2000115-Strengthening-Communities-with-Neighborhood-Data

312 Strengthening Communities with Neighborhood Data
2009; Torrens 2010). These developments will be important to enhancing
the field’s ability to fully evaluate programs and policies that target
neighborhood conditions, residential choices, and behavioral outcomes
within metropolitan areas.
Finally, the current institutional infrastructure and communication
channels do not maximize the synergy and practical impact of emerging
methodological developments. The work on new analysis techniques and
tools has come out of universities, think tanks, governments, and local
intermediaries working with neighborhood data; the effort involves individuals
from many scientific disciplines, policy arenas, and practice areas.
In some ways this breadth and diversity of perspectives have contributed
to an openness and vitality in the enterprise. At the same time, however,
it is tough for anyone to keep track of the many developments that might
be useful on the ground. Moreover, there are few venues in which the
individuals involved broadly in the applications of these methods meet
and exchange ideas. Importantly, the conversations tend to occur within
substantive areas, scientific disciplines, or practice communities. Yet there
are many potential points of connection across the spheres that are not
being made. Moving forward on the opportunities and challenges identified
in this chapter will require a new network that fosters methodological
development in the community information field; such changes are
detailed in our recommendations in chapter 8.
References
Allard, S. W., D. Rosen, and R. M. Tolman. 2003. “Access to Mental Health and Substance
Abuse Services among Women Receiving Welfare in Detroit.” Urban Affairs Review
38 (6): 787–807.
Bania, N., l. Leete, and C. J. Coulton. 2008. “Job Access, Employment and Earnings: Outcomes
for Welfare Leavers in a US Urban Labour Market.” Urban Studies 45 (11):
2179–2202.
Bingenheimer, J. B., and S. W. Raudenbush. 2004. “Statistical and Substantive Inferences
in Public Health: Issues in the Application of Multilevel Models.” Annual Review of
Public Health 25 (1): 53–77.
Bloom, H. S. 2005. “Randomizing Groups to Evaluate Place-Based Programs.” In Learning
More from Social Experiments: Evolving Analytic Approaches, edited by H. S. Bloom
(115–72). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Bloom, H. S., and J. A. Riccio. 2005. “Using Place-Based Random Assignment and Comparative
Interrupted Time-Series Analysis to Evaluate the Jobs-Plus Employment
Program for Public Housing Residents.” Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science 599 (1): 19–51.