2020 Regional Competitiveness Report

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