Gospel Impact Dashboard

Internal, AA-only. Pick a tract/block group. The interpretation section below translates model outputs + your 9 inputs into a pastor-usable plan.

AA-onlyPrototype
SingleCompare
At a glance
Tract 24003070100
Tract 24003070100
Need: —Churches: — (weighted —)Interval: —Completeness: —Leverage: 33 (Low)Priority: —
Posture
Go light: partner-first + narrow scope
Suggested lane
Pick an area to see a suggested lane.
Verify first
—
At a glance
Tract 24003070100
Tract 24003070100
Need: —Interval: —Completeness: —Leverage: 33 (Low)Churches: —Priority: —
Posture
Go light: partner-first + narrow scope
Suggested lane
Pick an area to see a suggested lane.
Verify first
—
Church-side inputs (9 questions)
0–3 scoring with anchors for consistent entry.
Tract 24003070100
Presence: 4/12
Capacity: 4/12
Fit: 1/3
Leverage: 33 (Low)
Church questions (9)(tap to expand)
Embedded people
How many people from our church have ongoing life in this area (live/work/family ties)?
0: None known
1: 1–2 people
2: 3–10 people
3: 10+ people
Relationship depth
Do we have trusted relationships here (not just contacts)?
0: None
1: A few light contacts
2: At least one strong bridge / open door
3: Multiple strong bridges (households + orgs)
Recurring presence
Can we show up consistently for 90 days?
0: No realistic rhythm
1: Monthly
2: 2–3x / month
3: Weekly+
Local partnership strength
Do we have credible local partners already working in the area?
0: None
1: One possible partner
2: One active partner
3: Multiple active partners
Volunteer bandwidth
Realistic volunteer hours/week available for this area.
0: 0–5
1: 6–10
2: 11–25
3: 26+
Leadership coverage
Do we have owners for follow-up + coordination?
0: None
1: One stretched owner
2: Owner + backup
3: Small team / bench
Follow-up pathway
If we meet 20 people, can we follow up within 7 days?
0: No system
1: Ad hoc
2: Repeatable, but weak spots
3: Repeatable + reliable
Mercy lane readiness
Can we serve tangible needs in one clear lane without overpromising?
0: Not ready
1: Low (one-off only)
2: Medium (repeatable small)
3: High (repeatable + resourced)
Strategic fit (next 90 days)
Is this area a fit for what we can do faithfully right now?
0: No (not now)
1: Maybe (needs constraints)
2: Yes (good fit)
3: Yes (best fit)
Church × Place tracker (quarterly)(tap to expand)
Purpose: capture a lightweight snapshot of a church’s posture/leverage in this specific place each quarter. Saved only in your browser (localStorage).
Church name
Snapshot cadence: quarterly. Current quarter: 2026 Q1.
Ministry characterization (light)
Start date (optional)
Primary mercy lane (optional)
Primary evangelism mode (optional)
Partners (optional)
Rhythm (optional)
Quarter notes
Leverage & evangelism posture questions
Score these for this church in this place (this quarter).
Total: 9/27 (33%)
Embedded people
How many people from our church have ongoing life in this area (live/work/family ties)?
0: None known
1: 1–2 people
2: 3–10 people
3: 10+ people
Relationship depth
Do we have trusted relationships here (not just contacts)?
0: None
1: A few light contacts
2: At least one strong bridge / open door
3: Multiple strong bridges (households + orgs)
Recurring presence
Can we show up consistently for 90 days?
0: No realistic rhythm
1: Monthly
2: 2–3x / month
3: Weekly+
Local partnership strength
Do we have credible local partners already working in the area?
0: None
1: One possible partner
2: One active partner
3: Multiple active partners
Volunteer bandwidth
Realistic volunteer hours/week available for this area.
0: 0–5
1: 6–10
2: 11–25
3: 26+
Leadership coverage
Do we have owners for follow-up + coordination?
0: None
1: One stretched owner
2: Owner + backup
3: Small team / bench
Follow-up pathway
If we meet 20 people, can we follow up within 7 days?
0: No system
1: Ad hoc
2: Repeatable, but weak spots
3: Repeatable + reliable
Mercy lane readiness
Can we serve tangible needs in one clear lane without overpromising?
0: Not ready
1: Low (one-off only)
2: Medium (repeatable small)
3: High (repeatable + resourced)
Strategic fit (next 90 days)
Is this area a fit for what we can do faithfully right now?
0: No (not now)
1: Maybe (needs constraints)
2: Yes (good fit)
3: Yes (best fit)
History (this church × this place)
Quarterly snapshots
Enter a church name to view/save history.
Ministry scorecard (per area)(tap to expand)
Quick self-assessment for this exact tract/block group. Saved automatically in your browser.
Recurring presence
Trust signals
Partner credibility
Follow-up within 7 days
Repeat conversations
Discipleship pathway clarity
Mercy lane clarity
Mercy helpfulness
Bridging evidence
Sustainability
Notes
Last saved: (just now)
Map (click to select)
Use the toggle to switch Tract ↔ Block Group. Selection sets the GEOID.
Loading map…
Interpretation
Separate church leverage from community-side need.
Tract 24003070100Leverage: 33 (Low)
Relational fabric snapshot (pastor view)
Answers: “What’s the relational fabric like here, and what kind of presence builds trust and bridges?”
Bridging looks mixed. A small, steady presence can build trust—keep the plan repeatable.
Relational posture: Presence-firstTeam size: 3–5
Bridging strength—
Stability & bandwidth—
Trust & safety context—
How sure are we? — (based on the width of the uncertainty range)
Verify on the ground (2 hours):
  • Identify 2 trusted connectors (org leader + informal connector).
  • Find 2 natural gathering places (school/park/barber/community center).
  • Ask: “What makes outsiders trusted here?” and “What needs are most pressing?”
90‑day plan:
Weeks 1–2:
  • Do a 2-hour listening visit: 2 connectors + 2 gathering places.
  • Choose one simple weekly rhythm (same day/time/place).
  • Set a follow-up rule: contact within 7 days, always.
Weeks 3–6:
  • Show up weekly (3–5 people). Keep it relational, not event-heavy.
  • Track names + notes (who, where met, next step).
  • Start 1 repeatable ‘bridge’ practice: shared meal, service, or story time with neighbors.
Weeks 7–12:
  • Deepen: invite a few into ongoing conversations (not just one-offs).
  • Hand off wisely: connect interested people to Word/prayer/community.
  • Review scorecard + drivers; adjust the plan without expanding the footprint.
Success signals (90 days):
  • We’re being invited back (trust is growing).
  • We can name 2–3 connectors by name.
  • Follow-up within 7 days is happening consistently.
  • Contacts are turning into repeat conversations.
Adjust triggers:
  • We can’t sustain the rhythm for 4 straight weeks.
  • No trusted partner will vouch for us (or doors keep closing).
  • Follow-up backlog grows (we’re meeting people but not shepherding).
Recommended posture (church-side)
Go light: partner-first + narrow scope
Tip: In the new tab, use Print → Save as PDF.
Meaning: A practical default plan given our leverage.
Answers: “What’s the simplest faithful approach for the next 90 days?”
Plain-English answers (from this data)
Purpose: Answer the A/B questions using only the model outputs + your 9 inputs.
A) Community-side (algorithm-only)
  • Pick an area to see its community pressure.
  • We don’t have enough domain detail loaded for this area yet.
  • Top drivers are not available for this area.
  • —
  • To compare two areas: if their uncertainty ranges overlap a lot, treat the difference as not decisive; if they barely overlap, it’s a real difference.
  • —
  • Pressure signature: Pick an area to see its pressure signature.
  • Verify first: —
  • Common misread: —
B) Church + community (algorithm + your inputs)
  • Given your church readiness (Low, leverage=33), the wise default posture is: Go light: partner-first + narrow scope.
  • Fit summary: —.
  • Use the 90-day plan section above as the simplest faithful plan for this area (it updates when you switch Church-only vs THS-assisted).
  • Suggested lane: Pick an area to see a suggested lane.
  • Constraint check: Bottleneck: Presence (consistent, repeated touchpoints).
  • Priority score: —
Guardrails: Decision-support only. No individual inference. Scores reflect conditions/pressures, not spiritual state.
Community-side need (v1)
Need index: —Interval: —Confidence: —
Need index answers: “If we had to choose where need is higher, is this area above/below other areas in AA?”
Interval answers: “Given uncertainty, what’s a plausible range for this score?” (90% interval; MC).
Confidence answers: “Is this score complete enough to treat as stable, or still missing key parts?”
Note: This v1 uses ACS + PLACES + EJScreen PM2.5 + dissimilarity + a police-district violent-crime proxy + county-level social capital proxy.
Domain subscores (v1)
Answers: “What kind of need is concentrated here (and what is driving the composite)?”
  • —
Top drivers (v1)
Answers: “What 2–3 indicators are most responsible for this score?”
  • —
Guardrails: Decision-support only. No individual inference; no "heart certainty." Community-side values are aggregated and explainable.