Philadelphia – Joe Buckshon

Quality Jobs Tax Grant: Program Design Capstone

The Capstone Project has been a hallmark of the Fels Institute’s practical approach to public administration for many years. I was fortunate to have a mentor who had also gone through the program, and was able to guide me to an excellent candidate for a project. After a successful design process, the COVID-19 pandemic (appropriately) deprioritized the program’s funding in favor of a more immediate lifeline to small businesses. But in 2023, the City of Philadelphia officially launched the program.

Executive Summary

In general, tax incentives are expensive, poorly designed, and difficult if not impossible to
evaluate. At the same time, they are critical to the economic future of a city, state, or region
and their ability to attract or retain businesses. They are popular among politicians for their
ability to make a splash – creating jobs and scoring points with voters. The reality is there are
too many programs that don’t offer enough data on their performance. In Philadelphia alone
there are 21 separate programs that offer economic incentives – the most among major cities
included in a recent Pew Research center study. And yet, Philadelphia struggles with growing
the right kinds of jobs – those offering good wages, health insurance, and other benefits that
help families thrive. To make better use of funding dedicated to economic incentives,
Philadelphia and cities across the country must embrace transparency, evaluation, and
inclusive policies that maximize benefits for all residents. The Quality Jobs Tax Grant program
represents a design that incorporates these ideas and much more by relying on best practices,
high-quality research, and expert opinions. Improvements will be needed across the full
portfolio of economic incentives, but Quality Jobs can serve as the new standard for inclusive
growth incentives in Philadelphia.

My full capstone paper can be accessed here.

How to change behavior in advocacy campaigns

Strategy

This post is a summary of work and ideas developed for a foundation in Southeastern Pennsylvania while I was employed at Message Agency in 2019. Part of my role was to conduct secondary research on models of behavior change to use in our strategy for engaging the local community.

How does behavior change happen?

One of the most considered questions of philosophy is that of free will. Do you choose how you move through your day? Or is it all predetermined? Or, are others determining things for you? With the amount of external influence on you through media, the internet, and your peers there are endless stimuli able to nudge you in a new direction.

“I’m convinced that ideas and behaviors and new products move through a population very much like a disease does. This isn’t just a metaphor, in other words. I’m talking about a very literal analogy. . . . Ideas can be contagious in exactly the same way that a virus is.”
Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point

Research shows that the information that sticks with us most does not simply hang in the air like a virus. Instead, it is very deliberately passed to us by those we interact with on a regular basis and those we hold in high esteem. In this post I’ll attempt to provide an overview of some evidence-based models related to behavior change and how they can be operationalized in campaigns.

Dr. Damon Centola’s Models for Behavior Change

In his latest book, How Behavior Spreads, Dr. Centola uses a combination of research and narrative to help the reader understand the means by which information leads to behavior change. To illustrate the basic premise of his research Dr. Centola uses the example of Korea in the early 1960s when they were attempting to increase adoption of contraceptives among rural populations. Instead of buying billboards and radio ads, the Korean campaign provided a menu of contraceptive options to each village in the nation. At the local level, Koreans were able to select the methods that they were most comfortable using – not the one pushed on them by a spokesperson. Peer-to-peer discussion of the options led to further adoption by those with overlapping social ties. Eventually Korea surpassed all of its policy goals for the initiative, and the theory of social influence was born. Instead of a network effect of loose ties leading to a “viral diffusion,” it was instead spatial interactions that emerged as the most successful pathways.

While the viral model suggests that radiating networks
of weak ties would lead to successful dissemination, it was instead
overlapping patterns of spatial interaction that were the key to widespread adoption.
Dr. Damon Centola, How Behavior Spreads

Another line of Dr. Centola’s research involves “tipping points” for adoption of behaviors and ideas. Using online chatrooms, Dr. Centola and his team were able to measure how much of a group needed to agree with a non-mainstream idea before more and more of the participants flipped to embrace it. They found that once about 25% of a group have adopted the more extreme view, adoption accelerates among the rest of the group until it reaches a saturation point.

What does this mean for your campaign to change behaviors? It helps to give you a more realistic goal. Imagine a County in your state and how the residents might feel about a certain policy. You might estimate that 20% are strongly in favor, 20% are strongly against, and the other 60% undecided. If you are leading a campaign to get the policy passed in the legislature, you need to increase your number of residents in favor. But by how much? In order to get and keep the momentum, you can target 25% of the undecided population. Once your polling indicates you’ve moved roughly that many residents towards your side, you can be more confident that the tide is truly turning.

How can I leverage spatial patterns in my campaign?

In the case of our campaign in Southeastern Pennsylvania, we relied on what we called an “opportunity map” to help guide our decisions. We used the free Google MyMaps software to build our initial map. Many jurisdictions with Open Data platforms offer file types that are easy to upload directly, which saves time. If you are building your data set manually, it is very easy to add new locations, but cant take quite a bit of time to add everything you’d like to track. This map should include several layers depending on your goals – some we included were non-profit organizations, faith-based organizations, public housing developments, and schools, libraries, and recreation centers.

Once your map is built, you should immediately begin to notice patterns in where the points fall in relation to one another. Remember, space is the key here, so if you see certain points “out on an island”, do some research or engage your community in that area to find out what you might be missing. The goal is to find the clusters of organizations and individuals who might or might not talk to one another because of proximity, and get them to be on the same page and engaged in your work. For example, the librarian and the fire chief might be next door to one another, but not have much need to speak on a regular basis. However, if the county receives a grant that could fund joint public safety work by both groups, you’d find it very valuable that they could be easily brought together in a physical location.

The map can also be used as both a communication and organizing tool. You can share access easily among your peer group, and encourage them to add points to the map they think would be relevant to your goals. It can also be used in organizing to divide responsibility for certain areas of a larger county or city. For example, the Census (in addition to tracts at the micro level) often uses larger divisions to break down counties in the US. These can be valuable in identifying demographic trends, deputizing others to lead outreach efforts, and help limit travel over longer distances for meetings or other activity.

Conclusion

Behavior change doesn’t just happen by having a celebrity record a PSA. The most effective models for change involve social influence, and are driven by overlapping spatial relationships. The “tipping point” means you can more effectively target ambivalent people in your geography. You can use GIS and mapping tools to create a clear picture of your target geography and the assets available to you. Use the map to guide your strategic interventions and gain adoption of your campaign messages.

Restructuring business taxes in Philadelphia

Public Policy

This memo was drafted in April 2019 for informational purposes for the City of Philadelphia Department of Commerce. It does not in any way represent the Department of Commerce’s opinion or policy on this matter.

Introduction

Philadelphia is the only one of the thirty largest cities in America to collect both a net income and a gross receipts tax on businesses. This leads to the City imposing some of the highest business tax rates in the country. According to a recent Pew Charitable Trust report, Philly also leads the way in the number of Exemptions and Incentives to lower these same taxes. The end result is a complex set of programs that compete for attention and applications from the cities’ stock of firms. While Philly may not benefit from lowering taxes to the lowest allowable level, a restructuring of tax policy to target harder to move assets and a simplified set of taxes could allow for similar revenue collection and lessen the burden on businesses.

What is the current state of business tax in Philly?

Pew reviewed five cities who collect only Gross Receipts tax – one element of BIRT in Philadelphia. These cities – Los Angeles; Memphis, TN; Nashville, TN; Seattle; and San Francisco – tax all of the money a business collects regardless of their profitability. Philadelphia’s rate is actually lower than all five of these cities – currently 0.1451% on all businesses regardless of size. Tennessee is a bit of a unique case as the state collects the gross receipt tax and remits to the cities. San Francisco has one static rate slightly above Philadelphia’s (SF charges 0.1625%). Both Seattle and Los Angeles have a bracketed approach to the Gross Receipts tax. Both Seattle (charges 0.150% to 0.415%) and LA (charges 0.101% to 0.507%) differentiate their tax rate by industry classification.

What would a Gross-Receipts-only model look like in Philly?

If the City were to take a similar route in their tax policy, it is possible that the city could lower taxes on certain classes of businesses while scaling up the rate to those firms who generate the most revenue in the city. If Philadelphia were to triple the current rate for those industries it deems appropriate, it would still be lower than the high-end tax rate in Los Angeles (0.4353% in Philly vs. 0.507% in LA). If one were to triple the tax revenue associated with Gross Receipts in 2016, that would mean $240 Million in revenue. This would still leave the city short in the short-term, though the simplification of the tax code and lowering of overall tax burden should make Philadelphia more attractive to expanding or relocating firms.

What other goals should be set for Philly’s business tax policy?

In general, Philadelphia should be focused more on taxing revenue sources that are not as mobile as net income or gross receipts. In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wayfair v. South Dakota, which related to the collection of sales (and use) taxes by firms, despite not having any physical presence in a state. This ruling takes away some of the “mobility” previously available to Gross Receipts tax incidence. Another policy avenue available to other cities, but not cities in Pennsylvania, is a differentiated property tax rate for commercial properties. Due to the uniformity clause in the State Constitution, Philly does not have access to the potentially potent tool.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Philadelphia has policy tools available to it if the city wants to be more business-friendly, if not as many as other cities. Our number and type of tax policies create confusion and discourage businesses from complying with our rules. Our relatively low rate of Gross Receipt tax leaves room for the city to expand this piece of the revenue pie in line with other large cities. A general policy of moving to a simplified system which taxes revenue sources that are harder to move – like real estate, gross receipts, etc. – would make for a more stable revenue stream and limit opportunities for firms to reduce their tax burden artificially.

Regulating Philadelphia’s Gig Economy

Public Policy

This memo was drafted in June 2019 for informational purposes for the City of Philadelphia Department of Commerce. It does not in any way represent the Department of Commerce’s opinion or policy on this matter.

Executive Summary

Despite huge growth over the last eight years, the gig economy is a controversial subject with supporters and detractors across the country. Those in favor say it provides flexibility and scalability for talented workers to earn income on their own schedule. Those opposed see greedy corporations placing the risk on employees while withholding some of the reward they’d receive if they were truly “independent.” Philadelphia is home to many thousands of gig economy workers, and faces a difficult challenge in balancing reform and protections for workers with preserving this vital source of income for non-traditional employees. By working closely with employee rights’ groups and freelancers of all shapes and sizes, new incentives and penalties should be developed to better manage the gig economy labor market, as opposed to banning it outright.

What is the Gig Economy? How does it interact with the larger labor market?

The gig economy is a term used to describe a wide variety of temporary, part-time, flexible labor contracts, which can have varying degrees of complexity. For example, adjunct professors or high-skilled freelance workers are just as much gig economy members as Uber drivers and Rover dog walkers. When viewed in this more holistic way, as much as one third of Americans already have a “gig” as part of their professional life. Workers choose gigs because of the flexibility and, in some cases, to get into a new job or back to work quickly without dealing with traditional hiring processes.

Employers also benefit in many ways from the arrangements possible in the gig economy. For example, an employer who cannot afford to continue hiring full-time employees as they scale may use gig economy workers to fill in the gaps. Another way the employer may benefit is by expanding their available talent pool. A graphic designer, for example, may not be able to move across the country to design them a logo full-time, but would gladly contract with the firm remotely using technology as a bridge. Both parties benefit a great deal in this scenario – the freelancer gets a client and the organization gets a cost effective brand identity.

What is the Gig Economy’s impact on Philadelphia?

According to a Brookings Institute report, two major elements of what most consider the gig economy – ride sharing and room sharing – are growing in Philadelphia. From 2012 to 2014, ride-sharing work grew by 6% and rooms grew by 2%. From the report: “The spread of nonemployer firms between 2010 and 2014 occurred mostly in the largest metro areas. No less than 81 percent of the four-year net growth in nonemployer firms in the rides sector took place in the 25 largest metros, while 92 percent occurred in the largest 50 metros.” Despite being significant and growing quickly, the report makes it clear that app-based employment is not displacing payroll employment.

This data is a combination of Census Bureau’s survey measuring Nonemployer Businesses by census tract and corresponding NAICS codes – meaning with some minor manipulation, it would be easy to monitor long-term. Collection and reporting of this data should accompany any initial meetings internally, and can also be leveraged to plan an effective hearing should one be called (i.e. inviting appropriate industry representation, not just Uber).

What does the California case study demonstrate?

In April 2018, the California Supreme Court ruled “that employers must treat workers who do work related to a company’s ‘usual course of business’ as full-fledged employees.” As an example of the standard, a plumber hired to fix a sink at a business would not be considered an employee. However, if a clothing company hired a worker to sew at their home, they would be entitled to a minimum wage, breaks, and other employment benefits. This ruling only applied to a shipping firm called Dynamex, but set a precedent that could impact many types of workers in California, including care givers, dog walkers, hair stylists, and ride-share drivers. It would make gig work illegal in the current state it exists, and require companies to take on significant costs and risks, including minimum wages, additional payroll taxes, and benefit contributions. An MIT professor estimated an increased cost per employee of between 25% to 40%.

In May 2019, following protests by Uber drivers related to the company’s forthcoming IPO, California lawmakers passed legislation which provided stricter guidelines for worker classification. For workers to be classified as independent contractors, companies will have to prove the following three conditions:

That they don’t control or direct the person’s work
That the worker’s services aren’t related to the company’s main business
And that the person is engaged in an “independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature” as the work performed.

These conditions would almost certainly make many popular app-based gigs classifiable as full-time employment. Examples include Lyft, Uber, AmazonFlex, GrubHub, Postmates, Care.com, and Wag. The bill seems to get these workers closer to their demands from the protests – mainly better wages, job security, and better treatment from their corporate higher-ups. It’s important to note that the demands vary from place to place depending on the local issues.

What should regulatory goals should Philadelphia pursue?

Gig economy work can be very important and meaningful in the life of Philadelphia’s residents. There are certainly drawbacks as evidenced in the California case study – companies are effectively transferring the burden from themselves to the employee who bears much more of the risk than traditional workers. Legislation like that in CA will completely turn the tables and put the burden back on employers. However, a very basic economics model of supply and demand tells us that as the cost of these workers increases, the demand for their work will decrease as well. Large, well-funded organizations will be able to weather this storm, but small and medium-size businesses will be hit the hardest by these new regulations.

Philadelphia should be cautious in how they regulate this transfer of burden from employee to employer, as we could lose critical, low-skill and low-barrier-to-entry jobs for vulnerable residents. According to a 2018 survey by UpWork, an online freelance marketplace, 42% of freelancers said they like gig economy arrangements because they aren’t able to work for a traditional employer. Whether it be those who recently lost jobs, have family obligations, or other hurdles to traditional employment, the gig economy provides an opportunity to be productive and earn income with little commitment or training. Another finding from their survey showed that gig economy work is valued by those who are of retirement age or older for all of the same reasons mentioned above. It would be more harmful than good if Philadelphia made this kind of work impossible.

Conclusion/Recommendations

The gig economy is growing rapidly, but now finds itself on shakier ground that it did a year ago. While abuses of employee rights should be fought, outlawing a type of work arrangement will not necessarily solve the core issue. Organizations must be held accountable for treating employees fairly regardless of their size, scale, or employee base. Philadelphia should prioritize policy solutions that better manage this labor market, but not ban it outright. Some recommendations for how to proceed could include:

Holding a hearing that includes a wide variety of gig workers – not just ride-sharing, but adjunct professors, care givers, etc. – and specifically addresses how to preserve their way of working while improving their outcomes
Research and develop incentives for employers to provide pathways to full-time employment (for those who want it) and protections for part-time and gig economy workers
Host convenings of on-the-ground advocates such as the Freelancers Union, and other worker’s rights groups, to gain insight into current demands and potential solutions from around the country
Continue to pursue pro-worker policies such as the increased minimum wage, enforcement of worker protection laws, and social safety net programs

An approach to marijuana legalization policy in Philadelphia

Public Policy

This memo was drafted in March 2019 for informational purposes for the City of Philadelphia Department of Commerce. It does not in any way represent the Department of Commerce’s opinion or policy on this matter.

Executive Summary

Medical marijuana is legal in thirty-three streets and the District of Columbia. Ten states and the District of Columbia have fully legal adult marijuana markets. Estimates show the United States marijuana approaching nearly $50 billion in sales annually. In PA alone, a fully legal market would be estimated at $1.66 billion annually, with tax revenues of roughly $600 million. The industry would create tens of thousands of new direct and indirect jobs annually, many requiring no advanced education. Innovations in policy, such as requiring diversity in leadership of marijuana businesses, preference to disadvantaged communities, and micro licenses, help ensure inclusive growth as the industry matures.

How many states have legalized marijuana? And to what degree?

As of March 2019, thirty-three states plus Washington D.C. have legalized marijuana for medical purposes. Another ten states plus Washington D.C. have fully legalized marijuana for adult use. Several more, including New Hampshire and New Mexico, are poised to approve legalization for adult use. While it is currently an illegal drug under federal law, recent reports suggest that Congress could soon introduce legislation for fully legalizing marijuana nationwide. More locally, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware all permit the sale of medical marijuana, and all three have also introduced legislation in the last year that, if passed, would make marijuana fully legal for adult use. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has changed his view on legalization in recent months, in part due to fears of losing sales over the border to states such as Massachusetts or Vermont.

Current State: How have Pennsylvania and Philadelphia dealt with medical marijuana?

On April 17, 2016, the state of Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Program was signed into law. It established three types of permits – Growers & Processors, Dispensaries, and Clinical Research – which allow for narrow permissions within each niche. Geographically they are spread across six regions – Philadelphia County is part of Region 1 (Southeast). Philadelphia is currently home to five Dispensaries, and zero Grower/Processor facilities. There are also five Clinical Research permits in Philadelphia, associated with some of the city’s top academic institutions: Temple University, Drexel University, University of Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson University, and Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine.

Pennsylvania requires several Diversity and Inclusion items as part of their application for permits, which are scored to aid in decision making. In our preliminary research, there does not appear to be another state offering full adult legalization with a similar requirement for diversity and inclusion. These plans cover diversity of those hired by the organization – with a requirement of at least one diverse hire on the leadership team; Diversity in contracts – applicants must provide a percentage of contracts given to diverse contract firms; and a Community Impact Score – related to the number of jobs created, site selection, etc. These are well-intentioned incentives meant to avoid a direct transfer of wealth from the marijuana black and grey markets to a wealthy group of investors. Further policy innovations in full legal markets are addressed later in this memo.

What is the economic impact of the legalized marijuana market?

A 2015 report from the Marijuana Policy Group conducted a true input-output analysis – the best practice for measuring total impact. Their research team estimated a 2.4 multiplier for the marijuana retail industry in Colorado. In other words, for every $1.00 invested, $2.40 is generated to the economy. While this measure would need to be recalculated for Philadelphia, even a conservative estimate would place it in line with the largest economic drivers in the region. Additionally, multiplier effects from production of edible products and cultivation would be generated as well.

In July 2018, Pennsylvania Auditor General Eugene DePasquale released a report on potential economic impacts of marijuana legalization in the state. Using the average adult consumption from Colorado and Washington state as the basis, his office estimates a $1.66 billion sector, leading to approximately $581 million in annual tax revenue. This does not include any additional revenues gained through payroll taxes, indirect employment, or marijuana tourism. Studies have also shown that adult use actually increased by about one-third over the first three years of legalization, while underage use falls due to limited black and grey market sales.

How many and what kind of jobs would be created?

A recent survey by cannabis-specific recruiting firm, Vangst, shows a 690% growth in cannabis job listings between January 2017 and August 2018. Roles tracked in the survey include the full range of experience and salary levels relevant to the industry. As an example, Budtenders and Trimmers, who require the lowest level of experience, range from $11.50/hr to $16/hr. White collar work commanded a range of salaries from $45,000 on the low-end to a high of $250,000 per year. Due to significant competition for talent as the new industry blossoms, salaries measured by the survey increased 16% from 2017 to 2018. At less than half the population of Philadelphia, Colorado was able to generate over 18,000 direct and indirect jobs in 2015 alone. Examples of indirect employment created include security guards, commercial real-estate agents, construction and HVAC specialists, consulting, legal, and advisory services, and other business services.

One policy innovation being pursued in New Jersey would require a certain quantity of permits be reserved for Micro-licenses. Micro-licenses allow license holders to operate much the same way — growing, processing or selling marijuana — but at a smaller scale, which lessens the capital burden at the start. Lawmakers are also considering giving preference to license applications from areas disproportionately affected by marijuana arrests or, alternatively, to areas with high levels of unemployment. Both policies are aimed at more inclusive growth for the industry as it matures.

Conclusions and Recommendations

In terms of public opinion and legislative results, marijuana legalization may be more popular than anytime in US history. Momentum at the local, state, and federal levels, while varying, is moving in a clear direction in favor of legal adult use. Any discussion of policy should consider both the positive and negative externalities of such a decision, including:

How might we address concerns about public health? While research does not show marijuana to be any more dangerous than cigarette smoke or alcohol consumption, issues such as tests for impaired driving and underage consumption must be addressed.
If Pennsylvania law differs from neighboring states, how might law enforcement officials coordinate to ensure successful policing of residents?
How might Philadelphia build on the state’s efforts to create an inclusive marijuana industry?

How a Business Acceleration Team can help Philly’s business community

Public Policy

This memo was drafted in September 2019 for informational purposes for the City of Philadelphia Department of Commerce. It does not in any way represent the Department of Commerce’s opinion or policy on this matter.

What is the current state of the business customer experience in Philadelphia?

Opening a new business in Philadelphia, like in all major cities, involves a series of permits, inspections, and associated paperwork and processes to obtain them. Through the Food Business Process Improvement Pilot which included both internal (city staff) and external (business owner) design thinking workshops, the City was able to map the process, identify pain points, and recommend process improvements. Commerce learned that the process is complex, difficult to navigate, and overall challenging, especially for small business owners. Drivers of some issues with Cx include:

No central office with all of customer’s data available to them
Data sharing among departments is ad hoc and inconsistent – anecdotally we’ve heard it can often take two weeks to complete some data requests
Performance metrics for these departments are not aligned to the goals of the customer experience
Process improvement is not baked into the current process due to departmental silos
No one owns the overall business Cx, and this lack of ownership means lack of accountability as well

How has New York’s model for a BAT worked?

The New Business Acceleration Team (NBAT) was developed by New York City under Mayor Bloomberg’s administration to make it easier for small businesses to work with the city. Given the number, varying size, and number of permits and licenses required, restaurants were an obvious fit. Initially the model was meant to crack down on the number of violations that occurred, but quickly pivoted to helping better serve these establishments.

NBAT consisted of representatives from all major departments interacting with these businesses including Health Department, Department of Buildings, Fire Department, and Environmental Protection. One of the key tasks this group completed was a process map, laying out all of the steps, stakeholders, and pain points for a restaurant to open in New York. Members of the team reported both to NBAT and to their own department, and mostly relied on existing administrative systems to communicate and share information on individual businesses. A small-scale Salesforce instance was later deployed, though an enterprise-level solution was not successfully adopted.

NBAT assigns a client manager to each business, with managers having approximately 75 clients each at varying stages of their projects. Their main responsibility was to make sure inspections happened just-in-time to avoid costly delays in opening and inefficient use of city resources. Cross-trained inspectors were used to help consistently and completely identify issues at client sites prior to inspections, solving a major issue for businesses who didn’t know what was expected of them.

Are there additional models to consider when developing Philly’s BAT?

In addition to the New York model, we reviewed other cities and how they’ve been able to improve Cx for businesses specifically.

Chicago, Small Business Center

City of Chicago launched an in-person, one-stop-shop for business needs related to permits, licenses, and inspections. Department representatives from each of the main stakeholder groups sat together in this new center. All necessary forms and paperwork were in one place, with consultants able to help guide business owners through the process. This helped cut down on avoidable paperwork errors, and advise businesses on inspection expectations to help them pass on the first try.

Chicago, Business District

An online system, which is connected to the user’s business account with the city, Chicago Business District allows businesses and their legal teams in Chicago to complete most of their transactions with the city remotely. The system operates through manual review and approval of the information for zoning or licenses, and integrates with the city’s larger business and tax database (IRIS) to facilitate updates and processing of tax information.

Los Angeles, LADBS Go App

The City of Los Angeles offers online tools in addition to a mobile application called LADBS Go. This is an Android and Apple application allowing business owners of any size or type to use their same city log-in to schedule inspections, check status of permits, view wait times for various service counters, and report violations they see elsewhere in the city.

Austin, Smart Start

In collaboration with a locally-based technology firm, the city of Austin, Texas now offers Smart Start on their website. Essentially, Smart Start services as a comment thread on their checklist pages of how to get started doing business in the city. Joint review and answering of questions is managed by the city’s Development Services (most similar to L&I in Philly) and Economic Development departments.

Which model would be ideal? And which would be most feasible in Philadelphia?

In lieu of recommending a particular model, there are a few aspects of each approach that should be kept at the center of any discussion of improved business customer experience in Philadelphia. Each of the cities we studied solved a few key problems for both businesses and themselves.

Map the current process. This is an invaluable first step to explore, understand, and document the environment as it exists currently.
Establish a performance baseline. Performance metrics must be developed and agreed upon, along with a plan to accurately measure and regularly report on each one. For example, should the city prioritize time to completion of permits? Or ratio of approvals or inspections passed?
Build a process for continuous improvement. While information sharing and concierge-type services are helpful, ultimate success lies in empowering front-line staff to contribute process improvements as they arise.
Assign ownership of these metrics to a team or executive. Without support and management toward improvement of these metrics, no model will be successful.

What made the New York model so impressive was their understanding of the problem: business owners were losing money, and thus the city was losing tax revenue. This created the urgency needed to get all stakeholders on the bus and moving towards their shared goal, a faster approval process for restaurants in the city. Whether or not case managers are involved, they keyed in a few areas to save time and resources, such as consulting business owners on expectations for their inspections and ensuring those inspections happened just-in-time.

It would be valuable to learn more about the problems Los Angeles and Chicago had set out to solve initially before we can determine the relative value of their models. Chicago chose a more human capital intensive program, with physical presence playing a key role. LA services much of their business transactions through web and mobile applications, which have higher start-up costs, but can be lower cost options in that they scale most efficiently. In an ideal scenario, a balanced approach would be deployed to best serve the most with the least resources required.