P E N N S Y LVA N IA’ S

S TATE

S Y S TE M

OF

H IGH E R

E D U C ATION

CLARION

UNIVERSITY

The State System’s
Economic and Employment Impact
on the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Released April 15, 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 2
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 3
III. ECONOMIC AND EMPLOYMENT IMPACT OF PENNSYLVANIA’S STATE SYSTEM OF
HIGHER EDUCATION ON THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ........................ 9
IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 30
V. APPENDICES
A. ECONOMIC IMPACT BACKGROUND
B. ECONOMIC OVERVIEW OF PENNSYLVANIA AND STATE SYSTEM COUNTIES
C. INDIVIDUAL UNIVERSITY ECONOMIC AND EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS
D. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF VISITOR SPENDING
E. DATA ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES
F. INFORMATION RELIED ON
G. SUPPORTING GEOGRAPHIC DATA
H. ABOUT BAKER TILLY AND THE PREPARERS OF THE REPORT

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 1

I.

INTRODUCTION

Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education (“State System”) contracted with Baker Tilly
Virchow Krause, LLP (“Baker Tilly”) to determine the economic and employment impact of the
State System and its universities on the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (“Commonwealth”).
Therefore, the purpose of this report is to quantify and describe the impact the State System has
on the Commonwealth’s economy.

The State System includes 14 universities, four branch campuses, several regional centers, and
the McKeever Environmental Learning Center. 1

The universities are all located in rural,

suburban and small-town settings around Pennsylvania. The Center offers academic programs
through a consortium of public and private colleges and universities. Per Act 188 of 1982, the
State System’s mission “is the provision of instruction for undergraduate and graduate students
to and beyond the master’s degree in the liberal arts and sciences, and in the applied fields,
including the teaching profession.” In doing so, the State System’s purpose is “to provide high
quality education at the lowest possible cost to students.”

Economic growth can, in part, be traced back to investments in higher education. University,
faculty and staff, and student spending stem from investments which in turn, creates economic
development in the form of jobs, income, and increased economic activity within the university’s
region. Economic impact studies help to quantify this impact which is generated by higher
education institutions.

The intention of this report is to measure the economic impact of the 14 universities and the
related entities of the State System on the Commonwealth. The State System receives funding
from various sources such as: state appropriations, revenues from tuition and fees, federal and
research grants, private donations and revenues provided by services that each university offers.
From this funding, an impact, attributable to the purchasing of goods and services during the
1

One of the State System’s entities, System-wide Functions and Services, is primarily located at the Dixon
University Center in Harrisburg and include: System-wide shared administrative services; System leadership
functions of the Chancellor and Board of Governors; some System-wide initiatives and grants managed on behalf of
the universities; and the academic, student, and facilities support for the multi-university sites in Harrisburg and
Philadelphia.

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 2

fiscal year 2013-2014, can be determined. In aggregate, the universities within the State System
expend and consume billions of dollars during operations each year which greatly impact the
counties in which each campus is located.

Additionally, the impact resulting from the

expenditures made by the State System’s faculty and staff, and students can be measured.

Methodology Applied to the State System Economic Impact Study:
Common to many economic impact studies, the basis of methodology was rooted in the
utilization of multipliers which were then applied to produce total impact numbers for each
campus. This particular methodology was selected and utilized because it is considered by
numerous economists to provide highly accurate and valid results. 2 The multipliers used were
formulated from the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (“RIMS II”) of the Bureau of
Economic Analysis (“BEA”).

The BEA established a method of estimating regional multipliers (RIMS II) which is a valuable
tool for estimating the total economic impact of a project, or in this case, institution, on a region.
This Input-Output Modeling System provides multipliers that are intended to capture both the
direct and indirect effects on the defined region. Specific to this study, the multiplier is used to
calculate direct and indirect economic impacts and employment impacts of each institution, as
well as the impacts of faculty and staff, student, and capital expenditures. The analysis is
focused on the counties in which a State System university has a presence, whether that is a main
campus or satellite, and on an overall state-level.

II.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education is the 18th largest employer in Pennsylvania
and as of fall 2014, enrolled 109,606 students across the 14 universities. 3 In the 67 counties of
Pennsylvania, the State System has a direct presence in 20 of them, varying from urban to rural
locations. As a result of a large geographic reach across the state, the State System plays a key
2

Similar economic studies include visitor spending, alumni spending, and activities associated with athletics,
affiliates, student governments and other 501-C3 organizations as a factors of the total economic impact. These
were excluded from the State System’s analysis based on our discretion.
3
Employer ranking for the State System obtained from Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor and Industry Center for
Workforce Information and Analysis.

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 3

role in stimulating the economies of the counties that each university resides in. The State
System directly impacts the regional economies by injecting millions of dollars into
Pennsylvania’s economy on local, county, and state levels. Additionally, the presence of the
State System universities enhances workforce development and therefore impacts employment
opportunities, not only for the students, but also for those who reside in the surrounding
communities.

Pennsylvania’s State System commissioned an economic and employment impact study in order
to determine an estimate of their economic contribution to the Commonwealth. Baker Tilly has
completed the study utilizing data from the 2013-2014 fiscal year and, as a result, found the
estimated combined economic and employment contribution of the State System on the
Commonwealth was approximately $6.7 billion.

Key features of the State System’s Economic and Employment Impact Study include:
•

Computation of the direct, indirect, induced, and total economic impact of the State
System’s universities upon the Commonwealth, shown in Table 1. The $4.4 billion total
economic impact can be broken down into four categories:


Institutional spending which constitutes 35 percent of the total economic impact;



Faculty and staff spending which constitutes 23.4 percent of the total economic
impact;

•



Student spending which constitutes 32.6 percent of the total economic impact; and



Capital expenditures which constitutes 9 percent of the total economic impact.

Computation of the employment impact of the State System’s universities upon the
Commonwealth:


The State System is one of the top 10 employers in seven of the 20 counties in
which a State System university is located;



Approximately 61,853 jobs were supported by Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher
Education;



It is estimated that jobs supported by the State System produced an additional $2.3
billion in economic benefits to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 4


•

The combined economic and employment impact is $6.7 billion, as shown in Table 2.

Computation of the return on appropriations:


As shown in Table 3 below, the State System received a total of $412.8 million in
state appropriations during the 2013-2014 fiscal year;



Also shown in Table 3, on average, the Commonwealth received a 14.8 percent
return through taxes paid by employees. 4



Each dollar invested by the Commonwealth to one of the universities produced an
average return of $10.61 in economic impact, as shown in Table 4; and

•

An analysis of the economic development impacts stemming from State System
universities; and

•

Geographic Information System (“GIS”) analysis of State System employees, students,
and alumni.

4

Taxes paid by students employed by a State System university included.

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 5

Table 1 shows the total economic impact of the State System on the Commonwealth, segregated
by the direct, indirect, and induced impact of each university.
Table 1: Total Economic Impact of Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education 5
University
Bloomsburg
California
Cheyney
Clarion
East Stroudsburg
Edinboro
Indiana
Kutztown
Lock Haven
Mansfield
Millersville
Shippensburg
Slippery Rock
West Chester
System-wide Functions
and Services
Total

Total Direct
$ 263,295,561
233,781,165
58,476,432
160,875,776
182,748,242
141,889,684
427,774,334
254,408,286
108,859,639
70,189,054
227,086,357
214,878,981
227,279,453
336,774,500

Total Indirect
$ 113,097,080
96,192,279
45,032,828
87,233,991
106,191,804
61,165,672
184,817,150
92,971,052
36,043,481
34,628,703
81,651,929
81,002,373
94,196,153
139,131,845

Total Induced
$ 16,551,649
11,002,854
11,896,900
16,521,500
20,928,458
9,771,993
24,347,480
10,610,510
3,806,174
6,984,585
8,929,350
8,811,998
11,809,316
19,546,212

Total Economic
Impact
$ 392,944,290
340,976,298
115,406,159
264,631,268
309,868,504
212,827,350
636,938,964
357,989,848
148,709,294
111,802,341
317,667,636
304,693,352
333,284,922
495,452,557

16,050,363

16,786,884

4,249,567

37,086,814

$ 2,924,367,827

$ 1,270,143,223

$ 185,768,546

$ 4,380,279,597

The direct impact is the actual expenditures of each institution, including capital expenditures,
and the estimated expenditures of university faculty, staff, and students. The indirect impact is
defined as the changes in sales, income, or jobs in sectors within the region that supply goods
and services to a specific sector. The induced impact is defined as the increased sales within the
region from household spending of the income earned in a specific supporting sector. 6

The total combined economic and employment impact of the State System of $6.7 billion is
presented in Table 2, below. Further, Tables 3 and 4 show the State System’s return on taxes
paid by employees and return on state appropriations, respectively.

5
6

Calculations are subject to rounding.
“Economic Impact Concepts,” msu.edu, visited March 2, 2015.

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 6

Table 2: Combined Economic and Employment Impact of Pennsylvania’s State System of
Higher Education on the Commonwealth 7

University
Bloomsburg

Economic Impact
$

392,944,290

Employment Impact

Combined Impact on
the Commonwealth

$

205,900,105

$

598,844,395

California

340,976,298

183,655,639

$

524,631,937

Cheyney

115,406,159

45,118,143

$

160,524,302

Clarion

264,631,268

124,879,913

$

389,511,180

East Stroudsburg

309,868,504

142,386,788

$

452,255,292

Edinboro

212,827,350

111,148,304

$

323,975,653

Indiana

636,938,964

335,184,495

$

972,123,459

Kutztown

357,989,848

199,904,092

$

557,893,941

Lock Haven

148,709,294

85,461,683

$

234,170,977

Mansfield

111,802,341

54,889,422

$

166,691,763

Millersville

317,667,636

177,807,676

$

495,475,312

Shippensburg

304,693,352

168,443,533

$

473,136,885

Slippery Rock

333,284,922

178,103,776

$

511,388,697

West Chester
System-wide Functions
and Services

495,452,557

263,787,533

$

759,240,090

37,086,814

12,621,236

$

49,708,050

2,289,292,338

$

6,669,571,935

Total

$

4,380,279,597

$

7

The economic impact on the Commonwealth is comprised of the direct, indirect, and induced effects of
institutional, faculty and staff, student, and capital expenditures, as will be discussed. The employment impact on
the Commonwealth, which is based on the spending impact of the job opportunities generated, is derived solely from
the total economic impact, as further explained on page 26.

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 7

Table 3: The State System’s Return on Appropriations 8
University
Bloomsburg
California
Cheyney
Clarion
East Stroudsburg
Edinboro
Indiana
Kutztown
Lock Haven
Mansfield
Millersville
Shippensburg
Slippery Rock
West Chester
System-wide Functions
and Services
Total

State Tax
Withholdings
$
2,292,524
1,787,436
488,093
1,420,794
1,482,286
1,542,094
3,455,150
2,022,440
1,200,846
833,113
2,018,212
1,787,469
1,897,186
3,349,207

Sales Tax
Revenue
$
3,110,977
3,149,730
444,381
1,802,653
2,127,487
1,579,519
5,524,239
3,047,576
1,218,457
678,459
2,686,387
2,690,257
2,901,430
3,973,093

Total Tax
Revenues
$
5,403,501
4,937,166
932,473
3,223,447
3,609,773
3,121,613
8,979,390
5,070,017
2,419,303
1,511,573
4,704,599
4,477,727
4,798,616
7,322,299

State
Appropriations
$ 32,994,559
29,751,310
13,098,158
22,261,739
21,160,935
24,963,085
52,382,984
33,105,442
19,963,187
16,702,905
30,872,019
28,164,791
32,576,803
49,914,169

Return on
Appropriations
16.38%
16.59%
7.12%
14.48%
17.06%
12.50%
17.14%
15.31%
12.12%
9.05%
15.24%
15.90%
14.73%
14.67%

390,398

216,509

606,906

4,838,914

12.54%

61,118,401

$ 412,751,000

14.81%

$

25,967,248

$

35,151,153

$

Table 4: Economic Impact to State Appropriations Ratio
University
Bloomsburg
California
Cheyney
Clarion
East Stroudsburg
Edinboro
Indiana
Kutztown
Lock Haven
Mansfield
Millersville
Shippensburg
Slippery Rock
West Chester
System-wide Functions
and Services
Total

Total Economic
Impact
$
392,944,290
340,976,298
115,406,159
264,631,268
309,868,504
212,827,350
636,938,964
357,989,848
148,709,294
111,802,341
317,667,636
304,693,352
333,284,922
495,452,557

State Appropriations
$
32,994,559
29,751,310
13,098,158
22,261,739
21,160,935
24,963,085
52,382,984
33,105,442
19,963,187
16,702,905
30,872,019
28,164,791
32,576,803
49,914,169

Ratio
11.91
11.46
8.81
11.89
14.64
8.53
12.16
10.81
7.45
6.69
10.29
10.82
10.23
9.93

37,086,814

4,838,914

7.66

412,751,000

10.61

$ 4,380,279,597

$

8

Sales tax revenue is calculated by applying the percentage of state gross domestic product that is taxable by the
total faculty and staff and student spending.

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 8

III.

ECONOMIC AND EMPLOYMENT IMPACT OF PENNSYLVANIA’S STATE
SYSTEM

OF

HIGHER EDUCATION

ON THE

COMMONWEALTH

OF

PENNSYLVANIA
Background and Location
State System universities span the state in both rural and urban counties, as illustrated below in
Map 1, and reflected in Table 5. In addition to each university’s main campus, State System
universities have a presence in five additional counties via satellite campuses, as seen in Map 2.
As a result, the impact that State System universities have on the Commonwealth is substantial.
An overall background on the State System is provided with the economic and employment
impact analysis.
Map 1: Location of State System Universities: Urban and Rural Counties 9

9

According to The Center for Rural Pennsylvania, a legislative agency of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, a
rural county is defined as one in which the number of persons per square mile within the county or school district is
less than the population density for the state overall. In Pennsylvania, counties and school districts that have 284
persons or more per square mile are considered urban.

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 9

Table 5: Locations of State System University Campuses
University
Bloomsburg
California
Cheyney *
Clarion
Clarion
East Stroudsburg
Edinboro
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana

County
Columbia
Washington
Delaware
Clarion
Venango
Monroe
Erie
Indiana
Armstrong
Jefferson

Rural
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES

University
Kutztown
Lock Haven
Lock Haven
Mansfield
Millersville
Shippensburg
Slippery Rock
West Chester
System-wide Site
System-wide Site

County
Rural
Berks
Clinton
YES
Clearfield
YES
Tioga
YES
Lancaster
Cumberland
Butler
YES
Chester
Dauphin
Philadelphia

*A portion of the Cheyney campus lies within Chester County.
Map 2: The State System’s Presence in Additional Counties 10

10

Cheyney University, East Stroudsburg University, Millersville University, and West Chester University offer
classes at Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education at Center City in Philadelphia County. System-wide
Functions and Services is located at the Dixon University Center and offers courses for Bloomsburg University,
Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Lock Haven University, Millersville University, and Shippensburg University.

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 10

As of the 2014 fall semester, 109,606 students enrolled in undergraduate and graduate programs
at one of the 14 State System universities, a 2.2 percent decrease from the 2013 fall semester
(112,028 enrollments). Of the students enrolled, 87.7 percent are residents of Pennsylvania, as
shown in Map 3. 11 Map 4 shows the locations of the State System alumni who still reside in
Pennsylvania.

Map 3: State System Student Locations

Total State System Students Living in Pennsylvania: 96,074 12

11
12

Student locations are based on student permanent addresses.
Refer to Appendix G for county totals.

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 11

Map 4: State System Alumni Locations

Total State System Alumni Living in Pennsylvania: 517,724 13

The 14 universities have a presence in a total of 20 of the 67 counties that comprise
Pennsylvania. These counties include: Armstrong, Berks, Butler, Chester, Clarion, Clearfield,
Clinton, Columbia, Cumberland, Dauphin, Delaware, Erie, Indiana, Jefferson, Lancaster,
Monroe, Philadelphia, Tioga, Venango, and Washington.

State System universities offer a wide array of programs leading to associate’s, bachelor’s,
master’s and doctoral degrees as well as undergraduate and graduate certificates.

These

academic programs are designed to meet student demands as well as the current and emerging
workforce needs of Pennsylvania and beyond. State System universities continue to expand
opportunities for undergraduate and graduate research, international study, service-learning, and
internships, all of which are critical to academic excellence and are designed to connect the
13

Refer to Appendix G for county totals.

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 12

classroom to the community. Collectively, more than 2,300 degree and certificate programs are
offered in more than 530 academic areas. Over 110 of these academic programs are available
online. The top three program areas of study by enrollment include Business, STEM (Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics), and Health Professions.

While graduate instruction at the Ph.D. level is available at Indiana University of Pennsylvania,
any State System university can offer an applied/professional doctoral program. Currently, nine
State System universities offer applied/professional doctoral degree programs. The universities
are fully accredited by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools. In addition, many
specific academic programs have also received specialized national discipline specific
accreditation.

The total of all university campuses comprises more than 4,698 acres and a total of 862 buildings
(24,999,533 square feet) that house classrooms, residences, administrative offices, and student
support services. The libraries on each campus provide resource support for academic programs
and are connected electronically by the Keystone Library Network (“KLN”). The KLN provides
students and staff access to the combined holdings of the 14 universities’ libraries, which number
in the millions, and allows them to use the Internet to conduct research day or night from any
location. It also gives them access to library assistance late into the evening through e-mail and a
toll-free number. 14

Base tuition at State System universities is $6,820 per year for Pennsylvania resident
undergraduate students and from $10,230 to $17,050 per year for nonresident students for the
2014-2015 fiscal year. 15

The regular graduate student tuition is $454 per credit hour, for

Pennsylvania residents, and $681 per credit for out-of-state students. Both resident and nonresidents have to pay an annual instructional technology fee. Room and board charges vary, as
do local fees. Students may apply for a variety of state and federal financial assistance programs,
university and private scholarships, grants, and loans.
14

Data obtained from Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education Fact Sheet.
Several State System universities are testing various new pricing models through a Board of Governors’ pricing
flexibility pilot program, which began January 2014. For example, Millersville University implemented a per-credit
tuition pilot beginning fiscal year 2014-2015. Tuition rates listed above are regular tuition rates, excluding
alternative rates used in pilots.
15

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 13

In 2014, Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education employed approximately 0.6 percent
of Pennsylvania’s total labor force of 6.4 million people and approximately 0.6 percent of all
persons employed by the state, as shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Labor Force Data, Pennsylvania: Annual Averages and Statewide Employment
Impact 16
S tatewide
Employer
Ranking

State System

18

Employment
Impact

Labor Force
(2013)

37,905

6,460,354

Impact as a
% of Labor
Force

0.59%

Employed
(2014)

6,058,000

Impact as a
% of
Employed

0.63%

Table 7 is a summary of the labor force and employment impact for each of the State System
universities and its respective county. Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education was the
top employer in two counties: Clarion and Indiana. Aside from System-wide Functions and
Services, Indiana University of Pennsylvania (“IUP”) facilitated the most in-county percentage
of employment impact, 4 percent, by employing 1,914 people of the 47,699 person labor force.
Moreover, IUP’s countywide employment impact was 4.3 percent of the employed labor force of
44,800. Clarion University had the next highest in-county employment impact of 3.2 percent by
employing 630 people of the 19,510 people in Clarion County’s labor force. Furthermore,
Clarion’s countywide employment impact was 3.5 percent of the employed labor force of 17,900
people in Clarion County.

16

Data obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry and the Indiana Business Research
Center.

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 14

Table 7: Labor Force Data by County, Pennsylvania Counties: Annual Averages and
Countywide Employment Impact 17

University
Bloomsburg
California
Cheyney
Clarion
East Stroudsburg
Edinboro
Indiana
Kutztown
Lock Haven
Mansfield
Millersville
Shippensburg
Slippery Rock
West Chester
System-wide Site

County
Columbia
Washington
Delaware
Clarion
Monroe
Erie
Indiana
Berks
Clinton
T ioga
Lancaster
Cumberland
Butler
Chester
Dauphin

Employer
Ranking
(2014)

Countywide Impact
Labor
Force
Employee
% of Labor
(2013)
Count
Force

2
7
N/A
1
11
22
1
18
3
4
26
22
9
14
N/A

525
663
105
630
854
795
1,914
935
465
415
1,481
935
774
1,635
69

37,648
108,858
282,071
19,510
80,185
139,619
47,699
204,705
19,944
21,875
268,570
124,890
101,382
271,793
139,052

1.39%
0.61%
0.04%
3.23%
1.07%
0.57%
4.01%
0.46%
2.33%
1.90%
0.55%
0.75%
0.76%
0.60%
5.00%

Employed
(2014)

% of
Employed

36,200
103,200
263,600
17,900
74,400
130,500
44,800
189,500
19,200
20,300
254,300
119,200
96,800
258,800
131,800

1.45%
0.64%
0.04%
3.52%
1.15%
0.61%
4.27%
0.49%
2.42%
2.04%
0.58%
0.78%
0.80%
0.63%
0.05%

Total Economic Impact of State System Universities upon the Commonwealth
The total economic impact of the State System is compromised of the following:
Direct Impact
•

Actual expenditures of each institution;

•

Estimated expenditures of university faculty, staff, and students; 18 and

•

Capital expenditures of each university.

Indirect Impact
•

Economic benefit within the industry, as a result of the goods and services provided
by the State System universities; 19 and

•

Comprised of institutional, faculty, staff, student, and capital expenditures.

Induced Impact
•

The additional economic benefit to the Commonwealth, as a result of the State
System universities’ presence; and

•

Compromised of institutional and capital expenditures.

17

Data obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry and the Indiana Business Research
Center.
18
Institutional spending is exclusive of salary and wages paid to faculty and staff to avoid double-counting.
However, institutional spending does include employee benefits.
19
Specifically the economic benefit within the junior college, colleges, universities, and professional schools
industry. The industry is classified per the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 15

Both the indirect and induced effects were calculated using the direct effect and applying the
RIMS II multipliers. Refer to Appendix E for further detail regarding the methodology used to
attain this value. The State System universities had a combined total economic impact of $4.4
billion on the Commonwealth in the fiscal year 2013-2014, as shown in Table 8.

Table 8: Direct, Indirect, Induced, and Total Economic Impact upon the Commonwealth
University
Bloomsburg
California
Cheyney
Clarion
East Stroudsburg
Edinboro
Indiana
Kutztown
Lock Haven
Mansfield
Millersville
Shippensburg
Slippery Rock
West Chester
System-wide Functions
and Services
Total

Total Direct
$ 263,295,561
233,781,165
58,476,432
160,875,776
182,748,242
141,889,684
427,774,334
254,408,286
108,859,639
70,189,054
227,086,357
214,878,981
227,279,453
336,774,500

Total Indirect
$ 113,097,080
96,192,279
45,032,828
87,233,991
106,191,804
61,165,672
184,817,150
92,971,052
36,043,481
34,628,703
81,651,929
81,002,373
94,196,153
139,131,845

Total Induced
$ 16,551,649
11,002,854
11,896,900
16,521,500
20,928,458
9,771,993
24,347,480
10,610,510
3,806,174
6,984,585
8,929,350
8,811,998
11,809,316
19,546,212

Total Economic
Impact
$ 392,944,290
340,976,298
115,406,159
264,631,268
309,868,504
212,827,350
636,938,964
357,989,848
148,709,294
111,802,341
317,667,636
304,693,352
333,284,922
495,452,557

16,050,363

16,786,884

4,249,567

37,086,814

$ 2,924,367,827

$ 1,270,143,223

$ 185,768,546

$ 4,380,279,597

Indiana University of Pennsylvania and West Chester University had the largest statewide
economic impacts, $636.9 million and $495.5 million, respectively. System-wide Functions and
Services had a total statewide economic impact of $37.1 million.20 The average statewide
economic impact of each State System university was approximately $310.2 million, as shown
below. 21

20

System-wide Functions and Services are primarily located at the Dixon University Center in Harrisburg and
include: System-wide shared administrative services; System leadership functions of the Chancellor and Board of
Governors; some System-wide initiatives and grants managed on behalf of the universities; and the academic,
student, and facilities support for the multi-university sites in Harrisburg and Philadelphia.
21
To find the average of just the 14 universities, the System-wide Functions and Services impact was removed from
the calculation.

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 16

State System Total Economic Impact / Number of Universities ($4,343,192,783/14) =
$310,228,056

The total economic impact can be used to determine the return on state appropriations. For the
fiscal year 2013-2014, the state appropriation to the State System totaled $412.8 million, as
shown in Table 9. 22

Table 9: Economic Impact to State Appropriations Ratio
University
Bloomsburg
California
Cheyney
Clarion
East Stroudsburg
Edinboro
Indiana
Kutztown
Lock Haven
Mansfield
Millersville
Shippensburg
Slippery Rock
West Chester
System-wide Functions
and Services
Total

Total Economic
Impact
$
392,944,290
340,976,298
115,406,159
264,631,268
309,868,504
212,827,350
636,938,964
357,989,848
148,709,294
111,802,341
317,667,636
304,693,352
333,284,922
495,452,557

State Appropriations
$
32,994,559
29,751,310
13,098,158
22,261,739
21,160,935
24,963,085
52,382,984
33,105,442
19,963,187
16,702,905
30,872,019
28,164,791
32,576,803
49,914,169

Ratio
11.91
11.46
8.81
11.89
14.64
8.53
12.16
10.81
7.45
6.69
10.29
10.82
10.23
9.93

37,086,814

4,838,914

7.66

412,751,000

10.61

$ 4,380,279,597

$

Therefore, for every dollar invested by the Commonwealth to the State System, an average return
of approximately $10.61 in economic impact was produced.

The highest return to the

Commonwealth was $14.64, generated by East Stroudsburg University. Overall, nine of the
State System universities produced at least a return of $10 for every $1 of state appropriations.

22

It is noted that state appropriations have decreased since the last study.

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 17

Employment Impact of State System upon the Commonwealth
In addition to the economic impact of $4.4 billion, there is also a substantial direct employment
impact that arises from the State System’s economic activity. The direct employment impact
consist of the job opportunities that are created from the direct spending of each institution,
faculty and staff, students, or direct composite spending. A direct employment impact also arises
from capital expenditures. By applying a multiplier to the total amount spent on the direct
composite spending and the direct capital expenditures, the employment impact can be
calculated, as shown in Table 10.

Table 10: Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education Total Jobs Supported

University
Bloomsburg
California
Cheyney
Clarion
East Stroudsburg
Edinboro
Indiana
Kutztown
Lock Haven
Mansfield
Millersville
Shippensburg
Slippery Rock
West Chester
System-wide Functions
and Services
Total

Composite Direct
Spending
$
253,092,889
231,632,596
51,381,828
147,038,947
171,508,729
138,081,494
416,620,691
252,317,521
107,230,841
67,380,028
220,155,852
210,039,779
221,506,534
327,310,802
16,050,363
$ 2,831,348,894

Jobs
Output
21.26
21.26
21.26
21.26
21.26
21.26
21.26
21.26
21.26
21.26
21.26
21.26
21.26
21.26

Composite
Jobs
Supported
5,380
4,924
1,092
3,126
3,646
2,935
8,856
5,363
2,279
1,432
4,680
4,465
4,708
6,957

21.26

341
60,184

Direct
Capital
Expenditures
$ 10,202,671
2,148,569
7,094,604
13,836,830
11,239,513
3,808,190
11,153,643
2,090,765
1,628,798
2,809,026
6,930,505
4,839,202
5,772,919
9,463,698

Jobs
Output
17.94
17.94
17.94
17.94
17.94
17.94
17.94
17.94
17.94
17.94
17.94
17.94
17.94
17.94

$ 93,018,933

-

Capital
Expenditures
Jobs
Supported
183
39
127
248
202
68
200
38
29
50
124
87
104
170

Total Jobs
Supported
5,563
4,962
1,219
3,374
3,847
3,003
9,056
5,401
2,309
1,483
4,804
4,551
4,812
7,127

-

341

1,669

61,853

The multiplier indicated that for each additional million dollars of direct composite spending by
a State System university, approximately 21.3 jobs were supported.

Therefore, the total

employment impact resulting from the composite direct spending of the State System is 60,184
jobs. A separate multiplier was used to calculate the employment impact resulting from direct
capital expenditures; for each additional million dollars of capital spending by a State System
university, approximately 17.9 jobs were supported. 23 Thus, a total of 1,669 jobs were supported
by capital expenditures alone.

23

In total, approximately 61,853 jobs were supported by

Refer to Appendix E regarding the use of RIMS II multipliers.

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 18

Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education, over and in addition to the State System’s
actual workforce.

More than half of the universities supported more than 4,000 jobs from both composite and
capital expenditures. Indiana University of Pennsylvania had the largest employment impact of
9,056 jobs. The average state employment impact of each State System university was 4,394
jobs, as shown below. 24

State System Total Employment Impact/Number of State System Universities (61,512/14) =
4,394

Total Economic Impacts of Institutional Spending
The following provides summary tables for each type of spending by university. Further detail
for all of the universities can be found in Appendix C. The methodology of how each input was
calculated and the usage of RIMS II multipliers for the types of spending can be found in
Appendix E.

Table 11 displays the institutional total economic impact of all State System universities, which,
including System-wide Functions and Services, was $1.5 billion. This amounts to 35 percent of
the State System’s $4.4 billion total economic impact on the Commonwealth.

24

To find the average of just the 14 universities, the System-wide Functions and Services impact was removed from
the calculation.

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 19

Table 11: Direct, Indirect, Induced, and Total Economic Impact of Institutional Spending
Economic Impact of Institutional Spending
Direct

University
Bloomsburg
California
Cheyney
Clarion
East Stroudsburg
Edinboro
Indiana
Kutztown
Lock Haven
Mansfield
Millersville
Shippensburg
Slippery Rock
West Chester
System-wide Functions
and Services
Total

$

98,937,876
75,557,322
29,361,898
57,713,979
66,087,600
59,813,241
142,883,831
101,304,151
46,853,937
33,761,049
87,040,126
76,732,275
77,735,028
130,436,302

Indirect
$

5,321,938
$ 1,089,540,553

$

25,061,544
27,231,662
18,558,443
16,682,250
35,478,382
19,850,577
45,659,463
26,217,708
7,399,777
13,989,587
10,266,170
14,694,705
21,318,047
35,493,043

Induced
$

8,581,322
9,324,392
6,354,596
5,712,168
12,148,151
6,797,035
15,634,255
8,977,204
2,533,757
4,790,174
3,515,239
5,031,613
7,299,511
12,153,171

Total
$

132,580,742
112,113,376
54,274,937
80,108,397
113,714,133
86,460,853
204,177,549
136,499,063
56,787,472
52,540,810
100,821,535
96,458,594
106,352,586
178,082,516

12,410,759

4,249,567

21,982,265

330,312,119

$ 113,102,156

$ 1,532,954,828

The two State System universities with the largest institutional impact on the Commonwealth
were Indiana University of Pennsylvania and West Chester University, with institutional impacts
of $204.2 and $178.1 million, respectively. The average institutional total impact of each State
System university was approximately $107.9 million, as shown below. 25

State System Total Institutional Spending Economic Impact/Number of Universities
($1,510,972,563/14= $107,926,612)

Total Economic Impact of Faculty and Staff Spending
The majority of the State System’s faculty and staff live and spend their disposable income in
Pennsylvania, thus creating an economic impact on the Commonwealth.

25

To find the average of just the 14 universities, the System-wide Functions and Services impact was removed from
the calculation.

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 20

An analysis of personal consumption was conducted to determine the effect of the spending done
by faculty and staff.

Data obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics was taken into

consideration and the analysis was broken down in to the following categories:

Type of Expenditure

Definition

Food

Groceries, convenience store purchases, restaurants

Apparel and Services

Buying clothes, dry cleaning, laundromat services

Transportation

Fuel, public transportation

Healthcare

Money spent on healthcare

Entertainment

Movies, special events, sports equipment and activities

Cash Contributions

Churches, local communities, and organizations

Personal Insurance and Pensions

Auto insurance, personal pension plans

Table 12 shows that Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education had a total faculty and
staff economic impact of $1 billion during the 2013-2014 fiscal year.

Table 12: Direct, Indirect, and Total Economic Impact of Faculty and Staff Spending
Economic Impact of Faculty and Staff Spending
University
Bloomsburg
California
Cheyney
Clarion
East Stroudsburg
Edinboro
Indiana
Kutztown
Lock Haven
Mansfield
Millersville
Shippensburg
Slippery Rock
West Chester
System-wide Functions
and Services
Total

$

Direct
63,882,803
49,281,008
14,857,838
40,236,304
44,487,540
43,084,313
92,656,902
57,311,502
33,051,326
24,177,795
54,725,709
50,567,912
52,359,620
95,434,848

$

10,728,425
$

726,843,845

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

$

Indirect
26,057,796
20,101,723
6,060,512
16,412,388
18,146,468
17,574,091
37,794,750
23,377,362
13,481,636
9,862,123
22,322,617
20,626,651
21,357,489
38,927,874

$

Total
89,940,599
69,382,731
20,918,350
56,648,692
62,634,008
60,658,404
130,451,652
80,688,864
46,532,962
34,039,918
77,048,326
71,194,563
73,717,109
134,362,722

4,376,125

15,104,550

296,479,604

$ 1,023,323,449

Page 21

Out of the State System’s total economic impact of $4.5 billion on the Commonwealth, the
faculty and staff spending constitutes 23.4 percent of it. West Chester University and Indiana
University of Pennsylvania were the two State System universities with the largest employee
total impact of $134.4 and $130.5 million, respectively. These two universities alone account for
approximately one-quarter of the total faculty and staff spending economic impact. The average
faculty and staff spending per university was $72 million, as shown below. 26

State System Total Faculty and Staff Spending Economic Impact/Number of Universities
($1,008,218,899/14= $72,015,636).

Total Economic Impact of Student Expenditures
As previously noted, 109,606 students enrolled in undergraduate and graduate programs at one
of the 14 State System universities during the 2014 fall semester. The enrollment trends by
university from fall 2005 to fall 2014 are presented in Table 13.

Table 13: Fall Headcount Enrollment by University, 2005-2014
Fall
Unive rsity
Bloomsburg
California
Cheyney
Clarion
East Stroudsburg
Edinboro
Indiana
Kutztown
Lock Haven
Mansfield
Millersville
Shippensburg
Slippery Rock
West Chester
T otal

2005
8,570
7,184
1,560
6,338
6,793
7,691
14,081
9,864
5,283
3,390
7,919
7,485
8,105
12,988
107,251

2006
8,723
7,720
1,667
6,591
7,013
7,579
14,248
10,193
5,175
3,360
8,194
7,516
8,230
12,879
109,088

2007
8,745
8,206
1,436
6,795
7,053
7,686
14,018
10,295
5,241
3,338
8,306
7,765
8,325
13,219
110,428

2008
8,855
8,519
1,488
7,100
7,234
7,671
14,310
10,393
5,266
3,422
8,320
7,942
8,458
13,619
112,597

2009
9,512
9,017
1,488
7,346
7,576
8,287
14,638
10,634
5,329
3,569
8,427
8,253
8,648
14,211
116,935

2010
10,091
9,400
1,586
7,315
7,387
8,642
15,126
10,707
5,451
3,411
8,729
8,326
8,852
14,490
119,513

2011
10,159
9,483
1,200
6,991
7,353
8,262
15,132
10,283
5,366
3,275
8,725
8,183
8,712
15,100
118,224

2012
9,950
8,608
1,284
6,520
6,943
7,462
15,379
9,804
5,328
3,131
8,368
7,724
8,559
15,411
114,471

2013
10,127
8,243
1,212
6,080
6,778
7,098
14,728
9,513
5,260
2,970
8,279
7,548
8,347
15,845
112,028

The student expenditures analysis was based on the segregation of the fall 2014 enrollment data
for each university into three broad categories, as follows:

26

To find the average of just the 14 universities, the System-wide Functions and Services impact was removed from
the calculation.

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 22

2014
9,998
7,978
1,022
5,712
6,820
6,837
14,369
9,218
4,917
2,752
8,047
7,355
8,495
16,086
109,606

•

Students living on campus in university housing or university affiliated private housing;

•

Students living off campus in private, non-affiliated housing; and

•

Students living off campus with parents.

In order to capture the amount of student spending resulting from students who live in affiliated
university housing, an aggregate of privatized replacement housing fees for each university was
obtained. A percent was then calculated to determine the amount of room and board fees that
were collected by affiliates, rather than the universities, and subsequently applied to the total
number of students living in affiliated university housing. Average cost estimates for room,
board, books and supplies, and other expenses were then applied to the students who live offcampus and pay for room and board to parties other than the university directly. 27 In the other
instances in which students lived in on-campus housing or with a parent, only books and supplies
and other expenses were included in the aggregated total. This was done in order to avoid
double counting room and board expenditures that have already been accounted for in other
aspects of the analysis.

The estimated spending of these students contributed to the economic impact of the State
System, as shown in table in Table 14.

27

Average cost estimates were supplied on a university by university basis by the State System.

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 23

Table 14: Direct, Indirect, and Total Economic Impact of Student Spending
Economic Impact of Student Spending
University
Bloomsburg
California
Cheyney
Clarion
East Stroudsburg
Edinboro
Indiana
Kutztown
Lock Haven
Mansfield
Millersville
Shippensburg
Slippery Rock
West Chester
Total

Direct Impact
$
90,272,210
106,794,266
7,162,092
49,088,664
60,933,589
35,183,940
181,079,958
93,701,868
27,325,578
9,441,184
78,390,017
82,739,592
91,411,886
101,439,652
$ 1,014,964,496

Indirect Impact
$ 36,822,034
43,561,381
2,921,417
20,023,266
24,854,811
14,351,529
73,862,515
38,220,992
11,146,103
3,851,059
31,975,288
33,749,480
37,286,908
41,377,234
$ 414,004,018

Total Impact
127,094,244
150,355,647
10,083,509
69,111,930
85,788,400
49,535,469
254,942,473
131,922,860
38,471,681
13,292,243
110,365,305
116,489,072
128,698,794
142,816,886
$ 1,428,968,514

$

During the fiscal year 2013-2014, the State System had a total student economic impact on the
Commonwealth of $1.4 billion, 32.6 percent of the total economic impact. 28 The two State
System universities with the largest student total economic impact on the Commonwealth were
Indiana University of Pennsylvania and California University of Pennsylvania, contributing
$254.9 and $150.4 million, respectively. Of the 14 universities, eight had a student expenditure
impact greater than $100 million. The average student total economic impact of each State
System university on the Commonwealth was $102.1 million, as displayed below.

State System Total Student Economic Impact/Number of Universities ($1,428,968,514/14=
$102,069,180)

Capital Expenditures
Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education receives funding appropriated by the Governor
and Governor’s Budget Office for capital investments; the State System capital projects are then

28

Student spending as a result of living in affiliated university housing was captured in the impact. For more details
regarding this methodology, refer to Appendix E.

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 24

executed by the Department of General Services. 29 In the 2013-2014 fiscal year, the State
System received $65.2 million in capital investment appropriations. Additionally, the State
System receives funding through the Annual Key ‘93 Deferred Maintenance Appropriation
authorized by the Keystone Recreation, Parks, and Conservation Fund Act of 1993 and funded
through the realty transfer tax. In the 2013-2014 fiscal year, the State System received $13.6
million in Key ‘93 Deferred Maintenance appropriations. The total economic impact these funds
created in the 2013-2014 fiscal year is approximately $395 million, as shown in Table 15
below. 30

Table 15: Direct, Indirect, and Induced Economic Impact of Capital Expenditures
University
Bloomsburg
California
Cheyney
Clarion
East Stroudsburg
Edinboro
Indiana
Kutztown
Lock Haven
Mansfield
Millersville
Shippensburg
Slippery Rock
West Chester
Total

Economic Impact of Capital Expenditures
Direct
Indirect
Induced
Total
$ 10,202,671
$ 25,155,706
$ 7,970,327
$ 43,328,705
2,148,569
5,297,513
1,678,462
$
9,124,544
7,094,604
17,492,455
5,542,304
$ 30,129,363
13,836,830
34,116,087
10,809,331
$ 58,762,248
11,239,513
27,712,143
8,780,308
$ 47,731,964
3,808,190
9,389,474
2,974,958
$ 16,172,623
11,153,643
27,500,421
8,713,226
$ 47,367,290
2,090,765
5,154,991
1,633,306
$
8,879,062
1,628,798
4,015,964
1,272,417
$
6,917,179
2,809,026
6,925,934
2,194,411
$ 11,929,370
6,930,505
17,087,854
5,414,111
$ 29,432,470
4,839,202
11,931,536
3,780,385
$ 20,551,123
5,772,919
14,233,709
4,509,804
$ 24,516,432
9,463,698
23,333,694
7,393,041
$ 40,190,433
$ 93,018,933
$ 229,347,482
$ 72,666,391
$ 395,032,806

Of the $4.4 billion total economic impact, the total capital expenditures impact constitutes
approximately nine percent. Clarion University had the largest impact, contributing a total of
approximately $58.8 million to the total capital expenditures impact. Furthermore, six of the
universities contributed more than $30 million to the total impact.

The average capital

expenditure impact of each State System university on the Commonwealth was approximately
$28.2 million, as displayed below.

29

These funds are independent of any capital expenditures from the university operating funds, which are included
in the institutional spending impact and therefore a separate analysis was warranted.
30
For further detail on how the capital expenditures impact was calculated, refer to Appendix E.

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 25

State System Total Capital Expenditure Impact/Number of Universities ($395,032,806/14=
$28,216,629)

Visitor Spending
The applicable data for visitor spending analysis was limited and therefore subjective inputs had
to be utilized. For this reason, visitor spending has been excluded from the final economic
impact of the State System in light of possible significant over or understatement. Refer to
Appendix D for an alternative analysis regarding the effects of visitor spending.

Employment Impact of Jobs Supported as a Result of State System Spending
Additional economic benefit, resulting from the total direct spending attributed to the State
System universities to the Commonwealth, can be quantified. As shown in Table 10 of this
report, the total direct spending attributed to each university generates an employment impact.
The aggregate result of total direct spending supports approximately 61,853 jobs within the
Commonwealth, in addition to the State System employees.

The additional jobs supported by the existence of the State System universities results in
increased consumption of good and services within Pennsylvania.

Further, these jobs and

corresponding consumption of good and services provide an additional source of revenues to the
Commonwealth in the form of increased sales and taxes, as demonstrated in Tables 16 and 17.

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 26

Table 16: Consumption Attributable to the Employment Impact of Pennsylvania’s State
System of Higher Education 31,32
University
Bloomsburg
California
Cheyney
Clarion
East Stroudsburg
Edinboro
Indiana
Kutztown
Lock Haven
Mansfield
Millersville
Shippensburg
Slippery Rock
West Chester
System-wide Functions
and Services
Total

Total Jobs
Supported
5,563
4,962
1,219
3,374
3,847
3,003
9,056
5,401
2,309
1,483
4,804
4,551
4,812
7,127

Per Capita
Income
$ 46,202
46,202
46,202
46,202
46,202
46,202
46,202
46,202
46,202
46,202
46,202
46,202
46,202
46,202

Estimated
Wages
$ 257,021,726
229,254,324
56,320,238
155,885,548
177,739,094
138,744,606
418,405,312
249,537,002
106,680,418
68,517,566
221,954,408
210,265,302
222,324,024
329,281,654

341

46,202

15,754,882

61,853

$ 2,857,686,104

Consumption
Factor
80.11%
80.11%
80.11%
80.11%
80.11%
80.11%
80.11%
80.11%
80.11%
80.11%
80.11%
80.11%
80.11%
80.11%
80.11%

Estimated
Consumption
$ 205,900,105
183,655,639
45,118,143
124,879,913
142,386,788
111,148,304
335,184,495
199,904,092
85,461,683
54,889,422
177,807,676
168,443,533
178,103,776
263,787,533
12,621,236
$2,289,292,338

All but three universities, and System-wide Functions and Services, contributed over $100
million additional impact by way of estimated consumption.

An aggregation of the total

economic impact resulting from the State System supported jobs is an estimated $2.3 billion in
additional consumption.

In addition to the revenue generated by State System employees, total income tax revenue and
sales tax revenue attributed to jobs supported by State System universities is shown in Table 17.
For the purposes of this analysis, local earned income taxes, local services tax, and payments to
the unemployment trust fund were not considered.

31

2013 annual per capita income for Pennsylvania was obtained from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
The consumption factor is the average total consumption as a percentage of revenue for all income ranges
obtained from Bureau of Labor Statistics.

32

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 27

Table 17: Sales, Income, and Total State Tax Revenue of Jobs Supported Attributable to
Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education 33, 34

University
Bloomsburg
California
Cheyney
Clarion
East Stroudsburg
Edinboro
Indiana
Kutztown
Lock Haven
Mansfield
Millersville
Shippensburg
Slippery Rock
West Chester
Systen-wide Functions
and Services
Total

Estimated
Wages
$257,021,726
229,254,324
56,320,238
155,885,548
177,739,094
138,744,606
418,405,312
249,537,002
106,680,418
68,517,566
221,954,408
210,265,302
222,324,024
329,281,654

Estimated
Income Tax
Revenue
$7,890,567
$7,038,108
$1,729,031
$4,785,686
$5,456,590
$4,259,459
$12,845,043
$7,660,786
$3,275,089
$2,103,489
$6,814,000
$6,455,145
$6,825,348
$10,108,947

Estimated
Consumption
$205,900,105
183,655,639
45,118,143
124,879,913
142,386,788
111,148,304
335,184,495
199,904,092
85,461,683
54,889,422
177,807,676
168,443,533
178,103,776
263,787,533

Estmated
Taxable
Spending
$49,189,535
43,875,332
10,778,724
29,833,811
34,016,204
26,553,330
80,075,576
47,757,088
20,416,796
13,113,083
42,478,254
40,241,160
42,548,992
63,018,842

Estimated
Sales Tax
Revenue
$2,951,372
2,632,520
646,723
1,790,029
2,040,972
1,593,200
4,804,535
2,865,425
1,225,008
786,785
2,548,695
2,414,470
2,552,940
3,781,130

Total Tax
Payments
$10,841,939
9,670,628
2,375,755
6,575,715
7,497,562
5,852,659
17,649,578
10,526,211
4,500,097
2,890,274
9,362,696
8,869,614
9,378,287
13,890,077

15,754,882

$483,675

12,621,236

3,015,213

180,913

664,588

$2,857,686,104

$87,730,963

$2,289,292,338

$546,911,940

$32,814,716

$120,545,680

In the aggregate, the revenues realized by the Commonwealth in terms of payroll tax
withholdings and sales tax receipts for the jobs supported by the State System were
approximately $120.5 million or approximately 29.2 percent of the Commonwealth’s
appropriations for the State System for fiscal year 2013-2014.

Tax Revenues Allocable to State System Universities
Income tax payments made to the Commonwealth, in the form of payroll withholdings from
employees of State System universities, represent a significant revenue stream flowing to the
Commonwealth on a year-over-year basis. The total state income tax revenue, on a university by
university basis, is presented in Table 18.

33

Pennsylvania’s sales tax rate is six percent and income taxes are based on Pennsylvania’s 3.07 percent flat tax
rate.
34
Taxable consumption calculated at 23.89 percent of total consumption; refer to Appendix E for additional detail.

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 28

Table 18: Income Tax Revenue Attributable to Employees of the State System

University
Bloomsburg
California
Cheyney
Clarion
East Stroudsburg
Edinboro
Indiana
Kutztown
Lock Haven
Mansfield
Millersville
Shippensburg
Slippery Rock
West Chester
System-wide Functions
and Services
Total

Local EIT
$ 1,158,465
663,336
250,803
479,413
566,449
572,167
1,415,326
753,672
602,999
408,587
698,065
888,275
689,468
1,348,667

Local
Services
Tax
$ 77,722
92,342
55
57,192
46,416
61,702
120,124
88,707
38,157
34,338
81,976
65,008
58,764
126,464

Unemployment
Tax
$
50,794
39,812
11,401
32,025
34,538
34,775
76,292
45,600
26,821
18,729
44,270
41,300
42,715
76,982

Total Tax
Payments
$ 3,579,505
2,582,926
750,352
1,989,425
2,129,689
2,210,738
5,066,892
2,910,419
1,868,823
1,294,767
2,842,524
2,782,053
2,688,133
4,901,319

390,398

200,864

7,946

8,396

607,604

25,967,248

$ 10,696,556

$ 956,914

584,451

$ 38,205,169

State Tax
Withholdings
$
2,292,524
1,787,436
488,093
1,420,794
1,482,286
1,542,094
3,455,150
2,022,440
1,200,846
833,113
2,018,212
1,787,469
1,897,186
3,349,207

$

$

The State System provides an added benefit to the local municipalities in the form of local
earned income taxes and local services taxes. State System employees also help to fund the
unemployment trust fund through payroll withholdings, helping to strengthen the
Commonwealth’s social safety net available to displaced workers.

In addition to the payroll tax withholdings to the Commonwealth and to local municipalities, the
State System, through the spending of its employees and students, generates sales tax revenue for
the Commonwealth through the consumption of taxable goods and services. The total state sales
tax revenue, attributed to State System universities, is presented in Table 19.

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 29

Table 19: Sales, Income, and Total State Tax Revenue Attributed to Employees of the State
System 35

University
Bloomsburg
California
Cheyney
Clarion
East Stroudsburg
Edinboro
Indiana
Kutztown
Lock Haven
Mansfield
Millersville
Shippensburg
Slippery Rock
West Chester
System-wide Functions and
Services
Total

Total Faculty,
Staff, and Student
Spending
$
217,034,843
219,738,378
31,001,859
125,760,622
148,422,408
110,193,873
385,394,125
212,611,724
85,004,643
47,332,161
187,413,631
187,683,635
202,415,903
277,179,609

$

Spending
subject to tax
$ 51,849,624
52,495,499
7,406,344
30,044,213
35,458,113
26,325,316
92,070,657
50,792,941
20,307,609
11,307,653
44,773,116
44,837,620
48,357,159
66,218,208

Sales Tax
Revenue
$ 3,110,977
3,149,730
444,381
1,802,653
2,127,487
1,579,519
5,524,239
3,047,576
1,218,457
678,459
2,686,387
2,690,257
2,901,430
3,973,093

15,104,550

3,608,477

216,509

2,452,291,963

$ 585,852,550

$ 35,151,153

Total payments made to the Commonwealth as sales taxes were approximately $35.2 million.
Refer to Appendix E for additional discussion related to the methodology used to estimate sales
tax revenue attributed to the State System.

IV.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the State System universities play an important role in the current and future economic
vitality of their specific regions, as well as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a whole. For
instance, in the 2013-2014 fiscal year alone, the State System had a combined economic and
employment impact of $6.7 billion on the Commonwealth. Furthermore, each dollar invested by
the Commonwealth to one of the universities provided an average return of $10.61 in economic
impact. The institutional and capital expenditures of the universities, as well as the ancillary

35

Pennsylvania’s sales tax rate is six percent.

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 30

spending by the university’s faculty, staff, and students, provided a significant direct economic
impact totaling $4.4 billion. The institutional spending of each university also produced an
employment impact; in aggregate, 61,853 jobs were supported by Pennsylvania’s State System
of Higher Education. As a result of these jobs, there was an additional estimated $2.3 billion in
economic benefit to the Commonwealth. The State System also acts as a source of tax revenues;
total payments made to the Commonwealth via income and sales taxes were an estimated $120.5
million in the 2013-2014 fiscal year. Lastly, as institutions of higher education, the State System
universities supply the demand of highly skilled workers to ensure that the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania remains a competitive contributor to the national and international economy.

State System Economic and Employment Impact Study

Page 31

Appendix A: Economic Impact Background
Economic growth can, in part, be traced back to investments in higher education. University,
faculty and staff, and student spending stem from investments which in turn, creates economic
development in the form of jobs, income, and increased economic activity within the university’s
region. Economic impact studies help to quantify this impact which is generated by higher
education institutions.

The intention of this report is to measure the economic impact of the 14 universities and the
related entities of the State System on the Commonwealth. The State System receives funding
from various sources such as: state appropriations, revenues from tuition and fees, federal and
research grants, private donations and revenues provided by services that each university offers.
From this funding, an impact, attributable to the purchasing of goods and services during the
fiscal year 2013-2014, can be determined. All of the universities within the State System spend
billions of dollars on an annual basis, which greatly impacts the counties in which each campus
is located. Additionally, the impact resulting from the expenditures made by the State System’s
faculty and staff, and students can be measured.

Not only do State System universities impact economic growth, but the universities also improve
economic development within their respective regions; each university has taken on initiatives in
the form of human capital and workforce development programs or entrepreneurial assistance
programs to do so. An Economic Development Report was furnished for the 2013-2014 year
assessing all economic, workforce, and community involvement activities for the State System
universities to assist with this aspect of the study. 1

1

Millersville University did not provide an Economic Development Report for 2013-2014.

Appendix A

Page 1

The State System as an Employer

Table A.1 provides a summary of how Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education acts as
a major employer in many of the counties in which a State System university is present. 2
Important findings to note:
•

The State System was the 18th largest employer in the Commonwealth;

•

The State System was ranked as one of the top 10 employers in seven counties in which a
university is located; and

•

Clarion University and Indiana University of Pennsylvania are the top employer in
Clarion and Indiana County, respectively.

Table A.1: State System Employer Rankings, 2nd quarter, 2014
University
Bloomsburg
California
Cheyney*
Clarion
East Stroudsburg
Edinboro
Indiana
Kutztown
Lock Haven
Mansfield
Millersville
Shippensburg
Slippery Rock
West Chester
System-wide Site
System-wide Site
State System Totals

County
Columbia
Washington
Delaware
Clarion
Monroe
Erie
Indiana
Berks
Clinton
Tioga
Lancaster
Cumberland
Butler
Chester
Dauphin
Philadelphia
Pennsylvania

Employer
Ranking
2
7
N/A
1
11
22
1
18
3
4
26
22
9
14
N/A
N/A
18

*A portion of the Cheyney campus lies within Chester County.

2

Employer ranking for the State System obtained from Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor and Industry Center for
Workforce Information and Analysis. Only the top 50 employers in each county were ranked.

Appendix A

Page 2

Human Capital and Workforce Development Training

An overall objective of any university is to provide the necessary education and training
to students in order for them to have the tools to become productive and tax-paying members of
their communities; the State System schools are no exception. The universities within the State
System are engaged in various programs to help increase workforce knowledge and skills, as
well as job productivity. To do so, the universities pair up with local businesses. As a
result, the businesses have the potential to experience economic growth and may consider
operating within the vicinity of a State System university.

The State System universities currently partner with the Workforce and Economic Development
Network of Pennsylvania (“WEDnetPA”) and Customized Job Training (“CJT”) grants to help
provide workforce training in their communities, as shown in Tables A.2 and A.3.
Table A.2: Participation in State-Sponsored Workforce Development Programs, 2014 3

University
Bloomsburg
California
Cheyney
Clarion
East Stroudsburg
Edinboro
Indiana
Kutztown
Lock Haven
Mansfield
Millersville
Shippensburg
Slippery Rock
West Chester
Total

WEDnetPA
and CJT
Grants
Awarded
$
288,648
207,286,773
184,072
367,451
366,491
206,776
352,916
200,749
257,510
532,129
248,850
$ 210,292,365

Companies
Participating
37
11
33
45
21
46
24
23

60
42
342

3

California University of Pennsylvania’s Government Agency Coordination Office reported 6,084 CJT contracts
with a total value of $207,286,773 in the 2014.

Appendix A

Page 3

Table A.3: State System Participation in Economic Development Initiatives by University
WEDnetPA
University
and CJT
Bloomsburg
X
California
X
Cheyney
X
Clarion
X
East Stroudsburg
X
Edinboro
X
Indiana
X
Kutztown
X
Lock Haven
X
Mansfield
Millersville
Shippensburg
X
Slippery Rock
West Chester
X
State System
11

SBDC

X

Business
Incubators

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
5

6

By having these affiliates, the State System received a total of $210 million in funds to direct
towards workforce development.

Additionally, the universities were able to establish

relationships with a total of 342 local businesses.

For students who take advantage of these opportunities and improve their workforce skills,
higher income is likely to result, as shown in Table A.4.
Table A.4: Pennsylvania Educational Attainment and Median Earnings, 2013 4

Description

Difference
between PA HS
Difference
Graduate and
United
between
Post-Secondary
States Pennsylvania PA and US Education (%)

Population 25 years and over with earnings
Less than high school graduate
20,149
High school graduate (includes
equivalency)
27,350
Some college or associate's degree
32,387
Bachelor degree
50,050
Graduate or professional degree
65,565

4

21,014

865

29,018
34,605
49,661
66,359

1,668
2,218
(389)
794

19.25%
71.14%
128.68%

Data obtained from the 2013 American Community Survey conducted by the US Census Bureau.

Appendix A

Page 4

In 2013, a Pennsylvania resident who obtained a bachelor’s degree earned on average $49,661.
On average, by obtaining a bachelor’s degree, a Pennsylvania resident earned approximately
71percent more than a high school graduate.

Entrepreneurial Business Assistance

The State System universities also support economic development in their regions through
Entrepreneurial Business programs and Small Business Development Centers (“SBDC”). These
programs educate students through curricular offerings but also extend services to the citizens of
the Commonwealth who are looking for assistance. By doing so, a vast amount of networking
occurs resulting in research and business opportunities for those involved. As demonstrated by
Table A.3, State System universities are involved in wide array of these programs.

Intellectual Property Creation and Commercialization of Innovation

Universities provide an important source of innovation, and thus are key factors of economic
development.

Furthermore the commercialization of ideas that result from the research

conducted at these universities increases economic productivity. As shown in Table A.3, six of
the State System universities are collaborating to commercialize ideas by partnering with
businesses through the use of business incubators.

For more detail regarding economic development, refer to the individual narratives for each
university in Appendix C.

Appendix A

Page 5

Appendix B: Economic Overview of Pennsylvania and State System Counties
The following is an overall economic profile of the United States, Pennsylvania, and the
20 Pennsylvania counties in which a State System university has a presence.

Included

are comparative tables of key demographics which also provide an overview at the county
level. Thus, the purpose of the economic data analysis is to provide fundamental facts
that the existence of the State System contributes positively to each county.

Table B.1 includes population projections for the United States, Pennsylvania, and counties with
a State System university presence. 1 Some important projections for 2010 to 2030 are:
•

Pennsylvania’s growth is projected to be 8.3 percent;

•

Lancaster County (Millersville University) is projected to have the largest population
increase of 15.9 percent; and

•

Armstrong County (Indiana University of Pennsylvania’s satellite campus) is projected to
decrease the most in population by 5.7 percent.

1

According to 2010 Census Data, StatsAmerica data provided by the Indiana Business Research Center and
Pennsylvania Abstract: A Statistical Fact Book.

Appendix B

Page 1

Table B.1: Population Projections for Pennsylvania Counties with a State System
University Presence: 2010 to 2030
University
Bloomsburg
California
Cheyney *
Clarion
Clarion
East Stroudsburg
Edinboro
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Kutztown
Lock Haven
Lock Haven
Mansfield
Millersville
Shippensburg
Slippery Rock
West Chester
System-wide Site
System-wide Site

County
Columbia
Washington
Delaware
Clarion
Venango
Monroe
Erie
Indiana
Armstrong
Jefferson
Berks
Clinton
Clearfield
Tioga
Lancaster
Cumberland
Mercer
Chester
Dauphin
Philadelphia

2010
67,295
207,820
558,979
39,988
54,984
169,842
280,566
88,880
68,941
45,200
411,442
39,238
81,642
41,981
519,445
235,406
116,638
498,886
268,100
1,526,006

2013
66,797
208,206
561,973
39,155
53,907
167,148
280,294
87,745
68,107
44,966
413,521
39,954
81,174
42,463
529,600
241,212
115,195
509,468
270,937
1,553,165

2030
67,922
207,065
622,307
41,453
55,516
179,312
305,877
99,756
64,982
45,220
471,457
44,973
83,423
44,136
602,153
268,063
121,313
573,576
289,132
1,753,054

% Change from
2010-2030
0.93%
-0.36%
11.33%
3.66%
0.97%
5.58%
9.02%
12.24%
-5.74%
0.04%
14.59%
14.62%
2.18%
5.13%
15.92%
13.87%
4.01%
14.97%
7.84%
14.88%

*A portion of the Cheyney campus lies within Chester County.

It is likely that counties with higher projected population growth will have future expanded
economic development activity. The counties that have a State System university presence and
projected population growth over 10 percent include:

Delaware, Indiana, Berks, Clinton,

Lancaster, Cumberland, Chester, and Philadelphia. Therefore these counties are most likely to
continue to have a positive economic impact on the Commonwealth.

Table B.2 presents per capita income data for the state and counties with a State System
university presence for 2010 to 2013: 2
•

Pennsylvania’s per capita income for 2013 was $46,202;

•

For 2013, Chester County (West Chester University) had the highest per capita income of
$66,136;

2

Data obtained from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Appendix B

Page 2

•

Butler County (Slippery Rock University) and Tioga County (Mansfield University) had
the highest per capita income growth rates of 16.6 percent and 15.9 percent respectively,
from 2010 to 2013;

•

The two counties with the lowest per capita income growth rates were Monroe County
(East Stroudsburg University) and Venango (Clarion University) with rates of 6.9 percent
and 7.4 percent respectively; and

•

The weighted average of per capita income growth rate for the counties in which a State
System university resides from 2010 to 2013 was 11.38 percent.

Table B.2: Per Capita Personal Income for Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania Counties with
a State System University Presence: 2010 to 2013

University
Bloomsburg
California
Cheyney *
Clarion
Clarion
East Stroudsburg
Edinboro
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Kutztown
Lock Haven
Lock Haven
Mansfield
Millersville
Shippensburg
Slippery Rock
West Chester
System-wide Site
System-wide Site
State System Weighted Average
Pennsylvania

County
Columbia
Washington
Delaware
Clarion
Venango
Monroe
Erie
Indiana
Armstrong
Jefferson
Berks
Clinton
Clearfield
Tioga
Lancaster
Cumberland
Butler
Chester
Dauphin
Philadelphia

2010
$30,964
42,682
48,504
33,535
33,468
31,730
33,989
34,920
33,001
32,250
37,398
31,652
31,988
29,297
37,315
42,814
42,454
58,118
41,095
38,824
$41,635

% change
2013
2010-2013
$33,815
9.21%
49,399
15.74%
53,966
11.26%
36,987
10.29%
35,940
7.39%
33,930
6.93%
37,729
11.00%
39,018
11.74%
37,391
13.30%
34,939
8.34%
41,403
10.71%
35,491
12.13%
34,999
9.41%
33,942
15.85%
41,116
10.19%
47,258
10.38%
49,496
16.59%
66,136
13.80%
45,396
10.47%
42,155
8.58%
11.39
$46,202
10.97%

*A portion of the Cheyney campus lies within Chester County.

It is clear to see that the universities have an impact on per capita income in their respective
counties. On a comparative basis, the weighted average change in per capita income for the
State System is greater than that of the Commonwealth’s per capita income growth by nearly

Appendix B

Page 3

half a percent. 3 Furthermore, counties with higher per capita income growth rates, such as these,
are likely to have increased economic development activities. Therefore, the State System is
favorably impacting the counties in which they have a direct physical presence.

Various demographics were selected from the economic profiles for each county with a State
System university presence, provided in Table B.3. 4 Some important facts to note:
•

Philadelphia (Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education at Center City) had the
highest population, number of households, and also the highest unemployment rate in
2013;

•

Clarion (Clarion University) had the smallest population and therefore the smallest labor
force;

•

Cumberland (Shippensburg University) had the most growth in population since 2010;

•

Chester County (West Chester University) had the lowest unemployment rate during
2013 of 5.8 percent; and

•

Tioga County (Mansfield University) had the largest growth in labor force since 2010.

3

Per capita income for the Commonwealth grew approximately 11 percent from 2010 to 2013.
Population, population growth, labor force and the 2013 unemployment rate obtained from StatsAmerica provided
by the Indiana Business Research Center. The change in labor force from 2010 to 2013 was calculated using an
average of historical data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. The change in unemployment rate since 2010
was calculated using historical data obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
4

Appendix B

Page 4

Table B.3: Overview of Population by Pennsylvania Counties with a State System
University Presence
Unive rsity
Bloomsburg
California
Cheyney
Clarion
Clarion
East Stroudsburg
Edinboro
Edinboro
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Kutztown
Lock Haven
Lock Haven
Mansfield
Millersville
Shippensburg
Slippery Rock
Slippery Rock
West Chester
System-wide Site
System-wide Site

C ounty
Columbia
Washington
Delaware
Clarion
Venango
Monroe
Erie
Crawford
Indiana
Allegheny
Armstrong
Jefferson
Berks
Clinton
Clearfield
T ioga
Lancaster
Cumberland
Butler
Mercer
Chester
Dauphin
Philadelphia

Population
(2013)
66,797
208,206
561,973
39,155
53,907
167,148
280,294
87,376
87,745
1,231,527
68,107
44,966
413,521
39,954
81,174
42,463
529,600
241,212
185,476
115,195
509,468
270,937
1,553,165

Pop. growth Labor force
(%) since
(pe rsons)
2010
(2013)
-0.75%
37,648
0.19%
108,858
0.60%
282,071
-2.13%
19,510
-2.00%
25,657
-1.61%
80,185
-0.10%
139,619
-1.60%
42,948
-1.29%
47,699
0.70%
657,757
-1.20%
33,724
-0.50%
22,524
0.50%
204,705
1.79%
19,944
-0.60%
40,924
1.14%
21,875
2.00%
268,570
2.50%
124,890
0.87%
101,382
-1.20%
54,245
2.08%
271,793
1.10%
139,052
1.80%
656,484

Labor force
Une mployme nt
Une mployme nt Rate (%) since
growth (%)
Rate (2013)
since 2010
2010
2.58%
7.10%
-1.10%
2.35%
6.90%
-0.50%
0.91%
7.50%
-0.10%
-4.52%
8.00%
-2.20%
-3.20%
7.90%
0.10%
-2.53%
9.40%
0.10%
0.18%
7.30%
-1.10%
-0.29%
7.10%
-1.10%
-0.26%
7.30%
-0.10%
2.37%
6.50%
-0.30%
0.92%
8.00%
-1.20%
-2.63%
7.70%
-1.50%
0.20%
7.40%
-0.60%
2.72%
8.60%
0.20%
-0.45%
8.40%
-1.40%
4.75%
8.30%
1.20%
-0.30%
6.10%
-0.50%
1.71%
6.10%
-0.20%
2.56%
6.30%
-0.50%
0.63%
8.00%
-1.20%
2.23%
5.80%
0.10%
0.56%
6.90%
-0.70%
1.92%
10.00%
-0.30%

It is important to note the instances in which population was decreasing but the labor force
increased and therefore the unemployment rate decreased. This trend is seen in Columbia
County (Bloomsburg University) and Erie County (Edinboro University). In some measure, this
can be attributed to employment impact of the State System universities in these counties.

Appendix B

Page 5

Appendix C: Individual University Economic and Employment Impact
Analysis
The following provides a detailed analysis of each university. Refer to Appendix E for the
methodology utilized to calculate each university’s economic and employment impact.

Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania
Columbia County, PA
Founded in 1839, Bloomsburg University is built on a rich history of academic excellence as one
of 14 public universities in Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education (“State System”).
As the largest comprehensive university in Northeastern and North central Pennsylvania,
Bloomsburg University offers 54 undergraduate majors, 44 undergraduate minors, and 20
graduate programs. Bloomsburg has an alumni base of more than 60,000 which enables students
to network throughout the eastern US and beyond. Bloomsburg University prepares and inspires
students to become dynamic and confident leaders. In fall 2014, the University enrolled 9,319
undergraduate students and 679 graduate students.

Map 1.1 demonstrates these students come from all across the state, thus contributing to the
economic impact of the State System.

Bloomsburg University has more than 250 student clubs and organizations, ranging from
community service to the arts and business to entertainment. Students are also actively involved
Appendix C

Page 1

within the community with more than 62,000 hours dedicated to volunteerism each year. David
L. Soltz, Ph.D., became Bloomsburg University’s president in January 2008. 1

Map 1.2 demonstrates Bloomsburg’s alumni that still reside in the Commonwealth.

Bloomsburg University is in Columbia County, PA. In 2013, the county had a population of
66,797 people which is a 0.7 percent decrease since 2010. The county is made up of 483.1 sq.
miles in land area and a population density of 138.3 per square mile. As of 2010, 98.9 percent of
the population reported only one race, with 1.9 percent of these reporting African-American. The
population of this county is two percent Hispanic (of any race). The average household size is
2.4 persons compared to an average family size of 2.9 persons. Columbia County had a labor
force of 37,648 people in 2013 along with an unemployment rate of 7.1 percent.

1

Excerpts obtained from Bloomsburg University’s website, www.bloomu.edu.

Appendix C

Page 2

Below are some of Columbia County’s population demographics. 2
Value

Rank
in
State

Population (2013)
Growth ( percent) since 2010
Census
Households (2012)

66,797

39

-0.7%

39

26,012

40

Labor Force (persons) (2013)
Unemployment Rate (2013)

37,648
7.1

38
42

$33,185
$45,038

61
34

13.9

30

86.9

41

20.0

27

People & Income Overview
(By Place of Residence)

Per Capita Personal Income (2012)
Median Household Income (2012)
Poverty Rate (2012)
H.S. Diploma or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2012 ACS 5yr)
Bachelor's Deg. or More - percent
of Adults 25+ (2012 ACS 5yr)

Countywide labor force data and countywide employment impact as result from Bloomsburg
University is shown in Table 1.1. Out of the 37,648 people in the county’s available labor force,
Bloomsburg University had 525 in-county jobs and therefore had an in-county percentage
employment impact on the available labor force of approximately 1.4 percent. Furthermore, the
countywide employment impact as a percent of the number of people employed in Columbia
County can also be calculated. With 36,200 total people employed in Columbia County, 525
were employed by Bloomsburg University and live in-county; therefore the university’s
countywide employment impact is approximately 1.5 percent. 3

Table 1.1: Labor Force Data, Columbia County: Averages and Countywide Employment
Impact

University
Bloomsburg

County
Columbia

Employer
Ranking
(2014)

Employee
Count

2

525

Countywide Impact
Labor
Force
% of Labor
(2013)
Force
37,648

1.39%

Employed
(2014)

% of
Employed

36,200

1.45%

2

Population demographics obtained from StatsAmerica provided by the Indiana Business Research Center
Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor and Industry Center for Workforce Information and Analysis.
3
The in-county employee count includes students who are employed by the university.

Appendix C

Page 3

The geographic distribution of Bloomsburg University employees is shown on Map 1.3. 4 359
employees, or 23 percent, live within 10 miles of the university, 142 employees, which
constitutes nine percent of the employees, live within 25 miles, leaving 67 percent of employees
living beyond 25 miles from the university. Refer to Appendix E for the methodology regarding
the composition of this map.

Map 1.3: Bloomsburg Distribution of Employees

Economic Impact
The direct and indirect economic impact of each university was calculated in order to arrive at
the total economic impact that each has on the Commonwealth overall. Exhibit 1.1 provides a
general overview of Bloomsburg University, as well as the direct and indirect economic and
employment impacts of the university on the Commonwealth.

A variety of data sources were used in order to calculate and analyze the spending of each
institution and its employees, students, and visitors. Please refer to Appendix E for additional
4

For the purpose of this illustration, student employees were excluded.

Appendix C

Page 4

detail regarding the data sources utilized for this study.

After collecting the necessary data,

multipliers were utilized to achieve the total economic impact and employment impact of
Bloomsburg University. The multipliers were obtained through the Bureau of Economic
Analysis Regional Industrial Multiplier Systems (“RIMS II”). As a whole, it is noted that
Bloomsburg University has an important role in the Commonwealth in terms of the higher
educational opportunities it provides to residents of the Commonwealth as well as the direct,
indirect, and induced economic benefits the university provides to the Commonwealth.

The total direct economic impact of Bloomsburg University on the Commonwealth was
$263,295,561. This value is represented by four main spending sources: institutional spending,
faculty/staff spending, student spending, and capital expenditures. Note that the institutional
spending includes employment benefits spent primarily in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Bloomsburg University’s Direct Economic Impact on the Commonwealth
(1) Institutional spending: $64,107,887
Benefits:

$34,829,989

(2) Faculty/Staff spending: $63,882,803
(3) Student spending:

$90,272,210

(4) Capital Expenditures: $10,202,671

Total Direct Impact:

$263,295,561

As presented in Table 1.2, the direct impact, $263,295,561, was multiplied by the applicable
state multipliers obtained from the RIMS II data, resulting in a total economic impact of
Bloomsburg University on the Commonwealth of $392,944,290.

By taking the difference

between the total and direct economic impacts, the combined indirect and induced impact is
calculated to be $129,648,729. Please refer to Appendix E for an additional discussion related
to the use of multipliers and the methodology employed to derive the direct and indirect
economic benefits.

Appendix C

Page 5

Table 1.2: Total Economic Impact of Bloomsburg University on the Commonwealth
University
Bloomsburg

$

Total Direct
263,295,561

Total Indirect
$ 113,097,080

Total Induced
$ 16,551,649

$

Total Impact
392,944,290

Chart 1.1: Total Economic Impact (Direct + Indirect + Induced): $392,944,290
$16,551,649

$113,097,080

Total Direct
Total Indirect
Total Induced

$263,295,561

The resulting return of taxpayer dollars via the Commonwealth’s appropriations has a significant
and measurable economic impact on the Commonwealth as a whole. Specifically, the
appropriation to Bloomsburg University made by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and
allocated by the State System, for fiscal year 2013-2014 was $32,994,559. Therefore, each dollar
invested in Bloomsburg University by the Commonwealth via appropriations yielded a return of
approximately $11.91 in total economic impact, as is shown on Table 1.3.

Table 1.3: Statewide Economic Impact of Bloomsburg University Appropriations

University
Bloomsburg

Total Impact
$ 392,944,289

State
Appropriations
$ 32,994,559

Ratio
11.91

University spending in addition to the ancillary spending (faculty and students) yielded income
tax revenues to the Commonwealth, as well as to local municipalities and the state

Appendix C

Page 6

unemployment trust fund. Table 1.4 illustrates the benefits provided by the university’s payroll
expenditures.

Table 1.4: Statewide Economic Impact of Bloomsburg Payroll Tax Withholdings

University
Bloomsburg

State Tax
Withholdings
$ 2,292,524

Local EIT
$ 1,158,465

Local
Services
Tax
$ 77,722

Unemployment
Tax
$
50,794

Total Tax
Payments
$ 3,579,505

In addition, sales tax revenue was collected by the Commonwealth as a result of the consumption
of taxable goods and services by the university’s faculty and staff as well as students. Table 1.5
illustrates the sales tax revenue collected by the Commonwealth. Please refer to Appendix E for
an additional discussion of the methodology employed to estimate the sale tax revenue collected
by the Commonwealth.

Table 1.5: Statewide Economic Impact of Bloomsburg Sales Tax Revenue Collections

University
Bloomsburg

Total Faculty and
Student Spending
$
217,034,843

% of State GDP
taxable
23.89%

Spending subject
to tax
$
51,849,624

Sales Tax
Rate
6.00%

Sales Tax
Revenue
$
3,110,977

In the aggregate, the revenues realized by the Commonwealth in terms of payroll tax
withholdings and sales tax receipts for Bloomsburg University were $5,403,501 or 16.4 percent
of the Commonwealth’s appropriations for fiscal year 2013-2014.

The composite spending activity of the university also has a measureable effect on employment
in the Commonwealth. 5 Specifically the direct spending of three categories enumerated above
helps to create jobs. The employment impact of the aggregate spending of the university and the
ancillary spending of the faculty/staff and students is measured by the RIMS II multiplier which
estimates the number of jobs created per every additional million in spending. 6 Specifically, the
RIMS II state multiplier for Pennsylvania indicated that for each additional million dollars of
output by the State System universities, approximately 21.3 jobs were created or supported. In

5
6

Composite spending activity includes institutional, faculty and staff and student spending.
Please refer to Appendix E for additional information related to the RIMS II multipliers.

Appendix C

Page 7

this manner, the employment impact of Bloomsburg University on the Commonwealth
approximated 5,380 jobs, as is shown in Table 1.6.

Table 1.6: Statewide Employment Impact of Bloomsburg University on the Commonwealth as
a Result of Direct Composite Spending: 5,380 Jobs

Unive rsity
Bloomsburg

Dire ct
Composite
Spe nding
253,092,889

Jobs
Output
21.26

Employme nt
Impact
5,380

The capital expenditures of the university also help to support jobs in the region. This
employment impact is again measured using RIMS II multipliers by estimating the number of
jobs created for every additional million spent on capital expenditures. Specifically, the RIMS II
construction multiplier for Pennsylvania indicated that per each additional million dollars of
output, approximately 17.9 jobs were created or supported. In this manner, the employment
impact of Bloomsburg University on the Commonwealth approximated 183 more jobs, as shown
in Table 1.7. Therefore, the total employment impact of Bloomsburg University is 5,563 jobs.

Table 1.7: Statewide Employment Impact of Bloomsburg University on the Commonwealth as
a Result of Direct Capital Expenditures: 183 Jobs

Direct Capital
University Expenditures
Bloomsburg $ 10,202,671

Jobs
Employment
Output
Impact
17.94
183

The final quantified measure of economic impact would be that of volunteer hours contributed
by faculty and staff. While faculty and staff hours were not tracked by the university, students
did devote their time to helping the community. Bloomsburg students spent a total of 64,500 and
82,000 hours by volunteering, in 2013 and 2014 respectively. It is likely that the students’
participation was required by university curricular and co-curricular programs, some of which
either required supervision or a faculty team leader.

Appendix C

Page 8

Economic Development
Economic development involves improvements to the standard of living through the creation of
jobs and the support of innovation and new research in a community’s region, state, or nation.
The State System plays a role in enhancing the economic development of the regions in which
the individual universities reside by assisting in the development and growth of new and existing
businesses, as well as increasing the employment opportunities, both of which increase economic
activity in the respective areas. The universities accomplish this in various ways, such as
partnering with local businesses, providing education and job skills training, providing an outlet
for research and development through incubators, and by providing financial and technical
assistance.

The goal of Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education and its fourteen universities is
fundamentally to educate the citizens of the Commonwealth. By providing higher education, the
universities are not only helping to improve the economic development in the short-term, but in
the long-run as well. Therefore, by way of establishing and accomplishing its mission,
Pennsylvania’s State System is benefiting the economic advancement of the Commonwealth.
Primarily, the State System does this through the granting of undergraduate and graduate
degrees, but also does so indirectly through its purchasing, expenditures, services, and by
employing hundreds, even thousands, of people.

Overall, Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education is a key player in supporting the
economic development and growth of communities, counties, regions, and the Commonwealth
overall. By providing sources of innovation and entrepreneurial assistance, the State System
supplies economic growth to local businesses along with highly skilled and educated candidate
employees. Through its various economic development activities, Bloomsburg University
successfully provides an economic competitive advantage for the county and the Commonwealth
as a whole.

Bloomsburg University’s participation in WEDnetPA program has over 2,700 participants and
had a total of $288,648 funds awarded in 2014. Additionally, Bloomsburg University maintains
an Entrepreneurial Leadership Center in which 67 members worked with 6 local businesses. The
Appendix C

Page 9

center fosters a positive entrepreneurial climate by enhancing the engagement of students and
faculty in innovation activities with regional entrepreneurs and other stakeholders in the Greater
Susquehanna Keystone Innovation Zone. As a result, the university and its students promote
economic development in northeastern and central Pennsylvania.

Appendix C

Page 10

Exhibit 1.1
Bloomsburg University Information
Location: County
Faculty and Staff Headcount Paid in 2014
Enrollment Characteristics
Enrollment
Undergraduate
Graduate
Total

Fall 2013
9,416
711
10,127

Fall 2014
9,319
679
9,998

Full-time
Part-time
Total

9,155
972
10,127

8,962
1036
9,998

PA residents
Non-residents
Total

8,946
1,181
10,127

8912
1,086
9,998

8,992
424
9,416

8,882
437
9,319

Traditional undergraduate (students under 25)
Non-traditional undergraduate (students over 25)
Total (undergraduate only)
Cost of Attendance
Undergraduate, In-State, FY 2014-2015
Room & Board
Tuition
Fees
Total
Undergraduate, Out-of-State, FY 2014-2015
Room & Board
Tuition
Fees
Total
Graduate, In-State, FY 2014-2015
Tuition (per credit)
Fees¹
Total (per credit)
Graduate, Out-of-State, FY 2014-2015
Tuition (per credit)
Fees¹
Total (per credit)
Financial Characteristics
Revenues, FY 2013-2014
Tuition
Tuition from undergraduate in-state students
Tuition from undergraduate out-of-state students
Tuition from graduate in-state students
Tuition from graduate out-of-state students
Total

Appendix C

Columbia
1,528

$

$
$

$
$
$
$
$

7,874
6,820
2,094
16,788
7,874
17,050
2,314
27,238
454
183
637
681
195
876

54,608,086
18,093,763
5,259,069
1,402,602
$ 79,363,520

Page 11

Financial Characteristics
Fees
Mandatory Fees
Technology, Academic/Instruction, and Other Mandatory Fees
Non-Mandatory Fees
Non-Mandatory Fees
Total

$

17,412,690

$

861,956
18,274,646

Total from Tuition & Fees

$

97,638,166

Sales and Services

$

2,650,786

Education and General Appropriations

$

32,994,559

$

14,955,597
9,359,104
1,010,571
10,324
25,335,596

Grants and Contracts
Federal
State
Local/Other/Private
System Transfer Awards
Total grants and contracts

$

Other Revenues (net of scholarship discounts and allowances)
Total Revenues (from sources above)

$ 35,924,648
$ 194,543,755

Funds Raised by University (private giving)
Market Value of Endowment
Total Replacement Value of Physical Plant
The Institution as a Consumer in the State
Institutional Expenditures
Institutional spending (excluding payroll)
Capital Improvements
Employee Benefits
Total Direct Institutional Spending
Institutional spending prorated by 10.86% of out of state students
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Institutional Spending

$
690,081
$ 31,349,919
$ 933,300,000

Faculty and Staff Expenditures
Faculty and staff spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Faculty and Staff Spending

Appendix C

$

61,695,020
2,412,867
34,829,989
98,937,876
10,746,803
1.53
16,480,222
2.33
25,061,544
8,581,322
$ 132,580,742

$
$

63,882,803
1.41
89,940,599

Page 12

The Institution as a Consumer in the State
Student Expenditures
Student spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Student Spending
Capital Expenditures
Capital Improvements - 5 year weighted average
Deferred Maintenance
Total Direct Capital Expenditures
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Capital Expenditures
The Institution as an Employer
Employment impact for the Commonwealth
Direct composite expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Composite Spending (jobs)
Direct capital expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Direct Expenditures (jobs)
Total Employment Impact
The University as a Center for Volunteerism
In-Kind (Volunteer) Contributions to Regional Economy
Annual volunteer hours of faculty and staff
Average market value of volunteer hours (per hour)
Estimated total contribution of faculty and staff
Annual volunteer hours of students (2014)
Business and Economic Development Services
Small Business Incubator
Small Business Development Center
Patents filed since January 1, 2010
The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Sales Tax
Total Faculty and Staff and Student Spending
Imputed % of taxable spending
Spending subject to tax
Sales tax rate
Total State Sales Tax Revenue Generation

Appendix C

$

90,272,210
1.41
$ 127,094,244

$

$

9,165,333
1,037,338
10,202,671
1.68
17,185,380
2.47
25,155,706
7,970,327
43,328,705

$ 253,092,889
21.26
5,380
$ 10,202,671
17.94
183
5,563

N/A
N/A
N/A
82,000
No
No
0

$ 217,034,843
23.89%
51,849,624
6%
$
3,110,977

Page 13

The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Payroll Tax
Total payroll
State tax withholdings
Local EIT
Local Services Tax
Unemployment tax
Total Payroll Tax Payments
¹Fees prorated on a per credit basis; all fees included.

Appendix C

$

$

76,735,175
2,292,524
1,158,465
77,722
50,794
3,579,505

Page 14

California University of Pennsylvania
Washington County, PA

California University of Pennsylvania (“CAL U”) was founded in 1852 and is located on 294
acres in the borough of California, Pa., just 35 miles south of Pittsburgh on the banks of the
Monongahela River. Here, highly trained faculty members, caring staff, and state-of-the-art
facilities combine to help every student develop a degree of character while preparing for a
meaningful career. A proud member of Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education,
California University of Pennsylvania serves more than 6,000 undergraduate and 1,900 graduate
students. It offers 130 undergraduate majors and 35 graduate programs.

Map 2.1 demonstrates these students come from all across the state, thus contributing to the
economic impact of the State System.

Appendix C

Page 15

The university employs about 420 faculty members, of whom 81 percent have a doctorate or
other post-graduate degree. It is a part of the Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference and is a
NCAA Division II school offering 16 varsity sports. Additionally, the university has more than
100 clubs and organizations for students to join. Geraldine M. Jones was named the acting
president of California University of Pennsylvania in May 2012. 1

Map 2.2 demonstrates California University of Pennsylvania’s alumni that still reside in the
Commonwealth.

California University of Pennsylvania is located in Washington County, PA. This county has a
population of 208,206 people, 857.0 sq. miles in land area and a population density of 242.9 per
square mile. The population has grown 0.2 percent since the last census in 2010. The average
household size is 2.4 persons compared to an average family size of 2.9 persons. On the most
recent census form, 98.5 percent of the population reported only one race, with 3.3 percent of
these reporting African-American. The population of this county is 1.1 percent Hispanic (of any

1

Excerpts obtained from California University of Pennsylvania’s website, www.calu.edu.

Appendix C

Page 16

race). In 2013 health care and social assistance was the largest of 20 major sectors. There was a
labor force of 108,858 people and an unemployment rate of 6.9 percent as of 2013.
Below are some of Washington County’s population demographics. 2
Value

Rank
in
State

Population (2013)
Growth ( percent) since 2010
Census
Households (2013)

208,206

18

0.2%

24

84,098

18

Labor Force (persons) (2013)
Unemployment Rate (2013)

108,858
6.9

17
47

Per Capita Personal Income (2013)
Median Household Income (2013)

$49,399
$54,919

7
16

10.9

52

90.4

14

25.6

14

People & Income Overview
(By Place of Residence)

Poverty Rate (2013)
H.S. Diploma or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2013 ACS 5yr)
Bachelor Deg. or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2013 ACS 5yr)

Countywide labor force data and countywide employment impact as a result of California
University of Pennsylvania is shown in Table 2.1. Out of the 108,858 people in the available
county’s labor force, CAL U employed 663 in-county jobs and therefore, had an in-county
percentage employment impact on the available labor force of 0.6 percent. Furthermore, the
countywide employment impact as a percent of the number of people employed in Washington
County can also be calculated. Of the 103,200 total people employed in Washington County,
663 were employed by California University of Pennsylvania and live in-county; therefore the
university’s countywide employment impact is 0.6 percent. 3
Table 2.1: Labor Force Data, Washington County: Averages and Countywide Employment
Impact
`

University
California

County
Washington

Employer
Ranking
(2014)

Employee
Count

7

663

Countywide Impact
Labor
Force
% of Labor
(2013)
Force
108,858

0.61%

Employed
(2014)
103,200

% of
Employed
0.64%

2

Population demographics obtained from StatsAmerica provided by the Indiana Business Research Center
Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor and Industry Center for Workforce Information and Analysis.
3
The in-county employee count includes students who are employed by the university.

Appendix C

Page 17

The geographic distribution of California University of Pennsylvania employees is shown on
Map 2.3. 4 478 employees, or 43 percent, live within 10 miles of the university, 407 employees,
which constitutes 36 percent of the total employees, live within 25 miles, leaving 21 percent of
employees living beyond 25 miles from the university.

Refer to Appendix E for the

methodology regarding the composition of this map.

Map 2.3: California University of Pennsylvania’s Distribution of Employees

Economic Impact
The direct and indirect economic impact of each university was calculated in order to arrive at
the total economic impact that each has on the Commonwealth overall. Exhibit 2.1 provides a
general overview of California University of Pennsylvania, as well as the direct and indirect
economic and employment impacts of the university on the Commonwealth.

A variety of data sources were used in order to calculate and analyze the spending of each
institution and its employees, students, and visitors. Please refer to Appendix E for additional
4

For the purpose of this illustration, student employees were excluded.

Appendix C

Page 18

detail regarding the data sources utilized for this study. After collecting the necessary data,
multipliers were utilized to achieve the total economic impact and employment impact of
California University of Pennsylvania. The multipliers were obtained through the Bureau of
Economic Analysis Regional Industrial Multiplier Systems (“RIMS II”). As a whole, it is noted
that California University of Pennsylvania has an important role in the Commonwealth in terms
of the higher educational opportunities it provides to residents of the Commonwealth as well as
the direct, indirect, and induced economic benefits the university provides to the
Commonwealth.

The total direct economic impact of California University of Pennsylvania on the
Commonwealth was $233,781,165. This value is represented by four main spending sources:
institutional spending, faculty/staff spending student spending, and capital expenditures. Note
that the institutional spending includes employment benefits spent primarily in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

California University of Pennsylvania’s Direct Economic Impact on the Commonwealth
(1) Institutional spending:
Benefits:

$49,803,443
$25,753,879

(2) Faculty/Staff spending: $49,281,008
(3) Student spending:
(4) Capital Expenditures

Total Direct Impact:

$106,794,266
$2,148,569

$233,781,165

As presented in Table 2.2, the direct impact, $233,781,165, was multiplied by the applicable
state multipliers obtained from the RIMS II data, resulting in a total economic impact of
California University of Pennsylvania on the Commonwealth of $340,976,298. By taking the
difference between the total and direct economic impacts, the combined indirect and induced
impact is calculated to be $107,195,133. Please refer to Appendix E for an additional discussion
related to the use of multipliers and the methodology employed to derive the direct and indirect
economic benefits.
Appendix C

Page 19

Table 2.2: Total Economic Impact of California University of Pennsylvania on the
Commonwealth
University
California

Total Direct
$ 233,781,165

Total Indirect
$ 96,192,279

Total Induced
$ 11,002,854

Total Impact
$ 340,976,298

Chart 2.1: Total Economic Impact (Direct + Indirect + Induced): $340,976,298
$11,002,854

$96,192,279

Total Direct
Total Indirect
Total Induced

$233,781,165

The resulting return of taxpayer dollars via the Commonwealth’s appropriations has a significant
and measurable economic impact on the Commonwealth as a whole.

Specifically, the

appropriation to California University of Pennsylvania made by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, and allocated by the State System, for fiscal year 2013-2015 was $29,751,310.
Therefore, each dollar invested in California University of Pennsylvania by the Commonwealth
via appropriations yielded a return of approximately $11.46 in total economic impact, as is
shown on Table 2.3.

Table 2.3: Statewide Economic Impact of California University of Pennsylvania
Appropriations

University
California

Appendix C

Total Impact
$ 340,976,298

State
Appropriations
$ 29,751,310

Ratio
11.46

Page 20

University spending in addition to the ancillary spending (faculty and students) yielded income
tax revenues to the Commonwealth, as well as to local municipalities and the state
unemployment trust fund. Table 2.4 illustrates the benefits provided by the university’s payroll
expenditures.

Table 2.4: Statewide Economic Impact of California University of Pennsylvania Payroll Tax
Withholdings

University
California

State Tax
Withholdings
$ 1,787,436

Local EIT
$ 663,336

Local
Services
Tax
$ 92,342

Unemployment
Tax
$
39,812

Total Tax
Payments
$ 2,582,926

In addition, sales tax revenue was collected by the Commonwealth as a result of the consumption
of taxable goods and services by the university’s faculty and staff as well as students. Table 2.5
illustrates the sales tax revenue collected by the Commonwealth. Please refer to Appendix E for
an additional discussion of the methodology employed to estimate the sale tax revenue collected
by the Commonwealth.

Table 2.5: Statewide Economic Impact of California University of Pennsylvania Sales Tax
Revenue Collections

Unive rsity
California

Total Faculty and
Stude nt Spe nding
$
219,738,378

Spe nding
subje ct to tax
$ 52,495,499

Sale s
Tax Rate
6.00%

Sale s Tax
Re ve nue
$ 3,149,730

In the aggregate, the revenues realized by the Commonwealth in terms of payroll tax
withholdings and sales tax receipts for California University of Pennsylvania were $4,937,166 or
16.6 percent of the Commonwealth’s appropriations for fiscal year 2013-2014.

The composite spending activity of the university also has a measureable effect on employment
in the Commonwealth. 5 Specifically the direct spending of three categories enumerated above
helps to create jobs. The employment impact of the aggregate spending of the university and the
ancillary spending of the faculty/staff and students is measured by the RIMS II multiplier which
5

Composite spending activity includes institutional, faculty and staff, and student spending.

Appendix C

Page 21

estimates the number of jobs created per every additional million in spending. 6 Specifically, the
RIMS II state multiplier for Pennsylvania indicated that for each additional million dollars of
output by State System universities, approximately 21.3 jobs were created or supported. In this
manner, the employment impact of California University of Pennsylvania on the Commonwealth
approximated 4,924 jobs, as is shown in Table 2.6.

Table 2.6: Statewide Employment Impact of California University of Pennsylvania on the
Commonwealth as a Result of Direct Composite Spending: 4,924 Jobs

Unive rsity
California

Dire ct
Composite
Spe nding
231,632,596

Jobs
Output
21.26

Employme nt
Impact
4,924

The capital expenditures of the university also help to support jobs in the region.

This

employment impact is again measured using RIMS II multipliers by estimating the number of
jobs created for every additional million spent on capital expenditures. Specifically, the RIMS II
construction multiplier for Pennsylvania indicated that per each additional million dollars of
output, 17.94 jobs were created or supported.

In this manner, the employment impact of

California University of Pennsylvania on the Commonwealth approximated 39 more jobs, as
shown in Table 2.7.

Therefore, the total employment impact of California University of

Pennsylvania is 4,962 jobs.

Table 2.7: Statewide Employment Impact of California University of Pennsylvania on the
Commonwealth as a Result of Direct Capital Expenditures: 39 Jobs
University
California

Direct Capital
Employment
Expenditures Jobs Output
Impact
2,148,569
17.94
39

The final quantified measure of economic impact would be that of volunteer hours contributed
by faculty and staff. While the university did not track the volunteer hours conducted by faculty
and staff, students did devote their time to helping the community. California University of
Pennsylvania students spent a total of 23,000 hours volunteering in 2013. It is likely that the
6

Please refer to Appendix E for additional information related to the RIMS II multipliers.

Appendix C

Page 22

students’ participation was required by university curricular and co-curricular programs, some of
which either required supervision or a faculty team leader.

Economic Development
Economic development involves improvements to the standard of living through the creation of
jobs and the support of innovation and new research in a community’s region, state, or nation.
The State System plays a role in enhancing the economic development of the regions in which
the individual universities reside by assisting in the development and growth of new and existing
businesses, as well as increasing the employment opportunities, both of which increase economic
activity in the respective areas. The universities accomplish this in various ways, such as
partnering with local businesses, providing education and job skills training, providing an outlet
for research and development through incubators, and by providing financial and technical
assistance.

The goal of Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education and its 14 universities is
fundamentally to educate the citizens of the Commonwealth. By providing higher education, the
universities are not only helping to improve the economic development in the short-term, but in
the long-run as well.

Therefore, by way of establishing and accomplishing its mission,

Pennsylvania’s State System is benefiting the economic advancement of the Commonwealth.
Primarily, the State System does this through the granting of undergraduate and graduate
degrees, but also does so indirectly through its purchasing, expenditures, services, and by
employing hundreds, even thousands, of people.

Overall, Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education is a key player in supporting the
economic development and growth of communities, counties, regions, and the Commonwealth
overall. By providing sources of innovation and entrepreneurial assistance, the State System
supplies economic growth to local businesses along with highly skilled and educated candidate
employees.

Through its various economic development activities, California University of

Pennsylvania successfully provides an economic competitive advantage for the county and the
Commonwealth as a whole.

Appendix C

Page 23

California University of Pennsylvania’s participation in its Customized Job Training program
has over 6,000 contracts with a total value of $207,286,773. Additionally, California University
of Pennsylvania offers several other workforce development programs such as GACO
Workshops and Counseling Sessions, Social Work Certificate Workshops and Career and
Internship Services. In 2014, these programs had a total of 5,147 participants and partnered up
with 1,951 businesses in efforts to improve workforce development.

Appendix C

Page 24

Exhibit 2.1
California University of Pennsylvania Information
Location: County
Faculty and Staff Headcount Paid in 2014
Enrollment Characteristics
Enrollment
Fall 2013
Undergraduate
6,450
Graduate
1,793
Total
8,243

Fall 2014
6,076
1,902
7,978

Full-time
Part-time
Total

6,527
1,716
8,243

6,191
1,787
7,978

PA residents
Non-residents
Total

6,982
1,261
8,243

6,745
1,233
7,978

5,266
1,184
6,450

4950
1125
6,075

Traditional undergraduate (students under 25)
Non-traditional undergraduate (students over 25)
Total (undergraduate only)¹
Cost of Attendance
Undergraduate, In-State, FY 2014-2015
Room & Board
Tuition
Fees
Total
Undergraduate, Out-of-State, FY 2014-2015
Room & Board
Tuition
Fees
Total
Graduate, In-State, FY 2014-2015
Tuition (full-time)
Fees
Total
Graduate, Out-of-State, FY 2014-2015
Tuition (full-time)
Fees
Total
Financial Characteristics
Revenues, FY 2013-2014
Tuition
Tuition from undergraduate in-state students
Tuition from undergraduate out-of-state students
Tuition from graduate in-state students
Tuition from graduate out-of-state students
Total

Appendix C

Washington
1,122

$

$
$

$
$
$
$
$

$

$

10,086
6,820
2,737
19,643
10,086
10,230
3,319
23,635
10,782
150
10,932
15,474
150
15,624

36,821,770
6,943,793
12,772,719
9,161,073
65,699,355

Page 25

Financial Characteristics
Fees
Mandatory Fees
Technology, Academic/Instruction, and Other Mandatory Fees
Non-Mandatory Fees
Non-Mandatory Fees
Total

$

401,974
12,224,082

Total from Tuition and Fees

$

77,923,437

11,822,108

Sales and Services

$

2,518,563

Education and General Appropriations

$

29,751,310

$

$

13,312,444
6,846,345
382,115
37,142
20,578,046

Other Revenues (net of scholarship discounts and allowances)
Total Revenues (from sources above)

$
$

16,277,823
147,049,179

Funds Raised by University (private giving)
Market Value of Endowment
Total Replacement Value of Physical Plant
The Institution as a Consumer in the State
Institutional Expenditures
Institutional spending (excluding payroll)
Capital Improvements
Employee Benefits
Total Direct Institutional Spending
Institutional spending prorated by 15.46% of out of state students
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Institutional Spending

$
$
$

1,191,138
29,577,549
710,700,000

$

49,646,866
156,577
25,753,879
75,557,322
11,677,385
1.53
17,907,270
2.33
27,231,662
9,324,392
112,113,376

Grants and Contracts
Federal
State
Local/Other/Private
System Transfer Awards
Total grants and contracts

Faculty and Staff Expenditures
Faculty and staff spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Faculty and Staff Spending

Appendix C

$

$
$

49,281,008
1.41
69,382,731

Page 26

Financial Characteristics
Student Expenditures
Student spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Student Spending
Capital Expenditures
Capital Improvements - 5 year weighted average
Deferred Maintenance
Total Direct Capital Expenditures
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Capital Expenditures
The Institution as an Employer
Employment impact for the Commonwealth
Direct composite expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Composite Spending (jobs)
Direct capital expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Direct Expenditures (jobs)
Total Employment Impact
The University as a Center for Volunteerism
In-Kind (Volunteer) Contributions to Regional Economy
Annual volunteer hours of faculty and staff
Average market value of volunteer hours (per hour)
Estimated total contribution of faculty and staff
Annual volunteer hours of students (2014)
Business and Economic Development Services
Small Business Incubator
Small Business Development Center
Patents filed since January 1, 2010
The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Sales Tax
Total Faculty and Staff and Student Spending
Imputed % of taxable spending
Spending subject to tax
Sales tax rate
Total State Sales Tax Revenue Generation

Appendix C

$
$

$

$

$

$

106,794,266
1.41
150,355,647

1,273,333
875,236
2,148,569
1.68
3,619,050
2.47
5,297,513
1,678,462
9,124,544

231,632,596
21.26
4,924
2,148,569
17.94
39
4,962

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
No
No
0

$

$

219,738,378
23.89%
52,495,499
6%
3,149,730

Page 27

The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Payroll Tax
Total payroll
State tax withholdings
Local EIT
Local Services Tax
Unemployment tax
Total Payroll Tax Payments

$

$

61,314,052
1,787,436
663,336
92,342
39,812
2,582,926

¹In Fall 2014, there was a variance of one undergraduate student. The variance results from an unknown classification regarding traditional vs. non-traditional.

Appendix C

Page 28

Cheyney University of Pennsylvania
Delaware County, PA

Founded in 1837 as the Institute for Colored Youth, Cheyney University of Pennsylvania is
known as the first institution of higher learning for African Americans. The school began in
Philadelphia as the Institute for Colored Youth and successfully provided free classical education
for qualified young people. In 1902, the Institute moved to George Cheyney’s farm, 25 miles
west of Philadelphia.

It was finally named Cheyney State College in 1959 and joined

Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education (“State System”) in 1983 as Cheyney
University of Pennsylvania. In fall 2014, the University enrolled 997 undergraduate students and
25 graduate students.

Map 3.1 demonstrates these students come from all across the state, thus contributing to the
economic impact of the State System.

Cheyney University is proud of its more than 30,000 graduates. Well known alumni include
journalist Ed Bradley of the CBS program “60 Minutes” and Robert W. Bogle, publisher and
Appendix C

Page 29

CEO of the Philadelphia Tribune, among others.

Currently, Dr. Frank G. Pogue, former

President of Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, is Cheyney University’s interim president,
selected by the Board of Governors of the State System on October 9, 2014. 1

Map 3.2 demonstrates Cheyney University’s alumni that still reside in the Commonwealth.

Cheyney University is established in Delaware County, PA. Delaware County has 183.8 sq.
miles in land area and a population density of 3,057.5 per square mile. As of 2010, 98.1 percent
of the population reported only one race, with 19.7 percent of these reporting African-American.
The population of this county is three percent Hispanic (of any race). The average household
size is 2.6 persons compared to an average family size of 3.2 persons. During 2013, Delaware
County had a 0.6 percent increase in population since the last census in 2010. Additionally, the
labor force was 282,071 people with an unemployment rate of 7.5 percent in 2013. Health care
and social assistance was the largest of 20 major sectors in this county during that time frame.

1

Excerpts obtained from Cheyney University’s website, www.cheyney.edu.

Appendix C

Page 30

Below are some of Delaware County’s population demographics. 2
Value

Rank
in
State

Population (2013)
Growth ( percent) since 2010
Census

561,973

5

0.6%

18

Households (2012)
Labor Force (persons) (2013)

206,021
282,071

5
5

Unemployment Rate (2013)
Per Capita Personal Income (2012)

7.5
$52,823

34
4

Median Household Income (2012)
Poverty Rate (2012)

$60,900
11.7

4
51

H.S. Diploma or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2012 ACS 5yr)

91.5

9

Bachelor Deg. or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2012 ACS 5yr)

34.9

6

People & Income Overview
(By Place of Residence)

Countywide labor force data and countywide employment impact as a result of Cheyney
University is shown in Table 3.1. Out of the 282,071 people in the available labor force,
Cheyney University employed 105 in-county jobs and therefore, had an in-county percentage
employment impact on the available labor force of approximately one half of a percent.
Furthermore, the countywide employment impact as a percent of the number of people employed
in Delaware County can also be calculated. Of the 263,600 total people employed in Delaware
County, 105 were employed by Cheyney University and live in-county; therefore the university’s
countywide employment impact is approximately one half of a percent. 3

Table 3.1: Labor Force Data, Delaware County: Averages and Countywide Employment
Impact

University
Cheyney

County
Delaware

Employer
Ranking
(2014)

Employee
Count

N/A

105

Countywide Impact
Labor
Force
% of Labor
(2013)
Force
282,071

0.04%

Employed
(2014)
263,600

% of
Employed
0.04%

The geographic distribution of Cheyney University employees is shown on Map 3.3. 4 84
employees, or 23 percent, live within 10 miles of the university, 168 employees, which
2

Population demographics obtained from StatsAmerica provided by the Indiana Business Research Center
Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor and Industry Center for Workforce Information and Analysis.
3
The in-county employee count includes students who are employed by the university.
4
For the purpose of this illustration, student employees were excluded.

Appendix C

Page 31

constitutes 46 percent of the total employees, live within 25 miles, leaving 31 percent of
employees living beyond 25 miles from the university.

Refer to Appendix E for the

methodology regarding the composition of this map.

Map 3.3: Cheyney University’s Distribution of Employees

Economic Impact
The direct and indirect economic impact of each university was calculated in order to arrive at
the total economic impact that each has on the Commonwealth overall. Exhibit 3.1 provides a
general overview of Cheyney University, as well as the direct and indirect economic and
employment impacts of the university on the Commonwealth.

A variety of data sources were used in order to calculate and analyze the spending of each
institution and its employees, students, and visitors. Please refer to Appendix E for additional
detail regarding the data sources utilized for this study. After collecting the necessary data,
multipliers were utilized to achieve the total economic impact and employment impact of
Cheyney University. The multipliers were obtained through the Bureau of Economic Analysis
Appendix C

Page 32

Regional Industrial Multiplier Systems (“RIMS II”). As a whole, it is noted that Cheyney
University has an important role in the Commonwealth in terms of the higher educational
opportunities it provides to residents of the Commonwealth as well as the direct, indirect, and
induced economic benefits the university provides to the Commonwealth.

The total direct economic impact of Cheyney University on the Commonwealth was
$58,476,432. This value is represented by four main spending sources: institutional spending,
faculty/staff spending, student spending, and capital expenditures. Note that the institutional
spending includes employment benefits spent primarily in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Cheyney University’s Direct Economic Impact on the Commonwealth
(1) Institutional spending: $21,706,150
Benefits:

$7,655,748

(2) Faculty/Staff spending: $14,857,838
(3) Student spending:

$7,162,092

(4) Capital Expenditures: $7,094,604

Total Direct Impact:

$58,476,432

As presented in Table 3.2, the direct impact, $58,476,432, was multiplied by the applicable state
multipliers obtained from the RIMS II data, resulting in a total economic impact of Cheyney
University on the Commonwealth of $115,406,159. By taking the difference between the total
and direct economic impacts, the combined indirect and induced impact is calculated to be
$56,929,728. Please refer to Appendix E for an additional discussion related to the use of
multipliers and the methodology employed to derive the direct and indirect economic benefits.

Table 3.2: Total Economic Impact of Cheyney University on the Commonwealth
University
Cheyney

Appendix C

Total Direct
$ 58,476,432

Total Indirect
$ 45,032,828

Total Induced
$ 11,896,900

Total Impact
$ 115,406,159

Page 33

Chart 3.1: Total Economic Impact (Direct + Indirect + Induced): $115,406,159
$11,896,900

Total Direct
Total Indirect

$45,032,828

Total Induced

$58,476,432

The resulting return of taxpayer dollars via the Commonwealth’s appropriations has a significant
and measurable economic impact on the Commonwealth as a whole.

Specifically, the

appropriation to Cheyney University made by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and allocated
by the State System, for fiscal year 2013-2014 was $13,098,158. Therefore, each dollar invested
in Cheyney University by the Commonwealth via appropriations yielded a return of $8.81 in
total economic impact, as is shown on Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Statewide Economic Impact of Cheyney University Appropriations

University
Cheyney

Total Impact
$ 115,406,159

State
Appropriations
$ 13,098,158

Ratio
8.81

University spending in addition to the ancillary spending (faculty and students) yielded income
tax revenues to the Commonwealth, as well as to local municipalities and the state
unemployment trust fund. Table 3.4 illustrates the benefits provided by the university’s payroll
expenditures.

Appendix C

Page 34

Table 3.4: Statewide Economic Impact of Cheyney University Payroll Tax Withholdings

University
Cheyney

State Tax
Withholdings
$ 488,093

Local
Services
Tax
$
55

Local EIT
$ 250,803

Unemployment
Tax
$
11,401

Total Tax
Payments
$ 750,352

In addition, sales tax revenue was collected by the Commonwealth as a result of the consumption
of taxable goods and services by the university’s faculty and staff as well as students. Table 3.5
illustrates the sales tax revenue collected by the Commonwealth. Please refer to Appendix E for
an additional discussion of the methodology employed to estimate the sale tax revenue collected
by the Commonwealth.

Table 3.5: Statewide Economic Impact of Cheyney University Sales Tax Revenue Collections

Unive rsity
Cheyney

Total Faculty and
Stude nt Spe nding
$
31,001,859

Spe nding
subje ct to tax
$
7,406,344

Sale s
Tax Rate
6.00%

Sale s Tax
Re ve nue
$
444,381

In the aggregate, the revenues realized by the Commonwealth in terms of payroll tax
withholdings and sales tax receipts for Cheyney University were $932,473 or 7.1 percent of the
Commonwealth’s appropriations for fiscal year 2013-2014.

The composite spending activity of the university also has a measureable effect on employment
in the Commonwealth. 5 Specifically the direct spending of three categories enumerated above
helps to create jobs. The employment impact of the aggregate spending of the university and the
ancillary spending of the faculty/staff and students is measured by the RIMS II multiplier which
estimates the number of jobs created per every additional million in spending. 6 Specifically, the
RIMS II state multiplier for Pennsylvania indicated that for each additional million dollars of
output by the State System universities, approximately 21.3 jobs were created or supported. In
this manner, the employment impact of Cheyney University on the Commonwealth
approximated 1,092 jobs, as is shown in Table 3.6.

5
6

Composite spending activity includes institutional, faculty and staff and student spending.
Please refer to Appendix E for additional information related to the RIMS II multipliers.

Appendix C

Page 35

Table 3.6: Statewide Employment Impact of Cheyney University on the Commonwealth as
Result of Direct Composite Spending: 1,092 Jobs

Unive rsity
Cheyney

Dire ct
Composite
Spe nding
51,381,828

Jobs
Output
21.26

Employme nt
Impact
1,092

The capital expenditures of the university also help to support jobs in the region.

This

employment impact is again measured using RIMS II multipliers by estimating the number of
jobs created for every additional million spent on capital expenditures. Specifically, the RIMS II
construction multiplier for Pennsylvania indicated that per each additional million dollars of
output, approximately 17.9 jobs were created or supported. In this manner, the employment
impact of Cheyney University on the Commonwealth approximated 127 more jobs, as shown in
Table 3.7. Therefore, the total employment impact of Cheyney University is 1,219 jobs.

Table 3.7: Statewide Employment Impact of Cheyney University on the Commonwealth as a
Result of Direct Capital Expenditures: 127 Jobs
University
Cheyney

Direct Capital
Expenditures
7,094,604

Jobs Output

Employment
Impact

17.84

127

The final quantified measure of economic impact would be that of volunteer hours contributed
by faculty and staff. However, Cheyney University does not formally track the amount of
volunteerism conducted by students, faculty, or staff. It is important to note that it is likely that
the student participation is required by university curricular and co-curricular programs, some of
which either required supervision or a faculty team leader.

Economic Development
Economic development involves improvements to the standard of living through the creation of
jobs and the support of innovation and new research in a community’s region, state, or nation.
The State System plays a role in enhancing the economic development of the regions in which
the individual universities reside by assisting in the development and growth of new and existing
businesses, as well as increasing the employment opportunities, both of which increase economic
activity in the respective areas. The universities accomplish this in various ways, such as
Appendix C

Page 36

partnering with local businesses, providing education and job skills training, providing an outlet
for research and development through incubators, and by providing financial and technical
assistance.

The goal of Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education and its 14 universities is
fundamentally to educate the citizens of the Commonwealth. By providing higher education, the
universities are not only helping to improve the economic development in the short-term, but in
the long-run as well.

Therefore, by way of establishing and accomplishing its mission,

Pennsylvania’s State System is benefiting the economic advancement of the Commonwealth.
Primarily, the State System does this through the granting of undergraduate and graduate
degrees, but also does so indirectly through its purchasing, expenditures, services, and by
employing hundreds, even thousands, of people.

Overall, Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education is a key player in supporting the
economic development and growth of communities, counties, regions, and the Commonwealth
overall. By providing sources of innovation and entrepreneurial assistance, the State System
supplies economic growth to local businesses along with highly skilled and educated candidate
employees.

Through its various economic development activities, Cheyney University

successfully provides an economic competitive advantage for the county and the Commonwealth
as a whole.

Cheyney University’s participation in WEDnetPA program has over 900 participants and had a
total of $184,072 funds awarded in 2014.

Additionally, Cheyney University has a Small

Business Enterprise Supportive Services Center, as well as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
Supportive Services Center that counseled over 475 individuals and over 500 businesses in 2014.
In other words, Cheyney University contributed over 4,700 hours to the institution’s economic
development efforts.

Appendix C

Page 37

Exhibit 3.1
Cheyney University Information
Location: County
Faculty and Staff Headcount Paid in 2014
Enrollment Characteristics
Enrollment
Undergraduate
Graduate
Total

Delaware*
362
Fall 2013
1,179
33
1,212

Fall 2014
997
25
1,022

Full-time
Part-time
Total

1,123
89
1,212

942
80
1,022

PA residents
Non-residents
Total

947
265
1,212

745
277
1,022

Traditional undergraduate (students under 25)
Non-traditional undergraduate (students over 25)
Total (undergraduate only)¹
Cost of Attendance
Undergraduate, In-State, FY 2014-2015
Room & Board
Tuition
Fees
Total
Undergraduate, Out-of-State, FY 2014-2015
Room & Board
Tuition
Fees
Total
Graduate, In-State, FY 2014-2015
Tuition (15 credits)
Fees
Total
Graduate, Out-of-State, FY 2014-2015
Tuition (15 credits)
Fees
Total
Financial Characteristics
Revenues, FY 2013-2014
Tuition
Tuition from undergraduate in-state students
Tuition from undergraduate out-of-state students
Tuition from graduate in-state students
Tuition from graduate out-of-state students
Total

1,049
128
1,177

882
114
996

$

$
$

$
$
$
$
$

11,252
6,820
2,270
20,342
11,252
11,254
2,490
24,996
6,135
819
6,954
9,195
999
10,194

$ 5,942,864
2,670,767
204,936
51,600
$ 8,870,167

*A portion of the Cheyney campus lies within Chester County.

Appendix C

Page 38

Financial Characteristics
Fees
Mandatory Fees
Technology, Academic/Instruction, and Other Mandatory Fees
Non-Mandatory Fees
Non-Mandatory Fees
Total
Total from Tuition and Fees
Sales and Services

$ 2,346,954
27,017
$ 2,373,971
$ 11,244,138
$ 78,790

Education and General Appropriations

$ 13,098,158

Grants and Contracts
Federal
State
Local/Other/Private
System Transfer Awards
Total grants and contracts

8,028,360
4,076,440
407,854
306,834
$ 12,819,488

Other Revenues (net of scholarship discounts and allowances)
Total Revenues (from sources above)

$ 9,663,031
$ 46,903,605

Funds Raised by University (private giving)
Market Value of Endowment
Total Replacement Value of Physical Plant
The Institution as a Consumer in the State
Institutional Expenditures
Institutional spending (excluding payroll)
Capital Improvements
Employee Benefits
Total Direct Institutional Spending
Institutional spending prorated by 27.10% of out of state students
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Institutional Spending

$ 1,027,792
$ 2,917,152
$ 504,800,000

Faculty and Staff Expenditures
Faculty and staff spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Faculty and Staff Spending

Appendix C

$ 20,766,533
939,617
7,655,748
29,361,898
7,958,166
1.53
12,203,848
2.33
18,558,443
6,354,596
$ 54,274,937

$ 14,857,838
1.41
$ 20,918,350

Page 39

The Institution as a Consumer in the State
Student Expenditures
Student spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Student Spending
Capital Expenditures
Capital Improvements - 5 year weighted average
Deferred Maintenance
Total Direct Capital Expenditures
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Capital Expenditures
The Institution as an Employer
Employment impact for the Commonwealth
Direct composite expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Composite Spending (jobs)
Direct capital expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Direct Expenditures (jobs)
Total Employment Impact
The University as a Center for Volunteerism
In-Kind (Volunteer) Contributions to Regional Economy
Annual volunteer hours of faculty and staff
Average market value of volunteer hours (per hour)
Estimated total contribution of faculty and staff
Annual volunteer hours of students (2014)
Business and Economic Development Services
Small Business Incubator
Small Business Development Center
Patents filed since January 1, 2010
The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Sales Tax
Total Faculty and Staff and Student Spending
Imputed % of taxable spending
Spending subject to tax
Sales tax rate
Total State Tax Revenue Generation

Appendix C

$

7,162,092
1.41
$ 10,083,509

$

6,606,667
487,937
7,094,604
1.68
11,950,150
2.47
17,492,455
5,542,304
$ 30,129,363

$ 51,381,828
21.26
1,092
$ 7,094,604
17.94
127
1,219

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
0

$ 31,001,859
23.89%
7,406,344
6%
$
444,381

Page 40

The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Payroll Tax
Total payroll
State tax withholdings
Local EIT
Local Services Tax
Unemployment tax
Total Payroll Tax Payments

$ 16,537,354
488,093
250,803
55
11,401
$
750,352

¹For Fall 2013 and Fall 2014, there were variances of 2 and 1 students, respectively. The variance results from unknown classifications regarding
traditional vs. non-traditional undergraduate students.

Appendix C

Page 41

Clarion University of Pennsylvania
Clarion County, PA

Founded in 1867, Clarion University began as the Carrier Seminary of western Pennsylvania. It
became Clarion State Normal School in 1887 and was purchased by the Commonwealth in
December 1915. It wasn’t until 1929, however, that Clarion officially became a college. Clarion
University’s vision is to be a leader in high-impact educational practices that benefit students,
employers, and community partners. To do so, Clarion offers students over 100 academic
programs and more than 140 student organizations, which have attracted students from 48 states
and 22 countries around the world. In the fall 2014 semester, Clarion University enrolled 4,906
undergraduate students and 806 graduate students.

Map 4.1 demonstrates these students come from all across the state, thus contributing to the
economic impact of the State System.

Appendix C

Page 42

The University also partners with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, National Fuel
Company, and the Biotech Business Development Center. Clarion has a second campus in the
historic Oil Valley region, Venango College, which grants two-year, stand-alone and associate
degrees in 11 academic disciplines. Additionally Venango also offers select baccalaureate and
master degrees and provides students an opportunity to begin any of Clarion University’s 90-plus
bachelor degree programs. In July 2010, Clarion University welcomed Dr. Karen M. Whitney as
its 16th president. 1

Map 4.2 demonstrates Clarion University’s alumni that still reside in the Commonwealth.

Clarion’s main campus is in Clarion County, PA. It has 600.8 sq. miles in land area and a
population density of 65.2 per square mile. Population in Clarion County has decreased 2.1
percent since in the last census in 2010 to 39,155. In this county, 99.2 percent of the population
reported only one race, with 1.2 percent of these reporting African-American in 2010.
Additionally, the population in Clarion is 0.6 percent Hispanic (of any race). The average
1

Excerpts obtained from Clarion University’s website, www.clarion.edu.

Appendix C

Page 43

household size is 2.4 persons compared to an average family size of 2.9 persons. In 2013, the
labor force was 19,510 people, the unemployment rate was eight percent, and health care and
social assistance was the largest of 20 major sectors.
Below are some of Clarion County’s population demographics. 2
People & Income Overview

Value

Rank in
State

Population (2013)
Growth ( percent) since 2010 Census

39,155
-2.1%

57
61

Households (2012)
Labor Force (persons) (2013)

15,638
19,510

54
56

Unemployment Rate (2013)
Per Capita Personal Income (2012)

8.0
$35,509

22
43

Median Household Income (2012)
Poverty Rate (2012)
H.S. Diploma or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2012 ACS 5yr)
Bachelor Deg. or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2012 ACS 5yr)

$41,538
18.5

54
4

87.9

31

18.3

36

(By Place of Residence)

Venango County, PA
Clarion University also has a second campus in Oil City, PA. Oil City is a part of Venango
County which, as of 2013, has 53,907 people. The population decreased by two percent since
2010. It is comprised of 674.3 sq. miles in land area and has a population density of 79.9 per
square mile. The average household size in 2010 was 2.4 persons compared to an average family
size of 2.8 persons. 98.9 percent of the population in 2010 reported only one race, with 1.0% of
these reporting African-American. The population of this county is 0.9 percent Hispanic (of any
race). Additionally, this county had a labor force of 25,657 people and an unemployment rate of
7.9 percent. In 2013 manufacturing was the largest of 20 major sectors.

2

Population demographics obtained from StatsAmerica provided by the Indiana Business Research Center
Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor and Industry Center for Workforce Information and Analysis.

Appendix C

Page 44

Below are some of Venango County’s population demographics.
Value

Rank in
State

Population (2013)
Growth (%) since 2010 Census
Households (2012)

53,907
-2.0%
22,525

43
60
42

Labor Force (persons) (2013)
Unemployment Rate (2013)

25,657
7.9

43
25

$35,548
$38,351

42
64

17.5

5

88.5

23

14.7

51

People & Income Overview
(By Place of Residence)

Per Capita Personal Income (2012)
Median Household Income (2012)
Poverty Rate (2012)
H.S. Diploma or More - % of Adults
25+ (2012 ACS 5yr)
Bachelor Deg. or More - % of Adults
25+ (2012 ACS 5yr)

Countywide labor force data and countywide employment impact as a result of Clarion
University in Clarion County is shown in Table 4.1. 3 Out of the 19,510 people in the available
labor force, Clarion University employed 630 in-county jobs and therefore, had an in-county
percentage employment impact on the available labor force of 3.2 percent. Furthermore, the
countywide employment impact as a percent of the number of people employed in Clarion
County can also be calculated. Of the 17,900 total people employed in Clarion County, 630
were employed by Clarion University and live in-county; therefore the university’s countywide
employment impact is 3.5 percent. 4

Table 4.1: Labor Force Data, Clarion County: Averages and Countywide Employment Impact

University
Clarion

County
Clarion

Employer
Ranking
(2014)

Employee
Count

1

630

Countywide Impact
Labor
Force
% of Labor
(2013)
Force
19,510

3.23%

Employed
(2014)
17,900

% of
Employed
3.52%

The geographic distribution of Clarion University’s employees is shown on Map 4.3.5 366
employees, or 41 percent, live within 10 miles of the university, 251 employees, which

3

For the purpose of our analysis, the focus was on the amount of in-county jobs at Clarion University’s main
campus in Clarion County. It is noted that Clarion University has a branch, Venango College, in Venango County
where there is also an employment impact.
4
The in-county employee count includes students who are employed by the university.
5
For the purpose of this illustration, student employees were excluded.

Appendix C

Page 45

constitutes 28 percent of the total employees, live within 25 miles, leaving 31 percent of
employees living beyond 25 miles from the university.

Refer to Appendix E for the

methodology regarding the composition of this map.

Map 4.3: Clarion University’s Distribution of Employees

Economic Impact
The direct and indirect economic impact of each university was calculated in order to arrive at
the total economic impact that each has on the Commonwealth overall. Exhibit 4.1 provides a
general overview of Clarion University, as well as the direct and indirect economic and
employment impacts of the university on the Commonwealth.

A variety of data sources were used in order to calculate and analyze the spending of each
institution and its employees, students, and visitors. Please refer to Appendix E for additional
detail regarding the data sources utilized for this study. After collecting the necessary data,
multipliers were utilized to achieve the total economic impact and employment impact of Clarion
University. The multipliers were obtained through the Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional
Appendix C

Page 46

Industrial Multiplier Systems (“RIMS II”). As a whole, it is noted that Clarion University has an
important role in the Commonwealth in terms of the higher educational opportunities it provides
to residents of the Commonwealth as well as the direct, indirect, and induced economic benefits
the university provides to the Commonwealth.

The total direct economic impact of Clarion University on the Commonwealth was
$160,875,776. This value is represented by four main spending sources: institutional spending,
faculty/staff spending, student spending, and capital expenditures. Note that the institutional
spending includes employment benefits spent primarily in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Clarion University’s Direct Economic Impact on the Commonwealth
(1) Institutional spending:

$36,781,618

Benefits:

$20,932,361

(2) Faculty/Staff spending: $40,236,304
(3) Student spending:

$49,088,664

(4) Capital Expenditures $13,836,830

Total Direct Impact:

$160,875,776

As presented in Table 4.2, the direct impact, $160,875,776, was multiplied by the applicable
state multipliers obtained from the RIMS II data, resulting in a total economic impact of Clarion
University on the Commonwealth of $264,631,268. By taking the difference between the total
and direct economic impacts, the combined indirect and induced impact is calculated to be
$103,755,491. Please refer to Appendix E for an additional discussion related to the use of
multipliers and the methodology employed to derive the direct and indirect economic benefits.
Table 4.2: Total Economic Impact of Clarion University on the Commonwealth
University
Clarion

Appendix C

Total Direct
$ 160,875,776

Total Indirect
$ 87,233,991

Total Induced
$ 16,521,500

Total Impact
$ 264,631,268

Page 47

Chart 4.1: Total Economic Impact (Direct + Indirect + Induced): $264,631,268
$16,521,500

$87,233,991
Total Direct
Total Indirect
Total Induced

$160,875,776

The resulting return of taxpayer dollars via the Commonwealth’s appropriations has a significant
and measurable economic impact on the Commonwealth as a whole.

Specifically, the

appropriation to Clarion University made by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and allocated
by the State System, for fiscal year 2013-2014 was $22,261,739. Therefore, each dollar invested
in Clarion University by the Commonwealth via appropriations yielded a return of approximately
$11.89 in total economic impact, as is shown on Table 4.3.

Table 4.3: State Economic Impact of Clarion University Appropriations

University
Clarion

Total Impact
$ 264,631,268

State
Appropriations
$ 22,261,739

Ratio
11.89

University spending in addition to the ancillary spending (faculty and students) yielded income
tax revenues to the Commonwealth, as well as to local municipalities and the state
unemployment trust fund. Table 4.4 illustrates the benefits provided by the university’s payroll
expenditures.

Appendix C

Page 48

Table 4.4: State Economic Impact of Clarion University Payroll Tax Withholdings

University
Clarion

State Tax
Withholdings
$ 1,420,794

Local EIT
$ 479,413

Local
Services
Tax
$ 57,192

Unemployment
Tax
$
32,025

Total Tax
Payments
$ 1,989,425

In addition, sales tax revenue was collected by the Commonwealth as a result of the consumption
of taxable goods and services by the university’s faculty and staff as well as students. Table 4.5
illustrates the sales tax revenue collected by the Commonwealth. Please refer to Appendix E for
an additional discussion of the methodology employed to estimate the sale tax revenue collected
by the Commonwealth.

Table 4.5: State Economic Impact of Clarion University Sales Tax Revenue Collections

University
Clarion

Total Faculty and
Student Spending
$
125,760,622

Spending
subject to tax
$ 30,044,213

Sales
Tax Rate
6.00%

Sales Tax
Revenue
$ 1,802,653

In the aggregate, the revenues realized by the Commonwealth in terms of payroll tax
withholdings and sales tax receipts for Clarion University were $3,223,447 or 14.5 percent of the
Commonwealth’s appropriations for fiscal year 2013-2014.

The composite spending activity of the university also has a measureable effect on employment
in the Commonwealth. 6 Specifically the direct spending of three categories enumerated above
helps to create jobs. The employment impact of the aggregate spending of the university and the
ancillary spending of the faculty/staff and students is measured by the RIMS II multiplier which
estimates the number of jobs created per every additional million in spending. 7 Specifically, the
RIMS II state multiplier for Pennsylvania indicated that for each additional million dollars of
output by the State System universities, approximately 21.3 jobs were created or supported. In
this manner, the employment impact of Clarion University on the Commonwealth approximately
3,126 jobs, as is shown in Table 4.6.

6
7

Composite spending activity includes institutional, faculty and staff and student spending.
Please refer to Appendix E for additional information related to the RIMS II multipliers.

Appendix C

Page 49

Table 4.6: Statewide Impact Employment of Clarion University on the Commonwealth as a
Result of Direct Composite Spending: 3,126 Jobs

Unive rsity
Clarion

Dire ct
Composite
Spe nding
147,038,947

Jobs
Output
21.26

Employme nt
Impact
3,126

The capital expenditures of the university also help to support jobs in the region.

This

employment impact is again measured using RIMS II multipliers by estimating the number of
jobs created for every additional million spent on capital expenditures. Specifically, the RIMS II
construction multiplier for Pennsylvania indicated that per each additional million dollars of
output, approximately 17.9 jobs were created or supported. In this manner, the employment
impact of Clarion University on the Commonwealth approximated 248 more jobs, as shown in
Table 4.7. Therefore, the total employment impact of Clarion University is 3,374 jobs.

Table 4.7: Statewide Employment Impact of Clarion University on the Commonwealth as a
Result of Direct Capital Expenditures: 248 Jobs

Direct Capital Jobs Employment
University Expenditures Output
Impact
Clarion
$ 13,836,830 17.94
248

The final quantified measure of economic impact would be that of volunteer hours contributed
by faculty and staff. In 2013 and 2014, Clarion University’s faculty and staff spent 1,400 and
1,450 hours volunteering, respectively. With an average value of approximately $22.55 per
hour, their total contribution amounts to $31,570 and $32,698 in 2013 and 2014. Students also
devoted their time to helping the community. Clarion students spent a total of 4,400 and 4,550
hours volunteering in 2013 and 2014, respectively. 8 It is likely that the students’ participation
was required by university curricular and co-curricular programs, some of which either required
supervision or a faculty team leader.

8

The most recent data available for the market value of volunteer time is $22.55 for 2013 according to the
Independent Sector’s Value of Volunteer Time.

Appendix C

Page 50

Economic Development
Economic development involves improvements to the standard of living through the creation of
jobs and the support of innovation and new research in a community’s region, state, or nation.
The State System plays a role in enhancing the economic development of the regions in which
the individual universities reside by assisting in the development and growth of new and existing
businesses, as well as increasing the employment opportunities, both of which increase economic
activity in the respective areas. The universities accomplish this in various ways, such as
partnering with local businesses, providing education and job skills training, providing an outlet
for research and development through incubators, and by providing financial and technical
assistance.

The goal of Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education and its 14 universities is
fundamentally to educate the citizens of the Commonwealth. By providing higher education, the
universities are not only helping to improve the economic development in the short-term, but in
the long-run as well.

Therefore, by way of establishing and accomplishing its mission,

Pennsylvania’s State System is benefiting the economic advancement of the Commonwealth.
Primarily, the State System does this through the granting of undergraduate and graduate
degrees, but also does so indirectly through its purchasing, expenditures, services, and by
employing hundreds, even thousands, of people.

Overall, Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education is a key player in supporting the
economic development and growth of communities, counties, regions, and the Commonwealth
overall. By providing sources of innovation and entrepreneurial assistance, the State System
supplies economic growth to local businesses along with highly skilled and educated candidate
employees.

Through its various economic development activities, Clarion University

successfully provides an economic competitive advantage for the county and the Commonwealth
as a whole.

Clarion University’s participation in WEDnetPA program has over 950 participants and had a
total of $367,451 funds awarded in 2014. Additionally, Clarion University has a Small Business
Development Center (“SBDC”) which helps in the growth of its ten-county region in western
Appendix C

Page 51

Pennsylvania by providing entrepreneurs with the education, information and tools necessary to
build successful businesses. During 2013, Clarion’s SBDC provided approximately 7,522 hours
of consulting to about 524 entrepreneurs, mostly regarding start-up assistance. Furthermore in
total, $11,927,503 was approved in client financing.

As a result, the SBDC is positively

affecting the 10 counties it reaches, especially Venango County, where most of the resources in
2013 were directed. 9 Lastly, Clarion University has established the Gregory Barnes Center for
Biotechnical Business Development. The Gregory Barnes Center is home to the Center for
Applied Research & Intellectual Property Development (“CARIPD”) and the SBDC. Inside are
the Innovation Laboratories which are designed to be a versatile one-stop shop. They include a
centralized, shared laboratory, 200-, 500- and 2,500-square-foot, private, wet laboratories. Since
its inauguration, CARIPD has conducted contract research and grant-supported research with 11
companies and six individual entrepreneurs, and provided initial consultations for an additional
eight potential entrepreneurs. More than $300,000 has been brought in through grants to support
applied research for them. All of the equipment in the Innovation Laboratories is research or
industry caliber. 10 By way of these efforts, it is clear that Clarion University has successfully
impacted the economic development of Clarion County.

9

“Clarion University SBDC Services Summary,” Clarion.edu, visited January 26, 2015.
“Innovation Incubation”, Clarion.edu, visited February 24, 2015.

10

Appendix C

Page 52

Exhibit 4.1
Clarion University Information
Location: County
Faculty and Staff Headcount Paid in 2014
Enrollment Characteristics
Enrollment
Undergraduate
Graduate
Total

Fall 2013
5,199
881
6,080

Fall 2014
4,906
806
5,712

Full-time
Part-time
Total

4,580
1,500
6,080

4,194
1,518
5,712

PA residents
Non-residents
Total

5,411
669
6,080

4,996
716
5,712

4,336
859
5,195

4,051
846
4,897

Traditional undergraduate (students under 25)
Non-traditional undergraduate (students over 25)
Total (undergraduate only)¹
Cost of Attendance
Undergraduate, In-State, FY 2014-2015
Room & Board
Tuition
Fees
Total
Undergraduate, Out-of-State, FY 2014-2015
Room & Board
Tuition
Fees
Total
Graduate, In-State, FY 2014-2015
Tuition (per credit)
Fees
Total
Graduate, Out-of-State, FY 2014-2015
Tuition (per credit)
Fees
Total
Financial Characteristics
Revenues, FY 2013-2014
Tuition
Tuition from undergraduate in-state students
Tuition from undergraduate out-of-state students
Tuition from graduate in-state students
Tuition from graduate out-of-state students
Total

Appendix C

Clarion
887

$

$
$

$
$
$
$
$

8,152
6,820
2,968
17,940
8,152
10,230
3,530
21,912
454
197
651
681
236
917

$ 30,214,524
3,077,715
3,997,566
2,048,860
$ 39,338,665

Page 53

Financial Characteristics
Fees
Mandatory Fees
Technology, Academic/Instruction, and Other Mandatory Fees
Non-Mandatory Fees
Non-Mandatory Fees
Total

$ 14,247,090
489,053
$ 14,736,143

Total from Tuition and Fees

$ 54,074,808

Sales and Services

$

Education and General Appropriations

$ 22,261,739

Grants and Contracts
Federal
State
Local/Other/Private
System Transfer Awards
Total grants and contracts

$ 12,457,084
7,322,322
708,613
251,389
$ 20,739,408

Other Revenues (net of scholarship discounts and allowances)
Total Revenues (from sources above)

$ 11,567,064
$ 112,282,657

Funds Raised by University (private giving)
Market Value of Endowment
Total Replacement Value of Physical Plant (main campus)
The Institution as a Consumer in the State
Institutional Expenditures
Institutional spending (excluding payroll)
Capital Improvements
Employee Benefits
Total Direct Institutional Spending
Institutional spending prorated by 12.39% of out of state students
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Institutional Spending

$
940,630
$ 30,712,875
$ 546,700,000

$ 35,689,156
1,092,462
20,932,361
57,713,979
7,153,623
1.53
10,970,082
2.33
16,682,250
5,712,168
$ 80,108,397

Faculty and Staff Expenditures
Faculty and staff spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Faculty and Staff Spending

40,236,304
1.41
$ 56,648,692

Appendix C

3,639,638

Page 54

The Institution as a Consumer in the State
Student Expenditures
Student spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Student Spending
Capital Expenditures
Capital Improvements - 5 year weighted average
Deferred Maintenance
Total Direct Capital Expenditures
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Capital Expenditures
The Institution as an Employer
Employment impact for the Commonwealth
Direct composite expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Composite Spending (jobs)
Direct capital expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Direct Expenditures (jobs)
Total Employment Impact
The University as a Center for Volunteerism
In-Kind (Volunteer) Contributions to Regional Economy
Annual volunteer hours of faculty and staff (2014)
Average market value of volunteer hours (per hour)
Estimated total contribution of faculty and staff
Annual volunteer hours of students (2014)
Business and Economic Development Services
Small Business Incubator
Small Business Development Center
Patents filed since January 1, 2010
The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Sales Tax
Total Faculty and Staff and Student Spending
Imputed % of taxable spending
Spending subject to tax
Sales tax rate
Total State Sales Tax Revenue Generation

Appendix C

$ 49,088,664
1.41
$ 69,111,930

$ 13,046,667
790,163
13,836,830
1.68
23,306,756
2.47
34,116,088
10,809,332
$ 58,762,248

$ 147,038,947
21.26
3,126
$ 13,836,830
17.94
248
3,374

$
$

1,450
22.55
32,698
4,550
Yes
Yes
1

$ 125,760,622
23.89%
30,044,213
6%
$ 1,802,653

Page 55

The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Payroll Tax
Total payroll
State tax withholdings
Local EIT
Local Services Tax
Unemployment tax
Total Payroll Tax Payments

$ 47,353,736
1,420,794
479,413
57,192
32,025
$ 1,989,425

¹For Fall 2013 and Fall 2014, there were variances of 4 and 9 students, respectively. The variance results from unknown classifications regarding
traditional vs. non-traditional undergraduate students.

Appendix C

Page 56

East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania
Monroe County, PA

East Stroudsburg Normal School opened its doors on September 4, 1893. Although the Normal
School was originally privately owned, ownership was transferred to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania in 1920, and the name was changed to East Stroudsburg State Normal School. In
November 1982, Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education was authorized by Senate
Bill 506. The College officially became East Stroudsburg University on July 1, 1983. Today the
University offers 59 degree programs and has a 24:1 student-faculty ratio. For the fall 2014
semester, 6,204 undergraduates and 616 graduate students were enrolled at East Stroudsburg.

Map 5.1 demonstrates these students come from all across the state, thus contributing to the
economic impact of the State System.

As a part of the NCAA Division II, East Stroudsburg University offers 20 intercollegiate varsity
sports. Marcia G. Welsh, Ph.D. was appointed as the 13th president of East Stroudsburg in April

Appendix C

Page 57

2012 by the Board of Governors for the State System and assumed her role as first female
president in July 2012. 1

Map 5.2 demonstrates East Stroudsburg University’s alumni that still reside in the
Commonwealth.

East Stroudsburg lies in Monroe County, PA. Monroe County has a population of 167,148
people, 608.3 sq. miles in land area and a population density of 274.8 per square mile. The
population has decreased since the last census (2010) by 1.6 percent. The average household
size is 2.7 persons compared to an average family size of 3.2 persons. In 2010, when the most
recent census was taken, 97.1 percent of the population reported only one race, with 13.2 percent
of these reporting African-American. The population of this county is 13.1 percent Hispanic (of
any race). In 2013 retail trade was the largest of 20 major sectors. The labor force consisted of
80,185 people and there was a 9.4 percent unemployment rate.

1

Excerpts obtained from East Stroudsburg University’s website, www.esu.edu.

Appendix C

Page 58

Below are some of Monroe County’s population demographics. 2
Value

Rank
in
State

Population (2013)
Growth ( percent) since 2010
Census

167,148

21

-1.6%

56

Households (2013)
Labor Force (persons) (2013)

58,875
80,185

22
22

Unemployment Rate (2013)
Per Capita Personal Income (2013)

9.4
$33,930

4
61

Median Household Income (2013)
Poverty Rate (2013)

$55,273
12.0

14
44

H.S. Diploma or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2013 ACS 5yr)

89.6

16

Bachelor Deg. or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2013 ACS 5yr)

23.8

19

People & Income Overview
(By Place of Residence)

Countywide labor force data and countywide employment impact as a result of East Stroudsburg
University is shown in Table 5.1. Out of the 80,185 people in the available labor force, East
Stroudsburg University employed 854 in-county jobs and therefore, had an in-county percentage
employment impact on the available labor force of approximately one percent. Furthermore, the
countywide employment impact as a percent of the number of people employed in Monroe
County can also be calculated. Of the 74,400 total people employed in Monroe County, 854
were employed by East Stroudsburg University and live in-county; therefore the university’s
countywide employment impact is approximately 1.2 percent. 3

Table 5.1: Labor Force Data, Monroe County: Averages and Countywide Employment
Impact

University
East Stroudsburg

County
Monroe

Employer
Ranking
(2014)

Employee
Count

11

854

Countywide Impact
Labor
Force
% of Labor
(2013)
Force
80,185

1.07%

Employed
(2014)
74,400

% of
Employed
1.15%

2

Population demographics obtained from StatsAmerica provided by the Indiana Business Research Center
Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor and Industry Center for Workforce Information and Analysis.
3
The in-county employee count includes students who are employed by the university.

Appendix C

Page 59

The geographic distribution of East Stroudsburg University’s employees is shown on Map 5.3. 4
339 employees, or 32 percent, live within 10 miles of the university, 368 employees, which
constitutes 35 percent of the total employees, live within 25 miles, leaving 33 percent of
employees living beyond 25 miles from the university. Refer to Appendix E for the
methodology regarding the composition of this map.

Map 5.3: East Stroudsburg University’s Distribution of Employees

Economic Impact
The direct and indirect economic impact of each university was calculated in order to arrive at
the total economic impact that each has on the Commonwealth overall. Exhibit 5.1 provides a
general overview of East Stroudsburg University, as well as the direct and indirect economic and
employment impacts of the university on the Commonwealth.

A variety of data sources were used in order to calculate and analyze the spending of each
institution and its employees, students, and visitors. Please refer to Appendix E for additional
4

For the purpose of this illustration, student employees were excluded.

Appendix C

Page 60

detail regarding the data sources utilized for this study. After collecting the necessary data,
multipliers were utilized to achieve the total economic impact and employment impact of East
Stroudsburg University.

The multipliers were obtained through the Bureau of Economic

Analysis Regional Industrial Multiplier Systems (“RIMS II”). As a whole, it is noted that East
Stroudsburg University has an important role in the Commonwealth in terms of the higher
educational opportunities it provides to residents of the Commonwealth as well as the direct,
indirect, and induced economic benefits the university provides to the Commonwealth.

The total direct economic impact of East Stroudsburg University on the Commonwealth was
$182,748,242. This value is represented by four main spending sources: institutional spending,
faculty/staff spending, student spending, and capital expenditures. Note that the institutional
spending includes employment benefits spent primarily in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

East Stroudsburg University’s Direct Economic Impact on the Commonwealth
(1) Institutional spending: $44,154,348
Benefits:

$21,933,252

(2) Faculty/Staff spending: $44,487,540
(3) Student spending:

$60,933,589

(4) Capital Expenditures

$11,239,513

Total Direct Impact:

$182,748,242

As presented in Table 5.2, the direct impact, $182,748,242, was multiplied by the applicable
state multipliers obtained from the RIMS II data, resulting in a total economic impact of East
Stroudsburg University on the Commonwealth of $309,868,504.

By taking the difference

between the total and direct economic impacts, the combined indirect and induced impact is
calculated to be $127,120,262. Please refer to Appendix E for an additional discussion related
to the use of multipliers and the methodology employed to derive the direct and indirect
economic benefits.

Appendix C

Page 61

Table 5.2: Total Economic Impact of East Stroudsburg University on the Commonwealth
University
East Stroudsburg

Total Direct
$ 182,748,242

Total Indirect
$ 106,191,804

Total Induced
$ 20,928,458

Total Impact
$ 309,868,504

Chart 5.1: Total Economic Impact (Direct + Indirect + Induced): $309,868,504
$20,928,458

$106,191,804
Total Direct
Total Indirect
Total Induced

$182,748,242

The resulting return of taxpayer dollars via the Commonwealth’s appropriations has a significant
and measurable economic impact on the Commonwealth as a whole.

Specifically, the

appropriation to East Stroudsburg University made by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and
allocated by the State System, for fiscal year 2013-2014 was $21,160,935. Therefore, each
dollar invested in East Stroudsburg University by the Commonwealth via appropriations yielded
a return of $14.64 in total economic impact, as is shown on Table 5.3.

Table 5.3: Statewide Economic Impact of East Stroudsburg University Appropriations

University
East Stroudsburg

Total Impact
$ 308,868,504

State
Appropriations
$ 21,160,935

Ratio
14.64

University spending in addition to the ancillary spending (faculty and students) yielded income
tax revenues to the Commonwealth, as well as to local municipalities and the state

Appendix C

Page 62

unemployment trust fund. Table 5.4 illustrates the benefits provided by the university’s payroll
expenditures.

Table 5.4: Statewide Economic Impact of East Stroudsburg University Payroll Tax
Withholdings

University
East Stroudsburg

State Tax
Withholdings
$ 1,482,286

Local EIT
$ 566,449

Local
Services
Tax
$ 46,416

Unemployment
Tax
$
34,538

Total Tax
Payments
$ 2,129,689

In addition, sales tax revenue was collected by the Commonwealth as a result of the consumption
of taxable goods and services by the university’s faculty and staff as well as students. Table 5.5
illustrates the sales tax revenue collected by the Commonwealth. Please refer to Appendix E for
an additional discussion of the methodology employed to estimate the sale tax revenue collected
by the Commonwealth.

Table 5.5: Statewide Economic Impact of East Stroudsburg University Sales Tax Revenue
Collections

University
East Stroudsburg

Total Faculty and
Student Spending
$
148,422,408

Spending
subject to tax
$ 35,458,113

Sales
Tax Rate
6.00%

Sales Tax
Revenue
$ 2,127,487

In the aggregate, the revenues realized by the Commonwealth in terms of payroll tax
withholdings and sales tax receipts for East Stroudsburg University were $3,609,773 or 17.1
percent of the Commonwealth’s appropriations for fiscal year 2013-2014.

The composite spending activity of the university also has a measureable effect on employment
in the Commonwealth. 5 Specifically the direct spending of three categories enumerated above
helps to create jobs. The employment impact of the aggregate spending of the university and the
ancillary spending of the faculty/staff and students is measured by the RIMS II multiplier which
estimates the number of jobs created per every additional million in spending. 6 Specifically, the

5
6

Composite spending activity includes institutional, faculty and staff and student spending.
Please refer to Appendix E for additional information related to the RIMS II multipliers.

Appendix C

Page 63

RIMS II state multiplier for Pennsylvania indicated that for each additional million dollars of
output by State System universities, approximately 21.3 jobs were created or supported. In this
manner, the employment impact of East Stroudsburg University on the Commonwealth
approximated 3,646 jobs, as is shown in Table 5.6.

Statewide Employment Impact of East Stroudsburg University on the
Table 5.6:
Commonwealth as a Result of Direct Composite Spending: 3,646 Jobs

Unive rsity
East Stroudsburg

Dire ct
Composite
Spe nding
171,508,729

Jobs
Output
21.26

Employme nt
Impact
3,646

The capital expenditures of the university also help to support jobs in the region.

This

employment impact is again measured using RIMS II multipliers by estimating the number of
jobs created for every additional million spent on capital expenditures. Specifically, the RIMS II
construction multiplier for Pennsylvania indicated that per each additional million dollars of
output, approximately 17.9 jobs were created or supported. In this manner, the employment
impact of East Stroudsburg University on the Commonwealth approximated 202 more jobs, as
shown in Table 5.7. Therefore, the total employment impact of East Stroudsburg University is
3,847 jobs.

Table 5.7:
Statewide Employment Impact of East Stroudsburg University on the
Commonwealth as a Result of Direct Capital Expenditures: 202 Jobs
Direct Capital
Expenditures
University
East Stroudsburg $ 11,239,513

Jobs Output
17.94

Employment
Impact
202

The final quantified measure of economic impact would be that of volunteer hours contributed
by faculty and staff. In 2014, East Stroudsburg University’s faculty and staff spent 130 hours
volunteering. With an average value of approximately $22.55 per hour, their total contribution
amounts to approximately $2,932. Students also devoted their time to helping the community.
East Stroudsburg students spent a total of 10,586 hours in 2014 volunteering. 7 It is likely that

7

The most recent data available for the market value of volunteer time is $22.55 for 2013 according to the
Independent Sector’s Value of Volunteer Time.

Appendix C

Page 64

the students’ participation was required by university curricular and co-curricular programs,
some of which either required supervision or a faculty team leader.

Economic Development
Economic development involves improvements to the standard of living through the creation of
jobs and the support of innovation and new research in a community’s region, state, or nation.
The State System plays a role in enhancing the economic development of the regions in which
the individual universities reside by assisting in the development and growth of new and existing
businesses, as well as increasing the employment opportunities, both of which increase economic
activity in the respective areas. The universities accomplish this in various ways, such as
partnering with local businesses, providing education and job skills training, providing an outlet
for research and development through incubators, and by providing financial and technical
assistance.

The goal of Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education and its 14 universities is
fundamentally to educate the citizens of the Commonwealth. By providing higher education, the
universities are not only helping to improve the economic development in the short-term, but in
the long-run as well.

Therefore, by way of establishing and accomplishing its mission,

Pennsylvania’s State System is benefiting the economic advancement of the Commonwealth.
Primarily, the State System does this through the granting of undergraduate and graduate
degrees, but also does so indirectly through its purchasing, expenditures, services, and by
employing hundreds, even thousands, of people.

Overall, Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education is a key player in supporting the
economic development and growth of communities, counties, regions, and the Commonwealth
overall. By providing sources of innovation and entrepreneurial assistance, the State System
supplies economic growth to local businesses along with highly skilled and educated candidate
employees. Through its various economic development activities, East Stroudsburg University
successfully provides an economic competitive advantage for the county and the Commonwealth
as a whole.

Appendix C

Page 65

East Stroudsburg’s participation in WEDnetPA program has over 1,400 participants, 45
participating businesses, and had a total of $366,491 funds awarded in 2014. Additionally, East
Stroudsburg has a business incubator and holds workforce training sessions. The incubator
has 19 businesses and 25 employees in the facility.

Furthermore, the incubator captures

the involvement of eight undergraduate students and nine East Stroudsburg University staff
members. The workforce training sessions are aimed at training industry personnel through
three workshops: training within the industry, balance scorecard, and technology boot camp.
During 2014, these three workshops had a total of 38 participants and paired up with 16
businesses in effort to improve workforce development.

Appendix C

Page 66

Exhibit 5.1
East Stroudsburg University Information
Location: County
Faculty and Staff Headcount Paid in 2014
Enrollment Characteristics
Enrollment
Undergraduate
Graduate
Total

Fall 2013
6,186
592
6,778

Fall 2014
6,204
616
6,820

Full-time
Part-time
Total

5794
984
6,778

5,943
877
6,820

PA residents
Non-residents
Total

5,096
1,682
6,778

5,250
1,570
6,820

5,652
534
6,186

5,631
573
6,204

Traditional undergraduate (students under 25)
Non-traditional undergraduate (students over 25)
Total (undergraduate only)
Cost of Attendance
Undergraduate, In-State, FY 2014-2015
Room & Board
Tuition
Fees
Total
Undergraduate, Out-of-State, FY 2014-2015
Room & Board
Tuition
Fees
Total
Graduate, In-State, FY 2014-2015
Tuition (15 credits)
Fees
Total
Graduate, Out-of-State, FY 2014-2015
Tuition (15 credits)
Fees
Total
Financial Characteristics
Revenues, FY 2013-2014
Tuition
Tuition from undergraduate in-state students
Tuition from undergraduate out-of-state students
Tuition from graduate in-state students
Tuition from graduate out-of-state students
Total

Appendix C

Monroe
1,056

$

$
$

$
$
$
$
$

7,980
6,820
2,556
17,356
7,980
17,050
2,776
27,806
6,810
931
7,741
10,215
931
11,146

$ 30,001,668
24,195,262
3,777,930
1,995,608
$ 59,970,468

Page 67

Financial Characteristics
Fees
Mandatory Fees
Technology, Academic/Instruction, and Other Mandatory Fees
Non-Mandatory Fees
Non-Mandatory Fees
Total

$ 11,260,113
1,035,592
$ 12,295,705

Total from Tuition, Fees, Room & Board

$ 72,266,173

Sales and Services

$

Education and General Appropriations

$ 21,160,935

Grants and Contracts
Federal
State
Local/Other/Private
System Transfer Awards
Total grants and contracts

$ 10,110,821
5,383,046
109,237
39,653
$ 15,642,757

Other Revenues (net of scholarship discounts and allowances)
Total Revenues (from sources above)

$ 21,101,053
$ 131,869,915

Funds Raised by University (private giving)
Market Value of Endowment
Total Replacement Value of Physical Plant
The Institution as a Consumer in the State
Institutional Expenditures
Institutional spending (excluding payroll)
Capital Improvements
Employee Benefits
Total Direct Institutional spending
Institutional spending prorated by 23.02% of out of state students
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Institutional Spending

$ 2,869,061
$ 16,835,716
$ 693,700,000

Faculty and Staff Expenditures
Faculty and staff spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Faculty and Staff Spending

Appendix C

1,698,997

43,648,066
506,282
21,933,252
66,087,600
15,213,714
1.53
23,330,231
2.33
35,478,382
12,148,151
$ 113,714,133

$ 44,487,540
1.41
$ 62,634,008

Page 68

The Institution as a Consumer in the State
Student Expenditures
Student spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Student Spending
Capital Expenditures
Capital Improvements - 5 year weighted average
Deferred Maintenance
Total Direct Capital Expenditures
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Capital Expenditures
The Institution as an Employer
Employment impact for the Commonwealth
Direct composite expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Composite Spending (jobs)
Direct capital expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Direct Expenditures (jobs)
Total Employment Impact
The University as a Center for Volunteerism
In-Kind (Volunteer) Contributions to Regional Economy
Annual volunteer hours of faculty and staff (2014)
Average market value of volunteer hours (per hour)
Estimated total contribution of faculty and staff
Annual volunteer hours of students (2014)
Business and Economic Development Services
Small Business Incubator
Small Business Development Center
Patents filed since January 1, 2010
The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Sales Tax
Total Faculty and Staff and Student Spending
Imputed % of taxable spending
Spending subject to tax
Sales tax rate
Total State Sales Tax Revenue Generation

Appendix C

$ 60,933,589
1.41
$ 85,788,400
$ 10,410,400
829,113
11,239,513
1.68
18,931,836
2.47
27,712,143
8,780,308
$ 47,731,964

$ 171,508,729
21.26
3,646
$ 11,239,513
17.94
202
3,847

$
$

130
22.55
2,932
10,586
Yes
No
1

$ 148,422,408
23.89%
35,458,113
6%
$ 2,127,487

Page 69

The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Payroll Tax
Total payroll
State tax withholdings
Local EIT
Local Services Tax
Unemployment tax
Total Payroll Tax Payments

Appendix C

$ 52,150,380
1,482,286
566,449
46,416
34,538
$ 2,129,689

Page 70

Edinboro University of Pennsylvania
Erie County, PA

With 585 acres, including a five acre lake, and 43 buildings, Edinboro University’s main campus
was founded in 1857 in Edinboro, PA.

Corporations, government agencies, healthcare

organizations, and nonprofit groups all can benefit from contracted training solutions offered by
Edinboro University’s Department of Continuing Education. Edinboro works with employers
and organizations in the community to provide high-quality, affordable training that is customdesigned to fit employers’ needs, schedule and choice of location.

Map 6.1 demonstrates these students come from all across the state, thus contributing to the
economic impact of the State System.

Classes can be offered in the workplace, online, or at additional locations in the community. In
the fall 2014 semester, the University enrolled 5,595 undergraduate students and 1,242 graduate

Appendix C

Page 71

students. Edinboro University is currently under the leadership of the first woman President, Dr.
Julie E. Wollman.1

Map 6.2 demonstrates Edinboro University’s alumni that still reside in the Commonwealth.

Erie County, where Edinboro University is located, has 799.2 sq. miles in land area and a
population density of 350.7 per square mile.

The average household size is 2.4 persons

compared to an average family size of three persons. As of the most recent census in 2010,
approximately 98 percent of the population reported only one race, with 7.2 percent of these
reporting African-American. Since the last census, the population of Erie County has decreased
by 0.1 percent, to 280,294. The population of this county is 3.4 percent Hispanic (of any race).
In 2013 the labor force was 139,619 people and the unemployment rate was 7.3 percent. Also, in
2013 health care and social assistance was the largest of 20 major sectors.

1

Excerpts obtained from Edinboro University’s website, www.edinboro.edu.

Appendix C

Page 72

Below are some of Erie County’s population demographics. 2
Value

Rank
in
State

Population (2013)
Growth ( percent) since 2010
Census

280,294

14

-0.1%

27

Households (2013)
Labor Force (persons) (2013)

109,675
139,619

14
14

Unemployment Rate (2013)
Per Capita Personal Income (2013)

7.3
$37,729

38
34

Median Household Income (2013)
Poverty Rate (2013)

$44,223
17.9

44
7

H.S. Diploma or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2013 ACS 5yr)

89.9

15

Bachelor Deg. or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2013 ACS 5yr)

24.8

16

People & Income Overview
(By Place of Residence)

Countywide labor force data and countywide employment impact as a result of Edinboro
University in Erie County is shown in Table 6.1. Out of the 139,619 people in the available
labor force, Edinboro University employed 795 in-county jobs and therefore, had an in-county
percentage employment impact on the available labor force of approximately 0.6 percent.
Furthermore, the countywide employment impact as a percent of the number of people employed
in Erie County can also be calculated. Of the 130,500 total people employed in Erie County, 795
were employed by Edinboro University and live in-county; therefore the university’s countywide
employment impact is 0.6 percent. 3

Table 6.1: Labor Force Data, Erie County: Averages and Countywide Employment Impact

University
Edinboro

County
Erie

Employer
Ranking
(2014)

Employee
Count

22

795

Countywide Impact
Labor
Force
% of Labor
(2013)
Force
139,619

0.57%

Employed
(2014)
130,500

% of
Employed
0.61%

The geographic distribution of Edinboro University’s employees is shown on Map 6.3. 4 372
employees, or 42 percent, live within 10 miles of the university, 329 employees, which
constitutes 37 percent of the total employees, live within 25 miles, leaving 21 percent of
2

Population demographics obtained from StatsAmerica provided by the Indiana Business Research Center
Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor and Industry Center for Workforce Information and Analysis.
3
The in-county employee count includes students who are employed by the university.
4
For the purpose of this illustration, student employees were excluded.

Appendix C

Page 73

employees living beyond 25 miles from the university.

Refer to Appendix E for the

methodology regarding the composition of this map.

Map 6.3: Edinboro University’s Distribution of Employees

Economic Impact
The direct and indirect economic impact of each university was calculated in order to arrive at
the total economic impact that each has on the Commonwealth overall. Exhibit 6.1 provides a
general overview of Edinboro University, as well as the direct and indirect economic and
employment impacts of the university on the Commonwealth.

A variety of data sources were used in order to calculate and analyze the spending of each
institution and its employees, students, and visitors. Please refer to Appendix E for additional
detail regarding the data sources utilized for this study. After collecting the necessary data,
multipliers were utilized to achieve the total economic impact and employment impact of
Edinboro University. The multipliers were obtained through the Bureau of Economic Analysis
Appendix C

Page 74

Regional Industrial Multiplier Systems (“RIMS II”). As a whole, it is noted that Edinboro
University has an important role in the Commonwealth in terms of the higher educational
opportunities it provides to residents of the Commonwealth as well as the direct, indirect, and
induced economic benefits the university provides to the Commonwealth.

The total direct economic impact of Edinboro University on the Commonwealth was
$141,889,684. This value is represented by four main spending sources: institutional spending,
faculty/staff spending, student spending, and capital expenditures. Note that the institutional
spending includes employment benefits spent primarily in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Edinboro University’s Direct Economic Impact on the Commonwealth
(1) Institutional spending: $34,841,996
Benefits:

$24,971,245

(2) Faculty/Staff spending: $43,084,313
(3) Student spending:

$35,183,940

(4) Capital Expenditures:

Total Direct Impact:

$3,808,190

$141,889,684

As presented in Table 6.2, the direct impact, $141,889,684, was multiplied by the applicable
state multipliers obtained from the RIMS II data, resulting in a total economic impact of
Edinboro University on the Commonwealth of $212,827,350. By taking the difference between
the total and direct economic impacts, the combined indirect and induced impact is calculated to
be $70,937,665. Please refer to Appendix E for an additional discussion related to the use of
multipliers and the methodology employed to derive the direct and indirect economic benefits.

Table 6.2: Total Economic Impact of Edinboro University on the Commonwealth
University
Edinboro

Appendix C

Total Direct
$ 141,889,684

Total Indirect
$ 61,165,672

Total Induced
$ 9,771,993

Total Impact
$ 212,827,350

Page 75

Chart 6.1: Total Economic Impact (Direct + Indirect + Induced): $212,827,350
$9,771,993

$62,736,132

Total Direct
Total Indirect
Total Induced

$141,889,684

The resulting return of taxpayer dollars via the Commonwealth’s appropriations has a significant
and measurable economic impact on the Commonwealth as a whole.

Specifically, the

appropriation to Edinboro University made by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and
allocated by the State System, for fiscal year 2013-2014 was $24,963,085. Therefore, each
dollar invested in Edinboro University by the Commonwealth via appropriations yielded a return
of $8.53 in total economic impact, as is shown on Table 6.3.

Table 6.3: State Economic Impact of Edinboro University Appropriations

University
Edinboro

Total Impact
$ 212,827,350

State
Appropriations
$ 24,963,085

Ratio
8.53

University spending in addition to the ancillary spending (faculty and students) yielded income
tax revenues to the Commonwealth, as well as to local municipalities and the state
unemployment trust fund. Table 6.4 illustrates the benefits provided by the university’s payroll
expenditures.

Appendix C

Page 76

Table 6.4: State Economic Impact of Edinboro University Payroll Tax Withholdings

University
Edinboro

State Tax
Withholdings
$ 1,542,094

Local EIT
$ 572,167

Local
Services
Tax
$ 61,702

Unemployment
Tax
$
34,775

Total Tax
Payments
$ 2,210,738

In addition, sales tax revenue was collected by the Commonwealth as a result of the consumption
of taxable goods and services by the university’s faculty and staff as well as students. Table 6.5
illustrates the sales tax revenue collected by the Commonwealth. Please refer to Appendix E for
an additional discussion of the methodology employed to estimate the sale tax revenue collected
by the Commonwealth.

Table 6.5: State Economic Impact of Edinboro University Sales Tax Revenue Collections

University
Edinboro

Total Faculty and
Student Spending
$
110,193,873

Spending
subject to tax
$ 26,325,316

Sales
Tax Rate
6.00%

Sales Tax
Revenue
$ 1,579,519

In the aggregate, the revenues realized by the Commonwealth in terms of payroll tax
withholdings and sales tax receipts for Edinboro University were $3,121,613 or 12.5 percent of
the Commonwealth’s appropriations for fiscal year 2013-2014.

The composite spending activity of the university also has a measureable effect on employment
in the Commonwealth. 5 Specifically the direct spending of three categories enumerated above
helps to create jobs. The employment impact of the aggregate spending of the university and the
ancillary spending of the faculty/staff and students is measured by the RIMS II multiplier which
estimates the number of jobs created per every additional million in spending. 6 Specifically, the
RIMS II state multiplier for Pennsylvania indicated that for each additional million dollars of
output by State System universities, approximately 21.3 jobs were created or supported. In this
manner, the employment impact of Edinboro University on the Commonwealth approximated
2,935 jobs, as is shown in Table 6.6.

5
6

Composite spending activity includes institutional, faculty and staff and student spending.
Please refer to Appendix E for additional information related to the RIMS II multipliers.

Appendix C

Page 77

Table 6.6: Statewide Employment Impact of Edinboro University on the Commonwealth as a
Result of Direct Composite Spending: 2,935 Jobs

Unive rsity
Edinboro

Dire ct
Composite
Spe nding
138,081,494

Jobs
Output
21.26

Employme nt
Impact
2,935

The capital expenditures of the university also help to support jobs in the region.

This

employment impact is again measured using RIMS II multipliers by estimating the number of
jobs created for every additional million spent on capital expenditures. Specifically, the RIMS II
construction multiplier for Pennsylvania indicated that per each additional million dollars of
output, approximately 17.9 jobs were created or supported. In this manner, the employment
impact of Edinboro University on the Commonwealth approximated 68 more jobs, as shown in
Table 6.7. Therefore, the total employment impact of Edinboro University is 3,003 jobs.

Table 6.7: Statewide Employment Impact of Edinboro University on the Commonwealth as a
Result of Direct Capital Expenditures: 68 Jobs
University
Edinboro

Direct Capital
Expenditures
$ 3,808,190

Jobs Output
17.94

Employment
Impact
68

The final quantified measure of economic impact would be that of volunteer hours contributed
by faculty and staff.

Edinboro University’s faculty and staff spent 732 and 2,281 hours

volunteering in 2013 and 2014, respectively. With an average value of approximately $22.55 per
hour, their total contribution amounts to approximately $67,943. Students also devoted their
time to helping the community. Edinboro students spent a total of 27,200 and 26,665 hours in
2013 and 2014 volunteering. 7

It is likely that the students’ participation was required by

university curricular and co-curricular programs, some of which either required supervision or a
faculty team leader.

7

The most recent data available for the market value of volunteer time is $22.55 for 2013 according to the
Independent Sector’s Value of Volunteer Time.

Appendix C

Page 78

Economic Development
Economic development involves improvements to the standard of living through the creation of
jobs and the support of innovation and new research in a community’s region, state, or nation.
The State System plays a role in enhancing the economic development of the regions in which
the individual universities reside by assisting in the development and growth of new and existing
businesses, as well as increasing the employment opportunities, both of which increase economic
activity in the respective areas. The universities accomplish this in various ways, such as
partnering with local businesses, providing education and job skills training, providing an outlet
for research and development through incubators, and by providing financial and technical
assistance.

The goal of Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education and its 14 universities is
fundamentally to educate the citizens of the Commonwealth. By providing higher education, the
universities are not only helping to improve the economic development in the short-term, but in
the long-run as well.

Therefore, by way of establishing and accomplishing its mission,

Pennsylvania’s State System is benefiting the economic advancement of the Commonwealth.
Primarily, the State System does this through the granting of undergraduate and graduate
degrees, but also does so indirectly through its purchasing, expenditures, services, and by
employing hundreds, even thousands, of people.

Overall, Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education is a key player in supporting the
economic development and growth of communities, counties, regions, and the Commonwealth
overall. By providing sources of innovation and entrepreneurial assistance, the State System
supplies economic growth to local businesses along with highly skilled and educated candidate
employees.

Through its various economic development activities, Edinboro University

successfully provides an economic competitive advantage for county and the Commonwealth as
a whole.

Edinboro University’s participation in WEDnetPA program had over 450 participants and had a
total of $206,776 funds awarded in 2014. Additionally, Edinboro University’s Tax Assistance
Center spent 5,168 hours counseling individuals during 2014.
Appendix C

Edinboro also has an
Page 79

Entrepreneurial Learning Center that provides mini-grants for students for a paid 1-year
membership to their Startup Incubator program. Through these efforts, Edinboro University is
contributing to Erie County’s overall economic development.

Appendix C

Page 80

Exhibit 6.1
Edinboro University Information
Location: County
Faculty and Staff Headcount Paid in 2014
Enrollment Characteristics
Enrollment
Undergraduate
Graduate
Total

Fall 2013
5,864
1,234
7,098

Fall 2014
5,595
1,242
6,837

Full-time
Part-time
Total

5,770
1,328
7,098

5,604
1,233
6,837

PA residents
Non-residents
Total

6,097
1,001
7,098

5,864
973
6,837

5,084
780
5,864

4,864
731
5,595

Traditional undergraduate (students under 25)
Non-traditional undergraduate (students over 25)
Total (undergraduate only)
Cost of Attendance
Undergraduate, In-State, FY 2014-2015
Room & Board
Tuition
Fees
Total
Undergraduate, Out-of-State, FY 2014-2015
Room & Board
Tuition
Fees
Total
Graduate, In-State, FY 2014-2015
Tuition (full-time) and fees
Total
Graduate, Out-of-State, FY 2014-2015
Tuition (full-time) and fees
Total
Financial Characteristics
Revenues, FY 2013-2014
Tuition
Tuition from undergraduate in-state students
Tuition from undergraduate out-of-state students
Tuition from graduate in-state students
Tuition from graduate out-of-state students
Total

Appendix C

Erie
889

$

$
$

8,612
6,820
2,436
17,868

$

8,612
10,230
3,019
21,861

$

10,644
10,644

$

16,848
16,848

$

$

32,107,862
7,777,353
7,720,594
2,198,749
49,804,558

Page 81

Financial Characteristics
Fees
Mandatory Fees
Technology, Academic/Instruction, and Other Mandatory Fees
Non-Mandatory Fees
Non-Mandatory Fees
Total
Total from Tuition and Fees

$

10,568,178

$

794,530
11,362,708

$

61,167,266

Sales and Services

$

Education and General Appropriations

$ 24,963,085

Grants and Contracts
Federal
State
Local/Other/Private
System Transfer Awards
Total grants and contracts

$ 11,959,361
9,674,399
240,121
16,740
$ 21,890,621

Other Revenues (net of scholarship discounts and allowances)
Total Revenues (from sources above)

$ 18,896,980
$ 128,054,766

Funds Raised by University (private giving)
Market Value of Endowment
Total Replacement Value of Physical Plant
The Institution as a Consumer in the State
Institutional Expenditures
Institutional spending (excluding payroll)
Capital Improvements
Employee Benefits
Total Direct Institutional Spending
Institutional spending prorated by 14.23% of out of state students
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Institutional Spending

$ 3,218,948
$ 22,107,386
$ 804,600,000

$ 34,459,196
382,800
24,971,245
59,813,241
8,512,254
1.53
13,053,542
2.33
19,850,577
6,797,035
$ 86,460,853

Faculty and Staff Expenditures
Faculty and staff spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Faculty and Staff Spending

$ 43,084,313
1.41
$ 60,658,404

Appendix C

1,136,814

Page 82

The Institution as a Consumer in the State
Student Expenditures
Student spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Student Spending
Capital Expenditures
Capital Improvements - 5 year weighted average
Deferred Maintenance
Total Direct Capital Expenditures
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Capital Expenditures
The Institution as an Employer
Employment impact for the Commonwealth
Direct composite expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Composite Spending (jobs)
Direct capital expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Direct Expenditures (jobs)
Total Employment Impact
The University as a Center for Volunteerism
In-Kind (Volunteer) Contributions to Regional Economy
Annual volunteer hours of faculty and staff (2014)
Average market value of volunteer hours (per hour)
Estimated total contribution of faculty and staff
Annual volunteer hours of students (2014)
Business and Economic Development Services
Small Business Incubator
Small Business Development Center
Patents filed since January 1, 2010
The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Sales Tax
Total Faculty and Staff and Student Spending
Imputed % of taxable spending
Spending subject to tax
Sales tax rate
Total State Sales Tax Revenue Generation

Appendix C

$ 35,183,940
1.41
$ 49,535,469

$

2,923,333
884,857
3,808,190
1.68
6,414,515
2.47
9,389,473
2,974,958
$ 16,172,621

$ 138,081,494
21.26
2,935
$ 3,808,190
17.94
68
3,003

$
$

2,281
22.55
51,437
26,665
Yes
No
0

$ 110,193,873
23.89%
26,325,316
6%
$ 1,579,519

Page 83

The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Payroll Tax
Total payroll
State tax witholdings
Local EIT
Local Services Tax
Unemployment tax
Total Payroll Tax Payments

Appendix C

$ 51,719,978
1,542,094
572,167
61,702
34,775
$ 2,210,738

Page 84

Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Indiana County, PA
Founded in 1875, Indiana University of Pennsylvania (“IUP”) is a vibrant, comprehensive,
research-based, teaching-focused, student-centered learning community. IUP’s main campus is
located in Indiana, Pa., and spans 374 acres. A combination of historical charm and state-of-theart facilities, it includes 59 major buildings and 11 athletic fields.

Indiana University of

Pennsylvania has affiliate campuses which are located in Freeport and Punxsutawney, PA.
Additionally, nine master programs and one doctoral program are offered at IUP’s Monroeville
Graduate and Professional Center located near Monroeville. IUP also offers courses through the
State System’s Dixon Center in Harrisburg and through distance education. In fall 2014, the
University enrolled 12,130 undergraduate students and 2,239 graduate students. The student
body represented 44 states and 66 countries. Students at IUP enjoy an 18:1 student to faculty
ratio.
Map 7.1 demonstrates these students come from all across the state, thus contributing to the
economic impact of the State System.

Appendix C

Page 85

As of 2012, Indiana University of Pennsylvania professors have won more than 60 Fulbright
scholarships since the program’s inception in 1946, the most of any university in the
Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education. IUP is known for having the number one
ROTC cadet program in the nation and also offers eight Varsity NCAA sports for men and 11 for
women. Alumni of IUP live in every state and in roughly 90 countries around the world. They
have included university presidents and state system chancellors, chief executives of leading
companies and industries, playwrights and authors, and luminaries of the sports world. President
Michael Driscoll took office on July 1, 2012, selected by the Board of Governors of the State
System. 1

Map 7.2 demonstrates Indiana University of Pennsylvania’s alumni that still reside in the
Commonwealth.

IUP’s main campus is located in Indiana County of Pennsylvania. It has 827.0 sq. miles in land
area and a population density of 106.1 per square mile. The average household size is 2.40
1

Excerpts obtained from Indiana University of Pennsylvania’s website, www.iup.edu.

Appendix C

Page 86

persons compared to an average family size of 2.9 persons. As of the 2010 census, 99 percent of
the population reported only one race, with 2.7 percent of these reporting African-American.
The population of this county is 1.1 percent Hispanic (of any race). The population in Indiana
County is 87,745 people, which decreased since the most recent census by 1.3 percent. The
labor force in 2013 was 47,699 people and there was a 7.3 percent rate of unemployment. In
2013 retail trade was the largest of 20 major sectors.
Below are some of Indiana County’s population demographics. 2

Population (2013)
Growth ( percent) since 2010
Census
Households (2013)

87,745

Rank
in
State
34

-1.3%

52

34,310

35

Labor Force (persons) (2013)
Unemployment Rate (2013)

47,699
7.3

32
38

Per Capita Personal Income (2013)
Median Household Income (2013)

$39,018
$44,504

26
42

Poverty Rate (2013)
H.S. Diploma or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2013 ACS 5yr)
Bachelor Deg. or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2013 ACS 5yr)

14.7

19

87.8

36

21.9

23

People & Income Overview
(By Place of Residence)

Value

Jefferson County, PA
IUP’s Punxsutawney’s campus is located in Jefferson County, PA. In 2013, there were 44,966
people in Jefferson County, a 0.5 percent decrease in population since 2010. This county has
652.4 sq. miles in land area and a population density of 68.9 per square mile. The average
household size is 2.4 persons compared to an average family size of 2.9 persons. In 2010, 99.2
percent of the population reported only one race, with 0.3 percent of these reporting AfricanAmerican. The population of this county is 0.6 percent Hispanic (of any race). The labor force
in 2013 was 22,524 and the unemployment rate was 7.7 percent. In 2013, manufacturing was the
largest of 20 major sectors.

2

Population demographics obtained from StatsAmerica provided by the Indiana Business Research Center
Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor and Industry Center for Workforce Information and Analysis.

Appendix C

Page 87

Below are some of Jefferson County’s population demographics.
Value

Rank
in
State

Population (2013)
Growth (%) since 2010 Census
Households (2013)

44,966
-0.5%
18,503

49
33
47

Labor Force (persons) (2013)
Unemployment Rate (2013)

22,524
7.7

49
29

$34,939
$41,637

57
57

15.5

15

87.6

39

13.2

62

People & Income Overview
(By Place of Residence)

Per Capita Personal Income (2013)
Median Household Income (2013)
Poverty Rate (2013)
H.S. Diploma or More - % of Adults
25+ (2013 ACS 5yr)
Bachelor Deg. or More - % of Adults
25+ (2013 ACS 5yr)

Armstrong County, PA
IUP’s Freeport campus is located in Armstrong County, PA. Armstrong County has 653.2 sq.
miles in land area and a population density of 104.3 per square mile. The average household size
is 2.4 persons compared to an average family size of 2.9 persons. As of the last census in 2010,
99.2 percent of the population reported only one race, with 0.8 percent of these reporting
African-American. The population of this county is 0.5 percent Hispanic (of any race). Since
2010, the population has decreased 1.2 percent; there are now 68,107 people in Armstrong
County. In 2013 the labor force was 33,724 and there was an unemployment rate of 8 percent.
Also in 2013, health care and social assistance was the largest of 20 major sectors.

Below are some of Armstrong County’s population demographics.
Value

Rank
in
State

Population (2013)
Growth (%) since 2010 Census

68,107
-1.2%

38
47

Households (2013)
Labor Force (persons) (2013)
Unemployment Rate (2013)

28,525
33,724
8.0

38
40
22

$37,391
$42,927

37
48

14.7

19

88.9

23

14.6

52

People & Income Overview
(By Place of Residence)

Per Capita Personal Income (2013)
Median Household Income (2013)
Poverty Rate (2013)
H.S. Diploma or More - % of Adults
25+ (2013 ACS 5yr)
Bachelor Deg. or More - % of Adults
25+ (2013 ACS 5yr)

Appendix C

Page 88

Countywide labor force data and countywide employment impact as result of Indiana University
of Pennsylvania in Indiana County is shown in Table 7.1. 3 Out of the 47,699 people in the
available labor force, Indiana University of Pennsylvania employed 1,914 in-county jobs and
therefore, had an in-county percentage employment impact on the available labor force of four
percent. Furthermore, the countywide employment impact as a percent of the number of people
employed in Indiana County can also be calculated. Of the 44,800 total people employed in
Indiana County, 1,914 were employed by IUP and live in-county; therefore the university’s
countywide employment impact is approximately 4.3 percent. 4

Table 7.1:
Impact

University
Indiana

Labor Force Data, Indiana County: Averages and Countywide Employment

County
Indiana

Employer
Ranking
(2014)

Employee
Count

1

1,914

Countywide Impact
Labor
Force
% of Labor
(2013)
Force
47,699

4.01%

Employed
(2014)
44,800

% of
Employed
4.27%

The geographic distribution of Indiana University of Pennsylvania employees is shown on Map
7.3. 5 1,037 employees, or 53 percent, live within 10 miles of the university, 324 employees,
which constitutes 17 percent of the total employees, live within 25 miles, leaving 30 percent of
employees living beyond 25 miles from the university.

Refer to Appendix E for the

methodology regarding the composition of this map.

3

For the purpose of this analysis, the focus was the amount of in-county jobs at Indiana University’s main campus
in Indiana County. It is noted that Indiana has two other campuses in Armstrong County and Jefferson County.
4
The in-county employee count includes students who are employed by the university.
5
For the purpose of this illustration, student employees were excluded.

Appendix C

Page 89

Map 7.3: Indiana University of Pennsylvania’s Distribution of Employees

Economic Impact
The direct and indirect economic impact of each university was calculated in order to arrive at
the total economic impact that each has on the Commonwealth overall. Exhibit 7.1 provides a
general overview of Indiana University of Pennsylvania, as well as the direct and indirect
economic and employment impacts of the university on the Commonwealth.

A variety of data sources were used in order to calculate and analyze the spending of each
institution and its employees, students, and visitors. Please refer to Appendix E for additional
detail regarding the data sources utilized for this study. After collecting the necessary data,
multipliers were utilized to achieve the total economic impact and employment impact of Indiana
University of Pennsylvania. The multipliers were obtained through the Bureau of Economic
Analysis Regional Industrial Multiplier Systems (“RIMS II”). As a whole, it is noted that IUP
has an important role in the Commonwealth in terms of the higher educational opportunities it
provides to residents of the Commonwealth as well as the direct, indirect, and induced economic
benefits the university provides to the Commonwealth.
Appendix C

Page 90

The total direct economic impact of IUP on the Commonwealth was $427,774,334. This value is
represented by four main spending sources:

institutional spending, faculty/staff spending,

student spending, and capital expenditures.

Note that the institutional spending includes

employment benefits spent primarily in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Indiana University of Pennsylvania’s Direct Economic Impact on the Commonwealth\
(1) Institutional spending:

$90,980,132

Benefits:

$51,903,699

(2) Faculty/Staff spending: $92,656,902
(3) Student spending:

$181,079,958

(4) Capital Expenditures: $11,153,643

Total Direct Impact:

$427,774,334

As presented in Table 7.2, the direct impact, $427,774,334, was multiplied by the applicable
state multipliers obtained from the RIMS II data, resulting in a total economic impact of IUP on
the Commonwealth of $636,938,964. By taking the difference between the total and direct
economic impacts, the combined indirect and induced impact is calculated to be $209,164,630.
Please refer to Appendix E for an additional discussion related to the use of multipliers and the
methodology employed to derive the direct and indirect economic benefits.
Table 7.2: Total Economic Impact of Indiana University of Pennsylvania on the
Commonwealth
University
Indiana

Appendix C

Total Direct
$ 427,774,334

Total Indirect
$ 184,817,150

Total Induced
$ 24,347,480

Total Impact
$ 636,938,964

Page 91

Chart 7.1: Total Economic Impact (Direct + Indirect + Induced): $636,938,964
$24,347,480

$184,817,150

Total Direct
Total Indirect
Total Induced

$427,774,334

The resulting return of taxpayer dollars via the Commonwealth’s appropriations has a significant
and measurable economic impact on the Commonwealth as a whole.

Specifically, the

appropriation to Indiana University of Pennsylvania made by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, and allocated by the State System, for fiscal year 2013-2014 was $52,382,984.
Therefore, each dollar invested in Indiana University by the Commonwealth via appropriations
yielded a return of $12.16 in total economic impact, as is shown on Table 7.3.

Table 7.3: Statewide Economic Impact of Indiana University of Pennsylvania Appropriations

University
Indiana

Total Impact
$ 636,938,964

State
Appropriations
$ 52,382,984

Ratio
12.16

University spending in addition to the ancillary spending (faculty and students) yielded income
tax revenues to the Commonwealth, as well as to local municipalities and the state
unemployment trust fund. Table 7.4 illustrates the benefits provided by the university’s payroll
expenditures.

Appendix C

Page 92

Table 7.4: Statewide Economic Impact of Indiana University of Pennsylvania Payroll Tax
Withholdings

University
Indiana

State Tax
Withholdings
$ 3,455,150

Local EIT
$ 1,415,326

Local
Services
Tax
$ 120,124

Unemployment
Tax
$
76,292

Total Tax
Payments
$ 5,066,892

In addition, sales tax revenue was collected by the Commonwealth as a result of the consumption
of taxable goods and services by the university’s faculty and staff as well as students. Table 7.5
illustrates the sales tax revenue collected by the Commonwealth. Please refer to Appendix E for
an additional discussion of the methodology employed to estimate the sale tax revenue collected
by the Commonwealth.

Table 7.5: Statewide Economic Impact of Indiana University of Pennsylvania Sales Tax
Revenue Collections

University
Indiana

Total Faculty and
Student Spending
$
385,394,125

Spending
subject to tax
$ 92,070,657

Sales
Tax Rate
6.00%

Sales Tax
Revenue
$ 5,524,239

In the aggregate, the revenues realized by the Commonwealth in terms of payroll tax
withholdings and sales tax receipts for IUP were $8,979,390 or 17.1 percent of the
Commonwealth’s appropriations for fiscal year 2013-2014.

The composite spending activity of the university also has a measureable effect on employment
in the Commonwealth. 6 Specifically the direct spending of three categories enumerated above
helps to create jobs. The employment impact of the aggregate spending of the university and the
ancillary spending of the faculty/staff and students is measured by the the RIMS II multiplier
which estimates the number of jobs created per every additional million in spending. 7
Specifically, the RIMS II state multiplier for Pennsylvania indicated that for each additional
million dollars of output by the State System universities, approximately 21.3 jobs were created

6
7

Composite spending activity includes institutional, faculty and staff and student spending.
Please refer to Appendix E for additional information related to the RIMS II multipliers.

Appendix C

Page 93

or supported.

In this manner, the employment impact of IUP on the Commonwealth

approximated 8,856 jobs, as is shown in Table 7.6.

Table 7.6: Statewide Employment Impact of Indiana University of Pennsylvania on the
Commonwealth as a Result of Direct Composite Spending: 8,856 Jobs

University
Indiana

Dire ct
Composite
Spending
416,620,691

Jobs
Output
21.26

Employment
Impact
8,856

The capital expenditures of the university also help to support jobs in the region.

This

employment impact is again measured using RIMS II multipliers by estimating the number of
jobs created for every additional million spent on capital expenditures. Specifically, the RIMS II
construction multiplier for Pennsylvania indicated that per each additional million dollars of
output, approximately 17.9 jobs were created or supported. In this manner, the employment
impact of Indiana University of Pennsylvania on the Commonwealth approximated 200 more
jobs, as shown in Table 7.7. Therefore, the total employment impact of IUP is 9,056 jobs.

Table 7.7: Statewide Employment Impact of Indiana University of Pennsylvania on the
Commonwealth as a Result of Direct Capital Expenditures: 200 Jobs
University
Indiana

Direct Capital
Expenditures
$ 11,153,643

Jobs
Employment
Output
Impact
17.94
200

The final quantified measure of economic impact would be that of volunteer hours contributed
by faculty and staff. In 2013 and 2014, Indiana University’s faculty and staff spent 6,120 and
6,600 hours volunteering, respectively. With an average value of approximately $22.55 per
hour, their total contribution amounts to approximately $138,000 and $148,830 in 2013 and
2014. Students also devoted their time to helping the community. IUP students spent a total of
115,962 and 142,366 hours volunteering in 2013 and 2014, respectively. 8 It is likely that the
students participation was required by university curricular and co-curricular programs, some of
which either required supervision or a faculty team leader.
8

The most recent data available for the market value of volunteer time is $22.55 for 2013 according to the
Independent Sector’s Value of Volunteer Time.

Appendix C

Page 94

Economic Development
Economic development involves improvements to the standard of living through the creation of
jobs and the support of innovation and new research in a community’s region, state, or nation.
The State System plays a role in enhancing the economic development of the regions in which
the individual universities reside by assisting in the development and growth of new and existing
businesses, as well as increasing the employment opportunities, both of which increase economic
activity in the respective areas. The universities accomplish this in various ways, such as
partnering with local businesses, providing education and job skills training, providing an outlet
for research and development through incubators, and by providing financial and technical
assistance.

The goal of Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education and its 14 universities is
fundamentally to educate the citizens of the Commonwealth. By providing higher education, the
universities are not only helping to improve the economic development in the short-term, but in
the long-run as well.

Therefore, by way of establishing and accomplishing its mission,

Pennsylvania’s State System is benefiting the economic advancement of the Commonwealth.
Primarily, the State System does this through the granting of undergraduate and graduate
degrees, but also does so indirectly through its purchasing, expenditures, services, and by
employing hundreds, even thousands, of people.

Overall, Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education is a key player in supporting the
economic development and growth of communities, counties, regions, and the Commonwealth
overall. By providing sources of innovation and entrepreneurial assistance, the State System
supplies economic growth to local businesses along with highly skilled and educated candidate
employees.

Through its various economic development activities, Indiana University of

Pennsylvania successfully provides an economic competitive advantage for the county and the
Commonwealth as a whole.

Indiana University of Pennsylvania’s participation in WEDnetPA program had over 2,900
participants and had a total of $352,916 funds awarded in 2014.

Additionally, Indiana

University of Pennsylvania also has several other workforce development programs such as: the
Appendix C

Page 95

Culinary Academy, the IUP Highway Safety Project, Physical Fitness for IUP Policy Academy,
amongst many others. These programs drew in over 6,000 participants in 2014. IUP also has an
affiliated business incubator and a Small Business Development Center (“SBDC”). The SBDC
provides entrepreneurs and small business with the tools they require to build and grow a
successful business. In 2014, more than 166 clients received 4,305 hours of counseling from
experienced faculty, professional staff, and students. With these efforts, Indiana University of
Pennsylvania is positively impacting the economic development in all of the counties it reaches
and beyond.

Appendix C

Page 96

Exhibit 7.1
Indiana University of Pennsylvania Information
Location: County
Faculty and Staff Headcount Paid in 2014
Enrollment Characteristics
Enrollment
Undergraduate
Graduate
Total

Fall 2013
12,668
2,257
14,925

Fall 2014
12,130
2,239
14,369

Full-time
Part-time
Total

12,965
1,960
14,925

12,165
2,204
14,369

PA residents
Non-residents
Total

12,828
2,097
14,925

12,400
1,969
14,369

11,853
811
12,664

11,346
782
12,128

Traditional undergraduate (students under 25)
Non-traditional undergraduate (students over 25)
Total (undergraduate only)¹
Cost of Attendance
Undergraduate, In-State, FY 2014-2015
Room & Board
Tuition
Fees
Total
Undergraduate, Out-of-State, FY 2014-2015
Room & Board
Tuition
Fees
Total
Graduate, In-State, FY 2014-2015
Tuition (per credit)
Fees (per credit)
Total
Graduate, Out-of-State, FY 2014-2015
Tuition (per credit)
Fees (per credit)
Total (per credit)
Financial Characteristics
Revenues, FY 2013-2014
Tuition
Tuition from undergraduate in-state students
Tuition from undergraduate out-of-state students
Tuition from graduate in-state students
Tuition from graduate out-of-state students
Total

Appendix C

Indiana
2,129

$

$
$

$
$
$
$
$

$

$

11,346
6,820
2,650
20,816
11,346
17,050
3,915
32,311
454
223
677
681
271
952

74,795,940
14,215,214
10,948,905
8,079,279
108,039,338

Page 97

Financial Characteristics
Fees
Mandatory Fees
Technology, Academic/Instruction, and Other Mandatory Fees
Non-Mandatory Fees
Non-Mandatory Fees
Total

$

31,103,460

$

2,292,880
33,396,340

Total from Tuition and Fees

$ 141,435,678

Sales and Services

$

6,072,897

Education and General Appropriations

$

52,382,984

$

26,627,284
15,384,618
4,449,815
985,226
47,446,943

Grants and Contracts
Federal
State
Local/Other/Private
System Transfer Awards
Total grants and contracts

$

Other Revenues (net of scholarship discounts and allowances)
Total Revenues (from sources above)

$ 38,286,964
$ 285,625,466

Funds Raised by University (private giving)
Market Value of Endowment
Total Replacement Value of Physical Plant (main campus)
The Institution as a Consumer in the State
Institutional Expenditures
Institutional spending (excluding payroll)
Capital Improvements
Employee Benefits
Total Direct Institutional Spending
Institutional spending prorated by 13.70% of out of state students
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Institutional Spending

$
2,098,427
$ 61,172,865
$ 1,356,100,000

Faculty and Staff Expenditures
Faculty and staff spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Faculty and Staff Spending

Appendix C

$

82,011,382
8,968,750
51,903,699
142,883,831
19,579,530
1.53
29,956,681
2.330
45,659,463
15,634,255
$ 204,177,549

$

92,656,902
1.4100
$ 130,451,652

Page 98

The Institution as a Consumer in the State
Student Expenditures
Student spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Student Spending
Capital Expenditures
Capital Improvements - 5 year weighted average
Deferred Maintenance
Total Direct Capital Expenditures
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Capital Expenditures
The Institution as an Employer
Employment impact for the Commonwealth
Direct composite expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Composite Spending (jobs)
Direct capital expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Direct Expenditures (jobs)
Total Employment Impact
The University as a Center for Volunteerism
In-Kind (Volunteer) Contributions to Regional Economy
Annual volunteer hours of faculty and staff (2014)
Average market value of volunteer hours (per hour)
Estimated total contribution of faculty and staff
Annual volunteer hours of students (2014)
Business and Economic Development Services
Small Business Incubator
Small Business Development Center
Patents filed since January 1, 2010²
The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Sales Tax
Total Faculty and Staff and Student Spending
Imputed % of taxable spending
Spending subject to tax
Sales tax rate
Total State Sales Tax Revenue Generation

Appendix C

$ 181,079,958
1.4100
$ 254,942,473

$

$

9,386,667
1,766,976
11,153,643
1.68
18,787,196
2.47
27,500,421
8,713,225
47,367,290

$ 416,620,691
21.26
8,856
$ 11,153,643
17.94
200
9,056

$
$

6,600
22.55
148,830
142,366
Yes
Yes
0

$ 385,394,125
23.89%
92,070,657
6%
$
5,524,239

Page 99

The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Payroll Tax
Total payroll
State tax withholdings
Local EIT
Local Services Tax
Unemployment tax
Total Payroll Tax Payments

$ 115,655,768
3,455,150
1,415,326
120,124
76,292
$
5,066,892

¹For Fall 2013 and Fall 2014, there were variances of 4 and 2 students, respectively. The variance results from unknown classifications regarding
traditional vs. non-traditional undergraduate students.
²As of November 2010, Indiana University has one patent in process.

Appendix C

Page 100

Kutztown University of Pennsylvania
Berks County, PA
Kutztown University was originally founded in 1866 as Kutztown State Normal School; it
became known as Kutztown University in 1983. In July of 1983, Kutztown then became one
of the 14 state-owned universities within Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education
(“State System”).

The University’s mission is to provide a high quality education at the

undergraduate and graduate levels in order to prepare students to meet lifelong
intellectual, ethical, social, and career challenges. At Kutztown University, 87 percent tenured
or tenured-track instructional faculty has doctorates or terminal degrees.

Additionally, the

student to faculty ratio is 20:1. Kutztown also has an alumni network of about 72,500 graduates
that can be found across the US and beyond.
undergraduate and 656 graduate

As of fall 2014 semester, there were 8562

students enrolled within the institution. As of July 1, 2015,

Dr. Kenneth Hawkinson will take over as 12th president of the university.1
Map 8.1 demonstrates these students come from all across the state, thus contributing to the
economic impact of the State System.

1

Excerpts obtained from Kutztown University’s website, www2.kutztown.edu.

Appendix C

Page 101

Map 8.2 demonstrates Kutztown University’s alumni that still reside in the Commonwealth.

Berks County is comprised of approximately 857 sq. miles in land with a population density of
482.8 per square mile. Given the most recent data available from the last census in 2010,
population growth from 2010 was 0.5 percent to 413,531. According to the Pennsylvania State
Data Center (PaSDC), Berks County is projected to continue to grow 20 percent throughout
2040. The 2010 census revealed that 97.5 percent of the population reported only one race, with
4.9 percent of these reporting African-American. The population of this county is 16.4 percent
Hispanic (of any race). Additionally, the average household size was 2.6 persons compared to an
average family size of 3.1 persons. In 2013, manufacturing was the largest of 20 major sectors.
Berks County had a labor force of 204,705 people with an unemployment rate of 7.4 percent.

Appendix C

Page 102

Below are some of Berks County’s population demographics. 2
People & Income Overview

Value

Rank in
State

(By Place of Residence)
Population (2013)

413,521

9

Growth ( percent) since 2010 Census
Households (2012)

0.5%
153,977

20
9

Labor Force (persons) (2013)
Unemployment Rate (2013)

204,705
7.4

9
36

Per Capita Personal Income (2012)
Median Household Income (2012)

$40,453
$52,058

17
18

Poverty Rate (2012)
H.S. Diploma or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2012 ACS 5yr)

14.2

27

84.1

60

22.3

21

Bachelor Deg. or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2012 ACS 5yr)

Countywide labor force data and countywide employment impact as a result of Kutztown
University is shown in Table 8.1. Out of the 204,705 people in the available labor force,
Kutztown University had 933 in-county jobs and therefore, had an in-county percentage
employment impact on the available labor force of approximately 0.5 percent. Furthermore, the
countywide employment impact as a percent of the number of people employed in Berks County
can also be calculated. Of the 189,500 total people employed in Berks County, 933 were
employed by Kutztown University and live in-county; therefore the university’s countywide
employment impact is approximately 0.5 percent. 3

Table 8.1: Labor Force Data, Berks County: Averages and Countywide Employment Impact

University
Kutztown

County
Berks

Employer
Ranking
(2014)

Employee
Count

18

935

Countywide Impact
Labor
Force
% of Labor
(2013)
Force
204,705

0.46%

Employed
(2014)
189,500

% of
Employed
0.49%

The geographic distribution of Kutztown University employees is shown on Map 8.3. 4 468
employees, or 42 percent, live within 10 miles of the university, 414 employees, which
constitutes 37 percent of the employees, live within 25 miles, leaving 21 percent of employees

2

Population demographics obtained from StatsAmerica provided by the Indiana Business Research Center
Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor and Industry Center for Workforce Information and Analysis.
3
The in-county employee count includes students who are employed by the university.
4
For the purpose of this illustration, student employees were excluded.

Appendix C

Page 103

living beyond 25 miles from the university. Refer to Appendix E for the methodology regarding
the composition of this map.

Map 8.3: Kutztown University’s Distribution of Employees

Economic Impact
The direct and indirect economic impact of each university was calculated in order to arrive at
the total economic impact that each has on the Commonwealth overall. Exhibit 8.1 provides a
general overview of Kutztown University, as well as the direct and indirect economic and
employment impacts of the university on the Commonwealth.

A variety of data sources were used in order to calculate and analyze the spending of each
institution and its employees, students, and visitors. Please refer to Appendix E for additional
detail regarding the data sources utilized for this study. After collecting the necessary data,
multipliers were utilized to achieve the total economic impact and employment impact of
Kutztown University. The multipliers were obtained through the Bureau of Economic Analysis
Regional Industrial Multiplier Systems (“RIMS II”). As a whole, it is noted that Kutztown
University has an important role in the Commonwealth in terms of the higher educational
Appendix C

Page 104

opportunities it provides to residents of the Commonwealth as well as the direct, indirect, and
induced economic benefits the university provides to the Commonwealth.

The total direct economic impact of Kutztown University on the Commonwealth was
$254,408,286. This value is represented by four main spending sources: institutional spending,
faculty/staff spending, student spending, and capital expenditures. Note that the institutional
spending includes employment benefits spent primarily in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Kutztown University’s Direct Economic Impact on the Commonwealth
(1) Institutional spending: $70,455,902
Benefits:

$30,848,249

(2) Faculty/Staff spending: $57,311,502
(3) Student spending:

$93,701,868

(4) Capital Expenditures

Total Direct Impact:

$2,090,765

$254,408,286

As presented in Table 8.2, the direct impact, $254,408,286, was multiplied by the applicable
state multipliers obtained from the RIMS II data, resulting in a total economic impact of
Kutztown University on the Commonwealth of $357,989,848. By taking the difference between
the total and direct economic impacts, the combined indirect and induced impact is calculated to
be $103,581,562. Please refer to Appendix E for an additional discussion related to the use of
multipliers and the methodology employed to derive the direct and indirect economic benefits.

Table 8.2: Total Economic Impact of Kutztown University on the Commonwealth
University
Kutztown

Appendix C

Total Direct
$ 254,408,286

Total Indirect
$ 92,971,052

Total Induced
$ 10,610,510

Total Impact
$ 357,989,848

Page 105

Chart 8.1: Total Economic Impact (Direct + Indirect + Induced): $357,989,848
$10,610,510

$92,971,052

Total Direct
Total Indirect
Total Induced

$254,408,286

The resulting return of taxpayer dollars via the Commonwealth’s appropriations has a significant
and measurable economic impact on the Commonwealth as a whole.

Specifically, the

appropriation to Kutztown University made by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and
allocated by the State System, for fiscal year 2013-2014 was $33,105,442. Therefore, each
dollar invested in Kutztown University by the Commonwealth via appropriations yielded a return
of approximately $10.81 in total economic impact, as is shown on Table 8.3.

Table 8.3: Statewide Economic Impact of Kutztown University Appropriations

University
Kutztown

Total Impact
$ 357,989,848

State
Appropriations
$ 33,105,442

Ratio
10.81

University spending in addition to the ancillary spending (faculty and students) yielded income
tax revenues to the Commonwealth, as well as to local municipalities and the state
unemployment trust fund. Table 8.4 illustrates the benefits provided by the university’s payroll
expenditures.

Appendix C

Page 106

Table 8.4: Statewide Economic Impact of Kutztown University Payroll Tax Withholdings

University
Kutztown

State Tax
Withholdings
$ 2,022,440

Local
Services
Tax
$ 88,707

Local EIT
$ 753,672

Unemployment
Tax
$
45,600

Total Tax
Payments
$ 2,910,419

In addition, sales tax revenue was collected by the Commonwealth as a result of the consumption
of taxable goods and services by the university’s faculty and staff as well as students. Table 8.5
illustrates the sales tax revenue collected by the Commonwealth. Please refer to Appendix E for
an additional discussion of the methodology employed to estimate the sale tax revenue collected
by the Commonwealth.

Table 8.5: Statewide Economic Impact of Kutztown University Sales Tax Revenue Collections

Unive rsity
Kutztown

Total Faculty and
Stude nt Spe nding
$
212,611,724

Spe nding
subje ct to tax
$ 50,792,941

Sale s
Tax Rate
6.00%

Sale s Tax
Re ve nue
$ 3,047,576

In the aggregate, the revenues realized by the Commonwealth in terms of payroll tax
withholdings and sales tax receipts for Kutztown University were $5,070,017 or 15.3 percent of
the Commonwealth’s appropriations for fiscal year 2013-2014.

The composite spending activity of the university also has a measureable effect on employment
in the Commonwealth. 5 Specifically the direct spending of three categories enumerated above
helps to create jobs. The employment impact of the aggregate spending of the university and the
ancillary spending of the faculty/staff and students is measured by the RIMS II multiplier which
estimates the number of jobs created per every additional million in spending. 6 Specifically, the
RIMS II state multiplier for Pennsylvania indicated that for each additional million dollars of
output by the State System universities, approximately 21.3 jobs were created or supported. In
this manner, the employment impact of Kutztown University on the Commonwealth
approximated 5,363 jobs, as is shown in Table 8.6.

5
6

Composite spending activity includes institutional, faculty and staff and student spending.
Please refer to Appendix E for additional information related to the RIMS II multipliers.

Appendix C

Page 107

Table 8.6: Statewide Employment Impact of Kutztown University on the Commonwealth as a
Result of Direct Composite Spending: 5,363 Jobs
Direct
Composite
Spending
252,317,521

University
Kutztown

Jobs
Output
21.26

Employment
Impact
5,363

The capital expenditures of the university also help to support jobs in the region.

This

employment impact is again measured using RIMS II multipliers by estimating the number of
jobs created for every additional million spent on capital expenditures. Specifically, the RIMS II
construction multiplier for Pennsylvania indicated that per each additional million dollars of
output, 17.9 jobs were created or supported.

In this manner, the employment impact of

Kutztown University on the Commonwealth approximated 38 more jobs, as shown in Table 8.7.
Therefore, the total employment impact of Kutztown University is 5,401 jobs.

Table 8.7: Statewide Employment Impact of Kutztown University on the Commonwealth as a
Result of Direct Capital Expenditures: 38 Jobs

University
Kutztown

Direct Capital
Expenditures Jobs Output
$ 2,090,765
17.94

Employment
Impact
38

The final quantified measure of economic impact would be that of volunteer hours contributed
by faculty and staff. Kutztown University’s faculty and staff spent 3,400 hours volunteering in
both 2013 and 2014. With an average value of approximately $22.55 per hour, their total
contribution amounts to $153,340 in 2013 and 2014 combined. 7 Students also devoted their time
to helping the community.

Kutztown students spent a total of 46,400 and 21,954 hours

volunteering in 2013 and 2014, respectively. It is likely that the students participation was
required by university curricular and co-curricular programs, some of which either required
supervision or a faculty team leader.

7

The most recent data available for the market value of volunteer time is $22.55 for 2013 according to the
Independent Sector’s Value of Volunteer Time.

Appendix C

Page 108

Economic Development
Economic development involves improvements to the standard of living through the creation of
jobs and the support of innovation and new research in a community’s region, state, or nation.
The State System plays a role in enhancing the economic development of the regions in which
the individual universities reside by assisting in the development and growth of new and existing
businesses, as well as increasing the employment opportunities, both of which increase economic
activity in the respective areas. The universities accomplish this in various ways, such as
partnering with local businesses, providing education and job skills training, providing an outlet
for research and development through incubators, and by providing financial and technical
assistance.

The goal of Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education and its 14 universities is
fundamentally to educate the citizens of the Commonwealth. By providing higher education, the
universities are not only helping to improve the economic development in the short-term, but in
the long-run as well.

Therefore, by way of establishing and accomplishing its mission,

Pennsylvania’s State System is benefiting the economic advancement of the Commonwealth.
Primarily, the State System does this through the granting of undergraduate and graduate
degrees, but also does so indirectly through its purchasing, expenditures, services, and by
employing hundreds, even thousands, of people.

Overall, Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education is a key player in supporting the
economic development and growth of communities, counties, regions, and the Commonwealth
overall. By providing sources of innovation and entrepreneurial assistance, the State System
supplies economic growth to local businesses along with highly skilled and educated candidate
employees.

Through its various economic development activities, Kutztown University

successfully provides an economic competitive advantage for the county and the Commonwealth
as a whole.

Kutztown University’s participation in WEDnetPA program had over 990 participants and had a
total of $200,749 funds awarded in 2014.

Additionally, Kutztown University also has an

affiliated business incubator and offers entrepreneurial programs. The entrepreneurial programs
allow students to interact with local businesses and give them the opportunity to have a “real
Appendix C

Page 109

world experience,” if selected. Through these programs, about 116 participants got the chance to
interact with and learn from approximately eight local businesses. Kutztown also has a Small
Business Development Center (“SBDC”).

The mission of the SBDC, as one of 18 in

Pennsylvania, is to grow the economy of South Eastern and South Central Pennsylvania. The
consultants there can offer assistance in various areas including, but not limited to: evaluating or
refining business plans, incorporating new technology to a business, conducting market research,
identifying funding resources, and weighing sales opportunities or franchise options. 8 By way of
the WEDnetPA and entrepreneurial programs, along with the SBDC, Kutztown University
certainly helps the economic development of Berks County, as well as many others.

8

‘Kutztown SBDC: About the KU SBDC”, kutztownsbdc.org, visited February 25, 2015.

Appendix C

Page 110

Exhibit 8.1
Kutztown University Information
Location: County
Faculty and Staff Headcount Paid in 2014
Enrollment Characteristics
Enrollment
Undergraduate
Graduate
Total

Fall 2013
8,815
698
9,513

Fall 2014
8,562
656
9,218

Full-time
Part-time
Total

8,548
965
9,513

8,319
899
9,218

PA residents
Non-residents
Total

8,451
1,062
9,513

8,195
1,023
9,218

8,284
531
8,815

8,061
500
8,561

Traditional undergraduate (students under 25)
Non-traditional undergraduate (students over 25)
Total (undergraduate only)¹
Cost of Attendance
Undergraduate, In-State, FY 2014-2015
Room & Board
Tuition
Fees
Total
Undergraduate, Out-of-State, FY 2014-2015
Room & Board
Tuition
Fees
Total
Graduate, In-State, FY 2014-2015
Tuition (per credit)
Fees (per credit)
Total (per credit)
Graduate, Out-of-State, FY 2014-2015
Tuition (per credit)
Fees (per credit)
Total (per credit)
Financial Characteristics
Revenues, FY 2013-2014
Tuition
Tuition from undergraduate in-state students
Tuition from undergraduate out-of-state students
Tuition from graduate in-state students
Tuition from graduate out-of-state students
Total

Appendix C

Berks
1,114

$

$
$

$
$
$
$
$

8,430
6,820
2,279
17,529
8,430
17,050
2,499
27,979
454
85
539
681
120
801

$ 50,421,791
15,819,406
4,853,693
302,299
$ 71,397,189

Page 111

Financial Characteristics
Fees
Mandatory Fees
Technology, Academic/Instruction, and Other Mandatory Fees
Non-Mandatory Fees
Non-Mandatory Fees
Total

1,000,751
$ 18,563,823

Total from Tuition, Fees, Room & Board

$ 89,961,012

Sales and Services

$

Education and General Appropriations

$ 33,105,442

Grants and Contracts
Federal
State
Local/Other/Private
System Transfer Awards
Total grants and contracts

$ 13,495,600
9,703,591
158,112
70,575
$ 23,427,878

Other Revenues (net of scholarship discounts and allowances)
Total Revenues (from sources above)

$ 33,087,644
$ 182,476,747

Funds Raised by University (private giving)
Market Value of Endowment
Total Replacement Value of Physical Plant
The Institution as a Consumer in the State
Institutional Expenditures
Institutional spending (excluding payroll)
Capital Improvements
Employee Benefits
Total Direct Institutional Spending
Institutional spending prorated by 11.10% of out of state students
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Institutional Spending

$
9,100
$ 20,504,000
$ 881,000,000

Faculty and Staff Expenditures
Faculty and staff spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Faculty and Staff Spending

Appendix C

$ 17,563,072

2,894,771

$ 68,974,688
1,481,214
30,848,249
101,304,151
11,242,585
1.53
17,240,504
2.33
26,217,708
8,977,204
$ 136,499,063

$ 57,311,502
1.41
$ 80,688,864

Page 112

The Institution as a Consumer in the State
Student Expenditures
Student spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Student Spending
Capital Expenditures
Capital Improvements - 5 year weighted average
Deferred Maintenance
Total Direct Capital Expenditures
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Capital Expenditures
The Institution as an Employer
Employment impact for the Commonwealth
Direct composite expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Composite Spending (jobs)
Direct capital expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Direct Expenditures (jobs)
Total Employment Impact
The University as a Center for Volunteerism
In-Kind (Volunteer) Contributions to Regional Economy
Annual volunteer hours of faculty and staff (2014)
Average market value of volunteer hours (per hour)
Estimated total contribution of faculty and staff
Annual volunteer hours of students (2014)
Business and Economic Development Services
Small Business Incubator
Small Business Development Center
Patents filed since January 1, 2010
The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Sales Tax
Total Faculty and Staff and Student Spending
Imputed % of taxable spending
Spending subject to tax
Sales tax rate
Total State Sales Tax Revenue Generation

Appendix C

$ 93,701,868
1.41
$ 131,922,860

$

$

1,013,333
1,077,432
2,090,765
1.68
3,521,685
2.47
5,154,991
1,633,306
8,879,062

$ 252,317,521
21.26
5,363
$ 2,090,765
17.94
38
5,401

$
$

3,400
22.55
76,670
21,954
Yes
Yes
0

$ 212,611,724
23.89%
50,792,941
6%
$ 3,047,576

Page 113

The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Payroll Tax
Total payroll
State tax withholdings
Local EIT
Local Services Tax
Unemployment tax
Total Payroll Tax Payments

$ 68,718,141
2,022,440
753,672
88,707
45,600
$ 2,910,419

¹In Fall 2014, there was a variance of one undergraduate student. T he variance results from an unknown classification regarding traditional vs. non-traditional.

Appendix C

Page 114

Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania
Clinton County, PA

Sitting on the banks of the Susquehanna River, Lock Haven University was founded in 1870 as
the Central State Normal School and became Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania after
joining Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education in 1983. Lock Haven University offers
60 undergraduate and certificate programs, along with 40 minors, and has an average class size
of 29 students. Classes are taught by 254 full-time faculty members of which 78 percent hold
earned doctorates and 14 percent represent ethnic minorities. In 2014, 4,521 undergraduate
students and 396 graduate students were enrolled at Lock Haven University.

Map 9.1 demonstrates these students come from all across the state, thus contributing to the
economic impact of the State System.

Appendix C

Page 115

According to the most recent data, 96 percent of 2011-2012 graduates were employed, in the
military or pursuing further education six months after graduation; 58 percent of those employed
were working in their chosen fields. Dr. Michael Fiorentino has been serving as the university’s
president since July 2011. 1

Map 9.2 demonstrates Lock Haven University’s alumni that still reside in the Commonwealth.

Lock Haven University is in Clinton County, PA.

Clinton County has a population of

approximately 39,954 people, which is a 1.8 percent increase from 2010 to 2013. It has 888 sq.
miles in land area and a population density of 45 per square mile. In 2013, Clinton County had a
labor force of 19,944 people and an unemployment rate of 8.6 percent, with manufacturing as the
largest of 20 major sectors in 2013.

1

Excerpts obtained from Lock Haven University’s website, www.lhup.edu.

Appendix C

Page 116

Below are some of Clinton County’s population demographics. 2
People & Income Overview

Value

Rank in
State

Population (2013)
Growth ( percent) since 2010 Census

39,954
1.8%

55
4

Households (2012)
Labor Force (persons) (2013)

15,286
19,944

56
55

Unemployment Rate (2013)
Per Capita Personal Income (2012)

8.6
$34,819

14
49

Median Household Income (2012)
Poverty Rate (2012)

$41,949
15.7

50
14

86.4

46

17.1

42

(By Place of Residence)

H.S. Diploma or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2012 ACS 5yr)
Bachelor Deg. or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2012 ACS 5yr)

Clearfield County, PA
Lock Haven’s second campus is located in Clearfield County, PA. Clearfield has 1,444.7 sq.
miles in land area and a population density of 70.9 persons per square mile. There was a
population of 81,174 people in 2013, which was a 0.6% decrease in population since 2010. In
2013, Clearfield County had a labor force of 40,924 people and an unemployment rate of 8.4%.
During this time, health care and social assistance was the largest of 20 major sectors.

Below are some of Clearfield County’s population demographics.
People & Income Overview

Value

Rank in
State

Population (2013)
Growth (%) since 2010 Census

81,174
-0.6%

36
37

Households (2012)
Labor Force (persons) (2013)

32,435
40,924

36
36

Unemployment Rate (2013)
Per Capita Personal Income (2012)

8.4
$34,718

20
51

Median Household Income (2012)
Poverty Rate (2012)

$41,519
14.6

55
22

86.6

44

12.9

61

(By Place of Residence)

H.S. Diploma or More - % of Adults
25+ (2012 ACS 5yr)
Bachelor Deg. or More - % of Adults
25+ (2012 ACS 5yr)

Countywide labor force data and countywide employment impact as a result of Lock Haven
University in Clinton County is shown in Table 9.1. 3 Out of the 19,944 people in the available
2

Population demographics obtained from StatsAmerica provided by the Indiana Business Research Center
Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor and Industry Center for Workforce Information and Analysis.

Appendix C

Page 117

labor force, Lock Haven University had 465 in-county jobs and therefore, had an in-county
percentage employment impact on the available labor force of approximately 2.3 percent.
Furthermore, the countywide employment impact as a percent of the number of people employed
in Clinton County can also be calculated. Of the 19,200 total people employed in Clinton
County, 465 were employed by Lock Haven University and live in-county; therefore the
university’s countywide employment impact is approximately 2.4 percent. 4

Table 9.1: Labor Force Data, Clinton County: Averages and Countywide Employment Impact

University
Lock Haven

County
Clinton

Employer
Ranking
(2014)

Employee
Count

3

465

Labor
Force
(2013)
19,944

% of Labor
Force
2.33%

Employed
(2014)
19,200

% of
Employed
2.42%

The geographic distribution of Lock Haven University employees is shown on Map 9.3. 5 338
employees, or 52 percent, live within 10 miles of the university, 107 employees, which
constitutes 16 percent of the employees, live within 25 miles, leaving 32 percent of employees
living beyond 25 miles from the university. Refer to Appendix E for the methodology regarding
the composition of this map

3

For the purpose of this analysis, the focus was on the amount of in-county jobs at Lock Haven University’s main
campus in Clinton County. It is noted that Lock Haven has a branch campus in Clearfield County where there is also
an employment impact.
4
The in-county employee count includes students who are employed by the university.
5
For the purpose of this illustration, student employees were excluded.

Appendix C

Page 118

Map 9.3: Lock Haven University’s Distribution of Employees

Economic Impact
The direct and indirect economic impact of each university was calculated in order to arrive at
the total economic impact that each has on the Commonwealth overall. Exhibit 9.1 provides a
general overview of Lock Haven University, as well as the direct and indirect economic and
employment impacts of the university on the Commonwealth.

A variety of data sources were used in order to calculate and analyze the spending of each
institution and its employees, students, and visitors. Please refer to Appendix E for additional
detail regarding the data sources utilized for this study. After collecting the necessary data,
multipliers were utilized to achieve the total economic impact and employment impact of Lock
Haven University. The multipliers were obtained through the Bureau of Economic Analysis
Regional Industrial Multiplier Systems (“RIMS II”). As a whole, it is noted that Lock Haven
University has an important role in the Commonwealth in terms of the higher educational
opportunities it provides to residents of the Commonwealth as well as the direct, indirect, and
induced economic benefits the university provides to the Commonwealth.
Appendix C

Page 119

The total direct economic impact of Lock Haven University on the Commonwealth was
$108,859,639. This value is represented by four main spending sources: institutional spending,
faculty/staff spending, student spending and capital expenditures. Note that the institutional
spending includes employment benefits spent primarily in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Lock Haven University’s Direct Economic Impact on the Commonwealth
(1) Institutional spending: $29,036,485
Benefits:

$17,817,452

(2) Faculty/Staff spending: $33,051,326
(3) Student spending:

$27,325,578

(4) Capital Expenditures:

Total Direct Impact:

$1,628,798

$108,859,639

As presented in Table 9.2, the direct impact, $108,859,639, was multiplied by the applicable
state multipliers obtained from the RIMS II data, resulting in a total economic impact of Lock
Haven University on the Commonwealth of $148,709,294. By taking the difference between the
total and direct economic impacts, the combined indirect and induced impact is calculated to be
$39,849,655. Please refer to Appendix E for an additional discussion related to the use of
multipliers and the methodology employed to derive the direct and indirect economic benefits.

Table 9.2: Total Economic Impact of Lock Haven University on the Commonwealth
University
Lock Haven

Appendix C

Total Direct
$ 108,859,639

Total Indirect
$ 36,043,481

Total Induced
$ 3,806,174

Total Impact
$ 148,709,294

Page 120

Chart 9.1: Total Economic Impact (Direct + Indirect + Induced): $148,709,294
$3,806,174

$36,043,481

Total Direct
Total Indirect
Total Induced

$108,859,639

The resulting return of taxpayer dollars via the Commonwealth’s appropriations has a significant
and measurable economic impact on the Commonwealth as a whole. Specifically, the
appropriation to Lock Haven University made by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and
allocated by the State System, for fiscal year 2013-2014 was $19,963,187. Therefore, each
dollar invested in Lock Haven University by the Commonwealth via appropriations yielded a
return of approximately $7.45 in total economic impact, as is shown on Table 9.3.

Table 9.3: Statewide Economic Impact of Lock Haven University Appropriations

University
Lock Haven

Total Impact
$ 148,709,294

State
Appropriations
$ 19,963,187

Ratio
7.45

University spending in addition to the ancillary spending (faculty and students) yielded income
tax revenues to the Commonwealth, as well as to local municipalities and the state
unemployment trust fund. Table 9.4 illustrates the benefits provided by the university’s payroll
expenditures.

Appendix C

Page 121

Table 9.4: Statewide Economic Impact of Lock Haven University Payroll Tax Withholdings

University
Lock Haven

State Tax
Withholdings
$ 1,200,846

Local
Services
Tax
$ 38,157

Local EIT
$ 602,999

Unemployment
Tax
$
26,821

Total Tax
Payments
$ 1,868,823

In addition, sales tax revenue was collected by the Commonwealth as a result of the consumption
of taxable goods and services by the university’s faculty and staff as well as students. Table 9.5
illustrates the sales tax revenue collected by the Commonwealth. Please refer to Appendix E for
an additional discussion of the methodology employed to estimate the sale tax revenue collected
by the Commonwealth.

Table 9.5:
Collections

Statewide Economic Impact of Lock Haven University Sales Tax Revenue

University
Lock Haven

Total Faculty and
Student Spending
$
85,004,643

Spending
subject to tax
$ 20,307,609

Sales
Tax Rate
6.00%

Sales Tax
Revenue
$ 1,218,457

In the aggregate, the revenues realized by the Commonwealth in terms of payroll tax
withholdings and sales tax receipts for Lock Haven University were $2,419,303 or 12.1 percent
of the Commonwealth’s appropriations for fiscal year 2013-2014.

The composite spending activity of the university also has a measureable effect on employment
in the Commonwealth. 6 Specifically the direct spending of three categories enumerated above
helps to create jobs. The employment impact of the aggregate spending of the university and the
ancillary spending of the faculty/staff and students is measured by the RIMS II multiplier which
estimates the number of jobs created per every additional million in spending. 7 Specifically, the
RIMS II state multiplier for Pennsylvania indicated that for each additional million dollars of
output by the State System universities, approximately 21.3 jobs were created or supported. In
this manner, the employment impact of Lock Haven University on the Commonwealth was
approximately 2,279 jobs, as is shown in Table 9.6.

6
7

Composite spending activity includes institutional, faculty and staff and student spending.
Please refer to Appendix E for additional information related to the RIMS II multipliers.

Appendix C

Page 122

Table 9.6: Statewide Employment Impact of Lock Haven University on the Commonwealth as
a Result of Direct Composite Spending: 2,279 Jobs
Dire ct
Composite
Spe nding
107,230,841

Unive rsity
Lock Haven

Jobs
Output
21.26

Employme nt
Impact
2,279

The capital expenditures of the university also help to support jobs in the region.

This

employment impact is again measured using RIMS II multipliers by estimating the number of
jobs created for every additional million spent on capital expenditures. Specifically, the RIMS II
construction multiplier for Pennsylvania indicated that per each additional million dollars of
output, approximately 17.9 jobs were created or supported. In this manner, the employment
impact of Lock Haven University on the Commonwealth approximated 29 more jobs, as shown
in Table 9.7. Therefore, the total employment impact of Lock Haven University is 2,309 jobs.

Table 9.7: Statewide Employment Impact of Lock Haven University on the Commonwealth as
a Result of Direct Capital Expenditures: 29 Jobs
University
Lock Haven

Direct Capital
Expenditures
$ 1,628,798

Jobs Output
17.94

Employment
Impact
29

The final quantified measure of economic impact would be that of volunteer hours contributed
by faculty and staff. While faculty and staff hours were not tracked, students did devote their
time to helping the community. Lock Haven students spent a total of 59,189 and 58,065 hours
volunteering, in 2013 and 2014, respectively. It is likely that the students’ participation was
required by university curricular and co-curricular programs, some of which either required
supervision or a faculty team leader.

Economic Development
Economic development involves improvements to the standard of living through the creation of
jobs and the support of innovation and new research in a community’s region, state, or nation.
The State System plays a role in enhancing the economic development of the regions in which
the individual universities reside by assisting in the development and growth of new and existing
businesses, as well as increasing the employment opportunities, both of which increase economic
Appendix C

Page 123

activity in the respective areas. The universities accomplish this in various ways, such as
partnering with local businesses, providing education and job skills training, providing an outlet
for research and development through incubators, and by providing financial and technical
assistance.

The goal of Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education and its 14 universities is
fundamentally to educate the citizens of the Commonwealth. By providing higher education, the
universities are not only helping to improve the economic development in the short-term, but in
the long-run as well.

Therefore, by way of establishing and accomplishing its mission,

Pennsylvania’s State System is benefiting the economic advancement of the Commonwealth.
Primarily, the State System does this through the granting of undergraduate and graduate
degrees, but also does so indirectly through its purchasing, expenditures, services, and by
employing hundreds, even thousands, of people.

Overall, Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education is a key player in supporting the
economic development and growth of communities, counties, regions, and the Commonwealth
overall. By providing sources of innovation and entrepreneurial assistance, the State System
supplies economic growth to local businesses along with highly skilled and educated candidate
employees.

Through its various economic development activities, Lock Haven University

successfully provides an economic competitive advantage for the county and the Commonwealth
as a whole.

Lock Haven University’s participation in WEDnetPA program had over 5,300 participants and
had a total of $257,510 funds awarded in 2014. Additionally, Lock Haven University has a
Small Business Development Center (SBDC). It was established to promote growth, expansion,
innovation, increased productivity and management improvement in existing small businesses in
Clinton and Lycoming Counties. Along with consulting services, Lock Haven’s SBDC offers
training seminars, which aim to teach small businesses owners and their employees about topics
they would use daily to strengthen their ability to compete in today’s highly competitive business

Appendix C

Page 124

world. 8 Through these efforts, Lock Haven University is positively impacting the economic
development in its home county, Clinton County, and many other surrounding counties.

8

“Small Business Development Center: Lock Haven University”, ihup.edu, visited February 25, 2015.

Appendix C

Page 125

Exhibit 9.1
Lock Haven University Information
Location: County
Faculty and Staff Headcount Paid in 2014
Enrollment Characteristics
Enrollment
Undergraduate
Graduate
Total

Fall 2013
4,855
405
5,260

Fall 2014
4,521
396
4,917

Full-time
Part-time
Total

4,723
537
5,260

4,381
536
4,917

PA residents
Non-residents
Total

4,890
370
5,260

4,584
333
4,917

4,430
425
4,855

4,124
397
4,521

Traditional undergraduate (students under 25)
Non-traditional undergraduate (students over 25)
Total (undergraduate only)
Cost of Attendance
Undergraduate, In-State, FY 2014-2015
Room & Board
Tuition
Fees
Total
Undergraduate, Out-of-State, FY 2014-2015
Room & Board
Tuition
Fees
Total
Graduate, In-State, FY 2014-2015
Tuition (per 3 credits)
Fees (per 3 credits)¹
Total
Graduate, Out-of-State, FY 2014-2015
Tuition (per 3 credits)
Fees (per 3 credits)
Total
Financial Characteristics
Revenues, FY 2013-2014
Tuition
Tuition from undergraduate in-state students
Tuition from undergraduate out-of-state students
Tuition from graduate in-state students
Tuition from graduate out-of-state students
Total

Appendix C

Clinton
653

$

$
$

$
$
$
$
$

$

$

8,752
6,820
2,457
18,029
8,752
15,050
2,677
26,479
1,362
437
1,799
2,043
604
2,647

29,772,250
4,549,406
3,730,198
1,355,322
39,407,176

Page 126

Financial Characteristics
Fees
Mandatory Fees
Technology, Academic/Instruction, and Other Mandatory Fees
Non-Mandatory Fees
Non-Mandatory Fees
Total

$

8,576,200

$

375,877
8,952,077

Total from Tuition, Fees, Room & Board

$

48,359,253

Sales and Services

$

416,155

Education and General Appropriations

$

19,963,187

$

9,963,752
6,117,431
31,112
19,369
16,131,664

Grants and Contracts
Federal
State
Local/Other/Private
System Transfer Awards
Total grants and contracts

$

Other Revenues (net of scholarship discounts and allowances)
Total Revenues (from sources above)

$ 16,564,749
$ 101,435,008

Funds Raised by University (private giving)
Market Value of Endowment
Total Replacement Value of Physical Plant (main campus)
The Institution as a Consumer in the State
Institutional Expenditures
Institutional spending (excluding payroll)
Capital Improvements
Employee Benefits
Total Direct Institutional Spending
Institutional spending prorated by 6.77% of out of state students
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Institutional Spending

$
30,400
$ 10,707,434
$ 526,400,000

Faculty and Staff Expenditures
Faculty and staff spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Faculty and Staff Spending

Appendix C

$

$

$
$

28,738,974
297,511
17,817,452
46,853,937
3,173,146
1.53
4,866,020
2.33
7,399,777
2,533,757
56,787,472

33,051,326
1.41
46,532,962

Page 127

The Institution as a Consumer in the State
Student Expenditures
Student spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Student Spending
Capital Expenditures
Capital Improvements - 5 year weighted average
Deferred Maintenance
Total Direct Capital Expenditures
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Capital Expenditures
The Institution as an Employer
Employment impact for the Commonwealth
Direct composite expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Composite Spending (jobs)
Direct capital expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Direct Expenditures (jobs)
Total Employment Impact
The University as a Center for Volunteerism
In-Kind (Volunteer) Contributions to Regional Economy
Annual volunteer hours of faculty and staff
Average market value of volunteer hours (per hour)
Estimated total contribution of faculty and staff
Annual volunteer hours of students (2014)
Business and Economic Development Services
Small Business Incubator
Small Business Development Center
Patents filed since January 1, 2010¹
The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Sales Tax
Total Faculty and Staff and Student Spending
Imputed % of taxable spending
Spending subject to tax
Sales tax rate
Total State Sales Tax Revenue Generation

Appendix C

$

27,325,578
1.41
38,471,681

$

900,000
728,798
1,628,798
1.68
2,743,547
2.47
4,015,964
1,272,417
6,917,179

$

$ 107,230,841
21.26
2,279
$
1,628,798
17.94
29
2,309

N/A
N/A
N/A
58,065
No
Yes
1

$

$

85,004,643
23.89%
20,307,609
6%
1,218,457

Page 128

The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Payroll Tax
Total payroll
State tax withholdings
Local EIT
Local Services Tax
Unemployment tax
Total Payroll Tax Payments

$

$

40,061,321
1,200,846
602,999
38,157
26,821
1,868,823

¹As of March 2013, Lock Haven University has an additional patent in process.

Appendix C

Page 129

Mansfield University of Pennsylvania
Tioga County, PA

Mansfield University is a small, rural, public, liberal arts institution located in the beautiful
mountains of North Central Pennsylvania. Mansfield Classical Seminary opened its doors in
January, 1857, four years before the beginning of the Civil War. Over the next 157 years, the
institution has thrived, experiencing five name changes in three centuries. Mansfield University
prides itself on developing leaders by focusing on four core values: Character, Scholarship,
Culture, and Service by incorporating them into the institution’s creed, which reads: “Character
as the essential, Scholarship as the means, Culture as the enrichment, and Service as the end of
all worthy endeavors.” For the 2014-2015 academic year, the university has 2,752 total students
enrolled, of which 2,587 are undergraduates.

Map 10.1 demonstrates these students come from all across the state, thus contributing to the
economic impact of the State System.

Appendix C

Page 130

Mansfield University is renowned for playing the first-ever college football game at night in
1892. Today, it is the only public university to compete in the Collegiate Sprint Football
League. Brigadier General Francis L. Hendricks, who served for five years as commander and
deputy commander of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service in Dallas, TX, was selected by
the Board of Governors of Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education to be the president
of Mansfield University in October 2012. 1

Map 10.2 demonstrates Mansfield University’s alumni that still reside in the Commonwealth.

Mansfield University is located in Tioga County, PA which has 1,133.8 sq. miles in land area
and a population density of 37.5 per square mile. In 2013, 42,463 lived in Tioga, which was a
1.1 percent increase in population since the last census in 2010. The average household size is
2.4 persons compared to an average family size of 2.8 persons. In 2010, 99 percent of the
population reported only one race on the census, with 0.8 percent of these reporting AfricanAmerican. The population of this county is one percent Hispanic (of any race). In 2013,

1

Excerpts obtained from Mansfield University’s website, www.mansfield.edu.

Appendix C

Page 131

manufacturing was the largest of 20 major sectors. The labor force was 21,875 people and there
was an unemployment rate of 8.3 percent.
Below are some of Tioga County’s population demographics. 2

Population (2013)
Growth ( percent) since 2010
Census
Households (2013)

42,463

Rank
in
State
52

1.1%

11

17,058

53

Labor Force (persons) (2013)
Unemployment Rate (2013)

21,875
8.3

50
21

Per Capita Personal Income (2013)
Median Household Income (2013)

$33,942
$45,052

60
38

Poverty Rate (2013)
H.S. Diploma or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2013 ACS 5yr)
Bachelor Deg. or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2013 ACS 5yr)

13.2

41

88.4

29

19.1

34

People & Income Overview
(By Place of Residence)

Value

Countywide labor force data and countywide employment impact as a result of Mansfield
University is shown in Table 10.1. Out of the 21,875 people in the available labor force,
Mansfield University had 415 in-county jobs and therefore, had an in-county percentage
employment impact on the available labor force of 1.9 percent. Furthermore, the countywide
employment impact as a percent of the number of people employed in Tioga County can also be
calculated. Of the 20,300 total people employed in Tioga County, 415 were employed by
Mansfield University and live in-county; therefore the university’s countywide employment
impact is approximately two percent. 3

Table 10.1: Labor Force Data, Tioga County: Averages and Countywide Employment Impact

University
Mansfield

County
T ioga

Employer
Ranking
(2014)

Employee
Count

4

415

Countywide Impact
Labor
Force
% of Labor
(2013)
Force
21,875

1.90%

Employed
(2014)
20,300

% of
Employed
2.04%

2

Population demographics obtained from StatsAmerica provided by the Indiana Business Research Center
Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor and Industry Center for Workforce Information and Analysis.
3
The in-county employee count includes students who are employed by the university.

Appendix C

Page 132

The geographic distribution of Mansfield University employees is shown on Map 10.3. 4 189
employees, or 33 percent, live within 10 miles of the university, 186 employees, which
constitutes 32 percent of the employees, live within 25 miles, leaving 35 percent of employees
living beyond 25 miles from the university. Refer to Appendix E for the methodology regarding
the composition of this map.

Map 10.3: Mansfield University’s Distribution of Employees.

Economic Impact
The direct and indirect economic impact of each university was calculated in order to arrive at
the total economic impact that each has on the Commonwealth overall. Exhibit 10.1 provides a
general overview of Mansfield University, as well as the direct and indirect economic and
employment impacts of the university on the Commonwealth.

A variety of data sources were used in order to calculate and analyze the spending of each
institution and its employees, students, and visitors. Please refer to Appendix E for additional
4

For the purpose of this illustration, student employees were excluded.

Appendix C

Page 133

detail regarding the data sources utilized for this study. After collecting the necessary data,
multipliers were utilized to achieve the total economic impact and employment impact of
Mansfield University. The multipliers were obtained through the Bureau of Economic Analysis
Regional Industrial Multiplier Systems (“RIMS II”). As a whole, it is noted that Mansfield
University has an important role in the Commonwealth in terms of the higher educational
opportunities it provides to residents of the Commonwealth as well as the direct, indirect, and
induced economic benefits the university provides to the Commonwealth.

The total direct economic impact of Mansfield University on the Commonwealth was
$70,189,054. This value is represented by four main spending sources: institutional spending,
faculty/staff spending, student spending, and capital expenditures. Note that the institutional
spending includes employment benefits spent primarily in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Mansfield University’s Direct Economic Impact on the Commonwealth
(1) Institutional spending:
Benefits:

$20,281,855
$13,479,194

(2) Faculty/Staff spending:

$24,177,795

(3) Student spending:

$9,441,184

(4) Capital Expenditures:

$2,809,026

Total Direct Impact:

$70,189,054

As presented in Table 10.2, the direct impact, $70,189,054, was multiplied by the applicable
state multipliers obtained from the RIMS II data, resulting in a total economic impact of
Mansfield University on the Commonwealth of $111,802,341. By taking the difference between
the total and direct economic impacts, the combined indirect and induced impact is calculated to
be $41,613,287. Please refer to Appendix E for an additional discussion related to the use of
multipliers and the methodology employed to derive the direct and indirect economic benefits.

Table 10.2: Total Economic Impact of Mansfield University on the Commonwealth
University
Mansfield

Appendix C

Total Direct
$ 70,189,054

Total Indirect
$ 34,628,703

Total Induced
$ 6,984,585

Total Impact
$ 111,802,341

Page 134

Chart 10.1: Total Economic Impact (Direct + Indirect + Induced): $111,802,341
$6,984,585

$34,628,703
Total Direct
Total Indirect
Total Induced

$70,189,054

The resulting return of taxpayer dollars via the Commonwealth’s appropriations has a significant
and measurable economic impact on the Commonwealth as a whole.

Specifically, the

appropriations to Mansfield University made by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and
allocated by the State System, for fiscal year 2013-2014 was $16,702,905. Therefore, each
dollar invested in Mansfield University by the Commonwealth via appropriations yielded a
return of approximately $6.69 in total economic impact, as is shown on Table 10.3.

Table 10.3: Statewide Economic Impact of Mansfield University Appropriations

University
Mansfield

Total Impact
$ 111,802,341

State
Appropriations
$ 16,702,905

Ratio
6.69

University spending in addition to the ancillary spending (faculty and students) yielded income
tax revenues to the Commonwealth, as well as to local municipalities and the state
unemployment trust fund. Table 10.4 illustrates the benefits provided by the university’s payroll
expenditures.

Appendix C

Page 135

Table 10.4: Statewide Economic Impact of Mansfield University Payroll Tax Withholdings
State Tax
Withholdings
$ 833,113

University
Mansfield

Local
Services
Tax
$ 34,338

Local EIT
$ 408,587

Unemployment
Tax
$
18,729

Total Tax
Payments
$ 1,294,767

In addition, sales tax revenue was collected by the Commonwealth as a result of the consumption
of taxable goods and services by the university’s faculty and staff, as well as students. Table
10.5 illustrates the sales tax revenue collected by the Commonwealth. Please refer to Appendix
E for an additional discussion of the methodology employed to estimate the sale tax revenue
collected by the Commonwealth.

Table 10.5:
Collections

Statewide Economic Impact of Mansfield University Sales Tax Revenue

Unive rsity
Mansfield

Total Faculty and
Stude nt Spe nding
$
41,332,161

Spe nding
subje ct to tax
$ 11,307,653

Sale s
Tax Rate
6.00%

Sale s Tax
Re ve nue
$
678,459

In the aggregate, the revenues realized by the Commonwealth in terms of payroll tax
withholdings and sales tax receipts for Mansfield University were $1,511,573 or nine percent of
the Commonwealth’s appropriations for fiscal year 2013-2014.

The composite spending activity of the university also has a measureable effect on employment
in the Commonwealth. 5 Specifically the direct spending of three categories enumerated above
helps to create jobs. The employment impact of the aggregate spending of the university and the
ancillary spending of the faculty/staff and students is measured by the RIMS II multiplier which
estimates the number of jobs created per every additional million in spending. 6 Specifically, the
RIMS II state multiplier for Pennsylvania indicated that for each additional million dollars of
output by the State System universities, approximately 21.3 jobs were created or supported. In
this manner, the employment impact of Mansfield University on the Commonwealth
approximated 1,432 jobs, as is shown in Table 10.6.

5
6

Composite spending activity includes institutional, faculty and staff and student spending.
Please refer to Appendix E for additional information related to the RIMS II multipliers.

Appendix C

Page 136

Table 10.6: Statewide Employment Impact of Mansfield University on the Commonwealth as
a Result of Direct Composite Spending: 1,432 Jobs

Unive rsity
Mansfield

Total Dire ct
Composite
Spe nding
67,380,028

Jobs
Output
21.26

Employme nt
Impact
1,432

The capital expenditures of the university also help to support jobs in the region.

This

employment impact is again measured using RIMS II multipliers by estimating the number of
jobs created for every additional million spent on capital expenditures. Specifically, the RIMS II
construction multiplier for Pennsylvania indicated that per each additional million dollars of
output, approximately 17.9 jobs were created or supported. In this manner, the employment
impact of Mansfield University on the Commonwealth approximated 50 more jobs, as shown in
Table 10.7. Therefore, the total employment impact of Mansfield University is 1,482 jobs.

Table 10.7: Statewide Employment Impact of Mansfield University on the Commonwealth as
a Result of Direct Capital Expenditures: 50 Jobs
University
Mansfield

Direct Capital
Expenditures
$ 2,809,026

Jobs Output
17.94

Employment
Impact
50

The final quantified measure of economic impact would be that of volunteer hours contributed
by faculty and staff. Although Mansfield University does not track the hours that its faculty,
staff, or students spend volunteering, it does participate in many events and activities that require
volunteers from campus. For instance, during 2014, Mansfield collaborated with the Northern
Tioga School District to implement a Summer Leadership program, Mansfield’s Public Relations
department partnered with Blue Ridge Communication to create a monthly half hour news
television show that airs to over 170,000 homes, the North Hall Library faculty and staff were
involved with numerous local organizations including the local growers’ market, and the faculty
in the Department of Health Sciences held numerous leadership roles in local organizations,
among many other activities.

Appendix C

Page 137

Economic Development
Economic development involves improvements to the standard of living through the creation of
jobs and the support of innovation and new research in a community’s region, state, or nation.
The State System plays a role in enhancing the economic development of the regions in which
the individual universities reside by assisting in the development and growth of new and existing
businesses, as well as increasing the employment opportunities, both of which increase economic
activity in the respective areas. The universities accomplish this in various ways, such as
partnering with local businesses, providing education and job skills training, providing an outlet
for research and development through incubators, and by providing financial and technical
assistance.

The goal of Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education and its fourteen universities is
fundamentally to educate the citizens of the Commonwealth. By providing higher education, the
universities are not only helping to improve the economic development in the short-term, but in
the long-run as well.

Therefore, by way of establishing and accomplishing its mission,

Pennsylvania’s State System is benefiting the economic advancement of the Commonwealth.
Primarily, the State System does this through the granting of undergraduate and graduate
degrees, but also does so indirectly through its purchasing, expenditures, services, and by
employing hundreds, even thousands, of people.

Overall, Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education is a key player in supporting the
economic development and growth of communities, counties, regions, and the Commonwealth
overall. By providing sources of innovation and entrepreneurial assistance, the State System
supplies economic growth to local businesses along with highly skilled and educated candidate
employees.

Through its various economic development activities, Mansfield University

successfully provides an economic competitive advantage for the county and the Commonwealth
as a whole.

While Mansfield University does not participate in the WEDnetPA program, the university
offers other workforce development programs to help stimulate economic development.
Mansfield partakes in job fairs, holds a business expo, and has a camp aimed at teaching students
about shale gas development and the job opportunities available. By way of these efforts,
Appendix C

Page 138

Mansfield University is contributing to the economic development of Tioga County, as well as
the counties that surround it.

Appendix C

Page 139

Exhibit 10.1
Mansfield University Information
Location: County
Faculty and Staff Headcount Paid in 2014
Enrollment Characteristics
Enrollment
Undergraduate
Graduate
Total

Fall 2013
2,717
253
2,970

Fall 2014
2,587
165
2,752

Full-time
Part-time
Total

2,477
493
2,970

2,354
398
2,752

PA residents
Non-residents
Total

2,309
661
2,970

2,263
489
2,752

2,388
329
2,717

2,274
312
2,586

Traditional undergraduate (students under 25)
Non-traditional undergraduate (students over 25)
Total (undergraduate only)¹
Cost of Attendance
Undergraduate, In-State, FY 2014-2015
Room & Board
Tuition
Fees
Total
Undergraduate, Out-of-State, FY 2014-2015
Room & Board
Tuition
Fees
Total
Graduate, In-State, FY 2014-2015
Tuition (per credit)
Fees (per credit)²
Total
Graduate, Out-of-State, FY 2014-2015
Tuition (per credit)
Fees (per credit)²
Total
Financial Characteristics
Revenues, FY 2013-2014
Tuition
Tuition from undergraduate in-state students
Tuition from undergraduate out-of-state students
Tuition from graduate in-state students
Tuition from graduate out-of-state students
Total

Appendix C

Tioga
578

$

$
$

$
$
$
$
$

$

$

10,582
6,820
2,706
20,108
10,582
17,050
2,926
30,558
454
411
865
681
423
1,104

13,928,151
6,275,994
785,936
704,727
21,694,808

Page 140

Financial Characteristics
Fees
Mandatory Fees
Technology, Academic/Instruction, and Other Mandatory Fees
Non-Mandatory Fees
Non-Mandatory Fees
Total

$

4,809,100

$

395,605
5,204,705

Total from Tuition, Fees, Room & Board

$

26,899,513

Sales and Services

$

479,995

Education and General Appropriations

$

16,702,905

$

$

6,109,690
3,211,539
73,338
5,250
9,399,817

Other Revenues (net of scholarship discounts and allowances)
Total Revenues (from sources above)

$
$

12,855,747
66,337,977

Funds Raised by University (private giving)
Market Value of Endowment
Total Replacement Value of Physical Plant
The Institution as a Consumer in the State
Institutional Expenditures
Institutional spending (excluding payroll)
Capital Improvements
Employee Benefits
Total Direct Institutional Spending
Institutional spending prorated by 17.77% of out of state students
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Institutional Spending

$
1,005,340
$ 17,135,900
$ 573,000,000

Grants and Contracts
Federal
State
Local/Other/Private
System Transfer Awards
Total grants and contracts

Faculty and Staff Expenditures
Faculty and staff spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Faculty and Staff Spending

Appendix C

$

$

$
$

20,019,063
262,792
13,479,194
33,761,049
5,998,965
1.53
9,199,414
2.33
13,989,587
4,790,174
52,540,810

24,177,795
1.41
34,039,918

Page 141

The Institution as a Consumer in the State
Student Expenditures
Student spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Student Spending
Capital Expenditures
Capital Improvements - 5 year weighted average
Deferred Maintenance
Total Direct Capital Expenditures
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Capital Expenditures
The Institution as an Employer
Employment impact for the Commonwealth
Direct composite expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Composite Spending (jobs)
Direct capital expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Direct Expenditures (jobs)
Total Employment Impact
The University as a Center for Volunteerism
In-Kind (Volunteer) Contributions to Regional Economy
Average market value of volunteer hours (per hour)
Estimated total contribution of faculty and staff
Annual volunteer hours of students (2014)
Business and Economic Development Services
Small Business Incubator
Small Business Development Center
Patents filed since January 1, 2010
The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Sales Tax
Total Faculty and Staff and Student Spending
Imputed % of taxable spending
Spending subject to tax
Sales tax rate
Total State Sales Tax Revenue Generation

Appendix C

$
$

$

$

$

$

9,441,184
1.41
13,292,243

2,265,467
543,559
2,809,026
1.6800
4,731,523
2.4700
6,925,934
2,194,411
11,929,371

67,380,028
21.26
1,432
2,809,026
17.94
50
1,483

N/A
N/A
N/A
No
No
0

$

$

47,332,161
23.89%
11,307,653
6%
678,459

Page 142

The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Payroll Tax
Total payroll
State tax withholdings
Local EIT
Local Services Tax
Unemployment tax
Total Payroll Tax Payments

$

$

27,889,494
833,113
408,587
34,338
18,729
1,294,767

¹All fees included.
¹In Fall 2014, there was a variance of one undergraduate student. T he variance results from an unknown classification regarding traditional vs. non-traditional.

Appendix C

Page 143

Millersville University of Pennsylvania
Lancaster, PA

Millersville University was founded in 1855 as Lancaster County Normal School; it was not for
another 100 years that it would receive university status in 1983 as Millersville University. As
of the fall 2014 semester there were 7,171 students enrolled in an undergraduate program and
876 enrolled in graduate studies. Of those students, approximately 95 percent were Pennsylvania
residents. Furthermore, of the 64,000 alumni Millersville has, 79 percent of them continue to
live in Pennsylvania. Of the full-time instructional faculty, 98 percent hold a Ph.D. or terminal
degree.

Map 11.1 demonstrates these students come from all across the state, thus contributing to the
economic impact of the State System.

The university offers 19 intercollegiate varsity sports plus a wide array of intramural and club
programs. Millersville’s mission is to provide diverse, dynamic, meaningful experiences to
inspire learners to grow both intellectually and personally to enable them to contribute positively
Appendix C

Page 144

to local and global communities. In November 2012, Dr. John M. Anderson was chosen as the
14th president of Millersville University. 1

Map 11.2 demonstrates Millersville University’s alumni that still reside in the Commonwealth.

Lancaster County contains 943.8 sq. miles in land area and has a population density of 561.1 per
square mile. As of 2013, there are 529,600 people living in Lancaster, which is a two percent
increase since 2010. The average household size is 2.6 persons compared to an average family
size of 3.1 persons. On the most recent census form, 98 percent of the population reported only
one race, with 3.7 percent of these reporting African-American. The population of this county is
8.6 percent Hispanic (of any race). The labor force in 2013 was 268,570 people and Lancaster
had an unemployment rate of 6.1 percent. Also in 2013, manufacturing was the largest of 20
major sectors.

1

Excerpts obtained from Millersville University’s website, www.millersville.edu.

Appendix C

Page 145

Below are some of Lancaster County’s population demographics. 2
Value

Rank
in
State

Population (2013)
Growth ( percent) since 2010
Census

529,600

6

2.0%

3

Households (2013)
Labor Force (persons) (2013)

194,082
268,570

6
7

Unemployment Rate (2013)
Per Capita Personal Income (2013)

6.1
$41,116

61
21

Median Household Income (2013)
Poverty Rate (2013)

$56,766
10.5

11
56

H.S. Diploma or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2013 ACS 5yr)

83.9

62

Bachelor Deg. or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2013 ACS 5yr)

24.2

17

People & Income Overview
(By Place of Residence)

Countywide labor force data and countywide employment impact as a result of Millersville
University is shown in Table 11.1. Out of the 268,570 people in the available labor force,
Millersville University had 1,481 in-county jobs and therefore, had an in-county percentage
employment impact on the available labor force of approximately 0.6 percent. Furthermore, the
countywide employment impact as a percent of the number of people employed in Lancaster
County can also be calculated. Of the 254,300 total people employed in Lancaster County, 1,481
were employed by Millersville University and live in-county; therefore the university’s
countywide employment impact is approximately 0.7 percent. 3

Table 11.1: Labor Force Data, Lancaster County: Averages and Countywide Employment
Impact

University
Millersville

County
Lancaster

Employer
Ranking
(2014)

Employee
Count

26

1,481

Countywide Impact
Labor
Force
% of Labor
(2013)
Force
268,570

0.55%

Employed
(2014)
254,300

% of
Employed
0.58%

The geographic distribution of Millersville University employees is shown on Map 11.3. 4 832
employees, or 67 percent, live within 10 miles of the university, 218 employees, which
constitutes 18 percent of the employees, live within 25 miles, leaving 15 percent of employees
2

Population demographics obtained from StatsAmerica provided by the Indiana Business Research Center
Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor and Industry Center for Workforce Information and Analysis.
3
The in-county employee count includes students who are employed by the university.
4
For the purpose of this illustration, student employees were excluded.

Appendix C

Page 146

living beyond 25 miles from the university. Refer to Appendix E for the methodology regarding
the composition of this map.

Map 11.3: Millersville University’s Distribution of Employees

Economic Impact
The direct and indirect economic impact of each university was calculated in order to arrive at
the total economic impact that each has on the Commonwealth overall. Exhibit 11.1 provides a
general overview of Millersville University, as well as the direct and indirect economic and
employment impacts of the university on the Commonwealth.

A variety of data sources were used in order to calculate and analyze the spending of each
institution and its employees, students, and visitors. Please refer to Appendix E for additional
detail regarding the data sources utilized for this study. After collecting the necessary data,
multipliers were utilized to achieve the total economic impact and employment impact of
Millersville University.

The multipliers were obtained through the Bureau of Economic

Analysis Regional Industrial Multiplier Systems (“RIMS II”). As a whole, it is noted that
Appendix C

Page 147

Millersville University has an important role in the Commonwealth in terms of the higher
educational opportunities it provides to residents of the Commonwealth as well as the direct,
indirect, and induced economic benefits the university provides to the Commonwealth.

The total direct economic impact of Millersville University on the Commonwealth was
$227,086,357. This value is represented by four main spending sources: institutional spending,
faculty/staff spending, student spending, and capital expenditures. Note that the institutional
spending includes employment benefits spent primarily in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Millersville University’s Direct Economic Impact on the Commonwealth
(1) Institutional spending:

$57,203,902

Benefits:

$29,836,224

(2) Faculty/Staff spending: $54,725,710
(3) Student spending:

$78,390,017

(4) Capital Expenditures:

Total Direct Impact:

$6,930,505

$227,086,357

As presented in Table 11.2, the direct impact, $227,086,357, was multiplied by the applicable
state multipliers obtained from the RIMS II data, resulting in a total economic impact of
Millersville University on the Commonwealth of $317,667,636.

By taking the difference

between the total and direct economic impacts, the combined indirect and induced impact is
calculated to be $90,581,279. Please refer to Appendix E for an additional discussion related to
the use of multipliers and the methodology employed to derive the direct and indirect economic
benefits.

Table 11.2: Total Economic Impact of Millersville University on the Commonwealth
University
Millersville

Appendix C

Total Direct
$ 227,086,357

Total Indirect
$ 81,651,929

Total Induced
$ 8,929,350

Total Impact
$ 317,667,636

Page 148

Chart 11.1: Total Economic Impact (Direct + Indirect + Induced): $317,667,636
$8,929,350

$81,651,929

Total Direct
Total Indirect
Total Induced

$227,086,357

The resulting return of taxpayer dollars via the Commonwealth’s appropriations has a significant
and measurable economic impact on the Commonwealth as a whole.

Specifically, the

appropriation to Millersville University made by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and
allocated by the State System, for fiscal year 2013-2014 was $30,872,019. Therefore, each
dollar invested in Millersville University by the Commonwealth via appropriations yielded a
return of approximately $10.29 in total economic impact, as is shown on Table 11.3.

Table 11.3: Statewide Economic Impact of Millersville University Appropriations

University
Millersville

Total Impact
$ 317,667,636

State
Appropriations
$ 30,872,019

Ratio
10.29

University spending in addition to the ancillary spending (faculty and students) yielded income
tax revenues to the Commonwealth, as well as to local municipalities and the state
unemployment trust fund. Table 11.4 illustrates the benefits provided by the university’s payroll
expenditures.

Appendix C

Page 149

Table 11.4: Statewide Economic Impact of Millersville University Payroll Tax Withholdings
State Tax
Withholdings
$ 2,018,212

University
Millersville

Local
Services
Tax
$ 81,976

Local EIT
$ 698,065

Unemployment
Tax
$
44,270

Total Tax
Payments
$ 2,842,524

In addition, sales tax revenue was collected by the Commonwealth as a result of the consumption
of taxable goods and services by the university’s faculty and staff as well as students. Table 11.5
illustrates the sales tax revenue collected by the Commonwealth. Please refer to Appendix E for
an additional discussion of the methodology employed to estimate the sale tax revenue collected
by the Commonwealth.

Table 11.5:
Collections

Statewide Economic Impact of Millersville University Sales Tax Revenue

University
Millersville

Total Student and
Faculty Spending
$
187,413,631

Spending
subject to tax
$ 44,773,116

Sales
Tax Rate
6.00%

Sales Tax
Revenue
$ 2,686,387

In the aggregate, the revenues realized by the Commonwealth in terms of payroll tax
withholdings and sales tax receipts for Millersville University were $4,704,599 or 15.2 percent
of the Commonwealth’s appropriations for fiscal year 2013-2014.

The composite spending activity of the university also has a measureable effect on employment
in the Commonwealth. 5 Specifically the direct spending of three categories enumerated above
helps to create jobs. The employment impact of the aggregate spending of the university and the
ancillary spending of the faculty/staff and students is measured by the RIMS II multiplier which
estimates the number of jobs created per every additional million in spending. 6 Specifically, the
RIMS II state multiplier for Pennsylvania indicated that for each additional million dollars of
output by the State System universities, approximately 21.3 jobs were created or supported. In
this manner, the employment impact of Millersville University on the Commonwealth
approximated 4,680 jobs, as is shown in Table 11.6.
5
6

Composite spending activity includes institutional, faculty and staff and student spending.
Please refer to Appendix E for additional information related to the RIMS II multipliers.

Appendix C

Page 150

Table 11.6: Statewide Employment Impact of Millersville University on the Commonwealth as
a Result of Direct Composite Spending: 4,680 Jobs

University
Millersville

Direct
Composite
Spending
220,155,852

Jobs
Output
21.26

Employment
Impact
4,680

The capital expenditures of the university also help to support jobs in the region.

This

employment impact is again measured using RIMS II multipliers by estimating the number of
jobs created for every additional million spent on capital expenditures. Specifically, the RIMS II
construction multiplier for Pennsylvania indicated that per each additional million dollars of
output, approximately 17.9 jobs were created or supported. In this manner, the employment
impact of Millersville University on the Commonwealth approximated 124 more jobs, as shown
in Table 11.7. Therefore, the total employment impact of Millersville University is 4,804 jobs.

Table 11.7: Statewide Employment Impact of Millersville University on the Commonwealth as
a Result of Direct Capital Expenditures: 124 Jobs

University
Millersville

Direct Capital
Expenditures
$
6,930,505

Jobs Output
17.94

Employment
Impact
124

The final quantified measure of economic impact would be that of volunteer hours contributed
by faculty and staff. In 2014, Millersville University’s faculty and staff spent 120,935 hours
volunteering. With an average value of approximately $22.55 per hour, their total contribution
amounts to approximately $2,727,084. Students also devoted their time to helping the
community. Millersville students spent a total of 190,237 hours in 2014 volunteering. 7 It is
likely that the students’ participation was required by university curricular and co-curricular
programs, some of which either required supervision or a faculty team leader.

7

The most recent data available for the market value of volunteer time is $22.55 for 2013 according to the
Independent Sector’s Value of Volunteer Time.

Appendix C

Page 151

Economic Development
Economic development involves improvements to the standard of living through the creation of
jobs and the support of innovation and new research in a community’s region, state, or nation.
The State System plays a role in enhancing the economic development of the regions in which
the individual universities reside by assisting in the development and growth of new and existing
businesses, as well as increasing the employment opportunities, both of which increase economic
activity in the respective areas. The universities accomplish this in various ways, such as
partnering with local businesses, providing education and job skills training, providing an outlet
for research and development through incubators, and by providing financial and technical
assistance.

The goal of Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education and its 14 universities is
fundamentally to educate the citizens of the Commonwealth. By providing higher education, the
universities are not only helping to improve the economic development in the short-term, but in
the long-run as well.

Therefore, by way of establishing and accomplishing its mission,

Pennsylvania’s State System is benefiting the economic advancement of the Commonwealth.
Primarily, the State System does this through the granting of undergraduate and graduate
degrees, but also does so indirectly through its purchasing, expenditures, services, and by
employing hundreds, even thousands, of people.

Overall, Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education is a key player in supporting the
economic development and growth of communities, counties, regions, and the Commonwealth
overall. By providing sources of innovation and entrepreneurial assistance, the State System
supplies economic growth to local businesses along with highly skilled and educated candidate
employees.

Through its various economic development activities, Millersville University

successfully provides an economic competitive advantage for the county and the Commonwealth
as a whole.

While Millersville University does not track participation in the WEDnetPA program, the
university offers entrepreneurial programs. These programs include a software productization
center where multi-disciplinary groups of students work in teams to create websites to support
local businesses and organizations and several panel discussions throughout 2014.
Appendix C

These
Page 152

university programs drew over 200 participants, as well as participation from eight businesses.
As a result, Millersville University contributes to the economic development in Lancaster, as
well as the surrounding counties.

Appendix C

Page 153

Exhibit 11.1
Millersville University Information
Location: County
Faculty and Staff Headcount Paid in 2014
Enrollment Characteristics
Enrollment
Undergraduate
Graduate
Total

Fall 2013
7,388
891
8,279

Fall 2014
7,171
876
8,047

Full-time
Part-time
Total

6,832
1,447
8,279

6,604
1,443
8,047

PA residents
Non-residents
Total

7,856
423
8,279

7,640
407
8,047

6,600
788
7,388

6,426
745
7,171

Traditional undergraduate (students under 25)
Non-traditional undergraduate (students over 25)
Total (undergraduate only)
Cost of Attendance
Undergraduate, In-State, FY 2014-2015
Room & Board
Tuition
Fees
Total
Undergraduate, Out-of-State, FY 2014-2015
Room & Board
Tuition
Fees
Total
Graduate, In-State, FY 2014-2015
Tuition (per credit)
Fees (per credit)
Total
Graduate, Out-of-State, FY 2014-2015
Tuition (per credit)
Fees (per credit)
Total
Financial Characteristics
Revenues, FY 2013-2014
Tuition
Tuition from undergraduate in-state students
Tuition from undergraduate out-of-state students
Tuition from graduate in-state students
Tuition from graduate out-of-state students
Total

Appendix C

Lancaster
1,236

$

$
$

$
$
$
$
$

11,380
7,920
2,348
21,648
11,380
17,050
2,568
30,998
454
128
582
681
140
821

$ 45,905,632
5,527,546
6,339,762
579,287
$ 58,352,227

Page 154

Financial Characteristics
Fees
Mandatory Fees
Technology, Academic/Instruction, and Other Mandatory Fees
Non-Mandatory Fees
Non-Mandatory Fees
Total

$ 17,086,383
1,118,981
$ 18,205,364

Total from Tuition, Fees, Room & Board

$ 76,557,591

Sales and Services

$

Education and General Appropriations

$ 30,872,019

Grants and Contracts
Federal
State
Local/Other/Private
System Transfer Awards
Total grants and contracts

$ 13,539,718
7,621,828
315,378
418,528
$ 21,895,452

Other Revenues (net of scholarship discounts and allowances)
Total Revenues (from sources above)

$ 33,203,352
$ 165,656,998

Funds Raised by University (private giving)
Market Value of Endowment
Total Replacement Value of Physical Plant
The Institution as a Consumer in the State
Institutional Expenditures
Institutional spending (excluding payroll)
Capital Improvements
Employee Benefits
Total Direct Institutional Spending
Institutional spending prorated by 5.06% of out of state students
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Institutional Spending

$ 2,696,916
$ 32,171,525
$ 814,000,000

Faculty and Staff Expenditures
Faculty and staff spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Faculty and Staff Spending

Appendix C

3,128,584

$ 56,653,470
550,432
29,836,224
87,040,126
4,402,303
1.53
6,750,931
2.33
10,266,170
3,515,239
$ 100,821,535

$ 54,725,709
1.41
$ 77,048,327

Page 155

The Institution as a Consumer in the State
Student Expenditures
Student spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Student Spending
Capital Expenditures
Capital Improvements - 5 year weighted average
Deferred Maintenance
Total Direct Capital Expenditures
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Capital Expenditures
The Institution as an Employer
Employment impact for the Commonwealth
Direct composite expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Composite Spending (jobs)
Direct capital expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Direct Expenditures (jobs)
Total Employment Impact
The University as a Center for Volunteerism
In-Kind (Volunteer) Contributions to Regional Economy
Annual volunteer hours of faculty and staff (2014)
Average market value of volunteer hours (per hour)
Estimated total contribution of faculty and staff
Annual volunteer hours of students (2014)
Business and Economic Development Services
Small Business Incubator
Small Business Development Center
Patents filed since January 1, 2010¹
The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Sales Tax
Total Faculty and Staff and Student Spending
Imputed % of taxable spending
Spending subject to tax
Sales tax rate
Total State Sales Tax Revenue Generation

Appendix C

$ 78,390,017
1.41
$ 110,365,305

$

5,933,333
997,172
6,930,505
1.68
11,673,743
2.47
17,087,854
5,414,111
$ 29,432,470

$ 220,155,852
21.26
4,680
6,930,505
17.94
124
4,804

120,935
$
22.55
$ 2,727,084
190,237
No
No
0

$ 187,413,631
23.89%
44,773,116
6%
$ 2,686,387

Page 156

The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Payroll Tax
Total payroll
State tax withholdings
Local EIT
Local Services Tax
Unemployment tax
Total Payroll Tax Payments

$ 67,582,829
2,018,212
698,065
81,976
44,270
$ 2,842,524

¹As of July 2013, Millersville University has one patent in process.

Appendix C

Page 157

Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania
Cumberland County, PA

Shippensburg University was established in 1871 as the Cumberland Valley State Normal
School. The school received official approval by the state on February 21, 1873, and admitted
its first class of 217 students on April 15, 1873. In 1917 the school was purchased by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

In the fall 2014 semester, the university had 6,305

undergraduates and 1,050 graduate students enrolled. The university offers 100 undergraduate
programs and 57 graduate programs.

Map 12.1 demonstrates these students come from all across the state, thus contributing to the
economic impact of the State System.

Shippensburg employs about 325 full-time instructional faculty members, of which 95 percent
have terminal degrees. Students have the choice to join any of the 150+ clubs and organizations,
as well as any of the 20 NCAA Division II intercollegiate athletic teams, or become a part of one

Appendix C

Page 158

of the 23 intramural club sports. Currently Dr. George F. “Jody” Harpster Jr. is serving as
president after previously serving for two terms as interim president. 1
Map 12.2 demonstrates Shippensburg University’s alumni that still reside in the
Commonwealth.

Shippensburg University is located in Cumberland County, which has a population of 241,212
people as of 2013; this is a 2.5 percent increase in population since the last census in 2010. This
growth is consistent with the Pennsylvania State Data Center’s projection of 5.1-20 percent
population increase between 2010 and 2040. It has 545.5 sq. miles in land area and a population
density of 442.2 per square mile. During 2010, 98.2 percent of the population reported only one
race, with 3.2 percent of these reporting African-American. The population of this county is 2.7
percent Hispanic (of any race). The average household size is 2.4 persons compared to an
average family size of 2.9 persons. In 2013, the labor force was 124,890 people and the
unemployment rate was 6.1 percent. Retail trade was the largest sector of 20 major sectors in the
fourth quarter of 2013.

1

Excerpts obtained from Shippensburg University’s website, www.ship.edu.

Appendix C

Page 159

Below are some of Cumberland County’s population demographics. 2
Value

Rank
in
State

Population (2013)
Growth (%) since 2010 Census
Households (2012)

241,212

16

2.5%

1

94,776

16

Labor Force (persons) (2013)
Unemployment Rate (2013)

124,890

16

6.1

61

Per Capita Personal Income (2012)
Median Household Income (2012)

$46,206

8

$57,982

5

Poverty Rate (2012)
H.S. Diploma or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2012 ACS 5yr)
Bachelor Deg. or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2012 ACS 5yr)

10.3

60

91.2

10

32.4

7

People & Income Overview
(By Place of Residence)

Countywide labor force data and countywide employment impact as a result of Shippensburg
University is shown in Table 12.1. Out of the 124,890 people in the available labor force,
Shippensburg University had 935 in-county jobs and therefore, had an in-county percentage
employment impact on the available labor force of approximately 0.8 percent. Furthermore, the
countywide employment impact as a percent of the number of people employed in Cumberland
County can also be calculated. Of the 119,200 total people employed in Cumberland County,
935 were currently employed by Shippensburg University and live in the county; therefore the
university’s countywide employment impact is approximately 0.8 percent. 3

Table 12.1: Labor Force Data, Cumberland County: Averages and Countywide Employment
Impact

University
Shippensburg

County
Cumberland

Employer
Ranking
(2014)

Employee
Count

22

935

Countywide Impact
Labor
Force
% of Labor
(2013)
Force
124,890

0.75%

Employed
(2014)
119,200

% of
Employed
0.78%

The geographic distribution of Shippensburg University employees is shown on Map 12.3. 4 437
employees, or 37 percent, live within 10 miles of the university, 448 employees, which
2

Population demographics obtained from StatsAmerica provided by the Indiana Business Research Center
Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor and Industry Center for Workforce Information and Analysis.
3
The in-county employee count includes students who are employed by the university.
4
For the purpose of this illustration, student employees were excluded.

Appendix C

Page 160

constitutes 37 percent of the employees, live within 25 miles, leaving 26 percent of employees
living beyond 25 miles from the university. Refer to Appendix E for the methodology regarding
the composition of this map.

Map 12.3: Shippensburg University’s Distribution of Employees

Economic Impact
The direct and indirect economic impact of each university was calculated in order to arrive at
the total economic impact that each has on the Commonwealth overall. Exhibit 12.1 provides a
general overview of Shippensburg University, as well as the direct and indirect economic and
employment impacts of the university on the Commonwealth.

A variety of data sources were used in order to calculate and analyze the spending of each
institution and its employees, students, and visitors. Please refer to Appendix E for additional
detail regarding the data sources utilized for this study. After collecting the necessary data,
multipliers were utilized to achieve the total economic impact and employment impact of
Shippensburg University.
Appendix C

The multipliers were obtained through the Bureau of Economic
Page 161

Analysis Regional Industrial Multiplier Systems (“RIMS II”). As a whole, it is noted that
Shippensburg University has an important role in the Commonwealth in terms of the higher
educational opportunities it provides to residents of the Commonwealth as well as the direct,
indirect, and induced economic benefits the university provides to the Commonwealth.

The total direct economic impact of Shippensburg University on the Commonwealth was
$214,878,981. This value is represented by four main spending sources: institutional spending,
faculty/staff spending, student spending and capital expenditures. Note that the institutional
spending includes employment benefits spent primarily in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Shippensburg University’s Direct Economic Impact on the Commonwealth
(1) Institutional spending:

$48,592,821

Benefits:

$28,139,454

(2) Faculty/Staff spending: $50,567,912
(3) Student spending:

$82,739,592

(4) Capital Expenditures:

Total Direct Impact:

$4,839,202

$214,878,981

As presented in Table 12.2, the direct impact, $214,878,981, was multiplied by the applicable
state multipliers obtained from the RIMS II data, resulting in a total economic impact of
Shippensburg University on the Commonwealth of $304,693,352. By taking the difference
between the total and direct economic impacts, the combined indirect and induced impact is
calculated to be $89,814,371. Please refer to Appendix E for an additional discussion related to
the use of multipliers and the methodology employed to derive the direct and indirect economic
benefits.

Table 12.2: Total Economic Impact of Shippensburg University on the Commonwealth
University
Shippensburg

Appendix C

Total Direct
$ 214,878,981

Total Indirect
$ 81,002,373

Total Induced
$
8,811,998

Total Impact
$ 304,693,352

Page 162

Chart 12.1: Total Economic Impact (Direct + Indirect + Induced): $304,693,352
$8,811,998

$81,002,373

Total Direct
Total Indirect
Total Induced

$214,878,981

The resulting return of taxpayer dollars via the Commonwealth’s appropriations has a significant
and measurable economic impact on the Commonwealth as a whole.

Specifically, the

appropriation to Shippensburg University made by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
allocated by the State System, for fiscal year 2013-2014 was $28,164,791. Therefore, each
dollar invested in Shippensburg University by the Commonwealth via appropriations yielded a
return of approximately $10.82 in total economic impact, as is shown on Table 12.3.

Table 12.3: Statewide Economic Impact of Shippensburg University Appropriations

University
Shippensburg

Total Impact
$ 304,693,352

State
Appropriations
$ 28,164,791

Ratio
10.82

University spending in addition to the ancillary spending (faculty and students) yielded income
tax revenues to the Commonwealth, as well as to local municipalities and the state
unemployment trust fund. Table 12.4 illustrates the benefits provided by the university’s payroll
expenditures.

Appendix C

Page 163

Table 12.4:
Withholdings

Statewide Economic Impact of Shippensburg University Payroll Tax

University
Shippensburg

State Tax
Withholdings
$ 1,787,469

Local
Services
Tax
$ 65,008

Local EIT
$ 888,275

Unemployment
Tax
$
41,300

Total Tax
Payments
$ 2,782,053

In addition, sales tax revenue was collected by the Commonwealth as a result of the consumption
of taxable goods and services by the university’s faculty and staff as well as students. Table
12.5 illustrates the sales tax revenue collected by the Commonwealth. Please refer to Appendix
E for an additional discussion of the methodology employed to estimate the sale tax revenue
collected by the Commonwealth.

Table 12.5: Statewide Economic Impact of Shippensburg University Sales Tax Revenue
Collections

University
Shippensburg

Total Faculty and
Student Spending
$
187,683,635

Spending
subject to tax
$ 44,837,620

Sales
Tax Rate
6.00%

Sales Tax
Revenue
$ 2,690,257

In the aggregate, the revenues realized by the Commonwealth in terms of payroll tax
withholdings and sales tax receipts for Shippensburg University were $4,477,727or 15.9 percent
of the Commonwealth’s appropriations for fiscal year 2013-2014.

The composite spending activity of the university also has a measureable effect on employment
in the Commonwealth. 5 Specifically the direct spending of three categories enumerated above
helps to create jobs. The employment impact of the aggregate spending of the university and the
ancillary spending of the faculty/staff and students is measured by the RIMS II multiplier which
estimates the number of jobs created per every additional million in spending. 6 Specifically, the
RIMS II state multiplier for Pennsylvania indicated that for each additional million dollars of
output by the State System universities, approximately 21.3 jobs were created or supported. In
this manner, the employment impact of Shippensburg University on the Commonwealth
approximated 4,465 jobs, as is shown in Table 12.6.
5
6

Composite spending activity includes institutional, faculty and staff and student spending.
Please refer to Appendix E for additional information related to the RIMS II multipliers.

Appendix C

Page 164

Table 12.6: Statewide Employment Impact of Shippensburg University on the Commonwealth
as a Result of Direct Composite Spending: 4,465 Jobs

University
Shippensburg

Direct
Composite
Spending
210,039,779

Jobs
Output
21.26

Employment
Impact
4,465

The capital expenditures of the university also help to support jobs in the region.

This

employment impact is again measured using RIMS II multipliers by estimating the number of
jobs created for every additional million spent on capital expenditures. Specifically, the RIMS II
construction multiplier for Pennsylvania indicated that per each additional million dollars of
output, approximately 17.9 jobs were created or supported. In this manner, the employment
impact of Shippensburg University on the Commonwealth approximated 87 more jobs, as shown
in Table 12.7. Therefore, the total employment impact of Shippensburg University is 4,551
jobs.

Table 12.7: Statewide Employment Impact of Shippensburg University on the Commonwealth
as a Result of Direct Capital Expenditures: 87 Jobs

University
Shippensburg

Direct Capital
Expenditures
$
4,839,202

Jobs Output
17.94

Employment
Impact
87

The final quantified measure of economic impact would be that of volunteer hours contributed
by faculty and staff. In 2013 and 2014, Shippensburg University’s faculty and staff spent 10 and
500 hours volunteering, respectively. With an average value of approximately $22.55 per hour,
their total contribution amounts to approximately $225 in 2013 and $11,275 in 2014. Students
also devoted their time to helping the community. Shippensburg students spent a total of 17,126
and 8,585 hours volunteering in 2013 and 2014, respectively. 7 It is likely that the students’
participation was required by university curricular and co-curricular programs, some of which
either required supervision or a faculty team leader.

7

The most recent data available for the market value of volunteer time is $22.55 for 2013 according to the
Independent Sector’s Value of Volunteer Time.

Appendix C

Page 165

Economic Development
Economic development involves improvements to the standard of living through the creation of
jobs and the support of innovation and new research in a community’s region, state, or nation.
The State System plays a role in enhancing the economic development of the regions in which
the individual universities reside by assisting in the development and growth of new and existing
businesses, as well as increasing the employment opportunities, both of which increase economic
activity in the respective areas. The universities accomplish this in various ways, such as
partnering with local businesses, providing education and job skills training, providing an outlet
for research and development through incubators, and by providing financial and technical
assistance.

The goal of Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education and its 14 universities is
fundamentally to educate the citizens of the Commonwealth. By providing higher education, the
universities are not only helping to improve the economic development in the short-term, but in
the long-run as well.

Therefore, by way of establishing and accomplishing its mission,

Pennsylvania’s State System is benefiting the economic advancement of the Commonwealth.
Primarily, the State System does this through the granting of undergraduate and graduate
degrees, but also does so indirectly through its purchasing, expenditures, services, and by
employing hundreds, even thousands, of people.

Overall Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education is a key player in supporting the
economic development and growth of communities, counties, regions, and the Commonwealth
overall. By providing sources of innovation and entrepreneurial assistance, the State System
supplies economic growth to local businesses along with highly skilled and educated candidate
employees. Through its various economic development activities, Shippensburg University
successfully provides an economic competitive advantage for the county and the Commonwealth
as a whole.

Shippensburg University’s participation in WEDnetPA program had over 2,500 participants and
had a total of $532,129 funds awarded in 2014. Additionally, Shippensburg University offers an
array of other workforce development programs and has its own Small Business Development
Center (SBDC).
Appendix C

In 2014, 316 clients and 101 companies received over 2,000 hours of
Page 166

counseling from the SBDC. The SBDC also held 39 workshops and assists 41 businesses with
secure financing. By way of these efforts, Shippensburg University helps improve the economic
development in Cumberland County, as well as other counties surrounding it.

Appendix C

Page 167

Exhibit 12.1
Shippensburg University Information
Location: County
Faculty and Staff Headcount Paid in 2014
Enrollment Characteristics
Enrollment
Undergraduate
Graduate
Total

Fall 2013
6,550
998
7,548

Fall 2014
6,305
1,050
7,355

Full-time
Part-time
Total

6,535
1,013
7,548

6,255
1,100
7,355

PA residents
Non-residents
Total

6,957
591
7,548

6,755
600
7,355

6,174
376
6,550

5,938
367
6,305

Traditional undergraduate (students under 25)
Non-traditional undergraduate (students over 25)
Total (undergraduate only)
Cost of Attendance
Undergraduate, In-State, FY 2014-2015
Room & Board
Tuition
Fees
Total
Undergraduate, Out-of-State, FY 2014-2015
Room & Board
Tuition
Fees
Total
Graduate, In-State, FY 2014-2015
Tuition (per credit)
Fees (per credit)
Total (per credit)
Graduate, Out-of-State, FY 2014-2015
Tuition (per credit)
Fees (per credit)
Total (per credit)
Financial Characteristics
Revenues, FY 2013-2014
Tuition
Tuition from undergraduate in-state students
Tuition from undergraduate out-of-state students
Tuition from graduate in-state students
Tuition from graduate out-of-state students
Total

Appendix C

Cumberland
1,193

$

$
$

$
$
$
$
$

10,694
6,820
2,954
20,468
10,694
15,346
3,174
29,214
454
133
587
681
145
826

$ 40,017,925
6,137,311
5,905,957
1,134,981
$ 53,196,174

Page 168

Financial Characteristics
Fees
Mandatory Fees
Technology, Academic/Instruction, and Other Mandatory Fees
Non-Mandatory Fees
Non-Mandatory Fees
Total

905,405
$ 17,380,086

Total from Tuition, Fees, Room & Board

$ 70,576,260

Sales and Services

$

Education and General Appropriations

$ 28,164,791

Grants and Contracts
Federal
State
Local/Other/Private
System Transfer Awards
Total grants and contracts

$ 11,211,594
8,475,144
1,018,693
559,664
$ 21,265,095

Other Revenues (net of scholarship discounts and allowances)
Total Revenues (from sources above)

$ 23,639,971
$ 145,641,275

Funds Raised by University (private giving)
Market Value of Endowment
Total Replacement Value of Physical Plant
The Institution as a Consumer in the State
Institutional Expenditures
Institutional spending (excluding payroll)
Capital Improvements
Employee Benefits
Total Direct Institutional Spending
Institutional spending prorated by 8.21% of out of state students
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Institutional Spending

$ 36,459,123
$ 943,500,000

Faculty and Staff Expenditures
Faculty and staff spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Faculty and Staff Spending

Appendix C

$ 16,474,681

1,995,158

$ 47,331,925
1,260,896
28,139,454
76,732,275
6,301,332
1.53
9,663,092
2.33
14,694,705
5,031,613
$ 96,458,594

$ 50,567,912
1.41
$ 71,194,563

Page 169

The Institution as a Consumer in the State
Student Expenditures
Student spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Student Spending
Capital Expenditures
Capital Improvements - 5 year weighted average
Deferred Maintenance
Total Direct Capital Expenditures
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Capital Expenditures
The Institution as an Employer
Employment impact for the Commonwealth
Direct composite expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Composite Spending (jobs)
Direct capital expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Direct Expenditures (jobs)
Total Employment Impact
The University as a Center for Volunteerism
In-Kind (Volunteer) Contributions to Regional Economy
Annual volunteer hours of faculty and staff (2014)
Average market value of volunteer hours (per hour)
Estimated total contribution of faculty and staff
Annual volunteer hours of students (2014)
Business and Economic Development Services
Small Business Incubator
Small Business Development Center
Patents filed since January 1, 2010
The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Sales Tax
Total Faculty and Staff and Student Spending
Imputed % of taxable spending
Spending subject to tax
Sales tax rate
Total State Sales Tax Revenue Generation

Appendix C

$ 82,739,592
1.41
$ 116,489,072

$

3,840,000
999,202
4,839,202
1.68
8,151,152
2.47
11,931,536
3,780,385
$ 20,551,123

$ 210,039,779
21.26
4,465
$ 4,839,202
17.94
87
4,551

$
$

500
22.55
11,275
8,585
No
Yes
0

$ 187,683,635
23.89%
44,837,620
6%
$ 2,690,257

Page 170

The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Payroll Tax
Total payroll
State tax withholdings
Local EIT
Local Services Tax
Unemployment tax
Total Payroll Tax Payments

Appendix C

$ 61,704,299
1,787,469
888,275
65,008
41,300
$ 2,782,053

Page 171

Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania
Butler County, PA

Slippery Rock University was founded in 1889 but bought by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania in 1926 making it one of the 14 state-owned universities within Pennsylvania’s
State System of Higher Education. The University offers more than 60 undergraduate majors
and 20 graduate programs. Slippery Rock maintains an accomplished faculty in that 93 percent
of their full-time tenured or tenure-tracked faculty has a doctorate or terminal degree.

Map 13.1 demonstrates these students come from all across the state, thus contributing to the
economic impact of the State System.

Appendix C

Page 172

The University offers over 200 organizations for students to be a part of, including 17 Division II
NCAA sport teams. Located in Slippery Rock, a part of Butler County, it is the western-most
institution of 14 State System universities. There are 7,587 undergrad and 908 graduate students
enrolled as of the fall 2014 semester. Cheryl J. Norton was the first woman to be named
president of Slippery Rock University in April 2012. 1

Map 13.2 demonstrates Slippery Rock’s alumni that still reside in the Commonwealth.

As of 2013, Bulter County has a population of approximately 185,476 people. From the last
census in 2010, population has grown 0.9 percent and is projected to grow a total of 5.1-20
percent throughout 2040. 2 It has 788.6 sq. miles in land area and a population density of 235.2
per square mile. On the most recent census form, 99.1 percent of the population reported only
one race, with 1.1 percent of these reporting African-American. The population of this county is
1.1 percent Hispanic (of any race). The average household size is 2.4 persons compared to an
average family size of three persons. In 2013 the labor force in Butler County was 101,382
1
2

Excerpts obtained from Slippery Rock University’s website, www.sru.edu.
Population projection obtained from the Pennsylvania State Data Center.

Appendix C

Page 173

people and the unemployment rate was 6.3 percent. During 2013, manufacturing was the largest
sector of 20 major sectors in Butler County.
Below are some of Butler County’s population demographics. 3

Population (2013)
Growth ( percent) since 2010
Census
Households (2012)

185,476

Rank
in
State
19

0.9%

13

72,867

19

Labor Force (persons) (2013)
Unemployment Rate (2013)

101,382
6.3

19
57

Per Capita Personal Income (2012)
Median Household Income (2012)

$47,076
$57,346

7
7

Poverty Rate (2012)
H.S. Diploma or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2012 ACS 5yr)
Bachelor Deg. or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2012 ACS 5yr)

9.6

63

92.4

6

29.7

8

People & Income Overview
(By Place of Residence)

Value

Countywide labor force data and countywide employment impact as a result of Slippery Rock
University is shown in Table 13.1. Out of the 101,382 labor force, Slippery Rock University
had 774 in-county jobs and therefore, had an in-county percentage employment impact of
approximately 0.8 percent. Furthermore, the countywide employment impact as a percent of the
number of people employed in Butler County can be calculated. Of the 96,800 total people
employed in Butler County, 774 were employed by Slippery Rock University and live in the
county; therefore the university’s countywide employment impact is 0.8 percent. 4

3

Population demographics obtained from StatsAmerica provided by the Indiana Business Research Center
Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor and Industry Center for Workforce Information and Analysis.
4
The in-county employee count includes students who are employed by the university.

Appendix C

Page 174

Table 13.1: Labor Force Data, Butler County: Averages and Countywide Employment Impact

University
Slippery Rock

County
Butler

Employer
Ranking
(2014)

Employee
Count

9

774

Countywide Impact
Labor
Force
% of Labor
(2013)
Force
101,382

0.76%

Employed
(2014)
96,800

% of
Employed
0.80%

The geographic distribution of Slippery Rock University employees is shown on Map 13.3. 5
386 employees, or 36 percent, live within 10 miles of the university, 373 employees, which
constitutes 35 percent of the employees, live within 25 miles, leaving 29 percent of employees
living beyond 25 miles from the university. Refer to Appendix E for the methodology regarding
the composition of this map.

Map 13.3: Slippery Rock University’s Distribution of Employees

Economic Impact
The direct and indirect economic impact of each university was calculated in order to arrive at
the total economic impact that each has on the Commonwealth overall. Exhibit 13.1 provides a
5

For the purpose of this illustration, student employees were excluded.

Appendix C

Page 175

general overview of Slippery Rock University, as well as the direct and indirect economic and
employment impacts of the university on the Commonwealth.

A variety of data sources were used in order to calculate and analyze the spending of each
institution and its employees, students, and visitors. Please refer to Appendix E for additional
detail regarding the data sources utilized for this study. After collecting the necessary data,
multipliers were utilized to achieve the total economic impact and employment impact of
Slippery Rock University. The multipliers were obtained through the Bureau of Economic
Analysis Regional Industrial Multiplier Systems (“RIMS II”). As a whole, it is noted that
Slippery Rock University has an important role in the Commonwealth in terms of the higher
educational opportunities it provides to residents of the Commonwealth as well as the direct,
indirect, and induced economic benefits the university provides to the Commonwealth.

The total direct economic impact of Slippery Rock University on the Commonwealth was
$227,279,453. This value is represented by four main spending sources: institutional spending,
faculty/staff spending, student spending and capital expenditures. Note that the institutional
spending includes employment benefits spent primarily in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Slippery Rock University’s Direct Economic Impact on the Commonwealth
(1) Institutional spending: $48,178,716
Benefits:

$29,556,312

(2) Faculty/Staff spending: $52,359,620
(3) Student spending:
(4) Capital Expenditures:

Total Direct Impact:

$91,411,886
$5,772,919

$227,279,453

As presented in Table 13.2, the direct impact, $227,279,453, was multiplied by the applicable
state multipliers obtained from the RIMS II data, resulting in a total economic impact of Slippery
Rock University on the Commonwealth of $333,284,922. By taking the difference between the
total and direct economic impacts, the combined indirect and induced impact is calculated to be
Appendix C

Page 176

$106,005,469. Please refer to Appendix E for an additional discussion related to the use of
multipliers and the methodology employed to derive the direct and indirect economic benefits.

Table 13.2: Total Economic Impact of Slippery Rock University on the Commonwealth
University
Slippery Rock

Total Direct
$ 227,279,453

Total Indirect
$ 94,196,153

Total Induced
$ 11,809,316

Total Impact
$ 333,284,922

Chart 13.1: Total Economic Impact (Direct + Indirect + Induced): $333,284,922
$11,809,316

$94,196,153

Total Direct
Total Indirect
Total Induced

$227,279,453

The resulting return of taxpayer dollars via the Commonwealth’s appropriations has a significant
and measurable economic impact on the Commonwealth as a whole.

Specifically, the

appropriation to Slippery Rock University made by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and
allocated by the State System, for fiscal year 2013-2014 was $32,576,803. Therefore, each
dollar invested in Slippery Rock University by the Commonwealth via appropriations yielded a
return of approximately $10.23 in total economic impact, as is shown on Table 13.3.
Table 13.3: Statewide Economic Impact of Slippery Rock University Appropriations

University
Slippery Rock

Appendix C

Total Impact
$ 333,284,922

State
Appropriations
$ 32,576,803

Ratio
10.23

Page 177

University spending in addition to the ancillary spending (faculty and students) yielded income
tax revenues to the Commonwealth, as well as to local municipalities and the state
unemployment trust fund. Table 13.4 illustrates the benefits provided by the university’s payroll
expenditures.

Table 13.4: Statewide Economic Impact of Slippery Rock
Withholdings

University
Slippery Rock

State Tax
Withholdings
$ 1,897,186

Local EIT
$ 689,468

Local
Services
Tax
$ 58,764

University Payroll Tax

Unemployment
Tax
$
42,715

Total Tax
Payments
$ 2,688,133

In addition, sales tax revenue was collected by the Commonwealth as a result of the consumption
of taxable goods and services by the university’s faculty and staff as well as students. Table
13.5 illustrates the sales tax revenue collected by the Commonwealth. Please refer to Appendix
E for an additional discussion of the methodology employed to estimate the sale tax revenue
collected by the Commonwealth.

Table 13.5: Statewide Economic Impact of Slippery Rock University Sales Tax Revenue
Collections

Unive rsity
Slippery Rock

Total Faculty and
Stude nt Spe nding
$
202,415,903

Spe nding
subje ct to tax
$ 48,357,159

Sale s
Tax Rate
6.00%

Sale s Tax
Re ve nue
$ 2,901,430

In the aggregate, the revenues realized by the Commonwealth in terms of payroll tax
withholdings and sales tax receipts for Slippery Rock University were $4,798,616or 14.7 percent
of the Commonwealth’s appropriations for fiscal year 2013-2014.

The composite spending activity of the university also has a measureable effect on employment
in the Commonwealth. 6 Specifically the direct spending of three categories enumerated above
helps to create jobs. The employment impact of the aggregate spending of the university and the
ancillary spending of the faculty/staff and students is measured by the RIMS II multiplier which
6

Composite spending activity includes institutional, faculty and staff and student spending.

Appendix C

Page 178

estimates the number of jobs created per every additional million in spending. 7 Specifically, the
RIMS II state multiplier for Pennsylvania indicated that for each additional million dollars of
output by the State System universities, approximately 21.3 jobs were created or supported. In
this manner, the employment impact of Slippery Rock University on the Commonwealth
approximated 4,708 jobs, as is shown in Table 13.6.

Table 13.6: Statewide Employment Impact of Slippery Rock University on the Commonwealth
as a Result of Direct Composite Spending: 4,708 Jobs

University
Slippery Rock

Direct
Composite
Spending
221,506,534

Jobs
Output
21.26

Employment
Impact
4,708

The capital expenditures of the university also help to support jobs in the region.

This

employment impact is again measured using RIMS II multipliers by estimating the number of
jobs created for every additional million spent on capital expenditures. Specifically, the RIMS II
construction multiplier for Pennsylvania indicated that per each additional million dollars of
output, approximately 17.9 jobs were created or supported. In this manner, the employment
impact of Slippery Rock University on the Commonwealth approximated 104 more jobs, as
shown in Table 13.7. Therefore, the total employment impact of Slippery Rock University is
4,812 jobs.

Table 13.7: Statewide Employment Impact of Slippery Rock University on the Commonwealth
as a Result of Direct Capital Expenditures: 104 Jobs
University
Slippery Rock

Direct Capital
Expenditures
$ 5,772,919

Jobs Output
17.94

Employment
Impact
104

The final quantified measure of economic impact would be that of volunteer hours contributed
by faculty and staff. In 2013 and 2014, Slippery Rock University’s faculty and staff spent
27,834 and 28,000 hours volunteering, respectively. With an average value of approximately
$22.55 per hour, their total contribution amounts to approximately $627,657 and $631,400 in

7

Please refer to Appendix E for additional information related to the RIMS II multipliers.

Appendix C

Page 179

2013 and 2014. Students also devoted their time to helping the community. Slippery Rock
students spent a total of 14,896 and 23,736 hours volunteering in 2013 and 2014, respectively. 8
It is likely that the students’ participation was required by university curricular and co-curricular
programs, some of which either required supervision or a faculty team leader.

Economic Development
Economic development involves improvements to the standard of living through the creation of
jobs and the support of innovation and new research in a community’s region, state, or nation.
The State System plays a role in enhancing the economic development of the regions in which
the individual universities reside by assisting in the development and growth of new and existing
businesses, as well as increasing the employment opportunities, both of which increase economic
activity in the respective areas. The universities accomplish this in various ways, such as
partnering with local businesses, providing education and job skills training, providing an outlet
for research and development through incubators, and by providing financial and technical
assistance.

The goal of Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education and its fourteen universities is
fundamentally to educate the citizens of the Commonwealth. By providing higher education, the
universities are not only helping to improve the economic development in the short-term, but in
the long-run as well.

Therefore, by way of establishing and accomplishing its mission,

Pennsylvania’s State System is benefiting the economic advancement of the Commonwealth.
Primarily, the State System does this through the granting of undergraduate and graduate
degrees, but also does so indirectly through its purchasing, expenditures, services, and by
employing hundreds, even thousands, of people.

Overall Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education is a key player in supporting the
economic development and growth of communities, counties, regions, and the Commonwealth
overall. By providing sources of innovation and entrepreneurial assistance, the State System
supplies economic growth to local businesses along with highly skilled and educated candidate

8

The most recent data available for the market value of volunteer time is $22.55 for 2013 according to the
Independent Sector’s Value of Volunteer Time.

Appendix C

Page 180

employees. Through its various economic development activities, Slippery Rock University
successfully provides an economic competitive advantage for the county and the Commonwealth
as a whole.

While Slippery Rock University does not participate in the WEDnetPA program, this university
is taking initiatives toward economic development in other ways. For instance, Slippery Rock
University has a Sustainable Enterprise Accelerator. The mission of this program is simple, to
help entrepreneurs start business and help to maintain growth as the business develops. The
incubator is funded by state grants and run by students who receive college credit for their time. 9
By helping local businesses, as well as giving student the chance to interact and learn from the
entrepreneurs, Slippery Rock University is positively impacting the economic development in its
county.

9

“Slippery Rock University program helps businesses go green, make more green”, triblive.com, visited February
25, 2015.

Appendix C

Page 181

Exhibit 13.1
Slippery Rock University Information
Location: County
Faculty and Staff Headcount Paid in 2014
Enrollment Characteristics
Enrollment
Undergraduate
Graduate
Total

Fall 2013
7,595
752
8,347

Fall 2014
7,587
908
8,495

Full-time
Part-time
Total

7,411
936
8,347

7,471
1,024
8,495

PA residents
Non-residents
Total

7,367
980
8,347

7,496
999
8,495

6,974
621
7,595

7,000
587
7,587

Traditional undergraduate (students under 25)
Non-traditional undergraduate (students over 25)
Total (undergraduate only)
Cost of Attendance
Undergraduate, In-State, FY 2014-2015
Room & Board
Tuition
Fees
Total
Undergraduate, Out-of-State, FY 2014-2015
Room & Board
Tuition
Fees
Total
Graduate, In-State, FY 2014-2015
Tuition
Fees (per credit)
Total (per credit)
Graduate, Out-of-State, FY 2014-2015
Tuition (per credit)
Fees (per credit)
Total (per credit)
Financial Characteristics
Revenues, FY 2013-2014
Tuition
Tuition from undergraduate in-state students
Tuition from undergraduate out-of-state students
Tuition from graduate in-state students
Tuition from graduate out-of-state students
Total

Appendix C

Butler
1,063

$

$
$

$
$
$
$
$

9,794
6,820
2,489
19,103
9,794
10,230
2,739
22,763
454
154
608
681
200
881

$ 46,040,747
9,176,969
7,427,362
1,714,340
$ 64,359,418

Page 182

Financial Characteristics
Fees
Mandatory Fees
Technology, Academic/Instruction, and Other Mandatory Fees
Non-Mandatory Fees
Non-Mandatory Fees
Total

$ 17,757,542

Total from Tuition, Fees, Room & Board

$ 82,807,325

Sales and Services

$

Education and General Appropriations

$ 32,576,803

Grants and Contracts
Federal
State
Local/Other/Private
System Transfer Awards
Total grants and contracts

$ 10,933,522
7,649,036
4,055,802
89,279
$ 22,727,639

Other Revenues (net of scholarship discounts and allowances)
Total Revenues (from sources above)

$ 18,679,135
$ 159,114,644

Funds Raised by University (private giving)
Market Value of Endowment
Total Replacement Value of Physical Plant
The Institution as a Consumer in the State
Institutional Expenditures
Institutional spending (excluding payroll)
Capital Improvements
Employee Benefits
Total Direct Institutional Spending
Institutional spending prorated by 11.76% of out of state students
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Institutional Spending

$
208,046
$ 25,063,303
$ 926,100,000

$ 47,793,607
385,109
29,556,312
77,735,028
9,141,529
1.53
14,018,535
2.33
21,318,047
7,299,511
$ 106,352,586

Faculty and Staff Expenditures
Faculty and staff spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Faculty and Staff Spending

$ 52,359,620
1.41
$ 73,717,109

Appendix C

690,365
$ 18,447,907

2,323,742

Page 183

The Institution as a Consumer in the State
Student Expenditures
Student spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Student Spending
Capital Expenditures
Capital Improvements - 5 year weighted average
Deferred Maintenance
Total Direct Capital Expenditures
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Capital Expenditures
The Institution as an Employer
Employment impact for the Commonwealth
Direct composite expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Composite Spending (jobs)
Direct capital expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Direct Expenditures (jobs)
Total Employment Impact
The University as a Center for Volunteerism
In-Kind (Volunteer) Contributions to Regional Economy
Annual volunteer hours of faculty and staff (2014)
Average market value of volunteer hours (per hour)
Estimated total contribution of faculty and staff
Annual volunteer hours of students (2014)
Business and Economic Development Services
Small Business Incubator
Small Business Development Center
Patents filed since January 1, 2010
The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Sales Tax
Total Faculty and Staff and Student Spending
Imputed % of taxable spending
Spending subject to tax
Sales tax rate
Total State Sales Tax Revenue Generation

Appendix C

$ 91,411,886
1.41
$ 128,698,794

$

4,718,000
1,054,919
5,772,919
1.68
9,723,905
2.47
14,233,709
4,509,804
$ 24,516,432

$ 221,506,534
21.26
4,708
5,772,919
17.94
104
4,812

$
$

28,000
22.55
631,400
23,736
Yes
No
0

$ 202,415,903
23.89%
48,357,159
6%
2,901,430

Page 184

The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Payroll Tax
Total payroll
State tax withholdings
Local EIT
Local Services Tax
Unemployment tax
Total Payroll Tax Payments

Appendix C

$ 64,238,493
1,897,186
689,468
58,764
42,715
2,688,133

Page 185

West Chester University of Pennsylvania
Chester County, PA

West Chester University was founded in 1871 and is the largest university of the fourteen that
make up Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education. West Chester University offers
more than 116 undergraduate and 86 master degree programs taught by a full-time staff of 685
professors. As of fall 2014, there was approximately 16,086 degree seeking students, with the
majority pursuing an undergraduate degree. Students who attend West Chester University are
primarily from Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey and Maryland.

Map 14.1 demonstrates these students come from all across the state, thus contributing to the
economic impact of the State System.

The institution offers the largest varsity program in the NCAA Division II with 24 intercollegiate
men’s and women’s sports along with maintaining over 225 student clubs and organizations.

Appendix C

Page 186

The university has been under the leadership of President Greg R. Weisenstein since March
2009. 1

Map 14.2 demonstrates West Chester University’s alumni that still reside in the
Commonwealth.

West Chester University’s main campus is located in Chester County, PA. As of 2013, Chester
had 509,468 people, a 2.1 percent increase in population since the last census in 2010.
According to the Pennsylvania State Data Center, this increase is in line with the projected
growth of the county; it is expected that the population will grow more than 20 percent between
2010 and 2040. Also reported in the last census, 98.1 percent of the population reported only
one race, with 6.1 percent of these reporting African-American. The population of this county is
6.5 percent Hispanic (of any race). The average household size is 2.6 persons compared to an
average family size of 3.2 persons. Chester County has 750.5 sq. miles in land area and a
population density of 678.8 per square mile. In 2013, this county had a labor force of 271,793
people and unemployment rate of 5.8 percent.
1

Excerpts obtained from West Chester University’s website, www.wcupa.edu.

Appendix C

Page 187

Below are Chester County’s population demographics. 2
People & Income Overview
(By Place of Residence)
Population (2013)

509,468

Rank
in
State
7

Value

Growth ( percent) since 2010
Census
Households (2012)

2.1%

2

183,793

7

Labor Force (persons) (2013)
Unemployment Rate (2013)

271,793
5.8

6
65

Per Capita Personal Income (2012)
Median Household Income (2012)

$63,741
$82,456

2
1

Poverty Rate (2012)
H.S. Diploma or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2012 ACS 5yr)
Bachelor Deg. or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2012 ACS 5yr)

7.4

65

92.7

4

48.3

1

Countywide labor force data and countywide employment impact as a result of West Chester
University is shown in Table 14.1. Out of the 271,793 people in the available labor force, West
Chester University had 1,635 in-county jobs and therefore, had an in-county percentage
employment impact on the available labor force of 0.6 percent. Furthermore, the countywide
employment impact as a percent of the number of people employed in Chester County can also
be calculated. Of the 258,800 total people employed in Chester County, 1,635 were employed
by West Chester University and live in the county; therefore the university’s countywide
employment impact is approximately 0.6 percent. 3

2

Population demographics obtained from StatsAmerica provided by the Indiana Business Research Center
Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor and Industry Center for Workforce Information and Analysis.
3
The in-county employee count includes students who are employed by the university.

Appendix C

Page 188

Table 14.1: Labor Force Data, Chester County: Averages and Countywide Employment
Impact

University
West Chester

County
Chester

Employer
Ranking
(2014)

Employee
Count

Labor
Force
(2013)

14

1,635

271,793

% of Labor
Force
0.60%

Employed
(2014)
258,800

% of
Employed
0.63%

The geographic distribution of West Chester University employees is shown on Map 14.3. 4 950
employees, or 41 percent, live within 10 miles of the university, 928 employees, which
constitutes 40 percent of the employees, live within 25 miles, leaving 19 percent of employees
living beyond 25 miles from the university. Refer to Appendix E for the methodology regarding
the composition of this map.

Map 14.3: West Chester University’s Distribution of Employees

Economic Impact
The direct and indirect economic impact of each university was calculated in order to arrive at
the total economic impact that each has on the Commonwealth overall. Exhibit 14.1 provides a
4

For the purpose of this illustration, student employees were excluded.

Appendix C

Page 189

general overview of West Chester University, as well as the direct and indirect economic and
employment impacts of the university on the Commonwealth.

A variety of data sources were used in order to calculate and analyze the spending of each
institution and its employees, students, and visitors. Please refer to Appendix E for additional
detail regarding the data sources utilized for this study. After collecting the necessary data,
multipliers were utilized to achieve the total economic impact and employment impact of West
Chester University. The multipliers were obtained through the Bureau of Economic Analysis
Regional Industrial Multiplier Systems (“RIMS II”). As a whole, it is noted that West Chester
University has an important role in the Commonwealth in terms of the higher educational
opportunities it provides to residents of the Commonwealth as well as the direct, indirect, and
induced economic benefits the university provides to the Commonwealth.

The total direct economic impact of West Chester University on the Commonwealth was
$336,774,500. This value is represented by four main spending sources: institutional spending,
faculty/staff spending, student spending and capital expenditures. Note that the institutional
spending includes employment benefits spent primarily in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

West Chester University’s Direct Economic Impact on the Commonwealth
(1) Institutional spending: $82,899,732
Benefits:

$47,536,570

(2) Faculty/Staff spending: $95,434,848
(3) Student spending:
(4) Capital Expenditures:

Total Direct Impact:

$101,439,652
$9,463,698

$336,774,500

As presented in Table 14.2, the direct impact, $336,774,500, was multiplied by the applicable
state multipliers obtained from the RIMS II data, resulting in a total economic impact of West
Chester University on the Commonwealth of $495,452,557. By taking the difference between
the total and direct economic impacts, the combined indirect and induced impact is calculated to
Appendix C

Page 190

be $158,678,057. Please refer to Appendix E for an additional discussion related to the use of
multipliers and the methodology employed to derive the direct and indirect economic benefits.

Table 14.2: Total Economic Impact of West Chester University on the Commonwealth
University
West Chester

Total Direct
$ 336,774,500

Total Indirect
$ 139,131,845

Total Induced
$ 19,546,212

Total Impact
$ 495,452,557

Chart 14.1: Total Economic Impact (Direct + Indirect + Induced): $495,452,557
$19,546,212

$139,131,845

Total Direct
Total Indirect
Total Induced

$336,774,500

The resulting return of taxpayer dollars via the Commonwealth’s appropriations has a significant
and measurable economic impact on the Commonwealth as a whole.

Specifically, the

appropriation to West Chester University made by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and
allocated by the State System, for fiscal year 2013-2014 was $49,914,169. Therefore, each
dollar invested in West Chester University by the Commonwealth via appropriations yielded a
return of approximately $9.93 in total economic impact, as is shown on Table 14.3.

Table 14.3: Statewide Economic Impact of West Chester University Appropriations

University
West Chester

Appendix C

Total Impact
$ 495,452,557

State
Appropriations
$ 49,914,169

Ratio
9.93

Page 191

University spending in addition to the ancillary spending (faculty and students) yielded income
tax revenues to the Commonwealth, as well as to local municipalities and the state
unemployment trust fund. Table 14.4 illustrates the benefits provided by the university’s payroll
expenditures.

Table 14.4: Statewide Economic Impact of West Chester University Payroll Tax Withholdings

University
West Chester

State Tax
Withholdings
$ 3,349,207

Local EIT
$ 1,348,667

Local
Services
Tax
$ 126,464

Unemployment
Tax
$
76,982

Total Tax
Payments
$ 4,901,319

In addition, sales tax revenue was collected by the Commonwealth as a result of the consumption
of taxable goods and services by the university’s faculty and staff as well as students. Table
14.5 illustrates the sales tax revenue collected by the Commonwealth. Please refer to Appendix
E for an additional discussion of the methodology employed to estimate the sale tax revenue
collected by the Commonwealth.

Table 14.5: Statewide Economic Impact of West Chester University Sales Tax Revenue
Collections

Unive rsity
West Chester

Total Faculty and
Stude nt Spe nding
$
277,179,609

Spe nding
subje ct to tax
$ 66,218,208

Sale s
Tax Rate
6.00%

Sale s Tax
Re ve nue
$ 3,973,093

In the aggregate, the revenues realized by the Commonwealth in terms of payroll tax
withholdings and sales tax receipts for West Chester University were $7,322,299or 14.7 percent
of the Commonwealth’s appropriations for fiscal year 2013-2014.

The composite spending activity of the university also has a measureable effect on employment
in the Commonwealth. 5 Specifically the direct spending of three categories enumerated above
helps to create jobs. The employment impact of the aggregate spending of the university and the
ancillary spending of the faculty/staff and students is measured by the RIMS II multiplier which

5

Composite spending activity includes institutional, faculty and staff and student spending.

Appendix C

Page 192

estimates the number of jobs created per every additional million in spending. 6 Specifically, the
RIMS II state multiplier for Pennsylvania indicated that for each additional million dollars of
output by the State System universities, approximately 21.3 jobs were created or supported. In
this manner, the employment impact of West Chester University on the Commonwealth
approximated 6,957 jobs, as is shown in Table 14.6.

Table 14.6: Statewide Employment Impact of West Chester University on the Commonwealth
as a Result of Direct Composite Spending: 6,957 Jobs

University
West Chester

Direct
Composite
Spending
327,310,802

Jobs
Output
21.26

Employment
Impact
6,957

The capital expenditures of the university also help to support jobs in the region.

This

employment impact is again measured using RIMS II multipliers by estimating the number of
jobs created for every additional million spent on capital expenditures. Specifically, the RIMS II
construction multiplier for Pennsylvania indicated that per each additional million dollars of
output, 17.9 jobs were created or supported. In this manner, the employment impact of West
Chester University on the Commonwealth approximated 170 more jobs, as shown in Table 12.7.
Therefore, the total employment impact of West Chester University is 7,127 jobs.

Table 12.7: Statewide Employment Impact of West Chester University on the Commonwealth
as a Result of Direct Capital Expenditures: 170 Jobs
University
West Chester

Direct Capital
Expenditures
$
9,463,698

Jobs Output
17.94

Employment
Impact
170

The final quantified measure of economic impact would be that of volunteer hours contributed
by faculty and staff. While the faculty and staff hours were not tracked, students did devote their
time to helping the community. West Chester University students spent a total of 408,665 and
605,532 hours volunteering in 2013 and 2014, respectively.

6

It is likely that the students’

Please refer to Appendix E for additional information related to the RIMS II multipliers.

Appendix C

Page 193

participation was required by university curricular and co-curricular programs, some of which
either required supervision or a faculty team leader.

Economic Development
Economic development involves improvements to the standard of living through the creation of
jobs and the support of innovation and new research in a community’s region, state, or nation.
The State System plays a role in enhancing the economic development of the regions in which
the individual universities reside by assisting in the development and growth of new and existing
businesses, as well as increasing the employment opportunities, both of which increase economic
activity in the respective areas. The universities accomplish this in various ways, such as
partnering with local businesses, providing education and job skills training, providing an outlet
for research and development through incubators, and by providing financial and technical
assistance.

The goal of Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education and its 14 universities is
fundamentally to educate the citizens of the Commonwealth. By providing higher education, the
universities are not only helping to improve the economic development in the short-term, but in
the long-run as well.

Therefore, by way of establishing and accomplishing its mission,

Pennsylvania’s State System is benefiting the economic advancement of the Commonwealth.
Primarily, the State System does this through the granting of undergraduate and graduate
degrees, but also does so indirectly through its purchasing, expenditures, services, and by
employing hundreds, even thousands, of people.

Overall Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education is a key player in supporting the
economic development and growth of communities, counties, regions, and the Commonwealth
overall. By providing sources of innovation and entrepreneurial assistance, the State System
supplies economic growth to local businesses along with highly skilled and educated candidate
employees. Through its various economic development activities, West Chester University
successfully provides an economic competitive advantage for the county and the Commonwealth
as a whole.

Appendix C

Page 194

West Chester University’s participation in the WEDnetPA program had over 600 participants
and had a total of $248,850 funds awarded in 2014. Additionally, West Chester University has
an Entrepreneurial Leadership Center which serves as a catalyst for regional economic
development by promoting entrepreneurship across West Chester University, in Chester County,
and throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania. The center’s mission is to enhance entrepreneurship
literacy, to inspire students to engage in entrepreneurial ventures by exposing them first hand to
entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial environments, and to foster economic development in the
region by assisting startup firms as they move toward economic viability. The center offers a
wide array of programs including: an internship program, consulting project, an entrepreneurship
speaker series, seminars and workshops, an entrepreneurial fellowship program, and many
more. 7 By establishing the center, and West Chester’s participation in the WEDnetPA program,
the university is effectively contributing to the economic development in Chester County.

7

Excerpt obtained from West Chester University’s website, www.wcupa.edu.

Appendix C

Page 195

Exhibit 14.1
West Chester University Information
Location: County
Faculty and Staff Headcount Paid in 2014
Enrollment Characteristics
Enrollment
Undergraduate
Graduate
Total

Fall 2013
13,711
2,134
15,845

Fall 2014
13,844
2,242
16,086

Full-time
Part-time
Total

13,250
2,595
15,845

13,403
2,683
16,086

PA residents
Non-residents
Total

13,790
2,055
15,845

14,209
1,877
16,086

12,464
1,244
13,708

12,537
1,306
13,843

Traditional undergraduate (students under 25)
Non-traditional undergraduate (students over 25)
Total (undergraduate only)¹
Cost of Attendance
Undergraduate, In-State, FY 2014-2015
Room & Board
Tuition
Fees³
Total
Undergraduate, Out-of-State, FY 2014-2015
Room & Board
Tuition
Fees
Total
Graduate, In-State, FY 2014-2015
Tuition (per credit)
Fees (per credit)
Total (per credit)
Graduate, Out-of-State, FY 2014-2015
Tuition (per credit)
Fees (per credit)
Total (per credit)
Financial Characteristics
Revenues, FY 2013-2014
Tuition
Tuition from undergraduate in-state students
Tuition from undergraduate out-of-state students
Tuition from graduate in-state students
Tuition from graduate out-of-state students
Total

Appendix C

Chester
2,333

$

$
$

$
$
$
$
$

$

$

7,376
6,820
2,324
16,520
7,376
17,050
2,544
26,970
454
111
565
681
123
804

79,118,426
29,401,392
13,913,495
3,046,238
125,479,551

Page 196

Financial Characteristics
Fees
Mandatory Fees
Technology, Academic/Instruction, and Other Mandatory Fees
Non-Mandatory Fees
Non-Mandatory Fees
Total

$

27,984,181

$

2,103,185
30,087,366

Total from Tuition, Fees, Room & Board

$

155,566,917

Sales and Services

$

3,811,371

Education and General Appropriations
Grants and Contracts
Federal
State
Local/Other/Private
System Transfer Awards
Total grants and contracts
Other Revenues (net of scholarship discounts and allowances)
Total Revenues (from sources above)
Funds Raised by University (private giving)
Market Value of Endowment
Total Replacement Value of Physical Plant
The Institution as a Consumer in the State
Institutional Expenditures
Institutional spending (excluding payroll)
Capital Improvements
Employee Benefits
Total Direct Institutional Spending
Institutional spending prorated by 11.67% of out of state students
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Institutional Spending
Faculty and Staff Expenditures
Faculty and staff spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Faculty and Staff Spending

Appendix C

$

$

49,914,169

$

15,507,658
10,542,854
184,927
652,345
26,887,784

$
$

41,237,379
277,417,620

$
$
$

2,105,855
31,659,193
1,367,000,000

$

$

80,439,820
2,459,912
47,536,570
130,436,302
15,220,001
1.53
23,339,872
2.33
35,493,043
12,153,171
178,082,516

$

95,434,848
1.41
134,362,722

Page 197

The Institution as a Consumer in the State
Student Expenditures
Student spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Student Spending
Capital Expenditures
Capital Improvements - 5 year weighted average
Deferred Maintenance
Total Direct Capital Expenditures
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Capital Expenditures
The Institution as an Employer
Employment impact for the Commonwealth
Direct expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Direct Expenditures (jobs)
Direct capital expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Direct Expenditures (jobs)
Total Employment Impact
The University as a Center for Volunteerism
In-Kind (Volunteer) Contributions to Regional Economy
Annual volunteer hours of faculty and staff
Average market value of volunteer hours (per hour)
Estimated total contribution of faculty and staff
Annual volunteer hours of students (2014)
Business and Economic Development Services
Small Business Incubator
Small Business Development Center
Patents filed since January 1, 2010²
The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Sales Tax
Total Faculty and Staff and Student Spending
Imputed % of taxable spending
Spending subject to tax
Sales tax rate
Total State Sales Tax Revenue Generation

Appendix C

$
$

$

$

$

$

101,439,652
1.41
142,816,886

7,946,400
1,517,298
9,463,698
1.68
15,940,653
2.47
23,333,694
7,393,041
40,190,433

327,310,802
21.26
6,957
9,463,698
17.91
170
7,127

N/A
N/A
N/A
605,532
No
No
1

$

$

277,179,609
23.89%
66,218,208
6%
3,973,093

Page 198

The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Payroll Tax
Total payroll
State tax withholdings
Local EIT
Local Services Tax
Unemployment tax
Total Payroll Tax Payments

$

$

113,545,055
3,349,207
1,348,667
126,464
76,982
4,901,319

¹In Fall 2014, there was a variance of one undergraduate student. The variance results from an unknown classification regarding traditional vs. non-traditional.
²As of September 2010, West Chester University had one patent in process.

Appendix C

Page 199

System-wide Functions and Services
Dauphin County, PA
System-wide Functions and Services are primarily located at the Dixon University Center in
Harrisburg and include: System-wide shared administrative services; System leadership
functions of the Chancellor and Board of Governors; some System-wide initiatives and grants
managed on behalf of the universities; and the academic, student, and facilities support for the
multi-university sites in Harrisburg and Philadelphia. Of the 14 state-owned universities within
Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education, Bloomsburg, Indiana University of
Pennsylvania, Lock Haven, Millersville, and Shippensburg offer one or more programs at the
Dixon University Center. The State System began operating the six-and-one-half-acre site under
a lease/purchase agreement in 1988, and purchased the site in 1991. In 1993, the State System
Board of Governors acknowledged the leadership and generosity of its founding chairman, F.
Eugene Dixon, Jr., by renaming the center in his honor.

The State System’s acquisition of the early twentieth century facility demonstrates a commitment
to bring educational programs and opportunities to the Harrisburg area that the 14 universities
have provided throughout the Commonwealth for over 150 years. Under the State System’s
stewardship, the five original structures were renovated and an Administration Building
constructed to make the facility adequate for classroom instruction and business purposes. The
programs offered through the center range from undergraduate and graduate programs;
continuing education and professional development; and customized training solutions for adult
learners looking for a part-time and flexible education. The Dixon University Center is also
paired with four private institutions: Elizabethtown College, Immaculata University, Lebanon
Valley College, and Rochester Institute of Technology. 1

Dauphin County had a population of 270,937 people in 2013. The population in this county has
grown 1.1 percent since the last census in 2010. The average household size is 2.4 persons
compared to an average family size of three persons. It has 525.0 sq. miles in land area and a
population density of 516.1 per square mile. On the most recent census form, 96.9 percent of the
population reported only one race, with 18 percent of these reporting African-American. The
1

Excerpts obtained from The Dixon University Center’s website, www.dixonuniversitycenter.org.

Appendix C

Page 200

population of this county is seven percent Hispanic (of any race). The labor force in 2013
consisted of 139,052 people and the rate of unemployment was 6.9 percent. In 2013, health care
and social assistance was the largest of 20 major sectors.
Below are some of Dauphin County’s population demographics. 2
Value

Rank
in
State

Population (2013)
Growth (percent) since 2010
Census

270,937

15

1.1%

11

Households (2012)
Labor Force (persons) (2013)

108,831
139,052

15
15

Unemployment Rate (2013)
Per Capita Personal Income (2012)

6.9
$45,396

47
10

Median Household Income (2012)
Poverty Rate (2012)

$53,480
13.8

19
34

89.0

21

28.5

9

People & Income Overview
(By Place of Residence)

H.S. Diploma or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2012 ACS 5yr)
Bachelor Deg. or More - percent of
Adults 25+ (2012 ACS 5yr)

Countywide labor force data and countywide employment impact as a result of System-wide
Functions and Services is shown in Table 15.6. Out of the 139,052 in the labor force, Systemwide Functions and Services employed 69 in-county jobs and therefore had an in-county
percentage employment impact of half of one percent.

Furthermore, the countywide

employment impact as a percent of the number of people employed in Dauphin County can be
calculated. Of the 131,800 total people employed in Dauphin County, 69 were employed by
System-wide Functions and Services and live in the county; therefore the countywide
employment impact is half of one percent. 3

2

Population demographics obtained from StatsAmerica provided by the Indiana Business Research Center
Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor and Industry Center for Workforce Information and Analysis.
3
The in-county employee county includes students who are employed by the entity.

Appendix C

Page 201

Table 15.1: Labor Force Data, Dauphin County: Averages and Countywide Employment
Impact

Unive rsity
System-wide Functions and Services

County
Dauphin

Employe r
Ranking
(2014)
N/A

Employe e
Count
69

Countywide Impact
Labor
% of Labor
Force
Force
(2013)
139,052
0.05%

Employe d
(2014)
131,800

The geographic distribution of System-wide Functions and Services employees is shown on Map
15.1. 4 69 employees, or 37 percent, live within 10 miles of the entity, 58 employees, which
constitutes 31 percent of the employees, live within 25 miles, leaving 32 percent of employees
living beyond 25 miles from the entity. Refer to Appendix E for the methodology regarding the
composition of this map

Map 15.1: System-wide Functions and Services Distribution of Employees

4

For the purpose of this illustration, student employees were excluded.

Appendix C

Page 202

% of
Employe d
0.05%

Economic Impact
The direct and indirect economic impact of each university, and System-wide Functions and
Services, was calculated in order to arrive at the total economic impact that each has on the
Commonwealth overall. Exhibit 15.1 provides a general overview of System-wide Functions
and Services, as well as the direct and indirect economic and employment impacts of the entity
on the Commonwealth.

A variety of data sources were used in order to calculate and analyze the spending of each
institution and its employees, students, and visitors. Please refer to Appendix E for additional
detail regarding the data sources utilized for this study. After collecting the necessary data,
multipliers were utilized to achieve the total economic impact and employment impact of
System-wide Functions and Services. The multipliers were obtained through the Bureau of
Economic Analysis Regional Industrial Multiplier Systems (“RIMS II”). As a whole, it is noted
that System-wide Functions and Services has an important role in the Commonwealth in terms of
the higher educational opportunities it provides to residents of the Commonwealth as well as the
direct, indirect, and induced economic benefits System-wide Functions and Services provides to
the Commonwealth.

The total direct economic impact of System-wide Functions and Services on the Commonwealth
was $16,050,363.

This value is represented by two main spending sources: institutional

spending and staff spending. Note that the institutional spending includes employment benefits
spent primarily in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

System-wide Functions and Services Direct Economic Impact on the Commonwealth
(1) Institutional spending:
Benefits:

Appendix C

$4,729,154
$2,162,562

(2) Staff spending:

$10,728,425

Total Direct Impact:

$16,050,363

Page 203

As presented in Table 15.2, the direct impact, $16,050,363, was multiplied by the applicable
state multipliers obtained from the RIMS II data, resulting in a total economic impact of Systemwide Functions and Services on the Commonwealth of $37,086,814. By taking the difference
between the total and direct economic impacts, the combined indirect and induced impact is
calculated to be $21,036,451. Please refer to Appendix E for an additional discussion related to
the use of multipliers and the methodology employed to derive the direct and indirect economic
benefits.

Table 15.2: Total Economic Impact of System-wide Functions and Services on the
Commonwealth
University
System-wide Functions
and Services

Total Direct

Total Indirect

Total Induced

$ 16,050,363

$ 16,786,884

$

4,249,567

Total Impact
$ 37,086,814

Chart 15.1: Total Economic Impact (Direct + Indirect + Induced): $37,086,814
$4,249,567

Total Direct
Total Indirect
Total Induced
$16,050,363

$16,786,884

The resulting return of taxpayer dollars via the Commonwealth’s appropriations has a significant
and measurable economic impact on the Commonwealth as a whole. Per Act 188 of 1982,
funding for the Board of Governors and Chancellor functions, one component of System-wide
Functions and Services, is provided annually from half of one percent of state appropriations,
tuition, room, and board charges. Other limited System-wide activities are allocated a portion of
Appendix C

Page 204

the System’s appropriation by the Board of Governors and managed centrally in Harrisburg. In
total, the fiscal year 2013-2014 budget of System-wide Functions and Services funded by state
appropriations was $4,838,914. Therefore, each dollar invested in System-wide Functions and
Services yielded a return of $7.66 in total economic impact, as is shown on Table 15.3.

Table 15.3: State Economic Impact of System-wide Functions and Services Appropriations
University
System-wide Functions and Services

Total Impact
$ 37,086,814

State
Appropriations
$ 4,838,914

Ratio
7.66

Spending in addition to the ancillary spending of staff yielded income tax revenues to the
Commonwealth, as well as to local municipalities and the state unemployment trust fund. Table
15.4 illustrates the benefits provided by System-wide Functions and Services’ payroll
expenditures.

Table 15.4: State Economic Impact of System-wide Functions and Services Payroll Tax
Withholdings

University
System-wide Functions
and Services

State Tax
Withholdings
$

390,398

Local EIT

Local
Services
Tax

Unemployment
Tax

$

$

$

200,864

7,946

Total Tax
Payments

8,396

$

607,604

In addition, sales tax revenue was collected by the Commonwealth as a result of the consumption
of taxable goods and services by System-wide Functions and Services’ staff.

Table 15.5

illustrates the sales tax revenue collected by the Commonwealth. Please refer to Appendix E for
an additional discussion of the methodology employed to estimate the sale tax revenue collected
by the Commonwealth.

Table 15.5: State Economic Impact of System-wide Functions and Services Sales Tax
Revenue Collections

University
System-wide Functions and
Services

Appendix C

Total Faculty
Spending

Spending
subject to tax

$

$

15,104,550

3,608,477

Sales
Tax Rate
6.00%

Sales Tax
Revenue
$

216,509

Page 205

In the aggregate, the revenues realized by the Commonwealth in terms of payroll tax
withholdings and sales tax receipts for System-wide Functions and Services were $606,906 or
12.5 percent of the Commonwealth’s appropriations for fiscal year 2013-2014.

The composite spending activity also has a measureable effect on employment in the
Commonwealth. Specifically the direct spending of the three categories enumerated above helps
to create jobs. The employment impact of the aggregate spending of the entity and the ancillary
spending of the staff is measured by the RIMS II 5 multiplier which estimates the number of jobs
created per every additional million in spending. Specifically, the RIMS II state multiplier for
Pennsylvania indicated that for each additional million dollars of output by a State System
institution, approximately 21.3 jobs were created or supported. In this manner, the employment
impact of System-wide Function and Services on the Commonwealth approximated 341 jobs, as
is shown in Table 15.6.

Table 15.6: Statewide Employment of System-wide Functions and Services on the
Commonwealth: 341 Jobs
University
System-wide Functions
and Services

Total Direct
16,050,363

Jobs
Output

Employment
Impact

21.26

341

Economic Development
Economic development involves improvements to the standard of living through the creation of
jobs and the support of innovation and new research in a community’s region, state, or nation.
The State System plays a role in enhancing the economic development of the regions in which
the individual universities reside by assisting in the development and growth of new and existing
businesses, as well as increasing the employment opportunities, both of which increase economic
activity in the respective areas. The universities accomplish this in various ways, such as
partnering with local businesses, providing education and job skills training, providing an outlet
for research and development through incubators, and by providing financial and technical
assistance.
5

Please refer to Appendix E for additional information related to the RIMS II multipliers.

Appendix C

Page 206

The goal of Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education and its 14 universities is
fundamentally to educate the citizens of the Commonwealth. By providing higher education, the
universities are not only helping to improve the economic development in the short-term, but in
the long-run as well.

Therefore, by way of establishing and accomplishing its mission,

Pennsylvania’s State System is benefiting the economic advancement of the Commonwealth.
Primarily, the State System does this through the granting of undergraduate and graduate
degrees, but also does so indirectly through its purchasing, expenditures, services, and by
employing hundreds, even thousands, of people.

Overall, Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher Education is a key player in supporting the
economic development and growth of communities, counties, regions, and the Commonwealth
overall. By providing sources of innovation and entrepreneurial assistance, the State System
supplies economic growth to local businesses along with highly skilled and educated candidate
employees. System-wide Functions and Services, as an integral part of the State System, aides
the State System universities in providing an economic and competitive advantage in their
respective regions and the state as a whole.

Appendix C

Page 207

Exhibit 15.1
System-wide Functions and Services
Location: County
Staff Headcount Paid in 2014

Dauphin
187
Financial Characteristics

Revenues, FY 2013-2014

$

7,177,363

Education and General Appropriations

$

4,838,914

Total Revenues

$

12,016,277

$

4,500,241
228,913
2,162,562
5,321,938
1.53
8,161,192
2.33
12,410,759
4,249,567
21,982,265

The Institution as a Consumer in the State
Institutional Expenditures
Institutional spending (excluding payroll)
Capital Improvements
Employee Benefits
Total Direct Institutional Spending¹
Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (total indirect - induced)
Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (total indirect)
Induced Effect (type 2 effect - type 1 effect)
Total Impact of Institutional Spending
Staff Expenditures
Staff spending (direct)
Household multiplier
Total Impact of Staff Spending
The Institution as an Employer
Employment impact for the Commonwealth
Direct expenditures for the Commonwealth
State multiplier
Statewide Employment Impact based on Direct Expenditures (jobs)
The University as a Generator of State Government Revenue
Sales Tax
Total Staff Spending
Imputed % of taxable spending
Spending subject to tax
Sales tax rate
Total State Tax Revenue Generation
Payroll Tax
Total payroll
State tax withholdings
Local EIT
Local Services Tax
Unemployment tax
Total Payroll Tax Payments

$

$
$

10,728,425
1.41
15,104,550

$

16,050,363
21.26
341

$

15,104,550
23.89%
3,608,477
6%
216,509

$
$

$

13,037,864
390,398
200,864
7,946
8,396
607,604

¹Direct Institution Spending has been reduced to ensure System-wide Functions and Services funded by the universities are not overstated.

Appendix C

Page 208

Appendix D: Economic Impact of Visitor Spending
As discussed in the body of the report, visitor spending was removed from the total economic
impact analysis. The analysis of visitor spending was conducted differently due to the inherent
limitation of the input-output models of the Type 1 and Type 2 multipliers. 1 According to the
BEA’s Report, University Contribution Studies Using Input-Output Analysis, the model and
multipliers used in our analysis are not appropriate for “non-recurring short-term events, such as
one-time sporting events.”

These one-time sporting events are the only events which the

analysis was based on, due to data availability, and therefore multipliers were properly removed
from the equation.

The analysis focused on sports most likely to generate revenue: football, men’s basketball and
women’s basketball. By taking the average attendance and multiplying it by the average State
System ticket price and the average number of home games, a direct impact was determined, as
shown in Table D.1. 2
Table D.1: Direct Economic Impact of Visitor Spending 3

University
Bloomsburg
California
Cheyney
Clarion
East Stroudsburg
Edinboro
Indiana
Kutztown
Lock Haven
M ansfield
M illersville
Shippensburg
Slippery Rock
West Chester
Total

Average
Attendance
3,894
2,862
1,082
2,155
2,611
2,808
2,730
4,056
1,602
2,100
1,563
5,123
6,296
4,484
43,366

Men's and Women's Basketball
S tate S ystem
Football
Average Average
Average Average
Ticket
Home
Ticket
Home
Average
Total Direct
Price
Games Direct Impact Attendance
Price
Games Direct Impact
Impact
$ 9.00
5
$
175,248
594 $ 7.00
13
$
54,013 $
229,261
9.00
5
128,781
521
7.00
13
47,450
176,231
9.00
5
48,708
595
7.00
13
54,153
102,861
9.00
5
96,993
416
7.00
13
37,837
134,830
9.00
5
117,495
1,121
7.00
13
101,990
219,485
9.00
5
126,369
744
7.00
13
67,659
194,028
9.00
5
122,828
2,798
7.00
13
254,646
377,474
9.00
5
182,520
655
7.00
13
59,599
242,119
9.00
5
72,072
773
7.00
13
70,385
142,457
9.00
5
94,478
675
7.00
13
61,411
155,889
9.00
5
70,313
605
7.00
13
55,025
125,337
9.00
5
230,544
453
7.00
13
41,265
271,809
9.00
5
283,331
1,059
7.00
13
96,361
379,693
9.00
5
201,789
796
7.00
13
72,432
274,221
$ 1,951,468
11,805
$ 1,074,224 $ 3,025,691

1

For further detail regarding the multipliers, refer to Appendix E.
The averages were computed on a sport by sport basis.
3
The revenues attributable to any teams that may have advanced to the post-season were not included in this
analysis.
2

Appendix D

Page 1

The additional money spent on hotels and lodging, food, parking and any other expenses
incurred while visiting at a sporting event creates an indirect economic impact. For the purpose
of this analysis, it was estimated that each visitor spent approximately $50 per home football
game and $30 per home basketball game. Therefore, the indirect impact was calculated as
shown in Table D.2.

Table D.2: Indirect Economic Impact of Visitor Spending

University
Bloomsburg
California
Cheyney
Clarion
East Stroudsburg
Edinboro
Indiana
Kutztown
Lock Haven
M ansfield
M illersville
Shippensburg
Slippery Rock
West Chester
Total

Average
Attendance
3,894
2,862
1,082
2,155
2,611
2,808
2,730
4,056
1,602
2,100
1,563
5,123
6,296
4,484
43,366

Football
Average Average
S pending/ Home
Visitor
Games
$ 50.00
5
50.00
5
50.00
5
50.00
5
50.00
5
50.00
5
50.00
5
50.00
5
50.00
5
50.00
5
50.00
5
50.00
5
50.00
5
50.00
5

Indirect
Impact
$
973,600
715,450
270,600
538,850
652,750
702,050
682,375
1,014,000
400,400
524,875
390,625
1,280,800
1,574,063
1,121,050
$ 10,841,488

Men's and Women's Basketball
S tate S ystem
Average Average
Average S pending/ Home
Indirect
Total Indirect
Games
Visitor
Attendance
Impact
Impact
594 $ 30.00
13
$
231,482 $ 1,205,082
521
30.00
13
$
203,355
918,805
595
30.00
13
$
232,085
502,685
416
30.00
13
$
162,156
701,006
1,121
30.00
13
$
437,100
1,089,850
744
30.00
13
$
289,965
992,015
2,798
30.00
13
$ 1,091,340
1,773,715
655
30.00
13
$
255,422
1,269,422
773
30.00
13
$
301,650
702,050
675
30.00
13
$
263,190
788,065
605
30.00
13
$
235,820
626,445
453
30.00
13
$
176,850
1,457,650
1,059
30.00
13
$
412,978
1,987,040
796
30.00
13
$
310,423
1,431,473
11,805
$ 4,603,816 $ 15,445,303

By combining the direct and indirect effects of visitors, the total visitor spending impact was
produced. However, it is estimated that the majority of those in attendance were students, or
faculty and staff, and therefore, were perhaps admitted at a reduced cost or for free. For this
reason, we estimated that only 40 percent of the attendees at the sporting events were “true
visitors” and applied the percentage accordingly. The total visitor spending impact is shown in
Table D.3 below.

Appendix D

Page 2

Table D.3: Total Economic Impact of Visitor Spending

University
Bloomsburg
California
Cheyney
Clarion
East Stroudsburg
Edinboro
Indiana
Kutztown
Lock Haven
Mansfield
Millersville
Shippensburg
Slippery Rock
West Chester
Total

Direct
Impact
$
229,261
176,231
102,861
134,830
219,485
194,028
377,474
242,119
142,457
155,889
125,337
271,809
379,693
274,221
$ 3,025,691

Indirect
Impact
$ 1,205,082
918,805
502,685
701,006
1,089,850
992,015
1,773,715
1,269,422
702,050
788,065
626,445
1,457,650
1,987,040
1,431,473
$ 15,445,303

Prorated
for True
Visitors Total Impact
40% $
573,737
40%
438,014
40%
242,218
40%
334,334
40%
523,734
40%
474,417
40%
860,475
40%
604,616
40%
337,803
40%
377,581
40%
300,713
40%
691,784
40%
946,693
40%
682,277
$ 7,388,398

Visitor spending had an overall economic impact of $7.4 million. Attendance at football games
alone constituted approximately 69 percent of the total visitor spending while men’s and
women’s basketball constituted 31 percent.

Appendix D

Page 3

Appendix E: Data Analysis Methodologies
To prepare the analysis for each of the 14 universities of Pennsylvania’s State System of Higher
Education, as well as System-wide Functions and Services, the following primary data categories
were utilized:
•

Publicly sourced documents;

•

Subscription based information; and

•

Information provided directly from the State System.

The purposes of this section and the information contained herein are intended to provide a
listing of the documents and information relied upon, as well as the analytical procedures and
methodologies utilized to ascertain the economic impact of State System universities on the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, individually and in the aggregate.

This particular methodology was selected and utilized because it is considered by numerous
economists to provide highly accurate and valid results. While, there are other acceptable
methods to conduct an economic and employment impact of a university or system of
universities, we have chosen and employed the Bureau of Economic Analysis RIMS II model, as
discussed below. 1

For the purposes of this appendix, certain examples of the analytical procedures will be
reproduced for illustrative purposes. Unless otherwise noted, the examples described herein will
be applicable to all of the universities within the State System, as well as to System-wide
Functions and Services. 2

1

Similar economic studies include alumni spending as a factor of total economic impact. This was excluded from
the State System’s analysis based on our discretion.
2
The use of Bloomsburg University as an illustrative example is based solely on Bloomsburg’s position in
alphabetical order of the State System universities.

Appendix E

Page 1

Economic Impact Study Analysis and Methodology

This study’s key components include:
•

Total economic impact of the State System’s universities on the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania;

•

The employment impact of the State System’s universities upon the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania;

•

Economic Development Inventory impacts of each university; and

•

An analysis of the Geo Spatial data for the State System’s universities’ employees,
students, and alumni.

Multiple data sources were reviewed and relied upon for the purposes of this analysis. The data
relied upon was used to generate the specific databases applicable to the following key
categories:
•

Institutional Spending;

•

Faculty and Staff Spending;

•

Student Spending; and

•

Capital Expenditures.

Please see the accompanying narrative text in this appendix for a detailed discussion of the data
relied upon and the analytical procedures employed to quantify the direct, indirect, and induced
economic impacts for each category. Calculations throughout this analysis are subject to
rounding.

Appendix E

Page 2

Bureau of Economic Analysis – RIMS II Data 3

The Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II), a regional economic model, is a tool
used by investors, planners, and elected officials to objectively assess the potential economic
impacts of various projects. This model produces multipliers that are used in economic impact
studies to estimate the total impact a project has on a region. The idea behind the results of
RIMS II is that an initial change in economic activity results in other rounds of spending or
economic activity.

RIMS II is based on a set of national industry input-output (I-O) accounts that show the goods
and services produced by each industry and the use of these goods and services by industries and
final users. Like most other regional I-O models, RIMS II adjusts these national relationships to
account for regional supply conditions.

Regional I-O multipliers, such as those provided in the RIMS II data, share similarities with
other macroeconomic (Keynesian) multipliers in that both types of multipliers provide a way to
estimate the total impact that an initial change in economic activity has on an economy. They
are both based on the idea that an initial change in economic activity results in diminishing
rounds of new spending. Spending diminishes because of “leakages” from the economy in the
form of savings, taxes, and imports.

Geospatial Analysis

The use of geocoding was used in this study to assess the distribution of employees, students,
and alumni of each of the State System universities. The goal of the address geocoding process
is to locate various features according to a specific address. The process involves matching the
address of an observation to a specific address location within the target geographic area.

In this study, the observations (employees, students, and alumni) were geographically identified
based on the postal zip codes associated with the address of their permanent residence.
3

Sections excerpted from the RIMS II Users Guide, https://www.bea.gov/regional/pdf/rims/rimsii_user_guide.pdf.

Appendix E

Page 3

The residential address data that was geocoded in this study represents the complete population
of each subgroup of the State System’s employees, students, and alumni as of 2014.

In

recognition of potential problems that may result from inaccurate or unavailable data, the
following steps were undertaken:
•

Employees and staff - in instances where postal code data was not available, postal
codes associated with the municipality in which local earned income tax was paid by the
employee was used as a proxy for their permanent residence. In addition, if local
municipality earned income tax data was not available and the employee was subject to
Pennsylvania income tax withholdings, the postal code of the university at which the
employee worked was used as a proxy. These instances were limited in number and do
not materially affect the outcome of the analysis.

•

Further, in the instances for students and alumni where postal code information was
unavailable from the information provided, these individuals were considered to be
outside of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As a general observation, this issue was
limited to the alumni data, which was obtained from the State System’s living alumni
database for all of the State System universities.

After the geocoding procedures were completed, the university employees were stratified based
on the distance of their permanent residences relative to the postal code of the respective
university. Specifically, this analysis began with the employee addresses located within a 10
mile radius of the university center and continued outward to include employees between 10 to
25 miles from the university center, and then finally to include all employees living greater than
25 miles from the university center.

The concept of measuring the distance of students or alumni from the university site does not
represent a significant measure of the impact on the local community and economy. Rather the
focus of the analysis of the State System’s alumni is designed to measure the distribution of
alumni after graduation and demonstrates the retention of the State System’s alumni postgraduation within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Specifically, the analyses show the
Appendix E

Page 4

spread of alumni within the regional economies of the Commonwealth.

The alumni were

geocoded and then tabulated, for each university, by the county in which they reside.

The student population for each university was analyzed in a similar manner to the alumni data.
Specifically, the student data was geocoded and then tabulated on a county by county basis. The
resulting data represent the counties from which the students were drawn throughout
Pennsylvania. The distribution of students at each of the State System’s universities illustrates
the significant impact that the State System plays in the education of the local population. This
is consistent with the State System’s mission to provide instruction for undergraduate and
graduate students in the disciplines of liberal arts and sciences. Further, the universities within
the State System aim to provide diverse, dynamic, meaningful experiences to inspire learners to
grow both intellectually and personally to enable them to contribute positively to local and global
communities.

Analytical procedures were applied to arrive at total spending (direct impacts) for each
university. The direct impact attributable to each university for the fiscal 2013-2014 year can be
broken down into the following four categories:
•

Institutional spending;

•

Faculty and staff spending on goods and services;

•

Student spending on goods and services; and

•

Capital expenditures.

Institutional Spending Analysis

The institution spending for each university was aggregated from the operation budgets for the
2013-2014 academic years. The spending data included all direct spending of the universities,
exclusive of all salary and wages paid to faculty, staff, and student employees. The spending
data, however, does include employee benefits and the capital spending that stems from the
university’s operating funds.

Appendix E

Page 5

To avoid a potential double counting of the indirect economic benefits derived from the
institutional spending, an allocation of the spending attributable to out-of state students is
required, as is discussed in the example below. The delineation is necessary because the indirect
benefits attributable to the in-state students, as well as in-state faculty and staff, are already
captured in the Pennsylvania household spending multiplier. Specifically, this distinction is
made to prevent overstatement of the Type I and Type II multiplied effect. 4

A white paper authored by the Bureau of Economic Analysis provides guidance on the proper
use of multipliers in the analysis and determination of the economic impacts that universities
have on a surrounding region. Specifically the white paper states: 5
•

Most regional I-O models produce two types of multipliers. Type I multipliers account
only for the “inter-industry” (direct and indirect) effect of an initial change in economic
activity. Type II multipliers account for both the inter-industry and “household-spending”
(induced) effects associated with an initial change in economic activity. Most university
contribution studies are based on Type II multipliers, which are more difficult to use in a
manner that avoids double-counting.

•

Even though regional I-O multipliers have traditionally been used to estimate the
economic impact of an incremental change in economic activity, such as an increase in
the provision of educational services, these multipliers have increasingly been used to
estimate the contribution of an entire industry, such as an institution (academic
university) to a regional economy.

4

The Type I and Type II effect of the institutional spending captures all of the economic impacts of in-state
consumers of the State System universities good and services
5
Sections excerpted from “University Contribution Studies Using Input-Output Analysis” by Zoe O. Ambargis,
Charles Ian Mean, & Stanislaw J. Rzeznik (May 3, 2013)

Appendix E

Page 6

•

The value of university output should exclude any university services that are purchased
by businesses inside the region. If using a Type II university multiplier, the value of
university output should also exclude purchases of university services by households in
the region. Not following these practices will result in double counting and inflated
results.

•

If a Type II university multiplier is used in the analysis, the value of the university output
needs to be adjusted to exclude university output that is purchased by households in the
region because the impact of their purchases is captured in the Type II multiplier. This
adjustment can be made by prorating the measure of university output by the percentage
of students that come from outside the region.

Further, the paper provides a step-by-step methodology to ascertain the contribution a university
has on a region. The steps are as follows:
1. Calculated university output (Direct spending of the university); 6
2. Prorate university output by the share of non-local students;
3. Separately multiply the pro-rated output by the Type I and Type II multipliers for
universities; and
4. Subtract the result calculated with the Type I multiplier (total indirect less induced)
from the result calculated with the Type II multiplier (total indirect) to separately
identify the household-spending effect.
For illustrative purposes the analysis for Bloomsburg University has been reproduced below:

6

The direct spending of the university excludes the payroll for faculty, staff, and students.

Appendix E

Page 7

Bloomsburg University:
Institutional Spending (Excluding Payroll)
Capital Improvements
Sub total

Amount
$61,695,020
2,412,867
64,107,887

Employee Benefits

34,829,989

Total Institutional Spending (Total Direct Spending)

$98,937,876

Institutional Spending prorated by % of out of state students (10.86%)

$10,746,803

Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect: (Total Indirect – Induced Effect)

1.5335
$16,480,222

Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect 7 (Total Indirect Spending)

2.332
$25,061,544

Induced Effect 8 (Type 2 Effect - Type 1 Effect)
Total Impact of Institutional Spending (Total Direct Spending + Indirect
Spending + Induced Spending)

$8,581,322

$132,580,742

Faculty and Staff Spending Analysis

To ascertain the effect of the faculty and staff spending the Type II household spending
multiplier was applied to an estimate of faculty and staff spending on a university-by-university
basis. 9

An estimation of faculty and staff spending was based on spending data provided by the Bureau
of Labor and Statistics (“BLS”) Consumer Expenditure Survey for 2013.

The BLS data

provided a detail of the average consumer spending for the separate categories which are as
follows:

7

Indirect effects are defined as the changes in sales, income or jobs in sectors within the region that supply goods
and services to a specific sector.
8
Induced effects are defined as the increased sales within the region from household spending of the income earned
supporting in a specific sector.
9
Household spending multiplier for Pennsylvania obtained from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Appendix E

Page 8

•

Groceries

•

Restaurants

•

Housing

•

Apparel and Services

•

Transportation

•

Health Care

•

Entertainment

•

Cash Contributions

•

Personal Insurance and Pensions

•

All Other Expenditures

The BLS data allowed for a spending analysis to be completed based on income stratification,
estimating average spending by category over six income ranges. The annual income ranges
begin at less than $70,000 and work up incrementally to $150,000 and greater. Accordingly,
gross wages paid to faculty and staff was sorted by income level to which the applicable
spending percentages were applied for each category.

For illustrative purposes the analysis for Bloomsburg University has been reproduced below:

Bloomsburg University:
Income (wages)
Groceries
Restaurants
Housing
Apparel and Services
Transportation
Health Care
Entertainment
Cash Contributions
Personal Ins & Pensions
All Other Expenditures
Total Consumption
10

Other 10

Permanent
$

64,848,859

$

Total

7,701,853

$72,550,713

4,465,037
2,885,129
18,634,533
1,769,004
9,981,933
4,053,423
2,662,553
1,912,814
5,690,671

773,026
424,257
3,009,266
264,046
1,505,309
684,306
382,280
262,355
562,232

5,238,064
3,309,387
21,643,799
2,033,049
11,487,243
4,737,728
3,044,833
2,175,170
6,252,903

3,440,604

520,025

3,960,628

$55,495,702

$8,387,101

$ 63,882,803

Other employees include temporary and part-time employees, however all student wages are excluded.

Appendix E

Page 9

Note that the reproduced analysis illustrates total spending for faculty and staff, in the aggregate,
across all income ranges. Further, for the purposes of this analysis, payroll data was filtered to
exclude student wages, as student spending was captured in a separate analysis, described below.

Continuing with the Bloomsburg University example, the total estimated consumption spending
for faculty and staff was then used as the basis for the application of the Pennsylvania Type II
household multiplier, which is reproduced below:
Bloomsburg University:
Faculty & Staff Spending - Direct
Household Multiplier (Type II)
Total Faculty & Staff Spending Impact
Faculty Spending - Indirect Impact (Total less Direct Impact)

Amount
$63,882,803
1.4079
89,940,599
$26,057,796

Student Spending Analysis

The third element of the direct economic impact analysis applicable to all of the State System’s
universities is an estimation of student spending. 11 This analysis was based on the fall 2014
enrollment data for each university, which segregated the student enrollment into three broad
categories, as follows:
•

Students living on campus in university housing or university affiliated private housing;

•

Student’s living off campus in private, non-affiliated housing; and

•

Students living off campus with parents.

In order to capture the amount of student spending resulting from students who live in affiliated
university housing, an aggregate of privatized housing fees for each university was obtained. A
percent was then calculated to determine the amount of room and board fees that were collected
by affiliates, rather than the universities, and subsequently applied to the total number of students
living in affiliated university housing. Average cost estimates for room, board, books, and
11

System-wide Functions and Services was not included this analysis.

Appendix E

Page 10

supplies, and other expenses were then applied to the students who live off-campus and pay for
room and board to parties other than the university directly. 12 In the other instances in which
students lived in on-campus housing or with a parent, only books and supplies and other
expenses were included in the aggregated total. This was done in order to avoid double counting
room and board expenditures that have already been accounted for in other aspects of the
analysis.

To calculate the total direct student spending, the Pennsylvania Type II household multiplier was
applied to the total amount spent by all students, the results of which are reproduced below:

Bloomsburg University:

Amount

Student Spending – Direct

$90,272,210

Household Multiplier (Type II)
Total Student Spending Impact

1.4079
127,094,244

Student Spending - Indirect Impact (Total less Direct Impact)

$36,822,034

Direct Composite Employment Impact

In addition to an economic impact, there is an employment impact that arises from direct
institutional, faculty and staff, and student spending or, what is referred to in the report as direct
composite spending. By applying the Pennsylvania Type II Employment Output multiplier to
the total direct composite spending, the amount of jobs supported as a result of the university’s
expenditures can be calculated. Specifically, for every additional million dollars of composite
spending by a university, approximately 21.3 jobs are supported.

12

Average cost estimates were supplied on a university by university basis by the State System.

Appendix E

Page 11

For illustrative purposes, the direct composite employment impact of Bloomsburg University is
reproduced below:
Direct
Institutional
Spending
$98,937,876

Direct Faculty
and Staff
Spending
$63,882,803

Direct Composite
Spending
$253,092,889

Direct
Student
Spending
$90,272,210

Jobs Output
21.26

Direct Composite
Spending
$253,092,889
Employment
Impact
5,380

Capital Expenditures Analysis

The last component of the State System’s total direct economic impact is the capital expenditures
of each university. As mentioned previously in the report, Pennsylvania’s State System of
Higher Education receives funding from the Governor’s Budget Office for its capital
investments; as a result, the impact of these projects is segregated from the institutional spending
impact.

The following provides an overview of how the capital expenditures impact was

calculated.

Historical data was obtained for the funding received for capital investments and the deferred
maintenance. The capital projects, on average, take approximately four to five years to be
executed, and therefore, a five-year weighted average was calculated for each university, with
the most weight being placed on 2013-2014 fiscal year. This amount was combined with the
funding per university provided for deferred maintenance to arrive at the total directly spent on
capital expenditures.

The Pennsylvania Type I and Type II construction multipliers were then applied, in the same
manner as applied on institutional spending, to calculate the indirect and induced effect of the
capital expenditures. 13
13

The construction multiplier was chosen because, as indicated by the State System, the majority of the funding is
spent on renovations and additions. The construction multipliers assume that construction is being performed by a
firm in the region and has enough spare capacity to take on the job without forcing up prices or demand. It also
assumes that there is some amount of leakages from the local economy because of inputs of supplies or services that
cannot be provided locally.

Appendix E

Page 12

For illustrative purposes, the economic impact of Bloomsburg University’s capital expenditures
is displayed below:
Bloomsburg University:

Amount

Capital Improvements (5-year Weighted Average)
Key ‘93 Deferred Maintenance
Total Capital Expenditures (Total Direct Spending)

$9,165,333
1,037,338
10,202,671

Type 1 Multiplier
Type 1 Effect (Total Indirect – Induced Effect)

1.6844
$17,185,380

Type 2 Multiplier
Type 2 Effect (Total Indirect Spending)

2.4656
$25,155,706

Induced Effect (Type 2 Effect - Type 1 Effect)

7,970,327

Total Impact of Capital Expenditures

$43,328,705

Direct Capital Expenditures Employment Impact

In calculating the direct capital expenditures employment impact, it is important to note that
because a different type of multiplier is being used, the jobs output multiplier utilized is 17.9. In
other words, for each additional million dollars spent on capital expenditures approximately 17.9
jobs are supported.

For illustrative purposes, the employment impact of Bloomsburg University’s capital
expenditures is displayed below:

Direct Capital Expenditures

Jobs Output

Employment Impact

$10,202,671

17.94

183

In the aggregate, the total economic impact for Bloomsburg University is quantified as follows:

Appendix E

Page 13

Category

Direct

Indirect

Induced

Total

Institutional Spending
Faculty Spending
Student Spending
Capital Expenditures
Total

$98,937,876
63,882,803
90,272,210
10,202,671
$263,295,561

$25,061,544
26,057,796
36,822,034
25,155,706
$113,097,080

$8,581,322
7,970,327
$16,551,649

$132,580,742
89,940,599
127,094,244
43,328,705
$392,944,290

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Sales Tax Revenue

An additional element of the economic impact on the Commonwealth as a result of the State
System universities’ presence is the sales tax revenue generated from the purchase of taxable
goods and services. This analysis is based on the aggregate total of the direct and indirect
consumption expenditures for faculty, staff, and students. To this total, a factor of approximately
23.9 percent was applied to estimate the amount of total consumption expenditures spent on
taxable goods and services within Pennsylvania. 14

The derivation of the taxable goods and services factor is shown as follows:
Description
Pennsylvania Gross Domestic Product
Pennsylvania Sales Tax Revenue
Pennsylvania Sales Tax Rate
Imputed Sales Revenue Base
Percentage of Pennsylvania GDP which is Taxable

Amount
$ 644,915,000,000
9,243,355,000
6.00%
$ 154,055,916,667
23.89%

The taxable goods and services factor was applied to the sum total of all consumption spending
to estimate the sales tax receipts due to Pennsylvania. The estimated sales tax receipts for
Bloomsburg University are reproduced below:

14

This factor was calculated by dividing the 2013 Pennsylvania sales tax revenue, as reported in the 2013
Pennsylvania Tax Collections Summary Report, by Pennsylvania’s sales tax rate of six percent. This value was then
divided again by Pennsylvania’s 2013 Gross Domestic Product, $644.9 billion, as reported in the 2013 Bureau of
Economic Analysis, to arrive at the percentage of state gross domestic product taxable, 23.89 percent.

Appendix E

Page 14

Total Spending

Imputed %
of Taxable
Spending

$217,034,843

23.89%

Spending
subject to
tax
$51,849,624

Sales
Tax
Rate
6.0%

Sales Tax
Revenue
$3,110,977

Institutional spending was not considered in this analysis as it would not be subject to
Pennsylvania sales tax.

Appendix E

Page 15

Appendix F: Information Relied On
General Documents Received:
12-13 Minor Objects.
13-14 Minor Objects.
14-15 Cost of Attendance.
2013 Athletics for BL ED KU MA SH.
2014 Athletics for CA CH CL EA IN LO MI SL WE.
2014 Gross Salary.
AAE Fall Freshmen by Univ.
AAE Transfer Fall Trends.
All Grant Contract Awards 2011-12.
All Grant Contract Awards 2012-13.
All Grant Contract Awards 2013-14.
Capital Spending Plan History.
Economic Activity (System Student Housing).
Employee Headcount Information.
Endowments by University FY 2003-2014.
Enrollment by County.
Enrollment Trends.
Financial Aid Information.
Financial Statements: FYE 6/30/2013 & 2014.
Grant Contract Awards BU 2011-12.
GRANTCONAWARDSOC201213.
GRANTCONAWARDSOC201314.
Key '93 Deferred Maintenance Appropriation Annual Report.
Key 93 Funding History.
Links to pages of PASSHE websites.
of 2010-11.
of 2011-12.
of 2012-13
On Campus Events Summary.
Operating Budgets.
PASSHE Alumni_Fall 2014.
PASSHE Enrollment.
PASSHE Financial Statements.
PASSHE Tuition and Fees.
Patents Issued.
Restricted Positions.
State System of Higher Education Projects.
State System's Single Audit Report, June 30, 2012.
State System's Single Audit Report, June 30, 2013.
Taxes Report 2014.

Appendix F

Page 1

Bloomsburg University:
Bloomsburg_MainReport_1213.
Bloomsburg_PARTIV.
Financial Statements: FYE 6/30/2013 and 2014.
bl2012 - 13.
bl2011 - 12.
bl2010 - 11.
Economic_Development_Annual_Report_BL2013.
Economic_Development_Annual_Report_BL2014.
California University of Pennsylvania:
Financial Statements: FYE 6/30/2013 and 2014.
ca2012 - 13.
ca2011 - 12.
ca2010 - 11.
Economic_Development_Annual_Report_CA2013.
Economic_Development_Annual_Report_CA2014.
GRANT CON AWARDS CA 201213.
GRANTCONAWARDSCA201314.
GRANTCONAWARDSCAFDN2013-14.
GRANTCONAWARDSCA201213.
Cheyney University:
Financial Statements: FYE 6/30/2013 and 2012.
ch2011-12.
ch2010-11.
Economic_Development_Annual_Report_CH2013.
Economic_Development_Annual_Report_CH2014.
GRANTCONAWARDSCH201213Rev.
GRANTCONAWARDSCH201314.
Clarion University:
Financial Statements: FYE 6/30/2013 and 2014.
cl2012-13.
cl2011-12.
cl2010-11.
Economic_Development_Annual_Report_CL2013.
Economic_Development_Annual_Report_CL2014.
GRANTCONAWARDSCL201213.
GRANTCONAWARDSCL201314.

Appendix F

Page 2

East Stroudsburg University:
Financial Statements: FYE 6/30/2013 and 2014.
ea2012-13.
ea2011-12.
ea2010-11.
Economic_Development_Annual_Report_EA2013.
Economic_Development_Annual_Report_EA2014.
GRANTCONAWARDSEA201213REV2.
GRANTCONAWARDSEA201314.
Edinboro University:
Financial Statements: FYE 6/30/2013 and 2014.
ed2012-13.
ed2011-12.
ed2010-11.
EU Economic Impact Flyer.
Economic_Development_Annual_Report_ED2013.
Economic_Development_Annual_Report_ED2014.
GRANTCONAWARDSED201213.
GRANTCONAWARDSED201314.
Indiana University of Pennsylvania:
Financial Statements: FYE 6/30/2013 and 2014.
in2012-13.
in2011-12.
in2010-11.
Economic_Development_Annual_Report_IN2013.
Economic_Development_Annual_Report_IN2014.
GRANTCONAWARDSIN201213.
GRANTCONAWARDSIN201314.
Kutztown University:
Financial Statements: FYE 6/30/2013 and 2014.
ku2012-13.
ku2011-12.
ku2010-11.
Economic_Development_Annual_Report_KU2013.
Economic_Development_Annual_Report_KU2014.
GRANTCONAWARDSKU201213.
GRANTCONAWARDSKU201314.

Appendix F

Page 3

Lock Haven University:
Financial Statements: FYE 6/30/2013 and 2014.
lo2012-13.
lo2011-12.
lo2010-11.
Economic_Development_Annual_Report_LO2013.
Economic_Development_Annual_Report_LO2014.
GRANTCONAWARDSLO201213.
GRANTCONAWARDSLO201314.
Lock Haven Flip Read 11_10_14
Mansfield University:
Financial Statements: FYE 6/30/2013 and 2014.
ma2012-13.
ma2011-12.
ma2010-11.
Economic_Development_Annual_Report_MA2013.
Economic_Development_Annual_Report_MA2014.
GRANTCONAWARDSMA201213.
GRANTCONAWARDSMAN201314.
Millersville University:
Financial Statements: FYE 6/30/2013 and 2014.
mi2012-13.
mi2011-12.
mi2010-11.
Economic_Development_Annual_Report_MI2013.
Economic_Development_Annual_Report_MI2014.
GRANTCONAWARDSMI201213.
GRANTCONAWARDSMIL201314.
Shippensburg University:
Financial Statements: FYE 6/30/2013 and 2014.
sh2012-13.
sh2011-12.
sh2010-11.
Economic_Development_Annual_Report_SH2013.
Economic_Development_Annual_Report_SH2014.
GRANTCONAWARDSSH201213.
GRANTCONAWARDSSH201314.

Appendix F

Page 4

Slippery Rock University:
Financial Statements: FYE 6/30/2013 and 2014.
sl2012-13.
sl2011-12.
sl2010-11.
SRU_Economic Bookmark.
SRU_EconomicImpactBooklet.
Economic_Development_Annual_Report_SL2013.
Economic_Development_Annual_Report_SL2014.
GRANTCONAWARDSSL201213.
GRANTCONAWARDSSL201314.
West Chester University
Financial Statements: FYE 6/30/2013 and 2014.
we2012-13.
we2011-12.
we2010-11.
MD&A 2013 and 2014.
Economic_Development_Annual_Report_WE2013.
Economic_Development_Annual_Report_WE2014.
GRANTCONAWARDSWC201314.
GRANTCONAWARDSWE201213.

Appendix F

Page 5

Appendix G: Supporting Geographic Data
Bloomsburg CAL U Cheyney
Adams
59
34
Allegheny
14
1,902
29
Armstrong
23
Beaver
5
139
1
Bedford
3
20
Berks
282
47
10
Blair
7
43
Bradford
65
1
Bucks
657
64
5
Butler
3
75
Cambria
6
76
Cameron
2
4
Carbon
108
6
Centre
18
29
Chester
353
107
36
Clarion
2
19
Clearfield
13
23
Clinton
31
8
Columbia
878
6
Crawford
1
21
Cumberland
186
57
1
Dauphin
207
69
17
Delaware
350
46
96
Elk
4
16
Erie
10
55
Fayette
1
893
2
Forest
4
Franklin
29
41
Fulton
7
Greene
1
145
Huntingdon
7
3
Indiana
2
32
Jefferson
2
17
Juniata
19
1
Lackawanna
243
16
3
Lancaster
212
86
4
Lawrence
39
4
Lebanon
88
21
Lehigh
406
27
8
Luzerne
609
20
3
Lycoming
199
13
2
McKean
1
17
Mercer
2
48
1
Mifflin
38
6
Monroe
221
17
7
Montgomery
733
58
2
Montour
215
1
31
Northampton
301
31
4
Northumberland
540
14
Perry
30
13
Philadelphia
676
123
469
Pike
89
8
Potter
9
8
S chuylkill
319
15
S nyder
125
8
1
S omerset
1
82
S ullivan
10
3
S usquehanna
26
6
Tioga
17
13
1
Union
148
2
1
Venango
4
12
Warren
19
Washington
2
1,137
Wayne
75
7
Westmoreland
11
712
Wyoming
30
5
York
207
125
7
Total Pennsylvania
8,912
6,745
745

S tate S ystem S tudents by Pennsylvania County by University, Fall 2014
East
Lock
Clarion S troudsburg Edinboro
IUP
Kutztown Haven Mansfield Millersville
11
6
5
57
33
45
6
102
715
9
656
1,768
5
48
12
14
185
42
428
2
4
148
1
110
210
2
11
1
3
13
1
2
80
1
14
3
2
36
152
13
189
1,663
108
38
426
41
3
24
244
6
100
7
4
13
8
17
20
15
83
382
5
22
329
22
249
643
140
64
299
245
2
166
406
1
19
4
3
68
1
32
680
2
42
6
10
12
4
19
1
10
1
1
6
96
3
14
120
25
12
15
36
2
28
70
7
403
13
10
24
94
13
281
446
87
21
452
690
29
60
11
4
1
182
3
49
159
4
354
6
2
9
1
5
5
469
25
10
21
15
12
4
30
21
34
14
13
119
637
80
1
15
2
3
39
22
25
242
131
95
44
262
48
43
17
189
122
113
57
364
24
126
10
193
303
61
31
314
105
1
71
96
39
9
1
176
3
2,616
241
1
19
4
2
8
1
20
124
1
2
5
33
11
2
2
18
6
6
83
22
34
6
55
2
7
4
6
5
6
12
2
17
1
3
33
1
46
4
1
36
27
1,486
1
8
2
2
241
48
196
53
1
2
3
15
1
34
7
6
16
203
8
58
125
36
43
22
38
36
33
264
329
139
40
2,752
91
94
89
2
5
23
7
74
123
39
13
207
25
308
18
114
1,044
99
21
111
23
127
12
95
126
103
53
31
22
11
15
73
24
384
138
30
53
2
80
53
1
11
15
1
171
196
95
1
11
1
1
2
4
8
53
89
7
11
3
22
1,684
13
92
187
54
21
26
37
260
23
331
781
131
55
469
6
1
4
22
3
21
14
7
11
770
7
121
632
79
27
103
20
11
5
58
41
88
56
13
12
5
6
29
24
30
21
31
82
309
58
694
517
220
144
380
11
298
5
29
75
28
11
7
1
9
8
26
47
11
15
57
10
46
283
73
16
61
9
1
2
20
8
32
21
6
19
11
136
1
11
1
2
1
6
6
2
1
29
16
28
22
50
5
17
2
13
29
9
41
487
7
8
6
4
20
6
48
28
13
512
125
48
1
4
2
70
1
126
45
1
6
6
1
97
1
83
292
1
12
2
3
8
99
5
20
32
22
38
11
200
3
128
1,097
4
27
1
7
1
16
1
15
18
16
32
3
44
57
31
280
211
148
61
924
5,004
5,250
5,864
12,400
8,201
4,590
2,263
7,640

S hippensburg
264
28
1
5
45
258
49
10
221
6
27
20
22
284
2
10
6
24
2
1,174
427
176
3
5
5
938
51
4
48
6
5
27
24
323
3
124
105
70
39
2
4
60
59
400
5
108
51
91
305
12
1
93
17
18
2
12
21
1
14
9
16
6
607
6,755

S lippery West
Rock Chester
31
52
1,781
39
129
480
5
16
2
43
494
48
8
16
6
52
1,378
1,131
6
81
1
10
1
3
27
48
13
53
3,745
63
2
72
4
6
4
9
14
140
3
50
209
58
221
33
2,443
53
333
4
75
5
33
31
4
25
1
14
4
42
1
25
2
5
13
176
67
463
486
2
16
63
33
345
39
126
34
29
39
2
563
1
6
3
24
105
72
2,049
6
4
34
286
18
23
10
17
39
1,247
12
48
18
2
11
69
6
13
42
1
1
1
3
21
18
2
4
4
132
47
1
267
4
6
24
389
11
6
13
71
331
7,496 14,209

Total
705
7,020
814
1,121
202
3,759
584
641
4,145
2,067
1,032
65
455
699
5,996
883
881
600
1,074
1,024
2,537
1,952
4,206
398
3,469
1,137
57
1,302
81
201
182
1,645
587
123
986
4,786
810
803
2,664
1,437
1,013
277
1,095
290
2,532
5,401
340
2,514
938
319
5,263
633
140
1,068
269
323
34
219
656
313
840
324
1,915
356
2,606
162
3,104
96,074

Non-Pennsylvania

1,086

1,233

277

708

1,570

973

1,969

1,017

327

489

407

600

999

1,877

13,532

Grand Total

9,998

7,978

1,022

5,712

6,820

6,837

14,369

9,218

4,917

2,752

8,047

7,355

8,495

16,086

109,606

Appendix G

Page 1

Bloomsburg CAL U Cheyney
Adams
178
100
Allegheny
241
9,834
138
Armstrong
6
182
Beaver
26
737
19
Bedford
11
165
Berks
1,640
180
24
Blair
68
153
Bradford
395
30
Bucks
3,115
253
51
Butler
55
663
Cambria
37
498
4
Cameron
6
11
Carbon
493
31
Centre
287
140
2
Chester
1,931
253
336
Clarion
6
64
Clearfield
83
88
Clinton
180
34
Columbia
4,553
34
3
Crawford
12
141
Cumberland
1,176
282
2
Dauphin
1,389
244
44
Delaware
1,077
125
921
Elk
21
60
Erie
44
298
10
Fayette
9
5,766
5
Forest
15
Franklin
143
139
Fulton
5
11
Greene
2
1,043
Huntingdon
39
36
Indiana
20
174
1
Jefferson
15
66
Juniata
118
8
Lackawanna
1,326
37
4
Lancaster
1,544
264
16
Lawrence
16
169
3
Lebanon
444
82
2
Lehigh
2,090
128
16
Luzerne
4,252
79
4
Lycoming
1,702
84
1
McKean
32
59
Mercer
20
230
7
Mifflin
136
30
1
Monroe
532
31
19
Montgomery
3,825
319
249
Montour
966
7
Northampton
1,683
93
9
Northumberland
3,105
32
1
Perry
185
42
Philadelphia
1,103
166
3,192
Pike
170
15
2
Potter
38
23
S chuylkill
1,910
50
1
S nyder
672
24
S omerset
16
665
S ullivan
85
2
S usquehanna
265
10
Tioga
107
33
Union
768
27
Venango
10
104
Warren
12
74
Washington
39
8,251
4
Wayne
296
19
Westmoreland
78
5,760
2
Wyoming
174
10
York
990
367
20
Total Pennsylvania
45,972 39,144
5,113

S tate S ystem Alumni by Pennsylvania County by University, Fall 2014
East
Lock
Clarion S troudsburg Edinboro
IUP
Kutztown Haven Mansfield Millersville
126
75
65
311
140
180
98
548
5,637
90
5,872
14,609
170
420
228
212
864
5
193
2,253
8
14
19
9
957
17
1,101
1,294
16
51
34
26
77
6
39
342
17
99
30
44
187
726
121
783
10,647
461
365
2,450
259
18
143
1,521
34
459
80
73
50
89
92
121
69
278
2,276
56
204
1,769
185
1,147
3,162
748
415
2,127
2,007
15
1,129
2,711
23
77
50
27
385
12
167
3,725
19
218
48
43
54
1
34
47
2
39
24
4
18
629
11
73
836
101
96
96
424
76
163
719
104
1,662
222
129
266
687
187
1,316
2,055
422
292
2,671
3,082
5
153
312
39
15
3
1,073
12
184
1,055
13
1,313
61
34
41
16
39
18
2,226
124
29
101
68
78
28
147
118
152
184
110
795
6
4,159
425
4
45
40
10
437
234
286
1,405
681
606
422
1,586
416
305
229
1,195
762
637
492
1,990
157
565
105
711
1,055
252
210
1,547
594
2
352
471
4
151
62
5
1,175
15
12,399
1,279
23
105
93
25
114
8
136
704
4
18
14
7
152
3
38
27
3
9
170
72
93
479
120
186
98
292
13
1
6
58
7
21
4
33
42
1
44
136
2
4
6
2
59
12
40
222
26
224
41
61
276
11
135
5,732
16
60
25
21
1,348
7
166
1,161
5
212
20
10
27
8
12
42
17
112
38
82
41
1,533
48
214
464
218
612
200
397
410
239
1,281
1,712
737
480
16,400
558
2
431
479
4
19
23
6
119
158
56
372
578
216
193
1,645
142
2,029
91
582
8,181
345
365
770
94
1,187
73
316
721
324
607
232
176
104
115
402
165
2,006
964
178
387
10
463
254
10
129
203
10
967
7
1,385
619
11
59
34
10
65
11
44
147
338
81
90
40
48
4,729
38
180
579
141
148
156
333
1,727
252
1,655
4,455
782
544
3,156
21
25
15
55
30
69
92
46
129
4,108
88
429
4,160
353
362
675
77
78
41
140
187
449
318
173
72
40
43
135
77
134
84
220
256
532
212
1,294
1,275
345
338
1,050
18
705
10
29
148
64
73
33
7
85
71
9
106
326
11
78
36
432
41
135
1,815
264
234
386
35
24
14
87
65
192
122
78
168
4
108
1,016
11
80
24
29
4
6
11
10
19
90
11
18
161
25
39
89
95
343
52
44
32
74
110
38
186
2,619
60
50
55
30
111
54
240
171
100
2,798
3
749
292
3
36
16
10
461
5
1,054
212
10
65
76
9
623
16
760
1,782
24
55
23
20
12
491
17
52
172
67
203
73
1,967
23
1,386
7,454
24
193
68
52
13
110
5
41
60
49
148
51
484
313
289
1,355
757
776
459
4,269
32,245
24,653
36,387
67,985
46,115 20,746
16,678
44,623

S hippensburg
1,545
364
16
50
448
1,239
389
59
1,402
71
195
1
64
237
1,890
21
44
37
107
9
7,275
3,331
996
9
32
22
1
5,007
322
11
414
45
20
253
145
2,468
12
770
760
202
228
6
14
342
123
2,203
43
557
236
689
631
28
13
336
166
159
10
28
46
129
10
11
71
43
176
17
3,855
40,453

S lippery West
Rock Chester
91
156
9,388
217
606
8
2,765
24
83
26
265
2,453
288
54
51
46
282
4,412
6,815
33
505
39
16
2
32
106
194
186
322 17,642
260
7
279
13
31
25
56
79
642
9
378
722
266
698
156 10,576
152
6
1,064
22
274
5
31
183
155
23
7
85
3
41
19
275
13
196
9
16
15
51
336
371
2,249
3,053
5
104
389
172
1,141
94
411
98
115
179
12
3,135
16
25
35
57
200
429
8,751
12
9
148
832
41
84
46
61
189
4,066
21
57
52
11
50
297
29
38
239
18
4
5
20
37
47
30
28
57
680
9
225
6
1,065
26
14
68
2,172
49
4
36
392
1,010
39,357 58,253

Total
3,613
47,420
4,183
7,117
1,387
21,541
3,539
3,612
19,272
13,676
5,895
241
2,586
4,545
30,270
3,967
4,252
2,901
5,717
6,297
15,492
11,998
18,453
1,889
16,584
7,086
279
7,137
511
1,381
1,234
6,804
3,235
748
5,229
28,568
4,780
5,128
16,812
8,596
6,338
1,754
6,514
1,385
6,981
28,680
1,390
13,626
4,962
1,828
14,649
1,373
830
5,987
1,546
2,537
257
1,182
3,426
1,820
4,720
2,220
12,759
1,527
19,404
718
15,336
517,724

Non-Pennsylvania

16,828

14,412

1,362

14,131

14,649

19,581

35,071

14,164

7,958

11,552

11,376

12,971

19,099

23,194

216,348

Grand Total

62,800

53,556

6,475

46,376

39,302

55,968

103,056

60,279

28,704

28,230

55,999

53,424

58,456

81,447

734,072

Appendix G

Page 2

Appendix H: About Baker Tilly and the Preparers of the Report
Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP (“Baker Tilly”) is a nationally recognized, full-service accounting and advisory
firm whose professionals connect with clients and their businesses through refreshing candor and clear industry
insight. With approximately 2,500 employees across the United States, Baker Tilly is ranked as one of the 12
largest accounting and advisory firms in the country. Headquartered in Chicago, Baker Tilly is also an independent
member of Baker Tilly International, a worldwide network of independent accounting and business advisory firms
in 133 countries, with 27,000 professionals. The combined worldwide revenue of independent member firms is $3.6
billion.
Resumes of the primary authors of this study:
Paul W. Pocalyko, CPA,
CFE, CFF
Partner
215 972 2504
paul.pocalyko@bakertilly.com

Paul is a partner in the firm’s forensic, litigation,
and valuation services group and has provided a
variety of financial consulting and accounting
services to attorneys, insurance companies,
governmental agencies, and public and private
corporations for more than 32 years. His
responsibilities are carried out through financial
and forensic analysis of financial statements and
tax returns, general ledgers and other original
books of entry, relevant contracts, and
agreements, and industry data.
Paul has spoken before professional and
educational groups on various aspects of financial
analysis, litigation consulting, economic analysis,
fraud investigations, and economic damages, and
has co-authored various publications and articles.
Licenses / Certifications
> Licensed CPA in Pennsylvania
> Certified Fraud Examiner
> Certified in Financial Forensics
Professional affiliations
> American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants (AICPA)
> Pennsylvania Institute of Certified Public
Accountants (PICPA)
> PICPA Construction Industry Committee,
Board Member
> PICPA Image Enhancement Committee,
Chair
> Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

Paul D. Haynes

Jennifer Dziak

Manager
215 557 2220
paul.haynes@bakertilly.com

Associate
215 557 2207
jennifer.dziak@bakertilly.com

With over 14 years of experience in public
accounting, Paul specializes in forensic analysis,
business valuations, and forensic accounting.
Paul’s focus has included quantifying economic
impacts and damages resulting from insurance
claims, and other analytical reviews.
Additionally, Paul has significant experience in
valuing public and privately held entities, equity
securities and financial and intangible assets. His
valuation experience spans a wide range of
industries, with valuation assignments prepared
for estate and gift tax purposes, mergers and
acquisitions, and purchase price allocations for
financial reporting.
Licenses / Certifications
> Certified Public Accountant, Pennsylvania
> Accredited in Business Valuation
> Certified in Financial Forensics
Professional affiliations
> American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants (AICPA)
> Association of Certified Fraud Examiners
> Loss Executives Association
> American Society of Appraisers

Jennifer is an associate in the firm’s forensic,
litigation, and valuation services group where her
responsibilities include preparation of financial
analysis, economic research, as well as forensic
accounting. She has experience in complex data
analysis, economic modeling, and the review of
financial documents. Other responsibilities
include economic analysis, creation and
presentation of data, and review of findings from
investigations. In addition, she has performed and
managed quality control procedures for reports
and accompanying exhibits.
Prior to joining Baker Tilly, Jennifer interned at
Chubb Corporation, as an Investment Accounting
Intern, where she performed an assortment of
financial accounting functions.
Education
> University of Scranton, Bachelor of Science
in Forensic Accounting

Education
> West Virginia University, Bachelor of
Science
> West Virginia University, Master of
Professional Accountancy

Education
> Lehigh University, Bachelor of Science
> Lehigh University , Master of Business
Administration
Community involvement
> North Penn Community Health Foundation,
Board Member and Treasurer

Appendix H

Page 1