PHASE 1: COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT - Columbus 2025

PHASE 1:

COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT Submitted by Market Street Services Inc. www.marketstreetservices.com July 2015

Competitive Assessment

July 2015


July 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Steering Committee ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Project Overview ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3

Competitive Assessment.............................................................................................................................................................. 4

1. Population Trends: Slow Growth and Limited In-Migration ........................................................................ 5

2. A Critical Need for Top Talent ........................................................................................................................... 11

3. Economic Realities ................................................................................................................................................. 17

4. Income and Poverty .............................................................................................................................................. 22

5. Quality of Place and Quality of Life .................................................................................................................. 26

6. Homegrown Talent: PK-12 and Higher Education....................................................................................... 37

7. Business and Entrepreneurial Climate ............................................................................................................. 46

8. Fort Benning: A Vital Asset ................................................................................................................................. 50

9. Philanthropy, Leadership, and Champions .................................................................................................... 51

Conclusion..................................................................................................................................................................................... 53

Appendix A: Community Scorecards .................................................................................................................................... 54

Endnotes ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 65


July 2015


Page 1 – July 2015

INTRODUCTION Less than two generations ago, Greater Columbus was a mill town with a tenuous future in a globalizing economy. In the decades since, it has undergone a remarkable transition into a hub of insurance and other services and a home to companies with international renown and influence. But just as the community has changed, so too has the world. Competition has increased, markets are more interconnected, and knowledge and skilled workers are highly coveted. At the same time, it has also become clear that not all of the region’s residents have benefitted from its past successes. Too many local residents live in poverty, with limited economic options and uncertain futures. Greater Columbus must once again adapt.

To that end, a group of public, private, and non-profit leaders have come together to launch a comprehensive effort to raise levels of prosperity in Greater Columbus. The process will result in a holistic and comprehensive community and economic development strategy that addresses the full range of factors that influence a region’s prosperity – from its talent and economic structure to its quality of life and place.

This Competitive Assessment represents the critical first step in that process. It examines a wide variety of demographic, socioeconomic, economic, and quality of life indicators to tell a story about the community and uncover the key strengths, weaknesses, assets, and challenges that must be leveraged and addressed in order to raise levels of prosperity in the region. It is built upon an in-depth quantitative analysis and a significant amount of community input derived from focus groups, interviews, and an online survey that received 1,760 responses from area residents, workers, and business leaders. This information has been woven into nine key stories that present a narrative discussion of the key issues facing Greater Columbus. These nine stories are:

1. Population Trends: Slow Growth and Limited In-Migration 2. A Critical Need for Top Talent 3. Economic Realities 4. Income and Poverty 5. Quality of Place and Quality of Life 6. Homegrown Talent: PK-12 and Higher Education 7. Business and Entrepreneurial Climate 8. Fort Benning: A Vital Asset 9. Philanthropy, Leadership, and Champions

Supplementing these storylines is a series of scorecards that evaluate the region’s competitiveness in five key areas: economic performance, workforce sustainability, business environment, innovation and entrepreneurship, and quality of life. These scorecards can be found in Appendix A at the back of this assessment. When relevant, specific findings from these scorecards are included in the narrative portion of the assessment.



STEERING COMMITTEE Committee tri-chairs are shown in bold.

Name Title/Role; Organization Mr. Brian Anderson President & CEO; Greater Columbus Chamber of Commerce Mr. John Anker President & CEO; Ankerpak Mr. Cameron Bean Executive Director; Columbus Symphony Orchestra Mr. Richard Bishop Executive Director; Uptown Columbus Inc. Mr. Billy Blanchard President & CEO; Columbus Bank and Trust Mr. Peter Bowden President & CEO; Columbus Convention and Visitors Bureau Mr. Mike Burns Special Assistant to Commanding General; Fort Benning Mr. Russ Carreker President & CEO; Day 6 Outdoors Ms. Betsy Covington President & CEO; Community Foundation of the Chattahoochee Valley, Inc. Mr. Jason Cuevas West Region Vice President; Georgia Power Ms. Patti Cullen Executive Director; River Valley Regional Commission Mr. Steve Davis President; Columbus Water Works Col. Pat Donahoe Chief of Staff; Fort Benning Dr. Jimmy Elder Pastor; First Baptist Church Mr. Scott Ferguson President; United Way of the Chattahoochee Valley Pastor Johnny Flakes, III Pastor; Fourth Street Missionary Baptist Church Dr. Tom Hackett Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs; Columbus State University Mr. Cedric Hill CEO & Owner; People’s Funeral Services of Columbus, Inc. Mr. Scott Hill President & CEO; Columbus Regional Healthcare System Ms. Lorette Hoover President; Columbus Technical College Mr. Isaiah Hugley City Manager; Columbus Consolidated Government Ms. Anne King Executive Director; Midtown, Inc. Mr. Harry Lange Chairman; Harris County Commission Dr. David Lewis Superintendent; Muscogee County School District Ms. Jacki Lowe Retired; West Region Vice President, Georgia Power Ms. Marquette McKnight CEO; Media Marketing… and More! Inc Mr. Marc Olivie President & CEO; WC Bradley/Arts Mr. Chuck Rossi President; Liberty Utilities Ms. Becky Rumer Senior Director - Corporate and Community Affairs; Synovus Ms. Jane Seckinger President & CEO; Goodwill Ms. Audrey Tillman, Esq. Executive Vice President, General Counsel; Aflac Hon. Teresa Tomlinson Mayor; Columbus Consolidated Government Hon. Rob Varner Chairman; MCSD Board of Education Dr. David White Vice-Chancellor; Troy University Phenix City Campus Ms. Johniqua Williams Student Development Specialist- Diversity; Columbus State University Mr. Troy Woods President & CEO; TSYS Mr. Jimmy Yancey Retired; Chairman, Synovous



PROJECT OVERVIEW The four-phase research and strategic planning process will last roughly nine months, concluding in February 2016. A diverse Steering Committee comprised of representatives from the public, private, and non-profit sectors will guide this process and ensure that it lays a foundation that allows people and businesses to thrive and wealth to accumulate.

Phase 1: Competitive Assessment The Competitive Assessment answers the question: “How is Greater Columbus doing?” Market Street developed original quantitative and qualitative research and conducted public input – in the form of focus groups, interviews, and an online survey – to evaluate the community’s competitiveness as a place to live, work, visit, and do business. The findings are integrated into key “stories” facing Greater Columbus as it seeks to grow and expand its economy and increase levels of prosperity and the quality of life for its current and future residents. The community’s competitiveness is benchmarked against communities with which Greater Columbus competes for both jobs and workers.

Phase 2: Target Business Analysis and Marketing Review The Target Business Analysis will identify those business sectors that will drive future growth and opportunity in Greater Columbus. Market Street will conduct a detailed examination of the region’s economic composition and identify the sectors that have the greatest potential to create new jobs and elevate standards of living in Greater Columbus. Because resources for economic development efforts are limited, they must be utilized in a way that will result in the highest return on investment for the community, its businesses, and its workers. Along these lines, the Marketing Review will analyze the existing economic and community marketing efforts of The Valley Partnership and Greater Columbus Chamber of Commerce to identify any areas for improvement.

Phase 3: Regional Prosperity Initiative The Regional Prosperity Initiative brings together the findings from the first two phases of the process to create a “Vision for a Greater Columbus.” This holistic five-year community and economic development strategy will be a consensus blueprint for raising prosperity in Greater Columbus. Strategic recommendations will be driven by the research findings – both qualitative and quantitative feedback. Examples of best practice programs, policies, and initiatives from communities around the country will be included when relevant and appropriate to help inform strategic recommendations and their subsequent implementation.

Phase 4: Implementation Plan While the Regional Prosperity Initiative will detail what Greater Columbus needs to do, the Implementation Plan will outline how it will be accomplished. For each of the strategic recommendations, the Implementation Plan will identify lead implementers, key partners, potential costs, the appropriate timeline for implementation, and metrics for gauging implementation success.



COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT This assessment examines the competitive issues facing Greater Columbus by evaluating them through the prism of what Market Street believes to be the three critical aspects of a community: its people, their prosperity, and the quality of place. Findings related to these key attributes are incorporated into nine key stories that help explain its current realities, key successes, and remaining challenges. These stories emerged from public input provided by residents in Greater Columbus, as well as in-depth analysis of data covering demographic, socioeconomic, economic, and quality of life trends within the community. Collectively, they help take stock of conditions in Greater Columbus as they presently exist and identify initial areas that may warrant strategic attention.

FOCUS GROUPS AND INTERVIEWS: A thorough assessment of a community’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges must be informed by input from the people that live and work in the area. Accordingly, a series of focus groups and interviews with individuals from the region’s public, private, and non-profit sectors was conducted in June 2015. The input gathered during these discussions has been summarized and incorporated into this Assessment when relevant and appropriate, and is differentiated throughout the report by red text.

ONLINE SURVEY: In addition to in-person input solicited via focus groups and interviews, an online community survey was open to the public for roughly six weeks in May and June of 2015. A total of 1,760 residents, workers, and business leaders responded to the survey, providing necessary input that will help ensure that this assessment and the forthcoming strategy are well-informed and mindful of the needs, wants, and opinions of stakeholders in Greater Columbus.

DATA SOURCES: A variety of public and private data sources are used throughout this Assessment. A great deal of information is drawn from the Census Bureau and other public sources including the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Proprietary data covering economic composition (employment, wages, exports, etc.) are provided by Economic Modeling Specialists, Inc. (EMSI).

COMPARISON GEOGRAPHIES: Throughout this assessment, the Columbus, GA-AL Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is utilized as the primary geographic unit of analysis, and is typically referred to as “Greater Columbus” or “the region.” Intra-regional dynamics are occasionally discussed at the county or sub-county level. In addition to state and national averages, the region’s performance is benchmarked against three metros with which it shares certain characteristics and/or competes for jobs, workers, and investment: the Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC MSA; the Chattanooga, TN-GA MSA; and the Huntsville, AL MSA. These metros are identified by their principle city (e.g. “Augusta”) throughout the report. Included as Appendix A at the conclusion of this report are a series of Community Scorecards, which compare Greater Columbus to nine other metropolitan areas (including Augusta, Chattanooga, and Huntsville) with which it competes for jobs and workers. These communities are referred to in the report as “scorecard metros.” Each scorecard evaluates the region’s competitiveness across multiple indicators that help measure how Greater Columbus has performed in recent years in key areas that reflect its ability to grow prosperity.



1. POPULATION TRENDS: SLOW GROWTH AND LIMITED IN-MIGRATION Population growth is perhaps the most fundamental indicator of a region’s attractiveness as a place to live and do business. The underlying idea is that where a person lives (or a business locates) reflects a revealed preference for a given place, and communities with high growth rates are desirable for some combination of reasons. This of course is an oversimplification with a few obvious problems. Not everyone gets to choose where they live, many strong regions have low or even negative growth, and so on. But generally – and with the proper context – a region’s growth trajectory is a good entry point into a conversation about its prospects for future prosperity and the myriad other considerations that go into that.

The context for Greater Columbus is the Southeastern United States and the explosive population growth that this section of the country experienced in recent decades. Between 1970 and 2013, Georgia’s population increased by 117.0 percent – a rate more than double the national average of 54.3 percent – while the Atlanta region nearly tripled in size (299.1 percent).i But simply put, no such population boom occurred in Greater Columbus. The region’s population increased by just 24.0 percent between 1970 and 2013, a figure that ranks 58th out of the 61 metro areas in the states of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Among this group, only the Albany, GA; Anniston-Oxford, AL; and Gadsden, AL regions grew slower than Greater Columbus.

FIGURE 1: POPULATION GROWTH INDEX, 1970-2013 (1970=100)

Source: Moody’s Analytics Note: The Southeastern Average includes 61 MSAs with principal cities in AL, GA, MS, NC, SC, and TN, inclusive of Greater Columbus and the

three comparison communities of Augusta, Chattanooga, and Huntsville.

The preceding figure shows long-term population growth trends in Greater Columbus, the three comparison communities, and the average for 61 Southeastern metro areas. It clearly shows that Greater Columbus’ growth was relatively flat between 1970 and the mid-2000s, especially in comparison to



Huntsville, Augusta, and the Southeastern average. In recent years, population growth in Greater Columbus has picked up considerably. Indeed, between 2004 and 2014, Greater Columbus added 29,553 residents, an increase of 10.4 percent that exceeded the growth rates of Chattanooga (9.4) and the nation as a whole (8.9). Greater Columbus’ population gains between 2009 and 2014 were especially strong, when its 7.6 percent growth rate was higher than all comparison geographies except for Huntsville (8.8).

But growth in Greater Columbus has actually occurred through a series of wild year-over-year population swings as opposed to a steady increase of new residents. And while it is impossible to definitively prove with standard government or proprietary data, these shifts are almost certainly due primarily to the presence of Fort Benning. According to data from Fort Benning, the base accounts for a significant portion of the region’s population. The base’s total population in 2014 was 45,506, including all active-duty military and civilian personnel and not including spouses/partners and dependent children. Accordingly, a change in base population – such as a deployment or tweak to staffing levels – will have an outsized influence on the region’s population.ii And as the following figure shows, population in Greater Columbus has fluctuated sharply in the new millennium.

FIGURE 2: POPULATION CHANGE FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN GREATER COLUMBUS, 2001-2014

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates

In the previous 13 years, the region has experienced at least a one percent year-over-year gain in population on five occasions, and on three occasions it has lost one percent of its population (or more) in a single year. In back-to-back years in 2003 and 2004, Greater Columbus went from posting a year-over-year loss of 6,651 people to a year-over-year gain of 5,719 new residents. Such drastic changes are rarely seen in other regions, and there is no other obvious factor outside of Fort Benning that can adequately explain these variations in Greater Columbus. There is also evidence to suggest that a substantial portion of the region’s growth in the past 10 years was influenced by the 2005 Base Realignment and

1,0571,879

-6,651

5,719

1,3802,223

-2,928

733

5,964

2,629

8,0609,198

5,415

-3,121

-10,000

-5,000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014



Closure (BRAC) decisions that led to an increase in population at Fort Benning. Per Fort Benning data, the total base population grew by 8,614 between Fiscal Years 2008 and 2012. This corresponds with a period of relatively sustained regional growth. And the two strongest years of regional growth, 2011 and 2012, followed the timeline when thousands of soldiers, civilians and family members relocated with the United States Army Armor School to Fort Benning from Fort Knox in Kentucky in 2010 and 2011. But if the number of soldiers at Fort Benning is indeed reduced by 3,402 by the end of Fiscal Year 2018 as was announced earlier this month, it is likely that the region’s population will experience a significant drop in the near future – unless these losses are offset through future BRAC gains or some other circumstance.

Population change is influenced by two factors – natural change (births minus deaths) and net migration (both domestic and international) – that the Census Bureau tracks through its components of population change program. But while natural change is fairly steady in Greater Columbus, net international and domestic migration totals vary widely from year to year, as shown in the following figure. This is to be expected, as military and civilian personnel moving into and out of the region are heavily influencing migration trends.

FIGURE 3: ANNUAL COMPONENTS OF POPULATION CHANGE, 2000-2014


Accordingly, it can be difficult to show the cumulative impact that any one factor has on the region’s growth during a specific period of time, as two different sets of years may produce two drastically different results. But over a long period of time, it becomes clear that natural change is the primary growth driver in Greater Columbus. Between 2000 and 2014, Greater Columbus added 30,466 new residents, 25,914 of whom can be attributed to natural change. iii Just 14.9 percent of the region’s population growth during this time period was the result of net migration. By comparison, 41.1 percent of Augusta’s new residents were in-migrants, while the figure in Huntsville was 72.3 percent. In short, when annual fluctuations are



smoothed over, Greater Columbus’ population growth is disproportionately driven by natural change. This is an important distinction because communities where growth is driven primarily by their ability to draw new residents from other parts of the country are clearly creating attractive environments for people and jobs. Migration trends reveal people’s actual preference for one community over another. As the saying goes, “people vote with their feet.” And the data reveals that more people are voting in favor of some of Greater Columbus’ main competitors for talent. Data from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) sheds additional light on this reality.

The idea that Greater Columbus is not a particularly strong net attractor of outside talent is supported by data from the IRS’s Statistics of Income program. This data is compiled from information on individual tax returns that have been stripped of personal identifying information. If a given return moves from one county to another between tax years, the program categorizes that return – and all its associated exemptions – as having migrated between counties. Examining the number of exemptions that move from county to county in a given year can provide a rough estimate of the net flow of actual people from place to place.iv The following table shows the top net sources for in-migrants (in-migrants minus out-migrants) into Greater Columbus and the top destinations of out-migrants who leave the region.

FIGURE 4: NET MIGRATION 2001-2011

Source: Internal Revenue Service

The Greater Columbus region lost a net total of 4,886 individuals to other communities between 2001 and 2011. And as the preceding figure shows, many of its biggest sources of in-migrants were counties that are in close proximity to major army bases (e.g. Christian County, Kentucky, the home of Fort Campbell). Likewise, the top destinations included the Fort Bragg and Fort Bliss communities. But a further analysis of IRS data at the MSA level shows that Greater Columbus lost 7,224 residents to metro areas that did not have a major Army base between 2001 and 2011, an average of 722 per year.v By comparison, Huntsville added an average of 1,521 new residents from the same set of MSAs during that time period.

Greater Columbus has lost a significant amount of residents to other metropolitan areas in recent years, especially relative to high-performing regions in the Southeastern United States. One of the biggest destinations was the Atlanta region, to which Greater Columbus lost an annual average of 375

Christian County, KY 762 Lee County, AL -4703Orange County, NY 695 Fulton County, GA -1013Hardin County, KY 644 Cumberland County, NC -991Pierce County, WA 527 El Paso County, TX -700Jefferson County, NY 284 Cobb County, GA -604Vernon Parish, LA 282 DeKalb County, GA -471Dougherty County, GA 257 Harnett County, NC -366Bell County, TX 256 El Paso County, CO -361Stewart County, GA 236 Fairfax County, VA -352Liberty County, GA 212 Coweta County, GA -347

Top Sources Top Destinations



residents between 2001 and 2011. Lee County – the sole county that makes up the Auburn-Opelika, AL MSA – also attracted more than 470 residents per year from Greater Columbus during this period. Individuals who move to Lee County are not necessarily leaving the labor shed that supplies talent to businesses in Greater Columbus. According to the Census Bureau’s OnTheMap program, slightly more than 6,000 Lee County residents commuted into Muscogee County for work in 2011. Input participants also reported that Lee County can be considered part of the Columbus area’s labor shed; approximately 100 Lee County residents participated in the online survey and several input participants reported that they, or some of their employees, lived in the Auburn area. But there is still a negative impact when the political jurisdictions that comprise Greater Columbus lose a resident to Lee or another nearby county. For one, IRS data also shows that the average gross income for households moving out of the region is around $2,500 more than the average of households moving to the area, indicating that the community is losing residents with higher incomes than those moving in. Residents who leave also take with them expenditures on housing, retail goods, and other services – and thus the potential tax revenue that funds vital services in Greater Columbus.

This report has so far been mostly silent on why Greater Columbus has grown so much differently than many other regions. Subsequent sections will examine myriad trends and attributes that have characterized and contributed to the region’s relatively sluggish growth. But one possible explanation that deserves special mention is the region’s relative isolation from the country’s primary transportation infrastructure – the Interstate Highway System. As many input participants put it, Greater Columbus is “at the end of the world’s longest cul-de-sac,” a reference to the fact that the center of the region is located roughly 40-50 miles away from the nearest mainline, Interstate 85, along a spur route, Interstate 185. Input participants said that Interstate 185 was preferable to having no Interstate-designated highway at all, and that a direct Interstate connection to the Atlanta market is valuable. But on the whole, stakeholders viewed the lack of mainline access as a major competitive disadvantage. Generally speaking, a lack of direct access to a mainline Interstate limits economic growth opportunities, and thus, a smaller workforce and population is needed to support the local economy. When surveyed, corporate executives and site selection consultants have for decades prioritized Interstate and highway accessibility as being one of the top-two factors that influences location decisions. Not surprisingly, the metro areas in the Southeastern United States that are not served by mainline Interstates have grown at a slower pace historically than those that are. But as the following population index shows, Greater Columbus still grew at a slower rate than other communities with a similar lack of direct mainline Interstate access.



FIGURE 5: POPULATION GROWTH COMPARED TO OTHER SOUTHEAST WITHOUT DIRECT MAINLINE INTERSTATE ACCESS

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Moody’s Analytics

Note: The averages include 61 MSAs with principle cities in AL, GA, MS, NC, SC, TN. Two communities without interstates, Gainesville, GA and Myrtle Beach, SC, were extreme outliers and were not included in the analysis due to their special characteristics (Atlanta exurb and beachfront

community, respectively). If they were to be included, the "Average Without Interstate" line would rise significantly.

There is little doubt that a lack of direct mainline Interstate access has limited economic and population growth in Greater Columbus. But the preceding figure clearly shows that Greater Columbus’ historical growth rates still lag behind communities in similar situations.vi When relevant, upcoming sections in this report will touch on any other factors that may have limited growth. In short, a full and satisfactory explanation is elusive, but understanding the implications of such slow growth is just as important as understanding the reasons why it occurred.

Key Takeaways In an era of explosive growth, Greater Columbus added residents at a far slower pace than most other regions in the Southeastern United States. By itself, this is not necessarily a bad thing. There is no virtue in “growth for the sake of growth,” and modest population gains are certainly preferable to expansion so rapid that infrastructure, schools, and services cannot keep up with the influx of new residents. But data also clearly shows that, recent Fort Benning-related migration aside, Greater Columbus is not attracting new residents from beyond its borders at the same rate as the comparison communities, and this has more serious implications for the region’s long-term economic competitiveness and prosperity. The availability of top talent is now perhaps the most important location consideration for businesses, and in this environment, successful regions will typically be those that can attract residents with high skill and educational attainment levels. And as the next section will show, the need for an influx of talent is particularly acute in Greater Columbus.



2. A CRITICAL NEED FOR TOP TALENT As previously stated, regions must have a talented workforce to support future economic growth and prosperity, and strength in this area is derived both from the quality and the quantity of workers. The quantity side is impacted by migration trends discussed in the previous section, but it is also heavily dependent on age dynamics. Communities across the country are facing an aging workforce as Baby Boomers near retirement age. Nationally, there are just enough people between the ages of 25 and 44 to replace those individuals aged 45 to 64 in the workforce (each cohort represents 26.3 percent of the population), and any potential shortfalls can be made up through international in-migration. Fortunately for Greater Columbus, its age dynamics are even more favorable, as seen in the following figure.

FIGURE 6: AGE DISTRUBTION, 2013


The ratio of residents aged 25 to 44 to those aged 45 to 64 is often described as a “dependency ratio,” with a ratio greater than 1.0 suggesting a region will have just enough younger residents to replace those in the older cohort as they reach retirement age. Greater Columbus ranked fifth among the ten scorecard communities on this metric, with a dependency ratio of 1.16. There are enough young people in the region to replace the workers who will retire in the next ten to twenty years. Many other communities cannot make this claim, and all three comparison metros had lower (worse) dependency ratios than Greater Columbus.vii Local age dynamics are also improving relative to the comparison communities. Greater Columbus had the largest percentage increase in the population between the ages of 25 and 34 between 2008 and 2013. Nationally, this age cohort increased 0.1 percentage points, whereas in Greater Columbus, it increased by 1.1 percentage points. And at the other



end of the spectrum, the share of population over the age of 65 increased by 0.1 percentage points in the region compared to 1.4 percentage points nationwide.

Another litmus test for workforce sustainability is the proportion of a region’s workforce comprised of workers over the age of 55 relative to the national share of workers in that same cohort. Workers over the age of 55 are those most likely to retire in the next decade. Communities with a relatively large percentage of workers aged 55 and over are particularly susceptible to near-term workforce shortages. In Greater Columbus, roughly 17 percent of workers are over the age of 55 compared to the national figure of 21 percent.

Overall, Greater Columbus has favorable age dynamics, and assuming it is able to retain these residents, the region should not be lacking for a quantity of workers. But workforce quality is another story. Greater Columbus has a less educated population overall relative to all comparison geographies and scorecard communities, and due to the growing importance of a skilled labor pool, this is highly disconcerting. The region has the lowest percentage of residents aged 25 and over with a bachelor’s degree or higher at just 21.2 percent compared to the national average of 29.6 percent. The region’s bachelor attainment rate was also lower than that of all scorecard communities, including in-state peers Augusta (24.5) and Savannah (31.3) and the other two metro areas with large military populations – Clarksville (23.2) and Fayetteville, NC (22.3). For additional context, some of the primary magnets for jobs and talent in the country – regions such as Raleigh, NC and Austin, TX – have bachelor’s attainment rates above 40 percent, roughly double the rate of Greater Columbus.

Additionally, more than one in four area residents completed some college but did not receive a degree, the highest share among all comparisons, while the proportion of people in Greater Columbus without a high school diploma was ranked seventh-highest among the scorecard comparison communities. The high percentage of individuals between the ages of 18 and 24 that had not attained a high school diploma also represents a concern. According to data averaging the five years between 2009 and 2013, 17.0 percent of residents aged 18 to 24 had less than a high school diploma. Nationally, 15.6 percent of individuals in that age cohort had not received a high school diploma.



FIGURE 7: EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR THE POPULATION 25 YEARS AND OVER, 2013

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

It is important to note that the region’s low educational attainment levels are not confined to any one demographic. Bachelor’s degree attainment rates for black and white residents lag their respective national rates by six percentage points each. Additionally, the region’s educational attainment rates are not substantially skewed by the presence of Fort Benning. In fact, the bachelor’s degree attainment rate among civilians aged 25 and older in Greater Columbus was 21.1 percent, slightly lower than the overall regional average.viii

Even more alarming than the low educational attainment rates themselves, however, is the fact that the gap in bachelor’s degree attainment between Greater Columbus and its comparison geographies is growing larger. Between 2008 and 2013, the share of the population with a bachelor’s degree or higher increased by 0.6 percentage points locally compared to the national gain of 2.1 percentage points and increases of 2.4 and 2.6 percentage points, respectively, in Augusta and Huntsville. A look at the educational attainments of Greater Columbus’ younger residents and recent in-migrants to the area sheds light onto why this is the case.

The following figure shows educational attainment levels for the 25 to 44 and 45 to 64 age cohorts in Greater Columbus, the state of Georgia, and the United States. The younger cohort in Greater Columbus has a slightly higher rate of bachelor’s degree attainment than the older group, but the spread is much larger in the state and the nation, and the proportion of local individuals aged 25 to 44 with at least a bachelor’s degree (22.4 percent) pales in comparison to that of Georgia (30.7) and the United States (33.0). Also of note is the fact that, among the younger cohort, Greater Columbus has a much higher proportion of individuals with some college but no degree and only a slightly larger share of individuals who have never attended college. This indicates that younger individuals in the region are attempting some type of higher education at roughly the same rates as people in Georgia and the United States, but they are not

14.9% 14.9% 14.5% 11.2% 14.6% 13.4%

29.9% 30.3% 30.2%22.7%

28.6% 27.8%

25.7% 22.4% 24.1%

20.7%

21.2% 21.1%

8.3% 7.9% 7.5%

8.9%

7.4% 8.1%

12.4% 14.5% 15.1%

23.5%17.8% 18.4%

8.8% 10.0% 8.6% 13.0% 10.6% 11.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

GreaterColumbus

Augusta Chattanooga Huntsville Georgia UnitedStates

Graduate Degree

Bachelor's Degree

Associate's Degree

Some college, nodegreeHS Diploma

No HS Diploma



finishing degrees by the age of 25 at anything close to the state and national rates. And overall, the educational attainment gap between Greater Columbus and other communities is likely to grow as a result of these trends.

FIGURE 8: EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT BY AGE COHORT, 2013


Another way for regions to improve their levels of educational attainment is by attracting educated in-migrants. In-migrants to Greater Columbus are on the whole more educated than the region’s current population, and new arrivals are also more likely to have a bachelor’s degree than in-migrants to Augusta or Chattanooga. But Greater Columbus ranked just seventh among the 10 scorecard metros in in-migrant bachelor’s degree attainment rate. And recall that Greater Columbus also receives comparatively little population growth from in-migration. In Huntsville and Savannah – the scorecard metros with the top two bachelor’s degree attainment rates for in-migrants – more than 60 percent of population growth between 2000 and 2014 was the result of net in-migration. In Greater Columbus, in-migration accounted for just 14.9 percent of growth. In other words, even if Greater Columbus had the top in-migrant bachelor’s degree attainment rate among the scorecard metros (instead of the seventh) there would simply not be enough new arrivals to make a large impact on overall educational attainment levels.ix The implications this has on the community as a whole will be discussed later in the report, as will the region’s



ability to develop talent locally and retain its homegrown talent to help increase the community’s educational attainment.

FIGURE 9: EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF IN-MIGRANTS, 2009-2013


Educational attainment rates are important for many more reasons other than workforce sustainability and a region’s ability to grow and keep in-demand jobs. Research shows that educational attainment is one of the key factors influencing a person’s lifetime earnings and economic opportunities. Individuals with higher levels of education are more likely to have higher incomes and are less likely to be unemployed. As a result, they are presumably less likely to be in poverty or reliant on government or non-profit assistance. There is also evidence to suggest that higher levels of educational attainment have positive impacts on a variety of factors relevant to personal well-being and community vitality – from incarceration rates to levels of volunteering. Communities with higher levels of education are therefore more likely to benefit from increased wealth and overall prosperity for their residents. The following figure breaks down earnings and unemployment rates in the United States by educational attainment level. In 2014, the average unemployment rate in the United States for full-time workers over the age of 25 was 5.0 percent. However those with less than an associate’s degree had unemployment rates of 6.0 and higher. Further, individuals with higher levels of education are more likely to have higher earnings. On average, a full-time worker with a bachelor’s degree in 2014 would have earned roughly $22,500 more than the average worker with a high school diploma.

13.6% 15.1% 16.4% 10.4% 15.0%

23.3%27.3% 27.2%

19.0%25.2%

35.4% 30.0% 28.7%

34.1%

29.5%

20.2% 18.5% 15.4%21.9%

19.6%

7.4% 9.0% 12.4% 14.6% 10.6%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

GreaterColumbus

Augusta Chattanooga Huntsville Georgia

Graduate Degree

Bachelor's Degree

Some college or Associate'sDegree

HS Diploma

No HS Diploma



FIGURE 10: U.S. MEDIAN WEEKLY EARNINGS AND UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT, 2014

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Key Takeaways Greater Columbus’ workforce is not in dire straits. The region has favorable age dynamics to account for impending retirements, and the amount of top talent available in the region generally seems to be capable of supporting the region’s existing base of businesses, which will be discussed in the next section. But the region is less educated, in some cases significantly so, than its competitors, and this gap will not close if the status quo is maintained. These low education attainment levels are likely to limit future economic opportunities. Nearly all types of businesses – from retail establishments to high technology firms – take things like bachelor’s degree attainment levels into account when considering whether to locate or remain in an area. Communities without sufficiently high levels of educational attainment will be at a significant disadvantage when it comes to growing, retaining, and attracting a wide range of quality jobs that can increase levels of prosperity. The next section explores how these realties impact the region’s labor force and economic landscape.

$488$668 $741 $792

$1,101

$1,326

$1,639 $1,591

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

Less than ahigh school

diploma

High schooldiploma

Somecollege, no

degree

Associate'sdegree

Bachelor'sdegree

Master'sdegree

Professionaldegree

Doctoraldegree

0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%10%

Med

ian

Wee

kly

Earn

ings

Une

mpl

oym

ent

Rate

Median weekly earnings Unemployment rate



3. ECONOMIC REALITIES As Greater Columbus’ population has grown at a slow rate, so too has its labor force. The labor force represents the pool of civilian workers in a region that are employed or unemployed but actively looking for work. Over the past five years, the labor force in Greater Columbus has essentially been unchanged, a surprising outcome considering its age dynamics and talent production assets. Higher education institutions such as Columbus State University offer a pipeline of new workers to the region, and Fort Benning offers a qualified supply of retired military to enter the civilian workforce. But the fact that little to no civilian labor force growth occurred in recent years further supports the idea that the region’s recent spike in population growth was due to the relocation of the Armor School, as a more natural increase in population should have led to a significant increase in the number of civilians working or looking for work.

As occurred in many places during and after the Great Recession, the region’s unemployment rate hovered around 10 percent throughout 2009 and 2010. But unemployment has remained persistently higher than state and national averages at 7.3 percent through February 2015, 0.9 percentage points higher than the Georgia rate and 1.3 percentage points higher than the national average. Meanwhile, the labor force was essentially stagnant (declining by a slight 0.2 percent) between 2009 and 2014. Accordingly, the decrease in the unemployment rate was attributed to a net employment gain of approximately 2,000 jobs between 2009 and 2014, which reflects a 1.6 percent increase in employment. But while this job growth has been welcome, it lags the state (2.4 percent) and nation (4.6 percent) over the five-year period.

FIGURE 11: TOTAL NONFARM JOBS, 2005-2015

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics, seasonally adjusted

While the recession continues to fade into the past, the negative effects continue to impact some communities. But as the previous figure shows, the recession had less of an impact on the employment total in Greater Columbus relative to all comparison geographies except for Huntsville. Total nonfarm jobs decreased by 3.2 percent during the recessionary years, while nationally it decreased by 5.4 percent. Since the official end of the recession, employment in the Columbus region had increased by 5.0 percent, while employment nationally increased by 7.7 percent between June 2009 and February 2015.

But overall, employment in the Columbus region increased by just 1.7 percent between 2005 and 2015, representing a net gain of approximately 2,100 jobs. This was the second-slowest growth rate among comparison geographies, ahead of only Chattanooga. As the following table makes clear, however, the

Feb2005

Dec2007

Jun2009

Feb2015

Recession 12/07-06/09

Recovery 06/09-02/15

10-yr Chg. 02/05-02/15

Greater Columbus 121,700 121,800 117,900 123,800 -3.2% 5.0% 1.7%Augusta 218,800 220,500 213,100 230,000 -3.4% 7.9% 5.1%Chattanooga 239,300 247,500 226,900 243,000 -8.3% 7.1% 1.5%Huntsville 196,000 214,000 209,500 218,500 -2.1% 4.3% 11.5%Georgia 3,981,800 4,170,100 3,897,100 4,246,100 -6.5% 9.0% 6.6%United States 132,991,000 138,350,000 130,944,000 141,057,000 -5.4% 7.7% 6.1%



Chattanooga area’s slow growth rate is largely due to the negative impact the recession had on the area. Most of Chattanooga’s losses were jobs that it had gained in the run-up to the recession. In Greater Columbus, there was no pre-recession boom to go bust. In fact, pre-recessionary growth was so flat that there are still fewer civilian jobs in the Columbus region now than there were in January 2000 despite a relatively less severe recession.

FIGURE 12: TOTAL NONFARM EMPLOYMENT INDEX JAN. 2000 – FEB. 2015 (JAN. 2000=100)

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics, seasonally adjusted

Economic Composition and Performance While Greater Columbus’ job growth has been modest in recent years, the following figure breaks down the changes that did occur. It shows five-year changes in regional employment by major business sector. The first thing that may jump out is a massive job loss in the Information sector and a huge gain in Finance and Insurance. This is misleading, as it can be attributed almost entirely to a single noneconomic event in which an area firm (likely TSYS) was reclassified into a different business sector in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which federal statistical agencies use to group businesses into areas of economic activity (e.g. manufacturing or health care).x

Instead, the biggest positive development has been the region’s growth in manufacturing employment. Job growth in the Manufacturing sector outpaced the national sector growth rate by an impressive 11.6 percentage points, as firms added roughly 1,350 positions within the region. This recent trend represents a reversal (for the time-being anyway) of a major downturn that erased 36.5 percent of the



region’s production jobs between 2004 and 2009. The growth since 2009 has almost certainly been helped along by relocations and expansions from companies such as NCR and Pratt & Whitney. It is also possible that the presence of the KIA assembly plant in West Point, Georgia has made a difference, though according to input participants with direct knowledge of the plant’s impact on the Greater Columbus region, most of the numerous suppliers that have co-located with the facility have done so along the Interstate 85 corridor. The Columbus MSA is home to only a handful of KIA suppliers, all of which are in Harris County. According to stakeholders, the plant’s principal benefit for Greater Columbus has been as a source of jobs for residents who can commute to the facility or a supplier from the region.

FIGURE 13: GREATER COLUMBUS EMPLOYMENT BY BUSINESS SECTOR, 2009-2014

Source: Economic Modeling Specialists, Inc. (EMSI)

Note: Location quotients (LQs) are a ratio of the region’s share of employment in a given business sector divided by that same sector’s share of total national employment. A location quotient great than 1.0 indicates that the region’s share of employment in a given sector is greater than

the average American community, and may be a sign that the region affords businesses in this sector with some level of competitive advantage.

Beyond the Manufacturing sector, however, there were relatively few bright spots. For instance, the region’s traditional “white collar” sectors – Information; Finance and Insurance; Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services; and Management of Companies and Enterprises – combined to add just 149 jobs between 2009 and 2014. These sectors are vital to the region’s economy, accounting for more than 20,000 jobs (many of

Description 2009 Jobs

2014 Jobs

# Chg. % Chg. US % Chg.

Share of Total Jobs

2014 LQ

Crop and Animal Production 462 502 40 8.6% 1.6% 0.3% 0.28

Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 108 98 (10) -9.1% 33.1% 0.1% 0.11

Utilities 295 265 (30) -10.3% -1.7% 0.2% 0.49

Construction 6,835 5,456 (1,379) -20.2% -3.8% 3.7% 0.71

Manufacturing 9,492 10,843 1,351 14.2% 2.6% 7.3% 0.90

Wholesale Trade 2,675 2,588 (87) -3.2% 4.7% 1.7% 0.44

Retail Trade 13,144 13,727 583 4.4% 4.6% 9.2% 0.88

Transportation and Warehousing 2,260 1,673 (587) -26.0% 8.8% 1.1% 0.34

Information 5,546 1,514 (4,032) -72.7% -3.0% 1.0% 0.54

Finance and Insurance 7,065 11,088 4,023 56.9% 2.4% 7.4% 1.83

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1,935 2,028 93 4.8% -1.3% 1.4% 0.83

Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 5,841 6,252 411 7.0% 9.7% 4.2% 0.67

Management of Companies and Enterprises 1,617 1,364 (253) -15.7% 14.6% 0.9% 0.66

Admin. and Support and Waste Mgmt./Remed. Svcs. 6,566 6,649 84 1.3% 18.4% 4.5% 0.71

Educational Services 1,033 1,066 33 3.2% 10.4% 0.7% 0.28

Health Care and Social Assistance 14,916 15,952 1,036 6.9% 11.5% 10.7% 0.86

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1,233 1,155 (78) -6.3% 7.7% 0.8% 0.47

Accommodation and Food Services 12,364 13,727 1,363 11.0% 12.2% 9.2% 1.11

Other Services (except Public Administration) 7,025 6,759 (266) -3.8% -1.9% 4.5% 0.95

Government 46,661 46,454 (206) -0.4% -1.8% 31.1% 1.97

Total 147,073 149,161 2,224 1.5% 5.2%



them high-paying) and “exporting” many services to other regions and thereby bringing new wealth into the community, just as a manufacturing firm might export a good. The fact that these key white collar sectors have grown by less than one percent locally compared to nearly six percent nationally is a concern and has likely acted as a significant barrier to additional prosperity. Most of the region’s job growth over the past five years outside of the Manufacturing sector was driven by the Health Care and Accommodation and Food Services sectors. While these sectors provide many jobs, they are disproportionately local-serving, meaning they do not bring as much new outside money into the community. Moreover, they are closely linked with population – slow-growth communities do not have high potential to add additional jobs in these sectors.

The preceding figure also shows location quotients (LQ) in the table column furthest to the right. A location quotient is the ratio of a region’s share of employment in a given business sector to that of the nation’s share of jobs within that sector. A location quotient of 1.0 indicates that the share of jobs in the region is exactly the same as the national share of jobs. It can be used to identify which business sectors are more concentrated in a community compared to the United States as a whole. Location quotients above 1.0 are often seen as indications of some type of local competitive advantage. The region has just three sectors that are more concentrated locally than nationally – Finance and Insurance, Accommodation and Food Services, and Government. This begins to illustrate the extent to which the local economy is dependent on only a handful of sectors, businesses, and entities. Government alone accounts for roughly one-third of all jobs in the metro area, and of those, the majority are military jobs. Nationally, government and military jobs account for just 15 percent of employment. And as the following figure shows, several large companies in the Finance and Insurance sector – TSYS, Aflac, BlueCross BlueShield of Georgia, Synovous – make up a large majority of the employment in that business sector.

FIGURE 14: TOP EMPLOYERS IN GREATER COLUMBUS

Source: Greater Columbus Chamber of Commerce

Note: As indicated by the presence of KIA, this list uses a slightly more expansive version of Greater Columbus than the MSA.

Employer# of

Employees Employer# of

Employees

Fort Benning 40,000 Pratt & Whitney 1,000

TSYS 4,600 Synovus Financial Corp. 930

Muscogee County Scool District 4,300 Callaway Gardens 900

Aflac 3,670 MeadWestvaco Mahrt Operations 900

Columbus Regional Healthcare System, Inc. 3,180 Heatcraft North America (Kysor-Warren) 786

Columbus Consolidated Government 3,130 NCR Corporation 725

KIA Motors Manufacturing Georgia Inc. 3,000 Johnson Controls Inc. 705

St. Francis Hospital Inc. 3,000 Interface 630

BlueCross BlueShield of Georgia 1,400 InterCall 625

Columbus State University 1,360 DMI Columbus, LLC 550



Input participants repeatedly discussed that lack of employment opportunities as a major weakness for the community. This does not take away from the pride, support, and appreciation that residents have for Fort Benning, Aflac, TSYS, BSBC, and the other major employers in the area. Rather, this highlights a challenge that residents reported – that there is little room for job advancement, lateral movement, and a lack of career opportunities in the private sector outside of the finance and insurance sectors. Input participants said, “good employment opportunities are limited to a handful of major employers” and that “there are not enough jobs available for every college graduate to have work that pertains to their education.”

Community stakeholders also expressed concern regarding the region’s vulnerability and dependency on a few large employers. Dependency on a few large employers leaves the region at risk to potential competitive or regulatory changes in a given business sector such as Finance and Insurance. Additionally, uncertainty about the federal budget and defense spending leave the region vulnerable to potential cutbacks at Fort Benning.

Beyond this, diverse economies are more equipped to supply jobs for various sectors and at all career levels. Again, this is not to take away from the tremendous positive impact those large employers have had on the region. But input participants feel that a few large employers cannot possibly provide jobs for all residents. Additionally, a diverse economy is beneficial when recruiting workers to the region when there is a trailing spouse or family member. The ability for the other family member to find employment is an important factor when an individual is considering relocating to a new community for a job opportunity. The second phase of this process, the Target Business Analysis, will examine the economic composition in much greater detail in order to identify the business sectors that provide the greatest opportunities for future job growth and wealth creation in the Columbus region.

Key Takeaways Most regional economies in the United States boomed in the mid-2000s, busted in the midst of the Great Recession, and recovered to varying degrees in the subsequent years. These trends were far more muted in Greater Columbus, where job growth has generally been anemic throughout much of the new millennium. There are certainly some bright spots, and the region’s roster of key large employers is exceedingly rare for a community of this size. But the present-day economy of Greater Columbus is not sufficiently strong to boost levels of prosperity in the region. The civilian labor force has remained virtually unchanged in recent years. Additionally, the unemployment rate remains higher than that of comparison communities. According to representatives from the business community contacted through the interview process, the unemployment rate is as much a product of a lack of qualified workers as it is a lack of available jobs. This speaks to how talent and economic performance are intertwined and suggests that there may be a large segment of the local population that is disconnected from economic opportunities – an inference that is underscored in the next section.



4. INCOME AND POVERTY Up until this point, this report has focused on things such as talent attraction, workforce quality, and economic performance. These are important factors in the health of a region, but they are ultimately means to an end. The core goal of community and economic development – and of this initiative – is to raise levels of prosperity and standards of living for people, thereby improving their lives. The important questions are therefore: how are the residents of Greater Columbus doing and are they better off now than they have been in the recent past?

Per capita income is the most basic indicator of the economic well-being of the average resident. Greater Columbus has the fifth highest per capita income among the 10 scorecard communities, and at $39,012, it ranks ahead of the national average of $37,845. Per capita income also grew faster than the national average in the region in the five- and ten-year periods leading up to 2013.

FIGURE 16: PER CAPITA INCOME

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

Taken alone, the preceding table might suggest that Greater Columbus’ residents are doing quite well. But an examination of the components of per capita income paints a different picture. Personal income is derived from three sources: wages from jobs, investment income (e.g. dividends, interest, and rent), and transfer receipts (all varieties of government benefits). Among the comparison metros, Columbus had the smallest percentage of income derived from wages. Given the large corporate presence, it was not surprising to see a larger than average share (roughly 20 percent) of income was derived from dividends, interest, and rent – investment income, in other words. But the small percentage of income from wages (59.5 percent) is rather concerning. Nationally, wages account for 64.1 percent of personal income.

The average annual wage in Greater Columbus in 2013 was lower than eight of the nine other comparison scorecard communities. Low wages are something of a double-edged sword. They are certainly good for business costs, but they can also make attracting and retaining workers difficult and hold down the amount of local wealth that recirculates through the economy.

2003 2008 2013 08-13 % Chg. 03-13 % Chg.

Greater Columbus $29,303 $36,715 $39,012 6.3% 33.1%

Augusta $27,622 $32,763 $35,625 8.7% 29.0%

Chattanooga $29,624 $34,732 $38,134 9.8% 28.7%

Huntsville $30,794 $38,658 $41,899 8.4% 36.1%

Georgia $32,677 $40,873 $44,765 9.5% 37.0%

United States $30,478 $35,761 $37,845 5.8% 24.2%



FIGURE 15: CIVILIAN AVERAGE ANNUAL WAGES

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Many residents and employers also acknowledged that low wages are tolerable in the region due to its low cost of living. An analysis of cost of living across the scorecard regions showed that Greater Columbus tied for second with the Montgomery and Fayetteville, AR for having the lowest cost of living. Only the Augusta metro area had a lower overall cost of living. But while the lower cost of living is a selling point, many other comparison communities are similarly affordable but also have higher overall wages, meaning that Greater Columbus is not necessarily a greater overall “value.”

During the input process, participants frequently named Metro Atlanta as the region with which Greater Columbus has competed with for talent, particularly young professionals. Stakeholders cited higher wages and robust employment opportunities in the Atlanta region as reasons many residents from Greater Columbus have relocated to the area. The cost of living is higher in the Atlanta region – 97 on a scale where 100 is the national average compared to the 86 of Greater Columbus. But wages are also much higher in Metro Atlanta, where the average annual wage in 2013 was $52,591 higher than all comparison geographies and scorecard metros. Accordingly, input participants felt that many see the Atlanta region as a better value than Greater Columbus despite its higher costs. Stakeholders feel this is a significant competitive challenge for the Columbus region due to its close proximity to Metro Atlanta.

Additionally, roughly 20 percent of income in the Columbus region stems from transfer receipts – retirement benefits, medical benefits, income maintenance benefits, veterans’ benefits, etc. The large military retiree population residing in the area certainly elevates this indicator to an extent. However, the disconcerting fact is that 15.3 percent of transfer receipts stem from “income maintenance benefits,” which includes payments such as food stamps, earned income tax credit, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Comparatively, just 9.5 percent of personal current transfer receipts were derived from income maintenance benefits in Huntsville, 10.8 percent in Chattanooga, and 13.0 percent in Augusta. (The national average for metro areas is 11.3 percent.) Additionally, while communities across the country saw an increase in income maintenance benefits due to the impact of the Great Recession, the Columbus metro area experienced the smallest increase of the four MSAs between 2008 and 2013. This suggests that the relatively large share of income maintenance benefits received by the greater Columbus residents is not a temporary increase due to job loss and the downturn in the economy, but rather, a larger percentage of individuals in the area have consistently depended on income maintenance benefits

2003 2008 201308-13 %

Chg.03-13 %

Chg.

Greater Columbus $29,569 $35,067 $38,297 9.2% 29.5%

Augusta $32,620 $38,068 $41,140 8.1% 26.1%

Chattanooga $31,834 $37,258 $41,709 11.9% 31.0%

Huntsville $40,150 $47,427 $52,462 10.6% 30.7%

Georgia $36,626 $42,585 $46,760 9.8% 27.7%

United States $37,765 $45,563 $49,808 9.3% 31.9%



compared to the other communities. This is reflected in the region’s high poverty rates. Both the region’s child poverty rate and total population poverty rate were the highest out of all scorecard metros. Nearly one in three Greater Columbus children between the ages of 5 and 17 were living in poverty in 2013. Again, this is not due to a temporary increase; in 2008, Greater Columbus also had the highest child poverty rate out of the scorecard communities.

FIGURE 17: POVERTY RATES, 2013

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, SAIPE

Poverty was a topic that came up often throughout the input process. According to input participants, poverty in Greater Columbus is generational, with individuals born into poverty having a difficult time rising out of it. Additionally conversations centered on the negative impact that poverty has on the community’s crime rates and K-12 outcomes. Said one participant, “we need to make poverty an economic problem and not a charitable problem,” adding that it is important to convey how poverty impacts the region’s competitiveness. Input participants also noted that individuals from the lower rungs of the economic ladder have limited opportunities and that wealth in Greater Columbus tends to be bifurcated, with a small but very wealthy group of rich households, a very large group of poor households, and only a small middle class in between.

An examination of the distribution of household incomes supports this assertion. The following figure shows that nearly 60 percent of households in the Columbus region earned an income of less than $50,000 in 2013. Out of the 381 metropolitan statistical areas, only 55 had a larger percentage of households earning less than $50,000.



FIGURE 18: DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 2013


The median household income in Greater Columbus was $40,388 as of 2013, placing it behind its comparisons communities, the state, and the nation. Between 2008 and 2013, the number of households with income greater than $150,000 increased by 23.2 percent, while there was little change in the number of households earning less than $50,000 (-1.7 percent). So while per capita income is similar to the national per capita income, the median household income is approximately $12,000 less than the United States’ median income. This indicates that while Greater Columbus has a lot of income on a per capita basis, the distribution of these resources is largely skewed toward its top-earning households.

Key Takeaways While per capita income in Greater Columbus is high relative to its comparison communities, this is misleading. A greater proportion of local income is derived from investment income and government benefits as opposed to wages, and the distribution of income is skewed toward households in higher economic brackets. Wages are low such that Greater Columbus does not have a “cost of living value proposition” relative to Metro Atlanta, one of its primary competitors for talent. Nearly 60 percent of the households in the region have annual incomes below $50,000 and the region’s median household income was lower than all three comparison regions, the state, and the nation. Thirty percent of children in the region live below the poverty line, and the region’s elevated poverty rates pre-date the Great Recession. In short, a substantial portion of the region’s population is not enjoying in its successes. The region has shown a willingness to address these issues through efforts such as 2009’s “Building Prosperity in Columbus-Muscogee County.” But it is clear that there is far more work ahead.



5. QUALITY OF PLACE AND QUALITY OF LIFE If Greater Columbus is to improve its talent base and raise levels of prosperity, quality of life and quality of place must play a central role. This is perhaps best evidenced by the “Knight Soul of the Community 2010” report from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and Gallup. The report was the culmination of three years of research in 26 communities (Greater Columbus among them) that sought to determine what attaches people to a community. According to the report, community attachment is, “an emotional connection to a place that transcends satisfaction, loyalty, and even passion. A community’s most attached residents have strong pride in it, a positive outlook on the community’s future, and a sense that it is the perfect place for them. They are less likely to want to leave than residents without this emotional connection. They feel a bond to their community that is stronger than just being happy about where they live.”

According to the report, three factors stood out in terms of their influence on community attachment:

ü Social offerings (such as entertainment options and places to meet people)

ü Aesthetics (physical beauty, green spaces, etc.)

ü Openness (the ability for all kinds of people to build networks and thrive)

These factors fall squarely into the quality of life and quality of place categories, and they are more than feel-good sentiments. The report examined the relationship between levels of community attachment and economic growth and entrepreneurship and found a positive relationship. In other words, places in which residents are attached to their community are more economically successful than those that are not. This section discusses various aspects that influence quality of life and quality of place in Greater Columbus. It covers things like social offerings and openness in addition to several other factors (e.g. community health and crime) that have an influence on the well-being and prosperity of the community.

Perceptions of Quality of Life and Quality of Place in Greater Columbus Online survey participants were asked to rate a variety of quality of life and place aspects that influence the region’s attractiveness as a place to live. And as the following figure shows, area residents hold generally favorable views about the region’s quality of life. Of the 14 aspects survey participants were asked to rank, 12 received more “Excellent/Above Average” responses than “Very Poor/Below Average.”



FIGURE 19: PLEASE RATE THE FOLLOWING ASPECTS OF THE COLUMBUS REGION'S QUALITY OF LIFE, BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCES WHERE YOU LIVE.

Source: Market Street Services; Regional Prosperity Initiative Survey (2015)

Qualitative input gathered through focus groups, interviews, and open-ended survey responses supported these assertions. Input participants from a variety of backgrounds and age groups spoke highly of various aspects of quality of life in the region. The following image displays some of the most commonly used words that input participants used when asked to describe the Columbus region’s greatest strength as a place to live work and do business.



FIGURE 20: IN YOUR OPINION, WHAT IS THE COLUMBUS REGION'S GREATEST STRENGTH AS A PLACE TO LIVE, WORK, VISIT, AND DO BUSINESS?


As the preceding graphic shows, a majority of the words that stakeholders associated with the region’s greatest strength deal with quality of life and place. Arts, family-friendliness, cultural options, activities, and diversity all tie into the less quantifiable characteristics that speak to the region’s appeal as a place to live, and to the attachment residents have to their community.

Community Attachment In the aforementioned Soul of the Community study, Greater Columbus was among the 26 communities in which researchers studied the issue of community attachment. The region fared well among its comparison group – medium population regions with high urban density – that also included Columbia, SC; Lexington, KY; Tallahassee, FL; and Wichita, KS. Greater Columbus tied for the highest proportion of “attached” residents among this group and had the second lowest percentage of individuals who were “not attached.” Greater Columbus also compared favorably to the average of all 26 communities.

Online survey responses generally support the idea that many of the region’s residents feel attached to their community. Nearly two thirds (64.1 percent) said they will “very likely” continue to live in Greater Columbus compared to just 11 percent who said they would “not likely” do so. And nearly half of respondents (49.3 percent) said they would be very likely to retire in the community as well. But 42.6 percent of respondents said their children, once grown, would be “not likely” to remain in the community, highlighting an urgent need for talent retention efforts.



Social Offerings Input participants had strong praise for the social offerings available in Greater Columbus, ranging from community groups to amenities such as Callaway Gardens and the National Infantry Museum. The following list briefly recaps some of the themes to have emerged from input:

ü A revitalized Uptown: One of the most common themes throughout the input process was the immense sense of pride that residents of Greater Columbus take in the revival of Uptown. Nearly every individual contacted through an interview or focus group cited the “rebirth” of Uptown and the coordinated efforts that went into making it happen as one of the most positive changes in the region. Stakeholders also expressed optimism about the potential for current and future developments, especially CSU’s investment in its RiverPark campus.

ü Cultural and Arts facilities and programs: Roughly 50 percent of survey participants rated the community’s cultural and arts facilities and programs as “excellent” or “above average” – a strong number in any community but a particularly notable achievement for a region the size of Greater Columbus. Stakeholders had high praise for the RiverCenter for the Performing Arts, Springer Opera House, the various offerings from Columbus State’s Schwob School of Music, and the Columbus Symphony Orchestra, the second orchestra formed in the history of the United States. Input participants noted that such a strong roster of performing arts assets and institutions is exceptionally rare in a community the size of Greater Columbus.

ü Volunteer opportunities: Input participants reported that numerous opportunities to participate and get involved. Roughly 56 percent of online survey respondents rated volunteer opportunities as “above average” or “excellent.” Residents in the Columbus region reported that the social services and faith communities provide a tremendous amount of support to help alleviate some of the issues related to poverty, hunger, and homelessness.

ü Shopping and Dining: Approximately 45 percent of online survey participants rated dining options as “above average” or “excellent” – about three times as many who rated these options as “below average” or “very poor.” Many input participants, however, expressed a desire for more quality retail options and upscale dining opportunities in the region, while acknowledging recent improvements.

ü Outdoor activities and recreational amenities: Numerous input participants cited the Chattahoochee River as the region’s greatest strength, and praised the many improvements to this area in recent decades. Stakeholders generally felt that the 20-year growth and transformation of the Chattahoochee RiverWalk has been remarkable. And like the revitalization of Uptown, input participants were also virtually unanimous in their praise for the whitewater course – yet another amenity that was the result of a diligent effort on the part of community leaders. Input participants feel the whitewater course and zip line are unique assets that have greatly improved the recreational offerings on the Chattahoochee River for both residents and visitors. Other recreational amenities that received strong praise from input participants included the Cooper Creek Tennis Center (and its upcoming expansion), the South Commons Softball Complex, the Columbus Aquatic Center, and the Columbus Fall Line Trace Rails-to-Trails Project.



Aesthetics Stakeholders’ opinions on the aesthetics of Greater Columbus were mixed. The region’s natural beauty was consistently cited as a point of pride, as were the parks, playgrounds, trails, and other opportunities for people to experience that natural beauty. Input participants also noted that the revitalization efforts in Uptown and Midtown have preserved the historic character of the neighborhoods. But while participants acknowledged that conditions have improved some in recent years, many still lamented what they described as abandoned, blighted, or unsightly properties. Many of these areas are also places through which visitors to the community must pass. One participant said, “I almost want to blindfold visitors that I bring to town until we get downtown and it looks nice. There’s no good entrance to Columbus.” Input participants noted that past and current efforts have been devised to address this issue, but said that more work is needed.

Openness Open communities are those in which all types of people can thrive, and the input process revealed mixed results regarding the extent to which this is true in Greater Columbus. On one hand, online survey participants, regardless of race, were more likely than not to view Greater Columbus as an open and welcoming place. But many input participants described a community with racial and socioeconomic divisions that are evident in many aspects of the region’s life and in some ways define expectations, opportunities, and outcomes for its people. Stakeholders frequently described this concept with a euphemism – “the North-South divide” – that references Macon Road, the informal geographical boundary of race and class in the region’s core county.

Online survey participants were asked about the degree to which they agreed with the statement, “Greater Columbus is an inclusive place.” Less than half of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement (41.1 percent), though this was nearly twice the proportion of those who disagreed or strongly disagreed (22.0). Interestingly, a cross-tabulation of responses to this question by race and ethnicity reveals that black and white survey respondents have similar feelings about the community’s inclusiveness. In many other communities, survey respondents from minority groups are far less likely than white respondents to agree that a place is inclusive. Among black respondents in Greater Columbus, 41.5 percent agreed or strongly agreed with the statement and 21.5 percent disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. Among white residents, these figures were 42.2 and 21.7, respectively.

As the following figure shows, Greater Columbus is a “majority-minority” population.xi Historically, black and white residents have made up the majority of the region’s population, but in recent years, the Hispanic population has grown in Greater Columbus. Accordingly, the community is likely to become more diverse in the coming years. Many input participants also believed that the region’s increasing diversity is an opportunity, and numerous stakeholders also noted that race relations have improved significantly in the community in recent years.



FIGURE 21: POPULATION BY RACE AND ETHNICITY, 2013


But as is the case in nearly all places, tensions still remain along racial and ethnic lines. Input participants agreed that the oft-mentioned North-South divide is real. Said one participant, “On a statistical level, there is diversity, but geographically and socially, it is not mixed.” Another stakeholder who is not originally from Greater Columbus said, “When I moved here, I was shocked how segregated the city was. It's gotten a little better but it's still extremely segregated.” Many other input participants could recall specific examples where racial tensions had entered into a public or private interaction. Such conditions are certainly not uncommon – nearly every community has them to some degree. But they nonetheless limit the degree to which Greater Columbus is an “open” place.

Another dimension of openness is the degree to which visitors and newcomers to a community feel welcome. This is a particularly important consideration for communities that will need to attract new residents to make up for a talent shortfall. A majority of online survey respondents believed that “Greater Columbus is a welcoming place,” with 60 percent of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement. Input participants who have lived in the community for five years or less were slightly more likely to disagree with this statement, but the difference was only one of a few percentage points. But on an anecdotal level, some input participants noted that it can be difficult for outsiders arriving in Greater Columbus. Said one input participant, “As an ‘outsider,’ I've said for many years that it takes about two to three years to develop any type of friendships or a social network.” And one representative from a local employer said that newcomers who are unable to quickly establish networks may struggle or even give up: “Five years is the breaking point. If they aren’t involved or invested in the community in years one through four then we tend to lose them.”



Mobility and Transportation The ability for residents to quickly and easily access job centers, retail establishments, and all manner of amenities is particular important to the health of a region. There is of course a strong economic dimension to issues of mobility and transportation – an open job is of no use to a qualified worker if he or she is not able to get to work in a reasonable and timely manner. But it is also closely tied to quality of life in a variety of ways. Certainly, the less time an individual spends commuting, the more time they have to do other things. Transportation options such as walking, biking, and public transportation are increasingly appealing to residents of every age and income level. And transportation options and increased connectivity can confer a variety of benefits to a community – from increased public health and economic mobility to improved community attractiveness.

For individuals who travel by car, Greater Columbus is generally easy to navigate. The region has the third-lowest average commute time among the 10 scorecard communities, and the second-lowest percentage of individuals with a commute of at least 45 minutes. Input participants – particularly those who had spent time in other regions – viewed the region’s relative lack of traffic congestion as a positive. And when traffic was discussed in a negative context, it was usually to point out specific trouble spots as opposed to a systemic problem.

But when it comes to other modes of transportation, input participants were far more critical of what Greater Columbus has to offer. Before proceeding, it should be noted that Greater Columbus is a diverse region from a development standpoint. In more rural portions of the region, scheduled public transportation service is likely impractical, and walking and biking may be viewed primarily as recreational activities. But in the primarily urbanized Columbus-Muscogee County, public transportation, walking, and biking can be legitimate options for regular transportation. And in contrast to many other aspects of quality of life, survey respondents from Columbus-Muscogee County only held resoundingly negative views related to:

ü Frequency of public transportation service

ü Public transportation connectivity

ü Public transportation quality

ü Quality and connectivity of sidewalks

For each of these aspects, at least 48.9 percent of survey participants from Muscogee County chose a rating of “below average” or “very poor.” The highest combination of “above average” or “excellent” ratings any of these questions received was 12.4 percent. These results also tracked closely with the responses from the full survey results.

According to input participants, public transportation issues are especially important to low-income residents. Individuals from low-income households are less likely to have access to a car, which can serve as a major barrier to economic opportunity. Many jobs, particularly lower-skilled positions, fall outside of traditional business operating hours. According to input participants, the lack of evening and Sunday public transportation service severely limits employment opportunities for many of the region’s low-



income residents. Stakeholders noted that improving options and accessibility of public transportation would help match low-income resident with employment opportunities in other areas of the community.

Beyond connecting individuals to job opportunities, poor public transportation affects the quality of life. As one survey participants stated, “If you don’t have a car here, you can’t do anything meaningful.” Input participants praised the walkability of Uptown, but for people who live outside the neighborhood, most still must arrive to the district by car. Many input participants expressed a strong desire for more and better sidewalks, the ability to travel around urbanized areas without a car, and more bike trails and facilities.

One promising recent development is the “Minimum Grid” project – a Knight Cities Challenge initiative involving MidTown, Inc., the Community Foundation, and a variety of other regional partners. As part of this process, consultants from the renowned Gehl Studio are developing a plan to increase connectivity for all modes of transportation – driving, transit, biking, and walking – between MidTown and Uptown.

Housing Overall, housing costs in Greater Columbus are much lower than those of other communities. The National Association of Realtors releases an annual home affordability ratio that measures whether or not a family earns enough income on average to qualify for a mortgage loan on a typical home in the community. Among the 10 scorecard communities, Greater Columbus was considered to have the most affordable residential real estate market according to the index. However, and though the issue is the subject of much political debate, some input participants noted that the property tax freeze in Columbus-Muscogee is a potential deterrent or barrier to would-be homeowners, as households that have purchased homes more recently end up paying a higher share of local property taxes. Some input participants also referred to the tax freeze as a “welcome stranger tax” that pushes many newcomers to the region to look elsewhere for housing. It is also reasonable to assume that the freeze may distort housing markets by acting as a disincentive for a variety of long-time owners to put their homes on the market.

The high cost of living in Uptown was also a concern, as some stakeholders felt that the young professionals who might normally be attracted to that type of built environment are priced out of the neighborhood. One millennial stakeholder feared that if the housing supply does not expand in neighborhoods such as Uptown, the region will risk losing millennials to regions that offer a walkable lifestyle within financial reach, a fact that stakeholders said that Uptown Columbus and other partners were working to address. Some stakeholders noted the proposed City Village redevelopment project as one idea with the future potential to expand housing options and create a new mixed-use district. Individuals familiar with real estate development trends in the region also agreed that more housing is needed in Uptown to keep up with existing demand but noted that there might be an insufficient overall market for a larger-scale initiatives at this time. That said, many input participants said that Greater Columbus’ recent approval of tax allocation districts (TADs) is a step in the right direction. A TAD is a special district in which local governments may direct a portion of future tax revenues over and above the existing levels to finance a variety of projects. Stakeholders said that if a TAD was assigned to the areas in or around Uptown, the tool could be used to finance things like streetscapes and parking structures – thereby lowering overall development costs and making new building activity far more likely.



Research also reveals that rental affordability is a particularly important issue in Greater Columbus, as the region had the lowest owner-occupancy rate among all comparison geographies at 63.5 percent. For renters, 51 percent are spending at least 30 percent of their income on rent. While this figure is both declining and roughly comparable to the national average, some input participants expressed a need for better affordable rental options, particularly in neighborhoods that appeal to young professionals who are not ready to buy a home. Input participants also noted that the quality of housing is poor in the many parts of the region. Input participants described neighborhoods that appeared “run down” and “forgotten and abandoned” and expressed a need for more quality housing options that are financially feasible for residents at a variety of income levels.

Crime Input participants viewed crime as one of the major challenges in Greater Columbus. When asked to rate the “sense of personal and property safety” in the places they lived, 36.4 percent of participants selected “below average” or “very poor” compared to just 26.2 percent of respondents who selected an above average rating or higher. So while a majority of survey respondents still said they viewed crime as average or better, the following wordcloud underscores the extent to which local residents associate crime with the region’s weaknesses as a place to live, work, visit, and do business.

FIGURE 22: IN YOUR OPINION, WHAT IS THE COLUMBUS REGION'S GREATEST WEAKNESS OR CHALLENGE TO OVERCOME AS A PLACE TO LIVE, WORK, VISIT, AND DO BUSINESS?




Input participants noted that crime is seen as an issue in every community, and some believe that the perceptions of crime in Greater Columbus were overblown. But data generally supports the view that certain types of crime are higher in Greater Columbus relative to its comparison communities. The FBI breaks crime up into two categories: property crime and violent crime rates. As of 2013, Greater Columbus had a higher property crime rate than any of the nine other scorecard metros, the state of Georgia, or the nation. The community’s violent crime rate fell into the middle among the ten scorecard communities, but it too was higher than state and national averages. The good news, however, is that crime has decreased significantly in the past five years. Between 2008 and 2013, property crime rates declined by 17.6 percent while the incidence of violent crime dropped by 25.2 percent. And while crime is generally declining across the nation, the decreases in property and violent crime in Greater Columbus were greater than those observed across the country.

Community Health and Access to Care Greater Columbus residents contacted through the input process generally held a positive view of the region’s health care environment, and just 15.6 percent of survey respondents viewed the availability of quality health care options as below average or worse. But while the quality of care is strong, data suggests that poor health outcomes are a concern in Greater Columbus. According to the County Health Rankings program from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 17.3 percent of adults in Greater Columbus reported being in “poor or fair health,” which ranked sixth among the ten scorecard communities. Greater Columbus also had the highest percentage of adults with a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 30 or more, which is considered to be the point at which obesity begins. More than a third of adults in Greater Columbus (34.7 percent) are obese, a condition that many studies have linked with socioeconomic standing.

External Perceptions Despite some obvious areas for improvement, stakeholders overall held positive views about the quality of life and place in Greater Columbus, and many input participants noted that most residents truly love their community. Stakeholders said one of the key challenges, then, is simply communicating what Greater Columbus has to offer to external audiences. Many individuals said they felt the community is not well-known outside its borders. When asked how Greater Columbus is perceived by outsiders, one input participant quipped, “It’s not.” Others remarked that many outsiders only know the region due to Fort Benning, as many individuals have personally passed through the community for training or know someone who has. Nevertheless, when representatives from the business community that participated in the online survey were asked rate how successful marketing the community to potential businesses considering relocation, 45.3 percent rated it as “successful” or “very successful,” while 57.9 percent felt that it was successful at marketing to potential visitors and tourists. Still, other input participants feared that the Columbus region’s “perception gets in the way of progress,” and that the region could do more to tout its assets enough to a wider regional and national audience.



Key Takeaways Issues of quality of life and quality of place are closely intertwined with the prosperity of a region. In some ways the connection is obvious – people cannot participate in the workforce if they cannot get to jobs or are in such poor health that they cannot work. But beyond that, quality of life and quality of place are increasingly important for talent retention and attraction. Individuals tend to feel attached to their communities based on factors such as a community’s openness and its social offerings, and many of the same qualities can also help attract workers from other places. And talent attraction and retention efforts will be critical to the region’s near-term ability to bolster its talent pool, as strategies to produce more homegrown talent through the PK-12 and higher education pipelines can take many years, even decades, to pay off. Fortunately, Greater Columbus has numerous assets and qualities – from a reinvigorated Uptown and an excellent performing arts community to natural beauty and access to the outdoors – that it can leverage to retain and attract residents. Improving upon these and shoring up weaknesses must be a significant component of any strategy to raise prosperity in the region. Quality of place is also crucial to the region’s ability to attract and retain businesses. Interstate accessibility and workforce quality are the two of the most important factors that businesses consider in their location decisions, and both are weak points for Greater Columbus. Accordingly, it will be particularly important for the region to “wow” prospective employers with vibrant districts such as Uptown, high-quality development and public spaces, and so forth.



6. HOMEGROWN TALENT: PK-12 AND HIGHER EDUCATION As previously established, Greater Columbus has much work to do if it is to establish the talent base necessary to thrive in this new environment. Attracting highly skilled and educated residents to the region is a strategy that can help in the short run. But ultimately, whether the region is able to develop (and retain) its own homegrown talent will be among the most important determining factors to its long-term success.

PK-12 Pipeline The PK-12 education system is the foundation of any regions talent pipeline. In Greater Columbus, this system consists of six public school districts in Georgia and Alabama, Fort Benning Schools, and numerous private institutions. This report focuses primarily on the Muscogee County School District (MCSD), the region’s core district that accounts for nearly 64 percent of its total state public school enrollment.

Public input and qualitative evidence reveals a high level of support for MCSD schools. Respondents to the online survey who indicated that they or their children attended a MCSD school in the past five years generally had positive opinions about the district, with 66 percent agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement, “Children in this district receive a high-quality education.” This number is comparable to a recent survey in another Market Street client community, Cobb County, where 69 percent of survey respondents described the quality of education as “good” or “very good.” In Gwinnett County, where the largest school district has twice won the prestigious Broad Prize given annually to the top urban school district in America, 65 percent of respondents rated the quality of public schools as “good” or “excellent.” The Columbus-Muscogee community’s support for its school system is also evident in the passage of two education sales taxes (commonly known as E-SPLOSTS), the high percentage of school-age children in the county enrolled in public schools (as opposed to private schools), and the multiple organizations in place that support teachers, students, and schools. Stakeholders praised the Chamber’s program Partners in Education (PIE) and the Muscogee Education Excellence Foundation (MEEF). MEEF’s most recent Teacher of the Year Gala drew more than 800 attendees, which input participants cited as further evidence of the community’s willingness to support and recognize excellence in education.

But while MCSD schools received general praise, input participants also expressed serious concerns about various aspects of the system. Stakeholders contacted through interviews and focus groups were nearly unanimous in their displeasure with strife on the MCSD Board of Education. Stakeholders noted that this turmoil is a recent and unwelcome development that presents a serious threat to the health of the system.

According to stakeholders, the “North-South” divide of race and class that impacts so many issues in the community extends into its public schools. It should be noted, however, that according to MCSD, 92 percent of school-age children in Columbus-Muscogee County attend public schools. This indicates that most families who are in a financial position to have a choice are sending their children to MCSD schools as opposed to opting for private school or moving outside of the district. Stakeholders noted this as a major reason why there is such strong interest in and support for public schools in the community. Indeed, this is a rare condition for core school districts in the Southeastern United States



and should be viewed as a major advantage, especially for selling the community to outside businesses and talent. Communities without this level of support for public schools must devote valuable time and resources to establish widespread “buy-in” before embarking on strategic efforts addressing PK-12 issues. Columbus-Muscogee will have no such problem.

But many input participants felt as if children from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds were less likely to receive a quality education or be afforded opportunities to succeed. Input participants said MCSD’s “unevenness” has many consequences – everything from making it difficult to break cycles of generational poverty to complicating real estate markets. And while it’s hardly unusual for school districts to drive housing decisions, input participants who lived in MCSD’s footprint said the pressure is particularly high in this community. One input participant called moving to Columbus-Muscogee “the biggest risk” ever taken in their life because of the risk of ending up in a school zone where the quality of education is perceived to be lower. Input participants also shared anecdotes of individuals moving to Harris County or Auburn, AL and commuting into Columbus after becoming overly dissatisfied with their housing/schooling options in the community.

A wide variety of factors outside of a school system’s control influence student performance and outcomes – everything from parental involvement to individual aptitude plays a role. Additionally, there is a significant nationwide “performance gap” in education that frequently breaks down along demographic and socioeconomic lines. MCSD is also far from the only school district with significant internal differences in performance between schools. With these factors in mind and in order to provide the best possible context, this analysis uses a different set of comparisons to evaluate the performance of MCSD. It focuses on Georgia’s other four large “core” school districts – Bibb County (Macon), Chatham County (Savannah), Richmond County (Augusta), and Atlanta Public Schools – in addition to Gwinnett County, a large demographically and socioeconomically diverse district that has been recognized as one of the top urban school districts in the country.

In education, the number of students who are eligible to receive free and reduced-price lunches (FRL) is widely used as an indicator to determine the prorporition of students in a school or district who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. In MCSD, 72 percent of students were eligible for FRL as of 2014, 10 points higher than the state average. Gwinnett County had the lowest percentage of elgible students (56) while Richmond County (97) had the highest. Looking at data at the individual school level also reveals significant differences within many of the districts. For instance, two MCSD high schools have FRL rates at or below 30 percent, while four have rates of 96 percent or higher. Similar spreads were seen in other school districts, but the 80-point spread between the high schools with the highest and lowest proportions of FRL students was the biggest gap among all comparisons.



FIGURE 23: PLEASE RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ABOUT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WITH WHICH YOU ARE MOST FAMILIAR.


Question was presented to 362 individuals that self-identified themselves as having children that attended a K-12 school in Greater Columbus at any point in the past five years, and as being most familiar with MCSD.

Dropout rates were the biggest concern survey respondents had related to MCSD schools, with 58 percent of respondents identifying it as a trouble spot. On the whole, perceptions about dropouts do not match up with reality. The dropout rate for grades 7-12 in MCSD in 2014 was 1.8 percent, a 0.3 percentage point decline from 2011 and 0.9 percentage points below the state average. There is also no substantial difference in the dropout rate for black and white students. But there are major differences among MCSD high schools – Northside High School had the lowest rate at 1.1 percent, while Jordan and Spencer high schools had dropout rates of 9.4 and 5.5 percent, respectively, suggesting that dropout prevention and re-engagement may still be a key strategic priorities in some portions of the community. But along those lines, input participants familiar with PK-12 education also spoke highly of Catapult Academy, which has been successful at bringing students that have dropped out back to school in order to get their high school



diploma. Catapult Academy is a dropout recovery program with many locations around the nation, and in 2015, the Greater Columbus location had the program’s highest graduation rate in the state of Georgia.

Given its low dropout rates, it comes as little surprise that MCSD has a (relatively) strong overall graduation rate. All graduation rates in this report are “four-year cohort” graduation rates that measure the proportion students earn a diploma within four years of enrolling as a high school freshman. But for the 2014 school year, MCSD’s graduation rate was 76.6 percent – 4.1 percentage points above the state average and higher than any comparison district. The graduation rate also rose significantly in the past three years, climbing 8.4 percentage points above the 2011 rate.

FIGURE 24: GRADUATION RATES BY DISTRICT, 2011 AND 2014

Source: Georgia Department of Education

As is the case throughout the country, there was a significant gap between the graduation rate for black students (71.8 percent at all MCSD schools in 2014) and white students (84.4). But this spread of 12.6 percentage points is actually lower than the statewide figure (14.5 percentage points), and MCSD had the highest graduation rate for black students among all comparison districts, and the second-highest for white students, trailing only Gwinnett County. Similar to dropout rates, there are significant differences between the performances of individual high schools in the MCSD system. The following figure shows that the gap between the schools with the top and bottom rates was nearly 40 percentage points. Four of the district’s high schools have graduation rates below the state average.

District 2011 20143-yr. Pct. Pt. Chg.

Muscogee County 68.2% 76.6% 8.4%

Gwinnett County 67.6% 75.0% 7.4%

State Average 67.5% 72.5% 5.0%

Chatham County 54.5% 68.5% 14.0%

Richmond County 55.2% 61.8% 6.6%

Atlanta Public Schools 52.2% 59.1% 6.9%

Bibb County 52.3% 58.9% 6.7%



FIGURE 25: 2014 GRADUATION RATES, MUSCOGEE COUTY SCHOOL DISTRICT


Note: Table does not include graduation rates for Early College Academy of Columbus at Waverly Terrace due to its smaller enrollment

An environment in which nearly one in four students is not graduating from high school in the standard four years is not exactly cause for celebration. But it is fair to say that – relative to its peers and prevailing conditions beyond its control – MCSD does a good job at keeping kids in school and on track to earn a diploma. This should be a major point of pride for the community, as few places with low levels of adult educational attainment and elevated levels of generational poverty have above-average graduation rates.

The bigger concern is what MCSD graduates go on to do after high school. Based on analysis of state data that tracks college enrollment of district graduates, MCSD students are less likely to enroll in some type of postsecondary institution and less likely to succeed once they are there. The left side of the following figure shows the percentage of students who did NOT enroll in a postsecondary institution upon graduation. Among all MCSD graduates, 41.2 percent from the class of 2010 did not enroll in a postsecondary institution within 16 months of graduation. That is higher than the state average (38.6 percent) and the figures from three other districts including Bibb County (29.7).

High School# of

GraduatesGraduation

Rate

Columbus High School 303 97.7%

Northside High School 271 89.1%

Hardaway High School 301 84.8%

Muscogee County Average 1,774 76.6%

Shaw High School 276 76.0%

Kendrick High School 136 69.4%

Spencer High School 134 66.0%

Jordan Vocational High School 130 63.1%

Carver High School 187 58.6%



FIGURE 26: PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WHO DID NOT ENROLL IN A POSTSECONDARY INSTITUTION OR WHO DID NOT COMPLETE CREDITS


Note: Data is for the percentage of students that did not enroll in a postsecondary institution within 16 months of graduation and for students that did not complete one year of credits within two years of enrollment.

And when MCSD graduates do enroll in postsecondary institutions, they tend to complete coursework at lower rates than students from some other districts. The right side of the preceding figure shows the percentage of students who did NOT complete one year of postsecondary credit hours within two years of graduating high school. For the class of 2010, 41.5 percent of MCSD graduates fell into this category, again higher than the state average and far below the rate of the category leader, Gwinnett County (25.3 percent). So while MCSD has a slightly higher graduation rate than Gwinnett County, one of the best urban school districts in the country, that is not translating into success at the postsecondary level. Additionally, this trend goes beyond socioeconomic divides. Statewide, students from wealthier households tend to go to college and perform better once there than students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and this is true in MCSD as well. But the performance gaps between MCSD students and the state average are roughly the same for both FRL and non-FRL students. In other words, it is not the case that MCSD simply has more students from disadvantaged backgrounds who skew the overall rate.

The disconnect between MCSD schools and higher education performance was reflected in the qualitative data received from input participants. Two of the three statements about the school district that received the lowest percentages of online survey participants’ agreement were “Schools provide high quality career guidance and college counseling services,” and “Career education receives adequate attention.” And in response to a survey prompt that ask what – if anything – needed to be done to improve the school district, stakeholders expressed concerns that many students are not well-prepared for college coursework and called for more career guidance and encouragement for students in the district.

This section has focused primarily on issues surrounding high schools, as this is the final stage of the PK-12 pipeline and the point at which it becomes clear how well a district’s students are prepared for college and career opportunities. A full examination of the entire PK-12 education system is beyond the scope of this report. But it is also important to discuss the stage at which the pipeline begins – pre-kindergarten. The benefits of early childhood education and the lifelong impact it has on individuals are well documented. And in many ways, creating a quality workforce begins with ensuring that residents have affordable,

District Did Not Enroll District

Did Not Complete

Credits

Bibb County 29.7% Gwinnett County 25.3%

Gwinnett County 35.7% State Average 36.8%

Chatham County 38.6% Muscogee County 41.5%

State Average 38.6% Chatham County 41.6%

Muscogee County 41.2% Richmond County 44.1%

Richmond County 50.8% Atlanta Public Schools 51.6%

Atlanta Public Schools 54.7% Bibb County 58.0%



accessible and quality options for childhood development programs. The input process revealed positive feedback regarding the area’s Pre-K programs and participants familiar with the region’s education environment noted that the locations of the Head Start centers were in the areas that needed them the most. There are 12 Head Start locations within 25 miles of Greater Columbus. Roughly half (50.7 percent) of 3- and 4-year olds in Greater Columbus were enrolled in school between 2009 and 2013, tops among all three comparison communities, the state of Georgia, and the nation. Nationally, 47.7 percent of 3- and 4-year olds were enrolled during that time period.

Higher Education For a community of its size, the Greater Columbus offers good options for higher education. At the university level, Columbus State University and Troy University’s Phenix City branch campus provide a talent pipeline of four-year degree recipients, while Chattahoochee Valley Community College and Columbus Technical College offer two-year and technical training for residents. The Columbus Campus of the Mercer University School of Medicine is a significant recent addition to the region’s higher education pipeline. The campus is home to third- and fourth-year medical students and is a partnership with the Midtown Medical Center of Columbus Regional Hospital and with St. Francis Hospital. The Georgia Military College’s Columbus Campus and several private, for-profit institutions that provide further specialized options for education and training

FIGURE 27: ENROLLMENT AND DEGREE COMPLETIONS AT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, NON-PROFIT HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS, 2013

Source: NCES

Note: Data is not available for Troy University’s Phenix City Branch Campus. The 2013 population was used to estimate the enrollment per 1,000 residents. Enrollment is based on the 12-month unduplicated headcount.

Enrollment figures from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) indicate that the region has fewer students enrolled in higher education institutions on a per capita basis than Chattanooga or Huntsville, though it should be noted that the figure for Greater Columbus is slightly low given the fact that data is not available for the Troy University branch campus. In 2013, there were roughly 13,700 students enrolled in the region. Total student enrollment at the three local higher education institutions increased by 2.8 percent between the 2007-08 and 2012-13 academic school years; however, there was a nine

Total Enrollment

Enrollment per 1,000 residents

Total Degrees

Total Certificates

Chattahoochee Valley Community College 2,571 --- 167 28

Columbus Technical College 6,291 --- 264 921

Columbus State University 10,017 --- 1,332 214

Greater Columbus, total 18,879 59.5 1,763 1,163

Augusta area 18,111 31.2 2,110 1,155

Chattanooga area 42,500 78.4 5,355 1,136

Huntsville area 39,853 91.4 4,846 519



percent increase in the number of degrees awarded and a 15.2 percent increase in the number of students that received a certificate.

Columbus State was consistently identified by input participants as a key regional strength. Stakeholders said the school is well integrated into the fabric of the region but also expressed a desire to see even more connections developed between the university and area businesses and institutions. Columbus State has continued to expand its academic offerings and the investment in the Uptown area illustrates the dedication and the potential there is for its future. Columbus State is primarily a local-serving institution. According to university data, just over half of entering freshmen in 2014 were from the Greater Columbus region compared to just 16.6 percent of students who hailed from metro Atlanta. Comparatively, Georgia Southern drew just 16.4 percent of its students from Savannah and Statesboro, while 40.9 percent of its entering freshman came from the Atlanta region. This is not a bad thing – it is certainly good that so many students from Greater Columbus are utilizing the higher education resources available to them within the region. But it also indicates that Columbus State may not be a major provider of “fresh” talent – students from outside the region who might be tempted to remain after graduation – relative to other schools. One stakeholder with connections to the university suggested that Columbus State would benefit from raising its profile in the Atlanta region to attract more students to Greater Columbus. This could be especially important, as competition for in-state students in general and Atlanta-area students in particular is increasing as Georgia State and Kennesaw State expand and evolve past their former reputations as “commuter colleges.” Additionally, numerous input participants reported that the Greater Columbus was losing Columbus State graduates to metros outside the region. If this is true, it could explain why the region is not seeing as much of a bump in its education attainment, as Columbus State students are disproportionately likely to have roots in the region.

In the fall of 2012, the most recent year in which public data was available, there were approximately 1,300 students attending Troy University’s branch campus in Phenix City. The branch campus’ new location is another valuable asset that can be leveraged by the community to improve the educational attainment of residents and further strengthen the pipeline of qualified workers to the region. Troy University’s investment in its $10.8 million new campus along the riverfront in Phenix City has helped early-stage revitalization in the area. In its new location, it has increased its visibility within the community and is well-situated for future expansions. Initially, the campus will offer programs from the School of Business and College of Health and Human Services and will be focused on providing classes for more non-traditional students during the night and on weekends. Between the more traditional university setting that Columbus State offers and the non-traditional offerings of Troy University, the Greater Columbus has assets that it can leverage to improve and expand its workforce if it is able to retain those graduates.

Two-year institutions and other educational offerings further strengthen the postsecondary options for the region. Many jobs do not require a four-year degree, but do require additional training or skills to improve an individual’s employability. There are many high paying occupations in technical and health-related occupations that are in need of workers. Chattahoochee Valley Community College (CVCC) and Columbus Technical College (CTC) are two local options that offer training for occupations within those fields and others. CTC and CVCC both received praise throughout input. High school dual enrollment in CTC has



increased over the past five years, and students coming out of the school had a 94.4 percent jobs placement rate in 2014 and a 98.1 percent job placement rate in 2013.

Despite Auburn University’s relative proximity to Greater Columbus, it was rarely mentioned by input participants as an asset for the region compared to the other higher education institutions. While Auburn only provides full school district-level data for the state of Alabama, we can infer from partial data that fewer than 100 students from the Columbus region enrolled in the summer and fall of 2014. This coupled with the relative lack of discussion in public input indicates that while there is some connection between Greater Columbus and Auburn, the relationship is not quite as strong as proximity might suggest.

Key Takeaways As evidenced by the high percentage of children attending public schools, the level of support for the Muscogee County School District is strong. This is rare among core districts in the South, and it has the potential to be a key tool for talent attraction – even more so if concerns about uneven performance within the district are addressed. The district has made admirable improvements in its graduation rates and at preventing and re-engaging dropouts. However, data supports the sentiments gathered through the input process that there is a significant divide within MCSD that frequently breaks down along socioeconomic lines. And despite having graduation rates that are strong for a school district with its demographic and socioeconomic makeup, there is a clear disconnect between the K-12 and career pipelines. Compared to similar districts in Georgia, fewer MCSD graduates enroll in college and fewer succeed at obtaining early credit hours once they are there. Bridging the gap between K-12 and college or career opportunities will be a critical piece to improving the overall educational attainment of the community, local economic opportunities, and prosperity of the region. The community will need to continue to rally behind making the public schools a priority for the region from an economic development standpoint.

The variety and quality of postsecondary options in the region is strong, but the significant progress and improvements that these institutions have made in recent years are not reflected in increased educational attainment levels for the region. Additionally, retaining graduates of these institutions in the region – and attracting more students from outside Greater Columbus to attend them in the first place – will be critical to ensuring a stronger homegrown talent pipeline.



7. BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURIAL CLIMATE According to a variety of quantitative and qualitative measures, Greater Columbus has a generally favorable business climate. The Business Environment scorecard in Appendix A of this report compared Greater Columbus to nine other metro areas across a variety of metrics. On aggregate, Greater Columbus finished first out of the ten communities. Information gathered through the input process supports this position. Stakeholders from the business community praised the region’s low cost and ease of doing business. Additionally survey respondents who indicated that they were a manager, business owner/entrepreneur, or executive were asked to answer a series of questions about the region’s business climate. The results, which were generally favorable, are shown in the following figure.

FIGURE 28: PLEASE RATE THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS OF COLUMBUS' BUSINESS CLIMATE ACCORDING TO THE DEGREE TO WHICH EACH IS AN ADVANTAGE OR DISADVANTAGE TO

EXISTING AND PROSPECTIVE NEW BUSINESSES.


Question was presented to 633 individuals that self-identified themselves as owners, executives, or managers at their place of employment.

58.6%

62.8%

38.9%

24.3%

25.1%

29.6%

26.9%

19.4%

23.9%

17.5%

18.2%

12.0%

7.3%

19.1%

17.0%

6.5%

3.6%

28.4%

23.4%

40.5%

52.1%

48.6%

43.8%

46.6%

49.2%

38.1%

43.6%

28.3%

33.1%

37.0%

24.8%

22.1%

29.8%

23.6%

13.0%

13.8%

20.6%

23.7%

26.2%

26.5%

26.6%

31.4%

38.0%

39.0%

53.5%

54.9%

55.7%

56.1%

61.0%

63.7%

72.8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Affordability of passenger air travel

Passenger air connectivity

Local taxes

Cost of permit acquisition

Code enforcement

Cost of health care

Ease and speed of permit review process

Provision of economic incentives

Availability of skilled labor

Cost of utilities

Availability of high-speed internet

Availability of quality office space

Cost of labor

Roadway connectivity and capacity

Interstate accessibility

Availability of industrial land for development

Availability of water and sewer

Major disadvantage/disadvantage Neutral Major advantage/advantage



Additionally, when business representatives were asked on the online survey how likely it was that their business will add employees in the Columbus region, 63.7 percent responded that it was “highly likely” or “likely.” Similarly, 70 percent responded that it was “highly unlikely” or “unlikely” that their business will reduce the number of employees in the Columbus region.

Business Climate The following is a brief discussion of the key themes related to the general business climate in Greater Columbus that emerged through research and input.

LABOR COSTS: As previously stated, low wages can be a “double-edged sword” when it comes to community and economic development. But from a pure business cost standpoint, Greater Columbus’ labor costs are highly favorable at roughly 20 percent below the national average. Just 7.3 percent of survey respondents felt that the cost of labor was a “major disadvantage” or “disadvantage” to the business community. And as one participant said, “I have offices across the globe and Columbus is among the lowest in business costs.” Labor costs for specific occupations and in detailed business sectors will be explored further in the forthcoming Target Business Analysis. Greater Columbus’ labor productivity (as measured by the ratio of private sector output to private sector wages) ranked fifth among the 10 scorecard communities.

LOCATION AND CONNECTIVITY: In the most recent Area Development Corporate Consultants survey for 2014, highway accessibility was rated as the number one site selection factor that businesses consider in their location decisions, with 88.3 percent of respondents to a magazine survey rating it as “important” or “very important.” As discussed in the first story of this assessment, input participants view the lack of direct access to a mainline Interstate highway as a significant disadvantage to the Greater Columbus region – and one that is not likely to change in the near future.

UTILITIES, WATER, AND SEWAGE: Average commercial and industrial electricity costs were ranked third and fourth, respectively, among scorecard metros. Water and sewage capacity were not significant issues for the majority of survey respondents, but in the region’s rural counties, there is a near total lack of availability. While there is still a good inventory of sites and buildings available in more developed portions of the region, this could become an issue over the long-run if the region grows significantly.

AIR CAPACITY AND CONNECTIVITY: Online survey participants had highly unfavorable views of the region’s passenger air connectivity and affordability. Scheduled service from Columbus Metropolitan Airport is limited, and some input participants noted high airfares, unreliable flights, and the loss of a direct link to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport as drawbacks. But on the other hand, many input participants noted that the region’s proximity to Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport is a major strength, and some stakeholders noted that the travel times to the airport from Greater Columbus are not appreciably longer than those from the Atlanta region’s northern suburbs once traffic is factored in. Input participants also noted that Columbus Metropolitan is a significant asset for companies that utilize corporate jets.

OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL COSTS AND AVAILABILITY: Among scorecard communities Greater Columbus had the lowest costs per square foot for office and industrial spaces. A majority of survey participants from



the business community also viewed the availability of office and industrial spaces as an advantage. However, some input participants identified the lack of Class A office space as a concern. According to one participant, “You need to build your own building if you want it to be nice.” Additionally, due to various factors in the region’s rural areas – such as a lack of water and sewer capacity – most of the region’s “shovel-ready” sites are in Muscogee County or small portions of Russell and Harris counties.

Entrepreneurial Environment The proportion of a region’s employment that is comprised of self-employed workers is frequently used as an indicator of entrepreneurial activity. In Greater Columbus, just 4.8 percent of jobs are held by self-employed workers, compared to 6.1 percent in Georgia and 6.6 percent nationally. Eight of the nine scorecard comparisons also had a higher proportion of self-employed workers. And according to data from the Census Bureau, Greater Columbus ranked ninth in the number of small business loans per residents and had the smallest percentage of its total employment in firms that are less than five years old among the 10 scorecard metros. Taken together, these figures suggest that the entrepreneurial environment in Greater Columbus is anemic, a view supported by information gathered through the input process. The following figure shows survey responses from individuals who self-identified as an entrepreneur or small business owner. On every question, the “very weak/weak” responses outnumbered the “very strong/strong.” And on questions related to incubation facilities, acceleration programs, and the availability of capital, a majority of respondents viewed local conditions as “very weak/weak.”

FIGURE 29: PLEASE RATE THE FOLLOWING COMPONENTS OF GREATER COLUMBUS' ENTREPRENEURIAL CLIMATE:


Question was presented to 128 individuals that self-identified themselves as entrepreneurs or small business owners

66.2%

61.3%

65.3%

55.7%

52.6%

32.3%

37.2%

26.5%

39.8%

29.6%

32.3%

27.8%

37.1%

29.5%

45.8%

38.4%

49.0%

32.3%

4.2%

6.5%

6.9%

7.1%

17.9%

21.9%

24.4%

24.5%

28.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Availability of seed loans

Availability of angel investment

Availability of venture capital

Acceleration programs

Incubation facilities

Small business development support

Mentorship opportunities

Availability of talent (skilled employees)

Entrepreneur-focused events and meetups

Very Weak/Weak Average Very Strong/Strong



Input participants noted that Greater Columbus has a remarkable history of producing successful homegrown companies – TSYS and Aflac to name two prominent examples. Input participants also had praise for the SCORE program, the Small Business Development Center (SBDC), the ColumbusMakesIT entrepreneurship center, and the incubator and leadership program at Columbus State. Stakeholders also expressed significant optimism about the upcoming Bob Wright Symposium on Business Empowerment, a new event aimed at fostering minority entrepreneurship and leadership. The event will bring in respected speakers from around the country, and its organizers hope to make the symposium an annual affair. But some participants said that these resources are not always well known in the community. As one participant said, “If the resources are there, I don't think they do a great job of letting people know they're available. I only found out about SBDC through an internet search, and even when you walk into the Cunningham Center, it's not very obvious you're in the right place.”

Participants also noted gaps in the region’s entrepreneurial climate and offerings. Several participants suggested a need for an incubator or a collaborative “makerspace” in Uptown. Others identified a need for more assistance for high-tech and innovation-based startups in addition to offerings that are more geared to service-providing businesses. Another participant suggested that the region needs to adopt an entirely new attitude toward entrepreneurial activity, as many young individuals in the region – particularly those from lower-income backgrounds – simply do not see starting a high-impact business to be a realistic option.

Key Takeaway All told, Greater Columbus’ general business climate is favorable and can be leveraged for future economic growth. It has low business and labor costs, good water availability and sewer capacity, adequate industrial land availability, and competitive utility rates. But its lack of a mainline Interstate is a significant barrier to many types of industrial development, and this condition will not change in the near-term. Additionally, quantitative data and qualitative input clearly describe a weak entrepreneurial environment. Greater Columbus has a proud history of being home to companies that have grown from nothing into giants. It will now need to redouble its efforts on supporting entrepreneurship if it is to have a good chance of doing so again in the future.



8. FORT BENNING: A VITAL ASSET When asked what the region’s greatest strength was, the majority of interview and focus group participants were quick to mention Fort Benning. The base contributes an estimated $5 billion annually to the local economy, and the base supports roughly 3,342 full-time soldiers, 10,733 civilian workers and contractors, and more than 10,000 soldiers in training every day. According to Fort Benning estimates, when dependents and retired military living in the Columbus region are taken into account, more than 100,000 area residents have a current or past tie to the base. In no uncertain terms, Fort Benning is a tremendous asset to the region and its economy.

The community’s support for Fort Benning is readily apparent. According to stakeholders from Fort Benning, more than 700 people attended an early 2015 Army listening session with Pentagon officials, who spoke of the strong partnership between the community and Fort Benning. Input participants with ties to Fort Benning praised this support and the generally strong relationship between the base and the community. Approximately 85 percent of survey participants felt that the community is “successful” or “very successful” at supporting the local military community and their families. One survey participant stated, “We are also very supportive of the military community and this is further proven by the number of prior military personnel who have held key leadership roles in our community.”

Like all military installations, Fort Benning is subject to various outside pressures such as squeezed federal budgets, possible reductions in the size of the armed forces, and a potential upcoming round of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). Fort Benning (and thus Greater Columbus) came out ahead in the most recent BRAC round in 2005, as the Armor School was relocated to the base from Kentucky. Stakeholders with ties to Fort Benning attributed a portion of that success to the strong spirit of cooperation between the base and the community, which remains in place today. But earlier this month, the Department of the Army announced that the Third Brigade would be reduced in size by 3,402 positions, which will result in the reduction of 2,400 soldiers by the end of Fiscal Year 2017. That is approximately 5.7 percent of the base’s total population and 7.6 percent of its full-time military personnel. The changes will also impact an as-yet unknown number of civilian employees in addition to the families of the soldiers. Among to stakeholders familiar with the issue, all agree that the base will remain an integral part of Greater Columbus, but no one knows with any certainty exactly at what size. According to input participants with knowledge of the situation, base and community leaders are working together to minimize the impacts of any potential scenario that could lead to a reduction of personnel at Fort Benning. And less than a week after receiving the recent news, the Chamber and its partners launched a campaign to protect the base from future cuts. But the fact remains that the ultimate decisions about the base’s future are beyond local control. Accordingly, leaders in Greater Columbus must simultaneously work to support Fort Benning while also considering strategies for resiliency should reductions occur.

Support for Fort Benning is vital given all of the various ways its presence impacts the community. For one, the region’s labor force benefits significantly from the presence of the base. Large employers reported that many of their employees came to the region because their spouse or family member was stationed at Fort Benning. A further discussion of Fort Benning’s impact on the labor force and its implications for the economy as a whole will be included in the next phase of this process. The National



Infantry Museum and U.S. Armor and Cavalry Museum have helped to bolster the tourism sector, while the graduation ceremonies for basic trainees at Fort Benning also attract numerous visitors. Stakeholders from Fort Benning also indicated that the base has a strong relationship with Columbus State, though more could be done with local higher education institutions to benefit both the base and the regional economy.

9. PHILANTHROPY, LEADERSHIP, AND CHAMPIONS While Fort Benning is viewed as the region’s greatest tangible asset, this Assessment closes with a discussion of what may be its greatest intangible advantage: its significant and active philanthropic community, legacy of visionary leadership, and deep roster of committed citizens willing to champion all manner of causes for the betterment of the community. For generations, these positive forces have cultivated or improved virtually every asset and institution that makes Greater Columbus a desirable place to live, work, visit, and do business. Input participants said that the early adoption of the consolidated government model in the region’s core county is a primary example of the community’s resolve to take on difficult but impactful causes. Further evidence of this is everywhere in the region. For instance, the revitalization of Uptown was about more than a renewed national interest in historic downtowns – it was instead the result of decades of deliberate hard work and tens of millions of dollars in public, private, and non-profit investments. Similar stories of dedicated and forward-thinking leadership can be told in relationship to the growth of Columbus State and the development of its RiverPark Campus, the development of the whitewater course that was decades in the making, sustained support for museums and cultural amenities, the international attention garnered from hosting a portion of the 1996 Summer Olympics, and so on. It is fair to say that many projects that get done in Greater Columbus wouldn’t even be attempted in other communities.

Input participants offered effusive praise for Greater Columbus’ ongoing tradition of community-oriented giving, noting that the region’s philanthropic capacity is strong relative to its size, and data generally supports this claim. Greater Columbus ranked third out of the ten scorecard metros for charitable revenue per capita, trailing only Fayetteville, AR-MO (home of significant Wal-Mart money) and Savannah. And as seen in the following figure, the elevated national and state figures lend support to the idea that charitable revenue is typically concentrated in much larger communities.

FIGURE 30: CHARITABLE REVENUE PER CAPITA

Source: National Center of Charitable Statistics

* Includes organizations that filed financial information on Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-PF within 24 months of the BMF release date.

Number of Organizations Filing

Form 990 *Total Revenue Reported on

Form 990 *Charitable revenue per

capita

Greater Columbus 408 $1,231,283,348 $3,921

Augusta 671 $1,362,983,993 $2,335

Chattanooga 825 $1,745,379,301 $3,205

Huntsville 532 $469,682,485 $1,065

Georgia 13,179 $53,888,011,541 $5,337

United States 584,981 $2,082,047,706,440 $6,530



Many of the challenges that Greater Columbus faces are serious and daunting, but the leaders and residents of Greater Columbus should not be discouraged. As numerous input participants noted, the region has already transformed itself once in recent decades and can do so again. Many of the leaders who spearheaded this transition are beginning to step aside or have already done so. But rather than being fearful of this change, stakeholders consistently expressed optimism that new leaders – many of whom who grew up outside the community – are at the head of many of the region’s key companies, institutions, and non-profit entities. One input participant summed up the environment in Greater Columbus succinctly: “Big ideas can be achieved in a record amount of time if the right people get behind them.”



CONCLUSION This Competitive Assessment offers a thorough overview of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges as they exist in Greater Columbus. Its nine stories contain insights and findings that should influence the region’s strategic priorities related to community and economic development are:

1. Population Trends: Slow Growth and Limited In-Migration 2. A Critical Need for Top Talent 3. Economic Realities 4. Income and Poverty 5. Quality of Place and Quality of Life 6. Homegrown Talent: PK-12 and Higher Education 7. Business and Entrepreneurial Climate 8. Fort Benning: A Vital Asset 9. Philanthropy, Leadership, and Champions

Collectively, these storylines present a simple truth: if prosperity is to increase in Greater Columbus, the status quo cannot hold. The region’s educational attainment levels, in-migration dynamics, and economic performance indicate that Greater Columbus is not likely to thrive in the new economy without a deliberate, sustained effort to improve its competitive standing. The community has numerous advantages to leverage in doing so, and it has a long, successful track record of forward-thinking leadership and action. And fortunately, it has embarked on this planning process (and other more tightly focused efforts such as the Minimum Grid study) that will hopefully have a positive lasting impact on the region’s future. But significant work lies ahead.

The next step in this research process is the Target Business Analysis and Marketing Review, which will examine the region’s economic and workforce compositions in greater detail. It will identify which business sectors present the most realistic opportunities for growth and evaluate the region’s efforts to market itself to a variety of internal and external audiences. Ultimately, it seeks to identify the areas where limited economic development resources should be focused to maximize return on investment.

Upon completion of the research phase, the Steering Committee and the Market Street Services team will begin working together to identify the appropriate strategies to address the issues raised in this Competitive Assessment and the upcoming research phase. These recommendations will be developed and refined during the fall and early winter of 2015. The process will culminate in January and February of 2016 with the development of an Implementation Plan that will provide the blueprint for putting these recommendations into action and raising levels of prosperity in the region.



APPENDIX A: COMMUNITY SCORECARDS Appendix A presents a complete series of scorecards – referenced throughout this report – that demonstrate how Greater Columbus (defined here as the Columbus, GA-AL Metropolitan Statistical Area) compares to nine other metropolitan areas with which it competes for jobs and workers. Each scorecard evaluates the region’s competitiveness across multiple indicators that help measure how Greater Columbus has performed in recent years in key areas that reflect its ability to grow prosperity. These scorecards, the concepts they measure, and examples of the indicators they include are as follows.

1. Economic Performance: employment, output, wages, income, poverty 2. Workforce Sustainability: age composition, educational attainment, migration, higher education 3. Business Environment: infrastructure, business costs (utility rates, lease rates), labor productivity 4. Innovation and Entrepreneurship: self-employment, startups, small business loans 5. Quality of Life: crime, commuting, cost of living, health outcomes, recreational amenities

Each of the five scorecards presents a series of rankings (1-10), evaluating the performance of Greater Columbus against the following nine regions with which it shares attributes and/or competes for jobs and workers:

1. Augusta, GA-SC (Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC metropolitan statistical area) 2. Chattanooga, TN-GA (Chattanooga, TN-GA metropolitan statistical area) 3. Clarksville, TN-KY (Clarksville, TN-KY metropolitan statistical area) 4. Fayetteville, AR-MO (Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MOD metropolitan statistical area) 5. Fayetteville, NC (Fayetteville, NC metropolitan statistical area) 6. Greenville, SC (Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin, SC metropolitan statistical area) 7. Huntsville, AL (Huntsville, AL metropolitan statistical area) 8. Montgomery, AL (Montgomery, AL metropolitan statistical area) 9. Savannah, GA (Savannah, GA metropolitan statistical area)

All data for the aforementioned comparisons is collected at the metropolitan level unless otherwise indicated. Scorecards include column headings with the primary city names and states for each metropolitan area for ease of interpretation and comparison. Rankings are color-coded with top performers appearing in shades of green, middle-of-the-pack in shades of yellow and orange, and bottom performers in shades of red. A ranking of “1” signals that the community is the top performer, but does not necessarily have the highest value (for example, the community with the lowest crime rate would receive a ranking of “1”). Each scorecard is accompanies by a data table (as opposed to the rankings included in the scorecard).



ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE: SCORECARD

Note: The asterisk denotes the data is for the private sector.

YearColumbus,

GA-ALAugusta,

GA-SCChattanooga,

TN-GAClarksville,

TN-KYFayetteville,

AR-MOFayetteville,

NCGreenville,

SCHuntsville,

ALMontgomery,

ALSavannah,

GAEmployment and Unemployment1-yr employment growth rate 2013-2014 10 1 6 8 5 9 3 4 7 25-yr employment growth rate 2009-2014 8 7 4 6 1 9 2 5 10 3Unemployment rate Feb 2015 10 8 5 7 1 9 4 2 3 5Establishments5-yr firm opening employment chg. 2008-2013 8 9 10 7 4 1 5 3 2 65-yr firm expansion employment chg. 2008-2013 7 9 8 3 2 10 4 6 5 15-yr firm relocation employment chg. 2008-2013 7 9 4 6 5 10 1 2 8 35-yr establishments chg. 2008-2013 4 7 3 9 8 6 1 5 10 2Business bankruptcy rate per 1k est. 2013 3 6 7 4 10 2 1 5 9 8Exports, Output, and ProductivityExports per worker * 2013 9 2 3 7 5 10 1 6 4 8Gross metro product (GMP) per worker* 2013 7 9 6 8 1 4 5 2 3 10GMP 5-year chg.* 2008-2013 4 6 10 2 1 8 5 3 9 7Wages, Income, and PovertyAverage annual wage (AAW) 2013 9 4 3 10 8 2 6 1 7 55-yr AAW chg. 2008-2013 5 6 3 10 2 1 8 4 7 9Per capita income (PCI) 2013 5 10 7 4 8 1 9 2 6 35-yr PCI chg. 2008-2013 8 4 3 6 1 2 7 5 10 9Total poverty rate 2013 10 9 4 2 3 7 5 1 8 6Child poverty rate 2013 10 9 5 3 2 7 4 1 8 65-yr pct. pt. chg. total poverty rate 2008-2013 9 2 5 1 8 3 4 7 10 65-yr pct. pt. chg. child poverty rate 2008-2013 5 2 7 1 3 6 8 4 9 10Average Ranking, All Indicators 7.26 6.26 5.42 5.47 4.11 5.63 4.37 3.58 7.11 5.74Average Ranking, All Indicators 10 8 4 5 2 6 3 1 9 7



ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE: DATA VALUES

Note: The asterisk denotes the data is for the private sector.

YearColumbus,

GA-ALAugusta,

GA-SCChattanooga,

TN-GAClarksville,

TN-KYFayetteville,

AR-MOFayetteville,

NCGreenville,

SCHuntsville,

ALMontgomery,

ALSavannah,

GAEmployment and Unemployment1-yr employment growth rate 2013-2014 0.3% 3.2% 1.6% 0.5% 1.6% 0.3% 2.4% 2.2% 0.6% 2.6%5-yr employment growth rate 2009-2014 1.5% 3.4% 4.5% 3.5% 7.6% 0.7% 7.2% 3.6% -2.8% 6.3%Unemployment rate Feb 2015 7.3% 6.7% 6.0% 6.2% 4.4% 7.2% 5.9% 5.2% 5.5% 6.0%Establishments5-yr firm opening employment chg. 2008-2013 -3.8% -4.0% -6.4% -2.9% -1.5% 12.2% -2.3% -1.3% -0.7% -2.8%5-yr firm expansion employment chg. 2008-2013 4.8% 3.1% 4.0% 6.4% 9.0% 2.2% 5.9% 5.3% 5.4% 9.2%5-yr firm relocation employment chg. 2008-2013 0.32% -0.25% 0.54% 0.37% 0.45% -0.79% 1.92% 0.71% 0.05% 0.58%5-yr establishments chg. 2008-2013 -2.9% 0.1% -0.8% 0.7% -0.3% -1.9% 19.5% -0.1% -6.3% 3.3%Business bankruptcy rate per 1k est. 2013 2.9 4.6 6.2 3.9 7.3 2.2 2.0 4.4 6.6 6.4Exports, Output, and ProductivityExports per worker * 2013 $101,912 $128,309 $126,163 $110,619 $123,548 $95,287 $142,271 $115,398 $125,012 $108,420Gross metro product (GMP) per worker* 2013 $87,131 $86,751 $88,187 $86,816 $105,384 $89,687 $89,177 $102,485 $92,209 $86,152GMP 5-year chg.* 2008-2013 16.3% 14.4% 5.9% 17.9% 28.0% 12.7% 15.1% 17.3% 8.4% 12.9%Wages, Income, and PovertyAverage annual wage (AAW) 2013 $38,297 $41,140 $41,709 $35,358 $38,929 $46,107 $40,581 $52,462 $40,574 $40,8445-yr AAW chg. 2008-2013 9.2% 8.1% 11.9% 7.2% 12.4% 18.1% 8.0% 10.6% 8.0% 7.9%Per capita income (PCI) 2013 $39,012 $35,625 $38,134 $39,591 $37,863 $43,689 $36,525 $41,899 $38,419 $40,940

Wages (% of PCI) 2013 59.5% 60.2% 63.5% 64.4% 64.5% 62.0% 64.1% 65.3% 61.7% 63.4%Investment (% of PCI) 2013 20.6% 17.5% 15.1% 18.7% 20.0% 19.5% 14.7% 18.9% 17.5% 19.2%Transfer Receipts (% of PCI) 2013 20.0% 22.3% 21.4% 16.9% 15.5% 18.5% 21.2% 15.8% 20.9% 17.4%

5-yr PCI chg. 2008-2013 6.3% 8.7% 9.8% 8.2% 15.5% 10.7% 7.3% 8.4% 5.3% 5.3%Total poverty rate 2013 21.8% 20.0% 16.8% 15.9% 16.4% 18.7% 17.2% 14.3% 19.4% 18.0%Child poverty rate 2013 31.9% 30.2% 25.5% 23.1% 21.9% 28.1% 24.9% 19.9% 28.8% 26.0%5-yr pct. pt. chg. total poverty rate 2008-2013 2.9% 2.3% 2.8% 0.3% 2.9% 2.4% 2.4% 2.9% 3.8% 2.8%5-yr pct. pt. chg. child poverty rate 2008-2013 4.7% 3.6% 5.1% 0.7% 4.0% 5.0% 5.3% 4.3% 5.9% 6.3%



WORKFORCE SUSTAINABILITY: SCORECARD

YearColumbus,

GA-ALAugusta,

GA-SCChattanooga,

TN-GAClarksville,

TN-KYFayetteville,

AR-MOFayetteville,

NCGreenville,

SCHuntsville,

ALMontgomery,

ALSavannah,

GAPopulation Change5-yr population growth rate 2009-2014 5 7 9 1 4 6 8 2 10 35-yr labor force growth rate 2/10 - 2/15 8 7 9 6 4 5 2 3 10 1Net migration as % of total population 2009-2014 5 7 6 8 1 9 4 2 10 3Net migration as % of total population growth

2009-2014 6 7 3 8 2 9 1 5 10 4

% of in-migrants w/ bachelor's degree + 2013 7 8 6 10 9 3 4 1 5 2% of in-migrants w/less than a high school diploma

2013 5 8 9 1 2 6 10 3 7 4

Age CompositionDependency ratio, Age 25-44 /Age 45-64 2013 5 7 10 1 3 2 8 9 6 4Workers age 55+ 2014 3 6 9 1 5 2 10 7 8 4Educational Attainment% of population over 15 enrolled in college

2013 3 9 10 4 5 1 7 6 8 2

Pop 18-24 w/some college or a degree 2013 6 9 3 7 4 5 1 2 10 8Pop 25+ w/ assoc. degree 2013 5 6 7 3 10 1 2 4 9 8Pop 25+ w/ bachelor's degree + 2013 10 6 7 8 3 9 4 1 5 25-yr pct. pt. chg. 18-24 w/some college or a degree

2008-2013 1 9 4 2 6 3 5 7 8 10

5-yr pct. pt. chg. associate's degree 2008-2013 3 6 5 2 7 8 4 1 8 105-yr pct. pt. chg. bachelor's degree + 2008-2013 9 5 10 1 3 7 6 4 8 2Average ranking score, all indicators 5.40 7.13 7.13 4.20 4.53 5.07 5.07 3.80 8.13 4.47 Average Ranking, All Indicators 7 8 8 2 4 5 5 1 10 3



WORKFORCE SUSTAINABILITY: DATA VALUES

YearColumbus,

GA-ALAugusta,

GA-SCChattanooga,

TN-GAClarksville,

TN-KYFayetteville,

AR-MOFayetteville,

NCGreenville,

SCHuntsville,

ALMontgomery,

ALSavannah,

GAPopulation Change5-yr population growth rate 2009-2014 7.6% 6.9% 4.0% 10.1% 8.1% 7.0% 4.7% 8.8% 1.8% 8.7%5-yr labor force growth rate 2/10 - 2/15 -0.2% 0.9% -2.1% 2.0% 2.6% 2.4% 3.1% 3.0% -2.7% 3.3%Net migration as % of total population 2009-2014 3.1% 2.1% 2.6% 1.5% 5.3% -1.8% 3.4% 4.3% -1.9% 4.3%Net migration as % of total population growth

2009-2014 43.6% 32.8% 67.6% 16.2% 71.4% -28.1% 76.4% 53.3% -105.7% 53.8%

% of in-migrants w/bachelor's degree + 2009-2013 27.7% 27.6% 27.7% 22.8% 25.5% 35.1% 32.6% 36.5% 29.3% 36.1%% of in-migrants w/less than a high school diploma

2009-2013 13.6% 15.1% 16.4% 7.7% 9.3% 14.3% 18.7% 10.4% 14.7% 10.9%

Age CompositionDependency ratio, Age 25-44/Age 45-64 2013 1.16 0.97 0.94 1.49 1.24 1.32 0.96 0.95 1.05 1.16 Workers age 55+ 2014 16.9% 19.6% 21.0% 15.2% 19.2% 15.6% 21.1% 20.4% 20.5% 18.5%Educational Attainment% of population over 15 enrolled in college 2013 10.8% 8.9% 8.4% 10.6% 10.2% 12.3% 9.5% 10.0% 9.5% 11.6%Pop 18-24 w/some college or a degree 2013 54.6% 47.2% 56.7% 51.9% 56.4% 55.8% 59.3% 57.6% 46.7% 50.2%Pop 25+ w/assoc. degree 2013 8.3% 7.9% 7.5% 9.2% 5.0% 10.8% 9.5% 8.9% 6.4% 6.5%Pop 25+ w/bachelor's degree + 2013 21.2% 24.5% 23.7% 23.2% 28.2% 22.3% 26.8% 36.5% 25.9% 31.3%5-yr pct. pt. chg. 18-24 w/some college or a degree

2008-2013 9.5% 1.9% 8.1% 9.5% 6.8% 8.3% 8.0% 5.2% 4.1% 0.4%

5-yr pct. pt. chg. w/assoc. degree 2008-2013 1.0% 0.6% 0.7% 1.3% 0.3% -0.5% 0.9% 2.3% -0.5% -0.8%5-yr pct. pt. chg. w/bachelor's degree + 2008-2013 0.6% 2.4% 0.2% 5.0% 3.2% 1.2% 2.2% 2.6% 0.6% 4.1%



BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT: SCORECARD

Note: Asterisk denotes data that is collected and reported at the state level. All airport data was reported for the closest major international airport for each comparison community.

YearColumbus,

GA-ALAugusta,

GA-SCChattanooga,

TN-GAClarksville,

TN-KYFayetteville,

AR-MOFayetteville,

NCGreenville,

SCHuntsville,

ALMontgomery,

ALSavannah,

GAInfrastructureDistance in miles to closest major international airport

2015 5 9 8 1 10 2 4 6 3 7

Passenger departures 2015 1 7 1 N/A 5 6 3 9 9 75-yr passenger departures per chg. 2015 5 1 5 N/A 8 7 3 9 9 1Average domestic airfare 2010-2015 6 9 6 2 1 3 8 4 4 9Air freight cargo (lbs. in ths.) 2015 1 9 1 N/A 4 5 3 7 7 95-yr air freight cargo chg. 2015 7 1 7 N/A 6 10 5 3 3 1Public transit trips per capita 2013 6 9 2 5 3 4 8 10 7 1Public transit average cost per trip 2013 4 6 7 8 1 2 5 9 10 3Business CostsCommercial electricity costs (cents per kilowatt hr.)*

Jan-15 3 3 7 7 1 2 6 9 9 3

Industrial electricity costs (cents per kilowatt hr.)*

Jan-15 4 4 7 7 3 10 9 1 1 4

Class A office cost (per sq ft in core city) 1Q2015 1 3 8 N/A 7 6 5 4 2 9Industrial cost (per sq ft in core city) 1Q2015 1 2 4 N/A 5 7 6 9 3 8Retail cost (per sq ft in core city) 1Q2015 7 4 2 N/A 8 3 4 6 1 9Ratio of private sector labor productivity to labor cost

2013 5 3 4 10 8 7 6 1 9 2

Business ClimateCFED Business and Jobs Outcome State Rank*

2015 1 1 6 6 5 4 10 8 8 1

CFED Business and Jobs Policy State Rank* 2015 2 2 6 6 1 2 6 9 9 2

Average Ranking, All Indicators 3.69 4.56 5.06 5.78 4.75 5.00 5.69 6.50 5.88 4.75Average Ranking, All Indiactors 1 2 6 8 3 5 7 10 9 3



BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT: DATA VALUES

Note: Asterisk denotes data that is collected and reported at the state level. All airport data was reported for the closest major international airport for each comparison community.

YearColumbus,

GA-ALAugusta,

GA-SCChattanooga,

TN-GAClarksville,

TN-KYFayetteville,

AR-MOFayetteville,

NCGreenville,

SCHuntsville,

ALMontgomery,

ALSavannah,

GAInfrastructureDistance in miles to closest major international airport

2015 102 128 127 56 266 79 100 105 97 109

Passenger departures 2015 41,538,000 1,547,000 41,538,000 5,354,000 4,940,000 4,572,000 19,940,000 1,294,000 1,294,000 1,547,000 5-yr passenger departures pct. chg. 2010-2015 10.2% 42.7% 10.2% 22.7% 1.5% 5.3% 24.7% -10.1% -10.1% 42.7%Average domestic airfare 2015 $439.32 $444.88 $439.32 $389.56 $376.08 $390.95 $439.46 $399.53 $399.53 $444.88Air freight cargo (lbs. in ths.) 2015 613,000,000 50,000,000 613,000,000 85,000,000 206,000,000 167,000,000 225,000,000 56,000,000 56,000,000 50,000,000 5-yr air freight cargo pct. chg. 2010-2015 5.5% 316.7% 5.5% -3.4% 8.4% -5.1% 9.2% 9.8% 9.8% 316.7%Public transit trips per capita 2013 4.47 1.97 8.30 5.50 7.81 5.65 2.16 1.88 4.11 16.85 Public transit average cost per trip 2013 $3.87 $5.38 $5.45 $6.41 $2.40 $3.76 $5.13 $6.76 $7.60 $3.84Business CostsCommercial electricity costs (cents per kilowatt hr.)*

Jan-15 $9.78 $9.78 $10.10 $10.10 $7.62 $8.44 $9.92 $10.63 $10.63 $9.78

Industrial electricity costs (cents per kilowatt hr.)*

Jan-15 $5.86 $5.86 $5.94 $5.94 $5.65 $6.27 $5.97 $5.58 $5.58 $5.86

Class A office cost (per sq ft in core city) 1Q2015 $11.68 $13.45 $15.52 N/A $15.39 $15.35 $15.01 $14.05 $13.35 $17.23Industrial cost (per sq ft in core city) 1Q2015 $2.63 $3.00 $3.15 N/A $3.55 $3.66 $3.56 $5.81 $3.06 $4.05Retail cost (per sq ft in core city) 1Q2015 $11.84 $9.81 $9.23 N/A $12.71 $9.72 $9.81 $10.58 $9.14 $15.06Ratio of private sector labor productivity to labor cost

2013 2.55 2.43 2.45 2.80 2.66 2.63 2.58 2.26 2.75 2.37

Business ClimateCFED Business and Jobs Outcome State Rank*

2015 42 42 45 45 44 43 50 49 49 42

CFED Business and Jobs Policy State Rank* 2015 23 23 38 38 17 23 38 48 48 23



INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP: SCORECARD

Note: Asterisk denotes data that is collected and reported at the state level.

YearColumbus,

GA-ALAugusta,

GA-SCChattanooga,

TN-GAClarksville,

TN-KYFayetteville,

AR-MOFayetteville,

NCGreenville,

SCHuntsville,

ALMontgomery,

ALSavannah,

GAResearch and Development ActivityBusiness R&D expenditures per capita* 2011 4 4 8 8 10 1 7 2 2 4Patents per 1,000 workers 2013 9 3 5 10 4 8 1 2 7 6Startups, Small Businesses, and Self-Employed

5-yr change in new startup establishments 2008-2013 5 9 6 10 8 1 3 2 3 6

Self-employment as a share of total employment

2014 7 4 2 5 1 10 3 8 6 9

Pct. pt. change in self-employment as a share of total emp.

2009-2014 6 5 10 3 8 1 4 2 9 7

% of total employment in firms w/ 50 or fewer employees

2012 1 6 10 2 9 3 7 8 5 4

% of total employment in firms less than 5 yrs old

2012 10 2 9 3 6 5 7 4 8 1

5-yr change in the number of sole proprietors, nonfarm

2008-2013 1 6 10 8 3 5 4 2 9 7

Average sole proprietor income, nonfarm 2013 9 10 1 2 5 8 4 7 3 65-yr chg. in sole proprietor income, nonfarm

2008-2013 10 8 6 1 3 2 5 4 9 7

Capital EnvironmentSmall business loans (originations) per 1,000 residents

2013 8 5 6 9 1 10 7 3 4 2

10-yr chg. in small business loans (originations) per 1,000 residents

2003-2013 5 3 8 10 4 6 2 7 9 1

Average Ranking, All Indicators 6.25 5.42 6.75 5.92 5.17 5.00 4.50 4.25 6.17 5.00Average Ranking, All Indicators 9 6 10 7 5 3 2 1 8 3



INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP: DATA VALUES

Note: Asterisk denotes data that is collected and reported at the state level.

YearColumbus,

GA-ALAugusta,

GA-SCChattanooga,

TN-GAClarksville,

TN-KYFayetteville,

AR-MOFayetteville,

NCGreenville,

SCHuntsville,

ALMontgomery,

ALSavannah,

GAResearch and Development ActivityBusiness R&D expenditures per capita* 2011 $391.21 $391.21 $224.12 $224.12 $117.07 $641.66 $299.38 $391.32 $391.32 $391.21Patents per 1,000 workers 2013 0.09 0.28 0.21 0.07 0.27 0.10 1.23 1.07 0.11 0.13Startups, Small Businesses, and Self-Employed

5-yr change in new startup establishments 2008-2013 -2.6% -3.5% -3.0% -3.7% -3.1% -0.7% -2.2% -1.5% -2.2% -3.0%

Self-employment as a share of total employment

2014 4.8% 5.3% 5.9% 5.3% 6.4% 4.2% 5.7% 4.7% 5.2% 4.5%

Pct. pt. chg. in self-employment as a share of total emp.

2009-2014 -0.7% -0.7% -1.2% -0.4% -0.87% 0.1% -0.6% -0.1% -1.1% -0.8%

% of total employment in firms w/ 50 or fewer employees

2012 28.6% 25.7% 23.5% 27.7% 23.9% 27.5% 25.1% 24.9% 26.4% 27.3%

% of total employment in firms less than 5 yrs old

2012 6.6% 10.1% 7.4% 9.2% 8.9% 8.9% 8.0% 9.0% 8.0% 11.4%

5-yr change in the number of sole proprietors, nonfarm

2008-2013 32.2% 9.4% 3.2% 5.0% 13.7% 12.1% 12.4% 18.1% 3.3% 6.5%

Average sole proprietor income, nonfarm 2013 $17,505 $16,703 $35,542 $32,306 $24,586 $20,385 $25,392 $20,409 $27,998 $20,5155-yr chg. in sole proprietor income, nonfarm

2008-2013 -1.3% 13.8% 17.9% 56.0% 28.4% 37.7% 21.6% 26.1% 7.5% 15.9%

Capital EnvironmentSmall business loans (originations) per 1,000 residents

2013 9.8 10.6 10.5 6.9 17.4 6.9 10.3 13.7 12.3 14.5

10-yr chg. in small business loans (originations) per 1,000 residents

2003-2013 -52.0% -51.7% -59.1% -64.3% -51.9% -54.4% -48.5% -56.2% -59.9% -47.8%



QUALITY OF LIFE: SCORECARD

YearColumbus,

GA-ALAugusta,

GA-SCChattanooga,

TN-GAClarksville,

TN-KYFayetteville,

AR-MOFayetteville,

NCGreenville,

SCHuntsville,

ALMontgomery,

ALSavannah,

GA

CrimeViolent crime rate per 100K residents 2013 5 1 8 4 3 7 9 6 N/A 2Property crime rate per 100K residents 2013 9 5 6 2 1 8 7 4 N/A 3Commuting and Congestion% of commuters who drive alone to work 2013 1 7 5 2 4 6 8 10 9 3% of commuters w/ commute times > 45 minutes

2013 2 9 8 10 6 1 2 2 5 7

Mean travel time to work (minutes) 2013 3 10 9 5 1 2 4 5 7 8Affordability and Cost of LivingHome affordability ratio 2Q2014 1 2 6 3 4 8 10 9 5 7Renters spending 30%+ of income on rent 2013 7 10 4 3 2 6 5 1 8 9Cost of living index 2014 2 1 5 7 2 6 9 10 2 7HealthPhysicians per 100K residents 2015 5 1 4 10 9 7 3 6 8 2% of adults reporting poor or fair health 2015 6 4 9 8 1 7 5 2 10 2% of adults reporting BMI >/= 30 2015 10 4 3 7 1 8 5 6 9 2% of population under age 65 w/out health insurance

2015 5 7 4 3 10 6 9 1 2 8

Recreation and VolunteerismWalk Score (Principal City) 2014 6 8 3 10 3 9 1 7 5 1Recreation and fitness facilities per 100K residents

2013 9 7 3 10 4 8 2 1 5 6

Charitable revenue per capita 2015 3 9 6 8 1 7 4 10 5 2Average ranking, all indicators 4.93 5.67 5.53 6.13 3.47 6.40 5.53 5.33 6.15 4.60 Average Ranking, All Indicators 3 7 5 8 1 10 5 4 9 2



QUALITY OF LIFE: DATA VALUES

YearColumbus,

GA-ALAugusta,

GA-SCChattanooga,

TN-GAClarksville,

TN-KYFayetteville,

AR-MOFayetteville,

NCGreenville,

SCHuntsville,

ALMontgomery,

ALSavannah,

GA

CrimeViolent crime rate per 100K residents 2013 413.0 288.3 509.8 369.3 334.6 490.1 562.3 483.5 N/A 316.0Property crime rate per 100K residents 2013 4,930.0 3,665.1 3,870.3 2,514.3 2,380.7 4,910.2 4,026.1 3,355.8 N/A 3,065.8Commuting and Congestion% of commuters who drive alone to work 2013 78.8% 84.0% 83.6% 80.0% 82.3% 83.8% 85.4% 87.5% 86.0% 81.9%% of commuters w/ commute times > 45 minutes

2013 7.6% 10.4% 9.6% 11.3% 7.9% 7.4% 7.6% 7.6% 7.8% 9.4%

Mean travel time to work (minutes) 2013 21.0 23.4 23.2 21.8 20.6 20.9 21.6 21.8 22.3 22.9Affordability and Cost of LivingHome affordability ratio 2Q2014 277.8 274.3 216.4 233.6 230.2 206.1 196.2 202.0 216.5 212.9Renters spending 30%+ of income on rent 2013 50.8% 55.7% 48.3% 44.1% 44.1% 50.8% 49.6% 42.7% 51.3% 53.9%Cost of living index 2014 86 82 89 93 86 90 95 98 86 93HealthPhysicians per 100K residents 2015 232 359 257 131 171 205 259 222 185 284% of adults reporting poor or fair health 2015 17.3% 15.6% 19.9% 19.5% 15.4% 18.1% 15.9% 15.5% 20.8% 15.5%% of adults reporting BMI >/= 30 2015 34.7% 31.0% 29.9% 31.3% 28.4% 31.6% 31.1% 31.2% 33.4% 28.6%% of population under age 65 w/out health insurance 2015 17.4% 18.5% 16.8% 15.4% 20.2% 17.8% 20.0% 14.1% 14.5% 19.7%Recreation and VolunteerismWalk Score (Principal City) 2014 24 20 27 16 27 18 41 22 25 41Recreation and fitness facilities per 100K residents

2013 6.0 6.4 10.9 5.5 9.5 6.1 11.1 11.9 7.8 6.8

Charitable revenue per capita 2015 $3,921 $2,335 $3,205 $2,357 $10,491 $2,946 $3,679 $1,065 $3,493 $5,343



ENDNOTES i All other portions of Georgia outside Metro Atlanta grew by 62.4 percent. ii The Census Population Estimates program considers residents to be: “All persons who are "usually resident" in a specified geographic area. The U.S. resident population includes all persons who usually reside in the 50 states and the District of Columbia … the U.S. resident population excludes U.S. Armed Forces overseas and civilian U.S. citizens whose usual place of residence is outside the United States.” In other words, service members who are deployed overseas at the time an estimate is made are not counted as part of an area’s resident population. This is almost certainly among the most significant contributing factors to the population fluctuations in Greater Columbus. iii The Census Bureau figures also include “residual” adjustments to arrive at the final population count. A discussion of this process is beyond the scope of this report and of limited relevance given the very small residuals in Greater Columbus during this time period. iv This data program has some limitations. While it provides information on the number of exemptions claimed on every return, this metric does not have an exact one-to-one relationship with actual people in a household. Second, the program tracks only those tax filers who submit a return in two consecutive years. As such, the program is known to undercount the elderly, college students, immigrants, and others who may not file a tax return in consecutive years. Additionally, because of their radically different methodologies, the figures from the IRS program do not match Census components of population change figures that are used elsewhere in this assessment. v Greater Columbus also lost population to communities with major military bases, though it should be noted that most of the impact of the Armor School move occurred after 2011, the most recent year for which IRS data is available. For the purposes of this analysis, a major Army base was defined as an installation with at least 5,000 active duty Army personnel. Poughkeepsie, NY, which contains the United States Military Academy in West Point, was also added to this list. In instances where two MSAs were located in close proximity to a major Army base, only the MSA that physically overlapped with the Fort or installation was included. vi It should be noted that some of the regions shown in Figure 5 have special growth-driving assets that are not present in Greater Columbus. Athens, GA is home to the University of Georgia, Greenville, NC has East Carolina University (enrollment of more than 26,000 students), and Huntsville is the nation’s primary center of rocket-propulsion research. That said, Greater Columbus also possesses assets that these communities do not have, such as Fort Benning and several major corporate headquarter operations. vii Census Population Estimates cover all residents, including active-duty military, so it is possible that Greater Columbus’ age dynamics could be skewed by Fort Benning’s population, which is likely to be disproportionately younger than the total population. But an analysis of workforce age dynamics using data from EMSI reveals that in private-sector (non-government) jobs only, there are 1.21 workers between the ages of 25 to 44 for every one worker between the ages of 45 to 64. Nationwide, this ratio is just 1.14. This supports the idea that Greater Columbus’ age dynamics are favorable overall. viii According to the “2013 Demographics Profile of the Military Community” report from the Department of Defense, the bachelor’s degree attainment rate for the Army is 21.5 percent, very close to the overall rate in Greater Columbus. ix For additional context, some of the nation’s top regions for talent attraction (Austin, Raleigh, etc.) add tens of thousands of residents each year through net migration, and these new arrivals have bachelor’s degree attainment rates in excess of 40 percent. While it is not fair to directly compare Greater Columbus to these places, it is important to note the intensity of competition for top talent in the current landscape. x Between 2010 and 2011, there was significant jobs movement between NAICS 517919 (all other telecommunications) to NAICS 522320 (financial transactions processing, reserve, and clearinghouse activities). xi The U.S. Census Bureau projects that white, non-Hispanics will no longer represent the majority of the population in the United States by 2044.

PHASE 1: COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT - Columbus 2025

Documents

Transcript of PHASE 1: COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT - Columbus 2025