Title: How much do Community Indicators CI bridge information gaps in policymaking An assessment of current
1How 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
2The 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?
3Outline of Discussion
- Introduction Nature of Community Indicators
- Data Methodology Inventory of Community
Indicator Projects within US - Findings Results of Survey
- Recommendation Conclusion Further Research
4Community 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
5Why 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
6So, 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
7Criteria
- Data quality
- - Source
- - Type
- - Content
- - Downloadable
- - Integrated with GIS
- - Lowest Geographic level of Analysis
- - Available for Multiple Years
- - Comparable with other Geographies
- - Intended User
8Criteria
-
- Linked to decision-making (Functionality)
- - Copies Distributed /Website Visits
- - Used by..
- - How did it help
- - Actions that came out
- - Role
- - Frequency of feedback
9Criteria
- 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
10Data 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
11Data 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
12Inventory of CI Initiatives
13Survey
- 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
14Findings
15From 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
16From Inventory More .
- Geographic Scope
- State 29 Projects
- Regional 9
- Metropolitan 82
- County 40
- Municipal 15
- District (DC) 1
- School District 1
17From 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
18Data 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
19Data 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
20Data Quality GIS Integration
- Projects with GIS capabilities have microdata or
aggregate with spatial reference (place-based
data) - Allows easy comparison across similar
geographies
21Data 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
22Functionality 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.
23Functionality 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.
24Sustainability Frequency of Update
- Number of updates is not taken into evaluation.
The average number of updates is twice.
25Sustainability - Institutionalization
- 2 projects could not be institutionalized for
funding - 1 for having no formal organization
26Sustainability - Cost to get the report / data
- Almost no income from the project
27Sustainability - Total Costs of the Project
28Sustainability - Current Funding
- Foundations contribute the most.
29Sustainability - Future Funding
30Sustainability - Current Status
- Only 8 of the continuing projects are
Neighborhood Indicator (NI) projects
31Sustainability - Feasibility of Doing Indicators
32Conclusion
- 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
33How 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
34Challenges
- 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
35Limitations 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
36Thanks ! Questions?? Contact Sutapa
Chatterjee sutapa_at_uwm.edu, sutapac_at_gmail.com
37Appendix
38Data Quality - Scope
- NI are targeted towards Metropolitan Areas
39Data 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.
40Data Quality Cross-Sectional Data
- Comparison with communities outside the region
is crucial to attract exporting businesses
41Data 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.
42Functionality Prints / Website Visits
- May not necessarily mean the reported number of
prints are used. - Not a very good indicator of measuring NI
usefulness.
43Functionality Role Played
- Values not mutually exclusive
44Functionality - Feedback
- Most organizations guessed this answer. Not a
lot of them have formal feedback mechanisms.
45Sustainability Online Availability
- Among the ones that were online, 2 projects
stopped, 1 is being updated
46Sustainability Funding Problems
- Values not mutually exclusive
47Sustainability - Other Problems
- Values not mutually exclusive