2000115-Strengthening-Communities-with-Neighborhood-Data

Using Data for Neighborhood Improvement 167
applying collective impact–like methods, but only in one domain each
(e.g., education or public safety) in 7 of the 16 original NCP neighborhoods.
This practice is consistent with our point above that a comprehensive
initiative can start with one domain and then, based on what
is learned, develop more thorough performance management in other
domains over time.
Susana Vasquez, director of LISC Chicago, sees an aim of this
effort as helping “neighborhood leaders get excited about using data
to improve their work” (Kelleher 2012). TTM begins by developing a
logic model of the change process in the selected domain (a theory of
change as introduced earlier). In LISC’s conception, this model requires
explicit statements of expectations about the links between resources,
activities, outputs, and outcomes. As one example, the logic model for
the TTM effort in the Pilsen neighborhood, titled “The Pilsen Bridge:
Pathways for Better Transitions to Kindergarten and High School,”
describes proposed interventions, paths of influence, and targeted outcomes
(figure 5.3).
Given the diversity of aims, LISC recognized that each neighborhood
would have to develop its own data. 16 Technical assistance and other supports
have been provided to help them assemble the data to monitor
their selected outcomes. Many of the performance measures selected
could be developed from the records of partner organizations in the
neighborhood. But the task of obtaining useful data from the administrative
records of city-level agencies was more challenging. For example,
outcome measures may require aggregating individual-level records
stored in confidential school or service program information systems.
Special programming is normally needed to select out records for neighborhood
residents and calculate new performance measures for them, as
are efforts to assure privacy protections.
TTM is still in process and it is too early to assess results. However, to
our knowledge, it is the first effort to try to actually measure such a broad
range of results indicators in a comprehensive community development
setting. Importantly, this includes measures of status changes for children
and families at the neighborhood level from administrative records
that have rarely been made operational in any setting. This experience
offers a promising model for performance monitoring in similar programs
elsewhere. Other signs leading to the same conclusion are noted in
our discussions of the Promise Neighborhoods Initiative and integrated
data systems later in this chapter.