18 minute read
Quantity To Quality: Pursuing Community Wellbeing Through Economic Development
Eve Lettau / Marielle Saunders
EVE LETTAU is a second-year master’s student in city and regional planning, studying equitable economic development. She’s passionate about how good jobs create access to good housing opportunities and vice versa. Originally from the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia, she earned undergraduate degrees in economics and public and urban affairs from Virginia Tech. In her free time she spends time hiking with her two-year-old puppy or taking care of her much-too-large plant collection.
Advertisement
MARIELLE SAUNDERS is a second-year student at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. She is pursuing a Master of City and Regional Planning degree with a concentration in economic development. Marielle graduated from the University of Michigan in 2016 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in history and minors in urban studies and sustainability. She worked in Indianapolis as an AmeriCorps VISTA in workforce development and then as an economic development program assistant for LISC. Outside of work and school, Marielle loves to swim, hike, and try new food.
ABSTRACT
Economic prosperity of a community is conventionally defined by growth. However, the uneven shocks of the COVID-19 pandemic and the acceleration of climate-related hazards highlight the need for a more holistic definition of successful economic development. Alongside these external changes, the planning field is increasingly recognizing its historic role in exacerbating inequality, both in terms of economic status and health and wellbeing. Continuing with the status quo is inadequate. To truly help
communities prosper in an evolving world, economic development programs must be structured to achieve overall community wellbeing. An essential element to consider is the link between health outcomes and economic development strategies. Using three case studies, this article explores strategies that shift the economic development paradigm from pure growth to quality development and community wellbeing. Planning professionals can play a variety of roles in these strategies, building off their core skillsets as facilitators and analysts. This article concludes with recommendations for how planning professionals can craft more meaningful economic development strategies moving forward.
INTRODUCTION
The economic success of a community has long been defined by growth. Quantitative economic measures, like the number of jobs created, average wages, and rates of firm development, are often still used as the sole benchmarks for evaluating economic policies in local governments. However, planners are recognizing that these measures cannot be the only factors in pursuing or determining economic success. Instead, a focus on holistic quality of economic development is needed, with cross-disciplinary implications for constructing strategies. Indeed, the pandemic has exposed the importance of pursuing quality development to strengthen connections within and around a community, resulting in improvements in resilience and equity. Planning professionals can play an important role in this shift, whether employed in government, nonprofits, or the private sector. While this call to action is not new, this present time is ripe for change given the current conversations on climate change, race, and health in planning. A focus on community wellbeing can bridge these conversations, allowing for the development of intersectional strategies that focus on health and economic outcomes. This new approach should be grounded in the growing research area of social determinants of health, which connect social outcomes, such as wealth, to health conditions. By incorporating conversations of health into economic development strategy development, more holistic outcomes supporting the physical and economic health of the community can be achieved.
A NEW PARADIGM
Conventionally, economic development practice was ruled by growth-machine policies. These policies encouraged planning professionals to focus on pursuing the growth of liquid capital, especially related to increasing the value of real estate and attracting jobs with little concern for the improvement of human and social capital (Molotch 1976). While this information remains useful for crafting programs, the more qualitative outcomes, especially related to quality of life, were often left out of key discussions. Additionally, purely pursuing economic growth often meant racial and economic segregation persisted in many areas. As economic development evolves to consider the microeconomic levers that can be utilized, calls to consider the quality of economic growth are growing (Feldman and Storper, 2018).
In this new framework for holistic economic development, community health and
wellbeing are key components. Community health and wellbeing are determined by a complex interaction of biological, social, and individual factors (Dahlgren & Whitehead, 2006). Foundationally, community health is a product of both health risks that affect the individual and broader health inequities that affect different populations. Health inequities are influenced by broader nonbiological forces, including socioeconomic conditions, social cohesion, and others. These non-biological forces that affect health and quality of life, are referred to as the social determinants of health (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2021).
Broadly, the social determinants of health can be broken up into five categories: economic stability; access to education; quality of healthcare; environmental conditions; and social cohesion. Unlike biological factors, outcomes of these five categories can be altered by public policy. For instance, research shows that improving economic conditions can help increase wellbeing through improving physical and mental health (Dahlgren & Whitehead, 2006; Egerter et al., 2008). This is because groups with access to positions of power and resources tend to have better health outcomes than those without. Common economic measures related to wellbeing include income, wealth, rates of poverty, employment rates, education levels, and more. Health systems themselves are increasingly creating community development initiatives to improve these measures, with some promoting the leadership of nurses in establishing and building off of these types of conversations (Weston et al, 2020).
Using three case studies, this article explores varying strategies that shift the economic development paradigm from pure growth to quality development and community wellbeing. This includes strengthening relationships between small and large businesses, meeting needs across generations, and connecting jobseekers to case management practices for better quality employment. In short, quality economic development reinforces community wellbeing and helps create a resilient, equitable community. Creating these types of thoughtful economic development strategies takes time, effective stakeholder engagement, and continual iteration. This is where planning professionals can provide support: by utilizing their facilitation and community engagement skills to provide a forum for cross-disciplinary conversations about impact. This article concludes with recommendations for planning professionals in developing economic development strategies with community wellbeing in mind.
SUPPLIER DIVERSITY IN PROCUREMENT
As the pandemic continues to underscore the need for resilient supply chains, there is an increased push for large organizations to consider their role in providing communitywide benefits. Strategic or intentional procurement decisions can deliver those benefits. Procurement refers to the process of purchasing goods and services, often served by a contract. Planning professionals might interact with procurement from multiple lenses, whether via municipal contracting, small business development, or anchor institution collectives that can leverage city networks. Anchor institutions are placebound organizations that have deep ties to their location, whether through “mission,
invested capital, or relationships to customers, employers, and vendors” (Democracy Collaborative, 2013). Hospitals and universities are common examples of anchor institutions.
Intentional procurement practices can have environmental, social, and economic benefits that interact with social determinants of health. Environmentally, strategic local procurement can address emission concerns related to transporting goods, and can help create more varied, flexible procurement partners that strengthen a network’s resilience, protecting against supply disruption (Serang et. al, 2010). Socially, strategic procurement provides opportunities for underrepresented and underserved communities to build relationships with institutions, as well as for institutions to acknowledge and discuss historic inequities they may have perpetuated. Economically, strategic procurement can help a community grow, catalyzing job creation and additional local spending (Bartik and Erickcek, 2008). For a business, becoming a supplier of an institution can provide stability, create jobs, and more. Thus, ensuring a proportion of spending or contracts goes to businesses from underinvested communities can support community resilience and wellbeing.
A common way to more intentionally target businesses from underinvested communities is through supplier diversity programs, which are most often focused on purchasing from minority and women-owned businesses.1 These types of programs can be important for building community resilience, as Black-owned businesses tend to hire more Black employees than white-owned businesses (Stoll, 2001). Thus, increasing procurement with Blackowned businesses could help spur job creation in Black communities, which is typically seen as one strategy to closing the persistent racial wealth gap (Perry and Romer, 2020). As seen in the case study below, by becoming more intentional about building concrete links between businesses of varying types and supportive institutions, communities can increase their resilience and improve equitable access to economic opportunity.
Cleveland’s Greater University Circle Initiative showcases the power of anchor institutions when working towards a collective goal. The initiative is made up of the Cleveland Clinic, University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve University, the City of Cleveland, business support organizations, neighborhood organizations, workforce development organizations, and more. It began in 2005 and is now considered one of the premier examples of multi-stakeholder anchor institution engagement. Collectively, this initiative spends almost $3 billion annually, but its surrounding neighborhood traditionally has seen little of that wealth, with some of the lowest median household incomes in the city. The neighborhood also strongly reflects the city’s severe racial and economic segregation (Wright et al., 2016).
In response to anchor supply chain needs and a desire for greater community wealth, this initiative started worker-owned cooperatives that created local, green jobs
1. We use the term “minority” throughout this paper as it is the typical designation for these forms of certifications.
(Wright et al., 2016). Evergreen Cooperatives was launched by the initiative in 2009 with a commercial laundry company and an energy solutions company for commercial and residential energy saving projects. Collectively, Evergreen Cooperatives now employs over 220 people, over 100 of whom are neighborhood residents earning well above minimum wage (Pierce Lee, 2020). The initiative also took on more traditional procurement goals as well, with individual anchors such as University Hospitals setting and exceeding ambitious goals on spending locally and with minority-owned enterprises (Hospitals Aligned for Healthy Communities). For University Hospitals, this involved pairing local, more diverse firms with larger firms already experienced in the types of work needed, especially related to construction. This commitment to the community is seen at multiple levels of reporting, ensuring widespread accountability (Hospitals Aligned for Healthy Communities).
In addition to its focus on local purchasing, the Greater University Circle Initiative strengthened its small business ecosystem by providing resources for neighborhood business expansion and capacity building. The initiative’s NextStep program trained over 40 entrepreneurs on how to scale since 2014 and currently tuition is waived for businesses impacted by COVID-19. Graduates of the program have gone on to secure over $18 million in public, anchor, and corporate contracts. In addition, organizations involved in the initiative leveraged the experience of their peers in achieving supplier goals, including the creation of an ad hoc working committee of health care anchors to source more local, healthy food. Without the initiative, these conversations would not have started with the same level of trust and cooperation.
INTERGENERATIONAL HOUSING AND SHARED SPACES
Amidst the existing housing crisis in the United States, a new problem has emerged. While the number of housing units is not adequate to satisfy demand, the typology of existing units is not flexible to accommodate a rapidly aging population. By 2030, the U.S. Census Bureau projects that one in five adults will exceed retirement age. Even more extraordinarily, by the year 2034, it is expected that the number of older adults will exceed younger adults for the first time in the history of the United States (Vespa, Medina, and Armstrong 2019). While often overlooked, aging adults have specific housing needs. Some of these needs include access to services (including medical care and retail), social connectivity, and flexible and intergenerational spaces for “grandfamilies.”2
Housing is a crucial factor in community wellbeing, as evidenced by its role in the social determinants of health. The quality and location of housing severely impact the wellbeing of older adults (Sanders 2020). To add additional strain, the pandemic exacerbated housing inequalities globally, including for older adults near retirement
2. “Grandfamilies” is the term to refer to grandparent-led households with children and youths. Unique housing challenges for grandfamilies include, cost, adequate space for children, and location to educational resources, among others.
age or those who are head of household for young children. More housing is needed, but it is imperative that planners ensure housing serves the needs of future populations. The solution that focuses just on quantity, may propose that long-term care facilities or senior housing is built to address this problem. However, shifting to quality identifies solutions that not only solve the problem, but can improve senior’s quality of life and overall community wellbeing. The following case studies show how planning professionals can connect housing and economic development goals through promoting quality housing for aging adults.
Bridge Meadows Grandfamily Housing, Portland, OR
A similar link exists between housing and economic development by way of grandfamily housing. Grandfamily housing is an intentionally multi-generational housing community where grandparents taking care of young children can live in affordable homes with access to case management and programming specific to intergenerational families. Tailoring housing to address specific community needs, helps create resilient families and strong neighborhoods.
Bridge Meadows Grandfamily Housing in Portland is an example of a strong grandfamily housing program that addresses three interconnected threats to community wellbeing. The model connects children in the foster care system, their foster families, and older adults through intentional housing communities. The theory of change behind Bridge Meadows lies in the idea that relationships can help strengthen physical and emotional wellbeing for all three parties (Eheart et al. 2012). Program reporting shows that this type of housing has positive impacts for communities. Family stability, academic success, increased resilience are all benefits of this form of intentional living (Bridge Meadows 2021). This program does so much more than just provide housing. It ensures that quality housing exists to fulfil a key community need, thus strengthening community health and wellbeing more than just simply building more housing could.
CASE MANAGEMENT FOR WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
One of the main barriers to social mobility is finding stable and accessible employment opportunities. Stable employment can lead to homeownership, educational opportunities, and increased wealth. However, employment can also act as a barrier because income is needed to pursue additional opportunities. Implementing case management in workforce development can help jobseekers connect with employers, pursue necessary certifications, and develop skills needed to retain employment long-term.
Most importantly, the advocacy component of case management can help job seekers overcome common barriers to employment, such as transportation, child and eldercare, or even housing obstacles. While case managers can simply connect job seekers with jobs, quality employment leads to long term social mobility and potentially positive health outcomes. Quality case management empowers job seekers by advocating to ensure they find a job that not only meets their skills but meets their needs and provides benefits like a living wage or health care.
Stable and quality employment is linked to both individual and community health and wellbeing. Not only is just having a job
important to health, but poor-quality jobs can be detrimental to individual health (Antonisse and Garfield 2018). This highlights the importance of not just employment, but overall workforce development and personfirst case management.
Planners are commonly asked to attract jobs. While it makes sense to just assume that a simple increase in employment will increase overall community wellbeing, the quality of employment is key. The following case study shows how planners can connect and increase community wellbeing through employing case management practices in workforce development.
Mi Casa Resource Center, Denver, CO
The Mi Casa Resource Center, located in Denver, Colorado, provides case management services for adults seeking employment opportunities. They focus on providing opportunities for women, minorities, and families with limited means. They provide person-first services to job seekers including, career coaching, skills training, and connections to higher education, including the Colorado Community College system. Case management at Mi Casa is different from others because their case managers approach workforce development with a social work lens and focus on social justice, empathy, relationships, integrity, and dignity (Noll 2013).
The impacts of personalized case management on community wellbeing are measurable. According to Mi Casa, on average their career participants earn an additional $10,000 after participating in training (Mi Casa Resource Center n.d.). Additionally, students served in the Mi Casa youth program left with increased personal skills, which are necessary for long-term employment and mobility (Mi Casa Resource Center n.d.).
IMPLICATIONS FOR PLANNERS
As seen in the case studies above, multiple topics within economic development have implications for health outcomes. Building on their core skillsets, planning professionals across the public and private sectors can help align strategy development with community health and wellbeing by considering the following actions:
1. When possible, consult with health professionals on strategy development.
Provide opportunities for policymakers to better understand the links between policy and the social determinants of health.
2. Facilitate conversations and sharing of best practices among those previously working in separate silos—such as healthcare systems and economic development professionals. 3. Clarify areas of aligned interest among institutions, businesses and communitybased organizations. Consider where there is capacity for new collectives and partnerships, especially if there are existing programs that achieve common goals. As seen with the Greater University
Circle Initiative, working collectively towards shared interests can have an exponential impact. 4. Begin a community-wide conversation on how to measure community wellbeing outcomes of existing and future economic development programs and policies. Specifically consider short- and long-term health, environmental, and economic impact. The Bridge
Meadow’s example shows how policies can be tailored to maximize future impact by considering populations of different ages. 5. Discuss strategies for ethical, practical data collection using a person-first lens.
As seen in Mi Casa, employing a personfirst lens can maximize economic and non-economic factors of community wellbeing. 6. Finally, integrate community wellbeing into comprehensive and strategic planning. Municipalities should consider staffing a position to focus on social determinants of health.
In exploring whether these strategies would work for a community, planning professionals should leverage their existing knowledge of current systems and relationships in a given place. Engagement across sectors and geographies is needed to build a shared vision for community wellbeing. Equally as important is the recognition and integration of health into this vision. The pursuit of economic development has adversely impacted the economic and physical health of many neighborhoods and communities.
Planning professionals have the opportunity to address and move forward from this history by understanding and working towards holistic community benefits. The qualitative and quantitative analysis skills planning professionals possess are critical in examining areas of opportunity for this work. This is especially crucial as conversations around the role of planning in climate change and social justice continue. To truly help communities prosper in an evolving world, economic development strategies must be structured to achieve overall community wellbeing.
REFERENCES
Antonisse, Larisa, and Rachel Garfield. 2018. “The
Relationship Between Work and Health: Findings from a Literature Review.” Kaiser Family Foundation. https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/therelationship-between-work-and-health-findingsfrom-a-literature-review/. Avendano, M., & Berkman, L. F. 2014. Labor Markets,
Employment Policies, and Health. In Social
Epidemiology. Oxford University Press. https:// oxfordmedicine-com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/ view/10.1093/med/9780195377903.001.0001/med9780195377903-chapter-6 Bartik, Timothy and George Erickcek. 2008. The
Local Economic Impact of “Eds & Meds”: How
Policies to Expand Universities and Hospitals Affect
Metropolitan Economies. Brookings Metropolitan
Policy Program. Belle, D., & Doucet, J. 2003. Poverty, Inequality, and
Discrimination as Sources of Depression Among
U.S. Women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27(2), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.00090 Braveman, P., Cubbin, C., Egerter, S., Williams, D., &
Pamuk, E. 2010. Socioeconomic Disparities in Health in the United States: What the Patterns Tell Us.
American Journal of Public Health, 100(S1), S186-196. Bridge Meadows. 2021. Bridge Meadows Theory of
Change Animation. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=oQNKi8R4niY. Cohn, M. A., Fredrickson, B. L., Brown, S. L., Mikels,
J. A., & Conway, A. M. 2009. Happiness unpacked:
Positive emotions increase life satisfaction by building resilience. Emotion, 9(3), 361–368. https:// doi.org/10.1037/a0015952 Dahlgren, G., & Whitehead, M. 2006. European strategies for tackling social inequities in health: Levelling up Part 2 (p. 149). World Health
Organization. Danner, D. D., Snowdon, D. A., & Friesen, W. V. 2001.
Positive emotions in early life and longevity:
Findings from the nun study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 804–813. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.804 Eheart, Brenda Krause, David Hopping, Martha
Bauman Power, Niranjan Karnik, and Elissa
Thomann Mitchell. 2012. “Generations of Hope
Communities: Augmenting Social Services with
Neighborhood Care.” Generations of Home
Development Corporation. Egerter, S., Dekker, M., An, J., Grossman-Kahn, R., & Braveman, P. 2008. Work Matters for Health.
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. http://www. commissiononhealth.org/PDF/0e8ca13d-6fb8-451d-
bac8-7d15343aacff/Issue%20Brief%204%20Dec%20 08%20-%20Work%20and%20Health.pdf . Feldman, Maryanne and Michael Storper. 2018. Economic Growth and Economic
Development: Geographical Dimensions,
Definition, and Disparities. The New Oxford
Handbook of Economic Geography. DOI: 10.1093/ oxfordhb/9780198755609.013.13. Hospitals Aligned for Healthy Communities. University
Hospitals. https://hospitaltoolkits.org/purchasing/ case-studies/university-hospitals/. Howard, Ted. 2013. Measuring the Impact of
Anchor Institutions in Building More Sustainable
Communities. Democracy Collaborative. https:// community-wealth.org/content/measuring-impactanchor-institutions-building-more-sustainablecommunities.
Mi Casa Resource Center. n.d. “Creating Pathways to
Opportunity.” Our Impact. Accessed February 3, 2022. https://micasaresourcecenter.org/our-impact. Molotch, Harvey. 1976. “The City as a Growth Machine:
Toward a Political Economy of Place.” American
Journal of Sociology 82 (2): 309–32. NextStep Small Business Program. University Circle
Inc. https://www.universitycircle.org/work/nextstep. Noll, Stephanie. 2013. “Best Practices in Workforce
Development Case Management.” UnidosUS
Blog. March 19, 2013. https://www.unidosus.org/ blog/2013/03/19/best-practices-in-workforcedevelopment-case-management/. Pierce Lee, India. 2020. Buy Local, Hire Local, Live Local:
The Greater University Circle Model for Suitable
Development. The Dorothy A. Johnson Center. https://johnsoncenter.org/blog/buy-local-hire-locallive-local-the-greater-university-circle-model-forequitable-development/. Perry, Andre M. and Carl Romer. 2020. To expand the economy, invest in Black businesses. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/essay/to-expand-theeconomy-invest-in-black-businesses/ Sanders, Alecia. 2020. “Housing: Often Overlooked but a Critical Pillar for Older Adults.” American Society on Aging. http://generations.asaging.org/housingolder-adults-health-inequities-policy. Sanderson, Debra. 2019. “Accessory Dwellings: Help for Aging in Place.” Certified Senior Advisors Journal 73 (1). https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.csa.us/resource/ resmgr/docs/journals/journal_73/sanderson.pdf. Serang, Farzana, J. Phillip Thompson, and Ted Howard. 2013. The Anchor Mission: Leveraging the Power of
Anchor Institutions to Build Community Wealth.
The Democracy Collaborative. https://communitywealth.org/sites/clone.community-wealth.org/files/
downloads/UH-composite-online.pdf. Stoll, Michael. 2001. Why are Black Employers More
Likely than White Employers to Hire Blacks?
Institute for Research on Poverty. https://www.irp. wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp123601.pdf. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. 2021. Healthy People 2030. https://health.gov/ healthypeople/objectives-and-data/socialdeterminants-health
Vespa, Jonathan, Lauren Medina, and David M
Armstrong. n.d. “Demographic Turning Points for the United States: Population Projections for 2020 to 2060.” U.S. Census Bureau.
Wagstaff, A. 2002. Poverty and health sector inequalities. Bulletin of the World Health
Organization, 80(2), 97–105. https://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2567730/. Weston, Marla, Bich Ha Pham, and David Zuckerman. 2020. Building Community Well-being by
Leveraging the Economic Impact of Health Systems.
Nurse Administration Quarterly. https://pubmed. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32511180/. Wright, Walter; Hexter, Kathryn and Nick Downer. 2016. Cleveland’s Greater University Circle Initiative. https://democracycollaborative.org/learn/ publication/clevelands-greater-university-circleinitiative-anchor-based-strategy-change
