UNICEF's Child Friendly City Initiative update - REIA
Section 1: Background
| Public Safety | No |
| Housing | No |
| Economic Development | No |
| Public Services | No |
| Environmental Justice | No |
| Built Environment & Transportation | No |
| Public Health | Yes |
| Arts & Culture | No |
| Workforce | No |
| Spending | No |
| Data | No |
| Community Engagement | Yes |
On February 14th 2020, Minneapolis signed on to become one of the first US Cities to pursue a Child Friendly Cities designation through UNICEF USA. UNICEF’s Child Friendly Cities Initiative represents a community-based commitment to elevating and prioritizing the voices of children in local governance and decision-making. Through this flexible, dynamic, child rights-focused framework, communities are improved as neighborhoods become safer, schools and health systems function better and infrastructure is strengthened for all citizens. Currently, we are working on a community assessment process focusing on parents of young children and adolescents living in Near North, Phillips and Cedar Riverside.
Through the City’s relationship with UNICEF USA, we have been contacted by Growing Up In Cities which is a global project involving an international collaboration of researchers. This is the third wave of the research, the first happened in the 1970’s and again in the 1990’s to examine and report on contemporary children’s experiences of growing up urban environments. Growing Up In Cities would like to work collaboratively with 4 Child Friendly Cities candidates, including Minneapolis, to conduct research with and about children and youth in the City to provide support to the cities’ CFC initatives and interests. Growing Up In Cities will be conducting a comparison study between a higher resourced neighborhood and a less resourced neighborhood, likely Southwest Minneapolis and one of the following: Near North, Phillips and Cedar Riverside.
We would like to partner with the US cohort of the global Growing Up in Cities initiative to better understand the social and physical environments affecting local children and youth, to identify disparities in health and well-being outcomes for young people across our city, and to engage youth as local change agents. The objectives of our two initiatives are well aligned, and each group brings invaluable knowledge and resources to the table. We aim to work collaboratively with GUIC-US team to accomplish our individual and collective aims and look forward to a mutually beneficial partnership. This partnership can inform gaps and areas for improvement around how higher vs lower resourced Minneapolis neighborhoods the design of physical environments to support the health and development of children and youth.
Child Friendly Cities Guiding Principles
1. Safety and Inclusion: every child is protected from abuse and neglect, enjoys safe communities and schools, and is treated fairly under the law.
2. Children’s Participation: every child has their voice, needs, and priorities heard and taken into account in decisions affecting their lives.
3. Equitable Social Services: every child has access to quality social services.
4. Safe Living Environments: every child lives in a safe, secure and clean environment.
5. Play and Leisure: every child has opportunities to enjoy family life, play and leisure.
Through the City’s relationship with UNICEF USA, we have been contacted by Growing Up In Cities which is a global project involving an international collaboration of researchers. This is the third wave of the research, the first happened in the 1970’s and again in the 1990’s to examine and report on contemporary children’s experiences of growing up urban environments. Growing Up In Cities would like to work collaboratively with 4 Child Friendly Cities candidates, including Minneapolis, to conduct research with and about children and youth in the City to provide support to the cities’ CFC initatives and interests. Growing Up In Cities will be conducting a comparison study between a higher resourced neighborhood and a less resourced neighborhood, likely Southwest Minneapolis and one of the following: Near North, Phillips and Cedar Riverside.
We would like to partner with the US cohort of the global Growing Up in Cities initiative to better understand the social and physical environments affecting local children and youth, to identify disparities in health and well-being outcomes for young people across our city, and to engage youth as local change agents. The objectives of our two initiatives are well aligned, and each group brings invaluable knowledge and resources to the table. We aim to work collaboratively with GUIC-US team to accomplish our individual and collective aims and look forward to a mutually beneficial partnership. This partnership can inform gaps and areas for improvement around how higher vs lower resourced Minneapolis neighborhoods the design of physical environments to support the health and development of children and youth.
Child Friendly Cities Guiding Principles
1. Safety and Inclusion: every child is protected from abuse and neglect, enjoys safe communities and schools, and is treated fairly under the law.
2. Children’s Participation: every child has their voice, needs, and priorities heard and taken into account in decisions affecting their lives.
3. Equitable Social Services: every child has access to quality social services.
4. Safe Living Environments: every child lives in a safe, secure and clean environment.
5. Play and Leisure: every child has opportunities to enjoy family life, play and leisure.
Sarah Schiele, Gretchen Musicant, Rachel Oberg-Hauser, Mikayla Ferg
Section 2: Data
The neighborhoods that have been defined for both projects, CFCI community assessment and GUIC
study, are Near North, Phillips and Near North. GUIC has identified Southwest Minneapolis as a
comparison neighborthood.
Racial Demographics by Community in Minneapolis
MN Compass, 2015-2019 ACS 5 years counts:
http://www.mncompass.org/progiles/neighborhoods/minneapolis-st.paul
*Notes that are suppressed are due to small sample sizes the ACS uses, which make statistical
methods unreliable. The ACS relies on statistical modeling to determine community counts as opposed
to the Census, which physically counts every person. Margins of error are included to contextualize
the data.
study, are Near North, Phillips and Near North. GUIC has identified Southwest Minneapolis as a
comparison neighborthood.
Racial Demographics by Community in Minneapolis
MN Compass, 2015-2019 ACS 5 years counts:
http://www.mncompass.org/progiles/neighborhoods/minneapolis-st.paul
*Notes that are suppressed are due to small sample sizes the ACS uses, which make statistical
methods unreliable. The ACS relies on statistical modeling to determine community counts as opposed
to the Census, which physically counts every person. Margins of error are included to contextualize
the data.
Southwest Race and Ethnicity (2015-2019)
Count Count margin Percent Percent margin error
White 43,116 (+/-)
920 84.90% 1.80%
Of Color 7,674 (+/-)
1,230 15.10% 2.40%
Black/African American 2,787 (+/-) 577
5.50% 1.10% American Indian/Alaskan Native
Suppressed--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asian/Pacific Islander 1,604 (+/-) 427
3.20% .80% Other
Suppressed-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Two or
more races 1,820 (+/-) 384
3.60% .80%
Hispanic/Latino 2,351 (+/-) 583
4.60% 1.10%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Near North Race and Ethnicity (2015-2019)
Count Count margin Percent Percent margin error
White 8,083 (+/-)
622 22.80% 1.80%
Of Color 27,416 (+/-)
1,345 77.20% 3.80%
Black/African American 17,885 (+/-) 1,113
50.40% 3.10%
American Indian/Alaskan Native 656 (+/-) 238
1.80% .70%
Asian/Pacific Islander 1,604 (+/-) 27
3.20% .80% Other
Suppressed-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Two or
more races 2,090 (+/-) 397
5.90% 1.10%
Hispanic/Latino 3,185 (+/-) 565
9.00% 1.60%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Phillips Race and Ethnicity (2015-2019)
Count Count margin Percent Percent margin error
White 6,461 (+/-)
792 29.30% 3.60%
Of Color 15,554 (+/-)
1,426 70.70% 6.50%
Black/African American 8,424 (+/-) 1,020
38.30% 4.60%
American Indian/Alaskan Native 859 (+/-) 337
1.80% 1.50%
Asian/Pacific Islander 703 (+/-) 283
3.20% 1.30% Other
Suppressed-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Two or
more races 866 (+/-) 347
3.90% 1.60%
Hispanic/Latino 6,258 (+/-) 944
28.40% 4.30%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Cedar Riverside Race and Ethnicity (2015-2019)
*Cedar Riverside is a neighborhood, while all other listed geographies are communities comprised of
several neighborhoods.
Count Count margin Percent Percent margin error
White 43,116 (+/-)
920 84.90% 1.80%
Of Color 7,674 (+/-)
1,230 15.10% 2.40%
Black/African American 2,787 (+/-) 577
5.50% 1.10% American Indian/Alaskan Native
Suppressed--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asian/Pacific Islander 1,604 (+/-) 427
3.20% .80% Other
Suppressed-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Two or
more races 1,820 (+/-) 384
3.60% .80%
Hispanic/Latino 2,351 (+/-) 583
4.60% 1.10%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Near North Race and Ethnicity (2015-2019)
Count Count margin Percent Percent margin error
White 8,083 (+/-)
622 22.80% 1.80%
Of Color 27,416 (+/-)
1,345 77.20% 3.80%
Black/African American 17,885 (+/-) 1,113
50.40% 3.10%
American Indian/Alaskan Native 656 (+/-) 238
1.80% .70%
Asian/Pacific Islander 1,604 (+/-) 27
3.20% .80% Other
Suppressed-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Two or
more races 2,090 (+/-) 397
5.90% 1.10%
Hispanic/Latino 3,185 (+/-) 565
9.00% 1.60%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Phillips Race and Ethnicity (2015-2019)
Count Count margin Percent Percent margin error
White 6,461 (+/-)
792 29.30% 3.60%
Of Color 15,554 (+/-)
1,426 70.70% 6.50%
Black/African American 8,424 (+/-) 1,020
38.30% 4.60%
American Indian/Alaskan Native 859 (+/-) 337
1.80% 1.50%
Asian/Pacific Islander 703 (+/-) 283
3.20% 1.30% Other
Suppressed-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Two or
more races 866 (+/-) 347
3.90% 1.60%
Hispanic/Latino 6,258 (+/-) 944
28.40% 4.30%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Cedar Riverside Race and Ethnicity (2015-2019)
*Cedar Riverside is a neighborhood, while all other listed geographies are communities comprised of
several neighborhoods.
Count Count margin Percent Percent margin error
White 3,256 (+/-) 348 32.50% 3.50%
Of Color 6,768 (+/-) 895 67.50% 8.90%
Black/African American 5,017 (+/-) 850 50.00% 8.50%
American Indian/Alaskan Native Suppressed---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asian/Pacific Islander 1,061 (+/-) 249 10.60% 2.50%
Other Suppressed--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two or more races 543 (+/-) 270 5.40% 2.70%
Hispanic/Latino 324 (+/-) 141 3.20% 1.40%
White 3,256 (+/-) 348 32.50% 3.50%
Of Color 6,768 (+/-) 895 67.50% 8.90%
Black/African American 5,017 (+/-) 850 50.00% 8.50%
American Indian/Alaskan Native Suppressed---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asian/Pacific Islander 1,061 (+/-) 249 10.60% 2.50%
Other Suppressed--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two or more races 543 (+/-) 270 5.40% 2.70%
Hispanic/Latino 324 (+/-) 141 3.20% 1.40%
Our assumption is that there are disparities within the identified geopraphies and this research will help identify inequities and opportunities for action and investment to increase equity across communities in Minneapolis.
While we have a lot of data on children and youth in Minneapolis, it is mostly quantitative. We aims to collect more qualitative data from youth and parents of younger children to develop a local action plan that is inclusive of child and youth voice.
Section 3: Community Engagement
| Inform | Yes |
| Consult | No |
| Involve | No |
| Collaborate | No |
| Empower | No |
The CFCI Executive group has met with the Minneapolis Youth Congress and invited them to the CFCI Executive committee, we expect engagement later this spring/summer. The Executive Committee will be conducting a community assessment as part of our CFCI work for designation. We are still in the planning phase but know that we will be focusing on adolescents and parents of young children. Our engagement methods are still yet to be determined but likely include interviews and focus groups in Mpls about their experiences the in following areas:
1. Safety and Inclusion: every child is protected from abuse and neglect, enjoys safe communities and schools, and is treated fairly under the law.
2. Children’s Participation: every child has their voice, needs, and priorities heard and taken into account in decisions affecting their lives.
3. Equitable Social Services: every child has access to quality social services.
4. Safe Living Environments: every child lives in a safe, secure and clean environment.
5. Play and Leisure: every child has opportunities to enjoy family life, play and leisure.
1. Safety and Inclusion: every child is protected from abuse and neglect, enjoys safe communities and schools, and is treated fairly under the law.
2. Children’s Participation: every child has their voice, needs, and priorities heard and taken into account in decisions affecting their lives.
3. Equitable Social Services: every child has access to quality social services.
4. Safe Living Environments: every child lives in a safe, secure and clean environment.
5. Play and Leisure: every child has opportunities to enjoy family life, play and leisure.
Section 4: Analysis
CFCI will bring a more active voice for young people into the City, with a focus on the voices of children and youth from BIPOC communities. We seek to promote a greater understanding and recognition of children’s rights in Minneapolis. A partnership with Growing Up In Cities will add context to our data by comparing two communites, with more or less advantage and the impacts on children and youth in these communitites.
Section 5: Evaluation
The CFCI designation is a continuous improvement process, with ongoing monitoring and evaluation based on the identified community action plans. This will be done every two years to maintain our CFCI designation. UNICEF USA has provided an adapted roadmap for pilot Cities, with the focus on empowering candidate Cities to respond to the current crises of COVID-19 and systemic racism using a child rights based approach. In Minneapolis, we have identified three focus areas that we believe are relevant to our community; child-sensitive emergency response and recovery, child and youth engagement in decision-making at all levels, and child rights education.
To date, we have convened a CFCI Executive Committee, completed the Situation Analysis, and are developing the plan for our community assessment which we aim to conduct summer 2021. Based on the community assessments we will develop our local action plan.
To date, we have convened a CFCI Executive Committee, completed the Situation Analysis, and are developing the plan for our community assessment which we aim to conduct summer 2021. Based on the community assessments we will develop our local action plan.
CFCI will be updating City Council twice a year. We are in the process of developing a CFCI webpage and social media presence. We will design other methods of informing community based on participant feedback shared during the community engagement process.