Union College s Annual Economic Impact on the State of Nebraska

(1)

Union College’s Annual

Economic Impact on the State of Nebraska

(2)

Union College’s Annual

Economic Impact on the State of Nebraska

The subsequent analysis was prepared for Union College by Goss and Associates, Economic Solutions. Findings remain the sole property of Union College and may not be used without prior approval of this organization.

The authors of this study wish to thank Mr. Gary Bollinger, Vice-President for Finance, and Mr. Barry Forbes, Associate Professor of Business, for their significant contributions to this study. Any errors or misstatements contained in this study are solely the responsibility of the authors. Please address all correspondence to:

Economic Solutions Dr. Ernest Goss Creighton University Omaha, NE 68178-0130 Voice (402) 280-4757 Fax (402) 280-2172 e-mail: ernieg@creighton.edu Or Chris Vincentini Voice (402) 672-1057 e-mail: chris.vincentini@american-research-group.com

(3)

Union College’s Annual

Economic Impact on the State of Nebraska

Executive Summary

Each year, Union College makes significant contributions to the Nebraska and Lancaster County economies. By analyzing enrollment data and by applying Input-Output1

computer models to Union College’s actual 2005-06 payroll and spending data, it is estimated that Union College will contribute the following to the Nebraska economy: • To Nebraska’s brain gain:

o Each year, students from all over the globe come to Union College to earn a degree. For the 2004-2005 academic year, 81.5 percent of Union’s 939 students came from outside Nebraska, and 12.6 percent originated from outside the U.S.

o In 2005 Union College educated 930 students from over 44 states and 26 countries.

o A high proportion of Union’s graduates remain in Nebraska to work. These graduates encourage the location, development and new business growth in the state and area economy.

1This study was completed using the Implan Input-Output methodology. An explanation of this methodology is contained in the accompanying Appendix E.

(5)

• To the local & state economy for 2006: 2

o Spending by Union College will add an estimated $39.6 million to the state economy. Approximately $19.1 million of this impact represents spillover impacts.3

o For the state of Nebraska, Union College 2006 spending will increase retail trade sales by $2.3 million, manufacturing revenues by $1.1 million and real estate sales and rentals by $2.3 million.

• To state & local tax collections for 2006:

o It is estimated that Union College will generate over $1.35 million in state and local taxes in the state of Nebraska.

• To the labor force for 2006:

Union College spending will support 515 jobs, $13.7 million in wages & salaries in for the state of Nebraska.

o Union College will directly support roughly 167 total jobs with a total

payroll of approximately $17.4 million.4

o Union College will increase the income of Nebraska’s private business owners and self-employed by $1.1 million.

• To state and local economic growth:

o Union College is in the top 97th percentile of Lancaster County’s employers in term of jobs and payroll.5

o Union College’s employment level is 9.5 times that of the average business establishment in Lancaster County.

o Union College’s annual payroll is 22.6 times that of the average Lancaster County business establishment.

2It is assumed that similar impacts, adjusted for inflation, will result in future years.

3Spillover impacts represent ‘ripple’ impacts in related businesses as the initial dollars are re-spent in the community. For example, Union College employees will spend a portion of their earnings in local grocery stores. This spending creates sales, earnings and jobs, termed spillover impacts, for business in the retail trade sector.

4Compensation includes fringe benefits and FICA taxes paid by the employer on behalf of the employee. Does not include wages paid to student workers.

5According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s County Business Patterns, Lancaster County has 7,387 total establishments with an annual payroll of $3,790,249,000. Only 191 of the total employed more than 100 workers.

(6)

o Private colleges and universities contribute to the attractiveness of an area. Nebraska counties with a private college or university experienced population growth of 18.2 percent between 1990 and 2004. Nebraska counties without a private college or university experienced population growth of 1.9 percent for this same time period.

o Nebraska counties with a private college or university experienced personal income growth of 80.0 percent between 1990 and 2000. o Nebraska counties without a private college or university experienced

personal income growth of 45.2 percent for this same time period. • To a stable job base and quality jobs:

o Average yearly salary at Nebraska’s private colleges and universities was $39,345 for 20056_{, significantly greater than Nebraska’s average of}

$27,668.7

o Private colleges and universities have a stabilizing impact on the state and area economy with the number of jobs in this sector rising significantly over the past decade. Furthermore, many of the private institutions are among the county’s largest employers.

6“Private Higher Education’s Annual Economic Impact on the State of Nebraska”,2003.

7Both wage estimates include fringe benefits, number adjusted for inflation from the “Chronicle of Higher Education”.

(7)

Table 1 summarizes the yearly impacts of Union College on the state of Nebraska and Lancaster County.8

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF TOTAL ANNUAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF UNION COLLEGE ON THE STATE OF NEBRASKA AND LANCASTER COUNTY

Impacts State of

Nebraska LancasterCounty

Annual impact on economy $39.6 million $37.8 million

Annual impact on state and local tax collections $1.35 million $762 thousand

Full-time equivalent jobs supported 515 502

Annual payroll (does not include self-employed workers) $17.4 million $12.6 million Annual impact on self-employment income $1.1 million $990 thousand

Source: Implan Input-Output Multiplier System

The assumptions and methodology used to produce these estimates are contained in accompanying Appendices A – F.

8The estimates contained in this study assume that 20 percent of Union College’s direct spending takes place outside of Nebraska. In technical terms, the study used Implan’s more conservative RPCs rather than assuming that all of Union’s spending takes place in Nebraska.

(8)

• Location: Lancaster County • Total enrollment 939

• 81% of students from outside NE • 1,293 alumni living inside NE • 8,608 alumni living outside NE

Chapter 1: Union College Overview

Introduction

Union College is a four-year co-educational liberal arts and science college owned and operated by the Seventh-day Adventist

Church. Located in Lincoln, Nebraska, Union began accepting students in 1891 and has remained open to all races and religions. The college was established with a mandate to serve Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Missouri, Colorado, Nebraska and Wyoming.

Union College offers majors through seven academic divisions: (1) business and computer science, (2) fine arts, (3) health sciences, (4) human development, (5) humanities, (6) religion, and (7) science and mathematics. The college grants Bachelor of Science, Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Social Work, Bachelor of Music, Bachelor of Arts in Theology, Associate of Arts, and Associate of Science degrees. In total, Union offers more than 50 majors as well as a graduate program in Physicians Assistant Studies.

The college is accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and

Schools, the Council on Social Work Education and the National League of Nursing. The college is approved by the Board of Regents of the General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, the Nebraska State Department of Education, and Nebraska’s State Board of Nursing. In 2005 Union College educated 930 students from over 44 states and 26

(9)

countries. Not only is education at Union multi-cultural , but it is also one of an intimate learning environment with a student-to-teacher ratio of 13 to 1.

Mission Statement

Union College, a Seventh-day Adventist liberal arts college, prepares students from diverse backgrounds for excellence in selected professions, develops an eternal perspective with assurance in Christ, and promotes joyful service to the world.

Vision

Union College will be recognized for its creative, progressive, affordable, and openly caring environment where students are enabled to identify and develop their talents, communicate effectively, strengthen constructive thinking, and flourish spiritually.

Union College’s Contribution to the Quality of Life in Nebraska

Some of the striking accomplishments of Union College include:

• Education majors gain experience at George Stone School, an elementary laboratory school located on campus.

• Union has a strong student missionary and task force program, which enables students to take a year out of school and offer voluntary service in America and overseas. More than 35 Union students or graduates are serving during the 2005-06 school year.

• In the last seven years, 95 percent of applicants to medical school from the Division of Science and Mathematics have been accepted.

• Union's nursing graduates have consistently achieved higher NCLEX-RN passing rates than Nebraska and national norms.

(10)

• Second-degree tuition at Union is free for students returning between two and six years after graduation.

• 46 percent of Union faculty holds doctorates.

Volunteers take time out from school to serve around the world from Africa and Asia to North Dakota. Every year Union students and staff actively participate in

community service projects such as broad as Project Impact which daily assists over 50 agencies and is focused on community tasks such as serving meals at the Matt Talbot soup kitchen each month.

Because it values community involvement, Union College emphasizes service to both faculty and students by encouraging them to become invested in the community. Many opportunities are coordinated in Campus Ministries, required by academic divisions, or developed through the initiative of students and faculty.

Faculty, staff and students are involved in various service clubs, organizations, and professional organizations.

• 65 percent of Union College’s faculty and staff actively volunteer in organizations such as American Cancer Society, local churches, and Lincoln Public Schools. • 54 percent of Union College’s faculty and staff are members of professional

organizations such as American Academy of Physician Assistant’s, Better Business Bureau, and Nebraska Historical Society.

• The average faculty and staff spend 12.3 hours per month volunteering in these various programs.

• First Book Union College program raised enough money through a partnership with local businesses and the NFL to give over 5,000 books and software

(11)

programs to under-privileged children in kindergarten through seventh grade during the 2004-2005 school year.

• During the 2005 Project Impact, more than 650 students, faculty, and staff volunteered over 2500 hours at 50 local service agencies.

• Six of the seven academic divisions require an internship/preceptorship/student teaching/etc. for one or more of their majors. 104 Students completed 14,320 hours at 189 different organizations.

• 75 students completed 635 hours of service at 22 different locations in 2005. • 24 students volunteered for Junior Achievement and taught basic business

concepts to elementary and high school students in the community in 2005. • Students organize five different volunteer opportunities each weekend through

Campus Ministries along with meeting other needs resulting in over 800 hours of service each semester.

Community Resources Provided by Union College

Since its beginning, Union College has contributed immensely to the Lincoln community. It provides facilities for sports and recreation, meetings and lodging. Union College prepares students for a lifetime of service. Union College provides the community with multiple athletic facilities including the Larson Lifestyle Center and 49ers Field. The college also provides meeting and seminar rooms via the Ortner Center and a recital hall in the school’s arts building, Engel Hall. These buildings and facilities provide opportunities for little league games, music recitals, health seminars and much more.

(12)

Athletic Facilities Available

• The Larson Lifestyle Center is a fitness and aquatic facility that meets community needs through memberships and summer swimming programs for children. • 49ers Field and the gymnasium are used by teams from the YMCA, Little Chiefs,

Babe Ruth Little League and City League

Seminar and Meeting Locations

• The Ortner Center includes a vegetarian dining facility, conference facilities and 14 guest rooms available to community groups. Conferences such as the Amnesty International statewide forum are hosted in this facility.

• Auditorium spaces are used monthly by groups such as the Audubon and Genealogical Societies.

Arts Opportunities

• McClelland Art Gallery in the Ortner Center hosts shows by community and student artists.

• Engel Hall recital room available to community musicians for intimate concerts.

Union College’s Event Hosting

Union College is host to many tournaments, festivals and other functions bringing prospective students to Lincoln in addition to special weekends for alumni, parents of current students and graduation. The combination of these events brings thousands of people to the Lincoln community where they spend money on hospitality and

(13)

• Parents’ weekend and Senior Commitment are held every fall. On average, more than 50 percent of Union College students have a parent or family member present.

• Prospective students are invited during special weekends several times a year to look at Union College and the Lincoln community. On average, these events bring 300 visitors to campus every year.

• Seventh-day Adventist high schools have annual basketball and volleyball tournaments hosted by Union College. Including athletes, sponsors, family members and spectators, they bring approximately 400 visitors to campus annually.

• Union College’s music department invites approximately 400 high school students to take part in annual band and choir festivals. These events also bring in

parents and friends of participating students.

• ACRO Fest, the annual gathering of gymnastics teams from Adventist colleges and universities, was sponsored by Union College in 2005 and had approximately 700 participants including athletes, sponsors, and spectators.

• Union College hosted an art exhibit featuring the works of Jim McClelland, renowned avian artist and winner of the Nebraska Wildlife Federation's

Conservation Award, and presents the yearly Christian Concert Series, along with various fine arts concerts.

• The college’s chamber music choir, the Unionaires, recently performed at the State Capitol. Union College makes available to the public a genealogy collection along with its general library services.

(14)

Conclusion

Union College desires that its students acquire a balanced core of knowledge, operate from a Christ-centered perspective, think critically to reach carefully reasoned positions on important issues, communicate effectively and emerge as graduates committed to continuing the tradition of responsible citizenship and altruistic service throughout the world. Union College makes a significant impact on its surrounding community through the events, accommodations and services provided by the college and supplied by its faculty, staff and students.

The next chapter examines the monetary quantifiable impacts of Union College on the Nebraska and on the area economy.

(15)

Chapter 2: Union College’s Economic Impact

Private Colleges’ Impact

Population Impact

Table 2 compares population growth for counties with private colleges to that of counties without private higher educational

institutions. Between 1990 and 2004, the table shows that counties with private institutions grew at a much faster pace of 18.2 percent than counties without private higher educational

institutions that expanded at a slower rate of 1.9 percent. In fact, each county with a private college, except for York, grew at a faster pace than the rest of the state.

Table 2: COMPARISON OF POPULATION GROWTH OF COUNTIES WITH AND WITHOUT PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

Population County 1990 2000 2004 1990-2004Growth, Adams County 29,625 31,151 30,913 4.3% Dodge 34,500 36,229 36,066 4.5% Douglas 416,444 463,585 482,112 15.8% Lancaster 213,641 250,291 261,545 22.4% Saline 12,715 13,843 14,275 12.3% Sarpy 102,583 122,595 135,973 32.5% Seward 15,450 16,496 16,656 7.8% Washington 16,607 18,780 19,605 18.1% York 14,428 14,598 14,228 -1.4%

Counties with private colleges 855,993 967,568 1,011,373 18.2%

All other Nebraska counties 722,424 743,764 735,841 1.9%

State 1,578,417 1,711,263 1,747,214 10.7%

(16)

Private Colleges’ Income Impact

Table 3 compares income growth of counties that have private higher

educational institutions with that of counties without a private college or university. Clearly Nebraska counties with a private college or university experienced higher income growth than counties without a higher educational institution. Between 1990 and 20009_{, counties with a private college or university grew personal income by 80.0}

percent, while all other Nebraska counties grew their personal income by 45.2 percent. In this case, only one county, Adams County, grew at a slower pace than the rest of the state without a private higher educational institution.

TABLE 3: COMPARISON OF INCOME GROWTH OF COUNTIES WITH AND WITHOUT PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

Personal income 1990 2000 1990-2000Growth, Adams County $528,582 $760,253 43.8% Dodge $546,878 $918,906 68.0% Douglas $8,858,148 $16,334,053 84.4% Lancaster $3,927,035 $7,217,080 83.8% Saline $203,264 $288,647 42.0% Sarpy $1,812,295 $3,181,510 75.6% Seward $260,247 $400,933 54.1% Washington $304,683 $571,818 87.7% York $259,405 $383,664 47.9%

Counties with private colleges $16,700,537 $30,056,864 80.0%

All Other Counties $11,890,566 $17,261,840 45.2%

State $28,591,103 $47,318,704 65.5%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

9 Please note, income data are not available for all counties for 2004, therefore; the 2000 census data are used.

(17)

Union College’s Monetary Impact

Contribution to Brain Gain

Private institutions tend to recruit a higher percentage of their students from outside the state than public universities and colleges, thus contributing to “brain gain.” This is certainly an important factor adding to Nebraska’s economic growth. In 1995, the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City estimated that Nebraska loses $246 million per year due to brain drain, or an annual 1.1 percent of personal income. This loss is largely due to departure of well-educated professionals, executives and managers (Ferguson, 1995).

Union College through its operations counteracts this by bringing non-Nebraskans to the state, by retaining Nebraskans that would exit the state for their post-secondary education and by supplying college graduates for the state’s workforce.

Table 4 lists the percent of students drawn from outside Nebraska by Union College. A full 68.9 percent of the student body comes from states other than Nebraska, and 12.6 percent of the student body comes from foreign countries.

TABLE 4: PERCENT OF UNION COLLEGE STUDENTS FROM BY ORIGIN, 2005

Number of

Students Percent

Nebraska Resident 174 18.5%

Rest of the United States 647 68.9%

Non-United States Residents 118 12.6%

Total Students 939 100.0%

Table 5 lists Union College students by state for the 2004-2005 academic year. Not surprisingly, Nebraska supplied the largest number of students at 174, or 18.5 percent, with Colorado providing the second largest share of students at 12.9 percent, or 121 students.

(18)

TABLE 5: HOME STATE OF UNION COLLEGE STUDENTS 2004-2005 Number Percent Alaska 3 0.3% Arizona 16 1.7% Arkansas 12 1.3% California 31 3.3% Colorado 121 12.9% Florida 13 1.4% Georgia 5 0.5% Hawaii 1 0.1% Idaho 7 0.7% Illinois 5 0.5% Indiana 3 0.3% Iowa 24 2.6% Kansas 55 5.9% Kentucky 1 0.1% Louisiana 6 0.6% Maine 2 0.2% Maryland 11 1.2% Massachusetts 1 0.1% Michigan 21 2.2% Minnesota 53 5.6% Mississippi 1 0.1% Missouri 41 4.4% Montana 5 0.5% Nebraska 174 18.5% New Mexico 6 0.6% New York 1 0.1% North Carolina 2 0.2% North Dakota 38 4.0% Ohio 11 1.2% Oklahoma 10 1.1% Oregon 16 1.7% Pennsylvania 5 0.5% South Dakota 18 1.9% Tennessee 19 2.0% Texas 19 2.0% Utah 4 0.4% Vermont 2 0.2% Virginia 5 0.5% Washington 29 3.1% West Virginia 2 0.2% Wisconsin 18 1.9% Wyoming 4 0.4% Foreign Countries 118 12.6% Total 939 100%

Source: Union College

Not only does Union College attract students from a wide geographic area, many of them decide to continue living in Lincoln after completing their education. This

(19)

represents additional college-educated employees in the Lincoln market. Below are some important aspects of Union’s contribution to brain gain.

• Over 80 percent of Union College students lived outside Nebraska before starting college.

• Approximately, 18 percent of students coming from out-of-state chose to make the Lincoln area their new home over the past 20 years. Of course a high share of Nebraska students graduating from Union remained in the state over the same period of time.

• The English as a Second Language program attracts students from all over the world, many of whom stay for graduate school or jobs.

Measuring the Economic Impact of Union College

Figure 1 depicts examples of the flow of funds into and out of Nebraska’s private institutions and sample impacts. As indicated, the total

impact is the sum of direct, indirect and induced impacts minus leakages. Leakages represent Nebraska

private higher education spending in other states. Input-output multiplier systems are used to estimate each of the impacts in Figure 1 by industry.

Economic impacts can be divided into direct, indirect and induced impacts.

(20)

Figure 1: Flow of private higher education spending

•College wages •Local college spending

•Local spending by college visitors Student visitors from

outside area

Federal grants & contracts

Athletic teams from outside area

Spillover impacts: •Local retail spending by

college employees •All local spending by

college employees

Local households spend a portion of additional income

at college

Contributions from outsiders

Student tuition & living expenses

Academic visitors from outside area

Leakages: spending by colleges and individuals outside of Nebraska

Total impact =

direct

+ indirect

+ induced

-

leakages

Revenue and expenditures for Union College used in the subsequent analysis come from Union College financial records. Expenditures by students and visitors are

estimated using information available from secondary data sources. Particular attention is devoted to identifying revenues that come from out-of-state. From an economic perspective, these sources represent new dollars to the state’s economy and are thus very powerful in generating jobs and income for the region. Institutions funded primarily by dollars generated from within the state have less economic impact than private institutions spending since a high proportion of these dollars are diverted from other industries in the state.

(21)

For example, Union College’s payroll expenditures generate direct local jobs while Union College’s local vendors produce indirect impacts via secondary spending. Both

affect the overall level of community economic activity. The most obvious direct impact on the economy comes in the form of salaries to faculty and staff, and purchases of supplies from vendors in the area. Additionally, spending by university students and their visitors produce impacts in the area. These expenditures are then re-circulated throughout the economy by

suppliers of goods and services to produce another round of impacts.

Additionally, Union College spending attracts other firms and individuals to the region. Furthermore, Union College’s

spending generates new jobs and income for firms already resident in the region. For example, scientific education, such as that provided by Union College, contributes significantly to high technology industrial development in the region (Goss and Vozikis, 1994). In order to estimate the impacts, most research studies have used input-output multipliers. The objective of this study is to quantify these impacts by institution, by county and by industry using input-output multipliers.

Additionally, spending by university students and their visitors produce direct impacts in the region.

The objective of this study is to quantify these impacts by institution, by county and by industry using input-output multipliers.

(22)

Tuition

Besides contributing to “brain gain,” Union College generates a larger proportion of their budget from outside the state. These dollars are very powerful and have a higher

multiplier or economic impact than dollars spent by public institutions. Institutions funded primarily by dollars generated from Nebraska residents via tuition and taxes have less economic impact since a high share of these dollars is diverted from industries and individuals in Nebraska. Table 6 lists Union College’s tuition revenue for 2005-2006. This revenue becomes an important source of growth for the Nebraska and area economies.

TABLE 6: UNION COLLEGE’S TUITION DOLLARS, 2005-2006 ACADEMIC YEAR

Tuition $11,751,266

Tuition from Summer School $405,000

Total $11,751,671

Institutions, funded primarily by dollars generated from Nebraska residents via tuition and taxes, have less economic impact since a high share of these dollars is diverted from industries and individuals in Nebraska.

(23)

Grants from Non-Individuals and Private Donors

Table 7 summarizes the additional funds brought into Nebraska each year from gifts by individuals and businesses to Union College.10 These funds are then multiplied as they spillover into other industries. No data was supplied for state or federal grants, only those listed in Table 7.

TABLE 7: UNION COLLEGE’S ADDITION TO STATE ECONOMY VIA GIFTS AND GRANTS FROM PRIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS, 2005

Gifts and Grants from Businesses & Government $557,676

Gifts from Individuals $1,527,620

Total $2,085,296

Economic impacts identified in this study are short-run in nature and represent annual, recurring events. Indicators are provided for long run, more intangible impacts on

the regional economy such as work force

development and knowledge enhancement, but no attempt is made to assign dollar values. Table 8 lists the direct spending, or injection, that is considered in the calculation of impacts. For 2005-06, Union College operating budget totaled $8.1 million and capital spending was over $795,930 with a large share spent in the state of Nebraska. Furthermore, students attending Union College spent an estimated $3.4 million in the state in 2005-06 for products ranging from clothing to movie tickets.

10It should be noted that a portion of these yearly contributions came from Nebraska residents. As such, their impact on the Nebraska economy would be less.

11The estimates contained in this study assume that 20 percent of Union College’s direct

spending takes place outside of Nebraska. In technical terms, the study used Implan’s more conservative RPCs rather than assuming that all of Union’s spending takes place in Nebraska.

The estimates presented in this report are conservative in nature.11

(24)

The objective of this research study is to monetarily quantify the impacts, indirect and induced, resulting from the direct spending listed in Table 8. Tax, job, revenue and wage impacts will be estimated.

TABLE 8: 2005-06 SPENDING BY UNION COLLEGE, THEIR STUDENTS & VISITORS

2005-06 injection or direct spending

Operating budgeta _$8,099,546

Capital spendinga _$795,930

Student spendingb $3,372,526

Visitorsa _$81,125

Wage and salarya $11,588,174

Total injection $23,937,301

Sources: a_{Information supplied by Union College;}b_{U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditures} Surveys. See Appendix F for details.

In terms of long-term but less measurable impacts, the presence of private colleges and universities increases the attractiveness of the community and encourages the startup and/or relocation of other businesses in the state. By contributing to an area’s

attractiveness via access to art, entertainment, education and healthcare facilities, Union College influence the community by increasing its attractiveness to non-university oriented industries. These impacts are acknowledged but not quantified.

Input-output models are applied to the injections in Table 8 to estimate the overall impact as presented in Figure 1. Appendix B provides an overview of input-output

multipliers while Appendix E provides a description of the actual multipliers used in this study.

(25)

Economic Impacts for 2005-2006

Overall Impacts12

Table 9 lists total impacts generated from the initial spending listed in Table 10. The number of jobs supported in 2005-05 for Nebraska by Union College spending is estimated to be 515. For Lancaster County, 502 jobs are supported. The jobs number includes total wage and salary employees as well as self-employed workers in the state. It also includes both full-time and part-time workers. Proprietary income consists of payments received by self-employed individuals as income. This includes income

received by private business owners, doctors, lawyers, and others. Wages and salaries include the total payroll costs (including benefits) of workers who are paid by

employers, as well as benefits such as health/life insurance, retirement payments, and non-cash compensation. Sales/output represent the value of total production.

TABLE 9: ESTIMATED IMPACT OF UNION COLLEGE ON THE STATE OF NEBRASKA & LANCASTER COUNTY, 2005-06

Nebraska

Impacts Lancaster CountyImpacts

Total jobs supported 515 502

Proprietary or self-employment income $1,071,570 $998,623

Wages & salaries $17,410,335 $12,595,673

Sales or output $39,647,399 $37,774,709

State & local taxes $1,346,574 $762,361

Source: Implan Multiplier System

(26)

Impacts by Industry

Table 10 lists impacts by industry for the state of Nebraska. Table 11 presents estimated impacts for Lancaster County. According to estimates, Union College

spending each year supports over 515 jobs, $1.1 in self-employment income, $17.4 million in wages and salaries and $39.7 million in total output of Nebraska. For Lancaster County, Union College generates over 502 jobs, $999 thousand in

self-employment income, $12.6 million in wages and salaries and $37.8 million in total sales or revenues.

The industries, outside of education, most impacted by Union College spending include: retail trade with 50.7 jobs, $102,103 in self-employment income, $962,703 in wages and salaries, $2,333,137 in sales; health and social services with 27.3 jobs, $164,145 in self-employment income, $1,046,492 in wages and salaries and $2,169,096 in revenues; accommodation and food services with 34 jobs, $17,273 in

self-employment income, $434,887 in wages and salaries and $1,337,975 in sales.

(27)

TABLE 10: IMPACT OF UNION COLLEGE BY MAJOR INDUSTRY ON THE STATE OF NEBRASKA, 2005-0613

Jobs Employ. PaySelf- Wages &Salaries Output

Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting 0.9 $3,401 $8,786 $155,833

Mining 0 $1,256 $591 $13,523

Utilities 0.1 $19,192 $11,240 $125,529

Construction 11.1 $94,910 $337,173 $921,615

Manufacturing 4.9 $14,372 $216,658 $1,126,552

Wholesale Trade 6.6 $34,010 $312,683 $865,711

Transportation & Warehousing 5.8 $14,452 $252,478 $556,684

Retail trade 50.7 $102,103 $962,703 $2,333,137

Information 4 $11,446 $160,825 $712,373

Finance & insurance 9.2 $28,966 $403,427 $1,467,522 Real estate & rental 18.2 $176,344 $205,769 $2,336,351 Professional/scientific & tech services 9 $81,864 $342,018 $729,753

Management of companies 1.1 -$3 $85,843 $182,969

Administrative & waste services 15.2 $27,479 $350,004 $763,190 Educational services 286 $198,511 $11,672,977 $16,190,322 Health & social services 27.3 $164,145 $1,046,492 $2,169,096 Arts- entertainment & recreation 12.1 $40,632 $138,235 $562,011 Accommodation & food services 34 $17,273 $434,887 $1,337,975

Other services 17 $41,217 $355,815 $867,047

Government & non-categorized 2 $0 $111,731 $1,848,379

Institutions 0 $0 $0 $4,381,827

Total All Industries 515.2 $1,071,570 $17,410,335 $39,647,399 Source: Implan Input-Output Multiplier System

(28)

Table 11: IMPACT OF UNION COLLEGE BY MAJOR INDUSTRY ON LANCASTER COUNTY, 2005-0614

Jobs Employ. Self-P

Wages &

salaries. Output

Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting 0.4 $1,040 $1,747 $25,551

Mining 0 $198 $118 $1,906

Utilities 0 -$53 $5,480 $25,072

Construction 8.6 $46,829 $256,277 $680,256

Manufacturing 3.3 $14,650 $147,665 $774,252

Wholesale Trade 4 $10,305 $203,084 $522,673

Transportation & Warehousing 5 $21,599 $252,075 $538,083

Retail trade 30.2 $50,159 $625,286 $1,503,983

Information 3 $16,046 $137,577 $616,611

Finance & insurance 7.9 $34,154 $314,776 $1,229,481 Real estate & rental 23.9 $173,731 $250,271 $2,541,840 Professional- scientific & tech services 10.1 $84,181 $375,667 $814,981

Management of companies 1.2 -$2 $64,373 $143,285

Administrative & waste services 22.7 $44,583 $362,464 $903,790 Educational services 293 $195,247 $7,734,743 $16,173,739 Health & social services 22.7 $221,140 $911,995 $1,989,414 Arts- entertainment & recreation 13.1 $35,908 $132,193 $547,104 Accommodations & food services 32.2 $14,979 $419,553 $1,277,508

Other services 19.2 $33,929 $305,767 $884,440

Government & non-categorized 1.6 $0 $94,562 $1,684,592

Institutions 0 $0 $0 $4,896,148

Total All Industries 502.1 $998,623 $12,595,673 $37,774,709

Source: Implan Input-Output Multiplier System

(29)

Tax Impacts

Table 12 lists the estimated impact of Union College on state and local tax collections for 2005-06. As presented, Union College will produce almost $21,134 in corporate income taxes. In total, Union College will generate over $1.3 million in state and local taxes for state and local coffers with $762,361 produced for Lancaster County.

TABLE 12: IMPACT OF UNION COLLEGE ON TAX COLECTIONS, 2005-0615

Nebraska LancasterCounty

Corporate Profits Tax $21,134

Dividends $56,924

Indirect Bus Tax: Motor Vehicle License $8,601 Indirect Bus Tax: Other Taxes $68,485

Indirect Bus Tax: Property Tax $394,921 $311,990 Indirect Bus Tax: S/L Non-Taxes $104,063 $60,899 Indirect Bus Tax: Sales Tax $278,579 $55,153 Indirect Bus Tax: Severance Tax $213

Personal Tax: Estate and Gift Tax $99,327

Personal Tax: Income Tax $233,497

Personal Tax: Motor Vehicle License $15,777 Personal Tax: Non-Taxes (Fines- Fees) $6,836 Personal Tax: Other Tax (Fish/Hunt, etc.) $10,369 Personal Tax: Property Taxes $9,614

Other taxes & indirect business taxes $38,234 $334,319

Total annual state & local tax collections $1,346,574 $762,361 Source: Implan Input-Output Multiplier System

(30)

Conclusions

Dollar-for-dollar, private colleges and universities in a state create more economic impacts than public universities. This outcome stems from the fact that a high share of the support for public universities comes from taxpayers in the state rather than from sources outside the state. Furthermore, public universities typically recruit a small proportion of their students from outside the state thus contributing less to brain gain, and bringing fewer “new” tuition dollars into the state.

As presented in this study, Union College, with fully 81.5 percent of its student body coming from outside Nebraska, makes important contributions to the state’s “brain gain.” Furthermore by injecting new spending into the state via tuition, gifts, grants, contracts and student loans, Union College is an important source of economic

(31)

(32)

Appendix A: Why Estimate Impacts?

Since the early 1980s, one of the most frequent applications of economic tools to industrial assessment has been economic impact analysis. The focus of such studies has

been to convince policy makers and the general public of the importance of an industry to the economic viability of the industry. However, the assessment of the impact of business investment is fraught with problems.

These problems center on measurement issues and include the proper treatment of the industry's impact on spending by local residents, the extent to which the industry diverts spending from other local firms, and the isolation of the industry's impact on other non-education and health related firms in the area.

Despite these difficulties, the Council of State Governments contends that

communities should undertake economic impact analysis to assess the costs and benefits of either retaining an existing event/business, or attracting a new event or business (Council of State Governments, 1989). Impact analysis can also be used to tailor tax-restructuring initiatives to the needs of firms and the overall economy, and to insure that the changes are consistent with the overall economic development plan of the community or state. Furthermore, many states, including Nebraska, have enacted legislation

requiring completion of a cost-benefit assessment by local governments granting tax incentives or concessions.

The impact analysis can also be used to tailor tax-restructuring initiatives to the needs of firms and the overall economy, and to insure that the changes are consistent with the overall economic development plan of the community or state.

(33)

However, due to the rapid growth of tax incentive/subsidy packages, and the belief that their states should remain competitive, policymakers in many states and localities have awarded tax incentive packages or made changes to the tax system not well grounded in economic theory or empirical evidence. According to the Council of State Governments, the presence of interstate impacts, as with the universities, necessitates the development of new models of assessment to more properly evaluate the impact of the industry.16

At the same time that citizens are asking public officials to be more proactive in economic development, they are holding public officials to a higher level of fiduciary responsibility regarding tax dollars. But given this increased accountability, why have states been slow to adopt evaluation methodologies? According to Bartik (1991), the following represent the primary reasons that states do not use systematic or structured evaluation programs:

• Good evaluations are expensive.

• Findings from analyses are available to states and localities not paying for the assessment.

• Negative evaluations are sometimes used against an industry, whereas positive evaluations are often discounted by critics.

• Obtaining reliable data to produce accurate estimates of both costs and benefits is difficult and fraught with ambiguity.

• The time frame over which the benefits are derived and costs are incurred is difficult to gauge. Evaluations are simply snapshots of the effect of policy at a particular time with future changes not considered.

16It is quite likely, for example, that a share of the visitors to Union College may obtain lodging outside the state.

(34)

• The breadth or diversity of initiatives prevents a systematic or structured evaluation approach. For example, projects usually have different objectives, diverse time-scales and take effect in different ways.

According to the Council of State Governments (1989), states and localities should at least begin systematically collecting data on incentives and monitoring their effects with a comprehensive evaluation in mind. To expand economic development programs on a significant scale, it should be demonstrated to skeptics that these programs have a large effect on state or local area economic performance. While objective evidence of

effectiveness will not overcome all political opposition, it can change the terms of the policy debate. Not only can the evaluation affect the actions of public officials, it can push

industry leaders to be more vigilant in fully meeting their promises and commitments. The objective of this study is to estimate the public benefits of private universities and colleges on Nebraska.17

17Section 1 of LB 1373 passed by the 1996 Nebraska legislature states that “It is the intent of the Legislature to accurately and objectively measure the costs and benefits of tax incentives granted by state and local governments to businesses, individuals, and communities using the tax incentives.”

According to the Council of State Governments (1989), states and localities should at least begin systematically collecting data on inter-industry buying with a comprehensive

(35)

Appendix B: Types of Economic Impacts

Economic impacts can be divided into direct, indirect and induced impacts. The most obvious direct impact of the higher education spending on the economy comes in the form of university and college salaries and in the form of purchases of supplies from vendors in the region. Indirect impacts come from expenditures by these vendors to their suppliers. Employees of the supplying firms spend their wages and salaries in Nebraska. This re-spending, or second round multiplying, is referred to as an induced impact. From an economic perspective, tuition revenues, federal research funds and visitor revenues represent new dollars in the state’s economy and are thus very powerful in generating jobs and income for the area.

Direct Economic Impacts. College and university revenues flowing into the

state have direct economic effects on their local economies by making expenditures for goods and services and by paying employee salaries. The most obvious direct

expenditures are payment of wages to workers employed by private colleges and

universities. In addition, expenditures by business visitors to the institutions in the area produce direct impacts on the region affecting primarily the Wholesale and Retail Trade Industry. Examples of direct economic impacts are color-coded green in Figure 1.

Indirect Economic Impacts. Private colleges and universities also produce

indirect economic effects on the area economy. For example, office supply companies buy merchandise from area wholesalers. Furthermore, institution expenditures encourage the startup and expansion of other businesses related to the college or university. Private colleges and universities generate indirect effects by increasing: (a) the number of firms drawn to a community, (b) the volume of deposits in local financial institutions and, (c)

(36)

economic development. Examples of indirect economic impacts are color-coded blue in Figure 1.

Induced Economic Impacts. Induced impacts in the region occur as the initial

spending feeds back to industries in the region when workers in the area purchase additional output from local firms in a second round of spending. That is, higher education spending increases overall income and population, which produces another round of increased spending adding to sales, earnings and jobs for the area. Examples of induced economic impacts are color coded red in Figure 1.

….. private college and university spending increases overall income and population, which produces another round of increased spending adding to sales, earnings and jobs for the area.

(37)

Appendix C: The Multiplier Effect

When private colleges and university employees spend their salaries within the community, this spending filters

through the local economy causing increased overall spending greater than the initial spending. The impact of this re-spending is known as the multiplier effect. Economic impacts that take place outside the local

economy, for example Union College employee spending in Kansas City or Des Moines, are called leakages and reduce the multiplier and overall impacts. They are excluded when estimating regional economic impacts. While the direct effects of private colleges and universities can be measured by a straightforward methodology, the indi-rect and induced effects of institution spending must be estimated using regional multi-pliers.

Community characteristics that affect leakages, and consequently the multiplier include:

Location. Distance to suppliers affects the willingness to purchase locally. For

example, if Nebraska firms are unable to provide certain supplies at competitive prices and there are alternative suppliers in Des Moines who are more price competitive, then

Union College employee spending outside the local economy, for example spending in Des Moines, is called a leakage and reduces the multiplier and the overall impacts.

While the direct effects of private college and university spending can be measured by a straightforward

methodology, the indirect and induced effects of must be estimated using regional multipliers.

(38)

institutions will be encouraged to spend outside the state. This results in greater leakages, lower multipliers and smaller impacts.

Population size. A larger population provides more opportunities for companies

and workers to purchase locally. Larger population areas are associated with fewer leakages and larger multipliers. Thus, in

general, tuition and research revenues flowing into Nebraska will have larger impacts than the same level of tuition and research revenues flowing into North Dakota or Wyoming.

Type of industry. A community will

gain more if the inputs required by local industries for production match local resources and are purchased locally. Thus, over time, as new firms are created to match the requirements of private colleges and universities, leakages will be fewer, resulting in larger multipliers and impacts.

Appendix D discusses the selection of an estimation technique to measure the direct, indirect and induced impacts of private colleges and universities on Nebraska, on Nebraska counties, and on Nebraska industries.

Economic impacts identified in this study are short-run in nature and represent annual, recurring events. Long run, but intangible factors, such as work force development and knowledge enhancement are recognized, but no attempt is made to assign dollar values to them.

Thus, in general, tuition and research revenues flowing into Nebraska will have larger impacts than the same level of revenues flowing into North Dakota or Wyoming.

(39)

Appendix D: Choosing a Technique to Measure Impacts

Many types of public and private sector decisions require an evaluation of probable regional effects. Since important impacts are often economic, this requirement has created a need for regional economic impact models. The three most common types of impact models are economic base, econometric, and input-output (I-O).

Two of the three impact models have inherent disadvantages that markedly reduce their viability for estimating the impact of higher educational institutions on the economy.

Economic Base Models. Economic base models divide the economy into two

sectors--the local/service sector and the export sector. The economic base multiplier is an average for all the economy making it impossible to distinguish, for example, the impact of a university from that of a new manufacturing plant.

Econometric Models. Econometric models use past data to statistically link

sectors of the economy. Econometric models have two major weaknesses. First, the time series data used in constructing econometric models are often unavailable at the state and metropolitan area level, thus precluding county-level analysis. This is especially true for rural counties and for counties with small populations. Second, econometric models are costly to build and maintain.

Input-Output (I-O) Models. I-O models are the most frequently used types of

analysis tool for economic impact assessment. Input-output is a simple general

equilibrium approach based on an accounting system of injections and leakages. Input-output analysis assumes that each sector purchases supplies from other sectors and then sells its output to other sectors and/or final consumers.

I-O models are the most frequently used analysis tools for economic impact assessment.

(40)

Historically, high costs precluded the extensive use of I-O models in regional impact analysis. For example, approximately $250,000 was expended over a five-year period for the collection and processing of data for a 500-industry Philadelphia I-O study. However, with the advent of "ready-made" multipliers produced by third parties, such as the U.S. Forestry Service, I-O multipliers became a much more viable option for

performing impact analysis.

All purely non-survey techniques or "ready-made" multipliers take a national I-O table as a first approximation of regional inter-industry relationships. The national table is then made region specific by removing those input requirements that are not produced in the region.

Input-Output Models: A Preferred Methodology

Input-output systems were originally developed by Wassily Leontief (1941) to assist in planning a national economy. Input-output represents an effective method for

depicting and investigating the underlying processes that bind industries of a region. It provides a technique to project into the future the magnitude of important additions or injections into the local economy.

Input-output models are composed of three basic tables. The first, the Transactions Table, traces inter-industry sales and purchases within a defined region. The next table, the Direct Requirements Table, answers the question, "If a certain dollar value of intermediate requirements is present for a total dollar value of gross output, what are the intermediate requirements for each industry per dollar of gross output?" The manipulation of these two tables results in the final and most

For this study, the county and state are the areas of analysis

(41)

important of the tables, the Industrial Multiplier Table. The multiplier table is then used to calculate overall impacts.

Chief problems involved in the use of multipliers are:

gSelection of industries. For which industries will impacts be

esti-mated? The selection is generally dictated by definitions used by government agencies that collect the data. For example, most government data do not distinguish

employment in a cardiac center or clinic from that in a hospital.

gSelection of a region. Again, government agencies collect aggregate

data by county, thus requiring the analysis to take place at the county level or

combination of counties. Most developers of "ready-made" multipliers use the County Business Patterns as the primary data source. For this study, the county of each institution is the area of analysis.

Major assumptions of the I-O model:

• Constant production coefficients. For example, it is assumed that "x" dollars of new revenues flowing to Union College will produce "y" dollars of output regardless of the scale of operations. In other words, the I-O model assumes constant returns to scale.

• Government purchases or federal contracts, grants represent changes in final demand. Thus, government spending is considered an injection into the region.

• Constant technological relationships between inputs and outputs. Thus I-O

multipliers assume that technology remains the same between the time the multipliers are calculated and the period for which impacts are estimated.

(42)

• Old purchasing patterns are the same as new purchasing patterns. Thus, it is assumed that purchasing patterns between Union College and its suppliers remain the same over the period of analysis.

• No supply constraints. I-O models do not take into consideration the problem of finding an adequate supply of workers to fill new jobs brought about by the private college or university. With a current unemployment rate of between 2.5% and 3.5%, an expansion in new jobs produced by Nebraska’s private higher education institutions would likely go to residents outside the area.18

Despite their weaknesses and somewhat restrictive assumptions, I-O multipliers are the most often used methodology for impact analysis. Due to their documented

effectiveness and relatively low cost, the I-O multipliers used in this study are those produced by the U.S. Forestry Service and marketed by the Minnesota IMPLAN Group Inc. The next section describes these multipliers.

18Bartik (1991) estimated that 75% of the net new jobs resulting from a business expansion or business relocation go to in-migrants.

(43)

Appendix E: IMPLAN Multipliers

The Forestry Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture developed the

IMPLAN multipliers in the 1980s (U.S. Forest Service, 1985). For very populous areas, IMPLAN divides the economy into 528 industrial sectors. Industries that do not exist in the region are automatically eliminated during user construction of the model (e.g. coal mining in Lancaster County). IMPLAN uses an industry-based methodology to derive its input-output coefficients and multipliers. Primary sources for data are County Business Patterns data and Bureau of Economic Analysis data.

Researchers have used IMPLAN to estimate the impact of changes in military spending on the Washington State economy (Hughes, et. al, 1991). IMPLAN and RIMS (Regional Input-Output Modeling System) are two of the most widely used multiplier models. IMPLAN has been compared to other multiplier systems and found to produce

reliable estimates (Richman and Schwer, 1993). Likewise, Crihfield and Campbell (1991), in estimating the impacts of opening an automobile assembly plant, concluded that IMPLAN's outcomes are, on balance, somewhat more accurate than RIMS.

IMPLAN multipliers possess the following advantages over other I-O Multiplier Systems:

1. Price changes are accounted for in the creation of the multipliers.

2. Employment increases or decreases are assumed to produce immediate in or out-migration.

3. Multipliers are produced at reasonable costs by third party vendors. IMPLAN and RIMS (Regional

Input-Output Modeling System) are two of the most widely used multiplier models.

(44)

IMPLAN produces five different sets of multipliers. This study focuses primarily on four of these multipliers. Descriptions of the four multipliers are presented in Table 13.

TABLE 13: MULTIPLIERS PROVIDED BY IMPLAN AND USED IN THIS STUDY

Type of

Multiplier _Description

Output

Multipliers Represents the value of production required from all sectors todeliver one dollar's worth of output in a particular sector. For colleges and universities, this multiplier is generally in the range of 1.5 to 2.0.

Wage & Salary

Multipliers Shows the direct, indirect, and induced employee wages andsalaries generated per dollar of higher educations pending (injection). For colleges and universities University, this multiplier ranges between .65 and .85.

Employment

Multipliers Direct, indirect and induced employment effects from theproduction of one million dollars of new spending (injection). For colleges and universities, this multiplier is between 30.0 and 50.0. Proprietary

Multipliers Shows the direct, indirect, and induced self-employment incomeper dollar of college and university spending (injection). For colleges and universities, this multiplier ranges between .05 and .10.

Tax Multipliers Direct, indirect and induced tax effects from each dollar of private university spending. This multiplier ranges between .05 to .10.

(45)

Appendix F: Non-university Spending by Students

Data used to estimate yearly non-university spending of Nebraska’s private college and university students come from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Consumer Expenditures Survey for 2001 and the Harris Interactive 360 College ExplorerTM_{Outlook Study. Consumer expenditure surveys are specialized studies in} which the primary emphasis is on collecting data relating to family expenditures for goods and services used in day-to-day living. Expenditure surveys of the BLS also collect information on the amount and sources of family income, changes in savings and debts, and demographic and economic characteristics of family members.

The Bureau's studies of family living conditions rank among its oldest data-collecting functions. The first nationwide expenditure survey was conducted in 1888-91 to study workers' spending patterns as elements of production costs. With special reference to competition in foreign trade, it emphasized the worker's role as a producer rather than as a consumer. In response to rapid price changes prior to the turn of the century, a second survey was conducted in 1901. These data provided the weights for an index of prices of food purchased by workers, which was used as a deflator for workers' incomes and expenditures for all kinds of goods until World War I. A third survey, spanning 1917-19, provided weights for computing a cost-of-living index, now known as the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The next major survey, covering only urban wage earners and clerical workers, was conducted in 1934-36, primarily to revise these weights.

The unit for which expenditure reports are collected is the set of eligible individuals constituting a consumer unit, which is defined as (1) all members of a particular housing unit who are related by blood, marriage, adoption, or some other

(46)

legal arrangement, such as foster children; (2) a person living alone or sharing a household with others, or living as a roomer in a private home, lodging house, or in permanent living quarters in a hotel or motel, but who is financially independent; or (3) two or more unrelated persons living together who pool their income to make joint expenditure decisions. Students living in university-sponsored housing are also included in the sample as separate consumption units (CU).

Survey participants record dollar amounts for goods and services purchased during the reporting period whether or not payment was made at the time of purchase. The expenditure amounts include all sales and excise taxes for all items purchased by the consumer unit for itself or for others. Excluded from both surveys are all business-related expenditures and expenditures for which the family is reimbursed.

TABLE 14: ESTIMATED NON-UNIVERSITY SPENDING BY STUDENTS

U.S. Average Spending

per person (age 19-22) Total for Union CollegeStudents

Food at homea _$1,974 _$0

Food away from home $1,523 $691,368

Alcoholic beverages $385 $0

Housinga _$7,307 _$0

Apparel & Services $1,102 $499,134

Transportation $3,417 $0

Gasoline & motor oila _$0 _$0

Other vehicle expensesa _$0 _$0

Health care $1,154 $522,741

Entertainment $923 $424,938

Personal care products $349 $202,352

Books (average college students) $900 $408,076

Misc. $654 $381,095

Cash contributions $433 $242,822

Total 2003 student spending $3,372,526

(47)

References

Bartik T. Who benefits from state and local economic development policies? Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute, 1991.

Christianson, J. and L. Faulkner. "The Contribution of Rural Hospitals to Local Economies," Inquiry, Vol. 18(1), 1981, pp. 46-60.

Crihfield, J. B. and Harrison S. Campbell. "Evaluating Alternative Regional Planning Models." Growth and Change, 22, 1991, pp. 1-16.

Erickson, R. A. Gavin, N. and S. Cordes. "The Economic Impacts of the Hospital Sector." Growth and Change, Vol. 17, pp. 17-27.

Farmer, F.L., M.K. Miller and D.E. Voth. "Evaluation of Rural Health Care

Programs Employing Unobserved Variable Models: Impact on Infant Mortality." Rural Sociology, Vol. 95(1), 1991, pp. 127-142.

Ferguson, Deron. “The Tenth District’s Brain Drain: Who Left and Who Left and What Did It Cost,” Regional Economic Digest, First Quarter 1995, pp. 8-25.

Garrison, Charles. "The Impact of a Rural Hospital on Economic Development," Growth and Change, 1974.

Gooding, E.P. and S.J. Weiss. "Estimation Of Differential Employment Multiplier in a Small Regional Economy," Research Report No. 37, 1966, Federal Research Bank of Boston, Boston, MA.

Goss, E.P. and G.S. Vozikis. “High Tech Manufacturing: Firm Size, Industry and Population Density,” Small Business Economics, Vol. 6(3), 1994, pp. 291-297.

Hoffman, M., J.J. Jimason and W.C. McGinly. "The State of U.S. Hospitals in the Next Decade: A Review of the Hospital Crisis," National Association for Hospital

Development, 1989, Falls Church, VA.

Hughes, D., Holland, D. and P. Wandschneider, "The Impact of Changes in Military Expenditures on the Washington State Economy," The Review of Regional Studies, Vol. 21(3), 1991, pp. 221-234.

Krahower, J. Y., Paul Jolly and Robert Beran. "U.S. Medical School Finances," Journal of the American Medical Association, September 1, 1993, Vol. 270(9), pp. 1085-1092.

Leontief, W. The Structure of the American Economy, 1919-1929. New York: Oxford University Press, 1941.

(48)

Leslie, L. and P.T. Brinkman. The Economic Value of Higher Education. MacMillan Publishing Company, Anew York. 1988.

Lewin/ICF, Division of Health and Sciences and Research, Inc. 1988. Critical Care in Jeopardy, Washington, D.C.

McDermott. R.E., G.C. Cornia and R.J. Parsons. "The Economic Impact of Hospitals in Rural Communities," Rural Health Policy, Vol. 7(2), 1991, pp. 117-133.

McHone. Warren. “Practical issues in measuring the impact of a cultural tourists event in a major tourist destination,” Journal of Travel Research Vol. 38(3), pp. 299-302.

Milward. Milward, B. H. & Newman, H. H. (1989). State incentive packages and the industrial location decision. Economic Development Quarterly, 3(3), 203-222.

Moore, C. "The Impact of Public Institutions on Regional Income: Upstate Medical Center," Economic Geography, Vol. 50, 1974, pp. 124-129.

Naughton, John and J.E. Vana. "The Academic Health Center and the Healthy Community," American Journal of Public Health, July 1994, Vol. 94 (7), pp. 1071-1076.

Private Higher Education’s Annual Economic Impact on the State of Nebraska,” research report produced for the Nebraska Educational Finance Authority, 2003.

Richman, D.S. and R. K. Schwer. "A Systematic Comparison of the REMI and IMPLAN Models: The Case of Southern Nevada." Review of Regional Studies, Vol. 23 (2), 1993, pp. 143-161.

U.S. Forestry Service. 1991 IMPLAN Multiplier Reports, Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc., 1995, Stillwater, MN.

(49)

Biographies of researchers

Ernest Goss

Ernest Goss is currently the Jack MacAllister Chair in Regional Economics at Creighton University. He received his Ph.D. in Economics from The University of Tennessee in 1983 and is a former faculty research fellow at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. He was a visiting scholar with the Congressional Budget Office for 2003-04 and is a research fellow at the Theodore Roosevelt Institute.

He has published over eighty research studies focusing primarily on economic forecasting and on the statistical analysis of business and economic data. His research paper entitled, "The Internet's Contribution to U.S. Productivity Growth," received the National Association of Business Economics Edmund A. Mennis Contributed Papers Award for 2001. His book, Changing Attitudes toward Economic Reform during the Yeltsin Era was published by Praeger Press in 2003.

He is a member of the Editorial Board of The Review of Regional Studies and editor of Economic Trends, an economics newsletter published three times per year. He is the past president of the Omaha Association of Business Economics, and President of the Nebraska Purchasing Management Association.

Goss produces a monthly business conditions index for the nine state Mid-American region and the three state Mountain region. Survey results are cited each month in approximately 100 newspapers. Newspaper citations have included the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily, The Christian Science Monitor, Chicago Sun Times and other national and regional newspapers and magazines. Each month 75-100 radio stations carry his Regional Economic Report.

(50)

Chris Vincentini

Chris has been employed as a professional researcher for over fifteen years. Chris began his research career and spent three years with the American Education Institute (1989). He also spent two years as a Graduate Teaching assistant. Chris then joined Data Transmission Network (DTN), and spent five years in their Research and New Product Development department. While at DTN, Chris also spent an additional year in their marketing department. After leaving DTN, Chris was employed at Aquila Energy as a scheduler, and physical gas trader (1999). Chris left Aquila to join VigiCom, as their

Director of Research. In 2000, Chris joined Physicians Mutual Insurance Company and managed all research for the “Overage Business Unit”. Chris began consulting with Goss & Associates in 2005. Chris has two articles published (one while in graduate school), and tried out for the 1988 Olympic Tae Kwon Do team. Chris earned his B.A. degree in 1990 from the University of Nebraska in Omaha (UNO). He attended graduate school in Sociology at UNO from 1990-1992, and 1997-1999.

Union College s Annual Economic Impact on the State of Nebraska

Union College’s Annual

Economic Impact on the State of Nebraska

Union College’s Annual

Economic Impact on the State of Nebraska

Table of Contents

Union College’s Annual

Economic Impact on the State of Nebraska

Executive Summary

Chapter 1: Union College Overview

Introduction

Union College’s Contribution to the Quality of Life in Nebraska

Conclusion

Chapter 2: Union College’s Economic Impact

Private Colleges’ Impact

Union College’s Monetary Impact

Measuring the Economic Impact of Union College

Total impact =

direct

+ indirect

+ induced

-

leakages

Economic Impacts for 2005-2006

Conclusions

Appendix A: Why Estimate Impacts?

Appendix B: Types of Economic Impacts

Appendix C: The Multiplier Effect

Appendix D: Choosing a Technique to Measure Impacts

Appendix E: IMPLAN Multipliers

Appendix F: Non-university Spending by Students

References

Biographies of researchers