N^ / V ' 0> A UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PUBLICATION „*!«<» Co. **«ns o» S PROGRAM EVALUATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration The Economic Development Administration Growth Center Strategy PROGRAM EVALUATION: THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION GROWTH CENTER STRATEGY FEBRUARY 1972 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration GROWTH CENTER EVALUATION TASK FORCE PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In December 1970, Robert A. Podesta, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development, enjoined a task force to: evaluate the Economic Development Administration's experience with its growth center strategy; and provide recommendations for improving the strategy's effectiveness. This report is the result of that effort. Three teams of analysts spent five months studying a group of 12 cities which EDA had designated as growth centers; these cities also had completed EDA projects. The study focused on the impact of Agency expenditures and the strategy the Agency has employed to insure spillover from the growth centers to surrounding areas. It required visits to project sites, inter- views with community leaders and analysis of data collected through employer and employee questionnaires. The Agency's present strategies were found to be ineffective with little benefit from expenditures spilling over to surrounding distressed counties. Growth Center projects were also found to have no more total impact than those placed directly in distressed (re- development) areas. In addition, a National Assessment of data provided by the Census Bureau and the Office of Business Economics enabled the task force to derive a list of cities which can be categorized as having potential for future population and employment growth. All of these cities are either in or economically linked to EDA districts. From this list, a group of "action centers" was selected. The task force addressed the question of strategy improve- ment by designing guidelines for a revised growth center policy. Programs to implement the revised strategy are presented in an appendix to this report. It should be pointed out that this report reflects the views of the Growth Center Evaluation Task Force and not the official posture of the Agency. The task force was composed of two groups, one with broad Agency representation which conducted the Case Studies (CS) , and another with a strict analytic orientation which conducted the National Assessment (NA) . 11 HIGHLIGHTS A. OBJECTIVES AND METHOD The growth center study consists of two basic parts: (1) an in-depth assessment of EDA activity in 12 designated growth centers; and (2) an assessment of the growth potential of 1,440 (45%) of the nation's counties which are located in areas of the country experiencing overall development problems according to the criteria established in the Economic Development Act (PL 89-136 as amended by PL 92-65) . The in-depth assessment includes a comparative evaluation of the short-term impact of EDA projects in economic development centers (EDC's) with projects in redevelopment areas (RA's) in the same states (but in most cases not from the same districts) . Because Agency policy statements on the growth center strategy [MEDO 1-28 (revised) ] stress the job impact to be derived from EDC projects, the primary impact measure used is "EDA investment (in dollars) per job created (or saved)." Special weight is given to jobs created for the unem- ployed or underemployed who resided in the RA's (the primary geographic target areas of EDA) at the time the individual projects were evaluated. Although there is a limited analysis of the quality and attitudes of the economic development district leadership and the operations of the district as a subregional unit in the individual case studies, no attempt has been made to compare EDA's growth center strategy with alternative institutional mechanisms for organizing clusters of conti- guous RA's. In short, the in-depth assessment is largely a series of case studies discussing EDA project impact, effectiveness of Positive Action Programs, district organizations' implementation of the growth center strategy, and community attitudes and activities. The second major part of the study - the National Assessment of the growth potential of selected counties - was conducted concurrent with but independent of the in-depth assessment. The National Assessment is an attempt to judge the economic development potential of counties located in chronically depressed areas of the United States on the basis of objective criteria pertaining to observed historical population and employment growth rates and economic base. No site visits were made to these areas (unless they were visited coincidentally as part of the in-depth assessment). Hence, there was no attempt to judge either special physical resource and economic considerations or intan- gible factors (e.g., attitudes, presence of entrepreneurial skills) which might influence the development potential of these counties and EDA's role there. Ill B. PRACTICAL LIMITATIONS Two major study limitations follow from the study objectives and design described above. (1) The study is a short-term impact study with only limited treatment given to the complexities of benefit-cost analysis, particularly the complete accounting of social benefits and costs and the time horizon over which they occur. (2) Because of resource limitations, the data on the RA projects that were compared with the EDC projects were taken from reports submitted by two independent contrac- tors approximately six to nine months prior to the under- taking of the present study. Thus, some problems of com- parability arise from possible differences in interviewing methods, the characteristics of interviewers, and the dates during which job impact was measured. In particular, since the present study assessed projects during early 1971 at the height of a mild recessionary period and during a time of rapid inflation, the RA job impact and cost mea- sures taken from earlier studies may not be directly com- parable. Since one objective of this study is to compare the impact of EDC projects with similar ones in RA's, the construction of a matched set of RA projects from past studies was required. This requirement was not attained with complete success because of the geographic incom- patibilities of the EDC project and RA project data h -es. First, only nine states are included in the sample; second, ne total number of projects sampled varies significantly from state to state; and third, the mix of projects by type (public works and business loan) and by geographic subregion (EDC and RA) varies widely from state to state. Hence, differences in "EDA average investment per job" could be biased by the particular mix of projects sampled and not be completely repre- sentative of EDA activity throughout the nation to date. C. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The findings of this study are based primarily on analyses of 12 economic development centers. These centers are representative of all EDA-designated economic development centers in terms of economic viabil- ity, population, relationship to surrounding distressed areas, and geographic location. However, because of the extremely limited sample in a few specific areas (e.g., environmental projects), some of the findings are necessarily preliminary. Except where otherwise stated, the following findings and conclusions do not hold for growth centers located within distressed counties (redevelopment centers) . IV 1. In-Depth Analysis . EDA's experience in funding projects in economic development centers has not yet proven that the growth center strategy outlined in the Agency's legislation and clarified in EDA policy statements is workable. The Agency's approach to assisting distressed areas through projects in growth centers has resulted in minimal employment and service benefits to residents of depressed counties. . In the evaluated centers, growth center projects have resulted in no more job impact than similar projects placed directly in economically depressed counties (redevelopment areas) . Dis- tressed area projects of the same type, age, and from the same states were compared with EDA growth center projects. The results of this comparison are presented in the table on the following page. . The "EDA average investment per direct job" for projects in distressed counties (redevelopment areas) was $6,275; for growth center projects of the same type, it was $6,908. In- cluding expected future job impact lowers the investment per job for both categories, but does not significantly alter the difference between the two. There is no statistically signifi- cant difference between these two figures. . A further breakdown of the "EDA average investment per direct job" between public works and business loan projects yields the following results: Redevelopment Area EDC Public Works $2,740 $6,310 Business Loans $8,905 $7,486 It is clear that the major source of variation in these figures is derived from the relatively low figure for public works projects placed in redevelopment areas ($2,740 per job). . Unemployed and underemployed persons received 31% of the jobs generated through EDA growth center projects, as compared with 28% of the jobs created through projects in redevelopment areas. This difference does not appear to be significant. . Only 14% of the jobs resulting from growth center projects were filled by present or former residents of redevelopment areas. This compares with 87% for projects located directly in distressed areas. COMPARISON OF PUBLIC WORKS AND BUSINESS LOAN PROJECTS IN RA's AND GROWTH CENTERS CATEGORIES OF GROWTH CENTER PROJ- RA PROJECTS ANALYSIS ECTS (26 PROJECTS)* (3 PROJECTS) Average Project Cost $1,360,000 $768,000 Average EDA Parti- cipation $722,000 $495,000 Average EDA- Attributed Jobs Per Project 109 79 Average EDA In- vestment Per Job $6,908 $6,275 Percent EDA- Attributed Jobs to PA Residents 14% 87% Average EDA In- vestment Per RA Job $50,000 $8,164 Percent EDA- Attributed Jobs to Unemployed and Underem- ployed Persons 31% 2 8-6 Average Annual Salary Generated $5,900 $5,300 *Does not include two "environmental" projects VI . 99% of the 850 employees surveyed at EDA-associated firms in growth centers would have remained in the area if their present jobs had not been available. Thus by this measure, at least, EDA growth center projects are not stemming out-migration from surrounding distressed counties or the region (district) . . Positive Action Programs as presently administered have not been an effective means of insuring that residents of nearby dis- tressed areas benefit from the employment opportunities and public services in growth centers. No observable benefits have accrued to residents of such areas as a result of EDA's requirement that growth centers prepare these documents. In a few cases, residents of growth centers have, however, bene- fitted from PAP's. . District staffs, while usually effective as grantsmen, planners, and agents of change, have not taken steps to insure that resi- dents of redevelopment areas benefit significantly from EDA growth center projects. Bowling Green was a notable excep- tion . 2 . National Assessment Most of the statistical assessment of growth centers is based on county rather than city data. County data was used because the county is the basis for most available data on population and socioeconomic conditions. Further, most city- based data reflects the results of annexation, a political rather than economic phenomenon. Not only is it difficult to ascertain the effects of annexation, but deflation techniques are subject to interpretive error. Several findings of significance to EDA policy resulted from the assessment of the 1,440 counties located in and around EDA's economic development districts. . With only one exception, the Agency's designation procedures have selected the best growth centers (both economic development centers and redevelopment centers) available within the 103 districts designated as of December 31, 1970. However, a sub- stantial number of districts (42%) contain no cities with growth potential. . According to the criteria of the national assessment, the majority of the counties in which EDA growth centers (both economic development centers and redevelopment centers) are located appear to offer limited or no potential for future population or em- ployment growth. 60% were categorized as having limited or no growth potential on the basis of the evaluation: 48% of all economic development centers and 81% of all redevelopment centers. • Because of EDA's concentration in areas with such limited poten- tial, it is not surprising to find that: 42% of the counties in which EDA growth centers are located declined in absolute population during both decades. vii 75% of all EDA growth center counties experienced net out-migration during the 1950-60 decade: 70% of eco- nomic development centers and 84% of redevelopment centers . The net out-migration trend increased during the 1960- 70 decade, when 84% experienced net out-migration: 77% of economic development centers and 97% of redevelop- ment centers . 37% of all EDA growth center counties had net out- migration rates exceeding those of their districts during the decade 1960-70: 30% of economic develop- ment centers and 48% of redevelopment centers. Vlll TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE I BACKGROUND 1 A. INTRODUCTION 1 B. HISTORY OF EDA ' S GROWTH CENTER STRATEGY 1 C. IMPLEMENTATION OF EDA ' S GROWTH CENTER STRATEGY 5 D. RATIONALE FOR EVALUATING EDA ' S GROWTH CENTER STRATEGY 8 E. EVALUATION APPROACH 10 F. EVALUATION RESULTS 12 II FINDINGS OF THE IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF SELECTED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS .... 13 A. INTRODUCTION 13 B. COLLECTIVE FINDINGS 13 C. SUMMARIES OF INDIVIDUAL GROWTH CENTER EVALUATIONS 28 III FINDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT qg A. INTRODUCTION 39 B. DETAILED FINDINGS V OVERALL FINDINGS 92 IV SUPPORTING ANALYSES I55 PART ONE - POPULATION AND MIGRATION STUDY. ... 155 PART TWO - CONTIGUOUS COUNTY EMPLOYMENT PROFILE. 167 173 A. SUMMARY 17 3 B. IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF SELECTED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS 17 4 C. NATIONAL ASSESSMENT 178 IX APPENDIX PAGE A EVALUATION APPROACH: IN-DEPTH ASSESSMENT OF SELECTED GROWTH CENTERS A.l B EVALUATION APPROACH: NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF GROWTH CENTERS B.l C DETAILED FINDINGS OF NATIONAL ASSESSMENT C.l D EDA'S MEDO'S ON THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTER STRATEGY D.l E COMPARATIVE DATA BASE E.l F EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE QUESTIONNAIRES F.l G ABSOLUTE MIGRATION BY REGION, DISTRICT, EDC COUNTIES, RC COUNTIES, AND NON-EDC, NON-RC COUNTIES FOR 1960-1970 G.l I . BACKGROUND A. INTRODUCTION The Economic Development Administration (EDA) was created in 1965 to provide federal assistance to the nation's distressed areas and regions in their efforts to achieve economic viability. As envisioned by Congress and the Administration, the primary thrust of the EDA program was to eliminate substantial and persistent unemployment and underemployment in these areas through the creation of new employment opportunities. To achieve this goal, the Agency was provided with a number of program tools. These include public works grants and loans, business development loans, working capital loan guarantees, technical assistance grants, planning grants, and research funds. When the Agency was created in 1965, technical assistance could be provided to any area exhibiting substantial need for such assistance. The other tools could be used only in areas suffering from substantial unemployment, persistent unemployment, low median family income, population losses, and sudden rises in unemployment. The tools could also be applied on those Indian reservations manifesting the greatest degree of economic distress and in the area that most nearly qualified in those states in which no areas met the preceding criteria. In addition, the Agency was given authority to provide assistance to areas designated as growth centers, and to award planning grants to organizations devoted to economic develop- ment planning. Since 1965, the enabling legislation has been amended to allow EDA to assist places designated as 0E0 Special Impact Areas. These Special Impact Areas are located in the economically distressed portions of the nation's major cities. B. HISTORY OF EDA ' S GROWTH CENTER STRATEGY 1. ARA Experience Under the Economic Development Administration's predecessor, the Area Redevelopment Administration, only areas with sub- stantial and persistent unemployment or low median family in- come were eligible for program benefits. Moreover, with the exception of a few experimental cases, the Area Redevelopment Administration (ARA) program was administered on a single-county basis. The agency's enabling legislation contained no provisions to encourage counties to cooperate in an effort to solve common problems. The single-county approach employed by ARA drew criticism from economists and planners in other agencies. These individuals also questioned the efficiency of assisting residents of dis- tressed areas by spending money in those areas. As an alter- native to such an approach, they recommended funding projects in more prosperous places whose growth would benefit residents of depressed areas. Proponents of this "growth center" strategy argued that industry would be more interested in such sites and that it would be less expensive to create jobs in communities with developed infrastructures. After a 1963 trip to Carbondale, Illinois, on a tour of areas aided by ARA, the agency's Advisory Committee joined the supporters of the growth center strategy. Carbondale had just been taken off the agency's list of designated areas at the time of the Committee's visit, and its leaders presented an impres- sive case to the Committee as an argument against its de-desig- nation. Their claim was that ARA should continue to fund projects in Carbondale because it was a growth center serving nine counties, a number of which were designated redevelopment areas. The obvious validity of this position and the community leaders' persuasiveness in presenting it made a lasting impres- sion on the Advisory Committee. As a result. of their experience in Carbondale, members of this group began to advocate revis- ing the ARA legislation to include the growth center concept. The concept did not stimulate the same degree of enthusiasm within the agency. A number of ARA officials accepted the strategy in principle, but viewed it as politically undesirable and impractical. These individuals argued that employing the strategy would result in competitive fighting among cities and resentment on the part of residents of rural areas whose proj- ect applications were rejected in favor of growth center projects. Despite such skepticism about the feasibility of implemen- ting the growth center concept through a program such as ARA ' s , agency policy makers could not ignore the growing interest in such a strategy nor its potential value to future development efforts. As a result, studies were funded through ARA ' s research program to define districts and growth centers in several states. A study was also funded to identify European experience with the growth center concept and to determine how that concept could best be applied through a program such as ARA's. In addition, in-house studies were conducted to struc- ture a program that combined the growth center strategy with a regional approach to area redevelopment. (The results of these efforts proved useful to Congressmen, state governors, and EDA officials involved in structuring and implementing the Agency's District Program.) 2 . Legislative Background By fiscal year 1965, when efforts to draft new legislation for assisting economically distressed areas were initiated, both Congress and the Administration favored including some form of the growth center strategy. On March 25, 1965, the President submitted a message to Congress on area and regional economic development. In this message, he stated that the program proposed by the Administration to replace ARA was pri- marily based on the experience of the accelerated public works program, ARA, and the Appalachian Regional Development Commis- sion. A major portion of the President's message was devoted to explaining the organizational format of the new program. In addition to working through redevelopment areas, the proposed program was to be organized on the basis of economic develop- ment districts, regional action planning commissions, and economic development centers. The President identified economic development centers as "places where resources can be most swiftly and effectively used to create more jobs and higher income for the people of the surrounding area." 1/ In discussing these places, he in- dicated that they need not be distressed themselves to receive designation as a center. The rationale he gave for designating such places was that development succeeds more frequently when activities are located in a single community large enough to offer the advantages that flow from size itself. He also said that clusters of industry tend to attract other industry, and that such clusters offer the prospect of improving the economic conditions of the entire area. During the Congressional hearings that followed submission of the Administration's proposal, another rationale was given for implementing the growth center strategy. One of the goals of the new program was to stem migration from the nation's depressed areas. Proponents of the growth center strategy asserted that funding projects in designated centers would help to achieve this goal. Their position was based on the assump- tion that accelerating and increasing the growth and prosperity of such centers would encourage residents of nearby depressed areas to seek work in the growth center instead of migrating to other areas. — Lyndon B. Johnson, "Presidential Message on Area and Regional Economic Development," March 25, 1965. The growth center strategy proposed by the Administration for inclusion in the area and regional economic development legislation was accepted by Congress, and became law with the August 1965 signing of the Public Works and Economic Develop- ment Act. This Act, which resulted in the creation of EDA, linked the growth center concept to another new approach to economic development, the Economic Development District Program. Reflecting the belief that certain areas could not mount effec- tive attacks on unemployment and low income on their own, this program encourages counties to pool talents and resources to achieve common aims. This is accomplished through the forma- tion of multi-county economic development districts. The Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 stip- ulates that each economic development district is to contain two or more redevelopment areas and to be of sufficient size or population and have sufficient resources to foster economic development on a multi-county basis. In addition, the legisla- tion states that each district must have one or more growth centers of sufficient size and potential to foster the economic growth activities necessary to alleviate the distress of the redevelopment areas within the district. These places can be located in redevelopment areas or in non-designated counties. In empowering the Secretary of Commerce to designate such places as economic development centers, the legislation lists three specific criteria for center selection. First, the center must be identified and included in an approved district overall economic develop- ment program (OEDP) and recommended for such designation by the state or states affected. Secondly, each center is to be geographically and economically so related to the district that its economic growth may reasonably be expected to contribute significantly to the alleviation of distress in the redevelopment areas of the district. The third criterion is that no center can have a population in excess of 250,000. Once designated, centers are eligible for EDA assistance if proposed projects meet three basic criteria. The project must further the objectives of the district OEDP, and either enhance the economic growth potential of the district or result in long-term employment opportunities commensurate with the amount of federal financial assistance requested. In addition, the level of federal assistance requested must be reasonably re- lated to the size, population, and economic needs of the district The EDA legislation authorizes an annual appropriation of up to $50 million for funding such projects. This amount also covers a 10-percent bonus on grants to redevelopment areas participating in district programs. C. IMPLEMENTATION OF EDA ' S GROWTH CENTER STRATEGY 1 . Policy Decisions a. Organizing the District Program The EDA legislation stipulated th.at these financial provi- sions be withheld for a period of one year after the Agency began operations, during which time planning for implementation of the District Program could be accomplished. However, the need to obligate a year's appropriation in less than nine months obscured other considerations during most of the 1966 fiscal year, and no action was taken on the District Program until February 1966. At that time, the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development invited state governors to submit recommendations on economic development district boundaries. In addition, he appointed a task force to develop and recommend an approach for implementing the District Program. This task force spent several months discussing such subjects as regional commission administration of the program and gubernatorial authority, but reached no concrete decisions. The 1967 fiscal year with its funds for growth centers was less than a month away when EDA's administrator delegated authority for organizing the program to an individual designated as his Special Assistant. The situation confronting the new program director and his staff necessitated prompt action. Not only was the establishment of organization guidelines essential, but preliminary recognition of districts and economic develop- ment centers also required immediate attention. Responses to the Assistant Secretary's request for district boundary proposals had provided more potential districts than could conceivably be funded during the 1967 fiscal year. In determining which districts to assist, EDA officials considered the percentage of district population living in redevelopment areas; per capita income in the district; percentage of families with annual incomes under $3,000; trading area and transportation patterns; and existence of a well-located economic development center . By September of 1966, 67 districts had been authorized for establishment, and a number of these newly formed entities had been designated as recipients of EDA-funded planning grants. The staffs funded by these grants worked with local residents to prepare OEDPs for submission to District Program officials in Washington. Included in these OEDPs were proposals for the designation of growth centers. The first growth center was designated in December of 1966 with the acceptance of an OEDP for the Coastal Bend Economic Development District in south Texas. By the end of fiscal year 1967, 22 such centers had been designated, and a number had succeeded in obtaining approval for EDA projects. b. Issuance of Policy Papers On January 6, 1967 i only a few days after designation of the first growth center, the Agency issued an Economic Develop- ment Order on the "Qualification and Delineation of Economic Development Centers." This policy statement, which was pri- marily a reiteration of the legislative stipulations regarding growth centers, is presented in Appendix D of this document. The first of its four major points was that cities or contiguous groupings of incorporated places could be designated as centers if the Secretary of Commerce determined that they met two criteria : (1) that they were the most likely places within economic development districts to have potentials for growth that might reasonably be expected to contribute to the alleviation of economic distress in di-strict redevelopment areas; and (2) that their designation was necessary to carry out the economic development program of the district effectively. Other points covered by the Order included the legisla- tive restriction against designating places with populations exceeding 250,000, and a statement that selection and designation of a district's growth center would be based primarily on facts and arguments presented in the district OEDP. In addition, EDA's policy governing the boundaries of economic development centers was discussed. While stating that the recognized boundaries of cities or groupings of incorporated places would ordinarily serve as the boundaries for the growth center, the Order announced that such boundaries could be expanded to include an adjoining minor civil division. This would be accomplished in the event that a public works or business development project consistent with the district OEDP and eligible for EDA financing was pro- posed and approved for location in the adjoining division. No further policy statements regarding EDA's growth center strategy were issued for more than a year. Then, on March 11, 1968, the Agency published a revised version of the earlier Eco- nomic Development Order. This statement on the "Economic Development Center Strategy," which specified for the first time centers' obligations to nearby redevelopment areas, is still in effect. It is presented in Appendix D. Although a number of issues are discussed in the revised Order, it is basically concerned with insuring that EDA expen- ditures in growth centers benefit redevelopment areas and their residents. These benefits can be in the form of employment, public services, increased economic activity, or reduction in the rate of migration to large urban centers. In discussing the Agency policy on project development, the document states that primary emphasis will be placed on those projects within centers that will: directly improve the employment opportunities of unemployed or underemployed residents of redevelop- ment areas; and/or make public services and facilities more readily available to residents of such areas. In addition, it indicates that priority will be given to projects that materially improve the environmental facilities essential to accelerating the center's growth. The March 1968 Order added administrative criteria to the legal requirements for designating growth centers. Among these is the stipulation that the center be establishing or imple- menting a comprehensive planning program at the time of designa- tion. This program must include a development strategy involv- ing the assimilation of unemployed and low-income residents of redevelopment areas into the growing economy of the center. In addition, each center should have a sizeable local market, a relatively large well-trained labor force, the prospect of developing a diversified economy, and (normally) a population base of at least 25,000. The Order also states that with the exception of location, redevelopment centers must meet the same criteria as economic development centers. (Redevelopment centers are located in district redevelopment areas, while economic development centers are located in non-designated counties.) Through the Order, a number of guidelines were established for use in approving projects in growth centers. These include giving priority to projects from centers located in districts ranked high in terms of economic distress, and considering no projects from a center until it has outlined a Positive Action Program detailing the steps it will take to insure that unemployed and underemployed residents of redevelopment areas benefit from its growth. The Order indicates that the Positive Action Programs will be reviewed at the Pre-Application Con- ferences that precede the submission of each growth center project. Among the other topics covered by this policy statement is responsibility for its implementation. District organiza- tions, EDA field offices, and the Agency's Washington staff are all assigned roles. For example, district organizations are given responsibility for assessing the plans and programs of growth centers, while primary responsibility for selecting and developing growth center projects is delegated to Area (Regional) Office personnel. Since issuance of the revised Economic Development Order in March 1968, the Agency's policy with regard to projects in growth centers has not changed. Although a guide was published in September of 1968 for communities to follow in preparing Positive Action Programs, no Economic Development Order has been issued on the subject. 2 . Data on Designated Centers and Project Funding As of March 31, 1971, EDA had designated 139 economic develop- ment centers and 67 redevelopment centers in 105 districts from Maine to California. The economic development centers had received obligations of approximately $104 .million through EDA's Public Works, Business Development, and Technical Assistance Programs. In addition, the 105 districts had received approximately $17 million in EDA planning grant funds. Table 1 presents a breakdown of EDA growth center expendi- tures and district planning grants by region. D. RATIONALE FOR EVALUATING EDA'S GROWTH CENTER STRATEGY When EDA initiated a major evaluation effort in January 1970, only three years had elapsed since designation of the first growth center. As a result, few growth center projects had the one-year completion status required by the analysts for inclusion in the evaluation. Because the number of projects that met the comple- LU PQ < LU LU O Q_ O > LU Q O O o u < co *■ — I CO CO < < Q o < \ Hi o o o o o Eh O U 2 CO H H Eh o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Pi 2 2 * [^ ■^ ro *" o ro Eh. S CO r~- CTi h j e> fc. *. *, VO *■ Q CU rH rH "* CN in rH J W H 00 < U O in H <* H CN Pi U 2 CN ro CN m o> 00 H H < (Tl ■<* r» 00 00 •» EH 2 Eh ^ •- •- •* ■« rH 2 ffi CO rH 00 in r^ r^ r- W CJ H O n ro KD CN ro u W CO co ro CN <* >. Eh CO •co- v> H ir> i w Q Eh 2 o o o o o o CO pq o o o o o H co S o o o o o £ W d. - v - V *. o 2 O in CM CN rH o s H J r- in O o ro o CO W r^ ■vT •. v •- ■* •. H PQ W 'sT CN O in ro Q V> C/> rH •ty> CN 2 CO- H CO 2 O H Eh < O CO H « i-3 Pi O O O O o o CO PQ O O O o O o o o O IS O o o O o o o «. *. ^ fc «. h. «. <: u CD r^ en CTi H r^ H Q H yo 00 IX) CN 00 LO O w r-3 r~ <* ■^r m rH o CN CQ k. •- *. *. w «. «. D >£> r^ r^ r^ v> CN u> CN C0- ^ «. *. • «* ^ ^ • • ■» ^-^ - •- (d o • . - » • Xi O H ^ CO • 0) rd O * o •> • USB K - • *■ *» *» , V 2 *» • - c •> 2 * • *■ * — . *. • iH • • • - . Pi • U • c • Pi • 2 • • • -P 2 0) CO >H H 2 • fO W rd • 2 Ti-HQ w rV - rd O H C O Q CO • • Pi CJ > Eh rH CO Pi c a • Eh U • rH >i rd H O rd 2 Pi W • • CO Cm W H 2 CO < rd ^ |2 U S o H -S Eh 2 5 < »• ^-~ Eh •» H -tJO 2 - - -— V W Eh • •« - CO W «... CO •. • v ^ & • •> ^ ^ Pi • • co Pi 2 a - • • < »■ ■> « • in c H . jz . . HI N • • Xi w m xi xi J < c • h) Pi w • • Eh rd en C S rH O Xi W Eh •H d > rd Eh rd rd W << J O T3 • • Q >i rd D rH -rH (U Q rH -rH 0) -H D 5-1 rd (U -P CO ■H •& rd Eh En u s ^ H « > O <: s b M H g 2 IS O < « 2 P W rtj H ^ o < s CO 2 "*— "' CO IS % ~ - ' Eh 00 CN >1 U rd U Xi 0) Cm 4-1 w < tion requirement was so small, the evaluators were primarily limited to making subjective judgments about the success of the strategy. During the course of the evaluation effort, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) submitted a set of four policy- oriented questions to EDA, requesting that they be addressed as part of the evaluation. One of the four asked whether EDA should concentrate assistance in development districts, espe- cially in economic development centers, or in depressed areas. Although the evaluators attempted to address this issue, the limited amount of data on growth center projects gave them no factual basis for a response. Their answer, which indicated that the Agency should and would continue to combine the two approaches, was primarily based on the same theoretical concepts applied in structuring the EDA legislation four years earlier. These experiences and the impending expiration of the EDA legislation impressed Agency policy makers and OMB officials with the need to learn more about the effectiveness of the growth center strategy as implemented by EDA. As a result, an in-house task force was appointed in December 1970 to analyze the Agency's implementation of the growth center strategy outlined in the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965. This document presents the results of the in-house task force's evaluation of EDA's growth center strategy. E. EVALUATION APPROACH Two major goals were identified in connection with this analysis : . to evaluate the impact of EDA expenditures in growth centers; and . to estimate the potential of counties to serve redevelop- ment areas as growth centers. The methodology developed to achieve these goals consisted of in- depth case studies of EDA growth centers and an economic assess- ment of counties in and near economic development districts. 1. In-Depth Case Studies To determine the impact of EDA growth center activities, de- tailed studies of 12 EDA-designated growth centers were conducted. These on-site examinations focused on determining EDA project im- pact, the effectiveness of Positive Action Programs, and the roles 10 played by district organizations in implementing the growth cen- ter strategy. Each center's influence on district migration was also assessed, as was the local development process in each cen- ter. Depending on the size of the center, three to seven man-weeks were spent on-site collecting data. Typical sources of information were district staff and board members, elected officials of the growth center, elected officials of district redevelopment areas, project applicants, and employers and employees in firms that located or expanded operations as a result of EDA projects. The data was obtained through in-depth interviews and, in the case of employers and employees, the administration of questionnaires designed specifically for this evaluation. A detailed description of the methodology used in conducting the 12 in-depth case studies is presented in Appendix A of this report. Appendix F contains the employer and employee question- naires administered during the field work. 2 . National Assessment The other portion of the evaluation was an assessment of counties in and near economic development districts. The purpose of this exercise was to identify counties with the potential to serve district redevelopment areas as growth centers. To determine a county's potential as a growth center, a number of factors were examined. These factors, which are ex- plained in detail in Appendix B, included: . a comparison of the county's changing employment struc- ture with that of other counties in the same region; . the county's employment growth in key sectors between 1950 and 1960; . the county's employment structure; . the county's population change between 1960 and 1970; and . the location of the county with respect to redevelopment areas and Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas. As part of the analysis, districts were modified to include non-district counties that fell within district trade and com- muting patterns. In addition, a study of employment changes in various sectors was conducted for counties contiguous to those counties designated as EDA growth centers or identified as growth centers through the National Assessment. The population and migra- tion characteristics of EDA-designated districts were also investi- gated. 11 EVALUATION RESULTS This document presents the findings of the growth center evalu- ation. The results of the in-depth case studies are presented in Section II, which includes summaries of each center visited. The methodology used to conduct the case studies appears in Appendix A, and the EDA MEDO's which helped form the basis for that methodology are reproduced in Appendix D. Questionnaires for obtaining data from employers and employees associated with EDA projects are presented in Appendix F. Detailed case studies of the centers visited are contained in a separate document entitled Supporting Documentation for the EDA Growth Center Evaluation - Detailed Case Studies . Section III presents the findings of the National Assessment portion of the evaluation. More detailed findings of this analysis appear in Appendix C, while Appendix B describes the methodology employed in conducting it. Two analyses conducted in support of the National Assessment are presented in Section IV: a population and migration study; and an analysis of employment in counties contiguous to EDA growth centers and other growth centers identified through the National Assessment. Appendix G contains the detailed migration data used in the popula- tion and migration study. The final section of the main body of the report is a summary of the overall findings. In this section, the project data collected through the case studies is compared with data from earlier evalua- tions of projects located in redevelopment areas. The RA projects from which these data are drawn are identified in Appendix E. 12 II. FINDINGS OF THE IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF SELECTED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS A. INTRODUCTION EDA's activities in economic development center (EDC's) were evaluated through in-depth case studies of 12 communities. In 11 of these centers, EDA projects had been approved and 9 percent disbursed since preparation of the community's Positive Action Program (PAP) . A thirteenth center was also visited to determine the impact of a Positive Action Program in a town in which no EDA projects had been approved. The centers, which are shown in Figure 1 and identified in Table 2 by population, project approvals, and project completions (90 percent disbursed), were selected to insure as much diversity as possible in terms of geographic location, population, and project type. The field work for this portion of the evaluation was con- ducted by a 10-man task force between February and April of 1971. More than 500 on-site interviews were held during this period, and 4 5 EDA projects were analyzed. Thirty-two of these were completed or had reached the stage where project impact could be determined. As previously indicated, the methodology employed in conducting these in-depth studies is described in detail in Appendix A. B. COLLECTIVE FINDINGS 1 . Impact of EDA Projects in Growth Centers a. Overall Job and Economic Structure Impact The 28 completed EDA public works and business loan projects in the growth centers evaluated have resulted in the creation of 2,825 direct jobs, at an average annual salary of $5,900. Thus, the projects have generated $16.6 million in yearly salary. In addition, they have led to approximately $43 million in private investment. EDA's investment per job for these projects is $7,167. If the EDA investment and jobs for the two "environmental" projects are elim- inated, the Agency's investment per job drops to $6,908. The four completed technical assistance projects have not had an appreciable impact on employment. However, one was partially responsible for the location of eight jobs in an industrial park being studied. The majority of the jobs created through EDA's growth center projects are in stable firms with year-round operations. There is no evidence that these firms have diversified local economies, 13 14 LU PQ < I— i en >- _i < < O- UJ Q CD O Q UJ < X LU CO LU O Eh rH .. CO CO ft Eh ft ft ft Q CD rH rH CN rH CN ft En Eh Eh U .. „ v rH ^ ^ ft ft CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO ft 1 h) «. _ - » ft O £ ft O ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ro CM ro CN CO rH <-i CM CN co u "^r CT, •rr t-- o ID LD 7~\ CN LD rH ID o CO LD ID r^ CO CO CO CN CO in rH O LD o rf CO LD rH rH rH rH rH CM <-\ rH r~- - ■co- CO- •CO- •CO- ■CO co- U O ft CO CO CO CO CO CO CO ft a» — m — «, — — — ft in ft O ft ft o ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft rH CN co ID CO rH rH CM co ^r <; ft ID CN •*? 00 CTi r^ LD rH CO r- 00 r^ o CO CT> CTi r- CO o VD ■<* rH in rH O LD o -^ x> ID ro O o CTi 00 CN LD rH a D CO ■^ CM co CO r- O CO co CD 00 CD CN CD o CN CT. CM r- r- O VD ft ^r •^ CO rH <& rH CO LD O CM O CM rH ft rd CO ■H rd C X •H CD - CT> Eh -P U rd U -H CO S •. O > ft CO a, i w £1 CO CO d) Eh rd id Cn 0) rd £ rH ft d co a H r* >i -H CO •H CJ O U CO rd fc4 CD rH o Eh +J CD d CO •H f0 CO - fi u £ a c -P C 50 a -c (d (d rH CD rd ft rd •H g rrj Iti a •H CO -H Eh O 3 >H rd cu M CO ■H u a tn -P ft 3 s M < C CO i M H ■» >H c -P Sh CO < o m -p > CD CD CD CO «< CO - — •H S W u 15 0) •H ■H >1 •. ". U Q 0) n >H -. S -P UH CO - i Sh u> Xi x: •H IH u CD C U ■ tn rH a U td CD •H 1 •X3 o rd C S >h « -P G C fd -h b rH u T3 rd o 4J" rd rd •H ^ M O w < ft ft u h s ft ft * CO Eh + C rd O J >H O CD U -P C C id rd -P Sh co O -H C co (1) en rd co +J C X O < •H O Sh J CO •HO >H ■PS B (3 -P rd co rj ra 3 O CD -H OJ HHCfi EH rd rH -H ,C > X! co o -p ft 3 3 CD O ft ft Eh rH ft ■H <: ii ii ii ft ft * + ft ft Eh 15 but this is partially explained by the fact that most of the centers examined differ from redevelopment areas because they already possess diversified economic bases. Thus, EDA projects in such places are less likely to have this type of impact. Approximately 30 percent of the 2,822 employees at EDA-asso- ciated firms in the growth centers were unemployed or underemployed prior to obtaining their present positions. One-fifth of these individuals are members of minority groups. The EDA projects in growth centers have raised 674 households above the poverty level and resulted in increased incomes for 84 households still below the poverty level. Thus, of the households affected by EDA growth center projects, 24 percent were raised above the poverty level as a result of the projects, while 3 percent remained below the poverty level. Seventy-eight percent of the jobs created by EDA are held by heads of households. The average annual increase in salary for previously unem- ployed persons as a result of EDA-created positions was $5,200. Previously employed workers increased their yearly wages by $1.7 million, for an average of $1,400 per person. In addition to obtaining jobs as a result of Agency projects, approximately 1,900 individuals received on-the-job training in connection with their new positions. Moreover, 69 percent of those persons advanced as a result of the training, either by receiving more responsibility or increases in salary. Approxi- mately 800 employees received other types of training, and 69 percent of these individuals received promotions or pay increases as a result of such training. The table on the following page summarizes the overall findings of the in-depth evaluations. b. Job Impact on Present and Former Redevelopment Area Residents Fourteen percent of the jobs created through the public works and business loan projects in growth centers have been filled by present and former residents of EDA-designated redevelopment areas (RA's). However, this figure is misleading because if the 600 jobs created by three interrelated projects in Bowling Green, Kentucky, are eliminated from the data base, less than 6 percent of the remaining jobs are held by RA residents. For all projects, EDA ' s investment per job to a present or former RA resident is $50,000. Excluding the unique case in Bowling Green raises this figure to $116,000. 16 TABLE 3 EDA EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS CATEGORY EDA IMPACT Jobs Generated 2,822 . Jobs to Present and Former RA Residents 392 . Jobs to Previously Unem- ployed and Underemployed 875 . Jobs to Members of Minor- ity Groups 271 . Jobs to Heads of House- holds 2,211 . Number of Families Raised Above Poverty Level 674 EDA Investment Per Job $6,908 EDA Investment Per RA Job $50,000 $116,000** Average Salary $5,900 Training . On-the-Job 1,931 . Other 782 * Excluding two "environmental" projects ** Excluding Bowling Green Projects 17 Of the present and former RA residents employed as a result of EDA projects, just over 26 percent were previously unemployed or underemployed. Approximately 13 percent of these previously unemployed or underemployed individuals are members of minority groups. Ninety-six families who live in RA's or formerly resided there were raised above the poverty level as a result of EDA projects in growth centers, while 8 remain below poverty level, despite the income from the job created by EDA. The average annual salary for present and former RA residents with EDA-associated jobs was $6,400. The average annual salary increase for previously unemployed RA residents was $5,600, while previously employed RA residents averaged an annual salary in- crease of $1,200. Approximately 92 percent of the present and former RA resi- dents are heads of households. Two hundred sixty-six, or 68 percent, received on-the-job training as a result of the jobs created by EDA, and 77 percent of those who received this train- ing improved their positions as a result. In addition, 237 present and former RA residents received other types of training, and 172, or 72 percent, were promoted or received salary increases in connection with the training. c . Job Impact on Unemployed and Underemployed Residents of The Growth Center and Non-Designated Counties Of the 2,822 persons employed as a result of EDA projects in growth centers, 2,430 lived in growth centers or non-designated counties prior to taking their present positions. Of this num- ber, 771, or 32 percent, were previously unemployed or underem- ployed. Thus, 27 percent of all persons receiving jobs as a result of EDA growth center projects were previously unemployed or underemployed residents of growth centers or non-designated counties. Approximately 2 percent of these previously unemployed and underemployed persons are members of minority groups, and 71 per- cent are heads of households. By creating jobs for these persons, EDA raised 418 households above the poverty level, and increased the family income of 33 households that are still below the poverty level. The average annual increase in salary for previously unem- ployed persons was $5,200; previously underemployed workers averaged a $2,600 increase in yearly income as a result of EDA projects. Of the previously unemployed or underemployed workers, 58 percent, or 450, received on-the-job training in connection with their new jobs. In addition, 143 persons received other 18 types of training. Of those who were trained, 28 3 received pro- motionsor salary increases attributable to the training. d. Secondary Job Impact in Redevelopment Areas No suppliers or distributors have located in or near growth centers as a result of the 28 EDA public works and business loan projects evaluated. In a number of cases, local suppliers increased business as a result of the location or expansion of an EDA-asso- ciated firm, but, as far as could be determined, the increases had little or no impact on the suppliers' employment. In no case could a supplier state that he had added employees as a direct result of improved business associated with the location or expansion of a firm benefitting from an EDA project. However, evaluators were able to ascertain that 16 secondary jobs were saved in Bangor Brewer, Maine, as a result of EDA's loan to Eastern Fine Paper Company. e . Indirect Economic Spillover to RA ' s At present there is no evidence that EDA projects in these 12 growth centers have resulted in significant indirect benefits to redevelopment areas. Jobs created through growth center projects represent approximately $16.6 million in annual wages. The 338 pres- ent RA residents employed by EDA-associated firms spend an average of $331 per month in their home counties, for a total annual expenditure of $1,354,000. Thus, only 8 percent of the salaries generated by EDA growth center investments are spent in redevelopment areas. The 28 firms directly assisted by EDA or benefitting from EDA projects in growth centers purchase just over $5 million annually in supplies and services from RA's. However, 90 percent of this amount represents the expenditures of two firms. Moreover, both firms had purchased a similar amount of supplies in RA's before receiving EDA assistance. Thus, approximately $22 million of EDA investment has generated only $1.9 million in new economic spillover benefits to redevelopment areas. f . Effect on Out-Migration As far as can be determined to date, those EDA projects analyzed by this evaluation have had a negligible impact on out-migration from redevelopment areas and economic development districts. Less than one percent of the 850 employees surveyed at EDA-associated firms in growth centers would have migrated from the area if their pre- sent jobs had not been available. The percentage of workers who indicated they would have moved to one of the nation's major urban areas in the absence of the EDA-created job was even smaller. The employee survey showed that only 2 percent of the workers at EDA-associated firms in growth centers moved from a redevelopment area to the growth center upon taking their present jobs. Moreover, only 11 percent of the employees presently reside in RA's, and this figure drops to 4 percent when the Bowling Green statistics are eliminated. 19 These findings suggest a need for careful re-examination of EDA's assumption that accelerating and increasing the growth and prosperity of EDC ' s will encourage residents of nearby depressed areas to commute or migrate to the center for work. A straw poll of recent migrants from RA counties near 6 of the 12 growth centers suggested that the assumption might have some validity. (The 6 centers were Ada, Okla . , Bangor-Brewer , Me.; Bowling Green, Ky. ; Corpus Christi, Tex.; Natchez, Miss.; and Swainsboro, Ga.) Of the 66 persons contacted through the poll of recent migrants, 33 moved for reasons over which EDA has no control. For example, 13 of the persons were doctors, teachers, lawyers, or employed in other professional positions that are seldom, if ever, created as a result of EDA projects. Another 9 moved for personal reasons that had nothing to do with employment opportunities. Of the 33 persons who could have been influenced by the crea- tion of jobs in the growth center, 19, or 58 percent, indicated they would have remained in the area if "decent-paying" jobs had been available in the growth center. Nine of these stated they would have remained in the RA and commuted to the growth center for work. The other 10 said they would have moved their place of residence to the growth center. However, a number of persons ex- pressed doubt that attractive employment opportunities could be created in the growth centers. This was particularly true with respect to Swainsboro. g . Improved Public Services Several of the water systems funded by EDA in the economic development centers provide service to growth center residents. One of these projects improved service to RA residents, although it was unique in that the facility was physically located j_ n a redevelopment area bordering the growth center county. However, none of the water system projects was submitted or approved solely for the purpose of providing service. Each was linked to industrial development: the direct creation or saving of jobs. As indicated in Section I, the growth center strategy defined by EDA policy makers includes a provision for funding projects that materially improve the environmental facilities of a center if those facilities are essential to accelerating the center's growth. Only 2 of the 28 completed projects fall into this category: a scientific library built in Ft. Smith, Arkansas, and a marine- oriented research facility in Corpus Christi, Texas. However, the justification given in the project applications for these facilities placed emphasis on the projects' employment generating capabilities as well as their effect on the cities' environmental facilities. A third project was also approved for the purpose of improving a center's environmental facilities; however, this vocational-techni- cal school in Ft. Smith was not completed at the time of the evalua- tion. 20 None of these projects was judged by the task force as essen- tial to accelerating the growth of the town in which it is located. The library has no more volumes than the structure it replaced; the research facility employs only nine persons and has completed few studies; and the vocational-technical school, while a valuable addition to the local infrastructure, represents too small an in- vestment to accelerate the growth of the entire city. Moreover, neither of the completed "environmental" projects - the library and research center - presently benefits RA residents. In fact, the Fort Smith library charges a service fee to residents of other counties. The research facility in Corpus Christi, which was severely damaged in Hurricane Celia, had produced no studies linked to increased job opportunities for RA residents through exploitation of the area's marine and mineral resources. Finally, when the Fort Smith voc-tech facility is completed, it appears that the old school's practice of charging RA residents double tuition will be continued. The individuals benefitting from the environmental and water facility projects appear for the most part to be middle-income re- sidents of growth centers. Only the water system in Durant, Okla- homa, which services 150 units of low-income housing, is having substantial impact on EDA's target population. 2 . Effectiveness of the Positive Action Program (PAP) a. PAP Status Every center visited ha/3. prepared a Positive Action Program, and in 8 of the 13 centers (12 plus Goldsboro) , the PAP had been updated or was in the process of being revised. Center leaders had assumed full responsibility for preparation of the PAP in only 3 of the 13 centers. In the remaining 10 EDC ' s , the PAP was written either through a joint effort on the part of the district staff and local leadership or entirely by the district staff or district director. PAP Committees have functioned at one time in 5 of the 13 centers, but were inactive at the time of the evalua- tion in all but 3. b. Identification of PAP Goals In almost every case, the PAP consisted of a description of on-going federal or local programs aimed at improving conditions in the growth center itself. The community's responsibility to surrounding depressed areas was seldom articulated in the PAP ' s studied, and in the few cases where some mention was made of the center's relationship to such areas, its service role was not empha- sized. The absence of programs designed to benefit RA residents indicated a misunderstanding of the PAP ' s purpose. 21 c . Local Commitment to PAP Goals Center leaders and district staff members in several of the EDC's indicated that they view the PAP as a paper require- ment of the federal bureaucracy in Washington. In a few centers, the PAP was praised as a useful planning tool, a catalyst that brought together various segments of the community, and a means of acquainting local leaders with growth center programs aimed at assisting the unemployed and underemployed and members of minority groups. However, in no case did center leaders view the PAP as a means of insuring that unemployed and underemployed residents of redevelopment areas benefit from their community's growth. In most centers, only the limited number of persons involved in preparing the PAP remembered the document, and most of them responded with vague answers when questioned about its content. Several centers listed specific goals , such as establishing a vocational-technical school, in their Postive Action Programs. Goals of this type usually received widespread support within the growth center communities. Goals that concerned improving conditions for the poor and minority group members appeared to be less readily accepted. However, the reaction to them varied considerably among the centers. Although some of the goals listed in Positive Action Programs received local support, none was recognized as a PAP goal by residents of the growth centers. If not viewed as local govern- ment aims or vague, community-wide goals, they were identified with specific interest groups, such as Chambers of Commerce, Lion's Clubs, and religious organizations. d . Progress Toward Achieving PAP Goals Some of the PAP goals aimed at improving facilities or initiating projects in growth centers have been achieved. In a few instances, programs to assist poor persons and members of minority groups residing in growth centers have also been imple- mented. However, none of the programs designed to assist rede- velopment area residents has been undertaken. e . Accomplishments Directly Attributable to the PAP No evidence was found that benefits have accrued to redevelop- ment area residents as a direct result of the PAP ' s associated with these 13 growth centers. In the case of Goldsboro, North Carolina, the successful implementation of a training program developed as a result of EDA ' s PAP requirement will aid unemployed residents of the growth center. With respect to the other 12 EDC's, the few programs initiated as a result of PAP ' s primarily serve middle- and high-income residents of growth centers. 22 f . Influence of PAP Projects in these 12 centers funded before establishment of the PAP requirement (March 1968) have had essentially the same impact on present and former redevelopment area residents as those funded since that time. The PAP ' s have not increased EDA project benefits to these individuals. Moreover, as indicated above, no projects or programs in the centers evaluated have been initiated to. benefit RA residents as a result of PAP ' s . In Goldsboro, where a PAP exists in the absence of EDA proj- ect funding, the situation is no different. Although the PAP is credited with increasing the local power structure's awareness of the problems facing the growth center's poor and minority group members, it has had no apparent impact on redevelopment area residents . 3 . Effectiveness of District Organization in Implementing the Growth Center Strategy a. Capacity to Promote Growth Center Strategy Although there were notable exceptions, the majority of the district board and staff members interviewed had only a vague conception of EDA's growth center strategy. The most prevalent view was that EDA funds projects in growth centers because centers are more prosperous than other places in districts. The possibil- ity of growth center projects providing direct benefits to resi- dents of RA's and the responsibility of growth centers to provide services and assistance to RA's were recognized in only a few instances . District staff members appeared to have a better understand- ing of the strategy than did members of district boards. However, in only 1 of the 11 districts visited had the staff made any attempt to insure that RA residents benefitted significantly from growth center projects. The staffs appeared to believe that projects in growth centers will eventually benefit RA's without any special effort on the part of the growth center or the district staff. Several board members from redevelopment areas felt the district staff had neglected their counties and placed undue emphasis on growth centers. In at least three cases, the task force felt that the loca- tion of the district office had affected implementation of the growth center strategy. In each of these cases, the needs of the center in which the office was located appeared to dominate the staff's attention. Since no effort was made to extend bene- fits of EDA projects in these centers to RA residents, the dis- trict redevelopment areas were not adequately served. 23 This was particularly true in Texas' Coastal Bend Economic Development District, where the district staff office is located in Corpus Christi, approximately 8 miles from the nearest RA community. Celia, a hurricane that ravaged Corpus Christi, and the personal predilections of the district staff combined to create a situation where most staff time was allocated to the problems of Corpus Christi. Prior to the evaluation team's arri- val, no RA had been visited by a staff member for more than seven months . Growth center residents outnumbered RA residents on only 2 of the 10 district executive boards examined. RA residents, on the other hand, outnumbered growth center residents on 4 executive boards. For the most part, no single county dominated the activi- ties of the district board; growth center representatives and redevelopment area representatives appeared to have an equal voice in determining board priorities and projects. The growth center county or counties contributed the largest portion of the district's budget in all of the districts visited. In most cases this was the result of per capita levies. However, as indicated above, growth center representatives were not domina- ting the boards in most of the districts. b. Services of the District Staff and Board The district staffs provided considerable assistance to growth centers in their efforts to prepare Positive Action Pro- grams. In several instances, the district staff assumed full responsibility for the PAP ' s preparation. However, there was little evidence that the staffs provided any assistance with respect to implementing the growth center strategy. The PAP ' s do not reflect new commitments to helping redevelopment areas; they are usually a summation of on-going local, state, and federal programs aimed at improving conditions for residents of the growth center. More- over, neither district staffs nor boards have intentionally devel- oped or implemented projects designed to carry out the growth cen- ter strategy. Board members from growth centers and non-designated counties had provided technical assistance to RA representatives on several occasions. However, these appeared to be chance occurrences. The majority of the growth center representatives interviewed did not feel any responsibility to pass on job information or advice to board members from redevelopment areas. 4 . Status of the Economic Development Process a . Local Government's Attitude In 7 of the 12 EDC ' s examined, the local government played a leading role in initiating and implementing development activ- ities. In the remaining 5 centers, local government officials 24 either exhibited a cautious attitude toward development projects or were strongly opposed to disturbing the community's status quo . EDA projects and district staff activities have stimulated civic leaders in 4 of the 7 centers where the local government supported development activities. In 1 center, the district staff was exerting considerable effort to persuade local govern- ment leaders to sponsor development-oriented projects. However, no results were visible at the time of the evaluation. b. Lending Institutions ' Attitude Average loan-to-deposit ratios for lending institutions in 9 of the 12 centers were between . 55 and .60, representing a generally conservative banking approach.—/ In Ardmore and Corpus Christi, loan- to-deposit ratios averaged .45 and .50 respectively, indicating an extremely conservative lending policy. Swainsboros' bankers had the highest ratio, averaging .68. In all cases, EDA appeared to have had little impact on the policies of growth center banks. c . Dominant Economic Group's Attitude The dominant economic group or groups in 7 communities were generally in favor of development projects. These were the same communities whose elected officials supported such activities. In the other 5 centers, the dominant economic groups were suspicious of development activities. EDA projects and activities have resulted in a more favorable attitude toward development projects on the part of the economic leaders in 4 centers. d. Cooperation of Community Organizations Community organizations were not heavily involved in economic development projects in any of the 12 centers visited. Most projects sponsored by these groups were aimed at: . benefitting worthy individuals (e.g., scholarship awards ; . improving the center's atmosphere (e.g., beautif ication drives and collecting books for donation to the library) ; or . extending charity to underprivileged residents (e.g., dis- tributing canned goods to poor families at Thanksgiving and Christmas) . I EDA involvement in the centers has not affected the activities of i such organizations. J See Appendix A, page A. 16 25 e. Effectiveness of Community Planning Efforts Some planning was taking place in each of the 12 centers visited. However, the quality and quantity varied considerably. The smaller centers had planning boards composed of community leaders. These boards had no staffs, met at night, and became involved only in traditional land-use type planning. In Panama City, where zoning requirements have been defeated 3 times, the dis- trict employees are the only professional staff available to the local planning commission. In the larger centers, such as Corpus Christi, Tri-Cities, and Ft. Smith, full-time planning staffs were employed by the city governments. However, even in these places, emphasis was placed on physical planning, and the staffs were g-enerally not influential in guiding local development. Some of the centers were using funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment's planning grant program to finance planning activities. EDA-funded district staffs have assisted local planning boards in 5 of the 12 centers, and encouraged these entities to do more comprehensive planning. EDA has had no impact on planning activities in the remaining 7 centers. f . Effectiveness of Local Development Organizations Three of the 12 centers had active private development corporations working to attract industry. The industrial development foundation in Bowling Green had been particularly successful. In 7 other EDC ' s , city, county, and Chamber of Commerce groups or officials served the same function and appeared to be having some success. No groups were actively engaged in industrial prospecting in the remaining 2 centers. PAP Committees were functioning in 3 of the 12 centers, but in no case was seeking industrial prospects a major activity. EDA projects and district staff assistance have supported local groups' efforts to attract industry, often allowing them to achieve concrete results. g. Borrowing and Financing Capacity The results of past votes on bond issues and tax increases indicated that residents of 6 EDC ' s were willing to finance local improvements through such measures. Residents' attitudes toward supporting local improvements in the other 6 centers ranged from a willingness to pay for certain types of projects in Swainsboro and Ft. Smith, to a lack of support for all but the most essential service projects in debt-ridden Natchez. There was no evidence that EDA has had any impact on these attitudes. 26 h. Cooperation with Neighboring Redevelopment Areas Through the District Organization Each of the centers examined through the in-depth case studies was judged to be playing a leading role in the activities of the district organization. In every case, the district board's elected officials included a representative from the EDC being evaluated. The effectiveness of the center's leadership was more difficult to judge, but a surface inspection indicated that Corpus Christi-Aransas Pass was the only center not providing adequate leadership. Moreover, this failure to provide effective leadership was primarily a result of the board's infrequent and poorly attended meetings, and not because of the poor performance of the board's growth center representatives. i. Effectiveness in Using State and Federal Development Programs Ten of the 12 centers were taking advantage of programs sponsored by such federal agencies as the Office of Economic Opportunity (0E0) , the Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment (HUD) , and the Department of Health, Education, and Wel- fare (HEW). Only Natchez, Panama City, and Kingsport - one of the towns in the Tri-Cities growth center— exhibited a reluc- tance to obtain federal assistance. This reluctance appeared to stem primarily from the requirements associated with some of the federal programs. State assistance programs were being used in all the centers. District staffs have encouraged centers to make use of such programs whenever possible. In addition, district staffs have assisted in the preparation of applications for EDA and other federal and state programs. Moreover, completed EDA projects have shown center leaders what can be accomplished through local-federal cooperation, and stimulated them to investigate other federal programs. j . Concern for Poor and Minority Groups In no center were the majority of the development programs planned for the benefit of members of poor and minority groups. However, each center was taking advantage of at least one federal program designed to assist underprivileged persons. These included HEW's food stamp program, HUD ' s low-income housing program, and HEW's Head Start Program. Churches and service clubs in the centers did not appear to be engaged in significant efforts to alleviate the economic and social hardships suffered by the poor and members of minority groups. 27 EDA proiects and the efforts of district staffs do not appear to have resulted in more positive attitudes toward helping these individuals. k. Concern for Redevelopment Area Residents The one characteristic shared by the 12 centers was their citizens' lack of concern for residents of nearby redevelopment areas. No growth center development programs were planned for the benefit of RA residents, and most center leaders questionned the practicality of attending to the needs of other counties before solving local problems. In a few isolated instances, EDA projects and district staff efforts have caused EDC residents and employers to recog- nize the situation facing RA residents and to consider hiring them for jobs in the growth center. However, with the exception of Chrysler's outreach program in Bowling Green, little has been accomplished. C. SUMMARIES OF INDIVIDUAL GROWTH CENTER EVALUATIONS 1 . Ada, Ardmore, and Durant ,_ Oklahoma The Southern Oklahoma Development Association (SODA) Economic Development District has three designated economic development centers: Ada, Ardmore, and Durant. Ada, which had a 197 population of 14,859, was designated on February 21, 1967, when the 10-county district was officially recognized by EDA. Ardmore and Durant, with populations of 20,881 and 11,118 respectively, were designated 10 months later on December 5, 1967. As shown in Figure 2, the centers form a triangle with corners in the north central, southeastern, and southwestern sections of the district, and each is located within 15 miles of one of the district's three redevelopment areas. However, in each case the distance between the growth center and the largest town in the redevelopment area slightly exceeds 30 miles. Ada was originally chosen as the sole subject of the in-depth evaluation. However, consideration of two factors led to a deci- sion to include Ardmore and Durant in the analysis: (1) Durant was the site of a completed EDA project; and (2) all three centers were involved in the SODA District's unique effort to obtain government assistance in designing and implementing a comprehensive development program. A three-man EDA evaluation team visited the centers during the period between March 31 and April 9, 1971. 28 FIGURE 2 SOUTHERN OKLAHOMA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ADA ARDMORE Key * □ DURANT Evaluated EDC Other District EDC or RC Redevelopment Area a . EDA Project Impact Since their designation, the three centers have obtained approval for EDA projects in excess of $4 million. However, as of December 31, 1970, only four projects, representing EDA funds of $1,213,500, were 90 percent disbursed. These consisted of: . a $183,500 public works grant to finance a storm sewer and streets for an industrial park in Ada; . a $113,500 public works grant to build an access road to the Brockway Glass plant in Ada; . a $500,000 business loan channeled through the Pontotoc County Industrial Development Authority to enable Solo Cup Company, a Chicago-based manufacturer of plastic cups, to locate in Ada; and . a $417,000 public works grant to extend water service facilities in the city of Durant. 29 Through these projects, EDA has created 225 jobs in Ada and 50 jobs in Durant . In addition, the water system project in Durant services 150 -units of low-income housing. Table 4 on the following page presents additional data on each of the projects. Future job impact at a Uniroyal facility in Ardmore will add 1,000 jobs to the total presently attributable to EDA at a public works investment of $1,292,000. In addition, Solo Cup Company in Ada will add 135 jobs by the end of 1971. This in- creases the total job impact to 1,410 and lowers EDA investment per job to $1,777. The Le Tourneau Plant to be constructed in Durant is projecting employment of 400. Since construction was not to be completed within one year of the evaluation, these jobs were not included in the future impact figures. ±/ b. Effectiveness of Positive Action Program (PAP ) (1) Ada Ada's original PAP was prepared by a SODA district staff member in conjunction with Ada community leaders and submitted to EDA in May 1968. This document, whose content was similar to the Economic Development Profile previously required as part of project applications, was updated in January 1969 in connection with a business loan application for Solo Cup Company. The up- dated PAP contained no provisions for filling the jobs created by Solo Cup with unemployed and underemployed residents of near- by redevelopment areas, and identified no new programs designed to benefit such individuals. In January 1971, Ada submitted the draft version of a re- vised PAP and a progress report on local redevelopment efforts. Prepared by the Chamber of Commerce in conjunction with the SODA district staff, the new document was distributed locally and in neighboring RA ' s for comment. While some of the activities given priority by those who responded to the proposed PAP could have regional impact (e.g., a voc-tech school and general industrial development) , the majority are concerned with the development of Ada and only remotely tied to regional growth. No new or significantly increased commitment to improving the condition of unemployed and underemployed RA residents is identified in the report summarizing the responses. Moreover, almost without exception, the activities affecting the poor are tied to existing projects that would have been implemented in the absence of the PAP or designation as an EDA growth center. (2) Ardmore Ardmore ' s Positive Action Program, which was originally submitted to EDA in June 1968 and updated in January 1969, was prepared by the city manager and his staff. The initial docu- 1/ See Appendix A, p. A. 5. 30 o o m rH < P o O CO < o o 0\° W -^ o in O o o o o O 1 I O H - •• O 1 I CJ Q VO en i-H o CO & O o <*° CO a\ O p * V£> CN ■H o 00 O 53 *. kk *■ *■ ^ H S r^ oo 00 o in CO CN CTl <; h oo iH CN ^ Eh ■CO- ■C/> V> * » ■» ■H 4-) 4-> 4-1 v •■ •> U o o CC5 cd fC 00 in CTi !* o o P P P CM a> O S o in T-i U3 P ^ •• O Ph CN S3 s s CO S uy tn- u> <«- o u « H Eh <: s o o o o IS W o o o¥> >* o Eh o o O O o •^r o •^ 00 1 o Eh CO •» ■» o in ■H iH >w 1 - S >H ^r r~ i-H CO CN fS co oo CO rH rH OO P {/> Q "d fl CU T3 O d >i CU •H cu >, CO 4-> •H .-H *d T3 -OHO CO 4-> 4-> 4-1 (d a (0 CD CD CU OjiH 4-1 C £ C >1 +J a 3 c 4-) 4-> +j g a G CU 2 CU ^1 CO -H o 3 3 s cu e CU T3 e g (« !3 U O -H XX X! < •HK III si c a> rC ■H 4J 4-> Si iH O >H u ■H O -P -H ■H P ^ •H CO CO CO O (0 T3 H PS 4-> fO H U 4-J M CU CO CU CU U 4-1 M 4-> 4-> £ 4-> O T3 CO CU tf > 42 > 4-> *c o O fO C (1) 4-) 4-> 4-> CU 4J 4-> a c PC £ M K >i tO P H CU di cu a <: u U P CU SH p o p o a) p o c cu P CU P CU CU CU w Pn H f^ W ^ H ^ & Wil flft W CU H CM >H O CO CU u tp -H m cu 4-1 to en cu u CJi CTi (0 •r4 d cu ^J ■H O C •H 4-1 O -d tC cu 4-1 to £ •H 4-1 CO CU U CU >! o e cu o d cu CO (0 PQ * 31 raent stressed the city's efforts to promote better race relations, while the update places emphasis on the creation of job opportuni- ties for the economically disadvantaged, including residents of re- development areas. However, the majority of the programs mentioned are limited to assistance for growth center residents. For example, the State Employment Security Office and the Human Relations and Job Placement Center, both tied to outreach for the unemployed and underemployed, service only citizens of Ardmore (Carter County) and non-designated counties. Moreover, none of the programs described in the document was initiated as a result of the PAP. (3) Durant In June 1968, Durant submitted a Positive Action Program to EDA detailing efforts to help the growth center's minority (Indian) and poor population. This document, which was prepared by the Chamber of Commerce on the basis of information provided by communi- ty leaders, was updated in November 1970 in connection with an application for an EDA project. Prepared by a SODA staff member under the supervision of the local Chamber of Commerce, this update indi- cates a clearer recognition of Durant ' s responsibility to the redevelo ment areas. The plans to develop a skills training center and a curriculum for certain health professions in conjunction with an outreach program to recruit RA residents for such training were particularly significant. To date, however, these plans have not been implemented, so none of the impacts on adjoining redevelopment areas indicated in the plans have been realized. Furthermore, even if the plans are implemented, their relationship to the PAP is questionable. Com- munity leaders, both economic and political, were not familiar with the PAP and its purposes, suggesting that the PAP has had no initiatory impact, but merely recounts ongoing programs and pre- viously conceived plans. c . Role of the District Organization The SODA District organization has focused on providing equal assistance to the individual counties in the district. However, because of a number of factors, including their relative prosperity and size, the growth center counties have acquired a larger pro- portion of federal and state projects than have the other seven counties. Because the centers make the most demands on its time and because its members believe the RA's are not economically viable, the district staff devotes the majority of its time to the growth centers. In addition, representatives of the three centers appear to dominate the district board and its executive committee. Despite the emphasis placed on the growth centers, the evalua- tion team concluded that the district organization has not achieved significant success in implementing the growth center strategy. This is primarily because the staff's efforts to insure that growth 32 center projects benefit residents of redevelopment areas have been ineffective. Although job vacancies in growth centers are report- ed to Community Action Program Agencies in RA's, no follow-up activ- ities have been initiated to determine the results of this service. Moreover, no attempt has been made to explain to EDA-associated employers the importance of hiring unemployed and underemployed RA residents. The one tool that EDA provided for extending benefits to redevelopment area residents,, the PAP, is viewed by the district staff as a useful educational device, not a vehicle for obtaining new commitments from the growth center to assist residents of neighboring redevelopment areas. Another reason for the district organization's apparent failure to successfully implement the growth center strategy involves the characteristics of the towns selected as centers. Excluding the metropolitan areas of Tulsa and Oklahoma City, the state of Okla- homa exhibited a 4.9 percent population increase during the 1960-70 decade. Not only did the counties in which Ada and Ardmore are lo- cated decline in population during this period, but the towns them- selves failed to match the state's population growth, registering increases of 3.5 and 3.6 percent, respectively. Moreover, Ada and Durant, with 1970 populations of 14,859 and 11,118 are probably too small to exert a significant economic influence on neighboring redevelopment areas. d. Status of the Economic Development Process (1) Ada Both the power structure and the general public in Ada favor development-oriented activities. For more than a decade, private citizens, an active Chamber of Commerce, and, to a certain extent, the city government have worked to diversify the town's economy. At least four local corporations are engaged in efforts to attract industry to the area, and a fifth association, the East Central Oklahoma Building Authority, is involved in the construction of a Regional Health and Social Services Center. When the Center is completed, its personnel will work not only in Ada, but also in the redevelopment area counties of Johnston and Atoka. Residents of Coal County (an RA) were unable to contribute their share to the project and thus will have to travel to Ada to take advantage of the Center's services. Banks in Ada have participated in a positive manner in each of the EDA-associated projects. In addition, community organizations have begun to support the Chamber of Commerce in its efforts to promote support for citywide projects or bond issues. The survey conducted with relation to the proposed PAP has also had an impact in that it has made residents aware of the need to set community- wide goals and to improve city and county planning activities, which are currently handled by one part-time consultant. The attitude of Ada's power structure toward the poor and members of minority groups both in Ada and in the redevelopment areas is influenced by pragmatic considerations. No real under- 33 standing of the plight of these groups appears to exist. However, members of the Ada business community speak frankly of their desire to see such individuals improve their economic status so that Ada merchants can benefit from their increased purchasing power . While EDA projects and activities have provided facilities and services the community would not have been able to afford on its own, they have not significantly stimulated the development process in Ada . (2) Ardmore The status of Ardmore ' s development process has fluctuated considerably since the 1940 's. Each time a climate favorable to development has existed, some setback, such as the closing of a major airbase, has occurred. As a result, both the town's leader- ship and the general citizenry are cautious about future develop- ment efforts. The aging representatives of the oil and cattle industries are particularly conservative, and the younger, more progressive leadership is splintered. With one exception, the banks are highly conservative in their lending policies, and Ardmore ' s citizens appear to have little or no sympathy for the residents of redevelopment areas or for that segment of their own population that is economically distressed. Despite these attitudes, external factors favor increased development in Ardmore. The town is located on an Interstate Highway between two major metropolitan areas, serves as a terminal for the recently revised railroad system, and is the site of a new Uniroyal plant that plans to employ up to 1,0 00 persons. Moreover, certain internal factors indicate that Armore ' s develop- ment process is being stimulated. Not only are the various groups of younger leaders making progress with respect to individual development projects, but the location of the Uniroyal facility has stirred some hope among citizens interested in Ardmore ' s development. However, EDA activities and projects appear to have had no impact on the development process. (3) Durant The development process was first stimulated in Durant in 1968 when Corning Wares turned down the city's invitation to lo- cate a plant there. Unlike the situation in Ardmore, Durant 's younger, more progressive leaders have managed to unite and gain the support of the older cattle and farming interests, and these groups asked Corning Wares to explain its decision not to locate in Durant. Upon learning that the inadequacy of Durant ' s health facilities, the lack of housing, the appearance of the town's .central business district, and the lack of various amenities were among the factors that led to the firm's decision, Durant ' s leaders initiated action to remedy such conditions. 34 Although its leadership is close-knit, competent, and un- ually progressive, Durant's development efforts are handicapped by some of the same roadblocks faced in Ardmore . The banks are still highly conservative in their lending policies, and the general public is much more cautious than are the leaders. More- over, a strong bias exists against poor persons in general. How- ever, past experience indicates that Durant citizens are willing to tax themselves to support development-oriented projects. The situation is more promising with respect to assisting residents of redevelopment areas. Long dominated by the larger Texas towns of Denison and Sherman, Durant is currently trying to establish its own sphere of influence. Commercial interests in Durant recognize the need to secure the assistance of redevelop- ment area residents if they are to succeed. Therefore, they view local hiring of such individuals more favorably than was previously the case. The insights gained from the experience with Corning Wares and the energetic efforts of the town's younger leaders have played the major role in stimulating the economic development process in Durant. EDA projects and activities have supported these efforts, but have had little impact on the process itself. 2 . Bangor-Brewer , Maine Bangor-Brewer , Maine, a city with a population of 42,468, is the one designated economic development center of the six- county Eastern Maine Economic Development District. Technically two distinct municipalities sitting astride the Penobscot River, Bangor-Brewer functions as one unit, economically and socially. Both the center and district were first designated by EDA on March 13, 1968. Redevelopment areas included in the district are the entire counties of Washington and Knox; four labor areas designated on the basis of sudden rise in unemployment; and Indian Island, a State of Maine Indian reservation. These areas, which are identified in Figure 3, are, with the possible excep- tions of Indian Island and the small labor areas of Lincoln in northern Penobscot County, isolated from Bangor-Brewer by dis- tance and bad roads. EDA field evaluators visited the district in March 1971, to evaluate the impact of EDA projects, PAP effectiveness, the local development process and the district organization . a. EDA Project Impact At the time of the evaluation, three major projects had been completed in the growth center. Two others, the Bangor Inter- national Airport Terminal and the Brewer Industrial Park were in the design and construction phases, respectively. Two of the 35 FIGURE 3 EASTERN MAINE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Greenville Redevelopment Area Indian Island Eastern Portion of Corinna-Newport-Dexter Redevelopment Area BANGOR-BREWER Passamaquody Indian Reservations Stonington-Blue Hill Redevelopment Area Key • □ A Evaluated EDC Other District EDC or RC Redevelopment Area Designated Indian Reservation three completed projects were business loans to Eastern Fine Paper Co. and Chapman Precision Products, companies that other- wise would have gone out of business. The third project was a feasibility study for an industrial park at the airport in Bangor Job impact, as outlined in Table 5 has been moderate within Bangor-Brewer . The total number of EDA-attributable jobs is 450. However, not one of these went to a present or former resident of a redevelopment area, and only 76 jobs went to previously unemployed or underemployed residents of the center itself. EDA investment per job in Bangor-Brewer is $4,111. Brewer, where Eastern Fine Paper Co. is located, is a one- industry town, and the shutdown in March of 1968 of Eastern Fine's predecessor company with its 700 employees was a blow to 36 ^ o o 9? rH o o o > rH o o o rd rH CN a ■> •» to •> ■. CTi o *— » «* cn Eh LD • LO 00 O CN 00 o o CO CD o 1 rH Eh m t/> rH in r- r^ 1 cn •to- a o H CO ^~. H 13 U CO CX) o o o O rd o o ft O o o rH 0} rH o Q *. *. *■ — *, * a o 0> o 00 1 o < « o o r^ o CN CN o 1 o S ft <£> en m CN a B O d u « ft * a * CM * o¥> 'd + O o O QJ cn o H o o o > in o S o o rH rd r- o H »■ *. co •*. - ft o LD o in 1 ' en o o 2 1^5 in en o ■^ rr o 1 o ft "> ». rH r^ r^ 1 ^ pq CN rH ^ co Eh vy to *< ft T3 X 0) o s p cd >H rH to co to 1 rH « X! X! X g u u (U O c O 1 1 -P a p •p -P 1 0) a) Q) g g cd a o u m X X! -H X! rH T3 >H t3 •d -P +j rH o u •H o c •H •rH tO •H rH G CD •H •H to CO cd H -P o ^ U CD >H QJ rrj Cm CO to 0) 0) CO Eh p >H 4-1 -H p -P ft -P E CD CD > > r$ u rd C 4J •p •P -P rH T3 'd ft ft c C >1 d QJ ft at re < fg qj H H rH I •n U rH i 1 ft >1 >, u 3 rH < U QJ 5H Q qj a Q Q Q rH rH Q a o (D ft ft W ft o W W P w+j aa W ft id >H u p tp •H m rH CO SH ■H rd jC QJ p >H (3 ■H QJ T3 C • 0) -H Sh ■d ft rd p QJ rH C >i O rH G QJ Sh •H P QJ to a •P rd ft o G o tncN CO C - •H •H m QJ U QJ • QJ MH P QJ CO O C C cd •H CO to H ft g CD rd H -p P c -H rd d> QJ MH rH rH •P c -d rd CO •H CD P rd p •H ft CO rd P4 XI g rd cn O -H O C •1-1 p •H CO U> > >i QJ C! H u •H 0) rd C r« CO ■d o rH C CO T3 5 1 O QJ 0) CO o ■rH co rd o UH _ X! o g •» c co o ■H M rd o m ^ CO CO v> XI T3 CO 0) X •d ■1—1 ■P o QJ rd -i— i > >1 rH rH QJ >i rH cd c u (h T! 0) rd a C Cr"d rd G o >i >i QJ rH a rH CO rd QJ P rH CO c ^ rd (U rH CO U 3 D 1 CO CO 4H QJ QJ CD to T3 T3 >i ■s 13 P rH H rH rd CO O O rH C C rd < H H CO * •X + * 37 the city's economy. The firm, which reopened with EDA's help six months later, purchases supplies from two RA companies, both of which maintain they could dispose of their products elsewhere. Thus, employment at these firms is not attributable to EDA. Local shipping and warehousing outfits, however, indi- cated that 16 jobs were saved as a result of Eastern Fine's reopening . EDA's $300,000 business loan to Chapman Precision was de- signed to enable the company to move from its Old Town location to new industrial space at Bangor International Airport, purchase new equipment, diversify its product line, and expand employment to 153 persons. Two years from approval date of the loan, Chap- man's work force was 37 persons, a slight decrease from the 42 employed when the loan was made. Approximately 12 percent of the employees were unemployed or underemployed prior to taking jobs at Chapman. Virtually all supplies are purchased from out- side the state and 95 percent of all products are sold to a single manufacturer in Connecticut. EDA's $9,000 grant funding a study of optimum land use at the former Dow Air Force Base was partially responsible for the location of a bank in Bangor's air industrial park. This bank is staffed by eight employees, all of whom reside in the growth center; it purchases no supplies from redevelopment areas. Future impact of EDA's investments in Bangor-Brewer was estimated on the basis of expansion and construction plans of EDA- associated firms. Expansion at Eastern Fine and completion of the new air terminal at Bangor International Airport are expected to generate approximately 45 jobs. (This figure is based on employer plans and a discounting system discussed in Appendix A) . Since construction on another project, the East-West Industrial Park, had not yet begun at the time of the evaluation^ no employ- ment projection can be made. When the figures for future employ- ment are included in the aggregate for Bangor-Brewer, EDA's total investment is 3,502,000 and the Agency's investment per job increases to $7,074. b. PAP Effectiveness Because the PAP Committee in Bangor-Brewer was recently re- structured, its members are in the process of defining their func- tions and goals. The original PAP document was primarily a list- ing of on-going community activities that would have been conducted in the absence of the PAP. The new committee views itself as a vehicle for improved communication within the growth center and as a group that may help identify problems. So far, there have been no visible accomplishments. One new program mentioned in the first PAP proposed bus service to low-income housing areas in the city. This effort was attempted, but proved unworkable pri- marily because of cost. The district staff and some members of the Committee are aware that, as a growth center, Bangor-Brewer should be serving poorer areas of the district. However, they indicated that the distance between those areas and the EDC , combined with Bangor- Brewer ' s problems of poverty and unemployment, make it unlikely that the center will provide significant assistance to RA resi- dents . c . Role of the District Organization Since the Eastern Maine Development District's designation, the district staff has been actively involved in development activities in the area. The staff allocates its time according to need and, in fact, maintains a full-time staff member and field office in Washington County, the largest RA. It is managing a Law Enforcement Assistance Grant and working with the state planning agency to rationalize conflicting substate boundaries. The staff is serving the district effectively in the areas of grantsmanship, planning, and communications. Its members view the growth center strategy as useful in theory but largely unwork- able because of the district's size and road system. Because the staff has received limited and conflicting guidelines on the PAP and growth center strategy, it has done little to implement the policy. District board members appeared to have no conception of the growth center strategy. Each is primarily concerned with the needs of his own county. d . Status of the Economic Development Process Perhaps the major cause for the change in attitudes toward development and community problems in Bangor-Brewer was the closing of Dow Air Force Base in 1968 . An important source of income and consumers, its abrupt deactivation and the consequent departure of approximately 8,000 servicemen and dependents shocked the community. Residents suddenly realized that the employment and population losses occurring in other New England towns might also occur in Bangor-Brewer, and attitudes toward development activities became more favorable. After Dow's closing, the city was deeded a substantial portion of its land, including an air strip which is being developed as an air industrial park. The banks remain generally conservative in their lending policies, but the city governments are taking steps to bring in federal programs. Bangor has some low-income housing, an urban renewal project and a manpower training program. Brewer, smaller and a bit more cautious, recently turned down urban renewal, but is developing an industrial park with EDA funding. 39 Residents of this area of the country are generally resigned to the existence of poverty. Citizens of Bangor-Brewer are no dif- ferent. Statutes remain on the books that allow Bangor to return welfare recipients to their county of origin, provided they are given bus fare and spending money. It is generally felt that any willing worker can make a living somehow, even by chopping wood and digging clams. Center residents, especially its merchants, view outlying areas as markets for goods and services distributed through Bangor-Brewer. They feel no responsibility to assist eco- nomically distressed area; the problems of unemployment and low income within the center itself occupy all available resources. 3 . Bowling Green, Kentucky Bowling Green is the primary economic development center of the Barren River Area Development District (BRADD) . BRADD , which is depicted in Figure 4, is located in south central Kentucky on the Tennessee border. It consists of ten counties, five of which are designated redevelopment areas. This multi-county area was first designated as a development district by EDA on January 7, 1967. Bowling Green and the secondary EDC of Glasgow in Barren County received growth center designation at that time as well. FIGURE 4 BARREN RIVER AREA DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT BOWLING GREEN GLASGOW Key * □ Evaluated EDC Other District EDC or RC Redevelopment Area 40 Warren County, within which Bowling Green is located, is bordered on three sides by the redevelopment area counties of Butler, Edmonson, and Allen. The U.S. road system appears ade- quate, and one Interstate Route passes through the county from south to northeast. Daily commuting to jobs in Bowling Green is common among residents of the redevelopment areas. a. EDA Project Impact Although listed in EDA's project directory as three distinct projects, the Agency's assistance in Bowling Green has primarily been for the improvement of one industrial site. Water and sewer lines were extended to a location just outside the city at a total cost of $1,812,000, of which $1,504,000, or 83 percent, was funded by EDA. Forty percent of EDA's investment was a public works grant, while the remaining 60 percent was a public works loan. The project was originally designed to attract Chrysler Corporation to Bowling Green. In fact, it was this project which first sparked interest in a development district. The area's EDR, seeing a prospective project, recommended that Bowling Green apply for designation as a growth center. Before this could be done, a district board had to be formed; a staff hired; an OEDP and PAP prepared. To accelerate the project application process, a group of interested businessmen began collecting the information needed even before the new staff was able to develop an OEDP. The vice-president of the local bank was assigned the task of pre- paring a Positive Action Program. With the promise of new water and sewer facilities, the Chrysler Corporation did decide to locate its Airtemp facility for the manufacture of commercial air conditioning equipment in Bowling Green. In March of 1969, the personnel director for the new plant arrived to begin hiring for production start-up in January 1970. The district's executive director, seeing an opportunity to address some of the employment problems in outlying rural counties, approached the Chrysler personnel man and requested that he recruit in some of these areas. At the director's urging, a series of one-day interviews for prospective employees was con- ducted in nine small towns outside of Bowling Green. This covered three of the five RA ' s . Application blanks were left in all places, and an advertising campaign was conducted in county newspapers, on radio, and TV. Although it is Chrysler's policy to hire members of minority groups and the economically disadvantaged, the person- nel manager indicated that he would not have made this sort of outreach effort except under the guidance of the development dis- trict director. Approximately 40 percent of the 600 EDA-attributed jobs are held by present or former residents of RA ' s . All employees were given an intensive training program that last 8 to 13 41 weeks, depending on the skill level of the prospective job slot. This program combined voc-tech and on-the-job training. Twenty- seven percent of the employees have less than a high school edu- cation and 9 percent are black. Annual payroll resulting from this establishment is approximately $4,179,000. The operation has had diversifying and stabilizing effects on employment in Bowling Green: first because its product is unique; and second because it is a job-shop rather than an assembly-line plant. This requires higher skills and wage levels. The labor is unionized and wages are therefore on a standard scale. Table 6 summarizes job impact from the Chrysler project. Although present facilities are 100 percent operational, expansion is planned which would provide up to 2,200 jobs by 1973. There is some service impact to other industries as a result of this proj- ect. However, it has not resulted in expansion of employment. With the exception of a few fire hydrants, Chrysler is the only user of the new water line. However, there have been approx- imately 50 hookups to the new sewer line. Most are small businesses and commercial establishments that formerly used septic tanks. According to the Northside Water District - applicant and manager of the facilities - all of these beneficiaries could have continued using septic tanks indefinitely, and have not expanded because the new facilities were made available to them. The expansion planned by Chrysler would result in 1,600 new jobs. The plant is complete, but hiring for these new jobs had not begun at the time of evaluation. Therefore, the discounting system described in Appendix A allows 1,200 of these jobs to be counted as future employment. Including these future jobs lowers EDA's investment per job for Bowling Green to $8 36. b. PAP Effectiveness As indicated above, Bowling Green's PAP, which has never been updated, was written by the vice-president of a local bank. It is essentially a Chamber of Commerce-type brochure on the good points of Bowling Green; it contains no new action proposals. The PAP was approved by EDA in the fall of 1968. Recently, the district staff has been working on a PAP for the secondary growth center of Glasgow and has had some difficulty in getting approval from EDA Washington. This is a somewhat puzzling experience, according to the executive director, since the first PAP for Bowling Green, which was put together with very little effort, was quickly accepted. Virtually no one in Bowling Green was familiar with the PAP. There was no committee for its implementation, and the growth cen- ter government has neither discussed nor endorsed the concept that Bowling Green should help surrounding counties. It was after the PAP was submitted that the executive director, Chrysler, the CAP Agency, and the Employment Security Office agreed to work to- gether in recruiting employees from RA counties. 42 LU LU OH O CD O -J 1- PQ c_> < < I- a. CJ LU O a: < Q LU w o 4 — o o r- CD o E-f CO ft o o o ■^T o < W o o LD ro o !S s J ■« - ^. O en CN «tf o C r-» CTi r- r~ CM CD (Jl "H Jh rH o o o n ^ 00 ro r-~ P?B« 00 ID <-i CO CM rH rH WUK ** hk ^ & w u rH rH ^ H A ^ •CO- 1 to rH c H i & fO SI l*| rH X! O ft 0) iX I'D V3 o Qa £ X! CU o o -p P o si; -P w n h) ft (0 H M CO CO CO 0) H <: X! X! 43 TS U M (U i o fi C CU CU c T3 l-D I'D rO D ft ft CU 2 •H CD CO o O -P -H 13 TJ T3 ^a -p CO -p P H (0 a. a> cu CU c C P c c >i E-t +J a 3 -p ■p ■P (0 CU C CU CU H < to •H o s 3 3 H3 CU E g (0 D u o X! X} & 'd -H 'd -p -P rH J U •H o •H -H CO •h i CU CO CU CU CO > -P H -p -P •P C •P CO ft CU > > w U (CJ c -P P 0) •P rH C ft C a >1 CU Cm 0) < .< T3 < cu o u H H H ■n o l 1 -rH i e co Q § u o < *H *c <; co < CU rH W < < rt u Q a) Q Q CD oca Q Q H 43 A significant number of on-going programs in Bowling Green address the needs of the center's poor and unemployed population. The CAP Agency even has branch offices in some of the outlying counties. This concern, however, is completely incidental to the PAP requirement, which is regarded as a nuisance. c . Role of the District Organization The staff of the Barren River Area Development District is extremely competent, and has succeeded in managing other federal and state grants in addition to EDA's (e.g., LEAA, State Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and Public Service Careers grants). The staff has provided technical assistance to all the counties of the district, and redevelopment area leaders indicated they could rely on the executive director to travel to their communities whenever he was needed. The staff has arranged training in budgeting and financial techniques through Western Kentucky University for municipal governments throughout the district. It has also secured the cooperation of Bowling Green's housing authority in helping some of the small communities in the area face their own public housing problems . BRADD was the one district visited by the evaluation team where significant employment impact on RA's from a growth center project was achieved or attempted. As discussed above, this re- sulted from the executive director's work with Chrysler's recruit- er in seeking job applicants in the RA's. This effort had nothing to do with the PAP and did not involve a community-wide commitment to helping the RA's. It was the result of a concentrated effort for a limited period of time and for a very specific purpose - jobs to RA county residents. When queried on the subject of EDA's "growth center strategy," the executive director observed that it was difficult to apply any kind of priority or strategy when funding depends almost exclusive- ly on the decisions of EDA Washington over which the district has very little influence. The OEDP submitted by the Barren River District sets priori- ties, however, and these include the need to make Bowling Green more accessible by improving the district's road system. Coupled with the fact that the district organization has succeeded in mobilizing some of the resources available in Bowling Green to the benefit of the RA counties, this suggests an above-average grasp of the whole "growth center concept." 44 d. Status of the Economic Development Process Development activities in Bowling Green result from an interesting mix of circumstances. The local Chamber of Commerce acquired a new manager during the 1960 's who is recognized as one of the most effective Chamber administrators in the country. Re- peatedly, this individual was cited as being a major factor in changing attitudes and in actually locating industry in the city. In the past, members of the Industrial Foundation - the city's industrial development group - had actually been- discouraging in- dustrial prospects from considering location in Bowling Green. Some established interests felt that discouraging new industry would hold down wages and insure an adequate labor pool. But new management of the Chamber helped change this situation. Another frequently cited cause for changing attitudes was the shift in city government from a mayor-council to the city-manager form of administration. Bowling Green has traditionally been a conservative community which refused to turn tax money back to the city for public improvements. After its first sewer and water facility construction, 30 years elapsed before any substantial ex- tensions or improvements were made. This year for the first time the city has established an engineering department. The federal dollar has been another important influence in changing attitudes and conditions in Bowling Green. In 1969 alone, $9.3 million in federal grants and loans flowed into the city. There is an active Model Cities Program which has cooperated with the Bowling Green vocational - technical school to provide skill training for ghetto residents. Two low-income housing projects have been funded, and HUD has provided assistance to the City-County Planning Commission. In addition, an urban renewal project is gradually renovating some of the oldest and worst sections of the downtown area. / ( / Over the last 10 years, industrial jobs in Warren County have doubled, largely because of new industry location. The city has ' encouraged this sort of development by improving industrial land, building shell structures, and leasing space to interested indus,- try. In this way, new industry is freed from property tax burdens. It is interesting to note, however, that the city has supplemented its revenues with an "occupational tax," which is essentially an income tax imposed on all who work in the city, whether or not they live there. Since there is substantial commuting to Bowling Green, this adds significantly to municipal income - at the expense of the labor force rather than the employers. 45 Because Warren County is contiguous to three RA counties and Bowling Green is within a 30" to 4 5-minute drive of those, there is considerable commuting for shopping and services as well as work. Official communication among the district's towns is almost exclusively limited to that involving the district organization. Those interviewed commented that rivalry was more characteristic of relationships among counties and towns than was cooperation. EDA's growth center strategy appears to have had little impact on the development process in Bowling Green, except in connection with the Chrysler project. 4 . Corpus Christi-Aransas Pass, Texas Corpus Christi, Texas, was designated as EDA's first economic development center in December 1966. In September 1968, the boundaries of the center were extended to include the city of Aran- sas Pass, located approximately 20 miles northeast of Corpus Christi. Aransas Pass had a 1970 population of 5,813 which repre- sented a 16.4 percent decrease since 1960, while Corpus Christi 's 1970 population was 204,525, an increase of 22 percent during the 1960-1970 decade. The Corpus Christi-Aransas Pass area serves as one of two growth centers for the 20-county Coastal Bend Economic Development District, which is illustrated in Figure 5. It is approximately 70 miles from the nearest redevelopment area and 80 miles from the nearest redevelopment area community with a population ex- ceeding 1,000. The growth center area was examined by an EDA evaluation team between March 18 and March 26, 1971. a. EDA Project Impact At the time of the evaluation, four EDA public works and business loan projects in the Corpus Christi-Aransas Pass growth center area were 90 percent disbursed. In addition, a $60,000 EDA technical assistance project to study the district's tourism- recreation potential had been completed, and the Coastal Bend Economic Development District staff had received $136,000 in EDA planning grant funds. The public works and business loan proj- ects, which represent $1,127,000 in EDA funds consist of: . a $125,000 public works grant to the Southwest Research Institute for the procurement of scientific equipment for marine laboratories; . a $234,000 public works grant to the Nueces County Navi- gation District for the construction of a deep sea oil terminal for loading tankers; 46 FIGURE 5 COASTAL BEND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT SAN ANTONIO — y VICTORIA ARANSAS PASS CORPUS CHRISTI Evaluated EDC Growth Corridor Other District EDC or RC Non-District SMSA Redevelopment Area a $410,000 business development loan to the Sheraton Marina Inn, Inc., for the construction of a hotel -motel facility to accommodate the Corpus Christi tourist trade; and a $358,000 business development loan to Coastal Freezing, Inc., a shrimp plant located in Aransas Pass, to expand its freezing and processing capacity. 47 Another partially completed project, a water industrial park, representing $650,000 in EDA funds, has already resulted in the creation of employment opportunities in Corpus Christi. EDA assistance to these projects has resulted in the crea- tion of 219 direct jobs, which represent approximately $1.6 million in yearly salaries. None of the direct jobs were taken by residents of EDA-designated redevelopment areas. However, 13 jobs were filled by former RA residents. In an area where approximately half the population is Mexican-American, less than 15 percent of the EDA-created jobs went to members of that minority group. At the present time, EDA ' s investment per job in the Corpus Christi-Aransas Pass area is $5,367. The Agency's investment per job to present and former redevelopment area residents is $86,154. Table 7 on the following page presents other data on the four completed public works and business loan projects in the Corpus Christi-Aransas Pass area . The Sheraton Marina Inn and Coastal Freezing are both plan- ning expansions. On the basis of these plans, 32 future jobs can be credited to EDA, lowering the Agency's investment per job to $4,657. Benilite, the only firm presently located in the water industrial park, is also planning to increase employment. Use of the discount factor allows the attribution of 13 new jobs in connection with this expansion. The cost of the EDA project and Benilite 's future jobs were not incorporated in the future impact figure above. Since the park itself is still incomplete, it would be misleading to compare Benilite 's employment against total project cost. b. PAP Effectiveness The Corpus Christi city manager ' s staff prepared the first Positive Action Program (PAP) for that community shortly after EDA ' s March 1968 announcement requiring such a document. This initial PAP was not approved by EDA, which requested additional information on the city's programs to assist unemployed and under- employed persons. The PAP that eventually received EDA approval was the Corpus Christi city manager's rewritten version of a document prepared by a member of the Coastal Bend Economic Develop- ment District staff. It included information on both Corpus Christi and Aransas Pass. No specific committee was organized to develop the PAP, and no official action has been taken by the city council. 48 CO CO < o_ CO < CO ■z. < ca < i— i H CO 1— 1 cc IE c_> r- CO ■=> LU Q_ _l a: cq o < o O < LU ~i o a: o_ < Q uu o o r-« "sT o o o o H CTi r-> H rH T CO 00 rH ! O Tf r> CN V£> Eh ID co- rH co- co- c^- rH a • T3 kTER INDUSTRJ ARK (Not Com- pleted) BENILITE * d) 4-> 4-) * -P c c co o CD CO (0 o o o rH > > o o o o o It o * * CTi O co CO o CD rH CD CD rH CD O o in u « c< 00 co rH C0- •p 53 4-1 53 -p O 53 CO- j2 f^ £ o o o < 2 o o >x> o o H H o o m <* o CO 2 o o o\° K. ■> » Cm * •» o O O in o o rH CO 00 i Cm W CN -3* o in rH CN CN CN <* W Eh o m VD o Eh •> •. cAO » •* » < < K 53 in o O co CO rH O o H H en *H« rH rH rH ffi Cd ■» CO rfj •» cW ■. 1 ". CO w o 00 in ■^ O in m o m 1 in | rtl W in in CN H CN CTi O « in CO CJ Pn to- •co- co- co- Eh CO K o co KO o S ° o o \D o ffi § o o o\o MD o - •» O * •. 1 •« Eh W o in O CO O o O o H 1 a\ 53 CO in CN rH ■^r rH o w CO « fN rH co- •co- CO- >H H CO CO CO 1 rH « o X! X} Xi g M u CD o c 1 TJ 1-3 rO 13 g rH Cm Cm Q) H •H T3 a "d co P 4-> < (0 (^ CD Q) C 0)53 C C CO CO C ti >1 u P Cm 3 +J 4-> CD 4-1 p O 4-> 4-1 CD CD M in •H U H 3 3 Tl 3 >i CO c c e 6 co 53 O O (0 X! X! -H Xt rH T3 V4 CD CD •p 4-1 rH O u •H o c -H •H CO -H >H C u -P -H 4-1 4-> « -P £ CO CO > > < u CO G -P 4-> 4-) 4-> M 'd T3 CD CD C a xi 5>i D CD Cm 0) cO < fa <; o ai 1 >1 ro U T3 5 rt! !h CD < rt! < o u s rtj X! < CO CD > M Q «u a Q Q Q O rH rH o Q CD 4-1 W Cm W Cm o W W -P w 4J a a W ro >H (0 rH CO A o CO -H x: 4-» rH m Xi CO 0) •ri u 3 1h tn a) •H a, Mh 4-1 a) c P ai fO e CTi +J CD CO u a) CD > CJ> c cO •H C c •H •H T3 •o CD CD T5 T5 3 P H rH U O c G •H •H -P ■P o 2 53 * * * 49 The Corpus Christi-Aransas Pass PAP identifies no signifi- cantly increased commitments to the unemployed and underemployed residents of district redevelopment areas. In fact, the only new commitment is directly linked to an EDA project. With the exception of that commitment by one of the firms benefitting from an EDA-financed water system, all of the activities identi- fied in the PAP as having an impact on the poor are: . components of ongoing programs; or . efforts that would have been undertaken in the absence of the PAP. Moreover, representatives of the organizations responsible for the implementation of such programs are not familiar with the PAP or its objectives. The one new commitment to helping unemployed and underem- ployed residents of redevelopment areas has not yet been realized. More closely related to a specific EDA project than to the PAP, this commitment involves "advertising and extending preferential recruiting and hiring to the unemployed and underemployed of the redevelopment area counties." The firm that made the commitment had taken no action at the time of the field evaluation. However, as a result of discussions with the evaluators, the firm formally advised its contractors to seek "trainable unemployed and under- employed" from the four redevelopment area counties in the Coastal Bend Economic Development District. c . Role of the District Organization The district organization has played a minimal role in imple- menting the growth center strategy with respect to projects in the Corpus Christi-Aransas Pass growth center area. Overshadowed by larger, more heavily endowed groups such as the Regional Plan- ning Commission, the four-man district staff has concentrated on acquiring funds for projects in the growth center area as opposed to developing a district-wide development strategy. Of the approximately $3.5 million in grant and loan money the staff has succeeded in acquiring for district counties, 91 percent has been absorbed in the Corpus Christi-Aransas Pass growth center area. Less than $250,000 went directly to redevelop- ment areas. One explanation the district staff gave for the distribution is that the redevelopment area counties are unwilling or financially unable to support economic development. In August 1970, Corpus Christi was ravaged by Hurricane Celia and since that time, the district staff has spent close to 100 per- cent of its time working in the growth center area. 50 Only token attempts have been made by the staff to influence EDA-associated employers to recruit and hire unemployed and under- employed residents of redevelopment areas. In absolute numbers, the growth center area has more unemployed and underemployed residents than do the four EDA -designated counties, and the district staff questions the logic and reality of obtaining commitments from the growth center and EDA-associated employers to assist the jobless and underemployed residents of other counties before their own target population has been served. The district board is an ineffective group which meets only once a year. The five-member executive committee meets quarterly, but appears to function only as a rubber stamp for district staff plans and activities. Neither group has any understanding of the growth center strategy articulated by EDA, and their concept of the district strategy is only slightly clearer. d. Status of the Economic Development Process In both Corpus Christi and Aransas Pass, certain segments of the business community are interested in and working to promote economic development. During the past five years, new develop- ment grQups devoted to attracting industry were organized in both cities. With the lowering of interest rates, local banks are becoming more involved in development-oriented activities. A significant portion of the power structure and the general population, however, is more interested in maintaining the "status quo" than in developing economically. This is particularly true in Corpus Christi, where local citizens refused to assist a prospective employer of considerable size. The damage caused by Hurricane Celia in August 1970 resulted in a flurry of activi- ty; however, it was primarily aimed at restoring businesses and infrastructure to pre-storm status. During the past five years, the number of programs designed to help Corpus Christi' s poor and minority group population has increased considerably. However, even with the increase in both local and federal programs of this type, only a minimum is being accomplished. Data obtained by Community Action Program staff members in 1970 revealed that residents of Corpus Christi 's po- verty belt fare no better than in 1960. Target neighborhoods are still marked by high unemployment, low income, substandard and crowded housing, limited education, little mobility, and increased ethnic isolation. Corpus Christi' s schools still do not meet federal integration requirements, and the community has become polarized over the issue. Aransas Pass, which has a similar racial composition - 55 percent Mexican-American, 4 5 percent Anglo, and 5 percent black - has a somewhat better record. Among the programs initiated to benefit poor persons are public housing, urban renewal (which 51 Corpus Christi's citizens refused to approve), and low-income hous- ing. Moreover, the town's schools were integrated in the 1950' s, and racial problems have been minimal. EDA activities and proj- ects have not resulted in any meaningful impact on the poor and minority group members in either Aransas Pass or Corpus Christi. No concern is evidenced by residents of the Corpus Christi- Aransas Pass growth center area about the needs of persons who live in the four EDA-designated redevelopment areas. 5 . Ft. Smith, Arkansas Ft. Smith, Arkansas, is the primary economic development center of the Western Arkansas Economic Development District (WAEDD) . The district, which was incorporated in August of 1966, is depicted in Figure 6. The WAEDD consists of six counties grouped along the Oklahoma border in west central Arkansas. Four of these are redevelopment areas, and two are eligible for grant assistance under Title I of the EDA act. FIGURE 6 WESTERN ARKANSAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FT. SMITH- VAN BUREN MENA Evaluated EDC Other District EDC or RC Redevelopment Area 52 Ft. Smith, which was designated as an EDC in June 1967 , is located in Sebastian County and is the largest city in a 100-mile radius, with Little Rock to the east and Tulsa to the west. It is completely surrounded by RA counties. Sequoyah and Le Flore, both in Oklahoma, are to the west; and Crawford, Franklin, Logan, and Scott complete the circle. Ft. Smith acts as a center for many government services and trade activities. The Employment Security Division estimates that 35 to 50 percent of the town's work force commutes from outside the city limits. The east-west Interstate Route passing through the growth center facilitates such commuting. Hospital, banking, and educational facilities also serve a wide geographic area, and the Ft. Smith newspaper is the third largest in the state, with subscribers in 14 surrounding counties. EDA evaluators conducted field work in Ft. Smith during March of 1971. a. EDA Project Impact EDA has obligated $3.1 million for 6 projects in Ft. Smith as compared with approximately $4 million for 15 projects in the district's RA's. Three of the growtn center projects were com- pleted at the time of evaluation. The first Ft. Smith project was approved in June 1967, and involved the construction of a "scientific library" with an EDA cost of $627,000. Justification for this project was twofold. A computer terminal in the library was expected to provide services to technology-based industries already in the area, and the library itself -was described as a facility that would improve public services and make Ft. Smith more attractive to new industries. Although space was set aside for the terminal, it has never been installed. The installation fee and monthly rental charges cannot be funded by EDA because of its restriction on rental equipment, and the city has not yet assumed the cost. Even had the computer been installed, however, its utility would have been questionable. Firms without alternative computer facil- ities are unlikely to have the in-house capability to program their requirements for computer solution. Furthermore, Ft. Smith has a substantial computer service company which local industry already uses heavily. The project's public service impact is also difficult to verify. The district director suggests that one industry located in Ft. Smith because, in addition to the basic requisites for a profitable business, the city possessed the facilities essential to an attractive quality of life. There is no evidence, however, that the library was a significant factor and, in fact, tipped the scales in favor of Ft. Smith. 53 Service benefits from the library to outlying RA's are minimal. It replaced an older facility but no increase in the volume of circulation has been noted. Residents of other counties must pay a small charge, and there are no mobile facilities for outreach to RA residents. A 16-inch water pipeline has also been constructed in the growth center with EDA's assistance. This line, which has provided service to several industries, was- completed for an EDA cost of $43,190 as the first step in an $875,000 water and street improvement project. One of the firms benefitting from the project is Hickory Springs Manufacturing Co. of Arkansas, Inc., a producer of foam rubber. Hickory Springs provides stable employment for over 200 persons and has been expanding in recent years. With plant demands increasing, local water supply and pressure levels were nearing insurance safety margins. The situation was desperate and Hickory Springs considered leaving the Ft. Smith area. At the recommendation of the local Chamber of Commerce, Hickory Springs decided to relocate in the industrial area serviced by the new water line rather than leave Ft. Smith altogether. Thus, these jobs are attributable to the EDA investment. The firm's management would not allow the EDA evaluators to sample the labor force. Of the other industries serviced by the water line, none located in the area or expanded operations as a result of the project. For this reason, no further jobs can be credited to the EDA investment nor will additional employment result from the future street improvements , because the industrial land serviced is already filled. The third completed EDA project in Ft. Smith consisted of a $380,000 public works grant to increase the water supply of Ft. Smith and nearby towns. Funded in April 1968, this project has increased the city water supply by 50 percent to 31 million gallons per day. The expansion resulted in better service to all residential and industrial users in the city and to other towns, which now may purchase surplus water. However, it is not possible to attribute any specific employment impact to the project. The one industrial "bird-in-hand" prospect linked to this project - Owens-Illinois Co. - has not located in Ft. Smith. EDA funds have also been obligated for three other projects in Ft. Smith. These include two sewage pump stations, a day care center, and an expansion to a vocational-technical facility, The latter is a $1.5 million project financed by the Ozarks Regional Commission, EDA, and local contributors. The facility is not in operation yet, but college administrators hope to pro- 54 vide training for RA residents. Unfortunately, prospective students from these places may be deterred by the tuition rates, which are double for persons living outside the growth center county. Table 8 presents additional information on the three com- pleted projects in Ft. Smith. At the present time, no future employment impact can be proj- ected as result of EDA investments in Ft. Smith. b. PAP Effectiveness Ft. Smith submitted its first PAP in May of 1968, shortly after EDA issued its policy statement on growth centers. Funds for the library and for expansion of the city water supply had already been obligated before the PAP was written. Only the remaining four projects were approved under the PAP requirement. Written by the district staff, the PAP listed several de- sirable programs: . expansion of the vocational education school; . notifying RA residents of job openings; . provision of bus service to RA residents; . more low-cost housing; . development of a recreation facility; and . CAP Agency involvement in Sebastian County. All of these programs except the bus service are now being imple- mented. Some, however, had been in operation prior to preparation of the PAP, and it is the consensus of the PAP Committee and other community leaders that even the new efforts would have taken place in the absence of the PAP. In fact, there is little local interest in Ft. Smith's role in the district and the PAP is seen simply as an administrative requirement. Most community leaders have never heard of the PAP or what it is supposed to accomplish. This appears to be a result, in large part, of lack of guidance from EDA when the PAP was being prepared . c . Role of the District Organization The district staff supports the growth center concept, but it is difficult to pinpoint any activities aimed at implementing such a strategy. The staff feels that EDA investments in the EDC ' s have had a greater impact than projects in RA's, but believe that RA projects support the development of the district and should con- tinue to be funded. All eligible counties with the exception of Scott have received EDA projects, and all counties receive technical assistance from the staff. 55 LU _1 PQ < en < H O UJ -> o < * T3 * * 0) * * -~s > ■K ^-, o o o fO o o tO o o o to in rH p % LD o o ^^ CN ^f to - ■» - » •- Q EH ID O CN o o o o o m cri O o O LT> 00 O u> Eh (N oo O 00 rH rH CN * ^-v h u a P « H o o o fd in m o o o co fO CO to tO rH r- (0 tO lti o o «•"» 4-> -p p 4J CM 00 p p Pi co o •> «. - o\° (0 tO tO tO •» tO to W Pi VD ro in O o Q Q Q D •^ a p EiQdi m ^ r-- O o <: s a n 00 rH cn O o *— • o 5 3 H rH 53 53 s S v> 3 53 o o >H O o « O o s ^r r- O o o o o o l 1 i i o PQ 1 m CN O H CN y£> rH J rH ■T! T3 O C Xi QJ >h Pi -P P tO CO c p g 4-1 fO O Sh CO co oifl U o £} ,Q ,Q QJ CO u M QJ w a O o >,n QJ QJ C Eh o T3 r} b ra O QJ d( PU QJ rt! •H QJ ■H Pn CO O U P -H TS T3 T3 Oj 4-> CO P P <0 & d) QJ cu e t3 G 4-> C fi >i s 4-> 0, 3 p 4-1 CO P CU 0) QJ G QJ 0) M o CO -H U rH s 3 +J 3 C >i -o QJ e g fO H U U (0 Xi & C X! P -H T3 p P rH Eh o ■H o c -H -H 0) •H rH CO •H CO CO (0 < P SH H T3 u >i a QJ CO QJ QJ CO P P M P -H P P -H 4-> rH g Pi 0) > > 3 u (0 C P P P CO 4-> M (U Pi C C >i QJ pu QJ fO < < QJ <; a) jh u H H rH > -1— 1 u u 1 1 Pi i e cu p < SH W «! U QJ < < < U TJ H Pi <; <; x! (0 u Q QJ Dj Q a < W Pi Q O C o P o QJ Cm W PM O H W fe P w W 1-3 >H 4-> QJ C Eh •H rH 1 r4 H Q) H 4-> to T5 15 C to V H H QJ QJ CO CO fO tO ^ X! PU Pm c c o T3 T3 0) QJ CO CO fO (0 PQ PQ * * ■K 56 Although the two growth center counties are the largest financial contributors, the RA's are well represented on the board. It appears that the RA board members are involved in making decisions and are not dominated by the growth center interests. d. Status of the Economic Development Process Ft. Smith is preoccupied with internal development and spillover to RA counties is incidental. This parochialism is accompanied by a lack of strong leadership. Historically con- servative elements oppose a number of progressive factions which so far have been unable to join forces. Mechanization in agriculture accounted for large declines in that sector during and immediately after World War II. Out-migration from the district resulted in a 22 percent drop in population between 1950 and 1960. When the Fort Chaff e Army Base left Ft. Smith in 1962, taking with it the last of a peak troop strength of 100,000, the community realized it had to take action. For a short period, industrial development activities flourished and out-migration slowed considerably, but today the concern sparked by the fort's closing seems to have dwindled. The traditional interests of land, lumber, and the furniture industry are resisting change, and the local government has not produced significant new leadership to date. Issues such as zoning and public bonds have been consistently thwarted. In January 1969, a city manager form of government was established in Ft. Smith. It may be that this new and unfamiliar form of government has failed to establish rapport with the public. However, even if there were more popular support and understanding of the new administration, it is not clear that attitudes or efforts toward development for the solution of community problems would significantly improve. 6 . Natchez, Mississippi The Southwest Mississippi Economic Development District (SMEDD) , which is shown in Figure 7, was incorporated in January 1965, and first funded by EDA in February 1967. The ten counties of the district are grouped into two sub-districts. One group, including 2 RA counties, is clustered around the secondary EDC of McComb. The second group of 5 RA counties is oriented toward the district's primary EDC, Natchez, which was visited by an EDA evaluation team in mid-February 1971. 57 FIGURE 7 SOUTHWEST MISSISSIPPI ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NATCHEZ Key * Evaluated EDC • Other District EDC or RC Redevelopment Area McCOMB A city of approximately 20 , 000 persons, Natchez became an EDC at the time of district designation on June 6, 1967. Loca- ted on the Mississippi River, the town had enjoyed importance as a cotton exchange prior to the Civil War. However, as syn- thetics gradually cut irito the cotton market, agriculture and trading declined, and the areas around Natchez were plagued with unemployment and low income. This situation still exists. a. EDA Project Impact At the time of the field work, only two projects had been completed in the Natchez economic development center. The first was a business loan to Ricks Lumber Company, Inc., for $529,750 out of a total investment of $1,275 million. This company was first established in Natchez in 1959. In 1968, its plant was totally destroyed by fire. Following the loss, management bought an interim yard to maintain service to customers. However, the labor force was reduced from 50 to approximately 22. With the aid of EDA's loan, Ricks was able to build one of the most modern and highly automated saw mills in the United States. Without the loan funds, Ricks would not have been able to finance construction. 58 At the time of the evaluation , Ricks had 60 employees working at an average wage of, $1Q0 per week. Additional equip- ment is on order, and when it is in place, total employment is expected to increase to 65, Thus, on the basis of the dis- count methodology, three future jobs can be credited to the proj- ect. This would lower the EDA investment per job in Natchez to $12,927. Approximately $850,000 per year is spent locally for timber, most of which comes from redevelopment areas. Of the jobs that can be credited to EDA (28 saved and 10 new) , five went to redevelopment area residents and two were taken by previously unemployed persons. Total annual income generated by these jobs amounts to approximately $197,60 0. A summary of job impact from this project is given in Table 9. Since the jobs were an expansion of existing employment, they cannot be considered as a diversification of the economic struc- ture . The second project, a $25,000 technical assistance feasibil- ity study, involved investigating the possibility of expanding existing port facilities on the Mississippi River. The Natchez port, which was built with city and county funds, is used pri- marily by International Paper Company for its pulp traffic. Cost to users is based on actual operating expenses and as a public facility, it is tax free. Thus, costs to International Paper are lower than if the company maintained its own facili- ties. The feasibility study was initiated because the port has only one loading point, and could not handle any additional traffic. The study recommended the addition of a liquid ship- ment facility and an extension to the present wharf to permit a second loading point. However, the liquid shipment facility was built before the report was submitted, and no activities have been undertaken to finance the other expansion. Impact due to the study, therefore, is minimal at the present time. A final EDA project in Natchez is a $42,000 study of im- provements to the present airport. The improvements involve extending a runway to insure continued commercial air service and preparing land for commercial development. The report had not been completed at the time of the evaluation, and no employment or service benefit is foreseen for some time. b. PAP Effectiveness The Positive Action Program for Natchez was written by the executive director of the development district in February 1969. The director felt he had been -unable to obtain sufficient gui- dance either from EDA -Washing ton or the area office in pre- paring the PAP. Cooperation of the State Employment Service, local school system -minority group members, Chamber of Commerce 59 N LLl CJ LU < _l Q- < •- h- H O LU o DC < Q LU >f § £ s r» PQ r*- CO c co >0 .H o o\ ^> L CM in ■H (L> ■H f-\ D ^ > ^J en •CO- vy S 00 c_> CM H l rH & g CO CD -P C C D Q) iH TJ :* >H to •H iH « c CO M o CD CD o ■H « e w •P ^ (0 g CO u CD 0. CO X} ID T3 CD o O -p -P U CD O s -P (0 H H co CO CO On M E-t ,Q Xi X! M n CD <: C 13 CD CD C D T5 ID h> I'D CD cu & CD 1-3 •H 0) >i CO O £? -P •H *G fd T3 -P CO ■p •P > (0 d. CD CD CD tH C -p c C >t w -P cu 3 ■P -p •P CU CD fi CD CD M CO •H U ? 3 3 £ 13 CD e g rd U u X) Si XI CD •H T3 -p -P H O •H o •H •H •H H CO •H CO CO (d -P H ^ >H CD CD CO CD CD w •P M -p -P •P •P no tf CD > > u f0 c -P -P ■P C tf C a >i CD 0< cd < < rtj D U H H iH •n u I 1 l Q a U O < n < <: rfj Tl W < rtj m U Q CD Q Q Q C Q Q CD cu W CU W w W rt W w >H 60 staff members, and city and county officials is cited in the PAP. However, no committee was instituted for its formulation or implementation . The operators of programs mentioned in the PAP are not familiar with the document's purpose or content. Community leaders likewise know little about the PAP. Three of the four district board members from the growth center had not heard of it. The incoming president of the board, also a Natchez resident, was aware of the PAP and had some idea of its general objectives. However, he was unable to identify any of the action programs. The action programs set forth in the PAP include construc- tion of a new vocational-technical facility in an RA, development of industrial sites in the center, promotion of tourism, pro- vision of employment information to RA residents, and establish- ment of a licensed practical nurse training program at the city's hospital . After two years, there have been some accomplishments in the areas cited by the PAP. However, these accomplishments are not related to the PAP. Vocational-technical training facilities in Natchez do not service any RA residents, and the school men- tioned in the PAP has no connection with Natchez, the PAP or EDA's growth center strategy. The one potentially significant program was a job notification system to be operated by the city. A census of available Natchez jobs was to be taken periodically and the results published in redevelopment area newspapers. Interviews with the mayor, leaders of the Chamber, and RA resi- dent produced no evidence that these activities were ever under- taken. The State Employment Service, however, had carried out this activity prior to center designation and continues to do so. This is, of course, not a result of the PAP and is not supported by the city or county, but by the State. c . Role of the District Organization The district board is composed of seven representatives from each of the ten counties. Its executive committee is composed jof one member from each county, plus all past presidents, and jthe local share of the district budget is financed by a 20 cent jper capita assessment on each county. Thus, the most populous counties, which are those containing the EDC ' s of Natchez and McComb, are the heaviest contributors. However, this arrange- ment does not visibly affect policy decisions of the board or [activities of the staff. The district offices are presently jlocated in McComb, but according to the district director, this jdoes not have a significant impact on the staff's work program 61 With regard to the growth center strategy, the district director states that his objective is to provide equitable distribution of staff time and effort to all district counties. This equality is sought by calling regular board meetings through- out the district. The director, however, believes that the greatest potential for significant economic development lies within the growth centers. Local conditions support this belief. Any spillover impact to the redevelopment areas is seen as desirable, but incidental. There is some feeling, particularly in the RA of Franklin County that the district staff is overly attentive to the growth center counties. Interviewees in both Wilkinson and Franklin Counties stated that more emphasis should be placed on locating industry in the redevelopment areas. On the other hand, growth center residents oppose emphasizing the goal of providing jobs to RA residents. The fact that RA commuters find employment in Natchez, but provide no tax base because they live outside the city is particularly aggravating to Natchez residents at a time when revenues are sorely needed. At present a commuter tax is under consideration- District staff services have consisted primarily of writing the OEDP and PAP, and helping to prepare project applications. The staff assists the centers and the RA's alike with the latter function, and, in fact, more EDA project dollars have been obli- gated in the RA's than the centers. The district staff does not seem to have assigned any priority to center projects or the center strategy. d. Status of the Economic Development Process Although the development process in Natchez has undergone some changes in recent years, none can be attributed to EDA designation or the growth center strategy. The election of a new city administration in 1968 was seen by some as an indication of more progressive attitudes. Local leaders suggested that the Adams County government does not promote development as actively as does the city, yet even the county has supported such projects as the port improve- ment. The two largest banks in Natchez are taking part in development activities such as low-cost private housing, a new county water system, and the loan to Ricks Lumber Company. The leadership of Natchez is composed primarily of business- men, bankers, utility managers, and professional men. The remain- ing aristocracy, whose power is based on fortunes made in cotton, oil, and real estate, are less interested in development than are the younger community leaders. Organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce, the Industrial Development Commission, and civic groups support and often take the lead in promoting development projects. They have solicited the location of indus- 62 tries with some success, particularly in the cases of Interna- tional Paper, and Diamond National. 7 . Panama City, Florida In April 1971, an EDA field evaluation was conducted in Panama City, Florida, the primary economic development center of the Northwest Florida Economic Development District. The district, which is depicted in Figure 8 , is a 10-county area located in the northwest panhandle of Florida on the Gulf of Mexico. Two of the 10 counties - Holmes and Franklin - have had redevelopment area status for some time, and a third , Walton, has recently been qualified as an RA on the basis of a sudden rise in unemployment. The secondary economic development center * Mariana, is located in Jackson County. FIGURE 8 NORTHWEST FLORIDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MARIANA PANAMA CITY Key it Evaluated EDC • Other District EDC or RC Redevelopment Area Panama City, with a 1970 population of approximately 32,000, was first designated as an EDC in April 1968, at the same time the district was designated. The boundaries of the growth center extend beyond the municipal boundaries of Panama City to include virtually all gulf and bay-front land in Bay County. The orientation of redevelopment area residents toward Panama City varies according to distance and the presence of nearer facilities. Holmes County is almost an hour's drive from Panama City. Consequently, there is little commuting to Panama City itself, although Holmes County residents do commute to the beach areas in south Walton and south Bay Counties. Franklin 63 County is almost twice as far from Panama City, and commuting is almost nonexistent. a. EDA Project Impact To date, EDA has funded only one project in Panama City. On October 14, 1968, $2,075,000 in EDA funds were obligated for the expansion of port facilities and improvement of adjacent industrial land in Panama City. A public works grant for $1,035,000 and a public works loan for $1,040,000 accounted for 100 percent of the project cost. Before this expansion was undertaken, the city had two separate docking facilities: one owned and operated by Inter- national Paper Company; the other city-owned and operated through the Panama City Port Authority. The latter could accommodate only one vessel at a time. The additional berth constructed with EDA assistance allows the port to accommodate two vessels simultaneously, and a new ware- house has provided storage space. In addition to increasing the traffic capacity of the port, the project has improved adjacent industrial land by removal of concrete foundations formerly used for shipbuilding. It was hoped that these improvements would in- duce the location of industry that would utilize both the indus- trial sites and port facilities. At the time of the evaluation, employment impact from this project has been extremely limited, partially because construction was not completed until August 1970. The Port Authority has hired seven full-time employees, and has increased part-time employment, which is estimated as being equivalent to four new full-time posi- tions . A shipwrecking and salvage operation, Cove Construction Com- pany, which has been located adjacent to the port for approximately 10 years, was able to take on 30 new full-time employees. Employ- ment increases were due to the fact that the firm can now ship substantially more scrap metal out of the Panama City port. All of the new employees were previously out of work, and all are residents of Bay County. They received an average of three months of on-the- job training. A survey of supply firms to Cove Construction indi- cated that no materials were purchased in RA counties, and in fact, suppliers within Bay County attributed no expansion in their employ- ment to Cove's increased business. A steamship agency company ser- ving the port has hired one new employee as a result of the port proj- ect. Table 10 summarizes the project's employment impact. At the time of evaluation, a manufacturing concern was consi- dering location near the Panama City Port because of its shipping facilities. Original employment was expected to be 300 with expan- sion to 1,200 within three years after start-up. However, since construction had not yet begun and there was no firm commitment for a starting date, employment and investment per job figures for Panama City have not been adjusted to reflect this possible impact. 64 H ►— • O < < < Q- LU -J h- PQ o < < H O L±J ~3 O Cd CL. < Q LU H <*° U o O O in o W o O O o o B o o r-f •^ o o K ». k 1 ^1 k : m in 1 CN o CN CN o (Ti 1 o Pk o o -P -3* ^ M 1 •^r rH CN Eh *» k M « CN CN O i rH Oi e CD c D iH >1 >< rd rH « C VI o o •H CO H m -p m £j En rd S o w 42 < M P4 C U co 42 h) T3 CD K o •p •P U S -P O CD •o cd H u CO CO CO Pw U EH X! 42 42 U ^ Q) < C O -d CD CD C D tj h> »T> fo i to O a •P •H fd T3 •0 -p co 4-> -P > cd Pu (U CD CD rH c -p C C >i w -p a 3 -p ■P -P CU > u CO G -P •P -p e P< C C >1 CD Pm 0) < < rtj D U H M rH *n u 1 I 1 Q £ H < u < < <: 13 W < < cd h Q CD Q Q Q C Q Q CD Cm W 04 W W w cd W H >H 65 b. PAP Effectiveness Panama City's original Positive Action Program was written in mid 1968 and accepted by EDA in September of that year. It resulted from a meeting called by the mayor at the instigation of the district's executive director. Business and civic leaders were given a general presentation and asked for letters of support to attach to the PAP document. The executive director and staff prepared the actual document which was being updated at the time of the evaluation. On paper, the PAP appears to be a straightforward attempt to address problems of low income and unemployment in the district. The action programs deal with transportation from RA's to Panama City, job placement for RA residents, extra programs for the poor and disadvantaged, etc. The most impressive aspect, however, is the number of supporting letters and their apparent grasp of the PAP's purpose. These letters employ terms almost identical to those in the PAP guidelines EDA distributes to development districts. Interviews with those signing the supporting letters and persons responsible for various action programs suggested that the PAP is not all that it appears to be. Almost without exception, these individuals were unfamiliar with the PAP and its purposes. Moreover, none of the proposed programs was initiated as a result of the PAP. The makeup of the district's board of directors was substan- tially changed in the fall of 197 0, and a new committee was formed to redraw and implement the PAP. Almost all members of the new committee, which includes older members of the establishment, young professionals, one black, and two blue-collar workers, were inter- viewed during the evaluation. Some are quite dynamic and appear to be genuinely concerned with making the committee work. However, they have no understanding of the PAP's purpose or their role in relation to it. The consensus seems to be that the committee will serve as a citizen advisory group for any and all development efforts taking place in Panama City. c . Role of the District Organization The staff and executive director of the Northwest Florida Development Council and Economic Development District are satis- fied with the perceived EDA growth center strategy. It has imposed few requirements on them which they would not have undertaken anyway, and they feel that their function is to help the growth center on the same basis that they help any other part of the district, designated or non-designated. 66 They have undertaken a reorganization of the PAP Committee as discussed above, but it is not clear that this Committee will, in fact, work to implement a strategy consistent with EDA's goals. Spreading the benefits of Panama City's growth to the redevelopment areas and non-designated counties of the district plays a minor role in the current programs of the Committee. None of the board members contacted had any knowledge of the connection between the center and the redevelopment areas. d. Status of the Economic Development Process In a state generally associated with lucrative year-round vacation trade, Panama City continues to face many of the problems found elsewhere in the rural south. Surrounding areas have experienced a decline in farm activity, the city has witnessed the boom and bust of war-time ship building, and was for a short time the one-industry town so often associated with large paper mills. In the past, city administrations have exhibited a variety of attitudes toward development. Around 1960, a $7.4 million bond issue for construction of two city marinas, an auditorium, and city hall was approved. Since that time, a more conservative administration has concentrated on balancing the city budget. The present mayor is characterized as being very "middle-of-the road . " There is some indication, however, that the genuine seat of power in Panama City lies with a few wealthy families, rather than in the visible political structure. These families control the banks and a substantial portion of local real estate. They appear to be the real motivating, or obstructing, force in the city. In the past, International Paper Company, the largest employer in Panama City (8 00 jobs) , wielded a great deal of power in the county. For a long period, the "company town" of Millville remained independent of Panama City, although it is now within the municipal boundaries. Another powerful, but somewhat latent economic force in Bay County are the land holders. Up to 5 percent of the county is held by St. Joe Paper Company and an oil company. This not only limits tax revenues, as this type of land carries special tax favors, but hampers development. A surprising number of those interviewed were quite frank in discussing local attitudes, and most indicated that Panama City, its community organizations, and churches are generally unaware, unconcerned, or at least uninvolved with the problems of the poor. The situation is no different with respect to poverty and distress in the outlying areas of the district. 67 One factor that seems to have resulted in cooperation among Panama City leaders is the Census finding that the city's popu- lation decreased during the 196 0-7 decade. This, and the threat that the Naval Research Laboratory might leave the area, have sparked interest in development activities. EDA appears to have had no effect on Panama City's develop- ment process. However, the district staff is working with local residents on the center's own problems which must be resolved before it can really begin to serve the more distressed areas of the district. 8 . Pine Bluff, Arkansas The Southeastern Arkansas Economic Development District (SEADD) was organized in April of 1967 and designated in January of 1968. Pine Bluff, was designated as the district's primary EDC at the same time. The growth center designation was extended to include Sheridan in adjoining Grant County in March of 1969, forming a growth corridor between the two towns. An additional growth center - Crossett-Hamburg in Ashley County - was designated in August 1970. The district is a 10-county area, including six redevelop- ment area counties. It is depicted in Figure 9. Pine Bluff, which is located in Jefferson County 44 miles southeast of Little Rock, serves three RA counties to the south. FIGURE 9 SOUTHEASTERN ARKANSAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK— L Key * A □ PINE BLUFF SHERIDAN Evaluated EDC Other District EDC or RC Non-District SMSA Redevelopment Area Growth Corridor CROSSETT HAMBURG 68 The 1970 population of Pine Bluff was 57,389, a 30 per- cent increase over 1960. A telephone survey conducted by the SEAEDD indicated that 20 percent of Pine Bluff's labor force commutes to the city from distances of up to 3 miles. Thirty percent of the district's population of 228,000 is black and 45 percent of these reside in Jefferson County. a . Project Impact EDA had funded two projects in Pine Bluff that were com- plete at the time of the evaluation. The first was a $275,000 public works grant for an industrial park with a total cost of $601,000. There are 500 commercial acres in the park, and 13 were occupied by three companies at the time of the evalua- tion. The firms are the Pine Bluff Casket, Pepsi Cola Bottling and Superior Forwarding Companies. Only the employment at the trucking company can be attributed to EDA. Both the casket company and the bottling company were formerly located in Pine Bluff and would have remained within the city even if the industrial land prepared with EDA's assistance had not been available. Superior Forwarding Company employs 11 people with an average annual salary of $9,634 (annual income generation of $105,976). The firm is stable and the employment is year-round. Therefore, for the industrial park, the EDA cost per direct job is approximately $25,000. EDA approval in April 196 8 of the Jefferson Industrial Park was followed one month later by approval of a port facility and adjacent industrial park project to be owned and operated by the Pine Bluf f -Jeff er son County Port Authority. A $1.2 million bond issue for a port facility was approved by Pine Bluff voters in 1965. After the town's designation as an EDC , matching EDA funds of $1.2 million were granted, further supplemented by a bank loan of $800,000. The project, completed in March of 1970, includes 372 acres of prepared industrial land, 55 of which were occupied at the time of evaluation. Five public and pri- vate facilities are associated with the Pine Bluff Port. However, employment at two of these cannot be attributed to EDA. EDA-attributable jobs were found at two terminal companies and at the Pine Bluff Sand and Gravel Company. Pine Bluff Ware- house Company, the source of 11 attributable jobs, was the suc- cessful bidder on a contract to operate the public port facilities for the Port Authority. Because of lack of business, the com- pany would have been forced to lay off seven workers at its major warehouse in Pine Bluff if it had not received the contract. The increased business from the port facility, however, permitted Pine Bluff Warehouse not only to maintain its prior employment, but also to add four persons to its work force. 69 The Pine Bluff Sand and Gravel Company, under contract with the Corps of Engineers to assist in dredging the Arkansas, added six new employees to its general haulage section because of traf- fic through the EDA port facility. Martin Terminals is a bulk chemical shipper, wholly owned by a Pine Bluff resident. Storage tanks and portside pumping facili- ties have been erected on land purchased from the Port Authority. This installation is now being enlarged. Employment, including the headquarters staff of the company in Pine Bluff, totals five persons . The Strong Company, an indirect beneficiary of the EDA proj- ect, began as a contracting firm, but is now in the manufacture of roofing equipment. Vermiculite, part of its roofing compound, is imported from South America. Formerly this was shipped from Louisiana by rail, but the port project has enabled the company to bring the material in by barge, at a considerable saving. The owner indicated that between three and five workers would be added to his payroll within the next two years as a result of his better competitive position. Table 11 summarizes the direct job impact attributable to the two EDA projects. All employment is in firms considered to be of intermediate stability (see Appendix A) , and there has been no diversification of the economic base. Only 1 of the 33 jobs credited to EDA was taken by an RA resident; however, 5 of the 12 employees who completed EDA questionnaires were previously unemployed or underemployed residents of Pine Bluff. Neither project has im- proved public services, and there is no evidence of significant purchases of goods or services from the redevelopment areas by project beneficiaries. Total annual salary generated by EDA-attri- buted employment was estimated by the three employers to be $242,000. The port project probably has long-run potential, but the city had demonstrated a willingness to undertake the project before EDA assistance was available. The value of the industrial park might be questioned because the city already owned an industrial park, which is still only partially filled. In the future, expansion at the Strong Company can be expected to add 3 jobs to the number attributable to EDA. This would reduce the investment per job to $41,139. A water and sewer project for Sheridan, which is part of the growth center area, was approved in June 1969. Since the facility will not be operational until mid-1971, an extensive evaluation of Sheridan was not undertaken. The project will affect 2 industrial parks already serving a number of firms, but no specific impact can be projected at this time. 70 < EH O Eh Q *: « Eh Pm H H cr> o o r- o o 00 o o n n o «■ ■h a* H ■H •<* rH CN ■^ 00 CN i/y o o o in H VD CN O O o O CN <0- 00 H CN CN ^D <^> O o o O o o O 00 o O V ^ * ■^ VD <£> in O n CN rH ■ < PU Eh cn D Q H O O O O VD ■C0- O O o in r- CN ■CO- CAO CN r- o o O o O o o N. 1 in 1 V£) CN o >H « O O H Eh <: u o -p CO o u Eh -P < u D CD ^ ■n < > U W pLi o •H 4-1 fd •H u •rH 4-» >H CO pu ai Q W u o ■d CD •H CU U rH u rd O C -P -H C P Q) fd o u U CD o) a, Pn O co Xi o 1-3 13 CD •P ■H 4-> -P < I *C Q W o ■p w .Q O h> 13 CD -p -Q •H o -p CO ^ X! CD >i' h> o I'd CD >i p 3 U T3 -P -H P CO rStJ (U I P< w c2 -rH U > P rH -P u c c CD CD 13 13 •H -H CO CO CD CD « PES U kC U « XJ to u CD PU -P C 0) >H CD Pm -P CD w fa fd pu CO CD > rt3 Q W CO 0) > 13 CD 4-> fd CD c CD O >i 5-1 fd rH fd CO 5H <: J3 fd Q O O 71 b. PAP Effectiveness Pine Bluff's Positive Action Program was accepted by EDA in December 1968. It was subsequently updated, with few substantive changes. Although a committee of 11 EDC citizens was formed to prepare the PAP, its members played only a minor role. It was written, in fact, by the deputy director of the district. All members of the committee were interviewed and none had a clear knowledge of what the PAP was designed to do; some were even unfamiliar with the name of the program. The executive director of the district was quite frank in his assessment of the PAP as being merely a bothersome requirement for the acquisition of fed- eral funds. Action programs listed in the PAP concern the provision of vocational education to residents of RA's, formation of a biracial council to address minority problems in Pine Bluff, and provision of health and day care services to residents of outlying areas. Both vocational education institutions within the city pre-date the PAP and other EDA activities. No expansion of services has resulted from the PAP. The mayor's Human Relations Commission is a functioning group, but the impetus for this group was the vio- lence precipitated by the death of Martin Luther King in the spring of 1968 . The Jefferson County Hospital, cited in the PAP as a source of health care for the RA's, offers treatment at a cost which is prohibitive for persons with low incomes. Consequently, most of these people travel to Little Rock, where they can obtain free services from the teaching hospital. Day care centers are avail- able in Pine Bluff, but these were originated by 0E0 and bear no relation to EDA activities. There were frank admissions that the primary concern of Pine Bluff was for its own residents. Outlying areas were considered only as they might coincidentally contribute to the growth of Pine Bluff or Jefferson County. c . Role of the District Organization The district is staffed by a group of dedicated professionals. The director was once a state legislator, and has since successfully championed a bill that provides for matched-share planning money from the state. He and his staff have been effective in obtaining EDA and other federal grants not only for the growth center, but for the redevelopment areas as well. The district staff was quite open in its opposition to the PAP requirement. The staff members said they feel it duplicates information already included in the OEDP and that no real commitment can be elicited from Pine Bluff in the absence of substantial fed- eral dollar investments. 72 The staff's orientation is generally district-wide. The location of the office in Pine Bluff does not visibly affect its strategy. The goal is to distribute federal assistance through- out the counties in accordance with local ability to provide matching funds. District board members are primarily interested in their own counties and are only secondarily concerned with a "district" outlook. They help Pine Bluff in its attempts to se- cure federal funding and expect similar assistance for their own counties in return. The district board is composed of 42 members, 10 of whom come from the growth center. Unlike the separate PAP Committee, it meets regularly and there is good communication among the members. The growth center strategy has a low order of priority in the board's deliberations, though it gladly supports applications filed by the EDC. One of the strongest board leaders comes from the redevelop- ment county of Desha. The heaviest financial contribution comes from Pine Bluff and Jefferson County, nearly $6,000 each. However, this does not seem to affect the distribution of projects within the district, although Pine Bluff has received the most costly projects. Distribution appears to be on the basis of need and the ability to provide matching local financial support. d. Status of the Economic Development Process There have been some changes in Pine Bluff's economic develop- ment process in recent years. Private developers have taken advan- tage of HUD rent subsidy programs. About 460 units have been built; two more housing projects are in the planning stage. A city housing authority was finally created in January of this year, and the mayor, elected in 1965, is enthusiastic about prospects of ex- tensive low-rent housing over the next five to ten years. The Office of Economic Opportunity has funded day care centers, community centers, and a Head Start Program that serve residents of Pine Bluff and Jefferson County. An Urban Renewal Agency for the city has been established, a program begun, and a new city hall has been built in a renewal neighborhood. Local merchants have be- gun a face-lifting campaign for the shopping district, and the largest bank in Pine Bluff has undertaken a major renovation of its building's exterior. The two major banks in Pine Bluff are the National Bank of Commerce, and the Simmons First National Bank. Both have been actively engaged in development activities, and each has a loan-to- deposit ratio of .60. These activities, however, have no link to the Positive Action Program, EDC designation, or other EDA activi- ties related to the growth center strategy. 73 9 . Swainsboro, Georgia Swainsboro, Georgia, was designated by EDA on November 28, 1967, as the first secondary growth center in the country. This action climaxed months of effort on the part of Swainsboro citizens and the staff of the Central Savannah River Economic Development District. As illustrated in Figure 10, Swainsboro is situated in the heart of Emanuel County, which is the southernmost county in the Central Savannah River District. In 1970, the town's population was 7,325, which compares with a population of 59,864 for Augusta, the FIGURE 10 CENTRAL SAVANNAH RIVER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AUGUSTA SWAINSBORO Key + Evaluated EDC • Other District EDC or RC Redevelopment Area district's primary growth center. Eight of the thirteen counties in the district are EDA-designated redevelopment areas, and three of these are located within a 20-mile radius of Swainsboro. However, the largest municipality in each of the redevelopment area counties is at least 30 miles from Swainsboro. A three-man EDA evaluation team conducted field work in Swainsboro between February 21 and February 28, 1971. 74 a. EDA Project Impact Two EDA projects have been completed in Swainsboro since its designation and another is approximately 30 percent finished. The completed projects consist of: . a public works grant and loan for the development of a 525-acre industrial park (Magic Mall) , four-lane access highway, and related improvements; and . a business loan to a manufacturing firm (Keller Stamping & Electric Co.) located in the Magic Mall Industrial Park. The partially completed project is: . a public works supplementary grant in support of a $1 million water and sewer extension project financed by the Federal Water Quality Administration and the Swainsboro city government. As a result of EDA assistance to these projects, 387 jobs have been created or saved in Swainsboro. Approximately eight percent of these jobs have been taken by present or former resi- dents of redevelopment area (RA's). This represents an EDA invest- ment of approximately $58,000 per job to an RA resident. Table 12 presents data on each of the projects. Approximately 3 percent of the jobs attributable to EDA have been filled by members of poor households, while 27 percent are held by members of minority groups. In addition, 59 percent of the jobs are held by heads of households. Moreover, approximately $20,000 more a year is spent in RA counties by local residents as a result of these jobs. The secondary effects of the three EDA-assisted projects have been minimal. No suppliers or buyers have located in the area as a result of the projects. However, one firm whose location in the vicinity was partially attributable to the industrial park project purchases approximately $115,000 worth of timber a month. Approxi- mately 60 percent of this timber comes from Emanuel County, but the remaining 4 percent is primarily from the redevelopment area counties of Burke, Jenkins and Jefferson. The other industries purchase only utilities and clerical supplies locally. The majority of the employees at EDA-associated plants who were previously employed have increased their incomes. Wages paid by employers located in the Magic Mall average 10 to 15 cents above the minimum hourly wage of $1.60. Training is confined to on-the-job instruction. To date, attempts to provide more formal training through the Swainsboro Vocational-Technical School have failed because the school's instructors lack expertise in the rele- vant technologies. 75 PQ < o rH r^ CN CN rH r~ 00 00 o M ro 00 ro H rH en r^ 00 o i-h CTl IT) ro rH ■^ 'd 1 o < ■» - •. •- •» E-i rH rH i ^ 00 00 O CO ro in r^ Eh rH ro 00 rH <«- in * 'O * Q g o o en -tf rd fd rd >x> o o 5*5 O o o r-. > 4-> p •P in o o <«H o o fd rd fd rd *=}< in o H co *» ■» i CO Q Q Q ^ ». «• « & S o ^r — CN 00 •-{ WWW in cr ■<* <£> Eh CO Eh o rH B s S CN o <: X *■ en 12 W rH o 00 o •-t LD CTl o o (_) O U rH (N O IT) rH o rH 00 O VD o < O- « S H CTi IT) r-i CN rH CN "SJ 1 o H H rt » - •. •■ •* ^ i-h fH Eh oo rH ro 00 in hH S U VD CM *£l rH W -~> o Q_ < Q UJ rf^ O O !H * CN CTi * O CT * o o S H o O o\° 0) *-~. * ^^ ^^ CTl VO O •♦ o o S Ph J*H o O rH * CN •K * <0 "sT KO \£> o o Eh S - >. r- rH 00 iH rH r^ (J CO rtj VD <£> • CD CO CN rH r-i CTl IT) (N rH O cn r~ HPP. tH tH IT) M X — — - — - •~^ rH 00 ^O o •-> O Q 00 00 + oo oo £S S CN l"D O CN o CN » S H {/> in rH rH rH ■CO- 1 (1) rH CO 1 •H rH 'd TJ 1 -a H'O CO -p 4-> +J fd a, to cd CD CD CD CD G 'O -p c G C >1 8 4-> & 3 c -p -P P4 -P E (0 CD c CD Q CD u O >H co ■H o o 3 3 a U >, (D T3 g g rd h « O O -H X! X! < J3 CC O Ti •H -p 4-> X) rH Ej O U •H o -p •H •H rt -H pM CD rH -H CO CO co o rd -d <: o -P rd n >H M >1 ft CO CD CD CD id W CD D H -p u -P 5-1 ■p -P O CO ■P o g w CD Pi > X > 4J J Eh u rd G CD 4-> -P -P -P -P -P rH CD C « C O H « >i h o u h id rH U > U •n g o o 1 CO 1 CO (D 1 CO g (D CO g p U CD W < M < X < X T3 < X! CD TJ >H w < SH rfj M rd G u a -h CD >H P Q O -H QOCCD P CD P CD CD CD CM w -P cm o W ID H hi w W id D D CM W CM W CM >t U CO 4-> X O rH id tn U G CD -H rH >; rH r) CD rd W a CO G CD O TS 3 T3 rH CD O CO a (15 H pq ■K * * 76 Two of the firms located in the Magic Mall Industrial Park and another firm which located in Swainsboro as a result of the park were planning expansion at the time of the evaluation. In each case construction was complete but hiring had not begun. Ac- cording to the discount methodology discussed in Appendix A, the three firms can be credited with a total of 54 future jobs. This would reduce the EDA investment per job in Swainsboro to $4,153. b. PAP Effectiveness Swainsboro' s Positive Action Program (PAP) does not reflect any new or expanded commitments on the part of the town toward unemployed and underemployed residents of redevelopment areas. Almost without exception, the programs described in the PAP are related to the development of Swainsboro and Emanuel County. More- over, the majority of these programs are aimed at upper and middle class residents of Swainsboro. A number of the programs described in the PAP have been success- fully implemented, and progress is being made with relation to others. However, most of these programs were initiated by the local Chamber of Commerce before the town's designation as a growth cen- ter. The PAP can be credited with providing some impetus for the Chamber to organize and revitalize local committees. However, lo- cal leadership changes and the continued development efforts of influential citizens are primarily responsible for such achievements. c. Role of the District Organization Despite the existence of an active, informed board and a well- qualified, competent staff, the Central Savannah River Economic Development District organization has not been particularly effec- tive in implementing the growth center strategy. A number of fac- tors are responsible for this lack of success. Prime among these is the disinterest exhibited by the government and residents of Augusta, the center in the district which displays the most potential for growth. As a result of the town's attitude, little emphasis has been placed on implementing a growth center strategy through developing projects in Augusta. Rather, the district organization has focused on helping Swainsboro develop as a growth center. Both the district staff and the Swainsboro representatives on the district board of directors emphasize Swainsboro* s ability to serve nearby redevelopment areas. However, board members from other counties, who were willing to help Swainsboro become eligible for more federal funds by supporting its designation as a growth center, privately assert that it has no more to offer than towns in their home counties. Moreover, the district staff has not encouraged EDA fund recipients in Swainsboro to recruit or give preferential hiring treatment to unemployed and underemployed residents of re- development areas. The assumption is that development of Swainsboro will automatically benefit nearby redevelopment areas; that no direct effort to channel project benefits to such places is necessary, 77 In attempting to implement a growth center strategy through funding projects in Swainsboro, the district staff has been care- ful to avoid neglecting district redevelopment areas. The staff recognizes the parochial attitudes of the various board members and knows that to devote an inordinate amount of time to the develop- ment of Swainsboro would result in jealousy and a less effective district program. Thus, efforts are made to insure that federal assistance and staff time are spread evenly among'the district counties. d . Status of the Economic Development Process Led by the influence of a local industrial development consul- tant, the power structure of Swainsboro has become increasingly fa- vorable toward economic development during the past 10 to 15 years. Although a bond election for financing the Magic Mall Industrial Park locally failed in the mid-60' s, the 1970 election of an indi- vidual closely identified with development efforts suggests that the general public has also become more positive in its attitude toward development. These attitudes are manifested in attempts to attract industry, improve the town's infrastructure, and upgrade service facilities. Swainsboro has actively sought aid from the state and Federal Government. In addition to EDA assistance, the town has taken ad- vantage of the Federal Housing Administration's (FHA) program pro- viding housing for low-income families, the Office of Economic Op- portunity's Head Start program, the Federal Water Quality Adminis- tration's sewage treatment program, and several other programs as well . The local Chamber of Commerce is a particularly effective force for promoting development activities. Through this organization, a number of committees have been established to plan and implement activities aimed at improving the community. These groups meet regularly, and have experienced considerable success in implementing projects. Several industrial development groups are also active. Two of the town's major banks have an average loan-to-deposit ratio of .68, and have provided financial support for a number of develop- ment projects. EDA has played a supporting role with regard to Swainsboro 's economic development process. Development-oriented activities had been initiated and local attitudes were becoming more positive be- fore the town received growth center designation or EDA project funding. However, the psychological lift provided by designation, and the concrete results furnished by EDA project implementation, accelerated local development activities and strengthened the town's commitment to growth. 78 10 Tri-Cities, Tennessee -Virginia, The Tri-Cities area (composed of Bristol, Johnson City, and Kingsport, Tennessee, and Bristol, Virginia) was designated by EDA on June 6, 1967, as the primary economic development center of the First Tennessee-Virginia Economic Development District. The bound- ary of the Tri-Cities growth center was extended in December of 1968 to include Elizabethton , a community 10 miles east of Johnson City in Carter County. The district, which is depicted in Figure 11, is composed of nine counties, eight of which are located in eastern Tennessee. Three of these, Greene, Hancock, and Johnson Counties, are designated redevelopment areas. FIGURE 11 FIRST TENNESSEE-VIRGINIA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT KINGSPORT BRISTOL ELIZABETHTON JOHNSON CITY Key • D Evaluated EDC Growth Corridor Other District EDC or RC Redevelopment Area The growth center cities are approximately 25 miles apart, forming a small triangle in the center of the district. Their com- bined population has increased from 103,123 in 1960 to 112,898 in 1970. In 1970, the individual populations of the cities were: . Bristol, Tennessee-Virginia - 34,921; . Kingsport, Tennessee - 31,938; . Johnson City, Tennessee - 33,770; and . Elizabethton, Tennessee - 12,269. Although the mileage between the redevelopment areas and the growth center communities is not excessive, mountainous terrain and poor roads make commuting and routine travel extremely difficult. Field work in the Tri-Cities growth center was conducted by an EDA evaluation team during March 1971. 79 a. EDA Project Impact EDA has invested heavily in the Tri-Cities growth center. Projects completed to date represent an Agency obligation of $7,585,000. An additional $2,325,000 has been obligated for proj- ects not yet physically completed, or still in the planning stage. The two major job-creating firms associated with EDA Tri- Cities investments are Jarl Aluminum Extrusion Corporation and Camac Corporation, a producer of synthetic carpet thread. Both firms have received substantial EDA business loans - $4,550,000 and $1,730,000 respectively - and both are also beneficiaries of EDA public works industrial park investments. At the time of evalua- tion, the two firms employed 107 workers, and had verifiable plans to hire 363 more by the end of 1971. Camac is located in the Washington County Industrial Park (Virginia), which was funded through two separate projects. These were a $1,008,000 public works grant and loan and a $143,000 public works grant for water and sewage facilities, access roads, storm drainage facilities, and general site preparation. Jarl was able to locate in an industrial park in Elizabethton because of a $154,000 EDA public works grant that provided sewage service. In addition to the jobs created through Jarl and Camac, EDA- attributed jobs were generated in Bristol Steel Company and Iodent Chemical Company. Bristol Steel has located a steel fabrication plant in the Washington County Industrial Park, and presently em- ploys 85 workers there. Iodent Chemical is located in an industrial park in Carter County, which is served by the same EDA- funded sew- age line that serves the park in which Jarl is located. Iodent pres- ently employs 3 5 workers and can be credited with 52 future jobs. The major remaining EDA investment in the Tri-Cities area is the Piney Flats Tri-Counties Industrial Park, not yet physically completed. The 800-acre park represents an Agency expenditure of $1,885,000 for site preparation. Directly related to the park is an EDA grant of $440,000 for water and sewer lines to service Bristol as well as the park. At the time of the field evaluation, there was no employment in the park. However, Amerace Esna had begun plant construction and expected to employ 225 persons by the end of 1971. Using the discount rate for future jobs reduces this figure to 113. When future jobs and the park investment are included, EDA's investment per job in Tri-Cities increases to $13,126. b. PAP Effectiveness The Tri-Cities PAP was written by the district organization in March 1968, before the MEDO or guidelines were received from EDA Washington. The PAP has subsequently been updated (August 1969) with no significant changes. The bulk of the PAP is devoted to the development of the Tri- Cities growth center. It emphasizes that the cost-benefit ratio for public investment and the potential for growth in general is greater within Tri-Cities because of location and existing social amenities. 80 go o i i— i en •— i lu _l CQ < < Q_ O LU ~3 O Cd Q_ < Q LU o o vo "^ o o o in rH o a o o 00 r- in «■ «■ ^ ». ^ En ro in o m CN •^ in CN ^o in O r^ CO <7> ro *^> in m r-\ rH CO i H o (N in in CN rH U> CN 00 en >H S Eh <3 s eu O o O o u 3 o o O o o o rO trj CO ■^ in H - ■» <*° p p P >. » « « 00 ^r O in o n rd fC ■^r 1 VD H Eh o in in m a Q Q 1 O Eh CA m rH CN •co- ■co- ■CO- s S S U IS H a >H << ^ Eh Pm o o * ,— ^ *^-^ O O ^ o o o o o * to in * * * _ * O O O •> •» g m * en * * * o >» U H H rH 0\P (0 CN * CN in * en in o A in in O U — t rH r^ •<* rH •• O : • Eh iH rH MD — •~- — - >- ' in r^ - ■C/> * O o n n o u± U> £ s in i-o en n — - -_' H 00 o o VD O o o o r~- o o u o o rH in o s o o 0\° O CN o 52 C£> oo in o "Jf *^> CN ■^ i-\ en o CJ oo rH ^r rH (T\ ^ x> CTi in m in o rH CO CA i-i r-\ •^ r^ < H in rH O 00 n r- en ■H r- 1-3 oo rH rH G O >a >1 -H CD •-\ P ■H rH T3 T3 1 T3 >H fQ CO P P fd tt fO (U CD CD CD CD C T3 P CO C C rf >1 2 P CX 3 C P -P Pd P £ (0 Q) C P a) at (*; u O X co •H U O P 3 J3 Sh >, 0) a g g (8 H « o o U -H X! ■H K X! O Ti O T3 QJ p P o rH Eh O u ■H O p ■H •H fe (U rH -H t! CO CO P CO ro T3 i< U 4-> (0 H U n >i a. CO -H cu CD P C/3 (D O W p ^ P 5h P P O W P g co X! > X! a p a § o (0 G CD P P P P P P rH o c « (U c o COO) >i ro <\) PU 0) (X r< < C < a h Pi H l-D Hh-O rH U > u •n O O 1 CO 1 CO 0) l co £ Qj co u •H u a) w < H < X! < X) T3 h c5 cu H pu o W id Wb ifl WbDDft w cm w eu a; T3 OJ CO ro X! CD IH fO ^ M rO Pn rH rO ■H u p CO 3 >a a H >l P fl 3 CJ c . CO p (1) &> CD c >1 ■H o X! rH CO (h (0 g S CD C . •H CO g CQ !h X •rH m ■n CD rH XJ P P CO C4H -H O M pq P c m CD 00 CJ !h (D CD XI fX P o T3 rH G rO G (0 rH £ U P rO 1-5 CO t CO J U QJ ( O rH T <4H m c fO t p I (0 CD r TS r- a a) fe B CD ro ( >i CO 1 o rH fO r- D, C g C P w l- •X * * 81 Local leaders were unaware of the existence of the Positive Action Program and showed only limited interest in the concept when it was explained to them. They felt that the needs of each community within the growth center so occupied the available re- sources that aid to outlying redevelopment areas was unlikely. Since the PAP is regional in scope, these individuals felt that the proper place for its design and implementation lay with the district staff rather than with themselves as leaders in the growth center . Specific steps affecting growth center spillover to RA's are mentioned briefly at the end of the document. They include: . preferential recruiting and hiring of RA residents; . job notification in RA's; . expanded vocational technical training for RA residents; and . efforts to increase low- and moderate-income housing and public transportation both within the growth center and the RA's. However, job recruitment and hiring is difficult in most of the district's RA's because mountainous terrain and poor roads make commuting impractical. Moreover, it is the policy of nearly all new industry of any size to hire local labor first. For example, the new Westinghouse plant has found the local labor pool quite adequate and is not hiring outside a 30-mile radius of the plant. This excludes the RA counties with the exception of the northwest section of Johnson County. Attempts to service the RA's are in no way related to the PAP, and the isolation of the RA's makes it highly unlikely that the growth center will have substantial impact on those counties. Generally, the RA's have closer economic ties with Morristown and Knoxville. Although there has been expansion of vocational educa- tion in the growth center, this has been of little benefit to the RA's. In some cases, voc-tech facilities are limited to county residents. In other cases, where out-of-county students are accep- ted, there is no transportation provided. The result has been limited attendance on the part of RA residents. In the judgment of the evaluators, the PAP in Tri-Cities has not been effective for three primary reasons. First, the document is unknown to the local leadership; second, EDA has not effectively transmitted its concern about the PAP to the district level; and third, geography and road systems severely limit the influence the center might have upon the redevelopment areas. The district staff regards the PAP as a simple administrative necessity. 82 c . Role of the District Organization The First Tennessee-Virginia Development District was first funded by EDA in November of 1966, and now supports a professional staff of almost 30. District headquarters are located on the campus of Eastern Tennessee State University in Johnson City. Based on interviews with the staff and evaluation of staff-pre- pared material, the director and his employees were judged to be extremely competent. Their assistance goes beyond simple "grantsmanship" to the provision of technical assistance and information to member governments, and specialized forms of development planning. The district organization has succeeded in securing federal assistance from such agencies as the Law Enforcement Administra- tion, FHA, and HUD. It has also received assistance from the Appalachian Regional Commission and has been designated as an A-95 clearinghouse by OMB. As previously noted, the Tri-Cities PAP was prepared by the district staff, which found the exercise itself useful, but the document superfluous. The staff spends considerable time in re- development areas of the district although its offices are located in the growth center. Their time appears to be divided equally among the growth center, RA counties, and non-designated counties. District staff members have mixed reactions to EDA's growth center concept. They believe that significant regional develop- ment can only take place within Tri-Cities. However, geographic barriers preclude the redevelopment areas from significantly benefitting from such growth. Consequently, they have sought to provide the redevelopment areas with whatever projects they can in an attempt to help the local residents. d. Status of the Economic Development Process (1) Bristol The city of Bristol lies astride the Virginia-Tennessee state line, which divides its principal business street and commercial center. The Tennessee and Virginia sections of the city have separate forms of municipal government and separate city services, but most residents feel that cooperation between the two is extreme- ly good. A generally recognized turning point for development activities in Bristol was the founding in 1965 of the joint Bris- tol, Tennessee-Virginia Industrial Commission. The Commission introduced up-dated planning and zoning requirements and applied for federal assistance. Over the past four years, seven new industries have located in Bristol. However, some problems of suburban exodus plague the community. The middle class is leaving the city proper, 83 and municipal revenue and downtown businesses have decreased accordingly. Efforts to revitalize the center of town have not yet met with much success. (2) Johnson City Johnson City has experienced substantial commercial growth in recent years. The city has a higher proportion of service and commercial industry than the other towns in the Tri-Cities growth center, but has not experienced as much industrial and manufacturing growth. There is a concentration of hospitals and related facilities, as well as a university and two colleges which establish it as an educational and health facility center for the area . Johnson City has undertaken considerable development in the past five years, primarily due to the willingness of the public to pay for projects of this nature. Water and sewer facilities, industrial sites, and a new school and municipal building program are some of the development projects that have been made possible through public financing. Although it is difficult to pinpoint a group of economic leaders as the real moving force within the community, developments in recent years would suggest that diverse groups have been able to work together for the good of the community. Community leaders express a concern for the poverty and unemployment that exist in the outlying redevelopment areas. They recognize, however, the limitations of the road system con- necting the city with Hancock County, and believe that the only way Hancock residents can be helped is by migrating to the center or through the location of factories in the RA county itself. (3) Kingsport Although only half as old as Johnson City and Bristol, Kings- port has in approximately 50 years matched them in retail trade and services. A large part of this growth is due to the location of Tennessee-Eastman, chemical manufacturer and subsidiary of Eastman Kodak. This plant employs 15,000 workers with a median salary of $12,000 and an unusually high level of education. The plant has made considerable contributions to community affairs, including $225,000 for an environmental education center. Other large employers include Mead Paper, an Army munitions factory and one of the country's largest printing plants. Kingsport, in combination with Bristol, is the major retail trade center for northeastern Tennessee and nearby West Virginia. It is also becoming an educational center with the opening of the new $2.5 million Kingsport University Center. An extensive capital improvements program and a recreational program are among the other activities that the community has begun in the area of development. The community is visibly reluctant to become in- 84 volved in any federal programs, although this situation may be changing. (4) Elizabethton Elizabethton, which was added to the growth center area in 1968, is beginning to develop a diversified economy. A number of new industries have located there, and the town is building its own service sector. Two new shopping centers and the city's first motel are now being built. Traditionally isolated by poor roads, new highway construc- tion promises to make Elizabethton more accessible from the Tri- Cities airport and industrial park to the north. Because of this isolation, Elizabethton ' s influence on outlying RA's has been minimal. Local leaders believe the city will have greater potential to attract commuters when the road improvements are completed. City leaders feel that attitudes toward development are be- coming more positive. Elizabethton has participated in the con- struction of a regional industrial park by contributing 13 per- cent of the project cost. The city has also become involved in some federal programs including urban renewal, a HUD- financed water and sewer system, an 0E0 Operation Mainstream Program, and public housing leased by the City Housing Authority. 11. Goldsboro, North Carolina Goldsboro is one of three growth centers in the Neuse River Economic Development District of North Carolina. Designated a growth center on June 3, 19 69, at the same time the development district was officially recognized, the city had a 1970 popula- tion of 26,810 - a seven percent decline from 1960. The popula- tion of Wayne County, however, in which Goldsboro is situated, has increased four percent since 1960 to 85,408. The Neuse River District, which is shown in Figure 12, is in the central coastal plain region of the state and runs westward from the Atlantic Ocean about 125 miles. It is formed by nine counties, five of which are redevelopment areas. Greene and Duplin Counties are the redevelopment areas closest to Goldsboro. Goldsboro was added to the basic sample group as an economic development center that had submitted a Positive Action Program but had received no EDA project funds. A brief field visit was made on May 3 and 4, 19 71, to evaluate the effect of the Positive Action Program on the residents of nearby redevelopment areas and on the growth center. 85 FIGURE 12 NEUSE RIVER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NEW BERN GOLDSBORO KINSTON Key * □ Evaluated EDC Other District EDC or RC Redevelopment Area a. PAP Background and Status The PAP Committee in Goldsboro was a broad based group of 23 community leaders, many of whom were already involved in other community development programs. Led by the manager of the local Chamber of Commerce, who also wrote the final document, the com- mittee held several meetings to divide responsibilities, assemble a draft document, and approve the final copy. The complete PAP was reviewed by the Goldsboro Area Chamber of Commerce, the office of the mayor, and the Wayne County Commissioners. All passed resolutions of support. The document was quickly accepted by the EDA Regional Office and forwarded to Washington in April 197 0. However, 13 months later when the field visit was made, the PAP committee had not yet heard whether EDA Washington had approved or disapproved its program outline. The case was a communications problem between EDA Washington and the area office. b. Progress Toward Achieving PAP Goals Specific actions the PAP Committee listed as steps the com- munity would take in line with its responsibilities as a growth center included the following: 86 The Human Relations Committee of the Chamber of Commerce would develop a pilot project involving local industry and the hard-core unemployed. Wayne Community College would expand its physical plant and training programs to reach more unemployed, especially those in the redevelopment areas. The PAP Committee would conduct an informal program to change attitudes of business firms within the city toward unskilled but trainable members of the labor force. The urban renewal program would continue to aim for better housing and, in particular, would aid a local group offering new homes through HUD ' s low-income housing pro- gram. Other programs in the PAP describe ongoing efforts; for example, the PAP indicates that the Wayne County Industrial Development Authority will continue to work for expansion of existing industry and the creation of new job opportunities for all persons, including those in nearby redevelopment areas. At the time of the field visit, all items in the program outline had received attention; action had been begun on all items that called for specific efforts, and in two instances (expansion of the community college and organizing a private corporation to build 160 housing units) the projects had been completed. However, of the seven commitments in the program, only one can be considered a new activity that would not have taken place in the absence of the PAP. This is a job-training program invol- ving the hard-core unemployed and local industry. If assistance is provided through the Department of Labor's "JOBS 70" Program, the Chamber of Commerce will administer the training in cooperation with a consortium of four local firms. While the initial number of trainees (38) is modest, the Chamber hopes that early successes will encourage more local firms to participate and thereby increase the number of persons trained. c . Growth Center Activities and Attitudes Directly Resulting from PAP (1) Effect on the PAP Committee Those members of the PAP Committee interviewed, and in particu- lar the PAP ' s author, felt that preparing the PAP had been a good exercise because it brought together most people who were working for community development and enabled them to find out what others were doing. On the other hand, current interest in reviving or continuing the committee as an on-going local action group is minimal, an attitude which can be attributed to EDA's inatten- tion concerning the PAP and to the lack of any project activity. 87 (2) Effect on Growth Center and Redevelopment Area Residents As stated earlier, little in the PAP represented new action; even that which can be attributed directly to the PAP has not yet resulted in direct benefits for growth center or redevelopment area residents. Yet certain subtle overall benefits to growth center residents have accrued as a result of Goldsboro's designation as a growth center and as a result of the concomitant requirement for a PAP. First, there appears to be evolving among the city and county leaders a greater awareness of the problems and hardships facing its unemployed and minority citizens. The new job-training program is a limited response by a small segment of the total community, but the manager of the Chamber of Commerce stated that this type of program would not have been possible even a few years ago . Second, there is evidence of greater communication and coopera- tion among public officials, minority group community organizations, and local business interests. An example is the new city-sub- sidized bus system that will service minority commuters and give them greater access to downtown shopping and job opportunities. The local Community Action Program (WAGES) and the Chamber of Com- merce have joined together to institute this important new ser- vice. The feasibility test for bus service market potential was financed by private funds, raised locally. Neither of these subtle changes has benefitted the redevelop- ment areas. Ill, FINDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT A. INTRODUCTION This section presents the results of a National Assessment of 1,440 counties (45% of the nation's counties) using the cri- teria outlined in Appendix B. The 1,440 counties include all counties located within authorized and designated economic devel- opment districts plus nondistrict counties linked to the districts by commuting and trade patterns. The counties and districts were grouped into 13 regions, which are illustrated in Figure 13. Each of the 13 regions is geographically and economically homogeneous. Each can be considered distressed on the basis of income and unemployment. Boundaries be- tween contiguous regions were delineated by geographical character- istics or by the boundaries established by the Regional Commissions. The objective of the analysis was to identify growth centers within and near economic development districts. Most of the growth centers identified are located within present economic development districts, but in a few cases, the analysis identified a growth center in a non-district county contiguous to a present district. 1 . Classification of Centers Through the National Assessment, EDA 1 ' economic development centers, EDA redevelopment centers, and other potential growth centers were grouped into three types. To contain a Type I growth center, it was necessary for the county to meet two criteria: . sufficient manufacturing and non-basic employment in 1960; and . population growth in the period 1960 to 1970. The Type II growth centers fall into two categories: . places in counties that had employment growth in the past two decades, but did not possess an employment base for continuation of this growth; and . places in counties whose growth patterns have shifted over the past two decades, making it impossible to fore- cast future growth. . 89 co CO >- -1 en < H •z. < LU cc u_ Z2 o ID 1 1 CO u_ z o »— 1 CD UJ cm The Type III growth, centers also fall into two categories: . places which have shown no population growth in the last decade and have either an inadequate employment base or no employment growth between 1950 and 196 0; and . places that would be considered as Type I or Type II cen- ters on the basis of other criteria, but are too far from redevelopment areas to benefit their residents. The analysis identified 50 Type I growth centers and 74 Type II growth centers in the 13 regions. A summary of the findings with respect to present EDC ' s and RC's is presented in Table 14. TABLE 14 ANALYSIS OF PRESENTLY DESIGNATED CENTERS CATEGORY OF CENTER TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III Economic Development Centers 30 40 65 Redevelopment Centers 13 53 In addition, 41 other places were identified as Type I or Type II growth centers within the 13 regions. Five are within presently designated economic development districts, and 13 are located outside a presently designated district, but within the commuting and trade patterns of the district. The remaining 23 are located in authorized or funded (but not designated) districts 2 . Findings by Economic Development District All growth centers in the present EDD ' s were analyzed. Modi- fied districts were formed through the addition of counties linked to the district in commuting and trade patterns.—' No attempt was made to alter present district boundaries, but only to identify nearby economically related counties that contain growth centers. 1/ See Appendix B, Part I 91 Five districts were found to possess such a county outside the district boundaries. Forty-two present districts do not include a place considered acceptable as a growth center. However, as noted, boundaries could be modified in five of these districts to include a growth center. In one district, none of the presently designated centers are acceptable, but a non-designated town does meet the growth center criteria. The remaining 37 lack a place that could function as a growth center under the assumptions of the National Assessment methodology. B. DETAILED FINDINGS The findings for each of the 13 regions are presented below. 1 . New England Region a . Classification of Centers The analysis identified six Type II growth centers in the New England Region. No Type I centers were selected. The Type II centers consisted of 3 economic development centers, 2 redevelop- ment centers, and 1 additional growth center. Boston, Massachusetts, would have been identified as a Type II growth center if its popula- tion had not exceeded 250,000. Ten of EDA's present EDC ' s and RC's were classified as Type III growth centers. All 10 of these places were so described because of insufficient population increase and inadequate employment base. Five of these places also lacked employment growth. A list of the Type II centers and the Type III EDA growth cen- ters is presented in Table 15. A statistical description of each center is presented in Appendix C. TABLE 15 ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR THE NEW ENGLAND REGION CATEGORY OF CENTER TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III Economic Development Centers None Fall River (Bristol) , Mass . Amsterdam (Montgomery) , N.Y. 92 NEW ENGLAND REGION Masse Ogdensbur Watertown KEY • TYPE I — GROWTH CENTERS ■ TYPE II— GROWTH CENTERS a TYPE III— GROWTH CENTERS 93 TABLE 15 CCONTINUED) NEW ENGLAND REGION CATEGORY OF CENTER TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III Rome-Utica (Oneida) , N.Y. Bangor-Brewer (Penobscot) , Me Taunton (Bristol) , Mass. Newport (Orleans) , Vt . St. Johnsbury- Lyndon (Caledonia) , Vt. Redevelopment Centers None Glens Falls (Warren) , N.Y. Berlin (Coos) , N.H. New Bedford (Bristol) , Mass . Masenna (St . Lawrence) , N.Y. Ogdensburg (St. Lawrence) , N.Y. Plattsburg (Clinton) , N.Y. St. Albans (Franklin) , Vt. Watertown (Jefferson) , N.Y. Additional Growth Centers None Burlington (Chittendon) , Vt. None Growth Centers Over 250,000 None Boston, Mass. None 94 b. Findings by Economic Development District The New England Region contains six economic development districts with seven economic development centers and eight redevelopment centers. None of these places was classified as a Type I center, and only 5 of these 15 present EDA centers were identified as Type II centers. These are located in three econo- mic development districts: Southeastern , Eastern Adirondack, and Mohawk Valley. The other districts contained only Type III cen- ters. However, when the district boundary of the New Hampshire- Vermont District was modified, Burlington, Vermont, was identified as a Type II growth center. The findings by district are as follows: MAINE Pride MASSACHUSETTS Bangor-Brewer - Type III Southeastern NEW HAMPSHIRE Fall River - Type II New Bedford - Type II Taunton - Type II New Hampshire- Vermont Berlin - Type III Burlington - Type II (Additional Center not in district) Newport - Type III St. Albans - Type III St. Johnsbury-Lyndon - Type III NEW YORK Black River-St. Lawrence Massena - Type III Ogdensburg - Type III Watertown - Type III Eastern Adirondack Glens Falls - Type II Plattsburg - Type III Mohawk Valley Amsterdam - Type III Rome-Utica - Type II 95 DELMARVA REGION lisbury KEY • TYPE I — GROWTH CENTERS ■ TYPE II— GROWTH CENTERS a TYPE III— GROWTH CENTERS 96 2 . Delmarva Region a. Classification of Centers The analysis identified two Type II growth centers in the Delmarva Region: Dover, Delaware* and Salisbury, Maryland. Both are EDC's and both lacked the manufacturing employment base necessary to be identified as Type I growth centers. No other centers were identified. A statistical description of each center is presented in Appendix C. b. Findings by Economic Development District The Delmarva Region consists of only one district, the Delmarva Economic Development District. The findings for this district are: . MARYLAND-DELAWARE Delmarva Dover - Type II Salisbury - Type II 97 TERRE HAUTE REGION KEY • TYPE I — GROWTH CENTERS ■ TYPE II— GROWTH CENTERS a TYPE III— GROWTH CENTERS 98 3. Terre Haute Region a. Classification of Centers The analysis identified the only EDC in the region - Terre Haute - as a Type r growth center. Statistics for this center are given in Appendix C. b. Findings by Economic Development District The West Central District in Indiana is the only district within the region. The findings for this district are: . INDIANA West Central Terre Haute - Type I 99 APPALACHIAN REGION Charlestown KEY • TYPE I — GROWTH CENTERS ■ TYPE II— GROWTH CENTERS a TYPE III— GROWTH CENTERS 100 4. Appalachian Region a. Classification of Centers The analysis identified nine Type I growth centers and six Type II centers in the Appalachian Region. The Type I centers consisted of 8 present EDC ' s , and 1 center in an authorized district. Of the 6 Type II growth centers, 5 are presently EDC's and 1 is an RC. All 5 EDC's lacked a sufficient manufacturing base to be Type I centers. The RC was not identified as Type I because of inadequate population growth between 19 60 and 19 70. Twenty-one present EDC's and RC's were classified as Type III in the analysis. All 21 failed to satisfy the change in population criterion. Fifteen also failed to increase in employment, while 5 lacked a sufficient employment base. Cincinnati, Ohio, would have been selected as a Type I growth center if its population had not been over 250,000. A list of the center classifications is presented in Table 16. A statistical description of each center is presented in Appendix C. TABLE 16 ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR THE APPALACHIAN REGION CATEGORY OP CENTER TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III Economic Bristol- Athens (Athens) , Ashland Development Kingsport Ohio (Boyd) , Ky. Centers (Sullivan) , Tenn. Campbellsville Alcoa- (Taylor) , Ky. Maryville Gainesville (Blount) , (Hall) , Ga. Cookeville (Putnam) , Tenn. Tenn. Knoxville Chillicothe (Knox) , Tenn. Crossville (Ross) , (Cumberland) , Ohio Tenn. 101 TABLE 16 (CONTINUED) APPALACHIAN REGION CATEGORY OF CENTER TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III Economic Marietta Johnson City Huntingdon Development (Washington) , (Washington) , (Huntingdon) , Pa. Centers Ohio Tenn. (continued ) Johnstown Martinsburg- (Cambria) , Pa. Charlestown (Berkley- Martin's Ferry - Jefferson) , Bellaire W. Va. (Belmont) , Ohio McMinnville Magisterial (Warren) , Districts of Tenn. Powell and Taylor (Scott) , Morristown Va. (Hamblen) , Tenn. Oak Ridge (Anderson, Roane) , Toccoa Tenn. (Stephens) , Ga. Portsmouth (Scioto) , Ohio Somerset (Pulaski) , Ky. Redevelopment None Somerset Beckley Centers (Somerset) , Pa. (Raleigh) , W. Va. Bedford (Bedford) , Pa. Bluefield- Princeton (Mercer) , W. Va, Hazard (Perry) , Ky. 102 TABLE 16 (CONTINUED) APPALACHIAN REGION CATEGORY OF CENTER TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III Redevelopment Centers (continued) Keyser (Mineral) W. Va. Lebanon (Russell) , Va. Moorefield (Hardy) , W. Va. Pikeville (Pike) , Ky. Prestonburg- Paintsville (Floyo-Johnson) , Ky. Richlands (Tazewell) , Va. Williamson (Mingo) , W. Va. Additional Growth Centers Chattanooga (Hamilton) , Tenn. None None Growth Centers Over 250,000 Cincinnati , Ohio None None 103 b. Findings by Economic Development District Of the 15 designated EDD's in the Appalachian Region, 6 contain at least 1 Type I growth center. The Georgia Mountains and East Tennessee Districts each contain 2 Type I growth centers. Two of the remaining designated EDD's contain a Type II growth center, while 7 contain only Type III growth centers. In addition, the region has two funded districts and eight authorized districts. One of the authorized districts, Southeast Tennessee, includes Chattanooga, Tennessee, which was identified as a Type I growth center. The findings by district are as follows: Designated Districts GEORGIA KENTUCKY OHIO Georgia Mountains Gainesville - Type I Toccoa - Type I Big Sandy Pikeville - -Type III Prestonsburg-Paintsville - Type III Fivco Ashland - Type III Kentucky River Hazard - Tppe III Lake Cumberland Campbellsville - Type II Somerset - Type III Buckeye Hills-Hocking Valley Athens - Type II Marietta - Type I Martins Ferry-Bellaire - Type III 104 OHIO (Cont) Ohio Valley Chillicothe - Type III Portsmouth - Type III PENNSYLVANIA TENNESSEE Turnpike Bedford - Type III Huntingdon - Type III Johnstown - Type III Somerset - Type II East Tennessee VIRGINIA Alcoa-Maryville - Type III Knoxville - Type I Morris town - Type I Oak Ridge - Type III First Tennessee-Virginia Bristol-Kingsport - Type I Johnson City - Type II Upper Cumberland Cookeville - Type II Crossville - Type II McMinnville - Type I Cumberland Plateau Lebanon - Type III Richlands - Type III Lenowisco WEST VIRGINIA Magisterial Districts of Powell and Taylor - Type III Southern West Virginia Beckley - Type III Bluef ield-Princeton - Type III Williamson - Type III Upper Potomac Keyser - Type III Martinsburg-Charles Town - Type I Moorefield - Type III 105 PENNSYLVANIA KENTUCKY TENNESSEE WEST VIRGINIA Funded Districts Northeastern None Northern Tier None Authorized Districts Cumberland Valley None Gateway None South Central None Southeast Chattanooga - Type I (Additional Center in District) District 2 None District 4 None District 5 None North Central None 106 OZARKS REGION KEY • TYPE I — GROWTH CENTERS ■ TYPE II— GROWTH CENTERS ± TYPE III— GROWTH CENTERS 107 5. Ozarks Region a. Classification of Centers The analysis identified 7 Type I and 12 Type II growth centers in the Ozarks Region. The 7 Type I centers are all presently designated as economic development centers. Of the 12 Type II centers, 7 are EDC ' s , 3 are RC's, 1 is an additional growth center in a present district, and 1 is an additional growth center in a county contiguous to a present district. Ten of the Type II centers exhibited an insufficient employment base, while the other two declined in population between 1960 and 1970. Two standard metropolitan statistical areas, Oklahoma City and Tulsa, would have been identified as Type I growth centers, but exceeded EDA's legislative popula- tion limit of 250,000 Eleven EDC's and 4 RC's were classified as Type III growth centers through the analysis. Of the 15 Type III places, 14 lacked an adequate employment base, 13 exhibited insufficient employment growth, and all had declines or small increases in population. A list of the growth centers and the Type III EDA centers is presented in Table 17. A statistical description of each center is presented in Appendix C. TABLE 17 ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR THE OZARKS REGION CATEGORY OF CENTER TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III Economic Conway Claremore Ada Development (Faulkner) , (Rogers) , Okla. (Pontotoc) , Centers Ark. Duncan Okla. Fayetteville- (Stephens) , Ardmore Springdale Okla. (Carter) , (Washington) , Okla. Ark. 108 TABLE 17 (CONTINUED) OZARKS REGION CATEGORY OF CENTER TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III Economic Fort Smith- Hot Springs Chickasha Development Van Buren (Garland) , (Grady) , Okla. Centers (Sebastian) , Ark. (continued ) Ark. Durant Mena (Polk) , (Bryan) , Okla. Harrison Ark. (Boone) , Ark. El Dorado Mountain Home (Union) , Ark. Little Rock- (Baxter) , Ark. N. Little Newport Rock Sapula-Bristow (Jackson) , Ark. (Pulaski) , (Creek) , Okla. Ark. Poplar Bluff Stillwater (Butler) , Mo. Russellville- (Payne) , Okla. Dardanelle Shawnee (Pope, Yell) , (Pottawatomie) , Ark. Okla. Springfield Texarkana (Greene) , Mo. (Miller) , Ark. Vinita (Craig) , Okla. West Plains (Howell) , Mo. Redevelopment None Batesville Brinkley Centers (Independence) Ark. (Monroe) , Ark. Hope McAlester (Hampstead) , (Pittsburg) , Ark. Okla. Malvern Searcy (Hot Spring) , (White) , Ark. Ark. Muskogee ■ (Muskogee) , Okla. 109 TABLE 17 (CONTINUED) OZARKS REGION CATEGORY OF CENTER TYPE I TYPE III TYPE III Additional Growth Centers None Joplin (Jasper, Newton) Mo. Lawton (Comanche) , Okla. None Growth Centers Over 250,000 Tulsa (Tulsa) , Okla. Oklahoma City (Oklahoma) , Okla. b. Findings by Economic Development District The Ozarks Region is comprised of 16 districts: . 1 in Kansas; . 3 in Missouri; . 6 in Oklahoma; and . 6 in Arkansas. All the districts are designated except the one in Kansas, which is funded. Twenty- five EDC's and seven RC's have been designated in these districts. The 7 Type I growth centers are distributed among 5 of the 15 designated districts. Five other districts contain at least 1 of the 10 Type II growth centers. Five of the designated districts contain only Type III growth centers, in addition, the analysis identified no growth center for the funded district in Kansas. 110 The Lakes Country District in Missouri could be modified to include Joplin in Jasper County, which was identified as a Type IT growth center. The South Central District in Oklahoma contains a Type IT growth center that is not presently designated. This is the town of Lawton. These two places were the only additional growth centers identified, The findings for the 16 districts in the Ozarks Region are as follows: ARKANSAS Designated Districts Central Brinkley - Type III Conway - Type I Little Rock-N. Little Rock - Type I North Central Batesville - Type II Newport - Type III Searcy - Type II Northwest Fayetteville-Springdale - Type I Harrison - Type I Mountain Home - Type II Southwest El Dorado - Type III Hope - Type III Texarkana - Type III West Central Hot Springs - Type II Malvern - Type III Russellville-Dardanelle - Type I Western Fort Smith-Van Buren - Type I Mena - Type II 111 MISSOURI OKLAHOMA KANSAS Lakes Country Joplin - Type IT (Additional Center not in District) Springfield - Type I Ozark Foothills Poplar Bluff - Type III South Central Ozark West Plains - Type III Central Sapulpa-Bristow - Type II Shawnee - Type III Stillwater - Type II Eastern Muskogee - Type III Kiamichi McAlester - Type II N.E.C.O . Claremore - Type II S.O.D.A. Ada - Type III Ardmore - Type III Durant - Type III South Central Chickasha - Type III Duncan - Type II Law ton - Type II (Additional Center not in District) Funded Districts Mid-America None 112 TENNESSEE-GREEN VALLEY REGION KEY • TYPE I — GROWTH CENTERS ■ TYPE II— GROWTH CENTERS a TYPE III— GROWTH CENTERS 113 6 . Tennessee-Green Valley Region a. Classification of Centers The analysis identified 9 Type I and 4 Type II centers in the Tennessee-Green Valley Region. Two of the Type I centers are EDC's; the other 7 are additional growth centers. Two of the Type II centers are EDC's, and 2 are addition- al centers. Both Type II EDC's lacked the manufacturing em- ployment base necessary to be identified as Type I centers. Three SMSA's would have been identified as Type I growth cen- ters, but all had populations exceeding 250,000. Five EDC's and 5 RC ' s were classified as Type III growth centers through the analysis. Eight of the 10 declined in population, while the other 2 exhibited population increases of less than 2%. Nine were so classified on the basis of an insufficient manufacturing employment base. The rankings of centers are identified in Table 18. A statistical description of each center is presented in Appen- dix C. TABLE 18 ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR THE TENNESSEE-GREEN VALLEY REGION CATEGORY OF CENTER TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III Economic Bowling Carbondale Dexter- Development Green (Jackson) , Bloomf ield Centers (Warren) , Ky. 111. (Stoddard) , Mo. Jonesboro Elizabethtown- Glasgow (Craighead) , Radcliff- (Barren) , Ky. Ark. Vinegrove (Hardin) , Ky. Hopkinsville (Christian) , Ky. Madisonville (Hopkins) , Ky. 114 TABLE 18 (CONTINUED) TENNESSEE-GREEN VALLEY REGION CATEGORY OF CENTER TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III Economic Development Centers (continued) Sikeston (Scott) , Mo. Redevelopment Centers None None Batesville (Panola) , Miss . Clarksdale , (Coahoma), Miss. Forrest City (St. Francis) , Ark. Harrisburg (Saline) , 111. New Madrid (New Madrid) , Mo. Additional Growth Centers Cape Girar- deau (Cape Girar- deau) , Mo. Clarksville (Montgomery) , Tenn. None Corinth (Alcorn) , Miss . Paducah (McCracken) , Ky. Jackson (Madison) , Tenn. Lexington (Fayette) , Ky. Murray (Calloway) , Ky. i 115 TABLE 18 (CONTINUED) TENNESSEE-GREEN VALLEY REGION CATEGORY OF CENTER TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III Additional Owensboro Growth (Daviess) , Centers Ky. (continued) Union City (Obion) , Tenn. Growth Louisville, None None Centers Ky. Over 250,000 Memphis , Tenn. Nashville, Tenn. h. Findings by Economic Development District The Tennessee-Green Valley Region is comprised of 13 districts: . 8 designated districts; . 3 funded districts; and . 2 authorized districts. Nine EDC ' s and 5 RC's have been designated within the 8 designated districts. Four of the designated districts have a Type I or Type II growth center. Two other districts could be modified to include a Type I growth center. In 3 designated districts, only Type III growth centers were identi- fied . Two designated districts could be modified to include 116 a Type I growth center. One authorized district and two funded districts each contain at least one T YPe I growth center. ARKANSAS ILLINOIS KENTUCKY MISSISSIPPI MISSOURI Designated Districbs East Arkansas Forrest City- Type III Jonesboro - Type I Greater Egypt Carbondale - Type II Southeastern Illinois Harrisburg - T YPe 1X1 Barren River Bowling Green - T YPe I Glasgow - Type III Lincoln Trail Elizabethtown-Radcliffe- Vinegrove - Type II Lexington - Type I (Additional Center not in District) Pennyrile Hopkinsville - Type III Madisonville - Type III North Delta Batesville - Type III Clarksdale - Type III Bootheel Cape Girardeau - Type I (Additional Center not in District) Dexter-Bloomfield - Type III New Madrid - Type III Sikeston - Type III 117 Funded Districts KENTUCKY Green River Owensboro - Type I (Additional Center in District) Purchase Murray - Type I (Additional Center in District) Paducah - Type II (Additional Center in District) Union City - Type I (Additional Center not in District) TENNESSEE Mid-Cumberland Clarksville - Type II (Additional Center in District) Authorized Districts MISSISSIPPI TENNESSEE Tennessee Valley Corinth - Type I (Additional Center not in District) Southwest Jackson - Type I (Additional Center in District) 118 GREAT LAKES REGION awas City Tawas Midland KEY • TYPE I — GROWTH CENTERS ■ TYPE II— GROWTH CENTERS a TYPE III— GROWTH CENTERS 119 7. Great Lakes Region a. Classification of Centers Three Type I growth centers, and 6 Type II centers were identified in the Great Lakes Region. The three Type I centers included one present economic development center and two additional growth centers. One Type II growth center is a present EDC. In addi- tion, three RC ' s and two additional growth centers were iden- tified as Type II centers. One of the additional places is in a designated district. Two presently designated economic development centers and 8 redevelopment centers were classified as Type II by the analysis. All but one declined in population, and all but two exhibited an insufficient employment base. Minneapolis-St. Paul would have been identified as a Type I center if its population had not exceeded 250,000. A list of the growth centers and the Type III EDA centers is presented in Table 19. A statistical description of each center is presented in Appendix C. TABLE 19 ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR THE GREAT LAKES REGION CATEGORY OF CENTER TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III Economic Bay City- Tawas City- Duluth Development Midland- East Tawas (St. Louis) , Centers Saginaw (Iosco) , Minn. (Bay, Midland, Mich. Saginaw) , Ontanagon- Mich. White Pine (Ontanagon) , Mich. 120 TABLE 19 (CONTINUED) GREAT LAKES REGION CATEGORY OF CENTER TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III Redevelopment None Alpena Escanaba- Centers (Alpena) , - Gladstone Mich. (Delta) , Mich. Marquette- Houghton Negaunee- (Houghton) , Ishpeming Mich. (Marquette) , Mich. Iron Mountain- Kings ford- Traverse City Norway (Grand (Dickinson) , Traverse) , Mich. Mich. Iron River (Iron) , Mich. Ironwood- Bessemer- Wakefield (Gogebic) , Mich. Newberry (Luce) , Mich. St. Ignace (Mackinac) , Mich. Saulte- St. Marie (Chippewa) , Mich. Additional Grand Rapids Mt. Pleasant None Growth (Kent) , Mich. (Isabella) , Centers Grayling Mich. (Crawford) , St. Cloud Mich. (Stearns) , Minn. 121 TABLE 19 (CONTINUED) GREAT LAKES REGION CATEGORY OF CENTER TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III Growth Center Over 250,000 Minneapolis- St. Paul, Minn. None None b. Findings by Economic Development District The Great Lakes Region is comprised of 7 designated districts and 4 authorized districts. Four EDC's and 11 RC's have been designated within the 7 designated dis- tricts. The East Central District in Michigan contains 5 counties identified as Type I and Type II growth centers by the analysis Three of these are designated as the Bay City-Midland-Saginaw Economic Development Center. The other two are Mt . Pleasant in Isabella County and Tawas City-East Tawas in Iosco, both identi- fied as Type II centers. Three other designated districts contain at least one Type II growth center and 3 contain only Type III centers. One of the authorized districts contains a Type I growth center, and one district could be modified to include a Type II growth cfenter . The specific findings are as follows: Designated Districts . MICHIGAN Central Upper- Peninsula Escanaba-Gladstone Area - Type III Iron Mountain-Kings ford-Norway Area - Type III Marquette-Negaunee-Ishpeming Area - Type II 122 MICHIGAN (cont) MINNESOTA MICHIGAN MINNESOTA East Centra l Bay City-Midland-Saginaw - Type I Mt. Pleasant - Tppe II (Additional Center in District) Tawas City-E. Tawas - Type II Eastern Upper Peninsula Newberry - Type III Sault Ste. Marie - Type III St. Ignace - Type III Northeast Alpena - Type II Grayling - Type I (Additional center in District) Northwest Traverse City - Type II Western Upper Peninsula Houghton - Type III Iron River - Type III Ironwood-Bessemer-Wakef ield - Type III Ontanagon-White Pine - Type III Arrowhead Duluth - Type III Authorized Districts Grand Rapids-Muskegon Grand Rapids - Type I (Additional Center in District) Region 2 None 123 MINNESOTA Region 5 (cont) St. Cloud - Type II (Additional Center not in District) WISCONSIN Northwestern None 124 COASTAL PLAINS REGION KEY • TYPE I — GROWTH CENTERS ■ TYPE II— GROWTH CENTERS a TYPE III— GROWTH CENTERS 125 8 . Coastal Plains Region a. Classification of Centers The analysis identified 8 Type I and 17 Type II growth cen- ters in the Coastal Plains Region. Seven of the 8 Type I cen- ters are economic development centers, and the remaining Type I center is contiguous to two authorized districts. Of the 17 Type II centers, 12 are EDC ' s , 1 is in a present district, and 4 are contiguous to present districts. Eight of the Type II centers were designated as such on the basis of an insufficient total employment base, 3 lacked the necessary change in employment and also exhibited an insufficient employment base, and 8 did not meet the requisite population change between 1960 and 1970. One Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area- Atlanta, Georgia - would have been identified as a growth center except that it exceeded EDA's legislative population limit of 250,000. Eleven EDC ' s and 4 RC's were classified as Type III growth centers. Of these 15 places, 10 lacked sufficient employment bases, 12 exhibited inadequate employment growth, and 11 declined or showed only a small increase in population. A list of the centers and their classifications is presented in Table 20. A statistical description of each center is pre- sented in Appendix C. TABLE 2 ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR THE COASTAL PLAINS REGION CATEGORY OF CENTER TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III Economic Aiken- Albany Americus Development N. Augusta (Dougherty) , (Sumter) , Ga . Centers (Aiken) , S.C. Ga. Athens Augusta Bainbridge (Clarke) , Ga . (Richmond) , Ga. (Decatur) , Ga . 126 TABLE 20 (CONTINUED) COASTAL PLAINS REGION CATEGORY OF CENTER TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III Economic Brunswick Dublin-East Columbus Development (Glynn) , Ga. Dublin (Muscogee) , Ga. Centers (Laurens) , (continued) Carrol lton Ga. Goldsboro (Carroll) , (Wayne) , N.C. Ga. Fayetteville (Cumberland) , LaGrange Do than N.C. (Troup) , Ga. (Dale- Houston) , Florence- Marianna Ala. Darlington (Florence- (Jackson) , Fla. Greenwood Darlington) , Montgomery (Greenwood) , S.C. (Jackson) , Fla. S.C. Hinesville New Bern Wilmington (Liberty) , (Craven) , N.C. (New Hanover Ga. Burnswick) , Swainsboro N.C. Kinston (Lenoir) , (Emanuel) , Ga. N.C. Washington (Beaufort) , N.C. Mil ledge ville (Baldwin) , Williamston Ga. (Martin) , N.C. Panama City (Bay) , Fla. Tifton (Tift) , Ga. Valdosta (Lowndes) , Ga. Waycross (Ware) , Ga. 127 TABLE 20 (CONTINUED) COASTAL PLAINS REGION CATEGORY OF CENTER TYEE I TYPE II TYPE III Redevelopment Centers None None Greenville (Butler) , Ala. Greenville (Pitt) , N.C. Orangeburg (Orangeburg) , S.C. Troy (Pike) , Ala. Additional Growth Centers Charleston (Charleston- Berkley) , S.C. Columbia (Richland) , S.C. Gainesville (Alachua) , Fla. Jacksonville (Onslow) , N.C. Pensacola (Escambia) , Fla. None Tallahassee (Leon) , Fla. Growth Centers Over 250,000 Atlanta, Ga. None None 128 b. Findings by Economic Development District The Coastal Plains Region contains 20 designated economic development districts and four authorized districts Seven of the designated EDD ' s contain a Type I growth center. In addition, when the districts are modified by adding contiguous counties related by trade and commuting patterns, the Waccamaw District of South Carolina includes Charleston, a Type I growth center. Nine of the remaining designated districts include st least 1 Type II center; 2 of of the 4 authorized districts have a Type II growth center in a county contiguous to the district. Findings for these districts are as follows: Designated Districts . ALABAMA Central Greenville - Type III Montgomery - Type III Troy - Type III Southeast FLORIDA Dothan - Type I Northwest Florida Marianna - Type III Panama City - Type II Pensacola - Type II (Additional Center not in District) Tallahassee - Type II (Additional Center not in District) GEORGIA Central Savannah River Augusta - Type II Swainsboro - Type III Chattahoochee-Flint Carrollton - Type I La Grange - Type III Coastal Area Brunswick - Type I Hinesville - Type II 129 GEORGIA (cont) NORTH CAROLINA Coastal Plain Tifton - Type II Valdosta - Type II Heart of Georgia Dublin-E. Dublin - Type II Lower Chattahoochee Valley Columbus - Type III Middle Flint Americus - Type III Northest Georgia Athens - Type I Oconee Milledgeville - Type II Slash Pine Way cross - Type II Southwest Albany - Type II Brainbridge - Type III Mid-East Greenville - Type III Washington - Type III Williamston - Type III Neuse River Goldsboro - Type III Jacksonville - Type II (Additional Center in District) Kinston - Type II New Bern - Type III 130 NORTH CAROLINA (cont) SOUTH CAROLINA FLORIDA NORTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA Southeastern Fayetteville - Type II Wilmington - Type I Lower Savannah Aiken-N. Augusta - Type I Orangeburg - Type III Pee Dee Florence-Darlington - Type II Upper Savannah Greenwood - Type I Authorized Districts North Central Gainesville - Type II (Additional Center not in District) Albemarle None Santee Wateree Columbia - Type II (Additional Center not in District) Waccamaw Charleston - Type I (Additional Center not in District) 131 SOUTH CENTRAL REGION KEY • TYPE I — GROWTH CENTERS ■ TYPE II— GROWTH CENTERS a TYPE III— GROWTH CENTERS 132 9. South Centtrai Region a. Classification of Centers The analysis identified 4 Type I arid 9 Type II growth centers in the South Central Region. Two of the 4 Type I centers are economic development centers, and two are located in separate authorized districts. Of the 9 Type II growth centers, seven are economic development centers, one is in a presently authorized district, ana another is contiguous to a designated district. Six of the Type II growth centers exhibited an insufficient employment base to be selected as Type I, while the other 3 declined in population between 1960 and 1970. One Standard Metro- politan Statistical Area - Dallas, Texas - was identified as a growth center, but exceeded the legislative population limit of 250,000. Fourteen EDC's and 7 RC's were classified as Type III growth centers through the analysis. Of the 21 such places, 13 lacked a sufficient employment base, 12 exhibited inadequate employment growth, and all declined or showed only a small increase in population. A list of the centers is presented in Table 21. A statis- tical description of each center is presented in Appendix C. TABLE 21 ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR THE SOUTH CENTRAL REGION CATEGORY OF CENTER TYPE I TYPE IX TYPE III Economic Development Center Baton Rouge (E. Baton Rouge) , La. Bryan College Station (Brazos) , Tex. Bossier City/ Sftreveport (Bossier, Caddo) , La . Nacogdoches- Lufkin- Diboll Jackson (Hinds) , Miss. Crossett-Hamburg (Ashley) , Ark. (Nacogdoches- Angelena) , Tex. Killeen- Temple (Bell) , Tex. Forest (Scott) , Miss . 133 TABLE 21 (CONTINUED) SOUTH CENTRAL REGION CATEGORY OF CENTER TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III ■ Economic Lafayette- Grenada Development New Iberia (Grenada) , Centers (Lafayette) , Miss. (continued) La. Hattiesburg Monroe-West (Forrest) , Monroe Miss. (Ouachita) , La. Marshall (Harrison) , Pascagoula Tex. (Jackson) , Miss. McComb (Pike) , Miss . Pine Bluff- Sheridan Meridian (Jefferson) , (Lauderdale) , Ark. Miss. Natchez (Adams) , Miss. Northeast Texas Municipal Water District (Cass, Camp, Morris , Upshaw) , Tex. Sulfur Springs (Hopkins) , Tex. Texarkana (Bowie) , Tex. 134 TABLE 21 (CONTINUED) SOUTH CENTRAL REGION CATEGORY OF CENTER TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III Economic Vicksburg Development (Warren) , Miss . Centers (continued) Waco (McLennan) , Tex. Redevelopment None None Alexandria- Centers Pineville (Rapides) , La. Cleveland (Bolivia) , Miss . Greenville (Washington) , Miss. Greenwood (LeFlore) , Miss. Jefferson (Marion) , Tex. Natchitoches (Natchitoches) , La. Opelousas (St. Landry) , La. Additional Sherman Beaumont- None Growth (Grayson) , Port Arthur- Centers Tex. Tupelo Orange (Orange) , Tex. (Lee) , Miss . Columbus (Lowndes) , Miss. 135 TABLE 21 (CONTINUED) SOUTH CENTRAL REGION CATEGORY OF CENTER TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III Growth Centers Over 250,000 Dallas, Tex None None b. Findings by Economic Development District There are 19 designated or authorized economic develop- ment districts in the South Central Region. The 4 Type I growth centers are located in four separate districts - two authorized and two designated. Slx of the districts have 1 Type II growth center. One district, if modified, would have 1 Type II growth center. Seven districts have neither a Type I nor a'3?ype II- growthn center . The findings for each district are presented below: Designated Districts ARKANSAS LOUISIANA Southeast Crossett-Hamburg - Type II Pine Bluff-Sheridan - Type II Capital Baton Rouge - Type I Evangeline Lafayette-New Iberia - Type I Opelousas - Type III Kisatchie-Delta Alexandria-Pineville - Type III 136 LOUISIANA North Delta (cont) Monroe-West Monroe - Type n Northwest Natchitoches - Type III Shreveport-Bossier City - Type III MISSISSIPPI Central Jackson - Type II Vicksburg - Type III East Central Forest - Type III Meridian - Type III North Central Greenwood - Type III Grenada - Type III South Delta Cleveland - Type III Greenville - T YPe III Southern Hattiesburg - Type III Pascagoula - Type II Southwest McComb - Type III Natchez - Type III TEXAS Brazos Valley Bryan-College Station - Type II Central Killeen-Temple - T YP e XI Waco - T yP e IXI 137 TEXAS Deep East (cont) Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange - Type II (Additional Center not in District) Nacogdoches-Lufkin-Diboll - Type I North East Jefferson - Type III Marshall - Type III Northest Texas Municipal Water District - T YPe III Sulphur Springs - T YPe HI Texarkana - Type III Authorized Districts MISSISSIPPI Golden Triangle Columbus - Type II (Additional Center in District) Northeast Tupelo - Type I (Additional Center in District) TEXAS North Central Sherman - Type I (Additional Center in District) 138 NORTHWEST REGION KEY • TYPE I — GROWTH CENTERS ■ TYPE II— GROWTH CENTERS a TYPE III— GROWTH CENTERS 139 10 . Northwest Region a. Classification of Centers The analysis identified 4 Type I growth centers and 2 Type II centers in the Northwest Region. The 4 Type I centers included only one presently designated economic development center: Lewis ton, Idaho. Tne other 3 Type I centers were additional growth centers. Two other places were identified as Type II growth centers. Both lacked a sufficient manufacturing employment base to be identified as Type I centers. Two EDC's and two RC ' s were classified as Type III on the basis of an inadequate employment base and a decline in population. Table 22 depicts the findings for this region, which are presented in more detail in Appendix C. TABLE 22 ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR THE NORTHWEST REGION CATEGORY OF CENTER TYPE I ■ — ■■" ■— TYPE II TYPE III Economic Development Centers Lewiston (Nez Perce) , Idaho None Hardin (Big Horn) , Mont. Havre (Hill) , Mont. Redevelopment Centers None None Butte- Anaconda (Silver Bow, Deer Lodge) , Mont. Colville (Stevens) , Wash. 140 TABLE 22 (CONTINUED) NORTHWEST REGION CATEGORY OP CENTER TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III Additional Billings Boise (Ada) , „ None Growth (Yellowstone) , Idaho Centers Mont. Bozeman Coeur D'Alene (Gallatin) , (Kootenai) , Mont. Idaho Missoula (Missoula) , Mont. b. Findings by Economic Development District Eight economic development districts make up the Northwest Region. Five are designated districts and 3 are authorized districts. Three economic development centers and two redevelop- ment centers are located within the 5 designated districts. Only Lewiston, an EDC in Clearwater District in Idaho, was selected as a Type I center. In the Big Horn District, Hardin was classified as Type III, but Billings, a Type I center, could be incorporated into the district by adding Yellowstone County. In the Trico District in Washington, the redevelop- ment center of Colville was also classified as Type III and no center was identified to take its place. In the Inter-County District in Montana, tne existing redevelopment center of Butte-Anaconda was classified as Type III through the analysis, but two other towns were identified as centers: Bozeman as a Type II center and Missoula as a Type I center, the latter outside present district boundaries. Growth centers were identified for both of Idaho's authorized districts. Coeur D'Alene was identified as a Type I center in the Northern District and Boise was identified as an additional growth center for the Southwestern District. 141 The findings for each district are presented below. Designated Districts IDAHO MONTANA WASHINGTON IDAHO WASHINGTON Clearwater Lewiston - T YPe I Bear Paw Havre - T yP e IIJ Big Horn Billings - Type I (Additional Center not in District) Hardin - Type III Inter-County Bozeman - Type II (Additional Center in District) Butte-Anaconda - Type III Missoula - Type I (Additional Center not in District) Trico Colville - Type III Authorized Districts Northern Idaho Coeur D'Alene - Type I (Additional Center in District) Southwestern Boise - Type II (Additional Center in District) Upper Columbia None 142 FAR WEST REGION KEY • TYPE I — GROWTH CENTERS ■ TYPE II— GROWTH CENTERS a TYPE III— GROWTH CENTERS 14 3 11. Far West Region a. Classification of Centers The analysis identified only 1 Type I growth center and 4 Type II centers in the Far West Region. Three of the growth centers - 1 Type I and 2 Type II - were additional growth centers in authorized districts. Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; and Sacramento, California, would have been identified as Type I growth centers if their populations had not exceeded the 250,000 legislative limit. Two RC's were identified as Type II growth centers because they had inadequate manufacturing employment bases . A list of growth centers is presented in Table 23. A statistical description of each center is presented in Appendix C. TABLE 2 3 ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR THE FAR WEST REGION CATEGORY OF CENTER TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III Economic Development Centers None None None Redevelopment Centers None Grass Valley- Auburn (Nevada, Placer) Calif. South Lake Tahoe (El Dorado) , Calif. None 144 TABLE 23 (CONTINUED) FAR WEST REGION CATEGORY OF CENTER TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III Additional Medford Redding None Growth (Jackson) , (Shasta) , Centers Ore. Calif. Takoma (Pierce) , Wash. Growth Portland, None None Centers Ore. Over 250,000 Sacramento, Calif. Seattle , Wash. b. Findings by Economic Development District The Far West Region contains 7 districts: . 1 designated; . 1 funded; and . 5 authorized. The region contains no economic development centers and only 2 redevelopment centers, both in the Sierra District of California. Three additional growth centers were identified in 3 authorized districts. The findings for each district are as follows: 145 CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA OREGON Designated Districts Sierra Grass Valley-Auburn - Type II South Lake Tahoe - Type II Authorized Districts North Coast None Superior Redding - Type II (Additional Center in District) District Eight Medford - Type I (Additional Center in District) WASHINGTON OREGON Central Puget Sound Takoma - Type II (Additional Center in District) South Puget Sound None Funded Districts Mid-Columbia None 14 6 SOUTHWEST REGION KEY • TYPE i — GROWTH CENTERS ■ TYPE II— GROWTH CENTERS a TYPE III— GROWTH CENTERS 147 12 . Southwest Region a. Classification of Centers Two Type I growth centers and 3 Type II centers were identified in the Southwest Region. Both Type I growth centers are additional growth centers (Provo-Orem and Salt Lake City, Utah) that could be added to neigh- boring economic development districts. One of the Type II growth centers is a present EDC. The other 2 are additional growth centers which are in counties contiguous to designated districts. All 3 Type II centers lacked the manufacturing employment base necessary to be identified as a Type I growth center. Four EDC ' s and 4 RC ' s were classified as Type III on the basis of an insuf- ficient employment base and a decline in population. A list of center classifications is presented in Table 24 A statistical description of each center is presented in Appendix C. TABLE 24 ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR THE SOUTHWEST REGION CATEGORY OF CENTER TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III Economic Development Centers None Santa Fe (Santa Fe) , N. Mex. Alamosa (Alamosa) , Colo. Delta City (Millard) , Utah Pueblo (Pueblo) , Colo. Trinidad (Las Animas) Colo. 148 TABLE 24 (CONTINUED) SOUTHWEST REGION CATEGORY OF CENTER TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III Redevelopment None None Las Vegas Centers ' (San Miguel) , N. Mex. Moab (Grand) , Utah Price (Carbon) , Utah Richfield (Sevier) , Utah Additional Provo- Albuquerque None Growth Orem (Bernalillo) , Centers (Utah) , Utah N. Mex. Colorado Salt Lake Springs City (El Paso) , (Salt Lake) , Colo. Utah b. Findings by Economic Development District The Southwest Region includes 4 designated economic development districts and 1 authorized district. In the North Central New Mexico District, Santa Fe was identified as a Type II growth center, while Las Vegas, a redevelop- ment center, was classified as Type III. In addition, Albuquerque could be added to the district as an additional Type II growth center In the Southern Colorado District, all 3 EDA growth centers were classified as Type III. The 4 growth centers pre- sently designated in the Southeastern and Six-County Utah Districts were also classified as Type III. However, a redevelopment area in the Six-County District could be served by Provo-Orem and Salt Lake City, which are in counties contiguous to the district. 149 The analysis findings are presented by district below: Designated Districts COLORADO NEW MEXICO UTAH UTAH Southern Alamosa - Type III Colorado Springs - Type II (Additional Center not in District) Pueblo - Type III Trinidad - Type III North Central Albuquerque - Type II (Additional Center not in District) Las Vegas - Type III Santa Fe - Type II Six-County Delta City - Type III Provo-Orem - Type I (Additional Center not in District) Richfield - Type III Salt Lake City - Type I (Additional Center not in District) Southeastern Moab - Type III Price - Type III Authorized Districts Southwest None 150 RIO GRANDE REGION ownsville rlingen KEY • TYPE I — GROWTH CENTERS ■ TYPE II— GROWTH CENTERS ± TYPE III— GROWTH CENTERS 151 13. Rio Grande Region a. Classification of Centers The analysis identified 1 Type I growth center and 3 Type II centers in the Rio Grande Region. The Type I center is the economic development center of Victoria. The Type II centers are two present RC's, (Del Rio and Laredo) and Eagle Pass, which is an additional growth center. Three redevelopment centers and two EDC ' s were classified as Type III Although Corpus Christi met the economic criteria for a Type II center, it was classified as Type III because the nearest RA county is more than 7 miles away. San Antonio would have been selected as a growth center if its population had not exceeded the 250,000 legislative limit. A list of the centers is given in Table 25, and a statistical description is presented in Appendix C. TABLE 25 ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR THE RIO GRANDE REGION CATEGORY OF CENTER TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III Economic Victoria None Corpus Christi- Development (Victoria) , Aransas Pass Centers Tex. (Neuces, Aransas) , Tex. McAllen (Hidalgo) , Tex. Redevelopment None Del Rio Brownsville- Centers (Valverde) , Harlingen Tex. (Cameron) , Tex. Laredo Uvalde (Webb) , Tex. (Uvalde) ,■ Tex. 152 TABLE 25 (CONTINUED) RIO GRANDE REGION CATEGORY OF CENTER TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III Additional Growth Centers None Eagle Pass (Maverick) , Tex. None Growth Centers Over 250,000 San Antonio, Tex. None None b. Findings by Economic Development District The Rio Grande Region is comprised of 4 designated districts. The Coastal Bend District has a Type I growth center, while the Middle Rio Grande has 2 Type II centers, one of which is presently designated as an RC. The South Texas District has one Type II redevelopment center, while the Lower Rio Grande Valley District has only Type III centers The findings for each district are presented below: Designated Districts . TEXAS Coastal Bend Corpus Christi-Aransas Pass - Type III Victoria - Type I Lower Rio Grande Valley Brownsville-Harlingen - Type III McAllen - Type III Middle Rio Grande Del Rio - Type II 153 TEXAS Middle Rio Grande (cont ) (cont) " Eagle Pass - Type II (Additional Center in District) Uvalde - Type III South Laredo - Type II 154 IV. SUPPORTING ANALYSES PART ONE - POPULATION AND MIGRATION STUDY A. INTRODUCTION To support the findings of the in-depth analysis and the National Assessment, a study was conducted to investigate pop- ulation and migration characteristics of areas in which EDA has implemented its growth center strategy. There were three parts to the study. Part I involved determining whether EDA- designated economic development centers and redevelopment cen- ters are migration centers; that is , places that have experienced substantial net in-migration. This segment of the study also investigated absolute population change in EDC's and RC ' s . In Part II, the migration and population characteristics of EDA-associated districts were examined to determine whether these districts are experiencing out-migration and loss of pop- ulation. This data was compiled in aggregate form for districts in the 12^/ regions structured for the National Assessment and de- picted in Figure 13 on page 76. The assumption that growth centers serve districts as migration centers and circumvent the movement of migrants to large, overburdened cities was also examined in this portion of the study. Part III involved an investigation of the population and migration trends in all districts and a comparison with national trends. B. CONCLUSIONS 1. Part I The hypothesis that people are migrating to EDA growth centers has been tested and found to be false. 75% of all EDA growth center counties underwent net out- migration during the 1950-60 decade: 70% of economic development centers and 84% of redevelopment centers. This trend increased during the following decade, when 84% underwent net out-migration: 77% of economic development centers and 97% of redevelopment centers. - The thirteenth region, Terre Haute, was excluded because it consists of only four counties and one EDC, which is an SMSA, 155 In addition, 42% of the counties in which EDA growth centers are located declined in absolute population during both decades. Moreover, 37% of all EDA growth centers had net out- migration rates exceeding those of their districts during the decade 1960-70: 30% of economic develop- ment centers and 48% of redevelopment centers. Redevelopment centers appear to be declining more rapidly than economic development centers. 97 percent of the RC ' s experienced net out-migration during the last de- cade. Moreover, 59 percent of the RC's declined in absolute population between 1950 and 1960, as opposed to 64% during the 1960-70 period. EDC's and RC's in the Great Lakes Region, Northwest, Southwest, New England, and Tennessee-Green Valley Regions appear to have been losing population more rapidly than non-EDC and non-RC counties in those regions. This was also the case, but to a lesser ex- tent, in the Rio Grande Region, Ozarks, Coastal Plains, South Central, and Appalachian Regions. 2. Part II Loss of population in rural districts seems to be end- ing. For the most part, the districts showed no absolute decline in population, a circumstance due largely to a decrease in out-migration rates. This trend has occurred despite the fact that a large number of EDC's and RC's have declined in overall population. Only 4 regions (Appalachia, Tennessee-Green Valley, Ozarks, and Southwest) declined in overall population during the 1950-1960 period and all regions increased in population during the 1960-1970 period. Despite increases in absolute population, most districts are experiencing net out-migration. However, out- migration from districts over the decade between 1960 and 1970 has not been large enough to contribute signi- ficantly to the burdens of the nation's cities. Of the 12 regions in which districts are located, 9 underwent net out-migration during the 1950-19 60 de- cade, and 10 had net out-migration during the following decade. Districts in Appalachia accounted for 50.6% of out- migration for all districts during the first decade and 35.3% during the following decade. 156 Only 1 region, the Northwest, had more out^nigrants during the second decade than in the previous 10 years. The Rio Grande Region had in -migration during the latter period; the Ozarks had net out-migration during the first period and net in-migration during the second period. 3. Part III The percent of the total U.S. population residing in economic development districts recognized by EDA has declined steadily over the last two decades. Absolute population change within all districts was far below that of the nation as a whole. During the 20-year span between 1950 to 1970, popula- tion in all EDD's increased only 7% while the national population increased by 34.8%. C. DETAILED FINDINGS 1. Part I: Demographic Characteristics of EDC ' s and RC ' s This study contradicts the assumption that EDC's and RC ' s are migration centers for their respective districts.!./ Seventy percent of the EDC's had net out-migration during the 19 50- 19 60 decade; 84 percent of the RC's experienced net out-migra- tion during the same period. In the 1960-1970 decade, the per- cent of EDC's having net out-migration increased to 77 per- cent, while 9 7 percent of the RC's had net out-migration. Net out-migration need not imply an absolute decrease in population. Yet, 34 percent of the EDC's declined in overall population during the first decade and 32% during the 1960 to 1970 period. The absolute population decline in redevelopment centers was even higher, with 59 percent of the RC's declining in overall population during the first time period and 64% dur- ing the latter decade. Migration and population characteristics of EDC's and RC's located in different regions varied significantly. All EDC's and RC's in the New England, Northwest, Rio Grande, and South- V The number of EDC's and RC's included in this study differ from the number in the main body of the National Assessment for two reasons: 1) counties which include more than one growth center are treated as individual units of analysis (An example is Bristol County, Mass., which included three EDC's Fall River, Taunton and New Bedford, and was treated as one EDC) ; and one EDC, was excluded from analysis. 157 west Regions underwent out-migration during the 1960 to 1970 period. More than 8 percent of the EDC ' s and RC's in Appalachia the Coastal Plains, Tennessee-Green Valley, the Great Lakes, and the South Central Regions underwent out-migration during the same period. In all of these regions the number of EDC ' s and RC's having out-migration increased over that of the 1950-1960 decade. In the Ozarks Region, the situation improved. Of the 32 growth centersi./ in this region, 29 experienced out-migration during the first decade, and this figure decreased to 21 cen- ters between 1960 and 1970. In only two regions - Delmarva (two EDC's) and the Far West (two RC's) - did the centers show no out-migration in either time period. Overall, 7 5 percent of the EDC's and RC's had out-migration during the 19 50-1960 de- cade and this figure increased to 84 percent in the following decade. Summary migration statistics for EDC's and RC's are presented in Table 26. Data sources are Current Population Reports, Population Estimates and Projections, Series P-25, No. 461, June 1971, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census; and County & City Data Book (A Statistical Abstract Supplement) (1967) , U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. In 84 of the 197 growth center counties, out-migration exceeded natural population growth during the last decade. This is interesting for several reasons. First, these counties ob- viously do not serve as migration nodes. Second, such counties are usually located in a region that is increasing in overall population. Several examples of this can be cited. In New England, 11 of the 12 centers had out-migration rates that exceeded the region's, and only 2 growth center counties had population increases slightly above the regional rate. EDC and RC counties had 64,512 out-migrants; the remaining counties had 42,534 in-migrants. In the Northwest Region, 3 of the 5 growth center counties declined in overall population; 4 had out-migra- tion rates that exceeded the region's, and only 1 cen- ter had an increase in population that exceeded the regional rate. EDC and RC counties had 18,383 out- migrants or approximately 57% of the out-migrants for the entire region. In the Southwest Region, 6 of the 9 growth center counties declined in overall population, 7 had out-mi- gration rates that exceeded the region's; and only 3 of the centers grew in overall population. Overall — "Growth centers" hereafter refers to both EDC's and RC's. 158 CD LU a; >- PQ ^ ^"-1 co < CN Q UJ 5T _J O PQ I— 1 < f- 1- < DC CD i — t *— U cr Q O Q UJ -p 0) c 3 ■H O 0\° co o\o 0\° o\° o\o 0\° •H O " rH g CO CD s CN r~- in rH "sT r^ CN «vf o ^ CD 1 CT> rH rH CN £! -P rH CD g 3 3 o Eh 25 2 S C/D ^ P< O H -P J En CD £ > H S -H C , , ^^ ^^ ^^ H U XI P CD ^^ CO o\° o\° o\o ^^ o\o ^^^ o\o ^^ Q -P CO C\ o\° - O c O o\o O o\o O o\° ^^^ o\° '~" 3 •rH U rH CD u O o O 00 O CD O in l m o\° 15 tj> 1 ■H O CD p< rH rH rH r^ rH 00 rH r~ l r- 00 rH g U0 — * CD 1 CTi ^ -PH Tf s CN rH r^ in 00 ^f CO CN oo o 00 ■"^ g 3 in 3 o !3 o r- ■ i o -P CD CD c CTi 2 ■H O -C -P r- -P f0 tTi O o\° c\o 0\° 0\° o\° 0\° o\° O 0\° O CO t_) o\° O r ^ 2^ < o Eh r wi migr 60-1 o rH T i oo 00 CD in 00 in 00 00 O rH O rH p H o rH o\° CO 1 o PH o d) 1 o\P ^-. 0\° o\° oV 0\° o\o 0\° 0\° *° CJ o\° •-* H •H M rH £ tn 1 ■H O oo 1 00 00 [~~ O O O 00 O Q oo O 00 1 r~ 00 CD in CD r~- m 00 W 00 M g in o "— ' (1) 1 CT> J3+JH g 3 LT) o 00 rH CN CN CD CN 00 rH CD rH rH "^ H 00 3 O 3 , , CO fl o >i CD rH •H C7> CD P^ o TS rH rH CO •H crj (0 H C CO 1 <0 CD rH -p CD rH rH 6 co •H 0) > M Pw c p p TJ H rH (0 > x: o CD CO £ CO r-3 rH CD CO CD CO CD -p CO (0 £y C rH rrj CO CO CD IT3 £ S: CD H P-I H . TJ rH ^ CD CD P p £ x; JH 12 O H rd P Eh g IT) M G rH (0 W -p p P £ rH a cd C O CD CO H 3 rH CD 0) a N CD U o o o o CO -H S Q < o Eh o V co s C/) Cm tf p 0) c jh p -H > a o ■H Cn CD CD^ ^-P T5 CO CD- ■PU •H tf O rH CO O G co CO- CO o CD D H cy CD rH X, CO -p p o n p m m o T3 CD -P T3 C 3 (U rH O o u X CD CD a CO CD CO 4-> £ (0 U C-H o-d •H C Cn-H CD P4 co CD CD U P 3 3 Di CO -H K >+H CD 13 U CD M -P CD CD Eh^ U CD CO A U Eh PQ * * * o •H •P to tn ■H g I -P o 159 out-migration from EDC and RC counties exceeded that of non-EDC and non-RC counties. In the Great Lakes Region, 9 of the 15 growth center counties declined in overall population; 2 increased less than the regional population rate; and 4 centers were above the regional rate. The region increased in population by 9 . 2 percent and had an out-migration rate that was lower than all but one of its EDC or RC counties. Overall, EDA and RC counties had 49,610 out-migration; the non-EDC and non RC counties had 554 in-migrants . In the Tennessee-Green Valley Region, 10 of the 14 growth center counties had out-migration rates exceeding the region's; 8 declined in overall population; and only 4 increased in population above the regional rate. This situation prevailed to a lesser extent in the Rio Grande, Ozarks, Coastal Plains, South Central, and Appalachian Regions. The Far West and Delmarva Regions did not appear to follow this trend. £/ Table 27 summarizes each region's EDC and RC population change characteristics. The data sources for this and following charts are the same as those cited for Table 26 An overview of aggregate EDC and RC county migration charac- teristics by region and district is provided in Table 28. The most populous region, the South Central Region, is made up of 19 districts. Three of these districts do not have designated EDC counties, 6 districts have EDC counties with net out-migra- tion, 2 districts have RC counties with net out-migration, and 4 districts have both EDC and RC counties with net out-migration. A similar situation exists in the second most populous region, Appalachia, which has 25 districts: 10 without designated EDC or RC counties, 7 with EDC counties having net out-migration, 4 with RC counties having net out-migration, and 1 with both EDC and RC counties having net out-migration. From a national view- point, of 139 authorized districts, 38 do not have designated centers, 39 have EDC counties with net out-migration, 17 districts have RC counties with net out-migration, and 16 districts have both EDC and RC counties with net out-migration. 2/ — ' It should be noted that six of the seven districts in the Far West Region do not have designated centers; the remaining district has two redevelopment center counties. The Delmarva Region has only one district which includes two EDC counties. 160 u CO to c CD X! CO < -H CO -P ^-^ —. ^^ .£ rd *-"» CO o\o . — . o\o ^^ , . ^_^ 0\° - <-» , — . rH -P H o\° - O o\° O 0\° o\o 0\° O o\o 0\° - ■H f> 1 CN VO P - CN in CN ro o rH H 4 0) ioo rH £ rH ,-q H rd § w A O H -P ■H \A En 1 3= > W co £ C w o rQ o Q t=C -H ■H § -P Cn £1 rd CD # -P <-\ s-~. ,-^ H v -H 3 O ^^ to *-v 0\° o\° ^^ „ N ^^ ^^ ^_^ U "Z. £ a, vd o\° - o\o o O o\o 0\° 0\° cX> 0\° _- r ___ o\° CD CD o CTi r- CJ n o O VO O r- O m 1 | in *H X! I— 1 JH ft CO iH iH f£ 00 tH rH ^ in in in r> 1 | iH -P ID H LU £ OJMO — ' rd a DC O £ -P co in ■H £ o rH p> in in CN ^ ■H ro o O 00 ro -H >- r^ IEHi^H T5 CO CQ i o CD - -P U •H f4 X vo < (Xi 1 O h- H u < to c CO r- o Q EH -Q fl m ■z. < £ hJ -h P CO CO - LU o § £ td rd U _l 1 — 1 o ft f H CO a CQ h- VO o •HP o ^"" N *— > , — -. , ^ U H < < 1 r-H £ cu r> o\° ,-^ ()P o\o 0\° 0\° <— * o\° o\° &p u Q H o\° ro ro oV \— _J O lO £8 O CTi vo 1 1 o CO CN CO cn O in CN rH cn ro ro o vo CN ro CD rH & rd Q_ CTi w w (D CD 1 — ' * — -P -P o rH Q En ,Q CD CO O Q_ S E -P CO vo ■^f o I s * 00 cn CN r^ r^ rH ro rH ro rH -P o; U H 3 3 Ooi "* O o H U SHkIH Mh vh DC u_ S Q O Ti CD P Z o 1 T! C < to a 3 CD rH CJ Q «q -h O Sh X CD LU -p * * CO CD P-i P rH «■"» ^ -^ ^ , , ^^ ^^ ^^ CO CD •HP O ^ a, vo o\o <■— > oV cfp o\o ^^ 0\° 0\° ^—, &o CJ ^_^ 0\° rd P O l CN ■^ VO 1 r^ m 1 O Q | «* £ fd CTi IT) l i CO ^— . rd -H O CU a rH CO ffl^-H rH •H rd c •P t0 •-H CO rd U a) 13 rd C (0 1 rt) CD rH +J CD •H rH CD rH (0 •H a> > A? ft c P -P T3 tn U +J P H rd X! > O w C kJ rH U CD QJ CO rd P< Eh ,V C u rd co CO 0) rd £ ^ CU u O Pj H rd rH a: a; a) -p •P x: ^ si 5 rj) r H ^H CD rd H J e rd >H C >H rd CO p P P ■d rH si u c £ i— i a. rd c o O rd p U 3 u o J u < Eh PQ -H (L) CD Ck N d) rH O o o O rd -H D "- 1 12 Q U w IS C/3 h « E * * | * 161 CO o CO en o LU r^ h- o^ o i-H < en 1 < zn O o <& <7\ < 1- * en CJ 00 CD >— < CN h— t ct s: h- LU CO _J >~ i— < PQ h- Q < ■z. h- 3 Q O Z C_) < o en O Q •— • z CD < LU en o Q >- LU CQ LU h- < CD LU CC CD CD < w -p u •H rH H (0 -P »£> rH in ^D oo rH •^r CTi 00 in r^ "* CTi -P w CN rH rH rH CN rH ro O -H rH Eh Q U o O ■H CN O rH o O o o o o ■^ Q O W 04 + 1 U U 04 o rH CN CO CN O •^r ^r H o o o O Q CN H O + 2 U Q H o o O rH rH rH o o o o rH o ■^ U CO 04 O Eh + 2 o H 04 U o O O rH O o o o o o o o rH En Q U CO W 04 H Q 1 + CD U rH O rH rH CN rH oo ^t o CN o rH r-t Q U H 04 1 1 U P H CN o ^r rH rH CN o CN CN ■H o CN r- U rH 04 O I S u U 04 CN o r~ oo CN CN ro i£> CN rH o rH Q rH OO W 1 s u Q U H 04 rH o o rH rH IT) •^ ^ oo OO rH co O 00 oo O S 2 c CD w CD C rH rH •H (0 T3 o W tO SH * C tO 1 (D rH -p 0) CO tO •H QJ ,* fn c -p -P T3 CO 53 rH rd x; CD CO CD w a: p C r-H 1 O en > o W >, >-l rH u 0) CD cn (0 < H C u to CO W 0) fO & S CD rH Eh U W to rH M U fO •H S Q < o Eh O u CO 2 CO fa 04 162 2 . Part II. Demographic Characteristics of Economic Development Districts - The regions in which the districts are located all increased in total population during the last decade, ranging from an 0.7 percent increase for the Southwest to 23.5 percent increase in the Far West. During the previous decade (1950-1960), four regions - Appalachia, Tennessee-Green Valley, Ozarks, and South- west - decline. The reversal between the two decades seems to be connected to a decrease in the out-migration rate for the latter four regions. This is summarized in Table 29. During the first decade, 9 of the 12 regions had overall net out-migration, ranging from 3.0 percent for Delmarva to 42.3 percent for the Southwest. The number of migrants leaving the 12 regions during this period was 5,486,881, with Appalachia accounting for 50.6 percent of the total. Between 1960 and 197 0, 10 of the 12 regions had out-migration but the absolute magnitude declined 2 9 percent. Appalachia again contributed the largest share with 3 5.3 percent of the total. The numbers of migrants by region, district, EDC , and RC for the decade 1960 and 1970 are presented in Appendix G. Significant declines in out-migration occurred within speci- fic regions. Out-migration from New England was 86.8 percent lower during the last decade than during the 1950 to 1960 period. In the Great Lakes, out-migration declined 82.3 percent; in Appalachia it declined 79.8 percent; in the Southwest by 73.4 percent; and in the Tennessee-Green Valley Region, it declined by 58 percent. Out-migration also declined, but to a lesser extent, in Delmarva, the Coastal Plains, and South Central Region and actually reversed direction for the Ozarks. If these trends continue, the "rural exodus" will be a thing of the past for EDA's rural counties. In order to give the overall picture some perspective, con- sideration should be given to what is happening within these regions as the rate of out-migration declines. Each of the regions cited above is gaining in overall population; each has EDC ' s and RC * s with out-migration rates which exceed that of the region; and, more significantly, each has EDC ' s and RC ' s which are declining in over- all population. This latter point is important. If the rate of out -migration continues to decline and non-EDC , non-RC residents elect to remain outside the designated growth centers, then growth centers may become "ghost" centers in less than 20 years. The view that EDC ' s and RC ' s could become migration centers for district residents in order to take the pressure off already 163 O LU Cd >- m O X r^ LU 1 C£5 Z \£> < 0\ x rH o Q CM •z. 2: o < 1— I LU h- O _l < «x> CQ _l 1 < => h- Q- in O <3\ Q_ ■H Q a: 2T I- < on CD r^ (S H 1 o\o rfP OP 0\° <*° c\° o\o 0\° •^ «^5 CO o> CM ro r>- in f>- H En in" D 1 iH o\ r-> CM r-« ■>* CO <7\ rH ro CM rH P-t CO O H AL P HANG O 0\° cA° o\° o\o o\o 0\° o\° OP tfp rA° cA° O H in •^ in ■H in r^ ->r <£> CM rH a\ r^ O in CTi KD CO <£> CO in O 00 >X> m >x> O rH rH 1 1 rH rH rH CM la CTi o\o 0\° o\° 0\° C*° o\° 6V> b\° c*° o\° o\° tfP rH I iH t~~ VO CTi m [■"-. CTi CN ro ^r r~- ■^ H Eh O rH rH CO O <£> rH CO in r- ro CM O rH r 1 1 r r 1 1 rH r rH CM 1 H CO S w EH as B dp o\° o¥> o\o o\o 0\° o\o <*° O (Ti *£> ro •^ ro CM CTi ro 00 CTi H C3 ■ in CTi ■H 00 co ■^r in in OS CM O ro B 1 co 1 CM 1 iH 1 1 rH 1 1 •<* 1 rH ■^ >1 CD iH rH td > c U (0 rH" rH U o en Q. O 1—4 CO •—1 > ^H Q m =d CO CJ 1— 1 X 0. < cc CD n o 00 LU CD LU _l k CQ LU < 1- co >- CQ CO h- o LU o a. LU _i Q- < CO o 1—1 H ZD CQ 0d \- co Q i fa ! O « CO H En CQ U 2 W 5 h) s o hQ Ph <: Eh O H CO W C (1) rd c o CO m rHOi-HCN w H 1-3 P O H Pi 3 Ph fa o d 1 s 7! rd CO CO CD -H CO CQ r-IOOCNC\!r-tO"vt , O O CO CO u o Ph cNOCNoooocN-vt'r^ O CO Eh U W o ! ^ K H ! Eh fa u Eh is o p< i O Em O d c fd ^ CO CO Q) C •H CO CQ OOi-HOCMi— IHCNCN CTi * 00 CO o -H .H X! Ph LnHCNnoororocN w Eh <: E-t CO Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Maine Mississippi Oklahoma Tennessee Texas CO CD o Ss -p CO CD T3 o H 175 TABLE 3 4 COMPARISON OF PUBLIC WORKS AND BUSINESS LOAN PROJECTS IN RA's AND GROWTH CENTERS CATEGORIES OF GROWTH CENTER PROJ- RA PROJECTS ANALYSIS ECTS (26 PROJECTS) * (3 PROJECTS ) Average Project Cost $1,360,000 $768,000 Average EDA Parti- cipation $722,000 $495,000 Average EDA-Attri- buted Jobs Per Project 109 79 Average EDA Invest- ment Per Job $ 6,908 $ 6,275 Percent EDA-Attri- buted Jobs to RA 14% Residents (6%) ** 87% Average EDA Invest- ment Per RA Job $ 50,000 ($116,000) ** $ 8,164 Percent EDA-Attri- buted Jobs to Un- employed and Un- deremployed 31% 28% Average Annual Salary Generated $ 5,900 $ 5,300 * Does not include two "environmental" projects ** Excluding Bowling Green projects from the sampl< 176 Approximately $22 million of EDA investment in growth centers has resulted in jobs with over $16 million in annual wages; 10 percent of these wages is spent in redevelopment areas. New purchases in RA's by firms benefiting from the same growth center projects add about $1 million per year to this personal consumption figure. The public facilities EDA has funded in the 12 growth centers evaluated provide few services to residents of redevelopment areas. Moreover, there is little evidence yet that they are stimulating or accelerating economic growth in these centers. The water system projects located in growth centers have improved public services to residents of the centers, but the other two public facility projects - a scientific library and a marine-oriented research laboratory - have had negligible impact on local citizens. Nevertheless, such "environmental" projects may play a critical role in the viability of a center. The experience is too limited at this point to make any final judgment. 2. Effectiveness of the Positive Action Program On the basis of 12 case studies of EDA growth centers, the evalua- tion team has concluded that Positive Action Programs by themselves are not an effective means of insuring that residents of nearby redevelop- ment areas benefit from the employment opportunities and public services in growth centers. No benefits have accrued to residents of such areas that can be attributed to EDA's requirement that economic development centers prepare these documents. Moreover, few new programs have been initiated to benefit residents of growth centers as a result of PAP'S. Discussions with community leaders, district staff members, and EDA Washington office personnel, as well as analysis of PAP impact led to the conclusion that the concept underlying the PAP is too broad, given EDA's limited resources to monitor implementation. It seems rather unrealistic to expect that a community will address not only its own problems but also those of other counties and communities in the hope of obtaining EDA funds for one, two, or even three projects. 3 . Effectiveness of District Organization in Implementing the Growth Center Strategy District organizations analyzed through this study have not effec- tively implemented EDA's growth center strategy. This is due primarily to a lack of understanding on the part of district staff and board mem- bers of that strategy. Neither the strategy itself nor the purposes of the PAP requirement have been adequately explained to these individuals by the Agency. Moreover, the treatment given to PAP ' s by EDA Washington has led most district staff and board members to the conclusion that the Agency is not serious about the PAP requirement. As a result, they do not re- cognize the importance of channeling benefits from EDC projects to unem- ployed and underemployed residents of redevelopment areas. Instead, Agency growth center projects have been a means for enabling the district organization and staff to establish local credibility. In this role they have been of value. 177 For the most part, district staffs are serving effectively as grantsmen, planners, and agents of change. It is primarily through these individuals that EDA stimulates the economic development process in redevelopment area communities, growth centers, and towns in non- designated district counties. The. real strength of the district mechanism at this point is the role of the district staff. 4 . Status of the Economic Development Process As indicated above, it is primarily through the activities of district organizations that EDA stimulates the economic development process in growth centers. In a few of the centers evaluated, Agency projects have resulted in more positive attitudes toward development activities. However, such projects appeared to have had limited impact on the lending policies of local banks, the cooperation of community or- ganizations, and the willingness of center residents to finance local improvements. Moreover, the projects have resulted in little change in attitudes toward helping unemployed and underemployed residents of redevelopment areas, or even of the centers themselves. C. NATIONAL ASSESSMENT Two major conclusions were reached as a result of the National Assessment. Economic and demographic indicators suggest that the majority of places designated as EDA growth centers offer little poten- tial for future population or employment growth. A significant number of economic development districts do not contain cities with such potential to serve district redevelop- ment areas as growth centers. These facts are not surprising in view of the generally depressed con- ditions of all counties in most economic development districts, and in areas of the country where EDA's legislative mandate directs it to work. 1 . Assessment of Presently Designated Growth Centers Approximately 60 percent of EDA's growth centers did not meet the National Assessment's criteria for "Type I" or "Type II" centers, and thus were judged to have little or no potential for future population or employment growth. The 65 centers that fall into this category are not likely to have an impact on redevelopment areas; in fact, most are experiencing out-migration themselves. Centers ranked as Type I have a high growth potential and their growth is expected to improve conditions in nearby redevelopment areas . Those places classified as Type III centers either offer little or no growth potential or are not located within commuting distance of redevel- opment areas. Places identified as Type II centers are less likely to grow and affect surrounding distressed areas than are Type I centers, but could not be classified as Type III centers on the basis of the data examined through the National Assessment. Table 35 on the following page summarizes the assessment of presently designated centers. 178 CO a: LU h- s LU O Q LU 1- < ■2. CD in •— 1 co CO LU LU Q _J < u_ o < M o CD LU I- < CJ < Eh O Eh HI & W Eh S3 H U Eh IS H S PL, o H > W Q W CO Eh H CJ Eh PS «=^ Pm o H > H Q U H o o u H CO o !S H CJ ^ ft PS PQ S P Eh H CJ PS H Cm D Eh H U PS H cs w PQ S D in o 6P CO CN in o\° CTi in CTi o\° O O O 0\° H oo dp O O m o\o CM o\° O CO o\o 00 0\° O O o CO o in in co M w H H cu Cm a, >H ■ >H X H EH Eh Eh o Eh 179 2 . Distribution of Centers Within Districts Of the 103 designated economic development districts/ 43 (42 per- cent) do not contain a place identified as a Type I growth center on the basis of the National Assessment. Thus, nonp of these districts appears to contain a city with the potential to serve district redevelop- ment areas as a growth center. Table 36 summarizes the National Assess- ment's classifications of centers in presently designated districts. TABLE 3 6 NATIONAL ASSESSMENT CLASSIFICATIONS OF CENTERS IN DESIGNATED DISTRICTS DISTRICT CATEGORY NUMBER OF DISTRICTS At least one Type I center No Type I center, but at least one Type II center No Type I or Type II center 27 33 43 TOTAL 103 Two of the 33 districts which contain only Type II centers could be modified to include a county with a Type I center. Six of the dis- tricts with no Type I or Type II center could be modified to include at least one such place. Four of the six would contain a Type I cen- ter, while the other two would have only a Type II center. 180 APPENDIX A EVALUATION APPROACH: IN~DEPTH ASSESSMENT OF SELECTED GROWTH CENTERS I. INTRODUCTION In December 1970, an in-house task force was formed to evaluate EDA's growth center strategy. Although this stra- tegy is linked to the Development District Program, the evaluation effort deliberately focused upon Agency policy dealing specifically with growth centers. It did not at- tempt to treat the whole Economic Development District Pro- gram. One of the major goals of the evaluation effort was to assess the impact of the Agency's expenditures in growth centers. This was accomplished through a series of in-depth case studies of EDA-designated growth centers. The following discussion describes the approach used in conducting these studies . II. CENTER SELECTION In developing the structure for the growth center evaluation, a decision was made to conduct in-depth analyses of 10 centers. This was considered consistent with the time and manpower to be devoted to the effort. Because of the small sample size, it was recognized that conclusions based on the 10 centers would not necessarily apply to all EDA-designated centers. The first step in selecting the 10 growth centers to be analyzed as part of the evaluation entailed excluding from consideration all redevelopment centers, i.e., centers located in redevelopment areas. Such communities were eliminated because EDA has never applied a growth center strategy in dealing with them. For example, redevelopment centers are not required to prepare Positive Action Programs, nor does their eligibility for projects rest upon recogni- tion as centers . Two major criteria were then applied to select the economic development centers to be evaluated. First, each A.l center was required to have a completed (90 percent dis- bursed) EDA public works or business loan project that had been approved subsequent to the town's designation as an economic development center. One of the limitations in- herent in this evaluation was the lack of maturity of the growth center strategy itself. The 90 percent disbursed criterion was applied to insure maximum maturity in the projects analyzed. Moreover, only those projects approved subsequent to a town's designation as an economic development center were considered valid subjects for the evaluation. Earlier projects were not approved in conjunction with the growth center strategy and could not in fairness be used to mea- sure the strategy's effectiveness or success. In conducting the case studies, however, earlier projects were observed as elements of a center's overall economic development process. This criterion narrowed the list of potential evaluation subjects from 135 centers to 14. Secondly, within the limits of the project completion criterion, the centers were chosen to represent a wide geo- graphic distribution and a variety of population levels. The dollar amount of EDA expenditures and the length of time elapsed since project completion were also considered in selecting the 10 centers. After 10 EDC ' s were selected, 2 more centers were added to the sample. These centers were included because, together with 1 of the original 10 EDC's, they are located in a district involved in a unique effort to obtain government assistance in undertaking a comprehensive district-wide development program. For comparison purposes, the sample was also structured to include: an economic development center with a completed pub- lic works or business loan project approved before preparation of a Positive Action Program (PAP) ; and an economic development center that had submitted a PAP but had received no EDA funds . Since a number of the 12 centers already selected met the first criterion, the original list of evaluation subjects was only expanded to include a center with a PAP but no EDA funds . A. 2 The following table compares all 135 EDC's to the 13 centers analyzed with respect to population, growth poten- tial, distance from nearest redevelopment area, and geo- graphic location. TABLE A.l COMPARISON OF SAMPLE AND UNIVERSE ! COMPARISON CATEGORY ALL EDC's (135) SAMPLE 1 (13) Average Population 38,611 46,846 1 National Assessment Ranking Type I 30 (22%) 3 (23%) Type II 40 (30%) 3 (23%) Type III 65 (48%) 7 (54%) Average Distance to Nearest RA 14.57 miles 21.69 miles (15.63 miles) 2 Geographic Location Atlantic Region 11 (8%) 1 (7%) Mideastern Region 22 (16%) 3 (23%) : Southeastern Region 43 (31%) 3 (23%) Midwestern Region 11 (8%) (0%) Southwestern Region 45 (33%) 6 (46%) Western Region 3 (2%) (0%) " 1 These breakdowns contain 13 centers because the Tri- Cities growth center was analyzed as two separate centers: Bristol-Kingsport; and Johnson City. 2 This figure is obtained by dropping Corpus Christi and Panama City from the sample. A. 3 III. EVALUATION CRITERIA In developing the methodoloqy for analyzing selected growth centers, the evaluation team reviewed the legisla- tive provisions for growth centers, Agency policy statements relating to the growth center strategy, and techniques employed in past evaluation studies. In an attempt to keep the evaluation focused on one specific Agency policy, the team sought to analyze those areas which that policy had clearly been intended to influence. On the basis of the information gained through the review, a decision was made to examine three major areas in evaluating each growth center. Centers were analyzed in terms of EDA project im- pact, effectiveness of the Positive Action Program, and the role played by the district staff and board in implementing the growth center strategy. In addition, the evaluators measured the status of the local development process in each center, placing particular emphasis on the center's efforts to assist neighboring redevelopment areas. EDA's impact on changes in process status was determined. A. EDA Project Impact One premise of EDA's growth center strategy is that funding projects in growth centers will benefit residents of nearby redevelopment areas. To determine the validity of this assumption, the methodology called for an evaluation of completed projects in each growth center. Emphasis was placed on identifying benefits to redevelopment areas and to unemployed and underemployed residents of the cen- ter. HDwever, overall project benefits were also noted in order to evaluate the project's impact on the growth center and to permit comparison of growth center projects with similar projects analyzed in previous evaluation efforts . 1. Overall Job and Economic Structure Impact For each completed EDA growth center project, data was collected on the total number of jobs which could be attributed to the project, as well as on the amount of income generated. As in previous evaluation efforts, attributable jobs were defined as those which would not have existed in the absence of the EDA project, i.e., those jobs created or saved as a direct result of the project. The data was obtained directly from employers and employees in firms benefitting from EDA projects. This allowed job information to be crosschecked from A. 4 true sources. Appendix P contains the questionnaires used in collecting the data. Future employment impact of EDA's investments was estimated on the basis of expansion plans of existing firms and construction plans of new firms. Because future jobs are only "expected," their impact is dis- counted by an appropriate risk factor, varying from to 100 percent. The following guidelines, used in previous evaluations, were applied to hiring plans. 100 percent of specified impact is credited if plant or expansion is completed and hiring has begun. 75 percent of specified impact is credited if plant or expansion is completed but hiring has not begun. 50 percent of specified impact is credited if plant or expansion is under construction and completion expected within one year. 25 percent of specified impact is credited if plant or expansion is not under construction but completion is expected within a year. No impact is credited if none of the above apply. The evaluators also analyzed the quality of the jobs created by the EDA project in terms of their con- tribution to the local economy's growth and stability. The factors examined in this analysis included stability of the new employment, and the degree of diversification it represented in terms of the local community. To evaluate the stability of the firms that lo- cated as a result of EDA projects, three levels of stability were established. Those enterprises that were new companies, not affiliated with larger parent corporations, were judged least stable. Government agencies, quasi-public agencies (such as hospitals or educational institutions) , and top-rated companies with stable or growth histories and superior credit ratings were rated as the most stable types of employers. An intermediate level of stability was reserved for es- A.5 tablished firms that failed to meet the criteria for the highest level. Projects were rated according to the stability of the associated jobs. EDA-generated jobs were also evaluated to determine the extent to which they diversified the employment opportunities in the area and made the area less vul- nerable to severe employment loss because of cyclical changes in one industry. In this case, the most ef- fective projects were those where at least 50 jobs were created in industries not previously represented in the area. 2 . Job Impact on Present and Former Redevelopment Area Residents For the purposes of this study, it was considered necessary to emphasize the benefits accruing to present and former residents of redevelopment areas. For this reason, job location impact was broken down to identify the effects on these individuals. In determining the effectiveness of each project, the number and type of jobs taken by present and former redevelopment area residents were examined, as well as the income generated by these jobs. Present and former RA residents were identified through the employee questionnaires which requested information on current and past place of residence. Another approach used to measure project effectiveness involved calculating the investment per direct job created for present and former redevelopment area residents. Because EDA is committed to assisting the unemployed and underemployed residents of redevelopment areas, the methodology was structured to identify which present and former redevelopment area residents were unemployed or underemployed prior to taking their current jobs. (Underemployed workers are persons who were previously part-time employees seeking full-time jobs and workers who were members of poor households. Former housewives working to supplement family incomes previously more than $1,000 above the poverty level are not counted as previously unemployed or underemployed persons.) Table A. 2 identifies the standard used to determine whether households were "poor." A. 6 TABLE A. 2 SCALE FOR IDENTIFYING POOR HOUSEHOLDS 1/ NON-FARM NUMBER IN HOUSEHOLD INCOME UNDER FARM INCOME UNDER 1 $1,900 $1,600 2 $2,500 $2,000 3 $3,100 $2,500 4 $3,800 $3,200 5 $4,400 $3,700 6 $5,000 $4,200 7 $5,600 $4,700 more add $6 00 per add $500 for each person additional person Other information acquired for present and former RA residents included average income change as a result of EDA-associated jobs, number of families raised above the poverty level, and amount, type, and effect of training received. The methodology employed also al- lowed evaluators to estimate the number of jobs that would go to these individuals upon realization of employers' present expansion plans. Such estimates were based on information provided by each employer. 3. Job Impact on Growth Center Unemployed and Under- employed Administrators of EDA's Development District Pro- gram emphasize a growth center's responsibility to provide assistance to unemployed and underemployed residents of the community. To measure centers' ef- fectiveness in meeting this responsibility, the evalua- tion methodology called for analysis of jobs to such individuals. Employees of EDA-associated firms who ±7 Office of Economic Opportunity Income Poverty Guide- lines, December 1, 1970. A. 7 were previously unemployed, involuntary part-time workers, or members of poor households looking for work were iden- tified according to race and status in family. The total number of jobs to such individuals was also reported, as well as total income generated. Another figure in- cluded in this portion of the analysis was EDA's investment per job created for these individuals and present and former redevelopment area residents. As with jobs to present and former redevelopment area residents, the methodology called for computing the average income change and the number of families raised above the poverty level as a result of jobs taken by unemployed and underemployed residents of the growth center. The amount, type, and effect of training received by these individuals in connection with their EDA-associated jobs were also determined. In addition, future jobs for unemployed and underemployed center residents were projected on the basis of employers 1 plans for expansion. 4. Secondary Job Impact in Redevelopment Areas One of the premises of the growth center strategy is that the creation of jobs in centers will lead directly to the location of other employment oppor- tunities. The theory is that employers who locate in growth centers often attract suppliers and distributors to the area and that these concerns furnish additional employment to local residents. According to EDA's MEDO, "The spillover effect of the Center growth can produce new jobs within nearby Redevelopment Areas. This might include such activities as subassembly plants serving major producers located in the Center." To test this theory, the evaluation methodology included provisions for identifying such employers and determining the number of new jobs they located in the area. EDA-assisted employers were asked to identify suppliers, distributors, and personal contact was made with these firms. Any employment or income generated by new firms as a result of the EDA beneficiary firm was noted as a secondary impact of the project. The methodolocrv also allowed the identification of new A. 8 jobs created by the EDA-attributable expansion of sup- pliers and distributors already located in the area. These jobs were included in the job count for each center. 5. Indirect Economic Spillover Another major premise of the growth center strategy is that indirect benefits from projects in growth cen- ters will spill over into the district's redevelopment areas. The evaluation methodology called for testing this theory through two measures. First, data was collected on the expenditures of redevelopment area residents employed by EDA-assisted firms and local suppliers and distributors who established or expanded operations as a result of EDA project impact. This information allowed the evaluators to determine how much money these individuals were spending in their home counties . The second measure used to test the indirect eco- nomic spillover theory involved the dollar value of purchases made in redevelopment areas by EDA-assisted firms and their local suppliers and distributors. Through personal interviews with management personnel, evaluators determined the amount of money spent by these firms in redevelopment areas. 6 . Effect on Out-^Migration The growth center strategy implemented by EDA assumes that accelerating and increasing the growth and prosperity of economic development centers will encourage residents of nearby depressed areas to com- mute or migrate to the center for work instead of remaining unemployed or migrating to more distant urban centers. To test the validity of this assumption, the evaluation methodology - through data collected on the employee questionnaires (Appendix G) - provided for determining: the percent of employees in EDA-assisted and associated firms who migrated to the growth center from a redevelopment area; the percent of employees who would have mi- grated from a redevelopment area to an urban A. 9 center of over 500,000 if their present jobs had not been available; and the percent of employees who would have migrated from the economic development district if their present jobs had not been available. In addition, a random survey was made of former residents of the redevelopment areas associated with the various growth centers. Individuals who had mi- grated from such areas during the past two years were queried as to their reasons for moving. This survey provided another basis for evaluating the theory that providing jobs in a growth center will help to stem out-migration from the redevelopment areas and/or the district. For each center, if a statistically signi- ficant number of the participants indicated that they would have remained in the district had employment opportunities been available in the center, it was concluded that the theory was valid for that particular center. 7. Improved Public Services The growth center strategy defined by EDA policy makers includes a provision for funding projects that materially improve the environmental facilities of a center if those facilities are essential to accelerating the center's growth. Among the items considered by EDA before approving such projects is the ability of the district organization and the center leadership to assure that the facilities will be available to low-income or unemployed residents in surrounding re- development areas. To evaluate public facility projects in growth centers, the investigators first considered the overall benefits provided by the project. This portion of the evaluation included a judgment as to whether the fa- cilities were essential to the center's growth. In each case, this judgment was based upon information gathered from public agencies, elected officials, and community leaders concerning the type of service provided and the neighborhoods and establishments served by each EDA project. Emphasis was then placed on determining the types of individuals benefitting from the project. Three categories of beneficiaries A. 10 were analyzed: redevelopment area residents, low- income growth center residents, and minority group members . In evaluating benefits to redevelopment area residents, factors considered were the number of house- holds being served, the percent of service to minority households, the percent of the project's benefits going to low-income households, the percent and number of low-income households being served, the change in service resulting from the project, and the change in service to low-income residents. Similar factors were considered in analyzing benefits to low-income growth center residents and minority group members. These data were provided by the agency responsible for managing each public facility project, and were veri- fied whenever possible through other public and private sources . 8 . Other Funding Sources Data was collected on other funding stimulated by the EDA investment including federal, state, and local monies. Private investment directly associated with or stimulated by the EDA project was also mea- sured as an element of project impact. B. Effectiveness of the Positive Action Program (PAP) The second major area examined in connection with the in-depth evaluation of selected centers involved determining the effectiveness of Positive Action Pro- grams. An EDA policy statement issued in March 19 68 states that no growth center will receive project funding until it has outlined the steps it is willing to take to insure that the unemployed and underemployed from redevelopment areas benefit from the center's growth. This outline is referred to as a Positive Action Program (PAP) , and is to be prepared in coopera- tion with the district organization. 1. PAP Status The first step taken in evaluating Positive Action Programs entailed determining the PAP's status. Sources for this information were EDA's Office of Development Organizations and the district organization A. 11 associated with each center. Date of preparation and number of updates were considered in judging the pre- sent relevance of the document. In addition, emphasis was placed on analyzing the actual preparation of the PAP. Authorship was determined, and factors involved in author selection were identified. Problems en- countered in preparing the document were also examined. 2. Identification of PAP Goals The methodology used to evaluate Positive Action Programs required an initial review of such documents. This review focused on the identification of specific programs the town promised to undertake in connection with its responsibility to serve the surrounding area as a growth center. 3. I^ocal Commitment to PAP Goals The evaluation team queried elected officials as well as individuals responsible for PAP programs in each center. The objective was to determine these individuals' understanding of the PAP and growth center concept, and to identify tangible commitments toward accomplishing goals set forth in the document. These sources were used to measure the degree to which each center recognized its responsibilities to nearby re- development areas. 4 . Progress Toward Achieving PAP Goals The next step in the PAP evaluation methodology consisted of determining the center's progress in implementing the programs described in the Positive Action Program. Evaluators scrutinized each program through interviews with program administrators and their peers in other community groups to determine accomplishments, beneficiaries, and future plans. Emphasis was placed on identifying benefits to re- development area residents and the growth center's unemployed and underemployed population. 5. Accomplishments Directly Attributable to the PAP Another aspect of the PAP evaluation concerned the new effort exerted by the growth center as a result of its Positive Action Program. The evaluators A. 12 identified those activities directly attributable to the PAP. These were those programs that would not have been undertaken in the absence of the Positive Action Program. This portion of the analysis included a categori- zation of such programs. Of greatest importance in terms of the growth center strategy were those programs that provided the most benefits to redevelopment area residents, particularly the unemployed and underemployed, Programs that assisted unemployed and underemployed growth center residents were ranked next in value. Third, and least important from the standpoint of the growth center strategy, were those programs that pri- marily benefitted middle- and high-income growth center residents. 6. Influence of PAP To obtain a more accurate picture of the value of the PAP, evaluators compared projects funded before the PAP requirement existed with projects funded after centers had prepared such documents. Emphasis was placed on determining what differences, if any, existed with relation to project impact on present and former redevelopment area residents. As another means of determining the PAP ' s value, the evaluators spent two man-days analyzing the impact of a PAP in a center that had not received EDA funding. Interviews with a wide range of community leaders also provided insights on how the PAP, its preparation, and execution had influenced attitudes, cooperation, and awareness in the community. The evaluation, in effect, attempted to grasp the human and intangible results associated with this requirement. C. Role of District Staff and Board An analysis of the role played by district staff and board members was the third major portion of the in-depth evaluations of selected centers. This effort did not involve an evaluation of the entire range of services provided by these groups. Rather, it focused on those activities directly related to implementation of the growth center strategy for the particular center under consideration. A. 13 1. Capacity to Promote Growth Center Strategy The methodology developed for evaluating the dis- trict organization's role in implementing the growth center strategy called for analyzing the attitudes of the district staff members and board of directors. District staff and board members were evaluated in terms of their concepts of and attitudes toward the strategy. Particular attention was given to the views held by board members from redevelopment areas. The touchstone for this segment of the evaluation was of- ficial Agency policy as stated in the growth center MEDO and PAP guidelines. Other criteria used for evaluating the district organization's role in implementing the growth center strategy included the location of the district office and its effect on the strategy. The composition of the board and the relative influence of each of its members were also considered. In addition, the evaluation methodology provided for an analysis of the financial support of the district's member counties and the ef- fect of this support on the growth center strategy. 2 . Services of the District Staff and Board A number of criteria were applied in evaluating the services of the district staff and board with re- lation to the growth center strategy. These included the amount and quality of technical assistance pro- vided by the district staff in promoting the growth center strategy. Examples of such assistance are help in preparing Positive Action Programs, and aid to growth center leaders in setting priorities for pro- posed projects. Other criteria were the amount and quality of assistance provided to board members from non-designated counties. The degree to which infor- mation flowed between board members from the two types of counties also served as a criterion for evaluation. In cases where the district staff served more than one board, the evaluators judged the staff's perfor- mance as an agent for exchanging information. Addi- tionally, and perhaps most importantly, the staff and board were evaluated on their role in developing and implementing projects designed to carry out the growth center strategy. A. 14 D. Status of Center's Economic Development Process Certain human attitudes and activities at work in a community have an influence on the ability of that community to realize its full economic potential. This human force, which can mobilize available re- sources in order to develop the local economy, can be thought of as constituting an economic development process. For the purpose of the evaluation, the development process was described by 11 factors, and an attempt was made to measure changes in these factors as a result of the Positive Action Program, district staff and board activities, and EDA projects. In this way, the evaluation team tried to account for those factors which the growth center policy could and did affect beyond the strict confines of project impact. A wide range of individuals - elected officials, district staff and board members, EDA field personnel, minority groups leaders, labor leaders, representatives of the news media, bankers, administrators of other federal programs in the center, business leaders, and others - were interviewed and asked to describe the economic development center in terms of each of the 11 factors. They were also asked to rate the influence of EDA activities on any changes in the factors that had occurred since the center's designation. By collecting personal evaluations on the same factors from such a broad range of individuals, the evaluators were able to draw a reliable consensus on each point. In evaluating the development process in the various growth centers, each factor was analyzed in several different ways. The level of these factors was measured at two points in time: before growth center designation; and at the time of the evaluation. This allowed for determining changes in the economic development process. Attributing changes in the pro- cess to the growth center strategy was then accomplished by asking community representatives about the rela- tionship between those changes and the PAP, district staff activities, EDA field staff activities, and EDA projects . The 11 factors used for the analysis of the de- velopment process in growth centers are described below. It is important to note that each factor was A. 15 examined specifically for its relationship to eco- nomic development and to EDA activity in the center in order to determine what kinds of changes had been effected by the growth center strategy. It should also be noted that the rating for each factor was a description of the level of activity or sophistication in that area rather than a value judgment. Process elements were not weighted in relation to one another because they were meant to describe rather than to rate the development process as a whole. 1. Local Government's Attitude This factor describes the role the EDC government played in helping to make development efforts more effective. Estimates were made of the role which the local government had played both prior to designation and at the time of the evaluation. A low rating was given to the center if the local government actually opposed development projects. A high rating was given if the local government assumed leadership in this area. Intermediate levels of sophistication included situations where the EDC government participated but did not take leadership in development efforts, or where it took leadership only on those projects directly related to government services. 2. Lending Institutions' Attitude Community leaders, district staff members, and representatives of financial institutions were queried on the lending policies of these institutions with respect to development-oriented projects. To sub- stantiate the opinions gathered from these sources, information on loan-to-deposit ratios was collected from annual statements of the institutions. EDA-funded and other research (see R.J. Hooker, Jr., "Summary: The Commercial Bank's Role as a Financier of Regional Growth," The Research Review , July 1970) indicates that a loan-to-deposit ratio below 63.5 percent means that it is difficult for local businessmen to obtain venture capital. Thus, loan-to-deposit ratios of 60 percent or lower were characterized as conservative. As a result, unless those interviewed provided substantial evidence to the contrary, the evaluators determined that institutions with such A. 16 ratios were not assuming leadership in promoting or financing development projects. 3. Dominant Economic Group's Attitude This item refers to the attitude which the center's dominant economic group (whether it be agricultural, commercial, industrial, financial, etc., in nature) displayed toward community development. In cases where this group viewed economic development 'as a threat to its interests and opposed development pro- jects, a low rating was given for this factor. The rating scale ranged from a situation where, while not actually opposed to development efforts, the dominant economic group was indifferent or contemptuous toward development, to an optimum level where key members of this group were taking leadership in helping to plan and to carry out a broad development program. 4 . Cooperation of Community Organizations This subject refers to the support and cooperation given EDC development efforts by community groups such as organized labor, church groups, business organizations, fraternal organizations, and service clubs. Through interviews in the center, evaluators determined how involved such organizations were in development acti- vities. If community institutions were participating in sponsoring projects and took the leadership on occasion, a high score was given for this factor. 5 . Effectiveness of Community Planning Efforts This factor describes the sophistication of planning efforts being made in the center by city planning agencies and regional development groups, as well as the use to which these planning efforts were put. The scale for this factor ranged from a level where simple zoning regulations were lacking, to a high level where planning activities were well-supported, covered a wide range of subjects, and were influential in guiding local development. 6. Effectiveness of Local Development Organizations This subject refers to the effectiveness of the EDC community organization for economic/industrial A. 17 development, including the PAP committee. A center received the highest score for this factor when a local development corporation or a PAP committee was func- tioning effectively, and had considerable community support for its projects. A center without any such organization received the lowest ranking on this scale. Other elements considered were the existence and ef- fectiveness of professional staff for these organi- zations . 7. Borrowing and Financing Capacity This subject involves the willingness of EDC citizens to finance development projects. A low rating was given for this factor when the EDC ' s tax rates did not require residents to make an equitable contri- bution to local development} when the revenues collected by the center government were inadequate to finance a reasonable level of public services; and when center citizens had shown a consistent unwillingness to sup- port bond issues for community development. The center ranked high in terms of this factor if the community was above average in its willingness to finance local improvements through tax levies, revenues, and bond issues . 8. Cooperation with Neighboring Redevelopment Areas This element describes the level of cooperation between the EDC and neighboring redevelopment areas. The background against which this element was rated was the district organization and how the EDC functioned within it. If the center was a member of the organi- zation in name only, and uninvolved with its activities, a low rating was given for this factor. If the EDC took effective leadership in the organization, parti- cularly with respect to programs for the redevelopment areas, then a high rating was assigned for this factor. 9. Effectiveness in Using State and Federal Development Programs This factor involves the center's use of state and other federal development programs such as com- munity action, manpower training, housing, and the like. Where virtually no state or other federal development programs were operating locally, a low rating was assigned A. 18 for this factor. Where such federal and state program activity existed, it was analyzed to determine how aggressive local leaders were in using available as- sistance and to what extent EDA had served as a catalyst in this process. Evaluators also pursued these questions with the administrators of state and federal programs in the center to determine what kinds of program de- cisions had been made by their agencies as a result of EDA growth center designation and investment. 10 . Concern for Poor and Minority Groups This subject deals with the way those who controlled development programs in the growth center made the pro- grams work for the benefit of poor and minority group members, as opposed to more established groups within the community. Where the EDC ' s leadership was actually opposed to such programs for the poor and minority groups, a low rating was assigned. Where most of the development programs were planned for the benefit of the poor and minority groups, the highest ranking was given. 11. Concern for Redevelopment Area Residents This factor was designed to describe the kinds of programs and services made available to redevelopment area residents in the economic development center. Where most of the development programs and services in the center were clearly made available to such per- sons, the center received a high rating for this factor. IV. DATA COLLECTION The evaluation team collected data through field interviews, telephone conversations, and questionnaires. From three to eight man-weeks were spent in each cen- ter evaluated, where team members interviewed at least 40 and, in some cases, as many as 7 individuals. The large number of interviews held in connection with each center provided reasonable assurance of obtaining an accurate picture of each center and its effect on the district's redevelopment areas. Typical data sources included district staff and board members, elected officials of the growth center, A. 19 and elected officials of district redevelopment areas. These individuals provided insights into the relation- ships between the growth center and nearby redevelopment areas. Other data sources were the initial project ap- plicants, and employers and employees in firms that located as a result of EDA projects. The project applicants, who were often community leaders and in some cases elected officials, provided detailed de- scriptions of projects and their impact on the growth center and district redevelopment areas. Questionnaires were used to obtain information from the employers and employees . These questionnaires elicited data on the job impact of the EDA project, its contribution to the local economy , and the charac- teristics of employees. Community leaders in the growth center and in nearby district counties were interviewed to determine the local development pro- cess in each of the growth centers. In some cases, EDA Economic Development Representatives and Regional Office personnel were interviewed to obtain insights into the commitment of the growth center to assisting the target population, and the effects of the EDA pro- jects. In addition, the evaluators conducted telephone interviews with individuals who had migrated from centers and nearby district redevelopment areas during the past two years. The recent migrants provided in- sights into the factors causing out-migration, and the effect creating additional jobs in centers might have on the exodus . A. 20 APPENDIX B EVALUATION APPROACH: NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF GROWTH CENTERS This appendix presents a detailed description of the methodology used to analyze presently designated economic development centers and redevelopment centers, and to identify potential growth centers for economic development districts. The methodology, which is summarized on page 11 of this document, is divided into two parts: Part One - Description of Data and Geographical Areas; and Part Two - Determination of Potential Growth Centers . B.l PART ONE - DESCRIPTION OF DATA AND GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS I. INTRODUCTION Part One of this appendix describes the basis of the evaluation approach. It contains: the rationale for using county data in the analysis; and descriptions of the geographic areas studied. The development of modified economic development districts is also discussed. II. USE OF COUNTY DATA A. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GROWTH CENTER AND COUNTY Growth centers are designated and funded by EDA under the assumption that government investment in these centers will stimulate their economic growth and thus have a posi- tive impact on neighboring redevelopment areas. The "best" centers are those urban areas that have a strong natural potential for growth. It is assumed that by funding proj- ects in these places, EDA achieves greater returns for its investments. Growing urban centers draw from and contribute to the surrounding area. The immediate surrounding area is the county in which the growth center is located. This is the area that will be most strongly affected by the economic activity of the center. If the influence of the growth cen- ter is not felt in its own county, it is unlikely that the center will affect other counties. In terms of population, economic activity, and industrial structure, a viable growth center dominates most of the county in which it is located. Thus, although the growth centers are politically bounded, their economies encompass the entire county. Therefore, to assess the influence of the growth center, county data should be used. B.2 B. USE OF CITY OR QBE ECONOMIC AREA DATA Other geographical units were considered and rejected. Other possibilities were city or SMSA data, and data on the Office of Business Economics (OBE) Economic Areas. City data were rejected because city political boundaries do not reflect the range of a center's economic activity. Moreover, during the period covered by this study C1950-1970) , many cities annexed adjacent territory, making consistent comparisons extremely diffi- cult. In addition, EDA's designation criteria make use of city data inappropriate. These criteria allow the designation of growth corridors between cities, and city statistics do not in- clude such areas. (In cases where EDA had designated a corridor which encompassed more than one county, aggregated data for the combined counties were used in the analysis.) Data on OBE Economic Areas were not considered appropriate because these areas are too large to reflect the influence of individual growth centers. C. CENTER DESIGNATION Although data on counties were used to identify potential growth centers, only the major city or town within each selected county is recommended for designation. Usually, this place dominates the economic activity of the county, and contains the major portion of the existing infrastructure. Thus, EDA will achieve the greatest economies by investing here, because projects can be designed to take advantage of the existing infrastructure. III. DISTRICTS AND REGIONS A. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS Economic Development Districts (EDD's) were selected as the basic unit of analysis because they are relatively homogeneous and because a major objective was to identify growth centers with- in existing district boundaries. Most districts are multi-county distressed areas where family incomes have remained below the national median, and unemployment has exceeded the national average. Of the 1,094 counties that comprised the 140 districts recognized by EDA as of December 31, 1970, 96 percent had family incomes below the national median and 64 percent had unemployment rates that exceeded the national average.— — ' Table B.l and B.2 contain regional income and employment data. B.3 In addition to having similar income and employment statis- tics, the districts are relatively homogeneous with respect to the socioeconomic variables used by the Bureau of the Census in delineating multi-county State Economic Areas (SEA's), which are defined as: "...groups of counties within a state which have similar economic and social characteristics.! In most cases, an economic development district is comprised of several SEA's. Most districts include less than 10 counties and, therefore, cover a relatively small geographic area. As a result, socioeconomic characteristics tend to be uniform throughout a district, even if district boundaries do not coincide exactly with those of an SEA. However, approximately two-thirds of the 14 EDD's have boundaries which conform to those of the SEA's. B. MODIFIED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS Modified districts were developed by enlarging existing district boundaries to include those peripheral counties with commuting and trade patterns related to those of the district. In cases where such counties were members of other EDD's, no modifications were made. The Economic Areas defined by the Office of Business Economics were used as a first approximation for delineating the modified district boundaries. The 173 Economic Areas are structured to mini- mize commuting across boundaries. — Donald J. Bogue, and Calvin L. Beale, Economic Areas of the United States , (New York, April 1961) , p. XLIV. 2/ For a more detailed discussion, see U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Office of Business Economics, Regional Economics Division, QBE Economic Areas of the United States (Washington, D.C., September 1967). B.4 To develop modified district boundaries, EDD boundaries were extended to include all counties associated with their respective OBE economic areas. Then, the enlarged districts were further modified to exclude counties at the periphery of the OBE economic areas that did not show significant trade relationships with the district. Rand-McNally Trade Areas were used for this step in refining modified district boundaries.!,/ The results of these modifications- were modified districts that corresponded closely to the "closed trade areas" of central place theory. 2/ The established commuting and trade patterns that exist within the modified districts as developed above make them cohesive planning units. Furthermore, if a growth center is identified in a modified district, it will have strong economic ties throughout the district. C. REGIONS 1. Definition of Regions All districts and modified districts were grouped into 13 regions for analysis. Each region was constructed to contain districts that were reasonably homogeneous with respect to geographic characteristics and economic activities. Two steps were taken to delineate regions. £/The 50 Major Trading Areas and their components, Basic Trad- ing Areas, which were used for further modifying district boundaries, were delineated by the staff of Rand McNally. The boundaries of these areas were established on the basis of criteria covering physiographic characteristics, popula- tion, economic activity, newspaper circulation, highway facilities, railroad service, suburban transport, and field sales reports. Additional information is in 1970 Commercial Atlas and Marketing Guide , 101st Ed., Rand McNally and Company, Ossining, New York. 2/ — Basically, a closed trade area is an area surrounding a city or urban place where goods and services are purchased locally. The boundaries of the trade area are "closed" when retail sales and service patterns can no longer be associated with a specific city. B.5 First, modified districts were grouped into larger areas approximating the "economic regions" defined by Bogue and Beale. Each of the economic regions is a combination of smaller geographical units that are comparatively homogeneous in terms of topography, climate, and economic interrelation- ships. Second, each of the modified district groupinqs was altered to conform to the major topographical characteristics (e.g., mountain ranges, plateaus, valleys, and plains) of the area. When feasible, boundary problems between contiguous regions were settled by using the boundaries established by EDA's Title V Regional Commissions or the Appalachian Regional Com- mission. These procedures resulted in the delineation of 13 relatively homogeneous regions. These regions are depicted in Figure B-l. 2. Southwest, Great Lakes, and New England Regions The Southwest, Great Lakes, and New England Regions are not composed of entirely contiguous districts or modified districts. The Southwest Region is divided into two parts, both of which lie within the Rocky Mountain and Intermountain Economic Region as defined by Bogue and Beale. For this study, both sections were treated as a single contiguous geographical unit. The Great Lakes Region also has two geographically separate parts that were combined and treated as a single unit. One of the sections falls within Bogue and Beale 's Northern Woods Economic Subregion, while the other is included in the area they identify as the Upper Great Lakes Economic Region. The New England Region is composed of three parts. The two larger sections are located in Bogue and Beale 's Eastern Great Lakes and Northeastern Upland Economic Region, and in the northern extension of the Appalachian Plateau. The remaining section consists of one modified district, which lies within New England but does not have the same physical characteristics as the other two parts. B.6 B.7 3. Terre Haute / Delmarva, and Rio Grande Regions The Terre Haute and Delmarva Regions each consist of one district. The Terre Haute Region is a modified district composed of an SMSA and a few neighboring counties. The Delmarva Region encompasses the entire Delaware-Maryland- Virginia Peninsula. The economic and physical characteristics of these areas precluded them from being combined with the modified districts of other regions. The Rio Grande Region covers four districts and lies wholly within the Gulf Coast and Atlantic Flatwoods Economic Region and the Rio Grande Plain. 4 . Northwest and Far West Regions The Cascade Mountains and Columbia Plateau were used to delineate the boundary between the Northwest and Far West Regions. The Northwest Region extends from the Scablands to the Snake River Valley, while the Far West Region covers the area between the Puget Trough of Washington and Napa Valley of California. 5. Coastal Plains, Appalachian, and Tennessee-Green Valley Regions The Appalachian Regional Commission Boundary and the physical characteristics of the Appalachian and Piedmont Plateaus were used to demarcate the Coastal Plains and Ap- palachian regional boundaries. The area between the Ap- palachian and Ozark Plateaus was identified as the Tennes- see-Green Valley Region. This area includes the western end of the Ohio Valley, the Kentucky Blue Grass area, and the Wabash Valley. Overall, the economic and geographical characteristics of the area differ considerably from those of the Ozarks and Appalachian Regions on which it borders. 6 . Ozarks and South Central Region The Ozarks Regional Commission boundaries were used in delineating the Ozarks Region, which includes most of the Ozarks Plateau and the northernmost part of the Mississippi Basin. Only the western portion of Bogue and Beale's Central and Eastern Upland Region was included in the Ozarks Region. B.8 The final region identified was the South Central Region, which borders the Ozarks, Tennessee-Green Valley, and Coastal Plains Regions. This area covers most of the Missis- sippi Basin, portions of the Gulf Coast and the westernmost part of the Coastal Plain. Most of the region lies in the irea identified by Bogue and Beale as the South Center and southwest Plains Region. ). INCOME AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF REGIONS Table B.l shows the family income characteristics for 2ach of the regions. All counties in the Coastal Plains, Pennessee-Green Valley, Rio Grande, and Terre Haute Regions lad median family incomes below the national value in 1960. Cn that year, more than 99 percent of the counties in the )zarks, Appalachian, and South Central Regions had median :amily incomes below the national median. Only the Far West Region, vhere 3 percent of all counties had median family incomes below the national median, appeared to differ considerably from the others . Table B.2 shows the unemployment rate characteristics •>£ each of the regions. Again, the regions appear to be miformly distressed. Only the Coastal Plain Region had riore counties below the national unemployment rate than ibove. All other regions had at least 56 percent of their :ounties with unemployment rates exceeding the national rate. B.9 o co UJ o o \- o \- co I— I Q UJ o o LU _l < LU CO O CO •— • en LU H- O < < o En < U H H Q Pi W En g CO H K Q Eh H [2 o H Eh "* 00 rH 00 00 o O o o o 00 00 oo 0\° H KD V£> in CTl CTi rH 0M o> 00 O (T> CM 00 00 r- oo oo •<* ■H o •^f oo o c to CD c CD rH -H U td rH (1) O 1 a) -p 03 -P T3 to a) Pn Tf Q) 3 -H fl (d M -p -p C a) fd x: CD <-\ (d td CO to -p H td to >i tc O u tr> > J CD cd to td }-l to Q) to to G >-i S is cu -P CD CD H CD rH M X3 W fd -P x: x: !S CO c rH! 5-1 rtj U -P g td -p -p ffl O c fO U tt fd 3 £ rH CD a N CD CD 5-1 o td u Pi Eh Eh rt! O to 2 Q a to 2 fe <: Eh O Eh B.10 CM CQ LLi _J PQ < o X) CTi CO LU o o o co •—I Q LU < LU >- o _j Q_ 21 LU CO O •— 1 h- co I— I a: LU H C_> < PC < o Eh 1 W U S > H W O W Oi^fflO Eh D <3 h <; i< Eh !2 K 0\° 0\P O h3 CO Eh < h Eh pi d <; Ph O l-H S Ph U Ph 1 w Eh £ > U Ph O Ph Pi D 3 Eh ffi CO ffi Ph W H Eh Eh > Q H (rf << 5 K Ph 1-1 O CO Eh rfj Ph S3 5 Pi H Ph O H Eh S H PQ 53 >h H S D O r< DOJ2 s u Ph H S3 O O H H Pi O Eh CO S H a s H Ph O CO w Pi H Ph Eh pq S3 £ H D O S U o\° 00 H 00 o\o 00 crP o\° VD o\o rA° o\° o\° <*> 0\° 00 *£> <£> VD •^p IX) in ID in in ■^r C7\ V£> H m in <£> co in a\ CN ■^ ro CM r» rH n CN rH CN r^ m (N 00 o co 00 rH CM ro ro in CM o CO 00 H Pi CD CO (D rH P! r-l tO •H 3 CO TS CD O Pi fO CD fO C! -P 1 CD -P rH O M -H -p fO -P 3 > CD ffi CO >i fO CO rH Ph Pi CD fO £ C M & CO CO 0) Sh (0 5 -p rH W tO Xi CD M CD rH CD rC -P to fO -P S -P U U G H -P CO ^1 CD a u £ rH 3 U fO C fO O Pi tO fd >-l a CD 0) O CD N CD > •H O Ph O hH <: Eh O Eh B.ll PART TWO - DETERMINATION OF POTENTIAL GROWTH CENTERS I. INTRODUCTION The first step in identifying potential growth centers involved using a modified shift-share analysis to isolate those counties in the 13 identified regions that have dis- similar employment structures or dissimilar changes in those structures. Counties selected by this procedure were then analyzed with respect to: employment growth in seven major sectors; employment structure; population change; location with respect to Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas; and commuting distance from redevelopment areas. The largest place in each county passing this final group of tests was identified as a potential growth center. II. MODIFIED SHIFT-SHARE' ANALYSIS A. SCOPE OF ANALYSIS A modified shift-share analysis was used to isolate counties for further study. 1/ The underlying assumption was that most counties in a distressed region have similar em- ployment characteristics and thus offer limited potential for further growth. Counties with dissimilar characteristics are more likely to contain a potential growth center. 1/ This technique was developed by John A. Kuehn and Lloyd D. Bender in "An Empirical Identification of Growth Centers." Land Economics (November 19 70) . Their method is based up- on analysis of employment structure and changes in the pat- tern of employment structure and has the "objective of isolating growth poles within distressed areas." B.12 The modified shift-share analysis consisted of: a shift-share analysis to determine changes in each county's employment structure; and a correlation analysis to identify the counties with the most dissimilar changes. B. SHIFT-SHARE ANALYSIS Use of shift-share analysis to analyze an area's economic potential is based on the assumption that two facts need to be known about its growth. These facts are (1) whether the area has many rapid -growth industries i.e., a favorable industrial mix, and (2) whether it has an increasing share of particular industry sectors . While increases in employment are not the same as economic jrowth, employment data provides a clear and uniform measure of Economic activity. In addition, EDA's growth concept is based on the creation of jobs. As previously indicated, the county was se- lected as the geographic area best suited for an analysis of growth centers. Therefore, the basic data used in this study were figures Dn county employment in the 32 industry sectors for 1940, 1950, and L960.±/ These sectors are identified in Table B.3. This analysis separated county employment growth in each in- dustry into three components. (1) The share (S) is that part of an industry's employment jrowth in a county that can be attributed to t6tal regional employ- nent trends. It represents the increase that would have occurred in a county's employment in a particular industry had it grown at the same rate as the regional average of all industries combined. It is computed by multiplying the county's base year employment in that industry by the regional growth rate for all industries, and is the oase from which the two shift components are measured. (2) The composition shift (M) is that part of a specific indus- try's employment growth in a county that can be attributed to that industry ' s regional growth rate . It represents the number of addi- tional jobs that would have been available in the county had that industry grown regionally at the same rate as the all industry average. It is computed by subtracting the average regional growth rate of all industries from the regional growth rate of the particular industry ander consideration and multiplying this difference by the county's base year employment in the same industry. - 1970 data will be incorporated as soon as they are available B.13 TABLE B.3 INDUSTRY SECTORS (Employment by Place of Residence) NO. INDUSTRY SECTORS 1 Agriculture 2 Forestry and Fisheries 3 Mining 4 Contract Construction 5 Manufacturing: Food and Kindred Products 6 Manufacturing: Textile Mill Products 7 Manufacturing: Apparel and other Textiles 8 Manufacturing: Printing and Publishers 9 Manufacturing: Chemicals and Allied Products 10 Manufacturing: Lumber and Furniture 11 Manufacturing: Machinery, excluding Electrical 12 Manufacturing: Electrical Equipment and Supplies 13 Manufacturing: Transportation Equipment 14 Manufacturing: Paper and Allied Products 15 Manufacturing: Petroleum Refining 16 Manufacturing: Primary Metals Industry 17 Manufacturing: Fabricated Metals and Ordinance 18 Manufacturing: Miscellaneous Manufacturing 19 Transportation 20 Communications 21 Utilities 22 Wholesale Trade 23 Eating and Drinking Places 24 Other Retail Trades 25 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 26 Lodging Places and Personal Services 27 Business and Repair Services 28 Amusement and Recreation Services 29 Private Households 30 Educational, Medical, and Professional Services 31 Public Administration 32 Armed Forces B.14 (3) The competitive shift (_C) is that part of an industry's employment growth in a county that can be attributed to the indus- try growing at a different rate in the county than throughout the region. It represents the number of additional jobs that would have been available had the industry in the county grown at the same rate as it did in the region. It is computed by subtracting the regional growth rate of the industry from the industry's growth rate in the county and multiplying the difference by the county's base year employment in that industry. Total employment growth of an industry in a county is the sum of the three components. The two shift components, M and C, are concerned with that portion of a industry's growth in a county that is above or below the regional average growth rate of all industries. That is, the sum of the shift components is equal to the difference between the actual employment change in the industry in the county and the change that would have occurred had the industry's county employment grown at the regional rate of all industries. The composition shift, M, measures the effect of some indus- tries growing faster on a regional basis than others. The compe- titive shift, C, measures the difference between the growth rate of a given industry in a county and the growth rate of that indus- try regionally. Areas that have locational advantages for particu- lar industries should have net upward competitive shifts. Such internal competitive shifts in industrial composition, which often reflect transition from an agricultural to an industrial economy, indicate growth potential. The three components of the shift-share analysis can be defined mathematically as follows: Share (S) Sij. = K- ID ID JL E° n Composition Shift (M) M , • = E~ . . 13 i D Et in in Et n E° n B.15 Competitive Shift (C) iD = E° ID ID in ttO . E c in Total Employment Change ,t - E° = S. . + M. • + C. . ' ij ij ij iD 13 where : S = M = C = E. .= ID in E n - Share Composition shift Differential or competitive shift Employment in industry i in county j Employment in industry i in the region Employment in all industries in the region Subscript j Subscript i Subscript t Subscript 1,2,...., n where n is number of counties 1,2,...., 32 industry sectors Final time period Initial time period Each of the shift components was summed across the 32 industry sectors to give the total composition shift and the total competitive shift of a county: Total Composition Shift 32 I i=l M ID B.16 Cotal Competitive Shift 32 y i=l 3-D The 32 C-j^'s indicated whether county j's share of industry i was growing raster or slower than the same industry regionally. Each of the 32 M j^ ' s indicated whether county j had some share Df industry i that was growing faster or slower than the average Df all industries regionally. Summation of the two components provided two more observations for each county, making a total Df 66 observations per county. 2. CORRELATION ANALYSIS The 66 observations for a particular county were correlated with the same 66 observations for each of the other counties in the region. The (n-1) correlation coefficients for a particular county were then summed to give an index of the similarity of the county with the rest of the region. The smaller the sum of the correla- tion coefficients, the more dissimilar the county. The counties in each region were then ranked according to the sum of their coefficients . D. HISTOGRAMS OF THE INDICES OF SIMILARITY Histograms of the indices of similarity were constructed for each of the 13 regions. This was done to determine an appropriate cut-off point for separating dissimilar places from all others within their respective regions. The histograms show that the distribution of the index values are highly skewed to the right, as would be expected since similar places have larger index values and are more numerous than dissimilar places. Histograms for the 10 regions are provided in Charts I through X. ±f Cut-off points were established for each region in the follow- ing manner. A cut-off point was selected on the histogram at approximately the point of inflection on the curve. This cut-off point was then tested as follows. - Histograms for three regions have been omitted. An explanation is provided in the section on Statistical Limitations. B.17 1 1 ■ ' ' DC O 1 CO 1 LU ( 21 ID 2: O Z CD 1 *-• X UJ LU I 2! ■2L < n: '- , < 1—* o 2: < —1 1 1 < 3 Q. < CQ 1— 1 CC h- 00 1— I | Q I 1 r so y^unoo JO . laqumftj £ O < D O L n * tf f r M r H c o o CM in o LO LO O o o IT) B.l! o u_ en UJ ~ X § •— ■ 111 '-' H § 5 5 ~ S CH; ION OF ZARKS 1 — > 1 DISTRIBI f c sapunoo 3 Jtsquinjsi < L D < D C * f D C M p C o o CN m o in cn o o o in in CO -P e CD •H O •H IW <-H 0) o o •H +J rd rH CD H o u 14-1 o e B.19 en o cc < o CO CC UJ m UJ! — X -II — i UJ LU- LU UJ O CC' ^ ■ O UJl i— i UJ 1- CO CO UJ cc -zl \— UJ CO I- I— I Q A £ I o in sapunoo jo jtaquiriN o o CO o CN B.20 CC o u_ CO CC LU CQ 27 S => O Z 1— l CD X UJ > LU Q CC •— 1 1 Z CO H LO~~ I cm u_ O ^ < IE < _l I (J O < 1 1- LU 1 CQ .(J 1 1 •— ■ DC CO Q - S ssxq.uno3 J O jaquinjvj O C D O 1 n ^ * T g H O o o CM LO o LO LO cm o o LO o LO LO CO +J C (1) •H O •H <4-l M-l CD o u c o ■H +J fd H CD u u o u o g en B.21 1 1 cc 1 1 o u_ CO I LU Z PQ O :e •— < 3 s CD LU o: X > LU Q cr, 2: 2: »— 1 < < -J X U_ Q_ o O O 1— 1 1— < CO < ID CQ r~ CC I •— < r 1 , T c iapunoo JC > .tsqumjsi c D c D O O I n «; }< r r M r H ( 3 o o CM o LD 04 O O ID o CM B.22 o u_ co q: - UJ eq r) 2: X UJ U_ z: H r> q: H c/) 1— 1 Q 1 1 CD UJ >—• > 01 < o _J < h- UJ X h- V en i! saj^unoo JO jaquinisi c u 3 c 3 C c :> c r 3 H C o o CM IT) O LD LT) O O in in in Cs] -P c QJ -H U -H tU ■z. 2: •—1 1— • t— 1 X CD > LU Q LU SI 1— 1 T= < COI n: U_ LU o O O 1- X 2 CQ — , t-^ cc \- co 1— 1 Q 1 1 I 1 , 1 sepunoo jo -iaqumjsi O O m »; r T O vj r- H C o o in o O O H IT) o LD in CM B.24 CHART VIII UTION OF INDEX NUMBERS FOR SOUTHWEST REGION CQ 1—4 H- C/) 1— 1 Q [ I 1 1 ■F ssTq.uno3 jo jaqutn^ c L n ^ D C => c D < M r H c o o o in en m +J G a) •H u •H m 4-1 QJ o o o u rH c •H +J (d H cu M J-i ID O u M-l o e s to o IT) ID CM B.25 o u_ (/) DC LU PQ X X CD 1— 1 LU LU Q CC h- z cc 1 — 1 LU < Q zc u_ Z u o < CD — Oi CQ .cc. o o CN o LD m CN o o IT) o m IT) CN o LD sapunoo jo jsquinw o o o CN B.26 CHART X DISTRIBUTION OF INDEX NUMBERS FOR FAR WEST REGION r~ S8"pq.unoo jo ;r equina c u c 3 c r o :> c c 3 -J c I- C o o (N LD o o o o LD c 0) •H o •H LW <+4 0) o c o •H -p CD ^ in O o g B.27 The 10 counties immediately to the right of the cut-off point and counties selected through a random sample of all counties to the right of the cut-off point were tested under the county selec- tion criteria explained in detail in Section IV. If any of these counties qualified as a Type I or Type II center, the cut-off point was adjusted to include that county. Then, the procedure was repeated to determine if any of the 10 counties immediately to the right of the new cut-off point or any of the counties picked through a random sample of all counties to the right of the new cut-off point met the criteria for Type I or Type II centers. This procedure was repeated until none of the counties - either those 10 immediately to the right of the cut-off point or those included in the sample of all counties to the right of the cut-off point - satisfied the selection criteria. When that occurred, it was judged that a satisfactory cut-off point had been reached. For the most part, the results of these tests showed that the places to the right of the original cut-off point could not meet the county selection criteria. The exceptions, observed in three regions, are discussed in the following section on Statistical Limitations . It should be emphasized that the shift-share analysis was used only to reduce the number of counties to be examined under the criteria for county selection. The purpose of the analysis was to eliminate those counties that were similar with respect to dis- tressed economic conditions and would not be potential growth centers. The shift-share analysis was not part of the selection procedure . E. LIMITATIONS OF THE STATISTICAL TECHNIQUE It was found that the statistical technique failed to identify dissimilar places when the number of observations (counties) within a region was extremely small. Three regions were affected: Del- marva , New England, and Terre Haute. The criteria for county selection, discussed below, were applied to all counties within the three smallest regions. All other regions had a sufficient number of counties so that the statistical technique did differen- tiate between the similar and dissimilar counties. III. BASIS OF CRITERIA FOR COUNTY SELECTION A. INTRODUCTION Counties selected by the modified shift-share analysis were analyzed in detail with respect to employment and population. Four criteria were employed. These criteria are: B.28 , percent change in employment in seven major sectors; . ratio of manufacturing employment to total employment • . ratio of non-basic employment to total employment; and . percent change in population between 1960 and 197 0. The criteria are discussed in Section IV. This section discusses the background for their selection. B. COUNTIES IDENTIFIED BY SHIFT-SHARE ANALYSIS Counties identified by the modified shift-share analysis ivere : . counties that are more distressed than others within their regions; . counties with extremely specialized economies such as recreation, mining, and retirement; and . counties that reflect potential for further growth concurrent with employment growth impact in surrounding areas . A minimum requirements approach was used to identify counties Df the last type. Z. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS BASE ANALYSIS The minimum requirements approach determines the minimum percentage of a labor force required in various sectors of an area's economy to maintain the viability of the area.i/ Three - For some general contributions to the literature on economic base theory, see Irving Morrissett, "The Economic Structure of American Cities," presented at the Regional Science Associa- tion meeting and published in Papers and Proceedings, 1958 ; Edward L. Ullman and Michael F. Dacey, "The Minimum Require- ments Approach to the Urban Economic Base," PPRSA, Vol. 6, 1960; Charles L. Leven, "The Economic Base and Regional Growth," in Research and Education for Regional and Area Development (Iowa State University Center for Agricultural and Economic Develop- ment, Iowa State University Press: Ames, Iowa, 1967). B.29 modifications were introduced. First, the distinction between basic production (for exportl and non^basic production (for local consumption) for each industrial sector was dropped in preference to aggregating manufacturing employment as the area's basic export sector. Second, employment in the various trade and service in- dustries was aggregated to represent the area's non-basic employ- ment structure. Last, rather than comparing the employment characteristics of areas with each other, the benchmark for com- parison was the average regional distribution of employment by major industrial sectors. ±7 Two employment base measures were developed. The first was the ratio of manufacturing employment to total employment. The relative size of an area's manufacturing base is related to national and regional market forces. The greater the demand for an area's manufactured goods, the larger the relative size of the area's manufacturing base. It was determined that the relative size of an area's manufacturing base was of strategic importance for an area's overall future employment growth. According to Perloff, Manufacturing is one of the largest and most dynamic sectors of total employment. In ex- plaining shifts in total employment, its role is especially important because it is the basic link between resource sectors and consumming sectors of the economy. Because internal and external economies of scale are so often impor- tant, a significant segment of manufacturing activity is characterized by a large intra-in- dustry absorption of inputs and outputs and a locational orientation towards "intermediate" inputs and outputs. r/ 1/ — Fundamentals of export base theory are brought into the analysis by the first and second modifications. The distinction between export industries and tertiary or service industries and activi- ties is straightforward. In theory, economic activities directly related to the export of goods and services are said to create a flow of funds into the exporting area which induces further growth and sets the overall level of activity in the local ser- vice and trade sectors. See Douglass C. North, "Location Theory and Regional Economic Growth," Journal of Political Economy , Vol. 63 (June 1955) pp. 243-58, and Harvey S. Perloff, et al., Regions, Resources and Economic Growth (University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln, 1960), particularly Chapter 4, "Theories of Regional Economic Growth," pp. 55-62. — ' Perloff, p. 462. In addition to Perloff 's view, Ullman and Dacey, op. cit., have empirically determined that manufacturing employ- ment is generally the largest export component of most cities (p. 189) . i B.30 The second employment base measure was a ratio of the sum Df all employment in the trade and service industries to total smployment. This is considered the non-basic component of an area's industrial structure. It must be large enough to service the area's local market and surrounding counties. \lthough most economic base studies assume that the non-basic sector is primarily "adaptive" to changes in the export sector, Lt was assumed that the relative size of both sectors - basic and non-basic - is significant in the development process of distressed areas. i/ Thus, the employment structure of an area Is considered to offer greater potential for future growth and impact on the surrounding area when the percent employed In the basic and non-basic sectors is greater than or equal to that of its region.!./ A listing of the industries in both bhe basic and non-basic sectors appears later in this Appendix. D. EMPLOYMENT AND POPULATION The third part of the methodology follows logically from bhe base analysis of the preceding section. If an areas ' s Bconomic base is at least as viable as that of the represen- L/For a discussion of the roles of the basic and non-basic sectors in the development process, see Charles M. Tiebout, "The Community Economic Base Study," Supplementary Paper No. 16 , Committee for Economic Development. For a discus- sion of policy implications and the role of the non-basic sector in the development process, see Charles M. Tiebout and Theodore Lane, "The Local Service Sector in Relation to Economic Growth," in Research and Education for Regional and Area Development, cited above. V See Perloff, et al ; Victor R. Fuchs , Changes in Location of Manu - facturing in the United States since 1929 (New Haven, Connecticut Yale University Press, 1962) ; George H. Borts and Jerome L. Stein, Economic Growth in a Free Market (New York, New York: Columbia University Press, 1964); and Edgar S. Dunn, Jr., "A Statistical and Analytical Technique for Regional Anal- ysis," Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science As- sociation , Vol. VI, 1960. For criticisms, see David B. Houston, "The Shift and Share Analysis of Regional Growth: A Critique," The Southern Economic Journal , April 1967, pp. 577-81, and rejoinder by Lowell D. Ashby, "The Shift and Share Analysis: A Reply," The Southern Economic Journal , January 1968, pp. 423-25. B.31 tative base for the region, overall employment and popula- tion growth should be increasing. Two variables were developed to measure the aggregative growth process. \f The first mea- sures the percent change in employment during the decade pre- ceding the computation of the basic and non-basic components of an area's employment structure. 2/ Since comparable employment data was not available for the 19 6 0-70 decade, the second variable - the percent change in an area's population - was used as a proxy for estimating continued employment growth. 3/ Together, both variables describe a 20-year growth path for each of the areas included in this study. —The measurement of economic growth is discussed in some de- tail in Urban and Rural America, Policies for Future Growth, Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Washington, D. C. , (A-32) , pp. 30-53, April 1968. See also Harvey S. Perloff, "Problems of Assessing Regional Economic Progress," Regional Income, National Bureau of Economic Research, Studies in Income and Wealth , Vol. 21 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957) pp. 35-62. —'The employment variable discussed above excludes employment in the military sector as well as employment in major industrial sectors which are declining nationally. 3/ — ' The use of population growth as a proxy for employment growth received support from an experiment performed con- currently with this study. Basically, the percent change in employment for 1,435 counties for the period 1950 to 1960 was correlated with population change for the same period. The resulting correlation coefficient was 0.98 When the counties were divided into two groups - growing counties and non-growing counties as measured by overall population changes - the correlation coefficient for the growing counties (population and employment both increas- ing) was 0.98. For non-growing counties, the correlation coefficient was 0.93. These results were sufficiently significant to warrant using population change as a proxy variable for employment growth. B.32 IV. APPLICATION OF CRITERIA FOR COUNTY SELECTION A. INTRODUCTION Three classification categories - Type I, Type II, and Type III counties - were developed by this analysis. The four variables discussed in the previous section were used to deter- mine a county's classification. Table B.4 on the following page presents the ..regional averages which were used as the mi- nimum requirements for each variable. B. EMPLOYMENT GROWTH IN KEY SECTORS The first variable used in the analysis was the percent change in employment in the following seven major employment sectors : (1) contract construction; (2) manufacturing; (3) trade; (4) finance, insurance and real estate; (5) communications and utilities; (6) services; and (7) public administration. These seven employment sectors have nationally experienced growth during the past two decades. Employment in the pri- mary, mining, and railway transportation services sectors has declined during the same period. Employment growth can- not occur unless the other sectors are able to absorb the employment decreases in the latter three declining sectors. Military employment is also omitted from this decision variable, although it is not a declining sector. The presence of a military base often stimulates the local service sector, particularily entertainment. If a county has been able to grow by supporting the military, this fact will be reflected in the service sector. As stated in the previous section, the county's employment growth, as defined above, must have exceeded the corresponding regional employment growth rate. B.33 TABLE B.4 REGIONAL NORMS FOR DECISION CRITERIA RATIO OF NON- RATIO OF CHANGE EMPLOYMENT BASIC EMPL. MFG. EMPL. IN COUNTY CHANGE TO TOTAL TO TOTAL POPULATION REGION 1950-60 EMPL. 1960 EMPL. 1960 1960-70 New England 12.8% .53 .32 9.7% Delmarva 22.3% .43 .30 7.7% Terre Haute 11.9% .50 .25 0.9% Appalachia 18.8% .45 .30 3.7% Ozarks 21.7% .55 .17 8.9% Tennessee-Green Valley 22.4% .49 .18 6.1% Great Lakes 22.1% .50 .26 12.2% Coastal Plains 30.9% .46 .20 12.0% South Central 30.4% .53 .19 11.7% Northwest 24.0% .55 .13 4.3% Southwest 47.0% .59 .13 25.3% Rio Grande 31.0% .57 .09 9.4% Far West 32.7% .56 .23 17.9% B.34 C. MANUFACTURING AND NON-BASIC EMPLOYMENT The second decision criterion used two variables. The first was the ratio of manufacturing employment to total employment. The second was the ratio of non-basic employment to total employment. Non-basic employment is defined as the sum of employment in: (1) contract construction; (2) trade; (3) finance, insurance and real estate; (4) communications and utilities; (5) services; and (6) public administration. The logic behind the use of these ratios was discussed in Section III. In each case, the ratio for the growth center county had to be equal to or greater than that of the corresponding region Counties could meet this decision criterion only by having both manufacturing and non-basic employment ratios greater than or equal to the regional average. This insured that counties selected as Type I growth centers had a sufficient manufacturing and service base to support dontinued economic expansion. D. POPULATION GROWTH The third decision variable was the percent change in population between 1960 and 1970. To be selected as a Type I growth center, the county's population increase had to exceed that for the entire region. E. SUMMARY OF DECISION CRITERIA The relationship between the decision criteria and the Type I, Type II, and Type III ratings is summarized in the chart below. In the chart, a "+" indicates that the criterion must be met; "-" indicates it need not be met. To contain a Type I growth center, it was necessary for the county to meet both the 19 60 base requirements and B.35 LU < I- < o o I — I to o LU Q en LU I- LU o o a: CD a H y ° r-H tf eu w CU Eh a Q W a 2 <3 ^ O O hh S CM H £ « cq O o >— ' I - 1 VD + + 1 + 1 + 1 1 ^ U Eh c U H ^ ^ <: w rt h <; D PQ 1 a s o a !S H O WEh ^d o a <^ a w Xj 3s M m >h | + 1 + + 1 1 + 1 u o r ^ O Eh Ph m a s cri W W h u tf w Cm a o l—l H H H EH H H H H H H f=C X H H H H H H H H a Eh o ijm a CD a) CD CD 0) CD CD CU HOD a a, Ch Dj a D. Ch a CO O >i >i >1 >1 >1 >i >l >i Eh Eh Eh Eh Eh Eh Eh Eh Q B.36 the requirement for population increase for 1960-1970. A county could still be characterized as a Type I growth center if the 1950-1960 employment growth rate was below the regional average. The 1950-1960 period was viewed as a readjustment or transition period during which a viable economic base might be established to support growth during the follow decade. To contain a Type II growth center, a county had to meet one of three conditions: Satisfy both the percent change in employment criterion and the percent change in population criterion . If the county had also passed the manufacturing and non-basic employment test, it would have been a Type I candidate. If it did not pass the manufacturing and non-basic employ- ment test, it was felt that a population change exceeding the regional rate indicated potential for growth. Thus, the county was designated as a Type II candidate. Satisfy both the percent change in employment criterion and the manufacturing and non-basic employment criterion . In this case, growth for the period 1960 to 1970 was not demonstrated, although the county's employment structure ap- peared to have potential. Therefore, the designa- tion is Type II. Satisfy the percent change in population criterion only . In this case, the county demonstrated popula- tion growth in the period 1960 to 1970, in spite of the fact that employment growth did not previously occur. Areas that did not meet the conditions outlined for selection as Type I or Type II growth centers were classified as Type III. F. THE INFLUENCE OF SMSA ' s The location of the counties selected by the above pro- cedure with respect to Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA's) was considered. When selected counties were B.37 contiguous to SMSA's, the central city^/ of the SMSA was designated as the growth center, unless the RA county or counties were contiguous to the selected county and not contiguous to the SMSA. This was done because of the dominance of the SMSA in the area's labor market. In most cases, counties contiguous to SMSA's are primar- ily bedroom communities and therefore provide less returns for EDA investment than the SMSA. However, when the RA county or counties were contiguous only to the selected county and not to the SMSA, the selected county was chosen as possibly containing a growth center. In this case, near- ness to the RA county or counties was considered more important than the dominance of the SMSA. G. COMMUTING DISTANCE FROM RA COUNTIES EDA's legislation states that a growth center must be "geographically and economically so related to the district that its economic growth may reasonably be expected to con- tribute significantly to the alleviation of distress in the redevelopment areas of the district. " On the basis of this requirement, a county was classified as Type III unless: it bordered on at least one redevelopment area; and the county line of one or more of the continguous redevelopment areas was no more than 30 minutes commuting time from the largest place within the selected county. Commuting surveys have shown that 95 percent of all workers commute less than one hour to their place of work from their place of residence. The 30-minute time re- striction to the county line insures that the majority of persons in the contiguous RA county or counties are within one-hour commuting distance of the center. V. DESIGNATION OF GROWTH CENTERS The largest place within each selected county was designated as the growth center. 1/ If under 250,000 population. B.38 PART THREE - SUMMARY The first step in the National Assessment consisted of modifying designated districts to include counties that were linked to the districts by trade and commuting patterns. The boundaries of OBE Economic Areas and Rand-McNally Trade Areas formed the basis for this effort. When the modification pro- cedure had been applied to all designated districts, the modified districts were grouped into 13 relatively homogeneous regions. The regions were delineated on the basis of Bogue and Beale's "economic regions, "1/ major topographical charac- teristics, and Regional Commission boundaries. Following the delineation of regions, a modified shift- share analysis was employed to isolate those counties in each region with dissimilar employment structures or dissimilar changes in those structures. The types of counties identified through this analysis were: counties that were more depressed than others within their regions; counties with extremely specialized economies, such as recreation, mining, retirement; and counties that appeared to reflect potential for significant further growth and employment growth impact on surrounding areas . Five criteria were applied to differentiate between counties in the last group: employment growth in key sectors between 19 50 and 1960; ratio of non-basic employment to total employment in 1960 and ratio of manufacturing employment to total employment in the same year; population growth between 1960 and 1970; location with respect to Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas; and proximity to EDA-designated redevelopment areas On the basis of these criteria, counties were categorized as Type I, Type II, or Type III centers. 1/ Bogue and Beale, p. XLIV. B.39 Type I centers exhibit a high growth potential and their growth can be expected to improve conditions in nearby re- development areas. To be identified as a Type I center: a county's manufacturing and non-basic employment ratios had to equal the same ratios for the region; a county's percent change in population had to exceed that for the entire region; and a county had to be contiguous to a redevelopment area that did not border on an SMSA and be within 3 minutes commuting time from the largest community in that RA. Type II centers are less likely to grow and affect surrounding distressed areas than are Type I centers, but the possibility that they will do so could not be rejected on the basis of the data examined. Counties classified as Type II centers were contiguous to a redevelopment area that did not border on an SMSA and were within 30 minutes commuting time from the largest community in that RA. In addition, a Type II center had to satisfy one of two conditions: its percent change in population had to exceed that for the region; or its employment growth rate had to exceed that for the region and its manufacturing and non-basic employment ratios had to at least equal the corresponding regional values . Counties that did not meet the above criteria were judged to offer little potential for growth, or impact on redevelopment areas. These were classified as Type III centers B.40 APPENDIX C DETAILED FINDINGS OF NATIONAL ASSESSMENT This appendix presents the detailed findings of the Na- tional Assessment by region and county. It also explains the criteria used to identify Type I, Type II, and Type III Centers. The following data are given in Tables C.l through C.13 for. each county: percent change in employment in seven major sectors between 1950 and 1960; ratio of non-basic employment to total employ- ment in 1960; ratio of manufacturing employment to total employ- ment in 19 60; and percent change in population between 1960 and 1970. In addition, the population of the city or town designated as the growth center is provided. The underlined figures in the tables were the deciding factors in determining a county's ranking (Type I, Type II, or Type III) . Distance from redevelopment areas was also considered in determining a county's ranking. Table C.14 provides data on the criteria used to deter- mine a center's ranking. C.l TABLE C, 1 NEW ENGLAND REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 TYPE I None TYPE II Fall River (Bristol) , Mass. 96,898 4.6% .44 .51 11.5% Taunton (Bristol) , Mass. 43,756 4.6% .44 .51 11.5% Rome-Utica (Oneida) , N.Y. 141,759 16.7% .60 .32 2.9% TYPE III Amsterdam (Montgo- mery) , N.Y. 25,524 -14.2% .45 .45 -2.4% Bangor- Brewer (Penob- scot) , Me. 42,468 26.4% .54 .28 -0.8% Newport (Orleans) , Vt. 4,664 16.2% .46 .22 0.0% St. Johns- bury-Lyndon (Cale- donia) , Vt. 12,144 2.3% i .54 .25 0.0% C.2 TABLE C, 1 (CONT.) NEW ENGLAND REGION REDEVELOPMENT CENTERS CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL 'EMPL. 19 60 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 TFPE I None TYPE II Glens Falls (Warren) , N.Y. 17,223 14.0% .66 .30 12.3% New Bedford (Bristol) , Mass. 101,771 4.6% .44 .51 11.5% TYPE III Berlin (Coos) , N.H. 15,256 9.8% .47 .46 -7.7% Masenna (St. Law- rence) , N.Y. 14,042 17.0% .59 .22 0.7% Ogdens- burg (St. Lawrence) , N.Y. 14,552 17.0% .59 .22 0.7% Plattsburg (Clinton) , N.Y. 18,715 30.6% .52 .15 0.3% St. Albans (Franklin) , Vt. 3,270 3.6% .45 .20 6,1% Watertown (Jefferson) , N.Y. 30,787 9.4% .59 .24 0.8% C.3 TABLE C. 1 (CONT.) NEW ENGLAND REGION ADDITIONAL GROWTH CENTERS CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 TYPE I None TYPE II Burlington (Chittendon) , Vt. 38,633 19.6% .68 .20 33.2% OVER 250,000 Boston, Mass. 628,215 20.9% .60 .33 5.2% C.4 TABLE C. 2 DELMARVA REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 19 60 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 TYPE I None TYPE II Dover (Kent) , Del. 17,488 49.0% .46 .17 24.7% Salisbury (Wicomico) , Md. 15,252 31.4% .58 .28 10.6% TYPE III None 1 i .„. TABLE C, 3 TERRE HAUTE REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS RATIO OP NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 RATIO OP MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 TYPE I Terre Haute (Vigo) , Ind, TYPE II None TYPE III None 70,286 4.0% 61 27 5.6% C.5 TABLE C. 4 APPALACHIAN REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 TYPE I Bristol- Kingsport (Sullivan) , Tenn. 52,002 27.3% .50 .40 11.6% Gainesville (Hall) , Ga. 15,459 38.6% .50 .38 19.4% Knoxville (Knox) , Tenn. 174,587 20.7% .65 .32 10. 3% Marietta (Washing- ton) , Ohio 16,861 36.6% .58 .30 10.6% Martinsburg- Charlestown (Berkeley, Jefferson) , W. Va. 17,649 13.4% .50 .32 9.9% McMinnville (Warren) , Tenn. 10,662 33.1% .45 .32 16.8% Morris town (Hamblen) , Tenn. 20,318 68.6% .47 .41 16.9% Toccoa (Stephans) , Ga. 6,971 25.4% .48 .46 10.5% C.6 TABLE C. 4 (CONT.) APPALACHIAN REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS (CONT.) CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- : TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 19 50-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 19 60 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 TYPE II Athens (Athens) , Ohio 23,310 46.2% .72 .16 16.8% Campbells- ville (Taylor) , Ky. 7,59 8 -12.4% .53 .13 5.2% Cookeville (Putnam) , Tenn. 14,270 40.3% .55 .28 21.4% Crossville (Cumber- land) , Tenn. 5,381 36.1% .49 .23 8.4% Johnson City (Washing- ton) , Tenn. 33,770 17.6% .59 .26 14.0% TYPE III Ashland (Boyd) , Ky. 29,245 14.7% .55 .36 0.4% Alcoa- Maryville (Blount) , Tenn. 63,744 18.4% .53 .37 10.8% Chilli- cothe (Ross) , Ohio 24,842 19.5% .54 .31 0.0% C.7 TABLE C.4 (CONT.) APPALACHIAN REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS (CONT.) CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 Huntingdon (Hunting- don) , Pa. 6,871 14.1% .51 .31 -0.9% Johnstown (Cambria) , Pa. 42,065 10.9% .48 .37 -8.1% Martin' s Ferry-Bell- aire (Belmont) , Ohio 80,917 6.4% .52 .29 -3.5% Magisteri- al Dis- tricts of Powell & Taylor (Scott) , Va. 5,492 19.8% .39 .26 -5.6% Oak Ridge (Anderson , Roane) , Tenn. 28,319 8.5% .48 .45 0.0% Portsmouth (Scioto) , Ohio 27,633 4.1% .52 .37 -8.6% Somerset (Pulaski) , Ky. 10,436 17.7% .47 .17 2.4% REDEVELOPMENT CENTERS TYPE I None C.8 TABLE C.4 (CONT.) APPALACHIAN REGION REDEVELOPMENT CENTERS (CONT.) CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 TYPE II Somerset (Somerset) , Pa. 6,163 34.1% .54 .24 -1.8% TYPE III Hazard (Perry) , Ky. 5,459 11.8% .56 .05 -26.4% Pikesville (Pike), Ky. 4,576 13.4% .49 .06 -10.6% Prestonburg- Paintsville (Floyd- Johnson) , Ky. 7,290 10.5% .48 .03 -12.9% Bedford (Bedford) , Pa. 3,160 25.3% .52 .21 -0.2% Lebanon (Russell) , Va. 2,272 68.4% .37 .07 -6.7% Richlands (Tazewell) , Va. 4,843 29.5% .51 .12 -11.1% Beckley (Raleigh) , W.Va. 19,884 11.8% .59 .10 -10.0% Bluefield- Princeton (Mercer) , W.Va. 23,174 3.8-6 .64 .13 -7.3% C.9 TABLE C.4 (CONT.) APPALACHIAN REGION REDEVELOPMENT CENTERS (CONT.) CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 19 60 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 19 6 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 Keyser (Mineral) , W.Va. 6,586 15.5% .40 .30 3.4% Mooref ield (Hardy) , W.Va. 2,124 22.1% .44 .23 4.9% Williamson (Mingo) , W.Va. 5,831 -5.1% .51 .06 -17.5% ADDITIONAL GROWTH CENTERS TYPE I Chattanooga (Hamilton) , Tenn. 119,082 13.1% .61 .33 6.9% OVER 2 50,000 Cincinnati Ohio 452,524 15.1% .59 .36 19.0% C .10 TABLE C. 5 OZARKS REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 19 60 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 EYPE I Conway (Faulkner) , Ark. 15,510 49.9% .60 .21 29.9% Fayetteville- Springdale (Wash. ) , Ark. 47,512 46.3% .62 .19 38.7% Fort Smith- Van Buren (Sebastian) , Ark. 71,175 15.1% .67 .25 18.8% Harrison (Boone) , Ark. 7,239 3 3.o-s .60 .22 18.3% Little Rock- N. Little Rock (Pulaski) , Ark. 192,523 23.9% .70 .17 18.2% Russellville- Dardanelle (Pope, Yell) , Ark. 15,047 34.0% .57 .26 29.3% Springfield (Greene) Mo. 120,096 35.0% .66 .22 21.1% TYPE II Hot Springs (Garland) Ark. 35,631 -3.5% .78 .15 15.9% Mena (Polk) Ark. 1, .■■,-■-—■ - 4,530 1 18.0% .47 .38 11.0% C .11 TABLE C, 5 (CONT.) OZARKS REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS (CONT.) CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 196 1 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 19 6 C CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION ) 1960-70 TYPE II Mountain Home (Baxter) , Ark. 3,936 -16.1% .67 .10 54.1% Claremore (Rogers) , Okla. 9,084 40.0% .62 .15 37.9% Ducan (Stephans) , Okla. 19,718 48.6% .56 .21 -5.5% Sapulpa- Bristow (Creek) , Okla. 19,812 15.2% .57 .22 12.4% Stillwater (Payne) , Okla. 31,126 3.3% .75 .09 14.5% TYPE III El Dorado (Union) , Ark. 25,283 6.5% .59 .27 -8.3% Newport (Jackson) , Ark. 7,725 14.7% .51 .13 -10.5% Texarkana ^Miller) , Ark. 21,682 9.3% .69 .16 5.4% Poplar Bluff (Butler) , Mo. 16,653 19.8% .63 .13 -3.3% C.12 TABLE C, 5 (CONT.) OZARKS REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS (CONT. CENTER STATUS CI+Y POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 196 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 196 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 TYPE III West Plains (Howell) , Mo. 6,893 38.8% .53 .25 6.8% Ada (Pontotoc) , Okla. 14,859 11.2% .70 .14 -0.8% Ardmore (Carter) , Okla. 20,881 18.7% .67 .08 -4.3% Chickasha (Grady) , Okla. 14,194 15.1% .63 .11 -0.8% Durant (Bryan) , Okla. 11,118 18.7% .65 .10 5.4% Shawnee (Pottawa- tomie) , Okla. 25,075 15.0% .71 .13 4.0% Vinita (Craig) , Okla. 5,847 22.1% .66 .10 -9.7% REDEVELOPMENT CENTERS TYPE I None C.13 TABLE C, 5 (CONT.) OZARKS REGION REDEVELOPMENT CENTERS (CONT.) CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 196 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 TYPE II Bates- ville (Indepen- dence) , Ark. 7,209 10.5% .53 .20 13.3% Searcy (White) , Ark. 9,040 43.7% .56 .20 -4.8% McAlester (Pittsburgh) , Okla. 18,802 -1.8% .68 .13 9.2% TYPE III Brinkley (Monroe) , Ark. 5,275 13.0% .47 .14 -9.6% Hope (Hempstead) , Ark. 8, 810 -4.0% .52 .22 -1.8% Malvern (Hot Spring) , Ark. 8,739 8.8% .50 .37 0.3% Muskogee (Muskogee) , Okla. 37,331 5.0% .71 .15 -3.8% C.14 TABLE C. 5 (CONT.) OZARKS REGION ADDITIONAL GROWTH CENTERS CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 19 6 RATIO OF MFG . EMPL . TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 TYPE I None TYPE II Joplin (Jasper, Newton) , Mo. 39,256 43.5% .52 .28 9.3% Lawton (Comanche) , Okla. 74,470 51.0% .41 .03 19.1% OVER 250,000 Oklahoma City (Oklahoma) , Okla. 366,481 34.4% .78 .13 19.9% Tulsa (Tulsa) , Okla. 331,638 36.0% .65 .22 16.1% C.15 TABLE C.6 TENNESSEE - GREEN VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 TYPE I Jonesboro (Craighead) , Ark. 27,050 34.9% .53 .20 10.1% Bowling Green (Warren) , Ky. 36,253 31.2% .60 .18 26.2% TYPE II Carbondale (Jackson) , 111. 22,582 43.5% .72 .12 30.5% Elizabeth- town-Rad- clif f -Vine- grove (Hardin) , Ky. 22,616 52.8% .21 .03 15.7% TYPE III Glasgow (Barren) , Ky. 11,301 29.8% .50 .13 1.3% Hopkins- ville (Chris- tian) , Ky. 21,250 30.6% .36 .08 -1.2% Madison- ville (Hopkins) , Ky. 15,332 31.8% .53 .09 -0.8% C.16 TABLE C. 6 (CONT.) TENNESSEE - GREEN VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS (CONT.) CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 19 6 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 Dexter-B loom- field (Stoddard) , Mo. 7,608 21.2% .42 .20 -12.6% Sikeston (Scott) , Mo. 14,699 6.7% .52 .24 1.5% REDEVELOPMENT CENTERS TYPE I None TYPE II None TYPE III Forrest City (St. Francis) , Ark. 12,521 26.0% .48 .11 -7.5% Harrisburg (Saline) , 111. 9,461 -6.4% .62 .11 -1.9% Batesville (Panola) , Miss. 3,796 39.4% .42 .12 -6.8% Clarksdale (Coahoma) , Miss. 21,673 12.9% .50 .10 -12.5% C.17 TABLE C. 6 (CONT.) TENNESSEE - GREEN VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT CENTERS (CONT.) CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 New Madrid (New Madrid) , Mo. 2,719 -0.3% .41 .09 -25.3% ADDITIONAL GROWTH CENTERS TYPE I Murray (Calloway) , Ky. 13,537 40.5% .61 .19 32.0% Lexington (Fayette) , Ky. 108,137 23.4% .51 .28 32.2% Owensboro (Daviess) , Ky. 50,329 35.3% .54 .31 12.6% Corinth (Alcorn) , Miss. 11,581 23.5% .51 .27 7.5% Jackson (Madison) , Tenn. 39,996 11.3% .61 .19 8.4% Union City (Obion) , Tenn. 11,925 23.8% .53 .22 11.1% Cape Girardeau (Cape Girardeau) , Mo. 1 31,282 i 17.2% J .59 .24 17.4% C.18 TABLE C. 6 (CONT.) TENNESSEE - GREEN VALLEY ADDITIONAL GROWTH CENTERS (CONT.) ■ ■■■ ' "— CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 TYPE II Paducah (McCracken) , Ky. 31,627 23.4% .62 .24 1.7% Clarksville (Montgo- mery) , Tenn. 31,719 32.2% .42 .12 12.7% OVER 250,000 Louisville , Ky. 361,472 16.2% .60 .32 13.8% Memphis, Tenn. 623,530 21.6% .67 .24 15.2% Nashville , Tenn. 447,877 24.2% .70 .23 12.0% C.19 TABLE C, 7 GREAT LAKES PEG I ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 TYPE I Bay City- Midland- Saginaw (Bay, Mid- land, Saginaw) , Mich. 174,369 27.5% .50 .43 14.8% TYPE II Tawas City- East Tawas (Iosco) , Mich. 3,950 43.9% .54 .14 50.9% TYPE III Ontonagon- White Pine (Ontonagon) , Mich. 2,402 -2.7% .43 .15 -0.3% Duluth (St. Louis) , 100,578 -0.9% .59 .13 -4.7% Minn . REDEVELOPMENT CENTERS TYPE I None TYPE II Alpena (Alpena) , Mich. .. — . — . 13,661 54.8% .52 .39 7.5% — i C.20 TABLE C, 7 CCONT.) GREAT LAKES REGION REDEVELOPMENT CENTERS (CONT.) CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RAT TO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 Marquette- Negaunee- Ispeming (Marquette) , Mich. 34,854 10.4% .53 .13 15.2% Traverse City (Grand Traverse) , Mich. 17,687 25.4 .70 .19 17.0% TYPE III Escanaba- Gladstone (Delta) , Mich. 20,413 18.9% .54 .28 4.7% Houghton (Houghton) , Mich. 6,052 -3.1% .63 .12 -2.8% Iron Mount- ain-Kings- ford-Norway (Dickinson) , Mich. 16,862 5.1% .62 .28 -0.7% Iron River (Iron) , Mich. 2,667 4.9% .53 .06 -19.6% Ironwood- Bessemer Wakefield (Gogebic) , Mich. 13,814 -11.0% .52 .15 -15.2% Newberry (Luce) , Mich. 2,330 12.0% .85 .12 -13.3% C.21 TABLE C. 7 CCONT.) GflEA.T LAKES REGION REDEVELOPMENT CENTERS (CONT . ) CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 St. Ignace (Mackinac) , Mich. 2,889 25.2% .72 .08 -11.0% Sault-Ste. Marie (Chippewa) , Mich. 14,812 -3.9% .59 .09 -0.7% ADDITIONAL GROWTH CENTERS TYPE I Grand Rapids (Kent) , Mich. 195,892 18.9% .56 .37 13.2% Grayling (Crawford) , Mich. 2,092 54.2% .69 .26 30.4% TYPE II St. Cloud (Stearns) , Minn. 36,691 31.6% .55 .18 18.7% Mt. Pleasant (Isabella) , Mich. 19,961 79.1% .64 .19 26.2% 3VER 250,000 744,380 21.9% .68 .26 21.8% Minneapolis- St. Paul, Minn. 4 C.22 TABLE C, 8 COASTAL PLAINS REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 RATIO OF NON- EMPLOYMENT BASIC EMPL. CHANGE TO TOTAL 1950-60 EMPL. 1960 RATIO OF MFG . EMPL . TO TOTAL EMPL. 19 6 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 TYPE I Dothan (Dale, Houston) , Ala. 36,733 40.5% .60 .20 33.9% Athens (Clarke) , Ga. 44,342 29.6% .70 .22 43.7% Brunswick (Glynn) , Ga. 19,585 44.9% .59 .25 20.4% Carrollton (Carroll) , Ga. 13,520 29.3% .47 .41 24.6% Wilmington (New Han- over, Brunswick) , N. C. 46,169 48.5% .50 .22 16.5% Aiken-N. Augusta, (Aiken) , S. C. 26,319 74.1% .48 .40 12.3% Greenwood (Greenwood) , S. C. 21,069 7.1% .48 .46 12.0% TYPE II Panama City (Bay) , Fla. 32,096 49. 3% .59 .11 12.1% C.23 TABLE C. 8 (CONT.) COASTAL PLAINS REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS (CONT, I CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 RATIO OF NON- EMPLOYMENT BASIC EMPL. CHANGE TO TOTAL 1950-60 EMPL. 1960 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION iqfin-7n TYPE II Albany (Dougherty) , Ga. 72,623 53.9% .62 .13 18.4% Augusta (Richmond) , Ga. 59,864 8.7% .54 .17 19.8% Dublin- East Dublin, (Laurens) , Ga. 17,129 41.5% .57 .23 1.3% Hinesville (Liberty) , Ga. 4,115 3 8.6% .38 .13 21.3% Milledge- ville , (Baldwin) , Ga. 11,601 34.7% .74 .20 0.5% Tifton (Tift) , Ga. 12,179 24.8% .58 .16 16.2% Valdosta (Lowndes) , Ga. 32,303 47.0% .55 .20 11.9% Waycross (Ware) , Ga. 18,996 30.9% .55 .20 -2.0% Fayette- ville (Cumber- land) , N. C. 53,510 41.1% .38 .07 42.9% C.24 TABLE C.8 (CONT.) COASTAL PLAINS REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS (CONT. CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 196 RATIO OF MFG . EMPL . TO TOTAL EMPL. 196 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 TYPE II Kinston (Lenoir) , N. C. 22,309 41.9% .58 .20 -0.1% Florence- Darlington (Florence- Darlington) , S. C. 32,987 35.4% .54 .20 4.1% TYPE III Montgomery (Montgo- mery) , Ala. 133,386 18.6% .70 .12 0.0% Marianna (Jackson) , Fla. 6,741 47.5% .65 .11 -4.9% Americus (Sumter) , Ga. 16,091 19.9% .57 .21 9.2% Bainbridge (Decatur) , Ga. 10,887 25.4% .49 .17 -11.5% La Grange (Troup) , Ga. 23,301 -7.8% .47 .47 -5.8% Columbus (Muscogee) , Ga. 154,168 13.8% .50 .18 5.5% Swainsboro (Emanuel) , Ga. 7,325 46.8% [ .44 .24 2.1% C.25 TABLE C.8 (CONT.) COASTAL PLAINS REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS (CONT.) CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 196 RATIO OF MFG . EMPL . TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 TYPE III Goldsboro (Wayne) , N. C. 26,810 31.4% .51 .12 4.1% Newbern (Craven) , N. C. 14,660 24.4% .44 .12 6.4% Washington (Beaufort) , N. C. 8,961 10.2% .53 .16 -0.1% Williams ton (Martin) , N. C. 6,570 27.5% .45 .14 -8.9% REE EVELOPMENT CENTERS TYPE III Greenville (Butler) , Ala. 8,033 7.3% .49 .30 -10.4% Troy (Pike) , Ala. 11,482 23.2% .58 .13 -3.7% Greenville (Pitt) , N. C. 29,063 6.2% .47 .17 5.7% Orangeburg (Orange- burg) , S. C. 13,252 47.5% .52 .20 1.8% C.26 TABLE C.8 (CONT.) COASTAL PLAINS REGION ADDITIONAL GROWTH CENTERS CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. I960 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 19 6 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 TYPE I Charleston (Charles- ton, Berkeley) , S. C. 66,945 56.4% .46 .30 19.4% TYPE II Gaines- ville (Alachua) , Fla. 64,510 58.9% .80 .09 41.4% Columbia (Richland) , S. C. 133,542 22.3% .61 .09 16.9% Jackson- ville (Onslow) , N. C. 16,021 90.6% .24 .01 19.6% Tallahas- see (Leon) , Fla. 71,897 57.4% .86 .07 38.8% Pensacola (Escambia) , Fla. 59,507 70.2% .64 .18 18.1% OVER 250,000 Atlanta, Ga. 496,973 37.9% .68 .20 36.6% 1 C.27 TABLE C9 SOUTH CENTRAL REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 ] EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON-1 BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPT,. 1960 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 TYPE I Baton Rouge (E. Baton Rouge) , La. 165,963 43.2% .75 .21 24.0% Nacog- doches- Luf kin- Diboll (Nacog- doches , Ange- lena) , Tex. 69,147 13.1% .59 .21 26.3% TYPE II Pine Bluff- Sheridan (Jefferson) , Ark. 59,869 36.5% .59 .22 4.9% Jackson (Hinds) , Miss . 153,968 36.3% .76 .15 14.9% Pascagoula (Jackson) , Miss . 27,264 112.8% .50 .41 58.5% Bryan- College Station (Brazos) , Tex. 49,672 34.5% .79 .08 29.1% C.28 TABLE C, 9 (CONT.) SOUTH CENTRAL REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS (CONT.) CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 196 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 196 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 TYPE II Killeen- Temple (Bell) , Tex. 32,645 36.2% .44 .07 32.3% Lafayette- New Iberia (Lafayette) , La. 99,055 69.8% .70 .08 29.6% Monroe-West Monroe ( Oaachita) , La. 71,242 31.5% .75 .17 13.5% TYPE III Shreveport- Bossier City (Caddo, Bossier) La. 223,659 30.8% .75 .12 4.4% Hattiesburg (Forrest) , Miss. 38,277 25.9% .73 .18 9.7% Grenada (Grenada) , Miss . 9,944 i 28.7% i i .58 .24 7.8% Meridian (Lauder- dale) , Miss. i 45,083 j 10. 8% i .71 .18 0.0% C.29 TABLE C.9 (CONT.) SOUTH CENTRAL REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS (CONT.) CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 RATIO OF NON- EMPLOYMENT BASIC EMPL. CHANGE TO TOTAL 1950-60 EMPL. 1960 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 TYPE III Natchez (Adams) , Miss . 19,704 9.9% .66 .23 -1.2% Vicksburg (Warren) , Miss . 25,478 8.4% .69 .19 6.6% Texarkana (Miller) , Tex. 29,393 1.9% . 65 .22 10.5% Waco (McLennan) , Tex. 92,600 20.3% .67 .18 -1.7% Crossett- Hamburg, (Ashley) , Ark. 9,293 15.8% .40 .39 3.1% Forest (Scott) , Miss . 4,085 30.8% .44 .21 0.9% McComb (Pike) , Miss . 11,969 17.5% .57 .22 -9.4% Marshall (Harrison) , Tex. 22,666 12.9% .61 .26 -1.7% Northeast Texas Municipal Water Dis- trict (ConU ■ C.30 TABLE C.9 (CONT.) SOUTH CENTRAL REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS (CONT.) CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 19 60 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 TYPE III (Cass, Camp, Morris, Upshaw) , Tex. 63,222 9.3% .59 .23 5.6% Sulphur Springs (Hopkins) , Tex. 10,447 13.8% .55 .15 11.4% REDEVELOPMENT CENTERS TYPE I None TYPE II None TYPE III Alexandria- Pineville (Rapids) , La. 50,508 26.5% .70 .10 6.0% Natchi- toches (Natchi- toches) , La. 15,974 35.1% .68 .10 -1.2% Opelousas (St. Lan- dry) , La. 20,121 34.6% .59 .05 -1.4% C.31 TABLE C.9 (CONT.) SOUTH CENTRAL REGION REDEVELOPMENT CENTERS (CONT.) CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- RATIO OF ' BASIC EMPL. MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 EMPL. 1960 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 Cleveland (Boliva) , Miss . 13,327 25.5% .44 .08 -9.3% Greenville (Washington) Miss . 39,648 38.6% .56 .15 -10.2% Greenwood (LeFlore) , Miss . 22,400 11.2% .58 .07 -10.7% Jefferson (Marion) , Tex. 2,703 -11.3% .59 .21 5.8% ADDITIONAL GROWTH CENTERS TYPE II Beaumont- Port Arthur- Orange (Orange , Jefferson) , Tex. 196,383 49.5% .55 .33 17.9% Columbus (Lowndes) , Miss . 25,795 41.0% .54 .20 6.6% TYPE I Tupelo (Lee) , Miss. 20,471 54.6% .53 .29 13.7% Sherman (Grayson) , Tex. 28,352 16.3% .58 .19 13.9% OVER 250,000 Dallas, Tex. 836,121 47.5% .69 .23 39.5% C.32 TABLE C. 10 NORTHWEST REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1970 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EM?L. 1960 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 TYPE I Lewiston (Nez Perce) , Idaho TYPE II None TYPE III Hardin (Big Horn) , Mont. Havre (Hill, Mont. 26,068 24.0% 60 2,733 10,558 15.3^ 29.1% 51 60 25 12.2% 05 03 0.5% -6.9% REDEVELOPMENT CENTERS TYPE I None TYPE II None TYPE III Butte- Anaconda (Silver Bow, Deer Lodge) , Mont. Colville (Stevens) , Wash. 33,139 3,742 -2.0% 16.2% .46 46 39 20 -11.4% -2.7% C.33 TABLE CIO (CONT.) NORTHWEST REGION ADDITIONAL GROWTH CENTERS ] CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 19 60 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 19 6 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 TYPE I Coeur D'Alene (Kootenai) , 16,228 26.5% .61 .26 19.5% Idaho Billings (Yellowstone), Mont. 61,581 46.9% .70 .13 10.6% Missoula (Missoula) Mont. 29,497 31.6% .69 .16 30.5% TYPE II Boise (Ada), 74,990 38.3% .78 .10 20.1% Idaho Bozeman (Gallatin) Mont. 18,670 32.7% .70 .09 24.8% C.34 TABLE C.ll FAR WEST REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- EMPLOYMENT TION CHANGE 1970 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 None REDEVELOPMENT CENTERS TYPE I None TYPE II Grass Valley- Auburn (Nevada, Placer) , Calif. 11,615 45.0% .70 .15 33.0% South Lake Tahoe (El Dora- do) , Calif. 11,998 118.6% .72 .18 49.1% TYPE III None ADDITIONAL GROWTH CENTERS TYPE I Medford (Jackson) , Ore. 28,454 .._ .. .. 33.1% .64 .23 27.8% C.35 TABLE C.ll (CONT.) FAR WEST REGION ADDITIONAL GROWTH CENTERS (CONT.) CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 TYPE II Takoma (Pierce) , Wash. 154,581 21.5% .54 .18 27.8% Redding (Shasta) , Calif. 16,365 67.4% .69 .19 30.6% OVER 250,000 Portland, Ore, 382,619 42.8% .62 .23 20.9% Sacramento , Calif. 257,860 87.4% .71 .16 25.6% Seattle, Wash. 530,831 32.'9% .63 .28 23.7% C.36 TABLE C. 12 SOUTHWEST REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1950-60 RATIO OF NON- BASIC EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 19 6 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATIOIS 1960-70 TYPE I None TYPE II Santa Fe (Santa Fe) , N . Mex . 41,167 25.0% .89 .06 19.5% TYPE III Alamosa (Alamosa) , Colo. 6,985 10.0% .72 .06 14.2% Pueblo (Pueblo) , Colo. 97,453 29.6% .56 .34 -0.4% Trinidad (Las Animas) , Colo. 9,901 -15.4% .57 .04 -21.2% Delta City (Millard) , Utah 1,610 16.7% .53 .03 -11.2% REDEVELOPMENT CENTERS TYPE I None TYPE II None C.37 TABLE C.12 (CONT.) SOUTHWEST REGION REDEVELOPMENT CENTERS (CONT.) CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 RATIO OF NON- EMPLOYMENT BASIC EMPL. CHANGE TO TOTAL 1950-60 EMPL. 1960 RATIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 TYPE III Las Vegas (San Miguel) , N. Mex. 7,528 19.4% .75 .05 -6.5% Moab (Grand) , Utah 4,793 196.6% .43 .03 5.4% Price (Carbon) , Utah 6,213 16.5% .52 .03 -26.0% Richfield (Sevier) , Utah 4,471 9.7% .59 .15 -4.4% ADDITIONAL GROWTH CENTERS TYPE I Provo- Orem (Utah) , Utah 78,860 49.8% .63 .27 28.8% Salt Lake City (Salt Lake) , Utah 175,885 43.2% .70 .17 19.7% TYPE II Albuquerque (Berna- lillo) , N. Mex. 243,751 93.7% .77 .09 20.4% C.38 TABLE C.12 (CONT.) SOUTHWEST REGION ADDITIONAL GROWTH CENTERS (CONT.) CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 (RATIO OF NON- EMPLOYMENT BASIC EMPL. CHANGE TO TOTAL 1950-60 EMPL. 1960 RATIO OF MFG . EMPL . TO TOTAL EMPL. 1960 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 Colorado Springs (El Paso) , Colo. 135,060 78.2% .62 .07 64.2% ; TYPE III None C.39 TABLE C.13 RIO GRANDE REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS CENTER STATUS CITY POPULA- TION 1970 RATIO OF NON- EMPLOYMENT BASIC EMPL. CHANGE TO TOTAL 1950-60 EMPL. 1960 R&TIO OF MFG. EMPL. TO TOTAL EMPL. 19 6 CHANGE IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 TYPE I Victoria (Victoria) , Tex. 39,349 54.9% .68 .13 15,7% TYPE II None TYPE III Corpus Christi - Aransas Pass (Nueces , Aransas) , Tex. 207,175 30. 6% .68 .13 7.8% McAllen (Hidalgo) , Tex. 36,761 35.2% .58 .08 0.3% REDEVELOPMENT CENTERS TYPE I None TYPE II Del Rio (Val Verde) , Tex. 20,928 39.5% .49 .06 12.3% Laredo (Webb) , Tex. 65,491 16.0% .66 .06 12.5% i C.40 TABLE C.13 (CONT.) RIO GRANDE REGION REDEVELOPMENT CENTERS (CONT.) CENTER STATUS CITY | POPULA- TION 1970 RATIO OF NON- EMPLOYMENT BASIC EMPL. CHANGE TO TOTAL 1950-60 EMPL. 1960 RATIO OF MFG . EMPL . TO TOTAL EMPL. 196 CHANGE 1 IN COUNTY POPULATION 1960-70 Brownsville- Harlingen (Cameron) , 85,085 2 8.6% .60 .11 -7.1% Tex. Uvalde (Uvalde) , Tex. 10,403 23.0% .64 .08 -1.2% ADDITIONAL GROWTH CENTERS TYPE I None TYPE II Eagle Pass (Maverick) , 15,277 38.5% .63 .07 24.7% Tex. OVER 250,000 San Antonio (Bexar) , 650,188 31.5% .68 .09 20.9% Tex. C.41 APPENDIX D EDA MEDO's ON THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTER STRATEGY To provide a reference to past and present Agency policy statements concerning growth centers, the two Economic Develop- ment Orders (MEDO's) related to the growth center strategy are presented in this appendix. These are: MEDO 1-2 8, "Policy on the Qualification and Delinea- tion of Economic Development Centers," January 6, 19 67; and MEDO 1-28 (Revised) , "Economic Development Center Strategy," March 11, 1968. D.l form EO-24 IB-I l-«6) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE TRANSMITTAL 152 ASSISTANT SECRETARY AND DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MANUAL OF ECONSOMJC DEVELOPMENT QSD2RS mcmomC DEVELOPMENT ORDER 1-28 SJ3JECT POLICY ON THE QUALIFICATION AMD DELINEATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS wnrvr n« wniii»riW HiMi mi»»— m IcFERENChiS EFFECTIVE DATE: 1/6/67 SUPPLEMENT: , ____ SUPERSEDES: APPROVED \|^0 •-• «zJ*\] 'A ■Up«. PRES. meoo a U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration MANUAL OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ORPERS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMEN ORDER ,.23 ou»i«e» ~ ! 7"" j ■ :»T ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTER STRATEGY APPROVED section 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. SECTION 1, L.-ECTIVE DAT£f: 3/u/gg SUPPLEMENT: _ FERSEDES: - ED0 1 " 28 ^^ CSIS3 1/6/67 T> . T> Assistant Secretary for Economic Development Section Title Page- Purpose 1 Policy -- 1 Operating Guidelines ■ 3 Policy Implementation 5 Staff Support for the Development Center Program 7 Grant Rate for Economic Development Center Projects 7 Redevelopment Centers 7 Effect on Other Orders 7 PURPOSE The purpose of this Order is to summarize EDA's strategy concerning Economic Development Centers and Redevelopment Centers within Districts. Ircluded in this material are statements of policy, operating guidelines, ass ignme.e\"ts of responsibilities and procedures for implemenuat i«n concerning designation and project development . USCOMM-Oi. D„5 3/11/ oo SECTION 2. POLICY .01 General a. The need for a Development Center strategy has developed from two related problems: (1) The economic waste and human suffering associated with low levels of family income and persistent unemployment in depressed areas. (2) Existing rural-urban migration imbalances presently creating hardship and disorder in the nation's largest urban areas. b. Acceleration of growth in designated economic development centers provides a means to establish strong diversified urban economies from which direct and indirect economic benefits will accrue to redevelopment areas. Such direct and indirect economic benefits from the economic expansion of Economic Development Centers would include the following: (1) Unemployed or underemployed residents of Redevelopment Areas can obtain jobs in Centers. (2) Redevelopment Area unemployed and underemployed residents can use public services in designated Centers such as hospitals, educational facilities, etc. (3) The spillover effect of the Center growth can produce new jobs within nearby Redevelopment Areas. This might include such activities as subassembly plants serving major producers located in the Center. .02 Designation It is the policy of EDA to designate as Economic Development Centers those centers of economic activity whose economic growth can reasonably be expected to alleviate the economic distress of individuals in the Redevelopment Areas participating in Economic Development Districts. More detailed criteria for center selection are contained in Section 3.01 of this MEDO. .03 Project Development The Agency will give primary emphasis to those projects within Economic Development Centers which will directly improve the employ- ment opportunities of unemployed and underemployed residents of Redevelopment Areas and/or which will serve to obtain a greater availability of public services and facilities for such residents. D,6 1 -28 3.0^z) - 3 - 3/11/68 JECTION 3. OPERATING GUIDELINES .01 Selection of Economic Development Centers a. Legal Requirements In accordance with the provisions of Sections 403(a)2 of Public Works and Economic Development Act, an Economic Development Center may be designated by the Secretary if the proposed Center: (1) Has been proposed and identified in an approved District OEDP and recommended by the State or States affected. (2) Is geographically and economically so related to the district that its economic growth may reasonably be expected to contribute significantly to the alleviation of distress in the redevelopment areas of the district. (3) Does not have a population in excess of 250,000 according to the last census. b. Administrative Criteria Section 403(a)(2) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act empowers the Secretary to prescribe designation regulations as he may deem appropriate. In additio'n to the specific requirements of the law, prospective Economic Development Centers should be locations which: (!) May reasonably be expected to obtain a higher growth rate than they are currently experiencing. (2) Have the prospect of developing a diversified economy providing a full-range of educational, health, recreational, and cultural facilities; a relatively large local market, a relatively large well-trained labor force, and other similar qualities which encourage the continuing growth of economic activity. Normally, Centers should have a population base of at least 25,000. (3) At the time of designation are establishing or implement- ing a comprehensive planning program which includes a development strategy involving the assimilation of unemployed and low- income residents of Redevelopment Areas into the growing economy of the Center. (4) Are within an ED District but not within a Redevelopment Area of the District. •02 Number of Economic Development Centers per District D.7 1-28 3.02(2) 3/11/68 Normally, EDA will designate the single leading growth point in a District as the Economic Development Center, However, additional Centers may be designated if unusual conditions exist in the District. Among such circumstances are the following conditions: (1) The District contains parts of two or more States. (2) The District contains a relatively large number of counties with the result that a substantial number of Residents do not have commuting access to any one Center. (3) The District contains several smaller growth points rather than one leading Center. .03 Boundaries of Economic Development Centers Normally an Economic Development Center is administratively defined as a city or grouping of contiguous incorporated places. The boundaries of these communities are usually the boundaries of the Center. However, in the case of a District where prime development pro- ject sites exist in close proximity to the designated community, EDA may extend the Center's boundaries to include an adjoining minor civil division such as a town or borough. In the case of Districts with multiple Centers in reasonably close proximity consideration will be given to boundary adjustments to include corridors of growth between such Centers. .04 Priority Rating of Centers Districts will be ranked in order of the magnitude of their economic distress as measured by high unemployment rates and low levels of median family income. For investment purposes, Centers will receive the same rank ordering as the District in which they are located. .05 Consideration of Project Proposals Project proposals will receive consideration only when the Economic Development Center, in cooperation with the District organization, is prepared to outline to EDA a positive action program detailing the steps the Center is willing to take to insure that the unemployed and underemployed from Redevelopment Areas benefit from the Center's growth. .06 Project Priorities a. Priority will be given to projects which create employment opportunities for the unemployed and underemployed in the District's Redevelopment Areas. D.8 1-28 - 5 - 3.06(b) 3/11/68 b. Consideration may also be given to projects which materially improve environmental facilities of a designated Center where such facilities are determined to be an essential factor in accelerating the Center growth. SECTION 4. POLICY IMPLEMENTATION .01 General Approach Implementing the policies described above will require the efforts of all elements of EDA. Future District OEDP's will include a strategy relating the growth of Economic Development Centers to the improvement of conditions in nearby Redevelopment Areas. In the preparation of District Action plans, a profile of all growth centers will be developed. At the time of the pre-applica- tion conference for all Center projects, the community will be required to prepare a specific program showing how they propose to increase opportunities for the target population. This program will accompany their project application and will be considered in EDA's evaluation of the project proposal. .02 Assignment of Responsibility for Policy Implementation a. Analysis of Center Plans and Programs The District organizations will be responsible for the assess- ment of the plans and programs of Development Centers. This assessment shall be embodied in the District OEDP and include sufficient detail to allow EDA to make judgements with respect to Center designation and project selection. The District organization will be asked to comment on specific Center proposals. b. EDA Planning Review Responsibility The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Development Planning will have responsibility for: (1) Review of the District OEDP and proposed Center plars and programs. (2) Coordination of the preparation of District Action Plans and Center profiles. D.9 4.02(3) - 6 - 1-28 3/11/68 (3) Recommendation of all District and Center designations. (4) Preparation of a rank ordering of Districts in terms of economic distress. c. Project Development and Selection The Area Director, through his field organization and program staffs, will have the primary responsibility for the selection and development of projects in Economic Development Centers. Procedures now in effect also apply to Center projects; for example, the Public Works procedure calls for, among other things, early information on project development and the con- duct of an expanded Pre-application Conference to establish a dialogue for relating project development to the economic development process of the city. d. Pre-application Conference A Pre-application Conference will be held prior to the sub- mission of a Development Center project. The purpose of this conference will be to review project proposals in the light of the positive action program proposed by the Center. The following are some of the items that should be reviewed at the Pre-application Conference. (1) Whether the District organization approves the project and finds it consistent with the District OEDP. (2) Whether the District organization and the Center leadership can give assurance that a public facility to be constructed with EDA funds will be available to low- income or unemployed residents in surrounding Redevelopment Areas. (3) The attitude of the Center's leadership on growth potential; the role of the Center in the District organization; the degree to which the unemployed now migrate to the Center; the availability of public facilities and specifically those that might aid the in-migration of the unemployed; and generally whether the Center is prepared to accept the culturally and economically depressed person. D.10 1-28 3/11/68 - 7 - 4.02d(4) (4) Whether the proposed project would provide equal or preferential employment opportunities to the unemployed in District Redevelopment Areas. SECTION 5, SECTION 6, STAFF SUPPORT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CENTER PROGRAM To expedite the implementation of this policy, Directors of the Office of Public Works, the Office of Business Development, and the Office of Development Districts will designate staff officers to advise and assist the Area Office Directors in planning and programming of EDA's resources in Economic Development Centers. GRANT RATE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTER PROJECTS SECTION 7, SECTION 8, The EDA grant rate for development facilities in Economic Develop- ment Centers shal?. not exceed fifty percent of the project cost. REDEVELOPMENT CENTERS Policies established in this paper for Economic Development Centers shall be applied in the same manner to Redevelopment Centers except that the grant rate for projects shall be determined by the Redevelop- ment Area in which the Center is located and except for the applica- tion of the ten percent increase in amount of grant assistance that is authorized by Sections 101 and 403(a)4 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act for projects within Redevelopment Areas. Revelopment Centers must meet the same criteria as an Economic Development Center except that they will be within a Redevelopment Area in a District. EFFECT ON OTHER ORDERS This Order supersedes MEDO 1-28, dated 1-6-67 and any other instructions which may be in conflict with its provisions. D.ll APPENDIX E COMPARATIVE DATA BASE In order to contrast the impact of the growth center projects covered in this evaluation with the impact of similar projects in redevelopment areas, a comparative data base of RA investments was constructed. The projects in this sample are roughly as old as the growth center projects, include a similar proportion of public works and business loans, and are located in the same states. They were drawn from past EDA evaluations. The following chart identifies the projects included in the comparative data base by project number, type, and amount of EDA investment. It also references the document containing extensive analysis of the project. E.l CO CO CO CO M M ^ ^ • • • • U iP o >iP o O >iP O O >iP o en g • Cn g • u CQ P a r- u CQ P G r- o ffl-P Cr^ o CQ P C r- H P o O P o -H -H CU CTi -H •H CU CA •H -H (U U U U r- M H r- rH CD C grH rH CU C g rH ■H (PCgrl rH (U G g-H s cm rd CTi CM rd o\ XI x: 3 -p X x: 3 p X £ 3 +> X X 3 P pj 0.-H Cm rH 3 p g M u 3 P g M u a P g u u a P g M M Cm CO (D CO CU Cm g rd a) Cm g rd i M Q >i >i CmXJ >i o ax >i CmX X U (U g >i CmX Em U rH U rH < X u cu g < X O (U g < rt! X o CU g pd • a • 3 Q a cu Q Q H p W TJ M P W T3 r< P W T3 U P • • H MH CO CU o -H <; •H < rd • CO O rd • co O rd • CO rd • CO M rH -Q rH -a Cm U D Cm r) D Cm M D Cm M D Eh X! G H X c H c cu cu •- £ CU (U C CU CU d CU cu •. < 3 \ 3 \ o M P -rtj O n-p *<; MP ^<3 U P -< D CM •H cu CM -H CU •H Cm C P Q -H Cm G P Q -H Cm C P Q -H Cm d P Q J P u P u P Q) C H P CU C H P CU G W p cu G W £ CO rd u CO rd u rd ^ U CU\ rd "U cu\ rd 'U (U\ rd ^u CU \ > - 3 Q) - 3 CU 2 CO g CU 3 CQ g CU 3 CO g CU 3 CO g CU H < rH g <: rH g rH P (U Cm O rH p CU Cm O rH p CU Cm U rH p CU Cm U Q (ti b Q rd g rd u T3 H rd o ^ U rd u ■d o n rd o T3 U W > W > > QJ rd rH CU > cu rd rH CU > Q) rd H CU > cu rd •-{ CU w u w u W ■n U CU g w •1—1 U CU g H -n O CU g W •l—l U cu g CU CU CO > g o CO > g O CO > g CO > g x c <4-t X! c <4H C u rrj . -. •» H H en 00 00 rH >x> IT) > m *3< LT) ID 00 in a 00 ro rH H ■H rd O ,* X -H U P SH U P fd rd CO CO g a fi g g 3 M CU P CU (U T3 (1) P rH rH £ p P C £ co rd rd l-H •H g >i >1 CO CO *H p P CO -H CO CO Cm O w g SH CO CO rH rt C u ■H Cm r) (U 3 3 Q) cu rd cu CU M >H P P Cm p > u Eh P rd c C CO CO CO CO CO CO O ^ M ^ M ^ X P4 u u M U U U cm O O O o 3: £ £ IS S s O o u u o u ■H •H -H •H -H -H <-{ rH rH iH <-\ rH X X X! X X X 3 3 P d d 3 04 Cm Cm Cm Cm Cm 00 -H ca cn ^ KO 00 rH m CN rH EH CM m ro rH rH CN U D4 O o o o o O H W O o o o o O h) CQ 1 l l l 1 1 o a .H r-i rH rH <-\ <-\ « D 1 1 I 1 1 1 Cm 2 m n ro ^T '3' ■^ o o o O o o E.2 co CO r* ^ rH ID HH u (D MH .. ' .. ., CO O co e -p g -p g -p [3 •H 12 -rH rd c fd c fd c O >1-P O >i-P o rH d) Sh cu Sh CD o m -t-> c r» o PQ P C r^ tr> e • en g • Cn e • -H ■H a) G g rH U M r- ^H U r^ Sh Sh r- cj X! x: s p XI ,G 3 -P ft (0 CTi ft td >i QhX! >i Q,£ ^ Q >i M Q >i ^ Q >i H < X! CJ CD B <: X! CJ d> g Sh H u rH S^ rH fc Q Q d> Q Q 0) • 3 O • d • g w T3 5h -P w T) M -P IS CO h> 5 CO ID IS co id id o • a (D • Oh • • « m rHW CO (D m rH m co d) o !D - u o •> u D ^ 3 rd • CO o rd • co -H < -H < O a^iD 0H rH D rH -Q rH ^Q rH ^Q H a d> d) c 0) 0) X! C w X! C! H X! 'C W E-i Sh -P ^< Sh -P ^\ rd *CJ d) \ CO itf rH CO fd rH CO id M E^ 3 CO g 0) 3 CO g 0) - 3 d) - 3 d> 3 d) > rH -p d) & O H -p d) Cu U < rH < rH < rH W (0 130H rd u ■COM Q rO g Q res g Q rd g > d> iDH (P > rd rH CD H > H > o H > O w -n O (L) g CO > g W O O g 0) H CJ d) w u d) H CJ a M rd d) C U (fl O X C m X! C IH ^| G m < ft CJ Q CJ < ft U Q CJ Eh «3 o Eh < Eh < o H £ w o o o o o *E] o o o o o ». w w n o IT) o o > ^r VO 00 (M rH 55 H H ■W- •CO- ■co- V> {/> \ TS +J G c (0 d) -P sh 1 d) rd d> P > rH -p TS rd O Oh (0 rH (0 CD -P S^ 3: rd o rH C PhP -H Sh >f -P fd e c H H £ TS O c ^ S= a !5 d) Eh G 0) a U n3 d) (U d) 0) Sh Eh U tu co •H fO CO CO CO g CO P H •• .a ,, , # #- id CO CO CO co CO O AJ X r^ X ,y ft Sh u u Sh S^ ft o o IS IS IS IS £ O u o u u -H •H •H -H -H rH rH rH rH rH XI X! X! X! X d 3 3 3 P Ph ft ft ft ft rH LD KG CM 00 Eh fN T *3< rH o CJ ft f*l ro co rH -rr w w O o o O o n CQ O o o O o 9 s 1 1 1 | l rt d H rH rH CN (~NJ ft z 1 1 I I | ^ ^r ■^ 00 00 o o o o o 1 E.3 to to ^ M H CD m • • • • u cu m •■ .. (0 g 4-> g 4J to o g 4-1 g 4-> S -H • ITS C rd G & ■H rd c rd c >i-P O u CD U 0) >l4-> O u cu U Q) ft 4-> C r- tr> g • tn g • u ffl4J fliv en g • tn g • •H ■H 0) O 4J O •H •H CU O o 4-> O H H CD C g H u U r-» !h M r» rH ft n3 (Ti ft rd cri XI rC 3 4J ft rd g M Sh ftH fOjrH s ft g rd 0) to CD to cu ft g rd CU to CD CO CU >i ax AJ Q >i X Q >i >i CUX X a >i r* Q >i w < X CJ 0) g >H rH H rH 2 0) • cu • • CU • ex • • MH s-i m CO 0) O D - o D - m SH "44 CO CU CJ D - CJ p - 2 (d • co •H < •H << o rd • co -H < -H <; o a u D H -Q rH >»Q cu u o rH -a rH -a H C CD 0) «• X G H rQ G w c cu cu X G H X c H Eh O H 4-> -< 3 \ a \ o n -p -<: D \ 3 N < •H Qj C 4-1 Q ft •H 0) ft -H cu -H &C4JQ ft •H 0) ft •H cu ID 4-1 (U £ H 4J u +J u 4-> CJ cw +J CJ 4-> u 5 (0 -o 0)\ to CO M to rd r4 rd -u cu \ CO rd u CO rO rH 3 3 to g 0) - 3 CU - 3 QJ 3 to g cu - P cu - 3 CU > H 4-> 0) Ch O < rH g <; rH g rH 4-> CU Qu O < rH g <: rH g H 03 u T3 O rH a rd g a r<3 g rd o X5 U Q (0 g p rO g > cu 03 ^H CD w > m > > 0) rd rH CU H > H > o W •n u to 0) g > g 0) W u CD H CJ W ■r-i O CU g to > B CU W u CU H u c u rd CD x C MH jC C IH d u rd CU -a C . •. ■» - H £ CM o o 00 rH in CM ro rH ■^ r^ CO S rH H v> tn C -H T3 a, rH g >1 •H rH 3 4-> rH ^ ■H X! rd \ g rH CD MH to CU -H G rH C +J CU 4-> O C -H C rd O 3 c to rd O H C -H o •H >t MH -H •H O 4-1 rH a CO to 0) to ■H rd cu w u c CP C 4-> > Oi rH -H sh ft QJ 0) m a) rd O rd CU CU 4-) cu ^ 4-> 4-1 S 4J U C ^ C 4-> rd 4-) Eh rd X 0) X 0) CU -H rd 4-) rd £ CU to CD > Sh CO rH £ to 3f Eh CJ , w • • • • " • • • • ha to to to to CO CO o X r* r^ >l X X ^ u in in M u U p^ O O O O 3: £ £ & S S cj u o U u CJ •H -rH •H •H •H -H H rH rH rH rH rH X X! rQ X X X 3 P 3 3 3 04 Pj ft ft ft cu rH V£> CN ! ^ O • O • ^ CD 4-1 u CD <4h •• J >,o (J >iD co o CO g 4J XJ X! IS ■H 5 ■H rd G CO •> CO - >i-P o >i+> o U CD CO T! • CO d • ! u PQ -P C r» o pq +J G r» C7i g CD CD U •> CD CD O - •H •H CD (Xi -H -H CD CTi 4-J C in a r< c r)C< w iH (DC en H CD G g rH M u •H rd H Q -H rd h Q u X! x: 3 -p X! £3+J ft fd • CO CU H CO Oh W ' s 3 -P g U Sh 3 •P g U U 0hO CD -\ 3 CD -\ ft g rd CD ft g fd CD CO CD r> m Jh C CD m rH C CD ft >. o aa >i O CuXi ^ Q c^ Oh O Oh O O H < X! U CD g < X! U CD g u rH CD 4-> M CD 4-> rH Em Q Q CD a Q CD • x: ^rH (D X! •• rH 0) 1 § W ■O H -P H TJ U 4-1 £ CO >i 4-> < ■H g 4-> h 4-1 CO CD u O 3 4-4 W rd o 4-1 W rd O ! £ o rd • co fd • co •H 1-3 M cj ffi u O a ^ D anD rH •■ 0) CD H c CD CD c CD CD XJ C ». c X! ^3 4h c X3 l3 4-1 ! Eh o U -P -> -<: 3 -P < ■H a c -p Q ■H Oh G 4-1 Q ft -rH Q •H C •H C D -p CD C H +j CD G H +J H 4-> 4H CD 4-) • -p 4H CD 4-1 • J rd -O CD \ (0 ^U CD \ CO rd \ fd H C O rd ■H C O <3 d CO g CD a CO g rH CD r^ > rH •P CD a. O ■H 4-> CD Oh U < rH U H g < g c^ rH g <£m H (0 o T3 U rd o rH > CD rd iH CD > CD fd rH CD w > CD > Sh » 5-1 > rH - !H ' w ■n U CD g &a ■n U CD g w g H in n rd >t H tn N rd >i o CO > g o CO > g CD g OnrH o an c iH rd CD O G M fd CD .G c O C U CD 3 fl M O CD d < ft U Q U <: ft U Q U Eh *• s ^r H u> to- in- 1 1 U co Ti a CD 4-1 to e rH -H £ O 3 a; +J -H 3 CD 3 CO -P c 3 O 1 CO g ■d CO CO cu XI CD CD ■H >i g >i-P u 4-1 en a) >iT3 U CO Cu > H G fd >i H >H O rd fd -P CO T3 CD CD H U -P •H CU 4-> a XI c^ G G CD rd w rd g -H G CD fd tr> £ Oh ft <: -H H -H g co td » i Eh • • •• • • • • •• G C Eh CO CO CO rd rd U ^ ^ M H SH U U J hH »-D O O O & !2 5 CO CO Pi CO CO i ^ O O o CD CD •H -H ■H £ G rH H rH -H -H X! X! X5 CO CO 3 3 3 3 3 ft ft ft OQ PQ m 00 (Ti CM CD Eh 00 c^ CN "^ 00 i U ft LD co r- CN CN W W o o o O O i-3 PQ o o o O O O S l 1 1 1 1 fti D H CN rH ro ro ft 2 1 1 | 1 1 00 00 CO rH rH o o o o o E.5 £ C CO G C c HI CO td • td CO rd CO (d CO • D o • • • 1-1 X! i-l PI >iD PI J3 hH XI to ». en • tn »• en » en *■ en T3 • en T3 O en T3 • tn ■d • en •d • d) 0) O - CD CD c * CD CU O - CU cu - cu cu u » c U G < C P H rH CU X ■»-H CU Xl -H (D x: ^ rH CU x: ^rH CU fe +j 3 rH cu r^ 3 rH cu r- D rH cu r^ < ■H g < E CTi H E < g en rH g < g cr, H g td S P rH (0 id -P rH td rti P rH td (13 P rH td td -P rH w > M - rH > u - P > P - p > p - P > p - p W tn N f0 >, H tn n d >i H Cn n td >i W Cn n id >i w Cn n id > O Oi-H O 04-H O O4H O 04rH OirH £ Sh CD 3 C p QJ p a P CD 3 G P cu c P CD 3 < Cm CQ Q b <: ft fflQb < P4 fflQh < 04 CQ Q 1-3 < 04 CQ Q b En o o o a o o o w o o o S ■» «« "» *■ * < Eh rH CN rH "^ Q CO in O "sT H W ro CM ro rH CTi > v * a rH ro H {/> i/y u en CU •H cu g p C en rH tn en 3 O P \ja G T3 -P -P P O G en H cu >H • • • • •• •• " Eh c c g c G id Id td td td Eh o u J pi PI PI pi w b en en en en en o C/l en en tn en « 0) cu CU cu CU 04 G G C C c •rH •H •H •H •H tn en tn en en 3 3 3 3 CQ CQ m CQ CQ co CD rH 00 00 Eh r~ "^ CO CM ro U Pi ro LD CM ro ro w w O O O O O f-3 CQ O O O O O O g 1 1 1 1 1 Pi D ro ro ro ro ro CM 2 1 1 1 1 1 ro ro ^r "* ^r o O o O O E.6 c fi C (0 CO oj CO 03 CO o • o • • J X! J X) l-H Xi co * CO ** CO *» co T3 • CO T3 • CO T3 • CD CD O - CD CD O - CD CD O - G ^1 C rt3 C U C < c rH C < w ■H UHQ -H 03 H Q -H 03 H Q u CO a. w CO a w CO Q4 H a 3 a> -\ 3 CD -\ 3 CD -\ • &3 CQ u c a) PQ U C CD m rH C CD ; 3 a o o 04 u Q, O O H (U P w CD P u CD P rH Ph ,c *rH CD Xi - H CD x: ». rH CD ^ -p < ■H E P < •H g p < ■H g ( s Q g 1 Q g g Q g g m w 03 4-1 W 03 O m M 03 S O ffi u X U ixl U o CD CD CD H G ^ u> m c £ ta m c x: ca m Eh P o P o P < •H c •H C ■H c D P ip CD -P • ■p m CD P • P m CD P • J to o rH C O fO o rH fi O 03 o rH C O < 3 H CD r- 3 rH CD r- 3 rH CD r- > rH e < g Ch rH g < g o> H g < g <^ H o3 id P rH (0 03 P rH 03 03 P rH > S-i •» p > P - P > U - rH W Cn n id >! w tJi N 03 >, H Di N 03 >, OjrH CXrH QjrH fl !h CD 3 fi P CD 3 C w O CD 3 «5 eu (HQb < Cm CQQh ■53 Pm fflQb Eh i s o o o H o o o S o o o < Eh •. *k - Q CO 00 a\ o> H H vo CM ■^ > CN ■^ "vT S •. H H c/> U> l 1 CD 1 O CO O T3 P. 03 CD O CO CD 3 -H M XI P P p CO CD ■H CD co C ■a e c CO CO (ti -H u co w H 03 3 rH CD Pi tr>P £ P, 4-1 O O >H EH Eh rt c G U (13 n3 03 W b J J J o rt CO CO CO c^ CO CO CO CD CD 0) a a P! •H -H •H CO CO CO 3 3 3 PQ m CQ ro ^r o Eh H LD "Sf U Pi LD in r- w w O o o 1-3 PQ O o o O S 1 i 1 « D ro ro ro P. £ 1 1 1 ^ ^r 00 o o o E.7 APPENDIX F EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE QUESTIONNAIRES This appendix presents the employer interview guides and employee questionnaires designed specifically for use in the growth center evaluation. Cleared by the Office of Manage- ment and Budget for this study, these forms were administered to employers and employees of firms benefitting from EDA growth center projects. F.l FORM ED-708A OMB No. 41-S-71011 Expiration Date: 7/30/71 EDA GROWTH CENTER EVALUATION EMPLOYER INTERVIEW GUIDE Establishment Address Phone Interviewer Date of Interview Names and Titles of Persons Interviewed (e.g., director of per- sonnel, plant manager) 1. 2. 3. Type of Establishment (major activity, product, or service) Brief Description of Activity (manufacturing, construction, administrative office) Date This Establishment Was Founded Date This Establishment Became Operational Name of Parent Company (if any) ED-708A F.2 1. What factors were responsible for your company's decision to locate (remain or expand) your business establishment at the present address? 2. How did you learn of these factors? 3. Did the EDA project contribute to this decision? 4. Did these sources stress the EDA project in their "sales pitch"? Yes No If yes, explain 5. Are there other establishments in this area engaged in the same kind of business activity as your establishment? Yes No Please explain F.3 6. What is the approximate total capital investment of your establishment at this location? (a) land (b) buildings and structures (c) machines & equipment . (If an expansion, indicate the estimated capital investment in expanded facilities as well.) 7. Does the establishment have any expansion plans at this time? Yes No If yes, explain. 8. How many employees will be hired as a result of this expansion? employees 9. Estimate the total annual salaries of these new employees. $ per year 10. Do you have a seasonal employment pattern at this establishment? Yes No If so, please describe briefly. F.4 11. Employee Impact a. How many employees are there at this time in this facility? b. How many new employees has the EDA project enabled you to hire in this establishment? c. How many existing employees did the EDA project enable you to retain? d. Estimate the total annual salary impact attributed to the EDA project (i.e., the salaries from the employment reported in b & c) $ e. If possible, categorize this employment by type, wage, or salary level, and length of the work year. 1 2 Estimated Number of Employees Wage/Salary Length of Annual Job Type New Saved Range Work Year Payroll 12. What percent of your sales from this location are made with- in (name of growth center county) county? % F.5 13. What percent of your raw materials and supplies for this location are purchased from suppliers located in the follow- ing areas? How much cash does this represent on a monthly- basis? growth center county (name counties) % $ per month redevelopment areas (name counties) % $ per month other district counties (name counties) % $ per month 14. Did any supplier (s) or support industry (ies) move to this area as a result of your location or expansion? Yes No If so, please indicate name, address, and phone number, a. Phone b. Phone c . Phone d. Phone In evaluating employment patterns in the EDA program, it is important to account for all of the district effects of the EDA loan. Often, the receipt of an EDA loan enables establishments to borrow from other lenders. In some cases, this increases the firm's employment needs. We wish to obtain a clear picture of these effects so that we can examine the employment patterns as accurately as possible. F.6 15. Was the EDA loan instrumental in securing other loans for this establishment? Yes No 2. 3. OPTIONAL If so, what was the nature of each of these loans in terms of source, amount, terms, and use of funds? (These data will be kept confidential.) Amount As Percent of Loan Source Total Amount Terms Use of Funds 16. Do you provide training for any of your employees? Yes No If yes, please indicate the nature and length of this train- ing and the number of employees trained. F.7 OMB No. 41-S-71011 Expiration Date: 7/30/71 EDA GROWTH CENTER EVALUATION EMPLOYEE QUESTIONNAIRE DO NOT FILL OUT Growth Center Date Distributed Employing Firm Date Received The Economic Development Administration (U.S. Department of Commerce) is collecting information on employment and income patterns in this area. Your answers to the following questions will be very helpful in their study. Because you are not asked to give your name, your answers cannot be traced to you. Please answer each question as accurately as possible. Thank you. 1. 2. 3. What company do you work for? How long have you had your current job? Immediately before taking your present job, were you: employed full-time unemployed, looking for a job employed part-time unemployed, not looking for a jot a. farm worker b. housewife c. student d. other a. If formerly employed full-time, why did you take your present job? ____ ED-708B F.8 4. Do you generally work full-time (35 hours per week or more) or part-time (less than 35 hours per week) ? full-time part-time 5. What is your present occupation, that is, what do you do on this job? Type of work done Your title a. Have you received any training with this job? Yes No If so, please describe the type and length: on-the-job length of training skill or vocational length course union apprenticeship length other (please describe) b. Has your training resulted in a higher salary or a more responsible position for you in this firm? Yes No c. What was your occupation prior to taking this job? Type of work done Your title 6. How long does it take you to get to work each day? 7. What is your average take home pay from this job? $ 8. What was your weekly take home pay immediately before taking this job? $ 9. At the present time, what is_ the total income of your household from all sources in a normal week, before taxes? $ 10. Before you took this job, what was the total weekly take home pay of your household from all sources in a normal week? $ 11. How many individuals live in your household (Do not include yourself) F.9 12. How many of them are children under 18 years of age? 13. Do you earn more money than the other members of your house- hold? Yes No 14. Please list the City or Town, County and State in which you live. (City or Town) (County) (State) 15. Were you living in this county before you started your present job? Yes No If not, please write below the county and state in which you lived before starting your present job. (County) (State) 16. If your present job had not been available, what would you have done? continued to look for work locally moved to (fill in town or county, and state) remained at previous job other (please describe) 17. Please estimate what percent of your monthly salary is spent outside the county where you now live. 18. Please check whether you are male or female. Male Female F.10 19. What was the last grade or class you completed in your schooling? 20. What was your age at your last birthday? 21. Are you - Spanish Surname (such as Mexican American or Puerto Rican) White Negro American Indian Oriental F.ll APPENDIX G ABSOLUTE MIGRATION BY REGION, DISTRICT, EDC COUNTIES, RC COUNTIES, AND NON-EDC , NON-RC COUNTIES FOR 1960-1970 The following chart presents absolute migration data for all EDC, RC, non-EDC/non-RC counties by region and district. The data sources are Current Population Reports, Population Estimates and Projections, Series P-25, No. 461 (June 28, 1971), U. S. Depart- ment of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. REGIONS AND DISTRICTS EDC COUNTIES RC COUNTIES NON-EDC AND NON-RC COUNTIES TOTAL REGIONS AND DISTRICTS NEW ENGLAND -29,623 -34,889 42,594 -21,918 Pride -17,299 None - 6,714 -24,013 Southeastern 14,522 None 52,975 67,497 New Hampshire- Vermont - 3,226 - 5,892 6,112 - 3,006 Black River- St. Lawrence None -17,003 - 6,992 -23,995 Eastern Adirondack None -11,994 - 3,300 -15,294 Mohawk Valley -23,620 None 513 -23,107 DELMARVA 4,487 None -10,878 -6,391 APPALACHIA -62,952 -105,901 -404,474 -573,327 Georgia Mountains 1,492 None 2,284 3,776 Big Sandy None -31,759 -5,497 -37,256 Fivco -5,302 None -6,776 -12,078 Kentucky River None -14,953 -25,975 -40,928 Lake Cumber- land 2,838 None -15,695 -12,857 Buckeye Hills- Hocking Valley -532 None -9,333 -9,865 G.l APPENDIX G (CONT.) REGIONS AND DISTRICTS EDC COUNTIES RC COUNTIES NON-EDC &ND NON-RC COUNTIES TOTAL REGIONS AND DISTRICTS Ohio Valley -19,909 None -15,964 -35,873 Turnpike -30,826 -9,555 -9,890 -50,271 East Tennes- see -10,582 None -14,280 -24,862 First Tennes- see~Valley -797 None -4,499 -5,296 Upper Cumber - 3,892 None -9,257 -5,365 Cumberland Plateau None -13,028 -17,216 -30,244 Lenowisco -3,583 None -18,299 -21,882 Southern West Vir- ginia None -33,897 -76,135 -110,032 Upper Poto- mac 357 -2,709 -3,115 -5,467 Northeastern None None -27,619 -27,619 Northern Tier None None -3,504 -3,504 Cumberland Valley None None -46,115 -46,115 Gateway None None -730 -730 South Central None None -10,173 -10,173 Southeast None None -12,534 -12,534 District 2 None None -20,990 -20,990 District 4 None None -9,221 -9,221 District 5 None None -22,951 -22,951 North Central None None -20,990 -20,990 G.2 APPENDIX G (CONT.) REGIONS NON-EDC TOTAL AND EDC RC AND NON-RC REGIONS AND DISTRICTS COUNTIES COUNTIES COUNTIES DISTRICTS OZARKS 50,753 -5,865 -16,774 28,114 Central 11,956 -4,042 -2,433 5,481 North Cen- tral -4,555 5,218 546 1,209 Northwest 21,232 None 11,342 32,574 Southwest -10,707 -1,293 -9,689 -21,689 West Cen- tral 12,850 -1,386 -1,146 10,318 Western 6,580 None 947 7,527 Lakes Coun- try 15,952 None 10,326 26,278 Ozark Foot- hills -2,423 None 1,048 -1,375 South Cen- tral Ozark 684 None -3,444 -2,760 Central 4,050 None -6,652 -2,602 Eastern None -5,688 9,007 3,319 Kiamichi None 1,326 1,380 2,706 N.E.C.O. 4,509 None 1,672 6,181 S.O.D.A. -4,076 None -5,308 -9,384 South Cen- tral -5,299 None -10,947 -16,246 Mid-America None None -13,423 -13,423 TENNESSEE- GREEN VALLEY -11,023 -41,263 -132,429 -184,715 East Arkansas -601 -9,881 -71,135 -81,617 Greater Egypt 8,348 None -253 8,095 G.3 APPENDIX G CCONT.) REGIONS AND DISTRICTS EDC COUNTIES RC COUNTIES NON-EDC AND NON-RC COUNTIES TOTAL REGIONS AND DISTRICTS Southeastern Illinois None 117 -2,682 -2,565 Barren River 5,178 None -3,128 2,050 Lincoln Trail -5,355 None -11,141 -16,496 Pennyrile -9,457 None -4,447 -13,904 North Delta None -19,615 -22,221 -41,836 Bootheel -9,136 -11,884 -30,173 -51,193 Green River None None -1,839 -1,839 Purchase None None 3,323 3,323 Mid-Cumberland None None 31,527 31,527 Tennessee Valley None None -6,596 -6,596 Southwest None None -13,664 -13,664 GREAT LAKES -28,343 -21,267 554 -49,056 Central Upper Peninsula 337 -2,575 -3,733 -6,171 East Central -317 None 9,041 8,724 Eastern Upper Peninsula None -10,444 None -10,444 Northeast None -1,830 3,964 2,134 Northwest None 2,293 5,848 8,141 Western Upper Peninsula -768 -8,711 34 -9,445 Arrowhead -27,595 None -13,668 -41,263 Grand Rapids- Muskegon None None 3,003 3,003 G.4 APPENDIX G (CONT.) REGIONS NON-EDC TOTAL ! AND EDC RC AND NON-RC REGIONS AND DISTRICTS COUNTIES COUNTIES COUNTIES DISTRICTS Region 2 None None -3,137 -3,137 Region 5 None None -9,423 -9,423 Northwestern None None 8,825 8,825 COASTAL PLAINS -76,606 -23,920 -332,796 -433,322 Central -21,299 -8,999 -12,037 -42,335 Southeast 13,455 None -10,969 2,486 Northwest Florida -8,265 None -2,156 -10,421 Central Savannah River 8,636 None -19,408 -10,772 Chattahoochee- Flint -2,838 None -8,906 -11,744 Coastal Area 416 None -2,400 -1,984 Coastal Plain -3,341 None -10,539 -13,880 Heart of Georgia -3,827 None -11,019 -14,846 Lower Chatta- hoochee Val- ley -26,045 None 1,946 -24,099 Middle Flint -1,291 None -11,172 -12,463 Northeast Georgia 12,594 None -1,774 10,820 Oconee -3,374 None -9,902 -13,276 Slash Pine -4,970 None -10,282 -15,252 Southwest -8,853 None -29,740 -38,593 Mid-East -9,190 -5,875 -9,673 -24,738 Neuse River -26,586 None -21,629 -48,215 G.5 APPENDIX G CCONT.) REGIONS NON-EDC TOTAL AND EDC RC AND NON-RC REGIONS AND DISTRICTS COUNTIES COUNTIES COUNTIES DISTRICTS Southeastern 23,792 None -44,828 -21,036 Lower Savannah -1,496 -9,046 -11,629 -22,171 Pee Dee -13,969 None -24,266 -38,235 Upper Savannah -155 None -12,654 -12,809 North Central None None -1,470 -1,470 Albemarle None None -8,192 -8,192 Santee Wateree None None -29,895 -29,895 Waccaraaw None None -30,202 -30,202 SOUTH CENTRAL -36,672 -77,574 -204,620 -318,866 Southeast -11,333 None -18,140 -29,473 Capital 12,167 None 3,480 15,647 Evangeline 1,194 -15,802 -16,307 -30,915 Kisatchie-Del- ta None -7,860 20,343 12,483 North Delta -3,606 None -34,377 -37,983 Northwest -27,578 -4,175 -15,108 -46,861 Central -1,975 None -24,264 -26,239 East Central -10,456 None -18,275 -28,731 North Central -1,173 73,004 -17,050 -31,227 South Delta None -36,822 -29,153 -65,975 Southern 17,448 None -24,346 -6,898 Southwest -12,711 None -18,013 -30,724 Brazos Valley 4,662 None -6,953 -2,291 Central -10,046 None -3,911 -13,957 G.6 APPENDIX G (CONT.) REGIONS AND DISTRICTS EDC COUNTIES RC COUNTIES NON-EDC AND NON-RC COUNTIES TOTAL REGIONS AND DISTRICTS Deep East 10,034 None -2,693 7,341 North East -3,299 89 -4,477 -7,687 Golden Trian- gle None None -18,938 -18,938 Northeast None None -10,867 -10,867 North Central None None 34,429 34,429 NORTHWEST -5,057 -13,326 -13,733 -32,116 Clearwater 484 None -1,196 -712 Bear Paw -3,746 None -4,789 -8,535 Big Horn -1,795 None 164 -1,631 Inter -County None -11,853 683 -11,170 Trico None -1,473 -2,035 -3,508 Northern Idaho None None -992 -992 Southwestern None None -2,767 -2,767 Upper Columbia None None -2,801 -2,801 FAR WEST None 30,971 251,062 282,033 Sierra None 30,971 15 30,986 North Coast None None -19,275 -19,275 Superior None None 5,809 5,809 District Eight None None 18,653 18,653 Central Puget Sound None None 229,340 229,340 South Puget Sound None None 22,187 22,187 Mid-Columbia None None -5,667 -5,667 G.7 APPENDIX G (CONT.) REGIONS AND DISTRICTS EDC COUNTIES RC COUNTIES NON-EDC AND NON-RC COUNTIES TOTAL REGIONS AND DISTRICTS SOUTHWEST -22,588 -15,146 -35,844 -73,578 Southern -19,763 None -16,020 -35,783 North Central -1,202 -5,612 -12,993 -19,807 Six-County -1,623 -1,206 -2,084 -4,913 Southeastern None -8,328 -3,613 -11,941 Southwest None None -1,134 -1,134 RIO GRANDE -80,984 -66,534 -75,392 -222,910 Coastal Bend -34,952 None -46,801 -81,753 Lower Rio Grande Valley -46,032 -48,529 8,701 -103,262 Middle Rio Grande Valley None -6,497 -13,591 -20,088 South None -11,508 -6,299 -17,807 NATIONAL TOTALS -932,790 -298,608 -374,714 -1,606,112 G.8 PENN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES AODQOTiefl'lOSJ