Object of the study is the case of urban planning and policyexperiments in land management and reuse, food productionand local procurement in the city of Cleveland.

I argue that US shrinking cities that are variably engaged in a shiftfrom traditional pro-growth to right-sizing planning models have come to representactual and potential zones “of cohabitation and contestation among multiple economicforms” in which breaks “in the relations and practices constituting the performance” ofprevious development models have opened up possibilities for the flourishing of “neweconomic becomings” (Gibson-Graham, 2006) that can be understood as prefigurationsof “a resilient, resourceful and convivial local economy ” (North, 2014; North, 2017)diverging from hegemonic neo-liberal urban development models (Rossi, 2017).

At the same time, drawingfrom the historical experience of alternative grassroots urban practices, city adminis-trations and community development industry actors have also invested in supportingalternative uses of vacant land that have been framed in larger discourses on sustain-ability, resilience and human well-being (Coppola, 2015)

such experiments can represent as many “projects of becom-ing”

imaginative post-shrinkage futures made of a network of a few denser urban nodes andvast areas repurposed for uses as diverse as urban agriculture, energy production,recreation and light manufacturing (Gallagher, 2010)

US shrinking cities have also beenprivileged sites for the development of alternative urban practices such as urban farm-ing (Coppola, 2012b), temporary uses of vacant land

. Following a“double-faced development model”, the so-called “community development industry”– the system of philanthropic institutions and neighborhood-based non-profit organi-zations rooted in declining urban areas – pursued policies aimed at the consolidationand promotion of “competitive” residential neighbourhoods through new housingconstruction, support to homeownership and community building (Coppola, 2009)

deeplypolitical in their genesis and development

st a strong correlation between urban shrinkage and extensively documented formsof deep spatialization of the class and racial differences and discrimination structuring USsociety (Massey & Denton, 1993; Wilson, 1987; Oswalt, 2004).

) experiencing declinein the context of their transitions to a post-industrial local economic basis (Scott, 2009).

Examining the dynamics oforganizational development is useful for understanding how alliances withnational intermediaries can strengthen grassroots engagement. Table 2 sum-marizes these dynamics.

This question points to an area for furtherinvestigation.

One respondent empha-sized that the Center is movement-focused rather than solely focused on its ownorganizational position. Respondents explained that the Center is a differentkind of national partner from typical associations with national organizations.They described the organization as creative, adaptable, and experimental, notlimited by one method of organizing or strategy for political action. Respondentsmade the following observations about the Center as a national partner:–CCC respects organizational needs to focus locally.–CCC tries to understand organizational culture and worldview.–CCC pays attention to local politics and is more likely to be aware of currentrealities on the ground.–CCC is willing to negotiate the best use of field partner assets that canadvance local or state policy agendas and contribute to national campaigns.–CCC has a long-term interest and investment in field partners beyond elec-tion cycles.–Sharing information and strategy development occurs in order to leveragegreater power, funding, and impact.

Alignment is a two-way street. The Center not only mobilizes shared com-mitment and mutuality between its partners. It also benefits from ongoingdialogue and collaboration with other organizations, and adapts its strategicchoices accordingly. Partners understand that their engagement in nationalpolicy campaigns as a group enables the Center to leverage credibility withother national organizations and among policymakers.

One national ally in immigration reform recognized that the trust they have inthe Center evolved through ongoing collaboration and is rooted in confidence ineach other’s skills, even if they disagree. Other strengths of their relationshipsincluded shared values, a common commitment to an issue, and the ability tostrategize together.

Many localpartners have a history of collaborating with the Center and with each other.

espondents used “mutuality”to explain th

Mutuality in partnership is another dynamic of inter-organizational relation-ships present in the case. I

One respondent described theCenter as a grassroots barometer, pointing to the organization’s role in aligninglocal goals with national policy agendas. Another observed how it can bedifficult to work with organizations that are not receptive to top-down directivesor are not oriented towards a particular kind of advocacy strategy.

ther respondents echoed thesethemes and spoke about the value of participating in, what they term, nationalcoalition tables.

venwith the time it takes to achieve such focus, this kind of alignment increasescredibility for an organization and its partners. It also ensures that campaigngoals have relevance for local constituencies. In this way, organizations like theCenter act as a boundary spanner and intermediary for greater alignment in thefield of organizations working to influence the policy process

Interview respondents explained that the Center bases its local strategies andnational goals on an in-depth knowledge of local context and by identifyingpoints of connection across groups.

For example, organizations that received retirement security subgrants recog-nized the Center’s willingness to integrate national campaign priorities in lightof local goals and that are consistent with local organizing approaches.

Three prominent characteristics of alignment from the case example are applic-able to the study of alliances:–Shared commitment to policy goals across organizations–Common or complementary approaches to political action and organizing–A mutually agreed upon investment in building strategic capacity across afield of action

uchfindings are instructive for scholarship on coalitions in that they reveal mechan-isms through which intermediaries can foster better alignment in alliances.

The Center’s investment in partnerships results in alignment around acommon purpose and strategy across the three policy domains featured.

One respondent explaine

e, one respondent explained

The analysis pro-vides a picture of how to measure success and sustainability. Table 3 demon-strates one option for how to translate the findings from this study into ameasurement framework that can be tested in other cases of local-to-nationalalliances.

For example, one respondent explained that being involvedin a national campaign is beneficial among local members, across the state withother organizations, and with their congressional members who see the organi-zation connected to a larger movement.

Interview respondents described four motivations for colla-borating with the Center: (1)

5.1 Inter-organizational Relationships: Alignment and Mutuality

Because of the Center’s long history, depth of experience across policydomains, and diverse relationships with grassroots partners, this case informsboth theory and practice about the necessary mechanisms for successfulalliances.

s is a common structure for national intermediaryorganizations active in the federal policy arena.

The study was developed in collaboration with the organization’s seniorleadership to examine its practices of alliance building,

the Center for CommunityChange (CCC)

Three themes drawn from this literatur

. Indicators of influence

The field of public health also offers insight aboutthe effectiveness of community-based coalitions for service delivery and theimprovement of health outcomes.

They suggest that issues of compat-ibility and power relationships merit further investigation.

“Advocacy Coalition Framework”

A range of social science scholarship examines how external actors organizethemselves for collective action

how do multi-organizational alliancesincrease the access of grassroots organizations to the federal policy process?

the future of the industrial metropolis depends upon its success in creating a quality of life which is competitive with that offered by other warld class cities. The likelihood that world class cities will be built in industrial metropolises depends on several related factors: On how the challenge of worldwide restructuring is perceived; On whether industrial metropolises redefine their role in the global economy; On the extent to which they are able to build a regionwide concensus and mobilize resources towards common goals;~and, On how they alleviate the adverse affects of structural changes that occur during their transformation into knowledge centers

What is required is a ~I shift to a learning-based society where all individuals have access to the educational i resources they need in order to advance their careers. The challenge is basically one of upgrading existing institutions and of providing new institutions within the older industrial metropolises so that development can be sustained

or a consistent set of data to identify the full range of conflicts asso- ciated with a city's development over given time periods. Ideally, such a data base should be readily available for cities of different sizes and cultural settings so that general conceptualizations of conflict patterns can be hypothesized and tested.

Household Income Measures

Employment Structure of Fresno and San Antonio Metros.

ignores

being an insider to a cul-tural group necessarily means that the insiderresearcher has intimate knowledge of the par-ticular and situated experiences of all membersof the group or that generalizations can orshould be made about the knowledge the re-searcher holds about her own culture. A

I did not pursue vague statements, gener-alities, or even participant-initiated leads withfollow-up probes. “The observations . . . easily. . . overlooked” along with “the many taken-for-granted assumptions about social behavior

tancing emotionally and intellectuallyfrom the substance of the material to enhance“abstraction of models or patterns of and forbehavior” as a native researcher (Ohnuki-Tierney, 1984 p. 584) resulted instead in dis-tancing from the process of the research and theability to att

Second, as a scholar andstudent I sought a theoretical and conceptualframework for comprehending what seemed atleast to me to be some very commonplace butrarely elucidated phenomena—that is, what itmeant to be multiply stigmatized and its reflex-ive influence on one’s identity and social inter-actions. And finally, as a social welfare re-searcher I wanted to make a contribution to ourknowledge and practice foundations to enhancethe provision of services to, but ultimately thewell-being of, people of color, gay men, lesbi-ans, and others who are socially stigmatized.

marginalized as a woman and a lesbian, I amalso a descendant of Hawaiian grandparents,who were born when Hawaii was still an inde-pendent and sovereign nation and whose Japa-nese grandparents were immigrants who la-bored in the sugar cane plantations of ruralHawaii.

discuss the roles and challenges of “insider,”“indigenous,” or “native” research, which refersto conducting research with communities oridentity groups of which one is a member

imited in itspractical utility

T h e a u t h o r p r o p o s e s t h e t e r m a n a l y t i c autoethnography to refer to research in which the researcher is (1) a full mem-ber in the research group or setting, (2) visible as such a member in publishedtexts, and (3) committed to developing theoretical understandings of broadersocial phenomena

if the scholar wishes to understand the actions of people it is necessary forhim to see their objects as they see them’

study social inequality and power.

identity negotiations that characterize ‘doing fieldwork’ are a key element ofthe process of becoming a

it enables researchers to engage with their surround-ings, the community under study, and their own understandingof the way in which the knowledge produced can or will beharnessed by the scholars themselves or policy makers with aninterest in the research and the community.

Volume 17: 1–13

Postcolonialscholars argue that cognitive injustice—the

Viewedthrough Fraser’s justice framework, more subtle powerimbalances come into view. The initiative was framedlargely by and through a scientific and technical lens.Participants were not provided with opportunities toreframe issues to fit their own needs and circumstancesbut were asked to work within existing frameworks setout by the United Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change. Opportunities for response were sig-nificantly circumscribed by closed, voting-style ques-tions.

orld Wide Views (WWViews) is a timelyexperiment in forging global spaces for public dialoguethat simultaneously works within as well as transcendsnational borders (Blue, 2015). WWViews marks animportant innovation in scaling up formal publicengagement by connecting people from variousnation-states to discuss issues of global importancesuch as climate change.

Formal invited partici-patory initiatives differ from informal uninvited citizenengagement initiatives such as protests and boycotts

Climatejustice frameworks highlight the uneven distribution ofduties, burdens, and benefits of environmental changeacross social groups and spaces.

addressing therange of claims, demands, and concerns planners

who is included in participatory initia-tives, who defines the meaning of public issues, bywhat procedures, and in what place is as important asever, particularly because citizen participation is notnecessarily inclusive, egalitarian, or progressive

we pro-pose to enhance her conceptualization of participationwith the help of Nancy Fraser’s model of justice inwhich parity of participation is the normative aim.

popular framework foradvancing, evaluating, and critiquing practicalinstances of citizen participation

we offer suggestions forhow planners can apply a justice framework to improve participatory practice. Planners can a) requireappropriate procedures to ensure that all relevant people and perspectives are represented at the appro-priate scale; b) ensure all perspectives—not just dominant ones—are recognized and valued; and c)respond to and mitigate the inequitable distribution of wealth and resources

ecognizing minority viewpoints and perspectives, attending to the fram-ing of public issues, and remediating inequitable social structures

Sherry Arnstein

Social justice is often considered the goal of participatoryplanning, yet justice is typically not operationalized, broadly defined, or clearly linked with participatorypractice.

he only explanation for thisdifference must be that the PRRA placed more emphasis on thesolution of the problems of slum dwellers in San Juan thanin Ponce, and therefore the projects in San Juan were betterthought out, not only in terms of planning but also in termsof the social services which were to be provided. Thissuggests that the principal objective of the Slum ClearanceDivision of the PRRA was to provide homes for the residentsof the "Miranda" and "La Perla" slums of San Juan.105 Thefact that the architect did not provide a design or asuggested location for the school and the community centerin "Morell Campos" certainly supports this idea.

hearchitect did not follow the principles used in the planningof the "Eleanor Roosevelt" complex other than the orthogonal

In Ponce, to the south of the island, the PRRAallocated $500,000 for the development and construction of aworkers' settlement as part of the Slum Clearance Program.

was a tract housing complex or"urbanizacion" of which two were developed, the "EleanorRoosevelt" and the "Morell Campos" housing complexes.

The superblock was Radburn's basic design unit.Instead of the traditional 200 foot by 600 foot blocksorganized using grid patterns Radburn used a superblocksurrounded by a road which directed traffic around ratherthan through the community which provided an interior area10 to 15 times the size of the traditional block forrecreational purposes.

o her the planners' ideas of community wassynonymous with village.6

The fundamental concept behind the plan for theGreenbelt Towns came from Ebenezer Howard's Garden Cityideas in England which had led to Radburn in the UnitedStates with its reliance on the neighborhood unit.

The American GardenCity and the New Town Movement, "the decision to buildcities was of profound importance since it signified anunderstanding that housing was only one dimension of theproblem. More fundamental was the generaldisenfranchisement of the poor who lacked voice andinfluence.1,6

Rexford Guy Tugwell convinced the President tofund the Greenbelt Town program in the United States throughthe Unemployment Appropriation Act which Congress was thenconsidering

hePublic Works Administration (PWA) and the ResettlementAdministration (RA). The PWA's projects were merely housingdevelopments, while the RA's goal was to build completetowns in which healthy communities could develop.

uerto Rico the PRRA began a program, within the economicreconstruction, for the building of new housing units forlow-income families under the agency's Slum ClearanceDivision, headed by Manuel Egozcue.

From this statement we can conclude that the socialagenda was not the only reason for conducting the slumeradication program. In fact for some people the provisionof adequate housing for workers of low income was not themost important result which would come from the eradicationof slums.

s it isgenerally understood that it is the federal government'sintention to stimulate the tourist trade in all overseaspossessions, I repeat my hope that an allocation ofmoney will be made in the near future to provideadditional facilities for the accommodation oftourists

theya i_cq fdcsd two of ths main tourist srrivsl zonss of thsisland.

The PRRA Slum Clearance Divisiondesigned three urban projects.

Tugwell was surprised by the lack ofsanitation in the many houses built over swamps.45 Hesuggested, as a possible solution to the slum problem, thata governmental housing corporation be created to builddwellings at an approximate cost of three to five thousand

The overall opinion of theofficials in charge of the projects was that it was "amistake to invest public funds in a housing development andthen to dispose of lands and houses to individuals" becausethe low income families receiving the aid liquidated theirequities "frequently at a discount to others not needing thesubsidy.

In 1886, Adolfo Nones, Dario Laguna, andRafael del Valle were responsible for the establishment ofthe "Aldea Daban" in the "Barrio Sabanahoyos" in Arecibo.This was the first slum clearance project developed on theisland.

he slums grew rapidly due to social, as well aseconomic, changes in Puerto Rico. Probably the mostimportant socioeconomic change came about from 1900 to 1930when absentee sugar corporations bought large quantities ofthe island's sugar land. This created a new proletariat andaggregate classes which worked the land but did not own it.

Slums, as defined by the Law number 264 of 1945, arethose urban or suburban sections consisting of unhealthy anddangerous structures

1937 the United States Housing Act founded thelow-income public housing program

National Industrial Recovery Actof 1933 authorized the use of federal funds to finance theconstruction of housing in order to replace the slumdwellings.

federal laws of the 1930s wererelated, in one way or another, to a massive program ofeconomic and social reconstruction under the leadership ofPresident Roosevelt

Lawnumber 53 of 1921, known as "Hogar Seguro" of Puerto Rico,created the workers' settlements with the dual purpose ofproviding adequate housing for laborers, artisans, andpublic workers and guiding an orderly urban development.

6 of 1920authorized the Commissioner of the Interior to acquire, aswell as build, houses for low-income families.

1906, the Puerto Rican Municipal Law authorized the variousmunicipalities to acquire lots in rural areas for thefounding of settlements

main objective was theredistribution of land, was the Homestead Act of 1903.

n March 1934, Mr. Rexford Guy Tugwell, United StatesAssistant Secretary of Agriculture, and Mrs. EleanorRoosevelt visited Puerto Rico. Both were struck by thesubhuman conditions in which the working class was living.It was because of their input and concern for these familiesthat a low-cost housing program was rapidly developed as oneof the most important elements of the plan for the island'sreconstruction.

ntersectionality-Based Policy Analysis (IBPA) aims to enhance the decision-making capacity of a wide range of stakeholders,

power operates at discursive and structural levels to exclude particular knowledges and experi-ences (Foucault, 1977)

The discursive approach has an advantage over less reflexive methods in that it can attempt to uncover the hidden assumptions and biases of language and

Contingent valuation has become very prevalent in the last decade or so as method of assigning monetary values to non-market ‘goods and services so that those values can be included in a benefit cost or other policy analysis (Mitchell and Carson 1989).

Collective decision making requires both descriptive and prescriptive knowledge. Prescriptive, or normative, understanding must rest upon a theory of human action, including decision making.

rank correlation analysis, using Kendall's tau-c. For this purpose the three urban renewal status classes are assumed to constitute a scale. Evidence that such an assumption is reasonable is present in Tables 1 and 3.

the concentration of power is posi- tively and significantly associated with ur- ban renewal success under virtually all con- ditions of control

The hypothesis is: MPO ratios are lowest in urban renewal cities that have reached the execution stage and highest in cities that have never attempted urban renewal. Drop- out cities are expected to occupy an inter- mediate position between the polar classes.

Two other controls having to do with the socioeconomic level of the resident pop- ulation are used

ual, this study examines the relationship of the extent of power concentration to urban renewal success. The ratio of managers, proprietors, and officials to the employed labor force measures the concentration of power, and success in urban renewal is represented by arrival of cities at the execution stage in that pro- gram. The relationship is found to be statistically significant and remains so under a series of controlled observations

The average acreage involved in urban renewal projects in the 253 cities that were in the program in mid- 1959 was 78.6 per city, or about one-eighth of a square mile. But one-fourth of all ur- ban renewal acreage was contained in five cities; half the total was in nineteen cities. In the remaining cities the average acreage per city was 42.5, or a little over one- sixteenth of a square mile.

Whether urban renewal is a form of col- lective action that would call into opera- tion the organization of the entire com- munity may be debatable

Since the significance of the number of functions varies with the number of all other functions (i.e., the size of the employed labor force), it should be ex- pressed as a ratio to the latter. Hence the lower the ratio of managers, proprietors, and officials7 to the employed labor force the greater is the concentration of power. (This measure will hereafter be called the MPO ratio.

Now let me propose that the greater the concentration of power in a community the greater the probability of success in any collective action affecting the welfare of the whole

Power, in most sociological studies, is con- ceived as the ability to exercise influence in a decision-making process

alternative way of treating the matter

it seems to me, is a disability inherent in a social-psychological approach to the study of community struc- tur

sophisticated start with the assumption that managers and proprietors are the principal power figures and use their sociometric tools to discover how members of an elite are grouped about various kinds of issues to form power cen- ters

at all. Through an awareness of intersectionality, we can better acknowledge and ground the differences among us and negotiate the means by which these differences will find expression in constructing group politics.

rms of Global Systems, but we do need an earth- wide network of connections, including the ability partially to translate knowledges among very different-and power-differenti- ated - communities. We need the power of modern critical theories of how meanings and bodies get made, not in order to deny meanings and bodies, but in order to build meanings and bodies that have a chance for life.

were of aid in this approach, especially anglo- phone object relations theory, which maybe did more for U.S. socia

ht our own doctrines of objective vision. Marxist starting points offered a way to get to our own versions of stand- point theories, insistent embodiment, a rich tradition of critiquing hegemony without disempowering positivisms and relativisms and a way to ge

Arguments for “it depends.”

rguments for a lot of prior instrumentation.

Arguments for little prior instrumentation.

he person describing his or her “life world” dis- covers new relationships and patterns during the interview; the researcher who occasionally “summarizes” or “re- flects” what has been heard is, in fact, condensing and interpreting the flow of meaning.

how you will get that information.

ult to provide workable guidelines here.

Time Required

, why did focus groups virtually disappear from the social sciences during the next three decades?

he on-line search referred to previously revealed three basic uses for focus groups

City Manager Michael O’Brien frequently notesthat PILOTs are based on mutual benefits andmutual goals; underlying the agreements is a recog-nition that the success of the city depends on thenonprofits and vice versa, and that both sides ben-efit from economic development, nicer parks, andsafer streets.

the taskforce recommended extending the program to allnonprofit groups, which means placing more empha-sis on museums, cultural institutions, and second-ary education institutions (none of which were in-cluded in the task force).

The Boston city government initiatedcommunication with a nonprofit with the objective ofreaching a PILOT agreement when it expanded itsreal estate holdings, particularly when it acquiredtaxable property and applied for tax exemption, orwhen it embarked on a construction project

the antitax climate may leadmore municipalities to consider PILOTs,

Growing scrutiny of the nonprofit sector may alsoplay a role in the growing use of PILOTs

press accounts suggest interest in PILOTshas been growing since the early 1990s and evenmore so in recent years

ince 2000, PILOTs havebeen used in at least 117 municipalities

we exclude other types ofpayments that are sometimes termed PILOTs, in-cluding incentives that local governments sometimesoffer to businesses for which they make PILOTs in-stead of paying full property taxes

municipalities try to addressthose fiscal pressures by seeking payments in lieu oftaxes (PILOTs) from tax-exempt nonprofits.

Payments in Lieu of TaxesBy Nonprofits: Case Studies

can further our understanding of the process and assist in devising strategies forimplementing programs that help financially support local government while not being overlyburdensome on the organizations that often provide essential community services. Furthermore,this study examines the use of PILOTs as part of a larger strategic effort to build strong and vibrantcommunities

many communities are thehome to a number of organizations thatoperate as tax-exempt entities

Successful conversations should meet thefollowing objectives:Recognize the unique nature and contri-butions of each nonprofit organizationwithin a community.Strive to create a collaborative environ-ment where all stakeholders have a voice.Utilize an outcomes-based evaluationprocess in which nonprofit organizationsare encouraged and assisted in evaluatingtheir government footprint.

Urban Institute andBrookings Institution estimate that in 2008 property taxes were the largest sources of local

here are a few variables that the local governmentadministrator does have control over

to gain an understanding of thescope of payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) in Illinois municipalitie

Findings

Institutional Post-Secondary Educational Data System (IPEDS) to identify a population of eligible universities.

Democracy Collaborative contributes another framework

action agenda’

This study uses these frameworks to consider the normative question posed by the lit-erature: what are and/or what should anchor institutions be pursuing?

university anchor as city developer and planner

Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land Grant Universities in 1996

What revitalization strate-gies do university anchors employ and how do these approaches compare to anchor institution models?

he first was the designation of the Office of University Partnersqhips (OUP) and federal grants for Community Outreach Partnerships Centers (COPC) by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

fourth period largely emphasized outreach (and avoided physical intervention), including civic engagement, academic-based community research, and service learning

World War II, as university anchors pursued direct intervention in neighborhoods to eliminate blight and expand the campus footprint.

The settlement house movement offers a prime example

University and the Urban Laboratory

Morrill Act of 1862 (Act) represents the first federal intervention

Although institutional immobility and regional economic ties characterize anchor institutions, they do not account for the motivations driving universities to invest in their neighborhoods.

he Aspen Institute first coined the term anchor institution in a 2001 study, defining it as an urban institution with “significant infrastructure in a specific community [that is] therefore unlikely to move” (Fulbright-Anderson, Auspos, & Anderson, 2001)

bsence of services and major stakeholders in urban communities.

article proposes a new anchor typology that accounts for the ways institutions are defining their revitalization approaches in practice.

institution model, revealing key differences from the contemporary frameworks in the field.

it analyzes university anchor survey responses to identify trends in their revitalization activities and to highlight differences between theory and practice.

First, the study reviews historic precedents for anchor institutions and examines contemporary anchor frameworks, identifying the assumptions and best practices embedded in anchor institution theory.

This study uses contemporary anchor institution frameworks

ome universities are pursuing another role as an anchor institution

evidence-based outcomes of anchor revitalization strategies, as well as potential challenges and opportunities for neighborhoods (

Scholars have studied this phenomenon for more than a decade, defining and building theory, examining case studies, and identifying best practices.

Some scholars sugges

It remains to be seen how these different styles of educational partnerships and investments will influence neigh-borhood revitalization or compare with University City’s experience with the PAS, but the willingness of universities to commit financial resources to K-12 strategies indicates they think the benefits will be worth the cost.

Since Penn invested in the PAS, a number of urban universities have replicated the neighborhood school model in their revitalization strate-gies. For instance, Johns Hopkins University is a major contributor to the recently opened Henderson-Hopkins School, a K-8 public school and the centerpiece of EBDI’s efforts to stabilize East Baltimore. The school rep-resents one of the first major investments in the community in decades, providing early childhood education services and community spaces, in addition to the K-8 curriculum. Other universities have established K-12 partnerships, directing fiscal and human capital toward specific schools or public school districts. For example, Syracuse University is one of several partners involved in the “Say Yes to Education Syracuse” initia-tive, an effort that connects local partners to a national nonprofit founda-tion (Say Yes to Education) to provide year-round support to the Syracuse City School District students.

Taken together, the transformation of the PAS area implies that strong neighborhood schools are a powerful tool in an anchor institution’s efforts to stabilize and revitalize communities—and other institutions are taking note.

et, while the WPI satis-fied many of Penn’s criteria for neighborhood improvement, the analysis is relatively ambiguous from the perspective of the community. Across University City, and especially inside of the PAS, the worst indicators showed some improvement between 1990 and 2010, in spite of worsening trends in West Philadelphia. Significant improvement, however, is not uniformly evident, and socioeconomic indicators outside the PAS remain well below those of the city, as well as nearby blocks located within the PAS catchment.

would resolve market failures

often claimed more than its “share” of positive change and, as a result, buoyed the remainder of the neighborhood.

While the Census figures suggest a $34,000 gap between homes inside and outside of the PAS catchment, a more detailed assessment of real estate transactions in University City (Steif, 2013) esti-mated a $100,000+ price differential.

Inside of the PAS, owner-occupancy increased slightly from 14.53% in 1990 to 17.84% by 2010; conversely, homeownership rates fell outside of the PAS catchment. Despite claiming incrementally more owner-occupants than the PAS area in 1990 (17.89%) and 2000 (19.13%), the homeownership rate outside of the PAS decreased to 16.01% in 2010.

Despite the WPI’s emphasis, the neighborhood’s homeownership rate remained steady.

ing to Penn’s Department of Residential Services, in 2013, approximately 27% of Penn undergraduates (2,800) and 30% of graduate students (3,500) lived off-campus in University City—a stark improve-ment over the mid-1990s. Yet, Penn’s estimated off-campus student popu-lation accounts for less than 15% of the neighborhood’s total population and, geographically speaking, the concentration of students tends to dimin-ish as one moves beyond a three- to four-block radius from campus.

This is not surprising, given the neigh-borhood’s association with a college campus, but it is not the only explana-tion.

As described earlier, a major thrust of the WPI was to increase homeown-ership, thereby mitigating abandonment and stabilizing blocks within University City. While 1,000 university-affiliated households have partici-pated in Penn’s homeownership and home rehabilitation programs since 1998, nearly 46,500 people lived in the neighborhood in 2010. How much of an effect could these programs have? The answer appears to be not very much.

The neighborhood outside of the PAS is characterized by continued decline—median household incomes fell by 30% between 1990 and 2010 and its poverty rate exceeded the city’s, as well as the PAS area’s, by approximately 10% in 2010. The overall trends for University City, discussed previously, mask the observed socioeconomic divergence between the areas inside and outside of the catchment zone. In fact, it appears that the PAS area served as the bright spot in University City during the WPI years, while the remainder of the neighborhood experienced continued eco-nomic decline.Housing tre

wealth front, Philadelphia’s poverty rate steadily increased

Philadelphia’s long-term trajectory follows that of many former-manufactur-ing centers across the Northeastern and Midwestern United States.

he remainder of this article explores patterns of socioeconomic and demographic change in University City. It begins with a brief discussion of neighborhood change in the city of Philadelphia, which provides context for University City’s experience. Subsequently, the discussion turns to change in University City and the larger West Philadelphia neighborhood, as well as disaggregated change within University City in relation to the PAS catchment area.

Since 1998, Penn has invested $165 million in University City development proj-ects, including a neighborhood grocery store, movie theater, restaurants, and a hotel; in doing so, the university has leveraged more than $700 million in private capital (Division of Facilities and Real Estate Services, University of Pennsylvania 2012). These projects contribute more than 400,000 square feet of retail space to the neighborhood with occupancy rates consistently outpac-ing Center City rates between 2003 and 2010.

Between 1996 and 2009, the num-ber of safety personnel employed by or affiliated with Penn more than dou-bled from 269 personnel to 618. The UC Bright program facilitated the installment of more than 850 pedestrian lights, focused on commercial cor-ridors and residential properties throughout the district. Reported crimes against property and person decreased by 50% between 1996 and 2009, from 1,589 crimes to 797 (Department of Public Safety, University of Pennsylvania 2010)

leverage the university’s financial, organizational, and human capi-tal to improve the neighborhood and catalyze outside investment.

According to a university-commissioned report, Penn saw four potential responses to their environ-ment: (1) engage in community service activities with the neighborhood, knowing that these activities may not address decline in a significant way; (2) reconceive of the Penn campus as a fortress, building walls, gates, and check-points to barricade the institution from decline; (3) vacate the existing West Philadelphia campus and relocate to a more stable location; or (4) develop a broad neighborhood revitalization strategy supported by substantial institu-tional resources (Kromer and Kerman 2005).

The WPI: Penn’s Investment in PlaceIn the early 1990s, University City, and the larger West Philadelphia com-munity, reflected the experience of many neighborhoods across the city of Philadelphia, as well as urban centers across the country (Kromer 2010; Kromer and Kerman 2005; Rodin 2007). High crime rates, property aban-donment and disinvestment, increasing poverty levels, and declining public schools characterized the neighborhood.

is more common to find neighborhood stake-holder and advocate protests to recent university investments in the popular press than in the academic literature

The qualitative sample is narrow and represents a limited segment of the West Philadelphia population. While the study’s scope does not invalidate its find-ings, it does constrain its ability to offer generalizable insights and limits its usefulness when evaluating the highly complex nature of neighborhood revitalization.

Etienne’s (2012) book, Pushing Back the Gates, represents one of the most visible critical accounts of university–community engagement.