USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Historical profile for the economy and demographics of Hardee County, 1990-2000

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Historical profile for the economy and demographics of Hardee County, 1990-2000
Portion of title:
Hillsborough County zip code business and employment patterns analysis
Physical Description:
1 online resource (ii, 25 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:
Economic surveys -- Florida -- Hardee County   ( lcsh )
Demographic surveys -- Florida -- Hardee County   ( lcsh )
Economic conditions -- Hardee County (Fla.)   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
Commissioned by Cargill Crop Nutrition, Inc., this report delineates the economic and demographic structure of Hardee County, Fla.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared by Center for Economic Development Research, College of Business Administration, University of South Florida.
General Note:
Title from PDF of cover (viewed Aug. 17, 2009).
General Note:
"January 2003."

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 - 002024622
oclc - 430827749
usfldc doi - C63-00043
usfldc handle - c63.43
System ID:
SFS0000319:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
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 2200325Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 002024622
005 20090928180153.0
006 m d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 090817s2003 flud sb 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 7 ind2 024
subfield code a C63-00043
035
(OCoLC)430827749
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
049
FHMM
090
HC107.F6 (ONLINE)
0 245
Historical profile for the economy and demographics of Hardee County, 1990-2000
h [electronic resource] /
prepared by Center for Economic Development Research, College of Business Administration, University of South Florida.
3 246
Hillsborough County zip code business and employment patterns analysis
260
Tampa, Fla. :
b Center for Economic Development Research,
2003.
300
1 online resource (ii, 25 p.) :
charts
500
Title from PDF of cover (viewed Aug. 17, 2009).
"January 2003."
504
Includes bibliographical references.
8 520
Commissioned by Cargill Crop Nutrition, Inc., this report delineates the economic and demographic structure of Hardee County, Fla.
650
Economic surveys
z Florida
Hardee County.
Demographic surveys
Florida
Hardee County.
651
Hardee County (Fla.)
x Economic conditions.
2 710
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/?c63.43



PAGE 1

Historical Profile for the Economy and Demographics of Hardee County, 1990-2000 Prepared By CENTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH College of Business Administration 1101 Channelside Dr., 2nd Floor N., Tampa, Florida 33602 Office: (813) 905-5854 or Fax: (813) 905-5856 January, 2003

PAGE 2

i Table of Contents Preface........................................................................................................................ .....................ii Introduction................................................................................................................... ..................1 Population..................................................................................................................... ..................2 Labor Force.................................................................................................................... .................6 Employment..................................................................................................................... ...............9 Income......................................................................................................................... ..................13 Population Characteristics..................................................................................................... ........15 Personal Income Sources........................................................................................................ .......16 Payroll Earnings............................................................................................................... .............17 Industry Structure............................................................................................................. .............18 Projected County-Level Employment Growth..............................................................................21 Commuting to Work.............................................................................................................. .......22 K Through 12 Education......................................................................................................... ......23 Concluding Remarks............................................................................................................. ........25

PAGE 3

ii Preface Hardee County is located in south-central Florida within the region served by the Central Florida Regional Planning Council (CFRPC), a state-mandated planning organization. Besides Hardee the CFRPC planning district is also comprised of DeSoto, Highlands, Polk, and Okeechobee counties. Cargill Crop Nutrition, Inc. commissioned this document to serve as a component of its campaign to better understand the economic and demographic structure of Hardee County and the south-central Florida region. This report presents information and analysis from two recent studies performed by the Center for Economic Development Research, College of Business Administration, University of South Florida. The Status of South Central Florida’s Regional Economy: An Update dated May, 2001 and South Central Florida’s Regional Economy dated July, 2001 were used to compile this historical analysis. This study is the first in a series of economic development studies designed to increase our understanding of the economic impacts of the phosphate industry in Hardee County. 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 Dennis G. Colie, Principal Investigator, Center for Economic Development Research (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), previously performed a comprehensive analysis of 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 this report as the CF-counties. The comprehensive report is titled The Status of South Central Florida’s Regional Economy: An Update dated May 2001. A summary report titled South Central Florida’s Regional Economy dated July 2001 includes the main points from the comprehensive report as well as input from regional economic development officials. 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. This report, drawn from the previous comprehensive analysis of CF-counties, focuses on the demographics and economic profile of Hardee County from 1990 to 2000.

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. By contrast, only 26,938 persons, or 4% of the CF region’s population, lived in Hardee County See Chart 1a. 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. Hardee County experienced the fastest population growth rate while Polk County’s rate was the slowest.

PAGE 6

3 Table 1 Population Growth 1990 2000 Population Place 1990 2000 % Change Hardee 19,542 26,938 37.8% DeSoto 23,938 32,209 34.6% Highlands 68,957 87,366 26.7% Okeechobee 29,756 35,910 20.7% Polk 407,222 483,924 18.8% CF region 551,405 668,347 21.2% CF region less Polk 142,193 182,423 28.3% Florida 13,018,365 15,982,378 22.8% Orange 684,473 896,344 31.0% Hillsborough 835,937 998,948 19.5% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 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

PAGE 7

4 Chart 1b reports population growth rates. 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. These data, at first glance, indicate that Hardee County is a rapidly growing area, having exceeded the population growth rates of many counties in Florida for the period. Table A1 indicates that the 7,396 person increase in Hardee County population between 1990 and 2000 ranks 45th among Florida’s 67 counties in terms of the increase in number of residents. In 2000, despite the 13th highest growth rate in the state over the 10-year period, the population ranking in Hardee County was 49th among the 67 counties. The low population, compared to most of Florida, indicates that Hardee County is primarily rural in nature.

PAGE 8

5 Table A1 TotalCounty PopulationCountyPercentCounty PopulationRankChange fromRankPopulationRank Year 2000Year 1990 C hange Florida15,982,3783,044,45219.0% Alachua217,955 20 36,359 23 16.7% 44 Baker22,259 52 3,773 52 17.0% 43 Bay148,217 25 21,223 34 14.3% 52 Bradford26,088 50 3,573 53 13.7% 55 Brevard476,230 9 77,252 11 16.2% 48 Broward1,623,018 2 367,530 1 22.6% 28 Calhoun13,017 62 2,006 62 15.4% 50 Charlotte141,627 26 30,652 27 21.6% 30 Citrus118,085 31 24,570 31 20.8% 31 Clay140,814 27 34,828 25 24.7% 18 Collier251,377 18 99,278 8 39.5% 4 Columbia56,513 38 13,900 37 24.6% 19 DeSoto32,209 48 8,344 43 25.9% 14 Dixie13,827 58 3,242 54 23.4% 25 Duval778,879 7 105,908 6 13.6% 56 Escambia294,410 15 31,612 26 10.7% 63 Flagler49,832 40 21,131 35 42.4% 2 Franklin11,057 64 2,090 61 18.9% 39 Gadsden45,087 42 3,982 51 8.8% 64 Gilchrist14,437 57 4,770 49 33.0% 7 Glades10,576 65 2,985 56 28.2% 11 Gulf13,332 60 1,828 63 13.7% 54 Hamilton13,327 61 2,397 58 18.0% 41 Hardee26,938 49 7,439 45 27.6% 13 Hendry36,210 44 10,437 40 28.8% 10 Hernando130,802 28 29,687 28 22.7% 27 Highlands87,366 34 18,934 36 21.7% 29 Hillsborough998,948 4 164,894 5 16.5% 45 Holmes18,564 56 2,786 57 15.0% 51 Indian River112,947 33 22,739 32 20.1% 35 Jackson46,755 41 5,380 47 11.5% 61 Jefferson12,902 63 1,606 64 12.4% 57 Lafayette7,022 66 1,444 67 20.6% 33 Lake210,528 21 58,424 17 27.8% 12 Lee440,888 11 105,775 7 24.0% 21 Leon239,452 19 46,959 20 19.6% 37 Levy34,450 47 8,527 42 24.8% 16 Liberty7,021 67 1,452 66 20.7% 32 Madison18,733 55 2,164 59 11.6% 60 Manatee264,002 16 52,295 18 19.8% 36 Marion258,916 17 64,083 15 24.8% 17 Martin126,731 29 25,831 30 20.4% 34 Miami Dade2,253,362 1 316,268 2 14.0% 53 Monroe79,589 35 1,565 65 2.0% 67 Nassau57,663 37 13,722 38 23.8% 22 Okaloosa170,498 24 26,722 29 15.7% 49 Okeechobee35,910 45 6,283 46 17.5% 42 Orange896,344 6 218,853 4 24.4% 20 Osceola172,493 23 64,765 14 37.5% 6 Palm Beach1,131,184 3 267,666 3 23.7% 24 Pasco344,765 13 63,634 16 18.5% 40 Pinellas921,482 5 69,823 13 7.6% 66 Polk483,924 8 78,542 9 16.2% 47 Putnam70,423 36 5,353 48 7.6% 65 Saint Johns123,135 30 36,135 24 29.3% 9 Saint Lucie192,695 22 48,181 19 25.0% 15 Santa Rosa117,743 32 77,667 10 66.0% 1 Sarasota325,957 14 39,306 22 12.1% 58 Seminole365,196 12 42,524 21 11.6% 59 Sumter53,345 39 21,768 33 40.8% 3 Suwannee34,844 46 8,064 44 23.1% 26 Taylor19,256 54 2,145 60 11.1% 62 Union13,442 59 3,190 55 23.7% 23 Volusia443,343 10 72,631 12 16.4% 46 Wakulla22,863 51 8,661 41 37.9% 5 Walton40,601 43 12,841 39 31.6% 8 W as hi ngton 20 973 53 4 054 50 19 3% 38 Source: Prepared by the Center for Economic Development Research 02.02.02 Florida Population: 2000, Population Growth, Percent Change And Ranking of Florida Counties from 1 to 67

PAGE 9

6 LABOR FORCE Table 2 and Chart 2 report labor force growth between 1990 and 2000. The labor force growth rates in the CF-counties lagged behind the statewide rate. Table 2 Labor Force Growth 1990 2000 Labor Force Place 1990 2000 % Change Okeechobee 13,659 15,350 12.4% Polk 200,240 205,352 2.6% Highlands 25,733 25,723 0.0% Hardee 9,185 8,800 -4.2% DeSoto 9,670 8,442 -12.7% CF region 260,477 265,667 2.0% Florida 6,468,000 7,593,000 17.4% Orange 390,727 513,162 31.3% Hillsborough 452,770 570,195 25.9% Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Over the past decade the labor forces in DeSoto County and in Hardee County declined despite rising county populations. During the period, while population in Hardee County realized a net gain, fewer residents participated in the labor force. In Highlands County, labor force growth was essentially flat. Okeechobee County had the greatest labor force expansion among the CFcounties at 12.4%.

PAGE 10

7 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 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. See Chart 3. 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

PAGE 11

8 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 Hardee 47.0% 32.7% -14.3% DeSoto 40.4% 26.2% -14.2% Highlands 37.3% 29.4% -7.9% Polk 49.2% 42.4% -6.7% Okeechobee 45.9% 42.7% -3.2% CF region 47.2% 39.7% -7.5% Florida 49.7% 47.5% -2.2% Orange 57.1% 47.5% -9.6% Hillsborough 54.2% 57.1% 2.9% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

PAGE 12

9 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 Polk 180,475 195,124 14,649 8.1% Okeechobee 12,554 14,278 1,724 13.7% Highlands 23,487 24,217 730 3.1% Hardee 8,135 7,962 -173 -2.1% DeSoto 8,995 7,944 -1,051 -11.7% CF region 235,636 251,525 15,889 6.7% Florida 6,078,000 7,310,000 1,232,000 20.3% Hillsborough 431,421 554,720 123,299 28.6% Orange 369,708 499,770 130,062 35.2% Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment 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 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. Chart 4 depicts the relative size of the number of employed residents in 2000 in the CF-counties.

PAGE 13

10 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 Hardee County had the highest unemployment rate, 9.5%, 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 Polk 9.9% 5.0% -4.9% Highlands 8.7% 5.9% -2.8% Hardee 11.4% 9.5% -1.9% DeSoto 7.0% 5.9% -1.1% Okeechobee 8.1% 7.0% -1.1% CF region 9.5% 5.3% -4.2% Florida 6.0% 3.7% -2.3% Hillsborough 4.7% 2.7% -2.0% Orange 5.4% 2.6% -2.8% Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

PAGE 14

11 Polk 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 5 While 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. The decrease in Hardee County’s unemployment rate, in conjunction with the relative stability in employment, confirms the reduction in labor force noted above. Apparently, a portion of the reduction in labor force may be due to labor force participants moving out of the county.

PAGE 15

12 Table 6 Employment Growth: 1990 1995 and 1995 – 2000 Employees by Place of Work Place 1990 1995 % Change 2000 % Change DeSoto 7,994 8,878 11.1% 8,576 -3.4% Hardee 6,821 7,689 12.7% 6,895 -10.3% Highlands 20,479 22,460 9.7% 22,900 2.0% Okeechobee 7,762 8,815 13.6% 9,705 10.1% Polk 157,062 165,255 5.2% 181,900 10.1% CF region 202,108 215,092 6.4% 231,976 7.8% Florida 13,018,000 14,505,000 11.4% 15,982,000 10.2% Hillsborough 440,584 492,841 11.9% 591,832 20.1% Orange 429,105 489,690 14.1% 612,941 25.2% Source: FL Department of Labor ES-202 From 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 were small. Note that Hardee County’s employment increased during the first half of the decade but subsequently declined in the second half.

PAGE 16

13 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 and Chart 7 report per capita personal income for 2000. Hardee County experienced the lowest per capita personal income among the CF-counties. Table 7 Per Capita Personal Income: Year 2000 Place Personal Income (est.) Population Per Capita Polk $11,426,263,000 483,924 $23,612 Highlands $1,675,228,000 87,366 $19,175 Okeechobee $609,662,000 35,910 $16,977 DeSoto $526,661,000 32,209 $16,351 Hardee $412,376,000 26,938 $15,308 CF region $14,650,190,000 666,347 $21,986 Florida $456,095,000,000 15,982,378 $28,537 Hillsborough $27,026,000,000 998,948 $27,054 Orange $23,761,000,000 896,344 $26,509 Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis and US Bureau of Labor Statistics

PAGE 17

14 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

PAGE 18

15 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS Table 8 describes the population according to 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%. However, overall the CF-region has a lower percentage of Hispanics than statewide. Table 8 Population Characteristics Census 2000 Ethnicity Age Place Population White Hispanic 0-24 25-64 65+ DeSoto 32,209 73.3% 24.9% 33.8% 46.0% 20.2% Hardee 26,938 70.7% 35.7% 40.2% 44.4% 15.3% Highlands 87,366 83.5% 12.1% 24.1% 39.8% 36.1% Okeechobee 35,910 79.3% 18.6% 38.7% 45.0% 16.3% Polk 483,924 79.6% 9.5% 33.4% 47.6% 19.0% CF region 666,347 79.4% 12.1% 32.8% 46.2% 21.0% Florida 15,982,378 78.0% 16.8% 31.8% 50.2% 18.0% Hillsborough 998,948 75.2% 18.0% 35.2% 52.3% 12.6% Orange 896,344 68.6% 18.8% 37.0% 52.4% 10.6% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census The CF region’s percentage of senior citizens, age 65 or over, exceeds the state of Florida by three 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. The lowest concentration of senior citizens in the CF region is in Hardee County

PAGE 19

16 PERSONAL INCOME SOURCES An examination of personal income sources 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. Table 9, Panel A, presents the percentage of total income derived from earnings, from dividends and/or interest, or from transfer payments in the CF-counties and comparison locations in 2000. Highlands County received a high 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. Hardee County had the highest percentage, 64%, of income from earnings among the CF-counties. And, except for Polk County, Hardee County’s percentage of income from transfer payments was lowest in the CF-region. Table 9 Sources of Personal Income in 2000 Panel A Source Place Earnings Dividends / Interest Transfer Payments Highlands 38% 32% 29% Okeechobee 56% 18% 26% DeSoto 57% 20% 24% Hardee 64% 15% 21% Polk 61% 21% 19% CF region 59% 21% 20% Florida 58% 26% 16% Hillsborough 67% 19% 14% Orange 71% 16% 12% Table 9, Panel B, shows the percentages of earnings that were obtained through employee wages or by proprietors’ income in the CF-counties and comparative locations in 2000. With relatively fewer large-company employers in the CF-counties, the percentage of proprietors’ income was greater in the region’s counties than statewide or in the comparison counties. Hardee County had the highest percent of proprietors’ income among the CF-counties.

PAGE 20

17 Table 9 Sources of Personal Income in 2000 Panel B Source Place Wages & Benefits Proprietors' Income Highlands 82% 18% Okeechobee 80% 20% DeSoto 77% 23% Hardee 76% 24% Polk 87% 13% CF region 86% 14% Florida 90% 10% Hillsborough 93% 7% Orange 92% 8% Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis PAYROLL 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.

PAGE 21

18 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. 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

PAGE 22

19 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. Agriculture provided the most jobs in Hardee County in the year 2000. This fact emphasizes the rural nature of the county. Employment in Hardee County government services ranked second-highest in number of jobs, with a significantly higher percentage of total employment than more populous areas of the state. 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. Table 10 outlines the industry structures of the CF-counties.

PAGE 23

20 Table 10 Industry Structure Year 2000 Place: DeSoto Hardee Highlands Okeechobee Polk Industry Divisions Jobs % Jobs % Jobs % Jobs % Jobs % GOODS-PRODUCING Agriculture 2,616 30.5% 2,064 29.9% 3,396 14.8% 1,698 17.5% 8,211 4.5% Construction & Mining 320 3.7% 180 2.6% 952 4.2% 510 5.3% 12,339 6.8% Manufacturing 225 2.6% 209 3.0% 1,218 5.3% 166 1.7% 19,737 10.9% Utilities 89 1.0% 128 1.9% 659 2.9% 473 4.9% 8,922 4.9% Total goods-producing 3,250 37.9% 2,581 37.4% 6,225 27.2% 2,847 29.3% 49,209 27.1% SERVICE-PRODUCING Trade 1,440 16.8% 1,159 16.8% 5,415 23.6% 2,553 26.3% 50,946 28.0% Finance 177 2.1% 252 3.7% 665 2.9% 238 2.5% 8,565 4.7% Services 982 11.5% 1,204 17.5% 6,628 28.9% 2,257 23.3% 45,940 25.3% Government 2,727 31.8% 1,699 24.6% 3,967 17.3% 1,810 18.7% 27,240 15.0% Total service-producing 5,326 62.1% 4,314 62.6% 16,675 72.8% 6,858 70.7% 132,691 72.9% TOTAL 8,576 100.0% 6,895 100.0% 22,900 100.0% 9,705 100.0% 181,900 100.0% Place: CF region Florida Hillsborough Orange Industry Divisions Jobs % Jobs (000) % Jobs % Jobs % GOODS-PRODUCING Agriculture 17,985 7.8% 150 2.1%11,946 2.0% 8,729 1.4% Construction & Mining 14,301 6.2% 396 5.6%28,602 4.8% 28,673 4.7% Manufacturing 21,555 9.4% 485 6.9%37,892 6.4% 37,342 6.1% Utilities 10,271 4.5% 350 5.0%32,807 5.5% 34,196 5.6% Total goods-producing 64,112 27.9% 1,381 19.5%111,247 18.8% 108,940 17.8% SERVICE-PRODUCING Trade 61,513 26.7% 1,784 25.2%129,860 21.9% 138,397 22.6% Finance 9,897 4.3% 437 6.2%47,266 8.0% 33,645 5.5% Services 57,011 24.8% 2,491 35.2%233,581 39.5% 272,987 44.5% Government 37,443 16.3% 977 13.8%69,878 11.8% 58,972 9.6% Total service-producing 165,864 72.1% 5,689 80.5%480,585 81.2% 504,001 82.2% TOTAL 229,976 100.0% 7,070 100.0%591,832 100.0% 612,941 100.0% Source: FL Department of Labor ES-202

PAGE 24

21 PROJECTED COUNTY-LEVEL EMPLOYMENT GROWTH The individual county projected growth rates for all jobs and for just private sector jobs are shown in Table 11. Table 11 Projected County-level Employment Growth, 2000 to 2005 Growth in Jobs Place All Jobs Private Sector Jobs Okeechobee 9.1% 8.9% Polk 9.0% 8.9% Highlands 7.1% 6.8% Hardee 4.8% 3.6% DeSoto 4.7% 3.3% Florida 11.5% 11.9% Hillsborough 12.7% 13.2% Orange 14.9% 15.3% Source: Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation

PAGE 25

22 COMMUTING TO WORK The CF region’s workers look outside their counties of residence for a place to work. Table 12 compares place-of-residence estimates of the workforce with place-of-work estimates. The data imply that, except for DeSoto County, residents of a particular county are working on a net basis in another county. Table 12 Commuting to Work Employed Persons in 2000 Place by Place-of-Residence by Place-of-Work Implied Net Commuting Polk 195,124 181,900 13,224 out Okeechobee 14,278 9,705 4,573 out Highlands 24,217 22,900 1,317 out Hardee 7,962 6,895 1,067 out DeSoto 7,944 8,576 -632 in Hillsborough 554,720 591,832 -37,112 in Orange 499,770 612,941 -113,171 in Note: 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 Unemployement Survey (LAUS), for place-of-residence data and Florida Department of Labor, Covered Employment (ES 202), for place-of-work data.

PAGE 26

23 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 13. Hardee County spends more per pupil than other CF-counties, the comparison counties, and statewide average. Table 13 K through 12 Education Inputs, Academic Year 1999-2000 Place Cost per Regular Pupil Avg. Language Class Size (pupils) Hardee $4,437 23.5 Polk $4,287 21.9 Okeechobee $4,211 20.5 DeSoto $4,187 23.0 Highlands $4,132 28.0 Average $4,251 23.4 Florida $4,247 25.3 Hillsborough $4,052 22.7 Orange $3,934 25.4 Source: Florida Department of Education Measures of education performance also compare favorably with statewide averages. Graduation rates are above the statewide rate in all CF-counties except Polk County. The Hardee County public high school graduation rate for academic year 1999-2000 was 65.5%. Also notable, the FCAT (reading) score in Okeechobee County is significantly lower than the scores of other locations. See Table 14.

PAGE 27

24 Table 14 K through 12 Education Performance Academic Year 1999-2000 Place Graduation Rate FCAT (reading) Score DeSoto 67.5% 33% Hardee 65.5% 29% Highlands 64.7% 36% Okeechobee 64.3% 23% Polk 55.3% 30% Average 63.5% 30% Florida 62.3% 33% Hillsborough 71.4% 38% Orange 49.5% 36% Source: Florida Department of Education

PAGE 28

25 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, such as Hardee County 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.