey
OTA students and assistants comparing statewide pay, job depth, employment density, and assistant-role concentration.
State averages are not cost-adjusted and do not show supervision models, setting mix, benefits, licensure timing, or local employer quality.
Rank #13
Indiana
OTA students and assistants comparing statewide pay, job depth, employment density, and assistant-role concentration.
State averages are not cost-adjusted and do not show supervision models, setting mix, benefits, licensure timing, or local employer quality.
Rank #14
Rhode Island
OTA students and assistants comparing statewide pay, job depth, employment density, and assistant-role concentration.
State averages are not cost-adjusted and do not show supervision models, setting mix, benefits, licensure timing, or local employer quality.
Rank #15
Arizona
OTA students and assistants comparing statewide pay, job depth, employment density, and assistant-role concentration.
State averages are not cost-adjusted and do not show supervision models, setting mix, benefits, licensure timing, or local employer quality.
Decision guide
How to use this ranking
Use this ranking when comparing OTA relocation options, assistant job-market strength, or whether a local OTA program is near a durable assistant labor market.
Use it this way
- Compare wage strength with OTA job depth, density, and concentration instead of salary alone.
- Use the state rank as a first screen, then check metro markets and actual openings before relocating.
- Pair the market ranking with OTA salary by setting and OTA school rankings before choosing a program.
Ask before choosing
- Does the state have enough OTA jobs, or just a high wage estimate?
- Are assistant roles concentrated enough to suggest employers use OTAs consistently?
- Will housing, commute, benefits, and supervision model change the practical value of the market?