Summary

Trade and Commerce Agency: The Effectiveness of the Employment and Economic Incentive and Enterprise Zone Programs Cannot Be Determined Table of Contents Summary Introduction Chapter 1 17 Enterprise Zone and Program Area Effectiveness Cannot Be Measured Adequately Chapter 2 Analysis of Selected Employer Data for Enterprise Zones, Program Areas, and Their Counties Chapter 3 Conclusion and Recommendations Appendix A State Tax Benefits Appendix B A Detailed Description of the Methodology and Limitations of Our Review of Selected Employer Data Appendix C Selected Employer Data 18 Response to the Audit California Trade and Commerce Agency California State Auditor’s Comments on the Response by the California Trade and Commerce Agency Summary Results in Brief T 19 he enterprise zone and employment and economic incentive programs were established to stimulate business and industrial . growth and to encourage and facilitate job maintenance and Audit Highlights ... business and job development in depressed areas of the State. To achieve these objectives, the State offers several tax  We could not determine incentives to businesses and employees in enterprise zones and the effectiveness of program areas. Enterprise zone and program area businesses enterprise zones and and employees claimed more than $53 million between 1988 and program areas because: 1992 in state tax incentives designed to encourage participation in the programs. To carry out the program’s goals, the Trade and Commerce Agency (agency) administers the programs at the  Agency has not met state level and is required to review and monitor the zones and all of its mandated areas, evaluate them, and report on the effectiveness of the responsibilities; programs every five years. At the local level, enterprise zone and program area administrators coordinate activities with  Zones and areas do numerous local organizations and entities. not capture reliable data; and We were unable to determine the effectiveness of the zones and program areas for several reasons. We found that the agency has  Effects of other neither developed an adequate framework to review and evaluate economic the progress of the programs nor measured their effectiveness. development Specifically, the agency has assigned insufficient staff to influences cannot administer the programs to meet all of the monitoring and be isolated. reporting requirements and has not performed required audits of certified businesses in program areas. Furthermore, enterprise  However, some statistics zones and program areas are not state funded and most could not indicate that business and provide sufficient data to measure the effectiveness of the job growth within zones programs. Numerous other factors, such as changes in the general and areas was generally economy and similar programs operating in the surrounding faster than their respective areas, affect economic activity in the enterprise zones and counties. program areas. Thus, isolating the effect the enterprise zone and employment and economic incentive programs have on economic activity may not be possible. Finally, the agency has not adequately responded to the recommendations included in the Office of the Auditor General’s reports of May 1987 and June 1988, which addressed many of these same issues. Because the agency and local administrators could not provide sufficient data, we contracted with the Stephen P. Teale Data Center to generate information on changes in businesses, jobs, and total wages within enterprise zones, program areas, and the counties in which they are located using data from the Employment Development Department. The statistics indicate that business and job growth in enterprise zones and program areas was generally faster than such growth in the counties in which they are located. However, we were unable to gather 20 enough data to determine whether this growth in economic activity was due to the effects of the programs or other factors. Recommendations The agency needs to reassess its priorities to fulfill its statutory responsibilities for monitoring and measuring the effectiveness of the enterprise zone and the employment and economic incentive programs. To determine the impact of the programs on the State, the agency should, in accordance with the law, take the following actions:  Establish and implement a plan to monitor, evaluate, and report on the effectiveness of the programs, which includes identification and establishment of the performance measures, a system to obtain complete and reliable data about program achievements, and a determination of how it will evaluate reported achievements against those performance measures. The plan should also include procedures to determine the resources the agency needs to implement this plan and a schedule by which the agency will accomplish each of the steps; and  Determine whether the Stephen P. Teale Geographic Information Systems can be used with other State or local databases to gather and evaluate selected statistical data relevant to the programs. However, the agency may be unable to collect all the necessary information without obtaining it from either the businesses or the local administrators. Therefore, to enable the agency to collect the necessary data and make its evaluation, the Legislature needs to consider implementing the following:  Imposing reporting requirements on businesses in the enterprise zones and program areas and requiring that local administrators of the programs establish performance measures, collect data to measure performance, and report their results. Currently, the zones and program areas receive no State funds for administering the programs. 21 To ensure that certified businesses in program areas remain eligible to receive state tax benefits, the agency should, in accordance with the law, periodically audit these businesses. Agency Comments The agency generally concurs with our findings and conclusion that the effectiveness of the enterprise zone and employment and economic incentive programs cannot be determined. However, the agency believes that the positive findings we identified should be highlighted. Further, the agency asserts that its recertification process fulfills its statutory audit responsibilities and, thus, does not agree with our recommendation that it conduct periodic audits of certified businesses. 22 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. Introduction Background T he Enterprise Zone Act and the Employment and Economic Incentive Act were established March 20, 1984. The purpose of the enterprise zone program is to stimulate business and industrial growth in designated depressed areas of the State, called “enterprise zones,” by relaxing regulatory controls that impede private investment. Meanwhile, the employment and economic incentive program was established to encourage and facilitate job maintenance and business and job development in distressed and declining areas, called “program areas.” Although both programs focus on improving economic conditions in depressed areas or areas with high unemployment rates, enterprise zones primarily try to attract businesses whereas program areas primarily try to develop businesses and jobs. To be designated under either program, local areas must go through an application process, which is more stringent for program areas, before receiving a designation for 15 years. Program areas may be redesignated as enterprise zones under certain circumstances. Administration at the State Level At the state level, the Trade and Commerce Agency (agency) administers both programs as part of its economic development program. Under this program, the agency is required to provide leadership, advocacy, coordination, and direct assistance for 23 economic and business development. The agency’s primary responsibilities for these programs are to do the following:  Administer the application and designation process;  Review progress of enterprise zones and provide technical assistance, including monitoring progress, to program areas;  Certify, recertify, audit, and decertify businesses in program areas; and  Report on program effectiveness to the Legislature. For each program, the agency designs, develops, and adopts the regulations, applications, and selection criteria used in the application process. It screens preliminary applications submitted by local areas for each program and selects the final applicants. From these final applicants, the agency uses specific criteria or preferences to designate enterprise zones and program areas. It first began its application process in 1985 and first designated enterprise zones and program areas in 1986. As of June 1995, the agency has designated 25 enterprise zones and eight program areas in rural and urban locations throughout the State. The agency is required to review the progress of enterprise zones to determine program effects. It is also required to provide technical assistance to communities and businesses in program areas, including limited assistance on site, marketing program development, coordinating the activities of other state agencies, and monitoring the progress of the program. Additionally, the agency may provide other management and technical assistance at its discretion. The agency must certify that businesses in program areas meet at least one of three criteria established by state law to qualify for the State’s tax benefits. The agency must also recertify those businesses every three years, periodically audit qualified businesses for compliance with the certification requirements, and decertify any business not in compliance with the requirements. Finally, the agency is required to submit a report to the Legislature every five years that evaluates both programs on employment, investment, incomes, and state and local tax 24 revenues in enterprise zones and program areas. Additionally, for enterprise zones designated before January 1, 1994, the agency must submit a report to the Legislature within five years of designation, or by December 31, 1999, that reviews the zones’ progress and effectiveness. State Tax Benefits to Businesses Under both programs, the State offers several tax incentives to businesses in enterprise zones and program areas. Businesses in enterprise zones may take advantage of these incentives without meeting any specific requirements whereas program area businesses, 25 as mentioned above, must meet certification requirements to use the offered incentives. Both programs offer the following incentives to businesses:  Income tax credits for hiring economically disadvantaged individuals;  Sales and use tax credits;  Business expense deductions for the cost of certain machinery;  Net interest deductions for lenders to businesses in the area; and  A net operating loss carryover for up to 15 years. Additionally, under the enterprise zone program, the State offers income tax credits for individuals who are employed by a business in the area. The Franchise Tax Board (FTB) is required to collect information on the dollar value of enterprise zone and program area tax incentives claimed by businesses each year. According to the FTB, from 1988 through 1992, enterprise zone and program area businesses and employees claimed more than $23 million in state tax credits and $30 million in deductions and operating loss carryovers. In addition, approximately $26 million in net operating losses remained at the end of 1992 that can be used to offset profits in future years. Although tax credits directly reduce tax, deductions and operating loss carryovers reduce taxable income. Thus, for deductions and operating loss carryovers, the actual cost to the State in terms of foregone tax revenues is substantially less than the amount claimed or available for offset against future years. The tables in Appendix A identify the tax benefits claimed by type of benefit, industry, and enterprise zone or program area. Administration at the Local Level The State does not provide any funds for administering the programs at the local level. Instead, this funding comes from local entities, often the city and county governments in which the areas are established. At the local level, enterprise zone and program area administrators typically coordinate activities with numerous local organizations, including business groups, private 26 nonprofit organizations, and economic development agencies. Additionally, each program area must include a community advisory council to allow public involvement in the program. The council consists of representatives from various community groups, including area residents, businesses, local government officials, and community-based organizations. The council monitors the program’s progress, helps to implement the area plan, and coordinates various local programs, such as neighborhood crime prevention, recreation, child care, and job training. Local Benefits to Businesses Under both programs, local governments offer incentives to businesses in the enterprise zones and program areas. Although these incentives can vary, they generally include the reduction or elimination of local permit and construction-related fees, streamlined processing of plans and permits, low-interest revolving loans, and job training services. Scope and Methodology The purpose of this audit was to analyze the effectiveness of tax incentives and other benefits available under current law to enterprise zones and program areas and also to update the information provided in the June 1988 report by the Office of the Auditor General on the enterprise zones and program areas. During this audit, we reviewed laws, rules, and regulations, and we determined which of these were relevant to the issues. Additionally, we mailed questionnaires to local administrators of all 33 enterprise zones and program areas. Thirty-one of the 33 enterprise zones and program areas responded. The questionnaires tried to determine the following:  The number of jobs created in the enterprise zones and program areas;  The number of firms that relocated into an enterprise zone or program area from within California, the number of firms that relocated into an enterprise zone or program area from out of State, and the number of start-up firms or new facilities; 27  The effectiveness of enterprise zones and program areas at reducing unemployment and dependence on public assistance among the long-term unemployed; and  The relative effectiveness of enterprise zones compared with program areas at reducing unemployment and dependence on public assistance among the long-term unemployed. Because the local administrators could not provide sufficient employment data, we contracted with the Stephen P. Teale Data Center to have its Geographic Information Systems Technology Center measure changes in businesses, jobs, and total wages within enterprise zones and program areas using data from the Employment Development Department. We then did a limited analysis of the resulting data. However, we did not audit these data; thus, we do not express an opinion on their reliability. To determine the types of industries that use the enterprise zone and program area benefits, we reviewed data from the FTB. However, we did not audit these data; thus, we do not express an opinion on their reliability. To try to determine the average cost to the State in terms of direct assistance and foregone tax revenues for each job created in an enterprise zone or program area, we reviewed data from the questionnaires and from the FTB. However, the data was insufficient to enable us to determine this information. As a result, we performed no further analysis of the data. To determine whether the current application process used to select enterprise zones and program areas poses a burden on local government or businesses that locate in these areas, we reviewed responses from the questionnaires, and we reviewed the application process administered by the agency. Based on our review, few enterprise zone and program area administrators believe that the current process poses a burden. Accordingly, we performed no further analysis. Our review of the effectiveness of the enterprise zones and program areas was limited for several reasons. Specifically, we were unable to obtain complete documentation about economic activity in the enterprise zones and program areas from the questionnaires we sent to the local administrators because state law does not require them to maintain the documentation. Also, we could not isolate the effect of the enterprise zone and employment and economic incentive programs from the effects 28 of other influences on economic activity in the enterprise zones and program areas. We address the lack of documentation at the local level and the inability to isolate the effects of the programs from other influences on economic activity in Chapter 1 of our report. [Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.] Chapter 1 Enterprise Zone and Program Area Effectiveness Cannot Be Measured Adequately Chapter Summary T he effectiveness of enterprise zones and program areas cannot be measured adequately at the state or local level. The Trade and Commerce Agency (agency), which administers the programs at the state level, is required to review the progress of enterprise zones and program areas and report the effects of the programs to the Legislature. However, the agency has neither developed an adequate framework to review and evaluate the progress of the programs nor measured their effectiveness. Specifically, the staff assigned to administer the programs is insufficient to meet all of the monitoring and reporting requirements and has not performed required audits of certified businesses in program areas. Furthermore, the agency has not reviewed or monitored enterprise zone and program area progress, evaluated the effects of the programs, or adequately prepared required reports on the effectiveness of the programs. Some of these deficiencies have been reported in previous audit reports by the Office of the Auditor General (OAG); however, the agency has not yet fully implemented the recommendations of those reports. 29 Additionally, although some local administrators have identified successes in their programs, these are based largely on anecdotal evidence. Because state law does not require enterprise zones and program areas to measure the success of their programs or establish standard measures of success, most enterprise zones and program areas either do not have specific measurable goals or do not collect data with which to measure the success of their programs. As a result, when we surveyed these administrators, they were unable to provide sufficient data to allow us to measure the effectiveness of their programs. Finally, numerous other factors, such as changes in the general economy and similar programs operating in the surrounding areas, affect economic activity in enterprise zones and program areas. Consequently, even if data were available from enterprise zones and program areas, isolating the effect of the programs on economic activity may not be possible. Agency Has Inadequate Framework To Monitor Progress and Measure Effectiveness Statutes require the agency, which administers the programs at the state level, to review the progress of the enterprise zones and program areas and report on the effects of both programs every five years. However, the agency has not developed an adequate framework to monitor the progress and measure the effectiveness of the enterprise zone and employment and economic incentive programs. Specifically, the agency has not done the following:  Committed sufficient staff to meet the monitoring and reporting requirements; Agency has not fulfilled  Performed required audits of certified businesses in program all of its statutory areas; responsibilities.  Reviewed or monitored enterprise zone and program area progress;  Established an adequate system to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs; or  Adequately complied with reporting requirements on the programs’ effects. Insufficient Staff Commitment 30 The agency has several statutorial responsibilities for the administration of the enterprise zone and employment and economic incentive programs. However, it has not committed sufficient staff to meet all of the monitoring and reporting requirements. The Department of Commerce, the predecessor to the agency, began administering the programs in fiscal year Only two employees 1987-88 with four staff members. Since then, although the administer the programs administrative duties have increased and the number of zones and for 33 enterprise zones areas have increased from 16 to 33, the number of agency staff and program areas. responsible for administration has fluctuated between two and six employees. Currently, the agency has assigned only two employees to administer the programs for the 33 enterprise zones and program areas; moreover, one of these employees is an interim manager who also manages another program within the agency. Program officials have requested that the agency provide additional staff to administer the programs; however, the officials stated the agency has not reallocated staff from other programs to administer the enterprise zone and employment and economic incentive programs. We did not perform a staffing study on the agency’s 109 staff budgeted for its economic development program to determine whether personnel resources were available for these duties. No Auditing of Program Area Businesses To ensure that businesses achieve the employment and economic incentive program goals of stimulating businesses and jobs in areas with high unemployment, state law requires the agency to certify that businesses in the eight program areas are qualified to receive state tax benefits and recertify those businesses every three years. To qualify for the benefits, a business must meet one of three criteria:  At least 50 percent of its employees live in a high density unemployment area;  At least 30 percent of its employees live in a high density unemployment area, and the business has a program to provide assistance or services to residents of the area; or  At least 30 percent of its ownership is by residents of a high density unemployment area. 31 Additionally, state law requires that the agency periodically audit certified businesses to ensure compliance with the requirements. It also requires that the agency decertify those businesses that are not in compliance. However, the agency has not performed the required periodic audits of those businesses after certification. Instead, the agency considers that its recertification process, in which it determines if businesses are qualified still to receive benefits, is a reasonable substitute for the periodic audits. Without those periodic audits, the agency cannot ensure that program area businesses have remained in compliance with the requirements after certification. As a result, program area businesses that are not in compliance after the initial certification may not achieve program goals and may take advantage of state tax benefits to which they are not entitled. 32 No Review or Monitoring of Programs Statutes also require that the agency review the progress of enterprise zones to determine their effectiveness and monitor program area progress. The agency is required to review the progress of each zone within five years of designation, or by December 31, 1999, for enterprise zones designated before 1994. Agency has not reviewed However, agency staff have not reviewed the progress of any the progress of any enterprise zones. Furthermore, the agency has not yet developed enterprise a formal plan to accomplish the reviews or developed zones. performance measures upon which to assess the effectiveness. Additionally, the agency has not monitored the progress of program areas. Without developing performance measures or reviewing and monitoring the progress of enterprise zones and program areas, the agency cannot adequately assess their success. The agency also does not have an adequate system to evaluate both programs because it has not gathered complete and accurate data about program accomplishments or compared the reported accomplishments with measures of program success. The agency prepares an annual report, which summarizes current and historical economic data voluntarily submitted by enterprise zone and program area administrators; however, this report does not Annual report does not measure program success. First, the report contains incomplete measure program data because some enterprise zones and program areas do not success. submit data at all, others submit only partial data, and others submit estimated data. Second, the agency does not verify the accuracy of the data included in the report. And third, the agency does not analyze or compare the data to performance measures. As a result of these deficiencies, the agency’s annual report cannot be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs. The agency’s interim enterprise zone manager stated that the agency does not perform any other evaluation because it lacks sufficient staff and because legislation has not provided it with authority to discipline or revoke the designation of zones or areas that fail to make demonstrable progress toward achieving goals. A bill was introduced in 1993 that would have given the agency this authority; however, the bill was not passed. Nevertheless, in our view, by establishing specific performance measures, obtaining complete data, verifying its accuracy and analyzing it against the measures, the agency could use its annual report to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs. 33 Inadequate Compliance With Reporting Requirements The agency has not fully met its reporting requirements. State law requires that the agency submit reports evaluating the effects of the programs to the Legislature every five years. The agency submitted its first report for each program in 1987; however, these reports did not address the effectiveness of the programs because the agency stated that insufficient time had elapsed for it to evaluate them. Although the agency also stated that future reports would evaluate the effects of the program, it did not submit its required report in 1992. Instead, in 1994, the agency submitted a report issued by the California Policy Seminar, two years late. The agency’s next report for both programs is due in 1997, and reports evaluating the effects of each enterprise zone are due by 1999; however, the agency still has not established a plan to report on the effectiveness of the programs. Inadequate Agency Response to Previous Audit Recommendations The agency has not adequately responded to recommendations made in two previous audit reports issued in May 1987 and June 1988 by the OAG. These audits were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of enterprise zones and program areas. Although each report concluded that the programs had not been implemented long enough to determine their effectiveness, certain problems existed with the administration of the programs and each report recommended changes to address the problems. Agency has not Specifically, the report issued in 1987 noted that the Department implemented our prior of Commerce (department), the predecessor to the current Trade audit and Commerce Agency, lacked a plan to comply with the recommendations. evaluative requirements of the two programs. Thus, the costs and benefits of these programs could not be measured. In addition, the report noted that the department was not monitoring the program areas as required. The OAG recommended that the department take specific steps to implement a plan of evaluation and stated that the department should begin monitoring the program areas. According to agency staff, an employee worked on a methodology to evaluate the enterprise zones and program areas. However, this plan was never implemented, and the agency was unable to provide us with a copy of the plan. Furthermore, the agency has not monitored the progress of program areas, as previously noted. 34 Additionally, the OAG report issued in 1988 noted that few businesses in the enterprise zones and program areas used the program benefits available to them. The OAG recommended that the department determine whether program marketing efforts were deficient or whether other factors limited the use of program benefits. The report also recommended that the department then implement corrective action. As a result, the agency employed a marketing specialist from 1988 to 1992 who developed strategies and procedures for marketing the programs, and the agency identified some barriers that limit the use of program benefits. However, the agency did not prepare or implement a corrective action plan. Local Administrators Maintain Insufficient Data To Measure Program Effectiveness The agency designates enterprise zones and program areas based on their potential ability to achieve the goals of the programs. However, once zones and areas are designated, there is no state requirement and no state funds provided for local administrators Few enterprise zones and program areas have to develop performance measures or maintain documentation developed measurable demonstrating progress towards meeting program goals. Few of goals. the enterprise zones and program areas have developed measurable goals or maintain sufficient data with which to measure the success of the programs. As a result, we could not obtain sufficient data to perform a historical trend analysis or to evaluate program effectiveness. We sent a survey to the 25 enterprise zones and eight program areas to determine the sufficiency and availability of data to evaluate program effectiveness. Specifically, we asked the local administrators about their measures of program effectiveness and their goals. We also requested statistical data such as the number of businesses and jobs created and the use of program incentives. In addition, we requested information on other factors affecting the program such as other programs offering similar benefits. We received 31 responses. The responses came from 23 of the 25 enterprise zones and from all eight program areas. 35 Unfortunately, enterprise zones and program areas generally measure their success using anecdotal evidence. Several Enterprise zones and program areas measure respondents provided examples of businesses creating new jobs success using anecdotal in their area. However, isolated success stories do not provide a evidence. reliable basis for judging the overall success of the programs. Additionally, we found that although most of the enterprise zones and program areas have established goals, these goals are often general in nature. Moreover, few zones or areas maintain statistics demonstrating their progress towards meeting those goals. Thirty of the 31 respondents provided data regarding goals for economic improvement established by their enterprise zone or program area. However, only 8 (26 percent) of the respondents identified measurable numeric goals whereas the remaining 22 (71 percent) respondents provided economic development goals that were often broad in nature. For example, one enterprise zone stated in our survey that its goal is to “create and retain jobs,” and one program area stated that its goal is to “bring additional jobs and businesses to the area.” Although general goals establish criteria for their achievement, they do not provide a sufficient measure to determine the effectiveness of the program. Most of the enterprise zones and program areas maintain some statistical information. However, because no specific requirements exist, the type, quality, and amount of data available from the enterprise zones and program areas are not consistent. Consequently, we were unable to obtain enough complete, reliable data to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs. In the following sections, we discuss the problems with the data more specifically. Data Was Not Always Complete None of the respondents provided data for every year of operation for all applicable questions. For example, only 6 (19 percent) respondents provided any data for all years of operation. Furthermore, 16 (52 percent) respondents provided only Only 6 of 31 respondents current-year data for selected questions. Other respondents provided any data for all provided data for multiple years; however, the years were not years of operation. contiguous. Finally, some of the zones are relatively new and could provide no more than one to three years of data. Because of these deficiencies, we could not use the data to identify trends. 36 Additionally, there were other problems regarding incomplete data. For example, even though most respondents provided data on the number of new businesses within their areas, they did not identify whether the businesses had relocated from within the State or were from out of State. Also, they did not identify whether the businesses were start-up companies. As a result, we could not determine whether the program brought new jobs to California or simply relocated jobs within California. Also, although 21 (68 percent) respondents identified the number of jobs created or retained as a result of their program, only one (3 percent) respondent identified the number of jobs lost in the area. Information on both jobs created and jobs lost for the entire enterprise zone or program area is necessary to analyze program effectiveness. Finally, many of respondents did not provide data on the use of local benefits or reduction in public assistance. For example, only 12 respondents provided data regarding the use of local benefits for three or more years, and from 3 of these respondents, the data were estimates. In addition, only one (3 percent) respondent provided any information regarding the effect the program area had on the use of public assistance benefits. Data Was Not Always Reliable We also found that the data was not always reliable. The statistical data provided by many respondents represented estimates rather than actual information based on evidence gathered from the enterprise zone or program area. For example, 17 (55 percent) of the respondents estimated the number of businesses located in their enterprise zone or program area. Additionally, the respondents did not always provide the assumptions and methods underlying their estimates; thus, we could not ascertain the reliability of the estimates. Furthermore, some respondents provided information that appeared contradictory. For example, we found that one enterprise zone identified a greater number of new businesses established in the zone than the number of new jobs created by Data provided by both new and existing businesses. In addition, we found enterprise zones and inconsistencies between data provided to us and data provided to program areas were the agency for its 1993 annual report on enterprise zones and inconsistent, contradictory, program areas. We compared 197 responses from 26 enterprise and zones and program areas that returned a survey and also provided unreliable. data for the agency’s annual report. Seventy-seven (39 percent) responses to our survey matched the data in the annual report; 59 37 responses (30 percent) did not. Further, 61 responses (31 percent) provided in the annual report identified data that the local administrators indicated was not available for our survey. 38 Isolating the Effects of the Programs May Not Be Possible Even if reliable data were readily available on the economic activity in enterprise zones and program areas, isolating the effect of the programs from the effects of other influences may not be possible. These influences include, among other things, the general state and local economies and other programs operating in the area. For example, respondents in the Los Angeles area reported that the Los Angeles Revitalization Zone (LARZ) provided similar benefits with fewer administrative requirements. They further reported that the LARZ is responsible for a decrease in program area certifications and interest in enterprise zones. Several reports have been issued that support the inability to isolate the effectiveness of the enterprise zones and employment and economic incentive areas or to attribute increases in employment to the programs. One of these reports is the June 1988 report from the OAG. The report is entitled, “A Review of Economic Activity in the State’s Enterprise Zones and Economic Incentive Areas.” This report concluded that, although businesses indicated they had moved to the enterprise Other studies conclude zones or program areas because of the program benefits, several that various factors can other factors, including changes in the general economy and the influence economic efforts of redevelopment agencies, may have contributed to activity. improvements in economic activity. In addition, a report entitled, “Enterprise Zones: Lessons from the Maryland Experience,” issued in December 1988 by the United States General Accounting Office to Congress, concluded that it was unable to show that increases in employment in the enterprise zones studied resulted from the enterprise zone program. Finally, an independent study entitled, “Evaluation of California’s Enterprise Zone and Economic Incentive Programs,” issued by the California Policy Seminar in March 1994, concluded that, although employment increases were documented, they were seldom attributed to enterprise zone or economic and employment incentive programs. As a result, we believe that, whereas the collection of some statistical data provides a foundation for measuring the effectiveness of the programs, it may not be possible to isolate the effects or to attribute economic improvements solely to the programs. 39 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. Chapter 2 Analysis of Selected Employer Data for Enterprise Zones, Program Areas, and Their Counties Chapter Summary N either the Trade and Commerce Agency (agency) nor the enterprise zone or program area local administrators maintain sufficient data to determine whether the enterprise zone and employment and economic incentive programs are achieving their goals. Additionally, the State has not imposed any reporting requirements on enterprise zone and program area businesses and local administrators. As a result, it is difficult and costly to determine the effectiveness of the programs. However, we were able to obtain some data related to businesses and jobs from the Employment Development Department’s (EDD) records with assistance from the Stephen P. Teale Data Center (Teale). For the four years from 1991 through 1994, we requested that Teale compute the changes in the number of businesses and jobs for each enterprise zone and program area and for the county or counties in which each is located. An analysis of this data indicates that generally the number of businesses and jobs in the enterprise zones and program areas grew at a faster rate than the number of businesses and jobs in the counties in which they are located. However, this analysis is only a limited comparison of certain employer data in the zone or program area with that of the county in which it is located. Furthermore, because the analysis does not isolate the effects of the programs on businesses and jobs from other influences and because of the limitations described in Appendix B, this information alone is not enough to evaluate the success of the programs. Description of the Analysis 40 Enterprise zones and program areas are not defined by traditional boundaries, such as cities, counties, census tracts, or zip codes. Additionally, businesses in the zones and areas are not required to report economic data to the local administrators. Further, no statutory requirements exist for local administrators to establish performance measures, gauge economic activity by businesses in the zones and areas against those measures, and report the results. It can be difficult and Consequently, it can be difficult and costly to obtain complete, costly to obtain complete, reliable data to determine reliable data that can be used to determine the effectiveness of the effectiveness of enterprise zones and program areas. programs. However, Teale’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is designed to capture and manipulate data by its geographical location. The GIS can be used to extract selected data from database files that include addresses, such as databases containing unemployment and public assistance information, for review and analysis. We chose to review employer statistics from the EDD’s ES 202 Program Master File (file). By applying the GIS to the file, which contains employer data from businesses such as location, wages, and number of jobs, we were able to extract some relevant data concerning businesses and jobs. We provide a detailed description of our methodology and its limitations in Appendix B, and Appendix C contains the selected data reviewed for each enterprise zone, program area, and county or counties in which each is located. Because of the limitations cited in Appendix B, the data presented in Appendix C cannot be used to draw definitive conclusions. Nevertheless, the data does provide a basis for comparing certain economic activity in an enterprise zone or program area against the county or counties in which it is located. In the following section of this chapter, we summarize the results of our review. Statistics Show That Businesses and Jobs Increased in Most Enterprise Zones and Program Areas Statistics developed from the EDD files generally indicate an overall increase in businesses and jobs in enterprise zones and program areas from 1991, or from the year of designation if after 1991, to 1994. Further, when compared with the counties in which they are located, most enterprise zones showed a greater rate of growth in businesses and jobs. Most program areas also showed a greater rate of growth in businesses and jobs than the 41 counties in which they are located. Below we summarize the results of our review of these statistics. Enterprise Zones—Businesses The purpose of enterprise zones is to stimulate business and industrial growth in depressed areas. This can be measured, in part, by the increase in the number of businesses in the enterprise zones. Increases in the number of businesses are primarily due to the expansion of existing businesses, new businesses locating within the zone, and the expansion of the zone boundaries. During the review period, 23 of the 25 enterprise zones showed a net increase, and 2 showed a net decrease in the total number of businesses in the zone. Additionally, in terms of the percentage change in the number of businesses, 18 enterprise zones outperformed the counties in which they are located. Specifically, one zone, Shasta Valley, increased while the county decreased, and the remaining 17 zones increased at rates faster than the counties in which they are located. For each zone, Table 1 below summarizes the changes in the total number of businesses and identifies how the rates of change in the number of businesses compare with those of the counties in which they are located. Eleven of the 23 enterprise zones where the number of businesses increased had expanded their boundaries during the period under review; in some zones all the increases can be attributed to the boundary expansions; in others, some of the increases can be attributed to boundary expansions. For example, the Los Angeles—Northeast Valley enterprise zone, which had its boundary expanded, experienced a 10.09 percent increase in businesses during the period of review. Without boundary expansions the enterprise zone would have experienced a 1.37 percent decrease. Nevertheless, even when we eliminated the effects of the boundary expansions, 9 of the 11 enterprise zones still showed an increase in the total number of businesses, and 6 of the 11 still outperformed the counties in which they are located, in terms of the percentage change in the number of businesses. For example, the San Jose enterprise zone experienced a 45.25 percent increase in businesses during the review period while Santa Clara County experienced a 9.22 percent increase during the same period. Without boundary expansions the San Jose enterprise zone would have experienced 42 a 10.57 percent increase. Thus, although this is a smaller rate of growth, it is still better than the county’s rate of growth. 43 Table 1 Summary of Changes in the Number of Businesses and Comparison With Counties—All Enterprise Zones Did Number of Did Enterprise Zone Businesses Increase? Outperform County? Zone Yes No Yes No Agua Mansa  e Altadena/Pasadena  a Calexico  a Coachella Valley  a Delano  a Eureka  e Fresno  a Kings County  a Long Beach  d Los Angeles—Central City  a Los Angeles—Northeast Valley  a Merced/Atwater  a Oakland  e Oroville  a Porterville  e Richmond  a San Diego—San Ysidro/ Otay Mesa  a San Diego—Southeast/ Barrio Logan  e San Francisco  a San Jose  a Santa Ana  a Shasta Metro  a Shasta Valley  b Stockton  c Yuba/Sutter  a Total 23 2 18 7 a Enterprise zone increased at a faster rate than the county. b Enterprise zone increased while the county decreased. c Enterprise zone decreased at a faster rate than the county. d Enterprise zone decreased while county increased. e Enterprise zone increased at a slower rate than the county. 44 For the 11 zones with boundary expansions, Table 2 below summarizes the changes in the total number of businesses and identifies how the rates of change in the number of businesses compare with those of the counties in which they are located. Table 2 Summary of Changes in the Number of Businesses Without the Effects of Boundary Expansions and Comparison With Counties Did Number of Did Enterprise Zone Businesses Increase? Outperform County? Zone Yes No Yes No Agua Mansa  b Calexico  a Coachella Valley  a Fresno  b Los Angeles—Central City  a Los Angeles—Northeast Valley  c San Francisco  b San Jose  a Santa Ana  c Shasta Metro  a Yuba/Sutter  a Total 9 2 6 5 a Enterprise zone increased at a faster rate than the county. b Enterprise zone increased at a slower rate than the county. c Enterprise zone decreased while county increased. Enterprise Zones—Jobs For the period of review, 19 of the 25 enterprise zones showed a net increase in the total number of jobs, and 6 showed a net decrease. Additionally, in terms of the percentage change in the number of jobs, 19 enterprise zones outperformed the counties in which they are located. Specifically, 8 increased while the counties decreased, and 11 increased at a faster rate than the counties in which they are located. Table 3 below summarizes the changes in the total number of jobs and identifies how the rates of change in the number of jobs compare with those of the counties in which they are located. 45 Table 3 Summary of Changes in the Number of Jobs and Comparison With Counties—All Enterprise Zones Did Number of Did Enterprise Zone Jobs Increase? Outperform County? Zone Yes No Yes No Agua Mansa  a Altadena/Pasadena  b Calexico  b Coachella Valley  a Delano  b Eureka  a Fresno  a Kings County  a Long Beach  c Los Angeles—Central City  b Los Angeles—Northeast Valley  b Merced/Atwater  b Oakland  a Oroville  a Porterville  a Richmond  d San Diego—San Ysidro/ Otay Mesa  c San Diego—Southeast/ Barrio Logan  c San Francisco  a San Jose  b Santa Ana  a Shasta Metro  a Shasta Valley  d Stockton  d Yuba/Sutter  b Total 19 6 19 6 a Enterprise zone increased at a faster rate than the county. b Enterprise zone increased while the county decreased. c Enterprise zone decreased at a faster rate than the county. d Enterprise zone decreased while county increased. Eleven of the 19 enterprise zones where the number of jobs increased had expanded their boundaries during the period under review; in some zones all the increases can be attributed to the boundary expansions; in others, some of the increases can be attributed to boundary expansions. Nevertheless, even when we eliminated the effects of the boundary expansions, 9 of the 11 46 enterprise zones still showed an increase in the total number of jobs, and 9 of the 11 still outperformed the counties in which they are located, in terms of the percentage change in the number of businesses. For the 11 zones with boundary expansions, Table 4 below summarizes the net changes in the total number of jobs and identifies how the rates of change in the number of jobs compare with those of the counties in which they are located. Table 4 Summary of Changes in the Number of Jobs Without the Effects of Boundary Expansions and Comparison With Counties Did Number of Did Enterprise Zone Jobs Increase? Outperform County? Zone Yes No Yes No Agua Mansa  e Calexico  b Coachella Valley  a Fresno  a Los Angeles—Central City  c Los Angeles—Northeast Valley  b San Francisco  d San Jose  b Santa Ana  a Shasta Metro  a Yuba/Sutter  b Total 9 2 9 2 a Enterprise zone increased at a faster rate than the county. b Enterprise zone increased while the county decreased. c Enterprise zone decreased at a slower rate than the county. d Enterprise zone decreased while county increased. e Enterprise zone increased at a slower rate than the county. 47 Program Areas—Businesses The purpose of program areas is to encourage and facilitate job maintenance as well as business and job development in distressed and declining areas. This goal can be measured, in part, by the increase in the number of businesses and jobs in the program areas. Increases in the number of businesses and jobs are due primarily to the expansion of existing businesses, new businesses locating within the program area, and the expansion of the program area boundaries. All eight program areas showed a net increase in the total number of businesses for the period reviewed. Furthermore, the rate of increase in the number of businesses for all eight program areas was faster than that of the counties in which they are located. All of the program areas, except West Sacramento and Madera, expanded their boundaries during the period of review, and some of the increases in the number of businesses can be attributed to the boundary expansions. Even when the effects of the boundary expansions are eliminated, all six expanded program areas showed an increase in the total number of businesses, and four outperformed the counties in which they are located, in terms of the percentage change in the number of businesses. For example, the Bakersfield/Kern program area experienced a 15.98 percent increase in businesses during the review period while Kern County experienced a 2.28 percent increase during the same period. Without boundary expansions the Bakersfield/Kern program area would have experienced a 5.33 percent increase. Thus, although this is a smaller increase in the program area’s rate of growth, it still exceeded that of the county. For the six program areas with boundary expansions, Table 5 below identifies how the rates of change in the total number of businesses compare with those of the counties in which they are located. Program Areas—Jobs For the period reviewed, all eight program areas showed a net increase in total jobs. In addition, in terms of the percentage change in the number of jobs, all eight outperformed the counties in which they are located. Specifically, five program areas increased the number of jobs while the counties decreased, and three increased at a faster rate than that of the counties in which 48 they are located. 49 Table 5 Comparison of Rate of Change in Program Area Businesses Without the Effects of Boundary Expansions With Counties Did Program Area Outperform County? Program Area Yes No Bakersfield/Kern a Los Angeles—Eastside b Los Angeles—Watts b Los Angeles—Wilmington a Pittsburg a Sacramento a Total 4 2 a Program area increased at a faster rate than the county. b Program area increased while the county decreased. Table 6 below identifies how the rates of change in the total number of jobs in each program area compare with those of the counties in which they are located. Table 6 Comparison of Rate of Change in Program Area Jobs With Counties Program Area Program Area Increased at Faster Increased While Rate Than County County Decreased Bakersfield/Kern  Los Angeles—Eastside  Los Angeles—Watts  Los Angeles—Wilmington  Madera  Pittsburg  Sacramento  West Sacramento  Total 3 5 50 As previously discussed, six program areas expanded their boundaries during the review period. In some areas, all of the increases in the number of jobs can be attributed to the boundary expansions; in other areas, some of the increases can be attributed to these expansions. For example, the Los Angeles—Eastside program area experienced a 43.48 percent increase in jobs during the review period while Los Angeles County experienced a decrease of 9.50 percent. Without boundary expansions the Los Angeles—Eastside program area would have experienced a 2.28 percent decrease. When we eliminated the effects of the boundary expansions, only two of the six program areas still showed an increase in the total number of jobs; nevertheless, five of the six still outperformed the counties in which they are located, in terms of the percentage change in the number of jobs. For example, the Pittsburg program area experienced a 24.48 percent increase in jobs during the review period while Contra Costa County experienced an increase of 2.51 percent. Without boundary expansions the Pittsburg program area would have experienced a 22.03 percent increase. Thus, although the program area’s rate of growth was less, it was still better than the rate of growth in the county. For the six program areas with boundary expansions, Table 7 below summarizes the changes in the total number of jobs and identifies how the rates of change in the number of jobs compare with those of the counties in which they are located. Table 7 Summary of Changes in the Number of Jobs Without the Effects of Boundary Expansions and Comparison With Counties Did Number of Did Program Area Jobs Increase? Outperform County? Zone Yes No Yes No Bakersfield/Kern  b Los Angeles—Eastside  b Los Angeles—Watts  d Los Angeles—Wilmington  b Pittsburg  a Sacramento  c Total 2 4 5 1 a Program area increased at a faster rate than the county. b Program area decreased at a slower rate than the county. c Program area increased while the county decreased. d Program area decreased at a faster rate than the county. 51 New Businesses in Enterprise Zones and Program Areas Are About Evenly Divided Between Start-up Businesses and Those Relocated From Within California Statistics developed from the EDD files generally indicate that between 1991 and 1994 the overall increase in new businesses in enterprise zones and program areas is about evenly divided between start-up businesses and businesses relocated from within California. A start-up business is generally one that has begun operations for the first time, and a relocated business is an existing one that has moved or expanded to the zone or area from elsewhere in California. Start-up and expanded businesses generally create new jobs whereas relocated businesses generally shift jobs from one area of California to another. Because of limitations in the new businesses data, we cannot determine how many of these new businesses represent new jobs for the State and how many represent a shift of jobs from one part of the State to another. As described in detail in Appendix B, to determine the composition of the new businesses in the enterprise zones and program areas, we compared the list of new enterprise zone and program area businesses with a file of all California businesses for the first quarter of 1991. Because our comparison was limited to the first quarter of 1991, this analysis would not identify as a relocation or expansion from within the State those new enterprise zone and program area businesses that began operation in another part of the State after early 1991. Thus, the number of new businesses relocating from within the State may be understated and the number of start-up businesses may be overstated. In addition, the EDD files do not distinguish between relocated and expanded businesses. Accordingly, we were unable to differentiate the new businesses that were relocations from those that were expansions. On a statewide basis, during the period of review, start-up businesses represented 51 percent and relocated or expanded businesses represented 49 percent of the total new businesses in enterprise zones and program areas. For each enterprise zone and program area, Table 8 below identifies the percentage of new businesses that are start-up businesses and the percentage that relocated or expanded from within California. 52 Table 8 Composition of New Businesses in Enterprise Zones and Program Areas Relocated or Start-up Expanded Businesses Businesses Enterprise Zones Agua Mansaa 56% 44% Altadena/Pasadena 63% 37% Calexico 65% 35% Coachella Valley 49% 51% Delano 73% 27% Eureka 58% 42% Fresno 48% 52% Kings County 56% 44% Long Beach 60% 40% Los Angeles—Central City 58% 42% Los Angeles—Northeast Valley 53% 47% Merced/Atwater 58% 42% Oakland 67% 33% Oroville 57% 43% Porterville 56% 44% Richmond 66% 34% San Diego—SanYsidro/Otay Mesa 70% 30% San Diego—Southeast/Barrio Logan 64% 36% San Francisco 55% 45% San Jose 48% 52% Santa Ana 37% 63% Shasta Metroa 59% 41% Shasta Valley 49% 51% Stockton 62% 38% Yuba/Sutter 59% 41% All Enterprise Zones 54% 46% Program Areas Bakersfield/Kern 60% 40% Los Angeles—Eastside 48% 52% Los Angeles—Watts 54% 46% Los Angeles—Wilmington 30% 70% Madera 55% 45% Pittsburg 55% 45% Sacramento 36% 64% West Sacramento 45% 55% All Program Areas 45% 55% All Enterprise Zones and Program Areas 51% 49% a Because of an inadvertent error, we did not receive information on the composition of 85 new businesses, 7 in the Agua Mansa enterprise zone and 78 in the Shasta Metro enterprise zone. Thus, the percentages for these zones are based on incomplete data. However, these omissions have no effect on the percentages computed for all enterprise zones or all enterprise zones and program areas. 53 Appendix C presents wage data for enterprise zones, program areas, and the counties in which they are located. This wage data is presented for informational purposes only. Because it is affected by inflation, the general economy, and other factors that are not addressed in this report, we did not analyze the wage data. 31 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. Chapter 3 Conclusion and Recommendations Conclusion W e were unable to adequately measure the effectiveness of the enterprise zone and the employment and economic incentive programs at the state or local level. The Trade and Commerce Agency (agency) administers the programs at the state level but has neither developed an adequate framework to review and evaluate the programs’ progress nor measured their effectiveness. In addition, because they are not required to do so, enterprise zone and program area local administrators do not maintain sufficient data to measure the success of their programs. Finally, numerous factors affect the economic activity in enterprise zones and program areas; consequently, even if reliable data were readily available, it may not be possible to isolate the effects of the programs. Because the agency does not maintain sufficient data to determine whether the enterprise zones and program areas are achieving their goals and the State has not imposed any reporting requirements on enterprise zone and program area businesses and local administrators, it is difficult and costly to determine the effectiveness of the programs. However, with the employer data we obtained from the Employment Development Department and reviewed with assistance from the Stephen P. Teale Data Center (Teale), we determined that, between 1991 and 1994, the number of businesses and jobs in enterprise zones and program areas generally grew at a faster rate than the businesses and jobs in the counties in which they are located. Further, although businesses and jobs in enterprise zones and program areas grew at a faster rate with boundary expansions than without expansions, the growth without boundary expansions was still generally faster than that of the host counties. This analysis is only a limited comparison of certain employer data in the zone or area against the county in which it is located; thus, this information alone is not sufficient to evaluate the success of the programs. 32 33 Recommendations The agency needs to reassess its priorities to fulfill its statutory responsibilities for monitoring and measuring the effectiveness of the enterprise zone and the employment and economic incentive programs. To determine the impact of the programs on the State, the agency should, in accordance with the law, take the following actions:  Establish and implement a plan to monitor, evaluate, and report on the effectiveness of the programs, which includes identification and establishment of the performance measures, a system to obtain complete and reliable data about program achievements, and a determination of how it will evaluate reported achievements against those performance measures. The plan should also include procedures to determine the resources the agency needs to implement this plan and a schedule by which the agency will accomplish each of the steps; and  Determine whether Teale’s Geographic Information Systems can be used with other state or local databases to gather and evaluate selected statistical data relevant to the programs. However, the agency may be unable to collect all the necessary information without obtaining it from either the businesses or the local administrators. Therefore, to enable the agency to collect the necessary data and make its evaluation, the Legislature needs to consider implementing the following:  Imposing reporting requirements on businesses in the enterprise zones and program areas and requiring that local administrators of the programs establish performance measures, collect data to measure performance, and report their results. Currently, the zones and program areas receive no state funds for administering the programs. To ensure that certified businesses in program areas remain eligible to receive state tax benefits, the agency should, in accordance with state law, periodically audit these businesses. 34 We conducted this review under the authority vested in the state auditor in Section 8543 et seq., of the California Government Code and according to generally accepted governmental auditing standards. We limited our review to those areas specified in the audit scope of this report. Respectfully submitted, KURT R. SJOBERG State Auditor Date: November 1, 1995 Staff: Sylvia Hensley, CPA, Audit Principal Lois Benson, CPA Russ Hayden T. Gregory Saul, CPA Mary Hamilton 35 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. Appendix A State Tax Benefits Table A-1 State Tax Benefits Claimed by Enterprise Zone and Program Area Businesses and Employees Total State Tax Benefit Type 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Dollars Hiring, Sales, and Use Tax Credits: Number of Businesses 187 270 300 320 536 Dollar Amount of Credits $1,744,698 $4,407,438 $3,357,295 $3,951,589 $9,514,080 $22,975,100 Net Operating Loss Carryovers: Number of Businesses NP NP NP 12 25 Dollar Amount of Carryovers 981 0 787,139 311,322 1,213,628 2,313,070 Interest Deductions: Number of Businesses NP NP NP 15 42 Dollar Amount of Deductions 23,803 1,945,367 2,480,732 7,711,879 15,818,835 27,980,616 Business Expense Deductions: Number of Businesses NP NP NP NP NP Dollar Amount of Deductions 1,612 0 0 0 1,260 2,872 Employee Credits for Personal Income Tax: Number of Individuals 247 203 107 213 304 Dollar Amount of Credits 33,246 41,063 16,922 35,126 48,172 174,529 Total Dollars $1,804,340 $6,393,868 $6,642,088 $12,009,916 $26,595,975 $53,446,187 Source: Franchise Tax Board Note: NP = Number is less than 10; however, the number is not provided to ensure the confidentiality of the businesses. 36 Table A-2 State Tax Benefits by Type of Industry (in Dollars) Hiring, Sales, Net Business and Use Operating Loss Interest Expense Total Industry Type Tax Credits Carryovers Deductions Deductions Benefits Agriculture and Mining $ 883,950 $ 88,265 $ 972,215 Construction 125,500 $ 126,780 252,280 Light Industry 6,237,452 668,113 $1,260 6,906,825 Heavy Industry 8,968,389 326,996 49,926 9,345,311 Nonfinancial Services 1,514,057 172,776 2,511,688 4,198,521 Trade 1,695,143 372,384 40,677 2,108,204 Financial Services 1,232,329 438,930 25,290,060 26,961,319 Transportation and Utilities 601,196 198,268 799,464 Not Identified 1,717,084 8,823 1,612 1,727,519 Total $22,975,100 $2,313,070 $27,980,616 $2,872 $53,271,658 Source: Franchise Tax Board Note: The state tax benefits for individual employee credits are not identified by industry type; thus, they are not included in this table. Table A-3 State Tax Benefits by Enterprise Zone and Program Area (in Dollars) Hiring, Sales, Net Business Date and Use Operating Interest Expense Designated Tax Credits Loss Deductions Deductions Total Carryovers Enterprise Zones: Agua Mansa 10/86 $ 1,226,944 $ 1,226,944 Altadena/Pasadena 4/92 5,266 5,266 Calexico 10/86 22,825 22,825 Coachella Valley 11/91 1,852 1,852 Delano 12/91 0 Eureka 10/86 1,013,985 $ 206,365 $ 12,235 1,232,585 Fresno 10/86 1,503,439 17,610 88,265 1,609,314 Long Beach 1/92 76,846 76,846 Los Angeles—Central City 10/86 1,236,243 182,278 8,002,789 9,421,310 Los Angeles—Northeast 10/86 307,106 140,761 1,555,663 2,003,530 Valley Merced/Atwater 12/91 14,588 14,588 Oroville 11/91 12,770 12,770 Porterville 10/86 476,491 476,491 Richmond 3/92 77,152 94,519 171,671 San Diego—San Ysidro/Otay Mesa 1/92 36,155 37,841 73,996 San Diego—Southeast/Barrio Logan 10/86 726,647 15,640 742,287 San Francisco 5/92 17,689 53,184 70,873 San Jose 12/86 286,348 475,177 1,997,544 $1,612 2,760,681 37 Shasta Metro 11/91 139,705 93,705 123,988 357,398 Yuba/Sutter 10/86 145,069 79,179 123,809 348,057 Program Areas: Bakersfield/Kern 10/86 18,243 18,243 Los Angeles—Eastside 1/88 188,562 15,059 203,621 Los Angeles—Watts 10/86 313,016 107,775 420,791 Los Angeles—Wilmington 3/89 110,113 75,173 185,286 Madera 3/89 683,183 246,090 40,677 969,950 Pittsburg 1/88 10,201 10,201 Sacramento * 27,795 85,247 113,042 West Sacramento 1/88 67,284 29,136 96,420 Multiple locations 3,571,628 2,526 5,340,559 8,914,713 Unidentified locations 10,657,955 625,803 10,425,089 1,260 21,710,107 Total $22,975,100 $2,313,070 $27,980,616 $2,872 $53,271,658 Source: Franchise Tax Board Note: The state tax benefits for individual employee credits are not identified by enterprise zone or program area; thus, they are not included in this table. Additionally, this table does not include enterprise zones and program areas designated after December 1992. * The Sacramento program area consists of Northgate designated in October 1986 and Florin/Perkins designated in April 1989. Apx B-45 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. pendix B A Detailed Description of the Methodology and Limitations of Our Review of Selected Employer Data T o obtain employer data for the 25 counties in which enterprise zones and program areas are located, we asked the Employment Development Department (EDD) to provide the data from its ES 202 Program Master File (file) for those counties. The data included businesses covered by unemployment insurance operating during the first quarter of each year, including those that opened or closed during the period. However, we excluded all data for public employers and private households to limit our analysis to businesses that would benefit from the state and local incentives. Additionally, inaccuracies in the data may exist for a variety of reasons; for example, businesses with multiple locations may not report each location as a separate business. The time period of our analysis was limited to four years because the EDD could provide comparable employer data only for the period from 1991 to 1994. We then asked the EDD to provide the employer data to the Stephen P. Teale Data Center (Teale). To determine the businesses in each enterprise zone and program area, Teale used a two-step process. First, it processed the EDD’s employer data through address-matching software. Using this software, Teale compared the addresses in the EDD employer file to a statewide database that contains street names and address ranges. Teale was able to match approximately 80 percent of the addresses on the EDD file. For those addresses that matched, the software automatically assigned a location code. Second, the location codes were compared with the boundary data derived from maps provided by each enterprise zone and program area, and the location codes fell either inside or outside the boundary. Those inside the boundary were considered to be part of the zone or area. The accuracy of the enterprise zone and program area data generated is limited by unmatched businesses and imperfect map or boundary data. After extracting the business, job, and wage data, Teale computed the number of businesses and jobs and amount of wages paid for each enterprise zone and program area during the first quarter of each year beginning with 1991 or, for zones designated after 1991, since the year of designation. Additionally, Teale computed the percentage change in total businesses, jobs, and wages paid for the applicable years. Apx B-46 Zones and areas are allowed to expand their boundaries up to 15 percent. To isolate the changes in enterprise zone and program area data resulting from boundary expansions, Teale extracted information from the 1994 EDD file for each enterprise zone and program area using the map in effect during 1991 or, if designated after then, the year of designation. To develop comparative data for the enterprise zone and program area data, we requested that Teale extract from the EDD’s file similar job, wage, and business data for each of the counties in which the enterprise zones and program areas are located. To identify new and deleted businesses, Teale compared business identification numbers from year to year. Business identification numbers appearing in one year but not in subsequent years were considered deleted businesses. Business identification numbers appearing in later years but not in an earlier year were considered new businesses. Teale provided the list of all the new businesses to the EDD for additional processing. New businesses comprise start-up businesses and businesses that have relocated or expanded into an area. To determine the number of new businesses in enterprise zones and program areas that were start-up businesses and the number that were relocations or expansions from elsewhere in California, the EDD compared the list of new businesses provided by Teale with the ES 202 file for the entire State for the first quarter of 1991. Business identification numbers that the EDD determined were in existence in California were considered relocations or expansions from within California. Business identification numbers that were not on the 1991 file were considered start-up businesses. However, because employers may change business identification numbers for a variety of reasons, relocations and new businesses may be incorrectly identified. Furthermore, because the EDD compared the list of new businesses with the file for the first quarter of 1991 only, this analysis would not identify as a relocation or expansion from within the State those new enterprise zone and program area businesses that began operation in another part of the State after early 1991. Thus, the number of new businesses relocating from within the State may be understated, and the number of start-up businesses may be overstated. Because 10 of the enterprise zones were designated after 1991, our review of these zones was limited to the years since their designation. As a result, for these enterprise zones, Appendix C includes data only from the year of designation through 1994. Apx B-47 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. Appendix C Selected Employer Data Table C-1 Agua Mansa Enterprise Zone Riverside and San Bernardino Counties 1991 Through 1994 Agua Mansa Enterprise Zone Riverside and San Bernardino Counties 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1991 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 64 92 70 6,416 7,369 5,848 Deletedf 64 76 63 4,707 6,022 6,039 Total 441 441 457 464 456 37,071 38,780 40,127 39,936 Percent Change 0.00% 3.63% 1.53% 4.61% 3.47% -0.48% Percent Change 1991-94 5.22% 3.40% 7.73% Jobsc Newe 704 896 652 62,949 70,849 52,460 Deletedf 519 951 568 53,811 44,076 43,515 Total 7,452 7,608 7,582 7,791 7,665 498,292 491,612 507,467 514,676 Percent Change 2.09% -0.34% 2.76% -1.34% 3.23% 1.42% Percent Change 1991-94 4.55% 2.86% 3.29% Wagesd Newe $ 3,536 $ 6,710 $ 3,076 $ 291,179 $ 319,126 $ 237,645 Deletedf 2,906 3,416 2,881 233,286 206,393 207,423 Total $44,473 46,636 49,276 53,128 $51,920 $2,602,818 2,680,962 2,692,815 2,836,033 Percent Change 4.86% 5.66% 7.82% 3.00% 0.44% 5.32% Percent Change 1991-94 19.46% 16.75% 8.96% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data presented by using the 1991 map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses. Apx B-48 Table C-2 Altadena/Pasadena Enterprise Zone Los Angeles County 1992 Through 1994 Altadena/Pasadena Enterprise Zone Los Angeles County 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 42 71 59 26,238 29,790 25,830 Deletedf 37 52 68 21,014 25,458 25,713 Total 375 394 385 385 196,407 200,739 200,856 Percent Change 5.07% -2.28% 2.21%% 0.06% Percent Change 1992-94 2.67% 2.67% 2.27% Jobsc Newe 251 641 615 293,439 333,803 243,392 Deletedf 299 248 1,140 353,560 286,515 248,819 Total 4,701 5,170 4,726 4,726 3,030,106 2,965,865 2,934,636 Percent Change 9.98% -8.59% -2.12% -1.05% Percent Change 1992-94 0.53% 0.53% -3.15% Wagesd Newe $ 862 $ 2,651 $ 1,818 $ 1,759,145 $ 2,060,190 $ 1,475,663 Deletedf 947 908 5,001 2,269,924 1,898,097 1,477,736 Total 20,874 22,405 19,318 $19,318 22,311,516 21,349,610 21,862,009 Percent Change 7.33% -13.78% -4.31% 2.40% Percent Change 1992-94 -7.45% -7.45% -2.01% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data generated by using the year of designation map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. The enterprise zone was designated in April 1992. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-26 Bakersfield/Kern Program Area Apx B-49 Kern County 1991 Through 1994 Bakersfield Program Area Kern County 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1991 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 20 21 53 1,371 1,380 1,246 Deletedf 17 25 25 1,160 1,310 1,300 Total 169 172 168 196 178 9,975 10,186 10,256 10,202 Percent Change 1.78% -2.33% 16.67% 2.12% 0.69% -0.53% Percent Change 1991-94 15.98% 5.33% 2.28% Jobsc Newe 114 175 1,906 14,206 12,972 10,339 Deletedf 44 135 157 14,046 9,572 8,556 Total 2,443 2,445 2,312 4,110 2,379 132,699 128,605 125,449 127,746 Percent Change 0.08% -5.44% 77.77% -3.09% -2.45% 1.83% Percent Change 1991-94 68.24% -2.62% -3.73% Wagesd Newe $ 417 $ 1,107 $11,582 $ 64,926 $ 59,219 $ 43,838 Deletedf 244 471 574 72,001 41,849 38,774 Total $13,854 13,710 13,349 24,991 $14,072 $696,485 689,416 659,497 695,118 Percent Change -1.04% -2.63% 87.21% -1.01% -4.34% 5.40% Percent Change 1991-94 80.40% 1.58% -0.20% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data presented by using the 1991 map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-18 San Diego—Southeast/Barrio Logan Enterprise Zone San Diego County 1991 Through 1994 68 San Diego—Southeast/Barrio Logan Enterprise Zone San Diego County 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1991 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 96 201 148 7,231 8,633 7,450 Deletedf 87 161 165 5,584 6,875 7,307 Total 962 971 1,011 994 994 49,273 50,920 52,678 52,821 Percent Change 0.94% 4.12% -1.68% 3.34% 3.45% 0.27% Percent Change 1991-94 3.33% 3.33% 7.20% Jobsc Newe 799 1,952 1,188 69,218 86,950 71,203 Deletedf 1,065 1,502 1,583 72,369 58,707 69,151 Total 17,676 17,895 17,230 16,011 16,011 699,074 666,927 680,347 684,393 Percent Change 1.24% -3.72% -7.07% -4.60% 2.01% 0.59% Percent Change 1991-94 -9.42% -9.42% -2.10% Wagesd Newe $ 3,315 $ 8,123 $ 5,798 $ 377,499 $ 489,114 $ 412,589 Deletedf 5,742 6,790 7,044 369,184 335,901 403,372 Total $109,459 110,080 105,134 103,392 $103,392 $4,149,758 4,136,798 4,128,989 4,331,140 Percent Change 0.57% -4.49% -1.66% -0.31% -0.19% 4.90% Percent Change 1991-94 -5.54% -5.54% 4.37% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data presented by using the 1991 map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-3 Calexico Enterprise Zone Imperial County 1991 Through 1994 60 Calexico Enterprise Zone Imperial County 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1991 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 55 61 52 282 351 261 Deletedf 25 47 48 237 287 300 Total 223 253 267 271 269 2,211 2,256 2,320 2,281 Percent Change 13.45% 5.53% 1.50% 2.04% 2.84% -1.68% Percent Change 1991-94 21.52% 20.63% 3.17% Jobsc Newe 439 761 315 3,295 3,885 3,004 Deletedf 61 181 937 5,205 1,636 1,908 Total 2,877 3,699 4,239 3,891 3,869 31,554 29,320 29,801 31,482 Percent Change 28.57% 14.60% -8.21% -7.08% 1.64% 5.64% Percent Change 1991-94 35.25% 34.48% -0.23% Wagesd Newe $ 1,283 $ 2,524 $ 845 $ 13,616 $ 14,850 $ 8,467 Deletedf 142 608 2,969 12,001 5,665 7,714 Total $8,499 10,661 12,569 10,281 $10,165 $110,816 110,123 113,740 116,726 Percent Change 25.44% 17.90% -18.21% -0.63% 3.28% 2.63% Percent Change 1991-94 20.96% 19.61% 5.33% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data presented by using the 1991 map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-4 Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone Riverside County 1991 Through 1994 46 Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone Riverside County 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1991 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 35 92 87 3,107 3,647 2,981 Deletedf 31 41 57 2,263 2,800 2,962 Total 248 252 303 333 298 17,108 17,952 18,799 18,818 Percent Change 1.61% 20.24% 9.90% 4.93% 4.72% 0.10% Percent Change 1991-94 34.27% 20.16% 10.00% Jobsc Newe 190 1,373 826 26,462 35,458 26,624 Deletedf 486 155 228 26,546 17,732 20,054 Total 3,333 2,969 4,254 4,687 4,233 216,565 209,565 222,127 227,308 Percent Change -10.92% 43.28% 10.18% -3.23% 5.99% 2.33% Percent Change 1991-94 40.62% 27.00% 4.96% Wagesd Newe $ 857 $ 4,715 $ 3,663 $ 116,896 $ 150,860 $ 116,988 Deletedf 898 708 979 109,180 74,837 87,791 Total $16,374 17,291 19,811 22,520 $20,802 $1,087,780 1,102,365 1,125,199 1,202,039 Percent Change 5.60% 14.57% 13.68% 1.34% 2.07% 6.83% Percent Change 1991-94 37.54% 27.04% 10.50% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data presented by using the 1991 map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-5 Delano Enterprise Zone Kern County 1991 Through 1994 46 Delano Enterprise Zone Kern County 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1991 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 44 35 50 1,371 1,380 1,246 Deletedf 33 52 28 1,160 1,310 1,300 Total 288 299 282 304 304 9,975 10,186 10,256 10,202 Percent Change 3.82% -5.69% 7.80% 2.12% 0.69% -0.53% Percent Change 1991-94 5.56% 5.56% 2.28% Jobsc Newe 621 325 362 14,206 12,972 10,339 Deletedf 101 236 129 14,046 9,572 8,556 Total 3,041 3,419 3,714 4,058 4,058 132,699 128,605 125,449 127,746 Percent Change 12.43% 8.63% 9.26% -3.09% -2.45% 1.83% Percent Change 1991-94 33.44% 33.44% -3.73% Wagesd Newe $ 1,026 $ 596 $ 917 $ 64,926 $ 59,219 $ 43,838 Deletedf 281 464 476 72,001 41,849 38,774 Total $9,789 10,544 11,203 12,709 $12,709 $696,485 689,416 659,497 695,118 Percent Change 7.72% 6.25% 13.44% -1.01% -4.34% 5.40% Percent Change 1991-94 29.83% 29.83% -0.20% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data presented by using the 1991 map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-6 Eureka Enterprise Zone Humboldt County 1991 Through 1994 47 Eureka Enterprise Zone Humboldt County 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1991 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 75 107 98 390 418 370 Deletedf 57 92 80 271 334 333 Total 790 808 823 841 841 3,062 3,181 3,265 3,302 Percent Change 2.28% 1.86% 2.19% 3.89% 2.64% 1.13% Percent Change 1991-94 6.46% 6.46% 7.84% Jobsc Newe 497 1,212 509 1,709 2,441 1,314 Deletedf 399 797 359 1,927 1,798 1,425 Total 6,720 6,629 7,014 7,420 7,420 25,907 25,281 26,146 26,385 Percent Change -1.35% 5.81% 5.79% -2.42% 3.42% 0.91% Percent Change 1991-94 10.42% 10.42% 1.85% Wagesd Newe $ 1,992 $ 5,261 $ 1,871 $ 5,958 $ 8,660 $ 3,966 Deletedf 1,305 2,944 1,336 8,799 5,761 4,613 Total $27,276 27,891 30,275 32,770 $32,770 $108,457 107,542 111,069 115,567 Percent Change 2.26% 8.55% 8.24% -0.84% 3.28% 4.05% Percent Change 1991-94 20.14% 20.14% 6.55% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data presented by using the 1991 map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-7 Fresno Enterprise Zone Fresno County 1991 Through 1994 48 Fresno Enterprise Zone Fresno County 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1991 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 153 292 279 1,824 2,140 1,774 Deletedf 132 184 209 1,620 1,817 1,734 Total 1,456 1,477 1,585 1,655 1,470 16,675 16,879 17,202 17,242 Percent Change 1.44% 7.31% 4.42% 1.22% 1.91% 0.23% Percent Change 1991-94 13.67% 0.96% 3.40% Jobsc Newe 2,077 3,746 3,426 17,738 17,046 14,387 Deletedf 1,644 1,781 1,910 15,699 13,106 9,826 Total 19,790 20,607 22,684 24,295 21,024 186,135 184,004 189,217 196,232 Percent Change 4.13% 10.08% 7.1% -1.14% 2.83% 3.71% Percent Change 1991-94 22.76% 6.24% 5.42% Wagesd Newe $ 12,817 $ 17,556 $ 22,000 $ 77,193 $ 69,051 $ 61,169 Deletedf 8,680 9,829 9,336 69,482 57,793 47,416 Total $109,588 116,864 121,912 140,503 $120,288 $900,201 910,252 908,624 966,460 Percent Change 6.64% 4.32% 15.25% 1.12% -0.18% 6.37% Percent Change 1991-94 28.21% 9.76% 7.36% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data presented by using the 1991 map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-8 Kings County Enterprise Zone Kings County 1993 Through 1994 49 Kings County Enterprise Zone Kings County 1993 1994 1994a 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 101 82 230 176 Deletedf 67 64 198 176 Total 586 604 604 1,713 1,713 Percent Change 3.07% 0.00% Percent Change 1993-94 3.07% 3.07% 0.00% Jobsc Newe 1,679 1,177 2,899 1,338 Deletedf 1,793 480 2,415 961 Total 7,117 7,930 7,930 16,977 17,977 Percent Change 11.42% 5.89% Percent Change 1993-94 11.42% 11.42% 5.89% Wagesd Newe $ 5,694 $ 6,386 $10,801 $ 3,839 Deletedf 6,919 1,373 9,886 3,120 Total 36,224 43,083 $43,083 $78,495 $85,504 Percent Change 18.93% 8.93% Percent Change 1993-94 18.93% 18.93% 8.93% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data generated by using the year of designation map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. The enterprise zone was designated in June 1993. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-28 50 Los Angeles—Watts Program Area Los Angeles County 1991 Through 1994 Los Angeles—Watts Program Area Los Angeles County 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1991 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 586 1,069 630 26,238 29,790 25,830 Deletedf 316 578 599 21,014 25,458 25,713 Total 3,210 3,480 3,971 4,002 3,334 191,183 196,407 200,739 200,856 Percent Change 8.41% 14.11% 0.78% 2.73% 2.21% 0.06% Percent Change 1991-94 24.67% 3.86% 5.06% Jobsc Newe 7,512 13,477 5,998 293,439 333,803 243,392 Deletedf 6,620 5,697 5,218 353,560 286,515 248,819 Total 48,758 46,745 52,360 53,940 43,701 3,242,624 3,030,106 2,965,865 2,934,636 Percent Change -4.13% 12.01% 3.02% -6.55% -2.12% -1.05% Percent Change 1991-94 10.63% -10.37% -9.50% Wagesd Newe $ 39,982 $ 69,202 $ 24,522 $ 1,759,145 $ 2,060,190 $ 1,475,663 Deletedf 28,979 28,304 25,177 2,269,924 1,898,097 1,477,736 Total $251,039 254,826 280,195 289,499 $228,091 $22,630,059 22,311,516 21,349,610 21,862,009 Percent Change 1.51% 9.96% 3.32% -1.41% -4.31% 2.40% Percent Change 1991-94 15.32% -9.14% -3.39% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data presented by using the 1991 map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-10 Los Angeles—Central City Enterprise Zone Los Angeles County 1991 Through 1994 70 Los Angeles—Central City Enterprise Zone Los Angeles County 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1991 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 243 760 388 26,238 29,790 25,830 Deletedf 189 269 361 21,014 25,458 25,713 Total 1,365 1,419 1,910 1,937 1,467 191,183 196,407 200,739 200,856 Percent Change 3.96% 34.6% 1.41% 2.73% 2.21% 0.06% Percent Change 1991-94 41.9% 7.47% 5.06% Jobsc Newe 4,599 15,434 4,957 293,439 333,803 243,392 Deletedf 2,835 5,341 5,958 353,560 286,515 248,819 Total 32,326 33,710 43,454 42,748 31,986 3,242,624 3,030,106 2,965,865 2,934,636 Percent Change 4.28% 28.91% -1.62% -6.55% -2.12% -1.05% Percent Change 1991-94 32.24% -1.05% -9.50% Wagesd Newe $ 15,586 $ 89,112 $ 23,078 $ 1,759,145 $ 2,060,190 $ 1,475,663 Deletedf 11,035 21,315 25,534 2,269,924 1,898,097 1,477,736 Total $165,613 166,750 232,179 238,846 $161,352 $22,630,059 22,311,516 21,349,610 21,862,009 Percent Change 0.69% 39.24% 2.87% -1.41% -4.31% 2.40% Percent Change 1991-94 44.22% -2.57% -3.39% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data presented by using the 1991 map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-11 Los Angeles—Northeast Valley Enterprise Zone Los Angeles County 1991 Through 1994 52 Los Angeles—Northeast Valley Enterprise Zone Los Angeles County 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1991 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 110 105 106 26,238 29,790 25,830 Deletedf 65 101 96 21,014 25,458 25,713 Total 585 630 634 644 577 191,183 196,407 200,739 200,856 Percent Change 7.69% 0.63% 1.58% 2.73% 2.21% 0.06% Percent Change 1991-94 10.09% -1.37% 5.06% Jobsc Newe 1,749 1,740 1,530 293,439 333,803 243,392 Deletedf 662 985 1,346 353,560 286,515 248,819 Total 11,593 12,443 13,060 13,606 12,225 3,242,624 3,030,106 2,965,865 2,934,636 Percent Change 7.33% 4.96% 4.18% -6.55% -2.12% -1.05% Percent Change 1991-94 17.36% 5.45% -9.50% Wagesd Newe $ 9,637 $ 7,166 $ 7,495 $ 1,759,145 $ 2,060,190 $ 1,475,663 Deletedf 3,604 4,503 9,221 2,269,924 1,898,097 1,477,736 Total $61,571 71,931 70,892 72,549 $65,458 $22,630,059 22,311,516 21,349,610 21,862,009 Percent Change 16.83% -1.45% 2.34% -1.41% -4.31% 2.40% Percent Change 1991-94 17.83% 6.31% -3.39% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data presented by using the 1991 map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-27 Los Angeles—Eastside Program Area Los Angeles County 1991 Through 1994 53 Los Angeles—Eastside Program Area Los Angeles County 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1991 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 1,006 476 404 26,238 29,790 25,830 Deletedf 177 457 429 21,014 25,458 25,713 Total 1,743 2,572 2,591 2,566 1,823 191,183 196,407 200,739 200,856 Percent Change 47.56% 0.74% -0.96% 2.73% 2.21% 0.06% Percent Change 1991-94 47.22% 4.59% 5.06% Jobsd Newd 19,676 5,785 4,542 293,439 333,803 243,392 Deletedf 2,342 7,026 5,520 353,560 286,515 248,819 Total 34,858 51,760 50,307 50,013 34,062 3,242,624 3,030,106 2,965,865 2,934,636 Percent Change 48.49% -2.81% -0.58% -6.55% -2.12% -1.05% Percent Change 1991-94 43.48% -2.28% -9.50% Wagesd Newe $118,116 $ 23,137 $ 20,402 $ 1,759,145 $ 2,060,190 $ 1,475,663 Deletedf 8,176 40,238 25,943 2,269,924 1,898,097 1,477,736 Total $190,586 309,952 290,467 288,520 $198,029 $22,630,059 22,311,516 21,349,610 21,862,009 Percent Change 62.63% -6.29% -0.67% -1.41% -4.31% 2.40% Percent Change 1991-94 51.39% 3.91% -3.39% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data presented by using the 1991 map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-29 Los Angeles—Wilmington Program Area Los Angeles County 1991 Through 1994 69 Los Angeles—Wilmington Program Area Los Angeles County 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1991 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 789 285 216 26,238 29,790 25,830 Deletedf 46 191 209 21,014 25,458 25,713 Total 535 1,278 1,372 1,379 573 191,183 196,407 200,739 200,856 Percent Change 138.88% 7.36% 0.51% 2.73% 2.21% 0.06% Percent Change 1991-94 157.76% 7.10% 5.06% Jobsc Newe 15,246 3,567 3,409 293,439 333,803 243,392 Deletedf 194 2,588 1,922 353,560 286,515 248,819 Total 8,879 24,772 25,117 25,769 8,856 3,242,624 3,030,106 2,965,865 2,934,636 Percent Change 179.00% 1.39% 2.60% -6.55% -2.12% -1.05% Percent Change 1991-94 190.22% -0.26% -9.50% Wagesd Newe $133,667 $ 21,548 $ 25,095 $ 1,759,145 $ 2,060,190 $ 1,475,663 Deletedf 2,793 14,640 11,706 2,269,924 1,898,097 1,477,736 Total $60,399 197,814 203,969 224,995 $66,702 $22,630,059 22,311,516 21,349,610 21,862,009 Percent Change 227.51% 3.11% 10.31% -1.41% -4.31% 2.40% Percent Change 1991-94 272.51% 10.44% -3.39% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data presented by using the 1991 map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-9 Long Beach Enterprise Zone Los Angeles County 1992 Through 1994 51 Long Beach Enterprise Zone Los Angeles County 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 443 559 524 26,238 29,790 25,830 Deletedf 411 536 581 21,014 25,458 25,713 Total 3,531 3,554 3,497 3,497 196,407 200,739 200,856 Percent Change 0.65% -1.60% 2.21% 0.06% Percent Change 1992-94 -0.96% -0.96% 2.27% Jobsc Newe 4,534 6,432 7,605 293,439 333,803 243,392 Deletedf 6,218 6,094 4,317 353,560 286,515 248,819 Total 93,860 81,024 77,324 77,324 3,030,106 2,965,865 2,934,636 Percent Change -13.68% -4.57% -2.12% -1.05% Percent Change 1992-94 -17.62% -17.62% -3.15% Wagesd Newe $ 29,730 $ 36,762 $ 52,127 $ 1,759,145 $ 2,060,190 $ 1,475,663 Deletedf 34,095 32,194 20,583 2,269,924 1,898,097 1,477,736 Total 792,385 650,090 658,826 $658,826 22,311,516 21,349,610 21,862,009 Percent Change -17.96% 1.34% -4.31% 2.40% Percent Change 1992-94 -16.86% -16.86% -2.01% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data generated by using the year of designation map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. The enterprise zone was designated in January 1992. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-30 Madera Program Area Madera County 1991 Through 1994 51 Madera Program Area Madera County 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1991 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 34 61 48 237 268 213 Deletedf 34 54 35 204 246 251 Total 304 304 311 324 324 1,899 1,932 1,954 1,916 Percent Change 0.00% 2.30% 4.18% 1.74% 1.14% -1.94% Percent Change 1991-94 6.58% 6.58% 0.90% Jobsc Newe 292 498 444 1,539 1,458 1,248 Deletedf 140 375 171 770 1,719 704 Total 3,365 3,338 3,414 3,690 3,690 18,295 18,512 18,419 19,965 Percent Change -0.80% 2.28% 8.08% 1.19% -0.50% 8.39% Percent Change 1991-94 9.66% 9.66% 9.13% Wagesd Newe $ 912 $ 1,942 $ 1,354 $ 5,295 $ 5,329 $ 4,192 Deletedf 390 1,206 498 2,532 4,411 2,238 Total $12,738 13,237 14,076 15,438 $15,438 $78,706 79,617 81,350 89,264 Percent Change 3.92% 6.34% 9.68% 1.16% 2.18% 9.73% Percent Change 1991-94 21.20% 21.20% 13.42% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data presented by using the 1991 map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-12 Merced/Atwater Enterprise Zone Merced County 1991 Through 1994 72 Merced/Atwater Enterprise Zone Merced County 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1991 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 75 97 93 332 399 355 Deletedf 56 87 91 306 368 376 Total 715 734 744 746 746 3,359 3,385 3,416 3,395 Percent Change 2.66% 1.36% 0.27% 0.77% 0.92% -0.61% Percent Change 1991-94 4.34% 4.34% 1.07% Jobsc Newe 565 601 1,104 2,508 2,892 2,435 Deletedf 318 987 595 2,173 2,817 2,757 Total 7,969 7,735 7,537 8,157 8,157 34,184 33,322 33,076 33,279 Percent Change -2.94% -2.56% 8.23% -2.52% -0.74% 0.61% Percent Change 1991-94 2.36% 2.36% -2.65% Wagesd Newe $ 2,455 $ 2,332 $ 3,951 $ 13,379 $ 9,770 $ 8,400 Deletedf 2,094 3,910 1,971 8,905 9,804 10,346 Total $34,147 34,664 33,242 37,178 $37,178 $145,201 149,453 146,800 151,062 Percent Change 1.52% -4.10% 11.84% 2.93% -1.78% 2.90% Percent Change 1991-94 8.88% 8.88% 4.04% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data presented by using the 1991 map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-13 Oakland Enterprise Zone Alameda County 1993 Through 1994 54 Oakland Enterprise Zone Alameda County 1993 1994 1994a 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 835 766 4,572 3,871 Deletedf 670 714 3,399 3,569 Total 5,485 5,537 5,537 30,287 30,589 Percent Change 0.95% 1.00% Percent Change 1993-94 0.95% 0.95% 1.00% Jobsc Newe 7,962 10,996 45,964 36,955 Deletedf 8,084 6,196 35,744 31,797 Total 78,050 82,224 82,224 418,114 422,907 Percent Change 5.35% 1.15% Percent Change 1993-94 5.35% 5.35% 1.15% Wagesd Newe $ 53,680 $ 77,164 $ 301,467 $ 225,094 Deletedf 58,204 42,212 239,611 189,087 Total 624,313 673,082 $673,082 3,038,629 3,213,967 Percent Change 7.81% 5.77% Percent Change 1993-94 7.81% 7.81% 5.77% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data generated by using the year of designation map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. The enterprise zone was designated in September 1993. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-14 Oroville Enterprise Zone Butte County 1991 Through 1994 55 Oroville Enterprise Zone Butte County 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1991 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 42 32 51 529 543 482 Deletedf 39 43 31 435 554 497 Total 350 353 342 362 362 4,406 4,500 4,489 4,474 Percent Change 0.86% -3.12% 5.85% 2.13% -0.24% -0.33% Percent Change 1991-94 3.43% 3.43% 1.54% Jobsc Newe 427 246 1,316 4,022 3,334 3,164 Deletedf 364 174 106 3,661 3,098 2,351 Total 2,430 2,513 2,517 3,622 3,622 39,525 38,824 38,399 39,733 Percent Change 3.42% 0.16% 43.90% -1.77% -1.09% 3.47% Percent Change 1991-94 49.05% 49.05% 0.53% Wagesd Newe $ 1,295 $ 805 $ 7,842 $ 13,730 $ 12,780 $ 11,217 Deletedf 1,653 508 380 12,088 12,318 6,939 Total $9,645 9,556 9,783 17,031 $17,031 $162,242 167,427 165,837 178,519 Percent Change -0.92% 2.37% 74.09% 3.20% -0.95% 7.65% Percent Change 1991-94 76.57% 76.57% 10.03% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data presented by using the 1991 map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-31 Pittsburg Program Area Contra Costa County 1991 Through 1994 56 Pittsburg Program Area Contra Costa County 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1991 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 29 44 27 2,566 2,885 2,535 Deletedf 12 21 28 1,857 2,257 2,291 Total 143 160 183 182 180 16,557 17,266 17,894 18,138 Percent Change 11.89% 14.38% -0.55% 4.28% 3.64% 1.36% Percent Change 1991-94 27.27% 25.87% 9.55% Jobsc Newe 527 383 189 28,566 23,632 16,337 Deletedf 189 246 79 24,538 20,354 16,074 Total 2,120 2,450 2,556 2,639 2,587 205,137 203,146 207,575 210,288 Percent Change 15.57% 4.33% 3.25% -0.97% 2.18% 1.31% Percent Change 1991-94 24.48% 22.03% 2.51% Wagesd Newe $ 2,676 $ 2,324 $ 885 $ 243,860 $ 171,266 $ 119,999 Deletedf 706 1,615 407 173,419 157,819 103,991 Total $13,820 15,822 16,401 17,932 $17,538 $1,378,551 1,472,484 1,494,279 1,593,153 Percent Change 14.49% 3.66% 9.34% 6.81% 1.48% 6.62% Percent Change 1991-94 29.76% 26.91% 15.57% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data presented by using the 1991 map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-15 Porterville Enterprise Zone Tulare County 1991 Through 1994 73 Porterville Enterprise Zone Tulare County 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1991 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newed 4 13 8 749 784 712 Deletedf 4 8 12 605 760 700 Total 65 65 70 66 66 6,561 6,705 6,729 6,741 Percent Change 0.00% 7.69% -5.71% 2.19% 0.36% 0.18% Percent Change 1991-94 1.54% 1.54% 2.74% Jobsc Newe 22 217 33 7,420 8,971 5,609 Deletedf 31 172 207 5,953 5,233 5,305 Total 1,134 1,352 1,519 1,367 1,367 68,153 72,323 77,746 79,730 Percent Change 19.22% 12.35% -10.01% 6.12% 7.50% 2.55% Percent Change 1991-94 20.55% 20.55% 16.99% Wagesd Newe $ 70 $ 642 $ 122 $ 29,352 $ 33,428 $ 19,693 Deletedf 376 492 605 24,035 20,288 19,415 Total $5,968 6,299 7,618 7,498 $7,498 $288,405 307,793 318,512 331,710 Percent Change 5.53% 20.94% -1.57% 6.72% 3.48% 4.14% Percent Change 1991-94 25.62% 25.62% 15.02% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data presented by using the 1991 map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-16 Richmond Enterprise Zone Contra Costa County 1992 Through 1994 57 Richmond Enterprise Zone Contra Costa County 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 58 74 61 2,566 2,885 2,535 Deletedf 43 58 52 1,857 2,257 2,291 Total 431 447 456 456 17,266 17,894 18,138 Percent Change 3.71% 2.01% 3.64% 1.36% Percent Change 1992-94 5.80% 5.80% 5.05% Jobsc Newe 594 562 683 28,566 23,632 16,337 Deletedf 219 821 340 24,538 20,354 16,074 Total 6,063 5,731 6,053 6,053 203,146 207,575 210,288 Percent Change -5.48% 5.62% 2.18% 1.31% Percent Change 1992-94 -0.16% -0.16% 3.52% Wagesd Newe $ 2,821 $ 4,046 $10,171 $ 243,860 $ 171,266 $ 119,999 Deletedf 1,537 7,828 2,136 173,419 157,819 103,991 Total 47,249 43,608 56,858 $56,858 1,472,484 1,494,279 1,593,153 Percent Change -7.71% 30.38% 1.48% 6.62% Percent Change 1992-94 20.34% 20.34% 8.19% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data generated by using the year of designation map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. The enterprise zone was designated in March 1992. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-32A Sacramento—Florin Perkins Program Area Sacramento County 1991 Through 1994 58 Sacramento—Florin Perkins Program Area Sacramento County 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1991 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 505 233 192 3,217 3,677 2,979 Deletedf 96 183 176 2,586 3,127 3,137 Total 797 1,206 1,256 1,272 850 21,855 22,486 23,036 22,878 Percent Change 51.32% 4.15% 1.27% 2.89% 2.45% -0.69% Percent Change 1991-94 59.60% 6.65% 4.68% Jobsc Newe 8,438 2,159 1,406 33,378 34,352 23,159 Deletedf 677 1,823 1,129 32,497 25,378 21,754 Total 13,270 20,119 19,983 21,156 13,706 289,522 280,411 281,401 285,756 Percent Change 51.61% -0.68% 5.87% -3.15% 0.35% 1.55% Percent Change 1991-94 59.43% 3.29% -1.30% Wagesd Newe $ 50,846 $ 10,418 $ 6,748 $ 184,051 $ 177,955 $ 119,150 Deletedf 2,863 8,617 5,630 176,250 126,659 113,450 Total $81,553 121,388 120,866 135,304 $85,753 $1,631,612 1,634,454 1,645,181 1,730,917 Percent Change 48.85% -0.43% 11.95% 0.17% 0.66% 5.21% Percent Change 1991-94 65.91% 5.15% 6.09% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data presented by using the 1991 map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-32B Sacramento—Northgate Program Area Sacramento County 1991 Through 1994 58 Sacramento—Northgate Program Area Sacramento County 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1991 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 133 91 47 3,217 3,677 2,979 Deletedf 20 59 61 2,586 3,127 3,137 Total 220 333 365 351 223 21,855 22,486 23,036 22,878 Percent Change 51.36% 9.61% -3.84% 2.89% 2.45% -0.69% Percent Change 1991-94 59.55% 1.36% 4.68% Jobsc Newe 1,385 1,975 288 33,378 34,352 23,159 Deletedf 266 469 771 32,497 25,378 21,754 Total 5,606 6,363 7,271 7,096 5,549 289,522 280,411 281,401 285,756 Percent Change 13.50% 14.27% -2.41% -3.15% 0.35% 1.55% Percent Change 1991-94 26.58% -1.02% -1.30% Wagesd Newe $ 7,931 $ 12,079 $ 2,078 $ 184,051 $ 177,955 $ 119,150 Deletedf 1,539 7,082 3,178 176,250 126,659 113,450 Total $39,049 44,980 47,928 50,736 $42,257 $1,631,612 1,634,454 1,645,181 1,730,917 Percent Change 15.19% 6.55% 5.86% 0.17% 0.66% 5.21% Percent Change 1991-94 29.93% 8.21% 6.09% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data presented by using the 1991 map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-32 Sacramento Program Area Sacramento County 1991 Through 1994 58 Sacramento Program Area Sacramento County 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1991 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 638 324 239 3,217 3,677 2,979 Deletedf 116 242 237 2,586 3,127 3,137 Total 1,017 1,539 1,621 1,623 1,073 21,855 22,486 23,036 22,878 Percent Change 51.33% 5.33% 0.12% 2.89% 2.45% -0.69% Percent Change 1991-94 37.34% 5.22% 4.68% Jobsc Newe 9,823 4,134 1,694 33,378 34,352 23,159 Deletedf 943 2,292 1,900 32,497 25,378 21,754 Total 18,876 26,482 27,254 28,252 19,255 289,522 280,411 281,401 285,756 Percent Change 40.29% 2.92% 3.66% -3.15% 0.35% 1.55% Percent Change 1991-94 33.19% 1.97% -1.30% Wagesd Newe $ 58,776 $ 22,497 $ 8,826 $ 184,051 $ 177,955 $ 119,150 Deletedf 4,402 15,699 8,808 176,250 126,659 113,450 Total $120,602 166,368 168,794 186,040 $128,010 $1,631,612 1,634,454 1,645,181 1,730,917 Percent Change 37.95% 1.46% 10.22% 0.17% 0.66% 5.21% Percent Change 1991-94 35.17% 5.79% 6.09% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data presented by using the 1991 map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-19 San Francisco Enterprise Zone San Francisco County 1992 Through 1994 74 San Francisco Enterprise Zone San Francisco County 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 921 1,862 1,161 3,489 3,858 3,610 Deletedf 681 1,048 1,115 2,552 3,236 3,188 Total 7,781 8,595 8,641 7,895 27,168 27,790 28,212 Percent Change 10.46% 0.54% 2.29% 1.52% Percent Change 1992-94 11.05% 1.47% 3.84% Jobsc Newe 12,424 24,552 9,882 37,488 35,375 30,466 Deletedf 7,151 10,016 8,024 54,549 26,290 33,942 Total 108,400 121,176 123,298 108,214 392,643 397,677 392,945 Percent Change 11.79% 1.75% 1.28% -1.19% Percent Change 1992-94 13.74% -0.17% 0.08% Wagesd Newe $ 87,650 $179,544 $ 59,775 $ 316,819 $ 271,539 $ 236,868 Deletedf 34,629 52,603 43,483 463,498 182,901 215,634 Total 678,387 804,666 843,626 $702,687 3,411,868 3,447,269 3,694,286 Percent Change 18.61% 4.84% 1.04% 7.17% Percent Change 1992-94 24.36% 3.58% 8.28% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data generated by using the year of designation map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. The enterprise zone was designated in May 1992. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-20 San Jose Enterprise Zone Santa Clara County 1991 Through 1994 62 San Jose Enterprise Zone Santa Clara County 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1991 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 279 1,230 572 4,638 5,713 5,088 Deletedf 225 324 470 3,693 4,317 4,316 Total 2,347 2,401 3,307 3,409 2,595 33,747 34,692 36,088 36,860 Percent Change 2.30% 37.73% 3.08% 2.80% 4.02% 2.14% Percent Change 1991-94 45.25% 10.57% 9.22% Jobsc Newe 2,844 13,500 4,488 57,638 58,244 48,178 Deletedf 3,057 2,889 3,590 79,221 46,768 43,894 Total 33,905 33,430 43,497 45,427 34,578 651,253 615,065 622,314 625,882 Percent Change -1.40% 30.11% 4.44% -5.56% 1.18% 0.57% Percent Change 1991-94 33.98% 1.98% -3.90% Wagesd Newe $ 20,453 $ 86,445 $ 22,561 $ 567,888 $ 448,263 $ 395,854 Deletedf 23,312 16,106 28,153 676,481 380,001 370,492 Total $249,276 241,241 314,487 322,688 $251,834 $5,608,010 5,613,879 5,654,932 6,003,333 Percent Change -3.22% 30.36% 2.61% 0.10% 0.73% 6.16% Percent Change 1991-94 29.45% 1.03% 7.05% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data presented by using the 1991 map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-17 San Diego—San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Enterprise Zone San Diego County 1992 Through 1994 62 San Diego—San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Enterprise Zone San Diego County 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 93 59 7,231 8,633 7,450 Deletedf 58 64 5,584 6,875 7,307 Total 294 329 324 324 50,920 52,678 52,821 Percent Change 11.90% -1.52% 3.45% 0.27% Percent Change 1992-94 10.20% 10.20% 3.73% Jobsc Newe 671 335 69,218 86,950 71,203 Deletedf 1,181 360 72,369 58,707 69,151 Total 3,947 3,797 3,774 3,774 666,927 680,347 684,393 Percent Change -3.80% -0.61% 2.01% 0.59% Percent Change 1992-94 -4.38% -4.38% 2.62%$ Wagesd Newe $ 3,368 $ 1,305 $ 377,499 $ 489,114 $ 412,589 Deletedf 3,939 1,317 369,184 335,901 403,372 Total $15,250 15,336 17,005 $17,005 4,136,798 4,128,989 4,331,140 Percent Change 0.57% 10.88% -0.19% 4.90% Percent Change 1992-94 11.51% 11.51% 4.70% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data generated by using the year of designation map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. The enterprise zone was designated in January 1992. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-22 Shasta Metro Enterprise Zone Shasta County 1991 Through 1994 59 Shasta Metro Enterprise Zone Shasta County 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1991 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 145 316 228 554 603 521 Deletedf 109 192 183 396 487 537 Total 1,219 1,255 1,379 1,424 1,333 3,645 3,803 3,919 3,903 Percent Change 2.95% 9.88% 3.26% 4.33% 3.05% -0.41% Percent Change 1991-94 16.82% 9.35% 7.08% Jobsc Newe 874 2,651 1,506 2,748 4,033 2,529 Deletedf 894 1,211 1,052 3,123 2,432 2,445 Total 12,865 12,872 14,218 14,620 13,954 32,573 31,913 32,733 33,392 Percent Change 0.05% 10.46% 2.83% -2.03% 2.57% 2.01% Percent Change 1991-94 13.64% 8.46% 2.51% Wagesd Newe $ 3,613 $11,033 $ 6,111 $ 11,101 $ 16,292 $ 10,503 Deletedf 3,753 4,093 3,959 11,880 8,517 9,573 Total $59,120 61,241 65,708 71,581 $68,015 $152,180 156,650 160,611 173,214 Percent Change 3.59% 7.29% 8.94% 2.94% 2.53% 7.85% Percent Change 1991-94 21.08% 15.05% 13.82% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data presented by using the 1991 map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-23 Shasta Valley Enterprise Zone Siskiyou County 1993 Through 1994 64 Shasta Valley Enterprise Zone Siskiyou County 1993 1994 1994a 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 46 53 154 121 Deletedf 39 45 148 150 Total 326 334 334 1,160 1,131 Percent Change 2.45% -2.50% Percent Change 1993-94 2.45% 2.45% -2.50% Jobsc Newe 386 211 622 576 Deletedf 219 312 634 559 Total 2,987 2,868 2,868 7,522 7,884 Percent Change -3.98% 4.81% Percent Change 1993-94 -3.98% -3.98% 4.81% Wagesd Newe $ 972 $ 696 $ 1,940 $ 1,456 Deletedf 526 687 1,700 1,437 Total 11,098 11,354 $11,354 29,041 31,256 Percent Change 2.31% 7.63% Percent Change 1993-94 2.31% 2.31% 7.63% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data generated by using the year of designation map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. The enterprise zone was designated in June 1993. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-21 Santa Ana Enterprise Zone 63 Orange County 1993 Through 1994 Santa Ana Enterprise Zone Orange County 1993 1994 1994a 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 641 1,650 10,191 8,687 Deletedf 592 670 8,462 8,390 Total 3,876 4,856 3,794 62,777 63,074 Percent Change 25.28% 0.47% Percent Change 1993-94 25.28% -2.12% 0.47% Jobsc Newe 6,879 17,017 106,378 93,479 Deletedf 5,849 6,867 87,643 86,307 Total 64,722 77,259 66,722 889,869 899,289 Percent Change 19.37% 1.06% Percent Change 1993-94 19.37% 3.09% 1.06% Wagesd Newe $ 40,597 $ 93,114 $ 668,632 $ 579,226 Deletedf 38,268 49,523 570,109 496,619 Total 439,525 502,486 $451,971 6,125,145 6,429,628 Percent Change 14.32% 4.97% Percent Change 1993-94 14.32% 2.83% 4.97% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data generated by using the year of designation map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. The enterprise zone was designated in June 1993. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Table C-24 Stockton Enterprise Zone 63 San Joaquin County 1993 Through 1994 Stockton Enterprise Zone San Joaquin County 1993 1994 1994a 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 222 189 1,307 1,029 Deletedf 207 213 1,159 1,081 Total 1,642 1,618 1,618 10,037 9,985 Percent Change -1.46% -0.52% Percent Change 1993-94 -1.46% -1.46% -0.52% Jobsc Newe 2,301 1,640 10,161 7,118 Deletedf 1,458 1,897 8,009 6,950 Total 24,071 23,631 23,631 113,618 114,978 Percent Change -1.83% 1.20% Percent Change 1993-94 -1.83% -1.83% 1.20% Wagese Newe $ 11,681 $ 7,209 $ 44,116 $ 29,858 Deletedf 7,525 8,750 41,486 29,918 Total 143,841 149,674 $149,674 606,437 641,519 Percent Change 4.06% 5.79% Percent Change 1993-94 4.06% 4.06% 5.79% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data generated by using the year of designation map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. The enterprise zone was designated in June 1993. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses 66 Table C-33 West Sacramento Program Area Yolo County 1991 Through 1994 West Sacramento Program Area Yolo County 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1991 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 69 97 76 401 442 367 Deletedf 54 85 56 349 369 357 Total 528 543 555 575 575 3,151 3,203 3,276 3,286 Percent Change 2.84% 2.21% 3.60% 1.65% 2.28% 0.31% Percent Change 1991-94 8.90% 8.90% 4.28% Jobsc Newe 1,804 1,505 1,402 4,815 4,319 2,678 Deletedf 1,073 1,403 349 3,617 3,620 1,854 Total 12,194 12,736 13,200 14,603 14,603 40,724 41,557 42,309 43,975 Percent Change 4.44% 3.64% 10.63% 2.05% 1.81% 3.94% Percent Change 1991-94 19.76% 19.76% 7.98% Wagesd Newe $ 12,205 $ 8,429 $ 12,202 $ 26,071 $ 23,603 $ 15,796 Deletedf 7,796 10,611 2,295 18,426 21,938 7,908 Total $83,083 87,652 94,926 106,675 $106,675 $219,243 232,853 244,851 265,443 Percent Change 5.50% 8.30% 12.38% 6.21% 5.15% 8.41% Percent Change 1991-94 28.39% 28.39% 21.07% Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data presented by using the 1991 map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. Table C-25 Yuba/SutterEnterprise Zone 75 Yuba and Sutter Counties 1991 Through 1994 Yuba/Sutter Enterprise Zone Yuba and Sutter Counties 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994a 1991 1992 1993 1994 Businessesb Newe 106 127 101 378 392 303 Deletedf 68 116 89 251 360 322 Total 736 774 785 797 794 2,813 2,940 2,972 2,953 Percent Change 5.16% 1.42% 1.53% 4.51% 1.09% -0.64% Percent Change 1991-94 8.29% 7.88% 4.98% Jobsc Newe 583 1,043 1,240 1,655 3,105 1,576 Deletedf 312 605 674 1,639 1,600 2,049 Total 7,011 7,086 7,183 7,844 7,838 22,139 21,501 22,295 21,951 Percent Change 1.07% 1.37% 9.20% -2.88% 3.69% -1.54% Percent Change 1991-94 11.88% 11.80% -0.85% Wagesd Newe $ 1,818 $ 4,392 $ 7,280 $ 6,427 $ 11,451 $ 6,971 Deletedf 1,212 2,792 3,607 6,646 6,162 10,756 Total $30,731 30,611 32,009 36,978 $36,941 $101,111 100,445 103,279 103,736 Percent Change -0.39% 4.57% 15.52% -0.66% 2.82% 0.44% Percent Change 1991-94 20.33% 20.21% 2.60% 67 Source: Employment Development Department and Teale Data Center. Note: Totals do not represent the sum of new and deleted. a Data presented by using the 1991 map parameters to extract 1994 employer data. b A business is one with a location within the enterprise zone or program area or the surrounding county. For firms with multiple locations, each location is reported as a business. c Jobs represent a quarterly average count of all workers who worked or received payment for the pay period including the twelfth day of the month. d Wages are total quarterly payroll and are presented in thousands. e New businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear in later years of the period but do not appear in an earlier year. New jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with new businesses. f Deleted businesses are those with business identification numbers that appear one year of the period but not in subsequent years. Deleted jobs and wages are those jobs and wages associated with deleted businesses mments Comments of the California State Auditor on the Response From the California Trade and Commerce Agency To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on the California Trade and Commerce Agency’s (agency) response to our audit report. The numbers correspond to the numbers we have placed in the response. 1 The positive findings are highlighted in Chapter 2 to the degree we believe is appropriate given the following limitations. As we discuss in the report, this data cannot and should not be used to draw definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of the programs for several reasons. Specifically, we did not audit the data. Additionally, as indicated in Appendix B, the accuracy of the data is subject to numerous limitations. Furthermore, a maximum of only four years of data was available which, in our opinion, is not adequate to identify trends. Finally, we could not isolate the effect of zone and area programs from the effects of other influences on economic activity in the enterprise zone and program areas. Because of these limitations, this information alone is not sufficient to evaluate the overall success of the programs. 67 We did not specify 2 the type of data that should be collected. Rather, we recommended that the agency identify performance measures and establish a system to collect complete and reliable data to measure achievements. Further, we recognized that the agency may be unable to collect the necessary information without obtaining it at the local level. As a result, we also recommended that the Legislature consider imposing reporting requirements on businesses in the enterprise zones and program areas as well as on local administrators of the programs. Although the agency 3 contends that the recertification process fulfills the requirement of performing audits, the legislation clearly calls for separate audit and recertification processes. In 1987, the Office 4 of the Auditor General (OAG) recommended that the agency take specific steps to implement a plan of evaluation. However, the agency never implemented the plan and was unable to provide us with a copy of the plan. Although the agency states that it modified the annual report in response to the audits, the annual report falls short as an evaluative tool. As we state on page 10, the data provided is incomplete and the agency does no analysis of the data. Furthermore, as stated in the agency’s response on page 78, the information obtained by the agency for the annual report is provided voluntarily and is sometimes incomplete. The agency has also mischaracterized the recommendations in the OAG’s June 1988 audit report. In the 1988 report, the OAG recommended that, if the agency identifies barriers that limit a business’s ability to use program benefits, it should develop and implement corrective action. However, as we state on page 12, the agency neither prepared nor implemented a corrective plan. 67