Published on March 3, 2014
Measuring Community Development Moving Beyond Jobs and Investment Norman Walzer and Andy Blanke Presented to 2013 Community Development Society Meetings Charleston, SC July 24, 2013
Presentation Overview • Theoretical Framework and Principles • Historical Interest in and Reasons for Measurement • Key Components Involved • Major Approaches ‐ Strengths and Limitations Universal Contingent on Local Conditions • Examples of Successful Approaches Based on Principles • Needs for Future Research and Practice • Pending Journal of Community Development Issue
Outcome Measurement Framework Policy Priorities Social Economic Environmental Policy improvement Policy formation Strategic Plan Measurable goals Stakeholder support Policy implementation Indicators Relevant Cost‐Effective Diversified
Key Measurement Concepts (Hart, 2012) • Goal‐‐ change desired by community • Indicator‐‐ measures progress toward goals • Levels of indicators System E.g. Percent in poverty Program E.g. Number of clients Action E.g. Number of housing units built
Successful Indicators* • • • • • • • • • Validity‐ sound data depicts real situation Relevance‐ pertinent to community issue Consistent and Reliable‐ can be used over time Measurable‐ can be obtained for community Clarity‐ unambiguous and understandable Comprehensive‐ represents many parts of issue Cost‐effective‐ relatively inexpensive to collect Comparable‐ sufficient general to allow city comparisons Attractive to media‐ gain exposure and discussion *Rhonda Phillips. Community Indicators. American Planning Association, Report 517
Ongoing challenges • Cost‐effectiveness vs Relevance State/national sources 1 year behind Local quantitative studies are expensive • Relevance vs Comparability Communities have unique goals Need benchmarks, best practices • Cost‐effectiveness vs Comparability Case studies not generalizable Local quantitative studies are expensive
Models of Measurement Universal Contingent‐ Independent Contingent‐ Facilitated • Quantitative focus • Unique goals • Unique goals • Common goals • Not comparable • Limited comparability • Comparable • Own strategic plan and • Technical assistance • Secondary data • Technical assistance from larger organization consultants • Qualitative and quantitative • Primary and secondary data from larger organization • Qualitative focus • Mostly primary data
Trends in Measurement Practices • 1960’s ‐ quality of life measures nationally • 1970’s ‐ quality of life locally in CA and NY • 1980’s & 90’s Sustainability in Seattle Benchmarking economic development in Oregon • 2000’s ‐ application to rural communities • Recent years‐ growing technical assistance Developmental models Focus on Sustainability Measuring community wealth • Growing Interest by Foundations in Measuring Investment Outcomes
Early Interest by Nonprofit Sector* • Financial Accountability • Program Products or Outputs • Adherence to Standards of Quality in Service Delivery • Participant‐related Measures (need) • Key Performance Indicators • Client Satisfaction (not instituted until later) * Margaret Plantz, Martha Taylor Greenway, and Michael Henricks. 1997. “Outcome Measurement: Showing Results in the Nonprofit Sector.” New Directions for Evaluation, no. 75.
Success Measures Neighborworks USA • National Grant‐making Organization • Provides Online toolkit • 122 possible indicators Social, environmental, economic Local choice Survey guides/templates State/national sources • Used by 300 organizations in 48 states • Common use ‐ housing programs Changes in property values Survey satisfaction w/ home quality, safety • Strategic plan ‐ choose own indicators • Cost‐effective ‐ technical assistance
Youthscape Initiative in Canada • Engage youth in 5 cities • Hired evaluators Participant observation Frequent interviews w/ clients, employees ID successes, concerns • Monthly conference calls 5 local evaluators report National coordinator looks for patterns • Quarterly reports • Cost effective Technical assistance Updated quickly Enables quick corrections (eg: replace problem employee)
Vibrant Communities Canada Tamarack Institute for Community Engagement • Poverty reduction in 13 cities • 3‐part process: Local theory of change (strategic plan) Stories about progress (process indicators) Semi‐annual report‐ # clients served, partner orgs., program narrative (systems indicators) • Refine goals with client input (policy improvement) • Cost‐effective ‐ simple to measure
Minnesota Compass Wilder Foundation • Dashboard for Minnesota counties • Indicators chosen by business leaders, academics, local officials. Relevant to policy goals Clear meaning • Outcomes before/after program 1995‐2010 • For other counties In progress: custom geographies • Social, environmental, economic focus Eg. transportation, economic disparity, air & water quality
Central Appalachian Network (Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia) • Strategic plan for improving quality of life for farmers • 7 forms of capital Intellectual‐ stock of knowledge, creativity, innovation Social‐ new relationships‐ restaurants putting local food on menus Built‐ freezing facilities built to aid farmers (economic) Natural‐ acres of farmland preserved (environment) Political – stock of power ands goodwill held in region Financial‐ growing farm income (social, economic) Cultural‐ influences ways how people define and approach issues • Cost‐effective Secondary sources for economic Indicators Case studies for social capital Indicators collected as part of operations
Summary • Plan must come first Define goals Gain support • Smaller organizations need technical assistance Current data sources Guides/templates Consultants • Be qualitative when measuring process More timely Case studies • Use quantitative measures when measuring outcomes Identifies problems, results • Conduct research to understand indicators and policy intervention
For Additional Information Norman Walzer Andy Blanke Senior Research Scholar Research Associate Center for Governmental Studies 148 N. Third Street DeKalb, IL 60115 www.cgs.niu.edu
Measuring Community Development Moving Beyond Jobs ... • Growing Interest by Foundations in Measuring Investment ... Measuring Community Development
Moving Beyond Job Creation: Defining and Measuring the Creation of Quality Jobs 1 ... U.S. Community Development Financial Institution and
Moving Beyond Job Creation: Defining and Measuring the Creation of Quality Jobs. ... Pacific Community Ventures, a community development financial ...
... Moving Beyond Job Creation: Defining and Measuring the Creation of Quality Jobs. ... support our peers in the Community Development Financial ...
Measuring Your Corporate Community Investment. Molly Cartmill Director – Corporate Community Relations January 25, ... Corporate Community Investment.
... a given community—many beyond the ... economic development: investment, new jobs, ... measuring performance in economic development ...
Executive Summary: Measuring Outcomes of Digital ... jobs, economic development, ... Measuring Outcomes of Digital Divide Investment to Community ...
... Community, and Economic Development ... Collaborative Investment in Place Based Tourism, Community, ... Identify your strategies for measuring ...
MEASURING THE SUSTAINABLE RETURN ON INVESTMENT ... Jobs are rapidly moving ... performance beyond financial returns on investment to ...
Community Development 7INVESTMENT REVIEW Exploring the Continuum of Social and Financial Returns: ... Moving right on the continuum in Figure 1, ...