Transcript Family Mobility and Neighborhood Change

NNIP AND
PLACE-BASED
INITIATIVES
National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
Tom Kingsley
Kathy Pettit
Jenn Comey
Grantmakers for Effective Organizations
July 19, 2012
1
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
2
National Neighborhood
Indicators 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
3. Using information for change
National Neighborhood Indicators Partners
Atlanta
Austin
Baltimore
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
NNIP partners
DATA FROM MANY SOURCES
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
NEIGHBORHOOD DATA – BALTIMORE
PARCEL LEVEL DATA – BALTIMORE
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
Types of NNIP Partner Institutions
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
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
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
Inform community
development
decisions
Source: Center on Urban Poverty and Community Development, Case Western University
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
New Data Opportunities

National files with small area data


Open Data & Gov 2.0 movements


Examples: ACS, HMDA, NCES, LED
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)
Implications of new data for
place-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
NNIP Partnership:
Joint Work Program

Advance the state of practice
1. Informing local policy initiatives (cross-site projects)
2. Developing tools and guides

Build/strengthen local capacity
3. Developing capacity in new communities
4. Services to an expanding network

Influence national context/partnering
5. Leadership in building the field
Local Partner Efforts to Support
Place-Based Initiatives
18
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
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.
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
21
CDAD Neighborhood Typology & Website
Analytic Tools
& Framework
22
Asset
Mapping
23
Community Building and
Neighborhood Action (Memphis)

Safeways





Airport City / Aerotropolis


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
HUD Community Challenge Grant
Multiple Promise Neighborhood applications
24
Analysis of
Administrative Data
25
Original Data
Collection
26
Center for Economic Information/
Mid-America Regional Council

Urban Neighborhood Initiative

Green Impact Zones

LISC Building Sustainable Communities

Creating Sustainable Places (federal
Sustainable Communities)
27
28
Baseline
Analysis
29
Outcome
Measure
Development
30
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.
District of Columbia
Partner Spotlight
32
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
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
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
Neighborhood of Need
Poverty rates
Average family income
Kenilworth,
KPRMC,
Eastland
Gardens
47%
Mayfair,
Paradise, Lotus
Square,
DCPNI
Parkside
Footprint
52%
50%
Citywide
18%
$41,220
$27,572
$33,630
$115,016
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) participation rate
58%
40%
47%
20%
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
participation rate
Homeownership rate
Unemployment rate
31%
34%
16%
18%
7%
30%
23%
17%
25%
8%
35%
9%
Share lacking high school diploma
21%
17%
18%
15%
Share single female headed families with children
88%
85%
86%
53%
Share of teenage births
30%
10%
18%
12%
Share pregnancies with adequate prenatal care
(Kessner Index)
51%
40%
45%
62%
Share low birth-weight babies (less than 5 lbs)
Violent crime per 1,000 people
Rental vacancy rate
16%
22
0.0%
19%
13
3.2%
18%
17
2.3%
10%
13
5.9%
GPRA Indicators—Academic
Academic Indicators
Number and percent of children birth to five years old who
have a MEDICAL HOME, other than an emergency room.
Children enter kindergarten ready
to succeed in school.
Number and percent of three-year-olds and children in
kindergarten who DEMONSTRATE AGE-APPROPRIATE
FUNCTIONING across multiple domains of early learning.
Number and percent of children, from birth to kindergarten
entry, participating in center-based or formal home-based
EARLY LEARNING SETTINGS OR PROGRAMS.
Students are proficient in core
academic subjects.
Students successfully transition
from middle grades to high school.
Youth graduate from high school.
High school graduates obtain a
postsecondary degree,
certification, or credential.
Number and percent of students at or above grade level
according to State mathematics and English language arts
STATE ASSESSMENTS.
ATTENDANCE RATE of students in 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th
grade.
GRADUATION RATE
Number and percent of Promise Neighborhood students who
graduate with a regular high school diploma, as defined in 34
CFR 200.19(b)(1)(iv), and OBTAIN POSTSECONDARY
DEGREES, VOCATIONAL CERTIFICATES, OR OTHER
INDUSTRY-RECOGNIZED CERTIFICATIONS or credentials
without the need for remediation.
GPRA—Family and Community Support
Family Support and Community Indicators
Number and percent of children who participate in at least 60 minutes of
Students are healthy
moderate to vigorous PHYSICAL ACTIVITY DAILY and consume five or more
servings of FRUITS AND VEGETABLES DAILY.
Possible second indicator, to be determined, TBD
Students feel safe at school
Number and percent of students WHO FEEL SAFE AT SCHOOL and traveling
and in their community
to and from school, as measured by a school climate survey.
Possible second indicator, TBD
STUDENT MOBILITY RATE
Students live in stable
communities
Possible second indicator, TBD
Families and community
members support learning in
Promise Neighborhood
schools
Students have access to 21st
century learning tools
For birth to kindergarten entry, number and percent of children who have a
PARENT WHO READS TO THEM at least three times a week.
For children in K through 8th grade, the number and percent of parents who
report ENCOURAGING THEIR CHILDREN TO READ books outside of
school.
For children in the 9th to 12th grade, the number and percent of parents who
report TALKING WITH THEIR CHILD ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF
COLLEGE AND CAREER.
Possible second indicator TBD
Number and percent of students who have school and home access (and
percent of the day they have access) to broadband INTERNET and a
connected COMPUTING DEVICE.
Possible second indicator TBD
Ready for K Goal

% / # of young children in center-based or
formal home-based early learning programs



3 center-based centers and 4 licensed homebased centers
Quality rating system: bronze
2 public elementary schools with PK3 and PK4
classrooms
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
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
DCPNI Policy Brief

Bringing Promise to Washington, DC, The
DC Promise Neighborhood Initiative
http://www.urban.org/publications/412486.html
46
47
48
For more information
Web sites: www.neighborhoodindicators.org
www.neighborhoodinfodc.org
Tom Kingsley: [email protected], (202) 261-5585
Kathy Pettit:
[email protected], (202) 261-5670
Jenn Comey: [email protected], (202) 261-5760