Analyzing the Economic Impact of the 

Woommeenn’’ssBBuussiinneessssCCeenntteerrPPrrooggrraamm

A Research Study Prepared for the 

National Women’s Business Council 

by Quality Research Associates 

Gwen Richtermeyer, Ph.D. 

Kaaren Fife-Samyn, M.A. 

July, 2004 
Taabbllee ooffCCoonntteennttss

Executive Summary ..............................................................................................1

Introduction............................................................................................................4

Research Questions..............................................................................................6

Results......................................................................................................................7

 Descriptives ......................................................................................................7

Economic Activities and Outcomes...........................................................16

 

 Economic Context ........................................................................................23

 Impact by Location ...........................................................................24

 Impact by Center Structure..............................................................26

 Impact of Other Services ..................................................................28

 Impact by Population and Poverty.................................................28

 Success Factors..............................................................................................30

Discussion .............................................................................................................36

Recommendations.............................................................................................39

Study Methodology ............................................................................................41

Bibliography .........................................................................................................45

Quality Research Associates.............................................................................45

I 
Economic Im

T

pact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

II 

abl

Chart 1: Tota

ablee ooffCChhaarrttss

l Number of Contacts 2001-2003............................................................ 7 

Chart 2: Average Number of Contacts 2001-2003..................................................... 8 

Chart 3: Total Number of Clients 2001-2003.................................................................. 8

Chart 4: Average Number of Clients 2001-2003 .......................................................... 9 

Chart 5: Race/Ethnicity of Clients 2001-2003.............................................................. 10

Chart 6: Race & Ethnicity Percentages....................................................................... 11

Chart 7: Other Types of Clients 2001-2003................................................................... 13 

Chart 8: SBA Clients 2001-2003...................................................................................... 13

Chart 9: Female Ownership 2001-2003....................................................................... 14 

Chart 10: Types of Businesses 2001-2003...................................................................... 15

Chart 11: Types of Businesses 2003 Percentages....................................................... 15

Chart 12: Total Number of Clients Counseled 2001-2003......................................... 17

Chart 13: Average Number of Clients Counseled 2001-2003.................................. 17

Chart 14: Total Number of Clients Trained 2001-2003 ............................................... 17

Chart 15: Average Number of Clients Trained 2001-2003 ........................................ 17

Chart 16: Gross Receipts (Millions) 2001-2003............................................................. 17

Chart 17: Average Gross Receipts (Millions) 2001-2003............................................ 18

Chart 18: Projected Total Gross Receipts (Millions) 2001-2003................................. 18

Chart 19: Profits (Millions) 2001-2003............................................................................. 18

Chart 20: Average Profits 2001-2003 ............................................................................ 19

Chart 21: Projected Total Profits (Millions) 2001-2003 ................................................ 19

Chart 22: Losses (Millions) 2001-2003 ............................................................................ 19

Chart 23: Average Losses 2001-2003............................................................................ 20

Chart 24: Projected Total Losses (Millions) 2001-2003................................................ 20

Chart 25: New Jobs Created 2001-2003...................................................................... 20

Chart 26: Average Number of New Jobs Created 2001-2003 ................................ 21

Chart 27: Projected Total New Jobs 2001-2003.......................................................... 21

Chart 28: Number of Start-Ups 2001-2003 ................................................................... 22

Chart 29: Average Number of Start-Ups 2001-2003................................................... 22

Chart 30: Projected Number of Start-Ups 2001-2003................................................. 22

Chart 31: Geographic Location ................................................................................... 24

Chart 32: 2001 Impacts by Location Clients............................................................... 25

Chart 33: 2001 Impacts by Location Jobs Created .................................................. 25

Chart 34: 2002 Impacts by Location Clients............................................................... 25

Chart 35: 2003 Impacts by Location Counseled ....................................................... 25

Chart 36: Women's Business Center Types.................................................................. 26

Chart 37: Years in Operation........................................................................................ 26

Chart 38: 2001 Impacts by WBC Type: Losses ............................................................ 27

Chart 39: 2002 Impacts by WBC Type: Profits............................................................. 27

Chart 40: 2003 Impacts by WBC Type: Contacts....................................................... 27

Chart 41: Other Resources: SBDC................................................................................. 28

Chart 42: Other Resources: PTAC ................................................................................. 28
Economic Imp

T

act Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

III 

aabbllee ooffTTaabblleess

Table 1: Growth in Minority Clients: 2001-2003 ...............................................11 

Table 2: Summary of Impacts 2001 and 2003................................................23 

Table 3: Matching Groups Population & Poverty Rate.................................29

Table 4: Impact by Population and Poverty...................................................30

Table 5: Centers Attaining Growth in 5 of 5 Outcomes................................32

Table 6: Centers Attaining Growth in 4 of 5 Outcomes................................33

Table 7: Centers Attaining Growth in 3 of 5 Outcomes................................34

Table 8: Centers Attaining Growth in at least 1 Outcome...........................35
Executive Summary

In Sp

anal

Center progra

xecutive Summary

ring 2004 Quality Research Associates (QRA) undertook an 

ysis of the economic impact of the Women’s Business 

m (WBC). Using primarily the WBC data provided by the 

Office of Women’s Business Ownership (OWBO) for 2001, 2002, and 2003,

the analyses were largely based on internal and external factors. Internal

factors included demographics and outcomes –number of businesses 

started, gross receipts, profits, losses, and new jobs created—geographic 

location and years a WBC has been in existence. External factors 

included business assistance alternatives, city/town size, race-ethnic 

composition, and poverty rate.

The WBC program has gained great momentum between 2001 and 2003 

in terms of clients served, those counseled and trained, gross receipts,

profits, the creation of new jobs and new firms started. This investigation 

uncovered phenomenal growth in both activities and impact. Contacts 

rose 61 percent and clients served almost doubled from 2001 to 2003. 

From these increasing numbers of nascent and existing entrepreneurs 

and small business owners, WBCs generated a total economic impact of 

nearly $500 million in gross receipts with profits of $51.4 million and losses 

of only $11.8 million. WBCs also created 12,719 new jobs, and started 

6,660 new firms. 

The WBC program is having a significant economic impact - more than 

one-half of the Centers show growth in the number of clients served, gross 

receipts, profits generated, and new jobs created. Just slightly less than 

one-half of the Centers have shown growth in the number of new firms 

started. This growth occurs in Centers regardless of their geographic

location and respective demographic characteristics. In fact, the 21 

WBCs which displayed growth in all five measured outcomes ranged 

from Boston, Massachusetts to Pine Bluff, Arkansas; from Oakland,

California to Grand Rapids, Michigan. 

1 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

Economic impact growth is substantial. From 2001 to 2003, the total 

number of clients served increased by 91 percent. The economic

impact indicators generated by these clients, however, resulted in

increases from 376 percent to greater than 800 percent! The greatest 

increase was found in total gross receipts, which increased by 824 

percent. Profits increased by 490 percent; losses were less than two 

percent of gross receipts; the number of new jobs created increased by 

481 percent, and the number of new firms increased by 376 percent. 

Metrics created from these activity and growth figures provide insight into 

what a Center must do in order to produce economic impact. For 

example, we found that: 

 It takes 3.3 contacts to generate a client who, in turn, will 

produce economic impact. While we do not know which 

contacts will turn into clients, the importance of continually

and consistently providing information and materials to 

prospective clients is critical. 



 For every 14 clients a WBC serves, 1 new job is created. 

Given the mix of clients that WBCs serve, multiple industries,

and growth goals for individual owners, a 1:14 ratio is 

excellent. 



 For every 25 clients served, 1 new firm is started. This metric

essentially speaks to the large number of nascent 

entrepreneurs and the length of time it takes from idea to 

implementation. Also, the effect of clients who are already 

in business is unknown. 



2 

In addition to the high levels and growth of activities and economic

impacts, the WBC program is reaching its targeted population. While 

one in five women business owners nationally is a woman of color (Center 

for Women’s Business Research 2002 estimates), in 2003 WBCs had a 

client mix which was 46 percent women of color. And, 2003 is just one 

point in time. Over the three years, we found that more than two-thirds of 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

the WBCs have experienced growth in the numbers of minorities served. 

In fact, four in ten WBCs enjoyed an increase of 100 percent or greater in 

the number of non-White clients served from 2001 to 2003.

Factors that may influence the success of WBCs, such as location and the 

corresponding population size and poverty level; whether the Center 

operates as an autonomous organization (stand-alone) or is part of a 

larger structure (bundled); how long a Center has been operating; and 

whether business assistance services are provided by other organizations 

were investigated. 

We discovered that urban locations have more clients, and non-urban 

locations create more jobs. At the same time, we found that the 

influence of population size and poverty level were relatively minor. We 

found that organizational structure and years in operation were highly

correlated and Centers which have been around for more than five

years are more likely to be bundled within a larger organization, such as a 

chamber of commerce, or economic or community development 

agency. Impact differences as a result of this structure included standalone centers had more training clients and bundled Centers had 

greater numbers of contacts, profits, and losses. We found that the 

availability of a Small Business Development Center (SBDC) in the same 

town or city did not impact WBC success. As such, it appears that the 

WBCs serve a need and population even in areas that have an SBDC.

3 

The lack of significance for multiple service providers appears to show 

that there are plenty of clients and work to be done by all business 

assistance services. Clearly, here is no single best model for success. 

While there are differences in urban versus non-urban and in stand-alone 

versus bundled, we found success coming from a variety of models. 

Economic impact, economic growth, and Center activity growth is

evident in WBCs operating in all settings. We found value in growing the

number of clients as this growth from 2001 to 2003 predicted growth in

new jobs and start-ups; however, numbers alone did not predict gross 

receipts or profits. As such, positive economic impact is generated 

through the efforts of each Center to concentrate on their local area,

meet the needs of that specific target population, and assist in the 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

development of new and existing businesses. This is also a hallmark of 

program sophistication and integration – a WBC should reflect the 

individual uniqueness of its local area and the assets and needs therein. 

Further analysis with more comprehensive data will allow a greater 

understanding of the factors which lead to success – for the individual 

starting or growing a business and for the WBCs who provide business 

assistance services. Future data should include specific programs or 

services used by various types of clients in order to map success 

pathways; more detail regarding existing business owners and their firms;

job quality; motivational influences; investments into the business;

technology; and social capital of the owner. These analyses, in turn, will

lay a solid foundation upon which WBCs can provide the highest level of 

support to nascent and existing women entrepreneurs across the country 

regardless of geographic location, industry, race or ethnicity.

I

ntroduction

In fa

a res

ntroduction

ll 2003, the National Women’s Business Council (NWBC) awarded 

earch contract to Quality Research Associates (QRA) to 

conduct a national study of the economic impact of the Women’s 

Business Center program. Comparing Women’s Business Centers (WBCs)

provides a foundation upon which to better understand the larger 

economic impact of WBCs on growth of firms, revenues, profits, and jobs 

as well as the characteristics of WBCs which determine higher degrees of 

success. 

Understanding the economic impact of entrepreneurs and small 

business1 has been a topic of interest for many years in business schools 

and economic departments as well as in sociology, psychology, and 

history departments. Since neoclassical economics does not have a 

 1 The terms entrepreneur and small business are often used interchangeably. We

follow the literature that proposes these are two separate types and should be

differentiated whenever possible.

4 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

suitable place in which to insert the individual, many economists have

chosen to place the study of entrepreneurship and small business outside 

their specific realm of quantification. Economists who have embraced 

entrepreneurship and/or small business have struggled to develop a 

model that utilizes appropriate measurement and formulae, especially in

light of the regional variations that exist (Malizia and Feser, 1999). As 

such, scholars from other disciplines such as sociology, psychology, and 

history have taken the lead in providing both a greater understanding of 

the impact of entrepreneurship and small business on the larger 

economy and the motivation, characteristics, actions, and context of the 

entrepreneur.

Shapero (1981, 1977) and others note the importance of providing 

capital, business services, and a physical infrastructure to enable firms to 

survive and grow. Measuring the impact of these elements, however, is

often limited by the availability and timeliness of appropriate data. For 

example, the Economic Census is taken only every five years and usually 

is not available to researchers for one-two years following collection. 

Measuring business assistance programming focused on helping an 

entrepreneur, small business owner, nascent entrepreneur, or nascent 

small business owner start, grow, or operate a business profitably is 

especially limited (see James Chrisman’s work on analyzing the impact of 

Small Business Development Centers). 

5 

Measuring economic outcomes for the WBC program is complicated in

that individual Centers target specific populations for services; therefore,

not all WBCs can be compared equally. Thus, factors relevant to each 

WBC have been adjusted to reflect this individuality. For example,

comparing Centers located in urban areas to others similarly placed as 

opposed to comparing urban Centers to those located in rural 

communities. Taking into consideration these various limitations, QRA 

analyzed the economic impact of WBCs based on internal and external

factors. Internal factors included client demographics, client outcomes – 

number of businesses started, gross receipts, profits, losses, and new jobs 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

created – WBC geographic location (urban, non-urban2) and years in

existence. External factors considered included business assistance 

alternatives, such as the availability of a Small Business Development 

Center (SBDC) or Procurement Technical Assistance Center (PTAC),

city/town population size, race-ethnic composition of population, and 

poverty rate of locale. 

Rese

The

eseaarrcchhQQuueessttiioonnss

overarching research questions considered in this study were:

1. What is the economic impact of Women’s Business Center program 

on the growth of firms?

11..

2. What factors account for success (as measured by economic

outcome data)?

22..

333... Is there a specific WBC model that predicts success?

444... What predicts positive economic outcomes?

555... How do client demographics affect outcomes?

 

Our analyses included investigating growth in impacts from 2001 to 2003 

for WBCs in total as well as determining averages for activities and 

impacts. In addition, we looked at how individual WBCs compared to

each other on both activities and impacts. We also specifically 

investigated possible relationships between the internal and external 

factors by Center and by appropriate groupings of Centers. Refer to the 

Methodology section specifically for additional information of the 

organization of the analysis.

2 Non-urban includes rural and suburban as well as locations which include both 

suburban and rural classifications according to the Census Bureau.

6 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

Resu

The

Business Cen

esullttss

results of our analyses of the economic impact of Women’s 

ter program are organized as follows. First, we share 

descriptive information on the number and types of clients served by 

WBCs – for all Centers, averages for Centers, and projected totals based 

on mean imputation. Second, the activity and economic outcomes

produced by WBCs are provided – for all Centers, averages, and 

projections. Third, we provide predictive results based upon economic

context. And, fourth, we discuss WBCs which are extremely successful in 

terms of economic outcomes and the factors that contribute to that 

success. A discussion of our findings follows the Results section.

 

DDeessccrriippttiivveess

The WBC program is gaining momentum, with increases in contacts,

clients, and specific types of clients served such as veterans, disabled,

women eligible for TANF, and home-based businesses. Furthermore, the 

WBC program is successfully serving the specific populations they have

chosen to serve – women of all races and ethnicities. 

WBCs reported that they 

received 61 percent more 

contacts in 2003 than in 2001,

jumping from 189,162 contacts 

to 304,186. 

189,162

202,906

304,186

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000

2001

2002

2003

Chart 1

Total Number of Contacts 

2001-2003

 

7 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

Using the total number of Centers 

which provided data (as 

opposed to the total number of 

WBCs)3, the average Center had 

nearly 5,000 contacts in 2003, 

almost 4,000 in 2002, and more 

than 7,000 in 2001. The decrease 

between 2001 and 2003 is primarily due to the increased number of 

Centers reporting data (from 26 in 2001 to 62 in 2003). 

7,275

3,979

4,906

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

2001

2002

2003

Chart 2

Average Number of Contacts

2001-2003

Substituting the mean for missing data, the potential total number of 

contacts in 2003 would have been 451,352 as opposed to the reported

304,186.

47,425

58,776

90,412

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000

2001

2002

2003

Chart 3

Total Number of Clients

2001-2003

Even more important than 

contacts is the number of clients 

served. The total number of 

clients almost doubled in this

same time frame (from 2001 to 

2003) from 47,425 to 90,412 – a 92 

percent increase! 

 3 In 2001, 26 centers provided data; in 2002, 51; and in 2003, 62. The number of WBCs 

varies because some are closed and new centers are opened over the years studied.

Mean imputation is used only for missing data, not in instances where zeros were found.

8 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

The average number of clients per 

WBC was 1,458 in 2003.

1,824

1,152

1,458

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000

2001

2002

2003

Chart 4

Average Number of Clients

2001-2003

Again, a projection based on mean 

imputation indicates that the 

potential total number of clients in 

2003 would have been 134,136 as 

opposed to the reported 90,412. 

Race and ethnicity information reveal that the number of minority clients 

increased from 2001 to 2003. The first graph provides the numbers for 

race and ethnicity4 by year for all WBCs. The second graph illustrates the 

percentages of non-White and White clients by year. In this second 

graph, Hispanics are shown separately and as part of the non-White 

grouping for illustrative purposes.

 

 4 In this chart we include the ethnic category, Hispanic, with race categories. While 

distinct and separate, race and ethnicity used to denote groups of people as in this 

instance merely are identifiers of minority status compared to majority (Whites) and can 

be used together.

 

9 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

Chart 5

Race/Ethnicity of Clients

2001-2003

2,190

13,016

363

1,039

6,215

8,893

1,574

6,318

9,427

5,975

457

1,571

27,890

12,625

7,705

1,264

1,514

988

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

Native

Hawaiian/Pac.

Islander

Asian

Amer.

Indian/Alaska

Native

Hispanic

Afr. Amer.

White/Caucasian*

*NOTE: The data for White/Caucasian in 2002 is significantly lower than 2003 and 

may represent an error in the data.

2001 2002 2003

According to the Center for Women’s Business Research, making 

projections to 2002 using 1997 data from the U.S. Census Bureau, one in

five women-owned businesses (19.6%) are owned by a woman of color. 

This information makes the fact that nearly 50 percent of WBC clients in 

2003 were women of color even more impressive. The following graph 

shows that in 2001 more than one-half of WBCs clients were women of 

color (50 percent versus 41 percent); and, in 2003, 46 percent were 

minority clients compared to 54 percent majority clients5. 

 5 This slight dip may reflect the race/ethnic composition of geographic locations of 

new centers opened in 2002 and 2003.

10 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

Chart 6

Race & Ethnicity Percentages

(Using Total Clients w/ Race/Ethnic data)

20%

39%

59%

41%

25%

75%

51%

24%

54%

46%

32%

15%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Hispanics

NonWhite

NonWhite (incl

Hispanics)

White

 2001 2002 2003

Total Clients: 31,109 (66%) 25,322 (43%) 51,651 (57%)

2001 2002 2003

More than two-thirds (68 percent) of WBCs reported growth in number of 

minority (or non-White) clients from 2001 to 2003. In fact, 41 percent of 

WBCs reported at least a 100 percent increase in the number of minority 

clients from 2001 to 2003. The following table displays the Centers with 

growth in minority clients from 2001 to 2003 in rank order by number. 

TTTAAABBBLLLEEE111

Growth in Minority Clients: 2001-2003 

11 

WBC Number Percent 

FORT WORTH, TX 1,248 1,328 

HONOLULU, HI 615 647 

OAKLAND, CA 533 208 

ANN ARBOR, MI 511 140 

CHICAGO, IL 468 194 

PINE BLUFF, AR 461 378 

MILWAUKEE, WI 429 64 

PAGO PAGO 363 318 

EL PASO, TX 348 544 

COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 345 106 

ALBUQUERQUE, NM 333 2,081 

GREENVILLE, MS 325 417 

DENVER, CO 307 21 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

12 

WBC Number Percent 

NEW ORLEANS, LA 279 100 

BRONX, NY 256 800 

BIRMINGHAM, AL 236 908 

NORMAN, OK 213 520 

PHOENIX, AZ 210 79 

GRAND RAPIDS, MI 203 549 

QUEENS, NY 156 380 

SAN JUAN, PR 152 10 

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 146 973 

BOSTON, MA 129 63 

FAYETTEVILLE, NC 114 101 

FORT WAYNE , IN 104 63 

PENSACOLA, FL 100 73 

ANCHORAGE, AK 99 113 

DURHAM, NC 84 36 

WORCESTER, MA 82 482 

MADISON, WI 78 433 

INDEPENDENCE, WI 76 238 

BALTIMORE, MD 71 64 

EDINBURG, TX 70 33 

HELENA, MT 67 258 

DETROIT, MI 60 15 

FORT BRAGG, CA 56 117 

EVERETT, WA 50 227 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 47 32 

DURANT, OK 45 100 

MEDFORD, OR 42 202 

CHATTANOOGO, TN 40 800 

UTICA, NY 34 425 

WATHILL, NE 34 227 

MOBILE, AL 33 150 

FOSSTON, MN 29 223 

ST. CROIX 29 26 

BISMARCK, ND 27 71 

PORTSMOUTH, NH 22 391 

BOISE, ID 20 52 

STAMFORD, CT 15 26 

PROVIDENCE, RI 14 30 

SIOUX FALLS, SD 7 350 

LARAMIE, WY 7 41 

WISCASSET, ME 6 17 

PHILADELPHIA, PA 3 1 

BROOKLYN, NY 2 1 

SEATTLE, WA 1 1 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

Other types of descriptives which categorize clients reveal that WBCs 

have shown growth in the number of clients served who are Veterans,

Disabled, and TANF 

eligible. Furthermore, t

has been an amazin

growth in the number o

clients who have home

based businesses fro

2001 to 2003 – from 1,900

over 9,000!

here

g

f

-

m

to

WBCs have more than doubled the number of 8(a) clients, and almost 

s nt

assistance has jumped 

f

3

Chart 7

Other Types of Clients

2001-2003

1,364

1,469

1,877

1,903

1,323

1,443

1,871

8,893

1,816

1,780

2,576

9,420

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

Veterans

Disabled

TANF

Home

Based

2001 2002 2003

tripled the number of SBA borrowers from 2001 to 2003. In addition, the

number of clients 

eeking procureme

rom 605 in 2001 to over

,500 (484%) in 2003.

Chart 8

SBA Clients

2001-2003

41

789

605

226

2,699

2,212

92

2,357

3,534

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

8(a)

Borrowers

Procurement

Assist.

2001 2002 2003

13 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

The number of firms in which the woman owns greater than 50 percent of 

the business has remained about the same from 2001 to 2003, whereas 

the number of firms where there is an equal split between female and 

male owners has tripled – from 536 to 1,907.

Chart 9

Female Ownership

2001-2003

536

32,001

2,251

23,859

1,907

29,761

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000

F/M - Equal

Split

Female - >

50%

2001 2002 2003

In 2003, nearly three-quarters of the businesses were service or retail (51 

percent and 19 percent respectively). The distribution of clients’ business 

types closely mirrors national data on women-owned businesses. The 

Center for Women’s Business Research, using 1997 data from the U.S.

Census Bureau to project to 2002, found that women-owned businesses 

clustered as follows – 53% Services, 16% Retail, 9% Finance/Insurance/Real 

Estate, 3% Construction, 3% Transportation/Communications /Public 

Utilities, 2% Wholesale, 2% Manufacturing, 2% Agriculture, and 12% Not 

Classified. Additionally, the Center for Women’s Business Research found 

that the fastest growing non-traditional industry for women was 

construction (at 30% growth from 1997-2004). This movement and growth 

into the construction industry by women is also shown in the 354 percent 

increase of WBC construction business clients from 2001 to 2003. 

14 

The first graph depicts the types of businesses by year, and the second 

graph depicts the percent of businesses for 2003 by type.
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

Chart 10

Types of Businesses

2001-2003

448

624

688

514

632

699

1,300

3,642

4,401

11,573

64

139

101

866

239

939

1,955

3,893

1,081

3,813

10,155

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Financial

Construction

Wholesale

Mfg.

Other

Retail

Services

2001 2002 2003

15 

Chart 11

Types of Businesses

2003 Percentages

51%

2%

3%

3%

6%

16%

19%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Financial

Construction

Wholesale

Mfg.

Other

Retail

Services
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

 

EEccoonnoommiicc AAccttiivviittiieess aanndd OOuuttccoommeess

The economic impact of the WBC program is measured by the success of 

clients who start and grow businesses, generate sales receipts and profits,

minimize losses, and create jobs. To get these impacts, the WBCs must 

provide relevant, timely, and targeted business assistance. We found 

that from 2001 to 2003, economic impacts and the activities leading to 

those impacts grew substantially in every category. In fact, we estimate

that in 2003, WBCs generated nearly $407 million in gross receipts, 

produced an average per Center of $420,607 in profits, kept losses at less 

than 2 percent, created 6,493 new jobs, and started 3,578 new 

businesses.

The following information provides detail on the actual and estimated 

economic activities and outcomes for WBCs in 2001, 2002, and 2003. 

WBCs experienced healthy increases in the number of clients counseled 

and trained from 2001 to 2003 – in excess of a 75 percent increase for 

both types of activities. The average number of clients counseled in 2003 

per Center was 678 compared to the average number of clients trained 

at 1,025.

16 

Using mean imputation and projecting for 2003, the potential total 

number of clients counseled would have been 62,376 as opposed to the 

reported 42,005; and, for clients trained, the potential total number would 

have been 94,300 compared to the reported 63,524.
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

22,269

31,537

42,005

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000

2001

2002

2003

Chart 12

Total Number of Clients

Counseled 2001-2003

857

618

678

0 200 400 600 800 1000

2001

2002

2003

Chart 13

Average Number of Clients 

Counseled 2001-2003

36,123

56,377

63,524

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000

2001

2002

2003

Chart 14

Total Number of Clients 

Trained 2001-2003

1,389

1,105

1,025

0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500

2001

2002

2003

Chart 15

Average Number of Clients 

Trained 2001-2003

WBCs report total economic 

impact of $293.1 million in gross 

receipts generated by their c

in 2003. This figure represe

increase in excess of 800 percent

from 2001. 

31.5

122.8

293.1

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

2001

2002

2003

Chart 16

Gross Receipts (Millions)

2001-2003 lients 

nts an

17 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

On average, a WBC produced $4.7 mi

c . 

ubstituting means for missing

ct

 addition to the amount of gross receipts skyrocketing from 2001 to 

llion in gross receipts in 2003 

ompared to $1.2 million in 2001

1.2

2.4

4.7

012 3 4 5

2001

2002

2003

Chart 17

Average Gross Receipts (Millions)

2001-2003

S

102.9

204.7

406.6

0 100 200 300 400 500

2001

2002

2003

Projected Total Gross 

Receipts (Millions) 2001-2003

Chart 18

data, we project the total impa

for all WBCs to be $406.6 million in 

2003. 

In

2003, the amount of profits also 

skyrocketed from $4.4 million to

$26 million – a healthy 490 

percent increase!

Chart 19

4.4

21.0

26.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2001

2002

2003

Profits (Millions) 2001-2003

18 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

O

$

t

ll

ease to

n average, each Center reported 

420,607 in profits in 2003 compared 

o $171,071 in 2001. 

171,071

413,584

420,607

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000

2001

2002

2003

Chart 20

Average Profits 2001-2003

Translated into a projection for a

Centers, profits would incr

over $39 million. 

15.2

37.3

39.1

0 10 20 30 4

2001

2002

2003

Chart 21

Projected Total Profits 

(Millions) 2001-2003

0

In 2003, losses accounted for 

less than two percent of total 

gross receipts. 

0.7

5.4

5.7

0 1 234 5 6

2001

2002

2003

Chart 22

Losses (Millions) 2001-2003

19 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

A ported

l

i

obs

27,950

106,758

92,674

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

2001

2002

2003

Chart 23

Average Losses 

2001-2003

gain, for each WBC, the re

osses average less than $100,000

n 2003. 

Using mean imputation,

projected losses would have

totaled about the same as 

reported data - $5.9 million 

compared to $5.7 million.

0.7

5.4

5.9

0 1 2 345 6

2001

2002

2003

Chart 24

Projected Total Losses 

(Millions) 2001-2003

WBC clients reported that they 

created a total of 6,493 new j

in 2003, compared to 1,118 new 

jobs in 2001 – roughly a 500 

percent increase! 

1,118

5,108

6,493

0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500

2001

2002

2003

Chart 25

New Jobs Created

2001-2003

20 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

43

100

105

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

2001

2002

2003

Chart 26

Average Number of New Jobs

Created 2001-2003 A

t

w

2

gain, looking at Center averages, 

he number of new jobs created

as 105 in 2003, compared to 43 in

001.

Using this mean number of new 

jobs created to replace missing 

data, we can project a total of 

6,703 new jobs created for 2003.

1,118

5,108

6,703

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

2001

2002

2003

Chart 27

Projected Total New Jobs

2001-2003

And, last but certainly not least, are the number of start-ups. In 2003, 

WBCs reported 3,578 start-up firms for their clients. This is an average of 

58 per Center in 2003, compared to 29 in 2001, representing a 376 

percent increase. 

21 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

752

2,330

3,578

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

2001

2002

2003

Chart 28

Number of Start-Ups

2001-2003

29

46

58

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

2001

2002

2003

Chart 29

Average Number of Start-Ups

 2001-2003

Once again taking advantage of 

mean imputation, we can project 

that the number of firms started in

2003 for WBC clients was slightly

larger than reported with a total of 

3,694 start-ups.

752

2,330

3,694

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

2001

2002

2003

Chart 30

Projected Number of Start-Ups

2001-2003

Given the great amount of data that has been discussed and displayed 

in this section, we prepared a summary table of the impacts from 2001 to 

2003 using actual reported data to conclude this section of the Results 

chapter.

22 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

TTTAAABBBLLLEEE222

Summary of Impacts 2001 and 2003 

Impacts 2001 2003 

Percent 

Change 

Clients 47,425 90,412 91% 

Gross 

Receipts

$31.5 million $293.1 million 824% 

Profits $4.4 million $26.0 million 490% 

Losses $726,702 $5.7 million 691%

New Jobs 1,118 6,493 481%

Start-ups 752 3,578 376%

 

EEccoonnoommiicc CCoonntteexxtt

In the previous section we discussed the activities and outcomes of the 

Centers. However, the Centers do not exist within a vacuum. They are 

situated within an economic context which influences the client base as 

well as the level of success the Centers may attain. In our analyses, we

were particularly concerned with geographic location – primarily 

whether the Center was located in an urban or non-urban environment;

organizational structures – are Centers configured as individual,

autonomous organizations or integrated within larger organizations; how 

long Centers have been in operation; availability of other business 

assistance services – are Centers located where Small Business 

Development Centers (SBDCs) and Procurement Technical Assistance 

Centers (PTACs) are also operating; and, finally, the size of the population 

and level of poverty of Center locations. 

In general, we found that the economic context is important in

determining certain outcomes. However, not all of these environmental 

influences are as predictive as others, nor does a consistent trend 

emerge across factors. For example, we found that a large city location,

regardless of poverty level, will yield higher numbers of clients and 

23 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

activities compared to small towns. This finding seems intuitive. On the 

other hand, however, we were unable to note any effect on outcomes 

based on whether other nationally-recognized business assistance 

services were offered within the same geographical space. The details of 

these analyses on the influence of economic context on activities and 

impacts follow. 

Impact by Location 

Approximately two-thirds of the WBCs are located in urban environments

based on 2000 Census data. 

The other one-third are located 

in rural, suburban or m

environments6 and are 

aggregated and repre

non-urban Centers7. 

icropolitan 

sented as

To determine whether or not 

es, a 

74

ed

o

 

geographic location is an 

important factor in outcom

series of statistical tests were conducted. In 2001, both number of clients 

and number of new jobs were statistically significant at the .05 level. As 

the following two graphs illustrate, an urban location counseled or trained 

significantly more clients than did non-urban centers (an average of 6

compared to an average of 322), while a non-urban location produc

more new jobs than did urban centers (an average of 24 compared t

an average of 8). The finding for significantly more new jobs in a nonurban environment is somewhat counter-intuitive. The data appear to

reflect, however, two Centers with manufacturing start-ups in 2001 which 

may account for this finding. 

Chart 31

Geographic Location

Urban 

67% NonUrban 

33%

6 Most of the non-urban Centers are located in suburban or micropolitan areas.

7 This was necessary for statistical testing because the number of centers which fell

into the various non-urban categories was too small.

24 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

674

322

0 200 400 600 800

Significance=.044

Urban

NonUrban

Chart 32

2001 Impacts by Location

Clients

8

24

0 5 10 15 20 25

Significance=.034

Urban

NonUrban

Chart 33

2001 Impacts by Location

Jobs Created

In 2002, the number of c

based on geographic 

location. The average 

number of clients for an 

urban Center was 793 

compared to an average o

496 for non-urban Centers

lients was found to be statistically significant 

f

. 

In 2003 the only outcome 

predicted by geographic

l

c

Centers provided the greatest 

a

c

c

C

793

496

0 200 400 600 800

Significance=.042

Urban

Non-Urban

Chart 34

2002 Impacts by Location

Clients

624

309

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Significance=.029

Urban

Non-Urban

Counseled

Chart 35

2003 Impacts by Location 

ocation was number of 

ounseling clients. Urban 

verage number of

ounseling clients (624)

ompared to non-urban

enters (309).

25 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

Impact by Center Structure 

A search of web sites for each of the WBCs provided information to 

classify most Centers as to whether the Center was a stand-alone 

operation or bundled - worked within a larger structure, such as an 

economic or community development organization, chambers of 

commerce, etc. Additionally, we were able to determine the year the 

Center (or its host organization) began operations for approximately twothirds of the WBCs. 

Roughly two-thirds of the Centers are housed or co-located (bundled) 

with other organizations. This finding, however, may be more an artifact 

of the SBA/OWBO funding guidelines than a specific strategy or 

purposeful choice. It should be noted here that years in operation was 

highly correlated with structure type – the older the Center, the more 

likely it was to be bundled within another structure. 

26 

Chart 36 

Women's Business Center

Types

Stand 

alone

36%

Bundled

64%

15

17

25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Prior to

1991

1993-

1997

1998-

2002

Chart 37 

Years in Operation
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

To determine whether or not the structure of a WBC is an important factor 

in outcomes, a series of statistical 

And, in 2003, only the number of contacts was significantly greater for 

bundled Centers than standalone Centers (average 4,903 

versus 2,163). 

While the number of clients 

trained in stand-alone Centers 

versus bundled (average 785 

versus 770) in 2003 was 

statistically significant, a 

difference of 15 per Center 

does not appear to be a substantive difference. 

tests were conducted for stand-alone 

or bundled type. In 2001, higher 

losses (average $13,900 versus 

$2,000) were statistically significant for 

bundled Centers. $2,000

$13

Stand

Alone

Bundled

Chart 38

2001 Impacts by WBC Type

Losses

In 2002, however, bundled 

Centers had far greater profits

(average $254,890 versus 

$109,595) reported.

Chart 39

2002 Impacts by WBC Type:

Profits

27 

,900

$0 $3,000 $6,000 $9,000 $12,000 $15,000

Significance=.005

$109,595

$254,890

$0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000

Significance=.036

Stand

Alone

Bundled

2,163

4,903

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

Significance=.037

Stand

Alone

Bundled

Chart 40

2003 Impacts by WBC Type:

Contacts
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

When we looked at years in operation and impacts, we found no

term

enter

Impact by

statistically significant correlations. This may, however, be an artifact of 

the data since we were able to de

approximately two-thirds of the c

Other Services

ine the year started for

s. 

ailability of other types of national 

 such as SBDCs and PTACs within the same 

We investigated whether or not the av

usiness assistance services,

eographic space as a WBC impacted outcomes. We found that nearly 

5 percent of WBCs are located in

percent of WBCs also have a PTAC 

statistically significant differences in outcomes

location had either an SBDC, PTA

WBCs are serv

erved by an SBDC or PTAC. 

b

g

7 areas that also have an SBDC, and 43 

located in their area. There were no 

 based on whether or not a 

C or both. Thus, it appears that the

ing a need and a population that would not otherwise be 

s

Chart 41

Other Resources: SBDC

No Yes

74.0%

Chart 42

Other Resources: PTAC

No

56.5%

26.0% Yes

43.5%

Impact by Population and Poverty 

The external factors that can influence a C

complex than just being in an urban or no other

services available, or how the Center is str vel 

can be powerful. We

elieve that population size and poverty level are two major factors to

enter’s success is more

n-urban location, having

uctured. There are macro-le

influences that set boundaries, often unseen, that

28 

b
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

consider. In other words, a WBC located in Brooklyn, New York (a l

city with a high concentration of poverty) will face different obstacles 

and challenges than a WBC located in Taneytown, Maryland (a

town with a low poverty rate). These obsta

arge

small

cles and challenges may, in 

rn, create barriers to success for women trying to start and grow 

businesses as well as for the WBCs attempting to assist in this economic

tu

growth.

To investigate the plausibility of influence on outcomes and activities 

based on population and poverty, we categorized each Center 

according to size (small, medium, and large8) and poverty rate (less than 

10 percent and 10 percent or greater). We then grouped the Centers 

into six homogenous groups as shown in the following table. 

 

TABLE 3

Matching Groups 

Population & Poverty Rate 

TTAABBLLEE 33

Group 1 18.9% Small community, low poverty rate 

Group 2 25.6% Small community, high poverty rate 

Group 3 13.3% Medium community, low poverty rate 

Group 4 14.4% Medium community, high poverty rate 

Group 5 6.7% Large community, low poverty rate 

Group 6 21.1% Large community, high poverty rate 

Using analysis of variance (ANOVAs), we investigated which groups 

differed on each of the activities and outcomes for each year in the 

study. Quite surprisingly, we found statistically significant differences in 

ly two measures – number of clients in total and number of counseling 

ears to be a secondary influence,

while population size appears to be a predictor. 

on

clients – in the three years. Poverty app

29 

8 Small communities equal those with a population up to and including 123,976 people.

those with more than 478,435 people.

 

Medium communities were between 123,977 and 478,434; and large communities were 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

As the following table reveals, in 2001 small communities with poverty 

greater than ten percent had significantly fewer clients compared to 

large communities with a poverty rate of less than ten percent – a mea

of 270 compared to a mean of 1,074 respectively. In 2002 and 2003, the

number of counseling clients also differed between small and large

communities, with smaller communities seeing fewer clients. 

n

What is perhaps more intriguing is that we did not find more activities and 

uped

impacts to be statistically significant based on population size and 

poverty level. This could be an artifact of the way in which we gro

the WBCs, the correlation of population size with urban location, or the 

factors themselves. 

TTTAAABBBLLLEEE444

Impact by Population & Poverty 

Year/Impact 

Population Size

& Poverty Rate Significance Mean 

2001

 Clients Small / high vs.

Large / low (.036) 1

270 

,074

2002

Counseled Small / high vs. 21

Large / low (.004)

8 

648 

Small / low vs.

Large / high (.029)

260 

648 

2003

 Counseled Small / high vs.

Large / high (.002)

247 

1,003

Small / low vs.

Large / high (.029)

333 

1,003

SSuucccceessss FFaaccttoorrss

Thus far we have discussed WBCs in the aggregate, looking at total and 

average activities and impacts, demographics, and other factors which 

may influence economic outcomes. What we have discovered is that 

there does not appear to be one model of success – for instance, urban 

30 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

Centers counsel more clients, but non-urban Centers create more jobs

To this point, we have not ascertained which Centers are more succes

in generating specific economic impacts. Therefore, to determine which

WBCs were the most successful in terms of reaching outcomes over time,

i.e., from 2001 to 2003, we utilized the five outcomes: clients, gross 

receipts, profits, new jobs, and start ups and viewed the WBCs

.

sful

at the

individual-Center level. We employed mean imputation for missing data

3. 

for the outcome variables. There are a total of 78 Centers which, from the 

database, appear to have been in operation in both 2001 and 200

Viewing the outcomes separately, from 2001 to 2003, there are:

 63 WBCs which show growth in number of clients (81%)

 59 WBCs which show growth in profits (76%) 

 55 WBCs which show growth in gross receipts (71%) 

 54 WBCs which show growth in new jobs (69%) 

 42 WBCs which show growth in start ups (54%) 

Combin tcomes, there are 21 WBCs which have growth in all five 

outcomes from 2001 to 2003. In addition, the a tota Centers

which have growth in at least four of the five outcomes. The following four 

tables d pl t ally), the number of o mes

showing growth, and the applicable growth (d ence be n 2001

and 2003) numbers for each outcome.

31 

ing ou

re are l of 38

is ay the Cen er (alphabetic utco

iffer twee
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

TABLE 5

Centers Attaining Growth in 5 of 5 Outcomes 

Increase from 2001 to 2003 in: 

enter

No. Growth 

Outcomes Clients 

Gross 

Receipts($) Profits ($)

New 

Jobs 

StartALTIMORE, MD 5 3,210 1,908,990 693,696 192 

ISMARCK, ND 5 416 3,516,705 249,536 161 

OSTON, MA 5 289 38,624,429 249,536 316 163 

URHAM, NC 5 681 3,516,705 249,536 62 32

L PASO, TX 5 1,114 3,516,705 249,536 62 29

AYETTEVILLE, NC 5 601 4,628,276 340,607 101 

TTAABBLLEE 55

C Ups 

B 26 

B 8 

B

D

E

F 49 

GRAND RAPIDS, MI 5 530 850,740 298,287 19 37 

HELENA, MT 5 1,470 758,429 252,554 40 23 

KANSAS CITY, MO 5 250 2,227,818 258,679 97 17 

LARAMIE, WY 5 354 2,058,769 720,499 53 10 

MANHATTAN, NY 5 229 2,268,499 249,536 136 151 

MILWAUKEE, WI 5 913 9,508,429 1,028,929 331 13 

OAKLAND, CA 5 812 848,244 942,986 10 17 

PINE BLUFF, AR 5 493 1,069,088 111,133 82 5 

COLORADO

SPRINGS, CO 5 595 3,516,705 420,590 65 39 

QUEENS, NY 5 1,026 3,516,705 249,536 62 29 

SALT LAKE CITY, UT 5 395 3,516,705 230,703 75 29 

EATTLE, WA 5 1,206 32,612,013 1,242,802 99 22 

TAMFORD, CT 5 351 3,516,705 249,536 62 29 

ORCESTER, MA 5 402 21,285,429 249,536 176 

32 

S

ST. PAUL, MN 5 709 4,433,912 854,079 91 89 

S

W 88 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

TTTAAABBBLLLEEE666

Centers Attaining Growth in 4 of 5 Outcomes 

Increase from 2001 to 2003 in:

Center

o. Growth 

utcomes lients

Gross 

Receipts($) Profits ($)

New 

Jobs 

StartUps 

ALBUQUERQUE,

NM 4 553 1,285,480 -12,592 5 6

ANN ARBOR, MI 941 39,988,429 ,549,929 -11 386

AUSTIN, TX 4 -1,131 3,516,705 249,536 62 29

BOISE, ID 4 294 5,062,500 622,500 -16 57

CHATTANOOGA,

TN 4 512 3,516,705 249,536 587 -5

DENVER, CO 4 1,213 -619,791 87,349 689 308 

FORT BRAGG, CA 4 279 -394,055 13,936 22 6 

FORT WORTH, TX 4 3,022 1,087,479 -473,295 62 41

BRIDGEPORT, CT 4 11 -65,000 980,000 112 38 

KILLEEN, TX 4 -585 3,516,705 249,536 62 29

LAS CRUCES, NM 4 -85 4,464,276 402,607 19 52

MADISON, WI 4 522 688,429 113,929 19 -10

NASHVILLE, TN 4 -466 20,341,000 714,994 463 160 

PHILADELPHIA, PA 4 9 1,566,720 90,929 59 -82

PITTSBURGH, PA 4 -442 3,516,705 249,536 62 51

ST. LOUIS, MO 4 -43.5 529,005 295,084 18 14

WISCASSET, ME 4 95 3,593,350 117,583 96 -19

33 

N

O C

4 3
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

TTTAAABBBLLLEEE777

Centers Attaining Growth in 3 of 5 Outcomes 

Increase from 2001 to 2003 in:

Center 

No. Growth 

Outcomes Clients 

Gross

Receipts($) Profits ($)

New

Jobs

StartUps

ANCHORAGE, AK

ATLANTA, GA 3 -294 2,259 120,154 41 -8

BIRMINGHAM, AL 3 1,589 -156,572 516,925 0 -3

CORALVILLE, IA 3 533 -242,890 54,375 17 -7

DURANT, OK 3 829 81,407 249,536 -9 -14 

EDINBURG, TX 3 73 4,278,276 249,536 -78 -97 

FOSSTON, MN 3 653 6,741,231 980,542 -25 -1

LONG BEACH, CA 3 -358 3,516,705 249,536 62 -11 

MEDFORD, OR 3 271 339,295 -89,579 27 -6

MIDWAY, KY 3 -26 1,608,277 76,659 22 -4

NEW ORLEANS, LA 3 576 3,516,705 249,536 -8 -3

NORMAN, OK 3 650 1,386,381 249,536 -28 -22 

OKLAHOMA CITY,

OK 3 855 -1,021,571 -161,071 15 5 

PENSACOLA, FL 3 487 3,516,705 249,536 -30 -19 

PORTSMOUTH, NH 3 1,121 3,516,705 249,536 -33 -25 

PROVIDENCE, RI 3 308 -491,971 -85,871 23 1 

ROSWELL, NM 3 160 -276,075 23,122 21 -18 

SAN FRANCISCO,

34 

 3 87 1,408,000 -74,371 33 -13 

CA 3 224 666,929 249,536 -25 -1

SAN JUAN, PR 3 655 -223,939 34,686 32 -13 

ST. CROIX 3 -5,159 759,975 559,985 -41 2 

UTICA, NY 3 850 -197,571 202,929 3 -6

WASHINGTON, DC 3 -311 3,516,705 249,536 62 -21 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

TTTAAABBBLLLEEE888

Centers Attaining Growth in at least 1 Outcome 

ase from 2001 to 2003 in:

ter

Growth 

comes Clients

ross

Receipts($) Profits ($)

w 

Jobs

OOKLYN, NY 2 -10 3,516,705 10,52,292 -17 -12

ICAGO, IL -17 00 -16 

TROIT, MI - 023 -68, 00 34 

ERETT, WA - 434 -16 1 2

RT WAYNE, IN 2 843 -798,276 -170,187 37 73

EPENDENCE,

 12, ,721 -13

EXA, KS 13, ,878 1,17 75 -12 

BILE, AL 29 -73, 71 -

GO PAGO -1, ,271 -16 2 -25 

OENIX, AZ - ,486 24 36

THILL, NE -1, ,913 -14 22 17 

ONX, N - 3,471 -16 671 -17 

EENVILLE, MS 1 898 -920,671 -122,471 -37 -23

NOLULU, HI 1 1,108 -1,061,571 -76,071 -21 -1

UX FALLS, SD -1, 576 -10 73 -

NEYTOWN, MD 1 -762 -7,929,750 -399,663 -126 -37

SON, AZ 

To better unders ela nship between the number of cli nts

other impacts ( pts fits, n jobs, sta -ups), w a

general linear mu

35 

Incre

Cen

No.

Out

G Ne StartUps 

BR

CH 2 1,569 -1,571 1,0 8 

DE 2 39 933, 3 56 

EV 2 3,809 697, 8,07 -19 44 

FO

IND

WI 2 879 664 8,771 -7 -9

LEN 2 -179 312 7,7 -21 

MO 2 1,472 9,9 5 -12 12 

PA 2 1,764 161 9,38 11 

PH 2 972 845 9,5 -35 -7

WA 2 793 158 8,4 -41 

 

BR Y 1 246 16 1, -38 

GR

HO

SIO 1 650 076, 6,0 -31 18 

TA

TUC 1 -281 -978,571 249,536 -5 -3

tand the r tio e and

gross recei , pro ew rt e used

ltivariate model wherein we asked whether or not from

2001 to 2003, growth in clients would predict growth in gross receipts,

profits, new jobs, and start-ups. What we found is not intuitive - growth in 

clients did not predict growth in gross receipts or profits. What this may

indicate, however, is that we do not have sufficient data over a sufficient 

length of time for this prediction equation. 

At the same time, we found that growth in clients from 2001 to 2003 does 

predict number of new jobs and number of new firms. Thus, we have a

finding that appears to highlight the relevance of growth in terms of more 

clients, and it may reflect the specific type of client served. In other 

words, the number of clients who are not in business who are being 

assisted as compared to those already in business when they become a 

client. When viewed from this perspective, the predictive capability of 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

growth in clients for number of new jo and start-ups while not 

necessarily ble. 

bs

for gross receipts and profits is more understanda

isc n

Our study rev s that the W B ente rogra

ramatically in the three years under investigation (2001-2003). 

tantial gro h in u in bei erve

he types o lien siness rvices sought, activities and 

pacts. The WBCs are lo ro the d Sta s,

and non ban iro p s sta lone

organizations and are bundled with other agencies. 

rvices to rac hn , and the results of our study 

e Centers re ind r h t ma obj e 

men of co r. A ed a wome of co

account for only one in five business owners, whereas WBC women of 

ve

of the Centers at least

doubled the number of women of color served.

nd

ens

D

eal omen’s usiness C r p m

has grown d

We find subs wt the n mbers of dividuals ng s d,

and also in t f c ts, bu es, se

economic im cated th ughout Unite te

in both urban -ur env nments, o erate a nd-a

WBCs offer se all es/et ic groups

found that th a eed eaching t eir targe rket ectiv

of serving wo lo s not earlier, n tionally n lor

Discuussssiioon

color clients are nearly one in two. Women of color comprise almost 

one-half of the women served at the Centers and this percentage ha

remained fairly constant. Furthermore, there is every indication that these

numbers will increase with the substantial growth in non-White clients 

served at many of the WBCs. The largest non-White groups are AfricanAmericans and Latinas – both of which have experienced growth from 

2001 to 2003. In fact, 68 percent of the WBCs reported growth in the 

number of non-White clients and 41 percent

Most clients are women who have greater than 50 percent ownership in

the firm; however, the number of firms with female/male equal split 

ownership is also on the rise. Nationally, women cluster into service a

retail businesses, and these data are no different. Approximately on

half of the women have service businesses, while another one-fifth are in 

retail. In fact, the distribution of women in various types of industries alig

36 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

closely with the national data. Again similar to what we know ab

national trends for women in business, we found significant growth

out

in

clients starting or operating firms in manufacturing, wholesale, 

nd financial industries. Women are starting more nonis every reason to believe that this trend will 

to

1 million in gross 

e

e

ss

urban and non-urban

locations. An urban location produces a greater number of clients, and 

1,

construction, a

traditional bus

continue. 

Clients are ge

reported 304,1

inesses. There

nerated by touching many more women. In 2003, WBCs

86 contacts, and we project that the total contacts for all 

Centers is actually around 451,352. It takes approximately 3.3 contacts

generate a client for the WBCs. 

The growth in the number and types of clients is but one part of the story.

The amount and growth of economic impact of firms started by these

clients is the other. In 2003, WBC clients reported $293.

receipts and we project that the actual impact is closer to $407 million. 

Another way of thinking about this is that every WBC client generated 

$3,432 in gross receipts impact in 2003. And, WBC clients have profitabl

businesses - $26 million in profits in 2003, and we project that the total 

profits are probably closer to $39 million. Losses were minimal, 

representing less than two percent of gross receipts in 2003. 

In 2003, 6,493 new jobs were created which equals a new job for every 14 

clients. Of course not all WBC clients are in business when they becom

clients. In 2003, WBC clients started 3,578 new businesses which equal a

new firm for every 25 clients! 

Analyses undertaken to discover the factors that contribute to succe

reveal statistically significant differences between

37 

a greater number of clients counseled. However, a non-urban location 

produces more new jobs – at least in 2001. We also discovered that

Centers bundled with other organizations had statistically significant 

differences with regard to losses, profits, and number of contacts in 200

2002, and 2003 respectively, but that stand-alone WBCs had significantly 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

higher number of clients trained in 2003. This finding may reflect a gre

reliance on training in the stand-alone Centers.

The availability of other nationally recognized business assistance 

services, specifically SBDCs and PTACs, did not show any statistically 

significant

ater

differences in economic impacts. This lack of significance 

indicates there is a need for multiple business assistance service providers 

were matched according to 

population size and poverty level. Statistically significant differences were 

bs, and 

essful in all

five outcomes from 2001 to 2003. We revealed 21 WBCs which have 

t the WBCs which are most successful in 

reaching and growing their economic impact is the fact that “A Single 

ut

from 2001 to 2003 predicted growth in new jobs and in start-ups. On the 

within the same geographic locales.

To better understand the challenges of the economic context within 

which WBCs operate, the Centers

found in number of clients and number counseled by small and large 

population groups with both low and high poverty levels. These 

differences, however, did not further our understanding of the possible 

influence more macro-level data may actually have on the success of 

WBCs and their clients. Different or more defined measures may be 

necessary to uncover influential factors from the economic environment.

Using the major outcomes – clients, gross receipts, profits, new jo

start-ups – we were able to determine which WBCs were succ

growth in all five outcomes, and an additional 17 WBCs which have 

growth in four of the five outcomes.

Perhaps most interesting abou

38 

Model” does not emerge that fits all of these Centers. They run the gam

– from Boston, Massachusetts to Pine Bluff, Arkansas. Some are urban,

others are rural; some are stand-alone Centers, others are bundled; some

have been in operation many years, others are relatively new 

organizations; some are on the Coast, others are in the middle of the

country. Said another way, WBCs appear able to attain and sustain 

positive economic impact by focusing on the local area. We found 

value in growing the number of clients a WBC has in that growth in clients
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

other hand, increasing sheer numbers of clients did not predict increasing 

gross receipts or profits. We are left to ponder the relationship between 

clients’ stage of business, economic impact, and time – both 

representing the length of time clients have been in business as well as

the number of years for which available data exist.

eeccoommmmeennddaattiioonnss

Research Data

As with any research endeavor, more questions arise than answers 

provided, and this study is no exception. The limited descriptive data 

provided at the Center level does not allow further investigation into 

factors which may account for the success of one Center and not 

another. In addition, the large amount of missing data complicates the 

reliability of the projections, even though mean imputation is a 

Research Data

conservative approach used to handle missing data. With these facts in

mind, we recommend the following steps to improve future analysis of 

the economic impact of Women’s Business Center program: 

 Strongly encourage each WBC to provide all data 

requested.

 Determine if individual-level data are being captured at th

WBC, and if so, extract it to be used at a national level,

masking identifiers if necessary.

 Look at additional variables to better understand success. 

For example, what specific programs or services create a 

pathway that is successful for individual clients, and which 

pathways are most successful for WBCs? 

 Additional data which would be important to capture 

include: categories of wages for jobs (quality of jobs), yea

in business, self-employed, number of employees, what 

propelled them into a WBC (motivation), what kinds of 

benefits does the business provide for the owner and 

employees, education attained, debt or equity investments,

39 

 e





rs

R
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

use of technology in the firm, and social networks/social 

capital influences.

By providing better quality data and data from varying levels

individual), future research will be able to discern the factors leading to

success thereby improving the likelihood of success

(Center,

for all WBCs. 

Specific polic



PPoolliiccyy

y recommendations include:

 Co t conomic

development professionals on the viability of 

entrepreneurship, in all its myriad forms, as an economic

ntinue o educate policymakers and e

development strategy. 

 Invest in programs which show results. This investment nee

to include funding for ongoing operations as well as 

generating new programs and services. Centers which

deal about their communities and what works. Their 

continuation should be ensured.

 Invest in research to create and/or implement appropriate 

evaluation tools. Assisting Center directors to track and 

monitor their activities and impacts in a coordina

valid manner will ensure actionable knowledge a

 ds

have

been operating for a number of years have learned a great 



ted and 

t the

Center level and nationally.

 Support the coordination of Federal agencies to pro

blended fun

 vide a 

ding stream to WBCs. A coherent strategy for 

lting in even greater 

funding and providing other resources across all federal 

agencies would provide both flexibility and stability for

business assistance services, resu

40 

economic impact across the country.
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

ttuuddyyMMeetthhooddoollooggyy

AAnnaallyyssiiss PPllaann

In order to answer the researc set forth for this study, we 

developed an analysis plan to ork. This plan included the 

111... W a year?

222... Wha ar?

333.

.. Wha r?

444.

.. Wha

year

h questions

 guide our w

following questions:

h t are the total gross receipts for all centers for each

t are the total profits for all centers for each ye

t is the total number of start up for all centers for each yea

t is the total number of jobs created for all centers for each 

?

many clients were seen by all centers for each year?

many contacts were made by all centers for each year?

many clients were trained by all centers for each yea

555... How

666.

.. How

777.

.. How r?

888... How many clients were counseled by all centers for each year?

999.

.. How

cate

many clients were served by all centers in each ethnic

gory for each year?

many female owned businesses were served by all cen

ach year?

111000... How ters

for e

111111.

.. H

man

ow many clients were in each business category (construction,

ufacturing, etc.) for all centers for each year?

t are the averages (gross receipts, profits, losses, new jobs

-ups) for centers?

t are the averages (clients, contacts, c

 for centers?

111222.

.. Wha ,

start

111333... Wha ounseled, trained,

etc.)

111444.

.. Is there a relationship between how long a center has been in 

operation (regardless of SBA funding) and;

 Number of clients 

 Number of contacts 

 Number of clients trained 

 Number of clients counseled 

 Gross Receipts 

 Profits 

 Losses 

S

41 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

 Jobs Created 

 Start Ups 

15.Is

al

1155.. there a relationship between center structure (bundled/standone) and:

 Number of clients 

 Number of c

 Number of clients trained 

ontacts

 Number of clients counseled 

 Gross Receipts 

 Profits 







 Losses 

 Jobs Created 

 Start Ups 

111666...Is there a relationship between whether there are other resources

(SBDC, PTAC) in the area and:

 Number of clients 

 Number of contacts 

 Number of clients trained 

 Number of clients counseled 

 Gross Receipts 

 Profits 

 Losses 

 Jobs Created 





 Start Ups 

Is there a relatio



111777... nship between population and:

 Number of clients 

 Number of contacts 





 Number of clients trained 

 Number of clients



 counseled

 Gross Receipts 

 Profits 

 Losses 





 Jobs Created 

 Start Ups 





111888.

.. Is there a relationship between location type (urban, non-urban)

and:







Number of clients 

Number of contacts

r of clients trained 

 r of clients counseled 

Numbe

42 

Numbe
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

 Gross Receipts

 Profits 

 Losses 

 Jobs Created 

 Start Up



 s 

111999.

.. Is t e etween poverty level and:



h re a relationship b

 Number of clients 

 Number of contacts 

 Number of clients trained 

 ts counseled



Number of clien

 eceipts 



Gross R

 Profits 

 Losses 

 Jobs Created

 Start Ups 

222000.

.. W ic ly successful in terms of growth in gross 

re e and/or start-ups?

222111.

.. Whic in serving minorities (women of 

colo

h h centers are high

c ipts, profits, new jobs,

h centers have shown growth

r) over the years?

Data for c for the years 2001, 2002, and 2003 were provided by 

the Office n’s Business Ownership (OWBO). The data are 

aggregated totals for each center and included the following variables: 

T

Tota

Race

Ethnic y

Gend r

Veter

Disab y

SBA C

Home Based Business 

TANF

e

ess

Total Clients Counseled 

Total Clients Trained 

Gross Receipts 

Profits 

Losses 

Jobs Created 

Start-ups Formed 

In a ion to these data, we searched each WBC web site for two 

factors e year operations began, regardless of first OWBO funding 

year; and 2 ty or was 

bundled wi h as an Economic Development 

Council, Co uncil, or Chamber of 

Commerce.

ea h WBC

of Wome

otal Clients 

l Con

Business Typ

tacts Online Busin

it

e (Ownership)

an

ilit

lients 

ddit

: 1) th

) whether the center was a stand-alone enti

th other agencies, suc

43 

mmunity Development Co
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

In order to understand the context within which each WBC functions,

several o e bles were collected from external sources. These 

include 1) th ence of an SBDC and/or PTAC office; 2) population 

numbers, a hnicity from the 2000 Census; 3) poverty level of 

the rural,

suburba o

An Access Database was created to house all the data for each 

center. attached to each center in

order to match data from year to year. In a few instances where 

centers hav ite operations or offices, data were aggregated into 

the main center if necessary. There were a total of 92 WBCs in 2003. 

Data av ar and by variable differed by Center. 

Therefore, in some analyses undertaken, we used mean imputation for

activitie receipts, profits,

losses, new jobs, and start-ups). This conservative technique9 allows us 

to h

estimating effects. 

th r varia

e exist

r ce and et

location; and, 4) official designation as metropolitan,

n, r micropolitan.

Appropriate WBC identifiers were

e satell

ailability by ye

s and outcomes (training, counseling, gross

andle missing data while not dramatically over- or under9 is never desirable to have missing data, the reality of research is that

missing data always exist and, as researchers, we must have viable techniques to

. 

ue. 

Mean imputation (or mean substitution) is one of the most conservative approaches. 

While it

44

account for these holes in our data which provide us with the most robust analysis

There are numerous ways in which to handle the types of missing data we incurred in 

this study. Some techniques are quite complex, e.g., using regression coefficients; 

while others are quite simple, e.g., SPSS has an automatic missing data techniq

Given the wide range of outcome data for the centers, we believe that mean 

imputation is easily justified and does not over-estimate the impact. 
Economic Impact Analysis of Women’s Business Center Program 

Bibliography

risman, James J., R. Ryan Nelson, Frank Hoy, and Richard B. Robinson, Jr. 1985. “The 

Impact of SBDC Counseling Activities.” Journal of Small Business Management

23:1-11.

risman, James J. and W. Ed McMullen. 1996. “Static ecological theory, empir

evidence, and the evaluation of small business assistance programs.” Jo

Ch ical 

urnal of 

Small Business Management 1

Bibliography

Ch

1:56-66.

Chrisman, James and W. Ed McMullen. 2002. “Some additional comments on the 

sources and measurements of benefits of small business assistance programs.” 

Journal of Small Business Management 40:43-50. 

lizia, Emil E. and Edward J. Feser. 1999. Understanding Local Economic Development

pero, A. 1981. Entrepreneurship: Key to Self-Renewing Economies. Economic

Development Commentary 7:19-23. 

Shapero, A. 1977. The Role of Entrepreneurship in Economic Development at the Lessthan-National Level. Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department o

Commerce, Washington, D.C.

od, W.C. 1994. “Primary Benefits, Secondary Benefits, and the Evaluation of

Business Assistance Programs.” Journal of Small Business Management

f

Wo Small

 32:65-75.

QUALITY RESEARCH ASSOCIATES 

Ma . 

Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers. New Bruswick, NJ.

Sha

 

Quality Research Associates (QRA) provides actionable knowledge for 

its clients through rigorous, focused research and evaluation. Through 

its work, QRA has increased knowledge and understanding, reduced 

costs, expanded programs, enhanced quality, and provided 

documentation of activities, processes, and outcomes for a variety of 

clients from the public and private sectors. QRA is a full-service 

research company, offering planning and design through testing and 

implementation. Key associates, Kaaren Fife-Samyn and Gwen 

Richtermeyer, have 25+ combined years of experience conducting 

research and program evaluation. Its diverse client base includes the 

45

National Women’s Business Council, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, the Women’s Bureau, the

Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Center for Management 

Assistance, University of Missouri, Metropolitan Community Colleges,

and the Math and Science Consortium.