USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

South central Florida's regional economy

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
South central Florida's regional economy report to the Central Florida Regional Planning Council
Physical Description:
1 online resource (ii, 21 p.) : charts ;
Language:
English
Creator:
University of South Florida -- Center for Economic Development Research
Publisher:
Center for Economic Development Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Community development -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Economic conditions -- De Soto County (Fla.)   ( lcsh )
Economic conditions -- Hardee County (Fla.)   ( lcsh )
Economic conditions -- Highlands County (Fla.)   ( lcsh )
Economic conditions -- Okeechobee County (Fla.)   ( lcsh )
Economic conditions -- Polk County (Fla.)   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
This report, intended to encourage public discussion and to stimulate additional input, summarizes the Central Florida Regional Planning Council's (CFRPC) efforts to update the economic development section of its Strategic Regional Policy (SRP) and to create a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) for its district. The economic analysis of the CFRPC's five county region, summarized herein, serves as a component of the SRPP and CEDS.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Center for Economic Development Research, College of Business Administration, University of South Florida.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page (viewed Aug. 5, 2009).
General Note:
"July 2001."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 002022997
oclc - 429282690
usfldc doi - C63-00011
usfldc handle - c63.11
System ID:
SFS0000289:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

South Central Florida’s Regional EconomyReport to the Central Florida Regional Planning Council By CENTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH College of Business Administration1101 Channelside Dr., 2nd Floor N., Tampa, Florida 33602 Office: (813) 905-5854 or Fax: (813) 905-5856July, 2001

PAGE 2

iTable of ContentsPreface........................................................................................................................ .....................ii Introduction................................................................................................................... ..................1 Population..................................................................................................................... ..................2 Labor Force.................................................................................................................... .................3 Employment..................................................................................................................... ...............6 Income......................................................................................................................... ..................10 Population Characteristics..................................................................................................... ........11 Personal Income Sources........................................................................................................ .......13 Payroll Earnings............................................................................................................... .............14 Industry Structure............................................................................................................. .............15 Projected County-Level Employment Growth..............................................................................17 Commuting to Work.............................................................................................................. .......18 K Through 12 Education......................................................................................................... ......19 Concluding Remarks............................................................................................................. ........20 Appendix A..................................................................................................................... ..............21

PAGE 3

ii Preface The Central Florida Regional Planning Council (CFRPC) is the state-mandated planning organization for the region of south-central Florida. The CFRPC Planning district is comprised of the following five counties: DeSoto, Hardee, Highlands, Polk, and Okeechobee. The CFRPC is undertaking an update of the Economic Development section of its Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP) and production of a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) for its District. The CFRPC commissioned an economic analysis of the region, summarized in this document, to serve as a component of the SRPP and CEDS. The document is designed to encourage public discussion and to stimulate additional input into CFRPC’s strategic planning efforts. This summary report presents information and analysis from a study titled The Status of South Central Florida’s Regional Economy: An Update dated May, 2001. This report includes input from representatives of economic development organizations in the five counties of the CFRPC district. It is made available for public review and comment. The background study The Status of South Central Florida’s Regional Economy: An Update was prepared by the Center for Economic Development Research, College of Business Administration, University of South Florida. CEDR provides information and conducts research on issues related to economic growth and development in the Nation, in the state of Florida, and particularly in the central Florida region. The Center serves the faculty, staff, and students of the College of Business Administration, the University, and individuals and organizations in the University’s service area. CEDR’s activities are designed to further the objectives of the University and specifically the objectives of the College of Business Administration. Robert Anderson, Dean, College of Business Administration (COBA), USF Kenneth Wieand, Director, Center for Economic Development Research (CEDR), COBA, USF Dennis G. Colie, Assistant Director, CEDR, COBA, USF Alex A. McPherson, Research Associate, CEDR, COBA, USF

PAGE 4

1 INTRODUCTION The Center for Economic Development Research (CEDR), College of Business Administration (COBA), University of South Florida (USF), analyzed the regional economy of the five counties that comprise the area of responsibility of the Central Florida Regional Planning Council (CFRPC). The five counties are DeSoto, Hardee, Highlands, Okeechobee, and Polk. These counties are referred to in the report as the CF-counties. CFRPC has distributed CEDR’s comprehensive report of the regional economic analysis. The comprehensive report is titled The Status of South Central Florida’s Regional Economy: An Update The report is dated May 2001. This document summarizes the comprehensive report. The comprehensive report is based on publicly available data published by federal agencies, the Florida Agency on Workforce Innovation (formerly Florida Department of Labor) and the Florida Department of Education. In this summary report, we have supplemented the federal and State data with input from local area economic development officials in the CF-counties. These economic development officials reviewed the comprehensive analysis and then augmented the analysis by providing us input based on information and data available to their agencies. During the last decade Florida’s economy has been fuelled by population growth. From 1990 to 2000 the state’s population grew by almost 23%, the state’s labor force grew by slightly over 17%, and employment in Florida grew by almost 21%. However, Florida’s rural counties did not always proportionately share in this growth. Population growth in the Central Florida (CF) region was only slightly below the statewide rate. However, the growth rate of the labor force lagged the state’s rate in each CF-county. Similarly, employment growth in each CF-county was less than the statewide rate. (The labor force and employment actually declined in Hardee County and in DeSoto County.) In the comprehensive report we also compared the CF region with the neighboring metropolitan counties of Hillsborough and Orange. Again, the CF regional growth rates generally trailed those in metro areas. Insufficient resources often hamper rural economic development agencies. Programs for rural development run by Enterprise Florida, Inc., the state’s principal development agency, may require added funding. Economic development officials from Polk County observed that Enterprise Florida, Inc., does not “spend enough time” on rural economic development, particularly in such areas as Hardee and DeSoto Counties. This deficiency has been noted at the state level. Additional resources for rural development have been made available in the most recent state budget under the Governor’s “Toolkit for Economic Development Communities” assistance program.

PAGE 5

2 POPULATION Polk County’s population is almost three times that of the combined populations of the CF region’s remaining four counties. In 2000, 483,924 of the CF region’s population of 668,347 persons lived in Polk County. Population Census 2000 26,938 32,209 87,366 35,910 483,924 Hardee DeSoto Highlands Okeechobee Polk Chart 1a Table 1 reports population growth between 1990 and 2000. The CF region’s population growth rate of 21.2% was only slightly under the statewide rate. Table 1 Population Growth 1990 2000 Population Place 1990 2000 % Change Hardee19,54226,93837.8% DeSoto23,93832,20934.6% Highlands68,95787,36626.7% Okeechobee29,75635,91020.7% Polk407,222483,92418.8% CF region551,405668,34721.2% CF region less Polk142,193182,42328.3% Florida13,018,36515,982,37822.8% Orange684,473896,34431.0% Hillsborough835,937998,94819.5%Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census

PAGE 6

3 Hardee County experienced the fastest population growth rate while Polk County’s rate was the slowest. Chart 1b Population Growth 1990 20000.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0%Hardee DeSoto Highlands Okeechobee Polk CF region CF region less Polk Florida Orange Hillsborough In this instance, however, the percentage figures for growth rates may be misleading. Combined population growth in Hardee, Highlands, DeSoto and Okeechobee during the decade was only 40,230 persons. Polk County’s population, which grew from a larger base, increased by 76,702 persons over the same period. LABOR FORCE Table 2 reports labor force growth between 1990 and 2000. The labor force growth rates in the CF-counties lagged behind the statewide rate.

PAGE 7

4Table 2 Labor Force Growth 1990 2000 Labor Force Place 1990 2000 % Change Okeechobee13,65915,35012.4% Polk200,240205,3522.6% Highlands25,73325,7230.0% Hardee9,1858,800-4.2% DeSoto9,6708,442-12.7% CF region260,477265,6672.0% Florida6,468,0007,593,00017.4% Orange390,727513,16231.3% Hillsborough452,770570,19525.9%Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor StatisticsOver the past decade the labor forces in DeSoto County and in Hardee County declined despite rising county populations. In Highlands County labor force growth was essentially flat. Okeechobee County had the greatest labor force expansion among the CF-counties at 12.4%. Chart 2Labor Force Growth 1990 2000-20.0%-10.0%0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0% Okeechobee Polk Highlands Hardee DeSoto CF region Florida Orange Hillsborough

PAGE 8

5 In 2000, the measure of the labor force as a percent of the population, i.e. labor force participation rate, was below the statewide rate for all CF-counties. Chart 3Labor Force to Population: Year 20000.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%Hardee DeSoto Highlands Polk Okeechobee CF region Florida Orange Hillsborough Further, while Florida’s labor force participation rate declined 2.2% between 1990 and 2000, the decline in the CF region was 7.5%. See Table 3. Hardee County suffered the largest decline, falling from 47.0% to 32.7%. The smallest decline was in Okeechobee County, where labor force participation dropped from 45.9% in 1990 to 42.7% in 2000. Table 3 Labor Force to Population Percentage Percentage Place 1990 2000 Change Hardee47.0%32.7%-14.3% DeSoto40.4%26.2%-14.2% Highlands37.3%29.4%-7.9% Polk49.2%42.4%-6.7% Okeechobee45.9%42.7%-3.2% CF region47.2%39.7%-7.5% Florida49.7%47.5%-2.2% Orange57.1%47.5%-9.6% Hillsborough54.2%57.1%2.9%Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

PAGE 9

6 EMPLOYMENT The growth in the number of employed residents in the CF region between 1990 and 2000 was well below the statewide growth rate in employment. Table 4 reports the number of employed persons by the place of residence and the change in employment between 1990 and 2000. Table 4 Employment (Local Area Unemployment Survey) Employed Residents Place 1990 2000 Change % Change Polk180,475195,12414,6498.1% Okeechobee12,55414,2781,72413.7% Highlands23,48724,2177303.1% Hardee8,1357,962-173-2.1% DeSoto8,9957,944-1,051-11.7% CF region235,636251,52515,8896.7% Florida6,078,0007,310,0001,232,00020.3% Hillsborough431,421554,720123,29928.6% Orange369,708499,770130,06235.2%Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor StatisticsEmployment in DeSoto County and in Hardee County actually declined from 1990 to 2000. Okeechobee County managed the biggest percentage gain, 13.7%, during the decade by placing an

PAGE 10

7 additional 1,700 residents in jobs. In 2000, there were more than 3.5 times the number of employed residents living in Polk County than the number of employed residents in the four remaining CF-counties combined. Employed Residents: Year 2000 195,124 14,278 24,217 7,962 7,944 Polk Okeechobee Highlands Hardee DeSoto Chart 4 From 1990 to 2000, all CF-counties enjoyed a falling unemployment rate. In 2000 Okeechobee County had the highest unemployment rate, 7.0%, in the CF region. Table 5 compares unemployment rates in 1990 with the rates in 2000. Table 5 Unemployment Rate Percent of Labor Force Unemployed Place 1990 2000 Change Polk9.9%5.0%-4.9% Highlands8.7%5.9%-2.8% Hardee11.4%9.5%-1.9% DeSoto7.0%5.9%-1.1% Okeechobee8.1%7.0% -1.1% CF region9.5%5.3%-4.2% Florida6.0%3.7%-2.3%

PAGE 11

8 Hillsborough4.7%2.7%-2.0% Orange5.4%2.6%-2.8%Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor StatisticsPolk County had the largest decline in the unemployment rate as it fell from 9.9% in 1990 to 5.0% in 2000. See Chart 5 for the changes in unemployment between 1990 and 2000. Change in Unemployment: 1990 2000-6.0%-5.0%-4.0%-3.0%-2.0%-1.0%0.0% Polk Highlands Hardee DeSoto Okeechobee CF region Florida Hillsborough Orange Chart 5While Table 4 reports the number of employed persons by place of residence, Table 6 shows employment by place of work. Table 6 also shows the percent change in employment from 1990 to 1995 and from 1995 to 2000.

PAGE 12

9 Table 6 Employment Growth: 1990 1995 and 1995 – 2000 Employees by Place of Work Place 1990 1995 % Change 2000 % Change DeSoto7,9948,87811.1%8,576-3.4% Hardee6,8217,68912.7%6,895-10.3% Highlands20,47922,4609.7%22,9002.0% Okeechobee7,7628,81513.6%9,70510.1% Polk157,062165,2555.2%181,90010.1% CF region202,108215,0926.4%231,9767.8% Florida13,018,00014,505,00011.4%15,982,00010.2% Hillsborough440,584492,84111.9%591,83220.1% Orange429,105489,69014.1%612,94125.2%Source: FL Department of Labor ES-202From 1990 to 1995, there was an increase of 12,984 persons working in the CF region. This increase represents a 6.4% growth rate in employment over the period. During the 1990 to 1995 period all CF-counties enjoyed increases in the number of people employed. Except for Polk County, which had a relatively low 5.2% increase in employment, the rate of growth in the other CF-counties was on a par with the statewide rate and employment growth in the comparison counties of Hillsborough and Orange. In the second half of the decade, 1995 to 2000, there was an additional increase of 16,884 persons working in the CF region, yielding a 7.8% growth rate for the five-year period. However, the employment growth rates in the counties were somewhat divergent. DeSoto County and Hardee County had declines in numbers of employees of 3.4% and 10.3%, respectively. Okeechobee County and Polk County each added about 10% to their employee totals. The increases in employment in the CF region were far below the over 20% increases experienced by the comparison, mid-Florida counties of Hillsborough and Orange. As noted above, percentage numbers do not reveal the absolute changes. In absolute numbers, employment increases in the rural CF-counties over the decade was small.

PAGE 13

10 INCOME Per capita personal income in the CF-counties lags behind Florida’s per capita personal income as well as the incomes in the comparison counties of Hillsborough and Orange. Table 7 reports per capita personal income for 2000. Table 7 Per Capita Personal Income: Year 2000 Place Personal Income (est.) Population Per Capita Polk$11,426,263,000483,924$23,612 Highlands$1,675,228,00087,366$19,175 Okeechobee$609,662,00035,910$16,977 DeSoto$526,661,00032,209$16,351 Hardee$412,376,00026,938$15,308 CF region$14,650,190,000666,347$21,986 Florida$456,095,000,00015,982,378$28,537 Hillsborough$27,026,000,000998,948$27,054 Orange$23,761,000,000896,344$26,509Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis and US Bureau of Labor Statistics A county’s ability to generate employment opportunities can be observed from the relationship between the employment growth rate and the population growth rate. For example, for the 1990-2000 decade, Highlands County employment growth rate is approximately half its population growth rate. The 1990-2000 trend may be projected into the coming decade on the assumption that it is a long run phenomenon that will continue in the coming decade. In doing so one must keep in mind that changes in infrastructure capacity, rural status, or population characteristics may have profound effects on the reliability of forecasts based on this kind of historical evidence. A benefit of trend analysis is that it identifies these variables and encourages a development agency to keep track of them.

PAGE 14

11 Per Capita Personal Income: Year 2000$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000Polk Highlands Okeechobee DeSoto Hardee CF region Florida Hillsborough Orange Chart 7 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS Table 8 describes the population according the characteristics of ethnicity (white and Hispanic) and age. The percentages of Hispanics residing in three CFcounties, Hardee (35.7%), DeSoto (24.9%), and Okeechobee (18.6%), exceed the statewide percentage of 16.8%. Overall the region has a lower percentage of Hispanics than statewide. Per capita income may not reflect the impacts of income changes in households, as it does not adjust for differences in household size. It was pointed out that, if per capita income were $16,000 per year, a family of four moving into the area would have to have a household income of $64,000 per year to maintain the existing level of per capita income. Likewise, if a county’s per capita income were $23,000 per year, a family of four moving into the county would have to generate a household income of $92,000 to maintain the existing level of per capita income. Thus, we must track also changes in household size.

PAGE 15

12 Table 8 Population Characteristics Census 2000 EthnicityAge Place Population White Hispanic 0-24 25-64 65+ DeSoto32,20973.3%24.9%33.8%46.0%20.2% Hardee26,93870.7% 35.7% 40.2%44.4%15.3% Highlands87,36683.5%12.1%24.1%39.8% 36.1% Okeechobee35,91079.3%18.6%38.7%45.0%16.3% Polk483,92479.6%9.5% 33.4%47.6%19.0% CF region666,34779.4%12.1%32.8%46.2%21.0% Florida15,982,37878.0%16.8%31.8%50.2%18.0% Hillsborough998,94875.2%18.0%35.2%52.3%12.6% Orange896,34468.6%18.8%37.0%52.4%10.6%Source: U.S. Bureau of the CensusThe CF region’s percentage of senior citizens, age 65 or over, exceeds the state of Florida by two percentage points. The CF region’s largest concentration of senior citizens is in Highlands County, where more than one out of three residents are age 65 or over. Economic development officials in the CF-counties observe that Hispanics are moving into some CF-counties in relatively large numbers. However, it is unclear why Hispanics are attracted to Florida and to certain Florida counties more than other counties. What are the implications for economic development in counties that are highly attractive for Hispanics? Economic development officials from Polk County also observe that the over age 65 population is more active than in the past. They perceive a need for a recreational and educational infrastructure to support these more active seniors’ needs. The region’s development agencies should ask the question: Is there an economic development role for addressing the more active seniors’ needs?

PAGE 16

13 PERSONAL INCOME SOURCES An examination of personal income sources – Table 9 reveals a smaller percentage of income from earnings and a larger percentage of income from transfer payments for the CF-counties as compared to Florida and the comparison counties of Hillsborough and Orange. This reflects relatively low workforce participation in the CF-counties. Highlands County also receives a disproportionate share of income generated by dividends and interest. The high percentage of dividend and interest income in Highlands County and the high transfer payment percentage in the county are consistent with its relatively older and retired population. Furthermore, with relatively fewer large-company employers in the CF-counties, the percentage of proprietors’ income is greater in the region’s counties that statewide and in the comparison counties. Table 9 Sources of Personal Income in 2000 Panel A Source Place Earnings Dividends / Interest Transfer Payments Highlands38% 32%29% Okeechobee56%18% 26% DeSoto57%20% 24% Hardee64%15% 21% Polk61%21% 19% CF region59%21%20% Florida58%26%16% Hillsborough67%19%14% Orange71%16%12%

PAGE 17

14 Table 9 Sources of Personal Income in 2000 Panel B Source Place Wages & Benefits Proprietors' Income Highlands82% 18% Okeechobee80% 20% DeSoto77% 23% Hardee76% 24% Polk 87% 13% CF region86%14% Florida90%10% Hillsborough93%7% Orange92%8%Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic AnalysisPAYROLL EARNINGS In 2000, average private-sector wages in the CF-counties lagged the state average of $28,849. Although the CF region’s industry structure explains some of this shortfall, pay in most industry divisions for the region also falls below the state average for those divisions. Average wages in Polk County were higher than in the other CF-counties and closer to the state average for each industry division. Economic development officials informed CEDR that a broadly acknowledged goal of economic development activity is to raise average wages within the community. Many development agencies attempt to raise average wages in their communities by attracting firms that pay high wages from other areas. However, an alternative method for raising average wages is to attract jobs that pay above the low end of the community’s prevailing wage scale and that are compatible with the skills and abilities of the community’s lower wage workers. This method allows current residents of the community to move up to higher paying jobs, thereby raising average wages. The location of GEICO insurance company into Polk County was cited as an example of this alternative method.

PAGE 18

15 INDUSTRY STRUCTURE The industry structure of the CF region reflects its rural nature. Agriculture and agricultural service industries are prominent. In 2000, about 30% of the employment in DeSoto County and in Hardee County was in agriculture. In Highlands County and in Okeechobee County agriculture encompassed about 15% of all jobs. In Polk County, agriculture made up only 4.5% of total employment, but that was still more than double that of Florida and the comparison counties (Florida 2.1%, Hillsborough 2.0%, Orange 1.4%). DeSoto County and Hardee County have distinctive industry structures. At 3% or less of total employment, manufacturing jobs in these counties were less than one-half of the state’s proportion of manufacturing jobs. Employment in the wholesale and retail trades was also well below the statewide percentage – 16.8% versus 25.2% around the state. Similarly, employment in service industries, which was 11.5% in DeSoto County and 17.5% in Hardee County, ranked behind a statewide percentage of 35.2%. On the other hand, government jobs at 31.8% of total employment in DeSoto County and at 24.6% in Hardee County were above Florida’s 13.8% of total employment in the public sector. On average, the industry structures of Highlands County and of Okeechobee County more closely resemble the state of Florida. A notable exception to this observation is, however, that Okeechobee County had the smallest percentage of manufacturing jobs in the CF region. Only 1.7% of employment in Okeechobee County was in manufacturing compared to 6.9% statewide. Highlands County counted 5.3% of jobs in manufacturing. Wholesale and retail trade jobs at about 25% of total employment closely mirrored the state. Employment in service industries – 28.9% in Highlands and 23.3% in Okeechobee – compared favorably with Florida’s overall proportion of 35.2%. These percentages reflect increased demand for services by residential populations who tend to be older and include more retirees. The proportion of government workers in Highlands County and Okeechobee County only slightly exceeds the state’s proportion. The proportionality of Polk County’s industry structure largely resembles that of its more populated neighboring counties, Hillsborough and Orange. A Highlands County economic development official noted that the data source utilized to describe industry structure in the comprehensive report is restricted to payroll workers. Local data in Highlands County measures manufacturing employment to be 1,000 jobs higher than the establishment total. Much of this difference is in two-person manufacturing businesses that do not participate in the State’s unemployment insurance program.

PAGE 19

16 Agriculture, mining and construction, manufacturing, and utilities traditionally are considered export-base industries. We call these industries “goods-producers.” Goods-producing businesses often offer high paying jobs with good benefits. Many high-tech manufacturing firms offer good jobs that are typical of the goods-producers. However, goods-producing industries are generally cyclical resulting in layoffs during periods of economic slowdown. Furthermore, goodsproducing employment has been steadily declining in the U.S., making it more difficult for economic development officials to attract goods-producers to their local area. In 2000, good-producers employed nearly 40% of workers in DeSoto County and in Hardee County. Goods-producers employed almost 30% of workers in Highland County, in Polk County, and in Okeechobee County. For comparison, goods-producers employed less that 20% of workers in Hillsborough County and in Orange County. There is much discussion of the emergence of a “new economy” in the U.S. based upon telecommunications, information technology and research-based product innovation. In Florida these manifestations appear in the growing business services industries that are locating in the state’s major metropolitan areas. Technology intensive business services are related to finance and insurance, telecommunications, and information-based business support. Administrative support employment is also growing rapidly. But much administrative support employment is less technology-oriented and reflects employment outsourcing of a broad spectrum of other industries. Business services employment requires a large employment base. Limited employee bases in the CF-counties has prevented them from sharing in the growing business services employment. See Appendix A for a table outlining the industry structures of the CF-counties. A Highlands County economic development official noted that Research and Development types of manufacturing jobs are not likely to be lucrative in rural areas. In-migration of workers to rural areas from urban centers or areas with coastal amenities has not proven to be a satisfying move in certain case studies. Another point, related to the above, is that utility infrastructure planning and capital commitment seems to be limited in rural areas. Certain areas that are experiencing substantial growth via residential housing development are dealing with water supply and sewage disposal issues on a project-to-project basis, rather than as a regional issue. Continued growth in commercial and industrial activities is contingent upon the successful planning, implementation and provision of spatially integrated capital improvements necessary to sustain growth.

PAGE 20

17 PROJECTED COUNTY-LEVEL EMPLOYMENT GROWTH The individual county projected growth rates for all jobs and for just private sector jobs are shown in Table 10. Table 10 Projected County-level Employment Growth, 2000 to 2005 Growth in Jobs Place All Jobs Private Sector Jobs Okeechobee9.1%8.9% Polk9.0%8.9% Highlands7.1%6.8% Hardee4.8%3.6% DeSoto4.7%3.3% Florida11.5%11.9% Hillsborough12.7%13.2% Orange14.9%15.3%Source: Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation

PAGE 21

18 COMMUTING TO WORK The CF region’s workers look outside their counties of residence for a place to work. Table 11 compares place-of-residence (LAUS) estimates of the workforce with place-of-work (ES 202) estimates. The data imply that, except for DeSoto County, residents of a particular county are working on a net basis in another county. Table 11 Commuting to Work Employed Persons in 2000 Place by Place-of-Residence by Place-of-Work Implied Net Commuting Polk195,124181,90013,224out Okeechobee14,2789,7054,573out Highlands24,21722,9001,317out Hardee7,9626,8951,067out DeSoto7,9448,576-632in Hillsborough554,720591,832-37,112in Orange499,770612,941-113,171inNote: Besides place-of-residence versus place-of-work, another distinction between the two data sets is that LAUS includes self-employed persons while ES 202 does not.Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Survey (LAUS), for place-of-residence data and Florida Department of Labor, Covered Employment (ES 202), for place-of-work data.

PAGE 22

19 K THROUGH 12 EDUCATION Measures of education inputs, cost per regular pupil and the number of pupils in a language class, are in line with the statewide averages and the comparison counties. See Table 12.Table 12 K through 12 Education Inputs, Academic Year 1999-2000 Place Cost per Regular Pupil Avg. Language Class Size (pupils) Hardee$4,43723.5 Polk$4,28721.9 Okeechobee$4,21120.5 DeSoto$4,18723.0 Highlands$4,13228.0 Average$4,25123.4 Florida$4,24725.3 Hillsborough$4,05222.7 Orange$3,93425.4Source: Florida Department of EducationMeasures of education performance also compare favorably with statewide averages. Graduation rates are above the statewide rate in all CF-counties except Polk County. Also notable, the FCAT (reading) score in Okeechobee County is significantly lower than the scores of other locations. See Table 13.Table 13 K through 12 Education Performance Academic Year 1999-2000 Place Graduation Rate FCAT (reading) Score DeSoto67.5%33% Hardee65.5%29% Highlands64.7%36% Okeechobee64.3% 23% Polk 55.3% 30% Average63.5%30% Florida62.3%33% Hillsborough71.4%38% Orange49.5%36%Source: Florida Department of Education

PAGE 23

20 CONCLUDING REMARKS During the past decade, 1990-2000, Florida’s population increased by about 24%, its labor force increased by about 16%, and employment was up by about 19%. However, the state’s rural counties did not proportionately share in the growing economy as indicated by the statewide increases in population, labor force, and jobs While the CF-counties added 21.2% to the population base, labor force in the counties grew by only 2.0%. Small labor force growth limited employment gains in the CF-counties to 6.7%. The good news, reflecting a strong economy, is that employment outgrew labor force, bringing down the region’s unemployment rate. When compared with its metropolitan neighboring counties of Hillsborough and Orange, the CF region trailed in measures of economic expansion during the past decade. Per capita personal income as well as payroll earnings in the CF region were below state averages. The industry structure of the CF region reflects its rural nature. Agriculture and agricultural service industries are prominent. In addition, the CF region’s workers often look outside their counties for a place to work. In the CF region, education inputs and performance are on a par with Florida averages. However, there is room for improvement. For example, the graduation rate in academic year 1999-2000 was 63.5% in the CF region and 62.3% Florida-wide. Some of the issues cited by CF regional economic development officials include: 1) insufficient resources, particularly for rural economic development, 2) the implications for economic development in counties that are highly attractive for Hispanics, 3) an economic development role for addressing the needs of an active age 65 and over segment of the population, 4) a goal of raising average wages in a community and means of achieving that goal, and 5) the need for greater infrastructure planning and capital commitment, particularly in rural areas.

PAGE 24

21Appendix ATable Industry Structure Year 2000 Place:DeSotoHardeeHighlandsOkeechobeePolk Industry Divisions Jobs % Jobs % Jobs % Jobs % Jobs % GOODS-PRODUCING Agriculture2,61630.5%2,06429.9%3,39614.8%1,69817.5%8,2114.5% Construction & Mining3203.7%1802.6%9524.2%5105.3%12,3396.8% Manufacturing2252.6%2093.0%1,2185.3%1661.7%19,73710.9% Utilities891.0%1281.9%6592.9%4734.9%8,9224.9% Total goods-producing3,25037.9%2,58137.4%6,22527.2%2,84729.3%49,20927.1% SERVICE-PRODUCING Trade1,44016.8%1,15916.8%5,41523.6%2,55326.3%50,94628.0% Finance1772.1%2523.7%6652.9%2382.5%8,5654.7% Services98211.5%1,20417.5%6,62828.9%2,25723.3%45,94025.3% Government2,72731.8%1,69924.6%3,96717.3%1,81018.7%27,24015.0% Total service-producing5,32662.1%4,31462.6%16,67572.8%6,85870.7%132,69172.9% TOTAL8,576100.0%6,895100.0%22,900100.0%9,705100.0%181,900100.0% Place:CF regionFloridaHillsboroughOrange Industry Divisions Jobs % Jobs (000) % Jobs % Jobs % GOODS-PRODUCING Agriculture17,9857.8%1502.1%11,9462.0%8,7291.4% Construction & Mining14,3016.2%3965.6%28,6024.8%28,6734.7% Manufacturing21,5559.4%4856.9%37,8926.4%37,3426.1% Utilities10,2714.5%3505.0%32,8075.5%34,1965.6% Total goods-producing64,11227.9%1,38119.5%111,24718.8%108,94017.8% SERVICE-PRODUCING Trade61,51326.7%1,78425.2%129,86021.9%138,39722.6% Finance9,8974.3%4376.2%47,2668.0%33,6455.5% Services57,01124.8%2,49135.2%233,58139.5%272,98744.5% Government37,44316.3%97713.8%69,87811.8%58,9729.6% Total service-producing165,86472.1%5,68980.5%480,58581.2%504,00182.2% TOTAL229,976100.0%7,070100.0%591,832100.0%612,941100.0%Source: FL Department of Labor ES-202


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200361Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 002022997
005 20090928171546.0
006 m d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 090805s2001 fluc sb 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 7 ind2 024
subfield code a C63-00011
035
(OCoLC)429282690
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
049
FHMM
090
HN79.F63 (ONLINE)
0 245
South central Florida's regional economy
h [electronic resource] :
b report to the Central Florida Regional Planning Council /
by Center for Economic Development Research, College of Business Administration, University of South Florida.
260
Tampa, Fla. :
Center for Economic Development Research,
2001.
300
1 online resource (ii, 21 p.) :
charts
500
Title from PDF of title page (viewed Aug. 5, 2009).
"July 2001."
504
Includes bibliographical references.
8 520
This report, intended to encourage public discussion and to stimulate additional input, summarizes the Central Florida Regional Planning Council's (CFRPC) efforts to update the economic development section of its Strategic Regional Policy (SRP) and to create a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) for its district. The economic analysis of the CFRPC's five county region, summarized herein, serves as a component of the SRPP and CEDS.
2 610
Central Florida Regional Planning Council.
650
Community development
z Florida.
651
De Soto County (Fla.)
x Economic conditions.
Hardee County (Fla.)
Economic conditions.
Highlands County (Fla.)
Economic conditions.
Okeechobee County (Fla.)
Economic conditions.
Polk County (Fla.)
Economic conditions.
710
University of South Florida.
Center for Economic Development Research.
1 773
t Center for Economic Development Research (CEDR) Collection
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c63.11