Skip to content
Portland Civic Lab
Support
Nov 3, 202631 days until Election DayCompare 153 candidates in 48 races in our free, nonpartisan voters’ guideOpen the guideFollow the campaign money
Portland Civic Lab / Deep divesState of small business · 2026

An economy. A livelihood. A public choice.

Small business.
Big questions.

Portland loves its small businesses.
How well do we actually help them thrive?

A visual investigation of the businesses we have, the work they support, the pressures they face, and what it would take to make Portland an exceptional place to build a sustainable business.

Explore the evidence
The regional pictureCensus · 2022
50.2%

of metro employer jobs are at
enterprises with fewer than 500 employees.

Jobs
50.2%
Payroll
41.0%
Receipts
35.4%
Three measures.
Three different answers.

Portland–Vancouver–Hillsboro metro. Employer businesses only. Receipts are not GDP. Source ↗

Evidence through September 30, 2026City questions · County and metro data clearly labeledMethods & downloadable data ↗
01

The picture in focus

A business is small. Its effects are not.

The useful question is whether Portland makes it easier to earn a sustainable living, create good jobs, and provide things people need. More business registrations alone will not tell us.

A restaurant is a small business. So is a therapist’s practice, a subcontractor, a home-care provider, a design studio, a repair shop, or a consultant working alone. Some owners want to expand. Others want a dependable income and control over their time. Their problems overlap, but a single “entrepreneurship” program cannot meet all their needs.

The evidence points to a region with a substantial small-enterprise economy, an uneven recovery, and a support system whose activity is easier to count than its effects. That leaves Portland with a real opportunity: make the journey from a viable idea to a viable livelihood easier to complete, and measure whether it worked.

01 / StructurePortland is unusually small-firm-intensive.

The pattern survives a broad industry-mix adjustment against eight selected peers.

02 / ProsperityBusiness counts are not a living standard.

Receipts, payroll and survival each tell us something. None alone tells us whether owners and workers thrive.

03 / AccountabilityWe can count contacts. Can we count solved problems?

That is the missing bridge between helping a business and proving public value.

Figure 01

Three geographies. Different questions.

The policy focus is Portland city. The most reproducible firm-size comparisons cover a larger economy.

City of Portland112,411

“Small-business” jobs reported for 2024

Best city policy lens; reported size unit needs confirmation.
Multnomah County439,591

Employer jobs in 2022 SUSB

Useful county detail; includes places outside the city and omits its other county portions.
Portland–Vancouver–Hillsboro1,084,535

Metro employer jobs in 2022 SUSB

The regional labor market; the basis for most size comparisons in this report.
Portland city crosses county boundaries. Multnomah County includes communities outside Portland. The interstate metro includes suburban employment centers and Vancouver; these populations are not interchangeable.Insights and Indicators 2025 ↗2022 SUSB county enterprise size workbook ↗2022 SUSB MSA 3-digit NAICS dataset ↗
02

The size question

How small is small?

Change the threshold and the answer moves from about one job in five to one job in two. That is a definition change, not an economic transformation.

We use two transparent Census enterprise thresholds: fewer than 20 employees and fewer than 500. Neither is a universal legal definition of a small business. Program eligibility can depend on industry, revenue, ownership and geography. A location with ten employees can belong to an enterprise with thousands; a locally owned franchise may have a different ownership and operating structure again.

Figure 02

Small enterprises account for half the jobs—but less of the money.

Portland–Vancouver–Hillsboro metro · 2022 · Shares of employer-business totals

50.2%

of metro employer jobs

At enterprises with fewer than 500 employees across the entire enterprise.

50.2%Jobs
41.0%Payroll
35.4%Receipts

One square is one percentage point. A local location of a national chain is counted with its parent enterprise. Nonemployers are outside this chart.

Read the data table
Enterprise employeesMetro jobsJobs sharePayroll shareReceipts share
Under 556,5355.2%4.0%4.0%
5–963,4335.8%3.9%3.5%
10–1983,6017.7%5.4%4.4%
20–99191,44817.7%14.3%12.0%
100–499149,83813.8%13.4%11.5%
500+539,68049.8%59.0%64.6%
Employment is measured in mid-March; payroll and receipts cover the year. Enterprise size is measured across the whole firm. Census disclosure-noise flags are preserved in the download; estimates are rounded here.2022 SUSB MSA 3-digit NAICS dataset ↗SUSB methodology ↗Download data ↓
Figure 03

The businesses between a solo practice and a corporate giant.

Portland metro · 2022 · Employer payroll jobs by enterprise size

5.2%
5.8%
7.7%
17.7%
13.8%
49.8%
Under 5 employees56,535 jobs
5–9 employees63,433 jobs
10–19 employees83,601 jobs
20–99 employees191,448 jobs
100–499 employees149,838 jobs
500+ employees539,680 jobs
Six nonoverlapping bins sum to 1,084,535 employer jobs. The under-20 and under-500 thresholds used elsewhere overlap; do not add them together.2022 SUSB MSA 3-digit NAICS dataset ↗Download data ↓

Why payroll and receipts tell a different story

An under-500 employment share of 50.2% coexists with a 41.0% payroll share and a 35.4% receipts share. The composition of work matters: industries differ in wages, hours, capital, intermediate purchases and the scale at which production makes sense. These aggregate shares cannot establish that a particular small firm is inefficient or that a large firm creates more public benefit.

They do establish why “small businesses are most of our businesses” is an incomplete argument for any particular subsidy. A firm count gives a one-person practice and a large employer one unit each. Jobs, owner earnings, useful services and fiscal costs belong in the decision too.

The question we cannot honestly give a pie chart

What share of Portland GDP comes from small business?

A defensible city split is not established here. GDP measures value added, not sales or employment. BEA’s small-business estimates are experimental and no longer regularly produced. BEA’s status note ↗

Read the GDP feasibility memo
What it would take to estimate the GDP split

Start with a geographic output total and reconcile its sector coverage. Estimate value added by enterprise size within industries using compatible payroll, production and income information. Treat nonemployers separately. Identify government, owner-occupied housing and unallocated activity rather than assigning the remainder to “big business.” Then test how assumptions about productivity, profit, geography and enterprise affiliation change the result.

Multiplying local GDP by a national small-business percentage would merely import the national answer. Multiplying by the local employment share would assume away the productivity question we are trying to investigate. Both would look precise while leaving the central problem unsolved.

A model could eventually be useful, but only as a labeled scenario with a sensitivity range and reconciliation to the output accounts—not as an observed fact.

03

The businesses behind the image

Look beyond the storefront.

The visible economy is only part of the economy. Health care, construction, professional services and solo work deserve as much attention as restaurants and retail.

Figure 04

What Portland’s employer economy actually does.

Portland metro · 2022 · Broad industry sectors, all enterprise sizes

Enterprise under 500Enterprise 500+
Health care
165,698
Retail
121,817
Manufacturing
113,841
Accommodation/food
100,485
Professional
85,883
Construction
82,002
Administrative
63,727
Wholesale
60,441
Transport
47,592
Management
47,333
Finance
46,368
Other services
44,510
Information
29,344
Education
26,392
Real estate
23,358
Arts and recreation
17,212
Utilities
5,771
Agriculture
2,274
Mining
422

Switching from jobs to firms changes the picture. Many small practices can coexist with a few very large health systems. Enterprise counts may recur across industries; do not add sector firm counts as unique firms.

Read the data table
SectorAll employer jobsUnder-500 jobsAll firmsAnnual payroll
Health care165,69871,1507,083$10,626,422,000
Retail121,81743,6914,855$4,962,872,000
Manufacturing113,84150,1882,941$9,759,784,000
Accommodation/food100,48569,2125,217$2,842,986,000
Professional85,88354,6258,870$8,740,718,000
Construction82,00262,1578,366$6,614,793,000
Administrative63,72734,9453,501$3,048,521,000
Wholesale60,44130,9812,946$5,379,331,000
Transport47,59215,2012,029$2,638,813,000
Management47,3334,615359$6,998,318,000
Finance46,36813,6642,217$5,033,764,000
Other services44,51037,8445,710$2,004,240,000
Information29,34411,0181,111$3,435,723,000
Education26,39215,4291,101$1,040,249,000
Real estate23,35815,0613,482$1,455,539,000
Arts and recreation17,21212,9051,132$737,920,000
Utilities5,77113342$713,444,000
Agriculture2,2741,776243$143,621,000
Mining42219527$36,493,000
Green shows the under-500 portion within each sector; rust shows 500+. Payroll is annual, jobs are mid-March. Sector firm counts may overlap for enterprises operating in multiple industries.2022 SUSB MSA 3-digit NAICS dataset ↗Download data ↓

Essential services

A clinic, childcare provider or home-care business creates value partly through access, reliability and continuity. Growth without affordable services or sustainable staffing can miss the public purpose.

Production and trades

A fabricator or contractor needs space, equipment, power, skilled people, customers and working capital. A marketing workshop addresses only a fraction of that operating model.

Knowledge and independent work

A professional practice can sell beyond the region with little physical footprint. Its scarce resources may be reputation, contracts, specialized skills and the owner’s time.

77,829nonemployer businesses

Multnomah County’s 2023 tax-reporting businesses without paid employees had $4.27 billion in gross receipts. They are absent from the employer-size charts. Census NES ↗

Figure 05

The solo economy has its own shape.

Multnomah County · 2023 · Top ten sectors under the selected measure

Professional
15,372
Transport
10,637
Arts and recreation
9,131
Health care
7,373
Real estate
7,043
Other services
5,620
Administrative
4,333
Retail
4,171
Construction
3,931
Education
3,361
Read the data table
SectorNonemployer businessesGross receipts
Professional15,372$754,842,000
Transport10,637$443,507,000
Arts and recreation9,131$231,804,000
Health care7,373$385,458,000
Real estate7,043$994,451,000
Other services5,620$224,701,000
Administrative4,333$136,566,000
Retail4,171$294,203,000
Construction3,931$309,021,000
Education3,361$59,234,000
Information2,001$75,753,000
Accommodation/food1,610$80,494,000
Manufacturing1,139$72,596,000
Finance999$89,135,000
Wholesale812$96,296,000
Agriculture266$15,521,000
Utilities16$4,677,000
Mining14$3,657,000
Nonemployers are tax-reporting businesses without paid employees, generally subject to federal income tax and minimum receipts thresholds. Mailing address may differ from workplace. This population can include side businesses; receipts are not owner earnings.2023 Nonemployer Statistics county file ↗Nonemployer Statistics methodology ↗Download data ↓

A business without employees is not a business without work.

The owner may be doing sales, production, bookkeeping and customer service, sometimes alongside another job. Supporting these firms can improve independence and income even if they never hire. Conversely, a rise in nonemployer activity can reflect people piecing together income after losing stable work. The counts alone cannot distinguish opportunity from necessity.

Do not add the 2023 county nonemployer count to the 2022 metro employer count and call it “Portland’s businesses.” The geography, year and unit differ. A useful future city inventory would link active operating locations to enterprises while retaining solo activity, franchises, local ownership, nonprofits and unknown affiliations as distinct dimensions.

04

The comparison

Small firms matter more here. Is that a strength?

Portland has a higher small-enterprise job share than most of our selected peers. The relationship remains after controlling for broad industry mix. The interpretation still requires judgment.

Figure 06

Compare the same measure across the same year.

Nine U.S. metropolitan areas · 2022 · Enterprise employment thresholds

Sacramento
50.4%
PortlandOR–WA metro
50.2%
Austin
48.1%
Minneapolis
45.8%
Denver
45.2%
Pittsburgh
44.9%
Seattle
43.9%
Indianapolis
42.7%
Salt Lake City
42.0%

For context, the job-weighted share across all 387 metros is 47.5% at this threshold. The selected cities are comparisons, not a “best place” ranking.

Read the data table
MetroObserved shareDisplayed share
Sacramento50.4%50.4%
Portland50.2%50.2%
Austin48.1%48.1%
Minneapolis45.8%45.8%
Denver45.2%45.2%
Pittsburgh44.9%44.9%
Seattle43.9%43.9%
Indianapolis42.7%42.7%
Salt Lake City42.0%42.0%
Observed shares use each metro’s employer totals. The optional adjustment uses Portland’s 19 broad-sector job weights; it controls industry composition only. Geography, detailed specialization, firm age and enterprise structure still differ.2022 SUSB MSA 3-digit NAICS dataset ↗Download data ↓
The case for strength

A broad base of independent activity

A high small-firm share may reflect accessible ownership opportunities, specialized supplier networks, professional practices, locally useful services and an ability to start modestly. Many of those benefits are real even when the business does not become a national brand.

The competing explanation

A shortage of scale, anchors or alternatives

The same share can be high because there are fewer large employers, because businesses struggle to grow, or because people cannot find attractive paid work. Portland cannot resolve those possibilities by celebrating the share itself.

Figure 07

Zoom out to metropolitan America.

2022 · Share of employer jobs at enterprises with fewer than 500 employees

20%30%40%50%60%70%80%Rochester, MN: 35.7%; 118,610 jobsDurham-Chapel Hill, NC: 35.9%; 294,892 jobsBloomington, IL: 37.0%; 74,674 jobsSan Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA: 37.0%; 1,147,117 jobsColumbus, IN: 37.5%; 45,508 jobsIthaca, NY: 37.6%; 48,098 jobsSpartanburg, SC: 37.6%; 151,851 jobsHinesville, GA: 37.6%; 14,855 jobsMorgantown, WV: 38.1%; 55,620 jobsElkhart-Goshen, IN: 38.4%; 143,423 jobsHarrisburg-Carlisle, PA: 38.6%; 292,594 jobsOrlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL: 38.6%; 1,192,927 jobsKokomo, IN: 38.7%; 29,731 jobsRome, GA: 39.1%; 39,305 jobsDecatur, IL: 39.2%; 43,742 jobsLouisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN: 39.8%; 630,363 jobsOshkosh-Neenah, WI: 39.9%; 90,158 jobsLakeland-Winter Haven, FL: 40.0%; 223,169 jobsMidland, MI: 40.1%; 34,863 jobsMorristown, TN: 40.2%; 40,949 jobsHagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV: 40.4%; 95,750 jobsColumbus, OH: 40.5%; 933,569 jobsBattle Creek, MI: 40.6%; 47,549 jobsAllentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ: 40.8%; 352,044 jobsDes Moines-West Des Moines, IA: 40.9%; 350,871 jobsSan Antonio-New Braunfels, TX: 40.9%; 946,286 jobsIowa City, IA: 41.0%; 75,684 jobsFayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR: 41.1%; 230,601 jobsRocky Mount, NC: 41.3%; 50,447 jobsNashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN: 41.4%; 953,416 jobsTrenton-Princeton, NJ: 41.4%; 200,283 jobsColumbus, GA-AL: 41.8%; 98,196 jobsCincinnati, OH-KY-IN: 41.8%; 1,003,391 jobsFlorence, SC: 41.9%; 82,329 jobsMemphis, TN-MS-AR: 42.0%; 544,567 jobsSalt Lake City-Murray, UT: 42.0%; 676,512 jobsBowling Green, KY: 42.0%; 64,581 jobsCharlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC: 42.1%; 1,178,479 jobsSt. Joseph, MO-KS: 42.1%; 47,855 jobsDallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX: 42.1%; 3,439,459 jobsJacksonville, FL: 42.4%; 646,582 jobsJoplin, MO-KS: 42.4%; 74,638 jobsKenosha, WI: 42.4%; 64,321 jobsDalton, GA: 42.4%; 59,912 jobsMacon-Bibb County, GA: 42.4%; 89,072 jobsWinston-Salem, NC: 42.5%; 249,687 jobsAugusta-Richmond County, GA-SC: 42.5%; 195,277 jobsPhoenix-Mesa-Chandler, AZ: 42.6%; 1,998,365 jobsIndianapolis-Carmel-Greenwood, IN: 42.7%; 951,953 jobsGainesville, GA: 42.8%; 86,885 jobsEvansville, IN: 42.9%; 135,727 jobsCleveland, TN: 43.0%; 42,200 jobsKankakee, IL: 43.0%; 35,013 jobsGulfport-Biloxi, MS: 43.1%; 130,044 jobsAtlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA: 43.1%; 2,567,019 jobsHuntsville, AL: 43.2%; 209,045 jobsSheboygan, WI: 43.4%; 52,523 jobsRichmond, VA: 43.4%; 564,882 jobsKnoxville, TN: 43.7%; 358,015 jobsDayton-Kettering-Beavercreek, OH: 43.8%; 320,376 jobsLexington-Fayette, KY: 43.8%; 233,341 jobsKingsport-Bristol, TN-VA: 43.8%; 97,395 jobsSeattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA: 43.9%; 1,845,497 jobsKilleen-Temple, TX: 43.9%; 111,440 jobsColumbia, SC: 44.0%; 303,225 jobsChattanooga, TN-GA: 44.0%; 232,075 jobsCharleston, WV: 44.1%; 78,935 jobsGreenville-Anderson-Greer, SC: 44.1%; 373,076 jobsKansas City, MO-KS: 44.1%; 990,521 jobsSouth Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI: 44.2%; 128,199 jobsRoanoke, VA: 44.2%; 138,814 jobsJackson, TN: 44.2%; 72,883 jobsWinchester, VA-WV: 44.3%; 57,878 jobsYork-Hanover, PA: 44.4%; 175,009 jobsSt. Louis, MO-IL: 44.4%; 1,244,433 jobsBoston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH: 44.4%; 2,599,200 jobsLafayette-West Lafayette, IN: 44.4%; 78,998 jobsLas Vegas-Henderson-North Las Vegas, NV: 44.6%; 917,211 jobsChicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN: 44.6%; 4,175,455 jobsSaginaw, MI: 44.6%; 77,307 jobsJohnson City, TN: 44.7%; 68,034 jobsMadison, WI: 44.7%; 348,900 jobsHarrisonburg, VA: 44.8%; 54,233 jobsBirmingham, AL: 44.8%; 470,623 jobsScranton--Wilkes-Barre, PA: 44.8%; 232,014 jobsPittsburgh, PA: 44.9%; 1,108,776 jobsGreensboro-High Point, NC: 44.9%; 329,264 jobsHanford-Corcoran, CA: 44.9%; 26,796 jobsColumbia, MO: 45.0%; 89,736 jobsTampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL: 45.0%; 1,230,894 jobsPeoria, IL: 45.0%; 153,533 jobsSavannah, GA: 45.0%; 171,121 jobsWaco, TX: 45.0%; 113,393 jobsCedar Rapids, IA: 45.1%; 126,825 jobsSumter, SC: 45.1%; 30,656 jobsMuncie, IN: 45.1%; 40,300 jobsOwensboro, KY: 45.1%; 44,049 jobsWeirton-Steubenville, WV-OH: 45.1%; 32,907 jobsSpringfield, OH: 45.1%; 41,763 jobsDenver-Aurora-Centennial, CO: 45.2%; 1,369,510 jobsToledo, OH: 45.2%; 261,747 jobsNorwich-New London-Willimantic, CT: 45.2%; 101,175 jobsReading, PA: 45.2%; 159,778 jobsGreenville, NC: 45.2%; 64,149 jobsFayetteville, NC: 45.3%; 101,831 jobsAlbany-Schenectady-Troy, NY: 45.3%; 351,094 jobsOmaha, NE-IA: 45.4%; 436,354 jobsDavenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL: 45.4%; 161,771 jobsPensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL: 45.5%; 145,458 jobsElizabethtown, KY: 45.5%; 38,079 jobsHickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC: 45.5%; 141,070 jobsAnniston-Oxford, AL: 45.5%; 34,206 jobsChambersburg, PA: 45.7%; 52,464 jobsJackson, MS: 45.7%; 227,258 jobsBlacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA: 45.7%; 55,143 jobsTuscaloosa, AL: 45.8%; 87,005 jobsMinneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI: 45.8%; 1,840,739 jobsRockford, IL: 45.9%; 126,257 jobsTucson, AZ: 45.9%; 331,786 jobsHartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT: 46.0%; 520,790 jobsPhiladelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD: 46.0%; 2,765,882 jobsJanesville-Beloit, WI: 46.2%; 61,182 jobsLynchburg, VA: 46.3%; 97,081 jobsCleveland, OH: 46.3%; 946,377 jobsMobile, AL: 46.3%; 152,767 jobsHouston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX: 46.3%; 2,730,105 jobsSpringfield, MO: 46.4%; 196,974 jobsRochester, NY: 46.4%; 433,281 jobsSyracuse, NY: 46.4%; 256,247 jobsNew Haven, CT: 46.4%; 259,228 jobsWausau, WI: 46.5%; 65,241 jobsClarksville, TN-KY: 46.6%; 77,809 jobsGrand Island, NE: 46.7%; 36,009 jobsSan Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA: 46.7%; 2,360,860 jobsCorpus Christi, TX: 46.8%; 155,803 jobsTerre Haute, IN: 46.8%; 55,293 jobsBurlington, NC: 46.9%; 57,917 jobsStaunton-Stuarts Draft, VA: 46.9%; 41,755 jobsLima, OH: 46.9%; 42,814 jobsSioux City, IA-NE-SD: 47.1%; 68,780 jobsVirginia Beach-Chesapeake-Norfolk, VA-NC: 47.1%; 633,601 jobsDetroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI: 47.2%; 1,781,381 jobsRiverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA: 47.2%; 1,335,043 jobsWorcester, MA: 47.3%; 311,959 jobsFort Smith, AR-OK: 47.3%; 80,874 jobsSpringfield, IL: 47.3%; 80,458 jobsBinghamton, NY: 47.3%; 78,629 jobsAnn Arbor, MI: 47.3%; 151,846 jobsKalamazoo-Portage, MI: 47.4%; 113,731 jobsRaleigh-Cary, NC: 47.4%; 590,073 jobsWaterloo-Cedar Falls, IA: 47.6%; 74,069 jobsAkron, OH: 47.6%; 297,184 jobsStockton-Lodi, CA: 47.7%; 214,027 jobsGreen Bay, WI: 47.7%; 154,736 jobsWheeling, WV-OH: 47.7%; 51,369 jobsLittle Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR: 47.7%; 302,544 jobsMilwaukee-Waukesha, WI: 47.7%; 763,119 jobsFort Wayne, IN: 47.8%; 208,459 jobsParkersburg-Vienna, WV: 48.1%; 28,729 jobsHattiesburg, MS: 48.1%; 53,883 jobsChampaign-Urbana, IL: 48.1%; 77,346 jobsDecatur, AL: 48.1%; 50,545 jobsAustin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX: 48.1%; 985,636 jobsBloomington, IN: 48.2%; 57,316 jobsVallejo, CA: 48.3%; 119,655 jobsFlorence-Muscle Shoals, AL: 48.3%; 48,863 jobsLansing-East Lansing, MI: 48.3%; 169,328 jobsLa Crosse-Onalaska, WI-MN: 48.4%; 75,342 jobsUtica-Rome, NY: 48.4%; 94,440 jobsEagle Pass, TX: 48.5%; 12,294 jobsJonesboro, AR: 48.6%; 50,226 jobsAltoona, PA: 48.6%; 53,254 jobsKennewick-Richland, WA: 48.6%; 101,547 jobsBaltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD: 48.7%; 1,188,401 jobsSioux Falls, SD-MN: 48.8%; 154,840 jobsTopeka, KS: 48.8%; 84,424 jobsWalla Walla, WA: 48.9%; 21,382 jobsAlbuquerque, NM: 48.9%; 308,226 jobsSherman-Denison, TX: 48.9%; 41,183 jobsSt. Cloud, MN: 49.1%; 98,182 jobsColorado Springs, CO: 49.1%; 260,935 jobsWashington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV: 49.1%; 2,775,367 jobsBrownsville-Harlingen, TX: 49.2%; 114,735 jobsTyler, TX: 49.2%; 98,083 jobsMontgomery, AL: 49.3%; 131,323 jobsHuntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH: 49.4%; 113,441 jobsBeckley, WV: 49.4%; 32,640 jobsSpringfield, MA: 49.6%; 168,312 jobsGainesville, FL: 49.6%; 106,762 jobsAlbany, GA: 49.6%; 44,039 jobsAppleton, WI: 49.6%; 114,283 jobsLawton, OK: 49.7%; 33,819 jobsBuffalo-Cheektowaga, NY: 49.7%; 475,093 jobsAbilene, TX: 49.8%; 62,813 jobsErie, PA: 49.8%; 112,074 jobsBaton Rouge, LA: 49.8%; 340,218 jobsWarner Robins, GA: 49.9%; 49,355 jobsEl Paso, TX: 49.9%; 248,813 jobsWichita, KS: 49.9%; 260,626 jobsYuma, AZ: 50.0%; 51,328 jobsSandusky, OH: 50.1%; 42,057 jobsNew York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ: 50.2%; 8,206,342 jobsManchester-Nashua, NH: 50.2%; 184,188 jobsReno, NV: 50.3%; 231,341 jobsPalm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL: 50.3%; 194,219 jobsGoldsboro, NC: 50.4%; 32,595 jobsSacramento-Roseville-Folsom, CA: 50.4%; 809,745 jobsWilliamsport, PA: 50.5%; 45,401 jobsProvo-Orem-Lehi, UT: 50.5%; 272,086 jobsGrand Rapids-Wyoming-Kentwood, MI: 50.6%; 528,648 jobsWildwood-The Villages, FL: 50.6%; 31,573 jobsFargo, ND-MN: 50.7%; 124,634 jobsAtlantic City-Hammonton, NJ: 50.8%; 134,222 jobsAnchorage, AK: 50.9%; 160,998 jobsMcAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX: 50.9%; 221,390 jobsTulsa, OK: 50.9%; 390,711 jobsBeaumont-Port Arthur, TX: 51.0%; 127,346 jobsMerced, CA: 51.0%; 48,315 jobsSan Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad, CA: 51.1%; 1,338,161 jobsDubuque, IA: 51.2%; 54,547 jobsMuskegon-Norton Shores, MI: 51.2%; 52,813 jobsUrban Honolulu, HI: 51.3%; 330,476 jobsLebanon, PA: 51.3%; 48,443 jobsBridgeport-Stamford-Danbury, CT: 51.4%; 398,349 jobsNew Orleans-Metairie, LA: 51.5%; 400,119 jobsOklahoma City, OK: 51.5%; 531,803 jobsMankato, MN: 51.6%; 48,314 jobsOcala, FL: 51.6%; 97,716 jobsMonroe, MI: 51.7%; 36,499 jobsProvidence-Warwick, RI-MA: 51.7%; 636,408 jobsModesto, CA: 51.9%; 151,505 jobsVisalia, CA: 51.9%; 103,600 jobsPinehurst-Southern Pines, NC: 52.0%; 35,146 jobsAsheville, NC: 52.1%; 166,060 jobsLongview, TX: 52.1%; 100,592 jobsDothan, AL: 52.1%; 53,415 jobsCanton-Massillon, OH: 52.2%; 144,239 jobsPueblo, CO: 52.2%; 51,115 jobsAmarillo, TX: 52.3%; 98,649 jobsJackson, MI: 52.3%; 50,395 jobsFlint, MI: 52.4%; 120,612 jobsJefferson City, MO: 52.4%; 54,963 jobsPortland-South Portland, ME: 52.4%; 252,562 jobsFond du Lac, WI: 52.5%; 41,989 jobsLogan, UT-ID: 52.5%; 58,562 jobsLincoln, NE: 52.5%; 152,800 jobsValdosta, GA: 52.6%; 43,952 jobsEau Claire, WI: 52.6%; 74,114 jobsLos Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA: 52.6%; 5,460,130 jobsMichigan City-La Porte, IN: 52.7%; 33,755 jobsDeltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL: 52.7%; 184,924 jobsMansfield, OH: 52.9%; 39,077 jobsBoise City, ID: 52.9%; 310,862 jobsCharleston-North Charleston, SC: 53.0%; 307,235 jobsLewiston, ID-WA: 53.0%; 22,926 jobsSpokane-Spokane Valley, WA: 53.0%; 212,637 jobsAuburn-Opelika, AL: 53.0%; 54,752 jobsRacine-Mount Pleasant, WI: 53.1%; 67,644 jobsCollege Station-Bryan, TX: 53.2%; 82,971 jobsFresno, CA: 53.2%; 324,552 jobsElmira, NY: 53.3%; 28,516 jobsWichita Falls, TX: 53.4%; 46,664 jobsOgden, UT: 53.4%; 195,082 jobsCape Girardeau, MO-IL: 53.4%; 40,333 jobsVictoria, TX: 53.5%; 32,229 jobsVineland, NJ: 53.5%; 46,006 jobsMiami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL: 53.6%; 2,333,976 jobsSan Angelo, TX: 53.6%; 41,468 jobsLewiston-Auburn, ME: 53.6%; 42,989 jobsPaducah, KY-IL: 53.6%; 40,754 jobsAlbany, OR: 53.6%; 38,716 jobsPanama City-Panama City Beach, FL: 53.7%; 63,787 jobsKiryas Joel-Poughkeepsie-Newburgh, NY: 53.7%; 217,581 jobsShreveport-Bossier City, LA: 53.7%; 135,884 jobsDuluth, MN-WI: 53.8%; 104,858 jobsGreeley, CO: 53.9%; 99,469 jobsBismarck, ND: 53.9%; 58,256 jobsLake Charles, LA: 54.0%; 79,203 jobsTexarkana, TX-AR: 54.2%; 46,422 jobsAmherst Town-Northampton, MA: 54.2%; 48,146 jobsBakersfield-Delano, CA: 54.3%; 206,892 jobsIdaho Falls, ID: 54.4%; 67,129 jobsEl Centro, CA: 54.4%; 33,992 jobsTallahassee, FL: 54.5%; 119,574 jobsJacksonville, NC: 54.7%; 37,904 jobsWaterbury-Shelton, CT: 54.7%; 144,240 jobsLubbock, TX: 54.7%; 130,372 jobsLancaster, PA: 54.9%; 245,184 jobsNiles, MI: 55.0%; 52,032 jobsSebring, FL: 55.1%; 22,520 jobsPocatello, ID: 55.2%; 27,944 jobsPunta Gorda, FL: 55.5%; 41,883 jobsHomosassa Springs, FL: 55.8%; 31,186 jobsWilmington, NC: 55.8%; 156,846 jobsCape Coral-Fort Myers, FL: 55.8%; 255,271 jobsDover, DE: 55.9%; 58,874 jobsTwin Falls, ID: 56.0%; 41,927 jobsGreat Falls, MT: 56.0%; 30,571 jobsGadsden, AL: 56.1%; 27,628 jobsBangor, ME: 56.1%; 59,149 jobsOdessa, TX: 56.1%; 61,338 jobsGrand Forks, ND-MN: 56.1%; 40,360 jobsCrestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin, FL: 56.1%; 89,676 jobsHot Springs, AR: 56.3%; 35,281 jobsCharlottesville, VA: 56.4%; 85,356 jobsPort St. Lucie, FL: 56.6%; 135,457 jobsSalisbury, MD: 56.6%; 39,294 jobsJohnstown, PA: 56.7%; 43,953 jobsPittsfield, MA: 56.8%; 51,090 jobsAmes, IA: 56.8%; 39,689 jobsCheyenne, WY: 56.9%; 35,586 jobsLas Cruces, NM: 57.1%; 54,657 jobsAlexandria, LA: 57.2%; 47,118 jobsOlympia-Lacey-Tumwater, WA: 57.3%; 79,575 jobsSlidell-Mandeville-Covington, LA: 57.4%; 85,333 jobsAthens-Clarke County, GA: 57.5%; 71,337 jobsLake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ: 57.5%; 47,559 jobsBoulder, CO: 57.6%; 157,001 jobsBrunswick-St. Simons, GA: 57.6%; 33,489 jobsKahului-Wailuku, HI: 57.6%; 59,759 jobsFlagstaff, AZ: 57.7%; 50,372 jobsSalinas, CA: 57.7%; 116,582 jobsHammond, LA: 57.8%; 39,114 jobsGlens Falls, NY: 57.8%; 39,627 jobsSierra Vista-Douglas, AZ: 58.0%; 26,000 jobsEnid, OK: 58.0%; 20,387 jobsGrand Junction, CO: 58.0%; 55,960 jobsLongview-Kelso, WA: 58.1%; 33,354 jobsNorth Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL: 58.1%; 272,404 jobsOxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA: 58.1%; 269,050 jobsYuba City, CA: 58.2%; 36,945 jobsCarson City, NV: 58.2%; 22,997 jobsFort Collins-Loveland, CO: 58.2%; 135,516 jobsLaredo, TX: 58.5%; 79,662 jobsBillings, MT: 58.6%; 78,459 jobsYoungstown-Warren, OH: 58.6%; 138,368 jobsFarmington, NM: 58.8%; 34,387 jobsMyrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC: 58.9%; 118,467 jobsWatertown-Fort Drum, NY: 59.0%; 28,821 jobsState College, PA: 59.0%; 44,379 jobsMidland, TX: 59.1%; 94,277 jobsSebastian-Vero Beach-West Vero Corridor, FL: 59.4%; 50,149 jobsBurlington-South Burlington, VT: 59.6%; 101,120 jobsMount Vernon-Anacortes, WA: 59.7%; 43,347 jobsChico, CA: 59.7%; 62,659 jobsGettysburg, PA: 59.8%; 27,639 jobsMedford, OR: 59.8%; 77,479 jobsYakima, WA: 59.8%; 71,783 jobsMonroe, LA: 59.9%; 72,468 jobsCorvallis, OR: 60.6%; 26,893 jobsPrescott Valley-Prescott, AZ: 61.2%; 65,697 jobsMinot, ND: 61.2%; 26,609 jobsRedding, CA: 61.2%; 53,483 jobsHouma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA: 61.3%; 66,214 jobsDaphne-Fairhope-Foley, AL: 61.3%; 69,115 jobsSalem, OR: 61.4%; 132,193 jobsBay City, MI: 61.4%; 28,314 jobsLexington Park, MD: 61.5%; 51,360 jobsLawrence, KS: 62.0%; 37,284 jobsManhattan, KS: 62.4%; 37,977 jobsSanta Maria-Santa Barbara, CA: 62.6%; 156,607 jobsLafayette, LA: 63.1%; 159,834 jobsSanta Rosa-Petaluma, CA: 63.1%; 176,295 jobsEugene-Springfield, OR: 63.4%; 127,436 jobsCasper, WY: 63.5%; 31,750 jobsRapid City, SD: 63.6%; 59,946 jobsHelena, MT: 63.6%; 29,514 jobsNaples-Marco Island, FL: 63.8%; 145,185 jobsTraverse City, MI: 63.8%; 58,957 jobsWenatchee-East Wenatchee, WA: 64.2%; 41,248 jobsSanta Fe, NM: 64.5%; 47,378 jobsGrants Pass, OR: 64.5%; 23,906 jobsBremerton-Silverdale-Port Orchard, WA: 64.8%; 62,479 jobsCoeur d'Alene, ID: 65.1%; 63,347 jobsNapa, CA: 65.9%; 65,151 jobsSan Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA: 66.3%; 99,466 jobsBend, OR: 66.5%; 87,450 jobsHilton Head Island-Bluffton-Port Royal, SC: 66.7%; 67,170 jobsBarnstable Town, MA: 67.8%; 76,094 jobsFairbanks-College, AK: 67.9%; 25,941 jobsBellingham, WA: 68.0%; 78,565 jobsMissoula, MT: 68.1%; 53,147 jobsSt. George, UT: 69.2%; 67,024 jobsKingston, NY: 69.4%; 43,813 jobsSanta Cruz-Watsonville, CA: 70.1%; 78,616 jobsBozeman, MT: 74.6%; 56,303 jobsPortland 50.2%

Each dot is one metro; rows separate overlapping dots and have no economic meaning. Smaller metros often have high small-firm shares. The comparison contains 387 metros, excludes micropolitan and rural areas, and counts jobs rather than unique firms.

Explore all 387 metro values
MetroEmployer jobsUnder-500 share
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ8,206,34250.2%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA5,460,13052.6%
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN4,175,45544.6%
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX3,439,45942.1%
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV2,775,36749.1%
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD2,765,88246.0%
Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX2,730,10546.3%
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH2,599,20044.4%
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA2,567,01943.1%
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA2,360,86046.7%
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL2,333,97653.6%
Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, AZ1,998,36542.6%
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA1,845,49743.9%
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI1,840,73945.8%
Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI1,781,38147.2%
Denver-Aurora-Centennial, CO1,369,51045.2%
San Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad, CA1,338,16151.1%
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA1,335,04347.2%
St. Louis, MO-IL1,244,43344.4%
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL1,230,89445.0%
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL1,192,92738.6%
Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD1,188,40148.7%
Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC1,178,47942.1%
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA1,147,11737.0%
Pittsburgh, PA1,108,77644.9%
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA1,084,53550.2%
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN1,003,39141.8%
Kansas City, MO-KS990,52144.1%
Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX985,63648.1%
Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN953,41641.4%
Indianapolis-Carmel-Greenwood, IN951,95342.7%
Cleveland, OH946,37746.3%
San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX946,28640.9%
Columbus, OH933,56940.5%
Las Vegas-Henderson-North Las Vegas, NV917,21144.6%
Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom, CA809,74550.4%
Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI763,11947.7%
Salt Lake City-Murray, UT676,51242.0%
Jacksonville, FL646,58242.4%
Providence-Warwick, RI-MA636,40851.7%
Virginia Beach-Chesapeake-Norfolk, VA-NC633,60147.1%
Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN630,36339.8%
Raleigh-Cary, NC590,07347.4%
Richmond, VA564,88243.4%
Memphis, TN-MS-AR544,56742.0%
Oklahoma City, OK531,80351.5%
Grand Rapids-Wyoming-Kentwood, MI528,64850.6%
Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT520,79046.0%
Buffalo-Cheektowaga, NY475,09349.7%
Birmingham, AL470,62344.8%
Omaha, NE-IA436,35445.4%
Rochester, NY433,28146.4%
New Orleans-Metairie, LA400,11951.5%
Bridgeport-Stamford-Danbury, CT398,34951.4%
Tulsa, OK390,71150.9%
Greenville-Anderson-Greer, SC373,07644.1%
Knoxville, TN358,01543.7%
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ352,04440.8%
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY351,09445.3%
Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA350,87140.9%
Madison, WI348,90044.7%
Baton Rouge, LA340,21849.8%
Tucson, AZ331,78645.9%
Urban Honolulu, HI330,47651.3%
Greensboro-High Point, NC329,26444.9%
Fresno, CA324,55253.2%
Dayton-Kettering-Beavercreek, OH320,37643.8%
Worcester, MA311,95947.3%
Boise City, ID310,86252.9%
Albuquerque, NM308,22648.9%
Charleston-North Charleston, SC307,23553.0%
Columbia, SC303,22544.0%
Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR302,54447.7%
Akron, OH297,18447.6%
Durham-Chapel Hill, NC294,89235.9%
Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA292,59438.6%
North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL272,40458.1%
Provo-Orem-Lehi, UT272,08650.5%
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA269,05058.1%
Toledo, OH261,74745.2%
Colorado Springs, CO260,93549.1%
Wichita, KS260,62649.9%
New Haven, CT259,22846.4%
Syracuse, NY256,24746.4%
Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL255,27155.8%
Portland-South Portland, ME252,56252.4%
Winston-Salem, NC249,68742.5%
El Paso, TX248,81349.9%
Lancaster, PA245,18454.9%
Lexington-Fayette, KY233,34143.8%
Chattanooga, TN-GA232,07544.0%
Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, PA232,01444.8%
Reno, NV231,34150.3%
Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR230,60141.1%
Jackson, MS227,25845.7%
Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL223,16940.0%
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX221,39050.9%
Kiryas Joel-Poughkeepsie-Newburgh, NY217,58153.7%
Stockton-Lodi, CA214,02747.7%
Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA212,63753.0%
Huntsville, AL209,04543.2%
Fort Wayne, IN208,45947.8%
Bakersfield-Delano, CA206,89254.3%
Trenton-Princeton, NJ200,28341.4%
Springfield, MO196,97446.4%
Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC195,27742.5%
Ogden, UT195,08253.4%
Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL194,21950.3%
Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL184,92452.7%
Manchester-Nashua, NH184,18850.2%
Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA176,29563.1%
York-Hanover, PA175,00944.4%
Savannah, GA171,12145.0%
Lansing-East Lansing, MI169,32848.3%
Springfield, MA168,31249.6%
Asheville, NC166,06052.1%
Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL161,77145.4%
Anchorage, AK160,99850.9%
Lafayette, LA159,83463.1%
Reading, PA159,77845.2%
Boulder, CO157,00157.6%
Wilmington, NC156,84655.8%
Santa Maria-Santa Barbara, CA156,60762.6%
Corpus Christi, TX155,80346.8%
Sioux Falls, SD-MN154,84048.8%
Green Bay, WI154,73647.7%
Peoria, IL153,53345.0%
Lincoln, NE152,80052.5%
Mobile, AL152,76746.3%
Spartanburg, SC151,85137.6%
Ann Arbor, MI151,84647.3%
Modesto, CA151,50551.9%
Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL145,45845.5%
Naples-Marco Island, FL145,18563.8%
Waterbury-Shelton, CT144,24054.7%
Canton-Massillon, OH144,23952.2%
Elkhart-Goshen, IN143,42338.4%
Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC141,07045.5%
Roanoke, VA138,81444.2%
Youngstown-Warren, OH138,36858.6%
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA135,88453.7%
Evansville, IN135,72742.9%
Fort Collins-Loveland, CO135,51658.2%
Port St. Lucie, FL135,45756.6%
Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ134,22250.8%
Salem, OR132,19361.4%
Montgomery, AL131,32349.3%
Lubbock, TX130,37254.7%
Gulfport-Biloxi, MS130,04443.1%
South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI128,19944.2%
Eugene-Springfield, OR127,43663.4%
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX127,34651.0%
Cedar Rapids, IA126,82545.1%
Rockford, IL126,25745.9%
Fargo, ND-MN124,63450.7%
Flint, MI120,61252.4%
Vallejo, CA119,65548.3%
Tallahassee, FL119,57454.5%
Rochester, MN118,61035.7%
Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC118,46758.9%
Salinas, CA116,58257.7%
Brownsville-Harlingen, TX114,73549.2%
Appleton, WI114,28349.6%
Kalamazoo-Portage, MI113,73147.4%
Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH113,44149.4%
Waco, TX113,39345.0%
Erie, PA112,07449.8%
Killeen-Temple, TX111,44043.9%
Gainesville, FL106,76249.6%
Duluth, MN-WI104,85853.8%
Visalia, CA103,60051.9%
Fayetteville, NC101,83145.3%
Kennewick-Richland, WA101,54748.6%
Norwich-New London-Willimantic, CT101,17545.2%
Burlington-South Burlington, VT101,12059.6%
Longview, TX100,59252.1%
Greeley, CO99,46953.9%
San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA99,46666.3%
Amarillo, TX98,64952.3%
Columbus, GA-AL98,19641.8%
St. Cloud, MN98,18249.1%
Tyler, TX98,08349.2%
Ocala, FL97,71651.6%
Kingsport-Bristol, TN-VA97,39543.8%
Lynchburg, VA97,08146.3%
Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV95,75040.4%
Utica-Rome, NY94,44048.4%
Midland, TX94,27759.1%
Oshkosh-Neenah, WI90,15839.9%
Columbia, MO89,73645.0%
Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin, FL89,67656.1%
Macon-Bibb County, GA89,07242.4%
Bend, OR87,45066.5%
Tuscaloosa, AL87,00545.8%
Gainesville, GA86,88542.8%
Charlottesville, VA85,35656.4%
Slidell-Mandeville-Covington, LA85,33357.4%
Topeka, KS84,42448.8%
College Station-Bryan, TX82,97153.2%
Florence, SC82,32941.9%
Fort Smith, AR-OK80,87447.3%
Springfield, IL80,45847.3%
Laredo, TX79,66258.5%
Olympia-Lacey-Tumwater, WA79,57557.3%
Lake Charles, LA79,20354.0%
Lafayette-West Lafayette, IN78,99844.4%
Charleston, WV78,93544.1%
Binghamton, NY78,62947.3%
Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA78,61670.1%
Bellingham, WA78,56568.0%
Billings, MT78,45958.6%
Clarksville, TN-KY77,80946.6%
Medford, OR77,47959.8%
Champaign-Urbana, IL77,34648.1%
Saginaw, MI77,30744.6%
Barnstable Town, MA76,09467.8%
Iowa City, IA75,68441.0%
La Crosse-Onalaska, WI-MN75,34248.4%
Bloomington, IL74,67437.0%
Joplin, MO-KS74,63842.4%
Eau Claire, WI74,11452.6%
Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA74,06947.6%
Jackson, TN72,88344.2%
Monroe, LA72,46859.9%
Yakima, WA71,78359.8%
Athens-Clarke County, GA71,33757.5%
Daphne-Fairhope-Foley, AL69,11561.3%
Sioux City, IA-NE-SD68,78047.1%
Johnson City, TN68,03444.7%
Racine-Mount Pleasant, WI67,64453.1%
Hilton Head Island-Bluffton-Port Royal, SC67,17066.7%
Idaho Falls, ID67,12954.4%
St. George, UT67,02469.2%
Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA66,21461.3%
Prescott Valley-Prescott, AZ65,69761.2%
Wausau, WI65,24146.5%
Napa, CA65,15165.9%
Bowling Green, KY64,58142.0%
Kenosha, WI64,32142.4%
Greenville, NC64,14945.2%
Panama City-Panama City Beach, FL63,78753.7%
Coeur d'Alene, ID63,34765.1%
Abilene, TX62,81349.8%
Chico, CA62,65959.7%
Bremerton-Silverdale-Port Orchard, WA62,47964.8%
Odessa, TX61,33856.1%
Janesville-Beloit, WI61,18246.2%
Rapid City, SD59,94663.6%
Dalton, GA59,91242.4%
Kahului-Wailuku, HI59,75957.6%
Bangor, ME59,14956.1%
Traverse City, MI58,95763.8%
Dover, DE58,87455.9%
Logan, UT-ID58,56252.5%
Bismarck, ND58,25653.9%
Burlington, NC57,91746.9%
Winchester, VA-WV57,87844.3%
Bloomington, IN57,31648.2%
Bozeman, MT56,30374.6%
Grand Junction, CO55,96058.0%
Morgantown, WV55,62038.1%
Terre Haute, IN55,29346.8%
Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA55,14345.7%
Jefferson City, MO54,96352.4%
Auburn-Opelika, AL54,75253.0%
Las Cruces, NM54,65757.1%
Dubuque, IA54,54751.2%
Harrisonburg, VA54,23344.8%
Hattiesburg, MS53,88348.1%
Redding, CA53,48361.2%
Dothan, AL53,41552.1%
Altoona, PA53,25448.6%
Missoula, MT53,14768.1%
Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI52,81351.2%
Sheboygan, WI52,52343.4%
Chambersburg, PA52,46445.7%
Niles, MI52,03255.0%
Wheeling, WV-OH51,36947.7%
Lexington Park, MD51,36061.5%
Yuma, AZ51,32850.0%
Pueblo, CO51,11552.2%
Pittsfield, MA51,09056.8%
Decatur, AL50,54548.1%
Rocky Mount, NC50,44741.3%
Jackson, MI50,39552.3%
Flagstaff, AZ50,37257.7%
Jonesboro, AR50,22648.6%
Sebastian-Vero Beach-West Vero Corridor, FL50,14959.4%
Warner Robins, GA49,35549.9%
Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL48,86348.3%
Lebanon, PA48,44351.3%
Merced, CA48,31551.0%
Mankato, MN48,31451.6%
Amherst Town-Northampton, MA48,14654.2%
Ithaca, NY48,09837.6%
St. Joseph, MO-KS47,85542.1%
Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ47,55957.5%
Battle Creek, MI47,54940.6%
Santa Fe, NM47,37864.5%
Alexandria, LA47,11857.2%
Wichita Falls, TX46,66453.4%
Texarkana, TX-AR46,42254.2%
Vineland, NJ46,00653.5%
Columbus, IN45,50837.5%
Williamsport, PA45,40150.5%
State College, PA44,37959.0%
Owensboro, KY44,04945.1%
Albany, GA44,03949.6%
Johnstown, PA43,95356.7%
Valdosta, GA43,95252.6%
Kingston, NY43,81369.4%
Decatur, IL43,74239.2%
Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA43,34759.7%
Lewiston-Auburn, ME42,98953.6%
Lima, OH42,81446.9%
Cleveland, TN42,20043.0%
Sandusky, OH42,05750.1%
Fond du Lac, WI41,98952.5%
Twin Falls, ID41,92756.0%
Punta Gorda, FL41,88355.5%
Springfield, OH41,76345.1%
Staunton-Stuarts Draft, VA41,75546.9%
San Angelo, TX41,46853.6%
Wenatchee-East Wenatchee, WA41,24864.2%
Sherman-Denison, TX41,18348.9%
Morristown, TN40,94940.2%
Paducah, KY-IL40,75453.6%
Grand Forks, ND-MN40,36056.1%
Cape Girardeau, MO-IL40,33353.4%
Muncie, IN40,30045.1%
Ames, IA39,68956.8%
Glens Falls, NY39,62757.8%
Rome, GA39,30539.1%
Salisbury, MD39,29456.6%
Hammond, LA39,11457.8%
Mansfield, OH39,07752.9%
Albany, OR38,71653.6%
Elizabethtown, KY38,07945.5%
Manhattan, KS37,97762.4%
Jacksonville, NC37,90454.7%
Lawrence, KS37,28462.0%
Yuba City, CA36,94558.2%
Monroe, MI36,49951.7%
Grand Island, NE36,00946.7%
Cheyenne, WY35,58656.9%
Hot Springs, AR35,28156.3%
Pinehurst-Southern Pines, NC35,14652.0%
Kankakee, IL35,01343.0%
Midland, MI34,86340.1%
Farmington, NM34,38758.8%
Anniston-Oxford, AL34,20645.5%
El Centro, CA33,99254.4%
Lawton, OK33,81949.7%
Michigan City-La Porte, IN33,75552.7%
Brunswick-St. Simons, GA33,48957.6%
Longview-Kelso, WA33,35458.1%
Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH32,90745.1%
Beckley, WV32,64049.4%
Goldsboro, NC32,59550.4%
Victoria, TX32,22953.5%
Casper, WY31,75063.5%
Wildwood-The Villages, FL31,57350.6%
Homosassa Springs, FL31,18655.8%
Sumter, SC30,65645.1%
Great Falls, MT30,57156.0%
Kokomo, IN29,73138.7%
Helena, MT29,51463.6%
Watertown-Fort Drum, NY28,82159.0%
Parkersburg-Vienna, WV28,72948.1%
Elmira, NY28,51653.3%
Bay City, MI28,31461.4%
Pocatello, ID27,94455.2%
Gettysburg, PA27,63959.8%
Gadsden, AL27,62856.1%
Corvallis, OR26,89360.6%
Hanford-Corcoran, CA26,79644.9%
Minot, ND26,60961.2%
Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ26,00058.0%
Fairbanks-College, AK25,94167.9%
Grants Pass, OR23,90664.5%
Carson City, NV22,99758.2%
Lewiston, ID-WA22,92653.0%
Sebring, FL22,52055.1%
Walla Walla, WA21,38248.9%
Enid, OK20,38758.0%
Hinesville, GA14,85537.6%
Eagle Pass, TX12,29448.5%
Original calculation from all 387 areas labeled Metro Area in the revised source. Employment-weighted metropolitan benchmark: 47.5%. This is not a national total, an equal-city average or a business-climate ranking.2022 SUSB MSA 3-digit NAICS dataset ↗Download data ↓

The goal is a productive ecosystem, not a permanent size category.

A successful Portland firm may grow beyond 500 employees. That should not count as a failure of small-business policy. A big employer can support small suppliers, provide stable household purchasing power and train people who later start companies. Small firms can help anchors adapt, innovate and reach specialized markets. Each can also impose costs on the other through market power or slow payment.

Our peer set spans different industry structures and regional economies. Seattle’s large technology employers, Sacramento’s public-sector role, and the growth paths of Austin or Salt Lake City make raw comparisons imperfect. The industry adjustment reduces one problem; it does not create a policy experiment. Public-sector employment is outside the SUSB private employer universe.

05

Where we shine, where we struggle

There is no single Portland recovery.

A citywide small-business series improved modestly from 2019. The county’s overall private employment remained below its pre-pandemic level. Different geographies, populations and industries can all move differently.

Figure 08

A city signal worth following—and defining more carefully.

Portland city · Reported small-business employment endpoints · 2019 and 2024

2019108,785
+3.3%net change
2024112,411

The bars share a zero baseline and a 120,000-job scale. These two endpoints do not describe individual firms’ survival, or a city small-versus-large employment share.

Prosper Insights & Indicators 2025, Figure 1.06, PDF p. 17. The report says 1–20 employees here and 1–19 elsewhere; it calls them firms, although standard QCEW size tabulations refer to establishments. Treat as reported endpoints pending the underlying city extract.Insights and Indicators 2025 ↗Download data ↓
−7.0%private county jobs, 2019–2025

Multnomah County fell from 447,067 to 415,659 annual-average covered private jobs. Health care grew while manufacturing, retail and accommodation/food remained below 2019. BLS QCEW ↗

Figure 09

A sector can be concentrated, shrinking and well paid—all at once.

Multnomah County · Private employment, 2019–2025 · 2025 concentration and pay

MORE CONCENTRATED THAN THE U.S.-30%-20%-10%0%+10%+20%+30%0.0×0.5×1.0×1.5×2.0×Agriculture: 4.9% job change; 0.42× US concentration; annual average pay $57,142Utilities: 15.6% job change; 0.8× US concentration; annual average pay $152,496Construction: -6.6% job change; 0.91× US concentration; annual average pay $108,813Manufacturing: -20.8% job change; 0.71× US concentration; annual average pay $78,155Wholesale: -11.0% job change; 1.09× US concentration; annual average pay $96,572Retail: -13.6% job change; 0.76× US concentration; annual average pay $48,312Transport: 12.8% job change; 1.53× US concentration; annual average pay $68,623Information: -11.6% job change; 1.21× US concentration; annual average pay $170,633Finance: -24.2% job change; 0.74× US concentration; annual average pay $135,598Real estate: -9.5% job change; 1.24× US concentration; annual average pay $76,498Professional: -3.1% job change; 1.15× US concentration; annual average pay $126,524Management: -19.2% job change; 1.88× US concentration; annual average pay $137,460Administrative: -4.9% job change; 0.83× US concentration; annual average pay $59,049Education: -13.2% job change; 1.03× US concentration; annual average pay $58,584Health care: 11.6% job change; 1.03× US concentration; annual average pay $73,905Arts and recreation: 4.2% job change; 0.99× US concentration; annual average pay $65,632Accommodation/food: -14.8% job change; 0.97× US concentration; annual average pay $35,191Other services: -14.5% job change; 1.29× US concentration; annual average pay $60,943Change in private jobs, 2019–2025 →
+11.6%

67,288 → 75,064 jobs

Concentration
1.03× U.S.
Annual average pay
$73,905

Circle area = jobs. Green = pay above the county private-sector average; rust = below.

Read the data table
Sector2019 jobs2025 jobsChange2025 location quotient2025 average pay
Agriculture1,5631,6404.9%0.42$57,142
Utilities1,3311,53815.6%0.8$152,496
Construction25,39323,706-6.6%0.91$108,813
Manufacturing35,56528,155-20.8%0.71$78,155
Wholesale23,41920,846-11.0%1.09$96,572
Retail42,84137,024-13.6%0.76$48,312
Transport28,47632,11612.8%1.53$68,623
Information12,35410,926-11.6%1.21$170,633
Finance19,53014,794-24.2%0.74$135,598
Real estate10,5049,511-9.5%1.24$76,498
Professional40,62439,370-3.1%1.15$126,524
Management19,28415,591-19.2%1.88$137,460
Administrative24,91323,700-4.9%0.83$59,049
Education12,18110,579-13.2%1.03$58,584
Health care67,28875,06411.6%1.03$73,905
Arts and recreation8,0848,4234.2%0.99$65,632
Accommodation/food51,02143,456-14.8%0.97$35,191
Other services22,39619,146-14.5%1.29$60,943
Location quotient = county industry share divided by the national industry share. Above 1 means more concentrated, not more productive. Pay is annual average covered wages, not median earnings or inflation-adjusted wage growth. All employer sizes are included.2019 QCEW county annual bulk ↗2025 QCEW county annual bulk ↗QCEW overview ↗Download data ↓
+11.6%

Health care jobs

A growing source of work and essential services. Growth may reflect unmet needs, changing demographics or consolidation; it does not by itself prove accessible business ownership.

−20.8%

Manufacturing jobs

A substantial loss in the county. We need establishment-level and subsector evidence to distinguish closures, automation, relocation and changes in demand.

−14.8%

Accommodation & food jobs

A visible part of the city’s identity under pressure. Recovering customer demand and viable operating margins matter alongside the number of openings.

Calculations from the BLS county extract above. These are employment changes, not small-firm-only outcomes or estimates of policy effects.

06

The prosperity test

Can people make a decent living?

That is the most important question the standard business dashboards struggle to answer. Revenue is visible in some datasets. Owner profit, unpaid time and financial security are much harder to see.

For the owner, the remainder matters.

Gross receipts pay for materials, rent, employees, insurance, software and many other costs before they support the owner. A business with impressive sales can leave very little for household expenses. A smaller professional practice may produce more owner income with much less revenue.

The next layer is time and risk. How many unpaid hours did the owner contribute? Did a partner’s job provide health insurance? Was debt personally guaranteed? Did the household absorb months of losses? A sustainable business can offer autonomy and flexibility. It can also transfer risk and uncompensated work onto a family.

Research on small-business owners finds heterogeneous objectives; many do not intend to grow substantially. A good program should help people choose a viable path, including deciding not to open an unviable business. Hurst & Pugsley ↗

Figure 10

The same sales can support very different livelihoods.

Interactive illustration · Adjust receipts, operating costs and owner time

What remains before owner taxes, benefits and reinvestment$4,000 / month

$18 per owner hour

Illustrative arithmetic, not a Portland earnings estimate. Monthly receipts − business expenses; hours converted at 52 weeks ÷ 12. Debt principal, capital replacement, unpaid family work and multiple owners can change the result. Expenses here exclude owner compensation.

This calculator explains the accounting distinction; its inputs are hypothetical. It does not estimate a typical Portland business’s margin, tax liability or hourly wage.Nonemployer Statistics methodology ↗
Figure 11

Workers’ pay belongs in the small-business conversation.

Portland metro · 2022 · Annual payroll per mid-March employee

Under 5 employees
$53,850
5–9 employees
$46,780
10–19 employees
$49,321
20–99 employees
$56,856
100–499 employees
$68,298
500+ employees
$83,312

This is annual payroll divided by mid-March employment. It is not the median worker’s wage or full-time equivalent pay. Hours, occupation, industry and employment changes affect the ratio; benefits are not included.

A descriptive aggregate, not a causal employer-size wage premium. Within-industry and occupation comparisons, hours, benefits and worker characteristics are needed before attributing differences to business size.2022 SUSB MSA 3-digit NAICS dataset ↗Download data ↓

Support the business without making the worker invisible.

A small workplace can offer close relationships, flexibility and opportunities to learn. It can also struggle to provide predictable schedules, benefits, advancement or coverage when someone is sick. Neither a “local” label nor the size of the payroll settles the question of job quality.

The local data here cannot measure comparable benefits, schedule stability, injuries or wage compliance by enterprise size. That is a reason to collect worker evidence, not to assume the jobs are good or bad. Public assistance should make its job-quality expectations explicit and proportionate to the support provided.

A useful evaluation follows both sides of the labor relationship: owner income and hours; employee hourly pay, hours, stability, benefits and retention. If a program raises sales while relying on more unpaid owner work or worse worker schedules, its headline success needs qualification.

07

The business life cycle

Openings are only half the story.

A healthy economy needs entry, productive growth and room for people to change direction. It also needs to understand the closures, contractions and household losses hidden behind net growth.

Figure 12

The doors opening—and the doors closing.

Census Business Dynamics Statistics · Metro employer establishments · 2019–2023

Entry rateExit rate
5%8%11%14%17%201920202021202220232019 entry: 9.8%2020 entry: 9.6%2021 entry: 10.5%2022 entry: 11.8%2023 entry: 10.5%2019 exit: 9.1%2020 exit: 9.6%2021 exit: 10.4%2022 exit: 9.5%2023 exit: 10.0%
6,911establishments entered, 2023
6,588establishments exited, 2023
323net difference
Read the data table
YearEntriesEntry rateExitsExit rate
20196,2839.8%5,8319.1%
20206,1969.6%6,1549.6%
20216,73710.5%6,71410.4%
20227,69811.8%6,1939.5%
20236,91110.5%6,58810.0%
An establishment is a location, not necessarily a new enterprise. Rates divide flows by the average of adjacent-year establishment totals. These are not cohort survival rates; closures and relocations require further investigation.2023 BDS MSA all-years CSV ↗BDS methodology ↗Download data ↓
Figure 13

The net number hides the churn.

Portland metro · 2023 · Employer job creation and destruction, all firm sizes

Jobs created
+148,949
Jobs destroyed
−129,091
Net change
+19,858

Job creation includes openings and expanding establishments; destruction includes closures and contracting establishments. A positive net result can coexist with substantial disruption.

See how job change differs by firm age
Firm ageMetro jobsNet job change
018,72418,724
1 to 597,9012,241
6 to 1093,820434
11+448,276-10,174
Left Censored446,1788,990
BDS records 148,949 jobs created and 129,091 destroyed, net +19,858. Firm-age groups are source-native; the left-censored group has uncertain exact age because its history predates observation.2023 BDS MSA all-years CSV ↗2023 BDS MSA by firm age coarse CSV ↗Download data ↓

Young and small are different.

In 2023, BDS records 4,472 age-zero employer firms and 18,724 jobs in the Portland metro. That is a much more specific formation measure than registrations or the opening of additional locations. It still leaves out solo nonemployers.

Foundational research shows that accounting for firm age changes the apparent relationship between size and job growth. A twenty-year-old three-person practice and a two-year-old company hiring its first ten employees are both small. Their needs and likely contributions are different. Haltiwanger, Jarmin & Miranda ↗

08

What gets in the way

The right help depends on the business.

Finding customers, financing cash flow and navigating a buildout are different problems. Before prescribing more advice, identify the constraint that is actually preventing the next step.

Figure 14

Follow the decisions, not just the departments.

Illustrative business journeys · Requirements vary with activity and location

01

Test demand

Customers, pricing, foot traffic and cash runway.

02

Check the premises

Confirm legal use, accessibility, utility capacity and lease conditions before a commitment.

03

Build and license

Coordinate drawings, health requirements where applicable, permits and construction.

04

Open and staff

Inspection, payroll, insurance and reliable scheduling.

05

Survive and improve

Customer retention, repairs, working capital and owner compensation.

A navigation tool can organize requirements. It cannot make an unsuitable space compliant or supply the cash to carry an unfinished buildout.

The price of waiting

Illustrative cash already committed before opening; excludes foregone profit and one-time buildout.

$18,000additional cash needed
These are analytical journey maps, not complete licensing checklists or measured permit durations. The carrying-cost scenario makes the cost of delay visible without attributing every delay to government.OSB impact report article ↗Permit Review Dashboard description ↗State Office of Small Business Assistance ↗

Demand

A grant writer cannot create a customer.

The 2025 Federal Reserve small-business survey identifies reaching customers and growing sales as the leading operational challenge. For a neighborhood business, better foot traffic, safe access, useful nearby destinations and repeat customers may matter more than another business-plan template.

This is national survey evidence, not a ranking of Portland’s barriers. Local interviews should separate “I need help marketing” from “the customers who used to buy this are gone.” Federal Reserve ↗

Capital

Is the problem liquidity, risk—or a weak business model?

Working capital can bridge a delayed payment or a seasonal gap. It cannot indefinitely repair an operation whose ordinary costs exceed its revenue. A loan also creates repayment obligations, and a guarantee can expose the owner’s household.

Match financing to the problem: patient equipment finance, a line against reliable invoices, a targeted grant for public benefits, or honest advice to stop. The best outcome is not always the largest loan.

Figure 15

Even among applicants, finance is far from automatic.

United States · 2025 Small Business Credit Survey · Financing applicants

Application outcomes miss people discouraged from applying. Approval also says little about whether the amount, interest, repayment schedule and personal exposure are appropriate.

42% received all requested financing, 36% some or most, 22% none. The overall employer survey has 6,525 respondents in a weighted convenience sample; these percentages apply to the applicant subset, not all firms or Portland specifically.2026 Report on Employer Firms: 2025 Small Business Credit Survey ↗

Permitting needs an end-to-end clock.

Portland’s permit dashboard reports application and issuance counts, valuations and review timing. Those are useful measures. But a business owner experiences the full path from finding a space to opening: pre-application work, redesign, applicant response time, approvals, construction, inspections and occupancy.

The right cohort analysis follows every application—including abandoned and withdrawn cases—and separates city review time from applicant and construction time. Compare similar work types and project complexity. An average for issued permits alone cannot describe the experience of everyone who tried to open. City dashboard and definitions ↗

Taxes combine dollar costs with administrative costs.

A business may owe little and still spend time understanding which returns to file. Simplifying a filing or coordinating an exemption can matter independently of the tax rate. Revenue also pays for services businesses depend on, so evaluate a tax change alongside the services or other revenue that finance it.

09

Reach, fairness and results

Portland has a support network. Does it close the gap?

OSB, community providers, lenders and public programs offer a range of services. The next standard is whether people with different starting points can reach them—and whether the help changes the outcome.

Office of Small Business759

unique businesses reported in its first year, May 2025–May 2026

Year One, p. 4 ↗
IBRN691

clients reported in FY 2024–25; a different program population and period

Table 4.14 ↗
IBRN client composition70%

identified as BIPOC; 69% women and/or gender expansive

FY 2024–25 ↗

These counts must not be added as unique businesses. Program participation overlaps, and the population of eligible nonparticipants is not established.

Figure 16

The missing middle between a contact and an outcome.

OSB first-year reach in the context of a full service-accountability chain

01?

Businesses that need help

No citywide denominator that includes eligible nonusers.

02?

Aware and able to apply

Awareness, language access and abandoned applications are not measured here.

03759

Unique OSB clients

Reported in the first-year report, May 2025–May 2026.

04?

Problems resolved

A referral is not confirmation that the issue was resolved.

05?

Better business outcomes

Need comparable income, time, survival and job-quality measures.

A measurement chain, not a scaled conversion funnel. Unknown values remain unknown; 759 cannot be divided by a county or metro count to obtain a valid city service rate.

Open the OSB reconciliation check
103District 1+182District 2+154District 3+142District 4=581listed total

The report also gives 759 unique businesses: an arithmetic difference of 178. The reason is not stated, so these are not labeled “unassigned” businesses. Page 2 reports 1,600 touchpoints; page 3 says 1,700+ interactions. Terminology or reporting windows may differ. These are unresolved reporting questions, not proof of improper conduct.

Known program activity is shown beside the denominators and outcomes still needed. The report’s district and interaction totals are retained as unresolved discrepancies in the expandable check below.Office of Small Business Year One Impact Report ↗

Who owns a business—and who has the option?

Ownership opportunities depend on savings, collateral, networks, language, time, health, care responsibilities and access to customers. A program can serve many underrepresented owners and still miss people who never heard about it, could not meet its conditions, or abandoned the application.

IBRN’s client demographics show who its services reach, not the ownership distribution of the city or equal access among everyone eligible. Representation should be compared with an appropriate business population and with need. A raw comparison to the entire resident population can conceal differences in age, labor-force participation, sector and the constraints that kept people from becoming owners.

The next evidence should combine Census ownership data where available, privacy-protected city aggregates, program records and interviews with nonusers and unsuccessful applicants. Race, gender, disability, immigration background and language may intersect; small cells need protection rather than speculative rankings.

What the support system does—and what to verify
ChannelJob to be doneWhat would demonstrate value
OSB navigation ↗Help a business find the right service and bureau.Resolved problems, fewer repeated contacts, shorter elapsed time.
IBRN and community providers ↗Advising, skills, trusted relationships and specialist referrals.Completed tasks and stronger owner finances relative to a fair comparison.
MESO ↗ / Livelihood NW ↗ / SBDCs ↗Different combinations of advising, training and financing.Service-specific eligibility, follow-through, cost and outcomes; avoid double counting clients.
Loans and grants ↗Address a financing gap or purchase a defined public benefit.Additional investment or resilience, affordability, repayment and who captures the benefit.
Procurement and supplier access ↗Connect capable firms with contracts.Actual awards, payment speed, sustainable margins and repeat customers.
Permits and basic city services ↗Make lawful operations predictable, accessible and workable.End-to-end timelines, less avoidable rework, safety and service reliability.

An institutional map, not a live eligibility checker. Follow each provider for current availability and requirements. No relationship with the Lab is implied.

Are we spending too much—or too little?

The evidence here cannot justify a single spending verdict. Prosper’s agencywide budget includes real estate, workforce and other functions. Loan principal is not equivalent to a grant expense; approvals are not disbursements; and a one-time allocation is not recurring operating capacity.

The 2025 Insights report’s $37 million headline combines grants and loans approved or awarded to businesses and nonprofits. It is not the annual cost of small-business assistance. A defensible ledger would separately show staff and contracts, grants paid, lending and repayments, guarantees, tax expenditures and pass-through funding, then reconcile them to actual accounts. Report summary ↗ FY 2025 financial statements ↗

Then ask what the next dollar achieves. Is the bottleneck a lack of advisors, confusing eligibility, a permit dependency, an unaffordable buildout, or insufficient customer demand? The comparison is not simply “small business versus no small business.” It is one intervention against the best available alternative, including reliable everyday city services.

What evaluation has already taught us

Satisfied clients are not a counterfactual.

The City Auditor’s emergency-grant review identified weaknesses in award standards and outcome evidence. Its findings apply to the pandemic program examined, not automatically to OSB today. The broader lesson is to define success and comparison groups before funds are spent. 2021 audit ↗

Why test assistance rather than assume it works

Training can change starts without raising earnings.

Project GATE used randomized assignment to evaluate entrepreneurship services. Its long-term report found early business-ownership effects that faded and no effect on self-employment earnings. That does not settle every Portland program; it shows why counting starts is insufficient. U.S. Department of Labor evaluation ↗

10

An institution for the next decade

Make useful capability available to a very small firm.

The promise of AI is cheaper, faster access to some work that owners currently do alone. The public challenge is to turn that capability into completed, reliable services—and fix processes that should not require help in the first place.

Build a service with an accountable person behind it.

Imagine an owner describing a specific objective: open this shop, understand next month’s cash position, submit this bid, or resolve this tax notice. The system gathers only the needed information, checks the applicable rules, prepares the work, and gives a named advisor responsibility for the next step. The owner can see what is waiting, who owns it and when to expect a response.

AI can draft, classify, translate, organize and check consistency. A qualified person must review consequential accounting, legal, licensing and financing work. Government must still make authoritative decisions. The owner must approve submissions and control access to business records.

The 2025 Federal Reserve survey reports 46% AI use among responding employer firms, with accuracy a leading concern. Census BTOS reported roughly 17–20% over December 2025–May 2026 using a different sample and question. These are not interchangeable adoption measures or Portland estimates. Federal Reserve ↗ Census ↗

Figure 17

What the next service could actually deliver.

Proposed service design · Human responsibility and structural constraints remain visible

01

Understand the need

A multilingual conversation, a phone call or an in-person visit.

Human owner: a navigator checks the actual problem, urgency and eligibility.
02

Do the preparation

Organize records, draft a cash-flow view, identify eligible bids, prepare an application.

AI-assisted work is checked against dated sources and the owner’s actual records.
03

Resolve the dependency

Secure a specialist answer, an agency decision, a complete submission or a workable alternative.

Named professionals and bureaus own decisions; a model does not issue a permit.
04

Confirm the result

Did the owner finish the task? Was it correct? Did time, money or business stability improve?

Follow up after the referral and publish privacy-protected performance measures.
Design hypotheses informed by existing services and audits. International examples illustrate mechanisms, not a comparable global ranking or proof of effectiveness in Portland.Seattle small business consulting programs ↗SMEs Go Digital Advisor announcement ↗CTO-as-a-Service factsheet ↗MyCity system audit ↗
Put AI where the task is suitable
ServiceUseful AI-supported workWhat still needs people or policy
Bookkeeping preparationSort documents, suggest categories, flag missing records.Owner confirmation, accountant review, tax treatment and reliable underlying records.
Cash-flow planningBuild scenarios from invoices, recurring costs and timing assumptions.Demand judgment, creditor negotiation and the cash itself.
ProcurementFind relevant opportunities, summarize requirements, organize a bid checklist.Capacity, certification, bonding, fair purchasing and timely payment.
Applications and grantsReuse verified facts, draft answers, check completeness and translate.Clear eligibility, simpler forms, transparent selection and sufficient funding.
PermittingExplain a documented pathway and assemble a complete package for review.Authoritative interpretation, inspections, professional design and process reform.
Marketing and salesDraft material, improve accessibility and support customer follow-up.A differentiated offer, genuine trust and customers with purchasing power.

Better grant writing does not create more grant money.

If funding is fixed, better applications can simply intensify the competition. Compare an application assistant with a shorter application, reusable verified business profile, clearer eligibility, or a less burdensome allocation rule. Time saved for unsuccessful applicants counts too.

The same principle applies to navigation: a system that explains an unnecessarily confusing process can be useful, but simplifying that process may deliver more lasting value.

A wrong answer can be an expensive service.

New York’s MyCity audit documented inconsistent and inaccurate chatbot responses and disputed performance measures. Portland should evaluate real tasks with independent checks, including different languages, ambiguous questions and changing rules. An unresolved task must not be classified as a success merely because the system answered. NYC Comptroller ↗

Why doesn’t the ideal system exist already?

No single institution controls the whole journey. Rules sit across agencies and levels of government. Data are fragmented, eligibility differs by funding source, and a referring organization may have no authority over the next decision. Trusted providers need stable capacity; small firms have limited time to adopt unfamiliar tools.

AI lowers the cost of some information work. It does not remove those institutional constraints. Nor does it create affordable premises, working capital or local purchasing power. A successful system requires service agreements, budget authority, usable data and accountability for unresolved cases.

It also creates tradeoffs. Subsidized AI services could displace local bookkeepers, designers or administrative workers. The city could instead contract with those providers to supervise and improve service. That choice should be explicit. Follow effects on service quality, worker income, competition and customer demand alongside owner time saved.

Figure 18

Three ways to spend the next dollar.

A policy lab, not an official budget · Change the cost, reach and assumed effect

Illustrative first-year operating scenario

Give small firms a back office

Human advisors with AI-assisted document preparation, cash-flow workflows, and specialist review.

8 staff × $145,000
$1,160,000
Systems, tools & operations
$300,000
Language, quality / targeted support
$280,000
Evaluation & accessibility
$150,000

$1,890,000first-year cost

$12,600cost per additional resolved case

150 more cases resolved than without the intervention. This effect is assumed, not measured.

Responsible institutionsProsper and contracted community providers

What must changeConsent-based records, multilingual service, licensed expert review where required, secure tools and provider capacity.

How to test itCompare existing assistance, human assistance with AI, and simpler forms. Measure verified completed tasks, errors, time saved and six- and twelve-month outcomes.

Planning assumptions, not appropriations, bids, proven effects or benefit–cost ratios. Alternatives are not automatically additive. Loan principal, major construction and agencywide overhead are outside these operating scenarios. Cost per additional case = first-year cost ÷ (businesses served × assumed percentage-point effect ÷ 100).

These are alternative illustrative concepts. No causal effect is established. A higher activity count only improves the scenario if the intervention resolves more problems than would otherwise be resolved.Framework for Evaluation of SME Policies 2023 ↗Project GATE final evaluation ↗Download data ↓
11

What Portland should decide

Aim to be the easiest place to build a viable livelihood.

“Number one in the world” becomes useful when it means a measurable experience. The goal should reward accessible opportunity, useful output and durable prosperity—not an ever-rising count of small firms.

A proposed public scorecardTargets require a baseline; these are measures, not claimed results.
01

A predictable start

Median and 90th-percentile time from a complete initial case to opening or a definitive decision.

Include abandoned cases, project complexity, applicant time and safety outcomes.
02

Help that finishes the task

Additional share of cases resolved; cost per additional resolution.

Independent quality checks and an appropriate comparison group.
03

A sustainable owner income

Net income per owner hour, reserves, volatility and household exposure.

Measure costs and hours; include closed businesses and nonrespondents.
04

Work worth having

Hourly pay, benefits, stable hours, retention and advancement.

Compare similar sectors, occupations and worker characteristics.
05

Opportunity that reaches people

Awareness, uptake, rejection, abandonment and outcomes by eligible group.

Use correct denominators, language access and privacy-protected cells.
06

A productive local economy

Value added where measurable, customer demand, supplier growth and useful services.

Account for displaced competitors, landlord capture and costs borne by residents.

First 90 days · Establish the baseline

Make the system legible.

Publish a reconciled inventory of actual spending and services. Agree on a case and a resolution. Resolve the OSB totals and city size definitions. Sample nonusers, unsuccessful applicants and closed businesses. Identify the two or three recurrent delays owners cannot resolve alone.

Months 4–9 · Test a complete service

Run a bounded, comparative pilot.

Choose concrete tasks with enough volume to evaluate. Compare existing assistance, AI-assisted human service and process simplification. Define acceptable error rates and escalation rules before launch. Track costs and owner effort from intake through completion.

Months 10–18 · Scale what earns it

Publish results and change the rules.

Measure six- and twelve-month outcomes with nonresponse disclosed. Expand what provides additional value; redesign or stop what does not. Use recurring case failures to change permits, purchasing, payment and eligibility rules. Give the public a durable performance record.

What would change our judgment?

If the majority of lost owner time comes from repeated documentation, shared services become more compelling. If commercially viable projects repeatedly fail at the same city-controlled step, structural reform becomes the priority. If firms can open readily but cannot attract customers, demand, household prosperity and place management move to the center.

If grants mainly move customers between nearby businesses, claimed growth needs to be reduced for displacement. If landlords capture most of a space subsidy, program design should change. If a trusted advisor prevents an owner from taking on unaffordable debt or starting a business that cannot work, that can be a valuable outcome even though no new firm appears in the statistics.

The standard to hold ourselves to

Celebrate the business.
Measure the life it makes possible.

For the owner. For the worker. For the customer. For the city.
12

Open notebook

Go all the way back to the evidence.

Explore the source register, download the numerical extracts, and inspect the definitions. A polished chart should make its uncertainty easier to see.

How the calculations work

Census SUSB provides employer enterprise-size comparisons. NES covers tax-reporting nonemployers. QCEW measures annual-average covered jobs and wages. BDS tracks employer-business dynamics. They describe related but different populations.

Headline shares divide the relevant size-group value by the same source’s total. Industry-adjusted peer shares apply Portland’s broad-sector employment weights to each peer’s within-sector small-enterprise share. Suppressed values are not treated as zero.

What is—and is not—complete

This is an evidence-led investigation, not a complete census of city firms or a claim to have reviewed the entire web. The library includes reviewed sources and leads whose methods or data remain unresolved. Source status is visible below.

Owner-profit distributions, local benefits by firm size, complete city survival cohorts, procurement flows, a valid city GDP split and causal program effects remain research priorities. No interviews or public-records requests have been sent for this report.

Measurement rulesOriginal source registerOriginal claim ledgerWebpage claim extensionAdditional reviewed sourcesGDP feasibilityPrepared fieldwork kitProgram cost assumptionsNew calculations & methodsRaw input URLs & hashesRebuild the webpage data
The five cautions that matter most
  1. Geography: city, county and metro boundaries are different. Postal addresses are not a city boundary.
  2. Units: an entity is not necessarily active; a location is not a firm; a job is not a full-time person; receipts are not profit or GDP.
  3. Dates: each chart uses its actual measurement period. Latest common years differ. Nominal payroll cannot demonstrate real income gains.
  4. Causality: clients select into programs, outcomes may have happened anyway, and surveys miss nonrespondents. Reported effects need a comparator.
  5. Missing evidence: official reports can contain ambiguities. OSB totals, the Chamber’s 20%/28% shares and the city’s size unit remain visible until resolved.

72 of 72 registered sources · inclusion does not mean every finding was validated

US Census2022 SUSB MSA 3-digit NAICS datasetarchived-reviewed

Enterprise size; revised MSA dataset; SHA in checks.json

Geography
US metropolitan areas
Measurement period
2022
Publication
2025-07 revision
Evidence location
c01: MSA 38900 NAICS -- ENTRSIZE 01 | c02: MSA 38900 NAICS -- ENTRSIZE 05 | c03: MSA 38900 NAICS -- ENTRSIZE 08 | c04: MSA 38900 NAICS -- ENTRSIZE 08/01 PAYR | c05: MSA 38900 NAICS -- ENTRSIZE 08/01 RCPT | c09: MSA 38900 NAICS 54 and 72 ENTRSIZE 01 | c10: MSA 38900 NAICS 62 ENTRSIZE 01
Method / limitation
Enterprise size; revised MSA dataset; SHA in checks.json
Open original source ↗
US Census2022 SUSB county enterprise size workbookarchived-reviewed

Multnomah County extract; SHA in checks.json

Geography
US counties
Measurement period
2022
Publication
2025-05-29
Evidence location
c06: State 41 County 051 NAICS -- Enterprise Size 1 | c07: State 41 County 051 NAICS -- Enterprise Size 2+3+4 | c08: State 41 County 051 NAICS -- Enterprise Size 2
Method / limitation
Multnomah County extract; SHA in checks.json
Open original source ↗
US CensusSUSB methodologyreviewed

Employer universe and enterprise versus establishment

Geography
US
Measurement period
2022
Publication
n.d.
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Employer universe and enterprise versus establishment
Open original source ↗
US Census2022 SUSB dataset noticereviewed

Revised MSA 3-digit file notice

Geography
US
Measurement period
2022
Publication
2025-08-04
Evidence location
c27: Notice Revision of Dataset
Method / limitation
Revised MSA 3-digit file notice
Open original source ↗
US Census2023 Nonemployer Statistics county filearchived-reviewed

Cached pinned raw in maker-economy corpus; receipts are not profit

Geography
US counties
Measurement period
2023
Publication
2025
Evidence location
c11: ST 41 CTY 051 NAICS 00
Method / limitation
Cached pinned raw in maker-economy corpus; receipts are not profit
Open original source ↗
US CensusNonemployer Statistics methodologyreviewed

Mailing address and threshold limitations

Geography
US
Measurement period
2023
Publication
n.d.
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Mailing address and threshold limitations
Open original source ↗
US CensusNonemployer Statistics by Demographics APIscreened

Potential owner demographics

Geography
US; subnational
Measurement period
2023
Publication
2025
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
US CensusAnnual Business Surveyqueued

Employer ownership and innovation; check metro coverage

Geography
US; subnational
Measurement period
multiple
Publication
n.d.
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
US CensusCounty Business Patternsscreened

Establishments not enterprises

Geography
county; metro; ZIP
Measurement period
multiple
Publication
n.d.
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
US CensusBusiness Dynamics Statisticsscreened

Age; size; births; deaths

Geography
US; metro
Measurement period
multiple
Publication
n.d.
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
US Census2023 BDS data filesscreened

MSA age and size tables

Geography
US; metro
Measurement period
2023
Publication
n.d.
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
US CensusBusiness Formation Statisticsqueued

Applications are not firm births

Geography
US; state; county
Measurement period
multiple
Publication
n.d.
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
US BLS2019 QCEW county annual bulkarchived-reviewed

Original cached in maker-economy corpus

Geography
Multnomah County
Measurement period
2019
Publication
n.d.
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Original cached in maker-economy corpus
Open original source ↗
US BLS2025 QCEW county annual bulkarchived-reviewed

Covered annual-average payroll jobs

Geography
Multnomah County
Measurement period
2025
Publication
n.d.
Evidence location
c12: area_fips 41051 own_code 5 industry_code 10 size_code 0 qtr A | c13: area_fips 41051 own_code 5 industry_code 62 size_code 0 qtr A | c14: area_fips 41051 own_code 5 industry_code 31-33 size_code 0 qtr A
Method / limitation
Covered annual-average payroll jobs
Open original source ↗
US BLSQCEW overviewreviewed

Excludes most proprietor work

Geography
US; county
Measurement period
multiple
Publication
n.d.
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Excludes most proprietor work
Open original source ↗
Oregon Employment DepartmentOregon Employment Department data hubscreened

Regional employment and wages

Geography
Oregon; county; metro
Measurement period
current
Publication
n.d.
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
Oregon Employment DepartmentBusiness Formation and Business Employment Dynamics in Oregonscreened

Context for formation and UI coverage

Geography
Oregon; metro
Measurement period
multiple
Publication
2026-02-05
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
US BEAGDP by County 2024 releasereviewed

No firm-size split

Geography
US counties
Measurement period
2024
Publication
2026-02-05
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
No firm-size split
Open original source ↗
US BEASmall Business satellite-account program statusreviewed

Experimental national series discontinued as regular output

Geography
US
Measurement period
multiple
Publication
2026-02
Evidence location
c25: Opening notice
Method / limitation
Experimental national series discontinued as regular output
Open original source ↗
US BEAGeographic aggregator technical documentationscreened

Need current-dollar sum and real GDP aggregation method

Geography
county-derived metros
Measurement period
2024
Publication
2026-02
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
US SBA Office of AdvocacySmall Businesses Generate 44 Percent of U.S. Economic Activityscreened

Historical national finding; not Portland allocation

Geography
US
Measurement period
1998-2014
Publication
2019-01-30
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
Prosper PortlandOffice of Small Business Year One Impact Reportarchived-reviewed

13-page report; 759 unique businesses and engagement mix

Geography
Portland city
Measurement period
2025-05 to 2026-05
Publication
2026-09-10
Evidence location
c15: Page 4 headline | c16: Page 4 INDUSTRY | c17: Page 4 SERVICES | c18: Pages 2 and 4; district counts 103 182 154 142 | c19: Pages 2-3
Method / limitation
13-page report; 759 unique businesses and engagement mix
Open original source ↗
Prosper PortlandOSB impact report articlereviewed

Article says 1700+ interactions

Geography
Portland city
Measurement period
2025-2026
Publication
2026-09-10
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Article says 1700+ interactions
Open original source ↗
Prosper PortlandWorkforce and business programs board updatescreened

621 businesses served; survey response about 30 percent

Geography
Portland city
Measurement period
FY2023-24
Publication
2025-03-12
Evidence location
c22: Inclusive Business Resource Network section | c23: Inclusive Business Resource Network section
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
Prosper PortlandProsper Portland FY2025 annual comprehensive financial reportscreened

Fund and budget context; not all spending targets firms

Geography
Portland city
Measurement period
FY2025
Publication
2025-11
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
Prosper PortlandInsights and Indicators 2025archived-reviewed

City small-business employment Figure 1.06 and central-city Figure 1.07; size-band inconsistency

Geography
Portland city
Measurement period
2025
Publication
2026-02
Evidence location
c35: Figure 1.06 PDF page 17 (printed page 11) | c36: PDF pages 17 and 88 (printed pages 11 and 82)
Method / limitation
City small-business employment Figure 1.06 and central-city Figure 1.07; size-band inconsistency
Open original source ↗
City of PortlandFive Year Loan and Grant Activityscreened

Geographic spending; do not sum principal with grants

Geography
Portland city
Measurement period
FY2019-20 to FY2023-24
Publication
2025-01
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
City of PortlandFY2026-27 proposed Prosper budget reportscreened

Budget proposal not actual expenditures

Geography
Portland city
Measurement period
FY2026-27
Publication
2026
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
Portland Civic LabPortland City Performance Dashboardscreened

City performance indicator republished; trace back to original

Geography
Portland city
Measurement period
multiple
Publication
2026
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
City AuditorEmergency grants auditreviewed

Selection and outcome assessment findings

Geography
Portland city
Measurement period
2020
Publication
2021-05-12
Evidence location
c24: Outcome assessment section
Method / limitation
Selection and outcome assessment findings
Open original source ↗
City AuditorProsper Portland 2022 audit follow-upscreened

Follow-up status; historic program

Geography
Portland city
Measurement period
2022
Publication
2022
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
City AuditorOngoing City Auditor workscreened

Grants-management audit unfinished at cutoff

Geography
Portland city
Measurement period
2026
Publication
2026
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
City of PortlandPermit Review Dashboard descriptionreviewed

Commercial review times; application cohorts needed

Geography
Portland city
Measurement period
current
Publication
2026
Evidence location
c26: Understanding commercial and residential permits
Method / limitation
Commercial review times; application cohorts needed
Open original source ↗
City of PortlandPermitting Metricsscreened

Dashboard and performance claims

Geography
Portland city
Measurement period
current
Publication
n.d.
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
City of PortlandBusiness Tax Filing and Payment Informationscreened

Net-income tax; distinct from permit

Geography
Portland city
Measurement period
current
Publication
2026
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
MetroEconomic Value Atlasscreened

Uses Esri/DataAxle; vendor inventory limits

Geography
Portland region
Measurement period
2025 data
Publication
n.d.
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
City of PortlandPlanning maps and city boundariesscreened

City limits and business district boundaries

Geography
Portland city
Measurement period
current
Publication
n.d.
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
Oregon Secretary of StateOregon business statistics and filingsscreened

Registration is not operating business

Geography
Oregon
Measurement period
current
Publication
n.d.
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
Oregon Secretary of StateActive Businesses Socrata datasetqueued

Entity types and mailing address require filtering

Geography
Oregon
Measurement period
current
Publication
n.d.
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
Portland Metro Chamber2023 State of Small Businessreviewed

One page states both 20 and 28 percent for metro share

Geography
Multnomah; metro
Measurement period
2017-2022
Publication
2023-09
Evidence location
c20: Report at a Glance and What the data shows | c21: Introduction
Method / limitation
One page states both 20 and 28 percent for metro share
Open original source ↗
City of PortlandCouncil acceptance of Chamber reportscreened

Uses 28 percent metro and 35.1 percent county; under 50 definition

Geography
Portland city
Measurement period
2022
Publication
2024
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
Bricks Need MortarWe Are Here 2025screened

Respondent survey; check recruitment and sample

Geography
Portland brick-and-mortar
Measurement period
2024
Publication
2025-03-24
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
Downtown Portland Clean & SafeDowntown Portland research reportsscreened

Foot traffic and business survey; not citywide

Geography
Central city
Measurement period
multiple
Publication
n.d.
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
City of PortlandLegacy businesses study announcementscreened

Succession and displacement

Geography
Portland city
Measurement period
2026
Publication
2026-03-20
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
US SBA7a and 504 FOIA datascreened

Loan approval is not additional economic impact

Geography
US; loan level
Measurement period
through 2026-06
Publication
2026-04 update
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
FFIECCRA public data productsscreened

Reporting lenders only; loan amount is not small-firm count

Geography
US; county; metro
Measurement period
1996-2024
Publication
2026-02-23
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
Federal Reserve SystemSmall Business Credit Survey reportsscreened

Sample and weighting limitations

Geography
US; selected metros
Measurement period
2025
Publication
2026
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
Business OregonOregon State Small Business Credit Initiativescreened

Capital and technical assistance

Geography
Oregon
Measurement period
current
Publication
n.d.
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
Port of PortlandPort of Portland small business enterprise programscreened

Procurement goal and eligibility

Geography
Portland region
Measurement period
current
Publication
n.d.
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
City of PortlandPortland 2026 disparity studyscreened

Study underway at cutoff; no findings yet

Geography
Portland region
Measurement period
2026
Publication
2026
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
Oregon Secretary of StateState Office of Small Business Assistancescreened

State uses 0–100 employee definition

Geography
Oregon
Measurement period
current
Publication
n.d.
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
OECDFramework for Evaluation of SME Policies 2023screened

Evaluation framework not Portland impact evidence

Geography
international
Measurement period
2023
Publication
2023-02-13
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
US Department of LaborProject GATE final evaluationscreened

Random-assignment entrepreneurship support study

Geography
US study sites
Measurement period
2002-2009
Publication
2010-08-24
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
NBER; original authorsWho Creates Jobs? Small vs Large vs Youngreviewed

Size-growth association changes after age adjustment

Geography
US
Measurement period
multiple
Publication
2010-2012
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Size-growth association changes after age adjustment
Open original source ↗
NBER; original authorsWhat Do Small Businesses Do?screened

Many owner goals do not involve high growth

Geography
US
Measurement period
multiple
Publication
2011
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
City of SeattleSeattle small business consulting programsscreened

Accounting legal permitting and space support

Geography
Seattle
Measurement period
2026
Publication
2026-01-15
Evidence location
c29: Helping Seattle small businesses grow
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
IMDASMEs Go Digital Advisor announcementscreened

Existing AI-enabled and human-guided shared services

Geography
Singapore
Measurement period
2025
Publication
2025
Evidence location
c28: SMEs Go Digital Day
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
IMDACTO-as-a-Service factsheetscreened

Digital strategy advice and solution discovery

Geography
Singapore
Measurement period
2021
Publication
2021-03-02
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
NYC ComptrollerMyCity system auditscreened

AI business guidance accuracy and oversight

Geography
New York City
Measurement period
2025
Publication
2025-12-30
Evidence location
c30: Audit Summary of Findings
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
US CensusBusiness Trends and Outlook Survey downloadsscreened

AI adoption and business conditions

Geography
US; selected geographies
Measurement period
2023-2026
Publication
2026
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
Federal Reserve Bank of San FranciscoAI adoption in small businessesscreened

Qualitative adoption findings

Geography
US
Measurement period
2024 survey
Publication
2026-07
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
Oregon SBDC networkOregon SBDC center finderscreened

PCC local center; no reach or outcomes extracted

Geography
Oregon
Measurement period
current
Publication
n.d.
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
MESOMESO services and lendingscreened

Provider self-description; verify contracts and results

Geography
Oregon and Southwest Washington
Measurement period
current
Publication
n.d.
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
Livelihood NWLivelihood NW servicesscreened

Provider-reported reach; not city-unique or causal

Geography
Oregon and Southwest Washington
Measurement period
2025
Publication
n.d.
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Not fully reviewed; inspect publisher methods before use
Open original source ↗
US Census2023 BDS MSA all-years CSVarchived-reviewed

2019-23 metro entry exit and job flows; raw hash in checks.json

Geography
US metropolitan areas
Measurement period
1978-2023
Publication
2025-11-25
Evidence location
c31: year 2023 msa 38900 estabs_entry and estabs_exit
Method / limitation
2019-23 metro entry exit and job flows; raw hash in checks.json
Open original source ↗
US Census2023 BDS MSA by firm age coarse CSVarchived-reviewed

2023 Portland MSA firm-age extract; left-censored age category

Geography
US metropolitan areas
Measurement period
1978-2023
Publication
2025-11-25
Evidence location
c32: year 2023 msa 38900 fagecoarse a) 0 firms
Method / limitation
2023 Portland MSA firm-age extract; left-censored age category
Open original source ↗
US CensusBDS methodologyreviewed

Establishment entry exit and parent firm-age definitions

Geography
US
Measurement period
1978-2023
Publication
n.d.
Evidence location
No claim extracted yet
Method / limitation
Establishment entry exit and parent firm-age definitions
Open original source ↗
City of Portland; Prosper PortlandProsper FY2025-26 proposed budget committee reportreviewed

Proposed $189m agency budget includes real estate and other activities; targets are not actuals

Geography
Portland city
Measurement period
FY2025-26
Publication
2025-05-13
Evidence location
c33: Financial and budgetary impacts paragraph | c34: Key Performance Indicators paragraph
Method / limitation
Proposed $189m agency budget includes real estate and other activities; targets are not actuals
Open original source ↗
Federal Reserve Banks2026 Report on Employer Firms: 2025 Small Business Credit Surveyreviewed

6,525 employer-firm responses; weighted convenience sample, not Portland estimates. AI module optional (about 81% response). 42/36/22% financing outcomes among applicants; 46% AI use.

Geography
United States
Measurement period
Survey Sep 3–Nov 14, 2025
Publication
2026-03-03
Evidence location
Web sections Debt and credit demand; Use of artificial intelligence; About survey. PDF p. 28 for AI module caveat.
Method / limitation
Nonrandom sample; self-reported outcomes; no causal effects.
Open original source ↗
City of Portland Revenue DivisionBusiness tax filing and payment: gross-receipts exemption thresholdsreviewed

City gross-receipts threshold less than $50,000 before 2026, $75,000 in 2026, $100,000 from 2027. City/county exemption still requires filing.

Geography
Portland / Multnomah / Metro, distinct tax jurisdictions
Measurement period
Tax years 2025–2027
Publication
Living official guidance; accessed 2026-10-03
Evidence location
Exemptions section
Method / limitation
Gross-receipts eligibility is distinct from taxable net-income base; not individualized tax advice.
Open original source ↗
City of Portland Mayor's OfficeSmall Businesses Get Tax Cut: adopted city threshold changereviewed

Confirms the threshold changes were adopted before the Sep 30 evidence cutoff.

Geography
Portland city
Measurement period
2026/2027 tax years
Publication
2026-04-08
Evidence location
Opening paragraph
Method / limitation
Policy announcement; not an impact evaluation.
Open original source ↗
US Census BureauLarge Firms With at Least 20 Employees Biggest AI Usersreviewed

BTOS AI use about 17–20%; revised question covers any business function. Not comparable to older goods/services-only question or Fed sample.

Geography
United States
Measurement period
December 2025–May 2026
Publication
2026-05
Evidence location
Article and methodology explanation
Method / limitation
Different universe/question from SBCS; cannot interpret survey gap as a trend.
Open original source ↗

Research assembled October 3, 2026 · Evidence cutoff September 30, 2026 · Measurement dates shown with every figure.