Presentation on theme: "Demographic Multipliers: Recent National and State Findings"— Presentation transcript:
1Demographic 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 CONFERENCEARLINGTON, VIRGINIAOCTOBER 2006
2PRESENTATION OVERVIEW Perspective on Demographic Multipliers: definition, application, and literatureChanges in Multipliers Over TimeResults of New National DataResults of New State Data (New Jersey example)Conclusions
3DEFINITIONS OF DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS Demographic multipliers – the number and profile of the populations associated with new residential and nonresidential developmentResidential multipliers – Resident population associated with housingNonresidential multipliers – Worker population associated with commercial and other business uses
4USE OF DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS Interlinked ApplicationsImpact feesFiscal impact analysisSchool enrollment projectionsPublic staffing analysisMarket studiesCalculating development standards“Cost of sprawl” studiesOther applications
5DEMOGRAPHIC 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)OtherConclusion: Extensive literature—but of varying quality and dating is often an issue
6U.S. RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS OVER TIME 197019902000(Change)Single-Family (4BR)Household Size4.673.703.53-24%School children1.921.181.01-47%Town House (3BR)4.072.692.55-37%1.330.530.44-67%Garden Apartment (2 BR)2.562.222.19-14%0.270.340.29+0.7%Conclusion: There are generally significant decreases over time in household size and school children in most standard housing types. Current data is therefore essential.
7Author: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION (FMF) – RUTGERS RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS STUDYAuthor: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers UniversityData: 2000 PUMS, U.S. Housing ConstructedGeography: All U.S., 50 States, and District of ColumbiaRelease: Mid-2006 and available from FMF DataPlace™ (http://www.dataplace.org/newsarticle.html?aid=59)
8Household size (HS) – Total persons per housing unit FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION (FMF) – RUTGERS RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS: DATA FIELDS (I)Multipliers compriseHousehold size (HS) – Total persons per housing unitAge 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 schoolSAC and PSAC by grade group – (K-2, 3-6, 7-9, 10-12, 9)
9FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION (FMF) – RUTGERS RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS: DATA FIELDS (II) Multipliers Differentiated by:Housing TypeSingle-family detachedSingle-family attached2-4 Unit5+ UnitMobile homeHousing Size1-5 bedroomsHousing Price (updated to 2005)All valuesTerciles (thirds): 1st – 33rd percentile, 34th – 66th percentile, 67th – 100 percentileHousing TenureOwnership or rental
10FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION (FMF) – RUTGERS RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS: SELECTED FINDINGS (I) Housing Type, Size, and ValueU.S. AverageHousehold Size (HS)Public School-Age Children (PSAC)Single-Family Detached, 3 BRAll Values2.840.511st-33rd percentile3.010.6934th-66th percentile2.820.4967th-100th percentile2.730.40Single-Family Detached, 4 BR3.530.853.771.073.510.833.35
11FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION (FMF) – RUTGERS RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS: SELECTED FINDINGS (II) Housing Type, Size, Value, and TenureU.S. AverageHousehold Size (HS)Public School-Age Children (PSAC)5+ Units Own, 2 BedroomsAll Values1.700.071st-33rd percentile1.740.1134th-66th percentile1.680.0667th-100th percentile0.045+ Units Rent, 2 Bedrooms2.190.272.250.3220.127.116.11Conclusion: Variations in demographics associated with housing type, housing size, housing value, and housing tenure.
12FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION (FMF) – RUTGERS RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS: SELECTED FINDINGS (III) Housing Type and SizeU.S. AverageHousehold Size (HS)Age distributionSingle-family Detached, 4BR3.53Single-family Attached, 2BR1.93Conclusion: Need to pay more attention to the age distribution of household members
13NJ OFFICE OF SMART OF GROWTH (OSG) – RUTGERS DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS STUDY Author: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers UniversityData: 2000 PUMS, NJ Housing Constructed , Field studies and otherGeography: NJ, All State and 3 regionsMultiplier fields:HS, SAC and PSAC by housing type, size, value, tenure, and state regionStatistics:Regression analysis of characteristics associated with variation in multipliersMultipliers presented with sample size, standard error, and confidence intervalOther: affordable housing, transit oriented development (TOD), and nonresidential multipliers
14Public School-Age Children (PSAC) OSG – RUTGERS RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS: SELECTED FINDINGS (I)Housing Type, Size, and ValueNJ AverageHousehold Size (HS)Public School-Age Children (PSAC)Single-Family Detached,3 BedroomAll Values2.9770.484Below median3.0380.542Above median2.9130.423Single-Family Attached,2.6550.3812.8230.4912.4440.244Conclusion: Variation in demographics associated with housing type, housing size, and housing value (housing tenure and region)
15OSG – RUTGERS RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS: SELECTED FINDINGS (II) NJ Average90% Confidence IntervalHousing Type, Size, and ValuePublic School-Age Children (PSAC)LowhighSingle-Family Attached,2 BedroomAll Values0.1260.1020.151Below median0.1640.203Above median0.0810.0520.1103 Bedroom0.3810.3360.4270.4910.4200.5620.2440.1910.296Conclusion: Variations around multiplier averages warrant heightened attention
16Conclusion: What are appropriate multipliers for affordable housing? OSG – RUTGERS RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS: SELECTED FINDINGS (III)A. PUMS--Household Size and Public School-Age ChildrenFor Low- and Moderate-Income Households (LMI) in New Jersey (2000)Household Size (HS)Public School-Age Children (PSAC)All Housing Types and Bedrooms2.350.45Single-Family Attached2 Bedroom2.090.323 Bedroom3.050.785+ Units, Rent2.760.623.821.27B. Case Study Investigation – Average PSAC for affordable housing units of 0.52—but range of 0.22 to 1.42Conclusion: What are appropriate multipliers for affordable housing?
17Transit Oriented Development (TOD) 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 unitApplication of standard residential multipliers (average 0.14 PSAC per unit) would have projected about 300 PSACConclusion: What are appropriate multipliers for emerging housing types such as TODs?
18Conclusion: Need better data on nonresidential multipliers OSG – RUTGERS NONRESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS: SELECTED EXAMPLES (V)Variation in nonresidential multipliers – retail exampleEmployees per 1,000 ft.2State of Washington (1998)CBECS (2001)CA Dept. Energy (1996)ITE Trip Generation (1997)Census of Retail (1997)Conclusion: Need better data on nonresidential multipliers
19DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS CONCLUSION Critical data with many applications“Moving target” – changing figures over timeVariations in residential demographic multipliers have been associated with such characteristics as housing type, housing size, housing value, and housing tenureEmerging areas of inquiry:Statistical analysisHousehold age distributionEmerging residential development categoriesNonresidential multipliers