Data-Driven
Decision Making
for Public Leaders

Which offenses, in which neighborhoods, have changed over the past three years—and what prevention decision needs to be made?

Review incident records, population estimates, reporting practices, resident experiences, and frontline observations.

Compare offense-specific rates, seasonal patterns, and locations. Check whether reporting or classification changes explain part of the trend.

Consider underreporting, trust, environmental conditions, staffing, budgets, and the limits of enforcement-only responses.

Choose a targeted, feasible prevention response with community partners rather than assuming a citywide increase requires the same response everywhere.

Track the relevant offense rate, residents’ perceptions of safety, and unintended effects against a baseline at scheduled reviews.

Which households face the greatest housing gaps, and what types, locations, and price ranges are missing?

Combine rents, incomes, vacancies, permits, household projections, and resident and provider interviews.

Compare supply with affordability and household needs; examine differences by neighborhood and household type.

Consider infrastructure, land availability, transportation, displacement concerns, financing, and local policy objectives.

Prioritize a feasible mix of supply, preservation, or targeted assistance based on the identified gap.

Track homes delivered or preserved, housing cost burden, and displacement indicators over an appropriate review period.

Which types of businesses are struggling, where, and what decision could the local government influence?

Review openings and closures, vacancies, available sales indicators, foot traffic, and business-owner and customer feedback.

Examine trends by sector and location, accounting for seasonality and changes in the mix of businesses.

Consider rent, access, permitting, workforce availability, market conditions, and the capacity to deliver support.

Select a focused response to the evidenced barrier, such as a permitting improvement or access pilot.

Track vacancy, business retention, processing times, and participant feedback against a pre-intervention baseline.

At which locations and times are delays or safety problems occurring, and whose trips are affected?

Combine travel-time observations, counts, crash records, school or event schedules, and input from drivers, pedestrians, and transit users.

Separate peak-hour patterns from all-day conditions and compare delay, reliability, and safety measures.

Weigh pedestrian safety, emergency access, accessibility, costs, road ownership, and nearby land uses.

Pilot a proportionate operational change before committing to a larger capital project where appropriate.

Compare travel-time reliability and safety indicators before and after the pilot, allowing for seasonal differences.

What outcome is the program intended to change, for whom, and over what period?

Review participation, costs, baseline and follow-up outcomes, and feedback from participants and people who do not participate.

Distinguish participation and satisfaction from outcomes. Use a suitable comparison where feasible and acknowledge selection bias.

Consider implementation quality, barriers to access, external influences, staff capacity, and alternative uses of resources.

Continue, adapt, expand, or discontinue the program based on outcomes, equity, feasibility, and cost.

Track the intended outcome, reach, cost per meaningful result, and unintended effects at a defined review date.