The Information Technology Revolution at the Neighborhood Level: Public
Participation GIS and the Community Development Corporation
By
Holly Elizabeth Harriel
Bachelor of Science, Tuskegee University, 1996
Master of Science, Auburn University, 1999
Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master in City Planning
MASS=ACHUSEUTS INSTUE
OF TECHNOLOGY
at the
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
UN 1 8 2003
June 2003
LIBRARIES--
@ 2003 Holly E. Harriel. All Rights Reserved
The author hereby grants MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly
paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part.
Author
[partr
eft of Urban Studies and Planning
May 19th, 2003
Certified by
Ceasar McDowell, Phu.
Department of Urban Studies and Planning
Thesis Supervisor
Accepted by
V
L
a
Langley Keyes, PhD.
Chair, Master in City Planning Committee
Department of Urban Studies and Planning
ROTCH 1
In Memory of
Henry Lee Harriel
1945-1988
Charles Feaster
1970-1983
The Information Technology Revolution at the Neighborhood Level:
Public Participation GIS and the Community Development Corporation
By
Holly Elizabeth Harriel
Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning
on May 19th, 2003 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Master of City Planning
ABSTRACT
PPGIS is a connector concept that focuses on the developing approaches and
applications of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and related computer
technologies. It incorporates the interest of less powerful members in society while
attempting to empower marginalized groups. On a small scale GIS has emerged as
a tool within the CDC sector. This thesis is organized around the central question:
How GIS can be used as a tool for civic engagement/public participation in the
Community Development Corporation sector?, and examines three CDCs that
employ civic engagement/public participation strategies, and who are also using
GIS. Both the traditional neighborhood revitalization model and comprehensive
community change model of CDCs are examined. As a collective the three cases
presented in this study suggest that the impact of public participation on GIS is
more evident when CDCs include their constituents in the planning process of GIS
development.
Thesis Supervisor: Ceasar Mc Dowell, PhD
Title: Associate Professor of the Practice of Community Development &
Director, Center for Reflective Community Practice
Thesis Reader: Sarah Williams
Title: GIS Specialist, MIT Libraries
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Ceasar McDowell, Ph.D. (my academic and thesis advisor)
and Sarah Williams for their participation in this research endeavor. I am grateful to both of
you for your patience and guidance during this project. Also thank you to all of the staff
interviewed at the community development corporations.
My journey in Boston and toward completion of this degree has been filled with much
support from new and old friends. I would like to thank Larry Watson and Loretta Williams,
PhD, who from my first moments in the New England area, made me feel at home in a
foreign place. Through our many conversations they assured me that there is truly a
grounded and revolutionary black intellectual life in Boston.
To my colleagues in city planning, Sandra Martin and Dawn Francis, thanks so much for the
words of encouragement and spirit, and our every 6 months "sistah dinners." To Ms. Martin,
thank you for teaching me that it is good to "understand your place in the universe." These
words shared from a gifted MIT alumnus has carried me through this process.
To Ms. Francis, thanks for your word processing skills and "let's get it done" attitude.
To my MIT support system which includes Dean Blanche Stanton, and fellow graduate
students in DUSP, Jeff Duritz, Tina Rosan, Malo Hudson, Janelle Wright, Olga Merchant,
MeeHe Risdon, and Jackie Cooper, thanks for adding to my intellectual stimulation.
To Jasmine Harris and Myles Francis, two young people who have recently come into my life
and constantly remind me that the real education process comes from preparing our youth
to be the vanguard of tomorrow. In your own little way, you both inspire me to keep
pressing on.
To my girl Monif Clarke who came to Boston and'set it on fire.' All of our hilarious
memories from CTCNet were great sources of laughter during this writing process and
helped pull me back to sanity when my mind wander to the space of self-doubt.
To Eva Boyce and the John B. Carrington II Family of Boston, thank you for your
encouraging words and prayers to get me through this process.
To my family Wade and Brenda Timmons, and Lee Kelly, thanks for all the prayers and
encouraging phone calls.
To Katrice A.Albert, PhD, thank you for all your invaluable help with editing this document
(making sense out of chaos) and for your constant reminder that "I am the brightest bulb."
You are truly a special and powerful spirit in the universe sent to us by the ancestors (in
particular Harriet Tubman) and we are truly blessed to have you.
To Cheryl Sarah Straughter, thank you for your prayers, warm spirit, encouraging words and
mostly for your strength and patience. You are the only person who really knew the "bear"
that I became during this process. Thanks for the get-aways when I needed them and for
all the relaxing things you provided, without me asking. I am truly blessed to have you in
my life.
Contents
Acknowledgments
Chapter 1
Introduction
Background
Research Question
Research Design
Limitations
Summary of Chapters
Chapter 2
Public Participation Geographic Information
Systems (PPGIS)
13
PPGIS
Why Consider Community Groups and Data
Social Indicators
Neighborhood Indicators
Neighborhood Indicators Movement and PPGIS
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Community Development Corporations and Civic
Engagement/Public Participation
23
Traditional Model
Comprehensive Community Initiative Model
Recent Technological Changes
Background on CDCs
The Disconnection Between PPGIS and CDCs
23
30
35
40
42
Case Studies
43
Dorchester Bay Economic Development Corporation: Green
Design
Fenway Community Development Corporation: Empowering
the Seniors at the Peterborough Senior Center
Lawrence Community Works: The Spring Street Project
Chapter 5
Bibliography
Discussion and Lessons Learned
PPGIS Growth at CDCs
Lessons Learned
71
71
73
78
Chapter 1
Introduction
Technology isan essential component of everything we do. In the United States,
the "Information Technology (IT) revolution" a phrase used in both academic
settings and popular culture, describes the increasing reliance on computer
automation for the most basic task. The private sector has led the way in the IT
revolution, driving and directly benefiting from its innovation and production. The
non-profit sector however, has been substantially less involved inthe technology
innovator role. Despite the non-profit sector's need and want to become more
technologically apt, they have been unable to fully harness the benefits of
technology.
Community Development Corporations (CDCs) make up a large portion of non-profit
entities with demonstrated desires to harness the benefits of technology. CDCs are
commonly perceived as points of civic engagement within low and moderate-income
neighborhoods dedicated to the mission of revitalizing neighborhoods through
community development, community organizing and community building activities.
CDCs, like most other non-profit organizations carrying out community based work,
are also perceived as being under funded at best, and unable to develop, implement
and sustain high end technologies (i.e., GIS) at worse. Most CDCs do use
computers to manage projects and payrolls, develop plans, create proposals, and
communicate by email. However, the vast majority of the CDC suffers from an
inability to determine how to capitalize on the IT revolution (Gittell 2001; Steinbach
2002). Despite the existing challenges that CDCs face with incorporating high-end
technologies into their community change strategies, they typically succeed in
increasing civic engagement/public participation of low- and moderate income
groups. Thus, the use of advance technologies like GIS is argued as a critical and
necessary tool for CDCs.
Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS), a 10 year old term
coined by urban planners and GIS academicians, is concerned with the views and
perceptions of marginalized communities who were less likely to be represented
within traditional GIS development and implementation. It is a recent phenomenon
with an emphasis on local knowledge, community discovery, group efficacy,
empowerment, democratic engagement, and geo-spatial referencing using
computers (Obermeyer 1994; 1995; 2000). Much of the discussion and practice of
PPGIS lies within the traditional GIS use of natural resources and environmental
activities (Al-Kodmany 1998; Harris and Weiner 1998; Jordan 1998; Kim 1998;
Kingston 1998; Kyem 1998; Laituri 1998; Leitner et al 1998; Macnab 1998;
Meredith 1998; Sieber 1998; Stonich and Cissna 1998; Tullloch 1998; Ventura et al
1998; Walker 1998; Walker et al 1998). A small fraction of the PPGIS literature
focuses on community revitalization work of CDCs (Casey and Pederson 1998).
Similar to national use, the Massachusetts CDC industry employs PPGIS on a small
scale.'
Research Question
CDCs give a voice to poor people, disenfranchised citizens, and marginalized
communities. They aid them in participating more fully in mainstream
societal/public dialogue (Steinbach 2002). In Massachusetts, there is a rich history
of community organizing and citizen participation. In particular, the community
development movement within the Boston-Metro area is nationally recognized.
Boston-Metro community organizations and community development corporations
are viewed as mature, vibrant, as having experienced a tremendous amount of
success and as having dealt reasonably well with industry challenges. This thesis is
organized around the central question: how GIS can be used as a tool for civic
engagement/public participation in the Community Development Corporation sector.
This study focuses on three CDCs including Dorchester Bay Economic Development
Corporation (Dorchester EDC), Fenway Community Development Corporation
(Fenway CDC) both located in the Boston-Metro area and Lawrence Community
Works (LCW) located 20 miles north of the city of Boston. These three community
development corporations are utilizing GIS, are dedicated to rebuilding and
preserving neighborhoods, and most importantly are committed to including civic
' GIS use by Massachusetts CDCs has not been documented. Knowledge of GIS
development and use within Massachusetts CDCs comes from the author's participation on
an IT advisory committee, formed by MACDC (Massachusetts Association of Community
Development Corporations) and the Boston Foundation.
engagement/public participation. This thesis seeks to understand how GIS can be
used as a tool for civic engagement/public participation in Community Development
Corporations.
Research Design
To gain insight on how PPGIS empowers local communities, this study examined
three different Massachusetts CDCs and their use of community development,
community organizing and community building as tools for civic engagement/public
participation. To provide some answers to that question a research strategy case
study methodology was utilized.
First the author engaged in reviewing literature that was focused on deepening the
author's understanding of Public Participation GIS (PPGIS), the community
development corporation (CDC) sector's perceptions of civic engagement/public
publication, and cases (although small in number) of CDCs using GIS.
CDCs selected to participate in this study were selected by a word-of-mouth
discussion with several Boston-Metro area CDC practitioners. Through several sets
of conversations, five CDCs were peer-identified as using GIS in some way. Each
CDC's executive director was contacted and asked to participate in the study. Three
of the five CDCs indicated that they were willing to participate.
author has prior experience working as a Neighborhood Planner within the BostonMetro CDC industry.
2The
Each participating CDC's executive director identified a staff point person at the
organization that had first hand experience working the organizations' GIS that
could be interviewed. Atotal of six face-to-face interviews were conducted,
although the total of interactions (e.g., phone conversations and email
communications) with CDC staff to obtain the necessary information for this study
was 20. Aquestionnaire of 37 questions (questions were both closed and openended) was sent to the CDC interviewee prior to the scheduled interview. There was
not any uniformity to the of the face-to-face interviews or interactions; however the
following represents activities that emerged across CDCs during the face-to-face
interview sessions:
" Face to face interviews were extremely conversational and included CDC
staff beyond the staff point person identified by the organization's executive
director - most CDC staff interviewed were considered by the executive
director as the organization's GIS expert. On average the designated CDC
expert had been with the organization for less than two years.
. On average face-to-face interviews were 1.5 hours long
. Information covered during the interview sessions covered the organization's
use of GIS specifically, as well as, organizational history, and the
organization's perception of civic engagement/ participation
In sum, the methodology employed was useful in garnering background and GIS
data on the participating CDCs. Thus, the following cases represent a synthesis of
the several interviews, e-mails and phone conversations between the author and
participating CDC staff, as well as, information gathered from completed
questionnaires, and the review many CDC produced written and electronic
documents (i.e., organization's website, annual reports, brochures, proposals, and
power point presentations.)
Limitations
There are several limitations to this research study that should be addressed
upfront. It should be noted that this research is an extremely small scale qualitative
case study. The cases presented, primarily represent the views of CDC staff and do
not include the perceptions of the residents and/or constituents that the CDC serves.
As well, the cases primarily relay perceptions of junior CDC staff (both in position
and/or length of time employed at the CDC) and not that of CDC leadership (i.e.,
executive directors and/or deputy directors, department heads/senior management
or board members). Because I was interested in the actual application of GIS at
each CDC, many of my interviews were with staff who directly used GIS. Thus, the
residents view of the impact GIS and the individual CDC's executive perspective of
the history of civic engagement and their intuitions was not gathered.
Despite the aforementioned limitations, the author offers this thesis to readers as a
lens inwhich to view PPGIS as applied by CDCs.
Summary of Chapters
Chapter 1 is an introduction to the concept of PPGIS. Also in Chapter 1 the central
research question for this thesis enterprise as well as the research design isdefined.
Chapter 2 discusses PPGIS and presents its two antecedents: social and
neighborhood indicators. In Chapter 3, an introduction to community development
corporation industry is followed with the organizational profiles of Dorchester Bay
Economic Development Corporation, Lawrence Community Works, and Fenway
Community Development Corporation. The traditional tools of community
development, community organizing, and community building used by CDCs for civic
engagement/public participation are discussed. Each CDC case is illuminated in
Chapter 4. In Chapter 5 the ways in which civic engagement/public participation
impact GIS use at each CDC are reviewed. Also in this chapter three stages of GIS
development are discussed and areas of future research are offered. Chapter 6
represents the conclusion is offered inChapter 6.
Chapter 2
Public Participation Geographic Information Systems
PPGIS
What is PPGIS? Schroeder (1997) maintains that public participation GIS is used to
describe a variety of approaches to making GIS and other spatial decision-making
tools available and accessible to all non governmental organizations and individuals,
especially those who have been historically under-represented in public policy
making and official decisions. Proponents of PPGIS acknowledge that GIS experts,
designed this tool primarily for solving problems of translating spatially referenced
empirical information into a spatial language. This translation enables cartographic
representation of patterns and relationships and of analyzing the nature of these
relationships (Sheppard 1995, p.6). Further, advocates of PPGIS viewed the
development of GIS, and any other technology, as a social process. Thus, they
suggest that it is mandatory to develop and implement GIS in ways that are more
adaptable to the knowledge and experiences of regular citizens and non-official
sources.
The evolution of PPGIS (also called GIS 2 or GIS, too) is a direct outgrowth of social
science research on the development and implementation of advance computer
technology (Obermeyer 2000, p.1). Much of the literature suggest that the PPGIS
movement lies within the traditional GIS use of natural resources and environmental
activities, with a small fraction of the PPGIS writing giving direct focus to the
community revitalization work of CDCs (Casey and Pederson 1998). However, the
contexts for which PPGIS can be found include community economic development,
environmental dispute resolution, participatory planning, and other activities
involving public collaboration.
Technologies chosen or developed to support the PPGIS approach are designed to
document and record the problem resolution process (Sandman 1993) in public
spaces, and allow evolving priorities and problem definitions to be tracked by all
participants.3 This has become a popular form of civic engagement by bureaucratic
agencies. It is most commonly showcased by government agencies public domain
on-line mapping applications (Chang 1997). The City of Savannah, Georgia is one
such city where city constituents can create maps of their neighborhoods on-line
(maps.binarybus.com/sagis/home.asp). State of the art web-based GIS technology
can play an important part in the development of PPGIS (Nyerges and Barndt,
1997). Moreover, PPGIS is capable of managing and integrating all data
components and participant contributions simultaneously. Data components include
e-mail, access to data archives, presentation of parallel texts and counter texts in
diverse media, real-time data analysis, standard base maps and data sets, sketch
maps and field note capabilities (Schroeder, 1995), while participant contributions
include photography, video and audio recordings, and art work.
' Sandman in his book Responding to Community Outrage: Strategies for Effective: Risk
Communication (1993), has identified nine publics relevant to discussion about community
problems. The publics include: neighbors, concerned citizens, technical experts, media,
activists, elected officials, business and industry, and local, state and federal government
regulators.
As a relatively new concept PPGIS raises several themes and unanswered questions
(Schroeder 1997):
. the need to develop GIS toward being a communications technology for
marginalized communities
. the need for GIS users to identify and understand the assumptions that
lie within GIS analysis, while evaluating and revising those assumptions
through public process.
. the importance of spatial components in creating and resolving
community conflicts
. how can communities be assisted in identifying precedents for local
situations they face?
. how can GIS be expanded to include media such as narrative text and
sound?
Why Consider Community Groups and Data?
Throughout history, neighborhood and community groups have played a critical role
in affecting policy-making in the United States (Suttles 1968; Merry 1981; Sullivan
1981, 1989). In this day of technology the question arises, "How do neighborhood
and community groups affect public policy with computer technology and data?"
4
Community groups have not inthe past made significant use of electronic
information or large databases. Asearch of relevant periodicals since 1960 found
only a few examples of the use of modern information technology by community
groups. Although such activity may have existed but gone undocumented, the
literature lends credence to the presumption that it has been minimal. For the last
twenty years, there isvery little documentation about using information technology
to support community groups.
4
The most prevalent way that community groups affect public policy is by gathering
information and disseminating it to their members, to the public, and to policy
makers (Durance 1983). One of their biggest problems for those involved in
community based work, argues Durance, is gathering relevant information. Thus, to
continue to make gains in affecting public policy neighborhood and community
groups need relevant neighborhood information to serve two major purposes; to
manage their own programs and resources better (Lundberg 1975); and to
participate more effectively in public debates about policies affecting their members.
Thus, role of social and neighborhood indicators and their role in helping shape the
movement of community groups use of data deserve attention.
Social Indicators
Discussion of PPGIS rests in the context of "information democracy" (Dervin, 1994).
Over the last 40 years information democracy focused on activities that provide
neighborhood level data to community based organizations. The information
democracy or the democractization of data, as it isoften referred, movement began
in the 1960s when there was a shift infocus on government to develop a
classification for lower socioeconomic groups. This marginalized segment had been
severely omitted from the fruits of the economic boom of the previous decade. The
classification given was social indicators (sometime referred to as urban indicators)
and was defined as:
"statistical, statically series, and all other forms of evidence... .that enables
us to assess where we stand and are going with respect to our values and
goals, and to evaluate specific programs and determine their impact (Bauer
1966)."
During the information democracy movement of the 1960s and 1970s, provisions to
make statistical data or social indicators available to community-based groups were
supported by various local and national government agencies. Activities like the
census bureau's development of the user-defined areas program, which permitted
users to delineate sub areas composed of census blocks (e.g. neighborhoods)
emerged. Users were able to receive STF3 summary statistics for those
aggregations as if they were tracts (Irwin 1967). Federal government agencies also
during the 1960s and 1970s developed prototype systems for integrating social,
economic, and property data at the block-face level (Jacoby 1967).
Much of the social indicators data provided by government agencies during the 60s
was relevant to the agency that produced this information (e.g., employment and
wage data produced by the Department of Labor). Data sets tended to be at the
state and regional levels. By the early 70s, there was an emerging trend to create
data sets that focused on smaller regions, like neighborhoods, and to connect
community groups with that data so that they could use it in their work. Thus, in
the early 70s, the use of government provided statistics by community groups
became more prevalent (Sawicki 1996). Churches began using census data to help
locate day-care centers (Millet 1973). Citizen groups began receiving and using
both government databases and electronic text (Dietz 1971; Malone 1972; Weiner
1975). Despite the decline in social indicator development and provision by the late
70s by local and national government-- deemed a low funding priority-- a
computerized referral system was created (e.g., Model Cities program in
Philadelphia) (Sherr, Elliott, and Cunningham 1973).
Neighborhood Indicators
While the social indicators movement of the 1960s and 1970s was intended for
institutions and governments, inthe late 80s the neighborhood indicators movement
was born. It evolved directly out of the social indicators movement and was meant
to be popular in nature. Sawicki (2003) list the following driving forces for the
neighborhood indicators movement:
" The change in the locus of initiation for local programs, the change in the
locus of computing power, and the need for a fact base for local program
planning and management.
" The responsibility for local initiatives is moving to go way beyond simply
relying on local governments.
" The locus of computing power and data access is broadening. The use of
information technology and spatial analysis iswidespread.
* Local leaders of all types are recognizing the need for a much improved
information base to help them in designing strategies and implementing them
effectively and efficiently.
Using the new technologies of the 1980s (i.e., personal computers) and putting data
into less academic and bureaucratic forms (e.g. easy-to-read workbooks); the goal is
to empower citizens to conceive, design and implement projects necessary to
increase local civic engagement and neighborhood sustainability. The neighborhood
indicators movement allows citizens to carry out the job of monitoring progress
(Flora et. al. 1999, #35; Green Mountain Institute 1997, #45; and Redefining
Progress et al. 1997, #46). It includes both citizen activists and government
initiatives working in concert to guide community processes and monitor progress.
Like the social indicators movement, the neighborhood indicators movement
continues to rest on the idea of democratizing information. It provides a fact base
to poor people and poor communities, who have been historically, denied access to
information and the resources from which this information comes. Moreover, it
offers the necessary help to build capacity of community residents through
residents' involvement in identifying what information is relevant in their
neighborhood and their inclusion in the development the actual information
exchange system (Craig 2000). This enhancement is due in large to community
groups accessibility to more manageable statistical data offered by federal, state and
local governments. This data covers less geographic area than social indicators and
tends to be sets of data/information that give pointed focus to local/neighborhood
environments.
The neighborhood indicators movement differs from the social indicators movement
of the 60s and 70s intwo important ways. First, although use of relevant data by
community groups continues to be central, the neighborhood indicators theme
incorporates the broader notion of data (information) system development. It gives
much more attention to the role that community groups play in the creation,
identification and analysis of data.
Second, the issues that drove the neighborhood indicators movement are tied more
to the growth in information technology as social issues. This differed significantly
from the social indicators movement, which was driven more by the government's
need to classify a particular demographic group.
Currently the Urban Institute located in Washington, D.C promotes the
neighborhood indicators movement. Ten years ago, the Urban Institute launched
the National Neighborhood Indicators Project (NNIP), a multi-year initiative created
to develop measures of changing social, physical, and economic conditions of
20
neighborhoods in several cities throughout the United States.5 NNIP concentrated on
facilitating the direct practical use of data by city and community leaders. NNIP's
primary purpose for using information is to build and empower the capacities of
institutions and citizens in distressed urban neighborhoods. For more information
please (www.urbanindicators.org).
Neighborhood Indicators Movement and PPGIS
The central tenant of PPGIS --focusing on ways in which marginalized communities
can develop and apply GIS and its related computer technologies to their relevant
problems-mirrors two central principles which underscore the objectives and goals
of NNIP. They include: (1) indicators must be formulated in a participatory process
that includes residents and experts; and (2) indicators must be capable of affecting
citizen action and public policymaking. With NNIP projects, local institutions develop
a comprehensive and technically sound set of indicators of neighborhood conditions.
Therefore community residents, public officials, and civic leaders can better plan
appropriate strategies to improve their communities.
In 1985, The Boston Foundation, one of the nation's oldest community foundations,
shifted substantial resources and programmatic emphasis to create a new initiative
to address the challenges of the city's poor called the Poverty Impact Program (PIP).
Today, PIP now called the Boston Neighborhood Indicators Project, has evolved into
s NNIP sites include: Boston, Sacramento, Oakland, Los Angeles, Denver, Milwaukee, Des
Moines, Louisville, New Orleans, Baltimore, Washington, Atlanta, Miami, Philadelphia,
Camden, Providence, Cleveland, Indianapolis, and Chattanooga.
an indicator project with a collective body of 43 community activist, business
leaders, academics, and civic, religious and labor leaders. From its inception in the
early 1990s, at least one member of this collective has been a Boston-Metro CDC
(Sawicki and Flynn 1996; Kingsley 1999).
Today, CDC representation continues to be a part of the Boston Neighborhoods
Indicators Project. Similarly, there isa small group of Massachusetts CDCs who
have, on their own, started to harness the power of GIS. Although the Boston
Neighborhood Indicator Project includes the perspectives of the community
development corporation sector and a vast array of neighborhood leadership; this
study focused on the work of CDCs specifically engaged in using GIS. Because of
CDCs longitudinal dedication (over 40 years) to the civic engagement/public
participation movement through their various community change strategies, there is
a higher possibility to gain insight on how the effects of GIS on civic
engagement/public participation at the individual and small resident group level.
Chapter 3
Community Development Corporations and Civic Engagement/Public
Participation
Traditional Model
Community development corporations (CDCs) are concerned with neighborhood
revitalization and positive community change. Like many non-profits engaged in
neighborhood revitalization, CDCs tend to view community change through a lens of
"citizen engagement" or civic engagement/public participation. Over the years, the
concept and definition of civic engagement/public participation has evolved. In the
1960s, many CDCs had strong ties to the civil rights and anti-poverty movements.
They tended to view civic engagement/public participation as a way of ensuring that
poor people had a voice in the economic and political decision making process which
affected their lives. Today CDCs view civic engagement/public participation as
ensuring active participation by poor people in a variety of facets of the economy through good jobs, home ownership, and business enterprise creation. This active
participation creates the links that enable disenfranchised voices to be heard
(Steinbach 2000).
The CDC industry has traditionally used three broad tools (sometimes called core
program areas) for ensuring engagement of community constituents with which
they serve; community development, community organizing, and community
building have been utilized in their neighborhood revitalization processes. Despite
variations (a few ways will be highlighted within the latter half of this chapter) inthe
ways in which individual CDCs chose to apply each tool, civic engagement/public
participation tend to be the driving force within many CDC's approach to revitalize
neighborhoods.
When CDCs apply community development strategies, civic engagement/public
participation is most often represented inthe form of political activism (Hess 1999).
Community development is an approach to neighborhood revitalization in which
CDCs coordinate the construction and rehabilitation of both affordable housing and
real estate projects (Schorr, 1997). In the early days of CDCs, their work was solely
focused on the production of affordable housing (often referred to as "brick and
mortar"). Today CDCs concerned themselves not only with affordable housing
development, but also with commercial real estate deals and public space
development and rehabilitation (e.g., play grounds and public parks). Real Estate
projects are complex, and usually require high levels of professional expertise.
Many residents, who are traditionally served by CDCs usually, lack this expertise.
Thus, few residents are likely to be involved in development projects where they are
able to offer a high level of housing development expertise. However, citizen
participation is critical in CDC real estate development projects. Obtaining and
utilizing community input and community approval are important ingredients for
successful real estate project completion. The form of civic engagement/public
participation that CDCs utilizes most often is resident participation in policy making,
getting residents involved in network building, project research and advocacy, and
political mobilizations of other non-active residents.
CDCs, throughout their existence, have been effective vehicles for community
organizing campaigns. Of the three broad tools that CDCs use to engage the
constituents they serve; community organizing is most readily identified as a tool
which directly involves residents. Community organizing isan approach to
community revitalization that enlists residents to take on powerful institutions in
their community through direct public confrontation and action (Alinsky, 1971;
Delgado, 1986, 1994; Khan, 1991). Unlike community development projects,
community organizing campaigns do not require the vast amount of professional
expertise required to sustain and successfully complete a project. For that reason,
organizing is less concerned with involving residents' in specific policy roles and
focuses more on residents' general political activism (e.g., building relationships of
support with other residents and civic and political leaders). This ensures residents
the opportunity to maintain a high level of accountability with policy makers.
In addition to community development and community organizing, community
building is important to the work of CDCs. There has been a renewed focused on
the tool of community building by CDCs in recent years (Steinbach 2000; Briggs,
Muller and Sullivan 1997). Much of this resulted from the conversation revolving
around how CDCs can increase civic engagement/public participation within the
communities they serve. Unlike community development and community
organizing, throughout the years, community building has become more difficult to
define. In the early years of the CDC industry, community building activities were
more or less seen as an extension of community organizing. It essentially focused
on a more generalized set of broad relationship building techniques (Sullivan 1990).
First generation (CDCs created between the 1960s and the late 1970s) CDCs saw
the community building tool as a means of coalition and network building between
groups. Moreover, it incorporated leadership development (broadly defined) within
resident groups. This was most commonly noted in resident or tenant groups
developing and sustaining relations with government bodies, as well as among
other civic or resident groups. Second generation CDCs (CDCs created during the
late 1970s until present day) tended to view the community building tool as a set of
strategies that link the first generation notions of community building with the ideas
of individual resident leadership, skill building and empowerment (e.g., computer
training programs; English as a Second Language (ESL) classes). Today, most CDCs
use this view of community building to ensure that residents can more fully engage
into today's mainstream economic and social markets (Briggs, Mueller and Sullivan
1997).
CDC activities, projects and programs traditionally fall within the 3 core program
areas of community development, community organizing and community building.
Primary activities of CDCs are represented inTable 1.
Table 1. Core Program Areas and Activities of Community Development Corporations
Core Area
Activity
Community
Affordable
Development Housing
Development
Description
For the vast majority of CDCs, housing development is
an activity of major importance (Vidal 1992). Housing
activity involves both housing rehabilitation and new
construction. Most CDCs active in housing
development assume the role of developer or codeveloper. In this role, a CDC has the responsibility
for all phases of a project, including planning,
feasibility studies, site selection and acquisitions,
project design, financial arrangements, constructions,
marketing, and tenant selection.
Community
Commercial
Development & Industrial
Development
Community
Business
Development Development
Community
Organizing &
Community
Building
Advocacy,
Organizing &
Society
Services
The rehabilitation and new construction of commercial
real estate (i.e., retail, office, or industrial properties)
are basic activities among CDCs working to strengthen
the commercial areas in their neighborhoods. Most
CDCs develop commercial real estate at a relatively
small scale.
In the early days of the CDC movement, many CDCs
tried to start their own businesses. While some
succeeded, many failed to sustain the desired number
of jobs. By far, the most widespread activity among
CDCs engaged in business enterprise development is
providing technical assistance and counseling to local
firms. Direct involvement in owning and operating a
business is less common among CDCs than are
activities that facilitate the ownership and operation of
business by independent entrepreneurs.
Part of the uniqueness of community development is
its reliance on a comprehensive strategy of community
revitalization. From its earliest days, the movement
has acknowledged that bricks and mortar are not
enough to address the problems of underclass
communities. The early generation CDCs put heavy
emphasis on advocacy, organizing, and human
services, physical development, particularly housing,
took center stage during the 1980s, but recent years,
CDCs have been paying renewed attention to
community building activities. Among the most
popular activities are homeownership training,
education, job training and job placement, youth
programs, senior citizens programs, emergency food
and homeless assistance, anti-crime and anti-drug
programs and transportation to work (NCCED 1999).
Nationally, CDCs have utilized the aforementioned tools to engage constituents. In
the 1980s, three New York City CDCs - Banana Kelly Neighborhood Association;
Saint Neighborhood Preservation Corporation; and the Manhattan Valley
Development Corporation - organized their residents through organizing campaigns
(i.e., resident planning meetings and training sessions), and were successful in
assisting residents to gain control of city owned buildings, after which the residents
completely renovated and managed (Sullivan 1993).
In Minneapolis one CDC uses community organizing as a tool to engage their
constituents in the self governance of their housing properties. During the mid1990s, Whittier Alliance CDC had the general goal of stabilizing the neighborhood
through co-op housing for low-income families. As part of their strategy, Whittier
Alliance set up co-op boards and trained residents to participate on those boards.
The trained residents selected and monitored their own property management
companies. Whittier has produced over 700 units of affordable co-op housing,
which are managed by the residents who occupy them.
Finally in Boston, the Urban Edge Community Development Corporation views civic
engagement/public participation through the traditional CDC model and has been
successful. Advocacy and coalition-building activities are prominent among its
activities. The board and staff are devoted to civic engagement/public participation
and in the late 1990s created the Community Services Department. This
department engages its residents through tenant association formation and assisting
residents plan and execute community events (e.g., barbecues, anticrime meetings
and marches, communal gardens). From these activities, constituents in the Urban
Edge service area have successfully had graffiti-writing removed from buildings by
the City of Boston; received leadership development training from Urban Edge
resulting in resident leaders working with the City of Boston to renovate a local
public park; and campaigned vigorously to local banks and other investors to reestablish a local YMCA (Briggs, Mueller and Sullivan 1997).
Despite the CDC industry's great use of the traditional model to view civic
engagement/public participation and its demonstrated accomplishments (NEECD
2001), the traditional model has been criticized. CDCs engaging residents using the
traditional model have been criticized for having minimal impact on civic
engagement and having lost their grassroots' nature (Goetz and Sidney 1994),
rarely impacting neighborhood indicators (e.g., quality of life, resident health and
happiness) (Taub 1990, Vidal 1992), and for not showing any real evidence these
activities empower residents (Keating 1990; Stoecker 1996). It has also been
argued that community organizing (where the civic engagement/public participation
component is mainly concentrated within the traditional model) is no longer
appropriate because the neighborhood structure has changed, the targets are
hidden, and there are fewer local vital organizations to challenge those targets
(Giloth 1985). Thus, an alternative perspective has entered into the CDC industry as
a model, which moves CDCs beyond a housing development focused version of civic
engagement towards a model that is"constituent empowerment" based.
Community Change Initiative Model
Amajor strategic question confronting a growing number of successful CDCs is
whether or not to branch beyond physical development to engage in more
comprehensive neighborhood revitalization activities. The Community Change
Initiative (CCI) model has emerged within the CDC industry as an alternative
method to use civic engagement/public participation for community change. CCI is
a community change model that favors collaboration with external community
agents over conflict, and the involvement of residents in a social and participatory
context. Sometimes called comprehensive community building, or even just
community building, comprehensive community initiatives are a relatively new trend
in community change dating back only about a dozen years although CDC advocates
have encouraged such holistic interventions since the 1960s.
The CCIs model has developed out of the perception that poverty problems are
intractable without a comprehensive and coordinated approach to rebuilding the
institutions within distressed communities. Adherents of the model assert that the
traditional revitalization model (community development, community organizing, and
community building activities) of the CDC industry is focuses to narrowly on physical
development and that service approaches to revitalization are compartmentalized.
Accordingly, those who promote CCI believe that communities would be better
served with coordinated programs. Kubisch (1996) writes, "...CCIs seek to replace
piecemeal approaches with broader efforts to strengthen the connections among
economic, social, and physical needs, and opportunities."
The central principles of CCI are comprehensiveness and community building
(Aspen, 1997). According to the Aspen Institute, CCI, the core principle of
comprehensiveness includes social services, education and training, economic
development, physical improvement, and quality-of-life activities. The CCI model
embraces a wide variety of projects and organizational structures, with some
arguing (Hess 1994) that casting such a wide net may in fact represent confusion
over which practices in a community will achieve the results for which CCI programs
aim: alleviating highly concentrated poverty and tackling complex social problems.
Despite this, there are four features of the model that cut across a variety of CCI
application techniques:
CCIs coordinate existing institutions serving the community. The
emphasis is on community development corporations and community-based
service providers, but local government agencies are often also included. This
coordination attempts to relate the services these institutions provide in a
more logical fashion across the life span of participants and to confront social
problems with a comprehensive treatment of services. Coordination,
however, also strives to assure that more areas in individuals' and
communities' lives - including the social, economic, community and political
arenas - are being touched by the programs.
CCIs increase the capacity of community institutions. CCIs vastly
expand both the number of residents affected by local initiatives by focusing
on improving local institutions' credibility. This includes identifying and
changing policies which might prevent the coordination or combination of
service providers.
CCIs attempt to increase both the social capital in a community and
the participation of residents in the planning and management of
the CCI. CCI projects rely on a community planning or community building,
not community organizing, to gain community input or to develop new
leadership, only a few incorporate community organizing.
. CCIs governance are broad based coalitions involving non
community partners. CCIs, bring together many diverse non-resident
players. Partnering, expanding the definition of who the stakeholders are in a
community, not only derives from the view that poor communities do not
have enough power to change existing institutions, but also from the view
that the community must be reinterpreted to power brokers in the larger
community (Brown, 1996).
CCIs are collaborative projects and involve several actors community development agencies (usually in the form of community
development corporations); social service agency staff and other stakeholders
(e.g., government officials, banks, and private corporations) and foundations.
These actors often come to the table because of the systems-reform and
community improvement attitude that CCI projects hold (Hess 1999).
Increasing civic engagement is a hallmark of CCIs. It is connoted through such
activities as mobilizing volunteer campaigns for community cleanups, community
asset surveys and task forces. These activities are undertaken by CCI projects and
result in increased in civic engagement from there being more social networks (Hess
1999).
During the same time that CCIs first began to take shape conceptually inthe late
1980s, CDCs began diversifying their projects, adding human capital projects (e.g.,
job training) and participatory projects aimed at generating resident involvement in
32
planning and community directed group action (e.g., neighborhood cleanups,
meetings with police about foot patrols, etc.) to their traditional physical capital
projects (e.g., housing development). Since these parallel developments, a select
few authors suggest that the CCI model is more suited for the CDC industry than the
traditional model used (Briggs, Sullivan and Mueller 1997; Stoecker 1996 and
Steinbach 2002). The CCI model when applied to the overall work of CDCs no
longer focuses on real estate development and business lending as core
competencies, but rather, requires CDCs to have more resources, organizational
depth and a new set of expertise including case management, education and
training, transportation to work, and job and family counseling.
An example of a CDC using the CCI model isthe Dudley Street Neighborhood
Initiative (DSNI) located in Boston, Massachusetts. DSNI since its inception has
partnered to perform community development, shifting development projects to
neighboring CDCs who use the traditional model. DSNI maintains that protecting its
development potential means defining itself as "organizer, planner, monitor,
enabler, and protector of the community interests" (Medoff and Sklar 1994). This
organization implements a key component of the CCI, placing an emphasis on
community organizing rather than development.
Another CDC that applies a variation of the CCI model, "putting vision before
budget" isthe West Bank CDC inthe Cedar-Riverside community of East Toledo,
Ohio. The West Bank CDC is engaged in community-based planning and represents
an excellent example of a comprehensive community-controlled planning process.
So that residents are more likely to press for change, the West Bank CDC educates
residents on what resources and threats exist in their neighborhood, allows
residents to determine what kinds of development they want, and finally assists
residents plan creating their own vision for their community. This type of
community-controlled planning has led to the re-development of Cedar-Riverside's
industrial corridor, revitalization of a major shipyard and retainage of many the
areas industries (Stoecker, 1993).
Going comprehensive, however, is difficult for many CDCs because it puts undue
strain on the traditional CDC organizational structure. Walker and Weinheimer
(1999) write, "Pushing CDCs to expand activities, beyond physical development
activities too fast can cause harm.... we urge caution in making big leaps to the CCI
model. For example, the Eastside Community Investments (ECI) was one of the
nation's most successful organizations until it suffered a major financial collapse in
1997. ECI had rehabilitated more than 800 homes and apartments in its blue-collar
neighborhood near downtown Indianapolis. Through its business activities, it had
generated more than 1,500 jobs. It developed its own industrial park, invested in
more than 100 local enterprises, and pioneered an asset building program to
promote savings among neighborhood families. Its economic support services
helped at risk populations from teen parents to the mentally ill. But as it became
more comprehensive, ECI became seriously overextended. Its management and
board could not keep up and the CDC collapsed.
Most CDCs have chosen a course that falls somewhere in between of the traditional
model and the CCI model. They maintain a focus on housing and physical
development, and partner with other organizations to deliver job training and
placement, credit unions and savings programs, and human services. This
collaboration with entities is done rather than operating such social service activities
internally. NEWSED, a Latino CDC in Denver, isa prime example. Its expertise has
always been in commercial revitalization and real estate development, combined
with cultural activities. When funders asked NEWSED to take on more human
services activities, the CDC agreed. But it has done so by establishing a network of
service providers, rather than take on the responsibility for human services activities
internally. The 20 organizations inthe network offer services ranging from mental
health counseling and domestic violence intervention to advocating for development
in education reform (Stoecker 1996).
Recent Technological Changes in the CDC sector
Recently, within the CDC industry, there has been a movement to integrate the use
of technology within the activities of community development, community organizing
and community building. A study by the Structured Employment Economic
Development Corporation (SEEDCO) has given particular focus to CDCs use of
technology (2002).6 When it comes to the basic use and penetration of information
technology systems inthe CDC industry, 70% of the responding identified they
currently uses word processing, spreadsheets, and database, and financial and
accounting, applications on their computers. Sixty-seven percent reported that the
CDCs used a computer networked system - an important tool for strengthening
employee performance and increasing the efficiency of their communications with
one another (p.6). By and large CDCs are well equipped to use current computer
technology in their everyday functioning.
The SEEDCO study also revealed how CDCs faired with resource supply regarding
information technology. Within the CDC industry, most CDCs do not have a staff
member or department specifically devoted to information technology. CDCs also
indicated that senior staff pay little attention to information technology and most
CDCs rely on outside consultants for technical support. Further, most CDCs provide
little or no information technology training for their staff. The median spending for
IT for respondent CDCs was one percent of the organizations overall budget.
Despite the low resource supply for information technology within the CDC sector,
the use of high-end technologies as tools to carry out neighborhood revitalization
work is becoming prevalent. Geographic Information Systems (considered an
information technology) is now widely accessible and viewed as a fundamental tool
for CDCs to engage in neighborhood revitalization efforts (SEEDCO 2002). The use
SEEDCO surveyed 720 community based organizations inwhich 353 were CDCs.
6
36
of GIS as a civic engagement/public participation tool is an emerging activity. In
fact, several CDCs have gained national attention for their efforts. For example the
Cleveland, Ohio Neighborhood Development Corporations are noted for the T2K
Initiative. Developed by several broad range technology providers and CDCs, T2K is
a GIS for Cleveland CDCs to utilize internet technologies in increasing the capacity of
community organizations via information sharing. It focuses on specific geographic
locations and housing issues and reflects the priorities and needs of the participating
neighborhoods (PolicyLink 2001).
Another example of CDCs using GIS isthe Philadelphia Association of CDC. In
Philadelphia, the Association of CDCs has developed a GIS to collect neighborhood
data utilizing wireless hand held computers (i.e., personal digital assistants (PDAs).
Philadelphia CDCs, like those in Cleveland, developed and apply GIS with citywide
resident participation. The Philadelphia CDCs that use GIS find that they are more
astute, efficient, and effective in processes like mapping CDC service area
boundaries, and surveying vacant lots for residents. GIS is most commonly used in
the planning of real estate development and greening projects (e.g., identifying
community assets and the location and attributes of vacant land property) (Casey
and Peterson, 1999).
Finally in Richmond, Virginia CDCs have begun to use GIS. Working with the City of
Richmond and the Virginia Commonwealth University, The Richmond, Virginia
Association of CDCs has developed a GIS that allows CDC practitioners and others to
map the health of several of Richmond's neighborhoods (Blackford and Muller,
2002).
There does exist, however, some apprehension about GIS use by community CDC
practitioners. One CDC director explains why his organization has not taken steps of
purchasing GIS software:
"....We know the power of GIS... .We see how the city planning department
uses GIS to zone and make land-use decision... But to be practical, GIS isa
sophisticated software tool that needs a certain expertise to use and
maintain. It is also expensive. I don't think it's cost-effective for a CDC of
our size to invest inGIS software. Since I have a good relationship with the
people at the city planning department, they will construct a map or run
numbers for me when I need it for a proposal. Otherwise, there isjust not
enough work to justify an investment by the organization (SEEDCO 2001,
p.9)."
While it istrue that there exist members of the CDC industry who question the
practicality and sustainability of GIS; the success in its application by CDCs in
Philadelphia, Ohio, and Virginia, suggest that GIS use will continue to increase.
Preliminary evaluation research (Bailey 1998) suggests that a key to successful
GIS development and application in a non-profit environment is the creation of
38
partnerships with academic institutions and/or city planning departments. A
CDC director involved in a university/community partnership in which the
university provides technical assistance to the CDC comments:
..."I can't tell you how much these maps help us in community organizing.
At a community meeting, I can show the concentration of abandoned
property overlaid with crime. The maps are a powerful tool to help
residents understand why we need their backing and support to get title for
these properties from the city. Getting possession of the properties means
we can close the places where prostitutes and drug users congregate. We
use GIS for other community development use, but it is important to note
that we could not afford the resources to purchase the software or the
training. Our access to university resources makes that possible (SEEDCO
p. 10)."
The preceding quote is in fact representative of where the direction of GIS
development and application inthe CDC sector is moving - nationally CDC
intermediate funding sources (i.e., the Local Support Collaborative Initiative (LISC)
and the Enterprise Foundation) have begun to fund GIS projects.7 Due to this
funding, CDCs around the country have the opportunity to incorporate GIS within
their practices. In Boston, Massachusetts three CDCs consider information
technology as a part of best CDC practices include Dorchester Bay Economic
7Knowledge of this activity comes from the author's participation on an Information
Technology Advisory Committee for Boston-Metro CDCs.
Development Corporation, Fenway Development Corporation and Lawrence
Community Works. These three CDCs and their use of GIS as it relates to civic
engagement/public publication are discussed in Chapter 4.
Background on Community Development Corporations
In the 1960s community development corporations began forming to address the
failure of mainstream government and market structures to provide decent housing,
safe neighborhoods, good jobs, social supports, and citizen participation
opportunities for millions of Americans living in poor communities. Similar to other
non-profits engaged in community revitalization efforts, CDCs work to achieve
economic and social revival of low-income areas by deploying many strategies and
techniques that most often include citizen participation. All CDCs share a common
commitment-- to assist people on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder. From
the outset of the movement, however, the communities served by CDCs spanned a
broad demographic continuum 8 . Geographic areas where CDCs operate can range
from a few square blocks of an urban neighborhood to multi-county rural areas.
Their target populations are equally varied -- white, African American and others
from the diaspora, Latin Americans, Native Americans and other indigenous groups,
Many community development organizations march behind the CDC banner.
Depending on their origins, in addition to CDCs, these groups go by such names as
neighborhood development organizations, neighborhood housing services,
community economic development organizations, and community-based
development organizations. Over the past two decades, any technical distinction
that may have once existed among these terms has largely been lost.
8
40
Asian Americans, international immigrants, women, children, juveniles, recipients of
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), and the homeless, farmers and
small business owners.
CDCs, on average, are small in staff size and budget, characteristics common of
most small non-profit organizations. Early CDCs relied heavily on federal aid.
Although federal support remains critical to the industry, CDCs have greatly
expanded their financial base and have raised resources from a variety of funding
sources including but not limited to government, foundations, corporations, and
religious institutions. Today, a wide range of institutions support CDCs, including
state and city governments, foundations, banks, private corporations, religious
institutions, and universities (Vidal 1992; Steinbach, 2000).
Although CDCs share many of the characteristics common to small organizations,
they differ intheir sources of income. CDCs often operate as non-profit housing
developer, with the bulk of their income revenue streams coming from housing
development fees. Although the housing development fees that are generated from
CDC affordable housing projects are quite modest, that source of money plays a
critical role in covering overall operating expense. The financial scale of CDCs is
humble and core operating cost (i.e., operating expenses that must be incurred to
keep the organization functional but are not directly related to a specific project or
program) constitute a larger share of the total budget (Vidal 1992). Staff salaries
and CDC technology budgets, two critical pieces of total organizational
management, are often under funded within these organizations overall budgets.
The Disconnection between PPGIS and CDC use of GIS
CDCs are concerned with civic engagement/public participation and their gradual
use of GIS technologies is an activity that is happening simultaneously with the
gradual growth and development of the PPGIS model. The small amount of CDC
literature that focuses on GIS use does not refer to this use or associated this use
with the PPGIS model. PPGIS as a term is not used by community development
corporation practitioners (SEEDCO 2002; Blackford and Mueller 2002).9 Given this
reality, it appears that the work of CDCs using GIS and the continued discussion of
PPGIS are developing along parallel tracks. This research study hopes to assist in
informing CDC practitioners of the PPGIS model, while informing PPGIS proponents
on the civic engagement/public participation component within the community
development corporation sector.
9The small amount of CDC literature that focuses on GIS use does not refer to the use of
GIS by CDCs as PPGIS. Moreover GIS use by Massachusetts CDCs has not been
documented. Knowledge of GIS development and use within Massachusetts comes from the
author's participation on an IT advisory committee, formed by MACDC (Massachusetts
Association of Community Development Corporations) and the Boston Foundation.
Chapter 4
Case Studies
Dorchester Bay Economic Development Corporation
Background
Dorchester Bay Economic Development Corporation (Dorchester Bay EDC) was
founded in 1979 by local civic associations to address the problems resulting from
economic disinvestments, the shortage of quality and affordable housing, vast
unemployment, high crime rates, and community tensions undermining the
Dorchester and Roxbury neighborhoods. Their mission delineates that they act:
..."to build a strong, thriving and diverse community in Boston's north
Dorchester neighborhood. Working closely with neighborhood residents and
partners, we access resources to: (1) develop and preserve affordable
homeownership and rental housing; (2) create and sustain commercial and
economic development opportunities; and (3) build community power
through organizing and leadership development."
Dorchester Bay EDC consistently seeks to involve community members in all the
projects that it undertakes. Current project goals at Dorchester Bay EDC include but
are not limited to increased homeownership opportunities, increased job
opportunities and increased economic opportunities for residents of the service area.
Afew examples of the ways in which Dorchester EDC empowers their constituents is
through leadership trainings and offering workforce development training. These
43
trainings provide residents will skills that allow them to more fully participate in the
economic mainstream.
Dorchester Bay EDC is governed by a 13-member board, of which 9 members are
community residents and the majority of whom are elected by the organizations
community resident membership' 0 . Dorchester Bay EDC has a full-time staff of 24
and 1 part-time employee. Their expertise ranges from constructing sophisticated
financial packages to organizing neighborhood communities to fighting crime and
drug abuse. The staff speak several different languages including Spanish, Cape
Verdean Creole, Portuguese, and Chinese.
Community resident membership and constituents for the organization are the
residents and businesses in Boston's North Dorchester and Eastern Roxbury. The
population includes 59, 897 people, of whom 30% are children and youth (under 18
years old); 42% African American (of whom 20% are Cape Verdean); 21%
Caucasian; 18% Latino; and 7%Asian; a 25% poverty rate; and a 12%
unemployment rate. The area serves as a port of entry for Caribbean Spanishspeaking immigrants, and monolingual Portuguese-speaking Cape Verdeans and
represents the largest Cape Verdean concentration in Boston.
10 Dorchester Bay EDC staff and board membership represents the racial and ethnic mix of its service
area.
Dorchester EDC Bay has an annual budget of approximately 2.3 million dollars of
which 50% comes from grants, 25% is generated from real estate development fees
and the remaining 25% is generated from Dorchester Bay EDC owned property
income.
Dorchester Bay EDC conducts community development, community organizing and
community building activities. The organization defines community development as
activities related to affordable housing and commercial development as well as
economic development (i.e., job creation). During the last two years Dorchester
Bay EDC has rehabilitated a total of 64 affordable units, 8 of which were new homes
and 56 were rental units. Also within their housing activity the organization made
over $311,000 in home improvement and de-leaded family homes.
Dorchester Bay EDC is involved in a variety of economic development activities.
Among there most recent and notable accomplishments are the construction of
80,000 square feet of commercial space for a local computer graphics and digital
printing company. This project brought 130 jobs to the service area. The
organization also made six small business loans from their business loan fund, and
packaged over 1 million dollars in larger loans.
Dorchester Bay EDC considers such things as neighborhood barbecues, tenant
association formation, resident skill training and leadership development, anti-crime
45
marches and meetings, and providing recreational events as community organizing
activities. It also view such activities like communal gardens, cultural fairs, and
community socials, as community building activities. During the last two years it has
graduated and placed over 100 community residents from their owned and operated
community technology center; provided summer camps and after school programs
for over 200 youth; ran an active senior citizens program; assisted six different
tenant and resident associations; organized residents to improve customer service
and pricing at an area shopping mall; and assisted parents from three different
neighborhood schools to obtain $10,000 per school which was used to improve state
testing training and materials.
Civic Engagement
Dorchester Bay EDC defines civic engagement/public participation as active
participation by residents in community activities as well as in Dorchester Bay EDC
projects. Further, they believe that civic engagement/public participation extends to
the development of leadership and empowerment within residents in various
community decision-making processes. The organization encourages community
residents to consider participating inthe board member election process where as
resident candidates have the opportunity to be elected on the board to assist in
organization governance. Board members can participate on 1 or more of the
following organizational committees: The Loan Committee, responsible for loan
oversight of the organization; The Strategic Planning Committee, responsible for
planning and monitoring the strategic vision of the organization; The Economic
46
Development Committee, responsible for identifying prospective economic
development projects; the Organizing Committee, responsible for the oversight of
the organizing activities and the Housing Committee, responsible for the oversight of
housing development activities.
Civic engagement/public participation has increased in recent years due to
Dorchester Bay EDC's broader community outreach, relationship building, and
leadership development. This increase has been attributed to grassroots organizing.
The organization promotes civic culture to its service area residents by encouraging
them to volunteer with other local institutions and service agencies. For example,
Dorchester Bay works with the faith base organization Greater Boston Interfaith
Organization (GBIO). GBIO is a broad based coalition engaged in many public policy
issues at the state level. Dorchester EDC and GBIO have worked together to
organize residents to lobby both city and state politicians to sustain affordable
housing policy. Affordable housing policy is only one issue that GBIO undertakes.
Because Dorchester Bay focuses their civic engagement/public participation efforts
at the neighborhood and local level, it encourages residents to volunteer with that
organization to be further engaged in public policy issues. Dorchester Bay EDC also
encourages its residents to actively participate in neighborhood affairs and
neighborhood events like neighborhood socials and barbecues; and also and engage
in cultural and recreational resources to promote community building - like using
the public park facilities that the organization recently renovated.
47
Use of GIS: Dorchester Bay EDC: Green Design
In fall 2001, Dorchester Bay EDC worked with an economic development planning
graduate class from MIT's Department of Urban Studies and Planning (DUSP) to
identify economic development and brownfield redevelopment in Dorchester. The
objectives of the study were to conduct research on sustainable development
possibilities in the area, build a local constituency behind these values, and
encourage collaboration between residents, community organizations, landowners,
and industry." As a part of the study a GIS was developed that focused on Green
Design, a practice that significantly reduces or eliminates the negative impact of
buildings on the environment and surrounding residents. Dorchester Bay EDC
Assistant Project Manager of Economic Development, Mark Norton and two 1st year
DUSP Master of Community Planning graduate students worked closely together to
collect neighborhood indicator information for various businesses. After data
collection, (which involved Dorchester Bay EDC organizing staff and research team
members meeting with neighborhood groups, and talking to business owners to get
a sense of the emerging issues to be addressed) the data were then geo-coded,
incorporated into a GIS software application and then used by Mr. Norton and other
staff members to produce maps that illustrated the location of Brownfield's, their
" MIT's Department of Urban Studies and Planning faculty members Bill Shutkin and Karl
Seidman, crafted ajoint project to promote the synergies which stem from the
interdependency of economic and environmental. Through collaboration with a local client,
the Dorchester Bay Economic Development Corporation (DBEDC), graduate students were
able to explore pragmatic strategies to enable a real community to approach sustainable
development.
potential to be developed, and their relationships with the neighborhood and
existing business/economic opportunities.
GIS development and application at Dorchester Bay EDC has involved several
components. First, Dorchester Bay EDC's GIS was conceptualized across all five
organizational departments including: Organizing, Real Estate Development, Finance
and Asset Management, Small Business Programs, and Homeowner Loan Services.
Staff in the Real Estate Development Department drove the GIS development
movement within the organization, however each department provided critical
information to the development department on potential uses of GIS in their work.
Among the uses noted were fundraising, demographic, open space, crime,
transportation and traffic, and community services analysis.
The second component of Dorchester Bay EDC's GIS development focused
hardware and software. There was no need to purchase any additional hardware to
run Dorchester Bay EDC's conceptualized GIS. Dorchester Bay EDC is an
organization that incorporated the use of information technology into their daily
operations (using email and having an organizational computer system which is
networked). The computer hardware and software used by staff met the minimum
requirements to run several commonly used word processing and financial software
and met the minimum requirements to run a desktop GIS software application.
With data in hand, and no need to purchase additional software, the organization
began to use the GIS software application, Arcview 3.2, produced by Environmental
Systems Research Institute (ESRI). Arcview 3.2 was donated to the organization to
produce maps and conduct data analysis.
After the organization began creating maps and analyzing data, the issue of
sustainability surfaced. Questions of which staff persons would dedicate time to
develop and sustain the GIS arose. Since Dorchester Bay EDC developed their GIS,
the organization has had the in-house capacity to create maps of their service area,
and to conduct community-planning analysis related geographic information, but
map creation by development staff has been minimal. Mark Norton has a Master of
Community Planning degree from MIT and was first exposed to GIS technologies
while a graduate student in DUSP. Norton, and Assistant Project Manager, Alicia
Toney who has been with Dorchester Bay EDC for two years, completed a 1 week
introductory course at the University of Massachusetts-Boston, but both admit that
despite their knowledge of GIS, and their desire to use GIS more, the time to use
GIS as a tool is limited.
Overall, GIS use inthe organization has been minimal, and mainly for administrative
purposes. For example, project managers have produced maps for resident
meetings to highlight particular development issues inthe service area. Also maps
have been produced for funders. Norton noted,
"Unfortunately we have not been able to use GIS on a level which would
assist in the areas needed. We are still implementing GIS. We do use it for
mapping and demographic analysis however, the biggest challenge is time
management. We have little time to devote to using GIS. A lot of potential
benefits and uses of GIS by Dorchester Bay EDC have not been realized due
to the technical, training and time resource issues associated with a fullblown GIS system at a relatively small non-profit. We had and still have big
plans to use GIS. However, we did not anticipate the amount of time it
takes to obtain, maintain and update databases. Our staff lacks the time for
training and practice to use the software to be able to do sophisticated
analysis."
Norton hopes to use GIS more in his day-to-day work. He has been somewhat
successful with the application. For example, Norton used GIS technologies to create
maps of the proposed Indigo Line, a public bus route, to justify the social and
economic needs of the Dorchester Bay EDC service area to convert the commuter
rail into a subway line. His map showed buffered zones along the existing rail line
to illustrate the population in walking distance to the station, other transportation
stops and business clusters benefiting from this conversion. Norton's maps were
presented to various civic associations where he galvanized support for this
Dorchester Bay EDC initiated project. Dorchester Bay was successful in using the
GIS produced maps to convey important messages about public transportation
needs to residents who in turn put pressure on local officials (through a signing
petition campaign and phone calling campaign) to initiate such project. In the
summer of 2002, four years after the initial proposal, the Indigo Line opened as a
public transportation bus route.
Dorchester Bay EDC views GIS technology as making the organization more
effective at identifying and evaluating opportunities. The EDC realizes their need to
strengthen organizational capacity and to expand their GIS beyond the work of the
development department. The Director of Organizing, hopes to integrate the use of
GIS in the organizing staff's work in such things like conducting a power analysis,
where residents are responsible for creating maps that indicate where the social
capital is in the neighborhood. At this time, however, the organization does not
have the financial resources to hire an additional organizing staff person
knowledgeable of GIS to help carry out this vision.
Impact of Civic Engagement/Public Participation on GIS at Dorchester
EDC
Dorchester Bay EDCs' GIS use is internal to the organization, does not involve
residents and is mainly administrative. Only the development department staff
currently uses GIS. Although GIS use at the organization does not directly involve
residents, development staff use it as a tool to impact civic engagement/public
participation through CDC advocacy of development projects to funders and civic
associations, a process that prior to GIS use was less time efficient and effective.
For example project managers conveyed their messages to civic association and
residents using traditional maps, pens, pencils, and markers, to make their case of
the potential impact of a development projects or showing places of vacant lots, etc.
When making presentations to funders, project managers relied on different pieces
of paper that had various bits of information to convey a full picture of their
concerns. To create such things like development feasibility studies and market
analysis, housing development staff gathered information about available property
assessment, economic and demographic data, by reading Bankers and Tradesmana real estate periodical for the New England area, mailings from the Department of
Neighborhood Development and the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA)-two
City of Boston agencies which are responsible for much of the public housing and
commercial real estate development in Boston, word of mouth and canvassing the
neighborhood.
These approaches used by Dorchester EDC, are typical of CDCs engaged in
community development projects, and are cumbersome, unreliable, and time
consuming, with the time issue being problematic as development projects require
the ability to quickly research and update data. This is necessary because available
land becomes scarce quickly fast and as land disappears it becomes more
expensive.
Affordable housing and commercial real estate projects evolve in three phases:
feasibility, acquisition and construction, and post-construction. Funders usually
require and CDCs typical conduct and supply, project feasibility analysis and market
studies. Crafting a market study requires CDC development staff to survey within
their service area, things like vacant land or buildable land, incidents of crime, public
and recreational areas, and green space. Market studies also include information
like commercial and housing building types, zoning code information, and land use
and value assessment data. This market study information has to be conveyed to
funders in such a way that is compelling offer funding.
GIS impacts civic engagement/public participation at Dorchester Bay EDC by
providing the development staff a more efficient and effective way to seek out
development proposal that will benefit their constituents. Project managers use GIS
to specifically identify and evaluate development opportunities and produce maps
that allow them to make compelling cases to funders in a time frame that is
conducive to the fast paced development process. Since GIS, the development
department has a more systematic and expeditious approach to data collection and
storage. Data (i.e., land assessment data, vacant land, Brownfield information, etc.)
are no longer stored in spreadsheets on individual project mangers' desktop
computers, but rather stored in one database. As data changes the databases are
undated and maps are generated to show change and difference. It is speculated
by Dorchester Bay development staff that the success in recent funding proposals
was largely do to GIS produced maps conveying information in a precise way. Tasks
like conveying constituents concerns to funders and presenting information on
development opportunities to civic associations with GIS produced maps are now
54
part and parcel to successful community development projects at Dorchester Bay
EDC.
Fenway Community Development Corporation
Background
Fenway CDC (FCDC) was incorporated in 1973 by a group of housing activist who
had previously organized many residents to successfully win a battle against city
hall. This win halted part of an urban renewal plan that would have detrimentally
changed the face of the Fenway neighborhood. FCDC serves the greater Fenway
neighborhood and is run by an active 18-member board of which is comprised of
residents from the neighborhood who are elected to 3-year terms. It has a
professional staff of 19 that is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the CDC".
Of the 19 staff positions, one is part-time.
Similar to Dorchester Bay EDC, FCDC serves the residents and businesses of the
Fenway neighborhood. The Fenway community is home to approximately 33,000
people, nearly half of whom are students who attend one of seven neighborhood
universities, music or art schools in the area. For this reason, 60% of the population
is comprised of people who are 18-24 years old. Conversely, only five percent of the
Although "The Fenway" is referred to as a single neighborhood, The Fenway is actually
an amalgamation of five areas contained within 1.24 square miles: Audubon Circle, East
Fenway, Kenmore Square, Longwood, and West Fenway. Each of these sub-neighborhoods
has a separate character of its own though all contain one or more major medical, cultural
or educational institution.
12
population is elderly, with half living at or below the poverty level. 40% of Fenway's
residents are single parents, who are supporting families on incomes situated at or
below the poverty level. The neighborhood has a large international immigrant
population, with 15% of residents speaking a language other than English and nine
percent having self identified themselves to FCDC as speaking English very poorly, if
at all. 72% of the residents in FCDC service area are White, 11% are Black, 10%
are Asian and seven percent are of Latin descent.
FCDC has an annual budget that averages a little over two million dollars. With an
operating income of a little less than one million dollars; foundation and corporation
grant offer the largest amount of income revenue with real estate developer project
and other program fees following at 31%. Remaining income for FCDC comes from
membership and grassroots fundraising (3%), public contracts (12%), and donated
services (4%).
In the Fenway community there exist extraordinary market pressures on the
neighborhood. The top priorities of FCDC are affordable housing development,
preservation, and resident home ownership. The ultimate goal of FCDC's real
estate strategy is to expand the stock of affordable housing for low- and
moderate- income neighborhood residents. Over their 30 year existence, FCDC
has developed over 560 units of affordable, mixed income housing for seniors,
families and people living with AIDS. Similar to a common practice of CDCs, FCDC
owns seven of the properties that it has developed.
Fenway CDC defines community development as activities that include the
physical development of affordable housing and public recreational space. For
example, the organization recently completed the Susan S.Ballis Assisted Living
Community that provides 82 units of mixed-income assisted housing for seniors.
The organization defines community organizing activities as activities, which
mobilize residents around neighborhood issues. For example, the organization
sponsors planning meetings for resident to voice their concerns regarding
neighborhood issues like increased rents.
Community building activities are viewed as activities that help strengthen
relationships between resident groups, like neighborhood festivals, as well as
strengthen resident individual leadership, like offering skill training. One example
of FCDC's community building activities is there job placement program, which
has placed 230 Fenway residents into jobs through a job placement program.
This job readiness/job placement program offers training and placement into jobs
in which transportation is not a concern. Another such activity is the Taste of
Fenway, a neighborhood festival that celebrates the Fenway's diverse talents and
cultures.
Civic Engagement
Civic engagement has a long history in both the neighborhood and work of Fenway
CDC. Dating back to the 1960s and 1970s when the character of the Fenway
neighborhood was threaten by an urban renewal project; community residents
57
organized themselves and mounted a legal challenge against the project. In this
landmark case, they succeeded in gaining the right to have a neighborhood-elected
board become part of the decision making process in neighborhood development
planning. The outgrowth of this activity was Fenway Project Area Committee
(FenPAC), a community-led planning organization that elicited and advocated
neighborhood positions on local planning issues. Seeing a need to be civicly
engaged around issues of affordable housing creation and preservation, in addition
to participation in development proposals, several members of FenPAC formed the
Fenway CDC. Fenway CDC was officially incorporated in 1973.
Fenway CDC has 500 members, most of whom are neighborhood residents. Over
200 members are involved in various coalitions. Fenway CDC actively encourages
members to join the various committees and task forces where they can take a role
in shaping important community projects. Residents can also volunteer with office
projects at the Fenway CDC office, with seniors at the Peterborough Senior Center,
or work with children at the Fenway After School Care program on Burbank Street.
Fenway CDC has over 10 committees working on a variety of projects including:
Housing Development, Community Planning, Family Services, etc.
Since its incorporation, Fenway CDC has continued to have civic engagement as a
major thrust of its work and continues to experience success. In 2001, the Fenway
neighborhood was once again threatened with massive neighborhood change. This
time, the challenge emerged from one of Boston's most famous attractions, Fenway
Park (home to the Boston Red Sox). In 2001 the Boston Red Sox released a
proposal to build a new baseball stadium, which called for an additional 10,000
seats. These additional seats would require a substantial amount of land and
eliminate housing. Fenway CDC felt that the proposed Red Sox ballpark was too
large and too close to the neighborhood. They suggested that this embellished
ballpark would be overwhelming and leave no buffer zone. FCDC's community
organizing efforts were successful and resulted in two plans for the renovation of
Fenway Park within the context of Fenway CDC's "Urban Village Plan." The Urban
Village Plan was a report published in 1992 that guided the growth in the West Fens
section of Boston. It called for mixed-income housing over ground floor retail, with
school and community center in the Boylston Street area near Fenway Park' 3 . The
developers of Fenway Park have embraced many of the ideas from the several
community meetings organized by FCDC. The board, executive director and staff of
FCDC believe that their community organizing efforts related to the ballpark
expansion efforts not only helped prevent a new stadium that would overwhelm the
neighborhood, but it also may have helped save the major's leagues oldest ballpark
13
In 1989, Fenway CDC initiated an extensive and inclusive community planning process
called the Kenmore, Audubon, Fenway Neighborhood Initiative (KAFNI). Following three
years of discussion and research and dozens of community meetings, the CDC and
hundreds of community residents published The Urban Village Plan for the West Fenway.
The Plan which was revived in 1999 in response to the Red Sox proposal, has become the
community's vision for its future and a rallying point for residents. In addition to calling for
mixed income housing, the Plan would improve public transit, open space and pedestrian
amenities in the neighborhood, and support environmentally sound design and
development.
and one of the city's top attractions. Additionally, FCDC has made possible the
development of the Urban Village near the Fenway Park.
Use of GIS: Fenway CDC: Working with the Peterborough Senior Center
Fenway CDC has been implementing a GIS for the past 2 years. First hired as a
community organizer, then promoted to project manager in the housing
development department; Jason Korb has been the driving force of implementing a
GIS at the Fenway CDC. Korb who has a Bachelor of Arts in History with a minor in
African Studies, became interested in GIS while working for the Massachusetts
Association of Community Development Corporations (MACDC). Korb applied to the
Environmental Systems Research Institute's (ESRI) Conservation Program, and
through completing the grant application process made Fenway CDC a recipient of a
free licensed version of ESRI's desktop GIS software ArcInfo 8.0.14
Ayear ago Korb enrolled himself in a GIS undergraduate course at Northeastern
University, where he learned the theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of GIS
application. Within a few months of the end of his class Korb set out to apply his
new skill set to his community organizing work. With a self-prepared GIS power
point presentation intote, Korb scheduled a presentation with a group of senior
citizens at the Peterborough Senior Center located just blocks from Fenway CDC.
His presentation was brief and easy to understand, highlighted the main features
ESRI's Conservation Grant Program provides donations and discounts of their GIS software, data,
books and training.
14
60
and capabilities of ArcView, and denoted its potential uses in community organizing
work. The seniors who were present at the meeting expressed interest inworking
with Korb on an GIS organizing project.
Though the resident organizing project which would utilize ArcView as a tool which
was undefined at the time of Korb's presentation; it only took a few meetings with
theses seniors to determine their major concerns and issues. The seniors decided
that mapping the condition of pedestrian intersections would be the priority.
Seniors identified the following as what was most dangerous about West Fenway
Boylston Street: trying to cross the street; faded crosswalk paint; lack of signs
and/or barrels to slow traffic; timing signals did not provide adequate time for
seniors to cross the street; and timing signals were difficult to read from a distance
or are not visible.
During the meetings, the organizing process was defined. First, Korb would prepare
maps for teams of seniors, then teams would visit the intersections and note their
observations, and finally Korb would take the collected data and load it into ArcView.
Korb, along with four seniors, surveyed the West Fenway neighborhood to identify
infrastructure trouble stops. The seniors unanimously identified intersections on
West Fenway's Boylston Street as their greatest safety and mobility concern.
Boylston Street is the third busiest street in Boston with 42,000 daily vehicle trips.
The group ranked intersections on a scale from 1 (good) to 3 (poor-safety hazard).
Crosswalk visibility and paint, signage, and signals were all taken into account.
Litter was also mapped. Rankings were entered into the GIS mapping program.
Korb using the GIS software created maps.
With input from the seniors Korb created a PowerPoint presentation of their GIS
project. Korb also taught the seniors how to use PowerPoint to give there two
presentations, the second of which was attended by their City Councilman along
with 50 other community residents. They made the following recommendations:
. Paint wide, well striped crosswalks that are repainted at least once a year
* Install new crossing signals that are more visible, "chirp," and provide
adequate pedestrian crossing time and,
" Add "yield to pedestrian" signs in the middle of the street where no signal
exists.
Although Korb, the seniors, and other Fenway constituents deemed the GIS project
a success; the use of GIS at Fenway as a civic engagement tool has decreased.
Korb believes that the decrease in use is because there is not a dedicated "GIS"
specialist at the Fenway CDC. Korb acknowledges that he isthe GIS expert who
other staff members turn to when they are in need of maps and other types of
analysis that ESRI's ArcView can produce. However Korb's responsibilities are not
solely GIS. "Creating maps takes a great deal of time," admits Korb's, "most people
don't understand that." Fenway CDC thinks that getting a dedicated person is
essential to continue the success of GIS at the organization, especially to continue
the use GIS with its community organizing activities. Thus, they are considering
establishing a more formal and long term relationship with an academic institution,
like MIT, from which they employed a summer graduate from the Department of
Urban Studies and Planning.
Impact of GIS on Civic Engagement/Public Participation Prior to GIS at
Fenway CDC
Prior to GIS, the organizing department at Fenway CDC used traditional methods to
engage residents in projects. Paper maps were used at communities meeting along
with pushpins and markers to identify neighborhood data to residents. Ten years
ago, the organization's organizing staff enlisted teams of residents on a canvassing
effort of their service area. Using colored markers, staff and residents identified all
the dilapidated and vacant housing. This data was then transferred to a color-coded
map for staff organizers to use as an administrative reference. The map and all
data were kept in a three-ring binder.
GIS at Fenway CDC was designed primarily for organizing purposes (although it is
hoped that it can be expanded for the development department too) and impacted
civic engagement/public participation by empowering resident members to voice
their own concerns to government officials. Fenway CDC, residents' presentation to
the city council obtained positive results. Their area city councilman acknowledged
and congratulated the seniors on a well-researched project. There was a follow-up
by the city council and most noteworthy, the city completed several tasks, which
had been identified by the seniors. The seniors were empowered not only by the
recognition from their city council representative, but also from the mere fact that
their fellow residents respected their thoughts. At the first meeting 15 community
residents attended, but the second meeting and final presentation for which the city
councilman was present, 80 people attended. There was general buzz about public
participation and news regarding the first meeting. Senior resident attendees
informed other residents about the success of the presentations.
Empowering both individuals and groups is a critical component of civic
engagement/public participation. Early CDCs delineated civic engagement through
citizen participation in the housing development process (i.e., coming to meeting,
etc.). Empowerment in this sense was through group efficacy -- that is continued
group experience of having the ability to halt or significantly alter plans to dismantle
low-income communities. Today, the definition of civic engagement/public
participation held by CDCs has evolved. It includes empowerment, offering
residents tools needed to enhance their own lives, and assisting them in to become
civicly engaged (e.g., voting, participating in leadership activities, joining resident
coalitions and association, etc.). This is most often done through workforce
development programs, resident leadership programs, etc. The senior of the
Peterborough Center have actualized civic engagement and empowerment.
Lawrence Community Works
Background
Lawrence Community Works (LCW) (formerly Lawrence Planning & Neighborhood
Development Corporation) was founded in 1986. Although it came into existence
during the second wave of CDCs (Vidal 1992), it maintained the tradition of the first
generation of CDCs - creating a 170 affordable housing co-op units in Lawrence's,
MA North Common neighborhood. While this initial project was successful, by the
late 1990s the CDC's vision and productivity had stalled. The Board of Directors,
through an intensive community organizing and planning effort guided by members
of the current management team, set its sights on a more ambitious plan for the
neighborhood. It spearheaded a leadership change to reinvigorate the CDC. At
that time, the organization had been de-funded by the City and State, had one full
time staff person, an operating budget of $60,000, and no projects in development.
At present day LCW has a 17 member board-of-directors, 70% of which are
residents, a full time staff of 18 and an annual budget that averages over 1 million
dollars. Different from Dorchester Bay EDC and FCDC which are both located within
the City of Boston and benefit from the rights and privileges of the city's elaborate
and sophisticated community development funding system (Bratt 1992); LWC is
situated 29 miles north of Metro-Boston and issubstantially less funded by federal
and local community development funding sources. However, LCW, like the other
CDCs inthis study, has 25 %self-supporting dollars, which come through real estate
developers fees and project management fees. The remaining 66% balance of the
operating budge comes from private funds given by banks, corporations, and
foundations.
As a CDC LCW has all of the difficult neighborhood challenges, but far fewer
resources to address neighborhood revitalization concerns. LCW has defined and is
implementing a neighborhood revitalization strategy that has the involvement and
support of a broad and diverse community constituency. This strategy is rooted in a
thoughtful, strategic neighborhood planning process grounded in local knowledge
and assets, technical expertise, awareness of the larger context, and research into
best practices. It also has the full support of key institutional stakeholders such as
the City; and it has brought together a wide range of public and private partners
and resources at the local, state and national level.
Lawrence iswell known as one of the Commonwealth's most troubled cities. Its
status as the 23rd poorest city inthe United States, with the lowest per-capita
income in Massachusetts, contrasts with the booming economy of the surrounding
region. Unemployment consistently hovers at two to three times higher than that of
the state and national rates. As the only substantial source of affordable housing in
the Merrimack Valley, Lawrence is home to a sizable low-income population filling
66
the low-wage, low-skill jobs that are the underside of the flourishing regional
economy. Home-ownership figures are around 35% citywide, half the national rate.
This minimal figure highlights the mostly-Latino north side where vacant lots and
boarded-up buildings bear mute testimony to the arson wave that flamed through
the City in the early 1990s. Immigration flows have brought new populations into
the City in recent decades, with inevitable ethnic and political tensions arising as a
result (Andors 1999).
During the past 2M2 years, LCW has become a powerful vehicle for community
revitalization and has completed many community development, community
organizing and community building activities. LCW has developed several affordable
houses, renovated several rental units and operates several youth and adult
programs.
Civic Engagement
The mission of Lawrence Community Works draws heavily on the traditional core
CDC activities of community organizing and community building. Central to LCW's
mission isthe act of empowering neighborhood residents. LCW, since its rebirth as
an organizational entity in the late 1990s, has made community organizing activities
a priority. This priority is illustrated in LCW's ability to attract 260 new resident
memberships, as well as creating a membership structure, which includes resident
members engaging inthe LCW organizational decision-making process. In addition
to the traditional venue of general membership (the membership is comprised of
over 500 people and elects the board and votes on proposed changes to the by-laws
annually) and board member participation (76%of the board are community
members); LCW offers a variety of committees that resident members can join.
These committees are more fluid than the board's committees in that they draw
from both the board and the general membership and have the task of visioning and
planning for LCW's projects. They monitor ongoing collaboration once projects are
underway.
Use of GIS
LCW started developing a GIS in 1999 after the arrival of two MIT Master of
Community Planning student interns. At that time, the GIS development process
was driven by the interns who used both software and data resources from their
graduate program. The development of the system was focused on a geographical
area in the City of Lawrence called the North Common Neighborhood (a
neighborhood that at that time was plagued with several vacant lots and abandoned
houses, particularly on Summer Street). Afull fledge land use investigation was
initiated by the interns and small staff at LCW. The "Summer Street Project,"
began to focus on the re-use of every vacant lot on Summer Street, with the intent
of creating four new two family homes and a playground. The current Deputy
Director of LCW was one of the two MIT graduate interns four years ago and was
instrumental in bringing GIS to the organization. She used a simple process to
develop the GIS which included tracking data on all of the vacant parcels and
abandoned land in the North Common neighborhood. Initial GIS took between 4 to
6 months, after which LCW was able determine the opportunities in the
neighborhood and hone in on Summer Street as a core strategy. The GIS that LCW
developed helped to highlight overarching patterns of the city. They were quick to
organize and share this with their constituents. While residents were not involved in
collecting and analyzing the data, a general institutional knowledge emerged.
Residents involved with LCW came to know more about their community than some
city employees. This empowered the residents as City officials began to depend on
their knowledge.
Antonio Gonzalez was hired as a design center instructor neighborhood planner in
2001. Gonzalez, who is formally trained as an architect and hold a Masters of
Community Planning from MIT, is the staff person at LCW who operates GIS. With
his responsibilities spilt between teaching teenagers in the design center and his
responsibilities as a neighborhood planner, Gonzalez creates maps using GIS for
himself and other departments at LCW. At present day, the GIS at LCW isan all inhouse operation and has a cutting edge hardware and software system. LCW uses
software, ArcView 8.1, which was donated and owns its own Hewlett Packard Plotter
(which was obtained through a successful grant application process). GIS use at
LCW is primarily internal to the organization as acknowledged by Gonzalez and
LCW's Deputy Director, Kristen Harol, also a MIT, DUSP graduate. When maps are
needed for neighborhood planning meetings or resident organizing exercises; staff
members utilize Gonzales' expertise to produce them. GIS and information
technology are of top priority for LCW and are well supported by executive and
senior management.
LCW is currently planning the next phase of its GIS development and application,
which would move their in-house GIS mapping and analysis capabilities on-line for
community residents to use. This expansion, which is built around the Reviviendo
Gateway Initiative (RGI), is in it's conceptualize stage's. Similar to LCW's initial GIS
development, this expansion has created a five year partnership between MIT's
Department of Urban Planning and Studies. Although the full scope of LCW's web
GIS has not been fully actualized, the organization does acknowledge that this new
application will be created out of an "informed and democratic decision-making (with
emphasis on accountability for all residents) framework."
The Revivendo Gateway Initiative isproject undertaken by LCW, the City of Lawrence,
and GenCorp to better understand the redevelopment plans and issues in the Gateway - an
area housed in the North Common neighborhood - and to explore how those plans could be
an asset to residents of the neighborhood. In essence, RGI is shaped by three core values;
RGI isa community-based effort; RGI isout-come driven; and RGI is a dynamic process.
15
Chapter 5: Discussion and Lessons Learned
PPGIS Growth at CDCs
In this study each CDC has developed a GIS and is in one of three phases: GIS
Beginning; GIS Maintained; GIS Sustained. Respectively, the cases of Dorchester
Bay EDC, Fenway CDC and Lawrence Community Works, as a collective provide
insight on the underlying assumptions of GIS development and application.
GIS Beginning
Dorchester Bay EDC's PPGIS development did not involve any resident participation.
Their use of GIS, although successful, has been primarily an internal development
process. Dorchester Bay EDC hopes to expand their GIS development process to
include residents in future expansion and development of Global Position Systems
(GPS) units. They hope to use GIS with activities of their public computer
technology center which they own and operate. They also hope to use their GIS in
the organizing department as a tool for performing such tasks as "power analysis."
Power analysis is a way in which community change activist analyze a neighborhood
and determine who holds power. It actualizes community change, organizes
effective opposition and compares notes on community power brokers.
GIS Maintained
LCW includes civic participation in their use of GIS, but there is still a tendency for it
to be primarily internally used. In the development of their GIS, LCW used
residents' help in identifying vacant lots. This was done by residents canvassing the
neighborhood. LCW isat a different place with their GIS growth. Like Dorchester
Bay EDC, LCW's initial GIS development was initially pushed from within the
organization, with residents reviewing the maps that were generated and then
providing feedback to LCW. Staff then made appropriate adjustments to reflect
residents' views and perceptions of the community. At least one community
resident who desires to create maps himself. LCW maintains that the next step is to
offer the actual tool of GIS to their residents. They are currently crafting a concept
paper around the idea of providing GIS map-making training to their community
constituents. Thus, this is moving their GIS development more central to the
current day thinking and practices of CDC civic engagement, which focuses on skill
building of individual CDC constituents.
GIS Sustained
Fenway CDC's GIS was designed primarily for organizing activities at the
organization. In the case of Fenway CDC, GIS application, as oppose to GIS
development, was inclusive of resident participation. Fenway CDC's GIS application
process empowered senior residents by giving them a space to communicate their
concerns to government officials in their own voice. The Fenway case suggest that
GIS application that heavily involves resident participation works well with
community organizing activities, where organizing staff are involved in building the
capacity of resident.
72
Lessons Learned
As mentioned earlier this document is only a beginning; as a broad inquiry it
naturally raises more questions than it answers. The following are areas of further
research:
Views of management (executive and departmental), board
members and residents, on IT in general and training, and how this
relates to civic engagement/public participation. All CDCs are using
basic level IT - that is each CDCs uses email internally and externally, and
operates a computer-networked system. The use of high end technologies
like GIS was not a "hard sell" to each executive director, and was not deemed
too expensive a tool to incorporate into the daily operations of the
organization. LCW isthe extreme case of this concept. They have a map
plotter on site. The executive director and deputy director have declared that
LCW is striving to be at the cutting edge of IT within the CDC industry. The
deputy director is committed to expanding their GIS as she is currently
engaged in crafting proposals to expodentially expand their current GIS
efforts.
General investment in basic IT at Dorchester Bay EDC and FCDC, and more
aggressive investment in IT taking place at LCW suggests that information
technology isworth investigating at each organization. Exploring the views of
these actors could perhaps provide a clearer delineation between the value
placed on information technology overall within the organization and the
value place on high-end technologies like GIS. Exploring the meaning of civic
engagement/public participation and how technological changes impact that
definition, with actors who have a long term association with the CDC (e.g.,
management and board members) and actors other than CDC staff who are
involved inthe CDCs civic engagement/public participation work (i.e.,
residents and other CDC constituents), could provide a more authentic
understanding of perceived and actualized community empowerment
occurring before and after the organization's integration of technology.
* Connections between CDCs and GIS resource providers (e.g.,
academic institution). PPGIS development and application involves both
data and human resources. Whether through an indirect or direct GIS
development project, each CDC inthis study has established a relationship
with an academic institution. Dorchester Bay EDC and Fenway CDC received
both data and human resources (e.g. interns) to help initiate their respective
systems (i.e., University Partnerships - for both data resources and labor). In
the Dorchester EDC and Fenway cases, although only short term, graduate
level interns complete initial tasks like data collection and database
construction, geo-coding of the collected data and imputing data into the
organization's GIS software application.
Much of the literature on the development of GIS as a civic
engagement/public participation tool suggests that much of the initial
expense of organizational GIS development isassociated with the
aforementioned tasks. Further research to explore how individual CDCs
building partnerships with resource providers could offer insight on how to
develop and sustain GIS. As well, deeper exploration of resources held within
the organization could be valuable. For example, exploring issues of where
exactly the GIS movement ispositioned within an organization (e.g., housing
development department or the organizing department) and juxtapose with
best practices of PPGIS development, could help CDCs identify their usespecific resources and plan their PPGIS development more appropriately.
* Dedicated GIS professionals in CDC environments. Professionalism
within the CDC industry has been a long standing debate -centering on the
necessity (or not) and relevance of CDC practitioners to have credentials (i.e.,
formal college and advance degree education) juxtapose their understanding
of the community development (which is sometimes thought of as being
grassroots) context.
Future research of PPGIS at GIS could explore the relevance of formal
education and other professional expertise. The GIS development presented
in the cases involved community development practitioners who were college
educated, were comfortable using other types of computer software and
hardware in their work and were directly involved in civic engagement/public
participation processes. The growth and development, and sustainability of
PPGISs may be tied to a CDCs' ability to have staff members who have
advanced knowledge of GIS, with that knowledge and skill being acquired
over time. At LCW, the only CDC in the study that is moving towards putting
their GIS capabilities directly inthe hands of its constituents has at least two
staff members that use (one of which is part of executive management) with
advanced degrees. Their exposure to GIS was over a two-year period and
they both have worked in the community development industry for over five
years. The cases of Dorchester EDC and Fenway CDC illuminate
organizations' GIS capacity at lesser levels of staff training and exposure to
GIS.
It has become increasingly important to understand the ways in which community
development corporations impact the civic engagement/public participation of their
constituents through their neighborhood revitalization efforts. As there has been an
increase inthe use of information technology in general within the CDC sector, the
strategies used to engage citizens in community planning and processes must
become more transparent to better utilize the PPGIS model.
Today most CDCs, apply the traditional model to neighborhood revitalization
focusing on the three board strategies of community development, community
organizing and community building. These tools embrace resident civic
engagement/public participation from an agency advocacy perspective. The three
cases presented inthis study that CDCs are more likely to work on behalf of their
constituents, and have less time to donate to resident capacity and skill buildingthe latter activity is recognized by many as a key component to resident
empowerment. In two of the three cases, each GIS was built for specific CDC
purposes (usually administrative). GIS use at Fenway CDC was build specifically for
organizing purpose. Their GIS application process fully engaged senior residents and
resulted in these residents empowering themselves to voice their concerns GIS as a
tool. The Fenway case suggests that GIS application can be incorporated into
community change processes.
Bibliography
American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing and American Congress
on Surveying and Mapping.
Alinsky, Saul. 1971. Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals.
New York: Vintage Books.
Asset-Based Community Development Institute Homepage, Institute for Policy
Research Northwestern University, 26 September 2002,
<http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/abcd.html> (22 April 2003).
Barbara Louise Endemao Walker, "Catching the Wave of Capitalism in the Wake
of the Nuclear Age: Mapping Subsistence, Development and Environmental
Security in French Polynesia,"< http:// www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/varenius/ppgis/
papers/walkerb.html> (22 April 2003).
Bauer, Raymond A., ed. 1966. Social Indicators. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Blackford, Loren, and Lisa Mueller. 2002. "Partners Power GIS." Shelter Force
126.:18-22.
Boundaries of Home-Mapping for Local Empowerment [1993]. Gabriola Island:
New Society Publishers.
Briggs, Xavier De Souza, and Elizabeth J. Mueller with Mercer Sullivan. 1997.
From Neighborhood to Community: Evidence on the Social Effects
Community Development. New York, NY: Community Development Research
Center, New School for Social Research
Brown, Prudence. 1996. "Comprehensive Neighborhood-Based Initiatives."
Cityscape 2.2.: 161-176.
Chang, Keng-Pin "The Design of A Web-Based Geographic Information
System for Community Participation," Master's thesis, August 1997, University
of Buffalo, 3 March 1998 <http://www. owu.edu/~jbkryqie/ kryier.html/lws/
chang.html> (22 April 2003).
Daniel H. Walker, Andrew K.L. Johnson, Alison Cottrell, Anne O'Brien, Stuart G.
Cowell, David Pullar, "GIS through community-based collaborative joint
venture: an evaluation of impacts in rural Australia," James Cook University
and University of Queensland, Australia, <http://www.ncgia.edu/varenius
/ppgis/papers/walkerd.html> (22 April 2003).
David Tulloch, "Environmental NGOs: Community Access to Technology as a
Force for Change," Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
<http://www.ncqia.ucsb.edu/vareniusLppgis/papers/tulloch/tulloch.html>
(22 April 2003).
Delgado, Gary. 1986. Organizing the Movement: the Roots and Growth
ofACORN. Philadelphia: Temple University.
Delgado, Gary. 1994. Beyond the Politics of Place: New Directions in Community
Community Organizing in the 1990s. Oakland, CA: Applied Research Center.
Dervin, Brenda. 1994. "Information - Democracy: An Examination of Underlying
Assumptions." Journal of the American Society for Information Science
45.6.: 369-385.
Dietz, Stephen K. 1971. Census Data Applications. In Proceedings of the Urban
and Regional Information Systems Association. 393-9.
Dreier, Peter. 1998. Philanthropy and the Housing Crisis: Dilemmas of Private
Charity and Public Policy in the United States. Edited by C.Theodore Koebel.
Albany, NY: State University of New York.
Durance, Joan. 1983. Armed for Action: AFramework for Library Response to
Citizen Information Needs. New York: Neal Schuman Publishers.
ESRI. 1995. Understanding GIS- The ARC/INFO Method. Geo Information
International, UK.
Eisen, Arlene. 1992. "AReport on Foundations'Support for Comprehensive
Neighborhood-Based Community-Empowerment Initiatives. "Report for
East Bay Funders, the Ford Foundation, the New York Community Trust, the
Piton Foundation, and the Riley Foundation.
Flora, Cornelia B. et al. 1999. Measuring Community Success and Sustainability: An
Interactive Workbook. (Ames, IA: North Central Regional Center for Rural
Development, Resource Conservation and Development Program and the
Social Sciences Institute, USDA-NRCS, and Rural Community Assistance of the
USDA Forest Service, 1999).
Giloth, Robert. 1985. "Organizing for Neighborhood Development" Social Policy
15.: 37-42.
Goetz, Edward G., and Mara Sidney. 1993. Revenge of he Property Owners:
Community Development and the Politics of Property. University of Minnesota
Housing Program.
Helga Leitner*, Robert McMaster*, Sarah Elwood*, Susanna McMaster**, Eric
Sheppard*, "Models for making GIS available to community organization:
Dimensions of difference and appropriateness," University of Minnesota and
Macalester College, <http://www.ncqia.ucsb.edu/varenius/ppgis/ papers/
leitner.pfd> (22 April 2003).
Hess, Douglas R., "Community Organizing, Building and Developing: Their
Relationship to Comprehensive Community Initiatives," Working paper series
For COMM-ORG: The On-Line Conference on Community Organizing and
Development, June 1999
<http://comm-org.utoledo. edu/ papers 99/hesscontents.htm>
(11 March 2003).
Irwin, Joyce E. 1967. Small Area Analysis Programs.Proceedings of the Urban
and Regional Information Systems Association. 295-8.
Jacoby, Joan E. 1967. DEWS-DistrictEarly Warning System for Neighborhood
Deterioration.In Proceedings of the Urban and Regional Information Systems
Association. 35-44.
Jenny, Patricia. 1993. Community Building Initiatives:A Scan of Comprehensive
NeighborhoodRevitalization Programs.New York: The New York Community
Trust.
Karl Kim, "Using GIS Technologies to Empower Community Based Organizations
in Hawaii," University of Hawaii at Manoa, <http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/
varenius/ppgis/papers/kim.html> (22 April 2003).
Keating, Dennis W., Keith P. Rasey, and Norman Krumholz. 1990. Community
Development Corporationsin the United States. Their Role in Housing and
Urban Redevelopment. Edited by Willem van Vliet and Jan van Weesep.
Government and Housing: Development in Seven Countries. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage
Khan, Si. 1991. Organizing:A Guide for GrassrootsLeaders. Revised ed.
Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.
Kheir Al-Kodmany, "GIS and the Artist: Shaping the Image of a Neighborhood in
Participatory Environmental Design," University of Illinois at Chicago
<http: //www. ncgia. ucsb.edu/varenius/ppgis/papers/al-kodmany. html>
(22 April 2003).
Kingsley, Thomas, G. 1999. Building and Operating Neighborhood Indicator
Systems: A Guidebook. National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership.
Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
Kubisch, Anne. 1996. "Comprehensive Community Initiatives: Lessons in
Neighborhood Transformation." Shelterforce (January/February)
http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/85/compcominit.html (11 March 2003).
Liza Casey and Tom Pederson, "Mapping Urban Neighborhood Environments,"
Abstract, City of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania,
<http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/varenius/ppgis/papers/casey.html>
(22 April 2003).
Lundberg, Endfred. 1975. An Information Systems Role for Urban Universities. In
Proceedings of he Urban and Regional Information Systems Association II.
588-94.
Malone, Joseph. 1972. Dade County's Use of the Fourth Count Census. In
Proceedings of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association II.
441-52.
Melinda Laituri, "Marginal Societies and Geographic Information Systems,"
Introduction, Colorado State University,
<http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/varenius/ppgis/papers/laituri.html>
(22 April 2003).
National Congress for Community Economic Development. 1995. Tying ItA//
Together: The Comprehensive Achievements of Community-Based
Development Organizations. Washington, DC: National Congress for
Community Economic Development.
National Congress for Community Economic Development. 1999. Beating The
Odds: The Achievements of Community-Based Development Organizations.
Washington, DC: April.
Nyerges, Timothy, Michael Barndt, and Kerry Brooks. 1997. "PublicParticipation
Geographic Information Systems. "In, 1997 ACSM/ASPRS Annual Convention and
Exposition Technical Papers Vol. 5. Auto-Carto 13, 224-233. Bethesda, MD:
Obermeyer, Nancy J. 1995. " The Hidden GIS Technocracy. "Cartography and
Geographic Information Systems 22.1. :78-83.
Obermeyer, Nancy J., and Jeffrey K. Pinto. 1994. Managing Geographic
Information Systems. New York: Guilford Press.
Obermeyer, Nancy 3. 2000. "PPGIS: The Evolution of Public Participation GIS."
<http://www.ucgis.org/oregon/ppgis.pdf> (22 April 2003).
Paul Macnab, "There Must Be a Catch: Participatory GIS in a Newfoundland
Fishing Community," Saint Mary's University,
<http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/varenius/ppgis/papers/mcnab/mcnab.html>
(22 April 2003).
Proceedings of the Colorado Forum on National & Community Indicators, November 2223, 1996, Redefining Progress, August 1997, 59pp.
Rebuilding Communities: A National Study of Urban Community Development
Corporations. [1992]. New School for Social Research.
Renee E.Sieber "Geographic Information Systems in the Environmental
Movement," State University of New York at Albany,
<http://www.ncqia.ucsb.edu/varenius /ppgis/papers/sieber.pdf;
(22 April 2003).
Richard Kingston "Web Based GIS for Public Participation Decision Making in the
UK," Abstract, University of Leeds,
<http:// www.ncqiaucsb.edu/varenius/ppgis/papers/kingston/kingston.html>
(22 April 2003).
Sandman, Peter M.1993. Responding to Community Outrage: Strategies for
Effective Risk Communication. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene
Association Press.
Sawicki, David S. 1993. Developing The Atlanta Project's Information System. In
Proceedings of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association II.
129-45.
Sawicki, David S., and Patrice Flynn. 1996. "Neighborhood indicators: A review of
the literature and an assessment of conceptual and methodological issues."
Journal of the American Planning Association 62.2.:165-83.
Sawicki, David S., and Craig William.J. 1996. "The Democratization of Data."
Journal of American Planning Association 62.2. :4-6.
Sawicki, David S., 1996. Information and Spatial Technologies and the Inner
City. State: National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Spatial
Technologies, Geographic Information and the City. September 9-11.
Sawicki, David S., and Randy Peterman. 1998. Understanding the Breadth and
Depth of PPGS Supply. State: National Center for Geographic Information
and Anaylsis. meeting: Empowerment, Marginalzation, and Public
Participation GIS
Schorr, Lisbeth B. 1997. Common Purpose: Strengthening Families and
Neighborhoods to Rebuild America. New York: Doubleday.
Schroeder, Paul, "GIS in Public Participation Settings.*" The University
Consortium for Geographic Information Science: Annual Assembly and
Summer Retreat, 1997
<http://www spatial. maine.edu/ucgis/testproc/Schroeder/UCGISDFT. html>
(22 April 2003).
Sherr, David M., Marna Elliott, and Craig Cunningham. 1973. Moving Social
Services Delivery into the Twentieth Century. In Proceedings of the Urban
and Regional Information Systems Association. I. 148-63.
Sheppard, Eric. 1995. "GIS and Society: Toward a Research Agenda."
Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 22.1.:5-16.
Steinbach, Carol, "Community Development Corporations in US Society,"
29 April 2002 <http://www.eldis.org/static/DOC10854.htm>
(15 April 2003).
Steve Ventura, Ben Niemann, Todd Sutphin, and Rick Chenoweth, "GISEnhanced Land Use Planning in Dane County, Wisconsin," University of
Wisconsin-Madison,
<http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/varenius/ppgis/papers/ventura.html>
(22 April 2003).
Stoecker, Randy. 1993. Neighborhood-Based Planning in Toledo: A Comparative
Study. Toledo: University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center Research Report.
Stoecker, Randy. 1996. The Community Development Corporation Model of Urban
Redevelopment: A Political Economy Critique and an Alternative. <http://commorg.utoledo.edu/papers96/cdc.html > (3 March 2003)
Sullivan, Mercer L. 1990. Studying the Effects of Community Development
Corporations on Social Control: An Anthropological Approach. New York, NY:
Community Development Research Center, New School for Social Research.
Sullivan, Mercer L. 1993. More Than Housing: How Community Development
Corporations Go About Changing Lives and Neighborhoods. New York, NY:
Community Development Research Center, New School for Social Research.
Susan C.Stonich and Katherine Cissna "Information technologies, PPGIS, And
Advocacy: Globalization Of Resistance To Industrial Shrimp Farming."
Introduction, University of Calfornia,
<http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/varenius/ppqis/papers/stonich.html>
(22 April 2003).
Sviridoff, Michael, and William Ryan. 1996. "Investing in Community: Lessons
and Implications of the Comprehensive Community Revitalization Program.
Unpublished report, April.
Taub, Richard, H. 1990. Nuance and Meaning in Community Development.:
Finding Community and Development. New York, NY: Community
Development Research Center, Graduate School of Management and Urban
Policy, New School of Social Research.
The Aspen Institute. 1997. Voices from the Field. Learning from the early work
of Comprehensive Community Initiatives. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
<http://www.aspenroundtable.org/voices/index.htm> (11 March 2003).
The Resource Guide to Indicators Second Edition, August 1998 Homepage,
<http://www.gmied.orgPUBS/papers/inddocs/irguide.html> (22 April 2003).
Thomas C.Meredith, "Empowerment, Marginalization, and Public Participation in
Community-Based Biodiversity Conservation: Mexican and Canadian case
studies of spatial information management," McGill University,
http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/varenius/ppgis/papers/meredith.html
(22 April 2003).
Trevor Harris and Daniel Weiner, "Community-Integrated GIS for Land Reform in
Mpumalanga Province, South Africa," West Virginia University,
<http://www.ncqia.ucsb. edu/varenius/ppgis/papers/harris.html>
(22 April 2003).
Vidal, Avis C., 1992. Rebuilding Communities. A National Study of Urban
Community Development Corporation. New York, NY: New School of
Social Research, Community Development Research Center.
Walsh, Joan. 1997b, "Stories of Renewal: Community Building and the Future of
Urban America," New York: Rockfeller Foundation.
Walker Christopher, and Mark Weinheimer. 1999. Community Development in
84
the '90s. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Weiner, Myron E. 1975. Government Automation: 2002.