06-08-2016 Workshop Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 3 4 Simons, Magner and Baku and social costs indicate that specification of these factors is sketchy: others may develop the model further by delineating them. The research approach has its limitations. First, all the feedback effects among the three dimensions have not been studied. The main economic impacts such as increased property values, retail sales and income from jobs have been translated into the corresponding fiscal benefits. However, no attempt was made to generate impacts beyond the initial turn (e.g., no multiplier effect has been calculated). This probably serves to understate the benefits from rehabs. On the other hand, many marginal fiscal costs for services (police, fire, etc.) have been assumed to be zero because infill housing uses existing carrying capacity. This would tend to understate the costs from new residents in rehab units. For the purpose of the study, it is assumed that these omissions generally offset each other. Also, not all economic effects (e.g., minority contractors) have direct fiscal impacts, and some impacts, such as jobs, may have political or social benefits that are not calculated here. Second, although social benefits may be as important as the fiscal or economic benefits, the availability and quantification of pertinent data are much more challenging. Thus, their evaluation has been excluded from this study. This study employs a straightforward fiscal impact approach, instead of sophisticated input-output models. The main findings are that rehabbed units do indeed provide substantial benefits to the Ideal economy. From a fiwal impact Standpoint, units returned about $0.55 for every local government dollar invested. In addition, economic; benefits such as increased property values anal tax base and construction and pel inanenvt jobs were created and sustains -d by the program_ Prior Studies of CDCs Non -housing Community Services Some studies have attempted to quantify the benefits and costs of the community services offered by CDCs other than those pertaining to housing investment. Typically, CDCs also address human needs, such as drug addiction counseling, substance abuse and crime prevention. Three of these studies are described below. Concerning health services, there are several methodologically sound cost -benefit studies on drug -addiction treatments. Using data from three outpatient drug-free programs in Philadelphia during 1996-1997, French, Salome, Sindelar and McLellan (2002) conclude that total economic benefit was greater than total economic cost at the three outpatient not -for profit programs. Their study, using per -client benefit and cost estimates over a seven-month follow-up period, concludes that the net benefit estimates ranged from $1,939 (lower bound) to $14,307 (upper bound), with a benefit -cost ratio ranging from $9 to $56. The major factor contributing to the benefit side of the equation turned out to be reduction in the number of days the individual was engaged in illegal activities ($1,576), followed by money spent on drugs ($1,020) and days of inpatient 14