PCRD Data Snapshot

1. Data SnapShot Series 1.1
May 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
Established 1822
County
Seat
Rushville
Area 408 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
demograph
y

8. 8
18,261
17,392
17,004
16,551
Population change
Components of Population Change, 2000-
2013
TotalChange -1,632*
Natural Increase 391
International Migration 36
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
2000 2010 2013 2020
*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
6.0%
7.1%
5.4%
5.5%
7.1%
7.8%
5.3%
3.4%
1.7%
5.8%
6.9%
5.4%
5.5%
6.6%
7.7%
5.8%
4.0%
2.9%
9 6 3 0 3 6 9
0-9
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80+
Percent of Total PopulationAgeCohort
7.7%
7.3%
5.8%
7.3%
7.6%
5.4%
3.9%
2.9%
1.3%
7.0%
7.1%
5.5%
7.4%
7.4%
5.4%
4.4%
4.0%
2.8%
9 6 3 0 3 6 9
0-9
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80+
Percent of Total Population
AgeCohort
Population pyramids
Population pyramids are visual representations of the age distribution of the population by
gender.
Approximately 50.9 percent 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
White
98%
Other
2%
Black
Asian
Native
Two or More
Races
White
98%
Other
2%
Black
Asian
Native
Two or More
Races
Race
The proportion of non-White
residents in Rush County stayed
the same between 2000 and 2013.
Every race exceptWhite andAsian
experienced a numerical increase. Of the
non-White races, the Black population
gained the most (+52). On the other
hand, theWhite population decreased
by 1,317 residents between 2000 and
2013.The bulk of these losses was due to
the out-migration 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
RushCounty 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%
Hispanics - 2000
Hispanics - 2013

12. 12
No High
School, 20%
High School,
51%
Some
College,
14%
Associate's
Degree, 4%
Bachelor's
Degree or
More, 10%
No High
School, 13%
High School,
49%
Some
College,
18%
Associate's
Degree, 5%
Bachelor's
Degree or
More, 15%
Educational attainment
RushCounty 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 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 RushCounty 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 RushCounty’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 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.
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 percent 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 nine 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
2000 2011
Stage 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% - -
Total 1,127 100% 1,521 100%
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
Top five employers in 2015
Economy
Source: ReferenceUSA (Infogroup) and Rush County
Economic and Community Development Corporation
section 03
Establishment Stage
1. INTAT Precision* Stage 3
2. Copeland Corporation Stage 3
3. Rush Memorial Hospital Stage 3
4. Fraley & Schilling† Stage 3
5. Trane Commercial Systems† Stage 3
The top five employers primarily
produce national and global goods and
services.
The INTAT Precision in Rushville is the largest
establishment-level employer in RushCounty.
Many of these employee are represented by
the local union branch of the UAW (United
Automobile, Aerospace andAgricultural
ImplementWorkers of America).
Rush Memorial Hospital is the only top
employer in RushCounty 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
2339 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.

18. 18
Number of jobs by stage/employment
category
Economy
Source: National Establishment Time Series (NETS) – 2012 Database
section 03
2000 2011
Stage 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%
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

19. 19
Amount of sales (2011 dollars) by
stage/employment category
Economy
Source: National Establishment Time Series (NETS) – 2012 Database
section 03
2000 2011
Stage 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%
Note: The 2011 figures use 2012 data to include all gains and losses over the entire year.

20. 20
Government
17.3%
Manufacturing
14.3%
Retail Trade
10.4%
Agriculture,
Forestry, Fishing &
Hunting
10.1%
Construction
6.6%
All Other
Industries
41.2%
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 percent), followed by
RetailTrade (-14.8 percent).
Construction experienced a 4.3 percent
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

21. 21
Industry distribution and change
NAICS
Code
Description
Jobs
2002
Jobs
2013
Change
(2002-2013)
% Change
(2002-2013)
Average Total
Earnings
2013
11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 745 679 -66 -9% $32,475
21 Mining, Quarrying, & Oil & Gas Extraction <10 <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 193 226 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 594 306 -288 -48% $31,321
71 Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 38 59 21 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 0 0% $0
All Total 7,555 6,702 -853 -11% $37,673
Economy
Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.3 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors
section 03Note: 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.

22. 22
Industry distribution and change
The largest percentage gains in
employment in Rush County
occurred in:
 Educational Services, private (+107.1
percent)
 Administrative andWaste
Management Services (+79.9
percent)
The largest percentage losses in
employment occurred in:
 Health Care and SocialAssistance
(-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)
HealthCare & Social
Assistance
(-288)
RetailTrade
(-121)

23. 23
Management
11.6%
Sales & Related
11.3%
Production
11.2%
Office &
Administrative
Support
10.4%
Transportation &
Material Moving
8.9%
All Other
Occupations
46.6%
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 RushCounty
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,
exceptTransportation & Material Moving,
had a decrease in jobs between 2002 and
2013. 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.
Economy
Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.3 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors
section 03

24. 24
SOC Description
Jobs
2002
Jobs
2013
Change
(2002-2013)
% Change
(2002-2013)
Hourly
Earnings 2013
11 Management 870 780 -90 -10% $18.17
13 Business & Financial Operations 217 196 -21 -10% $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 17 -3 -15% $23.48
21 Community & Social Service 145 66 -79 -54% $18.98
23 Legal 31 28 -3 -10% $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
31 Health Care Support 165 133 -32 -19% $11.24
33 Protective Service 139 96 -43 -31% $16.00
35 Food Preparation & Serving Related 403 382 -21 -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 -16% $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 55 -4 -7% $19.29
99 Unclassified 26 38 12 46% $20.30
All Total 7,555 6,702 -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

25. 25
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

26. 26
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 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 2013
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 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) and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis – Regional Personal Income Summary
section 03
*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.

27. 27
0
5
10
15
20
25
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
55,000
PopulationinPoverty(percent)
RealIncome(2013dollars)
Median Household
Income Minors in Poverty
All Ages in
Poverty Per Capita
Income
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 2002. 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) and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis – Regional Personal Income Summary
section 03

28. 28
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.
RushCounty 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 per hour to $20
per 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
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.
Economy
section 03

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

30. 30
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.
Labor market
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics – Local Area Unemployment Statistics (2013 Annual Data Release)
section 04

31. 31
2.5%
4.9%
4.5%
10.5%
6.6%
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
UnemploymentRate(percent)
Unemployment rate
Unemployment increased dramatically after 2007, peaking at 10.5 percent in 2009. Since
that time, the rate has been on a slow but steady decline, dipping to 6.6 percent by 2013.
Labor market
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics – Local Area Unemployment Statistics (2013 Annual Data Release)
section 04

32. 32
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 RushCounty 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
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%

33. 33
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 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.

34. 34
Laborshed
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%
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 RushCounty
(Shelby and Marion Counties) are in the
Indianapolis metropolitan area.

35. 35
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 5 percent is drawn from
Decatur and Harrison Counties.
An additional 5 percent reside in
Franklin, Hamilton, andWayne
Counties in Indiana.
Combined, the 10 counties
represent 80 percent of Rush
County’s laborshed.

36. 36
Workforce inflow and outflow in 2011
Labor market
section 04
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OTM, LEHD, PCRD
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
Proportio
n
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 6,674 100%
Both living and employed
in the county
1,861 28%
Living in the county but
employed outside
4,813 72%

37. 37
Takeaways
The Great Recession that impacted the U.S.
economy between 2007 and 2009 took a major toll
on RushCounty’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 RushCounty’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

38. 38
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.
NETS (National EstablishmentTime 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.
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 (SmallArea 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.

39. 39
Report Contributors
This report was prepared by the Purdue Center for Regional Development in partnership with
Purdue University Extension.
Data Analysis
Indraneel Kumar, Ph.D.
Ayoung Kim
Report Authors
Elizabeth Dobis
Bo Beaulieu, Ph.D.
Report Design
Tyler Wright
Purdue University is an equal access/equal opportunity institution.

40. 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
1341 Northwestern Avenue
West Lafayette, IN 47906
765-494-7273
pcrd@purdue.edu