USING INFORMATION FOR COMMUNITY CHANGE The National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership (NNIP)

1. USING INFORMATION FORCOMMUNITY CHANGEThe National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership (NNIP) Tom Kingsley The Urban Institute

2. NEW POSSIBILITIES • Vast expansion: availability of relevant data • Local data intermediaries • Mobilizing local administrative records • National datasets with small area data • Changing how key functions performed • Addressing individual issues • Planning comprehensive revitalization • Performance management & evaluation

3. LOCAL DATA INTERMEDIARIES • Now exist in most large cities - Operate ongoing neighborhood information systems - One stop shop for data from many sources - University institutes and non-profits • Explicitly set up by civic leaders to - Work directly in neighborhood revitalization - Assist decisions on city-wide issues • 35 belong to National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership (NNIP)

4. AtlantaBaltimore 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 Current National Neighborhood Indicators Partners Philadelphia Pittsburgh Portland Providence Sacramento Saint Louis San Antonio Seattle Washington, DC

5. Offer a one-stop-shop for data - Tremendous efficiency for users - Benefits of social infrastructure • Positioned to maintain trust of data providers and users over long term - Not linked to short term political interest - Care with cleaning and release of data • Are, or can be, locally self sustaining - Fee/project income can cover majority of cost - But some local general support required

6. 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 LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE DATA NOW AVAILABLE FROM MANY SOURCES

7. NEIGHBORHOOD DATA–BALTIMORE

8. PARCEL LEVEL DATA –BALTIMORE

9. NATIONAL DATA SETS FOR LOCAL USE • Example: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act • HMDA data on mortgage originations with borrower characteristics by census tract, annual since mid-1990s • Now many other sources • Census/ACS, income (IRS); schools (NCES); • jobs and commuting (LED) • The “open-data” movement • Potential for many more

10. INFORMATION FOR CHANGE • Democratizing Information • - Facilitating the direct use of data by stakeholders - not writing the reports yourself • A central mission — strengthening, empowering low-income neighborhoods - Partners work for many clients but influence of this theme evident in all their work • Information as a bridge for collaboration

11. NNIP – LOCAL APPLICATIONS • Applications of indicators in local change initiatives • City wide policy analysis to change laws and policies • Data to guide program planning and implementation (spatial targeting of resources) • Data to support neighborhood improvement and community development initiatives – individual neighborhoods • Data to support program/policy evaluation • Comprehensive indicator report/review • Well developed in Boston, Baltimore, Chattanooga, Philadelphia • Several other cities making progress

13. Legend High Poverty Neighborhoods Other Neighborhoods Trends in Teen Birth Rates (age 15-19) in High Poverty and Other Neighborhoods, 1990-2000 Oakland, California Denver, Colorado

14. High rate of churning among students

15. Instability concentrated in certain neighborhoods

16. Prenatal care by mobility status Risk factors can identify families more likely to face residential instability

17. Cross-site initiatives HOUSING MARKETS/FORECLOSURE • Taking advantage of recent improvements in parcel-level data • Focus on tools to bring timely and relevant information to decisions around property • Better information will help cities, nonprofits, private actors • Early warning of foreclosures and impacts • Neighborhood targeted prevention • Develop neighborhood specific stabilization strategies • Coordinate and track progress

18. Subprime density by race/povertySubprime loans per 1,000 units in 1-4 unit structures (2004-06 annual average) 100 Metros

19. Data Tools - Providence Land Data System

20. The foreclosure crisis in Cleveland • A weak market city devastated by foreclosures (data from NEO CANDO) Prepared by: Center on Urban Poverty and Community Development, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University. Source: NEO CANDO (http://neocando.case.edu), Cuyahoga County Auditor

23. Foreclosure responseNEIGHBORHOOD STRATEGY FRAMEWORK

24. Cleveland Neighborhood Stabilization CATALYZING MARKET RECOVERY • Data driven planning process managed by NPI and based on NEO CANDO • Neighborhood specific strategies built around anchor projects and targeted foreclosure intervention • NEO CANDO the basis for land assembly • Analysis of a mix of data including ownership, vacancy status, sales prices, water shut-offs, foreclosure filings • Analysis supports determining reasonable acquisition price range

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

26. An important trend “COLLECTIVE IMPACT” INITIATIVES • Basics of Collective Impact • Multiple programs (silos) collaborate • Clear statement shared measureable goals • Strong data component – joint commitment to performance monitoring • Best known example: “Strive” in Cincinatti • “Cradel to Career” programs – 3 large school districts • 300 organizational leaders • Tracking 53 success indicators • Improving trends in 34

27. NNIP Example EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS • Programs highly fragmented • Home visits, child care, head-start, child health • 8 NNIP cities – same approach • Scan of who is in the system – meet with them • Initial analysis – multiple measures of child risks and support programs by neighborhood • Public meetings with all participants – review analysis, develop joint strategies • Commitment to long term collaboration, recurrent reports on progress; improving data

28. Young children risk index - Cleveland

29. Proximity: problems x good schools

30. THE MISSION OF THE PARTNERSHIP • Advance the state of practice • Informing local policy initiatives (substantive cross-site work) • Developing tools and guides (NNIP Elements of Practice) • Build/strengthen local capacity • 3. Developing capacity in new communities • 4. Services to an expanding network (Community of Practice and Partnership) • Influence national context/partnering • 5. Leadership in building the field

31. For more information on NNIP • Web site: www.neighborhoodindicators.org • To access data: www.MetroTrends.org • Email: nnip@ui.urban.org • Mailing address: • Tom Kingsley • National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership • c/o The Urban Institute • 2100 M Street NW • Washington, DC 20037