Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Data SnapShot Series 1.1
May 2015
DATA SNAPSHOT
Rush County
2
Hometown Collaboration Initiative
This report has been produced by the Purdue Center for Regional
Development as a part ...
Table of contents
Introduction
01
Demography
02
Economy
03
Labor Market
04
Purpose
About Rush County
01
introduction
5
Purpose
This document provides information
and data about Rush County that
can be used to guide local decision-
making a...
6
About Rush County
Introduction
section 01
County Background
Established 1822
County
Seat
Rushville
Area 408 sq. mi.
Neig...
Population change
Population pyramids
Race
Ethnicity
Educational attainment
Takeaways
02
demograph
y
8
18,261
17,392
17,004
16,551
Population change
Components of Population Change, 2000-
2013
TotalChange -1,632*
Natural In...
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
...
10
White
98%
Other
2%
Black
Asian
Native
Two or More
Races
White
98%
Other
2%
Black
Asian
Native
Two or More
Races
Race
Th...
11
Ethnicity
Hispanics are individuals of any
race whose ancestry is from
Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba,
Spain, the Dominican ...
12
No High
School, 20%
High School,
51%
Some
College,
14%
Associate's
Degree, 4%
Bachelor's
Degree or
More, 10%
No High
Sc...
13
Takeaways
The population of RushCounty is expected to fall
over the next few years, and, if past trends hold,
that decr...
Establishments
Industries
Occupations
Income and poverty
Takeaways
03
economy
15
Establishments
Components of Change for Establishments
Total Change (2000-11) 394
Natural Change (births minus
deaths)
...
16
Number of establishments by
stage/employment category
Economy
Source: National Establishment Time Series (NETS) – 2012 ...
17
Top five employers in 2015
Economy
Source: ReferenceUSA (Infogroup) and Rush County
Economic and Community Development ...
18
Number of jobs by stage/employment
category
Economy
Source: National Establishment Time Series (NETS) – 2012 Database
s...
19
Amount of sales (2011 dollars) by
stage/employment category
Economy
Source: National Establishment Time Series (NETS) –...
20
Government
17.3%
Manufacturing
14.3%
Retail Trade
10.4%
Agriculture,
Forestry, Fishing &
Hunting
10.1%
Construction
6.6...
21
Industry distribution and change
NAICS
Code
Description
Jobs
2002
Jobs
2013
Change
(2002-2013)
% Change
(2002-2013)
Ave...
22
Industry distribution and change
The largest percentage gains in
employment in Rush County
occurred in:
 Educational S...
23
Management
11.6%
Sales & Related
11.3%
Production
11.2%
Office &
Administrative
Support
10.4%
Transportation &
Material...
24
SOC Description
Jobs
2002
Jobs
2013
Change
(2002-2013)
% Change
(2002-2013)
Hourly
Earnings 2013
11 Management 870 780 ...
25
Occupation distribution and change
Economy
Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.3 – QCEW E...
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% 1...
27
0
5
10
15
20
25
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
55,000
PopulationinPoverty(percent)
RealIncome(2013dollars)
Median H...
28
Takeaways
Growth in the number of establishments in Rush
County occurred in businesses having fewer than 10
employees (...
Labor force and
unemployment
Commuteshed
Laborshed
Workforce
inflow/outflow
Takeaways
04
labor
market
30
Labor force and unemployment
2002 2013
Labor Force 9,522 8,891
Unemployment
Rate
4.5% 6.6%
The labor force in Rush Coun...
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 increa...
32
Commuteshed
A county’s commuteshed is the
geographic area to which its
resident labor force travels to work.
Seventy-tw...
33
Commuteshed in 2011
Labor market
section 04
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OTM, LEHD, PCRD
Seventy percent of Rush County’...
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,...
35
Laborshed in 2011
Labor market
section 04
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OTM, LEHD, PCRD
The bulk (70 percent) of Rush
Cou...
36
Workforce inflow and outflow in 2011
Labor market
section 04
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OTM, LEHD, PCRD
Rush County ha...
37
Takeaways
The Great Recession that impacted the U.S.
economy between 2007 and 2009 took a major toll
on RushCounty’s un...
38
Notes
LAUS (Local Area Unemployment Statistics):
LAUS is a U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) program that
provides ...
39
Report Contributors
This report was prepared by the Purdue Center for Regional Development in partnership with
Purdue U...
FOR MORE
INFORMATION
Purdue Center for Regional Development
(PCRD) . . .
seeks to pioneer new ideas and strategies that co...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Rush County SnapShot

467 views

Published on

PCRD Data Snapshot

Published in: Data & Analytics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Rush County SnapShot

  1. 1. Data SnapShot Series 1.1 May 2015 DATA SNAPSHOT Rush County
  2. 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. 3. Table of contents Introduction 01 Demography 02 Economy 03 Labor Market 04
  4. 4. Purpose About Rush County 01 introduction
  5. 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. 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. 7. Population change Population pyramids Race Ethnicity Educational attainment Takeaways 02 demograph y
  8. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 14. Establishments Industries Occupations Income and poverty Takeaways 03 economy
  15. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 29. Labor force and unemployment Commuteshed Laborshed Workforce inflow/outflow Takeaways 04 labor market
  30. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

×