DATA SNAPSHOT Washington County Data SnapShot Series 1.1 February 2016

01 03 02 04 Table of contents Introduction Economy Demography Labor Market

01 introduction Purpose About Washington County

Introduction Purpose 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. This document provides information and data about Washington County that can be used to guide local decision-making 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. section 01

About Washington County Introduction About Washington County County Background Established 1814 County Seat Salem Area 517 sq. mi. Neighboring Counties Clark, IN Crawford, IN Floyd, IN Harrison, IN Jackson, IN Lawrence, IN Orange, IN Scott, IN Metropolitan Status Metropolitan section 01

02 demography Population change Population pyramids Race Ethnicity Educational attainment Takeaways 02 demography

Population change 2000 2010 2014 2020 Total population projections Demography Population change Total population projections The total population is projected to increase by 4 percent between 2014 and 2020. 2000 2010 2014 2020 The county’s total population increased by 2 percent between 2000 and 2014. Natural increase (births minus deaths over that span of time) was the major contributor to that expansion, with a gain of more than 800 persons. International migration also experienced a net growth of 89 individuals, indicating that the county experienced an influx of new people from outside the United States. In contrast, domestic migration (the difference between the number of people moving into the county versus moving out) resulted in a net loss of 688 individuals in Washington County between 2000 and 2014. Components of Population Change, 2000-2014 Total Change 51* Natural Increase 829 International Migration 89 Domestic Migration -688 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, 2014 Estimates, Estimates of the Components of Resident Population Change

Demography Population pyramids Population pyramids are visual representations of the age distribution of the population by gender. 2000 2014 Male Female Male Female Approximately half of the population was female in 2000 (13,603 people) and that percentage remained about the same in 2014. 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 2014 time period. People 50 and over increased from 12.8 % to 17.8% for males and from 15.0% to 19.4% for females between 2000 and 2014. Individuals of prime working age (20 to 49) dipped from 42.9% to 36.8% of the population. However, residents under 20 years of age declined from 29.1% to 26.1% of the total population over the same time period. section 02 Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Decennial Census and 2014 Annual Population Estimates

Demography Race 2000 The proportion of non-White residents in Washington County doubled between 2000 and 2014, although they remain a small part of the overall population. Every race experienced a numerical increase over the time period. Of the non-White races, people of Two or More Races (+103) gained the most. The Black population had the largest percentage growth (+225), but it remains a small part of the overall population. The White population increased by 674 residents between 2000 and 2014, experiencing the smallest percentage gain (+2 percent). Despite the growth of the non-White population, in 2014 White residents still represented 98 percent of the county’s total population. 2014 section 02 Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Decennial Census and 2014 Annual Population Estimates

1% 2% Ethnicity Demography Hispanics - 2000 Hispanics are individuals of any race whose ancestry is from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Spain, the Dominican Republic or any other Spanish- speaking Central or South American country. There were 200 Hispanics residing in Washington County in 2000. This figure expanded to 388 by 2014, a 94 percent increase. Due to this numeric increase, the proportion of Hispanics in the population now hovers around the 2 percent mark. 1% Hispanics - 2014 2% section 02 Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Decennial Census and 2014 Annual Population Estimates

Educational attainment Demography Educational attainment Washington County had a 5 percentage points increase in the number of adults (25 and older) with an associate’s degree or higher between 2000 and 2014. The proportion of adults 25 years of age and older with a high school education or more improved from 75 percent in 2000 to 81 percent by 2014. Those with a high school degree only grew slightly from 44 percent in 2000 to 45 percent in 2014. Adults with a college degree increased from 14 percent in 2000 to 19 percent in 2014. This was due to a 3 percentage points increase in the proportion of residents with associate’s degrees (4 percent versus 7 percent), while the proportion of adults with at least a bachelor's degree increased from 10 to 12 percent. . 2000 2014 section 02 Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Decennial Census and 2014 American Community Survey (ACS)

Demography Takeaways The population of Washington County is expected to grow over the next few years, and if past trends hold, that increase will be largely due to natural increase (more births than deaths). The net loss of population due to domestic migration is likely to remain an issue in the county. Washington County’s age structure makes clear that a larger share of residents is getting older. That is, the number of persons 50 years of age or older has increased by over 5 percentage points between 2000 and 2014. On the other hand, the proportion of adults of prime working age (20 to 49 years old) and youth under 20 years of age has experienced a declined. As such, the challenge for the county is how to invest in programs and services that can meet the needs of a growing senior population. At the same time, strategies for retaining people of prime working age are matters deserving of serious attention as well. The educational attainment of adults 25 and over has improved since 2000, but the percentage of adults with a high school education only (45 percent) or less (19 percent) remains sizable. 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 or less may be worthy of attention. While nearly one-fifth of adult residents of the county have an associate’s, bachelor’s or higher degree, this figure is 13 percentage points below the figure for the state of Indiana as a whole in 2014. Washington County may wish to assess the workforce skills of workers with a high school education only. Making sure these skills are in alignment with the needs of businesses and industries in the county and region may be worth exploring. section 02

03 economy Establishments Industries Occupations Income and poverty Takeaways 03 economy

0 1 3 4 Establishments Definition of Company Stages Economy The number of establishments in Washington County increased by 36 percent from 2000 to 2013. The rapid growth of establishments was due largely to natural change. Between 2000 and 2013, 2,214 establishments were launched in the county, while 1,738 closed, resulting in a gain of 455 establishments. There was also a small loss of 21 establishments due to net migration. An establishment is a physical business location. Branches, standalones and headquarters are all considered types of establishments. Definition of Company Stages 0 1 Components of Change for Establishments Total Change (2000-13) 455 Natural Change (births minus deaths) 476 Net Migration -21 Self-employed 2-9 employees 3 10-99 employees 100-499 employees 4 500+ employees section 03 Source: National Establishment Time Series (NETS) – youreconomy.org

Number of establishments by stage/employment category Economy Number of establishments by stage/employment category 2000 2013 Stage Establishments Proportion Stage 0 443 35% 515 30% Stage 1 697 55% 1,061 61% Stage 2 122 10% 141 8% Stage 3 6 0% 14 1% Stage 4 2 1 Total 1,270 100% 1,732 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. *ReferenceUSA indicates no Stage 4 firm in 2011, whereas NETS shows one Stage 4 firm. Additional information is available on the next slide. section 03 Source: National Establishment Time Series (NETS) – youreconomy.org

Top five employers in 2015 Economy Establishment Stage 1. Kimball Office* Stage 3 2. Peerless Gear* 3. GKN Sinter Metals 4. St. Vincent Salem Hospital 5. Net Shape Technologies, Inc. The top five employers produce regional, national and global goods and services. Kimball Office and Peerless Gear in Salem are the largest establishment-level employers in Washington County. Both companies manufacture goods, namely, office furniture and transmissions, respectively. Other top employers are GKN Sinter Metals and Net Shape Technologies, who manufacture powder metal parts that are sold throughout the nation and world. St. Vincent Hospital is a regional medical provider. Information on the top five establishments by employment comes from ReferenceUSA. ReferenceUSA is a library database service provided by Infogroup, the company that also supplies the list of major employers for Hoosiers by the Numbers. While both NETS and ReferenceUSA contain establishments, differences in data collection processes result in discrepancies between the two sources. We use NETS for a broad picture of establishments in the county, while ReferenceUSA is used for studying individual establishments. *Kimball Office and Peerless Gear are listed as having the same number of employees and are, therefore, listed in alphabetical order. section 03 Source: ReferenceUSA (Infogroup)

Number of jobs by stage/employment category Economy Number of jobs by stage/employment category 2000 2013 Stage Jobs* Proportion Stage 0 443 5% 515 Stage 1 2,326 28% 3,271 34% Stage 2 3,143 38% 3,385 35% Stage 3 1,437 17% 1,958 20% Stage 4 1,000 12% 500 Total 8,349 100% 9,629 section 03 *Includes both full-time and part-time jobs Source: National Establishment Time Series (NETS) – youreconomy.org

Amount of sales (2013 dollars) by stage/employment category Economy Amount of sales (2013 dollars) by stage/employment category 2000 2013 Stage Sales Proportion Stage 0 $64,539,888 7% $37,235,649 5% Stage 1 $279,625,022 30% $219,545,517 32% Stage 2 $291,747,411 31% $161,026,229 23% Stage 3 $209,611,920 22% $233,967,600 34% Stage 4 $96,495,231 10% $42,500,000 6% Total $942,019,472 100% $694,274,995 section 03 Source: National Establishment Time Series (NETS) – youreconomy.org

Economy Top five industries in 2014 62.0 percent of jobs are tied to one of the top five industries in Washington County. Manufacturing is the largest industry sector (1,736 jobs). Health Care & Social Assistance is the smallest of the top industry sectors with 832 jobs. Of the top five industries in Washington County, Health Care & Social Assistance (+63.9 percent) and Retail Trade (+2.5 percent) gained jobs between 2002 and 2014. Of the remaining top five industries, Manufacturing lost the most, with a 21.1 percent decrease in jobs. section 03 Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.4 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors

Industry distribution and change Economy Industry distribution and change NAICS Code Description Jobs 2002 Jobs 2014 Change (2002-2014) % Change (2002-2014) Average Total Earnings 2014 11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 1,090 902 -188 -17% $24,967 21 Mining, Quarrying, & Oil & Gas Extraction 14 16 2 15% $156,472 22 Utilities 17 -3 $77,457 23 Construction 787 737 -50 -6% $27,271 31-33 Manufacturing 2,200 1,736 -464 -21% $50,415 42 Wholesale Trade 183 128 -55 -30% $37,671 44-45 Retail Trade 1,043 1,069 26 2% $25,442 48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 266 225 -41 -15% $34,503 51 Information 121 0% $34,609 52 Finance & Insurance 217 305 88 41% $47,604 53 Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 185 279 94 51% $23,539 54 Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 267 221 -46 $26,230 55 Management of Companies and Enterprises <10 - 56 Administrative & Waste Management 216 23% $18,007 61 Educational Services (Private) 19 40 108% $15,728 62 Health Care & Social Assistance 507 832 325 64% $34,372 71 Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 87 102 15 17% $10,991 72 Accommodation and Food Services 516 526 10 $16,361 81 Other Services (except Public Administration) 492 578 86 18% $13,770 90 Government 1,480 1,285 -195 -13% $43,516 99 Unclassified Industry $0 All Total 9,721 9,389 -332 -3% $33,296 section 03 Note: Average total earnings include wages, salaries, supplements and earnings from investments and proprietorships. Industries and occupations with a value of <10 have insufficient data for change and earnings calculations. Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.4 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors

Industry distribution and change Economy Industry distribution and change The largest percentage gains in employment in Washington County occurred in: Educational Services, private (+108.5 percent) Health Care & Social Assistance (+63.9 percent) The largest percentage losses in employment occurred in: Wholesale Trade (-30.2 percent) Manufacturing (-21.1 percent) Employment Increase Employment Decrease Industries with the largest gains and losses in employment numbers between 2002 & 2014: Health Care & Social Assistance (+325) Real Estate & Leasing (+94) Manufacturing (-464) Government (-195) Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing (-188) section 03 Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.4 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors

Top five occupations in 2014 Economy Top five occupations in 2014 The top five occupations in Washington County represent 50.6 percent of all jobs. Management (1,193 jobs) is the top occupation classification in Washington County. Construction & Extraction is the smallest of the top five occupations with 627 jobs. All five top occupations in Washington County, with the exception of Sales & Related occupations (+6.6 percent), had a decline in jobs between 2002 and 2014. Production occupations lost the largest proportion (-24.9 percent), while Construction & Extraction occupations lost the least with a decline of 6.0 percent. section 03 Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.4 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors

Occupation distribution and change Economy Occupation distribution and change SOC Description Jobs 2002 Jobs 2014 Change (2002-2014) % Change (2002-2014) Hourly Earnings 2014 11 Management 1,338 1,193 -145 -11% $17.08 13 Business & Financial Operations 278 263 -15 -5% $23.67 15 Computer & Mathematical 75 59 -16 -21% $26.25 17 Architecture & Engineering 111 109 -2 -2% $29.54 19 Life, Physical & Social Science 22 25 3 14% $22.45 21 Community & Social Service 79 98 24% $18.37 23 Legal 41 0% $27.23 Education, Training & Library 524 590 66 13% $22.44 27 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports & Media 219 221 2 1% $14.41 29 Health Care Practitioners & Technical 289 319 30 10% $28.45 31 Health Care Support 178 231 53 30% $11.18 33 Protective Service 125 133 8 6% $15.86 35 Food Preparation & Serving Related 559 596 37 7% $9.29 Building & Grounds Cleaning Maintenance 267 336 69 26% $9.42 39 Personal Care & Service 323 411 88 27% $9.00 Sales & Related 999 1,065 $12.85 43 Office & Administrative Support 931 810 -121 -13% $14.44 45 Farming, Fishing & Forestry 124 -26 $11.37 47 Construction & Extraction 667 627 -40 -6% $14.97 49 Installation, Maintenance & Repair 349 335 -14 -4% $17.06 51 Production 1,413 1,061 -352 -25% $15.83 Transportation & Material Moving 669 611 -58 -9% $14.52 55 Military 91 90 -1 -1% $16.92 99 Unclassified 50 70 20 40% $11.47 All Total 9,721 9,389 -332 -3% $15.66 section 03 Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.4 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors

Occupation distribution and change Economy Occupation distribution and change The largest percentage gains in employment in Washington County occurred in:* Health Care Support (+29.7 percent) Personal Care & Service (+27.2%) The largest percentage loss in employment occurred in: Production (-24.9 percent) Computer & Mathematical (-21.3 percent) Farming, Fishing & Forestry (-20.9 percent) Occupations with the largest gains and losses in employment numbers between 2002 & 2014: Personal Care & Service (+88) Building & Maintenance (+69) Production (-352) Management (-145) Office & Administrative Support (-121) Employment Increase Employment Decrease * Unclassified occupations was the category with the largest percentage gains in the county with a 39.6 percent increase. section 03 Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.4 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors

Income and poverty Economy 2002 2007 2014 Total Population in Poverty 10.4% 14.7% 16.2% Minors (up to age 17) in Poverty 12.9% 19.7% 25.0% Real Median Household Income (2014)* $47,091 $42,142 $43,573 Real Per Capita Income (2014)* $28,784 $31,186 $33,352 The median household income in Washington County dipped by $3,500 between 2002 and 2014 in real dollars (that is, adjusted for inflation), while average income per person rose by $4,600 (in real dollars) over the same time period. The total population in poverty grew by 5.8 percentage points between 2002 and 2014. However, the number of minors in poverty increased by more than twice that amount. As a result, one in four minors was living in poverty in 2014. *Real median household income is the middle income value in the county. Half of the county’s households fall above this line and half below. Real per capita personal income is the average income per person in the county. section 03 Source: U.S. Census Bureau – Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis – Regional Personal Income Summary

Economy Income and poverty Median household income in Washington County generally decreased between 2000 and 2011 but has been improving somewhat since 2011. Per capita income has been gradually increasing since 2002. Recent data suggest that poverty rates for adults and minors have remained stubbornly high relative to the rates during the 2000 to 2002 time period. section 03 Source: U.S. Census Bureau – Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis – Regional Personal Income Summary

Economy The fluctuation and decline in real median income experienced between 2000 and 2014 may be tied to employment changes in the county during that time period. Moderate-paying Manufacturing and Government industry jobs (yearly earnings of $50,000 and $44,000, respectively) declined, while mid-to-low-paying industries, such as Health Care & Social Assistance ($34,000), grew in Washington County. Occupations showed the same trend in that moderate-paying Management, Production, and Office & Administration jobs ($14 to $17 per hour) were lost while low-paying Personal Care & Service ($9 per hour) jobs experienced gains. No doubt, the ability of Washington County to capture high-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 associate’s degree or higher. Ensuring that a skilled workforce is available to support the key industries in both the county and the region will be important to the economic stability of the area. Takeaways Impressive growth in the number of establishments in Washington County occurred in businesses with fewer than 10 employees (the self-employed and Stage 1 enterprises), components of the local economy that are often overlooked by local leaders. Washington County might consider focusing on economic development that seeks to strengthen high-growth Stage 1 and 2 establishments, since they employ several people and capture sizable sales, although sales have suffered in recent years. Stage 3 establishments have also been an area of employment and sales growth in the county. Real median income has decreased, while per capita income has increased in Washington County since 2000. Poverty rates have declined since 2012 but remain higher than in 2000. section 03

04 labor market Labor force and unemployment Workforce inflow/outflow Commuter shed Labor shed Takeaways 04 labor market

Labor force and unemployment Labor market Labor force and unemployment The labor force in Washington County decreased by 4.8 percent between 2002 and 2014. This decline may be due, in part, to the increasing share of the county’s residents that moved into the 60 years of age or older age cohort between 2002 and 2014. At the same time, the county experienced an uptick in the number of people who were unemployed and may have, at some point, been discouraged workers. As a result, they may have exited the labor force, reducing its size. 2002 2007 2014 Labor Force 14,047 14,011 13,369 Unemployment Rate 5.6% 5.2% 6.6% section 04 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics – Local Area Unemployment Statistics (2014 Annual Data Release)

Labor market Unemployment rate Unemployment increased dramatically after 2007, peaking at 12.2 percent in 2010. Since that time, the rate has been on a steady decline, dipping to 6.6 percent by 2014. section 04 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics – Local Area Unemployment Statistics (2014 Annual Data Release)

Workforce inflow and outflow in 2013 Labor market Workforce inflow and outflow in 2013 Count Proportion Employed in Washington County 5,422 100% Both employed and living in the county 3,308 61% Employed in the county but living outside 2,114 39% Living in Washington County 13,929 Both living and employed in the county 24% Living in the county but employed outside 10,621 76% Washington County has more laborers traveling out of the county for work than into the county for work. Net commuting is negative, with a loss of 8,507 commuters. The resulting situation is that for every 100 employed residents, Washington County has 39 jobs. 2,114 10,621 3,308 section 04 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OTM, LEHD, PCRD

Commuter shed Labor market Same Work/ Out-Commuters Home A county’s commuter shed is the geographic area to which its resident labor force travels to work. Seventy-six percent of employed residents in Washington County commute to jobs located outside of the county. The Louisville metropolitan area (Clark and Floyd Counties, Indiana, and Jefferson County, Kentucky) is the biggest destination for residents who work outside of Washington County. Thirty-three percent of out-commuters work in counties adjacent to Washington County. While the top three largest work destinations outside of Washington County are in the Louisville metropolitan area, the fourth largest work destination is the Indianapolis (Marion County, Indiana) metropolitan area. 10,621 3,308 County Commuters Proportion Clark, IN 1,470 10.6% Floyd, IN 1,232 8.8% Jefferson, KY 1,149 8.2% Marion, IN 632 4.5% Jackson, IN 462 3.3% section 04 Source: U.S. Census Bureau – Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD)

Commuter shed in 2013 Labor market Sixty-five percent of Washington County’s working residents are employed either in Clark, Floyd, Jackson, Marion, Orange, Scott or Washington Counties in Indiana or Jefferson County in Kentucky. Another 5 percent commute to Harrison or Vanderburgh Counties in Indiana. An additional 5 percent travel to jobs in Allen, Dubois, Lawrence or Monroe Counties in Indiana. Collectively, these 14 counties represent 75 percent of the commuter shed for Washington County. section 04 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OTM, LEHD, PCRD

Labor shed Labor market Same Work/ In-Commuters Home A county’s labor shed is the geographic area from which it draws employees. Thirty-nine percent of individuals working in Washington County commute from another county. Twenty-four percent of in-commuters reside in counties adjacent to Washington County. The top eight sources of workers outside of the county are adjacent counties, four of which (Clark, Floyd, Harrison and Scott Counties in Indiana) are part of the Louisville metropolitan area. 2,114 3,308 County Commuters Proportion Clark, IN 227 4.2% Orange, IN 203 3.7% Harrison, IN 174 3.2% Floyd, IN 170 3.1% Lawrence, IN 166 section 04 Source: U.S. Census Bureau – Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD)

Labor shed in 2013 Labor market The bulk (65 percent) of Washington County’s workforce is drawn from Washington or Clark Counties in Indiana. Another 5 percent is drawn from Orange County in Indiana. An additional 5 percent reside in Harrison County in Indiana. The final 5 percent of employees are from Floyd and Lawrence Counties in Indiana. Combined, these 6 counties represent 80 percent of Washington County’s labor shed. section 04 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OTM, LEHD, PCRD

Takeaways Labor market a sizable loss of human talent that may be 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 of good paying jobs that will help keep these workers in their home county. In light of the labor shed and commuter shed data showing a strong linkage to surrounding counties for jobs and labor, it may make sense for the county to partner with surrounding counties to pursue economic and workforce development strategies at the regional (multi-county) level. The Great Recession that impacted the U.S. economy between 2007 and 2009 took a major toll on Washington County’s labor force participation. While the unemployment rate was quite low in 2000, it increased more than fourfold to 12.2 percent by 2010. Recent figures make it clear that the unemployment rate has improved significantly since that time. In contrast to the increase in the population over the past decade or more, the county’s labor force has fallen since 2002. This may be a natural decline due to an aging population or due to an increase in discouraged workers in the county leaving the labor market because they are unable to find jobs. Approximately three-quarters of Washington County residents in the workforce are gainfully employed outside of the county. This constitutes section 04

OTM (On the Map): OTM, a product of LEHD program, is used in the county snapshot report to develop commuting patterns for a geography from two perspectives: place of residence and place of work. At the highly detailed level of census blocks, some of the data are synthetic to maintain confidentiality of the worker. However, for larger regions mapped at the county level, the commuter shed and labor shed data are fairly reasonable. OTM includes jobs for a worker employed in the reference as well as previous quarter. Hence, job counts are based on two consecutive quarters (six months) measured at the “beginning of a quarter.” OTM data can differ from commuting patterns developed from state annual income tax returns, which asks a question about “county of residence” and “county of work” on January 1 of the tax-year. OTM can also differ from American Community Survey data, which is based on a sample survey of the resident population. YourEconomy.org (YE): YE, an online tool by the Business Dynamics Research Consortium at the University of Wisconsin – Extension, provides data on the employment, sales, and number of establishments at numerous geographic levels in the United States. A major data source for YE is the National Establishment Time Series Database (NETS), an establishment-level database, not a company-level database. This means that each entry is a different physical location, and company-level information must be created by adding the separate establishment components. Notes LAUS (Local Area Unemployment Statistics): LAUS is a U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) program that provides monthly and annual labor force, employment and unemployment data by place of residence at various geographic levels. LAUS utilizes statistical models to estimate data values based on household surveys and employer reports. These estimates are updated annually. Annual county- level LAUS estimates do not include seasonal adjustments. LEHD (Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics): LEHD is a partnership between U.S. Census Bureau and State Department of Workforce Development (DWD) to provide labor market and journey to work data at various geographic levels. LEHD uses Unemployment Insurance earnings data and Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages from DWDs and census administrative records related to individuals and businesses. SAIPE (Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates): SAIPE is a U.S. Census Bureau program that provides annual data estimates of income and poverty statistics at various geographic levels. The estimates are used in the administration of federal and state assistance programs. SAIPE utilizes statistical models to estimate data from sample surveys, census enumerations and administrative records. NETS is an establishment-level database, not a company-level database. This means that each entry is a different physical location, and company-level information must be created by adding the separate establishment components. NETS is compiled from Duns & Bradstreet data by the Business Dynamics Research Consortium at the University of Wisconsin – Extension and is available from youreconomy.org.

Report Contributors This report was prepared by the Purdue Center for Regional Development in partnership with Purdue University Extension. Report Authors Elizabeth Dobis Bo Beaulieu, Ph.D. Data Analysis Indraneel Kumar, Ph.D. Ayoung Kim Report Design Tyler Wright

FOR MORE INFORMATION Please contact PCRD Mann Hall, Suite 266 Purdue University 765-494-7273 pcrd@purdue.edu 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. Purdue Center for Regional Development (PCRD) . . . seeks to pioneer new ideas and strategies that contribute to regional collaboration, innovation and prosperity.