The LOCAL: Innovative, Pluralistic Community Centers for the 21St Century

the LOCAL: Innovative, Pluralistic Community Centers for the 21st Century

Nicole Hinton, Jamie Rathermel, Shaka Dickerson, Brendan O’Connor

Vanderbilt University

February 23, 2012 Table of Contents

I. Challenges and Solution

A. Challenges: Cross-group Relationships in a Diverse Country

B. Solution: the LOCAL

II. Departments, Programs, and Budgets

A. Coordination Department

A.1. Coordination group

A.2. Building design and maintenance

A.3. Membership

B. Local Relationships Department

B.1. Restaurant, pub and café

B.2. NeighborCircles

B.3. LOCAL Potlucks

C. Events and Education Department

D. Shared Resources Department

D.1. Community Garden

D.2. Community Toolbox

E. Civic and Political Dialogue Department

E.1. Dialogue Forums

E.2. The Advocacy Shop

III. Market Research and Case Studies

IV. Conclusions and Next Steps

A. Budget Reconciliation

B. Next Steps

V. References Challenges and Solution

Challenges: Cross-group Relationships in a Diverse Country Consider a country. Imagine people flowing into this country from all regions of the world, for decades, even centuries. They bring their culture. They bring their ethnic traditions and foods. As they arrive, many look different from one another: they are Black, White, Brown. Some of the men wear long, white tunics; some women come in brightly-colored dresses. At a given border, two women are stopped. They appear alike, with bronze-colored skin and similar clothing. Yet upon further investigation, they speak different languages—one is only fluent in her native language; the other speaks that of the destination country. Not only that, their similar appearance hides their divergent religious traditions. Now imagine these scenarios playing out in this country over and over again, decade upon decade, with diversity increasing the entire time.

“Welcome to America,” a customs officer in this country—our country—might say to any one of the immigrants above. From early British settlers to Irish fleeing the potato famine, from waves of African slaves to the rise in Asian immigrants, we are these differences—they define us, while at the same time confounding easy definitions of what it is to be an “American.” Alesina and Glaeser (2004) note that between U.S. and European countries, the US is easily the most racially and religiously diverse; indeed, we are one of, if not the, most racially and religiously diverse countries in the world.

But, are cross-group relationships and a sense of community strong in America? We would argue “no,” for three primary reasons. First, we are still frequently racially and economically segregated in cities across the U.S., including the focus of this project, Nashville, Tennessee (see Figures 1 and 2).

Figure 1. Median household income in Davidson County, TN Figure 2. Partial racial breakdown in Davidson County, TN

Second, even in those rarer cases of mixed-income, diverse neighborhoods, there is clear evidence these areas are still racially, politically, and economically divided (Fraser & Kick, 2007). Urban, heterogeneous areas have also been shown to have lower measures of community than more suburban, homogeneous areas (Putnam, 2007). Third, cross-group relationships related to alternate political perspectives are in a dismal state across the U.S. (Barabas, 2004), as is evidenced by common public frustration over the state of political dialogue; whether in Congress or in our communities, constructive dialogue is all too often missing.

Thus, many say we need better community. What if there were actually centers for community? Often referred to as “community centers,” such efforts are worth considering. In Nashville, Tennessee alone, there are 23 public community centers (“Community Centers,” 2012), along with a variety of private community centers. The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) is one of the best resources for information on community centers in America. In discussions with a member of our team last year, an NRPA representative noted that, of the 12,000 municipalities throughout the U.S., there are about 3,100 municipalities that are members of NRPA (B. Beckner, personal communication, March 22, 2011); conservatively, an estimated 72% of those, or 2,232 municipalities, have community centers. There are an average of 5 centers in each municipality—that adds up to around 11,160 community centers across the US, though NRPA believes the real number may be measurably higher. On average, these centers are 26,701 square feet in size (B. Beckner, personal communication, March 22, 2011).

Nationally, what type of programming is happening inside of these 11,000-plus community centers? NRPA asserts that there is little, if any, systematic information about what type of programming goes on inside U.S. community centers. Our suspicion is that the programming is much like that in Nashville community centers (“Community Centers,” 2012) and other municipalities we have investigated; that is, the programming appears to largely consist of adult education, recreational activities, and senior programs. These programs are not terrible, but are they fulfilling the need to build cross-group relationships in one of the most religiously and racially diverse countries in the world? We don’t think so. Indeed, we believe the term “community centers” involves a somewhat cheap use of the word “community.” Thus, our hypothesis is that there has been a partial market failure of the current versions of community centers in America1 (we believe this may also be considered a societal failure of sorts).

Solution: the LOCAL If existing community centers are failing to meet the needs of society, does that mean that the idea of community centers is bad? Our group believes it is not, but simply needs a broader, more robust approach to community-building. Therefore, our project focuses on the design and potential launch of an innovative model for community centers. This model involves community centers that with three main parts: 1) umbrella non-profit organizations with various social enterprise components; 2) mission-related, for profit subsidiaries (e.g., community-oriented restaurants); and 3) locations in mixed-income, diverse neighborhoods (see Figure 3 below for a partial representation of the non-profit and social enterprise aspects of the design). In considering the hybrid spectrum of business structures, our model most closely aligns with that of a non- profit organization with income-generating activities. Our pilot attempt at launching such a model is called “the LOCAL.” The name draws on the “local” movement of recent, which has focused on such areas as supporting local businesses, gathering and dining over local food, supporting local farmers, etc.—thus we aim to focus on local community.

Figure 3. Location of the LOCAL within the hybrid spectrum.

The LOCAL community center will be in a heterogeneous, mixed-income neighborhood in Nashville. Our market research shows a census tract in southeast Nashville, near Wedgewood Avenue, would be a viable neighborhood for the pilot. The median income in the community is $18,333 and the residents present a mix of ethnic backgrounds; according to five-year U.S. Census estimates for 2005 to 2009, the population is 53% Black, 46% White, and 11% Latino2 (see Figures 4 and 5).

1 There appears to have been a similar failure among various versions of community centers, such as public community centers, community schools, settlement houses, and community development corporations. However, national studies need to be done to verify this apparent market/societal failure. 2 Margin of error accounts for percentages not adding up to 100. Figure 4. Median household income in census tract Figure 5. Partial racial breakdown in census tract 161 Davidson County, TN 161 in Davidson County, TN

Departments, Programs, and Budgets In designing the programming for the LOCAL, it is important for us to create programs and services that will appeal to a mixed group of individuals, ultimately drawing community residents to the center in ways that justify our membership fees. The goal is to use an asset-based community development approach to develop the programming, which is based on the philosophy that all communities have unique skills and assets that can be built upon to increase the overall health of the community (“The Asset-Based Community Development Institute,” 2012).

Based on our market research of potential programming options, we have identified an initial set of programs that we plan to implement when the center opens. We have broken the programming down into four main categories, along with a coordination department that facilitates operations at the center. The remaining departments are a Shared Resources Department, Events and Education Department, Civic and Political Dialogue Department, and a LOCAL Relationships Department (see Figure 6).

Figure 6. Organization chart for the LOCAL

Coordination Department The Coordination Department is the hub for coordinating and regulating the activities within the LOCAL. This department will house all of the administrative functions of the organization, including organizational leadership, building design and maintenance, and membership. We anticipate this department to have relatively high expenses, due to the employment of several full-time and part-time individuals to cover roles such as accounting, HR, marketing, legal, and membership. Additionally, this department will be responsible for coordinating the programming and schedules between the remaining departments for the organization.

Coordination Group. The Coordination Group will bring together representatives from each department and employ two staff: an Executive Director and a CFO/HR Director. This department will focus on overall cohesion of the organization, collaboration among departments, accounting, HR and grant writing. Outside of possible grants, this department will not likely bring in any revenue and would accrue an estimated $101,650 in expenses (largely due to salaries for the two employees).

Building design and Maintenance. We estimate that we will need approximately 0.75- 1.25 acres of land to house both the physical building and a community garden. A potential location for the center is at 611 Wedgewood Avenue, as the lot is zoned commercial, is sufficiently large, and is currently unoccupied. The existing building will need to be mostly or entirely replaced with one that is designed and developed based on the requirements of the center. We anticipate initial startup costs of approximately $1.1 million for acquiring the land, demolishing most or all of the existing structure, designing and constructing the new building, and furnishing it for use as a restaurant and community meeting space. Our estimates indicate that the space will need to be between 12,000-14,000 square feet, with slightly over half of the space dedicated to the restaurant (see Figure 7). The building should be designed with a second story completely dedicated to community center programming. Figure 7. Building design for the first floor of the LOCAL

Once the building has been constructed, we anticipate annual operating expenses for the Building design and Maintenance program of roughly $54,500, based primarily on utilities and the employment of two part-time janitors and one part-time maintenance person. We expect that a small amount of revenue (approximately $6,000) could be generated from renting out space in the building for external meetings and events.

Membership. The community center will be designed to use a fee-based member structure based on an income-dependent sliding scale, as has been done with various other social enterprises (e.g., see Aurolab, as described in Phills & Denend, 2005). Our research indicates that a $100 annual membership fee is an appropriate maximum annual rate. This membership fee will cover access to the center, discounts on many programs and products, and free classes, tool sharing, and other educational opportunities at the center. Given that this neighborhood is relatively low-income, we have also incorporated a volunteer time donation program that is available in lieu of monetary payment. Essentially, if a resident is unable to afford the membership dues, s/he can pledge 2 to 4 hours of volunteer service each month as an alternative form of payment.

Our goal is to ultimately reach a membership base of roughly 1,000 individuals (or half of the targeted census tract). However, we project initial membership rates around 300 to 500 per year, which leaves annual membership revenues at approximately $30,000. Expenses are estimated at $87,000, which includes salaries for one program manager, one volunteer coordinator, and one administrative assistant.

Local Relationships Department The LOCAL Relationship Department focuses on building relationships across groups— racially, politically, religiously, etc. This department encompasses an income-generating restaurant/pub/café, NeighborCircle dinners, and a monthly potluck program. Organic relationships often develop over food and drink. Each program within the department seeks to establish and maintain relationships throughout the community.

Restaurant, pub and café. First, the restaurant, which also includes a café and pub, will operate as a for-profit subsidiary of the overarching non-profit. The LOCAL restaurant will be the largest source of income for the community center. It will staff: 2 full-time cooks, 2 full-time kitchen prep personnel, 2 full-time dishwashers, 20 part-time employees that will serve, bus tables, run food, operate registers or prepare coffee beverages, and 1 full-time restaurant manager. We are anticipating a 6% profit margin that will contribute to the LOCAL programs. Hours of operation are 6 am - 12 am. The LOCAL will serve a limited service, a la carte breakfast menu and a dinner menu with the option for a full service dinner everyday. A lunch menu will be offered on the weekends, but not during the weeks. The restaurant will use a portion of the community garden to obtain produce for the menu; this will limit costs for the restaurant and promote locally-sourced food. In addition, the menu will be simple and inexpensive, including healthy sandwiches, burgers and pizzas. In order to promote dialogue, the tables will be community style, seating 8-10 people (i.e., people will be seated with other patrons, not simply by themselves; this has been successful in Nashville already at Monell’s Restaurant). The restaurant will also have a bar, as well as a café section with couches and oversized chairs. A stage will be located in the middle of the restaurant to offer entertainment and other LOCAL activities.

NeighborCircles. NeighborCircles are providing the core to the LOCAL relationship building aspect of the LOCAL. They are diverse neighbor groups that meet at least three times over a three to six month period. NeighborCircles involve sharing meals, while also encouraging discussions on local neighborhood issues. These will take part in the homes of community members, space permitting. The goal is to facilitate heterogeneous, cross-group relationships in urban areas and to promote civic engagement and social capital; this will help build a core grassroots network of engaged citizens in the community. A $20 fee will be in place for members to participate and a $30 fee for non-members (with potential scholarships to defray costs). The Programs Manager will act as the facilitator for NeighborCircles. This program is not profit seeking, but rather about generating substantial relationships. Revenues are estimated at $600 with costs of $6,500 for staff and other expenses.

LOCAL Potlucks. The last program of the LOCAL Relationships Department is the LOCAL Potlucks program. This would be an initiative that takes place monthly with a nominal fee to cover drink and administration costs. People from the community would come to the LOCAL, bring food to share, and simply eat and spend time with their neighbors. Potlucks would likely be paired with other programs listed below, such as the Community Open Mic or film discussions. The LOCAL Potluck program underscores the mission of the LOCAL Relationships department, focusing on building relationships in urban, heterogeneous areas where those relationships—whether cross group, mixed-income, or otherwise—are less common, according to research (Putnam, 2007).

Events and Education Department The Events and Education Department offers social events, classes, and trainings that promote thoughtful dialogue and skill sharing. One activity offered is a monthly Community Open Mic night that encourages folks from the surrounding community to share their talents, such as poetry or music. This will take place in the LOCAL restaurant and often be paired with the LOCAL Potluck program. The Films for Discussion Series will promote dialogue through films and moderated discussion. Again, this event may be paired with a food event of some sort. Finally, this department will sponsor classes and lecture series monthly. Instructors will ideally be selected from the local community in order for community members to share their skills and knowledge with other community members.

Shared Resources Department Part of what builds community comes through the practice of sharing. Coming together for a common cause or activity, or collaborating to use public goods builds trust and builds relationships. With this in mind we believe we should have a Shared Resources Department focused on programming that creates communal uses, shared materials, and results in overall community benefit. Although there would be additional Shared Resources programs in the future, our inaugural programs would be a community garden and a tool-sharing library.

Community Garden. The community garden will be located on about a one-acre (43,560 sq. ft.) plot of land behind the main LOCAL building. The community garden will serve various functions for the community and the LOCAL organization. The main functions served are:

1. Providing produce for the LOCAL restaurant. Half of the garden lot (roughly 21,780 sq. ft.) will be vegetables, fruits, and herbs that will be grown for the restaurant. This will create numerous savings for the establishment and help in the restaurant's profitability. This will also increase the LOCAL's appeal, as members and patrons can see that the LOCAL is a local restaurant, with food from the neighborhood. This can be something for which community members can be proud.

2. A community garden for community members to convene around and share in the task of gardening. Two-thirds of the remaining lot (roughly 14, 593 sq. ft.) will be set aside for LOCAL and community members. By sharing the space and participating in related tasks together, members will slowly build relationships of trust and camaraderie. Members will also be exposed to healthy eating practices, as they will be in charge of their own food source; this will be an alternative to spending as much time and money gaining access to a grocery store that is farther away and may not carry the same quality of food (particularly since this area is considered a food desert).

3. A workforce-training program and revenue generator. The remaining third of the lot (roughly 7,188 sq. ft.) will be used to sell produce externally to other markets, restaurants and grocery stores, generating a small but meaningful return. Eventually, we hope to develop a program for youth to be trained in the business aspects of gardening. They will practice the art of selling, marketing and supply chain management (i.e., delivery services) that go along with business operations.

The initial costs are an estimated $23,300. The majority of this will go towards a pro- rated portion of the Shared Resources Manager’s salary, with about $2,300 in supplies, seeds and fencing. Plots in the community garden will be rented out to members based on a sliding scale fee, ranging from $20 annually to $60 for those with relatively higher incomes. If all of the available 180 plots in the garden were rented out, it would have the potential to bring in nearly $8,000 annually. Yet, we do not expect to rent out all plots in our first year of operation; therefore, we have conservatively estimated that nearly 40 members will rent plots in our first year, bringing in around $1,600.

Community Toolbox. The tool-sharing library will be housed inside a small shed connected to the outer edge of the LOCAL community building (accessible from both the inside and outside). We believe this program is in line with our mission, as it would build a sense of community and interdependence through the sharing of resources, as well as a consistent reminder that the LOCAL is a valuable center for the community. Here, patrons will benefit from having access to quality tools without having to pay for them or store them.

We will purchase power tools and receive donations from others, creating a check- in/check-out system for the tools. Initial costs will vary depending on donations received and seasonal prices, yet we believe an initial investment of $1,200 will be suitable for our needs. A pro-rated amount of $11,000 will cover a portion of the salary of the Shared Resources Manager. The tool-sharing program will run like a regular book library, and will therefore be free of charge to members. Revenue will mainly consist of money gathered through late fee charges.

Civic and Political Dialogue Department Civic and political engagement is a vital piece of the LOCAL. In nearly every aspect of the institution, we believe that if two or more individuals can sit in conversation and be in an atmosphere of healthy conversation, companionship and community can thrive. In addition to this, we will run the center and restaurant with the belief that the more our communities’ and nation’s problems are discussed in honest dialogue, the more compromise will be possible. So, a focal point of our programming will be in this Civic and Political Dialogue Department. The department will consist of two divisions: Dialogue Forums and The Advocacy Shop.

The Civic and Political Dialogue Department will be run by the Civic and Political Dialogue Manager. Most of the costs of the program are due to the manager’s salary. Revenue of the programs come from payments by non-members and discounted rates for members who desire to participate in the Dialogue Forums.

Dialogue Forums. Dialogue Forums are meant to help with the state of civic and political dialogue in Nashville and beyond. Initially, we plan to accomplish this through three different types of forums; all but the first one would be marketed to a larger Nashville audience. These are:

1. A series of six small group dialogues on controversial issues, such as race, immigration, class, and religion. In the initial year, we would likely only hold two such dialogues. In order to effectively run these, which can be sensitive in nature, we will partner with the Scarritt Bennett Center. Leveraging the Scarritt Bennett Center’s experience and knowledge on the process and facilitation will ensure program success. 2. Moderated panels on difficult civic and political issues, such as tax rates, campaign financing, and gun laws. We plan to have four to six panels a year, half of which will be citizen panels and the other half of which will be expert panels.

3. Two large-scale deliberative dialogue forums focused on prominent local or national issues, such as the economy, public transit in Nashville, or immigration. As noted below, this will be based in part on Deliberative Polling, a scientific method used by Stanford University’s Department of Communication. One hundred or more people are selected, polled on the given topic, then invited to a deliberative dialogue event. The event involves hearing from and asking questions of experts on both sides of the issue, then separating into small groups of 8 to 10 people to have a facilitated discussion. These groups form additional questions to ask the experts, and are then polled again after the event.

An important aspect of all these events lies in what happens immediately after them—following each forum (and at the end of the six-week dialogue series), organizations from various sides of the topic will announce opportunities for citizen action (e.g., letter-writing to members of Congress, rallies, or organizational volunteering); the point will be consistently emphasized that the LOCAL will not suggest what type of actions participants should take, but that, as citizens, we all have an obligation to consider some kind of semi-regular, well-informed civic or political participation.

The Advocacy Shop. In addition to the forums, we will have an advocacy arm we call The Advocacy Shop. The goal is to advocate at the local, state and national levels for diverse, mixed-income and mixed-use neighborhoods. The Advocacy Shop is the research and lobbying portion of the center and would partner with other organizations to advocate policy that builds and sustains mixed-income neighborhoods with various healthy community design elements (e.g., sidewalks, mixed-use development, green space, and public transit). Basically, one of the most central components of the LOCAL is that different people should live together—therefore, we would advocate for exactly that, promoting mixed-income neighborhoods and related policies that protect lower-income residents from being pushed out through various aspects of gentrification, such as rising property tax rates.

Market Research and Case Studies Before we began building the skeleton of the LOCAL, we researched the idea to see if other organizations might provide useful models. In our research, we found a number of organizations that either serve a similar purpose to the LOCAL or include relevant programming. These models are:

 Busboys & Poets (Washington, DC) is a socially conscious, for-profit restaurant, bar, café and stage that serves as a meeting ground for progressively-minded individuals and a study space for college students. Each restaurant (there are currently four) has a political focus and the programming includes artists and playwrights with a socially-conscious message.

 Delancey Street Foundation (San Francisco, CA) is a non-profit organization with vocational training and residential rehabilitation services for ex-convicts and those dealing with substance abuse and related issues. The Foundation operates numerous businesses (moving company, catering, restaurant, etc.), managed by the former offenders and other residents. Over half of its operating costs are covered by these businesses. The Delancey Street Foundation has become a community center of sorts, and through the years has led to countless success stories.

 Lawrence Community Works (LCW) (Lawrence, MA) is a non-profit community development corporation (CDC) formed as a community network focused on transforming the physical makeup, social landscape, and economic viability of the city of Lawrence, MA. LCW uses an asset-based approach to improve the lives of the youth and families in surrounding neighborhoods. As an advocate for economic and social justice in their city, the CDC has brought in more than $25 million in neighborhood investment. It also developed the NeighborCircles model noted above.

 Crouch Neighborhood Resource Center (CNRC) (Ontario, Canada) is an efficient non-profit that focuses on providing services and equitable development in the Crouch neighborhood. Housed out of the neighborhood library, the CNRC holds more than 40 programs that fulfill neighborhood needs. From health services, youth entrepreneurship classes and childcare to job listings, ESL training and business development, the CNRC is a center that brings together and fulfills the needs of the citizens of the Crouch neighborhood.

 Neighborhood Centers, Inc. (Houston, TX) is a network of community centers focused on building the social, political and economic capital of the citizens in the neighborhoods where they are located. Neighborhood Centers is a nonprofit community development corporation that reaches more than 100,000 people. Citizens can petition their community centers for a host of programs such as youth and senior programming, education, leadership and civic engagement, health services, and immigration services, just to name a few. They have nominal fees for some of their services and use a sliding scale for membership.

 Center for Deliberative Democracy (Palo Alto, CA) is part of Stanford University’s Department of Communication and its mission is to use Deliberative Polling as a means of research on public opinion and democracy. They use scientifically random-sampled groups and deliberative democracy forums, as described above, as a means of eliciting more meaningful polling opinions on public policy issues.

 Scarritt Bennett Center (Nashville, TN) is a retreat and educational center focused on building relationships through cross-cultural education. Their mission is to challenge society to “eradicate racism, work for justice and reconciliation, and do what we do from a global perspective” (“Scarritt Bennett Center, About Us,” 2012). Their Diversity in Dialogue program is similar to that described in the first type of Dialogue Forum noted above.

Conclusions and Next Steps Budget Reconciliation We estimate we will need roughly $1.2 million to start the LOCAL (including both the building costs noted above, and other start-up costs, such as around $115,000 for kitchen and restaurant equipment). The restaurant is the primary revenue source. Excluding start-up costs, we estimate we would have $544,420 in revenue and $729,002 in annual costs. That means revenue would cover roughly 75% of our costs.

However, there are some important caveats. First, in terms of the number of various events planned and the amount of participation expected, our budget numbers are generally conservative. Similarly, we focused on the first year of projected revenues and expenses; we expect these would increase in subsequent years. Nevertheless, we may still be overestimating— even though some of the data is based on comparative research (e.g., restaurant revenues in the surrounding area). Additionally, we may not have included all costs, given the somewhat limited time available for careful planning and related outside consulting. Lastly, costs do not include mortgage payments, other debt payments, or related interest fees (which may or may not be relevant costs, depending on whether we finance through loans, grants, or other mechanisms).

Next Steps Similar to our budget, this overall plan is a rough estimate of organizational format. The project is a work in progress (though we have developed more detailed analyses and plans for various aspects of the programming, such as exact fees, etc.). Brendan O’Connor, the “organizational contact” for this project, is truly interested in starting this type of innovative, pluralistic community center. First, however, he feels he needs to honor and analyze the work that has gone into public community centers by more systematically understanding their goals and programming. Given there is little to no research available on this, he hopes to do a national, quantitative study via future doctoral work3. Through that, he hopes to understand if our hypothesis is correct that there has been a market/societal failure of current versions of community centers in America. If the research supports this hypothesis, his goal is to take steps similar to those outlined above to implement a version of the LOCAL—first via a pilot or series of pilots, then via a broad-based approach to expansion. References

Alesina, A., & Glaeser, E. (2004). Fighting poverty in the US and Europe: A world of difference. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

The Asset-Based Community Development Institute (ABCD): School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University. (n.d.). Retrieved February 21, 2012, from http://www.abcdinstitute.org/

Barabas, J. (2004). How deliberation affects policy opinions. American Political Science Review, 98(04), 687-701.

Community Centers. (n.d.). Retrieved February 21, 2012, from

3 This would include representative national samples of all four forms of community centers noted above (and possibly others): public community centers, community schools, settlement houses, and community development corporations. http://www.nashville.gov/parks/community/

Fraser, J. C., & Kick, E. L. (2007). The role of public, private, non-profit and community sectors in shaping mixed-income housing outcomes in the US. Urban Studies, 44(12), 2357– 2377.

Phills, & Denend. (2005). Cases - Social Entrepreneurs: Correcting Market Failures (A). Stanford Graduate School of Business.

Putnam, R. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137-174.

Scarritt Bennett Center, About Us. (n.d.). Retrieved February 21, 2012, from www.scarrittbennett.org/about/default.aspx

U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. (2005-2009). Nashville, Tennessee - American FactFinder [Data file]. Retrieved February 1, 2012, from http://factfinder2.census.gov/