Grant Report

City of Chandler — Regular Meeting (2025-12-09)

Extracted text (via pymupdf) 162687 characters

IDA Grant
Quarterly
Update 2
Chandler
Next Twenty
Economic
Vitality Report
SUBMITTED TO:
CHANDLER IDA BOARD
OCTOBER 31, 2025
GRANT AWARDEE:
CITY OF CHANDLER
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Project Update
Next Twenty Economic Vitality Report
The City of Chandler’s Economic Development Division was awarded $150,000 in
grant funding to engage Arizona State University (ASU) to prepare a twenty-year
economic vitality plan for the city. The Next Twenty report will address multiple
topics critical to the city’s future economic prosperity and will complement long-
term planning efforts being undertaken for the city’s 2026 General Plan Update.
This is the second quarterly update to the Chandler IDA Board and covers the
period of August through October 2025. The following steps have been taken to
advance the project over the past quarter:
• The ASU Seidman Research Institute team completed the Demographic
Analysis and Economic Snapshot sections of the scope of work, compiled into
the attached “Demography and Economy: City of Chandler Study” document.
Findings will support recommendations in the final Next Twenty report.
• Stakeholder engagement has begun with the ASU Seidman team conducting
in-depth interviews with key industry corporate executives, entrepreneurs, civic
leaders, and other community stakeholders identified by city staff. Two resident
focus group sessions are also planned for Dec. 9 and Dec. 11 that will include
graduates from the city’s CIVIC program. Each will have up to 20 participants.
• A progress presentation is planned for the Economic Development Advisory
Board meeting on Wednesday, Dec. 10. The ASU Seidman team is required to
give two presentations, and staff will work to schedule one with the IDA Board.
• Thunderbird School of Global Management students have begun working on
the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) section of the report. As a reminder, the city
applied for Thunderbird’s Global Challenge Lab, which simulates a real-world
consulting project for its graduate students. A team of five students is assigned
to the project, and they have been working on it since mid-October. Their final
deliverable will be due at the end of November and will include an international
analysis of geographies the city should target for FDI opportunities along with a
five-year implementation plan.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
IDA GRANT UPDATE | 2

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sep.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
IDA Grant Awarded
Contract Preparation
City Council Approval
Seidman Work
Thunderbird GCL
Draft Report Due
Final Report Due
IDA GRANT UPDATE | 3
Micah Miranda
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
We appreciate the Chandler IDA
Board’s support for this project.
Please contact us if you have
questions about the information
provided in this quarterly update.
Questions?
Michael Winer
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT MANAGER
Project Timeline
There have been no significant changes to the project timeline. It is expected the
report will take approximately six months to complete with delivery in early 2026.
Project Funding
To date, $41,428 in grant funding has been spent. Of the $150,000 awarded,
most ($145,000) is allocated to the contract with ASU Seidman Research Institute.
Payment is made in monthly installments with each being one-seventh of the
total contract amount. The remaining $5,000 of the grant award will cover
transportation reimbursements for Thunderbird students working on the FDI
piece. They have been commuting from Thunderbird’s campus in Phoenix to
Chandler City Hall for onsite work and will be submitting mileage reimbursements.

DEMOGRAPHY AND THE ECONOMY:
CITY OF CHANDLER STUDY

L William Seidman Research Institute
W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University

August 28, 2025
(Updated September 30, 2025)

L. WILLIAM SEIDMAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE
The L. William Seidman Research Institute serves as a link between the local, national, and international business communities
and the W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University (ASU).
First established in 1985 to serve as a center for applied business research alongside a consultancy resource for the Arizona
business community, Seidman collects, analyzes and disseminates information about local economies, benchmarks industry
practices, and identifies emerging business research issues that affect productivity and competitiveness.
Using tools that support sophisticated statistical modeling and planning, supplemented by an extensive understanding of the local,
state and national economies, Seidman today offers a host of economic research and consulting services, including economic
impact analyses, economic forecasting, general survey research, attitudinal and qualitative studies, and strategic analyses of
economic development opportunities.
Working on behalf of government agencies, regulatory bodies, public or privately owned firms, academic institutions, and non-
profit organizations, Seidman specializes in studies at the city, county, or statewide level. Recent and current clients include:
•
Alliance of Arizona Nonprofits
•
Arizona Community Foundation
•
Arizona Commerce Authority (ACA)
•
Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC)
•
Arizona Coyotes
•
Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS)
•
Arizona Dept of. Mines and Mineral Resources
•
Arizona Department of Veterans Services
•
Arizona Diamondbacks
•
Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association
•
Arizona Investment Council (AIC)
•
Arizona Mining Council
•
Arizona Public Service Corporation (APS)
•
Arizona School Boards Association
•
Arizona Science Center
•
Banner Health
•
BHP Billiton
•
The Boeing Company
•
The Boys and Girls Clubs of the Valley
•
The Cactus League Association
•
The Center for American Progress
•
The Central Arizona Project (CAP)
•
Chicanos Por La Causa
•
Children’s Action Alliance
•
City of Peoria
•
City of Phoenix
•
City of Prescott
•
City of Scottsdale
•
CopperPoint
•
Curis Resources (Arizona)
•
The David and Gladys Wright House Foundation
•
Dignity Health
•
Downtown Phoenix Partnership
•
Downtown Tempe Authority
•
Environmental Defense Fund
•
EPCOR Water (USA), Inc.
•
Excelsior Mining
•
Executive Budget Office State of Arizona
•
The Fiber Box Association
•
The Fiesta and Cactus Bowls Host Committee
•
First Things First
•
Florence Copper Mine
•
Freedom Financial
•
Freeport McMoRan
•
Greater Phoenix Economic Council
•
Hamilton Place Strategies
•
HonorHealth
•
Hudbay Minerals
•
Intel Corporation
•
ISM Raceway
•
Latino Donor Collaborative
•
Maricopa Integrated Health System
•
Mohave County
•
Navajo Nation Div. Economic Development
•
The NFL
•
The NCAA
•
Phoenix Convention Center
•
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport
•
The Phoenix Suns
•
Pinal County
•
Protect the Flows
•
Public Service New Mexico (PNM)
•
Raytheon
•
Republic Services, Inc.
•
Rio Tinto
•
Rosemont Copper Mine
•
Salt River Project (SRP)
•
Science Foundation Arizona (SFAZ)
•
Super Bowl XLIX and LVII
•
Televerde/Arouet Foundation
•
Valley METRO Light Rail
•
Tenet Healthcare
•
Valley Metro
•
Vote Solar Initiative
•
Waste Management Inc.
•
Wells Fargo
•
Westworld
•
Yavapai County Jail District

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................. 2
TOTAL POPULATION ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY ....................................................................................................................................... 4
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS ..................................................................................................................... 5
Age ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Race and Ethnicity ................................................................................................................................................. 7
Educational Attainment ......................................................................................................................................... 7
Citizenship and Language .................................................................................................................................... 11
Household Composition ....................................................................................................................................... 11
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................................................................ 11
ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE ........................................................................................................ 12
Employment ......................................................................................................................................................... 13
Income and Poverty ............................................................................................................................................. 13
Occupation, Industry, and Class of Worker .......................................................................................................... 13
Means of Transportation to Work and Travel Time ............................................................................................ 16
SUMMARY OF PLACE-OF-RESIDENCE CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................................................ 16
ECONOMIC SNAPSHOT ................................................................................................................................... 18
MAG EMPLOYER DATABASE ........................................................................................................................................... 18
Chandler Totals .................................................................................................................................................... 19
Chandler’s Industrial Mix ..................................................................................................................................... 20
Major Employers in Chandler .............................................................................................................................. 23
The City of Chandler’s Target Industry Groups .................................................................................................... 23
Arizona Commerce Authority’s Target Industry Groups in Chandler ................................................................... 31
Employment Corridors in Chandler...................................................................................................................... 31
MAG EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS .................................................................................................................................. 39
ACS ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS BY PLACE OF WORK ....................................................................................................... 40
Age ....................................................................................................................................................................... 40
Race and Ethnicity ............................................................................................................................................... 40
Citizenship and Language .................................................................................................................................... 41
Earnings, Poverty, and Tenure ............................................................................................................................. 41
Occupation, Industry, and Class of Worker .......................................................................................................... 42
Means of Transportation to Work and Travel Time ............................................................................................ 45
COMPARISON OF SECTORAL GROUP MIX FROM MAG EMPLOYER DATABASE AND ACS ............................................................. 47
OTHER SOURCES OF ECONOMIC DATA............................................................................................................................... 47
SUMMARY OF PLACE-OF-WORK ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS .............................................................................................. 50
COMPARISON TO FIVE CITIES IN MARICOPA COUNTY ....................................................................................... 51
EMPLOYMENT FROM MAG ............................................................................................................................................ 53
ACS Economic Characteristics by Place of Work .................................................................................................. 57
SUMMARY OF COMPARISON TO FIVE CITIES IN MARICOPA COUNTY ........................................................................................ 59
COMPARISON TO THREE CITIES OUTSIDE MARICOPA COUNTY .......................................................................... 63
POPULATION ................................................................................................................................................................ 63
ACS ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS BY PLACE OF WORK ....................................................................................................... 63
SUMMARY OF COMPARISON TO THREE CITIES OUTSIDE ARIZONA ........................................................................................... 69

DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Demographic data at the city level are quite limited. Other than estimates and projections of the total
population, the American Community Survey (ACS) is the predominant source. The focus in this section is
the city of Chandler, with comparisons to Maricopa County.
Total Population
The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) produces annual population estimates by city”
https://azmag.gov/Programs/Maps-and-Data/Population-and-Housing-Estimates. The estimates are
expressed as of July 1, with the latest figures for 2024. The Arizona Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO)
presents MAG’s estimates for 2021 through 2024 but has benchmarked earlier MAG estimates to
decennial
census
counts.
A
consistent
historical
time
series
is
available
at
https://oeo.az.gov/population/estimates. The U.S. Census Bureau also provides population estimates by
city, but its track record over the last couple of decades has been inferior to that of MAG/OEO.
The annual change in population calculated from the MAG/OEO estimates for Chandler is presented in
Figure 1. The up-and-down fluctuations are due to the economic cycle. Otherwise, population gains have
trended down since the mid-2000s.
MAG
also
produces
population
projections.
The
latest
series
were
released
in
2023
(https://azmag.gov/Programs/Maps-and-Data/Socioeconomic-Projections).1 The projected changes
indicate that population growth in Chandler is expected to remain slow through the 2040s, then gains are
expected to largely disappear (see Figure 2).
In 1980, Chandler’s population accounted for just 2.0 percent of the Maricopa County total. Its share
peaked at about 6.25 percent of the county total from 2017 through 2020. The city’s share is projected to
drop to 5.0 percent in 2060.
Geographically, single-family residential housing development in the Phoenix area has been relatively
orderly, gradually moving outward from the core of the metro area. As land availability in an area
dissipates, development moves out farther from the center of the metro area. Until land availability
becomes restricted in areas closer to the core, population growth in an outlying area is slow. A period of
rapid growth then ensues until developable land for single-family housing has been nearly depleted, when
growth slows. Subsequently, most of the population growth in what has become an inner suburb is due to
multifamily housing projects. The slowing population growth in Chandler in recent years is directly related
to the increasing shortage of undeveloped land for single-family projects in the city, as the main area of
development has moved outward past Chandler.

1 Thus, the projected populations for 2023 and 2024 are not equal to the subsequently issued estimates for those years.

Figure 1: Estimated Annual Population Change in Chandler

Note: Unusual values in 1985 and 1986 were smoothed.
Sources: Calculated from Maricopa Association of Governments and Arizona Office of Economic Opportunity

Figure 2: Projected Annual Population Change in Chandler

Source: Calculated from Maricopa Association of Governments, Socioeconomic Projections, June 2023

0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
2025
2028
2031
2034
2037
2040
2043
2046
2049
2052
2055
2058

American Community Survey
The ACS has been conducted annually by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau
(https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs.html) since 2005. Standard tables of the results are
available from the Census Bureau’s website and from the IPUMS website maintained by the University of
Minnesota (the NHGIS portion: https://www.nhgis.org/). The IPUMS site was used to collect the ACS data
used in this report. Since the results are based on a survey, sampling error is present.
Most of the data reported by the ACS are by place of residence. For example, the data for the city of
Chandler were collected from residents of the city — those living in households and those living in group
quarters. The ACS collects employment and other economic data from respondents, but most of these
data are reported only by place of residence. Since more than half of employed Chandler residents work
outside of the Chandler city limits, these place-of-residence data are of limited value in examining the
companies and jobs located within the city. However, the ACS does provides limited data by place of work.
Standard ACS tables produced by the Census Bureau are available for single years and for five-year
aggregations. In general, for ACS data not available from the standard tables produced by the Census
Bureau, researchers can access ACS microdata. However, microdata is not an option for this project. ACS
microdata at a substate level are only available for Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs), each of which is
designed to represent a population of 100,000 or a little more. Two PUMAs are exclusive to Chandler, but
a third PUMA combines west Chandler with south Tempe. Apart from this geographic discordance,
sampling error from the microdata is quite large for PUMAs.
The population of Chandler (more than 280,000 in 2024) is large enough that sampling error from the one-
year files is not an issue for high-level analyses, but sampling error is significant when cell sizes of a
crosstabulation are small. For example, the population of some minority groups is quite small in Chandler
(e.g., fewer than 10,000 blacks and less than 5,500 Native Americans) such that crosstabs (e.g.,
race/ethnicity by age) generate unreliable results. In order to provide consistent data with less sampling
error, only the five-year aggregated ACS data were used for the analyses presented in this report. Another
reason to use the five-year data is that the limited amount of place-of-work data (tables labeled as “for
workplace geography”) that are available from the ACS come only from the five-year aggregation.
The five-year ACS data are released in each year in December. Thus, for the analyses presented in this
paper, the latest data were for 2019 through 2023. This five-year period is compared to three earlier five-
year periods: 2014 through 2018, 2009 through 2013, and 2005 through 2009. Since the earliest data from
the ACS are from 2005, the 2005-09 period overlaps with the 2009-13 period. Some of the standard tables
of interest are not available for all four of these five-year periods; in particular, fewer tables and tables
with less detail are available for the 2005-09 period.
Demographic and especially economic data are affected by the nation’s economic cycle. Population growth
slows during economic recessions and is greatest at the peak of the economic cycle. Employment
frequently declines during economic downturns and gains are greatest during economic booms. However,
the ups and downs of the economic cycle do not equally affect all industries. Thus, the economic cycle

needs to be considered when examining socioeconomic data over time. The impacts of the economic cycle
on each of these five-year periods are discussed below:
•
2005 through 2009: This period encompasses the greatest economic boom the state has
experienced (in 2005 and 2006) and the worst economic recession (in 2008 and 2009) since the
Great Depression.
•
2009 through 2013: This period includes much of the deep economic recession and an unusually
slow economic recovery.
•
2014 through 2018: All of this period was marked by economic expansion.
•
2019 through 2023: 2019 was another year of economic expansion, but 2020 featured a brief
period of very deep economic decline tied to COVID-19, followed by a very strong recovery that
extended through 2022; 2023 was a more typical expansionary year.
The following ACS data analyses by place of residence are divided into three types: demographic and social
characteristics, economic characteristics, and housing characteristics. Economic characteristics by place of
work are discussed in the “Economic Snapshot” section of this report.
Demographic and Social Characteristics
Age
The median age of Chandler residents in 2019-23 was 37.4, about the same as for Maricopa County
residents (37.5). The median age in Chandler varied by race and ethnicity; it was highest among non-
Hispanic whites at 42.7 and lowest among those of two-or-more races at 25.3. The median was 39.0 for
Asians and 29.0 for Hispanics. The median age in Chandler in 2019-23 was up 5.1 years from 2005-09, a
somewhat greater gain than the 4.2 years in the county. The increase in Chandler was 7.1 years for non-
Hispanic whites, 4.8 years for Asians, and 4.7 years for Hispanics.
The share of the total population in each age group younger than 50 declined between 2005-09 and 2019-
23 in Chandler, with the magnitude of the decreases generally slightly greater in Chandler than in the
county (see Figure 3). The largest decreases were among children younger than 10 and those from 25-to-
44 years of age. The share increased in each of the age groups older than 49. The increase in the older age
groups was somewhat greater in Chandler than in Maricopa County. Figure 4 displays the age distribution
in Chandler in each of the four time periods.
Changes in the age distribution over time largely result from fluctuations in the number of births. Since
the Phoenix area attracts so many in-migrants, variations in the number of births nationally needs to be
considered as well as locally. Nationally, during the baby boom of 1946 through 1964, the number of births
rose from 3.4 million in 1946 to more than 4 million per year from 1954 through 1964. During the baby
bust from 1965 into the mid-1980s, the number of births in each year was less than 3.8 million and was
as low as less than 3.2 million per year from 1973 through 1976. From 1987 through 2017, the number of
births ranged from 3.8-to-4.3 million. The number of births dropped after that, reaching a trough in 2023
at 3.6 million. The decrease in the number of births was more precipitous in Maricopa County, from more
than 66,000 in 2006 to less than 50,000 in 2020. The number was less than 51,000 in each year 2021-2024.

Figure 3: Percentage-Point Change in the Share of the Total Population by Age Group in Chandler and
Maricopa County, 2005 through 2009 to 2019 through 2023

Figure 4: Share of the Total Population by Age Group in Chandler

Source: Calculated from U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey, five-year
data aggregations, obtained from IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org. Table B01001
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
<5
10-14
20-24
30-34
40-44
50-54
60-64
70-74
80-84
Chandler
Maricopa County
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
<5
10-14
20-24
30-34
40-44
50-54
60-64
70-74
80-84
2005-09
2009-13
2014-18
2019-23

Race and Ethnicity
Table 1 displays the racial and ethnic shares of the Chandler population in each of the four time periods.
The non-Hispanic white share has dropped, but not because of increases in share of the Hispanic
population. Instead, the share increased in each of the other non-Hispanic races, particularly Asians and
the two-or-more-race category.
Relative to all residents of Maricopa County, the non-Hispanic Asian proportion was considerably higher
in Chandler (11.3-versus-4.3 percent). Shares also were higher in Chandler for non-Hispanic whites (55.3-
versus-53.4 percent) and for non-Hispanics of more than one race (4.8-versus-4.0 percent), offset by a
much lesser share of Hispanics (21.4-versus-30.9 percent).
Between 2005-09 and 2019-23, the Asian share increased more in Chandler than in Maricopa County. The
decline in the non-Hispanic white share was greater in Chandler than in the county.
Table 1: Share of the Total Population by Race and Ethnicity in Chandler

2005-09
2009-13
2014-18
2019-23
Hispanic
22.3%
23.1%
21.3%
21.4%

Not Hispanic

White Alone
63.7%
59.4%
58.7%
55.3%
Black alone
4.1%
5.1%
5.1%
5.1%
Native American Alone
0.9%
1.0%
1.3%
1.5%
Asian Alone
6.6%
8.5%
10.3%
11.3%
Pacific Islander Alone
0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
Other Race Alone
0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
0.5%
Two or More Races
2.1%
2.6%
3.0%
4.8%
Source: Calculated from U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey, five-year
data aggregations, obtained from IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org. Table B03002
Educational Attainment
Educational attainment of those 25 and older in 2019-23 is displayed in Figure 5. Chandler residents were
more highly educated than Maricopa County residents, with a considerably higher share with bachelor’s
and master’s degrees and lesser shares of those with some college or less education. The change in
educational attainment between 2009-13 and 2019-23 is shown in Figure 6. Chandler outpaced Maricopa
County in the increase in the share with at least a bachelor’s degree. Educational attainment varies
considerably by race and ethnicity, as seen in Figure 7.2 A relatively high share of Hispanics in 2019-23
were not high school graduates and a relatively low share were college graduates. For non-Hispanic whites,
a low share had not graduated from high school, but the percentage of college graduates was less than
among Asians.

2 Other racial/ethnic groups are not displayed due to the relatively small number of individuals in the categories living in Chandler.

Figure 5: Educational Attainment as a Share of the Population Aged 25 and Older in 2019 through 2023

Figure 6: Change in Educational Attainment as a Share of the Population Aged 25 and Older Between
2009 through 2013 and 2019 through 2023

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Less Than High School Graduate
High School Diploma/GED
Less Than one Year of College
More Than One Year of College, No Degree
Associate Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Master's Degree
Professional Degree/Doctorate
Maricopa County
Chandler
-4
-2
0
2
4
Less Than High School Graduate
High School Diploma/GED
Less Than one Year of College
More Than One Year of College, No Degree
Associate Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Master's Degree
Professional Degree/Doctorate
Percentage-Point Change
Maricopa County
Chandler

Figure 7: Educational Attainment as a Share of the Population Aged 25 and Older by Race/Ethnicity in
2019 through 2023
(A) Not a High School Graduate

(B) Bachelor’s Degree or Higher Education

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Non-Hispanic White
Hispanic
Asian
Maricopa County
Chandler
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Non-Hispanic White
Hispanic
Asian
Maricopa County
Chandler

Between 2005-09 and 2019-23, the share of Chandler residents with at least a bachelor’s degree rose the
most among Asians, by more than in the county. The increase among Hispanics was similar to that of non-
Hispanic whites, with the gains in each group a little less than in the county.
The Census Bureau provides educational attainment for five age groups: 18 to 24, 25 to 34, 35 to 44, 45 to
64, and 65 and older. Results for the 18-to-24 age group are difficult to interpret since so many individuals
in this age group are still pursuing an education. In each age group in 2019-23, the proportion with a
bachelor’s degree and the percentage with at least a master’s degree was higher in Chandler than in
Maricopa County. The least differential was in the 65 and older age group. The comparison between
Chandler and Maricopa County in the change in educational attainment between 2005-09 and 2019-23 by
age group was inconsistent, perhaps due to sampling error.
Table 2: Field of Degree of the Population Aged 25 and Older who Earned a Bachelor’s Degree or a
Graduate Degree
FIELD OF DEGREE
SHARE OF TOTAL
Chandler
Chandler Minus
Maricopa County
2019-23
Change*
2019-23
Change*
Computers, Mathematics, and Statistics
5.8%
0.5%
1.1%
0.4%
Biological, Agricultural, Environmental Science
4.9%
1.0%
-0.5%
0.1%
Physical and Related Sciences
3.2%
-0.4%
0.6%
0.1%
Psychology
4.6%
0.3%
-0.6%
-0.4%
Social Sciences
5.7%
-0.2%
-1.2%
-0.1%
Engineering
14.6%
1.5%
6.5%
2.1%
Multidisciplinary
1.3%
0.7%
0.2%
0.3%
Science and Engineering Related
9.7%
0.9%
-0.7%
-0.4%
Business
20.9%
-3.2%
-1.6%
-2.6%
Education
9.6%
-1.6%
-1.7%
1.0%
Literature and Languages
2.6%
-0.6%
-0.8%
-0.5%
Liberal Arts and History
3.5%
0.0%
-0.3%
0.4%
Visual and Performing Arts
2.8%
0.2%
-0.7%
0.0%
Communications
4.5%
0.7%
-0.1%
0.2%
Other Arts and Humanities
6.3%
0.4%
-0.3%
-0.3%
* Percentage-point change from 2009-13 to 2019-23
Source: Calculated from U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey, five-year
data aggregations, obtained from IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org. Table C24010
Table 2 presents the field of degree for those 25 and older who had earned a bachelor’s or graduate
degree. Relative to Maricopa County residents, a higher share of Chandler residents had an engineering
degree in 2019-23. Chandler’s share was less than in the county in every field not related to science and
engineering. Between 2009-13 and 2019-23, Chandler experienced a large decrease in the share of

residents with a business degree, greater than the decrease in the county. For those with an engineering
degree, a sizable increase occurred in Chandler compared to a small decline in Maricopa County.
Citizenship and Language
In 2019-23, the citizenship distribution of Chandler residents was 85 percent U.S.-born, 8 percent
naturalized citizens, and 7 percent noncitizens. The naturalized share was higher in Chandler than
Maricopa County, offset by lesser shares of U.S.-born citizens and noncitizens. From 2005-09 to 2019-23,
the naturalized citizen share rose in Chandler more than in the county while the U.S.-born share slipped in
Chandler but rose in Maricopa County.
In 2019-23, more than three-fourths of Chandler residents aged five and older spoke only English, a higher
share than in Maricopa County. About 10 percent spoke Spanish, with a high proportion of these speaking
English well. The proportion speaking Spanish was considerably less than in Maricopa County. In contrast,
the proportion speaking another language, especially an Asian language, was higher in Chandler than in
Maricopa County. A high share of those speaking another language spoke English well.
Household Composition
Slightly more than 50 percent of Chandler households in 2019-23 consisted of a married-couple family, a
lesser share than in 2005-09. One-parent families accounted for 17 percent. Nonfamily households of a
single person accounted for 23 percent of all households and other nonfamily households were
responsible for 9 percent. Of households classified as a family, 28 percent had two persons, 17 percent
consisted of three persons, 14 percent were four-person families, and 9 percent were families of at least
five people.
Housing Characteristics
In 2019-23, the vacancy rate in Chandler was 5.0 percent, down from more than 8 percent in 2005-09 and
2009-13. This overstates the vacancy rate as typically defined since seasonal dwellings and other vacant
units not for sale or rent are included by the Census Bureau as vacant. The share of housing units held for
seasonal or recreational use was lower in Chandler than in Maricopa County.
Based only on those units for rent or for sale, the vacancy rate in Chandler was 2.7 percent in 2019-23,
down from more than 3 percent in 2005-09 and 2009-13. The 2019-23 vacancy rate of units for rent or for
sale was marginally higher than in Maricopa County; the vacancy rate had been lower in Chandler than
the county in the three prior periods.
In 2019-23, the owner-occupancy rate in Chandler was 65.6 percent, a higher share than in 2009-13 and
2014-18, but less than in 2005-09. The owner-occupancy rate in Chandler in 2019-23 was slightly higher
than in Maricopa County, with the change over time similar to that in the county.
The average household size of owner-occupied units was 2.71 in Chandler in 2019-23, less than in each of
the prior periods. The average household size of renter-occupied units was 2.43 in 2019-23, also less than
in each of the prior periods. Overall average household size in Chandler dropped from 2.84 in 2005-09, to

2.80 in 2009-13, to 2.78 in 2014-18, to 2.61 in 2019-23. The overall average household size in Chandler in
2019-23 was the same as in Maricopa County, with a similar change over time.
Of Chandler residents not living in group quarters, 68 percent lived in an owner-occupied unit in 2019-23,
a little higher share than in Maricopa County. The vast majority living in owner-occupied units lived in
single-family units (either attached or detached) in Chandler, with the share higher than in Maricopa
County; in contrast the share living in mobile homes was lower in Chandler than in the county. Less than
half of the people living in rental units lived in single-family units.
In 2019-23, median contract rent in Chandler was $1,650, a figure 18.5 percent higher than the Maricopa
County median. The median gross rent of $1,806 in Chandler was 13.8 percent higher than the county
median. Gross rent is the sum of contract rent and the estimated average monthly cost of utilities if these
are paid separately by the renter. On an inflation-adjusted basis, median contract rent in Chandler in 2019-
23 was 41 percent higher than in 2005-09, an increase greater than in Maricopa County. The increase in
median gross rent in Chandler was less at 32 percent, a slightly smaller rise than in the county.
The median gross rent in Chandler amounted to 28.1 percent of household income in 2019-23, a slightly
higher share than in the prior periods. Despite the higher median rent in Chandler than Maricopa County,
the rental share of household income was lower in Chandler than in Maricopa County. Gross rent
amounted to more than 30 percent of household income in 2019-23 for 45 percent of renters in Chandler
and for 51 percent in Maricopa County.
The median value of an owned housing unit in Chandler in 2019-23 was $469,800, higher than the
Maricopa County median by 13 percent. The inflation-adjusted increase in the median value in Chandler
was 24 percent from 2005-09 but was 73 percent from 2009-13. These increases were less than in
Maricopa County.
The share of owner-occupied units with a mortgage or similar debt in Chandler dropped from 87 percent
in 2005-09 to 73 percent in 2019-23 but remained higher than the share in Maricopa County. Units with
multiple mortgages fell sharply from 31 percent to 8 percent in Chandler but remained higher than the
share in the county.
Despite the increase in home prices, median homeowner costs as a percentage of household income
dropped from 22 percent in 2005-09 to 16 percent in 2019-23 in Chandler, with similar figures in Maricopa
County. Of those units with a mortgage, homeowner costs in Chandler in 2019-23 amounted to more than
30 percent of household income for 20 percent of homeowners, a lesser share than in Maricopa County.
The percentage with costs at least 30 percent of income fell considerably from 2005-09, with the
improvement in Chandler a little less than in Maricopa County.
Economic Characteristics by Place of Residence
The percentage of employed Chandler residents who worked in Chandler increased from 32 percent in
2005-09 to 48 percent in 2019-23.

Employment
Of those 16 and older, 69 percent of Chandler residents were employed in 2019-23, a higher share than in
Maricopa County. Less than 3 percent were unemployed, a slightly lesser share than in Maricopa County.
By age, the percentage employed, both overall and among those working full-time year-round, was higher
among Chandler residents than residents of Maricopa County in each age group younger than the age of
70. The share employed in Chandler was at least 86 percent in the 20-to-24, 25-to-44, and 45-to-54 age
groups. The proportion working full-time year-round was highest in the 45-to-54 age group at 72 percent.
In 2019-23, the percentage of Chandler residents 16-to-64 years old who had worked at some point in the
prior year was 83 percent, higher than in Maricopa County. The share working at least 35 hours a week for
at least 48 weeks was 61 percent, also higher than in Maricopa County. Relative to 2005-09, the share
working full-time and year-round rose.
Income and Poverty
Per capita income in 2019-23 was $58,669 in Chandler, 17 percent higher than the figure for Maricopa
County. The inflation-adjusted increase from 2005-09 was 22 percent in Chandler, marginally greater than
in Maricopa County.
Median household income in 2019-23 was $103,691 in Chandler, 21 percent higher than the figure for
Maricopa County. The inflation-adjusted increase from 2005-09 was 10 percent in Chandler, less than in
Maricopa County. In 2019-23, the share of Chandler households with an income of less than $50,000 (18
percent) was equal to the share with an income of at least $200,000. In 2019-23, median worker earnings
were $56,670 in Chandler, 21 percent more than in Maricopa County. The median was higher for full-time
year-round workers at $79,820 for males and $61,604 for females.
There are several types of household income, of which wage and salary income is the most common — it
was received by 83 percent of Chandler households in 2019-23. The average (not median) figure was
$132,878. About 10 percent of Chandler households had self-employment income; the average was
$47,751. The average income from each of the other sources was less; these sources include Social
Security; retirement; and dividends, interest, and rent.
The poverty rate in Chandler in 2019-23 was 7.7 percent, about the same as in 2005-09. The 2019-23 rate
in Maricopa County was 10.3 percent.
Occupation, Industry, and Class of Worker
The occupational groups of employed Chandler residents are provided in Table 3. Relative to Maricopa
County, the occupational mix of Chandler’s residents in 2019-23 was tilted to the higher-paying
occupational groups of architecture and engineering, computer and mathematical, and business and
financial operations. The higher shares in these groups were offset by lower shares in several of the lower-
paying groups, including construction and extraction, building and grounds cleaning and maintenance,
material moving, and transportation.

Table 3: Occupational Group of Employed Residents of Chandler and Maricopa County
OCCUPATIONAL GROUP
SHARE OF TOTAL
Chandler
Chandler Minus
Maricopa County
2019-23
Change*
2019-23
Change*
Management
12.4%
-0.6%
0.6%
-2.4%
Business and Financial Operations
8.4%
2.6%
1.3%
0.6%
Computer and Mathematical
6.5%
2.7%
2.3%
1.2%
Architecture and Engineering
6.7%
1.9%
4.1%
1.7%
Life, Physical, and Social Science
0.8%
-0.1%
0.0%
-0.2%
Community and Social Service
1.6%
0.1%
-0.1%
0.0%
Legal
0.9%
-0.1%
-0.2%
-0.2%
Educational Instruction and Library
5.6%
0.2%
0.4%
-0.2%
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media
2.2%
0.7%
0.2%
0.4%
Health Diagnosing and Treating Practitioners
4.8%
1.3%
0.5%
0.3%
Health Technicians
1.4%
0.0%
-0.4%
-0.5%
Healthcare Support
2.5%
1.2%
-0.3%
0.0%
Protective Service
1.6%
-0.5%
-0.3%
-0.3%
Food Preparation and Serving
4.3%
-0.3%
-0.9%
0.1%
Building & Grounds Cleaning & Maintenance
2.1%
-0.2%
-1.3%
0.8%
Personal Care and Service
2.4%
-1.4%
0.0%
-0.4%
Sales and Related
9.6%
-4.3%
-0.8%
-2.0%
Office and Administrative Support
12.5%
-1.6%
0.0%
0.8%
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry
0.1%
-0.2%
-0.1%
0.1%
Construction and Extraction
3.0%
-1.3%
-2.0%
1.5%
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair
2.8%
-0.4%
-0.2%
0.1%
Production
3.4%
-0.6%
-0.4%
-0.1%
Transportation
2.3%
-0.1%
-1.1%
-0.4%
Material Moving
2.3%
0.8%
-1.3%
-0.8%
* Percentage-point change from 2005-09 to 2019-23
Source: Calculated from U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey, five-year
data aggregations, obtained from IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org. Table C24010
The change in Chandler’s occupational mix between 2005-09 and 2019-23 featured sizable increases in
the business and financial operations; computer and mathematical; architecture and engineering; health
diagnosing and treating practitioners; and healthcare support occupational groups. Other than the latter
group, each is high paying and has high educational requirements. The increases in the computer and
mathematical; and architecture and engineering groups exceeded those in Maricopa County. These gains
in share were offset by reductions in share in several lower-paying groups, including sales and related;
office and administrative support; personal care and service; and construction and extraction. The

decrease in the sales and related group was larger than in Maricopa County. The share of Chandler
residents working in the management group dropped while an increase occurred in Maricopa County.
Among those working full-time and year-round, the occupational mix of Chandler’s residents in 2019-23
was tilted even more to the higher-paying occupational groups of management; architecture and
engineering; computer and mathematical; and business and financial operations. The share of the food
preparation and serving group was substantially lower among those working full-time and year-round.
In the ACS, the 20 sectors defined in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) are
combined into 14 sectoral groups. The data for employed Chandler residents and relative to Maricopa
County residents is provided in Table 4.
Table 4: Sectoral Group of Employed Residents of Chandler and Maricopa County (ACS by Place of Residence)
SECTORAL GROUP
SHARE OF TOTAL
Chandler
Chandler Minus
Maricopa County
2019-23
Change*
2019-23
Change*
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting
0.2%
-0.3%
-0.2%
-0.3%
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
Utilities
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
Construction
5.7%
-1.1%
-2.1%
1.4%
Manufacturing
13.3%
0.1%
5.5%
0.7%
Wholesale Trade
1.9%
-1.7%
-0.3%
-0.8%
Retail Trade
10.8%
-1.7%
-1.1%
-1.6%
Transportation and Warehousing
3.9%
0.3%
-1.2%
-0.7%
Information
2.1%
-0.2%
0.4%
0.1%
Finance and Insurance
9.4%
1.8%
1.4%
0.7%
Real Estate, Rental and Leasing
2.3%
-0.4%
-0.3%
0.0%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
8.5%
1.7%
0.5%
0.0%
Management of Companies
0.1%
0.0%
-0.1%
-0.1%
Administrative and Support Services
4.1%
-0.3%
-1.2%
0.3%
Educational Services
8.7%
-0.2%
0.3%
-0.9%
Health Care and Social Assistance
12.5%
2.6%
0.0%
0.5%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
2.2%
0.4%
0.1%
0.4%
Accommodation and Food Services
5.6%
-0.8%
-1.2%
-0.2%
Other Services (except public administration)
4.2%
0.2%
-0.2%
0.5%
Public Administration
3.5%
-0.6%
-0.3%
-0.3%
* Percentage-point change from 2005-09 to 2019-23
Source: Calculated from U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey, five-year
data aggregations, obtained from IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org. Table C24010

Relative to Maricopa County, the sectoral-group share of Chandler’s residents in 2019-23 was much higher
in manufacturing and also higher in finance and insurance. The higher shares in these sectoral groups were
offset by lower shares in several groups, including construction; transportation and warehousing;
administrative and support services; accommodation and food services; and retail trade.
Changes in Chandler’s sectoral-group mix between 2005-09 and 2019-23 featured increases in the
healthcare and social assistance; finance and insurance; and the professional, scientific, and technical
services groups. These gains in share were offset by reductions in share in the wholesale trade; retail trade;
and construction groups. The decrease in the retail trade share was much larger than in Maricopa County.
Nearly three-fourths of employed Chandler residents worked for a private-sector company in 2019-23, a
higher share than for Maricopa County residents. Between 2005-09 and 2019-23, the share of Chandler
residents working for a nonprofit organization increased while the share working for local government
decreased by more than in Maricopa County.
Means of Transportation to Work and Travel Time
The share of workers who worked from home was considerably higher in 2019-23 than in earlier periods.
Among Chandler residents, the share increased to 23 percent in 2019-23, up from 5 percent in 2005-09
and 7 percent in 2014-18. The increase was larger among Chandler residents than residents of Maricopa
County, where the share rose from 7 percent in 2014-18 to 19 percent in 2019-23.
Nearly 85 percent of employed Chandler residents who did not work from home commuted to work by
driving alone in 2019-23, a slightly higher share than in the past and a higher share than in Maricopa
County. The carpool share was 11 percent, slightly less than the figure for Maricopa County.
Median travel time to work of employed Chandler residents who did not work from home was about 22
minutes in 2019-23, compared to 24 minutes in Maricopa County. These figures were nearly the same as
in the past.
Of employed Chandler residents who did not work from home in 2019-23, 30 percent left for work
between 5-and-7 a.m., 24 percent departed from 7-to-8 a.m., and 17 percent left between 8-and-9 a.m.
Compared to 2005-09, there was a slight shift from leaving before 8 a.m. to leaving after 8 a.m.
Summary of Place-of-Residence Characteristics
Generally, the demographics of Chandler residents are similar to those of all residents of Maricopa County.
Differences from Maricopa County in 2019-23 and/or in the change from 2005-09 to 2019-23 for Chandler
residents are highlighted below:
•
The percentage of residents of Asian race was higher, offset by a lesser share of Hispanics.
•
Educational attainment was higher, particularly of those with at least a bachelor’s degree; the gain
over time in the share with at least a bachelor’s degree also was higher. Of those who had earned
at least a bachelor’s degree, the share with an engineering major was higher, with a greater
increase over time.
•
The percentage of naturalized citizens was higher, with a larger increase over time.

•
Fewer residents spoke Spanish, with a higher share speaking Asian languages.
•
A greater percentage were employed.
•
Per capita income, median household income, and median earnings were considerably higher, and
the poverty rate was lower.
•
A higher share worked in the following occupational groups: architecture and engineering;
computer and mathematical; and business and financial operations. The increase in share was
higher in the computer and mathematical; and architecture and engineering groups.
•
A much higher share worked in the manufacturing sector, with a somewhat higher share in finance
and insurance.
•
A higher percentage worked at for-profit companies.
•
Median rent was higher but rent as a percentage of household income was lower.
•
Median home value was higher, but homeowner’s costs as a percentage of household income was
the same.

ECONOMIC SNAPSHOT
Economic data by place of work at the city level generally are even more limited than demographic data.
However, MAG’s employer database is a valuable resource for jurisdictions within the state of Arizona.
MAG Employer Database
MAG has attempted to identify every business establishment that has employment of five or more in the
state and to assign a detailed NAICS code to each (https://azmag.gov/Programs/Maps-and-
Data/Employment). The latest information for Maricopa County is for 2023.
The creation of the MAG Employer Database begins with information from a number of sources, most
notably Dun & Bradstreet, which produces business directories, and the Maricopa County Trip Reduction
Program. The latter collects data from employees working at establishments of at least 50 workers.
Due to the exclusion of establishments with fewer than five employees, the sum of employment from the
employer database in Maricopa County and in each of its jurisdictions is less than that from other sources.
For Maricopa County in 2023, the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) produced by the
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported employment of 2,233,956 compared
to MAG’s total of 1,933,210 (13.5 percent lower).
In part because of the exclusion of establishments with fewer than five employees, the sectoral shares
calculated from the MAG Employer Database differ from those of the QCEW. However, the larger reason
for the sectoral differences is in the assignment of a NAICS code to each establishment. In many
establishments, more than one type of business is conducted. For example, some manufacturing sites may
have a retail trade component that sells directly to consumers. However, only one NAICS code may be
assigned to an establishment. Thus, it is not surprising that the NAICS industry assigned in the MAG
Employer Database differs from that assigned by the federal government. Additional considerations are
that the NAICS code in the MAG Employer Database has changed over time for some establishments and
in a few cases is obviously incorrect.
The differences in sectoral shares in 2023 between the MAG employer database and the QCEW are
presented in Table 5. Based on employment, the difference in sectoral share between MAG and the QCEW
exceeded 1 percentage point in nine of 20 sectors. The differences were considerably larger based on the
number of establishments.
In this section, employment and the number of establishments are reported for 2023 and for the
comparison years of 2007, 2014, and 2021 as follows3:
•
For two-digit NAICS sectors for Chandler and Maricopa County
•
For three-digit NAICS subsectors for Chandler and Maricopa County
•
For Chandler’s target industry groups for Chandler

3 The MAG Employer Database for 1995 and 2000 also have been examined. Since the Standard Industrial Classification rather
than the NAICS was used in those years, it is not possible to compare the sectoral mixes for those years to subsequent years.

Table 5: Comparison of Sectoral Shares in Maricopa County, 2023
SECTOR
EMPLOYMENT
NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS
MAG
QCEW
Difference
MAG
QCEW
Difference
Agriculture
0.3%
0.3%
0.0%
0.4%
0.3%
0.1%
Mining
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
Utilities
0.7%
0.8%
-0.1%
0.3%
0.1%
0.2%
Construction
5.6%
7.5%
-1.9%
7.4%
8.0%
-0.6%
Manufacturing
8.1%
6.4%
1.7%
4.5%
2.7%
1.8%
Wholesale Trade
3.7%
4.1%
-0.4%
3.6%
7.6%
-4.0%
Retail Trade
12.0%
10.7%
1.3%
11.6%
7.8%
3.8%
Transportation & Warehousing
3.9%
5.3%
-1.4%
1.8%
2.5%
-0.7%
Information
2.0%
1.8%
0.2%
2.0%
2.4%
-0.4%
Finance & Insurance
6.1%
6.5%
-0.4%
4.6%
6.7%
-2.1%
Real Estate & Rental
2.5%
2.1%
0.4%
4.3%
6.8%
-2.5%
Prof., Scientific, Technical Services
6.2%
6.0%
0.2%
8.3%
18.1%
-9.8%
Management of Companies
1.7%
1.8%
-0.1%
0.2%
2.5%
-2.3%
Administrative & Support Services
5.0%
8.5%
-3.5%
4.8%
6.8%
-2.0%
Educational Services
7.3%
6.1%
1.2%
3.4%
1.9%
1.5%
Health Care & Social Assistance
13.2%
14.9%
-1.7%
16.8%
11.0%
5.8%
Arts, Entertainment & Recreation
2.1%
1.7%
0.4%
3.0%
1.5%
1.5%
Accommodation & Food Services
10.2%
9.4%
0.8%
11.6%
6.4%
5.2%
Other Services
4.4%
2.8%
1.6%
10.2%
6.7%
3.5%
Public Administration
4.8%
3.3%
1.5%
1.2%
0.2%
1.0%
Sources: Calculated from the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), Employer Database, and the
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW)
•
For the Arizona Commerce Authority’s target industry groups for Chandler
•
For Chandler’s employment corridors
In addition, a list of the major employers in each of these years in Chandler is presented for the city, for
each of the target groups, and for each of the employment corridors.
Chandler Totals
A history of employment and number of establishments located in Chandler is shown in Table 6. Given
the variation in the number of years between observations, the annual average numeric change also is
shown. The variations in the annual averages partially reflect the economic cycle and the timing of
recessions. An economic recession occurred in 2001, followed by a slow recovery. A deep recession
occurred in 2008 to 2009, again followed by a slow recovery. The COVID-induced recession in 2020
featured a huge two-month decline in employment followed by a rapid recovery. The 2014-to-2021 period
had by far the greatest annual average gains.

Table 6: Historical Comparison of Business Establishments and Employment in Chandler
YEAR
TOTAL BY YEAR
AVERAGE ANNUAL NUMERIC CHANGE
Number of
Establishments
Employment
Number of
Establishments
Employment
1995
1,044
47,111

2000
1,383
58,150
68
2,208
2007
2,068
78,960
98
2,973
2014
2,726
99,664
94
2,958
2021
4,992
130,901
324
4,462
2023
5,235
135,891
122
2,495
Source: Calculated from the Maricopa Association of Governments Employer Database
Chandler’s Industrial Mix
Chandler’s industrial mix expressed at the sectoral level, with a comparison to the mix in Maricopa County,
is displayed in Table 7. Pinal County has a small employment base and an industrial mix more like that of
a rural county than a metropolitan county. Thus, its sectoral mix is considerably different from that of
Maricopa County and Chandler.
The big difference in the sectoral mix between Chandler and Maricopa County in 2023 was the much
higher share in manufacturing in Chandler. The share also was higher in Chandler in the management of
companies sector and the finance and insurance sector. Chandler’s share was less than in Maricopa County
in 15 of the 20 sectors, with the largest differences in healthcare and social assistance; public
administration; administrative and support services; construction; and transportation and warehousing.
Using sub-sectoral and industrial group data to pinpoint the differences in share between Chandler and
Maricopa County in 2023, the larger share in manufacturing in Chandler predominantly was in the
computer and electronic products subsector, mostly in the semiconductor and other electronic
component industry, but also in the navigational, measuring, electromedical, and control instruments
industry group. The transportation equipment subsector also was larger in Chandler, due to the aerospace
products and parts industry group.
The larger share in Chandler in the finance and insurance sector was due to a higher share in the credit
intermediation subsector. This subsector includes banks, credit unions, credit card issuing companies,
mortgage lending, and similar activities. In contrast, the share in the insurance carriers subsector in
Chandler was less than in Maricopa County.
The smaller share in Chandler in the health care and social assistance sector occurred mostly in the
ambulatory health care services subsector, which includes such services as physicians, dentists, other
health care practitioners, outpatient care, medical laboratories, home health care, and ambulance
services.

Table 7: Sectoral Mix in Chandler and Maricopa County (Maricopa Association of Governments)
SECTOR
SHARE OF TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
2007
2014
2021
2023
Change
2007 –
2023
Chandler

Agriculture
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
-0.3%
Mining
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
Utilities
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
Construction
6.6%
5.2%
3.8%
3.6%
-3.0%
Manufacturing
30.6%
24.0%
20.6%
22.1%
-8.5%
Wholesale Trade
4.9%
3.7%
3.2%
3.9%
-1.0%
Retail Trade
12.5%
13.5%
11.2%
11.3%
-1.2%
Transportation and Warehousing
2.2%
1.9%
2.0%
1.9%
-0.3%
Information
2.4%
1.6%
1.6%
1.7%
-0.8%
Finance and Insurance
4.7%
6.5%
8.9%
7.6%
2.9%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
1.8%
1.6%
1.5%
1.6%
-0.2%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
3.2%
5.4%
5.7%
5.2%
2.0%
Management of Companies
0.0%
0.6%
4.7%
4.1%
4.0%
Administrative & Support Services
3.2%
8.8%
3.2%
2.7%
-0.5%
Educational Services
6.5%
6.9%
7.2%
7.0%
0.5%
Health Care and Social Assistance
5.8%
6.7%
10.0%
10.3%
4.5%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
2.9%
1.0%
1.9%
1.8%
-1.1%
Accommodation and Food Services
7.3%
7.8%
9.2%
8.9%
1.6%
Other Services
2.1%
2.7%
3.5%
3.9%
1.8%
Public Administration
2.9%
1.7%
1.6%
2.3%
-0.6%

Maricopa County

Agriculture
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
-0.1%
Mining
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
Utilities
0.9%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
-0.2%
Construction
8.5%
6.1%
5.4%
5.6%
-2.9%
Manufacturing
10.6%
9.0%
8.0%
8.1%
-2.5%
Wholesale Trade
4.7%
4.3%
3.6%
3.7%
-0.9%
Retail Trade
12.2%
12.3%
12.4%
12.0%
-0.1%
Transportation and Warehousing
3.6%
3.3%
3.4%
3.9%
0.4%
Information
1.9%
2.1%
2.2%
2.0%
0.1%
Finance and Insurance
6.2%
7.3%
6.6%
6.1%
-0.1%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
2.6%
2.4%
2.4%
2.5%
-0.1%
(continued)

SECTOR
SHARE OF TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
2007
2014
2021
2023
Change
2007 –
2023
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
6.9%
6.8%
6.1%
6.2%
-0.6%
Administrative & Support Services
5.3%
5.7%
5.2%
5.0%
-0.3%
Educational Services
7.9%
8.6%
7.2%
7.3%
-0.6%
Health Care and Social Assistance
9.2%
10.9%
12.8%
13.2%
4.0%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
1.8%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
0.3%
Accommodation and Food Services
7.6%
8.9%
10.4%
10.2%
2.6%
Other Services
3.7%
3.6%
4.1%
4.4%
0.7%
Public Administration
5.8%
5.3%
4.8%
4.8%
-0.9%

Chandler Minus Maricopa County
0.0%
0.1%
-0.2%
-0.2%
-0.2%
Agriculture
-0.1%
-0.1%
-0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
Mining
-0.8%
-0.6%
-0.6%
-0.6%
0.2%
Utilities
-1.9%
-0.9%
-1.6%
-2.0%
-0.1%
Construction
20.0%
15.0%
12.6%
14.0%
-6.0%
Manufacturing
0.2%
-0.6%
-0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
Wholesale Trade
0.3%
1.2%
-1.2%
-0.7%
-1.0%
Retail Trade
-1.4%
-1.4%
-1.4%
-2.0%
-0.7%
Transportation and Warehousing
0.5%
-0.5%
-0.6%
-0.3%
-0.9%
Information
-1.5%
-0.8%
2.3%
1.5%
3.0%
Finance and Insurance
-0.8%
-0.8%
-0.9%
-0.9%
-0.1%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
-3.7%
-1.4%
-0.4%
-1.0%
2.6%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
-0.2%
0.5%
2.4%
2.4%
2.5%
Management of Companies
-2.1%
3.1%
-2.0%
-2.3%
-0.2%
Administrative & Support Services
-1.4%
-1.7%
0.0%
-0.3%
1.1%
Educational Services
-3.4%
-4.2%
-2.8%
-2.9%
0.5%
Health Care and Social Assistance
1.0%
-1.1%
-0.2%
-0.3%
-1.4%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
-0.3%
-1.1%
-1.2%
-1.3%
-1.0%
Accommodation and Food Services
-1.6%
-0.9%
-0.6%
-0.5%
1.1%
Other Services
-2.9%
-3.6%
-3.2%
-2.5%
0.4%
Public Administration
0.0%
0.1%
-0.2%
-0.2%
-0.2%
Source: Calculated from the Maricopa Association of Governments Employer Database

The lesser share in public administration in Chandler was spread across most of its subsectors, as was the
case in the administrative and support services sector and the construction sector. Chandler’s share was
smaller than the county’s share in most of the transportation and warehousing sector’s subsectors, but
especially in warehousing.
The major difference in the change in share from 2007 to 2023 between Chandler and Maricopa County
was the much larger decrease in the manufacturing share in Chandler, offset by larger increases in the
finance and insurance; management of companies; and professional, scientific, and technical services
sectors. Despite the larger gain, the latter sector’s share in 2023 remained below that of Maricopa County.
Major Employers in Chandler
Numerous changes have occurred to the list of Chandler’s largest employers since 1995, as seen in Tables
8A and 8B. However, there has been one constant: Intel has remained at the top of the list by a wide
margin. In 2023, Intel accounted for nearly 10 percent of the city’s employment.
The 25 largest employers accounted for 37 percent of Chandler’s total employment in 2023. The share
provided by the top 25 has declined over time; it was 44 percent in 1995.
The Chandler Unified School District was the city’s third-largest employer in 2023 with 3,886 employees.
Adding schools located in Chandler operated by the Kyrene and Mesa school districts, total school district
employment was 4,688 in 2023.
Tables 9A and 9B display the change over time in the employment of the major employers. In four of the
five time periods, Intel was among the top five in the gain in employment.
The City of Chandler’s Target Industry Groups
Chandler targets six industrial groups in their economic development efforts. Data for each of these groups
are detailed in Table 10. There are considerable differences in size across these six groups. Taken together,
they accounted for 40 percent of the city’s total employment in 2023 and for 57 percent of the city’s
change in employment from 2014 to 2023.
Information on the major employers in these groups in 2023 follows:
•
Advanced Business Services. One location of Wells Fargo, the largest employer, and Verizon were
classified as regional offices. One location of Walgreens was classified as a telemarketing center.
Intraedge provides computer systems design services. Clairvoyant AI was listed as a research and
development facility.
•
Aerospace and Aviation. Northrop Grumman was the largest employer, with two of its locations
classified in the guided missile and space vehicles industry.
•
Healthcare. Dignity Health was the major employer, with most of its workforce at Chandler
Regional Hospital. Other entities in this category included the drug stores of Walgreens and CVS,
and Banner Health.

Table 8A: Top 25 Employers in Chandler in 2023, Listed by Size
COMPANY
INDUSTRY
1995
2000
2007
2014
2021
2023
Intel
Semiconductor Manufacturing
6,235
7,900
10,456
11,700
11,806
12,990
Wells Fargo
Credit Intermediation
0
0
1,861
2,434
5,531
5,684
Chandler Unified School District
Public Schools
1,053
1,953
2,980
3,410
4,091
3,886
Bank of America
Credit Intermediation
61
31
35
2,537
2,903
3,393
Dignity Health (a)
Hospitals and Other Healthcare
902
868
921
1,719
2,773
3,213
Northrop Grumman (b)
Aerospace Manufacturing
311
462
934
1,254
1,903
2,604
City of Chandler
City Government
627
1,106
2,058
1,509
1,608
2,492
NXP USA (c)
Semiconductor Manufacturing
0
0
1,300
1,159
1,477
1,769
Microchip Technology
Semiconductor Manufacturing
520
621
914
1,116
1,440
1,660
Walmart
Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters
366
440
1,231
1,295
1,687
1,481
Insight Direct
Computer and Software Wholesale
0
0
0
0
0
1,186
Maricopa County Community College
Public Higher Education
223
280
275
319
982
1,107
Fry’s Food Stores
Supermarkets
704
446
733
677
847
791
Walgreens
Drug Stores
83
155
226
323
798
768
Voya Financial
Portfolio Management
0
0
0
0
750
750
UnitedHealth Group
Health Insurance Carriers
0
0
0
0
649
713
State of Arizona
State Government
0
90
115
34
443
698
Toyota Financial Services
Sales Financing
0
0
459
497
550
690
Safelite Auto Glass
Automotive Glass Replacement
0
0
0
685
600
675
Honeywell (d)
Instrument & Aircraft Engine Mfg.
269
170
120
0
639
640
Avnet
Electronic Parts Equipment Wholesale
938
772
922
851
589
622
Verizon Wireless
Wireless Communications
0
0
1,200
2,661
579
619
Arizona Nutritional Supplements
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
0
0
100
518
432
605
Bashas
Supermarkets & Distribution Center
768
1,428
1,865
934
623
604
Waymo
Taxi Service
0
0
0
0
600
600

Table 8B: Other Employers Ranking in Top 25 in Some Year, Listed Alphabetically
COMPANY
INDUSTRY
1995
2000
2007
2014
2021
2023
ADESA Phoenix Auto Auction (e)
Automobile Wholesaler
341
360
370
159
100
110
Adflex Solutions
Electronic Components
676
414
0
0
0
0
Advanced Home Health
Home Healthcare Services
340
0
0
0
0
0
Allstate Insurance
Insurance Agency
6
5
4
10
705
5
American InterContinental Univ. (f)
Private University
0
0
0
715
350
350
Amkor Technology
Semiconductor Manufacturing
130
302
309
306
19
12
Arch Chemical (g)
Chemical Manufacturing
311
275
0
0
0
0
Crowne Plaza (San Marcos) (h)
Hotel
294
250
212
116
62
85
Erickson Construction
Framing Contractors
0
250
300
376
200
200
GM Technology Innovation Center
Custom Computer Programming
0
0
0
500
612
0
Gold Canyon International (i)
Miscellaneous Manufacturing
0
0
300
126
0
0
Goodrich Turbomachinery (j)
Aircraft Engine Manufacturing
572
213
228
0
0
0
Heraeus
Glass Products Manufacturing
108
125
400
214
32
32
Home Depot
Home Centers
10
294
494
513
749
591
Inter-tel
Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing
321
279
296
0
0
0
Kyrene School District
Public Schools
418
492
470
496
544
454
Lam Research (k)
Semiconductor Machinery Mfg.
0
930
830
30
30
30
Layne Christensen
Water and Sewer Line Construction
128
296
150
0
0
0
Liberty Mutual
Property and Casualty Insurance
0
0
7
14
861
512
Mesa School District
Public Schools
351
294
378
364
353
348
Motorola
Electronics Manufacturing
2,436
2,482
1,650
0
0
0
Mr. Cooper (l)
Real Estate Credit
0
0
0
1,000
500
500
Olsen Brothers
Single-Family Housing Construction
64
300
300
0
0
0
PayPal
Financial Transactions Processing
0
0
0
1,720
1,223
0
Pearson Education
Educational Support Services
0
0
0
531
288
50
(continued)

Table 8B (Continued): Other Employers Ranking in Top 25 in Some Year, Listed Alphabetically
COMPANY
INDUSTRY
1995
2000
2007
2014
2021
2023
Qbe First (Queensland Bank)
Telemarketing
0
0
0
527
80
0
Rogers (m)
Advanced Materials Manufacturing
304
437
534
353
515
466
Ryobi
Lawn & Garden Equipment Mfg.
862
779
0
0
0
0
Sharp Drywall
Drywall Contractor
447
420
600
50
44
0
Target
Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters
240
140
368
393
206
267
USA Group
Nondeposit Trust
163
329
0
0
0
0
Notes:
(a) “Community Hospital Chandler” in 1995; “Chandler Regional Hospital” and “Community Hospital Chandler” in 2000; “Chandler Regional
Hospital” in 2007 and 2014; “Dignity Health” in 2021 and 2023. A new “Chandler Regional Hospital” was opened at a different address between
2014 and 2021.
(b) “Orbital Science Corporation” from 1995 through 2014. Northrop Grumman purchased this company in 2018.
(c) Most of the employment is at one facility, at 1300 North Alma School. Prior to 2007, this facility was owned by Motorola, which employed
1,142 in 1995 and 1,343 in 2000; this employment is included in the Motorola total. In 2007 and 2014, the facility was owned by Freescale, which
merged with NXP in 2015.
(d) “Allied Signal” prior to 2000; Allied Signal and Honeywell merged in 1999.
(e) “Arizona Auction Services” in 1995 and 2000.
(f) “Edmc” in 2014 (Education Management Company, which owned this and other universities).
(g) “Olin Corp.” in 1995; Olin spun off this business in 1999 as Arch Chemicals.
(h) “Sheraton San Marcos” in 1995 and 2000 and “San Marcos” in 2007.
(i) “Gold Canyon Candles” in 2007.
(j) “Walbar” in 1995 and 2000.
(k) “SpeedFam-IPEC” in 2000 and “Novellus” in 2007. Novellus purchased SpeedFam-IPEC in 2002. Lam Research acquired Novellus in 2011.
(l) “Nationstar Mortgage” in 2014.
(m) In 1995 and 2000, some of the operations were listed under “Durel,” which was a joint venture of Rogers and 3M. Durel became a division of
Rogers in 2003.

Source: Calculated from the Maricopa Association of Governments Employer Database

Table 9A: Change in Employment at Top 25 Employers in Chandler in 2023, Listed by Size
COMPANY
INDUSTRY
1995-
2000
2000-
2007
2007-
2014
2014-
2021
2021-
2023
Intel
Semiconductor Manufacturing
1,665
2,556
1,244
106
1,184
Wells Fargo
Credit Intermediation
-
1,861
573
3,097
353
Chandler Unified School District
Public Schools
900
1,027
430
681
-205
Bank of America
Credit Intermediation
-30
4
2,502
366
490
Dignity Health
Hospitals and Other Healthcare
-34
53
798
1,054
440
Northrop Grumman
Aerospace Manufacturing
151
472
320
649
701
City of Chandler
City Government
479
952
-549
99
884
NXP USA
Semiconductor Manufacturing
-
1,300
-141
318
292
Microchip Technology
Semiconductor Manufacturing
101
293
202
324
220
Walmart
Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters
74
791
64
392
-206
Insight Direct
Computer and Software Wholesale
-
-
-
-
1,186
Maricopa County Community College
Public Higher Education
57
-5
44
663
125
Fry’s Food Stores
Supermarkets
-258
287
-56
170
-56
Walgreens
Drug Stores
72
71
97
475
-30
Voya Financial
Portfolio Management
-
-
-
750
0
UnitedHealth Group
Health Insurance Carriers
-
-
-
649
64
State of Arizona
State Government
90
25
-81
409
255
Toyota Financial Services
Sales Financing
-
459
38
53
140
Safelite Auto Glass
Automotive Glass Replacement
-
-
685
-85
75
Honeywell
Instrument & Aircraft Engine Mfg.
-99
-50
-120
639
1
Avnet
Electronic Parts & Equipment Wholesale
-166
150
-71
-262
33
Verizon Wireless
Wireless Communications
-
1,200
1,461
-2,082
40
Arizona Nutritional Supplements
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
-
100
418
-86
173
Bashas
Supermarkets & Distribution Centers
660
437
-931
-311
-19
Waymo
Taxi Service
-
-
-
600
0
Note: A dash indicates that a company had no operations in Chandler during this period. The five largest gains in each time period are displayed in bold.

Table 9B: Change in Employment at Other Employers Ranking in Top 25 in Chandler in Some Year Listed Alphabetically
COMPANY
INDUSTRY
1995-
2000
2000-
2007
2007-
2014
2014-
2021
2021-
2023
ADESA Phoenix Auto Auction
Automobile Wholesalers
19
10
-211
-59
10
Adflex Solutions
Electronic Components Manufacturing
-262
-414
-
-
-
Advanced Home Health
Home Healthcare Services
-340
-
-
-
-
Allstate Insurance
Insurance Agencies
-1
-1
6
695
-700
American Intercontinental University
Private Universities
-
-
715
-365
0
Amkor Technology
Semiconductor Manufacturing
172
7
-3
-287
-7
Arch Chemical
Chemical Manufacturing
-36
-275
-
0
-
Crowne Plaza (San Marcos)
Hotels and Motels
-44
12
-146
-54
23
Erickson Construction
Framing Contractors
250
50
76
-176
0
GM Technology Innovation Center
Custom Computer Programming
-
-
500
112
-612
Gold Canyon International
Miscellaneous Manufacturing
-
300
-174
-126
-
Goodrich Turbomachinery
Aircraft Engine Manufacturing
-359
15
-228
-
-
Heraeus
Glass Products Manufacturing
17
275
-186
-182
0
Home Depot
Home Centers
284
200
19
236
-158
Inter-tel
Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing
-42
17
-296
-
-
Kyrene School District
Public Schools
74
-22
26
48
-90
Lam Research
Semiconductor Machinery Mfg.
930
-100
-800
0
0
Layne Christensen
Water and Sewer Line Construction
168
-146
-150
-
-
Liberty Mutual
Property and Casualty Insurance
-
7
7
847
-349
Mesa School District
Public Schools
-57
84
-14
-11
-5
Motorola
Electronics Manufacturing
46
-832
-1,650
-
-
Mr. Cooper
Real Estate Credit
-
-
1,000
-500
0
Olsen Brothers
Single-Family Housing Construction
236
0
-300
-
-
PayPal
Financial Transactions Processing
-
-
1,720
-497
-1,223
Pearson Education
Educational Support Services
-
-
531
-243
-238
(continued)

Table 9B: Change in Employment at Other Employers Ranking in Top 25 in Chandler in Some Year Listed Alphabetically
COMPANY
INDUSTRY
1995-
2000
2000-
2007
2007-
2014
2014-
2021
2021-
2023
Qbe First (Queensland Bank)
Telemarketing
-
-
527
-447
-80
Rogers
Advanced Materials Manufacturing
133
97
-181
162
-49
Ryobi
Lawn & Garden Equipment Mfg.
-83
-779
-
-
-
Sharp Drywall
Drywall Contractors
-27
180
-550
-6
-44
Target
Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters
-100
228
25
-187
61
USA Group
Nondeposit Trusts
166
-329
-
-
-
Source: Calculated from the Maricopa Association of Governments Employer Database

Table 10: City of Chandler’s Target Industry Groups (Maricopa Association of Governments)

NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS
EMPLOYMENT

2014-2023 Change

2014-2023 Change
2014
2021
2023
Numeric
Percent
2014
2021
2023
Numeric
Percent
Target Group

Advanced Business Services
253
413
426
173
68%
7,214
14,221
13,323
6,109
85%
Aerospace and Aviation
12
14
14
2
17%
1,671
2,352
2,855
1,184
71%
Automotive Technology
7
6
5
-2
-29%
269
164
269
0
0%
Healthcare
303
812
859
556
183%
6,354
12,534
13,297
6,943
109%
High-Tech Manufacturing
48
68
80
32
67%
10,225
19,195
21,818
11,593
113%
IT and Software
38
44
45
7
18%
7,721
1,597
2,555
-5,166
-67%
Target Total
661
1,357
1,429
768
116%
33,454
50,063
54,117
20,663
62%
Nontarget Total
2,065
3,635
3,806
1,741
84%
66,210
80,838
81,774
15,564
24%
City Total
2,726
4,992
5,235
2,509
92%
99,664
130,901
135,891
36,227
36%

Share of City

Advanced Business Services
9.3%
8.3%
8.1%
6.9%

7.2%
10.9%
9.8%
16.9%
9.3%
Aerospace and Aviation
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.1%

1.7%
1.8%
2.1%
3.3%
0.4%
Automotive Technology
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
-0.1%

0.3%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.3%
Healthcare
11.1%
16.3%
16.4%
22.2%

6.4%
9.6%
9.8%
19.2%
11.1%
High-Tech Manufacturing
1.8%
1.4%
1.5%
1.3%

10.3%
14.7%
16.1%
32.0%
1.8%
IT and Software
1.4%
0.9%
0.9%
0.3%

7.7%
1.2%
1.9%
-14.3%
1.4%
Target Total
24.2%
27.2%
27.3%
30.6%

33.6%
38.2%
39.8%
57.0%
24.2%
Note: IT is information technology
Source: Calculated from the Maricopa Association of Governments Employer Database

•
High-Tech Manufacturing. Most of this target group consisted of semiconductor manufacturers,
including Intel, NXP, and Microchip. Also included was Honeywell, an instruments manufacturer,
and Arizona Nutritional Supplements, a pharmaceutical manufacturer.
•
Information Technology and Software. Insight Direct was the major employer, a wholesaler of
computers and software.

Arizona Commerce Authority’s Target Industry Groups in Chandler
Chandler’s target groups differ from those of the Arizona Commerce Authority (ACA). Even in groups with
similar titles, the industrial definition differs between Chandler and the ACA.
Data for each of the ACA’s groups are detailed in Table 11. Taken together, these target groups accounted
for 46 percent of the city’s total employment in 2023 and for 42 percent of the city’s change in employment
from 2014 to 2023. The percent change in target group employment was less than that of nontarget
employment.
Information on the major employers in these groups in 2023 follows:
•
Aerospace and Defense. This group is defined differently from Chandler’s Aerospace and Aviation
group. Major employers were Northrop Grumman and Honeywell. The latter’s instruments
manufacturing is included in this group; in Chandler it is in the high-tech manufacturing group.
These two companies accounted for 81 percent of the group’s employment.
•
Bioscience and Healthcare. Dignity Health was the major employer. Arizona Nutritional
Supplements and Clairvoyant AI are included in this group.
Business and Financial Services. Among the definitional differences from Chandler’s Advanced
Business Services group is the inclusion of financial services. Wells Fargo and Bank of America
were the major employers; other financial services companies included GM Financial, Loandepot,
and Mr. Cooper. Toyota Financial was assigned an incorrect NAICS industry in the MAG Employer
Database; it too should be included in this group.
•
Manufacturing. Chandler has few large manufacturers other than those included in other target
groups. The largest in 2023 was Ultra Clean Technology, with fewer than 400 employees; it was
classified in the sheet metal work industry.
•
Technology and Innovation. Semiconductor manufacturers, including Intel, NXP, and Microchip are
in this target group. The other large employer was the wholesaler Insight Direct. These four
companies combined to account for 87 percent of the category’s employment.
Employment Corridors in Chandler
The Maricopa Association of Governments has identified approximately 170 “job centers” in Metro
Phoenix. Five of these are within Chandler. The city sometimes refers to these as “employment corridors.”
Data by job center are available for 2014, 2021, and 2023; an overview is provided in Table 12.
The number of establishments and especially employment vary widely across the five job centers. The
Price Road employment corridor provided the most jobs in 2023, followed by West Chandler. Between

2014 and 2023, the Price Road employment corridor had the largest numeric increase in employment, but
the percent change was considerably higher in the Airpark Area and also in Downtown Chandler.
Combined, the five job centers in 2023 accounted for more than one-half of the city’s business
establishments and more than three-fourths of its employment. However, between 2014 and 2023, the
percent change in the number of establishments and in employment was less in the five job centers
combined than in the rest of the city.
The sectoral mix of each of the five employment corridors is compared to the city total in Table 13. Overall,
the sectoral mix in 2023 was closest to the city’s total in the Price Road and Uptown Chandler employment
corridors. The mix was most different in the Downtown Chandler job center.
Employment in each of Chandler’s target groups in each of the five employment corridors are compared
to the city total in Table 14. More than half of the employment in the Price Road corridor in 2023 was in
the target groups; target group employment accounted for 49 percent of the total in the West Chandler
job center. In contrast, target group employment accounted for only 9 percent of the total in the
Downtown Chandler job center; the share also was relatively low in the Airpark job center and for the
portion of the city not in a job center.
A discussion of the sectoral mix and target-group mix, based on employment, in each of the five
employment corridors and in the portion of the city not in an employment center follows. Major
employers in each job center also are cited.

Table 11: Arizona Commerce Authority’s Target Industry Groups in Chandler (Maricopa Association of Governments)

NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS
EMPLOYMENT

2014-2023 Change

2014-2023 Change
2014
2021
2023
Numeric
Percent
2014
2021
2023
Numeric
Percent
Target Group

Aerospace and Defense
22
22
25
3
14%
2,353
3,261
3,997
1,644
70%
Bioscience & Healthcare
284
808
858
574
202%
6,456
12,715
14,383
7,927
123%
Business & Financial Service
284
568
436
152
54%
17,239
25,565
18,178
939
5%
Manufacturing
164
204
214
50
30%
5,438
5,413
6,015
577
11%
Technology & Innovation
37
46
56
19
51%
16,154
17,799
20,214
4,060
25%
Target Total
791
1,648
1,589
798
101%
47,640
64,753
62,787
15,147
32%
Nontarget Total
1,935
3,344
3,646
1,711
88%
52,024
66,148
73,104
21,080
41%
City Total
2,726
4,992
5,235
2,509
92%
99,664
130,901
135,891
36,227
36%

Share of City

Aerospace and Defense
0.8%
0.4%
0.5%
0.1%

2.4%
2.5%
2.9%
4.5%
0.8%
Bioscience & Healthcare
10.4%
16.2%
16.4%
22.9%

6.5%
9.7%
10.6%
21.9%
10.4%
Business & Financial Service
10.4%
11.4%
8.3%
6.1%

17.3%
19.5%
13.4%
2.6%
10.4%
Manufacturing
6.0%
4.1%
4.1%
2.0%

5.5%
4.1%
4.4%
1.6%
6.0%
Technology & Innovation
1.4%
0.9%
1.1%
0.8%

16.2%
13.6%
14.9%
11.2%
1.4%
Target Total
29.0%
33.0%
30.4%
31.8%

47.8%
49.5%
46.2%
41.8%
29.0%
Source: Calculated from the Maricopa Association of Governments Employer Database

Table 12: Employment Corridors in Chandler (Maricopa Association of Governments)
EMPLOYMENT CORRIDOR
NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS
EMPLOYMENT

2014-2023 Change

2014-2023 Change
2014
2021
2023
Numeric
Percent
2014
2021
2023
Numeric
Percent
Airpark Area
180
445
484
304
169%
6,546
12,361
14,129
7,583
116%
Downtown Chandler
72
115
123
51
71%
2,241
2,514
3,558
1,317
59%
Price Road
427
711
747
320
75%
33,277
44,420
43,895
10,618
32%
Uptown Chandler
409
509
566
157
38%
10,487
11,678
12,066
1,579
15%
West Chandler
525
812
841
316
60%
26,795
28,396
29,879
3,084
12%
Employment Corridor Total
1,613
2,592
2,761
1,148
71%
79,346
99,369
103,527
24,181
30%
Nonjob Center Total
1,113
2,400
2,474
1,361
122%
20,318
31,532
32,364
12,046
59%
City Total
2,726
4,992
5,235
2,509
92%
99,664
130,901
135,891
36,227
36%

Share of City

Airpark Area
6.6%
8.9%
9.2%
12.1%

6.6%
9.4%
10.4%
20.9%
6.6%
Downtown Chandler
2.6%
2.3%
2.3%
2.0%

2.2%
1.9%
2.6%
3.6%
2.6%
Price Road
15.7%
14.2%
14.3%
12.8%

33.4%
33.9%
32.3%
29.3%
15.7%
Uptown Chandler
15.0%
10.2%
10.8%
6.3%

10.5%
8.9%
8.9%
4.4%
15.0%
West Chandler
19.3%
16.3%
16.1%
12.6%

26.9%
21.7%
22.0%
8.5%
19.3%
Employment Corridor Total
59.2%
51.9%
52.7%
45.8%

79.6%
75.9%
76.2%
66.7%
59.2%
Source: Calculated from the Maricopa Association of Governments Employer Database

Table 13: Sectoral Mix in Employment Corridors in Chandler, 2023 (Maricopa Association of Governments)
SECTOR
SHARE OF TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
City
Airpark Downtown
Chandler
Price
Road
Uptown
Chandler
West
Chandler
Sum of
Five
Balance
of City
Agriculture
0.1%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
Mining
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
Utilities
0.1%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
Construction
3.6%
3.6%
0.3%
1.1%
10.6%
4.9%
3.6%
3.3%
Manufacturing
22.1%
7.9%
0.3%
27.9%
25.3%
43.9%
28.5%
1.5%
Wholesale Trade
3.9%
9.4%
0.6%
1.4%
8.1%
6.5%
4.7%
1.4%
Retail Trade
11.3%
16.3%
3.2%
10.4%
11.1%
7.5%
10.2%
14.8%
Transportation and Warehousing
1.9%
3.2%
4.9%
0.6%
0.8%
3.7%
2.0%
1.5%
Information
1.7%
2.7%
4.9%
1.5%
1.1%
1.6%
1.8%
1.3%
Finance and Insurance
7.6%
5.8%
7.2%
17.5%
1.2%
1.3%
9.0%
3.2%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
1.6%
2.9%
1.0%
0.7%
1.3%
1.0%
1.2%
2.8%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
5.2%
4.6%
8.2%
3.1%
6.7%
7.5%
5.2%
5.3%
Management of Companies
4.1%
0.0%
0.0%
11.2%
0.2%
1.9%
5.3%
0.0%
Administrative & Support Services
2.7%
3.1%
0.4%
2.2%
5.9%
2.9%
2.9%
2.1%
Educational Services
7.0%
17.1%
10.5%
0.8%
3.6%
2.1%
4.1%
16.3%
Health Care and Social Assistance
10.3%
4.1%
0.2%
11.7%
8.3%
3.5%
7.5%
19.1%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
1.8%
1.3%
0.7%
0.4%
1.3%
1.3%
0.9%
4.4%
Accommodation and Food Services
8.9%
7.5%
17.0%
6.3%
5.4%
6.7%
6.9%
15.7%
Other Services
3.9%
4.5%
6.5%
2.7%
3.5%
2.8%
3.2%
6.2%
Public Administration
2.3%
5.0%
33.9%
0.1%
5.7%
0.6%
2.7%
0.9%
Source: Calculated from the Maricopa Association of Governments Employer Database

Table 14: Target Group Mix in Employment Corridors in Chandler, 2023 (Maricopa Association of Governments)
SECTOR
SHARE OF TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
City
Airpark Downtown
Chandler
Price
Road
Uptown
Chandler
West
Chandler
Sum of
Five
Balance
of City
Aerospace and Aviation
2.1%
0.4%
0.0%
5.8%
0.0%
0.8%
2.8%
0.0%
Advanced Business Services
9.8%
4.2%
7.7%
15.5%
9.7%
9.4%
11.2%
5.2%
Automotive Technology
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.7%
0.2%
0.1%
Healthcare
9.8%
3.6%
0.0%
12.5%
5.8%
3.3%
7.4%
17.4%
High-Tech Manufacturing
16.1%
3.6%
0.0%
20.6%
19.6%
33.0%
21.0%
0.1%
IT and Software
1.9%
8.9%
1.5%
1.0%
1.0%
2.1%
2.4%
0.1%
Target Group Total
39.8%
20.6%
9.2%
55.4%
36.3%
49.3%
45.1%
22.9%
Source: Calculated from the Maricopa Association of Governments Employer Database

Airpark. The sectoral mix in this job center in 2023 was moderately different from that of the city. The
Airpark job center had disproportionately high shares in wholesale trade; retail trade; and educational
services. It had low shares in manufacturing and health care and social assistance.
The target-group mix in the Airpark job center relative to the city was the most different of the job centers
in 2023. The share of employment in the target groups was relatively low. The share was less than the
share in the city in five of the six target groups; the exception was IT and software.
Major employers in the Airpark job center in 2023 included Insight Direct, the Maricopa County
Community College, the City of Chandler, Walmart, and Liberty Mutual Insurance.
The sectoral mix in the Airpark job center changed considerably between 2014 and 2023. Sectors with the
largest increases in share were educational services; finance and insurance; and wholesale trade. Sectors
with the greatest decreases in sectoral share were retail trade; and professional, scientific, and technical
services.
The target-group share of total employment in the Airpark job center did not rise much between 2014 and
2023. However, the mix of the target groups changed, with gains in share in healthcare and IT and software
and a decrease in advanced business services.
Downtown Chandler. The sectoral mix in this job center in 2023 was the most different from that of the
city. The Downtown Chandler job center had disproportionately high shares of transportation and
warehousing; information; professional, scientific, and technical services; accommodation and food
services; other services; and especially public administration. It had low shares in construction;
manufacturing; wholesale trade; retail trade; administrative and support services; and health care and
social assistance.
The share of employment in the target groups was quite low in 2023 in the Downtown Chandler job center.
The share was less than the share in the city in each of the six target groups, especially healthcare and
high-tech manufacturing. The target-group mix was moderately different from that of the city.
The major employer in the Downtown Chandler job center in 2023 was the City of Chandler.
The sectoral mix in the Downtown Chandler job center changed the most of all job centers between 2014
and 2023. Sectors with the largest increases in share were educational services; accommodation and food
services; and other services. Sectors with the greatest decreases in sectoral share were transportation and
warehousing; and public administration.
The target-group share of total employment in the Downtown Chandler job center did not rise much
between 2014 and 2023. The mix of the target groups also did not change much.
Price Road. The sectoral mix in this job center in 2023 was the second closest among the job centers to
that of the city. The Price Road employment corridor had disproportionately high shares of finance and
insurance; and management of companies. The manufacturing share also was higher than the city’s figure.
The Price Road employment corridor had somewhat low shares in several sectors, including construction;

wholesale trade; transportation and warehousing; professional, scientific, and technical services;
educational services; arts, entertainment, and recreation; other services; and public administration.
The share of employment in the target groups was the highest of the five job centers in 2023 in the Price
Road job center. The share was higher than the city’s share in four of the six target groups: aerospace and
aviation; advanced business services; healthcare; and high-tech manufacturing. The target-group mix was
the second closest to that of the city.
Major employers in the Price Road job center in 2023 included Intel, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Dignity
Health, Northrop Grumman, Microchip Technology, Voya Financial, Toyota Financial Services,
UnitedHealth Group, Safelite Auto Glass, GM Financial Services, Mr. Cooper, and Walgreens.
The sectoral mix in the Price Road job center changed moderately between 2014 and 2023. Sectors with
the largest increases in share were management of companies; and health care and social assistance. A
substantial decrease in sectoral share occurred in administrative and support services.
The target-group share of total employment in the Price Road job center rose between 2014 and 2023. A
large increase in share occurred in high-tech manufacturing, with smaller gains in advanced business
services and healthcare. However, a large decrease in share occurred in IT and software.
Uptown Chandler. The sectoral mix in this job center in 2023 was the closest among the job centers to
that of the city. The Uptown Chandler employment corridor had disproportionately high shares of
construction; wholesale trade; administrative and support services; and public administration. Its shares
were below average in transportation and warehousing; information; finance and insurance; educational
services; and accommodation and food services.
The target-group mix was the closest of the job centers to that of the city, with the share not much different
from that of the city in any of the target groups.
Major employers in the Uptown Chandler job center in 2023 were NXP and the State of Arizona.
The sectoral mix in the Uptown Chandler job center changed the least of the employment corridors
between 2014 and 2023. Sectors with the largest increases in share were health care and social assistance;
and public administration. A substantial decrease in sectoral share occurred in retail trade.
The target-group share of total employment in the Uptown Chandler job center rose between 2014 and
2023. The largest increase in share occurred in high-tech manufacturing, with smaller gains in advanced
business services and healthcare.
West Chandler. The sectoral mix in this job center in 2023 was moderately different from that of the city.
The West Chandler employment corridor had a very high share in manufacturing, with somewhat above-
average shares in construction; wholesale trade; transportation and warehousing; and professional,
scientific, and technical services. It had comparatively low shares in retail trade; finance and insurance;
educational services; health care and social assistance; other services; and public administration.
The target-group mix was moderately different from that of the city, mostly due to the job center’s high
share in high-tech manufacturing. Its share in healthcare was relatively low.

Major employers in the West Chandler job center in 2023 were Intel, Honeywell, Avnet, Waymo, Arizona
Nutritional Supplements, Intraedge, Verizon, and Ultra Clean Technology.
The sectoral mix in the West Chandler job center changed moderately between 2014 and 2023. Sectors
with the largest increases in share were manufacturing; and professional, scientific, and technical services.
A substantial decrease in sectoral share occurred in administrative and support services.
The target-group share of total employment in the West Chandler job center rose between 2014 and 2023.
The largest increase in share occurred in high-tech manufacturing, with smaller gains in advanced business
services and healthcare. A decrease in share occurred in IT and software.
Portion of Chandler Not in a Job Center. The sectoral mix in 2023 was relatively different from that of the
city. The share was higher than in the city in retail trade; educational services; health care and social
assistance; arts, entertainment, and recreation; accommodation and food services; and other services.
This portion of the city had a very low share in manufacturing and was below average in wholesale trade.
The target-group mix was rather different from that of the city, with an above-average share in healthcare
and below-average shares in the other target groups, especially high-tech manufacturing.
MAG Employment Projections
MAG periodically produces employment projections by place of work at two geographic levels: Municipal
Planning Area (MPA) and Regional Analysis Zone (RAZ). Projections based on current city limits are not
available. MPAs are larger in geographic size than current city limits, intended to allow for possible future
city annexations. The difference between the jurisdiction (city) and the MPA is not substantial for Chandler
(a 2050 projected population of 336,500 for the MPA and 325,400 for the city). The RAZs do not cross MPA
boundaries so the sum of RAZs within a MPA equals the MPA total. The Chandler MPA consists of seven
RAZs ranging from 5.5-to-14.5 square miles.
With population growth expected to be slow in Chandler in coming years, employment growth is projected
to be greater than population growth in three of the next four decades, as seen in Table 15. Thus, the
employment-to-population ratio in the city is projected to rise. The projected increase in the ratio exceeds
that of Maricopa County. Of the larger cities in Maricopa County, only Tempe and Scottsdale have a higher
employment-to-population ratio.
By RAZ within the Chandler MPA, employment density currently is greatest in the downtown area,
followed by west Chandler. These two RAZs are projected to still have the highest densities in 2060, but
the greatest increase in density is expected in the RAZ south of the downtown area that extends south to
the city limits.

Table 15: Projected Employment and Population in Chandler Metropolitan Planning Area

2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
Employment
157,400
189,400
204,500
216,000
224,700
Population
286,100
304,300
315,900
336,500
337,600
Employment-to-Population Ratio
55.0
62.2
64.7
64.2
66.6

Change
2020-30
2030-40
2040-50
2050-60
2020-60
Employment
32,000
15,100
11,500
8,700
67,300
Population
18,200
11,600
20,600
1,100
51,500
Employment-to-Population Ratio
7.2
2.5
-0.5
2.4
11.6
Source: Calculated from Maricopa Association of Governments, Socioeconomic Projections, June 2023
ACS Economic Characteristics by Place of Work
Most of the ACS data by place of work are presented in crosstabulations with the means of transportation
to work. Thus, the detail on the other characteristics, such as industry, is less than in the place-of-residence
tables. The following highlights the ACS results of the 2019-through-2023 period compared to the earlier
periods for those working in the city of Chandler, with comparisons to those working in Maricopa County.
Total employment in Chandler by place of work in the 2019-to-2023 period was estimated at 164,779.
Age
The median age of those working in Chandler was 40.3 in 2019-23, up from 37.9 in 2005-09. These figures
were marginally less than those for Maricopa County. The median age was slightly higher for those working
from home and a little lower for those commuting to work, for Chandler workers and all workers in
Maricopa County.
The share of all workers decreased from 2005-09 to 2019-23 in each age group younger than 45 and
increased in each age group 55 and older, for both Chandler workers and Maricopa County workers. Nearly
half of the Chandler workers were from 25-to-44 years old, and more than two-thirds were between the
ages of 25 and 54, in 2019-23 — slightly higher percentages than for all workers in Maricopa County.
Race and Ethnicity
Unlike the place-of-residence data that provides full detail of race by ethnicity, the place-of-work data
splits out ethnicity only for the white race. Hispanics may identify as being of any racial group; the most
common is two-or-more races, followed by white, and some other race.
The share of workers in the non-Hispanic white category in 2019-23 was close to 10 percentage points less
than that of the white race alone group. The non-Hispanic white group had a smaller decrease in share
between 2005-09 and 2019-23 than did the white race alone group, for both Chandler workers and all
workers in Maricopa County.

By race, the white alone group accounted for five-eighths of the employment in Chandler in 2019-23,
down from four-fifths in 2005-09, slightly lesser shares than for all workers in Maricopa County. Every other
racial group experienced an increase in share, with the two-or-more races group by far having the largest
increase, in Chandler and in Maricopa County.
By ethnicity, Hispanics accounted for 24 percent of Chandler workers in 2019-23, less than the 29.5 percent
in Maricopa County. These percentages were up only slightly from 2005-09.
Citizenship and Language
U.S.-born citizens accounted for 81 percent of the workers in Chandler in 2019-23, the same share as in
each of the three earlier periods. Compared to Chandler workers, the share was a little lower in 2005-09
and a little higher in 2019-23 for all Maricopa County workers. Among Chandler workers, the share who
were foreign-born naturalized citizens rose from less than 7 percent in 2005-09 to more than 10 percent
in 2019-23, while the percentage of workers who were not citizens fell from 12-to-8 percent. Compared
to Chandler, the naturalized citizen share was lower, and the noncitizen share slightly higher, among all
Maricopa county workers.
Three-fourths of the workers in Chandler spoke only English in each of the four time periods. The share
speaking Spanish declined from 17 percent to 14 percent, though the share speaking English very well
increased. The share speaking other languages rose from less than 8 percent to more than 10 percent,
with all of the increase occurring among those speaking English very well. Comparing all Maricopa County
workers to Chandler workers, a slightly lower share spoke only English, a higher share spoke Spanish, and
a lesser share spoke another language.
Earnings, Poverty, and Tenure
The median earnings of workers in Chandler of $55,246 in the 2019-23 period was 12 percent higher than
the median of all Maricopa County workers. On an inflation-adjusted basis, the median of both Chandler
workers and all workers in Maricopa County dropped slightly from 2005-09 to 2009-13 and again from
2009-13 to 2014-18 but increased substantially from 2014-18 to 2019-23. The increase from 2005-09 to
2019-23 was a little more for Chandler workers than all workers in Maricopa County. In 2019-23, Chandler
workers who earned at least $75,000 accounted for 36 percent of the total, but 19 percent earned less
than $25,000.
Only 4 percent of Chandler’s workers were living in poverty in 2019-23, down roughly 2 percentage points
from 2009-13 and 2014-18. The share of workers living in poverty was slightly less in Chandler than in
Maricopa County.
Two-third of the Chandler workers lived in owner-occupied housing in 2019-23, a higher percentage than
in 2014-18 but a lesser share than in 2005-09. The homeowner share was slightly higher among Chandler
workers than all Maricopa County workers in each time period.

Occupation, Industry, and Class of Worker
Only five categories of occupations are available by place of work. Table 16 displays the shares of the total
for workers in Chandler and Maricopa County. A substantial increase in share occurred in the management,
business, science, and arts group, more so in Chandler than in Maricopa County.
Sectoral-group data are summarized in Table 17. Chandler’s sectoral-group mix was considerably different
from that of Maricopa County. In particular, manufacturing’s share was much higher in Chandler in 2019-
23. The finance, insurance, real estate, and rental group was the only other one with more than a
marginally higher share in Chandler. In most groups, the share was smaller in Chandler than Maricopa
County by at least 0.5 percentage points.
Substantial changes in sectoral-group shares occurred in Chandler between 2005-09 and 2019-23. The
following had a sizable increase in share in Chandler:
•
The combination of the educational services sector and the health care and social assistance
sector, which outpaced the gain in Maricopa County
•
The combination of the professional, scientific, and technical services sector and the
administrative and support services sector, which outpaced the rise in Maricopa County
•
The combination of the finance and insurance sector and the real estate and rental sector, whose
share rose only slightly in Maricopa County
The following industry categories had a sizable decrease in share in Chandler:
•
The manufacturing sector; its share dropped only a little in Maricopa County
•
The retail trade sector; its share was steady in Maricopa County
•
The combination of the arts, entertainment, and recreation sector and the accommodation and
food services sector; its share dropped only a little in Maricopa County
By class of worker, employees of private for-profit companies accounted for 79 percent of all workers in
Chandler in 2019-23, more than in Maricopa County by 7 percentage points. The share in Chandler was
less than in Maricopa County in each of the other classes, including three levels of government, self-
employed, and private not-for-profit.
In Chandler in 2019-23, no other class had a share of even 6 percent. Some increase over time occurred
in the private not-for-profit category, offset by a decline in the share of local government workers. The
increase in the private not-for-profit category matched that of the county.

Table 16: Occupational Group of those Working in Chandler and Maricopa County
OCCUPATIONAL GROUP
SHARE OF TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
2005-2009
2009-2013
2014-2018
2019-2023
Chandler
38.2%
39.7%
43.0%
48.2%
Management, Business, Science, and Arts
16.1%
16.8%
15.1%
12.7%
Services
26.8%
27.0%
25.7%
22.4%
Sales and Office
9.7%
8.4%
6.6%
6.8%
Natural Resources, Construction, Maintenance
9.2%
8.2%
9.6%
9.9%
Production, Transportation, Material Moving

Maricopa County
34.2%
36.4%
37.2%
42.1%
Management, Business, Science, and Arts
16.7%
18.2%
17.9%
15.5%
Services
27.8%
27.6%
25.3%
23.0%
Sales and Office
11.6%
8.4%
8.5%
8.4%
Natural Resources, Construction, Maintenance
9.6%
9.4%
10.9%
10.9%
Production, Transportation, Material Moving

Chandler Less Maricopa County
4.0%
3.3%
5.8%
6.1%
Management, Business, Science, and Arts
-0.6%
-1.4%
-2.8%
-2.8%
Services
-1.0%
-0.6%
0.4%
-0.6%
Sales and Office
-1.9%
0.0%
-1.9%
-1.6%
Natural Resources, Construction, Maintenance
-0.4%
-1.2%
-1.3%
-1.0%
Source: Calculated from U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey, five-year
data aggregations, obtained from IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org. Table B08524

Table 17: Sectoral Group of those Working in Chandler and Maricopa County (ACS By Place of Work)
SECTORAL GROUP
SHARE OF TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
2005-2009 2009-2013 2014-2018 2019-2023
Chandler
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.3%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting; Mining
7.4%
6.5%
4.6%
6.4%
Construction
21.9%
20.9%
19.5%
18.3%
Manufacturing
3.0%
2.6%
2.7%
2.2%
Wholesale Trade
15.0%
13.3%
13.3%
11.4%
Retail Trade
1.9%
1.7%
2.3%
3.2%
Transportation and Warehousing; Utilities
2.3%
2.8%
2.5%
1.9%
Information
9.0%
9.6%
10.8%
12.3%
Finance and Insurance; Real Estate, Rental & Leasing
8.7%
10.4%
11.9%
12.5%
Professional, Scientific; Management; Admin Services
13.8%
15.1%
17.0%
18.2%
Educational Services; Health Care & Social Assistance
10.6%
10.7%
9.5%
7.3%
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation; Accommodation, Food
4.0%
4.1%
4.2%
3.9%
Other Services (except Public Administration)
2.1%
1.9%
1.5%
2.1%
Public Administration
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
Armed Forces
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.3%

Maricopa County

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting; Mining
0.5%
0.6%
0.6%
0.5%
Construction
10.3%
6.7%
6.9%
7.9%
Manufacturing
8.6%
8.3%
7.5%
7.9%
Wholesale Trade
3.2%
2.7%
2.6%
2.3%
Retail Trade
12.0%
12.2%
12.2%
11.9%
Transportation and Warehousing; Utilities
5.1%
5.1%
5.5%
5.9%
Information
2.1%
2.0%
2.0%
1.8%
Finance and Insurance; Real Estate, Rental & Leasing
10.0%
9.6%
10.0%
10.6%
Professional, Scientific; Management; Admin Services
12.1%
12.8%
13.2%
13.4%
Educational Services; Health Care & Social Assistance
17.7%
20.9%
20.5%
20.6%
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation; Accommodation, Food
9.4%
9.8%
10.3%
8.8%
Other Services (except Public Administration)
4.6%
4.8%
4.8%
4.4%
Public Administration
4.1%
4.3%
3.7%
3.7%
Armed Forces
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.3%
(continued)

Table 17 (Continued): Sectoral Group of those Working in Chandler and Maricopa County (ACS By Place
of Work)
SECTORAL GROUP
SHARE OF TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
2005-2009 2009-2013 2014-2018 2019-2023
Chandler Less Maricopa County

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting; Mining
-0.1%
-0.3%
-0.4%
-0.2%
Construction
-2.9%
-0.2%
-2.3%
-1.5%
Manufacturing
13.3%
12.6%
12.0%
10.4%
Wholesale Trade
-0.2%
-0.1%
0.1%
-0.1%
Retail Trade
3.0%
1.1%
1.1%
-0.5%
Transportation and Warehousing; Utilities
-3.2%
-3.4%
-3.2%
-2.7%
Information
0.2%
0.8%
0.5%
0.1%
Finance and Insurance; Real Estate, Rental & Leasing
-1.0%
0.0%
0.8%
1.7%
Professional, Scientific; Management; Admin Services
-3.4%
-2.4%
-1.3%
-0.9%
Educational Services; Health Care & Social Assistance
-3.9%
-5.8%
-3.5%
-2.4%
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation; Accommodation, Food
1.2%
0.9%
-0.8%
-1.5%
Other Services (except Public Administration)
-0.6%
-0.7%
-0.6%
-0.5%
Public Administration
-2.0%
-2.4%
-2.2%
-1.6%
Armed Forces
-0.2%
-0.2%
-0.1%
-0.3%
Source: Calculated from U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey, five-year
data aggregations, obtained from IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org. Table B08526
Means of Transportation to Work and Travel Time
In 2019-23, more than 20 percent of those working in Chandler worked from home, a sharp increase from
the 6-to-7 percent in each of the three earlier time periods. In Maricopa County, the 2019-23 figure was
18 percent, up by a similar amount to Chandler.
Two-thirds of those working in Chandler drove alone to work in 2019-23, down from the 77-to-79 percent
of earlier time periods, similar to the figures for Maricopa County. Less than 9 percent of Chandler workers
carpooled in 2019-23, down from a high of 13 percent in 2005-09. The percentage carpooling was slightly
lower in Chandler than Maricopa County. Only 3.5 percent of Chandler workers commuted by another
means in 2019-23, compared to 5 percent in Maricopa County.
Of those workers not working from home, the commute time to work in 2019-23 is shown in Figure 8 for
workers in Chandler and in Maricopa County. Compared to 2005-09, commute times for Chandler workers
became slightly longer, while there was little change for all workers in Maricopa County. However,
commute times in 2019-23 remained a little shorter for Chandler workers.
There has not been much change over time in the arrival time at work. In 2019-23, 41 percent of Chandler
workers not working from home arrived at between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m., marginally higher than the figure
for Maricopa County.

Figure 8: Commute Time to Work of those Working in Chandler and Maricopa County, 2019 through 2023

0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
Less
than 5
5 to 9
10 to
14
15 to
19
20 to
24
25 to
29
30 to
34
35 to
39
40 to
44
45 to
59
60 to
89
90 or
more
Minutes
Chandler
Maricopa County

Comparison of Sectoral Group Mix From MAG Employer Database and ACS
The correlation in the difference between Chandler and Maricopa County in sectoral group shares in 2023
from MAG and from the 2019-23 ACS is quite high, though there are differences in magnitude (see Tables
18A and 18B). While the differing time period may account for some of the differences in the mix between
the two sources, it is more likely that the differences mostly are due to differing assignment of NAICS codes
in the two sources. The correlation in the difference between Chandler and Maricopa County in the change
over time in sectoral group shares from MAG and from the ACS is not as high.
Other Sources of Economic Data
The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) provides monthly estimates of the labor
force, employment, unemployment, and unemployment rate by place of residence for cities with a
population of at least 25,000 through the Local Area Unemployment Statistics program
(https://www.bls.gov/lau/data.htm). These figures are derived from the Current Population Survey and
have a very large margin of error.
For 2019 through 2023, employment by place of residence of Chandler residents averaged 153,089
according to the BLS and 151,526 according to the ACS, a difference of 1.0 percent.
Each of the BLS measures are impacted by the economic cycle. Figure 9 displays the annual time series of
the unemployment rate of Chandler residents. Chandler has had one of the lowest unemployment rates
of cities in Maricopa County. In recent years, only Gilbert and Queen Creek have had lower rates. Over the
last decade, the unemployment rate in Chandler has ranged from 0.2-to-0.8 percentage points lower than
the Maricopa County rate. The annual change in employment is shown in Figure 10, but these figures are
subject to substantial sampling error. The displayed time series begins in 2001 due to unreliable figures in
earlier years.
Another federal data product was examined for use in this project: Zip Business Patterns (ZBP), part of the
County Business Patterns program of the U.S. Census Bureau (https://www.census.gov/programs-
surveys/cbp.html). Data for 2023 were released in June. This program provides detailed industrial data by
place of work. At the county level, the number of establishments, employment, payroll, and a frequency
distribution of the number of establishments by employment size class (e.g., 250-to-499 employees) is
provided by industry, though much of the data may be withheld due to federal disclosure restrictions.
The main advantage of the ZBP data is that establishments of less than five employees are included.
However, there are significant limitations to the ZBP data that preclude the use of these data in this project:
•
The employment and payroll data are limited to the zip code total. By industry, only the frequency
distribution of establishments by employment size is available.
•
Due to the federal government’s strict disclosure laws, some of the limited data provided by zip
code are withheld. For example, even the zip code total for employment and payroll was withheld
in some Chandler zip codes in some years. In addition, the frequency distribution by employment
size class often is incomplete, even for the zip code total, particularly due to the limited number
of large establishments.

Table 18A: Comparison of Sectoral Share of Total Employment, Chandler Minus Maricopa County (Latest Data)
SECTORAL GROUP
MAG
2023
ACS
2019-
23
DIFFERENCE
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting; Mining
-0.2
-0.2
0
Construction
-2
-1.5
-0.5
Manufacturing
14
10.4
3.6
Wholesale Trade
0.2
-0.1
0.3
Retail Trade
-0.7
-0.5
-0.2
Transportation and Warehousing; Utilities
-2.6
-2.7
0.1
Information
-0.3
0.1
-0.4
Finance and Insurance; Real Estate, Rental and Leasing
0.6
1.7
-1.1
Professional, Scientific; Management; Administrative Services
-0.9
-0.9
0
Educational Services; Health Care and Social Assistance
-3.2
-2.4
-0.8
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation; Accommodation & Food Services
-1.6
-1.5
-0.1
Other Services (except Public Administration)
-0.5
-0.5
0
Public Administration
-2.5
-1.6
-0.9

Table 18B: Changes in Sectoral Share of Total Employment Over Time, Chandler Minus Maricopa County
SECTORAL GROUP
MAG
ACS
DIFFERENCE
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting; Mining
0
-0.1
0.1
Construction
-0.3
1.4
-1.7
Manufacturing
-5.8
-2.9
-2.9
Wholesale Trade
-0.1
0.1
-0.2
Retail Trade
-1.2
-3.5
2.3
Transportation and Warehousing; Utilities
-0.6
0.5
-1.1
Information
-0.9
-0.1
-0.8
Finance and Insurance; Real Estate, Rental and Leasing
2.8
2.7
0.1
Professional, Scientific; Management; Administrative Services
4.8
2.5
2.3
Educational Services; Health Care and Social Assistance
1.4
1.5
-0.1
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation; Accommodation & Food Services
-1.1
-2.7
1.6
Other Services (except Public Administration)
1.1
0.1
1
Public Administration
0.2
0.4
-0.2
* Change from 2007 to 2023 from MAG; from 2005-09 to 2019-23 from ACS
Sources: Calculated from Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Employer Database and U.S.
Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), five-year data
aggregations, obtained from IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org. Table B08526

Figure 9: Annual Unemployment Rate of Chandler Residents in the Workforce

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Figure 10: Annual Change in the Number of Employed Chandler Residents

Source: Calculated from U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
2020
2023
-6,000
-4,000
-2,000
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023

•
Two of the Chandler zip codes extend into unincorporated areas — thus the sum of the Chandler
zip codes will not be identical to the city limits. The Chandler zip codes are 85224, 85225, 85226,
85244, 85246, 85248, 85249, and 85286, with 85226 and 85248 including unincorporated areas.
(The 85244 and 85246 zip codes are used only for post office boxes.)
Summary of Place-of-Work Economic Characteristics
Generally, the demographics of Chandler workers are similar to those of all workers in Maricopa County.
Differences from Maricopa County in 2019-23 and/or in the change from 2005-09 to 2019-23 for Chandler
workers are highlighted below (the sectoral mix summary primarily is drawn from the MAG data):
•
Median earnings were higher.
•
The share working in the management, business, science, and arts occupational group was much
higher, with lesser shares in each of the other groups. Over time, the share in the management,
business, science, and arts occupational group rose, while the share in the services group fell.
•
A much higher share worked in the manufacturing sector, due primarily to a larger semiconductor
industry in Chandler, but Chandler also had relatively large instruments and aerospace industries.
Chandler also had a somewhat higher share in finance and insurance and in management of
companies. Over time, the manufacturing share fell more in Chandler, with larger gains in finance
and insurance; professional, scientific, and technical services; and management of companies.

COMPARISON TO FIVE CITIES IN MARICOPA COUNTY
In this section, place-of-work data from the MAG employer database and from the ACS are used to
compare Chandler to five other cities in Maricopa County: Gilbert, Glendale, Mesa, Scottsdale, and Tempe.
Gilbert and Tempe are neighboring cities of roughly similar population size. Mesa also borders Chandler
but is substantially more populous. Glendale and Scottsdale are other cities of similar size. The population
of each city is compared in Table 19.
Being closer to the center of the metro area, and like Chandler being unable to extend its city limits,
Tempe’s historical population growth is of relevance to Chandler. Population growth in Tempe slowed to
almost zero during the 2000-to-2010 decade but has subsequently rebounded.
The faster growth in recent years has resulted from redevelopment of underutilized land, largely to build
multifamily housing. Figure 11 portrays the estimated and projected population growth by decade in
Tempe and Chandler. The projections for Chandler do not envision as much conversion of underutilized
sites to multifamily development as in Tempe.

Table 19: Estimated and Projected Population of Selected Cities in Maricopa County, in Thousands

CHANDLER
GILBERT
GLENDALE
MESA
SCOTTSDALE
TEMPE
Population

1980
30.3
5.6
93.6
155.6
88.8
107.1
1990
91.3
29.8
148.8
289.0
130.8
142.0
2000
178.4
111.3
219.4
400.5
204.1
158.7
2010
236.7
209.5
226.9
439.9
217.3
162.0
2020
277.1
268.7
248.7
505.4
241.7
181.6
2030
294.4
297.4
275.2
543.9
275.6
219.2
2040
304.9
305.7
291.9
576.3
286.6
246.2
2050
325.4
316.6
298.7
596.1
301.2
255.5
2060
326.4
317.6
300.2
610.5
307.1
266.7

Change

1980-90
61.0
24.2
55.2
133.4
42.0
34.9
1990-2000
87.1
81.5
70.6
111.5
73.3
16.7
2000-10
58.3
98.2
7.5
39.4
13.2
3.3
2010-20
40.4
59.2
21.8
65.5
24.4
19.6
2020-30
17.3
28.7
26.5
38.5
33.9
37.6
2030-40
10.5
8.3
16.7
32.4
11.0
27.0
2040-50
20.5
10.9
6.8
19.8
14.6
9.3
2050-60
1.0
1.0
1.5
14.4
5.9
11.2
Sources: Calculated from Maricopa Association of Governments and Arizona Office of Economic Opportunity

Figure 11: Estimated and Projected Decadal Population Change in Chandler and Tempe

Sources: Calculated from Maricopa Association of Governments and Arizona Office of Economic Opportunity
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
1980s
1990s
2000s
2010s
2020s
2030s
2040s
2050s
Chandler
Tempe

Employment From MAG
Total employment among the six cities has been greatest in Tempe since 2014, followed in order by
Scottsdale, Mesa, and Chandler. Chandler posted the greatest increase in employment between 2007 and
2023 on a numeric basis; it was second behind Gilbert on the percent change. The percent change in the
other comparison cities was much lower.
Using the total employment per 1,000 residents measure, Chandler ranked third in 2023. Its figure of 476
was far less than in Tempe (943) and Scottsdale (733), but well above the 335 or less in the other three
comparison cities. The 2007-to-2023 change in the employment-to-population measure was greatest in
Chandler on both a numeric and percentage basis. Gilbert ranked second on the numeric change, with the
other four comparison cities trailing far behind.
Sectors. Table 20 displays the employment sectoral shares in 2023 in Chandler and in each of the five
comparison cities. The big difference between Chandler and each of the other comparison cities was the
much higher manufacturing share in Chandler. Chandler’s share also was higher than in each comparison
city in the management of companies sector.
These higher shares were offset by lower shares in Chandler than in most of the comparison cities in
several sectors:
•
Construction: Chandler had a lower share versus each of the five cities.
•
Educational Services: Chandler’s share was lower except versus Scottsdale.
•
Health Care and Social Assistance: Chandler’s share was lower except versus Tempe.
•
Accommodation and Food Services: Chandler had a lower share except versus Tempe.
Table 21 displays the change in sectoral shares between 2007 and 2023 in Chandler and in each of the five
comparison cities. Manufacturing again is the highlight, with Chandler experiencing the largest decrease
in share among the six cities, by a wide margin versus Gilbert, Glendale, Mesa, and Scottsdale. Chandler
was the only city with a decline in share in the information sector. In contrast, Chandler generally
outperformed the other cities in the following sectors:
•
Management of Companies: Chandler had the largest gain among the six cities.
•
Finance and Insurance: Chandler had a larger increase in share than Gilbert, Glendale, Mesa, and
Scottsdale.
•
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services: Chandler ranked first.
•
Educational Services: Chandler was the only city with an increase in share.
Taking all of the sectoral shares into account, the sectoral mix in 2023 was most similar to Chandler in
Mesa and Tempe. The mix was the most different in Glendale and Scottsdale. Relative to Chandler, the
change in the sectoral mix between 2007 and 2023 was most similar in Tempe and the most variant in
Glendale and Gilbert.

Table 20: Sectoral Mix of those Working in Chandler and in Selected Other Cities in Maricopa County, 2023 (Maricopa Association of Governments)
SECTOR
SHARE OF TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
Chandler
Gilbert
Glendale
Mesa
Scottsdale
Tempe
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
Mining
0.1%
0.0%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
Utilities
0.1%
0.3%
0.1%
0.6%
0.3%
1.9%
Construction
3.6%
8.0%
5.9%
5.9%
4.9%
5.2%
Manufacturing
22.1%
7.1%
4.2%
8.8%
4.8%
10.1%
Wholesale Trade
3.9%
2.3%
1.6%
3.9%
2.2%
4.0%
Retail Trade
11.3%
15.3%
15.2%
13.7%
9.7%
10.7%
Transportation and Warehousing
1.9%
1.3%
3.7%
3.0%
1.4%
3.4%
Information
1.7%
1.4%
1.0%
1.7%
2.9%
2.6%
Finance and Insurance
7.6%
3.3%
3.8%
3.4%
9.5%
10.2%
Real Estate, Rental and Leasing
1.6%
1.8%
1.5%
2.2%
4.1%
2.2%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
5.2%
5.4%
3.2%
4.5%
11.4%
7.8%
Management of Companies
4.1%
0.7%
0.2%
0.4%
1.9%
2.0%
Administrative and Support Services
2.7%
3.3%
3.1%
3.5%
5.1%
10.5%
Educational Services
7.0%
9.1%
10.3%
9.1%
3.2%
9.4%
Health Care and Social Assistance
10.3%
17.2%
15.1%
15.9%
16.4%
7.2%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
1.8%
2.8%
1.8%
2.2%
3.5%
1.1%
Accommodation and Food Services
8.9%
12.8%
11.0%
12.1%
12.3%
7.6%
Other Services (except Public Administration)
3.9%
5.4%
4.4%
5.0%
4.8%
3.2%
Public Administration
2.3%
2.3%
13.5%
3.8%
1.5%
1.0%
Source: Calculated from the Maricopa Association of Governments Employer Database

Table 21: Change in Sectoral Mix of those Working in Chandler and in Selected Other Cities in Maricopa County, 2007 to 2023 (Maricopa
Association of Governments)
SECTOR
SHARE OF TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
Chandler
Gilbert
Glendale
Mesa
Scottsdale
Tempe
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting
-0.3%
-0.2%
-0.3%
-0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
Mining
0.1%
-0.1%
0.1%
-0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
Utilities
0.0%
0.2%
-0.2%
0.0%
0.1%
0.7%
Construction
-3.0%
-10.6%
-6.1%
-4.4%
-1.3%
-2.3%
Manufacturing
-8.5%
-1.2%
-2.3%
0.1%
-0.9%
-7.4%
Wholesale Trade
-1.0%
-2.4%
-2.3%
0.8%
-0.9%
-2.1%
Retail Trade
-1.2%
1.5%
-2.6%
-3.9%
-2.4%
-1.0%
Transportation and Warehousing
-0.3%
-1.4%
1.3%
1.3%
0.3%
-0.5%
Information
-0.8%
1.0%
0.0%
0.3%
1.1%
0.3%
Finance and Insurance
2.9%
0.9%
1.9%
0.5%
0.4%
3.0%
Real Estate, Rental and Leasing
-0.2%
-0.7%
-1.4%
-0.8%
0.9%
0.3%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
2.0%
-0.5%
-0.6%
0.3%
-3.2%
0.0%
Management of Companies
4.0%
-0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
1.3%
1.9%
Administrative and Support Services
-0.5%
-0.1%
-1.9%
-0.7%
-2.2%
4.7%
Educational Services
0.5%
-5.3%
-2.7%
-1.2%
-0.2%
-1.7%
Health Care and Social Assistance
4.5%
11.1%
3.7%
3.7%
7.6%
3.0%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
-1.1%
1.2%
0.0%
0.8%
-2.1%
0.3%
Accommodation and Food Services
1.6%
6.1%
3.8%
3.5%
0.8%
1.1%
Other Services (except Public Administration)
1.8%
1.9%
-0.1%
0.4%
1.6%
-0.1%
Public Administration
-0.6%
-1.1%
9.4%
-0.4%
-0.9%
-0.3%
Source: Calculated from the Maricopa Association of Governments Employer Database

ACA Targets. In 2023, Chandler had the greatest share of employment in the ACA’s five target groups at
46.2 percent. Scottsdale (43.5 percent) and Tempe (41.5 percent) were not far behind, but the share in
each of the other three comparison cities was less than 33 percent. Chandler dominated in the technology
and innovation target with a share of 14.9 percent; the share was less than 2 percent in Tempe and less
than 0.5 percent in the other cities.
The comparison of employment shares in 2023 across the six cities in the other four target groups follows:
•
Aerospace and Defense: Chandler (2.9 percent) ranked second to Mesa (3.9 percent).
•
Bioscience and Health Care: Only Tempe (8.1 percent) had a lesser share than Chandler’s 10.6
percent. The share was greater than 13.6 percent in each of the other four cities.
•
Business and Financial Services: Chandler (13.4 percent) ranked third, but its share was
considerably lower than Scottsdale (22.5 percent) and Tempe (23.9 percent).
•
Manufacturing: Chandler ranked third (4.4 percent), behind Tempe (6.6 percent) and Gilbert (4.9
percent).
On the change in employment share between 2007 and 2023 in the ACA’s target groups, Chandler, with a
gain of 6.1 percentage points, ranked in the middle of the group; Mesa had the largest increase at 11.6
percentage points.
The changes in employment share in the individual target groups follow:
•
Aerospace and Defense: Chandler had the greatest gain at 1.2 percentage points; three cities
experienced a decrease in share.
•
Bioscience and Health Care: Chandler’s increase of 4.8 percentage points ranked fourth, with
much higher gains in Gilbert (9.5 percentage points) and Scottsdale (8.5 percentage points).
•
Business and Financial Services: Chandler’s increase (9.1 percentage points) was a little less than
Tempe; the largest gain in the other four cities was 2.1 percentage points.
•
Technology and Innovation: Chandler’s share dropped 4.8 percentage points; Tempe had the next
largest decline at 3.5 percentage points.
•
Manufacturing: Chandler also had the largest decline (4.4 percentage points).
The City of Chandler’s Targets. In 2023, Chandler had the greatest share of employment in its six target
groups at 39.8 percent. Scottsdale (35.5 percent) was not far behind, but the share in each of the other
three cities was 26 percent or less. Chandler dominated in the high-tech manufacturing target with a share
of 16.1 percent; the share was less than 3.2 percent in each of the other cities.
The comparison of employment shares in 2023 across the six cities in the five other target groups follows:
•
Aerospace and Aviation: Chandler (2.1 percent) ranked second to Mesa (3.4 percent).
•
Advanced Business Services: Chandler (9.8 percent) ranked third, but its share was considerably
lower than Scottsdale (15.3 percent) and Tempe (13.2 percent).
•
Automotive Technology: The highest share was only 0.8 percent in Mesa. Chandler ranked third at
0.2 percent.

•
Healthcare: Only Tempe (7.1 percent) had a lesser share than Chandler’s 9.8 percent. The share
was greater than 14.3 percent in each of the other four cities.
•
IT and Software: Chandler ranked second (1.9 percent) behind Scottsdale (2.2 percent).
On the change in employment share between 2014 and 2023 in the city’s target groups, Chandler, with a
gain of 6.3 percentage points, was far ahead of each of the other cities; Scottsdale was second with an
increase of 2.8 percentage points.
The changes in employment share in the individual target groups follow:
•
Aerospace and Aviation: Chandler, with a gain of 0.4 percentage points, ranked third behind
Glendale and Gilbert.
•
Advanced Business Services: Chandler’s increase of 2.6 percentage points was greatest.
•
Automotive Technology: Gilbert and Mesa experienced small gains of less than 0.4 percentage
points; essentially no change occurred in the other four cities.
•
Healthcare: Chandler’s increase of 3.4 percentage points was the highest.
•
High-Tech Manufacturing: Chandler’s share jumped 5.8 percentage points; Mesa had the next
largest increase at 0.8 percentage points.
•
IT and Software: Chandler’s big gain in high-tech manufacturing share was offset by a large
decrease of 5.9 percentage points in IT and Software. The next-largest decrease was 1.4
percentage points in Tempe.
ACS Economic Characteristics by Place of Work
Age. The median age of the workforce in Chandler in 2019-23 was 40.3. The median did not vary much
across the six cities; Scottsdale had the highest median at 41.1 and Tempe the lowest at 38.6. Chandler’s
median age rose 2.4 years from 2005-09 to 2019-23. The largest increase in the median age was in Gilbert
(3.7), with the lowest in Glendale (0.5).
Similarly, the age distribution of the workforce in 2019-23 was not much different in Chandler than in the
other five cities. The largest differences were with Glendale and Scottsdale. The change between 2005-09
and 2019-23 also differed little across the six cities, with Gilbert’s change the most like that of Chandler;
Glendale and Scottsdale were the most different.
Race and Ethnicity. The racial/ethnic distribution of the workforce in 2019-23 varied across the six cities,
with Tempe’s distribution the closest to Chandler; Scottsdale and Gilbert were the most different. Chandler
had the highest share of Asians and had the second-lowest share (to Glendale) of whites. The Hispanic
share in Chandler was in the middle of the six cities. Gilbert and Scottsdale had the highest shares of whites
and the lowest shares of Hispanics.
The change between 2005-09 and 2019-23 did not differ as much across the six cities. Chandler had the
greatest increase in the share of Asians but the smallest gain in the share of those of two-or-more races.
Chandler ranked fifth in the increase in the share of Hispanics.
Citizenship and Language. Based on the three categories of U.S. born citizen, naturalized citizen, and
noncitizen, Glendale’s distribution of the workforce in 2019-23 was the closest to Chandler, with Gilbert’s

the most different. Chandler had the lowest percentage in 2019-23 that were U.S. born, and the highest
share of naturalized citizens, among the six cities. Gilbert had the highest native-born share.
Except for Mesa, the change in citizenship shares from 2005-09 to 2019-23 did not vary much across the
cities. The increase from 2005-09 to 2019-23 in the share of naturalized citizens was greatest in Chandler.
Based on the five categories of speak only English, speak Spanish and speak English very well, speak
Spanish and speak English less than very well, speak another language and speak English very well, and
speak another language and speak English less than very well, Tempe’s distribution was most similar to
that of Chandler. Chandler was in the middle of the six cities on the share of workers who spoke only
English; this percentage was highest in Gilbert and lowest in Glendale.
On the change in language spoken from 2005-09 to 2019-23, Gilbert and Glendale were most similar to
Chandler, with Mesa the most different. Chandler had the highest share who spoke another language
other than Spanish and the largest increase in share from 2005-09 to 2019-23.
Earnings, Poverty, and Tenure. The median earnings of the workforce in Chandler in 2019-23 was the
highest of the six cities. It was higher by 0.5 percent than in Scottsdale, by 10 percent relative to Gilbert
and Tempe, and by more than 17 percent versus Glendale and Mesa. The inflation-adjusted percent
change between 2005-09 and 2019-23 ranked third in Chandler, behind Gilbert and Mesa.
The distribution of earnings in 2019-23 was nearly the same in Scottsdale as in Chandler, while the
distributions in Mesa and especially Glendale were substantially different. The change in the distribution
from 2005-09 to 2019-23 also was most similar to Chandler in Scottsdale.
The poverty rate of workers in Chandler was second lowest to Gilbert in 2019-23. Only Mesa had a larger
decrease in the poverty rate than Chandler from 2005-09 to 2019-23.
The homeowner occupancy rate in Chandler in 2019-23 was second highest among the six cities; only
Gilbert had a higher percentage. Only Mesa had a smaller decrease in the rate than Chandler between
2005-09 and 2019-23.
Occupation, Industry, and Class of Worker. The occupational mix of the workforce in 2019-23, shown in
Table 22, was not substantially different across the cities, except for Glendale, which had a much lower
share in the management, business, science, and arts group, offset by relatively high shares in blue-collar
occupational groups. The mix was most similar to Chandler in Tempe. Chandler had the highest share in
the management, business, science, and arts group and the lowest share in the services group and in the
sales and office group.
The change in the occupational mix between 2005-09 and 2019-23 also did not vary substantially across
the six cities. It was most similar to Chandler in Mesa. Chandler had the least decrease in the sales and
office group and the greatest decrease in the services group.
The industrial mix, based on sectoral groups, of the workforce in 2019-23 was most similar to Chandler in
Tempe. The mix was rather different from Chandler in the other cities, especially Glendale. Chandler easily
had the highest share in manufacturing. Chandler had the lowest share of the six cities in educational

services, and health care and social assistance, and the second-lowest share in retail trade; and in arts,
entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services (see Table 23).
Scottsdale was most similar to Chandler in the change in sectoral group shares between 2005-09 and 2019-
23. Chandler had the largest decrease among the six cities in the share in manufacturing; retail trade; and
arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services. Chandler had the largest
increase in share in finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing; and ranked second in
professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services, as well as
educational services, and health care and social assistance.
Tempe and Gilbert were closest to Chandler in 2019-23 in the class-of-worker distribution; Glendale was
substantially different. In 2019-23, Chandler had the highest share among the six cities of its workers
employed by a private for-profit company but ranked low in the share in each other class of worker.
The change in the class of worker from 2005-09 to 2019-23 did not vary much across five of the six cities.
However, Gilbert experienced a gain in share of those employed by a private for-profit company compared
to a loss in each of the other cities.
Means of Transportation to Work and Travel Time. In 2019-23, Chandler ranked second of the six cities
on the share of those working from home, well behind the share of Gilbert workers. Of those commuting
to work, there was little difference in the means of transportation to work. By a small margin, Chandler
had the lowest share carpooling. Tempe had the highest share traveling by a means other than a private
vehicle.
Of those commuting to work, Chandler had the highest share of the six cities of workers leaving home
between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m. The median travel time to work was fourth highest among Chandler’s workers,
with the difference by city not significant.
Summary of Comparison to Five Cities in Maricopa County
Based on MAG’s employer database, the sectoral mix in 2023 was most similar to Chandler in Mesa and
Tempe. The mix was the most different in Glendale and Scottsdale. Relative to Chandler, the change in the
sectoral mix between 2007 and 2023 was most similar in Tempe and the most variant in Glendale and
Gilbert.
The big difference between Chandler and each of the other comparison cities was the much higher
manufacturing share in Chandler. Chandler’s share also was higher than in each comparison city in the
management of companies sector. These higher shares were offset by lower shares in Chandler than in
most of the comparison cities in most of the other sectors, particularly construction, educational services,
health care and social assistance, and accommodation and food services.
Considering the full range of worker characteristics from the ACS, the characteristics of those working in
Chandler in 2019-23 were relatively similar to workers in Gilbert, Scottsdale, Mesa, and Tempe, but rather
different from those in Glendale. Considering only the occupational mix, industrial mix, and class-of-
worker mix, Tempe was the most similar to Chandler, followed by Gilbert, Scottsdale, and Mesa. Glendale
was the least similar on these characteristics.

Table 22: Occupational Group of those Working in Chandler and in Selected Other Cities in Maricopa County
OCCUPATIONAL GROUP
SHARE OF TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
Chandler
Gilbert
Glendale
Mesa
Scottsdale
Tempe
2019 Through 2023

Management, Business, Science, and Arts
48.2%
46.0%
37.4%
41.3%
47.6%
46.0%
Services
12.7%
16.1%
17.8%
16.9%
16.6%
11.6%
Sales and Office
22.4%
24.1%
23.0%
22.4%
23.7%
25.0%
Natural Resources, Construction, Maintenance
6.8%
6.5%
9.6%
9.5%
6.1%
6.6%
Production, Transportation, Material Moving
9.9%
7.3%
10.4%
9.9%
6.1%
10.7%
Military-Specific Occupations
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%

Change, 2005 to 2009 to 2019 Through 2023
10.0%
12.2%
6.6%
10.3%
8.2%
6.0%
Management, Business, Science, and Arts
-3.4%
-0.3%
0.7%
-2.6%
-1.4%
-0.7%
Services
-4.4%
-6.4%
-5.3%
-5.5%
-6.9%
-5.2%
Sales and Office
-2.9%
-5.3%
-3.3%
-3.9%
-1.0%
-1.1%
Natural Resources, Construction, Maintenance
0.6%
-0.2%
0.9%
1.7%
1.1%
0.8%
Production, Transportation, Material Moving
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
Military-Specific Occupations
10.0%
12.2%
6.6%
10.3%
8.2%
6.0%
Source: Calculated from U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey, five-year data aggregations, obtained from
IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org. Table B08524

Table 23: Occupational Group of those Working in Chandler and in Selected Other Cities in Maricopa County (ACS By Place of Work)
SECTOR
TOTAL SHARE OF EMPLOYMENT
Chandler
Gilbert
Glendale
Mesa
Scottsdale
Tempe
2019 through 2023

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting; Mining
0.3%
0.4%
0.5%
0.4%
0.5%
0.2%
Construction
6.4%
6.9%
6.6%
8.5%
6.0%
6.3%
Manufacturing
18.3%
7.7%
5.7%
8.0%
5.5%
11.0%
Wholesale Trade
2.2%
1.7%
1.4%
2.4%
1.8%
2.6%
Retail Trade
11.4%
13.0%
12.4%
13.6%
11.2%
11.9%
Transportation and Warehousing; Utilities
3.2%
2.3%
4.6%
4.1%
2.4%
5.9%
Information
1.9%
2.3%
1.0%
1.3%
1.9%
3.0%
Finance, Insurance; Real Estate, Rental & Leasing
12.3%
10.7%
8.4%
7.7%
14.9%
12.7%
Professional, Scientific; Management; Admin Services
12.5%
13.4%
9.7%
12.2%
18.7%
15.1%
Educational Services; Health Care & Social Assistance
18.2%
24.7%
25.7%
24.4%
19.1%
19.9%
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation; Accommodation, Food
7.3%
9.7%
9.4%
9.4%
11.5%
6.7%
Other Services (except Public Administration)
3.9%
4.7%
5.2%
4.6%
4.8%
3.3%
Public Administration
2.1%
2.3%
4.4%
3.3%
1.6%
1.4%
Armed Forces
0.0%
0.1%
5.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%

Change, 2005 to 2009 and 2019 to 2023

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting; Mining
-0.2%
-0.1%
-0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
Construction
-1.1%
-5.6%
-3.6%
-3.9%
-1.2%
-1.0%
Manufacturing
-3.6%
0.7%
-0.3%
1.0%
-0.5%
-2.4%
Wholesale Trade
-0.8%
-1.2%
-1.0%
0.3%
-1.0%
-1.7%
Retail Trade
-3.5%
-2.6%
-2.4%
-1.0%
-1.8%
1.0%
Transportation and Warehousing; Utilities
1.4%
-0.8%
0.9%
1.0%
0.2%
0.6%
Information
-0.4%
-0.1%
-0.2%
-0.4%
-0.5%
0.8%
(continued)

Table 23 (Continued): Occupational Group of those Working in Chandler and in Selected Other Cities in Maricopa County (ACS By Place of Work)
SECTOR
TOTAL SHARE OF EMPLOYMENT
Chandler
Gilbert
Glendale
Mesa
Scottsdale
Tempe
Change, 2005 to 2009 and 2019 to 2023

Finance, Insurance; Real Estate, Rental & Leasing
3.3%
2.1%
1.2%
0.6%
-0.9%
1.0%
Professional, Scientific; Management; Admin Services
3.9%
2.8%
2.3%
1.2%
4.3%
1.3%
Educational Services; Health Care & Social Assistance
4.4%
5.2%
2.4%
2.7%
3.5%
0.9%
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation; Accommodation, Food
-3.3%
0.3%
0.4%
-0.9%
-2.0%
-1.0%
Other Services (except Public Administration)
-0.1%
-0.9%
0.1%
-1.0%
-0.4%
0.4%
Public Administration
0.0%
0.2%
-1.0%
0.2%
0.2%
-0.1%
Armed Forces
-0.1%
0.1%
1.2%
-0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
Source: Calculated from U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey, five-year data aggregations, obtained from
IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org. Table B08526

COMPARISON TO THREE CITIES OUTSIDE MARICOPA COUNTY
Three additional cities were selected by the City of Chandler for comparison to Chandler: Boulder,
Colorado; McKinney, Texas; and Salt Lake City, Utah. For these cities, the economic data by place of work
are limited to the ACS since an employer database similar to that produced by MAG is not available for
any of these cities. In addition to these economic data, a history of the population of each city is included
below.
Population
Each of these cities is part of a multicounty metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or a combined statistical
area (CSA, the combination of two or more metropolitan areas or micropolitan areas). The population at
the city, county, and metro/combined statistical area levels is summarized in Table 24.
Boulder. Boulder is within Boulder County, which is its own metropolitan area, part of the Denver-Aurora-
Greeley CSA. Population growth in the city has been much slower than in Chandler. Boulder’s population
exceeded that of Chandler into the 1980s, but in 2024, Boulder’s population was just 38 percent that of
Chandler. Population growth in Boulder County was faster than in the city from the 1970s through 1990s,
but the county’s population growth has been slow since 2000. In 2024, the city accounted for nearly one-
third of the county’s population but less than 3 percent of the CSA population. In comparison, Chandler
made up 6 percent of the Maricopa County population and 5.4 percent of the metro population.
McKinney. McKinney is within Collin County, which is part of the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington MSA. In
1970, McKinney’s population was similar to that of Chandler. While Chandler’s rapid growth began in the
1970s, McKinney’s did not start until the 1990s. McKinney’s growth has outpaced that of Chandler since
2000, such that its 2024 population was up to 81 percent of Chandler. In 2024, McKinney accounted for
18 percent of the county’s population but less than 3 percent of the MSA population.
Salt Lake City. Salt Lake City is within Salt Lake County, which makes up most of the Salt Lake City-Murray
MSA. In 1970, Salt Lake City was much more populous than Chandler, but Salt Lake City’s population has
not increased much since then; its population in 2024 was 77 percent that of Chandler. The county’s
population growth has been greater than that of the city. In 2024, the city accounted for 18 percent of the
county’s population and 17 percent of the MSA population.
ACS Economic Characteristics by Place of Work
Age. The median age of workers did not vary much across the four cities in 2019-23. Relative to Chandler,
McKinney had a slightly higher median while Boulder and Salt Lake City had slightly lower medians.
Similarly, the age distribution of the workforce was not much different in Chandler from that of the other
three cities, with McKinney the most similar.
Relative to Chandler, McKinney had a marginally larger increase in the median age from 2005-09 to 2019-
23, while Salt Lake City had a smaller increase and Boulder experienced a decrease. The change in the age
distribution between 2005-09 and 2019-23 varied across the four cities, with McKinney most closely
approximating Chandler’s change while the change was much different in Boulder.

Table 24: Population of Chandler and Out-of-State Comparison Cities

CITY
COUNTY
METROPOLITAN AREA
Chandler Boulder McKinney Salt Lake Maricopa Boulder
Collin
Salt Lake Phoenix
Denver
Dallas
Salt Lake
Population in Thousands

14
67
15
176
968
132
67
459
1,035
1,248
2,420
480

30
77
16
163
1,509
190
145
619
1,600
1,640
3,012
645

91
83
21
160
2,122
225
264
726
2,238
1,876
3,984
753

177
95
54
182
3,072
291
492
898
3,252
2,449
5,156
939

236
97
131
186
3,817
295
782
1,030
4,193
2,838
6,367
1,088

276
108
195
200
4,421
331
1,064
1,185
4,846
3,295
7,638
1,258

281
107
228
218
4,673
330
1,255
1,216
5,187
3,753
8,344
1,301
Numeric Change in Thousands

16
10
1
-13
541
58
78
160
565
392
592
165

61
6
5
-3
613
35
119
107
638
236
972
108

86
12
33
22
950
66
228
172
1,014
573
1,172
186

59
2
77
5
745
4
290
132
941
389
1,211
149

40
11
64
13
604
36
282
155
653
457
1,271
170

4
-2
30
17
228
-1
179
29
311
120
676
40
Percent Change

116%
15%
7%
-7%
56%
44%
116%
35%
55%
31%
24%
34%

205%
9%
31%
-2%
41%
19%
83%
17%
40%
14%
32%
17%

95%
14%
155%
14%
45%
29%
86%
24%
45%
31%
29%
25%

34%
3%
141%
3%
24%
1%
59%
15%
29%
16%
23%
16%

17%
11%
49%
7%
16%
12%
36%
15%
16%
16%
20%
16%

1%
-1%
15%
9%
5%
0%
17%
2%
6%
3%
9%
3%
* The 1970 through 2020 figures are decennial census counts as of April 1; the 2024 figures are estimates as of July 1. The 2020-24 change is
calculated as the difference in the July 1 estimates for 2020 and 2024
Sources: Calculated from U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau

Race and Ethnicity. The racial/ethnic distribution of the workforce in Chandler in 2019-23 was different
from that in the other cities. Relative to Boulder and Salt Lake City, Chandler had an appreciably lesser
share of whites and a greater share of each of the other racial/ethnic groups. Relative to McKinney, the
differences were smaller, with Chandler having a lesser share of blacks and a greater share of Hispanics.
The change in the racial/ethnic composition between 2005-09 and 2019-23 also differed across the four
cities. Relative to Chandler, Boulder and Salt Lake City had lesser declines in the share of whites and a
greater increase in Hispanics; McKinney had greater gains in blacks and Asians but experienced a decrease
in the Hispanic share.
Citizenship and Language. Relative to Chandler, the percentage of the workforce in 2019-23 that were U.S.
born was higher in Boulder and Salt Lake City, but less in McKinney. Boulder and Salt Lake City had
relatively low shares of naturalized citizens, while McKinney had a higher share of noncitizens than the
other three cities. Relative to Chandler, the other three cities had a lesser decrease from 2005-09 to 2019-
23 in the share of noncitizens.
Among workers, Boulder and Salt Lake City had relatively high shares in 2019-23 who spoke only English.
The share speaking Spanish was relatively low in Boulder. In the change between 2005-09 and 2019-23 in
languages spoken, McKinney had a greater increase than Chandler in those speaking Spanish but a lesser
increase in those speaking another language.
Earnings, Poverty, and Tenure. Adjusted for the cost of living,4 median earnings of the workforce in
Chandler in 2019-23 was a little less than in each of the other three cities, by 5 percent versus Boulder, 3
percent versus McKinney, and 2 percent versus Salt Lake City. The inflation-adjusted percent change
between 2005-09 and 2019-23 in cost-of-living-adjusted median earnings also was lower in Chandler (16
percent) than in each of the other cities: Boulder (22 percent), McKinney (43 percent), and Salt Lake City
(20 percent).
The income distribution in 2019-23 was most similar to Chandler in Salt Lake City and most different in
Boulder. The change in the distribution from 2005-09 to 2019-23 was most different from Chandler in
Boulder.
The poverty rate — which is not adjusted for regional differences in the cost of living — of workers in
Chandler was similar to that of workers in McKinney and Salt Lake City in 2019-23; the poverty rate was
higher in Boulder. McKinney had a larger decrease in the poverty rate from 2005-09 to 2019-23 than each
of the other cities.
The homeowner occupancy rate of workers in Chandler in 2019-23 was slightly less than in McKinney and
Salt Lake City, but higher than in Boulder. The decrease in the rate between 2005-09 and 2019-23 was a
bit larger in Chandler than in McKinney and Salt Lake City; Boulder had a larger decline.
Occupation, Industry, and Class of Worker. The occupational mix of the workforce in 2019-23 was quite
similar in Chandler and McKinney, as seen in Table 25. The mix in Salt Lake City was a little different, with

4 The adjustment for the cost of living used the Regional Price parity figures produced by the U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Economic Analysis.

a lesser share in sales and office occupations and a greater share in production, transportation, and
material moving occupations. The mix in Boulder was considerably different relative to the other three
cities, with higher shares in the management, business, science, and arts group and in the services group,
with a lesser share in each of the other groups.
The change in the occupational mix between 2005-09 and 2019-23 varied by city. Chandler had the least
decrease in the sales and office group and the greatest decrease in the services group. McKinney’s change
more closely resembled the change in Chandler than the other two cities.
The sectoral-group mix of the workforce was most similar to Chandler in McKinney in 2019-23, but with a
significant difference: Chandler had a much higher manufacturing share and lesser shares in several
groups, including professional, scientific, and technical services (see Table 26). The shares in Chandler were
considerably different from those in Boulder and Salt Lake City.
Relative to Chandler, Boulder had higher shares in information; professional, scientific, and technical
services; educational services, and health care and social assistance; arts, entertainment, and recreation,
and accommodation and food services. Boulder had much lower shares in manufacturing and in finance
and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing, and lesser shares in construction and trade.
Salt Lake City, relative to Chandler, had higher shares in transportation and warehousing, and utilities;
educational services, and health care and social assistance; and public administration. It had a much lesser
share in manufacturing, and lower shares in finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing,
and retail trade.
The pattern of the change in the shares of sectoral groups between 2005-09 and 2019-23 was unique to
each city. McKinney’s change most closely resembled that of Chandler. The largest decrease in
manufacturing; and arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services occurred
in Chandler. Its increase in educational services, and health care and social assistance was the highest.
The distribution of the class of worker in 2019-23 was closest to Chandler in McKinney. In 2019-23,
Chandler had the highest share among the four cities of its workers employed by a private for-profit
company. Boulder and Salt Lake City had much lesser shares working at private for-profit companies, offset
by greater shares working for nonprofits and for government; Boulder also had a higher share self-
employed at not-incorporated businesses. McKinney had a slightly higher share self-employed or working
for government.
The change in the class of worker from 2005-09 to 2019-23 did not vary much across the four cities.
Chandler had the largest gain in those employed by a nonprofit. It experienced a loss in share, compared
to a small gain in the other cities, in local government workers.
Means of Transportation to Work and Travel Time. In 2019-23, Chandler was in the middle of the four
cities on the share of those working from home, with Salt Lake City an outlier with few working from home.
Of those commuting to work, McKinney closely matched Chandler. Salt Lake City and especially Boulder
had relatively low shares driving alone to work and a higher share taking public transit. Boulder also had
a relatively high share bicycling or walking.

Table 25: Occupational Group of those Working ion Chandler and in Out-of-State Comparison Cities
OCCUPATIONAL GROUP
SHARE OF TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
Chandler
Boulder
McKinney
Salt Lake
2019 Through 2023

Management, Business, Science, and Arts
48.2%
58.1%
47.2%
45.9%
Services
12.7%
15.3%
13.1%
11.6%
Sales and Office
22.4%
15.0%
21.5%
18.9%
Natural Resources, Construction, Maintenance
6.8%
4.5%
7.8%
8.0%
Production, Transportation, Material Moving
9.9%
7.0%
10.4%
15.4%
Military-Specific Occupations
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%

Change, 2005 to 2009 and 2019 to 2023

Management, Business, Science, and Arts
10.0%
6.9%
14.2%
6.7%
Services
-3.4%
1.6%
-2.5%
-0.8%
Sales and Office
-4.4%
-7.7%
-6.8%
-7.6%
Natural Resources, Construction, Maintenance
-2.9%
-0.8%
-4.5%
-0.6%
Production, Transportation, Material Moving
0.6%
0.1%
-0.5%
2.3%
Military-Specific Occupations
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
Source: Calculated from U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey, five-
year data aggregations, obtained from IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org. Table
B08524
Of those commuting to work, Chandler had the highest share leaving home between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m.
and the lowest share leaving between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. in 2019-23. The median travel time to work was
lowest in Chandler, but not by a significant amount.
.

Table 26: Sectoral-Group of those Working in Chandler and in Out-of-State Comparison Cities (ACS By
Place of Work)

Chandler
Boulder McKinney Salt Lake
2019 Through 2023

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting; Mining
0.3%
0.4%
0.4%
0.5%
Construction
6.4%
4.1%
6.7%
6.6%
Manufacturing
18.3%
10.8%
10.8%
10.7%
Wholesale Trade
2.2%
1.1%
2.7%
2.8%
Retail Trade
11.4%
8.6%
11.5%
8.2%
Transportation and Warehousing; Utilities
3.2%
2.4%
4.0%
10.7%
Information
1.9%
3.7%
2.4%
1.8%
Finance and Insurance; Real Estate, Rental & Leasing
12.3%
5.2%
11.8%
7.1%
Professional, Scientific; Management; Admin Services
12.5%
19.1%
14.6%
12.6%
Educational Services; Health Care and Social Assistance
18.2%
26.8%
18.5%
22.7%
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation; Accommodation, Food
7.3%
9.9%
8.0%
6.2%
Other Services (except Public Administration)
3.9%
4.2%
5.6%
4.7%
Public Administration
2.1%
3.6%
2.8%
5.1%
Armed Forces
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.3%

Change, 2005 to 2009 and 2019 to 2023

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting; Mining
-0.2%
0.1%
-0.2%
-0.2%
Construction
-1.1%
-0.6%
-4.7%
0.4%
Manufacturing
-3.6%
-0.8%
-2.3%
-0.3%
Wholesale Trade
-0.8%
-1.1%
-0.1%
-0.8%
Retail Trade
-3.5%
-1.6%
-3.5%
-0.2%
Transportation and Warehousing; Utilities
1.4%
0.6%
1.8%
1.4%
Information
-0.4%
0.4%
1.2%
-1.2%
Finance and Insurance; Real Estate, Rental & Leasing
3.3%
-0.4%
3.1%
-1.2%
Professional, Scientific; Management; Admin Services
3.9%
0.2%
4.9%
0.1%
Educational Services; Health Care and Social Assistance
4.4%
2.9%
2.2%
3.9%
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation; Accommodation, Food
-3.3%
0.6%
-1.3%
-0.9%
Other Services (except Public Administration)
-0.1%
-0.3%
0.1%
-0.1%
Public Administration
0.0%
0.0%
-1.3%
-1.0%
Armed Forces
-0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
Source: Calculated from U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey,
five-year data aggregations, obtained from IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org.
Table B08526

Of those commuting to work, Chandler had the highest share leaving home between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m.
and the lowest share leaving between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. in 2019-23. The median travel time to work was
lowest in Chandler, but not by a significant amount.
Summary of Comparison to Three Cities Outside Arizona
Chandler’s history of population growth is most closely approximated by growth in McKinney, though the
latter city’s period of rapid growth began a couple of decades after Chandler. In contrast, growth in Boulder
and Salt Lake City has been much slower since 1970.
The characteristics of those working in Chandler in 2019-23 were quite similar to workers in McKinney, but
rather different from those in Salt Lake City and especially Boulder. The occupational mix in McKinney was
very similar to Chandler, while the mix in Boulder was much different. The industrial mix was closest to
that of Chandler in McKinney, with Boulder’s the most different.
Considering the full range of worker characteristics from the ACS, McKinney was closer in 2019-23 to
Chandler than any of the five selected cities in Maricopa County. Salt Lake City ranked sixth among the
eight cities, ahead of Glendale and Boulder. Boulder was the most different from Chandler.
Considering only the occupational mix, industrial mix, and class-of-worker mix, McKinney tied Tempe as
being closest to Chandler. Salt Lake City ranked sixth among the eight cities, ahead of Glendale and Boulder.
Boulder was the most different from Chandler.

660 S MILL AVENUE, SUITE 300
TEMPE
AZ 85281

Tel: (480) 965 5362
Fax: (480) 965 5458

seidmaninstitute.com
Seidman Research Institute

@SeidmanResearch