Serving UIC's Great Cities Commitment: Solutions for Today's Urban Challenges

According to newly revised Census Bureau estimates, Chicago added 22,164 residents from mid-2023 to mid-2024, making it the seventh-largest population gain among U.S. cities. This marks a second consecutive year of growth following nearly a decade of decline, reversing a narrative of urban shrinkage and aligning with broader national trends showing growth in most large U.S. cities.

The Census Bureau attributed the change, in part, to updated methods that better account for humanitarian immigration, including arrivals from Venezuela and Ukraine.

Rob Paral, Senior Researcher at the Great Cities Institute at the University of Illinois Chicago, emphasized the role of migration in driving this growth:

“There’s no question this international crisis-driven migration would have a positive population effect on Chicago,” he explained. “We’ve had tens of thousands of people arriving here.”

Paral’s remarks align with the broader observation that Chicago’s recent gains are closely tied to migration flows. The article suggests that changes in federal immigration policy could shape the city’s demographic trajectory moving forward.

From Crain’s Chicago Business (To go to the actual article, please click on this link.)

Chicago recorded the seventh-largest population gain among U.S. cities from mid-2023 to mid-2024, adding over 22,000 residents, marking a second consecutive year of growth after previous declines. The increase is largely attributed to migrant arrivals, many via buses from Texas, as well as voluntary relocation.

While city officials celebrated the growth as a sign of Chicago’s resilience, Rob Paral, Senior Researcher at the Great Cities Institute, provided a cautious perspective. He emphasized that large cities like Chicago depend on immigration for population renewal, warning that federal restrictions on immigration could reverse gains and weaken urban economies by reducing workforce and consumer bases.

Paral also contextualized broader regional trends, noting declines in inner and middle suburbs, contrasted with rapid growth in far-flung suburbs like Plainfield, Hampshire, and Elburn—areas drawing residents with affordable housing, good schools, and lower taxes.

From Chicago Tribune (To go to the actual article, please click on this link.)

Before becoming Pope Leo XIV, Robert Prevost was the youngest of three boys growing up in the tight-knit Catholic community centered around St. Mary of the Assumption Parish on the far South Side of Chicago. In the 1950s and 1960s, Catholic life in the area was active and deeply rooted, with families like the Prevosts attending parish schools and participating in church life. Over time, however, the neighborhood changed as demographic shifts and economic decline led to the closure of schools, churches, and other Catholic institutions. The once-thriving parish eventually merged with others, and its building now stands empty and deteriorating.

This transformation reflects a broader story of Catholicism in urban America, where changing cityscapes and cultural shifts have reshaped longstanding communities. Rob Paral, a researcher at the Great Cities Institute at the University of Illinois Chicago, offered a significant perspective on the pope’s upbringing. He explained that although the Prevosts worshipped at a South Side church, they lived just beyond the city line in Dolton, a working-class suburb.

Paral described the area not by what it is, but by what it is not. It is not leafy or picturesque, but instead defined by highways, industry, and railroad tracks. He emphasized that Pope Leo comes from what he called the grit and the real Chicago, a part of the region more reflective of the southern suburbs than the wealthier north and west. According to Paral, this background situates the pope’s story in a setting marked by authenticity, struggle, and grounded roots in a community that has seen significant transformation.

Written by Ruth Graham, a national reporter based in Dallas who covers religion, faith, and values for The New York Times, and Julie Bosman, the Chicago bureau chief who reports on stories throughout the Midwest. Additional reporting was contributed by Mitch Smith and Robert Chiarito, with research support from Susan C. Beachy.

From New York Times (To go to the actual article, please click on this link.)

In a puzzling move that undermines its stated economic goals, President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has begun dismantling the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), a 36-year-old national network that helps small- and medium-sized manufacturers enhance productivity, adopt new technologies, train workers, and respond to economic disruptions.

With 51 centers — one in every state plus Puerto Rico — the MEP supports thousands of manufacturers annually. On April 1, DOGE abruptly withheld funding from 10 MEP centers, notifying them that no future support would be provided. This decision arrived just days after the administration announced sweeping tariffs purportedly designed to encourage American manufacturing. Eliminating MEP demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the support manufacturers need to thrive, especially under increased tariff pressures.

Our research into the MEP network highlights its critical role in guiding manufacturers through major disruptions, most notably during the COVID-19 pandemic. MEP centers helped companies quickly modify production processes to protect workers, pivot operations to manufacture personal protective equipment (PPE), and identify new suppliers and markets amid severe supply chain disruptions. Given what we know about MEP’s tangible impact, the decision to eliminate funding is economically self-destructive and shortsighted. Far from being faceless bureaucracies, MEP centers are highly knowledgeable, technically skilled, and trusted advisors deeply embedded within their local manufacturing communities.

Specific examples from our research further illustrate how MEP centers effectively responded to the pandemic’s challenges. Every center stepped up, with some adopting similar strategies. Across the nation, 41 states launched supplier matching platforms to connect manufacturers with critical resources, with some of these also assisting firms in adopting robotics and automation technologies to remain globally competitive despite unprecedented disruptions. Centers in 29 states also provided hands-on assistance to manufacturers retooling their production lines for PPE and other essential goods. These and many other efforts underscore MEP’s indispensable role in supporting the agility and resilience of American manufacturing in times of crisis.

The value of MEP extends far beyond crisis response; its ongoing impact on American manufacturing competitiveness and economic growth is significant and measurable. According to the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, in 2024 alone, the MEP network invested $175 million in domestic manufacturing. It generated a remarkable 17:1 return on investment, adding $34.1 billion to U.S. GDP. Additionally, MEP-assisted manufacturers reported $15 billion in new and retained sales, $5 billion in new client investments, $2.6 billion in cost savings, and over 108,000 jobs created or retained. Given this extraordinary return, the administration’s decision to cut MEP funding raises serious questions: Is minor short-term budget savings worth losing billions in economic growth and tens of thousands of jobs?

The timing of these funding cuts is especially baffling. Earlier this month, President Trump imposed a blanket 10 percent tariff on virtually all imports to spur reshoring and correct what he calls “a lack of reciprocity” in trade. The White House briefly added “reciprocal” surcharges of 11-50% on 57 trading partners on April 9 but suspended them for 90 days just hours later after markets plunged — leaving the 10 percent duty intact. China, however, was exempt from the pause and its rate jumped to 125 percent on April 9. China has already retaliated with 125 percent counter‑tariffs on U.S. autos and agricultural goods, and the Yale Budget Lab estimates the average effective U.S. tariff rate is at 28 percent, the highest since 1901. Yet simultaneously, the administration is dismantling an efficient, proven institution specifically designed to help U.S. manufacturers successfully navigate such disruptive economic policies.

Small and medium-sized manufacturers form the backbone of American industry and benefit most directly from the expertise MEP provides. In the face of tariffs and other economic disruptions, these firms need help navigating supply chain disruptions, sourcing domestic alternatives to costly imports, and enhancing productivity to remain competitive — all core services delivered effectively by MEP centers.

Moreover, our research highlights that MEP centers also address a chronic challenge facing manufacturers nationwide: building and retaining a skilled workforce. MEP doesn’t just improve technological efficiency; it helps firms invest in people. Leading MEP centers have innovated workplace strategies that enhance frontline job quality, boosting both employee retention and overall competitiveness. Their advisors — trusted experts embedded within communities — are uniquely positioned to help companies tackle workforce training, retention, and workplace culture improvements. Such support is critical when manufacturers struggle to fill approximately 500,000 open positions, a challenge that may grow as reshoring initiatives accelerate.

U.S. manufacturing shapes more than products — it shapes communities, livelihoods, and the small businesses that keep our economy running. Manufacturing rebalances an economy over-reliant on low-wage service and retail jobs, and acts as a source of pride and identity for the places where it takes root. They need coordinated, long-term investment, and MEP centers have been a bipartisan cornerstone of that support.

But the deeper issue isn’t just the hypocrisy of the cuts — it’s also the damage they inflict on communities already struggling in a fragile economy. If we want jobs and factories “to come roaring back,” we must support the ones already here. They are the foundation of our manufacturing base. Without them, hollowed-out supply chains, an aging workforce, and crumbling infrastructure will make reshoring not just implausible but impossible. If the goal is to create “stronger competition and lower prices for consumers,” the MEP centers are irreplaceable. Eliminating this support is a blow to the entire ecosystem — businesses, their workers, and the communities and local economies they hold together.

Written by Matthew D. Wilson, Ph.D., University of Illinois at Chicago; Nichola J. Lowe, Ph.D., University of Minnesota; Nepal Asatthawasi, Urban Manufacturing Alliance.

From Crain’s Chicago Business (To go to the actual article, please click on this link.)