|
http://www.researchforum.org/project_general_255.html |
|
|
Cleveland Community Building Initiative (CCBI)
General Information
View a brief abstract of this project.
| Evaluator(s) |
Center on Urban Poverty and Social Change, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve |
| Investigator(s) |
Claudia Coulton
(Case Western Reserve University)
Sharon Milligan (Center on Urban Poverty and Social Change, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve) Michelle R. Nario-Redmond (Center on Urban Poverty and Social Change, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve) |
| Sponsor(s) |
Annie E. Casey Foundation Cleveland Foundation |
| Funder(s) |
Cleveland Foundation Rockefeller Foundation |
| Consultant(s) |
Not applicable |
| Subcontractor(s) |
Not applicable |
| Domain |
Community/Neighborhood |
| Status | Operational with Findings |
| Duration | Jan 1995 - Apr 2001 |
| Type |
Research and/or Program Evaluation |
| Goal | To provide technical assistance and ongoing evaluation using multiple methods to measure CCBI’s progress toward short-term outcomes: village council formation and operation appraisal, analysis and acknowledgement of community assets, agenda formation, action project implementation, and collaborative relationships; and to collect baseline data on longer-term objectives: economic opportunities, safety/security, family/youth development, services, & neighborhood pride. |
| Program/Policy Description | The Cleveland Community Building Initiative (CCBI) is a comprehensive, neighborhood-based enterprise designed to reduce poverty by building on neighborhood assets and involving a group of diverse group of residents, civic, and business leaders as partners in the community revitalization process. The community building approach promotes positive change by working comprehensively to improve the physical, social, and economic conditions affecting residents’ quality of life. |
| Notes | No notes reported. |
| Last Updated | 00/00/00 |
| Type of Summary | Reviewed |
| External Reviewer(s) |
Michelle R. Nario-Redmond
(Center on Urban Poverty and Social Change, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve)
|
| Contact(s) |
Sharon Milligan (sem@po.cwru.edu)
Center on Urban Poverty and Social Change, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, CWRU 10900 Euclid Avenue (T) (216) 368-2335 (F) not reported |
| Publications Department |
CUPSC Publications Department (povertyinfo@po.cwru.edu) Case Western Reserve University 10900 Euclid Avenue (T) (216) 368-6946 (F) (216) 368-5158 |
Populations Studied
| Target Population |
Neighborhoods |
| Subgroups Analyzed |
Social/Community service agencies Low-income households Neighborhood-based community organizations Neighborhood key informants Neighborhoods |
| Sample Size and Unit |
4 Cleveland, OH Neighborhoods: East Village; Central Village; West Village; and Mt. Pleasant Village Sample size varies by methodology: (see http://povertycenter.cwru.edu/testing_measures.htm.) |
Sites Studied
4 Cleveland, OH Neighborhoods:East Village;
Central Village;
West Village;
and Mt. Pleasant Village
Program Components, Policies, and Activities Evaluated
Educational activities
- High school completion
- Post-secondary education
- School readiness activities
- Educational Activities - misc.
Social/Support services
- Child care
- Transportation
- Parenting classes/training
- Community/social services
Administration/Implementation
- Development of partnerships with private organizations
- Administration/Implementation - misc.
- Development of partnerships with city, state, and local governments
Housing
- Section 8 voucher program
- Housing - misc.
| Variation in program components across sites? | Yes |
| Notes on program components |
Administration/Implementation: CCBI attempts to build and nurture collaborative relationships between neighborhood-based organizations, community service agencies, residents, and local businesses. Social/Support Services: The Cleveland Community Building Initiative is designed to promote the physical, social, and economic conditions of community residents by building on neighborhood assets and involving a variety of community stakeholders in the change process. |
Outcomes Assessed
Family and relationship outcomes
- Violence in family or other relationships (child abuse and neglect)
- Births/pregnancies
- Parent-child interactions
- Family formation and stability/Living arrangements
- Family and relationship outcomes - misc.
- Parenting attitudes
Education
- High school graduation/GED receipt
- School attendance
- Education - misc.
Employment
- Job promotion
- Employment - misc.
Income security
- Food stamps receipt
- Income security - misc.
- Overall income
Housing
- Residential mobility
- Housing - misc.
- Home ownership
Standard of living
- Standard of living - misc.
Service utilization
- Service utilization - misc.
Program implementation
- Program Implementation - misc.
- Volunteer sector actions
Community Outcomes
- Community economic development (e.g. labor market outcomes)
- Community Outcomes - misc.
- Community interpersonal relationships (“neighborhood effects”)
- Community poverty rates
- Community safety (e.g. crime rates and/or general perceptions of safety)
- Distribution of community services (equity)
Types of Studies
| Type | Descriptive/Analytical Study |
| Aim | Multiple methods of data collection have been used to provide information in the form of neighborhood profiles on the conditions and trends in areas of safety/security, quality services, family and youth development, economic opportunities and neighborhood identity and pride. These methods include resident and institutional surveys, focus groups, and a review of secondary data sources. |
| Type | Implementation/Process Study |
| Aim | Baseline evaluation: To evaluate CCBI’s early progress in establishing operating practices and structures, such as village councils and developing village plans, asset inventories, and action projects in line with desired outcomes, using multiple methods of data collection including key informant interviews, self-assessment questionnaires and a review of secondary data sources including agency records. |
| Type | Implementation/Process Study |
| Aim | To evaluate CCBI’s early progress in the development of collaborative relationships between neighborhood and citywide agencies/institutions to collaborate with village residents and other stakeholders on new ways of rebuilding neighborhoods; and to provide a baseline of CCBI’s own working relationships, past, present and potential. |
| Type | Descriptive/Analytical Study |
| Aim | The evaluation team has been involved in testing an innovative, Theories of Change Approach to evaluation whereby CCBI stakeholders identify their expectations about how change is to be accomplished and measured by specifying the relationship between desired outcomes and the strategies by which those outcomes will be achieved. In collaboration with evaluators, CCBI continues to refine the initiative’s preliminary theory of change to incorporate lessons learned, future directions, and new input regarding the sequencing of activities that contribute to early, interim, and longer-term outcomes. |
Data Sources
| Source | Interview |
| Title | Key informant organizational interviews (structured) |
| Sample Characteristics/Data Collection | Purposive sample of leaders of 68 community organizations based on selection criteria to ensure adequate cross-sector representation. |
| Sites | All sites. |
| Response Rate/Attrition Notes | Actual response rate n=56 or 82% |
| Additional Execution Notes | The Collaborative Relationships Study Instrument (CRSI) was designed to assess the development of collaborative relationships between neighborhood-based agencies operating in each village and to provide a baseline of CCBI’s own working relationships. |
| Source | Interview |
| Title | Key informant CCBI interviews (Semi-structured interview guide) |
| Sample Characteristics/Data Collection | Purposive sample of CCBI staff members (N=8) and village council presidents/resident board members (N=7). |
| Sites | All sites. |
| Response Rate/Attrition Notes | Actual response rate n=13 or 87%. |
| Additional Execution Notes | The key informant interviews with CCBI stakeholders focused on perceptions of progress toward short-term outcomes related to Village Council Formation/Operation, Asset Identification, Analysis and Acknowledgement, Agenda Formation, Action Project Development and the Development of Collaborative Relationships. |
| Source | Survey |
| Title | Resident Surveys |
| Sample Characteristics/Data Collection | Residents in four CCBI Villages. Overall N=866 |
| Sites | All sites. |
| Response Rate/Attrition Notes | Actual response rate n=609 or 70%. |
| Additional Execution Notes | This survey instrument is designed to capture resident perceptions of neighborhood conditions as they relate to five aspects of life: neighborhood identity and pride, safety and security, institutions and services, family and youth development, and economic opportunity. (For a survey results, see CCBI Village Profiles.) |
| Source | Survey |
| Title | Self-assessment Questionnaire (Mail in and telephone) |
| Sample Characteristics/Data Collection | Village Council Members. N=95 |
| Sites | All sites. |
| Response Rate/Attrition Notes | n=51 or 54% |
| Additional Execution Notes | This questionnaire asks CCBI Village Council Members to assess the work of their Village Council, based on it’s inclusiveness, member participation, and council resources. |
| Source | Secondary data |
| Title | CANDO database (http://povertycenter.cwru.edu/cando.htm) Decennial Census of Population and Housing, County Auditor tax billing files, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, Cleveland Public School records. |
| Sample Characteristics/Data Collection | N/A |
| Sites | All sites. |
| Response Rate/Attrition Notes | N/A |
| Additional Execution Notes | Secondary data was used to supplement primary data sources for the neighborhood profile reports of neighborhood conditions. |
| Source | Administrative data |
| Title | CCBI Agency Records |
| Sample Characteristics/Data Collection | N/A |
| Sites | All sites. |
| Response Rate/Attrition Notes | N/A |
| Additional Execution Notes | Measurement of early benchmarks incorporates data from CCBI agency records and administrative reports. |
Findings Available
Interim Implementation FindingsInterim Impact Findings
Interim Descriptive/Analytical Findings
Findings
| 01/01/97: Cleveland Community Building Initiative: The 1995-96 CCBI Baseline Progress Report |
| In two and a half years, CCBI has gone from a vision to a reality in four villages. These communities have accomplished the difficult process of establishing widely inclusive and participatory governance structures called Village Councils. The considerable investment of time and effort by staff and volunteers has resulted in a nascent capacity for focusing the communities’ attention and resources on issues of vital importance to residents. Converting this focus into successful action though, poses a series of challenges; many of which are detailed in this report. Overall, the evaluation found that significant progress had been made in most villages toward building organizational and leadership capacity and involving the community in shaping its own agenda. Using the communities’ assets to move this agenda forward began at different stages in each village, with some facing challenges in terms of coalescing around a cohesive plan. The evaluation pointed to the need to strengthen and refine the roles and responsibilities of various components of CCBI and its relationships to the community at large. |
| 01/01/99: Cleveland Community Building Initiative: The 1997-98 CCBI Baseline Report on Collaborative Relationships |
| Overall, this evaluation study on collaborative relationships found that CCBI has faced many challenges and achieved some successes in the development of essential collaborative relationships. However, the citywide partners identified in the Poverty Commission Report have not been involved in the Initiative’s implementation. Although there are inherent challenges in community building such as agency turfism and competition, there is clear evidence within the villages of a pattern of inter-organizational activity that has emerged through the work of CCBI. These inter-organizational relationships can be described as sharing common objectives and in some cases a formal structure. The network of collaborative relationships is impressive not only in terms of the number of participants, but in the fairly even distribution across organizational sections. CCBI is among the most frequently cited collaborators in this network. |
| 10/01/01: Cleveland Community Building Initiative: The End of Welfare as They Knew It What Happens When Welfare Recipients Reach Their Time Limits? |
|
Interim Impact Findings: "Relative to those who left welfare without facing time limits, the time limited leavers have lower employment rates, work less steadily, work fewer hours and make less per hour and therefore have significantly lower family incomes. They are also less likely to hold jobs with benefits and more likely to depend on public transit or others for a ride to work. And they face more housing hardships such as overcrowding and excessive rent burdens. However, the time-limited leavers have been more able to utilize support services such as Medicaid and food stamps, employment referrals and housing support, services for which they were still eligible after reaching their cash assistance time limit. If the goal of welfare reform is more than to simply reduce the rolls, those leaving welfare still require a broad range of services, such as child care, transportation, housing assistance, job training and referral, and emergency funds for unforeseen needs, and may even need more than is already provided. While this is particularly true of the time-limited leavers who face multiple barriers to success off of welfare, even those who voluntarily leave welfare could use greater access to such support services. Understanding the changing characteristics of those leaving welfare, both time limited and voluntary, will be critical in assessing their changing needs. Policy makers need to know they have not gotten rid of a population in need—they’ve only moved them off of welfare. Short of eliminating or extending the time limits for cash assistance, it is clear that other types of support are even more important. |
Recommendations
| Cleveland Community Building Initiative: The 1995-96 CCBI Baseline Progress Report (01/01/97) |
|
| Cleveland Community Building Initiative: The 1997-98 CCBI Baseline Report on Collaborative Relationships (01/01/99) |
|
Existing Publications
|
|