Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
| SEPTEMBER 2015
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009 – 2014) THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF COMMUNITY INVESTMENT - TECHNICAL REPORT, ANALYSIS, AND FINDINGS
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
1
Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 2
2. Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 5
3. Economic & Social Impact Findings ...................................................................................................... 8
A. CHA’s Overall Impact .................................................................................................................... 8
B. Housing Assistance and the Housing Choice Voucher Program ................................................. 10
C. Real Estate Development ............................................................................................................ 15
D. Client Services ............................................................................................................................. 17
E. CHA Operations ........................................................................................................................... 19
4. Historical Perspective – Five Year Trends ........................................................................................... 20
5. Fiscal Impacts of CHA .......................................................................................................................... 22
6. Looking Forward ................................................................................................................................. 22
7. Final Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 24
8. Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 26
9. Methods, Procedures, and Assumptions ............................................................................................ 27
A. The Housing Choice Voucher Program ....................................................................................... 27
B. Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority .............................................................. 27
C. Exogenous final demand, economic impact analysis, and IMPLAN ............................................ 28
D. Budget assignment and economic impact effects ...................................................................... 29
E. Model setup ................................................................................................................................ 31
F. Result formatting ........................................................................................................................ 33
G. Overview of the IMPLAN modeling system ................................................................................ 34
H. Study area and accounting period .............................................................................................. 34
I. IMPLAN definitions ..................................................................................................................... 34
Appendix 1 – Sample of Budget Code to IMPLAN Bridge Table ................................................................. 37
Appendix 2 – CHA Expense Budget by IMPLAN Sector ............................................................................... 38
Additional Resources .................................................................................................................................. 39
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
2
1. Executive Summary The Charlotte Housing Authority (CHA) has a mission to develop, operate, and provide quality housing in
sustainable communities of choice for residents of diverse incomes.1
CHA is a non-profit real estate holding company with a public purpose. That public purpose is to provide
safe and affordable housing to low- and moderate-income families while supporting their efforts to
achieve self-sufficiency. CHA is a contributor of economic diversity within the urban economic
landscape.
CHA activates local economic impact by distributing U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) funding within Mecklenburg County, supporting jobs with competitive salaries and
benefits, and developing residential and mixed-use real estate.
Decreases in HUD funding require innovative planning to maintain the economic and social benefits CHA
supports. CHA’s ability to invest in Mecklenburg County stems from the organization’s unique position at
the intersection between public and private funding.
CHA’s stakeholders include government, non-profits, foundations, financial institutions, private business
partners, and residents. The stakeholders benefit from their partnerships with CHA, whether focusing on
the social purpose mission of housing and residential services, or collaborating to provide substantial
economic contribution within the region. The economic impact of CHA’s business activity is accentuated
by partnerships with the City of Charlotte, Fifth Third Bank, Wells Fargo, the Foundation for the
Carolinas, the Salvation Army, the YWCA, and many others too numerous to list.
CHA retained IMPLAN Group, LLC (IMPLAN) and Primm Research, LLC to quantify the economic impact
of CHA within the primary investment area of Mecklenburg County. IMPLAN is the national leader in
providing economic impact data to analysts and consultants. The economic impact of CHA will provide a
baseline from which future planning decisions may be calculated and benchmarked.
This report examines key findings combining quantifiable economic impacts with qualitative social
impacts contributed by CHA within Mecklenburg County.
6-year Impact of Charlotte Housing Authority, 2009-14
Impact Type Avg. # of Jobs Supported2
Income GDP Output
Direct Effect 698 $226,165,683 $397,611,298 $550,268,027
Indirect Effect 144 $50,518,077 $82,421,588 $119,805,560
Induced Effect 169 $50,008,517 $87,929,168 $129,305,761
Grand Total Effect 1,011 $326,692,277 $567,962,056 $799,379,349
Event Multiplier 1.45 1.44 1.43 1.45
Table 1 – 6-year Impact of Charlotte Housing Authority, 2009-14
1 "Charlotte Housing Authority." The Business. Charlotte Housing Authority. Web. 29 Aug. 2014. 2 This is an estimate of the average number of distinct jobs supported over the entire period. For example, an individual employed for all 6 years counts as one job.
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
3
Through the activities of spending, hiring, and paying employees, CHA impacts the economy directly,
creating demand for goods and services through its purchases. Key findings of the research and
analysis include:
In the six-year period of 2009 - 2014, CHA’s economic activities and their multiplier effects
result in more than $799 million in economic output in Mecklenburg County.
The annual economic impact of CHA’s direct expenditures in Mecklenburg County represent
CHA’s ongoing, yearly contribution to jobs, employee compensation, and total economic
spending. In FY 2014, CHA supported approximately $126 million of economic output while
supporting nearly 1,000 jobs and increasing the effective labor income of Mecklenburg County
by nearly $50 million. CHA’s expenditures support 675 direct jobs while an additional 271 jobs
are indirectly supported through CHA’s cumulative multiplier effect.
Economic Impact of Charlotte Housing Authority, FY 2014
Impact Type Jobs Supported Income GDP Output
Direct Effect 675 $33,981,389 $65,251,128 $87,956,982
Indirect Effect 125 $7,632,687 $12,719,693 $18,520,728
Induced Effect 146 $7,520,029 $13,222,389 $19,546,925
Grand Total Effect 946 $49,134,104 $91,193,211 $126,024,635
Table 2 – Economic Impact of Charlotte Housing Authority, FY 2014
As of July 2014, 22,057 people resided in CHA funded public housing and Housing Choice
Vouchers (HCV) units. CHA is the largest public housing authority in North Carolina and provides
safe and affordable housing for approximately 2% of Mecklenburg County’s total population.
More individuals reside in CHA housing units than the total population of 22 individual North
Carolina counties.3
Housing assistance payments enter the Mecklenburg County economy as fresh dollars. In FY
2014 housing assistance payments directly supported nearly 300 jobs and more than $41
million in economic activity. The indirect effects of housing assistance payments benefit local
landlords, property managers, residential repair contractors, etc. For every one dollar of labor
income supported by housing assistance payments, more than $.88 in regional labor income is
produced elsewhere in Mecklenburg County.
CHA promotes economic self-sufficiency, education, training, and asset development. Many of
the services focus on the most vulnerable populations such as single parents, children,
homeless, and veterans. Case coordination services are provided to seniors and the disabled.
In FY 2014, CHA payments and operations supported more than $4 million of local and state
tax revenue for the region. Direct fiscal impacts are generated primarily from taxes paid on
purchases, taxes paid on payroll, and income taxes paid by employees of CHA.
3"SAS Output." 2013 Provisional County Population Estimates. North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management. Web. 29 Aug. 2014.
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
4
CHA’s economic contribution will increase near term as investment in new and rehabilitated
housing and community development, the Renaissance, Edwin Towers, and The Vistas @707,
will combine to annually support approximately 40 direct and indirect jobs in the local economy.
Economic impact analysis is a valuable tool for CHA and other housing authorities to calculate
the economic support of their operations, housing assistance payments, and construction
activity. Additional data and research is necessary to quantify the value of specific programs
such as supportive housing and family self-sufficiency programming. Surveys and data collection
among residents would provide valuable data points. Qualitative data assists to identify
common themes among stakeholders.
Figure 1 – 6-year Impact of Charlotte Housing Authority, 2009-14
6-year Impact of Charlotte Housing Authority, 2009-14
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
5
2. Overview The research team used CHA’s comprehensive financial reporting to undertake this economic impact
analysis. This detail was made possible through the transparency required of CHA as a steward of
Federal funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Through the activities of spending, hiring, and paying employees, CHA impacts the economy directly,
creating demand for goods and services through its purchases. This economic impact report quantifies
the direct spending, hiring and earnings of CHA, and estimates the multiplier effects of CHA’s direct
spending and employment on the Mecklenburg County economy (see Figure 1).
Figure 2 – Economic Impact Model Overview
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
6
At CHA’s request IMPLAN regional economist, David Kay, allocated the housing authority’s budget into
eight broad spending categories in order to model the economic impacts of each. Each category is
composed of multiple IMPLAN sectors, the most common of which is reported in Table 3 below. Overall
impact totals given in this report represent the sum of impacts associated with these eight budget
categories. Additional details regarding the economic impact methodology can be found in the
Methods, Procedures, and Assumptions section of this report.
CHA Expenditures by Budget Category4 # Expense Category Description Representative IMPLAN Sector* 1. Housing Assistance
Payments Subsidy payments to landlords 360 Real Estate
2. Maintenance & Repair
Maintenance contracts for public housing units
40 Maintenance and repair construction of residential structures
3. Administration Overhead associated with day-to-day operations
A variety of office goods and service sectors
4. Payroll CHA employee compensation & benefits
Labor Income – Employee Compensation
5. Protective Service Security guard contracts for public housing units
387 Investigation and security services
6. Tenant Services Case management & transport services for participating families
400 Individual & family services; 335 Truck Transportation
7. Utilities Payments for electricity, gas, water & other utilities
31-33 utility sectors (electricity, gas, & water)
8. Capital Expenses Construction of new public housing units (soft & hard development costs)
37 Residential construction; 369 Architectural, engineering, and related services
Table 3 – CHA Expenditures by Budget Category
The report provides detailed quantitative analysis of the historical and current impacts as well as
potential future CHA investment among three specific developments in process.
The economic impact analysis findings are reported in conjunction with extensive qualitative research
conducted during May – June 2014 by David Primm of Primm Research, LLC. In-depth interviews were
conducted amongst CHA staff and Board members. External stakeholders representing government,
non-profits, foundations, financial institutions, private business partners, and residents were also
interviewed for this research assignment. The research team also conducted literature review and
secondary research on the effect of housing authorities in general and their role in social issues such as
preventing homelessness, stabilizing neighborhoods, and community development.
The economic impact report will provide a baseline from which future planning decisions may be
calculated and benchmarked. Developing comprehensive input-output models of CHA’s primary
expenditures is the first step of the process. CHA and IMPLAN plan to collaborate on the development of
4 Please note that each budget category may contain several IMPLAN sectors. Only the most representative sectors are listed above. For a complete list of all sectors utilized please see Appendix 2.
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
7
unique economic impact analysis software customized to the operating structure of housing authorities
and similar non-profit organizations.
Direct Effects
Economic activity supported directly by CHA budget spending.
Example: employee payroll, landlord payments, maintenance contracts, etc.
Indirect Effects
Supply chain activity that occurs as companies increase spending to meet demand from CHA.
Example: Flash light company produces more lights for additional security guards hired thru CHA
contract.
Induced Effects
Economic activity that occurs as households spend additional income attributable to CHA wages or
contracts.
Example: Maintenance worker is able to pay for child's preschool due to contract with CHA.
Figure 3 – Economic Impact Terminology
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Economic Impact Terminology
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
8
3. Economic & Social Impact Findings This report incorporates the economic impact findings and social benefits of CHA as a developer and
collaborator with regional partners in Mecklenburg County. The CHA economic impact analysis
illustrates a quasi-public organization operating within the strict administrative requirements of the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In addition, the CHA economic impact analysis
demonstrates how the organization can maximize real estate development and property management
efforts to increase organizational viability and offset the economic consequences of decreased HUD
funding.
CHA programs, services, and real estate development affect the local economy by supporting jobs,
generating income, increasing economic output, developing capital investment, and increasing local tax
revenues.
Our analysis examines CHA’s overall economic impact annually (FY 2014) and an aggregate of the past 6
years. In addition to the overall economic impact of CHA, we highlight four distinguishable and valuable
CHA economic and social impacts within Mecklenburg County: housing assistance, real estate
development, resident services, and CHA operations.
A. CHA’s Overall Impact Organizations often ask their stakeholders, “What would happen if we ceased to exist?” This question is
typically used to better understand the unique role an organization fulfills within their operating
environment. When asked this question of CHA, stakeholders interviewed unanimously pointed to the
social and economic contributions of CHA. “Although other providers of subsidized housing at various
income levels exist within the region's affordable housing market, we just don’t have a large enough
stock of affordable housing in Charlotte to sustain the level which CHA contributes.” “The community
would immediately have to focus resources to house 22,000 people.”
From an economic impact perspective, stakeholders most frequently noted CHA’s “ability to plug into a
community, get involved in the community, and leverage the resources that all of the partners bring to
the table.” CHA is an important conduit for Mecklenburg County real estate development and
demonstrates proven ability to infuse funding from outside the region to “make things happen.”
In FY 2014, CHA’s nearly $88 million of expenditures in Mecklenburg County contributed more than
$126 million of total economic output. For every one dollar spent, CHA supports approximately 43
cents of additional regional economic activity. The total output supports nearly 1,000 jobs and nearly
$50 million dollars of labor income to be spent by local landlords, property management companies,
contractors, and maintenance services.
Economic Impact of Charlotte Housing Authority, FY 2014 Mecklenburg County
Impact Type Jobs Supported Income GDP Output
Direct Effect 675 $33,981,389 $65,251,128 $87,956,982
Indirect Effect 125 $7,632,687 $12,719,693 $18,520,728 Induced Effect 146 $7,520,029 $13,222,389 $19,546,925
Grand Total Effect 946 $49,134,104 $91,193,211 $126,024,635
Table 4 – Annual Impact of Charlotte Housing Authority, FY 2014
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
9
Our analysis of the top 10 impact sectors highlights the ripple effect of CHA expenditures in the region,
even detailing that local grocery store retailers benefit from the additional half-million dollars CHA
supports within Mecklenburg County.
Total Economic Impacts of Charlotte Housing Authority, FY 2014
Top 10 impacted sectors by employment (Mecklenburg County)
Sector Description Employment Labor
Income Value Added Output
360 Real estate establishments 328 $6,310,998 $35,982,691 $46,149,792
400 Individual and family services 85 $3,024,598 $3,072,125 $4,202,361
37 Construction of new residential permanent site single- and multi-family structures
58 $5,282,701 $6,276,579 $13,604,905
40 Maintenance and repair construction of residential structures
34 $2,902,247 $3,455,559 $6,421,287
387 Investigation and security services 27 $847,727 $883,194 $1,254,452
413 Food services and drinking places 25 $619,763 $829,565 $1,477,338
384 Office administrative services 15 $3,219,670 $3,129,534 $3,688,673
388 Services to buildings and dwellings 13 $421,528 $512,990 $852,795
382 Employment services 13 $553,453 $601,202 $690,418
324 Retail Stores - Food and beverage 9 $306,186 $369,973 $526,483
Table 5 – Total Economic Impacts of Charlotte Housing Authority – Top 10 Impacted Sectors
As we review CHA’s overall economic impact it is also important to recognize the valued partners with
whom CHA collaborates. The City of Charlotte, Foundation for the Carolinas, Wells Fargo, Fifth Third
Bank, YWCA and the Salvation Army are a short list of valued CHA partners. Mecklenburg County
benefits from these inter-relationships and partnerships. While CHA utilizes the professional expertise of
its staff to facilitate investment in the region, partnerships increase CHA’s leverage and economic
contribution.
6-year Impact of Charlotte Housing Authority, 2009-14
Mecklenburg County5
Impact Type Avg. # of Jobs Supported6 Income GDP Output
Direct Effect 698 $226,165,683 $397,611,298 $550,268,027
Indirect Effect 144 $50,518,077 $82,421,588 $119,805,560
Induced Effect 169 $50,008,517 $87,929,168 $129,305,761
Grand Total Effect 1,011 $326,692,277 $567,962,056 $799,379,349
Event Multiplier 1.45 1.44 1.43 1.45
Table 6 – 6-year Impact of Charlotte Housing Authority, 2009-14
5 Results aggregated from nominal impact series. 6 This is an estimate of the average number of distinct jobs supported over the entire period. For example, an individual employed for all 5 years counts as one job.
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
10
B. Housing Assistance and the Housing Choice Voucher Program Regional stakeholders unanimously agree CHA is a safety net for lower income citizens who can’t afford
housing at prevailing market rates. Not surprising given the stakeholder’s professional backgrounds and
understanding of CHA’s mission and services. Stakeholders did acknowledge an “image problem” of the
housing authority amongst the general public. Negative perceptions of subsidized housing persist among
the community, typically regarding stigmas such as “Section 8” or “projects” fostering criminal activity,
creating entitlement behavior among residents, or “increasing my taxes”.
Stakeholders shared stories of the general public’s NIMBY (Not In My BackYard) attitudes towards
subsidized housing lowering neighborhood property values. Numerous studies have been completed
with results often concluding that when “poor people move next door” crime, drugs, blight, and higher
taxes do not inevitably follow.7 In fact, a 2008 study conducted in Charlotte concluded, “there is a weak
statistical relationship between the change in housing values and Section 8 households in Charlotte.”
There were much stronger neighborhood variables impacting home prices and in general, “the Charlotte
real estate market is not easily predicted by one or two factors, including the distribution of Section 8
vouchers.”8
Negative perceptions of housing authorities, in general, blur the fact that CHA is an essential service
provider to the most vulnerable populations in Mecklenburg County. In addition, economic data and
impact analysis demonstrates how housing assistance payments and the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV)
program positively impact the regional economy.
Housing assistance payments are paid to the landlord directly by CHA on behalf of the participating
family. The family then pays the difference between the actual rent charged by the landlord and the
amount subsidized by the program. Given this fundamental structure, our economic impact analysis
classified CHA housing assistance expenditures as rental income received by property management
companies or landlords.
The analysis in the following table demonstrates only the amount of CHA expenditures on housing
assistance and does not include other components of the CHA budget. CHA’s housing assistance
expenditures supported 388 Mecklenburg County jobs in 2014.
Economic Impact of Housing Assistance Payments, FY 2014
Mecklenburg County
Impact Type Jobs Supported Income GDP Output
Direct Effect 296 $5,695,103 $32,471,111 $41,645,998 Indirect Effect 60 $3,371,792 $6,461,598 $9,253,379 Induced Effect 33 $1,679,461 $2,951,583 $4,363,885
Total Effect 388 $10,746,356 $41,884,292 $55,263,261
Table 7 – Economic Impact of Housing Assistance Payments, FY 2014
7 Numerous studies conducted on this topic, Additional resources are available from the National Association of Realtors <http://www.realtor.org/field-guides/field-guide-to-effects-of-low-income-housing-on-property-values>. and The Center for Housing Policy, <http://www.nhc.org/insights.html>. 8 Section 8 Households and the Relationship to Residential Property Values in Charlotte, NC. Rep. U of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte Housing Authority, June 2008. Web. 27 Aug. 2014.
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
11
Of all the impacts associated with housing assistance payments, the labor income event multiplier
displays the greatest degree of interconnectedness with the local economy (1.89). This is not
surprising since labor income is typically spent by households on a host of goods and services, many of
which may be purchased locally. Table 8 illustrates the 6-year impact of CHA’s housing assistance
payment event multipliers for each summary effect.
6-year Impact of Housing Assistance Payments, 2009-14
Mecklenburg County9
Impact Type Avg. # of Jobs Supported10 Income GDP Output
Direct Effect 277 $30,545,103 $174,155,497 $221,398,507
Indirect Effect 56 $18,084,262 $34,656,121 $49,324,216
Induced Effect 30 $9,007,619 $15,830,514 $23,288,624
Total Effect 363 $57,636,984 $224,642,133 $294,011,346
Event Multiplier 1.31 1.89 1.29 1.33
Table 8 – 6-year Impact of Housing Assistance Payments, 2009-14
Since 2009 CHA housing assistance payments, fueled by fresh dollars entering Mecklenburg County via
HUD funding, supported nearly $174 million of regional economic production (GDP) while infusing an
additional $50.5 million in indirect and induced regional GDP.
The HCV program is the federal government's major program for assisting very low-income families, the
elderly, and the disabled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. 11 Since
housing assistance is provided on behalf of the family or individual, participants are able to find their
own housing, including single-family homes, townhouses and apartments. The participant is free to
choose any housing that meets the requirements of the program and is not limited to units located in
subsidized housing projects. For every one dollar of labor income supported by housing assistance
payments, more than $.88 in regional labor income is produced elsewhere in Mecklenburg County.
9 Results aggregated from nominal impact series. 10 This is an estimate of the average number of distinct jobs supported over the entire period. For example, an individual employed for all 6 years counts as one job. 11 "About the Housing Choice Vouchers Program - HUD." U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Web. 29 Aug. 2014.
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
12
Utilizing IMPLAN’s top 10 impacted sectors by employment, our analysis presents a supply chain view of
how HCV payments circulate within the Mecklenburg County economy.
Total Economic Impacts of Housing Assistance Payments, FY 2014
Top 10 impacted sectors by employment (Mecklenburg County) Sector Description Employment Labor Income Value Added Output
360 Real estate establishments 312 $6,010,823 $34,271,218 $43,954,734
388 Services to buildings and dwellings 9 $298,527 $363,300 $603,950
413 Food services and drinking places 8 $189,640 $253,837 $452,047
382 Employment services 6 $257,604 $279,829 $321,354
39 Maintenance and repair construction of nonresidential structures
4 $335,876 $362,581 $643,825
367 Legal services 2 $238,278 $319,918 $385,970
387 Investigation and security services 2 $64,656 $67,361 $95,676
390 Waste management and remediation services
2 $127,867 $216,919 $416,267
369 Architectural, engineering, and related services
2 $191,561 $194,918 $281,461
357 Insurance carriers 2 $131,580 $230,385 $422,258
Table 9 – Total Economic Impacts of Housing Assistance Payments, FY 2014 – Top 10 Sectors Impacted
HCV dollars from HUD enter Mecklenburg County as rental payments and immediately begin funneling
to providers of goods and services associated with this activity. Landscapers, maintenance services, and
other household service providers are awarded contracts, which in turn support businesses and jobs
within the sector. Local restaurants and establishments benefit from increased spending catalyzed by
HCV voucher payments and the effect of increased household labor income.
Although not quantifiable without detailed household income spending data, CHA’s residents are
important contributors to the labor markets in Mecklenburg County. A survey of household spending
specific to CHA residents would provide the detail required. Residents redistribute a portion of their
earnings back into the economy as consumers of local products and services. A CHA resident shared,
“CHA provides people with housing, so they can keep working and spend money on other things.”
CHA’s housing assistance services provide a psychological and physical security to support long-term
economic sustainability. “A single-mother with two children, both able to attend school, she (the
mother) is able to work because she has an affordable, safe place to sleep and eat at night. She can
provide for her family with the assistance of CHA.” With less stress and better job opportunities, families
with safe and secure housing have the power to do much better economically. Combined with self-
sufficiency programs and job training opportunities, CHA has positioned itself to help move the tenants
living in CHA housing out of poverty.
CHA’s economic impact in the challenge to end homelessness is captured as employment and income
effects within input-output modeling, however, CHA’s full regional economic benefit effect on
homelessness in Mecklenburg County is best viewed as cost savings as opposed to economic impact.
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
13
Whereas economic impact is calculated by expenditures within the regional economy, CHA’s greatest
economic contribution to prevent homelessness are the supportive services and programs ultimately
saving money for the region’s taxpayers.
Our research team conducted secondary research to better understand the costs of housing and
homelessness. One of the most comprehensive spending analyses, Where We Sleep: The Costs of
Housing and Homelessness in Los Angeles, investigated the central question, what is the public costs for
people in supportive housing compared to similar people that are homeless? The study concluded the
typical public cost for residents in supportive housing is $605 a month. The typical public cost for similar
homeless persons is $2,897, five-times greater than their counterparts that are housed. 12 The stabilizing
effect of housing plus supportive care is demonstrated by a 79 percent reduction in public costs for
these residents.
The savings to the community is primarily based on the study’s key finding that homeless individuals
account for 69 percent more health care spending as opposed to supportive housing residents via
increased costs for hospitals, emergency rooms, clinics, mental health, and public health.13
The National Alliance to End Homelessness, a nonprofit, non-partisan, organization committed to
preventing and ending homelessness in the United States, cites additional studies that demonstrate the
cost savings associated with permanent supportive housing, or permanent housing coupled with
supportive services. A 2009 study followed the progress of the Downtown Emergency Service Center
(DESC) in Seattle, WA. When taking into account all costs – including housing costs – the participants in
supportive housing programs cost $2,449 less per person per month than those who were in
conventional city shelters.14
We would not pay doctors, nurses, or public safety professionals to provide elementary education. Then
why would we ask doctors, nurses, and public safety professionals to assist the vulnerable homeless
population? Trained social workers and housing experts are much more qualified to assist. It just so
happens the associated cost to taxpayers decreases when we support the professionals best positioned
to provide supportive housing to our vulnerable homeless population.
Supportive housing services, provided by CHA and its partners, demonstrates that tangible public
benefits result from providing supportive housing for vulnerable homeless individuals. Researchers from
the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (UNCC) have calculated the cost to the county of an
individual living on the streets, including jail time, emergency room/hospital visits, and medic transports.
Summarizing the UNCC findings, the Urban Ministry Center reports that it costs $39,000 to keep
someone homeless for a year while it only costs $13,983 to provide permanent supportive housing for a
year.15
12 Where We Sleep: The Costs of Housing and Homelessness in Los Angeles. Rep. Economic Roundtable, 2009. Web. 29 Aug. 2014. <http://www.economicrt.org/summaries/Where_We_Sleep.html> 13 Ibid. 14 "Health Care and Public Service Use and Costs Before and After Provision of Housing for Chronically Homeless Persons with Severe Alcohol Problems." The JAMA Network. 1 Apr. 2009. Web. 29 Aug. 2014. 15 ” Housing First: A Solution.” The Urban Ministry Center. http://www.urbanministrycenter.org/helping-the-homeless/housing-for-homeless/. Web. 16 Sep. 2015.
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
14
Utilizing data from UNCC study, identifying the average monthly public cost comparison of supportive
housing compared to a homeless individual, the monthly cost savings is approximately $2,100 per head
of household in supportive housing. Expanding that savings to an annual basis, the savings is
approximately $25,107 per person per year.16
CHA and their supportive housing partners such as the YWCA and Salvation Army combine to contribute
substantial public service cost savings for local and state taxpayers. As of July 2014, CHA and partners
provided 718 units of supportive housing to support 1,468 Mecklenburg County transitional and
vulnerable homeless individuals. Applying the projected annual public cost savings of $25,107 per
person to the number of CHA supportive housing units totals an estimated $18 million savings in annual
public costs on services such as health care, emergency shelters, and correctional facilities. This
conservative analysis uses housing units as the estimate base. There are approximately 1,500 individuals
(adults and children) within supportive housing contributing additional long-term fiscal benefits
associated with the physiological and psychological benefits of supportive housing.
CHA Supported Housing for Vulnerable and Transitional Homeless Community
Facility #
Units #
HOH # Total
Residents Estimated
Monthly Savings Estimated Annual
Savings Mccreesh - PH 63 62 62 $131,812 $1,581,741
Mccreesh - HCV 25 25 25 $52,306 $627,675
Moore Place - HCV 51 51 51 $106,705 $1,280,457
Moore Place-PH 34 34 34 $71,137 $853,638
YWCA Families Together 10 7 35 $20,923 $251,070
Charlotte Family Housing 50 36 123 $104,613 $1,255,350
Family Unification Program (FUP) 200 177 622 $418,450 $5,021,400
Veterans Administration Supportive Housing (VASH)
225 208 325 $470,756 $5,649,075
Hampton Crest-Supportive Housing Innovative Partnership (SHIP)
60 60 191 $125,535 $1,506,420
Total 718 660 1,468 $1,502,236 $18,026,826
Table 10 – Estimated Public Cost Savings of CHA Supportive Housing for Homeless Populations
One partnership example cited during our qualitative research was YWCA's Families Together program
which provides safe, affordable housing and intensive support services for homeless families with minor
children. The program manages a ten unit housing complex, opened in 2008. Families Together program
participants have access to services including: case management; computer instruction; education and
job training programs; career counseling; financial planning services and volunteer facilitated social
activities. Each family can remain in the program for up to 18 months. Since opening in 2008, YWCA has
housed more than 40 families, 178 individuals ranging in age from newborns to 49 years have been
served. Since the YWCA partnered with the Charlotte Housing Authority in 2009, qualified families have
graduated with the benefit of Housing Choice Vouchers.17
16 This analysis is illustrative of CHA’s supportive housing properties operated with their partners. The example is not associated with the economic impact findings. The example assumes a housing-based approach to homelessness is more cost-effective than a shelter-based approach. 17 "Families Together." Families Together (FT). YWCA Central Carolinas. Web. 29 Aug. 2014.
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
15
YWCA's Families Together program is one example. Additional CHA housing partnership initiatives were
referenced during our interviews such as Hampton Crest and Moore Place. “Hampton Crest is another
example in the segment of rapid re-housing. Salvation Army and CHA partner on the Hampton Crest
property. Hampton Crest is a 60 unit property with Section 9 housing for families that qualify. This
housing is set aside for families relocating directly from the homeless shelter.” Moore Place is a CHA
partnership with the Urban Ministry Center, it provides wraparound services to 85 chronically homeless
adults.18
C. Real Estate Development CHA’s construction expenditure activity provides the largest observed job multiplier effect among all
expenditure categories analyzed by our research team. In 2014, CHA’s $13.6 million of construction
related expenditures supported 120 total jobs within Mecklenburg County. For every direct
construction job created by CHA expenditures one additional job is supported within the regional
economy.
Economic Impact of CHA Construction Activity, FY 2014
Mecklenburg County
Impact Type Jobs Supported Income GDP Output
Direct Effect 59 $5,293,623 $6,285,951 $13,618,032
Indirect Effect 35 $2,183,258 $3,166,008 $4,670,487
Induced Effect 27 $1,374,988 $2,416,815 $3,573,117
Construction Total Effect 120 $8,851,869 $11,868,774 $21,861,636
Table 11– Economic Impact of CHA Construction Activity, FY 2014
Over the past six years, CHA construction activity has continually supported nearly 200 jobs within the
regional economy and supported over $200 million of economic output in Mecklenburg County.
6-year Impact of CHA Construction Activity, 2009-14
Mecklenburg County19
Impact Type Avg. # of Jobs
Supported20 Income GDP Output
Direct Effect 95 $51,303,047 $59,033,154 $126,401,796
Indirect Effect 54 $19,619,167 $28,645,081 $42,212,594
Induced Effect 44 $13,004,342 $22,859,035 $33,616,252
Construction Total Effect 193 $83,926,554 $110,537,268 $202,230,642
Event Multiplier 2.04 1.64 1.87 1.60
Table 12 – 6-year Impact of CHA Construction Activity, 2009-14
Legislative and financial institution stakeholders interviewed for our analysis recognized the economic
significance of CHA’s participation in the HOPE VI grant program administered by HUD. Project examples
of this funding source include the Renaissance on West Boulevard. In 2010, the U.S. Department of
18 Moore Place. Charlotte Housing Authority. Web. 29 Aug. 2014. 19 Results aggregated from nominal impact series. 20 This is an estimate of the average number of distinct jobs supported over the entire period. For example, an individual employed for all 6 years counts as one job.
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
16
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awarded CHA and partners $20.9 million to revitalize Boulevard
Homes, located at the intersection of West Boulevard and Billy Graham Parkway.21 The construction
activity economic impact of the Renaissance to date has supported 20 jobs annually between 2012 and
2014. Continued economic impacts will be supported as Phase II wraps up and Phase III is projected to
start construction in the winter of 2014.
HOPE VI funding for new projects has been placed on hold. The Obama administration in 2010 began
redirecting the HOPE VI funding stream, generally around $150 million annually in recent years, into the
Choice Neighborhoods initiative.22 Halted programs and delayed funding are examples why CHA must
continually innovate to remain an active contributor to Mecklenburg County’s economy.
The Choice Neighborhoods program supports locally driven strategies to address struggling
neighborhoods with distressed public or HUD-assisted housing through a comprehensive approach to
neighborhood transformation. The program is designed to catalyze critical improvements in
neighborhood assets, including vacant property, housing, services and schools.23 CHA partners such as
the City of Charlotte recognize CHA’s contribution in applying for these important redevelopment
grants. Stakeholders believe CHA helps improve Mecklenburg County’s infrastructure along with
providing safe and quality housing.
During the time period of 2009 – 2013, CHA construction expenditures have varied annually. Jobs
supported by CHA construction have also varied. Construction expenditures and job creation are inter-
related. In a time period associated with slowed new construction due to the lingering effects of
economic recession, CHA consistently supported construction related jobs within the market. CHA
construction supported 316 Mecklenburg County jobs in 2013, nearly 3 times as many jobs supported
in 2012.
Figure 4 – 2009 – 2013 Economic Impact of Construction Activity - Employment
21 Developments in Process. Charlotte Housing Authority. Web. 29 Aug. 2014. 22 "Revisiting the Hope VI Public Housing Program's Legacy." Governing, May 2012. Web. 29 Aug. 2014. 23 Choice Neighborhoods - HUD. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Web. 29 Aug. 2014.
50
128 123
54
154 28
76 65
31
92
23
59 60
25
70
-
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
EMP
LOYM
ENT
Economic Impacts of CHA by Effect
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Construction Activity
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
17
CHA seeks longer-term solutions to reduce budget gaps and make comprehensive capital investments to
sustain its housing infrastructure. Real estate development and management have been identified as
two sources of operating expenditures to support the sustainability strategy.
In terms of supporting regional economic impact, our analysis demonstrates the benefits of this strategy
to Mecklenburg County. Additionally, with the challenge to develop mixed-market housing
opportunities to replace concentrated low-income housing units, CHA’s real estate development entity,
Horizon Development, is positioned to stimulate increased economic impact in Mecklenburg County.
D. Client Services CHA provides more than just a place to live. Client services are integral to the mission and success of the
organization. The CHA Client Services Department provides supportive services through contracted
service providers and in-house case management staff to more than 1,100 households every year. These
support programs provide several services including childcare and transportation assistance, educational
assistance, referrals to job training and many other programs that assist families in becoming financially
independent.24
CHA is one of 39 housing authorities participating in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development demonstration program to test innovative methods for improving housing services and
better meeting local needs.25 The Charlotte Housing Authority's initiative, "Moving Forward", is designed
to promote employment and self-reliance.
Stakeholders most familiar with social services acknowledged, “those (residents) dealing with
generational poverty may not be able to achieve the "moving forward" philosophy and end up losing
subsidy and end up homeless. The mission must remain that the most vulnerable and in greatest need
continue to be safely housed.” “Over the past 20 years, housing policy has evolved, introducing mixed-
income and mixed use developments.” “If you are going to give people a time clock through the public
housing authority there needs to be a supportive service piece to assist families.”
CHA client service programs promote economic self-sufficiency, education, and training. The Section 3
program requires that recipients of certain HUD financial assistance, to the greatest extent possible,
provide job training, employment, and contract opportunities for low- or very-low income residents in
connection with projects and activities in their neighborhoods.26
24 Building Communities, Lives, and Partnerships. Charlotte Housing Authority, 2013. Web. 29 Aug. 2014 25 Moving Forward Initiative. Charlotte Housing Authority. Web. 29 Aug. 2014. 26 Section 3. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Web. 29 Aug. 2014.
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
18
Our analysis provides an operating perspective of the economic impacts of CHA client service
expenditures. Client services payments supported 75 jobs in Mecklenburg County throughout FY
2014. Economic impact illustrates that client services create jobs and income for social workers and
educators coordinating and practicing family self-sufficiency and home ownership programs.
Economic Impact of Client Services Payments, FY 2014
Mecklenburg County
Impact Type Jobs Supported Income GDP Output
Direct Effect 61 $2,174,318 $2,208,978 $3,023,921 Indirect Effect 5 $317,951 $510,380 $764,743 Induced Effect 9 $453,094 $796,575 $1,177,627
Total Effect 75 $2,945,363 $3,515,933 $4,966,292
Table 13 – Economic Impact of Client Services Payments, FY 2014
Client supportive services are essential to the Moving Forward strategy of CHA. Our qualitative research
among CHA internal and external stakeholders revealed that resident supportive services are top of
mind for CHA representatives, development partners, and residents. “CHA operates numerous programs
that I believe are great benefits to the community including our center for employment services and the
family self-sufficiency programs in 21 CHA communities.”
Qualitative interviews capture the powerful stories associated with client supportive services which are
not necessarily quantifiable within an input-output model, however many of these stories have received
extensive research within their field.
One client service cited during our research was the Charlotte Housing Authority Scholarship Fund
(CHASF). CHASF ensures that every child living in subsidized housing communities has both the
opportunity and expectation of earning a college degree. Since its inception, the CHASF has awarded
more than 600 scholarships to students who reside in public housing or receive a rental subsidy through
the Housing Choice Voucher program. CHASF is currently managed by The Foundation for the Carolinas
and has awarded over $3 million in scholarship funds since 1984.27
Research has supported that workers with more education generally earn higher wages and are more
likely to be employed than workers who have no post-secondary education.28 By seeking to make higher
education more affordable and accessible for CHA residents, CHA and The Foundation for the Carolinas
are investing in Mecklenburg County’s economic development. A Matter of Degrees: The Effect of
Educational Attainment on Regional Economic Prosperity, a February 2013 report by the Milken
Institute, concluded that adding one extra year to the average years of schooling among the employed
in a metropolitan area is associated with an increase in real GDP per capita of 10.5 percent and an
increase in real wages per worker of 8.4 percent.29
27 Building Communities, Lives, and Partnerships. Charlotte Housing Authority, 2013. Web. 29 Aug. 2014 28 "Table A-4. Employment Status of the Civilian Population 25 Years and over by Educational Attainment." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Web. 29 Aug. 2014 29 A Matter of Degrees: The Effect of Educational Attainment on Regional Economic Prosperity. Rep. Milken Institute, Feb. 2013. Web. 29 Aug. 2014.
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
19
E. CHA Operations CHA provided wages and benefits to 193 employees in FY 2014. CHA’s administrative expenditures to
operate their day to day business, their resident services programs, and their property management
services combine with wages and benefits payments to create additional economic impact for the
region. There are approximately 3,284 individual units in the CHA portfolio. CHA also provides property
management services for the units owned. CHA Operations supported 826 total jobs in 2014, creating
$40 million of labor income and nearly $80 million of regional goods and services.
Economic Impact of CHA Operations, FY 201430
Mecklenburg County
Impact Type Jobs Supported Income GDP Output
Direct Effect 617 $28,687,766 $58,965,177 $74,338,950 Indirect Effect 90 $5,449,429 $9,553,685 $13,850,241 Induced Effect 119 $6,145,041 $10,805,574 $15,973,808
Operations Total Effect* 826 $40,282,235 $79,324,437 $104,162,999
Table 14 – Economic Impact of CHA Operations, FY 2014
The 6 year impact of CHA operations demonstrates that $242 million of labor income supports 818
distinct jobs over the 2009-14 time period. For example, an individual employed for all 6 years counts
as one job.
6-year Impact of CHA Operations, 2009-14
Mecklenburg County (results aggregated from nominal impact series)
Impact Type Avg. # of Jobs Supported Income GDP Output
Direct Effect 604 $174,862,636 $338,578,144 $423,866,231
Indirect Effect 89 $30,898,910 $53,776,507 $77,592,966
Induced Effect 125 $37,004,175 $65,070,133 $95,689,509
Operations Total Effect** 818 $242,765,723 $457,424,788 $597,148,707
Event Multiplier 1.36 1.39 1.35 1.41
Table 15 – 6-year Impact of CHA Operations, 2009-14
Stakeholders reported positive experiences with current CHA leadership and their openness to engage
with regional partners. CHA investments in the local people, community, and economy provide
substantial economic contributions associated with its primary task of providing safe and quality housing
for lower income citizens who can’t afford housing at prevailing market rates.
30 This table is the impact total of all operational categories housing assistance payments, maintenance & repair, protective services, resident services, utility payments, CHA administrative, and CHA wages & benefits (does not include construction activity).
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
20
4. Historical Perspective – Five Year Trends The economic impact models provide an annual historical perspective of CHA’s economic impact within
Mecklenburg County.
CHA investment supports jobs in Mecklenburg County. From 2009 - 2013, the total direct, indirect, and
induced employment has generally increased. Construction related employment and housing
assistance payment related jobs displayed the greatest variation over time while wages & salaries
remained most stable from year to year.
Figure 5 – Employment Impacts - Five year trend by Scenario
222.3 225.8 232.3 230.3 228.0
305.5 315.4
363.4 403.8
400.2
100.8
263.2
247.7 110.1
315.6
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Emp
loym
ent
Employment Impacts of Charlotte Housing Authority by Scenario
Administration
Construction Activity
Housing AssistancePaymentsMaintenance andRepairProtective Services
Tenant Services
Utility Payments
Wages and Benefits
Total Effect
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
21
Similar annual trends are noted within the total output effect of CHA’s economic impact in Mecklenburg
County. The total direct, indirect and, induced output has generally increased. Construction activity and
housing assistance payments provide the largest combined effect on economic output.
Figure 6 – Economic Output Impacts - Five year trend by Scenario
0
20,000,000
40,000,000
60,000,000
80,000,000
100,000,000
120,000,000
140,000,000
160,000,000
180,000,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Ou
tpu
t
Economic Impacts of Charlotte Housing Authority by Scenario
Administration
Construction Activity
Housing AssistancePaymentsMaintenance andRepairProtective Services
Tenant Services
Utility Payments
Wages and Benefits
Total Effect
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
22
5. Fiscal Impacts of CHA CHA is a non-profit organization not subject to local property taxes. However, CHA expenditures
stimulate additional tax payments within Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, and at the Federal level.
Tax payments generated by employment or the taxes paid by CHA contractors to achieve CHA’s mission
produce tax revenue for local and state government.
Our research team completed a fiscal impact analysis of CHA’s cumulative expenditures in FY 2014.31
Direct fiscal impacts are generated primarily from taxes paid on purchases, taxes paid on payroll, and
income taxes paid by employees of CHA. Indirect tax revenue is generated from the suppliers and
manufacturers additional production of a variety of products to support CHA expenditures. Induced tax
revenue is generated from all local economic activity that occurs as households spend additional income
attributable to CHA payments, wages, or contracts. In FY 2014, CHA payments and operations
supported more than $4 million of local and state tax revenue.
Fiscal Impact of Charlotte Housing Authority, FY 2014
Local & State Taxes
Impact Type State & Local Tax Revenue
Direct Effect $2,278,393 Indirect Effect $808,650 Induced Effect $1,053,645
Total Fiscal Effect $4,140,688
Table 16 – Fiscal Impact of Charlotte Housing Authority, FY2014
CHA is a non-profit corporation that does not have profits or pay dividends. To account for this the
research team canceled out the estimate of direct dividend tax and corporate profits tax that is
generated by standard IMPLAN outputs.
6. Looking Forward CHA is a contributor of economic diversity within the urban economic landscape. CHA plans to maximize
its economic impact and investment in Mecklenburg County by innovating how they operate their
business model and support their stakeholders. Uncertain funding from HUD and other sources will
challenge CHA to identify new revenue opportunities to remain financially viable and continue
supporting Mecklenburg County’s economy.
CHA anticipates 190 new units of affordable workforce housing to open in early 2015 at The Vistas @
707. Another 150 units are planned at the Residences at Renaissance with a 2016 lease-up date.
Construction and operations of The Vistas @ 707 and the Residences at Renaissance will create jobs and
support economic impacts. Similarly, renovations of Edwin Tower, located in uptown Charlotte, will
revitalize 175 units reserved for senior citizens. Each of these projects combines to demonstrate how
CHA creates economic benefit for the local region.
31 The FY 2014 fiscal impact of CHA is reported for a single year aggregating construction and operational tax impacts into a single table. The analysis is not trying to predict future tax impacts. Separating operational and construction impacts is less applicable in this particular case.
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
23
Edwin Tower has supported 22 local jobs during the current rehabilitation and construction. With an
additional $6 million of budgeted construction remaining to be spent, construction jobs will continue to
be supported by the Edwin Tower renovations. Once renovations are complete, CHA’s property
operations will support 9 jobs annually within Mecklenburg County.
Development in Process Description Edwin Towers The building, constructed in the late 1960’s, at the edge of uptown's
Fourth Ward was Charlotte's first high rise residential building for senior citizens. Many of the building's features hadn't been updated since 1960. The senior citizen public housing building is in the process of a $10 million interior and exterior renovation.
Total Construction Budget $10,976,653
Construction $$ Spent to Date (July 2014)
$4,856,272
CHA Economic Impacts Jobs32 Income GDP Output
Construction Activity to Date (Total Effects)
22 $3,146,629 $4,220,410 $7,787,883
Property Operations – Annual Projection
9 $613,929 $875,709 $1,172,886
Table 17 – Development in Process – Edwin Towers Economic Impact
Development in Process Description The Vistas @ 707 Horizon Development Properties, Inc.; an instrumentality of CHA,
through The Lofts LLC is developing The Vistas @ 707. The property will be a mixed-income family community. This community will consist of 190 units serving residents at or below 80% of AMI.
Total Construction Budget $27,809,700
Construction $$ Spent to Date (July 2014)
$13,807,918
CHA Economic Impacts Jobs33 Income GDP Output
Construction Activity to Date (Total Effects)
61 $8,941,760 $11,993,118 $22,138,525
Property Operations – Annual Projection
19 $1,679,569 $2,021,260 $2,800,998
Table 18 – Development in Process – The Vistas @ 707 Economic Impact
The Vistas @ 707 are approximately halfway completed. During 2013 – 2014 approximately $13.8
million was spent on construction. During that time, CHA construction expenditures supported 61 jobs.
An additional 60 jobs will be supported as construction is completed. CHA annual operating expenditure
projections suggest Vistas @ 707 will support approximately 19 jobs annually within the local economy.
32 Includes direct, indirect, and induced jobs. This is an estimate of the average number of distinct jobs supported over the entire period. For example, in a three year period an individual employed for all 3 years counts as one job. 33 Includes direct, indirect, and induced jobs. This is an estimate of the average number of distinct jobs supported over the entire period. For example, in a three year period an individual employed for all 3 years counts as one job.
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
24
Development in Process Description Residences at Renaissance CHA was awarded a $20.9 million FY 2009 HOPE VI Grant for the
revitalization of the former Boulevard Homes community in the summer of 2010. The Revitalization Plan is based on collaboration with neighboring institutions, with an emphasis on early childhood development. The onsite redevelopment creates an educational village and includes both senior residential and multifamily communities in addition to a Child Development Center, Community Center and new K-8 public school.
Total Construction Budget $14,950,152
Construction $$ Spent to Date (July 2014)
$5,798,453
CHA Economic Impacts Jobs34 Income GDP Output
Construction Activity to Date (Total Effects)
18 $4,158,404 $5,287,741 $9,314,841
Property Operations – Annual Projection
13 $802,642 $1,171,259 $1,572,220
Table 19 – Development in Process – Residences at Renaissance Economic Impact
CHA construction activity spending for the Residences at Renaissance is approximately $5.8 million thus
far. Additional construction activity supported by CHA’s project partners is not included in this amount.
During 2012 – 2014 CHA construction expenditures supported 18 jobs. An additional 60 to 80 jobs will
be supported over the full construction period. CHA annual operating expenditure projections suggest
the Residences at Renaissance will support an additional 13 jobs within the local economy.
7. Final Conclusions CHA invests in the local economy by providing substantial economic contributions associated with its
primary task of providing safe and quality housing for lower income citizens who can’t afford housing at
prevailing market rates. CHA provides necessary housing options through innovative property
management and development. CHA’s impact is vital to neighborhood stabilization and increasing tax
revenues within Mecklenburg County.
CHA works with its essential partners to improve Mecklenburg County’s infrastructure, revitalize
households suffering through generations of poverty, and provide affordable housing for thousands of
people that otherwise would have none. Client services are essential as CHA is more than just providing
homes for many of its residents. CHA promotes economic self-sufficiency, education, training, and asset
development. Many of the services focus on the most vulnerable populations such as single parents,
children, seniors, disabled, homeless, and veterans.
The sum of these parts results in irreplaceable economic and social benefits for Mecklenburg County.
CHA directly and indirectly in FY 2014 generated $126 million of economic output while supporting
nearly 1,000 jobs and increasing the effective labor income of Mecklenburg County by nearly $50
34 Includes direct, indirect, and induced jobs. This is an estimate of the average number of distinct jobs supported over the entire period. For example, in a three year period an individual employed for all 3 years counts as one job.
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
25
million. In the six-year period of 2009 - 2014, CHA’s economic activities and their multiplier effects result
in more than $799 million in economic output in Mecklenburg County.
In FY 2014, CHA payments and operations supported more than $4 million of local and state tax revenue
for the region. Direct fiscal impacts are generated primarily from taxes paid on purchases, taxes paid on
payroll, and income taxes paid by employees of CHA.
Economic impact analysis is a valuable tool for CHA and housing authorities to calculate the economic
impact of their operations, housing assistance payments, and construction activity. By providing CHA
with a database of impact results and the flexibility to visualize them in many different ways, we hope it
allows the organization to answer specific questions regarding how they impact the regional economy.
In turn, we hope that answers to these questions will allow them to implement more effective strategies
and priorities.
Additional data and research should be collected to begin quantifying the value of specific programs
such as supportive housing and family self-sufficiency programming. Qualitative data assists to identify
common themes and perceptions recognized by CHA stakeholders.
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
26
8. Acknowledgements Economic impact analysis and reporting was conducted by David Kay, Regional Economist at IMPLAN.
Qualitative research and reporting was conducted by David Primm, President of Primm Research.
The research team would like to thank Shaunté Evans, Chief Administrative Officer, and Heather
Franklin, Chief Financial Officer, for their assistance coordinating data requests, scheduling interviews,
and being wonderful project partners. Additional thanks to the many individuals we had the pleasure of
speaking with for this analysis and report.
Brian Collier, Executive Vice President, Foundation for the Carolinas
Cheryl Warren, HCV Landlord
Councilmember Vi Lyles, Charlotte City Council
Dan Clodfelter, Mayor of Charlotte
David Sedor, Fifth Third Bank
Deronda Metz, Salvation Army
Donna Green, Resident Advisory Council (RAC) President
Geraldine Sumter, CHA Board of Commissioners-Chairperson
Jada Grandy, Fifth Third Bank
Kirsten Sikkelee, CEO of YWCA
Lucy Brown, Resident Commissioner
Mike Rizer, Wells Fargo
Pamela (Pam) Wideman, Deputy Director, City of Charlotte
Ron Carlee, City Manager, City of Charlotte
Zenica Chatman , Charlotte Housing Authority
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
27
9. Methods, Procedures, and Assumptions
A. The Housing Choice Voucher Program The Housing Choice Voucher Program (also called tenant-based Section 8 housing) is the federal
government’s largest housing subsidy program for low-income Americans (Schwarts, 2006).35 The goal
of the program is to help low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled afford “decent, safe, and
sanitary housing in the private market” (H.U.D., 2014).36
While the program is funded by Congress and overseen by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), the housing subsidy (also called a voucher) is actually administered locally by a
public housing authority. The local housing authority receives funding directly from HUD to administer
and monitor the program.
The program allows participating households to choose any modestly-priced rental unit in the private
market that meets program requirements. The choice can be made irrespective of neighborhood
location or building type. Once a household’s rental choice has been approved, a housing subsidy is paid
directly to the landlord by the local housing authority on behalf of the participating household. In most
cases, the local housing authority uses the fair market rents published annually by HUD as the
benchmark for determining the level associated with each voucher payment (also known as a payment
standard). Participating households are then required to contribute 30% of their income to this payment
standard while the local housing authority contributes the remainder (H.U.D., 2014).
Generally, a household is eligible to participate in the program if their annual income doesn’t exceed
50% of the area median income. However, by law a local housing authority must provide a majority of
its vouchers to households whose income does not exceed 30% of the area median income (H.U.D.,
2014).
B. Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority In Charlotte, North Carolina the Charlotte Housing Authority (CHA) administers the Housing Choice
Voucher Program for low-income households in the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. Housing
Choice Voucher payments to local landlords represent a flow of expenditures within the Charlotte metro
region. These payments are recirculated through the local economy as landlords use them to support
household spending and maintain their rental properties. As these payments circulate through the local
economy they contribute to regional GDP and help support a number of local jobs.
CHA has commissioned this report to understand what impact their annual budget expenditure has on
the regional economy of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The remainder of this chapter will be
devoted to describing the methods and assumptions used to estimate this impact.
35 Schwarts, A. F. (2006). Chapter 8: Vouchers. In A. F. Schwarts, Housing Policy in the United States: An Introduction. (pp. 149-176). New York: Routledge Taylor Francis Group. 36 H.U.D. (2014, August 18). Housing Choice Vouchers Fact Sheet. Retrieved from HUD.gov: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/hcv/about/fact_sheet#6
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
28
C. Exogenous final demand, economic impact analysis, and IMPLAN IMPLAN is an economic modeling system composed of software and data. It allows a user to estimate
the economic impacts that are likely to occur in a local economy in response to a change in exogenous
final demand (i.e. a change in demand related to outside capital, investment, government spending,
households or exports). In 1973 Professor Wassily Leontief won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics
for his insight that an input-output table could be transformed (as follows) to represent the economy-
wide impact that would occur in response to a change in an industry’s final demand sales:
∆𝑋 = (𝐼 − 𝐴)−1 ∗ ∆𝑌
In this formulation ΔY is a vector of final demand changes by industry. ΔX is a vector that represents the
economy-wide output that will be required to supply each industry’s change in final demand. (I-A)-1
represents the Leontief inverse, also known as the multiplier matrix, and is derived from the original
input-output table.
The multiplier matrix is used to transform a change in final demand to a predicted change in total
output. For a particular industry, a total multiplier derived in this fashion represents the total output
across all local industries that will be required to supply the change in final demand for that particular
industry. For example, an industry multiplier of 2.3 means that for every $1 dollar increase in an
industry’s final demand sales, an additional $1.3 dollars of output will be required from other local
industries in order to supply that additional dollar of final demand.
The multiplier includes an estimate of direct effects associated with the initial change in final demand. In
our case, this represents CHA’s annual spending budget. It also includes an estimate of indirect effects,
or the supply chain activity that occurs as local companies increase operations to meet CHA demand.
Lastly, the multiplier includes an estimate of induced effects, or the economic activity that occurs as
households spend additional labor income attributable to CHA wages or contracts.
In this manner IMPLAN estimates the regional economic impact that is likely to occur in response to a
particular industry’s change in final demand. Once an analyst provides an accurate estimate of the direct
effect (or change in final demand) the model can then predict indirect and induced effects and estimate
the total change in regional economic activity, contribution to GDP, labor income, and number of jobs
supported.
Because the Leontief framework is calibrated to predict economic impacts based on changes in final
demand, it’s important to consider if CHA budget expenditures represent a final demand category that
can be appropriately used as an input in the modeling framework. As mentioned earlier, although the
Housing Choice Voucher Program is implemented by a local housing authority, it is actually funded by
Congress. This money is passed directly from HUD to the local housing authority. In essence, the
Charlotte Housing Authority acts as HUD’s local agent in administering a portion of the federal
government’s budget. As such, we view the housing authority’s budget expenditure as a subset of final
demand (associated with federal government spending) that can be used as an exogenous input in the
Leontief framework.
Finally, it is also worth mentioning the term economic impact in this section of the report. Traditionally,
this term has been reserved to describe a change in regional output that is attributable to a change in
exogenous final demand, or in other words, a change in final demand that originates outside the region.
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
29
The term contribution analysis is often used when describing changes in regional output that are
attributable to intermediate demand or endogenous sources of final demand that originate within the
region, such as local government spending (Watson & Beleiciks, 2009).37
In this particular analysis the study region is Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; and from the county’s
perspective, funds that flow into the region from HUD via CHA are considered an outside source of final
demand. Therefore, throughout this study we will refer to CHA’s budget expenditure as a source of
“exogenous final demand” that has an “economic impact” in the local economy.
D. Budget assignment and economic impact effects To begin, CHA provided us with their annual budget expenditure over a 6 year period (2009-14). These
expenditures represent direct inputs into the modeling framework and will drive all other impact results.
Our first step is to assign each line item of the CHA budget to one of 440 IMPLAN sectors and then
aggregate the budget by IMPLAN sector.
With the exception of employee compensation, all CHA expenditures represent purchases of final goods
or contracted services. As will be explained later, IMPLAN’s Industry Change event represents an ideal
tool for modeling such purchases. Employee Compensation is assigned to IMPLAN’s Labor Income
category.
It is worth mentioning that CHA’s housing assistance payments are categorized as IMPLAN sector 360
(Real Estate) since they represent direct payments to landlords. For an overview of the budget-to-
IMPLAN sector bridge please see Table 1; for a list of all IMPLAN sectors used within each broad budget
category please see Appendix 2.
In cases where the budget line item description was too broad to assign an IMPLAN sector, a further
breakdown of each line item was provided from CHA’s 2015 budget. These sub-items where then
assigned to IMPLAN sectors. The ratio of IMPLAN sectors associated with the broader line item was then
used to distribute spending from non-descript line items in past budgets. This procedure was repeated
for each budget year provided by CHA (2009-2014). Please see Appendix 1 for a sample of the ratio
table.
Although this procedure fixes spending ratios in budget categories such as “General Office Expenses”
and “Other Spending” it seems reasonable to assume that the range of commodities purchased in these
categories in 2015 would be similar to the range of commodities purchased in past years. In addition,
the budget categories affected by this procedure constitute less than 4% of total CHA spending. Thus,
the technique should not overly bias impact results. Considered altogether, this procedure provides a
reasonable way to approximate industry assignment in the absence of more detailed information.
The method of industry assignment described above is known as the Bill-of-Goods approach and is used
to determine which set of industries are directly impacted by CHA demand. The model is then able to
look at the production function of each directly impacted industry to determine additional rounds of
spending that will occur as these industries purchase additional local inputs in order to meet the initial
CHA demand.
37 Watson, P., & Beleiciks, N. (2009). Small Community Level Social Accounting Matrices and their Application to Determining Marine Resource Dependency. Marine Resource Economics, 24(3), 253-270.
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
30
For example, as CHA makes additional voucher payments to landlords, these landlords will initiate
additional cycles of consumption as they spend a portion of these payments at local establishments to
maintain their properties and engage in household consumption. In this example, the initial round of
final demand spending occurs as CHA disburses payments to landlords. This is known as the Direct Effect
and represents all economic activity supported directly by CHA expenditures.
Additional rounds of spending will also occur as landlords spend part of their CHA payment to maintain
their properties. As they do, contractors and home improvement stores will be required to increase
spending to meet demand from CHA landlords. This, in turn, will spur additional production by a variety
of manufacturing industries that supply inputs to the construction process. This is known as the Indirect
Effect and represents the sum of all local supply chain transactions that occur as companies increase
spending to meet demand originating from CHA landlords.
Finally, CHA landlords are also likely to spend a portion of their CHA payment on household
consumption. As they do, grocery stores and food manufacturers will be required to increase spending
to meet this demand. This is known as the Induced Effect and represents all local economic activity that
occurs as households spend additional income attributable to CHA payments, wages or contracts.
The Direct Effect represents the initial change in exogenous final demand and is usually observable in
the real world. It is the input that the analyst brings to the modeling framework. Indirect and Induced
Effects are typically unobservable in the real world. These effects represent the endogenous change that
is estimated by the model’s multiplier matrix. Taken together, direct, indirect and induced effects
represent the total impact that CHA expenditures have on the local economy. The example of landlord
payments described above can be easily extended to other portions of CHA’s expenditure budget (see
figure below).
Flow of financial payments thru a regional economy
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
31
E. Model setup Once the CHA budget is aggregated by IMPLAN sector, our next step is to organize the budget for use in
the IMPLAN modeling environment. Because CHA is interested in understanding economic impacts
associated with different parts of their expenditure budget, we begin by dividing the budget into 8
broad categories (see Table 1 below). For a detailed accounting of annual spending by IMPLAN sector
and expense category, please see Appendix 2.
All expenditure categories listed below (with the exception of Capital Expenses) are associated with the
day-to-day operations required to implement CHA’s housing subsidy programs and maintain their local
stock of public housing. Capital expenditures are associated with the hard & soft construction costs
undertaken by CHA to develop new subsidized housing units. We use the IMPLAN system to model
economic impacts associated with both capital and operational payments.
Once the budget is divided into the 8 categories listed below, our next step is to organize IMPLAN
Activities for each expense category over each year. Since there are 8 categories over 6 years, a total of
48 Activities are organized within the IMPLAN model. Each Activity represents an expense category for a
particular year. With the exception of Payroll expenses, all IMPLAN Activities are populated with
Industry Change Events corresponding to the associated IMPLAN sectors in each expense category.
Payroll Activities are populated with Labor Income Change Events. Expense data from CHA’s budget is
then added to these Industry Change and Labor Income Change events and the event year is adjusted to
match the particular budget year.
CHA Expenditures by Budget Category # Expense Category Description Representative IMPLAN Sector* 1. Housing Assistance
Payments Subsidy payments to landlords 360 Real Estate
2. Maintenance & Repair
Maintenance contracts for public housing units
40 Maintenance and repair construction of residential structures
3. Administration Overhead associated with day-to-day operations
A variety of office goods and service sectors
4. Payroll CHA employee compensation & benefits
Labor Income – Employee Compensation
5. Protective Service Security guard contracts for public housing units
387 Investigation and security services
6. Tenant Services Case management & transport services for participating families
400 Individual & family services; 335 Truck Transportation
7. Utilities Payments for electricity, gas, water & other utilities
31-33 utility sectors (electricity, gas, & water)
8. Capital Expenses Construction of new public housing units (soft & hard development costs)
37 Residential construction; 369 Architectural, engineering, and related services
*Please note that each budget category may contain several IMPLAN sectors. Only the most representative sectors
are listed above. For a complete list of all sectors utilized please see Appendix 2.
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
32
As mentioned earlier, CHA spending represents a series of purchases within the local economy for final
goods or contracted services. As such, each payment, with the exception of payroll, is associated with 3
types of effects: a direct purchase from a particular industry, a series of input purchases that occur as
the industry ramps up operations, and a series of household purchases attributable to labor income paid
in fulfilment of CHA purchases.
To continue with our example of landlord payments, when CHA makes a rental payment the landlord
will use some of that payment to pay himself (proprietor income) and some of it to pay his employees
(employee compensation). The remainder will be spent on goods & services needed to maintain his
properties or will leak out of the region in the form of taxes or profits. In other words, CHA’s rental
payment will be spread out over the landlord’s entire production function.
Given this scenario, IMPLAN’s industry change event represent an ideal choice for modeling CHA’s final
demand payments. The tool spreads the initial payment across the industry’s entire production function
and initiate all rounds of payments that would be expected to occur in the real world. Additionally, it has
the added benefit of preserving the initial payment in the model’s direct impact result so that all
spending is easily accounted for by the analyst (see Figure 2 below).
In contrast, the modeling exercise is a bit different for CHA’s payroll expenditure. When CHA makes a
payment to payroll it is not making a direct purchase from a particular industry. Instead, it is making a
direct purchase from the labor market. In this instance, IMPLAN’s Labor Income Change is a better
modeling choice. The Labor Income Change makes adjustments for payroll taxes, but does not make
modifications that do not apply to wage, such as adjustments for profits or corporate income tax. It then
applies the remainder of the payment to household savings and consumption, just as one would expect
to occur when labor income is transferred to households.
It is important to note that when a Labor Income Change is applied to the multiplier matrix only induced
impacts are reported. The direct labor income payment and level of employment are not recorded in
the resulting tables. As such, these must be added back into the direct results manually by the analyst
(see Figure 2 below).
Next, because CHA does not provide information about the location of industries from which it makes
purchases, it is difficult to know beforehand how much of its demand is directed to local firms and how
much is directed to firms outside the region. Accordingly, we set the Local Purchase Percentage (LPP) in
all Industry Change Events equal to the Regional Purchase Coefficient (RPC) for that particular industry.
The RPC estimates what percent of commodity demand is available for purchase from local suppliers. In
our case, since we lack detailed information about the place of purchase, we use the RPC to estimate
what percent of a good or service CHA is able to purchase from a local supplier and what percent it must
purchase from outside the region. Although purchases made outside the region represent a leakage in
the model, and thus reduce the total economic impact, the technique adds realism to our modeling
endeavor. For Labor Income Changes we leave LPP at 100% because we do know that all direct CHA
employment and wage payments occur within the study area.
Lastly, in cases where an Industry Change Event is associated with a specific manufactured commodity,
we margin that event to ensure that we don’t over-estimate the degree to which the commodity is
manufactured locally. Without further information about specific wage rates for each impacted industry
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
33
we make no further adjustments to our Industry Change Events. Instead, we allow the model to
estimate average compensation in these sectors.
IMPLAN Modeling Diagram
F. Result formatting After making all needed adjustments to each Event, we organize each Activity into a separate Scenario.
We then model each Scenario separately in order to report economic impacts by budget category per
year. By doing so, we are able to produce a rich tapestry of results that will allow CHA to view economic
impacts from many different angles (by budget category, impact effect, and over time).
Once each Scenario is run against the model’s multiplier matrix, we adjust the Dollar Year for View to
display results in the appropriate year and export each result table to a spreadsheet application. We
then reintroduce CHA’s wage payment and direct employment to each Payroll Scenario. From there we
re-format individual tables into an overall database design and visualize results using a Pivot Chart.
Our last step is to introduce an adjustment to employment impacts in order to maintain an intuitive
definition of jobs. Since most economic impact models count a single job once per year it is likely that a
distinct job will be counted multiple times when employment impacts are added over many years. For
example, a single job supported over 6 years will be counted 6 times when employment impacts are
added together. In this case employment impacts become more like job-years rather than distinct jobs.
In order to maintain the common sense notion of a distinct job count, we divide employment impacts by
the number of years in the accounting period. The spreadsheet containing our impact results is designed
to allow the user to make this adjustment automatically regardless of the number of years in the
accounting period.
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
34
By providing CHA with a database of impact results and the flexibility to visualize them in different ways,
we hope it allows the organization to answer specific questions regarding how they impact the local
economy. In turn, we hope that answers to these questions will allow them to implement more effective
strategies and priorities.
G. Overview of the IMPLAN modeling system Input-output (I-O) models provide a means of examining inter-industry relationships within an economy.
By describing the study area in terms of the flow of dollars from purchasers to producers within a
region, I-O models can be used to estimate the economy-wide response of an initial economic impact,
such as a change in employment or production.
A Social Accounting Matrix is an extended I-O table which includes not only the inter-industry
transactions, but also industry-institution38 transactions and inter-institution transactions. Thus, a SAM
provides a fuller picture of the study area economy and the response of that economy to an impact.
This study uses the IMPLAN software and data system to model the economic impacts associated with
the Charlotte Housing Authority’s expense budget.
Direct effects represent the change in final demand faced by industries directly impacted by an increase
in CHA spending. Indirect effects stem from inter-industry purchases as other industries respond to the
new input demands of the directly-affected industries. Induced effects reflect changes in household
spending as household income increases due to the increased production in the directly- and indirectly-
affected industries. The total effect is the sum of the direct, indirect and induced effects; it represents
the entire response in the study area economy required to meet the new demand created by CHA’s
expense budget.
H. Study area and accounting period In this analysis, the study area consists of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. A 2012 IMPLAN model
for Mecklenburg County was used to model all impact scenarios.
I. IMPLAN definitions Employment (# of jobs supported) is calculated as total revenue (output) divided by the output per
worker for a given industry. Total employment is the sum of employment generated by direct, indirect
and induced spending. Please note that IMPLAN’s employment data follows the same definition as the
Bureau of Economic Analysis’ REA data and the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ CEW data, which is full-time
and part-time annual average. Thus, it adjusts for seasonality but does not indicate the number of hours
worked per day. IMPLAN employment data also includes proprietors.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is calculated as the proportion of total revenue (output) that is paid to
the components of value added, such as employee compensation, proprietor income, taxes on
production, and profits. The contribution to GDP of a particular business or program would then be the
total Value-Added associated with that business or program. This includes the direct, indirect, and
induced Value-Added, as calculated by IMPLAN.
38 Institutions include households, government, inventory, capital, and exports. Institutional demand is also known as final
demand.
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
35
Final Demand. Final demand constitutes consumption by end-users. These include institutions such as
government, investment, capital, households, and exports. Exogenous final demand represents
spending by end-consumers who are located outside the region. For example, from the perspective of
Charlotte, NC state government spending is a source of exogenous final demand because the NC
treasury is not located in the region. Endogenous final demand represents spending by end-consumers
located within the region. For example, from the perspective of the State of North Carolina state
government spending is a source of endogenous final demand because the NC treasury is located within
the region.
Industry Change Event. An industry change event is an ideal tool for modeling changes in final demand
because it spreads the initial payment across the industry’s entire production function. It also has the
added benefit of preserving the initial payment in the model’s direct results. By using an industry change
event to model a final demand payment, the model initiates all rounds of spending that would be
expected to occur in the real world and the entire payment is accounted for in the results table.
Labor Income Change. A labor income change is an ideal tool for modeling changes in labor income. It
makes adjustments for payroll taxes and then applies the remainder of the payment to household
savings and consumption.
Local Purchase Percentage (LPP) The local purchase percentage is the percent of direct spending that
occurs within the local study area.
Margins. Final demand customers typically do not make purchases directly from manufacturing firms.
Instead, they are likely to make purchases at retail or wholesale establishments. For retail purchases
only a portion of the transaction remains with the local retailer (known as the retail margin). The
remainder of the transaction flows to manufacturing, transportation or wholesale firms that may or may
not exist in the study area. If an analyst does not know whether a certain commodity is manufactured in
the region, he can apply margins to the event value. By so doing IMPLAN divides the transaction into its
margin components (retail, wholesale, transportation, and manufacturing). The model keeps the retail
component and uses the commodity’s RPC to determine what percent of the manufacturing margin is
available for purchase from local producers. This procedure often reduces the direct input applied to the
multiplier matrix, but ensures that one does not over-estimate the degree to which a commodity is
produced locally.
Multiplier Matrix. In the Leontief framework (I-A)-1 represents the multiplier matrix. This matrix is
derived from the original input-output table and transforms a change in final demand to a predicted
change in total output. For a particular industry, a total multiplier derived in this fashion represents the
economy-wide impact that will occur in a region in response to a particular industry’s increase in final
demand sales. The multiplier response includes both direct, indirect and induced effects.
Regional Purchase Coefficient (RPC) The regional purchase coefficient is the percent of indirect and
induced spending that is purchased within the local study area.
Scenarios, Activities, and Events. These are modeling tools provided by the IMPLAN software to assist
the user in organizing direct inputs. Events allow a user to make industry selections, input final demand
changes, and make adjustments to those final demand changes. Activities allow a user to combine and
organize a number of Events. Scenarios allow a user to structure how a group of Activities is applied to
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
36
the multiplier matrix. Used in concert these tools allow a user to define inputs, determine how they will
be applied to the multiplier matrix, and decide how impact results will be reported.
Total Output. Total output represents the gross value of all financial transactions that occur in a region
over a given time. It is often reported by industry. Total output differs from Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) in that it includes the value of all intermediate and final goods and services. GDP only includes the
value of final goods and services.
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
37
Appendix 1 – Sample of Budget Code to IMPLAN Bridge Table
Sam
ple
of C
har
lott
e H
ou
sin
g A
uth
ori
ty E
xpen
se C
ateg
ori
esB
ridge
Tab
le -
Bud
get C
ode
to IM
PLA
N S
ecto
r
Bu
dg
et
Co
de
Exp
ense
Des
crip
tio
nE
xpen
se C
ateg
ory
Bu
dg
et r
atio
s
(Mar
ch 2
015)
IMP
LA
N S
ecto
r D
escr
ipti
on
911
Adm
inis
trativ
e sa
larie
sO
pera
tions
- P
ayro
ll1.
00
La
bor
inco
me
- E
mpl
oyee
Com
pens
atio
n
912
Aud
iting
fees
Ope
ratio
ns -
Adm
inis
tratio
n1.
00
36
8 A
ccou
ntin
g, ta
x pr
epar
atio
n, b
ookk
eepi
ng, a
nd p
ayro
ll se
rvic
es
913
Man
agem
ent f
ees
Ope
ratio
ns -
Adm
inis
tratio
n1.
00
36
0 R
eal E
stat
e
913.
1B
ook-
keep
ing
fees
Ope
ratio
ns -
Adm
inis
tratio
n1.
00
36
8 A
ccou
ntin
g, ta
x pr
epar
atio
n, b
ookk
eepi
ng, a
nd p
ayro
ll se
rvic
es
914
Adv
ertis
ing
and
mar
ketin
gO
pera
tions
- A
dmin
istra
tion
1.00
377
Adv
ertis
ing
and
rela
ted
serv
ices
915
Em
ploy
ee b
enef
its -
adm
inis
trativ
eO
pera
tions
- P
ayro
ll1.
00
La
bor
inco
me
- E
mpl
oyee
Com
pens
atio
n
916
Offic
e ex
pens
es -
Mai
ling
& P
osta
ge S
uppl
ies
Ope
ratio
ns -
Adm
inis
tratio
n0.
0012
024
110
Sta
tiona
ry p
rodu
ct m
anuf
actu
ring
916
Offic
e ex
pens
es -
Non
-Cap
italiz
ed C
ompu
ter
Equ
ip/S
oftw
are/
Mai
nt
Ope
ratio
ns -
Adm
inis
tratio
n0.
2790
920
234
Ele
ctro
nic
com
pute
r m
anuf
actu
ring
916
Offic
e ex
pens
es -
Offic
e F
urn/
Equ
ip R
ent/M
aint
-Adm
inis
trativ
e O
R
Non
cap
italiz
ed a
dmin
equ
ipm
ent/f
urni
ture
Ope
ratio
ns -
Adm
inis
tratio
n0.
0833
121
300
Offic
e fu
rnitu
re m
anuf
actu
ring
916
Offic
e ex
pens
es -
Offic
e S
uppl
ies
Ope
ratio
ns -
Adm
inis
tratio
n0.
1056
903
313
Offic
e su
pplie
s (e
xcep
t pap
er)
man
ufac
turin
g
916
Offic
e ex
pens
es -
Tel
epho
ne/D
SL
Ope
ratio
ns -
Adm
inis
tratio
n0.
1899
200
351
Tel
ecom
mun
icat
ions
916
Offic
e ex
pens
es -
Offic
e re
ntO
pera
tions
- A
dmin
istra
tion
0.26
3999
8
36
0 R
eal E
stat
e
916
Offic
e ex
pens
es -
pos
tage
/shi
ppin
gO
pera
tions
- A
dmin
istra
tion
0.07
6783
4
42
7 po
stal
ser
vice
917
Lega
l exp
ense
Ope
ratio
ns -
Adm
inis
tratio
n1.
00
36
7 Le
gal S
ervi
ces
918
Tra
vel
Ope
ratio
ns -
Adm
inis
tratio
n1.
00
33
2 ai
r tra
nspo
rtatio
n
……
……
…
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
38
Appendix 2 – CHA Expense Budget by IMPLAN Sector
Dir
ect
Eff
ect
IMP
LA
N S
ect
or
Sect
or
Desc
ripti
on
FY
20
09
FY
20
10
FY
20
11
FY
20
12
FY
20
13
FY
20
14
Hou
sin
g A
ssis
tan
ce P
aym
en
ts360
360 R
eal E
sta
te$30,1
14,1
84
$30,8
98,4
19
$35,9
23,6
31
$41,0
27,2
17
$41,7
89,0
60
$41,6
45,9
98
Main
ten
an
ce &
Repair
40
40 M
ain
ten
an
ce a
nd
rep
air
co
nstr
ucti
on
of
resid
en
tial str
uctu
res
$4,1
51,8
37
$5,2
98,9
38
$7,2
72,6
10
$6,3
48,5
57
$5,7
51,3
55
$5,0
10,2
51
Operati
on
s -
Adm
inis
trati
on
110
110 S
tati
on
ary
pro
du
ct
man
ufa
ctu
rin
g$1,4
93
$1,4
10
$1,6
73
$1,6
86
$1,3
61
$1,4
81
234
234 E
lectr
on
ic c
om
pu
ter
man
ufa
ctu
rin
g$346,4
44
$327,1
71
$388,2
40
$391,2
30
$316,0
02
$343,8
43
300
300 O
ffic
e f
urn
itu
re m
an
ufa
ctu
rin
g$103,4
18
$97,6
64
$115,8
94
$116,7
87
$94,3
30
$102,6
41
313
313 O
ffic
e s
up
plies (
exc
ep
t p
ap
er)
man
ufa
ctu
rin
g$141,7
58
$136,5
57
$157,0
67
$153,0
24
$129,6
55
$137,7
39
332
332 a
ir t
ran
sp
ort
ati
on
$236,9
32
$256,5
33
$272,7
32
$252,7
93
$299,9
09
$212,7
29
339
339 C
ou
riers
an
d m
essen
gers
$6,4
45
$7,7
25
$6,1
29
$2,9
70
$6,0
94
$4,5
94
342
342 P
eri
od
ical p
ub
lish
ers
$10,8
57
$13,0
13
$10,3
24
$5,0
04
$10,2
66
$7,7
38
351
351 T
ele
co
mm
un
icati
on
s$235,7
53
$222,6
37
$264,1
94
$266,2
29
$215,0
37
$233,9
83
354
354 M
on
eta
ry a
uth
ori
ties a
nd
dep
osit
ory
cre
dit
in
term
ed
iati
on
$223,1
52
$265,9
43
$473,1
79
$696,2
85
$1,3
03,8
77
$650,9
17
357
357 I
nsu
ran
ce c
arr
iers
$760,7
20
$871,7
14
$920,9
89
$929,7
25
$655,6
87
$1,8
78,7
67
360
360 R
eal E
sta
te$559,8
96
$617,3
64
$735,1
26
$827,0
19
$692,2
66
$634,0
75
367
367 L
eg
al S
erv
ices
$230,7
22
$447,7
76
$422,0
77
$432,4
97
$454,7
63
$449,2
45
368
368 A
cco
un
tin
g, ta
x p
rep
ara
tio
n, b
oo
kkeep
ing
, an
d p
ay
roll s
erv
ices
$56,8
00
$59,8
00
$42,3
00
$44,1
54
$46,0
64
$50,1
30
374
374 m
an
ag
em
en
t, s
cie
nti
fic a
nd
tech
nic
al co
nsu
ltin
g s
erv
ices
$1,1
31,4
46
$1,3
56,1
64
$1,0
75,8
79
$521,4
40
$1,0
69,8
64
$806,4
39
377
377 A
dv
ert
isin
g a
nd
rela
ted
serv
ices
$74,3
81
$88,7
99
$203,6
25
$189,1
53
$153,1
70
$116,0
57
382
382 E
mp
loy
men
t S
erv
ices
$25,8
36
$30,9
67
$24,5
67
$11,9
07
$24,4
29
$18,4
14
384
384 O
ffic
e a
dm
inis
trati
ve s
up
po
rt$6,1
09,3
52
$3,3
51,2
85
$3,3
36,2
70
$2,8
71,6
97
$6,6
11,3
26
$3,4
76,7
91
386
386 B
usin
ess s
up
po
rt s
erv
ices
$36,2
46
$43,4
45
$34,4
66
$16,7
04
$34,2
73
$25,8
35
393
393 O
ther
ed
ucati
on
al serv
ices
$40,6
44
$48,7
16
$38,6
48
$18,7
31
$38,4
32
$28,9
69
396
396 M
ed
ical an
d d
iag
no
sti
c lab
s a
nd
ou
tpati
en
t an
d o
ther
am
bu
lato
ry c
are
serv
ices
$18,1
83
$21,7
94
$17,2
90
$8,3
80
$17,1
93
$12,9
60
413
413 F
oo
d s
erv
ice a
nd
dri
nkin
g p
laces
$2,7
60
$3,3
09
$2,6
25
$1,2
72
$2,6
10
$1,9
68
425
425 C
ivic
, so
cia
l, p
rofe
ssio
nal, a
nd
sim
ilar
org
an
izati
on
s$103,5
74
$124,1
45
$98,4
87
$47,7
33
$97,9
37
$73,8
23
427
427 p
osta
l serv
ice
$95,3
13
$90,0
11
$106,8
12
$107,6
35
$86,9
38
$94,5
98
437
437 E
mp
loy
men
t an
d p
ay
roll f
or
sta
te&
lo
cal g
ov
t n
on
-ed
ucati
on
$121,3
37
$159,2
71
$139,9
62
$132,2
11
$93,9
05
$71,5
36
Ad
min
istr
ati
on
Su
bto
tal
n/a
n/a
$1
0,6
73
,46
1$
8,6
43
,21
4$
8,8
88
,55
5$
8,0
46
,26
5$
12
,45
5,3
89
$9
,43
5,2
71
Operati
on
s -
Payroll
Lab
or
inco
me -
Em
plo
yee C
om
pen
sati
on
Lab
or
inco
me -
Em
plo
yee C
om
pen
sati
on
$11,4
68,6
27
$12,5
53,4
48
$14,6
14,3
04
$14,3
01,3
98
$13,9
34,0
11
$13,0
84,6
40
Prote
cti
ve S
ervi
ce
387
387 I
nv
esti
gati
on
an
d s
ecu
rity
serv
ices
$341,4
76
$769,3
76
$625,9
71
$734,8
08
$658,0
76
$611,9
23
Ten
an
t S
ervi
ces
400
400 I
nd
ivid
ual &
fam
ily
serv
ices
$700,3
38
$1,5
76,0
04
$2,7
76,7
56
$3,8
70,7
92
$3,4
47,7
79
$3,0
28,1
14
335
335 T
ruck T
ran
sp
ort
ati
on
$447,6
38
$392,2
38
$943,9
88
$264,7
85
$12,8
05
$8,6
55
Ten
an
t S
erv
ices S
ub
tota
ln
/an
/a$
1,1
47
,97
6$
1,9
68
,24
2$
3,7
20
,74
4$
4,1
35
,57
7$
3,4
60
,58
4$
3,0
36
,76
9
Uti
liti
es
31
31 e
lectr
ic p
ow
er
gen
era
tio
n, tr
an
sm
issio
n a
nd
dis
trib
uti
on
$1,9
43,9
97
$2,1
17,2
14
$2,2
15,9
95
$2,0
45,4
21
$2,0
62,2
53
$2,3
26,2
09
32
32 n
atu
ral g
as d
istr
ibu
tio
n$1,1
99,0
60
$1,1
40,8
75
$851,3
30
$567,7
64
$782,5
35
$775,1
02
33
33 W
ate
r, s
ew
ag
e a
nd
oth
er
sy
ste
ms
$1,0
97,2
88
$1,2
12,3
34
$1,3
18,7
41
$1,1
76,8
41
$1,2
32,0
03
$1,3
06,6
25
Uti
liti
es -
Su
bto
tal
n/a
n/a
$4
,24
0,3
45
$4
,47
0,4
23
$4
,38
6,0
66
$3
,79
0,0
26
$4
,07
6,7
91
$4
,40
7,9
36
Capit
al
Expen
ses
355
355 N
on
dep
osit
ory
cre
dit
in
term
ed
iati
on
an
d r
ela
ted
acti
vit
ies
$763,1
70
$350,3
41
$4,9
75,6
18
$794,9
59
$0
$13,2
86
40
40 M
ain
ten
an
ce a
nd
rep
air
co
nstr
ucti
on
of
resid
en
tial str
uctu
res
$260,6
30
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
37
37 R
esid
en
tial C
on
str
uti
on
$9,6
59,2
43
$28,3
03,7
45
$20,3
95,7
75
$11,1
69,0
17
$35,3
69,9
98
$13,6
04,9
06
369
369 A
rch
itectu
ral, e
ng
ineeri
ng
, an
d r
ela
ted
serv
ices
$184,5
53
$0
$117,6
32
$689
$0
$0
335
335 T
ruck T
ran
sp
ort
ati
on
$0
$0
$583,2
89
$74,5
50
$0
$0
Cap
ital S
ub
tota
ln
/an
/a$
10
,86
7,5
96
$2
8,6
54
,08
6$
26
,07
2,3
14
$1
2,0
39
,21
5$
35
,36
9,9
98
$1
3,6
18
,19
2
Ove
rall
Bu
dg
et
Tota
ln
/an
/a$
73
,00
5,5
02
$9
3,2
56
,14
6$
10
1,5
04
,19
5$
90
,42
3,0
63
$1
17
,49
5,2
64
$9
0,8
50
,98
0
CH
A B
ud
get
by I
MP
LA
N S
ecto
r, 2009-1
4
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
39
Additional Resources
A Matter of Degrees: The Effect of Educational Attainment on Regional Economic Prosperity. Rep.
Milken Institute, Feb. 2013. Web. 29 Aug. 2014.
Charlotte Housing Authority. (2014, August 18). <http://www.cha-nc.org/>.
"Health Care and Public Service Use and Costs Before and After Provision of Housing for Chronically
Homeless Persons with Severe Alcohol Problems." The JAMA Network. 1 Apr. 2009. Web. 29
Aug. 2014.
H.U.D. (2014, August 18). Housing Choice Vouchers Fact Sheet. Retrieved from HUD.gov:
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/
hcv/about/fact_sheet#6
"Revisiting the Hope VI Public Housing Program's Legacy." Governing, May 2012. Web. 29 Aug. 2014.
Schwarts, A. F. (2006). Chapter 8: Vouchers. In A. F. Schwarts, Housing Policy in the United States: An
Introduction. (pp. 149-176). New York: Routledge Taylor Francis Group.
Section 8 Households and the Relationship to Residential Property Values in Charlotte, NC. Rep. U of
North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte Housing Authority, June 2008. Web. 27 Aug. 2014.
Waters, E. C., Weber, B. A., & Holland, D. W. (1999). The Role of Agriculture in Oregon's Economic Base:
Findings from a Social Accounting Matrix. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economic, 24(1),
266-280.
Watson, P., & Beleiciks, N. (2009). Small Community Level Social Accounting Matrices and their
Application to Determining Marine Resource Dependency. Marine Resource Economics, 24(3),
253-270.
Where We Sleep: The Costs of Housing and Homelessness in Los Angeles. Rep. Economic Roundtable,
2009. Web. 29 Aug. 2014. Retrieved from:
http://www.economicrt.org/summaries/Where_We_Sleep.html.
Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009-14)
40
About IMPLAN and Primm Research
Economic impact analysis and reporting was conducted by David Kay, Regional Economist at IMPLAN.
IMPLAN is the leading provider of U.S. economic impact data, providing analysts with flexible,
transparent, and trustworthy data.
Qualitative research and reporting was conducted by David Primm, President of Primm Research. The
Primm Research network provides market analysis, data collection, economic impact research, and
strategic planning for organizations.