2019 Regional Competitiveness Report by Tampa Bay Partnership

2019

REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

Y T I L A IC VIT

M O N ECO N O I T A V O N IN E R U T C U R T S A R F IN T N E L TA CIVIC

Y T I L A QU

in collaboration with

WELCOME

WELCOME TO THE SECOND EDITION OF THE REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT. Inside, you’ll find a data-based assessment of Tampa Bay’s strengths and weaknesses across a diverse set of indicators and see where our performance stands against 19 of our peer and competitor markets nationwide. When we launched this project last year, we had high hopes for its success. We knew how desperately our region needed to work together to move the needle on our biggest economic challenges, and we believed that this report could be a key catalyst to make a difference. What we’ve experienced in the past 12 months has more than exceeded our expectations. Individuals and organizations throughout Tampa Bay have embraced this research with unanticipated enthusiasm. It’s been referenced in media articles, showcased in presentations and incorporated into numerous conversations about the future of our region. It’s guided our own efforts as well, helping us identify high-impact initiatives and providing a common focus to the work we do within the community. But we’ve still got a long way to go. The data presented in this year’s report hits a lot of high notes regarding our economic growth and the attractiveness of our community to businesses and residents alike. But a closer look shows that there are some cracks in the foundation that, if not addressed, could jeopardize our long-term prosperity. Here’s our challenge to you: read this report, determine where YOU can make a difference, and take action. Though we all have different missions, we share a common goal in ensuring the success of the Tampa Bay region, today and tomorrow. Sincerely, Rick Homans, President Tampa Bay Partnership Foundation

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

Suzanne McCormick, President & CEO United Way Suncoast

Marlene Spalten, President & CEO Community Foundation of Tampa Bay

TALENT

Project Background

Share of 3 & 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in School

Framework

High School Graduation Rate

Comparison Communities

Regional Profile

High School Graduation Rate: Economically Disadvantaged

Whatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s New

Share of Population Age 16-24 Neither Employed nor Enrolled in School

Certificate Production per 10,000 Residents

Educational Attainment Rate: AA/AS+

Educational Attainment Rate: BA/BS+

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

User Guide

ECONOMIC VITALITY

Job Growth Rate

Average Wage

Average Wage Service Sector

Business Establishment Start Rate

Median Household Net Worth

Advanced Industry Job Share

Advanced Industry GRP Growth Rate

Existing Home Sales Price Growth Rate

Merchandise Exports Growth Rate

Median Household Income

Mean Household Income (Lowest Quintile)

Educational Attainment Rate: Graduate/Professional

Age 25-34 Educational Attainment Rate: BA/BS+ 48

Labor Force Participation Rate: Age 25-64

Degree Production per 10,000 Residents: Associates and Above

STEM Degree Production per 10,000 Residents

Florida Talent Indicators

CIVIC QUALITY

Crime Rate per 100,000 Residents

Violent Crime Rate per 100,000 Residents

Share of Children in Foster Care

Food Insecurity

Health Insurance Coverage Rates

Primary Care Physicians per 10,000 Residents

Affordability: Costs as a Percentage of Income

INNOVATION

University R&D Expenditures

University Technology Licensing

Patents per 10,000 Residents

SBIR/STTR Awards per Capita

Housing Affordability: Housing Expenditures as a Percentage of Income

INFRASTRUCTURE

Transportation Affordability: Transportation Expenditures as a Percentage of Income 59

Walkability

Pavement Condition Rated Fair or Good

Pedestrian and Cyclist Fatalities per 100,000 Residents

Average Commute Time

Transit Ridership per Capita

Transit Vehicle Revenue Miles per Capita

Driving Time Spent in Congestion

Share of Commuters with 1+ Hour Commutes

Airline Passenger Traffic Growth 37

Median Daily Air Quality Index

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Cultural & Recreational Establishments per 10,000 Residents

OUTCOMES

Youth Poverty and Poverty Rate

Financial Instability Rate: ALICE

Gross Regional Product Change

Per Capita Gross Regional Product

Net Migration

Millennial In-Migration

Unemployment Rate

SUMMARY OF INDICATORS

NEXT STEPS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Disclaimer: The Tampa Bay Partnership Foundation has, to the best of its ability, compiled the information contained within and used to produce this publication, and it is believed to be the latest available at time of production, accurate, and from reliable sources. The Tampa Bay Partnership Foundation welcomes constructive criticism and corrections of the errors that may appear in a project of this complexity.

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

PROJECT BACKGROUND

THE IDEA TO DEVELOP THE REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT came out of the Tampa Bay Partnership’s own benchmark efforts in 2015, as it shifted its organizational focus away from two decades of business development and marketing, to a new mission based on public policy and advocacy. As Partnership staff researched peer markets and organizations across the country, they found that each of these communities – and many others – published a comprehensive dashboard of regional economic indicators. These indicators provided an important resource to determine the community’s greatest needs and prioritize the community’s limited resources. In October 2016, the Partnership’s governing body, its Council of Governors, chartered a Regional Indicators Task Force to research, develop and publish a Regional Competitiveness Report for Tampa Bay. Chuck Sykes, President and CEO of Sykes Enterprises, agreed to chair the effort. Under Sykes’ leadership, the Task Force started with the premise to measure by fact, not conjecture, following a single, guiding principle: to create a more competitive and prosperous region. To do so, we need to first understand what drives our economy, quantify where we stand today, and then develop a way to measure and benchmark our progress. The Community Foundation of Tampa Bay and United Way Suncoast, two of the region’s cornerstone philanthropic organizations, served as collaborative partners in the effort, and a diverse group of nearly 100 business and community organizations, as well as government and social service agencies, provided input throughout the process. Collectively, these stakeholders developed a framework for regional prosperity and selected the comparison communities against which we’d benchmark our performance. The resulting report, released in November 2017, was a thorough examination of the state of the Tampa Bay region, focused on 60 indicators across five key drivers: Economic Vitality, Innovation, Infrastructure, Talent and Civic Quality. Now in its second year of publication, the annual Regional Competitiveness Report has begun to serve as an invaluable resource for business and community leaders to coalesce around a common set of metrics and move the needle on the issues that impact Tampa Bay.

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

“If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it.” – Peter Drucker

The Tampa Bay Partnership is a privately funded, CEO-driven regional advocacy organization committed to creating a unified, competitive and prosperous Tampa Bay. Formally incorporated in 1994 and reestablished in 2016 with a new mission and leadership structure, the Partnership offers a unique peer-to-peer environment where the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s top business leaders champion regional solutions to the toughest economic challenges facing Tampa Bay today. Through its Foundation, the Partnership conducts objective, data-driven research to identify those challenges and measure our progress toward shared community goals.

PROJECT BACKGROUND

ABOUT OUR PARTNERS

The Community Foundation of Tampa Bay is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that connects people and resources to inspire charitable giving and create a meaningful, lasting impact on our region. Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, Hernando and Citrus counties, the Community Foundation of Tampa Bay works to build a better community through creative philanthropy, vision and leadership.

United Way Suncoast staff, volunteers and trusted community partners fight for the education and financial stability of every person in the communities we serve. Across DeSoto, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pinellas and Sarasota counties, United Way Suncoast develops, enhances and implements services and initiatives to help create a stronger, more vibrant community.Â

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

’N NS

S’ NEEDS

S ES N N TIVE ERITY O I EC PET OSP MES M PR O CO ND TC A OU

LIT Y

NIE

ZE CITI

INFRASTRUCTURE

T EN

D EE

ALITY

L TA

FRAMEWORK

U IC Q V I C

IN NO

O M

VI TA

VA TIO N

THIS FRAMEWORK REPRESENTS visually the complex system that is a regional economy, and the guiding principles that shaped this research. The “drivers” of the economy – identified here as Economic Vitality, Innovation, Infrastructure, Civic Quality and Talent – represent the critical needs of the region’s customers. They are also the categories of leading indicators examined in this report. Citizens and companies are the two “customers” of a region, and the symbiotic relationship between these groups is the foundation of the community. People need

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

the jobs, goods and services provided by companies, and companies require both workers and consumers for their goods and services. These customers make a choice to locate in a region and meeting their needs improves the likelihood a region will retain its existing customers and attract new ones. At the center are the “outcomes” that indicate the extent to which a region’s economy and customer base is growing, that the growth is enjoyed by all, and that the community is making progress toward its ultimate goal of economic competitiveness and prosperity.

The base geographic unit used in this report is the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which we refer to interchangeably as a market, region or metro. MSAs can be a single county or a group of counties that demonstrate a high level of economic interdependence, as determined by commuting patterns. Throughout this report, we generally refer to each MSA by its principal city. Exceptions to this are the notable dual metros of Dallas-Ft. Worth and Minneapolis-St. Paul, and the MiamiFt. Lauderdale-West Palm Beach area, which we refer to as South Florida. Another exception is the combination of the Raleigh and Durham (NC) MSAs – the “Research Triangle” – into one comparison region.

Seattle Portland

COMPARISON COMMUNITIES

THROUGH AN ITERATIVE AND COLLABORATIVE PROCESS, the Regional Indicators Task Force and participating stakeholders selected a group of 19 communities with which to compare the Tampa Bay region. Factors such as population and demography, the size of the economy, and the presence of regional assets – such as ports and research universities – were considered, as well as the frequency of competition for economic development projects. These communities reflect both peer and aspirational relationships with Tampa Bay.

Minneapolis-St. Paul

Baltimore

Denver

Raleigh-Durham

St. Louis Nashville

San Diego

Charlotte

Phoenix Atlanta

Dallas-Ft. Worth

Jacksonville Austin Orlando San Antonio

Houston

Tampa Bay South Florida

COMPARISON COMMUNITIES

Atlanta

Denver

Orlando

San Diego

Austin

Houston

Phoenix

Seattle

Baltimore

Jacksonville

Portland

South Florida

Charlotte

Minneapolis-St. Paul

Raleigh-Durham

St. Louis

Dallas-Ft. Worth

Nashville

San Antonio

Tampa Bay

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

REGIONAL PROFILE

Citrus TAMPA BAY BOASTS A DIVERSE COLLECTION of individuals and communities, companies and opportunities, special places, rich history and innovative ideas, making our region a world-class destination that appeals to visitors, residents and businesses alike. In recent decades, the once disparate communities that comprise the region have grown and evolved, creating a thriving economic market with an increasingly expansive reach. For the purpose of this report, the data presented reflects the eight counties of Citrus, Hernando, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk and Sarasota. The region can also be described as the combination of the four Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) that comprise the vast 7,733 square miles of the Tampa Bay region. At the heart of the market lies the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA (Hernando, Hillsborough, Pasco and Pinellas), the 18th largest metro area in the country. It is bordered by Homosassa Springs (Citrus) to the north, LakelandWinter Haven (Polk) to the east, and North PortSarasota-Bradenton (Manatee and Sarasota) to the south. In instances where we combine county-level data, or MSA-level data, to create a regional value, we do so by weighting the component values by an appropriate factor (population, number of households, etc.). It should be noted that, in most instances, the Tampa Bay regional value remains close to the core value of the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA. A more detailed breakdown of the indicator data at the MSA and county level, where available, can be found at www.regionalcompetitiveness.org.

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

Hernando Pasco Pinellas

Hillsborough

Polk

Manatee

Sarasota

METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS (MSAs):  Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater  Homosassa Springs  Lakeland-Winter Haven  North Port-SarasotaBradenton

DIVERSITY

More than 4.7 million people call the Tampa Bay region home. After welcoming nearly 485,000 new residents between 20102018, the rapid rate of population growth is expected to slow down over the next five years, but will likely still far exceed the national average. By 2023, Tampa Bay’s population is estimated to reach over 5 million people. In the coming years, Manatee County is expected to have the fastest population growth rate (11.6 percent) and Pinellas County the slowest (4.1 percent).

At 18.5 percent, Tampa Bay’s Hispanic population is more reflective of the U.S. average (18.3 percent) than Florida’s (25.9 percent). The region’s population by share of race also closely resembles the nation as a whole. Hillsborough is the region’s most diverse county, and Citrus is the least.

POPULATION BY SHARE OF RACE Citrus Hernando

2018 POPULATION Citrus

147,513

Hillsborough

Hernando

Manatee

185,678

Sarasota

Pasco

416,429

Polk

667,696

Pinellas

Hillsborough

Polk

1,421,685 Pinellas

968,109

Pasco

522,802

REGIONAL PROFILE

POPULATION

Sarasota

Manatee

Tampa Bay

383,742

Florida Florida: 20,875,686

United States

United States: 330,088,686

White Pacific Islander

Black Other

American Indian Two or More

Asian

POPULATION GROWTH: PAST AND FORECAST 2010-2018

0% Citrus Hernando Hillsborough Manatee Pasco Pinellas Polk Sarasota Tampa Bay Florida United States

HISPANIC POPULATION BY SHARE OF TOTAL POPULATION

2018-2023

10%

15%

20%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Citrus Hernando Hillsborough Manatee Pasco Pinellas Polk Sarasota Tampa Bay Florida United States

Sources: American Community Survey, 2017 1-year Estimates (household income); ESRI Business Analyst (all others)

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

REGIONAL PROFILE

AGE

INDUSTRY

With a median age of 44.7, the residents of Tampa Bay are older than those in Florida (42.3) and the U.S. (38.3). The region’s greatest share of younger residents live in Hillsborough County (37.1) and its greatest share of older residents live in Citrus County (57.6).

Healthcare, hospitality and retail continue to provide the largest share of employment opportunities for Tampa Bay residents, but construction, manufacturing, finance and insurance, and professional services are becoming stronger components of the regional economy.

MEDIAN AGE

TAMPA BAY 0

Citrus

2017 Private Employment By Industry

Total

16,571

1.0%

Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction

1,132

0.1%

Utilities

6,092

0.4%

109,621

6.9%

99,130

6.2%

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting

Hernando Hillsborough Manatee

Construction

Pasco

Manufacturing

Pinellas

64,407

4.1%

240,984

15.2%

Transportation and Warehousing

45,076

2.8%

Information

28,884

1.8%

Finance and Insurance

95,301

6.0%

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing

35,918

2.3%

117,647

7.4%

35,437

2.2%

126,961

8.0%

Wholesale Trade

Polk

Retail Trade

Sarasota  Tampa Bay Florida United States

Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services

HOUSEHOLD INCOME Tampa Bay’s median household income of $52,274 continues to fall short of the median household income in both Florida ($52,594) and the U.S. ($60,336). The region’s highest median household income can be found in Sarasota County ($58,400) and its lowest in Citrus County ($43,548). 0

$10K

$20K

$30K

$40K

$50K

$60K

Citrus Hernando Hillsborough Manatee Pasco Pinellas Polk Sarasota  Tampa Bay Florida United States

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

Management of Companies and Enterprises Administrative and Waste Services Educational Services Health Care and Social Assistance Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Accommodation and Food Services Other Services (except Public Administration) Total Private Industry

31,333

2.0%

259,357

16.3%

39,944

2.5%

182,987

11.5%

52,641

3.3%

1,589,423

100.0%

WHAT’S NEW IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN OUR INTENT TO MAKE THE REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT a living, breathing resource for our community, subject to ongoing updates and improvements. Each year, we’ll take a step back and explore what we can do to make this report a more useful and relevant tool in presenting an in-depth account of the strengths and weaknesses of the region. By the time the inaugural edition of the report was released, we had already identified many ways in which it could be improved. We’ve incorporated some of those ideas this year, and look forward to receiving your feedback regarding future changes.

What’s new in the 2019 Regional Competitiveness Report? DEEPER DIVES

We thought some of our findings were worth exploring in greater detail. Within the driver and outcome sections, you’ll now find one indicator where we’ve taken a closer look at the data to provide additional context and insight.

BEST PRACTICES

For each driver, we’ve identified one competitive community making a noticeable impact on a high-performing indicator, and explored what’s behind its success.

U.S. AVERAGE

Where available, we’ve added the U.S. average to each indicator, to illustrate how Tampa Bay compares to national performance, as well as that of its benchmark communities.

TREND DATA

Where available, we’ve presented a trend analysis (typically for five years) for each indicator, to view this year’s data in the context of past performance and the U.S. average. Whether the Trend is noted as Strengthening, Weakening, Volatile or Stable reflects the Tampa Bay region’s performance over time. Whether the Gap is noted as Strengthening, Weakening, Volatile or Stable reflects the region’s performance as compared to that of the U.S. average.

NEW INDICATORS

We’ve incorporated two new indicators based on feedback from the community. Food Insecurity, a measure of Civic Quality, examines the portion of the population without access to enough food to lead an active, healthy life. Certificate Production, a measure of Talent, examines the number of academic and technical certificates conferred by local educational institutions.

REFINED INDICATORS

New data sources and calculation methods for Walkability and Financial Instability Rate: ALICE have allowed us to present a more accurate picture of our pedestrian-focused planning and the state of the working poor.

ONLINE DATA

Also new in 2019 is an enhanced online presence for the Regional Competitiveness Report at www.regionalcompetitiveness.org. Visitors can now use visualization tools to review and interact with the data, select benchmark communities, and create custom reports.

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10

GOOD RESEARCH OFTEN ASKS MORE QUESTIONS THAN IT ANSWERS. It encourages us to think, talk and take action. Ultimately, good research can help us work together to become a better, stronger community. Sometimes, the research tells us what we already instinctively know. Many of the findings within the 2019 Regional Competitiveness Report reinforce the common wisdom that Tampa Bay is on the rise. Businesses want to be here, and so do people. Net migration in Tampa Bay ranks first among our competitive markets. We’re also the only community within our competitive set where regional deaths exceeded regional births, which indicates that our current population growth is being driven by an influx

of new residents who are attracted to the assets and opportunities our community provides. Entrepreneurs are also attracted to Tampa Bay as a place to start and grow a business, leading to a fifth-place ranking in business start rate. There’s little question that the momentum of recent years is already paying dividends. The energy in Tampa Bay is palpable, with near-daily announcements of business expansions, community investments and national awards and accolades. But it’s important to look beneath the surface. The research is also telling us that we’ve still got a lot of work left to do if we want our region’s growth to be inclusive, and ensure that no one gets left behind.

ECONOMIC VITALITY

INNOVATION

INFRASTRUCTURE

TALENT

CIVIC QUALITY

Our job growth rate peaked in 2015 and has declined every year since, placing us notably behind first-ranked Orlando and second-ranked Jacksonville. We also find ourselves at or near the bottom in average wage and household income, making our relatively low costs of housing and transportation still somewhat unaffordable for many of our residents.

Innovation is on the upswing in Tampa Bay. We’re experiencing a five-year peak in university R&D expenditures and university technology licensing is demonstrating an upward trend, due to the strong performance of the University of South Florida. But we generally fall short of our comparison markets, and in all indicators, fail to break the top 10.

Tampa Bay enjoys relatively low traffic congestion and good pavement condition, and a healthy share of our population resides in walkable neighborhoods. But we are incredibly overdue for investments into our transportation options and infrastructure. Our region ranks last in transit supply among our comparison communities, we have the second highest pedestrian and cyclist fatality rate, and both commute times and our share of commuters with more than an hour-long commute continue to grow.

When it comes to talent, we’re trending in the right direction. Educational attainment rates at all levels are on the rise, and our share of youth disconnected from learning and earning is on the decline. But we aren’t closing the gap between Tampa Bay and our competitors, and our labor force participation rate continues to lag. Our public school students are also underperforming their counterparts in other large Florida metro areas, and the state as a whole, in key assessments and indicators of college readiness.

Surface level indicators reflect well upon our region: we have clean air, safe communities, and an abundance of cultural and recreational options for residents and visitors alike. However, too many of our residents live without access to food or health insurance, compounding ongoing issues of affordability.

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As a result of our performance across the many indicators examined in this report, we can also see that too many of our residents and their children are living in poverty, and a large number of working families are one financial setback away from disaster. On a per capita basis, our gross regional product once again ranks last, and, when adjusted for inflation, actually decreased in the past year. But overall, our economy continues to grow, and new residents continue to arrive. Despite some significant concerns, in many areas, weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re making progress, acknowledging our challenges and working to solve them. It is our hope that this research can be used to constructively guide those efforts, and ultimately move the needle on the competitiveness and prosperity of Tampa Bay.

USER GUIDE What gets measured is what gets done. Whether the improvement effort is led by a private company, a community organization or a government agency, best practices show that measuring key data plays a critical role in establishing effective strategies and achieving real success. This 2019 Regional Competitiveness Report, and the data found within, is designed to serve as a resource for the entire community, to help all of us make a positive impact on the competitiveness and prosperity of Tampa Bay. There are many ways to put this report to work for you and our region, but here are a few that we believe are important:

MEASURE

Use this research as a baseline indicator to measure the effectiveness of your work. Identify the indicators you can directly impact, and monitor whether theyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re moving in the right direction over time.

PRIORITIZE

Use these findings to help you prioritize your activities and resources. Align the initiatives you work on and the programs you fund with the indicators that drive our regional economy.

ADVOCATE

Use this data to support your advocacy efforts and pursue public policy solutions that address our greatest challenges.

COLLABORATE

Identify opportunities for partnership and collaboration with other organizations working toward common goals. No single individual, organization or community is responsible for the success of our region, but everyone plays a role. It is our sincere hope that this report will, in some small measure, help you identify that role and determine where you can make a difference.

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

ECONOMIC VITALITY

Economic Vitality

Economic Vitality measures the quantity and quality of jobs, the relative incomes that residents earn, the wealth they attain, and the economic opportunities seized by entrepreneurs. Together, these factors drive the demand for – and the ability of – government to provide key services, and they create the disposable income necessary for residents to enhance their quality of life. While it’s important to report these numbers at a high level, it’s also critical to dive deeper. For example, in addition to monitoring median household income, this report also monitors this indicator for the poorest 20% of the population. Why? As the community creates new economic opportunities, leaders should ensure that the growth is inclusive and reaches all segments of the population. Likewise, as the community grows jobs, it should pay close attention to the types of jobs it is adding. If a community wants to increase its household incomes, and overall prosperity, then it has to ensure it increases jobs in the all-important and higher-wage “advanced industries,” and that goal requires a very clear and deliberate strategy.

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

“Leaders should ensure that the growth is inclusive and reaches all segments of the population.”

A LACK OF ACCESS TO TALENT is routinely cited by companies as one of the leading roadblocks to job creation and corporate expansion. This nationwide issue is one that many communities are struggling to address, but in Dallas, regional business leaders are making progress toward a solution. The Dallas Regional Chamber (DRC) has long focused on becoming a top region for corporate headquarters and new technology jobs, pursuing an aggressive goal to add more total jobs than any other U.S. metro area from 2010 to 2015. As the DRC began to develop its current five-year strategic plan, job growth goals remained high, but the approach took a decidedly different turn.

WHY WE’RE WATCHING: The Dallas-Ft. Worth metro area gained 114,000 net new jobs in 2018, nearly three times as many as the Tampa Bay region, and reported an impressive job growth rate of 3.15 percent. HOW THEY DID IT: The Dallas Regional Chamber is reversing the traditional economic development model, by focusing on efforts to attract talent instead of companies.

“The traditional thinking within economic development circles was that by luring companies, cities would have the jobs needed to lure workers. In recent years, the mentality has reversed somewhat, with a city’s ability to retain a young, educated workforce viewed as crucial to drawing corporate relocation. Dallas, which has been one of America’s recent leaders in both corporate and workforce growth, is an interesting case study in this debate.”— Scott Beyer, Forbes.com

ECONOMIC VITALITY

BEST PRACTICE: DALLAS-FT. WORTH

The DRC believes that the attraction and retention of talented millennial workers, the largest generation in the U.S. workforce today, is the key to the continued expansion of the region’s economy now and in the future. Guided by a Talent Attraction Council comprised of more than 35 companies in 15 different industries, the DRC launched “Say Yes to Dallas,” a national communications and marketing campaign, in early 2017. A website, social media platforms and a relocation guide provide young professionals with information on jobs, living, lifestyle and culture. A recruiting toolkit was also developed as a resource to help area businesses share the region’s story and answer key questions about the community. Resident testimonials – including one by Dallas Mavericks owner and high-profile tech entrepreneur Mark Cuban – paint a glowing picture of life in the region. Clearly defined metrics have guided the effort, including a goal of retaining more than 45,000 recent graduates from colleges and universities within the region, and attracting more than 272,000 recent graduates and young professionals from Texas and surrounding states. In its first year, the campaign generated 183.5 million impressions and reached targeted talent in all 50 states. Currently, more than 400 people a day are moving to the Dallas area. Home to 22 Fortune 500 companies, and 43 Fortune 1000 companies, Dallas and its suburbs have one of the highest concentrations of corporate headquarters in the country, ranking third among the nation’s major metros. Because Dallas ranks as one of the most diverse economies in the nation, companies and organizations are drawing from a broad cross section of skills to fill positions in nearly every major discipline. The “Say Yes to Dallas” website not only highlights the array of industry sectors but also serves as a portal to open job positions in those industries. The success of these outreach efforts is evidenced by the Dallas-Ft. Worth region’s continued job growth, both as a percentage of job growth as well as in net job gains. www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

Job Gr ow th Av Ra er te ag eW Av a ge er ag eW Bu ag sin eS es er sE vic Me eS sta dia ec bli to sh nH r me ou Ad n s va t e Sta ho nc ld rt ed Ne Ra Ad Ind te t va Wo us nc t r rth ed yJ ob Ex Ind ist Sh us ing ar try e H G om Me RP rch eS Gr ale an ow dis sP th Me e r Ra ice dia Ex te po Gr nH rts ow ou Me th Gr se an ow Ra ho Ho te th ld us I R n ate co eh m old e Inc om e( Lo we st Qu int ile )

ECONOMIC VITALITY

SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC VITALITY INDICATORS

Tampa Bay Atlanta Austin Baltimore Charlotte Dallas-Ft.Worth Denver Houston Jacksonville Mpls-St. Paul Nashville Orlando Phoenix Portland (OR) Raleigh-Durham San Antonio San Diego Seattle

Rank 1-4

South Florida

Rank 5-8

St. Louis

BEST

Rank 9-12 Rank 13-16 Rank 17-20

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

WORST

WHAT: The net number of payroll jobs created in each region over a one-year period, divided by the number of jobs existing at the beginning of the period.

WHY: Job growth is critical to economic prosperity. Areas with stagnant or declining job growth will likely experience a decline in a host of other indicators: household incomes, housing prices and new construction starts, and gross regional product.

OF NOTE: Tampa Bay’s job growth rate experienced a third consecutive year of decline.

JOBS (000s)

CHANGE Orlando

3.78%

June 2017

June 2018

#(000s)

Jacksonville

3.47%

Orlando

1,239

1,285

3.78%

Austin

3.39%

Jacksonville

686

710

3.47%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

3.15%

Austin

1,038

1,074

3.39%

Denver

3.14%

Houston

3.05%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

3,607

3,720

114

3.15%

Seattle

3.02%

Denver

1,475

1,522

3.14%

Raleigh-Durham

2.93%

Houston

3,039

3,132

3.05%

Phoenix

2.89%

Seattle

2,015

2,075

3.02%

Charlotte

2.73%

Nashville

2.34%

Raleigh-Durham

930

957

2.93%

Portland

2.31%

Phoenix

1,999

2,057

2.89%

 Tampa Bay

2.30%

Charlotte

1,185

1,217

2.73%

Mpls-St. Paul

2.07%

Nashville

976

999

2.34%

Atlanta

1.86%

Baltimore

1.85%

Portland

1,179

1,207

2.31%

San Diego

1.74%

 Tampa Bay

1,860

1,903

2.30%

U.S. Average

1.68%

Mpls-St. Paul

2,009

2,051

2.07%

South Florida

1.37%

Atlanta

2,731

2,782

1.86%

San Antonio

1.35%

St. Louis

1.11%

Baltimore

1,408

1,434

1.85%

San Diego

1,461

1,486

1.74%

United States

147,578

150,057

2,479

1.68%

South Florida

2,614

2,650

1.37%

3% 2%

San Antonio

1,044

1,058

1.35%

1,393

1,408

St. Louis

1.11%

ECONOMIC VITALITY

JOB GROWTH RATE

TREND: Weakening GAP: Weakening 2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

0% Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Survey, Total NonFarm Employment June 2017-June 2018 (not seasonally adjusted)

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

ECONOMIC VITALITY

AVERAGE WAGE

AVERAGE WAGE SERVICE SECTOR

WHAT: The average wage earned by non-farm employees in the region.

WHY: Average wages provide an indication of the type of jobs in a market, and the buying power of a region. Lower wages may indicate a preponderance of retail, tourism and other service jobs, while higher wages may indicate the presence of advanced industries with their high wages.

OF NOTE: Average wages paid to Florida workers lag the

other markets, taking four of the bottom five spots. Of the Florida markets, only South Florida has an average wage above $50,000.

the region, defined here as workers in the Leisure and Hospitality industries and Retail Trade industry.

WHY: A common refrain during conversations about Tampa

Bay’s relative economic performance is the perceived difficulty of comparing the market to others due to our mix of industries in the region. Analysis of the average wage of “service” sector workers enables Tampa Bay leaders to better understand, in context, the region’s economic performance and a major subsector of the economy.

Seattle

$74,162

Seattle

$48,844

Houston

$66,262

Nashville

$30,646

Denver

$63,521

South Florida

$30,372

Mpls-St. Paul

$61,418

Phoenix

$29,483

Dallas-Ft. Worth

$60,967

St. Louis

$29,406

Austin

$60,575

San Diego

$29,394

Atlanta

$59,347

Austin

$28,593

San Diego

$58,275

Dallas-Ft. Worth

$28,437

Portland

$57,296

Portland

$27,805

Baltimore

$57,236

Orlando

$27,689

Raleigh-Durham

$57,221

Mpls-St. Paul

$27,588

Charlotte

$56,245

Houston

$27,449

U.S. Average

$55,338

Baltimore

$27,428

Nashville

$54,439

U.S. Average

$27,194

St. Louis

$52,063

Atlanta

$26,964

Phoenix

$52,044

Denver

$26,739

South Florida

$51,578

 Tampa Bay

$26,651

Jacksonville

$48,685

Charlotte

$26,241

San Antonio

$46,795

San Antonio

$26,168

 Tampa Bay

$46,619

Jacksonville

$26,120

Orlando

$45,674

Raleigh-Durham

$23,821

TREND: Strengthening GAP: Stable 2013 $55K

2014

TREND: Strengthening GAP: Stable 2015

2016

2017

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

$0 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2017 Private Employer Annual Data

WHAT: The average wage earned by “service” sector workers in

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

2013 $25K

2014

2015

2016

2017

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

$0 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2017 Private Employer Annual Data

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD NET WORTH

WHAT: Measures the number of new businesses with

WHAT: Assets minus liabilities equals net worth. The median

WHY: New business establishments are a key source of new

WHY: This indicator provides another way to view the financial

employees established in a given year, divided by the number of business establishments with employees one year earlier. job growth, and tracking this indicator provides insight into a community’s entrepreneurial environment, regulatory structure, and availability of critical business inputs such as labor and financing.

OF NOTE: Each of the Florida regions ranked within the Top 8; South Florida and Orlando retained their 1-2 ranking.

net worth is the figure in the middle, half the population has a higher net worth and the other half has a lower net worth. health of the population outside of wage income. As the population reaches retirement age, median net worth becomes an important number to gauge the retirement income available and/or the dependency on some level of government or nonprofit support. Increasing real estate values in a community can also contribute to increases in median net worth.

South Florida

13.81%

Mpls-St. Paul

$182,147

Orlando

13.41%

Baltimore

$160,224

Austin

13.40%

Seattle

$145,125

Denver

12.86%

Denver

$135,358

 Tampa Bay

12.70%

St. Louis

$130,203

St. Louis

12.42%

Portland

$119,290

Atlanta

12.34%

Raleigh-Durham

$113,547

Jacksonville

12.33%

 Tampa Bay

$110,216

San Diego

11.90%

Nashville

$107,517

Phoenix

11.75%

Atlanta

$105,005

Dallas-Ft. Worth

11.65%

Phoenix

$104,067

Houston

11.60%

U.S. Average

$103,616

San Antonio

11.40%

Austin

$102,627

Charlotte

11.38%

Houston

$102,614

Raleigh-Durham

11.32%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

$102,516

Seattle

11.26%

Charlotte

$102,459

Nashville

11.12%

Jacksonville

$101,551

Portland

11.10%

San Diego

$94,989

U.S. Average

10.20%

San Antonio

$94,306

Mpls-St. Paul

9.79%

South Florida

$80,018

Baltimore

9.17%

Orlando

$79,347

TREND: Stable GAP: Stable 14%

2010-11

ECONOMIC VITALITY

BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT START RATE

TREND: No Trend Available 2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

7% 0% Source: Census Bureau, Statistics of United States Businesses, 2015

Source: ESRI Business Analyst, 2018 Estimate

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

ECONOMIC VITALITY

ADVANCED INDUSTRY JOB SHARE

WHAT: The percentage of non-farm jobs that are in “advanced industries,” characterized by high levels of technology research and development (R&D) and STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) workers. According to the Brookings Institution, “the sector encompasses 50 industries ranging from manufacturing industries such as auto-making and aerospace to energy industries such as oil and gas extraction to high-tech services such as computer software and computer system design, including for health applications.”

WHY: As advanced industries grow as a share of the economy, research shows that the sector has the most consequential impact on regional competitiveness and prosperity. As Brookings noted, looking at the national impact of advanced industries, “their dynamism is going to be a central component of any future revitalized U.S. economy. As such, these industries encompass the country’s best shot at supporting innovative, inclusive, and sustainable growth.”

EMPLOYMENT Advanced Industry

Total

Advanced Share

Seattle

18.52%

Denver

17.63%

San Diego

17.10%

Austin

16.49%

1,094,684

16.49%

Raleigh-Durham

16.30%

162,927

999,711

16.30%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

16.06%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

616,457

3,838,771

16.06%

Nashville

15.91%

Nashville

166,020

1,043,336

15.91%

Atlanta

15.45%

Atlanta

440,071

2,848,298

15.45%

South Florida

14.90%

 Tampa Bay

14.85%

South Florida

425,908

2,857,985

14.90%

Baltimore

14.82%

 Tampa Bay

292,477

1,969,003

14.85%

Houston

14.66%

Baltimore

221,867

1,497,306

14.82%

U.S. Average

14.19%

Houston

475,744

3,245,401

14.66%

Phoenix

14.19%

22,838,311 160,933,518

14.19%

San Antonio

14.18%

Jacksonville

14.12%

St. Louis

14.11%

Seattle

405,825

2,191,613

18.52%

Denver

282,477

1,601,970

17.63%

San Diego

292,218

1,708,401

Austin

180,526

Raleigh-Durham

United States Phoenix

311,108

2,192,830

14.19%

San Antonio

162,160

1,143,307

14.18%

Mpls-St. Paul

13.83%

Jacksonville

102,376

725,178

14.12%

Portland

13.74%

St. Louis

206,994

1,467,015

14.11%

Charlotte

13.67%

Mpls-St. Paul

288,297

2,084,820

13.83%

Orlando

12.89%

Portland

179,478

1,306,078

13.74%

Charlotte

174,301

1,275,375

13.67%

Orlando

168,603

1,308,059

12.89%

Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (Emsi) / www.economicmodeling.com; 2017 data

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

TREND: No Trend Available

WHAT: Measures the output of “advanced industries” by calculating the value of the goods and services produced in this important economic sector.

WHY: As many advanced industries are more capital intensive versus labor intensive, measurement of the industry’s output provides

another lens with which to track performance of this sector, which is considered a vital component of any strategy for our region to be more competitive and prosperous.

CHANGE

ADVANCED INDUSTRY GRP

ECONOMIC VITALITY

ADVANCED INDUSTRY GRP GROWTH RATE

(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)

2016

2017

Austin

$26,176

$28,665

$2,489

9.51%

Orlando

$19,960

$21,797

$1,836

9.20%

Jacksonville

$12,266

$13,204

$937

7.64%

Houston

$85,323

$91,076

$5,752

6.74%

Seattle

$73,792

$78,598

$4,805

Nashville

$23,431

$24,919

Charlotte

$23,147

San Antonio

Austin

9.51%

Orlando

9.20%

Jacksonville

7.64%

Houston

6.74%

Seattle

6.51%

Nashville

6.35%

$1,487

6.35%

Charlotte

6.20%

$24,581

$1,434

6.20%

San Antonio

6.19%

$18,495

$19,639

$1,144

6.19%

Portland

6.18%

Portland

$22,501

$23,892

$1,391

6.18%

Atlanta

6.09%

South Florida

6.05%

Atlanta

$72,881

$77,320

$4,439

6.09%

U.S. Average

5.83%

South Florida

$54,461

$57,759

$3,297

6.05%

Phoenix

5.79%

United States

$3,306,288

$3,498,921

$192,633

5.83%

Denver

5.52%

Phoenix

$37,420

$39,587

$2,167

5.79%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

5.36%

Denver

$42,550

$44,899

$2,349

5.52%

Raleigh-Durham

5.31%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

$97,972

$103,219

$5,246

5.36%

San Diego

5.02%

Baltimore

4.54%

Raleigh-Durham

$28,156

$29,652

$1,496

5.31%

Mpls-St. Paul

4.33%

San Diego

$45,821

$48,121

$2,299

5.02%

St. Louis

4.21%

Baltimore

$31,684

$33,123

$1,439

4.54%

 Tampa Bay

2.73%

Mpls-St. Paul

$40,189

$41,928

$1,739

4.33%

St. Louis

$34,399

$35,847

$1,447

4.21%

 Tampa Bay

$35,882

$36,863

$981

2.73%

TREND: No Trend Available

Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (Emsi) / www.economicmodeling.com; 2017 data

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

ECONOMIC VITALITY

EXISTING HOME SALES PRICE GROWTH RATE

WHAT: Measures the annual percentage change in the median sales price of a single-family home. WHY: Rising home values increase prosperity for many citizens, and home equity is one of the primary drivers of household net

worth, another important driver of regional prosperity. For the population at-large, changes in home sales prices play a major role in consumer sentiment. Most importantly, rising homes sales prices reflect a perceived increased value of the market and rising prices indicate increasing demand, a sign of economic and population growth.

OF NOTE: Tampa Bay’s median sales price of $236,000 (the mid-point of all sales) is the third lowest among the comparison markets.

MEDIAN SALES PRICE

CHANGE Seattle

11.43%

June 2017

June 2018

Atlanta

9.78%

Seattle

$525,000

$585,000

$60,000

11.43%

Phoenix

9.31%

Atlanta

$225,000

$247,000

$22,000

9.78%

Jacksonville

9.13%

Phoenix

$247,000

$270,000

$23,000

9.31%

Orlando

8.70%

Nashville

7.14%

Jacksonville

$219,000

$239,000

$20,000

9.13%

Portland

7.14%

Orlando

$230,000

$250,000

$20,000

8.70%

 Tampa Bay

7.14%

Nashville

$280,000

$300,000

$20,000

7.14%

South Florida

7.02%

Portland

$378,000

$405,000

$27,000

7.14%

Denver

6.67%

Mpls-St.Paul

5.88%

 Tampa Bay

$220,000

$236,000

$16,000

7.14%

U.S. Average

5.74%

South Florida

$285,000

$305,000

$20,000

7.02%

San Antonio

5.50%

Denver

$390,000

$416,000

$26,000

6.67%

Raleigh-Durham

5.00%

Mpls-St.Paul

$255,000

$270,000

$15,000

5.88%

St. Louis

5.00%

San Diego

4.50%

United States

$296,000

$313,000

$17,000

5.74%

Austin

4.21%

San Antonio

$218,000

$230,000

$12,000

5.50%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

3.39%

Raleigh-Durham

$273,000

$287,000

$14,000

5.00%

Baltimore

2.91%

St. Louis

$180,000

$189,000

$9,000

5.00%

Charlotte

2.83%

Houston

1.67%

San Diego

$555,000

$580,000

$25,000

4.50%

Austin

$309,000

$322,000

$13,000

4.21%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

$295,000

$305,000

$10,000

3.39%

Baltimore

$275,000

$283,000

$8,000

2.91%

TREND: Volatile GAP: Strengthening 12%

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

Charlotte

$247,000

$254,000

$7,000

2.83%

Houston

$240,000

$244,000

$4,000

1.67%

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

0% Source: Redfin Research, 2017-2018

2017-18

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

WHAT: Measures the export value of goods produced within the region to foreign nations. WHY: Manufacturing exports are an indicator of global competitiveness. Selling into global markets can add growth in revenues and

employment. Research from the Institute for International Economics has determined that companies that export products generally have higher employment growth especially through down business cycles. Strong exports also exert positive economic impacts on key assets in Tampa Bay, including our ports and airports.

OF NOTE: The US dollar strengthened globally between 2015 and 2016, making U.S. exports generally less attractive to world markets.

MERCHANDISE EXPORTS (MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)

CHANGE Orlando

9.12%

2015

2016

Portland

7.48%

Orlando

$3,083

$3,364

$281

9.12%

Atlanta

6.87%

Portland

$18,848

$20,257

$1,409

7.48%

Austin

5.83%

Atlanta

$19,164

$20,480

$1,316

6.87%

Austin

$10,094

$10,683

$588

5.83%

San Diego

$17,440

$18,087

$647

3.71%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

-0.68%

Raleigh-Durham

$5,361

$5,558

$197

3.68%

South Florida

-1.58%

Nashville

$9,353

$9,460

$107

1.15%

U.S. Average

-3.48%

î&#x192;¤ Tampa Bay

-5.45%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

$27,373

$27,188

$(185)

-0.68%

St. Louis

-6.36%

South Florida

$33,259

$32,734

$(524)

-1.58%

Mpls-St. Paul

-6.52%

United States

$1,503,328

$1,451,024

$(52,305)

-3.48%

Denver

-6.66%

î&#x192;¤ Tampa Bay

$7,756

$7,333

$(423)

-5.45%

Phoenix

-7.11%

Seattle

-7.95%

St. Louis

$8,914

$8,347

$(567)

-6.36%

Baltimore

-12.54%

Mpls-St. Paul

$19,609

$18,329

$(1,279)

-6.52%

Houston

-13.34%

Denver

$3,910

$3,649

$(260)

-6.66%

Charlotte

-14.60%

Phoenix

$13,822

$12,838

$(983)

-7.11%

Jacksonville

-15.81%

San Antonio

-64.69%

Seattle

$67,226

$61,881

$(5,345)

-7.95%

Baltimore

$6,047

$5,289

$(759) -12.54%

Houston

$97,054

$84,105

$(12,949) -13.34%

Charlotte

$13,986

$11,944

$(2,042) -14.60%

Jacksonville

$2,564

$2,159

$(405) -15.81%

San Antonio

$15,919

$5,621

$(10,298) -64.69%

San Diego

3.71%

Raleigh-Durham

3.68%

Nashville

1.15%

ECONOMIC VITALITY

MERCHANDISE EXPORTS GROWTH RATE

TREND: Volatile GAP: Strengthening 4% 0% -4% -8% -12%

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

Source: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration, Metropolitan Export Series, 2015-2016

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

ECONOMIC VITALITY

MEAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME (LOWEST QUINTILE)

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME

WHAT: Household income includes wages and salary,

interest, dividends, Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, public assistance or welfare payments, and any other source of income received regularly, such as unemployment compensation, child support or alimony.

WHY: The level of household earnings is another indicator of the relative prosperity of a community, its buying power and reliance on the social safety net.

WHAT: Measures the average household income for

the households that have income in the lowest 20% of all households.

WHY: By tracking the lowest 20% of household incomes, one can see whether economic gains in the community are being spread across the spectrum of the population, including the poorest households in this bottom quintile.

OF NOTE: The Florida regions take four of the bottom five spots in this indicator, with Tampa Bay ranked last.

Seattle

$82,133

Mpls-St. Paul

$19,290

Baltimore

$77,394

Seattle

$19,129

Mpls-St. Paul

$76,856

Denver

$19,119

Denver

$76,643

Austin

$18,301

San Diego

$76,207

San Diego

$17,742

Austin

$73,800

Raleigh-Durham

$17,533

Portland

$71,931

Dallas-Ft. Worth

$16,511

Raleigh-Durham

$69,044

Portland

$16,350

Dallas-Ft. Worth

$67,382

Baltimore

$16,197

Atlanta

$65,381

Nashville

$16,058

Nashville

$63,939

Atlanta

$15,636

Houston

$63,802

Phoenix

$14,579

St. Louis

$61,571

Charlotte

$14,439

Phoenix

$61,506

Houston

$14,301

Charlotte

$61,156

St. Louis

$14,062

U.S. Average

$60,336

Jacksonville

$13,649

Jacksonville

$58,709

U.S. Average

$13,140

San Antonio

$56,774

î&#x192;¤ Tampa Bay

$12,644

Orlando

$55,089

San Antonio

$12,630

South Florida

$54,284

Orlando

$12,588

î&#x192;¤ Tampa Bay

$52,274

South Florida

$11,652

TREND: Strengthening GAP: Stable

TREND: Strengthening GAP: Stable 2013 $60K

2014

2015

2016

2017

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

$13K

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

$30K $0K Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2017 1-Year Estimates, Table S1903

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

$0K Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2017 1-Year Estimates, Table B19081

Overview

Regional Performance

Tampa Bay underperforms most of our comparison communities in the various indicators measuring household income and earnings. While the indicators present the mean (average) and median performance of the region, there is a great deal of variability based on geography, race and ethnicity, and educational attainment.

Among Tampa Bay counties, Sarasota reports the highest median household income ($58,400) while Citrus reports the lowest ($43,548). Among racial and ethnic groups, non-whites and Hispanic households generally report lower median household income, with the notable exception being Asian households, which significantly outperform all groups where data is available.

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY SELECT RACE AND ETHNICITY $80,000

ECONOMIC VITALITY

DEEPER DIVE: HOUSEHOLD INCOME

$70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 Citrus Hernando Hillsborough  All

Manatee

 White

 Black

Pasco  Asian

Pinellas

Polk

Sarasota

 Hispanic

*Gaps in the data exist where there were too few cases to report figures of statistical relevance.

Generally speaking, in the majority of counties, a bachelor’s degree is required to earn above the overall individual. Exceptions to this are in Citrus, Manatee, and Polk counties, where Some College or Associates attainers earn above the typical individual.

RATIO OF EARNINGS BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT TO OVERALL EARNINGS Median Earnings

Less than High School

High School

Some College or Associates

Bachelors

Graduate or Professional

Citrus

$28,652

74.9%

93.5%

107.1%

122.9%

178.1%

Hernando

$30,845

79.9%

85.2%

98.5%

133.9%

175.0%

Hillsborough

$37,008

54.3%

71.0%

97.9%

138.1%

179.7%

Manatee

$34,036

85.1%

76.2%

104.3%

133.2%

165.0%

Pasco

$36,384

58.8%

82.8%

98.5%

140.5%

174.2%

Pinellas

$35,646

61.9%

78.6%

92.5%

135.8%

174.9%

Polk

$31,490

73.2%

85.3%

100.1%

143.8%

160.6%

Sarasota

$35,203

69.1%

84.0%

93.6%

137.8%

156.7%

Another factor to consider is the distribution of income across the spectrum of households. The top five percent of Tampa Bay households command a substantial share of the aggregate income, ranging from 20.21 percent in Citrus County to 25.39 percent in Sarasota County.

Key Takeaways •

There are discernable differences in household income by race and ethnicity among Tampa Bay’s counties.

•

Educational attainment plays a key role in the earnings of individuals, and the higher the level of attainment, the more likely an individual is to earn at or above the median in their county.

•

The top 5 percent of households enjoy a disproportionate share of county household income in Tampa Bay, anywhere from one-fifth to one-fourth of all household income.

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

INNOVATION

Innovation

Innovation measures the extent to which a region and its institutions are generating new ideas, and the marketâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s reception of these ideas. Regions across the U.S., and around the world, are racing to innovate. Leaders view innovation as the foundation of their respective efforts to strengthen and sustain their economic prosperity. While certain industries, such as biopharma, are innovative in themselves, innovation also drives increased productivity in existing legacy industries, such as logistics and distribution. Innovative economies support the creation and commercialization of new products, processes, and services. Innovation can be felt in the culture of a community and its openness to new ideas, ability to take risks and the availability of a support infrastructure to start new companies. The innovation process involves key steps, most of which can be measured and tracked: research and development; development of intellectual property; technology commercialization; investment of capital at various stages; and, ultimately, the number of companies that start-up, survive, prosper and stay in the community in which they were born.

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Innovative economies support the creation and commercialization of new products, processes, and services.â&#x20AC;?

THE GOAL OF THE UNIVERSITY of Central Florida Business Incubation Program (UCFBIP) and its community partners is to facilitate smarter, faster startup and growth of emerging companies to spur economic growth throughout the region.

INNOVATION

BEST PRACTICE: ORLANDO

Several years ago, UCFBIP identified growth in Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grants as a key component to helping their client companies achieve success at an early stage. UCFBIP will only allow scalable businesses to enroll in the incubator program. Companies seeking to enroll must demonstrate their growth potential through an online application and completion of the Excellence in Entrepreneurship (EIE) Course. During the EIE course, expert UCFBIP staff present SBIR/STTR information and explain how the program works. Since 1999, UCFBIP has successfully helped 231 companies secure Phase I and Phase II SBIR/STTR grants for a total of nearly $73 million in funding. Through the first three quarters of 2018, 30 incubator client companies have already been awarded over $3 million. According to UCFBIP Director Gordon Hogan, SBIR/STTR grant funding is appealing to start-up companies for two key reasons: 1.) they don’t have to have a finished product to apply for Phase I funding and 2.) the funding is in the form of a grant, rather than an investment which would need to be paid back.

WHY WE’RE WATCHING: A review of all 2017-2018 Small Business Administration SBIR and STTR grants in Florida shows that 48 percent of the grants awarded in the state were to companies within the Orlando metro area. HOW THEY DID IT: The University of Central Florida Business Incubator Program helps client companies successfully identify and apply for SBIR/STTR grants.

“If you come into the incubator, we will help you find a grant. If you’ve already identified one, we will help you write the grant application.” — Gordon Hogan, Director, UCF Business Incubation Program

UCFBIP clients are provided an array of business development services and resources to help accelerate growth. The formal incubation process takes place through a series of strategic and tactical working sessions. The strategic sessions are designed to help define the company business, market and capital strategies and to build the business plan. Expertise and resources are then identified to address tactical needs. Regular education and networking programs also are designed to address the shared needs of UCFBIP clients. This comprehensive process includes: an on-going series of strategic and tactical meetings, a variety of business development services, business coaching, and other resources, such as office space, that are designed to help a company grow smarter and faster. Graduation takes place when a client has achieved a level of financial and corporate growth that enables them to leave the incubator and enter the second stage of corporate growth. Graduates of the program have been recognized by the International National Business Incubator Association (InBIA) and the program itself has been honored as the 2013 “Incubator Network of the Year.”

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

Un ive rsi ty Un R& ive D rsi Ex ty Pa pe Te ten nd c hn i ts olo ture pe SB s r1 gy IR/ 0,0 Lic ST 0 TR en sin Aw 0 Re sid g ar ds en ts pe rC ap ita

INNOVATION

SUMMARY OF INNOVATION INDICATORS

Tampa Bay Atlanta Austin

n/a

Baltimore Charlotte Dallas-Ft.Worth Denver Houston Jacksonville Mpls-St. Paul Nashville Orlando Phoenix Portland (OR) Raleigh-Durham San Antonio

n/a

San Diego Seattle

Rank 1-4

South Florida

Rank 5-8

St. Louis

BEST

Rank 9-12 Rank 13-16 Rank 17-20

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

WORST

WHAT: The National Science Foundation (NSF) annual survey of university research offices collects information on R&D expenditures by academic field as well as by source of funds. The results of the survey are primarily used to assess trends in R&D expenditures across the fields of science and engineering.

WHY: There is a strong correlation between the presence of one or more successful research universities, and the proliferation of patents, trademarks and commercially viable technology and the resulting companies and jobs. Quantifying the relative levels of R&D expenditures by universities in the market is an important gauge of the level of innovation in that market.

UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY LICENSING

WHAT: The annual Association of University Technology Man-

agers (AUTM) U.S. Licensing Activity Survey collects information on technology licensing – monetary considerations provided to a university for the use of their intellectual property.

WHY: Licensing income reflects the market value, as opposed to the strict uniqueness, of intellectual property developed at research universities.

OF NOTE: Texas and California university systems provide a sys-

tem-wide response to the survey. Figures listed for communities in those states only include non-system institutions and represent the minimum value of licensing activity within those regions.

Baltimore

$2,928,121

Baltimore

$58,436,106

Raleigh-Durham

$2,774,017

Mpls-St. Paul

$45,241,344

Atlanta

$1,638,084

Raleigh-Durham

$42,159,855

Seattle

$1,293,108

Houston

$29,266,856

San Diego

$1,189,207

Seattle

Mpls-St. Paul

$914,198

$19,628,870

Phoenix

$10,907,198

St. Louis

$754,575

St. Louis

$8,869,609

Dallas-Ft. Worth

$728,175

Atlanta

$7,719,337

Nashville

$691,929

South Florida

$7,442,358

Austin

$675,990

Nashville

$5,386,218

South Florida

$575,596

 Tampa Bay

$1,903,090

Houston

$558,040

Orlando

$1,828,311 $1,537,848

Phoenix

$518,239

Portland

 Tampa Bay

$515,668

San Diego

$582,861

Denver

$465,031

Denver

$102,000

Portland

$394,576

Charlotte

San Antonio

$257,099

Dallas-Ft. Worth

Orlando

$242,308

Jacksonville

Charlotte

U.S. Average

2014

$12,524 $0 n/a

$5,141

San Antonio

n/a

U.S. Average

n/a

TREND: Strengthening 2013

$62,328

Austin

$27,815

Jacksonville

2015

INNOVATION

UNIVERSITY R&D EXPENDITURES

TREND: Strengthening 2016

2017

Tampa Bay

$510K

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Tampa Bay

$2.0M $1.0M

$0 Source: National Science Foundation, Higher Education Research and Development Survey, FY 2016, Table 20

$0 Source: AUTM Licensing STATT (Statistics Access for Tech Transfer), 2016

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

INNOVATION

PATENTS PER 10,000 RESIDENTS

WHAT: The number of patents issued per 10,000 residents of the community.

WHY: Innovation is one of the keys to prosperity, and inno-

vation can’t happen without intellectual property, some taking the form of patents. This indicator helps to determine, on a relative basis, which communities are generating ideas that have potential for commercial products and companies. The detail behind the data indicates which fields are most active and suggests a community’s comparative strengths in knowledge creation.

WHAT: Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grants fund “proof-of-concept” research and development through a highly competitive grant program to companies with less than 500 employees. This measure reports the dollar value of a region’s awards divided by the population.

WHY: Prevalence of these federal funding sources provides an

indication of the level of commercial innovation within an economic market. These programs are intended to provide seed capital to support scientific excellence and technological innovation. A high amount of awards may signify a high level of innovation.

San Diego

24.05

Raleigh-Durham

23.51

Seattle

22.15

Austin

18.62

Austin

21.59

Baltimore

13.55

Portland

20.55

Mpls-St. Paul

9.18

Raleigh-Durham

19.57

Denver

8.35

Mpls-St. Paul

13.66

Seattle

8.23

U.S. Average

10.79

Portland

7.88

Denver

8.27

Orlando

6.19

St. Louis

7.07

San Diego

5.58

Houston

6.64

Atlanta

5.24

Dallas-Ft. Worth

6.50

Houston

3.55

Baltimore

6.26

St. Louis

3.27

Atlanta

6.26

U.S. Average

2.98

Phoenix

6.25

Charlotte

2.83

Charlotte

4.77

Phoenix

2.74

South Florida

4.05

San Antonio

2.50

Orlando

3.53

Dallas-Ft. Worth

2.36

 Tampa Bay

3.32

Nashville

2.32

San Antonio

3.14

South Florida

1.97

Nashville

2.51

 Tampa Bay

1.28

Jacksonville

2.25

Jacksonville

0.50

TREND: Strengthening GAP: Stable 2013 6

2014

2015

TREND: Volatile GAP: Weakening 2016

2017

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

4 2 0 Source: US Patent and Trademark Office, Full-Text and Image Database, 2017 Data

SBIR/STTR AWARDS PER CAPITA

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

2013 $3 $2

2014

2015

2016

2017

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

$1 0 Source: Small Business Administration, 2017 Award Information

Overview

Regional Performance

The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grant programs were established to better integrate and strengthen the role of innovative small businesses in federally funded research and development efforts. The U.S. Small Business Administration serves as the coordinating agency for the program.

Tampa Bay performs well below the national average for SBIR/STTR awards per capita of $2.98, ranking 19th at $1.28 and sharing the bottom tier with #18 South Florida ($1.97) and #20 Jacksonville ($0.50). Orlando ranks #8 in this year’s edition at $6.19. An examination of five years’ worth of SBIR/ STTR awards shows that this year was no anomaly. Among the Florida cohort, the Orlando region accounted for 41.9 percent of total awards and 49.8 percent of awarded dollars between 2013 and 2017.

INNOVATION

DEEPER DIVE: SBIR AND STTR AWARDS

2013-2017 SBIR/STTR AWARDS, MAJOR FLORIDA REGIONS Tampa Bay

Jacksonville

Orlando

South Florida

Awards

156

145

14.5%

4.6%

41.9%

39.0%

Award Value

$23,174,933

$7,851,319

$60,152,765

$29,504,208

19.2%

6.5%

49.8%

24.4%

Average

$429,165

$461,842

$385,595

$203,477

Significant regional variation also exists in the source of grant dollars. In Tampa Bay, the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services lead in the number of awards, but the value of the Defense grants is roughly 50 percent greater than Health and Human Services. In South Florida, Health and Human Services grants account for the majority of awards in the period of examination. In Jacksonville and Orlando, Department of Defense grants are by far the most common, both in terms of number and magnitude of the awards. Throughout the state, Department of Defense grants accounted for nearly two-thirds of all awards in this most recent five-year period. Tampa Bay

Jacksonville

Orlando

South Florida

Florida Major Metros

Department/ Agency

Agriculture

$644,743

Commerce

$400,000

$ 400,000

Defense

$9,389,804

$5,330,999

125

$49,290,907

$13,309,724

191

$77,321,434

Education

$74,898

$ 649,967

$724,865

Energy

$4,954,469

$1,824,705

$1,299,877

$8,079,051

Health/ Human Services

$6,792,387

$2,220,320

$3,716,144

$6,792,387

110

$19,521,238

Homeland Security

$ 99,926

$99,468

$199,394

EPA

$178,868

$300,000

$478,868

NASA

$ 938,125

$2,121,233

$3,122,980

$6,182,338

NSF

$ 821,354

$3,124,878

$3,185,062

$7,131,294

Total

$23,174,933

$7,851,319

156

$60,152,765

145

$29,504,208

372

$120,683,225

Share of Total

14.5%

19.2%

4.6%

6.5%

41.9%

49.8%

39.0%

24.4%

100.0%

Key Takeaways •

Orlando outpaces its fellow Florida communities in the value (both total and proportionate) of SBIR/STTR awards.

•

Department of Defense grants account for the majority of grants awarded to the major Florida metro areas over the past five years.

•

As home to both a major research university and a major military installation, Tampa Bay has the requisite ingredients to move the needle on this indicator, should the community wish to make it a priority.

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

ESTUDIO-5.COM

INFRASTRUCTURE

Infrastructure

Infrastructure measures the quantity and quality of the investment a community makes in getting people here, getting them around and keeping them safe while they’re on the move. The infrastructure of a community provides the foundation for its efforts to compete and prosper. Infrastructure is, literally, everywhere: water and sewer pipes, broadband, roads, public transit, sidewalks, ports, airports… and the list goes on. A community must maintain this infrastructure just to keep pace, but a competitive community will also insist this infrastructure performs at a high level. For a community to grow, it must ensure the availability of an efficient, multi-modal transportation infrastructure, expand and modernize its ports and airports, and guarantee that its residents are able to walk and bike safely. These infrastructure assets and improvements require substantial investments and coordinated commitment by local, state and federal agencies, as well as the private sector. The level of infrastructure investment and quality of its performance communicates loud and clear the intent of the community to invest in its longterm future, and plays a critical role in the ability of the community to compete for new residents and jobs.

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

“The level of infrastructure investment and quality of its performance communicates the community’s intent to invest in its future.”

FOUNDED IN 1998, Walk Bike Nashville is building a more walkable, bikeable, and livable Nashville by advocating for pedestrian and bicycle safety, and making active transportation an option for all citizens of Nashville, no matter where they live or where they’re trying to go. Walk Bike Nashville’s ongoing advocacy efforts focus on developing relationships with city and state elected officials, local and state agencies involved with various aspects of development and transportation, as well as other coalitions advocating for transportation options. Walk Bike Nashville also holds these groups accountable for progress through publicly-released reports and studies, such as its recent report on the most dangerous intersections, “Impossible Crossings,” and its scorecard on the community’s three-year Transportation Action Agenda.

WHY WE’RE WATCHING: Nashville is a southern, carcentric community, but last year, they only experienced a third of the pedestrian fatalities reported in Tampa Bay. HOW THEY DID IT: Walk Bike Nashville is aggressively advocating for safer streets, bikeways and transportation infrastructure.

“Nashville needs to hit the gas when it comes to boosting its transportation options. That’s the takeaway from a report card released by one of Nashville’s best-known transportation advocacy groups, Walk Bike Nashville. Released this week, the report card aims to grade Metro on how well officials are sticking to the goals included in ‘Moving the Music City,’ a threeyear transportation plan released by former Mayor Megan Barry in 2017.” — Meg Garner, Nashville Business Journal

INFRASTRUCTURE

BEST PRACTICE: NASHVILLE

Advocacy efforts have resulted in the passage of bills requiring developers to build sidewalks, increased funding for Metro Sidewalks and Bikeways Programs, and the revamping of a traffic calming program. According to Walk Bike Nashville Executive Director Nora Kern, the organization was a driving force in updating the Metro Nashville Sidewalk Requirement in the metro zoning code in April 2017. The Sidewalk Ordinance requires sidewalks to be installed (or replaced) in any new or redeveloped properties and connects this ordinance to the city land use and multimodal transportation plans such as NashvilleNext, Access Nashville 2040 and nMotion. Walk Bike Nashville also helped advocate for a federal Congestion, Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant which allowed the Metro Planning Department to add staff dedicated to transportation and pedestrian issues. Walk Bike Nashville also teaches Nashville citizens to safely access the city’s streets, bikeways, greenways and sidewalks. Walk Bike University is an education initiative to increase the number of citizens walking and biking through instruction, raising awareness, and cultivating bicycle and pedestrian advocates. The Travel Green program helps businesses grow their walking and biking culture by installing bike parking and holding Lunch & Learn programs on bike safety and transit use. To increase engagement, Walk Bike Nashville holds a number of events and services, including: Bike Valet at community events; Bike Month which includes Tour de Nash, Nashville’s largest urban bike ride; Walk Nashville Month; and Open Streets Nashville, a movement to activate people, strengthen businesses and inspire public spaces by temporarily closing streets to cars. The program has been recognized as a Best Practice by the Governor’s Highway Safety Association to reduce pedestrian and bicycle deaths.

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

Bic yc le an dP Pa ve ed me es tri nt an Wa Co Sa nd lka fet itio bil y i n t y Co mm ut eT Tr im an e sit Rid Tr e rsh an sit ip pe Ve rC hic Dr ivi ap l e ng Re ita ve Tim n Sh ue eS ar Mi pe eo les nt fC i nC pe Air om rC lin o mu ng ap eP t e er ita s as tio sw se n ng ith er 1+ Tr Ho affi ur cG Co ro mm wt h ut es

INFRASTRUCTURE

SUMMARY OF INFRASTRUCTURE INDICATORS

Tampa Bay Atlanta Austin Baltimore Charlotte Dallas-Ft.Worth Denver Houston Jacksonville Mpls-St. Paul Nashville Orlando Phoenix Portland (OR) Raleigh-Durham San Antonio San Diego Seattle

Rank 1-4

South Florida

Rank 5-8

St. Louis

BEST

Rank 9-12 Rank 13-16 Rank 17-20

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

WORST

WHAT: Walk Score is a private company that, among its

products, has created a large-scale, publicly sourced walkability index that provides a numerical walkability score to any address in the United States, Canada, and Australia. Walk Score accounts for the relative distance of amenities (groceries, services) and the physical characteristics (block length, intersection intensity) of the routes. Walk Score represents a widely adopted tool to test and promote urban design standards.

WHAT: A measurement of the quality of the roadway

systems, performed by TRIP, a Washington D.C.-based national transportation research group.

WHY: The quality of roadways has a direct impact on household and business expenses and represents the safety, efficiency and desired state of repair of a community’s transportation infrastructure.

WHY: More and more, residents are assessing the walkability of a community as a key factor to compare the quality of life a community offers.

INFRASTRUCTURE

PAVEMENT CONDITION RATED FAIR OR GOOD

WALKABILITY

OF NOTE: The Walk Score value reported in this year’s edition

represents the share of population living in highly walkable (Walk Score of 70 or greater) areas.

South Florida

69.81%

Mpls-St. Paul

86.00%

Portland

46.80%

Atlanta

80.00%

Seattle

42.93%

Portland

75.00%

Baltimore

41.55%

Raleigh-Durham

74.00%

Mpls-St. Paul

35.53%

Orlando

73.41%

St. Louis

35.21%

Nashville

64.79%

U.S. Average

26.57%

Jacksonville

63.07%

Atlanta

25.58%

 Tampa Bay

61.25%

San Diego

24.09%

Charlotte

56.00%

Denver

16.94%

Austin

52.00%

Austin

16.34%

St. Louis

49.00%

 Tampa Bay

12.23%

Houston

48.30%

Raleigh-Durham

10.08%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

48.03%

Orlando

8.28%

Phoenix

47.60%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

6.17%

South Florida

44.34%

Nashville

4.91%

Baltimore

41.00%

Houston

4.42%

San Antonio

39.68%

Jacksonville

2.45%

San Diego

35.90%

Charlotte

2.44%

Seattle

35.62%

Phoenix

2.43%

Denver

32.06%

San Antonio

2.16%

U.S. Average

TREND: No Trend Available

Source: Walk Score; values listed represent a population-weighted average Walk Scores in the neighborhoods of principal cities.

n/a

TREND: No Trend Available

Source: TRIP 2018 Urban Roads Report

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

INFRASTRUCTURE

PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLIST FATALITIES PER 100,000 RESIDENTS WHAT: Measures the number of fatalities per 100,000

population caused by collisions between motor vehicles and pedestrians or cyclists.

WHY: Eliminating pedestrian and cyclist fatalities is an

explicit goal of our local and state transportation agencies. These deaths are generally viewed as a result of poor urban planning, lack of sidewalk infrastructure, and user behavior.

WHAT: Measures, in minutes, the one-way duration of a trip from home to work.

WHY: Lower average commute times enhance worker

productivity and satisfaction, and may indicate improved air quality and urban planning. Factors that impact commute times include traffic congestion, dual income families, availability of affordable housing and access to public transit.

OF NOTE: Florida members of the comparison cohort perform worst in this metric.

Mpls-St. Paul

0.98

Mpls-St. Paul

25.6

Seattle

1.34

St. Louis

25.7

Nashville

1.57

Raleigh-Durham

26.1

Raleigh-Durham

1.66

Jacksonville

26.3

Charlotte

1.82

San Diego

26.3

St. Louis

1.84

San Antonio

26.5

Denver

1.96

Phoenix

26.8

Portland

1.98

U.S. Average

26.9

U.S. Average

2.11

Austin

27.0

Dallas-Ft. Worth

2.27

Charlotte

27.3

Baltimore

2.28

 Tampa Bay

27.4

San Diego

2.29

Portland

27.7

Austin

2.48

Nashville

27.9

Atlanta

2.59

Denver

28.1

Houston

2.87

Dallas-Ft. Worth

28.6

San Antonio

3.38

Orlando

29.4

Phoenix

3.51

Houston

29.9

South Florida

3.65

South Florida

29.9

Jacksonville

4.06

Seattle

31.0

 Tampa Bay

4.14

Baltimore

31.5

Orlando

4.44

Atlanta

32.3

TREND: Weakening GAP: Stable 4 3 2

2012

2013

TREND: Weakening GAP: Weakening 2014

2015

2016

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

1 0 Source: NHTSA-FARS, 2016

AVERAGE COMMUTE TIME

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

27.5

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

0 Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2017 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801

WHAT: Measures, on a per capita basis, the number of trips taken on public transit. A trip is counted when a passenger boards a form of public transit including bus, train, or paratransit.

WHY: High transit ridership indicates the community has mobility options.

WHAT: Measures, on a per capita basis, the number of miles

traveled by public transit vehicles during revenue service— meaning that the vehicle is transporting passengers while on the road.

WHY: This figure indicates the availability of public transit, the

supply of which is both an input to and output of the demand for transit in a community. As an equity issue, the supply of transit affects access to jobs, healthcare, parental participation in school events and a host of other activities.

OF NOTE: Tampa Bay ranks last in this indicator for the second

INFRASTRUCTURE

TRANSIT VEHICLE REVENUE MILES PER CAPITA

TRANSIT RIDERSHIP PER CAPITA

straight year. Seattle

69.06

Seattle

35.68

Portland

61.83

Baltimore

24.89

Baltimore

48.45

Denver

24.71

U.S. Average

46.53

Mpls-St. Paul

23.85

Denver

40.45

Portland

23.80

Mpls-St. Paul

36.17

U.S. Average

21.23

San Diego

35.87

San Diego

20.83

Atlanta

31.24

San Antonio

20.74

South Florida

27.30

South Florida

18.13

Austin

22.80

Austin

17.55

San Antonio

22.39

Raleigh-Durham

16.71

St. Louis

21.59

St. Louis

16.20

Charlotte

21.37

Charlotte

16.18

Raleigh-Durham

19.55

Houston

15.62

Phoenix

18.76

Atlanta

15.31

Houston

18.33

Orlando

14.48

Orlando

15.32

Jacksonville

12.97

Dallas-Ft. Worth

14.69

Phoenix

12.69

Jacksonville

12.62

Dallas-Ft. Worth

11.86

Nashville

10.88

Nashville

11.48

 Tampa Bay

9.93

TREND: Weakening GAP: Stable 2012 40 30 20 10 0

2013

9.53

TREND: Stable GAP: Weakening 2014

2015

2016

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

Source: Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database, 2016 UZA Sums

2012 20 15 10 5 0

2013

2014

2015

2016

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

Source: Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database, 2016 UZA Sums

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

INFRASTRUCTURE

DRIVING TIME SPENT IN CONGESTION

WHAT: The INRIX Traffic Scorecard is a comprehensive

study, using big data to give insights about the health of a transportation network. The indicator measures the annual hours drivers spend in congestion.

WHY: An indicator of the efficiency of roadways at peak

volume. Congestion negatively affects commerce and the environment; it impacts quality of life by using personal time for commuting rather than spending time doing other more pleasant activities such as being with family and/or friends.

SHARE OF COMMUTERS WITH 1+ HOUR COMMUTES WHAT: This figure represents the percentage of the population that has reported a travel time of more than one hour from home to work.

WHY: Long commutes reduce time with family and may

decrease job satisfaction and productivity. A high percentage in this category may indicate long distances between affordable residential neighborhoods and job centers and may also mean residents are seeking employment outside of the region.

OF NOTE: Tampa Bay’s share of these commuters has increased in each of the past four years, mirroring the national trend.

Raleigh-Durham

Jacksonville

5.7%

St. Louis

Mpls-St. Paul

5.7%

Jacksonville

St. Louis

5.7%

 Tampa Bay

Raleigh-Durham

6.2%

Charlotte

San Antonio

6.8%

San Antonio

San Diego

7.1%

Baltimore

Charlotte

7.3%

Nashville

Phoenix

7.3%

Orlando

Austin

7.6%

Phoenix

Denver

7.8%

Denver

Orlando

7.8%

Mpls-St. Paul

 Tampa Bay

8.3%

U.S. Average

Portland

8.5%

Austin

Nashville

8.9%

Houston

U.S. Average

9.3%

San Diego

Dallas-Ft. Worth

9.4%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

South Florida

10.6%

Portland

Houston

11.1%

Seattle

12.3%

South Florida

Baltimore

13.1%

Atlanta

14.5%

TREND: No Trend Available

TREND: Weakening GAP: Stable 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0%

Source: INRIX 2017 Global Traffic Scorecard

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2017 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801

WHAT: Measures the annual growth in the number of airline passengers at all commercial service airports in the region. WHY: Passenger growth measures a change in the attractiveness of the region for business and leisure visitors, regional business

activity and regional household fortunes. This statistic is monitored closely by multiple stakeholder airports as a key measurement of service delivery.

OF NOTE: Tampa International Airport, the largest commercial service airport in Tampa Bay, reported more than 353,000 additional enplanements between 2016 and 2017, accounting for 76.5% of regional enplanement growth.

ENPLANEMENTS (BOARDINGS)

CHANGE

2016

2017

Austin

6,095,545

6,813,171

717,626

11.77%

Nashville

6,338,517

6,902,771

564,254

8.90%

San Diego

10,340,164

11,139,933

799,769

Orlando

21,605,216

23,000,438

St. Louis

6,793,076

Denver

Austin

11.77%

Nashville

8.90%

San Diego

7.73%

Orlando

6.46%

1,395,222

6.46%

St. Louis

5.91%

7,194,745

401,669

5.91%

Denver

5.45%

Raleigh-Durham

5.39%

28,267,394

29,809,097

1,541,703

5.45%

Baltimore

5.15%

Raleigh-Durham

5,401,714

5,692,659

290,945

5.39%

San Antonio

4.84%

Baltimore

12,340,972

12,976,554

635,582

5.15%

î&#x192;¤ Tampa Bay

4.32%

San Antonio

4,179,994

4,382,127

202,133

4.84%

Portland

4.02%

South Florida

3.65%

î&#x192;¤ Tampa Bay

10,700,526

11,162,992

462,466

4.32%

Seattle

3.44%

Portland

9,071,154

9,435,473

364,319

4.02%

U.S. Average

3.34%

South Florida

38,239,707

39,636,718

1,397,011

3.65%

Charlotte

2.32%

Seattle

21,887,110

22,639,124

752,014

3.44%

Mpls-St. Paul

1.58%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

1.47%

829,201,409 856,872,457

27,671,048

3.34%

Phoenix

1.33%

Atlanta

-0.49%

Houston

-0.78%

Jacksonville

-1.00%

United States Charlotte

21,511,880

22,011,251

499,371

2.32%

Mpls-St. Paul

18,123,844

18,409,704

285,860

1.58%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

38,838,175

39,410,294

572,119

1.47%

Phoenix

21,601,996

21,889,705

287,709

1.33%

Atlanta

50,501,858

50,251,964

-249,894

-0.49%

Houston

26,347,253

26,142,707

-204,546

-0.78%

Jacksonville

2,729,129

2,701,861

-27,268

-1.00%

INFRASTRUCTURE

AIRLINE PASSENGER TRAFFIC GROWTH

TREND: Volatile GAP: Volatile 2013 8% 6% 4% 2%

2014

2015

2016

2017

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

Source: Federal Aviation Administration, Air Carrier Activity Information System, 2017

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

INFRASTRUCTURE

DEEPER DIVE: SHARE OF COMMUTERS WITH 1+ HOUR COMMUTES Overview

Regional Performance

Commuters live in one location and work in another, and the duration of a commute is primarily affected by distance and road congestion. When jobs are located in greater proximity to where workers live, the distance and duration of commutes generally decreases. In Tampa Bay, the opposite trend is occurring. Jobs are growing in one set of counties, and housing units and the population of employed persons are growing in a separate set of counties.

Hillsborough County and, to a lesser extent, Pinellas County, lead Tampa Bay in job growth, accounting for a combined 58.14 percent of regional job growth. However, the bordering counties – Manatee, Pasco, and Polk – all saw their labor force indicators (housing units and employed residents) grow much faster than jobs in their communities.

SHARE OF REGIONAL JOB GROWTH,

SHARE OF REGIONAL HOUSING UNIT GROWTH,

2013-2017

SHARE OF REGIONAL EMPLOYED RESIDENT GROWTH,

2013-2017

Citrus 0.40% Hernando 2.57%

2013-2017

Citrus 1.45% Hernando 2.11%

Citrus 0.28% Hernando 2.75% Sarasota

Sarasota

10.08%

12.14%

12.80%

Polk

11.01%

12.99%

Hillsborough 39.01%

Pinellas

12.27%

Hillsborough

Hillsborough 35.61%

Pinellas

16.70%

9.42%

19.13%

Pasco

11.76%

Pasco

7.51%

34.15%

Pinellas

Pasco

Manatee

11.97%

14.53%

Manatee 11.81%

Manatee 7.56%

At a county level, the regional share of housing units and the population of working residents is growing faster in counties surrounding the areas in which the share of job growth is occurring. Should this trend continue, increasing numbers of workers living in Manatee, Pasco, and Polk Counties will commute to locations where jobs are growing.

COMPARISON OF EMPLOYED RESIDENT GROWTH TO JOB GROWTH,

COMPARISON OF HOUSING UNIT GROWTH TO JOB GROWTH,

REGIONAL SHARE 2013-2017 Employed Resident Growth

Job Growth

Ratio of Employed Resident Growth to Job Growth

Citrus

0.28%

0.40%

0.69 :1

Hernando

2.75%

2.57%

Hillsborough

34.15%

Manatee

11.81%

Pasco

Housing Unit Growth

Job Growth

Ratio of Housing Unit Growth to Job Growth

Citrus

1.45%

0.40%

3.58 :1

1.07 :1

Hernando

2.11%

2.57%

0.82 :1

39.01%

0.88 :1

Hillsborough

35.61%

39.01%

0.91 :1

7.56%

1.56 :1

Manatee

14.53%

7.56%

1.92 :1

11.97%

7.51%

1.59 :1

Pasco

11.76%

7.51%

1.57 :1

Pinellas

16.70%

19.13%

0.87 :1

Pinellas

9.42%

19.13%

0.49 :1

Polk

12.27%

11.01%

1.11 :1

Polk

12.99%

11.01%

1.18 :1

Sarasota

10.08%

12.80%

0.79 :1

Sarasota

12.14%

12.80%

0.95 :1

100.00%

1.00 :1

Tampa Bay

100.00%

1.00 :1

Tampa Bay

REGIONAL SHARE 2013-2017

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

INFRASTRUCTURE In addition to increased job availability, workers make other economic decisions associated with long commutes, committing time and financial resources (gas, vehicle maintenance, accelerated depreciation of vehicles) to travel to their job. The data suggests that the return for these investments is increased wages. In most counties, a significant wage premium exists for commuters with an hour commute or more. The exceptions to this phenomenon are Citrus and Polk counties, suggesting that the long commute decision may be driven more so by necessity versus job attractiveness.

COMMUTER WAGES

All

1+ Hour

1+ Hour Commute Wage Premium

Citrus

$36,373

$35,753

-1.7%

Hernando

$37,851

$46,828

23.7%

Hillsborough

$45,838

$50,786

10.8%

Manatee

$37,859

$43,779

15.6%

Pasco

$42,478

$47,810

12.6%

Pinellas

$43,257

$50,853

17.6%

Polk

$36,178

$36,456

0.8%

Sarasota

$42,160

$49,077

16.4%

In most counties, a significant wage premium exists for commuters with an hour commute or more.

Key Takeaways â&#x20AC;˘

Patterns of job growth and indicators of labor force growth (housing units and employed residents) are geographically separated, indicating that longer, inter-county commutes will continue to increase.

â&#x20AC;˘

Commuters with hour-plus commutes generally enjoy a significant wage premium versus all commuters.

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

TALENT

Talent

Talent measures who’s working today, and how well the pipeline is being prepared for the jobs of tomorrow. Building a strong pipeline of talent, from early childhood through advanced degrees, is arguably the most critical factor in a community’s ability to compete and prosper. A skilled workforce will help to retain the employers who are here, and attract new jobs, companies and investment. Similarly, citizens equipped with the skills and credentials required by industry are more likely to enjoy prosperity for themselves and their families. The talent pipeline is continuous, and if one part of it breaks down, the rest of it can suffer. Furthermore, as technology changes, the demand for talent is always evolving. For most industries, social skills and critical thinking are baseline attributes; other industries require ever-changing certifications; and other jobs require advanced degrees in specialized areas of study. As a community targets higher wage industries to improve outcomes such as household incomes and gross regional product per capita, leaders must understand the skills that these target industries require. Working strategically to evolve the talent pipeline will be key to success.

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

“Building a strong pipeline of talent... is arguably the most critical factor in a community’s ability to compete and prosper.”

TALENT

BEST PRACTICE: MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL TO HELP ADDRESS A GROWING NEED for qualified talent, as well as provide opportunities for students in underserved communities, Genesys Works, a not-for-profit in Minneapolis-St. Paul, is providing pathways to career success for underprivileged high school students through skills training, meaningful work experiences and impactful relationships. What began as skills training and a year-long, paid work experience in a corporate setting has now grown to include college access support and ongoing professional networking and college internship opportunities for those students seeking out additional support in achieving their goals. Genesys Works achieves its mission through four interlocking program components:

WHY WE’RE WATCHING: In Minneapolis-St. Paul, a reported 7.59 percent of 16 to 24-year-olds are neither in school nor employed; an impressively low share compared to the 12.18 percent found in 17th ranked Tampa Bay.

•

Skills Training Students take eight weeks of skills training the summer before their senior year of high school.

•

Meaningful Internship During their senior year, the students work 1,000 hours in a paid, year-long corporate internship.

HOW THEY DID IT: Genesys Works envisioned a future where all youth finish high school equipped and empowered with the knowledge and skills required to achieve career success and a lifetime of economic selfsufficiency.

•

College and Career Coaching Each student receives 60 hours of counseling on college and career pathways.

•

Alumni Support The program also offers ongoing support to help students achieve college and career success.

“We conclude that by increasing college enrollment rates and workplace experience, the Genesys Works program can help generate substantial net economic and social value for society. In a simple comparison against other student groups, the social value of the Genesys Works program is high. The Social Return on Investment is 13 to 1, i.e. $13 returned for every one dollar invested.” — Dr. Clive R. Belfield, Columbia University

Genesys Works Twin Cities, which opened in 2008, was the second location for the organization that was founded in Houston in 2002. The Genesys Works Twin Cities site has seen tremendous growth during its first decade, expanding from 11 interns in work experiences at six corporate partners, to 286 interns at 58 corporate partners in 2017. The primary benefit of Genesys Works comes from students enrolling and completing college at a higher rate, and a greater ability to obtain meaningful employment given their internship experience. Almost all participants enroll in college, and they complete degree programs at a much higher rate than the national average.This postsecondary education generates long-term benefits in the form of higher incomes, lower social burdens, and faster economic growth. In addition, participants work as paid interns at local businesses and earn wages during the school year. Genesys Works also leverages resources from local businesses and volunteer groups to support the youth. Since its inception, Genesys Works Twin Cities has served 1,397 students, 77 percent of whom are first-generation college students. Of those students, 95 percent enrolled in college and 72 percent have graduated or are still working toward a four-year degree. Alumni have reported median earnings of $45,000 to $50,000 per year. www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

Sh ar eo f3 Hi & gh 4-Y Sc ea h o Hi r-O o g lG lds ra Ec h Sc d En on ho ua ro om ol tio lle ica Gra nR Sh di d l ar a nS l y u t e Di ati Ne e o ch sa on oo ith f P d va Ra l er op nt te: Em ula Ce a t g p i rti ed loy on fic ed Ag ate e1 Ed n Pr or uc 6 od ati En -24 u o ro c na Ed t lle i on lA uc di ati pe tta nS on r1 inm ch Ed a 0 oo lA ,00 en uc l tta ati tR 0r i o a n e na Ag te: s m i de l en e2 AA nt t 5-3 Atta /A s inm Rate S+ 4E La : bo e d B nt uc A/ rF Ra ati BS or De te: on + ce a gr G P l ar ra At As ee P t d t ici ain ua so pa cia rodu te/ me tio tes ct Pr ST n n t ofe i o EM Ra Ra an n ss te: te: d A pe De ion r Ag BA bo 10 gr al e2 ee /B ve ,0 S 00 5-6 Pr + od re 4 sid uc tio en np ts: er 10 ,00 0r es ide nt s

TALENT SUMMARY OF TALENT INDICATORS

Tampa Bay

Atlanta

Austin

Baltimore

Charlotte

Dallas-Ft.Worth

Denver

Houston

Jacksonville

Mpls-St. Paul

Nashville

Orlando

Phoenix

Portland (OR)

Raleigh-Durham

San Antonio

San Diego

Seattle

Rank 1-4

South Florida

Rank 5-8

St. Louis

Rank 17-20

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

BEST

Rank 9-12

Rank 13-16

WORST

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATE

WHAT: This indicator reports data from the American

Community Survey on school enrollment for children ages 3 & 4, including both public and private schools.

WHY: Early childhood education has been proven to be an early

and predictable determinant of future educational and economic success. Lower enrollment in early childhood education may represent that challenges exist in terms of accessibility and affordability.

WHAT: This indicator reports the share of students earning

a regular diploma divided by an “adjusted cohort” for the graduating class – the number of ninth graders four years ago, plus students transferring in, minus those who transferred, emigrated or passed away during the four school years.

WHY: Individual state requirements for a diploma vary, but

the negative consequences associated with not graduating are similar across jurisdictions. Individuals lacking this most basic level of educational attainment also tend to have lower income potential, experience higher rates of incarceration, and are more likely to be dependent on public resources.

South Florida

61.00%

Austin

91.39%

St. Louis

56.10%

Nashville

90.41%

Atlanta

54.70%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

89.97%

San Diego

53.10%

Charlotte

89.33%

Denver

51.90%

Houston

89.18%

Portland

51.00%

San Antonio

88.97%

Austin

50.90%

Raleigh-Durham

87.80%

Mpls-St. Paul

49.70%

St. Louis

87.38%

Baltimore

49.60%

Baltimore

86.55%

U.S. Average

48.00%

Mpls-St. Paul

86.45%

Orlando

47.60%

Orlando

84.93%

Raleigh-Durham

47.36%

Jacksonville

84.71%

 Tampa Bay

47.24%

Atlanta

82.81%

Seattle

46.60%

South Florida

81.82%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

45.20%

 Tampa Bay

81.47%

Nashville

44.80%

Portland

81.22%

Jacksonville

43.70%

Seattle

80.72%

Charlotte

43.50%

San Diego

80.40%

San Antonio

42.90%

Denver

79.23%

Houston

42.30%

Phoenix

78.09%

Phoenix

38.50%

U.S. Average

2013

2014

2015

n/a

TREND: Strengthening GAP: Stable

TREND: Strengthening GAP: Strengthening 48% 46% 44%

TALENT

SHARE OF 3 & 4-YEAR-OLDS ENROLLED IN SCHOOL

2016

2017

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

42% 40% Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2017 1-Year Estimates, Table S1401

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

n/a

Source: Individual district graduation rates, 2016-2017 Academic Year

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

TALENT

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATE: ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED WHAT: This indicator reports the share of economically

disadvantaged students – those receiving free or reduced lunch, among other determinants - earning a regular diploma divided by an “adjusted cohort” for the graduating class, similar to the at-large graduation rate.

WHY: The graduation rate of this group of students provides a more comprehensive view of a community’s talent pipeline, and removes a barrier to economic mobility.

WHAT: This measure reports, as a percentage of the entire population age 16-24, those individuals neither enrolled in school nor employed.

WHY: These “disconnected youth” are missing key educational

and employment experiences and are at increased risk – according to researchers – for a host of negative outcomes, each with significant costs to society: long spells of unemployment, poverty, criminal behavior, substance abuse and incarceration.

Austin

87.68%

Raleigh-Durham

6.60%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

86.47%

Mpls-St. Paul

7.59%

San Antonio

86.34%

St. Louis

8.32%

Houston

86.31%

Austin

8.52%

Charlotte

85.15%

San Diego

9.36%

Nashville

82.34%

Seattle

9.51%

St. Louis

81.60%

Charlotte

10.46%

Orlando

81.15%

Portland

10.60%

Raleigh-Durham

79.76%

Atlanta

11.06%

San Diego

79.50%

South Florida

11.13%

South Florida

78.42%

Denver

11.20%

Baltimore

77.02%

Jacksonville

11.38%

Jacksonville

76.12%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

11.41%

Atlanta

75.74%

Baltimore

11.57%

 Tampa Bay

74.01%

Orlando

11.69%

Portland

73.40%

Nashville

11.81%

Mpls-St. Paul

72.34%

 Tampa Bay

12.18%

Phoenix

71.75%

Phoenix

13.61%

Seattle

70.17%

Houston

13.84%

Denver

68.21%

San Antonio

14.27%

n/a

U.S. Average

n/a

U.S. Average

TREND: Strengthening GAP: Stable 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

TREND: Strengthening 2015-16

2016-17

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

n/a

Source: Individual district graduation rates, 2016-2017 Academic Year

SHARE OF POPULATION AGE 16-24 NEITHER EMPLOYED NOR ENROLLED IN SCHOOL

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

2012 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

2013

2014

2015

2016

Tampa Bay U.S. Average not available

Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2016 1-Year Estimates, Public Use Microdata Sample

Overview Tampa Bay’s share of population age 16-24 neither employed nor enrolled in school ranks 17 out of 20 among our competitive set; overall, 12.18 percent of this age group is “disconnected” from traditional settings – the classroom and the workplace – that would foster skill development and economic prosperity.

Regional Performance Within the communities of Tampa Bay, distinctions in the share of disconnected youth are apparent. Although Hillsborough County is home to the largest number of disconnected youth within the eight-county region (more than 15,000), the share of that age group neither employed nor enrolled in school, at 9.4 percent, is the lowest within Tampa Bay. At the other end of the spectrum, Citrus County’s disconnected youth rate of 19.3 percent is 58 percent greater than the regional average.

TALENT

DEEPER DIVE: SHARE OF POPULATION AGE 16-24 NEITHER EMPLOYED NOR ENROLLED IN SCHOOL Among racial and ethnic groups, there is some variation in the rates of disconnected youth, but less pronounced than the geographic distribution. Among the population age 16-24, whites are less likely to be disconnected (11.73 percent) than their non-white counterparts (13.46 percent). Along ethnic lines, the Hispanic population age 16-24 is only slightly more likely to neither be employed nor enrolled in school (12.67 percent) than their non-Hispanic counterparts (12.01 percent). Among older disconnected youth age 19-24, the educational attainment of the majority share of these residents (51.8 percent) is a high school diploma or equivalency. When combined with disconnected youth age 19-24 who have less than a high school diploma or equivalency, the share rises to nearly 80 percent, which is significantly higher than that of all residents age 19-24 with a high school diploma or less. This may suggest that economic opportunities in the Tampa Bay region at the high school or lower level of attainment are either not appealing, not plentiful, or both.

SHARE OF POPULATION AGE 16-24 NEITHER EMPLOYED NOR ENROLLED IN SCHOOL Hillsborough

9.39%

Hernando

10.31%

Polk

11.69%

 Tampa Bay

12.18%

Manatee

12.81%

Pinellas

14.01%

Sarasota

14.67%

Pasco

15.86%

Citrus

19.31%

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF TAMPA BAY RESIDENTS AGE 19-24 “Disconnected” Residents Age 19-24

20.7%

53%

 HS or GED

Shares of disconnected youth vary widely across the region.

•

Non-Whites and Non-Hispanics age 16-24 exhibit a greater likelihood of being disconnected.

•

Among the population age 19-24, the vast majority of those that are disconnected have not pursued any formal education beyond high school (diploma or equivalency).

35.2%

27.5%

 Less than HS or GED

•

All Residents Age 19-24

11.8%

51.8%

Key Takeaways

 More than HS or GED

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

TALENT

CERTIFICATE PRODUCTION PER 10,000 RESIDENTS

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT RATE: AA/AS+

WHAT: Measures the number of academic and technical certificates conferred by institutions of higher learning, normalized by population.

WHY: Certificates are another means of attaining skills

required for certain higher-wage careers, and can be instrumental to preparing individuals for “middle-skills” jobs – jobs requiring more than a high school diploma and less than a college degree.

or older, who have attained an associate’s degree or higher.

WHY: This indicator provides a broad-based view of the relative education level of the community. It takes into account that many jobs require the kind of training and educational support that is offered by community colleges and other institutions offering two-year degrees.

Phoenix

71.48

Raleigh-Durham

54.2%

Orlando

62.37

Mpls-St. Paul

52.0%

South Florida

40.80

Austin

51.5%

Denver

40.52

Denver

51.4%

Jacksonville

39.39

Seattle

51.4%

Seattle

37.74

Portland

49.1%

San Diego

36.71

San Diego

47.0%

Raleigh-Durham

33.53

Baltimore

46.3%

Atlanta

32.16

Atlanta

45.5%

San Antonio

30.72

Orlando

45.4%

 Tampa Bay

30.72

Charlotte

44.4%

U.S. Average

29.91

St. Louis

43.6%

Portland

28.22

Nashville

43.2%

Nashville

27.53

Dallas-Ft. Worth

41.7%

Houston

24.32

South Florida

41.5%

Austin

21.44

Jacksonville

40.8%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

20.50

U.S. Average

40.5%

St. Louis

20.06

Phoenix

39.7%

Mpls-St. Paul

19.33

Houston

39.6%

Charlotte

16.02

 Tampa Bay

38.0%

Baltimore

15.69

San Antonio

36.2%

TREND: Weakening GAP: Stable 2012-13 40 30 20 10 0

2013-14

TREND: Strengthening GAP: Stable 2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, 2016-2017 Academic Year Completions

WHAT: Measures the percentage of the population, 25 years

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

2013 40% 30% 20% 10% 0

2014

2015

2016

2017

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2017 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT RATE: GRADUATE/PROFESSIONAL

WHAT: Measures the percentage of the population, 25 years or

WHY: As many jobs in high-wage and high-skilled industry sec-

WHY: Many of the most technical and highly-compensated jobs

older, who have attained a bachelor’s degree or higher.

tors require at least a bachelor’s degree, this indicator measures the talent pool that is available in the region.

older, who have attained a graduate or professional degree.

in high-wage and high-skilled industry sectors require advanced degrees; this indicator measures the talent pool of the mosteducated residents available in the region.

Raleigh-Durham

46.4%

Baltimore

17.70%

Austin

44.8%

Seattle

16.00%

Denver

43.9%

Denver

15.80%

Seattle

41.9%

Austin

15.70%

Mpls-St. Paul

41.7%

Portland

15.10%

Portland

40.3%

San Diego

15.00%

Baltimore

39.5%

Mpls-St. Paul

14.80%

San Diego

38.8%

Atlanta

14.30%

Atlanta

37.9%

St. Louis

14.10%

Nashville

36.0%

Nashville

12.30%

Charlotte

35.5%

U.S. Average

12.30%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

34.6%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

12.00%

St. Louis

34.6%

South Florida

11.80%

Houston

32.4%

Charlotte

11.70%

South Florida

32.1%

Houston

11.70%

Orlando

32.1%

Phoenix

11.50%

U.S. Average

32.0%

Raleigh-Durham

11.75%

Phoenix

31.1%

Jacksonville

10.50%

Jacksonville

30.7%

Orlando

10.50%

 Tampa Bay

28.6%

 Tampa Bay

10.35%

San Antonio

28.1%

San Antonio

10.20%

TREND: Strengthening GAP: Stable 40% 30%

2013

2014

TALENT

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT RATE: BA/BS+

TREND: Strengthening GAP: Stable 2015

2016

2017

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

40% 30%

20%

10%

Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2017 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2017 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

TALENT

AGE 25-34 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT RATE: BA/BS+ WHAT: This measure looks, specifically, at the 25-34 year old population and calculates the percentage of this population that has attained a bachelor’s or higher advanced degree.

WHY: This indicator is regarded as important because it

shows how well a community is doing in its efforts to retain and attract the millennial generation — particularly the most educated and talented ones. Having a high percentage of this population has been shown to have a direct correlation with other prosperity outcomes.

WHAT: Measures the percentage of the working-age population that is either employed or unemployed but able to work and actively seeking a job.

WHY: This indicator provides a broad-based view of the avail-

ability of labor in a market. With workforce identified by industry as a key component of growth, availability of a pipeline of prospective talent is important.

OF NOTE: If Tampa Bay were to reach the median of the com-

parison communities, that participation rate would equate to an additional 121,000 workers in the labor force.

Raleigh-Durham

56.7%

Mpls-St. Paul

85.46%

Denver

51.6%

Denver

83.14%

Austin

50.8%

Austin

82.33%

Seattle

49.9%

Raleigh-Durham

81.79%

Mpls-St. Paul

49.7%

Baltimore

81.39%

Nashville

47.2%

Portland

81.12%

Portland

46.7%

Seattle

80.92%

Baltimore

46.6%

Nashville

80.86%

Charlotte

45.1%

St. Louis

80.6%

Atlanta

43.9%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

80.42%

San Diego

43.4%

Atlanta

80.19%

St. Louis

42.8%

San Diego

79.89%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

40.6%

Charlotte

79.60%

Houston

38.2%

South Florida

79.15%

South Florida

37.1%

Orlando

78.92%

U.S. Average

35.6%

U.S. Average

77.75%

Orlando

35.6%

Houston

77.63%

Jacksonville

34.8%

Jacksonville

77.46%

Phoenix

34.5%

Phoenix

76.87%

 Tampa Bay

32.1%

San Antonio

76.05%

San Antonio

32.0%

 Tampa Bay

75.14%

TREND: Strengthening GAP: Stable 2013 40% 30% 20% 10% 0

2014

TREND: Weakening GAP: Weakening 2015

2016

2017

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2017 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501

LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE: AGE 25-64

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

2013 77.5%

2014

2015

2016

2017

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

75.0% 72.5% 70.0% Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2017 1-Year Estimates, Table S2301

WHAT: The measure reports the number of degrees (associates and above) awarded by institutes of higher education within a community, divided by population.

WHY: An indicator of a region’s performance in producing a

pipeline of workforce talent. Areas with a steady stream of college graduates are attractive to employers across an array of industries.

OF NOTE: Tampa Bay’s nearly 46,000 degrees conferred rank seventh among the cohort.

STEM DEGREE PRODUCTION PER 10,000 RESIDENTS WHAT: The measure reports the number of STEM degrees

(associates and above) awarded by institutes of higher education within a community, divided by population. STEM degrees are identified using program codes assigned by the U.S. Departments of Education and Homeland Security.

TALENT

DEGREE PRODUCTION PER 10,000 RESIDENTS: ASSOCIATES AND ABOVE

WHY: Provides a closer look at the talent pipeline, focusing

on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) competencies. STEM jobs have been identified at the national and state level as growing in number.

OF NOTE: Tampa Bay’s more than 16,400 STEM degrees conferred rank sixth among the cohort.

Phoenix

192.00

Raleigh-Durham

72.75

San Diego

181.22

Phoenix

61.86

Raleigh-Durham

174.50

Mpls-St. Paul

61.40

Orlando

155.50

San Diego

50.07

Austin

143.32

Baltimore

49.63

St. Louis

134.13

St. Louis

44.62

Baltimore

132.83

Austin

42.22

Mpls-St. Paul

130.48

U.S. Average

41.88

U.S. Average

125.93

Orlando

38.47

South Florida

116.10

Denver

36.73

Seattle

107.59

Seattle

36.53

Portland

106.53

 Tampa Bay

34.70

Nashville

105.20

South Florida

34.20

Denver

104.54

Nashville

32.19

San Antonio

102.03

Portland

30.30

 Tampa Bay

96.99

San Antonio

29.98

Dallas-Ft. Worth

91.87

Dallas-Ft. Worth

28.62

Jacksonville

81.60

Atlanta

27.25

Atlanta

73.95

Jacksonville

25.80

Houston

72.49

Houston

23.39

Charlotte

69.36

Charlotte

18.96

TREND: Stable GAP: Weakening 2012-13 120 90 60 30 0

2013-14

TREND: Strengthening GAP: Stable 2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, 2016-2017 Academic Year Completions

40 30 20

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

10 0 Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, 2016-2017 Academic Year Completions

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

TALENT

FLORIDA TALENT INDICATORS ONE OF THE TENETS of the Regional Competitiveness Report is that, to the extent possible, indicators are measured on an apples-to-apples basis. However, due to the importance of regional talent for economic competitiveness and prosperity, and the frequency with which certain K-12 education metrics were cited as important by subject matter experts and stakeholders alike, we present select indicators – with a focus on STEM – of student performance for the Florida markets within the comparison cohort.

WHAT: The indicators measure a collection of capstone and other assessments generally viewed as markers of academic progress and content mastery.

WHY: Content mastery and passage of the relevant exams

allows for progression through the education “pipeline.” Conversely, failure to meet these standards may preclude student advancement, from one grade to the next, from secondary school to an institution of higher education, and from school into a job with family-sustaining wages.

Source: All Data from Florida Department of Education; EDStats Portal (Florida Standards Assessment, Next Generation Sunshine State Standards and End Of Course exam), 2017-2018 Academic Year; Florida Department of Education, Office of Accountability and Policy Research (Advanced Placement and SAT Score Data), 2014-2015 Academic Year

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS FLORIDA STANDARDS ASSESSMENT: SCORE OF 3 OR BETTER WHAT: Measures the weighted average share of 3rd, 8th,

and 10th grade students with a passing score of 3 or better – maximum score is 5 – on the assessment. Data for 2017-2018 Academic Year.

WHAT: Measures the weighted average share of 3rd, 8th,

and 10th grade students with a passing score of 3 or better – maximum score is 5 – on the assessment. Data for 2017-2018 Academic Year.

South Florida

56.39%

Jacksonville

60.58%

Jacksonville

56.11%

South Florida

59.14%

State of FL

54.30%

State of FL

56.70%

Orlando

52.86%

 Tampa Bay

54.60%

 Tampa Bay

52.45%

Orlando

53.56%

BIOLOGY 1 END OF COURSE EXAM: SCORE OF 3 OR BETTER

WHAT: Measures the weighted average share of Biology I

students – they may be in any grade – with a passing score of 3 or better – maximum score is 5 – on the assessment. Data for 2017-2018 Academic Year.

MATH FLORIDA STANDARDS ASSESSMENT: SCORE OF 3 OR BETTER

COMPOSITE SAT SCORES

WHAT: Measures the average score on the SAT college

entrance examinations administered in 2016; maximum score is 2400.

Jacksonville

71.34%

State of FL

1484

State of FL

64.90%

Jacksonville

1460

Orlando

64.48%

 Tampa Bay

1393

South Florida

64.30%

South Florida

1388

 Tampa Bay

63.31%

Orlando

1335

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

TALENT ALGEBRA 1 END OF COURSE EXAM: SCORE OF 3 OR BETTER

WHAT: Measures the weighted average share of Algebra I

students – they may be in any grade – with a passing score of 3 or better – maximum score is 5 – on the assessment. Data for 2017-2018 Academic Year.

SCIENCE FLORIDA STANDARDS ASSESSMENT: SCORE OF 3 OR BETTER WHAT: Measures the weighted average share of 3rd, 8th,

and 10th grade students with a passing score of 3 or better – maximum score is 5 – on the assessment. Data for 2017-2018 Academic Year.

Jacksonville

66.08%

Jacksonville

58.36%

 Tampa Bay

62.20%

State of FL

52.60%

State of FL

60.90%

Orlando

52.08%

South Florida

60.04%

 Tampa Bay

51.88%

Orlando

57.68%

South Florida

51.03%

AP EXAMINATIONS: TESTING RATE

WHAT: Measures the share of high school students who took an Advanced Placement exam in 2016.

AP EXAMINATIONS: PASSING RATE

WHAT: Measures the share of passing scores (defined as

3 or better out of 5 maximum) on Advanced Placement tests administered in 2016 – students may take multiple tests in one year – as a percentage of examinations taken.

Orlando

30.21%

South Florida

53.06%

State of FL

24.77%

State of FL

50.86%

Jacksonville

23.54%

Jacksonville

48.56%

South Florida

22.97%

 Tampa Bay

46.57%

 Tampa Bay

22.92%

Orlando

44.48%

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

CIVIC QUALITY

Civic Quality

Civic Quality measures the affordability of a community, the health and safety of its citizens, and the recreational opportunities that impact its quality of life. Just about everybody who lives in a community has a choice of whether to stay or leave. As they reflect on their quality of life, and consider other communities in comparison, they each ask fundamental and personal questions: Do I feel safe here? Is the air I breathe clean? Are my housing and transportation costs in line with my income? Are people engaged in the community and its future? Is there enough to do here after work and on the weekends? What is the availability and affordability of healthcare? Together, the answers to these questions help to drive a feeling of satisfaction and pride in the community. These indicators directly impact outcomes such as net migration, which measures the ability of a community to retain its existing population and attract new residents, and, in turn, the companies relying on those residents as a market, talent pool, or both.

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Just about everybody who lives in a community has a choice of whether to stay or leave.â&#x20AC;?

TEXAS IS RANKED SECOND in the nation for food insecurity, with 1 in 6 living in food insecure homes. The San Antonio Food Bank (SAFB), serving 16 counties in Southwest Texas, knows the most common reason that adults are forced to rely on food pantries to meet their nutritional needs is a lack of job training and the inability to find sustainable employment that pays a living wage.

CIVIC QUALITY

BEST PRACTICE: SAN ANTONIO

With this in mind, the organization takes a holistic view of the cause of food insecurity and uses a three-pronged approach to serve the needs of their community: •

Food for Today – referral to the closest food pantry

•

Food for Tomorrow – enrolling clients in public benefits

•

Food for a Lifetime – workforce and job training

Working with over 500 partner agencies, SAFB distributed 77 million meals in 2017 while serving 58,000 individuals each week. The non-profit has been recognized as a 4-Star Charity by Charity Navigator for nine consecutive years, a distinction only 2 percent of charities can claim.

WHY WE’RE WATCHING: San Antonio shares many of the same challenges as Tampa Bay, but is performing notably better than our region in keeping levels of food insecurity low. HOW THEY DID IT: The San Antonio Food Bank is addressing the root causes of hunger with innovative workforce and job training programs.

“Until you solve the issue of hunger, you can’t work to solve any of the other problems. What we try to do is nourish them immediately, get them that hot meal… but what can we do to look past that, to move them to a place of self-sufficiency?” – Eric Cooper, President & CEO, San Antonio Food Bank

SAFB’s Culinary Training Program addresses hunger through training the unemployed and underemployed, who in turn nourish those in need. Through an 18-week course, individuals are taught basic kitchen and culinary skills, safety and sanitation procedures, and gain the hands-on training needed to achieve meaningful employment in the food service industry. As part of their training, students serve SAFB clients by preparing meals for area shelters, Kids Cafes and summer feeding sites. Students may also have an opportunity to intern with a full-service caterer through the San Antonio Food Bank’s award-winning social enterprise, Catalyst Catering, whose profits support the program. In their efforts to break the cycle of hunger, SAFB has established many creative partnerships. One such partnership is with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice through the Texas Second Chance Program. The six-month, 100-hour program provides professional training in warehousing, inventory and culinary skills, coupled with the opportunity to gain certifications, licenses and a sense of accomplishment. The Culinary Training Program is also offered through the Texas Second Chance program. SAFB’s Workforce Development Department works with the community and its industries. Services include resume assistance, interview skills, and education and character-building programs. One-on-one case management helps clients find the best employment based on their strengths, skills and needs. Clients are also offered opportunity for free job readiness classes, mock interviews, potential job opportunities and connections with employers.

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

Cr im eR ate Vio pe len r1 tC 00 rim ,00 Sh 0R e ar Ra eo es t e ide fC pe Fo nt hil r1 s od dr 00 en Ins , 0 i 0 ec nF 0R He ur os es ity alt ter ide hI Ca ns nt re s ur Pr an im ce ar yC Co ar ve Aff eP ra or ge hy da sic Ra bil tes ian ity Ho :C s us pe os ing r1 ts Aff as 0,0 Tr or a an 00 Pe da sp Re rce bil or sid ity tat nt Me en a i on ge ts dia of Aff nD I o n rd ail co Cu ab yA me lt ilit ir Q pe ura y r1 l& ua 0,0 Re lity 00 cre Ind Re ati ex sid on en al E ts sta bli sh me nt s

CIVIC QUALITY SUMMARY OF CIVIC QUALITY INDICATORS

Tampa Bay

Atlanta

Austin

Baltimore

Charlotte

Dallas-Ft.Worth n/a

Denver n/a

Houston n/a

Portland (OR) n/a

Raleigh-Durham n/a

San Antonio n/a

Seattle

St. Louis

n/a n/a

Jacksonville

Mpls-St. Paul

Nashville

Orlando

Phoenix

n/a

San Diego

n/a

Rank 1-4

South Florida

n/a

Rank 17-20

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

BEST

Rank 5-8

Rank 9-12

Rank 13-16

WORST

WHAT: Measures the rate of eight major crimes (including

murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft) against person and property per 100,000 residents.

WHY: Provides a broad measure of safety and security. OF NOTE: Several communities’ data did not meet processing standards for inclusion in the source report.

VIOLENT CRIME RATE PER 100,000 RESIDENTS WHAT: Measures the rate of violent crime (including murder, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault) per 100,000 residents.

WHY: A high rate of violent crime generates many other

consequences, including a reduction in property values, increased costs of law enforcement and prosecution and a negative impact on the image of the community and the ability to retain and attract new investment and jobs.

CIVIC QUALITY

CRIME RATE PER 100,000 RESIDENTS

OF NOTE: Several communities’ data did not meet processing standards for inclusion in the source report.

San Diego

2,032.6

Mpls-St. Paul

283.0

 Tampa Bay

2,333.6

Portland

283.2

Austin

2,650.7

Austin

306.3

Mpls-St. Paul

2,688.5

 Tampa Bay

328.0

U.S. Average

2,745.1

San Diego

337.1

Nashville

3,183.5

Seattle

353.7

Charlotte

3,216.6

Atlanta

367.6

Orlando

3,217.8

Dallas-Ft. Worth

369.3

Atlanta

3,233.3

U.S. Average

382.9

Jacksonville

3,258.4

Denver

413.9

Phoenix

3,285.9

Charlotte

416.2

Baltimore

3,515.4

Orlando

443.8

South Florida

3,534.6

South Florida

458.2

St. Louis

n/a

Phoenix

470.6

Denver

n/a

Jacksonville

480.8

Raleigh-Durham

n/a

San Antonio

523.9

San Antonio

n/a

Nashville

624.9

Portland

n/a

Baltimore

782.5

Seattle

n/a

St. Louis

n/a

Dallas-Ft. Worth

n/a

Raleigh-Durham

n/a

Houston

n/a

Houston

n/a

TREND: Strengthening GAP: Strengthening 2013 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500

2014

2015

TREND: Strengthening GAP: Strengthening 2016

2017

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

Source: FBI Uniform Crime Report, Crime in the United States by Metropolitan Statistical Area, 2017

2013 450 400 350 300 250

2014

2015

2016

2017

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

Source: FBI Uniform Crime Report, Crime in the United States by Metropolitan Statistical Area, 2017

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

CIVIC QUALITY

SHARE OF CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE

WHAT: This metric indicates, for each region, the number of children living in non-related households divided by the number of all children residing within households.

WHY: Monitoring the number of children in foster care is

a barometer of societal issues that may be developing in a community. According to research by the American Academy of Pediatrics, most foster children have been victims of repeated abuse and prolonged neglect. Beyond serving as an indicator of potentially chronic societal problems, these foster children require intensive assistance and support from public and private people and institutions.

FOOD INSECURITY

WHAT: Food Insecurity, as outlined by the Unites States

Department of Agriculture, describes a condition where portions of the population do not have access – even in a temporary sense – to enough food to lead an active, healthy life. The indicator estimates the percentage of residents in each community that experienced food insecurity during the year.

WHY: Struggles with hunger may reflect the need for

households to make trade-offs between multiple basic needs, and among children may affect academic, physical, and social development.

Dallas-Ft. Worth

0.90%

Mpls-St. Paul

Austin

1.10%

Denver

10.4%

Raleigh-Durham

1.15%

San Antonio

11.1%

Charlotte

1.20%

Baltimore

11.6%

Houston

1.30%

San Diego

11.7%

South Florida

1.30%

South Florida

11.8%

Nashville

1.30%

U.S. Average

12.3%

Baltimore

1.40%

Seattle

12.3%

Denver

1.40%

Nashville

12.4%

Atlanta

1.50%

Portland

12.5%

Mpls-St. Paul

1.50%

Orlando

13.3%

San Diego

1.50%

Raleigh-Durham

13.6%

Seattle

1.60%

Charlotte

13.8%

 Tampa Bay

1.64%

 Tampa Bay

14.1%

Jacksonville

1.70%

Atlanta

14.2%

U.S. Average

1.70%

Phoenix

14.3%

Orlando

1.80%

Austin

14.3%

San Antonio

1.80%

St. Louis

14.4%

Phoenix

2.10%

Houston

16.2%

St. Louis

2.30%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

16.4%

Portland

2.50%

Jacksonville

16.7%

TREND: Stable GAP: Strengthening 2013 2%

2014

9.3%

TREND: No Trend Available 2015

2016

2017

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

1% 0% Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2017 1-Year Estimates, S0901

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

Source: Feeding America, Map the Meal Gap, 2016

WHAT: Measures the share of the population with health insurance – either private or public – within a region.

WHY: A measurement of general health care access. A higher

share of insurance coverage within a community can manifest in better health care outcomes and reduces reliance on urgentcare facilities for non-emergency medical issues. The share of residents with health insurance may also be an indirect indicator of job quality within a region.

PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS PER 10,000 RESIDENTS WHAT: This indicator represents the ratio of primary care

physicians to the population, according to data collected by the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Primary care physicians include practicing non-federal physicians (M.D.s and D.O.s) under age 75 specializing in general practice medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics. The ratio represents the number of physicians for every 10,000 people in a community.

CIVIC QUALITY

HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE RATES

WHY: Provides a high-level indicator to track access to healthcare in the community.

Mpls-St. Paul

95.8%

Portland

Baltimore

95.1%

Seattle

9.38

St. Louis

94.4%

Raleigh-Durham

9.06

Portland

93.8%

Mpls-St. Paul

8.99

San Antonio

93.7%

Denver

8.47

Denver

92.8%

Jacksonville

7.95

Seattle

92.3%

San Diego

7.87

U.S. Average

91.3%

South Florida

7.73

Nashville

90.5%

U.S. Average

7.55

Charlotte

89.8%

Orlando

7.50

Phoenix

89.8%

 Tampa Bay

7.32

Raleigh-Durham

89.8%

Austin

7.24

Jacksonville

89.1%

Charlotte

7.12

Austin

88.3%

Nashville

7.08

 Tampa Bay

88.1%

Atlanta

6.87

Orlando

87.5%

San Antonio

6.77

Atlanta

87.0%

St. Louis

6.74

San Diego

85.5%

Phoenix

6.63

South Florida

84.5%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

6.46

Dallas-Ft. Worth

83.5%

Baltimore

6.28

Houston

81.8%

Houston

6.00

TREND: Strengthening GAP: Strengthening 2015 90%

10.00

TREND: Strengthening GAP: Stable 2016

2017

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

80% 70% Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2017 1-Year Estimates, S2701

8 6 4 2 0

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

Source: County Health Rankings & Roadmaps, 2018

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

CIVIC QUALITY

AFFORDABILITY: COSTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME

WHAT: The indicator measures housing and transportation expenditures as a percentage of income. WHY: The “affordability” of a community cannot be assessed by just looking at the cost of housing or transportation. These expenditures must be viewed in the context of income earned in the community.

OF NOTE: In both Housing and Transportation Affordability, it is relatively low household income, rather than high rates of expenditure, that result in Tampa Bay’s relatively low ranking.

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Housing

Transportation

$76,055

$26,130

$9,317

Baltimore

ANNUAL COSTS

Mpls-St. Paul

$75,487

$25,885

$9,456

Seattle

$79,251

$28,046

$10,041

Portland

$68,107

$24,116

$8,775

Denver

$71,904

$25,855

$9,379

Raleigh-Durham

$65,315

$23,435

St. Louis

$59,867

Phoenix

Housing Affordability

Transportation Affordability

(expenditures as a % of income)

Baltimore

46.6%

Mpls-St. Paul

46.8%

Seattle

48.1%

$8,757

Portland

48.3%

$21,652

$8,095

Denver

49.0%

$59,124

$21,458

$7,955

Raleigh-Durham

49.3%

St. Louis

49.7%

Nashville

$57,615

$21,031

$7,935

Phoenix

49.7%

Atlanta

$63,454

$23,240

$8,698

Nashville

50.3%

Jacksonville

$56,587

$20,701

$7,788

Atlanta

50.3%

San Diego

$71,886

$26,729

$9,479

Jacksonville

50.3%

San Diego

50.4%

Austin

$67,150

$24,782

$9,151

Austin

50.5%

San Antonio

$57,234

$21,013

$7,931

San Antonio

50.6%

Charlotte

$58,681

$21,536

$8,226

Charlotte

50.7%

Orlando

$53,891

$19,952

$7,427

Orlando

50.8%

 Tampa Bay

50.8%

 Tampa Bay

$50,684

$18,703

$7,063

Dallas-Ft. Worth

51.1%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

$64,460

$24,012

$8,937

U.S. Average

51.3%

United States

$58,100

$21,745

$8,063

Houston

52.6%

Houston

$64,711

$24,786

$9,236

South Florida

54.2%

South Florida

$53,376

$21,247

$7,701

Source: ESRI Business Analyst

(expenditures as a % of income)

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

TREND: No Trend Available

TRANSPORTATION AFFORDABILITY:

HOUSING EXPENDITURES AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME

TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURES AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME

WHAT: Housing expenditures as a percentage of income.

WHAT: Transportation expenditures as a percentage of

Housing expenditures include: mortgage payments, real estate taxes, property insurance, utilities, fuels, mobile home costs and condominium fees.

WHY: The “affordability” of a community cannot be assessed

by just looking at the cost of housing. The cost of housing must be viewed in the context of the income that can be earned in the community. By the general rule-of-thumb, housing costs should not exceed 30 percent of a household’s total income. However, in many cities across the country, families spend a sizable share of income on rent, mortgage payments, utilities and other housing-related expenses. As housing costs climb in some areas, wages have failed to keep pace and this discrepancy may put a large segment of the population at risk.

income. The expenditures include: automobile ownership costs, automobile usage costs and transit usage costs.

WHY: The cost of transportation must be viewed in the context

of the income that can be earned in the community. By the general rule-of-thumb, transportation costs are a family’s second highest expense, behind housing. As transportation costs rise, due to congestion and access to jobs, it’s important to be aware of how this expense is increasing or decreasing relative to other cities in the U.S.

Mpls-St. Paul

34.3%

Baltimore

12.3%

Baltimore

34.4%

Mpls-St. Paul

12.5%

Seattle

35.4%

Seattle

12.7%

Portland

35.4%

Portland

12.9%

Raleigh-Durham

35.9%

Denver

13.0%

Denver

36.0%

Raleigh-Durham

13.4%

St. Louis

36.2%

St. Louis

13.5%

Phoenix

36.3%

Phoenix

13.5%

Nashville

36.5%

Nashville

13.8%

Jacksonville

36.6%

Atlanta

13.7%

Atlanta

36.6%

Jacksonville

13.8%

Charlotte

36.7%

San Diego

13.2%

San Antonio

36.7%

Austin

13.6%

 Tampa Bay

36.9%

San Antonio

13.9%

Austin

36.9%

Charlotte

14.0%

Orlando

37.0%

Orlando

13.8%

San Diego

37.2%

 Tampa Bay

13.9%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

37.3%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

13.9%

U.S. Average

37.4%

U.S. Average

13.9%

Houston

38.3%

Houston

14.3%

South Florida

39.8%

South Florida

14.4%

TREND: No Trend Available

Source: ESRI Business Analyst

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

CIVIC QUALITY

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY:

CIVIC QUALITY

MEDIAN DAILY AIR QUALITY INDEX

WHAT: The EPA’s Air Quality Index (AQI) measures five main

pollutants and provides an indicator of overall air quality. The Median AQI means that half of daily AQI values during the year were less than or equal to the median value, and half equaled or exceeded it.

WHY: The AQI is an indicator of environmental health and

population health outcomes, particularly for children and seniors. Poor air quality can harm a community’s image, impact population migration, and the retention and attraction of new companies and jobs.

CULTURAL & RECREATIONAL ESTABLISHMENTS PER 10,000 RESIDENTS WHAT: Bureau of Labor Statistics documenting the number of “arts, entertainment and recreation” businesses (NAICS 71) in a region.

WHY: An indicator of the availability of enrichment activities

within a community. This is a key quality of life metric and important to retain and attract a younger generation of talent.

OF NOTE: Only after an AQI value over 100 is there a risk for sensitive groups.

Portland

Nashville

7.47

Jacksonville

South Florida

5.59

Austin

Orlando

4.94

Orlando

Denver

4.92

San Antonio

Mpls-St. Paul

4.71

 Tampa Bay

Charlotte

4.68

Nashville

Portland

4.55

Raleigh-Durham

U.S. Average

4.34

Baltimore

Austin

4.31

South Florida

Seattle

4.27

Seattle

Jacksonville

4.15

Baltimore

4.08

U.S. Average

47.6

Charlotte

 Tampa Bay

4.06

Dallas-Ft. Worth

Raleigh-Durham

4.04

Houston

San Diego

3.69

Atlanta

3.50

Mpls-St. Paul

St. Louis

3.50

St. Louis

Dallas-Ft. Worth

2.73

Denver

Phoenix

2.53

San Diego

San Antonio

2.47

Phoenix

Houston

2.28

TREND: Stable GAP: Stable 2013

TREND: Weakening GAP: Weakening 2014

2015

2016

2017

44.5 42.5 40.5 Source: Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Index Report, 2017

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

4 3 2

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

1 0 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2017 Private Employer Annual Data

Overview

Regional Performance

The ability for residents and visitors alike to enjoy performing arts, museums, and recreational activities is a key component of our quality of life and competitive advantage as a leisure destination, and a strong contributor to our regional economy.

Tampa Bay enjoys a plethora of cultural and recreational establishments, ranking 12th among our comparison communities, with more than 4.06 establishments for every 10,000 persons.

CIVIC QUALITY

DEEPER DIVE: CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL ESTABLISHMENTS

TOTAL ESTABLISHMENTS PER 10,000 RESIDENTS

3.50 Homosassa Springs

2.62 LakelandWinter Haven

5.16

4.13

North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota

4.06

Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater

Tampa Bay

Americans for the Arts, a non-profit industry advocacy group, released in 2017 the Arts and Economic Prosperity 5 report, which estimates the economic impact of non-profit arts and cultural organizations’ spending, as well as that of audiences, both resident and nonresident. The table below presents their findings for the three largest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in the Tampa Bay region (data for the Homosassa Springs MSA was not available). Where applicable and available, figures from the separate reports have been aggregated into a regional value. LakelandWinter Haven

North PortBradenton-Sarasota

Tampa- St. PetersburgClearwater

Tampa Bay

Organizations

$ 15,790,432

$ 215,956,639

$ 275,420,320

$ 507,167,391

Audiences

$ 30,799,415

$ 126,476,824

$ 398,769,706

$ 556,045,945

Total

$ 46,589,847

$ 342,433,463

$ 674,190,026

$ 1,063,213,336

FTE Jobs Supported

1,469

8,705

22,173

32,347

Household Income

Industry Expenditures

Economic/Fiscal Impact

$ 32,345,000

$ 244,633,000

$ 484,377,000

$ 761,355,000

Local Gov’t Revenues

$ 2,569,000

$ 14,716,000

$ 32,571,000

$ 49,856,000

State Gov’t Revenues

$ 3,703,000

$ 23,506,000

$ 49,094,000

$ 76,303,000

331,322

1,140,675

2,498,505

n/a

35.6%

31.8%

27.5%

n/a

Nonresident Attendance

Share of Total Nonresident Expenditures*

$ 17,116,095

$ 74,891,323

$ 217,169,105

n/a

Avg. Meals

$ 18.88

$ 26.64

$ 29.65

n/a

Avg. Souvenirs/Gifts

$ 11.50

$ 2.26

$ 7.75

n/a

Avg. Ground Transportation

$ 6.85

$ 4.57

$ 9.96

n/a

Avg. Overnight Lodging

$ 11.78

$ 18.03

$ 21.32

n/a

Avg. Other

$ 2.65

$ 3.79

$ 3.84

n/a

Total Average Spend

$ 51.66

$ 55.29

$ 72.52

n/a

*Excludes Admission Cost

n/a = not available

Key Takeaways •

Tampa Bay residents and visitors enjoy access to nearly 2,000 cultural and recreational establishments.

•

The North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota MSA has 5.16 such establishments per 10,000 residents, the most among the region’s MSAs.

•

Spending by arts organizations and audiences in Tampa Bay – more than $1B according to recent reports – supports more than 32,000 jobs and more than $750M in household income.

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

OUTCOMES

Outcomes

Outcomes measure the growth of the economy on the whole and on a per person basis, the extent to which economic growth is being enjoyed by everyone, and the attractiveness of the area for current and potential residents. The outcomes presented here are all “lagging” indicators, meaning they are the result of many factors represented in part by the dozens of indicators presented in this report. The outcomes provide a high-level dashboard of economic strength, but also attempt to look at the underpinnings of a healthy economy. For example, the report assesses the overall poverty rate, but it also views the level of childhood poverty. The report documents the unemployment rate, but it also looks at the “working poor,” people who have full time jobs but are not earning enough to meet basic needs. It looks at gross regional product, but more importantly, at gross regional product per capita, to measure the community’s performance relative to the peer and aspirational communities selected for comparison. How the community performs relative to these key data points will clearly signal the progress the region is making toward its goal of competitiveness and prosperity. 62

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

“How the community performs relative to these key data points will clearly signal the progress the region is making toward its goal of competitiveness and prosperity.”

OUTCOMES

Yo ut hP ov Po er ve ty rty Ra R te Fin ate an cia l In Gr sta os sR bil ity eg Pe i Ra o rC na te: ap lP AL ita ro Ne ICE du Gr tM c os tC igr sR ha ati Mi eg ng on lle i e o nn na l i a P Un l In ro em du -M ct igr plo ati ym o n en tR ate

SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES INDICATORS

Tampa Bay Atlanta Austin Baltimore Charlotte Dallas-Ft.Worth Denver Houston Jacksonville Mpls-St. Paul Nashville Orlando Phoenix Portland (OR) Raleigh-Durham San Antonio San Diego Seattle

Rank 1-4

South Florida

Rank 5-8

St. Louis

BEST

Rank 9-12 Rank 13-16 Rank 17-20

WORST

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

OUTCOMES

YOUTH POVERTY AND POVERTY RATE

WHAT: Measures the percentage of the population that is living below the federal poverty level, as defined by the US Census Bureau. Income thresholds vary according to family size.

WHY: People who live in poverty are struggling to secure

basic human needs, and they require higher levels of social support. Increasing levels of poverty may translate into greater community needs regarding homelessness, crime, illiteracy and health. Measuring and comparing our poverty rate provides a top-level indicator of our region’s household prosperity.

Youth Poverty Rate (0-18) 0

20 %

Constrained, and Employed. According to the United Way, “Employed is the critical word. ALICE represents those who work hard and are above the poverty line, but due to high costs and factors often beyond their control, must live paycheck to paycheck.” The indicator value is the share of population in each area that are above the poverty line, but below the ALICE threshold.

WHY: It is important to understand that, despite participating

Mpls-St. Paul

10.41% 8.14%

St. Louis

21.4%

Denver

10.54% 8.62%

Austin

24.3%

Seattle

11.04% 8.99%

Raleigh-Durham

24.6%

Seattle

24.6%

Jacksonville

25.1%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

25.6%

Phoenix

25.8%

Portland

25.9%

Nashville

26.0%

Baltimore

26.1%

Houston

26.7%

Charlotte

27.1%

Atlanta

27.2%

Mpls-St. Paul

28.3%

Denver

28.7%

 Tampa Bay

29.4%

Orlando

31.8%

San Antonio

32.6%

South Florida

37.4%

San Diego

39.2%

12.27% 10.38%

Austin

12.87% 10.17%

Baltimore

13.54% 10.91%

Portland Nashville

10.95%

15.14%

San Diego

15.67% 11.81%

St. Louis

16.02%

11.64%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

11.29%

Atlanta

11.98%

Raleigh-Durham

11.77%

Charlotte

12.12%

U.S. Average

16.21% 16.70% 16.88% 17.25%

13.40%

 Tampa Bay

13.08%

Phoenix

13.34%

Jacksonville

13.26%

South Florida

14.32%

Houston

13.92%

Orlando

14.14%

San Antonio

14.45%

18.43% 18.61% 18.81% 18.97% 19.31% 20.20% 20.63% 21.19%

TREND: Strengthening GAP: Strengthening 25% 20% 15% 10% 5%

2013

2014

2015

U.S. Average

n/a

TREND: No Trend Available 2016

2017

Tampa Bay Youth Poverty Rate U.S. Average Youth Poverty Rate

Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2017 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701

WHAT: ALICE is an acronym for Asset Limited, Income

in the economy as workers, some individuals and the households they support are not prepared to withstand sudden financial burdens, such as emergency car repairs or unforeseen healthcare expenses.

Poverty Rate (All) 05

FINANCIAL INSTABILITY RATE: ALICE

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

Source: United Way ALICE Project, 2018

OUTCOMES

GROSS REGIONAL PRODUCT CHANGE

WHAT: Measures the year-to-year change, in real terms, in the value of all goods and services produced in a region. WHY: Regarded as a comprehensive, high-level measure of the overall output and growth of the regional economy. OF NOTE: At 1.89%, Tampa Bay’s GRP grew slower than the nation’s metropolitan areas as a whole.

GROSS REGIONAL PRODUCT

ANNUAL GRP GROWTH

(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)

2016

2017

Austin

6.92%

Austin

$126,329

$135,072

$8,743

6.92%

Seattle

5.16%

Seattle

$297,254

$312,587

$15,333

5.16%

San Antonio

4.61%

San Antonio

$113,035

$118,241

$5,206

4.61%

Nashville

4.07%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

3.88%

Nashville

$111,187

$115,716

$4,529

4.07%

Denver

3.58%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

$461,752

$479,678

$17,926

3.88%

Charlotte

3.54%

Denver

$179,516

$185,942

$6,426

3.58%

Jacksonville

3.51%

Charlotte

$141,622

$146,630

$5,008

3.54%

Phoenix

3.41%

Portland

3.02%

Jacksonville

$63,595

$65,830

$2,235

3.51%

Atlanta

2.93%

Phoenix

$204,015

$210,968

$6,953

3.41%

South Florida

2.38%

Portland

$151,966

$156,553

$4,587

3.02%

Mpls-St. Paul

2.20%

Atlanta

$324,971

$334,488

$9,517

2.93%

San Diego

2.20%

U.S. Average

2.12%

South Florida

$289,602

$296,486

$6,884

2.38%

Orlando

1.92%

Mpls-St. Paul

$221,284

$226,152

$4,868

2.20%

 Tampa Bay

1.89%

San Diego

$197,641

$201,986

$4,345

2.20%

Raleigh-Durham

1.79%

$14,907,918

$15,224,212

$316,294

2.12%

Baltimore

1.00%

St. Louis

0.49%

Orlando

$112,805

$114,969

$2,164

1.92%

Houston

0.03%

 Tampa Bay

$172,252

$175,501

$3,249

1.89%

Raleigh-Durham

$107,976

$109,904

$1,928

1.79%

Baltimore

$164,254

$165,903

$1,649

1.00%

St. Louis

$138,832

$139,509

$677

0.49%

Houston

$436,221

$436,369

$148

0.03%

United States

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Data, Per Capita Real GDP 2016

TREND: Weakening GAP: Weakening 2012-’13 2013-’14 2014-’15 4%

2015-’16 2016-’17

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

2% 0% Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Data, Per Capita Real GDP in Chained Dollars, 2016-2017

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

OUTCOMES

PER CAPITA GROSS REGIONAL PRODUCT (GRP)

NET MIGRATION

WHAT: This measurement divides the Gross Regional Product for the region by the population of the region.

WHY: Measuring the GRP on a per capita basis provides a

natural increase (births minus deaths), relative to the population as a whole

way to measure the performance of one region relative to other regions. An increase in this measurement indicates economic growth and increased prosperity and productivity.

WHY: Net migration is generally an indicator of the quality of

OF NOTE: Tampa Bay’s per capita GRP fell slightly, in real

OF NOTE: Tampa Bay is the only community among the

dollars, between 2016 and 2017, from $37,164 to $37,118.

life and economic opportunity – both real and perceived – of a region. comparison group to exhibit a natural decrease in population, as regional deaths exceeded regional births.

Seattle

$80,833

 Tampa Bay

2.09%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

$64,824

Austin

1.87%

Denver

$64,379

Orlando

1.86%

Austin

$63,839

Jacksonville

1.56%

Portland

$63,817

Seattle

1.52%

Houston

$63,311

Charlotte

1.51%

Mpls-St. Paul

$62,809

Raleigh-Durham

1.49%

Nashville

$60,806

Phoenix

1.37%

San Diego

$60,517

Nashville

1.30%

Baltimore

$59,079

Dallas-Ft. Worth

1.24%

Charlotte

$58,064

San Antonio

0.94%

Raleigh-Durham

$57,768

Atlanta

0.93%

Atlanta

$56,840

Portland

0.81%

U.S. Average

$54,410

Denver

0.67%

St. Louis

$49,694

Mpls-St. Paul

0.59%

South Florida

$48,140

South Florida

0.57%

San Antonio

$47,794

Houston

0.48%

Orlando

$45,807

U.S. Average

Phoenix

$44,534

San Diego

-0.01%

Jacksonville

$43,741

Baltimore

-0.03%

 Tampa Bay

$37,118

St. Louis

-0.24%

TREND: Stable GAP: Weakening 2013 $40K

2014

0.34%

TREND: Strengthening GAP: Stable 2015

2016

2017

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

2013

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

2014

2015

2016

2017

$20K

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Data, Per Capita Real GDP 2017

WHAT: Calculated as population change, less the net effect of

Source: Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

WHAT: The figure represents the share of the population age 25-34 that did not live in the region the year before.

WHY: The population age 25-34 currently makes up the core

of the Millennial generation, roughly defined as those born between the early 1980s and the mid-1990s and among the largest population groups in the country. This age cohort, generally young workers starting and accelerating their careers, are a key input to regional economic performance and sought after by many employers, economic developers, and civic and business organizations.

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

WHAT: Measures the share of the labor force that is jobless.

Generally, an individual is considered unemployed if he or she is willing and able to work, but unable to find a job.

WHY: The unemployment rate provides a measure of the

overall growth or contraction of the economy, and the level of opportunity available to its citizens. Rising unemployment indicates a weakening of the economy, with correspondingly lower levels of confidence and spending. A decrease in unemployment has the opposite impact.

Raleigh-Durham

12.65%

Mpls-St. Paul

2.63%

Portland

11.69%

Denver

2.93%

Charlotte

11.01%

Austin

3.09%

Atlanta

9.93%

Nashville

3.16%

Austin

9.65%

San Antonio

3.50%

Jacksonville

9.63%

San Diego

3.54%

Denver

8.84%

Raleigh-Durham

3.56%

San Diego

8.81%

Orlando

3.58%

Seattle

8.79%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

3.63%

Orlando

8.52%

St. Louis

3.79%

Nashville

8.48%

Charlotte

3.79%

San Antonio

7.82%

Portland

3.80%

î&#x192;¤ Tampa Bay

7.63%

Atlanta

3.80%

Houston

7.60%

Jacksonville

3.82%

Baltimore

7.58%

Seattle

3.83%

Mpls-St. Paul

7.06%

î&#x192;¤ Tampa Bay

3.93%

Dallas-Ft. Worth

6.68%

South Florida

4.05%

Phoenix

6.63%

U.S. Average

4.11%

South Florida

6.29%

Phoenix

4.27%

St. Louis

5.61%

Houston

4.40%

Baltimore

4.57%

U.S. Average

n/a

TREND: No Trend Available

OUTCOMES

MILLENNIAL IN-MIGRATION

TREND: Strengthening GAP: Strengthening 2014 6%

2015

2016

2017

2018

Tampa Bay U.S. Average

3% 0% Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2016 1-Year Estimates, Public Use Microdata Sample

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics, July 2018

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

OUTCOMES

DEEPER DIVE:

NET MIGRATION Overview Tampa Bay remains a highly attractive place for residential relocation, ranking first among our comparison markets in net migration. In fact, Tampa Bay’s 2016-2017 population growth was due solely to migration, as deaths outnumbered births in the aggregate, and within six of the region’s eight counties. Tampa Bay was the only community in the comparison set where this occurred.

Regional Performance In 2017, only Hillsborough and Polk counties experienced a natural increase in population, where residential birth rate exceeded the death rate. In each of Tampa Bay’s counties, birth rate is declining and death rate is increasing.

Sarasota

DEATH RATE

10.1

10.4

-12.2%

8.6

9.2

-13.1%

11.8

12.2

-11.3%

6.9

7.5

-13.8%

Hillsborough

2017 10-Yr Avg

10-Yr Change

Citrus

17.8

17.0

9.0%

Hernando

15.2

14.5

6.5%

7.6

0.6%

Manatee

11.0

10.6

4.3%

Pasco

12.2

11.8

2.7%

Pinellas

12.5

12.3

2.7%

Polk

10.5

9.9

12.2%

Sarasota

13.8

13.4

4.4%

Hillsborough

NATURAL POPULATION INCREASE: 2008-2017 2017

-21.5%

2016

10.4

2015

9.5

2014

Polk

-7.6% -13.2%

2013

Pinellas

8.7 13.2

2012

Pasco

8.5 12.5

2011

Manatee

-3.8%

2010

Hillsborough

7.5

2009

Hernando

7.6

10-Yr Change

2008

Citrus

2017 10-Yr Avg

The regional trend in the annual natural increase rate (defined as birth rate minus death rate) is toward reduced natural increase, which mirrors the national experience.

Rate per 1,000 Residents

BIRTH RATE

Polk Manatee

-2

-4

Pasco Pinellas Hernando

-6

Sarasota

-8

Citrus

-10

-12

As for the second component of population change – migration – Tampa Bay’s counties each enjoyed an influx of residents between 2016 and 2017. While little detailed data exists on this recent influx of residents, the Internal Revenue Service Statistics of Income Division (SOI) releases data related to households (returns), residents (dependents), and earnings (adjusted gross income) for the 2015-2016 time period, based on the year-toyear address changes reported on tax returns.

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

OUTCOMES

Tampa Bay remains a highly attractive place for residential relocation.

IRS TAX RETURN DATA: TOTAL NET CHANGE 2015-2016 Returns

Exemptions

AGI

$000s

Exemptions per Return

Citrus

1,648

4.4%

3,355

4.6%

$ 121,933

3.1%

2.04

73,988

Hernando

2,299

6.2%

5,007

6.8%

$ 125,187

3.2%

2.18

54,453

Hillsborough

6,173

16.6%

12,718

17.4%

$ 366,520

9.3%

2.06

59,375

Manatee

5,140

13.8%

10,004

13.7%

$ 752,633

19.1%

1.95

$ 146,427

Pasco

6,079

16.3%

12,623

17.3%

$ 364,294

9.3%

2.08

Pinellas

6,706

18.0%

10,341

14.1%

$ 911,414

23.2%

1.54

$ 135,910

Polk

5,255

14.1%

11,103

15.2%

$ 265,300

6.7%

2.11

Sarasota

3,965

10.6%

7,944

10.9%

$1,024,159

26.1%

2.00

$ 258,300

37,265

100.0%

73,095

100.0%

$3,931,440

100%

1.96

$ 105,500

Tampa Bay

AGI/Return

59,927 50,485

The figures above detail the net change in tax return data for each Tampa Bay county. The net change is calculated as the difference between inflow (new residents) and outflow (former residents) of tax returns year-over-year. Based on tax return data, the attractiveness of Tampa Bay’s beach counties – Manatee, Pinellas, and Sarasota – is apparent. These three counties, while constituting 37.5 percent of total population in the region, attracted 42.4 percent of net returns, 38.7 percent of net dependents (suggesting smaller households migrate to the beach counties) and a whopping 68.4 percent of the net adjusted gross income flow to the region.

Key Takeaways •

Tampa Bay’s population growth is solely driven by migration, although some individual counties experienced a natural increase.

•

A significant amount of intra-regional relocation occurs in Tampa Bay – based on tax return data, more than 43,000 Tampa Bay households moved into a neighboring regional county between 2015 and 2016.

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

Generally, Tampa Bay is most competitive within the indicators of infrastructure – bicycle and pedestrian safety and transit measures are obvious exceptions – and select measures of economic vitality: business start rates, household net worth, and home sales price growth.

Rank 1-4

Opportunities for growth and improvement are, as with last year, clustered in the Talent indicators. While most Tampa Bay values improved from last year, the competition isn’t standing still. And while the university-led indicators of innovation show relative strength compared to the private industry measures, innovation in Tampa Bay generally trails the comparison set. In terms of Outcomes, Tampa Bay finds itself in the lower area of the ranking tables in most indicators – Net Migration is the exception, where Tampa Bay leads the pack – suggesting that while Tampa Bay continues to be

BEST

Rank 5-8

Job Gr ow Av th er Ra ag e W te Av a er ge ag eW Bu ag sin eS e er Me ss Es vic t dia eS ab lis nH ec hm to Ad o r u va e s n eh nc t S o e t l d Ad ar dN Ind tR va et ate us nc W t e ry or dI Ex th Job nd ist ing u Sh ar Ho stry Me e GR m rch e P Sa an G ro les Me dis wt eE dia Pr hR ice xp nH at Me or G o r ts us ow e an G e t ho ro Ho hR wt ld us ate hR Inc eh a o o Un te ld me Inc ive om rsi ty Un e( R& Lo ive D we rsi E st xp ty Pa Qu en Te ten c dit int hn ts u ile o p r SB es log er ) IR/ 10 y L ST ,00 i c en TR 0R sin Aw es g ar i d Bic en ds yc ts pe le rC an Pa ap dP ve ita e me de n s Wa tri tC an on lka Sa dit bil fet ion ity Co y mm ut Tr e Tim an sit Rid e Tr er an sh sit ip V Dr eh pe ivi icl rC ng eR ap T e ita Sh im ve ar n e ue Sp eo M e fC nt Air ile om in sp lin Co mu eP er ng Ca ter as es se pit sw tio ng a i n t er h1 Tr +H affi ou cG rC ro om wt mu h tes

SUMMARY OF INDICATORS

THIS CHART PRESENTS THE QUINTILE (five equal groups) rankings of each indicator for each community in an “at a glance” fashion. While we discourage the reader from drawing an overall ranking or “score,” darker shades of each color indicate a more competitive position relative to the comparison markets.

Rank 9-12

Rank 13-16 Rank 17-20

WORST

Tampa Bay Atlanta Austin

n/a

Baltimore Charlotte Dallas-Ft.Worth Denver Houston Jacksonville Mpls-St. Paul Nashville Orlando Phoenix Portland (OR) Raleigh-Durham San Antonio

n/a

San Diego Seattle South Florida St. Louis

ECONOMIC VITALITY

INNOVATION

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

INFRASTRUCTURE

Sh ar eo f3 Hi & gh 4-Y Sc ea ho Hi r-O ol gh G lds ra Sc du En ho Sh a o t ar ion rolle e o l Gra di Ra du fP nS Ce te ati op ch rti o ula fic oo n Ra ate tio l Ed t n e: Pr uc A Ec od ge ati on uc 16 on om Ed tio -24 al uc n ica A N ati tta pe lly e on r1 ith inm Ed Di a 0 e sa lA uc ,00 rE en dv ati tta m t 0 Ra an plo on Re inm Ag t tag e s a ye ide :A lA e2 en ed dn A/ tta tR n 5-3 t A o s i ate nm S+ rE 4E La bo : n e d BA ro nt uc rF lle /B ati Ra or di S+ De on te: c nS e gr a G P l ee ch ar r A a t t d oo t P i a c u ST inm ipa ate l EM rodu t /P ion en cti De r t o o Ra Ra fes np gr te: ee te: sio er Ag Pr BA na Cr 10 o e2 / im l , d B 0 uc 00 S+ eR 5-6 t i R o ate 4 es Vio np ide pe len er nt r 10 tC s: ,00 Sh rim 100, As 0 ar 0R so eR 00 eo cia e R a s f t e tes i e d Ch Fo sid e p n od ild er an e t nt s re dA 1 Ins s 00 ni ec bo He , n 0 ur 0 ve F alt 0 os ity Re hI t e s ns r i Pr d Ca ur en im re a ts ar y C nce Aff C a o r or ve eP da ra hy ge bil sic Ho i Ra t ian y: us tes Co ing s p s ts er Tr Aff as an 1 o 0,0 rd sp aP ab 00 er Me orta ilit Re c e t y ion dia sid nt :H ag nD en ou Aff e Cu ts s o a o i n i rd f In ltu ly g ab Air Ex ra co ilit pe l& m Qu y: e nd Re Tr Yo itu cre ality an ut r I e s a nd hP po sa tio ex ov rta sa na Po er lE tio ve t sta yR n E Perc rty en bli ate xp Ra Fin tag sh en te me an dit eo cia nt u f In re sp l In Gr sa co e sta os me r s 10 aP sR bil , 0 e e i ty 0 r gio Pe c 0 Ra en rC Re na te: tag sid ap lP AL eo ita ro e Ne nt I d C f In G uc s tM E ro tC co ss igr me h R ati an Mi eg on ge lle i o na nn lP ial Un ro Indu em Mi ct plo gr ati ym on en tR ate

an attractive place to live, efforts must be made to better understand the connections between our driver and outcome indicators, in order to provide broad and deep economic growth within the region.

n/a

TALENT

findings, analyzing the supporting data, and engaging in strategies to create a more competitive and prosperous Tampa Bay.

As with previous editions of the Regional Competitiveness Report, we look forward to collectively digging into these

n/a

CIVIC QUALITY

OUTCOMES

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

NEXT STEPS

WITH THE 2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT finalized, we’re already turning our attention to the future of the project, and the improvements and impacts we strive to achieve moving forward.

Convene Community Conversations

Develop and Enrich the Online User Experience

By bringing together subject matter experts and the people who are working on the front lines of the region’s economic drivers, we can learn more about the efforts that are already in place, the challenges they face and the resources they need to make an impact. These discussions can also help us identify potential new indicators and improve the quality of existing indicators.

As we launch a new online home for the Regional Competitiveness Report, we will continue to seek ways to make this data more accessible, and customizable, for civic leaders and policy makers. Future enhancements include the addition of a multi-media library of national and local best practices, along with a portal for community change agents to provide feedback on the indicators, and highlight the work they do and the results they achieve in the driver categories. We’ll also incorporate the parallel research effort being conducted by the University of South Florida’s Muma College of Business and its Center for Analytics and Creativity, using real-time data to help us visualize where collective community action will have the highest return.

Identify National and Local Best Practices Communities across the country are making strides in areas that continue to challenge us here in Tampa Bay. Taking a closer look at what they’re doing – and why it’s working – can help us replicate that success within our own region. We’ll also begin to identify some of the local organizations and initiatives that are already moving the needle on the indicators within this report.

Continue Collaboration and Partnership The Community Foundation of Tampa Bay, United Way Suncoast and the Tampa Bay Partnership began this journey in 2016 to develop not just a report, but a tool for community leaders to identify the critical opportunities for our region’s improvement and to prioritize resources to that end. As we gain a shared understanding of our community’s strengths and weaknesses, our three organizations, along with others that will join along the way, can commit to working together on specific issues to achieve common goals.

2019 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

support of business and community leaders throughout Tampa Bay, both past and present. This project expands and advances previous regional efforts, such as the Economic Market Report and the Regional Economic Scorecard. Very sincerely, we thank and acknowledge the work of previous volunteer leaders and staff of both the Tampa Bay Partnership and the former University of South Florida Center for Economic Development Research (CEDR) for the foundation they provided for our work. The strategic vision and leadership of Chuck Sykes, President & CEO of Sykes Enterprises and the chair of the Regional Indicators Task Force, was instrumental in the creation of the inaugural Regional Competitiveness Report, and his legacy will be felt in this and all subsequent editions, along with that of the participating task force members, including: Robbie Artz, Michael Baughen, Len Becker, David Call, Gino Casanova, Bob Clifford, David Cohen, Tom Corona, David Doney, Nathaniel Doliner, Lee Evans, Gina Gallo, Scott Garlick, Brett Lafferty, Marty Lanahan, Rhea Law, Mark Lilly, Chad Loar, Suzanne McCormick, Seth McKeel, David Pizzo, Dr. Ed Rafalski, Amy Rettig, Nick Setteducato, Marlene Spalten, Matt Spence, William Walsh, Chuck Warrington and Melanie Williams.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT could not have occurred without the engaged

The production of the 2019 Regional Competitiveness Report relied upon the feedback and guidance of the following stakeholders across the region, who shared their time and insight to help us make this a better, more useful resource for the community. Josh Baumgartner, Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce Glenn Brown, Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Board Hillsborough County Holly Bullard, United Way Suncoast Deborah Chapman, CareerEdge Funders Collaborative

Gina Gallo, United Way Suncoast

Suzanne McCormick, United Way Suncoast

Ed Siler, South Tampa Chamber of Commerce

Richard George, Junior Achievement of Tampa Bay, Inc.

Mike Meidel, Pinellas County Economic Development

Matt Spence, Feeding Tampa Bay

Beth Green, Morgan Stanley

Jamie Miller, EDC of Sarasota County

Barbara St. Clair, Creative Pinellas

Ed Narain, AT&T

Peter Straw, Sarasota Manatee Manufacturers Association

Sunny Hall, Crisis Center of Tampa Bay Dave Hamilton, Pasco Hernando Workforce Board

Linda Olson, Tampa Bay WaVE

Joe Hamilton, The St. Petersburg Group

Nestor Ortiz, University Area CDC

Michelle Hamilton, Florida Blue

Mike Peterson, Greater Tampa Realtors

Charles Hokanson, Helios Education Foundation

Taylor Ralph, Real Building Consultants

Mark Dufva, Catholic Charities

Brian Jaruszewski, Juvenile Welfare Board of Pinellas County

Michele Routh, St. Pete-Clearwater International Airport

Tonya Elmore, Tampa Bay Innovation Center

Gary LoDuca, South Tampa Chamber

Ashley Ryneska, St. Petersburg YMCA

Chip Falk, BB&T

JoLynn Lokey, Visit Tampa Bay

Rafaela Amador Fink, Tampa Bay Rays

Merritt Martin, Moffitt Cancer Center

Deborah Sheridan, Hancock Whitney

Ray Chiaramonte, TBARTA Martine Collier, Arts Council of Hillsborough County Laura Crouch, TECO Melissa Dickens, Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission

Kenneth Strickland, Tampa International Airport Chuck Tiernan, Community Foundation Tampa Bay Sue Wetzel, United Way Suncoast Juawana Williams, Pasco Economic Development Council Jamie Wilson, Moffitt Cancer Center Johnny Wong, Hillsborough MPO

We would also like to recognize the executive leadership and senior staff of our primary collaborating partners: from the Community Foundation of Tampa Bay, Marlene Spalten and Chuck Tiernan; and from United Way Suncoast, Suzanne McCormick and Gina Gallo. Thank you for your significant contributions of time, talent and financial resources. The Tampa Bay Partnership, with the support of all listed above, led the development of this report through its research and education foundation. Rick Homans, President and CEO, provided leadership and strategic vision. Dave Sobush, Director of Policy and Research, served as project manager for this initiative. Additional support was provided by: Jennifer Mikosky, VP of Strategic Communications and Outreach; Courtney McDonnell, Program Coordinator; and Kara Kissinger, Executive Assistant to the President and CEO. Additional research support was provided by Amanda Luce. Editorial support provided by Carlin Communications. Graphic design and production provided by estudio-5 | www.estudio-5.com

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org

ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE COLLABORATING TEAM, the authors wish to acknowledge and recognize the volunteer leadership (current as of November 30, 2018) of the Community Foundation of Tampa Bay, United Way Suncoast, and the Tampa Bay Partnership. Thank you for your engagement within our community, and your commitment to a more competitive and prosperous Tampa Bay. COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF TAMPA BAY BOARD OF TRUSTEES Betty Castor, Chair Former President, University of South Florida Miles S. Capron, Retired Capron Sales Phillip E. Casey, Retired Gerdau Ameristeel Patricia Douglas, Retired Bush Ross Richard J. Dobkin, Retired Ernst & Young Laurence R. Fasan Sabal Trust Susanna Fenhagen, Retired WEDU Bill Fries Hiregy Damon C. Glisson Attorney Linda C. Hanna Attorney Seton T. Hengesbach Hengesbach & Hengesbach Oscar Horton Sun State International Trucks, LLC Edward F. Koren Holland & Knight Dr. Lyda T. Lindell Community Advocate Donna L. Longhouse Allen Dell, P.A. Robert H. Mohr Attorney Richard Rios Ameriprise Financial Mark Sena MediaSphere Partners, LLC Joel H. Shane Ameriprise Financial

UNITED WAY SUNCOAST BOARD OF DIRECTORS

TAMPA BAY PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS

TAMPA BAY PARTNERSHIP LEADERSHIP COUNCIL

Eric Bailey, Chair CapTrust

David Pizzo, Chair Florida Blue

Chris Bailey Charter Communications

Mike Brennan Ernst & Young

Brian Auld Tampa Bay Rays

Michael Baughen JPMorgan Chase

Brian Deming Community Volunteer

Rob Bennett Emera Technologies, LLC

Rae Dowling Florida Power & Light

David Call Fifth Third Bank

Pierre Caramazza Franklin Templeton Investments

Bob Dutkowsky Tech Data Corporation

Ravi S. Chari, MD HCA West Florida

Mark Fernandez USAmeriBank Estella Gray State Attorneyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office Tim Henning Publix Super Markets Kimberly Hopper Iberia Bank Rob Lane Kerkering Barberio Bill Merrill Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timms, Furen & Ginsberg

John Couris Tampa General Hospital Dan Doyle, Jr. Dex Imaging Bob Dutkowsky Tech Data Corporation Lee Evans Bristol-Myers Squibb Scott Fink Fink Automotive Group Richard Forsyth Wendover Art Group Michael Frankel Amgen Capability Center

Jim Daly BB&T Brian Ford Tampa Bay Buccaneers Melanie Fowler HDR Engineering, Inc. Steve Griggs Tampa Bay Lightning Andrew Hall AT&T Tommy Inzina BayCare Health System

Dr. Judy Genshaft University of South Florida

Jack Kolosky Moffitt Cancer Center

Paul Reilly Raymond James

Richard Gonzmart Columbia Restaurant Group

Rhea Law Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney

Stuart Rogel Graylan Ventures

Bobby Harris BlueGrace Logistics

Suzanne McCormick United Way Suncoast

Karen Rushing Clerk of the Circuit Court

Chad Loar PNC Bank

Steve Raney Raymond James Bank

Alex Sink Community Volunteer

Joseph Mullany Bayfront Health Market

Amy Rettig Nielsen

Bob Thompson Manatee Area Board Representative

Brian Murphy ReliaQuest

Larry Richey Cushman & Wakefield of Florida

Dan Vigne Northern Trust David Walker, Retired Procter & Gamble

Tim Schar SunTrust Bank Barry Shevlin Vology Chuck Sykes Sykes Enterprises, Inc. T.J. Szelistowski TECO Peoples Gas System

James R. Stanger Simon & Associates of Raymond James

Troy Taylor Coca-Cola Beverages Florida

Sue Williams Community Advocate

Tom Corona Deloitte & Touche, LLP

David Pizzo Florida Blue

Dr. Juel Smith JUE-L Consulting Group

Mike Starkey Genesys

Bob Clifford WSP USA

Jeff Vinik Strategic Property Partners Ron Wanek Ashley Furniture

Yvette Segura USAA Darryl Shaw BluePearl Veterinary Partners