Advertisement

Quality of Life at a Finer Grain: The National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership

  • G. Thomas Kingsley
  • Kathryn L.S. Pettit
Chapter
Part of the Community Quality-of-Life Indicators book series (CQLI, volume 3)

Abstract

This chapter describes the National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership (NNIP), a network of “information intermediaries” in 34 cities that develop and maintain neighborhood-level data warehouses. Their common mission is to make the data broadly available and help local stakeholders, particularly the residents of distressed neighborhoods, use the data themselves to achieve their goals more effectively. The chapter first reviews the types of NNIP institutions (primarily civic groups and university centers) and the range of their local administrative data. It then discusses how NNIP data are used to advance community interests by (1) comprehensively reviewing the well-being of the community, (2) addressing strategic issues, (3) and serving as the basis for program evaluation. It illustrates these themes by providing brief case studies from three NNIP partners in New Orleans, Cleveland, and Providence. The chapter concludes by describing the work of the partnership as a whole and implications for national policy.

Keywords

Urban Institute Community Development Corporation Providence Plan Neighborhood Indicator City Agency 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance. (2002). Vital signs for Baltimore neighborhoods: Baseline report. Baltimore, MD: Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance.Google Scholar
  2. Boston Foundation. (2009). A great reckoning, healing a growing divide: A summary of the Boston indicators report, 2009. Boston: The Boston Foundation.Google Scholar
  3. Bruner, C., & Pettine, A. (2007). School readiness research guide and toolkit: Using neighborhood data to spur action. Des Moines, IA: National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership and the State Early Childhood Policy Technical Assistance Network. September.Google Scholar
  4. Center on Urban Poverty and Community Development, Case Western University. (2009, November). Inform, influence, impact: The role of research in supporting a community’s commitment to its children. Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve University.Google Scholar
  5. Coulton, C. J. (2008). Catalog of administrative data sources for neighborhood indicators. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  6. Coulton, C. J. (1995). Using community level indicators of children’s well-being in comprehensive community initiatives. In J. P. Connel, A. C. Kubisch, L. Schorr, & C. H. Weiss (Eds.), New Approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods and context. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.Google Scholar
  7. Coulton, C. J., Leete, L., & Bania, N. (1999). Housing, transportation, and access to suburban jobs by welfare recipients in the Cleveland area. In S. J. Newman (Ed.), The implications of welfare reform for housing. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  8. Coulton, C. J., Schramm, M., & Hirsh, A. (2008). Beyond REO: Property transfers at extremely distressed prices in Cuyahoga county, 2005–2008. Cleveland, OH: Case Western University.Google Scholar
  9. Cowan, J. (2007). Stories: Using information in community building and local policy. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  10. Family Life Center. (2004) Removing the FIP/food stamp disqualification for ex-offenders convicted of drug felonies. Providence, RI: Family Life Center.Google Scholar
  11. Greater New Orleans Community Data Center. (2006). National neighborhood indicators partnership semi-annual reports. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  12. Greater New Orleans Community Data Center. (2008). National neighborhood indicators partnership semi-annual reports. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  13. Guernsey, E. H., & Pettit, K. L. (2007). NNIP data inventory 2007: A picture of local data collection across the country. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  14. Keough, N., & Clement, M. (2004). Political punishment: The consequences of felon disenfranchisement for Rhode Island communities. Providence, RI: Rhode Island Family Life Center.Google Scholar
  15. G. T. Kingsley (Ed.), (1999). Building and operating neighborhood indicator systems. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  16. Kingsley, G. T. (1998). Neighborhood indicators: Taking advantage of the new potential. Chicago: American Planning Association.Google Scholar
  17. Kingsley, G. T., Coulton, C. J., Barndt, M., Sawicki, D. S., & Tatian, P. (1997). Mapping your community: Using geographic information to strengthen community initiatives. Washington, DC: US Department of Housing and Urban Development.Google Scholar
  18. Kingsley, G. T., & Hendey, L. (2010). Using data to promote collaboration in local school readiness systems. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  19. Kingsley, G. T., & Pettit, K. L. (2008). Data and decisions: Parcel-level information changing the way business gets done. Washington, DC: Metropolitan Policy Program, The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  20. La Vigne, N. G., Cowan, J., & Brazzell, D. (2006). Mapping prisoner reentry: An action research guidebook (2nd edn). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. November.Google Scholar
  21. Liu, A., & Plyer, A. (2009). The New Orleans index: Tracking the recovery of New Orleans and the metro area. New Orleans, LA: Greater New Orleans Community Data Center.Google Scholar
  22. Lucht, J., La Vigne, N. G., Brazzell, D., & Denver, M. (Forthcoming). Enhancing supervision and support for released prisoners: A documentation and evaluation of the community supervision mapping system. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Report prepared for the National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  23. Metropolitan Philadelphia Indicators Project. (2009). Where we stand: Community indicators for Metropolitan Philadelphia. Philadelphia: Temple University.Google Scholar
  24. Ochs Center for Metropolitan Studies. (2008). State of Chattanooga region report. Chattanooga, TN: Ochs Center for Metropolitan Studies.Google Scholar
  25. Orzag, P. R. (2009). Open government directive: Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies. Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget.Google Scholar
  26. Pettit, K. L., & Droesch, A. (2008). A guide to home mortgage disclosure act data. Washington, DC: Fannie Mae Foundation.Google Scholar
  27. Pettit, K. L., Kingsley, G. T., & Coulton, C. J. (2003). Neighborhoods and health: Building evidence for local policy. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  28. Providence Plan. (November, 2009). Offender mapping: Reentry analysis 2008. Providence, RI: Rhode Island Department of Corrections.Google Scholar
  29. Robertson-Rehberg, E. (2010). Parents are first teachers program evaluation. [PowerPoint slides]. Presentation at the Southeastern Results Network (SERN) Conference in Chattanooga, TN.Google Scholar
  30. Schramm, M. (2009). NEO CANDO: Using data to aid in code enforcement activity in Cleveland and Cuyahoga County [PowerPoint slides]. Presentation at the NNIP/CURA Symposium: Neighborhood Responses to the Foreclosure Crisis in Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
  31. Schramm, M., & Hopkins, J. (2008). Parcel data: Cleveland case studyNEO CANDO and the SII program [PowerPoint slides]. Presentation at PolicyLink’s Third National Summit on Equitable Development, Social Justice, and Smart Growth.Google Scholar
  32. Taylor, G. (2010). How funders can gain a better understanding of Place, and how that understanding can help shape strategy (presentation at an Aspen Roundtable for Community Change and Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco conference, February 11–12, 2010). Chicago: Metropolitan Chicago Information Center.Google Scholar
  33. The Reinvestment Fund. (2009). Real estate market analysis. http://www.trfund.com/policysolutions/remarketvalue.html
  34. The White House. (2009). Open government: A progress report to the American people. Washington, DC: The White House.Google Scholar
  35. Timko, G. L., Bunkley, S., & George., M. (2008). Evaluation of Project Keep Engaging Youth (KEY) Columbus City Schools, Year One Interim Report. Columbus, OH: Community Research Partners.Google Scholar
  36. Treuhaft, S., & Kingsley, G. T. (2008). Transforming community development with land information systems. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.Google Scholar
  37. Turner, Margery Austin, Mark Rubin, and Michelle DeLair. (1999). Exploring welfare-to-work challenges in five metropolitan regions. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  38. Walker, C., Winston, F., & Rankin, S. (2009). Assessing community development program performance: Quantitative assessment strategies for the LISC Sustainable Communities Initiative. Washington, DC: Local Initiatives Support Corporation.Google Scholar
  39. WDSU New Orleans. (2009). City challenges census population figures. Retrieved October 2, 2009, http://www.wdsu.com/news/21184490/detail.html

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy CenterThe Urban InstituteWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations