Community college impact

Comments

15 comments

  • Avatar
    DougO
    92% seems high to me. It reflects Census of Government Employment data and Census of Government Finances data that is not consistent with each other. Frankly, I'd be happier with 60-80%.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    pwynkoop
    geography is simple group of six florida and three georgia counties. is there anything odd about those states and their public education payroll proportions?
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    DougO
    Not that I am aware of.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    pwynkoop
    doug - is there something i can do to confirm the data i'm using?
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    pwynkoop
    doug - all of these models have been constructed with default conditions: trade flow method: trade model build through multipliers i separated the 3 GA counties, and importing the "state/local govt education" institution brought a coefficient of 0.79+ which is inside your ballpark. i looked at each of the FL counties in a separate model, and their "state/local govt education" coefficient uniformly came to 0.90 - 0.93. the result of having so high a public education coefficient looks like my model becomes distorted when i run the analysis, as the impacts appear so diminished. since these results are so far from what is expected, i must be doing something in error with the model. any suggestions will be welcome.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    DougO
    I am not sure I understand. Sector 3438 is the "payroll" sector. Sectors 3001 to 3436 are the goods and services the SL Education institution buys to operate. Goods and services will be purchased locally (shows up as a direct effect) and imported -will not show up as a direct effect; ie, are leakages. The 90% going to payroll (3438) will show up as "direct", but in fact will only go to employee compensation - with a portion also going to capital consumption allowance (other property income). About 40-50% of that will in turn, be used to start the induced effect. The true "direct" output effect is the original Budget value which does not show up in the impact report. The true "direct" employment and income show up as the direct effect for sector 438. The remainder of the reported direct effect is the first round indirect effect - ie, what the education institution sector buys in its first round of spending.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    pwynkoop
    doug – i understand your most of your explanation. in your estimation, does a coefficient of 90+% for public education payroll imply that those counties import most of the other goods they use to operate [3001-3436]? does that condition likely reflect state & local standards or existing long-term contracts?
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    jenny
    Hi Peter, A coefficient of 0.90 for commodity 3438 means that, in your region, 90% of public education operating budgets go toward payroll, with the remaining 10% going toward other goods and services. Some of those goods and services will be purchased locally and some will not, as determined by the Local Purchase Percentages, which are displayed in the Local Purchase Percentage column of the spending pattern. In the Scenario Results screen, you will see the amount of non-local purchases in the LPP Imports box. If you know that the community college you are modeling spends less than 90% on payroll, you can adjust the spending pattern accordingly.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    pwynkoop
    jenny - this industry may have such a large payroll component due to the influence of k-12 spending in this geography. took your advice: changed the 3438 coefficient in my model to its budget proportion and normalized. trying to interpret results. budget of $227M [with $104 payroll removed] yielded direct output of only $174M, although lpp imports are $58M. does that appear a feasible outcome?
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    DougO
    Remember that if you subtract the industry 348 direct output from the total direct output ($174M) you are left with the first round indirect which can be added to the indirect column. The true direct output is $227M.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    DougO
    Sorry, I didn't see that you had removed payroll from your original budget. If you know the payroll is 104M out of the original 331M then you know that the coeficient should be .3142 for commodity 3438 (I mistyped the industry number in my previous post - should be 438). Change the coefficient to .3142 (104/331), normalize (you may have to change it a couple of times as it is a big change on normalizing) then run the entire 331M. The 104M will go to the payroll "Industry". Note, you will still have to remove sector 438 from the direct to calculate first round indirect. Or.. you could just 0 out the coefficient for 3438 and normalize, then run the operational budget net payroll 227M first and run the 104M through the "labor income activity type" separately. Note, your true "direct" is the entire budget including the payroll which looks like 331M (?)
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    pwynkoop
    doug - i misled you on the explanation, but i get your direction. my original operating budget is 227M; of that, payroll is 104M. so i adjusted the activity so the payroll event had that proportion, 45.695%, then removed the payroll event and normalized. i added industry change activities for faculty and staff payroll, then ran the scenario of those three activities, which resulted in total direct output of 174M. [1] you say the true "direct" output is my entire operating budget [227M]. how do i adjust the result to show that? [2] how can i also add results of a scenario to evaluate the construction budget? should those run in a single, larger scenario?
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    jenny
    Hi Peter, We're somewhat confused about exactly what you are doing. Since you know the proportion of the total operating budget that is represented by payroll you can simply: 1. Import the Institution Spending Pattern for State/Local Govt Education ([i]Activity Options>Import>Institution Spending Pattern>State/Local Govt Education[/i]). 2. Edit the spending pattern so that the event for 3438 is 0.45695, then renormalize ([i]Event Options>Change All>Normalize[/i]) 3. Click "Next" to create a Scenario for this spending pattern. Specify the level as $227 million and run the scenario. Since the spending pattern includes a line item for payroll, you do not need to run a separate payroll impact. Direct Output Impact + Direct Institution Change + LPP Imports should equal $227 million. If you want to also model the construction impacts, run these as a separate Scenario as these are one-time impacts (as opposed to annually recurring operational impacts).
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    abarefield
    Hi, My question follows along these same lines, but I can't seem to get a result that makes sense. I'm trying to analyze the contribution of a community college with a $45 million operating budget that includes $13 million in payroll for 385 employees. I tried to follow Case Study #11d where I imported the Institutional Spending Pattern for State and Local Government, Education and deleted Event 3438 (Employment and payroll only (state & local govt, education). I set the Activity Level at $45 million. Then, to take care of the induced effects on the payroll, I created an Industry Change Activity with one event for Industry 438 and entered 385 in the Employment field and $13 million in the payroll field. When I ran the scenario with these two activities, I had a direct effect of around 412 jobs in the Summary. The State and Local Government jobs were correct at 385, but I'm picking up these extra jobs in the direct effect someplace. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    IMPLAN Support
    Hi Alan, It looks like this has been answered another post. Please let us know if this is not the case.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.