Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009 –...

| 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


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.


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.


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



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


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.

http://www.urbanministrycenter.org/helping-the-homeless/housing-for-homeless/

http://www.urbanministrycenter.org/helping-the-homeless/housing-for-homeless/


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.


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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).


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


Housing AssistancePaymentsMaintenance andRepairProtective Services

Tenant Services

Utility Payments

Wages and Benefits

Total Effect


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


Housing AssistancePaymentsMaintenance andRepairProtective Services

Tenant Services

Utility Payments

Wages and Benefits

Total Effect


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.


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.



$13,807,918



61 $8,941,760 $11,993,118 $22,138,525


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.


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.



$5,798,453



18 $4,158,404 $5,287,741 $9,314,841


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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

……

……

…


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


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.


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.

Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009 –...

Documents

Transcript of Economic Impacts of the Charlotte Housing Authority (2009 –...