26
in language or quantitative ambition to be applicable to Los Angeles.
11
For the remaining 100 targets, the teams
adhered to several principles to guide the analytical process: (1) make the fewest changes possible
to render the target applicable, (2) remain as
faithful as possible to original intent, and (3)
reflect the city’s values, realities, and defined
ambitions, demonstrating a strong commitment
to inclusiveness and leaving no one behind.
12
Victory was not automatically declared on any
target. For example, SDG target 1.1 focuses on
ending extreme poverty. Using the global standard of $1.90/day as outlined in the SDGs, the
city has a strong case for claiming it has achieved
the target. However, given the emphasis on
grounding the exercise in the city’s reality, the
team recommended substituting an income level
($33/day) that would be reflective of extreme
poverty in Los Angeles.
This means ambition sometimes exceeds the
SDGs. For example, the ratios for the recommended Los Angeles targets on maternal mortality and preventable child deaths under five are far
lower than the SDG targets: for maternal mortality (target 3.1), Los Angeles is aspiring to 5 per
100,000 live births, versus the SDG target of 70
per 100,000 births; for under five mortality (target 3.2), Los Angeles is aspiring to 4 per 100,000
live births, versus the SDG target of 25 per
100,000 live births.
Setting ambition at these higher levels facilitated the creation of a Los Angeles-specific Leave
No One Behind agenda. African-American women,
for example, experience much higher rates of
maternal mortality in Los Angeles than Caucasians.
To reach the recommended ratio, Los Angeles will
need to disaggregate data among demographic
groups and develop specific strategies to meet the
needs of African-American women.
11 Some of these targets incorporate international agreements or conventions to which Los Angeles is not a party,
but by which the city can still abide.
12 “Leave No One Behind” is often used as a shorthand for
the imperative implicit in the SDGs that countries and
stakeholders must reach their most vulnerable populations
in order to achieve many of its targets.
Ultimately 156 targets comprise the recommended Los Angeles SDG framework. Thirteen
targets were set aside, most of them means of
implementation targets focused on resource or
knowledge exchange between developed and
developing countries, where legal structures or
original intent was not meaningful to Los
Angeles. The team recommended adding one target not a part of the SDGs, a target focusing on
equity for LGBTQI, to extend the equity dimensions of the SDGs to populations important to
Los Angeles (in similar fashion it made slight
language modifications to expand the inclusivity
of some targets).
As of February 2019, policy owners within
Los Angeles city government are validating each
recommendation relevant to their areas of responsibility. Their agreement on the policy recommendations will be critical for credibility, to
ensure that the proposed framework is an accurate representation of Los Angeles ambition and
context (e.g., does the proposed measure of $33/
day accurately reflect a level of extreme poverty
for Los Angeles?). Those policy owners will also
provide important guidance and expertise on
choosing appropriate indicators to measure the
city’s progress and performance.
3.4.2 Indicator Alignment
As a globally agreed and vetted agenda, the
SDGs offer the promise of comparability in measurement. Their predecessors, the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs), were hailed for
their positive impact in helping a diverse set of
stakeholders, including countries, aid agencies,
philanthropies, and implementing partners, agree
upon and use a standard set of metrics related to
the specific targets.
The breadth and depth of the SDGs pose significant challenges in this regard. The official
global indicators used at the national level, developed by the UN Statistical Commission (UNSC)
after significant consultation, are classified into
three tiers. These denote their level of readiness
and availability.
T. Pipa
in language or quantitative ambition to be applicable to Los Angeles.
11
For the remaining 100 targets, the teams
adhered to several principles to guide the analytical process: (1) make the fewest changes possible
to render the target applicable, (2) remain as
faithful as possible to original intent, and (3)
reflect the city’s values, realities, and defined
ambitions, demonstrating a strong commitment
to inclusiveness and leaving no one behind.
12
Victory was not automatically declared on any
target. For example, SDG target 1.1 focuses on
ending extreme poverty. Using the global standard of $1.90/day as outlined in the SDGs, the
city has a strong case for claiming it has achieved
the target. However, given the emphasis on
grounding the exercise in the city’s reality, the
team recommended substituting an income level
($33/day) that would be reflective of extreme
poverty in Los Angeles.
This means ambition sometimes exceeds the
SDGs. For example, the ratios for the recommended Los Angeles targets on maternal mortality and preventable child deaths under five are far
lower than the SDG targets: for maternal mortality (target 3.1), Los Angeles is aspiring to 5 per
100,000 live births, versus the SDG target of 70
per 100,000 births; for under five mortality (target 3.2), Los Angeles is aspiring to 4 per 100,000
live births, versus the SDG target of 25 per
100,000 live births.
Setting ambition at these higher levels facilitated the creation of a Los Angeles-specific Leave
No One Behind agenda. African-American women,
for example, experience much higher rates of
maternal mortality in Los Angeles than Caucasians.
To reach the recommended ratio, Los Angeles will
need to disaggregate data among demographic
groups and develop specific strategies to meet the
needs of African-American women.
11 Some of these targets incorporate international agreements or conventions to which Los Angeles is not a party,
but by which the city can still abide.
12 “Leave No One Behind” is often used as a shorthand for
the imperative implicit in the SDGs that countries and
stakeholders must reach their most vulnerable populations
in order to achieve many of its targets.
Ultimately 156 targets comprise the recommended Los Angeles SDG framework. Thirteen
targets were set aside, most of them means of
implementation targets focused on resource or
knowledge exchange between developed and
developing countries, where legal structures or
original intent was not meaningful to Los
Angeles. The team recommended adding one target not a part of the SDGs, a target focusing on
equity for LGBTQI, to extend the equity dimensions of the SDGs to populations important to
Los Angeles (in similar fashion it made slight
language modifications to expand the inclusivity
of some targets).
As of February 2019, policy owners within
Los Angeles city government are validating each
recommendation relevant to their areas of responsibility. Their agreement on the policy recommendations will be critical for credibility, to
ensure that the proposed framework is an accurate representation of Los Angeles ambition and
context (e.g., does the proposed measure of $33/
day accurately reflect a level of extreme poverty
for Los Angeles?). Those policy owners will also
provide important guidance and expertise on
choosing appropriate indicators to measure the
city’s progress and performance.
3.4.2 Indicator Alignment
As a globally agreed and vetted agenda, the
SDGs offer the promise of comparability in measurement. Their predecessors, the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs), were hailed for
their positive impact in helping a diverse set of
stakeholders, including countries, aid agencies,
philanthropies, and implementing partners, agree
upon and use a standard set of metrics related to
the specific targets.
The breadth and depth of the SDGs pose significant challenges in this regard. The official
global indicators used at the national level, developed by the UN Statistical Commission (UNSC)
after significant consultation, are classified into
three tiers. These denote their level of readiness
and availability.
T. Pipa