OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
INSTITUTIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND
MOTIVATING INTERAGENCY
COLLABORATION
Junious Williams, CEO
Urban Strategies Council
www.urbanstrategies.org
© Urban Strategies Council 2004
OVERVIEW
 Institutional Opportunities: What are the
opportunities that Community Statistical
Systems (CSS) present for new and
improved institutions and relationships?
 Motivation for Interagency Collaboration:
What are the motivations for Interagency
Collaboration
 A Case Example: What are examples of the
institutional opportunities and Interagency
Collaboration that have occurred in
Oakland?
 Challenges: What are the challenges ahead
in building CSS?
© Urban Strategies Council 20014
PARTNERS IN NNIP. . .
OPERATE THROUGH A VARIETY
OF STRUCTURES
Single Organizations
Partnerships
Local Collaborations
Regional Collaborations
© Urban Strategies Council 20014
PARTNERS IN NNIP. . .
HAVE A VARIETY OF
ORGANIZATIONAL HOMES
Community Based Organizations
Specially-Created Organizations
State and Local Government
Universities
United Way
Foundation
© Urban Strategies Council 20014
INSTITUTIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
Build new, effective organizational
structures and arrangements created
specifically to support building
community statistical systems
Joint ownership by community-based
organizations and governmental
agencies
Build relationships between people
© Urban Strategies Council 20014
MOTIVATING INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION
 No Sector Can Do It Alone
 Better Use of Scarce Resources
 Improved Quality of Data
 Increase in Types of Data
 Data as a foundation for building
consensus on results and strategies
© Urban Strategies Council 20014
URBAN STRATEGIES COUNCIL: A
COMMUNITY BUILDING SUPPORT AND
ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION
MISSION: ELIMINATE PERSISTENT POVERTY BY
BUILDING VIBRANT, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES
© Urban Strategies Council 20014
THE COUNCIL WORKS IN FIVE
PROGRAM AREAS TO SUPPORT YOUTH,
FAMILY AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
•
•
•
•
•
Information and Technology
Economic Opportunity
Community Safety and Justice
Schools in Communities
Community Capacity Building
© Urban Strategies Council 20014
MAJOR TRENDS IN COUNCIL DATA WORK
From:
• Private data warehouse to public data warehouse
• Analysis by Council staff to analysis by user
• Administrative datasets to community-based
research to create new information
• Major citywide data reports to strategic data
support for neighborhoods
• Intermediary-driven research to community-driven
research
TRENDS IN COUNCIL DATA WORK FOR
SELECTED AREAS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CSS Structure
Organizational structure
Participants in research
Data focus
User focus
Geographic focus
Governance
Learning Community
Partners
COMMUNITY STATISTICAL SYSTEM STRUCTURE
1989-1995
1996-2000
Building
Providing Data
Organizational and Mapping
Capacity
Services
Backroom Data
Warehouse
•Datasets
•Statistical
Software
•Mapping Software
•Staff Analyst
Backroom Data
Warehouse
•Datasets
•Statistical
Software
•Mapping Software
•Staff Analyst
2001-Present
Building
Community
Collaborative
Online Data
Warehouse and
Mapping Service
•Website
•Map and Data
Room
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
1989-1995
1996-2000
Building
Providing Data
Organizational and Mapping
Capacity
Services
 Single CBO
 Public Agency
Partnerships
• Single CBO
•CBO and Higher
Ed. Partnerships
2001-Present
Building
Community
Collaborative
• Single CBO
•Partnerships
•CBO, Higher Ed.
& Public Agency
Collaboration
PARTICIPANTS IN RESEARCH
1989-1995
1996-2000
Building
Providing Data
Organizational and Mapping
Capacity
Services
•USC Staff
•Representative
Stakeholder Work
Groups
•Research Partners
•USC Staff
•Stakeholder Work
Groups
•Research Partners
2001-Present
Building
Community
Collaborative
•CBOs
•Residents
•Stakeholder Work
Groups
DATA FOCUS
1989-1995
1996-2000
Building
Providing Data
Organizational and Mapping
Capacity
Services
Administrative
Data (federal, state
and local)
Qualitative Data
Administrative
Data (federal, state
and local)
Qualitative Data
2001-Present
Building
Community
Collaborative
Administrative
Data (federal, state
and local)
Qualitative Data
USER FOCUS
1989-1995
1996-2000
Building
Providing Data
Organizational and Mapping
Capacity
Services
2001-Present
Building
Community
Collaborative
1. USC Staff
1. USC Staff
1. CBO staff
2. Public Agency 2. Public Agency 2. Residents
Staff
Staff
engaged in
change efforts
3. Public agency
staff
4. Public at-large
GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS
1989-1995
1996-2000
Building
Providing Data
Organizational and Mapping
Capacity
Services
2001-Present
Building
Community
Collaborative
 City
 Neighborhood  Neighborhood
 County
 City
 City
 Neighborhood  County
 County
 Region (9
Counties)
GOVERNANCE
1989-1995
1996-2000
Building
Providing Data
Organizational and Mapping
Capacity
Services
•USC Board
governance
•USC Board
Governance
•USC Board
Governance
•OIP Collaborative
Decision Making
2001-Present
Building
Community
Collaborative
•USC Board
Governance
•Casey LLP
Governance
•InfoOakland
Collaboration
Governance
LEARNING COMMUNITY
1989-1995
1996-2000
Building
Providing Data
Organizational and Mapping
Capacity
Services
•Rockefeller
Persistent Poverty
Program Grantees
•National
Community
Building Network
•Individual
Colleagues
•NNIP
•Oakland
Indicators
Partnership
•National
Community
Building Network
•Individual
Colleagues
2001-Present
Building
Community
Collaborative
NNIP
LLP’s
IURD and GIS
Center at UC
Berkeley
NKCA
•Individual
Colleagues
KEY PARTNERS
1989-1995
1996-2000
Building
Providing Data
Organizational and Mapping
Capacity
Services
Rockefeller
Foundation
Casey Foundation
Oakland School
District
Alameda County
Social Services
Rockefeller
Foundation
Casey Foundation
Oakland
Indicators
Partnership
NNIP
2001-Present
Building
Community
Collaborative
•Casey Foundation
•NNIP
•UC Berkeley
(IURD/GISC)
•InfoOakland
Members
INFoOakland
Information Networking Forum of Oakland
www.INFoOakland.org
GOALS OF INFoOAKLAND
Build the Oaktown Datahouse—Design, implement, maintain
and expand an online data warehouse and mapping service providing data/information on
Oakland and Alameda County;
Build Community Capacity—Design and deliver learning
opportunities that build the capacities of residents, community-based organizations and
other stakeholders to support their community change through the using data and
information, conducting their own research and using the Oaktown Datahouse;
Bridge the Digital Divide—Design and implement strategies and
programs that increase the access of residents and community-based organizations in lowincome neighborhoods to information technologies, software
and training;
Actively Engage the Community—Design and implement
strategies and programs for continuous outreach to residents, community-based
organizations and other stakeholders to engage them in further development of
INFoOakland and active use of its resources.
INFoOAKLAND MEMBERS: COMMUNITY-BASED
ORGANIZATIONS
Lower San Antonio Collaborative (Making Connections
Oakland
San Antonio Community Development Corporation
Eastside Arts Alliance
Institute for Urban and Regional Development (IURD at UCB)
Eastmont Computer Center
Movement Strategy Center
Pacific Institute
PUEBLO
Urban Explorer
Urban Habitat
Youth in Focus
Center for Justice Tolerance and Community (UCSC)
INFoOAKLAND MEMBERS: PUBLIC AGENCIES
Oakland Unified School District
Oakland Housing Department
Oakland City Manager’s Office
Interagency Children’s Planning Council of Alameda County
Alameda County Public Health Department
CHALLENGES:
 Resources: competition; resources to maintain
collaboration
 Suspicion and lack of trust
 Fear of transparency
 Lack of community capacities regarding research
and use of data
 Quality of data
 Control over data: quality, appropriate analysis