Regional Indicators Project

1. Regional Indicators Project Metro Council Presentation January 26, 2009 by Mike Hoglund, Director, Metro Research Center Sheila Martin, Ph.D., Director, Institute of Metropolitan Studies, PSU Rita Conrad, Project Director, Regional Indicators Project

2. Overview The Issue: Co-creating Regional Indicators Project Background Options: Work Plan Elements Questions for Council Consideration

3. Co-creating Regional indicators • A growing list of partners • Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas and Clark Counties • United Way of the Columbia-Willamette • City of Portland • Greenlight Greater Portland • Portland Development Commission • POSI (Portland + Oregon Sustainability Institute) • Mt. Hood Community College • Leaders Roundtable • Institute of Metropolitan Studies, PSU • Metro • Economies of Scale The Issue

4. Goals • Deeper collective understandingof the Metro area’s environmental, social and economic progress • Improved environmental, social and economic well-beingthrough partner collaboration and the use of sound data The Issue

5. Metro will be able to: • Better evaluate Metro’s progress toward its objectives • More effectively explain to citizens what it does and why • See the bigger picture - the region’s collective progress toward shared regional goals for people, place and prosperity • Use a common language of data with partners • Expand its role of convener, collaborator and facilitator • Enhancethe Metro Council’s ability to target resources • Differentiate between regional indicators and program-based Balanced Score Card indicators The Issue

6. Background Metro and PSU Perspectives

7. Background – Metro Perspective • Metro has performance indicators for: • Region 2040, the Future Vision • Urban Growth Management Functional Plan • Regional Transportation Plan • But we can do better. This project will: • Better align Metro performance to its own objectives • Better align Metro performance to shared regional goals for people, place and prosperity • Support more consistent reporting Project Background

8. Background – PSU Perspective • Regional indicators are mission critical • Gathering and disseminating information • Convening regional partners in a neutral setting • Stimulating dialogue and action on critical issues • Promoting regional approaches and partnerships • Regional indicators can stimulate deeper research and understanding Project Background

9. Options: Work Plan Elements Success Factors Principles Phases Teams Timeline

10. Success Factors • Shared Vision • We need to decide what we want to know together; data will depend on the question we are asking. (Kick-off Participant) • Shared Data • It would be extremely useful to house all of the data collected in a universal location where a variety of actors can access this information. (Kick-off Participant) • Collaboration • Use the indicators to promote collaboration. If people see the benefit, they can have a better conversation. (Kick-off Participant) Options – Work Plan Elements

11. Project Principles • Inter-connectedness of People, Place and Prosperity • Progress requires people. • Doing is knowing. • Knowledge is dispersed throughout the system. • Requires the practice of listening to learn • Shared data can inspire, catalyze and ground partner conversations Options – Work Plan Elements

12. Project will bring many partners to the table. (11 x 17 handout) Vibrant Communities Clean Air & Water Sustainability Economic Prosperity Fairness & Equity Safe & Reliable Transportation Options – Work Plan Elements

13. Another Approach to People, Place, Prosperity Courtesy of Charlotte Kahn, Boston Indicators Project Prosperity Place

14. Phases of Indicator Development • Choosing Indicators –a political process • Measuring Indicators – a technical process • Using Indicators – a communications and results management process Options – Work Plan Elements

15. Proposed TeamsThere will be some overlap. Oversight Development Leaders, funders & big picture thinkers Develop/implement processes for choosing and using indicators Doers and content experts from each of the major sectors Reality-check the indicators Data gathering/distribution Data experts from pertinent sectors Web strategy Frequency & nature of reports Media & outreach Communications, web and online database designers and experts Options – Work Plan Elements

16. A small sampling of partners… Foundations, Leaders Roundtable, OBC, Chalkboard, PSU… …and potential team members Housing Authorities, Metro Council, MPAC Metro Council, MPAC, JPACT and many others OBC, PBA, Metro Council, MPAC, GGP, PDC… Metro Council, JPACT, ODOT, others Foundations, Entertainment Sector, Metro Council/MERC, State, NGOs Foundations, Counties, State, NGOs, Metro Council and others Foundations, Metro Council, MPAC and others

17. Timeline Options – Work Plan Components

18. What to expect by July 2011 A shared vision for the region The first (of many) regional report cards Networks of partners collaborating around the data Organization, governance and funding to sustain the effort long term

19. Questions for Council Consideration What does success of this project look like in your minds? What are your thoughts on the team approach? What is your comfort level in expanding Metro’s normal radar screen to indicators like education, teen pregnancy, and crime and poverty? Do you have other questions or comments?

20. General comments and responses - THEMES • What success looks like • Partners and diverse populations region-wide (not just Portland or Metro taking on more) own and use the indicators. • Indicators and data are respected regardless of ideological perspective. • Indicators reflect shared goals/desired results, not inputs, including qualitative trend data on well-being (whether citizens are engaged, happy and successful). • Dynamics between indicators are addressed - some indicators are at odds. • Indicators are applied, have consequences and are used in policy and investment decisions. • The Indicator Project enhances smart action (not talk at that expense of action). • Thoughts on the team approach • Necessary, but one group needs to drive momentum and accountability year after year. • Comfort level in expanding Metro’s normal radar screen • Good, in that other partners will own those indicators Metro does not directly work on • Some may be concerned that Metro’s role is expanding. • Other • Would like to see indicator on local food systems – access, productivity, supply