PCRD Data Snapshot

1. Data SnapShot Series 1.1
June 2015
DATA SNAPSHOT
Tippecanoe County

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

3. Purpose
About Tippecanoe County
01
introduction

4. 4
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.
Introduction
section 01

5. 5
About Tippecanoe County
Introduction
section 01
County Background
Established 1826
County
Seat
Lafayette
Area 503 sq. mi.
Neighboring
Counties
Benton, IN
Carroll, IN
Clinton, IN
Fountain, IN
Montgomery, IN
Warren, IN
White, IN

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

7. 7
148,955
172,780 180,174 190,530
Population change
Components of Population Change, 2000-
2013
Total Change 26,102*
Natural Increase 14,725
International Migration 11,693
Domestic Migration 559
The total population is
projected to increase
by 6 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 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.
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.

8. 8
6.2%
7.5%
14.4%
6.1%
5.2%
5.1%
3.7%
1.8%
1.0%
5.9%
6.9%
11.7%
5.7%
5.2%
5.4%
4.1%
2.3%
1.7%
15 12 9 6 3 0 3 6 9 12 15
0-9
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80+
Percent of Total PopulationAgeCohort
6.1%
9.0%
14.2%
6.7%
6.0%
4.2%
2.5%
1.8%
0.8%
5.8%
7.9%
11.4%
6.2%
6.2%
4.4%
2.7%
2.5%
1.7%
15 12 9 6 3 0 3 6 9 12 15
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 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.
Demography
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Decennial Census and 2013 Annual Population Estimates
section 02
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.
Male Female
20132000
Male Female

9. 9
White
86%
Other
14%
Black, 4.7%
Asian, 6.8%
Native, 0.4%
Two or More
Races, 1.9%
White
92%
Other
8%
Black, 2.6%
Asian, 4.5%
Native, 0.3%
Two or More
Races, 1.0%
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 non-
White 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.
Demography
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Decennial Census and 2013 Annual Population Estimates
section 02
2000
2013

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 7,831 Hispanics
residing in Tippecanoe County in
2000. This figure expanded to
14,285 by 2013, an 82.4 percent
increase.
Due to this numeric increase, the
proportion of Hispanics in the
population is now around 8
percent.
Demography
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Decennial Census and 2013 Annual Population Estimates
section 02
8%
5%
Hispanics - 2000
Hispanics - 2013

11. 11
No High
School, 9%
High
School,
28%
Some
College,
19%
Associate's
Degree, 7%
Bachelor's
Degree or
More, 36%
No High
School,
12%
High
School,
31%
Some
College,
19%
Associate's
Degree, 5%
Bachelor's
Degree or
More, 33%
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.
.
Demography
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Decennial Census and 2013 ACS
section 02
2000
2013

12. 12
Takeaways
Demography
section 02
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 (20-29). 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.

13. 13
Establishments
Components of Change for Establishments
Total Change (2000-11) 4,360
Natural Change (births
minus deaths)
4,179
Net Migration 181
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.
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.

14. 14
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 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%
Total 5,611 100% 9,971 100%
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.
*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.

15. 15
Top five employers in 2015
Economy
Source: ReferenceUSA (Infogroup)
section 03
Establishment Stage
1.
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
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.

16. 16
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 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%
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

17. 17
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 $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%
Note: The 2011 figures use 2012 data to include all gains and losses over the entire year.

18. 18
Government
23.5%
Manufacturing
13.7%
Health Care &
Social Assistance
11.2%
Retail Trade
10.3%
Accommodation
& Food Services
8.0%
All Other
Industries
33.3%
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.
Economy
Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.3 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors
section 03

19. 19
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 1,129 992 -137 -12% $34,306
21 Mining, Quarrying, & Oil & Gas Extraction 43 19 -24 -56% $165,238
22 Utilities 99 91 -8 -8% $97,721
23 Construction 4,691 3,556 -1,135 -24% $43,204
31-33 Manufacturing 16,161 13,914 -2,247 -14% $76,608
42 Wholesale Trade 1,473 1,953 480 33% $57,043
44-45 Retail Trade 10,753 10,457 -296 -3% $25,643
48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 1,826 1,908 82 4% $47,864
51 Information 1,227 1,261 34 3% $37,172
52 Finance & Insurance 3,290 3,406 116 4% $64,133
53 Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 2,524 3,495 971 38% $34,370
54
Professional, Scientific & Technical
Services
3,275 4,465 1,190 36% $47,827
55
Management of Companies and
Enterprises
271 235 -36 -14% $91,464
56 Administrative & Waste Management 2,950 5,332 2,382 81% $25,810
61 Educational Services (Private) 679 977 298 44% $15,978
62 Health Care & Social Assistance 8,784 11,334 2,550 29% $49,862
71 Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 1,038 1,194 156 15% $13,063
72 Accommodation and Food Services 7,042 8,096 1,054 15% $16,795
81
Other Services (except Public
Administration)
4,275 4,948 673 16% $22,944
90 Government 21,328 23,859 2,531 12% $55,726
99 Unclassified Industry 12 <10 - - -
All Total 92,871 101,494 8,623 9% $45,890
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
Industries and occupations with a value of <10 have insufficient data for change and earnings calculations.

20. 20
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)
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:
Health Care &
Social Assistance
(+2,550)
Government
(+2,531)
Administrative &
Waste
Management
(+2,382)
Manufacturing
(-2,247)
Construction
(-1,135)

21. 21
Office &
Administrative
Support
14.1%
Sales & Related
10.9%
Production
10.8%
Food Preparation
& Serving
Related
8.3%
Education,
Training, &
Library
7.8%
All Other
Occupations
48.1%
Top five occupations in 2013
The top five occupations in
Tippecanoe County represent
51.9 percent of all jobs.
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.
Economy
Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) – 2014.3 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, Self-Employed, and Extended Proprietors
section 03

22. 22
SOC Description
Jobs
2002
Jobs
2013
Change
(2002-2013)
% Change
(2002-2013)
Hourly
Earnings 2013
11 Management 4,637 4,982 345 7% $32.82
13 Business & Financial Operations 3,270 3,525 255 8% $27.89
15 Computer & Mathematical 1,284 1,381 97 8% $26.55
17 Architecture & Engineering 1,491 1,406 -85 -6% $34.92
19 Life, Physical & Social Science 1,884 2,176 292 15% $25.23
21 Community & Social Service 1,277 1,466 189 15% $19.93
23 Legal 350 349 -1 0% $33.22
25 Education, Training & Library 6,770 7,910 1,140 17% $26.29
27 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports & Media 2,150 2,555 405 19% $15.99
29 Health Care Practitioners & Technical 5,194 6,436 1,242 24% $36.18
31 Health Care Support 1,819 2,437 618 34% $13.35
33 Protective Service 1,188 1,727 539 45% $17.23
35 Food Preparation & Serving Related 7,239 8,429 1,190 16% $9.17
37 Building & Grounds Cleaning Maintenance 3,128 3,791 663 21% $10.47
39 Personal Care & Service 2,953 3,808 855 29% $9.84
41 Sales & Related 10,121 11,045 924 9% $14.70
43 Office & Administrative Support 13,469 14,349 880 7% $14.49
45 Farming, Fishing & Forestry 369 316 -53 -14% $12.69
47 Construction & Extraction 3,999 3,211 -788 -20% $19.89
49 Installation, Maintenance & Repair 3,239 3,363 124 4% $18.64
51 Production 11,602 10,931 -671 -6% $19.57
53 Transportation & Material Moving 4,621 4,843 222 5% $16.74
55 Military 540 610 70 13% $19.70
99 Unclassified 276 449 173 63% $11.14
All Total 92,871 101,494 8,623 9% $19.26
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

23. 23
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 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)
Education, Training,
& Library
(+1,140)
Construction &
Extraction
(-788)
Production
(-671)
Employment
Increase
Employment Decrease
*Unclassified occupations actually experienced the largest percentage gains in employment at 62.7 percent, but since this is difficult to classify, it was excluded.

24. 24
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.
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.

25. 25
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
55,000
PopulationinPoverty(percent)
RealIncomein2013(dollars)
Median Household
Income
Minors in
Poverty
All Ages in Poverty
Per Capita Income
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.
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

26. 26
Takeaways
Growth in the number of establishments in
Tippecanoe County occurred mainly 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.
Tippecanoe County might consider focusing on
economic development efforts that seek to
strengthen high-growth Stage 1 and 2
establishments aside from Stage 3 and 4
establishments, since they employ several
people and capture sizable sales, although
these sales have suffered in recent years.
Real median income has gradually decreased,
real per capita income has remained constant,
and poverty has increased in Tippecanoe
County since 2000. While poverty rates for
minors and the total population have decreased
since 2011, they remain almost two times higher
than in 2000.
The gradual decline in real median income
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 moderate and lower
paying industries, such as Health Care & Social
Assistance ($50,000) and Administrative
Support ($26,000) grew in Tippecanoe County.
Occupations showed the same trend, as
moderate-paying Construction and Production
jobs ($20 per hour) were lost and a mix of high-
paying (Education, Training, & Library–$26 per
hour, Healthcare Practitioners–$36 per hour)
and low-paying (Food Preparation–$9 per hour)
jobs were gained.
Promoting job growth for occupations requiring
educated workers could help retain adults with
higher educational attainment, particularly
Purdue University and Ivy Tech Community
College graduates and help increase median
household income in the county. At the same
time, efforts to reskill or retrain workers who lack
the skills to compete for middle-skilled jobs in
the county will be critical to meeting the needs of
some key industry sectors.
Economy
section 03

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

28. 28
Labor force and unemployment
2002 2013
Labor Force 79,973 80,066
Unemployment
Rate
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.
Labor market
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics – Local Area Unemployment Statistics (2013 Annual Data Release)
section 04

29. 29
2.5%
4.8%
4.0%
9.1%
6.8%
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
UnemploymentRate(percent)
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.
Labor market
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics – Local Area Unemployment Statistics (2013 Annual Data Release)
section 04

30. 30
Commuteshed
A county’s commuteshed is the
geographic area to which its resident
labor force travels to work.
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.
Labor market
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD)
section 04
23,597
Out-Commuters
44,748
Same Work/
Home
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%
Clinton, IN 941 1.4%

31. 31
Commuteshed in 2011
Labor market
section 04
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OTM, LEHD, PCRD
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.

32. 32
Laborshed
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%
Labor market
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD)
section 04
35,578
In-Commuters
44,748
Same Work/
Home
A county’s laborshed is the
geographic area from which it
draws employees.
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.

33. 33
Laborshed in 2011
Labor market
section 04
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OTM, LEHD, PCRD
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.

34. 34
Workforce inflow and outflow in 2011
Labor market
section 04
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OTM, LEHD, PCRD
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.
Count
Proportio
n
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%
Both living and employed
in the county
44,748 65%
Living in the county but
employed outside
23,597 35%
35,578 23,597
44,748

35. 35
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.
Labor market
section 04

36. 36
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 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.

37. 37
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
It is the policy of the Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service that all persons have equal opportunity and access to its
educational programs, services, activities, and facilities without regard to race, religion, color, sex, age, national origin or ancestry, marital
status, parental status, sexual orientation, disability or status as a veteran. Purdue University is an Affirmative Action institution. This
material may be available in alternative formats.

38. 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
Roberta Crabtree
County Extension Director
and Community
Development Educator
765-474-793
rcrabtree@purdue.edu
OR