NICS Feedback from September 27, 2004 Workshop (40B)
1. Please describe what you found most valuable in today’s workshop? (40C)
- Awareness of Best Practices elsewhere (40D)
- Hearing what other community-level data intermediaries are doing and how they are able to combine various data sets for neighborhood-level analysis (40E)
- Mix of experience and incentives (40F)
- The participation in the break out sessions was most valuable. I liked being able to make suggestions and comments that everyone in the group could benefit from. (40G)
- Morning panel discussion from local communities; discussion of challenges/issues (40H)
- Learning about the project, and better understanding of community perspective (40I)
- Information in NICs and the diverse participants and interested parties (40J)
- Stories of uses of CSS systems at the local level (40K)
- Demonstration of sophisticated level and potential of local data use (40L)
- National-Local cross dialogue; demonstration of local user agenda (40M)
- Most valuable was thinking about how I could facilitate use of the NICs at the community level – namely by doing training for members of the American Planning Association who are likely users/beneficiaries of MCS (40N)
- The opportunity to hear from different stakeholders and different perspectives on how to approach NICs (40O)
- Well prepared and scoped (40P)
- Proposal for widely diverse national down to local user database (40Q)
- A better idea on the needs of local governments and non-profits (40R)
- Good exchange fo information; networking; education about available information and gaps (40S)
- Networking (40T)
2. Please give us any observations you have on the workshop’s structure and process so we can better plan future workshops? (40U)
- Better time management – certain participants monopolized panel time leaving others with little presentation time (40V)
- Slightly less time in break outs so that a more finished set of lessons learned can be with coupled with action options in a longer and structured plenary at the end (40W)
- Morning sessions too long before break. Better to break morning into shorter sessions (40X)
- Sharing by the panel in the morning was rushed. Perhaps give them more time to make their points. Suggest an actual lunch break even if it is only ˝ hour (40Y)
- Keep local projects (NNIP partners) involved (40Z)
- Perhaps there is a way to focus the technical discussion by rooting it in the needs of local users. Front-load discussion of use cases. (410)
- Time allotted was sometimes too short (411)
- Somewhat tighter discussion frameworks. Fix the remote system so that I can participate that way (412)
- Only suggestion would be slightly smaller working groups so that people might have more opportunity to offer ideas (413)
- I appreciate how the workshop provided a break out session that addressed different/significant components of building a data infrastructure. I felt this made things more organized and allowed for more interaction and discussion. (414)
- Improve amplification to support remote participants (415)
- I thought that process was good; more roundtable type discussion in smaller groups would have been good. (416)
- Logistics on remote access was poor; no food or beverage at Brookings. (417)
3. List for us the data sets which are most important to you (418)
- Current tract level – economic, assets, employment, housing type (unit, value) (419)
- Health related data (lower than county); Business/jobs (where are they located); Census (neighborhood level) (41A)
- Current population survey (basic and march supplement); survey of consumer finance; HMDA data (41B)
- From Census Rep: ACS most useful (41C)
- LED (41D)
- Local administrative agency data (41E)
- HMDA; Local data like County Assessor; City Agency data (41F)
- Federal level interactions with other levels (41G)
- Family Economic Success; Urban Development; Equity, race, personal outcomes focus in all (41H)
- Natural and built environment (including roads and level service); Data on location of housing and jobs (41I)
- 2000 Decennial; PUMS; Economic Survey; HMDA data; Bureau of Labor Stats (41J)
- Mechanism for multi-level gov’t sharing – health, justice environment (41K)
- Health, Housing/Community/Business Development; Social Characteristics; Pop/Race income etc; Education; Safety (41L)
- Tax; Economic (41M)
- EPA SDWIS, EPA Toxic Inventory List; 2000 Census SF3, SBA, FDIC, BEA, USDA RUS (41N)
5. Are there other people you suggest we contact? (41O)
- John Stern, Neighborhood Resource Center, 615-782-8212 (41P)
- Angela Blackwell, PolicyLink (41Q)
- Victor Rubin, PolicyLink (41R)
- Josh Kirshenbaum, PolicyLink (41S)
- Lisa Hasegawa, Executive Director, National Coalition of Asian Pacific American Community Development (41T)
- Stan Reid, Texas Association of Counties, Data Information Ctr, Director (41U)
- Ann Peton, RuPRI, www.rupri.org (41V)
- Jim Richardson, NRFC, www.nrfc.org (41W)