LPP and Impact of a Public College
Good afternoon. I have a question about the impact of a public community college, particularly with respect to how the amount of a college’s budget that is initially spent within the study area should be estimated (as opposed to the portion of the budget that bypasses the study area completely). I have worked through Case Study 11 – it appears that the case study guides the user to use total budget figures (or in a case where the user has access to greater budget detail, estimating the impacts of operating budget, construction, payroll, etc. separately) and allow the model to estimate what percentage of that initial spending occurs within the local study area. I noticed that the only mention of the Local Purchase Percentage (LPP) in Case Study 11 is with respect to student spending (i.e., setting LPP to 100% for all events related to student spending, as all student expenditures are assumed to be within the study area). Since Case Study 11 does not direct the user to adjust the LPP for any of the other spending categories, I expect that these should be left at the SAM model value. I also understand that the Case Study may represent a somewhat simplified example, as payroll should likely reflect only employees who live within the study area and that among those employees, student employees should be excluded (so as not to double count payments they make to the college).
I’ve recently run into a case where a college could provide operating and capital expenditures by vendor address, allowing me to estimate the institution’s spending within the local study area up front (i.e., before placing it in the model). If I had this information, could I then follow the same steps as described in Case Study 11 but set all of the LPP’s to 100% (e.g., in the case of the operating budget, entering the amount of money paid to vendors with local addresses into an institution spending pattern and setting all LPP’s to 100%)?
Alternatively, is it preferable to simply run the college’s total budget figures (without taking prior steps to account for local versus out-of-area spending) through the appropriate institution spending activity (for operating budget) and industry change activities (for construction/capital budget and faculty/staff payroll), with an LPP set to the SAM model value? I’ve read several economic impact studies completed for or by colleges and universities where the analysts will state that they are estimating the effect of money spent within the area but then make no mention of how the initial, direct spending was estimated (leaving me to assume that the analyst is entering the total budget, regardless of the geography in which it was spent, and relying on LPP’s set to the SAM model value). Do you have a sense of whether this is the most common approach for colleges and universities to take, and if so, is this a generally accepted means of estimating an institution’s impact?
Thank you for your time.
Was this post helpful?
-
IMPLAN SupportHi Patrick, To restate, what you have already indicated you definitely do always want to split out operations from Capital Expenditures and construction, as the operational spending patterns will not make appropriate intermediate (business to business purchases) purchases nor reflect the appropriate payroll ratios for construction and other Capital Expenditures. If you are using the Institution Spending Pattern for public colleges, you are correct to leave the Local Purchase Percentage at SAM Model Value. This is because you are looking at the line item purchases of the Industry and since these are first round Intermediate Expenditures. If you left in the payroll Sector or removed the payroll Sector from the spending pattern so that spending pattern sums to less than 1.0 (i.e. it is not normalized), then your entered value should reflect the total operational value. If you removed it and normalized or are using a spending pattern that does not include Sectors 437-440, and still sums to 1.00 the Activity Level should reflect the operational budget. If payroll is a part of the spending pattern you would not want to run it again. As regards the payroll, if you are using Sectors 437-440 or the Labor Income Change methodology there can be net regional leakage that is already accounted for, but you are correct that you only want to count those employees who live in the Study Area. This article describes how you can recalculate your income adjustments to account for what the Model is already removing. https://implan.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=737 You certainly can break that down by ZIP Code and if you knew those purchases were local you are absolutely correct you would set the Local Purchase Percentage to 100% for known local purchases. You might also find this article interesting. http://www.econ.iastate.edu/sites/default/files/publications/papers/p17708-2014-06-05.pdf For construction if the building is all in the Study Area Region you would want to leave LPP at 100%. The analysis frame of an Industry Change starts with the value of the building itself which is all local to where the building is. The software then applies RPC's to the requirement necessary for building that type of structure. For Capital Expenditures, there are a couple of considerations. First are Margins and the second is the LPP. Typically a number of our Capital Expenditures are not produced in the region, and are not purchased from the production floor but rather through a wholesale or retail venue. Thus applying LPP and Margins is typically the most appropriate methodology for these. These two articles describe how to go about applying Margins and where and when it is appropriate to set LPP on these types of expenditures. https://implan.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=160&Itemid=1702 https://implan.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=161 Thanks!0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
1 comment