What did we learn about MAP?

This project engaged the staff who design and deliver MAP programming as well as residents who participate in it. In our conversations, we asked staff and residents about their experiences with MAP and how MAP impacts community safety. We sought to understand the elements of MAP that are meaningful to residents and staff, and what might be amplified to increase the efficacy of MAP programming. 

Click the plus to expand

At its core, MAP is oriented around building resident relationships to create safer communities. Through public events, NStat meetings, space revitalization projects, and programming, MAP creates opportunities for residents to get to know one another and build relationships. Community building does the work of destigmatizing relationships between residents by establishing familiarity and trust. Space revitalization projects are a form of community building that gives residents an opportunity to improve derelict public spaces that are “hot spots” for crime. Residents report that space design projects can eliminate the stigma surrounding parts of the neighborhood by creating spaces that invite recreation and play, and build connections. 

The participatory processes run by resident teams are perceived as incredibly important to changing people’s relationships to spaces and one another
. They not only do the work of building familiarity and trust, but also provide pathways to space stewardship and civic engagement. MAP engagement coordinators (MECs) and resident team members are often individuals who have a history of community organizing and a desire to make their communities better places. MAP provides them with a platform to amplify the work they’re committed to and enroll others in the definition and execution of it. 

MAP processes are resident-centered, which counters traditional notions of how the government operates and can contribute to a sense of hope around change. Both staff and residents value the emphasis on resident priority setting, co-design work, and advocacy, and feel that MAP follows through on their commitment to amplifying resident voice. They cite the importance of MAP as an instigator of positive change that can provide pathways for residents to get involved in community initiatives that have the potential to make a difference. By bringing government agencies to the table, MAP provides a more direct and human face to government and exposes residents to the possibility of driving change in government systems. Residents talked about how impactful it is to see a project from inception to completion, even if it is as small as a mural, it builds capacity and faith in the agency of residents. 

MECs and Borough Coordinators function like neighborhood social workers
, actively identifying resources and helping residents get their needs met
. Formally, this happens through NStat, which facilitates deep outreach into communities to identify and prioritize needs and connect residents to resources. Much of this happens more informally beyond the bounds of their actual responsibilities. It is common for staff to get calls or texts from residents at any time of day with a request for assistance. This includes things like accessing a public benefit, filling out a job application, and finding a daycare. Once a need is identified, staff work hard to problem solve, and coordinate resources and connections with other agencies. For residents, MAP brings government services directly to them and is often letting them know about myriad existing resources that they could get connected to. Additionally, the way that MAP does outreach is high-touch, which was said to be important to reach residents who might not normally seek services and those who are resistant to believing in the value of a service. 

MAP’s commitment to community-led decision-making is evident in how it is implemented across sites. While there are certain similarities between sites, like NStat and access to programming, the implementation of MAP can look quite different from place to place. In part, this is due to the iterative nature of MAP, which evolves to meet resident priorities both within and across sites. Varied implementation is also a consequence of listening to community needs and meeting them with the array of community organizations, services, and programming that make sense for that place. Staff see this as a strength of MAP, despite the administrative challenges in delivering tailored approaches by site. 

Staff mentioned the significant challenge of holding other agencies accountable to the priorities and needs surfaced through MAP
. There were many instances relayed where partner agencies fail to follow up or follow through after receiving input from residents. When this happens, Borough Coordinators and MAP leaders do what they can to call and advocate for residents, but there are limits to what staff can achieve from this position. Staff are desirous of tools and mechanisms to encourage deeper accountability with government partners. There is also an appetite for a form of accountability that doesn’t require MAP staff to produce it, instead enabling residents to push agencies directly. 

Additionally, sometimes residents' priorities might not be possible to address within the construct of NStat or MAP, particularly if they require significant policy advocacy at the local or state level. There can be tension at times between the desire to be community-driven, and the reality that staff are facilitating and administering a program, which structures and constrains what residents can take on. Staff and participants struggle with the limits to what can be accomplished with the current budgetary and scale limitations of the program, which can often feel like surfacing numerous priorities and being able to act on only a few. Staff and residents expressed a desire to increase resident access to decision-making over government funding beyond MAP and to expand the capacity of MAP to respond to resident priorities.

What do these findings mean for the evaluation of MAP?

The key takeaway from this project is that safety is far more than incidents of crime and violence. NIS proposed a handful of domains and indicators for measurement that would better represent the safety of a neighborhood. While this may be a new paradigm for many to associate things like economic security and access to public services as safety, our findings align well with the existing approach of MAP. MAP works with an expansive understanding of community safety that actively solicits residents to define their safety priorities across five areas: Economic Stability; Health and Well-being; Physical Space; Safety and Justice; and Youth Development. These categories are closely aligned with the indicator domains developed by NIS:

Given that both NIS and MAP developed these priority areas from participatory community-based processes, it is no surprise that they are similar. While NIS’s indicator domains are meant to measure safety in Black and Brown communities, MAP priority areas are used to organize activities that aim to increase community safety in these communities. How then, might the activities of MAP interact with the measurements of safety proposed by NIS?

Building from a theory of change

For the purposes of evaluation, it is important to articulate how activities or actions intend to create a particular impact. We find it helpful to start with a simple theory of change that outlines the fundamental cause-and-effect relationships of an initiative or system. 

“If we [actions], in order to [goals], we expect [impact].”

Based on documentation shared by the MAP team and our conversations with MAP participants, NIS developed the following statement: 

If we create a governmental response to neighborhood safety that amplifies resident voice and power, in order to direct investments to address resident safety priorities and provide accountability, we expect to create safe communities where residents can thrive. 

From our perspective, this statement provides a scaffold that articulates the core premise of the MAP approach that is unlikely to change: a focus on resident power. This articulation of MAP’s theory of change reflects the very clear message that we heard from residents, MAP staff, and MAP leadership: Black and Brown communities are not safe because they don’t have power.

Centering community power in the evaluation of MAP