You asked for an overview of the organizational structures used in certain other states with respect to state agencies providing economic development related programs and services. You wanted to know if any of the selected states (1) group all of the related agencies under one roof, instead of in several free standing agencies or (2) provide “one stop shopping” for delivering economic development related services and, if so, what agency coordinates.

Given the relatively contrained time frame for providing a response, we have confined our research to information readily available through sources such as agency websites. We were able to get information from these sources for 15 states as follows: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, and Washington.

SUMMARY

The predominant approach in the 15 states we looked at was, like Connecticut, to have multiple relatively freestanding agencies responsible for different aspects of economic development. We found three states (California, New York, and Vermont) that vary from this approach by placing several departments with responsibilities for different economic development activities within a single overarching agency. Even in these cases however, these states still had economic development entities that existed outside this structure as freestanding bodies. Two states (Massachusetts and Pennsylvania) have a third variation in which an entity associated with the governor’s office performs certain coordinating functions among the independent agencies.

Most states, including Connecticut, have economic development agencies websites that provide one-stop information on aid, taxes, regulations, and economic conditions.

AGENCY STRUCTURE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENTITIES

We found three basic structural variants among the states examined. The predominant approach evidenced by most of the states was to have multiple relatively freestanding agencies responsible for different aspects of economic development. Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, and Washington appear to use this approach. Three states—California, New York, and Vermont—follow a structural model that appears to place several departments with responsibility for different aspects of economic development together within a single overarching agency. However, in no state did this appear to be all-inclusive. For example, in California the overarching agency called the Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency includes 16 subordinate departments including: Housing and Community Development, Office of Military and Aerospace Support, Commerce and Economic Development, and California Housing Agency. But the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank exists as a separate freestanding entity.

The Vermont Agency of Commerce and Community Development includes the Economic Development, Housing and Community Affairs, and Tourism and Marketing departments, but the Vermont Economic Development Authority, Vermont Economic Progress Council, Vermont Film Corporation, and Department of Taxes all exist separately outside of the overarching agency. In New York, the Empire State Development Corporation also includes the Job Development Authority, but several other entities including the housing finance agency; film and television development office; housing and community renewal office; and science, technology, and academic research office all exist separately.

Massachusetts and Pennsylvania exemplify the third variant we found. In these states, an entity associated with the governor’s office orchestrates the functions of several departments and freestanding offices. In Massachusetts, this coordinating function is performed by the Executive Office for Economic Development Business Resource Team. It coordinates the functions of the Department of Business and Technology, the Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Workforce Development. In Pennsylvania, a group of projects managers on the Governor’s Action Team work with staff in various program offices to help coordinate resources, provide technical assistance, and assist businesses in reaching their goals. The Governor’s Action Team is part of the state Department of Economic Development. In both states, however, other entities with different roles in economic development still exist outside these coordinating structures.

Most state economic development agency web pages provide one-stop information about economic development aid and taxes, regulations, and economic conditions. In Connecticut, the non-profit Connecticut Economic Resource Center also provides on-line access to information about federal, state, and local economic development agencies and programs. Its Program Finder allows businesses and other groups to search for information by agency, program, and key word (http: //products. cerc. com/brinfo. nsf/homepagefrm?OpenForm).

Table 1 shows the data for the 15 states.

Table 1: Selected States Economic Development Agency Structures

-Continued-

-Continued-

-Continued-

JR/JF: ts