Healthy Development Measurement Toolkit

Indicator PI.7.a Neighborhood completeness indicator for key public services

Data Source

List of Childcare Centers from Community Care Licensing Division, California Department of Social Services. Accessed on May 8, 2009: http://www.ccld.ca.gov/docs/ccld_search/ccld_search.aspx.

Location of community gardens from San Francisco Garden Resource Organization. 2007. Available at:  http://www.sfgro.org/.

Location of parks ½ acre or larger, open space, and recreational facilities from the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department, 2008.

Location of Public Art Works from San Francisco Art Commission, March 2008. http://www.sfartscommission.org/pubartcollection/

Location of Library Facilities from San Francisco Public Library. Accessed July 2009: http://www.sfpl.org

Location of schools from San Francisco Unified School District. Accessed online on July 22, 2009: http://portal.sfusd.edu/template/default.cfm?page=school_info.profiles

Location of hospitals, arts venues, and post offices gathered by the San Francisco Department of Public Health, 2008.

Map and table prepared by City and County of San Francisco, Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Section using ArcGIS software. Applied Geographic Solutions, Inc. Spring 2007 Update: Current Year Estimates. Methodology available at: http://www.appliedgeographic.com/library.html.

Table data is presented by planning neighborhood. Detailed information regarding geographic units of analysis, their definitions, and their boundaries can be found in the HDMT at the following links:

http://www.thehdmt.org/etc/Geographic_Units_of_Analysis.pdf

http://www.thehdmt.org/data_map_methods.php

Explanation and Limitations

The HDMT neighborhood completeness indicator is presented as a profile of key public and retail services and goods available to San Francisco residents in their neighborhoods rather than a number or summary score. Interpretation of the profile with regards to completeness also depends on the density and mix of services, the land area, and the population. Completeness does not reflect any measure of quality of services.

Given the diversity of services in most San Francisco neighborhoods, neighborhood completeness has been divided into three separate maps: public services, retail services, and food availability for ease of viewing. These maps are intended to be examined comprehensively when assessing neighborhood completeness and proximity to goods and services. The other maps are located at Indicator PI.7.b.

Click on the neighborhood name in the table to view the public service map.

Included in this indicator (PI.6.c) are eleven public services, necessary for meeting the daily needs of neighborhood residents. These key public services include child care centers, community gardens, hospitals, libraries, open space, parks ½ acre or larger, performing arts venues, post offices, public art installations, public schools, and recreational facilities. Each neighborhood map displays all key public services in the Planning neighborhood boundary and the key public services in adjacent neighborhoods. The neighborhood table includes the count of each key public service; total counts of all key public services; and the population density and area of each neighborhood. Public service data was combined into a database and validated by visiting three neighborhoods and visually confirming the presence of those public services within ¼ mile radius around an intersection for each neighborhood. From our public service database, only 1.32% of the services were not found during our neighborhood site validations. In addition, the visual confirmation included no new identified public services to be added to our database. The data collection and validation methods do not necessarily catch all possible duplication. For example, one location might be listed as a recreation center, an open space, and a community garden. In addition, there may be key public services not counted in the maps and tables due to new services established after the data was compiled.

Although geographic distance is just one dimension of accessibility, proximity to services does promote increased walking and biking, reduced daily vehicle trips and miles traveled, increased possibilities for healthful and meaningful work, and increased interactions among neighbors and others on the street. While this indicator demonstrates the geographic distribution of key public services within a neighborhood, two residents of the same neighborhood may have very different access to any service, due to the size and topography of the neighborhood, available transportation options, cost of services, hours of operation, and language and cultural accessibility.

Open space in this indicator refers to all green/open space except neighborhood or regional parks that are at least ½ acre in size. In some cases, parks and open spaces fall into more than one planning neighborhood. Certain parks and open spaces were counted more than once in the neighborhood table because the area of the park or open space is in more than one neighborhood and could possibly be assessed by residents from each neighborhood (e.g. John McLaren Park falls in Visitacion valley and Excelsior and Embarcadero Promenade falls in South of Market and Financial District).For additional definitions, caveats, and explanations to the public services included on this list, please visit the following Public Infrastructure and Environmental Stewardship Indicator pages:

• ES.2.c Acres of public open space per 1,000 population
• PI.8.f Proportion of households with 1/4 mile access to a community garden
• PI.1.a Maximum capacity of licensed child care facilities and proportion of 0-14 year olds
• PI.2.a Proportion of households within 1/2 mile of a public elementary school
• PI.5.a Proportion of population within 1/4 mile of neighborhood or regional park
• PI.5.b Proportion of population within 1/4 mile of a recreation facility
• PI.3.a City-serving art/cultural facilities within 1/2 mile of a regional transit stop
• PI.3.c Proportion of population within 1 mile of a public library
• PI.3.d Public art works and population density per square mile
• PI.4.b Distribution of public health facilities relative to population density

In addition to public services, community services play an important role in each neighborhood but are not included in the Neighborhood Completeness Indicator. Please see the following Social Cohesion Indicators around community services:

• SC.1.f Proportion of population within 1/2 mile from community center
• SC.1.g Number of spiritual and religious centers

Why is this a Community Health Indicator?

Being within walking distance of neighborhood goods and services promotes physical activity, reduces vehicle trips and miles traveled, and increases neighborhood cohesion and safety.^a By reducing vehicle trips and miles traveled, dense neighborhoods with diverse and mixed land uses can also reduce air and noise pollution, which subsequently impacts associated respiratory and noise-related health conditions. According to the US Green Building Council, research has shown that "living in a mixed-use environment within walking distance of shops and services results in increased walking and biking, which improve human cardiovascular and respiratory health and reduce the risk of hypertension and obesity.^b A recent study (2007) in New York revealed that low-income non-white population are at a disadvantage when trying to access daily goods and services. There is a stronger relationship for black populations than Latino populations but both populations have less access.^c Finally, children with low neighborhood amenities or those lacking neighborhood access to sidewalks or walking paths, parks or playgrounds, or recreation or community centers had 20 to 45 percent higher odds of obesity and overweight, compared with children who had access to these amenities. The impact of the built environment was particularly strong for younger children (ages 10 to 11) and for girls. Girls, ages 10 to 11, living in neighborhoods with the fewest amenities had 121 to 276 percent higher adjusted odds of obesity and overweight than those living in neighborhoods with the most amenities.^d