Covenant House Economic & Community Impact Report

Covenant HouseContributions to the Local Economy & Discussion of Impact on Community Wealth in the Charleston Area

Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

Research and Review of the Literature ............................................................................... 2

How Covenant House Creates Wealth ................................................................................ 5

Direct Impact on the Local Economy .............................................................................. 5

Methodology ................................................................................................................. 5

Results of the Economic Impact Analysis .................................................................... 7

Capital Creation, Improved Well-Being, and Genuine Community Wealth ................... 8

Measuring Well-Being ...................................................................................................... 10

Recommendations and Suggested Next Steps ................................................................... 11

Appendix A – Illustration of How Covenant House Creates Community Wealth ........... 12

Appendix B – Measures of Capital for Consideration ...................................................... 13

Covenant House – Contributions to Community Wealth, and Well Being

1 | P a g e

Introduction Covenant House of West Virginia began as a volunteer effort by community leaders affiliated with

downtown churches and Temple Israel in the late 1970s. These community activists were

concerned about increasing levels of homelessness in the Charleston area and they established an

interfaith council to coordinate planning and

action. These efforts led to the establishment

of Covenant House as a non-profit

organization in 1981.

Over the years since 1981, Covenant House

has evolved into a multi-faceted community

institution that not only provides a variety of

support services to the homeless but operates a

broad range of community programs and housing services. Covenant House also serves as a hub

for local networking, interagency cooperation, and social justice activism that improves the lives

of people in the Charleston area.

This report is focused on the positive impact Covenant House has on the general well-being of

Charleston residents and the community-at-large. The ways the organization builds community

capital across multiple domains and creates “genuine wealth” in the greater Charleston area.

The premise of this report is that “genuine wealth” within a community is much more than the

traditional definition of the term implies. The dictionary definition of the word wealth is: “An

abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches”.1

Within the field of economics, wealth is generally defined as “the value of an individual’s net

assets”.2 The net ownership of material possessions and productive resources. In other words, the

difference between one’s tangible and financial assets and the liabilities that are owed - assets

minus debts.

These traditional definitions of wealth are, however, inadequate when trying to measure how

human service organizations create community wealth. Thinking about the wealth of a community

as the net value of the well-being of its residents is a much more meaningful way to assess the

impact of a local human services organization than the net accumulation of material possessions

and resources. An increasing number of economists are redefining wealth in ways that recognize

the true meaning of the word and the real contributions of effective community organizations that

focus on improved states of health and well-being within their community. As Mark Anielski, a

Canadian ecological economist states:

“The origin of the word wealth comes from combining the Old English words weal (well-being)

with th (condition). Therefore, the word wealth literally means: the conditions of well-being or the

condition of being happy and prosperous”.3 It is this broader and more meaningful concept of

wealth that is explored through this report on the community impact of Covenant House.

“It was a time when people all over the country

were interested in doing something for the

country, whether it was in the Peace Corps or

Teacher’s Corps or whatever. Covenant House

was really just a recognition of need and

response to that need” - Bob Rodecker,

First President of Covenant House BOD

Darryl Henry Housing First Participant

Darryl Henry grew up in Charleston, so he’s known about the Covenant House for awhile. He was staying in the Crossroads Men’s Shelter and struggling with addiction when he decided to give them a call and ask for help. Two years later, he’s clean and living in housing provided by the House’s Housing First Program.

Darryl has a big family, but they’ve never been very close, so he was on his own after he made some bad choices and became ad-dicted to drugs. He started using Covenant House services to wash his clothes, secure food vouchers, and just spend some time inside out of the cold before finally choosing to set himself on the path to recovery.

Through countless trials and tribulations, Darryl has stayed clean and on the straight

and narrow - above all, he wants to make sure that nothing gets in the way of his hard-won personal success. Having a place to live is a huge source of pride for Darryl, and he’ll do anything to make sure he stays where he is.

“We all have a history. If you don’t want more than the street, that’s all you’ll have. But when you look inside yourself and accept your responsibilities, you can get help. You’re only going to suffer as long as you’re willing to suffer.”

Glowed Darryl when asked about what it felt like to get housing after going without for so long, “There’s nothing like it. It’s the best feeling in the world. It’s priceless

- it’s a blessing from God. To be responsi-ble enough to take care of something that you really need is amazing. The only way I would lose this is if I give up on my respon-sibilities on the part I play with the help I’m receiving. And that isn’t going to happen.”

Personal responsibility is a huge part of Darryl’s life - it’s what keeps him sober and on track. He recognizes that stories like his are far too common, and wants to let others know that recovery is possible.

Thanks to the consistent support provided by Covenant House, Darryl (and many others like him) hopes to stay off of the street for the rest of his life.


2 | P a g e

Research and Review of the Literature "Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and

community values in the mere accumulation of material things. The Gross National

Product (GNP) includes air pollution and advertising for cigarettes, and

ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors,

and jails for the people who break them. GNP includes the destruction of the

redwoods and the death of Lake Superior. It grows with the production of napalm

and missiles and nuclear warheads. And if GNP includes all this, there is much that

it does not comprehend. It does not allow for the health of our families, the quality

of their education, or the joy of their play. It is indifferent to the decency of our

factories and the safety of our streets alike. It does not include the beauty of our

poetry or the strength of our marriages, or the intelligence of our public debate or

the integrity of our public officials. GNP measures neither our wit nor our courage,

neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to

our country. It [GNP] measures everything, in short, except that which makes life

worthwhile.” — Robert F. Kennedy, March 18, 1968

The quote of Robert Kennedy shortly before his death at the hand of an assassin is often cited to

illustrate how measuring wealth through an index derived from economic indicators such as the

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ignores much that is truly of value. Over recent decades, there has

been increasing interest by economists and national leaders in metrics that address the well-being

and even happiness of individuals and communities. Beginning in the 1980s, Mahbub ul Haq,

special advisor to the United Nations Development Program, Armartya Sen, professor of

economics at Harvard University, and other prominent economists developed the annual Human

Development Report (HDR) which incorporates broader metrics related to personal and societal

well-being as an alternative to measuring a nation’s wealth through the GDP. As the first HDR

report released in 1990 stated in the opening paragraph:

“This Report is about people - and about how development enlarges their choices.

It is about more than GNP growth, more than income and wealth and more than

producing commodities and accumulating capital. A person's access to income may

be one of the choices, but it is not the sum total of human endeavor”.4

World leaders have been examining ways to measure prosperity using a broader range of indicators

that are more related to the concept of well-being and less related to traditional definitions of

national wealth as measured by the GDP. A 2009 study on alternatives to GDP, commissioned by

French president Nicolas Sarkozy and led by economists Amartya Sen, Joseph Stiglitz, and Jean-

Paul Fitoussi points out that many factors relevant to the overall well-being of a society are left

out of the equation that gives us GDP.5 Prime Minister David Cameron of the UK announced in

2010 that the UK Office for National Statistics would start measuring subjective well-being to help

guide national policy. In the US, President Obama has encouraged similar discussion by the

Council of Economic Advisers. The President has asked the Council to consider how the data

collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics since 2003 related to how Americans use their time

(the American Time Use Survey)6 might assist in measuring well-being, what Americans value,

and even happiness.


3 | P a g e

Beginning in 2011 the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) began

to publish the annual “How’s Life?” report7 on “well-being” in its member countries. This report

which is based on a framework of individual quality of life and material community conditions

also examines the need to build stocks of capital necessary to sustain broader community well-

being over time (see diagram).

OECD Framework for Measuring Well-being and Progress

It is clear from the above cited examples that economists and governments of the developed world

are examining ways to broaden the definition of individual and community wealth in order to focus

more on the well-being of the citizenry and less on the accumulation of tangible assets and

resources.

There are also additional initiatives supported by the private sector to promote a redefinition of

community wealth and economic security.

The New Economics Foundation (NEF) based in the United Kingdom is a leading think tank

promoting social, economic and environmental justice. The stated purpose of the organization is

to transform the economy so that it works for people and the planet.8 One aspect of the NEFs work


4 | P a g e

is the study of individual and community well-being (genuine wealth). NEF has developed a model

that describes how an individual’s external conditions such as their income, employment status

and social networks act together with their personal resources such as their health, resilience and

optimism to allow them to function well in their interactions with the world and therefore

experience positive emotions. This model and methods of measurement are discussed in a NEF

handbook for practitioners on measuring well-being.9

In the US, the philanthropic community is attempting to impact economic inequality through

initiatives to build individual and community wealth. The Ford Foundation has been promoting

new approaches to economic development in rural areas through its Wealth Creation in Rural

Communities (WCRC) initiative.10 The WCRC has identified seven forms of community wealth:

Intellectual Capital – The knowledge and creativity available to people within a

community. The value of an organization's employee knowledge, business training and any

proprietary information.

Individual Capital - Stock of skills competencies, capabilities and other human attributes.

Individual capital includes the physical, mental, and spiritual health of people. It includes

spending and investments in building skills and competencies and in health maintenance

and improvement.

Social Capital - Trust and relationships that exist within a community or group of people.

Trust, shared values, and connections between individuals and entities that can be

economically valuable. Social networks that include people who trust and assist each other.

These relationships between individuals and organizations lead to a state in which each

will think of the other when something needs to be done.

Financial Capital - Money or anything denominated in monetary terms including cash,

savings, investments, debt, mortgages, and other loans that can be invested in the region or

in the work being done.

Built Capital - All of the infrastructure that supports a highly functioning community.

Includes all things made or manufactured including housing, equipment, factories, public

buildings, and infrastructure. Also includes new technology, designs, patents, processes

and ideas.

Natural Capital - All of the natural resources that contribute to the well-

being of communities. Natural resources (forests, agricultural soils, oil, natural gas, mineral

resources), land, ecosystems including clean air, water and climate regulation from forests,

watersheds and wetlands.

Political Capital - The power that people have to influence decision-makers in the

community or region. Trust, goodwill, and ability to influence public policy and/or political

(governance) processes.

Other US-based organizations aligned with the Ford Foundation’s wealth-building efforts include

Community-Wealth,11 a project of the Democracy Collaborative which is a research center

dedicated to the pursuit of democratic renewal, increased civic participation, and community

revitalization, and the Institute for Sustainable Communities.12

Locally (in the Charleston area), The Greater Kanawha Valley Foundation has adopted the Ford

Foundation’s Community-Wealth framework13 to guide its grant-making process. As stated on

Phillip Taylor Housing First Participant

Phillip Taylor is a soft-spoken artist.

Growing up in Charleston, Phillip loved watching the city come to life: he and his brother watched as downtown landmarks like the South Side Bridge and Civic Center were erected between fishing trips on the river and visits to their grandparents’ home in the Elkview area.

He worked in a wide variety of professions, doing everything from factory work to as-signments in the sports industry to serving as a creative director at a leisure agency. His work took him as far away as Paris to shoot a video for Pink Floyd, where he spent two weeks working alongside a German film crew and taking in the sites.

Despite his hard work and success, though, several years ago, Phillip’s life took a turn for the worst. Trapped in a bad relationship with nowhere to go, he almost lost hope. However, with the help of Covenant House, he was able to get back on his feet and start making art again.

“Covenant House helps people get back on their feet to become a per-son in society again. They helped me be myself again after being so afraid for such a long time.”

Recalled Phillip, “A few years ago my health went downhill and then I had a really bad experience where someone broke into my house looking for medicine, and in the pro-

cess, I was stabbed. I couldn’t go back there, so I moved in with someone else and they became very controlling. I didn’t have a way to get out, and felt like I couldn’t escape.”

Phillip finally freed himself from his abusive living situation and moved into a homeless shelter. But there was a problem - once word got around that he was gay, fellow residents started to harass him, making him feel ex-tremely unsafe.

Looking for a pathway out, Phillip turned to the Covenant House, who found him an apartment on the West Side, far from his harassers. Despite his poor health, he has started making art , and enjoys the quiet of his new home.


5 | P a g e

their website, “the Foundation uses community wealth creation as a set of principles and tools that

help us take a systems approach to our work, which we believe will deepen our collective impact

in education, health, leadership, and other social conditions.”

Although many of these US-based, wealth building approaches appear to be focused on the more

traditional approaches related to community development, building tangible assets, increasing

entrepreneurial activity, investing in small businesses, jobs creation, etc.; Darren Walker, the Ford

Foundation’s Director, addresses the important role of improving individual and community well-

being in a recent blog titled The New Gospel of Wealth:14

“When we talk about economic inequality, we might acknowledge an underlying,

unspoken hierarchy, in which we relate everything back to capital. In most areas

of life, we have raised market-based, monetized thinking over all other disciplines

and conceptions of value”.

How Covenant House Creates Wealth

Direct Impact on the Local Economy

The more traditional economic and fiscal impact of spending by Covenant House which supports

the delivery of a broad range of programs and services can be quantified through standard

economic analysis techniques.

Generally speaking, impact on the local community economy is a result of three types of effects.

Each of these effects (or impact components) reflects how money moves through the regional

economy through a process of re-spending. This re-spending produces what is referred to as

multiplier effects and increases the economic impact of the organization beyond the amount of

direct annual budget expenditures.

The “direct effect” is the value of the direct output of spending on labor, equipment,

supplies, contractors, and general operations (travel, facilities, and other costs not included

in the other categories).

The “indirect effect” results from business-to-business transactions indirectly caused by

the initial direct spending by Covenant House in the community. Expenditures by Covenant

House to purchase goods and services is re-spent elsewhere in the economy as indirect

spending. For example, a local business that sold a computer or office supplies to Covenant

House uses the money collected in that sale to support their business operations and

subsequently increase spending at other local businesses in the area.

The “induced effect” reflects how the local economy is impacted by personal income

generated through direct and indirect effects. Induced effect is a measure of household-to-

business activity in the local economy. Covenant House employees use their personal

income from employment as they engage in direct and indirect spending in the local

economy. For example, Covenant House employee wages are used to purchase household

goods, groceries, fuel and entertainment within the local community.

Methodology

The study area for determining the economic impact of Covenant House operations is the

Charleston Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) as defined by the United States Bureau of the

Census. The Charleston MSA has a population of 222,878 people and 85.3% of the population


6 | P a g e

resides in Kanawha County.15 For purposes of analysis the local purchase percentage (LPP) is

estimated at 100%.16 All spending by Covenant House generally occurs within the Charleston

MSA. Any leakage outside the area of analysis would be so small as to be inconsequential.

The direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts of the programs and services provided by

Covenant House has been calculated based on Covenant House expenditures in four categories.

Personnel,

Equipment and Supplies,

Contracts for Professional Services, and

Other Operational Expenses.

The more traditional economic impact analysis is based on an input-output model for the local

economy. The input-output model uses inter-industry data collected about different types of

economic activity in the US to determine the effects spending in one sector has on other parts of

the economy. This particular analysis of the economic impact of Covenant House operations is

based on the U.S. Department of Commerce - Bureau for Economic Analysis (BEA) Regional

Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II). Standard RIMS II multipliers calculated for West

Virginia are used in the analysis.

An online tool developed by the Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA), an agency of

the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, is used to calculate the impact of Covenant

House operations on the area economy. The tool is designed in a way that allows a particular

human services organization within a defined service area to calculate the direct, indirect, and

induced effects the organization has on the local economy. This particular tool uses the RIMS II

multipliers for a particular area economy to estimate the economic impact of different types of

organizational expenditures on the service area. Such an analysis essentially translates service and

programmatic impacts into community-wide effects.

Covenant House expenditure data was entered into the on-line analysis tool along with information

about the statistical area served in order to calculate the multiplier effects for different types of

spending - personal services (employee compensation), purchase of equipment and supplies,

expenditures for professional contracted services, and spending on general operations.

Personal services includes employee salaries and fringe benefits but excludes payroll taxes

and other taxes and fees paid to federal, state, or local governments.

Professional services includes fees for accounting, legal or other professional services

purchased by the organization.

Equipment and supplies includes any spending for computers, furniture, etc., office

supplies, and repairs/maintenance of facilities.

General operations includes all other program costs such as travel, various types of

assistance provided to persons served, rents, utilities, advertising, fund raising, and other

miscellaneous expenditures.

Direct expenditures by Covenant House over the past three fiscal years are summarized by type of

spending in Table 1.17 Total spending in 2013 and 2014 is taken directly from audited expenditure

schedules for those years and the 2015 spending reflects the projected amounts for the current

fiscal year as of November, 2015.

Virginia & Isaiah Gardner Housing First Participants

Isaiah Gardner loves the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. At four years old, he has al-ready decided that he wants to be a scientist, and never turns down a chance to go to the park with his mom.

When Isaiah was an infant though, his fami-ly’s life was very different. His mom, Virgin-ia, was trying to escape a relationship with a partner whose life had been consumed by drugs. Not long after Isaiah was born, Virginia fled her home in search of a safer place to raise her son. Strapped for cash be-cause of her ex’s expensive drug habit, she and Isaiah were forced to live out of her car for three days before finally moving into a friend’s house.

Even though she had a roof over her head, paying for basic amenities like food and rent quickly became a daily struggle for Virginia. For various reasons, the young mom didn’t have a relationship with her family and thus was unable to ask them for help. She didn’t trust her friends to take care of Isaiah either, so she had no other option than to stay home with him rather than searching for work. One day, she finally caved in and allowed a friend to take care of Isaiah for a few hours while she was out. And then she got a phone call.

“I want to own my own home one day. I don’t want to depend on a program for help forever. Right now though, this is what’s good for him. And what’s good for him is good for the future.”

Remembers Virginia, “That day, I got a call from the police saying that if I didn’t get there in five minutes he’d be taken by CPS because I guess my friend was drinking.”

Fearful for her custody of her son, Virginia raced back home to care for him. Soon after, deciding that she’d had enough, she reached out to Covenant House and was placed in an apartment in their Housing First program.

No longer worrying about how to pay rent, Virginia was able to purchase a car and pay off the remaining fines related to financial trouble incurred during her last relationship. Inspired by her own negative experience as a child who was taken into protective custody, Virginia hopes to possibly pursue a career as a defense attorney for children who are taken by Child Protective Services.

As she watches her son grow, Virginia strives to make a more and more positive life for him, haunted by memories of the time when she almost had to give him up.

Philip “Mickey” Snow Housing First Participant

Philip Snow followed his sister and her hu-band to West Virginia after getting out of the armed services. Often called Mickey, the veteran was overwhelmed when he was released from the military.

Recalls the native Texan, “When you come out of the service you’re just keyed up and ready to conquer the world. When things go wrong and you do become homeless it’s a tremendous shock to your system - it puts you in depression, anxiety. It’s a horrifying thing to come out of the service where the government takes care of you and you take care of the country but then you can’t get a job.”

Mickey, his sister, and his brother-and-law

lived together in a tent along a creek bank in Elkview for 2-3 years. After hearing about Covenant House from a friend, they asked for housing assistance from their Housing First program, and have since moved into a house of their own.

“Getting housing was like a ten-thousand pound weight off my shoulder. When you’re living on a river bank in the ice and snow and heat in a tent, you have no op-tions. We made enough money to get food and stuff like that, but it was hard. ”

When [a representative from Covenant House] said ‘I got a surprise for you three’

(my sister died since then) it just was like a lightning bolt shooting through us. It was the most thrilling exciting thing that ever has happened to us.”

Since Mickey’s sister’s death in 2013, he and his brother-in-law, Jimbo, have stuck together in the same house where Covenant House placed them nearly three years ago. Covenant House helped him access his Dis-ability and Social Security benefits, which has allowed him to spruce up his room with several pieces of furniture.

Mickey is inspired by his brother-in-law, who is now on track to receive a bachelor’s degree from an online program. But most of all, he is thankful for the dignity afford-ed to him and so many others by Covenant House’s staff.


7 | P a g e

Table 1

Expenditure data used

for purposes of

analysis of economic

impact is the annual

average of spending

for the most recent

three year period

(fiscal years 2013,

2014, and 2015). The industry codes used to classify expenditures by Covenant House are those

that most closely match the types of economic activity carried out through the Covenant House

programs and services. The industry classifications used in the analysis are of three types: (1)

professional and business services, (2) educational and health services, and (3) retail trade.

Results of the Economic Impact Analysis

The results of the analysis indicate there is $1,655,675 in annual total economic output that can be

attributed to Covenant House operations within the Charleston area.

$1,211, 948 of this annual amount is due

to direct spending by the organization

and an additional $443,727 is added to

the area economy each year as result of

the economic multiplier effects. The

overall ratio of economic impact to total

spending is 1.37 resulting in an

additional 37 cents in economic activity

for every dollar spent directly by

Covenant House to support services and

programs.

The average annual economic impact can be examined by type of expenditures as well. The

greatest impact is from spending on personnel (wages and benefits) which amounts to $823,573

annually. Table 2

Support for programmatic

operations produces a

benefit of $737,849 to the

local economy, spending on

equipment and supplies

accounts for $60,117 in

economic output annually and spending on contracted professional services adds $34,136. These

impacts by type of expenditure are summarized in Table 2.

Additional direct, indirect, and induced economic effects not accounted for in this analysis include

increased property value resulting from Covenant House programs to obtain and improve housing,

Expenditure Type FY2013 FY2014 Projected FY2015 3 Year Avg.

Personal Services $517,152 $605,299 $680,994 $601,148

Professional Services $15,049 $24,100 $34,000 $24,383

Equipment/Supplies $55,124 $39,319 $37,200 $43,881

Other Operational Expense $680,182 $510,636 $436,788 $542,535

Total $1,267,507 $1,179,354 $1,188,982 $1,211,948

Type of Spending

Direct

Economic Impact

Total

Economic Impact

Personnel $601,148 $823,573

Operations $542,536 $737,849

Equipment/Supplies $ 43,881 $ 60,117

Professional Services $ 24,383 $ 34,136

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

Total Economic Impact

Direct

Impact

$1,211,948

Additional Impact

(Value Added)

$443,727

Economic Impact of Covenant House

Eco

no

mic

Ou

tpu

t in

Ch

arle

sto

n M

SA


8 | P a g e

and benefits derived from a range of taxes paid that support community services and infrastructure.

The contributions to the local tax base include, real property taxes paid on Covenant House

properties, sales taxes generated through the purchase of goods and services by the organization

and miscellaneous taxes and fees paid to local government.

The result of this traditional economic analysis is only one measure of how community wealth is

built by Covenant House through the organization’s impact on the local economy from direct and

indirect annual spending. It should be noted that this standard economic impact analysis only

accounts for a relatively small portion of the overall community wealth created. When viewed in

the larger context of increasing the well-being of (1) persons served directly through services and

programs delivered by Covenant House and (2) the general community well-being within the

Charleston area, we must look beyond the economic impact and examine other types of wealth

created. For example, we might define and measure how the housing programs operated by

Covenant House contribute to community wealth as a result of improved property values,

increased personal wealth for persons housed, and improved states of well-being for families

served. These types of effects are not addressed through a traditional economic impact analysis. A

wide range of other benefits are also not accounted for in the analysis including the value of

volunteer services, donated food and clothing, and other non-quantifiable services provided to

persons through the Covenant House Drop In Center. These contributions to community wealth,

as well as other ways Covenant House contributes to genuine wealth building of the Charleston

area must be considered in order to adequately address the total impact of the organization. The

traditional economic analysis summarized here focuses exclusively on the positive impact to the

local economy resulting from employee compensation and benefits, and the direct operational and

programmatic spending of Covenant House.

What would a Genuine Wealth model look like if we go beyond the outdated view of direct

economic impact and explore the ways the organization contributes to individual and community

well-being?

Capital Creation, Improved Well-Being, and Genuine Community Wealth

In addition to the significant impact Covenant House has on the local economy which can be

quantified through traditionally accepted economic analysis methods, the organization builds

stores of community capital and improves the well-being of individuals and the community at

large. These effects are more difficult to quantify; however, they are undoubtedly the most

important long-term results achieved by Covenant House as a community-based organization.

Services, programs, and community resources provided by Covenant House can be grouped by

function or general purpose. This typology results in the following list of functional services and

resources provided in the Charleston area:

Staff resources and expertise,

Volunteer resources and expertise,

Homelessness Prevention and Housing Stabilization,

Drop-In-Center services,

Programs that support families and promote healthy lifestyles and tolerance,

Programs to assist people in obtaining financial resources (social security),


9 | P a g e

Education and advocacy related activities, and

Additional community investments through fundraising activities.

Collectively these programs, services and resources build stores of community capital that increase

personal and community well-being.

Improved states of well-being (personal genuine wealth) within those individuals receiving

services from Covenant House are achieved by strengthening important protective factors in those

individuals including resilience, social inclusion, and concrete supports (health, safety, and

security).

Covenant House increases the “genuine wealth” of the community-at-large by: raising and

leveraging additional financial resources used to support needed services and programs, providing

the leadership and expertise of Covenant House staff to address community issues, supporting

community planning and networking among local agencies and organizations, and improving

community conditions through education and civic engagement.

These effects on capital creation and enhanced well-being are illustrated in the graphic below.

Ira Mae Fox Housing First Participant

At 63 years old, Ira Mae Fox is a great grandmother of three. After running away from home as a child, she cultivated a close relationship with her grandmother and re-mains close to her sister. She is energetic and opinionated -- a real pull yourself up by your bootstraps type.

Despite her best efforts, though, she has been left homeless seven times, and has lived everywhere from a tent under a bridge in Charleston to her sister’s garage.

Like many West Virginians, Ira Mae hates to ask for anything, but she eventually had enough and decided to come to Covenant House to ask for assistance. They helped her secure an apartment that kept her safe

from the harsh conditions of living on the riverbank.

Ira Mae is dedicated to helping others, and sometimes provides housing to friends in need so long as they are willing to get help for themselves.

“When I first got this place I cried. It’s a roof over my head. It’s very important to have something over your head because you’re freezing, and there are mice, bugs, rats, pos-sums, and raccoons.”

She worries about her daughter, who goes by Felicia, frequently: Felicia still lives on the riverbank and, at 43, has 12 children. She

works cleaning houses to make ends meet, and hopes to connect more of her friends to Covenant House to get them off of the street and on track for success.


10 | P a g e

Each of the specific programs and services supported by Covenant House contributes to one or

more types of capital formation within the local community; and, in turn, to improved states of

well-being increasing the overall community wealth.

Using the typology defined above, the individual services and programs provided by Covenant

House in 2015 can be grouped by type and associated with specific forms of capital formation

contributing to the overall wealth of the community. The basic principles of the “Genuine Wealth”

model18 as outlined by Anielski is used to accomplish this. Since human service agencies and

organizations are not generally in the business of economic development in the traditional sense,

it is much more appropriate to assess their impact on community wealth formation based on how

they contribute to stores of various types of capital and ultimately to improved states of well-being.

All current resources, programs, and services provided by Covenant House are grouped using this

typology based on capital formation and illustrated in Appendix A.

Measuring Well-Being A measurement framework can be developed for a particular program or service, an organization,

a community, or an entire nation. The process is essentially the same regardless of the scale. To

be meaningful, the measurement process must (1) be grounded in shared values, (2) address clearly

defined expected outcomes, and (3) identify specific indicators (metrics) that can be collected and

regularly reviewed to determine if desired results are being achieved.

At the community level, well-being can be defined and measured using existing secondary data

sets and information collected through population-based surveys. Indicators such as income,

unemployment, poverty, crime rates, educational attainment and other data collected and compiled

for a particular geographic area tell us something useful about the environment and local

conditions in a defined community. These types of population-based indicators of community

well-being can be useful to define the contextual factors within which a particular community

organization operates; however, they cannot be used to measure the impact of that organization on

the people they serve. Covenant House undoubtedly builds genuine wealth in the individuals it

touches and contributes to improving community conditions. It is, however, not reasonable to

expect that any single organization will noticeably affect community-wide indicators since

services offered touch the lives of only a small, targeted percentage of the area population.

Measuring the impact of a particular organization on the well-being of individuals is a multi-step

process that involves identifying what the organization values and what it hopes to achieve through

its services, programs, and activities. The next step is to select indicators or measures that best

describe those values and desired outcomes for individuals served. Indictors of well-being should

describe something important about what was accomplished – the desired states of well-being that

are defined by and flow from the values of the organization.

Ultimately the only way to assess genuine personal wealth (individual well-being) is to ask people

particular questions about how they feel, their self-efficacy, and the extent to which they trust


11 | P a g e

others. There are validated short surveys recommended by the New Economics Foundation (NEF)

that can be used to assess these critical areas of well-being.

The New Economics Foundation identifies two basic principles of measuring well-being:

Individuals. Individuals, rather than groups, are the ‘unit of measurement’, even if we are

ultimately interested in the well-being of a particular group of people.

Subjective indicators. Subjective, rather than objective, indicators provide the data.

“Subjective indicators” refers to questions which ask about feelings, experiences and

judgements about life.19

A measurement framework for Covenant House can be developed that incorporates measures of

the organization’s contributions to each of the seven capital domains discussed earlier. Such

measures would need to be decided upon by the organization’s leadership in order to provide

meaningful information to organization directors, staff and funders related to efficient and

effective management of capital assets. Additional metrics can be incorporated into such a

framework that provide ongoing data helpful for the organization to manage its resources and

monitor quantitative inputs and outputs (dollars raised, numbers served, meals provided, persons

housed, applications for benefits approved, etc.). An organization concerned with developing

“genuine wealth” should, also include a way to measure how the values of the organization are

exemplified in the qualitative outcomes of most importance – the well-being of those individuals

served.

Possible areas to consider for developing progress and performance indicators for Covenant House

organized by type of capital creation are provided in Appendix B.

Recommendations and Suggested Next Steps Covenant House board members and staff may wish to develop a Genuine Wealth

framework for measuring capital asset creation that is consistent with the principles of a

genuine wealth producing model. This type of measurement framework would include

specific and meaningful indicators of well-being that can be monitored to assess progress.

Expected outcomes related to individual and community well-being should be clearly

delineated before deciding on specific measures to assess impact on capital formation.

Any future directions and priorities for the organization should be identified prior to

deciding on what metrics to include in any measurement framework since any new

directions would expand the types of outcomes expected and consequently influence what

metrics would be best to measure those outcomes.

Entrepreneurial programs focused on both community needs and individual initiative may

be a direction Covenant House wishes to pursue.


12 | P a g e

Appendix A – Illustration of How Covenant House Creates Community Wealth

Jimbo Terrell Housing First Participant

After falling on tough times, Jimbo, his wife, and his brother-in-law, Mickey, be-came homeless. Lacking any other option, they resorted to living in a tent on the banks of the Elk River where they lived for nearly three years.

Jimbo’s wife was in a wheelchair, so trans-porting her was difficult, especially during an ice storm that devastated their camp. Sometimes Jimbo and Mickey had to push her wheelchair sideways to move from their post by the interstate back to the river bank.

They camped through ice storms and down-pours, suffering through extreme cold and heat. They panhandled for money, making enough to survive but never able to make

quite enough to better their situation.

After several years of living in tents on the banks of the Elk River, the family received notification from the Covenant House’s Housing First Program that they would be able to move into a house of their own. Ac-cording to Jimbo, his wife was overjoyed.

“My wife was really tickled - she was so happy. We’re here - we’ve got a home, we’ve got utilities, we’ve got food, and we wouldn’t have any of this if it wasn’t for Covenant House. She had her little home, her little picket fence, and she was tickled to death.”

Jimbo’s wife died in July 2013, and he was hospitalized soon after. Once recovered, Jimbo decided to go back to school: the staff at Covenant House first set him up with a certificate program in Integrative Mental Health at the Garnet Career Center (he grad-uated with a 98%!).

“Now I’m going to school, I’m get-ting higher education. I just want to prove that I can do it. Without Covenant House, I’d be still out on the roads flying my sign and pan-handling.”

Jimbo has since moved on to pursue a bach-elor’s degree online in Criminal Justice from Colorado Technical University.


13 | P a g e

Appendix B – Measures of

Capital for Consideration Intellectual Capital

Training and professional development

provided

Personal self-development/growth

Mental well-being of staff

Physical well-being of staff

Spiritual well-being of staff

Leadership provided in community

initiatives

Support provided to Continuum of Care

community partners

Self-rated levels of employee happiness

Job satisfaction

Productivity

Full time equivalent jobs maintained

Benefits provided to employees

Entrepreneurial activity

Educational attainment of staff

Individual Capital

Physical well-being of persons served

Mental well-being of persons served

Spiritual well-being of persons served

Safe and stable housing

Satisfaction with life

Self-rated level of happiness

Level of social trust

Skills and abilities

Entrepreneurial spirit

Creativity

Motivation

Optimism about the future

Resilience

Self-esteem

Earned income

Income from transfer payments

Freedom from violence

Freedom from drug/alcohol dependence

or addiction

Note: Possible conditions and activities affecting

capital formation are listed for consideration – list is

not inclusive.

Social Capital

Community reputation

Employee relationships

Workplace climate

Social cohesion

Networks/connections with others

Social events

Donations from the community

Inter-agency relationships

Social Justice advocacy and community

mobilization

Financial Capital

Current financial assets

Federal grant income

Foundation income

Funds raised (donations)

Current liabilities (debt)

Built Capital

Buildings

Technology

Equipment

Brands

Intellectual property (ideas and

innovation)

Databases

Management processes

Service delivery processes

Natural Capital

Ecosystem integrity

Energy use by organization

Goods produced from environment

(community garden)

Political Capital

Relationships with policymakers

Ability to influence policy

Social justice advocacy

Social justice activism


14 | P a g e

End notes

1 The American Heritage College Dictionary 2 Oxford Economics Dictionary, 3rd Edition. 3 Anielski, Mark, The Economics of Happiness, 2007. 4 Human Development Report 1990, Oxford University Press. Published for the United Nations Development

Programe (UNPD), 1990. 5 Final Report of the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, 2009. 6 http://www.bls.gov/tus/ 7 http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/economics/how-s-life-2015_how_life-2015-en#page1 8 http://www.neweconomics.org/ 9 http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/entry/measuring-well-being 10 http://community-wealth.org/ 11 http://community-wealth.org/ 12 http://www.iscvt.org/ 13 http://sustainablecommunitiesleadershipacademy.org/resource_files/documents/wealth-creation-rural-

communities-WCRC.pdf 14 http://www.fordfoundation.org/ideas/equals-change-blog/posts/toward-a-new-gospel-of-wealth/ 15 US Bureau of the Census, 2014 population estimates. 16 The local purchase percentage is the portion of expenditures that will remain within the local economy

(Charleston MSA). 17 Government taxes and fees are not included. 18 Anielski, Mark, The Economics of Happiness-Building Genuine Wealth, 2007 (3rd printing in 2013), pages

Chapter 5.

http://anielski.com/wp-content/documents/Genuine%20Wealth%20Communities.pdf 19 Measuring Well-being – A guide for practitioners, New Economics Foundation, 2012.

This Report was produced through a contract with:

&

Steve Heasley Consulting Services

600 Shrewsbury Street Charleston, West Virginia 25301

(304) 344-8053

WVCovenantHouse.orgFacebook.com/WVCovenantHouse

Twitter.com/CovenantHouseWV

Date post:	02-Aug-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	wv-covenant-house
View:	219 times
Download:	1 times

Covenant House Economic & Community Impact Report

Documents