section 10 - milwaukee’s industrial corridor and ... · competitive advantage section 10 -...

Transform Milwaukee 10-1 Competitive Advantage

Section 10 - Milwaukee’s Industrial Corridor and Competitive Advantage Economic competitiveness is traditionally rooted in firm-level behavior, with efficient or innovative firms being

more likely to increase their market share, lower their operating costs, and reduce prices for customers. Over

the past few decades, the notion of competitiveness has also been extended to geographic areas. Specifically,

economic success can be partially attributed to factors external to individual firms such as the availability of

superior technology, an endowment of ample infrastructure, the presence of large levels of social capital, or

institutional arrangements that support economic development (Camagni 2002). For instance, Porter (2003)

suggests that successful regions specialize in the production of goods and services for which local firms are

efficient producers, but firm productivity is also affected by the quality of the regional business environment.

Consequently, community competitiveness is partially embedded in local assets that enable firms to grow.

Despite the assertions and evidence that communities and regions can externally influence firm

competitiveness, the broader concept of community competitive advantage lacks a clear understanding. That

is, there is often uncertainty about the factors that might make one community or region more competitive

than another. Confusion surrounding community competitiveness largely arises from three issues:

1. There is little consensus on the precise factors contributing to a given community’s competitive advantage

relative to other communities or regions. Economic development organizations or policy groups often

create a checklist of factors that benchmark communities on measures ranging from average wages, to tax

rates, to the number of cultural facilities present in the region. Others have created frameworks for

assessing competitiveness such as Porter’s (1990, 1998) diamond of competitive advantage and Gardiner,

Martin and Tyler’s (2004) regional competitiveness pyramid. However, these types of frameworks and

comparisons provide little insight on which factors or measures most influence the success of a given

community;

2. Similarly, many measures do not recognize path dependency or prove causality. While studies may show

statistical correlations between various purported sources of competitiveness, little is understood in terms

of causation (Greene, Tracey and Cowling 2007). For instance, is a region more attractive to potential

businesses or residents because it has a shorter average commuting time than another community, or

does it have a shorter commute time because it is less competitive and has lower levels of economic

activity?

3. Communities and regions often assess their competitiveness through the lens of vague, place-based

rankings created by site selection publications and academics alike. These measures that rank states and

regions in terms of their competitiveness are problematic for a variety of reasons.1 First, they tend to

combine disparate industries into aggregate measures, suggesting that all industries in all areas share

1 As an example, rankings of so-called creative class communities in Richard Florida’s Rise of the Creative Class (2002)

caused celebrations and navel-gazing among communities across the nation. However, few regions understood what these rankings meant in terms of economic development strategies or policy development.


interchangeable labor forces, common markets, technologies and suppliers (McCann 2004, Cortright and

Mayer 2004). Second, these rankings ignore the role of a region’s economic history in shaping its current

infrastructure, institutions, technology, labor markets and entrepreneurial environment (Barkely and

Dudensing 2011, Cortright and Mayer 2004, Eberts, Erickcek and Kleinhenz 2006). Finally, and perhaps

most importantly, competitive rankings and measures tend to emphasize factors that are desirable from

industry attraction or relocation perspectives. As industry relocations traditionally offer few overall

contributions to employment growth (see Section 4), these rankings have the potential to distract the

attentions of policy makers and economic development practitioners from more useful analytical

frameworks and economic development strategies (McCann 2004, Cortright and Mayer 2004).

The challenges associated with measuring community competitiveness should not suggest that assets found in

regional and local economies are irrelevant to the performance of firms. Furthermore, these issues do not

mean that benchmarking activities or comparisons with other communities should be dismissed entirely.

When conducted properly, measuring change and providing comparisons with similar communities can help to

monitor progress and facilitate greater understanding of economic development policies and practices in other

areas (Huggins, 2009). Consequently, strategies for measuring change in the Transform Milwaukee Study Area

are examined later in this section.

Past Efforts to Identify Sources of Central City Competitiveness

When considering potential factors of competitive advantage for Milwaukee’s Industrial Corridor and the

broader Transform Milwaukee Study Area, it may be tempting to echo many of the same measures and

rankings of competitiveness produced by regional boosters such as the Milwaukee 7. While an argument

could be made that a competitive M7 region will benefit companies in the Industrial Corridor, there is growing

agreement that regional growth does not translate to similar development in central cities or inner cities

(Porter 1997, Blair and Carroll 2007, Lynch and Kamins 2012). In particular, inner city employment growth

rates among large U.S. cities have largely trailed the rates found in their associated metropolitan areas.

Consequently, the claimed competitive advantages possessed by a region may not necessarily extend to sub-

regional areas such as those found in the 30th Street Industrial Corridor, the Menomonee Valley, the Port of

Milwaukee, or the 440th Air Base Redevelopment Area.

Unfortunately, limited research has been conducted on the competitiveness of business districts or

neighborhoods within the context of larger geographic regions. While much of this research has been directed

at the competitiveness of downtowns and central business districts, Porter (1995, 1997) has attempted to

identify the competitive advantages of inner cities. Specifically, Porter notes that “economic activity in and

around inner cities will take root if it enjoys a competitive advantage and occupies a niche that is hard to

replicate elsewhere” (Porter 1995, p 56). Porter’s four suggested sources of inner city competitive advantage

include:

1. Strategic location – Porter maintains that inner cities can offer a locational advantage to companies that

arises from proximities to downtown business districts, logistical infrastructure, entertainment or tourist

centers, and large concentrations of companies. Namely, inner city businesses that are geographically


closer than suburban locations can provide advantages to serving clients that depend on “just-in-time”

service or product deliveries;

2. Local market demand – While inner cities typically have low household incomes, these neighborhoods also

possess high population densities. When these factors are considered in tandem, Porter suggests that low

income, high density neighborhoods actually produce purchasing power that compares favorably with

lower density, high income areas. However, businesses may not recognize this spending power, which

results in neighborhoods that are potentially underserved in retail, financial services and personal services;

3. Integration with regional clusters – Building on his associated cluster work, Porter suggests that inner cities

must focus on developing those industrial clusters that are found locally and better link them to the

external economy through supply chain integration or export activities. Some of these industries may be

part of broader regional clusters, but others may also be somewhat concentrated in the inner city itself;

4. Human resources – Porter notes that inner cities may offer large potential labor pools for firms that “rely

on a loyal, modestly-skilled workforce.” In particular, he notes that job development should not dwell on

long held stereotypes about a small segment of residents who do not want to work. Instead, efforts

should focus on creating jobs for the larger community that is ready to work. Furthermore, Porter

suggests that communities must be realistic in creating moderate wage jobs that require lower levels of

formal education rather than waiting for more glamorous opportunities to arise. As part of the human

resource argument, Porter also suggests that inner cities have more opportunities to develop a new

generation of inner-city entrepreneurs.

Porter’s suggested model for inner city economic development has been noted for its ability to encourage

active discussion on inner city revitalization, but has also been roundly criticized. Some disagreement on

Porter’s work is broadly directed at an overly neoliberal approach to inner city development and a use of

limited examples to prove his thesis (Bates 1997). Other criticism focuses on Porter’s lack of historical

understanding regarding previous revitalization successes and failures extending over many decades (Sawicki

and Moody 1996, Schweke 1996).

A full discussion of the debate surrounding Porter’s revitalization model is beyond the scope of this summary,

but it should be noted that several of Porter’s aforementioned sources of inner city competitive advantage

have been discounted over the past 15 years. Specifically, Bates (2010) summarizes research showing little

evidence that low-income, inner-city neighborhoods are underserved due to buying power considerations.

Furthermore, commuting characteristics and current labor market conditions arising from the recent recession

suggest that the labor pool available for moderate wage jobs is not concentrated in inner city areas, but

instead found throughout a regional labor market. While other potential advantages such as cluster

integration and strategic location are not overly controversial in this debate, they have not been appropriately

leveraged across the United States as a means to grow central city employment.


Identifying and Building Assets of the Transform Milwaukee Study Area

Given the aforementioned challenges in understanding competitiveness from both regional and sub-regional

perspectives, it is somewhat difficult to identify absolute competitive advantages of Milwaukee’s Industrial

Corridor within the region, multi-state region and internationally. In fact, many of the potential advantages

possessed by Milwaukee’s Industrial Corridor may not necessarily be competitive advantages per se, but rather

should be viewed as comparative advantages. That is, it may be more cost effective or productive to start and

expand certain types of firms elsewhere, but the eventual advantages of locating in the Industrial Corridor may

still outweigh any additional real and/or perceived costs.

Accordingly, the following list of potential advantages possessed by the Industrial Corridor should be viewed

more appropriately as assets that could be used in developing strategies, marketing the area, and educating

stakeholders. The categories used to classify these assets are derived partially from the Community Capitals

Framework (CCF) proposed by Emery and Flora (2006). The CCF offers a structure for analyzing community

and economic development efforts from a

systems perspective and has identified seven

categories of capital found in communities

(Figure 10.1). Other asset categories are based

on the Asset Mapping Roadmap produced by

the Council on Competiveness.

Note that these potential assets serve as a

starting point for the Industrial Corridor.

Conversations with stakeholders should be used

to identify additional assets and develop a full

inventory in the Transform Milwaukee Study

Area. Furthermore, this analysis recognizes that

other assets exist in the greater Milwaukee 7

region. However, the discussion below is

intended to identify assets that are somewhat

unique or concentrated in the Study Area

relative to other areas in the region. Finally,

the assets mentioned in this analysis vary in

their potential for immediate versus long-term

application.

Asset 1 - Human Capital

Too often, the labor force residing in the Transform Milwaukee Study Area is viewed from a deficit perspective.

At first glance, many percentage-based measures related to unemployment, educational attainment and

occupational structure suggest that an insufficient pool of skilled labor is present in the Study Area. Instead,

other portions of the region have greater shares of higher-educated, higher-skilled workers. However, these

percentages mask the overall density of the labor force residing in the Study Area. As noted, in Section 3 the

Figure 10.1 - Community Capitals

Human capital - Includes the skills and abilities of people residing or interacting in an area;

Natural capital - Refers to assets that are inherent to geographic location such as weather, natural resources, and amenities;

Cultural capital - Reflects the way people understand their society and how they act within it. Cultural capital influences what opinions are heard, which voices have influence in what areas; and how creativity, innovation, and influence emerge and are nurtured;

Social capital – Signals the connections among people and organizations;

Political capital - Reflects a community’s access to power, organizations, and connections to resources and power brokers;

Built capital – Refers to physical infrastructure such as roads, schools, buildings, industrial parks, broadband, etc.

Financial capital – Includes financial resources available to support businesses and entrepreneurship and invest in other forms of capital;

Source: Flora and Emery 2006

Source: Flora and Emery 2006.


Transform Milwaukee Study Area has a greater numbers of college graduates, residents with associate

degrees, and high school graduates in a smaller area than found in many suburban locations that draw their

labor force from a significant distance. These density figures should be highlighted and used when sharing

information on the Study Area’s labor force.

Section 3 also noted the younger population living in the Study Area. Given the aging workforce facing many

industries in the Milwaukee region (particularly manufacturing) and the State of Wisconsin, young residents

within Transform Milwaukee Study Area could be instrumental to existing firms, but also for new or expanding

firms in the Industrial Corridor that may confront an aging labor force in other areas. Conveying this

information to firms throughout the region is one starting point for building employment networks and

connecting the Study Area to the greater regional economy.

Asset 2 - Industrial Base

Despite decades of de-industrialization, Milwaukee’s Industrial Corridor remains home a number of important

manufacturing categories (see Section 2). These industries are also potentially aligned with many of the goals

related to the Transform Milwaukee Initiative, such as their potential high shares of lower-middle to middle-

skill jobs and opportunities for paying family-sustaining wages. Local firms in several of these industries

(electrical equipment & appliance manufacturing, fabricated metal product manufacturing, etc.) also appear to

be somewhat more resilient on average than their respective national sub-sectors over recent years. Notably,

these industries are also strongly concentrated throughout the Lake Michigan coastal region from Green Bay

to Northern Indiana. While these concentrations certainly provide local competition for firms, they also

contribute to upstream and downstream access to the third largest regional industrial market in the nation. 2

The existing industrial base could also provide an identity for the Industrial Corridor and guide industry

retention, expansion and recruitment opportunities. Milwaukee’s Industrial Corridor has long been associated

with highly-cyclical, legacy manufacturing sub-sectors related to small engines, metals, and machinery. These

manufacturing categories remain important today, but there are opportunities to enhance the diversity of the

industry and grow nimble sub-sectors (such as electronic components and plastics) or develop relatively stable

manufacturing categories (e.g. food manufacturing). These other categories could provide starting points for

repositioning and rebranding various areas in the Corridor. For instance, the potential for food manufacturing

discussed in Section 7 follows the “ReFresh Milwaukee” sustainability vision proposed by the City of

Milwaukee and also aligns with existing initiatives focusing on industrial renewal and freshwater resources.

Similarly, focusing on electronic controls and equipment could be tied to “ReBooting” or “ReEnerging”

Milwaukee. Resources and keywords dedicated to targeted industries could also be highlighted on the TMI

website to increase their visibility. Industry agglomeration maps, such as those found throughout this report,

can be refined for specific industry categories (Map 10.1) and used to further depict concentrated and co-

located industry niches. Target industry profiles can also be created to educate stakeholders and investors.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, a large share of new job growth traditionally arises from the expansion

of existing firms (see Section 4). Consequently, existing firms in the Corridor will be an important starting

2 As measured by manufacturing GDP.


point for employment growth. The firms in the area should be viewed as an important asset to be retained

and supported. Technical assistance and support through a pilot Economic Gardening® project could provide a

unique opportunity for growing some of these establishments, but additional efforts will be needed as well.

Map 10.2 – Concentration of Relay and Industrial Control Manufacturing Establishments around Milwaukee

Asset 3 - Networks and Social Capital

Social capital is the “institutions, relationships, attitudes and values governing interactions amongst people

and contributing to economic and social development” (Iyer, Kitson, Toh 2005, pg. 1016). Social capital can

impact hiring networks, access to capital, knowledge spillovers among businesses, and the establishment of

markets. As noted earlier in this report, economic isolation from the external economy has been identified as

a key challenge to revitalizing central city economies. That is, the economic challenges facing many inner city

neighborhoods are partially attributed to a lack of sufficient economic linkages to the broader regional

economy. One means for building these linkages is by creating additional networks and increasing the

connections among residents of the central city and the broader community. Unfortunately, and somewhat

controversially, factors such as lower incomes and high levels of ethnic diversity have been associated with

building low levels of social capital (Alesina and La Ferrara 2000, Glaeser 2001, Iyer et al 2005, Casey 2012).

Consequently, creating trust, connections and social capital among residents in areas such as the Transform

Milwaukee Study Area may face some inherent challenges.


Importantly, social capital among residents is not the only means for developing connections and networks.

Other organizations and institutions are vital sources as well. Business networks frequently are fostered

through traditional organizations such as chambers of commerce, economic development corporations and

industry associations. However, other community-based organizations should be considered as important

sources of connections. As noted in Sean Safford’s seminal paper (2004) and subsequent book (2007) Why the

Garden Club Couldn’t Save Youngstown, traditional business booster organizations have the potential to

function as a place to affirm an individual’s social status or to strengthen the ability of a small group of actors

to assert narrow interests over the community. Consequently, relying solely on booster organizations may

provide little progress in building networks.

Certainly this observation is not true of all business groups and these organizations remain important to

fostering connections, but Safford suggests that other organizations not traditionally associated with business

development can play key roles developing networks. Groups such as community development corporations,

school groups, church congregations, and youth clubs are located throughout the Transform Milwaukee Study

Area. These organizations have the potential through their membership and board members to develop

deeper networks and trust in the community, especially in neighborhoods that may be less well-connected

with more traditional economic development groups. These organizations can also be used to grow and

enhance a needed entrepreneurial culture in the community. Consequently, the thick density of community-

based organizations and groups both within and external to the Transform Milwaukee Study Area should be

viewed as an asset to developing greater linkages to the Industrial Corridor. The ultimate challenge in

developing this asset will be helping these groups understand a common vision for how the Industrial Corridor

could benefit the community and region, especially for groups that may not have a direct focus on this area.

Asset 4 - Land and Infrastructure

Low cost vacant and underdeveloped land is often viewed as a competitive advantage for central cities.

However, Porter (1997) suggests that the advantage of low-cost real estate is illusory. Specifically, real estate

costs in central city locations often remain higher than those found in suburban and rural areas due to

demolition, assembly and remediation expenses. Nonetheless, land in the Industrial Corridor should still be

considered an important asset within the City of Milwaukee. A 2012 report from UW-Milwaukee’ noted that

the city lost almost 1,200 acres of industrial zoned land between 1998 and 2011, and is on a pace to lose

another 800 acres by 2020.3 While much of this rezoned land is located on the Northwest Side, a notable

share (~20%) of the city’s remaining industrial land is found in the 30th St. Industrial Corridor, Menomonee

Valley, Port of Milwaukee and the 440th Air Base Redevelopment Area. The UWM study recommended that

the City consider defining those areas that should be prioritized for industrial preservation and explore the

appropriateness of developing Planned Manufacturing Districts (PMDs) around these areas. The work

performed for the Transform Milwaukee Initiative could serve as a starting point for acting on these

recommendations. Efforts to ready and remediate sites (such as those underway at Century City) can also aid

in addressing these challenges.

3 Rast, J. (2012). Preserving Our Industrial Land: Industrial Zoning in Milwaukee, 1998-2011. Center for Economic Development.

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. http://www4.uwm.edu/ced/publications/industrialzoning_5-2012.pdf


Transportation infrastructure is also a potential asset. As noted in Section 8, there is some debate over the

influences of transportation on economic growth. Some research suggests that the presence of highways, rail,

port amenities and airports is important, but mere access to these facilities is not sufficient for economic

growth. However, other studies show that proximity to highways, rail, water ports and airports have been

associated with a community’s economic growth. Compared to transportation accessibility in other cities,

Milwaukee is among those with the ability to ship freight by rail, highway, air and water. While access to these

transportation modes extends to the entire region, Milwaukee’s Industrial Corridor directly provides service

from multiple Class 1 railroads, a number of air freight providers, the Port of Milwaukee, and several Interstate

Highways.

Unlike many other cities, Milwaukee is also located less than 100 miles from Chicago, which is the nation’s

third largest metropolitan area and third largest industrial market. This proximity is partially responsible for

the Industrial Corridor’s access to more than 19,000 manufacturing establishments within a 100-mile travel

distance and 34,000 manufacturing establishments within 200 miles. While being in the vicinity of Chicago

provides a high level of competition for air and multi-modal freight transportation services, the ability of local

firms to quickly transport goods to and from the Chicago market by truck without having to be directly located

in the Chicago metropolitan area may provide some opportunity. As noted in Section 8, Milwaukee’s

Industrial Corridor is also now part of the Foreign Trade Zone 41 service area and directly includes one General

Purpose Zone at the Port of Milwaukee (which is also the Grantee).

Map 10.2 – Concentration of Manufacturing Establishments in a 100-Mile Radius


Asset 5 - Access to Higher Educational Institutions

Compared to most other sites in the region, Milwaukee’s Industrial Corridor is geographically closer to many of

the region’s largest higher education institutions. While UW-Milwaukee, Milwaukee School of Engineering,

Marquette University and Milwaukee Area Technical College are not directly located in the Corridor, all four

are adjacent to the 30th Street Industrial Corridor, the Menomonee Valley and the Port of Milwaukee.

Furthermore, MATC’s Center for Energy Conservation and Advanced Manufacturing (ECAM) is located directly

south of the 440th Air Base Redevelopment Area. As discussed throughout this report, these institutions

provide opportunities for workforce development, entrepreneurial support, and technical assistance for

industries clustered in the Industrial Corridor. These institutions need to be further engaged in the Transform

Milwaukee Initiative to fully develop this asset.

Asset 6 – Federal Incentive Qualifications

Local financial incentives targeted at enticing firms into central city locations have been criticized as ineffective

(Porter 1995, 1997). These incentives may meet the cost-benefit test more easily in inner city locations than in

suburban areas, but they often attract firms that do not have an economic rationale for locating in a central

city. Ultimately, these firms may have no reason to remain in the inner city once the subsidies expire and

there is no guarantee that the firms will hire locally. Despite these challenges associated with local incentives,

Milwaukee’s Industrial Corridor does qualify for a variety of federal incentives and support programs that are

unavailable to many other locations. Specifically, many census tracts in the Transform Milwaukee Study Area

are eligible HUBZones and Impact Investment SBIC Target Areas and qualify for New Market Tax Credits and

Low Income Housing Tax Credits. While these incentives are far from perfect, most of their risk is assumed by

the Federal Government rather than the local community. Local elimination of some of these assets is also a

desirable goal as it would mean that economic conditions have improved enough where these areas no longer

qualify for support.

Asset 7 – Other Natural Capital

Natural features including mountains, climate, coastlines and water bodies have been correlated with

economic growth (Deller, Tsai, Marcouiller and English 2001, Trip 2007, Reese and Ye 2011). Particularly

relevant to the TMI is the area’s proximity to Lake Michigan. Access to freshwater as a potential source of

competitive advantage has been explored by a variety of Milwaukee organizations. Certainly, these some of

this advantage could spill over to sites in the Industrial Corridor as many of the industries well-suited for

Corridor are water-intensive in nature (i.e. food manufacturing/production, metals manufacturing, and

electrical component production). Vacant land suitable for agricultural production could also provide a future

asset as could access to the diversity of agricultural products produced throughout the region.


Measuring Progress and Managing Expectations

As noted in the Introduction to this analysis, the community economic development process takes time and

rapid changes are unlikely. However, community residents, policy officials and other stakeholders will have

expectations for short-term successes. Consequently, it is important to measure change and report progress

related to the Transform Milwaukee Initiative. Tracking changes will also be useful in understanding the

effectiveness of strategies and making adjustments to them when necessary.

The following measures provide various means for tracking change related to the Transform Milwaukee

Initiative. While these metrics offer numerous insights into socio-economic well-being and physical conditions

within the Study Area, the list is intended to be a starting point rather than comprehensive. As with the

aforementioned development of an asset inventory for the area, indicators can be added as needed. Others

can be customized to track specific outcomes and goals of the Transform Milwaukee Initiative. Given the

previous discussion on competitive benchmarking, important considerations in the development and use of

metrics include:

Making appropriate comparisons – When evaluating economic conditions, insights can be gained by

comparing the Transform Milwaukee Study Area to similar areas found in other communities. These so-

called comparable communities can be identified using a variety of quantitative and qualitative methods.

However, these comparisons should not be performed as a ranking exercise. As noted by Cortright and

Mayer (2004), local stakeholders and practitioners should worry less about where their community ranks,

and instead focus on understanding their own community’s unique qualities, its economic niche, and its

associated strengths and weakness. Accordingly, comparisons should be used to explore best practices

and examine strategies that may contribute to economic growth and community development in other

communities;

Determining causality – As suggested earlier, it is often difficult to determine causality between local

conditions and economic development initiatives and policy actions. Accordingly, it will be difficult to

determine whether change in a given measure can be directly attributed to the Transform Milwaukee

Initiative or some other local or macro-economic condition. Consequently, quantitative measures should

not necessarily emphasize direct causality, but rather that the pathways between change and actions

related to Transform Milwaukee are practical;

A need to develop qualitative indicators of success – Challenges related to causality, reporting lags for

many quantitative measures, and the unavailability of other important metrics will require the collection

of qualitative data. Two specific types of qualitative indicators include success stories and testimonials.

For instance, stories about business formations or expansions could be featured as they occur;

Recognizing challenges related to the use of American Community Survey data - The design of the Census

Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) precludes annual comparisons for many metrics specific to

the Transform Milwaukee Initiative area. As census tract figures that comprise the area are released for

five-year periods, comparisons can only be made when a sufficient number of years do not overlap. For

instance, 2006-2010 estimates should not be compared with 2007-2011 figures as four years are common


to both periods (see Section 1 for more on the ACS). Nonetheless, annual figures are available for the City

of Milwaukee, Milwaukee County and areas that cover a portion of the TMI area (known as Public Use

Microdata Areas). Measures that rely on ACS data are also subject to testing to determine whether

changes are statistically significant;

Partnering with other state agencies - Several measures will depend on the availability of non-aggregated

data from state agency partners including the Department of Workforce Development and the

Department of Children and Families;

Developing a means for disseminating metrics – Sharing metrics related to the TMI could be achieved

through the creation of a project or community indicator website similar to the one created by UW-

Milwaukee’s Employment Training Institute (www4.uwm.edu/eti/reports/indypage.htm) or many other

models developed around the nation (www.communityindicators.net/projects).

Defining appropriate measures – A somewhat endless number of economic, social and quality of life

indicators could be used to measure progress in the Transform Milwaukee Study Area. Determining which

measures are the most relevant and reliable will be an on-going task. While many metrics depend on data

that can be reliably provided by state or federal agencies, there may be other primary measures available

from local intermediaries, non-profits, or organizations that could provide additional insights.

Consequently, working with community partners through the Collective Impact approach will be important

to identifying measures to use. The following tables suggest a number of metrics that serve as a starting

point for discussion.

Table 10.1 - Measures of Income and Poverty

Potential Measure Geographic Level(s) and Suggested

Frequency of Measurement

Potential Data

Sources

Income (Per Capita, Average Household, Average

Family)

City - Annual

County - Annual

TMI Area – Every 2 or 3 years

U.S. Census Bureau

ACS

Poverty by Age and Household Type

City - Annual

County - Annual

TMI Area - Every 2 or 3 years

U.S. Census Bureau

ACS

Households Receiving Public Assistance

Income or Food Stamps/SNAP

City - Annual

County - Annual


U.S. Census Bureau

ACS

Wisconsin Works (W-2) Participation County - Quarterly

TMI Area (Approximated) - Quarterly

State of Wisconsin Department of Children and Families

Food Stamp Employment and Training

(FSET) Participation

County - Quarterly


State of Wisconsin

Department of

Children and Families

Children First (CF) Participation County - Quarterly


State of Wisconsin Department of Children and Families

Economically Disadvantaged Students School district and by schools located in

the TMI Area - Annual

Wisconsin Department

of Public Instruction

WINSS


Table 10.2 – Measures of Lending


Frequency of Measurement Data Source

Home Loan Originations and Amounts

City - Annual

County - Annual

TMI Area - Annual

Home Mortgage

Disclosure Act (HMDA)

Data

Home Loan Denial Rates

City - Annual

County - Annual

TMI Area - Annual

Home Mortgage

Disclosure Act (HMDA)

Data

WHEDA Product Usage Statistics

City - Annual

County - Annual

TMI Area - Annual

WHEDA

Table 10.3 – Measures of Employment and Economic Activity



Initial and Continued Unemployment Insurance

Claims

City – Quarterly

County – Quarterly

TMI Area – Quarterly

Wisconsin Department

of Workforce

Development

Unemployment Rate

City – Monthly

County – Monthly


U.S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics and U.S. Census

Bureau ACS

Unemployment Rates by Specific Demographic

Categories (Age, Race, etc.)

City - Annual

County - Annual


U.S. Census Bureau ACS

Labor Participation and Employment Rates

City - Annual

County - Annual



Labor Participation and Employment Rates by

Specific Demographic Categories (Age, Race,

etc.)

City - Annual

County - Annual



Job Opening to Applicant Ratio

City - Annual

County - Annual

TMI Area (Approximated) - Annual

UW-Milwaukee

Employment Training

Institute (ETI)

Number of Jobs by Wage and Industry

City - Annual

County - Annual

TMI Area - Annual

U.S. Census Bureau Local

Employment Dynamics

Percent of Jobs Held by Local Residents

City - Annual

County - Annual

TMI Area - Annual

U.S. Census Bureau Local

Employment Dynamics

Tonnage and Values of Shipments by Mode Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis

Metropolitan Statistical Area – Annual

Federal Highway

Administration Freight

Analysis Framework


Table 10.4 - Other Measures of Area Well-Being and Quality of Life



Number of Residents and Households

City - Annual

County - Annual


U.S. Census Bureau ACS and WI DOA

Educational Attainment by Specific

Demographic Categories (Age, Race, etc.)

City - Annual

County - Annual


U.S. Census Bureau

ACS

Crimes Against Persons, Property and Society

City - Quarterly

County - Monthly

TMI Area - Monthly

City of Milwaukee and

WIBRS

Food Access and Security

City - Annually

County - Annually

TMI Area - Annually

Wisconsin Food Security Project

Table 10.5 – Measures of Property and Infrastructure Condition



Value of Taxable Property by Type

(Total and per Square Foot)

City – Annual

County – Annual

TMI Area – Annual


Milwaukee County

Occupancy, Absorption and Vacancy Rates

City – Annual

County – Annual

TMI Area – Annual

U.S. Census Bureau,

Industrial Development

Corporations, and

Brokerage Firms

Foreclosure Filings

City – Annual

County – Monthly

TMI Area – Annual

Wisconsin Circuit Court

System and UW-

Extension/UW-

Whitewater

Sheriff Sales

City – Quarterly

County – Quarterly

TMI Area – Quarterly


Milwaukee County

Vacant Land Inventory by Zoning Category

City – Annual

County – Annual

TMI Area – Annual


Milwaukee County

Pavement Condition (PASER rating)

City – Annual

County – Annual

TMI Area – Annual


Milwaukee County

Demolition and Building Permits

City – Annual

County – Annual

TMI Area – Annual


Milwaukee County

section 10 - milwaukee’s industrial corridor and ... · competitive advantage section 10 -...

Documents