Transcript Document

DATA SNAPSHOT
Rush County
Data SnapShot Series 1.0
March 2015
Hometown Collaboration Initiative
This report has been produced by the Purdue Center for Regional Development
as a part of the Indiana Hometown Collaboration Initiative (HCI). HCI is funded,
in part, by the Indiana Office of Community and Rural Affairs.
2
Table of contents
01
02
Introduction
Demography
03
04
Economy
Labor Market
01
introduction
Purpose
About Rush County
Introduction
Purpose
This document provides information
and data about Rush County that can
be used to guide local decisionmaking activities.
The Data SnapShot showcases a variety of
demographic, economic and labor market
information that local leaders, community
organizations and others can use to gain a
better perspective on current conditions
and opportunities in their county.
To strengthen the value and usability of the
information, we showcase the data using a
variety of visual tools such as charts, graphs
and tables. In addition, we offer key points
about the data as a way of assisting the
user with the interpretation of the
information presented.
Finally, short takeaway messages are
offered at the end of each section in order
to highlight some of the more salient
findings.
section 01
5
Introduction
About Rush County
County Background
Established
County
Seat
1822
Rushville
Area
408 sq. mi.
Neighboring
Counties
Decatur, IN
Fayette, IN
Franklin, IN
Hancock, IN
Henry, IN
Shelby, IN
section 01
6
Population change
02
demography
Population pyramids
Race
Ethnicity
Educational attainment
Takeaways
Demography
Population change
Total population
projections
18,261
17,392
2000
2010
17,004
2013
The county’s total population decreased by 7 percent
between 2000 and 2013. Domestic migration (the
difference between the number of people moving into the
county versus moving out) was the major contributor to
that contraction, with a loss of over 1,900 persons.
In contrast, natural increase (births minus deaths over that
span of time) showed a net growth of almost 400 people,
as did international migration with a net increase of 36,
indicating that the county experienced a small influx of new
people from outside the U.S.
16,551
The total population is
projected to decrease
by 3 percent between
2013 and 2020.
2020
Components of Population Change, 2000-2013
Total Change
Natural Increase
International Migration
Domestic Migration
-1,632*
391
36
-1,945
section 02
*Total change in population differs from the sum of the components due to Census estimation techniques. Residuals (not reported here) make up the difference.
Sources: STATSIndiana, U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Decennial Census, 2010 Decennial Census, 2013 Estimates, Estimates of the Components of Resident Population Change
8
Demography
Population pyramids
Population pyramids are visual representations of the age distribution of the population by
gender.
2000
2013
1.3%
2.8%
2.9%
4.0%
60-69
3.9%
4.4%
50-59
5.4%
5.4%
40-49
7.6%
7.4%
30-39
7.3%
7.4%
20-29
5.8%
10-19
7.3%
0-9
7.7%
Male
Age Cohort
70-79
9
6
3
0
80+
1.7%
2.9%
3.4%
4.0%
60-69
5.3%
5.8%
50-59
7.8%
7.7%
40-49
7.1%
6.6%
30-39
5.5%
5.5%
5.5%
20-29
5.4%
5.4%
7.1%
10-19
7.1%
6.9%
7.0%
0-9
6.0%
5.8%
Female
3
6
9
Percent of Total Population
Male
70-79
Age Cohort
80+
9
6
3
0
Female
3
6
9
Percent of Total Population
Approximately 50.9% of the population was female in
2000 (9,290 people), and that percent remained about
the same in 2013. What did change is the distribution of
people across the various age categories. A larger share
of people shifted into the higher age groupings over the
2000 to 2013 time period.
In particular, people 50 and over swelled from 13.5% to
18.2% for males and from 16.6% to 20.4% for females
between 2000 and 2013. Individuals of prime working age
-- 20-49 years old -- dipped from 20.7% to 18.0% for males
and from 20.3% to 17.5% for females. Also declining were
the percent of residents under 20 years of age.
section 02
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Decennial Census and 2013 Annual Population Estimates
9
Demography
Race
2000
The proportion of non-White
residents in Rush County stayed
the same between 2000 and
2013.
Every race except White and Asian
experienced a numerical increase. Of
the non-White races, the Black
population gained the most (+52). On
the other hand, the White population
decreased by 1,317 residents between
2000 and 2013. The bulk of these
losses were due to the outmigration of
these individuals to other counties or
states.
Black
White
98%
Other
2%
Asian
Native
Two or More
Races
2013
Black
White
98%
Other
2%
Asian
Native
Two or More
Races
section 02
Race Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Decennial Census and 2013 Annual Population Estimates
10
Demography
Ethnicity
Hispanics - 2000
Hispanics - 2013
1%
Hispanics are individuals of
any race whose ancestry is
from Mexico, Puerto Rico,
Cuba, Spain, the Dominican
Republic or any other Spanishspeaking Central or South
American country.
There were 92 Hispanics residing
in Rush County in 2000. This
figure expanded to 209 by 2013, a
127.2 percent increase.
1
%
Despite this numeric increase, the
proportion of Hispanics in the
population is still around one
percent.
section 02
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Decennial Census and 2013 Annual Population Estimates
11
Demography
Educational attainment
Rush County had a 6 percentage point
increase in the number of adults (25 and
older) with an associates, bachelors, or
graduate degree from 2000 to 2013.
The proportion of adults 25 years of age
and older with a high school education or
more improved from 80 percent in 2000 to
87 percent by 2013. Those with only a high
school degree dropped slightly from 51
percent in 2000 to 49 percent in 2013.
Adults with a college degree increased from
14 percent in 2000 to 20 percent in 2013.
This was due to a 1 percentage point
increase in the proportion of residents with
associate’s degrees (4 percent versus 5
percent), while the proportion of adults with
at least a bachelor's degree increased from
10 percent to 15 percent, a 5 percentage
point growth.
section 02
2000
Bachelor's
Degree or
More, 10%
Associate's
Degree, 4%
No High
School, 20%
Some
College,
14%
2013
High School,
51%
Bachelor's
Degree or
More, 15%
No High
School, 13%
Associate's
Degree, 5%
Some
College,
18%
High School,
49%
.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Decennial Census and 2013 ACS
12
Demography
Takeaways
The population of Rush County is expected to fall
over the next few years, and, if past trends hold,
that decrease will be largely due to domestic
out-migration (more people moved out of the
county for other U.S. locations than moved into
the county).
In examining the composition of Rush County’s
population, one finds an aging population in
which the largest age group of workers (50-59)
is nearing retirement age. Additionally, the
number of men and women of prime working
age (20-29, 30-39 and 40-49) is slowly
declining. The racial and ethnic diversity of Rush
County has not changed since 2000 and
remains primarily white and non-Hispanic. In
order to maintain the size of the labor force,
Rush County will be challenged to find a way to
retain and attract individuals and families of
prime working age to the county.
The educational attainment of adults 25 and over
has improved since 2000, but the percent of
adults with a high school education remains
sizable (at 49%). Taking time to assess whether
local economic development opportunities might
be impeded by the presence of a sizable number
of adults with a terminal high school degree may
be worthy of attention. While 1 in 5 adult residents
of the county have an associates, bachelors, or
higher education, this figure is about 12 percent
below the figure for the state of Indiana as a
whole.
Rush County may wish to assess the
workforce skills of workers with a high
school education only. Enhancing their skills
so that they match the needs of local
businesses and industries may be a worthy
investment.
section 02
13
Establishments
03
economy
Industries
Occupations
Income and poverty
Takeaways
Economy
Establishments
The number of establishments in Rush
County increased 35% from 2000 to 2011.
The rapid growth of establishments was largely
due to natural change. That is, 1,186
establishments were launched in the county
between 2000-2011 while 783 closed, resulting in
a gain of 403 establishments. There was a small
loss of 9 establishments due to net migration.
Components of Change for Establishments
Total Change (2000-11)
394
Natural Change (births minus
deaths)
403
Net Migration
An establishment is a
physical business location.
Branches, standalones and
headquarters are all
considered types of
establishments.
Definition of Company Stages
0
2
-9
Selfemployed
10-99
employees
4
1
3
2-9
employees
100-499
employees
500+
employees
section 03
Note: The 2011 figures use 2012 data to include all gains and losses over the entire year.
Establishment information was calculated in-house and may differ slightly from publicly available data.
Source: National Establishment Time Series (NETS) – 2012 Database 15
Economy
Number of establishments by
stage/employment category
2000
Stage
2011
Establishments
Proportion
Establishments
Proportion
Stage 0
420
37%
576
38%
Stage 1
581
52%
830
54%
Stage 2
113
10%
106
7%
Stage 3
12
1%
9
1%
Stage 4
1
0%
-
-
1,127
100%
1,521
100%
Total
The NETS Database is derived from the Dun & Bradstreet archival national establishment data, a population of known establishments
in the United States that is quality controlled and updated annually. Establishments include both private and public sector business
units and range in size from one employee (i.e., sole-proprietors and self-employed) to several thousand employees.
section 03
Note: The 2011 figures use 2012 data to include all gains and losses over the entire year.
Source: National Establishment Time Series (NETS) – 2012 Database
16
Economy
Number of jobs by stage/employment
category
2000
Stage
2011
Jobs*
Proportion
Jobs*
Proportion
Stage 0
420
5%
576
8%
Stage 1
1,970
23%
2,438
34%
Stage 2
2,509
29%
2,475
35%
Stage 3
2,223
26%
1,682
23%
Stage 4
1,500
17%
-
-
Total
8,622
100%
7,171
100%
* Includes both full-time and part-time jobs
Note: The 2011 figures use 2012 data to include all gains and losses over the entire year.
section 03
Source: National Establishment Time Series (NETS) – 2012 Database
17
Economy
Amount of sales (2011 dollars) by
stage/employment category
2000
Stage
2011
Sales
Proportion
Sales
Proportion
Stage 0
$53,704,085
6%
$40,530,493
7%
Stage 1
$264,402,700
27%
$197,685,023
32%
Stage 2
$288,845,441
30%
$170,134,289
28%
Stage 3
$299,062,827
31%
$206,763,300
33%
Stage 4
$61,191,037
6%
-
-
Total
$967,206,089
100%
$615,113,105
100%
section 03
Note: The 2011 figures use 2012 data to include all gains and losses over the entire year.
Source: National Establishment Time Series (NETS) – 2012 Database
18
Economy
Top five industries in 2013
58.8 percent of jobs are tied to
one of the top five industries in
Rush County.
Government is the largest industry
sector (1,161 jobs). Construction is the
smallest of the top industry sectors with
441 jobs.
All of the top five industries in Rush
County, except Construction, lost jobs
between 2002 and 2013. Of these,
Manufacturing lost the largest
proportion (-38.7%), followed by Retail
Trade (-14.8%). Construction
experienced a 4.3% gain in jobs over
the time period.
Construction
6.6%
Agriculture,
Forestry, Fishing &
Hunting
10.1%
All Other
Industries
41.2%
Retail Trade
10.4%
Manufacturing
14.3%
Government
17.3%
section 03
Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.3 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors
19
Economy
Industry distribution and change
NAICS
Code
Description
11
21
22
23
31-33
42
44-45
48-49
51
52
53
54
55
56
61
62
71
72
81
90
99
All
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting
Mining, Quarrying, & Oil & Gas Extraction
Utilities
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation & Warehousing
Information
Finance & Insurance
Real Estate & Rental & Leasing
Professional, Scientific & Technical Services
Management of Companies and Enterprises
Administrative & Waste Management
Educational Services (Private)
Health Care & Social Assistance
Arts, Entertainment & Recreation
Accommodation and Food Services
Other Services (except Public Administration)
Government
Unclassified Industry
Total
Jobs
2002
745
<10
37
423
1,565
176
819
306
68
184
193
198
40
149
14
594
38
338
420
1,242
0
7,555
Jobs
2013
679
<10
43
441
960
186
698
430
48
193
226
199
57
268
29
306
59
333
378
1,161
0
6,702
Change
(2002-2013)
% Change
(2002-2013)
-66
6
18
-605
10
-121
124
-20
9
33
1
17
119
15
-288
21
-5
-42
-81
0
-853
-9%
16%
4%
-39%
6%
-15%
41%
-29%
5%
17%
1%
43%
80%
107%
-48%
55%
-1%
-10%
-7%
0%
-11%
Earnings
2013
$32,475
$102,181
$30,919
$59,867
$39,316
$27,043
$45,952
$92,933
$48,546
$23,750
$30,212
$44,242
$23,253
$10,517
$31,321
$25,950
$16,176
$17,283
$44,469
$0
$37,673
section 03
Note: Industries and occupations with a value of <10 have insufficient data for change and earnings calculations.
Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.3 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors
20
Economy
Industry distribution and change
The largest percentage gains in
employment in Rush County
occurred in:
 Educational Services, private

(+107.1 percent)
Administrative and Waste
Management Services (+79.9
percent)
The largest percentage losses
in employment occurred in:
 Health Care and Social Assistance

(-48.5 percent)
Manufacturing (-38.7 percent)
Industries with the largest gains and losses in
employment numbers between 2002 & 2013:
Transportation &
Warehousing
(+124)
Administrative &
Waste Management
(+119)
Manufacturing
(-605)
Health Care &
Social Assistance
(-288)
Retail Trade
(-121)
Employment Increase Employment Decrease
section 03
Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.3 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors
21
Economy
Top five occupations in 2013
The top five occupations in Rush
County represent 53.4 percent
of all jobs.
Transportation &
Material Moving
8.9%
Office &
Administrative
Support
10.4%
All Other
Occupations
46.6%
Production
11.2%
Sales & Related
11.3%
Management
11.6%
Management (780 jobs) is the top
occupation classification in Rush County,
and most of these jobs are related to crop
production. Transportation & Material
Moving occupations is the smallest of the
top five occupations with 596 jobs.
All five top occupations in Rush County,
except Transportation & Material Moving,
had a decrease in jobs between 2002 and
2013. Production occupations lost the
largest proportion (-51.1%), followed by
Office & Administrative Support
occupations (-19.1%). Transportation &
Material Moving occupations had a 9.6%
increase in jobs over the time period.
section 03
Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.3 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors
22
Economy
Occupation distribution and change
SOC
Description
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
99
All
Management
Business & Financial Operations
Computer & Mathematical
Architecture & Engineering
Life, Physical & Social Science
Community & Social Service
Legal
Education, Training & Library
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports & Media
Health Care Practitioners & Technical
Health Care Support
Protective Service
Food Preparation & Serving Related
Building & Grounds Cleaning Maintenance
Personal Care & Service
Sales & Related
Office & Administrative Support
Farming, Fishing & Forestry
Construction & Extraction
Installation, Maintenance & Repair
Production
Transportation & Material Moving
Military
Unclassified
Total
Jobs
2002
870
217
42
83
20
145
31
318
119
303
165
139
403
219
281
812
830
116
369
317
1,132
539
59
26
7,555
Jobs
2013
Change
(2002-2013)
% Change
(2002-2013)
Hourly Earnings
2013
-90
-21
-9
-27
-3
-79
-3
76
-13
-47
-32
-43
-21
36
-49
-52
-133
8
-2
-29
-383
57
-4
12
-853
-10%
-10%
-21%
-33%
-15%
-54%
-10%
24%
-11%
-16%
-19%
-31%
-5%
16%
-17%
-6%
-16%
7%
-1%
-9%
-34%
11%
-7%
46%
-11%
$18.17
$23.31
$24.14
$26.14
$23.48
$18.98
$33.55
$17.70
$16.61
$25.01
$11.24
$16.00
$9.58
$10.01
$9.29
$13.40
$14.30
$13.63
$15.27
$17.88
$15.90
$15.78
$19.29
$20.30
$15.79
780
196
33
56
17
66
28
394
106
256
133
96
382
255
232
760
697
124
367
288
749
596
55
38
6,702
section 03
Note: Industries and occupations with a value of <10 have insufficient data for change and earnings calculations.
Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.3 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors
23
Economy
Occupation distribution and change
The largest percentage gains in
employment in Rush County
occurred in:
 Unclassified (+46.2 percent)
 Education, Training, & Library
(+23.9 percent)
The largest percentage loss in
employment occurred in:
 Community and Social Service

(-54.5 percent)
Production (-33.8 percent)
Occupations with the largest gains and losses
in employment numbers between 2002 & 2013:
Education, Training
& Library
(+76)
Transportation &
Material Moving
(+57)
Production
(-383)
Office &
Administrative
(-133)
Employment Increase Employment Decrease
section 03
Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.3 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors
24
Economy
Income and poverty
2000
2006
2013
Total Population in
Poverty
8.1%
10.0%
12.8%
Minors (up to age 17)
in Poverty
10.1%
13.6%
19.1%
Real Median Income
(2013)
$53,315
$50,621
$46,910
The median income in Rush
County dipped by $6,400
between 2000 and 2013 in
real dollars (that is, adjusted
for inflation).
The total population in poverty
increased by 1.6 times between
2000 and 2013, but the increase
in the number of minors in poverty
was larger, nearly doubling from
2000 to 2013.
section 03
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE)
25
Economy
Income and poverty
Median income in Rush County has been on a decline since 2004, although it is now
improving. Poverty rates for adults and minors have stabilized over the past two years,
although the rates remain high relative to the early 2000s.
24
Minors in Poverty
52,000
20
Median Income
50,000
16
48,000
12
46,000
8
All Ages in
Poverty
44,000
4
42,000
0
Population in Poverty (percent)
Real Median Income (2013 dollars)
54,000
section 03
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE)
26
Economy
Takeaways
Growth in the number of establishments in Rush
County occurred in businesses having fewer than
10 employees (the self-employed and Stage 1
enterprises), components of the local economy
that are often overlooked by local leaders.
Rush County might consider focusing on economic
development efforts that seek to strengthen highgrowth Stage 1 and 2 establishments, since they
employ several people and capture sizable sales,
although these sales have suffered in recent years.
The number of establishments that have gone out
of business is sizable, offering an opportunity to
consider ways to help more establishments survive
and thrive.
Real median income has gradually decreased and
poverty has increased in Rush County since 2000.
While poverty rates for minors and the total
population have stabilized since 2010, they
remain considerably higher than was the case in
2000.
The decline in real median income experienced
between 2004 and 2013 may be tied to
employment changes in various industries in the
county during that time period. The largest
employment loss occurred in an industry paying
average earnings of $60,000 and occupations
paying $15/hour to $20/hour between 2000 and
2013. At the same time, most of the industries
that experienced job gains paid average earnings
of $24,000 to $46,000 and very few occupations
gained jobs. Without question, the nation’s
difficult economic times during the 2007-09
period did seem to leave its mark in Rush County.
No doubt, the ability of Rush County to capture
good paying jobs will depend on the availability of
a well-trained and educated workforce, something
that may be challenging in light of the smaller
percentage of adults in the county with an
associates degree or higher. Ensuring that a skilled
workforce is available to support the key industries
in the county will be important to the economic
stability of the county.
section 03
27
04
labor
market
Labor force and
unemployment
Commuteshed
Laborshed
Takeaways
Labor market
Labor force and unemployment
2002
2013
Labor Force
9,522
8,891
Unemployment
Rate
4.5%
6.6%
The labor force in Rush County
decreased by 6.6 percent between
2002 and 2013.
This decrease could be due to a rise in the
number of individuals who are either officially
unemployed, who have given up looking for a
job, who have moved out of the country, or
who have left the workforce due to
retirement.
section 04
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics – Local Area Unemployment Statistics
29
Labor market
Unemployment rate
Unemployment increased dramatically after 2007, peaking at 10.5% in 2009. Since that
time, the rate has been on a slow but steady decline, dipping to 6.6% by 2013.
12.0
10.5%
Unemployment Rate (percent)
10.0
8.0
6.6%
6.0
4.9%
4.5%
4.0
2.0
2.5%
0.0
section 04
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics – Local Area Unemployment Statistics
30
Labor market
Commuteshed
Out-Commuters
Same Work/
Home
4,813
A county’s commuteshed is the
geographic area to which its
resident labor force travels to work.
1,861
Commuters
Proportion
Marion, IN
942
14.1%
Shelby, IN
835
12.5%
Decatur, IN
463
6.9%
Hancock, IN
392
5.9%
Henry, IN
243
3.6%
Seventy-two percent of employed
residents in Rush County commute to
jobs located outside of the county.
Marion and Shelby Counties, part of the
Indianapolis metropolitan area, are the
biggest destinations for residents who
work outside of Rush County.
Thirty-three percent of out-commuters
work in counties adjacent to Rush
County. Many of these counties are
related either to the Indianapolis,
Indiana or Cincinnati, Ohio metropolitan
areas.
section 04
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD)
31
Labor market
Commuteshed in 2011
Seventy percent of Rush
County’s working residents are
employed either in Decatur,
Hancock, Marion, Rush or
Shelby Counties. Another five
percent commute to Henry or
Fayette Counties. An additional
five percent travel to jobs in
Johnson County, Indiana or
Hamilton County, Ohio.
Collectively, these nine counties
represent 80 percent of the
commuteshed for Rush County.
section 04
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OTM, LEHD, PCRD
32
Labor market
Laborshed
In-Commuters
A county’s laborshed is the
geographic area from which it draws
employees.
Same Work/
Home
2,134
1,861
Fifty-three percent of individuals working
in Rush County commute from another
county.
Twenty-six percent of in-commuters reside
in counties adjacent to Rush County.
Fayette and Henry Counties are the
biggest sources of workers outside of
Rush County; however, the third and
fourth largest sources of employees
outside Rush County (Shelby and Marion
Counties) are in the Indianapolis
metropolitan area.
Commuters
Proportion
Fayette, IN
343
8.6%
Henry, IN
221
5.5%
Shelby, IN
148
3.7%
Marion, IN
136
3.4%
Decatur, IN
119
3.0%
section 04
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD)
33
Labor market
Laborshed in 2011
The bulk (70 percent) of Rush
County’s workforce is drawn from
Fayette, Henry, Marion, Rush, or
Shelby Counties in Indiana.
Another five percent is drawn
from Decatur and Harrison
Counties. An additional five
percent reside in Franklin,
Hamilton, and Wayne Counties in
Indiana.
Combined, the ten counties
represent 80 percent of Rush
County’s laborshed.
section 04
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OTM, LEHD, PCRD
34
Labor market
Takeaways
The Great Recession that impacted the U.S.
economy between 2007 and 2009 took a major
toll on the Rush County’s unemployment rate.
While the rate was quite low in 2000, it
skyrocketed to over 10 percent by 2009. Recent
figures make clear that the unemployment rate
has improved significantly since 2010.
Along with the modest decline in the population
over the past decade or more, the county’s labor
force has shrunk since 2002. While it is difficult
to pinpoint the exact reason for the drop in the
county’s labor force, the possible explanations
are as follows. First, it may be a natural decrease
due to population decline. Second, an increasing
number of unemployed individuals may be
discouraged workers who have given up trying to
find a job. Or third, more people in the workforce
have opted to retire and their positions have
been eliminated or left unfilled.
Approximately 70 percent of Rush County’s
residents in the workforce are gainfully
employed outside of the county. This represents
a tremendous loss of human talent that is
unavailable to contribute to the social and
economic vitality of the county. It may be
worthwhile for local leaders and industries to
determine the human capital attributes of
workers who commute to jobs outside the
county. By so doing, they could be positioned to
determine how best to reduce the leakage of
educated and skilled workers to surrounding
counties. Of course, this will require expansion
in the number of good paying jobs that will help
keep these workers in their home county.
The laborshed and commuteshed data
offer solid evidence of the value of
pursuing economic and workforce
development on a regional (multi-county)
basis.
section 04
35
Report Contributors
This report was prepared by the Purdue Center for Regional Development in partnership
with Purdue University Extension.
Report Authors
Data Analysis
Report Design
Elizabeth Dobis
Bo Beaulieu, PhD
Indraneel Kumar, PhD
Ayoung Kim
Tyler Wright
section 04
36
FOR MORE
INFORMATION
Purdue Extension Community Development
(CD) . . .
works to strengthen the capacity of local leaders,
residents and organizations to work together to develop
and sustain strong, vibrant communities.
Please contact
PCRD
Mann Hall, Suite 266
Purdue University
765-494-7273
Purdue Center for Regional Development
(PCRD) . . .
seeks to pioneer new ideas and strategies that contribute
to regional collaboration, innovation and prosperity.
[email protected]