To supplement our data-centric findings, we conducted a qualitative assessment to gain additional insight into the context of the communities surrounding the 10 properties. To narrow down to a smaller set of properties, we briefly explored the surrounding community of each of the 10 properties, looking specifically for neighborhood resources and amenities like grocery stores, local non-profits, MARTA bus stops, etc. Using this intermediate step, we eliminated six sites that were proximate to existing revitalization projects or forthcoming APS investments (e.g., Tuskegee Airmen Global Academy) and selected four final properties for a deeper analysis. To create tailored recommendations for these four sites, we mapped the local community assets, evaluated each property’s physical conditions, reviewed the individual cluster goals, and began community engagement. Each of these steps is described in more detail below.
Community Asset Mapping
In order to ensure that our recommendation capitalized on local resources, we gathered information on existing APS partnerships (for the schools proximate to each site), interviewed the principals of local schools and attended each of the District Facilities Master Plan Regional Community Conversations. This process provided us with additional context on existing local resources being leveraged to support children and parents in the neighborhoods closest to the four properties.
Physical Conditions
Understanding that our recommendations would be restrained by the physical features of each site, we visited each site and researched its environmental conditions, size, distance from the nearest APS school and future land use (according to zoning regulations) (City of Atlanta, Department of Planning and Community Development, 2016; “Urban Ecology Framework,” 2018). This helped us maximize the feasibility of our recommendations and better understand how residents would access and engage with services offered at the sites.
Alignment with Cluster Goals
Due to APS’ cluster-specific framework, we wanted to create recommendations that complemented the priorities of the local school community. We read through each of the cluster plans to understand what stakeholders identified as strengths and areas of improvement. We aimed to develop site recommendations that built from existing community strengths and provided solutions to current challenges.
Community Engagement
Though our project was limited to a semester, we were able to conduct a number of stakeholder interviews which informed our entire process – from how we structured our quantitative analysis through how we determined our specific recommendations. Unfortunately, we did not have time to conduct a comprehensive stakeholder engagement process. As such, soliciting student, principal, parent and community feedback should be the immediate next step to refine and test each recommendation. See appendix of our report for the full list of interviews and notes on community engagement.