2000115-Strengthening-Communities-with-Neighborhood-Data

398 Strengthening Communities with Neighborhood Data
released in a raw form, which can markedly simplify the data assembly
function for intermediaries. However, a high level of technical skill is
required to use them directly, and datasets are typically released one by
one. In these situations, intermediary services are still needed to put the
data in a form that will make them easier for others to use and then to
combine disparate datasets so they can be used together.
Who should pay for the operation of the new local data intermediaries?
Chapter 2 explains that funding for the NNIP partners since 1995 has
come mostly from local sources (aided by the explicit or implicit endorsement
of local civic leadership coalitions). Most partners earn a good share
of their keep by providing specific studies and other data-related services
under contract to a variety of clients, public and private. But all of them
also receive some general support funding from local philanthropies. Their
basic intermediary services can be regarded as a part of civic infrastructure
and, as such, warrant local subsidy. We believe that the spread and strengthening
of local data intermediaries (or other responsible entities) should
be mostly funded in a similar manner. However, in our recommendations
about a national support system in the last section of this chapter, we also
propose that some federal and state funds be provided to help in the startup
phase and to incentivize innovation thereafter.
Broaden and Coordinate Participation
When NNIP began it was expected that civic leaders would normally
assign the data intermediary role to one local institution that would be
responsible for the basic functions of building and operating an ongoing
neighborhood-level information system and ensuring its active use
in the public interest. Since then, the network has recognized the need
to broaden its horizons with respect to both functions and participants;
see “Using Data More Broadly to Strengthen Civic Life and Governance”
in chapter 2. We noted earlier in this chapter that in most localities, a
much broader range of local institutions is likely to be involved in data
today. Our conclusion is that this broadening of participation should be
encouraged, but it also needs to be coordinated. Stories of duplication,
as well as gaps, are now more frequently heard.
Wascalus and Matson note in their essay at the end of chapter 2 that one
critical component of the Twin Cities’ strong community information
ecosystems was “forging the interagency and professional connections
needed both to exchange ideas and to advance the overall data-sharing