2000115-Strengthening-Communities-with-Neighborhood-Data

Institutional Context 27
in hands-on data work with communities or, as already noted, one handles
central city data while another works at the regional scale.
Many workable variations are possible. Large cities, in particular, may
require creative thinking about coalition building because many institutions
with various data capacities may already be in place. A recent
review for Chicago, for example, concluded that the region already had
many strong data-oriented institutions that could fulfill a large part of
the overall intermediary role and that no new central intermediary entity
was required. Rather, the authors suggested that the existing institutions
join in a formal network that would keep all members informed of relevant
new developments and would work in a coordinated way to address
local information needs (Pettit and Kingsley 2013).
Once a local data intermediary begins operating in a collaborative
way, its work is likely to strengthen interests in data and data capacities of
many other local institutions. In their essay accompanying this chapter,
Wascalus and Matson tell how a particularly rich set of ongoing institutional
relationships has developed around community information in
metropolitan Minneapolis–Saint Paul. The NNIP data intermediary is
an important participant, but it works with several other local research
groups as well as a sizable number of community and regional players,
with the mix adjusting as different issues are on the table.
Commitment to Distressed Neighborhoods
Regardless of the local institutional arrangement, the NNIP partner
organizations share a commitment to the value that motivated the creation
of NNIP: to use data to empower and improve the conditions
in distressed neighborhoods. All NNIP partners employ two fundamental
strategies to fulfill this obligation. First, they provide data and
technical assistance to advocacy, service, and resident groups located
in low-income neighborhoods, as well as citywide groups focusing on
improving opportunities in those places. The access to information can
help level the playing field by giving people who were previously shut
out of public policy and planning decisions the capacity to knowledgeably
participate in the conversation. This is a central example of partners’
contribution to strengthening civic life and governance (described
below). Second, the partners perform and disseminate analysis on topics
related to low-income households and neighborhoods. The focus
can be overt, in studies on topics such as child poverty, or less direct,