Transcript Tippecanoe County - Community Development

DATA SNAPSHOT
Tippecanoe County
Data SnapShot Series 1.1
June 2015
Table of contents
01
02
Introduction
Demography
03
04
Economy
Labor Market
01
introduction
Purpose
About Tippecanoe County
Introduction
Purpose
This document provides information
and data about Tippecanoe County
that can be used to guide local
decision-making activities.
The Data SnapShot showcases a variety of
demographic, economic and labor market
information that local leaders, community
organizations and others can use to gain a
better perspective on current conditions
and opportunities in their county.
To strengthen the value and usability of the
information, we showcase the data using a
variety of visual tools, such as charts,
graphs and tables. In addition, we offer key
points about the data as a way of assisting
the user with the interpretation of the
information presented.
Finally, short takeaway messages are
offered at the end of each section in order
to highlight some of the more salient
findings.
section 01
4
Introduction
About Tippecanoe County
County Background
Established
County
Seat
Area
Neighboring
Counties
1826
Lafayette
503 sq. mi.
Benton, IN
Carroll, IN
Clinton, IN
Fountain, IN
Montgomery, IN
Warren, IN
White, IN
section 01
5
Population change
02
demography
Population pyramids
Race
Ethnicity
Educational attainment
Takeaways
Demography
Population change
Total population
projections
148,955
2000
172,780
180,174
190,530
2010
2013
2020
The county’s total population increased by 21 percent
between 2000 and 2013. Natural increase (births minus
deaths over that span of time) was the largest contributor
to that expansion, with a gain of over 14,700 persons.
International migration also increased by almost 11,700
individuals, indicating that the county experienced a large
influx of new people from outside the United States. The
growth is likely due to the presence of Purdue University
and the recruitment and expansion of industries with a
global reach. In contrast, domestic migration (difference
between the number of people moving into the county
versus moving out) resulted in a relatively small gain of
559 individuals in the county between 2000 and 2013.
The total population is
projected to increase
by 6 percent between
2013 and 2020.
Components of Population Change, 2000-2013
Total Change
26,102*
Natural Increase
14,725
International Migration
11,693
Domestic Migration
559
section 02
*Total change in population differs from the sum of the components due to Census estimation techniques. Residuals (not reported here) make up the difference.
Sources: STATSIndiana, U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Decennial Census, 2010 Decennial Census, 2013 Estimates, Estimates of the Components of Resident Population Change
7
Demography
Population pyramids
Population pyramids are visual representations of the age distribution of the population by
gender.
2000
2013
0.8%
1.7%
1.8%
2.5%
60-69
2.5%
2.7%
50-59
4.2%
4.4%
40-49
6.0%
6.2%
30-39
6.7%
6.2%
20-29
14.2%
10-19
0-9
Male
Age Cohort
70-79
15
12
9
6
80+
1.0%
1.7%
1.8%
2.3%
60-69
3.7%
4.1%
50-59
5.1%
5.4%
40-49
5.2%
5.2%
30-39
6.1%
5.7%
11.4%
20-29
14.4%
11.7%
9.0%
7.9%
10-19
7.5%
6.9%
6.1%
5.8%
0-9
6.2%
5.9%
3
0
3
Female
6
9
12
15
Percent of Total Population
Male
70-79
Age Cohort
80+
15
12
9
6
3
0
3
Female
6
9
12
15
Percent of Total Population
Approximately 48.7 percent of the population was female
in 2000 (72,532 people) and that percentage 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.
People 50 and over increased from 9.3% to 11.7% for
males and from 11.3% to 13.5% for females between 2000
and 2013. Individuals of prime working age (20-49) dipped
from 26.9% to 25.7% for males and from 23.7% to 22.6%
for females. Residents under 20 years of age decreased
from 28.8% to 26.5% of the total population.
section 02
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Decennial Census and 2013 Annual Population Estimates
8
Demography
Race
The proportion of non-White residents
in Tippecanoe County increased by 75
percent between 2000 and 2013.
Every race experienced a numerical
increase over the time period. Of the nonWhite races, the Asian (+5,494) and Black
(+4,706) populations gained the most.
Proportionally, individuals identifying
themselves as Two or More Races (+147%)
and Black (+122%) gained the most.
The White population increased by 18,640
residents between 2000 and 2013 but
represents a smaller percentage growth
relative to some of the other racial groups.
2000
Black, 2.6%
Asian, 4.5%
White
92%
Other
8%
Native, 0.3%
Two or More
Races, 1.0%
2013
Black, 4.7%
Asian, 6.8%
White
86%
Other
14%
Native, 0.4%
Two or More
Races, 1.9%
section 02
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Decennial Census and 2013 Annual Population Estimates
9
Demography
Ethnicity
Hispanics - 2000
5
%
Hispanics - 2013
Hispanics are individuals of
any race whose ancestry is
from Mexico, Puerto Rico,
Cuba, Spain, the Dominican
Republic or any other Spanishspeaking Central or South
American country.
There were 7,831 Hispanics
residing in Tippecanoe County in
2000. This figure expanded to
14,285 by 2013, an 82.4 percent
increase.
8
%
Due to this numeric increase, the
proportion of Hispanics in the
population is now around 8
percent.
section 02
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Decennial Census and 2013 Annual Population Estimates
10
Demography
Educational attainment
Tippecanoe County had a 5 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 88 percent in 2000 to
91 percent by 2013. Those with only a high
school degree fell slightly from 31 percent in
2000 to 28 percent in 2013.
Adults with a college degree increased from
38 percent in 2000 to 43 percent in 2013.
This was due to a 2 percentage point
increase in the proportion of residents with
associate’s degrees (5 percent versus 7
percent), while the proportion of adults with
at least a bachelor's degree increased from
33 percent to 36 percent, a 3
percentage point growth.
section 02
2000
No High
School, 12%
Bachelor's
Degree or
More, 33%
High School,
31%
2013
Associate's
Degree, 5%
Some
College,
19%
No High
School, 9%
Bachelor's
Degree or
More, 36%
Associate's
Degree, 7%
High School,
28%
Some
College,
19%
.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Decennial Census and 2013 ACS
11
Demography
Takeaways
The population of Tippecanoe County is expected
to grow over the next few years, though not as
quickly as between 2000 and 2013. If past
trends hold, that increase will be the result of
natural increase (more births than deaths) as
well as international migration.
The age composition of Tippecanoe County’s
population has two main features. First, one
finds an aging population in which the
percentage of people 50 and older is gradually
increasing. Second, the largest proportion of the
population is between 20 and 29 years of age,
and this group comprises over a quarter of the
population.
The racial and ethnic diversity of Tippecanoe
County has nearly doubled since 2000, but the
county remains primarily white and non-Hispanic.
The educational attainment of adults 25 and
over has improved since 2000, and the
percentage of adults with a high school education
or less (37 percent) is one of the smallest in the
state. The number of adults with at least a college
degree has also continued to grow (43 percent),
and this group now comprises a larger proportion
of the population than those who have attained a
high school degree or less. Therefore, two in five
adult residents of the county have an associate’s,
bachelor’s or higher degree, which is 11
percentage points above the figure for the state of
Indiana as a whole.
The impact of Purdue University and Ivy Tech
Community College on the demographics of
Tippecanoe County is evident in the large numbers
of international migrants and young adults (2029). Their presence has also contributed to a high
level of racial and ethnic diversity and impressive
educational attainment of adults 25 years old and
over relative to other Indiana counties.
Tippecanoe County should continue to
develop the mix of jobs, services and
amenities that will retain and attract
educated young adults.
section 02
12
Economy
Establishments
The number of establishments in Tippecanoe
County increased 78 percent from 2000 to
2011.
The rapid growth of establishments was largely due
to natural change. That is, 10,289 establishments
were launched in the county between 2000 and
2011, while 6,110 closed, resulting in a gain of
4,179 establishments. There was a gain of 181
establishments due to net migration.
Components of Change for Establishments
Total Change (2000-11)
4,360
Natural Change (births minus
deaths)
4,179
Net Migration
An establishment is a
physical business location.
Branches, standalones and
headquarters are all
considered types of
establishments.
Definition of Company Stages
0
2
181
Selfemployed
10-99
employees
4
1
3
2-9
employees
100-499
employees
500+
employees
section 03
Note: The 2011 figures use 2012 data to include all gains and losses over the entire year.
Establishment information was calculated in-house and may differ slightly from publicly available data.
Source: National Establishment Time Series (NETS) – 2012 Database 13
Economy
Number of establishments by
stage/employment category
2000
Stage
2011
Establishments
Proportion
Establishments
Proportion
Stage 0
1,304
23%
2,944
30%
Stage 1
3,093
55%
5,750
58%
Stage 2
1,094
19%
1,147
12%
Stage 3
99
2%
113
1%
Stage 4
21
0%
17*
0%
5,611
100%
9,971
100%
Total
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.
*ReferenceUSA indicates 12 Stage 4 firms in 2011 (that also existed in 2015), whereas
NETS shows 17 Stage 4 firms. Additional information is available on the next slide.
Note: The 2011 figures use 2012 data to include all gains and losses over the entire year.
section 03
Source: National Establishment Time Series (NETS) – 2012 Database
14
Economy
Top five employers in 2015
Establishment
Stage
Purdue University – West
Lafayette
Stage 4
2.
Subaru-Indiana Automotive, Inc.
Stage 4
3.
Caterpillar, Inc.
Stage 4
4.
Wabash National Corporation
Stage 4
5.
Fairfield Manufacturing
Company, Inc.
Stage 4
1.
The top five employers produce mainly
national and global goods and services.
Purdue University in West Lafayette is the
largest establishment-level employer in
Tippecanoe County. Their graduates are
employed locally and throughout the world.
The other four top employers produce goods
used globally. Subaru-Indiana Automotive and
Wabash National manufacture vehicles, while
Caterpillar and Fairfield Manufacturing
produce mechanical parts.
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 procedures 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.
section 03
Source: ReferenceUSA (Infogroup)
15
Economy
Number of jobs by stage/employment
category
2000
2011
Stage
Jobs*
Proportion
Jobs*
Proportion
Stage 0
1,304
1%
2,944
3%
Stage 1
11,963
12%
17,954
17%
Stage 2
28,417
28%
31,467
29%
Stage 3
18,325
18%
19,184
18%
Stage 4
41,447
41%
36,330
34%
Total
101,456
100%
107,879
100%
*Includes both full-time and part-time jobs
Note: The 2011 figures use 2012 data to include all gains and losses over the entire year.
section 03
Source: National Establishment Time Series (NETS) – 2012 Database
16
Economy
Amount of sales (2011 dollars) by
stage/employment category
2000
Stage
2011
Sales
Proportion
Sales
Proportion
Stage 0
$167,797,738
1%
$205,190,070
2%
Stage 1
$1,515,583,690
13%
$1,516,138,889
16%
Stage 2
$3,428,402,315
30%
$2,758,428,450
30%
Stage 3
$2,302,950,710
20%
$1,846,730,177
20%
Stage 4
$4,187,765,802
36%
$3,016,350,441
32%
Total
$11,602,500,255
100%
$9,342,838,027
100%
section 03
Note: The 2011 figures use 2012 data to include all gains and losses over the entire year.
Source: National Establishment Time Series (NETS) – 2012 Database
17
Economy
Top five industries in 2013
66.6 percent of jobs are tied to
one of the top five industries in
Tippecanoe County.
Government is the largest industry sector
with 23,859 jobs, which includes Purdue
University employees. Accommodation &
Food Services is the smallest of the top
five industry sectors with 8,096 jobs.
Of the top industries in Tippecanoe
County, three gained jobs between 2002
and 2013. Of these, Health Care & Social
Assistance experienced the largest
percentage job growth (+29.0 percent),
followed by Accommodation & Food
Services and Government. Manufacturing
lost the most, with a 13.9 percent loss in
jobs over the time period.
Accommodation &
Food Services
8.0%
Retail Trade
10.3%
All Other
Industries
33.3%
Health Care &
Social Assistance
11.2%
Manufacturing
13.7%
Government
23.5%
section 03
Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.3 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors
18
Economy
Industry distribution and change
NAICS
Code
Description
Jobs
2002
11
21
22
23
31-33
42
44-45
48-49
51
52
53
54
55
56
61
62
71
72
81
90
99
All
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting
Mining, Quarrying, & Oil & Gas Extraction
Utilities
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation & Warehousing
Information
Finance & Insurance
Real Estate & Rental & Leasing
Professional, Scientific & Technical Services
Management of Companies and Enterprises
Administrative & Waste Management
Educational Services (Private)
Health Care & Social Assistance
Arts, Entertainment & Recreation
Accommodation and Food Services
Other Services (except Public Administration)
Government
Unclassified Industry
Total
1,129
43
99
4,691
16,161
1,473
10,753
1,826
1,227
3,290
2,524
3,275
271
2,950
679
8,784
1,038
7,042
4,275
21,328
12
92,871
Jobs
2013
992
19
91
3,556
13,914
1,953
10,457
1,908
1,261
3,406
3,495
4,465
235
5,332
977
11,334
1,194
8,096
4,948
23,859
<10
101,494
Change
(2002-2013)
% Change
(2002-2013)
Average Total
Earnings 2013
-137
-24
-8
-1,135
-2,247
480
-296
82
34
116
971
1,190
-36
2,382
298
2,550
156
1,054
673
2,531
8,623
-12%
-56%
-8%
-24%
-14%
33%
-3%
4%
3%
4%
38%
36%
-14%
81%
44%
29%
15%
15%
16%
12%
9%
$34,306
$165,238
$97,721
$43,204
$76,608
$57,043
$25,643
$47,864
$37,172
$64,133
$34,370
$47,827
$91,464
$25,810
$15,978
$49,862
$13,063
$16,795
$22,944
$55,726
$45,890
section 03
Note: Average total earnings include wages, salaries, supplements and earnings from
Industries and occupations with a value of <10 have insufficient data for change and earnings calculations.
Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.3 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors
19
Economy
Industry distribution and change
The largest percentage gains in
employment in Tippecanoe
County occurred in:
 Administrative, Support, Waste

Management, and Remediation
Services (+80.7 percent)
Educational Services, private (+44.0
percent)
The largest percentage losses
in employment occurred in:
 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas

Extraction (-56.1 percent)
Construction (-24.2 percent)
Industries with the largest gains and losses in
employment numbers between 2002 & 2013:
Health Care &
Social Assistance
(+2,550)
Government
(+2,531)
Administrative &
Waste Management
(+2,382)
Manufacturing
(-2,247)
Construction
(-1,135)
Employment Increase Employment Decrease
section 03
Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.3 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors
20
Economy
Top five occupations in 2013
The top five occupations in
Tippecanoe County represent
51.9 percent of all jobs.
Education,
Training, & Library
7.8%
Food Preparation
& Serving Related
8.3%
Production
10.8%
All Other
Occupations
48.1%
Sales & Related
10.9%
Office &
Administrative
Support
14.1%
Office & Administrative Support (14,349
jobs) is the top occupation classification in
Tippecanoe County at 14.1 percent. The
smallest of these is Education, Training, &
Library with 7,910 jobs (7.8 percent).
All five top occupations in Tippecanoe
County, except Production (-5.8 percent),
had an increase in jobs between 2002
and 2013. Education, Training, & Library
(+16.8 percent) and Food Preparation &
Serving Related (+16.4 percent)
occupations experienced the largest
percentage gains while Office &
Administrative Support occupations
gained the least (+6.5 percent) over the
time period.
section 03
Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.3 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors
21
Economy
Occupation distribution and change
SOC
Description
Jobs
2002
Jobs
2013
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
99
All
Management
Business & Financial Operations
Computer & Mathematical
Architecture & Engineering
Life, Physical & Social Science
Community & Social Service
Legal
Education, Training & Library
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports & Media
Health Care Practitioners & Technical
Health Care Support
Protective Service
Food Preparation & Serving Related
Building & Grounds Cleaning Maintenance
Personal Care & Service
Sales & Related
Office & Administrative Support
Farming, Fishing & Forestry
Construction & Extraction
Installation, Maintenance & Repair
Production
Transportation & Material Moving
Military
Unclassified
Total
4,637
3,270
1,284
1,491
1,884
1,277
350
6,770
2,150
5,194
1,819
1,188
7,239
3,128
2,953
10,121
13,469
369
3,999
3,239
11,602
4,621
540
276
92,871
4,982
3,525
1,381
1,406
2,176
1,466
349
7,910
2,555
6,436
2,437
1,727
8,429
3,791
3,808
11,045
14,349
316
3,211
3,363
10,931
4,843
610
449
101,494
Change
(2002-2013)
% Change
(2002-2013)
Hourly Earnings
2013
345
255
97
-85
292
189
-1
1,140
405
1,242
618
539
1,190
663
855
924
880
-53
-788
124
-671
222
70
173
8,623
7%
8%
8%
-6%
15%
15%
0%
17%
19%
24%
34%
45%
16%
21%
29%
9%
7%
-14%
-20%
4%
-6%
5%
13%
63%
9%
$32.82
$27.89
$26.55
$34.92
$25.23
$19.93
$33.22
$26.29
$15.99
$36.18
$13.35
$17.23
$9.17
$10.47
$9.84
$14.70
$14.49
$12.69
$19.89
$18.64
$19.57
$16.74
$19.70
$11.14
$19.26
section 03
Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.3 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors
22
Economy
Occupation distribution and change
The largest percentage gains in
employment in Tippecanoe
County occurred in:*
 Protective Service (+45.4 percent)
 Healthcare Support (+34.0 percent)
The largest percentage loss in
employment occurred in:
 Construction and Extraction (-19.7

percent)
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry
(-14.4 percent)
Occupations with the largest gains and losses
in employment numbers between 2002 & 2013:
Healthcare
Practitioners
(+1,242)
Food Preparation
(+1,190)
Construction &
Extraction
(-788)
Production
(-671)
Education, Training,
& Library
(+1,140)
Employment Increase Employment Decrease
section 03
*Unclassified occupations actually experienced the largest percentage gains in employment at 62.7 percent, but since this is difficult to classify, it was excluded.
Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.3 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors
23
Economy
Income and poverty
2000
2006
2013
Total Population in
Poverty
10.0%
17.0%
19.6%
Minors (up to age 17)
in Poverty
10.9%
16.4%
18.5%
Real Median Household
Income (2013)*
$49,187
$46,386
$47,808
Real Per Capita Income
(2013)*
$32,974
$33,224
$32,961
The median household income
in Tippecanoe County dipped by
$1,400 between 2000 and
2013 in real dollars (that is,
adjusted for inflation), while
average income per person
remained about the same over
the same time period.
The total population in poverty and
the number of minors in poverty
almost doubled between 2000 and
2013. Nearly one in five minors was
living in poverty in 2013.
*Real median household income is the middle income value in the county. Half of the county’s households fall
above this line and half below. Real per capita personal income is the average income per person in the county.
section 03
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis – Regional Personal Income Summary
24
Economy
Income and poverty
Median household income in Tippecanoe County decreased between 2000 and 2012 but has stabilized
since 2009. The latest figures (2013) suggest that median household income is now improving. Per
capita income has remained fairly constant since 2000. Poverty rates for both adults and minors have
tended to rise at various points over the 2004 to 2009 period. However, both have declined over the past
two years, although the rates remain relatively high in contrast to the figures in 2000.
55,000
24
All Ages in Poverty
50,000
20
45,000
16
40,000
Minors in Poverty
12
35,000
8
Per Capita Income
30,000
4
25,000
0
Population in Poverty (percent)
Real Income in 2013 (dollars)
Median Household Income
section 03
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis – Regional Personal Income Summary
25
The gradual decline in real median income
Economy
experienced between 2000 and 2013 may be tied
to employment changes in various industries in the
county during that time period. Between 2002 and
2013, high-paying manufacturing industry jobs
(yearly earnings of $77,000) declined, while
Growth in the number of establishments in moderate and lower paying industries, such as
Tippecanoe County occurred mainly in
Health Care & Social Assistance ($50,000) and
businesses having fewer than 10 employees Administrative Support ($26,000) grew in
(the self-employed and Stage 1 enterprises), Tippecanoe County. Occupations showed the same
trend, as moderate-paying Construction and
components of the local economy that are
Production jobs ($20 per hour) were lost and a mix
often overlooked by local leaders.
of high-paying (Education, Training, & Library–$26
per hour, Healthcare Practitioners–$36 per hour)
Tippecanoe County might consider focusing on
and low-paying (Food Preparation–$9 per hour)
economic development efforts that seek to
jobs were gained.
strengthen high-growth Stage 1 and 2
establishments aside from Stage 3 and 4
establishments, since they employ several people Promoting job growth for occupations requiring
educated workers could help retain adults with
and capture sizable sales, although these sales
higher educational attainment, particularly Purdue
have suffered in recent years.
University and Ivy Tech Community College
Real median income has gradually decreased, real graduates and help increase median household
income in the county. At the same time, efforts to
per capita income has remained constant, and
poverty has increased in Tippecanoe County since reskill or retrain workers who lack the skills to
2000. While poverty rates for minors and the total compete for middle-skilled jobs in the county will
be critical to meeting the needs of some key
population have decreased since 2011, they
industry sectors.
remain almost two times higher than in 2000.
Takeaways
section 03
26
04
labor
market
Labor force and
unemployment
Commuteshed
Laborshed
Workforce
inflow/outflow
Takeaways
Labor market
Labor force and unemployment
2002
Labor Force
Unemployment
Rate
2013
79,973
80,066
4.3%
6.8%
The size of the labor force in
Tippecanoe County remained
unchanged between 2002 and 2013.
The simultaneous increase in the
unemployment rate is likely due to a rise in
the number of individuals who are either
officially unemployed or who have given up
looking for a job.
section 04
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics – Local Area Unemployment Statistics (2013 Annual Data Release)
28
Labor market
Unemployment rate
Unemployment increased dramatically after 2007, peaking at 9.1 percent in 2009. Since
that time, the rate has been on a slow but steady decline, dipping to 6.8 percent by 2013.
10.0
9.1%
9.0
Unemployment Rate (percent)
8.0
7.0
6.8%
6.0
4.8%
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.5%
4.0%
2.0
1.0
0.0
section 04
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics – Local Area Unemployment Statistics (2013 Annual Data Release)
29
Labor market
Commuteshed
Out-Commuters
Same Work/
Home
23,597
A county’s commuteshed is the
geographic area to which its resident
labor force travels to work.
44,748
Commuters
Proportion
Marion, IN
4,929
7.2%
Hamilton, IN
1,425
2.1%
Allen, IN
1,081
1.6%
Lake, IN
1,009
1.5%
941
1.4%
Clinton, IN
Thirty-four percent of employed residents in
Tippecanoe County commute to jobs located
outside of the county. Marion County is the
biggest destination for residents who work
outside of Tippecanoe County.
Six percent of out-commuters work in
counties adjacent to Tippecanoe County.
However, the largest work destinations
outside of Tippecanoe County are the
Indianapolis (Marion and Hamilton Counties),
Fort Wayne (Allen County), and Chicago (Lake
County) metropolitan areas, respectively.
section 04
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD)
30
Labor market
Commuteshed in 2011
Seventy percent of Tippecanoe
County’s working residents are
employed within the county.
Another 5 percent commute to
Hamilton and Marion Counties.
An additional 5 percent travel to
jobs in Allen, Clinton, Lake or
Ripley Counties.
Collectively, these seven
counties represent 80 percent of
the commuteshed for
Tippecanoe County.
section 04
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OTM, LEHD, PCRD
31
Labor market
Laborshed
In-Commuters
A county’s laborshed is the
geographic area from which it draws
employees.
Same Work/
Home
35,578
44,748
Forty-four percent of individuals working
in Tippecanoe County commute from
another county.
Sixteen percent of in-commuters reside in
counties adjacent to Tippecanoe County,
and four of the five top counties in the
laborshed are adjacent counties. Of these
counties, Carroll County is the largest
source of labor outside of Tippecanoe
County, while Montgomery County is the
smallest.
Commuters
Proportion
Carroll, IN
2,660
3.3%
Clinton, IN
2,649
3.3%
Marion, IN
2,538
3.2%
White, IN
2,417
3.0%
Montgomery, IN
1,670
2.1%
section 04
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD)
32
Labor market
Laborshed in 2011
The bulk (70 percent) of
Tippecanoe County’s workforce is
drawn from Carroll, Clinton,
Marion, Montgomery, Tippecanoe
and White Counties in Indiana.
Another 5 percent is drawn from
Allen, Benton, Fountain and
Warren Counties. An additional 5
percent reside in Hamilton and
Lake Counties in Indiana.
Combined, the 12 counties
represent 80 percent of
Tippecanoe County’s laborshed.
section 04
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OTM, LEHD, PCRD
33
Labor market
Workforce inflow and outflow in 2011
Count
Proportion
Employed in Tippecanoe
County
80,326
100%
Both employed and living in
the county
44,748
56%
Employed in the county but
living outside
35,578
44%
Living in Tippecanoe County
68,345
100%
Tippecanoe County has more laborers
traveling into the county for work than
out of the county for work.
Net commuting is negative, with a gain of
11,981 commuters. The resulting situation is
that for every 100 employed residents,
Tippecanoe County has 118 jobs.
23,597
35,578
Both living and employed in
the county
44,748
Living in the county but
employed outside
23,597
65%
44,748
35%
section 04
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OTM, LEHD, PCRD
34
Labor market
Takeaways
The Great Recession that impacted the U.S.
economy between 2007 and 2009 took a major
toll on employment in Tippecanoe County. While
the unemployment rate was quite low in 2000, it
more than tripled to over 9 percent by 2009.
Recent figures make clear that the
unemployment rate has improved significantly
since 2009.
Despite the increase in the population over the
past decade or more, the size of the county’s
labor force has not changed since 2002. This
may be due to a modest growth in the number of
residents that are past retirement age in the
county. The unemployment rate is also higher
than in 2000, possibly because, as a result of
the improving economy, an increasing number of
unemployed individuals who previously were
discouraged workers have reentered the labor
market and started looking for a job.
Approximately 34 percent of Tippecanoe County
residents in the workforce are gainfully employed
outside of the county, while 44 percent of
individuals employed in Tippecanoe County are
not county residents, making it a regional
employment center. It may be worthwhile for local
leaders and industries to determine the human
capital attributes of workers who commute to
jobs inside and outside the county. By so doing,
they could determine whether there is leakage of
educated and skilled workers to surrounding
counties. The types of workers being drawn from
surrounding counties is also worth exploring.
Such an analysis will help determine the mix of
human capital attributes that are needed to spur
the growth of good paying jobs in the county.
The laborshed and commuteshed data
offer solid evidence of the value of
pursuing economic and workforce
development on a regional (multi-county)
basis.
section 04
35
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 countylevel LAUS estimates do not include seasonal adjustments.
LEHD (Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics):
LEHD is a partnership between U.S. Census Bureau and State
Department of Workforce Development (DWD) to provide labor
market and journey to work data at various geographic levels.
LEHD uses Unemployment Insurance earnings data and
Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages from DWDs and
census administrative records related to individuals and
businesses.
NETS (National Establishment Time Series):
NETS is an establishment-level database, not a company-level
database. This means that each entry is a different physical
location, and company-level information must be created by
adding the separate establishment components.
OTM (On the Map):
OTM, a product of LEHD program, is used in the county
snapshot report to develop commuting patterns for a
geography from two perspectives: place of residence and
place of work. At the highly detailed level of census blocks,
some of the data are synthetic to maintain confidentiality of
the worker. However, for larger regions mapped at the county
level, the commuteshed and laborshed data are fairly
reasonable.
OTM includes jobs for a worker employed in the reference as
well as previous quarter. Hence, job counts are based on two
consecutive quarters (six months) measured at the
“beginning of a quarter.” OTM data can differ from
commuting patterns developed from state annual income tax
returns, which asks a question about “county of residence”
and “county of work” on January 1 of the tax-year. OTM can
also differ from American Community Survey data, which is
based on a sample survey of the resident population.
SAIPE (Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates):
SAIPE is a U.S. Census Bureau program that provides annual
data estimates of income and poverty statistics at various
geographic levels. The estimates are used in the
administration of federal and state assistance programs.
SAIPE utilizes statistical models to estimate data from sample
surveys, census enumerations, and administrative records.
36
Report Contributors
This report was prepared by the Purdue Center for Regional Development in partnership
with Purdue University Extension.
Report Authors
Data Analysis
Report Design
Elizabeth Dobis
Bo Beaulieu, Ph.D.
Indraneel Kumar, Ph.D.
Ayoung Kim
Tyler Wright
37
FOR MORE
INFORMATION
Please contact
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.
Roberta Crabtree
County Extension Director and
Community Development
Educator
765-474-793
[email protected]
OR
PCRD
Purdue Center for Regional Development
(PCRD) . . .
seeks to pioneer new ideas and strategies that contribute
to regional collaboration, innovation and prosperity.
Mann Hall, Suite 266
Purdue University
765-494-7273
[email protected]