In-jurisdiction headcount
Number of employees whose primary work location is inside the jurisdiction of a public funder at period end — the in-jurisdiction subset of `hr.total_headcount`. Reported by companies whose investor is accountable to a government mandate that is scoped to a geography: a US state fund (e.g. an SSBCI-funded state venture programme), a national programme, or an EU regional fund. For those funders, workforce inside the jurisdiction — not total headcount — is the figure the programme reports upward to its own funder. The jurisdiction itself is board-level context, not part of this definition: a board reporting to a Missouri fund labels this field "MO-based jobs", one reporting to an EU regional fund labels it for its region. STOCK, NOT FLOW: this is a point-in-time count, the in-jurisdiction analogue of `hr.total_headcount`, and it can never exceed it for the same period. It is NOT jobs created or retained over a period — those are separate flow metrics that a net change in this count cannot express (a company that hires 10 in-jurisdiction and loses 10 shows no change here while having created 10 jobs). Convention follows `hr.total_headcount` (FTE-equivalent, employees only, end-of-period) plus the primary-work-location test, which is the usual point of dispute: payroll-tax nexus, a registered address, and where a remote employee actually sits can all disagree. Fix the convention at the board level once and apply it consistently. — HR KPI, I'mBoard-authored (editorial tier).
I'mBoard-authored (editorial tier)
No public third-party standard anchors this KPI yet, so I'mBoard authors and maintains the definition — transparently labeled as editorial tier. See the ontology methodology for the published vs editorial tier system and the back-attribution workstream.
Rogue ID: hr.in_jurisdiction_headcount
Type: Number
Domain: HR
Definition
Number of employees whose primary work location is inside the jurisdiction of a public funder at period end — the in-jurisdiction subset of hr.total_headcount. Reported by companies whose investor is accountable to a government mandate that is scoped to a geography: a US state fund (e.g. an SSBCI-funded state venture programme), a national programme, or an EU regional fund. For those funders, workforce inside the jurisdiction — not total headcount — is the figure the programme reports upward to its own funder. The jurisdiction itself is board-level context, not part of this definition: a board reporting to a Missouri fund labels this field "MO-based jobs", one reporting to an EU regional fund labels it for its region. STOCK, NOT FLOW: this is a point-in-time count, the in-jurisdiction analogue of hr.total_headcount, and it can never exceed it for the same period. It is NOT jobs created or retained over a period — those are separate flow metrics that a net change in this count cannot express (a company that hires 10 in-jurisdiction and loses 10 shows no change here while having created 10 jobs). Convention follows hr.total_headcount (FTE-equivalent, employees only, end-of-period) plus the primary-work-location test, which is the usual point of dispute: payroll-tax nexus, a registered address, and where a remote employee actually sits can all disagree. Fix the convention at the board level once and apply it consistently.
Formula
Count of active employees whose primary work location is inside the funder's jurisdiction at period end, on the same FTE-equivalent, employees-only convention as `hr.total_headcount`. Contractors are excluded (they are tracked in `hr.total_contractors`) even when in-jurisdiction.Why it matters
For a publicly-funded investor, workforce inside the jurisdiction is the mandate — the number the programme is measured on and reports to its own funder. Total headcount can grow while in-jurisdiction employment stays flat (hiring remote or out-of-jurisdiction), which looks like progress on every other HR metric while the mandate quietly goes unmet. Tracking it beside total headcount makes that divergence visible.
How to interpret
Read as a ratio to hr.total_headcount, not in isolation: a falling in-jurisdiction share alongside rising total headcount is the signal worth a board note, even when both numbers grow. No stage norms exist — the expected share is set by the programme's own mandate and any commitments made at investment, so compare against that commitment rather than a peer benchmark. Do not read this as jobs created: it is a snapshot of where people sit, not a count of hiring over the period.
Related KPIs
hr.total_headcounthr.total_contractorshr.new_hireshr.in_jurisdiction_jobs_createdhr.in_jurisdiction_jobs_retained
Source
I'mBoard editorial — authored and maintained by I'mBoard, first published 2026-04-01. No third-party standard is cited for this KPI; when one emerges, the definition is back-attributed and promoted to the published tier (a minor version bump). Read the ontology methodology for the published vs editorial tier system, attribution rules, and dispute process.
Stage relevance
| Company stage | Priority |
|---|---|
| Pre-Seed | Core |
| Seed | Core |
| Series A | Core |
| Series B | Core |
| Series C+ | Core |
| Public | Core |
Suggested for stages: Pre-Seed, Seed, Series A, Series B, Series C+, Public.
Default owning functions
- HR
Machine-readable
- This KPI as JSON:
/api/ontology/hr/in_jurisdiction_headcount.json - All HR KPIs:
/api/ontology/hr.json - Full catalog:
/api/ontology/index.json
Hiring Plan
Forward-looking narrative on next-period hiring priorities — target roles, sequence, sourcing strategy, and any unusual asks (executive search, specialized recruiter spend, location flexibility shifts). Anchors the board's understanding of where capacity is heading and what approvals or help are needed. Common pitfall: a stale plan that gets copy-pasted across quarters — the hiring plan should evolve with strategy shifts. Best practice is to lead with the 2–3 highest-priority hires and their justification, then a brief on backfills and bench-builds. — HR KPI, I'mBoard-authored (editorial tier).
In-jurisdiction jobs created
Number of jobs created inside the jurisdiction of a public funder DURING the reporting period — a FLOW, not a stock. The figure public funding programmes actually require: SSBCI 2.0 requires annual jobs-created reporting per portfolio company, EU structural funds report "employment supported" as a period figure, and US state tax-credit programmes are written in created/retained language. CONVENTION: counts in-jurisdiction positions whose occupant's first day fell within the reporting period and who is still employed in-jurisdiction at period end — counted as-of the reporting date, so a job that existed for a week and ended before period end is not reported as created. Same FTE-equivalent, employees-only, primary-work-location test as `hr.in_jurisdiction_headcount`; contractors are excluded even when in-jurisdiction. NOT DERIVABLE FROM `hr.in_jurisdiction_headcount`: two snapshots of that stock give NET CHANGE, not jobs created. A company that hires 10 in-jurisdiction and loses 10 shows a net delta of 0 while having created 10 jobs — and 10 is the number the funder counts. This is REPORTED BY THE COMPANY (`production: "primary"`), never computed from the stock series. Distinct from `hr.new_hires`, which is company-wide and carries no jurisdiction scope, so it cannot be filtered to the funder's geography. Disjoint from `hr.in_jurisdiction_jobs_retained` by construction: a job is created OR retained in a given period, never both. — HR KPI, I'mBoard-authored (editorial tier).