2000115-Strengthening-Communities-with-Neighborhood-Data

Using Data for Neighborhood Improvement 189
tems, variously defined and subject to myriad influences beyond those
shaped by any given community-change effort. This complexity complicates
efforts to outline theories of change that specify causal expectations
between input and intended outcome and makes identifying comparison
communities to establish a counterfactual difficult. In addition,
community-change efforts themselves tend to be similarly complex,
seeking to address several issue areas (social, economic, physical) across
sectors (public, private, nonprofit) and at different levels (individual,
organization, community). They also change over time in response to
emerging challenges and opportunities, seeking to be responsive to local
circumstances and local priorities—all of which makes process and
organization as crucial to the understanding of the possibilities and limitations
of these efforts as any measure of neighborhood change. Finally,
some of the outcomes these efforts seek to effect—“strengthened community
capacity, enhanced social capital, an empowered neighborhood”
(Kubisch, Fulbright-Anderson, and Connell 1998, 4)—are imprecisely
defined and present particular measurement problems for which there
are few widely accepted solutions (Chaskin 2002; Kubisch et al. 1995,
1998; Rossi 1999).
A second set of challenges concerns the nature and availability of data
about neighborhoods. Existing data are of differing quality and are collected
on the basis of different units of analysis (census tracts, Zip Codes,
police precincts, service catchment areas) and over different periods.
Although tools and techniques for aggregating, mapping, and analyzing
small-area data have improved dramatically (Coulton and Hollister
1998), much information relevant to understanding community circumstances
and dynamics—resident perceptions, behaviors, and relational
networks, for example—is not available through existing data sources.
Importantly, it is often these more elusive dimensions, such as the level of
neighborhood social capital, that are of central interest to those involved
in community-building efforts (Chaskin 2002; Kubisch et al. 1998).
A third set of challenges concerns the inclination and capability of
community actors—organizations and individuals—to collect and use
information. Much existing data are held by actors outside the community,
such as government agencies, universities, and private organizations.
Gaining access to this information often requires time-consuming,
sometimes difficult, and not always successful negotiation with agency
personnel. In addition, community actors differ in their resources and
capacity to ask researchable questions, work with existing information,