Today’s cities are seeking more social equity—a response in part to police violence, pandemic disparities, and the racial wealth gap. Activists, planners, and local government reformers are looking for bold examples of equity planning—single initiatives and multi-faceted equity plans. The mayoral administration of Harold Washington in Chicago (1983–1987) shows how a grassroots electoral campaign combined with participatory policy development produced the Chicago Works Together (CWT) Development Plan—that promoted jobs, neighborhoods, and citizen participation. This article recounts the development of CWT and examines the impacts of CWT for Chicago and equity planning.

Philanthropic investments in economic development-including grants, technical assistance, program-related investments, policy advocacy, and civic leadership-have increased during the past decades. Philanthropic support for economic development provides flexible, timely resources for innovation, capacity building, and policy advocacy. While philanthropy is often associated with social equity approaches, philanthropic investments in economic development are quite diverse-downtown development, place-based renewal, social enterprises, and economic development networks. This study reviews existing data about philanthropy and economic development, vignettes of foundation investments, and nonprofit perspectives about new foundation roles. Overall, place-rooted foundations are most engaged in economic development, while many national foundations are formulating broader strategic frameworks related to economic inclusion. Foundations are helping achieve concrete economic development results; future research requires improvements in data and in-depth case studies of places with significant philanthropic engagement.

Opportunity means many things-the chance to live in a supportive neighborhood, the ability to build wealth, or the ability to have transportation access to work and amenities-but above all opportunity is about the ability to obtain and retain jobs and build sustainable careers.Unfortunately, far too many people lack meaningful opportunities to obtain such employment.Analy sis of employment in several older industrial cities, for example, suggests that these cities would need to add hundreds of thousands of jobs to match employment rates in their regional metropolitan areas (Giloth and Meier 2012).Our track rec ord for closing employment gaps has been less than hoped, especially for black men and communities of color, and predictions about the future of work from automation suggest further erosion of equitable employment opportunities (Avent 2016).Jobs and careers are building blocks for house hold economies and families, healthy neighborhoods, competitive regions, and robust civic life (Wilson 1996, Wiewel andGiloth 1996).Work is a fundamental way we or ga nize our lives, build social networks, and create meaning for ourselves.A job and career provide economic resources, benefits, information, and well-being essential for pursuing a good life.Jobs are a foundation for equitable opportunity and citizenship.Economic and workforce development became core features of local and regional planning during the past fifty years.Mainstream approaches focus on overall real estate and business growth, big infrastructure, downtown revitalization, tourism, and new industries like biotechnology.An alternative approach, "equity planning," is the focus of this chapter.In contrast to traditional economic

National Civic ReviewVolume 107, Issue 2 p. 26-36 Research Article Philanthropy and Community Engagement BY ROBERT GILOTH, ROBERT GILOTHSearch for more papers by this author BY ROBERT GILOTH, ROBERT GILOTHSearch for more papers by this author First published: 06 August 2018 https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr.21361Citations: 2Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume107, Issue2May 2018Pages 26-36 RelatedInformation

Generative philanthropy is a collaborative investment practice that tests prototypes and identifies new opportunities that, over time, can focus direction and generate momentum for change. It is an incremental, decentralized approach to investment in communities. This article clarifies the theory and practice of generative philanthropy and contrast it with other approaches. It provides an in-depth discussion of the meaning of generative philanthropy, offers five examples of the approach related to economic opportunity, and draws lessons for future practice. Generative philanthropy can hopefully inspire and guide new foundation practices that pay attention to what comes next after the first or second investment of time, money, knowledge, and leadership.

Sharing and leveraging lessons learned from mistakes is an important but underutilized resource to improve philanthropic investments and nonprofit performance.Philanthropic mistakes extend beyond the results of program evaluations to include questions of mission, role, investment strategies, and implementation.Distinguishing between "constructive" and "nonconstructive" mistakes focuses attention on those factors that shape the outcomes for even the most well-designed investments.Sharing and reflecting upon mistakes has the potential to improve philanthropic capacities for anticipation, learning, and adaptation.Philanthropy must recognize the sometimes blurry lines between success and failure, constructive and nonconstructive mistakes, and philanthropic and nonprofit sector accountability.

Twentieth-century U.S. cities played decisive roles in promoting equity and opportunity for their citizens. Cities were the sources of important municipal innovations as well as the social, political, and economic battlegrounds for advancing more equitable policies and conditions. The reaffirmation and extension of civil rights, the development of a social safety net, and sustained economic growth made cities and metropolitan areas the laboratories for creating more diverse, tolerant, and equitable communities. Nevertheless, income inequality has grown in the United States by at least 12 percent, income gains and employment still lag for African American young men, and the Hurricane Katrina evacuation and aftermath have vividly shown the impact of social, economic, and racial disparities on our basic security and quality of life. Economic Development in American Cities: The Pursuit of an Equity Agenda anticipates the roles of municipal leaders and civic partners for promoting social equity in the twenty-first century by examining the experiences of a handful of cities in the 1990s. In particular, we reflect on the potential of existing and future labor and skill shortages for contributing to creating the preconditions for new local political regimes built around economic competitiveness and equity. That is, we are interested in whether the economic imperatives of tight regional labor markets translate into new civic organizing

The United States faces a looming workforce and economic crisis in the decades ahead because of the diminishing supply of skilled labor. Tight labor markets are good for low-skilled, low-income workers, but opportunities will be lost without adequate training and education in place. Lack of adequate debate about federal workforce legislation confirms the general inattention of all levels of government in taking this workforce crisis seriously. This lack of political will is compounded by institutional fragmentation in the workforce field. Employer-driven partnerships, called workforce intermediaries, are demonstrating how workforce progress can be achieved for both businesses and workers. Intermediaries are dual-customer, brokers of services, entrepreneurial, and results driven.

Scholars have applauded and critiqued the “equity” dimensions of the four‐year mayoral administration of Harold Washington in Chicago (1983–1987). Much of the debate has centered on haw to assess the progress of equity planning and implementation in specific contexts, whether it has produced concrete outcomes for poor communities, become institutionalized, or changed civic decisionmaking structures. This article attempts to capture the contested and emergent quality of equity planning in the Washington administration by examining its focus on jobs in some detail. The jobs goal–derived from neighborhood experience of economic change–became a central element of Washington's 1983 mayoral campaign and one of the key development goals of the administration. The administration pursued an array of jobs policies and programs, attempting to link economic development with employment services, hold accountable those firms receiving public incentives, retain manufacturing, and provide equitable access to city resources. By the end of Washington's first term, many economic development accomplishments had been achieved but the administration also experienced dilemmas that challenged the jobs goal and its equity potential–for example, the connection between local investment and regional and national economic policies. Consideration of the early experiences of the Washington administration in Chicago in formulating and implementing job policies and programs clarifies the difficulties of a broad‐based and sustainable equity program. These lessons are particularly useful today as many low‐income advocates, municipalities, and states struggle to reform workforce and economic development systems.

Summary Multiple and conflicting practices characterize the field of community economic development. Much of the debate about these practices revolves around different understandings of the importance of jobs, wealth, and place. No overarching definition, typology, or theory, however, offers a plausible way to resolve these conflicts about community economic development goals, levers of change, and practices. One promising approach engages the complexity rather than trying to simplify it. Metaphors are multivalent images that call attention to crosscutting issues, underlying assumptions, and hidden connections. Metaphors enable a richer and more creative reading of neighborhoods and economies when used in planning and design. This article explores six metaphors with relevance for community economic development: plugging the leaks, brokering connections, asset management, building ladders and webs, creating level playing fields, and enhancing markets. How to support this complex version of community economic development challenges the ways in which we encourage innovation, investment, and learning.

Dramatic changes in the U.S. urban labor markets have encouraged experimentation with development projects that explicitly combine poverty alleviation and economic development. A diverse set of jobs projects, which collectively might be called targeted economic development, emphasize the short-term provision of decent jobs through the integration of economic development, employment training, and human services. This review draws,on recent foundation surveys, evaluation studies, and replication efforts to describe targeted economic development strategies such as employment brokering, sectoral interventions, human services employment, spatial mobility, capitalization/enterprise development, and collaboration. Projects usually combine multiple strategies and are distinctively entrepreneurial, market oriented, networked, empowering, integrative, and community based. Many projects, however exist in isolation, a product of committed, long-term entrepreneurship. Without a more supportive policy context and set of civic resources, the major effect of targeted economic development will not be fulfilled.

This article explores how the overall policy system affects the operation of economic development programs by presenting a case study of the City of Chicago's Industrial Development Bond (IDB) program between 1977–1987. By comparing Chicago IDB recipients with a representative group of Chicago manufacturers, this case study reveals that IDBs went to a self‐selected group of manufacturers of larger size, that were already growing, but belonged to declining manufacturing sectors. Overall, despite bold promises, IDB recipients created few new jobs.

Economic developers of the 1980s in search of what works frequently visited Baltimore to witness its downtown renaissance and famed public—private partnerships. A remarkable turnabout could be observed — from the Charles Center office and retail complex, to a new convention centre, aquarium, and the centrepiece — Harborplace — a James Rouse "festival marketplace" that had transformed a down-in-themouth jumble of warehouses and piers into a food mecca for office workers and tourists. Baltimore's downtown-centred revitalisation strategy emerged over 30 years of corporate planning and an executive-centred growth coalition led aggressively by former Mayor William Donald Shaefer. Strategies became realities through a host of quasi-public corporations and the Baltimore City Trustees Loan and Guarantee Programme that provided expeditious, businesslike planning and a financing mechanism that enabled creative and secretive deal making (Levine, 1987). A successful growth coalition, however, is more than bricks and mortar. It also represents civic consensus about what types of development should be publicly supported (Shlay and Giloth, 1987). Baltimore had such a consensus. No alternative development plans captured the public imagination; nor was there anything but sporadic opposition to major Baltimore development projects; and many community activists agreed that Baltimore's declining downtown and industrial economy required decisive intervention. Despite these local growth successes, an uncertainty about Baltimore's future had set in by the mid-1980s. There were many reasons for this: