Introduction

In recent years, there has a been a growing recognition within the geographic information systems community that GIS technology offers significant potential as a tool for empowering individuals and organizations at the grass-roots level, and thereby increases their voices in public policy decision making. These grass-roots organizations include local governments, private businesses and neighborhood organizations. Among the people and organizations that have recognized the potential of GIS as an empowerment tool, we must count the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Having initially recognized this potential, HUD assumed a proactive position, and developed its "Community Connections" GIS software, then made it available at a low price to any individual or organization that wished to purchase it.

This paper describes HUD’s program and assesses its success in empowering local groups. The paper begins by placing HUD’s actions in the context of both current research on public participation GIS as well as Weberian notions of bureaucratic responsiveness to its client group. It proceeds to describe HUD’s Community Connections GIS software, and its dissemination program, and follows up with a report on HUD’s own survey of purchasers of its software. This survey indicates that the software received only limited dissemination. The paper concludes by discussing the results of the survey, and describing HUD’s current initiatives in this area.

The PPGIS Movement

At its core, the growing concern about public participation GIS centers on the growing role of the powerful GIS technology in a democracy. The key to understanding the importance of the relationship between GIS and society is first to acknowledge that GIS is not just a "tool designed to solve one aspect of a particular problem -- that of translating spatially referenced empirical information into a spatial language to enable cartographic representation of patterns and relationships, and of analyzing the nature of these relationships;" rather, "the development of GIS, or any other, technology is a social process" (Sheppard 1995:6). In the first instance, the inventors and developers of GIS made conscious and deliberate choices about the configuration of the technology based on the societal and technical conditions in existence at the time they were doing their work. The people who developed GIS worked within specific institutional environments (largely white males employed in academic and governmental institutions in North America and Europe) that forged the boundaries of their task. Moreover, existing technology, software logic and specific spatial theories influenced and sometimes limited their choices as they worked. These, in turn, shaped the kind of GIS that are available today.

A number of scholars (Aitken and Michel 1995; Rundstrom 1995; Curry 1995; Weiner et al. 1995; Obermeyer and Pinto 1994; Obermeyer 1995; Pickles 1995) have noted that a disturbing result of this process is that many groups are poorly represented in today’s GIS. The use of geographic information systems can make it increasingly difficult for average citizens to participate in ongoing public policy debates about issues that directly affect them. This difficulty arises because using GIS simplifies the performance of spatial analysis and the preparation of excellent graphics (maps being the most obvious example), which lend an aura of persuasiveness to the reports on policy that public and private institutions prepare. No matter how sound (or unsound) the underlying ideas, the GIS can make a report seem more authentic and authoritative than it otherwise might seem. As Monmonier notes, "The map is a robust medium, and even bad maps may communicate, albeit crudely and inefficiently" (1993:3). Individuals and citizens’ groups without access to GIS and its cartographic capabilities may find it difficult to challenge official reports as effectively as they wish if they cannot produce cartographic products that support their interpretations of existing policy and their vision of future policy. PPGIS scholars fear that as a result, grass roots organizations may lose out in public policy-making to more powerful governments and other political factions.

The potential role of geographic information systems as either a democratizing force or a disenfranchising force has been a growing topic of conversation both within the GIS community (Harris, Weiner, et al. 1995; Rundstrom 1995; Obermeyer and Pinto 1994; Obermeyer 1993) and among those with a more general interest in the implementation of information technologies. For example, Cleveland (1987) has detailed the characteristics of information as a commodity that makes it different from other commodities. In particular, the "leakiness" and shareability of data and information make it increasingly difficult for a single entity (whether a public or private group) to maintain a monopoly on information. Cleveland argues that these characteristics will lead to what he calls "the erosion of hierarchies." The most frequently cited example of this erosion of hierarchies is the 1989 uprising in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, People’s Republic of China, which was facilitated by fax transmissions that enabled an unusually free flow of information into and out of the country.

The current "public participation GIS" movement in GIS scholarship seeks to develop GIS (sometimes called "GIS-2" or "GIS, too") that will be more adaptable to extra-organizational input from regular citizens and other non-official sources.

Weberian Foundations for HUD’s Initiative

Perhaps some may be surprised at the effort that HUD has made to address the needs of local community and non-governmental actors with its Community Connections GIS software program. In fact, HUD’s responsiveness is both logical and appropriate as well. HUD’s need for this program was just as important to the agency as the program itself was to the agency’s constituency. Perhaps more so.

Max Weber’s seminal work on bureaucracies, written just after the turn of the 20th century, provides an explanation for HUD’s Community Connections program. Weber, ever conscious of the role of individuals in an increasingly bureaucratized society, acknowledged that the success of bureaucracies could be traced primarily to their relative efficiency in carrying out their mission. In fact, Weber suggests that the "fully developed bureaucratic machine compares with other organizations exactly as does the machine with non-mechanical modes of production" (Gerth and Mills 1946:214).

Weber suggests that each bureaucracy that comes into existence does so because it is able to mobilize and maintain three sources of power: expertise, professionalism, and the support of clients (Weber 1968). Expertise refers to the body of knowledge associated with a specific set of organizational responsibilities. Professionalism refers to the people who establish careers associated with specific areas of expertise and responsibilities. In most instances, members of professions advance and protect their areas of expertise in order to assure their continued value to society. The third source of bureaucratic power, support of clients, is of greatest significance in explaining HUD’s Community Connections program.

Each bureaucracy that comes into existence and maintains a lasting presence does so because it fulfills the needs of an existing, identifiable core of people, known as the organization’s clients. In general, the more politically powerful a client group an organization has, the greater the organization’s staying power will be. Without a clientele, bureaucracies lose their raison d’etre and risk losing their institutional life. The classic example of an organization that lost its clientele is the March of Dimes, whose original mission was to eradicate polio. With the development of two separate polio vaccines, the March of Dimes had achieved its mission. Not to worry, however, the organization redefined itself, enlarging its mission to include the eradication of all birth defects, and gained a new lease on its institutional life.

Public organizations and their clients are involved in a relationship of mutual dependency (or at least reliance), just as private organizations depend on their customers. Clients benefit because the organization with which they identify uses its expertise to further the interests of the clients. On the other hand, without demonstrated external support, public organizations are at the mercy of budget-conscious legislators looking to put another notch on their budget-cutting belts. Just as no retail establishment can survive when its customers stop patronizing the place, no public bureaucracy can survive when its clients stay away.

HUD has enjoyed a relatively large, though not necessarily powerful or well organized, clientele. Established as part of Lyndon Johnson’s New Society program, HUD reached out to towns, cities and urban dwellers across the U.S. HUD’s programs included block grants for community development and improvement, grant and loan programs to rehabilitate housing, particularly for low and middle-income people, and to promote urban planning. The low and middle-income people that HUD serves are not always particularly active politically, and therefore legislators find it easy to ignore them. Even though cities and their mayors benefited from HUD’s programs, this group lacks a cohesive means to influence the electoral process and thus, to influence legislators.

Weber provided an unusual insight into the importance of public bureaucracies when he noted that "Bureaucracy is the means of carrying ‘community action’ over into a rationally ordered ‘societal action’" (Gerth and Mills 1946:228). Public bureaucracies speak on behalf of groups and individuals who may not be able to speak effectively for themselves. Not only is Weber’s insight unusual, but it is also surprising, particularly in light of recent and ongoing criticisms of government as unresponsive, uncaring, and (even worse) incompetent. In essence, Weber argues that, even when legislators ignore groups of people, those groups of people may find a bureaucracy to work on their behalf and give them a voice. He is also suggesting that bureaucracies that serve their clients effectively may help avert public uprisings by disgruntled citizens with no other outlet for their anger.

Over the years, HUD’s relationship with its clients had weakened, and HUD’s own documents indicate that officials at the agency were well aware of the fact. HUD’s own literature, describing its Community Connections software, includes the following passage:

HUD’s weakening relationship with its clients derived from both internal and external sources. As the agency’s own promotional literature (reported above) notes, a long history of scandals among top agency administrators took their toll. The appointment of Andrew Cuomo as the current Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development seems to have turned the tide on this issue. Still, the agency had a reputation for less than stellar responsiveness, which also damaged its credibility.

In addition to internal problems, HUD, like government in general, also suffered as a result of external political trends that became apparent and strengthened dramatically with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Reagan was swept into office on a wave of anti-big-government sentiment that swelled and washed over the land throughout the 1980s and well into the 1990s. With a political fervor that had not been seen since the 60s, the Reagan movement pitched self-reliance, elimination of government interference, and above all, privatization.

Programs that had been in place since the 1960s to help reduce poverty or mitigate against its effects fell into disfavor, as vocal groups and individuals called for welfare reform and an end to government hand-outs. As an agency closely tied with handing out public funds, HUD found itself on the hotseat with other heavily scrutinized public agencies. In addition, HUD, like other federal agencies, required local governments to comply with certain mandates. And, like other federal agencies, HUD did not provide financial assistance necessary to help those localities to comply with the requirements. "Unfunded mandates" became another rallying cry against "big government." The 1980s, in fact, marked an important turning point in America’s view of government. "Less is better" became the battle cry for privatization. As never before, services formerly provided by all levels of government fell under the purview of private entities.

HUD Responds to Its Clients

The election of a Democratic president in 1992, after 12 years of Republican dominance, paved the way for HUD’s effort to reconnect with its clients. HUD’s effort was aided tremendously by the evolution of geographic information systems over the previous decade. During the 80s, while privatization became the dominant political theme, GIS were becoming more powerful, less expensive and easier to use. At the same time, their value was becoming more evident to growing numbers of people. In particular, their value for planning was growing by leaps and bounds.

In 1994, HUD developed and marketed its very own GIS software. The software was especially affordable, costing a mere $125 to the general public. HUD grantees received the software free upon request. One particularly valuable feature of the software was that it included socio-economic data from the U.S. Census, along with information about types and locations of HUD-funded projects. The software was specifically designed to support the consolidated planning activities that HUD required of local governments. This, then, marked a new era in HUD’s relationship with its clients, an era of providing assistance to help its clients meet public mandates.

Nearly 400 groups and individuals purchased HUD’s software. Among this group of adopters, there were 37 colleges and universities, 9 primary/secondary schools, 23 private citizens, 77 local governments, 52 private businesses and 177 non-profit organizations and neighborhood groups.

The purchasers used the software for a variety of tasks. As might be expected, the most common use of the software was the purpose for which it was primarily intended: to help cities and non-profit organizations to prepare proposals for HUD grant programs. Others used the software to help plan local projects. Other groups and individuals used the software to learn more about how federal dollars were spent in a local area, and how these expenditures affected the user’s special interests. Finally, some groups purchased the software to help them manage their own HUD-funded projects.

Users’ Assessments

In the summer of 1996, HUD mailed a survey to 55 randomly chosen purchasers of their software. Forty of them responded. Overall, the results suggest that the software had not made a big hit, either generally or more specifically as a tool of empowerment. Of the 40 respondents, 17 had not bothered to install the software, and eight more did not use it after taking the time to install it. Thus, over half (25) of the respondents never even used the software. Only 15 of the respondents had actually used the software.

The survey queried the respondents regarding their experience with several phases of their software use, beginning with installation. While the majority of respondents (58%) had no problems or only minor problems installing HUD’s software, a large proportion (42%) had very serious problems with installation. Many of them had received faulty disks, which made installation difficult or, in some cases, impossible. It is not clear from HUD’s survey if the group who reportedly had not installed the software had simply not bothered to do so or if they had actually given up after encountering serious difficulties with installation. Several respondents reported receiving one or more error messages or experiencing a variety of other miscellaneous glitches which eventually they were able to overcome.

HUD’s GIS, like commercial products, included a manual. The agency’s survey queried respondents about the value of the manual. The responses about the manual mirrored those of the respondents’ installation experiences. Only 11% rated the manual "excellent," while 50% rated it "good." However, fully 39% of the respondents suggested that the manual "needs improvement."

Respondents praised HUD’s software on several counts. First, many respondents complimented the graphics available in the software. They particularly liked the software’s ability to show Census and HUD funding data graphically. Respondents also praised several capabilities of the software, noting that it helped to structure and integrate planning data, helped them generate reports and proposals required by HUD, and it helped them minimize paperwork for the agency. Furthermore, respondents also liked the accessibility of information that the software provided. Other respondents mentioned the presentation capabilities of the software. Specifically, they singled out the level of detail available in the maps, the software’s tool palate, and the flexibility of the maps. Still others praised the software’s ease of use.

Still, there were problems, and respondents suggested an array of improvements. Of greatest concern was the fact that the information included with the software (both census an project information) was not always accurate and up-to-date. Other respondents wanted to see a greater number of variables or categories of data available in the software. Some respondents expressed dissatisfaction about the level of detail available at the neighborhood level, while others expressed a desire for more tools that could be used to modify maps. Others raised concern about the inability to compare data between years. Some users suggested adding a network version of the software.

In response to the concerns of the users of its software, HUD developed a new product based on Caliper Corporation’s "Maptitude" product. HUD introduced the new product, called simply "Community Planning Software" in April 1997. The price of the new software was double that of the original product ($249); however purchasers of the original package were entitled to a discount of $125 off the price of the newer software. This price compares to approximately $400 for Maptitude.

One important issue that HUD’s survey never really uncovers is whether or not any of the purchasers of the software used it as a tool of empowerment. In some respects, it is unfair to ask HUD’s survey to gather this information, since the agency’s goal was primarily to determine their clients’ level of satisfaction. Still, reading the survey provides the distinct impression that those who used it did so primarily in connection with HUD proposals and projects, not as a tool for empowerment.

Conclusions

HUD’s software has not gained wide usage. As described, the number of purchasers was small (about 400). Moreover, the limited success of the users in implementing the software has minimized the impact of HUD’s GIS. The limited success of HUD’s GIS should come as no surprise. In the first instance, the software itself had limited objectives and limited capabilities, especially when compared to commercial alternatives which have become increasingly flexible and powerful. The limited distribution of the product -- caused in part because of limited advertising as well as by the existence of many excellent commercial competitors -- is also to blame.

But we must also ask other questions about the users. This, by the way, is something that HUD neglects to do. The agency’s survey instrument asks no questions regarding the overall level of computer literacy of their product’s users. More significantly, they fail also to ascertain any information on the level of GIS literacy among their respondents. The extent to which the survey respondents understand spatial relationships is completely unknown.

Moreover, the survey also fails to ask the users of HUD’s GIS any questions designed to test their sophistication in self-empowerment. We have no way of knowing how thoroughly they know their own local resource base and how well they understand local politics. We have no clue regarding their ability to develop and implement effective strategies to shape local public policy according to their needs and desires.

Additional research is in order. Such research should begin by examining the use of HUD’s more recent software, "Community Planning Software," which has now been available for roughly 18 months. In particular, any follow-up effort should examine the use of HUD’s second generation GIS product specifically for local empowerment, specifically targeting its use by non-profits, neighborhood groups and other non-governmental organizations.

Ultimately, we must take steps to understand the relative contribution of various elements in empowering local groups. These elements include technology and its mastery, understanding of local political issues, ability to develop effective empowerment strategies, and personal attributes of leaders.

One key question remains unanswered: can a GIS -- or any technology or process -- that comes "from above" rather than from the people themselves serve as a tool of empowerment? The first impulse might be to suggest that only technology that comes from the grass roots level can empower local non-governmental organizations. This impulse, however, ignores the important link between bureaucracies and their clients. Moreover, it ignores the considerable technical expertise that is required to develop any technology. Finally, this impulse also ignores the ability of people to learn to use technology.

The existence of so many excellent commercial GIS products, combined with their increasing power and ease-of-use mitigates against HUD’s GIS ever becoming a dominant technology. In fact, by teaming up with the Caliper Corporation, the agency tacitly acknowledges this point. Still, the GIS link between HUD and its client group suggests at least one additional method by which local groups can use GIS as a tool for empowerment.

REFERENCES

Aitken, Stuart C. and Suzanne M. Michel. 1995. Who Contrives the "Real" in GIS? Geographic Information, Planning and Critical Theory. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, vol. 22, no. 1, 1995, pp. 17-29.

Cleveland, Harlan (1985). The twilight of hierarchy: speculations on the global information society, Public Administration Review, 45(2):185-195.

Curry, Michael. 1995. Rethinking Rights and Responsibilities in Geographic Information Systems: Beyond the Power of the Image. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, vol. 22, no. 1, 1995, pp. 58-69.

Gerth, H.H. and Mills, C. Wright. 1946. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (New York: Oxford University Press).

Harris, Trevor M., Daniel Weiner, Timothy Warner, and Richard Levin. 1995 Pursuing Social Goals Through Participatory GIS: Redressing South Africa’s Historical Political Ecology, in John Pickles (editor), Ground Truth (New York: Guilford Press), pp. 196-222.

Monmonier, Mark. 1991 How to Lie with Maps. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press).

Obermeyer, Nancy J. 1995. The Hidden GIS Technocracy. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, vol. 22, no. 1, 1995, pp. 78-83.

Obermeyer, Nancy J. and Jeffrey K. Pinto (1994). Managing Geographic Information Systems (New York: Guilford Press).

Pickles, John. 1995. Representations in an Electronic Age: Geography, GIS, and Democracy in John Pickles (editor), Ground Truth (New York: Guilford Press), pp. 1-30.

Rundstrom, Robert A. 1995. GIS, Indigenous Peoples, and Epistemological Diversity. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, vol. 22, no. 1, 1995, pp. 45-57.

Sheppard, Eric. 1995. GIS and Society: Toward a Research Agenda. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, vol. 22, no. 1, 1995, pp. 5-16.

Weber, Max. 1968. Economy and Society Eds.: Guenther Roth and Clauss Wittich (Berkeley: University of California Press).