1. Data SnapShot Series 1.0 March 2015 DATA SNAPSHOT Rush County

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

4. ​ Purpose ​ About Rush County 01 introduction

5. 5 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. Introduction section 01

6. 6 About Rush County Introduction section 01 County Background Established1822 County Seat Rushville Area408 sq. mi. Neighboring Counties Decatur, IN Fayette, IN Franklin, IN Hancock, IN Henry, IN Shelby, IN

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

8. 8 Population change Components of Population Change, 2000-2013 Total Change-1,632* Natural Increase391 International Migration36 Domestic Migration-1,945 The total population is projected to decrease by 3 percent between 2013 and 2020. Demography ​ Sources: STATSIndiana, U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Decennial Census, 2010 Decennial Census, 2013 Estimates, Estimates of the Components of Resident Population Change section 02 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. Total population projections 2000201020132020 *Total change in population differs from the sum of the components due to Census estimation techniques. Residuals (not reported here) make up the difference.

9. 9 Population pyramids Population pyramids are visual representations of the age distribution of the population by gender. 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. Demography ​ Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Decennial Census and 2013 Annual Population Estimates section 02 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. Male Female 20132000 Male Female

10. 10 Race 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. Demography ​ Race Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Decennial Census and 2013 Annual Population Estimates section 02 2000 2013

11. 11 Ethnicity 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 2000. This figure expanded to 209 by 2013, a 127.2 percent increase. Despite this numeric increase, the proportion of Hispanics in the population is still around one percent. Demography ​ Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Decennial Census and 2013 Annual Population Estimates section 02 1%1% 1%1% Hispanics - 2000 Hispanics - 2013

12. 12 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.. Demography ​ Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Decennial Census and 2013 ACS section 02 2000 2013

13. 13 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. Demography section 02

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

15. 15 Establishments Components of Change for Establishments Total Change (2000-11) 394 Natural Change (births minus deaths) 403 Net Migration -9 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. Economy ​ Source: National Establishment Time Series (NETS) – 2012 Database section 03 An establishment is a physical business location. Branches, standalones and headquarters are all considered types of establishments. Definition of Company Stages 0 1 2 3 4 Self- employed 2-9 employees 10-99 employees 100-499 employees 500+ employees 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.

16. 16 Number of establishments by stage/employment category Economy ​ Source: National Establishment Time Series (NETS) – 2012 Database section 03 20002011 StageEstablishmentsProportionEstablishmentsProportion Stage 0 42037%57638% Stage 1 58152%83054% Stage 2 11310%1067% Stage 3 121%9 Stage 4 10%-- Total 1,127100%1,521100% Note: The 2011 figures use 2012 data to include all gains and losses over the entire year. 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.

17. 17 Number of jobs by stage/employment category Economy ​ Source: National Establishment Time Series (NETS) – 2012 Database section 03 20002011 StageJobs*ProportionJobs*Proportion Stage 0 4205%5768% Stage 1 1,97023%2,43834% Stage 2 2,50929%2,47535% Stage 3 2,22326%1,68223% Stage 4 1,50017%-- Total 8,622100%7,171100% Note: The 2011 figures use 2012 data to include all gains and losses over the entire year. * Includes both full-time and part-time jobs

18. 18 Amount of sales (2011 dollars) by stage/employment category Economy ​ Source: National Establishment Time Series (NETS) – 2012 Database section 03 20002011 StageSalesProportionSalesProportion Stage 0 $53,704,0856%$40,530,4937% Stage 1 $264,402,70027%$197,685,02332% Stage 2 $288,845,44130%$170,134,28928% Stage 3 $299,062,82731%$206,763,30033% Stage 4 $61,191,0376%-- Total $967,206,089100%$615,113,105100% Note: The 2011 figures use 2012 data to include all gains and losses over the entire year.

19. 19 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. Economy ​ Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.3 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors section 03

20. 20 Industry distribution and change NAICS Code Description Jobs 2002 Jobs 2013 Change (2002-2013) % Change (2002-2013) Earnings 2013 11Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 745679-66-9%$32,475 21Mining, Quarrying, & Oil & Gas Extraction <10 --- 22Utilities 3743616%$102,181 23Construction 423441184%$30,919 31-33Manufacturing 1,565960-605-39%$59,867 42Wholesale Trade 176186106%$39,316 44-45Retail Trade 819698-121-15%$27,043 48-49Transportation & Warehousing 30643012441%$45,952 51Information 6848-20-29%$92,933 52Finance & Insurance 18419395%$48,546 53Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 1932263317%$23,750 54Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 19819911%$30,212 55Management of Companies and Enterprises 40571743%$44,242 56Administrative & Waste Management 14926811980%$23,253 61Educational Services (Private) 142915107%$10,517 62Health Care & Social Assistance 594306-288-48%$31,321 71Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 38592155%$25,950 72Accommodation and Food Services 338333-5-1%$16,176 81Other Services (except Public Administration) 420378-42-10%$17,283 90Government 1,2421,161-81-7%$44,469 99Unclassified Industry 0000%$0 AllTotal 7,5556,702-853-11%$37,673 Economy ​ Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.3 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors section 03 Note: Industries and occupations with a value of <10 have insufficient data for change and earnings calculations.

21. 21 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) Economy ​ Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.3 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors section 03 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)

22. 22 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 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. Economy ​ Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.3 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors section 03

23. 23 SOCDescription Jobs 2002 Jobs 2013 Change (2002-2013) % Change (2002-2013) Hourly Earnings 2013 11Management 870780-90-10%$18.17 13Business & Financial Operations 217196-21-10%$23.31 15Computer & Mathematical 4233-9-21%$24.14 17Architecture & Engineering 8356-27-33%$26.14 19Life, Physical & Social Science 2017-3-15%$23.48 21Community & Social Service 14566-79-54%$18.98 23Legal 3128-3-10%$33.55 25Education, Training & Library 3183947624%$17.70 27Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports & Media 119106-13-11%$16.61 29Health Care Practitioners & Technical 303256-47-16%$25.01 31Health Care Support 165133-32-19%$11.24 33Protective Service 13996-43-31%$16.00 35Food Preparation & Serving Related 403382-21-5%$9.58 37Building & Grounds Cleaning Maintenance 2192553616%$10.01 39Personal Care & Service 281232-49-17%$9.29 41Sales & Related 812760-52-6%$13.40 43Office & Administrative Support 830697-133-16%$14.30 45Farming, Fishing & Forestry 11612487%$13.63 47Construction & Extraction 369367-2-1%$15.27 49Installation, Maintenance & Repair 317288-29-9%$17.88 51Production 1,132749-383-34%$15.90 53Transportation & Material Moving 5395965711%$15.78 55Military 5955-4-7%$19.29 99Unclassified 26381246%$20.30 AllTotal 7,5556,702-853-11%$15.79 Occupation distribution and change Economy ​ Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.3 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors section 03 Note: Industries and occupations with a value of <10 have insufficient data for change and earnings calculations.

24. 24 Occupation distribution and change Economy ​ Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.3 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors section 03 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

25. 25 Income and poverty 200020062013 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. Economy ​ Source: U.S. Census Bureau – Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) section 03

26. 26 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. Economy ​ Source: U.S. Census Bureau – Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) section 03

27. 27 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 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 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. Economy section 03

28. ​ Labor force and unemployment ​ Commuteshed ​ Laborshed ​ Takeaways 04 labor market

29. 29 Labor force and unemployment 20022013 Labor Force 9,5228,891 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. Labor market ​ Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics – Local Area Unemployment Statistics section 04

30. 30 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. Labor market ​ Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics – Local Area Unemployment Statistics section 04

31. 31 Commuteshed 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. Labor market ​ Source: U.S. Census Bureau – Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) section 04 4,813 Out-Commuters 1,861 Same Work/ Home CommutersProportion Marion, IN 94214.1% Shelby, IN 83512.5% Decatur, IN 4636.9% Hancock, IN 3925.9% Henry, IN 2433.6%

32. 32 Commuteshed in 2011 Labor market section 04 ​ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OTM, LEHD, PCRD 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.

33. 33 Laborshed CommutersProportion Fayette, IN 3438.6% Henry, IN 2215.5% Shelby, IN 1483.7% Marion, IN 1363.4% Decatur, IN 1193.0% Labor market ​ Source: U.S. Census Bureau – Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) section 04 2,134 In-Commuters 1,861 Same Work/ 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.

34. 34 Laborshed in 2011 Labor market section 04 ​ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OTM, LEHD, PCRD 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.

35. 35 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. Labor market section 04

36. 36 Report Contributors This report was prepared by the Purdue Center for Regional Development in partnership with Purdue University Extension. section 04 Data Analysis Indraneel Kumar, PhD Ayoung Kim Report Authors Elizabeth Dobis Bo Beaulieu, PhD Report Design Tyler Wright

37. ​ FOR MORE INFORMATION Purdue Center for Regional Development (PCRD)... seeks to pioneer new ideas and strategies that contribute to regional collaboration, innovation and prosperity. 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 pcrd@purdue.edu