Community Economic Development
Abstract and Keywords
Community economic development (CED) is an integrated and community-driven approach to development aimed at generating wealth, capabilities, and empowerment in low-income and low-wealth communities. Nonprofit organizations partner with public and for-profit interests to develop social and economic investment strategies for community economic renewal and revitalization. Social workers in CED engage in interdisciplinary work in community organizing, leadership development, program development and implementation, social-service management, and policy advocacy. To achieve large and sustainable success, CED requires solidarity with and investment in poor communities by society as a whole.
Community economic development (CED) is an integrated and community-driven approach to development that aims to build wealth, capabilities, and empowerment in low-income and low-wealth communities (Midgley, 1995). The CED approach addresses structural inequality through community engagement and interventions that promote social and economic development in communities (Rubin & Sherraden, 2004; Sherraden & Ninacs, 1998).
Community economic development has roots in the work of early settlement houses and mutual aid societies and was influenced by civil rights movements of the 20th century and advances in international community development (Halpern, 1995; Midgley, 1995; von Hoffman, 2012). Persistent disinvestment, discrimination, neglect, and exclusion convinced leaders that development would have to be actively organized and promoted from within communities. Nonprofit organizations took the lead, with for-profit and public partners, in developing housing, businesses, employment, and social services. In the United States, aided by federal policies and programs, such as the War on Poverty programs in the mid-1960s and the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, early successes included modest increases in ownership among the poor and minorities (Braunstein, 2007; Halpern, 1995; Immergluck, 2004).
Beginning in the 1980s, changes in domestic economies driven by globalization, persistent forms of discrimination, and growing inequality exacerbated by funding cutbacks contributed to challenges faced by poor communities (Conley, 1999; Massey & Denton, 1993; Oliver & Shapiro, 2006; Sassen, 1998; Venkatesh, 2006; Wilson, 1996). In response, CED practitioners adopted intermediary roles, directing resources and technical assistance to poor communities and attempting to reverse the flow of capital out of communities (Carr & Tong, 2002; Ferguson & Stoutland, 1999; Murphy & Cunningham, 2003). The economic recession of 2008, which resulted in high rates of home foreclosures in low-income and minority communities, further exacerbated inequality and poses even greater challenges to CED practice (Bocian, Li, Reid, & Quercia, 2011).
In recent years, communities have pursued CED as a part of broader comprehensive community initiatives. Comprehensive community initiatives are comprehensive, place-based, community-building efforts (Kubisch, Auspos, Brown, & Dewar, 2010). Funded by local and national foundations, as well as the federal government (Smith, 2011), comprehensive community initiatives bring together the work of human services and economic development to support neighborhood revitalization (Kubisch et al., 2008).
Theories and Models
Community economic development attempts to “humanize” capitalism by buffering the effects of the market through regulation, subsidies, and social innovation. According to Halpern (1995), CED is a “model for communities to regain a measure of control over capital and balance its use for private and public purposes” (p. 142).
Although there is no integrated theory of CED, it is based on three basic premises (Wiewel, Teitz, & Giloth, 2008). One premise of CED is the importance of building financial and tangible assets in communities. In this sense, CED aims to help reverse a historical legacy of oppression, discrimination, and public policies that have denied, discouraged, and appropriated wealth from poor and minority communities (Butler, 1991; Gordon Nembhard & Chiteji, 2006; Oliver & Shapiro, 2006). At the community level, investments in families, housing, employment, businesses, infrastructure, and green space build community and household assets.
Another premise of CED is the importance of building social capital and civic capacity. Social capital is the bonds of solidarity and trust among people that lead to reciprocity and increased access to resources. Social capital is a form of capital interchangeable with financial and human capital (Portes & Mooney, 2005). As social capital increases through CED, community residents may be better prepared to realize and control capital for community benefit and to build capacity for subsequent development (DeFilippis, 2001a; Woolcock, 1998). Civic capacity refers to the social and political ability of communities to build, maintain, and mobilize coalitions to solve community problems (Stone, Henig, Jones, & Pierannunzi, 2001).
Finally, to achieve broad-based economic development that benefits low-income and low-wealth communities, CED practice includes grassroots organizing, legal advocacy, and coalition building (Cummings, 2002; Murphy & Cunningham, 2003; Rubin & Rubin, 2007). In these ways, CED empowers communities in challenging an unfettered free market, aiming for development through social and economic investment and economic justice (Midgley & Livermore, 2006).
Community Economic Development Strategies
Historically, CED began with housing development, but expanded to include microfinance, community finance, commercial and industrial development, social services, and job creation, training, and placement (Ferguson & Dickens, 1999; Murphy & Cunningham, 2003). In recent years, CED practitioners also included sustainable development and environmental justice (Solitare & Lowrie, 2012). Organizations often combine approaches to address community problems in a more comprehensive way and, increasingly, incorporate evaluation that measures outcomes and impacts from the start.
Affordable housing strategies for rental, ownership, and co-ownership increase household assets, provide construction and other jobs, and contribute to family and neighborhood stability. Housing development can reverse economic deterioration, increase the local tax base, and improve community safety and local pride. Some communities adopt land trusts, historic districts, and housing trust funds.
Business renewal and development takes several forms, such as business clusters and incubators, microenterprises, social enterprises, and local and green business associations, which provide goods and services to the local community and generate a larger tax base (Balkin, 1989; Hess & Winner, 2007; Sherraden, Sanders, & Sherraden, 2004). Further, business development may increase local ownership, employment, and economic and social investments by local entrepreneurs, as well as safety and community pride.
Community finance and microfinance support community development initiatives, social enterprises, financial inclusion, anti–predatory lending campaigns, and regulatory initiatives (Benjamin, Rubin, & Zielenbach, 2004; Brown, 2008; Caskey, 1994, 2005; Squires, 2004). Local finance organizations—such as community development finance institutions and mainstream banks—invest in housing and other local development (Ridley-Duff & Bull, 2011). The CED programs also build financial capability in financially vulnerable households, including people with low incomes, minorities, people with disabilities, older adults, women affected by domestic violence, children, immigrants, and others (Sherraden, 2013). Activities include quality formal financial services; homeowner counseling and foreclosure prevention; financial education, counseling, and mentoring; tax assistance and help filing for the Earned Income Tax Credit; and savings programs, such as Individual and Child Development Accounts, and savings circles (see, for example, Barr, 2012; Collins & O’Rourke, 2009; Retsinas & Belsky, 2005; Sherraden, 2011; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2011).
Workforce development and employment programs focus on creating businesses, helping people develop job skills and career paths, locate jobs, and find means of transportation; retaining employed residents; and combating discrimination (Dickens, 1999). Some CED programs focus on training employees or creating internships in community-based businesses and social services.
When environmental issues are incorporated into CED, a more holistic approach to “community-based sustainable economic development” (Bullard & Johnson, 2000, p. 559) can emerge. Addressing local issues such as sustainable development and environmental cleanup catalyze broader CED efforts (Carter, 2006; Rogge, Davis, Maddox, & Jackson, 2005). For example, transit-oriented development may generate use of public transit, healthy lifestyles, and access to jobs (Belsky & Fauth, 2012). Urban greening and community gardens may engage local citizens, nonprofits, and public officials in collective CED action (Hess & Winner, 2007). Brownfield redevelopment can be another form of locally driven CED, as degraded environments are converted into viable economic resources for local communities (Dull & Wernstedt, 2010; Solitare & Lowrie, 2012).
Finally, CED strategies include quality education, health care, and human services, such as day care, youth development, and social services. Education, health care, and human services have become more prominent strategies as CED is integrated into broader comprehensive community initiatives that combine people- and place-based strategies (Belsky & Fauth, 2012; Kubisch et al., 2008). For example, New York’s Office of Financial Empowerment is integrating financial help for residents of the poorest city boroughs into human services (NYC Office of Financial Empowerment, 2011).
Types of CED Organizations
Community economic development organizations may be for-profit, public, or nonprofit organizations whose missions address community economic and social development. However, nonprofit organizations form the backbone of CED work. Projects may be owned by CED organizations wholly, in a cooperative, or in partnership with private or public interests. As partnerships form and spawn new organizations, the boundaries across for-profit, nonprofit, and government organizations become murky. This blurring has contributed to growth of social enterprises and the so-called “social economy” (Light, 2006).
Social action groups, neighborhood associations, cooperatives, human service organizations, and other types of community organizations engage in CED, but community development corporations are explicitly devoted to CED (Peirce & Steinbach, 1990; Vidal, 1992; Walker, 2002). Community development corporations bring together local residents and leaders (along with representatives of business and the public sector) and community development professionals to engage in planning and implementation. The organizations themselves employ people with diverse training and background, including community residents and leaders, housing specialists, financial experts, business developers, and social-service professionals. Although CED aims to engage local residents, evidence on community control is mixed, suggesting that although the community may have a voice, the poorest tend to be less well represented than the more powerful, including professionals and business stakeholders (Stoutland, 1999). Some scholars suggest severing the link between community development corporations and community organizations in a way that allows community development corporations to pursue development objectives and permits community organizations to focus on organizing and build local power (Stoecker, 2008).
Funding for CED comes from public and private sources. Public funding is direct (such as health reform, transportation, and charter-school financing) and indirect (such business tax credits and Earned Income Tax Credits). Private funding comes from foundations and individuals. National intermediary organizations—such as Local Initiatives Support Corporation, Enterprise Community Partners, Living Cities, Opportunity Finance Network, and NeighborWorks—support CED efforts and also provide financial and technical assistance. Community Development Financial Institutions are specialized financial institutions that serve lower income communities, such as community development credit unions, community development funds and banks, community foundations, and unregulated venture capital funds (Murphy & Cunningham, 2003; http://www.cdfifund.gov/what_we_do/programs_id.asp?programID=9).
The Potential of CED and Challenges for Sustained Development
Community economic development uses an array of social investment strategies that build community capacity, encouraging communities to address current challenges and create sustainable resources for future development (Nussbaum, 2002). Poor communities possess actual and potential strengths that are a basis for development (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993).
Although CED initiatives have achieved noteworthy success in generating innovations and contributing to local development, CED programs are frequently fragile, small, and vulnerable. Public and private resources are often lacking for CED in poor communities, whereas wealthier communities benefit from an array of public and private investments, such as grants, credit, tax subsidies, infrastructure outlays, and services (DeFilippis, 2001b). As a community development approach, CED is unable to solve the core issues of poverty and exclusion on its own, the origins of which lie in forces well beyond the borders of poor communities (Brown, 2008; Halpern, 1995; Stoecker, 2008).
Thus, a social and economic justice perspective demands more than CED. For CED to achieve large and sustainable successes, resource distribution, regulation, and consumer protection are essential (Barr, 2012; Kubisch et al., 2008; Sherraden, 1991). This includes tangible resources (for example, assets, infrastructure, social assistance), as well as intangible resources (for example, social status and civil, property, and political rights) that form the basis for economic strength and political agency. The success of CED requires a vision of solidarity and investment in poor communities.
Roles of Social Work
Social workers bring to CED valuable knowledge about how to work with low-income and low-wealth communities and residents (Weil, 2004). They are effective in building cultural competence and community participation, they aim for inclusion and equity for vulnerable groups, and they have essential skills in organizing, leadership development, direct practice, social-service management, policy advocacy, and research (Rubin & Rubin, 2007; Weil, 2004). The interdisciplinary focus of CED also requires that social workers develop skills in areas that are not always part of the social-work curriculum, including resource development, financial education and management, consumer law, tax policy, advanced technology, and urban planning (Birkenmaier, Sherraden, & Curley, 2013; Rubin & Sherraden, 2004). Social workers also can play a role in research and evaluation, including the use of multiple methods, geocoded data, and participatory research (Brown, 2010; Coulton, Chan, & Mikelbank, 2011; Minkler, Garcia, Rubin, & Wallerstein, 2012). Looking ahead, social workers have the opportunity and potential to play key leadership roles in community social and economic development, a vital area of community practice (Weil, 2004).
Balkin, S. (1989). Self-employment for low income people. New York, NY: Praeger.Find this resource:
Barr, M. S. (2012). No slack: The financial lives of low-income Americans. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Find this resource:
Belsky, E. S., & Fauth, J. (2012). Crossing over to an improved era of community development. In N. O. Andrews & D. J. Erickson. (Eds.), Investing in what works in American communities. San Francisco, CA: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and Investing in What Works for USA. Retrieved August 10, 2012, from http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/w12-7_belsky_fauth.pdfFind this resource:
Benjamin, L., Rubin, J. S., & Zielenbach, S. (2004). Community development financial institutions: Current issues and future prospects. Journal of Urban Affairs, 26, 177–195.Find this resource:
Birkenmaier, J., Sherraden, M.S., & Curley, J. (Eds.). (2013). Financial capability and asset building: Research, education, policy, and practice. New York, NY, and Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Bocian, D. G., Li, W., Reid, C., & Quercia, R. G. (2011, November). Lost ground, 2011: Disparities in mortgage lending and foreclosures (CRL Research Report). Durham, NC: Center for Responsible Lending. Retrieved August 10, 2012 from http://www.responsiblelending.org/mortgage-lending/research-analysis/Lost-Ground-2011.pdfFind this resource:
Braunstein, S. F. (2007, October 24). The Community Reinvestment Act and fair lending examination processes. Before the Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives. Retrieved from August 10, 2012 ://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/braunstein20071024a.htm
Brown, J. (2008). Social investment for community development: Completing the half-built house. London, England: New Economics Foundation. Retrieved August 10, 2012 from http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/entry/social-investment-for-community-developmentFind this resource:
Brown, P. (2010). Evaluating and learning from community change efforts. In A. C. Kubisch, P. Auspos, P. Brown, & T. Dewar (Eds.), Voices from the field III: Lessons and challenges from two decades of community change efforts (pp. 95–105). Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.Find this resource:
Bullard, R. D., & Johnson, G. S. (2000). Environmental justice: Grassroots activism and its impact on public policy decision making. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 555–578.Find this resource:
Butler, J. S. (1991). Entrepreneurship and self-help among Black Americans: A reconsideration of race and economics. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Find this resource:
Carr, J. H., & Tong, Z. Y. (2002). Replicating microfinance in the United States. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.Find this resource:
Carter, M. (2006). Sustainable solutions. Economic Development Journal, 5(2), 24–29.Find this resource:
Caskey, J. P. (1994). Fringe banking: Check-cashing outlets, pawnshops, and the poor. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Find this resource:
Caskey, J. P. (2005). Reaching out to the unbanked. In M. Sherraden (Ed.), Inclusion in asset building: Assets, poverty, and public policy (pp. 149–166). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Collins, J. M., & O’Rourke, C. (2009). Financial education and counseling: Still holding promise. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 44(3), 483–498.Find this resource:
Conley, D. (1999). Being Black, living in the red: Race, wealth and social policy in America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Find this resource:
Coulton, C. J., Chan, T., & Mikelbank, K. (2011). Finding place in community change initiatives: Using GIS to uncover resident perceptions of their neighborhoods. Journal of Community Practice, 19, 10–28.Find this resource:
Cummings, S. (2002). Community economic development as progressive politics: Toward a grassroots movement for economic justice. Stanford Law Review, 54, 399–493.Find this resource:
DeFilippis, J. (2001a). The myth of social capital in community development. Housing Policy Debate, 12(4), 781–806.Find this resource:
DeFilippis, J. (2001b). On community, economic development and credit unions: The case of Bethex FCU and the South Bronx. Working Paper Series, COMM-ORG: The On-line Conference on Community Organizing and Development. Retrieved from http://comm-org.wisc.edu/papers2001/defilippis2.htmFind this resource:
Dickens, W. T. (1999). Rebuilding urban labor markets: What community development can accomplish. In R. F. Ferguson & W. T. Dickens (Eds.), Urban problems and community development (pp. 381–424). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Find this resource:
Dull, M., & Wernstedt, K. (2010). Land recycling, community revitalization, and distributive politics: An analysis of EPA Brownfields Program support. Policy Studies Journal, 38(1), 119–141.Find this resource:
Ferguson, R. F., & Dickens, W. T. (Eds.). (1999). Urban problems and community development. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Find this resource:
Ferguson, R. F., & Stoutland, S. E. (1999). Reconceiving the community development field. In R. F. Ferguson & W. T. Dickens (Eds.), Urban problems and community development (pp. 33–68). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Find this resource:
Gordon Nembhard, J., & Chiteji, N. (2006). Wealth accumulation & communities of color in the United States: Current issues. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Find this resource:
Halpern, R. (1995). Rebuilding the inner city: A history of neighborhood initiatives to address poverty in the United States. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Find this resource:
Hess, D., & Winner, L. (2007). Enhancing justice and sustainability at the local level: Affordable policies for urban governments. Local Environment, 12(4), 379–395.Find this resource:
Immergluck, D. (2004). Credit to the community: Community reinvestment and fair lending policy in the United States. Armonk, NY: Sharpe.Find this resource:
Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A path toward finding and mobilizing a community’s assets. Evanston, IL: Institute for Policy Research.Find this resource:
Kubisch, A. C., Auspos, P., Brown, P. Chaskin, R., Fulbright-Anderson, K., & Hamilton, R. (2008). Strengthening the connections between communities and external resources. In DeFilippis, J., & Saegert, S. (Eds.), The community development reader. New York, NY, and London, England: Routledge.Find this resource:
Kubisch, A. C., Auspos, P., Brown, P., & Dewar, T. (2010). Voices from the field III: Lessons and challenges from two decades of community change efforts. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute. Retrieved August 10, 2012, from http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/docs/pubs/VoicesIII_FINAL_0.pdfFind this resource:
Light, P. (2006). Reshaping social entrepreneurship. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall, 1–7.Find this resource:
Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Find this resource:
Midgley, J. (1995). Social development: The development perspective in social welfare. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Find this resource:
Midgley, J., & Livermore, M. (2006). Development theory and community practice. In M. Weil (Ed.), The handbook of community practice (pp. 153–168). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Find this resource:
Minkler, M., Garcia, A. P., Rubin, V., & Wallerstein, N. (2012). Community-based participatory research: A strategy for building healthy communities and promoting health through policy change. PolicyLink and School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved January 15, 2013, from http://www.policylink.org/atf/cf/%7B97C6D565-BB43-406D-A6D5-ECA3BBF35AF0%7D/CBPR.pdfFind this resource:
Murphy, P. W., & Cunningham, J. V. (2003). Organizing for community controlled development: Renewing civil society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Find this resource:
NYC Office of Financial Empowerment. (2011). Municipal financial empowerment: A supervitamin for public programs. New York, NY: Department of Consumer Affairs. Retrieved August 10, 2012, from http://www.nyc.gov/html/dca/downloads/pdf/SupervitaminReport.pdfFind this resource:
Nussbaum, M. (2002). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:
Oliver, M., & Shapiro, T. M. (2006). Black wealth/White wealth: A new perspective on racial inequality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Find this resource:
Peirce, N. R., & Steinbach, C. F. (1990). Enterprising communities: Community-based development in America. Washington, DC: Council for Community-based Development.Find this resource:
Portes, A., & Mooney, M. (2005). Social capital and community development. In M. F. Guillén, R. Collins, P. England, & M. Meyer (Eds.), The new economic sociology: Developments in an emerging field (pp. 303–329). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Find this resource:
Retsinas, N. P., & Belsky, E. S. (Eds.) (2005). Building assets, building credit: Creating wealth in low-income communities. Cambridge, MA, and Washington, DC: Center for Housing Studies & Brookings Institution.Find this resource:
Ridley-Duff, R., & Bull, M. (2011). Understanding social enterprise: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Find this resource:
Rogge, M. E., Davis, K., Maddox, D., & Jackson, M. (2005). Leveraging environmental, social, and economic justice at Chattanooga Creek: A case study. Journal of Community Practice, 13(3), 33–53.Find this resource:
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2007). Community organizing and development (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Find this resource:
Rubin, H. J., & Sherraden, M. S. (2004). Community economic and social development. In M. Weil (Ed.), The handbook of community practice (pp. 475–493). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Find this resource:
Sassen, S. (1998). Globalization and its discontents. New York, NY: New Press.Find this resource:
Sherraden, M. (1991). Assets and the poor: A new American welfare policy. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Find this resource:
Sherraden, M. (2011). Asset-based social policy and financial services: Toward fairness and inclusion. In R. D. Plotnick, M. K. Meyers, J. Romich, & S. R. Smith (Eds.), Old assumptions, new realities: Economic security for working families in the 21st century (pp. 125–149). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Find this resource:
Sherraden, M. S. (2013). Building blocks of financial capability. In J. M. Birkenmaier, M. S. Sherraden, & J. C. Curley (Eds.) Financial capability and asset building: Research, education, policy, and practice. New York, NY, and Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Sherraden, M. S., & Ninacs, W. A. (1998). Community economic development and social work. Binghamton, NY: Haworth.Find this resource:
Sherraden, M. S., Sanders, C. K., & Sherraden, M. (2004). Kitchen capitalism: Microenterprise in poor households. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Find this resource:
Smith, R. E. (2011). How to evaluate Choice and Promise neighborhoods. Perspectives Brief 19. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Retrieved August 10, 2012, from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412317-Evaluate-Choice-and-Promise-Neighborhoods.pdfFind this resource:
Solitare, L., & Lowrie, K. (2012). Increasing the capacity of community development corporations for brownfield redevelopment: An inside-out approach. Local Environment, 17(4), 461–479.Find this resource:
Squires, G. D. (Ed.). (2004). Why the poor pay more: How to stop predatory lending. Westport, CT: Greenwood.Find this resource:
Stoecker, R. (2008). The CDC model of urban development: A critique and an alternative. In J. DeFilippis & S. Saegert (Eds.), The community development reader. New York, NY: Routledge.Find this resource:
Stone, C. N., Henig, J. R., Jones, B. D., & Pierannunzi, C. (2001). Building civic capacity: The politics of reforming urban schools. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Find this resource:
Stoutland, S. (1999). Community development corporations: Mission, strategy, and accomplishments. In R. F. Ferguson & W. T. Dickens (Eds.), Urban problems and community development (pp. 193–240). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Find this resource:
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2011). Homeownership counseling (GAO Publication number 11-925T). Statement of Alicia Puente Cackley, Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment. Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Find this resource:
Venkatesh, S. A. (2006). Off the books: The underground economy of the urban poor. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Find this resource:
Vidal, A. (1992). Rebuilding communities: A national study of urban community development corporations. New York, NY: New school for social research, community development research center.Find this resource:
von Hoffman, A. (2012). The past, present and future of community development in the United States. In N. O. Andrews & D. J. Erickson. (Eds.), Investing in what works in American communities. San Francisco, CA: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and Investing in What Works for USA. Retrieved January 15, 2013, from http://www.whatworksforamerica.org/ideas/the-past-present-and-future-of-community-development-in-the-united-states/#.UUhy_hyHvToFind this resource:
Walker, C. (2002). Community development corporations and their changing support systems. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Retrieved August 10, 2012, from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/310638_ChangingSupportSystems.pdfFind this resource:
Weil, M. (Ed.). (2004). The handbook of community practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Find this resource:
Wiewel, W., Teitz, M., & Giloth, R. (2008). The economic development of neighborhoods and localities. In J. DeFilippis & S. Saegert, (Eds.), The Community Development Reader. New York, NY: Routledge.Find this resource:
Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New York, NY: Vintage.Find this resource:
Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society, 27(2), 151–208.Find this resource:
The authors are grateful to Herbert Rubin for inspiration and guidance.