From Data to Decisions: Communities Use IMPLAN to Tell Their Region’s Story

Each community possesses a unique economic narrative. The primary challenge lies in communicating this narrative in a manner that enables city councils, county commissioners, or legislators to make informed decisions.

That challenge was the focus of IMPLAN’s recent webinar, Inside Community Economic Impact Studies: From Data to Decisions. Eric Clower, IMPLAN’s Director of Education Services, was joined by two practitioners who do this work every day: Dr. Deniz Gevrek, professor of economics and director of the South Texas Economic Development Center at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, and Nancy Bowen-Ellzey, a statewide Community Development specialist with Ohio State University Extension.

Although the teams differ significantly, one being a university research center serving diverse partners across South Texas, and the other a five-person Extension team supporting educators and rural counties in Ohio, their recommendations converged on similar principles. The following summarizes the key insights.

Start with the question 

Both speakers opened with the same rule: every good study begins with a question from the people who will use the answer. For Dr. Gevrek’s center, that might be a mayor asking what a planned highway bypass could do to city sales tax collections. For Bowen-Ellzey’s team, it might be an Extension educator who needs a clear picture of a rural county’s economy.

Bowen-Ellzey explained that her team conducts thorough discussions with clients to determine their needs and intended use of the results. She emphasized that this initial framing conversation is often the most complex aspect of a project, surpassing even the technical modeling. For example, she described dedicating two months to a particularly intricate public-sector request, considering the time investment valuable.

Dr. Gevrek described the full arc of a study in four steps: the partner’s question and scope, the client’s data, the IMPLAN analysis, and policy interpretation. Even so, she pointed to data collection as the hardest part by far and to interpretation as the area where her team adds the most value.

Going beyond the multiplier: a live music venue in Corpus Christi

Dr. Gevrek illustrated the process with a local case study. House of Rock, a live music venue and restaurant in downtown Corpus Christi, sought guidance on how to articulate its economic value to municipal and state decision-makers.

Her team modeled the venue’s annual operations and the renovation of its historic downtown building. Along the way, the venue had received two kinds of public support: local funding through a tax increment reinvestment zone covering downtown, and a state rebate from the Texas Music Office that returns alcoholic beverage taxes to qualifying venues.

The economic multiplier provided partial insight, indicating that each dollar invested in the renovation generated approximately $1.80 in total regional economic activity. The team further contextualized these results by relating them to the public funding received. Specifically, they compared the renovation activity to the local reimbursement and the venue’s estimated state tax contribution to the state rebate. These findings were subsequently presented to the Texas Music Office and local stakeholders.

Dr. Gevrek was careful about how those comparisons were framed:

• Keep the tax levels separate Local, state, and federal revenues each tell a different story, and adding them together can be misleading.
• Pass the smell test A claim that one dollar of support generated millions in impact invites skepticism.
• Don’t imply causation The results show support-related activity, and the underlying assumptions should be stated plainly.

As Dr. Gevrek noted, the center does not generate economic growth; rather, its partners are responsible for this development. The center’s role is to communicate these outcomes clearly to the taxpayers whose resources contributed to the initiatives.

Six pages that tell a region’s story

Bowen-Ellzey focused on one output her team has produced for the past five years: a short annual economic report for each of Ohio State University Extension’s 24 administrative areas. Her five-member team draws on backgrounds that range from renewable energy to farmers’ markets, and they have used IMPLAN for well over a decade, with more than 50 reports to show for it.

The report originated in the post-pandemic period, when counties sought to assess their economic status. Many faced challenges in completing grant applications and making planning decisions due to a lack of current data. Bowen-Ellzey’s team consulted with area leaders and local educators to determine their requirements. The consensus was that a straightforward, accessible, and non-technical report was needed.

The outcome was a six-page report designed as an entry point for understanding regional economic conditions rather than a comprehensive endpoint. The report includes the following components:

• A regional overview A map, population trends, and density, pulled from IMPLAN’s Data Library.
• Employment and workforce trends Include a clear trend line. One example showed employment in a single area growing nearly 75 percent over 20 years, or about 74,000 additional jobs.
• The top 10 industry sectors Extra explanation of what is doing well and why.
• Local occupational strengths Based on location quotient, with the top 15 occupations shown using six-digit NAICS codes.

Each section features a plain-language narrative, including an explanation of location quotient, enabling educators to share the report directly with county commissioners. The data can be aggregated or disaggregated by county, allowing for flexible analysis. This year, the team adapted the report to the Congressional District level, providing Extension’s marketing team with information suitable for presentation to legislators.

Credibility comes from transparency

The second theme both speakers returned to was trust. Bowen-Ellzey said her team is very sensitive about credibility, so every report spells out its assumptions, its limitations, and how the results were reached. Dr. Gevrek echoed that point, noting that clear interpretation and stated assumptions are what let a community make an informed decision.

IMPLAN’s documentation helps here. Both speakers rely on the methodology, data sources, and citation details provided by IMPLAN, which draws on more than 120 data sources. When a client questions a number, they can point to where the data came from and when it was compiled.

Transparency is also beneficial when data points are updated. During the webinar, an attendee inquired about how to address concerns from county clients who require rapid estimates but are apprehensive about subsequent revisions. The panel recommended presenting data updates as a positive feature, emphasizing that regular data refreshes yield more up-to-date figures. Dr. Gevrek advised incorporating this expectation into contracts, specifying in advance whether data updates are anticipated and if they are included or billed separately.

Practical advice from the Q&A

The audience questions pulled out several tips for anyone running their own community studies.

Collect comprehensive data, but recognize when sufficient information has been obtained. In the House of Rock study, Dr. Gevrek’s team requested data on expenditures, revenue sources, public support amounts, and workforce counts, including proprietors, part-time, and seasonal workers. She clarified that IMPLAN jobs do not represent full-time equivalents but rather reflect industry employment patterns. Greater data granularity is not always advantageous; while some studies have involved approximately 100 events and others up to 220, in certain cases, a limited number of events is adequate. Dr. Gevrek also cautioned against uploading confidential client data to external artificial intelligence platforms.

Establish clear expectations regarding project timelines. When clients require expedited results, both speakers advised reaching early agreement on deliverables that can be realistically provided. Providing preliminary results tables or a concise summary can address immediate needs while the comprehensive report is prepared. Eric noted that many teams commence the project timeline only after all necessary data have been received, as data collection is client-dependent. Dr. Gevrek further recommended using master research agreements with task orders to streamline administrative processes.

Report the full picture. Dr. Gevrek’s team reports jobs, labor income, GDP, and output, plus a separate tax table covering sub-county, county, state, and federal levels. Clients are often surprised to see how much federal tax their activity generates.

Know where taxes come from. Eric noted that IMPLAN’s tax data is built on tax records collected for the data year, so a tax change after that year may not yet be reflected.

Fund the work creatively. Bowen-Ellzey’s team members are all Extension employees, and most internal work is done pro bono. Fees from external clients help cover data, the IMPLAN subscription, training, and travel.

The takeaway

Regardless of whether the context is a South Texas music venue or a rural Ohio county, the central lesson remains consistent: begin with the research question, present results in a clear and accessible manner, provide sufficient context for interpretation, and maintain transparency regarding assumptions to ensure the analysis withstands scrutiny.

According to Eric, both centers have developed systematic strategies and clear processes utilizing IMPLAN, resulting in better-informed communities.

For those interested in developing their own community economic impact studies, IMPLAN offers comprehensive data and software solutions, supported by five decades of experience. Additional insights are available through the IMPLAN webinar series.