Community Quality-of-Life Indicators: Best Cases IX 3031069390, 9783031069390

Table of contents :
Contents
Chapter 1: A Call to Measure Community Resilience
Introduction
Definition of Community Resilience
Resilience Versus Sustainability
A Special Case of Resilience Planning: Localizing Climate Change
Resilience and Equity
Resilience, Indicators and Community Engagement
Conclusion
References
Chapter 2: Indicators for Community Resilience: Social Vulnerability, Adaptive Capacity, and Multi-Hazard Exposure in Austin, ...
Introduction
The Austin Area Sustainability Indicators
From Resilience to Community Resilience
Perspectives of Community Resilience on the Ground
Community Resilience Indicators
Social Vulnerability
Hazard Exposure
Social Vulnerability + Hazard Exposure
Adaptive Capacity
Prototyping a Community Resilience Indicator Set
Conclusion
References
Chapter 3: Data-Led Resilience Planning in Vulnerable Neighborhoods
Introduction
Challenges in Developing Countries
The Urban Community Resilience Assessment
Addressing Gaps in the UCRA Framework
Ensuring Localized Action
Conclusion
References
Chapter 4: Beyond a `Tick-Box Approach´ for Local Government Climate Change Adaptation: Learning Through Doing with Monitoring...
Introduction
Doing Adaptation Locally
Doing Adaptation in Local Government Alliances, Networks, Capacity Building
Doing Monitoring and Evaluation for Climate Change Adaptation
Developing Indicators and Metrics
How Well Are We Adapting? Mobilizing a Co-design Process with Local Governments
Initiating the M&E Process
Co-designing the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework
Co-designing Indicators
Piloting and Implementation of the M&E Online Tool
Upscaling the Project
Doing Adaptation as a Participatory Process
Barriers and Benefits
Building Adaptive Capacity: Spaces for Participatory Learning
Conclusion: Lessons for `Doing´ Adaptation
References
Chapter 5: The Cost of Sea Level Rise for the Island Community of Vinalhaven, Maine: Spurring Action Through Collaborative Dat...
Introduction
Local Community and Climate Change
Relationship Building Through Community Indicators
Trends Along the Coast of Maine
Citizen-Led Data Collaboration
Encouraging Dialogue on Climate Change
Findings
Sea Level Rise Impacts to Vinalhaven, Maine
Conclusion
Next Steps
References
Chapter 6: Elevating the Voices of Children and Their Caregivers in New York City
Introduction
Eight Decades of Advocacy with and for NYC´s Children and Families
The Ongoing Need to Elevate the Voices of Children and Their Families
Who Are New York City´s Children and Families?
Public Data Are Essential But Not Sufficient for Assessing Community Needs
The Most Important Voices Are Those Least Likely to Be Heard
Family-Centered Approaches to Assessing Community Quality of Life
Role Playing
Data Walks at Community Feedback Events
Cellphone-Based Surveys and Communication
How Family-Centered Methods Inform Family-Focused Policy Priorities and Advocacy
Developing Alternative Interpretations of Publicly Available Data
Identifying Community Needs for Which There Are No or Limited Publicly Available Data
Advancing New and Ongoing Policy Advocacy Efforts During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Conclusion
References
Chapter 7: Understanding Youth Disconnection in the Age of Coronavirus
Introduction
Youth Disconnection in the U.S.
Characteristics of Connected and Disconnected Youth (Fig. 7.3)
Youth Disconnection by Gender and by Race and Ethnicity
Discussion: Supporting Our Most Vulnerable
Unprecedented Hurdles to Education Will Harm Students
Disconnected Youth and Their Families Will Be Hardest Hit
The U.S. Government Has Enough Money to Solve Youth Disconnection
Measure of America´s `A Decade Undone´ Report Shines a Spotlight on the Needs of Our Most Vulnerable Communities
Conclusion
References
Chapter 8: Identifying, Mapping, and Measuring the Impact of Youth Workforce Pathways with Community Partners Using SDGs
Introduction
The Need
The Genesis of the Earn and Learn Pathway
The Youth Social Entrepreneurship (YSE) Point-in-Time Studies
The Earn and Learn Pathway Development
Identifying the Community-Based Nonprofits
Mapping the Workforce Development Pathway to the SDGs
Preparing for Impact Analysis
The Tennessen Warning in Minnesota and Its Implications for Cross-Sector Data Analysis
The Ethics of Data Collection from Community-Based Organizations
Gaining Trust from Community-Based Nonprofit Leaders, Young Adults and Parents
Aligning with the SDGs
Measuring Progress
Estimating the Collective Social Return on Investment (SROI)
Assessing Where the Benefits Accrue
Aggregating Data from Multiple Sources Using a Logic Model
Key Performance Indicators Impacting the SDGs
Lessons Learned
Conclusion
References
Chapter 9: Something Real and Lasting: What to Expect from a Citizen-Led Sustainable Community Indicators Project (SCIP)
Introduction
SCIP Research Methodology and Process
Participatory Action Research
Project Framework and Process
Outcomes Research Approach
Interviewee Selection
Demographic Profile
Analysis and Interpretation
The How, the Who and the Why of Involvement in the Project
How Did People Get Involved in the Sustainable Calgary Indicator Project?
Why Did People Get Involved in the Sustainable Calgary Indicator Project?
Curiosity
An Opportunity to Learn
The Desire to Contribute
The Project´s Potential to Make a Difference
Pride in Place
Who Participated in the Sustainable Calgary Indicator Project: And Who Did Not?
Exclusion Due to Ethnicity, Age and Economic Means
The Civic-Minded, the Complacent and the Mainstream
Significant Personal Outcomes
Inclusion of the Social Dimension into a More Holistic and Grounded Understanding of the Complexity of Sustainability
Highlighting the Social Dimension
The Holistic Nature of the Concept of Sustainability
Appreciation of the Complexity of Sustainability
Grounding the Concept of Sustainability in Real Life
Personal Growth
Expanded Horizons
Increased Mindfulness of Sustainability
Increased Capacity for Critical Thinking
The Good Citizenship High
Inspiration
Empowerment
Behaviour Change
Participation in the Project as a Contributor to Behaviour Change
A Variety of Personal Behaviour Changes
Increased Capacity for Advocacy of Sustainability
Professional and Personal Skills Development and Career Development
Professional Skill Development
New Career Paths
Community Outcomes
A Productive and Engaging Citizen Dialogue
Employing Popular Education
Making Room for Different Kinds of Knowledge
An Inclusive Dialogue
A Creative, Open and Welcoming Dialogue
A Dialogue for the Common Good
The Power and Sophistication of Citizen-Led Initiatives
A Tool for Sustainability Educators
Modest Municipal Government Policy Influence
No Evidence of Influence in the Provincial Public Sector or the Private Sector
Minor Policy Influence in the Not-for-Profit Sector
Modest But Significant Policy Influence Within Municipal Government
Reality Check: Limited Profile and Traction of Municipal Government Policy
A Benchmark for Indicators and Performance Measurement
Contribution to an Emerging Progressive Sustainability Network
Contribution to an Enabling Environment for Achieving Sustainability
A Valuable Reference Document
Catalyst for New Research and Projects
Exclusion Within the Process
Conclusions
References
Chapter 10: Bringing Data Home
Introduction
An Opportunity Emerges from a Journalistic Crisis
Aligning with National Momentum
Beyond the Pages of a Magazine: Partnering with Community Radio on Bilingual, Equity-Oriented News
A Reporting Fellowship Is Born
An Evolving Local News and Information Landscape
Bringing Our Community Together Through the Power of Structured Dialogue
Conclusion
References
Chapter 11: The Community Indicator and Community Foundation Interface: Exploring Best Practices and Standards
Introduction
Community Foundations and Community Indicators
A Partnered Approach for Exploring Connections and Applications
The Community Indicators Movement
Community Indicators: What Are They?
Why Do They Matter?
Community Foundation Movement
Expectations and Challenges
Knowledge Creation Best Practices
Best Practices in the Nonprofit and Philanthropic Sectors: What Are They About?
Best Practices and Performance Measurement: How Community Philanthropy Functions
Shifting from Performance Measurement to Community Indicators as a Best Practice
Capabilities Produced
Review of the Existing State of Best Practices and Standards in Community Philanthropy
National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations
Meeting Community Need
National Standard 18: Diverse Grantmaking
National Standard 19: Discretionary Grantmaking
CF Leads
Exploring Connections and Applications: Community Indicators to Expand on Best Practices
Conclusion
References
Resources

Citation preview

Community Quality-of-Life and Well-Being

Frank Ridzi Chantal Stevens Lyle Wray   Editors

Community Quality-ofLife Indicators Best Cases IX

Community Quality-of-Life and Well-Being Series Editor Rhonda Phillips, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA Editorial Board Members Meg Holden, Urban Studies Program, 2nd Floor, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, Canada Charlotte Kahn, Boston Foundation, Boston, USA Youngwha Kee, Soongsil University, Dongjak-Gu, Korea (Republic of) Alex C Michalos, Faculty of Arts, Brandon University, Brandon, MB, Canada Don R. Rahtz, Sadler Center, College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, USA Joseph Sirgy, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, VA, USA

The Community Quality of Life and Well-being book series is a collection of volumes related to community level research, providing community planners and quality of life researchers involved in community and regional well-being innovative research and application. Formerly entitled, Community Quality of Life Indicators: Best Practices, the series reflects a broad scope of well-being. Next to best practices of community quality-of-life indicators projects the series welcomes a variety of research and practice topics as related to overall community well-being and quality of life dimensions, whether relating to policy, application, research, and/or practice. Research on issues such as societal happiness, quality of life domains in the policy construct, measuring and gauging progress, dimensions of planning and community development, and related topics are anticipated. This series is published by Springer in partnership with the International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, a global society with the purpose of promoting and encouraging research and collaboration in quality of life and well-being theory and applications.

Frank Ridzi • Chantal Stevens • Lyle Wray Editors

Community Quality-of-Life Indicators Best Cases IX

Editors Frank Ridzi Central New York Community Foundation and Le Moyne College Syracuse, NY, USA

Chantal Stevens Community Indicators Consortium Seattle, WA, USA

Lyle Wray Capital Region Council of Governments Hartford, CT, USA

ISSN 2520-1093 ISSN 2520-1107 (electronic) Community Quality-of-Life and Well-Being ISBN 978-3-031-06939-0 ISBN 978-3-031-06940-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06940-6 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 Chapter “The Cost of Sea Level Rise for the Island Community of Vinalhaven, Maine: Spurring action through collaborative data analysis” is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). For further details see licence information in the chapters. This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Contents

1

A Call to Measure Community Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chantal Stevens

2

Indicators for Community Resilience: Social Vulnerability, Adaptive Capacity, and Multi-Hazard Exposure in Austin, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Patrick Bixler and Jessica Jones

3

Data-Led Resilience Planning in Vulnerable Neighborhoods . . . . . . Lubaina Rangwala and Ananya Ramesh

4

Beyond a ‘Tick-Box Approach’ for Local Government Climate Change Adaptation: Learning Through Doing with Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Susie Moloney, Haydie Gooder, Heather McListon, Fran MacDonald, and Katrina Dunn

5

6

The Cost of Sea Level Rise for the Island Community of Vinalhaven, Maine: Spurring Action Through Collaborative Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meghan Grabill Elevating the Voices of Children and Their Caregivers in New York City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bijan Kimiagar and Jennifer March

1

11 27

47

73

87

7

Understanding Youth Disconnection in the Age of Coronavirus . . . 105 Kristen Lewis

8

Identifying, Mapping, and Measuring the Impact of Youth Workforce Pathways with Community Partners Using SDGs . . . . . 125 Peg Thomas, William Nielsen, Timothy Roman, and Stephanie Shekels v

vi

Contents

9

Something Real and Lasting: What to Expect from a Citizen-Led Sustainable Community Indicators Project (SCIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Noel Keough

10

Bringing Data Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Chris Barge

11

The Community Indicator and Community Foundation Interface: Exploring Best Practices and Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Patsy Kraeger, Rhonda Phillips, and Frank Ridzi

Chapter 1

A Call to Measure Community Resilience Chantal Stevens

Abstract Against the backdrop of a difficult year for the Earth and humankind, the Community Indicators Consortium held a conference on community resilience. CIC defined community resilience as the capacity of all of a community’s parts, including individuals, communities, institutions, nonprofits and foundations, businesses, and systems, to survive, adapt, and grow no matter what kinds of chronic stresses and acute shocks they experience. Sustainability attempts to eliminate or moderate shocks and stresses while resilience is about preparing for, tackling and overcoming change without being completely overwhelmed by it. Populations that are generally or specifically vulnerable need to be identified and the focus needs to expand from concerns over the built environment to the understanding of social networks and social capital. Identifying and measuring risk and vulnerability can promote understanding, engagement and action. Keywords Community engagement · Resilience · Sustainability · Climate change · Equity · Community indicators

Introduction 2020 was a challenging year for the Earth and for humankind. The COVID-19 pandemic upended life as we know it throughout most of the world and ultimately claimed an estimated 3 million deaths across the globe (as of April 2021), closing businesses, events and transportation, with consequences on global and local economies and human physical and mental health that are not fully understood yet. At the same time, the world faced a record year for natural disasters that caused vast ecological and economic devastation. Among the worst: wildfires in Australia; typhoons, cyclones and hurricanes in the Philippines, India, Bangladesh, Haiti and the Dominican Republic and elsewhere in Central America; volcano eruptions in the Philippines; earthquakes in Turkey; flash floods in Indonesia and Afghanistan

C. Stevens (*) Community Indicators Consortium, Seattle, WA, USA © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 F. Ridzi et al. (eds.), Community Quality-of-Life Indicators, Community Quality-ofLife and Well-Being, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06940-6_1

1

2

C. Stevens

(Hubbard, 2020). Across the US, 22 separate billion-dollar weather and climate disasters linked to tropical cyclones, severe storms, drought, and wildfires shattered the previous annual record. The 22 events cost the nation a combined $95 billion in damages (Smith, 2021). Against this backdrop, the Community Indicators Consortium (CIC) chose community resilience as the theme of its 2020 Impact Summit. Held August 3–7, 2020, the online conference was titled: Building Resilience with Community Data. CIC intended for this event to be an exploration of the role of community data in building and supporting resilience at the local level, providing examples and tools for community indicators practitioners and researchers, and for community leaders to understand, measure and strengthen resilience within their communities. Recognizing that families and children are not only the first to suffer the consequences and manifestations when communities fail to prepare but are also central change agents in promoting resilience for themselves, others, and their community, CIC invited presentations on specific efforts that focus on improving child and youth family well-being. Most of the chapters within this volume started as presentations at the 2020 Impact Summit and relate explicitly or indirectly to resilience.

Definition of Community Resilience It is generally agreed upon that resilience has to do with the ability of a community to prepare so it can bounce back and recover from adverse situations. A 2017 systematic review of the literature found the concept elusive and even amorphous. The concept of ‘community resilience’ is almost invariably viewed as positive, being associated with increasing local capacity, social support and resources, and decreasing risks, miscommunication and trauma. Yet consensus as to what community resilience is, how it should be defined and what its core characteristics are does not appear to have been reached, with mixed definitions appearing in the scientific literature, policies and practice. (Patel et al., 2017)

We settled on the following definition, amalgamated from several sources: community resilience is the capacity of all of a community’s parts, including individuals, communities, institutions, nonprofits and foundations, businesses, and systems, to survive, adapt, and grow no matter what kinds of chronic stresses and acute shocks they experience. From the effects of pandemics and climate change to changing population structures and infrastructure support, resilience is what helps communities adapt and transform in the face of these challenges, helping them to prepare for both the expected and the unexpected. Resilience planning requires assessing the durability and flexibility of the ecosystem upon which the community depends, the infrastructure that supports it, the governance that organizes it, and the economic and social capitals that sustain it in order to strengthen them as needed. What is worth noting is that talks of resilience are usually reactive. A typical line of inquiry will ask how we can do better now that we know how this disaster has

1

A Call to Measure Community Resilience

3

impacted that community. It also usually focuses on addressing major impacts. By proactively assessing and building the capacity of a community to be resilient, resilience can become preventive and restorative. Communities are facing challenges from multiple fronts in a world where pathogens can travel around the world in days and some climate experts believe we may have already crossed, or will soon cross, the thresholds for dangerous warming (Hébert et al., 2021). As a result, sources of stress on our communities are likely to continue to intensify and diversify. According to the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reductions, there has been a rise in climate-related disasters during the past 20 years. Between 1980 and 1999, there were 3656 climate-related events, as opposed to 6681 between 2000 and 2019. Those differences are reflected in the number of floods, which has more than doubled in the past 20 years, while the incidence of storms increased from around 1457 to around 2034 (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2020). Furthermore, climate change, together with other natural and human-made health stressors, can influence human health and disease in numerous ways. Some existing health threats will intensify, and new health threats will emerge. In the U.S., public health can be affected by disruptions of physical, biological, and ecological systems, including disturbances originating here and elsewhere. The health effects of these disruptions include increased respiratory and cardiovascular disease, injuries and premature deaths related to extreme weather events, changes in the prevalence and geographical distribution of food- and water-borne illnesses and other infectious diseases, and threats to mental health (Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Reviewed March 2, 2021).

Resilience Versus Sustainability Resilience and sustainability are often used interchangeably. Sustainability strives to achieve a balance between nature and human activities to avoid environmental impacts and support quality of life for current and future generations, while resilient communities are prepared to survive and thrive despite those impacts. Similar practices can be used to improve both the sustainability and the resilience of communities. Supporting local farms can decrease reliance on fossil fuels and pollution, improve public health and boost the local economy while also increasing a region’s food security and food resilience. Resilience is the practice of designing our physical environment to absorb environmental, physical, social and economic shocks and stresses. So, it could be said that sustainability attempts to eliminate or moderates those shocks and stresses while resilience is about preparing for, tackling and overcoming change without being completely overwhelmed by it. One can argue that using sustainable practices to avoid catastrophes should be viewed as the first step (prevention) in strengthening the resilience of a community, but since some events are unavoidable (e.g., earthquakes), resilience goes beyond keeping the natural, economic and social realms in

4

C. Stevens

balance and also prepares for the poorly planned, human errors, and the inescapable (restoration). The definition of resilience from the Stockholm Resilience Center (https://www. stockholmresilience.org/) comes closest to bridging the gap between sustainability and resilience, describing resilience as “a capacity to persist, adapt or transform in the face of change in a way that maintains the basic identity of a system.”

A Special Case of Resilience Planning: Localizing Climate Change In the context of tracking and building resilience, climate change is in a special category. It is primarily driven by the combustion of fossil fuels, and, to a lesser extent, by the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities (NASA, n.d.) that has led to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, causing the planet to warm with a suite of known and yet to be understood consequence. Climate change has the potential to worsen almost every aspect of life on the planet from the availability and quality of food to the kinds and transmissibility of diseases to the destruction of complex ecological systems (Watts et al., 2019). The argument can be made that, since factors contributing to climate change are mostly outside the control of individuals and many indicators, like global annual average surface temperature or atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, are meaningless at the local level, tracking climate change has no purpose in promoting action at the local level. Yet, failing to report on climate change-related indicators is a lost opportunity to: (1) educate the community about climate change and its localized impact and link to community wellbeing, (2) identify areas where action can be taken locally, as the cumulative benefits of millions of little actions amounts to significant improvements, and (3) understand and plan for local impacts of climate change. The science of climate change describes a range of possible futures, which are largely dependent on the degree of action or inaction in the face of a warming world. The policies implemented will have far-reaching effects in determining these eventualities, [. . . .] Understanding these decisions as a choice between one of two pathways—one that continues with the business-as-usual response and one that redirects to a future that remains “well below 2
C”—helps to bring the importance of recognising the effects of climate change and the necessary response to the forefront (Watts et al., 2019)

Coastal communities are particularly vulnerable. Leaders of the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) have been vocal at highlighting the vulnerability of their nations. SIDS are already experiencing significant impacts from a wide range of climate hazards, from loss of land caused by sea-level rise, to decreases in freshwater aquifers and declining fisheries (Thomas et al., 2020). In this volume, we find out that the island town of Vinalhaven, Maine (USA), is experiencing some of the direct

1

A Call to Measure Community Resilience

5

effects of sea level rise, with roads being overtopped by the ocean and ferry trips being cancelled because the seas are too high (Grabill, 2022). In other communities, the effects are not as direct or may be conflated with others. In the US, the West has always experienced forest fires during its dry summers. Many factors have jointly or separately led to record burning years: more human encroachment, vandalism, forest practices, droughts and warming air temperatures. The clearest connection to global warming is in the last two points. The planet has heated up nearly continuously since the late 1800s, when humans started burning massive quantities of fossil fuels, and global average temperatures have risen roughly 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) while California’s change is closer to 3 degrees Fahrenheit. Hot air acts like a thirsty sponge, soaking up water from, and parching, plants and soil. Climate change is also changing the seasonal rain and snow patterns across the Western U.S. with Springtime coming earlier and melting the snowpack sooner, giving the plants and soils longer to dry out (Borunda, 2020). Tracking climate metrics such as local air temperatures, water levels of adjacent water bodies, regional snowpack, and rain falls within the community help communities understand and assess risk and prepare for the worst. To further the understanding of how hazard risk and vulnerability interact, Austin Area Sustainability Indicators offers “a set of indicators to assess the risks that certain climaterelated hazards pose, how those risks are spatially and socially distributed, and how households, neighborhoods and cities can build resilience.” Those indicators include: a wildfire risk index (includes the probability of wildfire events, fireline intensity and spotting distance), creek flooding risk index (includes “creek flooding problem scores and FEMA floodplain data), heat risk index (includes data on imperviousness and tree cover) and then combines it all on a multi-hazard climate risk map. Those risk assessments are overlaid upon A2SI’s social vulnerability index to explicitly link community vulnerability with hazard risk as further described in Chap. 2 (Bixler & Jones, 2022).

Resilience and Equity Vulnerability and resilience are tightly coupled concepts where increasing resilience is likely decreasing vulnerability (Bixler & Yang, 2020). Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Target 1.5 promotes building the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure to economic, social and environmental shocks. As quoted in Rangwala and Ramesh (2022): While disasters affect several cities across the world, the poor and vulnerable communities face a disproportionately higher exposure to risks than those living in wealthier neighbourhoods (Galvin, 2017).

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) further recognizes that highly unequal cities—with high concentrations of urban poor—are more vulnerable to social, economic and environmental shocks (OECD, 2018).

6

C. Stevens

Individuals and communities who experienced chronic stresses from poverty and racism and/or a variety of social, economic, and physical and mental health-related impacts, sometimes coupled with dependence on services and institutions, are at a higher risk of trauma or disruption when disaster strikes. In addition, vulnerable populations tend to occupy locations that are more naturally unstable or more isolated, compounding their vulnerability. In this volume, Rangwala and Ramesh (2022) exposes many such situations: inadequate infrastructure leading to unsafe water systems, higher heat index, limited waste collection, etc. Barge (2022)) relays the story of mobile home park residents burdened by chalky, foul-smelling tap water and Kimiagar and March (2022) informs us that New York families in the lowest income quintile are more likely to be severely rent burdened, lack health insurance, and lack access to broadband internet, all of which are also barriers to participating in community planning processes. Not only that, but this additional and disproportionate burden and unequal access to resources brings on further variations in morbidity and mortality. For example, in some regions in Mexico, Chile and the United States, close to 40% of the population is obese (OECD, 2020), exacerbating vulnerability to health crises, such as COVID-19, and susceptibility to a host of health problems. Matin et al. (2018, #) defines equitable resilience as a form of resilience that takes into account issues of social vulnerability and differential access to power, knowledge, and resources; it requires starting from people’s own perception of their position within their human-environmental system, and it accounts for their realities and for their need for a change of circumstance to avoid imbalances of power into the future. Efforts, such as the Austin Area Sustainability Indicators (A2SI)’s dashboard of community resilience that disaggregate the data down to the census tract (Bixler, 2021) or Measure of America (Lewis, 2022) that reports regionally, but breaks down data by race, ethnicity, gender, and age and drills down on a variety of characteristics such as disabilities, poverty, living arrangements, etc. can help identify vulnerable populations and address their needs in the resilience planning process. Keough (2022) talks about bringing into relief the social dimension of sustainability as Rangwala and Ramesh (2022) call for a shift of focus from the role of physical infrastructure to the role of social networks and social capital in disaster planning and resilience building. Accurate counts that do not neglect any of the potentially vulnerable populations, such as young children, are necessary to ensure that those populations are included in the reliance planning process. In this volume, we find out from the Citizens’ Committee for Children (Kimiagar & March, 2022) that around 70,000 young children in New York were not counted in the 2010 Census, which influences the funding the state received for census-guided federal spending on housing, education, health and nutrition programs.

1

A Call to Measure Community Resilience

7

Resilience, Indicators and Community Engagement If we accept the proposed definition of community resilience, as noted above, that it is the capacity of all of a community’s parts, including individuals, communities, institutions, nonprofits and foundations, businesses, and systems, to survive, adapt, and grow no matter what kinds of chronic stresses and acute shocks they experience, we must accept the premise that, although we may not know all the stresses and shocks that are in store, we need all of those parts to participate, and be fully engaged, in a meaningful process of resilience planning. Concerns will vary widely among the different “parts” and preparedness may take different forms, but the process should weigh the needs of vulnerable populations more heavily, and particular strategies and tools may be necessary to include their views, concerns and needs. Those experiences with the public and decision-makers are fraught with risks as they relate to people’s lives and livelihoods (on either side—whether some actions or no action is taken) and can be tinged with passionately held political views. Experts recommend starting the conversation on common ground, using clear language and examples the audience is more likely to be familiar with (Climate Outreach, n.d.). Indeed, Grabill (2022) is concerned that information known is not always contextualized in a way that is meaningful to the local community experience. Moloney et al. (2022) recognizes that indicators that track resilience and adaptation are useless if they are not meaningful to users, i.e., policymakers and community members. She recommends a mix of qualitative and quantitative measures that engages the future users at the same time as it builds capacity within the community, e.g., through a series of well-planned workshops. To do their part in the planning and implementation of a robust resilience building process, community indicators should do two things: (1) help identify, monitor or anticipate those stresses and shocks and, (2) help uncover and then monitor those populations, elements of the built environment and ecosystems that are most vulnerable. Indicators that help understand risk often must use proxies. One cannot foresee what type of pathogen may be responsible for a future outbreak, but knowing how healthy the local population is, the percentage of insured people and the number and proximity of hospital beds and medical personnel will help understand how prepared a community is to face a health emergency. Similarly, one needs to understand not only the snowpack and rain level and the health of the surrounding forest, but also the proximity and capacity of firefighting personnel and equipment to assess the risk of wildfire to a community. A2SI tracks three interrelated indicators: social vulnerability, hazard exposure, and adaptive capacity. Social vulnerability, as an indicator of social resilience, refers to the degree to which a population or asset is susceptible or resistant to impacts from shocks or stressors; exposure refers to the presence of people, livelihoods, environmental services and resources, infrastructure, economic, social, or cultural assets that could be adversely affected; and, adaptive capacity refers to the ability of a system (i.e., people, environmental services and resources, or cultural assets, etc.) to cope

8

C. Stevens

with stress or adjust to new situations (Bixler & Jones, 2022). Rangwala and Ramesh (2022), as well as Kimiagar and March (2022) suggest ways to poll the population and understand its appetite.

Conclusion Over the years, the focus of community indicator projects has changed, from social indicators in the early days, to sustainability indicators in the 1990s and 2000s to the recent interest in wellbeing. This chapter does not argue for a resilience-centered framework for community indicator projects, but rather for an awareness of resilience and a call to include indicators of community resilience as part of a wider array of indicators. A disaster can wipe out years of work to improve community wellbeing and sustainability. Indeed, as just one example, Lewis. (2022) fears that the recent COVID-19 pandemic may have wiped out a decade of progress in reducing the youth disconnection rate. As money is diverted to address natural, health and social disasters, less is available for prevention and to support quality of life and essential services. While some risks are mostly universal (e.g., pandemic, earthquake), many are specific to a region (e.g., volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, tsunamis). Understanding the potential hazards of a place can help identify what should be tracked. Identifying risk-specific vulnerability as well as general vulnerability (e.g., due to race, age, health conditions, mobility) will help with prevention and recovery, as well as offer tools to improve wellbeing and sustainability. Funding is always where the rubber hits the road. Kraeger et al. (2022) argue that community indicators can be helpful in carrying out the core mission of community foundations. The inverse is also true: community foundations can play an important role in supporting a community’s need and right to access data that support its sustainability and resilience. Local governments are also generally invested in protection of their communities with particular attention to the infrastructure. Since they do not always have the community engagement expertise and the mandate to work beyond certain service areas, they are in a great position to partner with community organizations to support the identification and research behind including sets of resilience indicators as part of a complete set of community indicators. In reviewing the value of community sustainability indicators projects, Keough (2022) argues they provide a benchmark for sustainability—raising the bar for understanding, creating tools for, and taking action on, sustainability while contributing to the creation of an enabling environment for sustainability and nurturing a sustainability network across civil society, local government, the private sector and citizens. It is likely that the addition of community resilience indicators, identified through a meaningful community engagement process, would bring on the same benefits: promoting understanding, engagement and action.

1

A Call to Measure Community Resilience

9

References Barge, C. (2022). Bringing data home TRENDS Reporting Initiative in Boulder County, CO takes a story-driven approach to data and community transformation. In F. Ridzi, C. Stevens, & L. Wray (Eds.), Community quality-of-life indicators: Best cases IX (pp. 191–202). Springer. Bixler, P. R., & Yang, E. (2020). Climate Vulnerability in Austin: A multi-risk assessment.” An Austin Area Sustainability Indicators and Planet Texas 2050 (Unpublished Technical Report ed.). Bixler, R. P., & Jones, J. (2022). Indicators for community resilience: Social vulnerability, adaptive capacity, and multi-hazard exposure in Austin, Texas Authors. In F. Ridzi, C. Stevens, & L. Wray (Eds.), Community quality-of-life indicators: Best cases IX (pp. 11–26). Springer. Borunda, A. (2020, September 17). The science connecting wildfires to climate change A heatingup planet has driven huge increases in wildfire area burned over the past few decades. https:// www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/climate-change-increases-risk-fires-western-us Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (Reviewed March 2, 2021). Climate Effects on Health. CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH). https://www.cdc.gov/ climateandhealth/effects/default.htm Climate Outreach. (n.d.). Principles for effective communication and public engagement on climate change. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2017/08/Climate-Outreach-IPCC-communica tions-handbook.pdf Galvin, G. (2017, September 20). 10 of the Deadliest Natural Disasters of 2017. https://www. usnews.com/news/best-countries/slideshows/10-of-the-deadliest-natural-disasters-of-2017 Grabill, M. (2022). The cost of sea level rise for the island community of Vinalhaven, Maine. In F. Ridzi, C. Stevens, & L. Wray (Eds.), Community quality-of-life indicators: Best cases IX (pp. 73–86). Springer. Hébert, R., Lovejoy, S., & Tremblay, B. (2021). An observation-based scaling model for climate sensitivity estimates and global projections to 2100. Climate Dynamics, 56, 1105–1129. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05521-x Hubbard, K. (2020, December 22). Here Are 10 of the Deadliest Natural Disasters in 2020 Storms, fires, earthquakes and other disasters claimed hundreds of lives around the world this year. U.S. News and World Report. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/slideshows/hereare-10-of-the-deadliest-natural-disasters-in-2020? Keough, N. (2022). Something real and lasting: What to expect from a citizen-led community sustainability indicators project. In F. Ridzi, C. Stevens, & L. Wray (Eds.), Community qualityof-life indicators: Best cases IX (pp. 151–190). Springer. Kimiagar, B., & March, J. (2022). Elevating the voices of children and their caregivers in New York city policy research and advocacy through family-centered, community-based assessments. In F. Ridzi, C. Stevens, & L. Wray (Eds.), Community qualityof-life indicators: Best cases IX (pp. 87–104). Springer. Kraeger, P., Phillips, R., & Ridzi, F. (2022). The community indicator and community foundation interface: Exploring best practices and standards. In F. Ridzi, C. Stevens, & L. Wray (Eds.), Community quality-of-life indicators: Best cases IX (pp. 203–228). Springer. Lewis, K. (2022). Understanding youth disconnection in the age of coronavirus. In F. Ridzi, C. Stevens, & L. Wray (Eds.), Community quality-of-life indicators: Best cases IX (pp. 105–124). Springer. Matin, N., Forrester, J., & Ensor, J. (2018). What is equitable resilience? World Development, 109, 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.04.020 Moloney, S., Gooder, H., McListon, H., MacDonald, F., & Dunn, K. (2022). Beyond a ‘tick-box approach’ for local government climate change adaptation: Learning through doing with M & E. In F. Ridzi, C. Stevens, & L. Wray (Eds.), Community quality-oflife indicators: Best cases IX (pp. 47–72). Springer. NASA. (n.d.). The Causes of Climate Change. Causes | Facts - Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. Retrieved April 16, 2021, from https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

10

C. Stevens

OECD. (2018). Regions and Cities at a Glance 2018. OECD. (2020). OECD Regions and Cities at a Glance 2020. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10. 1787/959d5ba0-en Patel, S. S., Rogers, M. B., Amlôt, R., & Rubin, G. J. (2017, February 1). What do we mean by ‘Community Resilience’? A systematic literature review of how it is defined in the literature. PLoS Currents https://doi.org/10.1371/currents.dis.db775aff25efc5ac4f0660ad9c9f7db2 Rangwala, L., & Ramesh, A. (2022). Data-led resilience planning in vulnerable neighborhoods. In F. Ridzi, C. Stevens, & L. Wray (Eds.), Community quality-of-life indicators: Best cases IX (pp. 27–46). Springer. Smith, A. B. (2021, January 8). 2020 U.S. billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in historical context. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/2020-us-billion-dollarweather-and-climate-disasters-historical Thomas, A., Martyr-Koller, R., & Pringle, P. (2020, July 1). Climate change and small islands: more scientific evidence of high risks Date 01 July 2020. Climate Analytics. https:// climateanalytics.org/blog/2020/climate-change-and-small-islands-more-scientific-evidence-ofhigh-risks/ United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (2020, October 12). Human Cost of Disasters: an Overview of the Last 20 Years 2000-2019. UNDRR. Retrieved May 22, 2021, from https:// www.undrr.org/news/drrday-un-report-charts-huge-rise-climate-disasters Watts, N., Amann, M., Arnell, N., et al. (2019, November 16). The 2019 report of The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: ensuring that the health of a child born today is not defined by a changing climate. 394, 1836–1878. https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf? pii¼S0140-6736%2819%2932596-6

Chantal Stevens has a long history of promoting science-and evidence-based practices in environmental restoration, sustainability and improving community quality of life. She uses her expertise to develop programs and tools to better improve the capacity of community-based organizations and local governments to serve their communities. She has been involved with the Community Indicators Consortium (CIC) for over 15 years as its executive director and as a board member. She directed Sustainable Seattle, a pioneer in the development of community-based indicators, People for Salmon, a statewide initiative that built a collaborative to recover salmon, and a tribal agency involved in the protection of environmental resources. She also worked for King County as the oversight manager for a public engagement effort and as a performance management analyst/auditor. She holds a BS and MMA from the University of Washington in Seattle.

Chapter 2

Indicators for Community Resilience: Social Vulnerability, Adaptive Capacity, and Multi-Hazard Exposure in Austin, Texas R. Patrick Bixler and Jessica Jones

Abstract Social vulnerability, hazard exposure and adaptive capacity are three sets of indicators that provide insights into community resilience. Climate vulnerability, a combination of social vulnerability and climate-related hazard exposure, is a sociospatial index of neighborhoods and communities most at risk of climate-related hazards. Adaptive capacity can help reduce social vulnerability and make communities more resilient. We discuss the efforts of the Austin Area Sustainability Indicators program to develop these indicators along side qualitative research to cross reference the indicators with experience from community organizations doing resilience work in Austin, Texas. Keywords Community resilience · Adaptive capacity · Social vulnerability · Natural hazards · Climate risk · Community indicators

Introduction Resilience is a ubiquitous concept in society today and is now considered an integral part of local, national, and international policy making, as well as a hot topic in many research domains. As an interdisciplinary science, resilience science is supported by research across multiple disciplines and practitioners (Xue et al., 2018). Today, many major cities in the U.S. have chief resilience officers in senior executive positions. The Rockefeller Foundation has invested $164 million in 100 Resilient Cities and the UN-Habitat is implementing a resilience profiling program in cities around the world. Diverse research agendas are driven by a resilience paradigm: ecological resilience, social-ecological resilience, urban resilience, resilience to risk and disaster, community resilience, and climate resilience. Additionally, an entire

R. Patrick Bixler (*) · J. Jones LBJ School of Public Affairs and Community and Regional Planning Program, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 F. Ridzi et al. (eds.), Community Quality-of-Life Indicators, Community Quality-ofLife and Well-Being, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06940-6_2

11

12

R. Patrick Bixler and J. Jones

international professional society has developed a robust membership organized around resilience scholarship (https://www.resalliance.org/). Despite this, there has been inadequate development of indicators for assessing community resilience in an urban social-ecological-technical systems context (Bixler et al., 2019; Chuang et al., 2018). Our chapter addresses this gap by outlining a set of indicators: social vulnerability (sensitivity), adaptive capacity, and multihazard exposure. Each of these concepts are well established in the literature and the combination of these three forms the basis of “vulnerability” in resilience research (Adger, 2006). What is novel is the measurement strategies presented here and the application of these concepts as a set of indicators for community resilience in metropolitan settings (or social-ecological-technical systems). This chapter will proceed as follows. First, we will provide some background on our community indicators project—the Austin Area Sustainability Indicators (www. austinindicators.org), followed by background on the different threads of resilience thinking and research to frame this work. We then present a summary of qualitative research where we sought feedback from Austin community organizations regarding “resilience”. Moving from a combination of the literature and interviews, we present our indicators starting with social vulnerability, followed by hazard exposure and then adaptive capacity. We will conclude by sharing a prototype data visual for the combined community resilience indicator.

The Austin Area Sustainability Indicators The Austin Area Sustainability Indicators (A2SI) is a community indicators project run by the RGK Center for Philanthropy and Community Service at the Lyndon Baines Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. A2SI provides a data-driven narrative about the sustainability and quality of life for Austin area residents. Data is analyzed by our research team and the results are utilized by policy makers and community leaders to inform decision-making. A2SI collects and analyzes data related to key indicators of sustainability and quality of life across the six-county Austin region. Data for the project comes from a biennial community survey and aggregation of publicly available sources. The 2020 survey is the seventh survey implemented since 2004, resulting in a longitudinal dataset of beliefs, attitudes, preferences, and behaviors of Austin Area residents. Since 2017, the project has published a series of focused research reports on a variety of topics, including: • “When Hispanics Rise, Austin Rises” (2017) in collaboration with the Austin Community Foundation • “Greater Austin Civic Health Report” (2018) with the following partners: Leadership Austin, KLRU, KUTX, Austin Community Foundation (ACF) and the Annette Strauss Institute for Civic Life • “The Role of Equity in Sustainability in Austin” (2019)

2

Indicators for Community Resilience: Social Vulnerability,. . .

13

• “Climate Vulnerability in Austin, Texas” (2020) • “Community and Climate Resilience in Austin, Texas” (2020) This chapter summarizes the efforts of the last two reports, which were developed in collaboration with the City of Austin Office of Sustainability and a grassroots community organization, Go Austin Vamos Austin (www.goaustinvamosaustin. org). Our first step was to explore the research and literature of resilience and resilience-related indicators.

From Resilience to Community Resilience The term resilience was first applied by Holling (1973) to describe how ecosystems respond to changing conditions. The paradigm of ecological resilience developed by Holling and colleagues refers to the ability of the natural system to absorb disturbances while maintaining the persistence of system component relationships without crossing a threshold and entering another domain (Gunderson et al., 1995). Early on, Holling and others distinguished between an engineering understanding of resilience, as resistance, and an ecological system definition of the term, as the ability to rebound. Engineering resilience implies the ability of a system to remain stable and to return to a steady state quickly after a disturbance (Folke, 2006; Gunderson et al., 1995). Ecological resilience focuses on the dynamic functioning of the system in relation to disturbance and ability to adapt to change (Anderies et al., 2004). During the late 1980s and early 1990s research on individual resilience was developed independently of ecological resilience (Masten, 1990; Egeland et al., 1993, among others). Emphasis on resilience by mental health professionals focused on the ways individuals endured personal trauma without spiraling into pathology. This body of literature frames resilience as the process of, capacity for, or outcome of successful adaptation despite challenging or threatening circumstances (Masten, 1990). While there are apparent similarities between the ways resilience has been understood in ecological and psychological sciences, the two remained in separate domains with different levels of analysis and methods of research and application. A third strand of resilience research began in the late 1990s and continues today: socio-ecological system (SES) resilience, frequently defined as the ability of groups or communities to cope with external stresses and disturbances because of social, political, and environmental change (Anderies et al., 2004; Folke, 2006). Further, social resilience has economic, spatial, and social dimensions and hence its observation and appraisal require interdisciplinary understanding and analysis at various scales (Adger, 2006). It is important to note that, because of its institutional context, social resilience is defined at a collective level, rather than being a phenomenon pertaining to individuals. Social vulnerability indices have been developed and are increasingly applied as indicators of social resilience (Cutter et al., 2003).

14

R. Patrick Bixler and J. Jones

Most recently, resilience framed in an urban context, or urban resilience, has grown exponentially. Here, the urban system is conceptualized as an open, complex adaptive system (Bai et al., 2016) composed of social-ecological and socio-technical networks, increasingly referred to as social-ecological-technical systems or SETs that extend across multiple spatial scales (Bixler et al., 2019; McPhearson et al., 2015). Urban resilience has been defined as: “the ability of an urban system-and all its constituent socio-ecological and socio-technical networks across temporal and spatial scales-to maintain or rapidly return to desired functions in the face of a disturbance, to adapt to change, and to quickly transform systems that limit current or future adaptive capacity” (Meerow et al., 2016, p. 39). Notably, in hazards and disaster research, synthesis between systemic and individual resilience research is beginning to occur (Xue et al., 2018). More than an academic exercise, the conceptual lineage provides a roadmap for developing our indicators of community resilience. Social vulnerability from the social resilience heritage, hazard exposure from the urban resilience lineage, and adaptive capacity from the individual or socio-psychological frameworks. With this in hand, our research team sought input from practitioners on the ground.

Perspectives of Community Resilience on the Ground The review of community resilience indicators led us to taking a unique path forward with our 2020 A2SI indicator report focused on community resilience. Instead of publishing an encyclopedia-like report on Austin Area Sustainability Indicators backed by survey, census, and regional data, we decided to craft a report around stories and lived experiences (http://www.austinindicators.org/reports/). From October 2019–July 2020, our team collected stories focused on community and climate resilience in Austin. We were curious about whether lived experiences matched the diversity of academic definitions on resilience. Is resilience acknowledged as a policy or program objective in Austin and in Travis County, and if so, how is it practiced? To conduct this work, our research team interviewed thirteen community representatives from a wide array of backgrounds. We met with service providers, community organizers, and city and county government employees. They shared their work with us, invited us to meet them at their work sites, and when the COVID19 Pandemic struck, shared time with us over zoom and by phone. For some of our interviewees, resilience was a goal that their agency or organization is actively working toward. For example, representatives from the City of Austin’s Office of Sustainability are actively working to address resilience as it relates to climate change. Their work is guided by city council resolutions and climate action planning. The Office defines climate resilience as the “the ability to effectively manage both immediate shocks and long-term stressors related to climate change and weather extremes” (Jones et al., 2020). Despite having council resolutions and plans in place, they showed us that climate resilience implementation is

2

Indicators for Community Resilience: Social Vulnerability,. . .

15

Fig. 2.1 Inaugural City of Austin Climate Ambassador Cohort

complicated. Climate resilience work involves collaborating with other city departments to help educate and interweave resilient themes to new and ongoing projects and initiatives. An example is a partnership with the Austin health department and community members to make a new clinic in a historically disenfranchised neighborhood a “resilience hub”. Utilizing solar battery technology, the resilient clinic would be able to operate when the power goes out, additionally outdoor outlets would offer residents the ability to charge important devices. Such work is long in the making and can get pushed to the wayside due to competing priorities. For example, when the pandemic hit, the designing of the resilience hub clinic was put on hold as resources were redirected to COVID-19 relief efforts. The Office of Sustainability staff explained to us that resiliency needs to involve the community. A city cannot be climate resilient if the members of the community are not resilient. The Office has adopted a practice of working with nonprofits and community leaders to help identify and prioritize community needs. These community partnerships provide the Office with direction for projects, the ability to find shared goals, and the capacity to identify and direct City resources. In 2019, the Office hired community representatives to be climate ambassadors for the city. These ambassadors focused on collecting community-wide feedback that would go on to shape the city’s climate action planning process (Fig. 2.1).

16

R. Patrick Bixler and J. Jones

Front from left to right: Deborah Beresky, Nakyshia Fralin, Sheridan Ray, Andrea Casares, Sayuri Yamanaka, and Celine Rendon (Office of Sustainability Staff). Meanwhile, for others that we interviewed, resilience was a loaded buzzword that could only be understood or appreciated with a historical lens. In interviews with representatives from Huston Tillotson University, a Historical Black College, and a community organizer from the Dove Springs neighborhood in Southeast Austin, we learned that referring to certain communities as being resilient could have negative connotations or shade historical inequalities. For example, by labeling a group as resilient we may diminish the struggles communities face due to historical disinvestment. In our interview with a community organizer with the Austin nonprofit, Go Austin! Vamos Austin! (GAVA) we learned about the disparities faced by communities that have received inadequate infrastructure investment. In Southeast Austin, the Dove Springs neighborhood scores high adaptive capacity indicators, but also high in hazard exposure and social vulnerability. Additionally, the Dove Springs neighborhood has experiened major flooding events. These floods have wreaked havoc, causing loss of life and property. One way to increase community resilience is to decrease the hazard exposure, in this case improving inadequate stormwater drainage infrastructure which offers little protection from being situated amidst a growing floodplain. Despite these hardships, there are many signs within this community of social cohesion and social capital. Neighbors come together to support one another. With programming support from GAVA, neighbors teach one another on how to be advocates and reach out to their elected leaders. Additionally, thanks to innovative partnerships with the City and researchers from the University of Texas at Austin, neighbors from the Dove Springs neighborhood are being trained to be ‘Climate Navigators’. As Climate Navigators, residents collect and provide information to neighbors on how to prepare for natural disasters. The stories we captured from this community organizer wove together perceptions of social resilience, adaptive capacity, and climate hazard exposure into a rich, dynamic, and complex understanding and practice of resilience (Fig. 2.2). Another highlight in our work was the understanding that populations that were and are disenfranchised in Austin are not socially resilient because they necessarily want to be but are resilient because they must be. In our interview with a representative from Huston Tillotson University, the word resilience was challenged and questioned, where the interviewee asked us “What communities do we ask to be resilient? They’ve always been resilient in our county, given our history, so why are we applauding when it’s just what they’ve had to do to survive. . .it’s a complicated term.” (Interview with Huston Tillotson University staff in Jones et al., 2020).

2

Indicators for Community Resilience: Social Vulnerability,. . .

17

Fig. 2.2 Flyer for recruiting Go Austin! Vamos Austin! Climate Navigators

Community Resilience Indicators To help guide the community resilience planning efforts of the City of Austin agencies and Austin-based philanthropic foundations, and with our understanding of what is happening on the ground, we developed indicators of community resilience. Our framework includes three interrelated indicators: social vulnerability, hazard exposure, and adaptive capacity. Social vulnerability, as an indicator of social resilience, refers to the degree to which a population or asset is susceptible or resistant to impacts from shocks or stressors; exposure refers to the presence of people, livelihoods, environmental services and resources, infrastructure, economic, social, or cultural assets that could be adversely affected; and, adaptive capacity refers to the ability of a system (i.e., people, environmental services and resources, or cultural assets, etc.) to cope with stress or adjust to new situations.

18

R. Patrick Bixler and J. Jones

Social Vulnerability An indicator for social resilience was established utilizing a well-established framework known as social vulnerability. Lack of social resilience or “social vulnerability” are the potential negative impacts a community and its members will suffer due to an outside stressor. In climate change, hazards, and adaptation research, social scientists have framed vulnerability as the predisposition of a community, system, or asset to be adversely affected by a shock or long-term stressor. The concept of social vulnerability includes both the sensitivity of a population to natural hazards and its ability to respond and recover (Cutter et al., 2003; Cutter & Finch, 2008a). It is a multidimensional construct, one not easily captured with a single variable, and varies across time and space and with socio-demographic characteristics, such as income, education, occupation, household composition, home ownership, minority status, gender, age (elderly and children), housing tenure, and vehicle access, as well as social networks and capital (Cutter & Finch, 2008b; Flanagan et al., 2018). Using established social vulnerability indices variable structures (Cutter et al., 2003; Flanagan et al., 2018), we established a set of 18 variables that explained 74.5% of the variance between census block groups (Bixler et al., 2021). Figure 2.3 shows

Fig. 2.3 Social Vulnerability at Census Block Groups in Austin

2

Indicators for Community Resilience: Social Vulnerability,. . .

19

the Social Vulnerability Indicator (SVI) score map of census block groups in Austin. The normalized SVI score ranges between 0 and 1 with mean value of 0.462. The SVI score of 0.0 indicates the least sensitive (denoted in blue in the figures), and a score of 1.0 indicates the most sensitive (denoted in red in the figures below).

Hazard Exposure To help guide City community resilience planning efforts, we developed geospatial indices of exposure to climate-related hazards. Exposure refers to the presence of people, livelihoods, environmental services and resources, infrastructure, economic, social, or cultural assets that could be adversely affected. Our multi-hazard exposure indicator is a composite score for exposure to flood, wildfire, and heat hazards. The formulas and calculations for each hazard exposure are detailed in Bixler et al. (2021). Figure 2.4 shows the multi-hazard exposure map of census block groups in Austin. The normalized multi-hazard exposure score ranges between 0 and 1 with

Fig. 2.4 Multi-Hazard Vulnerability at Census Block Groups in Austin

20

R. Patrick Bixler and J. Jones

mean value of 0.367. The multi-risk hazard score of 0.0 indicates the least exposed (denoted in blue in the figures), and a score of 1.0 indicates the most exposed (denoted in red in the figures below).

Social Vulnerability + Hazard Exposure Combining social vulnerability and hazard exposure, we get a combined climate risk indicator. The normalized climate risk indicator score ranges between 0 (least vulnerable) and 1 (most vulnerable) with mean value of 0.304. The block group for the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport has a “null value”. Figure 2.5 shows this visually. The social-spatial climate risk map as seen in Fig. 2.5 has been utilized by the City of Austin to inform their planning of community resilience and climate adaptation efforts (see Bixler et al., 2021). Following a 2018 City report that assessed resilience and vulnerability of City-owned property and assets, the current efforts involve working directly with neighborhoods on planning efforts surrounding heat vulnerability and air quality exposure. The social vulnerability, multi-hazard exposure, and combined climate risk indicators provide an overlay of the City to help

Fig. 2.5 Climate risk indicator in Austin, Texas

2

Indicators for Community Resilience: Social Vulnerability,. . .

21

think about where to allocate resources to those neighborhoods most in need, but does not account for the last piece of the pie: adaptive capacity.

Adaptive Capacity In addition to the socio-spatial social resilience and hazard exposure indicators, our team has developed household-level indicators that are generated from our biennial Austin Area Community Survey. The 2020 survey was conducted OctoberNovember (N ¼ 1235). For the 2020 sample, approximately 75% of surveys were conducted using a computer-assisted telephone interviewing software to minimize questioning errors and implement survey skip patterns. The additional 25% of survey responses were collected using online panels. A similar survey, conducted entirely by telephone, was conducted in 2018 (N ¼ 1135).1 All data is crosssectional. Starting in 2018, we included questions that were adapted from the Communities Advancing Resilience Toolkit approach (Pfefferbaum et al., 2013, 2016). From this approach, we have developed three dimensions of “adaptive capacity” important for community resilience. The dimensions are household preparedness, community preparedness, and transformative potential (Table 2.1). The following 10 questions were asked in our 2018 and 2020 Austin Area Community Survey along with question mean and standard deviation (Table 2.1). Four response options allowed respondents to indicate agreement with each survey item along a range from 1 ¼ “strongly disagree” to 4 ¼ “strongly agree”. There was no neutral response option. Mean scores were calculated for each of the 10 core items, the three domains, and an overall adaptive capacity score (Table 2.2). Responses to the questions provide data to understand how adaptive capacity for community resilience changes over time. For example, in 2018 the lowest mean score was associated with the question “My neighbors would help in case of emergency”, making this a primary challenge for adaptive capacity. However, in 2020 this same question had the highest mean score making it a community resilience strength. Conversely, the highest mean score in 2018 was “My neighborhood actively prepares for future disasters”, which was the lowest mean score in 2020. High level considerations of the Covid-19 Pandemic can help explain both of those challenge->strength flips although future inquiry may provide important insights for city and nonprofit planning. Relatedly, across the three domains of adaptive capacity measured, each increased between 2018 and 2020. Again, a likely interpretation is that the pandemic

1

Previous waves of data were also collected in 2004 (N¼1,013), 2006 (N¼2,051), 2008 (N¼2,392), 2010 (N¼2392), and 2015 (N¼1,911). Only data from 2018 and 2020 are reported in this chapter.

22

R. Patrick Bixler and J. Jones

Table 2.1 Survey questions related to adaptive capacity

Indicator Household Preparedness

Neighborhood Preparedness

Survey Question(s) “There is a safe place near our home to go for help or shelter during an emergency like flood or wildfire.” “I would be able to get to a safe place during an emergency.” “My neighbors would help in case of an emergency.” “My neighborhood actively prepares for future disasters.”

Transformative potential

“My neighborhood has services and programs to help people after a disaster.” “My neighborhood works with organizations and agencies outside the neighborhood to get things done.” “People in my neighborhood communicate with leaders who can help improve the neighborhood.” “People in my neighborhood are aware of neighborhood issues that they might address together.” “People in my neighborhood work together on solutions so that the neighborhood can improve.” “My neighborhood develops skills and finds resources to solve its problems and reach its goals.”

2018 Mean (SD) 2.26 (0.66) 2.02 (0.53) 1.91 (0.58) 2.55 (0.61) 2.45 (0.61) 2.35 (0.61) 2.26 (0.55) 2.17 (0.55) 2.15 (0.77) 2.35 (0.70)

2020 Mean (SD) 2.69 (1.12) 3.25 (0.88) 3.32 (0.88) 2.14 (1.03) 2.45 (1.09) 2.62 (1.03) 2.70 (0.97) 2.81 (0.95) 2.77 (1.07) 2.64 (1.04)

Table 2.2 Adaptive Capacity in Austin 2018–2020 Household Preparedness (Mean of Qs 1–3) Neighborhood Preparedness (Mean of Qs 4–8) Transformative Potential (Mean of Qs 9–16) Composite Adaptive Capacity

Austin Metro 2018 2.14 2.31 2.23 2.25

Austin Metro 2020 3.11 2.83 2.70 2.85

has increased awareness about preparedness, but generally the increasing scores are a good signal, whereas declining scores could be cause for concern.

Prototyping a Community Resilience Indicator Set The culmination of this work has led to the development of a prototype dashboard of community resilience that combines social vulnerability, hazard exposure, and adaptive capacity (Fig. 2.6). The dashboard can visually demonstrate the relative social vulnerability, hazard exposure, and adaptive capacity for each census block group (i.e., neighborhood or community) in Austin. The indicator demonstrates that we are “on target” with high community resilience and low risk; “use caution” with moderate resilience and moderate risk; or “warning” with low community resilience

2

Indicators for Community Resilience: Social Vulnerability,. . .

23

Fig. 2.6 Community Resilience Dashboard Prototype*. *Not based on empirical data but is for demonstrative purposes

and high risk. As demonstrated, the dashboard will be helpful in showing change over time.

Conclusion When communities persevere, do we marvel at their resiliency, or should we instead ask why all the roadblocks are there in the first place? Should resilience incorporate a historical background to account for disinvestment and institutional and systemic racism? When the COVID-19 Pandemic struck, we saw the people and organizations that we had interviewed pivot and refocus. Not surprisingly, some projects were put on hold, while others took on other hats to support a safety-net for Austin’s most vulnerable residents. This is adaptive capacity in action that is not captured in our current approach. The story of community indicators is one of striking the balance between quantitative metrics and lived experience. This push and pull were glaringly obvious in our efforts over the past year and a half through literature review, qualitative research, and indicator development. Although indicators are helpful in guiding agency planning and nonprofit programming, they do not tell the full story of

24

R. Patrick Bixler and J. Jones

community resilience and the language of resilience (e.g., social vulnerability) can be at odds with community empowerment. The belief of the research team at the Austin Area Sustainability Indicators is that by co-producing resilience indicators and strategies with agencies, nonprofits, and residents we can better understand and build community resilience. Through the co-production of indicators, our approach has potential to “indicate” neighborhoods and communities with high risk and can collectively work to build community resilience.

References Adger, W. N. (2006). Resilience, vulnerability, and adaptation: A cross-cutting theme of the international human dimensions programme on global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 268–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006 Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2004). A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and Society, 9(1), 1–28. Bai, X., Surveyer, A., Elmqvist, T., Gatzweiler, F. W., Güneralp, B., Parnell, S., ne Prieur-Richard, A.-H., et al. (2016). Defining and advancing a systems approach for sustainable cities. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Open Issue, part I, 23(December), 69–78. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.11.010 Bixler, R. P., Lieberknecht, K., Leite, F., Felkner, J., Oden, M., Richter, S. M., Atshan, S., Zilveti, A., & Thomas, R. (2019). An observatory framework for metropolitan change: Understanding Urban Social–Ecological–Technical Systems in Texas and beyond. Sustainability, 11(13), 3611. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133611 Bixler, R. P., Yang, E., Richter, S. M., & Coudert, M.. (2021). Toward co-production for urban resilience: A multi-hazard approach in Austin, Texas. International Journal of Hazard Risk Reduction (in review). Chuang, W. C., Garmestani, A., Eason, T. N., Spanbauer, T. L., Fried-Petersen, H. B., Roberts, C. P., Sundstrom, S. M., et al. (2018). Enhancing quantitative approaches for assessing community resilience. Journal of Environmental Management, 213(May), 353–362. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.01.083 Cutter, S. L., & Finch, C. (2008a). Temporal and spatial changes in social vulnerability to natural hazards. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(7), 2301–2306. Cutter, S. L., & Finch, C. (2008b). Temporal and spatial changes in social vulnerability to natural hazards. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(7), 2301–2306. Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., & Lynn Shirley, W. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards*. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 242–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237. 8402002 Egeland, B., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1993). Resilience as process. Development and Psychopathology, 5(4), 517–528. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400006131 Flanagan, B. E., Hallisey, E. J., Adams, E., & Lavery, A. (2018). Measuring community vulnerability to natural and anthropogenic hazards: The centers for disease control and prevention’s social vulnerability index. Journal of Environmental Health, 80(10), 4. Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253–267. Gunderson, L. H., Holling, C. S., & Light, S. S. (1995). Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. Columbia University Press. Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1–23. Jones, J., Perez, A., Goad, B., & Bixler, R.P. (2020). Community & Climate Resilience in Austin, Texas. Austin Futures 2020: An Annual Report by the Austin Area Sustainability Indicators. https://arcg.is/Oqbaf. Retrieved on June 11, 2021

2

Indicators for Community Resilience: Social Vulnerability,. . .

25

Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2(4), 425–444. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400005812 McPhearson, T., Andersson, E., Elmqvist, T., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2015). Resilience of and through Urban ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 12(April), 152–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecoser.2014.07.012 Meerow, S., Newell, J. P., & Stults, M. (2016). Defining Urban resilience: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 147(March), 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.011 Pfefferbaum, R. L., Pfefferbaum, B., Van Horn, R. L., Klomp, R. W., Norris, F. H., & Reissman, D. B. (2013). The communities advancing resilience toolkit (CART): An intervention to build community resilience to disasters. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice: JPHMP, 19(3), 250–258. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0b013e318268aed8 Pfefferbaum, R. L., Pfefferbaum, B., Zhao, Y. D., Van Horn, R. L., “Mack” McCarter, G. S., & Leonard, M. B. (2016). Assessing community resilience: A CART survey application in an impoverished Urban community. Disaster Health, 3(2), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 21665044.2016.1189068 Xue, X., Wang, L., & Yang, R. J. (2018). Exploring the science of resilience: Critical review and bibliometric analysis. Natural Hazards, 90(1), 477–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-0173040-y

R. Patrick Bixler is an Assistant Professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs, core faculty member of the RGK Center for Philanthropy and Community Service, and has a joint appointment with the Community and Regional Planning program at the University of Texas at Austin. He has been leading the work of the Austin Area of Sustainability Indicators (www.austinindicators. org) since 2016, which won the Community Indicator Consortium Community Impact Award in 2020. A photo of R Patrick Bixler.

>

Jessica Jones has close to a decade of experience working on environmental and social policies and programs. She is currently appointed as a research associate at the LBJ School of Public Affairs where she supports research and engagement related to the City of Austin Resilience Hubs. She has a dual degree in Community and Regional Planning and Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin). During her graduate studies at UT Austin, Jessica has served as a Graduate Research Assistant (GRA) for Dr. Patrick Bixler since the Fall of 2019. As a GRA, Jessica has conducted research on community and climate resilience, supported community engagement efforts, and given numerous presentations to share data findings to support the Austin Area Sustainability Indicators Project. She is interested in urban sustainability and community resilience and how local municipalities can support and create resilient communities. Jessica has a Bachelor of Science in Community and Regional Development with an emphasis in Environmental Policy from the University of California, Davis. A photo of Jessica Jones.

Chapter 3

Data-Led Resilience Planning in Vulnerable Neighborhoods Lubaina Rangwala and Ananya Ramesh

Abstract Cities are exposed to a multitude of risks, which disproportionately affect poor and vulnerable communities. Vulnerability assessments are a method to map exposure and sensitivity to climate-induced hazards in different areas and communities in a city, while measuring individuals’ capacities to withstand, respond to, and recover from risks. However, most vulnerability assessments are conducted at citylevel and fail to capture differential adaptive capacities in different neighbourhoods in a city. The UCRA helps cities develop vulnerability and resilience assessments at the local level and incorporate the findings into wider city and sub-city disaster management and resilience plans. It provides a snapshot of resilience capacities, including social and political networks, collective preparedness mechanisms, and access to economic resources. Each assessment is based partly on focus group discussions, which reveal a local community’s willingness to engage in collective resilience actions and integrate them into disaster preparedness and planning. Keywords Community capacities · Locally-led action · Differential vulnerabilities · Geospatial risk assessments · Community indicators

Introduction Resilience is understood as the capacity of a system to not only absorb stress and return to its original, or better state, but also to, adapt well in case of future shocks and stresses (Aldrich & Meyer, 2015; Cutter et al., 2008; Manyena et al., 2011; Norris et al., 2008). For this paper, we see communities as complex, socio-cultural, and political systems. Making cities resilient has become an important agenda globally such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the New Urban Agenda, the Sendai Framework and the Paris Agreement (Rangwala et al., 2018). Even at the national and local levels in India, resilience and climate action are being

L. Rangwala (*) · A. Ramesh Urban Development and Resilience, WRI India, Bangalore, Karnataka, India e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 F. Ridzi et al. (eds.), Community Quality-of-Life Indicators, Community Quality-ofLife and Well-Being, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06940-6_3

27

28

L. Rangwala and A. Ramesh

mainstreamed through policies such as the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) and the State Action Plans on Climate Change (SAPCC) among others. Two key shifts in discourse in the field of climate risk and disaster management can be identified. First, a shift from vulnerability, mitigation and adaptation to resilience (Pasteur, 2011), and then a shift in focus from physical infrastructure to the role of social networks (Aldrich & Meyer, 2015). While these changes are intrinsically linked, the former offers an opportunity to expand the horizon of intervention and the latter requires new assessment frameworks to evaluate the workings and potential of existing community networks. As a result, current disaster management approaches have come into question and are being redefined to integrate the role of social networks as key agents that amplify resilience practices (Bergstrand et al., 2015; Cutter et al., 2008; Joerin et al., 2012; Renschler et al., 2010). While disasters affect several cities across the world, the poor and vulnerable communities face a disproportionately higher exposure to risks than those living in wealthier neighbourhoods (Galvin, 2017). Community resilience can be defined as the collective strength and ability of a neighbourhood to collaborate during disasters, deal with routine stressors, and return to their daily lives (Aldrich & Meyer, 2015). Community resilience is also a function of ‘historical structural inequalities, patterns of investment and disinvestment and socio-spatial marginalisation’ (Gotham & Powers, 2015). It is in this context that it is pertinent to shift focus from the role of physical infrastructure to the role of social networks and social capital in disaster preparedness, survival, recovery (Aldrich & Meyer, 2015). Community resilience is highly dependent on social capital and social learning. Social capital is a durable resource based on mutual benefit and sympathy and is responsive to the local context (Hanifan, 1916; Putnam, 1995). Social learning is defined as “the diversity of adaptations, and the promotion of strong local social cohesion and mechanisms for collective action” (Adger et al., 2005). Social capital, across various definitions and disciplinary understanding, commonly points to the potential of social relationships to positively influence individuals and groups to effectively mobilise resources (Norris et al., 2008). There is sufficient evidence to demonstrate how these social networks have acted independently and ahead of formal, government instituted rescue operations, where neighbours have served as first responders (Aldrich & Meyer, 2015). Vulnerability assessment can be carried out at three levels: city, neighbourhood and individual. Assessment at the city scale offers a spatial overview to help identify high risk geographic zones. High risk zones identified at the macro level cannot be assumed as homogenously affected areas as they are composed of communities with varied levels of vulnerability and resilience capacities, leading to ‘recovery disparities’ (Cutter et al., 2008). This level of assessment should capture this socioeconomic and socio-spatial dimension of unequal exposure and susceptibility. This will provide insights on the resultant compounded risks and differential vulnerabilities. The scale, intensity, and diversity of impact on everyday life conditions and the lived experience of these diversities must be studied in detail through on-ground surveys and conversations with communities. Tools such as time banking,

3

Data-Led Resilience Planning in Vulnerable Neighborhoods

29

community currency1 (Lietaer, 2004), and focus group meetings (Aldrich, 2010) can be applied to assess and leverage existing social networks, systems and capacities within communities. Accounting for these nuances can help achieve inclusivity since disaster resilience is not just bouncing back but also includes measures for betterment and bouncing forward (Manyena et al., 2011).

Challenges in Developing Countries The extent of routine challenges is unique to the context of developing economies. In 2015, only 40% of the urban population in sub-Saharan Africa and 65% in South Asia had access to improved sanitation2 (Colenbrander & Archer, 2016; EliasTrostmann & Burke, 2018; UN-Habitat, 2016). While the share of the population living in slums in these regions has decreased, there has been an increase in the absolute number of slum residents who are exposed to poor living conditions. These deficits affect the economically poorer sections in a disproportionately greater manner as they do not have the financial resources to seek alternatives in the market to meet current service gaps and inadequacies in the system. In such communities, resilience thinking assumes a secondary position. Further, the lack of political will to work with the community members towards improvement of living conditions results in incremental disinvestment in these neighbourhoods, leaving them more vulnerable. Additionally, development visions and resilience programs have failed to adequately factor in differential exposure to long-term climate risks and differential resilience capacities. They are inherently disconnected from people’s needs and priorities, local processes and have resulted in a mismatched policy focus. Further, the overlaps between climate risks and socio-economic vulnerability have also been overlooked. An example of the disconnect on the systemic front is the assumption of practices developed and adopted by communities themselves as informal or ad-hoc arrangements. Instead, they need to be viewed as functional systems, context-specific methods and valuable assets, delivering timely and effective support. Collective knowledge and local practices must be recognised, tapped into and empowered since individual memory is prone to decay (Cutter et al., 2008) and city level plans and strategies have their limitations. Jaglin (2014) offers a new framing of ‘delivery configurations’ (in the context of infrastructure and service delivery) to understand and describe the very functional, accessible, demand-driven and context-specific 1 Time banking is a system where various services can be exchanged for one another using labortime as a unit of account. Time banking can be considered a form of community currency. Community currency can be issued locally for participation at local businesses and to support local economies. 2 Here, improved sanitation refers to a household having access to a hygienic waste disposal system. This includes flush/pour-flush latrines connected to a pit, septic tank or sewer system; ventilated improved pit latrine; pit latrine with a slab and composting latrines.

30

L. Rangwala and A. Ramesh

nature of these arrangements. Extending this understanding in the context of community resilience, the existing arrangements (outside of state provision) and resource mobilisation techniques can be understood as contextual and effective configurations delivering resilience capacities. The ‘situated nature of knowledge’ (Watson, 2009) prompts us to consider enhancing existing mechanisms, instead of imposing universal ideas and concepts. Tailoring response to resilience requires understanding the range of risks (Brown et al., 2017). This requires the local authorities, community-based organizations (CBOs), and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to develop new vocabulary, metrics, and methodologies to identify risks and vulnerabilities and acknowledge the mechanisms adopted by communities. Since decision making powers, funding decisions as well as long term protocol rests with the government in India, it is critical to engage with them and initiate a change in their approach to ensure implementation at all levels. By doing so, localised action and resource mobilisation can be initiated and enhanced, strengthening community resilience capacities. Better understanding of the role and nature of the state, the nature of civil society and their relationship has led to the increasing acceptance of the idea of good governance through participative planning processes. Talking of enhancing localised action and leveraging social networks, one is immediately inclined to look at participatory approaches in planning. Without dismissing the possibilities of such an approach, we must also look at the challenges and limitations of the same in the developing economies. The hierarchies and power dynamics not only influence these processes but also redefine the limits of what is formal and informal, legal and illegal. Watson (2014) offers us an alternate framing of ‘co-production’ in planning. This allows us to view these localised actions as independent, effective processes taking form due to the lack of formal channels of provision, responding to local needs. Beyond planning, ‘co-production’ also helps envision a continued monitoring and management process at the local level, in a decentralised manner.

The Urban Community Resilience Assessment One of the biggest challenges to climate action is not only understanding the risks of flooding, extreme heat, and other hazards, but how your community might respond to these risks. What are its strengths? How might policymakers augment existing capacities and address weaknesses? WRI’s Urban Community Resilience Assessment (UCRA) tool (Rangwala et al., 2018) helps communities answer these questions. The UCRA is a bottom-up resilience planning process that links local knowledge with top-down planning priorities. It is inspired by the place-based approach of Cutter et al. (2008), which focuses on a community’s social resilience potential as well as infrastructural upgrades, early warning and evacuation communication, and training to enhance personal resilience capacities. The UCRA framework is structured around three aspects (Fig. 3.1): (1) assessing the vulnerability context at the city-regional level, (2) mapping collective resilience capacities at the

3

Data-Led Resilience Planning in Vulnerable Neighborhoods

31

Fig. 3.1 Three dimensions of the UCRA framework; Source: WRI Table 3.1 The structural framework of the UCRA tool Vulnerability context Vulnerability of setting Pre-existing socio-economic vulnerability Access to urban services

Community resilience Social cohesion Community preparedness Governance and political engagement Resilient built environment

Individual capacities Risk preparedness Communication and awareness Economic resources

neighbourhood level, and (3) understanding differential resilience capacities among individuals within a household. The tool was conceptualized in the context of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where the Mayor, city officials and resilience officers articulated a need to better understand peoples’ capacities to participate in resilience planning processes, process emergency warnings and risk information and respond to emergencies. While the city was developing a city resilience plan based on its vulnerability context, what remained a gap was an understanding of resilience capacities in vulnerable communities like the favelas of Rio. Working with municipal governments and local partners, WRI piloted the UCRA in Brazil in seven poor urban communities: two in Rio de Janeiro and five in Porto Alegre. With support from the Cities Alliance and in collaboration with local partners, the UCRA was proposed as a globally applicable framework for community resilience, and pilot tested in vulnerable neighbourhoods of two Asian cities—Surat in India and Semarang in Indonesia—to assess its replicability, simplicity, and scalability as a globally applicable tool. Adapting the UCRA framework for global application resulted in a broad structure of three aspects, each subdivided into 3–4 categories (Table 3.1) that help define these aspects. Each category is further defined by 5 or more indicators that are

32

L. Rangwala and A. Ramesh

Fig. 3.2 Four phases of implementation of the Urban Community Resilience Assessment

flexible: that is, they can be adapted, dropped, or added to reflect a city’s urban vulnerability and socio-economic context. Correlations across categories offer complex and associated readings of the different factors that influence an individual’s or collective’s capacity to prepare for and respond to stresses and sudden shocks in their local (or regional) environment. The UCRA framework provides an opportunity to integrate city-wide vulnerability assessments and resilience strategies with local neighbourhood concerns, linking top-down and bottom-up information systems and resilience actions. It aims to use disaster preparedness activities as an entry point for strengthening social networks and building stronger, better prepared, and more resilient communities. It provides cities with a baseline, which allows them to target resilience efforts toward specific gaps in the near term and monitor the impacts of these efforts over the long term. Application of the UCRA can inspire participatory planning in other planning sectors in the city, creating a new culture of inclusionary planning. The UCRA process is carried out in four phases (Fig. 3.2), which took 6–8 months to complete in the three pilot cities. The process allows cities to customize the indicators, identify a team of experts and community leaders who serve as advisors to the implementing team, administer the data collection and analysis, and co-develop resilience actions with community members. One of the challenges of this process is that it is highly time-intensive and costly. Due to this, the assessment can be carried out only in a few vulnerable neighbourhoods of the city, making the neighbourhood selection process quite critical. The intention in all cities so far, was to identify neighbourhoods that are symptomatic of certain vulnerability types, patterns, or factors. For example, in Rio de Janeiro, neighbourhoods were selected based on differing governance and civic participatory levels; in Surat, different housing types and the number of years residents have lived together were the distinguishing factor; and in Semarang, it was exposure to different risk types. The UCRA process was adapted and redefined for the Asian context in three ways. Firstly, focus group discussions were introduced at two stages of the process to increase community participation and support data collected through household surveys. These discussions were segregated by gender and age, in both cities, and therefore resulted in more accurate assessment of differential capacities by gender and age, even within households. Secondly, for scoring indicators, a standard scoring method was developed, with all survey questions designed for simple yes/no responses, making it easier for other cities to replicate it; in Rio these were scored using thresholds developed from the literature and community responses.

3

Data-Led Resilience Planning in Vulnerable Neighborhoods

33

Fig. 3.3 (Left and right) Survey team on the ground in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Source: WRI Brazil

Lastly, a new category (resilient built environment) was added to assess the quality and continuity of urban services in poor settlements compared with other neighbourhoods. Our analysis in the two communities in Rio revealed that urban services such as waste collection, scored well at the city level, but poorly in these neighbourhoods, compelling a need to reassess access at the community level (Fig. 3.3).

34

L. Rangwala and A. Ramesh

The UCRA was applied sequentially in Rio de Janeiro, Surat, and Semarang, to allow for incremental learning. Findings from the three cities3 suggested that aspects of social cohesion and political engagement are integral to understanding the complex relation between individuals’ risk perception and preparedness. Frequent experiences of climate-induced risks bring communities together, but without institutional support, residents are unable to organize effectively and prepare for the kinds of risks they are expecting (as per the focus group discussions in Surat, Fig. 3.4). On individual and collective preparedness, residents shared experiences of spontaneous and intuitive resilience actions, largely reported after a disaster and during the recovery and rehabilitation process. However, residents failed to respond collectively in preparation for invisible risks such as heat stress; instead, residents responded by introducing measures to improve their thermal comfort and ability to manage heat stress—like drinking water, making dietary changes, dressing appropriately or spraying water outside their homes to reduce ambient temperatures. In Semarang, residents exposed to slow-moving disasters like land subsidence or sea level rise adopted ways of life to live with the risks—by propping up their homes on stilts and bridges, and building higher plinths for their homes. Table 3.2 shows a typical summary of indicators and scores by community in Surat, India. Respondents across the three cities highlighted the need for improved infrastructure and critical urban services; in many cases, they took action to fill these gaps themselves. Community members participated in street cleaning drives, cleaned storm water drains, repaved roads and potholes, built bridges, added stilts and scaffoldings to sinking homes and adopted behavioural changes for better waste management. Large climate-resilient infrastructure projects are often celebrated as the only urban adaptation efforts. The UCRA results highlight efforts made by poor communities as part of a continuous process of adaptation (Table 3.3). Residents across the three cities report poor access to information and communication technologies. Although many residents own cell phones, very few received warnings from the city’s early warning system, which are often not designed for poor people, many of whom cannot afford smartphones. Residents from the three cities indicated that information must be easy to understand, comprehensive (relating to multiple risk factors), responsive to vulnerable users, and shared through affordable and convenient communications modes (Table 3.4). Applying the UCRA in the pilot cities revealed critical barriers that need to be addressed to assist further applications. The cost of the UCRA is high for the implementing agency. To ensure cost efficiency, all implementation partners—the city government, a civil society partner (or a committee of partners), and other resilience partners in the city (global networks, and consultants)—need to be willing to cooperate and share data. Application of the UCRA should prioritize the use of existing city-level data, including a GIS database, to assess the city’s vulnerability

3

Insights from on-ground implementation in the pilot cities presented in this paper are based on WRI’s previously published report ‘Prepared Communities-Implementing the Urban Community Resilience Assessment in Vulnerable Neighborhoods of Three Cities’.

3

Data-Led Resilience Planning in Vulnerable Neighborhoods

35

Table 3.2 Community resilience and individual preparedness in three communities in Surat based on the UCRA survey (percentage of respondents)

Dimension/Category Community resilience Social cohesion Community preparedness

Governance and political engagement Resilient built environment

Individual capacities Risk preparedness

Communication and awareness Economic resources

Indicator Contacts neighbors during emergency Cleans drains before monsoon Has access to shelter during floods Knows local leader Knows location of ward office Uses communal garbage bins Has door-to-door waste collection Fears climate change Maintains flood emergency kit Receives weather-related health alerts Has lost 6–8 work days every monsoon Has lost income during extreme heat Has emergency savings Has health insurance

Community Morarji Ugat Site and Vasahat Services

Kosad Awas

63

59

47

51

61

32

56

37

3

72 56

9 48

6 15

95

98

3

5

1

75

46 21

42 23

26 34

45

64

17

59

63

47

54

53

47

13 6

20 6

18 6

Community resilience assessment of three communities in Surat highlighted inadequate infrastructure and services as a key factor in compromising communities’ resilience capacities. For example, despite having to indoor water taps in Ugat Site and Services and Moraji Vasahat, the drinking water supply often got mixed with wastewater leading to serious health issues. While a majority of the respondents consistently demonstrated clear perception of climate-induced risks, disaster preparedness and emergency responses were limited with less than 20% maintaining emergency savings and only 35% having health insurance (Rangwala et al., 2018)

context. Cities should build on and adapt the UCRA to existing data analysis capacities and resources already in place. With adequate resources, cities can develop a phone-based application to collect UCRA data and a web-based platform to analyse and store results, thereby reducing the costs of data collection, and encourage regular monitoring of indicators and resilience actions over time. Lack of political will and city leadership to drive the UCRA process increases the time needed to implement the tool and reduces its effectiveness. Seeking the support and expertise of a team of experts through the preparatory and project planning phases may help in building credibility but may also impede the standardization of

36

L. Rangwala and A. Ramesh

Fig. 3.4 Gender segregated focus group discussions in slum communities of Surat city, India; Photo credit: Lubaina Rangwala, WRI India

3

Data-Led Resilience Planning in Vulnerable Neighborhoods

37

Table 3.3 Community preparedness measures adopted to manage frequent waterlogging in Surat (percentage of respondents)

Community networks and length of association impacted community preparedness as well as civic engagement. Despite infrastructure and service deficits, strong social networks and shared experiences have led to higher resilience capacities. Since Moraji Vasahat and Ugat Site and Services are flood prone areas, residents participated in collective resilience initiatives such as repaving streets before monsoon, cleaning blocked drains, waterproofing their roofs etc. Longer associations demonstrated better organization. Moraji Vasahat where residents lived together for over 30 years were better socially organized and politically engaged in comparison to Ugat Sites and Services where people had lived together only for 13 years (Rangwala et al., 2018)

the UCRA process. Lack of access to spatial analytical tools, such as the city’s GIS database, can compromise the results of the UCRA and make it difficult to integrate into city plans and city-level vulnerability analyses. Data gaps at the city level can lead to inaccurate vulnerability assessments. Finally, language can be an incredible barrier for scaling in multilingual cities or cities that attract many immigrants or migrants; hence terms like resilience and adaptation may not be universally understood by all.

38

L. Rangwala and A. Ramesh

Table 3.4 Similarities and differences based on findings from applying UCRA in the three pilot cities Item Differential needs and vulnerabilities

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil The two communities had different levels of political engagement, local governance, and community capacities to practice resilience habits.

Surat, India The three communities present different resilience challenges because of different infrastructure and access to services, according to the age of the settlement.

Local hazards

Landslides, tidal flooding, heavy rainfall

Extreme heat, river flooding, heavy rainfall

Socioeconomic vulnerabilities

The communities are designated as high-risk areas for natural disasters by the Civil Defense of Rio. 400 individual (not household) surveys in each community Men attended community meetings more often than women.

The communities are home to migrant workers from across India.

Semarang, Indonesia The three communities face different risks: sea-level rise and land subsidence along the coast, flooding along the banks of a major canal in the inland community, and water scarcity and landslides in the hills. Landslides, land subsidence, sea level rise, flooding The communities have high unemployment rates and relatively elderly populations.

513 household surveys across all communities

501 household surveys across all communities

Women maintained emergency kits and savings for the household more often than men. Men were more engaged with social/politically linked preparedness work. UCRA findings were integrated into Surat’s heat and health action plan; a local flood risk management plan included proper waste management activities.

Men and women were socially and politically active. Women attended monthly health-based meetings.

Surveys

Gender-segregated results

Resilience actions

A plan was developed for local solid waste management in Morro dos Macacos.

Community-level disaster preparedness plans with evacuation plans and early warning systems that reach the poor were prepared.

Social cohesion was consistently an important factor in determining community resilience practices as well as individual preparedness highlighting the dependencies but the need for institutional support to mobilize better was also evident and lacking in most communities. Majority residents were aware of climate risks, linked disasters and adopted measures to negotiate associated challenges. Examples include spraying water around homes to reduce ambient temperatures in Surat, raising valuables above water level using wooden platforms in Semarang and building high plinths and thresholds to adapt to frequent waterlogging in Surat among others. But UCRA has substantiated the need for cities to move from reactive measures to planning for resilience across scales, adapted to different local contexts (Rangwala et al., 2018)

3

Data-Led Resilience Planning in Vulnerable Neighborhoods

39

Addressing Gaps in the UCRA Framework This section attempts to address some of the challenges faced during the pilot implementation and gaps identified in the UCRA framework. Challenges of scalability on accounts of data collection, storage and access have been addressed by using government data sets, open source, and crowd sourced data. This decreases the total cost of data procurement and time for carrying out the assessment. Collaborating with a local partner to execute the assessment and leveraging local social networks can mitigate the challenges of language and time given the already established relationships and familiarity of local context and vernacular practices. With the following three additional features, the framework can address some of the challenges described above. • Spatializing and quantifying the risk assessment: In the UCRA framework, the assessment of context vulnerability is a single score at the city level. While this offers an insight into ‘what’ is the level of vulnerability, the question of ‘where’ is not answered. This has been addressed by spatializing the assessment at a ward level and thereby visualizing the differential vulnerabilities. Further, by overlaying risk maps with the socio-economic mapping, sectoral correlations and multihazard zones can be identified. Figure 3.5 illustrates a case of compounded risks. Overlaying the location of informal settlements on the heat map highlights the overlap of these settlements with high heat zones. Roofing material (most often metal sheets or tarpaulin), nature of built form (high density and low per capita open space) and limited access to services in these areas compound the risks and vulnerabilities are exacerbated. Such spatial analyses can help steer conversations with city officials and disaster management agencies towards targeted interventions towards specific outcomes in priority areas. This granularity in analysis and mapping can assist officials in decision-making, project prioritization, sectoral focus, capacity building as well as fund allocation. It offers cities options to plan for different types of interventions including long-term goals and short-term action plans, cognizant of local needs and in sync with city level strategies. • Increasing scalability and addressing cost efficiency: Given the diversity in development patterns, geographies, and climate conditions, it is crucial to make this type of an assessment framework scalable, adaptable, and accessible to different cities. Quantifying the risk analysis makes it scalable as well as comparable. To ensure this, the analysis uses government data which is standardized and available across the country, open-source data and crowd-sourced data. Use of government data sets increases the credibility of the assessment when engaging with city authorities and is relatively less contentious. Open-source data can be supplemented with crowd-sourced data using social media platforms such as Twitter to map locations of an extreme weather event (example flooding and water logging) in different locations of the city (Table 3.5). • Ensuring long term sustenance of the UCRA process: The UCRA framework is implemented in collaboration with government authorities, local partners and social workers. The framework is being adapted to develop training modules for all the stakeholders so that the authorities can continue to work with them beyond

40

L. Rangwala and A. Ramesh

Fig. 3.5 Assessing differential exposure to heat risk using land surface temperature in Mumbai city, India; Source: WRI India using LandSat 8 (USGS), [Mean surface temperature at 10:30 am +/ 20 min for October (2017–2019)]

3

Data-Led Resilience Planning in Vulnerable Neighborhoods

Table 3.5 Resilience Scorecard for vulnerability context indicators

Item Vulnerability of setting High-risk areas Housing for the urban poor Summer heat index Precipitation anomaly Extreme events Preexisting social vulnerability High-risk labor profile Literacy profile Age profile Gender profile Migration profile Crime rate Disability profile Social profile Access to urban services Water distribution network Sewage treatment network Electricity grid Waste collection network Urban health amenities Storm water drainage Reliable and affordable mobility Green areas and natural infrastructure

41 Score 2.7 2.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.0 5.0 1.0 — 3.0 — 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0

Note: Not available: bold score, moderate resilience; italic score, high resilience Scores for vulnerability context of the city were based on official census data, climate data and secondary data on urban services. Based on the Census population enumeration data, scores for literacy, gender and social profile can be determined. Further, Service Level Benchmarks (SLB) developed by the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, identify a minimum performance standard for service outcomes in cities, based on indicators and a standard assessment method. Using the results from these assessments, urban services are scored, including water distribution, sewage network, waste collection and storm water drainage (Rangwala et al., 2018)

the pilot phase. Using the indicators in the framework, a monitoring and evaluation process can be established to assess the impact on people’s life, on a regular basis.4 This approach to capacity building and continued engagement can serve as an incentive to integrate resilience planning into mainstream local planning.

4 We are planning this for Kochi city. We will be working with local partners and conduct trainings for social worker networks who work in low-income communities.

42

L. Rangwala and A. Ramesh

Diversity in individual risk perception and requirements for collective preparedness as a community, poses the need for better contextual understanding and capacity development at the local level. Given the exacerbated vulnerabilities in poorer neighborhoods and limited resources to mobilize and seek solutions, a decentralized approach becomes crucial to enable bottom-up resilience thinking. The following section concludes with the need for understanding the local as a function of the place and its people and influence existing planning processes and ongoing projects for localized action.

Ensuring Localized Action The intention of localising knowledge, planning, decision-making and implementation is to ensure context specific approaches that are inclusive and outcome oriented. The UCRA framework aims to contribute through three main objectives: • Working across conventional silos: City-level resilience strategies function within conventional departmental silos, with minimal coordination across agencies and departments (Cutter et al., 2013) exacerbating implementation gaps. It is challenging to integrate programs given the division of powers and separation of responsibilities between government departments each with their independent decision-making matrices. Further, changes will be required within the organisational set-up to translate global ideas and adopt different programs to ensure impact at local level. • Moving away from engineered solutions: For solutions to be effective, multiple stakeholders must engage in the process. They include city leaders, who seek mechanical, engineered solutions; ecologists, who acknowledge the fragile nature of ecosystems; and social psychologists, who seek to address the emotional needs of the most vulnerable people (Vale, 2014). • Promoting a multi-stakeholder, community resilience process: Community voices are integral to understanding urban risks, defining vulnerabilities, and co-developing strategies. The UCRA is a multi-stakeholder planning process that involves public actors, private institutions, communities, academia, NGOs and CBOs, social workers, and others relevant stakeholders, thereby cutting across departmental silos, planning hierarchies, and socioeconomic barriers. Understanding what constitutes ‘local’ is fundamental to achieving these objectives. We propose three entry points, place, process and project, to initiate and sustain localized action. Integration of the three entry points is crucial for long term adoption of localized action in the planning process. • Place—Opportunity to leverage context specific socio-spatial relations, local needs and resources. Through UCRA’s city-wide assessments, differential vulnerabilities and adaptive capacities at the city-level are recorded. Further, the community assessment

3

Data-Led Resilience Planning in Vulnerable Neighborhoods

43

at the neighborhood and individual level provides deeper insights into people’s everyday struggles and resilience capacities. The intention is to not only develop place-based strategies that respond to the local needs, but also involve people in the process of planning and decision making. For example, through community engagement, explore the possibility of integrating any poverty alleviation or slum upgradation program being taken up by the city, into resilience thinking and planning process. • Process—Opportunity for institutional reforms and redesigning engagement strategies. Identify opportunities that may require reforms to align with the priorities and outcomes intended for local resilience thinking and action. This may also require altered participation mandates and developing new institutional linkages for effective engagement. Leverage local leaders, such as Community Based Organizations (CBO), actively working in informal settlements and existing state-led social networks (municipal schools and health centers), to increase awareness about community resilience. Train social welfare workers in resilience thinking, who in many cases act as gatekeepers of the community and are thereby important points of contact for on-ground engagement. Set agenda for civil society organizations in alignment with the local priorities and intended resilience outcomes. Check for local institutions that are leveraging national programs that provide employment opportunities to marginalized communities in development activities like tree planting, river front rejuvenation or beach clean-ups. Explore the possibilities of leveraging these channels and processes to scale-up resilience work at city level as well as employing marginal workers in adaptation and resilience activities as alternate sources of employment. • Project—Opportunity to view the existing local capacities and demand-based arrangements as potential hybrid solutions. Engage with new and existing projects to “. . . find hooks in existing system that can be leveraged for a purposive transition” (Pieterse et al., 2020). Existing arrangements outside of or in addition to state-provision, in a developing country context, can be seen as ‘hybrid’ (Pieterse et al., 2020) mechanisms for production, distribution and consumption of an urban service. These can also be understood as ‘delivery configurations’ (Jaglin, 2014), acknowledging the vitality and multiplicity of existing systems. For example, study the availability and reach of early warning systems or any other arrangements in poor neighbourhoods. Given the increasing ownership of smartphones, consider the possibility of an ICT intervention by partnering with major cell phone operators to crowd-source resilience capacity data at city level and for effective communication during emergency situations. List the planned infrastructure projects in a city including water, sanitation, clean fuel, energy access, public transport and explore the possibilities of influencing and aligning these with resilience outcomes and intended local impact.

44

L. Rangwala and A. Ramesh

Conclusion Delineation of institutional responsibilities and spatialising climate action initiatives must be carried out based on outcomes which help communities to become resilient against climate risks. This can help achieve better interdepartmental coordination, integration of projects as well as better community engagement. It will also ensure inclusivity in process and buy-in from all the stakeholders. Use of standard government data sets are helpful for scalability of such vulnerability assessment frameworks across geographies, to establish a city level context. Further, indicators may be adapted, and field surveys are carried out. This provides better understanding of the local context and helps capture differential exposures and adaptive capacities. In developed countries, most often there is an established process, sequence and protocol to plan and execute an intervention. Whereas, in developing countries, the process is non-linear with a reactive planning approach and the three entry points mentioned above are negotiated simultaneously. It is helpful to think of resilience as an essential service, co-produced by all relevant stakeholders from diverse social, technical and economic backgrounds, with the common goal of addressing local needs. Beyond the conventions of networked infrastructure and blurring the distinctions of state provided services and community-developed approaches, resilience thinking, and planning must work across scales and coordinate with the city level strategies. In addition to establishing a process, ensuring data availability and replicability, implementation of resilience action and building of resilience capacity at the local level is critical. This requires ensuring every individual’s preparedness and every community’s capacity to deal with climate-induced hazards and bounce back in the event of a disaster.

References Adger, W. N., Hughes, T. P., Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., & Rockström, J. (2005). Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science, 309(5737), 1036–1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. 1112122 Aldrich, D. (2010). Fixing recovery: Social capital in post-crisis resilience. Journal of Homeland Security, 6, 1–10. Aldrich, D. P., & Meyer, M. A. (2015). Social capital and community resilience. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(2), 254–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214550299 Bergstrand, K., Mayer, B., Brumback, B., & Zhang, Y. (2015). Assessing the relationship between social vulnerability and community resilience to hazards. Social Indicators Research, 122(2), 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0698-3 Brown, D., Leck, H., Pelling, M., & Johnson, C. (2017). Urban Africa: Risk knowledge: A research agenda. In Urban Africa risk knowledge. Colenbrander, S., & Archer, D. (2016). Leave no one behind: What is the role of community-led urban development? Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., & Webb, J. (2008). A placebased model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global Environmental Change, 18(4), 598–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013

3

Data-Led Resilience Planning in Vulnerable Neighborhoods

45

Cutter, S. L., Ahearn, J. A., Amadei, B., Crawford, P., Eide, E. A., Galloway, G. E., Goodchild, M. F., Kunreuther, H. C., Li-Vollmer, M., Schoch-Spana, M., Scrimshaw, S. C., Stanley, E. M., Whitney, G., & Zoback, M. L. (2013). Disaster resilience: A national imperative. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 55(2), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00139157.2013.768076 Elias-Trostmann, K., & Burke, L. (2018). Stronger than the storm: 3 lessons for building climate resilience in poor urban communities. https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/12/stronger-storm-3lessons-building-climate-resilience-poor-urban-communities. Galvin, G. (2017, September 20). 10 of the deadliest natural disasters of 2017. https://www. usnews.com/news/best-countries/slideshows/10-of-the-deadliest-natural-disasters-of-2017 Gotham, K. F., & Powers, B. (2015). Building resilience: Social capital in post-disaster recovery. Contemporary Sociology, 44(1), 30–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094306114562201a Hanifan, L. J. (1916). The rural school community center. The Annals of the Amercian Academy of Political and Social Science, 67, 130–138. Jaglin, S. (2014). Regulating service delivery in southern cities - Rethinking urban heterogenity. In S. Parnell & S. Oldfield (Eds.), The Routledge handbook on cities of the Global South (pp. 434–447). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203387832 Joerin, J., Shaw, R., Takeuchi, Y., & Krishnamurthy, R. (2012). Assessing community resilience to climate-related disasters in Chennai, India. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 1(1), 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2012.05.006 Lietaer, B. (2004). Complementary currencies in Japan today: History, originality and relevance. International Journal of Community Currency Research, 8, 1–23. Manyena, B., O’Brien, G., O’Keefe, P., & Rose, J. (2011). Disaster Resilience: A bounce back or bounce forward ability? Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 16(5), 417–424. Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F., & Pfefferbaum, R. L. (2008). Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(1–2), 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10464-007-9156-6 Pasteur, K. (2011). From vulnerability to resilience. In From vulnerability to resilience. Practical Action Publishing. doi:https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780440583.004. Pieterse, E., Cirolia, L., & Cartwright, A. (2020). Reframing the potential of sustainable urbanism for Africa. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/bowling-alone-americas-decliningsocial-capital/ Rangwala, L., Elias-trostmann, K., Burke, L., Wihanesta, R., & Chandra, M. (2018). Prepared communities; implementing the urban community resilience assessment in vulnerable neighborhoods of three cities. Renschler, C. S., Fraizer, A. E., Arendt, L. A., Cimellaro, G.-P., Reinhorn, A. M., & Bruneau, M. (2010). Framework for defining and measuring resilience at the community scale: The PEOPLES resilience framework. UN-Habitat. (2016). World cities report 2016: Urbanization and development; emerging futures. In Professional case management (Vol. 21, Issue 4). United Nations Human Settlements Programme. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/NCM.0000000000000166. Vale, L. J. (2014). The politics of resilient cities: Whose resilience and whose city? Building Research and Information, 42(2), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2014.850602 Watson, V. (2009). Seeing from the South: Refocusing urban planning on the globe’s central urban issues. Urban Studies, 46(11), 2259–2275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009342598 Watson, V. (2014). Co-production and collaboration in planning - The difference. Planning Theory and Practice, 15(1), 62–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2013.866266

46

L. Rangwala and A. Ramesh Lubaina Rangwala is Program Head, Urban Development and Resilience at WRI India, and has been associated with the institute for over 10 years. Her current work focuses on green infrastructure projects, nature-based solutions to address long-term climate risk in Indian cities, and working with vulnerable communities to build their resilience capacities. She is currently involved in climate action plans, disaster management and flood mitigation measures in Indian cities. At WRI, Lubaina, led the development of a global tool called the Urban Community Resilience Assessment, and continues to address issues of gender, equity, diversity and inclusion in city resilience plans. She is an Urban Planner and Architect from Mumbai, with over 14 years of work experience in India and the United States. She earned her undergraduate degree in architecture from the Kamla Raheja Vidyanidhi Institute for Architecture (KRVIA), Mumbai University, and a dual-masters degree in Architecture and City & Regional Planning from the University of California, Berkeley, USA; with a focus on housing, community and economic development. Ananya Ramesh is a Consultant at WRI India and currently involved in projects concerning urban resilience. She is studying climate risks in Indian cities and potential community resilience measures, nature-based solutions and flood mitigation techniques that can be adopted. During her tenure at CRDF, CEPT University, she worked on aspects of integrating transit and urban development, with a focus on affordable housing and governance and finance. As part of the same, she has co-authored an illustrated handbook, ‘Local Area Planning for Transit’ for Indian cities. Ananya completed her undergraduate studies in Architecture from RV College of Architecture, Bangalore and a dualmaster program in Urban Studies from Bauhaus University Weimar and CAUP, Tongji University Shanghai.

Chapter 4

Beyond a ‘Tick-Box Approach’ for Local Government Climate Change Adaptation: Learning Through Doing with Monitoring and Evaluation Susie Moloney, Haydie Gooder, Heather McListon, Fran MacDonald, and Katrina Dunn

Abstract In Australia, local governments are at the forefront of responding to climate change through the development of risk assessments, and mitigation and adaptation strategies. However, the extent and effectiveness of planning for climate change and tracking progress, is difficult to assess. Few frameworks have been implemented at the municipal scale. We present the case of an alliance in metropolitan Melbourne, working to co-design an M&E framework to track adaption to climate change. We identify the benefits, challenges and institutional barriers that emerge in ‘doing’ adaptation locally. Building adaptive capacity to address the complex issues raised by climate change relies on reciprocal relationships, a shared language, deliberation and reflection. We reveal through this project—How Well Are We Adapting?—how co-design of a conceptual framework and indicators to track adaptation open up spaces of dialogue around how to embed and operationalize adaptation across often siloed departments and councils. We contribute to a deeper understanding of the experience of adaptation, and identify useful lessons for application not just in how to design an M&E framework, but how participatory processes facilitate learning and engagement with the complexities of adaptation and necessarily prefigure the building of adaptive capacity. Keywords Local government · Climate change adaptation · Monitoring and evaluation · Co-designing indicators · Community resilience · Community Indicators

S. Moloney (*) · H. Gooder · H. McListon · K. Dunn Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] F. MacDonald Western Alliance for Greenhouse Action, Melbourne, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 F. Ridzi et al. (eds.), Community Quality-of-Life Indicators, Community Quality-ofLife and Well-Being, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06940-6_4

47

48

S. Moloney et al.

Introduction In the current global context of climate crisis there is an urgency to effectively monitor and evaluate responses to climate change across a range of scales from national to local, regions to cities, organizations to individuals. At all these levels, in this post-Paris policy landscape, there is an emphasis on developing adaptive capacity; the ability to assess present and future risks, monitor and reflect on changes and new developments and adapt practices to accommodate this. Despite this emphasis, and the increasing research in this area, how well we are tracking adaptation progress remains a key challenge (Christiansen et al., 2016; Ford et al., 2015; Palutikof et al., 2019). Due to the localized effects of climate change (and often in the absence of national leadership) much attention falls on the capacity of local governments, as key actors in this new rapidly changing world. How are they building adaptive capacity and what do they understand this to be? What are the barriers and what are the successes? In Australia, climate adaptation plans and strategies are increasingly emerging as local governments start to proactively address and plan for the impacts of climate change on their municipalities. The Climate Emergency movement, beginning with a local government in Melbourne, includes 96 Australian local governments and 1700 globally, who have declared a climate emergency (Chou, 2020; Davidson et al., 2020; https://www.caceonline.org/). In 2018, over 34% of the 540 local governments across Australia had developed adaptation plans (Scott, 2018), but it is not yet known how effective these will be in practice in their overall capacity to direct Council processes and improve outcomes for their communities. Despite the number of frameworks for monitoring and evaluating (M&E) climate change adaptation (CCA) available, very few have been enacted at the local scale (Turner et al., 2014; Woodruff & Stults, 2016). This may be in part due to the inadequacy of standardized approaches to M&E (advocated by many frameworks), in accounting for the specificities of local context (including institutional policies and programs) necessary for adaptation (Mathew et al., 2016). Thus, ‘doing adaptation’, and developing a capacity to monitor and evaluate actions, necessitates an approach that can be tailored and responsive to local contexts and institutional arrangements, and engages those responsible for strategy and implementation while remaining open to ongoing learning, reflection and change. Victoria is unique in the Australian context with eight local government Greenhouse Alliances1 operating across the state since the early 2000s, working proactively to develop a range of mitigation and adaptation initiatives for their regions (Moloney & Fünfgeld, 2015; Moloney & Horne, 2015). This paper examines the partnering in 2014 of one of these local government alliances—Western Alliance for Greenhouse Action (WAGA)—with universities and other stakeholders, to 1

The Greenhouse Alliances are formal partnerships of local governments driving climate change action across Victoria’s 79 municipalities. The Alliances work across their networks, communities and partners to deliver regional mitigation and adaptation programs.

4

Beyond a ‘Tick-Box Approach’ for Local Government Climate. . .

49

co-design a monitoring and evaluation framework for local governments to track their adaptation actions and in doing so build adaptive capacity. We detail the methodology and experience of developing and implementing this framework How Well Are We Adapting? (HWAWA) (some of the authors have been involved since its inception) through its continuing expansion and collaboration with other metropolitan and regional municipalities. We review the project process, framework design, indicators, and pilot implementation phases, offering an opportunity for analysis of the challenges and issues that emerge in developing and implementing an approach to monitoring and evaluation (see also Moloney and McClaren (2018) for an in-depth analysis of the process of M&E literature review and indicator design for the HWAWA project). Key to the argument presented here is that ‘doing’ M&E can be much more than developing indicators and metrics—it can be a key component of successful adaptation practice. In understanding “adaptive capacity as a shifting property, rather than as a static attribute of individuals and the organisations they inhabit” (Pelling et al., 2008, p. 871), we outline the process of ‘doing M&E’ focusing on the co-design of an M&E framework and indicators for climate change adaptation involving different actors across councils including emergency managers, asset managers, urban planners and sustainability coordinators. We argue that this participatory process involving deliberation and engagement opened up spaces of dialogue around how to embed and operationalize adaptation across often siloed departments and councils. Through this we contribute to a deeper understanding of the “actual experience of adaptation” which broadly asks, “are we adapting?” (Ford & King, 2015, p. 506) and identify useful lessons for application more broadly not just in how to design an M&E framework but how participatory processes facilitate learning and engagement with the complexities of adaptation and help to develop the conditions or readiness to ‘do’ adaptation. As such, this chapter seeks to contribute to gaps in knowledge around ‘doing adaptation’ locally, highlighting lessons in co-designing a M&E framework and reflecting on both the limitations and opportunities that emerge in the messiness of the ‘doing’.

Doing Adaptation Locally Climate change policy and planning includes mitigation responses (reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and includes measures at all scales of government and across all sectors of the economy and society) and adaptation responses (focusing on assessing risks, preparing for and responding to the impacts of climate change in particular contexts and regions) with the latter closely linked in policy and practice to disaster risk reduction. Adaptation actions need to be “locally contextualized and often, customized to local and regional socio-cultural and institutional factors” (Moloney et al., 2018, p. 5). In Australia, while there has been some volatility in recent years around national mitigation policy, there has been significant investment at the national scale in

50

S. Moloney et al.

adaptation research, risk assessment and planning (Palutikof et al., 2019; Webb & Beh, 2013) with the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF) and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’s (CSIRO) Climate Adaptation Flagship research initiative (Preston et al., 2011). The Commonwealth government initiated a ‘Local Adaptation Pathways’ program in 2008, which provided grants to local governments to assist with climate risk assessment and adaptation planning. These initiatives have strengthened growth in adaptation knowledge and practice in Australia, placing it alongside countries such as the U.S. and the U.K. in the field of climate change adaptation. However, research funding, reflecting the broader conservative political climate in Australia has, at the time of this research, shifted away from adaptation (Palutikof et al., 2019). Analyzing 8 years of abstracts from NCCARF adaptation-related conferences abstracts (2010–18), Palutikof et al. (2019) conclude the Australian adaptation progress is shifting over time to implementation of adaptation actions from the stage of adaptation planning. They note when moving from adaptation planning to implementation, barriers will appear. Drawing on Mogelgaard et al. (2018) they call this the ‘implementation gap’ and note five aspects needing attention to bridge this: finance, policy frameworks, information, tools and leadership. Given Australia’s progress around developing plans and actions for adaptation, one of the key challenges is to track and critically evaluate progress in delivering these adaptation plans and actions, and reflect on how to effectively learn from these measures in order to improve future responses.

Doing Adaptation in Local Government Alliances, Networks, Capacity Building Local governments are in general willing participants in climate change adaptation as they are arguably not only the level of government most connected to the community but are also responsible for many local services affected by climate change including those supporting the most vulnerable in the community. However, a lack of resources, time and capacity, caused in part by a lack of clear state regulation and policy guidance, can mean adaptation uptake is slow (Bates et al., 2013). This reflects the broader issue of “persistent vacillation among actors regarding responsibility for adaptation in the Australian context” and the observation that actors may be preparing to adapt but “not necessarily adapting and/or pursuing capacity building activities that are considered to have relatively low political risk and low cost” (Nalau et al., 2015, p. 95). While we accept here the arguments that adaptation is not just a local issue, as adaptation science and policy orthodoxy might suggest (Nalau et al., 2015) we do know that local actors are “at the sharp end of adaptation” and therefore “a capacity for reflexive adaptation both proactively and reactively” is desirable amongst local actors and networks (Pelling et al., 2008, p. 879). In their paper Pelling et al. (2008, p. 879) highlight the importance of

4

Beyond a ‘Tick-Box Approach’ for Local Government Climate. . .

51

‘shadow networks’2 in contributing to resilience and capacity building, improving information and resource flows and horizontal governance. The case study presented could be characterized as a ‘shadow network’ involving a municipal Greenhouse Alliance in the early phase of work, and extending and upscaling out to include other municipalities and alliances. The role of Greenhouse Alliances in Melbourne has been explored in terms of their intermediary and experimental practices mobilizing and enabling local governments to prepare for and respond to climate change challenges (Moloney & Fünfgeld, 2015; Moloney & Horne, 2015, 2018). The process of co-designing a ‘fit-for-purpose’ approach to M&E with a network of local governments and other partners demonstrates that it is in the spaces between ‘canonical’ and ‘shadow’ systems (Pelling et al., 2008) that adaptive capacity is being built. The following section provides some background to challenges and issues in designing M&E processes for climate change adaptation before we present the story of the How Well Are We Adapting? project.

Doing Monitoring and Evaluation for Climate Change Adaptation Recent literature on monitoring and evaluation for climate change adaptation focuses on lessons from practice and implementation or ‘doing adaptation’. Determining the purpose for doing ‘monitoring’ and ‘evaluation’ is a critical first step in the process of embedding M&E into decision-making and improved planning. In broad terms, monitoring and evaluation is typically undertaken to answer two questions: are we doing things right (single loop learning) and are we doing the right thing (double loop learning) (Bours et al., 2014b; Pringle, 2011). In the context of climate change adaptation, Spearman and McGray (2011) argue that M&E plays two key roles in enabling successful adaptation: (1) to add to the long-term process of learning ‘what works’ in adaptation and; (2) to provide a powerful tool to help practitioners manage their work. Related to this is the need to reflect on the different adaptation activities according to those that build adaptive capacity and those that deliver adaptation actions (UKCIP, 2013). Building adaptive capacity involves developing a community’s or an organization’s ability to respond to climate change impacts and strengthen resilience. For example, in Australia, the increasing severity of heatwaves has prompted not only a focus on identifying populations most vulnerable to heat (with all the inherent complexities of identification), but on the form and content of

2

Institutional analysis highlights both the formal and informal aspects of social and organisational life where formal institutions (including legislation or work-guidelines) are formulated, with Brown and Duguid (1991) describing these systems as ‘canonical’ (Pelling et al., 2008, p. 869). The space of informal interaction that lies outside the formal system but interacts with it has been termed the ‘shadow system’ (Stacey 1996 in Pelling et al., 2008, p. 869).

52

S. Moloney et al.

government and community health authorities heat health messaging and preparedness to reach diverse communities and enable them to prepare for heatwaves. This work has identified that in order to understand both community resilience, and barriers to achieve adaptive capacity, more research focusing on peoples’ day-today experiences of extreme heat is needed (Bosomworth et al., 2020). In contrast, delivering ‘adaptation action’ focuses more on practical steps to: directly reduce or manage biophysical impacts of climate change (such as flood inundation or increases in bushfires); identify and address non-climatic factors which contribute to vulnerability, and, overall take advantage of positive opportunities to make change (UKCIP, 2013). While defined separately here, these two concepts—adaptation action and adaptation capacity—are closely interconnected and in practice there is often overlap. Local government, for example, may monitor and evaluate adaptation actions identified in a council plan aimed at increasing organizational adaptive capacity through staff training or awareness raising programs. How we define or measure success is complex in climate change adaptation. Evaluations of adaptation initiatives are undertaken to: (1) evaluate effectiveness of interventions; (2) assess efficiency of resource allocation; (3) understand the equity implications of actions; (4) provide accountability; (5) assess outcomes; (6) improve learning; (7) improve future actions, and; (8) compare interventions (Hedger et al., 2008; Preston et al., 2011; Pringle, 2011; Sanahuja, 2011). While these evaluation criteria may give some clues as to “whether they were successful” (Sanahuja, 2011), as Dilling et al. (2019) argue measuring success in adaptation is fraught for many reasons given that there is no single unit of measurement for adaptation; perceptions and prioritizations of risks vary across contexts and communities as do approaches to managing risks. They claim that the way forward for progressing and ‘measuring’ adaptation should be two-pronged. One path involves developing metrics that are defined by and meaningful to people and organizations on the ground who are actively involved rather than passive recipients of programs or initiatives designed by others (Dilling et al., 2019, p. 573). Here Dilling et al. contend that “the process of tracking change may be an opportunity to create authentic dialogue” about societal values and objectives, and whose interests are being prioritized and so on. The second path moves away from debating what is successful adaptation and instead focuses on “building and measuring capabilities that empower communities in the face of climate change” (Dilling et al., 2019, p. 573). This ability to address local complexity reinforces the role of using M&E for learning purposes but also recognizes that this process will vary considerably between evaluations whose purpose is to better understand ‘what happened and why’ than those assessments which are focused primarily on accountability in order to answer the question ‘have we done what we said we would?’ (Pringle, 2011). In short, generating new knowledge and facilitating learning is a crucial component of M&E as, along with identifying ‘gaps’ and documenting what works (or not), the ‘when’, ‘where’, ‘how’, and ‘why’ questions are important steps in improving the effectiveness of adaptation policies, projects and plans. Integrating M&E into the adaptation process is therefore critical to allow for iterative, ongoing learning and

4

Beyond a ‘Tick-Box Approach’ for Local Government Climate. . .

53

opportunities to modify, change and improve responses to climate change (UKCIP, 2013; UNFCCC, 2010). Determining the most appropriate approach to M&E is crucial for establishing a framework (see Moloney and McClaren (2018) and Villanueva (2011) for a more detailed discussion of approaches to M&E). A key message from Villanueva’s analysis of current approaches and methodologies used for evaluating planned adaptation interventions is that while each approach is useful in assessing and predicting adaptive capacity, they are not very effective at helping understand how adaptive capacity develops. Common approaches to evaluating adaptation are characterized as focusing on defining and measuring adaptive capacity and risk reduction against a predefined set of indicators (Villanueva, 2011, p. 31). A range of key challenges have emerged in the literature around M&E for CCA (Barnett & O’Neill, 2010; Bours et al., 2014a; Hedger et al., 2008; Pringle, 2011; Turner et al., 2014; Villanueva, 2011). While these challenges may not necessarily be unique to adaptation, they require attention for those considering M&E for CCA. These include: defining and measuring adaptation ‘success’ (as mentioned above); working within long term time-frames and as a result the difficulty in evaluating the appropriateness or success of certain interventions; shifting baselines due in part to unpredictable and changing natural, social and political conditions; avoiding maladaptation; and, taking account of the multi-sectoral implications of adaptation responses, and thus the need to involve a wide range of stakeholders and government departments and agencies in establishing useful indicators (Turner et al., 2014). Three key issues emerge from these lessons from past and current practice which are important to consider in designing an approach to M&E for adaptation: (1) adopt a process-based approach, not simply a deterministic approach focusing on inputs/ outputs; (2) ensure the approach is dynamic and reflexive, not static; and (3) move beyond focusing only on efficiency and effectiveness towards a more learning-based approach (Villanueva, 2011). Rather than attempting to control unpredictability or simplify multiple players, these ‘directives’ emphasize the critical importance of incorporating the complexity of adaptation (processes and actions) into the design of monitoring and evaluating frameworks, using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies.

Developing Indicators and Metrics Reporting on approaches and indicators for CCA presents challenges and the literature suggests there is no single ‘best practice’ for designing adaptation indicators. Instead, a review of various approaches indicates several concepts which can be useful for the purposes of comparison (Turner et al., 2014). Horrocks et al. (2012, p. 34) note that: “Developing adaptation indicators need to navigate a path between simplification and quantification on one hand, and developing a rich understanding of the complexities which underpin adaptation on the other.” M&E indicators should aim to: find a balance between process and outcome indicators; incorporating both

54

S. Moloney et al.

measures of adaptive capacity, as well as mitigation of vulnerability, and contain a mix of both qualitative and quantitative indicators. Despite sufficient evidence suggesting that qualitative approaches are essential (Brown et al., 2018), such methodologies can be viewed as too hard to assess. For example, in another co-designed project MONARES, German municipalities rejected qualitative surveys, as they were deemed too expensive and labour intensive (Feldmeyer et al., 2019). Despite this, the MONARES team themselves acknowledge that qualitative approaches are necessary, a view backed by a review of approaches for monitoring and evaluation of urban climate resilience initiatives (Feldmeyer et al., 2019). Overall indicators offer snapshots of measures taken to reduce vulnerability alongside building adaptive capacity, while also monitoring and reflecting on adaptive actions over the long-term. Finally, we acknowledge the debates around the limitations and challenges in developing and using metrics, and highlight the reflections of Mair et al. (2017) on the value and role of indicators particularly in dealing with complex challenges. They argue the selection of indicators helps to engage different actors in conversations about both understanding and operationalizing issues like sustainability and climate change. This reinforces Dilling et al. (2019)’s argument that designing indicators and metrics ought to engage those using them and at the same time focus on building the capabilities and capacities of those facing climate change challenges. In designing metrics and tools for M&E through a participatory process, ownership is established which is an important precursor to empowerment (Fünfgeld et al., 2019).

How Well Are We Adapting? Mobilizing a Co-design Process with Local Governments This section focuses on How Well Are We Adapting? (HWAWA) project between local councils and their partnering with government and university researchers to collaboratively develop a framework and indicators to address locally specific climate change adaptation (including examining the challenges and issues that have surfaced along the way). The project began through the work of the Western Alliance for Greenhouse Action (WAGA), an alliance of eight-member metropolitan and peri-urban councils across the western region of metropolitan Melbourne and the initial co-designing through the HWAWA project. In keeping with its intention to be collaborative, reflective of both literature and the contextual challenges, in this implementation phase (2013–2017 Phase One), the scope of the framework, the framework design and first set of indicators were developed and tested through workshops and a piloting process. This stage was primarily about learning (see also Moloney & McClaren, 2018). Next, we outline the second phase of the project (2018–2020), as it expanded beyond WAGA to other metropolitan councils and one regional city, This phase involved the development of a second set of indicators

4

Beyond a ‘Tick-Box Approach’ for Local Government Climate. . .

55

through workshops and piloting and the creation of a baseline survey of the 20 participating councils to gauge what councils are doing in terms of adaptation planning and the perceived value of doing M&E to improve their adaptive capacity. This latest stage (Phase Two) is more focused on reflecting and embedding the lessons learnt through Phase One as well as strengthening the capacity for learning across the wider network of councils now participating in the project.

Initiating the M&E Process Established in 2006, WAGA has played a key role in mobilizing climate change action across their eight member councils in the Melbourne western region (Moloney & Fünfgeld, 2015). Alliances like WAGA, one of the eight Victorian municipal Greenhouse alliances, allow space to develop strategies, projects, knowledge and resources in partnership with their member councils and others. As a municipal network, WAGA works to coordinate and enable councils to better plan for climate change and to build capacity regionally by working together on collaborative initiatives. The breadth of issues and challenges varies across the region which encompasses over 4700 km2, 830,000 people and includes a range of landuses such as agriculture, rapidly expanding low density suburbs, increasing inner city densities, including development along flood prone coastal and river areas. While councils are working together through WAGA, and have developed regional low carbon and adaptation strategies, each member council has its own plans, strategies, priorities, institutional cultures and politics. Initially supported by state government funds, since 2008 WAGA, along with the other Greenhouse alliances, have been funded by small annual member council contributions, largely used to employ an Executive Officer to coordinate the alliances and generate projects and grants. In 2011 through the development of a Risk Assessment (WAGA, 2011, Climate change risk assessment. Melbourne: Western Alliance for Greenhouse Action, Unpublished) and then the Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (WAGA, 2013), WAGA identified the need to better understand how well local councils were adapting to climate change over time and how, as an alliance, they could assist member councils to track their progress and improve decision-making. In the regional Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, they focused on 88 named climate risks in the western region (17 severe) which encompassed all council service areas including: assets and infrastructure, transport, open space and recreation, natural environment, emergency management, health and community, planning and building and business continuity (WAGA, 2013). In 2013 WAGA received funding from the Victorian state government for a 3-year project to develop a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework for climate change adaptation across their region involving a range of key project partners including three WAGA councils (Hobsons Bay, the City of Greater Geelong and Wyndham City council), RMIT University, Net Balance Foundation (environmental consultants) and the state Department of

56

S. Moloney et al.

Environment and Primary Industries (the funder). It was recognized that adapting to climate change risks is an ongoing process of continual improvement and that a process for monitoring, reviewing and evaluating progress and the effectiveness of adaptation actions, was necessary. After a review of the literature and best practice, there was agreement between the project partners that a tailored approach was required to design an M&E framework that best suited the WAGA councils. The aim was to develop a framework that would monitor the performance of councils in improving adaptive capacity and implementing adaptation actions through a set of indicators. This project sought to build on and contribute to the emerging international research and practice around effective M&E for climate change adaptation.

Co-designing the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework A key lesson from the literature was the importance of engaging those who would be responsible for doing M&E in the process of designing the framework scope and indicators. A series of workshops were held involving participation from a range of external and internal WAGA council stakeholders to capture a diverse range of inputs into the early design of the M&E framework. A literature review (prepared by university research partners—see Turner et al., 2014), a gap analysis of existing council strategies and approaches, and a materiality assessment were the key processes that informed the scope. This led to discussion around the range of reasons for doing M&E and identifying some of the potential conflicting purposes (Pringle, 2011). For example, the desire to provide accountability was understood to be in conflict with a focus on improving learning as this implied there would be failures to learn from, and there was reluctance to admit to failures in a political environment that could expose local government to liability claims. The desire to use one framework to compare progress was also challenging as local governments have varied responses to climate change adaptation and are at different stages of adaptation planning, so it was difficult to provide meaningful comparison on adaptation ‘progress’. Taking into account the concerns raised in the workshops, the WAGA project team developed seven key objectives (see Fig. 4.1) and a materiality assessment. Focusing on key local government service areas, the following four priority themes or service areas were identified: (1) Community wellbeing and emergency management; (2) Open space and water security; (3) Assets and infrastructure; (4) Planning, building and regulation. Under each of these priority themes, a subset of relevant issues or components was identified (see Table 4.1). Drawing on the literature review (Turner et al., 2014) and the deliberative processes described above, a learning-based framework was developed, focusing on attempting to capture general regional scale and service specific vulnerability measures as well as institutional processes and actions within councils to track adaptive capacity (see Table 4.1). Regional scale and municipal scale baselines were developed to monitor and evaluate council performance and ensure that both

4

Beyond a ‘Tick-Box Approach’ for Local Government Climate. . .

57

Table 4.1 Key objectives for How Well Are We Adapting? Adapted from WAGA (2016) ● Help us track how councils are managing or responding to climate change ● Monitor the impacts of climate on council operations ● Communicate with the community about climate vulnerability and council action. ● Assess the effectiveness of actions and inform future actions* (i.e. if there are maladaptive actions occurring) (*Eventual goal). ● Evaluate and report on actions that help manage climate risks (Management). ● Focus on learning rather than measuring success or failure (Learning and Improving). ● Focus on areas of commonality across all WAGA Councils (Integration)

vulnerability and adaptive capacity measures were incorporated through the theme components. However, as outlined in the literature, within a future context of more frequent, severe and unpredictable climate hazards and risks, shifting baselines are to be expected. In response to this, the How Well Are We Adapting? framework chose to monitor climate variables and vulnerability (including socio-economic indicators) using regional level baselines.

Co-designing Indicators The next stage of the project involved in-depth co-production of indicator sets with council-based practitioners aligned to the sectors under the priority themes (i.e. asset and infrastructure managers, urban planners, emergency management staff etc.). The theme components under each service area theme were developed as a structure around which to build the different types of indicators. The indicators included a mix of process, output and outcome indicators requiring qualitative and quantitative data that can be monitored over long timeframes and be analyzed for trends against a baseline of climate hazards. In order to fully develop a set of indicators that could be tested with councils within the project timeframe, it was decided that initially the focus would be on two of the four priority themes—Community well-being and emergency management and Open space and water security (Phase 1). Workshops were held with local government staff from the eight participating WAGA councils that deliver services or operations within community wellbeing, emergency management, open space and water security. Through these facilitated discussions, a set of adaptation principles were agreed upon which defined what good adaptation involves also drawing on the literature and practice of robust decision-making (Hallegatte, 2009; Silke & Renouf, 2014; Watkiss & Dynzynski, 2013). These adaptation principles (see Fig. 4.2) informed indicator development for How Well Are We Adapting. The indicator workshops established a set of criteria to evaluate the indicators themselves (i.e., indicators must be sensitive to change; data collection achievable and information gathered be informative, useful and able to be influenced by council), while practitioners also considered whether to use formative and summative indicators and what types of quantitative or qualitative data would be required.

58

S. Moloney et al.

To aid in these conversations around indicator development, the workshops included a visioning exercise where practitioners were asked to imagine what adaptation success would look like and develop narratives for successful adaptation for their region. Enabling participants to think creatively and strategically about future scenarios led to ideas that informed HWAWA’s overall vision, again illustrating how co-design works at multiple levels. This process of co-designing indicators with staff across council service areas including asset management and emergency management was critical in developing a sense of ownership around the M&E framework and measures for tracking adaptation and importantly helped deepen understanding around the implications of climate change for different service areas in council.

Piloting and Implementation of the M&E Online Tool A draft framework and two sets of indicators—Community wellbeing and emergency management (15 draft indicators) and Open space and water security (14 draft indicators)—were produced following the practitioner workshops and tested during a pilot implementation period in 2016/17. [See Tables 4.2 and 4.3 for more detail on these indicator sets. Also see Moloney and McClaren (2018)] (Tables 4.4 and 4.5). Two of the eight WAGA councils were recruited to engage further with internal local government staff and attempt to collect data for each set of indicators. This pilot process was an important step in finalizing the M&E framework, assisting in the evaluation of indicators against the indicator criteria identified in the practitioner workshops. A key interface of the project for the member councils involved in piloting was the creation of a council and community reporting tool; a website that allowed councils to input data collected for the indicators following a user manual designed by the project team. Developed by a University research partner (Centre for eResearch and Digital Innovation, CERDI), this website enabled the project team to work with councils to problem shoot the indicators while also being aware of what councils were doing through the tool. This online tool is in a constant state of upgrade in order to reflect what councils are imputing and further refining the indicators and broadening the tool through adding data layers as time and resources permit. Originally aimed to test data collection against the indicators; it emerged over the pilot process that the indicators were not sufficiently developed to progress to data collection without first being refined again through a testing process with staff in the relevant internal teams. Rather than concentrating on data collection as a means to assess the framework, the method of testing focused around internal staff interviews, with a small data collection phase included at the end of the pilots. These Phase One

4

Beyond a ‘Tick-Box Approach’ for Local Government Climate. . .

59

Table 4.2 How Well Are We Adapting? M&E framework for WAGA region [adapted from WAGA (2016)] Regional baseline indicators This data gives us context and highlights regional vulnerabilities that will inform where to target interventions. However, council policies have little immediate influence over these indicators. Climate variables Climate parameters such as temperature or rainfall will be tracked over time to inform council planning and response over the medium to longer-term. Regional vulnerability or Resilience Indicators that suggest heightened vulnerability to key climate impacts, e.g. socio-economic disadvantage, demographics, physical vulnerability and flood risk, etc., will be monitored Priority themes Key local government service areas affected by climate change Community wellbeing & emergency management Open space & water security Assets & infrastructure Planning, building & regulation Theme components Indicators targeted at individual council impact and intervention level, rather than at the regional scale—climate impact and adaptation responses described and monitored here are grounded in council service delivery and implemented by operational staff. Through combining indicators from each theme under these components, councils and WAGA will have enough information to provide an informed story to council and community about what is happening. 1. Service vulnerability or resilience Measure ability of a service or asset to cope with and recover from effects of climate variability and change (i.e. measures vulnerability but could measure action effectiveness). 2. Institutional capacity Measure existence of appropriate structures, institutions, processes (formal or informal) or legal frameworks to respond and adapt to climate change. For example, appropriate knowledge, staff training, committees, and coordination of risk across organization etc. 3. Resourcing and budgets Captures extent to which actions and processes to address climate change are costed, budgeted for, and financially provided for. (Also financial impacts of changing climate). 4. Participation and Awareness Assesses the extent to which climate change planning involves all relevant stakeholders and evaluates their awareness of climate change issues, use of climate information, understanding of risks and potential response options, as well as actions to promote awareness in different contexts. Table 4.3 Best practice adaptation M&E principles. Adapted from WAGA (2016) ● Continue to perform under a number of different future scenarios. ● Increase flexibility ● Build in resilience and/or redundancy ● Meet planned budgets ● Don’t increase CO2-e ● Don’t increase community vulnerability ● Avoid adverse outcomes (maladaption)

60

S. Moloney et al.

Table 4.4 Indicators developed for the theme Community wellbeing and emergency management Code 1.1A 1.1B 1.1C 1.2A 1.2B 2.1A 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1A 3.1B 4.2 4.3

Indicator Knowledge of residents exposed to climate change impacts Vulnerability of critical home and community care services during significant weather events Continuity of critical maternal and child health services and family care services Residents seeking refuge in official, council-run emergency relief centres during severe weather emergencies Residents seeking relief at council managed centres during significant weather events Staff capacity to address climate change in decision making Emergency management framework recognises and responds to changing risk levels with climate change Strategic consideration in emergency management Meeting legislative requirements Tracking long term trends in investment towards preparing for extreme weather events Tracking long term trends in resourcing required to respond to significant weather events Community preparedness to respond to extreme weather events Community lifestyle and household resilience to a changing climate

Table 4.5 Indicators developed for the theme Open space and water security Code 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 3.1 3.2 3.4 4.1 4.2

Indicator Type and volume of water supply used Variation of the gap in water supply compared to demand over time Water efficiency for active open space Water efficiency for passive open space Water efficiency actions Strategic consideration of climate change in open space strategies and plans Changes in the long- term trend in the cost and frequency of significant weather event cleanups Understanding the impact of climate change on council’s operational budgets What climate adaptation outcomes have been implemented in open space capital expenditure projects? Understand community satisfaction with open space over time How much does the community value green open spaces

pilots were therefore valuable for processes of learning and feedback created to help refine indicators so they were fit-for-purpose which resulted in a much more robust set of indicators and changed the process for Phase Two indicator development (Table 4.6).

4

Beyond a ‘Tick-Box Approach’ for Local Government Climate. . .

61

Table 4.6 This table illustrates changes made to the draft indicator 1.1A for Community Wellbeing and Emergency Management, as a result of the piloting phase DRAFT 1.1A

Accurate knowledge of vulnerable people exposed to extreme weather events

FINAL 1.1A

Knowledge of residents exposed to climate change impacts

(a) Number of vulnerable residents in each category on Council’s vulnerable persons register (b) Proportion of vulnerable residents in each category on council’s vulnerable persons register, compared to total number of vulnerable. (c) Compare the number of each vulnerable category on the list to the number of each category known within the LGA. (a) Identify number & report the proportion of residents in climate vulnerable populations within the municipality

(b) Report the number of vulnerable residents that are at risk to climate impacts on Council’s registers

Report the number of residents on the vulnerable persons list compared to the number of vulnerable residents in the municipality. There is not necessarily a standard definition of vulnerability across the State. Therefore, councils are required to disclose how they define vulnerability.

(i) Elderly (65+ years) (ii) Very young (0–4 years) (iii) Homeless (iv) Residents with severe chronic health issues (v) Newly arrived external immigrants (arrived within the past 5 years) (vi) Residents of low-socioeconomic households (i) Number of residents on the vulnerable persons register (ii) Number of residents on the bushfire register (residents at risk of bushfire) (iii) Number of residents under 65 requiring critical Home and Community Care services (iv) Number of residents over 65 requiring critical Home and Community Care services (v) Sum total number of recorded ‘climate vulnerable’ residents that interact with council service delivery (vi) How does Council define and identify ‘climate vulnerable’ residents?

62

S. Moloney et al.

Upscaling the Project The development of the framework and indicators, piloting through the WAGA councils and the building of the council and community tool for sharing this information had attracted the interest of other Victorian councils. The HWAWA team was also actively working to expand and grow the project. The partnership created between WAGA and the two universities who helped co-design the framework and build the online tool continued beyond the funding period of Phase One. As a co-design process the network of partners were invested in both seeing the full set of indicators developed (to incorporate the two other themes identified by councils in phase one) and extending the use of the M&E online tool to councils beyond the WAGA network. The State Government importantly recognized the value of the project seen as contributing to a key goal of the ‘Victorian Climate Change Adaptation Strategy’ (2017–2021) (DELWP, 2017) which was to build the capacity of local governments to respond to climate change. The State Government continued to fund the project with RMIT University as co-lead hosting a project officer in partnership with WAGA but now involving 19 councils from across metropolitan Melbourne and one regional Victorian city. Participating councils paid a small subscription fee to join the project. In 2018 the project team was now ready to begin developing and refining the next set of indicators for the second two priority sectors Planning building and regulation and Asset management with lessons learned from Phase One informing the process. Representatives from the 20 participating councils took part in quarterly practitioner workshops to help them use the existing indicator sets, collect data and embed adaptation across their council departments. A smaller group of ‘control councils’, many of whom were from the original WAGA network, worked on co-designing the second set of indicators. One of the changes in Phase Two was the creation of a Technical Reference Group, a group of experts in the areas of urban planning and asset management, gathered to provide advice to the indicator design process. The piloting process was then repeated with these second indicator sets with 9 of the 20 councils collecting data. Similar to Phase One, four indicator workshops, two for each indicator set, involving urban planners and asset and infrastructure managers together with sustainability/climate change managers. Again, each group of participants were asked to develop a vision of a climate adapted future and using the HWAWA framework (see Table 4.1) design indicators against each of the theme components (i.e. including service vulnerability, institutional capacity, resourcing and participation and awareness indicators). At the start of Phase Two, the project team undertook a baseline survey of participating councils (with fifteen respondents) to assess how they were doing in terms of embedding adaptation into council processes and the perceived value of doing M&E to improve their adaptive capacity. This provided insights into how councils understood their progress in terms of adaptation planning and recorded their understanding and use of monitoring and evaluation. The survey highlighted councils are at different stages with some not having completed vulnerability assessments

4

Beyond a ‘Tick-Box Approach’ for Local Government Climate. . .

63

and using the HWAWA as a way to ignite conversations about adaptation in their councils and others focusing on data collection and reporting to inform decisionmaking. The survey will be undertaken again in late-2020 at the conclusion of Phase Two to assess what improvements or progress has been achieved through the use of indicators.

Doing Adaptation as a Participatory Process The How Well Are We Adapting? project explores the issues and processes involved in developing an M&E framework and indicators for local government using a participatory and deliberative method which values interconnectedness and building networks. An important feature of this project is the long-term partnership between the councils who initiated the project, providing both the original detailed research and leadership, and the universities who played both advisory (Phase One) and project leadership (Phase Two) roles. Through the process, project partners and stakeholders were open to rethinking the methods and goals; a process Pelling et al. (2008) call ‘reflexive adaptation’. Underpinning both Phase One and Two of the project were lessons learned in the early research and scoping phase of the project where the project team developed a shared understanding that the importance of M&E as a learning process was paramount and engaging with those beyond the usual suspects (i.e., environment departments) was a key goal for those involved. This reciprocal relationship ensured HWAWA continued beyond the end of the first funding period as the project and its outputs gained interest from other councils. It also garnered legitimacy and recognition from the State Government, featuring as a case study of local government action in Victoria’s Climate Change Adaptation Plan 2017–2020 released in 2017 and consequently gained further funding for the 2018–2020 period.

Barriers and Benefits The upscaling phase of the HWAWA project (2018–2020) involved recruiting 12 new councils (for a total of 20), which brought new challenges for the project team as some local governments were at the very early stages of doing adaptation planning. Many of the new councils had not completed vulnerability assessments or adaptation strategies and were participating in the project to enable them to build their capacity to understand and monitor impacts on service areas which would then inform their planning processes. Through feedback at regular project meetings, as well as a focus group in Nov 2018 and the baseline survey completed by fifteen councils in May/June 2019, a number of key challenges and issues were identified in ‘doing’ adaptation broadly and implementing the M&E framework more specifically.

64

S. Moloney et al.

Two key issues emerged across most councils in both Phase One and Two. The first issue concerned the capacity burden for councils; that is resourcing constraints arising from conflict with pre-existing work commitments and insufficient workplanning. As identified in the literature (Pelling et al., 2008), a lack of managerial support from higher up in councils (often due to other jobs being prioritized) amplified this constraint. The second issue related to the lengthy engagement process with councils; that is, the time involved to undertake effective internal council engagement to get participation from other service teams (a process driven largely by the HWAWA project officer). In general, it took the signed-up council officers between 6 weeks and 3 months to gain internal support and to negotiate their existing work commitments which was longer than initially expected. These findings illustrate both the importance of assessing an organization’s capacity to invest in climate adaptation response, and committing, in the case of HWAWA, to a process of data collection, monitoring, evaluation, learning and reviewing to inform decisionmaking, all which require political and senior management support and resourcing (Productivity Commission, 2012, p. 156). Without this support some Council officers struggled to commit the necessary time towards the process. Despite these challenges, many practitioners involved in the project have seen value in the framework and the indicators to both inform their decision-making and help to engage different parts of council in climate change adaptation. The feedback from staff following the workshops reinforced the importance of the co-production process itself as it engaged council officers in thinking about their roles and responsibilities in tracking climate change action and contributed to general capacity building around adaptation. The workshops also enabled staff to step outside their day-to-day activities to consider the longer-term timeframes for their decisionmaking and to consider the potential conflicting adaptation goals or trade-offs around potential solutions at local and regional scales. The project itself created a space for councils to learn and share their experiences in navigating the challenges of doing adaptation including data collection processes. Their commitment to engaging in indicator design workshops or participating in project network meetings and online forums, helped develop a community of practice around adaptation learning that was highly valued by participating councils. In addition, the framework and the online tool with associated resources is providing a useful platform to continue the data gathering and reporting process and enables the project team to identify what is working and what needs refining or improvement.

Building Adaptive Capacity: Spaces for Participatory Learning Building adaptive capacity involves participation and deliberation by a wide range of actors and this project demonstrated this in two clear outcomes. Firstly, the role of the project in building a learning network through the co-designing process where councils shaped and owned the framework and indicators they would then use. This ‘shadow space’ was critical in enabling local governments to develop their capacity

4

Beyond a ‘Tick-Box Approach’ for Local Government Climate. . .

65

to monitor and evaluate climate change risks and impacts on council services and perhaps, most importantly, opened up opportunities for dialogue across council departments. Secondly, and relatedly, the participatory processes adopted during the indicator design workshops were key in empowering and building a sense of ownership (something Fünfgeld et al. (2019) also identify as important) over the monitoring and evaluation process particularly for those outside sustainability/environment departments at councils. For example, the feedback from workshops involving urban planners and asset managers (in Phase Two) provided important insights for the project team in understanding the systems and processes involved in embedding climate change considerations into areas not typically at the forefront of adaptation work. Their role in deliberating over indicator design (the data required to track climate change impacts and the responses needed to better prepare for climate change risks) raised many issues for these planners and managers around the inadequacies of ‘business-as-usual’ processes and the institutional challenges they confront day-to-day in effecting change. A crucial lesson from this case is that the actual experience of doing adaptation necessitates spaces for learning and experimentation. Pelling et al. (2008) argue for the importance of identifying and exploring these ‘relational spaces’ within organizations as central to the many facets of adaptive capacity: These spaces allow individuals or subgroups within organizations to experiment, imitate, communicate, learn and reflect on their actions in ways that can surpass formal processes within policy and organisational settings. (Pelling et al., 2008, p. 868)

While there is some way to go yet in assessing how the indicators will be used by participating councils to inform and improve adaptation planning, the opportunity to engage a wider set of stakeholders from across councils (as well as technical experts) was critical to the development of robust and meaningful indicators as well as robust and meaningful conversations. Emphasizing the role of M&E as a participatory learning process has therefore been demonstrated through this case study, as one valuable pathway to creating spaces for deliberation and reflection.

Conclusion: Lessons for ‘Doing’ Adaptation This paper examines how a network of councils in metropolitan Melbourne, Australia developed a locally specific co-designed framework to monitor, evaluate and report on climate change adaptation. The process and findings from this case study provide valuable insights into the issues and challenges around “the actual experience” (Ford & King, 2015, p. 506) of climate change adaptation work at the municipal scale. While the imperatives of adaptation focus attention at the local scale, there is limited understanding of what it means in practice to ‘do’ adaptation. This case study tells the story of ‘learning by doing’; participating councils embracing a participatory approach involving a number of key local stakeholders to help inform the development of a method for tracking climate change impacts and

66

S. Moloney et al.

actions adapted for specific local council needs. This process provided council officers with a sense of ownership over the framework, as something designed by them and for them and their decision-making processes, rather than a framework that required their input but would be used to inform someone else’s decision-making and analysis. In this way, ‘doing’ adaptation is about creating learning organizations and focusing on relational spaces to provide a way of measuring adaptive capacity. This is an area we feel deserves more attention in future research. As a learning project, the HWAWA team recognizes that sustaining the use and continuous development of the M&E tool will be a struggle in a resource constrained environment. However, it is anticipated that in a context of growing need from local governments and others to build capacities and capabilities to do adaptation, this project and the network created through it can evolve in response to those demands. At the time of writing fourteen councils have subscribed to another year which enables the project to continue its focus on supporting councils to embed adaptation in their planning and decision-making. Without mandatory reporting requirements for councils around adaptation and adequate resources, the future of HWAWA is certainly precarious without continued support from state government. Overall, doing adaptation is complex; it challenges existing practices and exposes siloed approaches. It is an ongoing process that must be maintained; meaning processes themselves must be adaptive, responsive and based on continuous learning. While off-the-shelf templates for assessments, plans and processes can guide adaptation work, there are many institutional challenges to overcome and change if we are to achieve significant progress. Empowering people to design an approach to tracking change, and creating metrics that are meaningful to their work, means that people are actively engaged in thinking about and planning for their future (Dilling et al., 2019). Developing useful M&E processes can be about more than tracking effectiveness, efficiency and accountability; they can open up spaces for engagement and deliberation about the challenges organizations will inevitably confront in doing adaptation. We reinforce the call from Dilling et al. (2019) who argue that there is “value in accelerating the sharing of experiential and research knowledge across networks and scales” and we heed their caution in not presenting the How Well Are We Adapting? framework and metrics as definitive for local governments in leading to adaptation success. We hope instead that the lessons from this case study can provide guidance and some principles (i.e., of co-design, participation and learning) to others embarking on similar processes.

References Barnett, J., & O’Neill, S. (2010). Maladaptation. Global Environmental Change, 20, 211–213. Bates, L. E., Green, M., Leonard, R., & Walker, I. (2013). The influence of forums and multilevel governance on the climate change adaptation practices of Australian organizations. Ecology and Society, 18(4), 62. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06120-180462

4

Beyond a ‘Tick-Box Approach’ for Local Government Climate. . .

67

Bosomworth, K., Moloney, S., & Gooder, H. (2020). The Hotspots Initiative – Place-based, crosssector collaborations responding to the health impacts of heatwaves: Evaluation report. RMIT University for the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation. Bours, D., McGinn, C., & Pringle, P. (2014a). Guidance note 1: Twelve reasons why climate change adaptation M&E is challenging. Sea Change and UKCIP. https://www.ukcip.org.uk/ wp-content/PDFs/MandE-Guidance-Note1.pdf Bours, D., McGinn, C., & Pringle, P. (2014b). Guidance note 3: Theory of change approach to climate change adaptation programming. Sea change and UKCIP. http://www.ukcip.org.uk/ wp-content/PDFs/MandE-Guidance-Note3.pdf Brown, C., Shaker, R., & Das, R. (2018). A review of approaches for monitoring and evaluation of urban climate resilience initiatives. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 20(1), 23–40. Chou, M. (2020). Australian local governments and climate emergency declarations: Reviewing local government practice. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 1–11. Christiansen, L., Schaer, C., Larsen, C., & Naswa, P. (2016). Monitoring and evaluation for climate change adaptation: A summary of the key challenges and emerging practice, UNEP DTU Partnership Working Papers series; Climate Resilient Development Programme, Working Paper 1. www.UNEPDTU.org Davidson, K., Briggs, J., Nolan, E., Bush, J., Hakansson, I., & Moloney, S. (2020). The making of a climate emergency response: Examining the attributes of a climate emergency plan. Urban Climate, 33. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP). (2017). Victorian climate change adaptation strategy (2017-2021). Victorian Government. Dilling, L., Prakash, A., Zommers, Z., Ahmad, F., Singh, N., de Wit, S., Nalau, J., Daly, M., & Bowman, K. (2019). Is adaptation success a flawed concept? Nature Climate Change, 9(8), 572–574. Feldmeyer, D., Wilden, D., Kind, C., Kaiser, T., Goldschmidt, R., Diller, C., & Birkmann, J. (2019). Indicators for monitoring urban climate change resilience and adaptation. Sustainability, 11(10), 2931. Ford, J. D., & King, D. (2015). A framework for examining adaptation readiness. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 20, 505–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-0139505-8 Ford, J. D., Berrang-Ford, L., Biesbroek, R., Araos, M., Austin, S. E., & Lesnikowski, A. (2015). Commentary: Adaptation tracking for a post-2015 climate agreement. Nature Climate Change, 5(11), 967–969. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2744 Fünfgeld, H., Lonsdale, K., & Bosomworth, K. (2019). Beyond the tools: Supporting adaptation when organisational resources and capacities are in short supply. Climatic Change, 153(4), 625–641. Hallegatte, S. (2009). Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Global Environmental Change, 19(2), 240–247. Hedger, M. M., Mitchell, T., Leavy, J., Greeley, M., Downie, A., & Horrocks, L. (2008). Evaluation of adaptation to climate change from a development perspective. Commissioned by the Global Environment Facility Evaluation Office and Department of International Development (DFID). http://www.climateeval.org/sites/default/files/events/alexandria/IDS_Report_on_Eval uating_Adaptation_for_GE_publication_version.pdf Horrocks, L., Pringle, P., Cornu, E. L., & Winne, S. (2012). Review of international experience in adaptation indicators. Report for Adaptation Sub-Committee, AEA/R/ED57591 Issue Number 3, AEA Technology. Mair, S., Jones, A., Ward, J., Christie, I., Druckman, A., & Lyon, F. (2017). A critical review of the role of indicators in implementing the sustainable development goals. In W. Filho, R. W. Marans, & J. Callewaert (Eds.), Handbook of sustainability and social science and research (pp. 41–56). Springer.

68

S. Moloney et al.

Mathew, S., Truck, S., Truong, C., & Davies, P. (2016). Monitoring and evaluation in adaptation. National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF). Mogelgaard, K., Dinshaw, A., Ginoya, N., Gutiérrez, M., Preethan, P., & Waslander, J. (2018). From planning to action: Mainstreaming climate change adaptation into development. World Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/publication/climate-planning-to-action Moloney, S., & Fünfgeld, H. (2015). Emergent processes of adaptive capacity building: Local government climate change alliances and networks in Melbourne. Urban Climate: Special Issue, 14, 30–40. Moloney, S., & Horne, R. (2015). Low carbon urban transitions: from local experimentation to urban transformation? Sustainability, 7, 2437–2453. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7032437 Moloney, S., & Horne, R. (2018). Reconfiguring spatial boundaries and institutional practices: mobilizing and sustaining urban low carbon transitions in Victoria, Australia. In A. LuqueAyala, S. Marvin, & H. Bulkeley (Eds.), Rethinking urban transitions: Politics in the low carbon city (pp. 111–128). Routledge. Moloney, S., & McClaren, H. (2018). Designing a ‘fit-for-purpose’ approach to tracking progress on climate change adaptation and resilience: Learning from local governments in Australia. In Y. Yamagata & A. Sharifi (Eds.), Resilience-orientated urban planning: theoretical and empirical insights (pp. 67–90). Springer. Moloney, S., Fünfgeld, H., & Granberg, M. (2018). Climate change responses from the global to the local scale: An overview. In S. Moloney, H. Funfgeld, & M. Granberg (Eds.), Local action on climate change: Opportunities and constraints (pp. 1–16). Routledge. Nalau, J., Preston, B., & Maloney, M. (2015). Is adaptation a local responsibility? Environmental Science and Policy, 48, 89–98. Palutikof, J. P., Boulter, S. L., Stadler, F., & Vidaurre, A. C. P. (2019). Tracking the progress of climate change adaptation: An Australian case study. Environmental Science and Policy, 101, 126–135. Pelling, M., High, C., Dearing, J., & Smith, D. (2008). Shadow spaces for social learning: A relational understanding of adaptive capacity to climate change within organisations. Environment and Planning A, 40, 867–884. Preston, B. L., Westaway, R. M., & Yuen, E. J. (2011). Climate adaptation planning in practice: An evaluation of adaptation plans from three developed nations. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 16(4), 407–438. Pringle, P. (2011). AdaptME: Adaptation monitoring and evaluation. UKCIP. Productivity Commission. (2012). Barriers to effective climate change adaptation, Inquiry Report No. 59. 19 September, 2012, Australian Government, Canberra. Sanahuja, H. E. (2011). Tracking progress for effective action: A framework for monitoring and evaluating adaptation to climate change. http://www.seachangecop.org/files/documents/ Final_Draft_Study_of_Frameworks_on_Adaptation_(HS_August_2011).pdf Scott, H. (2018). Monitoring and evaluation of climate change adaptation by local Government: The state of play in Australia. In Proceedings of the 4th Practical Responses to Climate Change Conference 2018, Melbourne, Australia, 8–10 May 2018 (pp. 1–9). Melbourne. Silke, F., & Renouf, B. (2014). Adapting to uncertainty: A local government experience. Sustainability in Public Works Conference, 27–29 July 2014, Sydney, Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia. Spearman, M., & McGray, H. (2011). Making adaptation count: Concepts and options for monitoring and evaluation, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ), and World Resources Institute (WRI). Eschborn. Turner, S., Moloney, S., Glover, A., & Fünfgeld, H. (2014). A review of the monitoring and evaluation literature for climate change adaptation. Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University, Melbourne. UKCIP. (2013). What am I evaluating? http://www.ukcip.org.uk/wizard/adaptme-toolkit/ fundamentals/what-am-i-evaluating/

4

Beyond a ‘Tick-Box Approach’ for Local Government Climate. . .

69

UNFCCC. (2010). Synthesis report on efforts undertaken to monitor and evaluate the implementation of adaptation projects, policies and programmes and the costs and effectiveness of completed projects, policies and programmes, and views on lessons learned, good practices. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, FCCC/SBSTA/2010/5 16 April 2010. http:// unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/sbsta/eng/05.pdf Villanueva, P. S. (2011). Learning to ADAPT: Monitoring and evaluation approaches in climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction – Challenges, gaps and ways forward. The Strengthening Climate Resilience Consortium (SCR) funded by Department of International Development (DFID) UK. WAGA. (2013). Western alliance for greenhouse action. Climate change adaptation strategy: 2013-2020 Full report. Western Alliance for Greenhouse Action. www.melton.vic.gov.au/ files/04e0c6ba. . ./WAGA_Full_Report_final.pdf WAGA. (2016). Framework overview, How well are we adapting? Western Alliance for Greenhouse Action. http://adapt.waga.com.au/resources/WAGA%20-%20How%20Well%20Are% 20We%20Adapting%20-%20Framework%20overview.PDF Watkiss, P., & Dynzynski, J. (2013). Robust decision making: Decision support methods for adaptation, MEDIATION Project, Briefing Note 3. https://www.weadapt.org/sites/weadapt. org/files/robust-decision-making.pdf. Webb, R., & Beh, J. (2013). Leading adaptation practices and support strategies for Australia: An international and Australian review of products and tools, prepared for NCCARF (National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility), Gold Coast. Woodruff, S., & Stults, M. (2016). Numerous strategies but limited implementation guidance in US local adaptation plans. Nature Climate Change, 6, 796–802.

Susie Moloney is an Associate Professor in Sustainability and Urban Planning in the School of Global Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University. She is also a member of the Centre for Urban Research (CUR), RMIT. Her research focuses on land-use planning, urban sustainability and climate change and the implications for policy and governance arrangements particularly at the local and regional scale. She has worked for both the public and private sectors in the urban planning and sustainability policy domains. Over recent years she has worked on a range of applied climate change projects with local and state government and community sector organisations. She is one of the co-founders of The Climate Change Exchange (https://www.climatechangeexchange.org.au/) which is a not-for-profit organisation that is committed to the goals of equity and ecological sustainability in working towards a climate resilience future. Hosted by CUR, RMIT the Climate Change Exchange aims to build the capabilities of organisations to make evidence-informed decisions and take actions that target the drivers of risks and vulnerabilities.

70

S. Moloney et al.

Haydie Gooder is a researcher in the Centre for Urban Research (CUR), RMIT. As a cultural geographer, Haydie has worked in research collaborations across the social sciences. Her research interests include critical geographies of belonging and emotion, politics of diversity and urban encounter, and climate change adaptation.

Heather McListon is based at RMIT University in the School of Global, Urban and Social Studies where she coordinates local government involvement in How Well Are We Adapting and is part of the Climate Change Exchange not-for-profit hosted by RMIT University.Heather’s experience working in water and climate change practice and policy roles in not-for-profits, local government and Municipal Association of Victoria, the peak body for Victorian local government, has informed her support of local government climate adaptation response through How Well Are We Adapting. Since its inception in 2013, Heather facilitated a co-design process for councils to build and implement the How Well Are We Adapting tool and established a community of practice for adaptation which includes councils from the greater Melbourne region. Fran MacDonald is the Executive Officer of WAGA, a partnership of eight councils in the western region of Melbourne. WAGA councils work collaboratively to respond to climate change across the region and encourage their communities “residents and businesses” to make a transition to a low carbon society. WAGA’s plans and projects focus on both mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to the impacts of climate change. Before joining WAGA in 2012, Fran worked in the community environment sector, for Monash University’s Centre for Environmental Management and in private environmental consulting and editing. She was one of the inaugural members of the Victorian Recycling and Litter Advisory Board, back in 1990.

4

Beyond a ‘Tick-Box Approach’ for Local Government Climate. . .

71

Katrina Dunn is a Project Coordinator in the School of Global Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, and a member of the Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University. Katrina works with local and State Government and community service organisations on applied climate change research projects. Katrina has a particular interest in knowledge co-production for complex policy challenges and is the Coordinator for the Climate Change Exchange, hosted at RMIT University. Her practice is informed by collaboration for climate change adaptation, in ways which are contextspecific yet support shared learnings.

Chapter 5

The Cost of Sea Level Rise for the Island Community of Vinalhaven, Maine: Spurring Action Through Collaborative Data Analysis Meghan Grabill

Abstract In our Waypoints: Community Indicator series, the Island Institute, a community development organization, presents current data on the character along the coast and islands of Maine. Data show that climate change is already having detrimental effects on the island community of Vinalhaven, and the projections indicate it will only get worse. However, the topics of sea level rise and climate change are difficult to broach because of the complexity of the subject and the polarized views associated with it. An economic impact study, through collaboration with engaged community members, quantified the cost of sea level rise to the community if no action was taken. Through the work of data collaboration and the tenacity of the Sea Level Rise Committee, sentiment in Vinalhaven is slowly shifting and sea level rise is becoming an accepted fact. This book chapter will use the Vinalhaven example to explore the power of working with a community to forge ahead when a monumental problem seems insurmountable. Keywords Climate change · Community engagement · Economic impact · Island community · Sea level rise adaptation · Community Indicators

Introduction Climate change and its impacts will plague the planet and create disruption and harm to its inhabitants for decades without immediate action on the part of all members of society. On the coast of Maine, sea level rise threatens a way of life, “endangering people, economic drivers, and infrastructure” (Eastern Research Group, 2020). Communities need to prepare now by assessing their risk, planning for mitigation or adaptation, and taking action. Becoming resilient to sea level rise will require

M. Grabill (*) The Island Institute, Rockland, ME, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2022 F. Ridzi et al. (eds.), Community Quality-of-Life Indicators, Community Quality-ofLife and Well-Being, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06940-6_5

73

74

M. Grabill

policy changes and new sources of funding, but it will first take community support, starting at the local level.

Local Community and Climate Change Climate change and its associated impacts are a difficult subject for communities of any size to discuss. First, climate change is a complex, global problem, and an individual community’s contributions or impact is miniscule compared to the scale at which climate change is occurring. Many recognize and accept that climate change poses risks but find acting on it to be less urgent than other risks (Fischer, 2018; Leiserowitz, 2007). Second, the complexity of the problem is often difficult to translate so decision makers and community members can understand it clearly and synthesize local knowledge of the problem at the same time. Often the research done by experts and scientists has not been contextualized in a way that is meaningful to the local community experience (Cvitanovic et al., 2019; Sheppard et al., 2011). This can leave community members feeling disempowered and unable to steer the decision-making process. Third, the uncertainty associated with different projections and scenarios, which are normal for scientists, inherently lacks absolutes which make it difficult for local planners and decision makers to build a solid plan (Bell et al., 2014). When creating municipal budgets, working with probabilities and potential risks do not build confidence for spending tax dollars. Finally, public sentiment toward climate change ranges from confusion and fear all the way to complete denial and rejection of climate science (Moser, 2007; Wong-Parodi & Feygina, 2020) and those who do not believe the impacts will affect their lives are unlikely to support climate adaptation discussions (Singh et al., 2017). While community members are ill-equipped for talking about climate change for these reasons, the effects of climate change may be directly impacting their lives. Frontline communities are already experiencing the first deleterious harbingers of climate change. Some of these symptoms appear more suddenly than the slow changes generally associated with a changing climate. Sea level rise is one such symptom that has appeared in harmful ways in communities. Data from the community indicator series, Waypoints: Connect, show how sea level rise is already impacting local communities and projections reveal more problematic developments ahead (Island Institute, 2020). Parking lots flooding, buildings that repeatedly take on water, and roads and bridges being overtopped by the ocean are just a few examples. In many locations these events are new in recent years. Families who have lived in these communities for generations are shocked to see areas flood regularly that had never flooded before. Because of the geography and topography of the coast of Maine, the island and coastal communities need to have discussions, assess their risk, plan for the future, and take action to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change, especially sea level rise. In New England, much of the infrastructure and land mass that will be affected by sea level rise and coastal flooding are owned by, or the responsibility of,

5

The Cost of Sea Level Rise for the Island Community of Vinalhaven, Maine:. . .

75

the local municipality (Resilient Cities, 2020). The sooner the communities begin the dialogue, the better positioned they will be to access resources and improve their resilience to sea level rise. This chapter presents one in a series of ongoing and interrelated projects in the island town of Vinalhaven, Maine, where citizens have been persistently working to overcome the challenges of creating local community resilience to the global problem of climate change. In order to spur discussion and ultimately action a community must: (1) address local scaling of the problem for urgency; (2) make science more approachable by reconciling it with local knowledge thereby increasing community driven decision making; (3) reduce the uncertainty of the future; and (4) encourage participation to overcome fear and political malaise. The members of the Vinalhaven Sea Level Rise Committee worked alongside staff and consultants from the Island Institute to collaboratively conduct a data analysis to produce a tool that translates the cost of inaction to sea level rise.

Relationship Building Through Community Indicators Trends Along the Coast of Maine As a nonprofit community development organization, the Island Institute has the privilege of working differently than many other entities when interacting with communities. The organization has been in existence since 1983, focusing at first on the islands and now also on the coast of Maine. During this time, the Island Institute has formed relationships and built trust with individuals, communities, and partner organizations. Designed as a responsive organization, its work has evolved with the needs of the communities. This has created a portfolio of projects that is broad and somewhat diverse, ranging from technical assistance with community infrastructure, to policy work, to scholarships for students and workforce development, to leadership development and more. Many communities and individuals have more than one touchpoint with the Island Institute because of the range of ongoing projects. Beginning in 2005, the Island Institute began publishing a simple community indicators series that reported on basic demographic and economic data for the region. Over the past 5 years, this community indicator series has been revamped and revitalized. In order to convey the character and trends of the coast, the series began more in-depth exploration of a wider range of topics and was renamed, Waypoints: Community Indicators. The Waypoints: Community Indicators series presents engaging, rarely used data to communicate the character of the island and coastal communities of Maine and give the citizens the power to explain their unique situation to those along the coast of Maine and beyond. Three editions have been completed, each with a different focus. The first, Waypoints: Community Indicators (Island Institute, 2017), explored the basic socio-economic demographics of 120 island and coastal communities in

76

M. Grabill

Maine. Next, Waypoints: Livelihoods (Island Institute, 2018), delved into the way that people make their living along the coast of Maine. The third, Waypoints: Connect (Island Institute, 2020), looked at the physical, economic, and social infrastructure that forms the connections between the coastal communities, the state, and the world. This community indicators series, partially because one edition builds off the next, functions as a two-way street for the organization. First, it makes the most of the connections and relationships forged by the organization with communities to understand what is important and why it matters to these stakeholders. Second, it continues to build trust with communities by putting data and statistics to the stories and realities that the communities already know and hold as truths, although sometimes the data have challenged these truths. The most recent publication, Waypoints: Connect, explored climate related issues through the impacts to infrastructure. Sea level rise is a major concern facing the coast and islands of Maine. The data shows that communities will be impacted in several ways by the rising seas. Nearly 6% of coastal and island roads are at risk of becoming inaccessible to emergency services with two feet of sea level rise, a scenario that is likely to occur by 2100 (Island Institute, 2020). These threats are not limited to the transportation infrastructure but also pose challenges for homes, businesses, and civic infrastructure.

Citizen-Led Data Collaboration The Island Institute’s portfolio of work includes a focus on supporting communities as they work through the challenges of addressing sea level rise. This work has revealed two common, but related obstacles often faced by small communities. First, the difficulty of having discussions around climate change and adaptation measures at the local level makes it challenging to get enough support from stakeholders and decision makers at the local, state, and federal levels. Second, many of the most active communities may get enough support and funding for the initial risk assessments and planning phases only to run into the difficulty of not being able to acquire large enough sums to implement their plans. One community that has been grappling with the effects of sea level rise and what to do about it is Vinalhaven, Maine, an island community located about 13 miles from the mainland. Vinalhaven is Maine’s largest unbridged island by year-round population, which is 1081. During the summer months, visitors and seasonal residents swell the population to over 3000, nearly tripling the winter population. Vinalhaven’s economy has three major contributors: fishing, seasonal tourism, and the year-round population (Town of Vinalhaven, 2019). Almost 40% of working age island residents make a living in the marine industry (United States Census Bureau, 2018). Vinalhaven has averaged $39 million in ex-vessel value of lobsters landed over the last 5 years, earning it the second highest landing port by value in Maine over the same period (Maine Department of Marine Resources, 2020). Tourists and

5

The Cost of Sea Level Rise for the Island Community of Vinalhaven, Maine:. . .

77

Fig. 5.1 Town of Vinalhaven on the larger of the two Fox Islands along the Maine Coast (Grabill, 2020)

seasonal visitors flock to the island for its natural beauty, close-knit community, and working waterfront. The physical community and all three of these economic contributors are threatened by sea level rise (Fig. 5.1). Sea level rise and the detrimental impacts it could have to the Town of Vinalhaven is not a new concern for some members of the community. The Town recognized the importance of this topic and appointed a Sea Level Rise Committee in 2016. The committee has worked hard to understand the impacts of sea level rise on

78

M. Grabill

Brainstorm

Report

Concept

Quanitfy

Share

Finalize

Adjust

Feedback

Fig. 5.2 Iterative process for collaborating with the Vinalhaven Sea Level Rise Committee

the town, communicate these to the rest of the citizenry, and conduct risk assessment and planning to move toward resiliency. Like the other communities the Island Institute works with, the Town of Vinalhaven had run into the two impediments of garnering wider support and securing more funding. This experience of Vinalhaven and other communities generated the idea to spur action through an economic impact study that analyzed the cost of doing nothing about sea level rise. This study was an extension of the work done to create the community indicators series. It built off of the relationships created during the conceptualization and development of the series. Also, the data showed places like Vinalhaven were under threat, and a deeper look into what the indicators revealed was warranted. By working with the Vinalhaven Sea Level Rise Committee in an iterative process, the staff of the Island Institute were able to identify the most important factors that needed to be analyzed. The process began with an initial pitch of the idea to the Committee followed by brainstorming with the Committee Members about potential factors that were both quantifiable and compelling enough to sway public interest in the project. The outputs of this brainstorming session were organized into concepts and analyzed by a team consisting of an economist, spatial analysts, a marine scientist, a regional planner, and community development practitioners. This analysis was turned into a preliminary report. This report was shared back with the Vinalhaven Sea Level Rise Committee first as a draft in writing with a follow-up in-person meeting. Then, after discussion, the report was edited and returned to the committee. The committee spent more time with the report and again came back with questions. This process continued with the Island Institute team sharing numbers and concepts back with the Vinalhaven Sea Level Rise Committee who would give us feedback and then we would adjust, re-quantify, and share the new statistics and findings with them. This process continued until the committee signed off. These results were finalized and included in the final analysis (Fig. 5.2). After finalizing the analysis into a written report, the report was turned into a more accessible, informative, and editable communication tool. The chosen platform was a story map, which is an interactive, web-based method of presentation that allows for the multimedia display alongside explanations and stories. The tool increases accessibility by allowing anyone with an internet connection to interact with the

5

The Cost of Sea Level Rise for the Island Community of Vinalhaven, Maine:. . .

79

story map and its functionality. The story map can also be shared as a PDF which can be printed. These more static forms of sharing do not allow for the interactivity but are more inclusive of a broader audience by not requiring an internet connection to be able to access the findings of the study. The platform allows for increased transfer of information by allowing for multiple methods of presenting information. As implied by the name, interactive maps are embedded in the platform making it easy to share information about how different sea level rise scenarios will impact the local physical landscape. Other visual tools like pictures, charts, and graphs are included to help illustrate the information, and written explanations help the user understand each visual. Additionally, resources are linked from the story map allowing individuals to learn more about other related sea level rise projects. The final benefit of the platform is that the platform can be easily updated or edited. Unlike a printed document or report which is a snapshot in time, changes can be made quickly to any part of the story map as more information is gathered, purposes change, or new themes are identified. This can all be quickly added into the story map. Because of the ease of making changes, the Sea Level Rise Committee on Vinalhaven feels ownership of the story map and will be able to adapt it to their vision and uses.

Encouraging Dialogue on Climate Change This study was designed to address the difficulties associated with local conversations around climate change. Four barriers were identified as commonly preventing effective dialogue about climate change at the local level: (1) members of local communities often do not see the urgency for discussion or action; (2) the science is often complex; (3) there is a lot of uncertainty in creating projections for the future; and (4) people can have different understandings of climate change science which may dissuade them from participating. One method of showing local community members the urgent need for action is to focus on the local impacts. According to Leiserowitz (2007) “Local threats are generally perceived as more salient and of greater urgency than global problems” (p. 53). Sea level rise scenarios had been created as spatial files for public use that were specific to the Maine coastline by the Maine Geological Survey (Slovinsky et al., 2019). These files were instrumental in providing a robust analysis for the island community of Vinalhaven. Sheppard et al. (2011) find that the use of semiquantitative scenarios is extremely valuable to show why intervention is needed and how different responses may be created based on the local situation. Mapping the projections and sharing this information allows members of the community to identify physical locations with meaning attached (like the downtown or people’s individual homes) that were at risk of inundation from sea level rise, making climate change feel more personal and immediate. Part of the power of the final report is that

80

M. Grabill

it allows community members to interact with these projections on maps of their locality. Additionally, as the message is being developed it is important to know your audience and tailor the message so that it is specific to the community, not one that is prescribed by experiences in other places. Data and information need to be understandable and relatable, but also linked to things that the intended audience cares about (Chouinard et al., 2008). In the case of Vinalhaven, the community members steered the project toward what they felt would be the most persuasive story to communicate the impacts of sea level rise and focused on the local points of interest which would be of greatest concern to the community. Inclusion of all types of knowledge and expertise makes discussions around climate change and sea level rise difficult. Science is often presented with a lot of jargon and complicated methods that specialists have spent years learning and refining. Local knowledge can only come from living in a location for a period, and some of this knowledge can be difficult to translate using only words. The use of many types of knowledge with appropriate attention to managing the challenges of an inclusive approach, expands the learning for each group of participants by augmenting their understanding with different sources of knowledge (Cvitanovic et al., 2019). Both types of knowledge are necessary for understanding the problems that sea level rise presents, as well as reaching decisions on what to do about it. This design process allowed for mutual learning between the community members of Vinalhaven, some of whom will ultimately be the decision makers, and experts from outside of the community affiliated with the Island Institute. One major decision that had to be made to improve the process was the timeframe and sea level rise scenario to be analyzed. A lot of time was spent in discussion on the ranges of scenarios, likelihood of the scenarios occurring, and the year in which these projections would happen. Sea level rise scenarios for Maine range from the highest astronomical tide (HAT) plus 0.9 feet to almost 11 feet. HAT is the highest tide level likely to occur based on observations at a local tidal station given average conditions but is not necessarily the highest tide level that will occur. The likelihood of scenarios occurring ranges from 0 to 100%. The year in which these projections would occur depends on the combination of the other two ranges, but most timeframes focus on 2050 and 2100 as key years. Many different justifications for choosing the appropriate combination for this study were considered. In the end, the Sea Level Rise Committee decided that focusing on the nearer timeframe of 2050 and using a high probability scenario of HAT plus 1.6 feet would result in the most compelling presentation for the community. This decision was justified by the personal connection a person would have to this timeframe (i.e. it would occur in their lifespan; if you took out a 30-year mortgage this year (2020) it would be paid off in 2050). The inundation at this scenario is lower and therefore it appears less devastating, but the Sea Level Rise Committee thought the HAT plus 1.6 feet of sea level rise scenario was still compelling. It gave them a practical number to base planning decisions around. Using this decision, the Town of Vinalhaven can move past a lot of the ambiguity surrounding the range of possible scenarios for planning purposes.

5

The Cost of Sea Level Rise for the Island Community of Vinalhaven, Maine:. . .

81

Fortunately, the chosen scenario and timeframe align with recommendations from the Maine Climate Council, which were released after the Vinalhaven Cost of Inaction Report was published. Based on the report from the Maine Climate Council, when planning for sea level rise, communities are encouraged to plan for a high-probability, low-hazard scenario but to consider the lower-probability, highhazard scenario (Eastern Research Group, 2020). The recommended scenarios and timeframes have a 67% probability. The high-probability, low-hazard scenario approximates 1.6 feet of increase on top of the HAT by 2050 and an increase of 3.9 feet above HAT by 2100. In order to get enough support to create some momentum, communities need to develop a level of trust. Fear of the unknown, or antipathy to negative change, are very real detractors from participation in a conversation. Finding an entry-level point for discussion can help move people into deeper discussions about climate change and sea level rise. In Vinalhaven, the increased amount and number of times flooding has occurred from storms or high tide events has made many people take notice. Instead of diving into the catastrophic trajectory humanity is headed toward due to the abuse of the environment, or challenging known political ideologies, focusing on events everyone from the community has witnessed can put the conversation on a more constructive path. Lebel et al. (2006) find that through participation and deliberation communities can break down barriers preventing action and allow for mobilization. It is by the act of discussion and deliberation that people’s differences of opinion, fear of the unknown, and values can be brought into the open and common ground (albeit with disagreements) can be found. This tool has helped this process in two different stages. First, in the conversations during the development of the analysis and its presentation, and second, as a communication piece to be shared with the broader community of Vinalhaven. The ultimate purpose of undertaking this project was to help local communities draw attention to the problem of sea level rise and spur action from the various levels of government to secure funds and change policy.

Findings Sea Level Rise Impacts to Vinalhaven, Maine According to the findings of the study (Island Institute, 2019), sea level rise will impact the town of Vinalhaven in many ways. Using a sea level rise scenario of HAT +1.6 feet by 2050 is likely to result in a total land loss of 8.5% for Vinalhaven. Due to the inundation of properties, nearly every resident and property owner will be affected by sea level rise. Properties that are currently above the HAT will not be above it in the future. This will both shrink the tax base and move the burden of property taxes inland. Based on the analysis, 1.6 feet of sea level rise will put almost

82

M. Grabill

$35 million of assessed value at risk, which is more than 6% of the community’s total tax base. According to the report, Vinalhaven’s mill rate (the amount of local tax payable per dollar of value of a property), currently 6th lowest in Knox County and in the bottom fifth statewide, will rise accordingly. If the flooded properties lose 25% of their value, the island’s tax base will shrink by 1.5%, Vinalhaven’s mill rate will rise by 20 cents per thousand dollars of assessed value, and property taxes for the median priced home ($294,000) will rise by $60 annually. If the properties lose 75% of their value, the tax base will shrink by 4.8%, the mill rate will rise by 62 cents per thousand, and taxes for the median-priced home will increase by $180 annually.

With a projected scenario of HAT+1.6 feet of sea level rise, more than two-fifths of residential property outlines and two-thirds of commercial property outlines will experience flooding. In this scenario, 30 residential buildings and 20 commercial buildings will also be inundated. These commercial buildings represent almost one-third of business structures in the community, putting at risk more than 100 workers and $3.5 million of annual wages. Naturally, the fishing industry infrastructure of Vinalhaven sits very close to the water for ease of access, and so it is vulnerable. It was estimated that nearly 30 fish houses are at risk of flooding due to this increase in rising seas.The central business district (CBD), referred to as Downstreet, is on one of the lowest points on the island. The projections for sea level rise put a significant portion of the CBD underwater. This is not a surprising finding as it is already experiencing flooding and therefore increased flood insurance premiums. The current location of the CBD is on ‘made land.’ The photos included in the report show the beginnings of a connection being made across the opening to the water body referred to as Carver’s Pond around 1870. Granite from the island’s quarries was piled into the body of water completing the connection and becoming the site of the current CBD. Downstreet is home to many of the community conveniences such as the post office, the only hotel, the only grocery story, restaurants, galleries, and shops. There are also some key public services like the water, sewer, and electric utility offices, as well as the public works, the public safety, and emergency management buildings. Traveling under the road is the sewer and water service. The CBD is not the only public good at risk of sea level rise. Roads are already being overtopped by the ocean, and these need repairs or full reconstruction. More roads will also become inundated with rising sea levels. It is estimated that about three miles of road (3.89% of community road miles) will be flooded at the HAT plus 1.6 feet of sea level rise scenario. At an average cost of $two million per mile for simple rehabilitation and $3.8 million per mile for general reconstruction the price tag for addressing the problem is quite large. Additionally, the ferry terminal is at risk of becoming unsafe as sea levels rise. It is designed to accommodate the relatively large tidal range of around 10 feet in Maine, but it is unsafe to load and unload when sea levels are too high. This has resulted in some ferry trips being canceled and more will be canceled as levels get higher. The ferry is a lifeline for the island, bringing people and goods to and from the island. The island community depends on the ferry for freight and fuel trips. Fishermen ship products off the island on the ferry and get bait delivered by the

5

The Cost of Sea Level Rise for the Island Community of Vinalhaven, Maine:. . .

83

ferry. Cancelations create an inconvenience for residents and contractors as they try to get from the mainland to the island and vice versa on schedules. The ferry is the way residents can get to medical appointments on the mainland. The ferry is also called on for emergency transport. Findings from the study also reveal some good news for the community. Vinalhaven is for the most part made up of higher land, so other than the central business district, many of the coastal properties are out of the inundation zone. The town has been proactive in assembling a sea level rise committee, receiving grants, conducting assessment studies, and beginning initial planning. Sea level rise considerations were a part of the recently released Vinalhaven Downtown Master Plan (Town of Vinalhaven, 2019), showing a community awareness and town commitment to developing a resiliency to sea level rise. Communities that have started planning are aware of their vulnerabilities and know the costs of action are better positioned to get financing and resources than those that are less prepared. This study is one more step by the community of Vinalhaven toward becoming resilient to sea level rise and the effects of climate change.

Conclusion Communication to catalyze change can be a tall order for any data project. This project was undertaken in partnership with the island town of Vinalhaven, Maine, to spur action around sea level rise adaptation and mitigation. Conversations in local communities are still difficult and getting funding to create any change is even more so. The design was focused on alleviating four major challenges to discussions of climate change at the local level. The study focused on identifying the local impacts of a global phenomenon to show the urgency and immediacy of the problem for the small island community. Through participation and deliberation, the community and experts were able to mutually learn from one another and simplify a complex topic, as well as identify the best scenario (HAT plus 1.6 feet by 2050) to reduce the uncertainty associated with a large range of possibilities. Finally, both the process itself and the resulting communication tool will help move more community members forward in productive conversations. The most important takeaway from this project, and all of the projects conducted by the Island Institute in support of the communities the organization works with, is that relationships are key. Without the ongoing relationship between members of the community and the organization there would have been no trust or mutual respect. Either more time would have been necessary to build these bonds, or the project would have resulted in a less fruitful outcome. The organization is privileged to be able to maintain relationships like these. Projects using community indicators can be undertaken using a variety of tactics. The level of involvement of members of the community being analyzed can range

84

M. Grabill

from projects where members are full participants, to projects where the community members are merely kept informed (Head, 2007). Full participation of community members as decision makers in community processes has been pursued to improve the quality of the process for many different objectives (Jami & Walsh, 2017). While in practice some aspects of public participation may fall short of the ideals and aims discussed in the literature, pursuing these goals is necessary to move communities toward true climate resiliency. Of the 120 coastal communities of Maine, some are ready for sea level rise resiliency conversations and others are not. There is a broad spectrum of action and inaction along the coast in relation to sea level rise resiliency. The Island Institute works with island and coastal geographies in Maine to empower them to confront the challenges facing their communities in the ways the communities deem most appropriate. This project was just one part of the ongoing relationship between the Island Institute and the community of Vinalhaven.

Next Steps This project has been one of many projects completed by Vinalhaven to increase their resilience to sea level rise. Previously, the Town had completed a series of assessments of risk and some initial planning evaluations. During the course of this project the Town finished up the Downtown Master Plan which includes sea level rise considerations and was selected for a study completed by the Maine Coastal Program with a grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) about sea level rise impacts to the ferry terminal. Looking forward, the community is participating in two citizen-science projects to monitor water levels and document high tide events, and will be participating, alongside the Gulf of Maine Research Institute and the Island Institute, in a 3-year program to share solutions and build a climate resilience network with an Environmental Literacy Grant from NOAA. The next steps of the Island Institute’s Economic Impact Study are to finish up the work with two other communities, Stonington and Scarborough, and synthesize the results. This series will be shared at workshops with communities in various stages of planning and adapting to sea level rise. The story maps are helpful tools for education and discussion. Sharing this work with as broad of an audience as possible helps change minds and influence policy.

References Bell, J., Saunders, M. I., Leon, J. X., Mills, M., Kythreotis, A., Phinn, S., Mumby, P. J., Lovelock, C. E., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., & Morrison, T. H. (2014). Maps, laws and planning policy:

5

The Cost of Sea Level Rise for the Island Community of Vinalhaven, Maine:. . .

85

Working with biophysical and spatial uncertainty in the case of sea level rise. Environmental Science and Policy, 44(8), 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.07.018 Chouinard, O., Plante, S., & Martin, G. (2008). The community engagement process: A governance approach in adaptation to coastal erosion and flooding in Atlantic Canada. Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 31(3), 507–520. Cvitanovic, C., Howden, M., Colvin, R. M., Norström, A., Meadow, A. M., & Addison, P. F. E. (2019). Maximising the benefits of participatory climate adaptation research by understanding and managing the associated challenges and risks. In Environmental science and policy (Vol. 94, pp. 20–31). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.028 Eastern Research Group. (2020). Assessing the impacts climate change may have on the state’s economy, revenues, and investment decisions: Vol. 2: Cost of. https://climatecouncil.maine.gov/ future/sites/maine.gov.future/files/inline-files/ERG_MCC_Vol2_CostOfDoingNothing_91-2020.pdf Fischer, A. P. (2018). Pathways of adaptation to external stressors in coastal natural-resourcedependent communities: Implications for climate change. World Development, 108, 235–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.12.007 Grabill, M. (2020). Map of location of Vinalhaven, Maine. [digital map]. 1 inch ¼ 7 miles approx. US Census Bureau 2018 TIGER/Line Shapefiles [computer files]. Rockland, Maine: Island Institute, 2020. Using ArcGIS 10.6 [GIS software]. Redlands, CA: ESRI, 2017. Head, B. W. (2007). Community engagement: Participation on whose terms? Australian Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 441–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361140701513570 Island Institute. (2017). Waypoints: Community indicators for Maine’s Coast and Islands. https:// issuu.com/theislandinstitute/docs/waypoints_indicators_single_pages. Island Institute. (2018). Waypoints community indicators: Livelihoods for Maine’s Coast and Islands. https://issuu.com/theislandinstitute/docs/waypoints_livelihoods_single_pages. Island Institute. (2019). Cost of Sea Level Rise - Vinalhaven. Economic Impact Study. https://arcg. is/1f8T9L. Island Institute. (2020). Waypoints connect: Infrastructure indicators for Maine’s Coast and Islands. https://www.islandinstitute.org/stories/waypoints/waypoints-connect/. Jami, A. A., & Walsh, P. R. (2017). From consultation to collaboration: A participatory framework for positive community engagement with wind energy projects in Ontario, Canada. Energy Research and Social Science, 27, 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.02.007 Lebel, L., Anderies, J. M., Campbell, B., Folke, C., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Hughes, T. P., & Wilson, J. (2006). Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01606-110119 Leiserowitz, A. (2007). Communicating the risks of global warming: American risk perceptions, affective images, and interpretive communities. In S. C. Moser & L. Dilling (Eds.), Creating a climate for change (pp. 44–63). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511535871.005 Maine Department of Marine Resources. (2020). Most recent maine commercial landings. https:// www.maine.gov/dmr/commercial-fishing/landings/index.html. Moser, S. C. (2007). More bad news: The risk of neglecting emotional responses to climate change information. In S. C. Moser & L. Dilling (Eds.), Creating a climate for change (pp. 64–80). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511535871.006 Resilient Cities. (2020). Officials from CT, NJ, RI discuss resilience strategy & funding [Webinar]. https://youtu.be/sW3dzoyoBrM Sheppard, S. R. J., Shaw, A., Flanders, D., Burch, S., Wiek, A., Carmichael, J., Robinson, J., & Cohen, S. (2011). Future visioning of local climate change: A framework for community engagement and planning with scenarios and visualisation. Futures, 43(4), 400–412. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2011.01.009 Singh, A. S., Zwickle, A., Bruskotter, J. T., & Wilson, R. (2017). The perceived psychological distance of climate change impacts and its influence on support for adaptation policy. Environmental Science and Policy, 73, 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.011

86

M. Grabill

Slovinsky, P. A., Rickerich, S., & Halsted, C. H. (2019). Maine sea level rise storm surge scenarios 2018. In Maine Geological Survey (Ed.), Maine geolibrary. State of Maine. https://services1. arcgis.com/RbMX0mRVOFNTdLzd/ArcGIS/rest/services/MGS_Sea_Level_Rise_Storm_ Surge_Scenarios_2018/FeatureServer/1 Town of Vinalhaven. (2019). Vinalhaven downtown master plan. https://www.townofvinalhaven. org/sites/g/files/vyhlif3981/f/uploads/2019vinalhavendowntownmasterplan_2.pdf. United States Census Bureau. (2018). Demographic and housing: 5-year estimates data profiles. https://data.census.gov/. Wong-Parodi, G., & Feygina, I. (2020). Understanding and countering the motivated roots of climate change denial. In Current opinion in environmental sustainability (Vol. 42, pp. 60–64). Elsevier B.V.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.008

Meghan Grabill , Ph.D. is a Senior Community Development Officer at the Island Institute in Rockland, Maine. Meghan is responsible for data analysis and translation across the organization, collaborating with internal teams and community members on a variety of projects. As the Strategic Lead of Data Strategy, she oversees the Community Data and Salesforce Teams as well as the Impact Measurement Tracking Taskforce. Before joining the Island Institute, Meghan was a Research Fellow at the Cincinnati Area Geographic Information System working with constituents and governmental departments to collaboratively share data. During this time, she focused on using spatial econometric analysis to predict housing abandonment in the numerous neighborhoods of the city. Meghan earned a Ph.D. in Regional Development Theory from the University of Cincinnati, an M.S. in Geography from Northern Illinois University, and a B.A. in Geography and History from Aquinas College. Originally from Michigan, her family currently lives on a hobby farm in Nobleboro, Maine.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Chapter 6

Elevating the Voices of Children and Their Caregivers in New York City Policy Research and Advocacy Through FamilyCentered, Community-Based Assessments Bijan Kimiagar and Jennifer March

Abstract Census and administrative data are key sources of information on important issues facing communities. These data are however just part of the story. Community members’ voices also provide a complementary wealth of information. The challenge, however, is ensuring those community members’ voices include those least likely to be heard. Children and their families are not included in community planning as often as they should be; Neither are staff at communitybased organizations who offer critical services that help communities thrive and are in touch with the most pressing community needs and resources. This chapter reviews family-centered methods part of a community-based approach to identifying both community-level needs and resources. This approach includes a multi-domain framework relying on dozens of publicly available data sources to identify both welcomed and worrisome trends, as well as cellphone-based surveys, data walks, and participatory listening sessions with community members—caregivers of young children, youth, and staff at community-based organizations. The chapter also addresses the benefits of family-centered methods when public data are lacking, and how they inform policy advocacy in addition to local community planning efforts. Keywords Participatory research · Role playing · Data walks · Cellphone surveys · Community asset mapping · Community indicators

B. Kimiagar (*) · J. March Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York, New York, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 F. Ridzi et al. (eds.), Community Quality-of-Life Indicators, Community Quality-ofLife and Well-Being, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06940-6_6

87

88

B. Kimiagar and J. March

Introduction Census estimates, as well as state and local administrative data, provide a wealth of information on important economic, housing, health, educational and other issues that inform public policy advocacy to improve community quality of life. These data are but a part of the information needed to understand barriers to child and family well-being and develop solutions to surmount them. Community members’ voices provide a complementary fount of knowledge. The challenge, however, is ensuring the community members who are least likely to participate in community planning processes have their voices heard in matters that affect them. Too often, children and their families are not included in decision-making and community planning processes that influence their quality of life, and neither are staff at community-based organizations who offer critical services that help communities thrive and have onthe-ground familiarity with the most pressing community needs and supportive resources. This chapter reviews Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York’s familycentered, community-based approach to elevating the voices of children, their families, and staff at local organizations. This approach is multipronged and leverages publicly available data, as well as community engagement methods designed with families in mind: participatory listening sessions using role playing activities, data walks, and cellphone-based surveys. We detail how each method benefits understanding of community-level data that is otherwise not available from public data catalogs and a summary of how these efforts inform our policy advocacy in New York City during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Eight Decades of Advocacy with and for NYC’s Children and Families Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York (CCC) was founded during World War II when the city faced a child care crisis and programs were unavailable in most neighborhoods. Among the organization founders and early staff were First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, philanthropists Adele Rosenwald Levy and Mary Lasker, Dr. Kenneth Clark, Dr. Benjamin Spock, New York City Council Member Stanley M. Isaacs, Judge Justine Wise Polier, Trude Lash, and Alfred Kahn. Kahn was CCC’s first research director and set in motion the fact-based approach to policy advocacy that remains part and parcel to our work today (Nayowith, 2010). CCC leverages and creates data resources to engage a wide audience—policymakers, staff at community-based organizations and state and city agencies, philanthropic organizations, and New Yorkers at-large—to ensure local, state, and federal legislation and budgets address the needs of New York’s children and their families. We maintain a large database on community quality of life indicators, data. cccnewyork.org, which we update regularly as more recent or new data sources

6

Elevating the Voices of Children and Their Caregivers in New York City

89

become available. We produce an array of print and digital data resources, including Keeping Track of New York City’s Children, a biennial compendium of hundreds of community and municipal-level indicators, as well as Child and Family Well-being in New York City’s 59 Community Districts, an annual index of 18 quality of life indicators identifying neighborhoods where families face multiple barriers to their well-being. These and other publications summarize citywide, boroughwide, and community-specific conditions across several domains: economic security, housing, health, education, issues specific to youth, and other indicators of family and community well-being. CCC complements these data resources and regular publications with policy research papers on specific issues and indicators of community quality of life. We engage children, their families, and community-based organizations in participatory, community-based assessments to produce comprehensive reports on specific communities in New York City. These reports summarize analyses of quantitative data from public sources, as well as qualitative data from conversations with community members that capture the most pressing community needs, community members’ solutions to address these needs, and maps of a community’s significant assets. To date, CCC has published assessments for six Community Districts in New York City: Brownsville, Brooklyn; Washington Heights, and Central and West Harlem in Manhattan; the North Shore of Staten Island; and Elmhurst/Corona in Queens (See Citizens’ Committee for Children, 2017, 2018a, 2018b, 2019a). CCC has also supported data analysis and participatory qualitative data collection as part of a boroughwide poverty reduction effort in the Bronx. While findings and recommendations from these assessments can and should inform very local planning and programming efforts within specific communities, the network of community members and organizational partners engaged through each process also contribute to CCC’s fact-based advocacy to improve quality of life for children and families citywide.

The Ongoing Need to Elevate the Voices of Children and Their Families Who Are New York City’s Children and Families? Understanding the demographics and experiences of New York City’s children and families is an important step toward ensuring their meaningful contributions to and benefits from assessments of community quality of life. About 1.7 million children live in New York City and make up 20% of the 8.3 million residents in the city’s five boroughs: the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island. New York City’s children are racially and ethnically diverse: more than a third are Latino, one

90

B. Kimiagar and J. March

in eight are Asian, one in five are Black, and one in four are White.1 More than half of children have at least one parent who is an immigrant, and about 7% of children were themselves born outside the United States. Over 400,000 children live in households with incomes below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), which in 2019 was US$25,750 for a household consisting of two adults and two children. Almost an equal number live in households with near poverty incomes—that is, between 100% and 200% of FPL. On the other side of the income spectrum, about 500,000 children live in high-income households (i.e., 400% of FPL). Compared to the families in the highest income quintile, families in the lowest income quintile are more likely to be severely rent burdened, lack health insurance, or lack access to broadband internet (Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York, 2020a). In other words, the already deep and growing economic inequities accelerate inequities in access to housing, health, and educational opportunities, all of which are also barriers to participating in community planning processes.

Public Data Are Essential But Not Sufficient for Assessing Community Needs Estimates from the US Census Bureau, particularly data from the American Community Survey, are ubiquitous in CCC’s policy research because they are reliable and regularly available, though imperfect. Even with robust survey sampling strategies, census surveys may not capture responses from the families at the heart of CCC’s policy concerns and advocacy efforts. Take, for example, the decennial census, which informs the sampling frame for the American Community Survey. Decennial census responses rates in many New York City communities are far below the citywide response rate, which is already low: about 62% in the most recent 2020 decennial census count. Going into the 2020 census, more than half of households were considered hard-to-count because they were located in census tracts with selfresponse rates below 73% in the 2010 census. In some communities, such as East New York in Brooklyn, every household is located in a hard-to-count census tract (Citizens’ Committee for Children, 2020b). As concerning as an overall undercount in the decennial census is the specific undercount of children under 5 years of age (O’Hare, 2015). In New York City, around 70,000 young children were not counted in the 2010 Census, which influences the funding New York State received for census-guided federal spending on housing, education, health and nutrition programs (Citizens’ Committee for Children, 2020b). Even in one of the largest metropolitan cities, many families do not have access to the Internet, one of the most important tools for participating in the census, informing policymaking, supporting civic engagement, and facilitating community

Racial/ethnic groups are defined as: White ¼ non-Latino White alone; Black ¼ non-Latino Black alone; Asian ¼ non-Latino Asian or Pacific Islander alone; Latino ¼ Latino of any race.

1

6

Elevating the Voices of Children and Their Caregivers in New York City

91

planning processes. An estimated 15% of households in New York City have no broadband internet access, including more than 140,000 children. In several communities in the boroughs of Queens and the Bronx, a cellular data plan is the only source of broadband internet for one in four households. Additionally, more than one in five New Yorkers have limited English proficiency, and in some communities in Brooklyn and Queens where there are large immigrant populations, one in three households or more are considered linguistically isolated because all members of the household speak English less than very well.2

The Most Important Voices Are Those Least Likely to Be Heard In light of these statistics, New York City families face multiple barriers in having their voices heard in community-level decision-making in matters that affect them, let alone in citywide, statewide, and national conversations. Many caregivers work more than one job, which limits the time they have available to participate in community conversations. Those that are able to participate often encounter limitations if they are not proficient in English and there are no or insufficient interpretation services. This also influences their awareness of opportunities to participate if publicity for opportunities to have a voice in matters that affect them are not widely disseminated or with enough time for families to plan child care or adjust work schedules. The barriers families face trying to ensure a basic quality of life are the same barriers that impede participation in community-level conversations. A person’s immigration status, or the immigration status of one or more members of their household, may be a barrier to participating in discussions about community quality of life. New York City is home to more than 3 million immigrants, and more than 1 million New Yorkers, including a quarter million children, live in households with mixed documentation status. A mix status household may include U.S.-born citizens, naturalized citizens, Green Card holders and/or residents with another documentation status who live with at least one of the estimated half a million New Yorkers who either entered the country across a U.S. border without inspection or entered the United State legally and subsequently lost legal status (NYC Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs, 2019). Members of these families, including U.S. citizens, may refuse to participate in community discussions out of concern that any information they share may put an undocumented member of their family at risk of deportation. This means efforts to gather community members’ views on community quality of life in New York City, especially in communities with large populations of immigrants, risk not hearing about important community needs without strategies that attend to these concerns.

2

These and more community-level data on New York City children and families are available at CCC’s online database, data.cccnewyork.org

92

B. Kimiagar and J. March

New York City alone houses one fifth of the entire population of sheltered homeless population in the United States (Council of Economic Advisors, 2019), which includes around 25,000 children and teens (Citizens’ Committee for Children, 2020d). This means reaching community members least likely to be heard in matters that affect them must also involve strategies that account for families facing housing insecurity. However, the number of children and families who face housing insecurity is much larger than those living in city shelters. Data from the New York State Education Department show that in 2020 and since 2016, more than 100,000 public school students in New York City reported living in temporary housing, whether living doubled up with other families, in a hotel or motel, a city shelter, or unsheltered (Citizens’ Committee for Children, 2019b). This is nearly double the number of public school students who reported living in temporary housing in 2010, about 66,000. Elevating these New Yorkers’ voices into community quality of life assessments requires developing approaches to quantitative and qualitative data collection that prioritize the expertise of families least likely to participate above the convenience of engaging individuals who are more likely to participate. This requires strategies that are both practical and uncomplicated. Meeting times must be staggered to address multiple scheduling needs depending on whether caregivers prefer to participate in the mornings after school drop-off, after work hours during the week, or even weekends. Providing childcare, monetary compensation for their time, and a meal for anyone participating is also essential and is an intentional way of setting a welcoming communal space to share ideas, hopes, concerns, and solutions. In New York City where only 80% of the population is proficient in English, anticipating bilingual sessions and interpretation is also essential. Public transportation in New York City, with all its limitations, is a community asset that facilitates participation, but subway or bus fare may be the barrier. Therefore, CCC provides prepaid MetroCards with roundtrip fare in addition to an honorarium for each participant’s time in the form of a prepaid debit card. These strategies are essential to reducing the financial barriers families may face if they are interested in participating in conversations about their community. The next section details approaches to facilitating these conversations.

Family-Centered Approaches to Assessing Community Quality of Life As noted earlier, assessing community quality of life demands approaches that prioritize families who are the least likely to be heard and therefore are the most important voices to hear. These approaches must be multipronged in order to ensure there is more than one type of opportunity for families to participate in a discourse on community needs and resources. Three family-centered methods of community engagement are the focus of this section: role playing, data walks, and

6

Elevating the Voices of Children and Their Caregivers in New York City

93

cellphone-based surveys. CCC’s most recent community-based assessment in Elmhurst/Corona, Queens, employed all three methods (see Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York, 2019a). While all three methods need not be employed as a set, offering multiple modes of participation expands the opportunities for families to participate in community assessments in the one or more ways they view as most appropriate.

Role Playing Role playing activities ask participants to create improvisational skits to tell a story about a group of characters. In CCC’s community-based assessments, we ask groups of children, parents and caregivers, or staff at local community-based organizations to tell a story about a family who lives in their community in New York City. These stories allow participants to identify and discuss community resources and needs based on their lived experiences without having to disclose information about themselves or others. This is important when, for example, participants with experience with housing insecurity want to raise challenges about housing affordability, eviction, or related issues without having to share their personal story. Using role play in this way is informed by the tradition of using theater to identify, critique, and address social problems often credited to activist Agosto Boal (1979). Before starting discussions, facilitators from CCC and local partner organizations share a meal with participants and provide supervision for young children who came with their caregivers. These supports are an essential component of CCC’s familycentered approach, without which caregivers would not be able to participate. Whenever possible, we rely on small businesses in the community to cater meals appropriate for the time of day. After an introductory activity, outlining the session, and obtaining informed consent, participants are divided into two teams. Each team is asked to develop and perform a brief, improvised skit based on one of two prompts. One group is asked to tell a story about a family in the neighborhood who is doing well that explains why they are doing well. The second group tells a story about a family in the neighborhood who is not doing well that explains why they are not doing well. No instructions are given that define doing well or not doing well. If participants ask, they are given instructions to define these concepts through their skits, and that there are no correct or incorrect definitions. Each team typically takes 10–15 min to discuss the main characters and plot of their mostly improvised skits, after which each group performs for the other group as their audience. Skits are typically around 5 min long. After both performances, the session facilitator invites a large group discussion to recap the stories from each skit on sheets of flipchart paper. As a large group, participants further elaborate on the issues raised, discuss if the situations are representative of community members’ experiences in the neighborhood, and add other important community needs and resources neither skit addressed.

94

B. Kimiagar and J. March

Role playing affords children and their caregivers a greater degree of freedom to express a range of experiences typical for families in their community, from banal and common place (e.g., lack of street cleanliness) up to those that are life altering (e.g., eviction from rental housing). This openness also invites the possibility for discussion about community resources—that is, the programs and institutions in the community that promote families’ well-being. In addition to key community resources unique to an area, such as a children’s museum, often cited community resources include specific locations or individuals at public library branches, public parks, places of worship with food pantries or other social services, and community health centers, among others. Critically, this activity encourages movement and expression in ways atypical of a focus group discussion. This is important when engaging participants of any age, and especially in settings where both young people and caregivers participate. Because improvisational role-playing activities are common enough that people are familiar with them, but not so common that participants do them every day, most people are not highly skilled in role playing. This destabilizes the balance of social power, especially in situations where both children and adults participate together, and adults might dominate primarily discussion-based activities. Often there is both humor and seriousness in the plots of improvised skits, making them entertaining and engaging in addition to being informative for community planning discussions. In this way, the sessions are a form of diversion and leisure, something families say they desire but often lack because of lack of time otherwise devoted to work, school, and addressing their family’s basic needs.

Data Walks at Community Feedback Events Data walks are gatherings of community members or participants in a project to share data analyses (in process or final) and gather additional feedback and alternative interpretations (see Murray et al., 2015). Data walks might take multiple forms. One format CCC has used is hanging charts, maps, and other data visualizations on the walls of a room or gallery. Participants can freely view and comment on the visuals, either directly on printed posters, with sticky notes, or on adjacent whiteboards or chalkboards. They might also be more structured in the form of slide deck presentation, pausing for questions and comments from the audience. In this way, data walks share the same goals and steps as data parties (see Connell et al., 2020; Franz, 2013). CCC used this interactive activity during a community feedback event part of the community-based assessment in Elmhurst/Corona, Queens. The event, which was co-hosted by a key organizational partner, the New York Hall of Science, invited participants to reflect on findings from both quantitative and qualitative data collected during the community-based assessment. Findings were spread throughout a rotunda in the Hall of Science and organized into seven domains CCC regularly uses to structure reports: Community Demographics, Economic Security, Housing,

6

Elevating the Voices of Children and Their Caregivers in New York City

95

Health, Education, Youth, Family & Community. This data walk was a component of a family-centered event that included a townhall-style presentation summarizing the project to provide enough information to stimulate discussion during a community open mic that followed. CCC made data walk materials available in both English and Spanish, and a professional interpreter was available during the slide presentation and community open mic portion of the event. Like listening sessions, CCC relied on local vendors to cater the event. Staff from the Hall of Science and volunteers from CCC and other local organizations coordinated supervised play for young children during the event. Data walks are part of CCC’s toolkit of family-centered methods because, like role playing, the data walk format offers the flexibility needed to meet participants varying levels of familiarity with the project and comfort speaking in public settings. While some participants may feel comfortable speaking as part of an open mic portion, others may not and might prefer to write comments on sticky notes. A benefit of using sticky notes is gathering feedback from participants simultaneously and at their leisure. They might want to ask questions, share thoughts with others participating in the data walk, or simply take their time moving through the gallery. An important reason to use sticky notes or whiteboards is they provide a written record of comments, questions, and critiques that are further evidence to be incorporated into a systematic analysis of community quality of life indicators. These written comments may identify information not yet raised in a project or offer alternative interpretations of findings presented that may force new interpretations of both quantitative and qualitative data.

Cellphone-Based Surveys and Communication The third method recently incorporated into CCC’s family-centered kit of tools is cellphone-based surveys that leverage short messaging service (SMS), also known as text messages. CCC also used cellphone-based survey and communication methods as part of our most recent community-based assessment in Elmhurst Corona, Queens, because reaching households via cellphone would likely be more successful than an online or telephonic survey to landlines. More than half of low-income households in Elmhurst/Corona do not have broadband internet access, and household landline use in the district is among the lowest in the city. However, more than 95% of households have a cell phone. Cellphone-based surveys are easily scalable compared to an intercept survey method because participants need not be present at a specific event or location. To implement the survey, CCC partnered with Community Connect Labs, a non-profit specializing in mission-driven SMS-based communication initiatives, as well as several key community partners, including the New York Hall of Science. CCC staff distributed recruitment flyers to local service providers, schools, libraries, elected officials, restaurants, bodegas, and tabled at block parties and community

96

B. Kimiagar and J. March

fairs over the course of 2 months. CCC also set up an advertisement campaign on Facebook to solicit participation through social media. The average completion time for the 12-question survey was 6½ min, although this increased to more than 11 min among participants who identified as caregivers and was just 3½ min among participants who identified as youth. Importantly, caregivers provided much longer responses to the three open-ended questions on average compared to youth, which contributed to the longer completion time. These high-quality responses support an argument that cellphone-based surveys are an appropriate complement to face-to-face methods for qualitative data collection that provides an alternative mode for caregivers and youth to participate in community discussions they might otherwise be unable to because of responsibilities and schedules that conflict with in-person events. In light of social distancing requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic, cellphone-based surveys support public health and safety because they lessen the reliance on in-person meetings. There are more opportunities to leverage this method than for data collection alone. It may be used to communicate calls-to-action in advocacy campaigns, disseminate information about community programs or events, and even share and gather information on non-emergency needs during emergency events, such as identifying and connecting families to food pantries when there is an unexpected and increased demand for such resources, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cellphone-based surveys offer confidentiality and, therefore, potentially decrease concerns about privacy and anonymity that may be barriers to some people who might want to participate in community conversations. Based on our experience with this method, CCC has found that providing confidentiality alone is not enough to assure confidence in potential participants. Individuals and families who may be marginalized by their immigration status, housing status, experiences with domestic violence, or other reasons might want to participate but would not feel comfortable if they do not know how the information will be used, even with notifications that explicitly state all responses are confidential and information will not be shared. In such cases, trusted messengers in the community are crucial in outreach efforts to address questions and concerns about how information they share will be used. These messengers are typically individuals who have regular contact with families through programs children and adults participate in daily or weekly at familycentered institutions, such as early education program or after school program staff, or staff or community liaisons at local libraries or children’s museums. These individuals are trusted because they have built rapport with families over time and have acted in families’ best interest by sharing relevant opportunities or, in the case of assessing community quality of life indicators, sharing flyers for opportunities to participate and answering questions about these projects. This includes explaining how responses will be safeguarded and clearly delineating how information gathered will benefit those who participate.

6

Elevating the Voices of Children and Their Caregivers in New York City

97

How Family-Centered Methods Inform Family-Focused Policy Priorities and Advocacy The methods described above have allowed CCC to hear from families we would have otherwise missed if we only used publicly available data or data collection methods that did not address barriers to families’ participation. Below are some examples of how CCC leverages findings from these methods to inform data analysis and develop policy advocacy priorities. This includes developing alternative interpretations of trends in publicly available data, identifying community needs where there are limited or no publicly available data, and advancing new or informing existing policy advocacy campaigns.

Developing Alternative Interpretations of Publicly Available Data A benefit of the family-centered, community-based assessment methods detailed above is how they inform alternative interpretations of trends seen in publicly available data. These counter narratives are key to ensuring liminal or underground issues are identified when public data do not suggest an emergent or latent need. Data on domestic violence is a good example of this dynamic CCC has encountered through our community-based assessments. In New York City, indicators of domestic violence include the number of domestic incident reports from police officers, and the share which specifically involve intimate partner violence, among others. However, police reports do not necessarily reflect the actual need for preventing and addressing domestic violence. There may be any number of reasons someone may not report domestic violence, if only because they fear interacting with police. This may be related to a general reticence about interacting with police, linguistic barriers, or specific fear of deportation if one or more family members is undocumented (Medina, 2017), all reasons heard from community members, in particular service providers, during CCC’s community-based assessments. Methods such as role playing do not set out to interrogate specific issues, let alone issues that may pose challenges to discuss in a group of peers, such as domestic violence. However, role playing offers the opportunity for such issues to surface. The method provides the opportunity for participants to leverage personal experience or those of others without having to identify the experiences as their own or anyone else’s. This affords participants a meaningful degree of confidentiality that provides space to raise sensitive issues as part of group discussions. If participants in several listening sessions raise the same unexpected topic, together they provide an important narrative to investigate an issue further, even when publicly available data may not suggest it is an important community issue.

98

B. Kimiagar and J. March

When participants raise specific community challenges during data walks (as well as listening sessions and cellphone-based surveys), we ask in response: Who is responsible for addressing this challenge and what should be done? Responses to this question, whether part of semi-structured discussions or a structured feedback process, directly inform the community-driven policy solutions we include in summative reports and rely on to guide our own advocacy. Data walks provide an additional confidential space for community conversation where qualitative findings from discussions on domestic violence during listening sessions can be shared alongside quantitative data on domestic incident reports. Whether the two sources of data complement or contradict one another is less important than the opportunity to discuss the challenge and possible solutions. This elevates issues that are important but less likely to be heard if public data were the only source of information.

Identifying Community Needs for Which There Are No or Limited Publicly Available Data Family-centered methods are also useful for identifying community needs and resources around issues for which there are no or limited publicly available data. A good example is information on behavioral health needs and the availability of community resources to address child and family behavioral health needs in ways that are multilingual and culturally sensitive. Both young people and caregivers have raised the need for multigenerational approaches to behavioral health supports during listening sessions in multiple community-based assessments. Specifically, young people and caregivers expressed desires for the space and skills needed to speak with one another about sensitive topics, such as economic insecurity, sexuality and dating, and experiences with bullying and discrimination. Such discussions are sorely needed when publicly available data on a topic are lacking. For example, the national Center for Disease Control and Prevention in collaboration with New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and Department of Education conducts the High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey, which provides citywide and borough-level data on students experiencing behavioral health risks. Alternatively, the State Office of Mental Health (OMH) provides time specific data snapshots that estimates the number of children receiving mental health services weekly at the city and borough levels. These data are important but insufficiently granular to inform community-level assessments, especially in New York City where four of its five counties are the most densely populated in the country. Data which provide more geographic granularity would be particularly useful to inform the placement and expansion of mental health services in schools and communities. The NYC Department of Education does publish mental health service locations by school and OMH publishes clinic locations within communities, but neither offers utilization rates for children and adolescents in these settings.

6

Elevating the Voices of Children and Their Caregivers in New York City

99

Furthermore, there is no data source that measures the need for multigenerational approaches to behavioral health supports, again a need raised by both young people and caregivers as part of discussions elicited from improvisational skits performed during listening sessions.

Advancing New and Ongoing Policy Advocacy Efforts During the COVID-19 Pandemic Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, CCC pivoted to shining a spotlight on the exacerbated and emergent risks children and families face in New York City, especially in communities of color (Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York, 2020c). Although gathered prior to the pandemic, insights from CCC’s communitybased assessments in neighborhoods throughout New York City point to why some areas of the city disproportionally experienced exposure to the novel coronavirus and heightened economic instability and social isolation during the pandemic. In Elmhurst/Corona, Queens, for example, key issues we heard during role-playing activities spoke to overcrowded rental housing, lack of access to affordable healthcare and families’ access to behavioral healthcare, as well as profound economic and food insecurity. This economic precarity was related to working in industries—such as retail, restaurants, and hospitality—that do not offer the stable employment and economic mobility that youth and adult family members need. Community members also underscored pervasive fears related to seeking aid (e.g., food support, health care, domestic violence prevention) due to the mixed documentation status of household members and fears of deportation. Overcrowded housing, poor adult health care access, as well as work in essential sectors are some of the issues that likely contributed to Elmhurst/Corona being among the New York City neighborhoods most negatively affected by the pandemic. We have found that outreach to journalists about the issues we learn from families and our community-based assessments is crucial in public understanding of key advocacy issues. In the first year of the pandemic, CCC received more than 150 press hits across its portfolio of advocacy issues, as well as its data products and the community-based assessment in Elmhurst/Corona, Queens, which informed reporting on the pandemic in New York City (e.g., Barry & Correal, 2020; Goldstein, 2020; Zaveri, 2020). It is these types of stories CCC has found effective for educating the broader public and building political will needed to tackle policy issues and advance budgetary needs. These narratives from families translate complex challenges into the human-interest stories that make quantitative data more accessible, thereby inviting a wider audience to be informed on and advocate for the needs of New York City’s children and families. Insights from CCC’s community-based assessments were also part of our state and local advocacy informing testimonies at public hearings, community organizing, and the focus on specific budget and policy priorities as the COVID-19 pandemic

100

B. Kimiagar and J. March

unfolded. This resulted in efforts to successfully restore, in the NYC 2021 Fiscal Year New York City budget, $115.8 million in programming for summer youth employment and summer camps, invest $4.8 million to provide greater numbers of social workers in schools with high numbers of students in transitional and doubled up housing, secure $4 million for child care vouchers for low income working families, and ensure priority was given to temporarily housed students during distribution of computing devices and hotspots permitting up to five students to connect to remote learning. On the state level, insights from community-assessments buttressed advocacy that led New York State to waive fees and copays for mental health care for the children of essential workers, as well as create an early childhood scholarship for essential workers. Findings from community-based assessments continue to inform advocacy tied to pandemic recovery with an emphasis on encouraging state and local leaders to focus squarely on the needs of children and families for stable employment and food security, affordable housing, accessible health and behavioral health care, and equitable access to child care and education, and to bridge the digital divide. Furthermore, within the community of Elmhurst/Corona in Queens, more than a dozen local child and family-serving organizations have begun regularly convening to collaboratively address needs heightened during the COVID-19 pandemic. Because the community-based assessment in Elmhurst/Corona focused on the families these local organizations serve, the summative report became a ready-made resource to help inform providers’ responses to immediate needs of families and plan for pandemic recovery. CCC participates in virtual convenings of providers to continue support of the group’s collective goals and advocacy efforts.

Conclusion In this chapter we have summarized why elevating the voices of families is critical to building a deeper understanding of quality of life indicators of community assets and needs, and developing solutions that are responsive to those needs in a meaningful way. These needs stem from a myriad of economic and social challenges New York City’s children and families face, and the amelioration of these needs are critical to families and communities CCC advocates with and for. CCC’s ongoing advocacy at both the state and local level relies on community quality of life indicators to grow public awareness and coalitions of individuals and organizations with a shared mission to ensure children and their families are economically secure, stably housed, healthy, educated, and safe. We encourage others to use the family-centered methods in this chapter. They are designed to meet families where they are and with the intention to include people who are least likely to be heard in matters that affect them. Too often the lived experiences of families are not just unheard, but disregarded as anecdotal. However, role-playing methods, data walks, and cellphone-based surveys systematically document the experiences of young people and their caregivers in ways that move

6

Elevating the Voices of Children and Their Caregivers in New York City

101

qualitative indicators of community quality of life from anecdote to evidence. The methods offer a structure for collecting and analyzing the views of community members and create a record that can be referenced as part of reports, testimonies at public hearings, or public education media campaigns. As important as creating a systemic record, using a variety of family-centered methods creates multiple entry points for young people and adults alike to join discussions about quality of life in their community. This increases the opportunities for families who face barriers to participating and encourages critique of public processes that do not offer the same degree of opportunities. In this way, family-centered methods offer benefits beyond the bookend of producing a summative report. They offer an approach to community engagement that prioritizes individuals least likely to be heard, instead of individuals most often heard. Elevating the voices of families is critical at any time, but the global COVID-19 pandemic has exposed to an even greater degree how ensuring those we hear from the least must be front and center in informing how governments respond to the present crisis and approach recovery efforts. Building a more equitable future, in spite of a deeply inequitable past, can only be accomplished if the needs and solutions of individuals and communities, who face the greatest barriers to participating in public discourse, are fully considered in matters that affect them. Employing a family-centered approach in developing indicators of community quality of life is even more important in light of the pandemic when so many people are further cut off from communication and decision-making processes. Developing solutions that work for these families is essential to redressing the most pernicious and intractable social problems.

References Barry, D., & Correal, A. (2020, December 3). The Epicenter. The New York Times. http://www. nytimes.com Boal, A. (1979). Theater of the oppressed. Pluto Press. Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York. (2017). From strengths to solutions: An assetbased approach to meeting community needs in Brownsville. http://www.cccnewyork.org Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York. (2018a). Celebrating strengths, addressing needs: Community-driven solutions to improve well-being in Northern Manhattan. http://www. cccnewyork.org Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York. (2018b). The North Shore of Staten Island: Community driven solutions to improve child and family well-being. http://www. cccnewyork.org Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York. (2019a). Elmhurst/Corona, Queens: Community driven solutions to improve child and family well-being. http://www.cccnewyork.org Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York. (2019b). Family homelessness in New York City. http://www.cccnewyork.org Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York. (2020a). NYC children and families: Statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2019 American Community Survey. http://www.cccnewyork.org Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York. (2020b). Keeping track of New York City’s children, 2020. http://www.cccnewyork.org

102

B. Kimiagar and J. March

Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York. (2020c). Disparate impacts of COVID-19 on communities of color. Testimony of Raysa S. Rodriguez presented to the New York City Council Committee on Oversight and Investigations. http://www.cccnewyork.org Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York. (2020d). Family homelessness in NYC: Keeping track of housing insecurity in 2020. http://www.cccnewyork.org Connell, E., Bell, S., Martin Rogers, N., & Souvenir, N. (2020). Data parties: Giving the community tools to use east metro pulse survey data. In F. Ridzi, C. Stevens, & M. Davern (Eds.), Community quality-of-life indicators: Best cases VIII (pp. 185–198). Springer. Council of Economic Advisors. (2019). The state of homelessness in America. https://www. whitehouse.gov/ Franz, N. K. (2013). The data party: Involving stakeholders in meaningful data analysis. Journal of Extension, 51(1). Goldstein, J. (2020, June 9). 68% have antibodies in this clinic. Can a neighborhood beat a next wave? The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com Medina, J. (2017, April 30). Too scared to report sexual abuse. The fear: Deportation. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com Murray, B., Falkenburger, E., & Saxena, P. (2015). Data walks: An innovative way to share data with communities. https://www.urban.org/ Nayowith, G. B. (2010). Fact-based child advocacy: The convergence of analysis, practice, and politics in New York City. In S. Kamerman, S. Phipps, & A. Ben-Arieh (Eds.), From child welfare to child well-being (pp. 81–100). Springer. NYC Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs. (2019). State of our immigrant city: Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs (MOIA) Annual Report for Calendar Year 2019. O’Hare, W. P. (2015). The undercount of young children in the US Decennial Census. Springer. Zaveri, M. (2020, December 3). How the virus swept through a corner of Queens. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com

Bijan Kimiagar , Ph.D., is Associate Executive Director for Research at Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York (CCC). He leads the research team who develops data-driven reports, conducts community-based assessments, and maintains an online database on the well-being of New York City’s children and families. These data resources provide elected officials, service providers, and New Yorkers at-large with information to shape state and local policies and programs. Prior to CCC, he served as a project director with the Children’s Environments Research Group at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, where he designed international participatory research projects with young people and their caregivers. His research experience covers a range of topics, including children’s rights, gender equality, children’s participation in local governance, housing, sustainable development, and prevention of commercial sexual exploitation of children. Dr. Kimiagar has conducted research in New York City, as well as throughout Europe, Latin America, West and North Africa, and South Asia in partnership with child-centered community development agencies. He holds a doctorate in environmental psychology from the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and a bachelor’s degree in psychology from the University of California, Los Angeles.

6

Elevating the Voices of Children and Their Caregivers in New York City

103

Jennifer March , Ph.D., is the Executive Director of Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York. Under her leadership, CCC creates coalitions and advances policy, budget and legislative solutions that result in historic victories including: achieving salary parity across NYC’s early education workforce, creating universal Pre-K for NYC 4 year olds and universal after-school for middle school students; raising the age of criminal responsibility in NY state; enacting local legislation to set aside a share of affordable housing units for homeless families; ensuring schools with high numbers of homeless students benefit from social workers; and achieving a moratorium on state budget cuts to children’s behavioral health care. Jennifer’s advocacy over three decades also contributed to the creation of New York City’s Earned Income Tax Credit, the first local Child and Dependent Care Credit, and the creation of tax filing options that allow families to connect to college savings platforms. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Jennifer has ensured CCC’s research, civic engagement and advocacy has kept child and family needs at the forefront of government decision-making to promote an equitable response and recovery. She holds a bachelor’s degree from LeMoyne College, and an M.A. and Ph.D. from Fordham University.

Chapter 7

Understanding Youth Disconnection in the Age of Coronavirus Kristen Lewis

Abstract Disconnected youth are teenagers and young adults ages 16–24 who are neither employed nor in school. Youth disconnection is associated with lower earnings, higher rates of unemployment, and worse health in adulthood. While there is reason to believe that the COVID-19 pandemic will have profound effects on this population, getting accurate information on how COVID-19 is affecting young people and the rate of youth disconnection in real time is a challenge. In this chapter we rely on the most recently available data from Measure of America (MOA) to show how a decade of progress in reducing the youth disconnection rate has already been wiped out by educational, economic, and health impacts of COVID-19. Our data-driven reporting and analysis provides a crucial and methodologically sound map of vulnerability as we continue to wrestle with and recover from the pandemic, highlighting areas and communities where young people will need the most help getting back on their feet and launching themselves into flourishing adulthoods. Keywords Disconnected youth · Adolescents · Emerging adulthood · Community Indicators

Introduction Global pandemics are akin to wildfires or hurricanes in that they hit with devastating effect and upend life for months if not years. But the current COVID-19 pandemic stands apart from other recent disasters in its sheer scale. In a matter of weeks, nearly all parts of the country have come to an abrupt standstill, and it is impossible to say even today, nearly a year since the beginning of the pandemic’s global spread, what the full effects of this crisis will be. Getting accurate information on how COVID-19 is affecting young people and the rate of youth disconnection in real time is a

K. Lewis (*) Measure of America, Brooklyn, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 F. Ridzi et al. (eds.), Community Quality-of-Life Indicators, Community Quality-ofLife and Well-Being, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06940-6_7

105

106

K. Lewis

challenge. We usually rely on carefully collected data that takes researchers 18 months or more to gather, verify, and format. For this reason our most recent annual youth disconnection report, A Decade Undone, written in the months before the pandemic, highlights data from 2018 (Lewis, 2020). The numbers in Measure of America (MOA)’s report show a decade of progress in reducing the youth disconnection rate that, by most real-time indicators, has already been wiped out by educational, economic, and health impacts of COVID-19. Our data-driven reporting and analysis, however, provides a crucial and methodologically sound map of vulnerability as we continue to wrestle with and recover from the pandemic, highlighting areas and communities where young people will need the most help getting back on their feet and launching themselves into flourishing adulthoods. While youth may not face the greatest risk of serious medical complications from COVID-19, they are not completely immune, especially young people with underlying health conditions. Disconnected young people disproportionately come from low-income communities of color, which, due to centuries of structural racism, are much more vulnerable to COVID-19. Thus, these already-vulnerable teenagers and young adults bear a disproportionate share of sorrow, trauma, and grief as they lose parents and grandparents, friends and neighbors. Even young people who don’t get ill from the COVID-19 virus or lose a loved one will experience profound impacts on their lives: • Youth unemployment spiked to over 25% in April 2020 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020). Our research shows that the youth disconnection rate follows the unemployment rate very closely • In-person instruction in K-12 education across the country was initially closed for months, followed by a mix of hybrid instruction, intermittent closures, and indefinite closures across the country • Many universities and colleges have moved to online classes, and enrollment for 2020–2021 has fallen rapidly from previous levels • Places of employment have been rapidly forced to close, reduce staffing, or shift to remote work. As of April 26, 2020, when we were finalizing our report, 43 states and 4 US territories had ordered or recommended school building closures for the rest of the academic year. At least 124,000 US public and private schools have closed, impacting at least 55.1 million K-12 students in the United States (“Map: Coronavirus and School Closures,” 2020). Sadly, the fall 2020 semester was marked by uneven efforts at school reopening, with individual states pursuing a variety of in-person and hybrid models with little federal direction or support (Ujifusa, 2020). When students leave the school environment, remaining engaged in academic tasks is difficult, and returning to school once open again is not guaranteed. These challenges are particularly acute for young people already at risk of not graduating. Many students depend on school for meals and special educational supports (Lancker & Parolin, 2020). Many students don’t have a home environment that is conducive to doing school work; they may lack access to a computer or an internet connection, or they may have siblings who need to use the same room or device

7

Understanding Youth Disconnection in the Age of Coronavirus

107

(Anderson & Kumar, 2019; Federal Communications Commission, 2020; Collis & Vegas, 2020). With libraries and cafes closed, these students have few places to go. In addition, some college students may experience food and housing insecurity when they are forced out of their campus accommodations (Ledner et al., 2020). Our latest map of youth disconnection across the country is a crucial guide for showing which communities may be hit the hardest. Students in areas with high rates of disconnection are at risk of falling even further behind amid this viral storm. They are the communities with the least resilience; they will face greatest difficulty bouncing back after the pandemic passes. This report includes the first-ever youth disconnection estimates at the local level for the entire country, using information from the U.S. Census Bureau on Public Use Microdata Areas. Providing data for areas as small as neighborhoods in many places, these granular estimates for over 2400 locales can help guide recovery efforts to those most in need. During and in the years following the Great Recession of 2008, the number of disconnected youth was almost 6 million or about one in every seven young people who were neither in school nor working. Given the more dramatic circumstances that characterize this current crisis, we estimate between 6 and 7 million young people experienced disconnection in 2020 and could continue to face disconnection in 2021. In an epidemic, it is important to measure and test to accurately trace and respond to infection as it spreads. With youth disconnection, it’s just the same. Estimating and localizing the number of disconnected youth is even more crucial during such uncertain times. Measure of America is committed to helping young people navigate the road ahead and guiding community organizations and direct service providers to where they are needed most. We know it is going to be difficult, but measuring the problem is the first step toward fixing it. What Is Youth Disconnection? The teens and early 20s are thick with memorable firsts. First dates, first loves, and first heartbreaks. First jobs and first paychecks. First time living away from home. In the fall of 2020, some 6 million young Americans ages 18–21 met another important first—their first chance to cast a ballot in a presidential election. But which of these potential first-time voters actually went to the polls? The answer depended largely on their lived experience to that date: the extent and quality of their education, the resources available in their homes and communities, and the degree to which they are engaged with institutions like colleges, unions, volunteer or service organizations, churches, and community groups. It also depended upon the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the different ways in which states responded (Fig. 7.1). The years of emerging adulthood that stretch from the late teens to the mid-20s are critical to developing the capabilities required for a full, flourishing, and freely chosen adulthood. Based on the Capabilities Approach utilized by the United Nations Development Programme (2010), such capabilities include knowledge and credentials, social skills and networks, a sense of mastery and agency, a grasp of one’s strengths and preferences, and the ability to handle stressful events, regulate one’s emotions, and form and maintain healthy relationships, to name just a few. They also include the skills and habits required to participate in our democracy—an

108

K. Lewis

AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY ( ACS) DEFINITION

IN SCHOOL

Part-time or full-time students who have attended school or college in the past three months.

WORKING

Those who had any full- or part-time work in the previous week.

NOT WORKING

Unemployed in previous week or not in labor force and not looking for a job.

LIVING IN People in non-household living arrangements such as ‘GROUP QUARTERS’ correctional facilities, residential health facilities, dorms, etc. If enrolled in educational programs, they are considered connected.

MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES (Group Quarters)

Counted as employed and thus as connected.

HOMELESS (Group Quarters)

Surveyed but likely to be undercounted; surveying the homeless is difficult.

Fig. 7.1 Definitions from the American Community Survey (ACS) used by Measure of America (MOA) in Determining Youth Disconnection

understanding of civics and politics, the ability to evaluate information and assess arguments, and a belief that their views and voices count. The real-life chances young people have to build these capabilities vary greatly. For nearly nine in ten American young people, the transition to adulthood is aided by strong attachments to educational institutions, gradually supplemented and often replaced by workplace or professional ties. These young people, whom we call “connected youth,” are 16- to 24-year-olds who are working or in school. In addition to academic skills, schools provide such young people a place to learn positive work habits, be recognized for their unique strengths, start to engage in civic activities such as volunteering through a service club or registering to vote, and develop confidence through success—whether on the soccer field, in the orchestra pit, or during a debate tournament. Early work experiences build soft skills like punctuality and collaboration, familiarize young people with the unspoken rules and behavioral norms of the workplace, and help them develop networks of contacts and connections (U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation, 2015). Both work and school provide opportunities to gain knowledge and develop skills necessary to participate in our democracy, such as collaboration, negotiation, and critical thinking. School, work, and civic engagement provide a sense of belonging and the feelings of worth and dignity that come with having a purpose in life. Using data from the 2018 US Census Bureau American Community Survey, Measure of America has calculated that 11.2% of young Americans between the ages of 16 and 24 are neither working nor in school (Lewis, 2020). These teens and young adults, known alternatively as disconnected youth or opportunity youth, are unmoored from institutions that provide knowledge, networks, skills, identity, and direction. While successful firsts foster self-confidence, optimism, and agency, negative firsts, whether a first failed class, a first September not returning to school,

7

Understanding Youth Disconnection in the Age of Coronavirus

109

YOUTH DISCONNECTION (%)

30

25 NATIVE AMERICAN

20 BLACK

15 LATINO

10

WHITE ASIAN

5 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fig. 7.2 The rate of Youth Disconnection by Race over time since 2008

a first job rejection, or a first arrest, can be prominent features of early adulthood that cast a long shadow across the life course. Unemployed young people are missing out not just on a paycheck and benefits, but also on the social inclusion, status, and support that employment affords. And the long-term consequences of youth disconnection are serious and enduring. Using data from a large longitudinal study that has run for more than 50 years (University of Michigan’s Panel Study of Income Dynamics, 2017), we determined that by the time they reach their 30s, people who had been working or in school as teens and young adults earn $31,000 more per year and are 45% more likely to own a home, 42% more likely to be employed, and 52% more likely to report excellent or good health than those who had been disconnected as young people (Lewis & Gluskin, 2018). Since 2010, Measure of America’s annual youth disconnection reports have charted the steady decline in the rate of youth disconnection. Though the youth disconnection rate has fallen sharply, from 14.7% to 11.2%, the huge gaps that persist between young people of different racial and ethnic groups, different regions of the country, and different types of communities are deeply disturbing. These gaps give lie to America’s promise of equal opportunity and threaten our democracy. The progress made over the last decade is under threat, as new groups of young people face interruptions in their schooling, recent graduates face the worst job market since the Great Recession, and already disconnected young people face greater barriers to reconnection than ever (Fig. 7.2).

110

K. Lewis

Youth Disconnection in the U.S. The 2018 youth disconnection rate was 11.2%, down from 11.5% in 2017—the eighth consecutive year of decline in the share of young people neither working nor in school in the United States (Lewis, 2020). Between 2010 and 2018, the rate fell 24%, driven largely by the sharp, recovery-fueled drop in youth unemployment, from over 18% in 2010, when the country was still reeling from the effects of the Great Recession, to 8% in 2018 (Youth Unemployment Rate for the United States, 2020). The national youth unemployment rate in early 2020 was lower than it had been at any point since the early 1990s (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020), and the national on-time high school graduation rate continued its modest increase. To have gone from one in seven young people out of school and work in 2010 to one in nine in 2018 is cause for celebration. But closing the gaps between groups remains a challenge. The pre-pandemic economic recovery pulled easier-to-connect young people into the labor market, and the barriers to rewarding educational and career opportunities that remained were typically steeper and more difficult for young people to overcome on their own. Some of these barriers stem from the nature and extent of educational and employment opportunities in the communities where these young people tend to live. Some stem from institutional racism, as evidenced by the sharp variation in disconnection rates between different racial and ethnic groups, which persist despite the decline in the overall rate. Others stem from challenges like having a disability or having been in contact with the justice system, issues that are discussed below. And COVID-19 is creating a host of new challenges.

Characteristics of Connected and Disconnected Youth (Fig. 7.3) Connected and disconnected young people differ in many ways that go beyond their current employment and educational status.

Fig. 7.3 Various characteristics and barriers faced by Disconnected Youth. Source: Measure of America

7

Understanding Youth Disconnection in the Age of Coronavirus

111

Disability Despite laws requiring school, workplace, and public accommodations, teens and young adults living with disabilities often face barriers to participating fully in society. Disconnected youth are more than three times as likely to have a disability of some kind than connected young people—16.9% as compared to 5.1% (Lewis, 2020). Disability is not a monolithic category, of course; the Census Bureau identifies six distinct types of disability. Disconnected youth are five times as likely as connected youth to report having an independent-living difficulty (i.e., difficulty doing errands alone, such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping, due to a physical, mental, or emotional condition) (Lewis, 2019, p. 6). Teens and young adults reporting a cognitive difficulty (i.e., difficulty with concentration, remembering, and making decisions due to a physical, mental, or emotional condition) make up 12.7% of disconnected youth, compared to just 3.4% of connected youth (Lewis, 2019, 2020). Almost 60% of disconnected youth with a disability report more than one type of difficulty.1 Motherhood and marriage Motherhood is a common life experience—86% of US women have at least one child by the end of their reproductive years (Geiger et al., 2018)—but the timing of the decision to pursue parenthood varies sharply. Disconnected young women are over four times as likely to be mothers as their connected counterparts, 25.2% vs. 6.0%. Connected women tend to postpone childbearing, typically spending their late teens and early 20s investing in their education, building their careers, forming romantic partnerships, having novel and exciting experiences, and generally making life decisions free of the obligations of parenthood. Young women living in disadvantaged communities often lack appealing educational and career options, and research suggests that motherhood may offer them a route to adult status that is both rewarding and attainable (Edin & Kefalas, 2011). Due to how data on parenthood are collected, we do not have information on the share of connected and disconnected young men who are fathers—a telling data gap in itself. Data on marriage are available, however. Disconnected young women are far more likely to be married than disconnected young men, 19.5% compared to just 3.8%. This fivefold difference reflects gendered expectations of the roles of women and men and the division of labor in relationships. While married women who are not in the workforce may make valuable contributions to their families and communities, and in some cases may prefer to stay home, research shows that, on average, being out of the workforce limits career trajectories and earnings later in life (Buchmann & McDaniel, 2016). It is important to draw a distinction between the human development implications of marriage or motherhood at ages 16 or 17 compared to ages 23 or 24. Marrying at 16 or 17 should be called what it is—the harmful practice of child marriage. Early marriage exposes girls to an elevated risk of domestic violence, as well as the dangers of early motherhood, with the added risk of rapid subsequent births (Seiler, 2002). Compared to mothers in their 20s, teen mothers are more likely to experience 1 For a more detailed analysis of the impact of different types of disability on youth disconnection, as well as disability outcomes by race and gender, see Lewis (2019).

112

K. Lewis

domestic violence, poor birth outcomes, and postpartum depression, have higher high school dropout and poverty rates, and have lower levels of educational attainment and incomes. These risks transfer to the next generation. Children born to teenage mothers perform less well in school, are less likely to complete high school, and are more likely to be incarcerated, become teen parents themselves, be unemployed, or have health problems than children born to older mothers (Reproductive Health: Teen Pregnancy—About Teen Pregnancy, 2019). (And much higher rates of poverty.) Poverty Almost one-third of disconnected youth live in a poor household; they are nearly twice as likely to live in poverty as connected young people, according to Measure of America (Lewis, 2020). Furthermore, disconnected young women are much more likely to live in poverty than disconnected young men, 36.6% vs. 27.7% (p. 22). Poverty compounds a range of barriers to connection, among them the concentration of low-income families in neighborhoods with poor-quality educational, health, and transportation services; the greater exposure of people living in poverty to violence2 and the resulting trauma; the lack of financial resources needed to cover the costs of college; and the cumulative impacts of intergenerational, concentrated poverty (Sharkey, 2013). Disconnected Native American young men and women and disconnected young Black women have the highest rates of poverty, all over 40% (Lewis, 2020). Living Arrangements Measure of America has found that, compared to connected youth, disconnected youth ages 16 and 17 are more than twice as likely to be living apart from both parents, 22.1% vs. 8.5% (Lewis, 2020). Over 90% of connected teens in this age group live with either both parents (six in ten) or one parent (three in ten). Living apart from one’s parents at this age may indicate traumatic childhood experiences and lacking parental guidance in the transition to adulthood poses significant challenges. Institutionalization Disconnected youth are more than 20 times as likely to be living in institutionalized group quarters (such as correctional facilities or residential health facilities) as their connected peers, 6.1% compared to just 0.3% (Lewis, 2020). Almost one in five disconnected Black boys and young men are living in institutionalized group quarters of some kind, attesting to continued racial disparities in the criminal and juvenile justice systems (p. 20). These statistics underscore the importance of breaking the school-to-prison pipeline through strategies like ending racialized harsh school discipline as well as creating educational opportunities that can both reconnect youth living in institutions and ease their transition to rewarding careers when they return home (Bozick et al., 2018).

2

For example, people with household incomes of less than $7500 reported a sexual violence victimization rate of 4.8 incidents per 1000 persons age 12 or older, which is 12 times the rate reported by those with household incomes greater than $75,000 (0.4 per 1000) (Casteel et al., 2018).

7

Understanding Youth Disconnection in the Age of Coronavirus

113

Limited Education Disconnected youth are nine times as likely to have dropped out of high school as connected youth; based on data from Measure of America, one in four disconnected young people left high school without a diploma (Lewis, 2020). The path to dropping out of high school often starts with academic difficulties and disengagement in middle school, frequently due to a lack of adequate accommodation for learning challenges of various sorts (Feldman et al., 2017). This points to the need for improved early identification programs, better screening, more holistic support for children with learning disabilities, and prompt interventions to forestall a pattern of failure and hopelessness. Connected youth ages 21–24 are more than twice as likely to have a bachelor’s degree (22.4%) as their disconnected counterparts (8.9%) (Lewis, 2020). Box: What about college graduates? During the Great Recession, an image of well-educated young adults unable to find jobs took hold in the popular imagination. And to be sure, many college grads who finished their studies in the 2008–2010 period struggled to find a foothold in the labor market. But the situation facing college graduates was never as dire as that facing those without bachelor’s degrees, and today, less than 9% of disconnected youth ages 21–24 have completed a 4-year college degree. Black and Latino young people with bachelor’s degrees make up particularly small shares of the disconnected population. COVID-19 will swell the ranks of college graduates unable to find work and, as after the Great Recession, such young people will likely capture a disproportionate share of attention and resources, metaphorically pushing more disadvantaged young people to the back of the line. The glaring exception is Asian disconnected youth. Measure of America found an astonishing 36.2% of whom have 4-year degrees—nearly as large a share as that found among Asian connected youth (40.3%) (Lewis, 2020). Two-thirds of disconnected Chinese young women and six in ten disconnected Indian women hold bachelor’s degrees. Language and immigration barriers may be keeping these young women from continuing their education or entering the labor market despite their degrees. Marriage and motherhood may also be factors; for example, 57% of disconnected Indian women are married, the largest share of any group of disconnected youth from Measure of America’s research. Disconnected young people from South America also stand out; 19.9% of them have college degrees (Lewis, 2020). Data from Measure of America suggest that language proficiency and immigration status are likely barriers to employment and education as well.3

3

For detailed data tables on youth disconnection and college degree attainment, see Measure of America’s report A Decade Undone (Lewis, 2020).

114

K. Lewis

Youth Disconnection by Gender and by Race and Ethnicity Despite the overall improvement in youth disconnection nationally, the picture for young women and men from different racial and ethnic groups continues to show great variation. Some groups, like Latina young women, have gained ground swiftly; Measure of America has indicated that their disconnection rate fell an astonishing 34% between 2010 and 2018, 10 percentage points more than the national decline (Lewis, 2020). These findings also indicate that others, like Native American young women, have benefited far less from the generally positive national employment and educational trends; their 2018 youth disconnection rate of 24.8% is not statistically different from their 2010 rate of 26.7% in the aftermath of the Great Recession (p. 22). Based on Measure of America’s research, girls and young women continue to be less likely than boys and young men to be disconnected, 10.8% as compared to 11.5%, as has been the case for some time (Lewis, 2020). This gender differential varies by race and ethnicity, however; among Latino and Native American youth, young women have a slightly higher disconnection rate, whereas for Asian, Black, and white youth, young men do. The size of the gender gap also varies; it is largest, about five percentage points, for Black young people. Disconnected teen girls and young women are much more likely to live in poverty than their male counterparts, 36.6% vs. 27.7%. Most racial and ethnic groups saw a decrease in their youth disconnection rate between 2017 and 2018, but only three race/gender combinations experienced a statistically significant drop. The youth disconnection rate for Black young men decreased from 20.8 to 19.9%, the rate for Asian young women decreased from 6.7 to 6.1%, and the rate for Latina young women fell from 13.9 to 13.3%. Of the five major racial and ethnic groups in the United States, Measure of America has reported that Native American teens and young adults have the highest disconnection rate, 23.4%, nearly one in four (Lewis, 2020). Native American youth have had the highest rate of all groups for at least a decade. Because the Native American population is the smallest of the five groups, the number of Native American disconnected youth is likewise the smallest, approximately 68,000 young people. Native American teen girls and young women are reported to have the highest disconnection rate of any race/gender combination, 24.8%, and their rate increased slightly over the last year. Based on this data, they are the only group that has not improved significantly since the height of the recession in 2010. Disconnected Native American young women are less likely than disconnected women on the whole to be mothers, 18.0% compared to 25.2%. Native American young men are the most likely to live in poverty (46.0%) and the most likely to have dropped out of high school (31.2%) of any race/gender combination. According to Measure of America, Black teens and young adults have the second-highest youth disconnection rate, 17.4%, or 951,900 young people (Lewis, 2020). This rate is higher than the 2016 rate (Burd-Sharps & Lewis, 2018). The latest findings suggest that disconnected Black teens ages 16 and 17 are much more likely

7

Understanding Youth Disconnection in the Age of Coronavirus

115

to be living apart from both their parents than disconnected young people overall, 35.5% compared to 22.1% (Lewis, 2020). Black boys and young men are much more likely than their female counterparts to be disconnected, 19.9% compared to 14.8%, the largest gender gap of any racial or ethnic group. Over the last year, however, the disconnection rate for Black young men decreased from 20.8 to 19.9%, narrowing the gap somewhat (Lewis, 2019, 2020). Of all the race/gender combinations, Measure of America has found that disconnected Black young men are the most likely to live in institutional group quarters, which include hospitals, juvenile detention centers, jails, and prisons, and the most likely to live with neither parent (43.9%) (Lewis, 2020). Black young women are the second-most-likely race/gender combination to live in poverty (44.1%). Disconnected Black young women are slightly less likely than disconnected women overall to be mothers, 23.8% compared to 25.2%. Latino young people continue to make the fastest progress, girls and young women in particular. The Latino youth disconnection rate has fallen 30% since 2010 and now stands at 12.8%, or 1,132,000 young people, according to Measure of America (Lewis, 2020). Our findings show that Latina young women are slightly more likely than their male counterparts to be disconnected, 13.3% compared to 12.3%, but the gender gap has narrowed significantly over the last decade; in 2008, 20.2% of young Latina women were out of school and work, compared to 13.6% of young Latino men. Disconnected Latinas are also the most likely to be mothers; three in ten are. Based on Measure of America’s research, disconnected Latinas are more likely than their male counterparts to speak English “less than well” (21.4% compared to 14.8%) and to be noncitizens (21.5% compared to 13.4%). They are more than six times as likely to be married (24.9% compared to 3.9%). The category “Latino” is internally diverse. In Measure of America’s report, A Decade Undone, we were able to calculate disconnection rates for several Latino subgroups: Mexican, Spanish-speaking Caribbean (Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Cuba), Central American, and South American. Rates ranged from 7.5% for South American young men to 13.8% for Mexican young women (Lewis, 2020). Central American young people saw a relatively large increase from 2017 to 2018, from 12.0 to 13.7%. That change was largely driven by a sharp increase of 2.6 percentage points among Central American men; the rate jumped from 9.3% in 2017 to 11.8% in 2018 (p. 23). The disconnection rate for white young people is 9.2%, the second-lowest rate determined by Measure of America (Lewis, 2020). White teens and young adults make up the largest absolute number of disconnected youth, 1,895,900 people (even though whites have a lower-than-average rate, they make up the largest share— 43.6%—of people in the 16-to-24 age range). Disconnected white 16- and 17-yearolds are the most likely to live with both their parents (53.1%) and the least likely to live with neither parent (17.1%). White young people who are disconnected are more likely than other disconnected youth to have a disability; 20.6% do. Disconnected white male youth have the highest disability rate of any race/gender combination, 23.2%, and are over four times as likely to have a disability as their connected counterparts. White boys and young men in general face fewer structural barriers—

116

K. Lewis

such as discrimination, residential segregation, poverty, language barriers, immigration status, or contact with the justice system—to school persistence and employment than other groups do. For this reason, disability is a contributing factor to disconnection for a larger share of disconnected white young men than disconnected Asian, Black, Latino, or Native American young men. Measure of America has reported that Asian youth have the lowest disconnection rate, 6.2%, or 137,100 young people (Lewis, 2020). These findings also show that the Asian youth disconnection rate dropped 26% since 2010. In previous years, Asian young women have had a slightly higher disconnection rate than their male counterparts. According to Measure of America, this situation reversed in 2018; the female rate is 6.1%, the male rate 6.4%. Limited English-language abilities and immigration status appear to be potent barriers for the comparatively small share of Asian young adults who are out of school and work. Measure of America’s research indicates that disconnected Asian teens and young adults are the most likely to report being able to speak English “less than well,” 23.6% compared to 6.6% for disconnected youth overall. More than one in four Asian young women and one in five Asian young men experience such language difficulties. They are also the most likely to be noncitizens; 35.5% are noncitizens, compared to 7.3% of disconnected youth overall. Girls and young women are more likely to be noncitizens than boys and young men—42.2% compared to 29.3%. Strikingly, educational attainment among disconnected Asian youth is stronger than among connected youth overall. Over one-third (36.2%) of disconnected Asian young people ages 21–24 have at least a bachelor’s degree, compared to 22.4% of connected youth overall. Among all disconnected race/gender combinations, young Asian women are the most likely to have a bachelor’s degree (40.3%) and to be married (31.6%) and least likely to be mothers (16.6%), to have a disability (6.8%), and to have dropped out of high school (14.8%) (p. 24). The category “Asian” encompasses tremendous diversity, from US-born Americans whose families have been in the country for generations to recent immigrants from India, China, or elsewhere in East, Southeast, or South Asia.4 While data were insufficient to allow us to calculate disconnection rates for all Asian subgroups, we were able to calculate rates for Chinese, Indian, Filipino, Vietnamese, and Korean young women and men, and for Hmong and Cambodian young people (data were insufficient to allow for gender disaggregation for these last two groups). Measure of America has reported that the youth disconnection rate ranged from a low of 3.7% for Chinese girls and young women to a high of 13.8% for Cambodian young people (Lewis, 2020). Their small population sizes make it impossible for us to drill down on characteristics of disconnected young people in these groups, with a few exceptions. Roughly one-third of disconnected Vietnamese young people and about

4 The Census Bureau defines Asian this way: “A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam,” (Population—About Race, 2018).

7

Understanding Youth Disconnection in the Age of Coronavirus

117

one-fourth of Indian young people speak English “less than well”; 46% of Indian and Chinese and 39.6% of Filipino disconnected youth are noncitizens; and 57.1% of Indian young women 18–24 years old are married, and 57.1% are noncitizens (it is a coincidence that these two rounded values are both 57.1%) (Lewis, 2020).

Discussion: Supporting Our Most Vulnerable COVID-19 has likely erased 10 years of progress in reducing the national youth disconnection rate in a matter of months. With the data not yet available as of February 2021, it is difficult to make recommendations for a future whose landscape we cannot yet divine. Nonetheless, a few things are clear.

Unprecedented Hurdles to Education Will Harm Students Data on school enrollment and employment from the American Community Survey have a lag of roughly 12–18 months. (That’s why the MOA report, released in 2020, features data from 2018.) Thus, we won’t definitively know the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on youth disconnection until late 2021. It is already apparent, however, that the ranks of disconnected youth will swell well beyond what we saw in the aftermath of the Great Recession, when 5.8 million young people were out of school and work (Burd-Sharps & Lewis, 2017). In addition to the hit to employment opportunities, school enrollment and attendance will likely decrease as well due to uncertainty and changes in both secondary and higher education. Distance learning magnifies the effects of the vastly different home environments students experience. Some are able to work from their childhood bedrooms on personal computers with strong internet connections and parents able to lend a hand, while others live in crowded households without broadband where siblings and parents must share a single computer or make due with mobile devices. Just 61% of Latino households and 66% of Black households have broadband internet, compared to 79% of white households (Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet, 2019). Recent evidence suggests that while students in affluent K–12 districts have been managing the demands of online learning, students in struggling districts have not (Esquivel et al., 2020; Collis & Vegas, 2020). Low-income young people may lose valuable instruction time, fall further behind their peers, and risk repeating a grade, all of which make them more likely to drop out. If distance learning continues, districts and state governments lacking resources and guidance may resort to online or virtual school providers, which often have dismal performance records and receive little oversight (Protopsaltis & Baum, 2019). Evaluations of online charter schools—which on average show almost no academic growth in math scores after a year of instruction—speak to the overwhelming challenges inherent in moving the classroom into cyberspace (Herold, 2015).

118

K. Lewis

Disconnected Youth and Their Families Will Be Hardest Hit Disconnected young people hail disproportionately from low-income communities of color—communities that are nearly always most harmed and slowest to recover from disasters of all sorts. We must pay close attention to the communities that are most vulnerable to the impact of this crisis so that our recovery does not repeat the mistakes of 2008, when Black communities were largely overlooked.5 Preliminary evidence shows that Black people of all ages are disproportionately likely to die from COVID-19, meaning that the burden of illness, trauma, and grief will weigh heavily on Black teens and young adults. In Louisiana, as of early April 2020, 70% of those who have died were Black, though Black people make up just 32% of the state population; in Michigan, where 14% of the population is Black, 40% of those who have died were Black; and in Chicago, Black people have died at six times the rate of white people.6 Native American populations, whose young people experience the highest disconnection rate of the five major racial and ethnic groups, are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 due to poverty, overcrowding, widespread lack of running water for handwashing, an underfunded health system, and a heavy burden of preexisting conditions such as diabetes. Already-fragile household economies are being shattered. Family members are more likely to be low-wage service-sector workers, a group whose jobs are insecure, poorly paid, and lack benefits in the best of times and now face unprecedented job loss (National Employment Law Project, 2014; Parker et al., 2020). Others have jobs that cannot be done from home and which require continual contact with people— home health aides, delivery workers, grocery checkout clerks, and cleaners—heightening their risk of infection (Garfield et al., 2020). Basic survival needs are going unmet as food insecurity spikes, health systems are stretched beyond the breaking point, childcare is nonexistent, and community-based organizations’ ability to provide services is hamstrung. Disconnected young people who live on their own are particularly vulnerable yet are not a priority in relief packages passed so far. For instance, they are not eligible for direct payments or unemployment insurance since they were not in the workforce. Homeless youth are unable to shelter in place; they have no place. Living on the street or in shelters, they risk exposure and can’t even engage in basic selfprotection like handwashing with soap. Disabled people are particularly vulnerable, and disconnected young people are three times as likely as connected young people to be living with a disability, as Lewis (2020) reports. People living in institutions are likewise more vulnerable than the rest of the population, and disconnected youth are 20 times as likely as connected youth to be institutionalized (p. 70).

Lewis and Gluskin, “Black Communities Were Forgotten During the Recovery from the Great Recession”. 6 Thebault, Tran, and Williams, “The Coronavirus Is Infecting and Killing Black Americans at an Alarmingly High Rate.” 5

7

Understanding Youth Disconnection in the Age of Coronavirus

119

Disconnected young people are more likely than the general population to be in contact with the criminal justice system, and jails and prisons which are infection hot spots. As of April 8, 2020, the Cook County Jail was the largest known source of COVID-19 infections in the United States, and over 1300 confirmed cases had been tied to prisons and jails across the country.7 People are crowded together cheek-byjowl; the population disproportionately suffers underlying health conditions; protective gear is nonexistent; health care is poor; and, even access to soap and water is not a given. For these reasons, COVID-19 is spreading like wildfire behind bars. Because of the lasting impact of tough sentencing laws, unnecessary bail and pretrial incarceration policies, and an overly punitive juvenile justice system, far too many young people are behind bars, and COVID-19 is turning jail time into a potential death sentence (Dolovich, 2020). Roughly 200,000 people enter and leave jails and prisons each week, a population churn that endangers inmates, correctional officers, and the communities into which people are released (Flagg & Neff, 2020). Releasing nonviolent offenders and ensuring that they have safe places to self-quarantine is vital.

The U.S. Government Has Enough Money to Solve Youth Disconnection The idea that money is scarce, that the United States lacks the resources required for all children—including poor ones—to flourish, has been unmasked as the cruel lie it is. In the space of just 8 days, from March 19 to March 27, a divided Congress that agrees on next to nothing managed to pass the $2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020,8 and more has come later. This aid comes after years of cuts to education and public assistance programs, including food stamps—belts tightened during the recession and not loosened during the years of economic turnaround (García & Weiss, 2020; Ettinger de Cuba et al., 2019). While this crisis is unprecedented in its reach and suddenness, a day-in-day-out crisis has shaped the contours of life in poor communities for decades. In a country where rich corporations have been granted $500 billion dollars in aid after a week’s deliberation (Stein & Whoriskey, 2020), the assertion that universal health care, high-quality childcare, good schools for everyone, affordable college, and dignified employment are just too expensive is quite obviously false. Such policies would have a significant impact on lowering the youth disconnection rate, ensuring young people in the U.S. have access to quality education and employment, along with the resources necessary to ensure their success.

7 8

Williams and Ivory, “Chicago's Jail Is Top U.S. Hot Spot as Virus Spreads Behind Bars.” H.R. 748, US Congress, Senate, 166th Congress, 2nd Session.

120

K. Lewis

Measure of America’s ‘A Decade Undone’ Report Shines a Spotlight on the Needs of Our Most Vulnerable Communities Our geographic disaggregation of data at the state, county, metropolitan, and neighborhood (Public Use Microdata Area) level allows advocates to better understand massive disparities in opportunity across the country, particularly in rural communities.9 Deaths, trauma, and jobs losses will fall thick and fast on young people and their families in communities we designated “Rural Opportunity Deserts,” where one in four youth were already out of school and work. Providing in the short term for the basic needs of these communities and committing over the long term to building an infrastructure of opportunity for young people—in isolated and impoverished rural areas as well as in deeply disadvantaged urban neighborhoods—must be our priority. The data also reveals that one solution will not fit every community’s unique needs. For instance, some girls and young women may need appealing and attainable educational and career options that make delaying motherhood worthwhile, as well as support like childcare, to re-engage with educational programs, whereas others may need to improve their English-language skills so that they can find employment commensurate with their educational backgrounds. Tailoring programs to meet the distinct needs of different groups of young people is more important than ever.

Conclusion During the Great Recession, an inaccurate image of disconnected young people took hold in the popular press: middle-class college graduates holed up in their parents’ basements, their nascent careers derailed by the economic collapse. In reality, while some college graduates struggled to find jobs, the lion’s share of disconnected young people were still low-income, disproportionality minority youth who did not have college degrees. If, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the ranks of disconnected youth swell by 1 or 2 million people, or more, a similar phenomenon may emerge. The “newly” disconnected youth—previously thriving high schoolers whose college plans were thrown into disarray, or successful college grads entering a jobless job market—need schools to reopen and the economy to get back on its feet. Though research shows that young people who graduate from college into a recessionary job market have depressed earnings for years to come, and they may indeed suffer some long-term economic effects (Oreopoulos et al., 2006), they are well-positioned to resume their positive trajectory, though with delays and possibly lowered earnings for some time.

9 To explore the data in your neighborhood visit Measure of America’s interactive site at http:// measureofamerica.org/DYinteractive/ (Youth Disconnection in America, 2020).

7

Understanding Youth Disconnection in the Age of Coronavirus

121

The young people struggling and off track prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, on the other hand, face still bleaker prospects now and risk deep and lasting scars. Research shows that, compared to newly minted bachelor’s degree-holders, young people without college degrees face more negative effects on long-term health behaviors, mortality, and socioeconomic outcomes—from earnings to marriage rates—when entering the job market during a recession (Schwandt, 2019). Attention and resources are likely to focus on the newly disconnected; they will be the low-hanging fruit policymakers can more easily target and assist, the squeaky wheel that will get the grease. Their distress (and that of their parents) in this sudden crisis is likely to unleash resources well beyond what was ever available to address the slow-moving, quotidian crisis of long-term youth disconnection. It is critical that the needs and voices of, to borrow the phrasing of William Julius Wilson, the “truly disconnected” are heard and listened to and that a fair share of the tsunami of resources let loose is channeled to them and their communities. For that, the consideration of what constitutes “disconnection” needs to be understood and tracked at the local, as well as at the national level.

References Anderson, M., & Kumar, M. (2019, May 7). Pew Research Center. Retrieved from Digital divide persists even as lower-income Americans make gains in tech adoption: https://www. pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/07/digital-divide-persists-even-as-lower-income-ameri cans-make-gains-in-tech-adoption/ Bozick, R., Steele, J., Davis, L., & Turner, S. (2018). Does providing inmates with education improve postrelease outcomes? A meta-analysis of correctional education programs in the United States. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 14(3), 389–428. Buchmann, C., & McDaniel, A. (2016). Motherhood and the wages of women in professional occupations. Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(4), 128–150. Burd-Sharps, S., & Lewis, K. (2017). Promising gains, persistent gaps: Youth disconnection in America. Measure of America. Burd-Sharps, S., & Lewis, K. (2018). More than a million reasons for hope: Youth Disconnection in America today. Measure of America. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020, August 18). Employment and unemployment among youth summary. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm Casteel, K., Wolfe, J., & Nguyen, M. (2018, September 21). What we know about victims of sexual assault in America. FiveThirtyEight. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/sexual-assault-victims/ Collis, V., & Vegas, E. (2020, June 22). Unequally disconnected: Access to online learning in the US. Retrieved from The Brookings Institute: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/education-plusdevelopment/2020/06/22/unequally-disconnected-access-to-online-learning-in-the-us/ Dolovich, S. (2020, November 11). Mass incarceration, meet COVID-19. Retrieved from The University of Chicago Law Review Online: https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/2020/11/16/ covid-dolovich/ Edin, K., & Kefalas, M. (2011). Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before marriage (3rd ed.). University of California Press. Esquivel, P., Blume, H., Poston, B., & Barajas, J. (2020, August 13). A generation left behind? Online learning cheats poor students, Times survey finds. Retrieved from Los Angeles Times:

122

K. Lewis

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-08-13/online-learning-fails-low-income-stu dents-covid-19-left-behind-project Ettinger de Cuba, S., Bovell, A., Coleman, S., & Frank, D. (2019, September 9). Diluting the dose: Cuts to SNAP benefits increased food insecurity following the Great Recession. Retrieved from Children’s HealthWatch: https://childrenshealthwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-Dilut ing-the-Dose-for-web-.pdf Federal Communications Commission. (2020). Broadband deployment report. Retrieved from Federal Communications Commission: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-50 A1.pdf Feldman, D. L., Smith, A. T., & Waxman, B. L. (2017). “Why We Drop Out”: Understanding and disrupting student pathways to leaving school. Teachers College Press. Flagg, A., & Neff, J. (2020, March 31). Why jails are so important in the fight against coronavirus. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/31/upshot/coronavirus-jails-prisons.html García, E., & Weiss, E. (2020, September 10). COVID-19 and student performance, equity, and U.S. education policy. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/theconsequences-of-the-covid-19-pandemic-for-education-performance-and-equity-in-the-unitedstates-what-can-we-learn-from-pre-pandemic-research-to-inform-relief-recovery-andrebuilding/ Garfield, R., Rae, M., Claxton, G., & Orgera, K. (2020, April 29). Double jeopardy: Low wage workers at risk for health and financial implications of COVID-19. Kaiser Family Foundation. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/double-jeopardy-low-wage-workers-atrisk-for-health-and-financial-implications-of-covid-19/ Geiger, A. W., Livingston, G., & Bialik, K. (2018, May 8). 6 Facts about U.S. moms. Pew Research Center Fact Tank. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/08/facts-about-u-s-mothers/ Herold, B. (2015, October 27). Cyber charters have “Overwhelming Negative Impact,” CREDO study finds. Digital Education (Blog), Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/technology/ cyber-charters-have-overwhelming-negative-impact-credo-study-finds/2015/10 Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet (Internet & Technology). (2019). Pew Research Center. https:// www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/ Lancker, W. V., & Parolin, Z. (2020). COVID-19, school closures, and child poverty: A social crisis in the making. The Lancet Public Health, E243–E244. Ledner, A. M., Hoban, M. T., Lipson, S. K., Zhou, S., & Eisenberg, D. (2020). More than inconvenienced: The unique needs of U.S. college students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health Education & Behavior, 48, 14–19. Lewis, K. (2019). Making the connection: Transportation and youth disconnection. Measure of America, Social Science Research Council. https://measureofamerica.org/youth-disconnection2019/ Lewis, K. (2020). A decade undone: Youth disconnection in the age of coronavirus. Measure of America, Social Science Research Council. http://measureofamerica.org/youth-disconnection2020/ Lewis, K., & Gluskin, R. (2018). Two futures: The economic case for keeping youth on track. Measure of America, Social Science Research Council. http://measureofamerica.org/psid/ Map: Coronavirus and School Closures. (2020, March 6). Education Week. https://www.edweek. org/leadership/map-coronavirus-and-school-closures-in-2019-2020/2020/03 National Employment Law Project. (2014). The low-wage recovery: Industry employment and wages four years into the recovery. . Oreopoulos, P., Wachter, T., & Heisz, A. (2006). The short- and long-term career effects of graduating in a recession. NBER Working Paper, 12159. Parker, K., Minkin, R., & Bennett, J. (2020, September 24). Ecomonomic fallot from COVID-19 continues to hit lower-income Americans the hardest. Pew Research Center. Population—About Race. (2018, January 23). US Census Bureau: Topics. https://www.census.gov/ topics/population/race/about.html

7

Understanding Youth Disconnection in the Age of Coronavirus

123

Protopsaltis, S., & Baum, S. (2019, January). Does online education live up to its promise? A look at the evidence and implications for federal policy. http://mason.gmu.edu/~sprotops/OnlineEd.pdf Reproductive Health: Teen Pregnancy—About Teen Pregnancy. (2019, March). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/about/index.htm Schwandt, H. (2019). Recession graduates: The long-lasting effects of an unlucky draw. Policy Brief. Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.. https://siepr.stanford.edu/research/ publications/recession-graduates-effects-unlucky Seiler, N. (2002). Is teen marriage a solution? Center for Law and Social Policy. https://www.clasp. org/sites/default/files/public/resources-and-publications/archive/0087.pdf Sharkey, P. (2013). Stuck in place: Urban neighborhoods and the end of progress toward racial equality. University of Chicago Press. Stein, J., & Whoriskey, P. (2020, April 28). The U.S. plans to lend $500 billion to large companies. It won’t require them to preserve jobs or limit executive pay. Retrieved from The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/28/federal-reservebond-corporations/ Ujifusa, A. (2020, August 1). Betsy DeVos pushes schools to clear COVID hurdles without special favors. EducationWeek. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/betsy-devos-pushes-schoolsto-clear-covid-hurdles-without-special-favors/2020/08 United Nations Development Programme. (2010). Human Development Report 2010. Palgrave Macmillan. University of Michigan’s Panel Study of Income Dynamics. (2017). Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research. U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation. (2015, February 20). Making youth employment work. https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/sites/default/files/media-uploads/021927_Youth_ Employment_FIN.pdf Youth Disconnection in America. (2020, May 8). Measure of America. http://measureofamerica. org/DYinteractive/ Youth Unemployment Rate for the United States. (2020). FRED Economic Data, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SLUEM1524ZSUSA

Kristen Lewis is the Director of Measure of America and co-author of two volumes of The Measure of America (Columbia University Press, 2008 and NYU Press, 2010) as well as wellbeing reports for California, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Marin and Sonoma Counties. Before founding Measure of America with former UN colleague Sarah Burd-Sharps in 2007, Kristen was senior policy advisor to the Water and Sanitation Task Force of the United Nations Millennium Project, led by Jeffery Sachs, and was co-author of the task force report, Health, Dignity and Development: What Will It Take? (Earthscan, 2005). She previously worked at the United Nations for many years, first with UNIFEM and then in UNDP’s policy bureau, and has served as a consultant on gender equality, development indicators, and water governance for many international development organizations, including UNICEF, WSSCC, UNFPA, and the World Bank. Kristen contributes regularly to media outlets, with articles published in the The Nation, Huffington Post, and Stanford Social Innovation Review, among others, research cited by The New York Times, Forbes, The Atlantic, Washington Post, NPR, Slate, Freakonomics blog, and frequent newspaper and radio interviews. She received a Master in International Affairs degree from Columbia University.

Chapter 8

Identifying, Mapping, and Measuring the Impact of Youth Workforce Pathways with Community Partners Using SDGs Peg Thomas, William Nielsen, Timothy Roman, and Stephanie Shekels

Abstract To attain sustainable careers that support families, we have developed a longitudinal youth-focused system, the Earn and Learn pathway, along a progression that requires a unique and nonlinear performance management system from the identification of need, the experiences informing the response, the considerations required to understand how performance may be appropriately assessed, and the prospective identification of measures to be used to guide the understanding of impact Earn and Learn can create. Continuous monitoring by community and cultural mentors may be the best way to support and track youth and young adults through cross-sector entities (nonprofits, post-secondary training, internships, apprenticeships and on-the-job learning during employment) as they progress towards sustainable careers that support families. More work will be needed to monitor the progress of individual youth, especially disconnected or opportunity youth who are not in work or in school as they move through nonprofit and training partners to sustainable employment. Keywords SDG · Youth workforce development · Earn and Learn · Community indicators · Community quality-of-life indicators

P. Thomas (*) Sundance Family Foundation, St. Paul, MN, USA e-mail: [email protected] W. Nielsen · T. Roman · S. Shekels Ecotone Analytics, Minneapolis, MN, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 F. Ridzi et al. (eds.), Community Quality-of-Life Indicators, Community Quality-ofLife and Well-Being, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06940-6_8

125

126

P. Thomas et al.

Introduction The COVID pandemic, economic crisis, and killing of Mr. George Floyd1—right here in the Twin Cities, Minnesota—greatly impacted the course of our work, creating an opportunity to start working more collaboratively with new partners to collectively discover how young adults wanted us to help build career pathways. We had been too focused on measuring our own outcomes, and not sufficiently focused on creating a performance management system to support the success of youth ages 18–24. Working with Black, Latinx, Asian and Indigenous leaders from cultural and community nonprofits, and leaders from industry, business and government, we realized that we had to spend more time and energy creating a framework that met the needs of young adults and we needed to reduce the reporting burden on organizations supporting these new pathways. With a significantly larger group of partners, and youth advisors, we jointly reimagined how we would support our youth in the way they needed to be supported. The United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)2 would become our framework, and SDG indicator 8.b.1 (to create a youth specific workforce development pathway) became our Theory of Change. The Twin Cities have been referred to as being “program rich and systems poor.” We noticed this when the bright youth coming out of after school teen work readiness programs partially funded by the Sundance Family Foundation were not finding work or post-secondary training. Even after this training, low-income youth and youth from Black Latinx, Asian, Indigenous and low-income communities were not finding entry-level employment opportunities at the rate their white peers were.3 The youth in the Twin Cities age 18–24 have been scarred4 by the trifecta of pandemic, economic downturn, and racial reckoning. “It is unlikely that local youth employment in Ramsey County (home to half of the Twin Cities) will return to levels observed prior to the pandemic in the next 3–5 years (Olson & Dirtzu, 2021). 1

George Perry Floyd Jr. was an African American man who died in Minneapolis during a police arrest on May 25, 2020, triggering widespread protests against police brutality, especially towards Black people, that spread across the United States and globally. 2 The Sustainable Development Goals or Global Goals are a collection of 17 interlinked global goals designed to be a “blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all”. The SDGs were set up in 2015 by the United Nations General Assembly and are intended to be achieved by the year 2030. 3 A Ramsey County CARES Act report (2021) indicates that white students may have the opportunity to prepare for the workforce while still in high school or had better access to other resources like career and technical education in high school, e.g., taking career and technical education course focused on careers in construction, vehicle repair, HVAC repair, and manufacturing, enabling white students to transition more successfully to the labor market and access the few well-paying jobs that do not require formal postsecondary credentials (Leibert, 2021). 4 Scarring is what is referred to as the long-term harm to income levels, career growth, access to training, ability to pay off debt, or deal with the added mental and social burdens of instability (Schwandt & Von Wachter, 2018) as stated in the Olson and Dirtzu (2021). Ramsey County Workforce Solutions Report by RightTrack.

8

Identifying, Mapping, and Measuring the Impact of Youth Workforce. . .

127

In the spring of 2020, the Sundance Family Foundation joined a partnership with the Ramsey County Workforce Development’s YouthWorks, managed by the Suburban Ramsey Family Collaboration. Sundance identified and quickly provided an analysis of more than 150 youth-serving organizations to Ramsey County. Ramsey County used this, its own lists, and information from other sources to provide 300+ community-based youth workforce development nonprofits with between 12 and 15 million dollars in state and federal emergency assistance. Within a few months we forged working relationships that had not previously existed. With urgency, these new partners set about identifying the most promising entry-level jobs for youth to begin and grow their careers into high-demand, high-wage, and high skills pathways (Ramsey, 2021). To map these organizations using the SDGs, Sundance turned to the West Central Initiative (WCI) in northern Minnesota. WCI has established a partnership with Global Minnesota and the British Columbia Community International Collaborative (BCCIC.ca) to map 600 nonprofit providers using SDGs. WCI and BCCIC provided Sundance with technical assistance and an introduction to the International Movement Map. We had previously created Google maps, we, dozens of foundations, agencies and nonprofit had scores of Excel spreadsheets. These were awkward ways to create a regional system. A growing and curated international map would allow more permanence and enable all of the community-based nonprofits a chance to be a part of both a local and global movement.

The Need Demographic trends in the Twin Cities, the greater Minneapolis/Saint Paul metropolitan area, demonstrate that Black, Latinx, Asian, Indigenous youth, and youth from low-income areas are facing an assemblage of consequences as the result of structural inequality. These findings are typical of other American Cities (Garcia & Weiss, 2017; Raj Chetty et al., 2017). The need for Earn & Learn pathways is even more clear when considering the plight of disconnected or opportunity youth—those people who are not in school, training or a job. As of 2019, the Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington MSA had an estimated 26,000 youth who were considered opportunity or disconnected youth5 (Lewis, 2019). The 2020 Impact of COVID-19 and the economic recession is measurable. At the beginning of 2020, the share of Americans ages 16–24 who were “disconnected” from work and school mirrored rates from the previous year. But the situation changes dramatically between March and April when the rate increased from 12% to 20% and continued to climb to 28% by June (Fry & Barbaroso, 2020). Between

5 For more on disconnected youth, see Chapter 7: Understanding Youth Disconnection in the Age of Coronovirus (Lewis, 2022)

128

P. Thomas et al.

February and June 2020, the number of young people neither working nor going to school in the U.S. doubled to over 10 million (Ross et al., 2021). Lewis and Gluskin (2018) further note the importance of supporting ‘disconnected’ 18–24 year olds, the scarring of youth, in that “(T)he most pronounced differences in education, earnings, homeownership, employment, and health outcomes between disconnected and connected youth occur not while they are in their teens and early 20s, but rather thirteen to fifteen years down the road, when they are in their thirties.” Of 25 major metropolitan areas in the country (Burd-Sharps & Lewis, 2013) the Minneapolis metro area had the second highest rate of disconnection among Black youth. Statewide, 5.8% of white youth in Minnesota were neither working nor in school in the 2014–2018 American Community Survey (ACS) data, while 27.2% of American Indian and 12.1% of Black youth were counted as disconnected. Many factors—familial, communal, educational and systemic—drive disconnection and limit young people’s opportunities for advancement, especially for Black youth (Watson et al., 2020). Younger workers have been more likely than other age demographics to have their jobs impacted by COVID-19 due to concentration in (1) vulnerable industry sectors, (2) occupations that were hardest hit, and (3) their lower levels of seniority and work experience. As seen with disconnected or opportunity youth, the negative economic impacts of job loss and economic disruption on almost all young workers will likely persist for years (Olson & Dirtzu, 2021). Yet, in tandem, the demand for middle-skills jobs (i.e. high school diploma but no 4 year degree) in Minnesota is expected to rise with approximately 400,000 jobs being unfilled by 2024 (Wheaton, 2019). In 2020, Minnesota, one of the most educated states in the U.S., had 63% of people ages 25–44 attain a postsecondary certificate or degree (Fergus, 2020). This percentage increased as compared to 2015 estimates (57.5%). White Minnesotans have the highest attainment at 68.8%. Indigenous and Latinx Minnesotans have the lowest attainment at 27.5% and 28.7%, respectively. Both Indigenous and Latinx Minnesotans have attainment rates lower than the 30% benchmark established in Minnesota law. Black Minnesotans have an attainment rate of 37.3%. Asian (64.9%) and multiracial (57.6%) Minnesotans have attainment rates over the 50% benchmarks. To achieve the 70% attainment goal set by the Minnesota Legislature, the state needs an additional 100,700 credentials. Of those, 37,600 must be attained by Latinx people, 12,800 from Whites, 34,200 Blacks, 6300 Indigenous, 5000 Asian Americans, and 3900 multiracial people (Fergus, 2020). For perspective, 86% of all future postsecondary credentials must come from racial and ethnic minorities (Fergus, 2020). Yet, Minnesota is not on track to achieve its goal of attaining 70% certificate or degree holders ages 25–44 by 2025 without shifting an emphasis to the acquisition of portable recognized certificates by young adults ages 18–24 who will then use the certificates to enter the workforce.

8

Identifying, Mapping, and Measuring the Impact of Youth Workforce. . .

129

The Genesis of the Earn and Learn Pathway The Youth Social Entrepreneurship (YSE) Point-in-Time Studies In 2016, the Sundance Family Foundation partnered with Wilder Research to engage a cohort of 14 community-based Youth Social Entrepreneurship (YSE) programs in a 36-month capacity building evaluation and research study. Sundance defines YSE programs as youth-designed, youth-led embedded enterprises (i.e., businesses or community social initiatives) that provide work readiness to youth in high school ages 14–18.6 The work readiness curriculum includes: (1) social-emotional learning (SEL), (2) community and cultural engagement, and (3) the development of entrepreneurial thought, business, and work-readiness skills.7 The outcomes include increased youth personal agency, enhanced social capital, and portable skills for twenty-first-century careers. Nonprofit leaders initially resisted viewing their programs as workforce development rather than as youth development. However, over time, they agreed that the multifaceted definition of YSE included the individualized youth development objectives that were core to each of their programs. Uniting as YSE programs gave us common language and common goals. The final point in time study of eight YSE programs that served 1200 Black, Latinx, Asian, Indigenous youth and youth from low-income communities between 2016 and 2019. Most of the youth (81%) ranged in age from 14 to 17, with a range of ages 12–24. The average age was 16, with over half (55%) identifying as Black, African American, or African (Valorose, 2020). While all 12 nonprofits in this cohort had common goals (8 nonprofits at the end of 36-months in the 2020 report), few had been producing quantitative data that was evidence-based. Trying to help community-based organizations adapt their back offices to gather, manage, report data was always a vision for Paul Matteisch, President of Wilder Research, and one of the reasons they so enthusiastically stepped forward as our partner. We felt that there was an economy of scale: we could build the capacity of their back offices, gather evidence-based data, and absorb the cost for the cohort members. Trying to get more than a dozen organizations to adopt and implement new tools, collect data, set up and use an internal database, and produce blinded data to Wilder Research proved to be an unexpected and very large task. To accomplish this, Sundance: • Created peer learning groups that met at breakfast sessions with their laptops for tutorials

6

These enterprises are diverse: youth repair bicycles, build boats, make cookies, sell recycled clothing, raise and sell vegetables, or an incubator of youth-led businesses. 7 This model is based on the work of Dr. Melvin Delgado, Boston University (Delgado, 2004) and Dr. Tina Kruse, McAlster (Kruse, 2018).

130

P. Thomas et al.

• Created a Salesforce app8 so that the 7+ nonprofits that moved to Salesforce could easily store student demographic and process data for pre-, interim- and post-tests. • Organized several joint sessions to review logic model development, dashboards, generating reports, the use of data internally, and the presentation of data externally • Dispatched Individual researchers from Wilder Research to assist with data gathering support and to figure out how to integrate the data collection and reporting with evaluation requirements from other funders and contractors to avoid redundancy. The costs were significant and estimated to be about $10–13,000 per year over 3 years for each participating organization. With the implementation of these supports, the 36-month study helped to both gather evidence of the YSE model’s impact as well as boost the capacity of YSE programs to track and manage their impact. As part of the cohort evaluation, Wilder Research implemented two surveys for all programs: an existing survey from the US Department of Labor (DOL) for use by supervisors to capture youth’s work readiness abilities and a newly developed survey focusing on youth personal agency (Valorose, 2020). The use of the DOL’s Work Readiness Tool9 assessed youth on 12 skills consisting of: Attendance, punctuality, workplace appearance, taking initiative, quality of work, communication skills, response to supervision, teamwork, problem

8

The Salesforce program allows nonprofit managers to collect specific data about their youth. This data could be seen on a special student window that would list the pre-, interim- and post-survey data using the Youth Retrospective Survey and the Youth Workforce Readiness Survey modeled on the WIOA 2014 survey. It would also allow nonprofits to easily produce the blinded reports needed by the Wilder Researchers, while also producing internal reports that would allow managers to track the progress of individual students in 27 key areas. Creating an app for all partners using Salesforce ensured that the data from various fields was similar from one organization to another. Creating unique individual student indicators to track students into a blinded study became a significant need and challenge. It was something that had to be standardized across all these nonprofits, including those with other databases. 9 WOIA Workforce Readiness Tool Sources: Tool content and design is based on three general sources encompassing public study, private research, and practical local application. 1. US Dept. of Labor—ETA’s “ Building Blocks for Competency Models” http://www. careeronestop.org/CompetencyModel/pyramid_definition.aspx 2. Employer research collaboration of The Conference Board, Partnership for 21st Century Skills, Corporate Voices, & Society for HR Management includes online-accessible reports: “New Graduates’ Workforce Readiness”, “Are They Really Ready to Work?”, and “The Ill-Prepared US Workforce”. 3. Sample tool design is based most closely on the Massachusetts Work-Based Learning Plan (http://www.skillslibrary.com/wbl.htm). The Seattle King County’s Learning and Employability Profile, and other tools from the 2009 Summer Youth Employment Initiative under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act were also utilized. For more info, see: “Tips on Measuring Work Readiness” www.workforce3one.org/view/5000910643776065645/info

8

Identifying, Mapping, and Measuring the Impact of Youth Workforce. . .

131

solving/critical/thinking, workplace culture policy and safety, engagement in ‘something meaningful’, financial self-sufficiency, job application/employability skills. Overall, after 30 or more days of programming, staff observed improvement in 11 of 12 items measured (all except “attendance,” which was always good). On average, youth were proficient on 6.6 items at pre-assessment, increasing to 9.6 items at post-assessment. The largest improvement was in “quality of work,” in which 52% of youth improved and 36% who were not proficient at the time of the pre-assessment, demonstrated proficiency at the post-assessment. Staff reported that 30% or more of youth gained proficiency in problem solving/ critical thinking, taking initiative, and in communication skills. The proportion of youth proficient on these items at post-assessment was 27–30 percentage points higher than at the pre-assessment. Wilder Research staff developed a second tool, a Retrospective Survey for Youth to complete with pencil and paper, with an advisor or independently using a Survey Monkey or Google form. The survey consists of 14 items related to social-emotional strengths, relations with adults, and connections to community. Youth rate each item twice: once about how they felt before the program, and again at the time of program completion. Key findings in both the Wilder 2019 and 2020 studies guided learning in the areas of social/emotional development contributes significantly to youth developing work readiness skills. Staff ratings of youth’s social-emotional skill development was 23–29 percentage points higher than at the pre-assessment using a four-point scale. Youth self-ratings were also increased in the areas of feeling confident and part of the community, having an adult to talk to, and having future goals. Despite these positive findings, anecdotal evidence suggests that this stellar training does not by itself create pathways to careers or to the post-secondary education for which the majority of youth hoped. It is a key ingredient, but so much more is needed to launch and retain youth and young adults on a career pathway. In early 2020, we thought we were simply going to replicate this study with a group of organizations working with people ages 18–24. The events in the spring of 2020 made us realize that we were wrong.

The Earn and Learn Pathway Development In the Spring of 2020 Sundance launched its Earn & Learn initiative by selecting nonprofit grantee organizations connected to young adults ages 18–24 from Black, Latinx, Asian, Indigenous, and low income communities. While the YSE model was developed during a time of increasing opportunities for entry to work, the Earn and Learn model was developed in one of the bleakest economies. Unemployment skyrocketed, internships, entry-level jobs were closed. As discussed above, youth and young adults lost jobs, income, motivation and hope. Training programs were on hold.

132

P. Thomas et al.

In the previous YSE study, all elements of programming were under the same roof. In the Earn and Learn pathways model, youth could potentially move through 3–5 different nonprofits, training programs and employers. It became clear that we could not replicate what we had accomplished with what was happening to young adults during the pandemic, economic turndown, and racial reckoning. We switched from research to managing the development of career pathways. We made new partnerships, told stories of success through our Zoomerkammers10 and helped create new synergies all with youth and young adults at the center of our efforts.

Identifying the Community-Based Nonprofits Prior to 2020 attention to the needs of youth and young adults entering the workforce was emerging. In Minneapolis, the Anne E. Casey L.E.A.P program was being developed by Project for Pride in Living (PPL). In 2020 the JFF Foundation and Aspen began working with the Thrivent and Youthprise. The Greater Twin Cities United Way has financed a program through the White Bear School District. The Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry along with the Department of Employment and Economic Development were seeding Registered Apprenticeship grants, and pathway programs that included high schools and employers, and several other statewide grant initiatives. When the COVID pandemic hit, these and countless other efforts were greatly impacted. Genesys Works of St. Paul reported that of the 300 internship spots lined up for youth in March 2020, less than 100 remained in June of 2020. Almost all internships and summer positions for youth evaporated. This was further exacerbated with the civil unrest in the Twin Cities and the killing of George Floyd. Migizi, an Indigenous workforce development organization in Minneapolis with cultural support for youth was burned to the ground, along with hundreds of businesses and nonprofits in Minneapolis and St. Paul. Yet from the ashes came new synergies. Foundations, Chambers of Commerces, civic organizations, nonprofits and state agencies began to work together in ways that they had never done before. Weekly meetings were held to identify and support

10

Zoomerkammers by the Sundance Family Foundation at www.sundancefamilyfoundation.org/ zoomerkammers were an extension of the hands on Wunderkammers that we sponsored. Unlike classic job fairs, during these events youth and young adults were able to engage with technicians to try some of the skills that they might use in various careers. For example, they used various calipers to measure quality in materials, looked for defects using a microscope, tried welding using a virtual welder, counted back change, stacked boxes so they wouldn’t tip over in transit, and worked with police and fire fighters on CPR, walking a yellow link with “drunk goggles” and looking at equipment. During COVID Zoomerkammers because a way for youth and young adults to dialogue, or hear about these various positions.

8

Identifying, Mapping, and Measuring the Impact of Youth Workforce. . .

133

the community-based organizations and to try to keep them afloat as they moved to virtual platforms and greatly restructured their programs.11 Sundance partnered with the Ramsey County Workforce Development’s YouthWorks managed by the Suburban Ramsey Family Collaboration, Sundance was able to identify and provide an analysis of more than 150 youth-serving organizations. The county then provided more than 300 organizations more than $12–15 million in state and federal emergency assistance. Identifying and linking the organizations that created a specific youth workforce system (SDG 8.b.1) became a priority. We collectively needed to identify these organizations, particularly the ones working in racial and ethnic cultures and communities so that we could support the youth facing the largest barriers.

Mapping the Workforce Development Pathway to the SDGs West Central Initiative in MN was one of the very first US organizations to use the BCCIC.ca map. The Community Foundations of Canada having supported implementing the SDGs, (CFC, SDG Guidebook and Toolkit, 2020) had invited the West Central Initiative to join them (https://communityfoundations.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2019/04/CFC-SDG-Guidebook-and-Toolkit-FINAL.pdf). Over the course of 2020, WCI put 600 organizations in the West Central region of Minnesota on the International Movement Map using the 169 SDG targets. WCI arranged for Sundance staff to become trained by the BCCIC staff.12 In 2021, Sundance started mapping the Earn and Learn grant recipients who all identified SDG #8 as one of their goals. In conversation with each of the communitybased nonprofit leaders, and with guidance from the staff of WCI, and BCCIC these nonprofits were added to the Movement Map. The goal is to post 300 workforce development nonprofits by the end of 2021. (You can discover how well we are doing by going to the Movement Map at BCCIC.ca and viewing the entries in Twin Cities Minnesota.) Mapping allows Minnesota Careerforce personnel, workforce navigators, and school guidance counselors to discover resources for youth and young adults in their areas. Special efforts are underway to get this information to parents and Black, Latinx, Asian and Indigenous community leaders.

11

Urban Roots, an urban farming and conservation program in St. Paul revamped their programming to provide most of their urban harvest to the 53 summer students and their families. Youth were paid to bring food home and bring back recipes and documentation that they had cooked the meals with their families. 12 The inspiration to use The British Columbia Council on International Cooperation (BCCIC.ca) International Movement Map usend SDG targets as filters came from Dr. Anna Wasescha, President of the West Central Initiative (WCI) and Mark Ritchie, President of Global Minnesota (GlobalMN). Both are passionate champions of bringing the SDG framework to the United States—Mark Ritchie is using the SDG#3 to bring a World’s Fair to Minnesota in 2027.

134

P. Thomas et al.

Preparing for Impact Analysis With the launching of the new model, we want to be sure that we help nonprofits get prepared to provide yearly achievement data to attain the SDG targets, and that we reduce the reporting burden. The challenges to measuring success include: (1) the Minnesota Tennessen Warning and stringent data privacy laws (2) the ethics of data collection from community-based organizations and (3) the ability to gain and retain trust from communities weary of constant data demands by funders.

The Tennessen Warning in Minnesota and Its Implications for Cross-Sector Data Analysis The Minnesota Legislature in 2008 decided as a matter of principle that Minnesotans ought to be able to protect their personal data from the government. The Government Data Practices Act ss 13.01 (DPA) tries to implement that principle by requiring government entities, in most instances when they want to collect private or confidential data from an individual, to inform the individual of the following: • • • • •

Why the data are being collected. What uses will be made of the data. What other organizations will have access to the data. Whether the individual is legally required to provide the data. What the consequences are of providing or not providing the data.

Early in its history, this requirement received the name “Tennessen Warning”— named after former state Sen. Robert Tennessen, author of data practices legislation. The Tennessen Warning gives individuals the information they need to make an informed choice about surrendering the privacy of their personal data by providing it to the government. Additional statutory language limits the use and dissemination of the data to that described when the individual was asked to provide the data. For nonprofits receiving state grants or contracts, these data privacy protections are also enforced. When a person agrees to provide personal information that would help track them through a career pathway, they are entitled to know who is getting access to their information. However, as they begin to explore careers, they might not know what their pathway will be. As a result, if a nonprofit offers career exploration to youth or young adults and captures data, and that young person then goes to a post-secondary training institution, an internship, a job or apprenticeship or uses job retention supports, it cannot be assumed that they can be tracked from one entity to another. The ability to track youth from the start to the successful completion of their journey to middle-skills career opportunities will have to be developed as a youth specific workforce system is established.

8

Identifying, Mapping, and Measuring the Impact of Youth Workforce. . .

135

However, we also need data that would allow us to track young adults moving through career readiness partners. Enacted to provide data privacy, these protections might prevent us from discovering if youth fall out of this newly created workforce system. We will have to collectively discover ways to work with the Minnesota Data Privacy Act—the Tennessen Warning. Ensuring that all individuals are successful making this journey is unfortunately not an immediately achievable goal.

The Ethics of Data Collection from Community-Based Organizations In both the YSE study and the development of the Earn and Learn pathway we are constantly reminded about how important it is to listen to the youth, young adults and to the community and cultural leaders as they approve efforts to take and release data, even for the purpose of ultimately helping the youth and the nonprofits. Many low-income, unhoused, and formerly incarcerated youth and young adults face daunting and invasive questionnaires in every part of their lives. Gaining trust from young adults to implement what might be additional indicators requires that they have a say about information collected about them, and feel like they are guiding the programs created. Creating advisory teams with youth as members is an essential part of engaging community and cultural partners in a workforce system. Getting information to peer influencers within each cultural community is also key. These are additional expenses, they take additional staffing, and additional time. However, data gathering from low-income communities, Black, Latinx, Asian and Indigenous communities is changing and will not work without community ownership and direction. How do we ensure that no youth are left behind? One option may be to modify a folder system created by the Ramsey County Children’s Collaborative. This system was developed for parents with children needing mental health services. The vast amount of paperwork required for each intervention is challenging for many parents. Creating a system where all the information is stored and available allows the parent or youth to then provide what they feel is required. Creating a workforce process system similar to this, and one that will allow us to know if a youth has disconnected and needs additional support is a challenge to be faced.

Gaining Trust from Community-Based Nonprofit Leaders, Young Adults and Parents Philanthropic data gathering is changing rapidly in the Minneapolis, St. Paul, Twin Cities area as the result of the George Floyd murder. Funders such as Sundance are re-evaluating our need for and use of data and are beginning to acknowledge the

136

P. Thomas et al.

burden that it has been placing on grantees. A Listening Session by the Minnesota Council on Foundations showcased the revised data collection efforts of many foundations including Headwaters, Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation and Northland Foundation among others. Gathering any type of process data, even demographic data about youth served is a strain at this time. However, mapping the organizations by SDGs and assigning appropriate targets allows us to enter into dialogue with community partners and parents. It provides them with usable information. And it is a vehicle to gain trust and create agency. Yes, it is important to track young adults. However, what is really needed is to track the elements of system change each cross-sector partner is willing to provide that allow young people to bring their whole selves to the workplaces. Are young Black, Latinx, Asian and Indigenous youth, and youth from low-income communities being ushered into sustainable career advancing opportunities. Is it assumed that the only careers they should have are low-income service sector jobs? Are we valuing the time and talents of our youth as part of rebuilding an ethical framework and creating a new moral compass with more opportunities for youth who we have underestimated or ignored? We have been losing youth because we have failed to build a specific youth workforce system that is accessible to them. Can they access resources using their cell phones? Can they get needed help in a short amount of time? Are they learning the social emotional tools needed to gain confidence and personal agency? Are they finding ways to connect to their communities and cultures as they enter new environments? Are we providing the community and cultural support that allow youth to know that they are not abandoning their heritages by entering predominantly white work environments? Are these environments becoming youth friendly and culturally welcoming places? These might be the real measurements of a workforce system.

Aligning with the SDGs The details of creating a youth specific workforce development system are set against the backdrop of the SDGs. The primary purpose of the United Nations’ SDGs is to balance the three dimensions of sustainable development—economic growth, environmental sustainability, and social inclusion. In 2015 the UN SDGs were adopted by all United Nations Member States as a call to action to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity by 2030. This framework of 17 goals, 169 targets and 236 indicators was designed over more than 15 years, to uncover and aggregate information in a manner that provides comparisons between disparate global and local areas. Indicators to track progress toward each goal are defined through global monitoring with suggestions for Complementary National Indicators. While used throughout Europe and Africa, these indicators have yet to be widely used in the United States and by nonprofits working to change public policies. An interpretation of these indicators specifically

8

Identifying, Mapping, and Measuring the Impact of Youth Workforce. . .

137

for US Cities can be found in Chapter 11 of Promoting the Sustainable Development Goals in North American Cities: Case Studies & Best Practices in the Science of Sustainability Indicators edited by Drs. David Abraham and Seema Iyer (2021).13 These adapted US indicators for cities and smaller geographic areas are commensurate with similar recommendations by Espey et al. (2018) and Schmidt-Traub et al. (2017). Figure 8.1 shows the alignment between Earn and Learn’s outcomes and the United Nations’ SDGs.

Measuring Progress We studied the indicators that the nonprofits were already using and added or aligned the new indicators to minimize the burden. As a result of reviewing the literature and the data provided by these nonprofits, we picked a condensed set of indicators which we could follow. This condensed set of indicators were predicated on the following: • The analysis was framed as a ‘representative’ Earn & Learn program. As each organization within the Earn & Learn model provides a different set of services with different (but often overlapping) outcomes, the outcomes achieved will vary from program to program and from participant to participant. This structure serves to identify those common indicators to which all players can contribute. • There were limited external evaluations of interventions that are specific to young adults age 18–24 with similar characteristics to Earn & Learn participants, and that fully reflects the sought after components of Earn & Learn: (1) Socialemotional learning, (2) community engagement and (3) workforce readiness. These three program features are considered to be the most essential components to the value proposition and especially when they are delivered together. Much of the rigorous external evaluations that exist are focused on workforce readiness and to varying degrees include elements of SEL and community engagement. As a result, this analysis extrapolated indicators for an understudied combination of services. However, the evidence base within each individual component is strong, providing greater certainty of the importance of associated indicators, but not necessarily an understanding of how the indicators interact. This lack of evidence also served as an opportunity to build a common logic model and identify

13

Thanks to the work of Drs. David Abraham and Seema Iyer, Sundance recognized its alignment with United Nations Sustainable Development Goal #8, which promotes inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all. Creating this pathway, at the Community Indicators Consortium National Conference in 2016 in Twin Cities, may prove be the solution that the Minnesota Council of Higher Education was needing to attain their goal of 70% of Minnesotan’s ages 25–44 having a post-secondary certificate or degree by 2025 (Hermida, 2018).

Fig. 8.1 Earn and Learn’s alignment with the UN SDGs

138 P. Thomas et al.

8

Identifying, Mapping, and Measuring the Impact of Youth Workforce. . .

139

common KPIs that organizations may measure in the future until further learnings identify other KPIs. • A manual method of clustering of program characteristics was utilized to group similar Earn & Learn grantees with other external programs that have been rigorously studied. Using this method it was possible to highlight program features to align the evidence base with local organizations and help predict key indicators to track going forward. For example, utilization of additional youth work development frameworks and program dimensions of impact served to sort organizations by their unique characteristics. The Earn and Learn Pathway to Middle Skills Careers (Earn and Learn) using the SDG 8.b.1 as its Theory of Change became a shared document grouping the most significant elements into four key areas: (1) Career Exploration (2) Short-Term Education and Training with Paid Filed Internships (3) Job Placement with on-thejob training or apprenticeships (4) Job Retention with mentoring and crisis supports. This path is anticipated to take 3–5 years from the start of short-term skills training (Fig. 8.2). The pathway provides young adults with entry-level nationally recognized and portable certificates. Articulating or laddering stackable certificates into 2- and then 4-year degree programs by technical and community colleges will significantly advance this impact plan.

Estimating the Collective Social Return on Investment (SROI) The SROI helps identify those key individual level metrics that signal impact and that can be tracked across participating Earn and Learn organizations as noted in Fig. 8.3. This impact at the individual level is then a catalyst to quantify the types of community, regional and eventually global changes the SDGs were developed to measure. For example, the key metrics that drive value creation in the monetized outcomes of this SROI projection include: • • • •

Annual increase in earnings Proportion of youth receiving benefits with their job Cost of hiring for employers Increased job retention

These metrics at the individual level, when aggregated across many individuals, can lead to the target metric of reduced number of opportunity youth in the Twin Cities area. Through multiple milestones we discussed and identified the key components representative of an Earn & Learn organization with which to build the SROI around. These included those program features that will ultimately become the focus and developed by service providers. This information was coupled with a secondary analysis.

Fig. 8.2 Middle skills career pathway

140 P. Thomas et al.

Identifying, Mapping, and Measuring the Impact of Youth Workforce. . .

141

Fig. 8.3 Impact Map

8

142

P. Thomas et al.

Evidence-based key performance objectives to drive social value creation and support the realization of the SDGs were amassed. We believe that these performance objectives can serve as the universal metrics for any organization using this Earn and Learn pathway. They are identified for their alignment with the research base, the potential ease of measuring and tracking, and are measured at the level of the individual participating in the program. The accumulation of these individual level changes serves as the microfoundations for moving the needle of the SDGs. Following this process, it is estimated that for every $1 contributed to Sundance Family Foundation’s Earn & Learn program, there is a projected $3.50 social return on investment (SROI) in present value to participating youth, society, employers and taxpayers.14 Ecotone’s process of developing an SROI analyzes and combines external literature of the highest level of evidence of causality with internal organization data to quantify and project the potential value of an organization’s impact while identifying the people and entities to whom the benefits accrue. Benefits to different stakeholders can be viewed on the Impact Map in Fig. 8.3. Outcomes monetized include: • Increased earnings and fringe benefits associated with those earnings (e.g. health care, PTO, etc.) for youth • Reduced recidivism/justice involvement for youth • Improved Mental and Emotional Health/Reduced substance use by youth • Reduced use of Public Assistance by youth • Foregone earnings from program participation for youth • Increased job retention/reduced hiring costs for employers While the SROI can be difficult to compare across organizations, particularly in different sectors, it can help to identify those aspects of the program that can be managed to maximize impact. The SROI can become that roll-up internal accounting tool to understand organizational impact, recognize value pathways, track KPIs, understand key assumptions and seek new learnings.

Assessing Where the Benefits Accrue An important component of the Fig. 8.3 Impact Map is the right hand side which details to whom the benefits accrue—those stakeholders receiving a monetized benefit and the proportion of the total benefits they realize. In order to estimate the SROI to each stakeholder previously noted, we must estimate the extent each outcome affects the relevant stakeholder. While the total SROI is projected at approximately $3.50, the leading beneficiary is the 18–24 year old participating in the Earn and Learn pathway through increased

14

Note: Overview with full discussion in paper that can be downloaded from www. sundancefamilyfoundation.org/earnandlearn

8

Identifying, Mapping, and Measuring the Impact of Youth Workforce. . .

143

earnings and improved health. This results in a return to the youth of $1.62 for every dollar spent by an Earn and Learn organization. Other significant stakeholders include taxpayers, society and employers who are each projected to receive approximately $0.80, $0.26 and $0.79 for every dollar spent. This suggests that taxpayers and employers are large, indirect beneficiaries of Earn & Learn services and may serve as a valuable partner and funder to further the work of Earn & Learn. There are of course many other potential stakeholders directly or indirectly impacted by the Earn & Learn pathway, however our ability to attach monetized value to their impact is currently limited by the available evidence. This should not however belittle the potential importance of value to them. Two prominent stakeholders we note are: • Second Generation—the children of the youth participating in Earn & Learn • Loved Ones—the family and friends of the youth participating Both of these stakeholders can benefit from the earnings, health, stability, and wealth creation the participating 18–24 year old may experience.

Aggregating Data from Multiple Sources Using a Logic Model The Earn and Learn logic model is a generalized template that has the core elements needed for a robust youth development system. It can be tailored to focus on the specific tasks that an organization can take as a link in the chain. Each partner organization in the YSE study and in this Earn and Learn pathway has their own unique logic model that feeds into the Earn and Learn logic model. Logic models are not new for nonprofits or programs. However, coordinating one that accounts for many variables for a group of cross-sector partners is challenging. The logic model also serves to help find the easiest way to aggregate indicators that support the SDGs and put them in a structured digestible format not only to frame those being tracked by a given program but also to help other organizations recognize how they may help support those indicators or address barriers to achieving those indicators. While each of these outcomes can be aligned with evidence, the level of evidence varies considerably. The use of the logic model became the means for identifying what metrics would be either common across organizations, and so could be quickly summarized, or could be put into a causal chain so that the work of each organization could quickly be connected to that of others within the Earn and Learn pathway. This then serves to create a common understanding of how specific strategies being implemented by each organization serve to propel each other, such that where one organization builds short-term outcomes for youth just beginning the pathway, another organization is equipped to extend those short-term outcomes towards intermediate outcomes in the logic model, supporting youth on their 3–5 year Earn and Learn pathway. Figure 8.4 shows a distilled logic model of Earn and Learn to help create a shared recognition of how each organization relates to one another, all designed to address SDG 8.b.1.

Fig. 8.4 The Earn and Learn logic model with the theory of change

144 P. Thomas et al.

8

Identifying, Mapping, and Measuring the Impact of Youth Workforce. . .

145

Key Performance Indicators Impacting the SDGs The KPIs serve as the lead and lag indicators of the social value being generated by Earn & Learn pathway and are those KPIs that programs can manage for themselves as appropriate. The KPIs for Impact Tracking (Table 8.1) serve as a baseline for identifying the outputs and outcomes of Earn & Learn. These are noted for their role as a signal for value creation (expanding on those noted above that are derived from monetization of outcomes) although some may be more difficult to reliably quantify and track. The KPIs are those performance metrics tracked by Earn and Learn organizations, which are nested under and influence the community indicators which themselves are associated with the SDG target metrics. Scale KPIs are both the outputs and the subsets of outputs that can be used to signal the scale of impact of Earn & Learn. Quality KPIs are those incremental improvements that can be used to predict impact per young adult. Target KPIs were also estimated by both reviewing Sundance’s previous (YSE) program as well as external literature. While the YSE program included youth ages Table 8.1 KPIs for impact tracking Scale KPIs # of youth served

Target >200

# of certifications/credentials received # of youth entering one of the five target industries

>35%+ of total** >35% of total**

# of days youth engaged with Earn & Learn on average # of hours of work experience provided # of placements # of apprenticeships Months of job retention

~114*

# of grantees

–

$ provided by Sundance

–

*

Quality KPIs Proportion of youth who improved on social-emotional and personal agency development Proportion of youth who improved on community and social connectedness Proportion of youth who improved on work readiness and professional skills development Proportion of youth who report benefitting from mentorship and job connectedness

Target >40%*

–

Increase in earnings

>25%**

– – –

Median Wage of Youth Placed Increase in employment rates Increase in participating youth with a certification/additional credential Proportion of youth with retention rates greater than 6 months Proportion of youth who continue in the same industry after 1 year Proportion of youth who maintain continuous employment Increase in health behaviors and improved lifestyles

$17+** >50%** –

From YSE evaluation Estimate based on results seen in secondary research

**

>40%* >40%* >50%

– – – –

146

P. Thomas et al.

14–18, the core elements of SEL, community engagement and work readiness remain the same as Earn & Learn, suggesting potential transferability of impact estimations. However, the barriers experienced by youth ages 18–24 may be larger than those of YSE youth, introducing some uncertainty to the target KPIs. As Earn & Learn is still in the early stages of development, many target KPIs are currently uncertain given the effects of COVID-19 on the number of youth and young adults potentially served. However, with the quality KPIs that note the proportional change experienced by each youth or young adult on average, there are some initial signals from both Sundance’s experience with the YSE program and external literature that support the selection of these indicators. Initial KPIs are preliminary reference points for the magnitude of change that could occur. Future KPI development will benefit from understanding why the change generated from Earn & Learn differs, if at all, from earlier research with YSE nonprofits and other external programs. Unfilled KPIs are those that may help to understand the impact of the program but there is currently little evidence to inform what those figures might be and efforts to address them may not be feasible or appropriate at this time. To help communicate how the micro-level changes a part of the Earn and Learn model will feed up to the macro-level SDGs, Table 8.2: Linking Earn & Learn KPIs to the UN SDGs notes the bottom up impact structure, such that a macro-level goal is the starting point (in this case the Theory of Change), from which regional, local, household, and program lead/lag indicators can be ascertained—with the program lead and lag indicators being those that are identified through the SROI impact analysis. As a part of the analysis, several factors were noted that can influence the size of the indicator as well. These can be used to inform program design, while noting that a more rapid increase in certain indicators may counteract the rise of other indicators. For example, short-term job placement indicators that grow too rapidly may offset the skills development indicators needed for long-term value creation. Table 8.3 notes some of the key program management factors discovered through the analysis that influence key metrics noted above. Again, given the review of secondary research, these relationships are already recognized without putting an additional reporting burden on the participating organizations. The culmination of our research questions in tandem with the learning process to develop the Earn and Learn model, the legal preconditions that shape the type of impact analysis that would be feasible, and deep awareness of social context have collectively shaped our performance management process.

Non-profit partners

Organization Sundance Foundation

# of grants made

# of youth served

# of hours of support, training and work experience received # of youth employed and in career pathway # of youth in an educational program # of credentials received

Support on impact measurement and management, data collection and tracking

Career exploration

Short-term training

Funding

Internship and mentoring

Job placement and apprenticeship Job retention supports

Technical skills

Professional networks

Supportive, safe learning environment Use of cohort model

Outputs # of participating organizations

Activities Support portfolio of options for youth

Inputs Partnerships and strategy

Table 8.2 Linking Earn & Learn KPIs to the UN SDGs

Social-emotional development, social connectedness, work readiness, certificates attained, mentorship

Employment rate, poverty rate, wage gap, education gap, legal protections, environmental quality, industry growth, unfilled jobs, median wage, educational attainment, infrastructure Schools and education opportunities, public services, transportation, safety, business ownership, access to credit, housing cost burden, homeownership Earnings, education, health, wellbeing, wealth, home stability, social capital, social network Job retention, change in employment, change in earnings, recidivism, change in health

Nested indicator sets tied to Earn and Learn SDGs 1, 3, 4, 8, 10

Earn & Learn lead indicators

Individual/ household indicators Earn & Learn lag indicators

Local community indicators

Level of indicator Global indicators (SDGs) Regional indicators

Progression from Global KPIs down to program specific KPIs

8 Identifying, Mapping, and Measuring the Impact of Youth Workforce. . . 147

148

P. Thomas et al.

Table 8.3 Program Components and participant needs can influence the expectations associated with indicators Factors affecting impact generated Amount of time in career exploration Orientation towards permanent employment/career Certification and OJT Educational orientation (certificates vs. degrees) Job placement focus Stabilization needed/housing support provided On-ramp needed Focus on 18–24 year olds (in programs that serve all ages, older age groups tend to have larger earnings gains)

Lessons Learned The disparities in Minnesota are still significant. The collaborations developed during the trifecta of the pandemic, economic downturn and racial reconciliation may be the key to rapidly assist young adults in attaining careers that will sustain their families. Getting underestimated youth, youth from low-income communities and youth from Black, Asian, Latinx and Indigenous communities engaged relies upon trust, cooperation, and mentoring over a period of 3–5 years as they develop and deploy their skills. These efforts may then improve disparities and increase equity and equality in systems of education, finance and workforce development. It is important to include and listen to the youth, young adults and to the nonprofit leaders as together they approve of the indicators and demographics that will both help the youth and the nonprofits. Many low-income, un-housed, and formerly incarcerated youth and young adults face daunting and invasive questionnaires in every part of their lives. Gaining trust from young adults requires that they have a say about information collected about them, and that they feel like they are guiding the programs they help create. Community advisory teams are an essential part of continuing this model. Lessons Learned include: • Creating and maintaining unique and non-linear infrastructures of youth specific workforce development systems while collecting longitudinal assessments across vastly different kinds of organizations and then aggregating data to comply with the SDGs requires collective agreements that must be reinforced periodically by strengthening relationships. • Empowering charismatic community and cultural leaders to become long term mentors may be the key to success for this new model. These passionate people— volunteers or professionals—need help, resources, networks and connections. We must build on the enthusiasm and support of our Black, Asian, Latinx and Indigenous leaders as they bring new ideas to industry, manufacturing, trades, and corporate employers.

8

Identifying, Mapping, and Measuring the Impact of Youth Workforce. . .

149

• Mental health supports, cultural supports, and well-being need to be incorporated into this new workforce paradigm for youth and young adults, mentors, and employers. Gone are the days where training and initial job placements are the only services provided. That previous system dramatically failed youth from low-income communities, Black, Latinx, Asian and Indigenous youth, and left many bright people disconnected from school and work. • Consider the reporting and data collection burden on community nonprofits. While we have a particular focus around the disparities in our selected indicators, we must realize that this data came out of nonprofits which may need financial and technical support to build their ability to gather, report and use data. Foundations and contractors have not put the money into helping nonprofits gather the information that they need to analyze their programs and capture long term changes. • Monitor the progress of each individual young adult through multiple organizations on journeys strictions. If they drop out, these young adults must be provided the resources need to regain their ability to achieve sustainable careers that can support their families and aspirations. However, tracking them from career exploration to success through multiple entities will be a challenge. • Support efforts to enroll adults with no college experience and re-engage adults with some college but no credential. • Ladder credential credits to degrees: post-secondary institutions are identifying and promoting “direct to work” credential programs (like welding) where learners are very specific in their interests. Yet, customized credentials, and most other credentials don’t always ladder into degrees or additional college programs. • Fund emerging career pathways, or what are also called “youth friendly career paths”. These include career readiness programs that naturally guide social emotional learning and community or cultural engagements. These two elements build youth personal agency, leadership and social capital. • Tie WIOA government funding and philanthropic initiatives together in creative ways. While philanthropic dollars are often fewer than 10% of the total, they can be very strategic, and be used to bring mental health, crisis or other supports.

Conclusion This chapter has shown the unique and non-linear progression of a performance management system for the Earn and Learn pathway. It begins from the identification of need, leverages the experiences, informing the responses, and is shaped by the social and cultural context of the communities. It is informed by the legal and ethical considerations required to understand how performance may be appropriately assessed, and finally, utilizes a prospective identification of indicators to map and guide the understanding of impact Earn and Learn can create while minimizing the burden on participating organizations (and in the process creating communication materials for them).

150

P. Thomas et al.

More specifically, this chapter demonstrates how the SDGs indicators and goals can be used to: Identify nonprofits by their SDG targets; Create a Movement Map for organizations citing the SDG goal #8; Organize data and measurement across a long duration of time (3–5 years); Align multiple partners to create a specific workforce development system, and; Become informed by both external and previously conducted evaluations. It also offers recommendations for putting more young adults from low-income communities, and Black, Asian, Latinx and Indigenous young adults into the workforce while they Earn and Learn. Each participating partner organization may have its own unique environment, but they agree to work for the common good—in this case SDG 8.b.1 to create a specific youth workforce development system. The SDG 8.b.1 works well as a theory of change, and as a standardized indicator set will allow these diverse partners to aggregate data and reveal their collective impact. Philanthropic partners, and policymakers can then assist the communities as they position themselves to attain many of the key goals and strategies outlined in the SDGs. The social costs for not supporting opportunity youth and underestimated youth is very large. The costs of being disconnected are not immediately apparent but grow over time creates increasingly large divides. Lewis and Gluskin (2018) note that median family incomes for connected and disconnected youth 3–5 years after being disconnected are not statistically different. However, 13–15 years later, differences become significant with earnings disparities of around $31,000 per year for those who were disconnected for 2 years versus those who were not (Lewis & Gluskin, 2018). Belfield et al. (2012) note that after each opportunity youth reaches 25, they will subsequently impose a future lifetime social burden of approximately $530,000. Much of the social costs are not incurred during the 18–24 year old period when engaging with Earn and Learn, but occur in the ages 25–65, further emphasizing the importance of reaching youth before they reach the age of 25. Earn and Learn pathways depend upon the creation of a continuum of mentoring and support for young adults ages 18–24 as they move from stage to stage to attain a middle-skills career. These middle skill careers have the potential to sustain families, and to provide opportunities to advance and learn. Obtaining Nationally recognized and portable entry-level credentials allow young adults to become employed while moving towards a satisfying career. This pathway will take them through a number of nonprofits, training programs, internships, apprenticeships, employers and governmental units. Credentials may be articulated or stacked to allow recipients to obtain their 2- and 4-year degrees. The pandemic has allowed us to move from “doing the study” to “creating a system”. The system starts with developing trust and relationships and ends with measuring. Creating these steppingstones and handoffs from one organization or post-secondary institution to another may alleviate some of the problems which displaced or opportunity youth currently face. Yet, at this point we don’t have a solution for how we can best monitor youth moving through this system within the Minnesota Tennessen Data Privacy Act. As a result, even with a coordinated youth workforce system we might still risk having the most vulnerable youth fall away, become unnoticed, and end up not being in school or work. More work is needed to find ways to track individual youth through this non-linear process.

8

Identifying, Mapping, and Measuring the Impact of Youth Workforce. . .

151

References BCCIC SDG Guidebook and Toolkit for Community Foundations, Community Foundations of Canada. (2020). https://communityfoundations.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/CFCSDGGuidebook-and-Toolkit-FINAL.pdf Belfield, C., Levin, H., & Rosen, R. (2012). The economic value of opportunity youth. Civic Enterprises and W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Burd-Sharps, S., & Lewis, K. (2013). One in seven: Ranking youth disconnection in the 25 largest metro areas. Measure of America of the Social Science Research Council SSRC. Chetty, R., Grusky, D., Hell, M., Hendren, N., Manduca, R., & Narang, J. (2017). The fading American dream: Trends in absolute income mobility since 1940. Science, 356(6336), 398–406. Delgado, M. (2004). Social youth entrepreneurship: The potential for youth and community transformation. Greenwood Publishing Group. Espey, J., Dahmm, H., & Manderino, L. (2018). Leaving no U.S. city behind: The 2018 U.S. cities SDGs index. Sustainable Development Solutions Network. Fergus, M. (2020). Educating for the future: Update 2020. Minnesota Office of Higher Education. Fry, R., & Barbaroso, A. (2020, August 6). Amid coronavirus outbreak, nearly 3 in 10 young people are ‘disconnected’. Stateline Magazine. National Conference of State Legislatures. https://www. ncsl.org/bookstore/state-legislatures-magazine/covid-19-nearly-3-in-10-young-people-are-dis connected-magazine2020.aspx García, E., & Weiss, E. (2017). Report: Education inequalities at the school starting gate: Gaps, trends, and strategies to address them WDC; Economic Policy Institute found at https://www. pei.org/publication/education-inequalities-at-the-school-starting-gate/#epi-toc-20 Hermida, A. (2018). Educating the future. Minnesota Office of Higher Education. Kruse, T. P. (2018). Making change: Youth social entrepreneurship as an approach to positive youth and community development. Oxford University Press. Leibert, A. (2021). How the deck is stacked: Racial and ethnic disparities in earnings following High School Graduation in Minnesota. https://mn.gov/deed/newscenter/publications/trends/ march-2021/deck-is-stacked.jsp Lewis, K. (2022). Understanding youth disconnection in the age of coronavirus. In F. Ridzi, C. Stevens, & L. Wray (Eds.), Community quality-of-life indicators: Best cases IX (pp. 105–124). Springer. Lewis, K. (2019). Making the connection: Transportation and youth disconnection. Measure of America. Social Science Research Council. Lewis, K., & Gluskin, R. (2018). Two futures: The economic case for keeping youth on track. Measure of America. Social Science Research Council. Olson, E., & Dirtzu, B. (2021). Ramsey County workforce solutions youth employment real time talent. https://www.ramseycountymeansbusiness.com/media/userfiles/subsite_133/files/work force/3_2021_RC_YouthEmployment.pdf Ross, M., Showalter, T., & Bateman, N. (2021). https://www.brookings.edu/blog/theavenue/2021/02/26/americas-young-people-need-jobs-the-federal-government-should-pay-forthem/ Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Teksoz, K., Durand-Delacre, D., & Sachs, J. D. (2017). National baselines for the Sustainable Development Goals assessed in the SDG Index and Dashboards. Nature Geoscience, 10(8), 547–555.

152

P. Thomas et al.

Schwandt, H., & Von Wachter, T. (2018). Unlucky Cohorts; estimating the long-term effects of entering the labor market in a recession in large cross-sectional data sets. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. 25141. https://doi.org/10.3386/w25141 Valorose, J. (2020). Evaluation of twin cities youth social entrepreneurship programs: Results from a point-in-time research study of eight YSE programs. Sundance Family Foundation. Watson, D., Lantos, H., Villatoro, S., & Rackers, H. (2020). Behind the numbers: What the latest opportunity index tells us about our communities. The Form for Youth Investment. https:// forumfyi.org/blog/behind-the-numbers/ Wheaton, J. (2019). Minnesota can lead the way in bridging the skills gap. Star Tribune. https:// www.startribune.com/minnesota-can-lead-the-way-in-bridging-the-skills-gap/510404042/

Peg Thomas, Executive Director of the Sundance Family Foundation manages its operations and initiatives, provides strategic program guidance to the board, mentors interns, and provides both grants management and technical support to grantees. Peg holds an MPA from Harvard Kennedy School, an MS in Therapeutic Recreation and Administration from the University of Minnesota, an MPP in Business from the Carlson School of Business, and a BS in Music Therapy also from University of Minnesota (with coursework from UConn, Napa Jr. College and University of California San Diego).

William Nielsen is a Senior Economist with Ecotone Analytics, an impact accounting organization that does benefit-cost analysis for clients’ social and environmental impacts. Will holds an MPA from Cornell University and a BS in applied economics from the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities.

Timothy Roman is co-founder and CEO of Ecotone Analytics. Tim has an MBA from Carlson School of Business at the University of Minnesota, where he studied integrative leadership and stakeholder collaboration for social and environmental impact. He has consulting experience in business modeling, organizational design, and process improvement for social enterprise, as well as 12 years of IT experience, from coding to department management.

8

Identifying, Mapping, and Measuring the Impact of Youth Workforce. . .

153

Stephanie Shekels is a Senior Analyst with Ecotone Analytics. Stephanie analyzes research and collaborates with our Senior Economist to build the evidence base for the impact value map. She also helps clients understand and communicate their impact through the creation of the Impact Overview. She brings experience in sustainable land and food systems, and has a BA in Chemistry from Washington University in St. Louis.

Chapter 9

Something Real and Lasting: What to Expect from a Citizen-Led Sustainable Community Indicators Project (SCIP) Noel Keough

Abstract In 1992, the Rio Earth Summit ratified Local Agenda 21, a companion document to Agenda 21 focused on local action. Embedded in both documents, was the call to develop new metrics to measure progress toward sustainable development. In 1996, taking up the challenge of Agenda 21, a group of citizens created Sustainable Calgary to identify and report on, a set of social, ecological and economic indicators of sustainability for the city of Calgary. This paper identifies six broad personal, community and policy outcomes based on an analysis of interviews with 32 citizen-participants. First, the initiative contributed to a process of transformational learning and sustainability literacy. Second, the project provided a benchmark for sustainability—raising the bar for creating tools for, and taking action on, sustainability in Calgary. Third, the project contributed to an enabling environment for sustainability and nurtured a cross-sectoral sustainability network. Fourth, the project influenced local government policy actors, structures and initiatives. Fifth, the project demonstrated the appetite for, and efficacy of, more participatory and inclusive democratic processes. Finally, the project demonstrated the power and sophistication of citizen-led initiatives to design and carry out complex public engagement processes and research and analysis on issues of public concern. Keywords Sustainability · Indicators · Community · Urban · Evaluation · Community indicators

Introduction In 1992, the Rio Earth Summit ratified Agenda 21, a global agenda for tackling the twin crises of poverty and environmental degradation. Local Agenda 21 was a companion document specifically focused on local action in support of the same goal. Embedded in both documents, was the call to develop new metrics to measure

N. Keough (*) Sustainable Calgary Society, Calgary, AB, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 F. Ridzi et al. (eds.), Community Quality-of-Life Indicators, Community Quality-ofLife and Well-Being, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06940-6_9

155

156

N. Keough

progress toward sustainable development (Keough & Ghitter, 2021). In 1996, taking up the challenge of Agenda 21, a group of citizens created Sustainable Calgary to identify and report on, a set of social, ecological and economic indicators of sustainability for the city of Calgary. Between 1998 and 2020, five State of Our City Reports featuring 40 indicators of sustainability, were published as part of Sustainable Calgary’s Community Sustainability Indicator Project (Sustainable Calgary, 2021). Over 2000 Calgarians participated in the identification, research and documentation of this suite of indicators. This paper reports the findings from an analysis of interviews with 32 citizens who participated in the indicator project in an effort to determine significant personal and community outcomes. Since 1992 hundreds of local indicator projects have emerged with the goal of integrating social, environmental and economic indicators. Many, particularly in Europe, emerged as a core element of formal Local Agenda 21 initiatives (Norland et al., 2003). Other community indicator initiatives emerged under the heading of quality of life, (JCCI, 2021) or wellbeing (CIW, 2021). The unique feature of sustainability indicators is the explicit recognition that human communities are first and foremost, inescapably bound by the biophysical realities of our finite planet and how we organize ourselves socially and economically cannot transgress that ecological reality (Rees, 1997, 2019). The most well-known of these sustainability indicator projects in North America is probably Sustainable Seattle. What was relatively novel about the Sustainable Seattle process was its citizen-led character (Atkisson, 1999; Holden, 2006). It is probably more common for indicator initiatives to be local government-led with contributors to the process being either in-house experts and/or groups of invited stakeholders tasked with representing or championing their interests in the process. Sustainable Calgary’s initiative was inspired by Sustainable Seattle, and was likewise citizen-led (Keough, 2005). Early on, a debate emerged as to whether these initiatives should be led by local governments. Most prominently Jeb Brugmann (1997a, 1997b) argued in the affirmative, while writers like Pinfield (1997) challenged Brugmann’s local government led hypothesis. Other authors have attempted to determine the role indicator projects play in changing worldviews, behaviour and policy (Gahin et al., 2003; Middlemiss, 2011; Bell & Morse, 2001; Rydin et al., 2003). The Sustainable Community Indicator Project (SCIP) outcomes can be grouped into six broad categories. First, the initiative contributed to a process of transformational learning for many of the participants. Interviewees experienced a significant increase in their sustainability literacy. Second, the project provided a benchmark for sustainability—raising the bar for understanding, creating tools for, and taking action on, sustainability in the city of Calgary and beyond. Third, the project contributed to the creation of an enabling environment for sustainability and nurtured a sustainability network across civil society, local government, the private sector and citizens. Fourth, the project achieved greater resonance among local government policy actors, structures and initiatives. Fifth, the project demonstrated the appetite for, and value and efficacy of, more participatory and inclusive

9

Something Real and Lasting: What to Expect from a Citizen-Led. . .

157

democratic processes. Finally, the project demonstrated the power and sophistication of citizen-led initiatives to design and carry out complex public engagement processes and research and analysis on issues of public concern.

SCIP Research Methodology and Process Participatory Action Research Participatory Action Research (PAR) is an approach to research that seeks to illuminate individuals’ self-understanding, offer a critical analysis of social reality, and marshal that understanding and analysis for the political task of social transformation (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000). PAR aims to transform both theories of society and social practices, and to illuminate both individuals’ subjective understanding of themselves and the objective social reality they find themselves immersed in (Fals Borda, 1979; Horton & Freire, 1990; Gadotti, 1994; Keough, 1998; Chambers, 1997, 2010). PAR is a method of collective research wherein the traditional researcher joins forces with laypersons to conceive of, design, and carry out research into some social phenomenon. The collective also analyzes and acts upon findings of the research. PAR breaks with the positivist tradition of the objective researcher, who stands apart from the phenomenon being researched. The people of the community where the research is being undertaken are not seen as objects of research but as subjects fully engaged in the research process. PAR is a pragmatic research approach. It has a problem-centred focus concerned with understanding a problem in order to resolve it; a commitment on the part of both researcher and researched to a process of learning in dialogue; and respect for the non-researchers’ capability and potential to produce knowledge and analyze it. The SCIP is unique in that the instigators of the process, the founders of Sustainable Calgary, identified as citizen-researchers. As founders (author included), we were citizens acting out of a sense of empowerment, taking control of processes affecting our lives and inviting other citizens to join our efforts.

Project Framework and Process For the first year, the sustainability indicator working group focused its efforts on researching community indicator projects and the relevant literature; networking with a diverse group of individuals and organizations throughout the city; mapping out a public process for indicator selection and reporting; selecting a set of indicator criteria and relevant domains; defining key terms including sustainability, indicator and citizenship and our mission, objectives and principles.

158

N. Keough

The work of Sustainable Calgary has been guided by five sustainability principles. First, a sustainable community maintains or enhances its ecological integrity and lives in harmony with the natural world. Second, a sustainable community promotes social equity. Each and every citizen is afforded access to the benefits and opportunities that a community has to offer without social or economic discrimination. Third, a sustainable community provides the opportunity for meaningful work and livelihood for all citizens. Fourth, a sustainable community encourages democratic participation of all citizens. Fifth, a sustainable community acts responsibly in its relations with all other communities in the global village. In 1997 our public process was launched with a city-wide workshop attended by over 100 people. The sustainability indicator concept was introduced and the process for selection, research and reporting on the indicators presented and discussed. At the end of the workshop participants self-selected for one of the five domain working groups. Over a 6-week period these groups reviewed all of the new indicator nominations that had come out of the public workshops and brainstormed additional indicators. At the final plenary workshop, all the domain groups convened, nominating a long list of ten indicators for each domain. Every workshop participant ranked the indicators and from that process the top 24 indicators were democratically chosen. Individuals were then invited to sign on to research teams for each of the selected indicators. After completing the 1998 report we identified segments of our community who were underrepresented in the process. These included youth, business, ethnic communities and the disabled. The 2001 process was adjusted to correct this shortcoming. As a result, the initial phase of the 2001 State of Our City Report consisted of a series of over 50 workshops geographically dispersed through the city and co-hosted by a variety of community organizations. Through this process an additional 12 indicators were added to the report. Similarly, in 2010, a governance domain, including four indicators, was added to the suite of indicators.1

Outcomes Research Approach While there is a lot of angst over the supposed ineffectiveness of indicator projects to affect change, research into the actual outcomes of these processes is lacking. Notable outcomes research includes the Pastille Project (Astleithner & Hamedinger, 2003) and Holden’s (2006) investigation of the Sustainable Seattle process. The purpose of the research reported in this paper is to understand the unique outcomes of a community-led sustainability indicator project. It is unique to other outcome research in that it is conducted by a participant in the initiative under study.

1

For more detail on the SCIP process see Keough, Noel (2005) The Sustainable Calgary Story: A Local Response to a Global Challenge, in Phillips, Rhonda (ed) Community Indicators Measuring Systems, Ashgate. P. 65–96.

9

Something Real and Lasting: What to Expect from a Citizen-Led. . .

159

The research investigated participants’ knowledge, experience and insights via four questions: 1. What was your experience of the indicator project? 2. What personal outcomes have resulted from your participation in the indicator project? 3. What community outcomes have resulted from the indicator project? 4. How could the process have been improved?

Interviewee Selection From the database of former participants 34 individuals were contacted and invited to participate in the research. Only two individuals declined to participate. The 32 interviews were wide-ranging discussions averaging 75–90 min. Interviews were taped for later reference so that the conversations would not be distracted by note-taking.

Demographic Profile Though the interview sample was not meant to be statistically significant, interviewees were asked to provide some basic demographic information so that a profile of the interviewees could be conveyed. The analysis of the demographic information revealed that there were an equal number of male and female interviewees. The average age of interviewees was 44 years and the average period of residence in Calgary was 25 years. On average, interviewees held between one and two postsecondary degrees. Twenty-eight of the 32 interviewees were Caucasian. Twenty percent of the interviewees live in new communities, 44% live in established communities, and 36% live in the inner city. Fifteen percent of interviewees live on the city’s east side, and 85% live on the west side.2 The intensity of involvement of interviewees in the indicator initiative ranged from three individuals who were co-founders of Sustainable Calgary to one individual who attended one workshop during the 2001 process.

2

This is a significant statistic as in Calgary the Deerfoot Divide is a well-known phenomenon. The Deerfoot Trail freeway is a physical separation of West Calgary from City Centre and West Calgary. The east side communities are generally more socio-economically marginalized and with a great number of new immigrants.

160

N. Keough

Analysis and Interpretation Several strategies are employed to ensure that the presentation, interpretation, and analysis of this report would satisfy the researcher, interviewees, and external reviewers that the research is in fact rigorous and that the findings are plausible and worthy of attention. The analysis is presented with limited interpretation of participants’ perspectives. Extensive quotations are used so that the voices of interviewees are heard as fully as possible. Multiple quotations are used for several of the findings in order to satisfy readers that the findings are consistent with a number of interviewees and not just one individual.

The How, the Who and the Why of Involvement in the Project How Did People Get Involved in the Sustainable Calgary Indicator Project? The interviewees who were long-time residents of Calgary heard about the project by word of mouth within their social, affinity, and work/study networks. A first-tier networking through social and affinity networks was strongly associated with the project’s sponsoring organization, the Arusha Centre for International Development Education. This first tier included groupings of individuals with a thematic interest—in this case community development, social justice, and environment. A second tier of networking encompassed local government, the University of Calgary, and to a lesser extent, the business community. Three interviewees, newcomers to the city, heard about the project as a result of personal searches—for example, on the Internet—to find opportunities to get involved in the city. Clearly, though the project did touch a diversity of sectors and geographic regions of the city, its reach was limited.

Why Did People Get Involved in the Sustainable Calgary Indicator Project? That Caring Citizen Thing

People got involved in the SCIP out of curiosity about the project, the desire to learn, the desire to contribute, and the belief that the project was leading edge and could make a difference and out of a sense of pride in where they live.

9

Something Real and Lasting: What to Expect from a Citizen-Led. . .

161

Curiosity Some interviewees were intrigued by the project itself: “it was interesting,” raised their “curiosity,” “piqued my interest,” or was able to “catch the imagination.” Bridgit said, “I was always curious about how you could accomplish such a big task.” Janet said, “I was curious and always interested in process personally and professionally.” For Conrad, the curiosity had to do with “the actual individuals involved. Everyone I talked to had some kind of an interesting take. It just brought together an interesting group of people.”

An Opportunity to Learn Beyond curiosity, some interviewees specifically identified the opportunity to learn as a motivating factor in their involvement. For instance, Bruce “got involved to learn more and to reflect all of the work Sustainable Calgary was doing against the city’s efforts for long-range planning.” Bill was excited about “the creation of local knowledge and the de-centering of expert knowledge. The involvement of community and citizens.” For Louise, “it was a great way to learn about sustainability and participatory grassroots initiatives.”

The Desire to Contribute Other interviewees got involved out of a desire “to contribute” or to “help out” with the project. John felt that it was “the right thing to do. . . . I thought I could contribute. . . . I had what I thought would be a different background than a lot of people involved, coming from an engineering background.” Reesa had previously been involved with the now dormant Calgary Eco-Centre: “We had stopped doing the [bioregional] calendar because it was too much to carry. But I was still looking for ways that the Eco-Centre could be out there. And I was really keen on pushing forward any kind of sustainability project.” For Kevin, “part of being in a sustainable community is being involved. You’ve gotta create that. Participation is the key to that kind of change. And at the time I was working on some relevant concepts that weren’t well known, storm water management type things, and I had a keen interest in that. . . and this was an opportunity for me to get involved.”

The Project’s Potential to Make a Difference Many of the interviewees were excited about the potential for the project to make a difference. Ron offered the opinion that “it struck me that this was very much an initiative to make change for the better . . . pushing the envelope. It was asking some tough questions that had never been asked before.” Rachel was interested in “the

162

N. Keough

potential of not just preaching to the converted. . . . How do you create that crosssectoral dialogue—a complexity of understanding . . . reaching across silos?” Marlino was attracted to the project because “it is very important to have an alternative.” One city employee commented, “I was sort of assigned to do this but when I got there, there was a lot of personal interest as well.”

Pride in Place Pride in place and a sense of the obligation of citizenship contributed greatly to interviewees’ motivations for participation in the SCIP. John saw it as “the right thing to do.” Joy stated, “I’m a native Calgarian and I have a lot of pride in the city.” Kevin talked about how “Calgary should be a great city.” Mahmoud said in a matterof-fact way that “the answer was simple. It’s part of our life.” Maya summarized this sentiment succinctly when she commented that she participated because of “that caring citizen thing.”

Who Participated in the Sustainable Calgary Indicator Project: And Who Did Not? “From people who didn’t know a single thing about sustainability to people who were experts in water management to experts in organic food production. - just a complete range of expertise and knowledge. . . ” Jake “A lot of people from different organizations, different ethnic groups, communities. . . young kids, women, seniors. A mix of people from different ages, organizations, immigrants, Canadians, people born here”. Mahmoud “I think the people that were missing were all of the people who neither know about nor truly care about the consequences of their actions towards the world as a whole. In others words— most Calgarians”. Louise “Maybe [missing] lower economic groups. And maybe higher economic groups. And people with less education. Most [participating] people were probably white-collar. Not a lot of people doing blue-collar jobs.”. Reesa

When public processes are designed to promote social change, the question often raised is whether the process has been able to reach beyond the ‘usual suspects’—the nebulous ‘mainstream’. The SCIP process did not meticulously track the diversity of those who participated, but interviewees’ subjective perceptions of who participated and who did not, is a good barometer of participant diversity. Overall interviewees felt the participants were a relatively diverse group within a sub-group that might be characterized as civic-minded, middle-class, professional, 30, 40, and 50-something’s for whom sustainability was not a totally foreign concept. Generally considered to have been under-represented were aboriginals, seniors, and to a lesser extent youth; people living in poverty, the business

9

Something Real and Lasting: What to Expect from a Citizen-Led. . .

163

community and the upper economic demographic; and people from the city’s northeast quadrant. It was also suggested that “decision-makers” and “a municipal champion” were missing. Though some interviewees did perceive significant diversity in the process, there was no consensus in how significant it was. We can say the boundaries were pushed—it was definitely not a homogenous group. In Conrad’s opinion, “We attracted a minority of Calgarians but within that minority they were not easily characterized.” Two vastly different thematic foci are useful lenses through which to examine the issue of participation—access and choice. In terms of access, interviewees recognized that individuals found themselves excluded from social processes due to ethnicity, age or economic means. Interviewees also commented on participation as a choice that some people make, and others do not.

Exclusion Due to Ethnicity, Age and Economic Means Opinion was mixed with respect to the ethnic and cultural diversity of participants. Some interviewees felt “there were limited visible minorities” or that participants were “predominantly white, representing a lot of what Calgary has been.” Other interviewees “seem to remember there was quite an . . . ethnic diversity as compared to the normal Calgary cross-section” or “more diversity than I anticipated.” There was more of a consensus that both youth and seniors were underrepresented. Marlino commented that “it would be interesting to have indicators through the prism of the youth. . . . They will be the next generation of stewards,” or “Seniors, what would sustainability be in their minds?” Economic means is an interesting lens to view participation. Both those living in poverty and those with economic power, were generally thought to be underrepresented. For example, Bruce wondered “do we reflect people with poverty?”. Bill offered that he’d “like to see more of the corporate patch.” Mark echoed that sentiment: I didn’t think the participants were representative of the business community. I thought some of the not-for-profit side of the world were well represented.... SC did a good job of getting the folks out that are looking at the areas impacted by high growth, but I don’t think they were able to get out the folks who actually create the growth.

The Civic-Minded, the Complacent and the Mainstream The second perspective on participation has to do more with choice then exclusion. Interviewees talked of the participation of the ‘civic-minded’, and the non-participation of the ‘complacent’ and ‘the mainstream’. The perceived civicmindedness of the participants was reflected in comments like those of John, “I think people were interested in and cared for the future,” or Kevin, who characterized

164

N. Keough

participants as “self-selectors” and “idealistic.” For Krista, those who participated were “people who felt like they really had something to say about their community.” Other descriptors of participants included “constructive,” “passionate,” “pleasant,” and “enthusiastic.” Bill offered an interesting insight in that the process engaged people for whom “the term ‘sustainability’ has been an attractor.” In Armbruster’s estimation, the project participants had “a strong predisposition to ecological preservation and social justice.” Without contradicting the civic-mindedness of participants, Louise remarked, “I think it was a lot of people as usual preaching to the converted. So especially if you are going to get people involved for the next step, it would be nice if you could get the more typical, industry, downtown, drive-to-work people and their opinions”. Or in Conrad’s words, “It excluded the complacent and the ignorant and the care-less people. And unfortunately, I would contend [they are] the majority of Calgarians.” Louise made this assessment of who was missing: “it’s always someone else’s job to get this world sorted out”. Pat expressed the view that perhaps there could have been more mainstream groups involved in the process: I felt it was very focused on the left-wing social justice kind of organizations. You would get more robust discussions if you had a better mix of people.

Although “preaching to the converted” is a characterization with some validity, Joy’s comments offer a counterpoint: I hope that I contributed, everyone brings their own opinions, but I think too a lot of time when people get together and talk about things they are already the converted, so I hope by being involved I was able to bring in a few others into the project who weren’t necessarily converted but kind of exploring. So being able to bring employees from an oil and gas company hopefully gave a little bit of that.

Significant Personal Outcomes Interviewees spoke with conviction about personal changes they had experienced as a result of their involvement in the indicators project. The most prominent change had to do with the inclusion of the social dimension into a more holistic and grounded understanding of the complexity of sustainability. A second major theme was the many dimensions of personal growth from a greater capacity for critical thinking to strong expressions of empowerment. Interviewees also reflected on behaviour change; increased capacity for sustainability advocacy; and skills for professional and career development.

9

Something Real and Lasting: What to Expect from a Citizen-Led. . .

165

Inclusion of the Social Dimension into a More Holistic and Grounded Understanding of the Complexity of Sustainability Something Real and Lasting

Interviewees reported a wide range of understanding of the sustainability concept prior to their involvement in the SCIP. Those understandings ranged from “that’s the first time I heard of the word” through “poor to nil,” “fairly basic,” and “reasonably high. . .I had read quite a bit,” to a “pretty high level knowledge.” Participation in the indicators project transformed interviewees’ perceptions of sustainability. Interviewees spoke about the limited perceptions they brought with them to the indicators project. For the majority sustainability was predominantly an ecological and to a lesser extent economic concept. Sustainability was seen as relevant only within a limited sphere of human activity. And it was a rather abstract concept with a relatively simple prescription for change. The indicator project encouraged interviewees to include the social dimension as an integral part of a more holistic and grounded understanding of the complexity of sustainability.

Highlighting the Social Dimension A small minority of the interviewees felt that they came into the project with an understanding of sustainability that spanned the social, ecological and economic dimensions. Marlino for example remembered: [my wife and me] were working on a number of initiatives in the Philippines before we came [to Calgary], mainly around ecological sustainability and the sustainability of certain kinds of livelihood programs.” Rachel had developed a broad understanding of sustainability through her “core interest in international development” and her undergraduate “attempts to bring sustainable agriculture onto the curriculum of Canada’s largest agricultural college” through “education and outreach.” However, the majority of interviewees spoke of having an ecological, and to a lesser extent, an economic understanding of sustainability. A critically important and certainly unanticipated outcome of the indicator project is the role it played in highlighting the social dimension of sustainability, or what one interviewee called “the third leg of sustainability.” Reesa communicated her renewed understanding of the social dimension of the indicator project by reflecting upon the connections among the indicators: I think that it did kind of open my mind to considering things like, for example, what if a large segment of the population cannot read and you’re in a society or economy where people are expected to be literate. What are the implications if you have large numbers of people who can’t participate and what is the actual cost to the health of our community? Or even when people are disconnected from the community, what is the end result of that? Do

166

N. Keough

we end up then having to treat more people for mental illness? It is not just about recycling paper and composting. There are other things that make a community sustainable.

Karen “had some knowledge in some areas but it was pretty confined to more science-based issues and definitely in terms of the community ones . . . hadn’t even thought of those ones before.” Joy spoke of how the project had introduced “more the social context, but I think initially my own thinking was more ecology.” For Bill, the project became “a very powerful border between ecological justice work and social justice work.” For Ron, sustainability was a fundamental background to the work that I was doing in the corporate world. [The project] revealed more for me on the social and the human side of sustainability. Wouldn’t claim that it was a revelation, that something had never been apparent or occurred to me before, but it sharpened the focus on various aspects of . . . homelessness, poverty, and hunger, pieces of the puzzle that got more prominence in this work than I’ve seen in a lot of others. So yes, very powerful.

Harvey, a city employee working in the transportation sector talked about the project: How much did I know about sustainability before I went in? I thought 7 out of 10. I was probably wrong. . . . Now after the process, 9 to 10 out of 10. . . . Some of these initiatives I never knew were sustainable initiatives. For example, things like childhood asthma or daycare workers’ salaries and turnover. Now I know.

For Conrad, consideration of the social dimension of sustainability entailed a shift from working on environmental protection to a focus on the sustainability of urban human environments: I think it is amazing the impact it did have on me because at that point in time, my main focus had been on environmental protection, and I think that I was starting to see some kind of problem with . . . focusing too much on the symptoms of the problems and not on some of the deeper causes. It is at that point that I really radically changed a lot of what my interests were. . . . Let’s look at what’s happening in our cities, especially our consumer habits our resource use habits and how those are then impacting the so-called environment out there and. . . just seeing how all of these are interrelated.

The Holistic Nature of the Concept of Sustainability Bringing into relief the social dimension of sustainability provided interviewees with a more holistic framework. In fact, “holistic approach” was a phrase frequently used to describe the model introduced by the indicator project. Barb recognized that the project “filled a unique gap. No one else is doing that. We are all sitting in our stovepipes, but no one was trying to pull it together.” Bill remarked that “it didn’t allow things to stay in separate little boxes.” Bruce spoke of the value of the holistic approach from the perspective of working at City Hall: That was probably my first experience looking at a really integrated holistic understanding of a community’s health. That feels fairly significant ... for me. As a community development worker, I’d spent time in community development working on various kinds of small

9

Something Real and Lasting: What to Expect from a Citizen-Led. . .

167

projects, but this was a way of wrapping up a lot of projects into one and saying, this is a document that reflects where we are as a healthy community.

Appreciation of the Complexity of Sustainability Several interviewees took up the theme of complexity when reflecting on how their perceptions had changed. Reesa spoke of being “already one of the converted. But certainly it made me more aware of the complexity. A sustainable community is not just one that’s got its blue boxes out on the curb.” For Ron the project “has been a constant . . . reminder of the balancing act that goes on all the time between personal behaviour and sustainable behaviour.” Mark recognized the complexity of dealing with sustainability in real life in that “as much as I say it’s really clear in terms of what sustainability means to me, not everyone has the same idea of what that is.” Paradoxically, Cathy’s struggle with the complexity of sustainability pointed her along a path of simplicity: [Sustainability] is a hugely complex thing to be thinking about. One of the directions I’ve been going in my life is to not be so formulaic about what it is I have to do in order to live my life in a way that is congruent with my values and to be more open . . . in terms of sustainability. . . . At one time I was into all the complexity. Now I’m moving toward finding the simplicity in this. That’s a bit freeing.

Grounding the Concept of Sustainability in Real Life For many interviewees, the concept of sustainability had been appealing but somewhat abstract. Interestingly, though most had heard of and were to varying degrees familiar with the concept of sustainability, most reported that the SCIP was the first “formal sustainability initiative” or “initiative to make something happen” that they had been involved in. The hands-on nature of the project was instrumental in grounding the concept of sustainability. Three passages from the interviews of Deborah, Maya, and Emily illustrate this point: I had an intuitive understanding of it, but I was able to put it in words and it’s helped me, and a lot of people, that we are not just economically driven. Because sometimes in Calgary the dollar is so important. . . . So this enabled many people to put in words that you have to look at the social side and the environmental side. And the word sustainability started to have a meaning. . . . So it’s not just about roads and buildings.—Deborah Even taking that complex situation and bringing it down to indicators, that was a big aha! initially. Obviously we can measure landfills—but the other indicators? It’s an interesting process. . . .What is “sense of community”? There are actual ways to gauge whether we are progressing. And [now] I’ve seen how those indicators are made.—Maya Practical application of my understanding of sustainability. Looking at how simple some of the indicators could be. That’s valuable. It is not that complicated. It shouldn’t be that difficult.—Emily

168

N. Keough

Krista’s experience exemplifies the increase in sustainability literacy facilitated by the indicator project. Prior to becoming involved in the indicator project, Krista thought it was another one of those trendy phrases . . . and we actually, we kind of made fun of it. I said, ‘Guys, this is what we have to do,’ and everybody is laughing at me. And I said, ‘ok, ok.’ But I really feel like I have a respect for that phrase now. Because when I look back at the report it kind of helps me to look at the things that are real and lasting, and that’s I guess what I learned, is that it is something that is real and lasting, for me.

Personal Growth When asked about the influence of the project with respect to improved understanding, attitude change, or personal change, interviewees talked of how they had “learned and grown substantially.” That growth occurred in seven distinct ways. Interviewees talked about expanded horizons; increased mindfulness of sustainability; increased capacity for critical thinking; the experience of a good citizenship high, of having been inspired by the process and of their involvement having been an empowering experience.

Expanded Horizons Joy reflected that the project “certainly helped me expand my own horizons.” Similarly for Marlino: “I think people who do a lot of community development work tend to focus more on community indicators, but with this project you look at a variety of different areas. What does bird count have to do with the state of our economy, for instance? My interest is more in the interstices between those indicators.” Barb also spoke about an expansion of her horizons in terms of possible personal futures, but also city futures: I was thinking, what would be one of the things in my life work I would like to do? When I get through being the 24/7 health person where would I like to put my volunteer efforts? One of the areas I was thinking about was the community. I hadn’t thought of that previously. I haven’t acted on it yet in terms of committing time to it, but it has certainly raised my level of awareness and concern. I think I pay attention to articles in the paper. I believe I have been more sensitized to those perspectives. I think the other aspect is . . . I am really quite intrigued about learning and understanding more about what our city could be like. What is the art of the possible for us now?

9

Something Real and Lasting: What to Expect from a Citizen-Led. . .

169

Increased Mindfulness of Sustainability Emily spoke about how “any kind of public participation or awareness building is personally rewarding. I’m a learner. I take every opportunity I can to learn.” Maya captured her increased mindfulness in a simple phrase: “Now there are all these little lights going off.” For many interviewees, sustainability is now more constant or present in their lives. Diane, mindfulness was related through an anecdote: I was listening to CBC Radio and a tri-athlete who won down in Australia. They were interviewing him. . . . His girlfriend had pointed him to the Mountain Equipment Co-op Web site where they have a footprint measure. So I did that for myself as well. So I don’t know. . . . I think just participating sensitized me—you listen in a different way.

Increased Capacity for Critical Thinking In response to the question of whether the project had shifted attitudes, Jake said, “Absolutely. I’m so much more critical of Calgary decision-makers and the way Calgary is growing. My attitudes have gone from optimistic to a little more pessimistic. Which is good as part of keeping a critical eye on things and raising your voice when you think things aren’t going great.” For other interviewees, the awareness encompassed specific issues and new learning. For Marlino, the learning came “especially in one of the offshoots of the project—ecological footprint. It brings together those indicators more dynamically to show how different kinds of consumption affect someone else.”

The Good Citizenship High Several interviewees spoke in terms that were evocative of a feeling of satisfaction with having contributed as a citizen, to the common good. Bridgit reflected, “Personally, it is an ethical consideration. As a good citizen, I feel like I should participate or at least be aware of alternative ways of living in the city within sustainable means.” Krista “felt really good about . . . as a group we worked really hard to reach as many people in the community as we can.” Mahmoud was emphatic that his participation was motivated by the common good. “In the beginning I said this is not for individuals. When I decided to get involved in it, it wasn’t an intention to benefit myself. It was my intention to benefit more than myself. So the benefit will come tomorrow or next week or next month or next year. . .”

170

N. Keough

Inspiration As the interviews proceeded, it became apparent that the indicator project and Sustainable Calgary were doing something that was not only unique but was a beacon in what people perceived as a rather conservative political climate—one not particularly welcoming to the concept of sustainability. Interviewees spoke of how the project opened doors, provided a reason to be optimistic and hopeful, and presented an alternative model and an initiative with some staying power. Maya spoke about how she “had an idea that politicians didn’t care that much, or very few of them did, and that big business didn’t care. I was surprised to see how. . .people. . .are making change and not these entities that are untouchable. That was a good lesson for me. . . . I was exposed to a lot of special people that conduct themselves toward sustainability in a really professional way, and that was amazing to me. . . I’m more optimistic.” Three of the interviewees were co-founders of Sustainable Calgary. Bill said the project “made me much more hopeful about living in Calgary.” Rachel reflected that she thought the project “made a lot of people happy that it exists, that there is an expression of this thinking in our city, and almost a pride by association.” The following passage from Cheryl exemplifies that pride by association: It is nice to see a tangible little booklet in your hand that shows a commitment to being a steward for our environment at a local level. It is a symbol of the commitment of the community because it is community driven, which I think is key. I look at [the Report] and I refer to it and I show it to people when they visit. I think that’s very remarkable. How many other documents do you actually refer to time and time again?

Empowerment Fred connected the exercise of his rights and responsibilities as a citizen participating in this project, with his wider world: Getting involved. Putting my input into it. Just learning a lot of stuff about the community and what I could achieve out of it and what I could benefit and what some other people could benefit from me seeing what I go through. What I gotta overcome. . . . My disability is a hurdle from time to time. I wanted to see what the city needed for not just the disabled but for everybody, to see what the city would look like in the future. Trying to get to know more people and people getting to know me when they see me out in the community. They might say to me, oh, you were on that committee and I say, yeah. Some people might remember that. They say, how’s it going? What are you up to? I talked to doctors at the university about why we don’t have a medical textbook for people with disabilities. I find it very difficult when you go into the doctor’s office. they have a sophisticated language. They need to know how to treat a person with a disability so he can understand what they are saying.

9

Something Real and Lasting: What to Expect from a Citizen-Led. . .

171

Behaviour Change Though interviewees were hard-pressed to unequivocally attribute behaviour change solely to the project, a range of behavioural changes were discussed in the interviews. The characterization of the relationship between those changes and the project, included “very direct influence,” “this project helped us,” “reinforced . . . choices,” “was a catalyst,” and “it hit home with me.”

Participation in the Project as a Contributor to Behaviour Change Interviewees spoke about a broad range of behavioural changes they had made in recent years. However, over half of the interviewees reported that their behaviour “hasn’t changed greatly”; the project “might have contributed a little” but mostly “that comes from my kids”; or “it renewed any commitment I had already.” The following quotation from John is indicative of the ambivalence of interviewees with respect to the project’s effect on behaviour change: I don’t particularly think so because [my wife and me] both try to be as sustainable as we can. . . . I don’t think this has changed our day-to-day activity. . .on its own; however, it did . . . (pause) . . . there probably are some . . . did the indicators influence me? Perhaps! I can’t count it out.

Bruce talked of how “I’d always been trying to learn about green initiatives and ways that I could make my own eco-footprint less on the planet. So I had a susceptibility to doing those things round my house and in my personal life,”. However, he was non-committal about whether the project had done more than “perked me up a little bit to know that there was lots more to do.” For Don, the project may have had a temporary impact and “a minor contribution to my own personal behaviour. It was a good reinforcement . . . [but] no. It worked for a while, but I’ve fallen off the wagon again.” For Rachel, the project caused a dilemma in that “on the personal behaviour change level, it means I am aware of all the things I should be doing but I’m not doing. That’s all about where I’m at in life and what I can manage.”

A Variety of Personal Behaviour Changes What kinds of specific behavioural changes did interviewees discuss? In the following passage, Ron talks about sustainable home renovations undertaken over the past few years.

172

N. Keough

My wife and I, we took on an old military house in Garrison Woods and we built into it features as a reflection of sustainability . . . trying to minimize the footprint and maximize the resource value. There are all sorts of pressures on that that are economic . . . the ethical issues, moral issues, or those who don’t have. Sustainable Calgary has had a very direct influence on the way we thought about this house . . . the thinking that went into the design of the house.

Karen talked about connecting with the community more by “[finding] out about my community association, or just thinking more about knowing your neighbours.” Kevin spoke at length about how the project, in concert with other influences, informed his choice of community and consumer habits: Personal behaviour? Yeah, I think it did. That and my master’s degree led to recognizing that I guess ... I really couldn’t see us living in downtown Calgary to walk to work. But it is important to look at a community, a suburb, looking for one to be more sustainable. . . . . It reflects in choices like vehicles. I had a pickup truck four-wheel drive and a travel trailer and now a small, much more fuel-efficient vehicle and no RVs.

Marlino, an immigrant to Calgary, spoke about behavioural changes related to recycling, supporting the local economy, and native landscaping: When you come in as a newcomer, you don’t think of those things. You think of things like employment and where your children go to school, but underneath that would be this pattern of consumption—and the pattern of where to throw your refuse. So I think behaviourally this project helped us. We recycle more and we are not using pesticides. It made us more conscious about the impact of certain products on the ecology but also on the local economy. . . . One of the things we were thinking about this year was to put in more native grasses [and] wild flowers.

Cheryl talked about changes she had introduced around her home, including water conservation, recycling, consumption choices, and transportation: I think that some of my awareness of specific indicators . . . I’ve taken to heart because especially now that I have a child, you think long term about sustainability in a very different way. I’m very conscientious of the products I buy, things like packaging, recycling, reducing, the three Rs—that’s become very important to me. Planting indigenous plants in my garden or choosing not to require a lot of extra water for my garden. Even the bird count—I put birdseed out in the winter, but I don’t put it out in the summer because I want them to have their natural diet. Choosing to walk. I walk every day to get my groceries with the baby stroller instead of taking my car.

Armbruster talked about undertaking a volunteer commitment sometime after his participation in the project. While he did not attribute the decision to his participation, he acknowledged that “it wasn’t an in-your-face link, but it was probably a factor.” He continued: I came away [from the food bank usage research] with a sharper sense of how you don’t have to be unemployed to be hungry. People trying to earn a living with one or two jobs still need to use the food bank. That personally made me very angry. . . ..

Conrad talked about his conscious decisions to begin to live a simpler lifestyle in the context of his participation in the project:

9

Something Real and Lasting: What to Expect from a Citizen-Led. . .

173

I think that it was a catalyst for me to change my attitudes. I really started questioning my own consumption habits and made some major radical changes in my life. Don’t have a TV anymore. Don’t have a car anymore. Living really simply.

Increased Capacity for Advocacy of Sustainability As was the case with behavioural change, interviewees had difficulty attributing their advocacy activities solely to the influence of the project. In the words of one interviewee, “It’s contributed, but there have been many other things in my life that have contributed.” Some interviewees were uncomfortable characterizing themselves as advocates. One said, “I see myself as a neutral person.” Another said, “I am not comfortable as a proselytizer,” while another interviewee said that “advocacy is too strong a word” for what she does. Reesa reported that she had not engaged in advocacy work, not because she did not want to, but because “when I was really more actively involved in the environmental group I had more opportunities. . . . I don’t know that when I am talking with people it is something that I can easily bring into the conversation. [At work] maybe once or twice a year.” One City Hall employee commented, “I don’t know if I’m [a strong advocate]. In terms of my own priorities, there are other things I have a stronger passion for. Government accountability—that’s my thing.” Nevertheless, interviewees talked about a wide range of advocacy activities. Some interviewees felt they were more effective advocates because of the “confidence,” “knowledge,” and “sharpened” skills they had gained through the project. Maya talked of how the project “definitely reinforced things that were already starting and made new connections. As an advocate, I’m a little tougher now. I won’t back down.” Emily described herself as an “advocate for the environment within the voluntary sector. I volunteer on a lot of boards and committees where I bring in an environmental perspective”; she added that the project “reinforced . . . not to be too narrow in my focus.” For some, the advocacy was restricted to promotion of the State of Our City reports. Others interpreted advocacy as leading by example through their own sustainable behaviours. Other advocacy activities were directed toward family and friends, an individual’s geographic or ethno-cultural community, the workplace, or City Hall, or were incorporated into teaching activities or social conversation. Marlino talked about advocacy activities within the ethno-cultural community where there is little focus on the whole ecological discussion. . . . So I think one of the things we have been trying to do is bring that discussion within the [ethnocultural] context as well. We’ve not been quite successful. We talk about consumption levels among immigrants. On the one hand you want to have diversity of foods but on the other hand you want to support the local production. So how do you balance those two—the whole notion about diversity. If you have 100 percent consumption of rice, you don’t grow rice here so you are tied to this importing economy.”

174

N. Keough

Krista described herself as “a strong advocate for our community, period.” She continued, I think that now when I think about things, you know, I think about what that means to me and is this something that is sustainable for our community. We had two little parks that were redeveloped and again, do we want to keep these plots? I said yeah, because those things make our community sustainable. They make it so that people want to live here. One [park] was near a lot of subsidized housing and if any [park] needed to be fixed, it was that one.

Ron described himself as “a bit of a promoter [of the report] . . . where there were people who I thought were receptive, where there was a readiness for this,” including at “the City of Calgary, yes, without doubt. . . . I helped the city at the very start design their environmental system. . . . The second area has been the Environmental Advisory Committee to Council. [And] at the provincial level, modestly but only modestly.” Janet also saw herself as an advocate for the report at City Hall “in setting up some briefing sessions trying to get aldermen on side.” Likewise, Don “did try to sell it here at the City. I brought [it] up to the committee. I tried to push getting you in front of the Chief Commissioner. I tried to put you on the radar screen of the higher level people at the City.” Jake also talked about his advocacy efforts as a Sustainable Calgary representative on the Environmental Advisory Committee: [The EAC is] a committee that reviews environmental policy before it goes to the standing policy committee and on to Council for approval. Representing Sustainable Calgary on that, I try to bring a voice that does talk about sustainable values and the fact that there are three sides to sustainability, while a lot of other people who are coming to the committee are focused solely on environment. The city doesn’t currently have a process where they review the cumulative effects of policies and projects they are implementing. So that is one of the recommendations I made last year—to develop a cumulative impact assessment of every decision Council makes.

Several interviewees talked about advocacy through social conversation or “shooting the breeze with people over a cuppa java.” For example, Barb talked about how her “conversation had changed”: People would say, oh, for gosh sakes, I like my three-car garage. Leave me alone. But I would say we are creating ghettos, suburban ghettos. Children and seniors are held hostage. I was quite taken by these communities who had put limits to growth and densities and mixing of neighbourhoods. . . . I find I read some of those articles now, and think about them and talk about them in my social circles. And I can’t say I really did that before.

Two interviewees see their advocacy activities mostly in relation to their postsecondary teaching. Conrad, for example, spoke of how he was able to bring sustainability themes into all his classes, whether it is a class on Canadian geography, or political geography, where I brought in ideas of sustainability and their relationship to global security and peace. . . The feedback I got from that project was great.

9

Something Real and Lasting: What to Expect from a Citizen-Led. . .

175

Professional and Personal Skills Development and Career Development Participation in the SCIP project was an opportunity for most interviewees to develop useful skills that they applied in the workplace or in their community volunteer work. Younger interviewees talked about the project as an important milestone in the development of their career paths.

Professional Skill Development A wide variety of professionals participated in the SCIP, including teachers, social workers, engineers, environmental consultants, planners, and local politicians. In each of these professions, interviewees reported significant professional development came in the form of new knowledge, introduction to participatory process, new skills, networking opportunities, and the acquisition of a new concept, framework, and language to apply in their work. For Ron, an environmental consultant, “the project adds a new dimension [to] my consultancy work.” Karen, a consulting engineer, was able to apply the project experience to APEGGA professional development hours. Joy shared her experience with the sustainability network within the international oil and gas corporation she works for. Janet works as a facilitator with the City of Calgary. For her, the project was “career development because it helped me understand a bit more about sustainability. That’s good for my business. . . . Even this triple bottom line project. . .I see a little bit differently. The City is struggling with the global reporting initiative and I think, well, I have a small taste of what that might be.” For Jake, who works as a growth management consultant with small communities, “Absolutely, the learnings from this experience I try to use in my professional life. [The project] gave me an opportunity to be a facilitator. . . . [It] was great, learning new skills and practicing skills.” For John, it was the new inclusive sustainability framework that opened new doors for his consultancy in community economic development: If I go back to before 1997, I would probably never have been interested in this project— working with the fellow out at Siksika [Reserve] who wanted to start a market garden. He didn’t know anything about business. So I actually did some consulting and helped him set up an organic market garden on the Siksika reserve. He hired youth who were almost unemployable, who would normally get a job at A and W. It improved the diet of the people in Siksika. They were excited about it because [the food] was grown locally.

Armbruster works as a consultant in the social development field. He spoke of how he appreciated more and more over the last three to four years the importance of research in moving forward social agendas. I’ve seen the power of sound, well-gathered, well-packaged research in bringing issues to a head . . ., creating stronger public profile for issues. I’ve been disabused of any feelings I might have had before that research was mostly academic.

176

N. Keough

Through his participation in the project, Bruce, a City alderman, “strengthened [his] connection with some people in the community.” He talked about how the project “got me to reflect and think about the long term . . . by being able to have a language . . . that I could then bring to my regular work world. . . . Language like ecological footprint, ideas about sprawl and development, were relatively new to me at that time.” Another alderman, Deborah, used the “broad framework” of sustainability as a tool to improve her “local consultations.” Participation in the SCIP “pushed [her] toward being much more outcomes focused.” She reported that “the dialogue helped me be more inclusive . . ., because when you . . . start really, truly listening and trying to understand what the other one is saying . . ., I think that helped me even building up my skill level. . . . I went into negotiation training shortly after that.” For Cathy, a city planner, “the key thing that was interesting for me was the process itself. Grassroots discussing what the indicators would look like and how you would determine them. Just to see how it unfolded over time and resulted in the reports themselves.” Kevin, an employee of a public utility regulator, remarked how the indicator project “was probably the first experience I had with [public consultation] and it opened the door to a professional involvement [at work] and being willing to step up and say yeah, I’ll sit on that committee.” A special case with respect to professional development was Rachel, one of the co-founders of Sustainable Calgary. For her, the professional benefit of the project, and more generally, of working with a not-for-profit, has been “massive”: Trying to take theoretical thinking to an applied context, we got to define public processes, to think about communications, outreach to people. We got to do popular theatre. We got to dream up what we thought this little world should look like, that’s unbelievable. I think I’m only [now] fully appreciating. . . . On [my current work] project I have to deal with communications people. . . . I am also dealing with our [public] engagement folks. . . .Well, [at Sustainable Calgary] we were doing community development. We have that framework. It is one thing to understand the terminology and it’s another thing to actually try some of it in the various contexts. The task forces, the think tanks, creating a look for our reports, proposal writing . . ., the opportunity to present at conferences and tell the story, volunteer management, mentoring. . . . This is great! I . . . get paid to do what I have been doing volunteer for a long time. That is to think about how to make sustainability happen and to create programs that are about trying to move in that direction.

New Career Paths Several of the participants in the SCIP were in their 20s and were either contemplating, were in the midst of, or had recently completed graduate and post-graduate degrees. Three of these interviewees spoke about the impact their participation in the project had had on their career choices. Rob was a newcomer to Calgary when he found out about Sustainable Calgary through the internet and got involved in the SCIP. Shortly after his involvement, he

9

Something Real and Lasting: What to Expect from a Citizen-Led. . .

177

decided to go back to school and study geography. The project was a “really positive” influence on his career choices: I guess the best thing that I can say about Sustainable Calgary is, now that I have completed my undergrad—and so much of it has focused on sustainability outside the urban environment—my experience with SC got me thinking that that’s not necessarily where I think the most important type of sustainability is. The urban environment is really the one that people can manage the best and quite possibly have the biggest influence on. [My] experience with [Sustainable Calgary] has really shifted my focus from sustainability outside of cities to sustainability in the urban environment. . . . So it has affected the choice of what I am going to do for my masters project in a fairly substantial way.

Maya worked with the indicator project over a couple of years on the project team and as a Board member. She talked about her return to school and her goal to become a teacher. When asked if the Sustainable Calgary work had influenced her decision to do education, she replied, “Yeah. I’m thinking that there’s a whole bunch of young people who can benefit from thinking about the world. If I can be a vehicle for that, that’s good, a good path.” Jake had just completed his Master’s Degree at the University of Calgary in the Faculty of Environmental Design when he found out about the indicator project. He was thrilled to learn of a project in the community where he could apply his skills. He attributes his ongoing interest in sustainability in his career to his work with Sustainable Calgary: I find that a lot of my peers have learned a lot about these concepts but have moved on in their careers. Gradually they dropped that sense of wanting to infuse sustainability in the work they do. From a personal and professional level . . ., using Sustainable Calgary as one of the avenues to lifelong learning has fueled my work—my sustainability work—for the last five years.

Community Outcomes The previous section demonstrated how many of the interviewees got involved in the SCIP because they believed it would make a difference to the sustainability of our city. In this section, interviewees reflect on what difference the project did make in the city—what have been the community outcomes of the project? Three distinct outcomes were identified. The project: (1) promoted a productive and engaging citizen dialogue (2) demonstrated the power of citizen-led initiatives to carry out sophisticated work on issues of importance and (3) created a tool for sustainability educators.

178

N. Keough

A Productive and Engaging Citizen Dialogue When interviewees were asked what the most remarkable aspect of the indicator project was, the most common response had to do with the citizen engagement process. The dialogic nature of the process seemed in contrast to a “corporate, taskoriented,” stakeholder or adversarial process, which many interviewees were more familiar with in public engagement. Several dimensions of this dialogue emerged from the interviews.

Employing Popular Education The dialogue drew upon a diversity of active engagement techniques. The use of these techniques, sometimes referred to as popular education techniques, set the process apart from a conventional public consultation, and in one interviewee’s opinion, gave the process “different rhythms as you went along.” Krista “remember [ed] the one exercise where it demonstrated very clearly how all the needs that you have in life are really connected—connected with these strings that we had and we were trying to walk in between them. . . . It was a very impactful exercise.”3 Janet “really liked a lot of the opening things around recognizing who we are as a group, what parts of the city we came from—it was nice community building. I hadn’t experienced that before.”4 For Bridgit, the dotmocracy technique was “impressive. . . . I guess you always talk, discuss, or dispute things, and then to actually see it as a fact—here is my opinion. . . . Maybe because I am a somewhat visually oriented person. . . . I could hear it very clear, people don’t like your idea, or people do like it. There is no pussy footing around.” For Ron, the most memorable moment was a piece of popular theatre used to animate the report launch event—“the appearance of a [superhero-like]‘Super Indicator Vindicator.’ People in the aisle were very impressed—the level of energy here. There was a creative spirit at work. There’s a point to be made. Very powerful stuff.”

Making Room for Different Kinds of Knowledge The dialogue supported the inclusion of local, lay, and experiential knowledge into the deliberations. Deborah remarked that with “the variety of people around the table . . ., you honed in on dialogue rather than having a set format. . . . Dialogue works. . . . To me, that brings people’s ideas out more.” For Bill, it was “an empowering process.” He connected the process to “the ideas of participatory action research, 3 4

The Web of Life. Socio-grams.

9

Something Real and Lasting: What to Expect from a Citizen-Led. . .

179

people’s knowledge, and Freire’s literacy work.”5 In Bill’s opinion, “people actually know much more than they realize, even though they have been conditioned not to know or not to create knowledge. This process offered a way for them to be recognized and have a voice.” Marlino was impressed that “the whole process of coming up with indicators . . . involved working with indigenous knowledge and people, and linking that with the more academic funded research.”

An Inclusive Dialogue The dialogue was “inclusive” and “engaging” of a variety of citizens with varying life experiences and challenges. For Emily “It’s always meaningful to have a conversation about something with a group of people who are diverse and don’t have the same understanding . . ., don’t have the same expectations. So the conversations are a little bit more in-depth that way. There is a lot of listening and speaking and learning going on.” Rob said, “The thing that got me the first was how wide a range of people that are out there. We had all kinds of people from all different walks of life and different experiences and different social demographic areas and everyone came to contribute and everyone did contribute. I thought that was quite remarkable.” What impressed Kevin was “actually getting sustainability indicators out of a diverse set of views. It worked [even though] there were some pretty sharply divided views.” Marlino remarked, “What do I remember most? . . . Bringing in more people to the process who would otherwise not have participated. For instance, working with Fred and actually helping him return the project to other people in [the Development Disabilities Resource Centre]. . . . And I remember our workshop at L’Arche.” When asked about his report back to DDRC, Fred said, Yeah, they gave me good comments. . . . They said “Oh, you really got yourself involved in something that you wanted to really do.” It gets me out there and I can see what needs to be changed when the City can only afford so much. . . . Just sitting in and letting the people know what kind of person I am now—living in the community. . . . You don’t want to leave everybody out [because] then they get kinda disappointed. . . . My input was more for myself, or for in general people with a disability, or people who are always having difficulties overcoming barriers.

Barb’s commentary alluded to another kind of inclusion when she talked about “the groups [being] relatively multidisciplinary. . . . There were lots of people [in the health group] that had nothing to do with health but obviously had an interest.” Louise, one of the co-founders of Sustainable Calgary, talked about how the process was open enough for her to bring a unique perspective to the table. I think my contribution was to provide a different point of view to the table, the way of thinking of an engineer, a mother, and a suburbanite. Having a father and husband in the oil

5

Brazilian Paulo Freire is perhaps the most influential adult educator of the twentieth century.

180

N. Keough

business plus being an engineer in land development provides an awareness of big and small business pressures and constraints that government employees do not necessarily understand. Profits must be made in order for taxes to be paid that result in funding of social projects. Being a mother and part of a family in the suburbs provides a window on the mindset of the people that want the best, newest, and neatest of everything. Quite different from the granola-eating, walk-to-work crowd of the inner city.

A Creative, Open and Welcoming Dialogue The dialogue facilitated a “creative,” “constructive,” and “open-minded” process with a “building of ideas” as they “emerge”. John remarked, “It wasn’t like a group of eight or ten people got together and drove [the process].” Bruce saw the process as one wherein people were “starting to grapple with issues. Starting to learn language and ideas. So there was a healthy debate. A lot of back and forth. People who were really forward-looking and trying to create something that had been done elsewhere . . ., people who were on a cutting edge together and trying to learn some things and apply it to Calgary.” Conrad remarked that “it was a true dialogue in a Freirian sense. People [were] willing to step back and allow the ideas to form themselves.” For most interviewees the dialogue was “welcoming”, “gentle”, and “selfdirected”, engendering “trust” and an absence of “fear” to express oneself. Janet talked about an instance when the group dealt with some tension, “which happens in large groups everywhere. . . . One lady ... had water quality as her big thing, and she kept carrying around pictures of foaming green stuff coming out of our water treatment plants. It didn’t matter what topic. It didn’t matter what part of the process, what time of the evening. . . . [But] it was a very gentle process, the group took care of itself.” Deborah felt the process was trusting in that “nobody was afraid to talk, to put their ideas on the table. . . . I enjoyed it because I was able to put my ideas on the table and no fear of anything coming back at me.” Barb spoke of the challenge of trusting the process itself: I have to say that I actually thought it was a very good process in the end, and I think I was impressed with the reports that came out for sure. What was interesting for me, though, was it’s like any process where you bring community members together—it’s always murky, it’s always fuzzy, and you hope someone else is going to do the work. I remember the meetings. I thought they were well structured. I thought the information was clear, but the process of working through those indicators, because they were all ranging all over the map, and there were different interests in the room. . . . It was tough for me in terms of some of that discussion because some of it just seemed serendipitous or just whimsical. And yet. . . there has to be some sort of rationalization of the data. . . In the end the report came together like that. You know, the process worked.

9

Something Real and Lasting: What to Expect from a Citizen-Led. . .

181

A Dialogue for the Common Good The dialogue called upon people as citizens acting for the common good. For Barb, “the notion . . . of a citizen when you’re in a process like this is more about collective good than just being a citizen and an individual. That was one of the things that I struggled a little bit with, that notion of citizen and health worker. People say, ‘Take off that professional hat.’ If they mean they want me to be open and not just hammer my agenda, absolutely, but I can’t separate out my knowledge base.” Mahmoud explained, For me as a Kurdish person, I wasn’t there only to contribute to the Kurdish community in Calgary but the large group at the workshop. From the City, from the Spanish, from the Sikh, whatever—get together to contribute to the Calgary community. A bigger umbrella for all ethnic communities in Calgary....

The Power and Sophistication of Citizen-Led Initiatives Among the interviewees, there was a widely held belief that the indicator project had been a great success. Interviewees observed that the indicator project was a complex process that delivered a balanced, high quality, sophisticated product. The project demonstrated that citizens can carry out complex and coherent analyses of important issues and communicate them effectively. Alderman George felt that “what the value was, was a group of citizens took on this very sophisticated task.” Armbruster commented, “The remarkable thing is that it was a whole ton of information brought together by volunteers and put into a form that attracted public attention. Information that would normally be difficult to convey to people.” One interviewee from the municipal government said, “You folks did a very good job at keeping [the indicator report] more balanced.” From his perspective, “The energy of the people, the work that went into that was amazing and the quality of the product was astounding, to put it mildly. It was very impressive . . . for a volunteer effort. Better than a lot of paid efforts I’ve seen.” The comments from two of Sustainable Calgary’s co-founders give some perspective to the accomplishment. In Louise’s estimation, “I think people were shocked to see the extremely professional product from a group of nobodies. No big names were associated with us and yet the work looked great and was well vetted and defendable.” Rachel pointed out that “in retrospect, what we pulled off was two major processes with very little resources, which was quite remarkable [in terms of] cost efficiency. It is outstanding. And at the level of quality, if anything . . . when people hear about it they think, Wow! This happened in Calgary?”

182

N. Keough

A Tool for Sustainability Educators For some, the report and the sustainability conceptual framework provided the content for teaching activities, while for others, the process provided the opportunity to reflect upon their role as formal and informal adult educators. Some reported that the act of teaching obligated them to challenge and deepen their own understanding of sustainability. The teaching venues where these interviewees practiced ranged from the workplace, to social movements, to formal post-secondary educational institutions. Emily used her participation in the project as an opportunity to reflect on her role as an informal educator. Her contact with participants from other sectors reinforced her sense of the “responsibility” you carry when “you become the educator.” It’s a bit of a responsibility because you don’t want to alienate people. You don’t want to ram [the environment] down their throat. It’s a chance for you to figure out how much you know and how rational you can be about an idea or an issue and clearly understand how others, who don’t have the same set of experiences. For me it creates . . . opportunities to direct education or direct communication towards filling those kinds of gaps. . . .

Jake talked about his role as a teacher in his workplace and how he has “gone on to try to teach some of the things I’ve learned. In my own office, I’ve given a presentation on this sustainability indicator project. Some people that have moved to Calgary can learn a little bit more about their city and eventually come and take on projects with Sustainable Calgary. I know three people in the office who have done so. . . . I continue to read up on sustainability, infuse it in my daily practice and projects that I work on . . ., try to teach the meaning of sustainability to some of my clients.” Bill, an adult educator, worked as a workshop facilitator in the 2001 report process and has since become a faculty member for the Audubon Environmental Studies program. The most remarkable aspect of the project for him personally was that “the act of doing the workshops . . ., the act of sharing the knowledge . . ., the act of teaching” contributed to a “deepening” of his knowledge. Bill spoke of how the project “shaped me as an educator”: Because of this process, I probably kept shifting toward doing more community development type of education. . . . It’s probably shaped me to be a much stronger advocate or educated activist when it comes to the urban context of ecology. I know it has made me happier about living in the city. . . ..

Similarly, for Rachel, the preparation is an opportunity to deepen her own understanding of sustainability. Rachel taught a community sustainability course at the University of Calgary, Faculty of Environmental Design. The course was an opportunity to introduce sustainability to a group of future planning and environmental professionals: It was great to be able to teach that course for me because I got a chance to really think about those things and how do you present that to students. As much as it was a lot of work, it was also a neat time to do a bit of integration. And you get more and more confident. . . . Does it

9

Something Real and Lasting: What to Expect from a Citizen-Led. . .

183

stand up? How do I say this? Is this making any sense? So, there was probably a lot more value in the advocating side and learning to do that than I really appreciated.

Modest Municipal Government Policy Influence Before beginning an analysis of the interviews with respect to policy influence, it is instructive to note the description offered by Don, a key policy analyst in the City administration, that policy “is a very messy thing. . . . At the end of the day you roll over a lot of things in your head and you make a call.” On a more hopeful note, Ron, with extensive experience as an environmental management systems consultant to the City, offered the opinion that “this sustainability project in Calgary [is] a very effective tool in getting focused on where public policy is either missing or weak, or maybe is strong but needs to be maintained.”

No Evidence of Influence in the Provincial Public Sector or the Private Sector Not surprisingly, given the modest involvement of provincial public sector employees and of the business community, the interviews did not reveal any policy influence in the private sector. According to Janet, who has worked extensively for oil companies, “I haven’t seen or even heard reference to Sustainable Calgary, to be honest.” Likewise, in the provincial public sector, Barb concluded that for the Calgary Health Region, Sustainable Calgary is not really on the radar screen.

Minor Policy Influence in the Not-for-Profit Sector When asked whether participation had influenced policy at her funding agency, Emily replied, Yes. It’s probably . . . where I started to look outside the environmental sector and started to think that we really needed to include in any of our outreach about funding, or about the environment, the entire community. That in other words, we shouldn’t focus just on environmental groups. And right around that time there was a lot of other sustainability stuff going on. I remember sitting with a couple of women who worked at the Y. We had this discussion that it isn’t about the environment, it is about where you live, and [that was] the whole genesis of “It’s Because It’s Our Home” [the funder’s slogan]. I can’t pin that directly on your workshop but being there and talking to people who didn’t have an environmental background but cared about their quality of life started me down that road. It’s an easy sell. Yesterday was our funding round and we gave dollars to Big Brother and Big Sisters of Edmonton for a program to get these urban kids, mostly aboriginal, out to their discovery

184

N. Keough

centre for environmental programming. These kids don’t get that from anywhere else and are very receptive to it. So for us, that’s a good example of integrating environment into society.

Modest But Significant Policy Influence Within Municipal Government By far Sustainable Calgary’s strongest policy influence has been within the municipal government. Remembering that policy is messy and diffuse, how can we characterize Sustainable Calgary’s influence? A simple model of policy diffusion, depicting actors, structures, and instruments, is helpful to organize the insights of the interviewees. First, let’s look at the actors. Many City employees with a hand in policy participated in the indicator projects, as project team members, sector workshop participants, researchers, or data providers. Most of these people form part of what one interviewee called a “sustainability subculture” internal to the municipal government, beyond which, the interviewee maintained, influence of Sustainable Calgary has not diffused. According to other interviewees familiar with City government, a handful of senior and mid-level managers, and at least six aldermen, have been “engaged” by, are “paying attention” to, or are “talking about” the SCIP. One alderman acknowledged that her participation in the indicator project “certainly helped me understand the triple bottom line a lot quicker.” Another alderman recounted how through his involvement with the indicator project, “I guess in a way I was trying to understand if all of that sustainability indicator stuff could be brought into a fairly large organization that wasn’t talking that way so much.” The alderman went on to explain that the city just signed on to a network [ImagineCalgary] to plan for long-term urban sustainability. Maybe four years ago . . . there were pieces of it . . ., people in parts of the organization who were very keen on it, but they weren’t united, they weren’t connected, and in a little while they have kind of legitimized it in the organization. I don’t know if I had a part to play in all of that. I’m not suggesting I have, in any formal sense, but I kind of understand sustainability and I’m supportive of people who want to see if our organization can actually come up with a meaningful strategy . . . of reflecting back to sustainability principles.

One of the focal actors in the policy arena at City Hall is an environmental policy analyst and co-founder of Sustainable Calgary. Her influence throughout City government is widely acknowledged by interviewees. In one alderman’s assessment, “Rachel influences people in the city. So you hear the conversation, you hear some of the speakers who have been brought to the city from other parts of the world and Rachel’s name will be mentioned.” The actors influence policy through various structures of policy design. Sustainable Calgary has had some interaction with several such structures. Chronologically, the first one was the Standing Policy Committee on Community and Protective Services. In 1999 Sustainable Calgary presented its recently released first report to

9

Something Real and Lasting: What to Expect from a Citizen-Led. . .

185

this committee, which endorsed the report and recommended that Sustainable Calgary be invited to participate in any sustainability initiatives of the City. Another increasingly important policy structure is the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC), whose role is to comment on all environmental policy before it goes to the Environment Standing Policy Committee. Sustainable Calgary was invited to join the EAC as an observer in 2002, and in 2004 it became a full member of the committee. Another policy structure with which Sustainable Calgary has had some interaction indirectly is the executive offices, where, according to Cheryl, “how to measure, and indicators, is all we talked about for a year and a half and is still very much the focus of Council and the administration.” Cheryl’s commentary emphasizes the value of the indicator report itself as “a significant piece of foundational work,” particularly in that it serves as a structural model of how to report on performance measurement. Her thoughts help illuminate how the model can have influence in the policy arena: If the administration can understand what the indicator is that you are trying to create and measure, then it is easier to communicate to Council. And Council represents the people. If we are going to change behaviours and activities and even public support for where tax money goes, it has to be in a language that everyone can understand, at an administration level, a Council level, and a public level. So for me, that’s where this project can become a very serious model and foundational effort. When I went to [executive] meetings and we discussed how to put the Council priority document together, how to lay out what our indicators were, how we would measure outcomes, [the indicator project] was an effort in my mind that I kept referring back to, and [that] I kept referring to in group discussions.

Policy is implemented within the municipal government through policy instruments, which are administered by actors. Interviewees identified three policy instruments over which Sustainable Calgary continues to have some influence: the Environmental Management System, and in particular, the ISO 14001 certification process; the Triple Bottom Line reporting initiative; and ImagineCalgary. The ISO 14001 process influence was very localized. Harvey talked about how shortly after his involvement with the indicator project, Calgary Transit established an environmental management committee with the goal of getting Calgary Transit ISO 14001 certified. He related how “we were one of the first business units in the city to [achieve certification]. A lot of the discussions we had here and the projects we took on, I remember back to the [indicator project], and I got to lend some of my learnings there into the committee to get things done properly.” Performance measurement generally, and the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) reporting initiative in particular, represents the policy instrument where the indicator report has been most relevant. Performance measurement was the foot in the door for the indicator project. Don explains how the indicator report got noticed and how that initial interest continues to influence the TBL initiative: Certainly, we had an interest in the indicator report. We were totally on a . . . parallel process at the time. We were in the process of developing performance measures for the City of Calgary. We broke that up and said we need them on a corporate level [and] it would also be useful to have something on a community-based level. So when we found out what

186

N. Keough

Sustainable Calgary was doing, it was like a very nice fit. It was very supportive of what we were trying to do... [O]ne of the projects I got involved in late last year . . ., a triple bottom line initiative, and I’ve been heading that up. I don’t know if we are solving the sustainability issue, but at least we are trying to bring in social, environmental, and economic issues much more formally into decision-making.

The most current manifestation of the policy influence of the Sustainable Calgary indicator initiative is ImagineCalgary, which represents an unprecedented opportunity for Sustainable Calgary to exert significant influence over policy. ImagineCalgary is the first attempt by the city administration at a systemic, integrated, and community-owned approach to create a 100-year long-term vision that will inform Calgary’s transportation plan, municipal development plan, and social development plan. Rachel has been one of the key architects of the ImagineCalgary initiative, and Sustainable Calgary has been invited to the table at the beginning of the process.

Reality Check: Limited Profile and Traction of Municipal Government Policy Given the potential for Sustainable Calgary to exert a greater influence on policy, it is important to step back and do a reality check on the influence of Sustainable Calgary to date. The above commentary attests to the fact that Sustainable Calgary has established a presence in the policy actor network, the policy structures, and the policy instruments of the municipal government. But the overall assessment of interviewees is that the influence has been modest. According to one alderman, despite “a lot of interest and a lot of enthusiasm,” somehow the indicator report “didn’t get the traction . . ., didn’t quite take hold.” Despite acknowledging that the indicator project had the attention of the Chief Commissioner in 1998, Don offered the following comment: “To what extent it permeated upper management? I don’t think so. That’s my gut feel. I would say if you went to the executive level and mentioned the word ‘Sustainable Calgary,’ my guess [is that] most of them wouldn’t have a clue.” Has the report diffused throughout the city? According to Cathy, “I wouldn’t say a lot at this point.” In reflecting on the report’s influence, Alderman Deborah replied, “I couldn’t tell you exactly. I don’t think I’ve seen anything specific that I could allude to where it’s ‘quote’ made a difference. Even as a Council member, though the knowledge that I gain from a whole variety of places does impact and influence the decisions I make. It’s diffuse.” Alderman George’s response to the question of influence was, “I couldn’t point to something and say, here’s where the indicators have been incorporated into the way the City does business.” While he perceives that “concerns about the environment are more prominent than they were six or seven years ago,” the extent to which that awareness is “attributable to the work of [Sustainable Calgary], I couldn’t say, because it is coming at us now from so many other directions.” The following passages from George’s interview were insightful in terms of the dilemma

9

Something Real and Lasting: What to Expect from a Citizen-Led. . .

187

Sustainable Calgary faces in achieving, and even recognizing, significant policy influence. “[The report] has to grab the attention of a municipal government champion, it has to resonate with the priorities of the municipal government, and there must be some sense that it is doable. The last word on policy influence goes to Ron. During his interview, he asked rhetorically, “Has [the indicator project] changed activities, thinking and commitment [at City Hall]?” He answered, “I believe it has.”

A Benchmark for Indicators and Performance Measurement Interviewee comments recorded in the previous section allude to the foundational model the Sustainable Calgary indicator project provides. Throughout the interviews, the most common descriptor of the status of the indicator report was “benchmark.” Bruce talked about how the “document, at the end of the day, was really useful. . . . To be able to say this is a snapshot of where we are today and kind of look at progress or lack of progress years down the road. A benchmark was being drawn and we were on a journey together to say, in a while we’ll do this again and see if we have improved or not.” He continued, “I can remember some discussions around the Council table and the report being brought up.... In a way it led to thinking around outcome measures.” Barb, from the Calgary Health Region, spoke about the indicator report as something “tangible that could put some substance to what we were talking about. It is a very ambitious initiative. I think you have raised an awareness and benchmark for the community.” Cheryl acknowledged that “it’s become a real example to me how to lay out an indicator. . . . If the staff can understand it, they can say, yeah, that’s measurable and you can put it on a piece of paper and check it for progress throughout the year and say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to it at the end of the year. . . . [It’s a] significant foundational piece.” Janet described the pioneering and unique ‘philosophy’ of the reports in that “It is more important to find a good area to measure even if it’s really difficult to measure. I remember that as a strong thing: we’re not just going to go for easy measures.” She also reflected on the significance of the report in her facilitation work and for the wider community. “It has been part of my own development and ability to ask better questions [of] groups that are struggling around the same issues. Sustainable Calgary is one of the first who did it. It is possible. An aha! A pioneer.” From the point of view of municipal government, Rachel put the continued benchmark value of the indicator report in perspective. “The City of Calgary has yet to get indicators right—to do it well. In that context [the] indicators report stands up as a good example. On the City side, it is still a big mess. We have a corporate goal of creating a corporate reporting framework. [City officials] have a sense of, here’s a way of doing this stuff. Especially on the community side, you could argue, why would the City think of other [indicator sets] when that’s been done [by Sustainable Calgary]?”

188

N. Keough

Contribution to an Emerging Progressive Sustainability Network In 1996 Sustainable Calgary was fairly unique in its focus on urban sustainability. As such, it was a meeting place for people interested in working on urban sustainability. The process of citizen engagement and dialogue facilitated network building; many participants remarked on how the process had allowed them to create new relationships with fellow participants and connected them with new organizations and networks. George commented that in his opinion, “the value of [the indicator report] is the network of people who came around the work as opposed to the work itself, the indicators themselves.” Karen commented, I have actually met some people through volunteering for the indicators. . . . I don’t see them on a regular basis, but when we do see each other, we have so much in common that it’s really nice. So it actually introduced different people—to be able to build a larger network. . . . You know that there are people who do care and are interested in the same issues.

Maya reflected that “often when you are not acting from the status quo or you don’t think you are, you feel isolated. So personally, it was just good to connect with other people that are working toward similar goals.”

Contribution to an Enabling Environment for Achieving Sustainability Ron believed that the indicator initiative “has actually created a change of mind at City Hall within the staff administration and also senior management.” Rachel expressed the same sentiment in terms of the indicator report “contributing to a culture shift.” Joy could not “point to precise things that were done,” but she felt “really comfortable that it planted seeds and got people thinking” and that, in fact, she has seen “more movement and more discussion on the topic at all levels of government and industry.” Karen thought that it “gives you more credibility if you can talk about something and say oh! There is an interesting report out. . . .” Harvey described how the report was helpful for him during Calgary Transit discussions of the kinds of success stories to post to its Web site. “I did mention more than once at the table, ‘Look, we’ve got the Sustainable Calgary group out there and these are the kinds of things they’re looking for and these are some of the indicators.’ So it ties in nice to our success stories.” Deborah identified the importance of learning a new language. “People are just starting to realize what sustainability means, and part of that is the influence from the report. Just having the word ‘sustainability’ up there. People are starting to talk about it. Building the capacity of people. Over time it becomes part of the language and there is a common understanding of it.” George talked about how in “politics . . . you create a climate.”

9

Something Real and Lasting: What to Expect from a Citizen-Led. . .

189

You do things and you don’t know what impact it is going to have, and it is intangible sometimes. You create a climate that gives people permission to do things that people weren’t thinking they would do, or sure they should do, or didn’t know if they wanted to take the risk of doing. And by golly, here’s this group of citizens doing something, and it creates a climate of acceptance. . . . When I think of what the City of Calgary has done in the environment—it has planted a seed, planted ideas, given people permission, and [the] impacts, we can’t really measure.

A Valuable Reference Document Consideration of the interview results suggests that to a modest extent, the report is a living document not merely sitting on shelves. It was designed to be a reference, a planning and policy tool, and an education tool. To some extent, it is being put to those ends. But in the public and not-for-profit sectors, there is evidence that the report is an accessible, living document that has some purchase as a planning and education tool. Karen said that she feels “people can learn from it. . . . It’s accessible . . . [and] it’s really readable.” According to Barb, “I know when I am out in the community, I hear people talking about it. They refer to it. So it isn’t a dead document that went on the shelf and no one ever heard about.” Mahmoud spoke of “us[ing] it personally” and said that it was “something to communicate with other new immigrants, or with Canadians.” Jackie, on the other hand, reported, “To my knowledge, it is not really being used in United Way. I think that there might have been a few staff initially in focus groups [who] had been aware of it and had reports in their offices.” Cathy, a city planner, felt that it “was an excellent product [and] a good source book” and that she had “made reference to the report in some of [her] work.” One area where it is clear the document does not have a profile is the business community. John works in the private sector and commented that “definitely at the corporate level, I haven’t seen it.”. Reesa confirmed that observation: “When I was involved in the private sector, nobody talked about it.” Some interviewees were very specific about how they had used the report. Marlino, for example, said, “Yes, I use the report a lot, especially, for instance, the indicator on valuing cultural diversity. It is very good because you have the statistics and the indicator to use to actually talk about something that you know is happening . . ., to say that we need more interventions . . ., [and for] policy and planning and project identification.” Maya took it upon herself to disseminate the report through her organic produce delivery business. “I definitely spoke with a lot of people who had a little bit of interest, a few hundred people. There are a few copies at the warehouse. Our customers, some of them phoned and said ‘this is great! I had no idea that this is going on.’ It was a good role for our business to play in the city.” Emily works for a provincial funding agency and has “given this book or referred this book to probably thirty people in the last few years. Even people in Fort McMurray and in Lethbridge—people who work for other municipalities and really

190

N. Keough

specifically sustainable development. I do send people to your Web site because we don’t have copies any more.”

Catalyst for New Research and Projects Clearly, the indicators project has catalyzed new community research. The most noteworthy example of this is the Sense of Community initiative, which identified a data gap and insufficient understanding of sense of community. On the strength of the 1998 report, Sustainable Calgary convened a group of agencies to develop a survey tool to assess sense of community in Calgary. The City of Calgary, the United Way of Calgary and Area, the Calgary Foundation and the Calgary Health Region all participated in the project. The Sense of Community indicator project continues to function under the leadership of City of Calgary staff. After the 1998 State of Our City Report, Sustainable Calgary took a lead role in undertaking independent research on what we had designated as “Indicators in Progress: Sense of Community, Valuing Cultural Diversity and Economic Diversification. Many of these initiatives were discussed during the 32 participant interviews. The commentaries of interviewees on three of these research initiatives—Dover, Sense of Community, and Safer Cities—was particularly engaging and illustrative of the spin-off effects of the original indicator project. Krista was the key driver behind the Dover Community Indicator Project, funded by the Neighbourhood Grants project of the Calgary Foundation. The Dover project was adapted from the city-wide SCIP. Sustainable Calgary was approached to assist the Dover Community Association with a land-use dispute with the City of Calgary. Eventually the Dover Community Association agreed to broaden their perspective to look at the sustainability of the community and not just the land-use issue. The indicator project led to two new community initiatives and at least a partial resolution of the land-use issue. In Krista’s words, I came into [the sustainability study] with this specific thing that we were going to address this land-use thing. And decided that report was going to say we need to have more of a . . . we call it move-up housing . . . that’s what we call it in our community. And what’s come out of that sustainability study is that we’ve gone forward with the whole multi-cultural, cultural diversity piece—which has been very surprising to me. . . . Now we have a cultural diversity member on our board. They have been meeting with different groups in the community. We are trying to look at making ourselves more culturally friendly, translating some sports forms, in terms of having interpreters available.

A third project is the Safer City initiative, a multi-stakeholder initiative instigated through the City of Calgary. Through the Safer City initiative, Calgary has become the first Canadian city to be designated by the World Health Organization as a Safer City. Cheryl coordinated the initiative during the creation of its indicator report. In her interview, she talked about the influence the SCIP had on her work. When I was working with the Safer City project . . . there was a very keen interest in looking at how to measure the success of the Safer City project, and the first thing that came to my

9

Something Real and Lasting: What to Expect from a Citizen-Led. . .

191

mind was the [Sustainable Calgary] indicator project. It was a really nice fit. . . . [The Sustainable Calgary indicator project] became a significant piece of foundational work that I’ve used time and time again as a reference when I’m working with people at the City.

Exclusion Within the Process The flip side of participation is exclusion. Even though for the most part interviewees felt that the process had “a high degree of professionalism” and “got people engaged. . .[and] thinking,” some interviewees talked at length about discomfort with instances of exclusion from the process. Maya volunteered as a facilitator for the community sector working group during the preparation of the second State of Our City Report. She was uncomfortable with the way a contingent of participants from the arts community had been excluded: I definitely felt that the participants in the community [working group] were quite disappointed. . . . [The process] ended up actually breaking down the community [working group]. The arts people got shunted, definitely, and they were very active, very committed participants. I felt that their participation was almost negated by that process. And we did try to talk through that. And if we can only vote. . . . Even the dotmocracy6 is exclusive. I can’t honestly propose a different way of choosing [the indicators] but . . . I was aware at the time that it was exclusive, the same as our political system. [You] lose interest because there was a negation of your voice. Maybe [the arts community participants] needed more time to present why their choices were important to them. Because I think some of the other [indicators] were more obvious to the general population and theirs maybe wasn’t represented enough. Maybe it was a time issue. [They proposed] arts in schools [as the indicator]. And I agreed with them [but] as a facilitator I tried not to sway the crowd.

Mark spoke about his personal experience of exclusion in the process: At the end of the day, I was one voice that represented the business side. It becomes a bit of a challenge. I remember talking to [my wife] and saying it was . . . a real challenge for me. . . . I’d hear folks say, well, XYZ, this is the way it should be. I don’t want to be the only person saying that [I have a different perspective, and others thinking,] . . . who brought the idiot.

Bill offered an opinion about how to deal with these instances of exclusion: Consensus. I don’t know if consensus is needed. It might need some real teaching to get there. If there is a way to say up front we are missing certain aspects. . . . So coming in to a process and saying we know we need an arts indicator. I don’t know if that is twisting the process too much or tweaking it. But there are certain spots of strategic engagement of getting certain groups involved. That might be a way. Is that a way to get into the corporate workplace, by really targeting [an indicator] that just might draw and getting them strategically engaged? Because the more groups you can engage in this, it seems, the more power it can have.

As a person with a learning disability, Fred also raised an important aspect of exclusion that, in fact, echoes several other interviewees quoted above: 6

Dotmocracy, or voting with dots, is an established facilitation method used to describe voting with dot stickers or marks with a marker pen.

192

N. Keough

Some of it didn’t make any sense to me—some of the ideas. Trying to see where they all fit in. It was a little bit complicated for me to understand. Everybody was learning at a different level. . . . The dotmocracy I found a little hard. Okay, where do we put this, where do we put that. I have only so many [sticky dots] to put into that. It was very hard to choose the ones that we wanted that really made some sense. I found it really hard. I don’t know if there is a better way to do this. ’Cause we didn’t really have a lot of time to think, how are we going to do this or how are we going to do that.

Conclusions This paper reports on the outcomes of a citizen-led sustainability indicator project. A review of sustainability indicator literature suggests that truly citizen-led processes are rare and as Eckerberg and Mineur (2003) demonstrate establishing truly effective citizen participation through local government led projects is fraught with potential difficulties. In fact Elgert and Kreuger (2012) argue that ‘the development and use of indicators have become a technocratic practice that serves as a buffer between the “political” and the “rational” and thus de-politicizes and restricts local sustainable development agendas (p. 561). This research demonstrates that truly citizen-led, -initiated, -hosted and -managed indicator projects can be effective. Castena Broto and Westman (2017) report that ‘there is a significant deficit in terms of addressing the principles of justice and equity, and ecosystem limits. However, the data also suggest that local action may already be delivering some aspects of just sustainabilities, even if this is not always explicit” (p. 635). The SCIP process suggests that these issues of injustice did not escape the vision of participants and were in fact apparent in the principles established to guide the process and the indicators that emerged from the process. This case study also demonstrates the efficacy of citizen-led processes in bringing to the fore social sustainability that Opp (2017) still finds to be ‘the forgotten pillar’ in the social ecological and economic reporting on sustainability. The question of effectiveness with respect to policy influence and municipal planning is addressed in this paper. This citizen led process has been shown to have influenced local government policy-makers, structures and initiatives. Further, with respect to Brugmann’s objections to the Sustainable Seattle process, the paper demonstrates the need to think of policy making beyond its conventional characterization as a narrow bureaucratic and rational process. In The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning Fischer and Forester (1993) argue that policy making is only in small part a rational process. It is an interaction of language games and proficiency, rhetoric, power and influence and information. Flyvberg and Sampson’s (1998) classic study of policy and planning in a Dutch city demonstrates this dynamic. Additionally, this broader understanding of policy-making is bolstered by a move from government to governance, where governance, as argued by authors such as Lafferty (2006) is a systemic achievement of state, private sector and non-profit actors, both institutional and individual. This paper demonstrates that engaged citizens gained knowledge, changed behaviours, formed new networks and

9

Something Real and Lasting: What to Expect from a Citizen-Led. . .

193

became stronger advocates. It should also be noted that those citizens who participate in citizen-led processes are often planners, public administrators, politicians, and private and not-for-profit sector leaders. As such we can expect citizen-led processes to achieve concrete and identifiable impacts, not in a way easily captured by sole attribution or direct causal links but as a contribution via a very fluid and multi-faceted process of leveraging indicators for policy and action.

References Astleithner, F., & Hamedinger, A. (2003). The analysis of sustainability indicators as socially constructed policy instruments: benefits and challenges of interactive research. Local Environment, 8(6), 627–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/1354983032000152734 Atkisson, A. (1999). Developing indicators of sustainable community: lessons from sustainable Seattle. In D. Satterthwaite (Ed.), The Earthscan reader in sustainable cities. Earthscan. Bell, S., & Morse, S. (2001). Breaking through the glass ceiling: Who really cares about sustainability indicators? Local Environment, 6(3), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13549830120073284 Brugmann, J. (1997a). Is there a method in our measurement? The use of indicators in local sustainable development planning. Local Environment, 2(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13549839708725512 Brugmann, J. (1997b). Sustainability indicators revisited: Getting from political objectives to performance outcomes—a response to Graham Pinfield. Local Environment, 2(3), 299–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839708725534 Castán Broto, V., & Westman, L. (2017). Just sustainabilities and local action: Evidence from 400 flagship initiatives. Local Environment, 22(5), 635–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839. 2016.1248379 Chambers, R. (2010). Paradigms, poverty and adaptive pluralism. Working Paper no. 344. Institute for Development Studies, Brighton. Chambers, R. (1997). Whose reality counts: Putting the first last. ITDG Publishing. CIW. (2021). https://uwaterloo.ca/canadian-index-wellbeing/ Eckerberg, K., & Mineur, E. (2003). The use of local sustainability indicators: Case studies in two Swedish municipalities. Local Environment, 8(6), 591–614. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1354983032000152716 Elgert, L., & Krueger, R. (2012). Modernising sustainable development? Standardisation, evidence and experts in local indicators. Local Environment, 17(5), 561–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13549839.2012.681466 Fals-Borda, O. (1979). Investigating reality in order to transform it: The Columbian experience. Dialectical Anthropology, 4, 33–55. Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (Eds.). (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Duke University Press. Flyvbjerg, B., & Sampson, S. (1998). Rationality and power: Democracy in action. University of Chicago Press. Gadotti, M. (1994). Reading Paulo Freire: His life and work. State University of New York Press. Gahin, R., Veleva, V., & Hart, M. (2003). Do indicators help create sustainable communities? Local Environment, 8(6), 661–666. https://doi.org/10.1080/1354983032000152752 Holden, M. (2006). Sustainable Seattle: The case of the prototype sustainability indicators project. In M. J. Sirgy, D. Rahtz, & D. Swain (Eds.), Community quality-of-life indicators (Social Indicators Research Series) (Vol. 28). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4625-4_7

194

N. Keough

Horton, M., & Freire, P. (1990). We make the road by walking: Conversations on education and social change. Temple University Press. JCCI. (2021). https://jaxpact.org/reports-studies/ Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In Y. Lincoln & N. Denzin (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Sage. Keough, N., & Ghitter, G. (2021). Sustainability matters: Prospects for a just transition in Calgary, Canada’s Petro-City. University of Calgary Press. Keough, N. (2005). The sustainable Calgary story: A local response to a global challenge. In R. Phillips (Ed.), Community indicators measuring systems (pp. 65–96). Ashgate. Keough, N. (1998). Participatory development principles and practice. Community Development Journal, Oxford., 33(3), 187–196. Lafferty, W. (Ed.). (2006). Governance for sustainable development: The challenge of adapting form to function. Edward Elgar. Middlemiss, L. (2011). The effects of community-based action for sustainability on participants’ lifestyles. Local Environment, 16(3), 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2011.566850 Norland, I., Bjomaes, T., Coenen, F. (2003). Local Agenda 21 in Nordic Countries – National Strategies and Local Status. Program for Research and Documentation for a Sustainable Society, Centre for Development and the Environment University of Oslo, Norway. Opp, S. M. (2017). The forgotten pillar: A definition for the measurement of social sustainability in American cities. Local Environment, 22(3), 286–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2016. 1195800 Pinfield, G. (1997). The use of indicators in local sustainable development planning: A response to Jeb Brugmann. Local Environment, 2(2), 185–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13549839708725523 Rees, W. (1997). Is ‘Sustainable City’ an oxymoron? Local Environment, 2(3), 303–310. Rees, W. (2019). End game: The economy as eco-catastrophe and what needs to change. RealWorld Economics Review, 87, 132–148. Rydin, Y., Holman, N., & Wolff, E. (2003). Local sustainability indicators. Local Environment, 8(6), 581–589. https://doi.org/10.1080/1354983032000152707 Sustainable Calgary. (2021). http://sustainablecalgary.org

Noel Keough B.Eng., MEDes, PhD (Geography). Noel is a co-founder and Senior Researcher at Sustainable Calgary Society, and a founding member of CivicCamp Calgary and of the National Working Group for the Canadian Index of Wellbeing. He is Associate Professor Emeritus, University of Calgary, School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape. He has 30 years’ experience working in community development both locally and internationally. His work has included local renewable energy assessment and design, sustainability education, community development, popular theatre as a community animation process, sustainability indicators design and technology assessment and low carbon sustainable community planning. Internationally, Noel has worked in Central and South America, Central and South East Asia, Eastern Europe and the Middle East. He has also worked with a variety of community organizations in Alberta, Newfoundland and British Columbia. Noels book Sustainability Matters: Prospects for a Just Transition in Calgary, Canada’s Petro City was published in September 2021.

Chapter 10

Bringing Data Home TRENDS Reporting Initiative in Boulder County, CO Takes a Story-Driven Approach to Data and Community Transformation Chris Barge

Abstract The erosion of our nation’s local news and information landscape over the past two decades presents an opportunity for institutions beyond newsrooms to renew their commitment to fact-based reporting. Community Foundation Boulder County leaned into this opportunity with a TRENDS Reporting Initiative that took a story-driven approach to data and community transformation. The initiative expanded on the TRENDS magazine, a community indicators project the foundation has produced biennially since 1999. In recent years, the foundation has added a podcast, a community diary, a reporting fellowship and a solutions fund, whose first investment supported a series of structured dialogues about race. The TRENDS Podcast the foundation commissioned at KGNU Community Radio became a regular and much-anticipated feature that focused on equity issues. The TRENDS Diary gave our community a way to connect, online and over the airwaves, during the pandemic. The TRENDS Reporting Fellowship created a learning community for local journalists and storytellers to come together on behalf of the community. The Solutions Fund helped catalyze community conversations about race. By fostering the middle space of connection between people who hold power and people who are living the experiences that people in power are in a position to help improve, the foundation helped build civic infrastructure. Our hope is that these efforts serve as a bridge to a more equitable Boulder County in the long run. Keywords Community indicators magazine · Indicators podcast · Middle space · Equity · Community diary · Reporting fellowship · Solutions fund · Community indicators

C. Barge (*) Community Foundation Boulder County, Boulder, CO, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 F. Ridzi et al. (eds.), Community Quality-of-Life Indicators, Community Quality-ofLife and Well-Being, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06940-6_10

195

196

C. Barge

Introduction Community indicators offer us a common set of facts and can help catalyze positive social change. However, facts alone do not always move people to action. And pointing out disparities does not necessarily lead to the solutions that work for communities. At Community Foundation Boulder County, we believed we needed a combination of top-down data and bottom-up solutions to support real change. The sweet spot is in the middle, where data and solutions meet. Local news outlets sometimes occupy this space, but not often enough. We believed institutions that harvest community indicators for the public good can accelerate their impact by pairing their data with stories of people living at the heart of the struggles the data highlight. Our TRENDS Reporting Initiative grew out of the Boulder County Civic Forum, which was launched in 1995 as the Boulder County Healthy Communities Initiative. More than 400 residents identified four visions for a healthy community, including: for the people; for the environment; for the economy; and for culture and society. Specifically, they named 50 community indicators to track over time. The report eventually became a glossy, biennial magazine, called TRENDS: The Community Foundation’s Report on Key Indicators. The TRENDS magazine has been a production of Community Foundation Boulder County since 1999. Many of the original indicators are still included in today’s expanded TRENDS magazine and it relies on more than 150 indicators of our community’s social, economic and environmental health, plus in-depth community reporting. In recent years, the magazine has evolved into both a data-driven and story-focused enterprise. It now includes an interactive, searchable database of indicators, and the project has become much more than a magazine. Recently, we expanded the TRENDS Reporting Initiative into podcasts, a community diary, a reporting fellowship and a solutions fund. We believed we were building civic infrastructure, to help our community meet in this middle place between data and solutions. In the future, we hoped to see this initiative bear fruit in terms of helping us and our multitude of partners move the needles for social impact and promoting equity.

An Opportunity Emerges from a Journalistic Crisis While TRENDS magazine has evolved, so too has the local news and information landscape. We weathered Y2K. We have witnessed the advent of the smart phone and the app. Screens have disrupted and changed the fabric of our lives. Google and Facebook have become household names, while at the same time carving away 70% of the advertising revenue that used to fund local newspapers. Economic and technological trends have driven us onto our screens, into increasingly partisan national conversations and onto social platforms. The local public square has eroded.

10

Bringing Data Home

197

Meanwhile, the local Boulder Daily Camera newspaper has seen its news hole shrink radically. In 2000, the paper published 13 sections on Sundays, including a magazine. Today, it is drastically reduced to a shell of its former self and it is owned by a New York hedge fund, as are 50% of local newspapers nationally. Circulation is off dramatically from its peak. In this crisis lies an opportunity for institutions such as community foundations to renew their commitment to fact-based reporting. Community Foundation Boulder County leaned into that opportunity. In 2017, I was asked to edit and produce our TRENDS Magazine. I made some changes drawing on my experiences in a former career as a newspaper reporter. These included adding reporting beyond the community indicators and the experts we had traditionally presented in the TRENDS magazine. We adopted a policy of no anonymous sources. We became photo driven. We made sure all stories held to one page or spread and didn’t lose readers’ attention by jumping around the magazine. Our cover story in that first edition was created in response to one of the most glaring community indicators we track: the disparate educational outcomes of Latino and Anglo students in our community. It featured Shely Meraz, “A parent at the center of a movement” (Barge, 2017). It talked about a Latino parent engagement program at the Community Foundation, called ELPASO—Engaged Latino Parents Advancing Student Outcomes. The TRENDS magazine was and continues to be full of stories told from the perspective of our neighbors who are living through the pressing community concerns our indicators force us to contemplate.

Aligning with National Momentum Our magazine’s approach aligned with our community foundation’s formal commitment, codified in the foundation’s 2018 strategic plan, to align all our efforts towards a vision of equity for Boulder County. Amplifying community voices, particularly voices from historically marginalized communities, has become core to our mission. Our vision, mission and approach align well with three emerging areas of momentum in the field of community foundations, as outlined in a ground-breaking report, “Going All In,” by CFLeads (2020). Overwhelmingly, community foundations are embracing their community leadership roles. Specifically, they are focusing on work that insists on racial equity, amplifies community voices, and influences policies and systems. The 2019–2021 TRENDS magazine built on the redesign we put in place in the 2017–2019 edition. At the same time, we started moving the project beyond the pages of the magazine and onto the local radio airwaves. Our strategy to expand the project in this manner was influenced by three simultaneous dynamics. First, we interviewed our stakeholders as we developed our strategic plan (Community Foundation’s 2017 countywide listening tour). Over

198

C. Barge

and over, they told us how much they appreciated the TRENDS Magazine. They also asked us to do more with it. A second dynamic came from our longstanding relationship with the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, whose mission is to foster informed, engaged communities. The Boulder Daily Camera was at one point owned by the Knight-Ridder newspaper chain, and so the Knight Foundation has stayed loyal to advancing its mission in Boulder County, in partnership with our community foundation. A few years ago, we were invited, with three other community foundations, to participate in a project called the Knight Community Information Lab. Together, we learned about human-centered design, and we applied these concepts to an effort to increase the influence of Latino bilingual cultural brokers locally. As part of this project, we worked with our local community radio station, KGNU, to develop a “listening booth” at a local museum during a very popular Dia de los Muertos celebration. Spanish speakers were invited to enter the booth, don headphones, and interact with a screen that showed various local cultural brokers, asking them questions in Spanish about how they receive local news. The project revealed to us that news travels in these communities most prominently by word-of-mouth, through trusted relationships. Working with KGNU we heard how aligned our organizations are in wanting to help our community hear more from historically marginalized communities, particularly Spanish speakers. We helped KGNU find the financial resources necessary to hire a Spanish bilingual reporter to cover equity-oriented news and also launch the first TRENDS Podcast. This new reporter, Rossana Longo, became the first Latina bilingual reporter in recent memory to work full-time in our county for a news outlet. It would spark a trend that other outlets would follow. Today, there are three full-time Spanish bilingual reporters in our county. Alexandria Jimenez first saw what happened when someone sent her a photo of it. A mural the LatinX street artist had painted on commission on Boulder, Colorado’s Pearl Street Mall was defaced with white supremacist language: “White Pride,” it read, among other provocations. Days later, she painted over the graffiti, restoring her mural on three Jersey barriers. Her artwork encouraged people to “Call your friends,” “Wear a mask” and “Wash your hands.” It had nothing to do with race. Yet, there she was, cleaning it up. She posted the photo of the graffiti on Instagram, with a message that read, in part: “While it didn’t take long to literally wipe out white pride, it felt like I was in a time out. For daring to have a voice, to be seen. Punished for the times I didn’t take the higher ground, the times I didn’t bite my tongue. As the wind threw a tantrum alongside me, I wondered if they knew how many times my heart has broken at the hands of whiteness, how many times I’ve shrunk (continued)

10

Bringing Data Home

199

myself in its presence. How many times I’ve been told it’s not real, or no one cares or that I think about it too much. How many times I’ve had to name it, exhaust my energy begging others to see it.” Her post came to the attention of our Community Foundation. Soon, I was inviting the artist to tell her story in her own words. She graciously agreed. “Supremacy on Pearl Street” became an entry in TRENDS Diary, a collection of community stories we started curating during the pandemic, about how people connect and solve problems. We published it in our monthly digital newsletter, which was read by more than 5,000 people. Our local community radio station would later record her telling her story, and broadcast it to their local audience of more than 40,000 listeners. Stories such as Alexandria’s (insert) are important for us to amplify, because they go beyond the numbers in pointing out the paradox of white supremacy’s presence in a town that works hard to address racism. Our community foundation joined with representatives from the city, our county, and two local universities to host a series of structured, cross-racial dinner dialogues about race relations. And yet: • At this writing, 90% of Boulder County’s adult seniors have received COVID vaccinations, but only 5% of our county’s LatinX seniors have been vaccinated. • Between 500 and 800 mostly white, mostly drunk, mostly un-masked undergraduate students recently rioted at a block party in an off-campus neighborhood, flipping a car over, smashing in the windows of a SWAT vehicle, and throwing rocks and bottles at police. Letters to the editor from some of their parents days later sought to defend their children’s expression of freedom. They questioned why we in Boulder should take offense at this, suggesting it was no different from the unmasked Black Lives Matter protests across the country the prior year. There are many stories to tell, so many disparities to highlight to give a human face and context to the trends that our indicators expose and to catalyze our community to address our most pressing needs.

Beyond the Pages of a Magazine: Partnering with Community Radio on Bilingual, Equity-Oriented News The TRENDS Podcasts were broadcast monthly in the form of mini-documentaries exploring issues of pressing community concern. The podcasts have helped to keep the community’s attention on local inequities, and potential solutions.

200

C. Barge

The first podcast, in two parts, investigated the poor water quality in the local mobile home parks. The reports followed the experiences of mobile home residents, frustrated by chalky, foul-smelling water coming from their taps, but unable to do anything about it. Rossana brought listeners alongside the mobile home residents as they went about their daily lives. In one segment, she followed Adrian Duran to the supermarket to refill his water jugs. As the sound of water filling the jugs ran in the background, he explained that he buys 25 gallons of water each week for cooking and drinking. Clean tap water ought to be a protected right for every Boulder resident, he said. “I feel like Boulder has a lot of protected areas, you know,” he said. “And I feel like Boulder protects a lot of land . . . a lot of open spaces, parks, so I feel like protecting someone’s home would be a great thing, you know?” The story showed listeners how hard it is for some of their neighbors just to obtain clean drinking water. Here we live in a town that cares so much about health that it recently passed a tax on sugary drinks, to incentivize people to drink more water. Shay Castle, a local reporter interviewed on the podcast, explained that many LatinX and low-income households drink soda “because their water isn’t drinkable. It smells bad. It tastes bad,” she said. The podcasts also interviewed people in power, who could potentially do something to change the policies and systems keeping residents from clean water. “It’s inherently unfair, immoral that homeowners in a mobile home park have to withstand lower quality of water and sewage,” said Colorado State Rep. Edie-Hooton, D-Boulder. Using a newly developed strategic planning document, the foundation applied for and received funding from the Knight Foundation. Other foundations and donors also stepped in. Soon we were making plans to help a diverse cohort of journalists and storytellers learn how to improve their coverage of pressing local issues. We were raising a Solutions Fund, which would help catalyze community-level responses to the issues raised by the reporting. Then the pandemic hit, and we got busy opening a COVID relief fund. We also soon realized we had a role to play in helping a suddenly much more isolated community connect and solve problems. Understanding the power of first-person narratives such as those found in The New York Times’ Metropolitan Diary, we launched TRENDS Diary, a new place for Boulder County residents of all ages to share personal experiences that relate to a pressing community need. It felt like a good way to keep our community connected amidst the physical isolation of the pandemic. We hired local freelance reporters to find people with a story to tell, and to help them tell it in 300 words or less.

10

Bringing Data Home

201

Soon, KGNU was broadcasting one of these diarists each week, telling their stories in their own words. In one episode of Trends Diary, Matt Wolvington, a local bartender, told his cautionary tale of surviving the virus. He talked about coming down with COVID 19 symptoms in March of 2020, when it was just starting to descend on our area. He had a bad case, which became complicated with other medical conditions. He survived and wanted others to take his story to heart. “Sometimes it takes a little trauma to bring awareness to other people,” he said. “I hope that sharing a simple story like this starts to change people’s attitudes. Maybe we won’t just go about our life because things are re-opening. Maybe we won’t just go back to normal and forget about it.”

A Reporting Fellowship Is Born Big ideas are helpful, but they need thoughtful and ambitious people to see them through. Soon, our original idea to offer a series of four trainings to local journalists grew into plans for a year-long TRENDS Reporting Fellowship. Together, we landed on a vision for a more diverse and inclusive local news ecosystem, in which Boulder County’s full diversity in terms of race, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, gender identity and class is represented on both sides of the story: in the people whose stories are covered, and in the journalists covering the stories. The TRENDS Reporting Fellowship program’s goals are to support communications professionals in honing their skills at producing stories that can shift public attitudes about issues of pressing community-wide concern; develop innovative and outstanding reporting approaches that other journalists can emulate; and deepen relationships between journalists and community-based leaders, experts and other stakeholders. Through their work, program participants will create new models and practices that could be replicated by others. In fall 2020, we convened a diverse, inaugural cohort of 12 Fellows. At this writing, the Fellows were producing innovative, high-quality, and in some cases collaborative, special projects in a variety of media formats and genres, such as longform investigations, in-depth series, multimedia productions and podcasts. “Using community-organizing tactics, we shared tools, examples and strategies to help the fellows build strong relationships with communities, share and redistribute power, and create a future that works for BIPOC, rural communities, Black women, differently abled people, trans folk, undocumented people (continued)

202

C. Barge

and anyone who has not had full access to journalism’s power and influence,” wrote Diamond Hardiman, a trainer to the fellowship from Free Press’ News Voices project. The Fellows networked with community members and leaders, local communitybased experts, and thought leaders working on issues of pressing concern. They explored innovative ways to reframe news stories and engage members of the public. They gave and received peer review and guidance.

An Evolving Local News and Information Landscape Meanwhile, the local news and information landscape continues to evolve. Our TRENDS Reporting Initiative was highlighted as a case study in a new national report on local media, titled “Healthy Local News & Information Ecosystems: A Diagnostic Framework” (Stonebraker and Lindsay 2021). The report, produced by Impact Architects, with support from the Knight Foundation, Democracy Fund, and Google News Initiative, measured the strength of news environments across 10 different communities nationwide, including Boulder County. It can be used by newsrooms and journalism-funders in Colorado to take the pulse of local news and make better funding and editorial decisions. The report found that Boulder County has a dynamic news and information ecosystem rich with a variety of English-language for-profit news sites, but not much in the way of nonprofit, radio, television or Spanish-language offerings. At this writing, members of the inaugural class of TRENDS Reporting Fellows were deep into their reporting on their story projects. One reporter was examining racial bias in the hiring practices of the University of Colorado at Boulder. Another was looking at the disproportionate negative impact of policing by school resource officers in our local public schools. Still another was examining the experience of LGBTQ public school teachers. Journalistic collaborations were also beginning to emerge amongst and between the fellows. One, who runs a startup news site in Boulder, was launching a series on local residents who are underhoused, in partnership with KGNU, the Boulder County Department of Housing and Human Services, and our community foundation. Another was working with her startup nonprofit news site in Longmont to bring other local media outlets together to explore a collective philanthropic funding mechanism that could inspire collaboration on stories the outlets couldn’t afford to pursue on their own. Our data- and story-driven approach to equity-oriented storytelling also shaped our Community Foundation internally. Our monthly digital newsletters and our public affairs program on KGNU became more “newsy”. Our earned media increased.

10

Bringing Data Home

203

We hoped to take this approach into our policy advocacy in the months and years to come. We believed that, as we increased our news-side editorial presence, we were creating a platform that would inform our opinion and allow us to influence systems and policies with our point of view on equity-oriented issues.

Bringing Our Community Together Through the Power of Structured Dialogue So much was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. It also allowed us to slow down a bit and be more thoughtful. We delayed the publication of our biennial TRENDS Magazine because decennial Census numbers would not be released until summer 2021. People also would take some time to get comfortable meeting in large groups again, and much of the value of our magazine is in the presentations we give to groups about our findings. And so we would delay the magazine’s publication until at least the first half of 2022. This delay felt like less of a loss with so much other reporting pushing awareness of indicators and equity through other channels and news outlets as a result of our equity reporting initiative. We were also updating our TRENDS magazine’s online presence with a new, interactive database full of data that refreshes automatically. We thought it would keep the project more relevant. While we remained interested in supporting our local news and information ecosystem in fact-based reporting on issues of pressing community concern, we also realized we had a role to play as a convener. We needed to make sure this important information was internalized so it may be acted upon. That’s why we raised money to open a Solutions Fund. Its purpose was to catalyze community response to the issues raised by all this equity-oriented reporting. One of the first activities supported by the fund was a dinner series called Boulder Community Conversations About Race. The idea for the dinners was spawned by the Atkinson story (insert) that we covered in the 2019–2021 TRENDS Report (Barge, 2019). On March 1, 2019, a Boulder Police officer tried to arrest Zayd Atkinson, an African American Naropa student, on suspicion of trespassing while he was picking up trash outside his apartment. Atkinson disputed the officer’s right to arrest him, and he was eventually confronted by nine officers, with guns drawn. The incident sparked a community firestorm and led to a police oversight task force to look at racial bias. The arresting officer resigned. “It taught me there are some old patterns of oppression and systemic racism that hadn’t ever been addressed until my incident,” said Atkinson, who was 27 when I interviewed him for the last TRENDS magazine. “For some reason, the incident that happened with me seemed to wake up the city.”

204

C. Barge

The Community Conversations on Race seek to promote, deepen and sustain meaningful cross-group relationships for racial equity through the power of structured dialogue. Dialogues represent an opportunity to come together in community to talk about race and interrupt and replace internal thought patterns that contribute to racism. During these conversations, we began to cultivate our collective capacity to listen whole-heartedly. Our hope was that behaviors would change, and we would develop new relationships. We saw great potential in fostering meaningful new relationships, both amongst and across races. Studies show structured dialogues such as these lead to social action. This can take the form of increasing capacity for intergroup empathy; building motivation to connect with people different from oneself; continued growth as white allies; and people of color accessing their inherent power.

Conclusion The TRENDS Reporting Initiative, in its new, expanded format, was at the beginning of a journey that we hoped would help us and our partners make a bigger impact, alongside our community. We believed the magic was in the middle place, between top-down data and bottom-up solutions. The TRENDS Podcast we commissioned at KGNU Community Radio became a regular and much-anticipated feature. The station reports that its listeners named the podcast as a reason they became financial contributors. Topics covered to date include the low quality of water in our local mobile home parks; inequities in COVID vaccine distribution; the challenges of recovering from wildfires; how the epidemic of gun violence impacts youth; how the pandemic has impacted special needs students as well as the local arts industry; the future of farming; challenges faced by LGBTQ+ residents; the gender pay gap; living with disabilities; and isolation among seniors. The bilingual podcast also generated interest in and production of more Spanish-language reporting. The TRENDS Diary gave our community a way to connect, online and over the airwaves, during the pandemic. More than 70 Boulder County residents of all ages shared personal experiences that relate to a pressing community need. Recent entries included a trainer explaining how the Japanese running community, which trains in Boulder, raised funds for our local shooting victims. A young epidemiologist shared how the pandemic gave her a chance to think globally and act locally. Musicians spoke about front porch concert fundraisers for neighbors less fortunate than themselves. The stories were a joy to hear, in the voices of the subjects, each Friday morning on KGNU. The TRENDS Reporting Fellowship created a learning community for local journalists and storytellers to come together on behalf of the community. Their story projects included an investigation into a history of racial bias in hiring at the University of Colorado at Boulder; a column about a community organizing effort by Latina moms fighting for healthy food to be served to their children through the

10

Bringing Data Home

205

school’s free and reduced lunch program; and a series of columns about the sport of climbing’s struggles to become more diverse and inclusive. The fellowship connected journalists and news outlets with one another and led to new partnerships that yielded more in-depth, comprehensive coverage of our community’s most pressing issues. The fellowship also got the attention of funders in other states interested in trying it in their communities. The Solutions Fund has helped catalyze community conversations about race. We explored where to invest future grants, possibly into efforts to ensure that federal stimulus funding to our local governments is invested in our community in the most constructive and informed way possible. We experimented with a new feature we called TRENDS Dialogues—a book club, hosted by a different nonprofit leader each month, on a topic that addresses a prevalent issue or need in our community. Our approach began to permeate other aspects of what we did. Our newsletters were more “newsy”. Our social media posts were more engaging. By fostering this middle space of connection between people who held power and people who were living the experiences the people in power were in a position to benefit, we were building infrastructure. We hoped it served as a bridge to a more equitable Boulder County in the long run.

References Barge, C. (2017). Boulder County TRENDS the Community Foundation’s Report on Key Indicators. https://www.commfound.org/files/trends/TRENDS-2017-2019.pdf Barge, C. (2019). Boulder County TRENDS the Community Foundation’s Report on Key Indicators. https://www.commfound.org/files/trends/TRENDS2019-2021.pdf CFLeads. (2020, September). Going all in: Insisting on racial equity, amplifying community voice, and influencing public policy and systems. https://cfleads.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ Stonebraker, H., & Lindsay, G.-B. (2021) Healthy Local News & Information Ecosystems: A Diagnostic Framework. http://files.theimpactarchitects.com/ecosystems/full_report.pdf

Chris Barge joined the staff of Community Foundation Boulder County in 2008 after a 10-year career in newspapers, including with the Rocky Mountain News and the Boulder Daily Camera. At the Community Foundation, he directed Philanthropic Services, a School Readiness Initiative, and the Foundation’s TRENDS Reporting Initiative, which included the TRENDS Magazine, a TRENDS Podcast, a TRENDS Diary, a TRENDS Reporting Fellowship and a Solutions Fund. He left the Community Foundation in 2021 to become executive director of the Boulder Library Foundation. He lives in Boulder with his wife, Erin, their daughter, Ellery, their son, Milo and their dog, Scout.

Chapter 11

The Community Indicator and Community Foundation Interface: Exploring Best Practices and Standards Patsy Kraeger, Rhonda Phillips, and Frank Ridzi

Abstract Community foundations (CF) exist to serve the communities in which they are based. Community indicators exist to measure community changes, outcomes, conditions and progress towards goals. In this chapter, we explore how community indicators can be helpful in carrying out the core mission of community foundations. Recent literature has highlighted natural synergies between community indicators and community foundations, drawing particular attention to shared interest, vision and outcomes (Ridzi & Prior, International Journal of Community WellBeing, 2020). As a result, both the community indicators and community foundation movements and scholarly research in these areas are able to greatly benefit by expanding the field of practice and scholarship through alignment. Place-based philanthropy improves as a field of practice not only with a strategic outcome focus but also when guided by community indicators. In this chapter, we assert that a new regimen of best practices incorporating both the field of community indicators and the field of community foundations is needed. We conclude with a call for a better understanding of the extent to which community foundations across the U.S. and even globally can and should utilize community indicators to carry out the critical work of these organizations to measure and improve community change and well-being. Keywords Community foundations · Community indicators · Community philanthropy · National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations · CF Leads

P. Kraeger (*) Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, USA e-mail: [email protected] R. Phillips Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA e-mail: [email protected] F. Ridzi Central New York Community Foundation and LeMoyne College, Syracuse, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 F. Ridzi et al. (eds.), Community Quality-of-Life Indicators, Community Quality-ofLife and Well-Being, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06940-6_11

207

208

P. Kraeger et al.

Introduction As scholars and practitioners begin to think differently about community philanthropy and transformative community change both the discussion and the practice can and should move beyond discussion of philanthropic effectiveness and measurement through strategic grantmaking to examine the role of the community foundation as a partner for community betterment. Mack et al. (2014) suggest that “many funders over the past three decades have decided to engage in place-based philanthropy as a way to concentrate investments in a specific locality in order to achieve measurable changes that advance their goals” (p. 30). Laing (2016) suggests that philanthropy is a “transformative force for social change” (p. 1). Kraeger and Robichau (2017) suggest that institutional philanthropy which includes both private foundations and community foundations face challenges and criticisms in communicating effectiveness and proving that these institutions are indeed a transformative force for social change. Another consideration is that in goal and success statements, measurement is always central to discussion of accountability and legitimacy (Brest & Harvey; Liket & Maas, 2016; Frumkin, 2008). The question then becomes, how do we measure transformative community change effectively? We suggest that the use of community indicators will provide a baseline for not only community outcomes but also to allow comparisons across community philanthropy organizations. The purpose of this chapter is to identify community indicators to inform and influence community philanthropy practices from the literature on these topics and examine best practices exemplifying where academic and practice interface to strengthen the fields of community philanthropy and community indicators. We suggest a pathway for communicating transformative social change efforts through the use of community indicators to not only measure success but also to serve as a barometer towards outcome achievement that embraces both success and failure as a path to transformative change. As a means to increasing industry-wide sophistication in terms of strategizing and implementing community change, we seek to examine organizational behaviors from best practice standards and communities of practice in community philanthropy. We expand on these practices to incorporate community indicators, broadening an exploration of behavior and measurement measures to enhance accountability and legitimacy but even more so, partnership, responsiveness and value. The National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations1 prescribe a set of aspirational goals and behaviors. Examining these standards as indicators for success alongside the community indicator literature and body of reliable and valid indicators, we seek to put forth a new standard for examining the effectiveness of community foundations. Throughout the chapter

1

Identifying data was pulled from the GIS map of national standard accredited community foundations in October of 2020. This number is subject to change as new organizations become accredited and other organizations choose not to maintain accreditation in the program for varying reasons.

11

The Community Indicator and Community Foundation Interface: Exploring. . .

209

we will highlight examples of foundations that are either accredited foundations, using indicators, or following best practices to explore the interface between research, practice and make the case for the use of indicators to holistically assess effectiveness.

Community Foundations and Community Indicators Community foundations are distinct philanthropic organizations that are public charities as opposed to private foundations. Community foundations as placebased organizations are part of a larger network or a community of practice. Community foundations develop systems of best practices to attract funding to create community change and such work is recognized as a best practice. Community indicators exist to measure community changes, outcomes, conditions, and progress towards goals. Often, they are used by government or nonprofit sector organizations as a system or project to track data in the areas they serve; typically, they are used to aid decision-making by providing information to inform policymakers and other stakeholders (Phillips & Pittman, 2015). Identifying the common interests between community foundations and community indicators does not require an extensive analysis. We think it is important to elucidate why we have singled out these two types of organizations or movements as ideal partners. In short, there are four factors that support our efforts: (1) shared aspirations; (2) shared geographies; (3) parallel global networks; and (4) complementary functionalities. In both cases when these types of organizations refer to “community” they are referring to the same types of geographies, and where they coexist in the same locations, they may even have identified exactly the same exact service areas. Both are charitable movements that are spread across much of the same geographies in the United States, Canada and internationally. Community foundations are anchored to the communities that they serve by definition and by aspiration. These organizations tend to select geographies such as cities, counties, parts of states, regions or entire states. Both community foundations and community indicator project developers have shared goals that center on continuous improvement of the communities to which they are attached. When it comes to structure, both community foundations and community indicators projects are unique in every specific community they serve yet they both belong to larger networks of similarly structured entities. This is not by mandate or any centralized syndication but by virtue of their desire to fulfill a similar function in their host communities. As such, it is ideal timing for these international networks to inhabit shared spaces such as shared conferences, shared webinars, shared web pages and even consolidated back office and best practice standards infrastructures. Finally, as we explore throughout much of the rest of this chapter, it is apparent that the functionalities of community foundations and community indicators projects have a striking complementarity. Community foundations seek to make their communities better off and community indicators help them understand where they need

210

P. Kraeger et al.

areas of improvement and when they have indeed reached that goal. Conversely, community indicators projects seek to inform action and community foundations are adept at both taking and funding such a change-oriented action. We focus on community foundations and community indicators because they both set out to achieve similar things, in the same places, with related support networks and with complementary tools.

A Partnered Approach for Exploring Connections and Applications Stanley Katz, a philanthropy historian, suggests that social value creation will be broadened when philanthropy and universities partner to explore knowledge creation and “concrete contribution to human welfare” (Katz, 2005, p. 131). It is suggested that the difficulty in bringing scholars and practitioners together is that the scholar sets his or her own research agenda not necessarily relating it to problem solving (Katz, 1999). The practitioner sees to solve problems and may not know what he or she seeks to research. It is in this gray area that barriers between research and practice flourish. Katz (1999) suggests that this lack of “cooperative relations between researchers and philanthropic practitioners” has slowed down the academic study of philanthropy (p. 74). Earlier, the field of philanthropy was not easily categorized. Frederick Howard Wines, a Presbyterian minister and a prison reformer in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, tried to reconcile the role of philanthropy in society in relation to the academic field of sociology for search of truth. Wines (1898) noted that there were differences in academic and applied science in truth seeking and proving effectiveness when he spoke about the academic field of sociology and the practice of philanthropy, Sociology stands for pure science, while philanthropy stands for applied science. Pure science seeks to know the truth for its own sake, regardless of the gain or loss involved in abstract knowledge. The applications to science have for their avowed motive and purpose the desire to convert abstract into human profit, by way of addition to human wealth, power and happiness (Wines, 1898, p. 49).

In some detail Wines (1898) discusses the differences between the sociologist studying the human condition and the medical expert who seeks to reduce human suffering. Not much has changed today in practice versus theorizing of philanthropy, specifically community philanthropy as noted in a debate by Peter Dobkin Hall and Stanley R. Katz. The authors proposed that scholars cannot access the work of philanthropy when philanthropy is often sentence to criticism of its work. (Hall, 1999; Katz, 1999, 2019) calls for these siloes to be broken down between research and application just as Wines did in the late nineteenth century. We suggest how these silos might actually be broken down through the partnership of science and

11

The Community Indicator and Community Foundation Interface: Exploring. . .

211

application. This could create mutual benefits to advance truth (knowledge) and for transforming community practice through an examination of community indicators and community philanthropy best practices.

The Community Indicators Movement Community indicators are essentially bits of information that when combined can paint a picture of a system (neighborhood, town, city, region, even a nation); it can point whether progress is being made towards a goal, or if staying static or declining (Phillips, 2003). Indicators have been used for many decades and beginning in the early twentieth century, were adopted for use to gauge social and economic conditions. They have regained popularity since the 1990s, being used extensively in sustainability efforts as well as fostering understanding about social and economic conditions.

Community Indicators: What Are They? First, it is crucial to point out that indicators when selected by community members and stakeholders reflect values. That is one of the most important aspects to know about indicators. Sung and Phillips (2018) explain, Community indicators can help deepen understanding of complex and interrelated aspects that are inherent in any area where people, nature, economies, politics, and any other dimension of life intersect. Communities are indeed complex by their very nature and represent a full range of interaction and relational effects. Indicators, by their nature, seek to break down these complexities for measurement to foster insight and understanding (p. 64).

Measurement is typically done via both subjective and objective data points (as well as newer intersubjective data) that reflect community values and desires. For this reason, best practices have emphasized the importance of community engagement. For instance, the Project Development Guide (Stevens et al., 2019) put forth by the Community Indicators Consortium, which since 2005 has provided a peer learning network for those pursuing effective use of community indicators, has an entire chapter devoted to purposeful community engagement. There are two basic, very similar types of indicators: system indicators (sometimes called descriptive) and performance indicators. System indicators summarize individual measurements that describe multiple characteristics of a specific system— an ecosystem, for example, or a social system and communicate the most relevant information to decision makers (Hardi et al. 1997; Phillips, 2003). Performance indicators are similar to system indicators in that both are descriptive, they describe a particular system (Phillips, 2003). Performance indicators are also prescriptive: They include a reference value or policy target that allows comparisons with local,

212

P. Kraeger et al.

national, or international goals, targets, and objectives (Phillips, 2003). Performance indicators are particularly useful in the policy evaluation phase of the decisionmaking process (Hardi et al. 1997, p. 9). Performance indicators are used in the context of organizational or community goal setting (Phillips, 2003) so one may see these types being used as well by community foundations.

Why Do They Matter? Community indicators are closely tied to community development efforts, whether by government, nonprofit or even private sector interests (for example, banks may practice some elements of community development). Community development, very simply defined, is the process of developing the ability to act collectively and striving for desired outcomes by taking collective action for improvement in a community in any or all realms: physical, environmental, cultural, social, political, and economic (Phillips & Pittman, 2015). The practice of community development at local levels often relies on the use of indicators, whether just a few or a whole selection organized into a system or project. Further, community development is connected to allied concepts such as community well-being, which is basically the overall state of communities across all the domains that impact them. Community well-being focuses on how well the needs and desires of community members are addressed. It seems to embrace a wide variety of elements or dimensions across a spectrum of community and societal life and is “embedded with multidimensional values including the economic, social and environmental aspects that impact people (Phillips & Wong, 2017, p. xxix). Community well-being is a large concept and is increasingly being used by many to imply the state of being of a particular place. Community development on the other hand, tends to be grounded in application and attempts to improve conditions for residents of places, and in that sense, is more related to the practices engaged in by community foundations. Martinez-Cosio and Bussell (2013) were among the first to contextualize U.S. placed-based development initiatives by examining the history of complex relationships and connections between community development and foundations. Their work sought to fill a gap in the literature on philanthropic organizations and the ways foundations engage with and connect to community development. Providing a history of philanthropic funding, they consider developments from the 1990s onward, focusing on five key case studies. Findings from their work can inform community foundations that are interested in working more closely with community development processes and organizations for promoting desirable outcomes for their host regions. Because of the implications of working with community development for the sake of changing quality of life and community well-being for the better, there is much overlap to explore. One of the most impactful areas is engaging with

11

The Community Indicator and Community Foundation Interface: Exploring. . .

213

community development organizations to jointly identify, define and use community indicators in practice and evaluation.

Community Foundation Movement Community foundations are described by practitioners and scholars alike as a movement (Sacks, 2000) which focuses on the concept that they are responsive organizations centered in their service area for the common good, seeking to improve quality of life and overall well-being of community members. The first community foundation was founded in the United States over 100 years ago in 1914, The Cleveland Foundation (Sacks, 2000). Frederick H. Goff, a local banker, had a novel idea to merge trusts in a separate organization for community purposes, governed by a local board to respond to community needs and build up communities (Zunz, 2014; Katz, 2005; Sacks, 2000). Community philanthropy and community foundations rose out of responses to the ills of the industrial age (Hall, 1999.) Today, there are 1876 community foundations across the globe (Community Foundation Atlas, 2020) with $5,028,860,390 combined dollars spent on grantmaking annually in the last fiscal year reported. In North America alone there are approximately 1033 community foundations (Community Foundation Atlas, 2020). Community philanthropy and community foundations are categorized as a movement within the field of institutional philanthropy dating back to the rise of the large private foundations such as Carnegie, Rockefeller and Sage in the late 20th century (Fleishman, 2007). However, community foundations were less about expanding the surplus income of the great industrialists but responding to the needs of a place through grassroots efforts originally identified by charitable society organizations. Community philanthropy differs from independent private philanthropy (both institutional and individual) in several important aspects in the United States. Community philanthropy seeks to represent and respond to local community needs and is represented historically as a broad response to community needs with the rise of national philanthropic organizations and foundations in the 1890s in the United States (Zunz, 2014; Fleishman, 2007). Community philanthropy in the United States, and later globally, institutionalized the community foundation, a type of organized community chest both raising and granting funds and engaging in advocacy activities for community betterment. Sacks (2000) historically accounts for the advent of the community foundation movement and its subsequent growth by pointing to a single law, the Tax Reform Act of 1969: [T] he Tax Reform Act of 1969 included a redefinition of the types of foundations according to their tax-exempt status, more government oversight of foundations, and restrictions placed on private foundation operations. As part of these reforms, community foundations received a favored tax status as public charities. . . . The advantages of public charities over private foundations include greater deductibility of gifts, exemption from taxes and looser government regulation (p. 10).

214

P. Kraeger et al.

Public charities actively fundraise and receive contributions from a variety of sources, “including the general public, governmental agencies, corporations, private foundations or other public charities” and individual donor advised funds (Nonprofit Expert, n.d.)They may receive income from the conduct of activities in furtherance of the organization’s exempt purposes; actively function in a supporting relationship to one or more existing public charities; engage in grantmaking; and engage in advocacy efforts. Private foundations, in contrast, typically have a single major source of funding, usually gifts from one family or corporation rather than funding from many sources. The primary activity is grantmaking for other charitable organizations; advocacy is prohibited and tax-exempt donations by individuals are limited to prevent self-dealing (Nonprofit Expert, n.d.; 26 U.S.C 501 et seq.; 26 U.S.C. 509(a)(1), (a)(2) & (a)(3)). Sacks (2000) suggests the following common characteristics for community foundations: • seek to improve the quality of life in a defined geographic area; • are independent from control or influence by other organizations, governments or donors; • are governed by a board of citizens broadly reflective of the communities they serve; • make grants to other nonprofit groups to address a wide variety of emerging and changing needs in the community; • seek to build, over time, a collection of endowed funds from a wide range of donors, including local citizens, other nonprofits and businesses; • provide services tailored to the interests and giving capacity of donors; • help donors achieve their philanthropic and charitable goals; engage in a range of community leadership and partnership activities, serving as catalysts, conveners, collaborators and facilitators to solve problems and develop solutions to important community issues; • have open and transparent policies and practices concerning all aspects of their operations; and are accountable to the community by informing the general public about their purposes, activities, and financial status on a regular basis (pp. 2–3).

Expectations and Challenges Community foundations improve place-based quality of life for community members. Place-based philanthropy both enables and expects community residents to participate in determining their own destinies (Mack et al., 2014). Place-based strategies are comprehensive community initiatives or community-change initiatives (CCIs) (Mack et al., 2014). CCIs “adopt comprehensive approaches to community change and should work according to community building principles that value resident engagement and community capacity building” (Auspos et al., 2009; Kubisch et al., 2010, p. vi).

11

The Community Indicator and Community Foundation Interface: Exploring. . .

215

Kubisch et al. (2010) and others suggest that CCIs have not lived up to the “transformative expectations of their designers” (p.vi). This is due in part to lack of clarity around goals and vision aligning to the mission for success at the outset, or because they changed midcourse (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2013; Kubisch et al., 2010). Also, there seems to be a failure to build effective relationships with grantees and other local partners despite knowing that community relationship building requires a rethinking of old models (Brown & Fiester, 2007; Brown et al., 2007). Needs remaining largely unfulfilled, for example, reducing poverty, increasing graduation rates and reducing drug use in the service or host area (Brown & Fiester, 2007; Kubisch et al., 2010). Community indicators allow for a shared set of performance measurements that foster not only communication but shared measurement. As noted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the use of indicators in the sustainability context has allowed “policy makers to identify the links between policy objectives and how intervention and success in one priority area can support actions and success in another” (OECD, 2014, p. 12). In the context of place-based community philanthropy, the use of indicators will allow foundation leaders and staff to work with their communities to identify objectives and goal outcomes for success and systemic change. This results in population-level impacts and community change.

Knowledge Creation Best Practices Knowledge is created through theory, practice and beliefs (Knowlton & Phillips, 2012). Best practices are measures of effectiveness to achieve outcomes. Generally, best practices are “defined as “methods or techniques that consistently show results superior to those achieved with other means, and that is used as a benchmark” (Business Dictionary, n.d.).

Best Practices in the Nonprofit and Philanthropic Sectors: What Are They About? Best practices help organizations think about outcomes, accountability and transparency to specific and broader communities in the social sector which includes philanthropy and nonprofits. Multiple scholars in the nonprofit arena (i.e. service provision not philanthropy) have tried to define (e.g. Buckmaster, 1999; Herman & Renz, 1999), measure (e.g. Kaplan & Norton, 2001; Sowa et al., 2004), and identify practices that enhance nonprofit organizations’ effectiveness (e.g. Callen et al., 2003; Smith & Shen, 1996 as cited in Liket & Maas, 2015, p. 269).

216

P. Kraeger et al.

The problem is complex and the fallback measure for accountability, effectiveness and transparency tends to focus on financial oversight and reporting, which in turn shapes best organizational effectiveness practices in the field. Some scholarly literature on nonprofit organization’s conceptualizations of effectiveness are based on reputation (Herman & Renz, 1999, 2000), outcomes or impact (Eisinger, 2002 as cited in Liket & Maas, 2015, p. 269). One rationale for the use of financial measures for accountability is the difficulty in assessing one nonprofit against another (Kanter & Summers, 1987; Letts et al., 1999; Sawhill & Williamson, 2001; Speckbacher, 2003 as cited in Liket & Maas, 2015). In philanthropy and community philanthropy alike defining and baseline measurement of effectiveness is an important and ongoing conversation with direct service nonprofit organizations. Effectiveness, transparency and accountability discussions have tended to focus more on performance measurement, performance outcomes and theories of change for organizational comparison and cross organizational assessment rather than financial capacities.

Best Practices and Performance Measurement: How Community Philanthropy Functions In philanthropy, specifically the fields of strategic and venture philanthropy, the focus on outcomes and performance management are essentially best practices and stand for organizational effectiveness which in turn, suggest community effectiveness. Or does it? Performance management practices in philanthropy include strategic (Brest & Harvey, 2018), catalytic philanthropy (Kramer, 2009) and venture philanthropy also called impact investing (Fleishman, 2009). Likewise, institutional philanthropy including community philanthropy like service providing nonprofits are being called on increasingly to demonstrate effectiveness, accountability and transparency (Kraeger & Robichau, 2017). Katz (2005) asks what does it mean for philanthropy to be effective? Katz (2005) suggests that the behavior of the foundation is how one should measure value and that the data driven approaches for both strategic and venture philanthropy are in line with analyzing organizational behavior. The focus on performance outputs and outcomes, while important, arguably suffer from the same problems noted by Tinkelman and Donabedian (2007) on why nonprofit organizational effectiveness tends to be centered on financial effectiveness, accountability and transparency across organizations is complex. In philanthropic, social sector/nonprofit and public organizations, best practices essentially develop from the use of performance measurement (PM) metrics and indicators to benchmark and report on success. Verbeeten (2008), in examining the use of PMs in the public sector, suggests “performance management practices include specifying which goals to achieve, allocating decision rights, and measuring and evaluating performance” (p. 427 citing Heinrich, 2002; Ittner & Larker, 2001;

11

The Community Indicator and Community Foundation Interface: Exploring. . .

217

Otley, 1999; Kravchuk & Schack, 1996; Brickley et al., 1995). Efforts around strategic grantmaking and outcome to impact evaluation as called for by Porter and Kramer (1999); Brest and Harvey (2018), Brest et al. (2009) and venture philanthropy (Fleishman, 2007) are valuable but they are limited in that these approaches do not delve into the deeper exploration of meaning.

Shifting from Performance Measurement to Community Indicators as a Best Practice Community foundations, also termed “local philanthropy”, are effective in performing to outcomes from “their ability to work together” and coordination of local philanthropy may be a best practice (Edelman & Charvat Burke, 2007,p.9). Best practices help philanthropy practitioners as well as scholars to examine both the outcomes that are being created and potentially the organization's capacity and the capabilities produced. While organizational effectiveness and capacity are very important, the struggle to assess effectiveness can and should also be focused on how the work of community philanthropy actually improves community well-being and quality of life. This sentiment has compelled recent efforts to integrate Community Indicators and Performance Management (CI-PM integration) (Ridzi, 2020). Such efforts also help to ground community indicators efforts in community engagement (Community Indicators Consortium, 2010). Community indicators are not broadly used as tools for assessment in the nonprofit and philanthropic fields, and to date, the focus has been on organizational effectiveness, specifically financial effectiveness and how the money is being allocated for the nonprofit versus the strategic practices of philanthropy. Community indicators allow for community well -being to be measured as well as provide an avenue to assess both philanthropic and nonprofit organizations collectively in the quest for community change. Community indicators also allow for community priorities to be identified and addressed. “Community well-being is a multifaceted and interdisciplinary concept that invites a variety of frameworks as well as industry sectors to participate in its study and improvement” (Sung & Phillips, 2018). While a shared definition may be elusive, two key dimensions have helped to give shape to this growing field of study: 1. Indicators used to measure community well-being (Sung & Phillips, 2018) and 2. “Action being taken by local community members and anchor institutions to improve community well-being” (Sirgy, 2018, p. 1). We also consider in this chapter best practices that directly advance and promote transformative community change. This contrasts with those practices predominantly focused on organizational effectiveness, although these can, in turn, impact overall community well-being and quality of life as well.

218

P. Kraeger et al.

Capabilities Produced Guthman (2008) posits those best practices are essentially “everyday tools that guide behavior and micro-decision-making (Larner, 2003; MacKinnon, 2000). Gertler (2001) suggests that best practices “reflect the idea that there is one universal standard upon which all firms (anywhere) can --and should -- measure their operational performance” (p. 6). Implicit in the idea of best practices are also ideas of standardization, transferability, and replicability; in other words, valuing the general over the specificities of a particular situation. Standardization then implies a system of benchmarking that is accepted within the field. Guthman (2008) citing Gertler (2001) suggests that “the use of best practices rests on the idea that there are high level standards of ethics and efficiencies by which firms can and should measure their performance”(p. 1244). With origins in the corporate world, best practices have gained ground among nonprofits as a management tool, as well (Letts et al., 1999, p. 1244). Best practices alone may not be enough to capture larger scale change; coupled with community indicators this enables practitioners of community philanthropy to move beyond “ideas of standardization, transferability, and replicability” (Guthman, 2008, p. 1244). This provides pathways for assessing community initiatives to measure not only success to the best practice benchmark but plan and respond to the results of the change initiative. In the next section, we start with a discussion of standards and then move to a more fluid best practice model. This aligns for use of community indicators to further place-based community well-being through philanthropic funding. Since Katz (1999, 2005, 2019) has raised the question of how philanthropy defines effectiveness, others have taken up consideration of the field. Specifically, Ostrower and Stone (2010) has brought attention to the fact that effectiveness for community foundations is inherently different from that of private foundations since effectiveness is context dependent. Unlike private foundations, community foundations are in the dual role of making grants and raising donations so they must appeal to a broad audience—as a result they cannot limit their grantmaking and focus to content areas with measurable outcomes. However, they can demonstrate a broad responsiveness to community needs by taking on a community leadership role (Ostrower & Stone, 2010).

Review of the Existing State of Best Practices and Standards in Community Philanthropy As we assess potential for community philanthropy to create system change and achieve improved community well-being and overall quality of life, we posit that such change is achieved when organizations come together in communities of practice for systems change. Systems are dynamic and complex, and when any aspect of a system changes, it influences change on other parts of the system as well;

11

The Community Indicator and Community Foundation Interface: Exploring. . .

219

“understanding this will help build capacity for intentional and impactful system change” (Musikanski et al., 2021, p. 4). Donella Meadows, a seminal thinker in systems, influenced the sustainability and the community indicators movements by explaining systems as “a set of elements or parts that is coherently organized and interconnected in a pattern or structure that produces a characteristic set of behaviors, often classified as its ‘function’ or ‘purpose’ (2008, p. 188). Systems change recognizes that change is both an organizational process and an outcome. The outcomes that we examine look at self-selected community foundations that adhere to a set of National Standards of practice to both set standards of operational effectiveness and foster efforts to strive toward attainment of these goals. The process itself is one of peer-review and includes focus on accountability toward impact. Attainment of accreditation is both a mark of excellence and distinction within the field and a mechanism for quality control over the field writ large (Council on Foundations, 2020). Standards are sets of behaviors and values which suggest how an organization should behave to effectively strengthen community capacity focusing on the national standards for community foundations. In this chapter we also examine components of two best practice models, the National Standards for Community Foundation Accreditation, Standards 18 and 19 relating to discretionary funding and CF Leads’ Five Competencies for Effective Community Leadership. We explore the interface with community indicators for connections and applications.

National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations Standards embody beliefs, norms and practices for a community of practice. Communities of practice create shared knowledge. Given the nature of such collaborations it is not surprising to see that community foundation leaders have recognized the need to create national and international best practices. This could help to achieve greater community change and share knowledge within the field of community philanthropy for both organizational systems change as well as community systems change. The National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations® were established in 2000 through the work of the Council of Foundations and an advisory board (National Standards for Community Foundations, 2020). “The National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations® is an accreditation program created by community foundations for community foundations. . . . (which) are peer-driven, voluntary, and self-regulatory” (National Standards for Community Foundations, 2020). As of the writing of this chapter, there are just under 900 Community Foundations that hold the National Standards Certificate of compliance. The national standards accredited foundations comprise 96% of the largest community foundations in the United States (National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations, 2020). The baseline criteria is that the organization must be a tax-exempt organization pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code sections 501(c)(3), 509(a)(1), and 170(b)(1)

220

P. Kraeger et al.

(a)(vi) codified in Title 26 of the United States Code subsections 501 and 509, as well as other required and relevant federal and state regulations (National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations, 2020). The self-described focus is “operational effectiveness to foster excellence in community philanthropy” (National Standards for U.S Community Foundations, 2020). Excellence is achieved through “operationally and legally sound community foundations” and training on the standards and the processes related to the standards allowing for “confidence in CF operation” (National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations, 2020). Such confidence, in turn, allows for situations where “community foundations can innovate and take risks necessary to solve complex problems” (National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations, 2020). These aspirational goals are best practices which rest on the idea that there are high level standards of ethics and efficiencies by which organizations can and should measure their performance (Gertler, 2001). The National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations program creates a network of community foundations that share a similar goal to maximize organizational effectiveness in order to improve “evidence of excellence; accountability; impact: and distinction” (National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations, 2020). The standards are aligned in five key categories: (1) structure and governance board and staff independence over asset management; (2) resource development diverse citizen support to generate revenue; (3) accountability with financial accountability and prudent investment; (4) grantmaking by responding to community needs to qualified organizations; and (5) community engagement with leadership reaching out to the community” (National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations, 2020). In the core of the grantmaking area, there are three relevant standards, Standard 18—diverse grantmaking, Standard 19—discretionary grantmaking approaches and Standard 20—community foundations conduct due diligence that the organizations receiving funds are for charitable purposes. For the purposes of this chapter, we recognize the National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations Standards 8 and 19 clearly align with the premise of the community indicator movement that is, benchmarking community progress through its discretionary grantmaking.

Meeting Community Need Díaz and Shaw (2002) suggest that the institutional culture of community foundations is entrepreneurial. “As fundraisers they are constantly looking for new ways to be responsive to the needs of their particular geographic areas” allowing community foundations to be “extremely flexible in the kinds of funds and structures they can use to respond to community needs” (p. 104). Diversity in community leadership will help to bridge the gap between organizations whether government and philanthropic and the communities being served through the funding of community projects.

11

The Community Indicator and Community Foundation Interface: Exploring. . .

221

National Standard 18: Diverse Grantmaking Diversity in grantmaking is the intent and the process used to accomplish this comprise National Standard 18. It is explained as, The Board Oversees Diverse Grantmaking: A community foundation operates a broad grants program to multiple grantees that is not limited by mission to a single focus or cause or exclusively to the interests of a particular constituency, and widely disseminates grant guidelines to ensure the fullest possible participation from the community it serves (National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations, 2020, p. 4).

As an example of Standard 18, Díaz and Shaw (2002) note that the Chicago Community Foundation has broadened its board to embrace diversity. Today, in its strategic plan, the Chicago Community Foundation is now tailoring its diverse grantmaking to discrete areas to address racial inequities in the community, stating, “that the region’s biggest challenges stem from racial and ethnic wealth inequality— and that the Chicago region will not be able to realize its potential until it tackles this systemic issue. As a result, we have decided to focus our discretionary funds to address the region’s fundamental challenge: racial and ethnic wealth inequity” (p. 105). The trust has developed a pyramid of five diverse funding priorities: (1) connect philanthropy to impact to increase giving that leverages the expertise of the Trust to mobilize resources that advance equity and opportunity; (2) address critical needs to provide stability to individuals, families and communities throughout the region; (3) build collective power to advance equitable, livable and resilient neighborhoods within under-invested Black and Latinx communities; (4) catalyze neighborhood investment to revitalize under-invested black and Latinx communities; and (5) grow household wealth to increase the share in economic prosperity for Black and Latinx individuals and families (Chicago Community Trust, n.d.). Each of these areas requires a diversification of a sustainable funding stream, despite the asset and giving size of the Chicago Community Trust. The Chicago Community Trust suggests that it embraces the diversity of its community with it as a core value for all organizational practices (Chicago Community Trust, n.d.). This work can be achieved through fundraising, donors and investments in conjunction with use of community indicators via diversity led initiatives. Philanthropic foundations including community foundations use of indicators to operationalize mission and vision through fund development and investment goals to achieve strategy and outcomes. “[D]evelopment goals for the foundation should clearly communicate to stakeholders the role that the foundation will play in development of local economies and livelihoods. Equally, the goals and objectives should provide a natural link to the vision and mission of the foundation” (International Finance Corporation, 2015). In the area of diversity or other areas of funding the development of community indicators operationalize mission to goals which can then be tracked and measured to examine actual change. Community foundations should strive to be diverse with information widely disseminated to allow for diverse applications according to the National Standards

222

P. Kraeger et al.

for U.S. Community Foundations accreditation standards. More than this, standard 18 suggests that the broad funding should meet community needs. We further the discussion of how community foundations might do this work in our discussion of standard 19 below. Guo and Brown explain this further by, “community foundations play a key role in improving the quality of life in their communities by pooling funds from a wide range of donors to meet critical local needs” (2006, p. 267). Community foundations boards and leaders are able to leverage community connections beyond and in addition to diverse boards and staff with indicator projects. For example, In the fall of 2019, the Omaha Community Foundation in partnership with six local nonprofit organizations engaged more than 1,700 residents to better understand how our friends, family, and neighbors are experiencing life in our region. Through their stories, our team was able to identify key themes, pair data, and elevate the most urgent needs for our community to become an equitable place for all. We encourage you to delve into the report, share with your networks, and see the intersections of this data and your own life (Omaha Community Foundation, 2019)

The Delaware Community Foundation (DCF) launched the Delaware Focus initiative in 2015 that is Delaware’s first comprehensive statewide indicator project. It is an initiative to help the community develop a data-driven, statewide civic agenda and align actions and resources for community benefit. The DCF has taken on the new initiative as part of its expanded mission “to build a shared vision for Delaware, grounded in knowledge, inspired by the common good and advanced through philanthropy” (Delaware Community Foundation, 2015). Community foundation board of directors and trustees then play a pivotal role from the board makeup to the projects undertaken to make informed decisions relating to both foundations and indicator initiatives. Along with governance, process and funding, improvements to community quality of life can be affected, as evidenced by the above examples. Community foundations have various types of funds - those for discretionary grantmaking, donor advised funds, scholarship funds, and technical assistance grants. Donor advised funds are a type of charitable giving fund that is established by a donor with an eligible charitable sponsoring organization (i.e., a community foundation) to support a cause (or causes) that the donor cares about (Council on Foundations, 2018). Diverse grantmaking under standard 18 is different than the use of discretionary funds under standard 19. Diverse grantmaking focuses on the diversity of funding to the community versus discretionary funds discussed next in standard 19, which are the community foundations own funds from multiple sources and investment income which are then offered on a competitive basis to community qualified organizations typically nonprofits. Technical assistance grants may also be part of discretionary funding cycles. Scholarships grants to individuals are separate grants from the discretionary funding pools. It is with the discretionary funding by community foundations that community foundations also directly align to the community indicator movement.

11

The Community Indicator and Community Foundation Interface: Exploring. . .

Table 11.1 Discretionary Grantmaking (N ¼ 894)

Category CF - Discretionary Grantmaking Opportunities CF - No Discretionary Grantmaking Accredited but not a CF/no discretionary grantmaking

223 N 743 143 17

National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations. (October 24, 2020)

National Standard 19: Discretionary Grantmaking This standard dictates that the board will have discretionary grantmaking. National Standard 19 is “The Board's Discretionary Grants Respond to Community Needs: A community foundation awards some grants from its discretionary resources through open, competitive processes that address the changing needs of the community” (National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations, 2020, p. 4). Performance measures and community indicators allow funders to make decisions on how to meet community needs (Benjamin, 2010; Ridzi & Prior, 2020). Community foundations are not required to offer discretionary grantmaking to be accredited (National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations, 2020). Of the 894 organizations accredited National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations program not all are actually community foundations. There are 877 community foundations in the population.2 Other organizations include business, corporations, law firms or a stand-alone donor advised fund (DAF). The following table shows the number of foundations by type of grantmaking (Table 11.1). Approximately 85% of accredited grantmaking community foundations offer discretionary competitive funds to the community. The foundations that do not offer competitive discretionary grants are typically limited to community scholarships and tend to be smaller in both asset and giving size. The Minnesota Foundation wanted to examine the efficacy of its community investments and partnered with research organizations to look at its discretionary grantmaking. They explain, To drive all of our investments towards meaningful, measurable change, we commissioned Wilder Research to compile and research a set of community indicators widely accepted as effective measures of a healthy, productive community and individual well-being. In 2011, the Foundation released this data publicly, under the name One Minneapolis. We created a dashboard using key statistics tracked by different public agencies, such as the school district, police department, and homelessness prevention agency. By linking disparately tracked measures, we were able to create a more comprehensive picture of our community’s health. In addition, we disaggregated the data by race, ethnicity and in some cases income, gender, home language, and nativity. This depth of analysis and reporting did not previously exist. We also pioneered a new measure: the difference between the racial/ethnic community faring best on any given indicator and the one faring least well (Wilder, 2013, p. 2).

2

The National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations program: https://www.cfstandards.org/.

224

P. Kraeger et al.

Beyond foundations such as the Minnesota Community Foundation developing their own indicators for discretionary funding impacts, it is important to remember that the national standards are organizational indicators. Each standard has a set of key elements, which ask questions to guide compliance with the standard. Key elements for each national standard help to explain how community foundations can meet the standard in the form of questions to be considered. One of two key elements for National Standard 19 asks in 19.1 “Does the foundation provide public information about how the foundation’s competitive grant opportunities address the needs of the community? As noted above, Ridzi and Prior (2020) tell us that community foundations are not required to offer discretionary funding. The National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations program does not require member organizations to adopt prescribed methods on how community needs are to be assessed in order to develop focus areas of discretionary funding nor diversity of funding in standard 18, as discussed above. Instead, the National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations program suggests resources for examining the impact of discretionary funding including a 2019 report from Candid, Impacting Responsibly, where contributing authors note that “organizations are seeking feedback from constituents and beneficiaries” (p. 31). Seeking this feedback, from constituents and beneficiaries, in turn helps inform measurement and meeting needs to achieve impacts and change. Institutional philanthropy as a whole is recognizing the importance of feedback and listening to grantees and grantee beneficiaries form a grants cycle. This type of feedback addresses the key element 19.2 “to provide a brief narrative describing how the foundation uses grant evaluation reports to educate the board and to improve the grantmaking process” (National Standards for Community Foundations, 2021, p. 4). Kraeger and Robichau (2017) suggest that philanthropic institutions can and should go beyond grantee feedback to use deliberative processes to inform public policy issues. Kraeger and Schecter (2020) provide a pathway for foundations to engage in deliberative practices to assess public needs. In this chapter, we suggest that community foundations can use community engagement processes and tools, not necessary deliberative processes to approach discretionary funding differently to directly engage the public beyond current and former grantees and their beneficiaries as well as others known to the community foundation to identify needs to meet key elements 19.1 and 19.2 for national standard 19 as well as the call for diverse funding to meet community needs in standard 18. One best practice example for community foundations to assess community need is to consider the SA2020 community engagement project in San Antonio, Texas as a possible process and tool. SA2020 is a community indicators project where community members co-created shared priorities to meet community needs. “In 2010, nearly 6,000 people created a shared vision for the future of San Antonio, prioritizing eleven Community Results and 62 Community Indicators” (SA2020, n.d.). These priorities were revisited again in 2020, where juts over 12,000 people participated in community surveys to “reaffirm the shared vision for community which was co-created in 2010” (SA2020, n.d.). Such a large-scale undertaking will most likely appeal to larger community foundations having the capacity to convene

11

The Community Indicator and Community Foundation Interface: Exploring. . .

225

communities through in person and survey engagement alone or with partnering community organizations. The National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations accreditation program are organizational indicators that seek to establish a gold standard for best practices that are transparent and allow for accountability. In this chapter, we have examined community foundation organizational standards, which align well with the community indicator movement, particularly considering community responsive board structure and grantmaking. The National Standards for U.S. The Community Foundations program is one of two best practices movements in the field of community philanthropy that we discuss in order to address Stanley Katz’s (1999, 2005, 2019) question regarding how philanthropy grapples with the concept of effectiveness.

CF Leads While there are various associations and conferences that focus on the various aspects of Community Foundation work, CF Leads characterizes itself as “the only national network of community foundations committed to community leadership” (CF Leads, 2020, p.1). In addition to running a series of executive level training programs, and offering professional development webinars, CF Leads has taken a prominent role in encouraging community leadership through the publication of seminal thinking on this topic. Perhaps the most prominent publication in this area on the topic of leadership is the 2013 Framework for Community Leadership by a Community Foundation, which they published with the Aspen Institute and Council on Foundations (CF Leads, 2013). In this document, they lay out the contours of community leadership as engaged in by community foundations. This includes the building blocks of values, culture, relationships, resources, understanding and skills. Their follow up document on elements of effective community leadership highlights the importance of engaging residents, working across sectors, commissioning and disseminating local data, shaping public policy and marshalling resources (CF Leads, 2019). Taken together, the details of how community indicators can be helpful to the community leadership paradigm can be summarized in three key areas that also correspond to key functions seen in the accreditation standards: being data driven in planning and evaluating courses of action, being data driven in informing the community, and being data driven in engaging residents. Certainly, some community foundations explain how the organization uses its data and community indicators in terms of these three functions. For instance, the Greater Houston Community Foundation discusses data-driven philanthropy in three ways that include informing grantmaking, spotlighting relevant issues and sharing data for transparency and collaboration (Valliani, 2020). When we organize the extensive components of CF Leads’ Community Leadership framework according to these three functions, we see how this literature adds an additional layer of nuance.

226

P. Kraeger et al.

Community leadership, however, takes a variety of forms and some community foundations have proven adept at being data driven in planning and evaluating courses of action. For instance, in January 2018 Fairfield County’s Community Foundation released a new strategic plan (extending through 2021) in which they identified a single, overarching strategic goal of closing the opportunity gap in the county they serve. Income inequality in Fairfield County ranks first in the largest metro areas of the United States. It is an ambitious and long-term proposition, but this community-indicator driven goal has helped them to organize a variety of efforts and initiatives that are “oriented around this guiding light” (Blue-Paca, 2020, p.1). Among their various related acts are efforts toward a quality education, safe neighborhoods, stable housing, and the ability to earn a livable wage. In alignment with their community leadership stance, they have sought to encourage the public, private and nonprofit sectors to work together to create lasting change. In their words: “We commission, gather and analyze data related to the populations we are working to achieve improved outcomes for. Armed with the data, we are able to make more strategic investment decisions as well as tweak our strategies when we learn new, relevant information.” “We don’t only use data to inform our focal populations, but we also use data to inform our organizational strategies and desired results. One of our desired results is that all FC youth and young adults have training and credentials that lead to meaningful career opportunities. Another desired result is that all Fairfield County students graduate with a high school degree and are prepared for post-secondary education and employment” (BluePaca, 2020, p. 1).

Beyond charting a clear course for improvement, educational data also offers an opportunity to monitor progress. They follow high school graduations and college enrollment trends, but they also dig deeper into the often-overlooked statistic of college remediation. Oftentimes students enroll in college, and, because of lower aptitude testing, they are forced to take non-credit bearing college-prep courses to bring their skills up to the college level. This can result in students exhausting their college financial aid before completing their degree. As a result, Fairfield tracks remediation rates of students across a variety of local colleges and universities. Data such as these provide the indicators that offer guidance toward the “guiding light” of reducing the opportunity gap. As they share: This data serves as proof that we need to continue funding and partnering with organizations working to provide education services for youth and young adults to ensure they are prepared to enter the workforce.” “Another one of our key organizational goals is to increase economic opportunity, particularly by ensuring greater access to affordable housing. . . . Nearly 40% of all households in Fairfield County are cost-burdened — meaning at least 30% of their household income is spent on housing. But renters are especially burdened. 51% of Fairfield County renters are cost-burden and another 28% are severely cost-burden — meaning more than half of their income goes toward housing. So we have oriented various funding, advocacy and community leadership work to address the affordable housing crisis. That’s just a snapshot of some of the data that informs our work and the ways we put it into action” (Blue-Paca, 2020, p. 1).

While this is a concrete example of how community foundations can incorporate community indicators into their community leadership work, it is far from the only

11

The Community Indicator and Community Foundation Interface: Exploring. . .

227

one. The Seattle Foundation, for instance, when it launched its Regional Dashboard envisioned people across sectors using community indicators as a shared starting point for understanding what is happening in the area and setting collective priorities for improving the region (Stiffler, 2019). In their words, “The idea is that decision makers and leaders in government, business, nonprofit groups and community members will use the same set of data points — a statistical “North Star” (Stiffler, 2019, p. 1).

Exploring Connections and Applications: Community Indicators to Expand on Best Practices As we have outlined in the previous two sections, the community foundation field has already evolved fairly robust standards when it comes to accountability regarding community impact. However, what we assert is that the robustness of these standards could be enhanced by a more systematic incorporation of the community indicators movement with the community foundation movement. While others have argued that these two movements can be seen as complementary (Ridzi & Prior, 2020), we focus on how greater adaptation of community indicators can offer both direction (i.e., a North Star) and accountability (i.e., transparent barometer of progress) to the community foundation sector. In her 2020 keynote address to the Community Indicators Consortium’s Community Impact Summit, Angela Glover Blackwell, founder of Policy Link, claimed that this is a historical moment for those who use community indicators. (Blackwell, 2020). As an activist of over 40 years, she shared her renewed realization that, “If you want change, you must use data to understand, to understand what change you need” (Blackwell, 2020). She shared that data offers a “results based Northstar” (Blackwell, 2020). She further explained, Change does not happen if we do not measure how we are doing. We need to have a north star, and it needs to be a results-based North Star. We need to know who, how much?, how many?, how long? How will we know when we get there? And when we know exactly what that is, we need to measure all along the way so that we can see and feel the indicators. The indicators guide us to the North Star (Blackwell, 2020, p. 1).

In Blackwell’s thinking, community indicators can guide people toward change because it both gives direction and catalyzes action by emboldening the activist, awakening the sympathies of the sympathetic and pushing those who are afraid or do not want change to the sidelines. In this vision, community indicators also offer public accountability to making progress so that people can “see and feel the indicators” as they travel toward their goals. (Blackwell, 2020).

228

P. Kraeger et al.

Conclusion Increased scrutiny on institutional philanthropy including community philanthropy (i.e., community foundations) demands more demonstration of their organizational capacity and soundness, but also evidence as community leaders charged with demonstrating effective impact to multiple stakeholders from donors to community members. Examining aspects of organizational effectiveness such as financial soundness is essential for donors seeking to invest in community philanthropy. The National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations program certificate of compliance offers one program that seeks to ensure such organizational effectiveness. However, as the field of philanthropy grows both as a scholarly and practitioner field, it is essential that the two connect to examine overall community effectiveness, community well-being and community quality of life. Community indicators provide a baseline for assessment not only of the organization’s alignment with the community but also as a benchmarking tool to determine success or failure for change. As noted previously, the community indicators movement is bridging the divide between scholarship and practice to build both scholarly knowledge and best practices for community modeling. The scholarly literature and best practice examples provide a lens on community philanthropy and community indicators separately. This chapter seeks to create excitement about theory building, empirical studies and case studies to explore and grow the intersections of community philanthropy and community indicators to advance scholarship and practice. Community philanthropy is complex and nuanced; measurement of effectiveness needs to be multidimensional which is a solid rationale for these two fields of scholarship and practice are a natural fit. Community philanthropy is more than the measurement of organizational capacity and organizational effectiveness focusing on financial transparency and accountability. Community philanthropy and involved donors seek to move the needle on complex social problems. Community indicators create benchmarks to allow community philanthropy to assess its work in placed-based communities, the policy arena and with other relevant initiatives over time and grow the field.

References Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2013). Community change: Lessons from making connections. Annie E. Casey Foundation. Auspos, P., Brown, P., Kubisch, A. C., & Sutton, S. (2009). Philanthropy’s civic role in community change. The Foundation Review, 1(1), 135–145. Benjamin, L. M. (2010). Funders as principals: Performance measurement in philanthropic relationships. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 20(4), 383–403. Blackwell, A. G.. (2020). Keynote Address to the Community Indicators Consortium’s Community Impact Summit. August 3, 2020. https://communityindicators.net/2020-impact-summit/2020 hub/

11

The Community Indicator and Community Foundation Interface: Exploring. . .

229

Blue-Paca, M.. (2020). Close the opportunity gap in fairfield county, ct – a data-driven goal. data driven place based philanthropy panel. Community Impact Consortium’s Community Impact Summit. August 3, 2020. https://communityindicators.net/2020-impact-summit/2020hub/ Brest, P., & Harvey, H. (2018). Money well spent: A strategic plan for smart philanthropy. Stanford University Press. Brest, P., Harvey, H., & Low, K. (2009). Calculated impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 7(1), 50–56. Brickley, J., Smith, C., & Zimmerman, J. (1995). The economics of organizational architecture. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 8(2), 19–31. Brown, P., et al. (2007). Embedded philanthropy and community change. Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago. Buckmaster, N. (1999). Associations between outcome measurement, accountability and learning for non-profit organizations. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 12, 186–197. Business Dictionary. (n.d.). Best practices, definition. Retrieved October 3, 2020, from http://www. businessdictionary.com/definition/best-practice.html Callen, J. L., Klein, A., & Tinkelman, D. (2003). Board composition, committees, and organizational efficiency: The case of nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32, 493–520. Candid. (2019). Impacting responsibly. Issue Lab by Candid. Retrieved April 29, 2021, from https://measureresults.issuelab.org/resource/impacting-responsibly.html CF Leads. (2013). Framework for community leadership by a community foundation. Created by the National Task Force on Community Leadership Prepared by CF Leads and Aspen Institute Community Strategies Group. Retrieved October 4, 2020, from https://cfleads.org/wp-content/ uploads/2019/10/CFLeads-Framework-1.pdf CF Leads. (2019). Elements of effective community leadership. Retrieved October 3, 2020, from https://cfleads.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/FiveCompetencies.pdf CF Leads (2020). What we’ve heard: A look ahead for the community foundation field. Retrieved December 21, 2020, from https://cfleads.org/cfleads-post/what-weve-heard-a-look-ahead-forthe-community-foundation-field/ Chicago Community Trust. (n.d.). The strategic plan. Retrieved December 20, 2020, from https:// www.cct.org/about/strategic-plan/ Community Indicators Consortium. (2010). CI-PM descriptive model. Retrieved December 1, 2020, from https://communityindicators.net/research/ci-pm-integrations/ Community Foundation Atlas. (2020). Community Philanthropy. Foundation Maps by Candid. Retrieved from https://maps.foundationcenter.org/#/list Council on Foundations. (2018). Donor advised funds. Retrieved December 20, 2020, from www. cof.org-public-policy-donor-advised-funds Council on Foundations. (2020). National Standards For U.S. Community Foundations. Retrieved October 4, 2020, from https://www.cof.org/national-standards-us-community-foundations#:~: text¼S.%20Community%20Foundations%C2%AE%20%28National%20Standards%29%20is %20an%20accreditation,operational%20effectiveness%20to%20foster%20excellence%20in% 20community%20philanthropy Delaware community Foundation. (2015). Delaware focus. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://www.delcf.org/2015/10/dcf-launches-statewide-community-indicator-project-websitedelawarefocus-org/ Díaz, W. A., & Shaw, A. (2002). Community foundations and progressive grantmaking public charities. In L. C. Burbridge, W. A. Diaz, T. Odendahl, & A. Shaw (Eds.), The meaning and impact of board and staff diversity in the philanthropic field: Findings from a national study. Joint Affinity Groups, p. 103. Edelman, M. A., & Charvat Burke, S. (2007). Wealth transfer: Philanthropie opportunity for community development practitioners. Community Development, 38(2), 1–15. Eisinger, P. (2002). Organizational capacity and organizational effectiveness among street-level food assistance programs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31, 115–130.

230

P. Kraeger et al.

Fleishman, J. L. (2007). The foundation: A great American secret; How private wealth is changing the world. PublicAffairs. Frumkin, P. (2008). Strategic giving: The art and science of philanthropy. University of Chicago Press. Gertler, M. (2001). Best practice? Geography, learning and the institutional limits to strong convergence. Journal of Economic Geography, 1(1), 5–26. Guo, C., & Brown, W. A. (2006). Community foundation performance: Bridging community resources and needs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(2), 267–287. Guthman, J. (2008). Thinking inside the neoliberal box: The micro-politics of agro-food philanthropy. Geoforum, 39(3), 1241–1253. Hall, P. D. (1999). The work of many hands: A response to Stanley N. Katz on the origins of the “serious study” of philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(4), 522–534. Hardi, P., Barg, S., Hodge, T., & Pinter, L. (1997). Measuring sustainable development: Review of current practice. Heinrich, C. (2002). Outcomes-based performance management in the public sector: Implications for government accountability and effectiveness. Public Administration Review, 62(6), 712–725. Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (1999). Theses on nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28, 107–126. Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (2000). Board practices of especially effective and less effective local nonprofit organizations. The American Review of Public Administration, 30(2), 146–160. Internal Revenue Code § 501, 26 U.S. Code § 501.Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts. Retrieved October 2, 2020, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501 Internal Revenue Code § 509; 26 U.S. Code § 509 Private foundation, define. Retrieved October 2, 2020, from https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-26-internal-revenue-code/26-usc-sect-509.htm International Finance Corporation. (2015). Establishing foundations to deliver community investment: A quick guide. International Finance Corporation. Retrieved April 29, 2021, from http:// commdev.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/P_Establishing_Foundations_Deliver_Commu nity_Investment.pdf Ittner, C. D., & Larker, D. F. (2001). Assessing empirical research in managerial accounting: A value-based management perspective. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 32, 349–410. Kanter, R. M., & Summers, D. (1987). Doing well while doing good: Dilemmas of performance measurement in nonprofit organizations. In W. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of nonprofit organizations (pp. 154–166). Yale University Press. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: Part I. Accounting Horizons, 15(1), 87–104. Katz, S. N. (1999). Where did the serious study of philanthropy come from, anyway? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28, 74–82. Katz, S. N. (2005). “What does it mean to say that philanthropy is” effective? The philanthropists’ new clothes. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 149 (2, 123–131. Katz, S. N. (2019). The Philanthropy critic as pain in the ass: Robert Payton on Peter Dobkin Hall. HistPhil. Retrieved December 6, 2020, from https://histphil.org/2019/12/30/the-philanthropycritic-as-pain-in-the-ass-robert-payton-on-peter-dobkin-hall/ Knowlton, L. W., & Phillips, C. C. (2012). The logic model guidebook: Better strategies for great results. Sage. Kraeger, P., & Robichau, R. (2017). Questioning stakeholder legitimacy: A philanthropic accountability model. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 470–519. Kraeger, P., & Schecter, D. (2020). Mini-public deliberation in philanthropy: A new way to engage with the public. In P. Kraeger & D. Schecter (Eds.), Mini-public deliberation in philanthropy: A new way to engage with the public new Democracy Foundation (pp. 1–8). Kramer, M. R. (2009). Catalytic philanthropy. FSG.

11

The Community Indicator and Community Foundation Interface: Exploring. . .

231

Kravchuk, R. S., & Schack, R. W. (1996). Designing effective performance measurement systems under the government performance and results act of 1993. Public Administration Review, 56(4), 348–358. Kubisch, A. C. (2010). Voices from the field III: Lessons and challenges from two decades of community change efforts. Aspen Institute. Laing, J. (2016, August 23). Grantee inclusion: A step towards mutual accountability? Stanford Social Innovation Review Online Series produced in partnership with Grantmakers for Effective Organizations. Retrieved from https://ssir.org/articles/entry/grantee_inclusion_a_step_towards_ mutual_accountability Larner, W. (2003). Neoliberalism? Environment and planning D. Society and Space, 21(5), 509–512. Letts, C.W., Ryan, W., Grossman, A., 1999. Benchmarking: How nonprofits are adapting a business planning tool for enhanced performance. The Grantsmanship Center Magazine. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from http://www.tgci.com/sites/default/files/pdf/ Benchmarking_0.pdf Liket, K., & Maas, K. (2016). Strategic philanthropy: Corporate measurement of philanthropic impacts as a requirement for a “happy marriage” of business and society. Business & Society, 55(6), 889–921. Liket, K. C., & Maas, K. (2015). Nonprofit organizational effectiveness: Analysis of best practices. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(2), 268–296. Mack, K., Preskill, H., Keddy, J., & Jhawar, M. M. K. (2014). Redefining expectations for placebased philanthropy. The Foundation Review, 6(4), 30–43. MacKinnon, D. (2000). Managerialism, governmentality and the state: A neo-Foucauldian approach to local economic governance. Political Geography, 19(3), 293–314. Martinez-Cosio, M., & Bussell, M. R. (2013). Catalysts for change, 21st century philanthropy and community development. Routledge. Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Earthscan. Musikanski, L., Phillips, R., Bradbury, J., De Graaf, J., & Bliss, C. (2021). Happiness, well-being and sustainability, A course in systems change. Earthscan. National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations Accreditation Program. (2020). Washington, D.C. Retrieved October 1, 2020, from https://www.cfstandards.org/getting-accredited/nationalstandards Nonproft Expert. (n.d.) Public Charities versus Private Foundations – What is the difference? Retrieved October 1, 2020, from https://www.nonprofitexpert.com/nonprofit-questionsanswers/public-versus-private/ Omaha Community Foundation. (2019). The Landscape. Retrieved October 1, 2020, from http:// www.thelandscapeomaha.org/ Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). Using well-being indicators for policy making: The US Partnership for Sustainable Communities, United States. Retrieved March 6, 2021, from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/us-partnership-for-sustainable-communi ties-united-states_5jxz9z902phf.pdf?itemId¼%2Fcontent%2Fcomponent%2F978926421741 6-14-en&mimeType¼pdf Ostrower, F., & Stone, M. M. (2010). Moving governance research forward: A contingency-based framework and data application. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(5), 901–924. Otley, D. (1999). Performance management: A framework for management control systems research. Management Accounting Research, 10(4), 363–382. Phillips, R. (2003). Community indicators. PAS Report No. 517. American Planning Association. Phillips, R., & Pittman, R. (2015). Measuring progress. In R. Phillips & R. Pittman (Eds.), Introduction to community development (2nd ed., pp. 346–362). Routledge. Phillips, R., & Wong, C. (2017). Handbook of community well-being research. Springer. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (1999). Philanthropy’s new agenda: Creating value. Harvard Business Review, 77, 121–131.

232

P. Kraeger et al.

Ridzi, F. (2020). Goldilocks data-connecting community indicators to program evaluation and everything in between. In F. Ridzi, C. Stevens, & M. Davern (Eds.), Community quality-of-life indicators Best Cases VIII (pp. 15–35). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48182-7 Ridzi, F., & Prior, T. (2020). Community leadership through conversations and coordination: The role of local surveys in community foundation run community indicators projects. International Journal of Community Well-Being. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-020-00098-z SA2020. Retrieved April 29, 2021, from https://sa2020.org/community-engagement Sacks, E. W. (2000). The growth of community foundations around the world. The Council of Foundations. Sawhill, J. C., & Williamson, D. (2001). Mission impossible?: Measuring success in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 11, 371–386. Sirgy, M. J. (2018). What types of indicators should be used to capture community well-being comprehensively? International Journal of Community Well-Being, 1, 3–9. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s42413-018-0002-4 Smith, D., & Shen, C. (1996). Factors characterizing the most effective nonprofits managed by volunteers. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 6, 271–289. Sowa, J., Selden, S., & Sandfort, J. (2004). No longer unmeasurable? A multidimensional integrated model of nonprofit organisational effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33, 711–728. Speckbacher, G. (2003). The economics of performance management in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 13, 267–281. Stevens, C., de Blois, M., Hamberg, R., & Baldwin, J. (2019). Community indicators project development guide. Amazon.com Stiffler, L. (2019). A new measure of success? Seattle leaders to unveil regional data dashboard to assess challenging issues. GeekWire. October 4, 2019. Retrieved December 21, 2020, from https://www.geekwire.com/2019/new-measure-success-seattle-leaders-unveil-regional-datadashboard-assess-challenging-issues/ Sung, H., & Phillips, R. G. (2018). Indicators and community well-being: Exploring a relational framework. International Journal of Community Well-Being, 1, 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s42413-018-0006-0 Tinkelman, D., & Donabedian, B. (2007). Street lamps, alleys, ratio analysis, and nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 18(1), 5–18. Valliani, N.. (2020). Using data to drive philanthropy during COVID-19. Data Driven Place Based Philanthropy Panel. Consortium’s Community Impact Summit. August 3, 2020. https:// communityindicators.net/2020-impact-summit/2020hub/ Verbeeten, F. H. M. (2008). Performance management practices in public sector organizations: Impact on performance. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(3), 427–454. Wilder Research. (2013). One Minneapolis: A vision for our city’s success. The 2013 Community Indicators Report. Retrieved from https://www.wilder.org/sites/default/files/imports/2013 OneMinneapolisReport.pdf Wines, F. H. (1898). Sociology and philanthropy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 12(1), 49–57. Zunz, O. (2014). Philanthropy in America. In Philanthropy in America. Princeton University Press.

11

The Community Indicator and Community Foundation Interface: Exploring. . .

233

Resources Four: SA2020 Community Engagement. https://sa2020.org/community-engagement One: The National Standards for U.S Community Foundations - the list of 26 National Standards: https://www.cfstandards.org/getting-accredited/national-standards Three: Community Indicators Project Development Guide. https://communityindicators.net/ product/community-indicators-project-development-guid/ Two: CF Leads Core Components: https://cfleads.org/what-we-do/the-framework-for-communityleadership/

Patsy Kraeger is an associate professor at Georgia Southern University in the Department of Public and Nonprofit Studies. She teaches in the masters™ in public administration program. Her research is in community development, community wellbeing philanthropy and social enterprise and philanthropy. Dr. Kraeger presents her research at international, national and regional academic conferences. She has authored edited books and book chapters for Edward Elgar Publishing, Routledge Publishing and Springer Publishing. Her work is published in peer-reviewed journals. Dr. Kraeger is the Reviews Editor for Local Development and Society and the Special Issues Editor for the international Journal For Community Well-Being, both peer “reviewed journals. She also serves on the Board of Directors for the International Society of Quality of Life Studies (ISQOLS) and the Community Indicators Consortium (CIC). Dr. Kraeger is the Founding Co-Chair of the Nonprofit, Philanthropy, Social Enterprise, and Entrepreneurship (NPSEE) section for the Western Social Science Association (WSSA). Prior to working in academia, she worked in community development in Arizona for the Arizona Governors™ office, state government and in nonprofit organizations. Dr. Kraeger is an active community volunteer. Rhonda Phillips is dean of Purdue University’s first interdisciplinary college, the Honors College, and a three-time Fulbright scholar. Her scholarship area is community well-being, development, and quality-of-life studies, presenting at United Nations, OECD, and many other events. She was recently appointed as an International Core Faculty Member for youth and community development with UNESCO. Rhonda was recognized for career achievements with induction into the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Certified Planners (FAICP) in 2016; and was appointed as an American Council on Education (ACE) Fellow for 2019–2020. She served as president for the International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies (ISQOLS) and recognized for her work with the annual conference Rhonda G. Phillips Endowed Track for the Promotion of Community Development and Community Well-Being. Rhonda serves as board chair of the Happiness Alliance and is the founding Co-Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Community Well-Being.

234

P. Kraeger et al.

Frank Ridzi PhD, MPA, is Vice President for Community Investment at the Central New York Community Foundation, Associate Professor of Sociology at Le Moyne College and immediate past President of the Board of Directors for the Community Indicators Consortium. Frank has helped to launch and lead community initiatives in areas such as increasing community literacy, reducing lead poisoning and addressing poverty and economic inclusion. He has been involved in launching Community Indicators efforts and has conducted research and written in the areas of collective impact, sociology of work, social policy and student affairs. His writings have appeared in such places as the Foundation Review, the Journal of Applied Social Sciences, the Journal of Organizational Change Management, and Review of Policy Research. He is a past President of the Literacy Funders Network, an affinity group of the Council on Foundations. Frank holds a Masters Degree in Public Administration and a Ph.D. in Sociology from Syracuse University’s Maxwell School. He also carries a Certificate of Advanced Study in Women’s Studies. Prior to joining the Community Foundation, he served as Director for the Center of Urban and Regional Applied Research at Le Moyne College, where he still serves as Associate Professor of Sociology.