Civic Stewardship Measurement Initiative -- draft slides for discussion


Published on

Proposal for measuring population-based outcomes at the community level; as basis for community-based understanding and ownership of local outcomes; as platform to support an ecology of social innovation efforts, led by local residents and organizations; as basis for contracting with external partners on initiatives to improve community wellbeing (government agencies, social entrepreneurs, foundations, researchers, policy-makers, etc.)

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Civic Stewardship Measurement Initiative -- draft slides for discussion

  1. 1. Proposal to build a community measurement system that promotes systematic civic stewardship for breakthrough results Systematic Civic Stewardship Problem: Over the last 40 years, many U.S. cities have not made progress on critical outcomes (e.g., health, income, and education), despite advances in policy, technology, and economic growth Opportunity: Recent advances in “open data,” participatory civic engagement, social media, and performance-based funding instruments provide an unprecedented opportunity to spur civic stewardship for breakthrough results William M. Snyder / / April 2014 Proposal: Create a prototype of a “community measurement system” that guides and motivates collaborative learning and innovation, which can be replicated and scaled city-wide DRAFT for discussion
  2. 2. Many Boston neighborhoods experience persistently high rates of poverty, crime, disease, and drop-outs (source: James Jennings, Tufts University, 2009) “While many of the…community change endeavors of the past 20 years can identify improved outcomes for some residents…, these investments have not aggregated to improvements in neighborhood-wide well-being or produced population-level changes in, for example, infant mortality rates, graduation rates, or income.” -- Anne Kubisch, Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change, Voices from the Field III, 2010 (17) 2 In Boston, as in cities nationwide, rates of poverty, disease & drop-outs have changed little, despite decades of advances in technologies, policies & economic growth¹ Conventional community change efforts improve targeted conditions, but have limited influence on overall results. Community measures are essential to systematic efforts for achieving population-level goals. ¹Boston neighborhoods have made gains in some areas (such as new affordable housing units), but many still struggle, despite decades of active community- change efforts. Nationwide, results in many civic outcomes have changed little since 1970: poverty 15%, drop-outs 20%; health costs now 16% of GDP versus 7%; crime unchanged but incarceration is 400% higher—all this after trillions spent in means-tested programs, and even as the U.S. GDP tripled. “[W]e cannot rely on saints to achieve systemic change in the thousands of low-income communities in America that need help; we need new policies, practices , and products to create a next-generation system that empowers everyday people to achieve extraordinary results.” -- David Erikson et al., Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, What Works for America’s Communities, 2012 (377)
  3. 3. “It’s a cliché of management that if you don’t measure something, you can’t manage it. But it’s true. And it applies as much to communities as it does to multinational corporations.” Measures matter for innovation, collective motivation, and monetization; all of which are crucial for achieving breakthrough results in communities as well as organizations And it matters who leads local measurement initiatives, because important community data cannot be accessed, collected, or accurately interpreted without active participation and ownership by local residents and organization stakeholders Fast Company article on emerging community measurement initiatives, 2012 3 Oded Grajev, leader of Brazil’s Sustainable Cities movement “Our participatory democracy initiative gets public officials to commit to civic goals and measurable results—it works because we have mobilized citizens who use indicators to hold them accountable.” “To learn, there must be clear benchmarks and data linked to the desired outcome. Focusing on outcomes and impact will be a paradigm shift not only for community development, but for much of American social policy.” Nicolas Retsinas, Harvard Business School, Investing in What Works for America’s Communities, 2012
  4. 4. 4 A community measurement system informs efforts for participative problem- solving and innovation at key points throughout the action-learning cycle Define problem/ opportunity Apply solution Create solution Interpret outcomes Desired outcomes Current State Action-Learning Cycle Discover new opportunities
  5. 5. 5 ¹“Goal Theory” is based on decades of research in social-psychology, and it is one of the most highly validated and widely applied theories in organization science ²Measurable goals also motivate by providing a basis for material rewards and funding opportunities—see “monetization” on next page “Self-managed teams” in organizations rely on weekly data for solving problems and finding opportunities to increase performance Research on personal change shows the power of valid feedback to motivate sustained improvement efforts (dieting, sports, studies, work, etc.) “Collective impact” efforts in the civic context combine clear goals and rigorous measures to help diverse stakeholders achieve results (e.g., Strive Network initiatives coalesce players for education outcomes) Illustration: Using measures for participative management Fat City Cycles organized teams (for tacking, welding, etc.) and establish weekly goals, team-based measures, and employee-led problem-solving meetings. Six months later, the cost per bike had dropped from $160 to $90 (break-even was $132). This made the company profitable enough to increase pay by 30%, well above the industry standard; while dramatically improving overall wellbeing.² A configuration of key factors enables behavioral change: •Clear, compelling goals •Valid measures of progress •Perceived ability to succeed¹
  6. 6. 6 Paradigm shift in philanthropic and governmental funding strategies: Invest in organizations and social entrepreneurs via “pay for success” contracts¹ •The global market for “impact investing” is expected to increase from ~$40b to over $400b in the next decade² •There is a fast-growing pool of “pay-for success” funds in the U.S., now at about $50m and growing exponentially³ •UK government lists “desired outcome is clear and measurable” as a primary consideration for social impact investments⁴ ²Source: “Impact investing: From headlines to fundamentals,” Stanford Social Innovation Review blog (August 2013) How social impact bonds (SIBs) work: Investors provide upfront cash to providers for measurable, targeted outcomes (e.g., reduced recidivism); investors are repaid by government agencies who save money when outcomes are achieved (e.g., lower prison costs)⁴ ³Kennedy School Panel on SIBs (November 2013); U.S. Government created a $300m fund (2014) to encourage pay-for-success” impact investments (source) ⁴Source: UK Government site on SIBs; success factors include: “measured easily and accurately,” “directly linked to an intervention,” and relatively “cashable” ¹This shift involves investor-provider contracts in which funding amounts are aligned with an estimated economic value of outcomes, not only provider costs
  7. 7. Technical Interventions such as programs, policies, technologies, and media 7 A logic model for community wellbeing highlights the influence of local attitudes and practices—as well as neighborhood conditions—on a range of civic outcomes¹ Attitudes and practices of residents and organizations affect interventions & outcomes Civic Outcomes (health, energy, safety, education, etc.) Neighborhood conditions mediate the interactions of interventions, practices & outcomes Federal policies provide free healthcare for poor children Millions of eligible families do not enroll for benefits that enable effective, timely treatments City police department implements a “community policing” program In many communities, long-standing mutual distrust undermines collaboration State tax policies fund household energy-efficiency investments Most households do not participate, despite near-term financial benefits New parents program fosters child development during crucial 0-3 phase Many parents with much to gain do not attend due to cultural and logistical barriers Technical interventions cannot achieve breakthrough results without shifts in attitudes and practices as well as enduring neighborhood conditions State passes law to limit illegal access to high-powered automatic weapons A majority of local sheriffs (with their communities’ support) refuse to enforce laws ¹In fields such as health, education, public safety, and energy sustainability, researchers and practitioners have developed system-wide models that show the interdependency of socio-behavioral, neighborhood, organizational, and policy-related factors; see for example, a theory of change for early childhood development.
  8. 8. Socio-Behavioral Drivers •Attitudes & practices that influence targeted outcomes (e.g., diet and exercise habits for health outcomes; household & business energy practices) •Practices of organizations as well as individuals, groups & sub-communities •ETC. Outcomes (e.g., health) •Sub-elements (e.g., diabetes, asthma, cardio-vascular, cancer, etc.) •Current neighborhood results versus benchmarks and goals •Opportunities and priorities •ETC. 8 Public sources provide data on many interventions and outcomes, but collecting valid, actionable data on socio-behavioral drivers depends on participative surveys led by community residents and organizations¹ ¹In fact, due to confidentiality restrictions, even access to neighborhood-level aggregations of “public data” may require residents’ permission, for example, “opt-in” requirements regarding data on household energy use. Neighborhood Conditions (context, barriers & assets) •Sub-areas (blocks, corners, etc.) and their characteristics •Distinctive/anchor organizations •Communities of various types (e.g., of practice, interest, faith, families, friends, race, ethnicity, etc. •Notable people, places, and events (current and past) •Geographic boundary definition and variations •Population demographics •Access to healthy food, living-wage jobs, etc. •Built environment (parks, buildings, transport, “walkability,” etc.) •“Social determinants” such as social cohesion, financial stress, etc. Interventions •Programs, policies, services, product offerings, awareness campaigns, organizing efforts, etc. (current and past) •What’s working or not and why/why not •External exemplars (successes and failures) •ETC.
  9. 9. Youth •Create support network for youth •Identify and support youth at risk •Increase funding for youth jobs via advocacy and “impact investing” sources •Training for skills and job readiness •Career counseling/job placement Employers •Business people meet youth before hiring •Create support network for businesses •Identify “youth ready” employers Local Conditions •Create list of entry jobs available •Strengthen community-school linkages Youth Employability •“Employability” indicators include education, career plans, risk factors, personal development, etc. Employer Readiness •“Youth ready & willing” factors (ability to train, flexibility, etc.) Local Conditions •Neighborhood context, including job market (number & type of jobs available) Youth Employment •Percentage of youth with jobs •Pay levels (as age-skill appropriate) •Quality of jobs (e.g., career vs. temp.; “hard skills”/marketable; meaningful) Employer Success •Improved results •Increased social impact •Increased support from community Community Wellbeing •Reduced poverty •Business growth •Reduced violence •Reduced incarceration •Increased civic engagement Interventions/Ideas Outcomes Influencing Factors A neighborhood coalition in Boston developed a youth employment logic model as a basis for determining what data to collect and how to interpret it 9-II
  10. 10. •Geographically defined populations, corresponding to identifiable neighborhoods, of about of 5,000 to 15,000 people (about the size of a census tract or zip code) •Measures include: Civic outcomes (health, education, etc.), Drivers (local attitudes, behavioral norms, neighborhood conditions), and Interventions (policies & programs, etc.) •Different types of data and methods, including qualitative and quantitative, using an array of sources and tools—including public data bases, surveys, interviews, documented observations, online polling, and participative problem-solving meetings •Led by local, multi-stakeholder groups that include residents and local organizations across sectors, representing a diversity of backgrounds, interests, and perspectives; and involving external experts and influencers 10 Map of vacant lots, Shawnee Neighborhood in Louisville, KY (source) New Orleans participative neighborhood survey (source)
  11. 11. Residents •Passion for improved results •Interest & aptitude for collecting & using civic data •Local legitimacy and strong, diverse social network Experts (various types) •Measurement systems and methods •Issue-specific expertise (health, etc.) re: drivers, etc. •Technology applications for measurement systems •Collaborative structures at community & city levels Local Organizations •Commitment for improved results •Staff capacity to support measurement efforts •Collaborative relations with residents & organizations Sponsors and Influencers •Issue-specific institutions (e.g., health center or city health agency), policy-makers, funder, etc. •All sectors—profit, non-profit, and public •Local, state, and national levels Coordinating team •An external group of experts and sponsors works with community stakeholders and other participants to organize, coach, and support the development of a community measurement system •A city-wide community of practice fosters peer-to-peer learning, institutional support, and scaling For a pilot initiative, a core team (with residents, local organization staff, and a coordinator) may include 3-5 funded FTE, plus additional volunteers and loaned staff 11
  12. 12. Measurement System Population-based goals and rigorous measures of outcomes, drivers, interventions, and neighborhood context Participative Stewardship Methods Collaborative problem-solving, learning, and innovation Monetization “Pay for performance” instruments rely on valid data that show how interventions get results Civic Media Facilitates participatory efforts to collect, access, interpret, and report community information A community measurement system enables stakeholders to leverage complementary tools and methods to build civic capacity 12 City-wide Civic Innovation Networks Community coalitions and external players collaborate to speed discovery and diffusion of best practices and policies •Urban Mechanics •Fixing local problems •Engagement Lab •Neighborhood website •Boston, Massachusetts – Safety •Salt Lake City, Utah – Education •Fresno, California – Health •Boston Indicators Project •San Francisco data •Chicago crime data Participative Stewardship Methods Collaborative problem-solving, learning, and innovation •Participative problem-solving •21st Century Town Meetings •Public dialogue & deliberation •Great Neighborhoods Network •Boston Alliance for Community Health For further description of the overall civic stewardship model, see a related “Civic Stewardship Storefront” proposal, especially pp. 10-12 & 16-23
  13. 13. Austin, TX: Children’s Optimal Health initiative “augments public data with protected/privately held data” by organizing residents as “data owners” to engage the community for improving practices, policies, and research (p. 7) New Orleans, LA: Multi-stakeholder coalition coordinated a participatory initiative to design, collect, and share data on post-Katrina healthcare conditions, which led to increased community participation in the recovery efforts (p. S241) Foreclosures in Prince Georges County, MD From Neighborhood Info, DC Milwaukee, WI: Community organizers walk the neighborhood to identify homes at risk of lead poisoning; they help residents benefit from abatement programs, including many who have resisted assistance due to cultural barriers Louisville, KY: Neighborhood residents conduct observations, interviews, and surveys to collect comprehensive data on housing stock, then present to community groups and partners to get feedback and determine next steps Housing conditions map created by a neighborhood coalition in Louisville, KY; based on public data and “community engagement mapping”; photo from video description 13
  14. 14. ¹New Haven MOMS Partnership Concept Paper, 2012; photo from Photos of the MOMS Partnership story; see also further information on the MOMS Partnership website 14 New Haven MOMS Partnership¹ • Coalition of residents, experts, and local leaders uses data for planning strategies & interventions to help mothers and their families thrive • Resident mothers are trained in research methods, outreach, and child development; several serve on the initiative’s “guide team” • Data at individual, family, and neighborhood levels; via surveys (n=1000+) on attitudes, behaviors, and needs related to maternal health and wellbeing • Based on an explicit, comprehensive theory of change, using rigorous measures to test and adapt efforts for achieving breakthrough results • Measurements draw on surveys, interviews, assessments, and public sources; indicators include financial savings, emergency room visits, risk behaviors (drinking, etc.), child welfare referrals, and kindergarten readiness
  15. 15. Magnolia Place Community Initiative (Los Angeles)¹ •Focused on a 500-block area to improve health & education of 35,000 resident children and their families •Strategy fosters community connectedness to promote wellbeing at individual, family, and neighborhood levels •Network partners include city officials, health experts, school leaders & neighborhood residents (including “local ambassadors” and “neighborhood action groups”) •“Community dashboard” measures include: kindergarten readiness (Outcomes); parent activities & behaviors (Drivers); and quality of services & supports (Interventions) 15 ¹Magnolia Place measures presentation; Community Initiative website; theory of change description
  16. 16. 16 Storefront for Urban Innovation (Philadelphia) Home base for an accessible, participative measurement system •A “civic stewardship storefront” can provide space and support for neighborhood meetings, project activities & problem solving¹ •Data is displayed via text, figures, photos, video, etc. •Information is mirrored and augmented in an interactive online space •Community stakeholders learn together about issues, connect with neighbors, and get involved in active efforts to improve results Human-centered design initiative “Participatory Chinatown” game encourages neighborhood civic engagement in Boston Design Studio for Social Innovation orchestrates civic innovation in the Roxbury neighborhood of Boston ¹For a fuller description of a neighborhood hub for collective action-learning, see a related “Civic Stewardship Storefront” proposal, pp. 8-9
  17. 17. Informs design and evaluation of programs, policies, products, and services •Improve offerings, avoid unintended consequences, enhance evaluations Promotes formation of new businesses and social enterprises •Enhanced market data helps local entrepreneurs discover and act on community opportunities Attracts “impact investors” •Very few non-profits today have measures that meet the requirements of “pay for success” contracts Accelerates diffusion of ideas and practices •The combination of resident stories and rigorous logic-model data creates a compelling case to peers and sponsors Increases community identity, belonging, and civic capacity •Participation in measurement processes builds collective consciousness and commitment to action ¹Discretionary expenditures by government agencies (local, state, and federal) are approximately $10,000 per resident for social-sector services such as health, education, welfare, and public safety (not including Social Security); about $100M for a typical neighborhood of 10,000 people. In many communities, enhanced civic stewardship, based on a robust measurement system, could likely improve results by 10%; a $10m value for a relatively small investment; (not to mention potential for increasing neighborhood revenues by using data to increase the success of local businesses and resident employment and income levels). Measurement systems can pay for themselves—by orders of magnitude—by increasing the impact of (or reducing the demand for) current discretionary social sector expenditures.¹ They can also create considerable value by attracting investments for new enterprises.² ²Leaders in the area of “impact investing” argue that in the next decade, new instruments could channel a trillion dollars to results-driven social-sector enterprises (source /source). Recently Goldman Sachs created a $250m social impact fund, and Morgan Stanley is planning to raise $10b over 5 years for an “investing with impact platform” (source); foundations now provide over $350m/year in performance-based loans to non-profit organizations (source, p. 13). 17
  18. 18. 18 Engage neighborhood coalition to steward a measurement system •Identify communities with high improvement potential •Identify experts in measures methods and local economy issues •Discuss proposal with local coalitions & stakeholders to assess fit, improve proposal, build relationships, and select pilot community site •Consolidate proposal and cultivate sponsors (for funds, influence & expertise) •Selection criteria include oReady local partnership or anchor organization oFocus on improving measurable results oCommitment to steward a measurement system for learning and Innovation oCollaboration across stakeholders & localities Develop measurement system to promote community action-learning Apply measurement system to identify and act on opportunities for results Expand measurement initiatives for local and inter-local civic stewardship •Organize and train local team and relevant partners (experts, influencers, sponsors) to lead the pilot initiative •Define outline of community logic model and identify types of information required •Collect public and other available data on outcomes & influencing factors related to targeted outcome(s) •Define instruments, activities, roles, tools (e.g., civic media), and training/coaching required to gather and organize information •Create mechanisms—including groups, events, physical and digital spaces, etc.—to report on activities and findings, and to engage residents and a broader circle of stakeholders •Local teams organize and lead an array of efforts to collect, interpret, and act on community knowledge, using participatory methods that engage residents and other stakeholders as civic stewards •Cultivate a community of practice that includes neighborhood participants across localities, as well as external experts and influencers, to strengthen and scale the work ~ 2-3 months ~ 2-3 months Next step (underway): Form a start-up team that includes community leaders, disciplinary experts, and institutional stakeholders to develop the proposal and steward a pilot initiative¹ ¹See a related proposal for a “civic stewardship storefront” that provides an action-learning lab for developing & applying useful community measures