HOW DOES ONE DEFINE NEIGHBORHOOD SUCCESS AND EVALUATE PROGRESS?
Although it is important to ensure that initiatives produce gains for both people and place, meta measures of progress for each neighborhood are the best markers of neighborhood progress or regression. While each neighborhood context requires a different definition of a “positive outcome” and a different set of outcome-based measurement tools to evaluate these, meta or aggregate indicators are better at tracking progress than anything focused on one or more micro numbers. The meta indicators help ensure that everyone focuses on the larger picture, which typically requires efforts that advance multiple objectives simultaneously. Too much fixation on improving one or more social outcomes encourages actors to improve those numbers instead of focusing on overall neighborhood wellbeing.
These meta measures include the following:
• Relative property values (e.g., changes in property value compared to average changes in urban areas or similar rural counties)
• Resident transiency rate (e.g., percentage of residents moving annually)
• Family stability (e.g., percentage of children living in single-parent house holds, fraction of married or divorced adults)
• Collective efficacy (e.g., wealth of organizational life, level of participation in community activities, ability to enforce norms)
• Crime rates (e.g., overall crime rates, violent crime rates)
• School performance (e.g., dropout rates, test scores)
Tracking these measures by social group (race, ethnicity) and area (blocks, subsets of neighborhoods) ensures inclusiveness. Similarly, monitoring how well residents do over time ensures that benefits are shared if gentrification changes a population mix too rapidly. (All neighborhoods regularly experience some churn.) On a larger scale, creating measurements that agglomerate neighborhood indicators across cities, regions, or country would not only track broader progress but also increase the likelihood that place-based dynamics are prioritized.
Aligning everyone involved—from local leaders to various organizations (e.g., real estate developers, healthcare providers, philanthropists, housing authorities, education authorities, and economic development agencies)— around a small set of common indicators measuring neighborhood progress is essential. The indicators should be shared across all stakeholders and used as neighborhood performance metrics. There are, of course, other ways to measure the strength of neighborhoods—for example, a bottom-up approach that better reflects resident priorities and goals.
Thank you David Edwards and Purpose Built Communities for sharing their experience in this area.
For anyone who wants sources, please reach out.
#neighborhoods #placemaking #systemschange #socialimpact #communitydevelopment Placemaking Education PlacemakingX Adam Barlow-Thompson The Lupton Center The Neighboring Movement David Burton Eric Smith, MA Danya Pastuszek Debra Jakubec
Although it is important to ensure that initiatives produce gains for both people and place, meta measures of progress for each neighborhood are the best markers of neighborhood progress or regression. While each neighborhood context requires a different definition of a “positive outcome” and a different set of outcome-based measurement tools to evaluate these, meta or aggregate indicators are better at tracking progress than anything focused on one or more micro numbers. The meta indicators help ensure that everyone focuses on the larger picture, which typically requires efforts that advance multiple objectives simultaneously. Too much fixation on improving one or more social outcomes encourages actors to improve those numbers instead of focusing on overall neighborhood wellbeing.
These meta measures include the following:
• Relative property values (e.g., changes in property value compared to average changes in urban areas or similar rural counties)
• Resident transiency rate (e.g., percentage of residents moving annually)
• Family stability (e.g., percentage of children living in single-parent house holds, fraction of married or divorced adults)
• Collective efficacy (e.g., wealth of organizational life, level of participation in community activities, ability to enforce norms)
• Crime rates (e.g., overall crime rates, violent crime rates)
• School performance (e.g., dropout rates, test scores)
Tracking these measures by social group (race, ethnicity) and area (blocks, subsets of neighborhoods) ensures inclusiveness. Similarly, monitoring how well residents do over time ensures that benefits are shared if gentrification changes a population mix too rapidly. (All neighborhoods regularly experience some churn.) On a larger scale, creating measurements that agglomerate neighborhood indicators across cities, regions, or country would not only track broader progress but also increase the likelihood that place-based dynamics are prioritized.
Aligning everyone involved—from local leaders to various organizations (e.g., real estate developers, healthcare providers, philanthropists, housing authorities, education authorities, and economic development agencies)— around a small set of common indicators measuring neighborhood progress is essential. The indicators should be shared across all stakeholders and used as neighborhood performance metrics. There are, of course, other ways to measure the strength of neighborhoods—for example, a bottom-up approach that better reflects resident priorities and goals.
Thank you David Edwards and Purpose Built Communities for sharing their experience in this area.
For anyone who wants sources, please reach out.
#neighborhoods #placemaking #systemschange #socialimpact #communitydevelopment Placemaking Education PlacemakingX Adam Barlow-Thompson The Lupton Center The Neighboring Movement David Burton Eric Smith, MA Danya Pastuszek Debra Jakubec
No comments:
Post a Comment