Extension Logo
Extension Logo
University of Minnesota Extension
extension.umn.edu

The decoupling of home and work

Minnesotan’s working in their home county, 2002-2022

To better illustrate the relationship between home and work, the U.S. Census Bureau provides an “OnTheMap” tool. This tool is a web-based mapping and reporting tool that provides detailed information about where people work and where workers live. It’s part of the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) program and integrates data from state unemployment insurance records, federal administrative data, and censuses/surveys.

Key Features of OnTheMap

  • Workforce and commuting patterns: It shows how many people commute into or out of a city, county, or region for work. 
  • Job characteristics: Users can analyze workers by age, earnings, and industry sector.
  • Home-to-work flows: It maps where workers live compared to where they are employed.
  • Time trends: Data is available by year, typically going back to around 2002. Today, in October, 2025 the most recent data is for 2022 so there is a time lag but this does allow a 20-year examination of these trends. 

Traditional uses of OnTheMap data include economic and workforce development studies, understanding commuting patterns (e.g., for transportation planning), identifying labor market areas, and exploring urban/rural employment flows. These data can tell you how many people work there but live elsewhere, where the city’s workers live (e.g., surrounding towns and counties), and which industries dominate employment.

The purpose of this brief is to provide a data-driven report on the relationship between the home and work locations of Minnesota residents using this data source.

Findings

Using data from 2002 and the most recent U.S. Census Bureau release from 2022, data was gathered for each county in the country. Across the United States in 2002, 61% of residents worked in their home county, this has now fallen to 53% in the most recent release of 2022 data. Put another way, 47% of workers left their home county for their job. In Minnesota the pattern is also seen, with 55% working in their home county in 2002, declining to 48% in 2022. 

To emphasize this, today more people leave their home county to work, than do not. The 2018 data release marked the crossing of this threshold, where a majority of Minnesota workers followed this pattern, and it continues to grow to this day.

Map: percent working in their home county, 2002 and 2022

County map in 2002. See the appendix for data numbers.
County map in 2022. See the appendix for data numbers.

In 2002 just 11 of Minnesota’s 87 counties saw more workers leave their home county every day. These were centered around the Twin Cities and South-Central portions of the state. 

Steele county is a good example, it is bordered by the Mankato and Rochester labor markets, and this has had long-standing impacts in the region. The same is true for Sherburne County and its immediate proximity to the city of St. Cloud.

In 2022, the number of counties that witnessed a majority of their residents leaving their home county every day to work rose to 24 (28% of 87) and this group includes more rural communities that have interactions with rural regional centers and metropolitan areas.

Four counties worked against this trend and saw percentage increased in the, essentially, capturing more local residents to work within the county boundaries. Becker (+8%), Cook (+0%), Kittson (+4%), and Steele (+20%) counties increased the percentage of residents staying in their home county to work.

It should be noted that Cook (75%) and Kittson (73%) counties have the highest percentages of residents staying in their home county to work.

See how your county stacks up in the appendix.

Appendix: Percentage of residents working in their home county

Data for the years 2002 and 2022
County % Same,
2002
% Same,
2022
Change
2002–22
Aitkin 70% 65% -5%
Anoka 46% 41% -5%
Becker 55% 63% 8%
Beltrami 75% 65% -9%
Benton 38% 30% -8%
Big Stone 71% 55% -17%
Blue Earth 45% 45% -1%
Brown 72% 57% -15%
Carlton 68% 56% -12%
Carver 43% 37% -5%
Cass 54% 41% -13%
Chippewa 64% 54% -10%
Chisago 57% 43% -15%
Clay 57% 46% -11%
Clearwater 73% 52% -21%
Cook 75% 75% 0%
Cottonwood 71% 53% -18%
Crow Wing 64% 62% -3%
Dakota 50% 43% '-7%
Dodge 64% 44% -20%
Douglas 79% 64% -15%
Faribault 64% 52% -12%
Fillmore 70% 59% -11%
Freeborn 76% 66% -10%
Goodhue 61% 49% -12%
Grant 60% 48% -12%
Hennepin 54% 48% -6%
Houston 73% 59% -14%
Hubbard 61% 61% 0%
Itasca 81% 74% -7%
Jackson 54% 46% -8%
Kanabec 74% 54% -19%
Kandiyohi 77% 61% -17%
Kittson 68% 73% 4%
Koochiching 89% 83% -7%
Lac qui Parle 82% 64% -18%
Lake 72% 61% -11%
Lake of the Woods 75% 73% -2%
Le Sueur 49% 45% -4%
Lincoln 75% 59% -16%
Lyon 71% 60% -11%
McLeod 72% 56% -16%
Mahnomen 59% 51% -8%
Marshall 65% 65% 0%
Martin 82% 65% -17%
Meeker 71% 57% -14%
Mille Lacs 51% 43% '-9%
Morrison 75% 61% -13%
Mower 74% 66% -7%
Murray 68% 55% -13%
Nicollet 44% 32% -12%
Nobles 75% 63% -12%
Norman 80% 66% -14%
Olmsted 70% 64% -7%
Otter Tail 84% 71% -13%
Pennington 68% 57% -11%
Pine 66% 60% -6%
Pipestone 76% 61% -15%
Polk 65% 58% -7%
Pope 78% 54% -24%
Ramsey 37% 31% -5%
Red Lake 74% 57% -16%
Redwood 71% 58% -13%
Renville 64% 53% -11%
Rice 68% 54% -14%
Rock 69% 51% -19%
Roseau 88% 80% -8%
St. Louis 71% 65% -6%
Scott 47% 38% -9%
Sherburne 45% 41% -4%
Sibley 63% 51% -12%
Stearns 64% 56% -9%
Steele 37% 57% 20%
Stevens 66% 56% -10%
Swift 71% 57% -14%
Todd 63% 56% -7%
Traverse 74% 64% -10%
Wabasha 68% 57% -11%
Wadena 58% 44% -15%
Waseca 66% 56% -11%
Washington 45% 36% -10%
Watonwan 74% 58% -17%
Wilkin 52% 38% -13%
Winona 70% 59% -11%
Wright 59% 51% -8%
Yellow Medicine 59% 49% -10%
State data for the years 2002 and 2022
Region % Same,
2002
% Same,
2022
Change
2002–22
State of Minnesota 55% 48% -7%

Authors: Benjamin Winchester, University of Minnesota Extension, rural sociologist; Kathryn Leys, University of Minnesota Extension, educator

Reviewed in 2026

Page survey

© 2026 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer. This work is supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture.