Public Intervention Strategies for Distressed Communities

This research presents a methodology to comprehensively define Distressed Communities. We further identify if there is a significant difference in public investment between Distressed communities and Wealthy communities. One of the key tools in sustainability planning is the use of sustainability indicators (SIs). A considerable amount of scholarship has contributed to define and develop SI programs for local level application (Elgert & Krueger, 2012). Much of the focus of SI research is on developing the ideal indicator based on defined criteria for each indicator (Hart, 1999; Innes & Booher, 2000; Holman, 2009). Here we suggest a methodology beyond defining the ideal indicators to demonstrating how indicators can be used for more in depth analysis of complex urban problems. In this analysis we reduce 34 development metrics to a smaller number of factors that represent how the data can be classified into groups based on similarities among 88 communities. Using the factor (group) that contained measures identifying Distressed Communities, the communities were allotted an index score and ranked. The top 10 communities were then compared to the bottom 10 communities according to 14 place based variables related to opportunities for local government led improvement. INTRODUCTION Planning in the US is still forging new ways to integrate sustainable development, which is a comprehensive mantra for development planning (Berke and Manta-Conroy 2000; Jepson & Haines, 2014). One of the key tools in sustainability planning is the use of sustainability indicators (SI). A considerable amount of scholarship has contributed to define and develop SI programs for local level application (Elgert & Krueger, 2012). Much of the focus of SI research to-date is on developing the ideal indicator based on defined criteria for each indicator (Hart 1999; Innes and Booher 2000; Holman, 2009). This paper furthers the dialogue by offering a methodology beyond defining the ideal indicators to demonstrating how indicators can be used for more in depth analysis of complex urban areas. Using data to drive public policy can be proven to be beneficial through explicit inclusion in policy (Innes, 1988; Brugmann 1997; Bell and Morse 2008). Sustainability indicators can go beyond the singular function of measuring gains or losses in public policy to informing and enhancing the framing of public policy. This is because SIs represent a very value laden body of social, economic and environmental determinism in development services. SIs represent the theory of sustainable development, which is composed of a definition, set of principles, frameworks, suggested development processes and indicator characteristics. SIs can be thus used to serve political and operational functions. On the operational gamut, they are useful for goal oriented objectives (Backhaus, Bock, & Weiers, 2002). This is why it is important to further demonstrate how indicators can be applied towards more in-depth research to tackle complex problems in urban areas. Bloomberg Data for Good Exchange Conference. 25-Sep-2016, New York City, NY, USA. 2 The research first identifies a set of indicators developed with the assistance of a group of local experts in Houston, Texas. Data was collected and analyzed to measure the indicators at the level of 88 communities in the city. Exploratory analysis was conducted on the data collected for each community to determine how the indicators were related and to identify any relationships in the data that were meaningful findings for focusing planning policy. Specifically we were interested in answering the question of ‘What are the factors that can best identify and explain distressed communities in Houston?’ After the most appropriate factor to explain distressed communities was identified, scores were developed for each community according to the factors and the communities were ranked according to level of distress. Next the top ten most distressed and bottom ten least distressed were compared only according to the indicators from the dataset that explain place based differences. Specifically differences for which public intervention may support better quality of life and improvements to community function. The two groups were compared to answer the question, ‘Is there a significant difference between the most distressed and best performing communities in Houston according to community characteristics?’ The paper concludes with policy recommendations for public improvements to distressed communities in Houston. This research demonstrates the use of performance measurement as an essential component of planning in general and then highlights the use of sustainability indicators in particular as a robust, comprehensive and systematic approach for assessment and enhancement of planning policy. BACKGROUND In the 1990s as strategic thinking and results oriented management was improving in the public sector, the use of measurement systems for tracking performance became widespread in the US. The book, ‘Reinventing Government’, published in 1992 was a landmark guide for local government performance management. The federal government also implemented the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act to further spur this movement (United States Congress, 1993). At the same time that US government agencies were becoming more efficient through the implementation of performance measurement; crises in planning were being reported in terms of a loss of unified vision and inability to meet stakeholder needs (Levy, 1992). A review of typologies of plans conducted in 1995 showed that the Development Plan was the closest instrument to actually having performance measures through its structure of linking goals, objectives and policies. This was exemplified by the Sanibel, Florida plan. However none of the plans presented in the Stalwart Family Tree explicitly incorporated performance measures (Kaiser & Godschalk, 1995). This gap was later identified as the need to integrate performance measures to link plan goals with actual outcomes (Talen, 1996; Berke & Manta-Conroy, 2000). This national movement in the 1990s to develop performance measurement was actually coupled with an international movement to develop sustainability indicators to measure development perfromance (United Nations, 1996). Talen (1996) and later, Berke and Manta-Conroy (2000), show that these movements did not go unoticed by the academic community. Articles written between then and now highlight the gradual establishment of indicator projects across cities and countries abound (Mori & Christodoulou, 2012). However, these projects are not explicitly linked to plans and in most cases they are conducted outside the planning department. What is even more puzzling, is that even though many plans have attemted to incorporate sustainability, and one of the major instruments of incorporating sustainability is to develop sustainability indicators, indicators are still not normatively included in most plans