“The test allows communities to assess their strengths and weaknesses as well as benchmark themselves against other jurisdictions that have also taken the test”

David Soule

In this recorded interview, David Soule, associate director of the Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University, discusses the development of the Self-Assessment Tool, which grew out of discussions with the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties on why it hadn’t been investing in the state’s older industrial cities. Mr. Soule spoke about the Self-Assessment Tool at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy’s Comeback Cities forum in October. The Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston was a sponsor of the event.

The Self-Assessment Tool for Economic Development is designed to help municipal jurisdictions or counties test their readiness for economic development. We have developed 34 important factors that firms consider when making location decisions.

The factors are based on extensive research with location consultants. The tested jurisdictions need to answer 190 questions, each of which rolls up into one of 34 factors. Each factor is assigned a category of importance. The assessment will indicate if a community is weaker or stronger than its peers in an area considered very important to the market.

The test allows communities to assess their strengths and weaknesses as well as benchmark themselves against other jurisdictions that have also taken the test. We don’t give an overall grade.

The test indicates if a municipality is strong or weak in an area considered important to location decisions. A municipality may not be able to do anything about high labor costs or proximity to a highway interchange, but it at least will know its strengths and weaknesses. If a jurisdiction is weak in an important area, it will have to think about compensating strategies; if it is strong in an area, it will need to maintain its edge.

The online Self-Assessment Tool has been fully beta tested with a group of communities in Massachusetts, and we are now beginning to make it available to communities around New England and across the country.

The 34 factors include the permitting process; labor supply; development and operating costs; tax rates; land costs; rental rates; infrastructure; brownfields; mix of businesses; reputation as a good place to work; parking; proximity to research universities and transportation; amenities such as restaurants and shops; level of congestion; overall quality of life; affordable housing; crime rate; physical attractiveness; cultural and sports activities; and quality of schools.

The main factors are ranked in order of importance and include three categories: very important, important, and less important. Housing, for example, falls in the middle category.

To test the tool, we picked Massachusetts cities that were experiencing stress and had factors associated with them that might not be appearing on the radar screens of officials marketing the state. The 12 cities tested include Chelsea, Lawrence, Haverhill, Revere, Fitchburg, Brockton, Springfield, and Worcester. We invited them to participate and asked each to pay $5,000 of the $10,000 cost of each assessment. We received a state grant to cover the rest of the cost.

We have so far received significant testimonials from the tested cities. Springfield has published the results on its web site and is using them to retool its economic development process. Chelsea has decided to share its test results with developers that express interest in the community. Many of the participants say the test has given them a good overview of the factors involved in location decisions.

I think all of the cities that have taken the test have been reporting an uptick in development activity. Reviving cities involves hard work, a willingness to take a thoughtful review of a community’s circumstances, a willingness to be in it for the long haul, and the recognition that there is no magic wand.T