I continue to try to nail down how well South Dakota includes the American Indian population in its unemployment data. Following my weekend calculation that ignoring unemployment on the reservation causes us to underreport statewide unemployment by ten percentage points, an informed reader insisted to me that the state does count jobs data from reservation counties.
The state Department of Labor does include reservation counties in its Labor Supply report:
Labor Supply
July 2014 | |||||||
South Dakota | 51,755 | Deuel | 250 | Lawrence | 1,625 | ||
Rapid City MSA | 7,935 | Dewey | 900 | Lyman | 320 | ||
Sioux Falls MSA | 14,505 | Douglas | 150 | McPherson | 130 | ||
Aurora | 140 | Edmunds | 255 | Marshall | 215 | ||
Beadle | 975 | Fall River | 505 | Mellette | 175 | ||
Bennett | 200 | Faulk | 110 | Miner | 115 | ||
Bon Homme | 255 | Grant | 430 | Moody | 430 | ||
Brookings | 2,070 | Gregory | 205 | Perkins | 145 | ||
Brown | 2,090 | Haakon | 115 | Potter | 125 | ||
Brule | 305 | Hamlin | 380 | Roberts | 535 | ||
Buffalo | 295 | Hand | 170 | Sanborn | 100 | ||
Butte | 440 | Hanson | 245 | Shannon | 1,295 | ||
Campbell | 80 | Harding | 90 | Spink | 355 | ||
Charles Mix | 445 | Hughes | 1,105 | Stanley | 310 | ||
Clark | 165 | Hutchinson | 300 | Sully | 105 | ||
Clay | 890 | Hyde | 85 | Todd | 665 | ||
Codington | 1,580 | Jackson | 255 | Tripp | 260 | ||
Corson | 320 | Jerauld | 205 | Union | 1,035 | ||
Custer | 805 | Jones | 105 | Walworth | 370 | ||
Davison | 1,230 | Kingsbury | 275 | Yankton | 1,345 | ||
Day | 335 | Lake | 615 | Ziebach | 215 |
Source: Labor Market Information Center, South Dakota Department of Labor and Regulation.
Now we're really going to apple-orange the numbers here. "Labor supply" is the state's guesstimate of the number of workers a new business setting up shop could get to apply for work in a given county. It includes workers who would leave their current jobs, folks who would commute from elsewhere, and folks who aren't working but would like the chance to work. My Saturday calculations came from tribal reports that included folks who are "available to work," whether they are actively seeking jobs or not. Those tribal numbers do not appear to count folks with jobs and willing commuters from elsewhere. So the state's "labor supply" numbers should be larger than the figures the tribes report.
Furthermore, my numbers are based on reservations; the state's numbers are based on counties. Some reservations partially touch multiple counties. If we try to line up reservation numbers and county numbers, some of those counts (i.e., on the Crow Creek, Lower Brule, and Sisseton-Wahpeton reservations) will include some non-Indian labor supply. So again, the state's numbers should be larger than the tribes' numbers.
But make spreadsheets boldly, said Luther. So here we go!
Reservation | County | State Labor Supply | Tribal Unemployment |
Pine Ridge | Shannon | 1,295 | |
Pine Ridge | Jackson | 255 | 26,408 |
Standing Rock | Corson | 320 | 3,074 |
Cheyenne River | Dewey | 900 | |
Cheyenne River | Ziebach | 215 | 9,893 |
Rosebud | Todd | 665 | 11,909 |
Yankton | Charles Mix | 445 | 88 |
Lower Brule | Lyman | 320 | |
Lower Brule | Stanley | 310 | 759 |
Crow Creek | Hughes | 1,105 | |
Crow Creek | Hyde | 85 | |
Crow Creek | Buffalo | 295 | 380 |
Sisseton-Wahpeton | Marshall | 215 | |
Sisseton-Wahpeton | Day | 335 | |
Sisseton-Wahpeton | Roberts | 535 | 6,023 |
Flandreau | Moody | 430 | 472 |
total | 6,430 | 59,006 |
On the reservations, my tribal-report-based data shows 59,006 people available for work. In the state's broader calculation of labor supply, in counties either entirely or partially located on reservation land, including some people who already have jobs and who would be willing to drive to those places from elsewhere to work, we find 6,430 people available for new jobs in July 2014. Statewide, the official labor supply is 51,755.
Something is missing here. Either the tribal reports of folks available for work are way off, or South Dakota really is excluding Indians from its labor statistics.
Cory, do you know how the tribal report calculates its unemployment?
Note the LMIC generates its Labor Supply through the "handbook" method, rather than actual surveys.
If we review the technical notes:
Labor Supply = Labor Supply of Underemployed + Labor Supply Not Employed
And Labor Supply Not Employed = Unemployed + Estimate of those currently not in the labor force, but have searched for work in the past year and are available for work.
Both qualifications require the person to be relatively actively looking for work. It's wholly possible we have a mismatch of definitions - where the tribal report uses unemployment the way you and I may think of it - people without jobs, yet the LMIC uses the federal consideration for unemployment where you have to be looking for a job.
Question: what does federal data say about those counties' unemployment rates? Does it jive?
If I may be so bold, I believe you have the counties listed for Crow Creek and Lower Brule flip-flopped.
Lower Brule is in Lyman and Stanley Counties (http://www.sdtribalrelations.com/lowerbrule.aspx) while Crow Creek's land spans Hyde, Hughes and Buffalo Counties (http://www.sdtribalrelations.com/crowcreek.aspx).
Great information as always,
Sincerely,
A Lower Brule Sioux Tribal Member
You may be so bold! Thank you, and my apologies to folks on both reservations for flipping your counties. I have changed the chart to align counties and reservations properly.
Very possible, Wayne. I'm not clear on the methodology the tribes used for the data they submitted to BIA. More reading!
This may have something to do with that big long caveat the lone economist provides about not using tribal unemployment data as an apple-to-apple comparison point...
Even in Todd County, # of people looking for work does not necessarily equal # of tribal members looking for work. There are both non tribal members and members of other tribes resident in Todd County.