1. Updated 21 March 2013 Living Cities Organizational Evaluation: Executive Summaries Living Cities Organizational Evaluation: Executive Summaries

2. Table of Contents 2 This slide deck provides summaries from evaluations that were part of the overarching Living Cities organizational evaluation for the current round (2010- 2013): The Project on Municipal Innovation Evaluation: Slides 3-9 The Boot Camps Evaluation: Slides 10-16 The Research and Development Working Groups Evaluation: Slides 17-23 The Engaged Investment Evaluation (Focus: Strive and LIIF): Slides 24-29

3. Updated 21 March 2013 Project on Municipal Innovation Evaluation: Executive Summary Project on Municipal Innovation Evaluation: Executive Summary

4. PMI Evaluation Executive Summary 4 Evaluation Purpose 1.Understand the results of PMI as a core investment and core convening strategy 2.Link PMI results to Living Cities organizational outcomes (slide 3), and 3.Gather feedback on what can make the PMI process stronger moving forward. Evaluation Methodology In late March 2012, Living Cities invited a cross-section of 15 PMI attendees to take an online survey, of which 13 responded. In addition, a series of cross-cutting stakeholder interviews included two PMI participants; their feedback is incorporated as appropriate in the following results. Short, follow-up interviews were conducted in early-mid July with five survey takers in order to explore examples of impact. *The evaluation sought to explore how PMI contributed to the organizational outcomes that were articulated after PMI was launched Purpose / Methodology

5. Short-term (1-3 years) Intermediate term (4-9 years) (Recognition) Acknowledgement of failed systems; recognition of the value of working across issues, sectors and geographies Draft Outcomes for Living Cities’ Organizational Evaluation c (Accelerated adoption) Adoption/normalization of successful approaches is accelerated. (Widespread systems change Policy, practice, and funding shift toward successful approaches to improving the lives of low-income people. Influence Leverage On the Ground LC Outcomes Long-term (10-20 years) Increased number of low-income people enjoy greater economic opportunity and access to mainstream resources, products, and services. (Scaled benefit) (Experimentation) Innovative, integrated approaches to fixing systems failures are identified and tested c (Mutual responsibility) Mutual responsibility for finding better solutions is taken by cross-sector stakeholders -- including new and unlikely partners/ collaborators c (Early adoption) Successful approaches /frameworks are adopted,refined,and gain early stability/become the norm. c 1.All outcomes refer to social AND private sector 2.All outcomes can happen at the local and national level 3.The timeframe above is the general timeframe for systems change; however, various LC investments will have different entry points. 4.The outcomes are not necessarily linear and are iterative. LC sweet spot

6. PMI was initially convened to: Help city leaders get information on successful systems change, discuss how to apply these changes in their cities and share best practices and lessons learned through networking, information and technical assistance Connect experts from across the country with forward-thinking local policy makers to develop city-wide solutions to significant public challenges in a very short period of time. Source: PMI Grant Agreement Current Round.pdf 6 Anticipated Outcomes PMI Evaluation Executive Summary

7. 7 Through PMI, Living Cities has created a highly valued, trusted venue that provides bi- directional benefits: “I hate to travel; this is the only conference I plan for and always make.” “[State] Big Cities group… tends to be more transactional, while UPAG tends to be more transformative. I always have takeaways when I leave UPAG.” PMI has created a national network of peers to call upon and learn from “[UPAG] has brought all of our policy leaders together, allow us to grow and share from one another and bring value back to our organizations.” “I reach out to my peers for their experiences and I would never have gotten to know them without UPAG.” Key Findings (1 of 2)

8. PMI Evaluation Executive Summary 8 PMI provides content that informs their thinking and work in their cities Mayoral involvement in oversight of public schools and how to more successfully engage with private sector Specific city initiatives, including: Cleveland’s approach to economic development, Boston’s urban mechanics, Providence Boys and Girls Club partnerships (and many more) PMI helps participants leverage funds/resources “UPAG connected us to national funders and additional funds to augment government funding for initiatives.” “[We] made connections that led to outside foundation funding.” Key Findings (2 of 2)

9. PMI Evaluation Executive Summary 9 PMI can serve as a platform for Living Cities experimentation and adoption of new frameworks in the Public Sector The evaluation suggest that PMI is a trusted venue and that members of the network would welcome more opportunities to create bridges to the work of Living Cities and other PMI members. In other areas of Living Cities work (namely, TII), engagement of the public sector remains an ongoing challenge. As long as Living Cities preserves the level of trust the network has developed, evaluation data suggests that network members would welcome the opportunity to become more familiar with the rest of Living Cities work and work with Living Cities to experiment with new frameworks. Whether one time (Boot Camps) or on-going (PMI), convenings alone do not result in early adoption of innovative solutions or widespread systems change Consistent with findings from the Boot Camp evaluation, PMI evaluation data suggests that the ongoing challenge remains how best to translate what is being learned at events to participants' specific context and, therefore, into changed practice at home. If Living Cities wishes to use PMI as a platform to support widespread systems change, the data suggests that an investment outside of the convenings (e.g., technical assistance) will be required. Implications

10. Updated 21 March 2013 Living Cities Boot Camp Evaluation: Executive Summary Living Cities Boot Camp Evaluation: Executive Summary

11. Boot Camp Evaluation – Executive Summary 11 Evaluation Purpose Assess the ability of Boot Camps to help Living Cities achieve its organizational outcomes (Slide 3). Identify contributing factors that helped to produce results, and Help staff use what’s learned to inform if/how to best use them in the next round. Evaluation Methodology Two of three Boot Camps were evaluated –Neighborhood Stabilization and Sustainable Communities, the two most recent boot camps. Eight key informants selected by staff were interviewed; 169 regional team members were invited to participate in an online survey, of which 28% responded. *The evaluation sought to explore how Boot Camps contributed to the organizational outcomes which were articulated after the boot camps took place Purpose / Methodology

12. Short-term (1-3 years) Intermediate term (4-9 years) (Recognition) Acknowledgement of failed systems; recognition of the value of working across issues, sectors and geographies Draft Outcomes for Living Cities’ Organizational Evaluation c (Accelerated adoption) Adoption/normalization of successful approaches is accelerated. (Widespread systems change Policy, practice, and funding shift toward successful approaches to improving the lives of low-income people. Influence Leverage On the Ground LC Outcomes Long-term (10-20 years) Increased number of low-income people enjoy greater economic opportunity and access to mainstream resources, products, and services. (Scaled benefit) (Experimentation) Innovative, integrated approaches to fixing systems failures are identified and tested c (Mutual responsibility) Mutual responsibility for finding better solutions is taken by cross-sector stakeholders -- including new and unlikely partners/ collaborators c (Early adoption) Successful approaches /frameworks are adopted, refined, and gain early stability/become the norm. c 1.All outcomes refer to social AND private sector 2.All outcomes can happen at the local and national level 3.The timeframe above is the general timeframe for systems change; however, various LC investments will have different entry points. 4.The outcomes are not necessarily linear and are iterative. LC sweet spot

13. The Boot Camps were initially convened to Help leaders tackle an urgent public-interest task with potential transformative strategies for greater effectiveness Generate cross-sector solutions to joint problems Advance field practice 13 Anticipated Outcomes Boot Camp Evaluation—Executive Summary

14. Boot Camps helped stakeholders see the value of cross-field exposure “The big ‘aha’ for the planners is that they need to talk with their economic planning development departments…Twin Cities – lead planner said, ‘Wow, I didn’t even know we had a regional economic development strategy.’” (Interviewee, Sustainable Communities Boot Camp) 77.3% of survey respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that the Boot Camp led them to ask questions in their work that they would not have asked otherwise Boot Camps helped stakeholders develop new relationships and strengthen existing collaborations “I felt this was the core takeaway, you had people who would not otherwise work together or communicate together at least having discussions together and working together.” (Interviewee, NS) “Miami, Phoenix, LA, the people who arrived at the conference, even though they were on the same plane didn’t know they were in the same conference.” (Interviewee, Neighborhood Stabilization Boot Camp) 14 Key Findings (1 of 2) Boot Camp Evaluation—Executive Summary

15. Boot Camps exposed practitioners to best practices, new ideas, approaches and solutions to advance/support efforts at home “We have multiple states… that are considering or developing or passed legislation to create land banks as a result…They hadn’t heard of them before and they got to hear about them at the boot camps.” (Interviewee, NS) “It’s not that all ten groups went home and embraced the same idea, but it was more of a best-fit sort of thing. You might walk away with just one really different idea, but that one idea really made a difference for you.” (Interviewee, SC) 15 Key Findings (2 of 2) Boot Camp Evaluation—Executive Summary

16. Boot Camp Evaluation – Executive Summary 16 Boot Camps created a foundation for deploying transformative strategies to address urgent issues, but fell short in terms of actual deployment and changing the field Evaluation data suggest that successful and sustained implementation of the ideas/approaches introduced at the Boot Camps would require: 1.Sufficient capacity of invited teams to understand the issues and frameworks at a systemic level 2.Ensuring the right make-up and engagement of key stakeholders 3.Sufficient follow-through to help participants translate and implement what they learned Lack of sufficient follow-through represents value left on the table in terms of deploying new approaches/ideas, and improving approaches and deployment mechanisms. Comparing deployment methodologies across Living Cities could improve convening outcomes Living Cities could benefit from comparing its Boot Camp methodology to other deployment methodologies, such as that used for the deployment of the Capital Absorption framework, in order to find the most efficient and effective method to deploy new frameworks/approaches during the next round. Implications

17. Updated 21 March 2013 Working Groups Evaluation: Executive Summary Working Groups Evaluation: Executive Summary

18. Working Group Evaluation – Executive Summary 18 Evaluation Purpose The evaluation sought to answer the following questions: 1.What results have the Working Groups produced and how do they tie to organizational outcomes? 2.What contributed to these results? 3.How can Working Groups maximize their results? 4.What has Living Cities learned about Working Groups in this round that can inform how they are used in the next round? Evaluation Methodology In late May / early June 2012, evaluators conducted interviews with 5 TOD and 4 Green Economy Working Group members, including all co-chairs In addition, a series of cross-cutting stakeholder interviews included three additional Working Group members (1 TOD and 2 GE) Staff interviewed 11 TOD members and 12 Green Economy members* Evaluators observed Working Group meetings and have conducted a real-time evaluation of the creation and work of the Green Economy Sub-Group * Staff decided not to include the Income & Assets Working Group in this evaluation, given the transition the Working Group was involved in at the time Purpose / Methodology

19. Short-term (1-3 years) Intermediate term (4-9 years) (Recognition) Acknowledgement of failed systems; recognition of the value of working across issues, sectors and geographies (1) Draft Outcomes for Living Cities’Organizational Evaluation c (Accelerated adoption) Adoption/normalization of successful approaches is accelerated. (5) c (Widespread systems change) Policy, practice, and funding shift toward successful approaches to improving the lives of low-income people. (6) Influence Leverage On the Ground LC Outcomes Long-term (10-20 years) Increased number of low-income people enjoy greater economic opportunity and access to mainstream resources, products, and services. (Scaled benefit) (Experimentation) Innovative, integrated approaches to fixing systems failures are identified and tested (3) c (Mutual responsibility) Mutual responsibility for finding better solutions is taken by cross-sector stakeholders -- including new and unlikely partners/ collaborators (2) c (Early adoption) Successful approaches/frameworks are adopted, refined, and gain early stability/become the norm. (4) c 1.All outcomes refer to social AND private sector 2.All outcomes can happen at the local and national level 3.The timeframe above is the general timeframe for systems change; however, various LC investments will have different entry points. 4.The outcomes are not necessarily linear and are iterative. LC sweet spot

20. Source: Undated “Overview – Current Activities – Past Activities” reports The R and D Working Groups were intended as vehicles for member engagement and alignment of work around specific issues as well as vehicles to move forward leading -edge research agendas which would accelerate policies and initiatives that help low-income people, specifically: Green Economy: A forum for members to align and coordinate their efforts in the green, clean economy, identify emerging areas of opportunity in the field, and collectively define and advance an agenda that drives economic growth and creates jobs in low-income communities. Building upon Living Cities’ green jobs and energy efficiency retrofitting portfolios, the Working Group will harness member knowledge and integrate tools including grants, loans, and policy to drive this agenda. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) To build the field’s capacity to do equitable TOD and to remove barriers that make equitable TOD unnecessarily difficult and expensive. More specifically, the Working Group seeks to: support the development of national systems (e.g. policy, finance) to facilitate equitable TOD; strengthen and spread equitable TOD at regional level; grow and align philanthropic investment in equitable TOD Income & Assets Working Group Income, when coupled with assets, provides a family with stability and the opportunity for economic security and moving ahead. Together they are needed to save for future needs, pursue an education, buy a home, start a business, live securely in retirement, and weather economic challenges of unemployment, illness, or disaster. The Living Cities Income and Assets Working Group will provide a platform for members to align activities and advance policies and programs that help low-income families move from poverty to financial stability. 20 Anticipated Outcomes Working Group Evaluation—Executive Summary

21. 21 Key Findings (1 of 2) Working Group Evaluation—Executive Summary First year of Working Groups devoted to defining and scoping the problem, doing research and developing a common language led to strong understanding and recognition of the nature of the systems problems that needed to be solved “Most national conversations about TOD are high-end (about loft apartments, etc.). The Working Group brought the equitable part [to the conversation].” (TOD, Fdn) Mutual Responsibility evolved through member engagement and ownership over time After recognizing that an exclusive focus on energy efficiency work was insufficient to create jobs and sustained systems, change, the Green Economy Working Group created a subgroup to find and test solutions in new arenas, with an explicit focus on exploring innovative funding solutions that cross the boundaries between program and capital. In so doing, LC staff have committed to creating a “bi-lingual” thought process for the benefit of the Working Group and, ultimately, the field. (Real-time evaluation) Experimentation with innovative approaches was slow to start but accelerated in mid 2012 Adoption / Adaptation of innovative solutions had yet to happen by mid 2012-- premature to expect this before results of experiments are in

22. 22 Key Findings (2 of 2) Working Group Evaluation—Executive Summary After TII, Working Groups ranked as most valuable source of Member Value Working Groups are an effective vehicle for deepening influence of Living Cities in member institutions The TOAH loan program, funded by the Catalyst Fund, helped to attract senior lenders to TOD. Working Group members have invested in the fund. (Working Group interviews, engaged investment interviews) Value comes from making professional connections with other members; creating focus, action orientation and national lens, commissioning research and exposure to field experts “Green Economy Working Group has enabled our staff who are working on these issues to have a close-in set of co-conspirators to think with.” (Member Value Survey) “You don’t often have [financial institutions] working alongside of [each other] and all these people are mixing it up in a very intentional way. Living Cities provides the safety net, if you will, for us to work together in a thoughtful and very engaged way.” (TOD, FI)

23. 23 Evaluation data suggests that clear focus, fit-for-purpose design, and structured process for experimentation and member learning could accelerate results Convene member staff around issues they are/plan to be working on; task group to identify gaps and fund research on causes and solutions to inform member practice; may result in sub-groups that fund experimentation Create fit-for-purpose work group (size, focus, duration) with defined outcome, but self- organizing about how to get there Whether done through Working Group, ad hoc group or by members at large, fund sites with: shared problem definition and system view high mutual responsibility comfort/experience with standards and measurement Convene member staff currently doing this work with explicit intention to learn together from the body of Living Cities and member work around commonly experienced gaps Implications Working Group Evaluation – Executive Summary

24. Updated 21 March 2013 Engaged Investment Evaluation: Executive Summary Engaged Investment Evaluation: Executive Summary

25. Engaged Investment Evaluation – Executive Summary 25 Evaluation Purpose 1.Better understand the impact of Living Cities’ “engaged investment.” Living Cities defines engaged investment as the financial investment (grant/loan) and accompanying deep staff engagement which includes coaching, technical assistance, troubleshooting and creating national connections. 2.Better understand grantee/ borrower perceptions of the influence, leverage, and on-the- ground results of the Living Cities investment, what contributed to those results, and how those results link to Living Cities organizational outcomes (Slide 3). Evaluation Methodology In late May / early June 2012, evaluators conducted interviews with four current and past staff members of Knowledgeworks, which houses the StriveNetwork staff, and one staff member of Low Income Investment Fund (LIIF). In addition, a series of cross-cutting stakeholder interviews included the founder of Strive Cincinnati Follow up interviews were conducted with Living Cities staff Purpose / Methodology

26. Short-term (1-3 years) Intermediate term (4-9 years) (Recognition) Acknowledgement of failed systems; recognition of the value of working across issues, sectors and geographies (1) Draft Outcomes for Living Cities’ Organizational Evaluation c (Accelerated adoption) Adoption/normalization of successful approaches is accelerated. (5) c (Widespread systems change Policy, practice, and funding shift toward successful approaches to improving the lives of low-income people. (6) Influence Leverage On the Ground LC Outcomes Long-term (10-20 years) Increased number of low-income people enjoy greater economic opportunity and access to mainstream resources, products, and services. (Scaled benefit) (Experimentation) Innovative, integrated approaches to fixing systems failures are identified and tested (3) c (Mutual responsibility) Mutual responsibility for finding better solutions is taken by cross-sector stakeholders -- including new and unlikely partners/ collaborators (2) c (Early adoption) Successful approaches /frameworks are adopted, refined, and gain early stability/become the norm. (4) c 1.All outcomes refer to social AND private sector 2.All outcomes can happen at the local and national level 3.The timeframe above is the general timeframe for systems change; however, various LC investments will have different entry points. 4.The outcomes are not necessarily linear and are iterative. LC sweet spot

27. Source: Grant Decision-Making Before & After Action Review & Emergent Learning Table (January 2012) Strive 2008 grants of $420K to U of Cincinnati, 2009 grant of $700K to SUNY and 2011 grants of $1M to KnowledgeWorks designed to: Build senior staff capacity and fund strategic planning through Bridgespan Develop a partnership with four Urban Serving Universities (USU) sites, with the hypothesis that universities can serve as anchors for Cradle to Career partnerships (The RFP process to become a demonstration site was only open to members of USU) Support the expansion of the national network, including creating evidence-based action plans, hosting national convenings and advancing a policy agenda LIIF TOAH Loan: To originate loans that finance affordable housing and other activities near transit; to reduce risk to senior lenders in order to design loan products out of the fund that had the necessary risk profile LIIF Grant: Support the advancing of knowledge of equitable TOD financing tools and gaps. Develop a resource that can help local, state and federal public sector leaders (and advocates) support the next phase of equitable TOD work. Increase Living Cities and LIIF/Enterprise partnership knowledge of two markets where Living Cities has made grants (Bay Area and Denver) as well as an outsider’s perspective on one of the TII sites (Twin Cities) as well as Atlanta. 27 Anticipated Outcomes Engaged Investment Evaluation—Executive Summary

28. 28 Key Findings Engaged Investment Evaluation—Executive Summary Living Cities Engaged Investment in Strive contributed to the creation of a national network and accelerated adoption of Strive by other cities Funded staffing capacity building and strategic planning to support creation of the Strive Network Funded four demonstration sites to test the Strive framework Helped launch network in Feb 2011; grown to 7 Cradle-to-Career Communities and now over 75 network members Living Cities Engaged Investment in Strive contributed to the creation of an adaptive framework Created an adaptive frame for doing the work (a set of principles and deliverables, supported by technical tools based on lessons learned) in order to help sites adapt solutions to fit their own situations, needs, resources and priorities Raised the importance of capturing lessons from their own and other organizations and translate that into tools for the Strive Network Used who Living Cities is and where it sits to make connections at a national level Pushed Strive staff to think for themselves (versus promoting Living Cities solutions); to be more adaptive, strategic and scientific (e.g., data-driven) in their thinking Living Cities Engaged Investment in LIIF contributed to the national expansion of a strong CDFI into other markets, its expanded role to include research, and its partnership with Enterprise

29. Engaged Investment Evaluation – Executive Summary 29 Implications Evaluation data suggest that Engaged Investment is a powerful tool to break through the barriers between early outcomes and achieving adoption / adaptation of new and successful frameworks and promoting widespread systems change One-time convenings have been successful in achieving early outcomes (especially Recognition and Mutual Responsibility), but have been less successful in achieving adoption of new approaches Living Cities unique combination of assets – seasoned staff working locally with a national lens; promoting adaptive frameworks to create sustainable systems change; using the heft of who Living Cities is – puts it in a unique position to help its network achieve change Engaged investment is time-consuming Long-term, time-intensive investments like Engaged Investment (as well as Living Cities successful work to co-create and promote the Capital Absorption framework) need to be employed strategically. Considerations should include (for example): Does this approach/framework close a critical gap that impedes access to economic opportunity for low- income people? Are there significant barriers or challenges to understanding and implementing this framework? Does it require an adaptive approach? Are these grantees / network members a “coalition of the willing” that already recognizes the systems nature of the problem? Are they prepared to innovate and promote goals that are aligned with Living Cities?