Return to Home Page Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Rockefeller Institute of Government
Skip Navigation

The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government

Cities and Neighborhoods Archive
(Begin Content)

Cities and Neighborhoods Archive

Government Partnerships with Faith-Based Organizations in New York State: A Case Study

This study found little evidence to suggest that faith-based organizations as a group have met with obstacles in their efforts to participate in New York's grant- and contract-funded social service programs.
Lisa M. Montiel, April 2004

Community Development Corporations and Welfare Reform: Linkages, Roles, and Impacts

A study of the impacts of welfare reform on community groups operating affordable housing developments in Atlanta, Chicago, Cleveland, Minneapolis, New York, and San Francisco.
David J. Wright, Ingrid Gould, and Michael H. Schill, 2001

Saving City Neighborhoods

Outside the glare of TV news cameras lie urban neighborhoods that have successfully withstood or avoided decline. Still others have made the heroic turn from decay to renewal. For those who care about cities — and with metropolitan areas accounting for better than 85 percent of the nation's population and economic growth, that should be just about everyone — there are lessons and energy to be drawn from these positive trends and developments as well.
David J. Wright, Rockefeller Institute Bulletin, 1999

Comprehensive Strategies for Community Renewal

Are Comprehensive Community Initiatives (CCIs) merely the latest expression of hope over experience in urban policy, or does their experience give us cause for hope? This article outlines the key features of CCIs and compares two CCIs: the Clinton Administration's Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community Initiative and The Pew Charitable Trusts' Neighborhood Preservation Initiative.
David J. Wright, Rockefeller Institute Bulletin, 1998

Empowerment Zone Initiative: New Paths to Opportunity: Job Training and Placement Activities in Selected Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community Sites

This report — one in a series conducted for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development by the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, in cooperation with Price Waterhouse, LLP — presents new findings on job training and placement activities planned and undertaken by a sample of 18 Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community sites across the nation.
Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, July 1997

Empowerment Zone Initiatives: Building a Community Plan for Strategic Change

This report places special emphasis on community participation and empowerment in the planning and governance process for the start-up of the Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community Initiative; it covers the first 18 months of the Initiative. In the typical city in the study sample, the public sector initiated the strategic planning process, played a major role in structuring and designing the process, and assumed responsibility for the day-to-day management of the process. The typical city also formed some type of steering committee or collection of task forces to organize input for the community. That input was substantial and surprisingly so, given the tight timelines leading up to and following site designation.
Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1996

CDCs and Working-Class Black Neighborhoods

The focus of this study is the revitalization of urban, working-class black neighborhoods by nonprofit Community Development Corporations (CDCs). Specifically, it documents activities of CDCs in one of New York City’s oldest working-class black neighborhoods — South Jamaica, Queens. In this neighborhood, as is the case in others like it, CDCs are attempting to reinstill the social community, characterized by greater concentrations of owner-occupied housing units, attractive properties, and a growing middle-class, by rebuilding the physical community. To this end, the CDCs in South Jamaica encourage home ownership, incumbent upgrading, and middle-class resettlement. Although their work remains challenging, it has yielded some positive results in terms of the neighborhood’s trajectory.
Michael Leo Owens, 1996

The Diversity of Majority-Black Neighborhoods

The stereotype of majority-black neighborhoods as distressed, deviant, and dangerous urban underclass communities is misleading. Majority-black neighborhoods are neither monolithic nor static. They are diverse and changing. And far too little about them is known, particularly about those neighborhoods that are working- and middle-class. The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government’s ongoing Urban Neighborhoods and Community Capacity Building Study is an effort to learn more about the diversity of majority-black as well as majority-Hispanic neighborhoods, and about efforts to stabilize and/or improve these communities. The study, which is being conducted in 16 of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas, emphasizes working- and middle-class majority-minority neighborhoods.
Michael Leo Owens and David J. Wright, Rockefeller Institute Bulletin, 1998

Flip Side of the Underclass: Working and Middle Class Urban Minority Neighborhoods

A group of faculty and students at the Rockefeller Institute began a modern look at zones of emergence, in this case applying the concept to working- and middle-class neighborhoods of African Americans and Hispanics in large U.S. cities. These neighborhoods fight hard to stave off the ills of the inner-city. They are the hidden good news for cities. They represent the flip side of the urban underclass.
Richard P. Nathan, Julian Chow, and Michael L. Owens, Rockefeller Institute Bulletin, 1995

New-Style Settlement Houses

In the first American settlement houses, socially conscious, college-educated men and women lived among poor immigrants in tenement neighborhoods. Settlement houses provided social services, special education programs, and cultural and leisure-time activities for neighborhood residents. Although some settlement houses founded at the turn of the century still exist, most are no longer in operation. Some of those that remain still go by the name “settlement house”; others now use different names, calling themselves “neighborhood centers” or “community centers.” Can settlement houses be anchors for neighborhoods that are threatened by the urban problems that besiege older industrial cities? Can they be vehicles to stabilize and promote “zones of emergence” — that is, emergent and potentially viable new middle- and working-class urban neighborhoods?
Lynn Videka-Sherman, Rockefeller Institute Bulletin, 1992

Revitalizing America's Cities

This book describes a study on a subject of increasing importance to persons interested in cities and urban policy — the causes and consequences of neighborhood reinvestment. This phenomenon is known by many names: reinvestment, rebirth, renaissance, revival, revitalization, or resettlement. For the most part, we use the term “neighborhood reinvestment” in this book. The focus of our research is on the costs in human terms of neighborhood reinvestment. Specifically, our study is about the displacement issue — the effects of neighborhood reinvestment on the people who formerly lived in reviving urban residential areas. We focus on neighborhoods where reinvestment has resulted in population shifts — the in-movement of better-off residents and the out-movement of lower-income residents. This process is often described by the British term “gentrification.”
Michael H. Schill and Richard P. Nathan, State University of New York Press, 1983