2000115-Strengthening-Communities-with-Neighborhood-Data

Progress in Data and Technology 87
Table 3.2. (Continued)
Total
Address/
parcel
School
Other small
area identifier
Water shutoffs 7 6 0 1
Electric shutoffs 3 2 0 1
Child welfare
Foster care 6 4 0 2
Child abuse/neglect 10 4 0 6
Other
Voting records 17 11 0 6
Community referral calls 10 5 0 5
Source: NNIP Data Inventory Results. Published January 2014.
local data related to incarceration, reentry, and community well-being
and worked with multiple sectors to craft strategies for addressing prisoner
reentry in their communities. The project culminated with a guidebook
that framed the issues, gave detailed information on accessing and
processing the data sources, and used the experiences of the Reentry
Mapping Network partners to illustrate lessons about how to develop
successful reentry strategies (LaVigne, Cowan, and Brazzell 2006). 4
Another important development has been the use of indicators based
on property data for program planning and policymaking. Although the
original NNIP partners had property-related data in the mid-1990s, the
field had advanced considerably by 2012, with more frequent analysis of
property characteristics and status from a wider range of data sources.
These improvements were enabled by better systems at the local government
level. By 2005, almost three-quarters of America’s top 100 cities
had digitized parcel-based information systems, and they made a considerable
amount of their data available to the public via the web (Chandler
et al. 2006). A cross-site project conducted by NNIP (Kingsley and
Pettit 2008) shared examples of using property data for decisions about
government actions and community development investments in Atlanta,
Georgia; Baltimore, Maryland; Indianapolis, Indiana; Milwaukee, Wisconsin;
Providence, Rhode Island; and Washington, DC. Parcel data with land
and building characteristics from assessors’ offices served as the backbone
for most of the local analysis, but NNIP partners used many other sources