2000115-Strengthening-Communities-with-Neighborhood-Data

Using Data for Neighborhood Improvement 195
Some measures and venues yielded better data than others. The collective
efficacy measure proved fairly robust, and although the convenience
sampling led to overestimations of the level of activism and
organizational involvement, it provided fairly accurate spatial patterns
of the relative levels of activism. In both cases, these findings thus generated
useful discussion and provided some guidance to CBOs seeking to
use this information strategically.
A number of process benefits were realized, including increasing
CBO knowledge about research design and data-collection methods and
trade-offs, the most effective venues to get useful information from community
members, and the potential benefit of short surveys for information
gathering and outreach. It also fostered learning about how CBOs
and researchers might most effectively work together as partners, producers,
and consumers of information. But the principal benefit was the
value the data provided in informing CBO planning.
Data analysis was organized to be clearly accessible to CBO partners,
and CBO staff and researchers scheduled several meetings to review and
reflect on the implications of the analyses. Data were displayed in several
ways, including summary bullet points, tables, bar graphs, and pie
charts. Graphic displays, particularly maps, proved especially useful, and
discussion around these findings led community partners to think about
a range of issues that informed their planning. In some cases, findings
led largely to a process of interpretation, in others to the generation of
new questions, and in yet others to suggestions for action.
In some cases, findings were initially surprising and generated discussion
to make sense of them, and then further discussion about
neighborhood circumstances of concern that might be addressed. The
unexpectedly high level of homeownership in one neighborhood, for
example, was ultimately reconciled to CBO perceptions by recognizing
the relationship between the geographic concentration of respondents
in particular parts of the community and the nature of the housing in
that location. A broader discussion ensued concerning the increasing
numbers of foreclosures and the impact of escalating violent crime and
gang warfare on stability in the area. This discussion helped sharpen the
CBO’s focus on strategic action around these issues and inform their
future plans. In the other neighborhood, findings suggesting significant
numbers of kinship and friendship ties and reciprocated exchange generated
some surprise given, for example, the amount of crime in the
neighborhood. These findings also generated a set of new questions: