What would a Baltimore Public Health Department be doing? SHOUTING LOUDLY AGAINST AND EDUCATING AGAINST FEZ--- What is Baltimore Public Health doing-----partnering with global Johns Hopkins in building their global health tourism and making connections for Asian global corporations to come to the US. Taxpayers are paying for this partnership and getting NO PUBLIC HEALTH.
We all know as Asian nations push out US global corporations in favor of growing their own national corporate structure----US global corporations are coming back to the US with the same International Economic Zone structure they had in Asia----feeling free to devastate the US as was done to China....Clinton neo-liberals DO NOT CARE ABOUT HUMAN WELFARE----THEY ARE ONLY SHOW ME THE MONEY.
What each US city needs is a strong Baltimore Public Health Department that would fight against the plans of Wall Street Baltimore Development and a very, very, very neo-conservative Johns Hopkins.
Now, global Johns Hopkins is no doubt over in China making a killing off of this crazy free-for-all industrialization and all of its devastation----
This is what Clinton/Obama neo-liberals are trying to Fast Track with Republicans as hard as they can----and already cities are feeling the results of a dismantled Baltimore Public Health Department with no Federal agency oversight.
China's Environmental Crisis
Author: Beina Xu
Updated: April 25, 2014
Kim Kyung-Hoon/Courtesy Reuters
China's environmental crisis is one of the most pressing challenges to emerge from the country's rapid industrialization.
Cost of Environmental Damage
Environmental depredations pose a serious threat to China's economic growth, costing the country roughly 9 percent (PDF) of its gross national income, according to most recent figures from the World Bank. China's Ministry of Environmental Protection calculates its own "green GDP" number, estimating the cost of pollution at around 1.5 trillion RMB, or roughly 3.5 percent of GDP, according to its 2010 figures. Due to the sensitivity of the topic, the ministry has only been releasing such figures since 2006, and intermittently.
Data on the public-health toll of China's pollution paint a devastating picture. According to a Global Burden of Disease study, air pollution contributed to 1.2 million premature deaths in China in 2010. In late 2013, an eight-year-old girl in Jiangsu province became China's youngest lung cancer patient; doctors attribute her illness to air pollution. Epidemiological studies conducted since the 1980s in northern China suggest that urban air in China causes significant health complications, including respiratory, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular diseases. The pollution has also been linked to the proliferation of acute and chronic diseases; estimates suggest that around 11 percent of digestive system cancers in China may stem from unsafe drinking water. Human cases of the avian flu (H7N9 virus), which broke out in China in March 2013 and has claimed more than forty lives, were caused by exposure to infected poultry and contaminated environments.
The Affordable Care Act has based its entire idea of reducing health costs to giving the same health industry executives that drive the highest costs in the world from fraud and profiteering to handing control of redesigning cost structures TO THESE SAME PEOPLE.
The progressive posing in this picture is that opening up what was proprietary medical data protected by Federal law is being done FOR THE PATIENTS AND THEIR ABILITY TO ASSESS WHICH IS BEST. We all knew that was not the case from the beginning and we see where it is going-----
They will not provide meaningful discussions or delivery of health care delivery and end results for hospitals because the goal is not competition or patient choice----it is monopoly with a small group of rich telling the American people what they will get for health care. When health care is public-----public universities and hospitals across the US shared research data collected with the goal of public interest outcomes-----what Clinton/Obama neo-liberals have built is a closed corporate university and corporate policy think tank creating policies that maximize profits and protect against any loss of profit.
People understand that when they have just a few minutes with a primary care doctor ----there is no interest in educating the patient. As the article below states as well-----again Obama and Republicans reduced from 4 to 3 years the degree requirements for getting an MD----pushing the process to one of unsupervised on-the-job training.
Taking away individual doctor decisions for treatment is a disaster in waiting. The American people needed reform in the other direction-----getting our personal doctors spending more time talking to us as to what their treatment options are. Now, Affordable Care Act seeks to take not only that personal discussion between doctor and patient away----but take the doctor's voice in treatment away as well.
'However, more than 2 years after enactment of the ACA, little has been done to promote shared decision making. We believe that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) should begin certifying and implementing patient decision aids, aiming to achieve three important goals: promote an ideal approach to clinician–patient decision making, improve the quality of medical decisions, and reduce costs.” '
THERE IS NOTHING PROGRESSIVE HERE FOLKS-----THEY ARE SIMPLY CREATING YET ANOTHER CORPORATE COMMISSION THAT WILL LOOK LIKE THE CORPORATE UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES----WHERE CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION DRIVES THE HIGHER STUDENT TUITION.
So, this doctor is right----and it is not SOCIALIST to create these huge corporate administrations simply designed to create policy that moves global connections and profit----
Obamacare’s “shared decision-making” rules take money from docs without helping patients
By Westby G. Fisher, MD
/ Jan 6, 2013 at 2:38 PMThis week’s New England Journal of Medicine contains a perspective piece by Emily Oshima Lee, M.A., and Ezekiel J. Emanuel, M.D., Ph.D. entitled “Shared Decision Making to Improve Care and Reduce Costs.” The original paragraph of the piece sets the tone:
“A sleeper provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) encourages greater use of shared decision making in health care. For many health situations in which there’s not one clearly superior course of treatment, shared decision making can ensure that medical care better aligns with patients’ preferences and values. One way to implement this approach is by using patient decision aids — written materials, videos, or interactive electronic presentations designed to inform patients and their families about care options; each option’s outcomes, including benefits and possible side effects; the health care team’s skills; and costs. Shared decision making has the potential to provide numerous benefits for patients, clinicians, and the health care system, including increased patient knowledge, less anxiety over the care process, improved health outcomes, reductions in unwarranted variation in care and costs, and greater alignment of care with patients’ values.
However, more than 2 years after enactment of the ACA, little has been done to promote shared decision making. We believe that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) should begin certifying and implementing patient decision aids, aiming to achieve three important goals: promote an ideal approach to clinician–patient decision making, improve the quality of medical decisions, and reduce costs.”
What a nice, lovely, fuzzy bunny. Who couldn’t want such “shared” decisions in complex medical care? Especially nice simple teaching aids for Medicare’s top 20 procedures printed at the “8th grade level” that are “brief?”
Doctors, don’t you know that this will become simply another box to check on your EMR for Medicare reimbursement?
And yet the benefits of cost savings that these “shared” decision making tools’ will have on health care are assumed, especially when deployed nationwide, despite what the authors claim. Note that the 2011 Cochrane Collaborative review of the 86 studies they reference said nothing about cost savings.
Doctors know this and so do the authors.
Why else would the authors require a cudgel to impose their “shared” decision making benefit if other real life clinical doctors fail to follow along?
“Providers who did not document the shared-decision-making process could face a 10% reduction in Medicare payment for claims related to the procedure in year 1, with reductions gradually increasing to 20% over 10 years. This payment scheme is similar to that currently tied to hospital-readmissions metrics.”
Ms. Lee and Dr. Emanuel, in their zeal to impose their Progressive mindset upon America’s physicians have forgotten several important tenets of health care delivery:
- First, decisions made in medicine are each unique to a patient’s constellation of medical problems, socioeconomic and cultural background, age, gender, religious beliefs, etc. In other words: decisions are made in concert with an individual’s situation, and not based on the government’s desire (necessarily) for cost savings (even if it is couched in euphemisms such as “shared decision making”).
- Second, actual cost information (both out-of-pocket and real health care system costs) for patients and doctors will remain shrouded in secrecy since payers rely on obfuscation of actual cost information to extract their portion of fees before patients receive any value for their dollar. Also, other similar pay-for-performance measures have already uniformly flopped at demonstrating cost savings. Then imagine for a moment if the cudgel for shared decision making is imposed. The potential for a 10-20% Medicare physician fee cut on top of a 30% Sustainable Growth Rate cut that is likely to reappear in 2014 will be untenable for US physicians.
- Third and very importantly, the ACA legislation has created a whole new “institute” of salaried individuals within government called the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) to develop the authors’ soon-to-be-mandated decision aid materials while another branch of government already exists to produce such education aids called the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Wouldn’t our health care system benefit far greater from cost savings by not duplicating services already performed by another government agency? How much, exactly, will the PCORI cost us?
- Fourth, the push to re-invigorate the mass-production of physicians via three-year medical school curricula while simultaneously failing to increase residency slots assures poorer trained, inexperienced doctor-patient discussions about complicated medical issues, not better ones. Shared does not mean better.
- Finally, liability risks remain for doctors caught in these unenviable mandates that fail to recognize the individual complexities of an individual patient’s care. Until doctors sense a modicum of effort for liability reform, they will continue to offer care that exposes both themselves and their patient’s to the path of lowest legal risk, irrespective of what teaching aids they give to patients.
If that doesn’t matter to all of us, then share away.
IF YOU THINK THE UPPER-MIDDLE CLASS IS GOING TO KEEP WHAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ACCESS TO ALL HOSPITAL PROCEDURES THINK TWICE----WALL STREET WILL SOAK THOSE WITH MORE DISPOSIBLE INCOME WITH HIGHER AND HIGHER RATES AND DEDUCTIBLES AND CO-PAYS.
People were led to believe their were all kinds of competition being built into this profit-state health system-------but already the bulk of Americans are falling into two-----Medicaid and Bronze-----both preventative care only -----and the next ---Silver Plan is seeing its network narrow and costs climbing as the lowest giving ordinary access to hospital care.
Obama and Clinton neo-liberals touted that Affordable Care Act will allow Americans to go to any hospital or doctor------and already as this article shows----what are called PPOs----the wide-network plans----are disappearing en masse. What we will have ---as we are seeing in Baltimore is two big systems at best----both pushing private Medicare Advantage over our Federal public Medicare----and pharmacies and health insurers ---KAISER KAISER KAISER----making for the narrowest of systems----
You see the narrowing of networks because the goal was always creating health system monopolies that go global.....never about competitive markets to drive down cost.
Where does a Baltimore City Public Health Department fit in? The first thing it recognizes is most people are being forced out of basic hospital care and the Public Health Department promotes EXPANDED AND IMPROVED MEDICARE FOR ALL!
What Hopkins has created instead with its alumni Beilenstein-----is EverGreen non-profit---which will become a corporate non-profit handling all of what used to be Medicaid and Medicare while Baltimore's for-profit hospitals are advertising for health tourists all across the nation and globally---yes, even Catholic Mercy is a global marketing health tourism hospital -----with less and less room at the inn for city citizens.
'The amount that premiums are increasing also varies on specific type of plans. For example, the McKinsey analysis looked at the lowest-priced silver plan. The federal government, meanwhile, said the average premiums for silver-level benchmark plans—the second-lowest-cost options—are going up by 7.5% next year. Both data sets give a narrow snapshot, albeit for the most popular plans.
Perhaps more concerning for some consumers is the continued shift toward narrow networks. Health insurers have argued they can keep premiums lower if they restrict patients to a more limited set of higher-quality, low-cost hospitals and doctors'.
Blog: Health plans getting more expensive, narrower for 2016
By Bob Herman | November 10, 2015
The picture of health insurance sold on the exchanges for 2016 is becoming clearer: Premiums are rising at a faster pace than the previous year, and insurers are gradually ditching broader networks.
This comes on top of the trend for many exchange plans to have high deductibles and out-of-pocket obligations.
Monthly premiums for the lowest-priced silver plans, which cover 70% of a person's health costs, have median rate increases of 11%, compared with 7% for 2015, according to a new analysis from consulting firm McKinsey & Co (PDF). In fact, the rate hikes for each of the lowest-priced options in each metal tier are going up by double digits. Bronze plans, the second-most popular offering on the Affordable Care Act's exchanges due to their cheap premiums, will have 13% higher premiums next year.
Further, roughly two-thirds of PPO plans on the exchanges are either being dropped or reduced for 2016, a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation report found. PPO products usually have broader networks of hospitals and doctors, but many insurers, such as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, have adjusted or dropped the PPOs to save on costs.
Many health experts expected 2016 premiums would go up faster than this year's plans. Health insurers finally had a full year of data from 2014 to base their medical cost assumptions on, whereas they were mostly guessing in the dark for the first two years. The final rate hikes have generally been lower than what was requested. Shopping around, as well as premium and cost-sharing subsidies, will protect most people from the high rate increases.
The amount that premiums are increasing also varies on specific type of plans. For example, the McKinsey analysis looked at the lowest-priced silver plan. The federal government, meanwhile, said the average premiums for silver-level benchmark plans—the second-lowest-cost options—are going up by 7.5% next year. Both data sets give a narrow snapshot, albeit for the most popular plans.
Perhaps more concerning for some consumers is the continued shift toward narrow networks. Health insurers have argued they can keep premiums lower if they restrict patients to a more limited set of higher-quality, low-cost hospitals and doctors.
Although many consumers may not understand the nuances of their health plan's networks, or the surprise bills that could accompany them, they are choosing narrower options because they want the most affordable coverage.
“Despite the concerns that have been raised about narrow-network plans, surveys show many consumers are willing to give up access to a broader group of providers in exchange for lower premiums,” Katherine Hempstead, the health insurance director at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, wrote in her report.
The McKinsey analysis also showed that hospital-owned health plan offerings on the exchanges increasingly have the cheapest silver options and are eating into the dominance of Blue Cross and Blue Shield. Approximately 17% of the lowest-priced silver plans for 2016 are from provider plans, up from 10% in 2014. Blues plans have 24% of the cheapest silver plans for 2016, down from 45% in 2014.
Below you see the continuing use of a model created by Clinton neo-liberals and Republicans to make sure there is no real solid structures placed in communities that will actually stabilize and grow these communities. Before Clinton/Bush/Obama dismantled PUBLIC HEALTH in communities there was always this network in place staffed by citizens in communities giving all kinds of mental and physical health open to all. Clinton and Republicans break down public structures to create a BLOCK GRANT situation that leads to no continuity----no integration-----no lasting effects----and most of the money lost and misappropriated----
THAT IS THE REASON REPUBLICANS AND CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS DO BLOCK GRANTS TO REPLACE OUR BALTIMORE PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEM.
We do not need grants----we need to return to a city that has a tax base and Federal funds that come to the city to be distributed to public health community clinics and community centers. WE WANT CONTROL OF OUR TAX REVENUE ------
You can ask any citizen in Baltimore and they are shouting----THERE IS NO STRUCTURE OF OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY THAT TIES PAST AND PRESENT ACTIVITIES TO GROW RESULTS-----THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
This exists because the US NGOs that work overseas in developing nations do the same-----they create a system of non-profits controlled by wealthy developers that simply move the funds to themselves or use them as pay-to-play----NEVER CREATING ANYTHING LASTING FOR THOSE DEVELOPING NATION'S CITIZENS.
So, we now have a Baltimore Public Health Department working for Johns Hopkins moving its global corporate health empire and telemedicine business while abdicating all local public health to a ton of corporate non--profits.
WE TAKE JOHNS HOPKINS AND WALL STREET BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT OUT OF BALTIMORE PUBLIC HEALTH----REBUILD ALL COMMUNITY PUBLIC STRUCTURES-----HIRING FROM COMMUNITIES----AND ONLY HAVE SMALL LOCAL NON-PROFITS/SMALL BUSINESSES TO HELP THESE PUBLIC HEALTH CLINICS COMMUNITY CENTERS.
Below you see what kinds of global organizations the Affordable CAre Act ties to its idea of health care reform.
BUILD Health Challenge Aids Communities in NeedGrants Program Names 18 Award Recipients
June 16, 2015 01:25 pm Michael Laff Washington, D.C. – Maintaining one's health means more just than visiting a physician for regular preventive care or taking prescription medications appropriately.
Karen DeSalvo, M.D., acting assistant secretary for health at HHS, discusses how a patient's daily living conditions affect his or her physical health during a recent event in Washington, D.C.
Patients who live in safe neighborhoods with access to basic community services, ample sources of nutritious food and health facilities are typically able to obtain needed health care services. But people living in low-income areas are less likely to be able to do that.
Enter the BUILD Health Challenge,(www.buildhealthchallenge.org) a competitive awards program that is attempting to reverse the socioeconomic trends that contribute to poor health by supporting local initiatives that address health issues tied to a specific social need. Specifically, the program aims to recognize community collaborations that are taking Bold, Upstream, Integrated, Local and Data-driven approaches to improve community health, promote health equity and provide resources to communities that are implementing these strategies.
On June 9, the BUILD Health Challenge awarded grants to 18 such initiatives. Seven initiatives at the implementation stage received $250,000 grants over two years to enhance existing projects through data collection or stronger partnerships. Eleven projects in the planning stage received $75,000 to initiate new projects with specific health problems with a community action group.
A complete list of award recipients(www.buildhealthchallenge.org) is available on the BUILD Health Challenge website.
- The BUILD Health Challenge program recently awarded grants to 18 initiatives that take an integrated approach to solving an ongoing health problem in a particular community.
- During a ceremony held to announce the awards, Karen DeSalvo, M.D., acting assistant secretary for health at HHS, discussed the relationship between the health of individuals and the surrounding community.
- Through the years, improvements in public health have been made in tandem with other civic initiatives.
"We are losing the battle for public health," she said. "Despite all of the progress in medicine, the public is not as healthy as we want them to be."
While working as a physician in New Orleans, DeSalvo recalled treating patients with diabetes who were unable to maintain a healthy lifestyle because their surrounding community had limited resources. What she learned was that social and environmental factors influence health as much as one's physical condition.
"One of the major determinants about mortality and overall health depends upon where you live," DeSalvo said.
Some of her patients, for example, missed appointments because the bus they relied on was late. Others often went to the ER for medication refills because they couldn't afford to pay for the drugs. And despite being warned about high salt intake, many community residents had little choice but to shop at a local convenience store where healthy foods were not available.
Through the years, improvements in public health have been made in tandem with other civic initiatives, said DeSalvo. A drive to provide clean water required enhanced sanitation efforts. To treat tuberculosis, sound housing policy was just as important as prescribing the right medicine, she noted.
That same rationale lies at the heart of the BUILD Health Challenge. Here is a look at some of the newly named grant recipients and what they're doing to improve community health:
Ending Community Violence in Miami
In Miami's Liberty City neighborhood, organizers are seeking to make a safer environment for children. The area has struggled for years against high rates of youth violence and gang activity. As proof, Roderick King, M.D., CEO of the Florida Institute for Health Innovation, cited a recent case in which a 10-year boy simply riding his bicycle became the victim of a drive-by shooting. Fortunately, he said, the boy has now been released from the hospital.
King said children and elderly residents in the area are frequently injured by gun violence. Young school-age children are often in the streets late in the afternoon. By offering more structured after-school activities, organizers hope to place these children in a safe environment before dark.
But that's not all, said King -- violence in the community is linked to other health problems. When public spaces are no longer safe, for example, residents will not walk outside or spend time in parks, which can lead to higher obesity rates. King said physicians can serve as opinion leaders to demonstrate how the violence is a threat to public health in the entire community.
Boosting Health Care Access in Aurora
In a city of 350,000 with residents spread across 17 zip codes, local program organizers in Aurora, Colorado, are targeting three zip codes that reported the highest use of behavioral health services and the most ER visits in the state. The area is home to immigrants and refugees from Latin America, Bhutan, Nepal, Burma, Somalia and Ethiopia.
Many of the residents are poor, have lived in the United States for only a brief period and experienced some form of trauma in their homeland, according to Eliana Mastrangelo, a community organizer with Together Colorado.
Despite their obvious needs, Abby English Waldman, research and prevention coordinator for the Children's Advocacy Institute, said program directors are attempting to identify what barriers to access exist without making any assumptions. A joint initiative is being undertaken by the county health department, Children's Hospital Colorado and Together Colorado.
Cultivating Community Activists in Baltimore
After riots caught the nation's attention in April, Baltimore residents are trying to address the frustration voiced by the city's youth. One grant recipient plans to build a network of young activists who will learn how to advocate for their needs at the city level.
"Baltimore is not just a depressed city, it's an unorganized city," said Jane Henderson, executive director of Communities United. The program intends to help locals navigate city and other public services and demand more from their government. A key component will be developing young leaders who can help recruit their peers to participate in monthly meetings. Rachel Donegan, program director at the University of Maryland School of Social Work, said organizers want to channel young residents' hunger to participate in something.
"They are very aware that the system doesn't support them and is not made for them," Donegan said. "That is the source of their anger and discontent. We want to acknowledge that and provide something that can help them advocate for themselves."
BUILD Health Challenge Evolves
The four groups that launched the BUILD Health Challenge -- the Advisory Board Company, the de Beaumont Foundation, the Kresge Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation -- have now been joined by the Colorado Health Foundation. Other partners are Duke University, the Housing Partnership Network, the Prevention Institute and the County Health Rankings & Roadmaps program at the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute.
The BUILD Health Challenge is the second phase of a broader project to improve community health dubbed A Practical Playbook: Public Health & Primary Care Together.(www.practicalplaybook.org)
Below you see why health care access and quality in Baltimore has low-income citizens with life spans 20-30 years shorter than affluent and why we have a complete capture of all health stats by Johns Hopkins and its corporate non-profits. There is not a citizen in Baltimore who will not tell you that this block granting to national corporations has helped Baltimore's public health-----this was indeed created during Clinton's terms in office as part of defunding and dismantling public health as he did as well to public education. All of this is Republican policy that took the people's Democratic Party from social Democratic----to naked global capitalism.
Look at what is another attempt by the Maryland Assembly to capture a public system into a quasi-corporate commission-----the Maryland Assembly did this to end public health.
NO QUALITY OF LIFE----HEALTH SOLUTIONS HAPPENING IN BALTIMORE-------HOSPITALS ARE ALLOWED TO IGNORE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS AND BE COMPLETELY PROFIT-DRIVEN.
When you look at what Maryland Assembly sends to counties and cities like Baltimore from a 'pooled health care fund' that includes all Medicare and Medicaid funds from the Federal government----this is where it goes----AND IS LOST. Instead of having one city public health administrative structure----now we have dozens and dozens of non-profits each having a director paid well----each doing their own thing.
Below you see Clinton declaring BAltimore an EMPOWERMENT ZONE-----kind of like the EMPOWERMENT CHURCH------directing funds to build sustainable communities------20 years ago----all of this is why all public health funds coming to the city are misappropriated and lost.
IT IS THE BALTIMORE PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT THAT WOULD KNOW THIS.
The health data in Baltimore is juked on all measures----
'Family League of Baltimore City Research and Evaluation
The Family League of Baltimore City Inc. was founded in 1991 as a quasi-public, non-profit organization to fulfill the Maryland legislative mandate for the establishment of Local Management Boards (LMBs) in all jurisdictions in the state of Maryland. The role of the LMB is to focus attention and resources on improving the well-being of children and families by engaging communities and encouraging public and private partnerships'.
JOHNS HOPKINS URBAN HEALTH INSTITUTE
Baltimore City Statistical Data
Baltimore City Health Status Report
The mission of the Baltimore City Health Department is to provide all Baltimoreans with access to comprehensive, preventive quality health services and care, as well as to ensure a healthy environment.
LeadStat: The Mayor's Initiative on Lead Poisoning Prevention Baltimore City
In January 2000, the city of Baltimore, under the leadership of Mayor Martin O'Malley, identified childhood lead poisoning prevention as a priority public health issue. A plan for a two-phase coordinated initiative involving city and state agencies was developed immediately. Implementation of Phase I began in January 2000 and ended in November 2000. Phase II implementation is under way, funded by Baltimore City, the Governor's Initiative on Lead Poisoning Prevention, and Empower Baltimore Management Corporation.
Baltimore CitiStat Reports and Maps
CitiStat is an accountability tool based on the CompStat program pioneered by Jack Maple in the New York City Police Department. Utilizing computer pin mapping and weekly accountability sessions, CompStat helped the NYPD dramatically reduce crime and is employed today by several police departments around the world. This same process can be used not only for crime but for every city agency, from Public Works to Health. Strategies are developed and employed, managers held accountable, and results measured not yearly, quarterly, or monthly but week to week.
Baltimore City Map Stats
Statistical profiles of states, counties, congressional districts, and federal judicial districts. Information gathered from statistics collected from over 70 federal agencies.
Baltimore Neighborhoods Indicators Alliance
The Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance (BNIA) is an alliance of citywide organizations dedicated to providing data and information to support efforts to improve the quality of life in Baltimore City neighborhoods. The partners work together to: provide data about Baltimore and its neighborhoods in a widely available, user-friendly way; offer training on how to access, understand and use data for neighborhood improvement; and designate indicators to measure the success of the city and its neighborhoods over time.
Baltimore Empowerment Zone
On December 21, 1994, President Clinton designated Baltimore a "federal empowerment zone." The federal empowerment zone initiative primes the pump of sustainable redevelopment for local communities and residents by mixing federal seed money and business tax benefits with local public and private investments, all guided by a locally developed and managed strategy.
Family League of Baltimore City Research and Evaluation
The Family League of Baltimore City Inc. was founded in 1991 as a quasi-public, non-profit organization to fulfill the Maryland legislative mandate for the establishment of Local Management Boards (LMBs) in all jurisdictions in the state of Maryland. The role of the LMB is to focus attention and resources on improving the well-being of children and families by engaging communities and encouraging public and private partnerships.
Baltimore City Data Collaborative
The Baltimore City Data Collaborative was established in 1998 as a joint venture of the Family League of Baltimore City, Baltimore Safe and Sound Campaign, and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The Data Collaborative serves as a resource for members of the Baltimore community and provides data, analysis, and evaluation support for the initiatives spearheaded by the Family League, Safe and Sound, and many other organizations.