manufacturers

Results

What the Data Show

24,722 Manufacturers served in FY2006
MEP has completed over 330,000 customer engagements since the program’s inception including technical assistance projects, training programs, networking events and long-term strategic support.

FY2005* CLIENT IMPACTS AS A DIRECT RESULT OF MEP ACTIVITIES

• Increased/Retained Sales - $6.25 billion
• New Sales - $2.842 billion
• Retained Sales - $3.408 billion
• Cost Savings - $1.304 billion
• New Client Investment in Modernization - $2.248 billion
• Jobs Created - 17,453
• Jobs Retained - 35,766

*Independent follow-up of clients with projects completed in FY2005. Of the 5,261 clients selected to be surveyed, 4,726 completed the survey in FY2006. Measures are a conservative snapshot of benefits. Recurring or cumulative benefits may be larger.

Independent Studies

Systematic evaluation studies have confirmed that the MEP is having a positive effect on businesses and the economy…has achieved national coverage and established local service partnerships…and most important…MEP services are leading to desired business and economic goals…”

 -- Philip Shapira, Ph.D., Georgia Tech University1

Benefits to GA Manufacturers

Georgia MEP clients surveyed reported manufacturing benefits in the following areas:

• Improvements to an existing process
• Improvements in management skills
• Improvements in employee skills
• Improvements in an existing product or service

Furthermore, comparing Georgia MEP clients with non-clients found that working with
the Georgia MEP increased the value-added of the average client plant by up to nearly
$1,000,000 between 2002 and 2004.(2)

PA Manufacturers Post Positive Productivity Gains

A study of Pennsylvania’s Industrial Resource Centers (IRC) found that the program
boosted the labor productivity of IRC clients by an average of between 3.6 and 5.0
percentage points per year. The study found that these productivity gains raised gross
state products by about $1.9 billion. Finally, the study found that for every state dollar
invested in the program, the program generated almost $22 of additional income to the
state economy.3 In 2004, Deloitte Consulting, LLP was asked to conduct a vigorous
independent analysis of IRC performance and impact on the Pennsylvania economy.
Deloitte found that previous assessments of IRC impact, most recently in 1999, have
been sustained, even in more challenging conditions between 1999 and 2003.(4)

Higher Productivity Growth for MEP Clients

Researchers at The Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau, found that
manufacturing extension clients experienced between 3.4 and 16 percent more growth
in labor productivity over a five-year period than similar non-client firms. The productivity
growth of the 1,559 firms studied translates into $484 million in additional value-added
at client firms.(5)

Based on these results, a second study estimated that this value-added increase
translates into $1.3 billion in additional economic output over 5 years, leading to $213
million in additional federal revenues and a $4.47 increase in real disposable income
per capita.(6)

Value-Added Income and Jobs for NY

A New York Manufacturing Extension Partnership study found that the state’s $5.3
million investment in the program between July 1995 and March 1997, combined with
the federal investment, generated an additional $227 million of value-added income in
New York State. This growth, in turn, led to the creation of 2,600 jobs.(7)

GAO Survey Positive

An independent survey of MEP clients by the General Accounting Office found MEP
had a positive effect on a firm’s performance in the areas of: (8)

• profits
• sales
• product quality
• workplace technology
• worker productivity
• customer satisfaction

Multiplier Impacts on the Alabama State Economy

Between 1997 and 2000, the Alabama Technology Network (ATN) helped its clients
increase sales by $205 million, create or retain 2,434 jobs, create additional investment
of $53 million, and save $10 million in material and labor costs (Source: ATN).
An Auburn University study found that these impacts generated the following additional
impacts on the Alabama state economy.(9)

Sources

1. “Issues in Science and Technology”, Spring 1998, “Extending Manufacturing Extension,” - Philip Shapira, Ph.D
2. Georgia Tech Policy Project on Industrial Modernization, December 2005
3. “The Pennsylvania Industrial Resource Center: Assessing the Record and Charting the Future,” by Nexus Associates, Inc. for the Ben Franklin/IRC Partnership Board. October 1999.
4. ”Manufacturing Pennsylvania’s Future: Regional Strategies that Build from Current Strengths and Address Competitive Challenges,” for the Industrial Resource Centers (IRCs) of Pennsylvania, Department of Community and Economic Development, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Team PA Foundation, January 2004.
5. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, “Evaluating the Impact of Manufacturing
   Extension on Productivity Growth,” by Ronald S. Jarmin, Winter 1999.
6. “Estimating Economic Impacts of Government Technology Programs: Manufacturing Studies Using the REMI Model,” by M.A. Ehlen and S.F. Weber, economists for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 1997.
7. “Evaluation of the New York Manufacturing Extension Partnership,” by Nexus Associates for New York State Science and Technology Foundation/Empire State Development, 1997.
8. “Manufacturing Extension Programs: Manufacturers’ Views of Services,” U.S. General
   Accounting Office, Report GAO/GGK-95-216BR, August 1995.
9. “Estimated Economic Impact of the Alabama Technology Network on the State of Alabama (1997-2000),” Dr. Keivan Deravi, Professor of Economics at Auburn University in Montgomery, 2002.