1. DATA SNAPSHOT
Rush County
Data SnapShot Series 1.1 May 2015

2. 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.

3. 01 03 02 04 Table of contents Introduction Economy Demography
Labor Market

4. 01
introduction
Purpose
About Rush County

5. Introduction
Purpose
This document provides information and data about Rush 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.
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

6. About Rush County Introduction County Background Established 1822
Seat
Rushville
Area
408 sq. mi.
Neighboring
Counties
Decatur, IN
Fayette, IN
Franklin, IN
Hancock, IN
Henry, IN
Shelby, IN
section 01

7. 02 demography Population change Population pyramids Race Ethnicity
Educational attainment
Takeaways 02
demography

8. Population change 2000 2010 2013 2020 Total population projections
Demography
Population change
Total population projections
The total population is projected to decrease by 3 percent between and 2020.
2000
2010
2013
2020
The county’s total population decreased by 7 percent between 2000 and 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.
Components of Population Change,
Total Change
-1,632*
Natural Increase
391
International Migration 36
Domestic Migration
-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

9. Demography
Population pyramids Population pyramids are visual representations of the age distribution of the population by gender.
2000
2013
Male
Female
Male
Female
Approximately 50.9 percent of the population was female in 2000 (9,290 people) and that percent remained about the same in 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 Individuals of prime working age 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

10. Demography
Race
2000
The proportion of non-White residents in Rush County stayed the same between 2000 and
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 and The bulk of these losses was due to the out-migration of these individuals to other counties or states.
2013
section 02
Race Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Decennial Census and 2013 Annual Population Estimates

11. 1% 1% Ethnicity Demography
Hispanics
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 92 Hispanics residing in Rush County in This figure expanded to 209 by 2013, a percent increase.
Despite this numeric increase, the proportion of Hispanics in the population is still around one percent. 1%
Hispanics 1%
section 02
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Decennial Census and 2013 Annual Population Estimates

12. Educational attainment
Demography
Educational attainment
Rush County had a 6 percentage point increase in the number of adults (25 and older) with an associate’s, bachelor’s 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 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 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. .
2000
2013
section 02
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Decennial Census and 2013 ACS

13. 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, 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 percentage of adults with a high school education remains sizable (at 49 percent). 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 one in five adult residents of the county have an associate’s, bachelor’s or higher degree, 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

14. 03 economy Establishments Industries Occupations Income and poverty
Takeaways 03
economy

15. 0 1 3 4 Establishments Definition of Company Stages Economy
The number of establishments in Rush County increased 35 percent from to 2011.
The rapid growth of establishments was largely due to natural change. That is, 1,186 establishments were launched in the county between , while 783 closed, resulting in a gain of establishments. There was a small loss of nine 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
Self-employed
2-9 employees
Components of Change for Establishments
Total Change ( )
394
Natural Change (births minus deaths)
403
Net Migration -9 3
10-99
employees
employees 4
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

16. Number of establishments by stage/employment category
Economy
Number of establishments by stage/employment category
2000
2011
Stage
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
Stage 4 1 0% -
Total
1,127
100%
1,521
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

17. Top five employers in 2015 Economy Establishment Stage1.
INTAT Precision*
Stage 3 2.
Copeland Corporation 3.
Rush Memorial Hospital 4.
Fraley & Schilling† 5.
Trane Commercial Systems†
The top five employers primarily produce national and global goods and services.
The INTAT Precision in Rushville is the largest establishment-level employer in Rush County. Many of these employee are represented by the local union branch of the UAW (United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America).
Rush Memorial Hospital is the only top employer in Rush County that produces local goods and services.
Information on the top 5 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.
*This entry combines the INTAT Precision and UAW entries in ReferenceUSA. UAW Local in Rushville, IN is listed online as contracting its employees out to INTAT Precision, so for ease of understanding the two entries were combined. †Fraley & Schilling and Trane Commercial Systems have the same number of employees and are listed alphabetically.
section 03
Source: ReferenceUSA (Infogroup) and Rush County Economic and Community Development Corporation

18. Number of jobs by stage/employment category
Economy
Number of jobs by stage/employment category
2000
2011
Stage
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
Stage 4
1,500
17% -
Total
8,622
100%
7,171
section 03
*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.
Source: National Establishment Time Series (NETS) – 2012 Database

19. Amount of sales (2011 dollars) by stage/employment category
Economy
Amount of sales (2011 dollars) by stage/employment category
2000
2011
Stage
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 -
Total
$967,206,089
100%
$615,113,105
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

20. 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 jobs.
All of the top five industries in Rush County, except Construction, lost jobs between 2002 and Of these, Manufacturing lost the largest proportion (-38.7 percent), followed by Retail Trade (-14.8 percent). Construction experienced a 4.3 percent gain in jobs over the time period.
section 03
Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors

21. Industry distribution and change
Economy
Industry distribution and change
NAICS Code
Description
Jobs 2002
Jobs 2013
Change ( )
% Change ( )
Average Total Earnings 2013 11
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting
745
679
-66
-9%
$32,475 21
Mining, Quarrying, & Oil & Gas Extraction
<10 - 22
Utilities 37 43 6
16%
$102,181 23
Construction
423
441 18 4%
$30,919
31-33
Manufacturing
1,565
960
-605
-39%
$59,867 42
Wholesale Trade
176
186 10 6%
$39,316
44-45
Retail Trade
819
698
-121
-15%
$27,043
48-49
Transportation & Warehousing
306
430
124
41%
$45,952 51
Information 68 48
-20
-29%
$92,933 52
Finance & Insurance
184
193 9 5%
$48,546 53
Real Estate & Rental & Leasing
226 33
17%
$23,750 54
Professional, Scientific & Technical Services
198
199 1 1%
$30,212 55
Management of Companies and Enterprises 40 57 17
43%
$44,242 56
Administrative & Waste Management
149
268
119
80%
$23,253 61
Educational Services (Private) 14 29 15
107%
$10,517 62
Health Care & Social Assistance
594
-288
-48%
$31,321 71
Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 38 59
55%
$25,950 72
Accommodation and Food Services
338
333 -5
-1%
$16,176 81
Other Services (except Public Administration)
420
378
-42
-10%
$17,283 90
Government
1,242
1,161
-81
-7%
$44,469 99
Unclassified Industry 0% $0
All
Total
7,555
6,702
-853
-11%
$37,673
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.
section 03
Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors

22. Industry distribution and change
Economy
Industry distribution and change
The largest percentage gains in employment in Rush County occurred in:
Educational Services, private ( 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)
Employment Increase
Employment Decrease
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)
section 03
Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors

23. Top five occupations in 2013
Economy
Top five occupations in 2013
The top five occupations in Rush County represent 53.4 percent of all jobs.
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 are 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 Production occupations lost the largest proportion (-51.1 percent), followed by Office & Administrative Support occupations (-19.1 percent). Transportation & Material Moving occupations had a 9.6 percent increase in jobs over the time period.
section 03
Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors

24. Occupation distribution and change
Economy
Occupation distribution and change
SOC
Description
Jobs 2002
Jobs 2013
Change ( )
% Change ( )
Hourly Earnings 2013 11
Management
870
780
-90
-10%
$18.17 13
Business & Financial Operations
217
196
-21
$23.31 15
Computer & Mathematical 42 33 -9
-21%
$24.14 17
Architecture & Engineering 83 56
-27
-33%
$26.14 19
Life, Physical & Social Science 20 -3
-15%
$23.48 21
Community & Social Service
145 66
-79
-54%
$18.98 23
Legal 31 28
$33.55 25
Education, Training & Library
318
394 76
24%
$17.70 27
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports & Media
119
106
-13
-11%
$16.61 29
Health Care Practitioners & Technical
303
256
-47
-16%
$25.01
Health Care Support
165
133
-32
-19%
$11.24
Protective Service
139 96
-43
-31%
$16.00 35
Food Preparation & Serving Related
403
382
-5%
$9.58 37
Building & Grounds Cleaning Maintenance
219
255 36
16%
$10.01 39
Personal Care & Service
281
232
-49
-17%
$9.29 41
Sales & Related
812
760
-52
-6%
$13.40 43
Office & Administrative Support
830
697
-133
$14.30 45
Farming, Fishing & Forestry
116
124 8 7%
$13.63 47
Construction & Extraction
369
367 -2
-1%
$15.27 49
Installation, Maintenance & Repair
317
288
-29
-9%
$17.88 51
Production
1,132
749
-383
-34%
$15.90 53
Transportation & Material Moving
539
596 57
11%
$15.78 55
Military 59 -4
-7%
$19.29 99
Unclassified 26 38 12
46%
$20.30
All
Total
7,555
6,702
-853
$15.79
section 03
Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors

25. Occupation distribution and change
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) – – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors

26. Income and poverty Economy 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 Household Income (2013)*
$53,315
$50,621
$46,910
Real Per Capita Income (2013)*
$34,225
$36,402
$43,167
The median household income in Rush County dipped by $6,400 between 2000 and in real dollars (that is, adjusted for inflation), while average income per person rose by $9,000 in real dollars over the same time period.
The total population in poverty increased by 1.6 times between and 2013, but the increase in the number of minors in poverty was larger, nearly doubling from 2000 to
*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

27. Economy
Income and poverty Median household income in Rush County has been on a decline since 2004, although it is now improving. However, per capita income has been increasing since Poverty rates for adults and minors have stabilized over the past two years, although the rates remain high relative to the early 2000s.
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

28. Economy
Takeaways
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 per hour to $20 per hour between 2000 and 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 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 associate’s 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.
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 high- growth 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 While poverty rates for minors and the total population have stabilized since 2010, they remain considerably higher than was the case in
section 03

29. 04 labor market Labor force and unemployment Commuteshed Laborshed
Workforce inflow/outflow
Takeaways 04
labor
market

30. Labor force and unemployment
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 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 (2013 Annual Data Release)

31. Labor market
Unemployment rate Unemployment increased dramatically after 2007, peaking at 10.5 percent in Since that time, the rate has been on a slow but steady decline, dipping to 6.6 percent by 2013.
section 04
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics – Local Area Unemployment Statistics (2013 Annual Data Release)

32. Commuteshed Labor market Same Work/ Out-Commuters Home
A county’s commuteshed is the geographic area to which its resident labor force travels to work.
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.
4,813
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%
section 04
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD)

33. Commuteshed in 2011 Labor market
Seventy percent of Rush County’s working residents are employed either in Decatur, Hancock, Marion, Rush or Shelby Counties. Another 5 percent commute to Henry or Fayette Counties. An additional 5 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

34. Laborshed Labor market Same Work/ In-Commuters Home
A county’s laborshed is the geographic area from which it draws employees.
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.
2,134
1,861
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)

35. Laborshed in 2011 Labor market
The bulk (70 percent) of Rush County’s workforce is drawn from Fayette, Henry, Marion, Rush or Shelby Counties in Indiana. Another 5 percent is drawn from Decatur and Harrison Counties. An additional 5 percent reside in Franklin, Hamilton, and Wayne Counties in Indiana.
Combined, the 10 counties represent 80 percent of Rush County’s laborshed.
section 04
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OTM, LEHD, PCRD

36. Workforce inflow and outflow in 2011
Labor market
Workforce inflow and outflow in 2011
Rush 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 2,679 commuters. The resulting situation is that for every 100 employed residents, Rush County has 60 jobs.
Count
Proportion
Employed in Rush County
3,995
100%
Both employed and living in the county
1,861
47%
Employed in the county but living outside
2,134
53%
Living in Rush County
6,674
Both living and employed in the county
28%
Living in the county but employed outside
4,813
72%
section 04
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OTM, LEHD, PCRD

37. Takeaways Labor market
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.
The Great Recession that impacted the U.S. economy between 2007 and 2009 took a major toll on Rush County’s unemployment rate. While the rate was quite low in 2000, it skyrocketed to over 10 percent by 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 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.
section 04

38. Notes
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 commuteshed and laborshed 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.
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.
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.
NETS (National Establishment Time Series): 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.

39. 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

40. FOR MORE INFORMATION
Please contact
PCRD
Mann Hall, Suite 266
Purdue University
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.