A presentation made by Dr. Norman Walzer and Andy Blanke to the 2013 Community Development Society meeting in Charleston, South Carolina on July 24, 2013.

1. Measuring Community Development
Moving Beyond Jobs and Investment
Norman Walzer and Andy Blanke
Presented to
2013 Community Development Society Meetings
Charleston, SC
July 24, 2013

2. Presentation Overview
• Theoretical Framework and Principles
• Historical Interest in and Reasons for Measurement
• Key Components Involved
• Major Approaches ‐ Strengths and Limitations
 Universal
 Contingent on Local Conditions
• Examples of Successful Approaches Based on Principles
• Needs for Future Research and Practice
• Pending Journal of Community Development Issue

3. Outcome Measurement Framework
Policy Priorities
Social
Economic
Environmental
Policy
improvement
Policy formation
Strategic Plan
Measurable goals
Stakeholder support
Policy implementation
Indicators
Relevant
Cost‐Effective
Diversified

4. Key Measurement Concepts
(Hart, 2012)
• Goal‐‐ change desired by community
• Indicator‐‐ measures progress toward goals
• Levels of indicators
System
E.g. Percent in poverty
Program
E.g. Number of clients
Action
E.g. Number of
housing units
built

5. Successful Indicators*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Validity‐ sound data depicts real situation
Relevance‐ pertinent to community issue
Consistent and Reliable‐ can be used over time
Measurable‐ can be obtained for community
Clarity‐ unambiguous and understandable
Comprehensive‐ represents many parts of issue
Cost‐effective‐ relatively inexpensive to collect
Comparable‐ sufficient general to allow city comparisons
Attractive to media‐ gain exposure and discussion
*Rhonda Phillips. Community Indicators. American Planning Association, Report 517

6. Ongoing challenges
• Cost‐effectiveness vs Relevance
 State/national sources 1 year behind
 Local quantitative studies are expensive
• Relevance vs Comparability
 Communities have unique goals
 Need benchmarks, best practices
• Cost‐effectiveness vs Comparability
 Case studies not generalizable
 Local quantitative studies are expensive

7. Models of Measurement
Universal
Contingent‐
Independent
Contingent‐ Facilitated
• Quantitative focus
• Unique goals
• Unique goals
• Common goals
• Not comparable
• Limited comparability
• Comparable
• Own strategic plan and
• Technical assistance
• Secondary data
• Technical assistance
from larger organization
consultants
• Qualitative and
quantitative
• Primary and secondary
data
from larger organization
• Qualitative focus
• Mostly primary data

8. Trends in Measurement Practices
• 1960’s ‐ quality of life measures nationally
• 1970’s ‐ quality of life locally in CA and NY
• 1980’s & 90’s
 Sustainability in Seattle
 Benchmarking economic development in Oregon
• 2000’s ‐ application to rural communities
• Recent years‐ growing technical assistance
 Developmental models
 Focus on Sustainability
 Measuring community wealth
• Growing Interest by Foundations in Measuring Investment
Outcomes

9. Early Interest by Nonprofit Sector*
• Financial Accountability
• Program Products or Outputs
• Adherence to Standards of Quality in Service Delivery
• Participant‐related Measures (need)
• Key Performance Indicators
• Client Satisfaction (not instituted until later)
* Margaret Plantz, Martha Taylor Greenway, and Michael Henricks. 1997. “Outcome Measurement: Showing
Results in the Nonprofit Sector.” New Directions for Evaluation, no. 75.

10. Success Measures
Neighborworks USA
• National Grant‐making Organization
• Provides Online toolkit
• 122 possible indicators
 Social, environmental, economic
 Local choice
 Survey guides/templates
 State/national sources
• Used by 300 organizations in 48 states
• Common use ‐ housing programs
 Changes in property values
 Survey satisfaction w/ home quality, safety
• Strategic plan ‐ choose own indicators
• Cost‐effective ‐ technical assistance

11. Youthscape Initiative in Canada
• Engage youth in 5 cities
• Hired evaluators
Participant observation
Frequent interviews w/ clients, employees
ID successes, concerns
• Monthly conference calls
5 local evaluators report
National coordinator looks for patterns
• Quarterly reports
• Cost effective
 Technical assistance
 Updated quickly
 Enables quick corrections (eg: replace problem employee)

12. Vibrant Communities Canada
Tamarack Institute for Community Engagement
• Poverty reduction in 13 cities
• 3‐part process:
 Local theory of change (strategic plan)
 Stories about progress (process indicators)
 Semi‐annual report‐ # clients served, partner orgs., program narrative
(systems indicators)
• Refine goals with client input (policy improvement)
• Cost‐effective ‐ simple to measure

13. Minnesota Compass
Wilder Foundation
• Dashboard for Minnesota counties
• Indicators chosen by business leaders, academics, local
officials.
 Relevant to policy goals
 Clear meaning
• Outcomes before/after program
 1995‐2010
• For other counties
 In progress: custom geographies
• Social, environmental, economic focus
 Eg. transportation, economic disparity, air & water quality

14. Central Appalachian Network
(Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia)
• Strategic plan for improving quality of life for farmers
• 7 forms of capital
 Intellectual‐ stock of knowledge, creativity, innovation
 Social‐ new relationships‐ restaurants putting local food on menus
 Built‐ freezing facilities built to aid farmers (economic)
 Natural‐ acres of farmland preserved (environment)
 Political – stock of power ands goodwill held in region
 Financial‐ growing farm income (social, economic)
 Cultural‐ influences ways how people define and approach issues
• Cost‐effective
 Secondary sources for economic Indicators
 Case studies for social capital
 Indicators collected as part of operations

15. Summary
• Plan must come first
 Define goals
 Gain support
• Smaller organizations need technical assistance
 Current data sources
 Guides/templates
 Consultants
• Be qualitative when measuring process
 More timely
 Case studies
• Use quantitative measures when measuring outcomes
 Identifies problems, results
• Conduct research to understand indicators and policy
intervention

16. For Additional Information
Norman Walzer
Andy Blanke
Senior Research Scholar
Research Associate
Center for Governmental Studies
148 N. Third Street
DeKalb, IL 60115
www.cgs.niu.edu