The document provides demographic, economic, and labor market data for Anderson County. Some key points: - The county's population decreased slightly from 2010-2015 due mostly to domestic out-migration. - Educational attainment has increased while the population has gotten older and more diverse. - The number of establishments increased slightly, with growth in medium-sized businesses. The accommodation/food services industry saw the largest growth. - The top five industries employ 70% of workers, led by healthcare/social assistance. Construction and accommodation/food saw job gains while transportation lost jobs. - Office/administrative and sales occupations make up the largest shares of jobs.

1. August 2017
COUNTY PROFILE
Anderson County

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

3. Purpose
About Anderson County
01
introduction

4. 4
Purpose
This document provides information
and data about Anderson 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

5. 5
About Anderson County
Introduction
section 01
County Background
Established 1846
County
Seat
Palestine
Area 1,078 sq. mi.
Neighboring
Counties
Henderson
Smith
Cherokee
Houston
Leon
Freestone
Navarro

6. Population change
Population pyramids
Race
Ethnicity
Educational attainment
Takeaways
02
demograph
y

7. 7
Population change
Components of Population Change, 2010-
2016
Total Change -724
Natural Increase -299
International Migration 47
Domestic Migration -388
The total population is
projected to increase
by 4.25% between
2015 and 2020.
Demography
Sources:, U.S. Census Bureau – 2010 Decennial Census, 2015 Estimates, Estimates of the Components of Resident Population Change (PEPTCOMP)
section 02
The total population decreased by 1.24 percent between
2010 and 2015. The major contributor to that decrease
was natural increase/decrease (births minus deaths over
that span of time) with a net loss of 272 persons.
Data on domestic migration (the difference between the
number of people moving out of the county versus
moving in) shows that out-migration outpaced in-
migration by 388 people. On the other hand,
international migration had a net increase of 47,
indicating that the county experienced a growth of new
people from outside the U.S.
55,061
58,458 57,734
60,186
2020201520102000
Total population
projections

8. 8
Population Pyramids
Population pyramids are visual representations of the age distribution of the population by
gender.
The male to female ratio of the population did not change
dramatically between 2010 and 2015, nor did the
distribution of people across the various age categories.
Demography
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2010 Decennial Census and 2015 Annual Population Estimates
section 02
The percent of people under 50 years old has decreased for
both males and females over the 2010 to 2015 period.Also,
the number of 50 and over now stands over 11,000 people
(about 19 percent of the population, up from 17.3 percent in
2010).
Male Female
20152010
Male Female
[CELLRANGE
]
[CELLRANGE
]
[CELLRANGE
]
[CELLRANGE
]
[CELLRANGE
]
[CELLRANGE
]
[CELLRANGE
]
[CELLRANGE
]
[CELLRANGE
]
5.2
4.7
4.5
4.5
4.7
5.2
5.0
2.6
2.2
15 10 5 0 5 10
00-09
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80+
Percent of the Population
AgeCohort
[CELLRANGE
]
[CELLRANGE
]
[CELLRANGE
]
[CELLRANGE
]
[CELLRANGE
]
[CELLRANGE
]
[CELLRANGE
]
[CELLRANGE
]
[CELLRANGE
]
5.2
6.0
4.6
4.7
5.4
5.2
4.5
2.5
2.2
15 10 5 0 5 10
00-09
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80+
Percent of the Population
AgeCohort

9. 9
Race
The number of non-White
residents in Anderson County
decreased by 4 percentage
points between 2010 and 2015.
While every race other thanWhite
experienced a numerical decrease,
the population Native
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander lost the
most people, decreasing from 0.7
percent to 0.02 percent of the total
population between 2010 and 2015.
Demography
Race Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2010 Decennial Census and 2015 ACS
section 02
White
72%
Other
28%
2010
Black
Asian
Native
Other
Mixed
White
76%
Other
24%
2015
Black
Asian
Native
Other
Mixed

10. 10
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 8,783 residing in
Anderson County in 2010.This
figure expanded to 9,749 by 2015, a
11.0 percent increase.
As a result, Hispanics now make up
17 percent of the overall population
(versus 15 percent in 2010).
Demography
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2010 Decennial Census and 2015 ACS
section 02
17%
15%
Hispanics - 2010
Hispanics - 2015

11. 11
Educational Attainment
Demography
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2010 Decennial Census and 2015 ACS
section 02
21%
38%
25%
16%
No High School
High School
Some College
College
2015
26%
37%
21%
16%
No High School
High School
Some College
College
2010
Educational attainment for adults 18
years of age and older in Anderson
County is increasing.
The proportion of adults (18 years of age
and older) with a high school education or
more improved from 74 percent in 2010 to
79 percent by 2015.
The percentage with less than a high
school education fell by 5 percent
between 2010 and 2015 (from 26 percent
to 21 percent). On the other hand, those
with some college education grew from 21
percent to 25 percent.
The number of adults with a bachelor’s
degree or more has stayed at 16 percent
from 2010 to 2015.

12. 12
Takeaways
The population of Anderson County is expected
to grow modestly over the next few years, and if
past trends hold, that increase will be slow,
largely due to low natural increase (more births
than deaths).
While Anderson County’s population has
decreased over the 2010 to 2015 period, it has
also been aging. In addition, its population has
declined by nearly 400 people due to domestic
out-migration, suggesting that young individuals
and those of prime working age (20-39 years of
age) are moving out of the county at a faster pace
than they are moving in.
The educational level of the population has
increased and the county has become more diverse
by race and ethnicity since 2010.
In order to achieve a balanced ratio of
working-age individuals and dependents
(minors and elderly), Anderson County
should explore what mix of services and
amenities will retain and attract educated
young adults.
Demography
section 02

13. Establishments
Industries
Occupations
Income and poverty
Takeaways
03
economy

14. 14
Establishments
Components of Change (2010 to 2015)
Num. of Establishments
Net Change:
% of Change:
7
0.75 %
Paid Employees
Net Change:
% of Change:
485
4.12 %
Annual Payroll ($1,000)
Net Change:
% of Change:
60,829
13.57 %
Economy
Source: American FactFinder – 2015 County Business Patterns
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 41-4
employees
Establishments
by Stage
2010 2015
Net
Chang
e
% of Change
0 0 0 0 0.0%
1 0 0 0 0.0%
2 32 32 0 0.0%
3 301 253 -48 -15.9%
4 565 646 81 14.3%
The number of establishments in Anderson County
have slightly increased between 2010 and 2015.
Industries 2010 2015 Net Change
% of
Change
Accommodation
and food services
54 75 21 38.9 %
Construction 63 71 8 12.7 %
Real estate and
rental and leasing
37 42 5 13.5 %
Educational
services
5 6 1 20.0 %
Management of
companies and
enterprises
4 6 2 50.0 %
Industries that experienced increment
(by number of establishments, 2010 - 2015)
5-9
employees
10-99
employees
100-499
employees
500+
employees
The increase in the number of establishments, particularly
medium-scale establishments, has been followed by a reduction of
small and local businesses. The growth of medium-scale
establishments has also represented an increment in the number
of jobs in general of 4%. The largest increase in the number of
establishments has been in the Accommodation and Food Services
industry, with a change rate in the considered period of
approximately 40%.

15. 15
54
63
37
5
4
75
71
42
6
6
ACCOMMODATION
AND FOOD
SERVICES
CONSTRUCTION REAL ESTATE AND
RENTAL AND
LEASING
EDUCATIONAL
SERVICES
MANAGEMENT OF
COMPANIES AND
ENTERPRISES
ESTABLISHMENT INCREASE BY INDUSTRY
(2010 – 2015 COUNTY BUSINESS PATTERNS)
2010 2015
section 03
Source: American FactFinder – 2015 County Business Patterns
Economy
2010 2015
Net
Change
% of
Change
Population 58,353 57,734 -419 -0.72
Median
Family
Income
52,235 50,978 -1,257 -2.41
Median
Household
Income
40,378 41,327 949 2.35
Per Capita
Income 17,465 17,876 411 2.35
In the considered period, there is an increment on establishments of the top five
industries, although a reported slightly reduction in the total number of
employments. On the other hand, it has experienced a somewhat increase in per
capita income in the same period. The largest increase in the number of
establishments has been in the Accommodation and Food Services industry, with a
change rate in the considered period of approximately 40%.

16. 16
ESTABLISHMENT ANNUAL PAYROLL INCREASE BY INDUSTRY
(2010 – 2015 COUNTY BUSINESS PATTERNS)
$0.00
$20,000.00
$40,000.00
$60,000.00
$80,000.00
$100,000.00
2010 2015
section 03
Source: American FactFinder – 2015 County Business Patterns
Economy
The increase in the number of establishments by industry has been concentrated in
the medium-scale establishments (establishments with 10 and up to 99 employees).
This pattern seems to be compatible with the increase in annual payroll of
establishments by industry itself. The highest increase in annual payroll has been in
the Health care and social assistance, Retail trade and Construction industries at
least in the considered period (2010 - 2015).

17. 17
Number of establishments by
stage/employment category
Economy
Source: American FactFinder – 2015 County Business Patterns
section 03
Stage Establishments Proportion Establishments Proportion
Stage 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Stage 1 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Stage 2 32 3.6% 32 3.4%
Stage 3 301 33.5% 253 27.2%
Stage 4 565 62.9% 646 69.4%
Total 924 100% 931 100%
20152010

18. 18
Top five industries in 2015
70 percent of jobs are tied to
one of the top five industries in
Anderson County
Health Care & Social Assistance is the
largest industry sector (2,225 jobs).
Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas
extraction is the smallest of the top
industry sectors with 832 jobs.
Economy
section 03
Education/Healthcare
/Social Assistance,
Transportation and
warehousing,
17.32%
Retail trade,
16.86%
Accommodation
and food services,
10.16%
Mining, quarrying,
and oil and gas
extraction,
7.06%
All
Other,
Source: American FactFinder – 2015 County Business Patterns

19. 19
Industry distribution and change
NAICS Code Description Jobs 2015 % Change (2010-2015)
Median
Earnings 2015
11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 11 0.00 % $ 16,841
21 Mining, Quarrying and Oil and Gas Extraction 832 -3.93 % $ 48,045
22 Utilities 93 9.41 % $ 37,500
23 Construction 698 125.89 % $ 28,089
31-33 Manufacturing 344 17.01 % $ 31,674
42 Wholesale Trade 520 6.12 % $ 41,976
44-45 Retail Trade 1,987 0.86 % $ 19,646
48-49 Transportation and Warehousing 2,041 -12.10 % $ 49,375
51 Information 108 -26.53 % $ 65,491
52 Finance and Insurance 296 -19.13 % $ 26,402
53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 150 7.14 % $ 24,514
54 Professional, Scientific and Technical Services 204 -10.53 % $ 41,492
55 Management of Companies and Enterprises 43 -4.44 % -
56 Administrative and Waste Management 337 -37.94 % $ 17,570
61 Educational Services (Private) 33 32.00 % $ 38,387
62 Health Care and Social Assistance 2,225 8.80 % $ 23,457
71 Arts, Entertainment and Recreation 138 -8.61 % $ 25,781
72 Accommodation and Food Services 1,198 25.05 % $ 10,403
81 Other Services (except Public Administration) 528 -8.97 % $ 16,835
99 Unclassified Industry 1 -50.0 % -
All Total 11,787 -
Economy
Source: American FactFinder – 2015 County Business Patterns
section 03

20. 20
Industry distribution and change
The largest employment gains in
Anderson County occurred in:
 Accommodation and food services
(+10.2 percent)
 Construction (+5.9 percent)
The largest employment losses
occurred in:
 Transportation &Warehousing (-
17.3 percent)
 Administrative /Waste Mgmt.
(-2.8 percent)
 Finance & Insurance (-2.5 percent)
Economy
section 03
Employment Increase Employment Decrease
Changes in the top five industry sectors
(2010-2015):
Accommodation &
Food Services
Construction
Finance &
Insurance
Administrative /
Waste Mgmt.
Transportation &
Warehousing
Source: American FactFinder – 2015 County Business Patterns

21. 21
Top five occupations in 2015
The top five occupations in
Anderson County represent
47.3 percent of all jobs.
Office andAdministrative Support and
Sales and Related are the occupations
with the largest number of workers.
Production occupations is the smallest of
the top five occupations in the county (7
percent of jobs).
Economy
Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2013.2 Complete Employment
section 03
Educational
services, and
health care and
social
assistance
22%
Retail trade
17%
Public
administration
12%
Agriculture,
forestry,
fishing and
hunting, and
mining
9%
Construction
7%
All Other
33%

22. 22
SOC Description Jobs 2014 % Change (2010-2014) Median Earnings 2014
11 Management 1,284 5.2% $65,333
13 Business and Financial Operations 418 60.2% $39,815
15 Computer and Mathematical 96 108.7% $45,500
17 Architecture and Engineering 96 -51.8% $75,625
19 Life, Physical and Social Science 62 -11.4% $39,821
21 Community and Social Service 453 30.5% $34,801
23 Legal 281 16.6% $50,647
25 Education, Training and Library 1,099 1.9% $41,384
27 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports and Media 17 -87.2% $4,432
29 Health Care Practitioners and Technical 866 -9.7% $51,300
31 Health Care Support 1,033 47.2% $17,067
33 Protective Service 2,050 8.2% $33,626
35 Food Preparation and Serving Related 795 -13.9% $9,967
37 Building and Grounds Cleaning Maintenance 954 16.6% $14,476
39 Personal Care and Service 516 1.6% $14,087
41 Sales and Related 1,826 -6.3% $22,642
43 Office and Administrative Support 2,818 -2.5% $25,056
45 Farming, Fishing and Forestry 177 7.3% $16,892
47 Construction and Extraction 1,629 -4.5% $31,984
49 Installation, Maintenance and Repair 1,048 10.9% $38,547
51 Production 729 -17.2% $28,838
53 Transportation and Material Moving 1,877 21.9% $31,740
All Total 20,147 100% $18.91
Occupation distribution and change
Economy
Source: American Factfinder - S2401: OCCUPATION BY SEX AND MEDIAN EARNINGS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2014 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) FOR THE CIVILIAN EMPLOYED POPULATION 16 YEARS AND
OVER
section 03

23. 23
Occupation distribution and change
Economy
section 03
The largest percentage gains in
jobs, for the considered period,
in Anderson County occurred in:
 Computer & Mathematical
Occupations (+108.7%)
 Business & FinancialOperations
Occupations (+60.2 %)
The largest percentage loss in
employment, in the same
period, occurred in:
 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports
and Media occupations (-87.2 %)
 Architecture & Engineering
Occupations (-51.8 %)
 Production Occupations (-17.2 %)
Changes in the top five occupations (2010-2014):
Computer &
Mathematical
Occupations
Business &
Financial
Operations
Occupations
Production
Occupations
Architecture &
Engineering Occupations
Arts, Design,
Entertainment, Sports
and Media
Occupations
Employment Increase Employment Decrease
Source: American Factfinder - S2401: OCCUPATION BY SEX AND MEDIAN EARNINGS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2014 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) FOR THE CIVILIAN EMPLOYED POPULATION 16 YEARS AND
OVER

24. 24
Income and poverty
2010 2013 2015
Total Population in
Poverty
16.2% 17.0% 15.9%
Minors (up to age 17) in
Poverty
5.3% 5.3% 5.1%
Median Household
Income
$40,482 $41,279 $43,062
The median income in
Anderson County rose by 6.4%
between 2010 and 2015.
The total population in poverty
decreased as well as the number of
minors in poverty.
The number of minors in poverty
decreased -3.8% between 2010
and 2015.
Economy
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE)
section 03

25. 25
Income and poverty
Economy
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE)
section 03
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
55,000
60,000
POVERTY(POP.0-17)
MEDIANHOUSEHOLDINCOME
Median Income
Minors in Poverty
All Ages in
Poverty
Median income in Anderson County has slightly increased in recent years,
while poverty has also decreased, almost in the same proportion.

26. 26
Takeaways
The growth of establishments in Anderson
County were in businesses having from 10
up to 99 employees, while experienced a
reduction on establishments having 1 to 9
employees. So, focusing on the needs of
Stage 0 and Stage 2 establishments may be
worthwhile.
The accommodation and food services industry,
construction, real estate and renting,
management, educational services and
managements industries are the employment
growth areas for Anderson County in the
considered period.These are industries and
occupations that demand workers with varying
educational levels.
Median income has increased, however poverty has
just slightly decreased inAnderson County since
2010.
Anderson County might focus on policies and
programs that strengthen high-growth Stage 2
firms since they employ several people and capture
sizable sales.
Promoting job growth for occupations requiring
educated workers could help retain adults with
higher educational attainment and help increase
median income.
Services targeted to poverty-stricken individuals
should be still considered, given that its reduction
rate has not been significant, especially among
population under 18 years old.
Economy
section 03

27. Labor force and
unemployment
Laborshed
Commuteshed
Takeaways
04
labor
market

28. 28
Labor Force and Unemployment
2010 2015
Labor Force 21,004 20,755
Unemployment
Rate
7.0% 4.3%
The labor force in Anderson County
decreased by 1.2 percent between
2010 and 2015.
This decrease is likely driven by falling
labor force participation.A smaller
proportion of Americans are working or
looking for work now than at any point
since 1977. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.)
Labor market
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – American FactFinder – Employment Status 2011-2015- ACS 5-YE
section 04

29. 29
Unemployment Rate
Between 2010 and 2015, the unemployment rate in Anderson County peaked at 7.4 percent
in 2011.
Labor market
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics – Local Area Unemployment Statistics
section 04
2010,
7.0%
2011,
7.4%
2012,
7.0%
2013,
7.3%
2014,
5.5%
2015,
4.3%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

30. 30
Commuteshed
A county’s commuteshed is the
geographic area to which its
work force travels to work.
In 2014, thirty percent of employed
residents inAnderson County
commute to jobs located outside of
Anderson County.
The top five commuteshed counties
inTexas for Anderson County
residents who work outside of the
county are Dallas County, Smith
County, Harris County,Tarrant
County, and Cherokee County.
Labor market
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD)
section 04
11,244
Out-Commuters
6,128
Same Work/
Home
Commuters Proportion
Dallas,TX 1,769 10.2%
Smith,TX 1,408 8.1%
Harris,TX 769 4.4%
Tarrant,TX 685 3.9%
Cherokee, TX 623 3.6%

31. 31
Laborshed
Commuters Proportion
Smith,TX 1,408 8.1%
Cherokee, TX 623 3.6%
Henderson,TX 525 3.0%
Gregg,TX 343 2.0%
Houston,TX 309 1.8%
Labor market
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD)
section 04
7,741
In-Commuters
6,128
Same Work/
Home
A county’s laborshed is the geographic
area from which it draws employees.
In 2014, eighteen percent of individuals working
in Anderson County commute from another
county in Texas for work. Henderson County,
Smith County, Cherokee County, Harris County
and Dallas County, are the biggest sources of
outside labor for Anderson County.
In this same period, eighteen and a half percent
of in-commuters reside in counties adjacent to
Anderson County; however, the fifth largest
laborshed county is Houston County. It shares
1.8% of in-commuters that work in Anderson,
TX.

32. 32
Commuteshed in 2014
Labor market
section 04
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OTM, LEHD, PCRD
By 2014, thirty-five percent (35.3%) of
Anderson County’s working residents are
employed in the same Anderson County
itself. However, 28.3 percent of Anderson
County’s working residents are employed
in Dallas and Smith counties. Another 5.5
percent commute to Cherokee County,
while an additional 10.5 percent travel to
jobs between Henderson, Gregg and
Houston counties.
Collectively, these six counties represent
44.3 percent of the commuteshed for
Anderson County.

33. 33
Laborshed in 2014
Labor market
section 04
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OTM, LEHD, PCRD
The bulk (49 percent) of Anderson
County’s workforce is drawn from
Anderson itself and Henderson
County. Another 7.6 percent is
drawn from Smith and Cherokee
counties. An additional 5.7 percent
comes from Harris and Dallas
counties.
Combined, the top five counties
where the majority of workers who
live outside of Anderson County
reside, accounts for 18.3 of all
workers in Anderson.

34. 34
Takeaways
Anderson County’s unemployment rate has
decreased since 2010. Most of this decline
occurred during the period of approximately 2013
to 2015.
Despite a slightly population decrease, the
county’s labor force has increased since 2010,
indicating that there are a higher number of
individuals who are employed. This element could
positively imply a reduction in the cycle of
discouraged workers (workers who have given up
trying to find a job).
Most of the in-commuters (employees that work
but do not live in Anderson County), commute
from adjacent counties, mostly from Henderson
and Smith counties. On the flip side, people who
commute out of Anderson County for work tend to
travel mostly to Dallas and Smith counties and as
far as Harris County.
Anderson County should assess if a major
workforce development training effort should be
targeted to the growing number of working age
adults struggling to find jobs.
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

35. 35
.
Report Contributors
This report was prepared by Regional Technology Solutions, a subdivision of the EastTexas
Council of Government (ETCOG).
section 04
Data Analysis
Michelle Cahal
Harrison W. Flores-Ortiz
Report Authors
Michelle Cahal
Harrison W. Flores-Ortiz
Report Design
Report template from:
Purdue University
Cooperative Extension
Service

36. FOR MORE
INFORMATION
OR
Please contact
Michelle Cahal
GIS Services Manager
903-218-6434
gis@etcog.org
EastTexasCouncil of
Governments
RegionalTechnologySolutions
3800 Stone Road
Kilgore,TX 75662
903-218-6400
www.etcog.org
RegionalTechnology Solutions
ETCOG'S RegionalTechnology Services (RTS) provides the highest quality
technology-based IT,GIS, and data services, in the most cost-effective manner to
facilitate your management, technology, training, or community service program.
EastTexas Council of Governments
Vision
We are a trustworthy organization committed to providing leadership, education, and
financial resources to our 14 county region.
Mission
In order to improve the Quality of Life for all of our citizens, ETCOG pledges all of its resources
to educate and assist its members to accomplish their goals.