PHASE 1:
COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT
Submitted by Market Street Services Inc.
www.marketstreetservices.com
July 2015
Competitive Assessment
July 2015
Competitive Assessment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Steering Committee ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Project Overview ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3
Competitive Assessment.............................................................................................................................................................. 4
1. Population Trends: Slow Growth and Limited In-Migration ........................................................................ 5
2. A Critical Need for Top Talent ........................................................................................................................... 11
3. Economic Realities................................................................................................................................................. 17
4. Income and Poverty .............................................................................................................................................. 22
5. Quality of Place and Quality of Life.................................................................................................................. 26
6. Homegrown Talent: PK-12 and Higher Education....................................................................................... 37
7. Business and Entrepreneurial Climate ............................................................................................................. 46
8. Fort Benning: A Vital Asset ................................................................................................................................. 50
9. Philanthropy, Leadership, and Champions .................................................................................................... 51
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................................................................... 53
Appendix A: Community Scorecards .................................................................................................................................... 54
Endnotes ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 65
July 2015
Competitive Assessment
July 2015
Competitive Assessment
INTRODUCTION
Less than two generations ago, Greater Columbus was a mill town with a tenuous future in a globalizing
economy. In the decades since, it has undergone a remarkable transition into a hub of insurance and other
services and a home to companies with international renown and influence. But just as the community has
changed, so too has the world. Competition has increased, markets are more interconnected, and
knowledge and skilled workers are highly coveted. At the same time, it has also become clear that not all of
the region’s residents have benefitted from its past successes. Too many local residents live in poverty, with
limited economic options and uncertain futures. Greater Columbus must once again adapt.
To that end, a group of public, private, and non-profit leaders have come together to launch a
comprehensive effort to raise levels of prosperity in Greater Columbus. The process will result in a holistic
and comprehensive community and economic development strategy that addresses the full range of
factors that influence a region’s prosperity – from its talent and economic structure to its quality of life and
place.
This Competitive Assessment represents the critical first step in that process. It examines a wide variety of
demographic, socioeconomic, economic, and quality of life indicators to tell a story about the community
and uncover the key strengths, weaknesses, assets, and challenges that must be leveraged and addressed
in order to raise levels of prosperity in the region. It is built upon an in-depth quantitative analysis and a
significant amount of community input derived from focus groups, interviews, and an online survey that
received 1,760 responses from area residents, workers, and business leaders. This information has been
woven into nine key stories that present a narrative discussion of the key issues facing Greater Columbus.
These nine stories are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Population Trends: Slow Growth and Limited In-Migration
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Quality of Place and Quality of Life
A Critical Need for Top Talent
Economic Realities
Income and Poverty
Homegrown Talent: PK-12 and Higher Education
Business and Entrepreneurial Climate
Fort Benning: A Vital Asset
Philanthropy, Leadership, and Champions
Supplementing these storylines is a series of scorecards that evaluate the region’s competitiveness in five
key areas: economic performance, workforce sustainability, business environment, innovation and
entrepreneurship, and quality of life. These scorecards can be found in Appendix A at the back of this
assessment. When relevant, specific findings from these scorecards are included in the narrative portion of
the assessment.
Page 1 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
STEERING COMMITTEE
Committee tri-chairs are shown in bold.
Name
Mr. Brian Anderson
Mr. John Anker
Title/Role; Organization
President & CEO; Greater Columbus Chamber of Commerce
President & CEO; Ankerpak
Mr. Cameron Bean
Mr. Richard Bishop
Executive Director; Columbus Symphony Orchestra
Executive Director; Uptown Columbus Inc.
Mr. Billy Blanchard
President & CEO; Columbus Bank and Trust
Mr. Peter Bowden
President & CEO; Columbus Convention and Visitors Bureau
Mr. Mike Burns
Mr. Russ Carreker
Ms. Betsy Covington
Mr. Jason Cuevas
Ms. Patti Cullen
Mr. Steve Davis
Col. Pat Donahoe
Dr. Jimmy Elder
Mr. Scott Ferguson
Pastor Johnny Flakes, III
Dr. Tom Hackett
Special Assistant to Commanding General; Fort Benning
President & CEO; Day 6 Outdoors
President & CEO; Community Foundation of the Chattahoochee Valley, Inc.
West Region Vice President; Georgia Power
Executive Director; River Valley Regional Commission
President; Columbus Water Works
Chief of Staff; Fort Benning
Pastor; First Baptist Church
President; United Way of the Chattahoochee Valley
Pastor; Fourth Street Missionary Baptist Church
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs; Columbus State University
Mr. Cedric Hill
Mr. Scott Hill
Ms. Lorette Hoover
Mr. Isaiah Hugley
Ms. Anne King
Mr. Harry Lange
Dr. David Lewis
Ms. Jacki Lowe
Ms. Marquette McKnight
CEO & Owner; People’s Funeral Services of Columbus, Inc.
President & CEO; Columbus Regional Healthcare System
President; Columbus Technical College
City Manager; Columbus Consolidated Government
Executive Director; Midtown, Inc.
Chairman; Harris County Commission
Superintendent; Muscogee County School District
Retired; West Region Vice President, Georgia Power
CEO; Media Marketing… and More! Inc
Mr. Marc Olivie
Mr. Chuck Rossi
President & CEO; WC Bradley/Arts
President; Liberty Utilities
Ms. Becky Rumer
Senior Director - Corporate and Community Affairs; Synovus
Ms. Jane Seckinger
President & CEO; Goodwill
Ms. Audrey Tillman, Esq.
Hon. Teresa Tomlinson
Hon. Rob Varner
Executive Vice President, General Counsel; Aflac
Mayor; Columbus Consolidated Government
Chairman; MCSD Board of Education
Dr. David White
Ms. Johniqua Williams
Vice-Chancellor; Troy University Phenix City Campus
Student Development Specialist- Diversity; Columbus State University
Mr. Troy Woods
Mr. Jimmy Yancey
President & CEO; TSYS
Retired; Chairman, Synovous
Page 2 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The four-phase research and strategic planning process will last roughly nine months, concluding in
February 2016. A diverse Steering Committee comprised of representatives from the public, private, and
non-profit sectors will guide this process and ensure that it lays a foundation that allows people and
businesses to thrive and wealth to accumulate.
Phase 1: Competitive Assessment
The Competitive Assessment answers the question: “How is Greater Columbus doing?” Market Street
developed original quantitative and qualitative research and conducted public input – in the form of focus
groups, interviews, and an online survey – to evaluate the community’s competitiveness as a place to live,
work, visit, and do business. The findings are integrated into key “stories” facing Greater Columbus as it
seeks to grow and expand its economy and increase levels of prosperity and the quality of life for its
current and future residents. The community’s competitiveness is benchmarked against communities with
which Greater Columbus competes for both jobs and workers.
Phase 2: Target Business Analysis and Marketing Review
The Target Business Analysis will identify those business sectors that will drive future growth and
opportunity in Greater Columbus. Market Street will conduct a detailed examination of the region’s
economic composition and identify the sectors that have the greatest potential to create new jobs and
elevate standards of living in Greater Columbus. Because resources for economic development efforts are
limited, they must be utilized in a way that will result in the highest return on investment for the
community, its businesses, and its workers. Along these lines, the Marketing Review will analyze the
existing economic and community marketing efforts of The Valley Partnership and Greater Columbus
Chamber of Commerce to identify any areas for improvement.
Phase 3: Regional Prosperity Initiative
The Regional Prosperity Initiative brings together the findings from the first two phases of the process to
create a “Vision for a Greater Columbus.” This holistic five-year community and economic development
strategy will be a consensus blueprint for raising prosperity in Greater Columbus. Strategic
recommendations will be driven by the research findings – both qualitative and quantitative feedback.
Examples of best practice programs, policies, and initiatives from communities around the country will be
included when relevant and appropriate to help inform strategic recommendations and their subsequent
implementation.
Phase 4: Implementation Plan
While the Regional Prosperity Initiative will detail what Greater Columbus needs to do, the Implementation
Plan will outline how it will be accomplished. For each of the strategic recommendations, the
Implementation Plan will identify lead implementers, key partners, potential costs, the appropriate timeline
for implementation, and metrics for gauging implementation success.
Page 3 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT
This assessment examines the competitive issues facing Greater Columbus by evaluating them through the
prism of what Market Street believes to be the three critical aspects of a community: its people, their
prosperity, and the quality of place. Findings related to these key attributes are incorporated into nine key
stories that help explain its current realities, key successes, and remaining challenges. These stories
emerged from public input provided by residents in Greater Columbus, as well as in-depth analysis of data
covering demographic, socioeconomic, economic, and quality of life trends within the community.
Collectively, they help take stock of conditions in Greater Columbus as they presently exist and identify
initial areas that may warrant strategic attention.
FOCUS GROUPS AND INTERVIEWS: A thorough assessment of a community’s strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and challenges must be informed by input from the people that live and work in the area.
Accordingly, a series of focus groups and interviews with individuals from the region’s public, private, and
non-profit sectors was conducted in June 2015. The input gathered during these discussions has been
summarized and incorporated into this Assessment when relevant and appropriate, and is differentiated
throughout the report by red text.
ONLINE SURVEY: In addition to in-person input solicited via focus groups and interviews, an online
community survey was open to the public for roughly six weeks in May and June of 2015. A total of 1,760
residents, workers, and business leaders responded to the survey, providing necessary input that will
help ensure that this assessment and the forthcoming strategy are well-informed and mindful of the needs,
wants, and opinions of stakeholders in Greater Columbus.
DATA SOURCES: A variety of public and private data sources are used throughout this Assessment. A
great deal of information is drawn from the Census Bureau and other public sources including the Bureau
of Labor Statistics (BLS), the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Proprietary data
covering economic composition (employment, wages, exports, etc.) are provided by Economic Modeling
Specialists, Inc. (EMSI).
COMPARISON GEOGRAPHIES: Throughout this assessment, the Columbus, GA-AL Metropolitan Statistical
Area (MSA) is utilized as the primary geographic unit of analysis, and is typically referred to as “Greater
Columbus” or “the region.” Intra-regional dynamics are occasionally discussed at the county or sub-county
level. In addition to state and national averages, the region’s performance is benchmarked against three
metros with which it shares certain characteristics and/or competes for jobs, workers, and investment: the
Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC MSA; the Chattanooga, TN-GA MSA; and the Huntsville, AL MSA. These
metros are identified by their principle city (e.g. “Augusta”) throughout the report. Included as Appendix A
at the conclusion of this report are a series of Community Scorecards, which compare Greater Columbus to
nine other metropolitan areas (including Augusta, Chattanooga, and Huntsville) with which it competes for
jobs and workers. These communities are referred to in the report as “scorecard metros.” Each scorecard
evaluates the region’s competitiveness across multiple indicators that help measure how Greater Columbus
has performed in recent years in key areas that reflect its ability to grow prosperity.
Page 4 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
1. POPULATION TRENDS: SLOW GROWTH AND LIMITED IN-MIGRATION
Population growth is perhaps the most fundamental indicator of a region’s attractiveness as a place to live
and do business. The underlying idea is that where a person lives (or a business locates) reflects a revealed
preference for a given place, and communities with high growth rates are desirable for some combination
of reasons. This of course is an oversimplification with a few obvious problems. Not everyone gets to
choose where they live, many strong regions have low or even negative growth, and so on. But generally –
and with the proper context – a region’s growth trajectory is a good entry point into a conversation about
its prospects for future prosperity and the myriad other considerations that go into that.
The context for Greater Columbus is the Southeastern United States and the explosive population growth
that this section of the country experienced in recent decades. Between 1970 and 2013, Georgia’s
population increased by 117.0 percent – a rate more than double the national average of 54.3 percent –
while the Atlanta region nearly tripled in size (299.1 percent).i But simply put, no such population boom
occurred in Greater Columbus. The region’s population increased by just 24.0 percent between 1970
and 2013, a figure that ranks 58th out of the 61 metro areas in the states of Georgia, Alabama,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Among this group, only the Albany, GA;
Anniston-Oxford, AL; and Gadsden, AL regions grew slower than Greater Columbus.
FIGURE 1: POPULATION GROWTH INDEX, 1970-2013 (1970=100)
Source: Moody’s Analytics
Note: The Southeastern Average includes 61 MSAs with principal cities in AL, GA, MS, NC, SC, and TN, inclusive of Greater Columbus and the
three comparison communities of Augusta, Chattanooga, and Huntsville.
The preceding figure shows long-term population growth trends in Greater Columbus, the three
comparison communities, and the average for 61 Southeastern metro areas. It clearly shows that Greater
Columbus’ growth was relatively flat between 1970 and the mid-2000s, especially in comparison to
Page 5 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
Huntsville, Augusta, and the Southeastern average. In recent years, population growth in Greater Columbus
has picked up considerably. Indeed, between 2004 and 2014, Greater Columbus added 29,553 residents, an
increase of 10.4 percent that exceeded the growth rates of Chattanooga (9.4) and the nation as a whole
(8.9). Greater Columbus’ population gains between 2009 and 2014 were especially strong, when its 7.6
percent growth rate was higher than all comparison geographies except for Huntsville (8.8).
But growth in Greater Columbus has actually occurred through a series of wild year-over-year
population swings as opposed to a steady increase of new residents. And while it is impossible to
definitively prove with standard government or proprietary data, these shifts are almost certainly
due primarily to the presence of Fort Benning. According to data from Fort Benning, the base accounts
for a significant portion of the region’s population. The base’s total population in 2014 was 45,506,
including all active-duty military and civilian personnel and not including spouses/partners and dependent
children. Accordingly, a change in base population – such as a deployment or tweak to staffing levels – will
have an outsized influence on the region’s population.ii And as the following figure shows, population in
Greater Columbus has fluctuated sharply in the new millennium.
FIGURE 2: POPULATION CHANGE FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN GREATER COLUMBUS, 2001-2014
15,000
9,198
10,000
8,060
5,964
5,719
5,000
1,057
1,879
1,380
5,415
2,629
2,223
733
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
-2,928
-5,000
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
-3,121
-6,651
-10,000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates
In the previous 13 years, the region has experienced at least a one percent year-over-year gain in
population on five occasions, and on three occasions it has lost one percent of its population (or more) in a
single year. In back-to-back years in 2003 and 2004, Greater Columbus went from posting a year-over-year
loss of 6,651 people to a year-over-year gain of 5,719 new residents. Such drastic changes are rarely seen
in other regions, and there is no other obvious factor outside of Fort Benning that can adequately
explain these variations in Greater Columbus. There is also evidence to suggest that a substantial
portion of the region’s growth in the past 10 years was influenced by the 2005 Base Realignment and
Page 6 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
Closure (BRAC) decisions that led to an increase in population at Fort Benning. Per Fort Benning data, the
total base population grew by 8,614 between Fiscal Years 2008 and 2012. This corresponds with a period of
relatively sustained regional growth. And the two strongest years of regional growth, 2011 and 2012,
followed the timeline when thousands of soldiers, civilians and family members relocated with the United
States Army Armor School to Fort Benning from Fort Knox in Kentucky in 2010 and 2011. But if the number
of soldiers at Fort Benning is indeed reduced by 3,402 by the end of Fiscal Year 2018 as was announced
earlier this month, it is likely that the region’s population will experience a significant drop in the near
future – unless these losses are offset through future BRAC gains or some other circumstance.
Population change is influenced by two factors – natural change (births minus deaths) and net migration
(both domestic and international) – that the Census Bureau tracks through its components of population
change program. But while natural change is fairly steady in Greater Columbus, net international and
domestic migration totals vary widely from year to year, as shown in the following figure. This is to be
expected, as military and civilian personnel moving into and out of the region are heavily influencing
migration trends.
FIGURE 3: ANNUAL COMPONENTS OF POPULATION CHANGE, 2000-2014
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates
Accordingly, it can be difficult to show the cumulative impact that any one factor has on the region’s
growth during a specific period of time, as two different sets of years may produce two drastically different
results. But over a long period of time, it becomes clear that natural change is the primary growth driver in
Greater Columbus. Between 2000 and 2014, Greater Columbus added 30,466 new residents, 25,914 of
whom can be attributed to natural change. iii Just 14.9 percent of the region’s population growth during
this time period was the result of net migration. By comparison, 41.1 percent of Augusta’s new residents
were in-migrants, while the figure in Huntsville was 72.3 percent. In short, when annual fluctuations are
Page 7 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
smoothed over, Greater Columbus’ population growth is disproportionately driven by natural
change. This is an important distinction because communities where growth is driven primarily by
their ability to draw new residents from other parts of the country are clearly creating attractive
environments for people and jobs. Migration trends reveal people’s actual preference for one
community over another. As the saying goes, “people vote with their feet.” And the data reveals that more
people are voting in favor of some of Greater Columbus’ main competitors for talent. Data from the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) sheds additional light on this reality.
The idea that Greater Columbus is not a particularly strong net attractor of outside talent is supported by
data from the IRS’s Statistics of Income program. This data is compiled from information on individual tax
returns that have been stripped of personal identifying information. If a given return moves from one
county to another between tax years, the program categorizes that return – and all its associated
exemptions – as having migrated between counties. Examining the number of exemptions that move from
county to county in a given year can provide a rough estimate of the net flow of actual people from place
to place.iv The following table shows the top net sources for in-migrants (in-migrants minus out-migrants)
into Greater Columbus and the top destinations of out-migrants who leave the region.
FIGURE 4: NET MIGRATION 2001-2011
Top Sources
Christian County, KY
Orange County, NY
Hardin County, KY
Pierce County, WA
Jefferson County, NY
Vernon Parish, LA
Dougherty County, GA
Bell County, TX
Stewart County, GA
Liberty County, GA
Top Destinations
762
695
644
527
284
282
257
256
236
212
Lee County, AL
Fulton County, GA
Cumberland County, NC
El Paso County, TX
Cobb County, GA
DeKalb County, GA
Harnett County, NC
El Paso County, CO
Fairfax County, VA
Coweta County, GA
-4703
-1013
-991
-700
-604
-471
-366
-361
-352
-347
Source: Internal Revenue Service
The Greater Columbus region lost a net total of 4,886 individuals to other communities between 2001 and
2011. And as the preceding figure shows, many of its biggest sources of in-migrants were counties that are
in close proximity to major army bases (e.g. Christian County, Kentucky, the home of Fort Campbell).
Likewise, the top destinations included the Fort Bragg and Fort Bliss communities. But a further analysis
of IRS data at the MSA level shows that Greater Columbus lost 7,224 residents to metro areas that
did not have a major Army base between 2001 and 2011, an average of 722 per year.v By comparison,
Huntsville added an average of 1,521 new residents from the same set of MSAs during that time period.
Greater Columbus has lost a significant amount of residents to other metropolitan areas in recent
years, especially relative to high-performing regions in the Southeastern United States. One of the
biggest destinations was the Atlanta region, to which Greater Columbus lost an annual average of 375
Page 8 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
residents between 2001 and 2011. Lee County – the sole county that makes up the Auburn-Opelika, AL
MSA – also attracted more than 470 residents per year from Greater Columbus during this period.
Individuals who move to Lee County are not necessarily leaving the labor shed that supplies talent to
businesses in Greater Columbus. According to the Census Bureau’s OnTheMap program, slightly more than
6,000 Lee County residents commuted into Muscogee County for work in 2011. Input participants also
reported that Lee County can be considered part of the Columbus area’s labor shed; approximately 100 Lee
County residents participated in the online survey and several input participants reported that they, or
some of their employees, lived in the Auburn area. But there is still a negative impact when the political
jurisdictions that comprise Greater Columbus lose a resident to Lee or another nearby county. For one, IRS
data also shows that the average gross income for households moving out of the region is around $2,500
more than the average of households moving to the area, indicating that the community is losing residents
with higher incomes than those moving in. Residents who leave also take with them expenditures on
housing, retail goods, and other services – and thus the potential tax revenue that funds vital services in
Greater Columbus.
This report has so far been mostly silent on why Greater Columbus has grown so much differently than
many other regions. Subsequent sections will examine myriad trends and attributes that have characterized
and contributed to the region’s relatively sluggish growth. But one possible explanation that deserves
special mention is the region’s relative isolation from the country’s primary transportation infrastructure –
the Interstate Highway System. As many input participants put it, Greater Columbus is “at the end of
the world’s longest cul-de-sac,” a reference to the fact that the center of the region is located roughly
40-50 miles away from the nearest mainline, Interstate 85, along a spur route, Interstate 185. Input
participants said that Interstate 185 was preferable to having no Interstate-designated highway at all, and
that a direct Interstate connection to the Atlanta market is valuable. But on the whole, stakeholders viewed
the lack of mainline access as a major competitive disadvantage. Generally speaking, a lack of direct access
to a mainline Interstate limits economic growth opportunities, and thus, a smaller workforce and
population is needed to support the local economy. When surveyed, corporate executives and site
selection consultants have for decades prioritized Interstate and highway accessibility as being one of the
top-two factors that influences location decisions. Not surprisingly, the metro areas in the Southeastern
United States that are not served by mainline Interstates have grown at a slower pace historically than
those that are. But as the following population index shows, Greater Columbus still grew at a slower
rate than other communities with a similar lack of direct mainline Interstate access.
Page 9 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
FIGURE 5: POPULATION GROWTH COMPARED TO OTHER SOUTHEAST WITHOUT DIRECT
MAINLINE INTERSTATE ACCESS
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Moody’s Analytics
Note: The averages include 61 MSAs with principle cities in AL, GA, MS, NC, SC, TN. Two communities without interstates, Gainesville, GA and
Myrtle Beach, SC, were extreme outliers and were not included in the analysis due to their special characteristics (Atlanta exurb and beachfront
community, respectively). If they were to be included, the "Average Without Interstate" line would rise significantly.
There is little doubt that a lack of direct mainline Interstate access has limited economic and population
growth in Greater Columbus. But the preceding figure clearly shows that Greater Columbus’ historical
growth rates still lag behind communities in similar situations.vi When relevant, upcoming sections in this
report will touch on any other factors that may have limited growth. In short, a full and satisfactory
explanation is elusive, but understanding the implications of such slow growth is just as important as
understanding the reasons why it occurred.
Key Takeaways
In an era of explosive growth, Greater Columbus added residents at a far slower pace than most other
regions in the Southeastern United States. By itself, this is not necessarily a bad thing. There is no virtue
in “growth for the sake of growth,” and modest population gains are certainly preferable to expansion
so rapid that infrastructure, schools, and services cannot keep up with the influx of new residents. But
data also clearly shows that, recent Fort Benning-related migration aside, Greater Columbus is not
attracting new residents from beyond its borders at the same rate as the comparison communities, and
this has more serious implications for the region’s long-term economic competitiveness and
prosperity. The availability of top talent is now perhaps the most important location consideration for
businesses, and in this environment, successful regions will typically be those that can attract residents
with high skill and educational attainment levels. And as the next section will show, the need for an
influx of talent is particularly acute in Greater Columbus.
Page 10 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
2. A CRITICAL NEED FOR TOP TALENT
As previously stated, regions must have a talented workforce to support future economic growth and
prosperity, and strength in this area is derived both from the quality and the quantity of workers. The
quantity side is impacted by migration trends discussed in the previous section, but it is also heavily
dependent on age dynamics. Communities across the country are facing an aging workforce as Baby
Boomers near retirement age. Nationally, there are just enough people between the ages of 25 and 44 to
replace those individuals aged 45 to 64 in the workforce (each cohort represents 26.3 percent of the
population), and any potential shortfalls can be made up through international in-migration. Fortunately
for Greater Columbus, its age dynamics are even more favorable, as seen in the following figure.
FIGURE 6: AGE DISTRUBTION, 2013
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates
The ratio of residents aged 25 to 44 to those aged 45 to 64 is often described as a “dependency ratio,” with
a ratio greater than 1.0 suggesting a region will have just enough younger residents to replace those in the
older cohort as they reach retirement age. Greater Columbus ranked fifth among the ten scorecard
communities on this metric, with a dependency ratio of 1.16. There are enough young people in the
region to replace the workers who will retire in the next ten to twenty years. Many other
communities cannot make this claim, and all three comparison metros had lower (worse)
dependency ratios than Greater Columbus.vii Local age dynamics are also improving relative to the
comparison communities. Greater Columbus had the largest percentage increase in the population
between the ages of 25 and 34 between 2008 and 2013. Nationally, this age cohort increased 0.1
percentage points, whereas in Greater Columbus, it increased by 1.1 percentage points. And at the other
Page 11 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
end of the spectrum, the share of population over the age of 65 increased by 0.1 percentage points in the
region compared to 1.4 percentage points nationwide.
Another litmus test for workforce sustainability is the proportion of a region’s workforce comprised of
workers over the age of 55 relative to the national share of workers in that same cohort. Workers over the
age of 55 are those most likely to retire in the next decade. Communities with a relatively large percentage
of workers aged 55 and over are particularly susceptible to near-term workforce shortages. In Greater
Columbus, roughly 17 percent of workers are over the age of 55 compared to the national figure of 21
percent.
Overall, Greater Columbus has favorable age dynamics, and assuming it is able to retain these residents,
the region should not be lacking for a quantity of workers. But workforce quality is another story.
Greater Columbus has a less educated population overall relative to all comparison geographies and
scorecard communities, and due to the growing importance of a skilled labor pool, this is highly
disconcerting. The region has the lowest percentage of residents aged 25 and over with a bachelor’s
degree or higher at just 21.2 percent compared to the national average of 29.6 percent. The region’s
bachelor attainment rate was also lower than that of all scorecard communities, including in-state peers
Augusta (24.5) and Savannah (31.3) and the other two metro areas with large military populations –
Clarksville (23.2) and Fayetteville, NC (22.3). For additional context, some of the primary magnets for jobs
and talent in the country – regions such as Raleigh, NC and Austin, TX – have bachelor’s attainment rates
above 40 percent, roughly double the rate of Greater Columbus.
Additionally, more than one in four area residents completed some college but did not receive a degree,
the highest share among all comparisons, while the proportion of people in Greater Columbus without a
high school diploma was ranked seventh-highest among the scorecard comparison communities. The high
percentage of individuals between the ages of 18 and 24 that had not attained a high school diploma also
represents a concern. According to data averaging the five years between 2009 and 2013, 17.0 percent of
residents aged 18 to 24 had less than a high school diploma. Nationally, 15.6 percent of individuals in that
age cohort had not received a high school diploma.
Page 12 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
FIGURE 7: EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR THE POPULATION 25 YEARS AND OVER, 2013
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
8.8%
10.0%
8.6%
12.4%
14.5%
15.1%
7.9%
7.5%
8.3%
25.7%
50%
22.4%
24.1%
29.9%
30.3%
17.8%
18.4%
Graduate Degree
7.4%
8.1%
Bachelor's Degree
21.2%
21.1%
Associate's Degree
28.6%
27.8%
Some college, no
degree
HS Diploma
14.6%
13.4%
Georgia
United
States
23.5%
8.9%
30.2%
22.7%
20%
10%
11.2%
20.7%
40%
30%
10.6%
13.0%
14.9%
14.9%
Greater
Columbus
Augusta
0%
14.5%
11.2%
Chattanooga Huntsville
No HS Diploma
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
It is important to note that the region’s low educational attainment levels are not confined to any one
demographic. Bachelor’s degree attainment rates for black and white residents lag their respective national
rates by six percentage points each. Additionally, the region’s educational attainment rates are not
substantially skewed by the presence of Fort Benning. In fact, the bachelor’s degree attainment rate among
civilians aged 25 and older in Greater Columbus was 21.1 percent, slightly lower than the overall regional
average.viii
Even more alarming than the low educational attainment rates themselves, however, is the fact that
the gap in bachelor’s degree attainment between Greater Columbus and its comparison geographies
is growing larger. Between 2008 and 2013, the share of the population with a bachelor’s degree or higher
increased by 0.6 percentage points locally compared to the national gain of 2.1 percentage points and
increases of 2.4 and 2.6 percentage points, respectively, in Augusta and Huntsville. A look at the
educational attainments of Greater Columbus’ younger residents and recent in-migrants to the area sheds
light onto why this is the case.
The following figure shows educational attainment levels for the 25 to 44 and 45 to 64 age cohorts in
Greater Columbus, the state of Georgia, and the United States. The younger cohort in Greater Columbus
has a slightly higher rate of bachelor’s degree attainment than the older group, but the spread is much
larger in the state and the nation, and the proportion of local individuals aged 25 to 44 with at least a
bachelor’s degree (22.4 percent) pales in comparison to that of Georgia (30.7) and the United States (33.0).
Also of note is the fact that, among the younger cohort, Greater Columbus has a much higher proportion
of individuals with some college but no degree and only a slightly larger share of individuals who have
never attended college. This indicates that younger individuals in the region are attempting some type of
higher education at roughly the same rates as people in Georgia and the United States, but they are not
Page 13 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
finishing degrees by the age of 25 at anything close to the state and national rates. And overall, the
educational attainment gap between Greater Columbus and other communities is likely to grow as a
result of these trends.
FIGURE 8: EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT BY AGE COHORT, 2013
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Another way for regions to improve their levels of educational attainment is by attracting educated
in-migrants. In-migrants to Greater Columbus are on the whole more educated than the region’s current
population, and new arrivals are also more likely to have a bachelor’s degree than in-migrants to Augusta
or Chattanooga. But Greater Columbus ranked just seventh among the 10 scorecard metros in in-migrant
bachelor’s degree attainment rate. And recall that Greater Columbus also receives comparatively little
population growth from in-migration. In Huntsville and Savannah – the scorecard metros with the top two
bachelor’s degree attainment rates for in-migrants – more than 60 percent of population growth between
2000 and 2014 was the result of net in-migration. In Greater Columbus, in-migration accounted for just
14.9 percent of growth. In other words, even if Greater Columbus had the top in-migrant bachelor’s
degree attainment rate among the scorecard metros (instead of the seventh) there would simply not
be enough new arrivals to make a large impact on overall educational attainment levels.ix The
implications this has on the community as a whole will be discussed later in the report, as will the region’s
Page 14 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
ability to develop talent locally and retain its homegrown talent to help increase the community’s
educational attainment.
FIGURE 9: EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF IN-MIGRANTS, 2009-2013
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
7.4%
9.0%
12.4%
20.2%
18.5%
15.4%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
35.4%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
19.6%
21.9%
29.5%
34.1%
23.3%
27.3%
Graduate Degree
Bachelor's Degree
28.7%
40.0%
30.0%
10.6%
14.6%
Some college or Associate's
Degree
27.2%
25.2%
HS Diploma
19.0%
13.6%
15.1%
Greater
Columbus
Augusta
16.4%
15.0%
10.4%
Chattanooga Huntsville
No HS Diploma
Georgia
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Educational attainment rates are important for many more reasons other than workforce sustainability and
a region’s ability to grow and keep in-demand jobs. Research shows that educational attainment is one
of the key factors influencing a person’s lifetime earnings and economic opportunities. Individuals
with higher levels of education are more likely to have higher incomes and are less likely to be
unemployed. As a result, they are presumably less likely to be in poverty or reliant on government or nonprofit assistance. There is also evidence to suggest that higher levels of educational attainment have
positive impacts on a variety of factors relevant to personal well-being and community vitality – from
incarceration rates to levels of volunteering. Communities with higher levels of education are therefore
more likely to benefit from increased wealth and overall prosperity for their residents. The following figure
breaks down earnings and unemployment rates in the United States by educational attainment level. In
2014, the average unemployment rate in the United States for full-time workers over the age of 25 was 5.0
percent. However those with less than an associate’s degree had unemployment rates of 6.0 and higher.
Further, individuals with higher levels of education are more likely to have higher earnings. On average, a
full-time worker with a bachelor’s degree in 2014 would have earned roughly $22,500 more than the
average worker with a high school diploma.
Page 15 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
FIGURE 10: U.S. MEDIAN WEEKLY EARNINGS AND UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, BY EDUCATIONAL
ATTAINMENT, 2014
10%
$1,600
$1,639
$1,400
$1,200
$1,326
$1,000
$1,101
$800
$600
$400
$200
9%
$1,591
$668
$741
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
$792
3%
2%
$488
Unemployment Rate
Median Weekly Earnings
$1,800
1%
$0
0%
Less than a High school
Some
Associate's Bachelor's
high school diploma college, no
degree
degree
diploma
degree
Median weekly earnings
Master's Professional Doctoral
degree
degree
degree
Unemployment rate
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Key Takeaways
Greater Columbus’ workforce is not in dire straits. The region has favorable age dynamics to account
for impending retirements, and the amount of top talent available in the region generally seems to be
capable of supporting the region’s existing base of businesses, which will be discussed in the next
section. But the region is less educated, in some cases significantly so, than its competitors, and this
gap will not close if the status quo is maintained. These low education attainment levels are likely to
limit future economic opportunities. Nearly all types of businesses – from retail establishments to high
technology firms – take things like bachelor’s degree attainment levels into account when considering
whether to locate or remain in an area. Communities without sufficiently high levels of educational
attainment will be at a significant disadvantage when it comes to growing, retaining, and attracting a
wide range of quality jobs that can increase levels of prosperity. The next section explores how these
realties impact the region’s labor force and economic landscape.
Page 16 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
3. ECONOMIC REALITIES
As Greater Columbus’ population has grown at a slow rate, so too has its labor force. The labor force
represents the pool of civilian workers in a region that are employed or unemployed but actively looking
for work. Over the past five years, the labor force in Greater Columbus has essentially been unchanged, a
surprising outcome considering its age dynamics and talent production assets. Higher education
institutions such as Columbus State University offer a pipeline of new workers to the region, and Fort
Benning offers a qualified supply of retired military to enter the civilian workforce. But the fact that little to
no civilian labor force growth occurred in recent years further supports the idea that the region’s recent
spike in population growth was due to the relocation of the Armor School, as a more natural increase in
population should have led to a significant increase in the number of civilians working or looking for work.
As occurred in many places during and after the Great Recession, the region’s unemployment rate hovered
around 10 percent throughout 2009 and 2010. But unemployment has remained persistently higher than
state and national averages at 7.3 percent through February 2015, 0.9 percentage points higher than the
Georgia rate and 1.3 percentage points higher than the national average. Meanwhile, the labor force was
essentially stagnant (declining by a slight 0.2 percent) between 2009 and 2014. Accordingly, the decrease in
the unemployment rate was attributed to a net employment gain of approximately 2,000 jobs between
2009 and 2014, which reflects a 1.6 percent increase in employment. But while this job growth has been
welcome, it lags the state (2.4 percent) and nation (4.6 percent) over the five-year period.
FIGURE 11: TOTAL NONFARM JOBS, 2005-2015
Feb
2005
Dec
2007
Jun
2009
Feb
2015
Recession
Recovery
10-yr Chg.
12/07-06/09 06/09-02/15 02/05-02/15
Greater Columbus
121,700
121,800
117,900
123,800
-3.2%
5.0%
1.7%
Augusta
218,800
220,500
213,100
230,000
-3.4%
7.9%
5.1%
Chattanooga
239,300
247,500
226,900
243,000
-8.3%
7.1%
1.5%
Huntsville
196,000
214,000
209,500
218,500
-2.1%
4.3%
11.5%
Georgia
United States
3,981,800
4,170,100
3,897,100
4,246,100
-6.5%
9.0%
6.6%
132,991,000
138,350,000
130,944,000
141,057,000
-5.4%
7.7%
6.1%
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics, seasonally adjusted
While the recession continues to fade into the past, the negative effects continue to impact some
communities. But as the previous figure shows, the recession had less of an impact on the employment
total in Greater Columbus relative to all comparison geographies except for Huntsville. Total nonfarm jobs
decreased by 3.2 percent during the recessionary years, while nationally it decreased by 5.4 percent. Since
the official end of the recession, employment in the Columbus region had increased by 5.0 percent, while
employment nationally increased by 7.7 percent between June 2009 and February 2015.
But overall, employment in the Columbus region increased by just 1.7 percent between 2005 and 2015,
representing a net gain of approximately 2,100 jobs. This was the second-slowest growth rate among
comparison geographies, ahead of only Chattanooga. As the following table makes clear, however, the
Page 17 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
Chattanooga area’s slow growth rate is largely due to the negative impact the recession had on the area.
Most of Chattanooga’s losses were jobs that it had gained in the run-up to the recession. In Greater
Columbus, there was no pre-recession boom to go bust. In fact, pre-recessionary growth was so flat
that there are still fewer civilian jobs in the Columbus region now than there were in January 2000
despite a relatively less severe recession.
FIGURE 12: TOTAL NONFARM EMPLOYMENT INDEX JAN. 2000 – FEB. 2015 (JAN. 2000=100)
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics, seasonally adjusted
Economic Composition and Performance
While Greater Columbus’ job growth has been modest in recent years, the following figure breaks down
the changes that did occur. It shows five-year changes in regional employment by major business sector.
The first thing that may jump out is a massive job loss in the Information sector and a huge gain in Finance
and Insurance. This is misleading, as it can be attributed almost entirely to a single noneconomic event in
which an area firm (likely TSYS) was reclassified into a different business sector in the North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS), which federal statistical agencies use to group businesses into areas
of economic activity (e.g. manufacturing or health care).x
Instead, the biggest positive development has been the region’s growth in manufacturing employment.
Job growth in the Manufacturing sector outpaced the national sector growth rate by an impressive
11.6 percentage points, as firms added roughly 1,350 positions within the region. This recent trend
represents a reversal (for the time-being anyway) of a major downturn that erased 36.5 percent of the
Page 18 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
region’s production jobs between 2004 and 2009. The growth since 2009 has almost certainly been helped
along by relocations and expansions from companies such as NCR and Pratt & Whitney. It is also possible
that the presence of the KIA assembly plant in West Point, Georgia has made a difference, though
according to input participants with direct knowledge of the plant’s impact on the Greater Columbus
region, most of the numerous suppliers that have co-located with the facility have done so along the
Interstate 85 corridor. The Columbus MSA is home to only a handful of KIA suppliers, all of which are in
Harris County. According to stakeholders, the plant’s principal benefit for Greater Columbus has been as a
source of jobs for residents who can commute to the facility or a supplier from the region.
FIGURE 13: GREATER COLUMBUS EMPLOYMENT BY BUSINESS SECTOR, 2009-2014
2009
Jobs
2014
Jobs
Crop and Animal Production
462
502
40
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction
108
98
(10)
Utilities
295
265
(30)
Description
# Chg.
US %
Chg.
Share of
Total
Jobs
2014
LQ
8.6%
1.6%
0.3%
0.28
-9.1%
33.1%
0.1%
0.11
-10.3%
-1.7%
0.2%
0.49
% Chg.
Construction
6,835
5,456
(1,379)
-20.2%
-3.8%
3.7%
0.71
Manufacturing
9,492
10,843
1,351
14.2%
2.6%
7.3%
0.90
Wholesale Trade
2,675
2,588
(87)
-3.2%
4.7%
1.7%
0.44
13,144
13,727
583
4.4%
4.6%
9.2%
0.88
Transportation and Warehousing
2,260
1,673
(587)
-26.0%
8.8%
1.1%
0.34
Information
5,546
1,514
(4,032)
-72.7%
-3.0%
1.0%
0.54
Finance and Insurance
7,065
11,088
4,023
56.9%
2.4%
7.4%
1.83
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
1,935
2,028
93
4.8%
-1.3%
1.4%
0.83
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
5,841
6,252
411
7.0%
9.7%
4.2%
0.67
Management of Companies and Enterprises
1,617
1,364
(253)
-15.7%
14.6%
0.9%
0.66
Admin. and Support and Waste Mgmt./Remed. Svcs.
6,566
6,649
84
1.3%
18.4%
4.5%
0.71
Educational Services
1,033
1,066
33
3.2%
10.4%
0.7%
0.28
14,916
15,952
1,036
6.9%
11.5%
10.7%
0.86
Retail Trade
Health Care and Social Assistance
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
1,233
1,155
(78)
-6.3%
7.7%
0.8%
0.47
Accommodation and Food Services
12,364
13,727
1,363
11.0%
12.2%
9.2%
1.11
Other Services (except Public Administration)
Government
Total
7,025
6,759
(266)
-3.8%
-1.9%
4.5%
0.95
46,661
46,454
(206)
-0.4%
-1.8%
31.1%
1.97
147,073
149,161
1.5%
5.2%
2,224
Source: Economic Modeling Specialists, Inc. (EMSI)
Note: Location quotients (LQs) are a ratio of the region’s share of employment in a given business sector divided by that same sector’s share of
total national employment. A location quotient great than 1.0 indicates that the region’s share of employment in a given sector is greater than
the average American community, and may be a sign that the region affords businesses in this sector with some level of competitive advantage.
Beyond the Manufacturing sector, however, there were relatively few bright spots. For instance, the region’s
traditional “white collar” sectors – Information; Finance and Insurance; Professional, Scientific, and Technical
Services; and Management of Companies and Enterprises – combined to add just 149 jobs between 2009
and 2014. These sectors are vital to the region’s economy, accounting for more than 20,000 jobs (many of
Page 19 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
them high-paying) and “exporting” many services to other regions and thereby bringing new wealth into
the community, just as a manufacturing firm might export a good. The fact that these key white collar
sectors have grown by less than one percent locally compared to nearly six percent nationally is a
concern and has likely acted as a significant barrier to additional prosperity. Most of the region’s job
growth over the past five years outside of the Manufacturing sector was driven by the Health Care and
Accommodation and Food Services sectors. While these sectors provide many jobs, they are
disproportionately local-serving, meaning they do not bring as much new outside money into the
community. Moreover, they are closely linked with population – slow-growth communities do not
have high potential to add additional jobs in these sectors.
The preceding figure also shows location quotients (LQ) in the table column furthest to the right. A location
quotient is the ratio of a region’s share of employment in a given business sector to that of the nation’s
share of jobs within that sector. A location quotient of 1.0 indicates that the share of jobs in the region is
exactly the same as the national share of jobs. It can be used to identify which business sectors are more
concentrated in a community compared to the United States as a whole. Location quotients above 1.0 are
often seen as indications of some type of local competitive advantage. The region has just three sectors
that are more concentrated locally than nationally – Finance and Insurance, Accommodation and
Food Services, and Government. This begins to illustrate the extent to which the local economy is
dependent on only a handful of sectors, businesses, and entities. Government alone accounts for
roughly one-third of all jobs in the metro area, and of those, the majority are military jobs. Nationally,
government and military jobs account for just 15 percent of employment. And as the following figure
shows, several large companies in the Finance and Insurance sector – TSYS, Aflac, BlueCross BlueShield of
Georgia, Synovous – make up a large majority of the employment in that business sector.
FIGURE 14: TOP EMPLOYERS IN GREATER COLUMBUS
Employer
Fort Benning
# of
Employees
40,000
Employer
# of
Employees
Pratt & Whitney
1,000
TSYS
4,600
Synovus Financial Corp.
930
Muscogee County Scool District
4,300
Callaway Gardens
900
Aflac
3,670
MeadWestvaco Mahrt Operations
900
Columbus Regional Healthcare System, Inc.
3,180
Heatcraft North America (Kysor-Warren)
786
Columbus Consolidated Government
3,130
NCR Corporation
725
KIA Motors Manufacturing Georgia Inc.
3,000
Johnson Controls Inc.
705
St. Francis Hospital Inc.
3,000
Interface
630
BlueCross BlueShield of Georgia
1,400
InterCall
625
Columbus State University
1,360
DMI Columbus, LLC
550
Source: Greater Columbus Chamber of Commerce
Note: As indicated by the presence of KIA, this list uses a slightly more expansive version of Greater Columbus than the MSA.
Page 20 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
Input participants repeatedly discussed that lack of employment opportunities as a major weakness for the
community. This does not take away from the pride, support, and appreciation that residents have for Fort
Benning, Aflac, TSYS, BSBC, and the other major employers in the area. Rather, this highlights a challenge
that residents reported – that there is little room for job advancement, lateral movement, and a lack of
career opportunities in the private sector outside of the finance and insurance sectors. Input participants
said, “good employment opportunities are limited to a handful of major employers” and that “there are not
enough jobs available for every college graduate to have work that pertains to their education.”
Community stakeholders also expressed concern regarding the region’s vulnerability and dependency on a
few large employers. Dependency on a few large employers leaves the region at risk to potential
competitive or regulatory changes in a given business sector such as Finance and Insurance. Additionally,
uncertainty about the federal budget and defense spending leave the region vulnerable to potential
cutbacks at Fort Benning.
Beyond this, diverse economies are more equipped to supply jobs for various sectors and at all career
levels. Again, this is not to take away from the tremendous positive impact those large employers have had
on the region. But input participants feel that a few large employers cannot possibly provide jobs for all
residents. Additionally, a diverse economy is beneficial when recruiting workers to the region when there is
a trailing spouse or family member. The ability for the other family member to find employment is an
important factor when an individual is considering relocating to a new community for a job opportunity.
The second phase of this process, the Target Business Analysis, will examine the economic composition in
much greater detail in order to identify the business sectors that provide the greatest opportunities for
future job growth and wealth creation in the Columbus region.
Key Takeaways
Most regional economies in the United States boomed in the mid-2000s, busted in the midst of the
Great Recession, and recovered to varying degrees in the subsequent years. These trends were far
more muted in Greater Columbus, where job growth has generally been anemic throughout much of
the new millennium. There are certainly some bright spots, and the region’s roster of key large
employers is exceedingly rare for a community of this size. But the present-day economy of Greater
Columbus is not sufficiently strong to boost levels of prosperity in the region. The civilian labor force
has remained virtually unchanged in recent years. Additionally, the unemployment rate remains higher
than that of comparison communities. According to representatives from the business community
contacted through the interview process, the unemployment rate is as much a product of a lack of
qualified workers as it is a lack of available jobs. This speaks to how talent and economic performance
are intertwined and suggests that there may be a large segment of the local population that is
disconnected from economic opportunities – an inference that is underscored in the next section.
Page 21 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
4. INCOME AND POVERTY
Up until this point, this report has focused on things such as talent attraction, workforce quality, and
economic performance. These are important factors in the health of a region, but they are ultimately means
to an end. The core goal of community and economic development – and of this initiative – is to raise
levels of prosperity and standards of living for people, thereby improving their lives. The important
questions are therefore: how are the residents of Greater Columbus doing and are they better off now than
they have been in the recent past?
Per capita income is the most basic indicator of the economic well-being of the average resident. Greater
Columbus has the fifth highest per capita income among the 10 scorecard communities, and at $39,012, it
ranks ahead of the national average of $37,845. Per capita income also grew faster than the national
average in the region in the five- and ten-year periods leading up to 2013.
FIGURE 16: PER CAPITA INCOME
08-13 % Chg. 03-13 % Chg.
2003
2008
2013
Greater Columbus
$29,303
$36,715
$39,012
6.3%
33.1%
Augusta
$27,622
$32,763
$35,625
8.7%
29.0%
Chattanooga
$29,624
$34,732
$38,134
9.8%
28.7%
Huntsville
$30,794
$38,658
$41,899
8.4%
36.1%
Georgia
$32,677
$40,873
$44,765
9.5%
37.0%
United States
$30,478
$35,761
$37,845
5.8%
24.2%
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis
Taken alone, the preceding table might suggest that Greater Columbus’ residents are doing quite well. But
an examination of the components of per capita income paints a different picture. Personal income is
derived from three sources: wages from jobs, investment income (e.g. dividends, interest, and rent), and
transfer receipts (all varieties of government benefits). Among the comparison metros, Columbus had
the smallest percentage of income derived from wages. Given the large corporate presence, it was not
surprising to see a larger than average share (roughly 20 percent) of income was derived from dividends,
interest, and rent – investment income, in other words. But the small percentage of income from wages
(59.5 percent) is rather concerning. Nationally, wages account for 64.1 percent of personal income.
The average annual wage in Greater Columbus in 2013 was lower than eight of the nine other comparison
scorecard communities. Low wages are something of a double-edged sword. They are certainly good for
business costs, but they can also make attracting and retaining workers difficult and hold down the amount
of local wealth that recirculates through the economy.
Page 22 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
FIGURE 15: CIVILIAN AVERAGE ANNUAL WAGES
2003
2008
2013
08-13 %
Chg.
03-13 %
Chg.
Greater Columbus
$29,569
$35,067
$38,297
9.2%
29.5%
Augusta
$32,620
$38,068
$41,140
8.1%
26.1%
Chattanooga
$31,834
$37,258
$41,709
11.9%
31.0%
Huntsville
$40,150
$47,427
$52,462
10.6%
30.7%
Georgia
$36,626
$42,585
$46,760
9.8%
27.7%
United States
$37,765
$45,563
$49,808
9.3%
31.9%
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Many residents and employers also acknowledged that low wages are tolerable in the region due to its low
cost of living. An analysis of cost of living across the scorecard regions showed that Greater Columbus tied
for second with the Montgomery and Fayetteville, AR for having the lowest cost of living. Only the Augusta
metro area had a lower overall cost of living. But while the lower cost of living is a selling point, many
other comparison communities are similarly affordable but also have higher overall wages, meaning
that Greater Columbus is not necessarily a greater overall “value.”
During the input process, participants frequently named Metro Atlanta as the region with which Greater
Columbus has competed with for talent, particularly young professionals. Stakeholders cited higher wages
and robust employment opportunities in the Atlanta region as reasons many residents from Greater
Columbus have relocated to the area. The cost of living is higher in the Atlanta region – 97 on a scale
where 100 is the national average compared to the 86 of Greater Columbus. But wages are also much
higher in Metro Atlanta, where the average annual wage in 2013 was $52,591 higher than all comparison
geographies and scorecard metros. Accordingly, input participants felt that many see the Atlanta
region as a better value than Greater Columbus despite its higher costs. Stakeholders feel this is a
significant competitive challenge for the Columbus region due to its close proximity to Metro
Atlanta.
Additionally, roughly 20 percent of income in the Columbus region stems from transfer receipts –
retirement benefits, medical benefits, income maintenance benefits, veterans’ benefits, etc. The large
military retiree population residing in the area certainly elevates this indicator to an extent. However, the
disconcerting fact is that 15.3 percent of transfer receipts stem from “income maintenance benefits,” which
includes payments such as food stamps, earned income tax credit, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
Comparatively, just 9.5 percent of personal current transfer receipts were derived from income
maintenance benefits in Huntsville, 10.8 percent in Chattanooga, and 13.0 percent in Augusta. (The national
average for metro areas is 11.3 percent.) Additionally, while communities across the country saw an
increase in income maintenance benefits due to the impact of the Great Recession, the Columbus metro
area experienced the smallest increase of the four MSAs between 2008 and 2013. This suggests that the
relatively large share of income maintenance benefits received by the greater Columbus residents is
not a temporary increase due to job loss and the downturn in the economy, but rather, a larger
percentage of individuals in the area have consistently depended on income maintenance benefits
Page 23 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
compared to the other communities. This is reflected in the region’s high poverty rates. Both the region’s
child poverty rate and total population poverty rate were the highest out of all scorecard metros. Nearly
one in three Greater Columbus children between the ages of 5 and 17 were living in poverty in 2013.
Again, this is not due to a temporary increase; in 2008, Greater Columbus also had the highest child
poverty rate out of the scorecard communities.
FIGURE 17: POVERTY RATES, 2013
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, SAIPE
Poverty was a topic that came up often throughout the input process. According to input participants,
poverty in Greater Columbus is generational, with individuals born into poverty having a difficult time rising
out of it. Additionally conversations centered on the negative impact that poverty has on the community’s
crime rates and K-12 outcomes. Said one participant, “we need to make poverty an economic problem
and not a charitable problem,” adding that it is important to convey how poverty impacts the
region’s competitiveness. Input participants also noted that individuals from the lower rungs of the
economic ladder have limited opportunities and that wealth in Greater Columbus tends to be bifurcated,
with a small but very wealthy group of rich households, a very large group of poor households, and only a
small middle class in between.
An examination of the distribution of household incomes supports this assertion. The following figure
shows that nearly 60 percent of households in the Columbus region earned an income of less than
$50,000 in 2013. Out of the 381 metropolitan statistical areas, only 55 had a larger percentage of
households earning less than $50,000.
Page 24 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
FIGURE 18: DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 2013
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
The median household income in Greater Columbus was $40,388 as of 2013, placing it behind its
comparisons communities, the state, and the nation. Between 2008 and 2013, the number of households
with income greater than $150,000 increased by 23.2 percent, while there was little change in the number
of households earning less than $50,000 (-1.7 percent). So while per capita income is similar to the national
per capita income, the median household income is approximately $12,000 less than the United States’
median income. This indicates that while Greater Columbus has a lot of income on a per capita basis,
the distribution of these resources is largely skewed toward its top-earning households.
Key Takeaways
While per capita income in Greater Columbus is high relative to its comparison communities, this is
misleading. A greater proportion of local income is derived from investment income and government
benefits as opposed to wages, and the distribution of income is skewed toward households in higher
economic brackets. Wages are low such that Greater Columbus does not have a “cost of living value
proposition” relative to Metro Atlanta, one of its primary competitors for talent. Nearly 60 percent of
the households in the region have annual incomes below $50,000 and the region’s median household
income was lower than all three comparison regions, the state, and the nation. Thirty percent of
children in the region live below the poverty line, and the region’s elevated poverty rates pre-date the
Great Recession. In short, a substantial portion of the region’s population is not enjoying in its
successes. The region has shown a willingness to address these issues through efforts such as 2009’s
“Building Prosperity in Columbus-Muscogee County.” But it is clear that there is far more work ahead.
Page 25 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
5. QUALITY OF PLACE AND QUALITY OF LIFE
If Greater Columbus is to improve its talent base and raise levels of prosperity, quality of life and quality of
place must play a central role. This is perhaps best evidenced by the “Knight Soul of the Community 2010”
report from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and Gallup. The report was the culmination of
three years of research in 26 communities (Greater Columbus among them) that sought to determine what
attaches people to a community. According to the report, community attachment is, “an emotional
connection to a place that transcends satisfaction, loyalty, and even passion. A community’s most attached
residents have strong pride in it, a positive outlook on the community’s future, and a sense that it is the
perfect place for them. They are less likely to want to leave than residents without this emotional
connection. They feel a bond to their community that is stronger than just being happy about where they
live.”
According to the report, three factors stood out in terms of their influence on community attachment:
ü Social offerings (such as entertainment options and places to meet people)
ü Aesthetics (physical beauty, green spaces, etc.)
ü Openness (the ability for all kinds of people to build networks and thrive)
These factors fall squarely into the quality of life and quality of place categories, and they are more
than feel-good sentiments. The report examined the relationship between levels of community
attachment and economic growth and entrepreneurship and found a positive relationship. In other words,
places in which residents are attached to their community are more economically successful than
those that are not. This section discusses various aspects that influence quality of life and quality of place
in Greater Columbus. It covers things like social offerings and openness in addition to several other factors
(e.g. community health and crime) that have an influence on the well-being and prosperity of the
community.
Perceptions of Quality of Life and Quality of Place in Greater Columbus
Online survey participants were asked to rate a variety of quality of life and place aspects that influence the
region’s attractiveness as a place to live. And as the following figure shows, area residents hold
generally favorable views about the region’s quality of life. Of the 14 aspects survey participants
were asked to rank, 12 received more “Excellent/Above Average” responses than “Very Poor/Below
Average.”
Page 26 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
FIGURE 19: PLEASE RATE THE FOLLOWING ASPECTS OF THE COLUMBUS REGION'S QUALITY OF
LIFE, BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCES WHERE YOU LIVE.
Source: Market Street Services; Regional Prosperity Initiative Survey (2015)
Qualitative input gathered through focus groups, interviews, and open-ended survey responses supported
these assertions. Input participants from a variety of backgrounds and age groups spoke highly of various
aspects of quality of life in the region. The following image displays some of the most commonly used
words that input participants used when asked to describe the Columbus region’s greatest strength as a
place to live work and do business.
Page 27 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
FIGURE 20: IN YOUR OPINION, WHAT IS THE COLUMBUS REGION'S GREATEST STRENGTH AS A
PLACE TO LIVE, WORK, VISIT, AND DO BUSINESS?
Source: Market Street Services; Regional Prosperity Initiative Survey (2015)
As the preceding graphic shows, a majority of the words that stakeholders associated with the region’s
greatest strength deal with quality of life and place. Arts, family-friendliness, cultural options, activities, and
diversity all tie into the less quantifiable characteristics that speak to the region’s appeal as a place to live,
and to the attachment residents have to their community.
Community Attachment
In the aforementioned Soul of the Community study, Greater Columbus was among the 26 communities in
which researchers studied the issue of community attachment. The region fared well among its comparison
group – medium population regions with high urban density – that also included Columbia, SC; Lexington,
KY; Tallahassee, FL; and Wichita, KS. Greater Columbus tied for the highest proportion of “attached”
residents among this group and had the second lowest percentage of individuals who were “not attached.”
Greater Columbus also compared favorably to the average of all 26 communities.
Online survey responses generally support the idea that many of the region’s residents feel attached to
their community. Nearly two thirds (64.1 percent) said they will “very likely” continue to live in Greater
Columbus compared to just 11 percent who said they would “not likely” do so. And nearly half of
respondents (49.3 percent) said they would be very likely to retire in the community as well. But 42.6
percent of respondents said their children, once grown, would be “not likely” to remain in the
community, highlighting an urgent need for talent retention efforts.
Page 28 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
Social Offerings
Input participants had strong praise for the social offerings available in Greater Columbus, ranging from
community groups to amenities such as Callaway Gardens and the National Infantry Museum. The
following list briefly recaps some of the themes to have emerged from input:
ü
A revitalized Uptown: One of the most common themes throughout the input process was the
immense sense of pride that residents of Greater Columbus take in the revival of Uptown. Nearly
every individual contacted through an interview or focus group cited the “rebirth” of
Uptown and the coordinated efforts that went into making it happen as one of the most
positive changes in the region. Stakeholders also expressed optimism about the potential for
current and future developments, especially CSU’s investment in its RiverPark campus.
ü
Cultural and Arts facilities and programs: Roughly 50 percent of survey participants rated the
community’s cultural and arts facilities and programs as “excellent” or “above average” – a strong
number in any community but a particularly notable achievement for a region the size of Greater
Columbus. Stakeholders had high praise for the RiverCenter for the Performing Arts, Springer
Opera House, the various offerings from Columbus State’s Schwob School of Music, and the
Columbus Symphony Orchestra, the second orchestra formed in the history of the United States.
Input participants noted that such a strong roster of performing arts assets and institutions is
exceptionally rare in a community the size of Greater Columbus.
ü
Volunteer opportunities: Input participants reported that numerous opportunities to participate
and get involved. Roughly 56 percent of online survey respondents rated volunteer opportunities as
“above average” or “excellent.” Residents in the Columbus region reported that the social services
and faith communities provide a tremendous amount of support to help alleviate some of the
issues related to poverty, hunger, and homelessness.
ü
Shopping and Dining: Approximately 45 percent of online survey participants rated dining options
as “above average” or “excellent” – about three times as many who rated these options as “below
average” or “very poor.” Many input participants, however, expressed a desire for more quality retail
options and upscale dining opportunities in the region, while acknowledging recent improvements.
ü
Outdoor activities and recreational amenities: Numerous input participants cited the
Chattahoochee River as the region’s greatest strength, and praised the many improvements to this
area in recent decades. Stakeholders generally felt that the 20-year growth and transformation of
the Chattahoochee RiverWalk has been remarkable. And like the revitalization of Uptown, input
participants were also virtually unanimous in their praise for the whitewater course – yet
another amenity that was the result of a diligent effort on the part of community leaders.
Input participants feel the whitewater course and zip line are unique assets that have greatly
improved the recreational offerings on the Chattahoochee River for both residents and visitors.
Other recreational amenities that received strong praise from input participants included the
Cooper Creek Tennis Center (and its upcoming expansion), the South Commons Softball Complex,
the Columbus Aquatic Center, and the Columbus Fall Line Trace Rails-to-Trails Project.
Page 29 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
Aesthetics
Stakeholders’ opinions on the aesthetics of Greater Columbus were mixed. The region’s natural beauty was
consistently cited as a point of pride, as were the parks, playgrounds, trails, and other opportunities for
people to experience that natural beauty. Input participants also noted that the revitalization efforts in
Uptown and Midtown have preserved the historic character of the neighborhoods. But while participants
acknowledged that conditions have improved some in recent years, many still lamented what they
described as abandoned, blighted, or unsightly properties. Many of these areas are also places through
which visitors to the community must pass. One participant said, “I almost want to blindfold visitors that I
bring to town until we get downtown and it looks nice. There’s no good entrance to Columbus.” Input
participants noted that past and current efforts have been devised to address this issue, but said that more
work is needed.
Openness
Open communities are those in which all types of people can thrive, and the input process revealed
mixed results regarding the extent to which this is true in Greater Columbus. On one hand, online
survey participants, regardless of race, were more likely than not to view Greater Columbus as an open and
welcoming place. But many input participants described a community with racial and socioeconomic
divisions that are evident in many aspects of the region’s life and in some ways define expectations,
opportunities, and outcomes for its people. Stakeholders frequently described this concept with a
euphemism – “the North-South divide” – that references Macon Road, the informal geographical boundary
of race and class in the region’s core county.
Online survey participants were asked about the degree to which they agreed with the statement, “Greater
Columbus is an inclusive place.” Less than half of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the
statement (41.1 percent), though this was nearly twice the proportion of those who disagreed or strongly
disagreed (22.0). Interestingly, a cross-tabulation of responses to this question by race and ethnicity reveals
that black and white survey respondents have similar feelings about the community’s inclusiveness.
In many other communities, survey respondents from minority groups are far less likely than white
respondents to agree that a place is inclusive. Among black respondents in Greater Columbus, 41.5
percent agreed or strongly agreed with the statement and 21.5 percent disagreeing or strongly
disagreeing. Among white residents, these figures were 42.2 and 21.7, respectively.
As the following figure shows, Greater Columbus is a “majority-minority” population.xi Historically, black
and white residents have made up the majority of the region’s population, but in recent years, the Hispanic
population has grown in Greater Columbus. Accordingly, the community is likely to become more diverse
in the coming years. Many input participants also believed that the region’s increasing diversity is an
opportunity, and numerous stakeholders also noted that race relations have improved significantly in the
community in recent years.
Page 30 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
FIGURE 21: POPULATION BY RACE AND ETHNICITY, 2013
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
But as is the case in nearly all places, tensions still remain along racial and ethnic lines. Input participants
agreed that the oft-mentioned North-South divide is real. Said one participant, “On a statistical level, there
is diversity, but geographically and socially, it is not mixed.” Another stakeholder who is not originally from
Greater Columbus said, “When I moved here, I was shocked how segregated the city was. It's gotten a little
better but it's still extremely segregated.” Many other input participants could recall specific examples
where racial tensions had entered into a public or private interaction. Such conditions are certainly not
uncommon – nearly every community has them to some degree. But they nonetheless limit the degree to
which Greater Columbus is an “open” place.
Another dimension of openness is the degree to which visitors and newcomers to a community feel
welcome. This is a particularly important consideration for communities that will need to attract new
residents to make up for a talent shortfall. A majority of online survey respondents believed that
“Greater Columbus is a welcoming place,” with 60 percent of respondents agreeing or strongly
agreeing with the statement. Input participants who have lived in the community for five years or
less were slightly more likely to disagree with this statement, but the difference was only one of a
few percentage points. But on an anecdotal level, some input participants noted that it can be difficult for
outsiders arriving in Greater Columbus. Said one input participant, “As an ‘outsider,’ I've said for many
years that it takes about two to three years to develop any type of friendships or a social network.” And
one representative from a local employer said that newcomers who are unable to quickly establish
networks may struggle or even give up: “Five years is the breaking point. If they aren’t involved or invested
in the community in years one through four then we tend to lose them.”
Page 31 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
Mobility and Transportation
The ability for residents to quickly and easily access job centers, retail establishments, and all manner of
amenities is particular important to the health of a region. There is of course a strong economic dimension
to issues of mobility and transportation – an open job is of no use to a qualified worker if he or she is not
able to get to work in a reasonable and timely manner. But it is also closely tied to quality of life in a variety
of ways. Certainly, the less time an individual spends commuting, the more time they have to do other
things. Transportation options such as walking, biking, and public transportation are increasingly appealing
to residents of every age and income level. And transportation options and increased connectivity can
confer a variety of benefits to a community – from increased public health and economic mobility to
improved community attractiveness.
For individuals who travel by car, Greater Columbus is generally easy to navigate. The region has the
third-lowest average commute time among the 10 scorecard communities, and the second-lowest
percentage of individuals with a commute of at least 45 minutes. Input participants – particularly those who
had spent time in other regions – viewed the region’s relative lack of traffic congestion as a positive. And
when traffic was discussed in a negative context, it was usually to point out specific trouble spots as
opposed to a systemic problem.
But when it comes to other modes of transportation, input participants were far more critical of
what Greater Columbus has to offer. Before proceeding, it should be noted that Greater Columbus is a
diverse region from a development standpoint. In more rural portions of the region, scheduled public
transportation service is likely impractical, and walking and biking may be viewed primarily as recreational
activities. But in the primarily urbanized Columbus-Muscogee County, public transportation, walking, and
biking can be legitimate options for regular transportation. And in contrast to many other aspects of
quality of life, survey respondents from Columbus-Muscogee County only held resoundingly negative
views related to:
ü
Frequency of public transportation service
ü
Public transportation connectivity
ü
Public transportation quality
ü
Quality and connectivity of sidewalks
For each of these aspects, at least 48.9 percent of survey participants from Muscogee County chose
a rating of “below average” or “very poor.” The highest combination of “above average” or
“excellent” ratings any of these questions received was 12.4 percent. These results also tracked closely
with the responses from the full survey results.
According to input participants, public transportation issues are especially important to low-income
residents. Individuals from low-income households are less likely to have access to a car, which can serve as
a major barrier to economic opportunity. Many jobs, particularly lower-skilled positions, fall outside of
traditional business operating hours. According to input participants, the lack of evening and Sunday
public transportation service severely limits employment opportunities for many of the region’s low-
Page 32 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
income residents. Stakeholders noted that improving options and accessibility of public transportation
would help match low-income resident with employment opportunities in other areas of the community.
Beyond connecting individuals to job opportunities, poor public transportation affects the quality of life. As
one survey participants stated, “If you don’t have a car here, you can’t do anything meaningful.” Input
participants praised the walkability of Uptown, but for people who live outside the neighborhood, most still
must arrive to the district by car. Many input participants expressed a strong desire for more and
better sidewalks, the ability to travel around urbanized areas without a car, and more bike trails and
facilities.
One promising recent development is the “Minimum Grid” project – a Knight Cities Challenge initiative
involving MidTown, Inc., the Community Foundation, and a variety of other regional partners. As part of
this process, consultants from the renowned Gehl Studio are developing a plan to increase connectivity for
all modes of transportation – driving, transit, biking, and walking – between MidTown and Uptown.
Housing
Overall, housing costs in Greater Columbus are much lower than those of other communities. The National
Association of Realtors releases an annual home affordability ratio that measures whether or not a family
earns enough income on average to qualify for a mortgage loan on a typical home in the community.
Among the 10 scorecard communities, Greater Columbus was considered to have the most
affordable residential real estate market according to the index. However, and though the issue is the
subject of much political debate, some input participants noted that the property tax freeze in ColumbusMuscogee is a potential deterrent or barrier to would-be homeowners, as households that have purchased
homes more recently end up paying a higher share of local property taxes. Some input participants also
referred to the tax freeze as a “welcome stranger tax” that pushes many newcomers to the region to look
elsewhere for housing. It is also reasonable to assume that the freeze may distort housing markets by
acting as a disincentive for a variety of long-time owners to put their homes on the market.
The high cost of living in Uptown was also a concern, as some stakeholders felt that the young
professionals who might normally be attracted to that type of built environment are priced out of the
neighborhood. One millennial stakeholder feared that if the housing supply does not expand in
neighborhoods such as Uptown, the region will risk losing millennials to regions that offer a walkable
lifestyle within financial reach, a fact that stakeholders said that Uptown Columbus and other partners were
working to address. Some stakeholders noted the proposed City Village redevelopment project as one idea
with the future potential to expand housing options and create a new mixed-use district. Individuals
familiar with real estate development trends in the region also agreed that more housing is needed in
Uptown to keep up with existing demand but noted that there might be an insufficient overall market for a
larger-scale initiatives at this time. That said, many input participants said that Greater Columbus’ recent
approval of tax allocation districts (TADs) is a step in the right direction. A TAD is a special district in which
local governments may direct a portion of future tax revenues over and above the existing levels to finance
a variety of projects. Stakeholders said that if a TAD was assigned to the areas in or around Uptown, the
tool could be used to finance things like streetscapes and parking structures – thereby lowering overall
development costs and making new building activity far more likely.
Page 33 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
Research also reveals that rental affordability is a particularly important issue in Greater Columbus, as the
region had the lowest owner-occupancy rate among all comparison geographies at 63.5 percent. For
renters, 51 percent are spending at least 30 percent of their income on rent. While this figure is both
declining and roughly comparable to the national average, some input participants expressed a need for
better affordable rental options, particularly in neighborhoods that appeal to young professionals who are
not ready to buy a home. Input participants also noted that the quality of housing is poor in the many
parts of the region. Input participants described neighborhoods that appeared “run down” and “forgotten
and abandoned” and expressed a need for more quality housing options that are financially feasible for
residents at a variety of income levels.
Crime
Input participants viewed crime as one of the major challenges in Greater Columbus. When asked to rate
the “sense of personal and property safety” in the places they lived, 36.4 percent of participants selected
“below average” or “very poor” compared to just 26.2 percent of respondents who selected an above
average rating or higher. So while a majority of survey respondents still said they viewed crime as average
or better, the following wordcloud underscores the extent to which local residents associate crime with the
region’s weaknesses as a place to live, work, visit, and do business.
FIGURE 22: IN YOUR OPINION, WHAT IS THE COLUMBUS REGION'S GREATEST WEAKNESS OR
CHALLENGE TO OVERCOME AS A PLACE TO LIVE, WORK, VISIT, AND DO BUSINESS?
Source: Market Street Services; Regional Prosperity Initiative Survey (2015)
Page 34 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
Input participants noted that crime is seen as an issue in every community, and some believe that the
perceptions of crime in Greater Columbus were overblown. But data generally supports the view that
certain types of crime are higher in Greater Columbus relative to its comparison communities. The FBI
breaks crime up into two categories: property crime and violent crime rates. As of 2013, Greater
Columbus had a higher property crime rate than any of the nine other scorecard metros, the state of
Georgia, or the nation. The community’s violent crime rate fell into the middle among the ten scorecard
communities, but it too was higher than state and national averages. The good news, however, is that
crime has decreased significantly in the past five years. Between 2008 and 2013, property crime rates
declined by 17.6 percent while the incidence of violent crime dropped by 25.2 percent. And while crime is
generally declining across the nation, the decreases in property and violent crime in Greater
Columbus were greater than those observed across the country.
Community Health and Access to Care
Greater Columbus residents contacted through the input process generally held a positive view of the
region’s health care environment, and just 15.6 percent of survey respondents viewed the availability of
quality health care options as below average or worse. But while the quality of care is strong, data
suggests that poor health outcomes are a concern in Greater Columbus. According to the County
Health Rankings program from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 17.3 percent of adults in Greater
Columbus reported being in “poor or fair health,” which ranked sixth among the ten scorecard
communities. Greater Columbus also had the highest percentage of adults with a Body Mass Index (BMI) of
30 or more, which is considered to be the point at which obesity begins. More than a third of adults in
Greater Columbus (34.7 percent) are obese, a condition that many studies have linked with socioeconomic
standing.
External Perceptions
Despite some obvious areas for improvement, stakeholders overall held positive views about the
quality of life and place in Greater Columbus, and many input participants noted that most residents
truly love their community. Stakeholders said one of the key challenges, then, is simply
communicating what Greater Columbus has to offer to external audiences. Many individuals said they
felt the community is not well-known outside its borders. When asked how Greater Columbus is perceived
by outsiders, one input participant quipped, “It’s not.” Others remarked that many outsiders only know the
region due to Fort Benning, as many individuals have personally passed through the community for
training or know someone who has. Nevertheless, when representatives from the business community that
participated in the online survey were asked rate how successful marketing the community to potential
businesses considering relocation, 45.3 percent rated it as “successful” or “very successful,” while 57.9
percent felt that it was successful at marketing to potential visitors and tourists. Still, other input
participants feared that the Columbus region’s “perception gets in the way of progress,” and that the
region could do more to tout its assets enough to a wider regional and national audience.
Page 35 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
Key Takeaways
Issues of quality of life and quality of place are closely intertwined with the prosperity of a region. In
some ways the connection is obvious – people cannot participate in the workforce if they cannot get to
jobs or are in such poor health that they cannot work. But beyond that, quality of life and quality of
place are increasingly important for talent retention and attraction. Individuals tend to feel attached to
their communities based on factors such as a community’s openness and its social offerings, and many
of the same qualities can also help attract workers from other places. And talent attraction and
retention efforts will be critical to the region’s near-term ability to bolster its talent pool, as strategies
to produce more homegrown talent through the PK-12 and higher education pipelines can take many
years, even decades, to pay off. Fortunately, Greater Columbus has numerous assets and qualities –
from a reinvigorated Uptown and an excellent performing arts community to natural beauty and access
to the outdoors – that it can leverage to retain and attract residents. Improving upon these and
shoring up weaknesses must be a significant component of any strategy to raise prosperity in the
region. Quality of place is also crucial to the region’s ability to attract and retain businesses. Interstate
accessibility and workforce quality are the two of the most important factors that businesses consider
in their location decisions, and both are weak points for Greater Columbus. Accordingly, it will be
particularly important for the region to “wow” prospective employers with vibrant districts such as
Uptown, high-quality development and public spaces, and so forth.
Page 36 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
6. HOMEGROWN TALENT: PK-12 AND HIGHER EDUCATION
As previously established, Greater Columbus has much work to do if it is to establish the talent base
necessary to thrive in this new environment. Attracting highly skilled and educated residents to the region
is a strategy that can help in the short run. But ultimately, whether the region is able to develop (and
retain) its own homegrown talent will be among the most important determining factors to its long-term
success.
PK-12 Pipeline
The PK-12 education system is the foundation of any regions talent pipeline. In Greater Columbus, this
system consists of six public school districts in Georgia and Alabama, Fort Benning Schools, and numerous
private institutions. This report focuses primarily on the Muscogee County School District (MCSD), the
region’s core district that accounts for nearly 64 percent of its total state public school enrollment.
Public input and qualitative evidence reveals a high level of support for MCSD schools. Respondents
to the online survey who indicated that they or their children attended a MCSD school in the past five years
generally had positive opinions about the district, with 66 percent agreeing or strongly agreeing with the
statement, “Children in this district receive a high-quality education.” This number is comparable to a
recent survey in another Market Street client community, Cobb County, where 69 percent of survey
respondents described the quality of education as “good” or “very good.” In Gwinnett County, where the
largest school district has twice won the prestigious Broad Prize given annually to the top urban school
district in America, 65 percent of respondents rated the quality of public schools as “good” or “excellent.”
The Columbus-Muscogee community’s support for its school system is also evident in the passage of two
education sales taxes (commonly known as E-SPLOSTS), the high percentage of school-age children in the
county enrolled in public schools (as opposed to private schools), and the multiple organizations in place
that support teachers, students, and schools. Stakeholders praised the Chamber’s program Partners in
Education (PIE) and the Muscogee Education Excellence Foundation (MEEF). MEEF’s most recent Teacher of
the Year Gala drew more than 800 attendees, which input participants cited as further evidence of the
community’s willingness to support and recognize excellence in education.
But while MCSD schools received general praise, input participants also expressed serious concerns about
various aspects of the system. Stakeholders contacted through interviews and focus groups were
nearly unanimous in their displeasure with strife on the MCSD Board of Education. Stakeholders
noted that this turmoil is a recent and unwelcome development that presents a serious threat to the
health of the system.
According to stakeholders, the “North-South” divide of race and class that impacts so many issues
in the community extends into its public schools. It should be noted, however, that according to MCSD,
92 percent of school-age children in Columbus-Muscogee County attend public schools. This indicates
that most families who are in a financial position to have a choice are sending their children to
MCSD schools as opposed to opting for private school or moving outside of the district. Stakeholders
noted this as a major reason why there is such strong interest in and support for public schools in the
community. Indeed, this is a rare condition for core school districts in the Southeastern United States
Page 37 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
and should be viewed as a major advantage, especially for selling the community to outside
businesses and talent. Communities without this level of support for public schools must devote
valuable time and resources to establish widespread “buy-in” before embarking on strategic efforts
addressing PK-12 issues. Columbus-Muscogee will have no such problem.
But many input participants felt as if children from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds were less
likely to receive a quality education or be afforded opportunities to succeed. Input participants said
MCSD’s “unevenness” has many consequences – everything from making it difficult to break cycles of
generational poverty to complicating real estate markets. And while it’s hardly unusual for school districts
to drive housing decisions, input participants who lived in MCSD’s footprint said the pressure is particularly
high in this community. One input participant called moving to Columbus-Muscogee “the biggest risk”
ever taken in their life because of the risk of ending up in a school zone where the quality of education is
perceived to be lower. Input participants also shared anecdotes of individuals moving to Harris County or
Auburn, AL and commuting into Columbus after becoming overly dissatisfied with their housing/schooling
options in the community.
A wide variety of factors outside of a school system’s control influence student performance and
outcomes – everything from parental involvement to individual aptitude plays a role. Additionally,
there is a significant nationwide “performance gap” in education that frequently breaks down along
demographic and socioeconomic lines. MCSD is also far from the only school district with significant
internal differences in performance between schools. With these factors in mind and in order to
provide the best possible context, this analysis uses a different set of comparisons to evaluate the
performance of MCSD. It focuses on Georgia’s other four large “core” school districts – Bibb County
(Macon), Chatham County (Savannah), Richmond County (Augusta), and Atlanta Public Schools – in
addition to Gwinnett County, a large demographically and socioeconomically diverse district that has been
recognized as one of the top urban school districts in the country.
In education, the number of students who are eligible to receive free and reduced-price lunches (FRL) is
widely used as an indicator to determine the prorporition of students in a school or district who come from
disadvantaged backgrounds. In MCSD, 72 percent of students were eligible for FRL as of 2014, 10 points
higher than the state average. Gwinnett County had the lowest percentage of elgible students (56) while
Richmond County (97) had the highest. Looking at data at the individual school level also reveals
significant differences within many of the districts. For instance, two MCSD high schools have FRL rates at
or below 30 percent, while four have rates of 96 percent or higher. Similar spreads were seen in other
school districts, but the 80-point spread between the high schools with the highest and lowest proportions
of FRL students was the biggest gap among all comparisons.
Page 38 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
FIGURE 23: PLEASE RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ABOUT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT
WITH WHICH YOU ARE MOST FAMILIAR.
Source: Market Street Services; Regional Prosperity Initiative Survey (2015)
Question was presented to 362 individuals that self-identified themselves as having children that attended a K-12 school in Greater Columbus at
any point in the past five years, and as being most familiar with MCSD.
Dropout rates were the biggest concern survey respondents had related to MCSD schools, with 58 percent
of respondents identifying it as a trouble spot. On the whole, perceptions about dropouts do not match up
with reality. The dropout rate for grades 7-12 in MCSD in 2014 was 1.8 percent, a 0.3 percentage point
decline from 2011 and 0.9 percentage points below the state average. There is also no substantial
difference in the dropout rate for black and white students. But there are major differences among MCSD
high schools – Northside High School had the lowest rate at 1.1 percent, while Jordan and Spencer high
schools had dropout rates of 9.4 and 5.5 percent, respectively, suggesting that dropout prevention and reengagement may still be a key strategic priorities in some portions of the community. But along those
lines, input participants familiar with PK-12 education also spoke highly of Catapult Academy, which has
been successful at bringing students that have dropped out back to school in order to get their high school
Page 39 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
diploma. Catapult Academy is a dropout recovery program with many locations around the nation, and in
2015, the Greater Columbus location had the program’s highest graduation rate in the state of Georgia.
Given its low dropout rates, it comes as little surprise that MCSD has a (relatively) strong overall graduation
rate. All graduation rates in this report are “four-year cohort” graduation rates that measure the proportion
students earn a diploma within four years of enrolling as a high school freshman. But for the 2014 school
year, MCSD’s graduation rate was 76.6 percent – 4.1 percentage points above the state average and
higher than any comparison district. The graduation rate also rose significantly in the past three years,
climbing 8.4 percentage points above the 2011 rate.
FIGURE 24: GRADUATION RATES BY DISTRICT, 2011 AND 2014
District
2011
2014
3-yr. Pct.
Pt. Chg.
Muscogee County
68.2%
76.6%
8.4%
Gwinnett County
67.6%
75.0%
7.4%
State Average
67.5%
72.5%
5.0%
Chatham County
54.5%
68.5%
14.0%
Richmond County
55.2%
61.8%
6.6%
Atlanta Public Schools
52.2%
59.1%
6.9%
Bibb County
52.3%
58.9%
6.7%
Source: Georgia Department of Education
As is the case throughout the country, there was a significant gap between the graduation rate for black
students (71.8 percent at all MCSD schools in 2014) and white students (84.4). But this spread of 12.6
percentage points is actually lower than the statewide figure (14.5 percentage points), and MCSD had the
highest graduation rate for black students among all comparison districts, and the second-highest for
white students, trailing only Gwinnett County. Similar to dropout rates, there are significant differences
between the performances of individual high schools in the MCSD system. The following figure shows that
the gap between the schools with the top and bottom rates was nearly 40 percentage points. Four of the
district’s high schools have graduation rates below the state average.
Page 40 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
FIGURE 25: 2014 GRADUATION RATES, MUSCOGEE COUTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
# of
Graduation
Graduates
Rate
Columbus High School
303
97.7%
Northside High School
271
89.1%
Hardaway High School
301
84.8%
1,774
76.6%
Shaw High School
276
76.0%
Kendrick High School
136
69.4%
Spencer High School
134
66.0%
Jordan Vocational High School
130
63.1%
Carver High School
187
58.6%
High School
Muscogee County Average
Source: Georgia Department of Education
Note: Table does not include graduation rates for Early College Academy of Columbus at Waverly Terrace due to its smaller enrollment
An environment in which nearly one in four students is not graduating from high school in the standard
four years is not exactly cause for celebration. But it is fair to say that – relative to its peers and prevailing
conditions beyond its control – MCSD does a good job at keeping kids in school and on track to earn a
diploma. This should be a major point of pride for the community, as few places with low levels of
adult educational attainment and elevated levels of generational poverty have above-average
graduation rates.
The bigger concern is what MCSD graduates go on to do after high school. Based on analysis of
state data that tracks college enrollment of district graduates, MCSD students are less likely to
enroll in some type of postsecondary institution and less likely to succeed once they are there. The
left side of the following figure shows the percentage of students who did NOT enroll in a postsecondary
institution upon graduation. Among all MCSD graduates, 41.2 percent from the class of 2010 did not enroll
in a postsecondary institution within 16 months of graduation. That is higher than the state average (38.6
percent) and the figures from three other districts including Bibb County (29.7).
Page 41 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
FIGURE 26: PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WHO DID NOT ENROLL IN A POSTSECONDARY
INSTITUTION OR WHO DID NOT COMPLETE CREDITS
District
Did Not Enroll
District
Did Not
Complete
Credits
Bibb County
29.7%
Gwinnett County
25.3%
Gwinnett County
35.7%
State Average
36.8%
Chatham County
38.6%
Muscogee County
41.5%
State Average
38.6%
Chatham County
41.6%
Muscogee County
41.2%
Richmond County
44.1%
Richmond County
50.8%
Atlanta Public Schools
51.6%
Atlanta Public Schools
54.7%
Bibb County
58.0%
Source: Georgia Department of Education
Note: Data is for the percentage of students that did not enroll in a postsecondary institution within 16 months of graduation and for students
that did not complete one year of credits within two years of enrollment.
And when MCSD graduates do enroll in postsecondary institutions, they tend to complete coursework at
lower rates than students from some other districts. The right side of the preceding figure shows the
percentage of students who did NOT complete one year of postsecondary credit hours within two years of
graduating high school. For the class of 2010, 41.5 percent of MCSD graduates fell into this category, again
higher than the state average and far below the rate of the category leader, Gwinnett County (25.3
percent). So while MCSD has a slightly higher graduation rate than Gwinnett County, one of the best urban
school districts in the country, that is not translating into success at the postsecondary level. Additionally,
this trend goes beyond socioeconomic divides. Statewide, students from wealthier households tend to go
to college and perform better once there than students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and this is true
in MCSD as well. But the performance gaps between MCSD students and the state average are roughly the
same for both FRL and non-FRL students. In other words, it is not the case that MCSD simply has more
students from disadvantaged backgrounds who skew the overall rate.
The disconnect between MCSD schools and higher education performance was reflected in the qualitative
data received from input participants. Two of the three statements about the school district that received
the lowest percentages of online survey participants’ agreement were “Schools provide high quality career
guidance and college counseling services,” and “Career education receives adequate attention.” And in
response to a survey prompt that ask what – if anything – needed to be done to improve the school
district, stakeholders expressed concerns that many students are not well-prepared for college coursework
and called for more career guidance and encouragement for students in the district.
This section has focused primarily on issues surrounding high schools, as this is the final stage of the PK-12
pipeline and the point at which it becomes clear how well a district’s students are prepared for college and
career opportunities. A full examination of the entire PK-12 education system is beyond the scope of this
report. But it is also important to discuss the stage at which the pipeline begins – pre-kindergarten. The
benefits of early childhood education and the lifelong impact it has on individuals are well documented.
And in many ways, creating a quality workforce begins with ensuring that residents have affordable,
Page 42 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
accessible and quality options for childhood development programs. The input process revealed positive
feedback regarding the area’s Pre-K programs and participants familiar with the region’s education
environment noted that the locations of the Head Start centers were in the areas that needed them the
most. There are 12 Head Start locations within 25 miles of Greater Columbus. Roughly half (50.7 percent) of
3- and 4-year olds in Greater Columbus were enrolled in school between 2009 and 2013, tops among all
three comparison communities, the state of Georgia, and the nation. Nationally, 47.7 percent of 3- and 4year olds were enrolled during that time period.
Higher Education
For a community of its size, the Greater Columbus offers good options for higher education. At the
university level, Columbus State University and Troy University’s Phenix City branch campus provide a
talent pipeline of four-year degree recipients, while Chattahoochee Valley Community College and
Columbus Technical College offer two-year and technical training for residents. The Columbus Campus of
the Mercer University School of Medicine is a significant recent addition to the region’s higher education
pipeline. The campus is home to third- and fourth-year medical students and is a partnership with the
Midtown Medical Center of Columbus Regional Hospital and with St. Francis Hospital. The Georgia Military
College’s Columbus Campus and several private, for-profit institutions that provide further specialized
options for education and training
FIGURE 27: ENROLLMENT AND DEGREE COMPLETIONS AT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, NON-PROFIT
HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS, 2013
Total
Enrollment
per 1,000
Total
Total
Enrollment
residents
Degrees
Certificates
Chattahoochee Valley Community College
2,571
---
167
28
Columbus Technical College
6,291
---
264
921
10,017
---
1,332
214
Columbus State University
Greater Columbus, total
18,879
59.5
1,763
1,163
Augusta area
18,111
31.2
2,110
1,155
Chattanooga area
42,500
78.4
5,355
1,136
Huntsville area
39,853
91.4
4,846
519
Source: NCES
Note: Data is not available for Troy University’s Phenix City Branch Campus. The 2013 population was used to estimate the enrollment per 1,000
residents. Enrollment is based on the 12-month unduplicated headcount.
Enrollment figures from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) indicate that the region has
fewer students enrolled in higher education institutions on a per capita basis than Chattanooga or
Huntsville, though it should be noted that the figure for Greater Columbus is slightly low given the fact that
data is not available for the Troy University branch campus. In 2013, there were roughly 13,700 students
enrolled in the region. Total student enrollment at the three local higher education institutions increased
by 2.8 percent between the 2007-08 and 2012-13 academic school years; however, there was a nine
Page 43 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
percent increase in the number of degrees awarded and a 15.2 percent increase in the number of students
that received a certificate.
Columbus State was consistently identified by input participants as a key regional strength. Stakeholders
said the school is well integrated into the fabric of the region but also expressed a desire to see even more
connections developed between the university and area businesses and institutions. Columbus State has
continued to expand its academic offerings and the investment in the Uptown area illustrates the
dedication and the potential there is for its future. Columbus State is primarily a local-serving institution.
According to university data, just over half of entering freshmen in 2014 were from the Greater
Columbus region compared to just 16.6 percent of students who hailed from metro Atlanta.
Comparatively, Georgia Southern drew just 16.4 percent of its students from Savannah and Statesboro,
while 40.9 percent of its entering freshman came from the Atlanta region. This is not a bad thing – it is
certainly good that so many students from Greater Columbus are utilizing the higher education resources
available to them within the region. But it also indicates that Columbus State may not be a major
provider of “fresh” talent – students from outside the region who might be tempted to remain after
graduation – relative to other schools. One stakeholder with connections to the university suggested
that Columbus State would benefit from raising its profile in the Atlanta region to attract more
students to Greater Columbus. This could be especially important, as competition for in-state students in
general and Atlanta-area students in particular is increasing as Georgia State and Kennesaw State expand
and evolve past their former reputations as “commuter colleges.” Additionally, numerous input participants
reported that the Greater Columbus was losing Columbus State graduates to metros outside the region. If
this is true, it could explain why the region is not seeing as much of a bump in its education attainment, as
Columbus State students are disproportionately likely to have roots in the region.
In the fall of 2012, the most recent year in which public data was available, there were approximately 1,300
students attending Troy University’s branch campus in Phenix City. The branch campus’ new location is
another valuable asset that can be leveraged by the community to improve the educational attainment of
residents and further strengthen the pipeline of qualified workers to the region. Troy University’s
investment in its $10.8 million new campus along the riverfront in Phenix City has helped earlystage revitalization in the area. In its new location, it has increased its visibility within the community and
is well-situated for future expansions. Initially, the campus will offer programs from the School of Business
and College of Health and Human Services and will be focused on providing classes for more nontraditional students during the night and on weekends. Between the more traditional university setting that
Columbus State offers and the non-traditional offerings of Troy University, the Greater Columbus has
assets that it can leverage to improve and expand its workforce if it is able to retain those graduates.
Two-year institutions and other educational offerings further strengthen the postsecondary options for the
region. Many jobs do not require a four-year degree, but do require additional training or skills to improve
an individual’s employability. There are many high paying occupations in technical and health-related
occupations that are in need of workers. Chattahoochee Valley Community College (CVCC) and Columbus
Technical College (CTC) are two local options that offer training for occupations within those fields and
others. CTC and CVCC both received praise throughout input. High school dual enrollment in CTC has
Page 44 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
increased over the past five years, and students coming out of the school had a 94.4 percent jobs
placement rate in 2014 and a 98.1 percent job placement rate in 2013.
Despite Auburn University’s relative proximity to Greater Columbus, it was rarely mentioned by input
participants as an asset for the region compared to the other higher education institutions. While Auburn
only provides full school district-level data for the state of Alabama, we can infer from partial data that
fewer than 100 students from the Columbus region enrolled in the summer and fall of 2014. This coupled
with the relative lack of discussion in public input indicates that while there is some connection between
Greater Columbus and Auburn, the relationship is not quite as strong as proximity might suggest.
Key Takeaways
As evidenced by the high percentage of children attending public schools, the level of support for the
Muscogee County School District is strong. This is rare among core districts in the South, and it has the
potential to be a key tool for talent attraction – even more so if concerns about uneven performance
within the district are addressed. The district has made admirable improvements in its graduation rates
and at preventing and re-engaging dropouts. However, data supports the sentiments gathered
through the input process that there is a significant divide within MCSD that frequently breaks down
along socioeconomic lines. And despite having graduation rates that are strong for a school district
with its demographic and socioeconomic makeup, there is a clear disconnect between the K-12 and
career pipelines. Compared to similar districts in Georgia, fewer MCSD graduates enroll in college and
fewer succeed at obtaining early credit hours once they are there. Bridging the gap between K-12 and
college or career opportunities will be a critical piece to improving the overall educational attainment
of the community, local economic opportunities, and prosperity of the region. The community will
need to continue to rally behind making the public schools a priority for the region from an economic
development standpoint.
The variety and quality of postsecondary options in the region is strong, but the significant progress
and improvements that these institutions have made in recent years are not reflected in increased
educational attainment levels for the region. Additionally, retaining graduates of these institutions in
the region – and attracting more students from outside Greater Columbus to attend them in the first
place – will be critical to ensuring a stronger homegrown talent pipeline.
Page 45 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
7. BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURIAL CLIMATE
According to a variety of quantitative and qualitative measures, Greater Columbus has a generally
favorable business climate. The Business Environment scorecard in Appendix A of this report
compared Greater Columbus to nine other metro areas across a variety of metrics. On aggregate,
Greater Columbus finished first out of the ten communities. Information gathered through the input
process supports this position. Stakeholders from the business community praised the region’s low cost
and ease of doing business. Additionally survey respondents who indicated that they were a manager,
business owner/entrepreneur, or executive were asked to answer a series of questions about the region’s
business climate. The results, which were generally favorable, are shown in the following figure.
FIGURE 28: PLEASE RATE THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS OF COLUMBUS' BUSINESS CLIMATE
ACCORDING TO THE DEGREE TO WHICH EACH IS AN ADVANTAGE OR DISADVANTAGE TO
EXISTING AND PROSPECTIVE NEW BUSINESSES.
Availability of water and sewer
Availability of industrial land for development
3.6% 23.6%
6.5%
29.8%
Interstate accessibility
17.0%
Roadway connectivity and capacity
19.1%
61.0%
24.8%
55.7%
33.1%
Availability of high-speed internet
18.2%
Cost of utilities
17.5%
54.9%
28.3%
38.0%
49.2%
26.9%
Cost of health care
39.0%
38.1%
19.4%
Ease and speed of permit review process
53.5%
43.6%
23.9%
Provision of economic incentives
56.1%
37.0%
12.0%
Availability of skilled labor
63.7%
22.1%
Cost of labor 7.3%
Availability of quality office space
72.8%
31.4%
46.6%
29.6%
43.8%
Code enforcement
25.1%
48.6%
Cost of permit acquisition
24.3%
52.1%
Local taxes
38.9%
Passenger air connectivity
26.5%
26.2%
23.7%
40.5%
62.8%
Affordability of passenger air travel
26.6%
58.6%
20.6%
23.4%
28.4%
13.8%
13.0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Major disadvantage/disadvantage
Neutral
Major advantage/advantage
Source: Market Street Services; Regional Prosperity Initiative Survey (2015)
Question was presented to 633 individuals that self-identified themselves as owners, executives, or managers at their place of employment.
Page 46 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
Additionally, when business representatives were asked on the online survey how likely it was that their
business will add employees in the Columbus region, 63.7 percent responded that it was “highly likely” or
“likely.” Similarly, 70 percent responded that it was “highly unlikely” or “unlikely” that their business will
reduce the number of employees in the Columbus region.
Business Climate
The following is a brief discussion of the key themes related to the general business climate in Greater
Columbus that emerged through research and input.
LABOR COSTS: As previously stated, low wages can be a “double-edged sword” when it comes to
community and economic development. But from a pure business cost standpoint, Greater Columbus’
labor costs are highly favorable at roughly 20 percent below the national average. Just 7.3 percent of
survey respondents felt that the cost of labor was a “major disadvantage” or “disadvantage” to the business
community. And as one participant said, “I have offices across the globe and Columbus is among the
lowest in business costs.” Labor costs for specific occupations and in detailed business sectors will be
explored further in the forthcoming Target Business Analysis. Greater Columbus’ labor productivity (as
measured by the ratio of private sector output to private sector wages) ranked fifth among the 10
scorecard communities.
LOCATION AND CONNECTIVITY: In the most recent Area Development Corporate Consultants survey for
2014, highway accessibility was rated as the number one site selection factor that businesses consider in
their location decisions, with 88.3 percent of respondents to a magazine survey rating it as “important” or
“very important.” As discussed in the first story of this assessment, input participants view the lack of
direct access to a mainline Interstate highway as a significant disadvantage to the Greater Columbus
region – and one that is not likely to change in the near future.
UTILITIES, WATER, AND SEWAGE: Average commercial and industrial electricity costs were ranked third
and fourth, respectively, among scorecard metros. Water and sewage capacity were not significant issues
for the majority of survey respondents, but in the region’s rural counties, there is a near total lack of
availability. While there is still a good inventory of sites and buildings available in more developed portions
of the region, this could become an issue over the long-run if the region grows significantly.
AIR CAPACITY AND CONNECTIVITY: Online survey participants had highly unfavorable views of the
region’s passenger air connectivity and affordability. Scheduled service from Columbus Metropolitan
Airport is limited, and some input participants noted high airfares, unreliable flights, and the loss of a direct
link to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport as drawbacks. But on the other hand, many input
participants noted that the region’s proximity to Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport is a major
strength, and some stakeholders noted that the travel times to the airport from Greater Columbus are not
appreciably longer than those from the Atlanta region’s northern suburbs once traffic is factored in. Input
participants also noted that Columbus Metropolitan is a significant asset for companies that utilize
corporate jets.
OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL COSTS AND AVAILABILITY: Among scorecard communities Greater Columbus
had the lowest costs per square foot for office and industrial spaces. A majority of survey participants from
Page 47 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
the business community also viewed the availability of office and industrial spaces as an advantage.
However, some input participants identified the lack of Class A office space as a concern. According to one
participant, “You need to build your own building if you want it to be nice.” Additionally, due to various
factors in the region’s rural areas – such as a lack of water and sewer capacity – most of the region’s
“shovel-ready” sites are in Muscogee County or small portions of Russell and Harris counties.
Entrepreneurial Environment
The proportion of a region’s employment that is comprised of self-employed workers is frequently used as
an indicator of entrepreneurial activity. In Greater Columbus, just 4.8 percent of jobs are held by selfemployed workers, compared to 6.1 percent in Georgia and 6.6 percent nationally. Eight of the nine
scorecard comparisons also had a higher proportion of self-employed workers. And according to data from
the Census Bureau, Greater Columbus ranked ninth in the number of small business loans per residents
and had the smallest percentage of its total employment in firms that are less than five years old among
the 10 scorecard metros. Taken together, these figures suggest that the entrepreneurial environment
in Greater Columbus is anemic, a view supported by information gathered through the input
process. The following figure shows survey responses from individuals who self-identified as an
entrepreneur or small business owner. On every question, the “very weak/weak” responses
outnumbered the “very strong/strong.” And on questions related to incubation facilities, acceleration
programs, and the availability of capital, a majority of respondents viewed local conditions as “very
weak/weak.”
FIGURE 29: PLEASE RATE THE FOLLOWING COMPONENTS OF GREATER COLUMBUS'
ENTREPRENEURIAL CLIMATE:
Entrepreneur-focused events and meetups
39.8%
Availability of talent (skilled employees)
32.3%
26.5%
Mentorship opportunities
49.0%
37.2%
Small business development support
24.4%
45.8%
52.6%
Acceleration programs
24.5%
38.4%
32.3%
Incubation facilities
28.0%
21.9%
29.5%
55.7%
Availability of venture capital
37.1%
65.3%
Availability of angel investment
61.3%
Availability of seed loans
66.2%
0%
Very Weak/Weak
17.9%
27.8%
32.3%
29.6%
7.1%
6.9%
6.5%
4.2%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Average
Very Strong/Strong
Source: Market Street Services; Regional Prosperity Initiative Survey (2015)
Question was presented to 128 individuals that self-identified themselves as entrepreneurs or small business owners
Page 48 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
Input participants noted that Greater Columbus has a remarkable history of producing successful
homegrown companies – TSYS and Aflac to name two prominent examples. Input participants also had
praise for the SCORE program, the Small Business Development Center (SBDC), the ColumbusMakesIT
entrepreneurship center, and the incubator and leadership program at Columbus State. Stakeholders also
expressed significant optimism about the upcoming Bob Wright Symposium on Business
Empowerment, a new event aimed at fostering minority entrepreneurship and leadership. The event
will bring in respected speakers from around the country, and its organizers hope to make the symposium
an annual affair. But some participants said that these resources are not always well known in the
community. As one participant said, “If the resources are there, I don't think they do a great job of letting
people know they're available. I only found out about SBDC through an internet search, and even when
you walk into the Cunningham Center, it's not very obvious you're in the right place.”
Participants also noted gaps in the region’s entrepreneurial climate and offerings. Several
participants suggested a need for an incubator or a collaborative “makerspace” in Uptown. Others
identified a need for more assistance for high-tech and innovation-based startups in addition to offerings
that are more geared to service-providing businesses. Another participant suggested that the region needs
to adopt an entirely new attitude toward entrepreneurial activity, as many young individuals in the region –
particularly those from lower-income backgrounds – simply do not see starting a high-impact business to
be a realistic option.
Key Takeaway
All told, Greater Columbus’ general business climate is favorable and can be leveraged for future
economic growth. It has low business and labor costs, good water availability and sewer capacity,
adequate industrial land availability, and competitive utility rates. But its lack of a mainline Interstate is
a significant barrier to many types of industrial development, and this condition will not change in the
near-term. Additionally, quantitative data and qualitative input clearly describe a weak entrepreneurial
environment. Greater Columbus has a proud history of being home to companies that have grown
from nothing into giants. It will now need to redouble its efforts on supporting entrepreneurship if it is
to have a good chance of doing so again in the future.
Page 49 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
8. FORT BENNING: A VITAL ASSET
When asked what the region’s greatest strength was, the majority of interview and focus group participants
were quick to mention Fort Benning. The base contributes an estimated $5 billion annually to the local
economy, and the base supports roughly 3,342 full-time soldiers, 10,733 civilian workers and contractors,
and more than 10,000 soldiers in training every day. According to Fort Benning estimates, when
dependents and retired military living in the Columbus region are taken into account, more than 100,000
area residents have a current or past tie to the base. In no uncertain terms, Fort Benning is a
tremendous asset to the region and its economy.
The community’s support for Fort Benning is readily apparent. According to stakeholders from Fort
Benning, more than 700 people attended an early 2015 Army listening session with Pentagon officials, who
spoke of the strong partnership between the community and Fort Benning. Input participants with ties to
Fort Benning praised this support and the generally strong relationship between the base and the
community. Approximately 85 percent of survey participants felt that the community is “successful” or “very
successful” at supporting the local military community and their families. One survey participant stated,
“We are also very supportive of the military community and this is further proven by the number of prior
military personnel who have held key leadership roles in our community.”
Like all military installations, Fort Benning is subject to various outside pressures such as squeezed federal
budgets, possible reductions in the size of the armed forces, and a potential upcoming round of Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC). Fort Benning (and thus Greater Columbus) came out ahead in the most
recent BRAC round in 2005, as the Armor School was relocated to the base from Kentucky. Stakeholders
with ties to Fort Benning attributed a portion of that success to the strong spirit of cooperation between
the base and the community, which remains in place today. But earlier this month, the Department of
the Army announced that the Third Brigade would be reduced in size by 3,402 positions, which will
result in the reduction of 2,400 soldiers by the end of Fiscal Year 2017. That is approximately 5.7
percent of the base’s total population and 7.6 percent of its full-time military personnel. The changes
will also impact an as-yet unknown number of civilian employees in addition to the families of the soldiers.
Among to stakeholders familiar with the issue, all agree that the base will remain an integral part of Greater
Columbus, but no one knows with any certainty exactly at what size. According to input participants with
knowledge of the situation, base and community leaders are working together to minimize the impacts of
any potential scenario that could lead to a reduction of personnel at Fort Benning. And less than a week
after receiving the recent news, the Chamber and its partners launched a campaign to protect the base
from future cuts. But the fact remains that the ultimate decisions about the base’s future are beyond
local control. Accordingly, leaders in Greater Columbus must simultaneously work to support Fort
Benning while also considering strategies for resiliency should reductions occur.
Support for Fort Benning is vital given all of the various ways its presence impacts the community. For one,
the region’s labor force benefits significantly from the presence of the base. Large employers
reported that many of their employees came to the region because their spouse or family member
was stationed at Fort Benning. A further discussion of Fort Benning’s impact on the labor force and its
implications for the economy as a whole will be included in the next phase of this process. The National
Page 50 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
Infantry Museum and U.S. Armor and Cavalry Museum have helped to bolster the tourism sector, while the
graduation ceremonies for basic trainees at Fort Benning also attract numerous visitors. Stakeholders from
Fort Benning also indicated that the base has a strong relationship with Columbus State, though more
could be done with local higher education institutions to benefit both the base and the regional economy.
9. PHILANTHROPY, LEADERSHIP, AND CHAMPIONS
While Fort Benning is viewed as the region’s greatest tangible asset, this Assessment closes with a
discussion of what may be its greatest intangible advantage: its significant and active philanthropic
community, legacy of visionary leadership, and deep roster of committed citizens willing to
champion all manner of causes for the betterment of the community. For generations, these positive
forces have cultivated or improved virtually every asset and institution that makes Greater Columbus a
desirable place to live, work, visit, and do business. Input participants said that the early adoption of the
consolidated government model in the region’s core county is a primary example of the community’s
resolve to take on difficult but impactful causes. Further evidence of this is everywhere in the region. For
instance, the revitalization of Uptown was about more than a renewed national interest in historic
downtowns – it was instead the result of decades of deliberate hard work and tens of millions of dollars in
public, private, and non-profit investments. Similar stories of dedicated and forward-thinking leadership
can be told in relationship to the growth of Columbus State and the development of its RiverPark Campus,
the development of the whitewater course that was decades in the making, sustained support for museums
and cultural amenities, the international attention garnered from hosting a portion of the 1996 Summer
Olympics, and so on. It is fair to say that many projects that get done in Greater Columbus wouldn’t even
be attempted in other communities.
Input participants offered effusive praise for Greater Columbus’ ongoing tradition of community-oriented
giving, noting that the region’s philanthropic capacity is strong relative to its size, and data generally
supports this claim. Greater Columbus ranked third out of the ten scorecard metros for charitable revenue
per capita, trailing only Fayetteville, AR-MO (home of significant Wal-Mart money) and Savannah. And as
seen in the following figure, the elevated national and state figures lend support to the idea that charitable
revenue is typically concentrated in much larger communities.
FIGURE 30: CHARITABLE REVENUE PER CAPITA
Number of
Organizations Filing
Form 990 *
Total Revenue Reported on
Form 990 *
Charitable revenue per
capita
Greater Columbus
408
$1,231,283,348
$3,921
Augusta
671
$1,362,983,993
$2,335
Chattanooga
825
$1,745,379,301
$3,205
Huntsville
532
$469,682,485
$1,065
13,179
$53,888,011,541
$5,337
584,981
$2,082,047,706,440
$6,530
Georgia
United States
Source: National Center of Charitable Statistics
* Includes organizations that filed financial information on Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-PF within 24 months of the BMF release date.
Page 51 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
Many of the challenges that Greater Columbus faces are serious and daunting, but the leaders and
residents of Greater Columbus should not be discouraged. As numerous input participants noted, the
region has already transformed itself once in recent decades and can do so again. Many of the leaders who
spearheaded this transition are beginning to step aside or have already done so. But rather than being
fearful of this change, stakeholders consistently expressed optimism that new leaders – many of whom who
grew up outside the community – are at the head of many of the region’s key companies, institutions, and
non-profit entities. One input participant summed up the environment in Greater Columbus
succinctly: “Big ideas can be achieved in a record amount of time if the right people get behind
them.”
Page 52 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
CONCLUSION
This Competitive Assessment offers a thorough overview of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
challenges as they exist in Greater Columbus. Its nine stories contain insights and findings that should
influence the region’s strategic priorities related to community and economic development are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Population Trends: Slow Growth and Limited In-Migration
A Critical Need for Top Talent
Economic Realities
Income and Poverty
Quality of Place and Quality of Life
Homegrown Talent: PK-12 and Higher Education
Business and Entrepreneurial Climate
Fort Benning: A Vital Asset
Philanthropy, Leadership, and Champions
Collectively, these storylines present a simple truth: if prosperity is to increase in Greater Columbus, the
status quo cannot hold. The region’s educational attainment levels, in-migration dynamics, and economic
performance indicate that Greater Columbus is not likely to thrive in the new economy without a
deliberate, sustained effort to improve its competitive standing. The community has numerous advantages
to leverage in doing so, and it has a long, successful track record of forward-thinking leadership and action.
And fortunately, it has embarked on this planning process (and other more tightly focused efforts such as
the Minimum Grid study) that will hopefully have a positive lasting impact on the region’s future. But
significant work lies ahead.
The next step in this research process is the Target Business Analysis and Marketing Review, which will
examine the region’s economic and workforce compositions in greater detail. It will identify which business
sectors present the most realistic opportunities for growth and evaluate the region’s efforts to market itself
to a variety of internal and external audiences. Ultimately, it seeks to identify the areas where limited
economic development resources should be focused to maximize return on investment.
Upon completion of the research phase, the Steering Committee and the Market Street Services team will
begin working together to identify the appropriate strategies to address the issues raised in this
Competitive Assessment and the upcoming research phase. These recommendations will be developed and
refined during the fall and early winter of 2015. The process will culminate in January and February of 2016
with the development of an Implementation Plan that will provide the blueprint for putting these
recommendations into action and raising levels of prosperity in the region.
Page 53 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
APPENDIX A: COMMUNITY SCORECARDS
Appendix A presents a complete series of scorecards – referenced throughout this report – that
demonstrate how Greater Columbus (defined here as the Columbus, GA-AL Metropolitan Statistical Area)
compares to nine other metropolitan areas with which it competes for jobs and workers. Each scorecard
evaluates the region’s competitiveness across multiple indicators that help measure how Greater Columbus
has performed in recent years in key areas that reflect its ability to grow prosperity. These scorecards, the
concepts they measure, and examples of the indicators they include are as follows.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Economic Performance: employment, output, wages, income, poverty
Workforce Sustainability: age composition, educational attainment, migration, higher education
Business Environment: infrastructure, business costs (utility rates, lease rates), labor productivity
Innovation and Entrepreneurship: self-employment, startups, small business loans
5. Quality of Life: crime, commuting, cost of living, health outcomes, recreational amenities
Each of the five scorecards presents a series of rankings (1-10), evaluating the performance of Greater
Columbus against the following nine regions with which it shares attributes and/or competes for jobs and
workers:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Augusta, GA-SC (Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC metropolitan statistical area)
Chattanooga, TN-GA (Chattanooga, TN-GA metropolitan statistical area)
Clarksville, TN-KY (Clarksville, TN-KY metropolitan statistical area)
Fayetteville, AR-MO (Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MOD metropolitan statistical area)
Fayetteville, NC (Fayetteville, NC metropolitan statistical area)
Greenville, SC (Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin, SC metropolitan statistical area)
Huntsville, AL (Huntsville, AL metropolitan statistical area)
Montgomery, AL (Montgomery, AL metropolitan statistical area)
Savannah, GA (Savannah, GA metropolitan statistical area)
All data for the aforementioned comparisons is collected at the metropolitan level unless otherwise
indicated. Scorecards include column headings with the primary city names and states for each
metropolitan area for ease of interpretation and comparison. Rankings are color-coded with top
performers appearing in shades of green, middle-of-the-pack in shades of yellow and orange, and
bottom performers in shades of red. A ranking of “1” signals that the community is the top
performer, but does not necessarily have the highest value (for example, the community with the
lowest crime rate would receive a ranking of “1”). Each scorecard is accompanies by a data table (as
opposed to the rankings included in the scorecard).
Page 54 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE: SCORECARD
Year
Columbus, Augusta, Chattanooga, Clarksville, Fayetteville, Fayetteville, Greenville, Huntsville, Montgomery, Savannah,
GA-AL
GA-SC
TN-GA
TN-KY
AR-MO
NC
SC
AL
AL
GA
Employment and Unemployment
1-yr employment growth rate
2013-2014
10
1
6
8
5
9
3
4
7
2
5-yr employment growth rate
2009-2014
8
7
4
6
1
9
2
5
10
3
Feb 2015
10
8
5
7
1
9
4
2
3
5
Establishments
5-yr firm opening employment chg.
2008-2013
8
9
10
7
4
1
5
3
2
6
5-yr firm expansion employment chg.
2008-2013
7
9
8
3
2
10
4
6
5
1
5-yr firm relocation employment chg.
2008-2013
7
9
4
6
5
10
1
2
8
3
5-yr establishments chg.
Business bankruptcy rate per 1k est.
2008-2013
4
7
3
9
8
6
1
5
10
2
2013
3
6
7
4
10
2
1
5
9
8
2013
9
2
3
7
5
10
1
6
4
8
2013
7
9
6
8
1
4
5
2
3
10
2008-2013
4
6
10
2
1
8
5
3
9
7
Unemployment rate
Exports, Output, and Productivity
Exports per worker *
Gross metro product (GMP) per worker*
GMP 5-year chg.*
Wages, Income, and Poverty
Average annual wage (AAW)
2013
9
4
3
10
8
2
6
1
7
5
5-yr AAW chg.
2008-2013
5
6
3
10
2
1
8
4
7
9
Per capita income (PCI)
2013
2008-2013
5
10
7
4
8
1
9
2
6
3
8
4
3
6
1
2
7
5
10
9
Total poverty rate
2013
10
9
4
2
3
7
5
1
8
6
Child poverty rate
2013
10
9
5
3
2
7
4
1
8
6
5-yr pct. pt. chg. total poverty rate
2008-2013
9
2
5
1
8
3
4
7
10
6
5-yr pct. pt. chg. child poverty rate
2008-2013
5
2
7
1
3
6
8
4
9
10
7.26
6.26
5.42
5.47
4.11
5.63
4.37
3.58
7.11
5.74
10
8
4
5
2
6
3
1
9
7
5-yr PCI chg.
Average Ranking, All Indicators
Average Ranking, All Indicators
Note: The asterisk denotes the data is for the private sector.
Page 55 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE: DATA VALUES
Year
Columbus, Augusta, Chattanooga, Clarksville, Fayetteville, Fayetteville, Greenville, Huntsville, Montgomery, Savannah,
GA-AL
GA-SC
TN-GA
TN-KY
AR-MO
NC
SC
AL
AL
GA
Employment and Unemployment
1-yr employment growth rate
2013-2014
0.3%
3.2%
1.6%
0.5%
1.6%
0.3%
2.4%
2.2%
0.6%
2.6%
5-yr employment growth rate
2009-2014
1.5%
3.4%
4.5%
3.5%
7.6%
0.7%
7.2%
3.6%
-2.8%
6.3%
Feb 2015
7.3%
6.7%
6.0%
6.2%
4.4%
7.2%
5.9%
5.2%
5.5%
6.0%
Establishments
5-yr firm opening employment chg.
2008-2013
-3.8%
-4.0%
-6.4%
-2.9%
-1.5%
12.2%
-2.3%
-1.3%
-0.7%
-2.8%
5-yr firm expansion employment chg.
2008-2013
4.8%
3.1%
4.0%
6.4%
9.0%
2.2%
5.9%
5.3%
5.4%
9.2%
5-yr firm relocation employment chg.
2008-2013
0.32%
-0.25%
0.54%
0.37%
0.45%
-0.79%
1.92%
0.71%
0.05%
0.58%
5-yr establishments chg.
2008-2013
-2.9%
0.1%
-0.8%
0.7%
-0.3%
-1.9%
19.5%
-0.1%
-6.3%
3.3%
2013
2.9
4.6
6.2
3.9
7.3
2.2
2.0
4.4
6.6
6.4
2013
$101,912
$128,309
$126,163
$110,619
$123,548
$95,287
$142,271
$115,398
$125,012
$108,420
2013
$87,131
$86,751
$88,187
$86,816
$105,384
$89,687
$89,177
$102,485
$92,209
$86,152
2008-2013
16.3%
14.4%
5.9%
17.9%
28.0%
12.7%
15.1%
17.3%
8.4%
12.9%
$40,844
Unemployment rate
Business bankruptcy rate per 1k est.
Exports, Output, and Productivity
Exports per worker *
Gross metro product (GMP) per worker*
GMP 5-year chg.*
Wages, Income, and Poverty
Average annual wage (AAW)
2013
$38,297
$41,140
$41,709
$35,358
$38,929
$46,107
$40,581
$52,462
$40,574
2008-2013
9.2%
8.1%
11.9%
7.2%
12.4%
18.1%
8.0%
10.6%
8.0%
7.9%
2013
$39,012
$35,625
$38,134
$39,591
$37,863
$43,689
$36,525
$41,899
$38,419
$40,940
Wages (% of PCI)
2013
59.5%
60.2%
63.5%
64.4%
64.5%
62.0%
64.1%
65.3%
61.7%
63.4%
Investment (% of PCI)
2013
20.6%
17.5%
15.1%
18.7%
20.0%
19.5%
14.7%
18.9%
17.5%
19.2%
2013
2008-2013
20.0%
22.3%
21.4%
16.9%
15.5%
18.5%
21.2%
15.8%
20.9%
17.4%
6.3%
8.7%
9.8%
8.2%
15.5%
10.7%
7.3%
8.4%
5.3%
5.3%
2013
21.8%
20.0%
16.8%
15.9%
16.4%
18.7%
17.2%
14.3%
19.4%
18.0%
5-yr AAW chg.
Per capita income (PCI)
Transfer Receipts (% of PCI)
5-yr PCI chg.
Total poverty rate
Child poverty rate
2013
31.9%
30.2%
25.5%
23.1%
21.9%
28.1%
24.9%
19.9%
28.8%
26.0%
5-yr pct. pt. chg. total poverty rate
2008-2013
2.9%
2.3%
2.8%
0.3%
2.9%
2.4%
2.4%
2.9%
3.8%
2.8%
5-yr pct. pt. chg. child poverty rate
2008-2013
4.7%
3.6%
5.1%
0.7%
4.0%
5.0%
5.3%
4.3%
5.9%
6.3%
Note: The asterisk denotes the data is for the private sector.
Page 56 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
WORKFORCE SUSTAINABILITY: SCORECARD
Year
Population Change
5-yr population growth rate
Columbus, Augusta, Chattanooga, Clarksville, Fayetteville, Fayetteville, Greenville, Huntsville, Montgomery, Savannah,
GA-AL
GA-SC
TN-GA
TN-KY
AR-MO
NC
SC
AL
AL
GA
2009-2014
5
7
9
1
4
6
8
2
10
3
5-yr labor force growth rate
2/10 - 2/15
Net migration as % of total population
2009-2014
Net migration as % of total population
2009-2014
growth
% of in-migrants w/ bachelor's degree +
2013
% of in-migrants w/less than a high
2013
school diploma
Age Composition
Dependency ratio, Age 25-44 /Age 45-64
2013
Workers age 55+
2014
8
5
7
7
9
6
6
8
4
1
5
9
2
4
3
2
10
10
1
3
6
7
3
8
2
9
1
5
10
4
7
8
6
10
9
3
4
1
5
2
5
8
9
1
2
6
10
3
7
4
5
3
7
6
10
9
1
1
3
5
2
2
8
10
9
7
6
8
4
4
5
1
7
6
8
2
Educational Attainment
% of population over 15 enrolled in
college
Pop 18-24 w/some college or a degree
2013
3
9
10
4
2013
6
9
3
7
4
5
1
2
10
8
Pop 25+ w/ assoc. degree
2013
5
6
7
3
10
1
2
4
9
8
10
6
7
8
3
9
4
1
5
2
1
9
4
2
6
3
5
7
8
10
3
6
5
2
7
8
4
1
8
10
9
5.40
5
7.13
10
7.13
1
4.20
3
4.53
7
5.07
6
5.07
4
3.80
8
8.13
2
4.47
7
8
8
2
4
5
5
1
10
3
Pop 25+ w/ bachelor's degree +
2013
5-yr pct. pt. chg. 18-24 w/some college or
2008-2013
a degree
5-yr pct. pt. chg. associate's degree
2008-2013
5-yr pct. pt. chg. bachelor's degree +
Average ranking score, all indicators
Average Ranking, All Indicators
2008-2013
Page 57 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
WORKFORCE SUSTAINABILITY: DATA VALUES
Year
Columbus, Augusta, Chattanooga, Clarksville, Fayetteville, Fayetteville, Greenville, Huntsville, Montgomery, Savannah,
GA-AL
GA-SC
TN-GA
TN-KY
AR-MO
NC
SC
AL
AL
GA
Population Change
5-yr population growth rate
2009-2014
7.6%
6.9%
4.0%
10.1%
8.1%
7.0%
4.7%
8.8%
1.8%
8.7%
5-yr labor force growth rate
2/10 - 2/15
-0.2%
0.9%
-2.1%
2.0%
2.6%
2.4%
3.1%
3.0%
-2.7%
3.3%
Net migration as % of total population
Net migration as % of total population
2009-2014
3.1%
2.1%
2.6%
1.5%
5.3%
-1.8%
3.4%
4.3%
-1.9%
4.3%
2009-2014
43.6%
32.8%
67.6%
16.2%
71.4%
-28.1%
76.4%
53.3%
-105.7%
53.8%
2009-2013
27.7%
27.6%
27.7%
22.8%
25.5%
35.1%
32.6%
36.5%
29.3%
36.1%
2009-2013
13.6%
15.1%
16.4%
7.7%
9.3%
14.3%
18.7%
10.4%
14.7%
10.9%
growth
% of in-migrants w/bachelor's degree +
% of in-migrants w/less than a high
school diploma
Age Composition
Dependency ratio, Age 25-44/Age 45-64
2013
1.16
0.97
0.94
1.49
1.24
1.32
0.96
0.95
1.05
1.16
Workers age 55+
2014
16.9%
19.6%
21.0%
15.2%
19.2%
15.6%
21.1%
20.4%
20.5%
18.5%
college
2013
10.8%
8.9%
8.4%
10.6%
10.2%
12.3%
9.5%
10.0%
9.5%
11.6%
Pop 18-24 w/some college or a degree
2013
54.6%
47.2%
56.7%
51.9%
56.4%
55.8%
59.3%
57.6%
46.7%
50.2%
Pop 25+ w/assoc. degree
2013
8.3%
7.9%
7.5%
9.2%
5.0%
10.8%
9.5%
8.9%
6.4%
6.5%
Pop 25+ w/bachelor's degree +
2013
5-yr pct. pt. chg. 18-24 w/some college or
2008-2013
a degree
5-yr pct. pt. chg. w/assoc. degree
2008-2013
21.2%
24.5%
23.7%
23.2%
28.2%
22.3%
26.8%
36.5%
25.9%
31.3%
9.5%
1.9%
8.1%
9.5%
6.8%
8.3%
8.0%
5.2%
4.1%
0.4%
1.0%
0.6%
0.7%
1.3%
0.3%
-0.5%
0.9%
2.3%
-0.5%
-0.8%
5-yr pct. pt. chg. w/bachelor's degree +
0.6%
2.4%
0.2%
5.0%
3.2%
1.2%
2.2%
2.6%
0.6%
4.1%
Educational Attainment
% of population over 15 enrolled in
2008-2013
Page 58 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT: SCORECARD
Year
Columbus,
GA-AL
Augusta,
GA-SC
2015
5
9
8
2015
2015
1
5
7
1
Average domestic airfare
Air freight cargo (lbs. in ths.)
2010-2015
2015
6
1
5-yr air freight cargo chg.
Public transit trips per capita
2015
2013
Public transit average cost per trip
Business Costs
Commercial electricity costs (cents per
kilowatt hr.)*
Industrial electricity costs (cents per
Infrastructure
Distance in miles to closest major
international airport
Passenger departures
5-yr passenger departures per chg.
kilowatt hr.)*
Class A office cost (per sq ft in core city)
Industrial cost (per sq ft in core city)
Retail cost (per sq ft in core city)
Ratio of private sector labor productivity
to labor cost
Business Climate
CFED Business and Jobs Outcome State
Rank*
CFED Business and Jobs Policy State Rank*
Fayetteville,
AR-MO
Fayetteville,
NC
1
10
2
4
6
3
7
1
5
N/A
N/A
5
8
6
7
3
3
9
9
9
9
7
1
9
9
6
1
2
N/A
1
4
3
5
8
3
4
7
4
7
9
9
7
6
1
9
7
2
N/A
5
6
3
10
4
5
8
3
10
3
7
1
1
2013
4
6
7
8
1
2
5
9
10
3
Jan-15
3
3
7
7
1
2
6
9
9
3
Jan-15
4
4
7
7
3
10
9
1
1
4
1Q2015
1
3
8
N/A
7
6
5
4
2
9
1Q2015
1Q2015
1
7
2
4
4
2
N/A
N/A
5
8
7
3
6
4
9
6
3
1
8
9
2013
5
3
4
10
8
7
6
1
9
2
2015
1
1
6
6
5
4
10
8
8
1
2015
Average Ranking, All Indicators
Average Ranking, All Indiactors
Chattanooga, Clarksville,
TN-GA
TN-KY
Greenville, Huntsville, Montgomery, Savannah,
SC
AL
AL
GA
2
2
6
6
1
2
6
9
9
2
3.69
4.56
5.06
5.78
4.75
5.00
5.69
6.50
5.88
4.75
1
2
6
8
3
5
7
10
9
3
Note: Asterisk denotes data that is collected and reported at the state level. All airport data was reported for the closest major international
airport for each comparison community.
Page 59 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT: DATA VALUES
Columbus,
Augusta,
Fayetteville,
Fayetteville,
GA-AL
GA-SC
TN-GA
TN-KY
AR-MO
NC
SC
AL
AL
GA
2015
102
128
127
56
266
79
100
105
97
109
1,547,000
Year
Infrastructure
Distance in miles to closest major
international airport
Passenger departures
5-yr passenger departures pct. chg.
Average domestic airfare
Air freight cargo (lbs. in ths.)
Chattanooga, Clarksville,
Greenville, Huntsville, Montgomery, Savannah,
2015
41,538,000
1,547,000
41,538,000
5,354,000
4,940,000
4,572,000
19,940,000
1,294,000
1,294,000
2010-2015
10.2%
42.7%
10.2%
22.7%
1.5%
5.3%
24.7%
-10.1%
-10.1%
42.7%
2015
$439.32
$444.88
$439.32
$389.56
$376.08
$390.95
$439.46
$399.53
$399.53
$444.88
2015
613,000,000
50,000,000
613,000,000
85,000,000
206,000,000
167,000,000
56,000,000
50,000,000
5-yr air freight cargo pct. chg.
2010-2015
5.5%
316.7%
5.5%
-3.4%
8.4%
-5.1%
9.2%
9.8%
9.8%
316.7%
Public transit trips per capita
2013
4.47
1.97
8.30
5.50
7.81
5.65
2.16
1.88
4.11
16.85
Public transit average cost per trip
Business Costs
Commercial electricity costs (cents per
2013
$3.87
$5.38
$5.45
$6.41
$2.40
$3.76
$5.13
$6.76
$7.60
$3.84
Jan-15
$9.78
$9.78
$10.10
$10.10
$7.62
$8.44
$9.92
$10.63
$10.63
$9.78
kilowatt hr.)*
Industrial electricity costs (cents per
225,000,000 56,000,000
kilowatt hr.)*
Class A office cost (per sq ft in core city)
Jan-15
$5.86
$5.86
$5.94
$5.94
$5.65
$6.27
$5.97
$5.58
$5.58
$5.86
1Q2015
$11.68
$13.45
$15.52
N/A
$15.39
$15.35
$15.01
$14.05
$13.35
$17.23
Industrial cost (per sq ft in core city)
1Q2015
$2.63
$3.00
$3.15
N/A
$3.55
$3.66
$3.56
$5.81
$3.06
$4.05
Retail cost (per sq ft in core city)
1Q2015
$11.84
$9.81
$9.23
N/A
$12.71
$9.72
$9.81
$10.58
$9.14
$15.06
2013
2.55
2.43
2.45
2.80
2.66
2.63
2.58
2.26
2.75
2.37
2015
42
42
45
45
44
43
50
49
49
42
2015
23
23
38
38
17
23
38
48
48
23
Ratio of private sector labor productivity
to labor cost
Business Climate
CFED Business and Jobs Outcome State
Rank*
CFED Business and Jobs Policy State Rank*
Note: Asterisk denotes data that is collected and reported at the state level. All airport data was reported for the closest major international
airport for each comparison community.
Page 60 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP: SCORECARD
Year
Columbus, Augusta, Chattanooga, Clarksville, Fayetteville, Fayetteville, Greenville, Huntsville, Montgomery, Savannah,
GA-AL
GA-SC
TN-GA
TN-KY
AR-MO
NC
SC
AL
AL
GA
Research and Development Activity
Business R&D expenditures per capita*
2011
4
4
8
8
10
1
7
2
2
4
Patents per 1,000 workers
2013
9
3
5
10
4
8
1
2
7
6
2008-2013
5
9
6
10
8
1
3
2
3
6
2014
7
4
2
5
1
10
3
8
6
9
2009-2014
6
5
10
3
8
1
4
2
9
7
2012
1
6
10
2
9
3
7
8
5
4
2012
10
2
9
3
6
5
7
4
8
1
2008-2013
1
6
10
8
3
5
4
2
9
7
2013
9
10
1
2
5
8
4
7
3
6
2008-2013
10
8
6
1
3
2
5
4
9
7
2013
8
5
6
9
1
10
7
3
4
2
2003-2013
5
3
8
10
4
6
2
7
9
1
6.25
9
5.42
6
6.75
10
5.92
7
5.17
5
5.00
3
4.50
2
4.25
1
6.17
8
5.00
3
Startups, Small Businesses, and Self-Employed
5-yr change in new startup establishments
Self-employment as a share of total
employment
Pct. pt. change in self-employment as a
share of total emp.
% of total employment in firms w/ 50 or
fewer employees
% of total employment in firms less than 5
yrs old
5-yr change in the number of sole
proprietors, nonfarm
Average sole proprietor income, nonfarm
5-yr chg. in sole proprietor income,
nonfarm
Capital Environment
Small business loans (originations) per
1,000 residents
10-yr chg. in small business loans
(originations) per 1,000 residents
Average Ranking, All Indicators
Average Ranking, All Indicators
Note: Asterisk denotes data that is collected and reported at the state level.
Page 61 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP: DATA VALUES
Year
Columbus, Augusta, Chattanooga, Clarksville, Fayetteville, Fayetteville, Greenville, Huntsville, Montgomery, Savannah,
GA-AL
GA-SC
TN-GA
TN-KY
AR-MO
NC
SC
AL
AL
GA
Research and Development Activity
Business R&D expenditures per capita*
2011
$391.21
$391.21
$224.12
$224.12
$117.07
$641.66
$299.38
$391.32
$391.32
$391.21
Patents per 1,000 workers
2013
0.09
0.28
0.21
0.07
0.27
0.10
1.23
1.07
0.11
0.13
2008-2013
-2.6%
-3.5%
-3.0%
-3.7%
-3.1%
-0.7%
-2.2%
-1.5%
-2.2%
-3.0%
2014
4.8%
5.3%
5.9%
5.3%
6.4%
4.2%
5.7%
4.7%
5.2%
4.5%
2009-2014
-0.7%
-0.7%
-1.2%
-0.4%
-0.87%
0.1%
-0.6%
-0.1%
-1.1%
-0.8%
2012
28.6%
25.7%
23.5%
27.7%
23.9%
27.5%
25.1%
24.9%
26.4%
27.3%
2012
6.6%
10.1%
7.4%
9.2%
8.9%
8.9%
8.0%
9.0%
8.0%
11.4%
2008-2013
32.2%
9.4%
3.2%
5.0%
13.7%
12.1%
12.4%
18.1%
3.3%
6.5%
2013
$17,505
$16,703
$35,542
$32,306
$24,586
$20,385
$25,392
$20,409
$27,998
$20,515
2008-2013
-1.3%
13.8%
17.9%
56.0%
28.4%
37.7%
21.6%
26.1%
7.5%
15.9%
2013
9.8
10.6
10.5
6.9
17.4
6.9
10.3
13.7
12.3
14.5
2003-2013
-52.0%
-51.7%
-59.1%
-64.3%
-51.9%
-54.4%
-48.5%
-56.2%
-59.9%
-47.8%
Startups, Small Businesses, and Self-Employed
5-yr change in new startup establishments
Self-employment as a share of total
employment
Pct. pt. chg. in self-employment as a share
of total emp.
% of total employment in firms w/ 50 or
fewer employees
% of total employment in firms less than 5
yrs old
5-yr change in the number of sole
proprietors, nonfarm
Average sole proprietor income, nonfarm
5-yr chg. in sole proprietor income,
nonfarm
Capital Environment
Small business loans (originations) per
1,000 residents
10-yr chg. in small business loans
(originations) per 1,000 residents
Note: Asterisk denotes data that is collected and reported at the state level.
Page 62 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
QUALITY OF LIFE: SCORECARD
Year
Columbus, Augusta, Chattanooga, Clarksville,
Fayetteville,
Fayetteville,
GA-AL
GA-SC
TN-GA
TN-KY
AR-MO
NC
Greenville, Huntsville, Montgomery, Savannah,
SC
AL
AL
GA
Crime
Violent crime rate per 100K residents
2013
5
1
8
4
3
7
9
6
N/A
2
Property crime rate per 100K residents
2013
9
5
6
2
1
8
7
4
N/A
3
Commuting and Congestion
% of commuters who drive alone to work
% of commuters w/ commute times > 45
2013
1
7
5
2
4
6
8
10
9
3
2013
2
9
8
10
6
1
2
2
5
7
2013
3
10
9
5
1
2
4
5
7
8
minutes
Mean travel time to work (minutes)
Affordability and Cost of Living
2Q2014
1
2
6
3
4
8
10
9
5
7
Renters spending 30%+ of income on rent
2013
7
10
4
3
2
6
5
1
8
9
Cost of living index
2014
2
1
5
7
2
6
9
10
2
7
Physicians per 100K residents
2015
5
1
4
10
9
7
3
6
8
2
% of adults reporting poor or fair health
2015
6
4
9
8
1
7
5
2
10
2
% of adults reporting BMI >/= 30
% of population under age 65 w/out
2015
10
4
3
7
1
8
5
6
9
2
2015
5
7
4
3
10
6
9
1
2
8
2014
6
8
3
10
3
9
1
7
5
1
2013
9
7
3
10
4
8
2
1
5
6
Home affordability ratio
Health
health insurance
Recreation and Volunteerism
Walk Score (Principal City)
Recreation and fitness facilities per 100K
residents
Charitable revenue per capita
Average ranking, all indicators
Average Ranking, All Indicators
2015
3
9
6
8
1
7
4
10
5
2
4.93
5.67
5.53
6.13
3.47
6.40
5.53
5.33
6.15
4.60
3
7
5
8
1
10
5
4
9
2
Page 63 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
QUALITY OF LIFE: DATA VALUES
Year
Columbus, Augusta, Chattanooga, Clarksville,
GA-AL
GA-SC
TN-GA
TN-KY
Fayetteville,
Fayetteville,
AR-MO
NC
Greenville, Huntsville, Montgomery, Savannah,
SC
AL
AL
GA
Crime
Violent crime rate per 100K residents
2013
413.0
288.3
509.8
369.3
334.6
490.1
562.3
483.5
N/A
316.0
Property crime rate per 100K residents
2013
4,930.0
3,665.1
3,870.3
2,514.3
2,380.7
4,910.2
4,026.1
3,355.8
N/A
3,065.8
2013
78.8%
84.0%
83.6%
80.0%
82.3%
83.8%
85.4%
87.5%
86.0%
81.9%
2013
7.6%
10.4%
9.6%
11.3%
7.9%
7.4%
7.6%
7.6%
7.8%
9.4%
2013
21.0
23.4
23.2
21.8
20.6
20.9
21.6
21.8
22.3
22.9
Commuting and Congestion
% of commuters who drive alone to work
% of commuters w/ commute times > 45
minutes
Mean travel time to work (minutes)
Affordability and Cost of Living
Home affordability ratio
2Q2014
277.8
274.3
216.4
233.6
230.2
206.1
196.2
202.0
216.5
212.9
Renters spending 30%+ of income on rent
2013
50.8%
55.7%
48.3%
44.1%
44.1%
50.8%
49.6%
42.7%
51.3%
53.9%
Cost of living index
2014
86
82
89
93
86
90
95
98
86
93
Health
Physicians per 100K residents
2015
232
359
257
131
171
205
259
222
185
284
% of adults reporting poor or fair health
2015
17.3%
15.6%
19.9%
19.5%
15.4%
18.1%
15.9%
15.5%
20.8%
15.5%
% of adults reporting BMI >/= 30
% of population under age 65 w/out
2015
34.7%
31.0%
29.9%
31.3%
28.4%
31.6%
31.1%
31.2%
33.4%
28.6%
health insurance
2015
17.4%
18.5%
16.8%
15.4%
20.2%
17.8%
20.0%
14.1%
14.5%
19.7%
2014
24
20
27
16
27
18
41
22
25
41
2013
6.0
6.4
10.9
5.5
9.5
6.1
11.1
11.9
7.8
6.8
2015
$3,921
$2,335
$3,205
$2,357
$10,491
$2,946
$3,679
$1,065
$3,493
$5,343
Recreation and Volunteerism
Walk Score (Principal City)
Recreation and fitness facilities per 100K
residents
Charitable revenue per capita
Page 64 – July 2015
Competitive Assessment
ENDNOTES
i
ii
All other portions of Georgia outside Metro Atlanta grew by 62.4 percent.
The Census Population Estimates program considers residents to be: “All persons who are "usually resident" in a specified
geographic area. The U.S. resident population includes all persons who usually reside in the 50 states and the District of
Columbia … the U.S. resident population excludes U.S. Armed Forces overseas and civilian U.S. citizens whose usual place of
residence is outside the United States.” In other words, service members who are deployed overseas at the time an estimate is
made are not counted as part of an area’s resident population. This is almost certainly among the most significant contributing
factors to the population fluctuations in Greater Columbus.
iii
The Census Bureau figures also include “residual” adjustments to arrive at the final population count. A discussion of this
process is beyond the scope of this report and of limited relevance given the very small residuals in Greater Columbus during
this time period.
iv
This data program has some limitations. While it provides information on the number of exemptions claimed on every return,
this metric does not have an exact one-to-one relationship with actual people in a household. Second, the program tracks only
those tax filers who submit a return in two consecutive years. As such, the program is known to undercount the elderly, college
students, immigrants, and others who may not file a tax return in consecutive years. Additionally, because of their radically
different methodologies, the figures from the IRS program do not match Census components of population change figures
that are used elsewhere in this assessment.
v
Greater Columbus also lost population to communities with major military bases, though it should be noted that most of the
impact of the Armor School move occurred after 2011, the most recent year for which IRS data is available. For the purposes of
this analysis, a major Army base was defined as an installation with at least 5,000 active duty Army personnel. Poughkeepsie,
NY, which contains the United States Military Academy in West Point, was also added to this list. In instances where two MSAs
were located in close proximity to a major Army base, only the MSA that physically overlapped with the Fort or installation was
included.
vi
It should be noted that some of the regions shown in Figure 5 have special growth-driving assets that are not present in
Greater Columbus. Athens, GA is home to the University of Georgia, Greenville, NC has East Carolina University (enrollment of
more than 26,000 students), and Huntsville is the nation’s primary center of rocket-propulsion research. That said, Greater
Columbus also possesses assets that these communities do not have, such as Fort Benning and several major corporate
headquarter operations.
vii
Census Population Estimates cover all residents, including active-duty military, so it is possible that Greater Columbus’ age
dynamics could be skewed by Fort Benning’s population, which is likely to be disproportionately younger than the total
population. But an analysis of workforce age dynamics using data from EMSI reveals that in private-sector (non-government)
jobs only, there are 1.21 workers between the ages of 25 to 44 for every one worker between the ages of 45 to 64. Nationwide,
this ratio is just 1.14. This supports the idea that Greater Columbus’ age dynamics are favorable overall.
viii
According to the “2013 Demographics Profile of the Military Community” report from the Department of Defense, the
bachelor’s degree attainment rate for the Army is 21.5 percent, very close to the overall rate in Greater Columbus.
ix
For additional context, some of the nation’s top regions for talent attraction (Austin, Raleigh, etc.) add tens of thousands of
residents each year through net migration, and these new arrivals have bachelor’s degree attainment rates in excess of 40
percent. While it is not fair to directly compare Greater Columbus to these places, it is important to note the intensity of
competition for top talent in the current landscape.
x
Between 2010 and 2011, there was significant jobs movement between NAICS 517919 (all other telecommunications) to
NAICS 522320 (financial transactions processing, reserve, and clearinghouse activities).
xi
The U.S. Census Bureau projects that white, non-Hispanics will no longer represent the majority of the population in the
United States by 2044.
Page 65 – July 2015