1 / 19

Demographic Multipliers: Recent National and State Findings

Demographic Multipliers: Recent National and State Findings. Prepared By DAVID LISTOKIN, Ph.D. ROBERT W. BURCHELL, Ph.D. Prepared For NATIONAL IMPACT FEE ROUND TABLE (NIFR) NATIONAL CONFERENCE ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA OCTOBER 2006. PRESENTATION OVERVIEW.

elle
Download Presentation

Demographic Multipliers: Recent National and State Findings

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Demographic Multipliers: Recent National and State Findings Prepared ByDAVID LISTOKIN, Ph.D. ROBERT W. BURCHELL, Ph.D. Prepared ForNATIONAL IMPACT FEE ROUND TABLE (NIFR)NATIONAL CONFERENCE ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA OCTOBER 2006

  2. PRESENTATION OVERVIEW • Perspective on Demographic Multipliers: definition, application, and literature • Changes in Multipliers Over Time • Results of New National Data • Results of New State Data (New Jersey example) • Conclusions

  3. DEFINITIONS OF DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS • Demographic multipliers – the number and profile of the populations associated with new residential and nonresidential development • Residential multipliers – Resident population associated with housing • Nonresidential multipliers – Worker population associated with commercial and other business uses

  4. USE OF DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS • Interlinked Applications • Impact fees • Fiscal impact analysis • School enrollment projections • Public staffing analysis • Market studies • Calculating development standards • “Cost of sprawl” studies • Other applications

  5. DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS LITERATURE OVERVIEW (EXAMPLES) • The Fiscal Impact Handbook (1978) • The Practitioner’s Guide to Fiscal Impact Analysis (1985) • Development Impact Assessment Handbook and Model (1994) • Planner’s Estimating Guide (2004) • Residential Demographic Multipliers (2006) • Fiscal and Impact Fee Studies (1970s-2000s) • Other Conclusion: Extensive literature—but of varying quality and dating is often an issue

  6. U.S. RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS OVER TIME Conclusion: There are generally significant decreases over time in household size and school children in most standard housing types. Current data is therefore essential.

  7. FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION (FMF) – RUTGERS RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS STUDY • Author: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University • Data: 2000 PUMS, U.S. Housing Constructed 1990-2000 • Geography: All U.S., 50 States, and District of Columbia • Release: Mid-2006 and available from FMF DataPlace™ (http://www.dataplace.org/newsarticle.html?aid=59)

  8. FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION (FMF) – RUTGERS RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS: DATA FIELDS (I) Multipliers comprise • Household size(HS) – Total persons per housing unit • Age distribution of household members – 0-4, 5-13, 14-17, 18-24, 25-44, 45-64, 65-74, 75+ • Total school-age children (SAC) • Total public school-age children (PSAC) • SAC who attend public school • SAC and PSAC by grade group – (K-2, 3-6, 7-9, 10-12, 9)

  9. FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION (FMF) – RUTGERS RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS: DATA FIELDS (II) Multipliers Differentiated by: • Housing Type • Single-family detached • Single-family attached • 2-4 Unit • 5+ Unit • Mobile home • Housing Size • 1-5 bedrooms • Housing Price (updated to 2005) • All values • Terciles (thirds): 1st – 33rd percentile, 34th – 66th percentile, 67th – 100 percentile • Housing Tenure • Ownership or rental

  10. FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION (FMF) – RUTGERS RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS: SELECTED FINDINGS (I)

  11. FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION (FMF) – RUTGERS RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS: SELECTED FINDINGS (II) Conclusion: Variations in demographics associated with housing type, housing size, housing value, and housing tenure.

  12. FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION (FMF) – RUTGERS RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS: SELECTED FINDINGS (III) Conclusion: Need to pay more attention to the age distribution of household members

  13. NJ OFFICE OF SMART OF GROWTH (OSG) – RUTGERS DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS STUDY • Author: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University • Data: 2000 PUMS, NJ Housing Constructed 1990-2000, Field studies and other • Geography: NJ, All State and 3 regions • Multiplier fields: • HS, SAC and PSAC by housing type, size, value, tenure, and state region • Statistics: • Regression analysis of characteristics associated with variation in multipliers • Multipliers presented with sample size, standard error, and confidence interval • Other: affordable housing, transit oriented development (TOD), and nonresidential multipliers

  14. OSG – RUTGERS RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS: SELECTED FINDINGS (I) Conclusion: Variation in demographics associated with housing type, housing size, and housing value (housing tenure and region)

  15. OSG – RUTGERS RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS: SELECTED FINDINGS (II) Conclusion: Variations around multiplier averages warrant heightened attention

  16. OSG – RUTGERS RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS: SELECTED FINDINGS (III) B. Case Study Investigation – Average PSAC for affordable housing units of 0.52—but range of 0.22 to 1.42 Conclusion: What are appropriate multipliers for affordable housing?

  17. OSG – RUTGERS RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS: SELECTED FINDINGS (IV) Transit Oriented Development (TOD) • Field investigation of 10 TODs with 2,200 housing units found they contained 50 public school-age children (PSAC)—or a PSAC multiplier of 0.02 per housing unit • Application of standard residential multipliers (average 0.14 PSAC per unit) would have projected about 300 PSAC Conclusion: What are appropriate multipliers for emerging housing types such as TODs?

  18. OSG – RUTGERS NONRESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS: SELECTED EXAMPLES (V) Variation in nonresidential multipliers – retail example Employees per 1,000 ft.2 • State of Washington (1998) 0.57 • CBECS (2001) 0.83-1.95 • CA Dept. Energy (1996) 1.70 • ITE Trip Generation (1997) 2.00 • Census of Retail (1997) 2.44 Conclusion: Need better data on nonresidential multipliers

  19. DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS CONCLUSION • Critical data with many applications • “Moving target” – changing figures over time • Variations in residential demographic multipliers have been associated with such characteristics as housing type, housing size, housing value, and housing tenure • Emerging areas of inquiry: • Statistical analysis • Household age distribution • Emerging residential development categories • Nonresidential multipliers

More Related