TOWARD AN ENTREPRENEURIAL ECONOMY · DTE Energy Company Dow Corning Foundation ... Strategic...

MICHIGANE N T R E P R E N E U R S H I P S C O R E C A R D

S M A L L B U S I N E S S F O U N D A T I O N O F M I C H I G A N

P R E P A R E D B Y :

2 0 0 9 : 1 0

T O W A R D A N E N T R E P R E N E U R I A L E C O N O M Y

S C O R E C A R D P A R T N E R S

Automation Alley

Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione

Central Michigan University

DTE Energy Company

Dow Corning Foundation

Great Lakes Bay Regional Alliance

Michigan Municipal League

Michigan State Housing Development Authority

Saginaw Bay Sustainable Business Partnership

Saginaw Valley State University

Small Business Association of Michigan

Small Business Foundation of Michigan

C O L L A B O R A T I N G P A R T N E R S

Crain’s Detroit Business

Edward Lowe Foundation

Shephard Advisors, LLC


MICH IGAN2009-2010

Small Business Foundation of MichiganGrowth Economics, Inc.

The Michigan Entrepreneurship Score Card is a project of the Small Business Foundation of Michigan. Dr. Graham Toft (GrowthEconomics, Inc.), is the primary technical consultant for the project.

Dr. Graham Toft (GrowthEconomics, Inc.) and Mark H. Clevey, MPA, Saginaw State University CBED are the primary technical consultants for the project.

The 2004-05 inaugural edition was created and produced by the Small Business Foundation of Michigan (SBFM). Numerous financial and promotion sponsors have joined with SBFM to help underwrite the production and distribution of the subsequent annual Score Cards as well as follow-up projects aimed at researching the Nexus between entrepreneurship and other economic drivers.

© Copyright 2010. Small Business Foundation of Michigan. All Rights Reserved.

1

2

2 0 0 9 : 1 0 E N T R E P R E N E U R S H I P S C O R E C A R D

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Small Business Association of Michigan (SBAM) andSmall Business Foundation of Michigan (SBFM)

The Small Business Foundation of Michigan (SBFM) was formed in 1999 and is operated in connection with the Small

Business Association of Michigan (SBAM). SBFM is an operating foundation that raises funds from grants, fees and donations

and expends funds on Foundation-directed projects aimed at stimulating robust entrepreneurial change, vibrancy and

culture. SBAM is an industry association representing the interests of small businesses in Michigan. Rob Fowler serves as the

President and CEO of both the Small Business Assocaitation of Michigan and Small Business Foundation of Michigan.

3


2009-2010 Score Card Partnersfull profiles in Appendices

Automation Alley Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione Central Michigan University DTE Energy Company Dow Corning Foundation Great Lakes Bay Regional Alliance Michigan Municipal League Michigan State Housing Development Authority Saginaw Bay Sustainable Business Partnership Saginaw Valley State University Small Business Association of Michigan Small Business Foundation of Michigan

Score Card Board of Technical Advisors SBFM has a Board of Technical Advisors for the Score Card that provides quality oversight to the methodology of the study, the individual metrics and their groupings, analysis and conclusions. In alphabetical order, the following are current members of the Board of Technical Advisors:

Dr. Soji Adelaja, Ph.D.John A. Hannah Distinguished Professor in Land PolicyDirector, Land Policy InstituteMichigan State University3rd Floor Manly Miles Building1405 South Harrison RoadMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, MI 48823 (517) 432-8800 Ext. 102 (Tel), [email protected]

Joseph B. Borgstrom, DirectorCommunity Assistance TeamMichigan State Housing Development Authority735 East Michigan AvenueP.O. Box 30044Lansing, MI 30044(517) 241-2512 (Tel), [email protected]

Mark Lange, Executive DirectorEdward Lowe Foundation58220 Decatur RoadP.O. Box 8Cassopolis, MI 49031-0008(269) 445-4221 (Tel), [email protected]

David Morris, ManagerStrategic Research, Information Technology & Research Michigan Economic Development Corporation300 N. Washington SquareLansing, MI 48913(517) 335-10673 (Tel), [email protected]

Dr. George Puia, Ph.D.Dow Chemical Company Centennial Chair in Global BusinessCollege of Business and ManagementSaginaw Valley State University310 Curtiss Hall7400 Bay RoadUniversity Center, MI 48710(989) 964-6074 (Tel), [email protected]

Kapila Viges, DirectorEntrepreneurship & Innovation Michigan Economic Development Corporation300 N. Washington SquareLansing, MI 48913(517) 335-1866 (Tel), [email protected]

(Previous members of the Technical Advisory Board include Dr. Michael Fields (Dean, College of Business Administration, Central Michigan University), Dr. Bryan K. Ritchie (Director, James Madison College, Michigan State University) and Ken Darga (State Demographer, Library of Michigan).

Score Card AuthorsMark H. Clevey, MPADirector, Entrepreneurship & Commercialization,Saginaw Valley State University,Chairperson, Score Card Board of Technical Advisors, and,Past SBFM Executive Directorc/o Small Business Foundation of Michigan1000 N. Washington Square, P.O. Box 16158Lansing, Michigan 48901-6158(800) 362-5461 (Tel), [email protected]

Dr. Graham Toft, PresidentGrowthEconomics Inc.(Florida, Indiana, Ireland)2425 Gulf of Mexico DriveUnit 8BLongboat Key FL 34228-3213(317) 493-5901 (Tel - global), [email protected]

Collaborating Partnersfull profiles in Appendices

Crain’s Detroit Business Edward Lowe Foundation Shephard Advisors, LLC

COLLAbOrATING OrGANIzATIONS

4


TAbLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements 2

Score Card Partners 3

Executive Summary 6

Detailed Metrics 11

State Entrepreneurial Sensitivity Index 12

Entrepreneurial Change 16

Entrepreneurial Vitality 19

Entrepreneurial Climate 25

Education 43

Business Costs 59

Legal and Regulatory Environment 69

Physical Infrastructure 73

Quality of Life (Sense of Place) 82

Appendices 100

Fostering an Entrepreneurial Culture in Michigan as a Catalyst for Community and Economic Recovery, Diversification and Development 103

Background of Economic Gardening 106

Entrepreneurship Development Models in Michigan 108

Innovation: Instrument of Entrepreneurship 114

Profiles of Score Card Partners 123

About the Authors 126

Score and Metric Calculation 127

Technical Documentation and Works Cited 129

5


FOrEWOrD

An Entrepreneur-Oriented Approach to Economic Prosperity

It may seem ironic in today’s global economy, but place has become more important than ever. Natural resources,

low-cost labor and tax incentives used to be the key drivers to state or regional prosperity. Today, however, the ability

to support innovative companies and entrepreneurs has become the critical component to economic recovery and

growth. This 2009-2010 edition of the Michigan Entrepreneurship Scorecard highlights the challenges and opportunities

that lie ahead for Michigan’s entrepreneurial journey.

Of course place has an even greater emphasis for Michigan, which is living through a period of dramatic economic

change and volatility. In addition to the call for diversifying the Michigan economy, it is time to build a culture that serves

businesses differently – that’s where economic gardening comes in.

Economic gardening takes an entrepreneurial approach to job creation. Sometimes referred to as a “homegrown” or

“inside-out” strategy, economic gardening focuses on helping existing growth-oriented companies become larger. It’s

not that business attraction and recruitment activities should be abandoned, but they’ve been overemphasized, due

partly to competitive and political pressures. A balanced approach is the key to building an entrepreneurial culture.

Economic gardening sets itself apart from other economic-development strategies by its target audience, tools, and

timing of services. It deals with growth-oriented (or what we call second-stage) companies by providing high-end

information and decision-making assistance to these companies as they transition from small to large. These second-

stage companies are significant job creators because of their focus on growth. And because they often have national or

global markets they bring outside dollars into the state.

Traditional economic development programs offer tax incentives, workforce development services and infrastructure

improvements to attract and retain companies that may be considering relocation – tools that emphasize movement

rather than growth. In contrast economic gardening helps companies deal with strategic issues like penetrating new

markets, refining business models, and embracing new leadership roles. Most important, economic gardening provides

these customized services quickly and efficiently to meet the “just-in-time” needs of this second-stage audience.

In spite of its economic challenges, Michigan portrays a strong sense of place and is well known for its rich

entrepreneurial history. The 2009 Entrepreneurship Scorecard moves us another step closer to identifying and

understanding these challenges - and the important metrics that can give us the insight to build a culture that truly does

serve businesses and entrepreneurs differently.

Mark Lange, Executive Director

Edward Lowe Foundation and,

Member, Score Card Board of Technical Advisors

6


EXECUTIVE SUMMArYMeasurement and Metrics – Signposts for Growing New Michigan Entrepreneurs

Perhaps the top challenge facing policymakers in Lansing is how to get Michigan’s economy revved up and once again creating

jobs. The Small Business Association of Michigan (SBAM) thinks that a key to revitalizing economic growth is to get the state to

adopt the concept of economic gardening.

“Economic gardening is the opposite of traditional economic development strategies that involves attracting companies from

outside the state,” says SBAM President and CEO Rob Fowler. “This is a grow-your-own, bootstrapping strategy. Embracing

economic gardening will make Michigan a more entrepreneurial place, with a more entrepreneurial culture that supports the

growth and establishment of small businesses.”

For the last year or so, SBAM has been laying the groundwork for real action on economic gardening – and 2010 will see many

threads of effort coming together to sustain significant progress toward this goal.

2010 Entrepreneurship Score Card

This sixth annual Entrepreneurship Score Card is an important benchmark that can give us insights into how well Michigan is

tilling the ground for economic gardening.

As in previous years, the Entrepreneurship Score Care is aimed at helping policymakers understand how entrepreneurship

is faring in an overall Michigan economic environment that continues to struggle for traction. There are some positive

developments to report. The 2009-2010 Score Card finds that:

• Metrics relating to the state’s Entrepreneurial Climate continue to improve

• In entrepreneurial measures, Michigan this year is outperforming most Great Lakes States

• The concept of “economic gardening” is being embraced by more Michigan thought leaders

On the negative side, by all indicators second stage companies should be outperforming the general economy. However,

second stage growth appears to be lagging further than it should. Note: this finding is based on 2008 data. Upcoming data

from 2009 could show improvement.

This Year’s Score Card Findings

The Scorecard uses three primary measures to describe the condition and direction of the entrepreneurial economy of the state:

• Entrepreneurial Change (the amount of entrepreneurial growth or decline in an economy over the recent three years)

• Entrepreneurial Vitality (the level of entrepreneurial activity – pace and robustness of entrepreneurial activity)

• Entrepreneurial Climate (the capability of an economy to foster entrepreneurship)

A fourth measure – Entrepreneurial Dynamism – is a compilation of these three drivers

Here’s Michigan’s performance on Entrepreneurial Change, Vitality and Climate in national ranking (with 50 being worst

among all states) and on a five-star ratings scale (five stars being best.) Entrepreneurial Dynamism is reported as a national

ranking only.

National Current 2007 2005 Ranking Rating Rating Rating

Entrepreneurial Change 48 ** * **

Entrepreneurial Vitality 31 * ** *

Entrepreneurial Climate 44 * * **

Current 2007 2005 Ranking Ranking Ranking

Entrepreneurial Dynamism 45 43 31

7


This year’s Score Card launches a new measure, which we call the State Entrepreneurial Sensitivity Index. More volatile than

Entrepreneurial Dynamism, this Index is a combination of six metrics – three measuring different aspects of entrepreneurial job

creation, two measuring business creation/growth and the sixth measuring proprietor income growth. These six metrics capture

key aspects of a dynamic innovation economy, where entrepreneurship is present in all layers of the private economy from

new business activity to expansion of existing firms and across all sectors. In this first State Entrepreneurial Sensitivity Index,

Michigan earned a rating of three stars (with five stars being best). We interpret this to show that Michigan has potential room

for growth toward becoming a truly entrepreneurial environment for small business owners.

The Score Card in Context with Other Measurements

The Michigan Entrepreneurship Score Card is the only one of its kind that ranks and rates the entrepreneurial economy of all

fifty states. However, the scope of several other annual state report cards overlaps with this Score Card. Each year the Score

Card authors review how Michigan scores on some 20 of these report cards. As in previous years they find the general findings

of this Score Card congruent with others.

The Michigan economy has been on a downward spiral for some years, particularly since September 2005. On economic

performance for 2008 the ALEC-Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index ranked Michigan 50 (last in the nation) and the

economic climate component of Forbes “Best States for Business” also lists us at 50. In terms of economic competitiveness

rankings CNBC “America’s Top States for Business” ranked Michigan at 41 and Chief Executive Magazine “U.S. Best and Worst

States for Business” at 49. All these rankings are congruent with this report’s overall (3-driver) Entrepreneurial Dynamism score

of 45.

Regarding technology and innovation, two widely referenced reports are the New Economy Index by the Information Technology

and Innovation Foundation/Kauffman Foundation, which ranked Michigan at 17, and the Milken Institute’s “State Technology

and Science Index”, which ranked us at 26. These findings are consistent with the Research and Innovation sub-driver Score

Card rank of 21. Further, several report cards score Michigan’s workforce (especially innovation workforce) as above average,

also congruent with this Score Card.

The Score Card uses only standard and objective metrics (supplied by highly respected and recognized sources), sound

science and methodology, fact-based causation and outcome measurements. Most importantly, the Score Card does not

weigh, and therefore bias, any of the individual metrics reported in this study. The Score Card authors and sponsors sincerely

invite others to use the Score Card data - in an open, transparent and scientific manner - to encourage the formation of

an innovative and entrepreneurial economy in the state as a way to enable robust community and economic recovery,

diversification and development.

What Does SBAM Do With the Score Card?

The Score Card results each year are widely disseminated to small business leaders and among the public policy community.

SBAM uses the Score Card data to help develop an Entrepreneurial Policy Agenda, which along with the Score Card, will be

presented to policy makers in the legislature and state government. In addition, in the coming months SBAM will be talking to

each of the candidates for Governor and many of the candidates for the House and Senate. We will discuss the Score Card and

Entrepreneurial Policy Agenda and ask candidates to support an economic gardening strategy as an important tool for growing

jobs and personal income in the state.

8


Metric Rank I. STATE ENTREPRENEURIAL SENSITIVITY INDEX

22

Establishment Gaining Jobs 48 Self Employment Growth Differential 4 Net Expansion Job Gains 20 Establishment Formation Rate 34 New Business Owners 23 Proprietor Income Per Proprietor Growth

19

II. ENTREPRENEURIAL DYNAMISM:

45

Entrepreneurial Change 48 Increase in High Performance Firms 43 Net Establishment Entrants Increase 31 Growth in Number of Small Businesses

47

Small Business Payroll Growth 50 SBIC Awards 36 Entrepreneurial Vitality 31 Net Establishment Entrants 38 Establishment Turnover Rate 27 Self Employment 23 University Spinout Businesses 19 High Performance Firms 36 IPO Awards 38 SBIR Awards 22 STTR Awards 20 Entrepreneurial Climate: 44 Research and Innovation 21 University Research and Development

15

Patents Per Innovation Worker 8 Patents per R&D Dollar 39 University Licenses to Small Businesses

19

NSF Proposal Funding Rate 15 SBIR Funding Rate 34 University Royalty/License Income 17 Entrepreneurial Programs/Curricula 13 Industry Research and Development 4 Federal Research and Development 29 Financial and Institutional Capital 33 Venture Capital Financing 24 IPO Financing 36 SBIC Financing 34 SBIR Financing 22 STTR Financing 26 Bank Commercial and Industrial Lending

23

Private Lending to Small Businesses 5 Business Incubators 37 General Business Growth 50 Gross Domestic Product Growth 49 Manufacturing Capital Investment Growth

28

Foreign Direct Investment Growth 50 Export Intensity Growth 34 Large Business Payroll Growth 49 Building Permits Growth 49 Fortune 5009 Headquarters 7

Gross Operating Surplus Growth 42 Renewable Energy 34 Green Industries 36 III. SECONDARY DRIVERS Education: 21 K-12 Education 31 AP Overall 25 High School Graduation Rate 19 SAT 11 ACT 49 NAEP Mathematics 35 NAEP Reading 32 Post Secondary Education 9 Physical Sciences and Engineering Degrees

11

Technology and Technician Degrees 19 Other Innovation Degrees 6 College Affordability 36 U.S. News Top Undergraduate Programs

26

U.S. News Top Graduate Programs 4 College Migration 44 Workforce Preparedness 14 High School Only Diploma Attainment

18

Associate Degree Attainment 16 Bachelor’s Degree Attainment 34 Physical Science and Engineering Workers

5

Technology and Technician Workers 22 Other Innovation Workers 21 High-Tech Manufacturing Employment

1

High-Tech Services Employment 14 Adult Education 18 Business Costs 41 Unit Labor Costs 43 Energy Costs 32 Workers’ Compensation Premiums 20 Unemployment Insurance Costs 47 Workers’ Compensation Costs 21 Unemployment Insurance Tax Structure

45

Business Tax Burden 27 State Business Tax Structure 48 Metro Office Rents 17 Small Business Health Care Premiums

20

Productivity and Labor Supply 39 Net Migration Rate 50 Prime Working Age Residents 34 Gross Domestic Product Per Job 26 Services Gross Domestic Product Per Job

23

Value Added in Manufacturing Per Hour

38

Labor Force Participation Rate 41 Legal and Regulatory Environment

21

Malpractice Costs 46

Health Mandates 4 Business Liability 11 Liability Systems Reputation 33 Local Phone Competition 21 Tort System Efficiency 28 Physical Infrastructure 30 Highway Quality 40 Bridge Quality 28 Railway Productivity 14 Major Air Market Access 28 Airport Performance 27 Water Quality 14 Energy Reliability 43 Digital Connectivity 21 Broadband Connections 35 Broadband Coverage 10 Internet Speed 22 Next Generation Internet 34 Rural Internet Access 13 Technology in Schools 33 Quality of Life (Sense of Place): 33 Civic Energy and Harmony 25 Rural-Urban Disparity 1 Number of Nonprofits 35 Charitable Giving 25 Voter Turnout 7 Gender Equity 39 Race/Ethnic Equity 18 Hate Crimes 48 Generational Creative Class 37 Skilled Immigrants 21 Lifestyle and Play 30 Time To Work 26 Transit Use 28 Leisure Industry Employment 28 Parkland 10 Golf Courses 10 Trails 33 Cultural Institutions 43 Historical Preservation 24 Pocket Book Indicators 32 Urban Cost of Living 23 Urban Housing Affordability 24 Homeownership Rate 4 Unemployment Rate 49 Per Capita Disposable Personal Income

31

State and Local Tax Burden 23 Health and Safety 39 Lack of Health Insurance 13 Crime Index 24 Law Enforcement Employees 43 Healthcare Access 24 Clean Air 41

9


Metrics where Michigan ranks above mid point of 25 (by order in report)

Self-Employment Growth Differential 4 Workers’ Compensation Premiums 20 Net Expansion Job Gains 20 Workers’ Compensation Costs 21 New Business Owners/Entrepreneurial Activity Index 23 Metro Office Rents 17 Proprietor Income Per Proprietor Growth 19 Small Business Health Care Premiums 20

Self-Employment 23 Services Gross Domestic Product per Job 23

University Spinout Businesses 19 SBIR Awards 22 Health Mandates 4 STTR Awards 20 Business Liability 11 Local Phone Competition 21 University Research and Development 15 Patents per Innovation Worker 8 Railway Productivity 14 University Licenses to Small Businesses 19 Water Quality 14 NSF Proposal Funding Rate 15 University Royalty/License Income 17 Broadband Coverage 10 Industry Research and Development 4 Internet Speed 22 Rural Internet Access 13 Venture Capital Financing 24 SBIR Financing 22 Rural-Urban Disparity 1 Bank Commercial and Industrial Lending 23 Charitable Giving 25 Private Lending to Small Businesses 5 Voter Turnout 7 Racial/ethnic Equity 18 Fortune 500 Headquarters 7 Skilled Immigrants 21 Parkland 10 AP Overall 25 Golf Courses 10 High School Graduation Rate 19 Historical Preservation 24 SAT 11 Urban Cost of Living 23 Physical Sciences and Engineering Degrees 11 Urban Housing Affordability 24 Technology and Technician Degrees 19 Homeownership Rate 4 Other Innovation Degrees 6 State and Local Tax Burden 23 U.S. News Top Graduate Programs 4 Lack of Health Insurance 13 Crime Index 24 Associate Degree Attainment 16 Healthcare Access 24 Physical Science and Engineering Workers 5 Technology and Technician Workers 22 Other Innovation Workers 21 High-Tech Manufacturing Employment 1 High-Tech Services Employment 14 Adult Education 18


DETA ILED METr ICS

11


STATE ENTREPRENEURIAL SENSITIVITY INDEX An entrepreneurial economy is characterized by high ‘churning’ - people on the move; businesses starting/failing; and coming/going; jobs created/destroyed; occupations emerging/changing; innovated products succeeding/failing and continuous productivity improvement. The consequences from all this dynamism are: 1) interesting and constantly changing jobs and 2) wealth creation. Requisite entrepreneurship behaviors can be found broadly across many sectors - in private, non-profit, government and civic sectors. These behaviors are characterized by thinking outside the box; intent to grow/taking on new initiatives with calculated risk; and utilizing networks between colleagues and competitors to forge new ways to do things better, faster, less-expensively and greener. This year, with advice from its Technical Committee, the Score Card has come up with an experimental Index intended to detect signs that entrepreneurship in a state might be on the move. Now with seven years of updated and improved data collected on all 50 states, the new State Entrepreneurship Sensitivity Index (SESI) aims to identify those select metrics that can best combine to reflect an up-tick or downtick in entrepreneurship, especially in its private economy. Over summer 2010 other metrics will be explored that capture the ‘spirit of enterprise’ in other sectors, including social entrepreneurship. For now, the focus is on private economy entrepreneurial dynamism. This Index is a combination of 6 metrics – three measuring different aspects of entrepreneurial job creation, two measuring business creation/growth and the sixth measuring proprietor income growth. These 6 metrics capture key aspects of a dynamic innovation economy, where entrepreneurship is present in all layers of the private economy, from new business activity to expansion of existing firms and across all sectors.

Rank State 2008 2006 2004 1 Arizona ***** *** ***** 2 Florida ***** **** ***** 3 Alaska **** *** **** 4 Georgia **** **** ***** 5 Texas **** **** ***** 6 Nevada *** **** **** 7 California *** *** ***** 8 New Mexico *** *** **** 9 Kansas *** ** ** 10 Louisiana *** ***** ** 11 Oklahoma *** ***** *** 12 Colorado *** *** **** 13 Utah *** **** ***** 14 Maryland *** *** **** 15 Arkansas *** *** **** 16 Kentucky *** ** ** 17 New York *** ** ** 18 West Virginia *** ** ** 19 New Jersey *** *** *** 20 Virginia *** *** **** 21 Washington *** ** **** 22 Michigan *** ** ** 23 Oregon ** *** **** 24 Indiana ** ** *** 25 Rhode Island ** *** *** 26 New Hampshire ** * *** 27 Idaho ** ***** ***** 28 Illinois ** * *** 29 North Carolina ** *** **** 30 Delaware ** *** *** 31 Wyoming ** *** ***** 32 Tennessee ** ** **** 33 Minnesota ** ** ** 34 Pennsylvania ** * ** 35 Nebraska ** * * 36 Ohio ** * ** 37 Montana ** ***** *** 38 Mississippi * ***** *** 39 Massachusetts * *** *** 40 Alabama * *** *** 41 Maine * ** *** 42 South Dakota * * *** 43 Connecticut * * * 44 Missouri * ** *** 45 North Dakota * * * 46 South Carolina * ** *** 47 Wisconsin * ** *** 48 Vermont * ** *** 49 Hawaii * *** *** 50 Iowa * * **

Midwest Performance

2008 2006 2004 Kentucky *** ** ** Michigan *** ** ** Indiana ** ** *** Illinois ** * *** Ohio ** * ** Wisconsin * ** ***

12


ESTABLISHMENTS GAINING JOBS

Rank State Score Growth Differential Change, 2005 -

2008 (Abs.) 50-State Average 5.6% 2.5%

1 Nevada 152.8 8.3% 5.5% 2 Florida 151.7 8.3% 3.9% 3 Arizona 141.9 7.7% 6.5% 4 Michigan 137.7 7.5% 3.4% 5 Rhode Island 134.1 7.3% 3.4% 6 Ohio 120.3 6.6% 3.3% 7 New Jersey 117.8 6.4% 1.5% 8 Delaware 116.1 6.3% 1.7% 9 Illinois 114.8 6.3% 3.3% 10 Indiana 114.7 6.3% 3.3% 11 California 114.3 6.2% 3.8% 12 Hawaii 107.5 5.9% 2.8% 13 Georgia 107.2 5.9% 0.3% 14 Minnesota 106.7 5.8% 3.1% 15 Maryland 106.6 5.8% 1.4% 16 Oregon 106.3 5.8% 4.1% 17 Idaho 106.2 5.8% 2.4% 18 Utah 105.7 5.8% 2.3% 19 Virginia 105.2 5.8% 2.2% 20 Alabama 104.2 5.7% 1.4% 21 Kentucky 103.7 5.7% 4.0% 22 Connecticut 103.6 5.7% 2.1% 23 Tennessee 102.0 5.6% 1.6% 24 Wisconsin 100.6 5.5% 2.3% 25 Pennsylvania 100.1 5.5% 2.4% 26 North Carolina 99.9 5.5% 1.2% 27 New Mexico 98.9 5.4% 3.1% 28 South Carolina 98.6 5.4% 2.7% 29 Kansas 98.5 5.4% 3.0% 30 Missouri 98.4 5.4% 2.2% 31 Massachusetts 98.1 5.4% 2.3% 32 Arkansas 98.0 5.4% 1.8% 33 New York 96.0 5.3% 1.8% 34 Mississippi 95.5 5.2% -0.1% 35 West Virginia 95.3 5.2% 2.5% 36 New Hampshire 93.6 5.1% 1.2% 37 Colorado 90.7 5.0% 3.0% 38 Nebraska 89.7 4.9% 2.7% 39 Montana 89.1 4.9% 3.3% 40 Iowa 88.9 4.9% 3.2% 41 Vermont 87.8 4.8% 1.8% 42 Oklahoma 86.9 4.8% 3.3% 43 Washington 85.1 4.7% 2.5% 44 Maine 80.5 4.4% 0.5% 45 Louisiana 79.8 4.4% 2.3% 46 South Dakota 74.8 4.1% 0.8% 47 Texas 73.8 4.1% 0.9% 48 Wyoming 71.2 3.9% 2.1% 49 Alaska 65.0 3.6% 3.0% 50 North Dakota 64.0 3.5% 1.4%

Rank State Score Percent of

Establishments Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 32.3% -19.8%

1 Alaska 152.7 38.6% -7.2% 2 Texas 130.0 35.8% -13.7% 3 Louisiana 128.4 35.6% -4.8% 4 Wyoming 126.8 35.4% -18.2% 5 Oklahoma 126.0 35.3% -12.2% 6 North Dakota 119.5 34.5% -9.0% 7 Kansas 117.0 34.2% -8.8% 8 New Mexico 114.6 33.9% -20.8% 9 Washington 113.8 33.8% -20.8% 9 Utah 113.8 33.8% -28.5% 11 West Virginia 113.0 33.7% -13.8% 11 Virginia 113.0 33.7% -18.8% 13 Arkansas 110.5 33.4% -17.5% 14 South Dakota 109.7 33.3% -12.1% 15 Colorado 108.9 33.2% -19.2% 16 Maryland 106.5 32.9% -19.6% 17 Kentucky 105.7 32.8% -17.6% 17 Iowa 105.7 32.8% -11.4% 19 Nebraska 104.9 32.7% -8.4% 20 Arizona 104.1 32.6% -33.3% 21 New York 103.2 32.5% -13.8% 21 Georgia 103.2 32.5% -24.9% 21 California 103.2 32.5% -22.6% 24 Indiana 100.8 32.2% -17.2% 25 Pennsylvania 100.0 32.1% -18.7% 25 Nevada 100.0 32.1% -32.8% 27 New Hampshire 99.2 32.0% -18.8% 28 Mississippi 96.8 31.7% -19.9% 29 Wisconsin 95.9 31.6% -16.6% 29 North Carolina 95.9 31.6% -23.5% 31 Missouri 95.1 31.5% -18.2% 32 Massachusetts 94.3 31.4% -18.7% 33 Tennessee 93.5 31.3% -24.6% 33 Ohio 93.5 31.3% -17.8% 35 Maine 92.7 31.2% -18.1% 36 New Jersey 91.9 31.1% -21.7% 36 Illinois 91.9 31.1% -20.9% 38 Montana 88.6 30.7% -25.1% 38 Idaho 88.6 30.7% -33.0% 40 Florida 87.8 30.6% -31.1% 40 Alabama 87.8 30.6% -24.4% 42 Minnesota 87.0 30.5% -29.9% 43 Oregon 86.2 30.4% -27.1% 44 South Carolina 85.4 30.3% -24.3% 45 Vermont 83.0 30.0% -18.7% 46 Delaware 82.1 29.9% -23.7% 47 Rhode Island 79.7 29.6% -20.9% 48 Michigan 77.3 29.3% -22.1% 48 Hawaii 77.3 29.3% -24.5% 50 Connecticut 74.0 28.9% -21.7%

Percent of establishments gaining jobs, 2008 This metric measures the breadth of job creation across businesses, regardless of business size or industry. In good times, 30-32% of businesses are creating jobs at any given time. States that sustain above that level over a business cycle are exemplars of healthy, diversified dynamism. The above table shows the share of establishments gaining jobs in each state.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Percent of

Establishments Rank

Kentucky 32.8% 17 Indiana 32.2% 24

Wisconsin 31.6% 29 Ohio 31.3% 33

Illinois 31.1% 36 Michigan 29.3% 48

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

2005 2006 2007 2008

% E

stab

lishm

ents

Gai

ning

Job

s

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

SELFEMPLOYMENT GROWTH DIFFERENTIAL

Difference between self-employment and total employment growth, 2008 The self-employed are the basis for new employer firms. When self-employment grows faster than total jobs it is a sign of entrepreneurial dynamism, whether it is due to ‘push forces’(loss of tenured jobs forces people to venture out on their own) -- or due to ‘pull forces’ (good economic times make venturing out more lucrative). The above table shows the growth in the number of non-farm proprietors less total job growth.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Growth Differential Rank

Michigan 7.5% 4 Ohio 6.6% 6

Illinois 6.3% 9 Indiana 6.3% 10

Kentucky 5.7% 21 Wisconsin 5.5% 24

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Gro

wth

Dif

fere

ntia

l

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

13


NET EXPANSION JOB GAINS

Rank State Score Startup Rate Change, 2004 -

2007 (%) 50-State Average 11.0% 24.6%

1 Arizona 174.5 20.3% 67.2% 2 Florida 142.1 16.1% 14.8% 3 Virginia 128.2 14.3% 40.4% 4 Texas 120.1 13.2% 6.7% 5 North Carolina 119.7 13.2% 24.3% 6 West Virginia 118.5 13.0% 107.1% 7 Arkansas 117.9 12.9% 41.1% 8 Idaho 116.0 12.7% 30.0% 9 Delaware 115.3 12.6% -9.7% 10 New Jersey 115.3 12.6% 45.4% 11 Maryland 113.6 12.4% 28.4% 12 Nevada 113.6 12.4% -10.7% 13 California 112.7 12.3% 17.5% 14 Utah 112.4 12.2% 24.1% 15 Pennsylvania 111.5 12.1% 143.9% 16 Georgia 109.5 11.9% -4.1% 17 Alabama 108.9 11.8% 29.0% 18 Alaska 108.7 11.8% 70.9% 19 Louisiana 108.7 11.8% 42.3% 20 South Carolina 107.0 11.5% 23.9% 21 Tennessee 105.8 11.4% 10.8% 22 Colorado 104.5 11.2% 10.1% 23 Connecticut 100.8 10.7% 18.6% 24 New York 100.4 10.7% 26.0% 25 Illinois 100.1 10.6% 16.9% 26 Rhode Island 99.9 10.6% 49.5% 27 Mississippi 99.8 10.6% 34.7% 28 Oregon 99.1 10.5% 14.0% 29 Kansas 98.9 10.5% 48.7% 30 North Dakota 98.8 10.5% 90.2% 31 Wisconsin 97.3 10.3% 22.7% 32 Kentucky 97.1 10.2% 12.8% 33 New Hampshire 97.0 10.2% 17.8% 34 Michigan 95.6 10.1% -10.3% 35 Wyoming 93.8 9.8% 11.2% 36 Indiana 93.8 9.8% 8.9% 37 Missouri 93.7 9.8% 3.7% 38 Minnesota 93.3 9.8% 29.9% 39 Washington 92.6 9.7% 15.3% 40 Nebraska 90.7 9.4% 44.0% 41 Vermont 88.2 9.1% 29.1% 42 New Mexico 87.0 8.9% -4.2% 43 Hawaii 85.4 8.7% 4.5% 44 Ohio 84.2 8.6% 3.8% 45 Massachusetts 82.9 8.4% -30.3% 46 Oklahoma 81.5 8.2% -4.7% 47 Maine 79.3 7.9% 21.2% 48 Montana 75.0 7.4% -13.0% 49 South Dakota 73.4 7.2% 11.1% 50 Iowa 69.4 6.7% 3.2%

Rank State Score Net Job Gains Change, 2004 -


1 Alaska 132.8 1.8% 3.3% 2 Washington 129.3 1.6% 1.0% 3 Florida 124.6 1.4% 2.1% 4 Arizona 121.6 1.3% 1.0% 5 Utah 121.2 1.3% 0.4% 6 Colorado 120.3 1.3% 0.5% 7 New Hampshire 117.6 1.2% 0.8% 8 Louisiana 116.2 1.1% 1.2% 9 Georgia 116.1 1.1% 0.9% 10 North Carolina 115.1 1.1% 1.7% 11 Maryland 112.4 1.0% -1.0% 12 Kansas 111.0 0.9% 2.5% 13 Oregon 110.9 0.9% 1.4% 14 South Dakota 110.5 0.9% 0.5% 15 New Mexico 110.4 0.9% 0.6% 16 Minnesota 109.5 0.8% 1.2% 17 California 108.9 0.8% 0.9% 18 Hawaii 107.9 0.8% 0.1% 19 Delaware 105.5 0.7% -0.5% 20 Michigan 104.6 0.7% 0.7% 21 Virginia 104.3 0.6% 0.1% 22 New Jersey 103.4 0.6% 2.5% 23 Kentucky 102.1 0.6% 1.1% 24 Maine 101.8 0.5% 0.3% 25 New York 100.7 0.5% 0.7% 26 Texas 99.3 0.5% 1.4% 27 Massachusetts 99.0 0.4% 0.1% 28 Idaho 97.6 0.4% 0.5% 29 Tennessee 96.8 0.4% 0.2% 30 Oklahoma 96.7 0.4% 0.2% 31 Montana 96.3 0.3% 0.9% 32 Alabama 96.2 0.3% -0.6% 33 Illinois 95.6 0.3% -1.1% 34 Nevada 95.0 0.3% 0.1% 35 Missouri 93.2 0.2% -0.7% 36 Vermont 92.4 0.2% 0.3% 37 Ohio 91.9 0.2% 0.8% 38 Pennsylvania 91.3 0.1% -0.3% 39 West Virginia 90.5 0.1% -0.3% 40 Wyoming 90.1 0.1% 0.5% 41 Indiana 89.2 0.1% 0.1% 42 South Carolina 88.3 0.0% 2.7% 43 Connecticut 87.4 0.0% -0.2% 44 Mississippi 86.2 -0.1% 0.2% 45 Rhode Island 85.6 -0.1% -1.5% 46 Nebraska 82.1 -0.2% 0.0% 47 Arkansas 82.1 -0.2% -0.4% 48 Wisconsin 78.5 -0.4% -0.2% 49 North Dakota 75.9 -0.5% -1.2% 50 Iowa 71.2 -0.6% 1.3%

Net job gains from establishment expansions as a share of total jobs, 2007 Existing businesses are the major contributors to job growth. This metric shows the net jobs created from expansions minus contractions. It is a good aggregate indicator of the degree to which ‘businesses in place’ are taking on risks and embracing the challenge of success and failure.

Midwest Performance, 2007 State Net Job Gains Rank

Michigan 0.7% 20 Kentucky 0.6% 23

Illinois 0.3% 33 Ohio 0.2% 37

Indiana 0.1% 41 Wisconsin -0.4% 48

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

2004 2005 2006 2007

Net

Job

Gai

ns

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

ESTABLISHMENT FORMATION RATE

New establishments as a percent of all establishments, 2007 High-growth economies frequently display high business formation rates. These are economies with above average freedoms, flexibilities and motivations to try new ventures. The establishment formation rate is not colored by industry type, firm size, or socioeconomic factors. It is a collective measure of the degree to which existing or new firms take on risks and embrace the challenge of success and failure.

Midwest Performance, 2007 State Growth Rate Rank

Illinois 10.6% 25 Wisconsin 10.3% 31 Kentucky 10.2% 32 Michigan 10.1% 34

Indiana 9.8% 36 Ohio 8.6% 44

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

2004 2005 2006 2007

Form

atio

n R

ate

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

14


Entrepreneurial Activity Index, 2007 The Kauffman Foundation provides a measure of grassroots startup activity based on the Current Population Survey (U.S. Census Bureau). It measures the rate of business creation at the individual non-corporate owner level. The table shows percent of individuals ages 20–64 who do not own a business in the first survey month but who start a business in the following month with fifteen or more hours worked per week.

Midwest Performance, 2006 State Change Rank

Indiana 2.19% 4 Michigan 2.11% 5 Wisconsin 0.04% 25

Illinois -0.26% 28 Ohio -1.02% 41

Kentucky -2.77% 45

Michigan, 2003 - 2006

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

2003 2004 2005 2006Cha

nge

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

NEW BUSINESS OWNERS

Rank State Score Growth Rate Change, 2005 -

2008 (Abs.) 50-State Average -2.1% -4%

1 Oklahoma 150.8 4.9% -5% 2 Kansas 128.0 1.7% -5% 3 West Virginia 127.5 1.6% -3% 4 Texas 122.3 0.9% -4% 5 Wyoming 120.0 0.6% -3% 6 Nebraska 118.6 0.4% -3% 7 Louisiana 117.9 0.3% -5% 8 Iowa 116.3 0.1% -4% 9 Rhode Island 112.6 -0.4% -3% 10 Indiana 111.2 -0.6% -6% 11 Kentucky 110.8 -0.6% -2% 12 New York 109.8 -0.8% -1% 13 Ohio 107.9 -1.1% -2% 14 Minnesota 107.4 -1.1% -3% 15 Washington 106.7 -1.2% -1% 16 Pennsylvania 106.5 -1.2% -5% 17 Arkansas 106.5 -1.2% -4% 18 Illinois 105.3 -1.4% -5% 19 Michigan 104.9 -1.5% -2% 20 Wisconsin 103.9 -1.6% -2% 21 Missouri 103.6 -1.6% -4% 22 North Dakota 103.1 -1.7% -5% 23 Maryland 102.7 -1.8% -3% 24 Maine 100.2 -2.1% -5% 25 Massachusetts 100.0 -2.1% -4% 26 New Hampshire 100.0 -2.1% -3% 27 Vermont 99.8 -2.2% -4% 28 New Jersey 98.7 -2.3% -2% 29 Colorado 96.9 -2.6% -5% 30 Alaska 95.0 -2.8% -8% 31 South Dakota 95.0 -2.8% -6% 32 Connecticut 94.9 -2.8% -2% 33 Oregon 94.6 -2.9% -4% 34 Delaware 94.5 -2.9% -5% 35 Tennessee 92.5 -3.2% -5% 36 Montana 91.6 -3.3% -8% 37 New Mexico 91.3 -3.3% -6% 38 Georgia 88.8 -3.7% -2% 39 Virginia 87.8 -3.8% -6% 40 Alabama 87.6 -3.8% -5% 41 Florida 87.1 -3.9% -5% 42 Mississippi 86.5 -4.0% -7% 43 California 85.9 -4.1% -5% 44 South Carolina 84.6 -4.3% -4% 45 Idaho 82.4 -4.6% -6% 46 North Carolina 80.4 -4.8% -4% 47 Nevada 78.6 -5.1% -5% 48 Hawaii 73.4 -5.8% -9% 49 Utah 69.7 -6.3% -7% 50 Arizona 63.7 -7.1% -9%

Rank State Score Index Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 0.31% 2.1%

1 Georgia 148.7 0.59% 78.8% 2 New Mexico 147.2 0.58% 28.9% 3 Montana 139.3 0.53% 8.2% 4 Arizona 133.0 0.49% 53.1% 5 Alaska 125.2 0.44% 10.0% 5 California 125.2 0.44% 37.5% 7 Colorado 123.6 0.43% -18.9% 8 New York 118.9 0.40% 42.9% 8 Utah 118.9 0.40% 5.3% 10 Arkansas 117.3 0.39% -17.0% 11 Maine 115.7 0.38% 5.6% 11 Nevada 115.7 0.38% 8.6% 13 Florida 114.1 0.37% 32.1% 13 Idaho 114.1 0.37% -21.3% 13 Oregon 114.1 0.37% 12.1% 13 Texas 114.1 0.37% 5.7% 17 Kentucky 112.6 0.36% 100.0% 17 Mississippi 112.6 0.36% -7.7% 19 Tennessee 107.9 0.33% 43.5% 20 Connecticut 103.1 0.30% 11.1% 20 Oklahoma 103.1 0.30% -26.8% 20 South Dakota 103.1 0.30% -3.2% 23 Indiana 100.0 0.28% -3.4% 23 Massachusetts 100.0 0.28% 21.7% 23 Michigan 100.0 0.28% 21.7% 23 New Jersey 100.0 0.28% -6.7% 23 North Dakota 100.0 0.28% -12.5% 28 Nebraska 98.4 0.27% 17.4% 28 New Hampshire 98.4 0.27% -3.6% 28 Vermont 98.4 0.27% -50.9% 28 Washington 98.4 0.27% 17.4% 28 Wyoming 98.4 0.27% -43.8% 33 Illinois 96.9 0.26% 0.0% 33 Louisiana 96.9 0.26% -18.8% 35 Kansas 95.3 0.25% 0.0% 35 Rhode Island 95.3 0.25% 4.2% 35 South Carolina 95.3 0.25% 0.0% 38 Maryland 92.1 0.23% -45.2% 38 North Carolina 92.1 0.23% 0.0% 40 Hawaii 90.6 0.22% -35.3% 41 Alabama 89.0 0.21% 23.5% 41 Minnesota 89.0 0.21% -32.3% 43 Delaware 87.4 0.20% 25.0% 43 Virginia 87.4 0.20% -9.1% 45 Iowa 85.9 0.19% -44.1% 45 Ohio 85.9 0.19% -29.6% 47 West Virginia 82.7 0.17% 0.0% 47 Wisconsin 82.7 0.17% -37.0% 49 Missouri 79.6 0.15% -21.1% 50 Pennsylvania 78.0 0.14% -22.2%

Kauffman Foundation Entrepreneurial Activity Index, 2008 The Kauffman Foundation provides a measure of grassroots startup activity based on the Current Population Survey (U.S. Census Bureau). It measures the rate of business creation at the individual non-corporate owner level. The table shows percent of individuals ages 20–64 who do not own a business in the first survey month but who start a business in the following month with fifteen or more hours worked per week.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Index Rank


Michigan 0.28% 23 Illinois 0.26% 33 Ohio 0.19% 45

Wisconsin 0.17% 47

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

0.10%

0.15%

0.20%

0.25%

0.30%

0.35%

0.40%

0.45%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Ind

ex

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

PROPRIETOR INCOME PER PROPRIETOR GROWTH

Percent change in proprietor’s income per proprietor, 2008 A healthy entrepreneurial economy is one with a strong presence of individual business owners. They put their money on the line daily and frequently seek creative solutions to market demands. This metric captures earnings from self-employment. The above table shows the rate at which proprietor’s income per proprietor grew or contracted annually, averaged over 3 years.


Indiana -0.6% 10 Kentucky -0.6% 11

Ohio -1.1% 13 Illinois -1.4% 18

Michigan -1.5% 19 Wisconsin -1.6% 20

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

-5%

-3%

-1%

1%

3%

5%

7%

2005 2006 2007 2008Gro

wth

Rat

e

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

15


ENTREPRENEURIAL CHANGE A dynamic economy not only attracts new companies; it also experiences business failures as well as startups, and shows the willingness of individuals to undertake new enterprises and contribute to wealth creation. In fact, one characteristic of today’s innovation economy is the degree to which it is “churning”—residents coming and going, new occupations forming while others decline, and businesses forming, relocating and disappearing. These are necessary factors for economic prosperity. This driver measures change in four metrics over the most recent 3 years of data.

Rank State 2008 2006 2004 1 California ***** **** ***** 2 Arizona ***** **** ***** 3 Utah **** ***** **** 4 Idaho **** ***** **** 5 Florida **** ** **** 6 Nevada **** ***** ***** 7 North Carolina *** ** *** 8 Wyoming *** **** **** 9 Texas *** ***** *** 10 Washington *** **** *** 11 North Dakota *** *** ** 12 Oregon *** *** ** 13 New York *** *** * 14 Montana *** **** **** 15 Pennsylvania *** ***** * 16 Illinois *** ** * 17 Colorado *** ** *** 18 Maryland *** *** *** 19 New Hampshire *** *** ** 20 Hawaii *** *** **** 21 New Mexico *** *** **** 22 Connecticut ** ** ** 23 West Virginia ** ** ** 24 Alaska ** ** **** 25 Alabama ** ** *** 26 Arkansas ** ** *** 27 Kansas ** ** *** 28 Virginia ** **** ***** 29 Nebraska ** ** *** 30 Vermont ** ** *** 31 Delaware ** *** **** 32 Minnesota ** ** *** 33 South Carolina ** *** **** 34 South Dakota ** *** *** 35 Tennessee ** ** *** 36 Wisconsin ** ** ** 37 Rhode Island ** ** *** 38 Maine ** ** *** 39 Georgia ** *** *** 40 Louisiana ** ** *** 41 New Jersey ** **** ** 42 Oklahoma ** ** *** 43 Kentucky ** * *** 44 Iowa ** ** ** 45 Mississippi ** *** ** 46 Indiana ** ** *** 47 Missouri * ** *** 48 Michigan * * *** 49 Ohio * * *** 50 Massachusetts * ** ***

Midwest Performance

2008 2006 2004 Illinois *** ** * Wisconsin ** ** ** Kentucky ** * *** Indiana ** ** *** Michigan * * *** Ohio * * ***

16


GROWTH IN NUMBER OF SMALL BUSINESSES



1 Idaho 136.2 9.8% 6.6% 2 Nevada 135.2 9.7% 5.1% 3 Arizona 133.8 9.5% 6.2% 4 Wyoming 129.5 8.9% 3.1% 5 Utah 127.7 8.7% 5.2% 6 Florida 118.5 7.6% 4.3% 7 Montana 117.8 7.5% 3.1% 8 Hawaii 116.1 7.3% 3.6% 9 Oregon 113.4 6.9% 5.9% 10 Washington 112.4 6.8% 5.3% 11 New Mexico 112.3 6.8% 2.4% 12 Virginia 110.6 6.6% 2.1% 13 Texas 109.6 6.4% 4.6% 14 South Carolina 108.8 6.3% 3.8% 15 Georgia 108.1 6.2% 4.2% 16 Oklahoma 107.1 6.1% 3.2% 17 Alabama 104.8 5.8% 3.0% 18 North Dakota 104.3 5.8% 3.2% 19 Louisiana 103.9 5.7% 2.1% 20 North Carolina 103.6 5.7% 3.7% 21 Tennessee 103.5 5.7% 3.3% 22 Delaware 103.3 5.6% 1.8% 23 Maryland 102.8 5.6% 1.3% 24 Colorado 102.5 5.5% 4.7% 25 South Dakota 100.1 5.2% 1.8% 26 California 99.9 5.2% 4.1% 27 New York 99.3 5.1% 4.3% 28 Arkansas 97.9 4.9% 1.7% 29 Vermont 97.5 4.9% 1.2% 30 Mississippi 96.9 4.8% 2.0% 31 Kansas 96.0 4.7% 2.9% 32 Connecticut 93.4 4.4% 3.6% 33 New Hampshire 90.9 4.1% 1.2% 34 Pennsylvania 90.7 4.0% 2.1% 35 West Virginia 90.4 4.0% 1.8% 36 Kentucky 89.7 3.9% 1.0% 37 New Jersey 89.4 3.9% 2.1% 38 Maine 89.4 3.9% 0.4% 39 Iowa 89.1 3.8% 1.7% 40 Rhode Island 89.1 3.8% -0.8% 41 Alaska 89.0 3.8% -1.3% 42 Illinois 88.9 3.8% 2.8% 43 Missouri 88.1 3.7% 1.5% 44 Minnesota 86.9 3.6% 1.3% 45 Nebraska 86.5 3.5% 1.1% 46 Indiana 84.8 3.3% 1.7% 47 Wisconsin 83.7 3.2% 0.8% 48 Massachusetts 82.1 2.9% 2.1% 49 Ohio 79.4 2.6% 1.5% 50 Michigan 69.8 1.4% 1.2%



1 Idaho 163.7 5.4% 3.6% 2 Utah 158.2 5.0% 2.1% 3 Nevada 154.1 4.7% 1.8% 4 Arizona 148.6 4.4% 2.9% 5 Florida 145.5 4.1% 2.0% 6 Montana 130.6 3.1% 1.7% 7 Georgia 127.1 2.8% 1.5% 8 Washington 122.0 2.5% 2.1% 9 Virginia 121.9 2.5% 1.2% 10 Oregon 120.6 2.4% 1.8% 11 Colorado 120.0 2.3% 0.9% 12 Wyoming 117.4 2.2% 0.8% 13 North Carolina 116.5 2.1% 1.6% 14 California 114.5 1.9% 1.0% 15 South Carolina 112.9 1.8% 1.3% 16 Hawaii 112.1 1.8% 0.5% 17 New Mexico 111.5 1.7% 1.2% 18 Maryland 110.1 1.6% 0.6% 19 South Dakota 107.0 1.4% 0.8% 20 Texas 105.6 1.3% 0.6% 21 North Dakota 103.2 1.2% 1.7% 22 Delaware 102.8 1.1% 0.8% 23 Oklahoma 100.7 1.0% 0.7% 24 Rhode Island 100.5 1.0% 0.7% 25 Minnesota 100.0 0.9% 0.3% 26 Tennessee 100.0 0.9% 1.4% 27 Illinois 99.8 0.9% 1.1% 28 Alaska 98.2 0.8% 0.2% 29 Alabama 97.6 0.8% 1.1% 30 New York 97.6 0.7% 0.1% 31 Maine 96.6 0.7% 0.3% 32 Nebraska 95.9 0.6% 0.3% 33 Vermont 95.7 0.6% 1.0% 34 New Hampshire 95.6 0.6% 0.5% 35 New Jersey 95.6 0.6% 0.5% 36 Arkansas 93.9 0.5% 0.3% 37 Missouri 93.5 0.5% -0.1% 38 Indiana 93.4 0.5% 0.5% 39 Wisconsin 92.7 0.4% 0.6% 40 Kentucky 91.5 0.3% 0.4% 41 Kansas 91.3 0.3% 0.5% 42 Pennsylvania 90.7 0.3% 0.4% 43 Connecticut 89.2 0.2% 1.0% 44 Iowa 88.1 0.1% 0.5% 45 Mississippi 84.4 -0.2% -0.2% 46 West Virginia 81.2 -0.4% 0.9% 47 Michigan 80.1 -0.5% 0.2% 48 Louisiana 79.9 -0.5% -0.9% 49 Ohio 78.6 -0.6% 0.0% 50 Massachusetts 74.2 -0.9% -0.7%

Growth in number of firms with 99 or fewer employees, 2006 Small firms have been shown to be important contributors to job and economic growth as well as innovative activity. A growing presence of small businesses is therefore imperative for strong economic dynamism. The above table shows the annual growth rate in the number of small firms of 99 or fewer employees for each state, averaged over 3 years.



Wisconsin 0.4% 39 Kentucky 0.3% 40 Michigan -0.5% 47

Ohio -0.6% 49

Michigan, 2003 - 2006

-1.5%

-1.0%

-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

2003 2004 2005 2006

Gro

wth

Rat

e

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

SMALL BUSINESS PAYROLL GROWTH

Growth in total nominal payroll of firms with 99 or fewer employees, 2006 The goal of becoming a center for entrepreneurial business formation and growth goes beyond simple numbers of new firms. Through high performance, entrepreneurial firms can offer growing wages, high economic multiplier effects and related economic development. The above table measures the annual growth in total payroll of small businesses with 99 or fewer employees, averaged over 3 years.


Kentucky 3.9% 36 Illinois 3.8% 42 Indiana 3.3% 46


Michigan 1.4% 50

Michigan, 2003 - 2006

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

2003 2004 2005 2006

Gro

wth

Rat

e

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

17


GROWTH IN NUMBER OF SMALL BUSINESSES



1 Idaho 136.2 9.8% 6.6% 2 Nevada 135.2 9.7% 5.1% 3 Arizona 133.8 9.5% 6.2% 4 Wyoming 129.5 8.9% 3.1% 5 Utah 127.7 8.7% 5.2% 6 Florida 118.5 7.6% 4.3% 7 Montana 117.8 7.5% 3.1% 8 Hawaii 116.1 7.3% 3.6% 9 Oregon 113.4 6.9% 5.9% 10 Washington 112.4 6.8% 5.3% 11 New Mexico 112.3 6.8% 2.4% 12 Virginia 110.6 6.6% 2.1% 13 Texas 109.6 6.4% 4.6% 14 South Carolina 108.8 6.3% 3.8% 15 Georgia 108.1 6.2% 4.2% 16 Oklahoma 107.1 6.1% 3.2% 17 Alabama 104.8 5.8% 3.0% 18 North Dakota 104.3 5.8% 3.2% 19 Louisiana 103.9 5.7% 2.1% 20 North Carolina 103.6 5.7% 3.7% 21 Tennessee 103.5 5.7% 3.3% 22 Delaware 103.3 5.6% 1.8% 23 Maryland 102.8 5.6% 1.3% 24 Colorado 102.5 5.5% 4.7% 25 South Dakota 100.1 5.2% 1.8% 26 California 99.9 5.2% 4.1% 27 New York 99.3 5.1% 4.3% 28 Arkansas 97.9 4.9% 1.7% 29 Vermont 97.5 4.9% 1.2% 30 Mississippi 96.9 4.8% 2.0% 31 Kansas 96.0 4.7% 2.9% 32 Connecticut 93.4 4.4% 3.6% 33 New Hampshire 90.9 4.1% 1.2% 34 Pennsylvania 90.7 4.0% 2.1% 35 West Virginia 90.4 4.0% 1.8% 36 Kentucky 89.7 3.9% 1.0% 37 New Jersey 89.4 3.9% 2.1% 38 Maine 89.4 3.9% 0.4% 39 Iowa 89.1 3.8% 1.7% 40 Rhode Island 89.1 3.8% -0.8% 41 Alaska 89.0 3.8% -1.3% 42 Illinois 88.9 3.8% 2.8% 43 Missouri 88.1 3.7% 1.5% 44 Minnesota 86.9 3.6% 1.3% 45 Nebraska 86.5 3.5% 1.1% 46 Indiana 84.8 3.3% 1.7% 47 Wisconsin 83.7 3.2% 0.8% 48 Massachusetts 82.1 2.9% 2.1% 49 Ohio 79.4 2.6% 1.5% 50 Michigan 69.8 1.4% 1.2%



1 Idaho 163.7 5.4% 3.6% 2 Utah 158.2 5.0% 2.1% 3 Nevada 154.1 4.7% 1.8% 4 Arizona 148.6 4.4% 2.9% 5 Florida 145.5 4.1% 2.0% 6 Montana 130.6 3.1% 1.7% 7 Georgia 127.1 2.8% 1.5% 8 Washington 122.0 2.5% 2.1% 9 Virginia 121.9 2.5% 1.2% 10 Oregon 120.6 2.4% 1.8% 11 Colorado 120.0 2.3% 0.9% 12 Wyoming 117.4 2.2% 0.8% 13 North Carolina 116.5 2.1% 1.6% 14 California 114.5 1.9% 1.0% 15 South Carolina 112.9 1.8% 1.3% 16 Hawaii 112.1 1.8% 0.5% 17 New Mexico 111.5 1.7% 1.2% 18 Maryland 110.1 1.6% 0.6% 19 South Dakota 107.0 1.4% 0.8% 20 Texas 105.6 1.3% 0.6% 21 North Dakota 103.2 1.2% 1.7% 22 Delaware 102.8 1.1% 0.8% 23 Oklahoma 100.7 1.0% 0.7% 24 Rhode Island 100.5 1.0% 0.7% 25 Minnesota 100.0 0.9% 0.3% 26 Tennessee 100.0 0.9% 1.4% 27 Illinois 99.8 0.9% 1.1% 28 Alaska 98.2 0.8% 0.2% 29 Alabama 97.6 0.8% 1.1% 30 New York 97.6 0.7% 0.1% 31 Maine 96.6 0.7% 0.3% 32 Nebraska 95.9 0.6% 0.3% 33 Vermont 95.7 0.6% 1.0% 34 New Hampshire 95.6 0.6% 0.5% 35 New Jersey 95.6 0.6% 0.5% 36 Arkansas 93.9 0.5% 0.3% 37 Missouri 93.5 0.5% -0.1% 38 Indiana 93.4 0.5% 0.5% 39 Wisconsin 92.7 0.4% 0.6% 40 Kentucky 91.5 0.3% 0.4% 41 Kansas 91.3 0.3% 0.5% 42 Pennsylvania 90.7 0.3% 0.4% 43 Connecticut 89.2 0.2% 1.0% 44 Iowa 88.1 0.1% 0.5% 45 Mississippi 84.4 -0.2% -0.2% 46 West Virginia 81.2 -0.4% 0.9% 47 Michigan 80.1 -0.5% 0.2% 48 Louisiana 79.9 -0.5% -0.9% 49 Ohio 78.6 -0.6% 0.0% 50 Massachusetts 74.2 -0.9% -0.7%

Growth in number of firms with 99 or fewer employees, 2006 Small firms have been shown to be important contributors to job and economic growth as well as innovative activity. A growing presence of small businesses is therefore imperative for strong economic dynamism. The above table shows the annual growth rate in the number of small firms of 99 or fewer employees for each state, averaged over 3 years.



Wisconsin 0.4% 39 Kentucky 0.3% 40 Michigan -0.5% 47

Ohio -0.6% 49

Michigan, 2003 - 2006

-1.5%

-1.0%

-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

2003 2004 2005 2006

Gro

wth

Rat

e

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

SMALL BUSINESS PAYROLL GROWTH

Growth in total nominal payroll of firms with 99 or fewer employees, 2006 The goal of becoming a center for entrepreneurial business formation and growth goes beyond simple numbers of new firms. Through high performance, entrepreneurial firms can offer growing wages, high economic multiplier effects and related economic development. The above table measures the annual growth in total payroll of small businesses with 99 or fewer employees, averaged over 3 years.


Kentucky 3.9% 36 Illinois 3.8% 42 Indiana 3.3% 46


Michigan 1.4% 50

Michigan, 2003 - 2006

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

2003 2004 2005 2006

Gro

wth

Rat

e

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

INCREASE IN HIGH PERFORMANCE FIRMS

Rank State Score Change in Net

Entrants Rates Change, 2004 -

2007 (Abs.) 50-State Average 3.2% -3.0%

1 Arizona 178.9 11.2% -6.1% 2 North Dakota 134.3 6.5% -2.2% 3 Pennsylvania 133.3 6.4% 1.5% 4 Texas 128.3 5.8% 1.3% 5 West Virginia 128.2 5.8% -2.4% 6 Alaska 127.7 5.8% -3.5% 7 Arkansas 122.7 5.3% -5.3% 8 Virginia 120.2 5.0% -2.0% 9 California 119.5 4.9% -0.5% 10 Florida 118.6 4.8% -7.3% 11 Kansas 115.2 4.5% -3.0% 12 Nebraska 113.9 4.3% -3.5% 13 Minnesota 110.6 4.0% -0.8% 14 Connecticut 110.5 4.0% -5.6% 15 Idaho 110.4 4.0% -6.4% 16 North Carolina 110.3 4.0% -6.1% 17 New Jersey 109.2 3.8% -0.4% 18 New Hampshire 107.9 3.7% -0.2% 19 Alabama 104.1 3.3% -4.7% 20 Maryland 102.8 3.2% -4.7% 21 Colorado 101.7 3.0% -6.4% 22 Wyoming 101.1 3.0% -2.2% 23 Wisconsin 101.1 3.0% -2.0% 24 Washington 100.4 2.9% -2.4% 25 Indiana 100.2 2.9% -4.6% 26 South Carolina 99.8 2.8% -1.9% 27 Vermont 98.8 2.7% -7.2% 28 Utah 98.4 2.7% -3.4% 29 Georgia 97.7 2.6% -8.0% 30 Tennessee 97.6 2.6% -2.5% 31 Michigan 97.6 2.6% -2.8% 32 Oregon 96.9 2.5% -3.2% 33 Delaware 96.8 2.5% 2.8% 34 Nevada 96.2 2.5% 4.8% 35 Illinois 93.9 2.2% -2.5% 36 Rhode Island 92.5 2.1% -1.8% 37 New York 92.5 2.1% -3.3% 38 Ohio 91.9 2.0% -2.0% 39 Iowa 91.4 2.0% -1.8% 40 Maine 90.6 1.9% -5.5% 41 Kentucky 89.3 1.7% -3.7% 42 Montana 88.0 1.6% -1.5% 43 New Mexico 86.9 1.5% -1.6% 44 Louisiana 85.4 1.3% -5.1% 45 South Dakota 84.4 1.2% -2.1% 46 Missouri 83.4 1.1% -5.0% 47 Massachusetts 80.6 0.8% 0.1% 48 Hawaii 79.8 0.7% -6.0% 49 Mississippi 74.2 0.1% -3.1% 50 Oklahoma 73.2 0.0% -5.2%

Rank State Score Average Increase Change, 2005 -

2008 (Abs.) 50-State Average 0.0 0.0

1 California 250.0 7.8 12.2 2 New York 146.1 1.8 1.3 3 Illinois 141.9 1.7 3.2 4 New Hampshire 121.0 0.8 1.0 4 North Carolina 121.0 0.8 1.8 6 Connecticut 116.8 0.7 0.3 6 Utah 116.8 0.7 0.5 8 Pennsylvania 112.6 0.5 2.2 9 Maryland 108.4 0.3 1.2 9 Oregon 108.4 0.3 2.0 9 Washington 108.4 0.3 -0.8 9 West Virginia 108.4 0.3 0.3 9 Wisconsin 108.4 0.3 0.7 14 Hawaii 104.2 0.2 0.2 14 Mississippi 104.2 0.2 0.3 14 Texas 104.2 0.2 -2.5 14 Vermont 104.2 0.2 0.2 18 Alabama 100.0 0.0 0.3 18 Colorado 100.0 0.0 0.0 18 Kansas 100.0 0.0 0.0 18 Louisiana 100.0 0.0 0.3 18 Nebraska 100.0 0.0 0.2 18 New Mexico 100.0 0.0 0.2 18 North Dakota 100.0 0.0 0.0 18 South Dakota 100.0 0.0 0.0 18 Wyoming 100.0 0.0 0.2 27 Florida 95.8 -0.2 2.7 27 Iowa 95.8 -0.2 0.3 27 Kentucky 95.8 -0.2 -0.2 27 Maine 95.8 -0.2 0.0 27 Minnesota 95.8 -0.2 0.3 32 Alaska 91.6 -0.3 -0.7 32 Arkansas 91.6 -0.3 -0.5 32 Delaware 91.6 -0.3 -0.3 32 Montana 91.6 -0.3 -0.3 32 Rhode Island 91.6 -0.3 0.0 37 Nevada 87.4 -0.5 -0.7 37 Oklahoma 87.4 -0.5 -1.0 37 Tennessee 87.4 -0.5 0.0 40 Arizona 83.2 -0.7 -2.7 40 Idaho 83.2 -0.7 -0.8 40 Missouri 83.2 -0.7 -0.3 43 Indiana 79.0 -0.8 -1.3 43 Michigan 79.0 -0.8 0.2 45 New Jersey 74.8 -1.0 -0.5 46 South Carolina 70.7 -1.2 -1.7 47 Ohio 66.5 -1.3 -2.2 48 Massachusetts 58.1 -1.7 -4.8 49 Virginia 45.5 -2.2 -5.8 50 Georgia 37.1 -2.5 -5.5

Change in number of firms with significant revenue/sales growth, 2008 High-performance and especially technology-oriented companies tend to be more impervious to fluctuations in the overall economy and have a strong multiplier effect on the rest of the economy. The above table shows the absolute increase or decrease for the average number of privately held companies listed with the fastest-growing firms from Inc.com, and fastest-growing high-technology companies from Deloitte & Touche’s Fast 500.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Increase Rank

Illinois 1.7 3 Wisconsin 0.3 9 Kentucky -0.2 27 Indiana -0.8 43

Michigan -0.8 43 Ohio -1.3 47

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2005 2006 2007 2008

Incr

ease

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

NET ESTABLISHMENT ENTRANTS INCREASE

Change in the net of new establishments minus failed establishments, as a percentage of total establishments, 2007 The rate of net establishment entrants or sometimes referred to as the churn rate, is one of the most common measures of entrepreneurial activity, and its change indicates a very dynamic and optimistic entrepreneurial environment. High-growth areas in the innovation economy are coincident with high rates of net new business growth and economic multiplier effects. The above table shows the absolute change in net establishment entrants as a percentage of all establishments at the beginning of the year. Midwest Performance, 2007

State Change in Net Entrants Rates Rank

Wisconsin 3.0% 23 Indiana 2.9% 25

Michigan 2.6% 31 Illinois 2.2% 35 Ohio 2.0% 38

Kentucky 1.7% 41

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

2004 2005 2006 2007

Net

Ent

rant

s In

crea

se

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

18


ENTREPRENEURIAL VITALITY Entrepreneurial Vitality driver is a composite measure of each state’s level of entrepreneurial activity – broadly defined as the number of startups and entrepreneurial firms that form the backbone for a dynamic entrepreneurial system. The number of self-employed and the net business churn, or turnover, are both measures of start-up activity, whereas fast-growing companies and investment awards give insight into the successfulness of the innovative activities of incumbent and new firms.

Rank State 2008 2006 2004 1 Massachusetts ***** ***** ***** 2 Utah **** **** **** 3 Virginia **** **** **** 4 Maryland **** **** **** 5 Colorado **** **** **** 6 California **** **** **** 7 Connecticut **** *** *** 8 Arizona *** ** *** 9 New Hampshire *** *** *** 10 Delaware *** ** *** 11 New Jersey *** *** ** 12 New York *** *** ** 13 Texas *** *** *** 14 Florida ** ** ** 15 New Mexico ** *** *** 16 Pennsylvania ** ** ** 17 Illinois ** ** ** 18 Alabama ** ** ** 19 Georgia ** ** ** 20 North Carolina ** ** ** 21 Washington ** ** ** 22 Oregon ** ** ** 23 Idaho ** ** ** 24 Minnesota ** ** ** 25 Arkansas ** * * 26 Vermont ** ** ** 27 West Virginia ** * * 28 Nevada ** ** ** 29 Tennessee ** ** ** 30 Kentucky ** * * 31 Michigan * ** ** 32 South Carolina * ** * 33 Ohio * ** ** 34 Oklahoma * ** * 35 Wyoming * * * 36 Rhode Island * * * 37 Montana * ** ** 38 Kansas * * * 39 Indiana * * * 40 Wisconsin * * * 41 Louisiana * ** * 42 Alaska * * * 43 Mississippi * ** * 44 Missouri * ** * 45 Maine * * * 46 Hawaii * * * 47 Nebraska * * * 48 North Dakota * * * 49 South Dakota * * * 50 Iowa * * *

Midwest Performance

2008 2006 2004 Illinois ** ** ** Kentucky ** * * Michigan * ** ** Ohio * ** ** Indiana * * * Wisconsin * * *

19


NET ESTABLISHMENT ENTRANTS

Rank State Score Turnover Rate Change, 2004 -


1 Arizona 156.4 24.1% 4.3% 2 Florida 129.8 19.9% -2.5% 3 Nevada 129.1 19.8% -3.2% 4 Virginia 123.7 18.9% 1.4% 5 Delaware 120.3 18.4% -2.2% 6 West Virginia 116.8 17.8% 2.9% 7 Texas 116.5 17.8% -3.0% 8 North Carolina 115.5 17.7% 0.2% 9 Arkansas 115.3 17.6% 1.0% 10 New Jersey 113.6 17.4% 2.3% 11 California 111.7 17.1% -0.5% 12 Idaho 111.7 17.0% -3.3% 13 Maryland 111.7 17.0% -2.0% 14 Utah 111.1 17.0% -6.0% 15 Louisiana 110.7 16.9% 0.7% 16 Alaska 109.7 16.7% 2.0% 17 Alabama 107.3 16.4% -0.1% 18 Rhode Island 106.7 16.3% 2.2% 19 South Carolina 106.5 16.2% 0.6% 20 Pennsylvania 105.6 16.1% -2.7% 21 Georgia 105.2 16.0% -4.0% 22 New Hampshire 102.8 15.7% -4.6% 23 Tennessee 102.7 15.6% -2.1% 24 New York 101.0 15.4% -1.6% 25 Colorado 100.2 15.3% -3.6% 26 Connecticut 99.8 15.2% -1.2% 27 Michigan 99.6 15.2% -3.5% 28 Kansas 99.5 15.1% 0.5% 29 Oregon 98.7 15.0% -3.7% 30 Illinois 98.4 15.0% -0.9% 31 Mississippi 98.1 14.9% -1.7% 32 Washington 94.7 14.4% -4.5% 33 Wisconsin 92.2 14.0% -0.4% 34 Wyoming 91.3 13.9% -3.4% 35 Missouri 91.3 13.9% -3.1% 36 North Dakota 90.9 13.8% 0.4% 37 Indiana 89.7 13.6% -2.1% 38 Kentucky 89.4 13.6% -2.2% 39 Vermont 89.0 13.5% -1.4% 40 Minnesota 88.8 13.5% -4.5% 41 Nebraska 87.9 13.3% 0.5% 42 Ohio 87.5 13.3% -2.1% 43 Hawaii 87.3 13.2% -0.9% 44 New Mexico 86.5 13.1% -3.7% 45 Massachusetts 85.8 13.0% -5.5% 46 Oklahoma 85.0 12.9% -3.2% 47 Maine 82.5 12.5% -1.2% 48 Montana 72.7 10.9% -4.5% 49 South Dakota 71.2 10.7% -2.0% 50 Iowa 65.7 9.9% -3.4%

Rank State Score Net Entrants Rate Change, 2004 -


1 Arizona 184.8 16.6% 12.1% 2 Florida 149.8 12.3% 6.7% 3 Virginia 127.8 9.7% 6.8% 4 North Carolina 120.1 8.7% 5.0% 5 Texas 119.7 8.7% 4.7% 6 Idaho 117.1 8.4% 9.2% 7 Arkansas 116.4 8.3% 6.5% 8 West Virginia 115.9 8.2% 10.6% 9 Pennsylvania 115.3 8.2% 17.0% 10 New Jersey 113.1 7.9% 5.6% 11 Maryland 112.0 7.7% 7.5% 12 Georgia 111.5 7.7% 3.0% 13 Utah 110.3 7.5% 10.7% 14 California 110.0 7.5% 4.2% 15 Alabama 107.6 7.2% 5.4% 16 Colorado 107.4 7.2% 5.6% 17 North Dakota 107.1 7.2% 9.6% 18 Tennessee 106.8 7.1% 4.4% 19 Kentucky 105.3 6.9% 4.5% 20 South Carolina 104.6 6.8% 3.9% 21 Delaware 104.6 6.8% -0.5% 22 Alaska 104.0 6.8% 7.8% 23 Louisiana 102.8 6.6% 6.2% 24 Wisconsin 102.1 6.5% 4.2% 25 Illinois 100.1 6.3% 4.0% 26 Connecticut 99.9 6.3% 4.6% 27 Mississippi 99.8 6.3% 7.1% 28 Minnesota 98.1 6.1% 9.0% 29 Indiana 97.9 6.0% 3.7% 30 Oregon 97.5 6.0% 6.3% 31 New York 97.4 6.0% 6.0% 32 Kansas 96.1 5.8% 6.3% 33 Wyoming 95.9 5.8% 5.4% 34 Missouri 95.6 5.8% 3.8% 35 Nebraska 93.6 5.5% 5.2% 36 Nevada 89.4 5.0% 0.2% 37 Rhode Island 89.2 5.0% 4.8% 38 Michigan 89.1 5.0% 1.2% 39 Washington 88.9 4.9% 7.0% 40 New Hampshire 87.9 4.8% 7.7% 41 New Mexico 87.4 4.8% 3.0% 42 Vermont 86.8 4.7% 5.5% 43 Hawaii 83.0 4.2% 1.7% 44 Ohio 80.3 3.9% 2.7% 45 Montana 79.6 3.8% 2.3% 46 Massachusetts 79.5 3.8% -1.8% 47 South Dakota 78.1 3.6% 3.4% 48 Oklahoma 77.7 3.6% 2.4% 49 Iowa 76.5 3.5% 3.8% 50 Maine 76.1 3.4% 4.0%

Net of new establishments minus failed establishments, as a percentage of total establishments, 2007 Business Churn is one of the most common measures of entrepreneurial activity, and its growth indicates an increasingly dynamic economic environment. High growth areas in the innovation economy are coincident with high rates of new business growth. The above table shows net new establishments as a percentage of all establishments at the beginning of the year.

Midwest Performance, 2007 State Net Entrants Rate Rank




Michigan, 2004 - 2007

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

2004 2005 2006 2007

Net

Ent

rant

s R

ate

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

ESTABLISHMENT TURNOVER RATE

New establishments plus establishment terminations as a percent of total establishments, 2007 The turnover rate is an attempt to get at how dynamic an economy is by adding the formations to terminations and showing as a percent of all establishments. Some refer to this metric as ‘churn.’ It is widely understood that high-energy entrepreneurial economies have high turnover. But caution is warranted since occasionally flailing economies have high churn.

Midwest Performance, 2007 State Turnover Rate Rank

Michigan 15.2% 27 Illinois 15.0% 30


Kentucky 13.6% 38 Ohio 13.3% 42

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

22%

24%

26%

2004 2005 2006 2007

Turn

over

Rat

e

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

20


SELF-EMPLOYMENT

Rank State Score Spinouts per $1

billion R&D Change, 2004 -

2007 (%) 50-State Average 12.9 33.6%

1 Utah 199.1 61.5 163.2% 2 Kentucky 149.7 36.7 78.5% 3 New Mexico 136.2 29.9 149.1% 4 Connecticut 118.4 20.9 71.1% 5 Oregon 115.9 19.7 47.3% 6 Delaware 115.0 19.2 -37.7% 7 Idaho 114.3 18.9 75.9% 8 Arkansas 113.2 18.3 -40.4% 9 South Carolina 112.5 18.0 144.6% 10 New Jersey 109.2 16.3 100.0% 11 Virginia 108.5 16.0 -17.4% 12 Colorado 108.4 15.9 78.0% 13 Mississippi 107.3 15.4 -27.3% 14 Oklahoma 107.1 15.3 307.6% 15 Georgia 105.4 14.4 -16.2% 16 Kansas 104.6 14.0 279.9% 17 Indiana 103.6 13.5 12.5% 18 Massachusetts 103.3 13.4 (n/a) 19 Michigan 102.3 12.8 -25.2% 20 Illinois 101.8 12.6 15.6% 21 Vermont 101.6 12.5 -57.7% 22 Nebraska 101.0 12.2 98.1% 23 Alabama 100.0 11.7 72.2% 24 Florida 98.9 11.1 -0.2% 25 Minnesota 97.7 10.5 55.9% 26 Ohio 97.2 10.3 -42.6% 27 Pennsylvania 97.1 10.2 -11.1% 28 California 96.8 10.1 26.4% 29 New York 96.2 9.8 -26.1% 30 Arizona 95.3 9.3 -33.0% 31 Texas 93.7 8.5 -12.0% 32 North Carolina 92.6 8.0 -48.8% 33 Washington 92.5 7.9 33.0% 34 Missouri 92.4 7.9 112.9% 35 Tennessee 90.6 7.0 -1.7% 36 Louisiana 90.5 6.9 68.8% 37 Iowa 89.2 6.2 15.4% 38 Montana 88.9 6.1 -78.1% 39 Wisconsin 87.1 5.2 51.0% 40 Maryland 85.9 4.6 -61.8% 41 New Hampshire 83.5 3.4 -10.6% 42 Nevada 76.8 0.0 (n/a) 42 North Dakota 76.8 0.0 0.0% 42 Rhode Island 76.8 0.0 -100.0%

(n/a) South Dakota 76.8 0.0 (n/a) (n/a) Alaska (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Hawaii (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Maine (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) West Virginia (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Wyoming (n/a) (n/a) (n/a)

Rank State Score Per 1,000 Labor

Force Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 200.7 11.8%

1 Vermont 132.0 243.9 8.7% 2 Montana 131.8 243.6 8.2% 3 Idaho 127.3 237.3 12.2% 4 Colorado 126.4 236.0 9.5% 5 Maine 124.3 233.0 8.1% 6 California 123.3 231.6 11.3% 7 New Hampshire 118.7 225.1 8.2% 8 Alaska 117.1 222.7 6.7% 9 Connecticut 116.8 222.4 11.8% 10 Utah 116.1 221.3 11.5% 11 Texas 114.0 218.3 8.0% 12 Florida 113.5 217.7 17.1% 13 Georgia 112.6 216.3 15.7% 14 Wyoming 111.9 215.3 6.6% 15 Maryland 110.5 213.3 13.6% 16 Tennessee 109.8 212.4 13.5% 17 Oregon 107.7 209.4 12.2% 18 South Carolina 106.6 207.8 12.1% 19 Arizona 105.3 206.0 13.0% 20 Nevada 103.8 203.9 17.1% 21 Oklahoma 103.6 203.6 9.4% 22 New Jersey 102.5 201.9 15.6% 23 Michigan 101.9 201.2 16.7% 24 Louisiana 101.7 200.9 18.4% 25 New York 100.7 199.4 12.3% 26 Hawaii 99.3 197.4 14.1% 27 Massachusetts 98.4 196.2 10.4% 28 Washington 98.1 195.7 8.6% 29 New Mexico 97.7 195.2 9.9% 30 North Carolina 97.7 195.2 12.3% 31 Alabama 97.0 194.2 14.5% 32 South Dakota 95.9 192.6 9.0% 33 Illinois 93.1 188.6 13.3% 34 Mississippi 92.4 187.7 14.1% 35 Minnesota 92.3 187.5 10.8% 36 Missouri 90.1 184.4 10.7% 37 Arkansas 89.7 183.8 10.8% 38 Rhode Island 89.7 183.8 14.6% 39 Kansas 89.4 183.4 9.7% 40 Delaware 88.8 182.5 18.0% 41 Pennsylvania 88.2 181.7 12.7% 42 Ohio 86.6 179.4 13.2% 43 Virginia 85.0 177.2 14.0% 44 Iowa 84.9 177.0 8.3% 45 Nebraska 83.5 174.9 8.6% 46 North Dakota 82.6 173.7 8.2% 47 Kentucky 80.9 171.2 11.6% 48 Wisconsin 80.1 170.1 11.5% 49 West Virginia 79.2 168.8 9.8% 50 Indiana 78.6 168.0 12.8%

Number of non-farm proprietors per 1,000 labor force participants, 2008 The self-employed are the stock from which employer firms emerge, and high self-employment reflects entrepreneurial opportunities that are realized through an enabling environment. The above table shows the number of non-farm proprietors as a share of the labor force.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Per 1,000 Labor Force Rank

Michigan 201.2 23 Illinois 188.6 33 Ohio 179.4 42

Kentucky 171.2 47 Wisconsin 170.1 48

Indiana 168.0 50

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

2005 2006 2007 2008

Per

1,0

00 L

abor

For

ce

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

UNIVERSITY SPINOUT BUSINESSES

University spinout businesses per $1 billion research and development funding, 2007 Academic institutions vary in the degree to which they encourage and support faculty and student spinout discoveries into new local business ventures. Silicon Valley has proven that state and local economies can benefit significantly from their proactive business growth policies and practices. The above table shows the number of start-ups initiated by universities per $1 billion research and development expenditures. Midwest Performance, 2007

State Spinouts per $1 billion R&D Rank

Kentucky 36.7 2 Indiana 13.5 17

Michigan 12.8 19 Illinois 12.6 20 Ohio 10.3 26

Wisconsin 5.2 39

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

2004 2005 2006 2007

Spi

nout

s pe

r $1

bill

. R&

D

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

21


HIGH PERFORMANCE FIRMS

Rank State Score 3-Year Total per

100,000 Firms Change, 2005 -


1 Massachusetts 176.6 21.4 4.9 2 Connecticut 162.7 18.1 11.7 3 New York 141.1 12.9 5.9 4 Oklahoma 138.1 12.2 8.0 5 California 137.8 12.1 -1.7 6 Texas 136.3 11.7 4.0 7 Nevada 126.2 9.3 -3.0 8 New Jersey 124.8 9.0 3.2 9 Maryland 122.9 8.5 0.6 10 Colorado 121.2 8.1 -2.1 11 Virginia 118.6 7.5 -1.0 12 Pennsylvania 111.6 5.8 0.0 13 North Dakota 110.6 5.6 5.6 14 Wyoming 110.2 5.5 5.5 15 Minnesota 110.2 5.5 -2.6 16 Delaware 106.5 4.6 4.6 17 South Dakota 106.1 4.5 4.5 18 Arizona 104.7 4.1 1.3 19 Illinois 104.6 4.1 -4.3 20 Tennessee 103.3 3.8 -3.0 21 Florida 103.3 3.8 0.7 22 Rhode Island 103.0 3.7 3.7 23 Utah 100.9 3.2 1.4 24 Washington 100.9 3.2 -2.2 25 West Virginia 100.3 3.1 3.1 26 New Hampshire 99.7 3.0 3.0 27 North Carolina 98.9 2.7 -1.3 28 Indiana 97.9 2.5 -1.7 29 Idaho 96.9 2.3 -3.1 30 Arkansas 95.1 1.8 1.8 31 Wisconsin 94.4 1.7 -0.9 32 Kansas 94.1 1.6 -1.6 33 Georgia 93.8 1.5 -4.1 34 Iowa 93.7 1.5 -1.5 35 Ohio 93.4 1.4 -1.4 36 Kentucky 93.1 1.4 -1.4 37 Louisiana 92.5 1.2 -2.4 38 Michigan 91.7 1.0 -3.1 39 Missouri 90.7 0.8 -3.2 40 Alabama 87.4 0.0 -6.2 40 Alaska 87.4 0.0 0.0 40 Hawaii 87.4 0.0 -3.8 40 Maine 87.4 0.0 -2.8 40 Mississippi 87.4 0.0 0.0 40 Montana 87.4 0.0 -3.2 40 Nebraska 87.4 0.0 -4.7 40 New Mexico 87.4 0.0 0.0 40 Oregon 87.4 0.0 -2.2 40 South Carolina 87.4 0.0 -3.6 40 Vermont 87.4 0.0 0.0

Rank State Score Per 100,000 Firms Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 5.2 -11.4%

1 Massachusetts 171.1 20.0 -14.4% 2 Virginia 165.6 18.7 -21.1% 3 Utah 161.9 17.8 10.5% 4 Maryland 158.6 17.0 2.4% 5 California 149.3 14.8 23.4% 6 Connecticut 144.1 13.6 25.2% 7 New Hampshire 143.0 13.3 121.0% 8 Washington 140.1 12.6 0.5% 9 New Jersey 128.8 9.9 -13.7% 10 Texas 126.1 9.2 -2.3% 11 Colorado 124.4 8.8 -6.0% 12 New York 118.1 7.3 18.8% 13 Georgia 115.2 6.6 -42.5% 14 Minnesota 115.2 6.6 -8.1% 15 Arizona 115.2 6.6 -29.6% 16 Pennsylvania 113.4 6.2 11.6% 17 North Carolina 111.5 5.8 25.3% 18 Illinois 110.2 5.4 50.1% 19 Oregon 109.4 5.2 19.9% 20 Florida 104.3 4.0 -7.8% 21 Wisconsin 103.2 3.8 27.4% 22 Nebraska 101.9 3.5 -1.6% 23 Ohio 101.4 3.4 -35.8% 24 Kansas 100.8 3.2 -0.9% 25 West Virginia 100.3 3.1 100.0% 26 Indiana 99.7 2.9 -42.4% 27 Tennessee 99.4 2.9 -34.5% 28 Nevada 99.1 2.8 -54.6% 29 Oklahoma 98.7 2.7 -44.1% 30 Vermont 98.0 2.5 100.0% 31 Alabama 97.7 2.5 -1.8% 32 Delaware 97.0 2.3 -67.8% 33 Mississippi 96.1 2.1 99.0% 34 Missouri 95.7 2.0 -44.8% 35 Hawaii 95.2 1.9 100.0% 36 Michigan 95.0 1.8 -41.4% 37 Maine 93.1 1.4 -51.1% 38 New Mexico 92.8 1.3 -3.6% 39 Idaho 92.2 1.1 -82.9% 40 Iowa 90.6 0.8 -50.1% 41 Louisiana 90.0 0.6 0.1% 42 Alaska 87.4 0.0 -100.0% 42 Arkansas 87.4 0.0 -100.0% 42 Kentucky 87.4 0.0 -100.0% 42 Montana 87.4 0.0 -100.0% 42 North Dakota 87.4 0.0 0.0% 42 Rhode Island 87.4 0.0 -100.0% 42 South Carolina 87.4 0.0 -100.0% 42 South Dakota 87.4 0.0 0.0% 42 Wyoming 87.4 0.0 0.0%

Number of firms with significant revenue/sales growth relative to the total number of firms, 2008 Just as new small companies are an important part of a state’s economic dynamism, entrepreneurial firms that continuously innovate their products and processes have an equally significant role in contributing to growth and prosperity. The table above shows the average number of privately held companies listed with the fastest-growing firms from Inc.com, and fastest-growing high-technology companies from Deloitte & Touche’s Fast 500, relative to the total number of firms. Midwest Performance, 2008

State Per 100,000 Firms Rank Illinois 5.4 18

Wisconsin 3.8 21 Ohio 3.4 23

Indiana 2.9 26 Michigan 1.8 36 Kentucky 0.0 42

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2005 2006 2007 2008

Ave

rage

Num

ber

of F

irm

s

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

IPO AWARDS

Number of initial public offerings per 100,000 firms over 3 years, 2008 An Initial Public Offering (IPO) occurs when a company decides to sell stocks to the general public. Companies that go public tend to have established a good performance track record and therefore reflect entrepreneurial success in the form of new and/or improved products or processes. The adjacent table shows the 3-year total of the number of IPOs as a share of all companies in the state.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State 3-Year Total per

100,000 Firms Rank

Illinois 4.1 19 Indiana 2.5 28


Kentucky 1.4 36 Michigan 1.0 38

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2005 2006 2007 2008

3-Y

ear

Tota

l per

100

,000

Fir

ms

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

22


SBIR AWARDS


1,000 Small Firms Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 4.4 21.1%

1 Massachusetts 22.5 22.5 -1.8% 2 Delaware 13.4 13.4 108.2% 3 Virginia 12.5 12.5 24.4% 4 Colorado 11.3 11.3 27.4% 5 Maryland 11.3 11.3 47.5% 6 New Hampshire 9.7 9.7 59.3% 7 Alabama 8.5 8.5 61.2% 8 New Mexico 8.1 8.1 -17.7% 9 Connecticut 7.1 7.1 5.9% 10 Montana 6.4 6.4 37.8% 11 California 5.9 5.9 6.1% 12 Arizona 5.8 5.8 7.5% 13 Utah 5.7 5.7 16.0% 14 Ohio 5.6 5.6 10.4% 15 Pennsylvania 4.6 4.6 11.4% 16 Vermont 4.3 4.3 75.3% 17 Illinois 4.2 4.2 80.4% 18 Rhode Island 4.0 4.0 201.7% 19 Arkansas 3.9 3.9 50.6% 20 Michigan 3.9 3.9 31.0% 21 North Carolina 3.9 3.9 37.8% 22 Oregon 3.6 3.6 2.0% 23 Kentucky 3.5 3.5 57.0% 24 Texas 3.3 3.3 -5.1% 25 Wisconsin 3.1 3.1 7.5% 26 Indiana 3.0 3.0 82.1% 27 Nevada 3.0 3.0 -36.2% 28 Washington 2.9 2.9 -29.3% 29 New York 2.8 2.8 4.3% 30 Wyoming 2.7 2.7 -35.1% 31 New Jersey 2.7 2.7 30.3% 32 Minnesota 2.6 2.6 -6.5% 33 Georgia 2.6 2.6 -2.4% 34 West Virginia 2.5 2.5 1.7% 35 Iowa 2.3 2.3 162.2% 36 Missouri 2.3 2.3 73.5% 37 Nebraska 1.9 1.9 75.0% 38 Florida 1.9 1.9 0.6% 39 South Carolina 1.7 1.7 -8.9% 40 South Dakota 1.6 1.6 -40.5% 41 Kansas 1.5 1.5 14.7% 42 Tennessee 1.5 1.5 -31.8% 43 Mississippi 1.5 1.5 -24.5% 44 Hawaii 1.3 1.3 47.3% 45 Idaho 0.9 0.9 -29.9% 46 Oklahoma 0.8 0.8 -37.9% 47 Maine 0.7 0.7 0.9% 48 North Dakota 0.7 0.7 -75.1% 49 Louisiana 0.6 0.6 -18.9% 50 Alaska 0.0 0.0 0.0%



2008 (%) 50-State Average 27.46 -13.0%

1 Massachusetts 240.1 164.13 -15.6% 2 Maryland 155.5 76.73 -23.9% 3 Virginia 154.7 75.94 -6.3% 4 New Mexico 153.8 75.02 -8.3% 5 New Hampshire 150.4 71.50 1.3% 6 Colorado 149.9 70.95 -17.2% 7 California 129.8 50.18 -18.1% 8 Alabama 129.0 49.43 -9.2% 9 Delaware 117.3 37.34 -15.0% 10 Connecticut 117.2 37.23 -10.2% 11 Ohio 116.5 36.44 -10.4% 12 Hawaii 111.0 30.78 18.2% 13 Pennsylvania 110.8 30.63 -6.4% 14 Montana 110.8 30.58 -13.4% 15 Washington 109.9 29.64 -13.7% 16 Arizona 108.9 28.66 -23.5% 17 Oregon 106.5 26.15 -1.6% 18 Utah 106.2 25.88 -27.9% 19 Rhode Island 106.0 25.59 -11.8% 20 Vermont 105.4 25.05 -19.5% 21 Minnesota 103.6 23.11 -1.3% 22 Michigan 103.5 23.10 -6.2% 23 New Jersey 102.3 21.84 -22.7% 24 Texas 101.4 20.86 -17.4% 25 New York 100.1 19.56 -1.6% 26 Wisconsin 99.9 19.31 12.7% 27 North Carolina 98.4 17.74 -5.8% 28 Arkansas 98.1 17.51 31.7% 29 Maine 97.8 17.13 -34.5% 30 Wyoming 97.6 16.95 -21.6% 31 Indiana 94.5 13.80 5.1% 32 Tennessee 93.6 12.86 11.3% 33 Illinois 93.1 12.35 -0.9% 34 Georgia 92.6 11.84 -5.6% 35 Florida 92.6 11.77 -7.0% 36 Idaho 91.0 10.09 -38.3% 37 Alaska 90.9 10.05 9.4% 38 Oklahoma 90.6 9.70 -37.6% 39 North Dakota 90.2 9.34 -33.6% 40 Iowa 90.1 9.23 11.6% 41 Missouri 89.8 8.91 -2.9% 42 South Carolina 89.5 8.59 -8.7% 43 Kentucky 89.0 8.05 49.8% 44 West Virginia 88.8 7.91 -63.9% 45 Kansas 88.5 7.55 -34.2% 46 Nevada 87.6 6.66 -59.6% 47 Nebraska 87.3 6.31 -23.3% 48 Louisiana 86.1 5.04 -28.5% 49 South Dakota 85.9 4.87 -25.7% 50 Mississippi 84.2 3.13 -66.4%

3-year total of SBIR awards per 1,000 small firms, 2008 Robust research, development and related commercialization correlate closely with market leadership, growth, and economic development for the communities in which the firms reside. The federal SBIR program provides grants to small businesses to conduct commercially viable R&D for breakthrough technology innovations, products and processes. The above table gives the number of SBIR awards over 3 years in each state in relation to the number of firms with less than 500 employees. Midwest Performance, 2008

State 3-Year Total per 1,000 Small Firms Rank

Ohio 36.4 11 Michigan 23.1 22 Wisconsin 19.3 26

Indiana 13.8 31 Illinois 12.4 33

Kentucky 8.0 43

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

20

22

24

26

28

30

2005 2006 2007 2008

Aw

ards

per

1,0

00 S

mal

l Firm

s

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

STTR AWARDS

3-year total of STTR awards per 1,000 small firms, 2008 The federal Small Business Technology Transfer program provides grants to small businesses to conduct commercially viable R&D of breakthrough technology innovations, products and processes in collaboration with research universities and colleges. The above table shows a state’s STTR awards over 3 years relative to the number of firms with less than 500 employees firms.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State 3-Year Total per 1,000

Small Firms Rank

Ohio 5.6 14 Illinois 4.2 17

Michigan 3.9 20 Kentucky 3.5 23 Wisconsin 3.1 25

Indiana 3.0 26

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

2005 2006 2007 2008

Aw

ards

per

1,0

00 S

mal

l Firm

s

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

23


SBIC AWARDS



2008 (%) 50-State Average 14.1 13.8%

1 Massachusetts 74.7 74.7 -8.5% 2 New York 50.1 50.1 -26.6% 3 New Jersey 33.2 33.2 -9.5% 4 Utah 32.7 32.7 -42.5% 5 California 30.0 30.0 -18.3% 6 Maryland 28.5 28.5 -21.6% 7 Illinois 28.3 28.3 -39.3% 8 Colorado 26.6 26.6 7.8% 9 Delaware 25.1 25.1 22.3% 10 New Hampshire 24.1 24.1 -17.0% 11 Connecticut 22.7 22.7 -18.1% 12 Pennsylvania 17.1 17.1 -5.8% 13 Minnesota 16.4 16.4 -15.3% 14 Virginia 16.3 16.3 -33.5% 15 Texas 16.2 16.2 -17.2% 16 West Virginia 14.7 14.7 -24.2% 17 Washington 14.4 14.4 -23.1% 18 Georgia 14.2 14.2 -23.6% 19 Rhode Island 11.7 11.7 -47.7% 20 Vermont 11.6 11.6 18.9% 21 Oregon 11.5 11.5 -36.3% 22 North Carolina 10.9 10.9 -9.0% 23 New Mexico 10.6 10.6 -27.4% 24 Kansas 10.6 10.6 40.5% 25 Florida 10.5 10.5 -15.2% 26 Tennessee 9.2 9.2 -36.6% 27 Missouri 9.1 9.1 -28.0% 28 Arizona 8.2 8.2 -42.3% 29 South Carolina 8.0 8.0 14.4% 30 Wisconsin 8.0 8.0 -13.3% 31 Kentucky 7.9 7.9 -25.5% 32 Ohio 7.8 7.8 14.7% 33 Indiana 7.8 7.8 59.8% 34 Maine 7.5 7.5 -47.1% 35 Nevada 7.4 7.4 51.1% 36 Michigan 7.1 7.1 -46.2% 37 Louisiana 7.0 7.0 53.5% 38 Mississippi 7.0 7.0 -52.9% 39 South Dakota 6.0 6.0 -75.2% 40 Arkansas 5.9 5.9 -52.4% 41 Idaho 4.9 4.9 87.0% 42 Montana 4.5 4.5 1066.8% 43 Oklahoma 4.1 4.1 -56.2% 44 Iowa 4.1 4.1 -47.3% 45 Alabama 3.7 3.7 -32.0% 46 Nebraska 3.6 3.6 85.7% 47 Wyoming 2.0 2.0 100.0% 48 North Dakota 1.3 1.3 100.0% 49 Hawaii 0.9 0.9 100.0% 50 Alaska 0.0 0.0 -100.0%

3-year total of SBIC awards per 1,000 small firms, 2008 SBICs are private investment companies supported and regulated by the U.S. Small Business Administration. Their aim is to create investment pools of risk capital in local markets. One sign of entrepreneurial capital dynamics is the extent to which small business successfully access this program. The above table shows the awards given by SBICs over 3 years in relation to the number of firms with less than 500 employees in each state.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State 3-Year Total per 1,000

Small Firms Rank

Illinois 28.3 7 Wisconsin 8.0 30 Kentucky 7.9 31

Ohio 7.8 32 Indiana 7.8 33

Michigan 7.1 36

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

5

7

9

11

13

15

2005 2006 2007 2008

Aw

ards

per

1,0

00 S

mal

l Firm

s

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

24


ENTREPRENEURIAL CLIMATE The braoder business climate and institutional environment provide the foundation upon which entrepreneurial activity grows. Elements of Entrepreneurial Climate include the general magnitude and effectiveness of investments in innovative activity, the availability of financial capital and the general level of economic dynamism. The Research and Innovation sub-driver mainly measures investment in and returns to innovative activity, whereas the Financial and Institutional Capital sub-driver takes a look at the actual cash flow as well as institutional support for small firms and startups. The General Business Growth sub-driver captures the vitality and health of the economy that supports entrepreneurial dynamism.

Rank State 2008 2006 2004 1 Massachusetts ***** ***** ***** 2 California ***** ***** ***** 3 New York ***** **** **** 4 Utah **** **** **** 5 Washington **** **** *** 6 Maryland **** **** **** 7 Colorado **** **** *** 8 North Carolina *** *** *** 9 South Dakota *** *** *** 10 Virginia *** *** *** 11 Oregon *** **** *** 12 New Mexico *** **** *** 13 New Hampshire *** *** ** 14 Rhode Island *** *** **** 15 Texas *** *** ** 16 Ohio *** *** *** 17 North Dakota *** ** ** 18 Idaho *** **** ***** 19 Pennsylvania ** *** ** 20 Montana ** *** *** 21 Minnesota ** *** *** 22 Vermont ** ** ** 23 Alabama ** *** **** 24 Illinois ** ** ** 25 Arizona ** ** ** 26 Wisconsin ** ** *** 27 Delaware ** ** *** 28 Nevada ** *** ** 29 Iowa ** ** ** 30 Tennessee ** ** ** 31 New Jersey ** ** ** 32 Connecticut ** ** ** 33 Wyoming ** ** *** 34 Maine ** ** ** 35 Oklahoma ** ** ** 36 Louisiana ** ** * 37 Kansas ** ** * 38 Alaska ** ** * 39 Georgia * ** ** 40 Florida * * * 41 West Virginia * * * 42 Hawaii * ** * 43 Nebraska * * * 44 Michigan * * ** 45 Indiana * * * 46 Mississippi * * ** 47 Arkansas * * * 48 Kentucky * * * 49 Missouri * * * 50 South Carolina * * *

Midwest Performance

2008 2006 2004 Ohio *** *** *** Illinois ** ** ** Wisconsin ** ** *** Michigan * * ** Indiana * * * Kentucky * * *

25


RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

Rank State 2008 2006 2004 1 Massachusetts ***** ***** ***** 2 Maryland **** **** ***** 3 New York **** ** *** 4 Washington **** *** *** 5 Rhode Island **** **** **** 6 Iowa **** *** **** 7 Minnesota *** *** *** 8 Oregon *** **** *** 9 Utah *** *** **** 10 New Mexico *** *** *** 11 Vermont *** ** *** 12 Idaho *** **** **** 13 New Hampshire *** *** *** 14 North Carolina *** ** *** 15 North Dakota *** *** ** 16 Virginia *** *** *** 17 California *** *** *** 18 Colorado *** *** *** 19 Alabama *** *** *** 20 Wisconsin *** *** **** 21 Michigan ** ** *** 22 Ohio ** ** ** 23 New Jersey ** ** ** 24 Illinois ** * ** 25 Pennsylvania ** ** ** 26 Georgia ** ** ** 27 Arizona ** ** ** 28 Connecticut ** ** ** 29 Florida ** * ** 30 Indiana ** ** ** 31 Tennessee ** * * 32 Alaska ** ** ** 33 Hawaii ** ** ** 34 Montana ** ** ** 35 Missouri ** * * 36 Nebraska ** * * 37 Texas ** * ** 38 Oklahoma ** * ** 39 Kentucky ** * * 40 Delaware * * ** 41 South Carolina * * * 42 Louisiana * * * 43 Maine * * * 44 Mississippi * * ** 45 Wyoming * * ** 46 West Virginia * * * 47 Arkansas * * * 48 Kansas * * ** 49 Nevada * * * 50 South Dakota * * *

Midwest Performance

2008 2006 2004 Wisconsin *** *** **** Michigan ** ** *** Ohio ** ** ** Illinois ** * ** Indiana ** ** ** Kentucky ** * *

26


UNIVERSITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Rank State Score Per 100,000

Workers Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 39 -0.3%

1 Vermont 168.0 137 10.2% 2 Idaho 157.3 121 -31.2% 3 Washington 137.2 91 44.1% 4 Oregon 136.2 89 2.1% 5 California 134.8 87 2.9% 6 Minnesota 117.7 61 3.0% 7 Massachusetts 117.1 60 12.0% 8 Michigan 115.9 58 -3.4% 9 Connecticut 112.5 53 -10.8% 10 New Hampshire 112.0 52 -10.4% 11 Wisconsin 111.4 51 1.5% 12 New Jersey 109.6 49 4.5% 13 Delaware 108.9 48 -7.8% 14 Arizona 108.8 48 6.0% 15 Rhode Island 108.1 46 2.2% 16 Colorado 107.7 46 -12.7% 17 New York 107.0 45 -0.8% 18 Ohio 106.8 45 13.0% 19 Utah 103.5 40 -1.2% 20 Illinois 103.4 39 3.3% 21 Texas 103.0 39 -3.3% 22 North Carolina 102.0 37 2.9% 23 Pennsylvania 100.9 36 6.1% 24 Indiana 100.7 35 -7.5% 25 Nevada 100.1 34 -8.7% 26 Iowa 99.9 34 -6.5% 27 Maryland 97.3 30 9.1% 28 Florida 95.9 28 -5.1% 29 Kansas 95.3 27 3.3% 30 New Mexico 94.9 26 -1.8% 31 Georgia 94.4 26 9.9% 32 Montana 92.3 23 -2.2% 33 Tennessee 92.1 22 7.9% 34 Oklahoma 91.8 22 2.7% 35 South Carolina 91.7 22 -9.3% 36 Kentucky 91.3 21 14.7% 37 Missouri 91.2 21 -5.0% 38 Virginia 89.3 18 6.3% 39 Nebraska 89.2 18 1.3% 40 North Dakota 89.0 18 -18.0% 41 Maine 88.9 17 -17.4% 42 Louisiana 87.2 15 8.3% 43 Alabama 87.1 15 -5.5% 44 South Dakota 86.3 14 -18.9% 45 Hawaii 85.9 13 59.9% 46 Wyoming 85.9 13 -34.1% 47 Mississippi 85.7 13 14.4% 48 West Virginia 85.4 12 -8.3% 49 Arkansas 85.1 12 -10.1% 50 Alaska 81.3 6 -25.1%

Rank State Score Spending per

$100,000 GDP Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average $371 -2.5%

1 Maryland 176.6 $1,005 3.0% 2 Massachusetts 130.6 $622 -5.0% 3 North Dakota 125.4 $579 -6.2% 4 New Mexico 118.5 $522 -1.8% 5 Montana 118.0 $518 -9.7% 6 New Hampshire 116.2 $503 -6.3% 7 Rhode Island 115.8 $500 7.9% 8 North Carolina 115.2 $495 4.1% 9 Pennsylvania 112.3 $471 -4.2% 10 Wisconsin 111.6 $465 -0.2% 11 Vermont 111.1 $461 -10.7% 12 Nebraska 110.0 $452 -11.0% 13 Mississippi 109.0 $443 -0.3% 14 Hawaii 108.2 $437 -0.3% 15 Michigan 105.8 $417 6.4% 16 Alabama 105.8 $416 6.3% 17 Missouri 104.3 $404 -3.6% 18 Iowa 102.5 $389 -17.9% 19 Utah 102.3 $388 -13.7% 20 Ohio 102.3 $387 11.0% 21 Georgia 101.7 $383 7.9% 22 California 101.5 $380 -1.1% 23 Indiana 100.7 $374 14.8% 24 Colorado 100.4 $372 -4.2% 25 South Carolina 100.0 $368 4.7% 26 Oregon 100.0 $368 -5.2% 27 New York 98.2 $353 -6.4% 28 Connecticut 96.4 $338 -3.7% 29 Arizona 95.9 $334 -0.2% 30 Kansas 95.2 $329 -3.0% 31 Washington 95.1 $328 -0.8% 32 Kentucky 94.6 $323 -0.9% 33 Tennessee 93.2 $312 -3.8% 34 Illinois 93.1 $311 -2.8% 35 Texas 92.5 $306 -2.2% 36 Louisiana 91.4 $297 -7.0% 37 West Virginia 89.0 $277 0.1% 38 Minnesota 87.7 $266 10.9% 39 Virginia 87.6 $265 2.2% 40 Maine 86.7 $258 18.6% 41 Arkansas 85.9 $251 3.7% 42 South Dakota 85.6 $248 13.8% 43 Alaska 83.7 $233 -40.5% 44 Oklahoma 83.1 $228 -5.9% 45 Delaware 81.6 $215 7.3% 46 Idaho 81.6 $215 -16.4% 47 Florida 81.4 $214 -1.1% 48 Wyoming 81.1 $212 -33.0% 49 New Jersey 77.9 $185 -9.3% 50 Nevada 73.2 $145 -8.4%

Research and development expenditures by universities per $100,000 gross domestic product, 2008 University or government-based R&D initiatives not only employ researchers but provide technology transfer, spin-off companies and give local businesses access to top talent and new knowledge. The above table shows the amount of public-sector and industry-funded research and development expenditures at universities per $100,000 of gross domestic product.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Spending per $100,000

GDP Rank

Wisconsin $465 10 Michigan $417 15

Ohio $387 20 Indiana $374 23

Kentucky $323 32 Illinois $311 34

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

$300

$340

$380

$420

$460

2005 2006 2007 2008

Spen

ding

Per

$10

0,00

0 G

DP

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

PATENTS PER INNOVATION WORKER

Number of patents per 100,000 innovation workers, 2008 Patent activity signals an inventive economic base, which is key to wealth and value creation in the innovation economy. The above table shows the number of patents awarded to individuals or companies in each state per 100,000 innovation workers as defined by the metrics Physical Sciences and Engineering Workers, Technology and Technician Workers, and Other Innovation Workers.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Per 100,000 Workers Rank

Michigan 58 8 Wisconsin 51 11

Ohio 44 18 Illinois 39 20 Indiana 35 24

Kentucky 21 36

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

50

55

60

65

70

2005 2006 2007 2008

Per

100

,000

Wor

kers

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

27


PATENTS PER R&D DOLLAR

Rank State Score Licenses per

100,000 Firms Change, 2004 -

2007 (%) 50-State Average 50 44.2%

1 North Dakota 250.0 457 886.6% 2 Iowa 181.1 197 -34.6% 3 Massachusetts 171.7 177 25.2% 4 New Hampshire 148.9 128 134.6% 5 North Carolina 131.2 90 117.2% 6 Georgia 127.4 82 58.8% 7 Oregon 126.8 81 -5.1% 8 Washington 121.8 70 156.5% 9 Utah 121.7 70 -20.3% 10 Indiana 120.9 68 54.5% 11 Minnesota 119.8 66 -31.3% 12 Colorado 115.4 57 87.5% 13 Nebraska 115.1 56 38.7% 14 Tennessee 114.1 54 25.2% 15 Texas 108.8 42 16.1% 16 New Mexico 108.6 42 52.5% 17 Pennsylvania 107.2 39 -10.5% 18 Maryland 106.3 37 -62.3% 19 Michigan 103.9 32 -12.2% 20 Virginia 103.5 31 -24.5% 21 Ohio 103.4 31 12.9% 22 California 100.1 24 -27.5% 23 Delaware 99.9 23 388.5% 24 Louisiana 99.2 22 509.5% 25 New Jersey 99.2 22 37.2% 26 Illinois 97.8 19 -42.7% 27 Alabama 97.6 19 48.2% 28 Montana 97.4 18 -55.0% 29 Vermont 96.1 15 (n/a) 30 New York 95.7 14 -51.5% 31 Florida 95.6 14 10.3% 32 Wisconsin 95.3 14 -88.6% 33 Kansas 95.0 13 -33.7% 34 Mississippi 94.8 12 -45.0% 35 Idaho 94.6 12 -73.9% 36 Arkansas 94.2 11 18.4% 37 Kentucky 93.4 10 39.2% 38 Oklahoma 93.4 10 -43.1% 39 Missouri 93.1 9 -69.5% 40 Connecticut 92.6 8 -14.4% 41 Nevada 91.7 6 161.3% 42 South Carolina 91.2 5 -52.3% 43 Arizona 91.0 4 -78.8% 44 Rhode Island 89.0 0 -100.0%

(n/a) Alaska (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Hawaii (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Maine (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) South Dakota (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) West Virginia (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Wyoming (n/a) (n/a) (n/a)

Rank State Score Patents per $1 mill.

R&D Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 32 1.5%

1 Idaho 225.3 130 -13.3% 2 Vermont 193.5 104 25.1% 3 Nevada 137.7 58 -19.2% 4 Oklahoma 131.9 54 1.5% 5 Oregon 131.1 53 12.1% 6 Wisconsin 123.3 46 0.5% 7 Florida 120.7 44 1.8% 8 New York 117.0 41 9.5% 9 Minnesota 115.6 40 10.9% 10 Arizona 115.0 40 2.7% 11 Iowa 112.6 38 -0.3% 12 Montana 112.4 37 0.2% 13 Utah 112.3 37 9.4% 14 Texas 110.9 36 3.9% 15 Georgia 110.2 36 1.5% 16 Kentucky 109.2 35 4.9% 17 Ohio 107.5 33 1.0% 18 Louisiana 107.1 33 7.4% 19 Wyoming 105.5 32 -29.8% 20 South Dakota 104.9 31 -27.7% 21 California 104.6 31 0.9% 22 Washington 104.0 31 45.9% 23 Colorado 103.7 30 -10.7% 24 Maine 103.7 30 -0.2% 25 North Carolina 100.9 28 11.4% 26 Arkansas 99.1 27 -8.4% 27 Illinois 98.8 26 -0.3% 28 Nebraska 97.8 25 -0.7% 29 New Hampshire 96.9 25 -18.4% 30 Delaware 96.7 25 17.7% 31 Tennessee 96.6 24 3.0% 32 South Carolina 96.3 24 -5.4% 33 North Dakota 94.6 23 -19.9% 34 Kansas 94.0 22 15.6% 35 Pennsylvania 93.7 22 3.0% 36 Missouri 93.1 22 6.8% 37 Indiana 92.0 21 -9.6% 38 New Jersey 91.1 20 3.6% 39 Michigan 90.9 20 -1.2% 40 Hawaii 90.6 19 72.3% 41 Massachusetts 89.9 19 1.5% 42 Mississippi 89.7 19 14.7% 43 Connecticut 88.3 18 -5.6% 44 West Virginia 87.7 17 -1.3% 45 Rhode Island 85.3 15 -3.4% 46 Virginia 81.5 12 -0.5% 47 Alabama 79.9 11 -16.5% 48 Maryland 78.9 10 8.5% 49 Alaska 78.6 10 -29.0% 50 New Mexico 73.1 5 -1.9%

Number of patents per $1 million research and development investment, 2008 Although patents issued relate to the level of research and innovation in a region, the value derived from the innovations is also determined by the effectiveness at obtaining these patents. The above table shows the number of patents issued in the most recent year per $1 million of total research and development investment in each state.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Patents per $1 mill.

R&D Rank

Wisconsin 46 6 Kentucky 35 16

Ohio 33 17 Illinois 26 27 Indiana 21 37

Michigan 20 39

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

2005 2006 2007 2008

Pate

nts

Per

$1 M

ill. R

&D

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

UNIVERSITY LICENSES TO SMALL BUSINESSES

Number of license and option relationships with small businesses per 100,000 firms, 2007 Academic knowledge that is primarily funded with tax-dollars in the form of grants is converted back into more money and economic growth when the successful research is licensed to firms for commercialization. The above table gives the number of license and option relationships with firms of less than 500 employees per 100,000 firms.

Midwest Performance, 2007 State Licenses per 100,000

Firms Rank

Indiana 68 10 Michigan 32 19

Ohio 31 21 Illinois 19 26

Wisconsin 13 32 Kentucky 10 37

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

24

28

32

36

40

44

2004 2005 2006 2007

Lice

nses

per

100

,000

Firm

s

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

28


NSF PROPOSAL FUNDING RATE

Rank State Score Funding Rate Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 16.0% 21.3%

1 Alaska 146.9 28.6% 300.0% 2 Tennessee 136.3 25.8% 138.1% 3 Iowa 122.6 22.2% 126.3% 4 New York 122.1 22.1% 12.8% 5 New Hampshire 121.9 22.0% 46.2% 6 Kentucky 121.1 21.8% 133.0% 7 Massachusetts 118.0 21.0% 8.8% 8 New Mexico 115.0 20.2% 17.5% 9 Oregon 114.1 20.0% 14.8% 10 Missouri 111.7 19.4% 32.4% 11 Colorado 110.8 19.1% 1.1% 12 Connecticut 110.0 18.9% 24.2% 13 Washington 109.7 18.9% -5.7% 14 North Carolina 107.5 18.3% 30.2% 15 Wisconsin 107.0 18.1% 10.3% 16 Arkansas 106.0 17.9% 20.2% 17 Pennsylvania 106.0 17.9% -7.2% 18 Wyoming 105.1 17.6% 3.4% 19 Oklahoma 104.8 17.6% 4.8% 20 Illinois 104.5 17.5% 2.9% 21 Utah 103.5 17.2% -7.1% 22 Virginia 102.3 16.9% 9.8% 23 Nebraska 100.3 16.4% -43.5% 24 California 100.3 16.4% -0.8% 25 Alabama 100.1 16.3% -16.4% 26 South Carolina 99.9 16.3% 50.0% 27 New Jersey 99.6 16.2% 10.9% 28 Rhode Island 99.1 16.1% 6.8% 29 North Dakota 98.0 15.8% 452.6% 30 Louisiana 96.4 15.4% 59.0% 31 Indiana 95.6 15.2% -7.8% 32 Ohio 94.0 14.7% -21.2% 33 Hawaii 93.3 14.6% 1.1% 34 Michigan 92.5 14.4% -5.1% 35 Arizona 92.5 14.4% 14.8% 36 Minnesota 90.6 13.9% -6.1% 37 Maryland 89.6 13.6% -6.0% 38 Florida 89.3 13.5% 1.7% 39 Vermont 88.6 13.3% 0.0% 40 Georgia 87.4 13.0% 14.2% 41 Texas 85.8 12.6% -9.4% 42 Montana 85.4 12.5% -42.8% 43 Idaho 83.7 12.1% -23.6% 44 Maine 80.1 11.1% -59.3% 45 Mississippi 76.6 10.2% -3.1% 46 Delaware 76.4 10.1% -38.1% 47 Kansas 70.5 8.6% -16.7% 48 Nevada 63.4 6.8% -45.9% 49 West Virginia 60.4 6.0% -56.4% 50 South Dakota 51.7 3.7% -59.3%

Rank State Score Funding Rate Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 23% 6.1%

1 Rhode Island 137.7 36% 2.9% 2 Maine 128.3 33% 26.9% 2 Minnesota 128.3 33% 26.9% 4 Massachusetts 118.9 30% 11.1% 4 Washington 118.9 30% 11.1% 6 Oregon 115.7 29% 20.8% 7 California 112.6 28% 3.7% 8 Illinois 109.4 27% 8.0% 8 Maryland 109.4 27% 3.8% 8 Wisconsin 109.4 27% 0.0% 11 Arizona 106.3 26% 13.0% 11 Connecticut 106.3 26% 8.3% 11 Hawaii 106.3 26% -23.5% 11 New York 106.3 26% 8.3% 15 Alaska 103.1 25% -3.8% 15 Colorado 103.1 25% 4.2% 15 Iowa 103.1 25% 19.0% 15 Michigan 103.1 25% 4.2% 15 Montana 103.1 25% 13.6% 15 New Hampshire 103.1 25% 8.7% 15 North Carolina 103.1 25% -3.8% 15 Pennsylvania 103.1 25% 8.7% 23 Delaware 100.0 24% 14.3% 23 Georgia 100.0 24% 14.3% 23 New Jersey 100.0 24% -4.0% 23 Virginia 100.0 24% 9.1% 27 Indiana 96.9 23% 4.5% 27 Missouri 96.9 23% 21.1% 27 New Mexico 96.9 23% 0.0% 27 Ohio 96.9 23% 21.1% 27 Wyoming 96.9 23% -20.7% 32 Idaho 93.7 22% 0.0% 32 Utah 93.7 22% 0.0% 34 Kansas 90.6 21% -12.5% 34 Kentucky 90.6 21% 5.0% 34 Louisiana 90.6 21% 10.5% 34 Nebraska 90.6 21% 16.7% 34 Texas 90.6 21% 5.0% 34 West Virginia 90.6 21% 31.3% 40 Florida 87.4 20% 17.6% 40 Tennessee 87.4 20% 5.3% 42 South Carolina 84.3 19% -5.0% 42 Vermont 84.3 19% 11.8% 44 Alabama 81.1 18% 12.5% 44 Oklahoma 81.1 18% 5.9% 46 Arkansas 78.0 17% 13.3% 46 South Dakota 78.0 17% -19.0% 48 Nevada 74.8 16% -20.0% 49 Mississippi 65.4 13% -7.1% 50 North Dakota 62.3 12% 0.0%

Share of National Science Foundation proposals funded, 2008 The NSF is the premier source of research grant funding in the U.S. NSF grant topics closely correlate with Michigan’s technical core competencies and industrial strengths (i.e., Advanced Manufacturing, Materials and Electronics). NSF funding indicates strong academic and other research and/or education institutions and a state’s interest and capacity to support technology-related business development. The above table shows the rate of proposals funded by the NSF in each state in the most current year.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Funding Rate Rank

Illinois 27% 8 Wisconsin 27% 8 Michigan 25% 15

Indiana 23% 27 Ohio 23% 27

Kentucky 21% 34

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

16%

18%

20%

22%

24%

26%

28%

30%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Fund

ing

Rat

e

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

SBIR FUNDING RATE

Share of SBIR proposals funded, 2008 A measure of success in small business financing is the success rate of submitted proposals. The above table shows the proportion of SBIR proposals that were funded in each state in the most current year.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Funding Rate Rank



Ohio 14.7% 32 Michigan 14.4% 34

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Fund

ing

Rat

e

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

29


UNIVERSITY ROYALTY/LICENSE INCOME

Rank State Score Number of Programs

Change, 2005 - 2008 (Abs.)

50-State Average 1 0 1 Illinois (n/a) 5 -1 2 California (n/a) 4 -3 2 Massachusetts (n/a) 4 0 2 Pennsylvania (n/a) 4 0 2 Texas (n/a) 4 3 6 Missouri (n/a) 3 3 6 New York (n/a) 3 -2 6 North Carolina (n/a) 3 1 6 Ohio (n/a) 3 -1 10 Arizona (n/a) 2 0 10 Washington (n/a) 2 1 10 Wisconsin (n/a) 2 2 13 Alabama (n/a) 1 0 13 Florida (n/a) 1 1 13 Indiana (n/a) 1 -1 13 Iowa (n/a) 1 -1 13 Kentucky (n/a) 1 -1 13 Louisiana (n/a) 1 0 13 Michigan (n/a) 1 1 13 North Dakota (n/a) 1 0 13 Oklahoma (n/a) 1 1 13 Oregon (n/a) 1 1 13 Utah (n/a) 1 0 24 Alaska (n/a) 0 0 24 Arkansas (n/a) 0 0 24 Colorado (n/a) 0 0 24 Connecticut (n/a) 0 0 24 Delaware (n/a) 0 0 24 Georgia (n/a) 0 0 24 Hawaii (n/a) 0 0 24 Idaho (n/a) 0 0 24 Kansas (n/a) 0 0 24 Maine (n/a) 0 0 24 Maryland (n/a) 0 0 24 Minnesota (n/a) 0 0 24 Mississippi (n/a) 0 0 24 Montana (n/a) 0 0 24 Nebraska (n/a) 0 0 24 Nevada (n/a) 0 0 24 New Hampshire (n/a) 0 0 24 New Jersey (n/a) 0 -3 24 New Mexico (n/a) 0 0 24 Rhode Island (n/a) 0 0 24 South Carolina (n/a) 0 0 24 South Dakota (n/a) 0 0 24 Tennessee (n/a) 0 0 24 Vermont (n/a) 0 0 24 Virginia (n/a) 0 -1 24 West Virginia (n/a) 0 0 24 Wyoming (n/a) 0 0

Rank State Score Royalties per $1

mill. GDP Change, 2004 -

2007 (%) 50-State Average $128.0 44.5% 1 Massachusetts 250.0 $1,432.7 144.9% 1 New York 250.0 $927.6 171.8% 3 Minnesota 174.4 $346.7 13.6% 4 Iowa 155.4 $270.1 135.2% 5 Florida 146.0 $232.4 162.3% 6 Washington 142.3 $217.3 95.4% 7 North Carolina 139.6 $206.6 41.3% 8 Wisconsin 138.3 $201.3 -14.7% 9 Utah 136.3 $193.2 -23.1%

10 Illinois 132.2 $176.7 456.2% 11 Colorado 114.8 $106.4 -41.2% 12 Georgia 111.6 $93.7 -6.1% 13 California 110.5 $89.4 -30.8% 14 Ohio 109.6 $85.6 68.4% 15 Missouri 106.4 $72.8 5.6% 16 Pennsylvania 106.2 $71.9 45.2% 17 Michigan 103.6 $61.7 -56.5% 18 Maryland 102.7 $57.7 68.5% 19 Louisiana 102.3 $56.1 16.2% 20 Oregon 101.9 $54.5 70.0% 21 Tennessee 101.2 $51.9 66.6% 22 New Hampshire 100.1 $47.5 174.7% 23 North Dakota 99.9 $46.4 -45.4% 24 Alabama 99.4 $44.4 86.5% 25 Texas 98.9 $42.5 9.6% 26 Indiana 98.1 $39.3 -32.3% 27 Oklahoma 96.2 $31.7 -26.2% 28 Nebraska 95.9 $30.5 67.6% 29 Virginia 95.4 $28.5 1.8% 30 South Carolina 94.2 $23.5 -26.7% 31 Mississippi 93.8 $21.9 -52.1% 32 New Jersey 92.9 $18.5 75.0% 33 Arizona 92.9 $18.3 45.5% 34 Arkansas 92.5 $16.9 155.2% 35 Vermont 92.5 $16.6 66.2% 36 Kansas 92.4 $16.5 -3.6% 37 Kentucky 91.4 $12.4 88.2% 38 Rhode Island 91.2 $11.6 -76.8% 39 New Mexico 91.0 $10.7 69.4% 40 Delaware 89.7 $5.7 -16.3% 41 Idaho 89.5 $4.8 -37.9% 42 Montana 89.4 $4.5 60.5% 43 Connecticut 89.4 $4.3 -56.6%

(n/a) Nevada (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Alaska (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Hawaii (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Maine (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) South Dakota (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) West Virginia (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Wyoming (n/a) (n/a) (n/a)

Gross royalty and license income per $1 million gross domestic product, 2007 Research universities can be themselves entrepreneurial by capturing the value added from proprietary discoveries. The percent of a universities annual budget that is derived from royalty and licensing income is a key measure of its successful technology transfer and links to entrepreneurial businesses and impact on the local economy. The above table shows the gross license/royalty income per $1 million of gross domestic product.

Midwest Performance, 2007 State Income per $1 mill.

GDP Rank

Wisconsin $201.3 8 Illinois $176.7 10 Ohio $85.6 14

Michigan $61.7 17 Indiana $39.3 26

Kentucky $12.4 37

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2004 2005 2006 2007

Inco

me

Per

$1

Mill

. G

DP

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

ENTREPRENEURIAL PROGRAMS/CURRICULA*

Top 50 entrepreneurial programs or curricula, 2008 A dynamic innovation economy does not only need workers with scientific and technical skills, but leaders and managers. Universities and colleges have seen the increasing need to provide these future entrepreneurs with the right knowledge to survive in today’s economy. The above table shows the number of top 50 programs according to EntrePoint's Top Entrepreneurship Colleges. * Not included in subdriver/driver calculations

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Number of Programs Rank

Illinois 5 1 Ohio 3 6

Wisconsin 2 10 Indiana 1 13

Kentucky 1 13 Michigan 1 13

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

0

1

2

3

2005 2006 2007 2008

Num

ber

of P

rogr

ams

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

30


INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT


$100,000 GDP Change, 2003 -

2006 (%) 50-State Average $190.1 -34.0%

1 Maryland 250.0 $3,148.3 89.8% 2 Virginia 250.0 $953.8 33.2% 3 Rhode Island 250.0 $824.3 7.8% 4 New Mexico 250.0 $735.6 -7.1% 5 Alabama 240.6 $523.1 -27.3% 6 Massachusetts 172.5 $296.0 -3.3% 7 Utah 161.5 $259.4 68.7% 8 West Virginia 142.8 $197.1 -26.7% 9 Mississippi 136.0 $174.3 -22.7% 10 Ohio 133.8 $167.0 -16.0% 11 New Jersey 129.2 $151.9 5.7% 12 Hawaii 127.3 $145.4 -22.4% 13 Arizona 123.9 $134.1 -16.1% 14 Alaska 123.2 $131.7 -68.6% 15 Colorado 120.7 $123.5 -33.9% 16 North Dakota 115.6 $106.3 -23.2% 17 North Carolina 115.5 $106.2 -21.3% 18 California 110.8 $90.4 -55.1% 19 Georgia 110.2 $88.4 -54.2% 20 Florida 108.6 $83.0 -35.6% 21 Montana 104.4 $69.2 -39.1% 22 Washington 102.4 $62.3 -63.6% 23 Oklahoma 102.0 $61.0 -7.3% 24 South Carolina 100.1 $54.6 -11.6% 25 South Dakota 100.0 $54.5 -25.2% 26 Oregon 100.0 $54.2 -46.8% 27 Idaho 99.7 $53.5 -24.3% 28 New Hampshire 99.7 $53.5 -53.1% 29 Michigan 99.4 $52.5 -22.4% 30 Nevada 98.0 $47.7 13.1% 31 Arkansas 97.9 $47.4 -32.3% 32 Iowa 95.8 $40.5 -52.5% 33 Indiana 95.8 $40.4 -9.2% 34 Pennsylvania 95.7 $39.9 -61.2% 35 Nebraska 95.3 $38.7 -39.0% 36 Tennessee 94.4 $35.6 -49.1% 37 Vermont 93.8 $33.8 -71.0% 38 Louisiana 91.6 $26.3 -69.8% 39 Texas 90.8 $23.7 -76.3% 40 Wyoming 90.7 $23.2 -44.0% 41 Minnesota 90.2 $21.6 -68.1% 42 Wisconsin 89.7 $20.0 -68.9% 43 Illinois 89.2 $18.3 -58.0% 44 Missouri 89.2 $18.2 -77.5% 45 Maine 88.9 $17.3 -71.1% 46 Kansas 88.6 $16.4 -56.2% 47 New York 87.9 $14.0 -79.2% 48 Kentucky 87.4 $12.3 -53.5% 49 Connecticut 86.8 $10.4 -81.6% 50 Delaware 85.2 $5.1 -72.7%


$100,000 GDP Change, 2004 -

2007 (%) 50-State Average $1,693 9.8%

1 Massachusetts 164.9 $6,079 43.9% 2 Connecticut 148.8 $4,901 13.1% 3 Washington 147.0 $4,767 16.9% 4 Michigan 145.6 $4,668 -0.2% 5 New Jersey 140.9 $4,325 44.7% 6 California 136.8 $4,022 16.1% 7 New Hampshire 129.3 $3,471 22.0% 8 Minnesota 122.0 $2,935 13.3% 9 Oregon 117.6 $2,615 -1.4% 10 Delaware 117.6 $2,614 18.0% 11 Colorado 116.3 $2,517 8.9% 12 Indiana 111.9 $2,200 8.0% 13 Pennsylvania 111.4 $2,160 11.5% 14 Illinois 109.7 $2,033 13.8% 15 North Carolina 109.5 $2,019 25.1% 16 Vermont 108.5 $1,944 -13.1% 17 Utah 108.3 $1,932 22.5% 18 Arizona 106.3 $1,786 17.2% 19 Ohio 106.1 $1,768 20.9% 20 Maryland 105.1 $1,696 -16.3% 21 Wisconsin 104.3 $1,643 13.8% 22 Idaho 103.9 $1,613 -13.5% 23 Virginia 102.9 $1,538 2.5% 24 Missouri 100.5 $1,361 14.5% 25 Texas 100.4 $1,353 -1.4% 26 Kansas 99.6 $1,296 -39.5% 27 Alabama 99.4 $1,280 24.9% 28 South Carolina 97.3 $1,129 29.9% 29 New York 96.9 $1,099 -0.2% 30 Iowa 96.2 $1,047 7.6% 31 Rhode Island 95.7 $1,006 -71.9% 32 New Mexico 94.4 $915 4.1% 33 Georgia 93.1 $822 12.3% 34 Tennessee 92.2 $751 -11.8% 35 Nebraska 91.6 $707 8.2% 36 Florida 91.4 $697 6.9% 37 Kentucky 91.3 $690 37.6% 38 Maine 90.7 $643 12.2% 39 North Dakota 89.0 $517 -74.0% 40 West Virginia 88.6 $491 -0.5% 41 Nevada 88.6 $485 4.8% 42 Montana 88.2 $463 51.4% 43 Oklahoma 88.2 $461 4.9% 44 Hawaii 88.1 $455 35.0% 45 South Dakota 87.8 $427 52.1% 46 Arkansas 87.6 $413 2.7% 47 Mississippi 87.2 $385 51.7% 48 Louisiana 84.7 $202 -7.0% 49 Alaska 84.1 $157 28.1% 50 Wyoming 83.8 $135 17.6%

Industry research and development expenditures per $100,000 GDP, 2007 The fruits of local industry research and development investments often become evident only after many years, but they are essential to the long-term business competitiveness and provide spillover effects to smaller firms that might not have the resources to conduct their own research. Industry R&D is also an indicator of the prevalence of scientists and researchers in the state. The above table shows total industry R&D expenditures per $100,000 of gross domestic product.


GDP Rank

Michigan $4,668 4 Indiana $2,200 12 Illinois $2,033 14 Ohio $1,768 19

Wisconsin $1,643 21 Kentucky $690 37

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

$4,000

$4,200

$4,400

$4,600

$4,800

$5,000

$5,200

$5,400

2004 2005 2006 2007

Spen

ding

Per

$10

0,00

0 G

DP

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Federal research and development expenditures per $100,000 GDP, 2006 Over 70% of U.S. Patents are based on publicly funded research. Federal funds can provide opportunities for innovation where the private or academic sector support is lacking or where a public benefit is at stake. The level of federal research grants to a state is a strong indication of its ability to achieve robust entrepreneurial dynamism. The above table shows total federal R&D expenditures per $100,000 of gross domestic product.


GDP Rank

Ohio $167.0 10 Michigan $52.5 29

Indiana $40.4 33 Wisconsin $20.0 42

Illinois $18.3 43 Kentucky $12.3 48

Michigan, 2003 - 2006

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

2003 2004 2005 2006

Spen

ding

Per

$10

0,00

0 G

DP

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

31


INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT


$100,000 GDP Change, 2003 -

2006 (%) 50-State Average $190.1 -34.0%

1 Maryland 250.0 $3,148.3 89.8% 2 Virginia 250.0 $953.8 33.2% 3 Rhode Island 250.0 $824.3 7.8% 4 New Mexico 250.0 $735.6 -7.1% 5 Alabama 240.6 $523.1 -27.3% 6 Massachusetts 172.5 $296.0 -3.3% 7 Utah 161.5 $259.4 68.7% 8 West Virginia 142.8 $197.1 -26.7% 9 Mississippi 136.0 $174.3 -22.7% 10 Ohio 133.8 $167.0 -16.0% 11 New Jersey 129.2 $151.9 5.7% 12 Hawaii 127.3 $145.4 -22.4% 13 Arizona 123.9 $134.1 -16.1% 14 Alaska 123.2 $131.7 -68.6% 15 Colorado 120.7 $123.5 -33.9% 16 North Dakota 115.6 $106.3 -23.2% 17 North Carolina 115.5 $106.2 -21.3% 18 California 110.8 $90.4 -55.1% 19 Georgia 110.2 $88.4 -54.2% 20 Florida 108.6 $83.0 -35.6% 21 Montana 104.4 $69.2 -39.1% 22 Washington 102.4 $62.3 -63.6% 23 Oklahoma 102.0 $61.0 -7.3% 24 South Carolina 100.1 $54.6 -11.6% 25 South Dakota 100.0 $54.5 -25.2% 26 Oregon 100.0 $54.2 -46.8% 27 Idaho 99.7 $53.5 -24.3% 28 New Hampshire 99.7 $53.5 -53.1% 29 Michigan 99.4 $52.5 -22.4% 30 Nevada 98.0 $47.7 13.1% 31 Arkansas 97.9 $47.4 -32.3% 32 Iowa 95.8 $40.5 -52.5% 33 Indiana 95.8 $40.4 -9.2% 34 Pennsylvania 95.7 $39.9 -61.2% 35 Nebraska 95.3 $38.7 -39.0% 36 Tennessee 94.4 $35.6 -49.1% 37 Vermont 93.8 $33.8 -71.0% 38 Louisiana 91.6 $26.3 -69.8% 39 Texas 90.8 $23.7 -76.3% 40 Wyoming 90.7 $23.2 -44.0% 41 Minnesota 90.2 $21.6 -68.1% 42 Wisconsin 89.7 $20.0 -68.9% 43 Illinois 89.2 $18.3 -58.0% 44 Missouri 89.2 $18.2 -77.5% 45 Maine 88.9 $17.3 -71.1% 46 Kansas 88.6 $16.4 -56.2% 47 New York 87.9 $14.0 -79.2% 48 Kentucky 87.4 $12.3 -53.5% 49 Connecticut 86.8 $10.4 -81.6% 50 Delaware 85.2 $5.1 -72.7%


$100,000 GDP Change, 2004 -

2007 (%) 50-State Average $1,693 9.8%

1 Massachusetts 164.9 $6,079 43.9% 2 Connecticut 148.8 $4,901 13.1% 3 Washington 147.0 $4,767 16.9% 4 Michigan 145.6 $4,668 -0.2% 5 New Jersey 140.9 $4,325 44.7% 6 California 136.8 $4,022 16.1% 7 New Hampshire 129.3 $3,471 22.0% 8 Minnesota 122.0 $2,935 13.3% 9 Oregon 117.6 $2,615 -1.4% 10 Delaware 117.6 $2,614 18.0% 11 Colorado 116.3 $2,517 8.9% 12 Indiana 111.9 $2,200 8.0% 13 Pennsylvania 111.4 $2,160 11.5% 14 Illinois 109.7 $2,033 13.8% 15 North Carolina 109.5 $2,019 25.1% 16 Vermont 108.5 $1,944 -13.1% 17 Utah 108.3 $1,932 22.5% 18 Arizona 106.3 $1,786 17.2% 19 Ohio 106.1 $1,768 20.9% 20 Maryland 105.1 $1,696 -16.3% 21 Wisconsin 104.3 $1,643 13.8% 22 Idaho 103.9 $1,613 -13.5% 23 Virginia 102.9 $1,538 2.5% 24 Missouri 100.5 $1,361 14.5% 25 Texas 100.4 $1,353 -1.4% 26 Kansas 99.6 $1,296 -39.5% 27 Alabama 99.4 $1,280 24.9% 28 South Carolina 97.3 $1,129 29.9% 29 New York 96.9 $1,099 -0.2% 30 Iowa 96.2 $1,047 7.6% 31 Rhode Island 95.7 $1,006 -71.9% 32 New Mexico 94.4 $915 4.1% 33 Georgia 93.1 $822 12.3% 34 Tennessee 92.2 $751 -11.8% 35 Nebraska 91.6 $707 8.2% 36 Florida 91.4 $697 6.9% 37 Kentucky 91.3 $690 37.6% 38 Maine 90.7 $643 12.2% 39 North Dakota 89.0 $517 -74.0% 40 West Virginia 88.6 $491 -0.5% 41 Nevada 88.6 $485 4.8% 42 Montana 88.2 $463 51.4% 43 Oklahoma 88.2 $461 4.9% 44 Hawaii 88.1 $455 35.0% 45 South Dakota 87.8 $427 52.1% 46 Arkansas 87.6 $413 2.7% 47 Mississippi 87.2 $385 51.7% 48 Louisiana 84.7 $202 -7.0% 49 Alaska 84.1 $157 28.1% 50 Wyoming 83.8 $135 17.6%

Industry research and development expenditures per $100,000 GDP, 2007 The fruits of local industry research and development investments often become evident only after many years, but they are essential to the long-term business competitiveness and provide spillover effects to smaller firms that might not have the resources to conduct their own research. Industry R&D is also an indicator of the prevalence of scientists and researchers in the state. The above table shows total industry R&D expenditures per $100,000 of gross domestic product.


GDP Rank

Michigan $4,668 4 Indiana $2,200 12 Illinois $2,033 14 Ohio $1,768 19

Wisconsin $1,643 21 Kentucky $690 37

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

$4,000

$4,200

$4,400

$4,600

$4,800

$5,000

$5,200

$5,400

2004 2005 2006 2007

Spen

ding

Per

$10

0,00

0 G

DP

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Federal research and development expenditures per $100,000 GDP, 2006 Over 70% of U.S. Patents are based on publicly funded research. Federal funds can provide opportunities for innovation where the private or academic sector support is lacking or where a public benefit is at stake. The level of federal research grants to a state is a strong indication of its ability to achieve robust entrepreneurial dynamism. The above table shows total federal R&D expenditures per $100,000 of gross domestic product.


GDP Rank

Ohio $167.0 10 Michigan $52.5 29

Indiana $40.4 33 Wisconsin $20.0 42


Michigan, 2003 - 2006

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

2003 2004 2005 2006

Spen

ding

Per

$10

0,00

0 G

DP

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

FINANCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CAPITAL

Rank State 2008 2006 2004 1 Massachusetts ***** ***** ***** 2 California ***** **** **** 3 Colorado **** **** **** 4 Utah **** **** **** 5 North Carolina **** **** **** 6 South Dakota *** **** *** 7 Ohio *** *** *** 8 Delaware *** **** **** 9 New Hampshire *** *** *** 10 Virginia *** *** **** 11 Tennessee *** *** ** 12 New York *** *** *** 13 Oklahoma *** ** ** 14 Maryland *** *** *** 15 Nevada *** *** ** 16 Alabama *** *** *** 17 Rhode Island *** ** **** 18 New Mexico *** *** *** 19 Connecticut *** ** *** 20 Pennsylvania ** *** ** 21 Washington ** *** *** 22 Texas ** ** ** 23 Wisconsin ** ** ** 24 New Jersey ** ** ** 25 Maine ** ** ** 26 Georgia ** ** ** 27 Arizona ** ** * 28 Vermont ** * * 29 Kansas ** ** * 30 Minnesota ** ** ** 31 Illinois ** ** ** 32 Oregon ** ** * 33 Michigan ** ** ** 34 Montana * ** ** 35 West Virginia * ** ** 36 Indiana * * * 37 Missouri * * * 38 Kentucky * * * 39 Mississippi * * * 40 Louisiana * * * 41 North Dakota * ** ** 42 Arkansas * ** * 43 Idaho * * ** 44 Hawaii * ** * 45 South Carolina * * * 46 Florida * * * 47 Nebraska * * * 48 Iowa * * * 49 Alaska * * * 50 Wyoming * * *

Midwest Performance

2008 2006 2004 Ohio *** *** *** Wisconsin ** ** ** Illinois ** ** ** Michigan ** ** ** Indiana * * * Kentucky * * *

32


VENTURE CAPITAL FINANCING


$100,000 GDP Change, 2005 -

2008 (Abs.) 50-State Average $5.2 $2

1 Tennessee 217.4 $26.0 $23 2 Oklahoma 208.5 $24.2 $24 3 New York 191.4 $20.7 $16 4 California 181.3 $18.7 $13 5 Connecticut 170.9 $16.6 $16 6 Colorado 162.8 $15.0 $3 7 Kansas 155.8 $13.6 $11 8 South Dakota 152.5 $13.0 $13 9 New Jersey 148.7 $12.2 $9 10 Texas 144.0 $11.2 $7 11 Massachusetts 139.6 $10.4 $8 12 New Hampshire 133.9 $9.2 $9 13 Utah 128.0 $8.0 $8 14 Arizona 117.8 $6.0 $5 15 Nevada 114.0 $5.2 -$7 16 Rhode Island 111.1 $4.7 $5 17 Virginia 110.2 $4.5 -$9 18 Florida 106.1 $3.6 $2 19 Maryland 105.0 $3.4 -$2 20 Pennsylvania 104.9 $3.4 $1 21 Washington 104.3 $3.3 $2 22 North Carolina 103.9 $3.2 $3 23 Illinois 103.6 $3.1 -$3 24 Minnesota 101.4 $2.7 $0 25 Delaware 101.0 $2.6 $3 26 Idaho 99.0 $2.2 -$13 27 North Dakota 97.4 $1.9 $2 28 West Virginia 97.1 $1.9 $2 29 Indiana 96.6 $1.7 $0 30 Wisconsin 95.4 $1.5 -$2 31 Ohio 94.0 $1.2 -$1 32 Georgia 93.7 $1.2 -$1 33 Wyoming 93.4 $1.1 $1 34 Louisiana 92.9 $1.0 $1 35 Missouri 92.2 $0.9 $0 36 Michigan 92.1 $0.8 -$3 37 Arkansas 90.5 $0.5 $1 38 Iowa 90.2 $0.5 -$5 39 Kentucky 89.3 $0.3 -$3 40 Alabama 87.9 $0.0 -$1 40 Alaska 87.9 $0.0 $0 40 Hawaii 87.9 $0.0 $0 40 Maine 87.9 $0.0 $0 40 Mississippi 87.9 $0.0 $0 40 Montana 87.9 $0.0 -$2 40 Nebraska 87.9 $0.0 -$5 40 New Mexico 87.9 $0.0 $0 40 Oregon 87.9 $0.0 -$1 40 South Carolina 87.9 $0.0 -$6 40 Vermont 87.9 $0.0 $0

Rank State Score Financing per

$1,000 GDP Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average $12.2 85.2%

1 Massachusetts 250.0 $89.6 1.7% 2 California 250.0 $87.5 15.9% 3 Colorado 163.7 $37.3 5.1% 4 Washington 158.3 $34.6 1.8% 5 New Hampshire 155.8 $33.4 50.1% 6 Maryland 131.2 $21.4 -13.8% 7 Minnesota 130.1 $20.9 106.2% 8 Utah 129.2 $20.5 -24.1% 9 Vermont 127.4 $19.6 9.5% 10 New Jersey 121.4 $16.6 -28.1% 11 Virginia 117.8 $14.9 -11.9% 12 West Virginia 117.7 $14.8 -5.9% 13 Pennsylvania 115.7 $13.9 35.0% 14 North Carolina 114.6 $13.3 -6.6% 15 New York 113.2 $12.7 -4.3% 16 Oregon 112.9 $12.5 12.4% 17 Georgia 112.8 $12.5 52.7% 18 Texas 111.3 $11.7 -13.5% 19 Delaware 110.0 $11.1 710.2% 20 New Mexico 108.8 $10.5 -31.9% 21 Arizona 106.9 $9.6 39.3% 22 Rhode Island 106.7 $9.5 -42.1% 23 Illinois 103.2 $7.8 36.5% 24 Michigan 102.2 $7.3 197.5% 25 Connecticut 100.6 $6.5 -41.7% 26 Ohio 99.4 $5.9 85.3% 27 Indiana 98.3 $5.4 9.4% 28 Montana 97.8 $5.2 -53.1% 29 Maine 97.0 $4.7 301.4% 30 Kansas 96.1 $4.3 2165.2% 31 Missouri 95.8 $4.2 -11.3% 32 Florida 94.8 $3.7 -35.0% 33 Wisconsin 94.5 $3.5 -2.0% 34 Iowa 94.1 $3.4 6.7% 35 Tennessee 93.2 $2.9 -4.2% 36 Idaho 92.6 $2.6 32.2% 37 Kentucky 91.8 $2.2 -17.6% 38 Nebraska 91.8 $2.2 4.1% 39 South Carolina 91.4 $2.0 779.5% 40 Alabama 90.7 $1.7 7.2% 41 Oklahoma 90.1 $1.4 100.0% 42 Nevada 89.4 $1.1 -92.5% 43 Mississippi 88.8 $0.8 -59.1% 44 Wyoming 88.2 $0.5 -72.5% 45 Louisiana 88.1 $0.4 66.6% 46 South Dakota 87.6 $0.2 100.0% 47 North Dakota 87.6 $0.1 100.0% 48 Arkansas 87.3 $0.0 -98.6% 49 Alaska 87.2 $0.0 0.0% 49 Hawaii 87.2 $0.0 -100.0%

Venture capital financing per $1,000 of gross domestic product, 2008 Venture capital is focused on high-risk, high-return investments. Only about 3000 U.S. small businesses per year receive venture capital, and funding focuses largely on two sectors: information technology and health care. States with small business growth other than in these sectors tend to score relatively low on this metric. The above table shows the total value of venture-capital funding for in-state projects per $1,000 of GDP.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Financing per $1,000

GDP Rank

Illinois $7.8 23 Michigan $7.3 24

Ohio $5.9 26 Indiana $5.4 27

Wisconsin $3.5 33 Kentucky $2.2 37

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

$8

2005 2006 2007 2008

Fina

ncin

g pe

r $1

,000

GD

P

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

IPO FINANCING

3-year total of initial public offerings per $100,000 gross domestic product, 2008 An initial public offering (IPO) occurs when a firm decides to sell stocks to the general public. Companies that go public tend to have established a good performance track record and therefore reflect successful new and/or improved products or processes. Although IPO numbers tend to be small, they provide a good indication of business growth. The above table shows IPOs accumulated over 3 years as a share of the state’s most recent GDP.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State 3-Year Total per

$100,000 GDP Rank

Illinois $3.1 23 Indiana $1.7 29

Wisconsin $1.5 30 Ohio $1.2 31

Michigan $0.8 36 Kentucky $0.3 39

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

2005 2006 2007 2008

3-ye

ar T

otal

per

$10

0,00

0 G

DP

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

33


SBIC FINANCING

Rank State Score Per $100,000 Small

Business Payroll Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average $218 -15.7%

1 Massachusetts 194.7 $1,012 -19.9% 2 New Mexico 154.0 $649 -8.9% 3 Colorado 153.2 $642 -12.7% 4 New Hampshire 143.1 $551 -2.7% 5 Maryland 135.9 $487 -33.4% 6 Virginia 135.0 $479 -15.9% 7 Alabama 129.4 $430 -2.3% 8 Montana 122.7 $369 -5.8% 9 California 120.2 $347 -23.4% 10 Oregon 113.9 $291 6.6% 11 Vermont 113.8 $290 -21.1% 12 Ohio 113.0 $282 -10.4% 13 Washington 112.5 $278 -15.2% 14 Delaware 112.4 $278 -13.1% 15 Utah 111.6 $271 -15.0% 16 Pennsylvania 110.1 $257 -3.3% 17 Hawaii 107.4 $233 -20.9% 18 Maine 106.5 $225 6.3% 19 Rhode Island 105.9 $220 -27.0% 20 Arizona 105.4 $215 -19.0% 21 Connecticut 103.9 $202 -28.8% 22 Michigan 103.4 $197 4.9% 23 North Carolina 102.7 $191 9.0% 24 Wisconsin 100.5 $171 13.7% 25 Minnesota 100.2 $169 -11.2% 26 Wyoming 99.8 $165 -1.4% 27 New Jersey 99.1 $159 -22.2% 28 Texas 99.0 $158 -16.5% 29 Arkansas 97.6 $145 21.4% 30 New York 96.4 $135 -20.1% 31 Indiana 95.3 $125 21.8% 32 Florida 93.7 $111 -8.8% 33 Idaho 93.4 $108 -31.0% 34 Tennessee 92.8 $102 18.8% 35 Oklahoma 92.7 $102 -29.6% 36 Georgia 91.0 $87 -15.4% 37 Illinois 90.2 $79 -2.8% 38 West Virginia 89.5 $73 -71.9% 39 Kentucky 89.4 $73 19.1% 40 Kansas 88.7 $66 -20.7% 41 Missouri 88.7 $66 -2.3% 42 Iowa 88.5 $65 2.5% 43 Nebraska 88.0 $60 -34.6% 44 South Carolina 87.6 $57 -49.1% 45 North Dakota 87.5 $55 -59.4% 46 Nevada 87.1 $52 -59.5% 47 Louisiana 86.5 $47 -14.3% 48 Alaska 85.6 $38 -7.6% 49 South Dakota 84.2 $26 -58.6% 50 Mississippi 84.0 $24 -75.1%



2008 (%) 50-State Average $285 8.4%

1 Massachusetts 142.5 $726 -13.5% 2 Colorado 142.1 $722 24.8% 3 New York 133.9 $635 -12.1% 4 New Hampshire 130.1 $596 1.4% 5 Utah 128.8 $583 -32.1% 6 Connecticut 118.5 $474 17.4% 7 New Jersey 112.6 $413 -15.3% 8 California 111.8 $404 -29.6% 9 Maine 111.0 $396 -26.5% 10 North Carolina 110.9 $395 46.0% 11 Missouri 110.6 $392 25.9% 12 Maryland 110.1 $386 -3.4% 13 South Carolina 108.3 $367 15.3% 14 Illinois 107.5 $359 -19.0% 15 Kansas 107.0 $354 291.0% 16 Tennessee 107.0 $354 -25.8% 17 Washington 106.1 $345 -14.3% 18 Texas 105.9 $342 -13.2% 19 Arizona 104.8 $331 55.5% 20 Georgia 104.1 $324 -39.8% 21 Pennsylvania 102.9 $312 -30.8% 22 Rhode Island 101.5 $297 -42.1% 23 Indiana 101.4 $296 141.2% 24 Minnesota 101.2 $294 -28.3% 25 Oregon 100.2 $283 -12.1% 26 Florida 99.8 $278 28.7% 27 Kentucky 99.2 $273 27.9% 28 Vermont 97.2 $251 -7.4% 29 Nevada 95.6 $234 134.7% 30 New Mexico 95.0 $228 -40.5% 31 Virginia 94.7 $225 -41.5% 32 Wisconsin 94.6 $224 1.6% 33 Nebraska 92.4 $201 15.2% 34 Michigan 91.9 $196 29.1% 35 Ohio 91.5 $191 7.7% 36 Idaho 90.0 $175 72.7% 37 South Dakota 89.9 $175 -42.6% 38 West Virginia 89.6 $172 -35.2% 39 Arkansas 89.2 $167 -21.3% 40 Mississippi 88.3 $158 -21.0% 41 Oklahoma 85.8 $132 -33.9% 42 Louisiana 85.8 $132 -29.8% 43 Delaware 85.4 $128 -89.2% 44 Iowa 84.4 $118 -42.5% 45 Alabama 81.2 $84 -55.3% 46 Hawaii 77.7 $47 100.0% 47 Wyoming 77.2 $41 100.0% 48 North Dakota 76.4 $33 100.0% 49 Montana 75.9 $29 104.7% 50 Alaska 73.2 $0 -100.0%

3-year total of SBIC financing per $100,000 of small business payroll, 2008 Small Business Investment Companies (SBICs) are private investment companies supported and regulated by the U.S. Small Business Administration. Their aim is to create investment pools of risk capital in local markets. One sign of entrepreneurial capital dynamics is the SBICs’ level of financing. The above table shows the funding given through SBICs over 3 years in each state proportional to the annual payroll of firms with less than 500 employees.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Per $100,000 Small

Business Payroll Rank

Illinois $359 14 Indiana $296 23

Kentucky $273 27 Wisconsin $224 32 Michigan $196 34

Ohio $191 35

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

$100

$125

$150

$175

$200

$225

$250

2005 2006 2007 2008

3-ye

ar T

otal

per

$10

0,00

0 S

mal

l B

usin

ess

Pay

roll

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

SBIR FINANCING

3-year total of SBIR financing per $100,000 of gross domestic product, 2008 The federal Small Business Innovation Research program provides grants to small firms to conduct commercially viable R&D of breakthrough technology innovations, products and processes. The above table gives the total value of SBIR funding accumulated over 3 years in each state proportional to the annual payroll of firms with less than 500 employees.



Ohio $282 12 Michigan $197 22 Wisconsin $171 24

Indiana $125 31 Illinois $79 37

Kentucky $73 39

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

2005 2006 2007 2008

3-ye

ar T

otal

per

$10

0,00

0 S

mal

l B

usin

ess

Pay

roll

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

34


STTR FINANCING

Rank State Score Lending per $1,000

GDP Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average $170.6 69.6%

1 South Dakota 250.0 $2,542.5 69.2% 2 Nevada 250.0 $1,017.6 1651.4% 3 North Carolina 250.0 $728.7 41.0% 4 Utah 250.0 $609.5 4.1% 5 Delaware 250.0 $561.1 31.5% 6 Ohio 250.0 $546.9 36.2% 7 Rhode Island 199.1 $315.4 1399.0% 8 Alabama 147.1 $175.6 17.0% 9 North Dakota 132.7 $136.8 0.7% 10 Virginia 123.8 $113.0 303.0% 11 Pennsylvania 120.5 $104.0 20.4% 12 Wisconsin 117.7 $96.5 24.7% 13 Georgia 116.8 $94.2 11.4% 14 Oklahoma 110.1 $76.1 6.8% 15 Nebraska 107.5 $69.2 9.6% 16 Missouri 107.0 $67.9 23.3% 17 Hawaii 103.8 $59.3 3.1% 18 Iowa 103.0 $57.0 1.9% 19 Montana 102.6 $55.9 -9.2% 20 Mississippi 102.6 $55.9 10.2% 21 Illinois 102.5 $55.8 -36.8% 22 Kansas 102.3 $55.3 -11.1% 23 Michigan 100.8 $51.2 -56.7% 24 Texas 100.1 $49.3 87.0% 25 Arkansas 100.0 $49.0 6.8% 26 Tennessee 99.5 $47.8 13.0% 27 Connecticut 98.2 $44.1 30.5% 28 New York 96.5 $39.7 -73.7% 29 Vermont 95.7 $37.3 11.7% 30 Minnesota 95.3 $36.4 1.7% 31 Indiana 95.2 $36.2 -18.6% 32 South Carolina 94.9 $35.2 -0.9% 33 West Virginia 94.8 $35.1 0.8% 34 Louisiana 93.9 $32.7 -25.1% 35 California 93.9 $32.7 24.8% 36 New Mexico 91.1 $25.2 8.2% 37 Kentucky 90.5 $23.4 -31.5% 38 Washington 90.4 $23.2 15.2% 39 Oregon 89.5 $20.9 29.4% 40 Wyoming 88.8 $18.8 -25.1% 41 Idaho 88.7 $18.7 5.7% 42 Colorado 88.4 $18.0 23.0% 43 Massachusetts 87.9 $16.4 -45.1% 44 Florida 87.8 $16.1 20.4% 45 New Jersey 86.7 $13.4 -19.1% 46 Maryland 86.2 $12.0 -36.3% 47 Alaska 85.9 $11.3 -17.8% 48 New Hampshire 85.6 $10.4 -63.3% 49 Arizona 85.0 $8.6 -61.6%

(n/a) Maine (n/a) (n/a) (n/a)



2008 (%) 50-State Average $32 26%

1 Massachusetts 164.1 $120 -3% 2 Delaware 144.1 $90 45% 3 Montana 138.6 $82 31% 4 Virginia 137.8 $81 48% 5 Colorado 137.2 $80 32% 6 Maryland 132.1 $72 107% 7 Alabama 125.0 $61 76% 8 Wyoming 124.3 $60 64% 9 New Hampshire 124.1 $60 37% 10 Vermont 122.3 $57 222% 11 New Mexico 120.4 $54 -30% 12 Ohio 111.8 $41 53% 13 Pennsylvania 111.7 $41 52% 14 Arizona 111.7 $41 -9% 15 Kentucky 110.5 $39 207% 16 Utah 110.0 $38 24% 17 Arkansas 109.9 $38 53% 18 California 109.0 $37 16% 19 Connecticut 108.6 $36 -11% 20 Washington 107.6 $35 94% 21 North Carolina 107.4 $34 35% 22 Oregon 103.6 $28 31% 23 Illinois 102.8 $27 123% 24 Rhode Island 101.7 $26 55% 25 West Virginia 100.5 $24 -22% 26 Michigan 99.5 $22 22% 27 Texas 99.4 $22 -9% 28 Iowa 98.6 $21 218% 29 Georgia 97.2 $19 3% 30 Indiana 97.0 $18 33% 31 Wisconsin 96.7 $18 -16% 32 Minnesota 96.5 $18 -12% 33 New Jersey 96.3 $17 61% 34 Missouri 95.9 $17 103% 35 New York 95.5 $16 -19% 36 Tennessee 94.7 $15 -12% 37 Nevada 94.3 $14 -44% 38 Florida 93.7 $13 -3% 39 Kansas 93.4 $13 72% 40 South Carolina 93.4 $13 -43% 41 Nebraska 93.0 $12 31% 42 Mississippi 90.9 $9 -54% 43 Maine 90.9 $9 34% 44 South Dakota 89.4 $7 -77% 45 Oklahoma 88.5 $6 -51% 46 Louisiana 87.7 $4 -24% 47 Idaho 87.1 $3 -85% 48 Hawaii 86.5 $2 -83% 49 North Dakota 85.8 $1 -96% 50 Alaska 84.8 $0 0%

3-year total of STTR financing per $100,000 of small business payroll, 2008 The federal Small Business Technology Transfer program provide grants to small firms to conduct commercially viable R&D of breakthrough technology innovations, products and processes in collaboration with research universities and colleges. The table gives the total value of STTR funding accumulated over 3 years relative a state’s annual payroll of firms with less than 500 employees.



Ohio $41 12 Kentucky $39 15

Illinois $27 23 Michigan $22 26

Indiana $18 30 Wisconsin $18 31

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

$15

$17

$19

$21

$23

$25

2005 2006 2007 2008

3-ye

ar T

otal

per

$10

0,00

0 S

mal

l B

usin

ess

Pay

roll

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

BANK COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL LENDING

Total bank lending to commercial and industrial customers per $1,000 gross domestic product, 2008 Commercial and industrial lending by banks forms the backbone of debt financing to businesses of various sizes and needs. Although the above data is reported by bank headquarters and therefore states with fewer bank head offices will not perform as well, that is, in itself a factor worth taking into account. The adjacent table shows the total commercial and industrial lending per $1,000 of GDP.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Lending per $1,000

GDP Rank

Ohio $546.9 6 Wisconsin $96.5 12


Indiana $36.2 31 Kentucky $23.4 37

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

2005 2006 2007 2008

Lend

ing

per

$1,0

00 G

DP

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

35


PRIVATE LENDING TO SMALL BUSINESSES

Rank State Score Incubators per

10,000 Firms Change, 2003 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 24 -2.7%

1 Oklahoma 158.0 57 20.9% 2 New Mexico 145.4 49 -5.5% 3 Wisconsin 140.1 46 44.5% 4 Mississippi 132.4 41 40.4% 5 West Virginia 130.5 40 22.5% 6 Louisiana 126.2 38 -11.5% 7 Maine 122.7 35 54.8% 8 Hawaii 119.4 33 -9.9% 9 North Dakota 119.3 33 -2.2% 10 Idaho 116.8 32 -34.4% 11 South Dakota 116.0 31 3.3% 12 Vermont 114.3 30 34.1% 13 Kentucky 113.5 30 38.6% 14 Massachusetts 113.3 30 -3.6% 15 Virginia 109.5 27 -7.9% 16 Indiana 108.5 27 65.7% 17 Maryland 107.8 26 -1.8% 18 Pennsylvania 107.4 26 39.5% 19 Alabama 106.8 26 13.7% 20 North Carolina 106.0 25 15.3% 21 Ohio 105.4 25 -10.5% 22 Alaska 103.8 24 -39.6% 23 Nebraska 102.5 23 -35.9% 24 New York 102.1 23 10.3% 25 Missouri 101.0 22 -3.8% 26 Tennessee 99.0 21 19.9% 27 Kansas 98.6 21 10.9% 28 Montana 98.0 20 13.1% 29 Arkansas 97.7 20 -35.8% 30 Georgia 97.2 20 -0.8% 31 Minnesota 96.5 20 -33.5% 32 Rhode Island 95.2 19 -16.4% 33 Delaware 94.6 18 -1.2% 34 Washington 94.2 18 -31.8% 35 Oregon 92.0 17 -1.6% 36 Iowa 91.7 17 -16.0% 37 Michigan 90.9 16 -33.2% 38 Connecticut 89.9 15 22.5% 39 Colorado 89.9 15 -24.9% 40 Illinois 89.7 15 -24.0% 41 California 89.4 15 -3.9% 42 New Hampshire 88.7 15 95.4% 43 Texas 88.7 15 -2.7% 44 Arizona 83.5 12 -45.4% 45 South Carolina 83.5 12 -53.3% 46 Wyoming 82.4 11 37.4% 47 Florida 80.7 10 -37.6% 48 Utah 80.4 10 -47.3% 49 New Jersey 79.9 9 -61.0% 50 Nevada 76.6 7 -100.0%

Rank State Score Lending per 1,000

Firms Change, 2004 -

2007 (%) 50-State Average $42,052 7.5%

1 Alabama 136.5 $66,734 -3.5% 2 California 127.5 $60,852 39.1% 3 North Carolina 127.2 $60,641 6.3% 4 Tennessee 122.7 $57,743 10.6% 5 Michigan 120.8 $56,484 -1.3% 6 Georgia 120.2 $56,048 2.2% 7 Wisconsin 119.5 $55,622 -5.0% 8 Texas 117.8 $54,519 23.2% 9 South Carolina 114.7 $52,494 7.6% 10 Louisiana 114.0 $51,994 6.1% 11 Arizona 113.7 $51,831 42.8% 12 Pennsylvania 107.7 $47,863 10.7% 13 Illinois 107.5 $47,717 9.6% 14 Maryland 107.0 $47,394 39.4% 15 Virginia 104.8 $45,965 27.0% 16 Colorado 104.5 $45,788 23.4% 17 New Jersey 104.1 $45,497 38.2% 18 Alaska 104.1 $45,494 -5.2% 19 Nevada 103.4 $45,076 41.2% 20 Florida 103.3 $45,017 29.7% 21 Washington 102.7 $44,627 23.6% 22 Oregon 102.0 $44,134 15.3% 23 Mississippi 101.8 $43,985 -22.2% 24 Ohio 101.7 $43,916 2.2% 25 Idaho 100.5 $43,178 -16.0% 26 Arkansas 99.5 $42,489 -8.1% 27 South Dakota 98.4 $41,798 1.6% 28 Hawaii 97.8 $41,360 29.1% 29 Indiana 96.7 $40,641 -7.8% 30 Connecticut 96.2 $40,349 29.2% 31 Utah 95.2 $39,691 11.7% 32 New York 94.9 $39,474 17.1% 33 Kentucky 94.3 $39,075 -7.4% 34 Minnesota 93.3 $38,411 -1.7% 35 Missouri 93.2 $38,358 -3.6% 36 New Mexico 91.5 $37,288 22.6% 37 Massachusetts 90.7 $36,736 13.2% 38 North Dakota 88.1 $35,003 -11.5% 39 Maine 87.7 $34,796 -11.3% 40 New Hampshire 86.6 $34,074 23.0% 41 Nebraska 86.5 $34,005 -11.2% 42 Oklahoma 85.3 $33,219 4.5% 43 Iowa 82.7 $31,481 -10.6% 44 Kansas 80.7 $30,191 14.3% 45 Rhode Island 77.7 $28,247 19.3% 46 West Virginia 75.0 $26,451 0.5% 47 Montana 71.5 $24,152 -8.0% 48 Delaware 68.9 $22,435 -4.2% 49 Vermont 64.9 $19,831 -23.2% 50 Wyoming 53.6 $12,422 -48.6%

Private loans to small businesses per 1,000 firms, 2007 While public programs are helpful, the bulk of small business lending for startup and operation comes from private capital markets. Banks and private credit institutions play a particularly important role to finance businesses with less than 500 employees. The above table shows the total value of private loans to small businesses in each state in relation to the total number of firms.

Midwest Performance, 2007 State Lending per 1,000

Firms Rank

Michigan $56,484 5 Wisconsin $55,622 7

Illinois $47,717 13 Ohio $43,916 24

Indiana $40,641 29 Kentucky $39,075 33

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

$40,000

$45,000

$50,000

$55,000

$60,000

$65,000

2004 2005 2006 2007

Lend

ing

per

1,00

0 Fi

rms

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

BUSINESS INCUBATORS

Business incubators per 10,000 firms, 2008 A business incubator is an enterprise whose mission is to help build promising fledgling companies into successful businesses. Often sponsored by government or nonprofit agencies, the facilities and services of business incubators give entrepreneurs a head start on the way to being profitable, thereby helping to build the local economy. The above table shows the number of incubators per 10,000 firms in each state. Data for 2004 and 2005was not available.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Incubators per 10,000

Firms Rank

Wisconsin 46 3 Kentucky 30 13 Indiana 27 16

Ohio 25 21 Michigan 16 37

Illinois 15 40

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

1011121314151617181920

2005 2006 2007 2008

Incu

bato

rs p

er 1

0,00

0 Fi

rms

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

36


GENERAL BUSINESS GROWTH

Rank State 2008 2006 2004 1 New York ***** ***** *** 2 Wyoming ***** ***** ***** 3 South Dakota ***** **** **** 4 Texas ***** ***** *** 5 California ***** ***** **** 6 Montana ***** ***** ***** 7 Oregon **** ***** **** 8 Idaho **** ***** ***** 9 North Dakota **** * ** 10 Louisiana **** **** ** 11 Washington **** *** *** 12 Alaska **** ***** *** 13 Illinois *** *** ** 14 Kansas *** *** * 15 Maine *** *** *** 16 Nevada *** ***** **** 17 Pennsylvania *** ** ** 18 Arizona *** *** ** 19 West Virginia *** ** * 20 Virginia *** ** ** 21 Maryland *** ** ** 22 Utah *** ** * 23 New Mexico *** *** *** 24 Florida ** *** ** 25 Ohio ** ** ** 26 Colorado ** ** * 27 Massachusetts ** ** ** 28 New Jersey ** ** * 29 Minnesota ** ** *** 30 Vermont ** *** *** 31 Nebraska ** * ** 32 Arkansas ** ** *** 33 Iowa ** ** ** 34 Mississippi ** ** *** 35 North Carolina ** ** * 36 Hawaii ** *** * 37 Delaware ** ** ** 38 Rhode Island ** * ** 39 New Hampshire ** * ** 40 Connecticut ** ** * 41 Tennessee ** *** ** 42 Oklahoma ** ** ** 43 Alabama ** ** *** 44 Wisconsin ** * * 45 Georgia * * * 46 Kentucky * * * 47 South Carolina * * * 48 Indiana * * ** 49 Missouri * * * 50 Michigan * * *

Midwest Performance

2008 2006 2004

Illinois *** *** ** Ohio ** ** ** Wisconsin ** * * Kentucky * * * Indiana * * ** Michigan * * *

37


GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT GROWTH

Rank State Score Growth Rate Change, 2003-


1 Wyoming 250.0 274.4% 305.3% 2 Alaska 152.0 40.2% 58.6% 3 New Mexico 145.6 36.6% 39.0% 4 Arizona 140.1 33.4% 49.6% 5 West Virginia 136.8 31.5% 43.7% 6 Delaware 135.9 31.1% 27.8% 7 Idaho 132.4 29.0% 49.1% 8 Rhode Island 129.1 27.2% 27.5% 9 Nevada 127.5 26.3% 20.0% 10 South Dakota 126.8 25.8% 36.1% 11 Hawaii 125.1 24.9% 18.1% 12 Washington 120.2 22.1% 27.8% 13 Louisiana 113.6 18.3% 21.8% 14 Maryland 110.6 16.6% 12.7% 15 New Hampshire 109.9 16.2% 24.2% 16 Massachusetts 109.0 15.7% 25.6% 17 New Jersey 106.3 14.2% 18.5% 18 Utah 106.1 14.0% 28.3% 19 Montana 105.0 13.4% -10.1% 20 Ohio 104.8 13.3% 19.7% 21 Oregon 102.8 12.2% 22.7% 22 Arkansas 101.8 11.6% 17.1% 23 Kansas 101.7 11.5% 2.6% 24 Virginia 100.8 11.0% 9.6% 25 Georgia 100.7 11.0% 15.6% 26 Texas 99.3 10.1% 16.7% 27 Iowa 98.7 9.8% 9.9% 28 Michigan 98.7 9.8% 18.3% 29 Florida 98.4 9.6% 7.8% 30 Vermont 97.2 9.0% 39.6% 31 Tennessee 97.2 9.0% 4.7% 32 Illinois 96.9 8.8% 10.9% 33 Missouri 96.7 8.7% 16.0% 34 Wisconsin 96.2 8.4% 10.5% 35 California 95.8 8.2% 10.3% 36 North Carolina 95.1 7.8% 7.4% 37 Maine 94.3 7.3% 21.7% 38 Pennsylvania 93.0 6.6% 11.7% 39 Indiana 89.6 4.7% 6.3% 40 South Carolina 89.6 4.6% 3.2% 41 Minnesota 88.3 3.9% 2.6% 42 Connecticut 87.8 3.6% 16.6% 43 Kentucky 87.1 3.2% -5.1% 44 Mississippi 87.1 3.2% -23.5% 45 Colorado 84.4 1.6% 3.6% 46 Alabama 82.7 0.7% -1.7% 47 Oklahoma 81.4 0.0% -23.0% 48 Nebraska 79.0 -1.4% -19.1% 49 North Dakota 78.8 -1.5% -13.2% 50 New York 78.3 -1.8% -9.2%



1 North Dakota 150.8 8.4% 1.6% 2 Wyoming 150.0 8.3% -1.5% 3 Louisiana 140.8 7.5% -3.1% 4 New York 123.9 5.9% 1.0% 5 Alaska 123.6 5.9% -3.2% 6 Oklahoma 120.4 5.6% -1.4% 7 South Dakota 118.1 5.4% 1.0% 8 Texas 117.7 5.3% -0.7% 9 Kansas 117.4 5.3% 0.9% 10 Montana 116.5 5.2% -2.0% 11 West Virginia 114.4 5.0% -0.4% 12 Nebraska 112.6 4.8% -0.4% 13 Iowa 112.6 4.8% -0.9% 14 Hawaii 109.5 4.6% -2.4% 15 Pennsylvania 108.3 4.4% 0.2% 16 Massachusetts 108.1 4.4% 0.7% 17 Mississippi 108.0 4.4% -0.4% 18 New Mexico 106.1 4.2% -3.5% 19 Washington 105.4 4.2% -0.3% 20 Illinois 104.9 4.1% 0.2% 21 Connecticut 104.6 4.1% -0.3% 22 Utah 104.1 4.1% -0.6% 23 Maryland 102.1 3.9% -1.0% 24 Oregon 102.0 3.9% -0.8% 25 Vermont 100.1 3.7% -1.3% 26 Maine 99.9 3.7% -0.7% 27 Rhode Island 99.5 3.6% -1.8% 28 New Jersey 98.7 3.5% -0.6% 29 New Hampshire 98.0 3.5% -0.8% 30 California 97.8 3.5% -2.3% 31 Minnesota 96.7 3.4% -1.5% 32 Colorado 96.6 3.4% -0.7% 33 Arkansas 95.9 3.3% -2.1% 34 Kentucky 95.8 3.3% -0.8% 35 Wisconsin 95.8 3.3% -0.6% 36 Virginia 95.0 3.2% -2.6% 37 Alabama 95.0 3.2% -3.0% 38 Missouri 92.5 3.0% -0.6% 39 Tennessee 90.2 2.8% -1.5% 40 North Carolina 88.5 2.6% -1.5% 41 Nevada 88.2 2.6% -5.1% 42 Florida 86.4 2.4% -4.0% 43 Indiana 86.0 2.4% -1.4% 44 Ohio 85.6 2.3% -1.6% 45 South Carolina 85.3 2.3% -1.0% 46 Arizona 82.4 2.0% -2.6% 47 Idaho 81.4 1.9% -4.3% 48 Georgia 74.5 1.3% -2.2% 49 Michigan 74.0 1.2% -0.6% 50 Delaware 71.5 1.0% -5.8%

Annual growth in nominal gross domestic product, 2008 Ultimately, economic prosperity hinges on economic growth, and economic growth reflects the health of the overall economic system. Recent performance can often be a predictor of near-term trends. The above table shows the average of the last three year’s of annual growth in each state’s nominal gross domestic product.


Illinois 4.1% 20 Kentucky 3.3% 34 Wisconsin 3.3% 35

Indiana 2.4% 43 Ohio 2.3% 44

Michigan 1.2% 49

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Gro

wth

Rat

e

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

MANUFACTURING CAPITAL INVESTMENT GROWTH

Growth in nominal capital expenditures per production employee, 2006 Manufacturing firms’ investment in new capital equipment often indicates innovations and increased efficiency and productivity. The above table shows the annual growth in nominal capital expenditures in manufacturing per production employee, averaged over 3 years.

Midwest Performance, 2006 State Growth Rate Rank Ohio 13.3% 20

Michigan 9.8% 28 Illinois 8.8% 32


Kentucky 3.2% 43

Michigan, 2003 - 2006

-25%

-15%

-5%

5%

15%

25%

2003 2004 2005 2006

Gro

wth

Rat

e

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

38


FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT GROWTH



1 Delaware 132.6 23.5% 23.7% 2 Louisiana 127.5 21.4% 28.8% 3 North Dakota 127.0 21.1% 16.6% 4 Montana 117.8 17.2% 1.6% 5 Mississippi 117.7 17.1% 11.2% 6 West Virginia 115.5 16.2% 8.7% 7 Kansas 115.2 16.0% 9.0% 8 Nebraska 113.8 15.5% 14.0% 9 New Jersey 112.6 14.9% 11.8% 10 Florida 110.3 13.9% 11.8% 11 South Dakota 108.4 13.1% 1.9% 12 Maryland 108.3 13.1% 2.5% 13 Rhode Island 107.3 12.6% 13.7% 14 Washington 106.1 12.1% 18.4% 15 Iowa 105.9 12.0% 2.9% 16 Connecticut 105.4 11.8% 10.9% 17 Utah 105.1 11.7% 8.3% 18 Virginia 104.5 11.4% 14.1% 19 Nevada 103.4 11.0% -23.9% 20 Idaho 103.1 10.8% 1.3% 21 Pennsylvania 102.3 10.5% 2.6% 22 Oregon 101.9 10.3% 9.6% 23 New Hampshire 101.2 10.0% 4.1% 24 Arkansas 100.5 9.7% 4.6% 25 Alabama 100.5 9.7% 7.0% 26 New York 99.5 9.3% 3.4% 27 South Carolina 99.1 9.1% 0.3% 28 Illinois 98.8 9.0% 1.5% 29 Georgia 94.9 7.3% 0.2% 30 Wisconsin 94.4 7.1% -0.1% 31 Ohio 93.6 6.8% 2.8% 32 Wyoming 93.5 6.7% 10.4% 33 Texas 91.7 5.9% 3.5% 34 Michigan 90.3 5.3% 3.4% 35 Maine 89.6 5.0% 4.1% 36 Minnesota 89.5 5.0% -1.5% 37 Arizona 89.4 4.9% 4.6% 38 Kentucky 89.1 4.8% -2.6% 39 North Carolina 88.0 4.3% 0.0% 40 Indiana 87.6 4.1% -4.2% 41 Missouri 87.1 3.9% -7.3% 42 Massachusetts 87.0 3.9% -2.1% 43 California 85.6 3.3% 2.0% 44 Hawaii 84.2 2.7% -30.5% 45 Tennessee 84.2 2.7% -9.4% 46 Colorado 77.1 -0.4% -2.2% 47 Oklahoma 75.1 -1.2% -13.7% 48 New Mexico 72.5 -2.4% -26.2% 49 Alaska 62.3 -6.8% -8.1% 50 Vermont 53.8 -10.4% -28.2%



1 Kansas 172.5 16.9% 20.1% 2 North Dakota 122.2 5.9% 14.8% 3 South Dakota 116.4 4.6% 8.8% 4 New Mexico 116.3 4.6% 7.4% 5 Nebraska 116.0 4.5% 4.4% 6 Illinois 115.2 4.4% 9.0% 7 Nevada 113.5 4.0% 8.6% 8 Texas 113.0 3.9% 6.9% 9 Pennsylvania 111.7 3.6% 5.0% 10 Virginia 111.7 3.6% 8.9% 11 Montana 111.3 3.5% 1.7% 12 West Virginia 110.3 3.3% 13.2% 13 Iowa 110.1 3.3% 4.3% 14 New York 109.7 3.2% 5.5% 15 Ohio 108.8 3.0% 3.7% 16 Minnesota 107.9 2.8% 3.7% 17 California 105.9 2.3% 5.8% 18 Alabama 105.8 2.3% 3.7% 19 Arkansas 104.9 2.1% 5.9% 20 Indiana 104.2 2.0% 3.8% 21 Colorado 103.2 1.8% 5.0% 22 Wyoming 101.4 1.4% -3.6% 23 Tennessee 100.7 1.2% 2.4% 24 Louisiana 100.5 1.2% 1.1% 25 Rhode Island 100.2 1.1% -2.2% 26 Utah 99.8 1.0% 0.7% 27 Maryland 98.4 0.7% 2.7% 28 New Jersey 98.0 0.6% 3.1% 29 Delaware 96.6 0.3% -4.2% 30 Arizona 95.3 0.0% -2.2% 31 Kentucky 95.3 0.0% 1.7% 32 North Carolina 92.7 -0.5% 2.5% 33 Maine 92.5 -0.6% 4.3% 34 Massachusetts 88.3 -1.5% 1.9% 35 Florida 87.4 -1.7% 1.7% 36 Washington 87.1 -1.8% -1.8% 37 Missouri 86.8 -1.8% 4.6% 38 Georgia 86.8 -1.8% 0.5% 39 Connecticut 86.6 -1.9% 2.1% 40 Oklahoma 85.2 -2.2% 2.8% 41 Mississippi 84.1 -2.4% -10.5% 42 Wisconsin 82.2 -2.8% 1.1% 43 Hawaii 81.9 -2.9% 5.5% 44 Alaska 80.4 -3.2% -7.2% 45 New Hampshire 79.3 -3.5% -3.5% 46 Idaho 77.8 -3.8% -9.8% 47 Vermont 76.6 -4.1% -5.0% 48 South Carolina 75.7 -4.3% -2.3% 49 Oregon 72.8 -4.9% -1.3% 50 Michigan 60.0 -7.7% -8.3%

Growth in employment in foreign-owned firms as a percentage of total employment, 2007 As the world’s economy becomes increasingly interdependent, the impact is not just increased trade. Large multinational firms locate production facilities across the globe. Foreign investment can be an important source of well-paying jobs. The above table gives a measurement of the year-to-year growth averaged over the most recent 3 years in the percentage of workers in each state who work for non-bank, foreign-majority-owned companies. Midwest Performance, 2007

State Growth Rate Rank Illinois 4.4% 6 Ohio 3.0% 15

Indiana 2.0% 20 Kentucky 0.0% 31 Wisconsin -2.8% 42 Michigan -7.7% 50

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

-10%

-8%

-5%

-3%

0%

3%

5%

8%

2004 2005 2006 2007

Gro

wth

Rat

e

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

EXPORT INTENSITY GROWTH

Growth in merchandise export value as a percentage of gross domestic product, 2008 Healthy trade is a hallmark of the global economy. States with a manufacturing base that can produce for global demand are well positioned for sustained growth. The above table shows the average over the last 3 years in the one-year growth rate in the share of each state’s gross domestic product that is accounted for by merchandise export income.


Illinois 9.0% 28 Wisconsin 7.1% 30

Ohio 6.8% 31 Michigan 5.3% 34 Kentucky 4.8% 38 Indiana 4.1% 40

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Gro

wth

Rat

e

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

39


LARGE BUSINESS PAYROLL GROWTH


2008 (Abs.) 50-State Average -22.8% -28.8%

1 Mississippi 143.5 -2.7% -8.7% 2 New York 136.7 -6.0% -13.9% 3 Louisiana 136.3 -6.2% -13.7% 4 Wyoming 129.4 -9.6% -34.2% 5 North Dakota 126.0 -11.3% -18.7% 6 South Dakota 123.9 -12.4% -17.6% 7 Nebraska 120.0 -14.3% -16.4% 8 Texas 116.7 -15.9% -22.7% 9 Kansas 116.7 -15.9% -18.9% 10 Alabama 115.6 -16.5% -34.5% 11 West Virginia 114.6 -17.0% -24.8% 12 Oklahoma 113.8 -17.4% -29.2% 13 North Carolina 112.8 -17.9% -23.7% 14 Washington 112.8 -17.9% -26.5% 15 Pennsylvania 112.7 -17.9% -17.6% 16 Montana 108.8 -19.9% -30.2% 17 Vermont 107.4 -20.6% -20.3% 18 Iowa 106.7 -20.9% -25.0% 19 Tennessee 106.3 -21.1% -30.9% 20 Kentucky 106.3 -21.1% -23.5% 21 New Jersey 105.0 -21.7% -29.6% 22 Arkansas 104.7 -21.9% -34.1% 23 South Carolina 104.1 -22.2% -37.6% 24 Connecticut 100.8 -23.8% -30.5% 25 Virginia 100.2 -24.1% -24.4% 26 Wisconsin 99.8 -24.3% -21.5% 27 Hawaii 99.7 -24.4% -41.9% 28 New Mexico 99.5 -24.4% -29.3% 29 Maryland 99.3 -24.6% -25.1% 30 Indiana 99.0 -24.7% -23.2% 31 New Hampshire 98.6 -24.9% -19.9% 32 Maine 97.1 -25.6% -32.8% 33 Missouri 96.3 -26.0% -30.9% 34 Massachusetts 96.3 -26.1% -38.1% 35 Delaware 95.7 -26.4% -34.2% 36 Rhode Island 95.7 -26.4% -27.5% 37 Colorado 95.5 -26.5% -24.9% 38 Utah 94.0 -27.2% -37.6% 39 Oregon 93.1 -27.6% -38.4% 40 Ohio 92.3 -28.1% -25.7% 41 Illinois 89.9 -29.2% -32.2% 42 Georgia 87.8 -30.3% -32.3% 43 Alaska 87.1 -30.6% -28.8% 44 Minnesota 83.7 -32.3% -29.9% 45 California 83.1 -32.6% -40.6% 46 Nevada 82.1 -33.1% -39.9% 47 Idaho 80.9 -33.7% -48.4% 48 Arizona 78.0 -35.1% -43.4% 49 Michigan 73.1 -37.6% -34.8% 50 Florida 67.2 -40.5% -53.9%



1 Nevada 156.5 11.4% 5.2% 2 Alaska 151.1 10.9% 5.9% 3 Arizona 137.0 9.5% 6.4% 4 Florida 131.1 8.9% 3.8% 5 Utah 122.7 8.1% 7.9% 6 California 122.1 8.0% 7.5% 7 Montana 121.4 7.9% 4.3% 8 Idaho 118.5 7.7% 7.7% 9 Colorado 117.3 7.5% 8.5% 10 Oregon 117.2 7.5% 7.8% 11 South Carolina 117.0 7.5% 8.1% 12 Wyoming 116.6 7.5% 1.0% 13 New Mexico 115.0 7.3% 4.2% 14 Vermont 112.4 7.0% 2.9% 15 New York 109.9 6.8% 7.0% 16 Ohio 109.3 6.7% 6.7% 17 Maryland 107.4 6.5% 3.4% 18 Hawaii 107.2 6.5% 1.5% 19 Illinois 107.1 6.5% 7.1% 20 Texas 105.9 6.4% 5.5% 21 Georgia 105.7 6.4% 6.0% 22 Massachusetts 104.0 6.2% 7.9% 23 North Carolina 101.1 5.9% 4.3% 24 Oklahoma 100.4 5.9% 4.9% 25 North Dakota 100.3 5.9% 0.2% 26 New Hampshire 99.7 5.8% 4.4% 27 Tennessee 99.6 5.8% 4.3% 28 South Dakota 99.4 5.8% 5.6% 29 Alabama 98.0 5.6% 3.8% 30 West Virginia 97.9 5.6% 3.4% 31 Kentucky 97.1 5.5% 3.8% 32 Minnesota 96.9 5.5% 3.1% 33 Indiana 96.1 5.4% 4.9% 34 Wisconsin 95.9 5.4% 2.8% 35 Arkansas 95.8 5.4% 2.5% 36 Iowa 94.9 5.3% 3.3% 37 Rhode Island 93.3 5.2% -0.3% 38 Pennsylvania 93.0 5.1% 3.3% 39 Missouri 92.1 5.0% 3.7% 40 Maine 88.0 4.6% 2.7% 41 Kansas 86.8 4.5% 2.2% 42 Virginia 86.0 4.4% 2.6% 43 Mississippi 85.7 4.4% 4.5% 44 Delaware 85.7 4.4% 3.7% 45 Nebraska 85.5 4.4% -1.0% 46 Louisiana 84.9 4.3% 1.6% 47 New Jersey 81.7 4.0% 2.4% 48 Connecticut 80.3 3.9% 1.7% 49 Michigan 67.4 2.6% 3.4% 50 Washington 51.4 1.0% -1.0%

Growth in total nominal payroll of firms with 500 or more employees, 2006 While new businesses are key to sustained growth, older, established large firms tend to pay high wages and offer strong benefits packages. Further, large businesses are invariably the customers of small businesses. As they grow, so does the whole local/regional economy. The above table shows annual growth in the total payroll of firms with 500 or more employees, averaged over 3 years.

Midwest Performance, 2006 State Growth Rate Rank Ohio 6.7% 16

Illinois 6.5% 19 Kentucky 5.5% 31 Indiana 5.4% 33

Wisconsin 5.4% 34 Michigan 2.6% 49

Michigan, 2003 - 2006

-10%

-8%

-5%

-3%

0%

3%

5%

8%

10%

2003 2004 2005 2006

Gro

wth

Rat

e

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

BUILDING PERMITS GROWTH

Growth in number of new privately owned housing units per 100,000 residents, 2008 Building permits are seen as an early indicator for the health of the housing market, a sector that tends to be one of the first to respond to fluctuations in the economy. The construction of new privately owned housing is a good indictor of general confidence in the market. The above table shows the 3-year average in the annual growth in the number of permits for new privately owned housing units per 100,000 residents in a state.


Kentucky -21.1% 20 Wisconsin -24.3% 26

Indiana -24.7% 30 Ohio -28.1% 40

Illinois -29.2% 41 Michigan -37.6% 49

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

-45%-40%-35%-30%-25%-20%-15%-10%-5%0%5%10%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Gro

wth

Rat

e

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

40


FORTUNE 500 HEADQUARTERS



1 Louisiana 147.5 9.4% -1.1% 2 North Dakota 144.7 9.0% 1.7% 3 Alaska 142.2 8.7% -5.7% 4 New York 123.1 6.2% 2.5% 5 Kansas 116.0 5.3% 0.1% 6 Florida 113.9 5.0% 0.1% 7 Utah 113.2 5.0% 0.9% 8 Texas 112.8 4.9% -3.5% 9 Nevada 112.7 4.9% -1.1% 10 Delaware 112.2 4.8% -0.5% 11 Nebraska 111.9 4.8% -3.2% 12 Hawaii 111.1 4.7% 1.3% 13 Montana 110.3 4.6% -1.5% 14 Connecticut 108.3 4.3% 1.5% 15 California 107.9 4.3% -2.2% 16 West Virginia 107.6 4.2% -1.0% 17 South Dakota 107.2 4.2% -5.0% 18 Pennsylvania 106.0 4.0% 0.3% 19 Wyoming 105.6 4.0% -2.4% 20 Oklahoma 105.3 3.9% -5.9% 21 Illinois 105.1 3.9% -1.6% 22 Arizona 105.1 3.9% 1.8% 23 Wisconsin 104.7 3.9% 0.8% 24 Oregon 101.5 3.4% -6.2% 25 Iowa 100.7 3.3% -6.9% 26 Washington 99.3 3.2% -0.8% 27 Kentucky 99.1 3.1% -1.2% 28 Massachusetts 98.3 3.0% -1.8% 29 Maine 96.4 2.8% -3.1% 30 North Carolina 96.0 2.7% -0.9% 31 Vermont 95.8 2.7% -1.7% 32 Virginia 94.7 2.6% -2.2% 33 Colorado 94.1 2.5% -3.0% 34 Mississippi 93.7 2.4% -3.5% 35 Minnesota 93.3 2.4% -5.9% 36 Rhode Island 92.6 2.3% -3.8% 37 Arkansas 90.7 2.0% -5.6% 38 Maryland 88.5 1.8% -3.8% 39 Ohio 87.4 1.6% -5.0% 40 Tennessee 86.1 1.4% -5.1% 41 New Mexico 85.8 1.4% -7.0% 42 Michigan 84.5 1.2% -3.2% 43 New Hampshire 84.5 1.2% -4.6% 44 New Jersey 82.3 0.9% -2.9% 45 Idaho 82.2 0.9% -5.3% 46 Alabama 82.2 0.9% -6.7% 47 South Carolina 80.1 0.7% 0.5% 48 Georgia 78.3 0.4% -3.3% 49 Missouri 78.1 0.4% -4.4% 50 Indiana 76.9 0.2% -8.0%

Rank State Score Number of firms Change, 2005 -

2008 (Abs.) 50-State Average 10 0

1 Texas 250.0 64 8 1 New York 250.0 56 1 3 California 247.8 51 -1 4 Illinois 188.0 32 0 5 Ohio 172.3 27 -1 6 Pennsylvania 162.9 24 -2 7 Michigan 153.5 21 0 7 New Jersey 153.5 21 -1 9 Minnesota 147.2 19 0 10 Virginia 144.0 18 1 11 Florida 131.4 14 0 12 Georgia 128.3 13 -4 12 North Carolina 128.3 13 -1 14 Massachusetts 125.2 12 3 15 Colorado 122.0 11 1 15 Connecticut 122.0 11 -2 17 Wisconsin 118.9 10 0 18 Missouri 112.6 8 -2 18 Tennessee 112.6 8 1 18 Washington 112.6 8 -1 21 Maryland 109.4 7 2 22 Indiana 106.3 6 1 23 Arizona 103.1 5 1 23 Kentucky 103.1 5 -1 25 Arkansas 100.0 4 -1 25 Nebraska 100.0 4 -1 25 Oklahoma 100.0 4 -2 28 Kansas 96.9 3 2 29 Iowa 93.7 2 0 29 Louisiana 93.7 2 0 29 Nevada 93.7 2 0 29 Oregon 93.7 2 1 29 Rhode Island 93.7 2 0 29 South Carolina 93.7 2 1 35 Alabama 90.6 1 -1 35 Delaware 90.6 1 0 35 Idaho 90.6 1 -1 35 North Dakota 90.6 1 1 35 Utah 90.6 1 -1 40 Alaska 87.4 0 0 40 Hawaii 87.4 0 0 40 Maine 87.4 0 -1 40 Mississippi 87.4 0 0 40 Montana 87.4 0 0 40 New Hampshire 87.4 0 -1 40 New Mexico 87.4 0 0 40 South Dakota 87.4 0 0 40 Vermont 87.4 0 0 40 West Virginia 87.4 0 0 40 Wyoming 87.4 0 0

Total number of Fortune 500 headquarters, 2008 At the top of the large-firm pyramid are the Fortune 500 corporations, who typically employ large numbers of well-educated, well-compensated workers. They often provide business for large numbers of local suppliers. They also tend to be philanthropic stewards for their local communities. The above table shows the total number of Fortune 500 companies that were headquartered in each state.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Number of firms Rank



Indiana 6 22 Kentucky 5 23

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

20

21

22

23

24

25

2005 2006 2007 2008

Num

ber

of F

irm

s

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

GROSS OPERATING SURPLUS GROWTH

Growth in private industry gross operating surplus per worker, 2007 Gross operating surplus per employee is a good proxy for private sector profitability. It comprises business income of private domestic enterprises; net interest and miscellaneous payments; business net current transfer payments; capital consumption allowances; consumption of fixed capital of government, households, and institutions; and current surplus/deficit of government enterprises. The above table shows the 3-year average of the annual growth rate per worker.


Illinois 3.9% 21 Wisconsin 3.9% 23 Kentucky 3.1% 27

Ohio 1.6% 39 Michigan 1.2% 42

Indiana 0.2% 50

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

2004 2005 2006 2007

Gro

wth

Rat

e

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

41


FORTUNE 500 HEADQUARTERS



1 Louisiana 147.5 9.4% -1.1% 2 North Dakota 144.7 9.0% 1.7% 3 Alaska 142.2 8.7% -5.7% 4 New York 123.1 6.2% 2.5% 5 Kansas 116.0 5.3% 0.1% 6 Florida 113.9 5.0% 0.1% 7 Utah 113.2 5.0% 0.9% 8 Texas 112.8 4.9% -3.5% 9 Nevada 112.7 4.9% -1.1% 10 Delaware 112.2 4.8% -0.5% 11 Nebraska 111.9 4.8% -3.2% 12 Hawaii 111.1 4.7% 1.3% 13 Montana 110.3 4.6% -1.5% 14 Connecticut 108.3 4.3% 1.5% 15 California 107.9 4.3% -2.2% 16 West Virginia 107.6 4.2% -1.0% 17 South Dakota 107.2 4.2% -5.0% 18 Pennsylvania 106.0 4.0% 0.3% 19 Wyoming 105.6 4.0% -2.4% 20 Oklahoma 105.3 3.9% -5.9% 21 Illinois 105.1 3.9% -1.6% 22 Arizona 105.1 3.9% 1.8% 23 Wisconsin 104.7 3.9% 0.8% 24 Oregon 101.5 3.4% -6.2% 25 Iowa 100.7 3.3% -6.9% 26 Washington 99.3 3.2% -0.8% 27 Kentucky 99.1 3.1% -1.2% 28 Massachusetts 98.3 3.0% -1.8% 29 Maine 96.4 2.8% -3.1% 30 North Carolina 96.0 2.7% -0.9% 31 Vermont 95.8 2.7% -1.7% 32 Virginia 94.7 2.6% -2.2% 33 Colorado 94.1 2.5% -3.0% 34 Mississippi 93.7 2.4% -3.5% 35 Minnesota 93.3 2.4% -5.9% 36 Rhode Island 92.6 2.3% -3.8% 37 Arkansas 90.7 2.0% -5.6% 38 Maryland 88.5 1.8% -3.8% 39 Ohio 87.4 1.6% -5.0% 40 Tennessee 86.1 1.4% -5.1% 41 New Mexico 85.8 1.4% -7.0% 42 Michigan 84.5 1.2% -3.2% 43 New Hampshire 84.5 1.2% -4.6% 44 New Jersey 82.3 0.9% -2.9% 45 Idaho 82.2 0.9% -5.3% 46 Alabama 82.2 0.9% -6.7% 47 South Carolina 80.1 0.7% 0.5% 48 Georgia 78.3 0.4% -3.3% 49 Missouri 78.1 0.4% -4.4% 50 Indiana 76.9 0.2% -8.0%

Rank State Score Number of firms Change, 2005 -

2008 (Abs.) 50-State Average 10 0

1 Texas 250.0 64 8 1 New York 250.0 56 1 3 California 247.8 51 -1 4 Illinois 188.0 32 0 5 Ohio 172.3 27 -1 6 Pennsylvania 162.9 24 -2 7 Michigan 153.5 21 0 7 New Jersey 153.5 21 -1 9 Minnesota 147.2 19 0 10 Virginia 144.0 18 1 11 Florida 131.4 14 0 12 Georgia 128.3 13 -4 12 North Carolina 128.3 13 -1 14 Massachusetts 125.2 12 3 15 Colorado 122.0 11 1 15 Connecticut 122.0 11 -2 17 Wisconsin 118.9 10 0 18 Missouri 112.6 8 -2 18 Tennessee 112.6 8 1 18 Washington 112.6 8 -1 21 Maryland 109.4 7 2 22 Indiana 106.3 6 1 23 Arizona 103.1 5 1 23 Kentucky 103.1 5 -1 25 Arkansas 100.0 4 -1 25 Nebraska 100.0 4 -1 25 Oklahoma 100.0 4 -2 28 Kansas 96.9 3 2 29 Iowa 93.7 2 0 29 Louisiana 93.7 2 0 29 Nevada 93.7 2 0 29 Oregon 93.7 2 1 29 Rhode Island 93.7 2 0 29 South Carolina 93.7 2 1 35 Alabama 90.6 1 -1 35 Delaware 90.6 1 0 35 Idaho 90.6 1 -1 35 North Dakota 90.6 1 1 35 Utah 90.6 1 -1 40 Alaska 87.4 0 0 40 Hawaii 87.4 0 0 40 Maine 87.4 0 -1 40 Mississippi 87.4 0 0 40 Montana 87.4 0 0 40 New Hampshire 87.4 0 -1 40 New Mexico 87.4 0 0 40 South Dakota 87.4 0 0 40 Vermont 87.4 0 0 40 West Virginia 87.4 0 0 40 Wyoming 87.4 0 0

Total number of Fortune 500 headquarters, 2008 At the top of the large-firm pyramid are the Fortune 500 corporations, who typically employ large numbers of well-educated, well-compensated workers. They often provide business for large numbers of local suppliers. They also tend to be philanthropic stewards for their local communities. The above table shows the total number of Fortune 500 companies that were headquartered in each state.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Number of firms Rank




Michigan, 2005 - 2008

20

21

22

23

24

25

2005 2006 2007 2008

Num

ber

of F

irm

s

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

GROSS OPERATING SURPLUS GROWTH

Growth in private industry gross operating surplus per worker, 2007 Gross operating surplus per employee is a good proxy for private sector profitability. It comprises business income of private domestic enterprises; net interest and miscellaneous payments; business net current transfer payments; capital consumption allowances; consumption of fixed capital of government, households, and institutions; and current surplus/deficit of government enterprises. The above table shows the 3-year average of the annual growth rate per worker.



Ohio 1.6% 39 Michigan 1.2% 42

Indiana 0.2% 50

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

2004 2005 2006 2007

Gro

wth

Rat

e

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Rank State Score Share of

Establishments Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 6.6% 2.7%

1 Colorado 134.7 8.6% 3.3% 2 Vermont 132.2 8.5% 4.1% 3 Arizona 129.9 8.3% 1.3% 4 Idaho 129.0 8.3% 1.1% 5 Maryland 120.9 7.8% 3.7% 6 Utah 119.5 7.7% 9.8% 7 Florida 118.6 7.7% 2.3% 8 Illinois 118.6 7.7% -2.4% 9 Oregon 115.8 7.5% 0.6% 10 Texas 115.3 7.5% 3.4% 11 New Mexico 113.2 7.3% 6.8% 12 Virginia 112.2 7.3% 1.9% 13 Massachusetts 111.9 7.3% -4.6% 14 Maine 111.4 7.2% -0.1% 15 Montana 111.3 7.2% 3.8% 16 New Hampshire 109.8 7.1% 0.4% 17 Mississippi 107.3 7.0% -0.7% 18 Arkansas 105.6 6.9% -3.7% 19 Alabama 105.4 6.9% 3.0% 20 South Carolina 105.0 6.8% 9.5% 21 North Carolina 103.7 6.8% -2.8% 22 Georgia 102.4 6.7% -1.5% 23 Indiana 102.3 6.7% 3.0% 24 Louisiana 101.1 6.6% 7.6% 25 Tennessee 100.3 6.5% 2.8% 26 Minnesota 99.7 6.5% 5.8% 27 Wyoming 99.6 6.5% 7.7% 28 New Jersey 99.2 6.5% 11.3% 29 North Dakota 98.4 6.4% 11.2% 30 Connecticut 96.2 6.3% -4.9% 31 Nevada 96.0 6.3% 1.2% 32 Ohio 95.3 6.2% 0.1% 33 Delaware 94.1 6.2% 0.2% 34 Kansas 93.2 6.1% 1.4% 35 Pennsylvania 92.2 6.1% -1.6% 36 Michigan 91.5 6.0% -2.8% 37 Oklahoma 91.1 6.0% 2.2% 38 Rhode Island 90.9 6.0% 3.5% 39 Washington 89.9 5.9% -1.2% 40 Nebraska 87.7 5.8% 8.3% 41 Wisconsin 87.4 5.8% -0.1% 42 Alaska 86.4 5.7% 4.1% 43 California 85.4 5.6% 1.2% 44 Hawaii 84.0 5.6% 0.6% 45 New York 83.1 5.5% 9.4% 46 Kentucky 82.7 5.5% 4.2% 47 South Dakota 80.2 5.3% 15.4% 48 Iowa 80.1 5.3% 7.7% 49 Missouri 79.0 5.3% 1.6% 50 West Virginia 78.7 5.2% -1.9%

Rank State Score Share in Total

Generation Change, 2004 -

2007 (%) 50-State Average 12.1% 8.5%

1 Idaho 250.0 84.2% 1.4% 2 Washington 250.0 77.2% 6.7% 3 Oregon 250.0 65.0% -2.3% 4 South Dakota 250.0 50.0% 0.0% 5 Maine 250.0 49.3% 33.9% 6 Montana 213.1 34.5% 3.5% 7 California 176.4 24.7% -17.1% 8 New York 155.5 19.2% 2.3% 9 Alaska 155.1 19.1% -17.3% 10 Vermont 155.0 19.1% -34.5% 11 New Hampshire 121.8 10.3% 11.4% 12 Nevada 121.2 10.1% 30.6% 13 Arkansas 116.6 8.9% -15.2% 14 Minnesota 114.8 8.4% 73.9% 15 Iowa 112.4 7.8% 59.9% 16 Hawaii 110.7 7.3% 30.0% 17 Oklahoma 110.0 7.1% 14.0% 18 Tennessee 106.5 6.2% -46.0% 19 North Dakota 106.5 6.2% 5.3% 20 Arizona 105.2 5.9% -12.8% 21 Colorado 104.4 5.7% 87.1% 22 Alabama 103.9 5.5% -47.4% 23 Virginia 101.4 4.9% -4.4% 24 New Mexico 100.6 4.7% 135.3% 25 Maryland 100.0 4.5% -24.5% 26 Wisconsin 100.0 4.5% -12.3% 27 Massachusetts 99.4 4.3% -7.7% 28 Louisiana 98.6 4.1% -0.7% 29 Georgia 97.7 3.9% -28.3% 30 North Carolina 96.6 3.6% -36.9% 31 South Carolina 96.0 3.4% -20.1% 32 Connecticut 95.5 3.3% -11.9% 33 Wyoming 95.3 3.3% 20.5% 34 Michigan 94.7 3.1% -10.7% 35 Mississippi 94.3 3.0% -14.0% 36 Texas 94.2 2.9% 107.0% 37 Kansas 91.8 2.3% 192.5% 38 Rhode Island 91.6 2.3% 4.2% 39 Kentucky 91.3 2.2% -50.5% 40 Pennsylvania 91.0 2.1% -16.4% 41 Florida 90.5 2.0% -9.5% 42 Nebraska 90.3 1.9% -37.7% 43 Utah 89.2 1.6% -4.7% 44 West Virginia 88.8 1.5% -8.3% 45 New Jersey 88.3 1.4% -8.6% 46 Missouri 88.2 1.4% -20.4% 47 Illinois 85.8 0.7% 41.3% 48 Delaware 85.2 0.6% 100.0% 49 Ohio 85.1 0.5% -30.2% 50 Indiana 85.0 0.5% 14.7%

Renewable energy net generation per 1,000 MwH of total net electricity generation, 2007 With the continuing depletion of natural energy resources and increasing environmental concerns, investments in renewable energy have to be a part of every state, region and country’s long-term economic strategy. The above table shows the share of renewable energy resources in the total net electric-power generation in each state.

Midwest Performance, 2007 State Share in Total

Generation Rank

Wisconsin 4.5% 26 Michigan 3.1% 34 Kentucky 2.2% 39


Indiana 0.5% 50

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

2004 2005 2006 2007

Sha

re i

n To

tal

Gen

erat

ion

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

GREEN INDUSTRIES

Share of establishments in green-related industries, 2008 The green economy is expected to be a next strong growth sector nationwide and globally. The higher the price of fossil fuels the more attractive alternative technologies become. This metric focuses on businesses engaged primarily in creating green technology (new energy /energy efficiency tech., renewable energy, etc); see Appendix for more detail. The table above shows such green industries as a share of all industries, measured by number of establishments.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Share of

Establishments Rank


Ohio 6.2% 32 Michigan 6.0% 36 Wisconsin 5.8% 41 Kentucky 5.5% 46

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Sha

re o

f Est

ablis

hmen

ts

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

42


EDUCATION Information, knowledge and ideas are critical assets for success in the innovation economy. Having a strong human capital base is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for success. States, or even countries, may be endowed with a well-educated population, but lack some other necessary conditions, such as a free enterprise system that cultivates creativity and entrepreneurship. Nevertheless, those states and countries performing well in the innovation economy present strong scores in human capital assets. Those falling short in economic progress but possessing abundant human capital can use this attribute to their advantage. For example, countries such as Ireland, Australia and India are capitalizing on respective strong human capital assets as means to economic progress. Comprised of sub-drivers K-12 Education, Post-secondary Education, the Education Driver seeks to measure the human capital base of a state.

Rank State 2008 2006 2004 1 Massachusetts ***** ***** ***** 2 Rhode Island **** *** *** 3 Wisconsin **** **** **** 4 Connecticut **** **** **** 5 Maryland **** **** **** 6 Pennsylvania **** ** **** 7 Virginia **** **** **** 8 Iowa **** *** **** 9 Colorado *** **** **** 10 Wyoming *** ** ** 11 Indiana *** *** *** 12 New Hampshire *** *** *** 13 Nebraska *** *** *** 14 Minnesota *** *** *** 15 Arizona *** **** ** 16 New York *** *** *** 17 Montana *** *** ** 18 Vermont *** ** ** 19 Washington *** ** ** 20 New Jersey *** *** *** 21 Michigan *** *** *** 22 North Carolina *** *** **** 23 South Dakota *** *** *** 24 Delaware *** *** *** 25 Illinois *** *** *** 26 Kansas *** *** *** 27 Missouri *** *** *** 28 North Dakota *** *** *** 29 Utah *** *** *** 30 Ohio *** *** ** 31 California ** *** *** 32 Idaho ** *** ** 33 Tennessee ** *** ** 34 South Carolina ** * ** 35 Maine ** ** ** 36 Georgia ** ** *** 37 Alabama ** *** ** 38 Texas ** ** ** 39 Kentucky ** ** ** 40 Florida ** ** *** 41 Oregon ** ** ** 42 Alaska ** ** ** 43 Oklahoma ** ** ** 44 Arkansas ** ** ** 45 Louisiana ** ** ** 46 West Virginia ** * * 47 Hawaii ** ** ** 48 New Mexico * ** * 49 Nevada * * * 50 Mississippi * * *

Midwest Performance

2008 2006 2004 Wisconsin **** **** **** Indiana *** *** *** Michigan *** *** *** Illinois *** *** *** Ohio *** *** ** Kentucky ** ** **

43


K-12 EDUCATION

Midwest Performance

2008 2006 2004 Wisconsin **** **** **** Ohio **** **** **** Illinois *** **** **** Indiana *** *** *** Michigan *** **** **** Kentucky *** *** ***

Rank State 2008 2006 2004 1 Massachusetts ***** ***** ***** 2 Vermont ***** **** **** 3 New Jersey ***** ***** ***** 4 Minnesota ***** ***** ***** 5 Connecticut ***** ***** ***** 6 New Hampshire **** ***** ***** 7 Maryland **** ***** ***** 8 Wisconsin **** **** **** 9 Virginia **** **** **** 10 Washington **** **** *** 11 Colorado **** ***** ***** 12 Pennsylvania **** * **** 13 Kansas **** **** **** 14 Montana **** **** **** 15 Iowa **** **** **** 16 New York **** **** **** 17 Ohio **** **** **** 18 South Dakota **** **** **** 19 Illinois *** **** **** 20 Delaware *** **** **** 21 Nebraska *** **** **** 22 Maine *** **** **** 23 North Dakota *** **** **** 24 Missouri *** **** *** 25 Idaho *** **** *** 26 Indiana *** *** *** 27 Utah *** *** *** 28 Oregon *** *** *** 29 North Carolina *** **** *** 30 Rhode Island *** *** *** 31 Michigan *** **** **** 32 Wyoming *** *** ** 33 Kentucky *** *** *** 34 California *** *** *** 35 Texas *** *** *** 36 Alaska *** *** *** 37 Tennessee *** *** ** 38 Florida *** *** *** 39 Oklahoma ** *** ** 40 Arkansas ** *** *** 41 Georgia ** *** ** 42 Hawaii ** *** ** 43 Arizona ** *** ** 44 South Carolina ** * ** 45 West Virginia ** ** ** 46 Alabama ** *** ** 47 Nevada * ** * 48 New Mexico * ** * 49 Louisiana * ** * 50 Mississippi * * *

44


AP OVERALL

Rank State Score Graduation Rate Change, 2004 -

2007 (%) 50-State Average 75.9% -0.6%

1 New Jersey 123.3 88.8% -4.1% 2 Vermont 123.2 88.7% 3.8% 3 Wisconsin 122.8 88.5% (n/a) 4 Iowa 120.2 87.2% -0.3% 5 Minnesota 118.6 86.5% 2.1% 6 Nebraska 118.3 86.3% -1.5% 7 Pennsylvania 112.1 83.3% 0.5% 8 North Dakota 111.8 83.1% -3.4% 9 South Dakota 110.5 82.5% -1.6% 10 Missouri 109.4 82.0% 1.1% 11 New Hampshire 109.3 81.9% 3.6% 12 Connecticut 109.1 81.8% 1.4% 13 Montana 108.9 81.7% 1.4% 14 Kansas 108.4 81.5% 1.8% 15 Massachusetts 107.1 80.8% 1.8% 16 Idaho 106.3 80.4% -1.4% 17 Maryland 106.1 80.4% 0.3% 18 Illinois 104.6 79.6% -1.0% 19 Michigan 103.5 79.1% 5.5% 20 Maine 102.9 78.8% 0.4% 21 Ohio 102.8 78.7% -3.7% 22 Rhode Island 102.1 78.4% 1.7% 23 Oklahoma 102.0 78.3% 1.2% 24 West Virginia 101.8 78.2% 1.6% 25 Utah 101.0 77.8% -8.4% 26 Kentucky 99.0 76.9% 4.0% 27 Colorado 98.5 76.6% -2.7% 28 Wyoming 96.8 75.8% -0.3% 29 Virginia 96.2 75.5% -5.6% 30 Hawaii 96.0 75.4% 3.7% 31 Washington 94.8 74.8% 0.3% 32 Arkansas 94.5 74.6% -3.1% 33 Oregon 93.3 74.0% -0.8% 34 Indiana 93.2 74.0% 0.2% 35 Tennessee 92.6 73.7% 9.7% 36 New York 89.2 72.1% (n/a) 37 Delaware 89.0 71.9% -1.3% 38 Texas 88.9 71.9% -6.3% 39 California 87.8 71.4% -4.6% 40 Arizona 84.9 70.0% 4.1% 41 Alaska 83.1 69.0% 2.8% 42 North Carolina 82.1 68.6% -3.9% 43 Alabama 79.2 67.1% 3.2% 44 Mississippi 75.5 65.3% 1.0% 45 Florida 74.7 65.0% -2.2% 46 Georgia 73.0 64.1% 4.7% 47 Louisiana 67.4 61.3% -12.5% 48 New Mexico 62.8 59.1% -11.8% 49 South Carolina 62.4 58.9% -2.9% 50 Nevada 48.5 52.1% -9.4%

Rank State Score Share of Eligible

Students Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 12.7% 34.1%

1 Maryland 149.0 36.5% 16.4% 2 Virginia 142.9 33.7% 18.1% 3 Connecticut 127.7 26.7% 13.0% 4 Massachusetts 127.7 26.7% 17.7% 5 New York 127.1 26.4% 7.9% 6 Florida 124.2 25.1% 15.4% 7 California 123.5 24.8% 11.1% 8 North Carolina 122.6 24.3% 11.1% 9 New Jersey 121.1 23.7% 14.8% 10 Colorado 120.6 23.4% 21.2% 11 Delaware 119.2 22.8% 7.3% 12 Georgia 116.4 21.5% 28.2% 13 Vermont 115.4 21.0% 32.8% 14 Texas 114.0 20.4% 16.2% 15 Illinois 113.3 20.1% 17.5% 16 Utah 109.9 18.5% -9.3% 17 Maine 109.7 18.4% 29.0% 18 Wisconsin 109.0 18.1% 20.8% 19 Washington 107.8 17.6% 26.5% 20 Minnesota 107.8 17.6% 37.6% 21 South Carolina 106.4 16.9% 7.9% 22 Rhode Island 102.7 15.2% 30.6% 23 Pennsylvania 101.0 14.4% 13.1% 24 Nevada 100.6 14.2% 15.7% 25 Michigan 100.1 14.0% 17.5% 26 Ohio 99.9 13.9% 17.6% 27 Kentucky 99.9 13.9% 27.6% 28 New Hampshire 99.3 13.6% 30.6% 29 Oregon 98.8 13.4% 41.8% 30 Tennessee 97.1 12.6% 4.2% 31 Hawaii 96.1 12.2% 4.8% 32 Arkansas 96.1 12.1% 24.3% 33 Alaska 95.8 12.0% -0.5% 34 South Dakota 95.4 11.8% 27.9% 35 Oklahoma 95.2 11.8% 7.5% 36 Indiana 94.9 11.6% 20.9% 37 Montana 93.5 11.0% 23.4% 38 Idaho 93.0 10.7% 13.5% 39 New Mexico 91.1 9.9% 10.2% 40 Iowa 90.8 9.7% 23.7% 41 Missouri 90.8 9.7% 11.2% 42 Kansas 90.0 9.4% 33.8% 43 Alabama 89.4 9.1% 25.4% 44 Arizona 88.7 8.7% -11.7% 45 West Virginia 87.6 8.2% 37.0% 46 Nebraska 85.6 7.3% 53.4% 47 North Dakota 84.9 7.0% 21.5% 48 Wyoming 82.2 5.8% 20.9% 49 Louisiana 79.5 4.5% 44.8% 50 Mississippi 78.6 4.1% 13.7%

Passing AP test scores per eligible student, 2008 The Advanced Placement exams assess students’ mastery over college-level subject matter in a wide variety of subjects. A score of three or higher out of five typically allows a student to earn college credit in that subject. The AP program allows high school students to take and earn credits on multiple subject tests. The above table shows the number of AP tests completed with “passing” scores (3+) per student in 11th and 12th grade. It should be noted that a relatively small share of students take AP tests.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Share of Eligible

Students Rank

Illinois 20.1% 15 Wisconsin 18.1% 18 Michigan 14.0% 25

Ohio 13.9% 26 Kentucky 13.9% 27 Indiana 11.6% 36

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%

15%

16%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Sha

re o

f E

ligib

le S

tude

nts

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATE

Public high school graduation rate, 2007 The number of students who stay in school and successfully receive their high school diploma within 4 years is an important indicator of performance for a state’s K-12 education system. High school completion is a vital credential for finding and retaining employment. It is also an important prerequisite for postsecondary schooling, which provides the additional education needed to thrive in today’s innovation and technology-based economy. See Appendix for the methodology of this metric.

Midwest Performance, 2007 State Graduation Rate Rank

Wisconsin 88.5% 3 Illinois 79.6% 18

Michigan 79.1% 19 Ohio 78.7% 21


Michigan, 2004 - 2007

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

2004 2005 2006 2007

Gra

duat

ion

Rat

e

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

45


SAT

Rank State Score Actual Less

Predicted Score Change, 2005 -

2008 (Abs.) 50-State Average -0.46 -0.28

1 Massachusetts 124.5 1.67 1.59 2 Connecticut 120.8 1.36 0.36 3 New Hampshire 118.2 1.15 1.17 3 New York 118.2 1.15 1.28 3 Washington 118.2 1.15 2.81 6 Maine 113.2 0.74 0.35 6 New Jersey 113.2 0.74 0.66 6 Vermont 113.2 0.74 2.19 9 Delaware 112.0 0.63 -0.26 9 Minnesota 112.0 0.63 1.27 11 Iowa 109.4 0.43 0.14 12 Wisconsin 108.2 0.32 2.39 13 California 106.9 0.22 -0.78 13 Pennsylvania 106.9 0.22 1.16 15 Nebraska 105.7 0.11 0.24 16 Indiana 104.4 0.01 -0.38 16 Kansas 104.4 0.01 -1.19 16 Maryland 104.4 0.01 -0.07 16 Montana 104.4 0.01 -0.17 16 South Dakota 104.4 0.01 1.16 21 Arizona 103.1 -0.09 -1.40 21 Rhode Island 103.1 -0.09 0.95 23 Utah 101.9 -0.20 1.05 23 Virginia 101.9 -0.20 1.25 25 Ohio 100.6 -0.30 0.95 26 Hawaii 99.4 -0.41 -1.20 26 Missouri 99.4 -0.41 0.03 26 North Dakota 99.4 -0.41 -0.28 29 Idaho 98.1 -0.51 -0.39 30 Nevada 95.6 -0.72 -0.70 30 North Carolina 95.6 -0.72 -0.08 32 Alaska 94.3 -0.82 -2.23 32 Oregon 94.3 -0.82 0.22 34 Wyoming 93.1 -0.92 1.86 35 Kentucky 90.5 -1.13 -1.42 36 Illinois 88.0 -1.34 -1.52 36 Oklahoma 88.0 -1.34 -0.30 36 Tennessee 88.0 -1.34 -0.09 36 Texas 88.0 -1.34 -0.09 36 West Virginia 88.0 -1.34 -0.30 41 Arkansas 86.8 -1.45 -2.34 41 Georgia 86.8 -1.45 -2.04 43 Colorado 85.5 -1.55 -2.75 44 Alabama 84.2 -1.65 -3.06 45 Louisiana 83.0 -1.76 -2.04 45 New Mexico 83.0 -1.76 -1.74 47 South Carolina 77.9 -2.17 -1.03 48 Florida 76.7 -2.28 -2.77 49 Michigan 74.1 -2.49 -2.98 50 Mississippi 65.3 -3.22 -3.30

Rank State Score Actual Less

Predicted Score Change, 2005 -


1 Minnesota 133.1 97.4 34.5 2 Colorado 130.6 89.5 45.6 3 Massachusetts 125.4 73.3 36.5 4 New Hampshire 123.2 66.7 30.1 5 Illinois 121.9 62.7 -5.6 6 Connecticut 119.9 56.3 32.5 7 Tennessee 118.0 50.3 19.3 8 Washington 117.8 49.9 18.2 9 Vermont 117.4 48.5 34.1 10 Missouri 115.7 43.2 20.5 11 Michigan 113.6 36.9 21.6 12 Wisconsin 113.4 36.2 7.9 13 Oregon 113.2 35.5 12.0 14 Kansas 112.6 33.7 -1.3 15 Virginia 110.3 26.6 15.6 16 Montana 110.2 26.4 12.6 17 New Jersey 107.5 18.0 8.2 18 Iowa 106.5 14.7 -15.3 19 Ohio 106.0 13.4 1.3 20 Kentucky 103.5 5.4 6.3 21 Maryland 103.0 3.9 -1.7 22 Alaska 102.5 2.5 -2.1 23 Nebraska 102.1 1.2 -6.6 24 New Mexico 100.6 -3.6 7.6 25 New York 100.2 -4.7 -6.1 26 Delaware 99.8 -5.9 7.3 27 Alabama 98.3 -10.6 -4.9 28 Louisiana 98.1 -11.3 6.8 29 Rhode Island 97.9 -11.9 -0.1 30 North Carolina 97.6 -12.8 -4.5 31 California 97.5 -13.0 0.6 32 Oklahoma 97.5 -13.1 7.1 33 Pennsylvania 97.3 -13.7 -0.2 34 Idaho 97.1 -14.4 -12.1 35 South Dakota 96.5 -16.3 -23.4 35 North Dakota 96.5 -16.3 -20.3 37 Indiana 95.9 -18.2 -5.7 38 Georgia 93.0 -26.9 -2.4 39 Arkansas 91.8 -30.8 16.9 40 Wyoming 89.7 -37.1 -3.2 41 Arizona 88.7 -40.5 -33.8 42 Florida 88.5 -40.9 -11.6 43 South Carolina 87.7 -43.5 -10.4 44 Texas 86.1 -48.5 -8.1 45 Utah 84.6 -53.1 -22.9 46 Hawaii 83.7 -55.8 -33.1 47 Nevada 82.8 -58.7 -26.4 48 Maine 76.3 -78.8 -75.3 49 Mississippi 73.9 -86.3 -16.4 50 West Virginia 70.9 -95.5 -38.4

Average SAT score relative to predicted score, 2008 The Scholastic Assessment Test is the standardized test most frequently taken by high school seniors and gauges their likely success in college. In states where fewer students take the SAT, those who do choose to take it are more likely to be students who would score well. To correct for this bias, all 50 states’ average SAT scores are compared to a score predicted by a participation-based formula. A positive score implies better-than-predicted performance. Midwest Performance, 2008

State Actual less Predicted Score Rank

Illinois 62.7 5 Michigan 36.9 11 Wisconsin 36.2 12

Ohio 13.4 19 Kentucky 5.4 20 Indiana -18.2 37

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2005 2006 2007 2008

Act

ual l

ess

Pre

dict

ed S

core

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

ACT

Average ACT score relative to predicted score, 2008 Like the SAT, the American College Test is a widely-accepted standardized college entrance exam. The ACT is common in many states where SAT participation is low, so it is important to consider it in the same way that the SAT is considered and correct for any participation bias. This metric corrects for the bias by comparing the states’ mean scores to a score predicted by a participation-based formula. A positive score implies performance above the predicted. Midwest Performance, 2008

State Actual less Predicted Score Rank

Wisconsin 0.32 12 Indiana 0.01 16

Ohio -0.30 25 Kentucky -1.13 35

Illinois -1.34 36 Michigan -2.49 49

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

-3.0

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2005 2006 2007 2008

Act

ual l

ess

Pre

dict

ed S

core

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

46


NAEP MATHEMATICS

Rank State Score % "Proficient" or

Above Change, 2003 -


1 Massachusetts 133.6 46.1% 4.2% 2 Vermont 122.6 41.5% 3.8% 3 New Jersey 121.6 41.0% 3.3% 4 New Hampshire 117.1 39.1% -1.1% 5 Connecticut 117.0 39.1% -0.7% 6 Montana 116.0 38.7% 2.6% 7 Pennsylvania 115.0 38.3% 5.9% 8 Minnesota 111.4 36.8% -0.5% 9 Maine 110.4 36.4% 0.2% 10 Ohio 109.8 36.1% 2.0% 11 Iowa 109.3 35.9% 0.8% 12 Virginia 108.8 35.7% 0.2% 13 Kansas 108.7 35.6% 1.9% 14 Colorado 108.1 35.4% -1.0% 15 South Dakota 107.8 35.3% -0.8% 16 Washington 107.7 35.2% 2.2% 17 Wyoming 106.6 34.8% 1.0% 18 Nebraska 106.6 34.8% 1.2% 19 Maryland 106.0 34.5% 3.1% 20 Wisconsin 105.8 34.4% -0.1% 21 New York 105.0 34.1% -0.5% 22 North Dakota 104.1 33.7% -1.3% 23 Idaho 103.1 33.3% 2.1% 24 Delaware 100.4 32.2% 0.3% 25 Indiana 100.1 32.0% -0.7% 26 Utah 99.9 32.0% 0.0% 27 Missouri 98.6 31.4% -2.9% 28 Oregon 98.0 31.2% -0.7% 29 Florida 97.6 31.0% 1.9% 30 Illinois 97.6 31.0% -1.7% 31 Kentucky 96.6 30.6% -1.5% 32 Michigan 95.9 30.3% -1.8% 33 Rhode Island 92.8 29.0% -0.5% 34 Texas 91.8 28.6% 2.3% 35 North Carolina 91.7 28.5% -2.1% 36 Alaska 90.2 27.9% 0.7% 37 Arkansas 88.1 27.0% -0.4% 38 Georgia 88.0 27.0% 0.7% 39 Oklahoma 86.7 26.4% -1.4% 40 Tennessee 86.2 26.2% 0.2% 41 West Virginia 84.2 25.4% -1.4% 42 South Carolina 83.8 25.2% 0.3% 43 Alabama 83.4 25.0% 2.8% 44 Arizona 81.5 24.2% 0.0% 45 Nevada 78.5 23.0% 2.5% 46 Hawaii 78.5 23.0% 1.6% 47 California 76.5 22.2% 0.4% 48 New Mexico 72.9 20.7% 1.4% 49 Louisiana 71.0 19.9% -0.9% 50 Mississippi 66.6 18.0% -1.6%




1 Massachusetts 136.6 54.1% 14.4% 2 Minnesota 121.5 46.9% 4.1% 3 New Jersey 120.0 46.1% 10.1% 4 Kansas 119.0 45.6% 8.0% 5 Vermont 118.1 45.2% 6.8% 6 New Hampshire 117.3 44.8% 6.2% 7 North Dakota 114.2 43.3% 8.1% 8 Pennsylvania 112.8 42.6% 9.8% 9 Wisconsin 111.3 41.9% 6.7% 10 Montana 109.3 41.0% 8.0% 11 Indiana 108.8 40.7% 7.8% 12 Ohio 108.6 40.6% 7.5% 13 Wyoming 107.5 40.1% 4.6% 14 Washington 107.0 39.9% 5.6% 15 South Dakota 106.9 39.8% 5.6% 16 Virginia 106.7 39.7% 6.1% 17 Connecticut 106.6 39.7% 1.5% 18 Colorado 105.8 39.3% 5.2% 19 Iowa 105.4 39.1% 4.7% 20 Maryland 103.8 38.3% 7.8% 21 Maine 103.0 38.0% 6.3% 22 North Carolina 102.6 37.7% 1.2% 23 Texas 102.0 37.5% 8.6% 24 Idaho 101.2 37.1% 7.7% 25 New York 100.5 36.7% 4.3% 26 Nebraska 99.5 36.3% 3.3% 27 Utah 98.8 35.9% 4.8% 28 Delaware 98.2 35.6% 7.2% 29 Alaska 97.0 35.1% 5.0% 30 Oregon 96.7 34.9% 2.3% 31 Missouri 95.2 34.2% 5.3% 32 South Carolina 94.6 33.9% 4.8% 33 Florida 94.5 33.9% 6.7% 34 Illinois 93.9 33.6% 3.2% 35 Michigan 92.7 33.0% 2.0% 36 Rhode Island 88.2 30.8% 4.9% 37 Arkansas 87.7 30.5% 8.2% 38 Kentucky 84.5 29.0% 6.1% 39 Arizona 83.3 28.4% 5.3% 40 Georgia 82.7 28.2% 4.0% 41 Hawaii 80.8 27.2% 7.3% 42 Oklahoma 80.1 26.9% 5.6% 43 California 79.9 26.8% 3.6% 44 Nevada 79.4 26.6% 4.9% 45 Tennessee 78.1 25.9% 3.6% 46 West Virginia 77.3 25.5% 3.8% 47 Alabama 69.9 22.0% 4.7% 48 Louisiana 69.3 21.7% 2.5% 49 New Mexico 67.7 20.9% 4.8% 50 Mississippi 60.4 17.4% 2.7%

Percent of 4th and 8th graders scored "proficient" and above in mathematics, 2007 The National Assessment of Educational Progress is an achievement testing program in a variety of subjects administered intermittently to the nation’s 4th, 8th, and 12th graders by the US Department of Education. One of the program’s greatest strengths is its all-inclusiveness; NAEP scores reflect the achievement of students of all social, economic, and educational backgrounds. The above table shows fourth- and eight-graders’ average of rates of proficiency on the NAEP Math Assessment.

Midwest Performance, 2007 State % "Proficient" or

Above Rank


Ohio 40.6% 12 Illinois 33.6% 34


Michigan, 2004 - 2007

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2004 2005 2006 2007

Tren

d in

Per

form

ance

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

NAEP READING

Percent of 4th and 8th graders scored "proficient" and above in reading, 2007 The National Assessment of Educational Progress is an achievement testing program in a variety of subjects administered intermittently to the nation’s 4th, 8th, and 12th graders by the US Department of Education. Its unselective nature makes it a highly desirable metric for comparing achievement and studying educational progress. The above table shows averages of the percentages of fourth- and eighth-grade students who scored at least “proficient” on the NAEP Reading Assessments.


Above Rank

Ohio 36.1% 10 Wisconsin 34.4% 20

Indiana 32.0% 25 Illinois 31.0% 30

Kentucky 30.6% 31 Michigan 30.3% 32

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2004 2005 2006 2007

Tren

d in

Per

form

ance

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

47


NAEP MATHEMATICS




1 Massachusetts 133.6 46.1% 4.2% 2 Vermont 122.6 41.5% 3.8% 3 New Jersey 121.6 41.0% 3.3% 4 New Hampshire 117.1 39.1% -1.1% 5 Connecticut 117.0 39.1% -0.7% 6 Montana 116.0 38.7% 2.6% 7 Pennsylvania 115.0 38.3% 5.9% 8 Minnesota 111.4 36.8% -0.5% 9 Maine 110.4 36.4% 0.2% 10 Ohio 109.8 36.1% 2.0% 11 Iowa 109.3 35.9% 0.8% 12 Virginia 108.8 35.7% 0.2% 13 Kansas 108.7 35.6% 1.9% 14 Colorado 108.1 35.4% -1.0% 15 South Dakota 107.8 35.3% -0.8% 16 Washington 107.7 35.2% 2.2% 17 Wyoming 106.6 34.8% 1.0% 18 Nebraska 106.6 34.8% 1.2% 19 Maryland 106.0 34.5% 3.1% 20 Wisconsin 105.8 34.4% -0.1% 21 New York 105.0 34.1% -0.5% 22 North Dakota 104.1 33.7% -1.3% 23 Idaho 103.1 33.3% 2.1% 24 Delaware 100.4 32.2% 0.3% 25 Indiana 100.1 32.0% -0.7% 26 Utah 99.9 32.0% 0.0% 27 Missouri 98.6 31.4% -2.9% 28 Oregon 98.0 31.2% -0.7% 29 Florida 97.6 31.0% 1.9% 30 Illinois 97.6 31.0% -1.7% 31 Kentucky 96.6 30.6% -1.5% 32 Michigan 95.9 30.3% -1.8% 33 Rhode Island 92.8 29.0% -0.5% 34 Texas 91.8 28.6% 2.3% 35 North Carolina 91.7 28.5% -2.1% 36 Alaska 90.2 27.9% 0.7% 37 Arkansas 88.1 27.0% -0.4% 38 Georgia 88.0 27.0% 0.7% 39 Oklahoma 86.7 26.4% -1.4% 40 Tennessee 86.2 26.2% 0.2% 41 West Virginia 84.2 25.4% -1.4% 42 South Carolina 83.8 25.2% 0.3% 43 Alabama 83.4 25.0% 2.8% 44 Arizona 81.5 24.2% 0.0% 45 Nevada 78.5 23.0% 2.5% 46 Hawaii 78.5 23.0% 1.6% 47 California 76.5 22.2% 0.4% 48 New Mexico 72.9 20.7% 1.4% 49 Louisiana 71.0 19.9% -0.9% 50 Mississippi 66.6 18.0% -1.6%




1 Massachusetts 136.6 54.1% 14.4% 2 Minnesota 121.5 46.9% 4.1% 3 New Jersey 120.0 46.1% 10.1% 4 Kansas 119.0 45.6% 8.0% 5 Vermont 118.1 45.2% 6.8% 6 New Hampshire 117.3 44.8% 6.2% 7 North Dakota 114.2 43.3% 8.1% 8 Pennsylvania 112.8 42.6% 9.8% 9 Wisconsin 111.3 41.9% 6.7% 10 Montana 109.3 41.0% 8.0% 11 Indiana 108.8 40.7% 7.8% 12 Ohio 108.6 40.6% 7.5% 13 Wyoming 107.5 40.1% 4.6% 14 Washington 107.0 39.9% 5.6% 15 South Dakota 106.9 39.8% 5.6% 16 Virginia 106.7 39.7% 6.1% 17 Connecticut 106.6 39.7% 1.5% 18 Colorado 105.8 39.3% 5.2% 19 Iowa 105.4 39.1% 4.7% 20 Maryland 103.8 38.3% 7.8% 21 Maine 103.0 38.0% 6.3% 22 North Carolina 102.6 37.7% 1.2% 23 Texas 102.0 37.5% 8.6% 24 Idaho 101.2 37.1% 7.7% 25 New York 100.5 36.7% 4.3% 26 Nebraska 99.5 36.3% 3.3% 27 Utah 98.8 35.9% 4.8% 28 Delaware 98.2 35.6% 7.2% 29 Alaska 97.0 35.1% 5.0% 30 Oregon 96.7 34.9% 2.3% 31 Missouri 95.2 34.2% 5.3% 32 South Carolina 94.6 33.9% 4.8% 33 Florida 94.5 33.9% 6.7% 34 Illinois 93.9 33.6% 3.2% 35 Michigan 92.7 33.0% 2.0% 36 Rhode Island 88.2 30.8% 4.9% 37 Arkansas 87.7 30.5% 8.2% 38 Kentucky 84.5 29.0% 6.1% 39 Arizona 83.3 28.4% 5.3% 40 Georgia 82.7 28.2% 4.0% 41 Hawaii 80.8 27.2% 7.3% 42 Oklahoma 80.1 26.9% 5.6% 43 California 79.9 26.8% 3.6% 44 Nevada 79.4 26.6% 4.9% 45 Tennessee 78.1 25.9% 3.6% 46 West Virginia 77.3 25.5% 3.8% 47 Alabama 69.9 22.0% 4.7% 48 Louisiana 69.3 21.7% 2.5% 49 New Mexico 67.7 20.9% 4.8% 50 Mississippi 60.4 17.4% 2.7%

Percent of 4th and 8th graders scored "proficient" and above in mathematics, 2007 The National Assessment of Educational Progress is an achievement testing program in a variety of subjects administered intermittently to the nation’s 4th, 8th, and 12th graders by the US Department of Education. One of the program’s greatest strengths is its all-inclusiveness; NAEP scores reflect the achievement of students of all social, economic, and educational backgrounds. The above table shows fourth- and eight-graders’ average of rates of proficiency on the NAEP Math Assessment.


Above Rank


Ohio 40.6% 12 Illinois 33.6% 34


Michigan, 2004 - 2007

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2004 2005 2006 2007

Tren

d in

Per

form

ance

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

NAEP READING

Percent of 4th and 8th graders scored "proficient" and above in reading, 2007 The National Assessment of Educational Progress is an achievement testing program in a variety of subjects administered intermittently to the nation’s 4th, 8th, and 12th graders by the US Department of Education. Its unselective nature makes it a highly desirable metric for comparing achievement and studying educational progress. The above table shows averages of the percentages of fourth- and eighth-grade students who scored at least “proficient” on the NAEP Reading Assessments.


Above Rank




Michigan, 2004 - 2007

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2004 2005 2006 2007

Tren

d in

Per

form

ance

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

Rank State 2008 2006 2004 1 Rhode Island ***** ***** ***** 2 Arizona ***** ***** *** 3 Massachusetts ***** ***** ***** 4 Wyoming **** *** ** 5 Pennsylvania **** **** **** 6 Indiana **** **** **** 7 Wisconsin *** **** ***** 8 South Carolina *** **** *** 9 Michigan *** **** **** 10 Maryland *** **** *** 11 Alabama *** **** **** 12 Nebraska *** *** *** 13 Iowa *** *** **** 14 North Carolina *** **** **** 15 Louisiana *** *** *** 16 Colorado *** *** *** 17 Virginia *** *** *** 18 Georgia *** *** **** 19 Connecticut *** ** ** 20 California ** *** *** 21 Tennessee ** *** *** 22 New York ** *** ** 23 South Dakota ** **** *** 24 Montana ** ** * 25 Delaware ** *** *** 26 Utah ** *** *** 27 Missouri ** ** ** 28 New Mexico ** ** ** 29 Illinois ** ** * 30 North Dakota ** ** ** 31 Idaho ** ** ** 32 West Virginia ** ** ** 33 Washington ** * * 34 Florida ** ** *** 35 Arkansas ** ** ** 36 New Hampshire ** ** ** 37 Oklahoma ** ** ** 38 Texas ** ** ** 39 Alaska ** ** ** 40 Mississippi ** ** ** 41 Kentucky * * * 42 Kansas * * ** 43 Ohio * ** * 44 Hawaii * * ** 45 Minnesota * * ** 46 Nevada * * * 47 Maine * * * 48 Oregon * * * 49 Vermont * * * 50 New Jersey * * *

Midwest Performance

2008 2006 2004 Indiana **** **** **** Wisconsin *** **** ***** Michigan *** **** **** Illinois ** ** * Kentucky * * * Ohio * ** *

48


PHYSICAL SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING DEGREES

Rank State Score % of AS Degrees

and Equivalent Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 15.9% -7.2%

1 Alabama 151.2 32.8% 1.6% 2 Wyoming 136.5 27.6% -26.0% 3 Louisiana 135.0 27.1% 2.7% 4 Nebraska 130.2 25.4% 2.0% 5 Montana 128.4 24.7% 34.0% 6 South Dakota 122.9 22.8% -19.9% 7 Pennsylvania 120.7 22.0% -6.9% 8 Rhode Island 120.0 21.8% 12.0% 9 North Dakota 117.7 21.0% -5.8% 10 Indiana 117.7 21.0% -9.7% 11 Alaska 117.5 20.9% 2.6% 12 Wisconsin 116.4 20.5% -13.3% 13 Hawaii 115.8 20.3% 5.3% 14 Ohio 114.2 19.7% -7.6% 15 Tennessee 113.9 19.6% -12.9% 16 South Carolina 111.1 18.6% -5.2% 17 West Virginia 108.0 17.6% -2.7% 18 Maine 107.6 17.4% -19.8% 19 Michigan 105.3 16.6% 0.9% 20 Texas 102.9 15.8% -13.4% 21 Nevada 102.7 15.7% 0.3% 22 Delaware 101.5 15.3% -14.8% 23 Kentucky 101.4 15.2% -6.8% 24 Georgia 100.7 15.0% 6.8% 25 Idaho 100.4 14.9% -11.2% 26 Colorado 99.6 14.6% -23.1% 27 Missouri 99.6 14.6% -17.3% 28 New Mexico 99.6 14.6% -4.2% 29 North Carolina 99.2 14.5% -7.6% 30 Minnesota 97.9 14.0% -17.1% 31 New Hampshire 97.3 13.8% 17.3% 32 Massachusetts 96.2 13.4% -1.7% 33 Virginia 94.4 12.8% -14.1% 34 Arizona 93.7 12.5% -25.6% 35 Arkansas 92.4 12.1% -10.4% 36 Iowa 91.9 11.9% -17.0% 37 Washington 91.3 11.7% -10.7% 38 Mississippi 90.8 11.5% -13.3% 39 Oregon 90.2 11.3% -21.5% 40 Vermont 90.0 11.2% -31.2% 41 Kansas 88.8 10.8% -4.7% 42 Oklahoma 88.1 10.5% -5.4% 43 Illinois 87.2 10.2% -8.7% 44 Maryland 86.4 10.0% 2.2% 45 Florida 85.9 9.8% 0.8% 46 New York 84.0 9.1% -11.7% 47 Connecticut 81.7 8.3% 2.4% 48 New Jersey 80.9 8.0% -4.6% 49 Utah 80.3 7.8% -13.6% 50 California 75.6 6.2% -11.3%

Rank State Score % of BA degrees

and above Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 13.5% 0.8%

1 Wyoming 144.5 20.2% 16.2% 2 Maryland 136.5 18.9% -6.3% 3 Montana 131.7 18.2% 13.0% 4 Alaska 130.5 18.0% 4.2% 5 Colorado 121.9 16.6% -7.0% 6 New Jersey 115.9 15.7% 1.9% 7 Pennsylvania 114.4 15.5% 2.0% 8 Virginia 113.8 15.4% 1.9% 9 California 113.4 15.3% -4.4% 10 South Dakota 113.4 15.3% -7.9% 11 Michigan 112.8 15.2% 0.9% 12 Georgia 110.8 14.9% 2.2% 13 Massachusetts 109.5 14.7% 4.9% 14 North Dakota 109.1 14.6% 7.5% 15 Idaho 108.8 14.6% 15.8% 16 New Mexico 108.4 14.5% -8.6% 17 Texas 108.3 14.5% 2.7% 18 North Carolina 107.4 14.4% -5.0% 19 Wisconsin 106.2 14.2% 3.1% 20 Louisiana 105.4 14.1% -3.3% 21 Washington 105.2 14.0% 10.8% 22 Utah 104.9 14.0% -5.1% 23 Oregon 104.1 13.8% -0.5% 24 Iowa 100.8 13.3% 1.0% 25 South Carolina 100.2 13.2% -4.6% 26 Alabama 99.8 13.2% 3.2% 27 Indiana 99.5 13.1% 0.8% 28 Maine 98.7 13.0% 7.3% 29 Rhode Island 98.3 12.9% 4.1% 30 Mississippi 95.9 12.6% 6.9% 31 New York 95.6 12.5% 1.0% 32 Connecticut 94.8 12.4% 9.0% 33 Nevada 94.4 12.3% 0.5% 34 Kansas 93.8 12.2% -2.8% 35 Delaware 93.7 12.2% 7.5% 36 Nebraska 93.0 12.1% 12.0% 37 Ohio 92.2 12.0% 2.8% 38 Vermont 90.9 11.8% 18.2% 39 Illinois 89.0 11.5% 2.0% 40 Florida 88.8 11.5% 1.5% 41 Oklahoma 88.3 11.4% -7.9% 42 Arkansas 87.7 11.3% 2.1% 43 Minnesota 87.5 11.3% -6.2% 44 New Hampshire 86.3 11.1% -0.3% 45 Hawaii 86.1 11.0% -6.8% 46 Tennessee 85.6 10.9% 0.2% 47 West Virginia 82.7 10.5% -12.6% 48 Kentucky 82.7 10.5% 1.1% 49 Missouri 82.6 10.5% -0.5% 50 Arizona 58.8 6.8% -36.3%

Percent of bachelor's and graduate degrees earned in physical sciences and engineering, 2008 A highly-skilled workforce is only as useful as it is able to match the skills required by the innovation economy. Innovative capacity relies in large part on the people with the ability to create or invent new products and processes. The above table provides the percent of students with a bachelor's, graduate degree or first professional degree who graduated in physical science and engineering fields relevant to tech-based economic development. See Appendix for more detail.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State % of BA Degrees and

Above Rank

Michigan 15.2% 11 Wisconsin 14.2% 19

Indiana 13.1% 27 Ohio 12.0% 37

Illinois 11.5% 39 Kentucky 10.5% 48

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Per

cent

of

BA

Deg

rees

and

A

bove

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

TECHNOLOGY AND TECHNICIAN DEGREES

Percent of associate's degrees and post-secondary vocational awards earned in technology and technician fields, 2008 Although most technology and technician programs only lead to an associate's degree, these support occupations are predicted to experience exceptional employment growth at relatively high wages all over the U.S., making the process of innovation and technological progress more efficient. The above table shows the percent of associate degrees and post-secondary vocational awards that were obtained in technology and technician fields. See Appendix for more detail.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State % of AS Degrees and

Equivalent Rank

Indiana 21.0% 10 Wisconsin 20.5% 12

Ohio 19.7% 14 Michigan 16.6% 19 Kentucky 15.2% 23

Illinois 10.2% 43

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

15.0%

15.5%

16.0%

16.5%

17.0%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Per

cent

of

Ass

ocia

te D

egre

es

and

Equ

ival

ent

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

49


PHYSICAL SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING DEGREES

Rank State Score % of AS Degrees

and Equivalent Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 15.9% -7.2%

1 Alabama 151.2 32.8% 1.6% 2 Wyoming 136.5 27.6% -26.0% 3 Louisiana 135.0 27.1% 2.7% 4 Nebraska 130.2 25.4% 2.0% 5 Montana 128.4 24.7% 34.0% 6 South Dakota 122.9 22.8% -19.9% 7 Pennsylvania 120.7 22.0% -6.9% 8 Rhode Island 120.0 21.8% 12.0% 9 North Dakota 117.7 21.0% -5.8% 10 Indiana 117.7 21.0% -9.7% 11 Alaska 117.5 20.9% 2.6% 12 Wisconsin 116.4 20.5% -13.3% 13 Hawaii 115.8 20.3% 5.3% 14 Ohio 114.2 19.7% -7.6% 15 Tennessee 113.9 19.6% -12.9% 16 South Carolina 111.1 18.6% -5.2% 17 West Virginia 108.0 17.6% -2.7% 18 Maine 107.6 17.4% -19.8% 19 Michigan 105.3 16.6% 0.9% 20 Texas 102.9 15.8% -13.4% 21 Nevada 102.7 15.7% 0.3% 22 Delaware 101.5 15.3% -14.8% 23 Kentucky 101.4 15.2% -6.8% 24 Georgia 100.7 15.0% 6.8% 25 Idaho 100.4 14.9% -11.2% 26 Colorado 99.6 14.6% -23.1% 27 Missouri 99.6 14.6% -17.3% 28 New Mexico 99.6 14.6% -4.2% 29 North Carolina 99.2 14.5% -7.6% 30 Minnesota 97.9 14.0% -17.1% 31 New Hampshire 97.3 13.8% 17.3% 32 Massachusetts 96.2 13.4% -1.7% 33 Virginia 94.4 12.8% -14.1% 34 Arizona 93.7 12.5% -25.6% 35 Arkansas 92.4 12.1% -10.4% 36 Iowa 91.9 11.9% -17.0% 37 Washington 91.3 11.7% -10.7% 38 Mississippi 90.8 11.5% -13.3% 39 Oregon 90.2 11.3% -21.5% 40 Vermont 90.0 11.2% -31.2% 41 Kansas 88.8 10.8% -4.7% 42 Oklahoma 88.1 10.5% -5.4% 43 Illinois 87.2 10.2% -8.7% 44 Maryland 86.4 10.0% 2.2% 45 Florida 85.9 9.8% 0.8% 46 New York 84.0 9.1% -11.7% 47 Connecticut 81.7 8.3% 2.4% 48 New Jersey 80.9 8.0% -4.6% 49 Utah 80.3 7.8% -13.6% 50 California 75.6 6.2% -11.3%

Rank State Score % of BA degrees

and above Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 13.5% 0.8%

1 Wyoming 144.5 20.2% 16.2% 2 Maryland 136.5 18.9% -6.3% 3 Montana 131.7 18.2% 13.0% 4 Alaska 130.5 18.0% 4.2% 5 Colorado 121.9 16.6% -7.0% 6 New Jersey 115.9 15.7% 1.9% 7 Pennsylvania 114.4 15.5% 2.0% 8 Virginia 113.8 15.4% 1.9% 9 California 113.4 15.3% -4.4% 10 South Dakota 113.4 15.3% -7.9% 11 Michigan 112.8 15.2% 0.9% 12 Georgia 110.8 14.9% 2.2% 13 Massachusetts 109.5 14.7% 4.9% 14 North Dakota 109.1 14.6% 7.5% 15 Idaho 108.8 14.6% 15.8% 16 New Mexico 108.4 14.5% -8.6% 17 Texas 108.3 14.5% 2.7% 18 North Carolina 107.4 14.4% -5.0% 19 Wisconsin 106.2 14.2% 3.1% 20 Louisiana 105.4 14.1% -3.3% 21 Washington 105.2 14.0% 10.8% 22 Utah 104.9 14.0% -5.1% 23 Oregon 104.1 13.8% -0.5% 24 Iowa 100.8 13.3% 1.0% 25 South Carolina 100.2 13.2% -4.6% 26 Alabama 99.8 13.2% 3.2% 27 Indiana 99.5 13.1% 0.8% 28 Maine 98.7 13.0% 7.3% 29 Rhode Island 98.3 12.9% 4.1% 30 Mississippi 95.9 12.6% 6.9% 31 New York 95.6 12.5% 1.0% 32 Connecticut 94.8 12.4% 9.0% 33 Nevada 94.4 12.3% 0.5% 34 Kansas 93.8 12.2% -2.8% 35 Delaware 93.7 12.2% 7.5% 36 Nebraska 93.0 12.1% 12.0% 37 Ohio 92.2 12.0% 2.8% 38 Vermont 90.9 11.8% 18.2% 39 Illinois 89.0 11.5% 2.0% 40 Florida 88.8 11.5% 1.5% 41 Oklahoma 88.3 11.4% -7.9% 42 Arkansas 87.7 11.3% 2.1% 43 Minnesota 87.5 11.3% -6.2% 44 New Hampshire 86.3 11.1% -0.3% 45 Hawaii 86.1 11.0% -6.8% 46 Tennessee 85.6 10.9% 0.2% 47 West Virginia 82.7 10.5% -12.6% 48 Kentucky 82.7 10.5% 1.1% 49 Missouri 82.6 10.5% -0.5% 50 Arizona 58.8 6.8% -36.3%

Percent of bachelor's and graduate degrees earned in physical sciences and engineering, 2008 A highly-skilled workforce is only as useful as it is able to match the skills required by the innovation economy. Innovative capacity relies in large part on the people with the ability to create or invent new products and processes. The above table provides the percent of students with a bachelor's, graduate degree or first professional degree who graduated in physical science and engineering fields relevant to tech-based economic development. See Appendix for more detail.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State % of BA Degrees and

Above Rank


Indiana 13.1% 27 Ohio 12.0% 37

Illinois 11.5% 39 Kentucky 10.5% 48

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Per

cent

of

BA

Deg

rees

and

A

bove

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

TECHNOLOGY AND TECHNICIAN DEGREES

Percent of associate's degrees and post-secondary vocational awards earned in technology and technician fields, 2008 Although most technology and technician programs only lead to an associate's degree, these support occupations are predicted to experience exceptional employment growth at relatively high wages all over the U.S., making the process of innovation and technological progress more efficient. The above table shows the percent of associate degrees and post-secondary vocational awards that were obtained in technology and technician fields. See Appendix for more detail.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State % of AS Degrees and

Equivalent Rank



Illinois 10.2% 43

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

15.0%

15.5%

16.0%

16.5%

17.0%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Per

cent

of

Ass

ocia

te D

egre

es

and

Equ

ival

ent

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

OTHER INNOVATION DEGREES

Rank State Score Percent of Income Change, 2002 -

2006 (%) 50-State Average 26.1% -3.4%

1 Wyoming 128.0 16.5% -28.3% 1 Louisiana 128.0 16.5% -25.0% 3 Tennessee 125.2 17.5% -28.6% 3 Georgia 125.2 17.5% -22.2% 5 Arkansas 123.8 18.0% -20.0% 6 New Mexico 118.2 20.0% -20.0% 7 Utah 116.8 20.5% 13.9% 8 Mississippi 114.0 21.5% -10.4% 8 Florida 114.0 21.5% -17.3% 10 Idaho 112.6 22.0% 12.8% 11 Oklahoma 111.2 22.5% -2.2% 11 North Carolina 111.2 22.5% -8.2% 11 Arizona 111.2 22.5% -19.6% 14 South Carolina 109.8 23.0% -27.0% 15 Texas 108.4 23.5% -9.6% 15 Kansas 108.4 23.5% 2.2% 17 Nebraska 107.0 24.0% 0.0% 17 Maryland 107.0 24.0% -14.3% 17 Hawaii 107.0 24.0% 26.3% 17 Alaska 107.0 24.0% 2.1% 21 South Dakota 105.6 24.5% -2.0% 21 Kentucky 105.6 24.5% -12.5% 23 Virginia 104.2 25.0% 4.2% 24 Missouri 101.4 26.0% -3.7% 25 Wisconsin 100.0 26.5% 12.8% 25 Colorado 100.0 26.5% 6.0% 25 California 100.0 26.5% -10.2% 28 West Virginia 98.6 27.0% -11.5% 28 Nevada 98.6 27.0% -1.8% 28 Indiana 98.6 27.0% 0.0% 28 Connecticut 98.6 27.0% -6.9% 32 Montana 97.2 27.5% -11.3% 32 Minnesota 97.2 27.5% 14.6% 34 Washington 95.8 28.0% -3.4% 34 New York 95.8 28.0% -15.2% 36 Michigan 94.4 28.5% -5.0% 37 Massachusetts 93.0 29.0% -1.7% 38 Illinois 91.6 29.5% 0.0% 38 Alabama 91.6 29.5% 18.0% 40 North Dakota 88.8 30.5% 17.3% 40 New Jersey 88.8 30.5% -3.2% 40 Iowa 88.8 30.5% 8.9% 43 Delaware 86.0 31.5% 10.5% 44 Oregon 81.8 33.0% 0.0% 44 Maine 81.8 33.0% 0.0% 46 Rhode Island 79.0 34.0% -1.4% 47 Ohio 77.6 34.5% -4.2% 48 Pennsylvania 76.2 35.0% 7.7% 48 New Hampshire 76.2 35.0% 16.7% 50 Vermont 72.0 36.5% 1.4%

Rank State Score Percent of All

Degrees Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 22.0% -0.2%

1 Arizona 176.9 39.1% 23.4% 2 New Hampshire 128.5 28.4% 2.6% 3 Rhode Island 124.4 27.5% 5.2% 4 Nebraska 123.5 27.3% 10.1% 5 Missouri 121.7 26.9% -2.0% 6 Michigan 117.9 26.0% 2.0% 7 Indiana 116.8 25.8% -0.5% 8 Illinois 116.7 25.8% -0.8% 9 South Carolina 113.8 25.1% 4.4% 10 Delaware 113.1 25.0% -9.5% 11 Wisconsin 112.9 24.9% -0.6% 12 Georgia 110.7 24.4% -2.5% 13 Colorado 109.6 24.2% 10.4% 14 Oklahoma 108.5 24.0% -4.3% 15 North Dakota 107.6 23.7% 2.6% 16 New York 105.0 23.2% -0.5% 17 Iowa 104.7 23.1% 7.7% 18 Ohio 104.6 23.1% -4.2% 19 Nevada 102.5 22.6% 2.7% 20 Texas 102.0 22.5% 0.3% 21 Massachusetts 101.7 22.4% -0.8% 22 Maryland 101.6 22.4% 3.6% 23 Louisiana 100.9 22.3% -6.8% 24 Utah 100.2 22.1% -0.8% 25 Alabama 100.2 22.1% 0.8% 26 Mississippi 99.8 22.0% -4.5% 27 Pennsylvania 99.5 22.0% -5.1% 28 Connecticut 98.2 21.7% -3.7% 29 Hawaii 97.7 21.6% -5.7% 30 North Carolina 94.9 21.0% -2.9% 31 Arkansas 94.3 20.8% -5.6% 32 South Dakota 93.3 20.6% -15.1% 33 Kansas 92.7 20.5% -1.7% 34 West Virginia 92.3 20.4% -1.3% 35 Minnesota 92.3 20.4% 8.3% 36 Idaho 91.9 20.3% 5.3% 37 New Jersey 91.7 20.2% -2.4% 38 Florida 91.6 20.2% -2.0% 39 Tennessee 91.1 20.1% -2.5% 40 Virginia 89.6 19.8% -7.0% 41 New Mexico 88.7 19.6% -8.5% 42 Kentucky 85.5 18.9% 6.0% 43 Washington 81.6 18.0% 8.7% 44 Montana 79.1 17.5% 1.2% 45 California 78.2 17.3% -0.2% 46 Alaska 74.8 16.5% -7.8% 47 Oregon 74.2 16.4% 3.9% 48 Maine 73.5 16.2% 3.2% 49 Vermont 69.8 15.4% -1.0% 50 Wyoming 48.7 10.8% -12.3%

Percent of degrees earned in quasi-science and quasi-technical fields, 2008 Many more general educational programs directly or indirectly contribute to the innovation economy such as management, economics, science teachers, etc. The above table shows these other innovation economy degrees as a percent of all degrees. A full description of fields chosen is given in the Methodology section of the appendix.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Percent of All Degrees Rank

Michigan 26.0% 6 Indiana 25.8% 7 Illinois 25.8% 8


Kentucky 18.9% 42

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

20%

22%

24%

26%

28%

30%

32%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Per

cent

of

All

Deg

rees

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

COLLEGE AFFORDABILITY

Percent of income needed for college expenses less financial aid, 2006 Since higher education is key to higher pay and economic advancement in the innovation economy, access is crucial to a state’s economic development. As costs continue to increase at rates two to three times that of inflation, cost remains an important determinant of access. This metric, published every 2 years, shows the percent of income (average of all income groups) that is needed to pay for public 4-year universities or 2-year community colleges once financial aid is taken into account.

Midwest Performance, 2006 State Percent of Income Rank


Indiana 27.0% 28 Michigan 28.5% 36

Illinois 29.5% 38 Ohio 34.5% 47

Michigan, 2003 - 2006

20%

22%

24%

26%

28%

30%

32%

34%

2003 2004 2005 2006

Tren

d in

Per

cent

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

50


U.S. NEWS TOP UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS

Rank State Score Top Programs per

100 Institutions Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 23 28.4%

1 Massachusetts 185.3 110 3.0% 2 Rhode Island 169.7 92 61.5% 3 Connecticut 162.2 84 2.9% 4 Michigan 144.2 64 -1.4% 5 Maryland 137.3 56 -6.4% 6 New Jersey 134.3 53 -12.4% 7 California 130.8 49 -9.2% 8 Delaware 127.3 45 25.0% 9 Illinois 124.8 43 -1.2% 10 Washington 122.9 41 23.0% 11 Wisconsin 120.3 38 -23.6% 12 North Carolina 117.3 34 -0.1% 13 New York 115.5 32 3.0% 14 Pennsylvania 111.9 28 6.5% 15 Indiana 109.3 25 0.8% 16 Virginia 108.3 24 25.2% 17 Iowa 106.8 23 5.5% 18 Georgia 104.9 21 4.5% 19 Missouri 104.5 20 68.8% 20 Texas 103.8 19 15.4% 21 New Mexico 103.5 19 60.0% 22 Utah 102.9 18 -18.4% 23 Minnesota 102.8 18 -4.3% 24 Arizona 101.1 16 -6.0% 25 Tennessee 100.6 16 12.4% 26 Oregon 99.4 15 1.6% 27 Ohio 98.6 14 15.9% 28 New Hampshire 98.3 13 -25.3% 29 Colorado 98.2 13 35.8% 30 Kansas 97.2 12 87.9% 31 Vermont 96.7 12 50.0% 32 Florida 96.4 11 38.8% 33 South Carolina 95.2 10 116.9% 34 Hawaii 94.5 9 118.2% 34 Nebraska 94.5 9 86.4% 36 Alabama 92.3 7 -8.0% 37 Kentucky 92.2 7 426.3% 38 Nevada 90.4 5 100.0% 38 North Dakota 90.4 5 100.0% 40 Louisiana 90.3 4 -14.6% 41 Oklahoma 89.3 3 -35.6% 42 Mississippi 88.4 2 100.0% 43 West Virginia 88.3 2 -2.3% 44 Arkansas 88.0 2 -5.8% 45 Alaska 86.3 0 0.0% 45 Idaho 86.3 0 0.0% 45 Maine 86.3 0 0.0% 45 Montana 86.3 0 0.0% 45 South Dakota 86.3 0 0.0% 45 Wyoming 86.3 0 0.0%

Rank State Score Top Programs per

100 Institutions Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 15 7.8%

1 Wyoming 158.9 45 100.0% 2 Rhode Island 145.6 38 7.7% 3 Massachusetts 125.8 28 0.0% 4 Vermont 123.8 27 16.7% 5 Iowa 121.5 26 -7.0% 6 South Carolina 120.8 25 11.5% 7 New Jersey 114.2 22 -16.6% 8 Indiana 114.1 22 -2.3% 9 Maryland 112.5 21 20.1% 10 West Virginia 111.5 20 46.6% 11 New York 111.5 20 12.1% 12 Connecticut 110.6 20 -2.0% 13 Wisconsin 109.7 19 -37.1% 14 Maine 109.4 19 23.9% 15 Pennsylvania 109.1 19 1.6% 16 Washington 108.7 19 3.8% 17 Virginia 107.3 18 -10.4% 18 Nebraska 107.2 18 6.5% 19 Tennessee 106.4 18 -7.5% 20 Kentucky 105.2 17 -2.3% 21 New Hampshire 104.3 17 -6.7% 22 Illinois 103.7 16 -6.7% 23 North Carolina 102.4 16 -26.7% 24 Arkansas 101.9 15 25.6% 25 Ohio 100.4 15 2.3% 26 Michigan 99.6 14 15.4% 27 Minnesota 99.1 14 -10.0% 28 Idaho 98.0 13 0.0% 29 Oregon 97.2 13 -18.7% 30 Montana 96.4 13 56.3% 30 South Dakota 96.4 13 56.3% 32 Alabama 95.5 12 -24.7% 33 Oklahoma 95.2 12 -15.5% 34 California 94.9 12 -6.6% 35 Missouri 94.0 11 7.1% 36 Texas 92.4 10 -10.1% 37 Georgia 92.3 10 4.5% 38 Colorado 91.0 10 31.7% 39 Mississippi 90.8 10 -18.1% 40 Delaware 90.0 9 -50.0% 40 Kansas 90.0 9 -19.5% 42 Utah 87.7 8 -38.8% 43 New Mexico 86.3 7 200.0% 44 Florida 85.9 7 -14.1% 45 Louisiana 83.4 6 -11.0% 46 North Dakota 81.4 5 100.0% 47 Arizona 80.0 4 203.8% 48 Alaska 72.8 0 -100.0% 48 Hawaii 72.8 0 -100.0% 48 Nevada 72.8 0 0.0%

Number of undergraduate programs ranked in top categories in U.S. News Graduate School Report per 100 educational institutions, 2008 No uniform “exit exams” exist through which to compare students’ post-graduate knowledge and assess the quality of higher education institutions. U.S. News and World Report magazine publishes one of the more popular guides, with rankings of a “peer assessment” score derived from an annual survey of college personnel. The above table gives the number of top-ranked undegraduate pogrmas in each state relative to the number of post-secondary educational institutions. Midwest Performance, 2008

State Top Programs per 100 Institutions Rank

Indiana 22 8 Wisconsin 19 13 Kentucky 17 20


Michigan 14 26

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

2005 2006 2007 2008

Top

Pro

gram

s pe

r 10

0 In

stitu

tions

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Ran

k

U.S. NEWS TOP GRADUATE PROGRAMS

Number of graduate programs ranked in top categories in U.S. News Graduate School Report per 100 educational institutions, 2008 Judging the quality of graduate institutions and their programs is just as problematic as attempting to gauge the quality of undergraduate programs. U.S. News and World Report magazine attempts to do so with its annual rankings for a variety of professional schools and specialties. The above table shows the count of graduate and first-professional schools that were ranked top-tier as well as top 5-ranking specialty graduate programs, relative to the number of post-secondary educational institutions.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Top Programs per 100

Institutions Rank

Michigan 64 4 Illinois 43 9


Ohio 14 27 Kentucky 7 37

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

55

60

65

70

75

80

2005 2006 2007 2008

Top

Pro

gram

s pe

r 10

0 In

stitu

tions

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

51


COLLEGE MIGRATION

Rank State Score Net Student Inflow Change, 2004 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 2,203 557 1 Arizona 209.2 39,142 28,657 2 Pennsylvania 147.2 17,781 5,100 3 Iowa 136.8 14,202 6,002 4 California 127.8 11,092 4,697 5 Florida 126.7 10,735 -6,927 6 Alabama 121.5 8,917 3,949 7 Indiana 121.1 8,803 2,088 8 Massachusetts 119.1 8,108 -817 9 Colorado 118.6 7,926 7,201

10 Rhode Island 113.8 6,274 95 11 North Carolina 112.5 5,834 -3,776 12 Utah 112.4 5,811 1,908 12 New York 112.4 5,811 -675 14 West Virginia 112.1 5,705 3,092 15 Virginia 110.3 5,060 395 16 South Carolina 109.4 4,748 1,220 17 Oklahoma 103.5 2,728 -283 18 Oregon 103.1 2,594 1,268 19 Kentucky 102.6 2,421 -2,346 20 Vermont 102.5 2,396 803 21 Kansas 101.7 2,115 395 22 North Dakota 101.7 2,114 348 23 Arkansas 100.7 1,769 374 24 Missouri 100.7 1,763 -485 25 Wyoming 100.3 1,630 -283 26 Delaware 99.7 1,420 -6 27 Louisiana 99.5 1,352 -1,310 28 Mississippi 98.6 1,046 -1,914 29 South Dakota 97.7 747 591 30 Tennessee 97.3 591 -1,952 31 New Mexico 97.2 555 678 32 Wisconsin 96.7 384 1,218 33 Nebraska 96.3 248 121 34 Montana 96.1 173 282 35 Idaho 96.0 131 -331 36 New Hampshire 95.2 -138 -730 37 Maine 94.7 -301 799 38 Hawaii 90.8 -1,657 -1,317 39 Nevada 90.6 -1,699 -1,362 40 Alaska 90.0 -1,909 -356 41 Illinois 88.0 -2,615 8,458 42 Washington 86.9 -2,981 230 43 Minnesota 86.1 -3,273 -1,517 44 Michigan 84.4 -3,841 -3,640 45 Georgia 82.8 -4,388 -7,325 46 Ohio 82.2 -4,620 -2,979 47 Connecticut 79.6 -5,505 -151 48 Maryland 72.4 -7,975 -454 49 Texas 63.4 -11,085 -8,200 50 New Jersey 8.6 -29,982 -2,990

Net in-migration of first-time freshmen, 2008 A net student inflow into a state to attend college signals a perception of quality of a state’s higher education institutions and helps reduce pressure on the tax rolls and keep in-state tuition increases in line. The above table, based on Fall 2006 enrollments and updates every 2 years, shows the difference between the number of students who migrated in to a state’s schools and those who migrated out over one year. States with positive figures were net receivers of students.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Net Student Inflow Rank

Indiana 8,803 7 Kentucky 2,421 19 Wisconsin 384 32

Illinois -2,615 41 Michigan -3,841 44

Ohio -4,620 46

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

-4,000

-3,000

-2,000

-1,000

0

1,000

2005 2006 2007 2008

Tren

d in

Net

Stu

dent

Inflo

w

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

52


WORKFORCE PREPAREDNESS States can have excellent Education scores, yet still lack in Workforce Preparedness. In such cases the education system is not in tune with the demands of the work place or better opportunities can be found elsewhere and the educated move out of state (brain drain). Research indicates that Workforce Preparedness is closely correlated with entrepreneurial dynamism and hence economic prosperity and growth. For illustration, studies repeatedly show strong positive correlation between bachelor degree attainment in the workforce and state per capita income growth. This driver attempts to measure both formal educational attainment and skill levels of the incumbent workforce.

Midwest Performance

2008 2006 2004 Michigan **** **** **** Illinois *** *** **** Ohio ** ** ** Wisconsin ** ** ** Indiana ** ** ** Kentucky ** ** *

Rank State 2008 2006 2004 1 Arizona ***** ***** ***** 2 Massachusetts ***** ***** ***** 3 Colorado ***** ***** ***** 4 Virginia ***** ***** ***** 5 Washington ***** ***** ***** 6 Maryland ***** ***** ***** 7 California **** **** **** 8 Minnesota **** **** **** 9 Utah **** **** **** 10 New Mexico **** **** **** 11 Connecticut **** **** **** 12 Alaska **** **** **** 13 Kansas **** *** *** 14 Michigan **** **** **** 15 New Jersey *** *** *** 16 Delaware *** **** *** 17 Texas *** *** *** 18 Illinois *** *** **** 19 Idaho *** *** *** 20 New Hampshire *** *** *** 21 Oregon *** *** *** 22 New York *** *** *** 23 Missouri *** *** *** 24 Nebraska ** *** *** 25 Iowa ** ** ** 26 North Carolina ** ** ** 27 North Dakota ** ** ** 28 Georgia ** ** *** 29 Oklahoma ** ** *** 30 Florida ** ** ** 31 Ohio ** ** ** 32 Wisconsin ** ** ** 33 Vermont ** ** ** 34 Wyoming ** ** ** 35 Rhode Island ** ** *** 36 Pennsylvania ** ** ** 37 Alabama ** ** ** 38 Indiana ** ** ** 39 South Dakota ** ** ** 40 South Carolina ** ** ** 41 Kentucky ** ** * 42 Maine * ** ** 43 Tennessee * * ** 44 Hawaii * * * 45 Louisiana * * * 46 Montana * ** ** 47 West Virginia * * * 48 Nevada * * * 49 Arkansas * * * 50 Mississippi * * *

53


HIGH SCHOOL ONLY DIPLOMA ATTAINMENT*

Rank State Score % of 25-and-older

Population Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 29.9% 5.5%

1 Alaska 130.5 37.8% 8.6% 2 Wyoming 129.1 37.5% 8.6% 3 Utah 127.1 36.9% 2.0% 4 Idaho 124.3 36.1% 7.0% 5 North Dakota 122.6 35.7% 5.6% 6 Washington 120.9 35.2% 4.7% 7 Oregon 119.9 34.9% 4.5% 8 Arizona 115.5 33.7% 3.3% 9 Nebraska 114.3 33.4% 5.8% 10 Nevada 113.7 33.2% 5.9% 11 Montana 112.6 32.9% 1.8% 12 South Dakota 112.1 32.8% 4.9% 13 Minnesota 111.3 32.6% 1.2% 14 Hawaii 110.8 32.4% 9.7% 15 Iowa 110.0 32.2% 8.0% 16 Michigan 110.0 32.2% 4.0% 17 Kansas 109.1 32.0% 5.1% 18 New Mexico 107.6 31.6% 11.5% 19 Oklahoma 106.4 31.2% 4.7% 20 Mississippi 103.6 30.4% 9.7% 21 Colorado 103.3 30.4% 3.4% 22 Wisconsin 103.1 30.3% 3.3% 23 North Carolina 101.8 29.9% 7.9% 24 California 101.2 29.8% 3.8% 25 Missouri 100.0 29.5% 7.0% 26 Florida 100.0 29.5% 1.9% 27 Maine 99.6 29.4% 7.9% 28 Texas 97.7 28.8% 5.3% 29 South Carolina 97.0 28.7% 5.0% 30 Illinois 97.0 28.6% 1.5% 31 New Hampshire 96.5 28.5% 3.8% 32 Delaware 96.1 28.4% 13.4% 33 Alabama 95.6 28.3% 5.2% 34 Indiana 95.5 28.2% 4.7% 35 Ohio 95.1 28.1% 6.8% 36 Arkansas 94.0 27.8% 4.6% 37 Tennessee 93.1 27.6% 10.9% 38 Kentucky 91.8 27.2% 8.7% 39 Virginia 91.3 27.1% 6.0% 40 Georgia 91.3 27.1% 4.2% 41 Maryland 89.0 26.4% 2.3% 42 Louisiana 87.2 25.9% 4.2% 43 Rhode Island 86.8 25.8% 3.4% 44 Vermont 85.4 25.5% 2.0% 45 Connecticut 83.9 25.0% 6.1% 46 New York 82.0 24.5% 2.7% 47 West Virginia 81.4 24.4% 8.8% 48 Massachusetts 80.0 24.0% 1.1% 49 Pennsylvania 79.6 23.9% 6.6% 50 New Jersey 78.3 23.5% 4.3%



2008 (%) 50-State Average 29.7% -3.8%

1 West Virginia (n/a) 40.8% -2.6% 2 Pennsylvania (n/a) 37.3% -3.4% 3 Ohio (n/a) 35.4% -3.4% 4 Arkansas (n/a) 35.4% -0.4% 5 Indiana (n/a) 35.1% -5.4% 6 Louisiana (n/a) 35.0% 0.0% 7 Maine (n/a) 35.0% -3.2% 8 Kentucky (n/a) 34.4% -0.7% 9 Iowa (n/a) 33.8% -6.0% 10 Wisconsin (n/a) 33.6% -2.4% 11 Vermont (n/a) 33.0% 3.2% 12 Tennessee (n/a) 32.5% -5.7% 13 South Dakota (n/a) 32.5% -0.6% 14 Oklahoma (n/a) 32.1% 0.0% 15 Missouri (n/a) 32.0% -4.5% 16 Alabama (n/a) 31.6% -1.1% 17 Delaware (n/a) 31.3% -5.1% 18 Michigan (n/a) 31.1% -0.8% 19 Montana (n/a) 30.9% -3.3% 20 South Carolina (n/a) 30.9% -1.9% 21 Wyoming (n/a) 30.6% -9.2% 22 Mississippi (n/a) 30.1% -6.1% 23 Florida (n/a) 29.9% -2.0% 24 Nebraska (n/a) 29.6% -3.4% 25 New Jersey (n/a) 29.5% -0.1% 26 Georgia (n/a) 29.3% -1.0% 27 New Hampshire (n/a) 29.1% -5.0% 28 Hawaii (n/a) 28.7% -5.9% 29 Nevada (n/a) 28.5% -7.6% 30 Connecticut (n/a) 28.0% -4.7% 31 Kansas (n/a) 27.9% -7.4% 32 Rhode Island (n/a) 27.8% -4.6% 33 Idaho (n/a) 27.7% -6.4% 34 New York (n/a) 27.7% -5.2% 35 North Carolina (n/a) 27.6% -6.1% 36 Minnesota (n/a) 27.5% -1.9% 37 Illinois (n/a) 27.4% -3.2% 38 North Dakota (n/a) 27.1% -6.4% 39 Massachusetts (n/a) 26.7% -2.8% 40 Alaska (n/a) 26.5% -8.4% 41 Maryland (n/a) 26.4% -1.0% 42 New Mexico (n/a) 26.2% -8.5% 43 Oregon (n/a) 25.6% -2.6% 44 Texas (n/a) 25.4% -3.0% 45 Virginia (n/a) 25.2% -5.6% 46 Arizona (n/a) 25.0% -2.4% 47 Utah (n/a) 24.4% -6.2% 48 Washington (n/a) 23.7% -5.5% 49 Colorado (n/a) 22.9% -4.0% 50 California (n/a) 20.8% -4.5%

Percent of 25-and-older population holding a high-school diploma, 2008 A high school diploma is the minimum required education for today’s economy and, increasingly, even a diploma is becoming insufficient. Real wages of those without a diploma have been declining precipitously for the last three decades. The above table shows the percentage of each state’s adult population that has earned a high school diploma or the equivalent (but not above). * Not included in subdriver/driver calculations

Midwest Performance, 2008 State % of 25-and-older

Population Rank

Ohio 35.4% 3 Indiana 35.1% 5

Kentucky 34.4% 8 Wisconsin 33.6% 10 Michigan 31.1% 18

Illinois 27.4% 37

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

29%

30%

31%

32%

33%

34%

35%

2005 2006 2007 2008

% o

f 25

-and

-old

er P

opul

atio

n

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

ASSOCIATE DEGREE ATTAINMENT

Percent of 25-and-older population with an associate degree or equivalent, 2008 Many mistakenly focus exclusively on bachelor degree attainment as measure of a state’s human capital quality. In fact, some of the most critical occupations for industry success lie in the mid-level categories — high skilled tradesmen, technicians, etc. Further, these occupations are often fast-growing in growth economies. This metric measures those with post high school – pre-bachelor formal education and training as a percent of the adult workforce. Midwest Performance, 2008

State % of 25-and-older Population Rank



Ohio 28.1% 35 Kentucky 27.2% 38

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

29.5%

30.0%

30.5%

31.0%

31.5%

32.0%

32.5%

2005 2006 2007 2008

% o

f 25

-and

-old

er P

opul

atio

n

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

54


BACHELOR’S DEGREE ATTAINMENT


Occupations Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 1.51% 7.5%

1 Massachusetts 135.1 2.51% 5.8% 2 Washington 134.7 2.50% 16.8% 3 Maryland 127.3 2.28% -0.4% 4 Colorado 126.0 2.24% 3.1% 5 Michigan 124.2 2.19% 11.6% 6 Delaware 121.8 2.12% 9.6% 7 Virginia 120.5 2.08% -0.8% 8 Utah 116.8 1.97% 12.5% 9 Connecticut 116.8 1.97% -13.0% 10 New Jersey 116.0 1.95% 9.6% 11 Texas 115.2 1.93% 11.3% 12 California 114.4 1.90% -1.9% 13 Pennsylvania 110.6 1.79% 16.2% 14 Kansas 107.8 1.71% 39.5% 15 New Mexico 105.9 1.65% 28.9% 16 Arizona 105.4 1.64% -5.9% 17 Alaska 105.2 1.63% 24.2% 18 South Carolina 103.7 1.59% 5.6% 19 Ohio 102.0 1.54% 5.5% 20 Oregon 101.8 1.53% 32.4% 21 Minnesota 101.7 1.53% 2.7% 22 Idaho 101.7 1.53% -0.8% 23 New York 101.6 1.52% 2.5% 24 Wisconsin 101.3 1.52% 3.4% 25 Alabama 100.8 1.50% -0.6% 26 Rhode Island 99.2 1.45% -13.0% 27 North Carolina 98.3 1.43% 12.7% 28 Illinois 98.1 1.42% -0.7% 29 Missouri 97.3 1.40% 5.1% 30 Indiana 97.3 1.40% 10.3% 31 New Hampshire 94.4 1.31% -3.8% 32 Wyoming 93.5 1.29% 22.7% 33 Florida 92.9 1.27% 5.6% 34 Oklahoma 91.9 1.24% -1.1% 35 Iowa 91.7 1.23% 19.7% 36 Vermont 91.2 1.22% 12.0% 37 Nebraska 91.1 1.22% -7.4% 38 Hawaii 89.6 1.17% 1.8% 39 Georgia 88.8 1.15% 3.4% 40 Montana 88.3 1.13% 12.9% 41 Tennessee 88.1 1.13% -3.0% 42 Arkansas 86.8 1.09% 25.8% 43 Louisiana 86.7 1.09% 20.6% 44 North Dakota 85.4 1.05% 6.9% 45 Kentucky 84.6 1.02% 10.1% 46 South Dakota 81.0 0.92% 14.8% 47 Maine 80.8 0.91% 12.7% 48 West Virginia 80.6 0.91% -0.5% 49 Nevada 76.0 0.77% 3.6% 50 Mississippi 75.8 0.76% -15.0%



2008 (%) 50-State Average 26.9% 2.0%

1 Massachusetts 137.0 38.1% 3.3% 2 Colorado 129.2 35.6% 0.3% 2 Connecticut 129.2 35.6% 2.0% 4 Maryland 128.0 35.2% 2.0% 5 New Jersey 125.5 34.4% 0.6% 6 Virginia 123.3 33.7% 1.5% 7 New Hampshire 122.0 33.3% 4.7% 8 Vermont 118.3 32.1% -1.2% 9 New York 117.7 31.9% 1.9% 10 Minnesota 116.5 31.5% 2.6% 11 Washington 114.0 30.7% 2.0% 12 Rhode Island 111.8 30.0% 2.4% 13 Illinois 111.5 29.9% 2.4% 14 California 110.6 29.6% 0.3% 14 Kansas 110.6 29.6% 5.0% 16 Hawaii 109.0 29.1% 4.3% 16 Utah 109.0 29.1% 4.3% 18 Oregon 105.9 28.1% 1.4% 19 Delaware 104.0 27.5% -0.4% 19 Georgia 104.0 27.5% 1.5% 21 Alaska 103.4 27.3% 0.0% 22 Montana 102.8 27.1% 2.3% 22 Nebraska 102.8 27.1% -0.7% 24 North Dakota 102.2 26.9% 5.5% 25 Pennsylvania 100.3 26.3% 2.3% 26 North Carolina 99.7 26.1% 4.0% 27 Florida 98.8 25.8% 2.8% 28 Wisconsin 98.4 25.7% 2.8% 29 Maine 97.5 25.4% -0.8% 30 Texas 97.2 25.3% 0.8% 31 Arizona 96.6 25.1% -2.0% 31 South Dakota 96.6 25.1% 1.6% 33 Missouri 96.3 25.0% 4.2% 34 Michigan 95.3 24.7% 0.0% 34 New Mexico 95.3 24.7% -1.6% 36 Iowa 94.1 24.3% 2.1% 37 Ohio 93.5 24.1% 3.4% 38 Idaho 93.2 24.0% 3.0% 39 South Carolina 92.2 23.7% 3.0% 40 Wyoming 91.9 23.6% 1.7% 41 Indiana 89.8 22.9% 7.5% 41 Tennessee 89.8 22.9% 5.0% 43 Oklahoma 87.6 22.2% -0.9% 44 Alabama 87.0 22.0% 2.8% 45 Nevada 86.6 21.9% 6.3% 46 Louisiana 81.7 20.3% -1.5% 47 Kentucky 79.8 19.7% 2.1% 48 Mississippi 78.9 19.4% 3.7% 49 Arkansas 77.0 18.8% -0.5% 50 West Virginia 71.7 17.1% 1.2%

Percent of 25-and-older population holding a bachelor's degree or higher, 2008 No state can hope to transition into the innovation economy without a ready and plentiful stock of college graduates. A lack of them also suppresses overall state income and wages, as the average income for those without a college degree has been sluggish or worse in recent decades. The adjacent table shows the percentage of the adult population that holds at least a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent.


Population Rank


Ohio 24.1% 37 Indiana 22.9% 41

Kentucky 19.7% 47

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

22%

23%

24%

25%

26%

27%

2005 2006 2007 2008

% o

f 25

-and

-old

er P

opul

atio

n

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

PHYSICAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING WORKERS

Percent of physical sciences and engineering occupations, 2008 Researchers and skilled scientific workers are an integral part of the innovation economy and can be a key asset in attracting high-value added industries with the promise of a high-skilled workforce. Equally essential is the retention of skilled college graduates, avoiding a 'brain drain', and being able to attract out-of-state workers. The above table provides the percent of workers in physical sciences and engineering occupations that require at least a bachelor's degree. See Appendix for more detail.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Percent of Occupations Rank


Wisconsin 1.52% 24 Illinois 1.42% 28 Indiana 1.40% 30

Kentucky 1.02% 45

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

1.4%

1.6%

1.8%

2.0%

2.2%

2.4%

2.6%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Perc

ent o

f Occ

upat

ions

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

55


BACHELOR’S DEGREE ATTAINMENT



2008 (%) 50-State Average 1.51% 7.5%

1 Massachusetts 135.1 2.51% 5.8% 2 Washington 134.7 2.50% 16.8% 3 Maryland 127.3 2.28% -0.4% 4 Colorado 126.0 2.24% 3.1% 5 Michigan 124.2 2.19% 11.6% 6 Delaware 121.8 2.12% 9.6% 7 Virginia 120.5 2.08% -0.8% 8 Utah 116.8 1.97% 12.5% 9 Connecticut 116.8 1.97% -13.0% 10 New Jersey 116.0 1.95% 9.6% 11 Texas 115.2 1.93% 11.3% 12 California 114.4 1.90% -1.9% 13 Pennsylvania 110.6 1.79% 16.2% 14 Kansas 107.8 1.71% 39.5% 15 New Mexico 105.9 1.65% 28.9% 16 Arizona 105.4 1.64% -5.9% 17 Alaska 105.2 1.63% 24.2% 18 South Carolina 103.7 1.59% 5.6% 19 Ohio 102.0 1.54% 5.5% 20 Oregon 101.8 1.53% 32.4% 21 Minnesota 101.7 1.53% 2.7% 22 Idaho 101.7 1.53% -0.8% 23 New York 101.6 1.52% 2.5% 24 Wisconsin 101.3 1.52% 3.4% 25 Alabama 100.8 1.50% -0.6% 26 Rhode Island 99.2 1.45% -13.0% 27 North Carolina 98.3 1.43% 12.7% 28 Illinois 98.1 1.42% -0.7% 29 Missouri 97.3 1.40% 5.1% 30 Indiana 97.3 1.40% 10.3% 31 New Hampshire 94.4 1.31% -3.8% 32 Wyoming 93.5 1.29% 22.7% 33 Florida 92.9 1.27% 5.6% 34 Oklahoma 91.9 1.24% -1.1% 35 Iowa 91.7 1.23% 19.7% 36 Vermont 91.2 1.22% 12.0% 37 Nebraska 91.1 1.22% -7.4% 38 Hawaii 89.6 1.17% 1.8% 39 Georgia 88.8 1.15% 3.4% 40 Montana 88.3 1.13% 12.9% 41 Tennessee 88.1 1.13% -3.0% 42 Arkansas 86.8 1.09% 25.8% 43 Louisiana 86.7 1.09% 20.6% 44 North Dakota 85.4 1.05% 6.9% 45 Kentucky 84.6 1.02% 10.1% 46 South Dakota 81.0 0.92% 14.8% 47 Maine 80.8 0.91% 12.7% 48 West Virginia 80.6 0.91% -0.5% 49 Nevada 76.0 0.77% 3.6% 50 Mississippi 75.8 0.76% -15.0%



2008 (%) 50-State Average 26.9% 2.0%

1 Massachusetts 137.0 38.1% 3.3% 2 Colorado 129.2 35.6% 0.3% 2 Connecticut 129.2 35.6% 2.0% 4 Maryland 128.0 35.2% 2.0% 5 New Jersey 125.5 34.4% 0.6% 6 Virginia 123.3 33.7% 1.5% 7 New Hampshire 122.0 33.3% 4.7% 8 Vermont 118.3 32.1% -1.2% 9 New York 117.7 31.9% 1.9% 10 Minnesota 116.5 31.5% 2.6% 11 Washington 114.0 30.7% 2.0% 12 Rhode Island 111.8 30.0% 2.4% 13 Illinois 111.5 29.9% 2.4% 14 California 110.6 29.6% 0.3% 14 Kansas 110.6 29.6% 5.0% 16 Hawaii 109.0 29.1% 4.3% 16 Utah 109.0 29.1% 4.3% 18 Oregon 105.9 28.1% 1.4% 19 Delaware 104.0 27.5% -0.4% 19 Georgia 104.0 27.5% 1.5% 21 Alaska 103.4 27.3% 0.0% 22 Montana 102.8 27.1% 2.3% 22 Nebraska 102.8 27.1% -0.7% 24 North Dakota 102.2 26.9% 5.5% 25 Pennsylvania 100.3 26.3% 2.3% 26 North Carolina 99.7 26.1% 4.0% 27 Florida 98.8 25.8% 2.8% 28 Wisconsin 98.4 25.7% 2.8% 29 Maine 97.5 25.4% -0.8% 30 Texas 97.2 25.3% 0.8% 31 Arizona 96.6 25.1% -2.0% 31 South Dakota 96.6 25.1% 1.6% 33 Missouri 96.3 25.0% 4.2% 34 Michigan 95.3 24.7% 0.0% 34 New Mexico 95.3 24.7% -1.6% 36 Iowa 94.1 24.3% 2.1% 37 Ohio 93.5 24.1% 3.4% 38 Idaho 93.2 24.0% 3.0% 39 South Carolina 92.2 23.7% 3.0% 40 Wyoming 91.9 23.6% 1.7% 41 Indiana 89.8 22.9% 7.5% 41 Tennessee 89.8 22.9% 5.0% 43 Oklahoma 87.6 22.2% -0.9% 44 Alabama 87.0 22.0% 2.8% 45 Nevada 86.6 21.9% 6.3% 46 Louisiana 81.7 20.3% -1.5% 47 Kentucky 79.8 19.7% 2.1% 48 Mississippi 78.9 19.4% 3.7% 49 Arkansas 77.0 18.8% -0.5% 50 West Virginia 71.7 17.1% 1.2%

Percent of 25-and-older population holding a bachelor's degree or higher, 2008 No state can hope to transition into the innovation economy without a ready and plentiful stock of college graduates. A lack of them also suppresses overall state income and wages, as the average income for those without a college degree has been sluggish or worse in recent decades. The adjacent table shows the percentage of the adult population that holds at least a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent.


Population Rank


Ohio 24.1% 37 Indiana 22.9% 41

Kentucky 19.7% 47

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

22%

23%

24%

25%

26%

27%

2005 2006 2007 2008

% o

f 25

-and

-old

er P

opul

atio

n

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

PHYSICAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING WORKERS

Percent of physical sciences and engineering occupations, 2008 Researchers and skilled scientific workers are an integral part of the innovation economy and can be a key asset in attracting high-value added industries with the promise of a high-skilled workforce. Equally essential is the retention of skilled college graduates, avoiding a 'brain drain', and being able to attract out-of-state workers. The above table provides the percent of workers in physical sciences and engineering occupations that require at least a bachelor's degree. See Appendix for more detail.




Kentucky 1.02% 45

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

1.4%

1.6%

1.8%

2.0%

2.2%

2.4%

2.6%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Perc

ent o

f Occ

upat

ions

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

TECHNOLOGY AND TECHNICIAN WORKERS



2008 (%) 50-State Average 9.34% 2.3%

1 Massachusetts 130.1 12.22% -1.8% 2 Maryland 127.0 11.91% 1.6% 3 Connecticut 126.8 11.89% 8.0% 4 Minnesota 124.9 11.70% 4.3% 5 California 121.6 11.37% 8.4% 6 Alaska 121.4 11.36% -0.9% 7 Delaware 119.0 11.12% 7.1% 8 Illinois 118.6 11.07% 5.3% 9 New Hampshire 116.2 10.84% 7.9% 10 New Jersey 115.4 10.76% 4.9% 11 Colorado 115.3 10.75% 0.8% 12 Georgia 114.7 10.70% 2.6% 13 New York 113.9 10.61% 8.7% 14 Idaho 111.4 10.37% -0.7% 15 Virginia 110.6 10.28% 4.2% 16 Arizona 108.5 10.08% 4.2% 17 Oklahoma 106.4 9.87% 1.4% 18 Hawaii 103.9 9.62% 6.1% 19 Kansas 103.5 9.58% 6.6% 20 Texas 102.9 9.52% 2.6% 21 Michigan 102.2 9.45% 3.4% 22 North Carolina 101.9 9.42% 6.4% 23 Rhode Island 101.4 9.37% -2.6% 24 Utah 101.3 9.36% -0.1% 25 Oregon 100.0 9.23% 1.4% 26 Tennessee 100.0 9.23% 1.4% 27 Maine 98.2 9.06% -2.4% 28 Missouri 96.1 8.84% 11.1% 29 Pennsylvania 95.9 8.83% -1.1% 30 New Mexico 95.4 8.77% -2.4% 31 Wisconsin 95.3 8.76% 6.0% 32 Washington 95.2 8.76% 2.4% 33 Florida 94.1 8.65% 8.9% 34 Ohio 93.2 8.56% -0.6% 35 Iowa 93.2 8.55% 2.4% 36 Nebraska 92.9 8.53% -0.6% 37 Kentucky 90.9 8.33% 3.5% 38 Vermont 90.8 8.32% 17.0% 39 South Carolina 90.3 8.27% -0.6% 40 Louisiana 88.3 8.07% -3.4% 41 North Dakota 87.5 7.99% 2.4% 42 Alabama 87.4 7.98% 0.3% 43 Nevada 85.1 7.76% 7.2% 44 Montana 85.1 7.76% -13.4% 45 Wyoming 83.4 7.59% -6.2% 46 Arkansas 83.1 7.56% 3.7% 47 Indiana 82.2 7.46% -0.7% 48 South Dakota 80.4 7.29% -0.9% 49 West Virginia 77.1 6.96% -2.8% 50 Mississippi 76.1 6.86% -6.2%



2008 (%) 50-State Average 3.21% 5.6%

1 Virginia 155.2 5.49% 5.6% 2 Massachusetts 149.6 5.25% 11.5% 3 Colorado 135.5 4.64% 1.8% 4 Washington 134.9 4.62% 12.0% 5 Maryland 126.6 4.26% -6.3% 6 Delaware 123.8 4.14% 20.0% 7 Minnesota 122.5 4.08% 8.2% 8 New Jersey 119.2 3.94% 8.6% 9 Texas 116.7 3.83% 7.7% 10 Connecticut 115.2 3.77% 0.3% 11 New Hampshire 111.9 3.62% 7.7% 12 Utah 109.9 3.53% 2.4% 13 Missouri 108.6 3.48% 8.8% 14 California 108.5 3.47% 3.6% 15 Oregon 107.9 3.45% 18.3% 16 Idaho 106.7 3.40% 25.9% 17 Pennsylvania 106.3 3.38% 7.7% 18 Arizona 105.8 3.36% 4.6% 19 North Carolina 105.6 3.35% 5.0% 20 Georgia 103.6 3.26% -0.9% 21 Kansas 103.1 3.24% 10.3% 22 Michigan 101.2 3.16% 9.6% 23 Ohio 101.2 3.16% 10.0% 24 Wisconsin 100.3 3.12% 6.6% 25 New Mexico 100.1 3.11% 4.6% 26 New York 99.9 3.10% 9.0% 27 Nebraska 99.1 3.07% 2.6% 28 Florida 97.4 3.00% 2.8% 29 Alabama 96.4 2.95% 1.6% 30 Maine 95.9 2.93% 16.1% 31 South Dakota 95.6 2.91% 6.3% 32 Kentucky 94.8 2.88% 6.5% 33 Oklahoma 94.3 2.86% -1.1% 34 South Carolina 94.3 2.86% 8.2% 35 Illinois 93.9 2.84% -5.6% 36 Vermont 93.8 2.84% 0.3% 37 Rhode Island 93.3 2.82% -6.9% 38 Indiana 90.5 2.69% 7.6% 39 Iowa 90.1 2.68% 9.2% 40 Tennessee 89.6 2.65% 1.4% 41 North Dakota 87.8 2.58% -3.2% 42 Montana 87.3 2.56% 4.1% 43 West Virginia 87.2 2.55% 0.9% 44 Alaska 86.2 2.51% -2.2% 45 Arkansas 83.3 2.38% 11.5% 46 Louisiana 82.2 2.34% 0.0% 47 Mississippi 79.9 2.24% 3.6% 48 Wyoming 79.7 2.23% 10.5% 49 Nevada 74.7 2.01% 7.1% 50 Hawaii 74.2 1.99% -6.2%

Percent of workers in technology and technician occupations, 2008 The number of technologists and technician is an indicator of a state's support network for the innovation economy and its ability to put ideas into practice. The above table shows the percent of workers in technology and technician occupations that require an associate's degree or post-secondary vocational certification. See Appendix for more detail.


Michigan 3.16% 22 Ohio 3.16% 23

Wisconsin 3.12% 24 Kentucky 2.88% 32


Michigan, 2005 - 2008

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Perc

ent o

f Occ

upat

ions

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

OTHER INNOVATION WORKERS

Percent of workers in quasi-science and quasi-technical occupations, 2008 There are many support and quasi-technical occupations that are building blocks of an innovative state, such as managers and teachers. They might be less essential to high-tech enterprises but are important sources of entrepreneurial talent. The above table shows these other innovation economy workers as a percent of all workers. See Appendix for more detail.


Illinois 11.07% 8 Michigan 9.45% 21 Wisconsin 8.76% 31

Ohio 8.56% 34 Kentucky 8.33% 37 Indiana 7.46% 47

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

7.5%

8.0%

8.5%

9.0%

9.5%

10.0%

10.5%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Perc

ent o

f Occ

upat

ions

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

56


HIGH-TECH MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT

Rank State Score % of Total Services

Employment Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 6.8% 5.2%

1 Virginia 166.2 14.5% 5.7% 2 Maryland 144.6 11.8% 3.0% 3 Colorado 141.0 11.4% 2.4% 4 Washington 135.5 10.7% 11.1% 5 Massachusetts 134.4 10.5% 5.4% 6 New Mexico 130.8 10.1% 20.4% 7 California 124.0 9.3% 8.2% 8 New Jersey 122.4 9.1% 5.8% 9 Georgia 117.3 8.4% 2.3% 10 Texas 117.3 8.4% 6.5% 11 Utah 114.4 8.1% 5.2% 12 Kansas 114.0 8.0% 8.1% 13 Illinois 107.3 7.2% 2.1% 14 Michigan 106.6 7.1% -3.1% 15 Alaska 106.1 7.0% 8.2% 16 Idaho 104.9 6.9% 1.7% 17 Alabama 104.3 6.8% 1.4% 18 North Carolina 104.1 6.8% 3.5% 19 Delaware 104.0 6.8% -2.1% 20 Florida 103.2 6.7% 4.8% 21 Connecticut 102.5 6.6% 1.5% 22 Pennsylvania 101.9 6.5% 2.6% 23 Arizona 100.9 6.4% 3.3% 24 New Hampshire 100.3 6.3% 7.1% 25 Missouri 99.7 6.2% 4.5% 26 Minnesota 98.7 6.1% 2.0% 27 Nebraska 98.0 6.0% 6.8% 28 New York 97.0 5.9% 2.8% 29 Rhode Island 96.8 5.9% 5.4% 30 Ohio 96.4 5.8% 7.2% 31 Oregon 94.6 5.6% 7.0% 32 Vermont 93.5 5.5% 4.2% 33 South Carolina 93.0 5.4% 11.1% 34 Oklahoma 92.6 5.4% 2.7% 35 North Dakota 92.2 5.3% 10.4% 36 Wisconsin 92.1 5.3% 8.5% 37 Tennessee 91.8 5.3% 7.8% 38 Montana 91.0 5.2% 2.4% 39 Louisiana 91.0 5.2% 8.7% 40 Kentucky 88.2 4.8% 9.1% 41 Wyoming 87.9 4.8% 6.6% 42 Hawaii 86.8 4.6% 5.8% 43 Indiana 86.4 4.6% 8.3% 44 Maine 85.9 4.5% 2.1% 45 Iowa 84.3 4.3% 5.2% 46 West Virginia 82.2 4.1% -1.9% 47 Nevada 81.4 4.0% 0.8% 48 Mississippi 79.5 3.7% 6.3%

(n/a) Arkansas (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) South Dakota (n/a) (n/a) (n/a)

Rank State Score % of Total Mfg.


2008 (%) 50-State Average 34.7% 3.0%

1 Michigan 128.2 50.2% -6.3% 2 Arizona 128.0 50.1% 3.3% 3 Connecticut 124.9 48.4% 1.0% 4 Washington 124.5 48.2% 8.6% 5 Kansas 121.0 46.3% 7.2% 6 North Dakota 116.3 43.8% 5.5% 7 Massachusetts 113.9 42.5% 3.9% 8 Louisiana 111.1 41.0% 2.1% 9 California 110.9 40.9% 0.6% 10 Texas 110.5 40.7% 3.1% 11 Indiana 109.8 40.4% -3.3% 12 Vermont 109.1 40.0% 0.1% 13 New Jersey 108.3 39.5% 3.2% 14 New Mexico 108.3 39.5% -0.9% 15 New Hampshire 107.8 39.3% 3.4% 16 Maryland 106.2 38.4% 2.1% 17 Kentucky 104.4 37.4% -1.6% 18 New York 104.0 37.2% -1.0% 19 Oklahoma 103.7 37.0% 8.1% 20 Florida 103.6 37.0% 5.7% 21 Ohio 103.1 36.7% -2.3% 22 Idaho 102.8 36.6% -2.0% 23 Colorado 101.7 36.0% -3.6% 24 Oregon 101.3 35.8% -2.2% 25 Iowa 100.0 35.1% 6.6% 26 Missouri 98.4 34.2% -4.6% 27 South Carolina 97.5 33.7% 8.8% 28 Illinois 97.2 33.6% 0.4% 29 Utah 97.1 33.5% 0.8% 30 Virginia 96.2 33.0% 5.7% 31 Tennessee 95.8 32.8% -0.9% 32 Minnesota 95.7 32.8% 0.1% 33 Delaware 95.4 32.6% -8.2% 34 West Virginia 94.8 32.3% 7.8% 35 Alabama 93.6 31.6% 13.7% 36 South Dakota 93.4 31.5% 8.0% 37 Mississippi 90.7 30.1% 4.6% 38 Nebraska 89.8 29.6% 6.7% 39 Wisconsin 88.1 28.7% 0.4% 40 Wyoming 88.0 28.6% 1.3% 41 Pennsylvania 88.0 28.6% 1.9% 42 North Carolina 87.9 28.6% 7.7% 43 Maine 87.3 28.3% 5.2% 44 Rhode Island 87.0 28.1% 1.9% 45 Georgia 79.0 23.8% 3.4% 46 Arkansas 74.2 21.2% 2.7% 47 Montana 65.8 16.7% 4.4% 48 Nevada 65.3 16.5% 1.9% 49 Hawaii 51.6 9.1% 33.1%

(n/a) Alaska (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Percent of total covered manufacturing employment in high-tech manufacturing industries, 2008 Advanced manufacturing describes a high value-added application of information to industrial production. The greater efficiency that results and higher skill levels required typically yield high wages. Additionally, a workforce skilled in advanced manufacturing techniques helps attract similar employers. The above table gives the percentage of each state’s manufacturing workers that are employed in high-technology manufacturing industries. See Appendix for more detail.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State % of Total Mfg

Employment Rank

Michigan 50.2% 1 Indiana 40.4% 11

Kentucky 37.4% 17 Ohio 36.7% 21


Michigan, 2005 - 2008

48%

50%

52%

54%

56%

58%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Per

cent

of

Tota

l Man

ufac

turi

ng

Em

ploy

men

t

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

HIGH-TECH SERVICES EMPLOYMENT

Percent of total covered service-providing employment in high-tech service industries, 2008 Information technology has been important in creating new approaches to industrial production, but it spawned a revolution in many services industries even earlier. Moreover, most information technology firms are categorized as services. Thus, the share of services employment in high-tech areas is an important indicator of an innovation economy base. The above table gives the percentage of each state’s service-providing workers that are employed in high-technology service industries. See Appendix.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State % of Total Services

Employment Rank


Ohio 5.8% 30 Wisconsin 5.3% 36 Kentucky 4.8% 40 Indiana 4.6% 43

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Per

cent

of

Tota

l Ser

vice

s E

mpl

oym

ent

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

57


ADULT EDUCATION

Rank State Score Percent Change, 2003 -

2007 (%) 50-State Average 1.24% -2.6%

1 Arizona 250.0 3.56% 46.1% 2 New Mexico 155.4 1.97% -7.4% 3 Minnesota 141.4 1.75% 25.5% 4 Iowa 137.1 1.69% 45.0% 5 California 134.1 1.64% -5.7% 6 Colorado 133.0 1.63% -7.1% 7 Utah 131.4 1.60% 12.0% 8 Illinois 127.5 1.54% -1.3% 9 Alaska 123.4 1.48% -12.7% 10 Wyoming 120.7 1.44% -10.5% 11 Nebraska 116.8 1.38% 1.5% 12 Missouri 115.5 1.36% 11.3% 13 Maryland 115.1 1.35% -3.9% 14 Kansas 112.1 1.31% -7.4% 15 Kentucky 111.9 1.30% 9.1% 16 West Virginia 111.7 1.30% 34.1% 17 Washington 109.4 1.27% -14.4% 18 Michigan 109.4 1.27% -4.1% 19 Massachusetts 107.2 1.23% -1.4% 20 Virginia 106.4 1.22% 0.2% 21 Oklahoma 102.4 1.16% -13.5% 22 Indiana 102.2 1.16% -1.4% 23 Oregon 101.7 1.15% -10.9% 24 Delaware 101.3 1.14% -6.2% 25 Alabama 100.0 1.12% -3.1% 26 North Dakota 100.0 1.12% 7.5% 27 Wisconsin 99.6 1.12% -10.1% 28 North Carolina 99.4 1.11% -8.8% 29 Nevada 99.3 1.11% -8.1% 30 New York 98.5 1.10% -8.1% 31 South Dakota 97.6 1.09% -2.9% 32 Idaho 96.0 1.06% -14.3% 33 Ohio 95.2 1.05% -2.9% 34 Arkansas 95.2 1.05% 7.2% 35 Texas 94.8 1.04% -10.2% 36 Rhode Island 94.0 1.03% -12.6% 37 Vermont 93.6 1.03% -1.7% 38 Florida 93.5 1.02% -10.4% 39 Georgia 91.3 0.99% -8.2% 40 Maine 91.3 0.99% -18.3% 41 Mississippi 89.9 0.97% 0.2% 42 Connecticut 88.1 0.94% -10.1% 43 New Hampshire 87.8 0.94% -10.3% 44 Hawaii 87.8 0.94% -17.5% 45 Tennessee 86.8 0.92% -0.7% 46 New Jersey 85.9 0.91% -6.4% 47 Pennsylvania 84.4 0.88% -7.2% 48 Louisiana 83.3 0.87% -20.7% 49 South Carolina 80.5 0.83% -10.8% 50 Montana 75.2 0.74% -19.8%

Postsecondary enrollment of 30 year olds and above to a state’s above-30 population, 2007 Continuous skill development and knowledge accrual - what many call “lifelong learning” - is an important component of innovation economies. The needs of employers are changing too quickly for workers to rely on past education. Adult college enrollment will be an important source of lifelong learning. This figure is a ratio of postsecondary enrollment of 30 year olds and above to a state’s above-30 population, published every 2 years.

Midwest Performance, 2007 State Percent Rank

Illinois 1.54% 8 Kentucky 1.30% 15 Michigan 1.27% 18


Ohio 1.05% 33

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%

1.4%

1.6%

1.8%

2.0%

2004 2005 2006 2007

Tren

d in

Per

cent

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

58


BUSINESS COSTS* While national monetary polices must keep a close watch on inflation trends on a near term basis, long-term national and global trends would appear to be disinflationary, due, in large part, to global overcapacity. Productive-capacity investments made during the boom times of the 1990s, along with a global shift to free enterprise economics, have combined to put downward pressure on prices for standardized products and services. The result is that many businesses have lost their pricing power. Their response is to improve productivity and to control costs. Doing both requires both innovation and tight financial management. Some argue that business costs are no longer as important a factor in location and expansion decisions as in previous decades. To the contrary, intense competition forces businesses to routinely consider lower cost areas in which to operate, including overseas locations, while concurrently investing in new technologies and methods to improve productivity, thus lowering costs at current locations. The Business Costs driver is based on ten metrics, weighted according to their relative importance in the “typical business’” cost equation.

* Metrics are given unequal weights in the calculation of this driver grade. Weighting is 57% unit labor costs; 6% business taxes; 6% state business tax structure; 12% office rents; 7% energy costs; 2.5% worker’s compensation premiums; 2.5% worker’s compensation costs; 5% health-care premiums; 1% unemployment insurance costs and 1% unemployment insurance tax structure. See Data Sources appendix for more details.

Rank State 2008 2006 2004 1 South Dakota ***** ***** ***** 2 North Carolina ***** ***** **** 3 Louisiana **** **** ** 4 Iowa **** **** **** 5 Delaware **** **** **** 6 Nevada **** **** **** 7 Indiana **** **** *** 8 Mississippi **** **** *** 9 North Dakota **** **** **** 10 Arkansas **** **** **** 11 Tennessee **** **** *** 12 Oklahoma **** *** *** 13 Idaho **** **** *** 14 Utah **** **** *** 15 Nebraska *** *** *** 16 Wyoming *** **** ***** 17 Oregon *** *** *** 18 Kentucky *** *** **** 19 Texas *** *** *** 20 Virginia *** *** *** 21 Rhode Island *** ** *** 22 West Virginia *** *** ** 23 Ohio *** *** ** 24 South Carolina *** *** *** 25 Kansas *** *** ** 26 Alabama *** *** ** 27 Montana *** *** *** 28 Missouri *** *** *** 29 Georgia *** *** *** 30 New Mexico *** **** **** 31 Wisconsin *** ** *** 32 Minnesota *** ** ** 33 Arizona *** ** *** 34 Washington ** ** ** 35 Alaska ** ** *** 36 Pennsylvania ** ** ** 37 Florida ** ** ** 38 Connecticut ** ** ** 39 Vermont ** *** *** 40 Colorado ** *** ** 41 Michigan ** ** ** 42 Maine ** ** ** 43 Illinois ** ** ** 44 New York ** * * 45 Maryland ** ** ** 46 California * * * 47 New Jersey * * * 48 Hawaii * * * 49 New Hampshire * * * 50 Massachusetts * * *

Midwest Performance

2008 2006 2004 Indiana **** **** *** Kentucky *** *** **** Ohio *** *** ** Wisconsin *** ** *** Michigan ** ** ** Illinois ** ** **

59


BUSINESS COSTS* While national monetary polices must keep a close watch on inflation trends on a near term basis, long-term national and global trends would appear to be disinflationary, due, in large part, to global overcapacity. Productive-capacity investments made during the boom times of the 1990s, along with a global shift to free enterprise economics, have combined to put downward pressure on prices for standardized products and services. The result is that many businesses have lost their pricing power. Their response is to improve productivity and to control costs. Doing both requires both innovation and tight financial management. Some argue that business costs are no longer as important a factor in location and expansion decisions as in previous decades. To the contrary, intense competition forces businesses to routinely consider lower cost areas in which to operate, including overseas locations, while concurrently investing in new technologies and methods to improve productivity, thus lowering costs at current locations. The Business Costs driver is based on ten metrics, weighted according to their relative importance in the “typical business’” cost equation.

* Metrics are given unequal weights in the calculation of this driver grade. Weighting is 57% unit labor costs; 6% business taxes; 6% state business tax structure; 12% office rents; 7% energy costs; 2.5% worker’s compensation premiums; 2.5% worker’s compensation costs; 5% health-care premiums; 1% unemployment insurance costs and 1% unemployment insurance tax structure. See Data Sources appendix for more details.

Rank State 2008 2006 2004 1 South Dakota ***** ***** ***** 2 North Carolina ***** ***** **** 3 Louisiana **** **** ** 4 Iowa **** **** **** 5 Delaware **** **** **** 6 Nevada **** **** **** 7 Indiana **** **** *** 8 Mississippi **** **** *** 9 North Dakota **** **** **** 10 Arkansas **** **** **** 11 Tennessee **** **** *** 12 Oklahoma **** *** *** 13 Idaho **** **** *** 14 Utah **** **** *** 15 Nebraska *** *** *** 16 Wyoming *** **** ***** 17 Oregon *** *** *** 18 Kentucky *** *** **** 19 Texas *** *** *** 20 Virginia *** *** *** 21 Rhode Island *** ** *** 22 West Virginia *** *** ** 23 Ohio *** *** ** 24 South Carolina *** *** *** 25 Kansas *** *** ** 26 Alabama *** *** ** 27 Montana *** *** *** 28 Missouri *** *** *** 29 Georgia *** *** *** 30 New Mexico *** **** **** 31 Wisconsin *** ** *** 32 Minnesota *** ** ** 33 Arizona *** ** *** 34 Washington ** ** ** 35 Alaska ** ** *** 36 Pennsylvania ** ** ** 37 Florida ** ** ** 38 Connecticut ** ** ** 39 Vermont ** *** *** 40 Colorado ** *** ** 41 Michigan ** ** ** 42 Maine ** ** ** 43 Illinois ** ** ** 44 New York ** * * 45 Maryland ** ** ** 46 California * * * 47 New Jersey * * * 48 Hawaii * * * 49 New Hampshire * * * 50 Massachusetts * * *

Midwest Performance

2008 2006 2004 Indiana **** **** *** Kentucky *** *** **** Ohio *** *** ** Wisconsin *** ** *** Michigan ** ** ** Illinois ** ** **

UNIT LABOR COSTS

Rank State Score Per kilowatthour Change, 2004 -

2007 (%) 50-State Average $0.082 19.8%

1 Idaho 120.8 $0.045 -2.0% 2 West Virginia 117.4 $0.049 5.5% 3 Wyoming 115.0 $0.052 4.7% 4 Utah 111.9 $0.055 11.6% 5 Missouri 111.7 $0.056 6.5% 6 Washington 111.6 $0.056 6.4% 7 Nebraska 111.4 $0.056 10.4% 8 Kentucky 111.1 $0.056 25.6% 9 Virginia 110.2 $0.057 12.8% 10 South Dakota 109.1 $0.059 8.6% 11 North Dakota 108.6 $0.059 18.3% 12 Iowa 108.4 $0.059 6.9% 13 Kansas 108.0 $0.060 7.4% 14 Arkansas 107.1 $0.061 24.1% 15 Indiana 107.0 $0.061 16.7% 16 Oregon 106.7 $0.061 12.7% 17 South Carolina 105.3 $0.063 13.9% 18 Oklahoma 104.6 $0.064 12.6% 19 North Carolina 103.9 $0.065 11.4% 20 Minnesota 102.7 $0.066 20.4% 21 New Mexico 102.3 $0.066 5.2% 21 Montana 102.3 $0.066 14.6% 23 Tennessee 102.2 $0.066 15.4% 24 Colorado 100.9 $0.068 13.3% 25 Georgia 100.8 $0.068 20.2% 26 Alabama 99.2 $0.070 24.0% 27 Arizona 97.7 $0.072 13.4% 28 Ohio 97.2 $0.072 14.2% 29 Mississippi 96.1 $0.073 14.4% 30 Wisconsin 95.3 $0.074 22.2% 31 Illinois 93.9 $0.076 24.5% 32 Michigan 93.7 $0.076 22.0% 33 Louisiana 90.8 $0.080 18.7% 34 Pennsylvania 90.0 $0.080 11.8% 35 Florida 83.7 $0.088 30.2% 36 Texas 83.1 $0.088 28.3% 37 Nevada 80.0 $0.092 12.6% 38 Delaware 72.3 $0.101 49.2% 39 Maryland 68.6 $0.105 54.9% 40 Vermont 67.6 $0.106 9.4% 41 California 60.7 $0.114 9.0% 42 New Jersey 59.5 $0.115 21.5% 43 New York 52.7 $0.123 23.0% 44 Rhode Island 52.3 $0.124 24.2% 45 Alaska 51.8 $0.124 28.5% 46 New Hampshire 45.9 $0.131 24.7% 47 Maine 42.1 $0.135 64.4% 48 Massachusetts 37.0 $0.141 45.0% 49 Connecticut 36.6 $0.142 59.1% 50 Hawaii -15.8 $0.197 44.7%


2007 (%) 50-State Average 100 0.2%

1 North Carolina 149.1 78 -4.9% 2 South Dakota 146.5 79 3.9% 3 Delaware 134.0 84 2.4% 4 Louisiana 126.4 87 -14.7% 5 Iowa 121.4 89 1.1% 5 Mississippi 121.4 89 -5.3% 5 Nevada 121.4 89 0.0% 8 North Dakota 118.9 90 8.4% 8 Rhode Island 118.9 90 -1.1% 10 Indiana 116.4 91 -3.2% 11 Arkansas 113.8 92 0.0% 12 Alaska 111.3 93 4.5% 12 Nebraska 111.3 93 2.2% 12 Tennessee 111.3 93 -4.1% 12 West Virginia 111.3 93 -7.0% 16 Idaho 108.8 94 0.0% 16 Oklahoma 108.8 94 -1.1% 16 Texas 108.8 94 -3.1% 16 Utah 108.8 94 -3.1% 16 Wyoming 108.8 94 19.0% 21 Kentucky 106.3 95 10.5% 21 Ohio 106.3 95 -5.0% 21 Oregon 106.3 95 -6.9% 24 Montana 101.3 97 4.3% 24 South Carolina 101.3 97 2.1% 26 Alabama 98.7 98 -5.8% 26 Kansas 98.7 98 -4.9% 26 New Mexico 98.7 98 14.0% 26 New York 98.7 98 -4.9% 26 Virginia 98.7 98 3.2% 31 Connecticut 96.2 99 -2.9% 31 Georgia 96.2 99 3.1% 31 Maine 96.2 99 -5.7% 31 Minnesota 96.2 99 -2.9% 31 Pennsylvania 96.2 99 -2.0% 31 Wisconsin 96.2 99 1.0% 37 Missouri 93.7 100 1.0% 37 Vermont 93.7 100 11.1% 39 Arizona 91.2 101 4.1% 39 Florida 91.2 101 -1.0% 39 Washington 91.2 101 -1.0% 42 Illinois 88.7 102 0.0% 43 Hawaii 86.2 103 -1.9% 43 Michigan 86.2 103 -1.9% 45 New Hampshire 83.6 104 2.0% 46 Colorado 81.1 105 1.0% 46 New Jersey 81.1 105 -1.9% 48 California 76.1 107 5.9% 48 Maryland 76.1 107 -0.9% 50 Massachusetts 63.5 112 2.8%

Unit labor cost index, 2007 The single largest cost affecting most employers is labor. The real cost of labor, however, is not the simple hourly wage, but the cost per unit of output. If the labor force is sufficiently productive, high wages do not mean high unit labor costs. The measure of unit labor costs is derived both from the total value of output and from the total cost of labor. Higher values mean more expensive labor per unit of output, and a value of 100 is equal to the U.S. average.



Ohio 95 21 Wisconsin 99 31

Illinois 102 42 Michigan 103 43

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

2004 2005 2006 2007

Ind

ex

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

ENERGY COSTS

Average industrial and commercial energy price per kilowatt-hour, 2007 Although of less importance than labor, health insurance, and taxes, energy costs are nonetheless a core concern of employers. Like the other metrics in this section, energy prices are also highly variable across states. The above table shows the average industrial and commercial energy costs per kilowatt-hour.

Midwest Performance, 2007 State Per Kilowatt Hour Rank

Kentucky $0.056 8 Indiana $0.061 15

Ohio $0.072 28 Wisconsin $0.074 30


Michigan, 2004 - 2007

$0.04

$0.05

$0.06

$0.07

$0.08

$0.09

2004 2005 2006 2007

Pri

ce p

er K

ilow

att

Hou

r

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

60


WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PREMIUMS

Rank State Score Benefits per $100 of

Covered Wages Change, 2004 –

2007 (%) 50-State Average $0.99 -10.3%

1 Texas 129.6 $0.42 -31% 2 Massachusetts 123.9 $0.51 -20% 3 Indiana 118.2 $0.60 -2% 4 Arizona 117.6 $0.61 -9% 5 Utah 117.0 $0.62 -7% 6 Arkansas 115.7 $0.64 -14% 6 New York 115.7 $0.64 -23% 8 Virginia 112.6 $0.69 17% 9 Nevada 111.3 $0.71 -17% 10 Maryland 109.4 $0.74 -9% 10 New Hampshire 109.4 $0.74 -19% 12 Connecticut 108.8 $0.75 -14% 13 Tennessee 108.2 $0.76 -19% 14 Minnesota 105.7 $0.80 -10% 14 Rhode Island 105.7 $0.80 -9% 16 Kansas 105.0 $0.81 -11% 17 Colorado 103.8 $0.83 -19% 17 Georgia 103.8 $0.83 0% 17 Louisiana 103.8 $0.83 -34% 20 North Dakota 102.5 $0.85 -10% 21 Michigan 101.9 $0.86 -5% 22 Alabama 101.3 $0.87 -7% 22 Missouri 101.3 $0.87 -16% 24 Oregon 100.6 $0.88 -9% 25 New Mexico 100.0 $0.89 -4% 25 North Carolina 100.0 $0.89 -5% 27 Florida 98.7 $0.91 -21% 28 Nebraska 97.5 $0.93 -13% 29 New Jersey 96.9 $0.94 13% 30 Iowa 94.3 $0.98 -3% 31 Delaware 93.7 $0.99 5% 31 Illinois 93.7 $0.99 3% 31 Mississippi 93.7 $0.99 -8% 34 South Dakota 92.5 $1.01 29% 35 Kentucky 91.8 $1.02 -23% 36 Wisconsin 88.7 $1.07 8% 37 Hawaii 87.4 $1.09 -24% 38 Vermont 86.8 $1.10 -14% 39 Pennsylvania 83.6 $1.15 -9% 40 Ohio 80.5 $1.20 -7% 41 Wyoming 79.9 $1.21 -26% 42 South Carolina 78.6 $1.23 -5% 43 Oklahoma 76.1 $1.27 -9% 44 California 75.5 $1.28 -33% 45 Idaho 74.8 $1.29 -8% 46 Maine 71.7 $1.34 -8% 47 Alaska 64.2 $1.46 -17% 48 Washington 57.9 $1.56 -13% 49 Montana 42.1 $1.81 -9% 50 West Virginia -37.7 $3.08 -19%

Rank State Score Rate per $100 of

payroll Change, 2004 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average $2.32 -8.7%

1 North Dakota 130.1 $1.08 1.9% 2 Indiana 126.3 $1.23 -0.8% 3 Massachusetts 122.3 $1.39 -18.2% 4 Virginia 121.3 $1.43 -8.9% 5 Arkansas 116.7 $1.61 2.5% 6 Utah 116.2 $1.63 0.0% 7 Arizona 115.2 $1.67 12.1% 8 Maryland 114.0 $1.72 -16.5% 9 Colorado 113.0 $1.76 -24.5% 10 Kansas 112.7 $1.77 -2.2% 11 Iowa 110.4 $1.86 -2.6% 11 West Virginia 110.4 $1.86 -29.5% 13 Oregon 109.9 $1.88 -8.3% 14 Washington 107.4 $1.98 -10.0% 15 Wyoming 105.4 $2.06 -15.2% 16 Hawaii 104.9 $2.08 -44.2% 16 South Dakota 104.9 $2.08 1.5% 18 Idaho 103.9 $2.12 -5.8% 18 Wisconsin 103.9 $2.12 -6.6% 20 Michigan 103.1 $2.15 -8.1% 20 Nebraska 103.1 $2.15 2.4% 20 New Mexico 103.1 $2.15 -16.0% 23 Florida 101.9 $2.20 -47.6% 23 Missouri 101.9 $2.20 -17.6% 25 Rhode Island 100.4 $2.26 -24.9% 26 Georgia 99.6 $2.29 7.0% 27 Minnesota 98.6 $2.33 -15.0% 27 Mississippi 98.6 $2.33 6.4% 29 North Carolina 96.1 $2.43 4.7% 30 Tennessee 95.8 $2.44 -6.9% 31 Connecticut 95.3 $2.46 -23.8% 32 New York 93.1 $2.55 -14.1% 33 Nevada 92.3 $2.58 0.0% 34 Texas 91.6 $2.61 -15.3% 35 New Jersey 90.3 $2.66 11.8% 36 Pennsylvania 89.8 $2.68 -5.0% 37 New Hampshire 89.3 $2.70 -15.4% 38 California 88.8 $2.72 -55.3% 39 South Carolina 88.3 $2.74 31.7% 40 Louisiana 87.8 $2.76 -18.1% 41 Illinois 87.0 $2.79 5.3% 42 Oklahoma 84.5 $2.89 -5.9% 43 Alabama 84.3 $2.90 0.7% 44 Delaware 82.8 $2.96 -14.0% 44 Kentucky 82.8 $2.96 -14.9% 46 Maine 80.8 $3.04 -1.3% 47 Vermont 78.2 $3.14 5.0% 48 Ohio 73.7 $3.32 -7.5% 49 Montana 69.2 $3.50 2.6% 50 Alaska 57.4 $3.97 -9.6%

Average workers’ compensation rate paid per $100 of payroll, 2008 Workers' compensation and unemployment insurance costs are largely reflected in unit labor costs. When firms evaluate state and local taxes, they frequently lump in compensation and unemployment insurance costs. However, businesses do take these factors separately into account when making relocation and expansion decisions and are therefore shown separately in this report. The table shows a state’s average workers’ compensation rate paid per $100 of payroll, published every 2 years.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Rate per $100 of

payroll Rank

Indiana $1.23 2 Wisconsin $2.12 18 Michigan $2.15 20


Ohio $3.32 48

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

1.9

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2005 2006 2007 2008

Tren

d in

Rat

e pe

r $1

00 P

ayro

ll

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COSTS

Average workers’ compensation benefits paid per $100 of covered wages, 2007 A state’s worker’s compensation benefits structure drives the premium schedule for business, alongside other policy considerations. While this measure is a cost to the state, it directly affects employer costs if the program is to maintain solvency. There is definite correlation between this metric and the Workers’ Compensation Premiums metric. The table shows a state’s average workers’ benefits rate paid per $100 of covered wages.

Midwest Performance, 2007 State Benefits per $100 of

Covered Wages Rank

Indiana $0.60 3 Michigan $0.86 21

Illinois $0.99 31 Kentucky $1.02 35 Wisconsin $1.07 36

Ohio $1.20 40

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

$0.6

$0.7

$0.8

$0.9

$1.0

$1.1

2004 2005 2006 2007

Ben

efits

per

$10

0 of

Cov

ered

W

ages

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

61


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COSTS


2008 (%) 50-State Average 4.99 1.1%

1 Oklahoma 129.7 6.59 3.1% 2 Arizona 126.3 6.42 6.8% 3 Florida 122.4 6.22 -4.7% 4 Missouri 120.6 6.13 2.2% 5 Mississippi 119.8 6.09 -6.5% 6 North Carolina 118.9 6.04 0.3% 7 Delaware 117.9 5.99 1.9% 8 Louisiana 114.0 5.79 7.4% 9 Kansas 113.0 5.74 2.1% 10 Indiana 111.0 5.64 -7.1% 10 Ohio 111.0 5.64 -3.9% 12 Alabama 110.2 5.60 -7.3% 12 New Mexico 110.2 5.60 -2.4% 14 Texas 109.0 5.54 -4.6% 15 California 108.1 5.49 2.2% 16 Vermont 107.9 5.48 -12.2% 17 Connecticut 103.7 5.27 1.9% 18 Colorado 102.8 5.22 1.2% 18 Montana 102.8 5.22 0.2% 20 Georgia 102.6 5.21 14.3% 21 Hawaii 102.2 5.19 -4.1% 22 New Jersey 101.4 5.15 1.2% 23 Nebraska 101.2 5.14 -9.0% 24 Pennsylvania 101.0 5.13 -12.0% 25 Arkansas 100.2 5.09 25.4% 26 Wisconsin 99.8 5.07 7.4% 27 Utah 97.1 4.93 -9.0% 28 Virginia 96.7 4.91 -0.4% 29 North Dakota 95.9 4.87 10.2% 30 Maryland 95.1 4.83 -16.0% 30 Tennessee 95.1 4.83 6.6% 32 Oregon 93.9 4.77 -4.4% 32 South Dakota 93.9 4.77 0.6% 32 Wyoming 93.9 4.77 -14.5% 35 West Virginia 93.7 4.76 6.0% 36 Washington 93.3 4.74 6.8% 37 Iowa 92.5 4.70 -5.6% 38 New Hampshire 91.5 4.65 14.0% 39 Minnesota 90.2 4.58 -1.9% 40 Maine 87.8 4.46 4.2% 41 Nevada 87.4 4.44 3.7% 42 Illinois 84.5 4.29 2.6% 43 South Carolina 81.5 4.14 2.0% 44 Idaho 79.4 4.03 5.2% 45 Michigan 79.0 4.01 -4.1% 46 New York 75.8 3.85 64.5% 47 Kentucky 70.7 3.59 4.1% 48 Alaska 65.0 3.30 -23.3% 49 Massachusetts 62.5 3.17 3.3% 50 Rhode Island 51.7 2.62 -1.5%

Rank State Score Rate Paid on wages Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 0.62% -22.2%

1 New Hampshire 117.6 0.21% -47.5% 2 Texas 116.1 0.24% -54.7% 2 Virginia 116.1 0.24% -45.5% 4 Louisiana 115.2 0.26% -27.8% 4 South Dakota 115.2 0.26% 18.2% 6 New Mexico 113.3 0.30% -33.3% 7 Arizona 112.8 0.31% -6.1% 7 Florida 112.8 0.31% -36.7% 9 Oklahoma 112.3 0.32% -59.0% 10 Mississippi 111.4 0.34% -33.3% 11 Georgia 110.9 0.35% -37.5% 11 Hawaii 110.9 0.35% -59.3% 13 Utah 110.4 0.36% -52.0% 14 Alabama 110.0 0.37% -36.2% 15 Maryland 109.0 0.39% -39.1% 16 Nebraska 108.5 0.40% -36.5% 17 Colorado 106.2 0.45% -33.8% 17 Tennessee 106.2 0.45% -19.6% 19 Kansas 105.2 0.47% -46.0% 20 Delaware 104.3 0.49% -2.0% 21 South Carolina 103.8 0.50% -12.3% 22 New York 102.4 0.53% -29.3% 23 North Dakota 101.9 0.54% -34.1% 24 Idaho 100.9 0.56% -37.1% 25 Indiana 100.0 0.58% -17.1% 25 Maine 100.0 0.58% -13.4% 27 Wyoming 99.5 0.59% 3.5% 28 Ohio 97.2 0.64% 4.9% 29 Montana 96.2 0.66% -13.2% 30 Connecticut 95.3 0.68% -20.0% 30 Missouri 95.3 0.68% -1.4% 32 North Carolina 94.8 0.69% -15.9% 33 California 93.4 0.72% -17.2% 33 Kentucky 93.4 0.72% -4.0% 33 Vermont 93.4 0.72% 9.1% 36 West Virginia 92.4 0.74% -12.9% 37 Wisconsin 91.9 0.75% -17.6% 38 Nevada 91.5 0.76% -3.8% 39 Arkansas 90.0 0.79% -15.1% 40 Illinois 89.1 0.81% -37.2% 41 Minnesota 88.1 0.83% -18.6% 42 Iowa 87.7 0.84% 21.7% 43 Massachusetts 81.0 0.98% -24.0% 44 Washington 79.6 1.01% -39.9% 45 New Jersey 77.2 1.06% 2.9% 46 Pennsylvania 76.7 1.07% -29.6% 47 Michigan 76.3 1.08% 4.9% 48 Alaska 72.0 1.17% -30.8% 49 Rhode Island 71.5 1.18% -13.9% 50 Oregon 60.1 1.42% -8.4%

Average unemployment insurance rate paid on all wages, 2008 Unemployment insurance costs are another major labor cost factor that is often only evaluated in combination with compensation costs. However, businesses do take these factors separately into account when making relocation and expansion decisions. The above table shows the average unemployment insurance rate in each state paid on total (taxable and nontaxable) wages.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Rate Paid on Wages Rank

Indiana 0.58% 25 Ohio 0.64% 28



Michigan, 2005 - 2008

0.3%

0.5%

0.7%

0.9%

1.1%

1.3%

1.5%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Rat

e P

aid

on W

ages

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE TAX STRUCTURE TAX STRUCTURE

Tax Foundation Unemployment Insurance Tax Index, 2008 The Tax Foundation in its annual State Unemployment Insurance Tax Index scores states higher that have fewer the distortions, a simpler tax structure, a broader base and lower rates, with a maximum score of 10. The Unemployment Insurance Tax Index is made up of two sub-indexes—the unemployment insurance tax rate sub-index and the tax base sub-index. See Appendix for more detail.


Indiana 5.64 10 Ohio 5.64 10

Wisconsin 5.07 26 Illinois 4.29 42

Michigan 4.01 45 Kentucky 3.59 47

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

2

3

4

5

6

2005 2006 2007 2008

Ind

ex

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

62


BUSINESS TAX BURDEN


2008 (%) 50-State Average 5.30 0.5%

1 Nevada 192.6 10.00 0.0% 1 South Dakota 192.6 10.00 0.0% 1 Wyoming 192.6 10.00 0.0% 4 Virginia 123.9 6.33 2.6% 5 Missouri 122.8 6.27 7.7% 6 Utah 118.5 6.04 -2.9% 7 Oklahoma 117.0 5.96 4.6% 8 Georgia 116.5 5.93 -0.7% 9 South Carolina 115.3 5.87 1.2% 10 Mississippi 114.6 5.83 -0.5% 11 Hawaii 114.2 5.81 -0.7% 12 Tennessee 113.8 5.79 1.0% 13 Florida 113.1 5.75 1.1% 14 Colorado 110.1 5.59 -0.5% 14 Maryland 110.1 5.59 -5.6% 16 Montana 107.3 5.44 -2.5% 17 Idaho 104.5 5.29 0.8% 18 Connecticut 104.1 5.27 -0.8% 19 Alabama 103.9 5.26 1.2% 19 Louisiana 103.9 5.26 -0.9% 19 Oregon 103.9 5.26 1.0% 22 New York 103.2 5.22 2.8% 23 Indiana 102.6 5.19 0.8% 24 Arizona 101.3 5.12 1.0% 25 North Carolina 100.0 5.05 1.0% 25 West Virginia 100.0 5.05 1.0% 27 Alaska 99.6 5.03 1.0% 28 Illinois 98.7 4.98 1.0% 29 North Dakota 97.8 4.93 -0.8% 29 Wisconsin 97.8 4.93 0.8% 31 Vermont 95.0 4.78 -3.0% 32 Nebraska 93.1 4.68 0.6% 33 Ohio 92.3 4.64 12.6% 34 Arkansas 91.6 4.60 1.1% 35 New Mexico 91.4 4.59 1.1% 36 Washington 91.0 4.57 -5.4% 37 Kansas 90.8 4.56 0.9% 38 Kentucky 89.9 4.51 -7.4% 39 New Jersey 89.3 4.48 49.3% 40 Rhode Island 89.0 4.46 -2.6% 41 Pennsylvania 88.4 4.43 0.9% 42 Texas 88.2 4.42 -17.2% 43 Maine 87.8 4.40 0.9% 44 Minnesota 86.5 4.33 2.9% 45 California 85.6 4.28 -3.6% 45 Iowa 85.6 4.28 0.7% 47 Massachusetts 83.5 4.17 0.7% 48 Michigan 81.5 4.06 17.3% 49 Delaware 76.1 3.77 -6.5% 50 New Hampshire 60.7 2.95 -35.0%

Rank State Score Percent of Private

GDP Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 5.4% 5.2%

1 North Carolina 123.4 3.6% -2.7% 2 Connecticut 121.6 3.7% -5.1% 2 Oregon 121.6 3.7% -2.6% 4 Delaware 119.8 3.8% 2.7% 5 Utah 118.0 3.9% 0.0% 5 Virginia 118.0 3.9% 5.4% 7 Georgia 116.2 4.0% 0.0% 8 Maryland 114.4 4.1% -12.8% 8 Missouri 114.4 4.1% 5.1% 10 Colorado 112.6 4.2% 2.4% 10 Massachusetts 112.6 4.2% 5.0% 12 Minnesota 110.8 4.3% -12.2% 13 Alabama 107.2 4.5% 7.1% 13 Arkansas 107.2 4.5% 4.7% 13 Kentucky 107.2 4.5% 2.3% 13 Tennessee 107.2 4.5% 0.0% 17 California 105.4 4.6% -4.2% 17 Iowa 105.4 4.6% 7.0% 17 Nevada 105.4 4.6% 0.0% 17 Ohio 105.4 4.6% -2.1% 17 Wisconsin 105.4 4.6% 4.5% 22 Arizona 103.6 4.7% -4.1% 22 Idaho 103.6 4.7% 9.3% 22 South Carolina 103.6 4.7% 6.8% 25 Illinois 100.0 4.9% -7.5% 25 Pennsylvania 100.0 4.9% 2.1% 27 Indiana 98.2 5.0% 11.1% 27 Michigan 98.2 5.0% 16.3% 27 New Jersey 98.2 5.0% 11.1% 30 Nebraska 96.4 5.1% -5.6% 31 Florida 94.6 5.2% -3.7% 31 Louisiana 94.6 5.2% -16.1% 31 South Dakota 94.6 5.2% 0.0% 34 Oklahoma 92.8 5.3% -3.6% 34 Texas 92.8 5.3% -5.4% 36 Hawaii 91.0 5.4% 0.0% 36 New Hampshire 91.0 5.4% 5.9% 38 Washington 89.2 5.5% -5.2% 39 Kansas 85.6 5.7% 3.6% 39 Rhode Island 85.6 5.7% 9.6% 41 New York 83.8 5.8% 1.8% 42 Mississippi 80.2 6.0% 3.4% 42 New Mexico 80.2 6.0% -4.8% 42 Vermont 80.2 6.0% 9.1% 45 Montana 73.0 6.4% 18.5% 46 West Virginia 60.5 7.1% 7.6% 47 Maine 56.9 7.3% 23.7% 48 North Dakota 28.1 8.9% 34.8% 49 Wyoming 22.7 9.2% -4.2% 50 Alaska -50.0 22.3% 139.8%

State and local business taxes per dollar of private economic activity, 2008 Taxes, typically highly varied across states, are a key component of states’ competitive positions, especially for businesses. A business-friendly tax policy helps to attract firms. The measure for business taxes is taken from a study prepared by Ernst & Young for the Council on State Taxation. The above table shows the share of state and local business taxes in proportion to total business revenue for the most current fiscal year as represented by gross domestic product. Midwest Performance, 2008

State Percent of Private GDP Rank

Kentucky 4.5% 13 Ohio 4.6% 17


Michigan 5.0% 27

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Per

cent

of

Pri

vate

GD

P

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

STATE BUSINESS TAX STRUCTURE

Tax Foundation Corporate Tax Index, 2008 The Tax Foundation in its annual State Business Tax Climate Index evaluates that the fewer the distortions, the simpler the tax structure, the broader the base and the lower the rates, the higher the index score, with a maximum of 10. The Corporate Tax Index is made up of two sub-indexes—the tax rate sub-index and the tax base sub-index. See Appendix for more detail.




Kentucky 4.51 38 Michigan 4.06 48

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

2005 2006 2007 2008

Ind

ex

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

63


METRO OFFICE RENTS

Rank State Score Average Premium Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average $8,042 11.9%

1 Idaho 131.4 $6,368 3.1% 2 Arkansas 123.1 $6,782 6.7% 3 North Dakota 120.6 $6,904 7.0% 4 Montana 120.2 $6,925 15.7% 5 South Dakota 115.5 $7,157 11.6% 6 Iowa 114.9 $7,186 15.9% 7 California 114.3 $7,212 4.3% 8 Ohio 113.7 $7,246 -0.4% 9 Tennessee 111.2 $7,368 3.6% 10 Washington 111.0 $7,377 6.4% 11 Nevada 110.9 $7,382 7.2% 12 Utah 109.6 $7,448 11.2% 13 Arizona 108.4 $7,507 12.0% 14 Georgia 107.6 $7,546 11.7% 15 Hawaii 107.1 $7,572 19.6% 16 Kentucky 107.0 $7,575 11.6% 17 Missouri 106.3 $7,611 9.1% 18 Alabama 106.0 $7,628 16.3% 19 Maryland 104.2 $7,715 -1.3% 20 Michigan 102.7 $7,788 1.6% 21 Oklahoma 102.6 $7,791 9.8% 22 Colorado 102.5 $7,799 5.1% 23 Mississippi 102.4 $7,806 11.5% 24 New Mexico 101.3 $7,857 18.3% 25 Kansas 100.1 $7,916 21.5% 26 Oregon 99.9 $7,928 15.2% 27 Louisiana 99.5 $7,948 23.0% 28 North Carolina 98.0 $8,020 8.7% 29 West Virginia 97.4 $8,049 14.5% 30 Minnesota 96.9 $8,078 12.4% 31 Indiana 94.5 $8,196 21.0% 32 South Carolina 93.7 $8,236 10.0% 33 Texas 92.8 $8,281 10.7% 34 Wyoming 92.2 $8,310 5.3% 35 Maine 92.1 $8,311 11.9% 36 Pennsylvania 91.2 $8,359 8.2% 37 Florida 87.6 $8,534 4.1% 38 Nebraska 87.0 $8,568 31.2% 39 Wisconsin 86.8 $8,573 9.3% 40 Vermont 86.8 $8,577 17.3% 41 Virginia 86.1 $8,609 22.9% 42 New York 84.9 $8,671 8.3% 43 Illinois 81.8 $8,824 16.2% 44 Delaware 78.5 $8,986 7.9% 45 Rhode Island 75.6 $9,127 13.0% 46 Connecticut 68.7 $9,473 13.9% 47 New Hampshire 65.9 $9,612 15.8% 48 New Jersey 64.2 $9,692 13.7% 49 Massachusetts 62.0 $9,801 24.0% 50 Alaska 60.8 $9,861 15.2%


2006 (%) 50-State Average 100 4.7%

1 Alaska 126.5 50.0 10.6% 2 North Dakota 124.8 51.8 -4.9% 3 Oklahoma 120.5 56.3 -1.0% 4 Kansas 118.7 58.1 -5.2% 5 Montana 117.5 59.4 11.1% 6 Iowa 116.9 60.0 1.6% 7 Louisiana 112.6 64.5 0.8% 8 Indiana 112.0 65.2 -1.8% 9 South Dakota 111.9 65.3 -4.9% 10 West Virginia 109.8 67.4 6.3% 11 Alabama 109.8 67.4 -0.8% 12 Wisconsin 108.3 69.0 -4.9% 13 Arkansas 107.6 69.7 0.5% 14 Kentucky 106.9 70.5 0.0% 15 Vermont 106.4 71.0 4.4% 16 Nebraska 105.5 71.9 -4.7% 17 Michigan 104.9 72.5 -3.9% 18 Virginia 104.9 72.5 2.3% 19 South Carolina 104.3 73.2 3.1% 20 Tennessee 104.2 73.3 0.0% 21 Texas 103.5 74.0 1.7% 22 Colorado 102.8 74.8 10.8% 23 Wyoming 102.5 75.0 11.6% 24 Maine 101.6 75.9 5.1% 25 Idaho 100.4 77.3 11.4% 26 Ohio 99.6 78.0 0.6% 27 Mississippi 99.6 78.1 -0.5% 28 New Mexico 98.9 78.8 11.1% 29 Missouri 98.8 78.9 -3.8% 30 Oregon 98.4 79.3 11.1% 31 Maryland 95.3 82.6 1.7% 32 North Carolina 94.0 83.9 2.8% 33 Rhode Island 93.0 85.0 4.6% 34 Washington 90.8 87.3 11.0% 35 Georgia 90.5 87.5 -0.5% 36 Delaware 89.0 89.2 (n/a) 37 Connecticut 87.7 90.5 5.9% 38 Arizona 87.3 90.9 9.9% 39 Utah 85.9 92.4 10.5% 40 Florida 84.4 93.9 6.8% 41 Minnesota 83.3 95.0 -9.4% 42 Illinois 77.4 101.2 -0.5% 43 Pennsylvania 77.3 101.3 13.0% 44 Nevada 67.0 112.1 11.0% 45 California 63.5 115.7 12.2% 46 New Jersey 57.9 121.5 26.7% 47 Massachusetts 44.4 135.7 18.1% 48 New Hampshire 37.6 142.7 14.2% 49 New York 32.9 147.6 9.3% 50 Hawaii 32.6 148.0 14.7%

State population-weighted Metro Office Rents Index average, 2006 For firms considering relocation or expansion, occupancy costs rank high as a site-location factor, after availability of transportation and utilities, availability of labor, and site characteristics. The best available method of comparison is to use regularly reported rents for major metro areas in each state. The above table lists the average office rent index for metropolitan areas in each state. The raw metro-area data has been averaged with weighting based on the metro areas’ population.


Indiana 65.2 8 Wisconsin 69.0 12 Kentucky 70.5 14 Michigan 72.5 17

Ohio 78.0 26 Illinois 101.2 42

Michigan, 2003 - 2006

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

2003 2004 2005 2006

Ind

ex

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

SMALL BUSINESS HEALTH CARE PREMIUMS

Average of mean single and family premiums for firms with 99 or fewer employees, 2008 As health care costs continue to escalate, the cost of employer-provided health insurance is increasingly becoming a concern for employers. The variation of these costs from state to state often receives scant attention. But health-care insurance costs can be a significant determinant of firms’ willingness to locate to or remain in a given state. The above table is an average of total single and family coverage health insurance premiums across all plan types for companies with 99 or fewer employees. Midwest Performance, 2008

State Average Premium Rank Ohio $7,246 8

Kentucky $7,575 16 Michigan $7,788 20

Indiana $8,196 31 Wisconsin $8,573 39

Illinois $8,824 43

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

$5,500

$6,000

$6,500

$7,000

$7,500

$8,000

$8,500

$9,000

2005 2006 2007 2008

Ave

rage

Pre

miu

ms

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

n/a

64


PRODUCTIVITY AND LABOR SUPPLY One of the fundamental drivers of economic health is quantity and quality of labor available in a state. The Workforce Preparedness Driver measures quality of labor. This Driver measures the inflow and availability of labor in a state and the efficiency with which workers produce goods and services. High productivity, coupled with a good supply of skilled labor, is necessary to maintain a rising standard of living and to keeping the cost of doing business competitive. Productivity measures for state comparison are particularly difficult to come by. Four metrics are used, two for overall productivity, another for manufacturing and a fourth for the services sector. They are supplemented with two general measures of labor supply.

Rank State 2008 2006 2004 1 Virginia ***** ***** ***** 2 Delaware ***** ***** ***** 3 Alaska **** **** *** 4 Colorado *** **** *** 5 New York *** **** *** 6 Texas *** **** *** 7 Washington *** **** *** 8 Nevada *** **** ***** 9 Connecticut *** **** *** 10 Hawaii *** **** **** 11 Oregon *** *** *** 12 Illinois *** *** *** 13 Georgia *** **** *** 14 New Jersey *** *** *** 15 California *** *** *** 16 Utah *** *** ** 17 Wyoming ** *** ** 18 North Carolina ** *** *** 19 Wisconsin ** *** *** 20 Massachusetts ** *** *** 21 Maryland ** *** *** 22 Arizona ** *** *** 23 Minnesota ** *** *** 24 Tennessee ** *** ** 25 Pennsylvania ** *** ** 26 Idaho ** *** ** 27 Mississippi ** *** * 28 Nebraska ** *** ** 29 New Hampshire ** *** *** 30 Kansas * ** ** 31 Florida * *** ** 32 Louisiana * * * 33 Oklahoma * ** * 34 South Dakota * ** ** 35 Iowa * ** ** 36 Indiana * *** ** 37 Alabama * *** ** 38 Rhode Island * *** ** 39 Michigan * *** ** 40 South Carolina * ** ** 41 Kentucky * ** ** 42 North Dakota * ** * 43 Missouri * ** ** 44 Montana * ** * 45 New Mexico * ** * 46 Arkansas * ** * 47 Ohio * ** * 48 West Virginia * ** * 49 Vermont * ** ** 50 Maine * ** *

Midwest Performance

2008 2006 2004 Illinois *** *** *** Wisconsin ** *** *** Indiana * *** ** Michigan * *** ** Kentucky * ** ** Ohio * ** *

65


NET MIGRATION RATE

Rank State Score Share in Population Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 26.7% -4.3%

1 Colorado 135.9 29.6% -4.2% 2 Nevada 133.0 29.3% -3.2% 3 Georgia 130.8 29.1% -6.4% 4 California 127.3 28.8% -2.2% 5 Texas 127.2 28.8% -2.2% 6 Alaska 123.3 28.5% 4.7% 7 Utah 119.9 28.2% -4.9% 8 Washington 118.4 28.0% -3.6% 9 Virginia 118.0 28.0% -2.9% 10 North Carolina 116.7 27.9% -6.3% 11 Arizona 115.2 27.7% -1.5% 12 Illinois 114.9 27.7% -4.4% 13 Tennessee 112.7 27.5% -5.0% 14 Kentucky 112.3 27.5% -3.2% 15 Maryland 112.2 27.5% -3.1% 16 New Jersey 111.3 27.4% -2.9% 17 New York 111.1 27.4% -5.7% 18 Oregon 110.8 27.3% -2.7% 19 Massachusetts 110.7 27.3% -8.4% 20 Hawaii 109.2 27.2% 2.6% 21 Minnesota 107.1 27.0% -6.7% 22 Indiana 104.6 26.8% -4.1% 23 Wisconsin 100.4 26.4% -4.9% 24 South Carolina 100.3 26.4% -5.8% 25 Delaware 100.2 26.4% -7.5% 26 Rhode Island 99.8 26.4% -8.3% 27 Alabama 99.1 26.3% -4.6% 28 Idaho 99.1 26.3% -2.7% 29 Missouri 98.9 26.3% -4.8% 30 Louisiana 98.4 26.2% -4.0% 31 Connecticut 98.1 26.2% -4.8% 32 Ohio 97.9 26.2% -4.4% 33 New Hampshire 97.6 26.2% -6.5% 34 Michigan 97.4 26.2% -5.1% 35 Oklahoma 96.4 26.1% -4.0% 36 Mississippi 96.3 26.0% -4.4% 37 New Mexico 96.0 26.0% -0.4% 38 Arkansas 95.8 26.0% -4.4% 39 Florida 95.1 25.9% -1.6% 40 Kansas 94.0 25.8% -5.7% 41 Nebraska 92.6 25.7% -5.3% 42 West Virginia 91.7 25.6% -2.3% 43 Wyoming 90.9 25.6% -0.5% 44 Pennsylvania 87.2 25.2% -5.1% 45 Maine 85.8 25.1% -5.0% 46 Iowa 83.3 24.9% -7.5% 47 Vermont 82.2 24.8% -7.7% 48 North Dakota 80.5 24.6% -8.2% 49 Montana 76.3 24.3% -5.2% 50 South Dakota 76.2 24.3% -7.3%

Rank State Score Migration per 1,000

Residents Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 0.8 0.5

1 South Carolina 133.0 11.1 9.8 2 North Carolina 131.6 1.0 0.3 3 Wyoming 130.1 10.1 7.9 4 Arizona 128.8 9.7 9.1 5 Idaho 124.8 8.4 7.9 6 Colorado 122.1 7.5 7.7 7 Oregon 119.3 6.5 -1.7 8 Utah 119.0 6.4 5.4 9 Nevada 118.5 6.3 6.2 10 Washington 118.3 6.2 5.9 11 Montana 118.2 6.2 8.6 12 Georgia 117.2 5.9 4.8 13 Texas 117.1 5.8 10.9 14 Tennessee 114.7 5.0 -0.9 15 Delaware 113.8 4.7 4.5 16 Alabama 109.4 3.2 5.9 17 Louisiana 108.9 3.1 1.9 18 Kentucky 108.0 2.8 1.6 19 South Dakota 107.8 2.7 5.7 20 Arkansas 106.9 2.4 4.4 21 Oklahoma 106.2 2.2 -2.4 22 West Virginia 105.9 2.1 1.2 23 New Mexico 101.2 0.5 0.0 24 Virginia 100.7 0.3 2.6 25 Iowa 100.1 0.1 -3.5 26 Kansas 99.9 0.1 -1.3 27 Mississippi 98.9 -0.3 -1.2 28 Indiana 98.7 -0.3 0.6 29 Missouri 98.4 -0.4 2.7 30 Florida 98.1 -0.5 0.1 31 North Dakota 97.9 -0.6 -0.8 32 Nebraska 97.1 -0.8 -7.0 33 Pennsylvania 96.9 -0.9 -1.4 34 Wisconsin 95.9 -1.2 -2.7 35 Minnesota 95.5 -1.4 1.2 36 Maine 94.9 -1.6 -2.1 37 New Hampshire 94.0 -1.9 0.3 38 Vermont 91.4 -2.7 -5.8 39 Massachusetts 91.0 -2.9 -1.5 40 Hawaii 90.9 -2.9 -5.4 41 California 87.9 -3.9 -5.9 42 Illinois 87.4 -4.1 1.3 43 Connecticut 86.8 -4.3 -4.8 44 Ohio 86.6 -4.3 -1.9 45 Alaska 83.3 -5.4 -0.4 46 Maryland 82.5 -5.7 -4.1 47 New Jersey 80.2 -6.5 -2.8 48 New York 80.2 -6.5 -12.8 49 Rhode Island 74.4 -8.4 -12.8 50 Michigan 66.8 -10.9 -12.8

Net domestic migration per 1,000 residents, 2008 The net domestic migration rate measures the difference between in-migration to an area and out-migration from the same area during a time period. It is an overall indicator of the attractiveness of the state as individuals vote with their feet on what they consider a preferable living and working environment. The table above shows the net domestic migration during a time period as a percentage of an area’s population at the midpoint of the time period.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Migration per 1,000

Residents Rank

Kentucky 2.8 18 Indiana -0.3 28

Wisconsin -1.2 34 Illinois -4.1 42 Ohio -4.3 44

Michigan -10.9 50

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-22005 2006 2007 2008

Mig

ratio

n pe

r 1,

000

Res

iden

ts

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

PRIME WORKING AGE RESIDENTS

Proportion of the population 25 to 44 years old, 2008 The age structure of the population of a state reflects its attractiveness to young skilled workers as Richard Florida proposes in his book “The Rise of the Creative Class”. The table at right shows the percent of the population age 25 to 44 years old.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Share in Population Rank

Illinois 27.7% 12 Kentucky 27.5% 14 Indiana 26.8% 22


Michigan 26.2% 34

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

24%

25%

26%

27%

28%

29%

30%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Sha

re i

n P

opul

atio

n

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

66


GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT PER JOB

Rank State Score Dollars per job Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average $70,381 7.8%

1 Delaware 178.7 $121,230 2.0% 2 New York 158.5 $107,203 13.0% 3 Connecticut 142.7 $96,206 4.9% 4 New Jersey 137.6 $92,675 5.8% 5 California 131.4 $88,368 7.2% 6 Massachusetts 129.7 $87,191 9.5% 7 Washington 123.6 $82,912 8.7% 8 Illinois 123.2 $82,681 8.9% 9 Virginia 119.7 $80,245 6.6% 10 Nevada 117.2 $78,463 7.6% 11 Alaska 115.7 $77,444 10.9% 12 Rhode Island 114.5 $76,652 5.6% 13 Maryland 113.8 $76,148 5.5% 14 Colorado 112.2 $74,992 8.1% 15 Texas 111.0 $74,222 9.0% 16 New Hampshire 110.4 $73,774 8.3% 17 Minnesota 110.1 $73,532 8.7% 18 Pennsylvania 109.8 $73,344 10.3% 19 Hawaii 107.6 $71,859 8.4% 20 Florida 107.3 $71,604 7.5% 21 Georgia 106.7 $71,177 4.2% 22 Arizona 106.6 $71,101 6.5% 23 Michigan 103.3 $68,831 3.9% 24 North Carolina 101.7 $67,696 2.9% 25 Wyoming 100.1 $66,638 15.5% 26 Tennessee 99.9 $66,453 7.5% 27 Ohio 98.9 $65,771 5.1% 28 South Dakota 98.2 $65,303 9.4% 29 Louisiana 96.7 $64,236 12.2% 30 Missouri 96.7 $64,224 6.8% 31 Kansas 96.0 $63,762 8.3% 32 Wisconsin 95.7 $63,546 7.4% 33 Oregon 94.7 $62,872 6.3% 34 Nebraska 94.6 $62,812 8.0% 35 Indiana 93.4 $61,928 6.7% 36 Utah 91.8 $60,846 6.7% 37 Iowa 90.8 $60,136 7.3% 38 New Mexico 90.6 $60,048 11.5% 39 West Virginia 90.3 $59,819 10.6% 40 Alabama 90.1 $59,672 5.7% 41 Maine 90.0 $59,565 7.7% 42 Vermont 89.4 $59,210 8.1% 43 Arkansas 89.1 $58,962 8.1% 44 Kentucky 88.8 $58,763 5.8% 45 Oklahoma 88.7 $58,679 11.2% 46 North Dakota 86.0 $56,838 11.8% 47 Mississippi 84.7 $55,915 6.4% 48 South Carolina 84.2 $55,545 5.4% 49 Idaho 83.9 $55,389 6.6% 50 Montana 79.9 $52,579 10.1%

Rank State Score Dollars per Job Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average $73,629 9.2%

1 Delaware 159.8 $111,775 2.8% 2 Alaska 151.0 $105,769 14.2% 3 New York 144.5 $101,380 12.9% 4 Connecticut 134.9 $94,854 8.0% 5 New Jersey 130.4 $91,752 7.4% 6 California 124.4 $87,676 8.5% 7 Wyoming 123.7 $87,216 17.2% 8 Louisiana 122.2 $86,233 13.8% 9 Massachusetts 121.7 $85,857 9.7% 10 Texas 119.8 $84,556 12.0% 11 Illinois 117.1 $82,757 9.8% 12 Virginia 114.2 $80,755 8.0% 13 Washington 113.7 $80,448 8.7% 14 Nevada 113.2 $80,118 9.1% 15 Maryland 111.2 $78,725 7.9% 16 Rhode Island 109.2 $77,360 8.3% 17 Colorado 106.7 $75,669 7.9% 18 Pennsylvania 105.3 $74,696 9.8% 19 Minnesota 103.8 $73,682 9.1% 20 Hawaii 102.9 $73,072 9.5% 21 North Carolina 102.4 $72,791 6.4% 22 Arizona 101.9 $72,410 7.9% 23 New Mexico 100.6 $71,504 10.1% 24 Georgia 100.4 $71,389 3.9% 25 Florida 100.4 $71,385 7.5% 26 Michigan 99.6 $70,870 4.4% 27 New Hampshire 98.4 $70,014 7.9% 28 Ohio 97.1 $69,146 5.9% 29 Oregon 97.0 $69,063 10.1% 30 Indiana 96.2 $68,545 6.7% 31 Tennessee 94.0 $67,063 7.8% 32 Iowa 93.9 $67,002 12.1% 33 Nebraska 93.1 $66,430 12.1% 34 Wisconsin 93.1 $66,421 8.5% 35 Oklahoma 93.0 $66,372 11.8% 36 West Virginia 92.4 $65,942 11.3% 37 Kansas 91.6 $65,452 12.0% 38 South Dakota 91.3 $65,242 12.5% 39 Missouri 90.6 $64,746 7.1% 40 Utah 90.2 $64,480 9.7% 41 Alabama 90.1 $64,382 7.1% 42 Kentucky 89.6 $64,054 8.3% 43 North Dakota 87.4 $62,576 19.2% 44 Arkansas 85.8 $61,478 8.8% 45 South Carolina 84.5 $60,631 6.2% 46 Maine 82.3 $59,116 7.8% 47 Mississippi 82.0 $58,900 10.0% 48 Vermont 81.4 $58,499 8.1% 49 Idaho 77.9 $56,126 3.8% 50 Montana 76.4 $55,096 11.6%

Gross domestic product per job, 2008 Measuring productivity in exact fashion is, unfortunately, a very difficult task at the state level. No single measure is available for the total output per hour worked in all industries at the state level. However, one crude but telling way to estimate productivity is to divide a state’s total economic output by its total number of jobs. The above table shows the nominal gross domestic product—the total value of goods and services produced in a state—per job held.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Dollars per Job Rank

Illinois $82,757 11 Michigan $70,870 26

Ohio $69,146 28 Indiana $68,545 30

Wisconsin $66,421 34 Kentucky $64,054 42

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

$62,000

$64,000

$66,000

$68,000

$70,000

$72,000

$74,000

2005 2006 2007 2008

Dol

lars

per

Job

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

SERVICES GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT PER JOB

Private service-providing industries GDP per job, 2008 No comparable value added productivity measure similar to the Annual Survey of Manufacturers is collected for service-providing industries. The best measure of service productivity that is annually available is the gross domestic product of service-producing industries per service job. The above table gives the gross domestic product of all private service-producing industries divided by service-producing jobs. See Appendix for more detail. Midwest Performance, 2008

State Dollars per Job Rank Illinois $82,681 8

Michigan $68,831 23 Ohio $65,771 27

Wisconsin $63,546 32 Indiana $61,928 35

Kentucky $58,763 44

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

$54,000

$58,000

$62,000

$66,000

$70,000

$74,000

2005 2006 2007 2008

Dol

lars

per

Job

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

67


VALUE ADDED IN MANUFACTURING PER HOUR

Rank State Score Dollars per Hour Change, 2003 -

2006 (%) 50-State Average $125.0 34.1%

1 Louisiana 250.0 $360.8 157.7% 2 Wyoming 166.4 $209.4 129.6% 3 New Mexico 162.8 $204.3 47.7% 4 Delaware 144.7 $178.4 104.8% 5 Texas 137.9 $168.6 56.5% 6 Oregon 129.1 $156.0 51.8% 7 Washington 122.9 $147.1 25.4% 8 Connecticut 122.7 $146.8 38.8% 9 Montana 119.4 $142.2 79.5% 10 Massachusetts 117.5 $139.5 23.5% 11 North Carolina 116.7 $138.4 36.3% 12 Maryland 115.4 $136.4 31.8% 13 California 113.0 $133.0 31.2% 14 New York 112.9 $132.9 33.8% 15 New Jersey 112.5 $132.3 17.1% 16 Arizona 111.7 $131.1 -6.9% 17 Virginia 105.6 $122.4 17.6% 18 Iowa 105.0 $121.7 20.0% 19 Pennsylvania 104.8 $121.4 25.0% 20 Nevada 103.3 $119.2 42.3% 21 Colorado 102.9 $118.5 25.6% 22 Vermont 100.6 $115.3 32.0% 23 Illinois 100.5 $115.2 23.7% 24 Oklahoma 100.5 $115.2 33.3% 25 West Virginia 100.1 $114.6 36.0% 26 Rhode Island 99.9 $114.3 53.0% 27 Kentucky 99.3 $113.4 25.1% 28 Hawaii 98.9 $112.9 62.7% 29 Florida 97.5 $110.8 23.8% 30 Tennessee 96.9 $110.1 26.4% 31 Indiana 96.7 $109.8 13.7% 32 Ohio 96.5 $109.5 23.4% 33 Minnesota 96.5 $109.5 19.4% 34 North Dakota 96.5 $109.4 41.3% 35 Utah 95.5 $108.0 19.8% 36 Wisconsin 92.5 $103.7 11.1% 37 Missouri 92.4 $103.6 7.1% 38 Michigan 90.5 $100.9 8.8% 39 Kansas 90.2 $100.5 16.4% 40 South Carolina 88.4 $97.9 7.4% 41 Maine 88.0 $97.4 25.2% 42 New Hampshire 87.0 $95.9 20.1% 43 Nebraska 86.8 $95.5 30.5% 44 Georgia 86.1 $94.5 9.9% 45 Alabama 86.1 $94.5 32.0% 46 Idaho 85.8 $94.2 10.3% 47 South Dakota 84.3 $92.0 37.0% 48 Arkansas 81.6 $88.2 22.2% 49 Alaska 78.4 $83.7 25.2% 50 Mississippi 75.7 $79.8 20.9%

Value added per manufacturing production hour, 2006 Manufacturing productivity plays a central role in Michigan and its Midwestern competitors. The measure of value added, which is the difference between the value of inputs and the resultant outputs, per hour worked, is less sensitive to business cycles and varying labor-market structures than output per worker. Value added also reflects the capacity of a manufacturing base for high wages. The figures shown here are value added per production hour worked in manufacturing industries in 2006. Midwest Performance, 2006

State Dollars per Hour Rank Illinois $115.2 23

Kentucky $113.4 27 Indiana $109.8 31

Ohio $109.5 32 Wisconsin $103.7 36 Michigan $100.9 38

Michigan, 2003 - 2006

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

2003 2004 2005 2006

Dol

lars

per

Hou

r

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE

Rank State Score Participation Rate Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 66.9% -0.2%

1 North Dakota 129.6 74.3% 3.1% 2 Nebraska 126.5 73.5% 0.1% 3 South Dakota 123.9 72.8% 0.0% 4 Minnesota 122.8 72.5% -1.7% 5 Colorado 121.7 72.3% -0.1% 6 Iowa 121.1 72.1% 0.7% 7 Wyoming 118.7 71.5% 1.0% 8 Utah 117.5 71.2% -0.5% 9 Alaska 117.3 71.1% -0.8% 10 New Hampshire 115.8 70.7% -0.4% 11 Kansas 115.8 70.7% 0.1% 12 Vermont 114.7 70.4% -0.7% 13 Wisconsin 114.1 70.3% -0.7% 14 Nevada 111.8 69.7% 3.7% 15 Virginia 111.5 69.6% 1.4% 16 Maryland 108.5 68.8% 0.0% 17 Connecticut 108.3 68.8% 2.2% 18 Washington 106.8 68.4% 1.1% 19 Rhode Island 105.8 68.1% 0.9% 20 Illinois 104.4 67.7% 1.5% 21 Georgia 102.7 67.3% -1.1% 22 Ohio 101.8 67.1% 0.6% 23 Idaho 100.6 66.8% -2.4% 24 Montana 100.6 66.8% 0.6% 25 Maine 100.1 66.6% -0.2% 26 New Jersey 99.9 66.6% 0.4% 27 Massachusetts 99.7 66.5% -0.3% 28 Indiana 98.8 66.3% -1.8% 29 Missouri 98.6 66.2% -2.2% 30 Hawaii 97.7 66.0% 0.0% 31 California 97.3 65.9% 0.7% 32 Oregon 96.6 65.7% 0.1% 33 Texas 96.5 65.7% -2.2% 34 Delaware 95.9 65.5% -2.1% 35 Pennsylvania 94.7 65.2% 0.9% 36 North Carolina 93.1 64.8% -1.6% 37 Arizona 90.9 64.2% 0.1% 38 Florida 89.5 63.9% 2.1% 39 New Mexico 88.6 63.6% 0.4% 40 Oklahoma 88.4 63.6% -0.4% 41 Michigan 87.8 63.4% -3.0% 42 Tennessee 87.1 63.2% -0.6% 43 New York 86.4 63.1% 0.4% 44 Arkansas 85.6 62.8% -0.9% 45 South Carolina 85.2 62.8% -2.1% 46 Louisiana 83.5 62.3% -0.6% 47 Kentucky 81.9 61.9% -0.7% 48 Alabama 75.4 60.2% -1.6% 49 Mississippi 74.6 60.0% -2.4% 50 West Virginia 57.7 55.6% 1.3%

Percent of non-institutionalized population in the labor force, 2008 The labor force participation rate is an indicator of the available workforce and the labor pool that is looking for work. A declining participation rate implies less potential income earners and therefore less spending in the state, slowing down economic growth. The table shows the share of the non-institutionalized civilian population that is working or unemployed.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Participation Rate Rank

Wisconsin 70.3% 13 Illinois 67.7% 20 Ohio 67.1% 22

Indiana 66.3% 28 Michigan 63.4% 41 Kentucky 61.9% 47

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Par

tici

pati

on R

ate

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

68


LEGAL AND REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT A state must find the right mix of size, taxing power, program and expenditure to provide high return on investment in the form of public assets and services, while at the same time interfering minimally in the day-to-day dealings of the marketplace. Next to tax policy, legal and regulatory policy is probably the most important aspect of business climate. The metrics chosen measure the consequences (e.g. liability costs) of a state’s legal environment. This driver does not seek to score regulatory policies or regulatory practices per se. However it does take advantage of other tort and liability ratings (from U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Pacific Research Institute) that do include judgments on regulatory policies and practices. Outcome data on specific areas of regulation, such as costs of delay due to regulatory processes in environmental permitting, are difficult to obtain and deserve further research.

Midwest Performance

2008 2006 2004 Ohio **** ***** **** Indiana **** **** **** Michigan **** **** **** Wisconsin **** **** *** Kentucky *** *** *** Illinois * ** **

Rank State 2008 2006 2004 1 North Dakota ***** ***** **** 2 South Dakota ***** ***** ***** 3 Nebraska ***** ***** ***** 4 Iowa ***** ***** **** 5 Wyoming ***** ***** ***** 6 Kansas ***** ***** **** 7 Ohio **** ***** **** 8 Virginia **** **** **** 9 Utah **** ***** **** 10 Arizona **** ***** ***** 11 North Carolina **** **** *** 12 Idaho **** **** ***** 13 New Hampshire **** **** *** 14 Oklahoma **** **** **** 15 Minnesota **** **** **** 16 Maine **** **** *** 17 Delaware **** ***** **** 18 Indiana **** **** **** 19 Alaska **** **** *** 20 Tennessee **** **** **** 21 Michigan **** **** **** 22 Wisconsin **** **** *** 23 Colorado **** **** **** 24 Washington **** **** **** 25 Rhode Island **** **** **** 26 South Carolina **** **** **** 27 Kentucky *** *** *** 28 Oregon *** **** **** 29 Arkansas *** *** **** 30 Massachusetts *** **** *** 31 Texas *** **** *** 32 Alabama *** **** ***** 33 Georgia *** *** *** 34 Montana *** *** *** 35 Vermont *** *** ** 36 Nevada *** *** ** 37 New Mexico *** *** *** 38 New York *** *** *** 39 Mississippi *** *** **** 40 Hawaii *** *** ** 41 Pennsylvania *** *** *** 42 Louisiana *** *** *** 43 Maryland ** *** ** 44 Connecticut ** *** ** 45 California ** *** ** 46 Missouri ** *** ** 47 New Jersey ** *** *** 48 Illinois * ** ** 49 Florida * * * 50 West Virginia * * ***

69


MALPRACTICE COSTS

Rank State Score Number of Mandates

Change, 2005 - 2008 (%)

50-State Average 24 19% 1 Idaho 130.2 6 -14.3% 2 Wyoming 125.2 9 12.5% 3 Alabama 121.8 11 22.2% 4 Iowa 120.1 12 9.1% 4 Michigan 120.1 12 0.0% 4 Mississippi 120.1 12 9.1% 4 Ohio 120.1 12 0.0% 4 South Dakota 120.1 12 0.0% 4 Utah 120.1 12 9.1% 10 Alaska 116.8 14 40.0% 11 Hawaii 113.4 16 0.0% 12 North Dakota 111.7 17 6.3% 12 South Carolina 111.7 17 6.3% 14 Montana 110.1 18 0.0% 14 Nebraska 110.1 18 12.5% 14 Vermont 110.1 18 20.0% 17 Delaware 108.4 19 18.8% 18 Kansas 106.7 20 11.1% 19 Wisconsin 105.0 21 16.7% 20 Indiana 103.4 22 22.2% 20 New Hampshire 103.4 22 22.2% 20 Tennessee 103.4 22 10.0% 23 West Virginia 101.7 23 4.5% 24 Arkansas 100.0 24 4.3% 24 Nevada 100.0 24 9.1% 24 Oregon 100.0 24 33.3% 24 Pennsylvania 100.0 24 41.2% 28 Colorado 98.3 25 38.9% 28 Kentucky 98.3 25 19.0% 28 North Carolina 98.3 25 4.2% 31 Oklahoma 96.6 26 8.3% 32 Florida 93.3 28 16.7% 32 Missouri 93.3 28 0.0% 32 Washington 93.3 28 21.7% 35 New Jersey 91.6 29 11.5% 36 Arizona 89.9 30 130.8% 37 Louisiana 88.3 31 34.8% 37 Maine 88.3 31 29.2% 37 Texas 88.3 31 19.2% 40 Illinois 86.6 32 39.1% 40 Massachusetts 86.6 32 33.3% 42 Connecticut 84.9 33 10.0% 42 Georgia 84.9 33 17.9% 44 New York 83.2 34 17.2% 44 Virginia 83.2 34 17.2% 46 California 81.6 35 25.0% 46 New Mexico 81.6 35 40.0% 48 Minnesota 76.5 38 15.2% 49 Maryland 69.8 42 10.5% 50 Rhode Island 66.5 44 76.0%


2008 (%) 50-State Average 11.4%

1 Nebraska 123.5 -4.73 23.7% 2 South Dakota 122.4 -4.52 34.8% 3 Minnesota 121.9 -4.43 25.3% 4 Wisconsin 117.5 -3.60 20.1% 5 Indiana 114.7 -3.06 -2.5% 6 Idaho 113.6 -2.87 -6.1% 7 Iowa 113.5 -2.85 14.5% 8 Arkansas 113.5 -2.84 1.7% 9 Kansas 112.4 -2.63 4.1% 10 North Dakota 112.1 -2.58 -6.4% 11 South Carolina 112.1 -2.58 71.0% 12 Alabama 112.0 -2.57 3.1% 13 Vermont 111.6 -2.49 -3.2% 14 Maine 110.0 -2.18 -20.1% 15 Louisiana 109.8 -2.14 18.5% 16 Oregon 108.2 -1.85 39.6% 17 Alaska 107.0 -1.61 -223.0% 18 Tennessee 105.7 -1.37 -6.3% 19 North Carolina 105.2 -1.28 -760.5% 20 Hawaii 105.0 -1.23 -41.0% 21 Colorado 101.8 -0.64 121.5% 22 Oklahoma 101.6 -0.60 -42.0% 23 California 101.5 -0.58 -8.0% 24 Kentucky 100.2 -0.32 -2.9% 25 New Hampshire 100.1 -0.31 -68.2% 26 Mississippi 99.9 -0.28 -419.9% 27 Virginia 99.8 -0.25 -66.0% 28 Washington 98.5 -0.01 -90.0% 29 New Mexico 97.6 0.16 -132.7% 30 Utah 97.4 0.19 -348.2% 31 Delaware 96.7 0.34 -134.0% 32 Georgia 96.3 0.40 1415.7% 33 Massachusetts 95.9 0.48 188.0% 34 Texas 93.0 1.03 -53.8% 35 Montana 92.8 1.06 -389.5% 36 Rhode Island 90.0 1.60 967.9% 37 Pennsylvania 89.1 1.77 73.9% 38 Wyoming 86.5 2.25 60.3% 39 Arizona 84.6 2.62 7.7% 40 Nevada 84.1 2.72 24.6% 41 Maryland 83.4 2.84 16.2% 42 Missouri 83.2 2.89 29.7% 43 New Jersey 83.1 2.90 20.2% 44 West Virginia 82.7 2.97 -28.9% 45 Ohio 82.0 3.11 7.3% 46 Michigan 80.6 3.37 -13.2% 47 New York 79.5 3.58 275.4% 48 Connecticut 73.5 4.71 -1.5% 49 Illinois 71.9 5.01 -13.9% 50 Florida 43.2 10.43 -11.0%

Index of medical malpractice insurance rates across three disciplines, 2008 Malpractice insurance rates strongly affect the health-care industry, both in quality and cost. Malpractice insurance itself is, in turn, strongly affected by the regulatory limits and civil-suit policies set by states. The above table presents an index of the relative costs of medical malpractice insurance for three specialties. Higher values correspond to relatively more expensive coverage.


Wisconsin -3.60 4 Indiana -3.06 5

Kentucky -0.32 24 Ohio 3.11 45

Michigan 3.37 46 Illinois 5.01 49

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

2005 2006 2007 2008

Ind

ex

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

HEALTH MANDATES

Number of mandated health insurance benefits in each state 2008 While health insurance is a significant cost to workers and their employers in all states, laws requiring specific coverage can strongly affect those costs. Legally mandated health-insurance benefits have, for the most part, become more numerous as states wrestle with questions of cost versus access. The above table shows counts of the number of legally mandated health insurance benefits in each state.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Number of Mandates Rank

Michigan 12 4 Ohio 12 4


Kentucky 25 28 Illinois 32 40

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

10

11

12

13

14

15

2005 2006 2007 2008

Num

ber

of M

anda

tes

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

70


BUSINESS LIABILITY

Rank State Score Score Change, 2003 -

2007 (%) 50-State Average 60.6 (n/a)

1 Delaware 123.4 71.5 (n/a) 2 Nebraska 122.9 71.3 (n/a) 3 Maine 118.2 69.3 (n/a) 4 Indiana 117.7 69.1 (n/a) 5 Utah 116.6 68.6 (n/a) 6 Virginia 116.1 68.4 (n/a) 7 Iowa 115.2 68.0 (n/a) 8 Vermont 114.2 67.6 (n/a) 9 Colorado 114.0 67.5 (n/a) 10 Kansas 112.1 66.7 (n/a) 11 Minnesota 111.6 66.5 (n/a) 12 South Dakota 109.8 65.7 (n/a) 13 North Dakota 109.5 65.6 (n/a) 14 Oregon 109.1 65.4 (n/a) 15 Arizona 108.8 65.3 (n/a) 16 New Hampshire 107.4 64.7 (n/a) 17 Oklahoma 106.2 64.2 (n/a) 18 Massachusetts 104.6 63.5 (n/a) 19 Connecticut 103.9 63.2 (n/a) 20 North Carolina 102.5 62.6 (n/a) 20 Alaska 102.5 62.6 (n/a) 22 Tennessee 101.8 62.3 (n/a) 23 Wyoming 101.3 62.1 (n/a) 24 Wisconsin 100.6 61.8 (n/a) 25 New York 100.1 61.6 (n/a) 26 Washington 99.9 61.5 (n/a) 26 Idaho 99.9 61.5 (n/a) 28 Georgia 99.6 61.4 (n/a) 29 Kentucky 99.4 61.3 (n/a) 30 Maryland 97.8 60.6 (n/a) 31 Missouri 96.6 60.1 (n/a) 32 Ohio 96.4 60.0 (n/a) 33 Michigan 95.7 59.7 (n/a) 34 New Jersey 91.7 58.0 (n/a) 34 Arkansas 91.7 58.0 (n/a) 36 Pennsylvania 91.2 57.8 (n/a) 37 New Mexico 90.5 57.5 (n/a) 38 Montana 90.0 57.3 (n/a) 39 Rhode Island 89.5 57.1 (n/a) 40 Nevada 89.1 56.9 (n/a) 41 Texas 88.8 56.8 (n/a) 42 Florida 84.4 54.9 (n/a) 43 South Carolina 83.4 54.5 (n/a) 44 California 77.1 51.8 (n/a) 45 Hawaii 76.4 51.5 (n/a) 46 Illinois 75.9 51.3 (n/a) 47 Alabama 67.0 47.5 (n/a) 48 Mississippi 58.0 43.7 (n/a) 49 Louisiana 56.2 42.9 (n/a) 50 West Virginia 55.0 42.4 (n/a)

Rank State Score Dollars per 100,000

GDP Change, 2004 -

2007 (%) 50-State Average $291 -1.3%

1 North Dakota 142.0 $117 -16.7% 2 Ohio 138.8 $129 -14.7% 3 Wyoming 138.4 $131 -0.9% 4 Washington 133.7 $149 -11.0% 5 Arizona 119.5 $205 -5.6% 6 Virginia 114.7 $224 -2.2% 7 Idaho 114.0 $227 -6.3% 8 Texas 113.5 $229 -14.8% 9 Colorado 113.0 $231 -5.9% 10 Indiana 112.6 $232 -7.0% 11 Michigan 111.7 $236 -13.5% 12 Alabama 110.0 $242 -7.0% 13 Maryland 109.1 $246 -8.3% 14 South Dakota 106.7 $255 -8.2% 15 North Carolina 106.5 $256 4.5% 16 New Mexico 105.6 $260 2.1% 17 Georgia 104.5 $264 -5.3% 18 Arkansas 104.5 $264 -3.9% 19 Kansas 103.8 $267 -14.5% 20 Minnesota 101.7 $275 -9.8% 21 Massachusetts 101.7 $275 -15.9% 22 Kentucky 101.1 $277 -7.2% 23 Montana 100.6 $280 -7.7% 24 Delaware 100.2 $281 -8.0% 25 Oklahoma 100.1 $281 7.1% 26 Tennessee 99.9 $282 -4.1% 27 Connecticut 99.4 $284 -15.6% 28 New Hampshire 99.2 $285 -33.1% 29 New York 97.4 $292 -11.4% 30 Nebraska 96.8 $294 -8.6% 31 Iowa 96.4 $296 -7.2% 32 California 94.6 $303 -23.3% 33 Mississippi 93.2 $309 8.9% 34 Maine 93.1 $309 -11.2% 35 Nevada 92.7 $311 -8.5% 36 Louisiana 90.9 $318 6.1% 37 Utah 90.3 $320 2.9% 38 Missouri 87.7 $330 -1.5% 39 Rhode Island 87.7 $330 -20.3% 40 South Carolina 87.1 $333 17.2% 41 Florida 87.1 $333 -12.7% 42 Pennsylvania 86.7 $334 -6.6% 43 Oregon 83.1 $348 4.2% 44 New Jersey 81.6 $354 -3.8% 45 Illinois 77.2 $371 -18.6% 46 Wisconsin 65.6 $417 0.4% 47 Alaska 64.5 $422 -16.5% 48 Hawaii 59.5 $441 -18.0% 49 Vermont 50.5 $477 -11.5% 50 West Virginia 12.2 $628 309.7%

Average business-liability coverage paid per $100,000 of gross domestic product, 2007 Like malpractice and the health-care industry, business liability insurance costs can strongly influence the competitiveness of the private market as a whole. It can also be indicative of the greater regulatory environment and attitudes of a state. The above table shows the total amount of liability coverage paid, including product liability, workers’ compensation and other liability coverage, per $100,000 of gross domestic product.

Midwest Performance, 2007 State Dollars per $100,000

GDP Rank

Ohio $129 2 Indiana $232 10

Michigan $236 11 Kentucky $277 22

Illinois $371 45 Wisconsin $417 46

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

2004 2005 2006 2007

Dol

lars

per

$10

0,00

0 G

DP

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

LIABILITY SYSTEMS REPUTATION

Total Score in State Liability Systems Ranking Study, 2007 Harris Interactive conducts a yearly survey for the U.S. Chamber Institute of Legal Reform to assess how fair and reasonable a state's tort liability system is thought to be by corporate attorneys. The above table shows each state's final score rating in the 2008 State Liability Systems Ranking Study based on 2007 survey results. New methodology was introduced with the 2006 survey, limiting the number of back years available.

Midwest Performance, 2007 State Score Rank

Indiana 69.1 4 Wisconsin 61.8 24 Kentucky 61.3 29

Ohio 60.0 32 Michigan 59.7 33

Illinois 51.3 46

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

40

50

60

70

80

2004 2005 2006 2007

Sco

re

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

71


LOCAL PHONE COMPETITION

Rank State Score Percent of Phone

Lines Change, 2004 -

2007 (%) 50-State Average 19.0% 23.2%

1 Rhode Island 188.7 48.1% 37.5% 2 Arizona 148.9 34.5% 38.0% 3 South Dakota 137.9 30.7% (n/a) 4 Nebraska 135.3 29.8% 29.7% 5 New York 134.0 29.4% -2.1% 6 Kansas 124.5 26.1% 8.9% 7 Oklahoma 121.7 25.2% 57.4% 8 Massachusetts 117.5 23.7% -5.0% 9 New Hampshire 116.1 23.3% 1.2% 10 Minnesota 114.7 22.8% 8.4% 11 Wisconsin 114.3 22.7% 25.9% 12 Virginia 114.2 22.6% 7.7% 13 North Dakota 111.9 21.8% 211.9% 14 Nevada 111.5 21.7% 97.2% 15 Utah 106.7 20.0% -16.5% 16 Ohio 105.8 19.7% 31.6% 17 Maine 105.8 19.7% 9.5% 18 Pennsylvania 105.4 19.6% -10.9% 19 North Carolina 103.0 18.8% 44.3% 20 Kentucky 102.7 18.7% 69.6% 21 Michigan 102.6 18.6% -28.3% 22 Iowa 101.6 18.3% 30.8% 23 Montana 101.6 18.3% 357.1% 24 Louisiana 100.5 17.9% 27.9% 25 Oregon 100.0 17.7% 10.9% 26 Wyoming 99.9 17.7% (n/a) 27 Texas 98.5 17.2% -9.3% 28 South Carolina 97.9 17.0% 54.8% 29 Delaware 97.7 17.0% 6.0% 30 New Jersey 97.4 16.9% -23.3% 31 Tennessee 97.1 16.7% 11.6% 32 Colorado 95.2 16.1% 0.6% 33 Hawaii 95.1 16.1% (n/a) 34 Georgia 94.7 15.9% -20.3% 35 West Virginia 90.5 14.5% 31.8% 36 Missouri 90.4 14.5% 11.2% 37 California 90.0 14.3% -15.8% 38 Maryland 89.5 14.1% -21.5% 39 Arkansas 89.2 14.0% 17.1% 40 Washington 88.9 13.9% -0.5% 41 Alabama 88.1 13.7% -14.6% 42 Illinois 88.1 13.7% -37.9% 43 Connecticut 87.3 13.4% 2.9% 44 Florida 86.6 13.1% -17.8% 45 Vermont 83.9 12.2% (n/a) 46 Idaho 79.3 10.7% 52.2% 47 Mississippi 76.8 9.8% -2.1% 48 Indiana 75.4 9.3% -28.4% 49 New Mexico 72.2 8.2% 2.6%

(n/a) Alaska (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Percent of phone lines controlled by CLECs, 2007 A competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) means a local exchange carrier that provides some or all of the interstate exchange access services used to send traffic to or from an end user and does not fall within the definition of incumbent local exchange carrier. Therefore, the amount of CLEC activity is a measure of competition or deregulation in the telecommunications market. The above table shows the number of phone lines controlled by CLECs by December of the most recent year.

Midwest Performance, 2007 State Percent of Phone Lines Rank




Michigan, 2004 - 2007

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2004 2005 2006 2007

Per

cent

of

Pho

ne L

ines

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

TORT SYSTEM EFFICIENCY

Rank State Score Overall Score Change, 2004 -

2007 (%) 50-State Average 23 (n/a)

1 North Dakota 127.6 11 (n/a) 2 Alaska 125.0 12 (n/a) 3 North Carolina 123.6 13 (n/a) 4 Iowa 121.7 14 (n/a) 5 Virginia 120.8 14 (n/a) 6 New Mexico 119.3 15 (n/a) 7 Utah 116.8 16 (n/a) 8 Wyoming 113.9 17 (n/a) 9 Mississippi 113.2 17 (n/a) 10 Maine 112.2 17 (n/a) 11 Ohio 111.1 18 (n/a) 12 Tennessee 110.9 18 (n/a) 13 South Dakota 110.3 18 (n/a) 14 South Carolina 108.9 19 (n/a) 15 Hawaii 108.6 19 (n/a) 16 New Hampshire 107.1 20 (n/a) 17 Wisconsin 105.6 20 (n/a) 18 Texas 105.0 20 (n/a) 19 Nebraska 104.2 21 (n/a) 20 Oklahoma 103.7 21 (n/a) 21 Minnesota 103.3 21 (n/a) 22 Indiana 102.0 22 (n/a) 23 Vermont 100.9 22 (n/a) 24 Delaware 100.4 22 (n/a) 25 Idaho 100.1 22 (n/a) 26 Kansas 99.9 22 (n/a) 27 Georgia 99.3 23 (n/a) 28 Michigan 98.6 23 (n/a) 29 Louisiana 98.5 23 (n/a) 30 Arkansas 95.3 24 (n/a) 31 Kentucky 95.0 24 (n/a) 32 Oregon 94.8 25 (n/a) 33 Arizona 92.7 25 (n/a) 34 California 91.6 26 (n/a) 35 Maryland 91.2 26 (n/a) 36 Nevada 91.0 26 (n/a) 37 Washington 90.4 26 (n/a) 38 Connecticut 89.3 27 (n/a) 39 Alabama 86.8 28 (n/a) 40 West Virginia 86.8 28 (n/a) 41 Massachusetts 86.4 28 (n/a) 42 Colorado 85.5 28 (n/a) 43 Missouri 81.9 30 (n/a) 44 Rhode Island 81.2 30 (n/a) 45 Pennsylvania 81.1 30 (n/a) 46 Montana 77.3 32 (n/a) 47 Illinois 72.1 34 (n/a) 48 New York 69.9 35 (n/a) 49 New Jersey 65.2 37 (n/a) 50 Florida 61.2 38 (n/a)

Overall Tort Liability Index score, 2007 Lawsuit abuse is of concern to business and the public at large. In a free market economy, the legal system must provide fair opportunity to challenge suspicious market practices and product liability but not go so far as to encourage frivolous legal actions. This index represents the composite of a number of outcome measures put together by the Pacific Research Institute every two years.

Midwest Performance, 2007 State Average Rank Rank Ohio 18 11


Michigan 23 28 Kentucky 24 31

Illinois 34 47

72


PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE In the innovation economy, infrastructure can be broadly defined to include both traditional physical infrastructure, such as roads, water and sewer, and “virtual” infrastructure (the digital economy). The former are covered under this driver. The metrics chosen attempt to measure outcomes, productivity and level of service, rather than inputs, such as capital expenditures per resident.

Midwest Performance

2008 2006 2004 Illinois *** **** **** Wisconsin *** *** *** Ohio *** *** *** Michigan *** ** *** Kentucky ** *** ** Indiana ** ** **

Rank State 2008 2006 2004 1 Nevada ***** ***** ***** 2 Florida ***** *** **** 3 Montana **** **** **** 4 Oregon **** **** **** 5 Utah **** **** **** 6 Georgia **** *** **** 7 Arizona **** **** **** 8 Washington **** *** **** 9 Massachusetts **** **** **** 10 Minnesota **** **** **** 11 Virginia **** **** **** 12 Colorado *** **** *** 13 California *** *** **** 14 Illinois *** **** **** 15 Wyoming *** *** *** 16 Tennessee *** *** *** 17 Maryland *** *** *** 18 Alabama *** *** ** 19 Wisconsin *** *** *** 20 South Carolina *** ** *** 21 Ohio *** *** *** 22 Connecticut *** *** *** 23 Kansas *** ** *** 24 North Dakota *** *** ** 25 North Carolina *** ** ** 26 Texas *** *** **** 27 South Dakota *** *** *** 28 Nebraska *** *** ** 29 New York *** ** ** 30 Michigan *** ** *** 31 Idaho ** *** *** 32 Iowa ** *** ** 33 Maine ** *** *** 34 Arkansas ** *** * 35 Mississippi ** ** *** 36 New Mexico ** *** *** 37 Kentucky ** *** ** 38 New Hampshire ** ** ** 39 Rhode Island ** ** *** 40 Indiana ** ** ** 41 Alaska ** ** * 42 Hawaii ** ** *** 43 Pennsylvania ** ** ** 44 Louisiana ** * ** 45 West Virginia ** ** ** 46 Missouri * ** ** 47 Vermont * ** ** 48 New Jersey * ** ** 49 Oklahoma * ** * 50 Delaware * * ***

73


HIGHWAY QUALITY


2008 (%) 50-State Average 25.9% -3.7%

1 Arizona 124.7 11.2% 11.9% 2 Minnesota 123.4 11.9% -2.2% 3 Nevada 122.6 12.4% 3.2% 4 Wisconsin 118.5 14.6% -11.6% 5 Delaware 116.8 15.5% 1.4% 6 Utah 116.4 15.8% -11.4% 7 Illinois 115.3 16.4% -2.9% 8 Florida 115.1 16.4% -8.7% 9 Colorado 114.5 16.8% -1.4% 10 New Mexico 112.0 18.2% -3.8% 11 Montana 110.5 19.0% -8.3% 12 Idaho 110.1 19.2% 3.5% 13 Texas 109.7 19.4% -6.9% 14 Georgia 109.2 19.7% -4.0% 15 Tennessee 108.3 20.2% -10.5% 16 Kansas 107.9 20.4% -8.3% 17 Wyoming 105.5 21.7% 4.7% 18 North Dakota 105.5 21.7% -5.0% 19 South Carolina 105.0 22.0% -3.7% 20 Oregon 104.2 22.4% -13.4% 21 Indiana 104.0 22.5% 1.8% 22 Arkansas 103.6 22.7% -6.2% 23 Nebraska 103.0 23.0% -7.8% 24 Ohio 101.1 24.1% -3.5% 25 Mississippi 100.0 24.7% -7.5% 26 Alabama 100.0 24.7% -13.6% 27 South Dakota 99.6 24.9% -5.8% 28 Michigan 97.8 25.9% -7.2% 29 Virginia 97.7 26.0% 1.4% 30 Maryland 97.1 26.3% -6.0% 31 Iowa 96.9 26.4% -4.1% 32 Washington 96.8 26.4% -3.4% 33 Alaska 96.2 26.7% -12.5% 34 North Carolina 92.6 28.7% -2.0% 35 California 92.0 29.0% 3.0% 36 Louisiana 91.4 29.3% -6.8% 37 Missouri 89.2 30.6% -8.4% 38 Oklahoma 89.1 30.6% -14.8% 39 New Hampshire 87.2 31.7% 0.5% 40 Kentucky 85.9 32.4% 6.5% 41 Maine 84.7 33.0% -4.9% 42 New Jersey 83.7 33.6% -7.6% 43 Connecticut 83.4 33.7% 1.2% 44 Vermont 79.8 35.7% 3.8% 45 West Virginia 77.7 36.8% -1.2% 46 New York 76.3 37.6% 0.1% 47 Hawaii 65.5 43.5% -6.6% 48 Pennsylvania 59.8 46.5% 8.5% 49 Massachusetts 51.3 51.2% -2.1% 50 Rhode Island 46.9 53.6% -2.8%

Rank State Score Rough Highway Miles per 1,000

Change, 2005 - 2008 (%)

50-State Average 113.8 0.3% 1 Georgia 118.3 5.9 35.7% 2 Kansas 117.1 11.6 -13.8% 3 Alabama 116.8 13.3 -86.5% 4 Nevada 116.5 14.5 28.6% 5 Florida 115.8 18.2 36.1% 6 New Mexico 114.8 22.8 -18.4% 7 Montana 114.0 26.9 16.8% 8 Tennessee 112.6 33.7 -6.9% 9 Wyoming 112.6 33.9 69.7% 10 Kentucky 112.1 36.3 42.0% 11 Arizona 111.2 40.4 30.7% 12 Missouri 110.0 46.2 -69.9% 13 Idaho 109.0 51.2 19.8% 14 North Carolina 108.9 52.0 -56.4% 15 Oregon 108.0 56.0 -18.0% 16 Delaware 108.0 56.2 5.6% 17 North Dakota 107.6 57.9 -47.7% 18 Indiana 105.2 69.9 -30.2% 19 New Hampshire 104.6 73.0 -17.1% 20 South Carolina 104.1 75.1 21.9% 21 Ohio 102.5 82.9 25.6% 22 South Dakota 102.5 83.2 -48.6% 23 Texas 101.0 90.6 -13.2% 24 Mississippi 100.3 93.9 -4.2% 25 Washington 100.0 95.3 10.0% 26 Arkansas 100.0 95.4 -6.0% 27 Virginia 99.0 100.0 -18.2% 28 Utah 98.7 101.7 69.0% 29 Vermont 98.5 102.7 -4.2% 30 Minnesota 98.3 103.8 130.1% 31 West Virginia 97.7 106.4 47.8% 32 Pennsylvania 96.3 113.2 -23.1% 33 Colorado 95.8 116.1 14.8% 34 Maryland 94.9 120.1 -10.2% 35 Maine 94.0 124.8 11.9% 36 Oklahoma 93.2 128.4 -15.9% 37 Nebraska 92.3 132.9 -37.4% 38 Wisconsin 91.3 137.8 -2.8% 39 Connecticut 89.9 144.5 -11.9% 40 Michigan 88.2 153.1 -29.6% 41 Iowa 87.9 154.3 -7.6% 42 New York 80.7 189.9 -31.1% 43 California 76.7 209.1 63.8% 44 Illinois 72.5 229.9 3.2% 45 Louisiana 69.5 244.4 2.5% 46 Alaska 68.9 247.4 -22.5% 47 Rhode Island 60.2 289.9 -0.9% 48 Massachusetts 52.4 328.1 -7.0% 49 New Jersey 47.7 351.1 -6.7% 50 Hawaii 32.4 426.1 -4.8%

Miles graded "rough" or worse per 1,000 miles of highway, 2008 Poor highway conditions reduce the convenience, speed, and efficiency of a highway network. They also eventually require repair that can become increasingly costly as conditions worsen. The U.S. government measures highway quality in terms of miles of rough road bed. The above table shows the number of miles in each state graded rough or worse per 1,000 total miles of state and interstate highway.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Rough Highway Miles

per 1,000 Rank


Ohio 82.9 21 Wisconsin 137.8 38 Michigan 153.1 40

Illinois 229.9 44

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

2005 2006 2007 2008

Rou

gh H

ighw

ay M

iles

per

1,00

0

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

BRIDGE QUALITY

Percent of bridges characterized as “obsolete” or “deficient,” 2008 Like road quality, bridge quality is an important indicator of the health of a state’s physical infrastructure. Furthermore, bridges requiring significant repair or replacement can pose an acute challenge to traffic flows. The table presented here shows the number percentage of each state’s bridges categorized as either “obsolete” or “deficient” by the U.S. government.




Michigan, 2005 - 2008

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Perc

ent

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

74


RAILWAY PRODUCTIVITY

Rank State Score Enplanements per

1,000 Residents Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 12.8 -7.1%

1 Nevada 189.9 54.2 -19.8% 2 Washington 146.4 32.0 -0.9% 3 Virginia 145.9 31.7 -16.3% 4 New York 144.3 30.9 -8.6% 5 Massachusetts 143.7 30.6 -0.8% 6 Illinois 143.5 30.5 -5.6% 7 California 142.4 29.9 -3.1% 8 Oregon 140.7 29.1 -3.0% 9 Maryland 140.4 28.9 3.6% 10 Georgia 136.0 26.7 -12.7% 11 Florida 124.5 20.8 -16.0% 12 Colorado 124.2 20.6 4.1% 13 Arizona 116.4 16.6 -18.1% 14 Utah 112.2 14.5 -12.1% 15 Rhode Island 111.1 13.9 -21.1% 16 North Carolina 111.0 13.9 0.6% 17 Missouri 107.3 12.0 -4.2% 18 Texas 105.7 11.2 1.5% 19 Minnesota 105.0 10.8 -5.3% 20 New Mexico 102.2 9.4 -4.6% 21 Idaho 101.1 8.8 -14.3% 22 Vermont 100.8 8.7 -1.1% 23 New Hampshire 100.8 8.7 -23.9% 24 Nebraska 100.0 8.3 -6.5% 25 Montana 99.7 8.1 -6.3% 26 Tennessee 98.1 7.3 -8.3% 27 Louisiana 97.5 7.0 -2.5% 28 Michigan 96.6 6.5 -1.8% 29 Pennsylvania 96.4 6.4 -3.4% 30 Ohio 95.9 6.2 -19.3% 31 Maine 95.4 5.9 15.7% 32 Wisconsin 94.0 5.2 14.8% 33 Connecticut 93.5 4.9 -16.8% 34 Oklahoma 93.4 4.9 2.0% 35 South Carolina 92.4 4.4 -25.1% 36 Indiana 92.1 4.2 -4.1% 37 South Dakota 91.3 3.8 3.5% 38 Arkansas 91.3 3.8 -6.0% 39 North Dakota 90.9 3.6 1.6% 40 Wyoming 90.4 3.4 -3.2% 41 Kentucky 90.2 3.3 -15.2% 42 Alabama 90.1 3.2 -12.0% 43 Iowa 89.3 2.8 -11.7% 44 Mississippi 88.9 2.6 -0.6% 45 Kansas 87.5 1.9 17.8% 46 West Virginia 85.1 0.7 -32.8% 47 New Jersey 83.8 0.0 -31.3%

(n/a) Hawaii (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Delaware (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Alaska (n/a) (n/a) (n/a)

Rank State Score GDP per Ton Change, 2004 -

2007 (%) 50-State Average $5.4 40.2%

1 Massachusetts 231.6 $19.6 34.4% 2 Rhode Island 206.5 $16.7 155.8% 3 Maine 194.3 $15.3 62.0% 4 Florida 161.2 $11.5 60.8% 5 Texas 134.1 $8.4 24.1% 6 Pennsylvania 128.7 $7.8 33.9% 7 Virginia 122.5 $7.1 45.5% 8 California 122.0 $7.1 32.6% 9 Montana 121.3 $7.0 33.1% 10 Georgia 119.7 $6.8 41.6% 11 Washington 119.4 $6.8 19.2% 12 Oregon 113.0 $6.0 23.3% 13 Nebraska 111.7 $5.9 12.5% 14 Michigan 111.2 $5.8 24.2% 15 Ohio 111.2 $5.8 40.1% 16 Connecticut 110.7 $5.8 70.7% 17 Arizona 108.4 $5.5 30.2% 18 Illinois 103.6 $5.0 29.8% 19 Alabama 103.6 $5.0 52.4% 20 Utah 101.9 $4.8 -4.2% 21 South Carolina 101.6 $4.7 50.5% 22 Minnesota 100.8 $4.6 31.2% 23 Delaware 100.2 $4.6 18.1% 24 Louisiana 100.2 $4.6 16.8% 25 Wisconsin 100.0 $4.5 31.5% 26 North Carolina 98.2 $4.3 42.1% 27 New Mexico 97.8 $4.3 50.1% 28 Indiana 96.7 $4.2 41.8% 29 New York 96.7 $4.2 223.2% 30 North Dakota 96.1 $4.1 45.2% 31 Tennessee 95.8 $4.1 35.0% 32 Vermont 95.7 $4.1 55.6% 33 Mississippi 95.4 $4.0 35.4% 34 Kansas 95.0 $4.0 14.5% 35 Arkansas 94.1 $3.9 19.6% 36 Nevada 93.8 $3.8 -2.4% 37 New Jersey 92.2 $3.7 10.7% 38 Maryland 92.1 $3.7 26.7% 39 Colorado 92.1 $3.6 11.1% 40 Missouri 91.6 $3.6 27.1% 41 Kentucky 88.4 $3.2 52.9% 42 West Virginia 88.4 $3.2 41.7% 43 Iowa 87.5 $3.1 31.6% 44 Idaho 84.2 $2.7 11.4% 45 New Hampshire 83.8 $2.7 84.7% 46 Wyoming 78.2 $2.1 19.3% 47 Oklahoma 76.5 $1.9 12.0% 48 South Dakota 73.6 $1.5 112.4% 49 Alaska 60.2 $0.0 0.0%

(n/a) Hawaii (n/a) (n/a) (n/a)

Rail transportation GDP per rail ton carried, 2007 Railroads remain a core element of our nation’s transportation infrastructure, especially for many agricultural and industrial products. The productivity of rail traffic varies from state to state, and is an important aspect of its economic importance. The above table gives the gross domestic product of rail transportation industries in each state, divided by the number of tons of rail freight that originated, terminated, or passed through the state.

Midwest Performance, 2007 State GDP per Ton Rank

Michigan $5.8 14 Ohio $5.8 15

Illinois $5.0 18 Wisconsin $4.5 25

Indiana $4.2 28 Kentucky $3.2 41

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

$4.0

$4.4

$4.8

$5.2

$5.6

$6.0

$6.4

2004 2005 2006 2007

GD

P p

er T

on

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

MAJOR AIR MARKET ACCESS

Enplanements to largest markets per 1,000 residents, 2008 The convenience of flying to major business centers has a large effect on states’ competitive positions. Employers prefer states and regions with relatively easy access to the nation’s largest financial, legal, and government centers. Passenger counts on flights between airports in each state and 12 major commercial areas and technology hubs were tallied, and the counts are shown here as a proportion of each state’s population. See Appendix for more detail.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Enplanements per

1,000 Residents Rank

Illinois 30.5 6 Michigan 6.5 28

Ohio 6.2 30 Wisconsin 5.2 32

Indiana 4.2 36 Kentucky 3.3 41

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

2005 2006 2007 2008

Enpl

anem

ents

per

1,0

00

Res

iden

ts

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

75


AIRPORT PERFORMANCE



2008 (%) 50-State Average 8.3% 13.0%

1 Maryland 116.1 1.5% -76.2% 2 Connecticut 116.0 1.5% -66.4% 3 Delaware 115.5 1.6% -6.2% 4 Nevada 114.5 1.9% 45.3% 5 California 114.4 2.0% -60.1% 6 North Dakota 114.2 2.0% -71.8% 7 Wyoming 113.6 2.2% -81.2% 8 Alabama 112.8 2.5% 65.6% 9 Washington 111.5 2.9% -35.9% 10 South Carolina 110.7 3.2% -44.9% 11 Colorado 110.4 3.3% 5.5% 12 Hawaii 109.9 3.4% 64.6% 13 Oregon 109.8 3.4% -41.9% 14 Michigan 109.1 3.7% 156.1% 15 Indiana 108.9 3.7% -1.5% 16 Ohio 108.4 3.9% -31.2% 17 Iowa 106.9 4.4% -55.7% 18 Tennessee 104.4 5.1% 3.6% 19 Virginia 104.1 5.2% -8.1% 20 Utah 103.6 5.4% 2.6% 21 Minnesota 102.4 5.8% 12.9% 22 Florida 101.4 6.1% 21.7% 23 South Dakota 100.8 6.3% 53.6% 24 Arizona 100.3 6.5% 2.9% 25 Illinois 100.2 6.5% -19.2% 26 Georgia 99.8 6.6% 34.5% 27 North Carolina 99.2 6.8% -64.2% 28 Alaska 98.7 6.9% -17.5% 29 Texas 94.8 8.2% 8.9% 30 Massachusetts 94.2 8.4% 5.5% 31 Mississippi 93.7 8.5% 51.9% 32 Montana 92.3 9.0% -35.4% 33 Kansas 91.8 9.1% -16.4% 34 Kentucky 91.6 9.2% -34.2% 35 Wisconsin 91.2 9.3% -29.4% 36 Nebraska 91.0 9.4% -44.9% 37 New Jersey 89.6 9.8% -20.0% 38 Louisiana 88.2 10.3% -48.6% 39 Arkansas 87.7 10.4% -54.3% 40 West Virginia 86.5 10.8% -12.7% 41 New Hampshire 84.7 11.4% 72.5% 42 New Mexico 83.6 11.7% 6.4% 43 Idaho 79.4 13.0% 75.6% 44 New York 77.3 13.7% -66.5% 45 Maine 70.7 15.8% -3.6% 46 Vermont 69.5 16.2% 47.5% 47 Pennsylvania 61.1 18.8% 483.0% 48 Rhode Island 26.3 29.8% 121.0% 49 Missouri 26.2 29.9% 373.6% 50 Oklahoma 24.3 30.5% -17.5%

Rank State Score Percent Delayed Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 19.4% 5.9%

1 Hawaii 157.2 9.5% 69% 2 Montana 152.3 10.4% -11% 3 Utah 134.6 13.4% -9% 4 Illinois 133.4 13.7% -3% 5 Nevada 124.1 15.3% 17% 6 Wyoming 121.8 15.7% -5% 7 Oregon 119.3 16.1% -6% 8 South Dakota 117.4 16.5% 32% 9 Connecticut 114.8 16.9% 4% 10 Oklahoma 112.5 17.3% 9% 11 Missouri 112.3 17.3% -20% 12 New York 112.1 17.4% 12% 13 Wisconsin 108.6 18.0% 10% 14 Minnesota 108.0 18.1% -12% 15 Arkansas 107.9 18.1% -8% 16 Washington 105.9 18.5% -13% 17 Alaska 105.4 18.6% -1% 18 Tennessee 103.5 18.9% 4% 19 New Hampshire 103.4 18.9% 15% 19 Iowa 103.4 18.9% 11% 21 New Jersey 103.3 18.9% 13% 22 California 102.8 19.0% 11% 23 Louisiana 101.3 19.3% -8% 24 Rhode Island 101.2 19.3% 12% 25 Vermont 100.0 19.5% 1% 26 Ohio 99.6 19.6% 20% 27 Michigan 99.2 19.6% -7% 28 Kentucky 98.3 19.8% 15% 29 Kansas 98.0 19.9% 11% 30 Maryland 97.6 19.9% -5% 31 Nebraska 95.9 20.2% 3% 32 Mississippi 95.8 20.2% 18% 33 Maine 93.9 20.6% -4% 34 Florida 93.3 20.7% -1% 35 Alabama 91.4 21.0% -24% 36 Colorado 91.3 21.0% 16% 37 Arizona 90.9 21.1% 12% 38 South Carolina 90.1 21.2% 8% 39 North Carolina 89.6 21.3% -7% 40 Virginia 89.5 21.3% 9% 41 Pennsylvania 87.4 21.7% -10% 42 Idaho 86.7 21.8% 43 West Virginia 85.7 22.0% 35% 44 Texas 83.0 22.5% 27% 45 Georgia 79.9 23.0% -13% 46 North Dakota 77.8 23.4% 9% 47 Massachusetts 77.6 23.4% 10% 48 Indiana 42.9 29.5% 17% 49 New Mexico 34.3 31.0% 24%

(n/a) Delaware (n/a) (n/a) (n/a)

Percent of arrivals and departures delayed, 2008 Infrastructure must not only be available but offer efficient service. While the ‘Major Market Access’ metric measures the availability of flights to major commercial and technology hubs, this metric measures quality of service in the form of timeliness. The above table shows the percent of arrivals and departures delayed due to air carrier delay, security delay, or national aviation system delay.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Percent Delayed Rank


Ohio 19.6% 26 Michigan 19.6% 27 Kentucky 19.8% 28 Indiana 29.5% 48

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Gro

wth

Rat

e

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

WATER QUALITY

Percent of population served by water systems with reported health violations, 2008 Water treatment and provision is a large cost for municipalities and states. Much of this cost is, rightly, to ensure that water quality meets health standards. The above table shows the percentage of each state’s population that was served by community water systems that have recorded health-standard violations.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Percent of Population Rank


Ohio 3.9% 16 Illinois 6.5% 25


Michigan, 2005 - 2008

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Per

cent

of

Pop

ulat

ion

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

76


ENERGY RELIABILITY

Rank State Score Affected Customers per 1,000 Residents

Change, 2005 - 2008 (%)

50-State Average 60 1587.1% 1 Wyoming 113.3 0 0% 1 Nevada 113.3 0 0% 1 Alaska 113.3 0 0% 4 Montana 113.3 0 100% 5 Wisconsin 113.2 0 -98% 6 Minnesota 113.1 1 100% 7 South Dakota 112.5 2 100% 8 New Mexico 112.5 2 100% 9 South Carolina 112.1 3 -96% 10 Tennessee 111.7 5 -24% 11 North Dakota 111.3 6 100% 12 Colorado 110.9 7 100% 13 Arizona 110.6 8 13% 14 Massachusetts 108.9 12 -65% 15 Utah 108.4 14 100% 16 Kansas 107.2 17 -34% 17 Georgia 106.9 18 -56% 18 Alabama 104.9 23 -61% 19 Idaho 104.7 24 190% 20 New York 104.2 25 -62% 21 Oklahoma 104.2 25 369% 22 Florida 103.7 27 -88% 23 North Carolina 103.5 27 -72% 24 Iowa 102.3 30 100% 25 Connecticut 100.9 34 42810% 26 Pennsylvania 99.1 39 -8% 27 Nebraska 99.0 40 73% 28 Oregon 96.8 46 100% 29 New Jersey 95.7 49 100% 30 West Virginia 95.4 49 23% 31 Maryland 92.6 57 -55% 32 Mississippi 92.5 58 -37% 33 Ohio 90.9 62 -5% 34 Kentucky 89.8 65 100% 35 California 88.3 69 27% 36 Virginia 88.2 69 22% 37 Rhode Island 85.8 76 100% 38 Hawaii 85.8 76 100% 39 Indiana 85.3 77 792% 40 New Hampshire 84.8 79 100% 41 Arkansas 84.6 79 171% 42 Washington 80.5 91 219% 43 Michigan 79.7 93 -43% 44 Louisiana 78.4 96 -45% 45 Missouri 76.4 102 100% 46 Texas 74.3 108 166% 47 Illinois 69.6 121 624% 48 Vermont 59.5 148 33004% 49 Maine 37.9 208 100% 50 Delaware -50.0 721 100%

Average number of customers affected by major system incidents on electric power systems per 1,000 residents, 2008 In an information technology world reliable power distribution has become an increasingly important consideration in business attraction and retention. The above table lists the average number of customers affected by major system incidents on electric power systems per 1,000 residents in the state and counts any partial or complete occurrence in a state.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Affected Customers

per 1,000 Residents Rank

Wisconsin 0 5 Ohio 62 33

Kentucky 65 34 Indiana 77 39

Michigan 93 43 Illinois 121 47

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

0

50

100

150

200

2005 2006 2007 2008

Aff

ecte

d C

usto

mer

s pe

r 1,

000

Res

iden

ts

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

77


DIGITAL CONNECTIVITY Important building blocks of the innovation economy and technology-based economic development are not only traditional/public works infrastructure but “virtual” infrastructure, information highways and IT services. The ability to connect and communicate directly relates to the innovative and entrepreneurial capacity of a state. The following metrics give an overview of the access to and use of the internet and computers, focusing on outcome measures rather than underlying infrastructure investments.

Midwest Performance

2008 2006 2004 Ohio **** **** *** Michigan **** **** ** Indiana **** **** ** Wisconsin **** **** ** Illinois **** **** ** Kentucky * * *

Rank State 2008 2006 2004 1 Delaware ***** ***** ***** 2 Rhode Island ***** ***** **** 3 New Jersey ***** ***** *** 4 Massachusetts ***** ***** **** 5 Wyoming ***** ***** *** 6 Maryland ***** ***** *** 7 Washington ***** ***** *** 8 Connecticut ***** ***** *** 9 Virginia **** ***** *** 10 New Hampshire **** ***** *** 11 New York **** **** *** 12 Vermont **** ***** *** 13 North Dakota **** ***** *** 14 Montana **** ***** *** 15 Colorado **** ***** *** 16 Florida **** **** *** 17 Nevada **** **** ** 18 Kansas **** ***** ** 19 Ohio **** **** *** 20 Oregon **** **** *** 21 Michigan **** **** ** 22 South Dakota **** ***** *** 23 Idaho **** **** *** 24 North Carolina **** **** ** 25 Texas **** **** *** 26 Indiana **** **** ** 27 New Mexico **** **** ** 28 South Carolina **** **** * 29 Wisconsin **** **** ** 30 Iowa **** *** ** 31 Georgia **** *** * 32 California **** **** ** 33 Illinois **** **** ** 34 Tennessee *** **** ** 35 Nebraska *** **** ** 36 Utah *** **** ** 37 Pennsylvania *** **** ** 38 Louisiana *** **** ** 39 Arizona *** **** *** 40 Oklahoma *** **** ** 41 Hawaii *** *** ** 42 Alabama *** *** * 43 Missouri *** *** ** 44 Maine *** *** *** 45 Arkansas *** *** ** 46 Mississippi *** *** * 47 Minnesota *** *** ** 48 West Virginia * * * 49 Kentucky * * * 50 Alaska * * ***

78


BROADBAND CONNECTIONS

Rank State Score Percent Coverage Change, 2004 -

2007 (%) 50-State Average 98.4% 26.1%

1 Connecticut 112.6 100.0% 0.4% 1 Delaware 112.6 100.0% 1.8% 1 Nevada 112.6 100.0% 29.1% 1 New Jersey 112.6 100.0% 1.8% 1 Rhode Island 112.6 100.0% 5.7% 1 South Carolina 112.6 100.0% 20.0% 1 Wyoming 112.6 100.0% 34.6% 8 Ohio 110.5 99.9% 2.9% 9 Florida 110.3 99.9% 1.8% 10 Michigan 110.3 99.9% 6.5% 11 North Carolina 109.8 99.9% 4.8% 12 Georgia 109.6 99.9% 7.0% 13 Colorado 108.0 99.8% 18.9% 14 California 107.6 99.8% 6.0% 15 Mississippi 107.2 99.7% 25.2% 16 Arizona 106.0 99.7% 5.2% 17 New York 104.7 99.6% 4.0% 18 Massachusetts 104.2 99.6% 1.0% 19 Vermont 104.1 99.6% 8.9% 20 New Hampshire 103.4 99.6% 3.2% 21 Maryland 102.9 99.5% 8.4% 22 Texas 101.8 99.5% 10.2% 23 Iowa 101.2 99.5% 60.8% 24 Wisconsin 101.0 99.4% 15.9% 25 Washington 100.7 99.4% 12.8% 26 Louisiana 99.3 99.4% 13.1% 27 Kansas 97.4 99.3% 52.7% 28 Alabama 95.3 99.2% 24.4% 29 Nebraska 94.1 99.1% 48.9% 30 Virginia 90.4 98.9% 22.3% 31 Hawaii 89.4 98.9% 23.3% 32 Indiana 88.3 98.8% 14.3% 33 Idaho 87.5 98.8% 41.4% 34 Utah 84.4 98.6% 23.9% 35 Oklahoma 80.7 98.5% 30.8% 36 Montana 79.9 98.4% 71.6% 37 Tennessee 78.0 98.3% 10.6% 38 Illinois 76.5 98.3% 17.4% 39 Oregon 70.1 98.0% 14.7% 40 New Mexico 68.0 97.9% 50.5% 41 North Dakota 67.8 97.9% 171.1% 42 Missouri 61.8 97.6% 37.8% 43 Arkansas 61.6 97.6% 45.1% 44 Pennsylvania 51.8 97.1% 15.2% 45 South Dakota 41.9 96.6% 107.6% 46 Minnesota 37.0 96.4% 31.3% 47 Maine 20.3 95.6% 20.0% 48 West Virginia -24.5 93.4% 73.2% 49 Kentucky -50.0 86.3% 21.1% 49 Alaska -50.0 85.1% 27.9%

Rank State Score Lines per 1,000


2007 (%) 50-State Average 383.4 232.4%

1 New Jersey 130.6 566.8 232.6% 2 Connecticut 123.1 524.7 202.8% 3 Delaware 120.1 507.6 352.3% 4 Wyoming 118.4 497.7 449.2% 5 Massachusetts 116.5 486.9 173.8% 6 New Hampshire 116.1 484.8 190.7% 7 Washington 115.5 481.5 235.1% 8 California 113.4 469.4 211.5% 9 Colorado 112.9 466.7 245.5% 10 Rhode Island 112.4 463.8 200.9% 11 North Dakota 111.1 456.5 506.2% 12 Hawaii 110.9 455.1 (n/a) 13 Montana 110.5 453.0 476.0% 14 Nevada 110.3 451.8 206.1% 15 Maryland 110.2 451.3 213.9% 16 Virginia 105.6 425.2 218.0% 17 New York 104.6 419.6 187.7% 18 Oregon 104.3 418.0 193.3% 19 Pennsylvania 103.6 414.1 263.9% 20 Tennessee 102.7 409.1 283.7% 21 Idaho 102.7 408.9 351.2% 22 Arizona 102.3 406.8 211.2% 23 Florida 102.2 406.3 162.6% 24 Ohio 101.5 402.2 242.0% 25 Illinois 100.4 395.6 226.8% 26 Georgia 99.7 391.6 184.2% 27 Vermont 98.8 386.7 230.5% 28 North Carolina 98.4 384.6 193.0% 29 Minnesota 97.1 377.2 194.3% 30 Utah 97.0 376.7 284.5% 31 South Carolina 94.0 359.8 263.6% 32 Indiana 93.6 357.3 246.3% 33 Nebraska 93.6 357.0 187.2% 34 Kansas 93.3 355.7 150.8% 35 Michigan 92.9 353.2 225.2% 36 Texas 92.1 348.7 201.5% 37 New Mexico 89.8 335.9 335.7% 38 Iowa 89.1 331.6 266.2% 39 Missouri 86.6 317.4 208.4% 40 Wisconsin 85.0 308.7 161.8% 41 Maine 83.6 300.7 175.7% 42 Louisiana 83.4 299.6 176.7% 43 Alabama 82.2 292.5 221.6% 44 Kentucky 78.9 273.9 214.2% 45 Oklahoma 78.0 268.7 141.2% 46 Alaska 74.8 250.6 50.2% 47 South Dakota 71.6 232.4 346.5% 48 Arkansas 71.3 230.7 187.2% 49 West Virginia 63.3 185.6 115.5% 50 Mississippi 60.2 167.7 186.5%

Number of broadband Internet lines per 1,000 residents, 2007 The term “broadband” is a catch-all phrase that encompasses cable and wireless Internet access, DSL, ISDN, T-1 and T-3. Once the province only of larger businesses and early-adopter individuals, broadband’s high download speeds are increasingly available to the everyday user and small business. Available and inexpensive broadband is becoming vital to economic competitiveness. The adjacent table shows the number of broadband lines per 1,000 people in each state.

Midwest Performance, 2007 State Lines per 1,000

Residents Rank

Ohio 402.2 24 Illinois 395.6 25 Indiana 357.3 32

Michigan 353.2 35 Wisconsin 308.7 40 Kentucky 273.9 44

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2004 2005 2006 2007

Line

s pe

r 1,0

00 R

esid

ents

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

BROADBAND COVERAGE

Percent of zip codes covered by two or more broadband providers, 2007 A good geographic coverage of broadband lines makes sure that all parts of the state have the opportunity to be part of the economic system and contribute to entrepreneurship and productivity growth. At the same time, the access has to be at a reasonable cost and service and some extent of competition is more likely to assure such an outcome. The table therefore shows the percent of zip codes that have two or more broadband providers in each state.

Midwest Performance, 2007 State Percent Coverage Rank

Ohio 99.9% 8 Michigan 99.9% 10 Wisconsin 99.4% 24


Kentucky 86.3% 49

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2004 2005 2006 2007

Per

cent

Cov

erag

e

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

79


INTERNET SPEED

Rank State Score Number per

100,000 Establ. Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 4.1 -7.0%

1 South Dakota 166.3 11.5 -3.0% 2 North Dakota 147.6 9.3 -2.0% 3 Maryland 147.2 9.3 16.6% 4 Delaware 132.8 7.5 -4.5% 5 Mississippi 124.3 6.5 -21.0% 6 Rhode Island 123.9 6.5 -1.7% 7 New Mexico 123.3 6.4 -3.8% 8 Arkansas 118.9 5.9 -2.9% 9 Alabama 117.6 5.7 16.9% 10 Massachusetts 117.6 5.7 0.4% 11 Utah 115.7 5.5 -9.8% 12 Oregon 113.9 5.3 14.7% 13 Montana 113.8 5.3 -5.8% 14 New Hampshire 111.2 5.0 -2.6% 15 Virginia 110.9 4.9 35.8% 16 Alaska 110.7 4.9 -2.8% 17 Wyoming 109.9 4.8 -5.0% 18 Nevada 108.1 4.6 -10.3% 19 Missouri 106.9 4.5 -1.9% 20 Vermont 106.6 4.4 -1.6% 21 Pennsylvania 105.0 4.2 16.5% 22 Idaho 103.1 4.0 -13.5% 23 Kansas 102.1 3.9 -1.7% 24 Ohio 100.5 3.7 -0.2% 25 Tennessee 100.2 3.7 -2.7% 26 Iowa 99.8 3.6 -1.6% 27 North Carolina 98.8 3.5 -5.4% 28 Illinois 97.9 3.4 7.5% 29 Oklahoma 97.3 3.3 -27.0% 30 Indiana 97.0 3.3 -2.2% 31 Kentucky 96.3 3.2 -2.2% 32 Texas 95.3 3.1 -23.6% 33 Hawaii 94.6 3.0 -3.8% 34 Michigan 94.3 2.9 -12.7% 35 Louisiana 94.0 2.9 -25.2% 36 New York 93.5 2.9 4.7% 37 South Carolina 92.8 2.8 -4.5% 38 California 92.0 2.7 -4.4% 39 Colorado 90.4 2.5 -37.5% 40 West Virginia 90.3 2.5 0.3% 41 New Jersey 90.0 2.4 -2.1% 42 Maine 89.0 2.3 -2.8% 43 Washington 87.8 2.2 -23.8% 44 Connecticut 87.5 2.1 -0.3% 45 Wisconsin 86.6 2.0 -26.5% 46 Nebraska 85.5 1.9 -2.5% 47 Georgia 84.0 1.7 -5.8% 48 Florida 83.7 1.7 -29.4% 49 Arizona 80.9 1.3 -55.9% 50 Minnesota 75.0 0.6 -67.9%

Rank State Score Avrg. Download

Speed Change, 2004 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 4,319 (n/a)

1 Rhode Island 167.8 9,264 (n/a) 2 Delaware 160.3 8,672 (n/a) 3 New Jersey 156.8 8,397 (n/a) 4 New York 140.1 7,078 (n/a) 5 Washington 133.2 6,531 (n/a) 6 Massachusetts 131.8 6,419 (n/a) 7 Virginia 130.8 6,340 (n/a) 8 Connecticut 126.5 5,999 (n/a) 9 Maryland 124.4 5,833 (n/a) 10 Georgia 116.9 5,241 (n/a) 11 Illinois 116.8 5,231 (n/a) 12 Florida 114.9 5,078 (n/a) 13 Tennessee 114.4 5,039 (n/a) 14 Oregon 114.1 5,016 (n/a) 15 New Hampshire 110.6 4,738 (n/a) 16 Louisiana 108.5 4,573 (n/a) 17 Nevada 107.5 4,497 (n/a) 18 Pennsylvania 107.4 4,485 (n/a) 19 Oklahoma 106.9 4,451 (n/a) 20 Indiana 104.7 4,273 (n/a) 21 California 102.3 4,081 (n/a) 22 Michigan 101.8 4,042 (n/a) 23 Texas 101.3 4,009 (n/a) 24 Ohio 100.9 3,975 (n/a) 25 Colorado 100.2 3,915 (n/a) 26 Arizona 99.8 3,891 (n/a) 27 Utah 98.6 3,795 (n/a) 28 New Mexico 98.4 3,774 (n/a) 29 West Virginia 97.4 3,701 (n/a) 30 Kansas 96.6 3,632 (n/a) 31 Alabama 96.3 3,610 (n/a) 32 South Carolina 96.0 3,589 (n/a) 33 Minnesota 95.8 3,573 (n/a) 34 North Carolina 95.3 3,533 (n/a) 35 Vermont 95.2 3,520 (n/a) 36 Kentucky 94.9 3,503 (n/a) 37 Wisconsin 93.7 3,408 (n/a) 38 South Dakota 92.1 3,281 (n/a) 39 Nebraska 92.1 3,280 (n/a) 40 Maine 91.2 3,210 (n/a) 41 Iowa 90.2 3,126 (n/a) 42 Missouri 88.2 2,967 (n/a) 43 Arkansas 86.1 2,803 (n/a) 44 Mississippi 85.2 2,730 (n/a) 45 Wyoming 83.8 2,622 (n/a) 46 Hawaii 83.5 2,598 (n/a) 47 Idaho 82.7 2,533 (n/a) 48 Montana 81.3 2,424 (n/a) 49 Alaska 75.1 1,937 (n/a) 50 North Dakota 72.5 1,729 (n/a)

Average broadband internet download speed in megabits per second, 2008 Fully benefiting from today’s information highway is not only a matter of access and competitive ISP services but speed. Even though broadband coverage has reached most areas of the nation, states and regions vary considerably in quality of the service indicated by connectivity characteristics and speed. The above table lists the average download sped in megabits per second in each state –provided annually by the Communications Workers of America.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Avrg. Download Speed Rank

Illinois 5,231 11 Indiana 4,273 20

Michigan 4,042 22 Ohio 3,975 24

Kentucky 3,503 36 Wisconsin 3,408 37

NEXT GENERATION INTERNET

Number of Abilene network participants and connectors per 100,000 establishments, 2008 What broadband is to the dial-up modem, the Abilene network, or “Internet2,” is to broadband. With a transmission speed that is magnitudes beyond any link available to the average consumer or firm, universities and private research labs use it to conduct complex joint research projects. The availability and use of the network in a state hints at future competitiveness in the information-technology arena. The above table lists the number of network participants and connectors relative to establishments.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Number per 100,000

Establ. Rank

Ohio 3.7 24 Illinois 3.4 28 Indiana 3.3 30

Kentucky 3.2 31 Michigan 2.9 34 Wisconsin 2.0 45

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2005 2006 2007 2008

Num

ber

per

100,

000

Esta

blis

hmen

ts

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

80


RURAL INTERNET ACCESS

Rank State Score Average Number of


2006 (%) 50-State Average 3.71 -8.5%

1 South Dakota 134.0 1.95 14.8% 2 Maine 133.0 2.00 -43.3% 3 Wyoming 122.2 2.55 -7.6% 4 Kansas 121.2 2.60 -14.3% 5 Nebraska 115.3 2.90 -7.1% 6 Montana 114.3 2.95 -4.6% 7 New Mexico 112.3 3.05 -23.4% 7 Virginia 112.3 3.05 -18.5% 7 Wisconsin 112.3 3.05 -4.7% 10 North Dakota 111.3 3.10 0.0% 10 Vermont 111.3 3.10 -25.1% 10 West Virginia 111.3 3.10 -15.7% 13 Alaska 108.4 3.25 -14.0% 13 Florida 108.4 3.25 -19.9% 13 Iowa 108.4 3.25 -9.4% 16 Idaho 107.4 3.30 2.6% 16 Indiana 107.4 3.30 -0.8% 16 Pennsylvania 107.4 3.30 -8.2% 19 Ohio 104.4 3.45 -7.2% 19 Oklahoma 104.4 3.45 1.9% 19 Texas 104.4 3.45 -4.4% 22 Missouri 103.5 3.50 -3.0% 23 Washington 102.5 3.55 -12.8% 24 Massachusetts 101.5 3.60 -7.0% 25 Connecticut 100.5 3.65 -16.3% 26 Minnesota 99.5 3.70 -11.4% 26 South Carolina 99.5 3.70 -9.5% 28 Georgia 98.5 3.75 -14.1% 28 New Jersey 98.5 3.75 -2.7% 30 Arkansas 97.5 3.80 10.5% 31 Kentucky 96.5 3.85 -5.2% 31 North Carolina 96.5 3.85 -20.9% 33 Illinois 94.6 3.95 -10.4% 33 Michigan 94.6 3.95 -7.2% 35 Colorado 91.6 4.10 -2.5% 35 Tennessee 91.6 4.10 -14.8% 37 Louisiana 89.6 4.20 -26.0% 37 New York 89.6 4.20 -10.3% 39 New Hampshire 86.7 4.35 -11.5% 40 Maryland 84.7 4.45 -2.9% 40 Oregon 84.7 4.45 -10.8% 42 Arizona 83.7 4.50 0.8% 42 Hawaii 83.7 4.50 -13.0% 44 Nevada 80.8 4.65 -9.2% 45 Alabama 77.8 4.80 -5.5% 45 Rhode Island 77.8 4.80 0.9% 47 Mississippi 73.9 5.00 -3.7% 48 California 72.9 5.05 -10.4% 48 Delaware 72.9 5.05 17.1% 50 Utah 67.0 5.35 -2.7%

Rank State Score Percent of Farms Change, 2003 -

2007 (%) 50-State Average 58% 19.1%

1 Wyoming 129.6 75% 31.6% 2 Washington 123.7 71% 31.5% 3 Montana 122.2 70% 11.1% 3 Oregon 122.2 70% -2.8% 5 Idaho 119.2 68% 9.7% 6 Maine 117.8 67% 13.6% 6 Massachusetts 117.8 67% 13.6% 6 New Hampshire 117.8 67% 13.6% 6 New Jersey 117.8 67% 17.5% 6 Rhode Island 117.8 67% 13.6% 6 Vermont 117.8 67% 13.6% 12 Utah 114.8 65% 20.4% 13 Michigan 113.3 64% 30.6% 13 Minnesota 113.3 64% 23.1% 15 North Dakota 111.8 63% 18.9% 15 Wisconsin 111.8 63% 23.5% 17 New York 105.9 59% 5.4% 18 Indiana 104.4 58% 13.7% 18 Maryland 104.4 58% 38.1% 20 Kansas 103.0 57% 18.8% 20 Texas 103.0 57% 14.0% 22 Iowa 101.5 56% 14.3% 23 Arizona 100.0 55% 0.0% 23 Florida 100.0 55% 12.2% 23 Illinois 100.0 55% 3.8% 23 Louisiana 100.0 55% 25.0% 23 Nebraska 100.0 55% 14.6% 23 Nevada 100.0 55% 0.0% 23 New Mexico 100.0 55% 37.5% 23 North Carolina 100.0 55% 27.9% 23 Pennsylvania 100.0 55% 14.6% 23 South Dakota 100.0 55% 22.2% 23 Virginia 100.0 55% -3.5% 34 California 98.5 54% -1.8% 35 West Virginia 97.0 53% -3.6% 36 Arkansas 95.6 52% 40.5% 36 Ohio 95.6 52% 4.0% 36 South Carolina 95.6 52% 48.6% 36 Tennessee 95.6 52% 26.8% 40 Oklahoma 94.1 51% 30.8% 41 Missouri 92.6 50% 4.2% 42 Georgia 80.8 42% 61.5% 43 Mississippi 79.3 41% 41.4% 44 Alabama 77.8 40% 2.6% 45 Kentucky 76.3 39% 62.5%

(n/a) Alaska (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Colorado (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Connecticut (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Delaware (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Hawaii (n/a) (n/a) (n/a)

Percent of farms with internet access, 2007 The percentage of farms with Internet access expresses a number of important factors about a state’s digital infrastructure. In a parallel to rural electrification in the 1930s, chief among these factors are questions about the “last mile”—the extent to which reliable, cheap or convenient Internet access has reached rural areas—and the development of community-access portals in more rural areas. The above table shows the percentage of farms that use computers for Internet access, published every 2 years. Midwest Performance, 2007

State Percent of Farms Rank

Michigan 64% 13 Wisconsin 63% 15

Indiana 58% 18 Illinois 55% 23 Ohio 52% 36

Kentucky 39% 45

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

2004 2005 2006 2007

Tren

d in

Per

cent

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

TECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOLS

Average number of students per internet-connected or instructional computer, 2006 Rapid adoption of telecommunications and computer technologies in schools can improve learning effectiveness and efficiency. It is also a way to help prepare students for lifelong and workplace learning, which is becoming increasingly technology based. This metric is the average of two statistics from Education Week magazine’s “Technology Counts” annual report: students per instructional computer and students per Internet-connected computer. Midwest Performance, 2006

State Average Number of Students

Rank


Ohio 3.45 19 Kentucky 3.85 31


Michigan, 2003 - 2006

2

3

4

5

6

2003 2004 2005 2006

Ave

rage

Num

ber

of S

tude

nts

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

81


RURAL INTERNET ACCESS

Rank State Score Average Number of


2006 (%) 50-State Average 3.71 -8.5%

1 South Dakota 134.0 1.95 14.8% 2 Maine 133.0 2.00 -43.3% 3 Wyoming 122.2 2.55 -7.6% 4 Kansas 121.2 2.60 -14.3% 5 Nebraska 115.3 2.90 -7.1% 6 Montana 114.3 2.95 -4.6% 7 New Mexico 112.3 3.05 -23.4% 7 Virginia 112.3 3.05 -18.5% 7 Wisconsin 112.3 3.05 -4.7% 10 North Dakota 111.3 3.10 0.0% 10 Vermont 111.3 3.10 -25.1% 10 West Virginia 111.3 3.10 -15.7% 13 Alaska 108.4 3.25 -14.0% 13 Florida 108.4 3.25 -19.9% 13 Iowa 108.4 3.25 -9.4% 16 Idaho 107.4 3.30 2.6% 16 Indiana 107.4 3.30 -0.8% 16 Pennsylvania 107.4 3.30 -8.2% 19 Ohio 104.4 3.45 -7.2% 19 Oklahoma 104.4 3.45 1.9% 19 Texas 104.4 3.45 -4.4% 22 Missouri 103.5 3.50 -3.0% 23 Washington 102.5 3.55 -12.8% 24 Massachusetts 101.5 3.60 -7.0% 25 Connecticut 100.5 3.65 -16.3% 26 Minnesota 99.5 3.70 -11.4% 26 South Carolina 99.5 3.70 -9.5% 28 Georgia 98.5 3.75 -14.1% 28 New Jersey 98.5 3.75 -2.7% 30 Arkansas 97.5 3.80 10.5% 31 Kentucky 96.5 3.85 -5.2% 31 North Carolina 96.5 3.85 -20.9% 33 Illinois 94.6 3.95 -10.4% 33 Michigan 94.6 3.95 -7.2% 35 Colorado 91.6 4.10 -2.5% 35 Tennessee 91.6 4.10 -14.8% 37 Louisiana 89.6 4.20 -26.0% 37 New York 89.6 4.20 -10.3% 39 New Hampshire 86.7 4.35 -11.5% 40 Maryland 84.7 4.45 -2.9% 40 Oregon 84.7 4.45 -10.8% 42 Arizona 83.7 4.50 0.8% 42 Hawaii 83.7 4.50 -13.0% 44 Nevada 80.8 4.65 -9.2% 45 Alabama 77.8 4.80 -5.5% 45 Rhode Island 77.8 4.80 0.9% 47 Mississippi 73.9 5.00 -3.7% 48 California 72.9 5.05 -10.4% 48 Delaware 72.9 5.05 17.1% 50 Utah 67.0 5.35 -2.7%

Rank State Score Percent of Farms Change, 2003 -

2007 (%) 50-State Average 58% 19.1%

1 Wyoming 129.6 75% 31.6% 2 Washington 123.7 71% 31.5% 3 Montana 122.2 70% 11.1% 3 Oregon 122.2 70% -2.8% 5 Idaho 119.2 68% 9.7% 6 Maine 117.8 67% 13.6% 6 Massachusetts 117.8 67% 13.6% 6 New Hampshire 117.8 67% 13.6% 6 New Jersey 117.8 67% 17.5% 6 Rhode Island 117.8 67% 13.6% 6 Vermont 117.8 67% 13.6% 12 Utah 114.8 65% 20.4% 13 Michigan 113.3 64% 30.6% 13 Minnesota 113.3 64% 23.1% 15 North Dakota 111.8 63% 18.9% 15 Wisconsin 111.8 63% 23.5% 17 New York 105.9 59% 5.4% 18 Indiana 104.4 58% 13.7% 18 Maryland 104.4 58% 38.1% 20 Kansas 103.0 57% 18.8% 20 Texas 103.0 57% 14.0% 22 Iowa 101.5 56% 14.3% 23 Arizona 100.0 55% 0.0% 23 Florida 100.0 55% 12.2% 23 Illinois 100.0 55% 3.8% 23 Louisiana 100.0 55% 25.0% 23 Nebraska 100.0 55% 14.6% 23 Nevada 100.0 55% 0.0% 23 New Mexico 100.0 55% 37.5% 23 North Carolina 100.0 55% 27.9% 23 Pennsylvania 100.0 55% 14.6% 23 South Dakota 100.0 55% 22.2% 23 Virginia 100.0 55% -3.5% 34 California 98.5 54% -1.8% 35 West Virginia 97.0 53% -3.6% 36 Arkansas 95.6 52% 40.5% 36 Ohio 95.6 52% 4.0% 36 South Carolina 95.6 52% 48.6% 36 Tennessee 95.6 52% 26.8% 40 Oklahoma 94.1 51% 30.8% 41 Missouri 92.6 50% 4.2% 42 Georgia 80.8 42% 61.5% 43 Mississippi 79.3 41% 41.4% 44 Alabama 77.8 40% 2.6% 45 Kentucky 76.3 39% 62.5%

(n/a) Alaska (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Colorado (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Connecticut (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Delaware (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Hawaii (n/a) (n/a) (n/a)

Percent of farms with internet access, 2007 The percentage of farms with Internet access expresses a number of important factors about a state’s digital infrastructure. In a parallel to rural electrification in the 1930s, chief among these factors are questions about the “last mile”—the extent to which reliable, cheap or convenient Internet access has reached rural areas—and the development of community-access portals in more rural areas. The above table shows the percentage of farms that use computers for Internet access, published every 2 years. Midwest Performance, 2007

State Percent of Farms Rank

Michigan 64% 13 Wisconsin 63% 15

Indiana 58% 18 Illinois 55% 23 Ohio 52% 36

Kentucky 39% 45

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

2004 2005 2006 2007

Tren

d in

Per

cent

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

TECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOLS

Average number of students per internet-connected or instructional computer, 2006 Rapid adoption of telecommunications and computer technologies in schools can improve learning effectiveness and efficiency. It is also a way to help prepare students for lifelong and workplace learning, which is becoming increasingly technology based. This metric is the average of two statistics from Education Week magazine’s “Technology Counts” annual report: students per instructional computer and students per Internet-connected computer. Midwest Performance, 2006

State Average Number of Students

Rank


Ohio 3.45 19 Kentucky 3.85 31


Michigan, 2003 - 2006

2

3

4

5

6

2003 2004 2005 2006

Ave

rage

Num

ber

of S

tude

nts

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

QUALITY OF LIFE (SENSE OF PLACE) Quality of Life (see: "Sense of Place") has been gaining increased attention from those responsible for economic development. Amenity value caught the attention of thoughtful professionals and public officials, particularly with the release of Richard Florida’s 2002 book, “The Rise of the Creative Class.” States, regions and cities have become increasingly concerned about how to attract not just businesses, but individual entrepreneurs and young skilled workers in general who increasingly put emphasis on quality of life in their location decisions. Also, they will soon become very aware of the mobility of experienced, energetic retiring/semi-retiring baby boomers looking for places to call home that offer opportunities to continue to work, play, contribute to society and make money. In short, amenity economics is back! Quality of life is a desirable attribute in its own right -- pursuit of the good life, but it is increasingly important as a factor when attracting and retaining the “right” kinds of workers and companies to sustain future growth. In this way, good quality of life begets better quality of like. Comprised of sub-drivers in Civic Energy and Harmony, Lifestyle and Play, Pocketbook Indicators, and Health and Safety, this driver seeks to measure the overall quality of life in each state. Quality of life often varies considerably within states. Consequently, future scores for this driver could be broken out by region. Midwest Performance

2008 2006 2004 Illinois *** **** *** Wisconsin *** *** *** Michigan ** ** ** Indiana ** ** ** Ohio ** ** ** Kentucky ** ** **

Rank State 2008 2006 2004 1 Massachusetts ***** ***** ***** 2 Vermont ***** ***** ***** 3 New Hampshire ***** ***** ***** 4 New Jersey ***** ***** ***** 5 South Dakota ***** ***** ***** 6 Montana ***** ***** ***** 7 Maryland ***** ***** ***** 8 Minnesota ***** ***** **** 9 Florida ***** **** ***** 10 Iowa ***** **** **** 11 Wyoming ***** **** ***** 12 North Dakota **** **** **** 13 Alaska **** **** **** 14 Pennsylvania **** **** **** 15 Colorado **** **** **** 16 Connecticut **** **** **** 17 Nebraska *** *** *** 18 Virginia *** *** *** 19 New York *** *** *** 20 Illinois *** **** *** 21 Idaho *** *** *** 22 Washington *** *** *** 23 Utah *** **** *** 24 Delaware *** **** **** 25 Hawaii *** **** **** 26 Wisconsin *** *** *** 27 Maine *** ** ** 28 Missouri *** *** *** 29 California *** *** *** 30 Kansas *** *** *** 31 Oregon ** *** ** 32 North Carolina ** ** ** 33 Michigan ** ** ** 34 Rhode Island ** *** ** 35 West Virginia ** ** ** 36 South Carolina ** ** ** 37 Alabama ** ** ** 38 Indiana ** ** ** 39 Ohio ** ** ** 40 Nevada ** ** *** 41 Oklahoma ** ** ** 42 Kentucky ** ** ** 43 Arizona ** ** * 44 Tennessee ** ** *** 45 New Mexico ** ** * 46 Georgia * ** ** 47 Mississippi * * * 48 Arkansas * * * 49 Louisiana * * ** 50 Texas * * *

82


CIVIC ENERGY AND HARMONY

Midwest Performance

2008 2006 2004 Illinois *** *** *** Wisconsin *** *** **** Michigan *** *** *** Ohio ** *** *** Indiana ** ** ** Kentucky * ** *

Rank State 2008 2006 2004 1 Maryland ***** ***** ***** 2 Massachusetts ***** ***** ***** 3 New Hampshire ***** **** **** 4 Vermont ***** **** **** 5 Minnesota **** **** **** 6 New Jersey **** **** **** 7 Connecticut **** **** **** 8 California **** **** ***** 9 Colorado **** **** ***** 10 Iowa **** **** **** 11 New York **** **** ***** 12 Virginia **** *** *** 13 Montana *** *** *** 14 Utah *** **** ***** 15 Oregon *** *** **** 16 Florida *** ** *** 17 Illinois *** *** *** 18 Washington *** *** **** 19 Wisconsin *** *** **** 20 Georgia *** *** *** 21 North Carolina *** ** *** 22 Idaho *** *** *** 23 Maine *** *** *** 24 Rhode Island *** *** *** 25 Michigan *** *** *** 26 Pennsylvania *** *** *** 27 South Dakota *** *** *** 28 Wyoming *** *** **** 29 Missouri *** *** **** 30 Delaware *** *** *** 31 North Dakota *** *** *** 32 Nebraska *** ** *** 33 Kansas ** *** *** 34 Alaska ** *** *** 35 Hawaii ** *** *** 36 Ohio ** *** *** 37 New Mexico ** ** ** 38 Indiana ** ** ** 39 South Carolina ** ** *** 40 Alabama ** ** ** 41 Arizona ** ** ** 42 Oklahoma ** ** ** 43 Mississippi ** * ** 44 Texas * ** ** 45 Arkansas * * * 46 Kentucky * ** * 47 Tennessee * ** ** 48 Nevada * * ** 49 West Virginia * * * 50 Louisiana * * **

83


RURAL-URBAN DISPARITY

Rank State Score Nonprofits per


2008 (%) 50-State Average 571 5.1%

1 Montana 148.7 1,006 4.5% 2 Vermont 143.9 960 6.6% 3 Iowa 143.8 959 2.3% 4 North Dakota 138.4 909 2.5% 5 Wyoming 132.3 852 1.7% 6 South Dakota 131.7 846 3.6% 7 Alaska 120.6 742 4.3% 8 Nebraska 119.2 728 -0.8% 9 Maine 116.0 699 5.0% 10 Rhode Island 114.5 685 8.7% 11 Kansas 110.2 644 3.8% 12 Delaware 109.7 640 12.7% 13 Minnesota 109.1 633 3.7% 14 West Virginia 107.5 619 9.1% 15 Missouri 107.3 617 0.5% 16 Wisconsin 106.3 607 6.2% 17 New Hampshire 105.0 596 6.4% 18 Hawaii 103.3 579 7.1% 19 Oregon 103.2 579 1.9% 20 Connecticut 102.8 575 4.6% 21 Massachusetts 101.9 566 3.7% 22 Colorado 101.9 566 4.2% 23 Indiana 101.9 566 5.1% 24 Ohio 101.5 563 7.8% 25 Maryland 101.4 562 9.1% 26 Washington 98.6 536 2.5% 27 Pennsylvania 98.3 533 6.0% 28 Oklahoma 97.6 526 3.4% 29 New Mexico 96.8 518 3.3% 30 Illinois 96.4 515 6.3% 31 Virginia 95.9 510 8.1% 32 New York 95.4 505 4.4% 33 Idaho 94.1 493 0.5% 34 New Jersey 93.1 484 7.7% 35 Michigan 93.0 483 6.9% 36 South Carolina 92.7 480 7.4% 37 Arkansas 92.4 478 6.7% 38 Tennessee 92.2 475 3.4% 39 North Carolina 90.3 457 5.0% 40 Kentucky 88.6 442 4.9% 41 Louisiana 88.4 440 5.5% 42 California 87.0 426 6.9% 43 Alabama 86.8 424 4.7% 44 Mississippi 86.1 418 10.5% 45 Texas 85.0 408 2.9% 46 Florida 82.6 385 7.8% 47 Georgia 81.9 379 7.3% 48 Arizona 75.5 318 2.4% 49 Utah 75.4 318 1.2% 50 Nevada 73.2 297 3.2%


2007 (%) 50-State Average 7.8%

1 Michigan 140.7 1.34 81.1% 2 Indiana 124.0 0.80 152.8% 3 Massachusetts 120.3 0.68 -56.1% 4 New Hampshire 120.0 0.67 -31.8% 5 Ohio 118.9 0.63 43.0% 6 Wisconsin 117.4 0.59 164.1% 7 Maine 115.7 0.53 -608.1% 8 Vermont 112.4 0.42 3.4% 9 Oregon 112.1 0.41 -10.9% 10 New Mexico 111.5 0.39 -279.6% 11 South Dakota 111.5 0.39 -182.7% 12 North Dakota 111.4 0.39 -187.4% 13 South Carolina 110.8 0.37 0.5% 14 Idaho 110.6 0.36 -37.5% 15 Alaska 110.5 0.36 -177.4% 16 West Virginia 110.5 0.36 2364.5% 17 Nevada 104.2 0.16 -153.8% 18 Alabama 103.2 0.13 -129.1% 19 Missouri 102.7 0.11 -47.0% 20 Colorado 102.2 0.09 -75.7% 21 Maryland 102.1 0.09 -287.6% 22 Minnesota 100.6 0.04 -179.0% 23 Iowa 100.6 0.04 -118.6% 24 Nebraska 100.2 0.03 -115.4% 25 Delaware 99.8 0.02 -101.8% 26 Georgia 99.1 0.00 -102.9% 27 Arkansas 98.9 -0.01 -97.6% 28 Illinois 98.3 -0.03 -136.6% 29 Pennsylvania 98.2 -0.03 -142.5% 30 Florida 98.2 -0.04 -88.4% 31 Montana 97.3 -0.06 -82.0% 32 Arizona 96.6 -0.09 -40.8% 33 Hawaii 96.4 -0.09 -56.5% 34 Tennessee 96.2 -0.10 -83.6% 35 Mississippi 96.2 -0.10 -405.3% 36 Kentucky 95.4 -0.12 -69.3% 37 Utah 95.0 -0.14 -209.0% 38 North Carolina 90.8 -0.27 -523.4% 39 California 87.5 -0.38 -214.9% 40 Kansas 85.0 -0.46 295.5% 41 Connecticut 84.4 -0.48 789.1% 42 Washington 83.6 -0.50 -263.0% 43 Virginia 75.0 -0.78 -15.5% 44 Wyoming 73.0 -0.85 -401.2% 45 New York 62.5 -1.18 -353.7% 46 Texas 61.4 -1.22 1914.9% 47 Oklahoma 61.0 -1.23 47.0% 48 Louisiana 60.9 -1.24 582.9%

(n/a) Rhode Island (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) New Jersey (n/a) (n/a) (n/a)

Index of rural-urban economic performance differences, 2007 Economic development and its outcomes have to be shared across the whole state for long-term progress. Differences in earnings, employment, and unemployment in non-metropolitan versus metropolitan counties within a state provide one means of detecting such an imbalance. The above table gives the composite scores of five indicators (see Appendix) on rural-urban disparity calculated from data provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.


Michigan 1.34 1 Indiana 0.80 2


Illinois -0.03 28 Kentucky -0.12 36

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2004 2005 2006 2007

Ind

ex

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

NUMBER OF NONPROFITS

Number of nonprofit organizations per 100,000 residents, 2008 Nonprofit organizations such as charities are mobilizers of public participation in the development of the community, and reflect the strength of the social network that supports the economy. The above table gives the number of nonprofit organizations per state per 100,000 residents

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Nonprofits per 100,000

Residents Rank


Ohio 563 24 Illinois 515 30


Michigan, 2005 - 2008

400

420

440

460

480

500

2005 2006 2007 2008

Non

prof

its p

er 1

00,0

00 R

esid

ents

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

84


CHARITABLE GIVING

Rank State Score Percent of Eligible


2008 (%) 50-State Average 63.5% 2.2%

1 Minnesota 138.7 78.2% -0.2% 2 Wisconsin 123.2 72.5% -3.0% 3 Maine 120.0 71.4% -3.3% 4 New Hampshire 119.9 71.3% 0.6% 5 Iowa 116.0 69.9% 0.0% 6 Colorado 115.7 69.8% 4.6% 7 Michigan 113.2 68.9% 3.4% 8 Alaska 111.6 68.3% -1.2% 9 Missouri 111.1 68.1% 4.2% 10 Oregon 110.4 67.8% -5.8% 11 Virginia 110.0 67.7% 11.7% 12 Maryland 110.0 67.7% 7.7% 13 Florida 109.6 67.5% 4.8% 14 Connecticut 108.6 67.2% 3.4% 15 Washington 108.0 67.0% 0.1% 16 Ohio 107.4 66.7% -0.1% 17 Vermont 107.3 66.7% 0.5% 18 Montana 106.4 66.3% 3.0% 19 Delaware 106.1 66.2% 3.2% 20 Massachusetts 106.0 66.2% 3.1% 21 New Jersey 105.9 66.2% 3.8% 22 North Carolina 104.9 65.8% 13.8% 23 Wyoming 103.8 65.4% -0.4% 24 North Dakota 102.8 65.0% 0.3% 25 Pennsylvania 100.6 64.2% 2.6% 26 South Dakota 99.4 63.8% -6.5% 27 Idaho 98.1 63.3% 0.1% 28 Illinois 96.7 62.8% 2.1% 29 Nebraska 96.3 62.7% -0.5% 30 Rhode Island 96.0 62.5% 6.9% 31 Kansas 95.8 62.5% 1.4% 32 Louisiana 94.7 62.1% 1.7% 33 Alabama 93.9 61.8% 8.0% 34 California 93.6 61.7% 4.9% 35 Georgia 92.9 61.4% 9.3% 36 Mississippi 91.8 61.0% 9.5% 37 New Mexico 90.0 60.3% 2.3% 38 Indiana 87.3 59.4% 8.3% 39 South Carolina 85.2 58.6% 10.6% 40 Nevada 85.1 58.6% 6.0% 41 New York 83.5 58.0% -0.1% 42 Kentucky 83.2 57.9% -1.5% 43 Tennessee 81.8 57.3% 1.8% 44 Oklahoma 80.1 56.7% -2.7% 45 Arizona 78.1 56.0% 3.4% 46 Texas 74.5 54.7% 1.7% 47 Arkansas 71.2 53.4% -0.2% 48 Utah 70.7 53.3% -9.6% 49 West Virginia 63.4 50.6% -6.5% 50 Hawaii 63.0 50.5% 4.6%

Rank State Score Percent of Personal

Income Change, 2004 -

2007 (%) 50-State Average 1.60% 0.5%

1 Utah 216.8 3.90% 6.6% 2 Georgia 130.1 2.15% -3.5% 3 Oklahoma 128.9 2.12% 14.8% 4 Wyoming 128.1 2.11% 16.1% 5 South Carolina 124.7 2.04% -2.0% 6 Alabama 124.1 2.02% 2.6% 7 Maryland 122.5 1.99% -10.2% 8 North Carolina 119.4 1.93% -2.2% 9 New York 118.1 1.90% -2.5% 10 Idaho 116.4 1.87% 0.6% 11 Tennessee 115.7 1.86% 7.1% 12 Mississippi 110.5 1.75% 8.2% 13 Arkansas 110.2 1.74% 0.8% 14 South Dakota 108.6 1.71% 55.3% 15 Virginia 108.3 1.71% -5.1% 16 Kansas 107.7 1.69% 6.3% 17 Florida 106.7 1.67% -0.2% 18 Colorado 106.1 1.66% -2.6% 19 Connecticut 105.9 1.66% -1.8% 20 Oregon 104.9 1.64% -2.3% 21 California 103.8 1.61% -6.6% 22 Minnesota 103.6 1.61% -6.3% 23 Nebraska 101.1 1.56% 1.9% 24 Delaware 100.9 1.56% -5.6% 25 Michigan 100.0 1.54% -7.0% 26 Arizona 100.0 1.54% -7.0% 27 Washington 99.8 1.53% -2.5% 28 Missouri 98.6 1.51% 1.1% 29 Illinois 97.8 1.49% -5.7% 30 Massachusetts 97.0 1.48% 0.2% 31 Indiana 96.3 1.46% 2.4% 32 Texas 95.9 1.45% 1.8% 33 Kentucky 95.8 1.45% -1.1% 34 Hawaii 95.3 1.44% 5.6% 35 Montana 94.9 1.44% 6.2% 36 Pennsylvania 93.5 1.41% 2.4% 37 Nevada 93.1 1.40% -25.3% 38 New Jersey 91.7 1.37% -10.4% 39 Wisconsin 90.5 1.35% -1.9% 40 Iowa 90.4 1.34% 4.8% 41 Ohio 90.0 1.34% -4.0% 42 New Mexico 85.5 1.24% 3.7% 43 New Hampshire 83.3 1.20% 3.4% 44 Alaska 80.4 1.14% -1.6% 45 Louisiana 79.7 1.13% -6.6% 46 Vermont 79.2 1.12% 3.8% 47 Rhode Island 78.5 1.10% -12.3% 48 Maine 77.0 1.07% 0.6% 49 North Dakota 71.2 0.96% 0.5% 50 West Virginia 66.8 0.87% 2.5%

Itemized contributions as percent of personal income, 2007 The contributions of each resident to charitable causes are a sign of community involvement and the tie of the residents to their home state. Although charitable deductions on federal income tax returns do not indicate the location of the use of those funds, they provide a general sense of a state’s civic participation. The above table shows the amount of itemized charitable deductions as a percent of the state’s personal income.

Midwest Performance, 2007 State Percent of Personal

Income Rank

Michigan 1.54% 25 Illinois 1.49% 29 Indiana 1.46% 31


Ohio 1.34% 41

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

2004 2005 2006 2007

Per

cent

of

Per

sona

l In

com

e

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

VOTER TURNOUT

Percent of eligible voters’ turnout at general elections, 2008 High voter turnout indicates that the residents take an interest in the development of the state, and is the key to a responsive government. The above table shows the average percent of the eligible population that voted in general elections.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Percent of Eligible

Population Rank

Wisconsin 72.5% 2 Michigan 68.9% 7

Ohio 66.7% 16 Illinois 62.8% 28 Indiana 59.4% 38

Kentucky 57.9% 42

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Per

cent

of

Elig

ible

Pop

ulat

ion

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

85


GENDER EQUITY


2008 (%) 50-State Average 31.0% 7.5%

1 New Hampshire 164.4 53.1% 27.8% 2 Massachusetts 134.8 42.6% 21.4% 3 California 131.4 41.4% 5.1% 4 Maryland 129.3 40.6% 1.0% 5 New Jersey 125.6 39.3% 3.9% 6 Vermont 122.9 38.3% 17.3% 7 Minnesota 122.0 38.0% 13.6% 8 Illinois 119.1 37.0% 16.8% 9 Connecticut 118.8 36.9% 17.8% 10 Iowa 116.5 36.1% 0.2% 11 West Virginia 114.2 35.3% 7.0% 12 Maine 113.6 35.1% 32.5% 13 Idaho 112.0 34.5% 26.3% 14 Washington 110.8 34.1% 12.5% 15 Texas 107.7 33.0% -3.4% 16 Wyoming 107.5 32.9% 55.2% 17 Montana 107.3 32.8% 11.6% 18 Michigan 107.2 32.8% 9.4% 19 New York 106.3 32.5% 3.6% 20 Virginia 105.9 32.3% -1.3% 21 Oregon 102.4 31.1% 8.4% 22 Indiana 101.2 30.7% 7.0% 23 Pennsylvania 100.6 30.5% -2.1% 24 Arizona 100.6 30.5% -1.8% 25 Colorado 100.5 30.4% 14.5% 26 Wisconsin 99.5 30.1% 25.4% 27 Ohio 98.8 29.8% 4.8% 28 North Dakota 98.4 29.7% -0.5% 29 Kansas 97.9 29.5% -9.9% 30 Delaware 96.0 28.8% -9.4% 31 Missouri 95.2 28.5% -13.0% 32 Hawaii 95.1 28.5% 1.9% 33 Nebraska 94.9 28.4% 31.3% 34 North Carolina 93.8 28.0% 6.7% 35 New Mexico 93.8 28.0% -11.2% 36 South Dakota 92.9 27.7% 22.7% 37 Florida 92.9 27.7% 15.8% 38 Georgia 92.7 27.6% -5.6% 39 Oklahoma 90.3 26.8% 3.0% 40 Kentucky 90.3 26.8% -0.7% 41 Rhode Island 87.9 26.0% 2.3% 42 Alaska 86.9 25.6% 9.4% 43 Utah 86.3 25.4% -27.1% 44 Nevada 83.3 24.3% 6.8% 45 South Carolina 81.2 23.6% 26.0% 46 Mississippi 79.7 23.0% 8.6% 47 Tennessee 77.9 22.4% -16.8% 48 Alabama 77.3 22.2% 1.2% 49 Arkansas 76.1 21.8% 0.3% 50 Louisiana 69.4 19.4% -0.6%

Rank State Score Percent Change, 2005-

2008 (%) 50-State Average 38.3% 2.3%

1 Massachusetts 153.8 47.3% 11.8% 2 Maryland 149.0 46.5% -1.7% 3 Virginia 141.4 45.1% 10.5% 4 Vermont 134.9 43.9% -0.8% 5 New Hampshire 130.7 43.2% 0.6% 6 Connecticut 125.8 42.3% 0.2% 7 Colorado 125.7 42.3% 4.4% 8 New Jersey 124.6 42.1% 0.0% 9 New York 119.9 41.2% 2.1% 10 Minnesota 119.8 41.2% -2.7% 11 California 118.5 41.0% 4.4% 12 Rhode Island 114.3 40.2% 11.5% 13 North Carolina 113.0 40.0% 15.0% 14 Wyoming 109.1 39.3% 8.8% 15 Kansas 108.5 39.2% 2.5% 16 Montana 107.6 39.0% 4.7% 17 Delaware 106.5 38.8% 2.6% 18 Pennsylvania 106.3 38.8% 3.2% 19 Maine 105.7 38.7% 3.2% 20 Georgia 103.7 38.3% -3.7% 21 Oklahoma 103.6 38.3% 0.9% 22 Illinois 103.4 38.3% 0.8% 23 Oregon 103.1 38.2% 8.3% 24 Iowa 102.5 38.1% 6.2% 25 Washington 101.4 37.9% -4.4% 26 South Dakota 98.6 37.4% -0.9% 27 Arkansas 98.4 37.4% 13.8% 28 Nebraska 98.3 37.4% -0.7% 29 Alaska 97.8 37.3% -7.1% 30 Arizona 96.9 37.1% -4.0% 31 New Mexico 96.3 37.0% -0.1% 32 Kentucky 96.1 37.0% 2.0% 33 Florida 95.7 36.9% 6.9% 34 Louisiana 95.7 36.9% 4.4% 35 Texas 94.6 36.7% -0.4% 36 Idaho 94.1 36.6% 13.2% 37 North Dakota 93.4 36.5% 2.0% 38 Missouri 92.6 36.3% -3.0% 39 Michigan 92.2 36.3% 6.8% 40 Ohio 91.1 36.1% 2.8% 41 Mississippi 88.5 35.6% 0.6% 42 South Carolina 87.9 35.5% 8.8% 43 Wisconsin 87.5 35.4% 0.5% 44 West Virginia 86.5 35.2% 1.5% 45 Utah 85.0 35.0% 1.9% 46 Hawaii 83.6 34.7% -0.2% 47 Alabama 77.9 33.7% -6.0% 48 Indiana 75.3 33.2% -7.5% 49 Tennessee 73.9 33.0% -10.0% 50 Nevada 56.1 29.8% 0.4%

Percent of female labor force in "top jobs,” 2008 Increasingly, there is a preference for diverse business environments, especially among the young and highly educated workers. Race and gender equity is not only desirable because it is fair and just; workplaces that demonstrate a commitment to and opportunities for career advancement of women and minorities are essential to economic competitiveness. The above table shows the percentage of the women in managerial, business, and financial, as well as professional and related occupations.


Illinois 38.3% 22 Kentucky 37.0% 32 Michigan 36.3% 39


Indiana 33.2% 48

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

20%

30%

40%

50%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Perc

ent

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

RACIAL/ETHNIC EQUITY

Percent of non-white labor force in "top jobs," 2008 This metric captures the same information as women in top jobs on the preceding page, except it measures the foothold of racial minorities at the top of the career ladder. The above table shows the percentage of non-white employees who are in managerial, business, and financial, as well as professional and related occupations.




Ohio 29.8% 27 Kentucky 26.8% 40

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Perc

ent

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

86


HATE CRIMES

Rank State Score Share of Population Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 13.1% 8.5%

1 Massachusetts 140.2 18.8% 16.9% 2 Vermont 132.5 17.6% 19.7% 3 Colorado 129.7 17.2% 7.8% 4 Maryland 129.2 17.2% 2.1% 5 Minnesota 126.4 16.8% 14.6% 6 Connecticut 125.7 16.6% 13.0% 7 New Jersey 123.8 16.4% 8.5% 8 New York 119.5 15.8% 10.3% 9 Virginia 117.2 15.4% 4.1% 10 New Hampshire 117.0 15.4% 8.5% 11 Rhode Island 116.5 15.3% 17.4% 12 Kansas 114.8 15.1% 11.5% 13 Illinois 108.5 14.2% 7.1% 14 Utah 108.0 14.1% -2.7% 15 Oregon 107.6 14.0% 18.2% 16 Hawaii 107.4 14.0% 14.9% 17 California 106.5 13.9% 0.4% 18 Washington 104.9 13.6% 12.4% 19 Nebraska 104.3 13.5% 21.5% 20 Georgia 103.4 13.4% 8.0% 21 South Dakota 102.7 13.3% 16.5% 22 Florida 102.1 13.2% 18.1% 23 North Carolina 102.0 13.2% 11.9% 24 New Mexico 100.6 13.0% 13.2% 25 Arizona 100.1 12.9% 3.8% 26 Delaware 99.9 12.9% 0.8% 27 North Dakota 99.7 12.9% 9.4% 28 Montana 99.7 12.9% 0.8% 29 Pennsylvania 97.5 12.6% 15.9% 30 Missouri 97.3 12.5% -7.1% 31 Iowa 96.6 12.4% 10.6% 32 Idaho 96.3 12.4% 9.2% 33 Wisconsin 95.3 12.2% 5.0% 34 Maine 95.0 12.2% 15.6% 35 Texas 93.0 11.9% 6.7% 36 Ohio 90.8 11.6% 14.2% 37 Michigan 90.7 11.6% 6.0% 38 Alaska 89.9 11.5% 5.2% 39 South Carolina 88.1 11.2% 1.5% 40 Louisiana 86.8 11.0% 6.6% 41 Tennessee 84.9 10.7% -2.5% 42 Nevada 84.7 10.7% 0.2% 43 Mississippi 83.3 10.5% 19.9% 44 Alabama 81.3 10.2% 4.2% 45 Oklahoma 81.2 10.2% -7.7% 46 Arkansas 80.8 10.1% 17.6% 47 Wyoming 80.1 10.0% -4.2% 48 Indiana 78.9 9.9% 11.1% 49 Kentucky 78.2 9.8% 5.1% 50 West Virginia 62.6 7.5% 4.5%

Rank State Score Incidents per

100,000 residents Change, 2004 -

2007 (%) 50-State Average 2.94 17.2%

1 Mississippi 122.8 0.00 -100.0% 2 Alabama 120.7 0.25 -55.8% 3 Pennsylvania 117.2 0.69 -25.3% 4 Oklahoma 116.1 0.83 -42.7% 5 Florida 115.4 0.91 -42.1% 6 Iowa 115.4 0.91 15.6% 7 North Carolina 114.6 1.01 22.9% 8 Texas 114.6 1.01 -26.3% 9 New Mexico 113.1 1.19 -33.4% 10 Arkansas 113.1 1.19 -79.0% 11 Wisconsin 112.8 1.23 83.5% 12 Louisiana 112.8 1.23 96.1% 13 Kentucky 112.7 1.25 -34.7% 14 Indiana 111.6 1.38 -33.9% 15 Georgia 107.3 1.91 3.8% 16 Missouri 106.6 2.00 -0.4% 17 Utah 105.8 2.10 -34.5% 18 Montana 104.8 2.22 -63.2% 19 North Dakota 103.2 2.42 69.3% 20 Nevada 102.6 2.49 -28.1% 21 Idaho 102.3 2.54 -4.5% 22 West Virginia 101.7 2.61 52.7% 23 Maryland 101.2 2.67 -39.4% 24 Arizona 100.1 2.80 -30.6% 25 Alaska 100.0 2.82 -14.4% 26 South Carolina 99.5 2.88 15.1% 27 Minnesota 98.3 3.02 -35.7% 28 Washington 98.3 3.03 7.4% 29 New York 96.8 3.21 59.9% 30 Colorado 96.1 3.30 148.2% 31 Illinois 95.5 3.38 -8.1% 32 Vermont 95.0 3.44 -26.0% 33 Nebraska 94.7 3.47 -16.4% 34 Ohio 93.8 3.59 -8.6% 35 Connecticut 93.4 3.63 9.5% 36 California 91.8 3.83 -1.3% 37 Tennessee 91.4 3.88 68.4% 38 Wyoming 89.9 4.07 255.0% 39 Virginia 88.9 4.19 1.0% 40 New Hampshire 88.7 4.21 -17.9% 41 Rhode Island 86.8 4.44 65.6% 42 Oregon 86.0 4.54 5.2% 43 Kansas 81.2 5.15 121.5% 44 Maine 78.6 5.47 5.9% 45 South Dakota 78.3 5.50 502.0% 46 Massachusetts 77.3 5.63 -5.1% 47 Delaware 76.4 5.74 44.4% 48 Michigan 71.7 6.31 2.1% 49 New Jersey 53.1 8.61 -2.6%


Number of reported hate-crime incidents per 100,000 covered residents, 2007 Hate crimes and similar behavior indicate that there are social tensions between groups of different origin and values. A lower level of community cohesion will diminish the attractiveness of a state, especially in today’s economy with an increasing influx of immigrants and the importance of alternative lifestyles. The above table shows the number of reported incidents that were motivated in whole or in part by a bias against the victim's perceived race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or disability. The data is weighted by the population covered by the reporting agencies in each state. As the number of reporting agencies changes frequently, this measure is both an indicator of these crimes and the engagement by the agencies to report the statistics

Midwest Performance, 2007 State Incidents per 100,000

Residents Rank

Wisconsin 1.23 11 Kentucky 1.25 13 Indiana 1.38 14 Illinois 3.38 31 Ohio 3.59 34

Michigan 6.31 48

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2004 2005 2006 2007

Inci

dent

s pe

r 100

,000

Res

iden

ts

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

GENERATIONAL CREATIVE CLASS

Percent of population age 20-34 and 54-79 years old with a bachelor’s degree or higher, 2008 Richard Florida’s book, The Rise of the Creative Class, has increased the public focus on attracting/retaining fresh-out-of-college graduates. However, creativity is evident at all age levels. Most notably, a new group of highly talented experienced workers is emerging as a byproduct of today’s ‘longevity revolution’ – the ‘third age’ productive years of 55-79. This metric gets at the breadth of talent of a state by combining bachelor degree attainment at both ends of the age spectrum: 20-34 and 54-79. metric seeks to capture the breadth of talent of a state by combining bachelor degree attainment at both ends of the workforce spectrum: 20-34 and 54-79.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Share of Population Rank


Ohio 11.6% 36 Michigan 11.6% 37

Indiana 9.9% 48 Kentucky 9.8% 49

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

10.0%

10.5%

11.0%

11.5%

12.0%

12.5%

13.0%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Sha

re o

f P

opul

atio

n

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

87


HATE CRIMES

Rank State Score Share of Population Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 13.1% 8.5%

1 Massachusetts 140.2 18.8% 16.9% 2 Vermont 132.5 17.6% 19.7% 3 Colorado 129.7 17.2% 7.8% 4 Maryland 129.2 17.2% 2.1% 5 Minnesota 126.4 16.8% 14.6% 6 Connecticut 125.7 16.6% 13.0% 7 New Jersey 123.8 16.4% 8.5% 8 New York 119.5 15.8% 10.3% 9 Virginia 117.2 15.4% 4.1% 10 New Hampshire 117.0 15.4% 8.5% 11 Rhode Island 116.5 15.3% 17.4% 12 Kansas 114.8 15.1% 11.5% 13 Illinois 108.5 14.2% 7.1% 14 Utah 108.0 14.1% -2.7% 15 Oregon 107.6 14.0% 18.2% 16 Hawaii 107.4 14.0% 14.9% 17 California 106.5 13.9% 0.4% 18 Washington 104.9 13.6% 12.4% 19 Nebraska 104.3 13.5% 21.5% 20 Georgia 103.4 13.4% 8.0% 21 South Dakota 102.7 13.3% 16.5% 22 Florida 102.1 13.2% 18.1% 23 North Carolina 102.0 13.2% 11.9% 24 New Mexico 100.6 13.0% 13.2% 25 Arizona 100.1 12.9% 3.8% 26 Delaware 99.9 12.9% 0.8% 27 North Dakota 99.7 12.9% 9.4% 28 Montana 99.7 12.9% 0.8% 29 Pennsylvania 97.5 12.6% 15.9% 30 Missouri 97.3 12.5% -7.1% 31 Iowa 96.6 12.4% 10.6% 32 Idaho 96.3 12.4% 9.2% 33 Wisconsin 95.3 12.2% 5.0% 34 Maine 95.0 12.2% 15.6% 35 Texas 93.0 11.9% 6.7% 36 Ohio 90.8 11.6% 14.2% 37 Michigan 90.7 11.6% 6.0% 38 Alaska 89.9 11.5% 5.2% 39 South Carolina 88.1 11.2% 1.5% 40 Louisiana 86.8 11.0% 6.6% 41 Tennessee 84.9 10.7% -2.5% 42 Nevada 84.7 10.7% 0.2% 43 Mississippi 83.3 10.5% 19.9% 44 Alabama 81.3 10.2% 4.2% 45 Oklahoma 81.2 10.2% -7.7% 46 Arkansas 80.8 10.1% 17.6% 47 Wyoming 80.1 10.0% -4.2% 48 Indiana 78.9 9.9% 11.1% 49 Kentucky 78.2 9.8% 5.1% 50 West Virginia 62.6 7.5% 4.5%

Rank State Score Incidents per

100,000 residents Change, 2004 -

2007 (%) 50-State Average 2.94 17.2%

1 Mississippi 122.8 0.00 -100.0% 2 Alabama 120.7 0.25 -55.8% 3 Pennsylvania 117.2 0.69 -25.3% 4 Oklahoma 116.1 0.83 -42.7% 5 Florida 115.4 0.91 -42.1% 6 Iowa 115.4 0.91 15.6% 7 North Carolina 114.6 1.01 22.9% 8 Texas 114.6 1.01 -26.3% 9 New Mexico 113.1 1.19 -33.4% 10 Arkansas 113.1 1.19 -79.0% 11 Wisconsin 112.8 1.23 83.5% 12 Louisiana 112.8 1.23 96.1% 13 Kentucky 112.7 1.25 -34.7% 14 Indiana 111.6 1.38 -33.9% 15 Georgia 107.3 1.91 3.8% 16 Missouri 106.6 2.00 -0.4% 17 Utah 105.8 2.10 -34.5% 18 Montana 104.8 2.22 -63.2% 19 North Dakota 103.2 2.42 69.3% 20 Nevada 102.6 2.49 -28.1% 21 Idaho 102.3 2.54 -4.5% 22 West Virginia 101.7 2.61 52.7% 23 Maryland 101.2 2.67 -39.4% 24 Arizona 100.1 2.80 -30.6% 25 Alaska 100.0 2.82 -14.4% 26 South Carolina 99.5 2.88 15.1% 27 Minnesota 98.3 3.02 -35.7% 28 Washington 98.3 3.03 7.4% 29 New York 96.8 3.21 59.9% 30 Colorado 96.1 3.30 148.2% 31 Illinois 95.5 3.38 -8.1% 32 Vermont 95.0 3.44 -26.0% 33 Nebraska 94.7 3.47 -16.4% 34 Ohio 93.8 3.59 -8.6% 35 Connecticut 93.4 3.63 9.5% 36 California 91.8 3.83 -1.3% 37 Tennessee 91.4 3.88 68.4% 38 Wyoming 89.9 4.07 255.0% 39 Virginia 88.9 4.19 1.0% 40 New Hampshire 88.7 4.21 -17.9% 41 Rhode Island 86.8 4.44 65.6% 42 Oregon 86.0 4.54 5.2% 43 Kansas 81.2 5.15 121.5% 44 Maine 78.6 5.47 5.9% 45 South Dakota 78.3 5.50 502.0% 46 Massachusetts 77.3 5.63 -5.1% 47 Delaware 76.4 5.74 44.4% 48 Michigan 71.7 6.31 2.1% 49 New Jersey 53.1 8.61 -2.6%


Number of reported hate-crime incidents per 100,000 covered residents, 2007 Hate crimes and similar behavior indicate that there are social tensions between groups of different origin and values. A lower level of community cohesion will diminish the attractiveness of a state, especially in today’s economy with an increasing influx of immigrants and the importance of alternative lifestyles. The above table shows the number of reported incidents that were motivated in whole or in part by a bias against the victim's perceived race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or disability. The data is weighted by the population covered by the reporting agencies in each state. As the number of reporting agencies changes frequently, this measure is both an indicator of these crimes and the engagement by the agencies to report the statistics

Midwest Performance, 2007 State Incidents per 100,000

Residents Rank

Wisconsin 1.23 11 Kentucky 1.25 13 Indiana 1.38 14 Illinois 3.38 31 Ohio 3.59 34

Michigan 6.31 48

Michigan, 2004 - 2007

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2004 2005 2006 2007

Inci

dent

s pe

r 100

,000

Res

iden

ts

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

GENERATIONAL CREATIVE CLASS

Percent of population age 20-34 and 54-79 years old with a bachelor’s degree or higher, 2008 Richard Florida’s book, The Rise of the Creative Class, has increased the public focus on attracting/retaining fresh-out-of-college graduates. However, creativity is evident at all age levels. Most notably, a new group of highly talented experienced workers is emerging as a byproduct of today’s ‘longevity revolution’ – the ‘third age’ productive years of 55-79. This metric gets at the breadth of talent of a state by combining bachelor degree attainment at both ends of the age spectrum: 20-34 and 54-79. metric seeks to capture the breadth of talent of a state by combining bachelor degree attainment at both ends of the workforce spectrum: 20-34 and 54-79.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Share of Population Rank


Ohio 11.6% 36 Michigan 11.6% 37

Indiana 9.9% 48 Kentucky 9.8% 49

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

10.0%

10.5%

11.0%

11.5%

12.0%

12.5%

13.0%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Sha

re o

f P

opul

atio

n

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

SKILLED IMMIGRANTS



2008 (%) 50-State Average 1.0% 14.9%

1 New Jersey 173.9 3.7% 17.0% 2 California 168.5 3.4% 4.3% 3 New York 168.4 3.4% 3.6% 4 Hawaii 148.4 2.6% 10.1% 5 Massachusetts 142.8 2.4% 33.9% 6 Florida 140.2 2.3% 23.7% 7 Maryland 137.1 2.2% 7.2% 8 Connecticut 129.2 1.9% 0.5% 9 Illinois 126.2 1.7% 14.6% 10 Virginia 125.8 1.7% 18.8% 11 Washington 122.3 1.6% 36.1% 12 Nevada 118.5 1.4% -5.9% 13 Rhode Island 116.9 1.4% 14.4% 14 Oregon 114.1 1.2% 24.6% 15 Georgia 114.1 1.2% 29.0% 16 Texas 112.9 1.2% 19.1% 17 Delaware 112.2 1.2% 28.3% 18 Arizona 107.0 1.0% -19.7% 19 Colorado 106.9 1.0% -12.5% 20 New Hampshire 105.9 0.9% 50.4% 21 Michigan 103.6 0.8% 3.0% 22 Minnesota 102.0 0.8% 5.0% 23 Alaska 101.5 0.7% -5.4% 24 Utah 101.4 0.7% 29.1% 25 Kansas 100.2 0.7% 20.5% 26 Pennsylvania 99.8 0.7% 4.5% 27 New Mexico 99.7 0.7% 22.2% 28 Missouri 96.8 0.6% 51.3% 29 North Carolina 96.1 0.5% -2.4% 30 Ohio 95.4 0.5% -5.1% 31 Vermont 95.1 0.5% 8.7% 32 Indiana 94.9 0.5% -3.2% 33 Wisconsin 94.6 0.5% 63.7% 34 Nebraska 94.2 0.4% 28.1% 35 South Carolina 93.7 0.4% -4.3% 36 Idaho 93.6 0.4% 3.8% 37 Louisiana 93.4 0.4% 2.0% 38 Oklahoma 92.0 0.4% -17.5% 39 Iowa 92.0 0.4% 79.3% 40 Maine 91.4 0.3% -12.4% 41 Alabama 90.6 0.3% 98.6% 42 Arkansas 90.4 0.3% 55.2% 43 Tennessee 89.0 0.2% 7.5% 44 South Dakota 87.4 0.2% 11.7% 45 Montana 87.4 0.2% 47.8% 46 Kentucky 87.1 0.2% -25.8% 47 North Dakota 86.9 0.2% 0.0% 48 West Virginia 86.9 0.2% 23.7% 49 Wyoming 86.1 0.1% -26.9% 50 Mississippi 85.3 0.1% -17.6%

Permanent or temporary residents with a bachelor’s degree or higher as a percent of the total population, 2008 Silicon Valley has proven that highly skilled foreign workers can be an integral part of an innovation network. With states facing inevitable demographic shifts, the ability to attract well educated workers from other countries becomes increasingly relevant. In recent years this has become all the more critical due to federal curtailment of the entry quota for holders of H1B visas.



Ohio 0.5% 30 Indiana 0.5% 32

Wisconsin 0.5% 33 Kentucky 0.2% 46

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Per

cent

of

Pop

ulat

ion

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

88


LIFESTYLE AND PLAY

Midwest Performance

2008 2006 2004 Illinois ** *** *** Michigan ** ** ** Kentucky ** ** ** Wisconsin ** ** ** Indiana * * ** Ohio * * **

Rank State 2008 2006 2004 1 Hawaii ***** ***** ***** 2 New York ***** ***** ***** 3 New Jersey ***** ***** ***** 4 Alaska ***** ***** ***** 5 Florida ***** **** **** 6 California **** **** **** 7 Montana **** **** **** 8 Massachusetts **** **** **** 9 Nevada **** **** **** 10 Pennsylvania **** **** **** 11 Washington **** **** **** 12 Vermont *** *** *** 13 Maryland *** **** *** 14 South Dakota *** *** *** 15 Rhode Island *** *** ** 16 Minnesota *** *** *** 17 Colorado *** *** *** 18 Connecticut *** *** *** 19 Wyoming ** *** *** 20 Illinois ** *** *** 21 Arizona ** ** ** 22 Oregon ** *** *** 23 Iowa ** ** ** 24 Idaho ** ** *** 25 New Hampshire ** ** ** 26 North Dakota ** ** ** 27 Delaware ** ** ** 28 Utah ** ** ** 29 Virginia ** ** ** 30 Michigan ** ** ** 31 Maine ** ** ** 32 Nebraska ** ** ** 33 West Virginia ** *** *** 34 Kentucky ** ** ** 35 North Carolina ** ** ** 36 Wisconsin ** ** ** 37 South Carolina ** ** ** 38 Missouri ** ** ** 39 Tennessee ** ** ** 40 New Mexico * * ** 41 Indiana * * ** 42 Ohio * * ** 43 Arkansas * * * 44 Louisiana * * ** 45 Kansas * * * 46 Alabama * * * 47 Oklahoma * * * 48 Georgia * * * 49 Mississippi * * * 50 Texas * * *

89


TIME TO WORK

Rank State Score Percent of Workers Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 2.9% 17.3%

1 New York 250.0 26.3% 4.3% 2 New Jersey 204.3 10.1% 1.3% 3 Massachusetts 186.1 8.6% 9.8% 4 Illinois 183.2 8.4% 6.3% 5 Maryland 181.9 8.3% 2.6% 6 Hawaii 150.8 5.7% 2.4% 7 Washington 146.5 5.3% 17.2% 8 Pennsylvania 143.3 5.0% 6.5% 9 California 141.6 4.9% 13.3% 10 Oregon 132.9 4.2% 16.2% 11 Connecticut 132.1 4.1% 1.9% 12 Virginia 132.1 4.1% 12.8% 13 Delaware 127.4 3.7% 90.9% 14 Nevada 122.9 3.3% 20.5% 15 Minnesota 121.1 3.2% 23.2% 16 Colorado 120.7 3.2% 25.8% 17 Rhode Island 113.3 2.5% 11.9% 18 Utah 110.2 2.3% 6.8% 19 Georgia 109.0 2.2% 12.5% 20 Arizona 107.7 2.1% 24.8% 21 Ohio 102.9 1.7% 12.4% 22 Florida 101.9 1.6% 3.6% 23 Texas 101.1 1.5% 9.1% 24 Wisconsin 101.0 1.5% 23.5% 25 Missouri 100.3 1.5% 42.2% 26 Alaska 99.7 1.4% 38.2% 27 Wyoming 97.1 1.2% -24.2% 28 Michigan 96.7 1.1% 27.7% 29 Louisiana 96.6 1.1% -22.0% 30 Idaho 95.4 1.0% 7.5% 31 Kentucky 94.9 1.0% 39.1% 32 North Carolina 94.9 1.0% 52.6% 33 Iowa 94.8 1.0% 45.7% 34 Indiana 94.4 1.0% 25.7% 35 New Mexico 93.9 0.9% 26.4% 36 Montana 93.3 0.9% 86.7% 37 Vermont 93.1 0.8% -0.7% 38 New Hampshire 91.4 0.7% 5.9% 39 Maine 91.3 0.7% 28.5% 40 Tennessee 90.4 0.6% 8.6% 41 Nebraska 89.7 0.6% 14.1% 42 South Carolina 89.6 0.6% 4.6% 43 North Dakota 89.3 0.5% 47.9% 44 West Virginia 89.0 0.5% -13.9% 45 Kansas 88.6 0.5% 55.5% 46 Alabama 87.9 0.4% 28.7% 47 South Dakota 87.2 0.4% 34.1% 48 Oklahoma 86.8 0.3% -33.6% 49 Mississippi 86.5 0.3% -13.9% 50 Arkansas 86.2 0.3% -3.7%

Rank State Score Average Minutes Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 23.6 2.0%

1 North Dakota 137.5 16.0 -1.8% 2 South Dakota 135.6 16.4 -1.2% 3 Montana 128.5 17.9 3.5% 4 Nebraska 128.0 18.0 0.6% 5 Alaska 126.1 18.4 0.5% 6 Iowa 125.6 18.5 0.5% 7 Wyoming 124.7 18.7 8.1% 8 Kansas 122.8 19.1 3.8% 9 Idaho 117.6 20.2 2.0% 10 Oklahoma 112.8 21.2 5.5% 11 Utah 112.3 21.3 3.9% 11 Arkansas 112.3 21.3 1.4% 13 Wisconsin 110.4 21.7 4.3% 14 Vermont 109.5 21.9 3.3% 14 New Mexico 109.5 21.9 3.3% 16 Oregon 106.6 22.5 2.7% 17 Minnesota 106.2 22.6 1.8% 17 Kentucky 106.2 22.6 0.4% 19 Ohio 104.7 22.9 2.2% 20 Rhode Island 103.8 23.1 1.8% 21 Indiana 103.3 23.2 3.1% 22 South Carolina 102.8 23.3 -1.3% 22 Maine 102.8 23.3 0.0% 24 North Carolina 102.4 23.4 0.4% 25 Missouri 100.5 23.8 3.5% 26 Tennessee 99.5 24.0 1.7% 26 Nevada 99.5 24.0 3.0% 26 Michigan 99.5 24.0 2.1% 26 Alabama 99.5 24.0 2.6% 30 Mississippi 99.1 24.1 2.6% 31 Colorado 96.7 24.6 4.7% 32 Delaware 94.8 25.0 5.5% 32 Arizona 94.8 25.0 0.8% 34 Texas 94.3 25.1 2.0% 34 Connecticut 94.3 25.1 1.2% 36 Louisiana 93.4 25.3 1.6% 37 West Virginia 92.9 25.4 2.0% 37 Washington 92.9 25.4 2.8% 39 Pennsylvania 91.0 25.8 2.8% 40 Florida 90.5 25.9 -0.4% 41 New Hampshire 90.0 26.0 4.0% 42 Hawaii 89.6 26.1 1.6% 43 Virginia 85.8 26.9 -0.4% 44 Georgia 85.3 27.0 -0.7% 44 California 85.3 27.0 0.0% 46 Massachusetts 83.9 27.3 1.1% 47 Illinois 78.2 28.5 1.4% 48 New Jersey 70.6 30.1 2.0% 49 Maryland 63.9 31.5 2.3% 50 New York 63.5 31.6 1.3%

Average travel time to work of workers 16 years and over who did not work at home, 2008 Striking work–life balance has become of increased concern to today workers. Take–home work, via laptops and PDAs, exacerbates demands from the work place. One solution is to reduce commute time. States with less average travel time to work are considered to have higher quality of life.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Average Minutes Rank

Wisconsin 21.7 13 Kentucky 22.6 17

Ohio 22.9 19 Indiana 23.2 21


Michigan, 2005 - 2008

21

22

23

24

25

26

2005 2006 2007 2008

Ave

rage

Min

utes

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

TRANSIT USE

Percent of those earning 100% or more above federal poverty level that take public transportation to work, 2008 In the last half of the 20th century the landscape of U.S. cites was shaped by sprawl. The automobile became, and remains, the primary means for journey to work from the suburbs to office /industry centers. But now, after years of neglect, public transit is experiencing a resurgence, offering convenience, predictable travel time and energy efficiency, enhancing quality if life. This metric measures the percent of those who are not working at home and take public transportation to work.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Percent of Workers Rank


Wisconsin 1.5% 24 Michigan 1.1% 28 Kentucky 1.0% 31 Indiana 1.0% 34

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

0.9%

1.0%

1.1%

1.2%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Per

cent

of

Wor

kers

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

90


LEISURE INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT

Rank State Score Acres per 10 sq.

miles Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 14.1 1.7%

1 Alaska 250.0 101.0 0.0% 2 New Jersey 209.6 61.9 7.0% 3 Hawaii 206.3 60.3 1.1% 4 Florida 193.2 53.7 0.6% 5 California 184.1 49.2 0.4% 6 Arizona 158.6 36.6 21.8% 7 Washington 147.1 30.8 0.5% 8 Nevada 146.2 30.4 29.4% 9 Utah 127.5 21.1 0.2% 10 Michigan 116.5 15.7 0.0% 11 Idaho 115.5 15.2 -16.7% 12 Maryland 114.4 14.6 0.0% 13 Tennessee 111.5 13.2 2.1% 14 Massachusetts 111.2 13.0 0.3% 15 Wyoming 111.1 13.0 0.1% 16 Montana 110.6 12.7 0.1% 17 North Carolina 107.3 11.1 6.2% 18 Virginia 107.1 11.0 0.3% 19 New Hampshire 106.9 10.9 0.6% 20 Delaware 105.9 10.4 0.3% 21 Vermont 103.2 9.1 0.4% 22 Pennsylvania 103.0 9.0 0.2% 23 New York 102.2 8.6 3.1% 24 Colorado 101.4 8.2 2.8% 25 Rhode Island 100.5 7.7 0.0% 26 Minnesota 99.5 7.2 6.8% 27 West Virginia 99.1 7.0 0.0% 28 Texas 98.5 6.7 -0.2% 29 Ohio 95.2 5.1 4.8% 30 South Dakota 94.7 4.8 -0.6% 31 Connecticut 94.5 4.7 0.6% 32 New Mexico 93.0 4.0 0.2% 33 Kentucky 92.8 3.9 -4.9% 34 Maine 92.0 3.5 0.5% 35 Wisconsin 91.9 3.4 1.8% 36 Missouri 91.4 3.2 1.1% 37 Mississippi 90.4 2.7 1.8% 38 Oregon 90.2 2.6 0.9% 39 Arkansas 89.9 2.5 0.4% 40 Georgia 89.9 2.4 1.0% 41 South Carolina 89.4 2.2 5.2% 42 Indiana 89.3 2.2 -3.8% 43 Illinois 87.9 1.4 3.0% 44 Alabama 87.5 1.3 0.0% 45 Louisiana 87.5 1.3 4.0% 46 North Dakota 87.4 1.2 0.6% 47 Oklahoma 87.3 1.1 -0.9% 48 Nebraska 87.0 1.0 0.0% 49 Iowa 86.5 0.8 3.2% 50 Kansas 86.1 0.5 0.0%

Rank State Score Percent of Total


2008 (%) 50-State Average 2.52% 0.7%

1 Hawaii 163.2 4.08% 0.3% 2 Montana 162.5 4.06% 3.2% 3 Florida 146.4 3.65% 8.4% 4 Nevada 138.5 3.44% -0.8% 5 Alaska 138.0 3.43% -1.0% 6 Colorado 132.0 3.27% -0.7% 7 Delaware 120.9 2.99% -10.2% 8 New Hampshire 117.5 2.90% -3.6% 9 Louisiana 116.1 2.86% -10.6% 10 New York 115.3 2.84% 5.2% 11 California 113.6 2.79% 4.6% 12 Washington 113.6 2.79% -0.5% 13 Maryland 108.0 2.65% 1.8% 14 Missouri 107.7 2.64% -0.5% 15 Vermont 107.4 2.63% -0.9% 16 Utah 107.2 2.63% -1.3% 17 South Dakota 107.0 2.62% -5.3% 18 Rhode Island 106.2 2.60% 4.2% 19 South Carolina 103.6 2.54% 7.0% 20 Massachusetts 102.4 2.51% 2.2% 21 Arizona 102.4 2.50% 5.6% 22 Maine 101.4 2.48% -0.6% 23 Pennsylvania 100.8 2.46% 3.4% 24 Idaho 100.4 2.45% 7.0% 25 Indiana 100.4 2.45% -1.3% 26 New Jersey 99.6 2.43% 7.6% 27 Minnesota 99.1 2.42% 2.8% 28 Michigan 98.6 2.40% 2.8% 29 Oregon 98.3 2.40% 5.1% 30 Connecticut 98.2 2.40% -0.6% 31 New Mexico 96.5 2.35% -0.3% 32 Virginia 95.5 2.32% 2.2% 33 Illinois 94.4 2.30% -0.4% 34 North Carolina 93.3 2.27% 6.6% 35 West Virginia 93.2 2.27% -16.9% 36 Wyoming 91.3 2.21% -6.0% 37 Nebraska 90.8 2.20% 8.5% 38 Iowa 90.4 2.19% 0.4% 39 Oklahoma 90.4 2.19% 13.0% 40 Wisconsin 86.4 2.09% 1.4% 41 Mississippi 85.7 2.07% -0.1% 42 Kentucky 85.4 2.06% -0.5% 43 Ohio 85.1 2.06% -5.0% 44 Tennessee 83.2 2.01% 1.1% 45 Texas 80.6 1.94% -2.9% 46 Georgia 80.0 1.92% 6.0% 47 North Dakota 76.0 1.82% -3.2% 48 Kansas 74.3 1.78% -2.2% 49 Alabama 73.6 1.76% -1.4% 50 Arkansas 72.1 1.72% 1.6%

Employment in leisure-related industries as a percentage of all employment 2008 There is a growing body of literature on the lifestyle preferences of the young knowledge workers who drive economic growth in places like Silicon Valley, or the Research Triangle in North Carolina. The research concludes that these workers are attracted to arts, cultural, leisure and sports offerings to a greater extent than the generations that preceded them. The table at shows the employment in industries related to arts, culture, leisure and sports activities as a percentage of all employment.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Percent of Total

Employment Rank



Ohio 2.06% 43

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Per

cent

of

Tota

l E

mpl

oym

ent

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

PARKLAND

Acres of state and national parkland per 10 square miles of land, 2008 Access to the natural environment is a key component of quality of life. Young knowledge workers also report a strong attraction to natural amenities. The metric measures the acreage of national and state parkland in each state per 10 square miles of land. Please note that this data includes only land under the management of the National Park Service and thus excludes national forests.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Acres per 10 sq. miles Rank

Michigan 15.7 10 Ohio 5.1 29



Michigan, 2005 - 2008

15.50

15.55

15.60

15.65

15.70

15.75

15.80

2005 2006 2007 2008

Acr

es p

er 1

0 sq

. Mile

s

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

91


LEISURE INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT

Rank State Score Acres per 10 sq.

miles Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 14.1 1.7%

1 Alaska 250.0 101.0 0.0% 2 New Jersey 209.6 61.9 7.0% 3 Hawaii 206.3 60.3 1.1% 4 Florida 193.2 53.7 0.6% 5 California 184.1 49.2 0.4% 6 Arizona 158.6 36.6 21.8% 7 Washington 147.1 30.8 0.5% 8 Nevada 146.2 30.4 29.4% 9 Utah 127.5 21.1 0.2% 10 Michigan 116.5 15.7 0.0% 11 Idaho 115.5 15.2 -16.7% 12 Maryland 114.4 14.6 0.0% 13 Tennessee 111.5 13.2 2.1% 14 Massachusetts 111.2 13.0 0.3% 15 Wyoming 111.1 13.0 0.1% 16 Montana 110.6 12.7 0.1% 17 North Carolina 107.3 11.1 6.2% 18 Virginia 107.1 11.0 0.3% 19 New Hampshire 106.9 10.9 0.6% 20 Delaware 105.9 10.4 0.3% 21 Vermont 103.2 9.1 0.4% 22 Pennsylvania 103.0 9.0 0.2% 23 New York 102.2 8.6 3.1% 24 Colorado 101.4 8.2 2.8% 25 Rhode Island 100.5 7.7 0.0% 26 Minnesota 99.5 7.2 6.8% 27 West Virginia 99.1 7.0 0.0% 28 Texas 98.5 6.7 -0.2% 29 Ohio 95.2 5.1 4.8% 30 South Dakota 94.7 4.8 -0.6% 31 Connecticut 94.5 4.7 0.6% 32 New Mexico 93.0 4.0 0.2% 33 Kentucky 92.8 3.9 -4.9% 34 Maine 92.0 3.5 0.5% 35 Wisconsin 91.9 3.4 1.8% 36 Missouri 91.4 3.2 1.1% 37 Mississippi 90.4 2.7 1.8% 38 Oregon 90.2 2.6 0.9% 39 Arkansas 89.9 2.5 0.4% 40 Georgia 89.9 2.4 1.0% 41 South Carolina 89.4 2.2 5.2% 42 Indiana 89.3 2.2 -3.8% 43 Illinois 87.9 1.4 3.0% 44 Alabama 87.5 1.3 0.0% 45 Louisiana 87.5 1.3 4.0% 46 North Dakota 87.4 1.2 0.6% 47 Oklahoma 87.3 1.1 -0.9% 48 Nebraska 87.0 1.0 0.0% 49 Iowa 86.5 0.8 3.2% 50 Kansas 86.1 0.5 0.0%

Rank State Score Percent of Total


2008 (%) 50-State Average 2.52% 0.7%

1 Hawaii 163.2 4.08% 0.3% 2 Montana 162.5 4.06% 3.2% 3 Florida 146.4 3.65% 8.4% 4 Nevada 138.5 3.44% -0.8% 5 Alaska 138.0 3.43% -1.0% 6 Colorado 132.0 3.27% -0.7% 7 Delaware 120.9 2.99% -10.2% 8 New Hampshire 117.5 2.90% -3.6% 9 Louisiana 116.1 2.86% -10.6% 10 New York 115.3 2.84% 5.2% 11 California 113.6 2.79% 4.6% 12 Washington 113.6 2.79% -0.5% 13 Maryland 108.0 2.65% 1.8% 14 Missouri 107.7 2.64% -0.5% 15 Vermont 107.4 2.63% -0.9% 16 Utah 107.2 2.63% -1.3% 17 South Dakota 107.0 2.62% -5.3% 18 Rhode Island 106.2 2.60% 4.2% 19 South Carolina 103.6 2.54% 7.0% 20 Massachusetts 102.4 2.51% 2.2% 21 Arizona 102.4 2.50% 5.6% 22 Maine 101.4 2.48% -0.6% 23 Pennsylvania 100.8 2.46% 3.4% 24 Idaho 100.4 2.45% 7.0% 25 Indiana 100.4 2.45% -1.3% 26 New Jersey 99.6 2.43% 7.6% 27 Minnesota 99.1 2.42% 2.8% 28 Michigan 98.6 2.40% 2.8% 29 Oregon 98.3 2.40% 5.1% 30 Connecticut 98.2 2.40% -0.6% 31 New Mexico 96.5 2.35% -0.3% 32 Virginia 95.5 2.32% 2.2% 33 Illinois 94.4 2.30% -0.4% 34 North Carolina 93.3 2.27% 6.6% 35 West Virginia 93.2 2.27% -16.9% 36 Wyoming 91.3 2.21% -6.0% 37 Nebraska 90.8 2.20% 8.5% 38 Iowa 90.4 2.19% 0.4% 39 Oklahoma 90.4 2.19% 13.0% 40 Wisconsin 86.4 2.09% 1.4% 41 Mississippi 85.7 2.07% -0.1% 42 Kentucky 85.4 2.06% -0.5% 43 Ohio 85.1 2.06% -5.0% 44 Tennessee 83.2 2.01% 1.1% 45 Texas 80.6 1.94% -2.9% 46 Georgia 80.0 1.92% 6.0% 47 North Dakota 76.0 1.82% -3.2% 48 Kansas 74.3 1.78% -2.2% 49 Alabama 73.6 1.76% -1.4% 50 Arkansas 72.1 1.72% 1.6%

Employment in leisure-related industries as a percentage of all employment 2008 There is a growing body of literature on the lifestyle preferences of the young knowledge workers who drive economic growth in places like Silicon Valley, or the Research Triangle in North Carolina. The research concludes that these workers are attracted to arts, cultural, leisure and sports offerings to a greater extent than the generations that preceded them. The table at shows the employment in industries related to arts, culture, leisure and sports activities as a percentage of all employment.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Percent of Total

Employment Rank



Ohio 2.06% 43

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Per

cent

of

Tota

l E

mpl

oym

ent

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

PARKLAND

Acres of state and national parkland per 10 square miles of land, 2008 Access to the natural environment is a key component of quality of life. Young knowledge workers also report a strong attraction to natural amenities. The metric measures the acreage of national and state parkland in each state per 10 square miles of land. Please note that this data includes only land under the management of the National Park Service and thus excludes national forests.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Acres per 10 sq. miles Rank




Michigan, 2005 - 2008

15.50

15.55

15.60

15.65

15.70

15.75

15.80

2005 2006 2007 2008

Acr

es p

er 1

0 sq

. Mile

s

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

GOLF COURSES

Rank State Score Trail miles per


2008 (%) 50-State Average 7.9 53%

1 Pennsylvania 185.5 34.6 13.0% 2 West Virginia 154.7 24.2 1.4% 3 Massachusetts 145.9 21.2 3.6% 4 New York 139.5 19.0 10.8% 5 New Jersey 137.1 18.2 0.0% 6 Maryland 136.9 18.1 19.4% 7 Kentucky 127.7 15.0 0.0% 8 Florida 127.4 14.9 23.7% 9 Alabama 126.9 14.7 537.0% 10 Vermont 126.6 14.7 0.0% 11 Connecticut 126.2 14.5 0.0% 12 Rhode Island 118.6 12.0 0.0% 13 Virginia 117.1 11.5 12.5% 14 Washington 116.7 11.3 0.2% 15 North Carolina 111.8 9.7 2.4% 16 Oregon 111.0 9.4 1.9% 17 South Carolina 108.4 8.5 24.2% 18 Illinois 107.8 8.3 9.7% 19 Minnesota 104.5 7.2 0.0% 20 New Hampshire 103.7 6.9 918.0% 21 Tennessee 103.6 6.9 21.4% 22 Arkansas 102.4 6.5 7.3% 23 Missouri 101.7 6.3 434.7% 24 California 101.6 6.2 2.3% 25 Iowa 100.2 5.7 164.4% 26 Hawaii 99.8 5.6 0.0% 27 Idaho 99.5 5.5 0.0% 28 Wisconsin 96.4 4.5 0.3% 29 Indiana 96.3 4.4 0.4% 30 Georgia 96.1 4.4 0.0% 31 Arizona 95.8 4.3 14.9% 32 Montana 95.8 4.2 0.1% 33 Michigan 95.6 4.2 16.5% 34 South Dakota 94.8 3.9 0.0% 35 Mississippi 93.6 3.5 0.0% 36 North Dakota 93.6 3.5 54.5% 37 Colorado 92.0 3.0 1.7% 38 Ohio 91.8 2.9 26.5% 39 Oklahoma 91.6 2.8 1.8% 40 Nebraska 90.0 2.3 9.9% 41 New Mexico 88.9 1.9 5.3% 42 Utah 88.5 1.8 43.0% 43 Kansas 87.8 1.6 0.0% 44 Louisiana 87.6 1.5 0.8% 45 Wyoming 87.4 1.4 0.0% 46 Nevada 86.7 1.2 0.0% 47 Texas 86.4 1.1 4.6% 48 Delaware 86.2 1.0 0.0% 49 Maine 86.0 1.0 268.8% 50 Alaska 84.4 0.4 2.4%

Rank State Score Courses per


2008 (%) 50-State Average 4.6 0.3%

1 North Dakota 152.6 10.9 0.5% 2 South Dakota 146.2 10.1 -6.6% 3 Iowa 145.3 10.0 -1.7% 4 Nebraska 128.4 7.7 -4.6% 5 Vermont 128.3 7.7 11.3% 6 Maine 127.9 7.7 -4.2% 7 Montana 126.2 7.4 3.8% 8 Wisconsin 122.0 6.9 -2.1% 9 New Hampshire 120.4 6.7 0.0% 10 Michigan 119.7 6.6 1.8% 11 Minnesota 119.2 6.5 -1.6% 12 South Carolina 117.1 6.3 -3.1% 13 Wyoming 112.3 5.6 -8.1% 14 Rhode Island 110.0 5.3 3.1% 15 Ohio 109.4 5.2 0.9% 16 Arkansas 108.7 5.1 0.4% 17 Idaho 107.9 5.1 -4.0% 18 Kansas 106.4 4.9 -10.7% 19 Florida 106.2 4.8 24.2% 20 Indiana 105.7 4.8 -1.7% 21 Massachusetts 105.0 4.7 0.7% 22 Pennsylvania 104.6 4.6 -3.8% 23 North Carolina 103.5 4.5 -2.8% 24 Kentucky 102.6 4.4 4.3% 25 Hawaii 100.8 4.1 2.0% 26 West Virginia 99.2 3.9 -3.3% 27 Oregon 99.0 3.9 -6.3% 28 Connecticut 98.6 3.8 6.5% 29 Missouri 98.3 3.8 -1.3% 30 Mississippi 98.2 3.8 -3.1% 31 Washington 95.7 3.5 -0.5% 32 Nevada 95.5 3.4 5.4% 33 Alabama 94.9 3.3 -10.2% 34 Illinois 94.9 3.3 1.8% 35 New York 94.5 3.3 2.6% 36 Georgia 94.0 3.2 -0.4% 37 Oklahoma 93.3 3.1 2.3% 38 Colorado 92.5 3.0 1.1% 39 Tennessee 92.0 3.0 -1.6% 40 Arizona 91.8 2.9 -7.8% 41 Delaware 91.2 2.9 -4.0% 42 Virginia 89.2 2.6 -1.9% 43 Louisiana 87.7 2.4 4.9% 44 New Jersey 87.0 2.3 1.5% 45 Alaska 86.1 2.2 21.8% 46 Texas 85.5 2.1 -5.5% 47 Maryland 84.3 2.0 11.1% 48 New Mexico 84.0 1.9 11.0% 49 California 82.8 1.8 -0.8% 50 Utah 82.2 1.7 -8.6%

Number of golf courses and country clubs per 100,000 residents, 2008 Recreational resources are increasingly important to workers in the innovation economy. Golf courses and country clubs are an attractive asset to all age groups. The above table shows the proportion of golf courses and country club establishments relative to the number of residents.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Establ .per 100,000

Residents Rank

Wisconsin 6.9 8 Michigan 6.6 10

Ohio 5.2 15 Indiana 4.8 20

Kentucky 4.4 24 Illinois 3.3 34

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

2005 2006 2007 2008

Esta

bl. p

er 1

00,0

00 R

esid

ents

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

TRAILS

Number of national trails per 100,000 residents, 2008 A state’s natural resources are important for recreation and enjoyment and provide additional financial resources from tourism. The above table shows the number of trails designated as national trails per 100,000 residents in the state.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Trail miles per 100,000

Residents Rank

Kentucky 15.0 7 Illinois 8.3 18



Michigan, 2005 - 2008

2

3

4

5

6

2005 2006 2007 2008

Trai

l mile

s pe

r 10

0,00

0 R

esid

ents

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

92


CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS

Rank State Score Projects per 1 mill.


2008 (%) 50-State Average 4.0 0.0%

1 Vermont 250.0 40.2 66.1% 1 Missouri 250.0 22.7 66.0% 3 Rhode Island 179.1 12.4 -45.1% 4 Maryland 167.6 10.8 72.5% 5 Virginia 157.0 9.4 -4.2% 6 Massachusetts 153.5 8.9 219.1% 7 South Dakota 151.9 8.7 35.7% 8 Louisiana 142.8 7.5 -11.5% 9 Kentucky 134.3 6.3 88.2% 10 Montana 133.4 6.2 45.0% 11 Kansas 132.4 6.1 108.0% 12 Ohio 128.1 5.5 -9.0% 13 Mississippi 122.7 4.8 15.1% 14 Wisconsin 117.7 4.1 33.2% 15 North Carolina 117.1 4.0 -15.2% 16 Iowa 117.0 4.0 -9.3% 17 Connecticut 112.8 3.4 19.2% 18 Delaware 104.4 2.3 -88.0% 19 South Carolina 104.0 2.2 5.4% 20 Oklahoma 103.7 2.2 287.7% 21 Oregon 103.1 2.1 -30.5% 22 Indiana 101.4 1.9 -34.7% 23 Georgia 101.2 1.9 -48.8% 24 Michigan 100.8 1.8 -24.3% 25 Alabama 100.1 1.7 -44.4% 26 Washington 99.9 1.7 75.1% 27 West Virginia 99.7 1.7 -62.7% 28 Maine 98.7 1.5 -33.6% 29 Pennsylvania 96.9 1.3 -61.3% 30 Illinois 96.6 1.2 43.2% 31 Minnesota 95.9 1.1 -26.7% 32 New York 95.8 1.1 14.9% 33 Utah 95.5 1.1 -69.5% 34 Colorado 94.9 1.0 -21.3% 35 Tennessee 94.6 1.0 -63.9% 36 Hawaii 93.2 0.8 100.0% 37 Arizona 93.1 0.8 -23.6% 38 Idaho 92.3 0.7 100.0% 39 Florida 91.9 0.6 -41.0% 40 Nebraska 91.6 0.6 -87.7% 41 Nevada 90.3 0.4 100.0% 42 New Jersey 90.0 0.3 -62.7% 43 Texas 89.9 0.3 -31.8% 44 California 89.2 0.2 -41.4% 45 Alaska 87.4 0.0 -100.0% 45 Arkansas 87.4 0.0 -100.0% 45 New Hampshire 87.4 0.0 -100.0% 45 New Mexico 87.4 0.0 -100.0% 45 North Dakota 87.4 0.0 -100.0% 45 Wyoming 87.4 0.0 0.0%

Rank State Score Per 100,000


2008 (%) 50-State Average 17.0 5.7%

1 New York 146.8 34.4 14.2% 2 California 144.9 33.6 2.6% 3 Montana 136.2 30.2 8.9% 4 Nevada 135.8 30.0 1.9% 5 Vermont 127.5 26.7 13.3% 6 Wyoming 123.1 25.0 3.6% 7 Florida 122.8 24.9 10.6% 8 South Dakota 118.8 23.3 11.2% 9 Colorado 117.8 22.9 -0.4% 10 Alaska 114.2 21.4 6.9% 11 Hawaii 113.7 21.2 -0.4% 12 Rhode Island 113.5 21.1 9.2% 13 New Mexico 113.0 20.9 7.3% 14 Minnesota 112.8 20.9 19.3% 15 Tennessee 112.3 20.6 6.0% 16 Maine 109.1 19.4 14.4% 17 Connecticut 108.2 19.0 5.5% 18 New Hampshire 108.0 18.9 8.9% 19 Oregon 104.8 17.7 2.6% 20 Delaware 104.7 17.6 15.5% 21 Idaho 103.1 17.0 4.3% 22 Utah 102.4 16.7 2.1% 23 Massachusetts 100.7 16.0 -1.2% 24 Maryland 100.3 15.9 7.1% 25 New Jersey 100.0 15.8 14.8% 26 North Dakota 100.0 15.7 0.0% 27 Illinois 99.9 15.7 12.7% 28 Washington 98.9 15.3 3.1% 29 Iowa 97.9 14.9 7.4% 30 Kentucky 96.5 14.4 -2.6% 31 Nebraska 96.4 14.3 4.8% 32 Virginia 96.1 14.2 7.9% 33 Missouri 95.6 14.0 -1.4% 34 Arizona 94.7 13.6 12.2% 35 Arkansas 94.4 13.5 8.8% 36 Pennsylvania 92.5 12.7 5.1% 37 Wisconsin 91.6 12.4 0.0% 38 Georgia 90.8 12.1 0.1% 39 Kansas 90.4 11.9 0.3% 40 North Carolina 89.4 11.5 3.7% 41 Louisiana 88.7 11.2 3.0% 42 South Carolina 87.2 10.6 7.2% 43 Michigan 86.4 10.3 2.4% 44 Indiana 85.9 10.1 12.6% 45 Ohio 85.5 10.0 1.7% 46 Texas 83.8 9.3 7.3% 47 Oklahoma 83.0 9.0 7.1% 48 Alabama 78.9 7.3 1.8% 49 West Virginia 78.2 7.1 -7.1% 50 Mississippi 77.1 6.6 0.2%

Number of cultural establishments per 100,000 residents, 2008 In today’s economy, increasing numbers of residents can choose where to live first, and then do their work via telecommuting. Choice of residence, both state and locality is being influenced by such factors as proximity to cultural amenities and outdoor recreation, especially for the young college educated generation. This metric captures the percent of all establishments in the state classified as performing arts, spectator sports, & related industries as well as museums, historical sites, & similar institutions.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Per 100,000 Residents Rank

Illinois 15.7 27 Kentucky 14.4 30 Wisconsin 12.4 37 Michigan 10.3 43

Indiana 10.1 44 Ohio 10.0 45

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

6

8

10

12

14

2005 2006 2007 2008

Per 1

00,0

00 R

esid

ents

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

HISTORICAL PRESERVATION

Number of certified projects per 1 million residents, 2008 For many, part of the richness and quality of contemporary life is sharing in history and heritage. Historic preservation becomes part of the character and ‘feel’ of community. It helps create a sense and continuity of place. This metric uses federal historic preservation tax credit information relative to the size of the resident population to provide a measure of ongoing historic preservation activity.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Projects per 1 mill.

Residents Rank

Kentucky 6.3 9 Ohio 5.5 12



Michigan, 2005 - 2008

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2005 2006 2007 2008

Tren

d in

Pro

ject

s pe

r 1

mill

. R

esid

ents

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

93


POCKET BOOK INDICATORS

Midwest Performance

2008 2006 2004 Indiana **** **** **** Kentucky **** **** **** Wisconsin **** **** **** Michigan **** **** **** Ohio *** **** **** Illinois *** **** ***

Rank State 2008 2006 2004 1 Wyoming ***** ***** ***** 2 South Dakota ***** ***** ***** 3 New Hampshire ***** ***** ***** 4 West Virginia ***** ***** ***** 5 Iowa ***** ***** ***** 6 North Dakota ***** ***** ***** 7 Alabama **** ***** ***** 8 Nebraska **** **** **** 9 Oklahoma **** ***** ***** 10 Montana **** **** ***** 11 Tennessee **** ***** ***** 12 Utah **** **** **** 13 New Mexico **** **** **** 14 Kansas **** **** **** 15 Delaware **** ***** ***** 16 Indiana **** **** **** 17 Idaho **** ***** **** 18 Missouri **** **** **** 19 Texas **** **** **** 20 South Carolina **** **** **** 21 Florida **** ***** **** 22 Mississippi **** **** **** 23 Kentucky **** **** **** 24 Colorado **** **** **** 25 Louisiana **** **** **** 26 Minnesota **** **** **** 27 Maine **** *** **** 28 Virginia **** **** ***** 29 Arkansas **** **** **** 30 Wisconsin **** **** **** 31 Arizona **** **** **** 32 Michigan **** **** **** 33 Alaska **** **** **** 34 North Carolina **** **** **** 35 Ohio *** **** **** 36 Nevada *** **** **** 37 Pennsylvania *** **** **** 38 Vermont *** *** **** 39 Washington *** *** *** 40 Illinois *** **** *** 41 Georgia *** **** **** 42 Maryland *** **** **** 43 Connecticut *** **** **** 44 Oregon *** *** *** 45 Massachusetts *** *** *** 46 New Jersey ** *** *** 47 Rhode Island ** ** ** 48 California * * * 49 Hawaii * ** ** 50 New York * * *

94


URBAN COST OF LIVING

Rank State Score Hourly Wage

Needed Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average $15.8 13.0%

1 North Dakota 117.9 $10.9 8.6% 2 West Virginia 115.6 $11.4 16.8% 3 Arkansas 115.3 $11.4 14.3% 4 South Dakota 114.7 $11.5 8.8% 5 Kentucky 112.5 $12.0 16.3% 6 Alabama 112.3 $12.1 18.8% 7 Iowa 112.0 $12.1 9.3% 8 Montana 110.9 $12.3 12.3% 9 Oklahoma 110.5 $12.4 17.6% 10 Kansas 109.9 $12.6 8.7% 11 Nebraska 109.6 $12.6 11.0% 12 Mississippi 109.5 $12.6 23.5% 13 Tennessee 108.5 $12.8 15.1% 14 Idaho 108.3 $12.9 10.9% 15 Missouri 108.2 $12.9 9.7% 16 New Mexico 108.2 $12.9 7.1% 17 South Carolina 107.8 $13.0 14.3% 18 Wyoming 107.2 $13.1 22.8% 19 Ohio 107.0 $13.1 8.2% 20 North Carolina 106.1 $13.3 9.8% 21 Indiana 105.7 $13.4 12.0% 22 Utah 102.1 $14.2 9.1% 23 Wisconsin 101.4 $14.3 14.9% 24 Michigan 101.2 $14.4 3.2% 25 Oregon 100.3 $14.5 10.8% 26 Georgia 99.7 $14.7 10.7% 27 Maine 97.7 $15.1 13.2% 27 Louisiana 97.7 $15.1 33.2% 29 Minnesota 97.5 $15.1 3.3% 30 Pennsylvania 96.3 $15.4 7.2% 31 Texas 96.2 $15.4 15.8% 32 Arizona 92.9 $16.1 11.3% 33 Colorado 91.0 $16.5 2.9% 34 Washington 89.4 $16.8 15.5% 35 Illinois 87.6 $17.2 11.3% 36 Vermont 85.7 $17.6 26.4% 37 Delaware 84.8 $17.8 7.8% 38 Virginia 82.7 $18.2 11.0% 39 Rhode Island 80.0 $18.8 1.8% 40 Nevada 79.0 $19.0 15.8% 41 Alaska 76.6 $19.5 11.9% 42 New Hampshire 76.4 $19.5 11.0% 43 Florida 76.0 $19.6 25.0% 44 Maryland 67.9 $21.3 8.4% 45 Connecticut 66.3 $21.6 11.9% 46 Massachusetts 59.7 $23.0 5.0% 47 New Jersey 59.0 $23.1 10.8% 48 New York 58.6 $23.2 17.6% 49 California 50.8 $24.8 12.4% 50 Hawaii 28.2 $29.5 32.4%


2008 (%) 50-State Average 0.1%

1 Nebraska 112.9 86.7 -2.8% 2 Tennessee 111.6 88.0 -4.5% 3 Oklahoma 111.2 88.5 -0.1% 4 Texas 109.3 90.4 2.0% 5 Missouri 109.1 90.5 -4.7% 6 Alabama 108.7 90.9 -4.7% 7 Kansas 108.7 91.0 -3.2% 8 Iowa 108.2 91.4 -2.5% 9 South Carolina 107.8 91.8 -2.1% 10 Kentucky 106.9 92.7 -2.1% 11 Arkansas 106.0 93.7 2.2% 12 North Carolina 105.7 94.0 1.3% 13 Indiana 105.7 94.0 -0.3% 14 South Dakota 105.6 94.1 0.9% 15 Mississippi 104.4 95.3 9.2% 16 Idaho 104.3 95.4 -0.5% 17 Ohio 103.5 96.2 -5.0% 18 New Mexico 103.0 96.7 -3.9% 19 Georgia 102.7 97.0 0.0% 20 Florida 102.6 97.1 -0.3% 21 Louisiana 101.7 98.0 0.6% 22 Utah 100.3 99.4 5.4% 23 Michigan 100.0 99.7 -3.3% 24 Wisconsin 99.0 100.8 -0.3% 25 Arizona 98.9 100.8 2.6% 26 Wyoming 98.5 101.2 -3.4% 27 Delaware 95.9 103.9 0.0% 28 Colorado 95.3 104.5 3.2% 29 Nevada 91.9 107.9 -3.9% 30 Virginia 91.5 108.3 7.1% 31 Minnesota 89.2 110.7 (n/a) 32 Illinois 87.4 112.4 -8.6% 33 Oregon 83.8 116.1 2.1% 34 Vermont 82.0 117.9 0.9% 35 Maryland 78.0 122.0 4.6% 36 Rhode Island 77.9 122.0 -2.8% 37 Connecticut 77.0 123.0 3.5% 38 Washington 76.8 123.2 6.2% 39 Pennsylvania 76.0 123.9 -0.5% 40 Alaska 74.5 125.4 6.4% 41 New Jersey 70.7 129.3 -3.2% 42 Massachusetts 66.3 133.7 -2.6% 43 California 51.9 148.3 1.7% 44 Hawaii 36.8 163.5 2.8% 45 New York -20.2 221.1 9.0%

(n/a) Maine (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Montana (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) New Hampshire (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) North Dakota (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) West Virginia (n/a) (n/a) (n/a)

ACCRA Cost of Living Index, 2008 As with housing, a low cost of living contributes strongly to quality of life. ACCRA, a national economic-development research organization, maintains an extensive set of quarterly cost-of-living data. The above table is an index of the cost of living in each state. A lower index score corresponds to a lower cost of living; a value of 100 is equal to the United States cost of living.



Ohio 96.2 17 Michigan 99.7 23 Wisconsin 100.8 24

Illinois 112.4 32

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

90

95

100

105

110

115

2005 2006 2007 2008

Ind

ex

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

URBAN HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

Hourly wage needed to afford two-bedroom housing at fair-market rent, 2008 This affordability metric has been included since last year as a replacement for the CFED Urban Housing Index. It not only captures the cost of housing but its relationship to income. This table shows the hourly wage need to afford two-bedroom housing at fair market rent in 2006.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Hourly Wage Needed Rank

Kentucky $12.0 5 Ohio $13.1 19

Indiana $13.4 21 Wisconsin $14.3 23 Michigan $14.4 24

Illinois $17.2 35

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

$11

$12

$13

$14

$15

$16

2005 2006 2007 2008

Hou

rly

Wag

e N

eede

d

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

95


HOMEOWNERSHIP RATE

Rank State Score Rate Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 5.3% 10.2%

1 South Dakota 124.6 3.0% -16.7% 2 Wyoming 123.5 3.1% -16.2% 3 North Dakota 122.5 3.2% -5.9% 4 Nebraska 121.4 3.3% -15.4% 5 Utah 120.3 3.4% -17.1% 6 Oklahoma 116.1 3.8% -15.6% 6 New Hampshire 116.1 3.8% 5.6% 8 Hawaii 115.0 3.9% 44.4% 9 Virginia 113.9 4.0% 14.3% 10 Iowa 112.8 4.1% -4.7% 11 New Mexico 111.8 4.2% -19.2% 12 West Virginia 110.7 4.3% -12.2% 13 Maryland 109.6 4.4% 7.3% 13 Kansas 109.6 4.4% -13.7% 15 Montana 108.6 4.5% 21.6% 16 Wisconsin 106.4 4.7% -2.1% 17 Vermont 105.4 4.8% 37.1% 17 Delaware 105.4 4.8% 20.0% 19 Texas 104.3 4.9% -9.3% 19 Idaho 104.3 4.9% 32.4% 19 Colorado 104.3 4.9% -3.9% 22 Alabama 103.2 5.0% 31.6% 23 Arkansas 102.1 5.1% 0.0% 24 Washington 100.0 5.3% -3.6% 24 Massachusetts 100.0 5.3% 10.4% 26 Pennsylvania 98.9 5.4% 8.0% 26 New York 98.9 5.4% 8.0% 26 Minnesota 98.9 5.4% 28.6% 26 Maine 98.9 5.4% 10.2% 30 New Jersey 97.9 5.5% 22.2% 30 Arizona 97.9 5.5% 19.6% 32 Connecticut 95.7 5.7% 16.3% 33 Indiana 93.6 5.9% 9.3% 34 Missouri 91.4 6.1% 13.0% 35 Georgia 90.4 6.2% 19.2% 35 Florida 90.4 6.2% 63.2% 37 North Carolina 89.3 6.3% 18.9% 38 Tennessee 88.2 6.4% 14.3% 38 Oregon 88.2 6.4% 3.2% 38 Kentucky 88.2 6.4% 4.9% 41 Ohio 87.2 6.5% 10.2% 41 Illinois 87.2 6.5% 12.1% 43 Nevada 85.0 6.7% 48.9% 43 Alaska 85.0 6.7% -2.9% 45 South Carolina 82.9 6.9% 3.0% 45 Mississippi 82.9 6.9% -11.5% 47 California 79.7 7.2% 33.3% 48 Rhode Island 73.2 7.8% 52.9% 49 Michigan 66.8 8.4% 23.5%

(n/a) Louisiana (n/a) (n/a) (n/a)

Rank State Score Rate Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 70.1% -1.0%

1 West Virginia 128.9 77.8% -4.3% 2 Utah 122.6 76.2% 3.1% 2 Delaware 122.6 76.2% 0.5% 4 Michigan 121.4 75.9% -0.7% 5 Mississippi 119.4 75.4% -4.3% 6 New Hampshire 117.8 75.0% 1.4% 6 Idaho 117.8 75.0% 1.1% 8 Indiana 115.4 74.4% -0.8% 9 Iowa 113.9 74.0% 0.1% 10 South Carolina 113.5 73.9% 0.0% 10 Maine 113.5 73.9% 0.0% 12 Louisiana 111.9 73.5% 1.4% 13 Wyoming 111.1 73.3% 0.7% 14 Minnesota 110.3 73.1% -4.4% 15 Alabama 109.9 73.0% -4.7% 16 Vermont 109.1 72.8% -1.9% 16 Kentucky 109.1 72.8% 1.7% 18 Pennsylvania 108.3 72.6% -1.0% 19 Tennessee 104.8 71.7% -1.0% 20 Missouri 103.6 71.4% -1.2% 21 Florida 102.4 71.1% -1.8% 22 Ohio 101.2 70.8% -3.4% 23 Connecticut 100.8 70.7% 0.3% 24 Virginia 100.4 70.6% -0.8% 24 Maryland 100.4 70.6% -0.8% 26 Wisconsin 99.6 70.4% -1.0% 26 South Dakota 99.6 70.4% 2.9% 26 Oklahoma 99.6 70.4% -3.4% 26 New Mexico 99.6 70.4% -1.4% 30 Montana 99.2 70.3% -0.1% 31 Nebraska 96.4 69.6% -0.9% 32 North Carolina 95.6 69.4% -2.1% 33 Arizona 94.5 69.1% -2.8% 34 Colorado 94.1 69.0% -2.8% 35 Illinois 93.7 68.9% -2.8% 35 Arkansas 93.7 68.9% -0.4% 37 Kansas 93.3 68.8% -1.0% 38 Georgia 90.9 68.2% 0.4% 39 New Jersey 87.3 67.3% -4.0% 40 North Dakota 84.6 66.6% -2.8% 41 Alaska 83.8 66.4% 0.6% 42 Washington 83.0 66.2% -2.1% 42 Oregon 83.0 66.2% -2.9% 44 Massachusetts 81.0 65.7% 3.6% 45 Texas 80.2 65.5% -0.6% 46 Rhode Island 76.2 64.5% 2.2% 47 Nevada 72.7 63.6% 0.3% 48 Hawaii 54.8 59.1% -1.2% 49 California 48.5 57.5% -3.7% 50 New York 38.6 55.0% -1.6%

Homeownership rate, 2008 A variety of studies point to the benefits of homeownership: increased economic stability, community vitality, even child learning. Homeownership is also important for many startup businesses, allowing entrepreneurs to use home equity as a source of early-stage funding. The above table shows the percentage of households in each state that own their homes.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Rate Rank


Kentucky 72.8% 16 Ohio 70.8% 22

Wisconsin 70.4% 26 Illinois 68.9% 35

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Rat

e

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

Unemployment rate, 2008 Although a dynamic economy will experience job churn, over the long run, high unemployment rates reflect a structural mismatch between employer needs and worker skills that can permanently damage the dynamism of the economy. A high rate of unemployment furthermore signals low job security to potential new residents and will therefore scare away many new skilled workers. The above table shows the official unemployment rate.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Rate Rank


Kentucky 6.4% 38 Illinois 6.5% 41 Ohio 6.5% 41

Michigan 8.4% 49

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Rat

e

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

96


PER CAPITA DISPOSABLE PERSONAL INCOME

Rank State Score Per Capita Income Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average $34,157 14.4%

1 Connecticut 139.0 $46,775 16.4% 2 New Jersey 130.5 $43,921 16.3% 3 Wyoming 129.6 $43,607 25.7% 4 Massachusetts 128.2 $43,134 16.3% 5 Maryland 122.8 $41,325 14.6% 6 New York 119.6 $40,254 16.2% 7 Alaska 117.2 $39,458 20.0% 8 New Hampshire 113.8 $38,304 14.1% 9 Washington 112.9 $38,009 16.2% 10 Minnesota 110.8 $37,300 14.5% 11 Illinois 110.8 $37,298 15.8% 12 Virginia 110.5 $37,194 12.5% 13 California 110.1 $37,041 14.0% 14 Colorado 110.1 $37,039 11.5% 15 Rhode Island 108.0 $36,336 15.4% 16 Hawaii 106.8 $35,939 16.5% 17 Delaware 106.6 $35,880 12.0% 18 North Dakota 106.4 $35,824 23.9% 19 Nevada 106.3 $35,768 8.0% 20 Pennsylvania 105.2 $35,413 15.2% 21 Florida 103.6 $34,880 13.1% 22 Texas 103.5 $34,850 15.2% 23 Vermont 102.9 $34,634 18.6% 24 South Dakota 101.7 $34,216 15.2% 25 Nebraska 100.1 $33,678 14.1% 26 Kansas 99.9 $33,642 17.2% 27 Oklahoma 98.5 $33,143 21.9% 28 Iowa 97.8 $32,919 15.6% 29 Wisconsin 97.5 $32,835 13.6% 30 Louisiana 97.0 $32,651 (n/a) 31 Michigan 94.2 $31,719 9.8% 32 Oregon 94.0 $31,643 14.6% 33 Maine 93.9 $31,593 14.9% 34 Ohio 93.2 $31,370 12.2% 35 Missouri 93.1 $31,339 12.3% 36 Tennessee 93.1 $31,327 11.0% 37 Montana 91.0 $30,627 15.6% 38 Indiana 90.4 $30,437 11.1% 39 North Carolina 90.0 $30,311 10.2% 40 Alabama 90.0 $30,297 13.6% 41 Georgia 89.4 $30,082 8.3% 42 Arizona 87.3 $29,391 7.7% 43 New Mexico 85.9 $28,922 14.3% 44 Idaho 85.1 $28,638 11.5% 45 South Carolina 84.8 $28,556 12.5% 46 Kentucky 84.4 $28,424 13.4% 47 Arkansas 84.0 $28,270 15.5% 48 West Virginia 82.9 $27,926 16.7% 49 Mississippi 80.4 $27,077 15.8% 50 Utah 79.1 $26,641 7.3%

Per capita disposable personal income, 2008 The average disposable income of a resident in a state reflects economic opportunities as well as the successful participation of individuals in the economy. It is also a factor of attractiveness of a region that takes not just wages but the states’ tax structure into account. The above table shows per capita personal income minus personal current taxes.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Per Capita Income Rank

Illinois $37,298 11 Wisconsin $32,835 29 Michigan $31,719 31

Ohio $31,370 34 Indiana $30,437 38

Kentucky $28,424 46

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

2005 2006 2007 2008

Per

Cap

ita

Inco

me

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

STATE AND LOCAL TAX BURDEN


2008 (%) 50-State Average 9.3% -11.6%

1 Alaska 144.4 6.4% -4.3% 2 Nevada 141.4 6.6% -34.7% 3 Wyoming 135.5 7.0% -29.8% 4 Florida 129.6 7.4% -26.7% 5 New Hampshire 126.6 7.6% -5.5% 6 South Dakota 122.2 7.9% -11.3% 7 Tennessee 116.3 8.3% -2.0% 8 Louisiana 114.8 8.4% -31.5% 8 Texas 114.8 8.4% -10.5% 10 Arizona 113.3 8.5% -19.9% 11 Alabama 111.8 8.6% -3.0% 11 Montana 111.8 8.6% -12.8% 11 New Mexico 111.8 8.6% -14.9% 14 South Carolina 108.9 8.8% -16.4% 15 Mississippi 107.4 8.9% -14.3% 15 Washington 107.4 8.9% -18.8% 17 Colorado 105.9 9.0% -7.0% 18 Missouri 103.0 9.2% -8.3% 18 North Dakota 103.0 9.2% -5.3% 20 Illinois 101.5 9.3% -13.9% 20 Iowa 101.5 9.3% -14.9% 20 West Virginia 101.5 9.3% -13.8% 23 Indiana 100.0 9.4% -11.1% 23 Kentucky 100.0 9.4% -10.6% 23 Michigan 100.0 9.4% -12.6% 23 Oregon 100.0 9.4% -5.8% 27 Delaware 98.5 9.5% 9.2% 27 Massachusetts 98.5 9.5% -9.7% 29 Kansas 97.0 9.6% -13.9% 29 Utah 97.0 9.6% -13.6% 31 Nebraska 94.1 9.8% -17.4% 31 North Carolina 94.1 9.8% -6.7% 31 Oklahoma 94.1 9.8% 5.3% 31 Virginia 94.1 9.8% -3.7% 35 Georgia 92.6 9.9% -3.3% 36 Arkansas 91.1 10.0% -10.6% 36 Maine 91.1 10.0% -26.4% 38 Idaho 89.6 10.1% -3.7% 39 Minnesota 88.2 10.2% -9.1% 39 Pennsylvania 88.2 10.2% -4.3% 39 Rhode Island 88.2 10.2% -18.1% 39 Wisconsin 88.2 10.2% -15.9% 43 Vermont 86.7 10.3% -26.0% 44 Ohio 85.2 10.4% -11.9% 45 California 83.7 10.5% -7.6% 46 Hawaii 82.2 10.6% -14.7% 47 Maryland 79.3 10.8% 0.9% 48 Connecticut 74.8 11.1% -6.4% 49 New York 66.0 11.7% -16.2% 50 New Jersey 64.5 11.8% 5.4%

State and local taxes as a percent of private income, 2008 The ultimate measure of a state or local government’s influence on economic competitiveness is the amount of workers’ and businesses’ private income that is consumed by government in the form of taxes. The adjacent table shows total state and local taxes as a percentage of private income.



Kentucky 9.4% 23 Michigan 9.4% 23 Wisconsin 10.2% 39

Ohio 10.4% 44

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

5%

8%

10%

13%

15%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Perc

ent

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

97


PER CAPITA DISPOSABLE PERSONAL INCOME

Rank State Score Per Capita Income Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average $34,157 14.4%

1 Connecticut 139.0 $46,775 16.4% 2 New Jersey 130.5 $43,921 16.3% 3 Wyoming 129.6 $43,607 25.7% 4 Massachusetts 128.2 $43,134 16.3% 5 Maryland 122.8 $41,325 14.6% 6 New York 119.6 $40,254 16.2% 7 Alaska 117.2 $39,458 20.0% 8 New Hampshire 113.8 $38,304 14.1% 9 Washington 112.9 $38,009 16.2% 10 Minnesota 110.8 $37,300 14.5% 11 Illinois 110.8 $37,298 15.8% 12 Virginia 110.5 $37,194 12.5% 13 California 110.1 $37,041 14.0% 14 Colorado 110.1 $37,039 11.5% 15 Rhode Island 108.0 $36,336 15.4% 16 Hawaii 106.8 $35,939 16.5% 17 Delaware 106.6 $35,880 12.0% 18 North Dakota 106.4 $35,824 23.9% 19 Nevada 106.3 $35,768 8.0% 20 Pennsylvania 105.2 $35,413 15.2% 21 Florida 103.6 $34,880 13.1% 22 Texas 103.5 $34,850 15.2% 23 Vermont 102.9 $34,634 18.6% 24 South Dakota 101.7 $34,216 15.2% 25 Nebraska 100.1 $33,678 14.1% 26 Kansas 99.9 $33,642 17.2% 27 Oklahoma 98.5 $33,143 21.9% 28 Iowa 97.8 $32,919 15.6% 29 Wisconsin 97.5 $32,835 13.6% 30 Louisiana 97.0 $32,651 (n/a) 31 Michigan 94.2 $31,719 9.8% 32 Oregon 94.0 $31,643 14.6% 33 Maine 93.9 $31,593 14.9% 34 Ohio 93.2 $31,370 12.2% 35 Missouri 93.1 $31,339 12.3% 36 Tennessee 93.1 $31,327 11.0% 37 Montana 91.0 $30,627 15.6% 38 Indiana 90.4 $30,437 11.1% 39 North Carolina 90.0 $30,311 10.2% 40 Alabama 90.0 $30,297 13.6% 41 Georgia 89.4 $30,082 8.3% 42 Arizona 87.3 $29,391 7.7% 43 New Mexico 85.9 $28,922 14.3% 44 Idaho 85.1 $28,638 11.5% 45 South Carolina 84.8 $28,556 12.5% 46 Kentucky 84.4 $28,424 13.4% 47 Arkansas 84.0 $28,270 15.5% 48 West Virginia 82.9 $27,926 16.7% 49 Mississippi 80.4 $27,077 15.8% 50 Utah 79.1 $26,641 7.3%

Per capita disposable personal income, 2008 The average disposable income of a resident in a state reflects economic opportunities as well as the successful participation of individuals in the economy. It is also a factor of attractiveness of a region that takes not just wages but the states’ tax structure into account. The above table shows per capita personal income minus personal current taxes.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Per Capita Income Rank

Illinois $37,298 11 Wisconsin $32,835 29 Michigan $31,719 31

Ohio $31,370 34 Indiana $30,437 38

Kentucky $28,424 46

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

2005 2006 2007 2008

Per

Cap

ita

Inco

me

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

STATE AND LOCAL TAX BURDEN


2008 (%) 50-State Average 9.3% -11.6%

1 Alaska 144.4 6.4% -4.3% 2 Nevada 141.4 6.6% -34.7% 3 Wyoming 135.5 7.0% -29.8% 4 Florida 129.6 7.4% -26.7% 5 New Hampshire 126.6 7.6% -5.5% 6 South Dakota 122.2 7.9% -11.3% 7 Tennessee 116.3 8.3% -2.0% 8 Louisiana 114.8 8.4% -31.5% 8 Texas 114.8 8.4% -10.5% 10 Arizona 113.3 8.5% -19.9% 11 Alabama 111.8 8.6% -3.0% 11 Montana 111.8 8.6% -12.8% 11 New Mexico 111.8 8.6% -14.9% 14 South Carolina 108.9 8.8% -16.4% 15 Mississippi 107.4 8.9% -14.3% 15 Washington 107.4 8.9% -18.8% 17 Colorado 105.9 9.0% -7.0% 18 Missouri 103.0 9.2% -8.3% 18 North Dakota 103.0 9.2% -5.3% 20 Illinois 101.5 9.3% -13.9% 20 Iowa 101.5 9.3% -14.9% 20 West Virginia 101.5 9.3% -13.8% 23 Indiana 100.0 9.4% -11.1% 23 Kentucky 100.0 9.4% -10.6% 23 Michigan 100.0 9.4% -12.6% 23 Oregon 100.0 9.4% -5.8% 27 Delaware 98.5 9.5% 9.2% 27 Massachusetts 98.5 9.5% -9.7% 29 Kansas 97.0 9.6% -13.9% 29 Utah 97.0 9.6% -13.6% 31 Nebraska 94.1 9.8% -17.4% 31 North Carolina 94.1 9.8% -6.7% 31 Oklahoma 94.1 9.8% 5.3% 31 Virginia 94.1 9.8% -3.7% 35 Georgia 92.6 9.9% -3.3% 36 Arkansas 91.1 10.0% -10.6% 36 Maine 91.1 10.0% -26.4% 38 Idaho 89.6 10.1% -3.7% 39 Minnesota 88.2 10.2% -9.1% 39 Pennsylvania 88.2 10.2% -4.3% 39 Rhode Island 88.2 10.2% -18.1% 39 Wisconsin 88.2 10.2% -15.9% 43 Vermont 86.7 10.3% -26.0% 44 Ohio 85.2 10.4% -11.9% 45 California 83.7 10.5% -7.6% 46 Hawaii 82.2 10.6% -14.7% 47 Maryland 79.3 10.8% 0.9% 48 Connecticut 74.8 11.1% -6.4% 49 New York 66.0 11.7% -16.2% 50 New Jersey 64.5 11.8% 5.4%

State and local taxes as a percent of private income, 2008 The ultimate measure of a state or local government’s influence on economic competitiveness is the amount of workers’ and businesses’ private income that is consumed by government in the form of taxes. The adjacent table shows total state and local taxes as a percentage of private income.



Kentucky 9.4% 23 Michigan 9.4% 23 Wisconsin 10.2% 39

Ohio 10.4% 44

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

5%

8%

10%

13%

15%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Perc

ent

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

HEALTH AND SAFETY

Midwest Performance

2008 2006 2004 Wisconsin *** **** **** Illinois *** *** *** Ohio *** *** *** Indiana ** ** ** Kentucky ** *** *** Michigan ** ** **

Rank State 2008 2006 2004 1 Vermont ***** ***** ***** 2 South Dakota ***** ***** ***** 3 North Dakota **** ***** ***** 4 Massachusetts **** **** *** 5 Iowa **** **** **** 6 Nebraska **** **** **** 7 Wyoming **** *** **** 8 Kansas **** *** **** 9 Wisconsin *** *** **** 10 Minnesota *** *** *** 11 New Jersey *** *** *** 12 New York *** **** **** 13 New Hampshire *** *** *** 14 Pennsylvania *** *** *** 15 Missouri *** *** *** 16 Illinois *** *** *** 17 Hawaii *** *** ** 18 Alabama *** *** *** 19 Mississippi *** *** *** 20 Louisiana *** *** *** 21 Maine *** *** *** 22 Oklahoma *** ** ** 23 Connecticut *** *** *** 24 Rhode Island *** *** *** 25 Tennessee *** *** *** 26 Ohio *** *** *** 27 Idaho ** ** ** 28 Delaware ** *** *** 29 West Virginia ** *** ** 30 Montana ** *** ** 31 Virginia ** ** ** 32 Maryland ** ** ** 33 Arkansas ** ** ** 34 Indiana ** ** ** 35 Kentucky ** *** *** 36 Colorado ** ** ** 37 South Carolina ** ** ** 38 North Carolina ** ** ** 39 Michigan ** ** ** 40 Florida ** ** ** 41 Georgia * ** ** 42 Utah * * ** 43 Oregon * * * 44 California * * * 45 Washington * * * 46 Alaska * * ** 47 Arizona * * * 48 New Mexico * * * 49 Texas * * * 50 Nevada * * *

98


LACK OF HEALTH INSURANCE

Rank State Score Crimes per 100,000


2008 (%) 50-State Average 3,493 -5.9%

1 South Dakota 127.3 1,847 -5.4% 2 North Dakota 123.7 2,061 -0.7% 3 New Hampshire 120.5 2,249 16.6% 4 Idaho 119.1 2,330 -21.1% 5 New York 118.0 2,392 -6.4% 6 Maine 115.0 2,570 1.8% 7 New Jersey 114.1 2,620 -2.5% 8 Vermont 113.2 2,674 11.4% 9 Iowa 112.7 2,705 -13.5% 10 Connecticut 111.8 2,757 -2.7% 11 Virginia 111.5 2,774 -5.0% 12 Pennsylvania 110.7 2,820 -0.8% 13 West Virginia 110.4 2,842 -1.9% 14 Massachusetts 110.2 2,849 1.0% 15 Montana 110.0 2,861 -16.5% 16 Kentucky 109.7 2,880 3.0% 17 Wyoming 108.5 2,949 -12.9% 18 Wisconsin 107.2 3,030 4.4% 19 Rhode Island 106.1 3,090 4.0% 20 Minnesota 105.7 3,113 -7.9% 21 Nebraska 104.6 3,182 -14.2% 22 Colorado 104.4 3,192 -28.0% 23 Mississippi 103.8 3,225 -8.9% 24 Michigan 100.3 3,436 -5.7% 25 California 100.1 3,444 -10.5% 26 Illinois 99.9 3,458 -4.8% 27 Oregon 98.5 3,539 -24.5% 28 Utah 97.8 3,579 -12.6% 29 Alaska 97.7 3,584 -15.6% 30 Indiana 96.3 3,670 -2.9% 31 Ohio 94.7 3,760 -6.3% 32 Kansas 94.3 3,788 -9.3% 33 Hawaii 93.3 3,844 -23.9% 34 Oklahoma 91.2 3,969 -12.8% 35 Washington 89.1 4,090 -21.9% 36 Maryland 88.2 4,146 -2.4% 37 Missouri 87.8 4,168 -6.4% 38 Nevada 87.7 4,172 -13.9% 39 Delaware 85.7 4,289 14.6% 40 Arkansas 84.9 4,339 -5.4% 41 Louisiana 82.5 4,479 4.7% 42 Texas 82.3 4,494 -7.6% 43 Georgia 82.2 4,494 -2.7% 44 North Carolina 82.0 4,511 -0.7% 45 Alabama 81.5 4,536 4.9% 46 New Mexico 81.1 4,559 -6.0% 47 Arizona 78.1 4,738 -11.5% 48 Tennessee 77.6 4,765 -5.2% 49 Florida 76.5 4,830 2.4% 50 South Carolina 74.3 4,964 -2.7%



2008 (%) 50-State Average 14.0% 0.3%

1 Massachusetts 128.3 5.5% -40.2% 2 Hawaii 119.7 7.8% -9.3% 3 Minnesota 116.3 8.7% 10.1% 4 Vermont 114.5 9.2% -20.0% 5 Iowa 113.3 9.5% 14.5% 6 Wisconsin 113.0 9.6% 3.2% 7 Pennsylvania 111.8 9.9% 2.1% 8 Connecticut 111.5 10.0% -8.3% 9 New Hampshire 110.7 10.2% 5.2% 10 Maine 109.9 10.4% 1.0% 11 Delaware 108.4 10.8% -11.5% 12 Ohio 105.8 11.5% 0.9% 13 Michigan 105.1 11.7% 13.6% 14 North Dakota 104.7 11.8% 7.3% 14 Rhode Island 104.7 11.8% 2.6% 16 Alabama 104.3 11.9% -17.9% 16 Nebraska 104.3 11.9% 13.3% 18 Kansas 103.6 12.1% 17.5% 18 Maryland 103.6 12.1% -9.7% 20 Indiana 102.8 12.3% -9.6% 21 Virginia 102.4 12.4% -3.1% 21 Washington 102.4 12.4% -6.8% 23 South Dakota 102.1 12.5% 6.8% 24 Missouri 101.7 12.6% 7.7% 25 Illinois 100.6 12.9% -5.8% 26 Utah 99.4 13.2% -19.5% 27 Wyoming 97.9 13.6% -6.8% 28 Oklahoma 96.4 14.0% -21.8% 29 New Jersey 96.1 14.1% -2.8% 29 New York 96.1 14.1% 8.5% 31 West Virginia 92.7 15.0% -11.2% 32 Tennessee 92.3 15.1% 11.0% 33 North Carolina 91.2 15.4% 0.7% 34 Idaho 90.4 15.6% 5.4% 35 South Carolina 89.7 15.8% -8.7% 36 Colorado 89.3 15.9% -4.2% 37 Kentucky 88.9 16.0% 30.1% 38 Montana 88.5 16.1% 3.2% 39 Oregon 87.8 16.3% 4.5% 40 Arkansas 82.2 17.8% 1.7% 40 Georgia 82.2 17.8% -2.7% 42 Mississippi 81.8 17.9% 5.9% 43 California 79.2 18.6% -1.1% 44 Nevada 78.4 18.8% 9.9% 45 Arizona 75.8 19.5% -0.5% 46 Alaska 74.7 19.8% 15.1% 47 Florida 73.9 20.0% -1.0% 48 Louisiana 73.5 20.1% 13.6% 49 New Mexico 60.0 23.7% 16.7% 50 Texas 54.8 25.1% 6.4%

Percent of residents without health-insurance coverage, 2008 The lack of health insurance has important health as well as financial consequences for individuals and their resident state. The inability to access care and partake in preventive-care measures has long-term impacts on the financial well-being of the health-care system. The above table measures the percentage of population not covered by private or public health insurance.




Kentucky 16.0% 37

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Per

cent

of

Pop

ulat

ion

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

CRIME INDEX

Reported Crimes per 100,000 residents, 2008 Relative freedom from the threat of violent crime is a minimum requirement of a good quality of life. High levels of crime are also often damaging to the business environment, particularly the commercial sector. The above table reports crime rates in the standard manner reported by the FBI: crimes committed per 100,000 residents in the state reporting area.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Crimes per 100,000

Residents Rank

Kentucky 2,880 16 Wisconsin 3,030 18 Michigan 3,436 24


Ohio 3,760 31

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

3,400

3,500

3,600

3,700

3,800

3,900

4,000

2005 2006 2007 2008

Crim

es p

er 1

00,0

00 R

esid

ents

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

99


LACK OF HEALTH INSURANCE

Rank State Score Crimes per 100,000


2008 (%) 50-State Average 3,493 -5.9%

1 South Dakota 127.3 1,847 -5.4% 2 North Dakota 123.7 2,061 -0.7% 3 New Hampshire 120.5 2,249 16.6% 4 Idaho 119.1 2,330 -21.1% 5 New York 118.0 2,392 -6.4% 6 Maine 115.0 2,570 1.8% 7 New Jersey 114.1 2,620 -2.5% 8 Vermont 113.2 2,674 11.4% 9 Iowa 112.7 2,705 -13.5% 10 Connecticut 111.8 2,757 -2.7% 11 Virginia 111.5 2,774 -5.0% 12 Pennsylvania 110.7 2,820 -0.8% 13 West Virginia 110.4 2,842 -1.9% 14 Massachusetts 110.2 2,849 1.0% 15 Montana 110.0 2,861 -16.5% 16 Kentucky 109.7 2,880 3.0% 17 Wyoming 108.5 2,949 -12.9% 18 Wisconsin 107.2 3,030 4.4% 19 Rhode Island 106.1 3,090 4.0% 20 Minnesota 105.7 3,113 -7.9% 21 Nebraska 104.6 3,182 -14.2% 22 Colorado 104.4 3,192 -28.0% 23 Mississippi 103.8 3,225 -8.9% 24 Michigan 100.3 3,436 -5.7% 25 California 100.1 3,444 -10.5% 26 Illinois 99.9 3,458 -4.8% 27 Oregon 98.5 3,539 -24.5% 28 Utah 97.8 3,579 -12.6% 29 Alaska 97.7 3,584 -15.6% 30 Indiana 96.3 3,670 -2.9% 31 Ohio 94.7 3,760 -6.3% 32 Kansas 94.3 3,788 -9.3% 33 Hawaii 93.3 3,844 -23.9% 34 Oklahoma 91.2 3,969 -12.8% 35 Washington 89.1 4,090 -21.9% 36 Maryland 88.2 4,146 -2.4% 37 Missouri 87.8 4,168 -6.4% 38 Nevada 87.7 4,172 -13.9% 39 Delaware 85.7 4,289 14.6% 40 Arkansas 84.9 4,339 -5.4% 41 Louisiana 82.5 4,479 4.7% 42 Texas 82.3 4,494 -7.6% 43 Georgia 82.2 4,494 -2.7% 44 North Carolina 82.0 4,511 -0.7% 45 Alabama 81.5 4,536 4.9% 46 New Mexico 81.1 4,559 -6.0% 47 Arizona 78.1 4,738 -11.5% 48 Tennessee 77.6 4,765 -5.2% 49 Florida 76.5 4,830 2.4% 50 South Carolina 74.3 4,964 -2.7%



2008 (%) 50-State Average 14.0% 0.3%

1 Massachusetts 128.3 5.5% -40.2% 2 Hawaii 119.7 7.8% -9.3% 3 Minnesota 116.3 8.7% 10.1% 4 Vermont 114.5 9.2% -20.0% 5 Iowa 113.3 9.5% 14.5% 6 Wisconsin 113.0 9.6% 3.2% 7 Pennsylvania 111.8 9.9% 2.1% 8 Connecticut 111.5 10.0% -8.3% 9 New Hampshire 110.7 10.2% 5.2% 10 Maine 109.9 10.4% 1.0% 11 Delaware 108.4 10.8% -11.5% 12 Ohio 105.8 11.5% 0.9% 13 Michigan 105.1 11.7% 13.6% 14 North Dakota 104.7 11.8% 7.3% 14 Rhode Island 104.7 11.8% 2.6% 16 Alabama 104.3 11.9% -17.9% 16 Nebraska 104.3 11.9% 13.3% 18 Kansas 103.6 12.1% 17.5% 18 Maryland 103.6 12.1% -9.7% 20 Indiana 102.8 12.3% -9.6% 21 Virginia 102.4 12.4% -3.1% 21 Washington 102.4 12.4% -6.8% 23 South Dakota 102.1 12.5% 6.8% 24 Missouri 101.7 12.6% 7.7% 25 Illinois 100.6 12.9% -5.8% 26 Utah 99.4 13.2% -19.5% 27 Wyoming 97.9 13.6% -6.8% 28 Oklahoma 96.4 14.0% -21.8% 29 New Jersey 96.1 14.1% -2.8% 29 New York 96.1 14.1% 8.5% 31 West Virginia 92.7 15.0% -11.2% 32 Tennessee 92.3 15.1% 11.0% 33 North Carolina 91.2 15.4% 0.7% 34 Idaho 90.4 15.6% 5.4% 35 South Carolina 89.7 15.8% -8.7% 36 Colorado 89.3 15.9% -4.2% 37 Kentucky 88.9 16.0% 30.1% 38 Montana 88.5 16.1% 3.2% 39 Oregon 87.8 16.3% 4.5% 40 Arkansas 82.2 17.8% 1.7% 40 Georgia 82.2 17.8% -2.7% 42 Mississippi 81.8 17.9% 5.9% 43 California 79.2 18.6% -1.1% 44 Nevada 78.4 18.8% 9.9% 45 Arizona 75.8 19.5% -0.5% 46 Alaska 74.7 19.8% 15.1% 47 Florida 73.9 20.0% -1.0% 48 Louisiana 73.5 20.1% 13.6% 49 New Mexico 60.0 23.7% 16.7% 50 Texas 54.8 25.1% 6.4%

Percent of residents without health-insurance coverage, 2008 The lack of health insurance has important health as well as financial consequences for individuals and their resident state. The inability to access care and partake in preventive-care measures has long-term impacts on the financial well-being of the health-care system. The above table measures the percentage of population not covered by private or public health insurance.




Kentucky 16.0% 37

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Per

cent

of

Pop

ulat

ion

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

CRIME INDEX

Reported Crimes per 100,000 residents, 2008 Relative freedom from the threat of violent crime is a minimum requirement of a good quality of life. High levels of crime are also often damaging to the business environment, particularly the commercial sector. The above table reports crime rates in the standard manner reported by the FBI: crimes committed per 100,000 residents in the state reporting area.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Crimes per 100,000

Residents Rank

Kentucky 2,880 16 Wisconsin 3,030 18 Michigan 3,436 24


Ohio 3,760 31

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

3,400

3,500

3,600

3,700

3,800

3,900

4,000

2005 2006 2007 2008

Crim

es p

er 1

00,0

00 R

esid

ents

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES

Rank State Score Per 1,000 Residents Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 24.3 5.5%

1 Massachusetts 133.3 32.1 6.8% 2 North Dakota 127.3 30.6 6.9% 3 South Dakota 127.3 30.6 7.4% 4 Minnesota 122.2 29.4 8.0% 5 Rhode Island 120.3 28.9 7.3% 6 Nebraska 119.7 28.8 3.6% 7 Missouri 118.7 28.5 6.1% 8 Pennsylvania 116.9 28.1 3.9% 9 Delaware 114.5 27.5 8.8% 10 Maine 114.4 27.5 6.5% 11 Tennessee 114.3 27.5 8.8% 12 Vermont 113.7 27.3 9.3% 13 Ohio 113.3 27.2 6.2% 14 West Virginia 111.2 26.7 5.9% 15 Wisconsin 109.5 26.3 8.3% 16 Connecticut 108.9 26.2 2.2% 17 New Hampshire 108.6 26.1 8.2% 18 Indiana 106.5 25.6 5.4% 19 Kentucky 105.2 25.2 5.0% 20 Kansas 105.0 25.2 3.6% 21 Maryland 104.5 25.1 7.4% 22 Louisiana 104.5 25.1 2.9% 23 Iowa 104.5 25.1 2.4% 24 Michigan 100.5 24.1 6.4% 25 Alabama 100.1 24.0 4.3% 26 Illinois 99.9 23.9 2.6% 27 Arkansas 99.9 23.9 6.3% 28 Montana 99.6 23.9 5.3% 29 Mississippi 99.2 23.8 5.3% 30 Oklahoma 99.1 23.7 2.6% 31 New York 99.0 23.7 5.3% 32 North Carolina 98.7 23.7 7.0% 33 New Jersey 95.6 22.9 0.1% 34 Florida 95.1 22.8 2.5% 35 Wyoming 94.1 22.5 8.1% 36 South Carolina 93.7 22.4 6.7% 37 Virginia 92.4 22.1 6.8% 38 Colorado 92.3 22.1 7.1% 39 Oregon 88.5 21.2 6.9% 40 Washington 88.2 21.1 4.4% 41 Texas 85.7 20.5 5.2% 42 Alaska 85.5 20.4 6.7% 43 Idaho 85.4 20.4 6.8% 44 New Mexico 85.3 20.4 0.4% 45 Georgia 84.4 20.2 2.7% 46 Hawaii 81.5 19.5 6.5% 47 Arizona 78.5 18.7 10.9% 48 Utah 76.6 18.3 -5.9% 49 California 74.8 17.8 7.6% 50 Nevada 71.5 17.0 5.3%

Rank State Score Personnel per


2008 (%) 50-State Average 334 3.5%

1 Louisiana 149.1 527 15.8% 2 New Jersey 142.7 500 3.6% 3 Vermont 137.2 478 13.7% 4 New York 129.8 447 -4.3% 5 Illinois 120.6 409 1.3% 6 Florida 119.3 404 0.2% 7 Tennessee 119.3 404 -0.6% 8 Kansas 119.2 403 4.5% 9 California 115.6 388 8.9% 10 Wyoming 114.5 384 8.3% 11 Maryland 113.9 381 8.1% 12 Georgia 111.6 372 6.0% 13 Alabama 109.8 364 13.6% 14 Delaware 109.3 362 -4.0% 15 Texas 109.0 361 1.8% 16 Arizona 108.5 359 1.5% 17 North Carolina 106.0 349 -0.7% 18 Missouri 105.5 347 4.6% 19 Colorado 105.4 346 -1.5% 20 South Carolina 104.4 342 -5.6% 21 Nevada 103.9 340 -3.8% 22 Arkansas 103.8 339 15.5% 23 Wisconsin 102.1 333 2.3% 24 Mississippi 101.7 331 -4.9% 25 Ohio 100.0 324 9.3% 26 Massachusetts 99.3 321 1.9% 27 New Mexico 98.9 319 4.4% 28 Oklahoma 98.4 317 2.7% 29 Pennsylvania 98.3 317 -4.6% 30 Rhode Island 96.2 308 2.9% 31 Virginia 95.6 306 3.7% 32 Connecticut 95.3 304 11.0% 33 Hawaii 92.9 295 5.3% 34 Idaho 92.7 294 13.9% 35 New Hampshire 92.2 292 5.9% 36 Alaska 90.8 286 3.0% 37 Montana 90.8 286 -4.6% 38 South Dakota 90.4 284 -3.2% 39 Indiana 89.9 282 2.2% 40 Utah 89.9 282 -4.3% 41 Nebraska 87.4 272 -0.6% 42 Iowa 87.1 271 6.2% 43 Michigan 86.1 266 0.1% 44 Minnesota 86.0 266 3.9% 45 Oregon 85.9 266 18.3% 46 North Dakota 84.8 261 4.2% 47 Kentucky 81.1 246 0.3% 48 Washington 77.1 229 1.7% 49 Maine 76.1 225 3.0%

(n/a) West Virginia (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Number of law-enforcement personnel per 100,000 residents, 2008 The size of the police force in a state is a two-edged measure. On the one hand, a high number of officers can indicate public safety. On the other hand, it can reflect a high demand for officers due to substantial crime rates. This measure is therefore to be taken in combination with the crime-rate measures to determine whether the state has an effective number of law-enforcement personnel. The above table shows the number of law-enforcement personnel per 100,000 residents.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Personnel per 100,000

Residents Rank

Illinois 409 5 Wisconsin 333 23

Ohio 324 25 Indiana 282 39


Michigan, 2005 - 2008

200

225

250

275

300

325

350

2005 2006 2007 2008

Per 1

00,0

00 R

esid

ents

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

HEALTHCARE ACCESS

Employed in healthcare practitioners and technician occupations per 1,000 Residents, 2008 While the national debate rages about healthcare affordability and coverage, of related importance is access. Are health care facilities and services available when needed? A good proxy for this is the number employed in health care occupations relative to a state’s population.

Midwest Performance, 2008 State Per 1,000 Residents Rank


Indiana 25.6 18 Kentucky 25.2 19 Michigan 24.1 24

Illinois 23.9 26

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

20

21

22

23

24

25

2005 2006 2007 2008

Per 1

,000

Res

iden

ts

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

100


CLEAN AIR

Rank State Score Percent in

Nonattainment Change, 2005 -

2008 (%) 50-State Average 47.5% -2.5%

1 Hawaii 123.3 0.0% 0.0% 1 Mississippi 123.3 0.0% 0.0% 1 North Dakota 123.3 0.0% 0.0% 1 Oklahoma 123.3 0.0% 0.0% 1 South Dakota 123.3 0.0% 0.0% 1 Vermont 123.3 0.0% 0.0% 7 Nebraska 123.3 0.1% -1.8% 8 Iowa 122.9 0.8% -1.7% 9 Arkansas 122.5 1.8% -3.0% 10 Wyoming 122.0 3.0% -5.0% 11 South Carolina 121.8 3.4% -5.1% 12 Idaho 114.2 20.4% -6.5% 13 Alabama 114.2 20.4% -2.7% 14 Kansas 113.6 21.7% -2.1% 15 Montana 111.2 27.0% -3.4% 16 New Mexico 109.8 30.1% -3.6% 17 Kentucky 105.2 40.5% -2.4% 18 West Virginia 105.2 40.5% -0.6% 19 North Carolina 105.0 41.0% -6.1% 20 Florida 104.5 42.0% -3.4% 21 Texas 103.4 44.6% -6.2% 22 Alaska 103.2 44.9% -2.6% 23 Missouri 101.7 48.4% -2.1% 24 Georgia 101.2 49.3% -6.1% 25 Tennessee 100.1 52.0% -3.7% 26 Louisiana 99.9 52.3% 1.9% 27 Wisconsin 99.5 53.2% -1.6% 28 Oregon 99.4 53.4% -4.4% 29 Minnesota 98.5 55.5% -2.2% 30 Virginia 97.5 57.6% -2.9% 31 Arizona 97.3 58.1% -8.3% 32 Washington 97.1 58.7% -4.5% 33 Utah 96.8 59.3% -8.6% 34 Indiana 95.5 62.2% -2.0% 35 Maine 93.6 66.5% -0.4% 36 Nevada 93.5 66.8% -7.6% 37 Colorado 93.3 67.2% -5.6% 38 Illinois 92.7 68.6% -1.5% 39 New Hampshire 91.9 70.3% -1.2% 40 Ohio 88.0 78.9% -0.3% 41 Michigan 86.9 81.4% 0.9% 42 New York 85.2 85.1% -0.8% 43 California 85.0 85.7% -2.4% 44 Maryland 84.8 86.2% -1.0% 45 Delaware 83.2 89.8% -4.0% 46 Pennsylvania 81.7 93.0% -0.8% 47 New Jersey 80.0 96.9% -0.6% 48 Connecticut 79.8 97.3% -0.6% 49 Massachusetts 79.6 97.7% -1.0% 50 Rhode Island 78.7 99.8% 1.3%

Percent of population in air non-attainment areas, 2008 States with poor environmental records or conditions face an extra challenge in attracting the best, most-skilled workers. Workers and businesses also face the threat of punitive action from the federal government for failing to meet environmental requirements such as air-quality standards. The above table shows the percentage of the population in reported areas, whole or partial, where air pollution levels persistently exceed the national ambient air quality standards. Midwest Performance, 2008

State Percent in Nonattainment Rank


Indiana 62.2% 34 Illinois 68.6% 38 Ohio 78.9% 40

Michigan 81.4% 41

Michigan, 2005 - 2008

75%

78%

80%

83%

85%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Per

cent

in

Non

atta

inm

ent

1

8

15

22

29

36

43

50

Ran

k

Rank Value

T O W A R D A N E N T R E P R E N E U R I A L E C O N O M YT O W A R D A N E N T R E P R E N E U R I A L E C O N O M Y

APPEND ICES

101

102


Fostering an Entrepreneurial Culture in Michigan as a Catalyst for Community and Economic Recovery, Diversification and Development

The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation conducted a study in 2009 showed that newly created and young

companies are the primary drivers of job creation in the United States.1 Kauffman's analysis showing that companies

less than five years old created nearly two-thirds of net new jobs in 2007 could not be more timely. According to Carl

Schramm, president and CEO of the Kauffman Foundation, Job creation is the number one issue facing families and policymakers during this economic recession, and this study shows that new businesses and entrepreneurs are the key factor in adding new jobs. If the U.S. economy is going to have a sustained recovery, it will be up to entrepreneurs to lead the way.

Kauffman’s research is also in line with research conducted by the Edward Lowe Foundation, which finds that

both firm age and size are key drivers of job creation. The Kauffman report shows that most net new job creation is

generated by firms that are one to five years old. These firms create more net new jobs than their older counterparts,

as well as a higher average number of jobs per firm.2 Generally, firms that fall within this category are second-stage

businesses.3

Stage Two Business (Edward Lowe Foundation)

In addition to the Kauffman findings, groundbreaking work conducted by the Edward Lowe Foundation has

shown that businesses can be grouped into stages, each with a different set of challenges and opportunities.

Second-stage businesses (firms with 10 to 99 workers with revenues between $1 million - $50 million) are one of the

most important contributors to a dynamic entrepreneurial economy. Second-stage companies have passed the

volatile startup, or first stage, and face issues of growth rather than survival. Their founders, owners or CEOs are

moving from an entrepreneurial management style to a more professional approach that emphasizes formal

organizational structure, specialization, delegation, process and wider market penetration. The business stages and

the associated risks that must addressed at each stage are illustrated in the following diagram:

Stages of Business Growth Business Risks

1 2008 State New Economy Index, contact: Rossana Weitekamp, 516-792-1462, [email protected], Barbara Pruitt, 816-932-1288; [email protected], Kauffman Foundation. 2 Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, U.S. Census data showing new and young firms as the primary source of new jobs come at a critical time for policymakers, (KANSAS CITY, Mo.) Nov. 5, 2009 3 Scott A. Shane, Professor of Entrepreneurial Studies at Case Western University, for example, asks; If only some entrepreneurs expect to create jobs, and those who expect to create jobs are more likely to do so, should governments focus their attention on entrepreneurs who expect to create jobs? Or should they treat all entrepreneurs equally? (Should Policy Makers Focus Their Support on Growth-Oriented Entrepreneurs? Scott A. Shane, August 27, 2009).

Stage 4 Entrepreneurs

(500 Employees +)

Stage 3 Entrepreneurs

(100 – 499 Employees)

Stage 2 Entrepreneurs (10 – 99 Employees)

Stage 1 Entrepreneurs (1-9 Employees)

Expansion Capital

Market Growth Rate

Manufacturability

Technology & Management

103


Data from the Edward Lowe Foundation www.youreconomy.org demonstrates that Michigan second stage

businesses effectively combine innovation with intent and capacity for growth in such a way as to be more stable over

time and are less impacted by the current recession than are other businesses. Moreover, the distinction between

“first” and “second” stage businesses is particularly important. First stage is a proving ground for business ideas and

entrepreneurial talent. As data from the U.S. Small Business Administration shows, the failure rate among first stage

businesses is extremely high. Second stage firms also generates rapid growth, leading to even larger (third and

fourth) stages. 4 Finally, the job creation prowess of second-stage entrepreneurs is aptly reflected in the performance

of the 2009 “Michigan 50 Companies to Watch”, which celebrates second-stage companies throughout the state of

Michigan: $405 million in total annual revenue; $99 million increase in total annual revenue; 1,530 employees; and

296 net new jobs.5 Moreover, as the following charts indicate, these firms parallel the decline in the Michigan

economy and serve a leading indicator of both economic recovery and decline.

Second-Stage Establishment Growth, 10-99 Employees

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Gro

wth

Rat

e

Michigan United States

Source: YourEconomy.org

Second-Stage Employment Growth, 10-99 Employees

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Gro

wth

Rat

e

Michigan United States

Source: YourEconomy.org

4 See: http://companiestowatch.org/index.ctw?aff=Michigan&page=home. 5 Michigan Economic Development Corporation, Michigan Small Business & Technology Development Center, Small Business Association of Michigan, U.S. Small Business Administration - Michigan and the Edward Lowe Foundation.

104


The true potential of second-stage entrepreneurship is best reflected, however, in a historical view of the annual

“Michigan 50 Companies to Watch” program. Known for their performance in the marketplace, innovation,

philanthropy and empowered employees, these companies come from a wide range of industries across the state. In

just four years, ending in 2008, these companies generated $1.1 billion in revenue and added more than 700

employees, a 126 percent increase in revenue and 87 percent increase in jobs. That translates into a 31 percent

annual revenue growth and a 23 percent annual growth in employees. These companies project continued growth in

the coming year, with a 35 percent revenue increase and 24 percent growth in employees compared to 2008. If their

projections hold, these companies will have generated $1.7 billion in revenue and added 1,076 employees over the

last five years – a 228 percent increase in revenue and 132 percent increase in jobs since 2005.6

Many pose that second-stage firms could make an even bigger contribution to community and economic

recovery, diversification and development in Michigan. For second stage companies to break away from the risks

that limit their growth and accelerate their growth and related economic development however, much needs to be

accomplished, policy–wise, programmatically and collaboratively. The National Commission on Entrepreneurship

report, Embracing Innovation: Entrepreneurship & American Economic Growth, suggests that, “If entrepreneurial

companies are the source of new jobs and reinvestment in communities, failure to foster entrepreneurship… is simply

an unacceptable policy choice.”

Closer examination of the three Entrepreneurial drivers provides insights as to areas of strength and

vulnerability. Entrepreneurial Change measures what has been happening in the most recent three years with

respect to small business growth, increase in high performance firms and new business entrants. Michigan ranks 48

with a two star rating. Entrepreneurial Vitality speaks to the general level of entrepreneurial activity compared to

other states, including university spin offs, IPO awards and SBIR awards. Michigan ranks 31 with a one star rating.

Finally, Entrepreneurial Climate speaks to the general business conditions conducive to entrepreneurial and

small/mid-size business growth. This driver includes metrics on Research and Innovation, Financial and Institutional

Capital and General Business Growth. This driver has been pulling Michigan’s overall scores down throughout the

decade. This year Michigan ranked 44 with a one star rating.

As economic conditions in Michigan (Entrepreneurial Climate Driver) clearly illustrate, the need for a new and

viable economic model could not be starker. As Farooq Kathwara, C.E.O., Ethan Allen Interiors, has aptly, written

“reinvention is vital to our survival”. Within this context, Michigan citizens, businesses, educators and policy makers

are increasingly finding truth in the following statement from the Kauffman Foundation: “if the U.S. economy is going

to have a sustained recovery, it will be up to its entrepreneurs to lead the way.”7 Indeed, the Kauffman Foundation

Research Series, “Where Will the Jobs Come From?” found that in the period from 1980 to 2005, nearly all net job

creation in the U.S. came from companies less than five years old.

This particular data set shows that without job creation from startup companies, net job growth in the U.S. would

have been negative in most of those years. An analysis of Census Bureau data shows that in 2007, two-thirds of job

creation came from young companies one to five years old, averaging nearly four new jobs per year. Of the 12

million jobs created in 2007, 8 million came from new companies.8 And because these young companies frequently

hire younger workers it comes as no surprise that the age group most unemployed by this recession is the 18-24 age

group. Michigan must do better to find job opportunities for its young people.

6 See: Michigan 50 Companies to Watch, file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/mhclevey/My%20Documents/index.ctw.htm. 7 See: www.buildasrongeramerica.com.

105


ECONOMIC GARDENING In the November/December 2009 issue of The Review, the official magazine of the Michigan Municipal League,

Daniel P Gilmartin, MML Executive Director, aptly noted that today’s global economy demands a different approach –

growing knowledge-based jobs through “economic gardening” and entrepreneurship. In his position, Gilmartin is

uniquely qualified to understand that the “sustainable economic growth Michigan desperately needs is driven largely

by entrepreneurs,”9 and that traditional approaches to economic development often are at odds with the needs and

requirements of entrepreneurship. For example, traditionally, economic development has focused primarily on three

mechanisms:

• Business Attraction – Gilmartin (MML) describes this model as “hunting” where “large manufacturers and /or big box

retailers” are lured to the state with incentives. The impact of this business-attraction centric model on entrepreneurship was aptly described by the National Governors Association, Center for Best Practices, in their landmark study titled, “A Governor’s Guide to Strengthening State and Entrepreneurship Policy,” which found a “…significant mismatch between economic development practice and the needs of entrepreneurs continues to plague state efforts to encourage the high-growth businesses. This mismatch reflects the longstanding focus of economic development efforts on large firms or “small business clients, the inflexibility and inadequacy of state programs relative to entrepreneur’s needs and the need to provide support for entrepreneurship…”

• Small Business Development – Led primarily by the U.S. Small Business Administration - and their research showing the

economic and job impact of small firms - small business development primarily encourages the creation of new small “lifestyle” businesses whose business plan is to generate sufficient revenue to cover the operating expenses of the venture (versus a plan that combines innovation with intent and capacity for growth).

• Business Retention and Expansion – This model provides incentives to existing firms to diversify and expand their capacity

and related employment. Often these models fail to take into account the essential role of intrapreneurship as a pre-condition for any successful diversification.

As global competition increases communities are recognizing the limitations of these three traditional economic

development mechanisms and are seeking new models to stimulate community and economic recovery,

diversification and development. As suggested by Gilmartin (MML), a fourth economic development model –

“Economic Gardening” - is rapidly emerging as a viable option. Economic Gardening10 is a nationally recognized

reinvention model, developed by Chris Gibbons, director, Economic Gardening in Littleton Colorado and endorsed by

the Edward Lowe Foundation11, the U.S. Small Business Administration, Small Business Association of Michigan and

several communities (see below).12 According to the Edward Lowe Foundation, Economic Gardening is an

innovative entrepreneur-centered economic growth strategy that offers balance to the traditional economic practice of

business recruitment, often referred to as "economic hunting." Gibbons describes this model as “gardening” whereby

incentives and programs are specifically designed to encourage the formation and growth of innovative entrepreneurs

(versus generic small businesses). In discussing the Littleton program, the Edward Lowe Foundation notes, While it was introduced as a demonstration program to deal with the sudden erosion of economic conditions following the relocation of the largest employer in the city at that time, it has emerged as a prototype for a rapidly expanding movement of like-minded economic developers looking for additional methods to generate truly sustainable economic growth for their communities, regions or states.

9 Daniel P Gilmartin, MML Executive Director, Michigan Municipal League, “A Community’s Role in Entrepreneurship,” in, The Review (official magazine of the Michigan Municipal League), November/December 2009, pp 4. 10 Economic hunting is the traditional business attraction approach to economic development. Under this model, significant resources are invested in the form of business incentives to lure large employers to the state. “Economic gardening” is a business creation, retention and expansion approach to economic development. Under this model, resources are invested in helping high-growth potential firm’s form and grow. 11 The Edward Lowe Foundation strongly endorses Economic Gardening and offers related training at their Michigan facility. 12 http://www.littletongov.org/bia/economicgardening/. In Michigan the Edward Lowe Foundation has also been on the forefront in advocating for “Entrepreneur Gardening Centers” (as a part of a Balanced Portfolio Approach to Economic Growth) that develop and deliver high quality growth-oriented programs, products and services to steady and high growth entrepreneurs.

106


Economic Gardening goes directly to the heart of the question posed by Scott A. Shane, Professor of

Entrepreneurial Studies at Case Western University: If only some entrepreneurs expect to create jobs, and those who

expect to create jobs are more likely to do so, should governments focus their attention on entrepreneurs who expect

to create jobs? Or should they treat all entrepreneurs equally?13 Economic Gardening is an economic development

model that answers this question with a resounding “no”, not all entrepreneurs should be treated equally –

entrepreneurs that combine innovation with intent and capacity to grow should be given priority for economic and

small business development incentives.

In an October, 2008 paper released by the U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy titled, “Look

Ahead: Opportunities and Challenges for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Owners,” Economic Gardening is

highlighted as one of five “opportunities” for economic development and job creation.14 In its simplest terms,

Economic Gardening is a grow-from-within community development model that consciously15 applies entrepreneur

support resources to the entrepreneurial segment of the small businesses sector, providing them with a highly

specialized set of creation, retention and expansion services. Gibbons notes, however, that economic gardening is

not just a business development effort, but an integrated economic and community development effort that

engenders an entrepreneurial culture. According to Gibbons, “Economic development and community development

are two sides of the same coin. A community without many amenities is going to have a hard time being an

environment for entrepreneurs -- especially as their wealth starts to grow.” Within this context, in a National League

of Cities article titled, "A Local Perspective: Littleton’s Economic Gardening Strategy,” Chris further noted,

Economic Gardening’s objective is to provide a nurturing environment to entrepreneurial companies. Information is a major component of that environment, but it also includes infrastructure and connections. Infrastructure extends beyond roads and sewer to include quality of life and intellectual infrastructure. Connections between the CEOs of growth companies as well as to academic resources improves the bottom line. The program has helped entrepreneurs double the job base in Littleton from 15,000 to 30,000 and triple the retail sales tax from $6 million to $21 million over the past 20 years. The population only grew 23 percent during that same time period. Perhaps even more telling, it has generated enthusiastic support from Littleton’s business community. The staff has received abundant praise over the years stressing the invaluable service we provide to local businesses.16

While economic gardening can take different forms, there are five common features of all programs that

incorporate economic gardening principles:

• Entrepreneur vs Small Business Development – Economic Gardening programs service ventures that combine

innovation with intent and capacity for growth and impact in markets that have high economic-multiplier potential.

• Second-Stage Businesses – Economic Gardening programs are keenly aware of the community and economic recovery, diversification and development capacity of Second Stage businesses and work to harmonize business development incentives and programs in order to enhance Second Stage ventures. For example Stage One businesses whose business plan is to become Second Stage firms are given special incentives over traditional Lifestyle small businesses.

• Community vs Economy – Economic Gardening programs combine community and economic development (i.e.,

According to Gibbons, “Economic development and community development are two sides of the same coin).

13 Should Policy Makers Focus Their Support on Growth-Oriented Entrepreneurs? Scott A. Shane, August 27, 2009. 14 Moutray, Chad, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration, “Look Ahead: Opportunities and Challenges for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Owners,” (October 2008), pp 8. 15 The “conscious” application means that a community makes a formal decision to align their assets to stimulate the formation and growth of innovative entrepreneurs. Towards this end, Chris notes the critical role of “community” in economic development as follows: “Economic development and community development are two sides of the same coin. A community without many amenities is going to have a hard time being an environment for entrepreneurs -- especially as their wealth starts to grow.” 16 Chris Gibbons, A Local Perspective: Littleton’s Economic Gardening Strategy, in, National League of Cities, National Cities Weekly, http://www.nlc.org/articles/articleItems/NCW011110/gibbonslocalperspective.aspx?utm_source=delivra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NCW+1/11/2010.

107


• Blended Economic Hunting and Gardening – Economic Gardening effectively blends traditional business attraction (“Hunting”) with business creation, retention and attraction (“Gardening”) into a comprehensive community and economic development strategy. Gardening thus becomes part of the business attraction package.

• Market Research – A cornerstone of Economic Gardening programs is the subsidized the delivery of high-quality

market research services to clients in order to significantly augment the marketing section of their business plan. It is assumed that such an augmentation will allow clients to better target and pursue growth opportunities and a greater local economic development return on investments will occur when applied to such firms.17 Within this context, economic gardening programs typically provide their clients with preferred access to highly specialized market research and related researchers (e.g., MBA with expertise in Market Research and Business Librarianship) as well as highly qualified business development counselors that specialize in the creation, retention and expansion of entrepreneurial ventures.

Entrepreneurship Development Models in Michigan

The Score Card poses that communities with an entrepreneurial culture have, in effect, what the Michigan State

Housing Development Authority and Michigan Municipal League aptly call, a “Sense of Place”.18 Sense of Place goes

well beyond mere “business friendly environment” to enable a culture that allows communities to capitalize on the

“social capital” associated with entrepreneurship.19 Bill Green, Senior Vice Provost and Dean of Undergraduate

Education at the University of Miami, notes that “entrepreneurs renew society by constantly looking for opportunities

to make products, institutions and practices better.” 20 Sense of Place is important as a catalyst for a “virtuous cycle”

whereby a greater number of innovative people lead to shared ideas, which lead to growth in institutions that foster

innovation that in turn attract more innovative people from less fertile communities and so on. The virtuous cycle is

also a key driver of successful Economic Gardening models.

As the Michigan economy grapples with the twin impacts of globalization and economic restructuring many

communities, economic development specialists and public policy makers have become interested in Economic

Gardening as a viable economic recovery, diversification and development - and jobs strategy21 - for their

communities. Several organizations are responding in kind. For example, the Michigan Economic Developers

Association (MEDA) now includes Economic Gardening training in their Certified Economic Developer (CEcD)

Training. The Michigan Municipal League also includes Economic Gardening training in their meetings, seminars and

annual conference. The Michigan State Housing Development Authority “Sense of Place” Council broadly supports

Economic Gardening as a community development strategy. The Edward Lowe Foundation provides Economic

Gardening training at their corporate facilities in Cassopolis, Michigan. The Michigan Local Government Managers

17 In 2009, the Small Business Association of Michigan led a project to determine the business support service needs of entrepreneurs in the state. Market research was rated as one of areas most desired by firms. 18 Both the Michigan Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) and the Michigan Municipal League (MML) are keenly interested in robust entrepreneurship as a catalyst for enhancing Sense of Community. MSHDA, in collaboration with MML, is leading an important effort to stimulate a stronger “Sense of Community” among Michigan communities as an economic development strategy. The goal of the Sense of Place Council is to create new programs or change existing programs that will serve to meet the development needs of Michigan’s communities by creating vibrant communities, including entrepreneurial economies. 19 An entrepreneurial culture is one fosters a virtuous cycle among three types of entrepreneurs. A Small Business Entrepreneur is an individual who combines innovation with intent and capacity for growth, usually in a small business setting. An Intrapreneur is an individual that combines innovation with intent and capacity for growth for their host-company employer. According to Gifford Pinchot III, Intrapreneurs can “make all the difference between your firm’s success and failure.” In 1980, Bill Drayton, a management consultant working for McKinsey & Company, coined the term “social entrepreneur” - an individual who combines innovation with intent and capacity for growth in order to transform ideas into new positive social change. Most importantly, social entrepreneurs operate in both the private and non-profit sectors and thus, are an essential and vital component of community and economic recovery, diversification and development. As one of a handful of states that allow L3C Corporations, Michigan is well positioned to use Social Entrepreneurship to help bring about community and economic recovery, diversification and development. 20 See: http://video.kauffman.org/services/player/bcpid1811456713?bclid=1612710415&bctid=8710202001 21 For example, The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor is an effort by a consortium of academics around the world to survey a representative sample of the adult age population to study entrepreneurs. One of the topics examined by the GEM is growth expectations and their research shows that only about 7 percent of all start-up attempts expected to create 20 or more jobs. While just expecting to create jobs won’t result in job creation, research shows that entrepreneurs are more likely to create jobs if they expect to create jobs.

108


Association featured Economic Gardening in its 2010 Annual Meeting (Grand Rapids). The Michigan Small Business

Technology Development Center network (SBTDC) has launched an Economic Gardening workgroup to explore how

to effectively integrate their services within the Economic Gardening framework (e.g., Market Research services,

etc.). Lastly, Saginaw Valley State University includes Economic Gardening training in their highly regarded Michigan

Certified Public Managers curriculum.

Work done by the Edward Lowe Foundation shows that economic gardening generally includes three

components:

1. Providing critical information needed by businesses to survive and thrive. 2. Developing and cultivating an infrastructure that goes beyond basic physical infrastructure and includes quality of

life, a culture that embraces growth and change, and access to intellectual resources, including qualified and talented employees.

3. Developing connections between businesses and the people and organizations that can help take them to the next

level — business associations, universities, roundtable groups, service providers and more. Within this context, Score Card authors have researched this issue and have identified the following six

entrepreneurship development models currently being tested in Michigan that utilize various elements of Economic

Gardening: (1) Rural, (2) Ground-Zero, (3) Blended, (4) Open-Source, (5) Recovery Accelerator, and (6) Economic

Gardening Plus. These models are briefly discussed below.

Rural Model The Land Policy Institute at Michigan State University operates a rural entrepreneurship program called Creating

Entrepreneurial Communities (CEC). The CEC project works with small community leadership teams, drawn from

across Michigan, to learn about and execute tailored local approaches to encourage business start-ups and support

entrepreneurs through all phases of business development. The Phase I CEC project was piloted with nine Michigan

communities and is currently moving into a Phase II statewide expansion. The Phase II project is expected to involve

a three-year National Research Initiative grant to assist with Phase II implementation.

Ground-Zero Model

1997/8 – 2007 Average Establishments

Stage 1

Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4

Michigan 530,998 8 - 6.7% 12.4% 0.8% 0.1% Ground-Zero Model: • Tuscola County 3,370 91.4% 7.9% 0.7% 0.0% 1997/8 – 2007 Average

Jobs Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4

Michigan 5,397,818 27.1% 35.1% 16.7% 21.0% Ground-Zero Model • Tuscola County 21,046 41.7% 35.3% 23.0% 0.0% Stage 4 Entrepreneurs (500 Employees +), Stage 3 Entrepreneurs (100 – 499 Employees),Stage 2 Entrepreneurs, (10 – 99 Employees, $1-$50 Million in Sales), Stage 1 Entrepreneurs, (1-9 Employees)

The Ground-Zero Model is based, in part, on the Sirolli Institute Model of business development for communities

experiencing severe economic stress.22 The model essentially creates a cadre of community specialists

(“facilitators”) that actively focus on the creation of new small businesses. It is anticipated that some of these new

startups will grow and be the beneficiaries of traditional economic development incentives that will accelerate their

22 See: Sirolli Institute, http://www.sirolli.com/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx.

109


growth and result in economic development in the community. In collaboration with the Small Business Association

of Michigan, Saginaw Valley State University and Shepherd Advisors, the Tuscola County Economic Development

program successfully secured several U.S. Department of Agriculture grants to fund a program that blends the Sirolli

Institute Model with a traditional economic gardening effort.

Blended Model


Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4

Michigan 530,998 86.7% 12.4% 0.8% 0.1% Midland County (Blended Model)

4,043 87.2% 11.4% 1.0% 0.3%

1997/8 – 2007 Average Jobs


Michigan 5,397,818 27.1% 35.1% 16.7% 21.0% Midland County (Blended Model)

52,572 19.2% 23.4% 15.3% 42.1%

Stage 4 Entrepreneurs (500 Employees +), Stage 3 Entrepreneurs (100 – 499 Employees),Stage 2 Entrepreneurs, (10 – 99 Employees, $1-$50 Million in Sales), Stage 1 Entrepreneurs, (1-9 Employees)

As a key member of the Great Lakes Bay Regional Alliance23, Midland, Michigan is at the epicenter of a

fundamental, alternative energy-related economic recovery, diversification and development effort. Its key anchor

employers – the Dow Chemical Company, Dow Corning Corporation and Hemlock Semiconductor – are keenly

interested in market leadership positions in the rapidly emerging global alternative energy market. As raw materials

suppliers, these firms seek to enable relationships with innovative, entrepreneurial firms in diverse and growing

industries.

Midland Tomorrow - Midland’s premier economic development arm – capitalizes on its anchor tenants business

strategy by operating a Blended Economic Gardening program based on the Bakersville, California model. This

model blends a traditional business attraction approach (“hunting”) with a strong business creation, retention and

expansion effort (“gardening”). Under this model, a vibrant entrepreneurial culture is an essential part of the business

attraction effort. For example, in 2009, Midland Tomorrow formed a PeerSpectives24 program centered around local

companies that received the Michigan 50 Companies To Watch25 designation. Midland Tomorrow also collaborates

with the regional Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center – Northeast Region, to help existing manufacturers

effectively utilize intrapreneurship principles and practices to facilitate diversification. Midland’s Community

Foundation and United Way also collaborate with regional interests to foster a regional entrepreneurship culture by

encouraging social entrepreneurship.

23 Key members of the Great Lakes Bay Regional Alliance include Bay, Midland and Saginaw Counties. 24 See: Edward Lowe Foundation, PeerSpectives Program, http://www.edwardlowe.org/index.elf?page=wwd&function=PRS. 25 See: Michigan 50 Companies to Watch, http://companiestowatch.org/index.ctw?aff=Michigan&page=home.

110


Open-Source Model



Michigan 530,998 86.7% 12.4% 0.8% 0.1% Washtenaw County (SPARK) (Open-Source Model)

17,936 86% 13.0% 0.9% 0.2%



Michigan 5,397,818 27.1% 35.1% 16.7% 21.0% Washtenaw County (SPARK) (Open-Source Model)

224,436 23.0% 32.4% 16.1% 28.5%


From humble beginnings in the early 1980’s as a traditional small business incubator (located in the basement of

the Ann Arbor Chamber of Commerce building), Ann Arbor SPARK26 - a private-public partnership - has become a

powerhouse for innovation-based business development in Washtenaw County and beyond. (see:

http://www.annarborusa.org/).27 SPARK benefits greatly from its close collaboration with the University of Michigan, a

market leader in university technology transfer.28 For example, CleanTech is a rapidly expanding global market and

the University of Michigan has been listed among the top 10 CleanTech universities in the U.S. for 2010.29

According to Shawn Lesser, CleanTech Group, LLC, student engagement in CleanTech Entrepreneurship at the

University of Michigan is at a all-time high, driven by the Zell Lurie Institute for Entrepreneurial Studies in the

Business School, the Center for Entrepreneurship in the College of Engineering, and the student organization,

MPowered. Ann Arbor SPARK also provides one of the most comprehensive service packages in the nation to area

businesses through an “Open Source Economic Development” model, similar to a model developed by Edward

Morrison, Purdue University.30

26 Ann Arbor SPARK, 201 S. Division St., Suite 430, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, (734) 761-9317. http://www.annarborusa.org/about-us/ 27 For example, in 2009, Ann Arbor was listed as 7th in the nation in the 2009 Next Cities™ list, which includes the 80 best cities for young professionals in the United States and Canada..27 BusinessWeek also listed Ann Arbor as the number 1 city in Michigan for small business startups. 28 For information on technology transfer programs at the University of Michigan please see: Michigan Venture Center, http://www.techtransfer.umich.edu/ 29 See: http://cleantech.com/news/print/5384. 30 See the work of Edward Morrison, Purdue University, http://egeconomies.net/news. The main characteristics of the Open Source model are: (a) Strengthening civic habits of purposeful dialogue - Prosperous communities have civic habits of thinking and acting together. Building collaboration and trust carries real competitive advantages: the communities that collaborate will spot opportunities and move more quickly than communities that do not. The temperament of a community drives its ability to collaborate and follow enlightened leadership that arises from an Open Source process. It seeks diversity of opinion and inclusion of community members in strategic planning and operations under a flat versus hierarchical organizational model; (b) Strengthening Brainpower - In today's global economy, brainpower provides the only basis for sustainable competitive advantage. Communities create, retain and attract educated workers by actively focusing resources on the creation, retention and attraction of knowledge workers; (c) Connecting innovation and entrepreneurship networks - These networks convert brainpower into wealth through new products, new services, new markets. Innovation provides the process and entrepreneurship provides the skills to translate ideas into prosperity. Economic Gardening is a strategy for building these networks to support innovative entrepreneurship in high economic multiplier industries; (d) Building quality, connected places - Smart people can live anywhere. They will choose to live in regions that respect sound principles of physical development. Equally important, quality places have thick connections to other people, other markets; and, (e) Promoting an effective brand - Prosperous communities have positive stories to tell. These stories create a unique experience, a special identity, a common understanding of core strengths, a shared view of future opportunities. This vision can energize a roadmap for how the community will create this positive future.

111


Recovery Accelerator Model 1997/8 – 2007 Average

Establishments Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4

Michigan 530,998 86.7% 12.4% 0.8% 0.1% Houghton County (Recovery Accelerator Model)

1,692 85.2% 14.2% 0.6% 0.0%



Michigan 5,397,818 27.1% 35.1% 16.7% 21.0% Houghton County (Accelerator Model)

14,601 35.8% 46.8% 17.5% 0.0%


The Keweenaw Economic Development Alliance (KEDA) (Houghton, Michigan) is Michigan’s longest running

example of a successful economic gardening in the state. KEDA was created by community leaders in 1969,

following the closure of the area’s copper mines, to promote diversification and expansion of the manufacturing,

tourism, service and technology sectors in the Houghton, Keweenaw and Baraga County area. KEDA’s efforts have

significantly diversified the local economy, reduced its susceptibility to economic downturns and helped foster the

creation and growth of innovative entrepreneurial businesses. KEDA also has demonstrated how universities and

industry can effectively create economic change and development by forging strong collaborations with the Michigan

Technological University entrepreneurship program (i.e., School of Business and Economics, Center for Technology,

Innovation, Leadership and Entrepreneurship). In 2008, KEDA also teamed with the Small Business Association of

Michigan on a U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Business Enterprise Grant (RBEG) to implement an Economic

Gardening accelerator program that augmented their business expansion efforts with a new high quality market

research capability.

Economic Gardening PLUS



Michigan 530,998 86.7% 12.4% 0.8% 0.1% • Gladwin County (EG PLUS

Model) 1,205 89.8% 9.6% 0.6% 0.0%

• Huron County (EG PLUS Model)

2,577 91.0% 9.3% 0.7% 0.1%


Economic Gardening PLUS31 (EG PLUS) is a program developed by Saginaw Valley State University (SVSU),

Center for Business and Economic Development. EG PLUS is based on the premise that an entrepreneurial culture

31 Founded in 2008, the SVSU Economic Gardening PLUS Institute helps local communities develop the capacity to launch and operate programs designed to encourage local entrepreneurial cultures that include small business entrepreneurs, intrapreneurs and social entrepreneurs as a community and economic recovery, diversification and development strategy.



Michigan 5,397,818 27.1% 35.1% 16.7% 21.0% • Gladwin County (EG PLUS

Model) 7,114 42.9% 38.8% 18.3% 0.0%

• Huron County (EG PLUS Model)

17,236 37.7% 31.3% 23.4% 7.7%

112


is a necessary condition for the creation, retention, expansion and attraction of small business entrepreneurs that

combine innovation with intent and capacity to grow.32 Moreover, such a culture is one where three distinct types of

entrepreneurs are prevalent: small business entrepreneurs; intrapreneurs; and, social entre/intrapreneurs (both non-

profit and private sector). EG PLUS is designed to nurture the synergy between these three forms of innovative

entrepreneurship by concentrating talent and resources on growth and impact, creating a “virtuous cycle” (a greater

number of innovative people leads to shared ideas which leads to growth in institutions that foster innovation that in

turn attract more innovative people from less fertile communities and so on). Such a community has, what the

Michigan State Housing Development Authority and Michigan Municipal League aptly call a “Sense of Place.”33

Under a U.S. Department of Agriculture grant (RBEG), Gladwin and Huron Counties are currently collaborating

with SVSU and Shepherd Advisors, LLC, to launch an EG PLUS model. Based on the success of this effort, in 2009

Gladwin and Huron joined with SVSU to launch a regional Economic Gardening effort under the auspices of the East

Michigan Council of Governments (EMCOG).

INNOVATION: INSTRUMENT OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP “Innovation Economics” is an emerging field of study which poses that imagination-driven innovation – not capital

accumulation – drives economic growth.34 Innovation economics builds upon earlier work such as Joseph

Schumpeter (1934) (“entrepreneurial innovation is the essence of capitalism”) and Peter Drucker (“innovation is the

instrument of entrepreneurship”). Most recently, Ram Nidumolu, C.K. Prahalad and M.R. Rangaswami, writing in

Harvard Business Review, noted, “the key to progress, particularly in times of economic crisis, is innovation.”35

Some believe that, over the long term, it is innovative entrepreneurship that drives cost reduction, higher

employment, spending, health care, investment and ultimately, better living standards. For example, a number of

researchers have focused in on a “Portfolio Innovation Index” (PII)36 that builds on past research and analysis used in

higher-order geographic unites of analysis such as states and countries (see: ETCI 2003, Pro Inno Europe 2006;

Porter and Stern 1999; Atkinson and Correa 2007). Such an index is based on the assumption that innovative

capacity, or inputs, can be combined with outputs to create a single, composite index value.37 The Score Card

follows a similar approach as the PII by ranking states based on a series of input and output measures (eg., Financial

and Institutional Capital, etc.).

New York Times columnist and author Thomas Friedman has aptly noted that, “…Innovative prowess and

entrepreneurial energy is exploding from below in this country.” 38 Barton Biggs, Traxis Partners investment fund,

32 Economic Gardening PLUS is an approach developed by Mark H. Clevey, Director, Entrepreneurship and Commercialization, Saginaw Valley State University and Primary Author, Michigan Entrepreneurship Score Card. 33 Both the Michigan Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) and the Michigan Municipal League (MML) are keenly interested in robust entrepreneurship as a catalyst for enhancing Sense of Community. MSHDA, in collaboration with MML, is leading an important effort to stimulate a stronger “Sense of Community” among Michigan communities as an economic development strategy. The goal of the Sense of Place Council is to create new programs or change existing programs that will serve to meet the development needs of Michigan’s communities by creating vibrant communities, including entrepreneurial economies. 34 Robert Atkinson (founder and president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation), “Innovation Nation,” in Democracy, Issue # 11, Winter, 2009. 35 Ram Nidumolu, C.K. Prahalad and M.R. Rangaswami, “Why Sustainability is Now the Key Driver of Innovation,” in, Harvard Business Review, September 2009, pp 58. 36 See: U.S. Economic Development Administration, Crossing the Next Regional Frontier: Information and Analytics Linking Regional Competitiveness to Investment in a Knowledge-Based Economy. 37 For example, PII Inputs include: Human Capital Sub Index (Education, Population Growth Rate, Occupational Mix, High Technology Employment) Economic Dynamics Sub-Index (R&D Investment, Venture Capital Investment, Broadband Density, Churn, business sizes). PII Outputs include: Productivity and Employment Sub-Index (High-Tech Employment Share Growth, Job Growth-to-Population Growth Ratio, Patent Activity, Gross Domestic Product), Economic Well-Being Sub-Index (Net Migration, Compensation). 38 Thomas L. Friedman, “No Laughing Matter,” in the New York Times, 9/21/08

113


New York notes that “America is still the greatest entrepreneurial engine ever invented. It will rise again.”39 In the

Charles Stewart Mott Foundation publication, Mott Mosaic, Dr. George Puia, Director of the Global Business Initiative

at Saginaw Valley State University (and member, Score Card Advisory Board), echoed this finding as he discussed

the role of innovation as the lifeblood of entrepreneurial culture, noting that the “tendency toward innovation and a

true entrepreneurial spirit has historically been – and will continue to be – key to Michigan’s economy.”40

Friedman notes that “in our hyperintegrated world - where raw materials, design, manufacturing, distribution,

fulfillment, financing and branding have become commodities that can be accessed from anywhere by anyone” -

America still has a really important thing that cannot be commoditized: “imagination.” In his work titled Hot, Flat and

Crowded, Friedman notes, “what your citizens imagine now matters more than ever because they can act on their

own imaginations farther, faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before – as individuals. In such a world, societies

that can nurture people with the ability to imagine and spin off of new ideas will thrive.”41 Finally, in her work titled,

“Closing the Innovation Gap,” Judy Estrin notes that “today, more than ever, innovation is critical to the role we will

play in the global economy…. the innovation process can result in life-changing breakthroughs or incremental

improvements to existing ideas or products… opportunities for innovation are all around us, in every field…”.42

Given the importance of imagination and innovation, from a community and economic development point of view,

it is extremely important to recognize that a sea change has occurred regarding how innovation occurs in the U.S.

(particularly for entrepreneurs). In the 1970s, the lion’s share of R&D, 100 Award-winning U.S. innovations came

from corporations acting on their own behalf, with Michigan leading the nation in Corporate R&D investments. Over

the past two decades, however, most of these award-winning innovations have started to come from inter-

organizational partnerships involving business (large, medium and small) and government (including federal labs and

universities43). Indeed approximately two-thirds of award-winning U.S. innovations now involve some kind of inter-

organizational collaboration.44

In their work titled Technological Collaboration: Bridging the Innovation Gap between Small and Large Firms,

Maria Jesus Neito and Lluis Santamaria note that although “technological collaboration is a useful mechanism for

firms of all sizes to improve innovativeness, it is a critical factor for the smallest of firms.”45 These authors note that

“smaller firms generally enjoy internal conditions that encourage innovativeness, such as entrepreneurship, flexibility

and rapid response.” Further, in discussing the role of cooperative R&D in overcoming the lack of internal resources

and in improving innovativeness and competitiveness, particularly for SME’s, the authors noted that small to medium

sized firms “engaged in technological innovation have used cooperative R&D for information, exchange, resource

acquisition, technology transfer and risk management.”46

39 Barton Biggs, Traxis Partners investment fund, New York, in Newsweek, (10/26/09), pp 41. 40 Duane M. Elling, “WIRED Initiative Offers Help to Entrepreneurs,” in, Mott Mosaic, Volume 7, Number 1, Spring, 2008, pp. 31. 41 Thomas L. Friedman, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America, 2009. 42 Judy Estrin, “Closing the Innovation Gap: Reigniting the Spark of Creativity in a Global Economy” (New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, 2008) pp 152. 43 Currently, roughly 75 percent of U.S. Patents come from federally funded research. 44 Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, “Where Do Innovations Come From? Transformations in the U.S. National Innovation System, 1070-2006,” under a grant from the Ford Foundation and support from the University of California Washington Center. According to the 2008 report from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, there is, in short, “a high degree of consensus that successful technological innovation now requires the assembly and management of multidisciplinary teams that bring together different types of expertise.” 45 Maria Jesus Neito and Lluis Santamaria, Technological Collaboration: Bridging the Innovation Gap between Small and Large Firms, in, Journal of Small Business Management, January 2010, V 48 N 1, ppl 44. 46 Maria Jesus Nieto and Lluis Santamaria, Technological Collaboration: Bridging the Innovation Gap between Small and Large Firms, in, Journal of Smal Business Management 2010 48(1), pp. 45.

114


Within this context, it is important to note that Michigan entrepreneurs have great potential to capitalize on the

inter-organizational trend in innovation.47 Entrepreneurs generally are kindred spirits with Geoffrey Nichols, 3M, and

his widely respected view that, “Research in the transformation of money into knowledge — commercialization is the

transformation of knowledge into money!” While research is the systematic and methodical investigation in order to

discover new facts and establish or revise a theory, innovation involves the exploitation of knowledge, a process,

according to Friedman, where “creative thinking and practical know-how meet to do new things in new ways, and old

things in new ways.” 48 In his work titled, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Drucker writes,

Contrary to almost universal belief, new knowledge – and especially new scientific knowledge – is not the most reliable or most predictable source of successful innovation. For all the visibility, glamour, and importance of science-based innovation, it is actually the least reliable and least predictable one.49 Indeed, Vijay Vaitheeswaran writing in The Economist, notes that “the natural instinct is to think that innovation

has to do with invention. That's the smallest part, the real essence of innovation is fresh thinking that connects with

value creation.” Jeff Wacker, a futurist at Electronic Data Systems, echoes this view, referring to innovative

entrepreneurs as people who know the 99 percent that everybody else knows and thus have the foundation on which

to create the 1 percent that nobody knows.

Research indicates that innovation generally occurs in three important ways:

• Basic Innovation - the modification or improvement of an existing technology, product and/or process to facilitate business processes (Score Card metrics rank Michigan 15th in University R&D, 15th in National Science Foundation Funding Rate and 4th in Industry R&D);

• Practical Innovation - the employment of current off-the-shelf knowledge to generate incremental improvements in existing technology, products and processes(Score Card metrics rank Michigan 8th in Patents per Innovation Worker and 19th in University Licenses to Small Businesses ); and,

• First Mover Innovation - pioneering breakthrough disruptive innovations that create a new paradigm, making previous technologies, products and/or processes obsolete (Score Card metrics rank Michigan 17th in University Royalty/License Income and 22nd in SBIR Financing).

It is within this context that Michigan can benefit significantly from heeding Estrin’s advice to U.S. businesses and

policy makers:50 In order to compete effectively in the new economy we must all begin to, “think like innovators, to

identify our real needs, frame the right questions, try things, assess, and adapt.”51 According to Peter Drucker, in

successful entrepreneurial ventures, innovations typically are commercially exploited in one or more of the following

seven ways: (1) The unexpected – the unexpected success, the unexpected failure, the unexpected outside event;

(2) The incongruity – between reality as it actually is and reality as it is assumed to be or as it “ought to be”; (3)

Innovation based on process need; (4) Changes in industry structure or market structure that catch everyone

unawares; (5) Demographics (population changes); (6) Changes in perception, mood and meaning; and (7) New

knowledge, both scientific and nonscientific.

47 Southeast Michigan has developed or located a number of resources aimed at helping innovative entrepreneurial firms develop and commercialize breakthrough innovations. A partial website listing follows: www.entreoasis.com; www.microlinks.org; www.entre-ed.org; www.dol.gov; www.business.gov; www.energizingentrepreneurs.org; www.entreleaguesystem.com; www.synsysllc.com; www.toolsforbusiness.info; www.ducttapemarketing.com; www.accelmich.org; www.govloans.gov; www.mainstreet.org; www.aia-consulting.com; www.annarborusa.org; www.automationalley.com; www.detroitchamber.com; www.businessleadersformichigan.com; www.edwardlowe.org; www.detroitblackexpo.com; www.jumpstartinc.org; www.kauffman.org; www.legacyassociates.org; www.michauto.org; www.mafedetroit.org; www.ncms.org; www.sri.com; www.eonetwork.org; www.techtownwsu.org. 48 Thomas Friedman, NYT, Georgia on My Mind, OpEd, 9/7/08’ 49 Peter Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers) 1985, pp. 36. 50 When consulting group McKinsey asked executives in February 2009 where the government should direct the majority of its stimulus spending, 59 percent of respondents said on "fostering innovation and potential new industries," putting it in the top spot, even before potential solutions such as "helping workers who have been laid off" or "helping existing companies." 51 Judy Estrin, “Closing the Innovation Gap: Reigniting the Spark of Creativity in a Global Economy”, pp 154.

115


Sustainability as a Catalyst for Innovation Sustainability is a market-shifting force that is driving innovation across a wide range of technologies and

sectors. In the 1983, the Brundtland Commission (World Commission on Environment and Development) defined

“sustainability” as any activity that meets current needs without threatening the capacity of future generations to meet

their own needs. Virtually no part of the Michigan business sector will be unaffected by the sustainability movement.

A recent study titled, “2009 Greening of Corporate America” conducted by the Building Technology Division of

Siemens Industry, Inc., and McGraw-Hill Construction, found that businesses adopting sustainability practices are

better positioned to attract talent than other firms. For example, Beta Gamma Sigma is the international honor society

serving business programs accredited by AACSB International - The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of

Business. In 2009, BGS conducted a survey of their junior-level inductees to gauge their opinions on sustainability,

corporate social responsibility (CSR) and ethical business behavior. 62 percent of the respondents indicated that they

would “consider accepting a position with significantly lower salary in order to work for a company that practices good

CSR and ethical business.”52

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development, for example, has developed a series of Sustainability

Indicators that are now widely used by the business, investment and development community. In Michigan, six

Sustainable Business Forums 53 have also formed across the state to help nurture the adoption of sustainability

principles and practices by local industry (one of which is the Saginaw Sustainable Business Partnership – a

Financial Sponsor of the Entrepreneurship Score Card).

To its credit, Michigan is currently expending considerable resources to improve its standing among all other

states in this arena, especially in the area of alternative energy sources. The Michigan Economic Development

Corporation is working to align scientists, universities, policy makers, industry players, the natural resource

management community and engineering talent around the goal of “creating the next generation of power provision

for businesses, consumers and vehicles through alternative energy.” According to their Alternative Energy website,54

The MEDC is also looking at creative incentive packages custom tailored to create the right environment and bring together the right players to advance the way the world is powered. Michigan is focusing on the development of state and nationwide markets for such alternative energy sources as:

• Bioenergy • Wind Generation - Wind Energy • Advanced Energy Storage - Advanced Batteries • Solar Cells - Solar Energy • Hydro-Electricity

Funding for Innovation Three federal research programs - Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR), Small Business Technology

Transfer (STTR) and the U.S. Department of Energy, Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) - are

ideally suited to serve as a platform for inter-organizational collaborations centered on Michigan’s innovative

entrepreneurs. These programs provide million-dollar level grants to innovative entrepreneurial businesses for the

52 Beta Gamma Sigma International, More than a Paycheck, BGS Member Survey, Volume 9, No. 1, Spring 2010, pp 11. 53 Northwest Michigan Sustainable Business Forum, the West Michigan Sustainable Business Forum, the Southwest Michigan Sustainable Business Forum, the Central Michigan Sustainable Business Forum, the Saginaw Bay Sustainable Business Partnership, and the Southeast Michigan Sustainable Business Forum. For more information on Michigan’s Sustainable Business Forums, please see: http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3585_30068_48393-184217--,00.html 54 See: http://www.michiganadvantage.org/Targeted-Initiatives/Alternative-Energy/Default.aspx

116


research of new – commercially meritorious technological innovations.55 Given the importance of SBIR/STTR to high

performance firm formation and growth it is important to note that while Michigan ranks 19th in the nation for university

spinouts, it also ranks 36th in the nation on the High Performance Firms metric.

While once recognized as having the best SBIR Support Program in the nation for fostering the

commercialization of successful SBIR R&D results,56 on the basis of the number of awards over 3 years relative to

the number of firms with less than 500 employees firms. Michigan now ranks 20 in the nation for STTR awards and

22 in the nation for SBIR awards. Based on commercialization criteria established by the National Science

Foundation SBIR/STTR Advisory Council (AdCom), Michigan continues to struggle with how best to encourage

SBIR/STTR grants that have scientific, technical and, most importantly, commercial merit.57

It is vitally important to recognize that commercially meritorious research occurs when a scientifically and

technically meritorious research question is explicitly structured to generate an outcome that meets the commercial

requirements, specifications and cost parameters of the commercializing member(s) of an inter-organizational

research team. Most importantly, firms that demonstrate the commercial merit of their research proposals - with

Third-Party Commercialization Match Funding - not only receive priority of funding in the SBIR/STTR and related

programs, but also have a higher incidence of commercialization of the successful research results. Again, it is the

commercialization that results in the conversion of tax-payer funded knowledge back into money (and related

economic recovery, diversification and development).

As the Score Card Data indicates, the incidence of SBIR/STTR and related grant awards correlates well with

entrepreneurial dynamism. Indeed, many state economic development programs successfully encourage and

incentivize commercially-meritorious SBIR/STTR projects as a way to accelerate innovative entrepreneurship and

related economic development. Conversely, state funded SBIR Support Programs that encourage non-commercially

meritorious SBIR/STTR grants tend to enable what is commonly referred to as “SBIR Junkies” (i.e., firms that live off

of multiple R&D grants rather than income from the sale of their commercially-viable research results). While these

states may see a higher incidence of SBIR/STTR grant awards in their states, the conversion of the tax-payer funded

research back into money is low.

For Michigan, commercial merit is especially important in that the funding priorities of the Michigan 21st Century

Jobs Fund program . Moreover, the programs funding priorities closely match the SBIR/STTR funding topics of key

funding agencies that actively encourage commercialization of successful R&D results (e.g., National Science

Foundation and the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy and Defense). In addition, several SBIR

funding programs offer R&D grant topics in areas that relate to entrepreneurship education. Finally, the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services offer grants in subject areas that have high commercial potential for

Michigan (e.g., medical informatics and medical devices).

55 Several of Michigan’s leading innovative entrepreneurial firms (e.g., T/JTechnologies/A123 Systems, PicoMetrix, etc.) extensively and effectively utilized the SBIR/STTR and related programs to both seed and accelerate their commercial success and growth. 56 Michigan was awarded a prestigious Tibbetts Award in 1989 for the Michigan Winners Conference that focused specifically on SBIR commercialization. In making this award, Roland Tibbets referred to the Michigan SBIR Support Winners Program as a “model for the entire nation” and one of ”the most important events in the history of the SBIR program.” The Michigan Winners Program was also recognized with an Award for this effort by the Michigan Small Business Development Center Network. Several leading Michigan entrepreneurs – including but not limited to T/J Technologies (A123 Systems) and PicoMetrix - note that the Winners Program was instrumental in helping them to commercialize their tax-payer funded research. 57 SBIR Financing - Sources: U.S. Small Business Administration. Retrieved from: http://www.sba.gov/SBIR/indexsbir-sttr.html#sbirstats and http://tech-net.sba.gov/tech-net/public/dsp_search.cfm?URLTokenSuppressed=Yes; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Regional Economic Accounts, Gross Domestic Product.” Retrieved from: http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp; STTR Financing - Sources: U.S. Small Business Administration. Retrieved from: http://www.sba.gov/SBIR/indexsbir-sttr.html#sbirstats and http://tech-net.sba.gov/tech-net/public/dsp_search.cfm?URLTokenSuppressed=Yes. SBIR Funding Rate, Source: SSTI Weekly Digest. Retrieved from: http://www.ssti.org/Digest/digest.htm.

117


ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION In February, 1947 Myles Mace taught the first entrepreneurship course in the United States. Held at Harvard's

Business School, records and personal accounts indicate that the course drew 188 of 600 second-year MBA

students.58 From that first class in 1947, an American infrastructure has emerged consisting of more than 2200

courses at over 1600 schools, 277 endowed positions, 44 English-language refereed academic journals and over 100

centers. In 1994, more than 120,000 American students were taking entrepreneurship or small business courses and

at the start of the new millennium that number is expected to increase by 50%. According to Jerome A Katz in his well

researched work titled, The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education: 1876–

1999, the distinctive approach of American business schools' to entrepreneurship education has enjoyed for more

than 50 years of growth, with “accelerated growth in the 1990s when courses, endowed positions, centers and

publications began doubling every 3–5 years.”59 Given this robust history, it is assumed that entrepreneur education also has great potential to serve as a robust

instrument for innovative entrepreneurship in Michigan as well. Towards that end, a 2008 University Research

Corridor report titled, The Role of Engaged Universities in Economic Development, included a number of findings and

recommendations regarding increased efforts to “expand educational and experiential programs and life-long learning

initiatives, including those concerning entrepreneurialism” and to make “college students and workers in transitional

situations aware” of entrepreneurial programs.60

Research indicates that the best university entrepreneurship programs tend to have both an academic and

experiential component. Michigan’s robust history of entrepreneurship, core industrial strengths (i.e., life sciences,

advanced manufacturing, alternative energy and emerging green/clean industries) and the 21st Century Jobs Fund

related investments provide an excellent resource for the creation of world-class entrepreneurship education in the

state that effectively combines experiential and academic components of entrepreneurship education. Such

programs would also be well positioned to leverage their assets by linking to high quality entrepreneurial education

resources such as the U.S. Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship (USASBE), 61 National Association

for Community College Entrepreneurship (NACCE)62, and Kauffman Campuses Initiative.63

Syracuse University entrepreneurship professor Michael Morris writes, “Entrepreneurship is the most

empowering, the most democratic, the most freedom-creating phenomenon in the history of the human race.”

William Scott Green, part of the Kauffman Campuses Initiative promoting the teaching of entrepreneurship, agrees

with Morris that colleges and universities should make “every student an entrepreneur.” Within this context, Michigan

generally ranks high in education and workforce training and preparedness, but still has only one entrepreneurial

program or curriculum among the top 50 programs in the US. Though an improvement from previous years, its

neighbors Illinois, Ohio and Wisconsin have a wider range of programs available. As previous reports from the

Michigan Entrepreneurship Education Network (MEEN) indicated, Michigan universities and colleges were well on

their way to incorporating accredited entrepreneurship education into their degree offerings.

58 Katz, Jerome.A., Growth of endowments, chairs, and programs in entrepreneurship on the college campus. In: Hoy, F., Monroy, T.G. and Reichert, J., Editors, 1994. The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship Education vol. 1, Baldwin-Wallace College, Cleveland, 1994. 59 Katz, Jerome A., The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education: 1876–1999, ESBRI and Department of Management, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO 63108, USA, 2002. 60 University Research Corridor, “The Role of Engaged Universities in Economic Development,” Final Report of the October 15-17, 2007 Conference, April 4 2008. 61 http://www.usasbe.org/ 62 http://www.nacce.com/ 63 See: www.kauffman.org., Kauffman Campuses Initiative.

118


Of late, however, entrepreneur education in Michigan has been hard hit by declining financial support for higher

education in Michigan. As illustrated in the recent Illinois State University’s “Grapevine Project” report,64 state funding

for higher education in Michigan is declining dramatically in relation to other states. According to this report, Michigan

is last in increases in higher education appropriations for the last five years combined. State budget data, Bureau of

Labor Standards Statistics also shows a reduction in per student spending in the state since 2001. Simply put,

entrepreneur education competes against other accredited and more institutionalized programs for scarce resources

and influence within their host institutions.

Even with the loss of financial support and leadership at the state level, several organizations, foundations,

colleges and universities, as well as several high school programs, have continued to support accredited

entrepreneurial education in the state. While tepid support for entrepreneurship by the Michigan Council of

Foundations has waned even further of late, some foundations have chosen to embrace the transformational power

of entrepreneurship. The Edward Lowe Foundation, for example, continues to demonstrate exceptional leadership

and support for entrepreneurship – particularly Second Stage Entrepreneurship and Economic Gardening – as a

preferred economic development strategy.

INGITE: Snapshot of K-12 Entrepreneurial Education in Michigan

IGNITE: Sparking Tomorrow’s Entrepreneur’s Today (IGNITE) is an action team that was launched to develop

programs to educate K-12 students in entrepreneurship. IGNITE’s goal is to change the culture in Michigan to one

that is supportive of entrepreneurial careers, targeting the generation that needs to consider entrepreneurship as a

key career opportunity. IGNITE celebrates National Entrepreneurship Week by hosting youth business plan

competitions where all Michigan middle and high school students can enter their innovative service or product

business ideas for a chance to win cash, prizes, support in launching their business, and recognition.

In collaboration with Prima Civitas, the Score Card polled the IGNITE team for information on K-12

entrepreneurship education. The result of this research is summarized below:

• How budget cuts are/are not affecting K-12 entrepreneurship education?

o Schools do not have the money to pay for professional development for teachers, travel and conferences have been cut. Many schools are eliminating electives where entrepreneurship is frequently taught.

o Some schools will recognize entrepreneurship education curriculum if it crosswalks significantly with core subjects. Programs that do crosswalk have remained more secure.

o Some schools are offering entrepreneurship education as an after school (or anytime) as an E Club. Educators/volunteers, etc. have written small grants to receive compensation.

o As in any subject, the value that a school's administration places on a program has a great impact on which programs get cut.

• How are educators able to keep the entrepreneurial momentum going despite budget setbacks? o Educators that are offering entrepreneurship education as a project driven curriculum are keeping the classes going. The

more crosswalks, credits (English, Math, etc.), etc., the more chance it will be kept. After school programs are working in many areas.

o Educators have to keep their administration informed about the value of entrepreneurship education and let them see the accomplishments of the students. As our economy worsens the need for entrepreneurship increases.

o Incorporate entrepreneurship across a variety of subject areas so that when one key teacher leaves or changes jobs, the momentum is not lost as entrepreneurship education becomes part of the culture.

• Are there positive, robust examples of entrepreneurship? o With regard to programs or curricula, there are many and they differ in their experiential learning components. Project

based programs will succeed the best in a tough economy because they are more likely to survive the cuts. o 4-H has a great program that offers all youth entrepreneurship education. There programs are offered after school but

student involvement is increasing.

64 See: Illinois State University, “Grapevine Project.” http://www.grapevine.ilstu.edu/

119


o Generation E offers middle, high school and an advanced virtual on-line class. All the curricula align with national content standards and benchmarks, provide .5 English credits and .5 student credit recovery.

• Any definitive evidence about the impact of these programs on entrepreneurship education? o There are many examples of young people who continue with their business ventures after taking the courses. o The IGNITE team held a youth business plan competition last year in which 8 winners were given seed money to help

launch businesses or develop ideas.65 • Where should attention be focused on entrepreneurship education?

o Attention should be placed on working with youth to explore ideas, talents and abilities and expanding those through business development to actually starting and running their business venture. That way they get the complete experience, not a simulation. (Experiential learning.)

o Help teachers understand how to incorporate entrepreneurship into their lesson plans, so they see it as part of what they already do, not something "extra."

o Programs and successful entrepreneurial activities for the K-5 grades need to be developed and made available for educators. Currently, such activities for the younger grades are not easily found or tested in Michigan education systems.

Entrepreneurial Approaches to Entrepreneur Education

Michigan has several excellent examples of entrepreneurial approaches to entrepreneur education. Experiential

education is being piloted and practiced by several programs in the state. 66 Some Charter Schools and Academies

are also offering entrepreneurship programs, increasingly in collaborating with universities that have both

entrepreneur and K-12 teacher education programs.

In another area, under a U.S. Department of Labor WIRED grant, 60 individuals were trained in a new

entrepreneurship awareness curriculum for 30 K-12 school districts that was subsequently piloted in the state. In

support of K-12 entrepreneurship, the Lansing-based Prima Civitas also has received a $200,000 grant from the Mott

Foundation, in part to fund an “EnGen” project that works toward creating entrepreneurial education and related

opportunities for college and high school students.

Since 1987, the Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship (NFTE) has reached more than 280,000 young people,

and currently has programs in 21 states and 12 countries. NFTE primarily helps young people from low-income

communities build skills and unlock their entrepreneurial creativity. The program has more than 1,500 active Certified

Entrepreneurship Teachers, and is continually improving its innovative entrepreneurship curriculum. Saginaw Valley

State University - a university that houses a nationally accredited entrepreneurship minor and K-12 education

program - is working closely with the Saginaw Business and Education Partnership to launch a NFTE program in

Michigan.67

Finally, the Dow Corning Foundation68 – historically a strong supporter of increasing access to math, science &

technology education - has also been working with leading educators, community and economic development

representatives over the past year on a new initiative to encourage development of a K-12 alternative-energy centric

65 Testimony of three of the IGNITE winners are on PCF's website at http://www.primacivitas.org/initiatives/moving-ideas-to-market/ignite-sparking-tomorrows-entrepreneurs-today/competition/. 66 For example: A Philip Randolph Career and Technical Center, The Ultimate Boutique (Detroit); Bay Arenac ISD Career Center, Entrepreneurship Academy (Bay City - http://www.baisd.net); BizE Youth Business Education (Burton); Branch Area Careers Center, Marketing, Management & Entrepreneurship (Coldwater); Detroit Public Schools, Entrepreneurship 2000 (Detroit); GASC Technology Center, Entrepreneurship - Vocational Style (Flint - www.calhounisd.org); Generation E Institute (Battle Creek www.genei.org); Girl Scouts, Fair Winds Council, Entrepreneurial education and financial literacy for girls in K–12 grades (Swartz Creek); Ishpeming High School, REAL Entrepreneur (Ishpeming); Michigan Tech University, Michigan REAL Enterprises (Houghton http://www.sbea.mtu.edu/sbe/REAL/index.html); SouthField-Lathrup Senior High School, Kauffman Entrepreneurship - Marketing program for high school students (Southfield); and, Western International High School, Technology and Entrepreneurship (Detroit) 67 http://www.nfte.com/. A November 2009 documentary – “Ten9Eight” – tracked a dozen students in a NFTE Business Plan competition. 68 As a technology-based company, Dow Corning depends on the disciplines in the sciences and mathematics for its very existence. According to the Foundation, “the rate at which knowledge in these areas grows is increasing, and the complex problems in our world today demand solutions that require deeper understanding of scientific and mathematical principles. Dow Corning is, therefore, focusing its giving in science and mathematics education at the pre-university level.” See: http://www.dowcorning.com/content/about/aboutcomm/aboutcomm_focusforgiving2.asp?DCWS=About%20Dow%20Corning&DCWSS=Community

120


math and science curriculum that will emphasize solar energy and entrepreneurship. Dow Corning’s outstanding

leadership in this area is particularly important as an educated and entrepreneurial workforce is essential to

Michigan’s ability to effectively capitalize on alternative energy as a catalyst for robust economic recovery,

diversification and development in the state.69

University-Level Entrepreneurship

Beyond high school, several universities and colleges in Michigan continue to demonstrate exceptional

leadership in fostering accredited entrepreneurship education in the state, including:

• Central Michigan University,LaBelle Entrepreneurial Center.70 • Kettering University71 • Lawrence Technological University Lear Entrepreneurial Center (LEC) 72 • Michigan Technological University, Center for Technology, Innovation, Leadership and Entrepreneurship (CenTILE)73 • Northwood University74, and, • Saginaw Valley State University, College of Business & Management Continuing Education Programs75

A number of Community Colleges also offer a specialization in entrepreneurship.76 Finally two important

initiatives are under way that have the potential to strengthen the link between K-12 and university entrepreneurship

by helping students pay for their college education:

• E-Promise - To further enhance the K-12 – University Entrepreneurship Education link, a number of leading entrepreneurs

have joined with entrepreneur educators in the state in an effort to launch a new “E-Promise” (Entrepreneurship Promise) scholarship program, funded by leading successful entrepreneurs in the state. This program would provide scholarships to students that enroll in an accredited entrepreneurship program (Minor or Major) at a Michigan university or college. Students participating in K-12 level entrepreneurship programs would receive priority under this proposed E-Promise program.

• Promise Zones - Created by legislation signed into law by Governor Jennifer Granholm in early 2009, Promise Zones serve as a catalyst for economic development and to support local efforts to promise a college education for all students who reside within the boundaries of the school district. There are 10 school districts that have been named Promise Zones by the Michigan Department of Treasury, located in communities that meet or exceed the state’s average poverty level for families with children under the age of 18.77

69 See: Kimberly Houston-Philpot, Global Community Relations/Public Affairs, Dow Corning Corporation, 2200 W. Salzburg Road, Midland, Mi. 48686, (989) 496-5883. 70 See; Dr. Charles R. Burke, Director, Partnership for a Competitive Advantage, CMU College of Business Administration, CMU Labelle Entrepreneurial Center, Mount Pleasant, MI 48859, (989) 774-2360. 71 Kettering University Innovation and Entrepreneurship - http://www.kettering.edu/futurestudents/undergraduate/innovationminor.jsp 72 http://www.ltu.edu/engineering/mechanical/engineering_mechanical_learcertificate.asp 73 MTI CenTILE - http://www.centile.mtu.edu/ 74 http://www.northwood.edu/mi/academics/entrepreneurshipmanagementbba/ 75 See: SVSU College of Business and Management, Entrepreneurship Minor: http://www.svsu.edu/acadprog/departments/entrepreneurship.html. 76 Delta Community College (University Center), for example, offers such a specialization under their business degree. In their description of the program, Delta notes, “in today’s economy, one of the most exciting opportunities for building personal wealth and career fulfillment is in the area of entrepreneurship.” See: Delta Community College, http://delta.edu/internal/promotions.aspx?itemid=12397. 77 Promise Zone designations have been awarded to Baldwin Community Schools, Battle Creek Public Schools, Benton Harbor Area Schools, the Detroit Public Schools, Hazel Park Public Schools, Jackson Public Schools, Lansing Public Schools, the Muskegon Area Intermediate School District, Pontiac Public Schools and Saginaw School District.

121


Appendix I

Profiles of 2009-2010 Score Card Partners

Financial Financial PartnersPartners

Automation Alley, 2675 Bellingham, Troy, MI 48083 - Automation Alley ® is at the forefront of Michigan’s move into Advanced Manufacturing, driving the growth and image of Southeast Michigan’s economy through a collaborative culture that focuses on workforce and business development initiatives. Since its founding in 1999, Automation Alley has expanded to include more than 800 businesses, educational institutions and government entities, covering an eight county area and the City of Detroit. Automation Alley promotes regional prosperity through business attraction services, exporting assistance, workforce development and technology acceleration. Automation Alley has also brought more than $120 million in international business to Southeast Michigan. With the support of Automation Alley, Southeast Michigan has become a technology giant – boasting 184 research and development centers, 330,000 technology workers, more than 50,000 engineers and 4,000 scientists. A particularly important aspect of Automation Alley is its inclusion of “intrapreneurship” in their program thrust. As Michigan endures the pains felt by the struggling automotive industry, Automation Alley is helping businesses apply their solid technology expertise in new markets. Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, 524 S Main St # 200, Ann Arbor, Michigan - Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione was founded in 1917 as the two-man patent law firm of Wilkinson & Huxley. Today Brinks has approximately 150 attorneys, supported by a full complement of scientific advisors, patent agents and paralegals. The Brinks headquarters are atop Chicago's preeminent NBC Tower, with offices in Ann Arbor and other communities. As one of the largest firms in its specialty, Brinks is at the cutting edge of intellectual property law. The company litigates, counsels and prosecutes in patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, unfair competition, Internet and related areas of law. The firm routinely handles assignments in fields as diverse as electrical, chemical, mechanical, biotechnology, pharmaceutical, nanotechnology and computer technology, as well as in trademarks or brand names for a wide variety of products and services. Brinks also takes civic pride in providing pro bono legal services to those unable to pay in matters involving eviction, immigration, asylum and criminal matters, as well as non-profits in their intellectual property law matters. Steven L. Oberholtzer leads the entrepreneurship efforts of the firm in Michigan and was listed as one of the Best Lawyers in America, 2007, 2008.

Central Michigan University, LaBelle Entrepreneur Center, Central Michigan University, ABSC 170, Mount Pleasant, MI 48859 - Central Michigan University was the first school in Michigan to join the distinguished group of universities and colleges across the U.S. to offer entrepreneur degrees. CMU’s program has been recognized in Entrepreneur Magazine’s annual “Top 100 Entrepreneurial Colleges” rankings, and has established a standard for excellence for all programs in the state. Currently, through its LaBelle Entrepreneurial Center, CMU has over 750 graduates and over 400 students enrolled in its program. CMU is launching an On-Line/Distance Learning component of its program and will soon offer Masters Degree’s in the program. In addition, the program has formed a number of robust 2+2 Articulation Agreements with other colleges and universities across the state.

DTE Energy Company, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226-1279 - DTE Energy Co. (NYSE: DTE) is a diversified energy company involved in the development and management of energy-related businesses and services nationwide. DTE’s largest operating subsidiaries are Detroit Edison and MichCon. Together, these regulated utility companies provide electric and/or gas services to more than three million residential, business and industrial customers throughout Michigan. DTE’s electric and gas utility businesses have each been in operation for over a century. They have leveraged that wealth of experience and assets to develop a number of non-utility subsidiaries which provide energy-related services to business and industry nationwide. DTE Energy strongly supports the robust creation of innovative green entrepreneurs in Michigan with two key programs: (a) SolarCurrentsTM; and (b) GreenCurrentsSM. -

Dow Corning Foundation (c/o Dow Corning Corporation), 2200 W. Salzburg Road, Midland, MI 48686 - Kimberly Houston-Philpot, Global Community Relations/Public Affairs, expertly directs the Dow Corning Foundation. The Dow Corning Foundation historically a strong supporter of increasing access to math, science & technology education - has also been working with leading educators, community and economic development representatives over the past year on a new initiative to encourage development of a K-12 alternative-energy centric math and science curriculum that will emphasize solar energy and entrepreneurship. Dow Corning’s outstanding leadership in this area is particularly important as an educated and entrepreneurial workforce is essential to Michigan’s ability to effectively capitalize on alternative energy as a catalyst for robust economic recovery, diversification and development in the state. Dow Corning also operates a Solar Solutions Center that enables the robust creation, retention, expansion and attraction of solar photovoltaic-related businesses in the Great Lakes Bay Region. This center is an important component of a broad interest in sustainability, alternative energy and related market opportunities.

122


Great Lakes Bay Regional Alliance, 8600 Garfield Road, Suite 207, Freeland, MI 48623 - Vision Tri-County was an organization formed by the three Chambers of Commerce and the three Economic Development Programs from Bay, Midland and Saginaw Counties, designed to foster regional collaboration. Vision Tri-County evolved into the Great Lakes Bay Regional Alliance which has assumed a strong leadership role in crafting an effective regional presence. The vision for the Great Lakes Bay Regional Alliance is to create a vibrant expanded region that broadly supports business diversification and new industry development in the region, provides a fertile environment to capitalize on the insight and vision of the corporate community and, finally, where there is more recreational excitement, more coordinated culture, diverse educational opportunities an accelerated quality of life at all levels, safe neighborhoods outstanding quality health care and a coordinated legislative agenda.

Michigan Municipal League, 1675 Green Road, Ann Arbor MI, 48105 - The Michigan Municipal League is a clear voice for Michigan communities. Through advocacy at the state and federal level, MML proactively represents municipalities to help them sustain highly livable, desirable, and unique places within the state. MML creates and offers their members services and events that range from traditional to cutting edge, in order to help educate and inspire them to remain focused on their passion for the area they represent. Their mission is that of a non-profit acting with the fervor of entrepreneurs to passionately push change for better communities and a better Michigan. MML strongly supports entrepreneurship as a community and economic development strategy for local communities.

Michigan State Housing Development Authority, 735 E. Michigan Ave, Lansing, Michigan 48909 - The Michigan State Housing Development Authority, established in 1966, provides financial and technical assistance through public and private partnerships to create and preserve safe and decent affordable housing, engage in community economic development activities, develop vibrant cities, towns and villages, and address homeless issues. MSHDA's loans and operating expenses are financed through the sale of tax-exempt and taxable bonds and notes to private investors, not from state tax revenues. Proceeds of the bonds and notes are loaned at below-market interest rates to developers of rental housing, and also fund home mortgages and home improvement loans. MSHDA also administers various federal housing programs. MSHDA, in collaboration with the Michigan Municipal League, has established a Sense of Place Council that, among other initiatives, supports robust entrepreneurship as a community development strategy. Joseph B. Borgstrom, Director, Community Assistance Team, MSHDA, is a member of the Score Card Board of Technical Advisors.

Saginaw Bay Sustainable Business Partnership, 310 Curtiss Hall, 7400 Bay Road, University Center, MI 48710-0001 - In 1983, the Brundtland Commission (World Commission on Environment and Development) identified the concept of “sustainability” as any activity that meets current needs without threatening the capacity of future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainability has become such a robust driver of business development that six Sustainable Business Forum’s formed across the state to help nurture the adoption of sustainability principles and practices by local industry, one of which is the Saginaw Bay Sustainable Business Partnership. The Saginaw Sustainability Business Forum focuses its resources primarily in support of alternative energy diversification, global business and sustainability as a competitive advantage. Dr. George Puia, Ph.D., Dow Chemical Company Centennial Chair in Global Business, College of Business and Management, Saginaw Valley State University, is a member of the Score Card Board of Technical Advisors. SBSBP sponsored the Score Card by purchasing multiple copies of the Score Cards and related training.

Saginaw Valley State University, Center for Business and Economic Development (CBED), 142 Curtiss Hall, 7400 Bay Road, University Center, MI 48710-0001 - Saginaw Valley State University’s Center for Business and Economic Development works to enhance the economic vitality of the Saginaw Valley, providing quality resources, programs and people. SVSU CBED accomplishes this using unique and innovative methods to provide technical support for existing businesses; personal and professional development opportunities; programs and services for the manufacturing sector; and commercialization of ideas and inventions whether at the University or business start-ups across the region. SVSU CBED manages the U.S. Department of Labor “Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development” (WIRED) program. WIRED focuses on increasing economic development opportunities through entrepreneurship. Dr. George Puia, Ph.D., Dow Chemical Company Centennial Chair in Global Business, College of Business and Management, Saginaw Valley State University, is a member of the Score Card Board of Technical Advisors. SVSU sponsored the Score Card by purchasing multiple copies of the Score Cards and related training.

Small Business Association and Foundation of Michigan, 1000 Washington Square, Suite 1000, Lansing, MI 48933 - The Small Business Association of Michigan (SBAM) is a Michigan-based industry association that focuses the buying power, political power and shared resources of thousands of small business members. The Small Business Foundation of Michigan (SBFM) was formed in 1999 by the previous Chairperson of SBAM and and is operated in connection with SBAM. SBFM’s mission is to foster an Entrepreneurial Economy in Michigan. SBFM is an operating foundation that raises funds from grants, fees and donations and expends funds on foundation directed projects aimed at stimulating robust entrepreneur change, vibrancy and culture. SBFM is the founder and manager of the Annual Michigan Entrepreneurship Score Card project. The Score Card was seeded with funding from MERRA and SBAM and is graciously underwritten, on an annual basis, with grants and donations from leading organizations and individuals who share the vision of community and economic recovery, diversification and development in Michigan from the robust creation, retention, expansion and attraction of entrepreneurs who effectively combine intent and capacity for growth and impact with the research, develop and commercialization of innovation.

123


Collaborating Partners

Crain's Detroit Business, 1155 Gratiot Ave., Detroit, MI 48207 - Crain's Detroit Business is metro Detroit's leading business publication. First published in 1985, Crain's Detroit Business is the only local weekly business publication providing late-breaking news covering industries such as manufacturing, technology, real estate, health care and financial services. Published weekly for upper-level executives and business owners, it includes award winning coverage, industry rankings and "who's who" listings. Crain’s Detroit Business underwrites the Score Card Roll Out each year by hosting the event.

Edward Lowe Foundation, 58220 Decatur Road, P.O. Box 8, Cassopolis, Michigan 49031-0008 - The Edward Lowe Foundation champions entrepreneurial spirit by providing information, research and educational experiences that support entrepreneurship and the free enterprise system, consistent with the intentions of their founders, Edward and Darlene Lowe. The foundation actively embraces and encourages entrepreneurship as the source and strategy for economic growth, community development and economically independent individuals, demonstrating exceptional leadership and support for entrepreneurship – particularly 2nd Stage Entrepreneurship and Economic Gardening. Their “Youreconomy.org” (http://youreconomy.org/) initiative is a free interactive resource center that allows users to explore and assess economic activity in their own communities — and across the country. YourEconomy provides detailed information about the performance of businesses from a national to a local perspective and is an essential tool for local programs aimed at fostering the creation, retention and expansion of entrepreneurs that effectively combine innovation with intent and capacity for growth.

Shephard Advisors, LLC, 3820 Packard Road, #250, Ann Arbor, MI, 48108 - Initiated in 2000, Shepherd Advisors is a specialty management consulting firm whose mission is to "foster economic wealth and planetary health through the robust commercialization and deployment of clean technologies." Shepherd works with both private business and public sector clients. Clients include numerous startups, small and medium sized companies, economic development agencies, state government, and the Federal Government. In order to enhance opportunities for near-term wins that build long-term success across a range of Clean Tech Markets, Shepherd integrates a rare combination of: Proven strategic & tactical business management practices; Clean Tech market knowledge that is both solid and broad; Extensive entrepreneurial and executive management experience; and, Strong relationships with governments, NGO's, and academia.

124


Appendix II

About the Authors

Mark H. Clevey, MPA, Co-Author, Michigan Entrepreneurship Score Card - Mark is an entrepreneur, public policy advocate, educator and specialist in cutting-edge entrepreneurial business and related community and economic development. He currently serves as the Director, Entrepreneurship and Commercialization Center for Business and Economic Development (CBED) and Director of Special Projects, College of Business and Management, Saginaw Valley State University. He is also an Adjunct Professor of Entrepreneurship with SVSU College of Business and Management and Central Michigan University, Labelle Entrepreneur Center. Prior to this position, Mark served as the Executive Director, Small Business Foundation of Michigan (SBFM) and Vice President for Entrepreneurship, Small Business Association of Michigan where he directed a series of initiatives designed to foster an innovative and entrepreneurial economy in Michigan. Mark is a veteran of the U.S. Air Force and a Western Michigan University Honors College Graduate where he received two academic scholarships. He holds a Masters Degree in Public Administration (MPA), with emphasis in new industry development and public-private partnerships. He also holds an Advanced Business Counselor Certification from the Michigan Small Business Development Center Network (MI-SBDC) and an Economic Gardening Professional Practitioner Certification from the Edward Lowe Foundation. Mark has over 35 years of successful experience in both the public, private and educational sectors and is a nationally recognized and award-winning specialist in entrepreneurship, with particular expertise in Alternative Energy and Clean Technology. In 1989, as the MERRA Vice President and Director of the Michigan SBIR Support Program, Mark gained national recognition for the Michigan “Winners Program” (first program in the nation to focus on robust commercialization of federal SBIR grants as an innovative economic development strategy). While granting Mark a “Tibbett’s Award” for this effort, Roland Tibbett’s, National Science Foundation SBIR Program Manager, referred to the “Winners” program as a “model for the entire nation” and “one of the most important events in the entire history of the SBIR program.” In addition to the Tibbett’s Award, Mark has received a number of state and national awards for his work, In recognition of his expertise, Mark serves as a Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR) Phase II Commercialization Plan Reviewer for a number of important federal agencies that provide R&D funding for technologies directly related to the Michigan economy (i.e., National Science Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department’s of Agriculture and Energy). He has also served as a Business Plan Reviewer for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Advanced Technology Program (ATP). Finally, he is also a member of the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, Emerging Technology Fund (ETF) Advisory Board and a member of the prestigious National Science Foundation SBIR/STTR Advisory Committee (AdCom) and their Commercialization Assistance Program (CAP) Subcommittee.

Dr. Graham Toft, Co-Author, Michigan Entrepreneurship Score Card (Technical Consultant, Analysis and Support) – Graham Toft is founder and president of GrowthEconomics, of Sarasota, Florida, and Indianapolis Indiana, focused on the growth dynamics of states and regions. The firm seeks to understand how good pay jobs grow, growth companies multiply, and self-reliant families prosper in today’s super–charged, disruptive economy. He likes to describe this fast-paced, open, green-conscious, global economy, as the ‘flex-economy’. He spends much of his time with business and government leaders striving to grow their economies through entrepreneurship, innovation development, and pro-growth strategies. GrowthEconomics has a bias toward the measurement and monitoring of competitive position as a means to grab attention and focus on actionable strategies. To that end, Graham prepares annual state Competitiveness ScoreCards for several state Chambers of Commerce. In these circles, he has become known as ‘Dr. Benchmark’. Also, annually GrowthEconomics prepares the Michigan Entrepreneurship Score Card in collaboration with the Small Business Foundation of Michigan. Other specialty benchmarking reports include a Technology Index on Indiana and Kansas. Graham has strong Midwest ties and familiarity, including service as President of the Indiana Economic Development Council for 13 years from 1989 to 2002. Along with team member, Dr. Nadine Jeserich, resident in Ireland, he draws on state-of-the-art methods from both the U.S. and Europe. GrowthEconomics has taken care to build a comprehensive set of over 200 metrics measuring all 50 U.S. states over the past seven years. These files are routinely updated and revised when back data become available. This ‘live’ dataset now makes it possible for the GrowthEconomics team to undertake sophisticated statistical analyses to determine ‘Key Indicators to Watch’ and ‘Super –Drivers’ which prove to be highly correlated with state economic growth. GrowthEconomics is now in the process of developing causal models for use in growth planning and policy development. Empirical work of this type will transform the practice of economic development over the next 10 years, offering decision-makers and practitioners greater confidence that the actions they take will have higher probabilities of success. The GrowthEconomics team works out of Florida, Indiana and Ireland.

125


Appendix III

Score and Metric Calculation Introduction

Methodology design for this Score Card has been motivated by pursuit of the following objectives: 1) Develop a methodology that is well reasoned, taking advantage of state of the art in benchmark scoring, both in the U.S. and

abroad. 2) Use the most recent data checked for credibility and reliability. 3) Explain the methods and post the data in such away as to make the calculation process transparent and replicable. 4) Encourage further examination of the topic of state entrepreneurship using complementary methodologies, and compare results. 5) Where comparisons are possible, check the findings of this Score Card with other state competitiveness benchmarking reports,

learning from similarities and differences. General

The foundation of good state benchmarking is the selection and qualification of sound metrics, indicators that provide comparable measures for all states on an annual or biennial basis. This approach requires valid, reliable data sources that are either public or proprietary, including the creative exploration of data not previously used for this kind of application. The Score Card makes use of these multiple sources to obtain specific measures for 129 metrics. Where possible the data is obtained for the past 8 years. Where data is not yet available for 2008, data from 2007 or 2006 is used. There were 90 metrics with 2008 data, 30 with 2007 data and just 9 with 2006 data. All data is the most current available as of January 8th, 2010. As new data becomes available, the measures for previous years are revised. In this way, the Score Card annually provides the most up to date data set for both current and previous years. If a new metric is added, measures are obtained for all back years available to 2000. The sections that follow explain in greater detail how metrics are obtained and aggregated and how the 5-star performance rating is derived. Metric Calculation

In order to compare metrics with different units of measurement such as dollars or number of residents, the data for the Score Card has to be normalized. Many popular benchmarking reports use a z-score or standardized score, which is the raw value of the metric minus the mean of all the raw values, divided by the standard deviation of the values. The resulting z-scores have a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one, or what is called a standard normal distribution, and allow an easy comparison across metrics. A major drawback of this method is that it imposes a normal distribution on all metrics, many of which might actually be skewed to the left or the right, e.g. a few states might score very well, followed by a cluster near the mid point, with the rest gradually declining in a long tail. Forcing scores into a normal distribution can introduce substantial biases. The z-score method also gives significant weight to unusually high or low scores. An unusual score could merely represent an exceptional year for a state rather than the general trend, which the Score Card is trying to uncover. Even with these shortcomings, the z-score method is the most widely used today, partly because nothing better has come along, until recently.

The Score Card uses a sophisticated method that is robust to outlier scores so that one extreme value is not going to change the

normalized scores of the other states for a particular metric, and it does not impose an artificial structure on the distribution of state values. Consequently, the method used herein does not bias data that is not normally distributed. The modified median score takes the differences between the raw value and the median rather than the mean, comparing it therefore less to the top performance but rather to the performance of the majority of states. It then is normalized with the following method: for each state, get the difference between its raw score and the raw score of every other state; from these 49 numbers, get the median and repeat for the next state, resulting in 50 medians; then take the median of these medians as the measure of central tendency. The "modified median" method of normalizing scores is state of the art and likely will become common practice in the future.

The normalized score enables multiple metrics to be added together to give sub-driver and driver composite scores. The normalized

score also serves as a means to convey a state's performance relative to the "middle state(s)." For easier readability, the normalized score is scaled so that the median is 100 for each metric, denoted by a dotted line across the table. Consequently, the reader can get a quick sense of how far a particular state is from the mid point by observing how far it is above or below 100.

Since metrics are averaged into sub-drivers and drivers, one state’s exceptional performance in one year can still affect the subdriver and

driver results. An additional adjustment is used to avoid that those values completely biasing aggregate results. A cap is put on the maximum value a median score can take. If a state’s median score reaches that limit, its actual value is replaced with the limit value. A limit value of 150 either side of the mid-point of 100 has been found to work satisfactorily, based on over 5 years of experience with these data. Another issue that might confound the performance trend of a state this Score Card is trying to uncover, is the fact that metrics measured in growth rates can have very high year-to-year variability. In order to provide a bigger picture of where the growth rates are headed, all metrics expressed as growth measures are converted to 3-year moving averages, i.e. each new annual growth rate is averaged with the two previous annual growth rates.

In the metric tables, each metric is reported by raw score, normalized score, rank and recent change. If a state’s raw value changed from

or to a value of zero, a growth rate of +100% or -100% was reported. For metrics with many zero values across the years, the absolute rather than relative change over the recent years is reported.

126


Further, the reader will find it helpful to know how a particular state clusters with other states of like scores. This is shown by three

shadings, or ranges, on the metrics table. The full range of scores from top state to bottom state is divided into three equal parts and each shading represents on part. While a state might change somewhat in ranking, if it stays in the same performance/shading group, one can conclude little change relative to competitors and comparators. Alternatively, if a state ranking stays fairly stable over several years but it moves up in shading cluster, one can conclude improvement. To put this in another way: ranking tells you where you are placed, while shadings (and star ratings for sub-drivers and drivers, see below) tell you how well you are performing. A male athlete might do better than the four–minute mile, putting him in ‘best of class’, but he may not place in the top three in a race. For most economic and social issues, state leaders and decision makers want their state to be among the top performers but worry less about being #1. For this reason, the reader is encouraged not to rely singularly on rankings to judge a state's competitive position. Although widely used, rankings alone can lead to erroneous judgments. Sub-driver and Driver Calculation

Once the metric scores have been calculated for those metrics making up a sub-driver, the modified median scores are averaged to produce a sub-driver score and the sub-driver page displays the state scores in the form of star performances associated with those average scores. For example, five stars means the state performed in the top 20 percent of the range of averaged scores, similar to the shadings on the metric pages. Driver star performance is calculated from the original metric scores in the same way as for sub-drivers.

This Score Card also uses an innovative method of updating data. Typically, benchmarking studies use the most recent data available when a report is released. In most instances, these data are one to three years behind the actual release date. Report issuing organizations/authors seldom go back to adjust the scores/grades of previous years when finally data becomes available for a previous release year. Past results might then erroneously show facts/trends that have already long changed. This Score Card method actually recalculates previous years' results based on new data available for earlier years. In order to make past aggregate results as representative as possible of the actual data years, wherever possible, the Score Card method uses the actual data year for the corresponding Score Card year when aggregating, i.e. if there is 2008 data, it will be used for the 2008 Score Card aggregate results. However, if there is no new data available in the most current year, last year's data will be reused when the metrics are aggregated (though the metric pages will still show whatever years are available). Hence, in some cases where sub-drivers have not much new data in recent years, there could be hardly any change between the 2007 and 2008 Score Card raw scores. Each edition of the Score Card results can therefore be viewed as an "update," reflecting only new scores where the underlying data actually changed. Every effort was made to include the most recent data updates published to the end of 2009.

Another related procedure is the response to missing data points. Whenever a single state has a missing value for a year, the linear trend

from the previous and next year is substituted for the missing value. For a following year is not available, only the previous year's raw value is used as a best estimate of that year, making an effort to always compare all states over the same number of metrics (except when a particular state's metric information is missing for all years).

For each sub-driver score, the component metrics are weighted equally, with one exception. The Business Costs sub-driver is weighted in

approximation of the effect that each cost metric has on a typical business’ total cost. The actual weighting is: 57% unit labor costs; 6% business taxes; 6% state business tax structure; 12% office rents; 7% energy costs; 2.5% worker’s compensation premiums; 2.5% worker’s compensation costs; 5% health-care premiums; 1% unemployment insurance costs and 1% unemployment insurance tax structure. When a metric has to be excluded due to changes in methodology, the percentage for that metric used for the weighting in a sub-driver is set to zero, and the remaining metrics’ percentages are adjusted equally to sum to one again.

127


Appendix IV

Technical Documentation and Works Cited

State Entrepreneurial Dynamism Index Driver Establishments Gaining Jobs Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Business Employment Dynamics.” Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/bdm/ Self-employment Growth Differential Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Regional Economic Accounts: State and Local Personal Income”. Retrieved from: http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/data.htm Net Expansion Job Source: YourEconomy. Edward Lowe Foundation and Walls & Associate. Retrieved from: http://www.youreconomy.org/ Establishment Formation Rate Source: YourEconomy. Edward Lowe Foundation and Walls & Associate. Retrieved from: http://www.youreconomy.org/ New Business Owners Source: Kauffman Foundation. “Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity State Report.” Retrieved from: http://www.kauffman.org/items.cfm?itemID=704. Proprietor Income per Proprietor Growth Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Regional Economic Accounts: State and Local Personal Income”. Retrieved from: http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/data.htm

Entrepreneurial Change Driver Growth in Number of Small Businesses Source: U.S. Census Bureau. “Statistics of U.S. Businesses.” Business Information Tracking Series. Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/ Small Business Payroll Growth Source: U.S. Census Bureau. “Statistics of U.S. Businesses.” Business Information Tracking Series. Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/ Increase in High-Performance Firms Sources: Inc.com. “The 2007 Top 500 List.” Retrieved from: http://www.inc.com/resources/inc500/index.html Deloitte & Touche. “Technology Fast 500 List.” Retrieved from: http://www.public.deloitte.com/fast500/fast_500/search/company_search.asp Net Establishment Entrants Increase Source: YourEconomy. Edward Lowe Foundation and Walls & Associate. Retrieved from: http://www.youreconomy.org/

Entrepreneurial Vitality Driver Net Establishment Entrants Source: YourEconomy. Edward Lowe Foundation and Walls & Associate. Retrieved from: http://www.youreconomy.org/ Establishment Turnover Source: YourEconomy. Edward Lowe Foundation and Walls & Associate. Retrieved from: http://www.youreconomy.org/ Self-Employment Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Regional Economic Accounts: State and Local Personal Income”. Retrieved from: http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/data.htm University Spinout Businesses Source: Association of University Technology Managers. “AUTM Licensing Survey.” Start-up Companies. www.autm.net High-Performance Firms Source: see ‘High Performance Firms Increase’ entry above. U.S. Census Bureau. “Statistics of U.S. Businesses.” Business Information Tracking Series. Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/ IPO Awards Sources: Hale & Dorr LLP. “National IPO Database, Longitudinal file 1999-2004.” Provided by Hale&Dorr. Renaissance Capital's IPOhome.com. “IPO Pricings by State.” Retrieved from: http://www.ipohome.com/marketwatch/ipovolume_state.asp?state=AL U.S. Census Bureau. “Statistics of U.S. Businesses.” Business Information Tracking Series. Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/ SBIR Awards

128


Sources: U.S. Small Business Administration. Retrieved from: http://www.sba.gov/SBIR/indexsbir-sttr.html#sbirstats and http://tech-net.sba.gov/tech-net/public/dsp_search.cfm?URLTokenSuppressed=Yes U.S. Census Bureau. “Statistics of U.S. Businesses.” Business Information Tracking Series. Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/ STTR Awards Sources: U.S. Small Business Administration. Retrieved from: http://www.sba.gov/SBIR/indexsbir-sttr.html#sbirstats and http://tech-net.sba.gov/tech-net/public/dsp_search.cfm?URLTokenSuppressed=Yes U.S. Census Bureau. “Statistics of U.S. Businesses.” Business Information Tracking Series. Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/ SBIC Awards Sources: U.S. Small Business Administration. “Financing Statistics, Program Statistical Package. SBIC Program Financing to Small Businesses.” Retrieved from: http://www.sba.gov/INV/stat/index.html U.S. Census Bureau. “Statistics of U.S. Businesses.” Business Information Tracking Series. Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/

Entrepreneurial Climate Driver Research and Innovations Sub-driver

University Research and Development Sources: National Science Foundation. Science and Engineering Indicators 2006. Retrieved from: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Regional Economic Accounts, Gross Domestic Product.” Retrieved from: http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp Patents per Innovation Worker Sources: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Office. “Patent Statistics Reports Available For Viewing Statistics By Calendar Year, January 1 to December 31.” Retrieved from: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/reports.htm#by_geog Methodology: Innovation workers are the sum of covered employment based on the definitions from the following metrics: Physical Science & Engineering Workers, Technology and Technician Workers, Other Innovation Workers. (see Workforce Preparedness Driver). Patents per R&D Dollar Sources: see ‘Patents per Worker’ entry above. National Science Foundation. Science and Engineering Indicators. Retrieved from: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ University Licenses to Small Businesses Sources: Association of University Technology Managers. “AUTM Licensing Survey.” Licenses and options executed to small businesses (<500). www.autm.net U.S. Census Bureau. “Statistics of U.S. Businesses.” Business Information Tracking Series. Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/ NSF Proposal Funding Rate Source: National Science Foundation. “Funding Rate by State and Organization.” Retrieved from: http://dellweb.bfa.nsf.gov/awdfr3/default.asp SBIR Funding Rate Source: SSTI Weekly Digest. Retrieved from: http://www.ssti.org/Digest/digest.htm University Royalty/License Income Sources: Association of University Technology Managers. “AUTM Licensing Survey.” www.autm.net U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Regional Economic Accounts, Gross Domestic Product.” Retrieved from: http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp Entrepreneurial Programs and Curricula Source: Entrepreneur Magazine. Top 50 Entrepreneurial Colleges. Retrieved from: http://www.entrepreneur.com/topcolleges/index.html Industry Research and Development Sources: National Science Foundation. Science and Engineering Indicators. Retrieved from: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Regional Economic Accounts, Gross Domestic Product.” Retrieved from: http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp Federal Research and Development Sources: National Science Foundation. Science and Engineering Indicators. Retrieved from: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Regional Economic Accounts, Gross Domestic Product.” Retrieved from: http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp

Financial and Institutional Capital Sub-driver Venture Capital Financing Sources: PriceWaterhouseCoopers. “MoneyTree Survey: Historical Trend Data.” Retrieved from: http://www.pwcmoneytree.com/moneytree/nav.jsp?page=historical

129


U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Regional Economic Accounts, Gross Domestic Product.” Retrieved from: http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp IPO Financing Sources: Hale & Dorr LLP. “National IPO Database, Longitudinal file 1999-2004.” Provided by Hale&Dorr. Renaissance Capital's IPOhome.com. “IPO Pricings by State.” Retrieved from: http://www.ipohome.com/marketwatch/ipovolume_state.asp?state=AL U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Regional Economic Accounts, Gross Domestic Product.” Retrieved from: http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp SBIC Financing Sources: U.S. Small Business Administration. “Financing Statistics, Program Statistical Package. SBIC Program Financing to Small Businesses.” Retrieved from: http://www.sba.gov/INV/stat/index.html U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Regional Economic Accounts, Gross Domestic Product.” Retrieved from: http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp SBIR Financing Sources: U.S. Small Business Administration. Retrieved from: http://www.sba.gov/SBIR/indexsbir-sttr.html#sbirstats and http://tech-net.sba.gov/tech-net/public/dsp_search.cfm?URLTokenSuppressed=Yes U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Regional Economic Accounts, Gross Domestic Product.” Retrieved from: http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp STTR Financing Sources: U.S. Small Business Administration. Retrieved from: http://www.sba.gov/SBIR/indexsbir-sttr.html#sbirstats and http://tech-net.sba.gov/tech-net/public/dsp_search.cfm?URLTokenSuppressed=Yes U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Regional Economic Accounts, Gross Domestic Product.” Retrieved from: http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp Bank Commercial and Industrial Lending Sources: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. “Statistics on Depository Institutions.” Retrieved from: from http://www2.fdic.gov/sdi/main.asp U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Regional Economic Accounts, Gross Domestic Product.” Retrieved from: http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp Private Lending to Small Businesses Sources: U.S. Small Business Administration. “Banking Studies: Small Business Lending in the U.S..” Retrieved from: http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/lending.html U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Covered Employment and Wages Program.” Retrieved from: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cew/ Business Incubators Source: National Business Incubation Association. Membership Directory.

General Growth Sub-driver Gross Domestic Product Growth Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Regional Economic Accounts, Gross domestic Product.” Retrieved from: http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp/ Manufacturing Capital Investment Growth Source: U.S. Census Bureau. “Annual Survey of Manufactures, Geographic Area Statistics.” Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/mcd/asm-as3.html Foreign Direct Investment Growth Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Survey of Current Business. “U.S. Affiliates of Foreign Companies, Operations.” Retrieved from: http://www.bea.gov/bea/pubs.htm. Export Intensity Growth Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Statistics. “State Exports by Country.” Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/state/country/index.html U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Regional Economic Accounts, Gross domestic Product.” Retrieved from: http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp Large Business Payroll Growth Source: U.S. Census Bureau. “Statistics of U.S. Businesses.” Business Information Tracking Series. Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/ Building Permits Growth Sources: U.S. Census Bureau. “SOCDS Building Permits Database. Retrieved from: http://socds.huduser.org/permits/index.html? U.S. Census Bureau. Population Estimates. "State population datasets.” Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html Fortune 500 Headquarters Source: Fortune Magazine. Gross Operating Surplus Growth

130


Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Regional Economic Accounts, Gross domestic Product.” Retrieved from: http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp Renewable Energy Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Electric Power Annual." Retrieved from: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html Green Industries Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. Retrieved from: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cew/ Methodology: The following NAICS industry codes were included in the category, based on a simplified version of the definition in the Michigan Green Jobs Report 2009, http://www.michigan.gov/documents/nwlb/GJC_GreenReport_Print_277833_7.pdf. The definition does not include industries that use/resell energy technologies such as construction, wholesale, or utilities. NAICS: 1111 – Oilseed and grain farming; 1114 – Greenhouse and nursery production; 1119 – Other crop farming; 1131 – Timber tract operations; 1132 – Forest nursery and gathering forest products; 1133 – Logging; 1151 – Support activities for crop production; 1153 – Support activities for forestry; 3112 – Grain and Oilseed Milling; 3211 – Sawmills and wood preservation; 3219 – Other wood product manufacturing; 3221 – Pulp paper and paperboard mills; 3251 – Basic chemical manufacturing; 3252 – Resin, rubber and artificial fibers mfg; 3253 – Agricultural chemical manufacturing; 3259 – Other chemical product and preparation mfg; 3261 – Plastics product mfg; 3272 – Glass and glass product mfg; 3279 - Other nonmetallic mineral products; 3323 – Architectural and structural metals mfg; 3329 – Other fabricated metal product mfg; 3332 – Industrial Machinery mfg; 3334 – HVAC and commercial refrigeration equip; 3336 – Turbine and power transmission equip. mfg; 3344 – Semiconductor and electronic component mfg; 3345 – Electronic instrument mfg; 3351 – Electric lighting-equip. mfg; 3352 – Household appliance mfg; 3353 – Electrical equip. mfg; 3359 – Other electrical equip. and component mfg; 3361 – Motor vehicle mfg; 3363 – Motor vehicle parts mfg; 3364 – Aerospace product and parts mfg; 3369 – Other transportation equip. mfg; 4851 – Urgan transit systems; 4852 – Interurban and rural bus transportation; 4859 – Other ground passenger transportation; 5413 – Architectural and engineering services; 5414 – Specialized design services; 5416 – Management and technical consulting services; 5417 – Scientific research and development services; 5621 – Waste Collection; 5622 – Waste treatment and disposal; 5629 – Remediation and other waste services;

Education Driver K-12 Education Sub-driver

AP Overall Source: The College Board. “AP Exam Grades: Summary Report.” Retrieved from: http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/exgrd.html High School Graduation Rate Source: National Center for Education Statistics. “Common Core of Data”. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/bat/ Methodology: The graduation rate is the public 4-year on time high school graduation rates, i.e. the throughput using the average freshmen graduation rate (AFGR) with smoothed 9th grader count. For more detailed methodology see http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006604.pdf and http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006605.pdf. SAT Source: The College Board. “College Bound Seniors.” State and National Reports. Retrieved from: http://www.collegeboard.com/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2006/reports.html Methodology: Participation rates are plotted on a graph against average scores for all 50 states. A best-fit power regression is found for the data points, and the equation for the regression function is applied to each state’s participation rate to “predict” a score based on participation. These predicted scores are subtracted from the actual average scores received by each state to produce the metric value. ACT Source: ACT, Inc. “ACT National and State Scores.” Retrieved from: http://www.act.org/news/data.html Methodology: Identical to SAT metric methodology. NAEP Mathematics Source: National Center for Education Statistics. “The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics.” State Results for the NAEP 2006 Mathematics Assessment. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics NAEP Reading Source: National Center for Education Statistics. “The Nation’s Report Card: Reading.” State Results for the NAEP 2006 Reading Assessment. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading

Postsecondary Education Sub-driver Physical Sciences and Engineering Degrees Sources: National Center for Education Statistics. Integrated Post-secondary Education Data System. “Completions Survey, Fall.” Retrieved from: IPEDS Peer Analysis System http://nces.ed.gov/ipedspas/ Methodology: The following certified instructional programs (CIP) were included for each institution that was judged to award physical sciences and engineering degrees, bachelor's level or higher: Architecture; Architecture & related programs, other; Behavioral sciences; Biological and biomedical sciences; Biological and physical sciences; Biopsychology; Cognitive science; Computer and information sciences, general; Computer programming; Computer science; Engineering; Environmental design/architecture; Environmental science; Food science and technology; Information science/studies; Mathematics and computer science; Mathematics and statistics; Natural sciences; Neuroscience; Nutrition sciences; Physical sciences; Plant sciences; Science, technology and society; Soil sciences; Systems science and theory.; Technology and Technician Degrees

131


Sources: National Center for Education Statistics. Integrated Post-secondary Education Data System. “Completions Survey, Fall.” Retrieved from: IPEDS Peer Analysis System http://nces.ed.gov/ipedspas/ Methodology: The following certified instructional programs (CIP) were included for each institution that was judged to award technology and technician degrees, associate's level or higher: Agricultural business technology; Forest technology/technician; Architectural technology/technician; Communications technologies/technicians and support services; Data processing; Computer systems analysis; Data entry/microcomputer applications; Computer software and media applications; Computer systems networking and telecommunications; Computer/information technology administration and management; Computer and information sciences and support services, other; Engineering technologies/technicians; Military technologies; Science technologies/technicians; Mechanic and repair technologies/technicians; Precision production; Accounting and computer science; Allied health diagnostic, intervention, and treatment profession; Clinical/medical laboratory science and allied professions; Clinical/medical laboratory technician/assistant. Other Innovation Degrees Sources: National Center for Education Statistics. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). “Completions Survey, Fall.” Retrieved from: IPEDS Peer Analysis System http://nces.ed.gov/ipedspas/ Methodology: The following certified instructional programs (CIP) were included for each institution that was judged to award degrees in fields relevant to the innovation economy not covered by the purely scientific and technical areas: Public relations, advertising, and applied communication; Teacher education and professional development, specific subject areas; Technical & business writing; Economics; Business, management, marketing, and related support services. College Affordability Source: The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. “Measuring Up Report.” Retrieved from: http://measuringup.highereducation.org/compare/state_comparison.cfm U.S. News Top-Ranked Undergraduate Programs Source: U.S. News and World Report Magazine. “America’s Best Colleges.” Premium Online Edition. Retrieved from: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/rankguide/rghome.htm U.S. News Top-Ranked Graduate Programs Source: U.S. News and World Report Magazine. “America’s Best Graduate Schools.” Premium Online Edition. Retrieved from: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/rankguide/rghome.htm College Migration Source: National Center for Education Statistics. Integrated Post-secondary Education Data System. “Enrollment Survey, Fall.” Retrieved from: IPEDS Peer Analysis System http://nces.ed.gov/ipedspas

Workforce Preparedness Driver High School Only Diploma Attainment Source: U.S. Census Bureau. “American Community Survey.” Summary Tables. Retrieved from: http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en Associate Degree Attainment Source: U.S. Census Bureau. “American Community Survey.” Summary Tables. Retrieved from: http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en Methodology: Percent of population 25 years and older with some college training or associate’s degree. Bachelor's Degree Attainment Source: U.S. Census Bureau. “American Community Survey.” Summary Tables. Retrieved from: http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en Physical Sciences and Engineering Workers Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Occupational Employment Survey.” Retrieved from: https://www.bls.gov/oes Methodology: The following Standard Occupational Classifications were identified as physical science and engineering jobs: Actuaries; Aerospace engineers; Agricultural and food scientists; Agricultural engineers; All other architects, surveyors, and cartographers; All other engineers; All other life scientists; All other physical scientists; Architects, except landscape and naval; Astronomers; Atmospheric and space scientists; Biochemists and biophysicists; Biological scientists, all other; Biomedical engineers; Chemical engineers; Chemists; Civil engineers; Computer and information scientists, research; Computer hardware engineers; Computer programmers; Electrical engineers; Electronics engineers, except computer; Environmental engineers; Health and safety engineers, except mining safety engineers and inspectors; Industrial engineers; Marine engineers and naval architects; Materials engineers; Materials scientists; Mathematicians; Mechanical engineers; Medical scientists, except epidemiologists; Microbiologists; Mining and geological engineers, including mining safety engineers; Miscellaneous mathematical science occupations; Nuclear engineers; Operations research analysts; Petroleum engineers; Physicists; Statisticians. Technology and Technician Workers Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Occupational Employment Survey.” Retrieved from: https://www.bls.gov/oes Methodology: The following Standard Occupational Classifications were identified as technology and technician jobs: Aerospace engineering and operations technicians; All other computer specialists; All other drafters, engineering, and mapping technicians; All other life, physical, and social science technicians; Architectural and civil drafters; Biological technicians; Cardiovascular technologists and technicians; Cartographers and photogrammetrists; Chemical technicians; Civil engineering technicians; Computer software engineers, applications; Computer software engineers, systems software; Computer support specialists; Computer systems analysts; Database administrators; Diagnostic medical sonographers; Electrical and electronic engineering technicians; Electrical and electronics drafters; Electro-mechanical technicians; Emergency medical technicians and paramedics; Environmental engineering technicians; Environmental science and protection technicians, including health; Forensic science technicians; Geological and petroleum technicians; Industrial engineering technicians; Mechanical drafters; Mechanical engineering technicians; Medical and clinical laboratory technicians; Medical and clinical laboratory technologists;

132


Network and computer systems administrators; Network systems and data communications analysts; Nuclear medicine technologists; Nuclear technicians; Occupational health and safety specialists and technicians; Radiologic technologists and technicians; Respiratory therapy technicians; Semiconductor processors; Surgical technologists; Surveyors. Other Innovation Workers Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Occupational Employment Survey.” Retrieved from: https://www.bls.gov/oes Methodology: The following Standard Occupational Classifications were identified as other key innovation jobs: Architecture Teachers, Postsecondary; Atmospheric, Earth, Marine, and Space Sciences Teachers, Postsecondary; Biological Science Teachers, Postsecondary; Business and Financial Operations ; Business Teachers, Postsecondary; Chemistry Teachers, Postsecondary; Communications Teachers, Postsecondary; Computer Science Teachers, Postsecondary; Economics Teachers, Postsecondary; Economists; Engineering Teachers, Postsecondary; Health Specialties Teachers, Postsecondary; Management ; Market Research Analysts; Mathematical Science Teachers, Postsecondary; Physics Teachers, Postsecondary; Public Relations Specialists; Survey Researchers; Technical Writers; Vocational Education Teachers, Postsecondary. High-tech Manufacturing Employment Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. Retrieved from: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cew/ Chapple, K., Markusen, A., Schrock, G., Yamamoto, D., & Yu, P. (2004). Gauging metropolitan “high-tech” and “I-tech” activity. Economic Development Quarterly, 18(1), 10-29. Center for Economic Development and STTI. (2004). “Technology Industries and Occupations for NAICS Industry Data.” Methodology: The following manufacturing industries were defined as high-tech manufacturing based on a combined industry list based on Chapple et.al. (2004) and CED/STTI (2004) but aggregated to the 3-digit level due to many data suppression: Chemical Manufacturing; Machinery Manufacturing; Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing; Transportation Equipment Manufacturing. High-tech Services Employment Sources: See “High-tech Manufacturing Employment” immediately above. Methodology: The following manufacturing industries were defined as high-tech manufacturing based on a combined industry list based on Chapple et.al. (2004) and CED/STTI (2004) but aggregated to the 3-digit level due to many data suppression: Professional and commercial equipment and supplies merchant wholesalers; Software publishers; Internet publishing and broadcasting; Telecommunications; Internet service providers and web search portals; Data processing, hosting and related services; Architectural, engineering and related services; Computer systems design and related services; Management, scientific and technical consulting services; Scientific research and development services . Adult Education Sources: National Center for Education Statistics. Integrated Post-secondary Education Data System. “Enrollment Survey, Fall.” Retrieved from: IPEDS Peer Analysis System http://nces.ed.gov/ipedspas U.S. Census Bureau. “American Community Survey.” Summary Tables. Retrieved from: http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en

Business Costs Driver Unit Labor Costs Source: Economy.com, Inc. “North American Business Cost Review.” Energy Costs Source: Economy.com, Inc. “North American Business Cost Review.” Workers’ Compensation Premiums Source: Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services. “Oregon Workers’ Compensation Premium Rate Ranking, Calendar Year.” Retrieved from: http://www.cbs.state.or.us/external/imd/wc_ins.html Workers’ Compensation Costs Source: National Academy of Social Insurance. "Workers' Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs." Retrieved from: http://www.nasi.org/search_site2710/search_site_results.htm?attrib_id=2758 Unemployment Insurance Costs Source: U.S. Department of Labor. Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Data Summary. “U.S. Summary Tables, Wage and Tax Rate Data.” Retrieved from: http://atlas.doleta.gov/unemploy/content/data_stats/ Unemployment Insurance Tax Index Source: Tax Foundation. “Effective State and Local Tax Burdens by State and Ranking.” Retrieved from: http://www.taxfoundation.org/statelocal.html Business Tax Burden Sources: Cline, R., Fox, W. and Philips, A. (2007). “Total State and Local Business Taxes: 50-State Estimates for Fiscal Year 2006.” Ernst & Young, prepared for The Council On State Taxation. Retrieved from: http://www.ey.com/global/content.nsf/US/Tax_-_State_&_Local_Tax_Services_-_Overview Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Regional Accounts, Gross domestic Product.” Retrieved from: http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp State Business Tax Structure

133


Source: Tax Foundation. “State Business Tax Climate Index, Corporate Tax Index.” Retrieved from: http://www.taxfoundation.org Metro Office Rents Source: Economy.com, Inc. “North American Business Cost Review.” U.S. Census Bureau. “Annual Estimates of the Population of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas: April 1, 2001 to July 1, 2006.” Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/Estimates%20pages_final.html Small Business Health Care Premiums Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. “Medical Expenditure Panel Survey: Insurance Component.” Retrieved from: http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/Data_Pub/IC_Tables.htm.

Productivity and Labor Supply Driver Net Migration Rate Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Population Estimates. "State population datasets.” Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html Prime Working Age Residents Sources: U.S. Census Bureau. “American Community Survey, Summary Tables.” Retrieved from: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_lang=en&_ts= U.S. Census Bureau. Population Estimates. "State population datasets.” Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html Gross domestic Product per Job Sources: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Regional Economic Accounts.” Retrieved from: http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp Value Added in Manufacturing per Hour Source: U.S. Census Bureau. “Annual Survey of Manufactures, Geographic Area Statistics. Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/mcd/asm-as3.html Service Gross Domestic Product per Job Sources: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Regional Economic Accounts.” Retrieved from: http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp Methodology: Includes the following industries: 10 – Utilities; 34 Wholesale trade; 35 Retail trade; 36 – Transportation and warehousing, excluding Postal Service; 45 – Information; 50 – Finance and insurance; 55 – Real estate, rental and leasing; 58 – Professional and technical services; 62 – Management of companies and enterprises; 63 – Administrative and waste services; 66 – Educational services; 67 – Health care and social assistance; 71 – Arts, entertainment and recreation; 74 – Accommodation and food services; 77 – Other services, except government.

Legal and Regulatory Environment Driver Malpractice Costs Source: Medical Liability Monitor. “2006 Rate Survey of Three Medical Specialties.” Trends in 2006 Rates for Physicians’ Medical Professional Liability Insurance. Methodology: Malpractice rates depend highly on the medical specialty that the insured practices. To accurately compare rates within three different specialties, internal medicine, general surgery and OB/GYN, the average rates for each specialty are normalized across all the states. The normalized scores for each profession in a state are then totaled to produce the index score. Business Liability Sources: Insurance Information Institute. “The Insurance Information Institute Fact Book.” Direct Premiums Written, Property/Casualty Insurance, By State By Line. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Regional Economic Accounts, Gross domestic Product.” Retrieved from: http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp Methodology: Premiums totals for workers compensation, products liability, and other liability insurance are averaged, and the average is divided by the gross domestic product. Liability Systems Source: Harris Interactive. "State Liability Systems Ranking Study.” Conducted for U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Institute for Legal Reform. Retrieved from: http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/harris/ Tort System Efficiency Source: US Tort Liability Index. Pacific Research Institute. Retrieved from: http://special.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/ Local Phone Competition Source: Federal Communications Commission. “Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Development.” Retrieved from: http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/comp.html Health Mandates Source: Council for Affordable Health Insurance. "Health Insurance Mandates in the States." (various years).

134


Physical Infrastructure Driver Highway Quality Source: Federal Highway Administration. “Highway Statistics.” Retrieved from: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/hss/hsspubs.htm Bridge Quality Source: Federal Highway Administration. “Bridge Technology: Deficient Bridges by State and Highway System.” Retrieved from: www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/deficient.htm Railway Productivity Sources: Association of American Railroads. “Railroads and States. State Rankings.” Retrieved from: http://www.aar.org/PubCommon/Documents/AboutTheIndustry/RRState_Rankings.pdf U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Regional Economic Accounts.” Retrieved from: http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp/ Major Air Market Access Sources: U.S. Department of Transportation. “Consumer Air Fare Report.” Retrieved from: http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/X-50%20Role_files/consumerairfarereport.htm U.S. Census Bureau. Population Estimates. “State Population Datasets.” Retrieved from: http://eire.census.gov/popest/estimates_dataset.php Methodology: To develop this metric, 12 cities were chosen as “major markets” in terms of commercial or new technology centers: Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Austin, Portland, Raleigh / Durham, San Diego, Seattle. Total passenger enplanements to and from the 1,000 largest city pairs were summed by state (flights within the same metro area were excluded). Then the state total enplanement figures were divided by state populations. The BWI Baltimore airport was allocated to MD, and IAD Dulles Airport outside Washington, DC and DC Reagan National Airport were allocated to Virginia. Airport Performance Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Airline On-Time Statistics and Delay Causes. Retrieved from: http://www.transtats.bts.gov/OT_Delay/ot_delaycause1.asp?type=21&pn=1 Water Quality Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. Retrieved from: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html Energy Reliability Source: Energy Administration Information. Electric Disturbance Events - Monthly and Annual Summaries. Retrieved from: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/disturb_events.html

Digital Connectivity Driver Broadband Connections Sources: Federal Communications Commission. “High-Speed Services for Internet Access. Status as of December.” Table 7: High-Speed Lines by Technology. Retrieved from: http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/comp.html U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. “State Population Estimates.” Retrieved from: http://eire.census.gov/popest/estimates_dataset.php Broadband Coverage Source: Federal Communications Commission. “Zip Codes by Number of High-Speed Service Providers. Retrieved from http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/comp.html. Internet Speed Source: Communication Workers of America. "2009 Report on Internet Speeds in All 50 States." Retrieved from http://www.speedmatters.org/content/ Next Generation Internet Sources: Abilene Network. “Abilene Connector List.” Retrieved from: http://abilene.internet2.edu/community/connectors/list.html Abilene Network. “Abilene Participant List.” Retrieved from: http://abilene.internet2.edu/community/participants/list.html Rural Internet Access Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Farm Computer Usage and Ownership Report.” Retrieved from: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/computer/ Technology in Schools Source: Education Week Magazine. “Technology Counts.” Methodology: Average number of students per internet-connected or instructional computer.

Quality of Life Driver Civic Energy and Harmony Sub-driver

Rural Urban Disparity Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Earnings and employment data by metro and non-metro area. Provided on request.

135


National Establishment Time Series. Walls & Associates. Methodology: z-score average of the difference between rural (non-metro) and urban (metro) long-term employment and earnings growth (over most current 5 years), short-term employment and earnings growth (over most current two year), unemployment rate (most current year), and average earnings (most current year). The less a state underperformed in the rural areas, the higher the z-scores. Number of Nonprofits Sources: National Center for Charitable Statistics. All Registered Nonprofits Table Wizard. Retrieved from: http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/tablewiz/tw_bmf.php U.S. Census Bureau. Population Estimates. “State Population Datasets.” Retrieved from: http://eire.census.gov/popest/estimates_dataset.php Charitable Giving Sources: Internal Revenue Service. Individual Tax Statistics. “Individual Income and Tax Data by State and Size of Adjusted Gross Income.” Retrieved from: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=103106,00.html Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Regional Economic Accounts, State and Local Personal Income.” Retrieved from: http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/spi/ Voter Turnout Source: U.S. Census Bureau. “Current Population Survey.” Table on Reported Voting and Registration for Total and Citizen Voting-Age Population by State. Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting.html Gender Equity Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Current Population Survey.” Retrieved from: DataFerrett software. Methodology: The current and previous two years were averaged to balance out any small sample fluctuations associated with this survey data, i.e. 2006 data reflects the average of 2004 to 2006 survey results. Racial/Ethnic Equity Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Current Population Survey.” Retrieved from: DataFerrett software. Methodology: see ‘Gender Equity’ entry above. Hate Crimes Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Uniform Crime Reports.” Hate Crime Statistics, incidents reported. Retrieved from: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr Generational Creative Class Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Current Population Survey.” Retrieved from: DataFerrett software. Methodology: Ratio of 20-34 year olds and 55-79 year olds with a college degree relative to total population 20 years and above. Skilled Immigrants Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Current Population Survey.” Retrieved from: DataFerrett software. Methodology: Number non-citizens or naturalized citizens with a bachelor’s degree or above per 1,000 residents. The current and previous two years were averaged to balance out any small sample fluctuations associated with this survey data, i.e. 2006 data reflects the average of 2004 to 2006 survey results.

Lifestyle and Play Sub-driver Time to Work Source: U.S. Census Bureau. “American Community Survey.” Retrieved from: http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en Transit Use Source: U.S. Census Bureau. “American Community Survey.” Retrieved from: http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en Leisure Industry Employment Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Covered Employment and Wages Program.” Retrieved from: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cew/ Methodology: Refers to NAICS codes 487, 711, 712, 713, 6116, 5322, and 4539. Parkland Sources: National Association of State Park Directors. “The 2006 Annual Information Exchange.” Retrieved from: http://isu1.indstate.edu/naspd/director National Park Service. “Listing of Acreages by Park.” Retrieved from: http://www2.nature.nps.gov/stats/ Golf Courses Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Covered Employment and Wages Program.” Retrieved from: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cew Methodology: Number of establishments under NAICS 71391. Trails Sources: National Recreational Trails Program. Retrieved from: http://www.americantrails.org

136


U.S. Census Bureau. Population Estimates. “State Population Datasets.” Retrieved from: http://eire.census.gov/popest/estimates_dataset.php Cultural Institutions Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Covered Employment and Wages Program.” Retrieved from: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cew Methodology: Number of establishments under NAICS 711 and 712. Historical Preservation Source: National Park Service. Federal Preservation Tax Credit data. On request.

Pocketbook Indicators Sub-driver Urban Cost of Living Source: ACCRA. “Cost of Living Index.” Methodology: The ACCRA survey is metropolitan area-based, and does not include data for some cities. For this metric, the largest city in each state for which cost of living data is available was chosen as the metric value. Urban Housing Affordability Source: National Low Income Housing Coalition. "Out of Reach." Retrieved from: http://www.nlihc.org/research/index.htm Homeownership Rates Source: U.S. Census Bureau. “Housing Vacancies and Homeownership Annual Statistics.” Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/hvs.html Unemployment Rate Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Local Area Unemployment Statistics.” Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/lau/home.htm Per capital Disposable Income Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Regional Economic Accounts, State and Local Personal Income.” Retrieved from: http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/spi/ State and Local Tax Burden Source: Tax Foundation. “Effective State and Local Tax Burdens by State and Ranking.” Retrieved from: http://www.taxfoundation.org/statelocal.html

Health and Safety Sub-driver Lack of Health Insurance Source: U.S. Census Bureau. “Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement.” Percent of people without health insurance coverage. Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/reports.html Crime Index Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Uniform Crime Reports.” Retrieved from: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr Law Enforcement Personnel Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States.” Law Enforcement Personnel. Retrieved from: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr Healthcare Access Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Occupational Employment Survey.” Retrieved from: https://www.bls.gov/oes Methodology: Percent of people employed in healthcare practitioners and technician occupations. Clean Air Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “AirData by Geography.” Retrieved from: http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html

MICHIGANE N T R E P R E N E U R S H I P S C O R E C A R D

S M A L L B U S I N E S S F O U N D A T I O N O F M I C H I G A N

P R E P A R E D B Y :

2 0 1 0 : 1 1


S C O R E C A R D P A R T N E R S

Automation Alley

Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione

Central Michigan University

DTE Energy Company

Dow Corning Foundation

Great Lakes Bay Regional Alliance

Michigan Municipal League

Michigan State Housing Development Authority

Saginaw Bay Sustainable Business Partnership

Saginaw Valley State University

Small Business Association of Michigan

Small Business Foundation of Michigan

C O L L A B O R A T I N G P A R T N E R S

Crain’s Detroit Business

Edward Lowe Foundation

Shephard Advisors, LLC

TOWARD AN ENTREPRENEURIAL ECONOMY · DTE Energy Company Dow Corning Foundation ... Strategic...

Documents

Transcript of TOWARD AN ENTREPRENEURIAL ECONOMY · DTE Energy Company Dow Corning Foundation ... Strategic...