Supporting Statement Part A_REVISED_FINAL

The study will enable the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to validate or modify the Our Town program theory of change (TOC), logic model (LM), and measurement model (MM) in order to adjust grant program guidelines and grantee reporting requirements and to prepare for a future outcome evaluation study. The web-based census survey of 381 past and present Our Town grantees will provide the NEA with a richer understanding of how Our Town grantees operate in local communities and the types of change to which the grants contribute. Our Town is the NEA’s creative placemaking grants program that began in fiscal year (FY) 2011. Through project-based funding ranging from $25,000 to $150,000, the agency awards grants nationally to local government agencies and nonprofit organizations in urban, rural, and tribal communities to support projects that integrate arts, culture, and design activities into efforts that strengthen communities by advancing local economic, physical, and/or social outcomes. These projects require a partnership between a local government entity and nonprofit organization, one of which must be a cultural organization, and should engage in partnership with other sectors (such as agriculture and food, economic development, education and youth, environment and energy, health, housing, public safety, transportation, and workforce development). Our Town projects proposed by applicants often utilize a mix of activities, including arts engagement, cultural planning, design, and artist and creative industry support. It is the NEA’s vision that successful Our Town projects ultimately lay the groundwork for systemic changes that sustain the integration of arts, culture, and design into strategies for strengthening communities. The study supports the NEA’s FY 2018‒2022 Strategic Plan, which seeks in part to “expand and promote evidence of the value and impact of the arts for the benefit of the American people” (Strategic Objective 3.2). The survey will focus on project design, targeted outcomes of the Our Town projects and the inputs, activities, and outputs associated with grant projects with specific targeted outcomes. The survey is designed to take 30 minutes and contains 27 close-ended questions and 2 open-ended questions. The survey also contains 16 items that allow respondents to specify their selection of the “other” response choice.

Part A. Justification

A1. Circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.

Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

This study is a new information collection request, and the data to be collected are not available elsewhere unless obtained through this information collection. A web-based survey of the National Endowment for the Arts’ (NEA) Our Town program grantees is planned for late January 2019 through mid-April 2019. Knowledge gained through this study will enable the NEA to validate or modify the Our Town program theory of change (TOC), logic model (LM), and measurement model (MM) in order to adjust grant program guidelines and grantee reporting requirements and to prepare for a future outcome evaluation study. The web-based survey of past and present Our Town grantees will provide the NEA with a richer understanding of how Our Town grantees operate in local communities and the types of change to which the grants contribute. Currently, the NEA grantee report form does not collect detailed information about project design, and changes to the report form would not yield substantive information until at least 2022 due to the grant reporting cycle.

Our Town is the NEA’s creative placemaking (CP) grants program since FY 2011. Through project-based funding ranging from $25,000 to $150,000, the agency makes awards nationally to local government agencies and nonprofit organizations in urban, rural, and tribal communities to support projects that integrate arts, culture, and design activities into efforts that strengthen communities by advancing local economic, physical, and/or social outcomes. These projects require a partnership between a local government entity and nonprofit organization, one of which must be a cultural organization; and should engage in partnership with other sectors (such as agriculture and food, economic development, education and youth, environment and energy, health, housing, public safety, transportation, and workforce development). Our Town projects proposed by applicants often utilize a mix of activities, including arts engagement, cultural planning, design, and artist and creative industry support. It is the agency’s vision that successful Our Town projects ultimately lay the groundwork for systemic changes that sustain the integration of arts, culture, and design into strategies for strengthening communities.

In 2016, the NEA’s senior program leadership and Creative Placemaking office requested a study of the Our Town grants program in order to increase understanding of the impact of this program on participating communities. The Creative Placemaking office worked with the agency’s Research & Analysis office to plan a project that would develop an evaluation framework for a future outcome study but also to gather information that would inform modifications to program guidelines and grantee reporting. The current study consists of two phases. The first phase of the project (completed in August 2017) involved

the development of a TOC (see Appendix A: Figure A-1) that describes how Our Town grants contribute to improvements in local communities and the sustained integrations of arts, culture, and design into community planning, revitalization, and development;
the development of a LM (see Appendix A: Figure A-2) that specifies more detailed inputs, activities, and outcomes of Our Town grants; and
the development of a MM (see Appendix B: Figure B-1) that provides indicators and potential data sources to capture the concepts represented in the TOC and LM.

Collectively, the TOC, LM, and MM offer a conceptual framework for Our Town, addressing a need to improve performance measurement and assessment of outcomes from the agency’s CP investments. This work was carefully informed by a review of other federal, place-based initiatives as well as by NEA Design staff consultations, interviews with under 10 field experts, and reviews of grantee final reports.

The Our Town TOC (Appendix A: Figure A-1) is a high-level conceptual framework that visually depicts how and why the Our Town program affects local and national change. It also situates the Our Town grantmaking program amid complementary work conducted by the NEA and other national and local leaders. The Our Town LM (Appendix A: Figure A-2) presents a closer look at the details of how the program works and what grantees do to achieve to the expected results. It includes more detail on the Our Town program’s activities, the outputs of those activities, and the local community and systems change outcomes that result from Our Town project activities.

Both the TOC and LM include a problem statement that emphasizes a variety of challenges faced by local communities and that art, culture, and design-based strategies are often underutilized solutions. The TOC and LM also clearly convey the program goal, with an emphasis on systems change to support increased uptake of art, culture, and design activities in community development. For each element in the LM, the MM (Appendix B: Figure B-1) provides a definition, metrics, and data sources (either primary or secondary), and methods of analysis.

The primary intent of the second phase of the project is to build knowledge of Our Town projects in order to validate, or recommend adjustments to, this conceptual framework for Our Town in preparation for a future outcome evaluation study of this program. The study will also yield recommendations for adjusting the grant guidelines and grantee reporting requirements. As noted earlier, the second phase of this project features a web survey of all current and past Our Town grantees. This request is for clearance to conduct this web survey.

The information from the web survey will inform several domains of the Our Town program: (1) the local community change (i.e., social, economic, and physical) to which Our Town contributes; (2) the sustained, systems-level change to which Our Town contributes; (3) the community contexts of the Our Town projects; (4) the inputs (e.g., partners); (5) the activities and strategies Our Town projects use to contribute to community change; and (6) some limited Our Town grantee descriptive information.

This study supports the agency’s evidence-building efforts, to better understand outcomes associated with its investments. On page 16 of the Strategic Plan, the study is described as a specific evidence-building initiative supporting Strategic Objective 2.3:

During FY 2017, the NEA developed a conceptual framework for its Our Town program, including a theory of change, logic model, and measurement model, to address a need to improve the assessment of outcomes from its creative placemaking investments. This work was carefully informed by a review of other federal, place-based initiatives as well as by NEA Design staff consultations, interviews with field experts, and reviews of grantee final reports. An implementation evaluation study to validate the Our Town theory of change, logic model, and measurement model is scheduled to take place during FY [2019]. The primary methods for the implementation evaluation will be a national survey and case studies. The NEA anticipates modifying its grantee final report requirements based on this study in order to build a stronger evidence base in the long term.

A2. Purpose and use of the information.

Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate how the agency has actually used the information received from the current collection.

The NEA will implement a census web survey of the 381 Our Town grantees for whom the agency has up-to-date contact information. Table 1 provides the study objectives, research questions, and evidence from the web survey that the contract will use to inform the objectives and research questions.

Table 1. Alignment of Study Objectives, Research Questions, and Web Survey Evidence

Study Objectives	Research Questions	Web Survey Evidence
OBJ 1. Implement a study to validate the TOC, LM, and MM we developed in Phase I	RQ1. How well do the TOC, LM, and MM align with Our Town grant projects?	Representative quantitative data that show the frequency and percentage of grantees that align with TOC/LM categories and MM indicators, and the frequency and percentage that do not align
OBJ 2. Understand and recommend any adjustments to the models, especially related to the systems change that Our Town projects foster, based on the results of the study	RQ2. How are the Our Town project community contexts, inputs, and activities associated with the proposed outcomes? Are there certain contexts, inputs, activities, or outcomes that, when compared across grantees, are proposed to more readily lead to systems change?	Results of statistical tests of how project contexts, inputs, activities, local community change outcomes, and systems change outcomes are associated with one another
	RQ3. What are the self-reported outcomes (positive and negative) of various types of Our Town projects not anticipated in the TOC, LM, or MM?	Qualitative data that can identify common themes, specifically, but not limited to, systems change, and other areas that are not represented in the TOC, LM, or MM
	RQ4. What adjustments, if any, are recommended to the TOC, LM, and MM based on study findings?	Synthesis of all evidence

The survey is designed to take 30 minutes and contains 27 close-ended questions and 2 open-ended questions. The survey also contains 16 items that allow respondents to specify their selection of the “other” response choice. The contractor, on behalf of the NEA, will mail an invitation on NEA letterhead to all grantee project directors to take the voluntary survey. The contractor will follow up with each grantee via a phone call and email reminders. All communication materials are included in Attachment A.

The primary purpose of the web survey is to validate the TOC, LM, and MM developed in Phase I of this project and identify areas for improvement to better represent how Our Town projects work and the changes they contribute to in local communities and in the CP field. The web survey will provide information on Our Town projects to the NEA’s research and evaluation staff, Our Town program staff, Our Town grantees, and NEA partners regarding project design, targeted outcomes of the Our Town projects and the inputs, activities, and outputs associated with grant projects with specific targeted outcomes. The updated TOC and LM will be used by NEA staff to support communications and technical assistance to the arts sector and will inform planning for future outcome evaluation studies. In addition, the web survey results will be used by NEA program staff to adjust Our Town grant application guidelines, grantee reporting requirements, and future strategic decision-making for the program as well as establishing the foundation for future performance measurement and evaluation of this initiative. Study findings will be shared with Our Town stakeholders, including grantees and applicants, through the NEA website.

A3. Use of information technology and burden reduction.

Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

The NEA takes very seriously its responsibility to minimize burden on respondents and designed this project with that goal in mind. First, by designing a web-based survey, the Agency has eliminated hundreds of hours of labor that would have been required to administer a paper-based survey. A web-based survey enables the surveying of every current and past Our Town grantee. Because there are minimal costs associated with adding participants, every grantee will have a chance to answer the survey. Thus, the electronic nature of the survey provides the most efficient mechanism for the NEA to capture responses from grantees.

Once the survey is electronically deployed, it will include dynamic survey logic which will tailor the questions to present the most applicable and relevant questions. For example, respondents will indicate if their project’s activities are completed, and based on the response, will only be presented with questions relevant to the current status of the project. The survey questions are also customized to reflect the respondent’s grant status (i.e., active or closed). Respondents with active grants see questions in present tense, while grantees with closed grants see questions in past tense, as applicable. All communications about the survey will be similarly tailored to ensure communications are relevant and will be compliant with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.

A4. Efforts to identify duplication.

Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in item 2 above.

There is no similar ongoing data collection being conducted that duplicates the efforts of the proposed data collection for the study. The Our Town web survey is the first comprehensive survey of all Our Town grantees. Grantee application and final report forms do not collect detailed information on project implementation, inputs, intended outcomes, etc. As a result, the NEA lacks information about how grantees are implementing projects.

A5. Impacts on small businesses or other small entities.

No small business entities or other small entities are involved in this data collection.

A6. Consequences of collecting the information less frequently.

Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing the burden.

The information will be collected in a voluntary one-time survey of Our Town grantees. Information obtained from the survey will provide important evidence for the NEA to document the implementation of Our Town in different communities and contexts, and validate and improve the Phase I TOC, LM, and MM. Without this study, the NEA will have no methods for fully understanding the role of Our Town projects in community improvements across the United States.

Collecting the information less frequently, or with less grantees, would not only impede the Agency’s ability to understand how Our Town projects work and the changes they contribute to, but it would also deprive Our Town grantees and the CP field of information and knowledge of successful projects.

A7. Special circumstances relating to the Guidelines of 5 CFR 1320.6.

The information will be collected in a manner consistent with the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6 (Controlling Paperwork Burden on the Public-General Information Collection Guidelines). There are no special circumstances contrary to these guidelines.

A8. Comments in response to the Federal Register Notice and efforts to consult outside Agency.

On Monday, April 16, 2018, a 60-day Federal Registrar Notice was published at 83 FR 16402 Volume 83, No. 73. One comment was received. The comment recommended a definition for the term “social policies” in survey items 2-7a and 2-7b (5-3a and 5-3b in the revised instrument) and an option for “Don’t Know” in survey items 1-1b, 1-2b, and 1-3b (6-1b, 6-2b, and 6-3b in the revised instrument). The comment also suggested that categories describing Our Town project partners in item 4-2 were not comprehensive. The NEA revised item 4-2 (item 3-1 in the revised instrument) so that Our Town grantees can specify up to 5 partners that have or had a critical role in their project. The NEA did not change items 2-7a or 2-7b because cognitive testing found these items were clear and understandable to Our Town grantees. Cognitive testing of the web survey was conducted in May to July 2018. See also Attachment C.

Finally, in the initial development of the TOC and LM, the NEA consulted with several CP subject matter experts to gain their insights and input. Their insights were included in the development of key categories and project-level outcomes included in Appendix A and Appendix B.

A9. Explain any decisions to provide any payment or gift to respondents.

Respondents will not receive any payment of gifts for completion of the web survey.

A10. Assurances of confidentiality provided to respondents.

The web survey will not include any personal identifying information (PII); therefore, the survey poses minimal risk to the respondents. 2M will provide all respondents with a description of the importance of the survey and a notification that their response to the survey is voluntary.

A11. Justification for any questions of a sensitive nature.

Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.

The survey does not contain any questions of a sensitive nature.

A12. Estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.

Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated.

Table 2. Study Burden Estimates

Participant Description	Instrument or Activity	Number of Participants	Average Hours per Response	Number of Responses per Person	Total Responses	Estimated Burden (Hours)
Our Town Grantees	Web Survey	388	0.5	1	381	190.5
TOTAL					381	190.5

The total estimated burden is 190.5 hours, based on the estimate of 30 minutes per respondent, as supported by the instrument pre-test. The NEA also confirmed this burden estimate using the final draft of the instrument. The total responses for the web survey does not include the seven responses for cognitive testing. The NEA will not ask grantees that completed the cognitive testing to take the web survey, but, to the extent possible, the NEA will use data collected during the pre-test of the web survey instrument in the analysis of survey data.

A13. Estimates of other total annual cost burden.

Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information.

Web survey participants do not incur any costs other than their time responding.

A14. Provide estimates of annualized costs to the Federal Government.

The total one-time contracted cost to the Federal Government for this project is $55,000.00.

A15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported on the burden worksheet.

The information collected does not represent any program change.

A16. Plans for tabulation, and publication and project time schedule.

For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

Data collection will begin after OMB approval and continue for approximately 12 weeks (late January to mid-April 2019). Data file preparations will follow immediately so that data analysis can begin in late April 2019. The contractor will summarize all survey data with descriptive statistics and perform multivariate analysis to understand relationships (i.e., statistical associations) between the items in the survey. The contractor will code all open-ended survey data using a qualitative analysis software. The contractor will prepare multiple drafts of the Study Report and revise drafts based on feedback received from the NEA. All findings will be reported to the NEA in the Final Study Report that is expected to be delivered in August 2019. The Study Report or portions of the Study Report may be made public at the discretion of the NEA once the final version has been approved.

Table 3. Study Schedule

Activity	Expected Activity Period
Contractor performs survey implementation	1/22/2019–4/19/2019
Contractor provides a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet of survey findings specific to LM components	4/22/2019–5/6/2019
Contractor completes survey data analysis and submits draft of Appendix B (Web Survey) of Study Report	4/22/2019–5/20/2019
Contractor submits 1^st draft Study Report	5/20/2018–6/10/2019
NEA provides feedback on 1^st Study Report	6/11/2019–6/24/2019
Contractor submits 2^nd draft Study Report	6/25/2019–7/1/2019
NEA provides feedback on 2^nd Study Report	7/2/2019–7/15/2019
Contractor submits 3^rd draft Study Report	7/16/2019–7/22/2019
NEA provides feedback on 3^rd Study Report	7/23/2019–7/29/2019
Contractor submits Final Study Report	7/30/2019–8/5/2019

A17. Displaying the OMB Approval Expiration Date.

If you are seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

The NEA will display the expiration date of OMB approval and OMB approval number on all instruments associated with this information collection, including forms and questionnaires.

A18. Exceptions to the certification statement identified in Item 19.

Explain each exception to the topics of the certification statement identified in Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions.

No exceptions are necessary for this information collection. The agency is able to certify compliance with all provisions under Item 19 of OMB Form 83-I.

Appendix A. Theory of Change and Program Logic Model

Figure A-1. NEA Creative Placemaking Program Theory of Change

Figure A2. Our Town Program Logic Model

Appendix B. Measurement Model

Figure B-1 presents the full MM which defines each element in the LM and identifies metrics and potential data sources (either primary or secondary) and methods of analysis. Primary data are data that would require collection by the NEA. Secondary data are data that are already collected by an entity other than the NEA. There are three types of secondary data in the MM: (1) national publicly available data (e.g., Census data); (2) national data that are already collected, but may have restricted access (e.g., Choice Neighborhoods program data); and (3) local-level data that would require significant resources to access and combine in one dataset (e.g., municipal data, local organization data).

The data sources included in the MM are:

American Community Survey (ACS)
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
Choice Neighborhoods Data (CHOICE)
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (HUD-CHAS)
County Business Patterns (CBP)
Current Population Survey (CPS)
DataArts (formerly Cultural Data Project)
Election Administration Voting Survey (EAVS)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA)
Local Employment Dynamics (HUD-LED)
Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD)
National Center of Charitable Statistics (NCCS)
National Civic Engagement Survey (NCES)
National Transit Database (NTD)
Non-Employer Statistics (NES)
Occupational Employment Survey (OES)
Origin Destination Employment Statistics (LODES)
Public Health Management Corporation’s Community Health Survey (PHMC)
Real Estate Assessment Center (HUD-REAC)
Reference USA
Social Capital Community Benchmark survey (SCCB)
Statistics of Income (SOI)
Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System (HUD-TRACS)
Transit-Oriented Development Database (TOD)
Uniform Crime Reports (UCR)
Urban Institute Crime Data (Urban Institute)
USPS Vacancy Data (USPS)

Figure B‑1. Our Town Measurement Model

Model Element	Category	Definition	Primary Data	Primary Data Collection	Secondary Data	Secondary Data Sources	Methods of Analysis
Project Community Context	Community type	Place-based Our Town projects occur in neighborhoods, Tribes, towns, cities, and regions. They vary in population size and demographics, geographic scale, urban, rural, or suburban character, and market-dynamics.	Project setting; Populations served by the project; Target areas of the project (specific neighborhoods, entire city, etc.)	Current FDR form	Urban/rural setting; State of the project community’s economy; Mix of commercial firms, nonprofits, artists, and cultural assets in the project community; Population size or population density categories	Census geographies; ACS; NCCS; CBP	Descriptive analysis; Factor analysis; GIS mapping
Project Community Context	Social and human capital	The collective knowledge, skills, relationships, and experience of the people in the place that projects can build on and use to successfully implement the project activities. Different places have different levels of social and human capital.	Neighbors have worked together in past; Baseline community engagement; Sense of belonging to neighborhood; Available/effective social and support networks; Community-reported cultural resources; Culture of collaboration and participation; Residents imagine positive options for future; Residents feel they have skills/confidence to generate opportunities for themselves; Participation/active membership of community institutions (schools, neighborhood meetings, public hearings, school boards, civic activities) and decision-making processes; Levels of civic involvement by large and small businesses, faith and other community groups; Participation in fundraising run/walk/ride/other for charity; Residents are willing to donate money to local art/cultural organizations; Support systems for community organizing and other collective action; Ongoing structure and mechanisms for civic participation; Experience with and capacity for community organizing	Survey of residents	Educational attainment; Number of community groups; Sense of belonging to neighborhood	ACS; Reference USA; PHMC	Descriptive analysis; Social network analysis; Thematic analysis
Project Community Context	Existing policies	The policies or legislation in the place that enable or impede the implementation and the success of the project	Policies, regulation, or laws strengthening communities through art	Current FDR form	Dedicated federal, state, and city funding for the arts	Local organization budget data	Descriptive analysis; Thematic analysis
Project Community Context	Local assets	Aspects of the community that hold meaningful aesthetic, historical, or economic value that make a place unique and that projects can leverage and enhance. Includes people, places, institutions, physical infrastructure, and customs.	Community is known for arts/cultural activities; Local organizations and businesses often provide support to arts/cultural activities in the community; Local citizens volunteer for the arts and cultural organizations and activities in community; Historic structures and other buildings imbued with local meaning; Systemic/community institutions and leaders who support public art; Historic preservation;	Survey of residents, place, and local businesses	Existing arts organizations and other cultural amenities in the community	DataArts; Reference USA	Descriptive analysis; GIS mapping
Project Community Context	Other community development	Activities distinct from Our Town that are improving the local community. These can be the activities of for-profit firms, chambers of commerce, or other actors in the business community; State or federal government programs or grant money; community organizations, community organizers, and/or residents; or local government agencies.	Existing comprehensive service systems; Capacity of service delivery systems to reach residents in the target neighborhoods; Engagement of public systems; Public-private partnerships; Readiness and current capacity to implement approach; Evidence of elected and civic leadership's engagement; a record of success with similar initiatives; Existing cross-stakeholder governance groups; Level of resident leadership and organization; Increase number or involvement of anchor institutions	Survey of residents and grantees	N/A	N/A	Descriptive analysis; Thematic analysis
Project Inputs	Leadership	The lead and primary partnership organizations in the project that are designated to direct and steer project activities. Leadership also includes support from the highest ranking elected official of local or Tribal government. Depending on the partnership makeup, leadership may include committed governmental, nonprofit, civic, and private sector leadership.	Name and community development sector of local government agency(ies) and local community development organization(s) leading the project; Position/occupation and name of elected officials and other individuals in leadership role; The specific role or roles leadership plays in the project; Evidence of elected official engagement; Existing cross-stakeholder governance groups; Level of resident leadership and organization; Number of leaders from influential organizations that support and promote the place-based initiative’s strategies	Requires new fields in FDR form; Grantee survey; Grantee interviews	N/A	N/A	Descriptive analysis; Thematic analysis
Project Inputs	Cross-sector partnerships	The required Our Town partnership between a local government agency and a nonprofit organization, one of which must have an arts/culture/design mission. Additional partnerships on the Our Town projects may cut across private, public, and nonprofit sectors; as well as community development sectors (health, public safety, transportation, economic development, education, housing, infrastructure, etc.)	Connections to new partners or development of relationships; New funders; Relationships with the private sector and other sectors; Participation in political decision-making processes; Increased breadth of partnerships; Partnerships between civil society NGOs	Survey of grantees and partner organizations	N/A	N/A	Descriptive analysis; Social network analysis
Project Inputs	Financial resources	Funds available to the grantee that can support the implementation of the project activities. This includes the grant provided by the NEA as well as matching/other funds provided by local government, business, nonprofit, and other stakeholders.	Private and public funding received; Ability to secure matching funds; Number of potential co-investors approached or engaged; Total received/raised by arts/ cultural organizations; Percent total income of arts/cultural organizations by funding source	Survey of organization; Local organization budget data	Dedicated federal, state, and city funding for arts	Local organization budget data	Descriptive analysis
Project Inputs	Community buy-in	Participation and support from local community leaders and residents, in both the creation of the shared vision and execution of the project activities	Increased residents’ willingness to work with artists; Improved resident perception of arts/artists; Neighborhood culture demonstrates greater investment in the systems that support residents; Increased number of volunteers; Increased volunteer hours/frequency; Increased percent of residents who volunteer; Volunteer investment based on $12/hour rate; Extended volunteer tenure with organization	Survey of residents	N/A	N/A	Descriptive analysis; Thematic analysis
Project Outputs (Arts Engagement)	Participation	Levels of artist, resident, organizational, and community involvement in art tactics including artist residency, art festivals, community co-creation of art, performances, and public art	Attendance of live or virtual events; Diversity of participants including people hired/compensated, race/ethnicity, age, underserved populations (e.g., military veterans/active duty personnel, youth at risk, or individuals with: disabilities, in institutions such as hospitals or homeless shelters, below the poverty line, with limited English proficiency, etc.), new participants, artists, creative businesses, others; Inclusion of different types of stakeholders including homeowners, renters, small business owners, etc.	Requires new fields in FDR form; Grantee survey; Survey of participants and residents	Attendance of live or virtual events; Number of city permits for parades/festivals; Number of YouTube, Facebook, or other social media “likes” or views	DataArts; City permit data; Social media data	Descriptive analysis; Thematic analysis
Project Outputs (Arts Engagement)	Offerings/ Deliverables	Tangible and intangible products of art tactics	Number of art festivals/concerts/ performances/readings/temporary public art pieces/exhibitions; Number of works co-created by artists and non-artists attendance to each event; Number of art instruction activities; Number of professional original works of art created/installed; Number of hours artists in residence	Current FDR forms; Survey of artists, residents, and grantees	Number of art festivals/concerts/ performances/readings/temporary public art pieces/exhibitions	DataArts	Descriptive analysis; GIS mapping
Project Outputs (Arts Engagement)	Quality of participation	Degree of involvement of participants and opinion of offerings	Quality of participation (i.e., active, passive, one-off, or repeated participation); Quality of offerings (i.e., participant perception, partners/leadership perception, etc.); Resident satisfaction with events; Perceptions of the quality of artist residency from the organization/place	Survey of artists, participants, and partner organizations	N/A	N/A	Descriptive analysis; Thematic analysis
Project Outputs (Cultural Planning)	Participation	Levels of artist, resident, organizational, and community involvement in cultural planning	Diversity of participants including people hired/compensated, race/ethnicity, age, underserved populations (e.g., military veterans/active duty personnel, youth at risk, or individuals with: disabilities, in institutions such as hospitals or homeless shelters, below the poverty line, with limited English proficiency, etc.), new participants, artists, creative businesses, others; Inclusion of different types of stakeholders including homeowners, renters, small business owners, etc.	Survey of grantees, partner organizations, and stakeholders	Number of YouTube, Facebook, or other social media “likes” or views	Social media data	Descriptive analysis; Thematic analysis
Project Outputs (Cultural Planning)	Offerings/ Deliverables	Tangible and intangible products of cultural planning	Number of community action plans developed/approved, including arts/cultural districts, creative industry hubs/districts/clusters and public art; Number of cultural assets maps; Highlight existing assets or offer new way for residents or visitors to understand a place	Survey of grantees and residents	N/A	N/A	Descriptive analysis; GIS mapping
Project Outputs (Cultural Planning)	Quality of participation	Degree of involvement of participants and opinion of offerings	Quality of participation (i.e., active, passive, one-off, or repeated participation); Quality of offerings (i.e., participant perception, partners/leadership perception, etc.)	Survey of grantees and partner organizations	N/A	N/A	Descriptive analysis; Thematic analysis
Project Outputs (Design)	Participation	Levels of artist, resident, organizational, and community involvement in design processes	Diversity of participants including people hired/compensated, race/ethnicity, age, underserved populations (e.g., military veterans/active duty personnel, youth at risk, or individuals with: disabilities, in institutions such as hospitals or homeless shelters, below the poverty line, with limited English proficiency, etc.), new participants, artists, creative businesses, others; Number of artists/ designers/residents/organizations involved in visionary, creative processes	Survey of grantees	Number of YouTube, Facebook, or other social media “likes” or views	Social media data	Descriptive analysis; Thematic analysis
Project Outputs (Design)	Offerings/ Deliverables	Tangible and intangible products of design processes	Number of design plans produced; Amount of activated space through arts programming or public arts for residents; Amount of space designed for artists to make/show/collaborate/sell art; Feasibility, predevelopment, and other design plans for artist space, cultural facilities, and public space; number of renderings	Requires new fields in FDR form; Survey of residents and grantees	N/A	N/A	Descriptive analysis; GIS mapping
Project Outputs (Design)	Quality of participation	Degree of involvement of participants and opinion of offerings	Quality of participation (i.e., active, passive, one-off, or repeated participation); Quality of offerings (i.e., participant perception, partners/leadership perception, etc.)	Survey of grantees and partner organizations	N/A	N/A	Descriptive analysis; Thematic analysis
Project Outputs (Artist/ Creative Industry Support)	Participation	Levels of artist, resident, organizational, and community involvement in artist/creative industry support	Number of creative businesses/organizations/artists involved in industry support services; Diversity of arts/industries present; Number of unique sectors involved in support services	Survey of artists and local businesses	Number of YouTube, Facebook, or other social media “likes” or views	Social media data	Descriptive analysis; GIS mapping
Project Outputs (Artist/ Creative Industry Support)	Offerings/ Deliverables	Tangible and intangible products of artist/creative industry support	Number of lectures/demonstrations/ workshops/symposiums; Programs/service hours to support creative business/artists’ professional development; Increased access to capital; Sum of dedicated funds;	Requires new fields in FDR form; Survey of artists	N/A	N/A	Descriptive analysis
Project Outputs (Artist/ Creative Industry Support)	Quality of participation	Degree of involvement of participants and opinion of offerings	Quality of participation (i.e., active, passive, one-off, or repeated participation); Quality of offerings (i.e., participant perception, partners/leadership perception, etc.) Perceived usefulness of trainings	Survey of artists	N/A	N/A	Descriptive analysis
Local Community Change Outcomes (Economic)	Local business growth	Increases in business activity and business diversity in the community	Degree resident spending or business owner perceptions of spending increased after project activities; Cultivated culture of entrepreneurship; Percent businesses with revenue increase in last year; Percent businesses open 5+ years; Types of business; Increased commercial density (number of establishments/number of blocks); Decreased negative perceptions of local business climate; Exposure to new customers	Survey of local businesses or residents	Number of business establishments; Retail and service establishments per 1000 residents; Active business addresses; Decrease in commercial vacancy	ACS; CBP; USPS Vacancy Data	Descriptive; GIS mapping; Factor analysis; Multivariate regression analysis; Thematic analysis
Local Community Change Outcomes (Economic)	Job creation, labor force participation	Increases in the number and type of jobs available	Changes in labor market supply/ demand; New employment opportunities; Increased job earnings and health benefits; Increased percent of residents retaining jobs for 12+ months; Percent employed part-time/full-time; Number of hours worked; Quality of jobs; Percent employed in partner organizations; Increased number of paid/unpaid internships offered; Increased financial literacy rate	Survey of residents and local businesses	Change in number/percent artists by domain/ZIP code; Number/percent of persons employed in arts/culture organizations per 1000 residents; Number of employees working in neighborhood; Decreased unemployment rate; Number/percent with Earned Income Tax Credit	OES; NES; Census; CBP; NCCS; ACS; LEHD; SOI	Descriptive; GIS mapping; Factor analysis; Multivariate regression analysis; Thematic analysis
Local Community Change Outcomes (Economic)	Professional development/ training	Increases in artists/residents’ knowledge, skills, and employability	Residents have employable skills; Increased availability of appropriate workforce development	Survey of residents and local businesses	Increased percent residents with BA or higher; Decreased percent residents with less than GED or equivalent; Increased percent of students enrolled in GED or literacy programming; Increased percent of students enrolled in college/university; Increased number enrolled in vocational training; Increased percent of students graduating with industry certifications	School district enrollment data; ACS	Descriptive; GIS mapping; Factor analysis; Multivariate regression analysis; Thematic analysis
Local Community Change Outcomes (Economic)	Preventing displacement	Decreases in the displacement of low-income residents that desire to remain in the neighborhood	Ethnically/racially diverse tenants in public housing; Development of mixed-income housing; Increased percent of organizations that feel that they are serving different demographic groups (race/ethnicity/low income/children/families); Diversity of income levels of participants attending community events; Number of public housing units demolished; Number of new residential units permitted; Number of acres newly developed for new residents; Percent lease compliance; Percent involuntary terminations or evictions during redevelopment period	Survey of residents and grantees	Number/percent residents with HUD assistance; Number of renter units by rent range; Number of owners by price level; Rent as percent of income (“housing wage”); Homeownership rate; Number of home purchase loans per 1000 units; Number of refinance loans per 1000 units; Median amount home purchase loans; Percent home purchase loans/high cost (subprime); Home loan denial rates by race/income; Percent mortgages owned issued to investors; Median sales price of housing by structure type; Average rent; Gini coefficient; Percent of residents not in largest income or ethnic group	HUD-PIC; HUD-TRACS; HMDA; ACS	Descriptive; GIS mapping; Factor analysis; Multivariate regression analysis; Thematic analysis
Local Community Change Outcomes (Economic)	In-migration	Increases in residents in the community	Investment in maintenance to improve public spaces/other community facilities/ parks/recreation; Amount of quality floor space in renovated buildings; Number of high-quality educational facilities/libraries/access to high speed Internet and computers	Survey of businesses and organizations; Some info in current FDR form, but could be supplemented with additional fields	Net population change; Number households leaving county	ACS; SOI	Descriptive; GIS mapping; Factor analysis; Multivariate regression analysis; Thematic analysis
Local Community Change Outcomes (Economic)	Tourism	Increases in visitors to the community	Investment in park/recreation; Park/recreation space per 1000 residents; Investment to improve public space; Investment in community facilities; Percent respondents that visit 6+ times per year; Percent of respondents whose visits included multiple destinations at least 50 percent of the time; Amount of quality floor space provided in renovation	Survey of residents	Investment in park/recreation; Park/recreation space per 1000 residents; Investment to improve public space; Investment in community facilities; Number of bus boardings/ deboardings; light rail transit boardings	ACS; Local transit data; Municipal data	Descriptive; GIS mapping; Factor analysis; Multivariate regression analysis; Thematic analysis
Local Community Change Outcomes (Physical)	Beautification and/or enhancement of physical environment	Physical improvements to the community that improve its aesthetic appearance	Percent trees/grass; Distance to city park; Heat vulnerability; Change in adjacent land use; Edge conditions (storefronts, sidewalks, street plantings, lighting, building condition); Perception of cleanliness; Fewer buildings with cracks/missing bricks/siding; Fewer broken windows; Fewer streets with abandoned buildings; Space is protected from traffic, crime, unpleasant sensory experiences; Comfortable to hear, talk, see in space; Opportunity exists for delight and joy	Survey of place	Investment in park/recreation; Park/recreation space per 1000 residents; Investment to improve public space; Investment in community facilities	ACS, Municipal data	Descriptive; GIS mapping; Factor analysis; Multivariate regression analysis; Thematic analysis
Local Community Change Outcomes (Physical)	New construction and redevelopment (including arts, cultural, and public space)	Physical improvements to the community that address decline and improve infrastructure	Improved building exteriors (buildings with cracks/missing bricks/siding, building with broken/boarded windows); Streets with some or many abandoned buildings; Increased number of community anchors (cultural facilities/public space/ artist space)	Survey of place and organizations	Percentage of population within distance of frequent transit/served by transit; travel time to work; Public transportation ridership; Air quality, land contamination, water quality; Walkability index; Proximity to park/recreation; Park/recreation space per 1000 residents; Investment to improve public space; Investment in community facilities; Proximity to subway/bus/bike lane/other modes of public transportation; Walking/biking volumes; Number of residents within 10 min walk; Number of workers within 10 min walk; Restriction on hours of place; Adjacent vehicular traffic volumes; Change in pedestrian/cyclist injuries; Percentage of jobs within walking distance of transit services; Bicycle infrastructure; Pedestrian infrastructure	ACS; NTD TOD; EPA; DOT; Walking Score; Municipal data; GIS data	Descriptive; GIS mapping; Factor analysis; Multivariate regression analysis; Thematic analysis
Local Community Change Outcomes (Social)	Civic engagement	"Active participation in efforts deliberately intended to impact public life and community. More specifically, civic engagement as it applies to the notion of belonging and acting in the interest of the public, not only in self-interest"¹	Increased participation in initiative and civic bodies; Increased attention to civic issues and community decision-making; Number of stories, articles, blogs, letters, or comments responding to stories and blogs; Sign on campaigns; Advocacy campaigns; Donations; Increased number of neighborhood meetings and participants; Number of volunteers/volunteer hours; Percent of residents who volunteer; Volunteer investment based on $12/hr. rate	Survey of residents; Some info in current FDR form, but could be supplemented with additional fields	Increased voter turnout; Persuading others to vote; Displaying campaign buttons/stickers/signs; campaign contributions; Volunteering for candidates in political organizations; Number of petitions, boycotts, and contact made with elected officials; Number of views and comments on YouTube or other sites with posts about important local issues; Contents of comments on YouTube or other sites; Comments using key terms on social media sites such as Facebook or Twitter; Degree to which important local issues are debated/discussed on social media	EAVS; NCES; CPS; Social media data	Descriptive; GIS mapping; Factor analysis; multivariate regression analysis; Social network analysis; Thematic analysis
Local Community Change Outcomes (Social)	Collective efficacy, social capital, and social cohesion	This outcome incorporates three interrelated concepts: (1) Collective efficacy: "social cohesion among neighbors combined with their willingness to intervene on behalf of the common good"²; (2) Social capital: "community stock of social trust and norms of reciprocity embedded in social networks that facilitates collective actions"³; and (3) Social cohesion: “the level of working trust and mutual support within a community”⁴	Sense of belonging to neighborhood; Level of trust in neighbors; Feeling of loyalty; Availability and effectiveness of social and support networks; Residents imagine positive options for future; Residents feel they have skills/confidence to generate opportunities for themselves; Participation/active membership of community institutions such as schools, neighborhood meetings, public hearings, school boards, civic activities and decision-making processes; Levels of civic involvement by large and small businesses, faith and other community groups; Participation in fundraising run/walk/ride; Other fundraising for charity; Satisfaction at project activity with being able to spend quality time with friends, family, and other people you know, being able to meet new people, being in a family friendly atmosphere; Friendships and associations with community members mean a lot to residents; Frequency of attendance of cultural/community events	Survey of residents	Decrease in crime rates; Neighborhood to city rate ratio of crime; Level of connectedness between residents; Level of social trust; Number of informal social ties; Number of community groups; Level of trust in neighbors	Local jurisdiction data; Urban Institute; UCR; SCCBS; CPS; Reference USA; PHMC	Descriptive; GIS mapping; Factor analysis; Multivariate regression analysis; Social network analysis; Thematic analysis
Local Community Change Outcomes (Social)	Community attachment	Pride, interest, and satisfaction with the physical and social/cultural aspects of one's neighborhood	Resident would move out of community if given opportunity; Resident plans to remain resident for a number of years; Sense of stewardship; Increased residents’ willingness to work with artists; Improved resident perception of arts/artists	Survey of residents	N/A	N/A	Descriptive; GIS mapping; Factor analysis; Multivariate regression analysis; Social network analysis; Thematic analysis
Innovation/ Systems Change Outcomes	Sustained cross-sector partnerships/ collaboration	Sustained collaboration focused on the integration of arts and culture in community development in communities during or following Our Town projects. Indicators include new and/or strengthened civic and institutional leadership for this approach and institutionalized collaboration structure	Emergence of champions; Movement from allies to champions; Leadership capable of managing any change process; Effective cross-organizational communication skills; Evidence of elected official engagement; Existing cross-stakeholder governance groups; Level of resident leadership and organization; Number of leaders from influential organizations that support and promote the place-based initiative’s strategies; Collaboration with other organizations to effect change for the benefit of the place; Collaboration with other organizations to effect change for the benefit of the place; Increased breadth of partners to support an issue	Survey of grantees, residents, and partner organizations	N/A	N/A	Developmental evaluation, Outcome mapping, Ripple effect mapping
Innovation/ Systems Change Outcomes	Sustained replication or scaling of innovative projects	Activities expanded within the same community or into other neighborhoods or communities by replicating the model in hopes of achieving similar outcomes. Coupled with the concept of scaling is sustainability—the community has long-term resources, support and capacity to sustain and to grow changes over time. Indicators include explicit public arts and cultural policies and integration of arts into other policy arenas; leveraged funding from public and private sectors used to sustain and scale the approach; replication, adaptation or expansion of programs; increased community engagement; and increased engagement of the private sector	Private and public funding received; Ability to secure matching funds; Number of potential co-investors approached or engaged; Total received/raised by arts/cultural organizations; Percent total income of arts/cultural organizations by funding source; Dedicated federal, state, and city funding for arts; Incentives and support for creative small-business development; Policies and practices that promote fair lending opportunities and eliminate predatory practices; Policies that direct uniform application of an effective program to all in need; Allocation of line item public funds; Public expenditures in support of the arts	Survey of grantees; Some info in current FDR form, but could be supplemented with additional fields	Total received/raised by arts/cultural organizations; Percent total income of arts/cultural organizations by funding source; Dedicated federal, state, and city funding for arts	Local organization budget data	Developmental evaluation, Outcome mapping, Ripple effect mapping
Innovation/ Systems Change Outcomes	Strengthening the field of Creative Placemaking	National field-building through knowledge-building, technical assistance, research, communications, and convenings. Indicators include promotion of standards of practice, development of a shared knowledge base, cultivation of leadership, grassroots support, shared identity, and provision of funding and supporting policy	Initiative supporters champion the strategy with the broader community; Furthered goals of organization’s mission; Emergence of champions; Movement from allies to champions; Leadership capable of managing any change process; Effective cross-organizational communication skills; Increased number or involvement of anchor institutions; Organizational influence on public policy; Residents feel connected to community because of project activity; Perception of belonging to neighborhood; Residents think of themselves as similar to others in the neighborhood; Dedicated federal, state, and city funding for arts; Incentives and support for creative small-business development; Policies and practices that promote fair lending opportunities and eliminate predatory practices; Policies that direct uniform application of an effective program to all in need; Allocation of line item public funds; Public expenditures in support of the arts	Survey of grantees, partner organizations, and residents	N/A	N/A	Developmental evaluation, Outcome mapping, Ripple effect mapping

1 Tucson Pima Arts Council. (2013). People, land, arts, culture, and engagement: Taking stock of the PLACE Initiative. Tucson, Arizona: Tucson Pima Arts Council. Retrieved from http://www.giarts.org/sites/default/files/people-land-arts-culture-engagement-taking-stock-place-initiative.pdf

2 Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918–924. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5328.918

3 Ansari, S. (2013, July). Social capital and collective efficacy: Resource and operating tools of community social control. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology 5(2), 75–94. Retrieved from http://www.jtpcrim.org/July-2013/Article-4-Sami-Manuscript-Ansari-July-2013.pdf

4 Sampson, R. J. (2006). Collective efficacy theory: Lessons learned and directions for future inquiry. In F. Cullen, J. Wright, & K. Blevins (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory (pp. 149–168). Edison, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

File Type	application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
File Title	Supporting Statement for OMB No
Author	USDA
File Modified	0000-00-00
File Created	2021-01-20