The city of Akron improved enough during the 1990s in household economic measures such as poverty, median income and unemployment to escape a list of the 65 weakest U.S. cities, according to a new report from the Brookings Institution.

Researchers at the nonprofit government policy research organization want to know how Akron did it.

``We have commissioned a sort of in-depth case study for Akron,'' said the study's author, Jennifer S. Vey. ``People felt that they could feel the palpable change that was happening in Akron.''

Vey's report -- Restoring Prosperity: The State Role in Revitalizing America's Older Industrial Cities -- identifies 17 cities, including Akron and Toledo, that showed significant improvement during the 1990s compared with their peers.

Vey said that the Brookings Institution has commissioned case studies that will look at three of those cities: Akron, Louisville, Ky., and Chattanooga, Tenn.

Her current report ranks 302 principal cities in two broad categories: the economic conditions of the city as a whole and the well-being of its residents.

The study covers performance from 1990 to 2000 based on eight economic indicators. If the criteria were applied to performance in the 1980s, Akron would have ranked in the bottom third in both categories in 1990, Vey said.

As of 2000, Akron still ranks in the bottom third for citywide indicators tracking job growth and annual payroll (217th out of 302, which was the second best for Ohio cities in the study -- behind Columbus at 122nd).

However, the well-being of Akron's residents improved enough in the 1990s to push it into the middle tier (183rd, which was the second best of Ohio cities, again behind Columbus at 68th).

Cities had to be ranked in the bottom third of both categories to be counted in the 65 economically weakest cities. That list has Cleveland, Canton, Warren, Youngstown, Mansfield, Dayton and Cincinnati.

Summit County as a whole showed stronger numbers than Akron by itself. Economic census data for the county show dramatic growth in health care and education -- which are cited as positives for the city -- since 1990, so that today they account for 42 percent of all Summit County jobs.

Of the major cities in Ohio, excluding Columbus, Akron has the largest middle class left within its city limits, said professor Ned Hill of the Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs at Cleveland State University.

Hill contributed to the Brookings report and his colleague at CSU, economic development professor Larry Ledebur, will conduct the Akron case study.

Akron stands out from its neighbors in several ways, Hill said, including:

• Diverse housing that includes high-end as well as affordable homes. ``Cities need diversity and part of that diversity is they need some people who can pay the taxes,'' Hill said.

• Strong enough schools, public and private, to keep families living within city limits. ``People who have high educational aspirations for their children haven't abandoned the city of Akron,'' Hill said. ``Akron still is a city that still has a strong neighborhood feel and characteristic about it.''

• A strong downtown core that includes a new art museum, library, hospitals, a university and a minor league baseball stadium that has spurred other downtown development. ``You're one of the few cities where your ballpark paid off.''

Hill credits Mayor Don Plusquellic for revitalizing downtown while recognizing the importance of aesthetics.

``Early in his career, he really understood the importance of urban design and architecture,'' Hill said. ``He's a ward-based neighborhood guy who's turned into an art critic.''

He also credits Plusquellic's partnership with the University of Akron as well as UA President Luis Proenza's efforts to make polymer research a center of excellence.

Akron looks good in the Brookings study because in the 1990s, the city was hitting its stride in the transition from rubber manufacturing jobs to advanced polymers, Hill said.

Although Akron has much going for it, Hill said, the case study will look at all the numbers to see how Akron has fared in the 2000s, which, in 2004, saw Akron's first dip in municipal income tax collections in nearly 30 years.

In 2005, Akron also lost the big Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs law firm, which completed its move out of the city into the Montrose area last year.

The case study, expected to be completed this fall, probably will examine how many other headquarters are moving just out of the city limits.

``You don't engage the urban program at Cleveland State if you want to rent Pollyanna for a week,'' Hill said.

Vey argued in her report that America's older industrial cities have a lot of resources, such as waterfronts, historic architecture, public art, theater, museums, universities and hospitals, that can help them prosper if properly leveraged.

But to make that happen, cities need states to help on a variety of fronts, including tax policy, which tends to arbitrarily pit cities against suburbs.

States can also support cities by investing in infrastructure, education and social services that help cities keep and attract jobs and help city residents boost their income.

The full text of Vey's current report is available at the Brookings Institution Web site: www.brook.edu.

Here are the factors studied by the Brookings Institution in its analysis of U.S. cities.

City economic condition indicators: 1990-2000

Change in employment (number of jobs by place of work)

Change in annual payroll

Change in establishments

Akron was ranked 217th out of 302 cities, ahead of all other Ohio cities in the study except Columbus, but still in bottom third.

Residential well-being indicators: 2000

Median household income

Unemployment rate (employed residents as a percentage of residents in labor force)

Poverty rate (percentage of residents with household incomes below poverty line)

Labor force participation rate (percentage of working-age residents in the labor force)

Per capita income: total income per city resident

Akron was ranked 183rd out of 302 cities, ahead of all other Ohio cities in the study except Columbus.

Cities in the study

The 302 cities met at least one of the following criteria in 1990 or 2000 for inclusion in the study:

• Had at least 50,000 people and were the largest city in a metropolitan area.

• Had at least 50 percent of the population of the largest city in a metropolitan area.

• Or had a population of at least 150,000, regardless of whether or it was the largest city in the metropolitan area.

Beacon Journal computer-assisted reporting editor David Knox contributed to this story.