2000115-Strengthening-Communities-with-Neighborhood-Data

174 Strengthening Communities with Neighborhood Data
This process began with their development of a needs assessment and
segmentation analysis 26 in the period from October 2010 to July 2011
(Popkin et al. 2011). This work included (1) a comprehensive analysis of
neighborhood conditions and trends using national and local datasets,
(2) focus groups with adult and teenage residents, (3) resident retreats,
(4) teacher interviews, and (5) a school climate survey of middle school
and high school students.
Most noteworthy, however, was the role played by data partner staff
in program planning. The planning process was conducted by eight
results-driven working groups that corresponded to the goals that
had been selected for DCPNI. Data partner staff were embedded as
participants in each of the groups. They would select relevant data to
present at meetings and then facilitate the discussion with the other
participants about the implications for program design. These “dialogues
with data” were credited as having an important influence on
the plans that emerged. As an example, one of the goals was ascertaining
the “percent and number of young children in center-based
or formal home-based early learning programs.” The Urban Institute
mapped the center-based child care locations, their capacities,
and their quality ratings to identify the current supply (figure 5.4).
Although about half of all children age 4 and younger were enrolled
in formal early child care, the early child care providers were largely
rated as low quality. This finding led to the opening of a new highquality
child care center and efforts to improve the capacities of other
providers. 27
In the next phase of Promise nationally—implementation and performance
management—the use of data is yet more intensive. A publication
has been developed that offers guidance on data systems and
indicators for Promise implementation grantees (Comey et al. 2013). 28 A
critical federal requirement is that all grantees monitor trends for 15 indicators
related to the results the initiative is intended to achieve. These are
also the measures that the Department of Education has identified to
hold the program accountable under the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA). Examples are as follows: 29
• GPRA 2. Number and percentage of three-year-olds and children
in kindergarten who demonstrate at the beginning of the program
or school year age-appropriate functioning across multiple
domains of early learning