Bartholomew County’s population reached a record high last year, driven almost entirely by international workers that experts say are drawn to the community to fill highly skilled roles for global companies operating in the area.

The county’s population grew by an estimated 787 people last year, reaching 85,729 as of July 1, 2025, a 4% increase since 2020, according to new data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Net international migration accounted for 79% of that growth last year, with 619 more people moving to the county from abroad than leaving.

The figures underscore the degree to which the county’s economy is tied to global companies, experts and local officials said.

Cummins Inc., the county’s largest employer, is headquartered in Columbus and has around 67,400 employees worldwide. Additionally, more than 35 international companies employ more than 9,000 people locally, according to the Greater Columbus (Indiana) Economic Development Corp.

“(International migration) is to be expected simply from the standpoint that we have so many international, global companies in Columbus,” said Steve Mohler, assistant professor of management at IU Columbus. “…We’re pretty heavily tied to global companies.”

Population trends

While international migration has increased, Bartholomew County has seen decreases in net domestic migration in recent years. From 2020 to 2025, 764 more people moved out of Bartholomew County than moved in from elsewhere in the United States. Over the same period, net international migration totaled 3,447, and natural growth — the number of births minus the number of deaths — was 771.

The population increase in Bartholomew County stands in contrast to neighboring Jackson and Jennings counties, which both saw population declines last year.

Jackson County lost 66 residents largely due to a net outflow of 432 domestic residents that was not offset by international migration. Jennings County’s population fell by 102, with net domestic migration of negative 122 and virtually no natural growth.

“You have to have population growth if you’re going to survive economically,” Mohler said. “…We would have trouble sustaining our economic levels (without population growth). If we see population decline, we will have trouble overall. How would the economic development folks and the chamber attract anybody to Columbus if we didn’t have population growth, if we didn’t have people for them to hire? They wouldn’t. They would have to look elsewhere.”

International migration is not new to Bartholomew County and has been driving population growth in the community for years as employers turn to foreign talent to fill roles they have struggled to fill domestically, according to local officials and state and federal records.

During the 21-year period from 2004 to 2025, net international migration in Bartholomew County was 8,961, while net domestic migration was negative 42, according to STATS Indiana.

But that trend has accelerated over the past decade. From 2016 to 2025, net international migration in Bartholomew County was 5,861, while net domestic migration was negative 1,835.

“We’ve benefited from international migration for decades with the investment that we’ve had from international companies, which then brings international employees,” said Columbus Mayor Mary Ferdon. “…I think growth is always good, and Columbus has always welcomed diversity for decades. And we see a lot of value (of that) in our neighborhoods and our businesses and our schools, which embrace a lot of cultures.”

Ferdon said the decline in domestic migration is a “double-whammy” of sorts that many communities in Indiana are experiencing, as workers and retirees have tended to move to the southeastern and southern states due to milder winters and a perceived lower cost of living.

Highly skilled workers

The new data also provides an initial snapshot of migration patterns since President Donald Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, promising a crackdown on immigration and implementing policies that have increased costs and restrictions on visas for highly skilled workers.

In September, the Trump administration added a $100,000 fee to applications for H-1B visas, which allow companies to temporarily hire foreign professionals for roles requiring specialized knowledge and at least a bachelor’s degree.

The visa program is intended to address critical labor shortages by allowing companies to hire qualified workers they cannot otherwise find in the U.S. workforce. Critics — including those at the White House — contend that it allows employers to undercut U.S. workers by hiring foreign professionals willing to work for less.

Several local employers — including Cummins, Toyota Material Handling, Columbus Regional Health and others — have sponsored H-1B visas for workers over the years, according to federal records.

The Census Bureau data, current through July, does not capture the impact of the fee increase, which took effect in September, just days after the proclamation was signed.

“If this H-1B visa fee of $100,000 curtails companies from bringing in foreign workers, it would, in my perspective, be a drain on our economy at least in the near term,” Mohler said. “…We can’t graduate students fast enough to replace (highly skilled foreign workers) in the next three or four years, because to get them in and get through the bachelor’s degree is four years. If it’s an advanced degree, it’s six or eight (years). Therefore, if that $100,000 is a deterrent to our companies, we will struggle unless we’re able to attract other workers.”

The most recent federal data shows that from September through December, local employers received approval for 96 new H-1B visas. In the prior fiscal year, which ran from Oct. 1, 2024, to Sept. 30, 2025, 120 new applications were approved for local employers.

However, it is hard to say what the impact of the new fee has been locally. The $100,000 charge applied only to applications filed after Sept. 21. Because the government data does not specify when applications were filed, it is unclear how many of the 96 approvals were subject to the fee.

At one point last year, H-1B processing times averaged three to six months, according to Washington-based Boundless Immigration. That suggests that applications filed as early as March 2025 — and possibly earlier — would not have been subject to the fee.

Ferdon said it hard to say how much of an impact the new fee has had on local employers but could end up reducing international migration in Bartholomew County if the policy is left in place long term.

“I imagine it will have an impact if (the new fee) continues long term,” Ferdon said. “…I imagine … over time we will see a decrease in international migration if the H-1B visa process continues down the same path. But I’m hopeful that it will change because we value the employees that we’re able to bring to Columbus with the visa program. It’s of immense value to our companies.”

Aging workforce

At the same time, Bartholomew County’s workforce is aging, experts said.

In 2024, residents 65 and older made up 25% of Bartholomew County population ages 25 and up, an increase from 22% in 2015 and 20% in 2010, Census Bureau figures show.

In the same time period, 17% of Bartholomew County residents with a bachelor’s degree or higher — nearly 3,300 people — were at least 65 years old in 2024, up from 14% in 2015 and 13% in 2010.

“Our population 65 and over has been increasing,” Mohler said. “…But the scary part is … a significant part of our population with the higher degrees are 65 and older. …With people over 65 holding a number of degrees and the population is not increasing, when those folks do decide to leave the labor market, it will be a drain on us.”

Bartholomew Consolidated School Corp. board members on Monday night approved a new policy that outlines how the district should go about counting and reporting incidents when a school employee is injured on the job by students, although further changes are likely.

The new policy, D525: School Employee Injury Reporting, comes against the backdrop of a state law from 2023, IC 20-26-5-42, which required each public school to provide data to the state about school employees on the job who were injured by a student in the previous school year.

During the first year of required reporting in 2023-24, BCSC reported the second-highest number of incidents in Indiana. However administrators said at the time that the numbers they submitted reflected over-reporting because of a lack of clarity from the state about what incidents should be submitted. Between the 2023-24 and 2024-25 reporting period, BCSC went from 142 reported incidents to 20.

But the number of “information-only” incidents has continually climbed over the past couple of years, according to District 1 school board member Jason Major, who authored the policy and receives confidential, information-only reports given to school board members from administrators quarterly.

Major stated that during a closed session in October 2025 regarding school safety, school board members learned that through the first three months of the school year, the number of information-only incidents was already at 80% of the total from the 2024-25 school year.

Information-only reports can range from a student stepping on a teacher’s foot to a student with special needs, for example, unintentionally striking a teacher. Information-only reports refer to any time a student and staff member had an incident resulting in a staff member going to a school nurse, but there was not a medical claim made.

Information-only does not necessarily mean the incident was minor, just that it didn’t currently meet criteria for formal action under policy or law.

The school employee injury reporting policy received its first reading during the school board meeting on March 2, although there was no discussion about it. The policy was finalized Monday by a 5-1 vote, with Board President Rich Stenner, District 2, the lone vote against because he thought the policy wasn’t fully ready. Nikki Wheeldon, District 7, was absent.

The new policy was not approved without school board members first bickering about procedural minutiae, disputes and finger pointing about which members actually are operating in the best interests of teachers and whether board leadership was slow-rolling consideration of the new policy.

Those interested can watch the matter discussed via a recording of Monday night’s school board meeting on BCSC’s YouTube page, starting at 1:15:50.

The school board initially was going to hold a work session to discuss the policy, but one was not scheduled in the time since March 2. The board did meet, however, for a closed session on March 23. Also of note is that spring break was held from March 16 to March 20.

Board leadership, in coordination with BCSC administration, is in charge of scheduling work sessions, according to BCSC officials.

Superintendent Chad Phillips remarked that there had been “multiple instances (in the past) in which a work session was requested, but was not scheduled before the next board meeting, just depending on the timing.”

Phillips emphasized that internal work is being done to produce a similar policy, also noting the district’s excellent teacher retention rates.

“That doesn’t mean we’re perfect, and it doesn’t mean that we don’t need to continue to share more information,” Phillips said. “But people are doing work right now to keep all of our teachers, staff and students safe.”

The policy wasn’t on the board agenda heading into Monday night’s meeting, but Major, before reading a long written statement, requested that it be added, which was approved 4-2, with Stenner and Dale Nowlin, District 4, voting against.

The policy drafted listed March 30 as the second reading of the policy, but Michael McIver, BCSC’s legal counsel, said that meetings are driven by the printed agenda.

McIver indicated that the policy as it was written was not fully fleshed out in his eyes, and that a work session would still be a worthy idea.

“What I would encourage the board to avoid is creating its own policy that creates a mandate to report without providing clear instructions as to what it is that the administration is supposed to report,” McIver said.

Informing that view is recently passed state legislation in House Enrolled Act 1249 that changes how school employee injuries are reported, replacing the 2023 law.

The new law treats injuries to school staff primarily though the lens of “battery,” making reporting requirements more about intentional acts such as teachers being hit or kicked than general injury tracking as was the case with the 2023 law. HEA 1249 also strengthens the criminal consequences of harming a school employee.

Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources Erin Stalbaum said that the reporting structure through the new law has not yet been clearly defined.

Nowlin, the school board’s legislative liaison, said that he had sent the policy to Julie Slavens, the senior counsel and director of policy services for the Indiana School Boards Association, who stated the policy was “excessively long,” Nowlin said, and that much of what was included in it would be better placed in administrative guides. Nowlin said he still believed the board should conduct a work session to work through details, but was generally in favor of such a policy.

Whittney Loyd, District 3, seemed to agree, saying that she had particular suggestions about the policy but that she wasn’t going to vote against it as of now because of that.

It was generally well-understood by the board that it would be likely the policy would be amended again, but Major, who is up for re-election in November, opted to move forward.

Major was frustrated that there hadn’t been discussion in the time since the first reading about the policy among board members, and that no emails were shared among them about any suggestions. The original policy draft was provided to every school board member on Feb. 3, Major said, adding that he had been in conversation with Tom Glick, District 5, and Logan Schulz, District 6, about the policy.

The policy was approved, but there really wasn’t any discussion about the contents itself.

Policy information

The policy establishes a transparent process for reporting employee injuries caused by student, parent or staff conduct and supports data collection for continuous improvement.

According to D525, the school board will designate a corporation administrator to collect and maintain records of each unique employee injury incident, which will be reported to the school board with regular frequency.

If a workers compensation claim is filed or an employee has to miss school because of an injury, a closed session of school board members will be convened to discuss the incident, including, among other things, any potential action against the person responsible for the injury.

A committee of safety and security team leaders, school board members, school faculty and staff, and parents of students will also be appointed by the board to review the policy, monthly reports, end-of-semester reports and end-of-year reports. Based on those reports, the committee will create and present recommendations of changes to the policy or school safety improvement plans to the school board.

Those interested can read the policy in full at BCSC’s BoardDocs page.

CEA viewpoint

The president of the BCSC teacher’s union, the Columbus Educators Association (CEA), Amy London, said that the matter of school employees being injured by students is in no way just a BCSC phenomenon, but something school districts across the state and country are dealing with.

London said the increased numbers of information-only incidents described by Major ring true to the experience of CEA membership and that the majority of the incidents involve students on the elementary level. She also said that many of the students involved in these incidents are in special education.

“I think it’s a very individualized situation because in my observation of being a teacher for the last 26 years, the type of behavior support that students have needed has increased and become more intense,” London said. “Mental health issues have been something that teachers have had to try to support students with in the classroom and we are not necessarily trained to do that.”

“It just seems to be the level of the type of behavior that students are exhibiting is more severe,” London went on. “…We see that a lot of the students that exhibit these behaviors are in special ed.”

BCSC is working to foster a culture of safety for its teachers and students, London said, but the accountability piece is still missing.

“I worry that we are not at a point, based on the behaviors that we see from kids now, that we are not working to foster a culture of accountability,” London “.. “Even 10 years ago in teaching, if a student were to exhibit a particular behavior or harm someone, there was a specific consequence that happened. And it seems like the line has moved.”

London reasoned that the moving of that line doesn’t come from BCSC in particular, but pointed to social media and the behavior it can bring out in students as one factor.

London said that the new policy itself does a “good job of making sure that incidents are reported,” but that it’s missing the accountability piece.

She also had further questions about some of the process of the policy, including but not limited too, more information about the administrator that would be in charge of maintaining the records and how it would ensure incidents are all reported in the same way.

She also said that she would hope that monthly and end-of-semester reports giving an overview of all incidents would be made public versus just being presented to the school board, plus that the committee that would continually review the policy and discuss certain incidents would also have a CEA representative.