2020
REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
THE 2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT IS PRODUCED BY THE TAMPA BAY PARTNERSHIP FOUNDATION, IN COLLABORATION WITH THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF TAMPA BAY AND UNITED WAY SUNCOAST, AND IS AFFILIATED WITH THE STATE OF THE REGION INITIATIVE. WWW.STATEOFTHEREGION.COM
WELCOME
WELCOME TO THE 2020 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 how our performance in those key areas compares to 19 peer and aspirational markets nationwide. When we came together to produce the first report in 2017, we knew this could be a game-changer for the region. Our research into the best practices of high-performing communities across the country had shown us that similar benchmarking exercises were a common practice, and an effective way to define community challenges and allocate the resources needed to address them. At the same time, our partners at the USF Muma College of Business were developing their E-Insights Report. This innovative project (which you can read more about on page 80) builds on our research by pairing the traditional indicators with real-time data to identify impactful policy initiatives that could improve the region’s competitive position. Collectively, these tools can help us understand the “State of the Region,” provide a shared focus for the work we do within the community and, ultimately, move the needle on our biggest challenges. That’s no small task. But as we enter the third year of publication, we’re beginning to realize the profound impact of alignment around a common set of metrics. Our organizations are actively using the data within this report to prioritize our own activities and resources, and measure the effectiveness of our work. And we’re not the only ones. We met with more than 100 of Tampa Bay’s public, private and nonprofit leaders during the development of this year’s edition, and we were thrilled to learn more about the deep and meaningful ways they’re utilizing this research every day. Making the Regional Competitiveness Report a resource for the entire community has always been our intent, and we continue to work on improving the accessibility and usability of the data. We’re excited to announce that an interactive, enhanced version of this year’s Regional Competitiveness Report, along with the 2020 E-Insights Report, will be launched later this year at www.stateoftheregion.com. We encourage you to bookmark the site and refer to it often. This data is the foundation for our future and a chance to create lasting change. How we use it is up to us. We hope you choose action, and encourage your own partners to do the same. Sincerely,
Rick Homans President & CEO Tampa Bay Partnership Foundation
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
Marlene Spalten President & CEO Community Foundation of Tampa Bay
Jessica Muroff President & CEO United Way Suncoast
2
COMPARISON COMMUNITIES
4
REGIONAL PROFILE
6
USER GUIDE
10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
12
ECONOMIC VITALITY
14
16 17 17 18 20 20 21 21 22 23 24 25 26
Job Growth Rate Average Wage Average Wage Service Sector Deeper Dive: Average Wage Median Household Income Mean Household Income (Lowest Quintile) Median Household Net Worth Business Establishment Start Rate Advanced Industry Job Share Advanced Industry GRP Growth Rate Merchandise Exports Growth Rate Existing Home Sales Price Growth Rate Best Practice: Phoenix
INNOVATION
Deeper Dive: University R&D Expenditures University R&D Expenditures University Technology Licensing Patents per 10,000 Residents SBIR/STTR Awards per Capita Best Practice: St. Louis
28
30 31 31 32 32 33
INFRASTRUCTURE
34
36 36
Walkability Pavement Condition Rated Fair or Good Pedestrian and Cyclist Fatalities per 100,000 Residents Average Commute Time Annual Hours Lost in Congestion Share of Commuters with 1+ Hour Commutes Transit Vehicle Revenue Miles per Capita Transit Ridership per Capita Deeper Dive: Transit Ridership Non-Stop Air Service Destination Growth Rate Best Practice: Atlanta
37 37 38 38 39 39 40 42 43
TALENT
Share of 3 & 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in School High School Graduation Rate High School Graduation Rate: Economically Disadvantaged 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+ Educational Attainment Rate: Graduate/Professional Age 25-34 Educational Attainment Rate: BA/BS+ Degree Production per 10,000 Residents: Associates and Above STEM Degree Production per 10,000 Residents Labor Force Participation Rate: Age 25-64 Deeper Dive: Labor Force Participation Rate Florida Talent Indicators Best Practice: South Florida
44 46 46 47 47 48 48 49 49 50 50 51 51 52 54 56
CIVIC QUALITY
58
60 60 61 61 62 62 63
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 Median Daily Air Quality Index Cultural and Recreational Establishments per 10,000 Residents Affordability: Costs as a Percentage of Income Housing Affordability: Housing Expenditures as a Percentage of Income Transportation Affordability: Transportation Expenditures as a Percentage of Income Deeper Dive: Housing Affordability Best Practice: Minneapolis-St. Paul
63 64 65 65 66 68
OUTCOMES
70
72 72 73 74 74 75 75
Net Migration Millennial In-Migration Gross Regional Product (GRP) Growth Rate Per Capita Gross Regional Product (GRP) Unemployment Rate Youth Poverty and Poverty Rate Full-Time Worker Poverty Rate Deeper Dive: Financial Instability, Poverty, and ALICE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABOUT THE REPORT
76
SUMMARY OF INDICATORS
78
STATE OF THE REGION
80 www.stateoftheregion.com
1
ABOUT THE REPORT
FRAMEWORK FOR REGIONAL PROSPERITY
NS
IC
S’ NEEDS
SS E N Y VE RIT N I T O I E EC PET OSP MES M PR O CO ND TC A OU
M
LIT Y
PA
OM
NIE
ZE CITI
INFRASTRUCTURE
S
T EN
D EE
ALITY
L TA
’N
U IC Q V I C
IN NO
2
O M
IC
VI TA
O
C
VA TIO N
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
E
CO
N
THAT’S THE DRIVING PRINCIPLE behind the Regional Competitiveness Report: a data-based assessment of Tampa Bay’s strengths and weaknesses across a diverse set of indicators, measuring our performance against 19 benchmark communities nationwide. Within this report, you’ll find the tools and resources you need to identify what we’re doing well, where we can improve, and how we can move the needle on the greatest challenges facing our region. The idea for this initiative was born from the Tampa Bay Partnership’s own benchmark research in 2015, as the organization transitioned from more than two decades of regional business development and marketing, to a new mission centered on public policy and advocacy. As the Partnership explored peer and aspirational markets across the country, it found that each of these communities – and many others – publish a comprehensive dashboard of regional economic indicators. These indicators provide an important resource to identify the community’s most pressing needs, while prioritizing its limited resources. In 2016, the Partnership created a task force to research, develop and publish a Regional Competitiveness Report for Tampa Bay. Chuck Sykes, President and CEO of Sykes Enterprises, chaired the group and nearly 30 regional business leaders joined the effort. The Community Foundation of Tampa Bay and United Way Suncoast, two of the region’s cornerstone philanthropic organizations, served as collaborative partners, and a diverse group of nearly 100 public, private and non-profit partners provided input throughout the process.
ABOUT THE REPORT
WHAT GETS MEASURED IS WHAT GETS DONE.
ABOUT THE PARTNERS
The Tampa Bay Partnership is a privately funded, CEOdriven regional advocacy organization committed to creating a unified, competitive and prosperous Tampa Bay. Through its foundation, the Partnership conducts objective, data-driven research to identify the region’s greatest challenges and measure our progress toward shared community goals.
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.
Collectively, these stakeholders developed a framework for regional prosperity that continues to shape our work today. 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. The region’s CUSTOMERS are our residents and our businesses, and the symbiotic relationship between these groups is the foundation of the community. These customers make a choice to locate in our region and meeting their needs improves the likelihood our region will retain its existing customers and attract new ones. At the center of the framework are the OUTCOMES that indicate the extent to which our 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.
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.
The inaugural Regional Competitiveness Report was released in November 2017. The report is now in its third year of publication. www.stateoftheregion.com
3
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. 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 Miami-Ft. 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. Tampa Bay is a fourMSA, eight-county region described in greater detail on page 6 of this report.
POPULATION (2018)
COMPARISON COMMUNITIES Atlanta
Orlando
Austin
Phoenix
Baltimore
Portland
Charlotte
Raleigh-Durham
Dallas-Ft. Worth
San Antonio
Denver
San Diego
Houston
Seattle
Jacksonville
South Florida
Minneapolis-St. Paul
St. Louis
Nashville
Tampa Bay
POPULATION GROWTH 2013-2018 Historic
2019-2024 Forecast
Atlanta
5,949,951
8.0%
Austin
2,168,316
15.1%
Baltimore
2,802,789
Charlotte
2,569,213
10.1%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
7,539,711
10.6%
Denver
2,932,415
8.6%
Houston
6,997,384
10.5%
9.8%
Jacksonville
1,534,701
10.1%
8.4%
Mpls-St. Paul
3,629,190
5.0%
Nashville
1,930,961
9.8%
Orlando
2,572,962
13.3%
Phoenix
4,857,962
10.3%
Portland
2,478,810
7.2%
Raleigh-Durham
1,937,952
11.0%
10.2%
San Antonio
2,518,036
10.4%
9.0%
San Diego
3,343,364
4.1% 3.8%
Seattle
3,939,363
9.1%
South Florida
6,198,782
6.0%
St. Louis
2,805,465
Tampa Bay
4,820,174
United States
7.5% 14.0%
1.2% / 2.3% 9.0% 9.7% 8.4%
5.1% 9.1% 10.4% 8.5% 7.0%
7.5% 5.5%
0.2% / 1.5% 10.5%
327,167,434
7.2%
3.5% 3.9%
Source: US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, 2018 (Population and 2013-2018 Population Change); Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2018 (GRP); ESRI Business Analyst, 2019 (all others) 4
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
COMPARISON COMMUNITIES
Seattle Portland
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Baltimore
Denver
Raleigh-Durham
St. Louis Nashville
San Diego
Charlotte
Phoenix Dallas-Ft. Worth
Atlanta Jacksonville
Austin Orlando San Antonio
Houston
Tampa Bay South Florida
DIVERSITY Share Non-White, Non-Hispanic
Atlanta
48.8%
Austin
30.7%
Baltimore
41.7%
Charlotte
35.4%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
38.7%
Denver
24.3%
Houston
43.0%
Jacksonville
32.7%
Mpls-St. Paul
23.0%
Nashville
25.4%
Orlando
33.9%
Phoenix
30.4%
Portland
22.2%
Raleigh-Durham
37.1%
San Antonio
26.4%
San Diego
38.9%
Seattle
33.7%
South Florida
31.4%
St. Louis
24.9%
Tampa Bay
22.9%
United States
30.4%
Share Hispanic
10.9%
AGE
GROSS REGIONAL PRODUCT
Median Age
2018 ($M)
36.4
$357,308
34.3
$134,417
39.4
$183,094
37.7
$146,814
35.0
$468,918
37.2
$193,966
34.6
$445,335
38.8
$73,724
37.6
$237,141
37.6
$117,839
37.5
$124,174
36.1
$227,741
38.3
$150,033
36.5
$124,513
35.6
$121,140
35.9
$219,362
10.4%
38.2
$355,663
46.7%
41.3
$315,031
39.6
$152,060
44.9
$152,060
38.5
$16,504,747
34.3% 6.4% 10.6% 29.2% 23.8% 37.9% 9.8% 6.1% 7.7% 32.0% 31.6% 12.4% 11.2% 56.1% 34.4%
3.2% 19.4% 18.6%
Note: Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. Non-White, Non-Hispanic population share presented in combination with Hispanic population share to provide a perspective on demographic diversity. www.stateoftheregion.com
5
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 an 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, Lakeland-Winter Haven (Polk) to the east, and North Port-Sarasota-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 applicable, will be available at www.stateoftheregion.com later this year.
6
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
Hernando Pasco Pinellas
Hillsborough
4
Polk
Manatee
METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS (MSAs): Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater
Sarasota
Homosassa Springs Lakeland-Winter Haven North Port-SarasotaBradenton
REGIONAL PROFILE
1.
POPULATION
More than 4.8 million people call the Tampa Bay region home. After welcoming over 590,000 new residents since 2010, 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 2024, Tampa Bay’s population is estimated to reach nearly 5.2 million people. In the coming years, Manatee County is expected to have the fastest population growth rate (10.9 percent) and Pinellas County the slowest (3.7 percent).
POPULATION GROWTH: PAST AND FORECAST 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
2019 POPULATION 25%
Sarasota 428,143 (9%)
Citrus
Citrus 150,670 (3%)
Hernando 189,512 (4%)
Hernando Hillsborough Polk 683,954 (14%)
Manatee Pasco
Hillsborough
Pinellas
1,454,648 (30%)
Polk
Pinellas 980,444 (21%)
Sarasota Tampa Bay Florida United States
2010-2019
Pasco 536,023 (11%)
2019-2024
Manatee 397,019 (8%)
2. DIVERSITY Diversity is typically described in terms of race (White, Black, etc.) and ethnicity (Hispanic or non-Hispanic), and multiple combinations of race and ethnicity exist. Overall, the region’s population by share of race is lower than that of both the state and the nation as a whole. Hillsborough is the region’s most diverse county, and Citrus is the least. At 19.4 percent, Tampa Bay’s Hispanic population is closer to the U.S. average (18.6 percent) than Florida’s (26.6 percent).
POPULATION BY SHARE OF RACE
HISPANIC POPULATION BY SHARE OF TOTAL POPULATION 0%
Citrus
White
Hernando Hillsborough Manatee
American Indian
Tampa Bay
Asian
20%
25%
30%
Citrus
Hillsborough Manatee
Pinellas Polk
Pacific Islander
Other
Florida United States
15%
Pasco
Polk Sarasota
10%
Hernando Blac k
Pasco Pinellas
5%
Sarasota Tampa Bay Florida
Two or More
United States
Regional Profile Sources: American Community Survey, 2018 1-Year Estimates (Household Income); Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018 Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (Industry Employment), Occupational Estimates Series (Occupational Employment); ESRI Business Analyst, 2019 (all others) www.stateoftheregion.com
7
REGIONAL PROFILE
3. AGE With a median age of 44.9, the residents of Tampa Bay are older than those in Florida (42.5) and the U.S. (38.5). Hillsborough County reports the lowest median age in the region (37.3) and Citrus County the highest (58.0).
MEDIAN AGE
TAMPA BAY AGE DISTRIBUTION 10
20
30
40
50
60
155,734
Citrus
356,194
Hernando
85+
244,492 0-4
75-84
250,966 5-9
Hillsborough
260,912 10-14
65-74 616,871
Manatee Pasco
257,847
15-19 20-24
Pinellas
55-64 683,288
Polk
25-34 589,590
Sarasota
45-54 592,384
Tampa Bay Florida
270,529
35-44 541,606
United States
POPULATION BY SHARE OF AGE GROUP 0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-34
Citrus Hernando Hillsborough Manatee Pasco Pinellas Polk Sarasota Tampa Bay Florida United States
8
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75-84
85+
REGIONAL PROFILE
4. HOUSEHOLD INCOME
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
While Tampa Bay’s median household income of $55,071 is within reach of the median household income in Florida ($55,462), it continues to fall short of the U.S. average ($61,937). The region’s highest median household income can be found in Sarasota County ($61,683) and its lowest in Citrus County ($39,964).
$0
$20K
$40K
$60K
$80K
Citrus Hernando Hillsborough Manatee Pasco Pinellas Polk Sarasota Tampa Bay Florida United States
5. EMPLOYMENT Healthcare, hospitality and retail continue to provide the largest share of employment opportunities for Tampa Bay residents, but professional services, construction, manufacturing, and finance and insurance are becoming stronger components of the regional economy. By occupation, office and administrative support, sales, and food service positions comprise nearly 40 percent of the total employment in Tampa Bay. 2018 Private Employment By Industry
Total
Share
2018 Employment By Occupation
Total
Share
Health Care and Social Assistance
265,519
16.3%
Office and Administrative Support
330,910
17.8%
Retail Trade
242,376
14.9%
Sales and Related
218,280
11.7%
Accommodation and Food Services
190,659
11.7%
Food Preparation and Serving Related
188,170
10.1%
Administrative and Waste Services
128,813
7.9%
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical
123,290
6.6%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
120,959
7.4%
Transportation and Material Moving
111,140
6.0%
Construction
116,912
7.2%
Business and Financial Operations
104,170
5.6%
Manufacturing
100,868
6.2%
Education, Training, and Library
91,710
4.9%
Finance and Insurance
98,738
6.1%
Management
87,920
4.7%
Wholesale Trade
65,133
4.0%
Construction and Extraction
84,850
4.6%
Other Services (except Public Administration)
54,610
3.4%
Production
82,050
4.4%
Transportation and Warehousing
46,340
2.9%
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair
75,770
4.1%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
39,710
2.4%
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance
61,060
3.3%
Management of Companies and Enterprises
39,066
2.4%
Personal Care and Service
56,660
3.0%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
36,797
2.3%
Healthcare Support
56,290
3.0%
Educational Services
32,870
2.0%
Computer and Mathematical
51,010
2.7%
Information
29,210
1.8%
Protective Service
40,910
2.2%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
10,000
0.6%
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media
22,180
1.2%
Utilities
6,223
0.4%
Community and Social Service
21,360
1.1%
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction
1,113
0.1%
Architecture and Engineering
20,790
1.1%
1,625,916
100.0%
Legal
16,750
0.9%
Life, Physical, and Social Science
8,810
0.5%
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry
4,250
0.2%
1,858,330
100.0%
Total Private Industry
Total
www.stateoftheregion.com
9
USER GUIDE
THE 2020 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. Understanding how to read and analyze the information presented within the pages of this report is key to it becoming a more useful and relevant tool for everyday use. Here’s what you’ll find inside:
SUMMARY OF INDICATORS
SUMMARY OF OUTCOME INDICATORS Ne tM igr ati Mi on lle nn ial Gr Inos Mi sR gr eg ati ion on Pe al P rC ap rod ita uc Gr Un t (G os em RP sR )G plo eg row ym ion Yo th al en ut Ra Pr hP tR te od ate ov u er Po ct t (G ve yR R rty P) ate Ra Fu te ll-T im eW or ke rP ov er ty Ra te
SUMMARY OF INDICATORS’ NAMES This chart provides an ata-glance view of the total performance by market and indicators for each individual driver, as well as the outcomes.
You’ll find Tampa Bay listed at the top of each summary for easier reference.
Tampa Bay Atlanta Austin
A unique color is assigned to the four communities within each quintile, with the darkest color representing the best performance and the lightest color representing the worst.
Baltimore Charlotte Dallas-Ft.Worth Denver Houston Jacksonville Mpls-St. Paul Nashville Orlando Phoenix Portland Raleigh-Durham San Antonio San Diego Seattle South Florida St. Louis
Rank 1-4
BEST
Rank 5-8 Rank 9-12 Rank 13-16 Rank 17-20
10
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
WORST
USER GUIDE
INDIVIDUAL INDICATORS INDIVIDUAL INDICATOR’S NAME
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.
WHY: Provides a high-level indicator to track access to healthcare in the community.
Portland
9.82 9.59
Seattle
9.10
Raleigh-Durham
8.80
Mpls-St. Paul
8.75
Denver
8.42
San Diego
7.82
Jacksonville
7.71
South Florida
7.65
St. Louis
7.55
United States
7.48
Orlando
7.33
Nashville
7.31
Austin
7.08
Tampa Bay
7.04
Charlotte
6.99
Atlanta
6.76
San Antonio
6.61
Phoenix
6.39
Dallas-Ft. Worth
6.36
Houston
5.97
INDICATOR CHART: For each of the individual indicators, the communities are ranked by performance, with the highest performer on top.
UNITED STATES DATA, where available, appears in gray to illustrate how Tampa Bay compares to national performance.
TAMPA BAY appears in red for easier reference. TREND: Where available, we’ve presented a trend analysis for each indicator (typically for five years), to view this year’s data in the context of past performance and the U.S. Average. SOURCE: Reflects the most currently available data source for each indicator.
TREND: 8 6 4 2 0
Tampa Bay United States
2012
2013
2014
2015
WHY: Why the indicator was selected, including a description of the indicator’s impact or contribution to regional competitiveness and prosperity. RANKING: The current ranking highlights Tampa Bay’s relative position among the cohort in the 2020 report, and the PREVIOUS YEAR ranking indicates its position in the 2019 report.
CURRENT RANKING: 14th PREVIOUS YEAR: 10th
Baltimore
WHAT: A description of each indicator, including what it represents and how it is calculated.
2016
Source: County Health Rankings & Roadmaps, 2019
BEST PRACTICE: 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. DEEPER DIVE: Based on feedback from our regional stakeholders, we’ve selected one indicator within each section and taken a closer look to provide additional context and insight.
NEW! Coming in 2020 will be an enhanced online presence for the Regional Competitiveness Report at
www.stateoftheregion.com. Visitors can use intuitive visualization tools review and interact with the data, filter by community and population segment, and create custom reports.
Disclaimer: The Tampa Bay Partnership has, to the best of its ability, compiled the information contained within and used to produce this publication. The data is believed to be the latest available at the time of production, accurate, and from reliable sources. The Tampa Bay Partnership welcomes constructive criticism and corrections of the errors that may appear in a project of this complexity. For more information on the methodology for this report, please contact Dave Sobush at dsobush@tampabay.org. www.stateoftheregion.com
11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IT’S EVIDENT THAT THE TAMPA BAY REGION is enjoying a surge in popularity these days. Headlines regularly tout our growing reputation as a desirable place to be, major public and private investments are transforming our physical landscape, and new residents and businesses are arriving daily. But are we creating an economy that works for everyone? That’s the key question that emerges from a thorough examination of the data in the 2020 Regional Competitiveness Report, which uncovers some worrisome trends that could impact our future prosperity if not collectively addressed.
ECONOMIC VITALITY
INNOVATION
TALENT
Tampa Bay ranks near the top of the list in business establishment start rate, reflecting a dynamic business environment and continued optimism in the regional economy. For the first time in four years, the region experienced positive export growth, and our housing prices have stabilized in relation to the national average.
A strong performance by the University of South Florida is driving an increase in research dollars, but those dollars are not yet translating into an equivalent increase in patents and grants, which drive the economic growth of the region by creating companies, jobs and investments.
Graduation rates are now at the region’s highest level ever, including a big jump for economically disadvantaged students, and we’re closing the gap between Tampa Bay and our competitors. But the number of 16-24-yearolds neither employed nor enrolled in school remains stubbornly stagnant. STEM degree production also improved, but the overall educational attainment rate of Tampa Bay residents remained flat – with the exception of the targeted 25-34-year-old category, which decreased. The region continues to rank last in labor force participation.
But despite an increase in competitive position, our job growth rate is now at a five-year low, and Tampa Bay ranks last among the other Florida metro areas. The share of jobs in highly desired advanced industries has also increased, but without providing the expected value – particularly in the form of higher wages – to the regional economy. Our average wage trails all but one community, and the average wage in the service sector continued a downward trend below the national average. In household income, Tampa Bay once again ranks last.
INFRASTRUCTURE Commute times in Tampa Bay declined slightly, but are growing faster than the national average. The region continues to offer few alternatives to car travel, as seen in the high number of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities and low ranking in transit availability and ridership, and the gap is widening as other communities make these critical investments.
CIVIC QUALITY Tampa Bay achieves high marks for public safety, as the crime rate continues a downward trend. The region also scores well for air quality. But the issue of affordability continues to impact the quality of life for our residents, as Tampa Bay ranks in the bottom quartile for the cost of both housing and transportation.
Many of these challenges are reflected in the overall picture of economic growth, which exhibits some early indicators of concern in the absence of intervention. While Tampa Bay once again ranks number one in net migration – a clear indication that people want to be a part of this community – the number of young people moving here is low, and the region’s full-time worker and youth poverty rate is high. Additionally, our GRP per capita – an important way to compare the wealth and health of our economy to that of our competition – ranks a distant last place. While there’s little question that growth is here, and momentum seems to be in our favor, it will take a concerted effort to by community leaders to ensure that this growth is inclusive, and the benefits are experienced by all.
12
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY www.stateoftheregion.com
13
ECONOMIC VITALITY
Economic Vitality
Economic Vitality measures the quantity and quality of jobs in a community, the relative incomes that its residents earn, the wealth they attain, and the economic opportunities seized by its 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 percent 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, leaders should pay close attention to the types of jobs being added. If a community wants to increase its household incomes, and overall prosperity, then its leaders should have a clear and deliberate strategy to increase jobs in the all-important advanced industries, which pay a premium wage and will help sustain the region’s future well-being.
14
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
“As the community creates new economic opportunities, leaders should ensure that the growth is inclusive and reaches all segments of the population.”
ECONOMIC VITALITY
Job Gr ow th Av Ra er te ag eW Av a ge er ag eW Me ag eS dia er nH vic ou Me eS s an eh ec to o Ho ld r u I Me nc se om ho dia ld e nH Inc ou Bu om s sin eh e( es old Lo sE we N Ad sta et st va bli Wo Qu nc sh int rth ed m ile Ad en Ind ) va tS us nc t t ar ry ed tR Job Me Ind ate Sh rch us ar try an e dis GR Ex eE PG ist xp ing ro or wt Ho ts hR me Gr ate ow Sa th les R Pr ate ice Gr ow th Ra te
SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC VITALITY INDICATORS
Tampa Bay Atlanta Austin Baltimore Charlotte Dallas-Ft. Worth Denver Houston Jacksonville Mpls-St. Paul Nashville Orlando Phoenix Portland 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.stateoftheregion.com
15
ECONOMIC VITALITY
JOB GROWTH RATE
WHAT: The 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, new construction starts, and gross regional product.
CURRENT RANKING: 11th PREVIOUS YEAR: 13th
JOBS (1,000s)
CHANGE
June ‘18 June ‘19
(1,000s)
%
RANK
Orlando
3.97%
Phoenix
3.14%
Orlando
1,281
1,332
51
3.97%
1
Phoenix
2,062
2,127
65
3.14%
2
Dallas-Ft. Worth
3.12%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
3,695
3,810
115
3.12%
3
Seattle
2.89%
2,059
2,119
60
2.89%
4
Houston
2.77%
Seattle
2.48%
Houston
3,099
3,185
86
2.77%
Charlotte
5
Austin
2.34%
Charlotte
1,213
1,243
30
2.48%
6
Jacksonville
2.30%
Austin
1,077
1,102
25
2.34%
7
South Florida
2.25%
706
722
16
2.30%
8
Nashville
2.18%
Jacksonville
Tampa Bay
2.03%
South Florida
2,644
2,704
59
2.25%
9
Portland
1.94%
Nashville
1,007
1,029
22
2.18%
10
St. Louis
1.90%
Tampa Bay
1,901
1,940
39
2.03%
11
Atlanta
1.88%
1,199
1,222
23
1.94%
12
San Diego
1.72%
Portland
United States
1.45%
St. Louis
1,396
1,423
27
1.90%
13
San Antonio
1.39%
Atlanta
2,789
2,842
52
1.88%
14
Denver
1.37%
San Diego
1,492
1,517
26
1.72%
15
Raleigh-Durham
1.35% 0.93%
United States
150,062
152,243
2,181
1.45%
Baltimore
San Antonio
1,064
1,079
15
1.39%
16
Denver
1,519
1,540
21
1.37%
17
Raleigh-Durham
953
966
13
1.35%
18
Baltimore
1,426
1,440
13
0.93%
19
Mpls-St. Paul
2,034
2,042
8
0.41%
20
Mpls-St. Paul
0.41%
TREND: 3% 2% 1% 0%
Tampa Bay United States
2014-’15 2015-’16 2016-’17 2017-’18 2018-’19
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Survey, Total Non-Farm Employment June 2018-June 2019 (not seasonally adjusted)
16
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
AVERAGE WAGE SERVICE SECTOR
WHAT: The average wage earned by non-farm private sector 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 average wages may indicate a preponderance of retail, tourism and other service jobs, while higher average wages may indicate the presence of advanced industries such as certain types of manufacturing and professional services.
CURRENT RANKING: 19th PREVIOUS YEAR: 19th
WHAT: The average wage earned by “service” sector workers in the region, defined here as workers in the Leisure and Hospitality and Retail Trade industries.
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 the mix of industries in the region. Analysis of the average wage of “service” sector workers enables Tampa Bay leaders to better understand, in context, worker earnings in this major component of the economy.
CURRENT RANKING: 15th PREVIOUS YEAR: 16th Seattle
$80,142
Seattle
$54,458
Houston
$68,207
Nashville
$32,058
Denver
$65,505
South Florida
$31,206
Austin
$63,351
Phoenix
$30,825
Mpls-St. Paul
$63,113
San Diego
$30,247
Dallas-Ft. Worth
$62,786
Austin
$29,653
Raleigh-Durham
$60,647
Dallas-Ft. Worth
$29,530
Atlanta
$60,590
Portland
$29,108
San Diego
$60,273
Mpls-St. Paul
$28,907
Portland
$59,287
Orlando
$28,902
Baltimore
$58,599
Denver
$28,470
Charlotte
$57,927
United States
$28,172
United States
$57,198
Baltimore
$28,090
Nashville
$56,579
Houston
$28,057
St. Louis
$54,461
Jacksonville
$27,679
Phoenix
$53,760
Tampa Bay
$27,588
South Florida
$53,298
Atlanta
$27,517
Jacksonville
$50,464
Charlotte
$27,018
San Antonio
$48,463
San Antonio
$26,876
Tampa Bay
$48,304
St. Louis
$25,274
Orlando
$47,467
Raleigh-Durham
$24,549
TREND:
ECONOMIC VITALITY
AVERAGE WAGE
TREND: Tampa Bay United States
$50K $40K $30K
Tampa Bay United States
$20K $10K
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2018 Private Employer Annual Data
0
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2018 Private Employer Annual Data
www.stateoftheregion.com
17
ECONOMIC VITALITY
DEEPER DIVE: AVERAGE WAGES HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS DEEPER DIVE: • Tampa Bay’s Finance and Insurance sector employees enjoy the highest average annual wages - $80,494 - among the ten sectors that account for a significant portion of regional employment. • Overall, wages are highest in Hillsborough County, although the highest average annual Manufacturing (Pinellas) and Finance and Insurance (Sarasota) wages are found elsewhere in the region. • Tampa Bay wages in targeted sectors such as Manufacturing, Information and Finance and Insurance underperform those in the comparison areas.
1.
The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is a 2- to 6-digit hierarchy used by statistical agencies to group businesses by activity, from very broad categorizations (such as Construction) to very specific descriptions (such as Tile and Terrazzo Contractors). The highest level of the NAICS hierarchy is the 2-digit sector, of which there are 20. In Tampa Bay – and in most economies – 10 of the 20 sectors account for the vast majority of employment. In the table below, the 10 sectors for which average annual wage data by Tampa Bay county are presented account for 80% of Tampa Bay’s total private employment.
NAICS
Citrus
Hernando
Hillsborough
Manatee
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
Sarasota
Tampa Bay
United States
23
$37,469
$38,484
$55,883
$49,177
$42,461
$50,682
$45,500
$50,099
$50,383
$62,727
Manufacturing
31-33
$40,356
$46,336
$58,612
$57,698
$51,623
$63,884
$53,709
$54,870
$58,479
$68,525
Retail Trade
44-45
$30,234
$26,287
$33,599
$28,277
$28,725
$32,252
$28,444
$33,376
$31,433
$32,362
Transportation and Warehousing
Sector Construction
48-49
$42,979
$45,808
$52,873
$34,148
$39,369
$46,817
$46,047
$ 41,496
$47,547
$53,197
Information
51
$42,923
$46,164
$ 85,077
$56,052
$53,812
$62,356
$48,654
$61,327
$73,111
$113,781
Finance and Insurance
52
$58,870
$56,470
$ 82,124
$74,338
$62,176
$83,360
$62,726
$ 98,699
$80,494
$109,231
Professional and Technical Services
54
$51,242
N/D
$84,345
$72,224
$56,032
$66,408
$55,815
$70,593
$75,137
$97,113
Health Care and Social Assistance
62
$42,697
$44,691
$54,455
$ 48,567
$50,365
$51,191
$47,842
$50,261
$51,068
$50,326
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
71
$19,249
$21,107
$45,324
$43,255
$20,009
$41,171
$30,285
$28,821
$38,883
$38,887
Accommodation and Food Services
72
$17,833
$16,538
$20,931
$20,781
$17,288
$21,223
$17,278
$22,848
$20,347
$21,559
Other Services
81
$30,270
$ 25,389
$35,193
$32,485
$28,503
$36,179
$38,197
$34,886
$34,617
$38,464
$37,042
$36,109
$54,271
$42,258
$38,341
$48,871
$42,005
$46,773
$48,304
$57,198
All
BOLD = highest sector average wage for that county WHITE = highest sector average wage for Tampa Bay Region ITALICS = Targeted Sector Of note for the sectors examined, the Finance and Insurance sector generates the highest average wage in each of Tampa Bay’s counties except Hillsborough, for which the Information sector (news, telecommunications, software programming, etc.) yields the highest average wage. Hillsborough sector establishments pay the highest average wage in all but 3 of the 10 sectors examined: Manufacturing (Pinellas), Finance and Insurance (Sarasota) and Other Services (Polk).
18
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
While these selected sectors constitute 4/5ths of regional employment, average wages vary widely, with some sectors above the regional average and others below. The following chart displays the average wage for these 10 sectors in comparison to the average wage for all sectors.
TAMPA BAY AVERAGE WAGES BY SELECT SECTOR $0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
Finance and Insurance Professional and Technical Services Information Manufacturing
Additionally, the sectors with double-digit wage premiums typically export (or are able to export) their goods or services outside of the region, resulting in new money for the economy. These characteristics are often given as the rationale for their inclusion – in one form or another – as “targeted industries” of economic development organizations (EDOs).
Health Care and Social Assistance Construction All Transportation and Warehousing Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Other Services Retail Trade Accomodation and Food Services
3.
Several of these Tampa Bay sectors exhibit a strong wage premium vis-à-vis the All Industry average: Finance and Insurance (+67%), Professional and Technical Services (+57%), Information (+51%), and Manufacturing (+20%). Wage premiums are also evident in the Health Care and Social Assistance (6%) and Construction (4%) sectors.
ECONOMIC VITALITY
2.
For many years, and certainly since the nadir of the Great Recession, there has been significant and concerted effort by the several Tampa Bay EDOs to attract, retain, and encourage the expansion of firms in these sectors. The chart that follows depicts how wages in these targeted sectors fare compared to the three other large Florida metros (JAXORL-SFL), the 19 comparison markets (RCR Average) and nation (United States).
Like the preponderance of Tampa Bay counties, the JAX-ORL-SFL group finds its highest average wage in Finance and Insurance. Outside of the state of Florida, Information provides the largest average wage. With respect to each of the four target sectors, Tampa Bay sees its sector wages rank last across the board. In many cases, the Tampa Bay metric is significantly below the JAX-ORL-SFL average, let alone the RCR and United States averages.
AVERAGE ANNUAL WAGES BY TARGET SECTORS $140,000 $120,000 $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 $0 Manufacturing
Tampa Bay
Information
JAX-ORL-SFL
Finance and Insurance RCR Average
Business and Professional Services United States
In the context of the Tampa Bay region’s relatively low Gross Regional Product per capita, these wage discrepancies likely point to a mix of specific industries with a lower value add within each broad sector, versus the comparison markets.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
www.stateoftheregion.com
19
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.
CURRENT RANKING: 20th PREVIOUS YEAR: 20th
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 population, including the households in the bottom quintile of income.
CURRENT RANKING: 18th PREVIOUS YEAR: 17th
Seattle
$87,910
Seattle
$21,055
Baltimore
$80,469
Denver
$19,525
Mpls-St. Paul
$79,578
Mpls-St. Paul
$19,227
Denver
$79,478
Raleigh-Durham
$18,321
San Diego
$79,079
Portland
$18,190
Austin
$76,925
Austin
$17,879
Portland
$75,599
San Diego
$17,724
Raleigh-Durham
$71,133
Dallas-Ft. Worth
$17,148
Atlanta
$69,464
Nashville
$16,834
Dallas-Ft. Worth
$69,445
Baltimore
$16,597
Nashville
$65,919
Atlanta
$16,394
Houston
$65,394
Phoenix
$16,321
Phoenix
$64,427
Charlotte
$15,782
St. Louis
$62,790
Houston
$14,639
Charlotte
$62,068
St. Louis
$14,357
United States
$61,937
Orlando
$14,279
Jacksonville
$60,238
Jacksonville
$14,058
Orlando
$58,610
United States
$13,593
San Antonio
$57,379
Tampa Bay
$13,124
South Florida
$56,328
South Florida
$12,136
Tampa Bay
$55,071
San Antonio
$11,972
TREND:
TREND: Tampa Bay United States
$60K $40K $20K
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2018 1-Year Estimates, Table S1903
20
WHAT: Measures the average household income for the
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
$13K $12K $11K $10K
Tampa Bay United States
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2018 1-Year Estimates, Table B19081
BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT START RATE
WHAT: Assets minus liabilities equals net worth. The median net
WHAT: Measures the number of new businesses with
WHY: This indicator provides another way to view the financial
WHY: New businesses are a key source of job growth, and
worth is the figure where half of the households in an area have a higher net worth and the other half have 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 savings 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 household net worth.
employees established in a given year, divided by the number of business establishments with employees one year earlier. tracking this indicator provides insight into a community’s entrepreneurial environment, regulatory structure, and availability of critical business inputs such as labor and financing.
CURRENT RANKING: 4th PREVIOUS YEAR: 5th
CURRENT RANKING: 9th PREVIOUS YEAR: 8th Mpls-St. Paul
$202,301
Orlando
14.10%
Baltimore
$175,623
Austin
14.00%
Seattle
$168,672
South Florida
13.69%
Denver
$153,629
Tampa Bay
13.05%
Raleigh-Durham
$134,195
Denver
12.92%
St. Louis
$133,574
Jacksonville
12.62%
Portland
$130,500
Atlanta
12.38%
Nashville
$127,712
Phoenix
12.17%
Tampa Bay
$122,783
St. Louis
12.11%
Austin
$121,161
Dallas-Ft. Worth
12.08%
Phoenix
$116,858
Houston
11.95%
San Diego
$116,250
San Diego
11.84%
Atlanta
$114,624
Raleigh-Durham
11.75%
Charlotte
$110,754
Charlotte
11.57%
United States
$109,495
Portland
11.28%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
$108,927
Seattle
11.20%
Jacksonville
$105,013
San Antonio
11.12%
Houston
$102,709
Nashville
10.90%
San Antonio
$90,575
United States
10.35%
South Florida
$86,262
Mpls-St. Paul
10.01%
Orlando
$83,290
Baltimore
ECONOMIC VITALITY
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD NET WORTH
9.43%
TREND: Tampa Bay United States
12% 8% 4% 0%
Source: ESRI Business Analyst, 2019 Estimate
2011 -’12 ‘12 -’13 ‘13 -’14 ‘13 -’14 ‘15 -’16
Source: Census Bureau, Statistics of United States Businesses, 2016
www.stateoftheregion.com
21
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.”
CURRENT RANKING: 10th PREVIOUS YEAR: 10th
EMPLOYMENT Advanced Industry
Total
Advanced Share Seattle
18.49%
Denver
17.68%
San Diego
17.19%
Austin
16.63%
16.63%
Raleigh-Durham
16.42%
1,007,732
16.42%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
16.07%
621,006
3,864,665
16.07%
Nashville
15.87%
Nashville
167,093
1,052,909
15.87%
Atlanta
15.48%
443,946
2,868,586
15.48%
South Florida
14.94%
Atlanta
14.88%
429,403
2,873,626
14.94%
Tampa Bay
South Florida
Baltimore
14.85%
Tampa Bay
294,426
1,978,968
14.88%
Houston
14.63%
Baltimore
223,017
1,501,797
14.85%
Phoenix
14.27%
Houston
477,565
3,263,835
14.63%
United States
14.23%
Phoenix
315,877
2,213,278
14.27%
San Antonio
14.21%
United States
23,001,519
161,636,598
14.23%
Jacksonville
14.11% 14.10%
San Antonio
163,210
1,148,252
14.21%
St. Louis Mpls-St. Paul
13.86%
Jacksonville
103,084
730,381
14.11%
Portland
13.74%
St. Louis
207,300
1,470,179
14.10%
Charlotte
13.73%
Mpls-St. Paul
290,023
2,092,480
13.86%
Orlando
12.94%
Portland
180,796
1,315,864
13.74%
Charlotte
176,171
1,283,489
13.73%
Orlando
170,869
1,320,127
12.94%
Seattle
407,944
2,206,567
18.49%
Denver
285,480
1,614,294
17.68%
San Diego
295,271
1,717,825
17.19%
Austin
183,842
1,105,487
Raleigh-Durham
165,485
Dallas-Ft. Worth
Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (Emsi) / www.economicmodeling.com; 2018 data
22
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
WHAT: Measures the output growth of “advanced industries” by calculating the annual change in 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.
CURRENT RANKING: 16th PREVIOUS YEAR: 20th
ADVANCED INDUSTRY GRP
CHANGE
ECONOMIC VITALITY
ADVANCED INDUSTRY GRP GROWTH RATE
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
2017
2018
$
%
San Diego
$47,228
$54,510
$7,282
15.42%
San Diego
15.42%
Raleigh-Durham
$28,868
$33,210
$4,342
15.04%
Raleigh-Durham
15.04%
Austin
$29,888
$33,961
$4,073
13.63%
Austin
13.63%
$89,166
$100,735
$11,569
12.97%
Seattle
12.97%
Seattle Phoenix
$42,362
$46,293
$3,931
9.28%
Orlando
$22,285
$24,161
$1,876
Charlotte
$28,446
$30,785
Denver
$45,451
Nashville
Phoenix
9.28%
Orlando
8.42%
8.42%
Charlotte
8.22%
$2,339
8.22%
Denver
8.01%
$49,090
$3,639
8.01%
Nashville
7.08%
$24,947
$26,713
$1,766
7.08%
United States
6.91%
$3,619,319
$3,869,385
$250,067
6.91%
South Florida
6.73%
United States
$59,527
$63,535
$4,009
6.73%
Houston
6.55%
South Florida
Jacksonville
6.37%
Houston
$90,499
$96,424
$5,924
6.55%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
6.12%
Jacksonville
$14,084
$14,981
$897
6.37%
Mpls-St. Paul
6.09%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
$103,340
$109,667
$6,327
6.12%
Portland
5.81%
Mpls-St. Paul
$43,153
$45,783
$2,630
6.09%
Tampa Bay
5.76%
Portland
$24,412
$25,830
$1,418
5.81%
Baltimore
5.09% 4.88%
Tampa Bay
$38,065
$40,257
$2,192
5.76%
Atlanta San Antonio
4.58%
Baltimore
$34,351
$36,101
$1,749
5.09%
Atlanta
$79,742
$83,636
$3,894
4.88%
San Antonio
$19,880
$20,791
$911
4.58%
St. Louis
$40,056
$38,302
$(1,753)
-4.38%
-4.38%
St. Louis
-4.38%
Source: Economic Modeling Specialists International (Emsi) / www.economicmodeling.com; 2018 data
www.stateoftheregion.com
23
ECONOMIC VITALITY
MERCHANDISE EXPORTS GROWTH RATE
WHAT: Measures exports of goods produced within the region to foreign nations, regardless of the point of departure. 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.
CURRENT RANKING: 6th PREVIOUS YEAR: 8th
MERCHANDISE EXPORTS (MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
CHANGE
2016
2017
$M
%
San Antonio
$5,621
$9,184
$3,563
Austin
$10,683
$12,451
St. Louis
$8,347
Houston
San Antonio
63.38%
63.38%
Austin
16.56%
$1,769
16.56%
St. Louis
15.77%
$9,663
$1,316
15.77%
$84,105
$95,760
$11,655
13.86%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
$27,188
$30,269
$3,081
11.33%
Tampa Bay
$7,333
$8,141
$807
11.01%
Charlotte
$11,944
$13,122
$1,178
9.87%
Denver
$3,649
$3,955
$305
Raleigh-Durham
$5,558
$5,994
Nashville
$9,460
Dallas-Ft. Worth
11.33%
Tampa Bay
11.01% 9.87%
Charlotte Denver
8.37%
Raleigh-Durham
7.85%
Nashville
7.44%
8.37%
United States
6.40%
$436
7.85%
South Florida
6.25%
$10,164
$704
7.44%
Atlanta
6.19%
United States
$1,453,721
$1,546,733
$93,012
6.40%
South Florida
$32,734
$34,780
$2,046
Atlanta
$20,480
$21,748
Mpls-St. Paul
$18,329
San Diego
Mpls-St. Paul
4.05%
San Diego
3.04%
6.25%
Phoenix
3.00%
$1,268
6.19%
Portland
2.63%
$19,071
$742
4.05%
$18,087
$18,637
$551
3.04%
Phoenix
$12,838
$13,223
$385
3.00%
Portland
$20,257
$20,789
$532
2.63%
Jacksonville
$2,159
$2,142
$(17)
-0.80%
Seattle
$61,881
$59,007
$(2,874)
-4.64%
Orlando
$3,364
$3,197
$(167)
-4.97%
Baltimore
$5,289
$4,674
$(614) -11.61%
-0.80% -4.64% -4.97% -11.61%
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
Jacksonville Seattle Orlando Baltimore
TREND: 10% 5% 0 -5% -10%
Tampa Bay United States
2012-’13 ‘13 -’14 ‘14 -’15
Source: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration, Metropolitan Export Series, 2016-2017
24
13.86%
Houston
‘15 -’16
‘16 -’17
WHAT: Measures the annual percentage increase in the median sales price of a 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 home sales prices reflect a perceived increased value of the market and rising prices indicate increasing demand, a sign of economic and population growth.
CURRENT RANKING: 8th PREVIOUS YEAR: 8th
MEDIAN SALES PRICE
CHANGE
June 2018
June 2019
$
%
St. Louis
$188,000
$205,000
$17,000
Mpls-St. Paul
$270,000
$290,000
Charlotte
$253,000
Baltimore
St. Louis
9.04%
9.04%
Mpls-St. Paul
7.41%
$20,000
7.41%
Charlotte
6.72%
$270,000
$17,000
6.72%
Baltimore
6.64%
$305,000
$19,000
6.64%
Orlando
4.42%
$286,000
South Florida
3.93%
Orlando
$249,000
$260,000
$11,000
4.42%
San Antonio
3.91%
South Florida
$287,000
$298,000
$11,000
3.93%
Tampa Bay
3.84%
$230,000
$239,000
$9,000
3.91%
Phoenix
3.70%
San Antonio
3.69%
Tampa Bay
$236,000
$245,000
$9,000
3.84%
Houston Atlanta
3.61%
Phoenix
$270,000
$280,000
$10,000
3.70%
San Diego
3.45%
Houston
$244,000
$253,000
$9,000
3.69%
Raleigh-Durham
3.25%
$249,000
$258,000
$9,000
3.61%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
3.23%
Atlanta
United States
3.22%
San Diego
$580,000
$600,000
$20,000
3.45%
Nashville
2.69%
Raleigh-Durham
$286,000
$295,000
$9,000
3.25%
Austin
2.17%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
$285,000
$294,000
$9,000
3.23%
Denver
2.16%
$311,000
$321,000
$10,000
3.22%
Jacksonville
2.08%
United States
Portland
1.23%
Nashville
$297,000
$305,000
$8,000
2.69%
-0.51%
Seatlle
Austin
$323,000
$330,000
$7,000
2.17%
Denver
$416,000
$425,000
$9,000
2.16%
Jacksonville
$240,000
$245,000
$5,000
2.08%
Portland
$405,000
$410,000
$5,000
1.23%
Seattle
$583,000
$580,000
-$3,000
-0.51%
ECONOMIC VITALITY
EXISTING HOME SALES PRICE GROWTH RATE
TREND: Tampa Bay United States
12% 8% 4% 0
2014-’15 ‘15-’16
‘16 -’17
‘17 -’18 ‘18 -’19
Source: Redfin Research, 2018-2019
www.stateoftheregion.com
25
ECONOMIC VITALITY
BEST PRACTICE:
ST. LOUIS
St. Louis Fuels Entrepreneurship with Competitive Cash Grants for EarlyStage Businesses WHY WE’RE WATCHING: For a Rust Belt region that was – until recently – perceived as an economy in decline, the St. Louis metro area ranks surprisingly well (#9) in the Business Establishment Start Rate indicator, besting communities such as Dallas-Ft. Worth, Portland and Seattle, while experiencing relatively flat population growth. HOW THEY DID IT: Two St. Louis business leaders co-founded Arch Grants, a nonprofit organization that administers an annual competition providing $50,000 equity-free grants and pro bono support services to innovative, scalable, and job-creating startups that agree to locate in St. Louis for at least one year. The program has attracted national and international interest, and has awarded over $6 million in cash grants since 2012 to attract or retain more than 100 earlystage businesses in St. Louis. IN 2004, MISSOURI RANKED AS THE NEXT-TO-LAST STATE in terms of its entrepreneurial activity. Many of its large corporations merged with companies headquartered elsewhere, and left the state in the wake of the recession. St. Louis, in particular, bore the brunt of urban decline. City leaders struggled to revitalize its economy and chart a new path forward. After seeing depressing headlines about job loss and population stagnation, attorney Jerry Schlichter and venture capital consultant Joe Schlafly were motivated to change the city’s reputation for business. They wanted to do something positive for St. Louis that would help the community develop a stronger entrepreneurial infrastructure. “If we were going to be a robust entrepreneurial city that attracts and keeps young people and builds companies,” Schlichter observed, “we’re going to have to do it from the ground floor.” Their discussions led to the creation in 2011 of Arch Grants, a nonprofit organization at the center of a movement to accelerate economic development through entrepreneurship. Through its Global Startup Competition, Arch Grants provides $50,000 equity-free grants and pro bono support services to innovative, scalable, and job-creating startups that agree to locate in St. Louis for at least one year. Over 500 local volunteers evaluate the applications and help determine who should receive grants and support, prioritizing diversity. The competition not only attracts and retains the most innovative
26
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
INNOVATIVE, SC JOB-CREATING
CALABLE, AND STARTUPS
ECONOMIC VITALITY
“We ask people… to look at our companies that are applying and answer the questions, ‘Are they scalable? Are they innovative? Are they a good fit here in St. Louis?’ Which is unique – it’s something that we look at specifically at Arch Grants because at our core, we’re an economic development organization for St. Louis.” — Emily Lohse-Busch, Executive Director of Arch Grants
entrepreneurs to the region, it’s also an aggressive effort to inspire the next generation of employers, civic leaders and philanthropists in St. Louis. During its inaugural year, Arch Grants received $1 million from local donors, corporations, public entities, semi-public companies and the state. It had 420 startups apply, 100 semifinalists and 15 winners, each awarded $50,000 to turn their dreams into reality. Since its inception, Arch Grants has received nearly 5,000 applications from 44 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. It’s also received applications from over 80 countries, showing that the community’s message is resonating with entrepreneurs around the world. Arch Grants has awarded over $6 million in cash grants since 2012 to attract or retain more than 100 early stage businesses in St. Louis. To help address the post-Arch Grant phase of growth for startups, in January 2019 the Chaifetz Group announced “Chaifetz STLaunch,” a “Shark Tank”-style competition that could land a St. Louis startup an equity investment of up to $1 million to help them take their business to the next level. Today, St. Louis is in the midst of a renaissance of entrepreneurship. Since 2011, it has had one of the fastest growing start-up communities in the country. In 2018, Forbes ranked St. Louis second for Top Rising Cities for Startups. To support its entrepreneurial ecosystem, St. Louis is home to 19 startup incubators, 11 accelerators, 22 entrepreneur support organizations, 16 co-working communities and six maker spaces. With a cost of doing business eight percent below the national average and 57 percent lower than San Francisco, St. Louis has set itself apart as an affordable option for startups. Entrepreneurs are taking advantage of the city’s natural advantages, such as inexpensive office and living space, low-cost electrical capacity, quality research universities, the availability of large older buildings, and a wide range of existing industries, from plant and life sciences to information technology. Additionally, the overall growth of the St. Louis entrepreneurial ecosystem has resulted in renewed interest and funding from investors nationwide.
www.stateoftheregion.com
27
INNOVATION
Innovation
Innovation measures the extent to which a community and its institutions are generating new ideas, and the market’s ability to convert these ideas into new companies and economic growth. 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 and of 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.
28
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
“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.�
INNOVATION
Un ive rsi ty Un R& ive D Ex rsi pe ty Pa nd Te ten ch itu no re ts s log P e SB r1 y Lic IR/ 0,0 en ST 00 sin TR Re g Aw sid ar en ds t s Pe rC ap ita
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 Raleigh-Durham San Antonio
n/a
San Diego Seattle
Rank 1-4
South Florida
Rank 5-8
St. Louis
Rank 9-12
BEST
Rank 13-16 Rank 17-20
WORST
www.stateoftheregion.com
29
INNOVATION
DEEPER DIVE: UNIVERSITY R&D EXPENDITURES HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS DEEPER DIVE: • Tampa Bay’s university research and development expenditures cross a variety of fields, with Life Sciences accounting for 62% – in line with the Regional Competitiveness Report average – of the region’s nearly $570M of R&D. • Areas of strength, measured as the regional share of research dollars allocated for each field, divided by the average share for the comparison regions, include Social Sciences (279% of average) and Non-Science and Engineering Fields (275% of average). • Fields where Tampa Bay conducts significantly less R&D, relative to the aggregate portfolio, include Engineering (50%), Computer and Information Sciences, Mathematics and Statistics, and Sciences, General (each 43% of average). These fields, in particular, typically generate high-wage spinoff companies and valuable intellectual property.
Of the $20.2B of University R&D across the RCR comparison areas, the top five markets – Baltimore, Raleigh-Durham, Houston, Atlanta, and San Diego – account for $11.6B of the total.
1.
SHARE OF UNIVERSITY R&D BY RCR METRO Orlando (1.16%) San Antonio (1.32%)
Charlotte (0.13%) Jacksonville (0.03%)
Baltimore (15.34%)
South Florida (3.04%) Austin (3.53%) Nashville (3.75%)
Raleigh-Durham (14.49%)
St. Louis (4.08%)
Houston (11.29%)
Mpls-St. Paul (4.63%) Seattle (6.76%)
Computer and Information Sciences ($602,341 / 3.0%)
Non-Science and Engineeering Fields ($819,191 / 4.1%) Engineering
Atlanta (8.57%)
Sciences, General ($180,720 / 0.9%)
Social Sciences ($505,489 / 2.5%)
Psychology ($325,582 / 1.6%)
3.
Tampa Bay’s University R&D portfolio is diverse – all fields saw some sort of expenditure in FY2017. Life Sciences at 62% of the regional total tracks the RCR cohort well. Key divergences, measured by the regional share of research dollars allocated for each field, divided by the average share for the comparison regions, include Social Sciences (7.0% : 2.5%, 279% of average) and Non-Science and Engineering Fields (11.1% : 4.1%, 275% of average). Conversely, Tampa Bay conducts significantly less R&D, relative to the aggregate portfolio, in Computer and Information Sciences (1.3% : 3.0%) Mathematics and Statistics (0.4% : 1.1%) and Sciences, General (0.4% : 0.9%) each 43% of the average. At $46.7M, Engineering, 16.4% of the typical region’s R&D portfolio, accounts for half as much - 8.2% - of Tampa Bay’s R&D expenditures. These fields have great opportunity for spinning off high-wage companies and developing technologies commanding high license fees, each of which contribute to regional prosperity.
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
Mathematics and Statistics ($207,136 / 1.0%)
Physical Sciences ($919,021 / 4.6%)
UNIVERSITY R&D BY FIELD, TAMPA BAY ($1,000s) Geosciences, Atmospheric Sciences, and Ocean Sciences ( $27,497 / 4.8%)
Computer and Information Sciences ( $7,234 / 1.3%)
Non-Science and Engineeering Fields ( $63,446 / 11.1%)
Life Sciences ($350,900 / 61.6%)
Engineering ( $46,796 / 8.2%)
Sciences, General ( $2,181 / 0.4%)
Social Sciences ( $39,799 , 7.0%)
Psychology ($17,097 / 3.0% )
30
Life Sciences ($12,590,797 / 62.4%)
($3,306,689 / 16.4%)
Dallas-Ft. Worth (3.99%)
San Diego (7.86%)
Geosciences, Atmospheric Sciences, and Ocean Sciences ($735,201 /3.6%)
Denver (2.49%) Phoenix (2.70%)
By far, Life Sciences R&D accounts for the majority of University R&D – $12B or 62% of the total. Along with general Engineering R&D, the two fields constitute nearly 80% of University R&D across the RCR regions.
UNIVERSITY R&D BY FIELD, ALL RCR AREAS ($1,000s)
Portland (2.03%)
Tampa Bay (2.82%)
2.
Mathematics and Statistics ( $2,504 / 0.4%)
Physical Sciences ( $11,977 / 2.1%)
UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY LICENSING
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.
CURRENT RANKING: 13th PREVIOUS YEAR: 14th
WHAT: The annual Association of University Technology Managers (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.
INNOVATION
UNIVERSITY R&D EXPENDITURES
OF NOTE: Texas and California university systems provide a
system-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.
CURRENT RANKING: 11th PREVIOUS YEAR: 11th
(Thousands of dollars)
Baltimore
$3,097,812
Raleigh-Durham
$53,565,324
Raleigh-Durham
$2,925,778
Houston
$37,905,380
Houston
$2,280,112
Mpls-St. Paul
$22,935,794
Atlanta
$1,729,548
Baltimore
$17,565,622
San Diego
$1,587,648
Seattle
$16,750,848
Seattle
$1,365,206
St. Louis
$16,002,446
$934,406
Mpls-St. Paul
$10,011,269
Atlanta
St. Louis
$822,906
South Florida
$9,649,088
Dallas-Ft. Worth
$805,825
Nashville
$8,398,077 $3,435,592
Nashville
$756,657
Orlando
Austin
$712,928
Tampa Bay
$2,062,242
South Florida
$613,702
Portland
$1,994,654
Tampa Bay
$569,431
Phoenix
$770,443
Phoenix
$545,016
San Diego
$519,725
Denver
$502,887
Denver
$176,700
Portland
$410,036
Charlotte
$112,014
San Antonio
$265,994
Dallas-Ft. Worth
Orlando
$233,702
Jacksonville
Charlotte Jacksonville United States
n/a
TREND:
$540
Austin
n/a
San Antonio
n/a
United States
n/a
$26,097 $6,476
$75,060
TREND: Tampa Bay
$600M $400M
$1Mil
$200M $0
Tampa Bay $2Mil
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Source: National Science Foundation, Higher Education Research and Development Survey, FY 2017, Table 20
$0K
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Source: AUTM Licensing STATT (Statistics Access for Tech Transfer), 2017
www.stateoftheregion.com
31
INNOVATION
PATENTS PER 10,000 RESIDENTS
SBIR/STTR AWARDS PER CAPITA
WHAT: The number of patents issued per 10,000 residents of the community.
WHY: Innovation is one of the keys to prosperity, and innovation
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 indicate which fields are most active and suggests a community’s comparative strengths in knowledge creation.
CURRENT RANKING: 16th PREVIOUS YEAR: 17th
WHAT: Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and the Small
Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grants fund “proof-ofconcept” 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.
CURRENT RANKING: 19th PREVIOUS YEAR: 19th Seattle
20.88
Raleigh-Durham
$29.35
San Diego
20.74
San Diego
$26.67
Austin
19.89
Austin
$17.52
Raleigh-Durham
17.87
Denver
$12.28
Portland
17.61
Baltimore
$11.72
Mpls-St. Paul
12.20
United States
$9.51
United States
9.67
Portland
$9.49
Denver
7.64
Seattle
$8.61
Houston
5.95
Mpls-St. Paul
$8.45
Dallas-Ft. Worth
5.89
Orlando
Atlanta
5.85
St. Louis
$4.37
Phoenix
5.50
Phoenix
$4.04
St. Louis
5.03
Atlanta
$3.77
Baltimore
4.14
Nashville
$3.55
Charlotte
3.92
Dallas-Ft. Worth
$3.22
South Florida
3.70
San Antonio
$2.82 $2.71
Tampa Bay
3.04
Houston
Orlando
2.93
South Florida
$2.05
San Antonio
2.55
Charlotte
$1.62
Nashville
2.05
Tampa Bay
$1.05
Jacksonville
1.75
Jacksonville
$0.47
TREND:
TREND: 10 8 6 4 2 0
Tampa Bay United States
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Source: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, PatentsView database, 2018 Data
32
$6.29
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
$8 $6 $4 $2 0
Tampa Bay United States
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Source: Small Business Administration, 2018 Award Information
INNOVATION
BEST PRACTICE:
PHOENIX
Privatized Tech Transfer Increases Commercialization and Investment Opportunities WHY WE’RE WATCHING: The Phoenix area, like Tampa Bay, has one dominant research university and has, over the past three years tracked in the Regional Competitiveness Report, licensed more than $13 million of technology developed by university researchers, roughly double the value of licenses from the Tampa Bay region. HOW THEY DID IT: ASU privatized its tech transfer efforts in 2003, with the creation of its entrepreneurial arm, Skysong Innovations. As a separate corporate entity, Skysong Innovations acts as a proxy for ASU and select partner institutions, but with substantially increased flexibility and speed in its deal-making and venture activities. ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY (ASU), a public research university on five campuses across the Phoenix metropolitan area, has been named the most innovative university in America by US News & World Report for five years in a row. To encourage the rapid and wide dissemination of university discoveries and inventions into the marketplace, Skysong Innovations was created in 2003 as a separate corporate entity. Skysong Innovations places a strong emphasis on soliciting invention disclosures from faculty, students, and ASU-affiliated organizations. Invention disclosures, which provide a description of the invention, are the first step in evaluating the technology’s commercial viability and IP potential. Additionally, industry experts and patent counsel may also assess the invention and provide a more robust perspective on its marketability. In 2018, researchers at Arizona State University disclosed 285 inventions to Skysong Innovations. This internal record number of disclosures allowed Skysong Innovations to achieve new benchmarks in technology commercialization, with 123 U.S. patents issued, 78 license and option agreements signed, and 17 new startups launched. To date, Skysong has launched 144 startups and created more than 1,100 local jobs. Skysong Innovations houses entrepreneurs-in-residence, who meet regularly to hear pitches from university researchers and offer ideas for further growth. Startups and researchers who officially partner with Skysong Innovations are eligible to receive incubation and acceleration services. As these startups and ideas mature, they receive opportunities to pitch to powerful funding partners with proven and trusted track records from ASU. Last year, the university produced their highest number of commercial outputs, and a handful of ASU spinout companies raised $50 million in new venture funding, bringing the total amount raised by ASU-linked startups to more than $700 million over the past decade. All this activity is generating substantial local economic impact. Recently, the Seidman Research Institute examined ASU’s tech transfer impact between 2016 and 2018. As a result of the operations of Skysong Innovations and 40 ASU-linked companies, Arizona’s economy gained: $402.8 million in gross state product; $36.4 million in state and local tax revenues; and a cumulative economic impact that’s projected to exceed $1 billion by 2022.
“The rate at which ASU is producing high-quality innovations is a testament to both the caliber of the university’s knowledge enterprise and the success of our technology transfer model, which fast-tracks research from lab benches to commercial application. As these technologies move into commercial application, ASU research is kick-starting dozens of new startup companies that are attracting millions of dollars in venture funding and helping power Arizona’s economy.” — Augie Cheng, CEO of Skysong Innovations
www.stateoftheregion.com
33
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 more. 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 long-term future, and plays a critical role in the ability of the community to compete for new residents and jobs.
34
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
“The level of infrastructure investment and quality of its performance communicates loud and clear the intent of the community to invest in its long-term future.”
INFRASTRUCTURE
Wa lka bil ity Pa ve me nt Pe Co de nd str itio ain nR Av an ate er dC ag dF eC yc air lis om An t or Fa nu mu Go tal al t od e itie Ho Tim Sh sp ur ar s e er Lo eo 10 st fC 0,0 i n Tr o 00 C m an on mu Re sit g e sid t Ve er sti en sw on hic Tr ts an le ith sit Re 1 +H Rid ve nu No ou er eM sh n-S rC ip om i to l es Pe pA mu rC Pe ir S rC tes ap er i a t pit a vic a eD es tin ati on Gr ow th Ra te
SUMMARY OF INFRASTRUCTURE INDICATORS
 Tampa Bay Atlanta Austin Baltimore Charlotte Dallas-Ft. Worth Denver Houston Jacksonville Mpls-St. Paul Nashville Orlando Phoenix Portland Raleigh-Durham San Antonio San Diego Seattle
Rank 1-4
South Florida
Rank 5-8
St. Louis
Rank 9-12
BEST
Rank 13-16 Rank 17-20
WORST
www.stateoftheregion.com
35
INFRASTRUCTURE
PAVEMENT CONDITION RATED FAIR OR GOOD
WALKABILITY
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.
WHY: More and more, residents are assessing the walkability
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.
CURRENT RANKING: 5th PREVIOUS YEAR: 8th
of a community as a key factor to compare the quality of life a community offers.
CURRENT RANKING: 11 PREVIOUS YEAR: n/a (no update) South Florida
69.81%
Nashville
81.91%
Portland
46.80%
Jacksonville
81.03%
Seattle
42.93%
Orlando
80.65%
Baltimore
41.55%
Atlanta
78.60%
Mpls-St. Paul
35.53%
Tampa Bay
76.87%
St. Louis
35.21%
Raleigh-Durham
63.51%
United States
26.57%
Portland
62.34%
Atlanta
25.58%
Mpls-St. Paul
62.23%
San Diego
24.09%
South Florida
61.16%
Denver
16.94%
Austin
58.12%
Austin
16.34%
Houston
54.31%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
51.91%
10.08%
Baltimore
51.51%
8.28%
Charlotte
50.03%
Tampa Bay Raleigh-Durham Orlando
12.23%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
6.17%
San Antonio
47.14%
Nashville
4.91%
St. Louis
42.05%
Houston
4.42%
United States
41.95%
Jacksonville
2.45%
Phoenix
39.51%
Charlotte
2.44%
Denver
35.10%
Phoenix
2.43%
San Diego
32.55%
San Antonio
2.16%
Seattle
31.97%
Source: Walk Score, 2018; values listed represent a population-weighted average Walk Score for the neighborhoods of principal cities in each MSA. No update for this edition.
36
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
Source: TRIP
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. Pedestrian deaths disproportionately impact low-income residents. These deaths are generally viewed as a result of poor urban planning, lack of sidewalk infrastructure, and user behavior.
CURRENT RANKING: 19th PREVIOUS YEAR: 19th
AVERAGE COMMUTE TIME
WHAT: Measures, in minutes, the one-way average 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.
CURRENT RANKING: 9th PREVIOUS YEAR: 10th
Mpls-St. Paul
0.95
Mpls-St. Paul
25.5
Raleigh-Durham
1.42
Raleigh-Durham
26.1
Seattle
1.47
St. Louis
26.2
Denver
1.80
San Antonio
26.6
St. Louis
1.87
San Diego
26.6
Nashville
1.94
Phoenix
26.7
Austin
1.99
Jacksonville
26.9
Baltimore
2.00
Portland
26.9
Portland
2.08
United States
27.1
United States
2.08
Tampa Bay
27.4
Dallas-Ft. Worth
2.11
Charlotte
27.4
San Diego
2.32
Austin
27.4
Houston
2.44
Denver
28.0
Charlotte
2.57
Nashville
28.1
San Antonio
2.79
Dallas-Ft. Worth
28.5
Atlanta
2.81
Orlando
29.0
South Florida
3.12
Houston
30.0
Phoenix
3.65
South Florida
30.5
Jacksonville
3.99
Seattle
31.6
Tampa Bay
4.02
Baltimore
31.8
Orlando
4.89
Atlanta
32.5
TREND:
INFRASTRUCTURE
PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLIST FATALITIES PER 100,000 RESIDENTS
TREND: 4 3 2 1 0
Tampa Bay United States
2013
2014
Source: NHTSA-FARS, 2017
2015
2016
2017
Tampa Bay United States
25 20
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2018 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801
www.stateoftheregion.com
37
INFRASTRUCTURE
ANNUAL HOURS LOST IN CONGESTION
WHAT: The INRIX Traffic Scorecard incorporates big data from
connected vehicles, cities, social media, mobile and other sources to measure the total number of annual hours lost in congestion during peak commute periods compared to free-flow conditions.
WHY: This is 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.
CURRENT RANKING: 11th PREVIOUS YEAR: n/a (new
SHARE OF COMMUTERS WITH 1+ HOUR COMMUTES WHAT: This figure represents the percentage of the population who 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.
CURRENT RANKING: 13th PREVIOUS YEAR: 12th
methodology)
St. Louis
46
Mpls-St. Paul
5.5%
San Diego
56
St. Louis
6.0%
Raleigh-Durham
57
Jacksonville
6.3%
San Antonio
60
San Antonio
6.6%
Jacksonville
60
Raleigh-Durham
6.9%
Mpls-St. Paul
70
Denver
7.3%
Phoenix
73
San Diego
7.4%
Orlando
74
Phoenix
7.6%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
76
Portland
7.6%
Denver
83
Charlotte
7.8%
Tampa Bay
87
Orlando
7.8%
Nashville
87
Austin
7.9%
Baltimore
94
Tampa Bay
8.2%
Charlotte
95
Nashville
8.7%
United States
97
Dallas-Ft. Worth
8.8%
Houston
98
United States
9.5%
Austin
104
Houston
11.1%
South Florida
105
South Florida
11.3%
Atlanta
108
Seattle
13.2%
Portland
116
Baltimore
13.4%
Seattle
138
Atlanta
14.3%
TREND: 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0
Source: INRIX 2018 Global Traffic Scorecard
38
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
Tampa Bay United States
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2018 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801
TRANSIT RIDERSHIP PER CAPITA
WHAT: Measures, on a per capita basis, the number of miles
WHAT: Measures, on a per capita basis, the number of trips taken
WHY: This figure indicates the availability of public transit, the
WHY: High transit ridership indicates the community has attractive
traveled by public transit vehicles during revenue service— meaning that the vehicle is available for regular transit service. 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.
on public transit. A trip is counted when a passenger boards a form of public transit including bus, train, or paratransit. mobility options.
CURRENT RANKING: 20th PREVIOUS YEAR: 20th
CURRENT RANKING: 20th PREVIOUS YEAR: 20th
Seattle
36.46
Seattle
70.59
Baltimore
25.17
Portland
60.80
Denver
24.69
Baltimore
44.78
Portland
24.25
United States
44.38
Mpls-St. Paul
24.10
Denver
37.62
San Antonio
20.92
Mpls-St. Paul
35.96
San Diego
20.64
San Diego
34.02
United States
18.79
Atlanta
29.52
South Florida
18.27
South Florida
24.73
Austin
18.09
Austin
21.87
Raleigh-Durham
17.05
San Antonio
21.18
St. Louis
16.20
Charlotte
20.41
Charlotte
16.20
Phoenix
20.08
Houston
15.44
St. Louis
20.06
Atlanta
15.17
Raleigh-Durham
19.11
Orlando
14.04
Houston
17.98
Phoenix
14.01
Dallas-Ft. Worth
14.38
Jacksonville
13.23
Orlando
13.54
Dallas-Ft. Worth
12.05
Jacksonville
11.99
Nashville
11.98
Nashville
10.64
Tampa Bay
10.15
Tampa Bay
TREND:
INFRASTRUCTURE
TRANSIT VEHICLE REVENUE MILES PER CAPITA
9.22
TREND: 20 15 10 5 0
Tampa Bay United States
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Source: Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database, 2017 UZA Sums
40 30 20 10 0
Tampa Bay United States
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Source: Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database, 2017 UZA Sums
www.stateoftheregion.com
39
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEEPER DIVE: TRANSIT RIDERSHIP HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS DEEPER DIVE: • Transit commuters are far less prevalent in Tampa Bay vis-à-vis the nation as a whole, with only 1.1% of workers using transit to get to work. • Tampa Bay transit riders are more likely to be Black or African American than the typical commuter. • There are several penalties - negative outcomes – associated with Tampa Bay transit commutes: longer duration commutes, a greater likelihood of having a commute of 1+ hour or more, lower median earnings, and a higher risk of poverty. Tampa Bay’s Regional Competitiveness Report metrics for transit – Transit Ridership per Capita (demand) and Transit Vehicle Revenue Miles per Capita (supply) – have resided at the bottom of the rankings in all three editions of the report. Yet while Tampa Bay workers and residents have significantly less access to transit service than their counterparts in the comparison areas, transit remains an integral part of many residents’ commutes to work. The tables and charts in this deeper dive attempt to paint a picture of the Tampa Bay transit commuter, providing county disaggregation where possible (and for which Tampa Bay is the aggregate of the counties listed), and comparisons to the state and nation for context.
1.
COMMUTE SHARE
Tampa Bay Commuters are generally less likely to utilize motorized alternatives – carpooling or transit – to single occupancy vehicles than their counterparts statewide, and far less likely to utilize transit than commuters nationally. Tampa Bay’s transit mode split for commuters is roughly one-fifth of the national average. Note: This analysis focuses on motorized commutes and does not include walking or cycling as modal options. Note also that the axis starts at 75%, to better show non-single occupancy vehicle options.
BY RACE/ 2. COMMUTERS ETHNICITY While data limitations prevent a full analysis along all census designated racial categories, the available information reports for Tampa Bay: Black or African American, non-Hispanics constitute 12% of all commuters, but they acount for 36% percent of transit commuters, a three-fold increase.
COMMUTE SHARE BY MOTORIZED VEHICLE MODE Single Occupant Vehicle
Hillsborough Manatee Pasco
Carpool
Pinellas
Transit
Polk Sarasota Tampa Bay Florida United States 75%
TAMPA BAY: ALL COMMUTERS
85%
90%
95%
100%
TAMPA BAY: TRANSIT COMMUTERS
17%
20%
47% 12%
68% 36%
White, non-Hispanic
Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2018 1-Year Estimates, S0802
40
80%
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
Black or African American, non-Hispanic
Hispanic, Any Race
COMMUTE MODE
Similar to national and state trends, Tampa Bay’s non-transit commuters report travel times much shorter in duration than those that commute via transit. Polk County is an exception in this regard, although, for context, Polk County has the lowest transit mode split (0.33%) of any of the Tampa Bay counties with reportable data.
COMMUTE TIME BY COMMUTE MODE (AVERAGE MINUTES) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Hillsborough
Manatee
Pasco
Single Occupant Vehicle
4. SHARE OF COMMUTERS
WITH 1+ HOUR COMMUTE BY COMMUTE MODE
In Tampa Bay, commuters using transit are roughly 3.5 times more likely to have a commute of one hour or greater in duration. The difference is most pronounced in the relatively (for Tampa Bay) transit rich counties of Pinellas and Hillsborough, where transit commuters are roughly 5 and 4 times more likely, respectively, to spend an hour or more on their commute. Across all modes, Tampa Bay commuters are less likely to have a commute in excess of an hour than their state or national counterparts.
5. EARNINGS BY COMMUTE MODE Tampa Bay transit commuters, by and large, earn significantly less than their carpooling and solo-driving counterparts. In some cases – Hillsborough and Pinellas – transit commuters earn roughly half of workers who drive to work alone. While this general phenomenon (Sarasota with a low transit mode split appears to be an outlier) is repeated at the state level, transit commuters across the nation have no appreciable difference in earnings versus single occupant vehicle commuters.
STATUS OF COMMUTERS 6. POVERTY BY COMMUTE MODE Given the correlation between transit commute and low median earnings, it follows that there is a connection between transit commutes and poverty status. In Tampa Bay, transit commuters are three times as likely as solo commuters to be at 150% or below the federal poverty level, a commonly used statistic to measure residents of low income households. Florida commuters generally match their Tampa Bay counterparts in this regard, but at a national scale, transit commuters are only 50% more likely to be at or below 150% of the poverty level.
Pinellas
Polk
Carpool
Sarasota
Tampa Bay
Florida
United States
Transit
INFRASTRUCTURE
3. COMMUTE TIME BY
SHARE OF COMMUTERS WITH 1+ HOUR COMMUTE BY COMMUTE MODE 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Hillsborough
Manatee
Pasco
Single Occupant Vehicle
Pinellas
Polk
Carpool
Sarasota
Tampa Bay
Florida
United States
Tampa Bay
Florida
United States
Florida
United States
Transit
MEDIAN EARNINGS BY COMMUTE MODE $40K $35K $30K $25K $20K $15K $10K $5K 0
Hillsborough
Manatee
Pasco
Single Occupant Vehicle
Pinellas
Polk
Carpool
Sarasota Transit
POVERTY STATUS BY COMMUTE MODE (150% OR LESS OF POVERTY RATE) 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Hillsborough
Manatee
Pasco
Single Occupant Vehicle
Pinellas Carpool
Polk
Sarasota
Tampa Bay
Transit
www.stateoftheregion.com
41
INFRASTRUCTURE
NON-STOP AIR SERVICE DESTINATION GROWTH RATE
WHAT: Measures the percentage growth in non-stop destinations from commercial service airports in each region. WHY: The extent to which residents of one area can connect to another via non-stop air service benefits both quailty of life and the economy, and non-stop service to and from a market facilitates both leisure and business travel.
CURRENT RANKING: 12th PREVIOUS YEAR: n/a (new indicator)
NON-STOP DESTINATIONS
CHANGE
2018
2019
#
%
San Antonio
46
60
14
30.43%
Jacksonville
35
45
10
28.57%
Nashville
68
84
16
Raleigh-Durham
62
73
Denver
201
St. Louis
San Antonio
30.43%
Jacksonville
28.57%
Nashville
23.53%
23.53%
Raleigh-Durham
17.74%
11
17.74%
Denver
8.96%
219
18
8.96%
St. Louis
7.04%
76
5
7.04%
Orlando
6.90%
71
Dallas-Ft. Worth
6.67%
Orlando
203
217
14
6.90%
Mpls-St. Paul
5.95%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
240
256
16
6.67%
South Florida
4.69%
Mpls-St. Paul
168
178
10
5.95%
Charlotte
4.52%
South Florida
213
223
10
4.69%
Charlotte
177
185
8
Tampa Bay
129
133
San Diego
74
Atlanta
San Diego
2.70%
4.52%
Atlanta
2.02%
4
3.10%
Seattle
76
2
2.70%
247
252
5
2.02%
-2.15%
Austin
Seattle
124
125
1
0.81%
-2.68%
Houston
Phoenix
131
131
0
0.00%
Baltimore
100
98
-2
-2.00%
Austin
93
91
-2
-2.15%
Houston
224
218
-6
-2.68%
Portland
82
79
-3
-3.66%
United States
n/a
Source: Diio Mi by Cirium, Schedule Monthly Summary Report
42
3.10%
Tampa Bay
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
0.81%
Phoenix
0.00%
-2.00%
Baltimore
-3.66% United States
Portland
n/a
INFRASTRUCTURE
WALK.BIKE.THRIVE! BEST PRACTICE:
ATLANTA
Atlanta Funds Vision for Walkable, Bikeable Metro with $1.8 Billion Infrastructure Investment WHY WE’RE WATCHING: Metropolitan Atlanta is one of the largest, most dispersed, and most car-dependent regions in the nation. But in the past decade, the region has also seen the nation’s largest growth in bike commuting (from 20002010), embarked on the nation’s largest urban trail project, and responded to suburban communities that are increasingly demanding walkable communities, better transit, and more bicycling amenities. HOW THEY DID IT: Walk.Bike.Thrive! is the Atlanta Regional Commission’s ambitious regional bicycle and pedestrian plan, designed to make the city safer for human-powered transport. With a dedicated budget of $1.8 billion to be utilized over 25 years, planning leaders are implementing a variety of actionable strategies to achieve a vision for a more walkable, bikeable, and livable metro Atlanta region. HISTORICALLY “CAR-CENTRIC” ATLANTA has made notable improvements in the Walkability indicator in recent years, leap-frogging Tampa Bay and other markets to achieve a #7 ranking in this year’s report. In 2015, in conjunction with its Atlanta metro long-range plan, the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) completed a regional walking and bicycling plan titled “Walk.Bike.Thrive!,” which crafts a vision for a more walkable, bikeable and livable metropolitan Atlanta. The Walk.Bike.Thrive! plan focuses on supporting active communities, complete streets, vibrant places and regional trails. It also emphasizes first- and last-mile connections to regional transit systems to improve the mobility, safety, equity, health and economy for everyone in the region.
“It probably sounds too big to say, ‘We want to start changing that history of suburban sprawl across metro Atlanta,’ but we want to make a dent in that—where it makes sense and where the opportunities show themselves.” — Byron Rushing, Bicycling & Walking Program Manager, Atlanta Regional Commission
Total funding for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure is projected to be $1.8 billion through 2040. The plan includes funding for the completion of the regional trail network, as well as for other regionally significant pedestrian, bicycle, trail and transit-access projects. The money will also be used to help many of the smaller cities within the Atlanta metro area become more pedestrian and bike friendly. According to Walk.Bike.Thrive! research, a full third of Atlanta residents live within a five-minute bike ride of a transit stop, but only 0.3% of people ride their bikes to and from transit stops. In response, ARC recently rolled out a plan to improve active transportation connections to transit hubs for residents that live and work within that five-minute radius. Though a city built around car travel is unlikely to shift overnight, planning leaders believe that nuanced changes in communities can encourage more people to walk and bike. Planners also noted the opportunity for Atlanta’s sprawling region to reorganize around neighborhood and city centers, crossed by high-quality bike infrastructure and trails. These ideas have helped spark discussion locally, regionally, and nationally about how sprawling mega-regions can start to build more sustainable transportation networks that work for a variety of trip distances and purposes.
www.stateoftheregion.com
43
TALENT
Talent
Talent measures who’s working today, and how well a community is preparing its pipeline 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; others require ever-changing certifications; and still others 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 and work strategically to align the talent supply with employer demand.
44
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
”The talent pipeline is continuous, and if one part of it breaks down, the rest of it can suffer.”
Baltimore
San Diego
Seattle
South Florida
St. Louis
Rank 1-4
Rank 17-20
TALENT
Sh are of 3& 4-Y Hig ea hS r-O cho lds ol En G Hig rad rol hS led u ati cho in o n Sch ol R ate Gr Sh oo ad are l u no a tio r E of P n o nro pu Ra Ce te: rtifi lled latio Eco in n cat no A S g c eP mi e1 h o cal rod o 6-2 Ed ly D uct l 4N uca isa ion eit tio dva h na p e er r l nta A E 10 Ed mp tta ged ,00 uca inm l oye 0 tio en Re d na tR sid lA ate en Ed tta ts :A uca inm A / tio A e nt S+ na Ra lA te: Ag tta e2 inm BA 5-3 /BS en 4E + t R du a t De e: G cat gre i o r ad na eP ua lA rod te/ tta uct STE i Pro n me ion M fes n De pe t sio R r1 gre ate na 0,0 eP l : Lab BA 0 r 0 od / or B R S+ esi uct Fo de ion rce nts Pe Pa :A rtic r1 sso 0,0 ipa cia 00 tio tes Re nR an sid ate dA en :A ts bo ge ve 25 -64
SUMMARY OF TALENT INDICATORS
 Tampa Bay
Atlanta
Austin
n/a
Charlotte
Dallas-Ft. Worth
Denver
Houston
Jacksonville
Mpls-St. Paul
Nashville
Orlando
Phoenix
Portland
Raleigh-Durham
San Antonio
BEST
Rank 5-8
Rank 9-12
Rank 13-16
WORST
www.stateoftheregion.com
45
TALENT
SHARE OF 3 & 4-YEAR-OLDS ENROLLED IN SCHOOL
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATE
WHAT: This indicator includes 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 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.
CURRENT RANKING: 12th PREVIOUS YEAR: 12th
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. A high school diploma is a key credential for future study or to enter the workforce. 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.
CURRENT RANKING: 15th PREVIOUS YEAR: 15th South Florida
63.72%
Austin
92.04%
St. Louis
56.47%
Nashville
91.65%
Seattle
52.64%
San Antonio
90.23%
Denver
52.63%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
90.17%
Orlando
51.24%
St. Louis
89.59%
Atlanta
51.00%
Houston
89.24%
Mpls-St. Paul
50.20%
Orlando
88.96%
Raleigh-Durham
50.04%
Raleigh-Durham
88.12%
Portland
49.25%
Jacksonville
87.93%
San Diego
48.55%
Charlotte
87.08%
United States
48.21%
Baltimore
87.07%
Austin
48.19%
Seattle
86.70%
Tampa Bay
48.06%
Mpls-St. Paul
86.64%
Charlotte
47.83%
South Florida
85.48%
Baltimore
47.60%
Tampa Bay
85.34%
Houston
45.94%
Atlanta
83.95%
Jacksonville
45.76%
Portland
83.24%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
41.31%
Denver
81.42%
Nashville
40.24%
San Diego
81.10%
San Antonio
39.24%
Phoenix
78.36%
Phoenix
37.52%
United States
TREND:
TREND:
48K 46K 44K 42K
Tampa Bay United States
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2018 1-Year Estimates, Table S1401
46
n/a
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
85% 80% 75% 70% 65%
Tampa Bay United States n/a 2013 -’14 ‘14 -’15 ‘15 -’16
‘16 -’17 ‘17-’18
Source: Individual district graduation rates, 2017-2018 Academic Year
SHARE OF POPULATION AGE 16-24 NEITHER EMPLOYED NOR ENROLLED IN SCHOOL
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.
CURRENT RANKING: 11th PREVIOUS YEAR: 15th
WHAT: This measure reports, as a percentage of the entire
population age 16-24, those individuals neither enrolled in school nor employed.
TALENT
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATE: ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
WHY: While reasons and circumstances may vary, these
“disconnected youth” are missing key educational, vocational, 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.
CURRENT RANKING: 17th PREVIOUS YEAR: 17th
Austin
89.01%
Mpls-St. Paul
5.74%
Houston
86.80%
Raleigh-Durham
7.75%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
86.62%
Denver
7.82%
Orlando
86.56%
Austin
8.17%
San Antonio
86.08%
San Diego
8.64%
St. Louis
84.42%
Nashville
9.29%
Nashville
84.22%
Portland
9.53%
South Florida
82.97%
Orlando
9.93%
Charlotte
81.79%
Seattle
10.09%
Jacksonville
80.75%
St. Louis
10.14%
Tampa Bay
79.74%
Jacksonville
10.92%
Raleigh-Durham
79.05%
Baltimore
11.30%
Seattle
78.68%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
11.32%
Atlanta
77.28%
South Florida
11.56%
Portland
76.02%
Phoenix
11.89%
Mpls-St. Paul
74.45%
Atlanta
12.05%
San Diego
74.30%
Tampa Bay
12.23%
Denver
71.24%
Charlotte
12.85%
Phoenix
70.34%
San Antonio
12.88% 13.17%
Baltimore
n/a
Houston
United States
n/a
United States
TREND:
n/a
TREND: 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
Tampa Bay United States n/a 2013 -’14 ‘14 -’15 ‘15 -’16 ‘16 -’17
‘17-’18
Source: Individual district graduation rates, 2017-2018 Academic Year
Tampa Bay
15% 10% 5% 0%
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2017 1-Year Estimates, Public Use Microdata Sample
www.stateoftheregion.com
47
TALENT
CERTIFICATE PRODUCTION PER 10,000 RESIDENTS
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT RATE: AA/AS+
WHAT: This measures the number of academic and technical
certificates conferred by post-secondary institutions, normalized by population.
WHY: Certificates are another means of attaining skills required
older, who have attained an associate’s degree or higher.
WHY: This indicator provides a broad-based view of the relative
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.
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 twoyear degrees.
CURRENT RANKING: 10th PREVIOUS YEAR: 11th
CURRENT RANKING: 19th PREVIOUS YEAR: 19th
Phoenix
68.65
Raleigh-Durham
56.6%
Orlando
61.86
Mpls-St. Paul
53.1%
Raleigh-Durham
48.33
Seattle
53.0%
Denver
40.96
Austin
52.8%
San Diego
40.30
Denver
52.6%
South Florida
38.50
Portland
49.2%
Seattle
35.23
Baltimore
47.9%
Jacksonville
32.49
Atlanta
47.3%
United States
30.47
San Diego
46.5%
Atlanta
29.43
Charlotte
45.4%
Tampa Bay
26.90
St. Louis
44.1%
Portland
26.55
Orlando
43.7%
San Antonio
26.27
Nashville
43.2%
Houston
23.86
Dallas-Ft. Worth
42.6%
Nashville
23.04
South Florida
42.4%
Charlotte
19.97
Jacksonville
41.5%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
19.95
United States
41.2%
St. Louis
18.82
Phoenix
40.8%
Austin
18.52
Houston
40.0%
Mpls-St. Paul
17.45
Tampa Bay
38.6%
Baltimore
15.13
San Antonio
35.6%
TREND:
TREND: 40 30 20 10 0
Tampa Bay United States
Tampa Bay United States
40% 20%
2013 -’14 ‘14 -’15 ‘15 -’16
‘16 -’17 ‘17-’18
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, 2017-2018 Academic Year Completions
48
WHAT: This measures the percentage of the population, 25 years or
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
0%
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2018 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT RATE: GRADUATE/PROFESSIONAL
WHAT: This measures the percentage of the population, 25 years or
WHAT: This measures the percentage of the population, 25 years or
WHY: As many jobs in high-wage and high-skilled industry sectors
WHY: Many of the most technical and highly-compensated jobs
older, who have attained a bachelor’s degree or higher.
require at least a bachelor’s degree, this indicator measures the talent pool that is available in the region.
CURRENT RANKING: 19th PREVIOUS YEAR: 19th
older, who have attained a graduate or professional degree.
TALENT
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT RATE: BA/BS+
in high-wage and high-skilled industry sectors require advanced degrees; this indicator measures the talent pool of the mosteducated available in the region.
CURRENT RANKING: 19th PREVIOUS YEAR: 19th
Raleigh-Durham
48.0%
Raleigh-Durham
19.49%
Austin
46.6%
Baltimore
18.55%
Denver
44.8%
Austin
16.94%
Seattle
43.6%
Seattle
16.81%
Mpls-St. Paul
42.6%
Denver
16.51%
Baltimore
41.2%
San Diego
15.26%
Portland
40.0%
Portland
15.11%
Atlanta
39.4%
Atlanta
14.96%
San Diego
38.4%
Mpls-St. Paul
14.78%
Charlotte
36.1%
St. Louis
14.25%
Nashville
35.9%
Nashville
12.76%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
35.5%
United States
12.61%
St. Louis
34.8%
South Florida
12.54%
Orlando
33.1%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
12.45%
South Florida
33.1%
Houston
12.01%
Houston
33.1%
Charlotte
11.92%
United States
32.6%
Phoenix
11.72%
Phoenix
31.9%
Orlando
11.56%
Jacksonville
31.7%
Jacksonville
11.43%
Tampa Bay
29.1%
Tampa Bay
10.65%
San Antonio
27.5%
San Antonio
10.04%
TREND:
TREND: Tampa Bay United States
40% 20% 0%
Tampa Bay United States
40% 20%
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2018 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501
0%
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2018 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501
www.stateoftheregion.com
49
TALENT
AGE 25-34 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT RATE: BA/BS+
DEGREE PRODUCTION PER 10,000 RESIDENTS: ASSOCIATES AND ABOVE
WHAT: This measure looks, specifically, at the 25-34 year old
WHAT: This measure reports the number of degrees (associates
WHY: This indicator is regarded as important because it shows
WHY: An indicator of a region’s performance in producing a pipeline
population and calculates the percentage of this population that has attained a bachelor’s or higher advanced degree. 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.
and above) awarded by institutes of higher education within a community, divided by population.
of workforce talent. Areas with a steady stream of college graduates are attractive to employers across an array of industries.
CURRENT RANKING: 15th PREVIOUS YEAR: 15th
CURRENT RANKING: 19th PREVIOUS YEAR: 19th
Raleigh-Durham
51.81%
Phoenix
187.92
Seattle
49.25%
San Diego
185.42
Mpls-St. Paul
48.93%
Raleigh-Durham
172.10
Denver
48.46%
Mpls-St. Paul
154.17
Austin
47.96%
Atlanta
147.06
Baltimore
45.77%
Orlando
143.48
Portland
42.27%
Austin
138.17
Atlanta
40.90%
Baltimore
134.17
St. Louis
40.57%
United States
127.16
Nashville
40.51%
St. Louis
119.46
Charlotte
40.42%
South Florida
118.06
San Diego
38.74%
Seattle
106.67
Orlando
37.62%
Portland
103.99
United States
36.19%
Nashville
103.45
Dallas-Fort Worth
35.65%
Denver
103.03
Houston
34.60%
Tampa Bay
99.48
South Florida
34.19%
San Antonio
99.29
Phoenix
31.84%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
95.79
Jacksonville
30.74%
Jacksonville
72.69
Tampa Bay
30.06%
Houston
72.46
San Antonio
28.08%
Charlotte
69.94
TREND:
TREND: Tampa Bay United States
40% 20% 0%
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2018 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501
50
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
140 100 60 40 0
Tampa Bay United States
2013 -’14 ‘14 -’15 ‘15 -’16
‘16 -’17 ‘17-’18
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, 2017-2018 Academic Year Completions
LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE: AGE 25-64
WHAT: This 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. Department of Education and Homeland Security.
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, paying higher than average wages, and lacking in available workforce.
CURRENT RANKING: 9th PREVIOUS YEAR: 11th
WHAT: This 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 availability
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. It is important to look deeper into the labor market, identifying more clearly levels of educational attainment and the percentage of the potential labor force that is currently unemployed.
CURRENT RANKING: 20th PREVIOUS YEAR: 20th
Raleigh-Durham
70.57
Mpls-St. Paul
85.67%
Mpls-St. Paul
60.65
Denver
83.94%
Phoenix
58.69
Austin
82.64%
San Diego
52.38
Raleigh-Durham
82.41%
Baltimore
51.64
Baltimore
81.69%
United States
42.88
Seattle
81.65%
Austin
41.23
Portland
80.95%
St. Louis
38.82
Dallas-Ft. Worth
80.80%
Denver
38.02
Atlanta
80.79%
Tampa Bay
37.29
Charlotte
80.76%
Seattle
36.57
Nashville
80.74%
Orlando
35.85
St. Louis
80.35%
South Florida
35.84
South Florida
79.92%
Nashville
31.30
San Diego
79.69%
Portland
30.63
Orlando
79.06%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
30.03
Houston
78.62%
San Antonio
28.60
Jacksonville
78.32%
Atlanta
28.05
United States
78.15%
Houston
23.80
Phoenix
77.69%
Jacksonville
22.91
San Antonio
76.14%
Charlotte
20.11
Tampa Bay
75.69%
TREND:
TALENT
STEM DEGREE PRODUCTION PER 10,000 RESIDENTS
TREND: 40 30 20 10 0
Tampa Bay United States
2013 -’14 ‘14 -’15 ‘15 -’16
‘16 -’17 ‘17-’18
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, 2017-2018 Academic Year Completions
78% 75% 73% 70%
Tampa Bay United States
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2018 1-Year Estimates, Table S2301
www.stateoftheregion.com
51
TALENT
DEEPER DIVE: LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS DEEPER DIVE: • A strong connection between educational attainment and labor force participation exists; in Tampa Bay, fewer than 60% of the population with no high school diploma or equivalency participates in the labor market. Conversely, Tampa Bay residents with a bachelor’s degree or better exhibit an 82% labor force participation rate. • In Tampa Bay, labor force participation generally peaks in ages of 25-29, and declines thereafter. • In comparison communities with high Gross Regional Product per capita, labor force participation rates at ages 25-29 generally outperform Tampa Bay, and labor force attrition through age 54 is not as pronounced.
1.
LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE: AGE 25-64
Labor Force Participation Rate is the share of the population that is either employed or seeking work. In the last three annual editions of the Regional Competitiveness Report, Tampa Bay’s Labor Force Participation Rate Age 25-64 has consistently ranked last, and typically by a significant margin.
LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE: AGE 25-64
As with any of our indicators, the Tampa Bay value is the sum of its geographic parts, and the chart on the right provides a disaggregation of the indicator by geography, with the state and nation added for context. Hillsborough is the only county that bests the national figure for labor force participation rate, age 25-64. Manatee and Pinellas top the regional figure, the latter also surpassing the state labor force participation rate.
Hillsborough
78.85%
United States
78.15%
Pinellas
77.48%
Florida
76.48%
Manatee
75.88%
Tampa Bay
75.67%
Sarasota
75.63%
Polk
73.92%
Pasco
72.23%
Hernando
66.37%
Citrus
59.27%
2. TAMPA BAY LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE CHARACTERISTICS In addition to geography, we view labor force participation rate by educational attainment, which has a positive correlation with labor force participation. Education is a significant investment of resources – both time and money. As personal investment in education increases, and resources are expended, there is a definite trend to recoup that investment via work. In Tampa Bay, fewer than 60% of the population with no high school diploma or equivalency participates in the labor market. Conversely, Tampa Bay residents with a bachelor’s degree or better exhibit an 82% labor force participation rate. Tampa Bay’s relatively low levels of educational attainment are likely dampening labor force participation.
LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR THE POPULATION AGE 25-64 Less than High School
100% 80%
High School (or Equivalency)
60%
Some College or Associate’s Degreee
40%
Bachelor’s Degree or Higher
20% 0%
52
Citrus
Hernando
Hillsborough
Manatee
Pasco
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
Pinellas
Polk
Sarasota
Tampa Bay
Florida
United States
TALENT
3. LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE BY AGE Perhaps one of the greatest determinants of labor force participation is age. Young adults may choose to pursue education prior to entering the workforce, many workers between the ages of 25 and 34 years of age step away from working temporarily to raise young children, and with advancing age brings any number of impetuses – retirement, declining health or physical ability – for exiting the labor force. The following charts dissect Tampa Bay’s labor force by age and geography. LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE BY AGE COHORT: AGES 16-75+ 90% Citrus Hernando Sarasota Pasco Manatee Polk Pinellas Hillsborough Tampa Bay United States Florida
80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
16-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-44
90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 30-34
35-44
55-59
60-64
65-74
75+
Across all geographies, labor force participation dramatically increases from the 16-19 age cohort to the 20-24 age group, nearly doubling as residents exit secondary or post-secondary schools and enter the workforce. A slight downward trend is exhibited from the 25-29 to 45-54 age brackets suggesting that individuals are far more likely to leave the workforce versus enter it at these ages. Alternatively put, in Tampa Bay, individuals age 25-29 are more likely to be in the labor force than any other average individuals of different ages. A rather precipitous decline in labor force participation rates occurs from age 55 to a near full exit from the labor force after age 75.
LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE BY AGE COHORT: AGES 25-54
25-29
45-54
45-54
Drilling into the age segment 25-54, distinctions between the communities are more clearly visible. The majority of counties – as well as the state and nation – exhibit similar patterns of labor force participation. Divergences include Sarasota’s 90%+ participation rate for the 25-29 cohort, as well as steeper drop-offs in labor force participation rate among Hernando, Citrus, and Pasco counties, which may be due to influxes of early retirees.
4. CONTEXT WITH SELECT COMPARISON COMMUNITIES LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE: SELECT AGE COHORTS (25-54) AND COMPARISON AREAS
Tampa Bay United States
89%
San Diego
87%
Dallas-Ft. Worth Seattle
85%
San Antonio
83%
Phoenix Florida
81%
Orlando
79%
South Florida Austin
77%
Denver
75% 25-29
30-34
35-44
45-54
Jacksonville
We also view Tampa Bay’s labor force participation rate in the 25-54 age group in comparison to other Florida markets (Jacksonville, Orlando, South Florida), “retirement havens” (Phoenix, San Antonio, and San Diego), and a handful of perennial top-performers to see what inferences may be drawn. Tampa Bay tracks the Florida markets and sun belt retirement destinations, in large part. In most of the select comparison communities with high Gross Regional Product per capita (Dallas-Ft. Worth is an exception), labor force participation rates at ages 2529 generally outperform Tampa Bay, and labor force attrition through age 54 is not as pronounced. In other words, high-performing communities have relatively stronger and more resilient labor force participation rates across the prime working years of 25-54.
Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-year Estimates, Table S2301
www.stateoftheregion.com
53
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 across all 20 markets. However, due to the importance of regional talent for economic competitiveness and prosperity, 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), 2016-2017 Academic Year
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS FLORIDA STANDARDS ASSESSMENT: SCORE OF 3 OR BETTER WHAT: Measures the weighted average share of 3rd grade
students with a passing score of 3 or better – maximum score is 5 – on the assessment. Data for 2018-2019 Academic Year.
WHAT: Measures the weighted average share of 3rd and
8th grade students with a passing score of 3 or better – maximum score is 5 – on the assessment. Data for 2018-2019 Academic Year.
South Florida
59.93%
Jacksonville
60.44%
Jacksonville
58.54%
South Florida
59.48%
State of FL
58.00%
State of FL
55.98%
Orlando
56.89%
Orlando
53.58%
Tampa Bay
55.03%
Tampa Bay
52.90%
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 2018-2019 Academic Year.
54
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 2017; maximum score is 1600.
Jacksonville
73.28%
Jacksonville
1033
South Florida
68.23%
Tampa Bay
1017
Orlando
67.27%
State of FL
1006
State of FL
67.00%
South Florida
992
Tampa Bay
65.22%
Orlando
992
2020 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 2018-2019 Academic Year.
SCIENCE FLORIDA STANDARDS ASSESSMENT: SCORE OF 3 OR BETTER WHAT: Measures the weighted average share of 5th and 8th grade students with a passing score of 3 or better – maximum score is 5 – on the assessment. Data for 2018-2019 Academic Year.
Jacksonville
66.03%
Jacksonville
55.02%
South Florida
63.14%
Orlando
51.69%
State of FL
62.00%
State of FL
50.64%
Tampa Bay
60.48%
Tampa Bay
50.33%
Orlando
59.07%
South Florida
48.40%
AP EXAMINATIONS: TESTING RATE
WHAT: Measures the share of high school students who took an Advanced Placement exam in 2017.
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 2017 – students may take multiple tests in one year – as a percentage of examinations taken.
Orlando
32.25%
South Florida
54.56%
Jacksonville
23.92%
Jacksonville
50.97%
South Florida
23.31%
State of FL
49.38%
State of FL
22.95%
Tampa Bay
46.97%
Tampa Bay
22.94%
Orlando
45.20%
www.stateoftheregion.com
55
TALENT
BEST PRACTICE:
SOUTH FLORIDA
Miami-Dade Public School District Improves Student Graduation Rates with “One Size Fits None” Strategy WHY WE’RE WATCHING: The Miami-Dade County Public School District, the driver of South Florida’s performance in several key Talent indicators, has won several awards for equitable graduation outcomes. They’re closing the graduation rate gap for economically disadvantaged students, and outperforming Tampa Bay, despite a population where 74 percent of students are low-income. HOW THEY DID IT: Under the leadership of Superintendent Alberto Carvalho, Miami-Dade schools have taken a more student-centered approach. The number of magnet, district-managed charter and “choice” school options has grown rapidly, along with individualized resources and programs. By providing parents and students with a range of personalized education pathways, they’re better able to meet the needs of disadvantaged students and promote academic success.
56
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
IN 2008, THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT was near bankruptcy, had a dismal graduation rate and saw significant disparities in student achievement by minority and disadvantaged students. As the nation’s fourth-largest school district, Miami-Dade has over 350,000 students. Ninety percent of those students are black or hispanic and 74 percent are low-income. When Alberto Carvalho was appointed Superintendent of the MiamiDade County Public Schools in 2008, he made radical reductions in administrative overhead, saving millions of dollars to reallocate into school programs and improvements. He took an axe to the budget, ultimately slashing more than $2 billion, without firing a single classroom teacher. The resulting efficiencies led to targeted innovation, centered on an expansion of school choice. Carvalho rolled out a bold plan to increase the number of magnet, charter and “choice” schools in Miami-Dade. Under his leadership, the number of these options has grown rapidly, and as many as 62 percent of students were attending one of these schools as of the 2015-16 school year. Up to 30 new programs have opened each year, with focus areas ranging from occupational specialties to vocational training. While traditional schools are still supported, this has allowed parents and students a range of educational options. The idea is that giving students the ability to learn at their own pace, while holding them to high standards, will lead to academic success. “One size fits none,” explains Carvalho. “A need creates schools that provide for independent, personalized, individualized learning journeys for all students.” In 2012, Miami-Dade won the Broad Prize for Urban Education, the largest education award given each year to urban school districts that have made the biggest progress in student achievement and
TALENT “Ensuring that students succeed both in and beyond the classroom requires individual and collective support from the entire community. Our school district boasts some of the best and brightest teachers in the nation who are extremely skilled at what they do. Each day they make instruction and learning come alive for students. But the work of supporting students academically and keeping them focused lies not only with teachers but with the community that believes in the power of education.” — Alberto Carvalho, Superintendent of Miami-Dade County Public Schools
closing achievement gaps. Miami-Dade County Public Schools was recognized for outperforming peer districts in academic achievement; helping minority students reach advanced academic levels, placing Miami-Dade in the top 30 percent statewide; improved college-readiness levels; and raising graduation rate among minority students. Miami-Dade has also implemented a number of studentcentered strategies such as school day administration of the SAT and ACT exams, as well as a partnership with Khan Academy and the College Board to provide free tutoring for high school students. The Acceleration Academies’ high school reengagement program assists students who have left their traditional high school to earn a district-issued diploma. In 2014, the district was named the College Board Advanced Placement Equity and Excellence District of the Year for being the nation’s leader, among large school districts, in simultaneously expanding access to Advanced Placement Program courses and improving AP exam performance. From 2010 to 2013, the district increased the percentage of traditionally underrepresented minority AP students earning a 3 or higher on at least one AP Exam by six percent annually — an increase of 1,561 students last year. Since 2006-2007, the district’s graduation rate has increased almost 27 percentage points from 58.7 percent to 85.4 percent in 2017-18. The improvements continue with more than 130 new programs and initiatives announced for the 2019-2020 school year, all designed to continue the focus on innovation, academic rigor, parental engagement, and increased efficiencies in operations.
EQUITABLE GRADUATION www.stateoftheregion.com
57
CIVIC QUALITY
Civic Quality
Civic Quality measures the affordability of a community, the health and safety of its citizens, and the recreational opportunities that enhance 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 a series of fundamental and personal questions: Do I feel safe here? Is the air I breathe clean? What is the availability and affordability of healthcare? 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? Together, the answers to these questions help to drive a feeling of satisfaction and pride in the community, and directly impact outcomes such as net migration, which measures the ability of a community to retain its existing population and attract new residents. In turn, this impacts the companies relying on those residents as a market, a talent pool, or both.
58
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
“The answers to these questions help to drive a feeling of satisfaction and pride in the community, and directly impact outcomes such as net migration.�
Denver n/a n/a
Houston n/a n/a
Nashville
Raleigh-Durham n/a n/a
San Antonio
n/a
n/a
Seattle
St. Louis
Rank 1-4
South Florida
n/a
Rank 17-20
CIVIC QUALITY
Cri me Ra te Pe Vio r1 len 00 tC ,00 rim 0R eR Sh esi are ate de nts of P e Ch r1 ild 0 Fo 0,0 ren od 00 Ins in Re Fo ecu sid s t He rity er en alt ts Ca hI re ns u r Pri an ce ma Co ry ver Ca re ag Me eR P h dia ysi ate nD cia s ns aily Pe Cu A r1 ltu ir Q ral 0,0 ua an 00 lity d Re Aff Ind Re sid cre ord e en x a ab t ts i o ilit na Ho y: C l Es u tab os Ho sing ts lish us Aff as ing o me aP r d E nts Tra xp ab e r c e i Pe n l e i n t nta Tra spo dit y: r1 ure 0,0 ge ns rta 00 po tio o s f In as rta n A Re c a sid tio ffo o P m erc n E rd en e ts en xp ab tag en ilit dit y: eo ure f In sa co sa me Pe rce nta ge of Inc om e
SUMMARY OF CIVIC QUALITY INDICATORS
 Tampa Bay
Atlanta
Austin
Baltimore
Charlotte
Dallas-Ft. Worth
Jacksonville
Mpls-St. Paul
n/a
Orlando
Phoenix
Portland
San Diego
BEST
Rank 5-8
Rank 9-12
Rank 13-16
WORST
www.stateoftheregion.com
59
CIVIC QUALITY
CRIME RATE PER 100,000 RESIDENTS
VIOLENT CRIME RATE PER 100,000 RESIDENTS
WHAT: Measures the rate of eight major crimes (including
murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and 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. According to the FBI, some of the factors that may influence crime rates include levels of urbanization, rates of divorce and single-parent households, population stability, poverty rates, law enforcement funding and the community’s attitude towards crime.
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.
CURRENT RANKING: 4th PREVIOUS YEAR: 4th
CURRENT RANKING: 2nd PREVIOUS YEAR: 2nd
San Diego
2,035.4
Mpls-St. Paul
253.4
Tampa Bay
2,131.3
Austin
291.4
Mpls-St. Paul
2,413.9
Portland
299.1
United States
2,582.4
Tampa Bay
307.8
Dallas-Ft. Worth
2,583.7
Atlanta
320.7
Austin
2,611.0
San Diego
341.1
Orlando
2,895.4
Dallas-Ft. Worth
351.0
Atlanta
2,895.7
Seattle
359.0
Phoenix
3,054.9
United States
368.9
Jacksonville
3,073.4
Charlotte
426.9
Charlotte
3,166.6
South Florida
427.7
Portland
3,169.1
Orlando
442.9
Baltimore
3,191.4
Phoenix
446.2
South Florida
3,208.8
Jacksonville
452.6
Seattle
3,690.3
St. Louis
455.1
Houston
Complete Data Not Available
Nashville
599.1
San Antonio
Complete Data Not Available
Baltimore
720.8
Nashville
Complete Data Not Available
Denver
Complete Data Not Available
St. Louis
Complete Data Not Available
Houston
Complete Data Not Available
Denver
Complete Data Not Available
Raleigh-Durham
Complete Data Not Available
Raleigh-Durham
Complete Data Not Available
San Antonio
Complete Data Not Available
TREND:
TREND: 4 3 2 1 0
Tampa Bay United States
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Report, Crime in the United States by Metropolitan Statistical Area, 2018
60
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
400 350 300 250 200
Tampa Bay United States
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Report, Crime in the United States by Metropolitan Statistical Area, 2018
WHAT: This metric indicates, for each region, the number of children living in non-related (not parents or other relatives) 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.
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.
CURRENT RANKING: 13th PREVIOUS YEAR: 13th
CIVIC QUALITY
SHARE OF CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE
CURRENT RANKING: 20th PREVIOUS YEAR: 14th
Houston
1.1%
Mpls-St. Paul
8.9%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
1.2%
Denver
9.8%
Denver
1.2%
San Diego
11.0%
San Diego
1.2%
Baltimore
11.2%
South Florida
1.2%
San Antonio
11.3%
Austin
1.4%
South Florida
11.6%
Raleigh-Durham
1.4%
Nashville
11.6%
Atlanta
1.5%
Seattle
11.6%
Baltimore
1.5%
Portland
11.7%
San Antonio
1.5%
United States
12.5%
Seattle
1.5%
Orlando
12.7%
Jacksonville
1.6%
Raleigh-Durham
13.0%
Mpls-St. Paul
1.7%
Charlotte
13.3%
Phoenix
1.7%
Tampa Bay
13.4%
Portland
1.7%
Atlanta
13.4%
United States
1.7%
St. Louis
13.5%
Orlando
1.8%
Phoenix
13.8%
Nashville
1.9%
Austin
14.0%
St. Louis
1.9%
Jacksonville
15.6%
Charlotte
2.0%
Houston
15.7%
Tampa Bay
2.1%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
15.8%
TREND: Tampa Bay United States
2% 1% 0%
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2018 1-Year Estimates, Table S0901
Source: Feeding America, Map the Meal Gap, 2017
www.stateoftheregion.com
61
CIVIC QUALITY
HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE RATES
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 urgent-care 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.
CURRENT RANKING: 13th PREVIOUS YEAR: 14th
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.
WHY: Provides a high-level indicator to track access to healthcare in the community.
CURRENT RANKING: 14th PREVIOUS YEAR: 10th
Mpls-St. Paul
95.75%
Portland
9.82
Baltimore
95.20%
Baltimore
9.59
Seattle
94.38%
Seattle
9.10
Portland
93.69%
Raleigh-Durham
8.80
St. Louis
93.41%
Mpls-St. Paul
8.75
Denver
92.87%
Denver
8.42
San Diego
91.60%
San Diego
7.82
United States
91.14%
Jacksonville
7.71
Raleigh-Durham
90.78%
South Florida
7.65
Nashville
90.32%
St. Louis
7.55
Charlotte
89.58%
United States
7.48
Phoenix
89.34%
Orlando
7.33
Jacksonville
88.38%
Nashville
7.31
Tampa Bay
87.83%
Austin
7.08
Orlando
87.77%
Tampa Bay
7.04
Austin
87.38%
Charlotte
6.99
Atlanta
86.77%
Atlanta
6.76
South Florida
84.80%
San Antonio
6.61
San Antonio
84.53%
Phoenix
6.39
Dallas-Ft. Worth
82.90%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
6.36
Houston
81.41%
Houston
5.97
TREND:
TREND: Tampa Bay United States
90% 80% 70%
2015
2016
2017
2018
Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2018 1-Year Estimates, Table S2701
62
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
8 6 4 2 0
Tampa Bay United States
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Source: County Health Rankings & Roadmaps, 2019
WHAT: The EPA’s Air Quality Index (AQI) measures five main
pollutants and provides an indicator of overall air quality. An AQI value over 100 presents a risk for sensitive groups. 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 .
WHAT: Bureau of Labor Statistics count of 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.
CURRENT RANKING: 13th PREVIOUS YEAR: 12th
CIVIC QUALITY
CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL ESTABLISHMENTS PER 10,000 RESIDENTS
MEDIAN DAILY AIR QUALITY INDEX
CURRENT RANKING: 3th PREVIOUS YEAR: 6th
Portland
37
Nashville
7.75
Orlando
38
South Florida
5.73
Tampa Bay
41
San Antonio
5.46
Jacksonville
41
Mpls-St. Paul
5.07
Nashville
43
Denver
5.05
San Antonio
43
Orlando
5.04
South Florida
43
San Diego
5.00
Austin
44
Charlotte
4.73
Seattle
44
Portland
4.61
Raleigh-Durham
44
United States
4.53
Charlotte
45
Austin
4.41
Baltimore
47
Jacksonville
4.37
Atlanta
48
Baltimore
4.14
Dallas-Ft. Worth
50
Tampa Bay
4.10
Houston
51
Raleigh-Durham
4.05
Mpls-St. Paul
51
Atlanta
3.68
St. Louis
54
Phoenix
2.87
Denver
61
Dallas-Ft. Worth
2.84
San Diego
64
Seattle
2.55
Phoenix
77
Houston
2.33
n/a
St. Louis
2.30
United States
TREND:
TREND: Tampa Bay 44 42 40 38
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Source: Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Index Report, 2018
5 4 3 2 1 0
Tampa Bay United States
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2018 Private Employer Annual Data
www.stateoftheregion.com
63
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.
CURRENT RANKING: 18th PREVIOUS YEAR: 17th
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
ANNUAL COSTS Housing
Transportation
Portland
$75,170
$26,399
$9,441
Mpls-St. Paul
$79,087
$27,900
$10,048
Baltimore
$78,691
$28,651
$9,940
Seattle
$86,376
$31,465
$11,000
Denver
$78,436
$28,408
$10,167
Raleigh-Durham
$71,473
$26,014
Austin
$75,946
Jacksonville
(expenditures as a % of income)
0
Transportation Affordability
+ 10
(expenditures as a % of income)
20
30
40
50
60
70
Portland
47.68%
Mpls-St. Paul
47.98%
Baltimore
49.04%
$9,638
Seattle
49.16%
$27,761
$10,192
Denver
49.18%
$59,021
$21,627
$8,073
Raleigh-Durham
49.88% 49.97%
San Diego
$78,492
$29,506
$10,136
Austin Jacksonville
50.32%
Nashville
$64,245
$23,687
$8,888
San Diego
50.51%
St. Louis
$62,139
$23,008
$8,510
Nashville
50.70%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
$68,838
$25,643
$9,489
St. Louis
50.72% 51.03%
$57,387
$21,429
$8,076
Dallas-Ft. Worth
San Antonio
San Antonio
51.41%
Atlanta
$66,656
$25,053
$9,286
Atlanta
51.52%
Phoenix
$62,609
$23,591
$8,688
Phoenix
51.56%
$62,323
$23,427
$8,904
Charlotte
51.88%
Charlotte
Orlando
52.56%
Tampa Bay
$55,875
$21,475
$7,894
United States
52.65%
United States
$60,548
$23,366
$8,512
Tampa Bay
52.73%
Tampa Bay
$53,675
$20,677
$7,629
Houston
53.48%
$65,606
$25,607
$9,482
South Florida
55.68%
Houston South Florida
$55,841
$22,929
$8,165
Source: ESRI Business Analyst, 2019
64
Housing Affordability
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
TRANSPORTATION AFFORDABILITY: TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURES AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME
WHAT: Housing expenditures as a percentage of income. Housing
WHAT: Transportation expenditures as a percentage of income.
WHY: The “affordability” of a community cannot be assessed by just
WHY: The cost of transportation must be viewed in the context of
expenditures include: mortgage payments, real estate taxes, property insurance, utilities, fuels, mobile home costs and condominium fees. 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. In many cities across the country, families spend a sizable share of income on rent, mortgage payment, 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.
The expenditures include: automobile ownership costs, automobile usage costs and transit usage costs. 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 relates to other cities in the U.S.
CIVIC QUALITY
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY: HOUSING EXPENDITURES AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME
CURRENT RANKING: 17th PREVIOUS YEAR: 18th
CURRENT RANKING: 18th PREVIOUS YEAR: 14th
Portland
35.1%
Portland
12.6%
Mpls-St. Paul
35.3%
Baltimore
12.6%
Denver
36.2%
Mpls-St. Paul
12.7%
Raleigh-Durham
36.4%
Seattle
12.7%
Baltimore
36.4%
San Diego
12.9%
Seattle
36.4%
Denver
13.0%
Austin
36.6%
Austin
13.4%
Jacksonville
36.6%
Raleigh-Durham
13.5%
Nashville
36.9%
Jacksonville
13.7%
St. Louis
37.0%
St. Louis
13.7%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
37.3%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
13.8%
San Antonio
37.3%
Nashville
13.8%
Atlanta
37.6%
Phoenix
13.9%
Charlotte
37.6%
Atlanta
13.9%
San Diego
37.6%
United States
14.1%
Phoenix
37.7%
San Antonio
14.1%
Orlando
38.4%
Orlando
14.1%
Tampa Bay
38.5%
Tampa Bay
14.2%
United States
38.6%
Charlotte
14.3%
Houston
39.0%
Houston
14.5%
South Florida
41.1%
South Florida
14.6%
Source: ESRI Business Analyst, 2019
Source: ESRI Business Analyst, 2019
www.stateoftheregion.com
65
CIVIC QUALITY
DEEPER DIVE: HOUSING AFFORDABILITY HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS DEEPER DIVE: • Low-income, cost-burdened households are generally less prevalent in Tampa Bay, compared to the state. • Despite this, there is an acute undersupply of affordable rental housing across a variety of income levels. • More than 111,000 new affordable units are needed – a 57% increase compared to current stock – to close the gap of affordable rental housing available to the current population of households earning 60% of the median income. Residential real estate is the basis of several indicators in the Regional Competitiveness Report. As a measure of Economic Vitality, we measure the growth rate of home sales prices. As a measure of Civic Quality, we measure aggregate housing affordability – comparing a central measure of households’ housing-related expenses to household income. Indirectly, commute times, crime rates, Florida K-12 Talent indicators and others are affected by or affect housing costs. For many households, and for many reasons, “unaffordable” housing is a choice, a trade off between housing costs and other benefits. Yet for an increasing number of Tampa Bay residents, especially for the growing share of residents who rent, affordable housing is not an option. The University of Florida’s Shimberg Center for Housing Studies conducts research into housing policy and planning, with a special focus on housing affordability for Florida residents. Its 2019 Rental Market Study (May 2019), provides a special focus on low-income (less than 60% of the local median income), cost-burdened (housing costs exceed 40% of income) households. This deeper dive highlights four key housing affordability issues for Tampa Bay.
1.
Homeownership is declining, and renters are increasing. Renting can be an attractive option for many households, but renters lack long-term control over housing costs. HOMEOWNERSHIP RATES: 1990-CURRENT 90% 85% Citrus Hernando Sarasota Pasco Manatee Polk Pinellas Hillsborough
80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55%
2.
1990
2000
2010
Tampa Bay communities generally have a smaller share of low-income, cost-burdened renters, compared to the Orlando and South Florida MSAs and the state average.
LOW-INCOME, COST-BURDENED RENTERS AS A SHARE OF ALL RENTERS
66
Current
Polk
25.85%
Sarasota
26.62%
Jacksonville
26.88%
Hillsborough
27.19%
Tampa Bay
27.58%
Pinellas
27.83%
Pasco
28.53%
Florida
28.62%
Orlando
29.41%
Citrus
29.66%
Manatee
29.74%
South Florida
30.62%
Hernando
31.34%
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
CIVIC QUALITY
3.
The supply of affordable rental housing at is not sufficient for the number of renter households across a variety of lower income levels. In the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA, for example, only 53 affordable housing units are available for every 100 households at or below the 60% area median income.
AFFORDABLE AND AVAILABLE HOUSING UNITS PER 100 RENTERS, BY AREA MEDIAN INCOME LEVEL OF RENTER Area
4.
Area Median Income Level 30%
40%
50%
60%
80%
120%
Homosassa Springs
26
33
39
62
95
106
Lakeland- Winter Haven
21
28
38
54
87
106
North PortBradenton-Sarasota
19
26
38
59
88
102
Tampa - St. Petersburg Clearwater
22
26
34
53
89
105
Tampa Bay
22
26
35
54
89
105
Florida
23
27
35
49
79
102
To solve for the deficit of affordable housing at the 60% area median income, the Tampa Bay region requires more than 111,000 affordable units to be made available, an increase of 57% to the current stock of affordable rental units.
Homosassa Springs
2,072
LakelandWinter Haven
13,035
North PortBradenton-Sarasota
15,081
TampaSt. PetersburgClearwater
81,575
TOTAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS NEEDED:
111,763
www.stateoftheregion.com
67
CIVIC QUALITY
BEST PRACTICE:
MINNEAPOLISST. PAUL
Minneapolis Tackles Housing Deficit by Becoming the First U.S. City to Eliminate Single-Family Zoning WHY WE’RE WATCHING: The average resident in the MinneapolisSt. Paul metro area spends 35.3 percent of annual income on housing – well below the national average – and the community ranks 2nd in the Housing Affordability indicator in this year’s report. HOW THEY DID IT: Minneapolis 2040 is a comprehensive plan that fundamentally reshapes the city’s zoning policies to protect and expand the city’s affordable and workforce housing. To tackle the city’s housing deficit and attempt to reverse nearly a century of discriminatory housing policies, Mayor Jacob Frey and the Minneapolis City Council eliminated exclusive singlefamily housing zoning within the city, which they believed helped perpetuate discrimination and limited supply in a hot housing market. By eliminating the single-family housing zoning rule and allowing duplexes and triplexes in urban neighborhoods, they are increasing density and the available housing stock, and stabilizing the costs of home ownership. CITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY ARE BOOMING, but their growth is exacerbating an already critical lack of affordable housing for the middle class and poor alike. Since 2000, Minneapolis has lost roughly 15,000 housing units that were once considered affordable for those earning 50 percent of the area’s median income. These units now cost more to own or rent, making them out of reach for this demographic. Like many U.S. cities, Minneapolis also has a history of segregation reinforced by federal, state, and local housing laws. Almost 60 percent of white residents own a home in the city, as compared to nearly 20 percent of black residents. This is one of the largest disparities in the nation and a big reason for a persistent racial wealth gap. While efforts to address this issue in communities nationwide have varied in size and scope, no municipality has taken a more dramatic response to the housing gap than Minneapolis. The city’s embrace of urban density began in 2013, when voters elected seven new city council candidates who ran on platforms of increasing housing density, tripling spending on affordable housing, and reducing residential segregation. In December 2018, the Minneapolis City Council approved Minneapolis 2040, its long-term plan for development, which made Minneapolis the first major U.S. city to completely eliminate single-family zoning. The plan now allows up to three units to be built anywhere in the city. The hope is that this will boost housing inventory, in a way that
68
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
HOUSING AFFOR
RDABILITY
CIVIC QUALITY
“This plan looked at housing affordability holistically. We looked at ways to address our supply problem because we literally don’t have enough homes for people who want to live in our growing city, and that’s causing all kinds of problems that are affecting our more vulnerable, low-income renters.” — Lisa Bender, Minneapolis City Council President
also integrates more affordable townhouses and apartments into the same neighborhoods as more upscale single-family houses to help desegregate the city. Minneapolis also tripled its budget for affordable housing by funding $40 million in affordable housing programs, up from about $15 million. The 2040 plan allows for larger developments around transit hubs and other select areas. To ensure the new rentals are affordable, the council adopted a temporary measure that requires certain new buildings to earmark at least a tenth of their units for residents making less than 60 percent of the area median income. To pass the potentially controversial proposal, the City Council persuaded a broad coalition of racial-justice activists and nonprofit affordable-housing advocates to align with zoning-reform supporters behind a package of housing efforts that helped both the middle class and the poor. In an extensive public engagement process, dozens of information sessions were held around the city, including on public transit to reach citizens who normally don’t attend public meetings. Overcoming disagreement and controversy, the City Council was ultimately able to secure passage of the plan with a 12-1 vote. “Sometimes I think it is worth taking on a fight over something that isn’t going to be a huge literal change, but is a big philosophical change,” says Lisa Bender, Minneapolis City Council President. “It opens up the possibility of having a totally different conversation than you’ve had in the past.” The move was celebrated by local residents who see increased density as key to the city’s housing inequalities. It also attracted the attention of national onlookers, many of whom touted the change as a step toward reversing some of the damage from historical exclusionary zoning policies. “Minneapolis, Tackling Housing Crisis and Inequity, Votes to End Single-Family Zoning,” a New York Times headline read, while a Reuters story noted: “In U.S. first, Minneapolis rethinks housing density to make homes cheaper.”
www.stateoftheregion.com
69
OUTCOMES
Outcomes
Outcomes measure the growth of a community’s 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 more closely examine 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,” or 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.
70
2020 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
Ne tM igr ati Mi on lle nn ial Gr Inos Mi sR gr ati eg on Pe ion rC al ap Pr od ita Un uc Gr t (G em os sR plo RP e )G ym gio Yo ro en na ut wt hP tR lP hR ate ro ov ate d er Po u ty ct ve (G Ra rty RP te Ra ) Fu t e ll-T im eW or ke rP ov er ty Ra te
SUMMARY OF OUTCOME INDICATORS
 Tampa Bay Atlanta Austin Baltimore Charlotte Dallas-Ft. Worth Denver Houston Jacksonville Mpls-St. Paul Nashville Orlando Phoenix Portland Raleigh-Durham San Antonio San Diego Seattle South Florida St. Louis
Rank 1-4
BEST
Rank 5-8 Rank 9-12 Rank 13-16 Rank 17-20
WORST
www.stateoftheregion.com
71
OUTCOMES
NET MIGRATION
MILLENNIAL IN-MIGRATION
WHAT: Calculated as population change, less the net effect of
natural increase (births minus deaths), relative to the population as a whole
WHY: Net migration is generally an indicator of the quality of
life and economic opportunity — both real and perceived — of a region.
CURRENT RANKING: 1st PREVIOUS YEAR: 1st
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.
CURRENT RANKING: 14th PREVIOUS YEAR: 13th
Tampa Bay
2.06%
Portland
14.80%
Orlando
1.98%
Jacksonville
11.42%
Austin
1.76%
Raleigh-Durham
10.84%
Jacksonville
1.66%
Austin
10.60%
Phoenix
1.53%
Seattle
9.82%
Raleigh-Durham
1.43%
Denver
9.58%
Charlotte
1.32%
St. Louis
9.45%
San Antonio
1.14%
Orlando
9.40%
Nashville
1.08%
San Diego
9.32%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
1.02%
Charlotte
9.16%
Seattle
0.87%
San Antonio
8.72%
Denver
0.79%
Nashville
7.74%
Atlanta
0.74%
Baltimore
7.46%
South Florida
0.56%
Tampa Bay
7.42%
Portland
0.53%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
6.81%
Houston
0.52%
Atlanta
6.78%
Mpls-St. Paul
0.43%
Phoenix
6.75%
South Florida
6.70%
0.30%
United States
-0.02%
San Diego
Mpls-St. Paul
6.60%
-0.09%
Baltimore
Houston
6.33%
-0.19%
St. Louis
United States
n/a
TREND: Tampa Bay United States
2% 1% 0%
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Source: Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program
72
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2017 1-Year Estimates, Public Use Microdata Sample
OUTCOMES
GROSS REGIONAL PRODUCT (GRP) GROWTH RATE
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. CURRENT RANKING: 12th PREVIOUS YEAR: 12th
GROSS REGIONAL PRODUCT
ANNUAL GRP GROWTH
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
2017
2018
$M
%
Seattle
$332,836
$355,663
$22,827
6.86%
Austin
$127,338
$134,417
$7,079
5.56%
Raleigh-Durham
$118,661
$124,513
$5,852
4.93%
San Antonio
$115,793
$121,140
$5,346
4.62%
Phoenix
$217,896
$227,741
$9,846
4.52%
Portland
$143,681
$150,033
$6,353
4.42%
Nashville
$113,139
$117,839
$4,701
Orlando
$119,247
$124,174
San Diego
$210,694
Dallas-Ft. Worth
Seattle
6.86%
Austin
5.56%
Raleigh-Durham
4.93%
San Antonio
4.62%
Phoenix
4.52%
Portland
4.42%
Nashville
4.15%
Orlando
4.13%
4.15%
San Diego
4.11%
$4,927
4.13%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
3.88%
$219,362
$8,668
4.11%
Denver
3.65% 3.60%
$451,415
$468,918
$17,504
3.88%
Tampa Bay Houston
3.01%
Denver
$187,127
$193,966
$6,839
3.65%
St. Louis
3.00%
Tampa Bay
$191,429
$198,313
$6,885
3.60%
United States
2.96%
Houston
$432,329
$445,335
$13,006
3.01%
South Florida
2.90%
$147,633
$152,060
$4,427
3.00%
Jacksonville
2.88%
St. Louis
Baltimore
2.63%
United States
$16,030,109
$16,504,747
$474,638
2.96%
Mpls-St. Paul
2.62%
South Florida
$306,142
$315,031
$8,889
2.90%
Atlanta
2.47%
Jacksonville
$71,662
$73,724
$2,062
2.88%
Charlotte
2.07%
Baltimore
$178,407
$183,094
$4,686
2.63%
Mpls-St. Paul
$231,079
$237,141
$6,062
2.62%
Atlanta
$348,682
$357,308
$8,627
2.47%
Charlotte
$143,836
$146,814
$2,978
2.07%
TREND: 10 8 6 4 2 0
Tampa Bay United States
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Data, Real GDP in Chained Dollars, 2017-2018
www.stateoftheregion.com
73
OUTCOMES
PER CAPITA GROSS REGIONAL PRODUCT (GRP)
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 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.
CURRENT RANKING: 20th PREVIOUS YEAR: 20th
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.
CURRENT RANKING: 11th PREVIOUS YEAR: 16th
Seattle
$90,284
Denver
2.69%
Denver
$66,145
Austin
2.87%
San Diego
$65,611
Mpls-St. Paul
3.14%
Mpls-St. Paul
$65,343
Orlando
3.22%
Baltimore
$65,325
San Antonio
3.32%
Raleigh-Durham
$64,250
Nashville
3.34%
Houston
$63,643
South Florida
3.36%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
$62,193
Dallas-Ft. Worth
3.42%
Austin
$61,991
Jacksonville
3.46%
Nashville
$61,026
Atlanta
3.49%
Portland
$60,526
Tampa Bay
3.54%
Atlanta
$60,052
San Diego
3.58%
United States
$58,686
St. Louis
3.60%
Charlotte
$57,144
Seattle
3.62%
St. Louis
$54,201
Raleigh-Durham
3.89%
South Florida
$50,821
Houston
3.96%
Orlando
$48,261
United States
3.97%
San Antonio
$48,109
Charlotte
4.00%
Jacksonville
$48,038
Portland
4.02%
Phoenix
$46,880
Baltimore
4.07%
Tampa Bay
$41,142
Phoenix
4.82%
TREND:
TREND: Tampa Bay United States
$80K $40K
4%
$20K
2%
$0
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Data, Real GDP in Chained Dollars; Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program
74
Tampa Bay United States
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
0
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics, July 2019
FULL-TIME WORKER POVERTY RATE
WHAT: Measures the percentage of the population that is living below the federal poverty level, as defined by the U.S. 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.
WHAT: Measures the share of individuals at less than 100 percent of the poverty rate that work full time during the year.
WHY: It is important to understand that, despite participating in
the economy as workers, some individuals and the households they support have difficulty escaping poverty.
OUTCOMES
YOUTH POVERTY AND POVERTY RATE
CURRENT RANKING: 17th PREVIOUS YEAR: 14th
CURRENT RANKING: 16th/16th PREVIOUS YEAR: 14th/14th
Poverty Rate (All)
Youth Poverty Rate (0-18) 0
Denver
7.97%
Mpls-St. Paul
8.49%
Seattle
8.72%
Portland
9.75%
5
10
15
20 %
Denver
1.82%
10.23%
Mpls-St. Paul
1.93%
10.41%
San Diego
2.13%
10.50%
Seattle
2.14%
11.20%
Atlanta
2.17%
Raleigh-Durham
10.06% 13.20%
Phoenix
2.20%
Baltimore
10.05% 13.33%
Jacksonville
2.23%
Austin
11.19% 13.62%
Charlotte
2.43%
San Diego
11.39% 14.91%
Orlando
2.52%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
11.23% 15.72%
Baltimore
2.55%
Atlanta
11.09% 15.76%
St. Louis
2.65%
Charlotte
11.19% 16.21%
Portland
2.76%
Nashville
11.60% 16.51%
Raleigh-Durham
2.81%
Jacksonville
12.20% 17.29%
Dallas-Ft. Worth
2.87%
St. Louis
11.59% 17.47%
Austin
3.02%
Phoenix
12.23% 18.00%
Nashville
3.06%
United States
13.11% 18.01%
Tampa Bay
3.09%
Tampa Bay
13.25% 19.35%
Houston
3.17%
South Florida
13.96% 19.76%
United States
3.17%
Orlando
13.89% 20.76%
South Florida
3.52%
Houston
14.29% 21.21%
San Antonio
3.55%
San Antonio
15.41% 21.59%
TREND:
TREND: Youth Poverty Rate 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
Tampa Bay United States
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2018 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701
4% 3% 2% 1% 0%
Tampa Bay United States
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2018 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701
www.stateoftheregion.com
75
OUTCOMES
DEEPER DIVE: FINANCIAL INSTABILITY, POVERTY, AND ALICE HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS DEEPER DIVE: • In Tampa Bay, nearly 770,000 households – 43% of the total – have incomes below the ALICE threshold and can thus be described as in a state of financial instability. • Financial instability varies widely within the communities of Tampa Bay, and within household types. Households headed by an individual 65+ years of age are more likely to experience financial instability in Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Polk counties, relative to other household types, and vis-à-vis the rest of the region. Prosperity has many definitions, but certainly a set of circumstances that result in daily choices between paying for monthly utilities or rent, or between quality child care or nutritious food, would not easily be included in those definitions. “Survival” is rarely employed as a synonym for “prosperity.” In Tampa Bay, and in communities across the nation, many working residents are faced with the tough choices listed above – and others – and as a result are unable to build their personal finances. Through a national research effort, last published in 2018, United Way has given this segment of the population a name: ALICE. ALICE is an acronym for Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed, and identifies, on a market-by-market basis, the share of the working population (at a household level) that is working, finds themselves above the uniformly defined federal poverty line, but also generally unable to make ends meet based on a basket of necessary household goods and services. These expenses, at a bare minimum standard, are dubbed in the research as the Household Survival Budget and include: Housing, Child Care (for families with children), Food, Transportation, Health Care, Technology, Taxes, and a Miscellaneous contingency fund.
“Financially unstable households are at greatest risk for a host of negative related outcomes, including lower educational attainment and increased residential transience.”
1.
HOUSEHOLDS WITH FINANCIAL INSTABILITY OR ALICE STATUS
In Tampa Bay, the number and share of ALICE and below poverty rate households vary from community to community. These financially unstable households are at greatest risk for a host of negative related outcomes, including lower educational attainment and increased residential transience. The charts below present – for each of Tampa Bay’s counties – the number of households below the poverty line and the ALICE threshold and the percentage of households classified as financially unstable. HOUSEHOLDS WITH POVERTY OR ALICE STATUS Citrus
Citrus
50.3%
Hernando
Polk
49.2%
Hillsborough
Pasco
45.8%
Manatee
Hernando
44.2%
Pasco
Manatee
43.8%
Pinellas
Pinellas
42.6%
Polk
Hillsborough
39.2%
Sarasota
Sarasota
37.8%
0
50K Poverty
76
HOUSEHOLDS WITH POVERTY OR ALICE STATUS
100K
150K
200K
ALICE
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
All told, nearly 770,000 Tampa Bay households exist in a state of financial instability. While relatively smaller shares of their household population, at 39.2% and 42.6% respectively, Hillsborough and Pinellas counties account for nearly half (374,000) of the financially unstable households in the Tampa Bay region. The sheer volume of these households requires a great deal of support from various social and civic agencies. Conversely, while the share of financially unstable households may be larger in other counties, their relatively smaller populations of residents and business typically makes it more difficult for a robust set of social services to exist. Financially unstable households can be further described by living arrangement.
OUTCOMES
2. FINANCIAL INSTABILITY BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE
The chart below describes, all households as well as for three distinct household types, the share of financial instability (ALICE or poverty) prevalent in each Tampa Bay County.
FINANCIAL INSTABILITY BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Citrus
Hernando
Hillsborough
Manatee
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
All Households
Head of Household < 65 Years Old, Children Present
Head of Household < 65 Years Old, No Children Present
Head of Household + 65 Years Old
Sarasota
In Hillsborough, Pinellas, and â&#x20AC;&#x201C; to a lesser extent â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Polk counties, the share of households headed by individuals 65 years of age and older is the largest segment of the financially unstable household mix. In this light, financial assistance policies and programs in those communities might be aligned towards special needs of that population group.
www.stateoftheregion.com
77
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, export
growth and home sales price growth. The job creation rate, and its ranking, declined for the third straight year. Crime rates – total and violent – remain atop the rankings. Opportunities for growth and improvement are, as with previous years, 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 continues to trail the comparison set.
Job Gr ow Av th er Ra ag e W te Av a er ge ag Me e Wa g dia n H e Se rvi Me ou ce an se Se ho Ho cto l Me d us r Inc eh dia om old nH e Bu Inc ou sin om se es ho e( s ld Ad Lo E sta Ne we va bli nc tW st s e Qu or hm dI Ad th int nd va e n ile us nc t S ) try ed tar Me I J t nd ob rch Ra u S t s an e ha try Ex dis re GR ist eE ing P xp Gr Ho or ow ts me th G ro Ra Sa Un wt les te ive h Pr rsi R ate ice ty Un R& Gr ive D ow rsi Ex th ty Pa pe Ra Te ten nd c te hn itu ts o P r SB es log er IR/ 10 y Li ST ,00 TR 0 R cens Aw ing es ar ide Wa d n s lka ts Pe bil rC ity Pa ap ve ita me nt Pe C de ste ondi tio ria Av ns na er Ra ag nd ted eC Cy An om cli Fa nu s ir o m t al Fa ut rG Ho tal e Sh T u oo i ar tie im rs d eo sp e Lo f e s Tr Co t in r1 an m 0 Co 0,0 sit mu ng 00 Ve ter Tr es hic Re an s t ion sid wi le sit th Re en Rid No 1 v ts + e e n n-S Ho rsh ue u to i pP Mi rC pA les om er ir S Ca Pe mu er rC pit vic tes a ap eD ita es tin ati on Gr ow th Ra te
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 1-4
BEST
Rank 5-8
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 Raleigh-Durham San Antonio
n/a
San Diego Seattle South Florida St. Louis
ECONOMIC VITALITY 78
INNOVATION
2020 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 De : n gr e d BA ro nt uc ee lle /B ati Ra P di S+ ST on te: nS EM rodu al G ch ra cti At De d oo t o a u La np gr inm ate l ee bo e /P r1 en rF Pr ro tR 0,0 od or fes ce ate uc 00 sio tio Pa :B Re Cr n na r A s t ici i / P im d l B e en pa S+ r1 eR t t s i 0 ate on :A ,00 Vio ss Ra pe 0R len oc te: r es tC iat Ag ide Sh rim 100, es e 0 ar n an eR 00 25 ts eo dA R a 6 fC te es 4 bo Fo i h p d od ve ild er e nt re 10 Ins s n 0 ec He i , n 0 ur 00 Fo alt ity ste Re hI sid ns r Pr Ca ur en im re an ts ar ce y Ca Me Co r ve eP dia ra nD hy ge sic Cu a Ra ily ian ltu tes Air ra s p l Qu er an Aff dR 10 ali or ty , da ec Ind 000 bil re Ho Re a i e t t y us x ion sid :C ing os al en t E Tra Aff ts sa s t a or ns s b aP da lis po hm bil rta er ce ity tio en Ne nt :H nA ts tM ag ou pe ff eo or igr s r1 ing da f In ati Mi 0,0 bil E on lle c x 00 o i t pe nn me y: T Re n i a r d Gr l a sid i I n t n-M ur os sp en e sR o s ts igr rta a e sa ati Pe gio tio on rC nE na Pe ap xp lP rce ita en ro Un nt du dit Gr a em u c o t (G res ge o ss plo f In R Yo R a ym eg sa P) co ut ion en Gr Pe me hP t o a r R c w o l en Po ate Pr ve th tag od ve rty R a rty uc eo Ra t (G te f In Ra te Fu te RP co ll-T me ) Po ime ve rty Wor Ra ker te
In terms of Outcomes, Tampa Bay finds itself in the lower area of the ranking tables in most indicators â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Net Migration is the exception, where Tampa Bay leads the pack â&#x20AC;&#x201C; suggesting that while Tampa Bay continues to be 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.
TALENT n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
CIVIC QUALITY
www.stateoftheregion.com
SUMMARY OF INDICATORS
As with previous editions of the Regional Competitiveness Report, we look forward to collectively digging into these findings, analyzing the supporting data, and encouraging collaborative development of strategies to create a more competitive and prosperous Tampa Bay.
n/a
n/a
n/a
OUTCOMES
79
STATE OF THE REGION
WE’RE A REGION ON THE RISE. Dynamic, diverse and growing. But we’ve got work to do if we want to create a community where everyone prospers, and no one is left behind.
compares Tampa Bay’s performance to the 19 communities benchmarked in the Regional Competitiveness Report, and begins to identify the most impactful policy initiatives to improve the region’s competitive position.
To accurately assess the state of our region, we need to take an honest look at both our strengths and our weaknesses, and ask ourselves important questions: What are we doing well? Where can we improve? How do we compare to communities across the country? And how do we move the needle on our greatest challenges?
COMMUNITY LUNCHEON
Through the State of the Region initiative and its collection of complementary research products and community events, we’re generating valuable insights that will help Tampa Bay’s business and civic leaders answer these questions and more.
REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
The Regional Competitiveness Report is produced annually by the Tampa Bay Partnership Foundation, in collaboration with the Community Foundation of Tampa Bay and United Way Suncoast. This comprehensive research effort examines Tampa Bay’s strengths and weaknesses across a diverse set of indicators, and measures the region’s performance against 19 benchmark communities nationwide.
TAMPA BAY E-INSIGHTS REPORT
The Tampa Bay E-Insights Report is developed by researchers from the Center for Analytics and Creativity at the University of South Florida’s Muma College of Business. This report analyzes the real-time signals sent by big data regarding the current economic health of the region,
80
2020 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT
Both reports are released each year at the State of the Region Community Luncheon. Hosted by the Tampa Bay Partnership and USF Muma College of Business, and supported by Florida Blue, Grow Financial and the SunTrust Foundation, hundreds of public, private and non-profit leaders from throughout Tampa Bay attend this invitationonly event. The next event will be held in January 2021.
STATEOFTHEREGION.COM
Both reports, as well as information about the annual community luncheon, can be found online at www. stateoftheregion.com. Thanks to a generous grant from Florida Blue, visitors will soon be able to access a new suite of web tools to view and interact with the community data.
FUTURE PROJECTS
The Tampa Bay Partnership is also exploring the development of an annual Regional Sentiment Survey to serve as a complementary extension of the Regional Competitiveness Report. This survey would provide additional insight on the priorities and perceptions of Tampa Bay residents, allowing community leaders to better prioritize and allocate resources in response. A companion report, the Regional Sentiment Index, will be developed by USF Muma College of Business. These reports are expected to be released in mid-2020.
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 has been felt in 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. THE PRODUCTION OF THE 2020 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: Danielle Albright (Tampa Bay Economic Development Council), Bea
Coalition of Sarasota County), Heather Kasten (Greater Sarasota
Bare (Tampa Bay Economic Development Council), Devon Barnett
Chamber of Commerce), Sean Kennedy (St. Petersburg Greenhouse),
(Tampa International Airport), Lauren Bates (AMIKids), Matthew Battista
Owen LaFave (NAIOP), Devan Lane (University of South Florida), Chris
(University of Tampa), Josh Baumgartner (Tampa Bay Chamber), Rick
Letsos (Boys & Girls Clubs of Tampa Bay), Yvette Lewis (NAACP –
Bennett (Florida Blue Foundation), Stephen Benson (Florida Department
Hillsborough), JoLynn Lokey (Visit Tampa Bay), Sean Malott (Central
of Transportation – District 7), Whit Blanton (Forward Pinellas), Marc
Florida Development Council), Noel McCormick (Florida Defense
Blumenthal (Florida Funders), Austin Boyle (Emerging Leaders of
Contractors Association), Valerie McDevitt (USF Research Foundation),
Tampa Bay), Ryan Brown (Sarasota/Manatee MPO), Scott Campbell
Mike Meidel (Pinellas County Economic Development), Nicole Mills
(Tampa Bay Builders Association), Raechel Canipe (Emerging Leaders
(Florida Department of Transportation – District 1), Dan Mitchell
of Tampa Bay), Rick Casey (Pasco-Hernando State College), Jay Collins
(SMARTstart), John Moors (Greater Dade City Chamber of Commerce),
(Plan Hillsborough), Braulio Colón (Helios Education Foundation),
Tom Morrissette (Central Pinellas Chamber of Commerce), Adam
Sarah Combs (University Area CDC), Sheff Crowder (Conn Foundation),
Myers (Tampa Bay Economic Development Council), Linda Olson
Christina Davenport (Bay Area Manufacturers Association), Randy
(Tampa Bay WaVE), Eric Ortiz (Emerging Leaders of Tampa Bay), Valerie
DeShazo (Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council), Robin DiSalvo (Tampa
Pianta (Hernando County Office of Business Development), Ruthie
Bay Economic Development Council), Shauna Donahue (CareerEdge),
Reyes Burckard (HART), Yanina Rosario (SBDC), Suzanne Ruley
Tim Dutton (UNITE Pinellas), Lauren Ellis (St. Pete Young Professionals),
(Pinellas Community Foundation), Les Saland (Central Pasco Chamber
Tonya Elmore (Tampa Bay Innovation Center), David Engel (Pasco MPO),
of Commerce), Jessica Scites (Community Foundation of Tampa Bay),
Rachel Feinman (Florida Israel Business Accelerator), Ben Friedman
Ann Shaler (Bank of America Foundation), Mark Sharpe (Tampa
(Pinellas County Economic Development), Beau Giles (South Tampa
Innovation Partnership), Kelley Sims (Feeding Tampa Bay), Matt
Chamber of Commerce), Gordon Gillette (Early Learning Coalition of
Spence (Feeding Tampa Bay), Barbara St. Clair (Creative Pinellas), April
Hillsborough County), Stanley Gray (Hillsborough County Urban League),
Torregiante (CareerSource Pinellas), Carlos Valdes (AMIKids), John
Linda Hague (Wells Fargo Foundation), Carol Hague (Clearwater Regional
Villeneuve (Pasco MPO), Casey Welch (USF Sarasota-Manatee), Sue
Chamber of Commerce), Sunny Hall (Crisis Center of Tampa Bay), Dave
Wetzel (United Way Suncoast), Freddy Williams (Boys & Girls Clubs
Hamilton (CareerSource Pasco/Hernando), Marshall Hampton (Florida
of the Suncoast), Johnny Wong (Hillsborough MPO) and Dennis Zink
Department of Transportation – District 7), Geary Havran (Florida
(SCORE – Manasota).
Medical Manufacturing Consortium), Andrea Henning (St. Petersburg College), Sharon Hillstrom (Bradenton Area EDC), Bill Hoffman (Florida Philanthropic Network), Nico Hohman (Greater Tampa Association of Realtors), Emery Ivery (United Way Suncoast), Dianne Jacob (PNC Foundation), Chris Jadick (TBARTA), Justin Johnson (St. Petersburg Area Chamber of Commerce), Pairris Jones (Florida Polytechnic), Kim Jowell (Hillsborough Education Foundation), Janet Kahn (Early Learning
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, Dr. Jesse Coraggio and Chuck Tiernan; and from United Way Suncoast, Jessica Muroff 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, Vice President of Strategic Communications and Outreach, and Courtney McDonnell, Program Coordinator. Editorial support was provided by Carlin Communications. Non-stop air service destination data provided by Tampa International Airport. Graphic design and production provided by
estudio-5 | www.estudio-5.com www.stateoftheregion.com
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT could not have occurred without the engaged support of business and
COPY HERE
ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE COLLABORATING TEAM, the authors wish to acknowledge and recognize the volunteer leadership 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 Robert H. Mohr, Chair Trusts and Estates Attorney Edward F. Koren, Treasurer Holland & Knight Susanna Fenhagen, Secretary Retired Executive Betty Castor, Past Chair Former USF President Donna L. Longhouse, Past Chair Allen Dell, P.A.
TAMPA BAY PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS
TAMPA BAY PARTNERSHIP LEADERSHIP COUNCIL
Dan Vigne, Chair Northern Trust
David Pizzo, Chair Florida Blue
Chris Bailey Charter Communications
Brian Deming, Vice Chair Community Volunteer
Brian Auld Tampa Bay Rays
Michael Baughen JPMorgan Chase
David Walker, Treasurer/ Finance Chair Retired, Procter & Gamble
David Call Fifth Third Bank
Rob Bennett Emera Technologies, LLC
Ravi S. Chari, MD HCA West Florida
Pierre Caramazza Franklin Templeton Investments
Eric Bailey, Immediate Past Chair CapTrust Scott Curtis Raymond James Financial
Miles S. Capron, Retired Capron Sales
Rae Dowling Florida Power & Light
Ron Ciganek Valley Bank
Bob Dutkowsky Tech Data Corporation
Richard J. Dobkin, Retired Ernst & Young
Mark Fernandez Valley National Bank
Patricia Douglas, Retired Bush Ross
Estella Gray State Attorney’s Office
Laurence R. Fasan Sabal Trust
Tim Henning Publix Super Markets
Bill Fries Hiregy
Kimberly Hopper Iberia Bank
Damon C. Glisson Attorney
Rob Lane Kerkering Barberio
Seton T. Hengesbach Hengesbach & Hengesbach
Bill Merrill Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timms, Furen & Ginsberg
Oscar J. Horton Sun State International Trucks, LLC
David Pizzo Florida Blue
Dr. Lyda Tymiak Lindell Community Advocate
Stuart Rogel Graylan Ventures
Richard Rios Ameriprise Financial
Karen Rushing Clerk of the Circuit Court & County Comptroller
Mark Sena MediaSphere Partners, LLC Linda Simmons R.R. Simmons Dr. Juel Smith JUE-L Consulting Group James R. Stanger Simon & Associates of Raymond James
John Couris Tampa General Hospital Gwen Cummings Amgen Dr. Steven Currall University of South Florida Dan Doyle, Jr. Dex Imaging Bob Dutkowsky Tech Data Corporation Scott Fink Fink Automotive Group Richard Forsyth Wendover Art Group Bobby Harris BlueGrace Logistics Anne Marie Lapczynski Bristol-Myers Squibb Chad Loar PNC Bank Carolyn Monroe Old Republic National Title Holding Company
Bob Clifford WSP USA Joe Coleman Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney Tom Corona Deloitte Jim Daly BB&T Melanie Fowler HDR Engineering, Inc. Steve Griggs Tampa Bay Lightning Edwin Narain AT&T Robert Hessel Source 1 Solutions Tommy Inzina BayCare Health System Michael G. Jones Regions Bank Jack Kolosky Moffitt Cancer Center
Brian Murphy ReliaQuest
Dan Malasky Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Willy Nunn Homes by WestBay
Jessica Muroff United Way Suncoast
Alex Sink Community Volunteer
Jim O’Connell Vinik Family Office
Steve Raney Raymond James Bank
Bob Thompson Manatee Area Board Representative
Joc O’Rourke The Mosaic Company
Amy Rettig Nielsen
Tim Schar SunTrust Bank
Larry Richey Cushman & Wakefield of Florida
Barry Shevlin Vology
Mike Starkey Genesys
Chuck Sykes Sykes Enterprises, Inc.
Sue Williams Community Advocate
T.J. Szelistowski TECO Peoples Gas System
Frank J. (Sandy) Rief Allen Dell, PA
4
UNITED WAY SUNCOAST BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Yvette Segura USAA Darryl Shaw BluePearl Veterinary Partners Ron Wanek Ashley Furniture
*Information current as of November 30, 2019