How much do Community Indicators CI bridge information gaps in policymaking An assessment of current - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 47
About This Presentation
Title:

How much do Community Indicators CI bridge information gaps in policymaking An assessment of current

Description:

How much do Community Indicators CI bridge information gaps in policymaking An assessment of current – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:71
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 48
Provided by: SAR1151
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: How much do Community Indicators CI bridge information gaps in policymaking An assessment of current


1
How much do Community Indicators (CI) bridge
information gaps in policy-making? An assessment
of current CI projects within the US. Sutapa
Chatterjee Masters Thesis, 2005 Advisor
Virginia Carlson University of Wisconsin
Milwaukee Department of Urban Planning
2
The Problem
  • Information Sources -
  • Census data - Unavailable for smaller areas
  • Administrative data - Difficult to obtain for
    common people
  • Proprietary data - Too expensive
  • Anecdotal information - Unreliable
  • Issues with existing information
  • Available to public?
  • Measures a problem?
  • Drives a decision?
  • Sparks an action?
  • Information Asymmetry - Imbalance of Information
    between investor and seller
    Causes Market Imperfections -
  • Improper Use of Resources
  • Poor Return on Investment
  • Inequality (Stiglitz, 2000)
  • What is the potential of Community Indicators to
    reduce informational barriers and influence
    actions?

3
Outline of Discussion
  • Introduction Nature of Community Indicators
  • Data Methodology Inventory of Community
    Indicator Projects within US
  • Findings Results of Survey
  • Recommendation Conclusion Further Research

4
Community Indicator (CI)
  • Community Indicator
  • presentation of measurements
  • summarize characteristics of systems
  • highlight what is happening in a system
  • simplify complex phenomena
  • gauge status of a system to inform action
    (Berry, 2002)
  • Purpose
  • Inter-censal data
  • Local data / issues
  • Unified source of Information
  • Citizen Empowerment
  • Affect Policies through sound analysis

5
Why build CI?
  • Identify Hidden Assets
  • Understand Community Values
  • Measure Progress of Community Government
  • Measure Investment Potential
  • Create New Markets / Programs
  • Prepare for Private / Foreign Investments
  • Increase Agency Accountability
  • Have focused growth / Sustainable Development
  • Plan for Future Challenges

6
So, where are the information gaps?
  • Eg.
  • Increase Agency Accountability -
  • Benefits of new jobs (2 yrs old) vs existing
    jobs
  • Parttime workers in a city/organization. of
    work hrs/wk
  • Absorption rate of new graduates in local market
    and elsewhere
  • Measure Progress of Community Government -
  • of people migrated from suburbs to its central
    city, why
  • Reduce Shortcomings -
  • Number of homeless people
  • Average waiting time in congestion

7
Criteria
  • Data quality
  • - Source
  • - Type
  • - Content
  • - Downloadable
  • - Integrated with GIS
  • - Lowest Geographic level of Analysis
  • - Available for Multiple Years
  • - Comparable with other Geographies
  • - Intended User

8
Criteria
  • Linked to decision-making (Functionality)
  • - Copies Distributed /Website Visits
  • - Used by..
  • - How did it help
  • - Actions that came out
  • - Role
  • - Frequency of feedback

9
Criteria
  • Availability and Sustainability
  • - Frequency of Update
  • - Institutionalization
  • - Online Availability
  • - Cost of data / Report
  • - Total Cost of the Project
  • - Current Funding
  • - Future Funding
  • - Funding Problems
  • - Other Problems
  • - Current Status
  • - Likelihood of doing CI

10
Data Methodology
The Inventory - All CI projects within US till
2005 - Measures all aspects of urban problems
(at least Demographic, Social, Economic)
Projects excluded - National Level projects
- Specialized projects, eg. drug, education,
environment, etc. - Community Assessment
reports, Statistical Abstracts, State of the
Cities reports, Data Portals, etc. Survey of
Selected Reports
11
Data Sources
  • Print sources -
  • Community Indicators Handbook (Redefining
    Progress, 1997)
  • Web resources -
  • Global directory of Indicators Initiatives
    IISD
  • Sustainable Measures
  • International Sustainability Indicators Network
    (ISIN)
  • Interagency Working Group on Sustainable
    Development Indicators (SDI Group)
  • Sustainable Communities Network (SCN)
  • CIC Website
  • Google Search
  • Conference
  • NAPC Conference

12
Inventory of CI Initiatives
13
Survey
  • Random Sample of 25 CI initiatives
  • Midwest 32 of the sample
  • Northeast 12
  • South 36
  • West 20
  • Phone Interview
  • Av. 8 calls / project with follow-ups and emails
  • Av. Duration of Interview 50 mins.
  • 21 projects Participated
  • 2 projects Emailed Responses
  • 19 projects Responded on Phone
  • For 5 projects, 2 people responded for each
    project
  • 3 could not be Reached
  • 1 has no Contact Information
  • Respondents 15 Universities, 35 Govt., 50
    Private/Non-profit

14
Findings
15
From Inventory
  • Total 180 projects
  • Implemented by 39 States and DC
  • States missing AR (ongoing), DE, ID, KY
    (ongoing), NH, ND, RI, SD, UT, WV, WY
  • 5 Focus areas
  • - Quality of Life Culture, Arts, Recreation,
    Opportunities..
  • - Sustainability Natural Resources
  • - Health Community Well-being (Minimum
    Standards), Civic Improvement
  • - Economic Development Job Creation, Raising
    Living Standards
  • - Performance Evaluation / Benchmarks
    Programs, Organizations, Goals

16
From Inventory More .
  • Geographic Scope
  • State 29 Projects
  • Regional 9
  • Metropolitan 82
  • County 40
  • Municipal 15
  • District (DC) 1
  • School District 1

17
From Survey Data Quality - Source
  • Values not mutually exclusive
  • Survey data includes attitudes, needs assessment
    of womens health issues, schools, physical form,
    and opinions.
  • 32 projects Paid for Secondary data (small
    amount), 52 Free

18
Data Quality Data Type
  • Microdata Statistical Data for Individuals,
    Households, Buildings, Organizations
  • Aggregated Data Statistical, Downloadable,
  • Analyzed Descriptive with Graphs and Text.
  • Microdata for the CI projects are available at
    Building-level Real-Estate Data

19
Data Quality Data Content
  • People-based data Demographic, Socio-economic,
    Housing
  • Place-based data Infrastructure, Environment,
    Spatial, Physical Form
  • Business data Financial, Trade, Industry,
    Exports..
  • Intangible data RD, Knowledge Capital,
    Trademarks, Software..
  • Values not mutually exclusive
  • Place-based data is available at much less
    detail compared to people-based data
  • Business data is very broad and general

20
Data Quality GIS Integration
  • Projects with GIS capabilities have microdata or
    aggregate with spatial reference (place-based
    data)
  • Allows easy comparison across similar
    geographies

21
Data Quality Unit of Analysis
  • Counties are building blocks of large
    Metropolitan Areas
  • 45 of projects have Metropolitan areas as
    geographic scope
  • Also, Census data reports most data at the
    County level

22
Functionality Informed in.
  • Example
  • Acted as a catalyst for change. It followed on
    with the Vision 2020 program, which helped create
    a vision for the valley. It served as a
    beginning point in creating charter schools and
    made a difference in the education system by
    helping to build new educational programs. Also
    assisted in community colleges and workforce
    development programs.

23
Functionality Actions ..
  • Example
  • Comprehensive Planning - Two biggest urban
    infill development (infill project for airports)
    used our data. It tracked changes in the
    neighborhood where the project is going on and
    its surrounding neighborhoods to block
    gentrification. Allocated resources in the
    budgeting process - The Tax Payer Bill of Rights
    was passed and now more tax dollars are allocated
    for education. Attracted federal grants for human
    services.

24
Sustainability Frequency of Update
  • Number of updates is not taken into evaluation.
    The average number of updates is twice.

25
Sustainability - Institutionalization
  • 2 projects could not be institutionalized for
    funding
  • 1 for having no formal organization

26
Sustainability - Cost to get the report / data
  • Almost no income from the project

27
Sustainability - Total Costs of the Project
  • W- Website only

28
Sustainability - Current Funding
  • Foundations contribute the most.

29
Sustainability - Future Funding
30
Sustainability - Current Status
  • Only 8 of the continuing projects are
    Neighborhood Indicator (NI) projects

31
Sustainability - Feasibility of Doing Indicators
32
Conclusion
  • Educational reference for civic improvement
  • Undefined Target users (citizen-oriented)
  • Undefined purpose Not tied to user needs
  • Democratizing administrative data
  • Mostly existing data, in analyzed form
  • Almost no details of places, businesses/organizat
    ions, or tangible assets
  • Few downloadable data for individual analysis
  • Not integrated with GIS for quick
    cross-sectional comparisons
  • Unsuitable for individual analysis
  • Service provider rather than a product with a
    selling value
  • Dependent on external funding (unreliable)
  • Not self-sustaining in its current form

33
How can CI improve
  • Opportunities
  • Problem-oriented data collection
  • Report / Sell non-analyzed or non-indexed data
  • Tie the initiative to funders needs
  • Improve feedback mechanism to keep track of who
    is using the reports and how they are being used
  • Ask users / target audience for funding
  • Promote collaboration between funders and
    policymakers

34
Challenges
  • Indicators for education and data for measuring
    problems
  • Unified source of accessing the statistics
  • - directly (free) or with links/user fees
  • - nationally or statewide
  • Standards for pricing data
  • Data sharing standards for integrating data
  • Data Security for sensitive data or microdata
  • Tracking action from information

35
Limitations Further Research
  • Limitations
  • Based on Online information
  • Response Bias of Producers
  • Assuming other forces of action (than
    information) such as leadership, funding,
    willingness to change, etc. are available and
    constant
  • Questions to be Explored
  • Study on a case-by-case basis
  • - To what extent a project satisfies each
    criterion
  • Exploring alternative ways of measuring
    effectiveness of CI projects
  • Evaluating effectiveness of indicators

36
Thanks ! Questions?? Contact Sutapa
Chatterjee sutapa_at_uwm.edu, sutapac_at_gmail.com
37
Appendix
38
Data Quality - Scope
  • NI are targeted towards Metropolitan Areas

39
Data Quality Multiple Years
  • Only 1 2 projects have data reported for
    multiple years consistently for most indicators
    at close intervals (time-series data).
  • Most projects that have time-series data report
    them at 10 year intervals.

40
Data Quality Cross-Sectional Data
  • Comparison with communities outside the region
    is crucial to attract exporting businesses

41
Data Quality - Downloadable
  • Copying from PDF documents may not be known to
    user groups, can be time-taking and difficult.
  • Projects reporting aggregated data and
    microdata, with online reporting are downloadable.

42
Functionality Prints / Website Visits
  • May not necessarily mean the reported number of
    prints are used.
  • Not a very good indicator of measuring NI
    usefulness.

43
Functionality Role Played
  • Values not mutually exclusive

44
Functionality - Feedback
  • Most organizations guessed this answer. Not a
    lot of them have formal feedback mechanisms.

45
Sustainability Online Availability
  • Among the ones that were online, 2 projects
    stopped, 1 is being updated

46
Sustainability Funding Problems
  • Values not mutually exclusive

47
Sustainability - Other Problems
  • Values not mutually exclusive
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com