NNIP%20AND%20PLACE-BASED%20INITIATIVES

1
NNIP AND PLACE-BASED INITIATIVES

• National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
• Tom Kingsley
• Kathy Pettit
• Jenn Comey
• Grantmakers for Effective Organizations
• July 19, 2012

2
Todays 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 Providenc
e Sacramento Saint Louis San Antonio Seattle Washi
ngton, DC
5
NNIP partners DATA FROM MANY SOURCES

• Parcel level physical/
• economic
• Prop. sales, prices
• Prop. ownership
• Code violations
• Assessed values
• Tax arrears
• Vacant/abandoned
• City/CDC plans

• Neighborhood level
• social/economic/physical
• Employment
• Births, deaths
• Crimes
• TANF, Food Stamps
• Child care
• Health
• Schools

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 PartnershipJoint 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
• HHSs Teen Pregnancy and Parenting Success
• Mayors 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)

28
(No Transcript)
29
Baseline Analysis
30
Outcome Measure Development
31
Challenges from NNIP perspective

• Pre-existing administrative data does not always
  capture programs 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
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
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
Kenilworth, KPRMC, Eastland Gardens Mayfair, Paradise, Lotus Square, Parkside DCPNI Footprint Citywide
Poverty rates 47 52 50 18
Average family income 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 31 18 23 8
Homeownership rate 34 7 17 35
Unemployment rate 16 30 25 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) 16 19 18 10
Violent crime per 1,000 people 22 13 17 13
Rental vacancy rate 0.0 3.2 2.3 5.9
40
GPRA IndicatorsAcademic
Academic Indicators Academic Indicators
Children enter kindergarten ready to succeed in school.     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.
Children enter kindergarten ready to succeed in school.     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. Number and percent of students at or above grade level according to State mathematics and English language arts state assessments.
Students successfully transition from middle grades to high school. Attendance rate of students in 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th grade.
Youth graduate from high school. Graduation rate
High school graduates obtain a postsecondary degree, certification, or credential. 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.
41
GPRAFamily and Community Support
Family Support and Community Indicators Family Support and Community Indicators
Students are healthy   Number and percent of children who participate in at least 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity daily and consume five or more servings of fruits and vegetables daily.
Students are healthy   Possible second indicator, to be determined, TBD
Students feel safe at school and in their community   Number and percent of students who feel safe at school and traveling to and from school, as measured by a school climate survey.
Students feel safe at school and in their community   Possible second indicator, TBD
Students live in stable communities   Student mobility rate
Students live in stable communities   Possible second indicator, TBD
Families and community members support learning in Promise Neighborhood schools       For birth to kindergarten entry, number and percent of children who have a parent who reads to them at least three times a week.
Families and community members support learning in Promise Neighborhood schools       For children in K through 8th grade, the number and percent of parents who report encouraging their children to read books outside of school.
Families and community members support learning in Promise Neighborhood schools       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.
Families and community members support learning in Promise Neighborhood schools       Possible second indicator TBD
Students have access to 21st century learning tools   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.
Students have access to 21st century learning tools   Possible second indicator TBD
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

43
(No Transcript)
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

47
(No Transcript)
48
(No Transcript)
49
For more information

• Web sites www.neighborhoodindicators.org
• www.neighborhoodinfodc.org
• Tom Kingsley tkingsle_at_urban.org, [phone]
• Kathy Pettit kpettit_at_urban.org, [phone]
• Jenn Comey jcomey_at_urban.org, [phone]