2000115-Strengthening-Communities-with-Neighborhood-Data

Using Data for Neighborhood Improvement 179
10. Research on neighborhood effects of foreclosures is summarized in Immergluck
and Smith (2006) and Kingsley, Smith, and Price (2009).
11. Aspects of the NEO CANDO system and some of its applications have also been
documented in Sand and Bush (2011) and Pettit and Kingsley (2011). Data from the
system have also been used to support a number of citywide applications, as discussed
further in Nelson’s essay at the end of this chapter.
12. NCP’s full-scale operation ran for 10 years (2003–2012). The program received
$47 million in grants from the MacArthur Foundation and, LISC reports, an equal
amount from other major foundations, which in turn leveraged $540 million more in
neighborhood investments (LISC Chicago 2011). BSC was launched in 2007, and according
to the Bridgespan Group (2012), LISC was investing at an annual rate of $107 million
across all BSC neighborhoods in 2011.
13. MDRC is continuing its evaluation of NCP. A recent report in its series
covers broader “policy change and systems change” activity in the program (Chaskin
and Karlström 2012).
14. The sources include the US Decennial Census, the American Community Survey,
the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, Local Employment Dynamics, IRS tax statistics,
US Postal Service vacant addresses, and National Center for Education Statistics datasets.
These sources are all available to the public and are described in chapter 3. LISC also
relies on proprietary data on mortgage status from LPS Analytics for these reports.
15. Clearly, the comparison neighborhood approach does not meet the same standards
for evaluation as would a random control trial (see discussion of evaluation in
chapter 7), but as that alternative is not available here it would seem that determining
where the performance of a BSC neighborhood is notably above or below that of its
comparison neighborhoods should be a valuable indicator for initiative managers.
16. In an interview, Vasquez indicated that LISC plans to revisit what administrative
data (such as school mobility) or other local data (such as connecting individuals to
community institutions) could be tracked across plans to anchor a shared performance
management system.
17. The foundation has written an overall review of the Making Connections experience
that explains program operations and other features in greater detail (Annie E.
Casey Foundation 2013).
18. The survey design team was composed of staff from NORC at the University
of Chicago and the Urban Institute. NORC was responsible for survey administration.
Feister (2011, 13–16) reviews issues faced in survey design and how they were addressed.
The final in-person household survey instrument contained 180 questions and took
45 minutes to complete. The overall response rate was 75 percent.
19. Three of the 10 cities (Hartford, Milwaukee, and Oakland) did not have wave 3
surveys.
20. The central survey team included researchers from the Urban Institute, Case
Western Reserve University, and NORC, as well as the Annie E. Casey Foundation. The
website (http://mcstudy.norc.org) lists and provides access to these products, explains
and documents the survey in greater detail, and explains how researchers can access the
data.
21. The authors found, for example, that both asset and debt amounts increased
between 2005–06 and 2008–09, but asset and debt levels remained lower for vulnerable