In turn, these variables were aggregated into social, physical, crime, and economic dimensions that were combined to create a quality of life index or score for each neighborhood. Individual neighborhoods were labeled "stable," "threatened," or "fragile" based upon the cumulative variable scores. The data presented in the report offered a baseline of information that enabled the city to carry out an ongoing review of neighborhood level quality of life. The index study was intended to serve as a benchmark, a first step in an ongoing program to monitor progress toward the goals of sustaining and renewing the neighborhoods of CWAC. 

In 2000, the Charlotte Neighborhood Quality of Life Study expanded the geographical scope of the earlier inner city analysis. It evaluated the quality of life in 173 neighborhood statistical areas (NSAs) covering the entire city and the city's Sphere of Influence. The 2000 study constructed an index measurement using 19 locally based variables that measured neighborhood social, physical, and economic conditions. The most important improvement of this study was that it offered a citywide baseline for measuring cumulative and individual changes in NSAs in the future.

The Charlotte Neighborhood Quality of Life studies in 2002 and 2004 closely followed the framework and format of the 2000 report. The composition of study variables changed slightly in order to strengthen the rigor of the statistical analysis.

The 2006 Charlotte Neighborhood Quality of Life Report replicates and builds upon the research framework established in the two previous iterations of this process. However, it also incorporates selective improvements. The most apparent shift from earlier neighborhood quality of life studies is a new nomenclature for labeling NSAs. The terms "stable," "threatened," and "fragile" which were used in every report since 1993 are changed to "stable," "transitioning," and "challenged". The research methodology used to classify NSAs has not changed. The shift in labels was made in order to better describe the research findings. In particular, the middle category represents a transitional position between the highest ranking quality of life NSAs and the lowest ranked NSAs.

The replacement of the term "fragile" with "challenged" is similarly based upon a better descriptive label. The meaning of "fragile" in the context of quality of life definitions is somewhat imprecise. It also implies a static condition. In contrast, the descriptor "challenged" conveys a community that is experiencing lower than average quality of life, but is not permanently fixed in a substandard position. Indeed, NSAs have moved from this lowest position to a "stable" category. This type of improvement is difficult to achieve, however, it is a goal that all neighborhood and community leaders are striving to achieve.

A second change from the earlier quality of life reports is a more detailed analysis of NSAs change over time. Previous reports provided a process for comparing individual NSAs to other NSAs, as well as to citywide averages for individual analytical variables. This report continues to offer detailed intra-neighborhood analysis but expands the level and detail of the information. 

As in past reports, the 2006 report includes a neighborhood profile page for each NSA. The profile includes quality of life rankings, background statistics, and the individual descriptive data for each of the 20 variables used in the quality of life analysis along with their comparable citywide data.