NICDWG Meeting minutes

Attending: Bohatch, Schroeder, Smedes, Haan, Moore, Reyna, Schulz, Craft, Rotondaro, Hoffman, Faber, Koning, Weber

This meeting evaluated NICDWG's initial effort to engage additional partners, and raised several topics for further consideration.

NICDWG reviewed evaluations from the 87/28/03 community-roll-out session. Participants were uniformly impressed with level of local information available, expressed individual and overall interest in several different aspects of demographics, behavioral pattern (voting), and institutional practices (predatory lending), and lacked working knowledge of how best to access and apply data and indicators to community progress.

In particular, NICDWG discussed hosting a session to assist City of GR in unveiling its "Public Inquiry" program, and/or incorporating this topic and others into a quarterly "briefing" session highlighting a particular aspect of data, and its application to neighborhood/community work. Flexibility in selecting and presenting topics matters; select a topic that allows "hands-on" learning along with program/issue education. Sub-group will discuss and recommend a topic for winter session in early 2004. (Reyna, Bohatch, Craft, Schroeder, Moore, Weber to meet and discuss)

Koning reported on a road show from a recent conference (Washington DC) illustrating connections between community data, use of indicators, and applications to collaboration, grant-writing and program/project evaluation. NICDWG will investigate the potential to structure this as a capacity, and present to community-based organizations. (Suggestion to ask Renita Reed/Restorers how she is currently using data to identify issues, develop and present solutions).

NICDWG will collect real, positive examples of how data is being used for change, with a caution against allowing the technical or data work to overtake change agents, who often are small non-profit organizations with limited organizational capacity and strength.

NICDWG raised the related issues of access to data and access to technology as a topic for sub-group discussion. What assessment should occur? What incentives might further progress? Where are obstacles: hardware? access? skills? (Invite Ashima Saigal - N-Power to join; advise and help to measure capacity). Group agreed that it was important to manage rather than create expectations, particularly in this issue area.

Our relationship to other "Indicators" groups was described as a positive one, with the potential to both drive local indicator work forward and ensure that it is applicable and useful to community-level work. We will pursue the following connections to assorted Indicator projects:

NICDWG suggested that a sub-group discuss implications of privacy policies related to community data work, with the intent to identify best practices; lead the community in principles of data collection (particularly appropriate to current political climate).

7 July 03

NICDWG met on 7/2/03 to evaluate the 4/24/03 pilot "roll-out" session held at Davenport University and discuss other items of interest to community data work.

1) Per NNIP (National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership) e-mail list, the Piton Foundation in Denver, CO has won an award for excellence in community data, and connecting such data to social and economic progress in Denver's neighborhoods. NICDWG has reviewed Piton's "Neighborhood Indicators" in developing local data and indicator frameworks.

2) A national GIS/Community Data Conference will be held July 20 -21 in Portland, Oregon, focusing on the intersection of community data and social change.

3) Prompted by interest in the above announcements and similar information, Lee will forward NNIP items to NICDWG list as "FYI" items.

By way of description, the session scheduled for 9 - 12 noon actually began when the audience arrived at 9:30 AM. The deliberately small audience invited to this pilot session included Jim Courey (Creston Neighborhood Association), and representatives of organizations participating in the Delta Strategy's economic progress initiatives: Earl James (City Vision), Sarah Smith (South East Community Association), Rachel Hood and Rob McCarty (West Grand Neighborhood Organization), Sandy Stuckhardt (Weed & Seed), and Tamber Moore (Delta Strategy).

The session (agenda handed out at meeting) included an orientation to the work of the National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership, brief history of community data work in GR beginning ½ with NICDWG, some examples of using data to accomplish social change (Predatory Lending, Get The Lead Out, Greater New Orleans EITC program) and an overview of the role of GVSU's Community Research Institute website as a local data repository, with an example of mapped local voter participation (Nov 2002).

The information presented, particularly Dan Immergluck's material re predatory lending, got the attention of the audience and left them asking for more. Evaluations indicated that the session was helpful, the attendees appreciated the data offered by GVSU, the distinctions between macro and micro data, relevance of data to indicators, different uses of data for descriptive or decision-making purposes, and generally requested more access to data.

Suzanne Schulz raised the question of how best to tie NICDWG's work to the development of "Area Specific Plans" as called for in the Master Plan, and suggested that the group might use this process as an opportunity to introduce the use of data to new organizations, blending social, economic and environmental information with land use decisions. This also presents the opportunity to devise case studies which may be appropriate for GVSU students to research and present, and which portray data and its use in scenarios connected to local situations rather than in an abstract sense. If NICDWG is able to obtain student participation in Master Plan follow-up work, it will be important for both students and community participants to define tasks, include end dates and structure the work as a practice (and practical) component.

Currently, the North Baxter area and the Wealthy -Jefferson area are engaged in land use planning. Re North Baxter, Suzanne explained efforts to date, and the residents' interest in mixed income housing, park expansion and security. Under the principle that neighbors who have both data and understanding can drive development rather than react to it, the following potential data might be useful identifying populations at risk, and factors for change, using data to illustrate situations and highlight potential for change:

The use of community data was also suggested as a basis for a multi-interest discussion re the City's Community Development Block Program, current programming and progress/gains made with CDBG and related dollars. Dyer-Ives intends to convene this discussion (Fall '03), based on conversations with representatives of the GR Manager's office, Community Development Department and several GRAND / independent neighborhood groups. As an example, a focus on housing development by non-profits would help to identify impact and implications for future work. Several variables might be combined in order to measure individual neighborhoods against larger averages (target area, city-wide, county). Trend analysis and appropriate combinations of factors is important to developing useful indicators.

NICDWG will explore the possibility of defining such work into projects, and engaging students in short term research and analysis. Prior to next meeting, a sub group will talk to Mark Hoffman re data project for North Baxter, and other potential projects - possibly related to an initiative forming around) utilization of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and/or the Wealthy-Jefferson re-development.

A subcommittee (including 4/24/03 participants) will meet at Wealthy Street Bakery to develop next steps for community engagement, and will report to NICDWG at its 7/31/03 meeting.

7/31/03 agenda will include review of NICDWG website and indicators and Shared Community Indicators, discussion of potential student-community projects, and a report re next steps in community engagement.

17 April 03

NICDWG met on 4/17/03 to finalize the draft agenda for the roll-out session planned at Davenport University (Room 218) from 9-12 noon on Thursday, 4/24/03.

Although it was suggested that the session be delayed until additional materials and exercises could be developed, NICDWG decided to proceed with the session as a "pilot" prior to hosting an introductory session for the larger, grassroots and community-based groups engaged in social change work.

Participants already invited who have responded that they will attend are Jim Courey (Creston Nieghborhood Association), Rachel Hood and Rob McCarty (West Grand Neighborhood Association), Sarah Smith (South East Community Association), and Earl James, City Vision. Additional calls will be made by Delta Strategy staff to members of their SE/NW economic progress groups.

This session will be evaluated and used to help plan an introduction of NICDWG to the broader, grassroots community in late spring / early summer.

19 February 03

NICDWG reviewed the Grand Valley CRI website www.cridata.org and related efforts by GVSU staff to obtain additional relevant data.

Rotondaro and Weber reported on their request to Terri Hegarty, GR City Clerk, for voting participation data (by precinct and/or address) for several elections including local school board races (2), local mayoral/commission races (2), congressional (1) and presidential (1) races, and the most recent local school millage elections (2). Jose Reyna interceded to arrange a waiver of the $25/election cost. This information will be used to graphically describe voter participation on a geographic, neighborhood level, and also as a measure of civic involvement based upon a strong correlation between voting and citizen participation.

CRI staff is making steady progress in resolving issues with the crime data supplied by GR MIS Department. Subsequent data will be reported not by MIS but must be requested of the Police Department, in keeping with the City's policy of individual departmental maintenance and dissemination of data after the initial system set-up. Crime data available by neighborhood is being analyzed to focus on residential crime, with commercial areas considered differently so as not to confuse residential v business and entertainment crimes. NICDWG agreed that the distinction is a valuable one, and requested that neighborhood data be reported both cumulatively (all addresses; all crimes) as well as residential only.

With regard to confidentiality issues that may be raised in future requests for data, NICDWG restated the principle of addressing confidentiality through appropriate aggregation of data, so as to describe the smallest possible area (generally a neighborhood) without violating individual privacy concerning health, security, financial info or other sensitive topics.

With regard to the use of data, NICDWG is intent on productive applications of community data, and will resist the temptation to disseminate information according to individual judgments of good-bad news. For example, information that may be regarded as "bad" about levels of local crime may be "good" for seeking resources to address youth safety issues.

NICDWG domain

At the request of the group, Dirk Koning will be asked to research/secure the availability of "NICDWG" domain, and Dyer-Ives Foundation will be asked to support the initial registration cost.

Indicators

Several attendees raised questions regarding the relationship of data to indicators, the development and use of indicators and the benefits to those entities contributing data. In recognition of the importance of these issues, further discussion was pushed back until additional agencies and community organizations can take part.

Next steps

A small group of volunteers (Bohatch- City of Grand Rapids, Haan- Get the Lead Out, Craft- GR Community Foundation, Schulz- GR Planning Department, Weber- Dyer-Ives Foundation and Hoffman- GVSU) and recruits (VanIwaarden - GVSU, Faber- City Vision, Inc) will meet Friday 2/28 at 8:30 AM at Wealthy Street Bakery to plan a "roll-out" of NICDWG to work to a next layer of community. Recommendations for presenting community data work and engaging the participation of neighborhoods, advocacy and other groups will be made to the next NICDWG meeting.

15 January 03

A technical glitch delayed e-mail meeting reminders from going out prior to the meeting. Those in attendance reviewed the neighborhood data on the new CRI web site, which is now available (www.gvsu.edu/philanthropy/cri) Lee reported that she is aware that one neighborhood group has already used the site to help prepare a grant proposal.

Michal Kubicki reported on progress being made in analyzing the GRPD crime data.

12 December 02

Background

For the benefit of new partners, members of the working group presented a brief history of its work since its inception in January 2002. A group of foundations, agencies, governments, educational institutions and community organizations met in January 2002 with representatives of the National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership (NNIP), an effort led by the Urban Institute (Washington DC) and the Annie E. Casey Foundation to promote the use of community data in policy development and resource-related decision-making. Since that time, NICDWG has functioned as a loosely-formed coalition of various interests committed to the public availability of data at the smallest (most local) levels possible. Although partners come from various directions and hold unique agendas, all agree on the importance of using data to identify and address local issues by neighborhood organizations, advocacy groups, governments and institutions.

LINK-Michigan

Dirk Koning reported on this new statewide initiative to address technology issues of connectivity, community linkages and broadband availability. Dirk is working with the statewide group and believes that funds will soon be available at the local level to support related efforts. Planned "right-of-way" charges ($.05/mile) may generate up to $1 million, which may be available through city governments across Michigan.

Brief discussion ensured regarding relationship(s) to NICDWG, if any.The potential for progress in Grand Rapids was examined on two levels: technologically, GR is in great shape to widen access to broadband connections. Sociologically, progress will be tougher and less affordable. Barriers of knowledge, cost and equipment were quickly noted.

Dirk described a survey of 42 questions being posed to businesses, institutions and individuals re connectivity. The working group suggested that the survey capture address information so that results can be tracked geographically (GIS).

Link to Broader Community

NICDWG agreed that some interest in data has been generated over the past year in several spots, and suggested that the group employ neighborhood associations as a next step in the process of obtaining, accessing and using community data. NICDWG may pursue some time on the ACA (Alliance of Community Associations) agenda, to introduce the effort and identify interests as well as arrangements. (No decision made)

The fundamental pieces were identified as (1) getting data, (2) using data, and (3) analysis of data. The group discussed ways in which GVSU's CRI web page might be helpful in promoting further interest in data, specifically through SF1 information, crime, housing characteristics and neighborhood histories. Additional factors suggested included population shifts (as a trend), voting participation (local, national) and changes in housing values (as a trend).

Structure

Discussion began as to whether or not NICDWG required more than its current structure (or lack thereof). Without much definition, the working group agreed as to the necessity of organizational rather than individual representation around the table, committed itself to avoiding competition, and affirmed the value of neutrality regarding data (rather than attempting to manipulate data so as to influence policy, resources, services etc.)

Questions regarding the future of NICDWG's website, address and content were raised and held for future consideration.

Generally, NICDWG agreed that structural decisions might better be made after several other important community partners (neighborhood associations, service providers) were engaged, so that structure might reflect the interests of those partners as well as existing members.

14 November 02

Data

The working group addressed several questions regarding the availability and extent of of various community data.

Presentation to Broader Community

17 October 02

Advocacy

The working group reviewed letters generated by NICDWG partners in support of the broadest possible public access to data, pursuant to discussion at prior meetings. (Mark will check w/ Donna to obtain complete list of letters; Community Media Center, Family Independence Agency and Dyer-Ives Foundation noted letters already sent.)

Data

The GVSU Community Research Institute (Mark Hoffman, Gustavo Rotondaro) have received much community data from the City of Grand Rapids detailing public safety and reported crimes by address, which will be aggregated by neighborhood for the neighborhood-based web pages, and also property descriptions of value, assessments, taxes and housing types by individual parcel. The working group discussed the distinction between "data" and "indicators", and reviewed potential indicators to describe levels of residential racial segregation, social integration and educational levels. The group decided to pursue indicators describing the levels of diversity regarding race, cultures, lifestyles and economic status. The group is also interested in those measurements employed in "The Rise of the Creative Class" by Richard Florida, which has recently been cited by the master plan work and community/economic development specialists.

16 September 02

NICDWG met for the seventh time on Monday 9/16/02 to begin construction of neighborhood indicators, using available community data and shared group interests. Thanks to Delta Strategy (particularly Elizabeth Forbes) and Grand Rapids Community College for arranging and hosting the meeting.

The exercise demonstrated several potential intricacies inherent in constructing indicators of neighborhood health, and focused the attention of the working group on the purpose of such data and its use at a much finer level than previous discussions. Mark will work with Mikal to develop additional indicators for review/comment by NICDWG (at next meeting) based on factors identified in earlier discussions and currently available for use. Adam will focus on website development as indicators are agreed upon and posted.

With regard to public data advocacy statements, Lee reported that the draft statement had just been distributed to list of NICDWG participants and a few potentials, and that the Community Media Center's support letter was on its way to GVSU/CRI. Others are in process, and will be reported at our next meeting.

Please mark your calendars!
Next Meeting: 3:30 - 5:00PM on Wednesday 10/16/02, location TBA.

13 August 02

NICDWG met on 8/13/02 to discuss availability of data and the need for advocacy, in some instances, for data to be made public, and to begin cataloging the potential uses of community data by various partners.

Availability

Mark Hoffman/GVSU reported following meetings with the City of Grand Rapids (specifically Paul Klimas, MIS) that the City is agreeable to data access with some exceptions, and that GVSU/GR are now negotiating a licensing agreement concerning data re-distribution, aggregation, marketing and format issues, and questions of geographic v. attribute data access. GVSU will move forward with legal review of agreement, development of memorandum of understanding, obtaining data and posting it on a website. Although not all neighborhood indicator/community data items will be available, the group endorsed forward progress where possible, with the understanding that this is an incremental process. Beginning later this month, Hoffman will have two graduate students available for this project.

Advocacy

The group will solicit support of the drafted "advocacy statement" in the form of partners' letters to GVSU as depository for community data, and will expand the current NICDWG list to include other potential partners: GRPS, Kent District Library, health care industry, Kent County (see NICDWG Potential List attachment)

Draft Advocacy Statement:

As participants in the Neighborhood Indicators / Community Data Working Group (NICDWG) we advocate the free sharing of information collected by government and nonprofit organizations so that it may benefit the decision making and strategic planning of all local organizations working toward the betterment of our communities. While respecting confidentiality, security, and privacy, we endeavor to maximize information that is:

accessible and understandable to the various stakeholders in our communities;
useful in evaluating and monitoring the health of neighborhoods;
usable for in non-commercial educational, instructional and research purposes.

To this end, we join with GVSU to encourage local public and nonprofit agencies to share with the Community Research Institute (CRI) information and data that may be useful in neighborhood-based improvement efforts. Because of its mission, CRI is willing and able to store, manage, display and disseminate information for the NICDWG participants and for the larger nonprofit community. We appreciate any and all efforts that can be made to assist CRI in collecting useful data about our community.

Uses of Data

Aggregation of data at the neighborhood, block group, census tract and target area levels was suggested, with the understanding that confidentiality issues must be adequately addressed, and that common methods of aggregation will support accurate comparison of data at similar levels. The group asserted that it had no interest in private data, and is anxious to move the discussion beyond the level of individual, confidential data to that of aggregated data.

GTLO: Data anticipated to be useful in targeting environmental work. Given the limited resources available to address sizable issue, work that is better focused with the help of data will be more able to succeed in correcting toxic houses and tracking movement of research subjects. GTLO understands that data collected or available by parcel may need special handling to avoid confidentiality problems, and suggested that such circumstances require unique review by each organization donating (collecting, reporting) data.

FIA: Policy has been developed to protect confidential data. The issue shifts to one of available resources to facilitate collection, reporting of data in already-aggregated form.

United Way: United Way anticipates the use of financial incentives to encourage and protect the collection of data which can then be used in program reporting, planning, and resource allocation. With regard to campaign impact, better data = better marketing. UW will provide proposed "Community Indicator" data to be posted at NICDWG website.

Dyer-Ives Foundation: The foundation's Neighborhood Initiative focuses on building capacity for systemic change, particularly concerning issues of systemic poverty related to central GR (examples discussed: education, access to healthcare, economic development/progress, predatory lending, financial services, rental market/vendored rent, foreclosures, Section 8, housing conditions). Reflecting the National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership philosophy of democratizing data to encourage citizen participation in social change, Dyer-Ives is especially interested in local (census tract; neighborhood or block) data to highlight issues of particular concern.

Grand Rapids Community Foundation: The community foundation shares an interest in several of the potential uses noted, and looks forward to using data and indicators as a tool for determining funding allocations through trend analysis which measures the impact of dollars invested.

Other partners/potential partners to be contacted: MSU (Urban Affairs; Extension), Delta, KISD, GRPS, City of GR and Calvin College (COPC project in Garfield/Burton Heights; Social Research Center).

Next meeting: Monday, September 16 from 3:30 - 5:00 PM at GRCC Applied Technology Center, Room 180-A hosted by Delta Strategy (look for Delta signs).

10 July 02

The Neighborhood Indicators / Community Data Working Group met for the fifth time on Tuesday, 7/9/02 at the Community Media Center. The agenda included review of "example" websites, and discussion of the emerging list of Neighborhood Indicators as well as the "Community Indicators" being developed by human service agencies through United Way.

The group briefly looked at 3 items including its own website, the DAS 2001 site , and GIS info from a Kansas City community data project. City of GR intern Eric Pratt, noted points of interest in the DAS 2001 project, leading into discussion of local interest in collecting community-level data not currently available through traditional sources. The general feeling was that such efforts could be of value on both a micro and macro level, and as a "future" item will be held for future consideration. Discussion over the next hour touched on potential uses of community level data, the importance of isolating specific data at a micro level, potential additional contacts related to public education, economic indicators, and the emerging need for advocacy regarding public accessibility to public data. NICDWG decided to explore participant organizations' support of advocacy toward government and institutional data sources, and possible strategies to democratize data and information as well as promote its value at local, accessible, technologically-appropriate levels.

The next agenda (Tuesday 8/13 at 3:30 -5:00PM, location TBA) will include identification of potential uses of data by various interested partners, and an offer to Calvin/GPNA partnership to demonstrate GIS work accomplished thusfar under HUD Community Partnership grant.

14 May 02

The Neighborhood Indicators/Community Data Working Group met for the fourth time on 5/14/02 to pursue topics previously identified: identification and definition of neighborhood indicators, and examination of sample National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership (NNIP) websites (San Diego, Boston, Providence, RI)

Technical snafus prevented review of NNIP websites; this item was deferred until the next meeting. Discussion focused on the identification of neighborhood indicators, using a list developed by Mark Hoffman/GVSU as a starting point. Indicators were sorted into five major categories: Demographic, Social, Economic, Housing, and Environmental, and were discussed wwith regard to both "snapshot" and "trend" analysis. Participants added various factors (example: wealth), and sub-measurements (example: wealth per capita, per family, per household, median wealth, mean), and the category of Community Health. Indicators were considered in terms of the factor itself, potential or existing sources, current availability, and applicable levels of data use and collection. Several indicators were identified at the neighborhood level, including quality of life items (noise from traffic, environment, industry and trash, housing and nuisance code violations) and public safety (traffic, accidents, crime). At the community level, interest focused on transportation, social, cultural and educational assets, human services and "walkable communities", in several instances without identification of specific indicators around a given interest area. Various uses of indicators were discussed, including several different types of analysis based on needs of agencies, community organizations, planning officials, health and education systems. Measurement of capacity at the community and organizational level was of particular interest, particularly as it might contribute to planning, resource development and project/program evaluation. The working group was interested in investigating available marketing data, such as available from GVSU's Seidman Business School, to assess its potential to provide information of interest tot he community.

Pls refer to the indicator list(s) on the website for a complete listing of indicators identified.

The working group also discussed emerging concerns regarding the accessibility of data, perceptions surrounding concepts of "public data" and the level of political and financial support required to make broad access to data the "norm" in the greater Grand Rapids community.

At the invitation of Jose Reyna, GR Manager's Office, a small group (Rotondaro, Faber, Weber, Haan) will develop a presentation to the 6/10 Community-Oriented Government quarterly meeting.

The next meeting of the Neighborhood Indicator /Community Data Working Group (NICDWG; "nice dog") will be held in June (Tues, Wed, Thurs late afternoon depending on availability of techno availability to view other neighborhood indicator websites).

16 April 02

Thx to Donna VanI and GVSU Johnson Center staff for hosting the meeting. Mark Hoffman/GVSU presented a summary of data currently collected by the Community Research Institute including various census data, public and property records. Gustavo Rotondaro presented mapping work in progress to align data w/organized GR neighborhoods as much as possible. He noted that such geography is an attempt to structure data rather than engage in "turf" issues (some people/housing units not included; REGIS has slightly different map). Gustavo, Lee, Paul (others?) will arrange a June presentation to neighborhood and community interests re data, mapping and examples of local use.

Discussion re data available and/or needed included crime data, existing neighborhood assets (institutional, economic, cultural, other), housing data (value, condition, status, zoning), public safety/crime, particularly as can be expressed per population group (rate/100,000 for example), broadly aggregated physical/mental health data. All agreed that list was not exhaustive, and that discussion needs to continue to ID data needed, data available and subsequently, data analysis. Participants are very interested in joining and broadening the work of defining and selecting indicators.

Access to data was also addressed. Although no REGIS reps attended, it was reported that current problematic issues with GR, County and other partners over data and software were being negotiated. Meeting participants emphasized the critical need for coordination of effort in order to avoid duplications, gaps and confusion over access. All agreed that participants should make REGIS aware that the broad community wants data, and looks to public support of project as the basis for public partnership in policy development. City and GVSU staff noted differences w/ various partners in GIS and database software which they are addressing. REGIS is currently neiotiating w/ GVSU re training to support access to/use of data.

The following partners were identified as interested, or "hoped to be" interested: GR Community Foundation, Family Independence Agency, United Way, GVSU, City of GR, Dyer-Ives Foundation, Community Media Center, Aquinas Community Leadership Institute.

By agreement of the group, topics to be addressed include: Community access/training, development of partnership w/ REGIS in "community ombudsman" interest, practical applications, construction of indicators, and identification of examples where possible to make it all clear.

Next meeting: Tuesday, May 14 from 3-5PM at the Community media Center, 711 Bridge NW, parking adjacent.

5 March 2002

The Neighborhood Indicators/ Community Data Working Group met for the second time on March 5, 2002 at the Grand Valley Metro Council, in order to view the REGIS data system. Phil Lund explained the backgroundof REGIS and its member/customer structure, and briefly discussed both applications and limitations of the system in its current form. Partners are the City of Grand Rapids, Kent County, other metro area suburbs and townships, and Hudsonville (Ottawa County). The types of data included are property records at an individual lot level, geographic features, transportation systems (roads, highways, streets, major routes), US Census data as available, aerial maps and views, and community assets and institutions.

Following a demonstration of REGIS data, its mapping capabilities and overhead map views, participants discussed in broad terms other important sources of data regarding the Grand Rapids metro area, questions of policy and intent concerning access to data, and the need for a high level of coordination (soon!) among current data projects. Participants were interested in exploring GVSU's Community Research Institute website at a next meeting, and continuing the discussion of data collected, data available and data desired at a community level.

28 January 2002

Thanks to Donna VanIwaarden and her GVSU/Johnson Philanthropy Center staff for hosting this initial meeting. The first meeting of the Neighborhood Indicator/Community Data Working Group served as an introduction to contemporary data collection, access and analysis uses on a national level. Guest Kathryn Pettit (Urban Institute, Washington DC) described the National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership (NNIP) which involves sixteen urban communities across the country. The partnership focuses on the democratization of data, and its use by communities in policy development and the allocation of resources. PEttit discussed innovativre models for data collection and access in several communities, differing in some particulars but generally involving broad partnerships among government, higher education, institutions, human service agencies and intermediaries such as United Way, and community-based and advocacy organizations.

Guest David Bodenhamer (Polis Center, Indianapolis IN) provided a demonstration of the SAVI community data website serving the metropolitan Indianapolis area. His illustration included examples of data available, modes of public access via website and interactive maps, and application of data analysis to community education programming.

At the conclusion of the meeting, participants were interested in exploring the local community data environment, and accepted an invitiation from Phil Lund (Grand Valley Metro Council) to view the REGIS (Regional Geographic Information System) project at its next meeting.

Meeting Minutes

1 October 03

7 July 03

17 April 03

19 February 03

NICDWG domain

Indicators

Next steps

15 January 03

12 December 02

Background

LINK-Michigan

Link to Broader Community

Structure

14 November 02

Data

Presentation to Broader Community

17 October 02

Advocacy

Data

16 September 02

13 August 02

Availability

Advocacy

Draft Advocacy Statement:

Uses of Data

10 July 02

14 May 02

16 April 02

5 March 2002

28 January 2002