Over 150 Pittsburgh-based employers participate in this program and import workers to fill jobs that Pittsburghers either can’t or won’t take. Combined, Pittsburgh H1-B workers will earn over 120 million dollars in the coming 12 months. From a social perspective, this program is great because it is diversifying Pittsburgh by attracting people from a variety of cultures from all over the world. A culturally diverse city is interesting and attractive to potential young leaders who may consider relocating here. From a purely economic perspective, this program is also desirable—corporations get the talent they need without having to relocate, while workers move to America and enjoy meaningful salaries and gain valuable experience. However, from the local workforce development perspective, this program is one way of assessing the real gap between what Pittsburgh employers need and what Pittsburgh residents can provide.

The question is…     Are we focusing on providing training and education in right areas?

Largest Demand Occupation: Software Developer

• Over 1/3rd of the H1-B visas requested were for software developers—586
• 10% of H1-B visas went to Health Diagnosing and Treating Practitioners
• 4 of the top 5 occupations were computer related—Including computer programmers and system analysts
• Engineers rank 15th on the list of hardest-to-fill jobs after 14 other occupations such as financial analysts, management analysts, and database administrators. However, Engineers do cover 14 different occupations and together they represent 64 H1-B Visa applications

Highest Paying Occupation: Obstetrician/Gynecologist ($230,000 annually)

• 3 of the top 5 highest paying occupations are in the medical field—Physicians and Surgeons are the highest paid foreign workers
• The average foreign worker is paid approximately $80,000 per year with a range of $25,000 to $230,000
• Over half (52%) of foreign workers in the H1-B Visa program make more annually than the average salary of Pittsburgh City workers ($68,000)

Other interesting occupations that made the list:

• Chemists
• Operations Research Analysts
• Information Security Analysts
• Accountants
• Statisticians
• Teachers

In just one year, foreign workers have stepped in to fill gaps in 104 different occupations and were hired by 155 different organizations based in Pittsburgh. Some of the $120 million dollars they will receive in the next 12 months will be re-invested back into the Pittsburgh economy; however, some money will likely be remitted to support family in foreign countries. All of the activity ultimately supports the economy. However, the presence of these workers represents an unmet employer need that workforce developers should pay attention to. Pittsburgh-bred talent should be capable of taking the jobs available around them—even if they choose not to. Currently, this is simply not the case. Employers must deal with wage floors from H1-B visas and Pittsburghers must deal with under-employment and unemployment. I believe we can benefit greatly from welcoming foreign talent and from building capacity in Pittsburgh talent. Striking the right balance will require innovative ideas. Not everyone agrees that there is a need for innovation in community and workforce development but I think this program is one of many that makes the case for innovation.

Session Description:

The Integration Initiative is a national model, launched by Living Cities, that takes a new approach to disrupting urban poverty. Because so many of the causes of poverty are linked to outdated systems (such as transportation, health, housing, and workforce development), the Integration Initiative focuses on transforming those systems by building new cross-sector partnerships, moving innovative interventions into the main stream, and driving the private market to work on behalf of low-income people.

You can view the entire presentation here. Alison also captured the panel events on Storify.

CEO pay has been in the news a lot lately.  The AFL-CIO released its annual report showing that the pay gap between the top CEOs and average workers was a stunning 354:1 in 2012, compared to 1982 when the top CEOs earned on average only 42 times the average worker.   In 1982, the CEO would have to work 48 hours to earn as much as the average employee.  By 2012, the CEO would only need to work 6 hours. 

Rick Newman on the U.S. News and World Report blog reported that the pay gap has actually narrowed from the 1990s, when CEO pay was ballooned by the dot.com bubble.  There is some evidence that this is true – that the pay gap has narrowed more recently but the fact that the ratio was once 525:1 and it is now only 354:1 does not mean that the “market” has corrected itself.   Forbes has data that tracks and breaks down CEO pay from 1989 to 2012 and demonstrates the growth and volatility in CEO pay from 1989 to 2012.

One of the items missing from the news analysis is that the numbers reported by the AFL-CIO reflect the pay for top CEOs, who work for large and (often but not always) profitable companies.  We can’t compare employee salaries in these firms, but a good proxy would be the earnings for employees in firms with more than 1,000 employees per establishment.  This data is available from the BLS.  In 2012, these workers earned $82,174 compared to the average pay of $34,635 used in the AFL-CIO report.  This means that the CEO would actually have to work 13 hours (not 6 hours) to make the salary of the average employee of a large firm and these employees would only have to work 149 years, not 354 to make CEO wages.

Executive pay has been receiving increasing amounts of attention, but the real leverage is not so much on the issue of how CEO pay compares to average workers.  After all, workers have no control over the pay of CEOs, but shareholders do.  The Seattle Times has collected data and developed an interactive graphic on CEO compensation and corporate performance.  In the short run (one year) there is very correlation between CEO pay and performance, but the situation is slightly better over a three-year data horizon.  Other studies have shown similar squishy correlations.

You may not think it matters.  You may think that these CEOs merit what they get, and that may even be true.  Unfortunately, a market-based economy does not perform well when there is too much concentration of wealth.  We are approaching a new feudalism wherein wealth and power are concentrated in a corporate nobility with a growing population of vassals supporting their privilege status.   An earlier post on this blog described how the same amount of spending on luxury goods generates less economic impact than “middle-class” spending.  For $1 million you can buy one Maybach or 40 Fords.  The spending on the Maybach will support about 12 jobs, compared to more than 1,200 jobs to produce the 40 Fords.   These disparities in the concentration of wealth therefore have real impacts on the economy.

Collaborative Organizations

Currently, many of the Fourth Economy Consulting clients are in fact groups of organizations and companies working together in collaborative efforts. It’s not a coincidence, and I think it’s very compelling. While collaboration is nothing new, I believe that we all have a long way to go in elevating collaboration to a key organizing principle. Collaboration is becoming more and more fundamental in how we strategize and operate in our communities and economies. What Fourth Economy team members know is something that many experts in sustainability know: the goals of economic development (like the goals of sustainability) cannot be achieved by any single actors or organizations, and in fact must be achieved by enduring collaborative efforts among public and private organizations and other community members.

So, what does this mean for organizations going into the fourth economy? While I do think it’s possible that the reality of “organizations” will be very different in the future (e.g. having fewer in the public sector, and having innovation as a core operating principle), I think it is evident that they will be collaborating more. If you believe that all organizations – public and private – are essentially in some way serving the public good, then the missions of all organizations can be seen as overlapping with each other much more than we see now, including private companies. If organizations see this overlap, it will be irresponsible and inefficient not to collaborate with the many organizations that share their mission in some way. They all will be collaborating more than they are now, and more “collaborations” will exist as high-functioning and critical components of our economic development and regional development efforts.

It’s All Regional

Although I’m giving away my age with this next one, I remember seeing “Think Globally, Act Locally” bumper stickers on cars every time you turned. They were in college dorm rooms and office cubes too. That phrase captured an important theme in the early days of sustainability, and was the first popular phrase that communicated the depth and true systems perspective of sustainability. Today, we’re still absorbing that theme into our economic development thinking. Our economic concerns cannot be adequately addressed by either acting globally (e.g. offshoring or international trade policy), or by thinking locally (e.g. solely about your company’s, city’s concerns). We’re learning that the strengths of companies are in the local/regional economy, and the region’s workforce and infrastructure. As offshoring begins to reverse now, we have a chance to get this right. We must understand all of the value available to our industries that our regions provide, particularly over the long-term, and we must invest in the stability of regional resource supply, education, workforce and quality of life.

Over the last couple of decades, sustainability leaders and thinkers have made clear that the big issues that we are working on together are in fact regional by nature. They are analyzed in terms of watersheds, habitat bioregions, and even airsheds. Some have even started using the phrase “problemshed”, when the problem does not fit easily into any other existing sheds. Globalization taught us that cities, even big ones, can’t compete with Southeast Asia alone. Europe led the way with the development of large multi-city collaboration initiatives starting in the 1990s. Think of the so-called “mega-regions” in the U.S.: Northeast, Great Lakes, and Southern California. 11 U.S. mega-regions have been recognized to-date, and many are working hard to understand their economic strengths. As a sub-region of the Great Lakes mega-region, the Pittsburgh-Cleveland corridor is getting more and more organized for regional economic development through the TechBelt Initiative (powered by Fourth Economy Consulting).

So, I can now offer – with respect to economic development and sustainability – that the new bumper stickers should be: “It’s All Regional.”

While this is a broader theme with many things to take away, it is very significant for our organizations, companies and strategies. Organizations with a “fourth economy” perspective will have to look hard at offshoring. They must understand the regions in which they operate – the workforce, the research that is being done, the companies and organizations that are similar and the opportunities for “coopetition” with them. Do you understand your operations and your destiny from a regional perspective, whether from a recognized metropolitan region perspective or a problemshed perspective? How about the true status and stability of the infrastructure in your region? Regional demands for water in 25 years? Are you involved in a market opportunity network, like the Water Economy Network? Fourth economy organizations apply their well-honed regional perspective to assessing their strategies and plans, the major issues and challenges they face, as well as their opportunities.

Part One?

There are many other themes and aspects of the dynamic and innovation-focused organizations that we’ll see in the fourth economy. Because the whole idea of achieving a more innovative and resilient economy and a more sustainable society is indeed a complex undertaking, our organizations will need to evolve and grow in complexity as well. We’ll at least need a couple more blog posts. Leave a comment to let me know your thoughts and I look forward to continuing the conversation.

 As an option you could say everybody’s going to get up to a $17,000 deduction. And you could use your charitable deduction, your home mortgage deduction, or others — your health care deduction, and you can fill that bucket, if you will, that $17,000 bucket that way. And higher income people might have a lower number.

The MID inspires deep passions.  It is also not likely to be received by the public with any objectivity.  The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)  released a poll showing that the MID was supported by 77 percent of Republicans, 71 percent of Independents and 71 percent of Democrats.  Real estate lobbyists have been arguing for some time that eliminating the MID while the housing market is weak would further destabilize housing.   However home prices and interest rates are so low right now that the benefit that the deduction provides to buyers has been significantly minimized.  As a result, there are new calls that now is exactly the right time to restructure the deduction.

The MID is a huge, off the books subsidy, estimated at $98 billion this year, about which we really know very little and assume a lot. Is that wise?  The MID is estimated at approximately $800 per household this year, but the benefits can vary greatly.  Only one quarter of all tax filers claim it as you have to itemize your deductions. As a result, the top 20 percent of American households get 75 percent of the benefit from the MID, according to The Atlantic’s Matt O’Brien.

Support for the MID is tied up with our support for homeownership.  Homeownership is a worthy goal that signals community stability and commitment.  Investors and corporations look at homeownership rates as a key indicator for economic development.  The problem is that we really haven’t questioned whether the MID actually increases homeownership. By offering a break on mortgage interest do we actually promote homeownership more broadly? Does the deduction of loan interest encourage people to maintain their homes better or should we consider more direct deductions for maintaining and improving homes?

These are tough questions to answer and it is likely that clarity is unattainable on this issues.  It is also possible that the cure may be more harmful than the disease.   At the very least, it would be helpful to outline the pros and cons to provide more meaningful consideration of the benefits and costs of the MID.

Pros of the Mortgage Interest Deduction

• Allowing the deduction of interest makes homeownership more affordable. The MID benefits younger and recent home buyers as the proportion of interest is highest in the early years of a mortgage.

• The NAHB estimates that taxpayers earning less than $200,000 receive approximately 70% of the benefit of the MID.

• Eliminating the deduction, or even reducing it would cause home prices to fall at least in the short run.  Lawrence Yun of the National Association of Realtors, argued against the Simpson-Bowles plan to cap the deduction saying that reducing the deduction would depress prices as buyers realized they could not afford as much house without the deduction.

• A change to the deduction would hurt existing homeowners. If they wanted to sell, they would in theory get less for their house because the value of the deduction would no longer be included in the price.  New homeowners would be able to afford less house for their money.  The effect however will vary with the balance of supply and demand at different price points.

Cons of the Mortgage Interest Deduction

• Georgia State University professor Andrew Hanson’s analysis determined that the MID boosts the annual profits of lenders by more than $10 billion.  The subsidy raises the “price” for the good, which in this case is the interest rate.  According to this research, 9% and 17% of the value of the MID goes to lenders in the form of higher interest rates.

• A 2010 study by researchers at the London School of Economics and Kansas State University found that the MID is not an effective policy to increase homeownership rates.  “… the mortgage interest deduction boosts homeownership rates only in areas with an abundant housing supply, like the Midwest — but only for higher-income households. In denser urban cities with limited housing available, the deduction actually has a negative impact, reducing homeownership and instead inflating housing prices.

• Australia, Canada and Britain have higher rates of homeownership than the United States and they have no allowance to deduct the interest on mortgages from taxes.  Other European countries also have higher rates of homeownership with less government support that generally reflect cultural norms or discrimination against rental housing.

• The comparison in Figure 1 shows that the value of the MID increases dramatically as the interest rate increase and as the size of the mortgage increases.  Figure 2 indexes the MID savings to the base of a $100,000 mortgage at 5 percent interest.  The index clearly shows that the value increases with the size of the mortgage but it is even more valuable with higher interest rates.  These estimates were produced from a tax deduction calculator from BankRate.com to avoid any concern that the numbers were manipulated.

Figure 1

Source:  BankRate.com Tax Deduction Calculator

Figure 2

Source:  BankRate.com Tax Deduction Calculator

Now that you have had a chance to hear the pros and cons and maybe even checked out some of these sources yourselves, consider taking a short survey that asks which arguments you think are most believable and important, as well as what you think is missing.

Since January, we have had incredible opportunities to work with national and local clients as well as volunteer our time. I personally have been to Fargo, ND; Providence, RI; Orlando, FL; Washington, D.C.; Cleveland, OH; York, PA; Charleston, WV; Morgantown, WV; Youngstown, OH; Columbus, OH; Baltimore, MD; and communities throughout Southwestern, PA. I have appreciated the conversations and opportunities that provided this travel and have learned a good deal from my encounters. I’d like to share with you five trends I’ve heard consistently throughout these travels:

1. Economic and community development leaders are searching for a new model as the structures, demands, opportunities, and expectations of stakeholders is different today.
2. The sense of shared opportunity is deeper and more prevalent than ever before.
3. There is a ‘hold out’ group of classic deal-makers that are struggling to adapt to the market reality of collaboration.
4. Balance is the new reality. Whether we are talking about corporate incentives or neighborhood revitalization a balanced approach will crush a lottery approach any day.
5. And finally, consensus is only achieved when someone is brave enough to state their idea and prepared enough to explain and defend it. And while our political leaders have forgotten how this works – you and I are well aware that consensus, while more difficult to achieve, is much better than the screaming.

So, at about 938 days into the life of Fourth Economy – the past 100 or so has been the most exciting and interesting and I am looking forward to what the rest of the year teaches me.

For those keep tracking I did want to share some Fourth Economy news…(did I mention how busy we’ve been?)

First, Chelsea Burket is being promoted to Director, Sustainable Communities. Over the past two years, Chelsea has really honed her engagement skills and perspective on what make sustainable community and economic development. Her passion for community development and style in working with clients has earned her praise and admiration and we wanted to recognize her achievements with this promotion. Check out her blog post this month to see what’s on her mind right now.

Second. Alex Lackner is joining our team to support the Water Economy Network and other clients. Alex joins Fourth Economy bringing a variety of experiences in economic development, organization and collaboration building, and sustainability implementation. The focus of Alex’s recent career experiences has been on developing new strategic organizational initiatives in large public sector organizations and innovative public-private partnerships for sustainable regional development.

Finally, we will soon be welcoming some other faces to the Fourth Economy team and with these additions will try to spend some more time writing about fourth economy ideas. Until then, take care.

What an integrated approach looks like is a question that many are currently working to answer. Like our peers across the country, folks in Pittsburgh have been discussing this question quite a bit lately. For instance, I recently attended a lecture by Majora Carter (sponsored by our friends at the Green Building Alliance and Phipps), who is piloting new ways of using real estate as a tool to create economic diversity in the South Bronx, as opposed to gentrification. This sparked some good conversation afterwards about finding more effective ways to attract investment to largely-vacant neighborhoods in Pittsburgh, while also ensuring that existing residents aren’t priced out and are served by new businesses. I also recently facilitated a panel on the topic of social enterprise for the SBA’s Office of Advocacy featuring Abe Taleb, Justine Kaszinca, and Roi Ben-Itzhak, three leaders among our burgeoning social enterprise sector. One question many in the sector are trying to answer is, as social enterprise attempts to solve social problems through innovation and for-profit models, how to do we encourage social entrepreneurship among and for the urban poor? And finally, I am organizing a panel for the upcoming PCRG Community Development Summit featuring The Living Cities’ Integration Initiative. Their approach aims to move away from program delivery to transforming systems; build a civic infrastructure that bring people from across sectors together to address common problems; redirect funds away from ineffective approaches towards innovative approaches; and drive the private market to work on behalf of low-income people. I am really looking forward to being able to have this discussion with a room full of community and economic development practitioners from around our region.

Of course ultimately what an integrated approach to community and economic development looks like is going to be different in every community. When we work with communities to create economic development strategies, we always start with developing an understanding of the unique nature of that community, both through qualitative and quantitative data, and then work with stakeholders through an iterative process in order to craft a strategy. Two recent projects highlight this approach. The first was a project in the Mahoning Valley of Ohio, where we used the collective impact model to help a group of community stakeholders identify a common priority and road map to collaboratively addressing that priority. The other was the economic development analysis that we conducted as part of Rhode Island’s Sustainable Communities planning. For both of these projects, we crafted a process that was totally unique to meet the needs of those communities, while still utilizing our underlying approach of combining quantitative and qualitative information and engaging stakeholders throughout the process. Though lots of pieces of an integrated approach are being tested throughout the country (many featured in this fantastic collection of essays) every community will need its own approach, definitely informed by experiences across the nation, but also by voices of the people who call that community home.

Moving forward, we are excited about helping to further the discussion around what an integrated approach to community and economic development looks like, and to working with communities to help them answer the question for themselves. Ultimately, we believe that such an approach will not only help address persistent poverty, but will also lead to more sustainable local economies.

But rankings are only one part of a very complex economic performance story. Compounding their use and reliability is the fact that not all adopt the most rigorous, relevant or transparent methods.  And positive or negative scores do not impact all business investment decision-making in the same way.

The challenge is to find the most valid and relevant rankings.  With that goal in mind, it is critical to examine the data points that make up the rankings and how they may align with an overall economic development strategy discussion. Four key cautionary points should be considered when.

1. Bundled Thinking

Rankings too often view all places as equal. While they may adjust for population or other normalizing methods, they cannot easily reflect or adjust for region’s culture, history, diversity, unique assets or strategic goals. Some industry sectors for instance are highly cost driven or demand interstate access while others value research, talent and access to venture capital. And rankings that do dig deeper into sector performance or asset analysis assume that those sectors or assets are valued equally for all states or regions. Obviously neither is always the case.

2. Media Outlets

Ranking and “best places” reports produced by media outlets and travel publications are very popular but also need to be considered within the context of their central business mission. While some media organizations may have the resources to conduct rigorous ranking analyses, in the end they are reliant on advertisers and readership. While this fact may not directly influence the analysis, it is a consideration when comparing those efforts with other more independent research and ranking organizations.

3. Self-Reporting and Surveys

Rankings developed through self-reporting and surveys may provide a snapshot of business climate or performance through a narrow point of view. CEO surveys and expansion project competitions are examples of how some of these rankings are developed. The approach can raise questions on the quality and validity of the survey tool, marketing efforts and response rates. Again, while they may be useful in the context of a single performance metric or area, they may not offer an accurate reflection of a states broader economic performance, value or capacity to perform.

4. Ability to Affect Ranking Performance

Place based factors such as climate, neighboring metros, and natural assets such as lakes, mountains and beaches are all subject to personal preferences and experiences. While these factors are beyond the control of any policy maker, they still influence and are part of many best place rankings. It is critical to determine to what degree a ranking and the measures within those rankings can actually be influenced or changed and in what time frame. Understanding the methods and reasoning behind rankings can greatly enhance a state’s ability to plan strategically and address key performance measures.
While it is likely that rankings will always be part of the overall performance or competitive evaluation and landscape, no two states or communities are identical. The very nature of rankings presents a linear type of thinking that does not necessarily reflect the dynamic condition, assets and opportunities that lie within each unique location. So as the new ranking season gets underway, remember to dig a bit deeper into specific measures that make up those rankings to determine what is most relevant to your strategic planning.

Jim Woodell, Director of Innovation and Technology Policy at the Association of Public and Land-Grant Institutions (APLU), updated UEDA members on new thinking and models to measure economic development impact and performance. APLU and UEDA have formed a new working partnership in recent months and will continue to work together on this and other economic development areas.

Jeff Finkle, President and CEO of the International Economic Development Council (IEDC) updated the group on the work of IEDC that involves higher education. This includes the Economic Development Research Partnership which is an investor led group providing research into some of economic developments most discussed topics.
The Economic Development Administration’s (EDA) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regional Affairs Thomas Guevara concluded the presentations highlighting the critical intersections that exist between higher education, the private sector and public policy. “Together we must remain focused on ensuring that the four pillars of an innovation eco-system which are 1) Basic Research, 2) Applied Research, 3) Technology Development, and 4) Commercialization, remain strong in our country,” Guevara said. “Each is found and should be nurtured within our nation’s universities as central component to our overall competitiveness.”

Fourth Economy will continue to help advance UEDA’s mission throughout the year.  Additional town-gown topics will be heard and connections made this October 27-30, 2013 in Pittsburgh as the City plays host to the national UEDA Annual Summit.  For more information and to become a member of UEDA visit www.universityeda.org.

“Our aggressive first-year plan includes spearheading a water innovation challenge program, coordinating work plans with several national water innovation collaboratives, co-hosting a major international water innovation conference in Pittsburgh and continuing to identify water sector challenges and the market opportunities they represent,” Johnson added.

“It is important that this group focus on doing, not planning,” said Network Vice Chair, Jack Adams, director of government affairs for Calgon Carbon. “Too often these types of efforts spend too much time discussing what can be done rather than taking action. Thus far I have seen this group of business and community leaders coalesce quickly around specific targeted activities and engage in their implementation,” Adams added.

The Network’s 2013 work plan defines a water innovation initiative which will provide competitive seed grant funding for innovative solutions that address one of the Network’s five focus areas: 1) Fossil Energy and Water nexus; 2) Industrial Water Retention and Storage; 3) Navigation and Monitoring, 4) Water Reuse and Treatment; and 5) Green Infrastructure/Storm Water Management.

Additional work plan highlights include helping to advance the Port of Pittsburgh’s “Wireless Waterway Network” project, collecting inventory on regional water sector innovations and business start-ups, identifying green and innovative solutions as the region focuses on green infrastructure for storm water management and joining forces with the American Middle East Institute’s Business Conference on Water Innovation to be held in Pittsburgh in October of this year. The Network also will play a role in several high-profile water-related media events throughout the year.

“It is important that we tell the story that the greater Pittsburgh and tri-state region is home to a growing and thriving water industry cluster,” said Dewitt Peart, Network Board member and president of the Pittsburgh Regional Alliance. “There are more than 3,000 water related firms already doing business in the southwestern Pennsylvania region that sustain more than 34,000 jobs. Water already represents more than $5 billion in direct economic activity,” Peart added.

Next month the Water Economy Network will play host to Sally Gutierrez, director of innovation clusters at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), who will be meeting with the Network Board in Pittsburgh to discuss how the regional Network can engage and help to advance national cluster strategies for water sector development. “Already connections between our Board members and with key policy leaders like Gutierrez has opened up new opportunities and a new way of thinking on how best to manage our water resources and related technologies going forward,” said Sam Johnson.

“CONSOL, like many energy companies, understands the critical link water plays in energy production. We must think creatively about how to preserve and utilize the resource in ways that make sense from both a market and environmental perspective,” Johnson added.

About the Water Economy Network

The Water Economy Network is part of Fourth Economy’s organizational development services and practice area. Founded in November of 2012, the Water Economy Network is now an industry-led collaborative whose mission is to help regional water sector stakeholders access new business opportunities, encourage new company formation through innovative technology development and deployment, and attract both national and international water related industry to the Greater Pittsburgh region.

Board members include representatives from Allegheny Conference, Aquatech Inc., Bayer Materials, Calgon Carbon, CONSOL Energy, LANXESS, Port of Pittsburgh, URS Corporation, Sustainable Pittsburgh, and Veolia. The Network’s Resource Partners include Carnegie Mellon University, Idea Foundry, Innovation Works, and the National Energy Technology Laboratory.

More information on the work plan and the Water Economy Network can be found at www.watereconomynetwork.org. To become a board member or to support the Water Economy Network, please contact Stephen McKnight at steve.mcknight@watereconomynetwork.org
or steve.mcknight@fourtheconomyconsulting.com.