The Bottom-Up Mandate: Fostering Community Partnerships and Combating Economic Distress in Chicago's Empowerment Zone

Abstract

The Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community Initiative (EZ/EC), funded by Congress in 1994, offered geographically targeted funding and tax incentives to distressed urban communities in the US. The mandated community involvement component of the programme was meant to separate it from traditional economic development initiatives, aligning it more fully with the core goals of community economic development. Did the programmatic strategies emphasise economic development more than fostering community partnerships or vice versa? The paper examines how much emphasis was actually placed on fostering community partnerships in the programme. It also assesses how effective this initiative was at achieving socioeconomic gains. Findings indicate that the more traditional community and economic development strategies received the majority of funding, despite the mandated requirement of building community partnerships. Nevertheless, the initiative resulted in modest decreases in poverty and unemployment. The lack of emphasis on the fostering of community partnerships in Chicago's zone did not render the initiative ineffective.

Intimate Partner Violence Against Women with Disabilities: Implications for Disability Service System Case Management Practice

“…Census in 1990, with similar rates in 2000(Mason, 2006. The neighborhood is generally described as a low-income neighborhood, with one-third of the population living under the federal poverty level, despite increasing levels of gentrification in recent years and categorization as part of Chicago's economic empowerment zone (Mason; Oakley & Tsao, 2007).…”

Phase 3 empowerment zones: The case of Tucson

“…Pertinent literature on round 3 is hardly existent. Most round 1 and 2 studies suggest that the impact of the EZs on many socioeconomic variables is unclear (Oakley & Tsao, ; Oakley & Tsao, ; Smith, ).…”

“…The authors caution that low unemployment rates and high growth rates during the 1990s may have affected program's performance indicators positively. Oakley and Tsao () also study Chicago EZ and find that the EZ administration developed one‐stop workforce development center and built afterschool, daycare, and recreational facilities to improve the well‐being of the EZ residents. Despite all these efforts, the designated area remained destitute, undermining the argument for the EZ's positive externalities and its investment multiplier.…”

“…Finally, institutional and political obstacles were also impeding factors. They included inappropriate governance structure (Rich & Stoker, , , ), unfavorable institutional and political climate (Krupka & Noonan, ; Oakley & Tsao, , ; Rich & Stoker, ), and underestimated difficulty associated with the operationalization and the implementation of the strategic plans (Chaskin & Peters, ).…”

“…Pertinent literature on round 3 is hardly existent. Most round 1 and 2 studies suggest that the impact of the EZs on many socioeconomic variables is unclear (Oakley & Tsao, 2006;Oakley & Tsao, 2007;Smith, 2014). Oakley and Tsao (2006), evaluating the impact of the program on round 1 communities, find that all designated EZs, except Chicago, had limited positive results on variables such as employment and economic growth.…”