For the first time since the 1920s, cities are outpacing suburbs in population growth. Census data released on Thursday indicates that between 2010 and 2011, urban centers in 27 of the nation’s 51 largest metropolitan areas grew faster than their surrounding suburbs. According to USA Today, several key factors—including easier access to public transportation, “a redefinition of lifestyle that places a premium on urban amenities,” and the housing bust—are causing the recent reversal of suburban sprawl. Those suburbs that have remained strong—the “boombergs”—have provided their residents with easy access to rail transportation, a trait more common to densely populated cities. Urban renewal has been further aided by increased quality of living in cities and factories migrating from urban to suburban and rural areas. The Wall Street Journal also notes that “young, affluent renters are fed up with suburban traffic and are drawn to revitalizing downtowns,” complementing CEOs for Cities’ The Young and Restless report, which concluded that since 2000, the number of college-educated 25 to 34 year-olds has increased twice as fast in the close-in neighborhoods of the nation’s largest cities as in the less dense metropolitan areas.

In a world growing increasingly connected by social media and globalization, one of the most important things that a city can do to ensure long-term economic vitality is to promote its distinctiveness. Municipalities facing budget shortages and austerity, however, must find ways in which they can work with local businesses to promote a vibrant culture without accruing extensive public costs. It is within this business-beautification nexus that cities around the world are finding new and innovative ways to promote placemaking and long-term economic sustainability.

While it may be tempting to sacrifice urban parks for new residential and commercial development, young professionals are placing an increasingly important emphasis on neighborhoods and communities that offer cohesiveness and culture, as seen in CEOs for Cities’ 2011 report, The Young and Restless. In an effort to create the type of urban culture that many people are now seeking, cities like San Francisco have tried to make placemaking easier by making zoning codes and regulations more transparent and accessible. With the recent launch of SF Better Streets, zoning and regulatory bodies in the Bay Area have streamlined information on permits and guidelines and have provided helpful information for organizing creative events—such as “play streets” (roads that have temporarily been turned into recreational space) and outdoor markets—targeted at neighborhood vibrancy.

These have helped small businesses—the benevolently-christened “gazelles” of local economies—to cater to locals with innovative ideas directed at their cities’ cultures. In San Francisco, this has resulted in the proliferation of “parklets,” street-side parking spaces that have been converted into aesthetically-designed outdoor parks. Some of these urban oases have been funded by businesses and have allowed them to expand their storefronts to the ambulatory outdoor market while simultaneously helping to offset government budget pitfalls through the sale of permits. Other parklets, paid for by a combination of donations and local government funds, are free and open to the public but are maintained by nearby businesses looking to increase patronage. The city and businesses alike have found these parklets to be economically advantageous, and a biking and walking campaign promoted by the local government has further bolstered local vitality.

For more information about San Francisco’s “Pavement to Parks” reclamation initiative, visit http://sfpavementtoparks.sfplanning.org/castro_commons.htm

What makes Indianapolis great?

Indianapolis has a fantastic sense of community.  It has a long history and culture of welcoming outsiders into the community leadership arena.  I'm a Californian who came here to run a regional professional theatre company and they made me the President and CEO of their community foundation.  It's hard to get more open and welcoming than that.  Indianapolis has a knack for getting people to work together for the benefit of the community and gets incredibly ambitious projects done.  The whole country witnessed Indianapolis'  talent and creativity this year when our city completely reinvented the Super Bowl.

What are your grandest ambitions for Indianapolis? 

I am most passionate about seeing Indianapolis develop such a special quality of life that it becomes widely known as a top ten American city for developing, attracting and retaining highly educated, creative and community-minded citizens.

Why do you do the great work for Indianapolis that you do? 

Indianapolis made me feel welcome and appreciated from the first day I came here to interview at the Indiana Repertory Theatre in 1993.  I felt instantly at home here even though I was born in Los Angeles and grew up in San Diego. Indianapolis is a special place, easily one of the best cities in America, for anyone who wants to get involved in their community and make things happen.  I love the spirit, the creativity,  the partnerships and the friendships that so naturally evolve from working on behalf of this community.

What do you consider your biggest achievement? 

My biggest achievement is founding and leading the creation of the Indianapolis Cultural Trail:  A Legacy of Gene & Marilyn Glick, a $63 million, eight-mile, beautifully designed, landscaped and lighted bicycle and pedestrian pathway in the heart of downtown Indianapolis.  The Cultural Trail connects to every significant arts, cultural, heritage, sports and entertainment venue in our very dynamic downtown and is the hub for the entire Marion County greenway trail master plan.  We in Indianapolis believe that the Cultural Trail is bigger, bolder and more beautiful than any other urban trail in the world.  That's a very un-Hoosier like thing to say (since we are known in Indiana for our humility). But we have put that claim out there and so far urban experts and reporters have supported this view.   This 11-year project has been blessed with unbelievable good fortune and the experience has greatly exceeded my wildly ambitious dreams.

What is important to the future of cities? 

I really think CEOs for Cities has dialed into the priorities with its focus on connectivity, innovation, talent and distinctiveness. At the Central Indiana Community Foundation we have been saying for years that the major theme of the 21st Century is connectivity: transportation, technological, geographical, social and cultural connectivity.  I would vote that connectivity is the most important of these four significant priorities.

Lee Fisher, President and CEO of CEOs for Cities, was recently interviewed about the upcoming Meeting of the Minds event.  On October 9-11, Lee will join global leaders to convene in San Francisco for Meeting of the Minds.  The Meeting is a premier leadership summit focused on the innovations that leaders in the built environment, infrastructure, transport, architecture, planning, finance and other key areas can use to grow sustainable cities. For two days, participants from across all sectors — public, NGO, and private — engage in lively discussions focused on “connecting the dots” linking buildings, energy and water resources, mobility, and finance.

The following is taken from Lee's interview with Meeting the Minds.  Please visit Meet the Minds to see interviews with other global leaders who are attending the conference.

Tell us a little bit about your role in your company/organization.

I’m the President and CEO of CEOs for Cities, a national network of civic CEOs and urban leaders advancing the next generation of great American cities. Prior to this, I served as Ohio Lt. Governor, Ohio Attorney General, and Director of the Ohio Department of Economic Development. We were founded 12 years ago by a number of prominent urban leaders throughout the country including then Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, Paul Grogan, President and CEO of the Boston Foundation, and Chuck Ratner, then CEO, now Chairman, of Forest City Enterprises. We are mayors and county executives, city and county officeholders, corporate executives, entrepreneurs, foundation leaders, architects and designers, university and college presidents, and civic and economic development leaders from over 60 cities throughout North America who believe cities are the solution to our nation’s most pressing problems.

What are you hoping to gain from attending Meeting of the Minds?

Cross-sector events, such as the Meeting of the Minds, gives a unique opportunity to engage urban leaders from across the country.  It is through these connections that we will advance America’s cities and metropolitan regions.  Everything can be summed up with this one statement: tear down walls, build bridges, light fires. Those are the words of Steve Jobs. When we tear down the walls between cities and suburbs and regions and build bridges to each other, and then light fires of targeted investment in the region’s core, the rising economic tide lifts all boats.

What projects are you currently working on that are aimed at improving cities?

Our City Vitals 2.0 research shows four essential characteristics that underpin economic prosperity.  In a sense, the four letters that make up the word “city” spell out the generic code of urban success: Connections, Innovation, Talent, Your Distinctiveness.

Connected City: We’ve analyzed the latest data on migration patterns of college-educated 25-34 year-olds, a demographic we pay particular attention to not because they are young and hip, but because they are the most mobile people in America with a median job tenure of only 3 years. We call them the Young and Restless. This is the age at which you can attract talent or you can lose talent.  The 2010 Census shows us that today this demographic group is more than twice as likely to live within 3 miles of the Central Business District than all other Americans in metro areas nationwide.

While the image of the “white picket fence” is hardwired into American politics, it is inconsistent with what young, educated people say they want. Overwhelmingly, they want walkable urban neighborhoods that substitute local businesses, arts & culture, and recreation for the previous generations’ sprawling yards, 3-car garages and in-home entertainment centers. What they want is vibrancy and a connected city.

CEOs for Cities has helped to move national policy opinions with our release of Driven to the Brink, a report released when the housing bubble popped that found metro areas with strong central cities tended to hold their real estate value better than those in metro areas with weak cores. We also found that home prices near the core were staying stronger than those in far-flung suburbs.  We followed up with Walking the Walk, which analyzed 90,000 real estate transactions in 15 markets and showed that, almost without exception, homes in neighborhoods with better walkability commanded –sometimes substantial — premiums over comparable homes in less walkable neighborhoods.  And we released Driven Apart, which was a damning critique of a national congestion report that for 25 years has been used by the US Department of Transportation to justify billions of dollars in highway expenditures. Driven Apart reveals the report’s deeply flawed methodology and shows how sprawl, not a lack of roads, is the cause of our nation’s traffic congestion problems.

Innovation: A city that values innovation and opportunity communicates to its residents that they can put their talents to work there. We’re in an age of entrepreneurship – where many young people are choosing to be employers, rather than employees. One other trend to note:  The median tenure of U.S. workers with their current employer is only 4.4 years.  That means that employment is far more volatile than we pretend it is.  Not many of us are retiring with 30 years and a gold watch these days. We need to rethink our definition of work and help all workers become more resilient. Self-employment and small businesses keep job markets nimble.

And this short job tenure also has implications for where job growth should be encouraged.  With U.S. workers changing employers frequently, it makes sense to choose a housing location near lots of jobs, rather than near one job. Even though employment has tended to decentralize over time in virtually all metro areas, central city locations still have the highest levels of accessibility. So if you want more people to be closer to more jobs, then increasing jobs in the core city (as opposed to moving more jobs to the suburbs) is the best way to accomplish this. Providing access to opportunities is another inherent advantage of cities.

Talent: When it comes to success factors for cities, talent is the first among equals. The percentage of 4-year college degree holders in a city’s or region’s population explains — conservatively – 58 percent of its success as measured by per capita income.  Some say it is as much as 80 percent.  At CEOs for Cities we developed a metric to show the economic impact of increasing college attainment in the top 51 metros by just one percentage point. It’s called the Talent Dividend, and in nationally it’s worth $124 billion in additional personal income annually.

Distinctiveness: Distinctiveness is another element of quality of place.  As Harvard Professor Michael Porter reminds us – strategy is ultimately about difference – the ability to do something one’s competitors can’t do. Distinctiveness is all about recognizing what makes your city different from every other city and leveraging that difference.  Local differences in taste can give rise to new ideas and new products – Nike started in Eugene, OR because in the 60s, adults there took up jogging as a hobby.  We must ask ourselves, what makes our city different?  Because an honest look at what makes our city different can provide unique economic opportunities.

What urban innovations have you seen or worked on in the last year that you think are game changers?

In an increasingly global and knowledge-driven economy, the ingredients of success are changing.  Economic success depends on talent, and talented workers are highly mobile and are choosing increasingly to live in the central city and close-in urban neighborhoods.  Cities that do the best job of raising their talent levels have strong urban cores.  A year ago, with the support of the Kresge Foundation and Lumina Foundation for Education, CEOs for Cities launched the $1 million Talent Dividend Prize. This prize will be awarded in 2014 to the metropolitan area with the greatest increase in post-secondary degrees awarded per capita over a three-year period.  57 cities are participating in the Talent Dividend Prize. When at least 58 percent of a city’s success can be explained by the percentage of population with a college degree, talent development and talent retention reign supreme.

Earlier this week PEW released its most recent report: “Pursuing the American Dream Economic Mobility Across Generations”. Findings from the report state that, “While 84 percent of Americans have higher family incomes than their parents did at the same age, those born at the top and bottom of the income ladder are likely to stay there as adults.” However, in the section titled “Mobility by Education”, readers learn that obtaining a college degree just may be the necessary catalyst to help individuals climb the income ladder.

The report states that, “A four-year college degree promotes upward mobility from the bottom and prevents downward mobility from the middle and top”.

Key findings include:

• “47% of those raised in the bottom quintile of the family income ladder who do not earn a college degree are stuck there as adults, compared with 10% who do earn a college degree.”

• “Having a college degree makes a person more than three times more likely to rise from the bottom of the family income ladder all the way to the top”

• “39% raised in the middle of the family income ladder who do not get a college degree fall from the middle, compared with 22% of those with a degree”

• “51% of those with a college degree raised at the top [of the income ladder] stay there compared with a 25% of those without a college degree”

The report also explains how the wage premium associated with a college degree has risen dramatically during the past generation. The report explains how “increased returns on education directly translate into upward absolute mobility gains”. This means that people are earning more for having a college degree.

These findings connect directly to those of CEOs for Cities’ Talent Dividend research. CEOs’ Talent Dividend asserts that per capita income and college attainment rates are closely correlated.

Our research shows:

• Each additional percentage point improvement in aggregate adult four-year college attainment is associated with a $763 increase in annual per capita income

• Raising the national median of the top 51 metro areas from 29.4 percent to 30.4 percent would be associated with an increase in income of $124 billion per year for the nation

PEW’s “Pursuing the American Dream” report validates the sentiment behind CEOs for Cities’ Talent Dividend, providing the most up-to-date research on the connection between college degrees and income mobility.

The recent passage of the bipartisan Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) was, for many alternative transportation enthusiasts, a disappointment. Although such bipartisan action can be viewed as a welcome relief in an era of polarization and deadlock, it also marks a substantial decrease in funding for bike and pedestrian infrastructure initiatives while keeping funding for public transportation at the status quo. Despite the lackluster support from the federal government for initiatives, some cities and states are still pursuing their own innovative transportation projects.

On July 6th, the same day that President Obama signed MAP-21, the California State Senate approved funding—supported by beleaguered federal money—for a high-speed rail line that would connect San Francisco and Los Angeles. Proponents say that such a project could stimulate California’s economy and increase demand for travel between the two metropolises, and CEOs for Cities’ City Vitals 2.0 suggests that greater connectivity within and between cities helps to foster innovation and promote economic collaboration.

While most urban transportation infrastructure isn’t of the same magnitude as California’s impending high-speed railway, cities still face an array of hurdles that must be overcome before subways and buses become a staple of middle class lifestyle. Socioeconomic stigma often precludes many middle class commuters from taking public transit, and a smaller ridership can often lead to less efficiency and further system degradation; consequently, transportation authorities wishing to expand their markets and increase their vitality must find ways to recreate their image amongst the more affluent portions of the urban population. In Western European countries, the ubiquity of public transportation, complemented by a diverse ridership, has helped to drive down costs in many cities and, through technological and managerial breakthroughs like driverless trains, has made transit more efficient, thereby reducing congestion and environmental externalities caused by commuters.

Because rider diversity and transit success exist in a symbiotic relationship, CEOs for Cities’ City Vitals 2.0 outlines the percentage of non-poor workers who commute to work. Reflecting these findings on the connection between public transportation, health, and diversity, cities like Los Angeles are spending large chunks of their budgets on re-imaging to attract “choice” riders (those who take public transportation out of choice instead of necessity). Cities, however, must also balance the desire to increase and diversify ridership with providing adequate service to those who depend upon public transportation.

Washington, D.C.’s DC Circulator seems to have struck a balance between equity and attractiveness—with five simple routes, buses arriving every ten minutes, and one-dollar fares, the Circulator combines convenience and affordability. This has appealed to both affluent and working-class residents; sixty percent of riders hold a college degree or higher, eighteen percent make over $80,000 per year, and forty-four percent make less than $40,000 per year. Cities wishing to expand their markets with local innovation should look to Washington, DC’s revamped system and Los Angeles’s diversification efforts as archetypes for urban success.

It is an upsetting reality that the United States, which was once a world leader in higher education attainment, currently lags behind many developed countries in degree completion. The US Department of Education states that, “America used to be No. 1 in the world for the percentage of adults with college degrees but has recently slid to 16th.” And since an educated population is needed to maintain democratic strength, global competitiveness, and economic prowess, it is obvious why college attainment is an area worth focusing on.

The President is quite aware of the importance of higher education, and thus called for America to increase the share of postsecondary degree holders to 60 percent by the end of the decade.

Last week Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education, shared some exciting news with regard to America’s postsecondary performance, stating that, “the percentage of 25-34 year olds with some kind of postsecondary degree rose half a percentage point from 38.8 percent to 39.3 percent”.

While a half percentage-point increase may not seem like a substantial feat, CEOs for Cities research shows that small, tangible gains in college completion can have extremely large implications for the nation. CEOs for Cities’ Talent Dividend calculates the monetary value to cities and the nation of increasing college attainment rates by one percentage point. According to our most recent research, raising the national median of the top 51 metro areas from 29.4 percent to 30.4 percent would be associated with an increase in income of $124 billion per year for the nation. Thus, this half percentage-point increase in postsecondary degree achievement that Duncan recently spoke of has very exciting implications about national income levels and future city success. 

While is it too early produce any official statement about the effect of this increase in national higher education attainment, CEOs for Cities is energized by this new finding and eager for official research to be conducted that tracks the value of this achievement.

CEOs for Cities newest publication, City Vitals 2.0, was recently highlighted on the Atlantic Cities.  Rather than ranking cities based on general principles, the report uses 29 unique metrics to quantifycity performance.  Nate Berg’s article, Vital Signs of City Performance notes that one can’t always rely on general rankings to truly understand metropoitan areas.  Many cities perform well in one or more areas and poorly in other areas.  Recognizing that "there's no universally accepted definition of urban success in the 21st century," City Vitals 2.0 ranks cities across more than two dozen categories.  CEOs for Cities calls on each city to identify their unique assets and achieve success.

I was recently contacted by Heather Hilburn, a Principal Design Advisor and Project Director for the London 2012 Olympic venues and public realm. She informed me about the London Olympic Park’s regeneration and sustainability story, an impressive demonstration of innovative urban design and forward thinking:

In her article written for the Chinese Architectural Journal titled "The London 2012 Olympic Park and Venues: A Place of Regeneration and Benchmark for Sustainability", Hilburn explains that, “The vision for building the Olympic Park is primarily one of regeneration of this part of East London, to provide jobs, mixed-use development, social housing as well as luxury residential dwellings, and a public park that is equal to other Royal Parks in London.”

In the “Commitment to Sustainable Regeneration” report, David Higgins, Chief Executive of the Olympic Delivery Authority, and Manny Lewis, Chief Executive Officer of the London Development Agency, share that: “The London 2012 Games provide us with a once in a lifetime opportunity to regenerate the Lower Lea Valley providing new homes, work space, schools, health and other community facilities - and of course world class sporting facilities. We want the Olympic Park to provide the benchmark for the regeneration of the Lea Valley with high quality, well-planned and comprehensive development.”

The report continues to explain how, “Regeneration efforts in the Lower Lea Valley are aimed at addressing a complex mix of environmental degradation, high levels of social and economic deprivation and a long history of physical dereliction and neglect…The engagement of local people and wider stakeholders is an essential part of the regeneration process.” Seeing the London 2012 Olympic Park as a having higher-order purpose beyond the games, is a resourceful way to activate urban development, engage citizens, and prevent Olympic areas from becoming “white elephants” as has happened at previous Olympic sites.

Hilburn’s article identifies additional aspects of the London 2012 Olympic Park plan, including becoming the “greenest” of all the Olympic Games, as well as being the "Most Sustainable Games Ever". The Park is structured so everyone can access the facilities on foot, bicycle or public transport and have been strategically crafted so the major venues can be scaled-down or dismantled after the Games and used for alternative purposes.

In the London 2012 Pre-Games Sustainability Report, titled “Delivering Change”, the Game’s sustainability themes are defined as follows:
• Climate change: “To deliver a low carbon Games and showcase how we are adapting to a world increasingly affected by climate change.”
• Waste: “To deliver a zero waste Games, through exemplary resource management practices and by promoting long-term behavioral change.”
• Biodiversity: “To conserve biodiversity, create new urban green spaces and bring people closer to nature through sport and culture.”
• Inclusion: “To host the most inclusive Games to date by promoting access, celebrating diversity and facilitating the physical, economic and social regeneration of the Lower Lea Valley and surrounding communities.”
• Healthy living: “To inspire people across the UK to take up sport and develop more active, healthy and sustainable lifestyles.”

Andrew Altman, CEO of the London Legacy Development Corporation, states that, “Legacy plans are more advanced than any previous Olympic host city. We are on track to build a new piece of the city in east London and over the next 20 years deliver an exciting mix of new homes, jobs and training, along with sporting, cultural and entertainment opportunities. London has set the benchmark for using the Games as a catalyst for regeneration.”

The London 2012 Olympic Park’s environmentally friendly, economically savvy, and developmentally innovative design has set a new global standard on the development and use of Olympic spaces.

Earlier this week, the Lumina Foundation in association with the Council on Foundations hosted a convening in Indianapolis titled: “Transforming Communities Through Higher Education”. The goals of the meeting were to:

• Provide the opportunity for community foundation leaders to learn about trends, best practices and solution strategies for higher education attainment
• Take the first steps to building a community of practice among community foundations working to increase postsecondary attainment
• Identify the leadership development resources community foundations need to build local agendas to increase postsecondary attainment

After welcoming remarks from, Haley Glover, Lumina’s Director of Convening Strategy and Stephanie Powers, the Managing Director of the Council on Foundations’ Public-Philanthropic Partnership Initiative, Jim Applegate, Lumina’s VP for Program Development gave a speech titled “Meeting the Big Goal – Why, What and How”. In his speech, Applegate shared that “by 2018, two-thirds of new and replaced jobs will require some form of post-secondary education”. He went on to mention that while “we are increasing the urban community and our focus on urban centers… rural communities must work to build their workforce” to prevent the problems in the urban community from increasing. Sharing that income inequality grows along with the postsecondary skills gap, Applegate encouraged audience members to focus on “access AND success”. Applegate boldly stated that, we need to have “courageous” conversations around race and college attainment and closed his speech with an assertion that college is necessary for a strong economy, communities, and nation. 

During his presentation titled, “Improving Outcomes in the New Normal”, Jeff Edmondson, the Managing Director of the Strive Network and recent recipient of The American Express NGen Leadership Award, spoke about building civic infrastructure to have collective impact. Edmondson’s three key insights to have population level impact included:

• Building civic infrastructure: from isolated to cumulative to collective impact
• Creating a roadmap of benchmarks
• Embracing a general framework for building a cradle to career civic infrastructure (including shared community vision, evidence-based decision-making, collaborative action, and investment & sustainability), with the understanding that each community is different and requires a personalized agenda plan

Edmondson also shared the statistic that “90% of educational support comes from public sources” and encouraged people to let “good data will drive out bad data”.

CEOs for Cities’ President and CEO, Lee Fisher, gave the keynote speech on the first day of the convening, sharing about CEOs for Cities’ theory of change, our action agenda, and how our efforts seek to realize urban progress. Fisher stated that cities are the biggest drivers of economic growth and that great leaders are the biggest drivers of cities. Fisher also identified humility as the single greatest value a city could have.

Day two of the convening opened with a speech from Jamie Merisotis, President and CEO of the Lumina Foundation. Merisotis spoke about the elements of Lumina’s strategic model, which include: transparency, centrality of strategies, system level change, adaptability/nimbleness, and building public will. Merisotis encouraged participants to take risks that will add value and lead to scale and system level change, and shared that progress in communities (of all sizes) matters a lot, as “communities are fertile grounds for cross sector collaboration”. 

The second day of the convening also featured presentations from Tina Gridiron Smith, a Lumina Foundation Program Officer, Hadass Sheffer, Executive Director of Graduate! Philadelphia, Janice Brown, Executive Director of The Kalamazoo Learning Network, and a keynote speech from Stephanie Powers, Managing Director of the Council on Foundations’ Public-Philanthropic Partnership Initiative.

Almost a hundred urban leaders, higher education specialists, and foundation representatives attended this event.

Our President and CEO, Lee Fisher, recently participated in a TEDx Des Moines talk.

The Center for American Progress just released a report titled, “Performance-Based Funding of Higher Education,” which investigates the “best practices” in six different states’ performance-based funding action plans.

While most states use enrollment-based schemes to distribute funding to higher education institutions, CAP claims that allocating funds solely on the basis of enrollment “is a poor predictor of overall institutional performance”. The report states that, “Ongoing budget cuts, combined with stagnating graduation rates and a rising national demand for highly educated workers, make it increasingly important for states to invest in completion too.” Thus the report motivates states to dole out funding based on both enrollment and performance to incentivize state prioritization of college access and college completion.

The report recognizes that early performance-based funding models were “plagued by a number of fatal design flaws”. Learning from the mistakes of previously unsuccessful models, the report discussed “performance-based funding 2.0”- an approach to performance-based funding which focuses on rewarding progress over completion, acknowledges the unique needs of different higher education institutions, and works to partition off larger percentages of base funding to actualize change.

Looking to six states who currently utilize some form of a performance-based funding action plan, the report shares stories of successful approaches to “performance-based funding 2.0”. For example, “Ohio’s funding formulas reward the achievements of 'at-risk' students” to encourage rather than penalize schools for enrolling theses students who “often face greater barriers to completion”. Meanwhile, readers learn that since 2000, when a performance-based approach was implemented, Pennsylvania public colleges have witnessed a “10% increase in overall graduation rates and a 15% increase in retention rates for Hispanic students”. Indiana tallies enrollment levels at the end of the semester to emphasize course completion, and Tennessee has gone as far as allocating 80% of state higher education funding on the basis of performance. Accounts from Washington and Louisiana are also documented in the report.

Through their extensive research on past and existing performance-based funding schemes, PAC reported the following “best practices”:

• Actively involve key stakeholders in the model’s design
• Ensure enough money is apportioned for performance to create strong incentives
• Recognize institutional differences with separate funding formulas
• Integrate all metrics and provisions into the state formula
• Use indicators that emphasize progress
• Incorporate stop-loss provisions that prevent institutions from losing more than a certain level of funding each year
• Gradually phase in new measures
• Subject the system to frequent evaluation

Recommendations from the report included: suggesting that the U.S. Department of Education conduct a more exhaustive study of the costs and benefits of “performance-based funding 2.0”, developing pilot projects in states without performance-based funding measures, and helping policy-makers move forward to establish a federal role in creating higher education funding schemes.

The report concluded with this compelling statement:

                   “As the national conversation on higher education shifts toward completion,                                          it must be accompanied by equally significant changes in institutional behavior.”

Our 2012 National meeting is coming up next month, and we wanted to showcase the city where it will be hosted! Here are some of the great things we've uncovered about green initiatives in Boston.

According to CEOs for Cities’ City Vitals 2.0 research, Boston, MA ranks as #4 among the 50 largest metropolitan areas in the US in the percentage of the population over 25-years with a four-year college degree.  That high ranking may be due to the large number of higher-education institutions in and around the city, but perhaps it is due to the influence of being in an innovation-rich city.  Whatever it is, Boston boasts both a high number of educated and innovative residents.

From solar panel sales training to responsible waste management companies, Boston is home to many innovators committed to making their city and the planet a better place. Some notable projects and programs in Boston include:

• Hubway – a bike sharing network that allows members to bike one direction without having to worry about where they leave their bike
• Life Totes – a “green” service for moving homes or businesses, because why waste cardboard boxes when you could rent reusable plastic ones? 
• Save That Stuff – a waste management company that helps organizations most efficiently and responsibly dispose of their unwanted items

Boston’s Mayor, Thomas Menino, has supported Boston’s trend towards innovation through the creation of the Innovation District in January 2010.  While there are no set boundaries, the South Boston Waterfront is filling up with creative thinkers and doers.  Part of this is due to the work of MassChallenge, a startup accelerator that offers a prize competition to aspiring startups.  The 2012 finalists can be seen here.  Some notably “green” startups include:

• E-POL, which is working to turn glycerin, the waste product of biodiesel production, into useful products 
• Bootstrap Compost, a food scrap pickup service 
• GreenCampusPoints, a coupon-based program that incentivizes consumers to purchase sustainably

What green initiatives do you see popping up in your own community? Which of these do you see as being helpful or viable in your city? 

Photo via dailymail.co.uk

While yesterday’s blog post focused on innovative environmental designs generated in Boston, today's highlights many other cities throughout the nation and across the globe developing revolutionary ideas concerning how cities can decrease their negative impact on the environment.

In 2008, Rotterdam, Netherlands caught the public eye when they opened Watt, the first-ever sustainable night club. The night club’s sustainability comes from its distinct dance floor, which harvests the energy generated by patrons’ movement and transforms that energy into electricity. Today, companies continue to work to generate energy in environmentally friendly ways. Developers in Reedsport, Oregon established the first U.S. wave farm, which uses “wave power” as a source of clean energy production. Meanwhile, in cities throughout France, a company named Eole Water has created a way to use wind turbines to condense water in the air and transform it into drinkable water.

There have also been creative designs targeted to make transportation in cities better for the environment. London, which CEOs for Cities has already noted as hosting the “greenest Olympics ever," is discussing plans to build elevated bike highways to encourage citizens to bike more. Working to make biking a group activity, an innovative health care company in Louisville, KY worked to promote biking through its endorsement of pedal buses. Featured at this year’s Democratic and Republican Conventions with the slogan “petal power to the people," Humana Inc. provided free pedal buses for convention-goers. But as some cities work to encourage citizens to bike more and drive less, other cities are working to make motor transportation less detrimental to the environment. For example, New York City has introduced zero-emission electric trucks into the Bronx, while a Palestinian inventor in Gaza built the city’s first-ever electric car.

What creative ideas do you have to make cities more environmentally friendly?

Photo by Jimmy Benson

We have all heard it before: Live Green.  We are urged to recycle, to turn the lights out when we’re not in a room, and to drink from a reusable water bottle. These are all great ways to lessen the impact each individual makes on the environment, but there are larger-scale measures that cities can take to create a healthier environment and to improve the quality of life.

The former mayor of Indianapolis and current Harvard professor Steve Goldsmith will be speaking at the CEOs for Cities Fall National Meeting on October 15-17. Until then, we can find his valuable insight on innovative ideas in public sector innovation on a blog he pioneers through Governing magazine—aptly titled Better, Faster, Cheaper. He writes extensively on making government more efficient, but has also covered other topics such as the bottom-line benefits of greening a city.

Goldsmith discussed a Philadelphia initiative by the name of “Green City, Clean Waters,” which was aimed at addressing the challenges imposed by having a combined sewer overflow. The contamination problems caused by this system are both damaging to the environment and costly in cleanup and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) violation fees. The system proposed by “Green City, Clean Waters” focuses on stormwater reduction and management infrastructure rather than replacement of the old pipes, leveraging new technology to cut costs and reduce potential contaminants.

Green infrastructure can be manifested in a variety of different ways. Using renewable energy for our public facilities can pay back the cost of construction and support operations. Our transportation systems, too, have an incredible impact on the environment and economic growth. The Green Dividend of CEOs for Cities shows that if we reduce the number of miles driven by the average American by one mile per day (about 4 percent), 156 million Americans would collectively drive 156 million fewer miles per day, or about 57 billion fewer miles per year. At $3.50 per gallon for gasoline, the nation would save $10 billion per year on fuel. Add the expense of purchasing and maintaining vehicles, and the total savings would be $28.6 billion per year!

An invesment in public transportation, as well as pedestrian and bicycle facilities, improves the experience of using alternative transport.  Breaking free of our dependency on cars cuts down on vehicle emissions which allows for the proliferation of green space, thus reducing stormwater runoff by acting as a natural filter for contaminants. In addition to the $10 billion per year we would save as a nation based on decreased gas use, we would save on pollution remediation actions.

The important takeaway is that it’s not just important to encourage a cleaner, greener, environmentally healthier city—it makes economic sense.

Feel free to share with us some other ways we can see economic gains by greening our cities!

At CEOs for Cities, we understand that data are only a piece of the city success story.  We feel the need to make some clarifications in light of a blog post published on Gambit, a publication found at TheBestofNewOrleans.com, concerning one of many performance measurements found in our report City Vitals 2.0. The blog suggested that our report claimed New Orleans to be “the least cultured city in America,” ranking #51 among 51 metro regions among the country “when it came to ‘cultured cities.’”  That is not what we said or concluded. We have read this post thoroughly, as well as the comments, tweets, and emails that were sent regarding the blog post. We agree that if this was the conclusion our research was making, the entirety of New Orleans should have had the same reaction of disbelief and anger that was being directed at us. There has been, however, some very serious confusion surrounding this measure, what this report is, and more importantly, what it is not.

City Vitals 2.0 is not a collection of “best and worst of” lists, like so many we see on the internet. It is not a set of value judgments. It is not a list of the best places to live. It is certainly not intended to be viewed in a vacuum. This report sets out four areas where cities have to get things right in order to be successful—talent, innovation, connections and distinctiveness—and offers a set of benchmarks to illustrate ways of measuring each of these characteristics. As Nate Berg explained in the Atlantic Cities article covering the report, “Rankings aren't always the best way to understand metropolitan success and vitality, and this report doesn't claim they are. Still it is interesting – and maybe even instructive – to see how metros stack up against one another through these various indicators.”

Culture is not an easily quantified variable, and we wouldn’t dare claim to document such a concept in terms of one number. The benchmark mentioned in the Gambit post was not a measure of how cultured a city is, nor does it claim to be. It is a ratio of cultural events attended to the number of HDTVs owned within the city. This can have a whole host of different interpretations, but clearly the measurement comes down to the definitions and the data available for only two, very clear variables. In 2007, it was unambiguously the case that when we take a look at these two variables, out of the 51 metropolitan regions explored, New Orleans has the lowest ratio.

Anyone that knows anything about New Orleans will associate it with a rich cultural history, including influential music, amazing food, and of course Mardi Gras. There is no denying that this resilient city has a rich, robust culture that is incredibly unique. To claim New Orleans to be devoid of culture would be—as many have pointed out to us—absurd and ridiculous, even disrespectful. We have not, and would never, assert this to be the case. Why, then, does it rank so low? Many have pointed out that Hurricane Katrina made cultural events far less frequent, and that the urgent replacement of furniture, including televisions, would explain this low ratio in 2007, just two years after the tragic event. We couldn’t agree more. Within this context, the small ratio makes much more sense—and that context is absolutely vital for interpreting the results of the analysis.

The intent of our research is not to rank one city above another, but to provide a set of tools for exploring the performance of your city, and how you can work to improve it. We both understand and acknowledge that these indicators are not perfect:

“We have compiled data in each of these four areas—connections, innovation, talent and your distinctiveness—to illuminate and better define the discussion of what it takes to build a successful metropolitan economy. There are, as often is the case, limitations to the data. Our indicators of talent, for instance, are good, general measures of skill but should not be taken to imply that only those with a college degree are talented. Nor do such broad measures capture the highly specialized talents that exist for corporate finance in New York, for movie production in Los Angeles, for petroleum geology in Houston or for logistics in Memphis. But these data provide a means for individual metropolitan areas to assess candidly their relative strengths and weaknesses against their peers nationally. While the data are the best and most recent available, they are still only indicators of the broad subjects we discuss.”

Our world is one that is seemingly driven by numbers. Data allows us to understand and construct in a quantifiable way—which allows us to understand our position, track progress, and articulate measurable goals. It can empower us, help us understand our limitations, and put our focus where our efforts are most effective. All that being said, these numbers are meaningless without context. In order for any data to be useful, it must be framed in a way that is relevant to the people using it. Data are used to support a story, not make one.  

New Orleans’ poor performance on this one measure in one year-–the ratio of cultural events to HDTV ownership  in 2007-- is an indication of how severe and lasting the impact of Katrina was on the city’s usually vibrant cultural life.  We would expect that subsequent data would show an improvement  in this indicator—and when it did, it would be evidence that the city is making progress this area.  And that will be something for the city to celebrate—as it should.

In fact, we believe distinctiveness is one of NOLA's greatest advantages. Our other indicators show that New Orleans ranks in the top five in internet search variety, and above-average for all metros in our weirdness index (#21) and in restaurant variety (#15). Rather than fixating on any one indicator, we think cities should understand in depth their unique characteristics and build their economic strategies around them.

The great amount of feedback that CEOs for Cities has received in response to the blog post shows just how passionate the residents of New Orleans are about their home.  Not only do they feel connected to the city, but also proud of its history, impressed with the strides it has made over the last seven years, and optimistic about the future. We  apologize to anyone who  feels that including this indicator in our report somehow  disrespected the legacy of the city of New Orleans in our research. We’re excited to see all of the progress as New Orleans rebuilds from this challenge.  Your story is an inspirational one that deserves all credit due. We hope that you channel that passion into action and use the entire scope of indicators in our report (within context) to support you in the development and implementation of your goals.

Update:

Since the preview edition of City Vitals 2.0 was being misinterpreted, we feel it is necessary to publish the disputed measures in their entirety in order to help explain our methodology and evaluation.  As explained below and in our full City Vitals 2.0 report, the Culture/HDTV report uses data drawn from SRDS marketing data (SRDS/Equifax, 2008).  It measures the relative consumption of mass entertainment and local culture by computing the “culture/HDTV” ratio: the percentage of persons reporting attendance at local cultural events divided by the percentage of households that had a high definition television receiver.

Your Distinctive City

One of the paradoxes of globalization is that as the globe has become more closely connected by commerce, communication and entertainment, the distinctive differences that distinguished one place from another have been muted by shared global commodities and multinational brands. Despite, or perhaps because of, the increasing sameness associated with globalization, the remaining local distinctiveness plays an increasingly important economic role. As Jane Jacobs said, “The greatest asset that a city or a city neighborhood can have is something that’s different from every other place” (Jacobs, 2006).

Local differences in tastes can give rise to new ideas and new products. The insatiable fascination of Japanese and Korean consumers for ever smaller, more capable electronic devices (cameras, phones, computers) gave rise to clever and innovative new products that eventually paved the way for worldwide distribution of products with similar capabilities (Porter, 1990).

The insights and original ideas behind many breakthrough business models emerged from practical experience gained in a local marketplace. In the 1960s, at a time when it was rare for most adults to exercise publicly, many people in Eugene, Oregon, took up the hobby of jogging and running. A small company formed to sell them imported sneakers. That company eventually became Nike, the world leader in shoes and sports apparel (Cortright, 2002).

There are many dimensions to distinctiveness, and because each community has its own special strengths and characteristics, no single measure or set of measures can capture this adequately. Effectively measuring a community’s distinctiveness requires different measures for each city. Every city should look to recognize the ways in which their city is “First, best, or only” in some category (Waits & Fulton, 2003). Recognizing this limitation, we’ve compiled a broad set of measures that begins to assess how much metropolitan areas differ from one another, and identify which urban areas differ most from U.S. averages in a series of key behaviors, including consumption, culture, food and Internet searches. These indicators signal the ways in which communities can begin to measure and validate their distinctiveness.

Culture/HDTV Ratio

Ratio of persons that reported attending a cultural event in the past year to the number of households with high definition televisions, 2007.

Individuals have substantial choice over the types of entertainment they enjoy. Residents of every metropolitan area have wide access to mass entertainment, like television, as well as a broad range of cultural events. One aspect of community distinctiveness is the extent to which people participate in local cultural activities (which vary enormously from place to place) as opposed to the passive consumption of electronic media (which offer the same set of choices everywhere).

We measure the relative consumption of mass entertainment and local culture by computing the “culture/HDTV” ratio: the percentage of persons reporting attendance at local cultural events divided by the percentage of households that had a high definition television receiver. These data are drawn from SRDS marketing data (SRDS/Equifax, 2008).

Overall, Americans are much more likely to report that own a high definition television than attend cultural events, such as theatre, concerts and museums exhibits. The ratio of attendance to cultural events to cable subscriptions is highest in San Jose, San Francisco, Rochester and Miami. In each of these cities, about a third as many households have attended cultural events as own a high definition television. The metropolitan areas with the lowest patronage of cultural events relative to cable viewing are New Orleans, Las Vegas and Louisville. In these cities, the ratio of households attending cultural events to those owning a high definition television is less than one in four.

If you have any additional questions pertaining to the indicators, please feel free to leave a comment below and we will answer them as quickly as possible. Additionally, we are always open to suggestions that you have for improving our indicators in the future.

Photo via SJU Undergraduate Admissions

The apple, long a ubiquitous symbol of education, may take on a new role as technology challenges and reinvents the physical classroom… unless of course you are more of a Windows guy. Numerous innovations are appearing in our classrooms—smart chalkboards, remote controls, and online discussion boards—and some teachers are even using strange (yet entertaining) memes to motivate and teach their students.

Technology has allowed us to break free from the “traditional” classroom. The value of alternative education has been debated by leaders throughout education—discussing both the incredible potential for increasing access to higher education as well as the benefits of learning in a physical classroom.  With the rising price tag of a traditional college degree, monetary, cultural or value-driven barriers can dilute access to higher education.

Recently, Colorado State University became the first university in the United States to accept transfer credit for a course offered by Udacity, a free online education platform founded by Google vice president and part-time Stanford computer science professor, Sebastian Thrun. Colorado State is specifically offering credit for its Global Campus, an online university geared toward an audience of working adults. The University of Washington in Seattle has also announced its intention to offer credit for courses from a similar platform called Coursera, although UW students will likely have to pay a fee and work with a UW instructor.

Both Coursera and Udacity are MOOCs, or massive open online courses.  Thrun pioneered this course format with the intention of democratizing education through flexible intensive courses offered at a low cost to students (whereas the cost of a four-year degree is nearing $250,000). The Gates Foundation has recently announced a project to test the potential of MOOCs in revolutionizing how remedial education is offered. Other potential target audiences for MOOCs are the employed workforce, curious and motivated individuals, and lower-income people priced out of traditional academia.

A specific stipulation of the Gates Foundation grants will be partnering with an already established MOOC platform, including not only online universities like Udacity and Coursera, but also technology platforms already well-established in the institutional setting—such as Blackboard or Desire2Learn. This stipulation aims to ensure the new courses get adequate exposure and connect to students where they are already heading for these services.

A recent study on educational attainment underscores the vital importance of higher education reaching out to underserved demographics.  This Harvard-based Pathways to Prosperity Project concluded that education is increasingly separating lower-income jobs from more fulfilling work. Additional studies have concluded that alternative education can be successful in bridging the gap.

One of CEOs for Cities’ primary missions is to espouse the talent dividend, which concludes that a 1% increase in the population that holds a college degree in the top 51 U.S. metros would lead to a dividend of $124 billion— manifested in household income growth. That growth, which is already occurring in some metros, is one of the biggest factors separating lagging cities from those with economic development success.

What innovations in technology do you believe will help drive educational attainment rates?