What ‘Rubber Meets Road’ is all about
How do cities decide what to do? The tug on the sleeve, the crisis in the moment, the upcoming State of the State or State of the City address requiring a Big Idea or three. These days, it is fashionable to refer to “evidence-based policies” (a hilarious formulation if applied, say, to, medicine). But how, really, can cities and their leaders figure out what works, use that as the ballast of governance — whatever else politics may require — and steel themselves to the prose of implementing the ideas?
We’re in luck. Because every day, great ideas are being tested. They come out of neighborhoods, the academy and cities more generally. But too rarely do they reach policymakers, who have little time — even with Claude — to figure out what really works for them, and what really are the operational obstacles to implementation.
Vital City’s new project, launched in partnership with the Center for Justice Innovation, is called Rubber Meets Road: Running Cities on Evidence. It aims to solve that problem and make better the lives of city dwellers and the public servants who work on their behalf, first by finding the best ideas across the nation and around the globe and then by offering nuts-and-bolts guidance on how to implement them. Where possible, we have created tools that can both illuminate the problems to be solved and ease the solutions.
We are starting with a set of ideas to reduce violent crime. Crime may be trending down nationwide these past two years, but it remains a leading concern of New Yorkers and people across America. And while we have some breathing room, why not use it to tap into solutions that may come from surprising places but offer a durable way to keep the peace. Each idea we showcase is powerful by itself, but no one is sufficient by itself.
Each idea is explained to resonate with a broad range of people — people who live in cities, journalists, researchers and others. But our emphasis here is reaching the busy bureaucrat, who will need to make the budget and policy case. Where possible, we offer costs, and sometimes cost-benefit analyses. We are cautious here, trying to see the issue from the point of view of a budget director who may not be moved by promised savings in a generation or even five years or even when the savings accrue now but to the “wrong pocket.”
In this first iteration, the ideas, while generally applicable to cities, are offered in detail as applied to the budget and operations of the City of New York. New York is the nation’s biggest city and therefore the one where solutions can reach the most people. But we anticipate developing “city agnostic” tools in the coming months as well.
Vital City is deeply grateful to our friends, critics and colleagues who offered trenchant comments and advice. All mistakes are our own, but we particularly want to thank: Aaron Chalfin, Eric Cumberbatch, Renita Francois, Sherry Glied, Gloria Gong, Chenghe Guan, Anna Harvey, Candice Jones, Dana Kaplan, Lee-Sien Kuo, Jeff Liebman, Jens Ludwig, Jessica Mofield, Daniel Neil, Sarah Picard, Abdul Rad, Amy Sanaman, Pat Sharkey, Marcos Soler, Shu Wang, the CUNY Institute for State and Local Governance, the NYU Wagner School, the Urban Design Forum and the New York Police Department, the New York City Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice and Department of Transportation for their comments, work and pushback.
We are also extraordinarily lucky to have the support of Arnold Ventures, the Public Welfare Foundation, the Charles H. Revson Foundation and the Tow Foundation, whose resources and thought partnership have been key in shaping and realizing this public service.
