The Council for Community and Economic Research

Promoting excellence in community and economic research since 1961

About

|

Job Postings

|

Store

Stay Connected:

Tag: economic development

  • COLI BBQ Index: Supply Chain Disruptions and the Meat Industry

    With the Labor Day upon us and summer coming to an end, people are getting ready to fire up their grills this weekend. However, when grill masters go to their local grocer to pick up the BBQ essentials they may be in for sticker shock. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted supply chains in the meat industry, which sent prices soaring. The disruption in supply chains is multi-faceted, as are similar disruptions in other industries. Labor shortages, distortions in supply and demand, and transportation disruptions are just a few areas that have affected meat production.

    The Cost of Living Index, published by C2ER since 1968, tracks data on living cost differentials among U.S. urban areas, including meat. Using the Quarter 2, 2021 prices of ribeye steak, ground beef, pork sausage, and chicken, a BBQ index was constructed to signify which metro areas and states are relatively more or less expensive. The map below is a visual representation of that index. The darker the shade, the higher the index.

    Click here to access the interactive COLI BBQ map

     

    Alaska ranks as the most expensive state to purchase meat products and Mississippi as the least. Tracking the most current differentials for meat products is only a snapshot of the market for meat right now. Thus, it is also critical to track the prices of meat products over time.

    Kodiak, AK and Seattle, WA had the highest COLI BBQ Indices for Q2 of 2021, but Fort Lauderdale, FL and Boston, MA prices increased by 35% and 25%, respectively, on average across each item since 2019. This rate of change far surpasses inflation by about ten-fold. Meat product prices decreased in a select group of cities, but the rate at which prices decreased for those cities was nowhere near the magnitude in price increases experienced in many other cities. Of the 234 cities that COLI tracked in both 2019 and Q2 of 2021, prices increased by more than 5% in close to half of them and prices increased by more than 10% in about a fifth. The bar graph below shows the increase in prices across each BBQ product for Boston and Fort Lauderdale since 2019.

     

    Access the interactive bar graph by clicking here to view changes in prices across each metro area, using the graphs drop-down filter function.

    As the impacts of the pandemic on supply chains dissipate, price corrections are foreseeable. Hopefully, by this time next year, BBQ activities can resume at more affordable prices. To learn more about other products or how your organization can become a data collection participant for the Cost of Living Index visit coli.org.

     

  • State Incentives: SSBCI Program Recap and Overview

    State Incentives: SSBCI Program Recap and Overview

    In 2010, President Obama signed into law the Small Business Jobs Act, which created the State Small Business Credit Initiative (SSBCI). Functioning as a recovery response to the Great Recession, it delivered $1.5 billion in capital to small businesses. Federally, SSBCI phased out in 2017.

    Nevertheless, after more than a decade, many of the same original SSBCI programs still exist, suggesting that states value them. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, similar economic challenges to the Great Recession emerged. President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act in March 2021 to deliver immediate and direct relief to families, businesses, and workers impacted by the COVID-19 crisis, part of which reauthorized SSBCI.

    A Continuation of the Trends

    The 2021 bill allocated $10 billion to SSBCI, which is a sizeable $8.5 billion more than the amount authorized in 2010. Based on a 2016 SSBCI program evaluation[1] conducted by Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness (CREC), this could mean significant economic benefits for states. The CREC report highlighted that SSBCI programs expended $1.04 billion, supporting “nearly $8.4 billion in new capital in small business loans and investments by the end of 2015.” The very next year the Congressional Research Service calculated SSBCI participants leveraged $8.95 in new financing for every $1 in SSBCI funds[2] a significant return on investment.

    Moreover, the Great Recession and COVID-19 both substantially impacted very small businesses. SSBCI aims to fund all small businesses, but 80 percent of transactions involved very small businesses of 10 or fewer employees in the original authorization. The American Rescue Plan now codifies this trend by requiring $500 million to specifically fund very small businesses.

    What’s new?

    Given the good return from SSBCI 1.0, if states are well-coordinated with their strategic plans, then they should have an even better outcome for SSBCI 2.0. Through its first action, the U.S. Treasury Department distributed $6.5 billion of the preliminary allocation by formula to states. Other funding is set aside for designated purposes: $500 million for technical assistance, $500 million for tribal governments, $1.5 billion to socially and economically disadvantaged businesses, and $1 billion will be kept to award states that perform well using SSBCI.

    As with many new federal funding initiatives, SSBCI 1.0 experienced bumps along the road. Capital access programs experienced difficulties getting significant quantities of funds out the door because small loan sizes meant that it took many more loans to lend the same amount as other programs. Collateral support programs encountered issues in generating sustainable revenues because they tended to take longer to recycle. However, in tandem with the experience gained by the states, technical assistance funds may be an important mechanism for helping to smooth the path going forward. Funding for socially and economic disadvantaged businesses as well as tribal communities helps address the traditional disparity in capital access for these groups.

    The Current State of SSBCI

    CREC has been following the SSBCI 1.0 programs since it was phased out in 2017. At that time, some states reallocated their SSBCI funding to other activities. States continue to operate slightly less than half of those programs some four years later. Of the five major program types, states were more likely to keep loan participation programs. Close to half of those programs are still active. It is likely that the newly authorized funding will be built from this foundation based on preliminary planning reports from the states.

    Through these existing programs, states already have a solid foundation for the next round of SSBCI. Several states have maintained all SSBCI programs including Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, and Vermont. All original programs are inactive in Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. We expect to see an influx of new financing programs from SSBCI 2.0, especially in the states where either all or some programs are inactive.

    The map below indicates the number of still active SSBCI programs and the preliminary allocations states have received by formula. Access the C2ER State Incentives Database to stay up to date on what SSBCI programs are available. To get a preview of notable programs from SSBCI 1.0 by program type, read the case studies under the graphic.

    Click here to access the interactive SSBCI 2.0 map

    Case Studies

    California Capital Access Program

    California SSBCI 1.0 Allocation: $168 million

    CalCap Allocation: $19.5 million

    California SSBCI 2.0 Allocation: $892 million

    California received an allocation of $168 million from 2011 to 2017. The state split the funds between its collateral support (CalCSP) and capital access program (CalCap). CalCap emerged as the state’s shining star during SSBCI 1.0. While only $19.5 million of the $168 million (11 percent) went to CalCap, the program generated over $337 million in new financing. That translated into $22.19 in private lending for every $1 of SSBCI leveraged.[3] Capital access programs rely on enrolling many loans continuously and pooling contributions to create a reserve fund to recycle funds and protect against default by borrowers. The Opportunity Fund, a CDFI and frequent user of CalCap, dispersed 8,754 loans to small businesses by 2018, aiding in the program’s immense success.[4] These loans, 91 percent of which were granted to minorities, assisted small businesses of all types, ranging from street vendors to family-run restaurants.[5] Going into SSBCI 2.0, CalCap still operates and will probably be an important contributor to SSBCI 2.0.

    Florida Venture Capital Program

    Florida SSBCI 1.0 Allocation: $98 million

    FVCP Allocation: $26.5 million

    Florida SSBCI 2.0 Allocation: $324 million

    Florida’s venture capital program, managed by the Florida Opportunity Fund, offers equity investments and convertible debt instruments to emerging Florida companies, particularly those with long-term growth potential. The programs website indicates that “through June 30, 2019, the FLVCP completed 19 investment commitments, and there are active investments in 15 companies.”[6] According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, businesses in their adolescence with potential for high growth have significantly positive effects to job growth and regional economies.[7] In 2013, the earlier years of SSBCI, Florida invested all venture capital SSBCI funds into companies in their seed/early stages.[8] Over the past few decades, venture capital funds have slowly transitioned to disproportionately concentrating in specific metro areas. In 2015, close to 80 percent of all venture capital went to businesses in San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York City, and Boston.[9] SSBCI 2.0 will hopefully break geographic concentrations down and distribute business expansion evenly. As programs like these grow, they have the potential to break through equity capital barriers in so-called flyover states.

    Michigan Collateral Support Program

    Michigan SSBCI 1.0 Allocation: $79 million

    MCSP Allocation: $44 million

    Michigan SSBCI 2.0 Preliminary Allocation: $176 million

    Among all program types, collateral support programs struggled the most to generate sustainable income streams. Michigan stood out at the front of the pack, however, by making this model work and recycling funds at an exceptional rate. The program rests on the rationale that the financial sector woefully undervalues equipment and other assets as collateral. This is especially true with hard-to-liquidate fixed assets such as specialty equipment or unique real estate properties. Collateral support helps to “boost the value” of the collateral by providing a cash asset to guarantee the fixed asset’s collateral value. Michigan’s program provided a model that 16 other states followed[10] and is still active today, playing an important part in financing companies during the pandemic. In 2020, the program helped 100 companies, opened 300 new jobs, and helped maintain 1,500 other jobs.[11] Michigan clearly values this program, since it continued well after the sunset of SSBCI 1.0 in 2017. New funding will permit Michigan to further showcase why its collateral support program is a model for other states to follow coming out of COVID-19.

    Alabama Loan Guarantee Program

    Alabama SSBCI 1.0 Allocation: $31 million

    ALGP Allocation: $27 million

    Alabama SSBCI 2.0 Preliminary Allocation: $56 million

    The Alabama Loan Guarantee Program helped form partnerships between the state and community banks. Community banks have a pulse on the needs of the business community, so consulting with them optimized the use of funds. Prior to SSBCI, Alabama had no credit-support programs for small business.[12] Marketed as an easier, cheaper, and more inclusive alternative to SBA, lenders and borrowers alike benefitted from the program, resulting in 568 transactions.[13] Alabama expended all the program’s funds by 2016 but continues to operate it with recycled funds. The state’s SSBCI 2.0 allocation provides resources that could help reinvigorate the program.

    Advantage Illinois Loan Participation Program

    Illinois SSBCI 1.0 Allocation: $78 million

    AILPP Allocation: $70.5 million

    Illinois SSBCI 2.0 Preliminary Allocation: $282 million

    Advantage Illinois Loan Participation Program assists many business types, with a focus on minority-, women-, disability-, and veteran-owned businesses by purchasing subordinated loan participation at below market interest rates.[14] Furthermore, the program allows funding to be used for a wide range of purposes. The flexibility, inclusivity, and favorable characteristics of the loan made it a highly popular program. The program made up 87 percent of total SSBCI funds the state expended, totaling in 200 transactions that leveraged $8.65 for every dollar.[15] The program continued operating throughout the pandemic and could be an important part of Illinois’ future plans.

    [1] Program Evaluation of The US Department of Treasury State Small Business Credit Initiative, Arlington, VA: Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness, 2016), https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sb-programs/documents/ssbci%20program%20evaluation%202016%20-%20full%20report.pdf.

    [2] State Small Business Credit Initiative: A Summary of States 2016 Annual Reports, Washington D.C.: Department of the Treasury, 2017, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/256/SSBCI-Summary-of-States-Annual-Report-2016_508-Compliant.pdf.

    [3] State Small Business Credit Initiative: A Summary of States 2016 Annual Reports, Washington D.C.: Department of the Treasury, 2017, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/256/SSBCI-Summary-of-States-Annual-Report-2016_508-Compliant.pdf.

    [4]  Seidman, Ellen, “Capital Access Programs: CDFI Case Study on the California Capital Access Program,” Urban Institute, April 2018, https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/98051/capital_access_programs_cdfi_case_study_on_the_california_capital_access_programs_0.pdf.

    [5] Program Evaluation of The US Department of Treasury State Small Business Credit Initiative, Arlington, VA: Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness, 2016), https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sb-programs/documents/ssbci%20program%20evaluation%202016%20-%20full%20report.pdf.

    [6] Florida Opportunity Fund, “Florida Venture Capital Program,” https://www.floridaopportunityfund.com/florida-venture-capital-program/.

    [7] Haltiwanger, John C.,Jarmin, Ron S., & Miranda, Javier. Who Creates Jobs? Small Versus Large Versus Young. National Bureau of Economic Research. Working paper 16300. August 2010, revised November 2012. Web accessed. (http://www.nber.org/papers/ w16300.pdf).

    [8] Information and Observations on State Venture Capital Programs, Washington, D.C.: Cromwell Schmisseur LLC, 2013), https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sb-programs/Documents/VC%20Report.pdf

    [9] State Small Business Credit Initiative: A Summary of States 2016 Annual Reports, Washington D.C.: Department of the Treasury, 2017, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/256/SSBCI-Summary-of-States-Annual-Report-2016_508-Compliant.pdf.

    [10] Program Evaluation of The US Department of Treasury State Small Business Credit Initiative, Arlington, VA: Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness, 2016), https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sb-programs/documents/ssbci%20program%20evaluation%202016%20-%20full%20report.pdf.

    [11] Overbey, Courtney, “MEDC Helps Small, Medium-Sized Businesses Access Capital in Michigan,” Michigan Economic Development Corporation, June 16, 2021, https://www.michiganbusiness.org/news/2021/06/medc-helps-small-medium-sized-businesses-access-capital-in-michigan/.

    [12] Program Evaluation of The US Department of Treasury State Small Business Credit Initiative, Arlington, VA: Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness, 2016), https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sb-programs/documents/ssbci%20program%20evaluation%202016%20-%20full%20report.pdf.

    [13] State Small Business Credit Initiative: A Summary of States 2016 Annual Reports, Washington D.C.: Department of the Treasury, 2017, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/256/SSBCI-Summary-of-States-Annual-Report-2016_508-Compliant.pdf.

    [14] Program Evaluation of The US Department of Treasury State Small Business Credit Initiative, Arlington, VA: Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness, 2016), https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sb-programs/documents/ssbci%20program%20evaluation%202016%20-%20full%20report.pdf.

    [15] State Small Business Credit Initiative: A Summary of States 2016 Annual Reports, Washington D.C.: Department of the Treasury, 2017, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/256/SSBCI-Summary-of-States-Annual-Report-2016_508-Compliant.pdf.

  • COVID-19 & The Labor Market: Equitable Recovery Through Human Infrastructure

    Dr. Angela Jackson opened C2ER’s panel entitled Gender, Race, and Ethnicity: The impact of COVID-19 on the Labor Market Recession and Recovery. Dr. Jackson has led New Profit’s Future of Work Initiative, a movement seeking to close the career-readiness gap for Americans from low-income backgrounds. She recently launched a $6 million Future of Work Grand Challenge to rapidly reskill 25,000 displaced workers into living-wage jobs. One of her first initiatives Dr. Jackson highlighted, the Global Language Project, involved giving underestimated students proficiency in a second language. Skills associated with learning a second language, especially cultural competency, can unlock access to much more than a language (postsecondary schools, employment). Such investment is an example of what Dr. Jackson called human ‘infrastructure’. In fact, she framed the panel with a profound question: What kind of human infrastructure does America have for its 70 million underestimated workers (especially workers from low-income and non-white households)?

    Dr. Jackson highlighted how the education and employment sector is a ‘leaky pipeline’, not responding rapidly enough to meet the demands of the future of work. She also stated that 80% of employers’ development dollars are spent on their highest wage-earning employees. To drive home the point, she mentioned how her previous company didn’t really need to pay for her further education. Despite coming from a working-class family, given her salary, she could have afforded it (while many lower-salaried workers can’t). Instead of poaching for talent, Dr. Jackson also promoted that companies should grow talent from within—a reminder of economic development’s challenge between forward-looking strategies of growth-from-within and traditional ‘smokestack-chasing’.

    1,200 innovators applied to Dr. Jackson’s Future of Work Grand Challenge. This led to her organization funding over 200 mostly tech-based wrap-around training programs involving artificial and virtual reality, and personalized learning to meet the needs of employers. Dr. Jackson stressed teamwork and partnerships needed to realize such an initiative, with a call to action for building power and capacity within communities researchers and funders work with. In her words, “proximity (to a community) is expertise”. Her initiative has worked with Walmart, Accenture, Goodwill, workforce boards, and nearly 1,600 job centers.

    Oriane Casale, Interim Director of the Labor Market Information Office of the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) continued the conversation. Oriane presented data her department produced on unemployment claims of workers in Minnesota. DEED found that 75% of workers who claimed unemployment income (UI) at the start of the pandemic in Minnesota were reemployed by the third quarter. Of these, 59% were recalled by their same employer (of which 33% were subsequently furloughed). 7% found work at a previous employer, and 9% changed employers (on average, seeing greater wage losses). 21% continued to request benefits, and 3% stopped claiming UI.

    DEED found that part-time, low-wage, and black workers were those least likely to be recalled by employers. Temporary help and information industries were the sectors least likely to recall workers (only 25% of those laid off), while manufacturing and health care the most likely to (81%). One of the most interesting points Oriane made was that most workers in the leisure and hospitality industry who found a new job went into temporary help (9%) and retail (23%). This ‘reshuffling’ helps paint a more nuanced picture of what may be occurring with long-term UI claims. As every industry was affected by the pandemic, reshuffling can cause intense competition for the lowest-skilled workers. The few temp-help and retail positions available post-pandemic are being filled by displaced workers with potentially higher credentials. Re-entering familiar positions in the labor market can become especially difficult for the lowest-skilled/credentialed displaced workers, facilitating long-term UI claims—emphasizing the need for an equitable human infrastructure to upskill workers.

    Dr. Till Von Wachter, Professor of Economics, Faculty Director of the California Policy Lab (CPL) and Director of the Census Research Data Center at UCLA, closed the panel. Prof. von Wachter’s research examined the long-term costs of job loss, the consequences of long-term unemployment, and the effects of UI on workers. During the crisis, Prof. von Wachter and his CPL team published monthly reports on the state of the UI system using data from California that has received national attention. Dr. Wachter carried on the conversation of UI claims with a detailed research, county by county, across California. Dr. Wachter emphasized how long-term unemployment (LTU) leads to lower reemployment wages, hence, it is crucial we understand what may be causing individuals to continue claiming UI. Perhaps one of the most interesting points Dr. Wachter raised was that although being black was correlated with higher UI claims, this varied county to county. Educational attainment, a worker’s industry, population density, limited English, available transportation, broadband, number of COVID-19 cases, self-employment, and population age all played into influencing long-term UI claims. Dr. Wachter drove home the point that the factors and motivations surrounding long-term unemployment are far more complex than what is commonly heard. Crucial to equitably overcoming them is investing in all the components of that fundamental human infrastructure Dr. Jackson spoke of—from languages to broadband, credentials, and employer investment.

  • Federal Partners Panel: An Update from Agency Leaders

    Dr. Mary Bohman, Acting Director and Deputy Director of the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Dr. William Beach, Commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and Dr. Ron Jarmin, Acting Director of the U.S. Census Bureau, gathered at the 61st Annual C2ER Conference and LMI Institute Forum’s Federal Partners Panel event to discuss the current work of their respective agencies, new innovations in data collection and dissemination, and the future of work and data-driven economic and workforce development.

    Dr. Bohman, Dr. Beach, and Dr. Jarmin recognize the need for granular and timely data. Dr. Bohman stated that BEA is prioritizing the expansion of state and local data, high-quality statistics and data, and meeting user needs by providing disaggregated data, and additional product, geographic, and industry data. BEA is also phasing out data collection by mail and instead focusing on text and email survey response data collection methods, as well as purchasing data from private companies.

    Dr. Jarmin, with the U.S. Census Bureau, also spoke to a need for innovative data collection methods. “I think all three agencies (U.S. Census Bureau, BEA, and BLS) are involved in new ways to look at new sources of data… [including] additional administrative data and private data sources,” said Dr. Jarmin. Other priorities at the U.S. Census Bureau include adding new content relating to changes in labor market and productivity and creating products that meet the needs of non-traditional data users.

    “I hope everyone knows the future of our work is more granular, more frequent, and [involving the use of] new data sources,” Dr. Beach stated during the event. To that end, BLS, according to Dr. Beach, is focusing on new and innovative data collection methods, such as utilizing Unemployment Insurance (UI) data from states. Dr. Beach speculated there would likely be UI reform efforts at the state policy level or in Congress and perhaps some future opportunities for utilizing UI data in a collaborative effort between BLS and state government agencies.

    Changes in Data Products by U.S. Census, BLS, and BEA

    Pulse Surveys by the U.S. Census Bureau might not be a permanent product, says Dr. Jarmin, as the data collection is burdensome to users. But while the Pulse Surveys may be impractical in the long term, Dr. Jarmin stated the U.S. Census Bureau is committed to quickly designing and implementing novel and helpful surveys during times of emergency—as the agency did with the Pulse Surveys during the COVID-19 crisis. In other news, the U.S. Census Bureau will also begin collecting data on state marijuana tax revenue collected by states where marijuana is legalized.

    For BLS, new data product updates include the release of monthly data from the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS), where users can find experimental estimates for all 50 states and the District of Columbia for the total nonfarm level job openings, hires, and separations. The first round of JOLTS monthly data was released in June of 2021. And finally, Dr. Bohman announced that BEA, for the first time, will release official statistics of real personal consumption expenditures beginning on December 14, 2021.

    Overall, leadership from the U.S. Census Bureau, BLS, and BEA emphasized their commitment to finding innovative data collection and infrastructure methods to provide fast, specific, and disaggregated data to assist local and state applied workforce and economic development researchers.

  • The Impact of Certifications on Earnings across States and Occupations

    This article is part of a series of reports on new estimates from the Labor Market Information Institute State Certification and Licenses Data Tables. Find previous blog posts in this series here.

    For workers adapting to changing economic conditions, non-degree credentials can help with retraining and gaining new skill sets. But do these non-degree credentials also increase earnings? Very little information has been available regarding the relevant earnings outcomes (we know much more about earnings from degrees). Utilizing micro-data from the Current Population Survey (CPS), the LMI Institute aims to improve our understanding of the value of licenses and certifications for earnings potential.

    This month, we look at the earnings of workers who have a certification but no license. Nationally, those with only a certification earn $363 or 44% more than those with neither a certification nor license.

    Below we list the states with the greatest percent difference in earnings associated with a certification. The top two states are Maryland and Virginia, each with a difference of more than $700 in weekly median earnings for those with a certification only compared to those with no certification or license.

    Top 10 States
    Weekly Median Earnings: Difference Between Those with a Certification Only
    and Those with Neither a Certification nor a License
    (Ranked by Percent Difference)
    Rank State Percent Difference  Earnings Difference
    1 Virginia 79% $714
    2 Maryland 76% $731
    3 Nebraska 76% $572
    4 West Virginia 72% $520
    5 Georgia 71% $548
    6 Arizona 70% $554
    7 Louisiana 65% $486
    8 New Mexico 65% $456
    9 Kentucky 64% $460
    10 Nevada 63% $468

    Results for all states are listed on our Tableau dashboard. The lowest earnings difference, in Indiana, was $224 — workers with a certification only earn only 29% more than those with neither certifications nor licenses. The lowest percent difference in earnings, in Ohio, was 28% — wages for workers with a certification only earned $226 more than their counterparts without a certification.

    While the CPS does not include data about what specific certifications are driving these results for states, we can look at whether certifications seem to increase earnings for people in some occupations more than in others. (Results below are national. Details by occupation and state are available to members through LMI Institute.)

    Those with only a certification in sales and related occupations earn 57% more than those without a certification or license, $433 more per week on average. Among those who work in legal occupations, people with a certification earn 50% more than their counterparts without a certification, $552 more per week. In contrast, people working in healthcare support occupations earned only $56 more in median weekly earnings with a certification. Results for all occupations are listed on our Tableau dashboard.

    Top 10 Occupations
    Difference Between Those with a Certification Only
    and Those with Neither a Certification nor a License
    (Ranked by Percent Difference)
    Rank Occupation Percent Difference Earnings Difference
    1 Sales and related occupations 57% $433
    2 Legal occupations 50% $552
    3 Business and financial operations occupations 36% $427
    4 Construction and extraction occupations 35% $276
    5 Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations 35% $189
    6 Personal care and service occupations 33% $171
    7 Management occupations 32% $446
    8 Production occupations 29% $205
    9 Food preparation and serving related occupations 27% $132
    10 Community and social services occupations 24% $211

    State Certifications and Licenses data allows the user to analyze earnings data with and without a certification or license, or with a certification only (no license) by state. The LMI Institute suppressed all data with less than 30 observations from its analysis.  As a result, occupational earnings data for workers with a certification only are limited to just the largest states. It is important to note that these are only estimates and we have not tested the degree of correlation or statistical significance of the differences in certification attainment and wages. We hope these initial estimates will encourage further research.

    The LMI Institute recently presented a webinar on “How LMI Institute State Certifications and Licenses Data Informs State-Level Research” to its members as part of the LMI Workforce Roundtable Series. This data can drive research into sub-population attainment of certifications and licenses and high-value credentials required for occupations or that substantially increase earnings. Watch this presentation to learn more about how your state can benefit from increase understanding of certification and license attainment and their associated earnings! See the Webinar HERE.

    Use the data explorer below to see where your state ranks relative to the Nation and its Region in the difference in earnings for workers with and without a Certification (but no License). Select your state’s Region to explore how your Region’s occupations with the greatest difference between workers with and without a certification (but no license). Hover over the data for more details on certification attainment and earnings with and without a certification (but no license). [1]

    The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Current Population Survey collects information on the prevalence of certifications and licenses in the United States, published annually. Using this data, the Labor Market Information (LMI) Institute produced state-level estimates on the prevalence of certifications and licenses, including tables comparing certification and licensure by educational attainment across occupations, age, race and ethnicity, and gender.

    [1] All data with less than 30 observations has been suppressed from the data. Observations for earnings are generally lower than for attainment and are generally lowest at lower levels of education.

  • Regional Trends in Southern State Business Incentives Programs

    C2ER is in the process of completing its annual summer update of the State Business Incentives Database. The C2ER State Business Incentives Database provides users with data on 2,100 state business incentive programs from all US states and territories. Through a regional analysis of incentive programs in the Southern US, we can understand how geography and regional competition shapes trends in incentives programs.

    Southern States Included in Analysis


    Program Business Needs

    Business Need Southern States National
    Business Management 2.8% 7.8%
    Capital Access or Formation 26.1% 75.8%
    Facility/Site Location 11% 32.7%
    Infrastructure Improvement 10.3% 21.3%
    Marketing & Sales Assistance 1.7% 6.6%
    Product & Process Improvement 6.8% 21.9%
    Professional Networking 0.8% 3.1%
    Tax/Regulatory Burden Reduction 27.5% 71.2%
    Tech & Product Development 4.9% 14.2%
    Workforce Prep and Development 7.3% 19.3%
    Other 0.7% 2.8%
    Note: Programs may have multiple business needs.

    Program business needs in the South generally reflect national trends, with the most programs categorized as capital access or formation programs, facility/site location, and tax/regulatory burden reduction. There are a significant number of programs that also fall under the infrastructure improvement category.

    In general, national programs top business needs include capital access or formation, tax/regulatory burden reduction, and facility/site location. For Southern states, we also see infrastructure improvement as a business need that many incentive programs fall into.

    Southern states’ business incentives packages typically include historic rehabilitation tax credits, grants and loans for rural development, and tax credits for manufacturing. Businesses rehabilitating properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places qualify for a 20% federal-income tax credit on qualified expenditures. On top of the federal tax credit, every Southern state offers an additional state-income tax credit between for rehabilitation, with 8 states offering a 25% tax credit. Delaware further offers a 30% tax credit for qualified rehabilitation costs for non-profits, and Kentucky offers a 30% credit for owner-occupied residential properties. Almost 40% of historic places are in the South.

    Incentives in the Southern states also focus on encouraging business expansion and relocation through targeted incentives for job creation. Headquarters relocation incentives offer credits against corporations’ state tax liability to offset costs associated with the relocation of a company’s headquarters to the state, including moving and the purchase or replacement of equipment. Georgia’s Quality Jobs Tax Credit provides a state-income tax credit of up to $5,000 per new job that pays over the average state wage. Oklahoma’s Quality Jobs Program provides a cash rebate of equivalent to 5% of payroll for 10 years for businesses that expand and create new jobs in the state. These programs are designed to create high-paying jobs and increase investment in the state through offsetting the costs associated with relocation and job creation.

    Southern states commonly offer incentives programs to support defense communities that host military installations, service members, and their families or are suffering from the recent closure of an installing. With a large concentration of military bases located in the South, such programs are especially vital to the region. Texas, which hosts the second largest number of military bases in the US, offers grant and loan programs to communities support those that were positively affected by Department of Defense decisions, such as new or expanded military missions, or communities negatively affected, those recovering from a reduction or termination in defense contracts. The Georgia Military Zone Job Tax Program provides a $3,500 per job tax credit to businesses that create at least 2 new jobs in high-poverty census tracts adjacent to military installations. These incentives not only support those businesses that may employ families of service members, but also encourage economic development in and around defense communities.

    Users can use the incentives database to identify regional trends, especially those that will be relevant to their own economic analyses. Please contact C2ER if you are interested in the data or if C2ER can help facilitate a regional analysis.

  • Federal Funding Opportunities with the EDA through the CARES Act

    This blog is the third in a series that will highlight opportunities for OEA grantees to sustain and enhance work undertaken in OEA-funded programs by leveraging new programs and funding related to the Covid-19 pandemic response.

    Program Description

    On May 7, 2020, the US Economic Development Administration (EDA) released a Federal Funding Opportunities (FFO) Notice for program investments to “support a wide range of non-construction and construction activities, including Revolving Loan Funds, in regions across the country experiencing severe economic dislocations brought about by the coronavirus pandemic.” Thanks to the CARES Act, an additional $1.467 billion in funding is available.

    Program Parameters

    These funds are authorized under one of EDA’s flagship programs, the Economic Adjustment Assistance (EAA) Program. EAA provides “investments that support a wide range of construction and non-construction activities (including infrastructure, design and engineering, technical assistance, economic recovery strategies, and capitalization or re-capitalization of Revolving Loan Funds (RLF)) in regions experiencing severe economic dislocations that may occur suddenly or over time.”

    These new investments will operate much like traditional EDA funding programs. Communities can access funding to support a wide variety of program uses and activities.  Specific examples noted in the FFO include: “economic recovery planning and preparing technical assistance strategies to address economic dislocations caused by the coronavirus pandemic, preparing or updating resiliency plans to respond to future pandemics, implementing entrepreneurial support programs to diversify economies, and constructing public works and facilities that will support economic recovery, including the deployment of broadband for purposes including supporting telehealth and remote learning for job skills.”

    EDA funding opportunities generally require that projects align with your region’s Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS), which are typically funded by EDA or by another EDA-approved regional strategy. In addition, applicants are encouraged to contact EDA’s regional office staff to discuss project ideas and plans, and to obtain technical assistance with the application process. EDA’s regular rules regarding eligibility, cost sharing, and other factors apply to this FFO as well.

    In addition to providing funding for regions facing COVID-19-related economic distress, EDA is also encouraging applications from communities affected by economic changes in both the coal industry and the nuclear power sector. EDA has supported funding to help coal-impacted communities in the past.  The initiative focused on nuclear closure communities is a new initiative authorized by Congress last year; $13.5 million is available for this purpose.

    EDA has set up a CARES Act Recovery Assistance Page that can be accessed at:

    https://www.eda.gov/coronavirus/.  This site includes links to the FFO and related materials.

    Discussion and Implications for OEA Grantees

    Most OEA grantees likely have experience working with EDA, and many currently manage or support EDA-funded projects. This new funding opportunity seems likely to be managed much like the traditional program portfolio. However, the big difference is scale, as the CARES Act $1.5 billion appropriation far exceeds any previous amount deployed by EDA. In recent years, EDA’s core program budget has been in the range of $300 to $350 million, although additional funds are often available for disaster assistance or other specific needs.

    EDA intends to deploy funds as quickly as possible and is already accepting applications. While open to a wide range of applications and support requests, it has identified several priority areas including:

    • COVID-19 Economic Recovery Planning and Technical Assistance Grants which will be provided directly to EDA partner organizations such as Economic Development Districts, Tribal grantees, University Centers, and others;
    • Grants to state and regional organizations to develop CARES Act recovery and resilience strategies, including industry supply chain, cluster analyses, econometric analyses, diversification efforts, and travel and tourism-related marketing campaigns;
    • Capitalizing or recapitalizing EDA-backed revolving loan funds, which have been in high demand to support COVID-19-affected businesses; and
    • Innovation grants using the Regional Innovation Strategies (RIS) approach and model. RIS is now known as Build to Scale. More information on Build to Scale can be found at https://www.eda.gov/oie/buildtoscale/.

    Most activities now underway by OEA grantees would likely be potential candidates for EDA’s CARES Act funds—assuming that you can meet match, eligibility criteria, and other requirements.

    Next Steps

    OEA grantees that conducted projects in the priority areas identified by EDA should consider applying for awards under this EDA opportunity. In many cases, the OEA grantee is eligible to apply; if not, we encourage partnering with an eligible entity. Once you have a project concept in mind, you should contact your state’s economic development representative (EDR) or your EDA regional office as soon as possible to discuss your ideas. EDA is awarding some portion of the $1.5 billion to current economic development districts, university centers, and/or revolving loan funds. We expect that demand for the remainder of this funding will be strong, and that funds will be quickly exhausted.

  • SBA Entrepreneurial Development Programs Offer Key Resources through the CARES Act

    This blog is the second in a series that will highlight opportunities for OEA grantees to sustain and enhance work undertaken in OEA-funded programs by leveraging new programs and funding related to the COVID-19 pandemic response.

    Program Description 

    The Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Office of Entrepreneurial Development (OED) manages several technical assistance programs that provide training and counseling to small business. The network includes Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs), Women’s Business Centers (WBCs), and the Office of Entrepreneurship Education (OEE) which works closely with SCORE volunteer counselors.  With 63 lead Centers and more than 900 service locations, SBDCs represent one of the most extensive networks of small business counseling resources across the nation. Local SBDCs provide free one-on-one consulting and low-cost training to small businesses on business planning, accessing capital, marketing, complying with federal and state regulations, developing new products, and finding new customers in the US and abroad. They are complemented by over 100 WBCs that work closely with women-owned enterprises to ensure they have access to resources, including improving their ability to access federal contracts. OED works with 348 SCORE chapters representing more than 13,000 volunteer business counselors and a free online learning portal, SBA’s Emerging Leaders Initiative. 

    What the Stimulus (CARES Act) Does 

    The CARES Act provides $240 million to SBA’s Office of Entrepreneurial Development for SBDCs and WBCs. The Act stipulates that 80 percent of the funds go to SBDCs and 20 percent to WBCs. The Act also waives any match requirement for these additional funds. The funding essentially doubles available funding to the Centers with additional resources targeted to addressing the anticipated increase in demand for information and help to navigate available small business resources.   

    Program Parameters 

    Funding is being provided to SBDCs and WBCs through a noncompetitive Funding Opportunity Announcement process that requires Centers to describe how they will provide services to meet the spirit and intent of the legislation.1 Centers are expected to enhance their capacity to undertake specific activities addressing COVID–19, such as responding to calls from businesses, conducting webinars, and hiring specialized counselors. Centers may also work through partner organizations in delivering relevant services to small businesses. 

    The funds can be used for educating, training, and advising impacted small business owners and employees on how to: 

    1. Access and apply for Federal resources; 
    2. Reduce and prevent the transmission of COVID–19 and other communicable diseases; 
    3. Address the potential effects of COVID–19 on the supply chains, distribution, and sale of products of covered small business concerns; 
    4. Manage telework and provide remote customer service to reduce possible transmission of COVID–19; 
    5. Mitigate risks associated with cyber threats due to increased remote customer service or telework practices; 
    6. Overcome the consequences of reduced travel or outside activities on covered small business concerns during COVID–19 or similar occurrences; and  
    7. Identify other business practices to mitigate the economic effects of COVID–19 or similar occurrences. 

    Currently, most Centers are reacting to the immediate needs demanded by the public health crisis. The new funding is for a 12–month grant that should allow Centers to structure partnerships designed to increase company awareness about approaches to ensure company survival and resiliency through more strategic business recovery planning and implementation efforts. 

    Discussion and Implications for OEA Grantees 

    At least seven OEA grantees have engaged SBDCs as part of their effort. However, this network is an underutilized resource that could be used to help defense-related business owners access information and develop skills to support their enterprises. With increased flexible funding available, OEA grantees could potentially leverage even greater involvement from SBDCs and WBCs to help defense-related companies learn more about best practices in addressing a variety of challenges. Furthermore, SBDCs and WBCs are seeking new team members and partners to help address the massive increase in demand for SBDC training and counseling services resulting from the COVID-19 crisis. Opportunities include: 

    Cybersecurity awareness training. At least two OEA grantees have already engaged SBDCs to assist in providing cybersecurity awareness to small businesses that are currently or potentially could be in the defense supply chain. Beyond DOD requirements, COVID-19 has created a greater demand for using remote work locations, expanding the deployment of web-enabled robotics, and increasing the use of video conferencing. These all created potential risk points for cybersecurity threats, and they suggest a greater need for SBDCs and OEA grantees to partner to mitigate cybersecurity threats and provide counseling to small businesses (including defense-related companies that are not manufacturers). 

    Assistance with Accessing SBA and Treasury Capital Programs. Many defense-related companies rely largely on traditional financing mechanisms, including bank lending and available contracts to manage cash flows. With slowdowns in production due to disruptions in supply chains and worker safety concerns, defense-related businesses are struggling to ensure that they have the cash flow required to continue operating. DOD has demonstrated a willingness to address some capital needs for its industrial base, but companies farther down the supply chain tiers are less likely to benefit from those policies. SBDCs provide an invaluable resource in helping defense-related companies continue operating and meet the needs of DOD customers. SBDCs provide expertise in available financing options and hands-on help with putting together financial packages for available Federal and state programs that address immediate capital needs as well as existing lending and equity investment programs that could help defense-related companies to access the capital needed to take advantage of growth opportunities. These programs are particularly relevant for OEA grantees promoting innovation in new product development and entrepreneurial efforts to create or expand businesses that could offer new defense-related products or services. 

    Worker Safety and Productivity Improvement Training Associated with Re-opening after COVID-19 Closures or Slow-Downs. Many defense-related companies continued operating in some capacity throughout the COVID-19 crisis while others significantly reduced or shut down production entirely. To get back to full productivity will require ensuring that defense-related companies are taking appropriate measures to protect their workers from the coronavirus. Several organizations have created recovery frameworks designed to help companies get back to full production. These frameworks identify several steps in hazard mitigation designed through improved housekeeping and sanitation standards, redesigning production spaces to increase social distancing, providing protective equipment to reduce virus spread, and restructuring administrative requirement to reduce potential transmission points. The goal is to increase worker confidence that their workspace is safe. SBDCs, working closely with other partners such as MEP Centers, can be invaluable partners in helping to share information with defense-related companies about best practices and guiding companies through one-on-one counseling designed to assess and benchmark efforts to reduce COVID-19 related worker hazards. 

    Resiliency and Business Continuity Training and Awareness. While some companies had business continuity plans, others had to create them on the fly.  Now would be a good time to work with defense-related companies to review what worked and what didn’t for them during the COVID-19 crisis. The goal is to help document the efforts taken and set up more structured plans for potential future disruptions, including the potential for future waves of the COVID-19 virus. For instance, companies must review their supply system to anticipate potentially significant disruptions (something that companies did not previously plan for) and develop plans that recognize greater risks as they review their priorities, develop safeguards, and reduce the potential impact for disruptions. To remain competitive, most businesses will need to consider strategies that address cash flow and revenue sources, distribution and fulfillment, as well as supply chain contingencies in ways that reduce the impact of future regional flare ups of COVID-19 or other man-made or natural disasters on their operations. SBDCs provide a potential resource to gain these insights and to develop best practices that could be shared with companies through structured training programs. In addition, SBDCs could help with developing social media, blog posts, and related communications to help defense-related companies better prepare for future disruptions. 

    Assistance with Matching Entrepreneurs Willing to Create Companies to Meet Supply Chain Gaps Caused by COVID-related Disruptions. COVID-19 is creating a plethora of opportunities for entrepreneurs that can meet new demands for health mitigation and prevention equipment for defense-related firms to possible defense-related product design changes that would protect the warfighter or reduce the need for face-to-face worker for production line defense workers. As entrepreneurs explore these opportunities and test new ideas, they will need a variety of help in designing business plans, developing business models, and finding start-up or product develop support. SBDCs could be a vital force multiplier in reviewing these entrepreneurial ideas and supporting expanded pitch competitions or other options to prepare these ideas (and the businesses supporting them) for potential DOD procurement opportunities. Through their expanded stimulus resources, SBDCs have pre-existing support systems in place and will have expanded staff and partner networks to support these activities in collaboration with OEA grantees. 

    Next Steps 

    SBDCs and WBCs are already able to expand their activities based on a “pre-award” condition that allows reimbursement for COVID-19 related activities before grants are put into place (expected in May and June 2020). OEA grantees seeking to collaborate can reach out to their state SBDC lead Center or to relevant Women’s Business Centers to explore opportunities like those suggested above. In addition, models of how OEA grantees were already working with SBDCs before the COVID-19 crisis can offer some ideas. Those include efforts in Indiana, Texas, Georgia, Hawaii, California’s CASCADE project and Colorado Springs (which leveraged the SBDCs and PTACs to help provide cybersecurity awareness training and some cyber assessments), and Kern County, CA. 

  • 2017 C2ER Accomplishments

    During the past 12 months, the Council for Community and Economic Research, YOUR professional membership organization, has been hard at work increasing the visibility of economic, workforce, and community research by advocating for higher quality data, promoting more focused public and private investments in local data, and continuing to strengthen C2ER products and services.  We keep you informed about new data sources, exciting research, and opportunities to learn.  Following are some of the most vital accomplishments during the past year.

    Communication with Data Users and Producers

    Publications: C2ER/LMI Institute Weekly Update and Journal

    • Modernized the weekly Update with a fresh look
    • Monitored and summarized emerging data issues, relevant events, and recent research
    • Distributed weekly Update to more than 8,000 individuals, including members and targeted stakeholders
    • Developed target updates to non-members to increase membership rates among current readers
    • Published blog posts on topics relevant to C2ER members, including C2ER events and economic development news and trend analysis (https://blog.c2er.org/)
    • Produced four specialized blog-formatted articles for the Journal of Applied Research in Economic Development on relevant issues to economic development analysts and practitioners

    Annual Conference, Training and Certification

    • Coordinated C2ER Annual Conference, LMI Institute Annual Forum and the Projections Managing Partnership (PMP) Summit for more than 240 attendees
    • Delivered in-person training courses:

    Basic Labor Market Information Analyst

    Foundations of Applied Economic Development Research

    Intermediate Tableau for Economic and Workforce Developers

    Leadership in Research Workshop

    Analyzing & Developing Workforce Studies

    New Census Tools 101

    Applied Analyst Training

    • Conducted 24 webinars, reaching over 2,000 audience members
    • Certified three new Certified Community Researchers (CCR) in Quarter 4, 2017

    Data Advocacy and National Visibility for C2ER Member Efforts

    • Served as member of BLS Data Users Advisory Committee
    • Collaborated with Friends of BLS and the Census Project in federal statistical advocacy efforts
    • Met periodically with key Census, BLS, and BEA leaders to improve regional data access
    • Represented the interests of statistical data users in meetings with Congressional staff during several visits to Capitol Hill, including organizing C2ER volunteers to contact Congress
    • Signed on to several letters advocating for proper funding for Census, BLS, and BEA
    • Provided input and technical assistance to the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking

    Data Collection and Research Activities

    Cost of Living Index – C2ER’s flagship data product since 1968   http://www.coli.org

    • Remodeled and issued 2017 County and State Level Cost of Living Index
    • Improved the process of library application and added three non-COLI databases including the State Business Incentives Database, State Economic Development Program Expenditures Database, and C2ER Diversity Index Database
    • Conducted online data scraping for housing, grocery, and miscellaneous categories nationwide
    • Attended annual conferences for the American Library Association, Tableau, and Emsi to promote C2ER products and membership
    • Increased metro participation with eight new communities contributing data

    C2ER State Business Incentives Database Update http://www.stateincentives.org/

    • Maintained and updated unique summary of around 1,800 state programs designed to help businesses create jobs with 2017-2018 state legislative changes
    • Added additional programs for all U.S. states, territories, and the District of Columbia
    • Renewed the partnership with SelectUSA at the U.S. Department of Commerce to provide content to international companies seeking U.S. facility locations
    • Updated the program manager contact list based on state agency feedback

    C2ER State Economic Development Program Expenditures Database Update  http://www.stateexpenditures.org

    • Updated database for FY 2018 proposed expenditures, as well as FY 2016 actual and FY 2017 appropriated expenditures (when available), for all 50 states in the database
      • Updated 2,300 and added 1,100 more state economic development program expenditure records

    Other Policy and Economic Research and Technical Assistance

    • Continued partnership on a two-year project on state data sharing laws, regulations and agreements for a project sponsored by Laura and John Arnold Foundation
    • Assisted National Association of State Workforce Agencies (NASWA) with assessing the data analytic opportunities from the National Labor Exchange database of job openings data
    • Provided state incentives information to the U.S. Dept. of Commerce SelectUSA program
    • Conducted research on Current Population Survey microdata about the prevalence of credentials by education level, occupation, and other workforce characteristics
    • Launched the C2ER Tools of the Trade Database, an online resource for economic and workforce developers to identify data resources to guide their research

  • President’s Budget Overview for Economic Development and Statistics

    Economic Development Related Cuts

    • The Budget proposes to eliminate funding for many independent agencies, including: the Appalachian Regional Commission; the Delta Regional Authority; the Denali Commission; the Northern Border Regional Commission.
    • Eliminates the Economic Development Administration, which provides small grants with limited measurable impacts and duplicates other Federal programs, such as Rural Utilities Service grants at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and formula grants to States from the Department of Transportation. By terminating this agency, the Budget saves $221 million from the 2017 annualized CR level.
    • Eliminates the Minority Business Development Agency, which is duplicative of other Federal, State, local, and private sector efforts that promote minority business entrepreneurship including Small Business Administration District Offices and Small Business Development Centers.
    • Saves $124 million by discontinuing Federal funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program, which subsidizes up to half the cost of State centers, which provide consulting services to small- and medium-size manufacturers. By eliminating Federal funding, MEP centers would transition solely to non-Federal revenue sources, as was originally intended when the program was established.
    • Reduces duplicative and underperforming USDA programs by eliminating discretionary activities of the Rural Business and Cooperative Service, a savings of $95 million from the 2017 annualized CR level.
    • Eliminates the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, the Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program, and the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program because the private sector is better positioned to finance disruptive energy research and development and to commercialize innovative technologies.
    • Expands DOL Reemployment and Eligibility Assessments, an evidence-based activity that saves an average of $536 per claimant in unemployment insurance benefit costs by reducing improper payments and getting claimants back to work more quickly and at higher wages.
    • Decreases Federal support for DOL job training and employment service formula grants, shifting more responsibility for funding these services to states, localities, and employers.
    • Helps states expand apprenticeships, an evidence-based approach to preparing workers for jobs.
    • Eliminates funding for the Essential Air Service (EAS) program, which was originally conceived of as a temporary program nearly 40 years ago to provide subsidized commercial air service to rural airports. EAS flights are not full and have high subsidy costs per passenger. Several EAS-eligible communities are relatively close to major airports, and communities that have EAS could be served by other existing modes of transportation. This proposal would result in a discretionary savings of $175 million from the 2017 annualized CR level.
    • Eliminates funding for the unauthorized TIGER discretionary grant program, which awards grants to projects that are generally eligible for funding under existing surface transportation formula programs, saving $499 million from the 2017 annualized CR level. Further, DOT’s Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects grant program, authorized by the FAST Act of 2015, supports larger highway and multimodal freight projects with demonstrable national or regional benefits. This grant program is authorized at an annual average of $900 million through 2020.
    • Eliminates funding for Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund grants, a savings of $210 million from the 2017 annualized CR level. The CDFI Fund was created more than 20 years ago to jump-start a now mature industry where private institutions have ready access to the capital needed to extend credit and provide financial services to underserved communities.
    • Achieves $12 million in cost savings from the 2017 annualized CR level through identifying and eliminating those SBA grant programs where the private sector provides effective mechanisms to foster local business development and investment. Eliminations include PRIME technical assistance grants, Regional Innovation Clusters, and Growth Accelerators.

    Statistics Related News

    • Provides $1.5 billion, an increase of more than $100 million, for the U.S. Census Bureau to continue preparations for the 2020 Decennial Census. This additional funding prioritizes fundamental investments in information technology and field infrastructure, which would allow the bureau to more effectively administer the 2020 Decennial Census.
    • Consolidates the mission, policy support, and administrative functions of the Economics and Statistics Administration within the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the Department of Commerce’s Office of the Secretary.
    • Reduces funding for USDA’s statistical capabilities, while maintaining core Departmental analytical functions, such as the funding necessary to complete the Census of Agriculture.