Iowa Fiscal Partnership / Iowa Policy Project
SHARE:
Policy Points from Iowa Fiscal Partners

Posts tagged Iowa Policy Project

Does Iowa know when to walk away?

Posted September 5th, 2012 to Blog
Peter Fisher

Peter Fisher

There’s Texas Hold ’Em,” and then there’s “Iowa Fold ’Em.”

Wouldn’t you just love to play poker against the folks who run this state?

They never call a bluff. Companies come calling with demands for tax breaks and big checks, or they’ll build somewhere else. And Iowa just happily falls in line with the demands. You can almost hear Kenny Rogers singing in the background: “Know when to walk away, and know when to run.”

The latest: Today the board of the Iowa Economic Development Authority (IEDA) is scheduled to consider sweetening its already generous offer to Orascom — $35 million to build a $1.3 billion fertilizer plant in Lee County — to about $110 million with a slew of new tax credits. As The Des Moines Register points out today, that’s $110 million for 165 “permanent” jobs paying on average $48,000 a year, plus construction jobs that will be gone when the project is finished.

The state tax credits are in addition to the enormous benefit the state is providing by allocating federal tax-exempt flood recovery bonds to this project. If the interest rate difference — between taxable and tax-exempt bonds — were 1 percentage point, the company would save $320 million in interest payments over the life of the $1.2 billion bond. That would bring the firm’s total benefits to $2.7 million per permanent job, a truly astounding number. Even without considering the federal interest subsidy, the state tax credits would total $687,500 per job, many times the typical level of subsidy in deals such as this.

There are no estimates available about the potential environmental costs that will be caused by this plant. Since Iowa does a poor job of monitoring for pollution damage, those ongoing costs might be low, but if there is an accident, it could be costly.

The Register also quotes Debi Durham, head of IEDA, that incentives wouldn’t be needed if Iowa were to reduce corporate income tax rates. Nonsense. Research has shown repeatedly that this is a myth, and that in fact, Iowa’s income taxes paid by corporations are competitive with other states. In many cases, giant corporations are paying not a dime in income tax yet getting huge subsidy checks from the state to do things they would do without incentives.

This hand is the one we are dealt from years of unaccountable economic development strategies by Iowa state government.

Time for a fresh deck.

Posted by Peter Fisher, Research Director

The bridge to recovery

Posted August 29th, 2012 to Blog

There’s a whole lot of politickin’ going on these days and one of the targets is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or ARRA, or the “stimulus.”

One of the points we made at the Iowa Fiscal Partnership during and after the adoption of the Recovery Act was its use as a “bridge” for state services. As we note on our IFP website, “economic stimulus measures need to be targeted, timely and temporary, to act as a bridge across the economic and fiscal valley of a recession.”

Recall that some in the Legislature, and some folks during the 2010 campaign season, complained that such use of “one-time funds” was a bad idea for ongoing services — that it would create a “cliff” in funding that, once exhausted, would leave the state on the hook for new responsibilities it might not be able to afford.

Late last week, the nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency shed new light on this discussion with a simple bar graph on the front page of one of its “Issue Review” reports, this one about Iowa state appropriations over time.

Iowa appropriations graph

Source: Iowa Legislative Services Agency, August 2012

Note the green portion of the bars, representing where ARRA funds filled in for lower state revenues caused by the Great Recession. No cliff emerged following the use of ARRA funds as state revenues (the red portions of the bars) rose. But note from FY2009 to FY2010 how state resources might have fallen without the ARRA funds. That potential cliff would have threatened state funding of education and health services that Iowans depend upon.

Clearly, the folks promoting one-time-fund orthodoxy were wrong, and the “bridge” analogy was spot-on.

The stimulus successfully bridged the gap in revenues to stop the critical loss of state services, and maintain the benefit of those services to the state’s economy.

Posted by Mike Owen, Assistant Director


Nonsense from the Far Right

Posted August 24th, 2012 to Blog

Political consultant Dick Morris slipped into Iowa last week, and the Spin-O-Meter was in overdrive.

Now, rather than repeat Mr. Morris’ misinformation, here is a link to a Des Moines Register story about his appearance at a rally orchestrated by the national right-wing organization Americans for Prosperity.

What Iowans need to know is that (1) Morris is wrong about what is driving the federal budget deficits, and (2) the causes are clear: You can’t cut taxes and fight two wars at the same time without digging a big budget hole.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities graph

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

As shown in the graph at right from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the economic downturn, President Bush’s tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain the vast majority of the deficit through 2019. One thing folks must recognize is that deficits caused by those factors cause more debt down the road, because we have to keep paying interest. Even after the Iraq war ended, we have to keep paying for it.

As we deal with these self-inflicted budget problems, we must maintain the fundamental and long-accepted responsibilities of our nation — to care for the most vulnerable and put them on their feet to get work and succeed in our economy.

Dick Morris has a big megaphone to try to instill something other than a factual presentation about what’s causing our deficits and debt. Fortunately, the discerning Iowan can find the facts by looking for them, and not buying into the conventional spin he delivers in his traveling medicine show.

Posted by Mike Owen, Assistant Director


Why the federal budget debate matters in the states

Posted August 9th, 2012 to Blog

There’s doggone near nobody who isn’t concerned about dealing with the nation’s long-term budget challenges of deficit and debt.

What not enough people will recognize, however, is the danger of diving headlong into a deficit-cutting approach that just digs a deeper hole, both for the economy and for the critical services that federal, state and local government spending supports.

Ryan budget impacts

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

And that’s the problem with the so-called “Ryan Budget,” named for Congressman Paul Ryan. That approach, passed by the House, makes cuts to funding for state and local services that are far deeper than the cuts many expect to happen with sequestration, the automatic cut process demanded by last year’s Budget Control Act compromise.

A new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities outlines the challenge for states generally with the Ryan approach:

  • Federal cuts of 34 percent by 2022 to Medicaid compared to current law, and by steadily larger amounts after that.
  • Federal cuts of 22 percent in 2014 and in later years to non-defense “discretionary” spending — which leaves Medicare and Social Security alone but hits local and state services in education, infrastructure such as roads and bridges, and public health and safety including law enforcement.

For Iowa, the non-defense “discretionary” cuts are projected at $237 million in 2014 alone, and $2.1 billion from 2013 through 2021.

Want clean water? If you live in Iowa, where the state routinely shortchanges environmental enforcement, how bad do you think things might get when the federal funds are cut as well? Concerned about the quality of your food? Or your kids’ schools? Maybe the safety of the bridge you’re approaching on the way to work?

Well, folks, you get what you pay for.

Posted by Mike Owen, Assistant Director


Iowa’s holiday from taxes — and reality

Posted August 3rd, 2012 to Blog
Mike Owen

Mike Owen

Oh, boy! It’s sales-tax holiday weekend in Iowa.

We’re talking about a “7 percent off” sale, folks — on only a limited list of items. When’s the last time that brought you into a store? At any other time of year, it would not draw customers, but guffaws. Seven percent? Really?

As IPP’s Andrew Cannon pointed out last year at this time, these gimmicks “drain revenue, and feed unfairness in a state tax system.” They are found, according to the Iowa Department of Revenue (DOR), in 17 states, and take various forms.

Of course the folks in the malls will say they’re great — anything to get someone in the door. But think about it. We’re literally talking about a few bucks off a pair of jeans, about $5 off a $70 pair of shoes. You could do a heck of a lot better on a regular sale at a store even when you’re paying sales tax.

And when you’re paying the tax, you’re not stiffing the school that your child will be attending in a few weeks in new jeans and shoes.

There is a price to public services any time we chip away at revenues. Whether the cost is around $3 million — as this gimmick appears to cost, according to a 2009 report from the DOR — or $40 million in some business tax credit program, it all adds up. Money not brought in due to exceptions in the tax code costs the bottom line every bit as much as money spent by a state agency.

Make no mistake, Iowans are being sold a bill of goods — but at least it’s tax-free!

Posted by Mike Owen, Assistant Director


House vote: Thumbs up or thumbs down for 86,000 Iowa families?

Posted August 1st, 2012 to Blog
Mike Owen

Mike Owen

Iowans would stand to lose much under a proposal this week in the U.S. House of Representatives. Citizens for Tax Justice offered a striking analysis last week highlighting the impact of the 2009 improvements in the refundable tax credits for low-income working families in Iowa.

Simply put, the House proposal would undo the good work of 2009 and increase tax inequities, while a Senate-passed bill would keep the good stuff.

One of the 2009 improvements is an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), an issue we have covered extensively at IPP and the Iowa Fiscal Partnership.

Any attempts to weaken the EITC at either the state or federal level will harm low- to moderate-income working families in our state. More than 1 out of every 7 federal tax filers in Iowa claims the EITC (about 15 percent). But under H.R. 8, the tax proposal being offered by the House leadership, the EITC improvements from 2009 would be lost.

H.R. 8 also would fail to extend the improvements made in the Child Tax Credit (CTC) in 2009, and in the American Opportunity Tax Credit for higher education expenses.

It is impossible to find balance in the approach of H.R. 8, which would end these provisions above for 13 million working families with 26 million children, while extending tax cuts for 2.7 million high-income earners.

The state numbers from CTJ (full report available here):

  • 86,321 Iowa families with 190,553 kids would lose $62.5 million ($724 per family), if 2009 rules on EITC and the Per-Child Tax Credit are not extended;
  • 17,503 Iowa families with 28,179 kids would lose $32 million if the Per-Child Tax Credit earnings threshold does not remain at $3,000, compared to $13,300 as proposed by H.R. 8.
  • 59,159 Iowa families with 139,806 kids would lose $30.5 million if the two 2009 expansions of the EITC — larger credit for families with three or more children, and reducing the so-called “marriage penalty” — are not extended in 2013.

These “Making Work Pay” provisions of the tax code are almost exclusively of help to working families earning $50,000 or less at a time of stagnant wages and a difficult job market in which the Iowa economy is shifting toward lower-wage jobs.

To address our nation’s serious deficit and debt issues, a balanced approach should do nothing to increase poverty or income inequality. The Senate bill passed last week would keep the EITC and CTC improvements from 2009, and follows that principle. The bill that has emerged in the House does not.

Posted by Mike Owen, Assistant Director


The policy effects of Supreme Court ruling — beyond politics, legal arguments

Posted June 28th, 2012 to Blog

Andrew Cannon

While many are focusing on the political and judicial ramifications of today’s Supreme Court ruling affirming the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), it’s important to focus on how the law will affect health coverage.

ACA provisions at the heart of the Supreme Court decision are the personal responsibility requirement (or individual mandate) and the Medicaid expansion. Both provisions are not scheduled to take effect until January 1, 2014.

However, a number of provisions have been in effect since 2010 — shortly after the law’s passage, and have helped make insurance coverage accessible and more affordable for millions of Americans. Today’s ruling upholding the law means that millions of Americans will retain that coverage and those benefits.

Among the provisions currently in effect:

  • Young adult coverage — Uninsured persons age 18 through 25 may continue to be insured as a dependent on their parents’ health coverage. This provision has extended health care coverage to an estimated 6.6 million young Americans.[1]
  • Protections against pre-existing condition exclusions for children — The ACA prevents insurers from denying coverage to sick children. In Iowa, there are up to 51,000 children who have pre-existing conditions.[2]
  • The end of lifetime and annual benefit limits — Consumers with serious health conditions and treatment expenses no longer need to worry about bumping against maximum amounts an insurer will pay.
  • The elimination of the Medicare “doughnut hole” — Under existing Medicare law, seniors with high prescription costs had to pay for prescriptions entirely out-of-pocket. The ACA gradually eliminates this “doughnut hole,” providing seniors a 50 percent discounts on name-brand drugs and a 7 percent discount on generic drugs.
  • Tax credits for small businesses — Small businesses that meet specified qualifications may presently receive a tax credit if they offer their employees coverage and cover at least half of the premium cost.[3] Estimates of the number of eligible businesses vary, from about 2.6 million to about 4 million.[4] Take-up has been limited, partially due to lack of awareness.

Provisions that will take effect in 2014:

  • Expanding Medicaid coverage — Under the ACA, uninsured individuals with earnings at or below 133 percent of the federal poverty level ($30,657 for a family of four in 2012) will qualify for enrollment in Medicaid.  If Iowa fully participates in the Medicaid expansion, as many as 114,700 Iowans may receive coverage.[5]
  • Creation of new insurance marketplaces, or “exchanges” — The ACA instructs states to construct new insurance marketplaces, accessible by Internet, in which those who don’t receive insurance through their employer may shop for insurance coverage. Individuals who don’t qualify for Medicaid coverage will receive tax credits to help them cover the cost of their heath premium. This is the group affected by the individual mandate. According to estimates, as many as 250,000 Iowans could find their health coverage through the new insurance marketplace, or exchange.[6]

While legal scholars and political pundits will undoubtedly have much to say for months on today’s decision, the central purpose of the law should not be lost in the discussion: to expand health insurance coverage and help create a health system that works for everyone.

Posted by Andrew Cannon, Research Associate


[1] Sara R. Collins, Ruth Robertson, Tracy Garber and Michelle M. Doty, “Young, Uninsured, and in Debt: Why Young Adults Lack Health Insurance and How the Affordable Care Act is Helping,” the Commonwealth Fund. June 2012. <http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Issue%20Brief/2012/Jun/1604_collins_young_uninsured_in_debt_v4.pdf>.

[2] Christine Sebastian, Kim Bailey, and Kathleen Stoll, “Health Reform: A Closer Look. Help for Iowans with Pre-Existing

Conditions,” Families USA. May 2010. <http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/health-reform/pre-existingconditions/iowa.pdf>.

[3] See “Right Balance for Small Business in Health Reform,” Iowa Fiscal Partnership, July 22, 2010. <http://www.iowafiscal.org/2010docs/100722-IFP-HCR-credits.pdf>.

[4] “Small Employer Health Tax Credit: Factors Contributing to Low Use and Complexity” (GAO-12-549), Government Accountability Office, May 2012. <http://gao.gov/assets/600/590832.pdf>.

[5] John Holahan and Irene Headen, “Medicaid Coverage and Spending in Health Reform: National and State-by-State Results for Adults at or Below 133% FPL,” Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, May 2010. <http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/medicaid-coverage-and-spending-in-health-reform-national-and-state-by-state-results-for-adults-at-or-below-133-fpl.pdf>.

[6] Matthew Buettgens, John Hollahan, and Caitlin Carroll, “Health Reform Across States: Increased Insurance Coverage and Federal Spending on the Exchanges and Medicaid,” Urban Institute, March 2012. <http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412310-Health-Reform-Across-the-States.pdf>.


Health Reform: Right balance for small business

Posted July 10th, 2010 to Health, Work Supports

In Iowa, Targeted Tax Credits Offer Business Benefits, Employees Health Access

PDF
News Release

By Andrew Cannon

A largely silent but very active movement within state and federal agencies is preparing for the full implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Though the new health reform law does not fully go into effect until 2014, dozens of agencies within the federal government are complying with the law’s provisions to ensure that the law’s implementation has the maximum impact of making insurance affordable to all.

One provision that takes immediate effect helps small businesses provide health insurance to their employees. The PPACA provides small businesses that pay at least half of their employees’ health insurance premium with tax credits of up to 35 percent of the premium cost.

Background

Small businesses and their employees have been disproportionately hurt by the rapid increase in health insurance premiums. Larger firms are able to spread the risk of insuring their employees across a larger pool. In addition, their size affords them bargaining power that smaller businesses lack.

A 2006 study found that the smallest firms pay considerably higher health insurance premiums than large firms. Premiums for firms with nine or fewer employees are 18 percent higher than those of large firms (those with 1,000 or more employees), and firms with 10 to 24 employees pay 10 percent more in premiums than large firms. [1]

In addition, premiums have risen significantly for all firms over the past 10 years. In 2000, Iowa companies reported an average premium of $6,487 for a family health insurance plan. By 2008, the average family health insurance plan in Iowa had risen by more than $4,400. [2]

Rising premiums have made health insurance a benefit that many smaller employers can simply no longer afford to offer employees. While larger firms have continued to offer health insurance to employees at an unchanged rate since 2000, the percentage of smaller firms offering health insurance benefits has declined. From 2000 to 2008, there was a drop of three to four percentage points in firms with 100 or fewer employees that offered health insurance. [3]

As a result, employees of small firms are less likely to get their health insurance through an employer. In 2008, about two-thirds of Iowa firms with between 10 and 24 employees offered health insurance to employees and only a third of Iowa firms with 10 or fewer employees offered health insurance. [4] By comparison, more than 91 percent of Iowa firms with 25 or more employees offered health insurance to their employees. [5]

Health Insurance, Small Businesses and the PPACA

The PPACA aims to reduce this disparity between 2010 and 2013 by offering highly targeted tax credits to small businesses that pay for at least half of their employees’ health insurance premiums.

Eligibility for the full credit of 35 percent of an employer’s contribution to employee health insurance is limited by both the number of full-time equivalent employees and the average taxable wages the employer pays.* Firms with 10 or fewer full-time equivalent employees with an average wage per employee of $25,000 or less are eligible for the full credit. Firms with more than 10 employees or average wages higher than $25,000 are eligible for tax credits on a declining scale. At 25 employees, or an average wage of $50,000, credit eligibility disappears. Table 1 shows the eligibility scale for the small business tax credits.

Table 1-HCR credits For example, if a small business that qualifies for the maximum credit offers its employees an individual health insurance plan with an average premium of $4,500, and pays $2,500 of the cost, the employer would receive a tax credit of $875 per full-time employee.

A firm with eight full-time employees and eight part-time employees who work 20 hours a week, for instance, would not be eligible for the full 35 percent credit, even if the average wage was $25,000 or less. Under the PPACA tax credit guidelines, the example firm has the equivalent of 12 full-time employees. Such a firm would be eligible for a 30 percent credit. [6]

In 2014, when full implementation begins with the creation of state-based health insurance exchanges, or marketplaces for individuals and small businesses to purchase insurance, small businesses will be eligible for a maximum credit of 50 percent of the employer’s contribution to the premium.**

Iowa Small Businesses

Firms with 20 or fewer employees account for over 85 percent of Iowa’s private establishments. [7] Over 56,400 small businesses in Iowa have 20 or fewer employees. Depending on the average wage within the firm, these businesses may be eligible for the PPACA health insurance tax credit.

These targeted tax credits will provide a significant benefit to Iowa’s qualifying small businesses that already pay the majority of costs for health coverage for their workers. There also may be some impact upon firms that have not been able to provide employees with health insurance because of its cost and now decide to do so. Even with the federal incentive, however, health insurance costs are likely to weigh against many small employers picking up coverage they do not now provide. The experience with state small business insurance incentive programs is that they generally serve a very small share of the businesses that are potentially eligible, with particular challenges to reaching those predominantly employing lower-wage employees.

Still, employers that do offer health coverage may benefit not only from the federal funding, but also from having a more stable workforce. Nearly three-quarters of workers in a national survey stated that employer-sponsored health insurance was a major factor in their decision to take a job. [8] Similarly, about 80 percent business executives in one national survey described the provision of health insurance benefits as “extremely” or “very important” in job retention. [9]

Overall, the provision of this credit will make health insurance provision by employers less costly. Some additional small business employees, as a result of the tax credit, may have health insurance offered by their employers, and small businesses currently offering coverage will be less likely to drop that coverage. Nearly 60 percent of Iowa’s uninsured population is employed,[10] so the credit will have some impact on the number of uninsured workers within Iowa.

Iowa’s small businesses and their employees stand to gain in obtaining affordable health insurance through this and other provisions in PPACA. Though the major provisions of health reform do not take effect until 2014, premium tax credits already have taken effect.

* Nonprofit organizations that meet the payroll and employee requirements will receive a 25 percent non-refundable credit, which can be used to reduce the organizations’ income and Medicare tax withholdings.
** Beginning in 2014, nonprofit organizations meeting the payroll and employee requirements will receive a 35 percent nonrefundable tax credit, again reducing the organizations’ income and Medicare tax withholdings.
 
Andrew Cannon is a research associate for the Iowa Policy Project (IPP), focusing on fiscal policy and economic opportunity issues including health reform. The Iowa Fiscal Partnership is a joint initiative of IPP and the Child & Family Policy Center, two nonprofit, nonpartisan Iowa-based organizations that cooperate in analysis of tax policy and budget issues facing Iowans. Find Iowa Fiscal Partnership reports at www.iowafiscal.org.
[1] Jon Gable, Roland McDevitt, Laura Gandolfo, et. al. “Generosity and Adjusted Premiums in Job-Based Insurance: Hawaii is Up, Wyoming is Down,” Health Affairs. May/June 2006.
[2] Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Average total family premium in dollars per enrolled employee at private-sector establishments that offer health insurance by firm size and state  (Table II.D.1), years 1996-2008. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Insurance Component Tables. Generated using MEPSnet/IC. Accessed June 15, 2010. <http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_stats/MEPSnetIC.jsp>.
[3] AHRQ. Percent of private-sector establishments that offer health insurance by firm size and selected characteristics (Table I.A.2), years 1996-2008.
[4] AHRQ. Percent of private-sector establishments that offer health insurance by firm size and state (Table II.A.2), years 1996-2008.
[5] AHRQ MEPS, Table II.A.2.
[6] Chris L. Peterson and Hinda Chaikind, “Summary of Small Business Health Insurance Tax Credit Under PPACA (P.L. 111-148). Congressional Research Service. April 5, 2010.
[7] Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy. Employer Firms, Establishments, Employment, Annual Payroll and Estimated Receipts by Firm Size, and State, 2007. <http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/st_07.pdf>.
[8] Ellen O’Brien, “Employers’ Benefits from Workers’ Health Insurance,” the Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 81, No. 1 (2003).
[9] Rachel Christensen, Paul Fronstin, Karl Polzer, and Ray Werntz, “Employer Attitudes Affecting and Practices Affecting Health Benefits and the Uninsured: Issue Brief No. 250.” Employee Benefits Research Institute. October 2002. <http://www.ebri.org/pdf/briefspdf/1002ib.pdf>.
[10] Steven Ruggles, J. Trent Alexander, Katie Genadek, Ronald Goeken, Matthew B. Schroeder, and Matthew Sobek. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2010.
 
 

Keys to Fairly Assess the Effective Return on Investment from Public Business Subsidies

IFP BACKGROUNDER

Basic RGB

 

The following are key factors to assessing the return on investment of public economic development programs, tax credits and expenditures.

Most importantly, it is critical to establish a credible way to estimate the degree to which any state economic development program, tax credit, or expenditure actually produced the economic activity and the degree to which the activity would have occurred anyway.This must go beyond beneficiaries’ claims about the value of the business subsidy, to hard evidence that a subsidy or set of so-called “incentives” tipped the balance to assure at least a portion of the investment. After this determination, a methodology for calculating public ROIs must address these key issues:

  • Calculate public investments in terms of public returns, not increased overall economic activity. Public returns involve increased revenue to the state (in taxes and fees) as a result of the increased business activity, and are the way to measure public (tax dollar) investments for their returns.
  • Establish a reasonable time frame for making these estimates, with returns in future years appropriately discounted. A public investment, like a private one, needs to produce returns over a reasonable time period, and future returns should be appropriately discounted.
  • Compare the return on investment in economic development expenditures with the potential gains from alternative uses of the funds. A proper analysis would account for the lost opportunities that would come from making those investments elsewhere.
  • Estimate the impact of the investment on the direct level of economic activity that is projected to occur, including any potential for displacing existing economic activity. The public interest is in net new economic activity, not displacement of one activity with another, which also can provide unfair advantages to new over existing businesses. Displacement occurs when a subsidy simply enables one business to capture an existing firm’s share of a state market that is not expanding.
  • Incorporate additional public costs, as well as benefits, from the economic activity. There may be additional public sector costs that have to be factored in, particularly for additional demands on public services and business-related infrastructure needs or workforce expansions when new economic activity draws people (and service users) to Iowa from outside the state.
  • Only count any return once, even if multiple, independent investments were made to produce it. When multiple economic development subsidies are used to produce increased economic activity, the public return from that activity needs to be apportioned among those multiple subsidy programs, so it is not counted multiple times.
  • Recognize that ROI is only one factor to consider in determining public purpose and benefit.  Some investments can produce economic gain, but at a public cost (environmental degradation or public health and safety). Others can produce public benefits in those areas.  Although these do not have a monetary value, they are important considerations in making public investments and need to be recognized in ROI analyses.
  • Audit for impact and accuracy. Estimates and claims are only estimates and claims; there needs to be monitoring for actual impact, use, and achievement of public goals.
This is a summary of an Iowa Fiscal Partnership Policy Brief, “Bang for the Buck: Calculating the State’s Return on Investments in Economic Development,” by Charles Bruner and Peter S. Fisher (January 27, 2010). www.iowafiscal.org