When pursuing the revitalization of urban neighborhoods, federal policy commonly enlists local governments in the design and implementation of programs through intergovernmental aid. Beginning in 1994, the federal Empowerment Zone (EZ) program directed $100 million in block grants to each of six cities selected through a competitive process. The program required applicants to demonstrate broad public involvement in the design and implementation of the local Empowerment Zone program, while allowing flexibility in strategic focus and the use of policy tools. While scholars have assessed similar state-level empowerment zone initiatives, Collaborative Governance for Urban Revitalization offers an in-depth, multimethod assessment of a major federal urban initiative. In this book-length evaluation of policy implementation in the original six Empowerment Zone cities, Michael Rich and Robert Stoker argue that good local governance was critical to the achievement of positive program outcomes. The authors illuminate the challenge of fostering collaborative public engagement in urban revitalization and offer a thorough assessment of the areas in which EZ cities were successful and the areas in which they fell short.

After providing historical context on federal urban policy and the origins of the Empowerment Zone program, Rich and Stoker argue that policy evaluators must give attention to the quality of local governance in addition to the traditional focus on aggregate program outcomes. In Chapter 3, the authors advance a three-part framework for assessing the quality of local governance that should influence future discussions by those designing and implementing urban revitalization initiatives. Local capacity, civic participation, and program integrity are the three organizing categories that help the authors select indicators of the quality of local governance. In Chapter 4, they deploy this framework to scrutinize the design of Empowerment Zones and their governance in the six original program cities of Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, New York, and Philadelphia. Outcomes of the EZ neighborhoods are assessed in Chapter 5 through three distinct statistical techniques. The authors investigate multiple potential outcomes ranging from improved employment levels to higher housing investment. While the analysis shows modest gains in the EZ neighborhoods, Rich and Stoker highlight the need to investigate the nuance of program performance across sites. Too many studies, they argue, lump all EZ neighborhoods together, failing to account for distinct local strategies and program goals across cities.

An in-depth investigation of two case studies allows the authors to explore the links between the quality of local governance and Empowerment Zone outcomes. In Chapter 6, Atlanta is described as a city in which public participation waned after initial strategy formulation, priorities shifted, and federal funds were left unused. According to Rich and Stoker, the explanation for poor performance was poor local governance. They conclude: “Our analysis found little evidence that the EZ initiative dramatically changed the nature and extent of collaboration among government agencies, the private and nonprofit sectors, and zone residents and community-based organizations. In short, the EZ initiative did not become the focal point around which revitalization efforts in Atlanta were centered, nor did it leave any meaningful legacy” (p. 155). In contrast, in Chapter 7, Baltimore is highlighted as a city that achieved strong local governance and positive Empowerment Zone outcomes. Baltimore went beyond fostering public involvement in strategy development and established six village centers to implement EZ programs in select neighborhoods. This structure allowed central oversight and capacity building through the Empower Baltimore Management Corporation and ongoing public involvement as programs were adapted and implemented in neighborhoods. The authors suggest that beyond favorable economic development in several program neighborhoods, the governance structure yielded a long-term impact as some village centers evolved into community development corporations that continued beyond the end of the EZ program.

Anchored by a comparison of local governance (p. 200) and socioeconomic conditions (p. 212) across the six case cities, in Chapter 8 the authors systematically make the case that local governance matters, while the evidence for competing explanations of variation in program outcomes is not consistent. The book offers a glimpse into the challenge and benefit of multimethod program evaluation. Students of political science and public affairs will benefit from considering how Rich and Stoker organize and assess evidence about the Empowerment Zone program across cities. The conclusions of the analysis are simple. The authors state: “After reviewing the evidence, we conclude that differences in revitalization outcomes are most often associated with differences in the quality of local governance: Cities that practiced good governance achieved better outcomes in their EZ neighborhoods; cities that did not practice good governance had weaker outcomes in their neighborhoods” (p. 199). They are direct about the limitations of their approach, noting: “Of course, given the limited number of cases and the many potential combinations of causal conditions, we are constrained in our ability to test all observable implications of the determinants of successful revitalization initiatives; consequently, our findings are suggestive, not conclusive” (p. 220). The book also requires careful reading to catch nuance, such as the description of the Atlanta neighborhood in which EZ resources seem to explain better outcomes, despite weak links between the EZ program and outcomes found in other census tracts (p. 150).

The collaborative governance that emerged in Empowerment Zone communities was intended to anchor federal urban policy to the local communities in which programs were implemented, while also drawing private-sector resources toward public purposes. Although the book documents the virtues of collaboration, one challenge acknowledged in the broader literature on collaboration and network governance is not engaged. Collaborative public problem solving may stand in tension with the traditional democratic institutions (see, for example, Chris Skelcher, “Jurisdictional Integrity, Polycentrism, and the Design of Democratic Governance,” Governance, 2005). For instance, Baltimore’s EZ governance approach distanced the program from the mayor and city government through the creation of the Empower Baltimore Management Corporation and village centers. If federal policy encourages collaborative local governance in program design and implementation, political science must address the consequences of new governance approaches for traditional forms of democratic representation and accountability in local government. A further exploration of the tension between emergent forms of collaborative governance and traditional venues for political decision making in the city may illuminate the challenge of productive public engagement in urban revitalization.

Still, Rich and Stoker must be given credit for challenging policymakers and scholars to think about the future of federal urban policy. Two lingering problems are acknowledged in the conclusion and require more substantial dialogue in the fields of public management and political science. First, the findings in this book point to the importance of local governance, with an emphasis on capacity; however, the authors note that investments in local capacity are rare and sometimes explicitly prohibited in federal programs. They encourage more extensive use of advance-planning grants and technical assistance to build local capacity for federal urban programs. Second, Rich and Stoker acknowledge the dynamic and changing patterns of distress in local communities, requiring fresh thinking about the role of the federal government in aiding local communities. The careful evaluation of the EZ program, as well as the book’s three-part framework for discussing local governance, will help advance this dialogue.