1
Acknowledgments This needs assessment is part of a project funded through a grant from the U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA) to the International Economic Development Council (IEDC) under Economic Adjustment Assistance Project Number 08-06-05058. The grant is focused on developing resources to enhance economic and disaster resilience among EDA Austin region communities. The statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and other data in this report are solely those of IEDC and do not necessarily reflect the views of EDA. IEDC would like to thank ESRI Inc. for their donation of ArcGIS software and subscription. This donation has allowed for geographical analysis of data and will be used throughout the grant process. IEDC would also like to thank Economic Modeling Software Inc. (EMSI) for their donation of software that will be used throughout this grant. Project Staff IEDC acknowledges the following staff members for their work on this project and their contributions to this needs assessment. Author Scott Annis Senior Economic Development Specialist & International Coordinator Editor and Project Support Dana Crater Senior Economic Development Associate 2
Table of Contents Introduction... 4 Methodology and Implementation of the Needs Assessment... 4 Research Design... 4 Collection and Analysis of National Data Sets... 4 Development and Distribution of the Scan... 5 Data Analysis... 5 The 15 Most Affected Counties... 5 Presidential Disaster Declarations... 7 Billion-Dollar Disasters... 8 SBA Business Applications Issued... 9 SBA Business Applications Per Capita... 10 SBA Business Applications Issued Per 1,000 People... 10 NOAA Property Damage... 11 NOAA Property Damage Per Capita... 12 SBA Applications and NOAA Property Damage Combined... 13 Per Capita SBA Applications and Property Damage Combined... 14 USDA Declarations... 15 Scan Analysis... 16 Types of Disaster... 16 Top Priorities for Economic Recovery and Preparedness... 16 Training Format... 17 Training Interests... 17 Webinar Training Interests... 17 Workshop Training Interests... 18 Summary... 18 3
Introduction The EDA Austin regional office has provided a grant of Disaster-Affected Communities Technical Assistance funds to International Economic Development Council (IEDC) to support the development of a Regional Post- Disaster Recovery Program. The grant funds of $255,864 ($51,176 of which is matched by IEDC) aim to develop resources to enhance economic and disaster resilience among EDA Austin region communities. The resources that will be provided include webinars, training, and best practice information dissemination to build the capacity of regions and communities. IEDC conducted this needs assessment to ascertain disaster preparedness and economic recovery priorities for communities within the U.S. Economic Development Administration s (EDA) Austin Region. The EDA Austin Region includes the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. The results of this assessment will inform future webinar topics, research, and training offerings delivered under this grant. This needs assessment is based on a review of the federal data sets and an electronically distributed scan of economic development organizations in the EDA Austin Region. The EDA Austin Region is prone to natural disasters including hurricanes, drought, wildfires, tornados, severe storms, flooding, straight-line winds, and winter storms. From January 2012 to March 2016, the region received 30 Presidential disaster declarations. Arkansas seven Presidential declarations Louisiana four Presidential declarations New Mexico five Presidential declarations Oklahoma eight Presidential declarations Texas six Presidential declarations parishes in each of the states received multiple declarations in a single year. All 503 counties and parishes in the EDA Austin region received at least one USDA declaration from 2012 to 2015. Methodology and Implementation of the Needs Assessment The process of developing and carrying out this needs assessment was a six-month process involving the following components: 1) research design; 2) collection and analysis of national data sets for the EDA Austin region; 3) collection and analysis of information from municipalities and regional authorities in the EDA Austin region; and 4) summary of the findings in this needs assessment. Research Design Through a series of meetings and brainstorming sessions, developed a project plan and research methodology. IEDC has conducted similar needs assessments for the EDA regions in the southeast and northeast parts of the United States, and we based this needs assessment on a previously utilized methodology. This previous research included multiple consultations with experts in disaster recovery, scanning of populations, and data analysis. Collection and Analysis of National Data Sets IEDC collected and analyzed national data sets for the counties and parishes in the five states in the EDA Austin region in order to establish a standard measurement of the economic impact across the region. The purpose of this analysis is to identify the most impacted counties and business populations in order to prioritize training recipients. The region also faced many agriculture disasters. From 2012 to 2015, 4,388 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) declarations were issued. Many counties and To assist in the collection and analysis of national data sets, IEDC to create a geographical representation of the data in order to show where our services are most needed. 4
IEDC used the most comprehensive publically available datasets from the U.S. Census Bureau and American Community Survey, the U.S. Small Business Administration(SBA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Storm Event Database, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). IEDC collected the following information at the county/parish level: Estimates of property damage per year; Estimates of businesses impacted in the form of applications for SBA disaster loans; USDA disaster declarations 2012 Census population data to determine per capita figures. Development and Distribution of the Scan Based on previous assessment efforts, IEDC developed a scan to gather information on community and regional economic recovery needs and priorities. The draft scan was reviewed by IEDC staff to ensure that it was appropriately designed to gather comprehensive community economic recovery information. Before the scan was released, IEDC held a roundtable discussion with five members from Louisiana and Texas, including three consultants who have worked in disaster recovery and resilience in the five-state region. This roundtable was held to help shape the scan and to discuss the challenges and concerns the communities within the region face in disaster preparedness and economic resilience. The scan was distributed to over 1,000 individuals from IEDC s databases in the five states belonging to the EDA Austin region. The list of individuals who received the scan included those working for economic development organizations, state economic development, economic development districts, local governments, and regional development organizations. IEDC marketed the scan through electronic communications and provided state association partners with marketing materials for further distribution. IEDC completed a follow-up campaign with e-blasts and phone calls to state and regional level professionals to spread distribution. With these efforts, a total of 60 individuals responded to the scan. Although this number is not statistically representative, the responses offer a view of the community s challenges and training needs in each of the states belonging to the EDA Austin region. Data Analysis The federal data sets used in the needs assessment included SBA Business Applications, Census data, and the NOAA Storm Event Database. These data sets were chosen because they provide complete quantitative information covering the region. IEDC analyzed the number of SBA applications because any business that registers with FEMA or the SBA after a disaster is automatically issued an SBA disaster loan application. This statistic provides a rough estimate of the number of businesses affected by disaster. IEDC also used the NOAA database to gauge the amount of property damage based on monetary value lost. An interactive online map of this data can be found online at http://arcg.is/21jvnpo. The 15 Most Affected Counties The map on the following page shows the top 15 affected counties when all data points, SBA business applications, property damage, SBA business applications issued per capita, and property damage per capita are aggregated. The counties were ranked to demonstrate where businesses were most likely affected by disasters from 2012-2015 and could benefit from IEDC s services under this grant. Cleveland County, Oklahoma, was the highest ranked area, which suffered a major tornado in May 2013 that 5
devastated the town of Moore and fires in August 2012. The largest concentration of severely-impacted counties is in southeast Louisiana, which faced numerous disasters including storm surges from Hurricane Isaac in August 2012 and severe storms and flooding in January 2013. Top 15 Affected Counties and Parishes Top 15 Affected Counties and Parishes 2012-2015 Rank County/Parish State Rank County/Parish State 1 Cleveland OK 9 Blanco TX 2 St. John The Baptist LA 10 Orleans LA 3 Plaquemines LA 11 Creek OK 4 Hays TX 12 Dallas TX 5 Jefferson LA 13 St. Tammany LA 6 Oklahoma OK 14 St. Bernard LA 7 Faulkner AR 15 Tangipahoa LA 8 Hidalgo TX 6
Presidential Disaster Declarations The EDA Austin region faces disasters every month. Presidential disaster declarations are displayed by state in the following table. Only disasters of large damage receive Presidential disaster declarations, so the table does not show all of the disasters that affected the EDA Austin Region from 2012 to 2015. Severe storms are the most common among the disaster declarations and are often accompanied with other disasters such as tornados and flooding. There have been some unusual Presidential disaster declarations from 2012 to 2015 including wildfires in Oklahoma, mudslides in New Mexico, and a Texas fertilizer explosion in 2013. Furthermore, winter storms have created disastrous conditions. These storms bring havoc not only for a population that is not normally accustomed to winter storms, but also for agribusiness with some storms killing entire herds of cattle. Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Straightline Winds, and Flooding Arkansas 2/5/2016, Presidential Disaster Declarations since 2012 Severe Storms, Tornadoes, & Flooding 4/29/2014, Severe Storms & Flooding 6/26/2015 6/25/2013 Louisiana 03/13/2016 07/13/2015 2/22/2013 New Mexico Oklahoma 5/26/2015 06/14/2012 Texas 11/25/2015 5/29/2015 Severe Winter Storms 9/4/2013 1/6/2014, 1/29/2013 10/29/2014 10/06/2014 09/30/2013 1/30/2014 04/08/2013 Other 08/29/2012 - Hurricane Isaac 10/29/2013 - Severe Storms, Flooding, & Mudslides 08/24/2012 - Flooding 02/10/2016 & 12/29/2015 - Severe Winter Storms & Flooding 05/20/2013 - Severe Storms & Tornados 08/22/2012 - Wildfires 3/19/2016 12/20/2013 02/09/2016 - Severe Winter Storms, Tornadoes, Straight-line Winds, and Flooding 08/02/2013 - Explosion 7
Historical Presidential Disaster Declarations Mapping the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) data of all Presidential disaster declarations from 1964-2014 shows where counties repeatedly face disasters. The map reveals central Oklahoma, northeast Arkansas, southeast Louisiana, and the southeast border of Texas have accrued numerous declarations since 1964. FEMA offers an interactive version of disaster declarations by county and state at https://www.fema.gov/datavisualization-disaster-declarations-states-and-counties. Presidential Disaster Declarations from 1964 to 2014 Billion-Dollar Disasters According to the National Center for Environmental Information, 1 the EDA Austin Region has experienced numerous disasters that have caused more than $1 billion in damage. In 2015 alone, the EDA Austin Region was part of four $1 billion disasters. These disasters include: December 29, 2015: Texas Tornadoes and Midwest Flooding - A strong storm system carried tornados through Texas as well as historic levels of river flooding in Louisiana and Arkansas May 26, 2015: Texas and Oklahoma Flooding and Severe Weather - A slow-moving weather system caused tremendous rainfall and subsequent flooding to occur. Texas alone saw more than $1 billion of damage. May 10, 2015: Southern Plains Tornadoes A widespread Tornado outbreak across the southern plains produced 122 tornados with the most costly damage occurring in Oklahoma and Texas. April 20, 2015: South/ Southeast Severe Weather Severe storms across 12 states, including all of the EDA Austin region, produced high winds and hail. The most damage occurred in Texas. 1 NOAA - Billion Dollar Events: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events 8
SBA Business Applications Issued The maps on the following pages show SBA business applications issued by county/parish for 2012 to 2015. Post-disaster, any business that registers with FEMA or the SBA post-disaster is automatically issued an SBA disaster loan application. This data provides a rough estimate of the number of businesses impacted. As seen in the map and the adjacent table, southern Louisiana saw some of the largest number of applications issued from 2012-2015 with storm surges from Hurricane Isaac in October 2012 and major flooding in January 2013. Outside of southern Louisiana and the tornado damage to Cleveland County, Oklahoma, the area of Harris County, Texas, received the next largest number of applications issued from severe storms in 2015 among other disasters. SBA Business Applications Issued 2012-2015 County/Parish State Apps. Issued Jefferson LA 6,389 Orleans LA 5,857 St. Tammany LA 1,958 St. John the Baptist LA 1,307 Cleveland OK 1,156 Harris TX 1,073 Plaquemines LA 1,001 St. Bernard LA 891 Tangipahoa LA 788 Oklahoma OK 579 SBA Business Applications Issued 9
SBA Business Applications Per Capita By examining SBA business applications issued in a per capita fashion, we can analyze the impact of disasters upon people with more accuracy. This method is especially important as less populated areas have a greater economic reliance on fewer businesses than urban areas. This can result in a crippling economic loss when one or some of the few businesses are damaged. Compared to the non per capita figures, southeast Louisiana still topped the charts, with Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, receiving 43 business applications per 1,000 people. In Oklahoma, rural counties along the southern border have a greater number of SBA applications per 1,000 people. These areas would benefit greatly from IEDCs grant products as their economic resources, or access to resources, are usually limited compared to urban counterparts. SBA Business Applications Per 1,000 people 2012-2015 County/Parish State Apps. Issued Plaquemines LA 43.44 St. John the Baptist LA 28.46 St. Bernard LA 24.82 Orleans LA 17.03 Jefferson LA 14.77 St. Tammany LA 8.38 St. Charles LA 7.96 St. James LA 6.70 Tangipahoa LA 6.51 Washington LA 4.85 SBA Business Applications Issued Per 1,000 People 10
NOAA Property Damage Since many areas that receive SBA applications face a varying degree of damage, examining the monetary loss of property damage can help show where disasters had the most economic impact. The property damage data includes housing damage, so looking solely at this data does not show economic impact to businesses. Comparing the property damage with SBA application data in the following section provides a better picture of possible businesses affected. A substantial damaging tornado in April 2015 caused the largest amount of property damage in the EDA Austin region from 2012 to 2015. This affected the centrally located Cleveland County, Oklahoma, and more specifically the tornado that destroyed City of Moore. Dallas County, Texas has been affected by multiple floods and severe storms. Navarro County, Texas, suffered major damage with severe flooding in October 2015. Lubbock, Texas, suffered severe storms and wind in June 2013 and major hail damage in May 2015. NOAA Property Damage 2012-2015 County/Parish State Property Damage Cleveland OK $ 2,054,662,000 Dallas TX $ 1,610,814,000 Navarro TX $ 1,001,080,000 Lubbock TX $ 692,755,000 Denton TX $ 575,097,000 Oklahoma OK $ 456,547,000 Potter TX $ 426,745,000 Taylor TX $ 404,250,000 Hale TX $ 302,030,000 Hidalgo TX $ 292,590,000 NOAA Property Damage 11
NOAA Property Damage Per Capita Examining the monetary loss of property damage per person can help show where disasters had the most economic impact when accounting for asset density of urban and rural areas. For instance, a tornado that hits an urban city will likely cause a large amount of property damage due to the density of assets, while a tornado that hits a rural area may affect fewer assets, but the damage per person can be the same. With many rural regions in the EDA Austin region, different counties and parishes appear to be more affected than the non-capita figures. Navarro County, Texas displays a significantly higher per capita damage (over $12,000 more per person) than the second ranked Hale County, Texas. Compared to the non-capita damage, the northern portion of Texas, southwest Oklahoma, and southern New Mexico all appear with higher damage. NOAA Property Damage Per Capita 2012-2015 County/Parish State Per Capita Navarro TX $ 20,972 Hale TX $ 8,327 Cleveland OK $ 8,034 Roosevelt NM $ 5,043 Potter TX $ 3,525 Taylor TX $ 3,074 Chaves NM $ 3,058 Hood TX $ 2,840 St. John the Baptist LA $ 2,605 Lubbock TX $ 2,484 NOAA Property Damage Per Capita 12
SBA Applications and NOAA Property Damage Combined Although many businesses may receive SBA applications, they may have suffered varying amounts. Accounting for this difference, remembering that property damage includes housing damage, displaying SBA applications alongside property damage can give a better picture of where the greatest economic loss of businesses most likely occurred. With these losses, these areas could benefit from economic recovery assistance, even three years after a disaster as economic impacts are still occurring. The main disaster affected areas that appeared in previous maps also appear here, including central Oklahoma s 2015 tornado, southeast Louisiana, and various spots throughout central and south Texas. These storms caused such large damage that they most likely affected large swaths of the business populations. SBA Business Applications Issued and NOAA Property Damage 13
Per Capita SBA Applications and Property Damage Combined The adjacent map of per capita property damage by county/parish and per capita SBA applications issued show that certain areas had more businesses impacted on a per capita basis. This map accounts for the difference in urban and rural population densities. Compared to the previous maps of total property damage and SBA applications issued, this map shows greater impacts along the southern counties of Oklahoma. SBA Business Applications Issued Per 1,000 People and NOAA Property Damage Per Capita 14
USDA Declarations IEDC examined data from USDA to review the impact of agribusiness disasters. The EDA Austin Region suffered many agriculture-related disasters from 2012 to 2015 including blizzards, flooding, and a multi-year drought. The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to designate counties as disaster areas to make emergency loans to agri-business suffering losses in those counties and in contiguous counties. From 2012 to 2015, USDA issued 4,388 declarations in the EDA Austin region. Many counties and parishes in each state received multiple declarations in a single year. Of the 503 counties and parishes in the EDA Austin region, 93% received a USDA Declaration in 2015, 73% in 2014, 86% in 2013, and 99.6% in 2012. As the chart below shows, many years saw 100% of a respective states area declared. There are variations in the total declarations from number of counties/parishes because many areas were declared multiple times. For instance, in Texas in 2012, 100% of the states counties received a USDA Declaration, with over 300 declarations issued. The following year, nearly 900 declarations were issued, showing that many counties received multiple declarations. 1000 900 800 700 USDA Disaster Declarations 100% 83% Declarations 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 100% 94% 100% 99% 91% 83% 100% 100% 92% 61% 97% 100% 100% 55% 100% 85% 5% Arkansas Louisana New Mexico Oklahoma Texas Percentages are the portion of each states counties or parishes declared in the year 82% 2012 2013 2014 2015 15
Scan Analysis A scan was deployed to the EDA Austin Region to determine form a local standpoint the disaster recovery priorities facing the region. Not every respondent identified their location, but IEDC received responses from every state in the EDA Austin Region. 10% Scan Responses By State 11% 11% 26% 42% Texas This analysis is of 60 scan responses from the region. While the response rate is not statically representative of the area, the responses provide a great snapshot and will be used to help shape webinar and publication topics for the region. The responses will also be used to help determine training topics for workshops by analyzing the topics geographically when an area is chosen to host a training. Types of Disaster Scan respondents were asked to identify all disasters or crises that affected their area in the past five years. Below is a list of the topics identified and the number of respondents who noted the event. No one in the scan stated that no disasters or crises affected their service area in the last five years. As seen in the list, flooding was the most common disaster identified. While flooding is an issue, drought is also a common identified disaster with 70% of the respondents stating this affected their service area in the last five years. New Mexico Oklahoma Louisiana Arkansas Types of Disaster Flood and flash flood 75% Drought 70% Winter or ice storms 56% Severe storms 54% High Winds 47% Wildfire 46% Hail 46% Tornado 37% Major employer downsizing 35% Large employer closing 25% Power service disruption & blackout 25% Top Priorities for Economic Recovery and Preparedness Respondents were asked to identify all topics that are a priority for economic recovery or preparedness. The most frequently noted priority was business retention and expansion with nearly 44% of respondents marking this as an economic recovery or preparedness priority. This was followed by identifying new financial streams and economic diversification with 42% of respondents noting these as priorities. The topics below are ranked along with the percent of respondents who identified the topic top economic recovery priority: Business retention and expansion 44% Identifying new funding streams 42% Economic diversification 42% Attracting capital investments 37% Capital for recovery efforts 32% Increasing tax revenues 32% Communications strategies 30% Strategies to rebuild or attract retailers 30% Workforce training 30% Identifying economic recovery priorities 30% Developing or modernizing 30% infrastructure Capital for redevelopment 28% Community image and branding 26% Attracting and retaining skilled labor 26% Post-disaster redevelopment planning 26% Developing public-private partnerships 26% 16
Challenges for Economic Recovery Respondents were asked to identify their top three economic recovery challenges in an open-ended question. Given the variety of responses, the data was placed in a word cloud for this memo. The exact openended responses to this question will be extracted and analyzed when an area is chosen for training. Training Format Scan respondents identified the training format they would prefer. As seen in the chart below, the half-day workshop or retreat format garnered the most interest, followed by a 1-2 day customized training course. Respondents expressed medium interest most frequently in the customized training as well. In another question, 34 respondents out of 60 stated that they would like to host a workshop training. 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% High interest Low interest Training Format Medium interest No Interest Training Interests Scan respondents identified all topics that they were interested in training from a list of 38 topics. These topics were then sorted and ranked by the number of responses. As seen below, finance oriented training interests are identified in the top four responses, with capital for redevelopment noted by 63% of respondents as a training interest. Training Interests Capital for redevelopment 63% Identifying new funding streams 61% Capital for small businesses 51% Attracting capital investments 51% Economic diversification 51% Capital for entrepreneurs 47% Business retention and expansion 46% Strengthening entrepreneurship 46% ecosystem Workforce training 46% Attracting commercial real estate 46% development Developing public-private partnerships 44% Developing or modernizing 42% infrastructure Strengthening partnerships and 42% collaboration Webinar Training Interests For those who expressed medium to high interest in webinars as a training format, the data was further reviewed to determine the top training subjects. Below is a ranking of the top training topics identified. Similar to all of training interests identified, capital for redevelopment is the most identified among those who marked medium or high interest in webinar training, with 61% of respondents marking this as an interest. Webinar Training Interests Capital for redevelopment 61% Capital for small businesses 53% Identifying new funding streams 53% Attracting capital investments 53% 17
Webinar Training Interests Continued Capital for entrepreneurs 50% Economic diversification 47% Workforce training 47% Attracting commercial real estate 47% development Business retention and expansion 44% Strengthening entrepreneurship 44% ecosystem Attracting and retaining skilled labor 42% Strengthening partnerships and 39% collaboration Capital for recovery efforts 36% Communications strategies 36% Community image and branding 36% Affordable workforce housing 36% Workshop Training Interests For respondents who indicated medium to high interest in half day workshops as a training format, the data were further analyzed to determine the top training subjects. Below is a ranking list of the top 25 training topics identified as interested in receiving webinar training on:. Capital for redevelopment 67% Identifying new funding streams 64% Economic diversification 57% Capital for small businesses 55% Capital for entrepreneurs 52% Attracting capital investments 50% Attracting commercial real estate 50% development Business retention and expansion 48% Workforce training 48% Strengthening entrepreneurship 45% ecosystem Business continuity planning 43% Strategies to rebuild or attract retailers 43% Strengthening partnerships and 43% collaboration Developing public-private partnerships 40% Capital for recovery efforts 38% Community image and branding 38% Attracting and retaining skilled labor 38% Identifying economic recovery priorities 38% Summary As discussed throughout this needs assessment, the EDA Austin region experienced significant physical and economic damage in recent years. The economic recovery challenges that the states, regions, and communities continue to face are difficult and diverse, but the engagement of regional and local leaders, their interest in receiving training, and the potential for multi-city and county/parish collaboration around innovative solutions present IEDC with many opportunities to provide support. Going forward, this needs assessment will serve as a guide for IEDC as we hone in on topics and locations for workshops, webinars, and publications, and will help to ensure that these efforts are as effective as possible at accelerating the economic resilience of the EDA Austin Region. 18