NNIP AND PLACE-BASED INITIATIVES

1. NNIP AND PLACE-BASED INITIATIVES National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership Tom Kingsley Kathy Pettit Jenn Comey Grantmakers for Effective Organizations July 19, 2012

2. Today’s presentation • NNIP Model and Examples • Local Partner Efforts to Support Place-Based Initiatives • Detroit, Memphis, Kansas City • District of Columbia Partner Spotlight • DC Promise Neighborhoods and NeighborhoodInfoDC

3. National NeighborhoodIndicators Partnership (NNIP) • Collaborative effort since 1995 • Urban Institute & local partners; now 36 cities • All partners build and operate neighborhood level information systems; administrative data from multiple sources • Success required three innovations 1. Data and technology 2. Institutions • Using information for change

4. National Neighborhood Indicators Partners Atlanta AustinBaltimore Boston Camden Chattanooga Chicago Cleveland Columbus Dallas Denver Des Moines Detroit Grand Rapids Hartford Indianapolis Kansas City Louisville Memphis Miami Milwaukee Minneapolis-St. Paul Nashville New Haven New Orleans New York City Oakland Philadelphia Pittsburgh Portland Providence Sacramento Saint Louis San Antonio Seattle Washington, DC

5. Neighborhood level – social/economic/physical Employment Births, deaths Crimes TANF, Food Stamps Child care Health Schools Parcel level – physical/ economic Prop. sales, prices Prop. ownership Code violations Assessed values Tax arrears Vacant/abandoned City/CDC plans NNIP partners DATA FROM MANY SOURCES

6. NEIGHBORHOOD DATA – BALTIMORE

7. PARCEL LEVEL DATA – BALTIMORE

8. New Types of Institutions • Mostly outside of local government • Nonprofits, university centers, alliances, funders • Four include metropolitan planning councils • But partner with resident groups, nonprofits, government, and other stakeholders • Long-term and multifaceted interests • Positioned to maintain trust of data providers and users

9. Types of NNIP Partner Institutions

10. Shared Mission: Information for Change • “Democratizing Information” • Facilitate the direct use of data by stakeholders • Data serves many varied audiences and purposes • But a central focus on strengthening and empowering low-income neighborhoods • Information promotes collaboration • Acts as a bridge among public agencies, nonprofits, businesses

11. Local Applications • Comprehensive community indicator review • Recurrent review of indicators across topics – assess community quality of life • Using indicators in local change initiatives • City or metro-wide analysis to change laws and policies • Geographic targeting/coordination of resources for programs and investments • Individual neighborhood improvement initiatives • Performance management and program evaluation

12. Advocate for Legal Reform Individuals convicted of selling drugs were permanently barred from receiving food stamps, making their transition more difficult and denying help to their children Source: Providence Plan

13. Inform community development decisions Source: Center on Urban Poverty and Community Development, Case Western University

14. Highlight Effects of Foreclosure on Children Forced mobility can put kids behind academically and socially. Foreclosure prevention counselors should connect families to student services. Schools need to understand the how their students are affected by foreclosure to design appropriate responses. Source: NeighborhoodInfo DC

15. New Data Opportunities • National files with small area data • Examples: ACS, HMDA, NCES, LED • Open Data & Gov 2.0 movements • Pushing governments to release internal data files to the public • Integrated Data Systems (IDS) • Records on individuals and families from multiple social service agencies • Most used so far for policy analysis (not case management)

16. Implications of new data forplace-based initiatives • Richer analysis for NNIP partners involved in Promise, Choice and/or others • Context measures and outcome measures • Stronger base for performance management • IDS offers data what happens to clients in individual programs – might be aggregated at neighborhood level • Prospects for “collective impact” measures

17. NNIP Partnership:Joint Work Program • Advance the state of practice • Informing local policy initiatives (cross-site projects) • Developing tools and guides • Build/strengthen local capacity • Developing capacity in new communities • Services to an expanding network • Influence national context/partnering • Leadership in building the field

18. Local Partner Efforts to Support Place-Based Initiatives

19. Data/analytic support for planning, performance management & evaluation • Target area selection • Contextual analysis • Original data collection • Technical assistance on data collection and use • Needs assessment • Analysis of program and administrative data • Analytic tools and frameworks • Resident engagement and capacity-building • Process and impact evaluation

20. Advantages of NNIP partner support • NNIP partners bring: • Knowledge of local context and players • A strong reputation and network of pre-existing relationships • Ability to connect initiative to other related efforts (either neighborhood-specific or city-wide) • Knowledge of availability and quality of data sources • Comprehensive approach to understanding neighborhoods, reflected in their multi-topic data collections • Efforts to assemble new data also contributes to system that can be re-used for other community needs.

21. Data Driven Detroit (D3) • Living Cities: Integration Initiative • LISC Building Sustainable Communities • CDAD Strategic Framework • Woodward Corridor Initiative • Skillman Good Neighborhoods • North End Neighborhood Strategic Investment Plan • Multiple Promise Neighborhood Initiatives

22. CDAD Neighborhood Typology & Website Analytic Tools & Framework

23. Asset Mapping

24. Community Building and Neighborhood Action (Memphis) • Safeways • Began with DOJ grant from local partner • Defending Childhood Against Violence • HHS’s Teen Pregnancy and Parenting Success • Mayor’s Innovation Delivery Team Youth Violence Reduction • Airport City / Aerotropolis • HUD Community Challenge Grant • Multiple Promise Neighborhood applications

25. Analysis of Administrative Data

26. Original Data Collection

27. Center for Economic Information/Mid-America Regional Council • Urban Neighborhood Initiative • Green Impact Zones • LISC Building Sustainable Communities • Creating Sustainable Places (federal Sustainable Communities)

29. Baseline Analysis

30. Outcome Measure Development

31. Challenges from NNIP perspective • Pre-existing administrative data does not always capture program’s intended outcomes. • Governments can take awhile to release some data, hindering real-time tracking. • How do we interpret neighborhood change in context of residential mobility? • Facilitating performance management needs intensive engagement with grantees.

32. District of Columbia Partner Spotlight

36. Key tasks for monitoring and evaluating DC Promise Neighborhood Initiative • Needs assessment and segmentation analysis • Understanding the status of neighborhood residents • Government Performance Reporting Act (GPRA) indicators • Strategy development • Data systems • Longitudinal case management system (individual) • Aggregated data tracking system (school and neighborhood) • Performance monitoring and outcome evaluation • Process study

37. Quantitative Data Collection • Census data at tract and block level • Local administrative data • Collected via partnerships • Working to obtain individual level • Real time, iterative, on-going • School climate survey • Census of targeted middle and high school • Data Collection • Census data and national surveys • Administrative data • Collected by UI via partnerships developed through RDWGs and existing UI partnerships • Starting with aggregated data – working on individual • Real time, iterative, on-going • Focus groups • 5 focus groups with 40 participants • Collect hard-to-collect indicators (i.e., Internet connection, medical home, family involvement in school)

38. Qualitative Data Collection • Focus groups • 5 focus groups with 40 participants • Obtain hard-to-collect indicators • Teacher interviews • Stakeholder and resident feedback • Information from stakeholders during working group meetings • Information from resident retreats

39. Neighborhood of Need

40. GPRA Indicators—Academic

41. GPRA—Family and Community Support

42. Ready for K Goal • % / # of young children in center-based or formal home-based early learning programs • 3 center-based centers and 4 licensed home-based centers • Quality rating system: bronze • 2 public elementary schools with PK3 and PK4 classrooms

44. Needs Assessment Finding • Slightly more than half of all 0-4 year olds enrolled in formal early child care • However, early child care providers rated as low quality • Strategy impact • Open new child care center with large number of infant slots (Educare) • Increase quality of providers through home visitations and training

45. NIDC and DPNI Synergy • NIDC provided • Strong planning proposal • In-depth information about neighborhood, schools, and residents • Targeted strategy development • DCPNI provided • Expanded expertise in ages 0 to 24 • Opportunity to develop more partnerships within city

46. DCPNI Policy Brief • Bringing Promise to Washington, DC, The DC Promise Neighborhood Initiative http://www.urban.org/publications/412486.html

49. For more information Web sites: www.neighborhoodindicators.org www.neighborhoodinfodc.org Tom Kingsley: tkingsle@urban.org, (202) 261-5585 Kathy Pettit: kpettit@urban.org, (202) 261-5670 JennComey: jcomey@urban.org, (202) 261-5760