K/jaking
         o\ Change-.
       Vision  a Reality
Urban EjiVir^nmentaL Initiative
   LPA New England
        Year

-------

-------
                     Nummary
In  urban areas  throughout  New
Kngland, residents are exposed to sig-
nificant  environmental and public
health ha/ards every day, including lead
poisoning, rat-infested vacant lots, con-
taminated urban rivers, and asthma
exacerbated by pcx>r indoor and ambient
air  quality. These conditions create
cumulative, disproportionate, and in-
equitable health risks to urban residents,
especially high risk populations such as
children  and the elderly, and degrade
the quality of the air, water, and land
in urban  neighborhoods. Most United
States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) programs are structured
to  address  environmental media
separately as a result of the way Congress
created different environmental statutes.
While  multi-media approaches are
gaining acceptance, there is no single
EPA program that specifically addresses
the  magnitude and complexity of urban
environmental problems in a holistic
way. Millions of urban residents across
the  country suffer every day from dis-
proportionate environmental health
risks, and EPA must respond. EPA
New England launched a five-year
pilot  program  called  the Urban
Environmental  Initiative  (UEI)  to
address  the  challenge of making
meaningful improvements in the
environment and public health for
urban residents in  the  targeted
cities  of Boston, MA; Providence,
RI; and  Hartford, CT.

Some EPA New England  programs
began to learn about the multitude of
urban environmental issues through the
Environmental Justice  Program
launched in 1993. On  the  heels of a
grassroots conference  on the Urban
Environment co-sponsored by the
A vacant lot in Providence, R7.


Massachusetts Institute of Technology's
(MIT) Dept of Urban Studies Program
and  EPA, community participants
challenged EPA staff to "come and
see for yourself, and we did. An
Environmental Justice tour to the
Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative
in Roxbury, MA was the  foundation
for the development of the UEI.
Community participants eloquently ex-
plained  and  demonstrated their
plight—vacant lots,  hazardous waste
sites, insufficient  green space, veg-
etables grown in contaminated soil, and
health problems with suspected envi-
ronmental origins. Residents had never
seen EPA New England get involved
and welcomed assistance, but their lives
were too impacted to wait for recom-
mendations from a slow bureaucratic
decision-making process.  They were
very clear about their needs: commu-
nities  needed assistance, not control;
partnership,  not paternalism; mutual
respect, not arrogant  presumption;
community-based decisions, not gov-
ernment directives; and long term com-
mitments and dedicated resources, not
just political  photo opportunities. In
even- city we visited—Boston, Spring-
field, I^awrence, MA; Providence, RI;
and  Hartford, New  Haven, and
Bridgeport, CT—the UEI sat down
and listened. We heard similar issues,
concerns, and dreams as well as suspi-
cion of the federal government.
         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/  1

-------
The purpose <>t this report is to
document  the  IF. I   approach,
successes, and lessons learned since its
inception in l')(>5. Even  though our
federal  regulatory system  does not
sufficiently address the  needs ot
urban communities, the  I'HI  has
successfully utilized a c< immunity-based
approach to build an environmental
infrastructure  and increase  a
community's capacity to creatively
solve its environment  and public
health problems. \X hen implemented
the UEI Community Development
Pyramid, a five  stage  model,  will
result in environmental  and public
health improvements that exhibit
effective community  based partner-
ships which leverage public and private
resources. It proves that government can
be  responsive and effective in an
effort to reclaim  the urban environ-
ment   lost   partially   through
disinvestment and narrowly defined
redevelopment efforts. The majority
of the issues that the pilot program
targeted were identified through avail-
able agency data, direct observation,
and community focus groups where
urban community stakeholders were
asked their greatest concerns  and
problems.  It  is hoped  that  this
approach can be expanded  to service
more urban areas throughout New
Hngland and across the country and
that this report can serve as a blueprint
for government agencies and commu-
nities to solve urban environment and
public health problems.

There are  three  broad conclusions
drawn from the UEI pilot program
that are applicable nationwide:
Rfsident ivlunteer cleaning up a vacant lot in Prorideuce, RJ during, an liarth Day event.

•Developing a sustainable environmental infrastructure that redefines roles,
responsibilities and measuring success is critical to  solve urban environmental
and public health problems. At a minimum, government at all levels must:
insure that urban residents maintain a prominent role in the decisions and
protection of their health  and  environment; create a level playing field with
mutual benefits for urban residents and local business and an understanding
that both must work together to achieve results; and measure success by including
short term results and the future  exponential results of current activities.
Programs  that do less will underestimate  the potential benefit and/or damage
that current actions have on the future.

•New regulatory and non-regulatory approaches  must be coupled  with  an
annual commitment  of dedicated  resources to meaningfully redress  urban
environmental problems. It takes a significant investment of rime and resources to halt
degradation   no  less   reverse  environmental   trends  in  a  sustainable
manner. These creative  approaches  must  be dynamic and develop an iterative
process that involves many stakeholders including academic and health professionals.

•EPA must develop a creative and holistic strategy grounded in the principles
of environmental justice  and smart growth to create safe and healthy urban
communities  for future generations across America. Cumulative risk is a result
of the panoply of  pollution sources  that represent vast residual risks
uncontrolled  by current environmental regulations. Environmental injustice is
manifested through cumulative risk, compounded by social and economic  in-
equities and unsustainable growth practices.

-------
There is a certain amount of risk
involved  in  undertaking any new
initiative. The UEI minimized risks by
seeking out exceptional partners in
every city and that critical step imme-
diately enhanced the probability for
success. The  UEI was  aided by
unwavering internal leadership, strong
academic and  health institutions,
passionate community and faith-based
partners, a modest number of state and
local programs, and some private
companies. The UEI deliberately
sought out organizations that had the
capacity to reach residents in  urban
communities and were willing to work
as partners on environmental issues.
The UEI never experienced a lack of
energetic, passionate and willing groups
and organizations to work with. It is a
gross fallacy that inner city residents are
overwhelmed with  so  many serious
socio-economic problems that they
cannot focus on environmental issues.
Quite the contrary, inner city residents
are very concerned  about  their
environment but cannot  solve these
problems alone. Without the ongoing
efforts of partners from even- sector,
many  of which   predated  our
involvement, the L'EI would have not
achieved such superb results. EPA has
only scratched the surface of what
needs to be accomplished to provide
the quality of environment and
public  health  deserved by  urban
resident in every city in  America.
The  UEI  demonstrates  that  a
community-based  approach that
builds an environmental infrastructure
and increases local  capacity  to
creatively solve  problems will
cost-effectively produce meaningful
and measurable results.
 UPA staff in the Mobile laboratory locating the next vacant lots for soil sampling.
                                                                                  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/ 3

-------
                          \V
-------
UELI  jJbtzry And 0\lerJ\&+i £?f Program ELLfments
Urban Communities in New
England Before  the Urban
Environmental  Initiative (UEI)

Prior to  the implementation ot" the
1  I I  pilot program, urban residents
     not .ictively ci>        < informed
of environmental protection decisions
made by the agenc\. The focus  of
environmental protection efforts
largely s< iught t< > impn >vc envin >nments
and  ecosystems outside of urban
areas rather than rest( >re and revitalize
the environment in urban cities. The
traditional foundation of the agency is
to implement a  series of prescriptive
federal regulations that sets and enforces
specific air, water, land, and cleanup
standards. There was insufficient data
to verify or understand the extent of
environmental  degradation in urban
areas. Since I.PA didn't have adequate
inff >rmation about urban cities and did
IT >t have i >r maintain a regular connec-
tion with the urban constituencies, it is
not surprising that there was also a lack
of dedicated resources to address ur-
ban environmental and public health
issues, nor a coordinated respon
public and community concerns. Any
progress made in urban areas was pri-
marily a response to a crisis and not pan
of an ongoing,  o >< irdinated eff< m.

The UEI was created as a resp< >nse to
two prior  efforts. Lead was the first
issue to result from a risk priontixatu >n
effort  in  l.PA New Kngland and

predominantly attectcd children in urban
neighborhoods. This environment and
public health crisis in New I .ngland
compelled management to dedicate
time and resources to work in urban
      In l'i';.\ the region began to
address  the  issue  of environmental
justice. The link between poor condi-
tions in urban areas and environmental
health concerns  became evident
thr< >ugh input fr< >m urban constituents.
The  need to restore  .md revitalize
urban areas as a part of improving the
health and quality of life of residents
was clear, and the time was ripe f< >r
the UEI to launch. The foundation of
I  l.l's  philosophy, mission,  and
approach to problem  solving
   n inded in ft >ur key program elemeni
 and

nents.
Program Element 1:
Focused  Mission  & Objectives
The  UEI was  the first coordinated
effort  in  EPA  New England  to
respond to these problems and help
connect urban  residents to resources
dial improve the environment, public
health,  and quality of life in the cities
of Boston, MA; Providence, RI; and
Hartford, CT. The UEI approach and
model is a new way of doing business
in  urban areas at EPA New England,
and takes public service and commu-
nity based environmental protection to
a new level that consistently involves,
engages and  responds  to public
concerns. The UEI listens to  community
needs and concerns, identifies projects
that  meet community priorities, and
leverages  resources to implement
projects in  order to fulfill our mission
and facilitate measurable results.
The primary objectives to support this
broad mission are:

• Restore and revitalize the envin mmcnt
 of  urban  neighborhoods and
 improve public health.

• Build local capacity to assess, address,
 and resolve environmental problems.

•Promote  sustainable  economic
 development that docs not compro-
 mise environmental quality and
 public health.

Program Element 2:
Community-Based  Decision
Making & Setting Priorities in
Urban  Neighborhoods
The UEI pilot program focuses on six
environment and public health issues
identified and prioritized in a series ot
community focus groups at which
urban residents were asked to identify
Chelsea foutb learns firsthand bun U'tiste and
pollution contaminate urban mm.
                                                     UEI HISTORY AND OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM ELEMENTS / 5

-------
their greatest concerns and problems.
Although public health was a funda-
mental  concern, results from the
tocus groups demonstrated that the
connection between environmental
qualitv  and public  health  was not
always  apparent and or clearly
understood  by  urban  residents.
Therefore,  a central goal of the t'HI
focused on  helping  both urban
residents  and  HPA  New Hngland
make  the  connection  between
environmental quality and public
health and do it in a way that ensured
high public accountability for successes
and failures. HPA programs have not
traditionally helped build public
capacity to understand and resolve
problems, but the I'HI made this a
cornerstone ot the pilot  program.
The primary environmental and public
health issues that the L'HI  pilot   hasf Koston and Chelsea youth learn hoir watersheds work, /rom a { 7;/ team member un
program addresses  are listed below:    cam Day.
•Lead Poisoning Prevention: Reducing and/or eliminating exposure to  lead poisoning  through education
 and outreach, sampling, and clean yard initiatives.

•Indoor Air Quality: Reducing incidence of asthma and asthma triggers including carbon monoxide and
 tobacco smoke, integrated  pest management techniques or systems.

•Ambient Air Quality: Promoting alternative transportation, reducing particulate levels, greater use of cleaner
 technologies in urban industrial areas.

•Urban Rivers/Wetlands: Conducting shoreline cleanups,  increasing the number of  trees, improving foliage and
 planting, a river bank restoration, and revitali/ation.

•Urban Vacant Lots: Creating urban gardens & agriculture, returning vacant lots to productive  use, creating pocket
 parks, remediating or mitigating contamination, trash clean-ups, and preventing pollution and illegal dumping.

•Openspace/Greenspace: Returning openspace to productive greenspacc in  densely paved areas, remediation or
 mitigation of contamination, trash clean-ups, and preventing pollution and illegal dumping.

-------
These issues have grounding in
existing EPA  federal regulatory
requirements and prioritize public
health concerns which are of primary
importance to urban residents.

Program  Element  3:
UEI Program Staff
Critical to the continuing success of the
program is a diverse team of staff
with varied and complimentary skills.
The UEI consisted of five full-time
staff (a Regional Team Leader; 3 City
Program Managers (CPM); Grant/
Youth and Environment Coordinator)
and part-time intern level staff that
serve as Special Project Coordinators.
The UEI staff require skills in addi-
tion to science and engineering such as
strong oral and written communica-
tion, creativity, facilitation, problem-
solving, crisis  management, project
management, and the ability to work
with a minimum  of management
oversight and as  a cohesive  and
dynamic team.  All staff must be  able
to represent EPA at external functions
and community events and serve as
internal champions for projects and the
UEI pilot program. Staff must  also
be able to work successfully with a
range of diverse  stakeholders  and
build credibility  and trust with
community  partners.

The CPMs serve as primary public and
internal contact points for each of the
three target cities and act as  technical
advisors;  resource brokers; grant
managers; and advocates for urban
community stakeholders  in their
target city. Stakeholders include local
neighbors and  residents; state and
local  government;  elected   and
appointed local officials; industry;
non-profit organizations;  medical
establishments; other federal agencies;
environmental groups; and academia.
Involving all stakeholders in environ-
mental decision-making is a critical
element of the bottom-up approach
to community-based environmental
protection. The CPM reviews and
administers  grants  across  EPA
programs (Le. Environmental Education,
Environmental Justice, and UEI);
leveraging internal technical resources
(i.e. soil sampling, risk assessment
analysis, education resource tools); and
developing effective partnerships that
can lead to sustainable and measurable
improvements on target issues. Other
responsibilities include:
    Public Awareness & Education: Providing information, training, and technical assistance to stakeholders on
    a wide range of urban environmental and public health issues facing the community including, but not limited
    to: lead poisoning, asthma, urban rivers, indoor and ambient air quality, greenspace and openspace, and urban
    vacant and contaminated lots.

    Building Community Capacity & Consensus: Providing communities with tools, information, and training
    that build local capacity to make sustainable improvements and changes in urban environmental quality and
    public health.

    Partnerships & Coalition-Building: Facilitating successful and long-term partnerships and coalitions between
    stakeholders with common concerns, and leveraging these partnerships into resources to support projects.

    Grant  Awards & Management: Awarding and managing multi-media EPA grants across all  agency
    programs—including UEI Community  Grants Program, Livable Communities Grant Program, Environmental
    Education, Environmental Justice, and  others.

    Leveraging Available Resources; Securing sampling, Pollution Prevention, or other Community-Based
    Environmental Protection Grants in urban areas, sharing information and materials through public education
    campaigns, securing translation services, donating outdated agency computers to local organizations, connecting
    non-profit organizations with available EPA or other federal grant program guidance, providing expert
    technical assistance to stakeholders.
                                                      UEI HISTORY AND OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM ELEMENTS / 7

-------
Community /aiders in } liirtlfml. ('1 mr/;v funding during press trait tbmngl> the L 1:1 Community Grants
 Program Element 4:
 Dedicated  Funding Resources
 A critical component to I T.I work is
 securing and awarding dedicated fund-
 ing resources to service community
 partners  and  support  projects  in
 targeted urban cities. In 1')% the ITU
 initiated a Community Cirant Program
 to direct funding resources to the most
 critical environment and public health
 issues facing residents in  the  three
 target New England  cities. Projects
 must pertain to the six issues identified
 as priorities by the ITU and leverage
resources   from   other  sources.
Applicants  with   the  strongest
proposals incorporate a multi-media
approach into the project design.

In 2(l(H), the  ITU joined forces with
the Livable Communities Program  in
HPA New England and issued a joint
Request tor Proposals to encourage
leaders  from urban, suburban, and
rural areas  to work  in partnership  to
improve the quality ot lite for residents
throughout New Kngland and help
communities develop or redevelop
smartly and sustainably. The Livable
Communities program strengthens
urban  communities, make suburbs
more  livable,  and  invest in  rural
economies. Proposals  from urban,
suburban, and rural areas or regional
proposals that  link these areas were
urged  to apply for approximately
SI5(1,1100 in competitive grant  fund-
ing. This ettort was  a great success,
and marked another step to increase
internal integration of programs and
better  leverage resources to achieve
measurable results.
A banner celebrating IiP/\ and I'Id's participation at ljrl>an liarth Day in Proridence, RI.
8

-------
UEJ  Community DeVelttpmeni Pyramid
     its inception, the I T.I used a bottom-up approach. Tin.- I I  I te;im developed a model to show this approach and
how it  can produce  measurable results and  create a sustainable infrastructure to  ensure community involvement and
continued improvements in the future. The model  is called the I'M '  ommunitv Development Pyramid and was
umeiieil .it ITVs National ( ommunity Involvement Conference in  Kan         \1< > in Ma\  1999. The model u
five phase approach  to build local capacity from the ground up beginning with identification of issues and stakeholders,
then helps develop partnerships and community awareness through each step of the process. The ultimate goal of this
    Id is a sustainable community infrastructure that can access information and leverage resources  to address environ
mental  and public health concerns without permanent  I .PA financial assistance.
Phase  1:  Understanding the Problems & Identifying  Stakeholders
This phase is the most critical step in a community-based approach to environmental protection. During this phase, the
UEI must establish a strong foundation of community stakeholder relationships and begin engaging groups and listening
to community priorities. It  is  also crucial that the  community's greatest environmental and public health concerns and
issues are prioritized and an honest commitment will be made to work in partnership to solve these problems equitably.
The relationships created in Phase I serve as a foundation for future partnerships, collaborations, and projects. Activities
include listening to community stakeholder concerns, facilitating public conferences to gather ideas, building relationships
with a broad range  of community members, and establishing credibility for the UEI in the community. Funding in this
phase should support local  community-based organizations that are working with residents on environment and public
health issues. EPA technical resources are introduced in this phase.

Phase  2:  Building Community Capacity  & Developing Local  Partnerships
During this phase, the UEI begins a tocused effort to builel  a dialogue among  stakeholders around a common topic or
issue, facilitate working relationships,  and  start to fill information and data gaps. Effective methods ot  stakeholder
involvement include convening task forces, developing coalitions, establishing networks, and facilitating group meetings.
Success  in this phase hinges on equal stakeholder  involvement,  and this goal is oftentimes extremely challenging given
inherent disparities  in interests, objectives, influences, or resources among different partners. However, these challenges
have a much better opportunity for resolution when stakeholders are united by a common goal—such as preventing
lead poisoning in children, eliminating urban vacant lots, or restoring a  river  or wetland to a suimmable, fishable
condition. The UEI continues to leverage EPA technical resources through this phase—including supporting sampling
efforts to understand the extent of perceived and existing contamination, or starting risk assessment and risk communi
cation. A benefit to community partners is training to share  information and provide the tools needed to better under
stand and  resolve problems  including GIS  mapping, soil  sampling  techniques, grant management, process
management, strategic planning and environmental or public health classes.

Phase  3:  Leveraging Public Resources  To Improve Public  Health  & The Environment
Once concerns have been raised, common threads identified, and different stakeholders are starting to  work together,
leveraging and directing public  resources through collaborative projects must focus on achieving measurable  results.
Typically, this can be achieved  through a partnership grant which allows stakeholders to share in a common success, such
as turning a vacant lot into a  community park in  a neighborhood or reaching out to educate teachers in a "Train-trie
Trainers" program on lead  poisoning prevention. In this phase,  funding should support multi-stakeholder collaborative
projects that are designed  to  accomplish positive, measurable  improvements to public health and the environment.
                                                              UEI COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PYRAMID / 9


-------
Projects should also have in-kind or other matching support from a range of organizations.  UEI's role in this phase
begins by a  strong personal investment of the CPM to bring resources to the table to ensure that projects can be
completed effectively, and it transitions into other stakeholders at the table supplementing the CPM efforts and position
within the process. By the end of Phase 3, the UEI will leverage a broad range of internal HPA resources and assist
community partners to ensure that other federal and state resources (technical, human, and fiscal) are identified to pursue
together in Phase 4.

Phase 4: Effective Partnerships
As projects are completed, partners share in measurable successes and start to see meaningful results from their partner-
ships  and coalitions. At this point, the coalitions that have been supported through direct L'KI and other EPA funding
and technical resources have measurable environmental or public health results and a solid foundation to secure funding
through other federal or non-federal sources  to sustain work. These partnerships can take  several different forms,
including: local government & non-profit; public & private; state government agency & non-profit; inter-governmental;
or other combinations of partners. The key to partnerships at  this phase of the pyramid is that the organixations can
demonstrate sufficient results and successes thus allowing the partnership to secure funding and resources to diversify
and expand on the projects that the UEI supported during Phase 3. UEI financial resources are less intensive at this point
in the model and continue to leverage internal technical resources as requested by the partnerships.

Phase 5: Healthy Communities
At this stage in the pyramid, the L'EI plays a less visible role at the table in further developing stakeholder partnerships
and no longer serves as the lead partner for projects. In fact, the ultimate success of this model is that by Phase 5 the UEI
has transitioned out of a  prominent and constant role at the table and the work will continue forward with community
stakeholders at the lead.  This  phase  indicates that the stakeholders are working together  effectively and successfully
securing resources to implement the strategy required to resolve their most  critical environment and public health
problems. This  bottom-up model for community infrastructure development and  environmental results only remains
sustainable when Phase 5 at the top of the pyramid is reached. The UEI Community Development Pyramid demon-
strates that this phase by phase approach produces significant, measurable environmental results that require minimal
EPA resource investment and yields a maximum return on agency resource investment in urban areas.
UEI Community
Development Pyramid
                                                 Phase 4
                                         Effective  Partnerships
                                                 Phase 3
                               Leveraging Public Resources to Improve
                                   Public  Health & the Environment
                                                 Phase 2
                             Building Community Capacity & Developing
                    	Local Partnerships	
                                                 Phase 1
                     Understanding the Problems & Identifying the Stakeholders
10

-------
1
The L'I-,1 and its community partners have w< >rked t« igether since 1995 to achieve measurable environmental results with
focused investment, effective partnerships, and community involvement. The Tufts University School  of  Medicine,
Dept. of Family Medicine and Community Health has served as a strong liaison to communities in New England an
helped guide the creation of the UEI. In 1995, Tufts conducted a key informant survey, asking community leaders from
the public and non-profit sectors in the three target cities to help identify the key issues of concern and the ways EPA
New FLngland could help urban residents address these issues. The top issues of concern were air pollution (both indoor
and outdoor), lead poisoning, vacant lots,  jobs/poverty, fish contamination and storm water run-off. VChcn asked the
Mngle most significant change needed to address these issues the top answers were enforce the law, the need for broad
< • i. luions of groups working with the communities, jobs and employment, and political leadership. \Vhen asked specifi-
cally what role EPA should  have respondents pointed out that EPA didn't focus on their issues and frankly they were
tired of EPA asking what they could do but not actually having resources available to do work. Survey participants
wanted EPA to make clear what it had to offer and create mechanisms for communities to access those resources. They
wanted EPA  to recognize their issues and show leadership to also direct other federal, state and local government
attention and resources to these concerns. The UEI resolved to make these concerns a foundation to  the program and
to direct targeted investment to achieve these results and much more.
                                                                                                        !
Funding patterns always reveal pro-
gram emphasis. Communities  have
reported that some government pro-
grams designed to assist  communities
occasionally become diverted in other
directions. The following maps, charts
and graphs provide evidence that the
financial allocations of the L'EI con-
sistently support the tenets of the pro-
gram model. During the  first years of
the UEI, funding matched Phase 1-2
activities and needs highlighted through
the LJE1 Community Development
Pyramid. This  early  work generally
required more targeted use of resources,
and  built a foundation to eventually
reduce  reliance on only EPA grant
awards. Initial grant resources primarily
focused on increasing community ca-
pacity and environmental education
and  supported some targeted issue
work. As local capacity increased, fund-
ing  shifted over time  to  support
projects tackling specific issues with less
emphasis on general capacity building
and   environmental   education
(See Figure 1).  All of these projects
were consistently leveraged with addi-
tional EPA financial resources includ-
                                    ing Environmental Justice Small Grants
                                    and Environmental Education Grants
                                    and in-kind technical resources includ-
                                    ing enforcement, laboratory sampling,
                                    and reconnaissance efforts. Over time
                                    more EPA New England Programs
                                    supported I'EI projects with resources
                                    to maximize community benefit.

                                    Funding sources for  the  L'EI have
                                    been from a variety of sources includ-
                                    ing the Regional Geographic Initiative
(RGI), Regional Administrator Discre-
ti< >nary, and discreui >nary funding tr< >m
Pesticides, Toxics, ()ffice of Radiation
and Indoor Air (()RIA), Environmen-
tal justice (E|) and Community-Based
Environmental Protection (CBEP;
programs. These dedicated resources
have been decreasing and  unstable
every year due  to the discretionary
nature < >t  the funding s< >urces. The t< >tal
airu >unt < >f L'EI investment and resc >urces
leveraged from other EPA funding
                                             Figure 1.  Total UEI  Funding in  Boston by Year
I/)
T3
c
(TJ
D
0
_c
c

-------
                Figure 2. Total Program Investment 1995-2000
      -3 1500000
      o
      -C
        1200000
         900000
      £  600000
      E
      5  300000
      c
i         Mil
               1995
     1996   1997   1998   1999  2000
Other EPA Funding
UEI Funding
                       Figure 3. Total UEI Investment
                               Urban Rivers
                               Open Space
                               Lead
                               Environmental Education
                               Capacity Building
                               Asthma
                               Sustamstamable
                               Development
                                  $365,525
                                  $269,304
                                  $656,947
                                  $337,097
                                  $1,135.575
                                  $320,103
                                  $272,646
        10.9%
        8.0%
        19.6%
        10.0%
        33.8%
        9.5%
        8.1%
             Figure 4. Total Investment from UEI and other Programs
                               Urban Rivers
                               Open Space
                               Lead
                               Environmental Education
                               Capacity Bldg.
                               Asthma
                               Ambient Air
                               Sustainstainable
                               Development
                                  $426,015
                                  $286,304
                                  $994,373
                                  $538,831
                                  $2,049,534
                                  $405,103
                                  $75,000
                                  $272,646
        8.4%
        5.7%
        19.7%
        10.7%
        40.6%
        8.0%
        1.5%
        5.4%
12

-------
sources is detailed in Figure  2. The
breakdown  of  UEI  investment
(Figure  3)  and  total  investment
leveraged from other government
funding sources (Figure 4) shows the
pil< >t program's resources have targeted
a range of environment and public
health issues. As the graphs illustrate,
the UEI has successfully leveraged
federal EPA resources from die Clean
Water Act, EMPACT, TSCA, Environ-
mental Justice  grants, Environmental
Education Grants, state lead funding,
and other sources.
   Figure 5.  Total UEI Investment by City
                                  Boston
                                  Providence
                                  Hartford
43.2%
22.8%
19.2%
                                  New England   14.9%
From 1995-2000 the UEI awarded a
total of 111 grants totaling $3,357,197
targeted in the neighborhoods  of
Boston, Providence, and Hartford
(Figure 5) and leveraged an additional
42 grants totaling $1,690,609. In sum,
UEI was able to secure a total of 153
projects across target cities with a total
value of $5,047,806 in internal financial
resources (Figure 6). These resources
are invested across the following the
UEI target  areas:
Figure 6.  Total Program Investment  by City
                                  Boston        37.2%
                                  Providence    23.7%
                                  Hartford       28.3%
                                  New England  10.8%
' In Greater Boston, the UEI funded 41 grants totaling 51,448,658 in funding, and leveraged an additional $429,364 in
  funding through 18 additional projects to benefit residents throughout the Greater Boston metropolitan area. Total
  Greater Boston investment resulted in 59 projects worth $1,878,1)22. (See Greater Boston Map  1 for detailed infor-
  mation on investments,  neighborhoods targeted, and low income/minority populations serviced)

1 In Providence, the UEI funded 39 grants totaling $764,504 in funding and leveraged an additional  $429,328 in funding
  through 12 grant projects. Total Providence investment resulted in 51 projects worth $1,193,832.  (See Providence
  Map 2 for detailed information on investments, neighborhoods targeted, and low income/minority populations
  serviced)

 In Hartford, the UEI funded 21 grants totaling $643,086 in funding and leveraged an additional $696,961 in funding
  through 9 grant projects. TotaJ Hartford investment resulted in 30 projects worth  $1,340,047. (See  Hartford Map 3
  for detailed information on investments, neighborhoods targeted, and  low income/minority populations serviced)

 In addition to these target cities, die UEI funded 10 regional grants which totaled $500,949 and leveraged an additional
  3 grants totaling S44,956. These regional grants supported projects that benefitted the communities of Greater Boston,
  Providence, and Hartford.                                                          refer to maps on pgs. 14-16
                                                                                 MEASURABLE RESULTS/  13

-------
                                                                                    Revere
                                                                                     $0
                                                                                     S4II.IIIHJ
                                                                             Chelsea
                                                                            $125,000
                                                                            $149,'M(
                                                                               East
                                                                              Boston
                                                                              $11)0.1)00
                                                                              Sinn ooo
                       Central/
                      Chinatown
                               Allston/Rrighton
                                                       Fenway/
                                                      Kenm
                                                South
                                               Boston
                                               $30 HOO
                                               $30,U
                                                                                                  Harbor Islands
                                                          Roxbury
                                                         $482,230
                                                         $607,230
                       Jamaica
                        Plam
                      $20,000
                      $20,000
                                                                 Dorchester
                                                                   $72,600
                                                                   $102.600
                          West Roxbury
                                                                        Area of Investment    |   UEI ($)  |  Total ($)
                                                                    Neighborhood Projects
                                                                                                         4  Miles
                          Urban Environmental Initiative Investments and
                            Total Investments In the Greater Boston Area
                 r
Low-Income/Minority'
      Population
           Low
           Medium
;	Neighborhood Projects
I      | Town Boundary
	Neighborhood Boundary
DEI  Investment
Total Investment*
                                                                                           New England
Dab Sourca Town Boundinci from MucCIS at
1 24,000 Invectmcnl diLi from EPA-Nnr England
Map Updated Febraan' 21, 2001,EPA-Nrw England GIS Cento
I proiccti uci mvcitmcnt mvcalapr
                       * Total Investment includes funding from the I 'El in addition
                       ID other EPA sources such as the Clean Water Act, EMPACT.
                       TSCA. Stale funding, and Environmental Jmtice grants

-------
                  Mount Pleasant
                                                                College Hill
                                                                   $20,000
                             Olnej-ville
                              $147095
                              $167,995
            Federal Hill
              $39,932
              $39932
                                        Wesl End
                                         $16,550
                                         $16
                         South Providenc
                               $161,66(1
                               $181.f,f>U
                                                                     Washington Park
           $25,000
           $25.000
                      Providencc-
                         Wide
                       $316,127
                       $705,455
                         South Elnvwood
                           $17,240
                           $17.240
                                                                           Area of Investment      UEI (S)  [  Total (t)  |

                                                                         Providence-Wide Projects

                                                                         Neighborhood Projects
                                                                                                         1 6 Miles
                              Urban Environmental Initiative Investments and
                                     Total Investments In Providence, RI
                         Low-Income/Minority           Neighborhood Projects
                                                           Town Boundary
                                                           Neighborhood Boundary
                                                              New England
Population
     Low
     Medium
     High
)ata Source! Town Boundaries from RIGIS at
 24,000  Investment data from EPA-New England
Map Created: February 21. 2001.
 PA Hew England CIS Center
:/pro|ecti/uel/lnvestment/Invest apr
                                                     UEI Investment

                                                     Total Investment*
                 • Total Investment mdudcs funding from the l;FI in addition
                 to other EPA sources such as the Clean Water Act, FMPACT.
                 TSCA. State funding, and Environmental Justice grants	

-------
                                   Northeast
                                   $44,955
                                   $44,955
                                                   North
                                                 Meadows
                                                Hartford-Wide
                                                   $437,331
                                                 $1,224,292
                       Upper
                       Albany
                               Clay
                             Arsenal
                                  $72,800
                                  $72,800
                      Asylum
                       Hill
                                  Downtown
                                    $20,000
                                    $20,000
                                                                                     UEl (S)    Total ($)
                           Frog
                          Hollow
                           $20,000
                           $20,000
                                          Sheldon-
                                          Charter Oak
South
Green
                               Barry Square
           Behind
         The Rocks
              $48,000
              $48,000
                                                 South Meadows
                                                                                              1.5 Miles
*  -  r>\
                        Urban Environmental Initiative Investments and
                                Total Investments In Hartford, CT
           D LJCg
                  Low-Income/Minority
                       Population
                            Low
                            Medium
                            High
Data Source* Town Boundaries from ConnDEPat
1 24.000 Investment data from EPA-Ncw England
Map Created February 21. 2001 .EPA-Ncw England GIS Center
I projccti uci inveitment mvc«t»pr             	
 16
          |	| Neighborhood Projects

          I     | Town Boundary

          |     | Neighborhood Boundary

          tJEI Investment

          Total Investment*

      • Tola) Investment includes funding from the UEI in addition
      to other EPA sources such u the Clean Water Act, EMPACT.
      TSCA. Slate funding, and Environmental Justice grants
                                                                                    New England A

-------
    the
Anti-Idling Day in  Roxbury, MA
Community residents and Alternatives for Community and (Environment (ACHj noticed that bux        J at
the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority's f.MBT \) Bardett Street ( iaragc often idle tor up to 3u minutes .it a time.
This is especially problematic because of the large number of dicsel vehicles housed in the area. There are more
than 15 bus and truck depots within 1.75 miles or" Dudley Square in Roxbun, housing over 1,150 dicsel veh;
including 500 MBTA buses, 230 school buses, and ~n private buses. Asthma hospitalixarion rates in Roxbury are
tive dmes higher than  the state average, and over  twice the rate in  Boston.  AC1E discovered that these long
periods of idling directly violated Massachusetts Anti-Idling IJM which limits idling rime to 5 minutes. ( )urragcd
   t this law was not being enforced in Roxbury, local residents and elementary school children joined youth in
  ie UEI-funded Roxbury  (Environmental I Empowerment Program iRI-.lEP, and  organi/cd an anti-idling march
and press conference.
    The students designed a "ticket" to educate drivers about the Anti-Idling f,aw and in October I'1         'uth
    from three different schools marched from Egleston Square  to Dudley Square in Roxbun distributing ti
    tickets and chanting slogans. They also organized a press conference in Dudley Station where high-level environ-
    mental officials from state and federal government spoke, resulting in significant television and newspaper media
    coverage.  Following the march, students from Greater 1 Egleston Community High School wrote letters to the
    editors of local newspapers calling for clean, alternative  fuel MBTA buses.  Through their actions, these REEP
    youth and local school children brought the idling  issue to the public and media.  This has caused significa
    changes in MBTA policy and idling practices, and the use of more cleaner-fuel buses in the community.
UEI and  community partners have
produced  results, meeting both quan-
titative and qualitative goals  and
objectives. Since 1998,  the UEI has
developed annual  integrated work
plans for each target city that are linked
with Government Results Performance
Act (GPRA) goals, objectives, and sub-
objectives. The agency goal that  best
                                 reflects the UEI's work is Goal 4 (Pre-
                                 venting Pollution and Reducing Risk in
                                 Communities, Homes, \\brkplaces,
                                 and Ecosystems). These standards are
                                 a focal point for measuring progress
                                 and ensuring that resources are dedi-
                                 cated  to achieving environmental
                                 results. A full report of annual accom-
                                 plishments and measurable results tor
each UEI target city is available upon
request, as such detail could not fully
be captured in this five year report.
Below is a small selection of many UEI
short term highlights and measurable
results since its start in 1995:

Vacant Lots in Providence: UEI's
work with Direct Action for Rights and
                                                                                   MEASURABLE RESULTS / 17

-------
 I 'olunteers clean up trash from illegal dumping on vacant lots in Pron'deuce, RJ.
Equality (DARK), Brown L niversiry
 and the Mayor's (Office in Providence
identified over 4,00(1 urban vacant lots
within Providence City limits, many
with significant environment and public
health problems trom illegal dumping
and rats. LTEI provided  funding to the
City of Providence's Environmental
Strike Team (PEST) to clean debris,
trash and waste from  over 600 lots
throughout the city. The L'EI leveraged
EPA  laboratory resources to  sample
170  city-owned vacant lots for lead
poisoning  as   an   indicator  of
contamination  from illegal dumping
and demolished homes. Forty of the
lots  sampled contained dangerously
high  lead levels and  the City of
Providence's Deptartment of Planning
contracted a local company to mitigate
the contamination. The UE1 also
helped community and local government
partners  create  and  implement a
Special Vacant I^ot for SI Program that
allows qualified residents to purchase
some of the vacant lots for a single
dollar. In  exchange for the low cost,
18
residents promise to put the lots into
productive use and maintain  the
property tor five years. The L'EI also
worked with DARE and the RI Dept.
of Health to produce and distribute a
multi-lingual brochure to local residents
about lead in residential soils,  the
Special Vacant Lot for SI Program,
and what they can do to limit childhood
exposure to lead in soil. DARE, City
of Providence Dept. of Planning,  and
UEI worked together to  create  the
Alice Hicks Mini-Grants Program
which provides up to 55,000 to
qualified new owners of vacant  lots
to rehabilitate the lot.  These resources
an be used for landscaping,  creating
urban garden, elevated flower beds or
other creative and safe re-use of the
property.

Do's  &  Don'ts  for  the  Woon-
asquatucket River: The \\oon-
asquatucket River, which flows 18 miles
from North Smith field to the Upper
Narragansett Bay in  Providence,  is a
centerpiece of Providence's urban revi-
tali/ation efforts where the river is the
focal  point  for the  nationally-
acclaimed \\aterfirc shows. In 1W6, the
L'EI learned from community groups
that urban residents were subsistence
fishing and eel trapping in urban parts
of the  river.  Subsequent sampling
efforts revealed significant and extensive
dioxin and PCB contamination in fish
tissue, soil and sediment in and along
the \\oonasquatucket. The L'EI helped
engage  the Supertuncl program that
now  works at an ongoing  site at
Centredale Manor to  identify the best
opportunities to clean up the contami-
nation. The  L'EI worked with nearly
40 community and local government
partners including the Northern Rhode
Island Conservation District and The
Providence  Plan  to  create and
implement the "Do's and Don'ts for
the \Voonasquatucket River" multi-
lingual education and outreach campaign
to help children, families, and  visitors
safely enjoy  the urban resource. The
education campaign has reached urban
elementary schools with classroom pre-
sentations to over 400 children in the
third  and fourth grade, trained youth
River Rangers  at the Providence Plan
to give 10 presentations reaching over
100 children through  the Parks Dept.,
reached hundreds  of adults through
community centers and town  council
presentations, and has reached 10,000
local  residents  with multi-lingual
brochures through door-to-door
campaigns and community events.

Landfill Improvements in Hartford:
Hartford is  home to more regional
waste disposal  facilities than any other
Connecticut town. It receives waste
from  77 Connecticut towns, Vermont,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New
York City. The Connecticut Resources
Recovery Authority operates  the
Hartford landfill, consisting of an  86

-------
                                                           the
                                       lip it In in.- i-. .iv .iil.iMc. in I ivj
                                            i^li. '  .null' uli. in. I Ini'
                                            1 ..IP ill. in, \ icin.inn.-M.
                                             .Hill P<
acre unlined area for municipal solid
and special waste and an  17 acre
double lined area that receives munici-
pal solid waste combustion ash resi-
due. Working in partnership with com-
munity groups  including ONE/
CHANE, the UEI helped secure tech-
nical resources to extensively sample
and test the sight. Unified community
efforts stimulated nearly SI 3 million in
anti-pollution improvements and over
S500,(KX) for community health studies.

Turning   Vacant   Lots   &
Brownfields  Into  Sustainable
Urban Agriculture: Founded in 1991,
The Food Project addresses  environ-
mental  issues  by remediating land,
modeling sustainable agriculture prac-
tices, developing local capacity, train-
ing and employing youth leaders, and
raising fresh produce to feed hungry
and low-income residents in Greater
Boston. Urban agriculture pro\'ides a
holistic answer to many problems
found in many low-income commu-
nities and makes positive assets out ot
problems  from vacant  land and
barren brownhclds  properties and
empowers local  youth with leadership
skills. Starting in  1995, the  UEI
partnered with  The Food  Project to
expand its farming base to include
redevelopment of vacant  land in
Roxbury  and help sell its  freshly-
harvested organic produce at an I rban
F'armers Market in the Dudley Street
Neighborhood. Staffed  by stipened
youth  program  participants,  the
market provides low-cost, healthy and
fresh rood to neighborhood residents.
Since its inception. The Food  Project
has reclaimed  and transformed two
acres  ot  urban  land  tor  food
production and increased farmed land
trom   tour to twenty-one  acres;
brought together over 3,11 Id youth
trom Greater  Boston to remediate
and cultivate farm land in Roxbury and
Lincoln;  employed over 250 youth
trom   Greater   Boston   through
summer   and   Academic   Year
Programs; harvested and distributed
nearly  3()<),<)0<) pounds of locally-
produced  organic produce; supplied
fresh organic produce to fifteen local
soup kitchens, urban and  suburban
families,  an   urban business,  the
Urban  Farmers  Market,   and  a
Community Supported  Agriculture
Program; and  facilitated  nearly ",1)011
volunteer hours at Greater Boston
soup kitchens.
A vacant lot in Providence, RI.
                                                                                  MEASURABLE RESULTS /  19

-------
In January 2(101 Tufts University again
surveyed UEI grant  recipients from
1995 to the present. The survey found
that 84" ii of grantees felt that as  a
result of their involvement with UEI
they are better able to participate in the
public processes  that effect the envi-
ronmental quality ot their community.
Across the six priority L'KI issues, 75"'o
of the grantees work on at least three
issues, it  you include  groups working
on at least two issues it climbs to 91" n.
This demonstrates a remarkable abil-
ity on the part ot UEI grantees to use
the multi-media  approach that is the
hallmark of UEI. The UEI has also
been extremely effective in getting EPA
resources to these grantees. The UEI
directly responded to the information
from  community groups in  1995 to
let the community know what it had
to offer and now it is possible to see
that groups know what  EPA has to
offer and that they are making use of
   Building  trust  and  credibility
these resources. The survey identified
12  specific resources:  Tools for
Schools; Brownfields; River Preserva-
tion; Radon; \\ater Quality Testing;
EPA Training;  Integrated  Pest
Management; Asthma; Ix-ad Poisoning
Prevention; Targeted  Enforcement;
Soil Testing and  other  EPA Grant
programs. ()n average groups accessed
6 of these tools  from  EPA New
England through the UEI. The results
from this survey verify that the UEI
achieved the measurable program goal
of building capacity at the local level
and linking communities to other EPA
programs and resources.

The previous discussion  centered on
tangible short term results, but only
time will afford a retrospective look
that can truly calculate the results and
success of the UEI. These long-term
results include todays unknowns such
as the number of poor environmental
decisions that will be avoided because
of a fully aware infrastructure of
concerned and dedicated people now
participating in decision-making. How
many pieces of thoughtful legislation
will be passed or creative solutions to
todays problems will come forth simply
as a  result of an educated citizenry?
Though their genesis may be a result
current actions, it is  not possible to
measure all the future progress that will
be made due to UEI efforts.
UEI staff receive a community tour of many urban vacant lots in Providence, RI.
20

-------
                                •»•	
                            ii. i n«r >•» . -.
•^tudy Say* Natural G
-------

The III < ommunity  Development
Pyramid was  applied t<> a range of
urban environment and public health
issues .md created a sustainable urban
infrastructure that increased local
capacity n > M >l\ e pn >blems. This scctu m
highlights three case studies t« > illustrate
the model in  action. The  case studies
:elude: t'rhan Environmental Infra-
  ructure in Boston, M \; I \olution of
the Environmental Justice Movement
in Hartford, < T; and lx-ad Poisoning
Pre\ention in  Providence, Rl. These
ease studies are a small slice of I 1  I'-
Successful deployment  of the  1 II
Communiu Development  Pyramid.
Each case study  had its genesis  in
different environmental problems and
community response, and even one
resulted in a consistent progression up
the  pvramid  to  create a  stable
infrastructure that will last beyond the
length of the  pilot program. The
uniqueness, if the case studies illustrates
the diversity and fK        of theUEl
(  ommunity  Development Pyramid in
bringing pe< >ple, groups, and res< >urces
together  to produce measurable
environmental and public health results.
 Case Study I:
 Urban  Environmental
 Infrastructure in Boston, MA

 Boston  is  a tightly  packed  city
 \vith   sixteen   neighborhoods.
 In  IWll, Boston's multi-racial popu-
 lation  totaled 574,283  comprised of
 24.3",, African-American;  10.8%
 Hispanic; and 5.2% Asian/Pacific
 Islander. Children under 10 and
 people over 65 comprised 22.4% of
 the  population.  18.7% of Boston
 residents and 50.8% of Roxbury
 residents arc living at  or below the
 poverty level. Chinatown is the most
 densely  populated neighborhood
 with over 111 residents per acre, and
 9.6 persons per acre of open space.
 This is nine times higher than any other
 neighborhood. Chinatown is  also
 surrounded  by major expressways
 (Mass Pike & 1-93) and local residents
 live with more traffic than in any other
 neighborhood. 90% of Boston children
 under  six have been tested  for lead
 poisoning, and the  greatest number
 and most  severe cases  of  lead
 poisonings  occur  in  minority
 neighborhoods.   Asthma   and
 bronchitis are  the leading cause of
 childhood hospitalization, and the rate
is 178% higher in Roxbury.
22
Boston has always been a city full of
neighborhood activism, so it was not
difficult to hnd groups, issues or com-
munities to work with. Many Boston
neighborhoods launched community-
based efforts  to protect the urban
environment,  but were  faced  with
many daunting obstacles. Federal, state
and municipal environmental  laws were
numerous, confusing, and often not
designed to meet resident needs. The
legal and technical resources required
to solve urban  problems were nonex-
istent because mainstream  environ-
mental groups generally ignored inner
city environmental issues and focused
on wildlife habitat and ecosystem pres-
ervation. There was also litde public
education on the connections between
the urban economy, environment and
public  health. This case  study docu-
ments the UEI's efforts to service com-
munity needs by developing  a sustain-
able infrastructure so local stakehold-
ers and residents have a forum to get
information, raise their concerns, and
access resources to improve the health
and environmental quality in Boston
neighborhoods.
Phase  1:
Understanding the Problems &
Identifying Stakeholders

EPA New England responded to the
public's  request by requiring staff to
focus more program efforts on urban
neighborhoods in  Boston and created
the L'EI as a dedicated resource. The
I'EI and community groups organi/ed
a number of environmental justice
tours in Roxbury and  Chelsea to
increase agency  awareness of  the
issues  and  concerns in  the most
disadvantaged Boston neighborhoods.
These    tours   highlighted   the
disproportionate  risks for residents
including diesel and  bus  traffic  and
transport, vacant lots, lead  poisoning,
air pollution, asthma, and lack of green
and open space along urban rivers.

-------
The DEI continued  working with   hoods in Roxbury and Dorchester. The
Boston neighborhoods and listened to   UEI also  helped to support newly
community concerns. Focus groups   emerging environmental groups in-
were held in  partnership with Tufts   eluding Alternatives for Community
University and the Boston University   anc" Environment  (ACE),  Environ-
School of Public Health  to engage   mental Diversity l:orum (EDI7), and
local  residents and  environmental   the Dudley Street Neighborhood Ini-
leaders about their issues and ideas. The   dative (DSNI) and worked with heaJth
UEI expanded historical EPA New   organizations including the Bowdoin
England  partnership efforts with  the   Street  and Dimmock Community
National Center for
Lead Safe  Housing,
local public health agen-
cies and community or-
ganizations   in  the
Codman Square neigh-
borhood to  develop
strategics to reduce lead
poisoning in high-risk
neighborhoods  for lead
poisoning.    A   key
product   was   the
Massachusetts Ix*ad I .aw
workshop with a cur-
riculum for community
stakeholders  to under-
stand the history and
components of the law
and confirmed the value
of involving  neighbor-
hood based organizations
to prevent childhood lead
poisoning. The work-
shop  empowered local
residents with informa-
tion  so  they  could
effectively advocate for   Cit\ Year \outh workers in Ro\hnr\. M.I
needed change and re-
form  in local laws, which ultimately
helped to reduce exposure to lead tor
children.
                                    The most critical project success that
The UEI also identified  more local   laid a foundation for future work in
environmental groups to improve   Boston was a project called Green
Boston neighborhoods.  The UEI   Spaces Healthy Places. t'El, City Year,
joined forces with City Year's urban   AmeriCorps,  DSNI and other corn-
youth corps to tap the energy of  the   muniry groups worked to reduce corn-
volunteers to work in urban neighbor-   munity environmental  hazards in the
Health Centers to better understand the
problems facing Boston residents.
Dudley Street area in  Roxbury. The
project emphasi/ed open space revi-
talization, resource conservation, and
indoor air quality. The project marked
the first L'EI-coordinated effort to
focus training and funding \vith neigh
borhoods, the private sector, and pub-
lic health professionals to revitali/e an
urban neighborhood. The diverse
project team promoted environmen-
         tal understanding,  skill
         building, neighborhood
         environmental   audits,
         environmental sampling to
         detect  lead and  radon
         levels, CilS mapping of va-
         cant lots, and  delivered
         training  to  211  City  Year
         Corps members.  These ef-
         forts helped the youth un-
	  derstand  available data on
         environment and public
         health  issues in  Roxbury
         and share this information
         to local residents. Green
         Spaces Healthy Places
         produced   visible   and
         measurable results  and
         helped residents better
         understand  their  local
         environment and their role
         in solving environmental
         problems.

         During this first phase, the
         UEI worked to understand
         community  concerns and
         supported  stakeholders
that  were  already  serving  as
champions for urban environment and
public health concerns in Boston
neighborhoods.   UEI   focused
technical and financial resources to help
build trust with the community
partners.  The majority of  financial
resources supported  staff time in
non-profit organizations and directed
academic  resources  to start gathering

               CASE STUDIES 723

-------
information and data to understand the
extent and depth of contamination in
Boston neighborhoods.
             Boston
            Phase  2
Phase 2:
Building Local Capacity &
Developing Local  Partnerships

Building off the early project successes
in Boston, the UEI started developing
slightly  larger  scale  projects  to
encourage community groups  to
jointly address common problems
facing residents. A critical project was
Neighborhoods  Against  Urban
Pollution  (NAUP),  launched  in
partnership with UEI, ACE, DSNI,
Massachusetts Campaign to Clean Up
Hazardous VC'aste, Environmental
Diversity Forum, Bowdoin Street
Health Center, and the Tellus Institute.
The  NAUP  team  developed  a
blueprint  for  community-based
ecosystem protection that started with
resident awareness and mobilization
and then leveraged technical resources
(i.e. GIS  mapping)  to  help  the
community identify and catalogue the
sources of environmental hazards and
environmental assets. The information
was used to help prioritize problems
and develop coordinated plans  of
action by creating Neighborhood Core
Groups to organize and  facilitate
citizen involvement and input. This
effort produced model campaigns for
addressing some of the most common
urban  environmental  problems
including illegal dumping of waste on
vacant lots, hazardous waste, pollution
A multi-ton salt pile located along the Chelsea
from auto repair and paint shops,
and contaminated Brownfields sites.

One of the  ongoing results of the
Green Spaces Healthy Places project
included the introduction of urban
farming in the DNSI area through The
Food Project. With a  budget  of
5100,000, three staff, eighteen youth
(many from the inner city) and 2.5 acres
of land at Drumlin Farm in Lincoln,
MA the Food Project launched its first
growing season in 1992. That summer,
they grew and donated 4,000 pounds
of food. This project was transitioned
to engage local youth in the DSNI area
for the first on-site urban  farm.
Collaboration between the UEI, Green
Spaces Healthy Places groups and The
Food Project helped identify and trans-
form vacant land in the DSNI area into
a working urban  farm.

In 1997-98, the UEI worked with
Boston University School  of  Public
Health (BUSPH), Tufts University
School  of Medicine (TUSM), and
South  Boston Community  Health
Center staff to conduct surveys of
public housing apartments  with West
Broadway residents. These surveys
assessed indoor air contaminants, safety
Creek in Chelsea, AH.
 hazards, health, and the role of resi-
 dents in maintaining housing quality.
 Participants were trained by BUSPH
 and TUSM on indoor air quality
 issues  and  the  surveys  helped
 document apartment  and building
 conditions, maintenance history, and
 resident health. The survey revealed
 that there is a critical  link between
 building and apartment quality (i.e.
 water   leaks,  moisture,   mold,
 uncontrolled heating, poor ventilation,
 etc.) and resident health. The partners
 also determined that  this complex
 problem could only be solved by  a
 combination of building improve-
 ments, change in maintenance policy,
 and community health education
 programs.

 The UEI also continued to expand the
 number and diversity of stakeholders
 involved. New community partners
 included  Roxbury  Community
 College,  Coalition  to  Protect
 Chinatown, and the Chelsea Creek
 Action Group. UEI funded Tufts
 University to diversify the New
 England Lead Coordinating Commit-
 tee by  including more community
 based partners in addressing  lead
 poisoning, and helped focus attention
24

-------
on  urban  air  issues  through
collaborating with the Northeast States
for Coordinated Air Use Management
(NKSCAUM) on  conferences and
outreach.  The UEI also provided
community trainings to our partners
including G1S mapping, how to apply
for funding, facilitation and conflict
resolution, and general management
skills. The  UEI focused resources on
projects to map environmental hazards
in Boston communities and shared this
information at community forums and
events. ACE was  a pivotal  partner
engaging local residents  and youth and
worked with  other   community
partners to organize "EJ in the Hood"
which  brought together hundreds  of
residents, youth and local groups on a
Saturday to learn about the quality of
their environment and what they could
do to improve it. All of these projects
addressed  common issues of concern
identified in Phase  I, and encouraged
local stakeholders to work together and
share success.
             Boston
             Phase 3
Phase  3:
Leveraging Public Resources
To  Improve Public Health &
The. Environment

Years of collaboration with a diverse
set  of local partners set the stage for
the UEI to identify more public
resources to support urban project
work throughout Greater Boston
communities. The UEI  provided
funding  to   the  Massachusetts
Riverways  Urban Rivers  Program,
within  the  Massachusetts Dept.  of
Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental
Law Enforcement,  to  restore the
ecological integrity of urban rivers.
EPA  New  England's Office  of
Environmental Stewardship conducted
a River Reconnaissance on the Mystic
River including the Chelsea Creek, a
neglected urban riverway lined with
petroleum tank farms, a multi-ton salt
pile, 21E hazardous waste sites, and
much more. The UEI also  worked
with Roxbury Community College to
create a certification program for lead
abatement that used  adult education
programs to  build  a network of
trained minority  contractors that can
safely do lead abatement work to
reduce lead poisoning in children and
create jobs. The program collaborated
to increase  or target the work of
numerous departments and programs
in city government such as Parks and
Recreation,      Neighborhood
Development,  Inspectional Services,
Environment, Boston Redevelopment
Authority,    and   the    Boston
Environmental Strike  Team (BEST).

As a pilot program, the UEI could not
effectively service all the needs of the
sixteen communities  in the area and
was open to alternative mechanisms for
securing direct technical and fiscal
government  resources to  conduct
project work.  When the United States
Dept. of  Agriculture (I SDAj issued a
request  tor  proposals tor  a new
program to create Urban  Resource
Partnerships across the country. The
UEI, Sustainable Boston, the Dept. of
Environmental Management and a
bn >ad c< >alitic >n < >t c< immunity, g< >vern-
ment, academic and local business
partners joined forces to successfully
receive a total of SI.3 million dollars to
invest over five years in communities
through the Greater Boston  Urban
Resources Partnership CGB-URP). The
stage was set to build off the successes of
the past and set new vi.s« >ns ft >r the future.
             Boston
            Phase 4
Phase 4:
Effective Partnerships

()nce the USDA support was secured,
the challenge was t< > take the partner-
ship  beyond the grant funding  and
Participants in the Rov/wry Community College adult education program.
                                                   CASE STUDIES 725

-------
make it effective.  GB-URP grew  to
become a coalition of over  forty
members representing community
organizations, local business, academic
partners, and federal, state and local
government.  Its mission was to help
local communities conduct projects
that link social, economic, and environ-
mental  concerns  with   available
resources to produce  results. GB-URP
members  work together on projects
and coordinate technical, financial, and
in-kind resources to community based
organizations  and  neighborhoods
throughout Greater Boston. GB-URP
operated  with  funding and support
primarily from  the  USDA,  with
additional investment and involvement
from the Dept of Housing and Urban
Development, the UEI, the City  of
Boston, BSC Group, Mystic River
Watershed Association, Eagle  Eye
Institute, and Chelsea Human Services
Collaborative.  GB-URP annually
awards approximately $250,000  in
grants to neighborhood  groups  to
support  the  mission. The UEI  is a
member  of the Executive Committee
and jointly participates in decision-
making.  GB-URP has gone beyond
providing funding to coordinate a series
of "Piecemeal to Cohesion" meetings
that link grant-making foundations
with community groups around specific
environment and public health topics
to help ensure that  these  projects
receive consideration for funding.

UEl's work to assist  small organiza-
tions in Greater Boston with skills and
knowledge has empowered them  to
form better partnerships to secure
financial resources for more complex
projects. For example, ACE was able
to expand its collaboration with  local
groups and received over SI million
from  EMPACT to conduct a multi-
year AirBeat Program that  provides
real-time ambient air quality data  to
residents and corresponds with a  pub-
lic outreach campaign that lets asthma
   New England Lead Coordinating Committee
   The New England I .e.id < .'<»>rdii                 \ 1 I -CQ is a highly successful regional collaborative with di\ crs<.-
   community and government representation. M I.CC has  successfully reduced barriers to end  lead poisoning by
   developing partnerships with state, federal. and community stakeholders to revise and address conflicting regulations
   and policy that prohibited implementing lead poisoning remediation and prevention  strategics throughout  Nc\\
       ;.md. Nl .!.< (  worked with 11.1 to h.i\c I l'\ New England release a memo stating that soil contaminated with
   lead from house paint could be disposed of under the household hazardous v        mption, removing it from a
   quagmire of conflicting regulations and policies. Nl I <'.(  facilitated the development of low-cost landscape  mea-
   sures to man:i                     plans have  been shared and adopted across the  county.  Nl  .).( (  also ensures
   efficient and effective use of  resources. New  England States have successfully  competed  for a wide range  of
       rnment funding for lead poisoning prevention and remediation work. Nl I  < <        .irdeil additional  funds
   from state legislatures and used the resources more efficiently by minimizing start-up costs and sharing basic ir>
   mation (i.e. specifi*         I pr
-------
sufferers know the air quality and he
ahle to  adjust  their outdoor activities
accordingly. The Boston Foundation,
The City of Boston Sustainable Boston
Program, many community stakeholders,
and the UEI  worked  together to
initiate the "Boston Indicators of
Progress, Change and Sustainability"
project  to measure and track detailed
intormation on environment,  public
health, and social issues facing urban
residents in Boston. The project is an
ambitious  information-gathering
effort that  released "The Wisdom ()f
Our  Choices,"  which  identified
Education and Health Care, Civic
Health  and Cultural Life, and other
issues to be tracked in the future.
Phase 5:
Healthy Communities

The UEI and our community partners
have successfully created many sustain-
able and effective partnerships that will
continue  to   make  measurable
improvements in the quality of the
environment and public throughout
Greater Boston in the future. In 2000
the GB-URP was recognized by EPA
as a Federal Interagency Environmental
Justice Demonstration Project which
highlights an effective inter-agency part-
nership to address the needs and con-
cerns of environmental justice  com-
munities in Greater  Boston. The GB-
URP serves as a stable liaison between
community-defined needs and  avail-
able federal and private resources in
order  to respond to problems and
concerns. There is a full time staff
person that serves  as the Executive
Director of the partnership that coor-
dinates and  leads  the  day to day
communication, management, and over-
sight of the organizatkm including crearif >n
of an annual work plan to track efforts.

Other partnerships that were once
supported substantially  by the  UEI
have expanded their role and gone well
beyond their original local scope  to
service the entire city or state. ACE
coordinates a citvwide effort through
the Greater Boston Environmental
Justice Network which joins numerous
community  based environmental
efforts in sharing information, political
support and  strategic planning. The
Massachusetts Riverways Program
now has a permanent Urban Rivers
focus  and funding source, and the
indoor air efforts of the  BUSPH has
grown into a major collaborative
effort  between the  three schools  of
public health in Boston (Tufts, Boston
University and Harvard), the City  of
Boston and a community group  (The
Committee  for   Boston  Public
Housing). This cutting edge partnership
will assess and implement system-wide
changes in retrofitting and maintenance
of Boston public housing.
The Food Project now has its own 21-
acre farm in Lincoln, 2.5 acres of land
in Boston on two sites in  the DSNI
area, works with 100 young people,
14 staff and an annual budget of SI.4
million. The Food Project grows and
distributes 150,000 pounds  of organic
produce each year, and is a true leader
in urban agriculture and local, safe food
production in  urban  areas. The
Boston Indicators Project continues on
track. Seminars will be held at Boston
College every two years  through the
year 2030, Bostons 4dOth anniversary,
to report progress to the public. The
report provides a new and sustainable
tool  tf> measure Boston's  strengths,
assets as well as its challenges.

Boston has always been  fortunate  to
have strong activists and passionate
professionals willing to  work for
change.  UEI's  efforts  provided
federal resources to  support  these
community  efforts  and created
effective   projects,   long-term
partnerships, and measurement tools
that will ensure better, cleaner, and safer
neighborhoods for future generations.
                                                                                        CASE STUDIES / 27

-------
           Environmental Infrastructure in Boston, MA
                                    Phase 5
                                  Community
                                     Leads
                                 Environmental
                                    Change
                                    Phase 4
                           AirBeat • Eco Industrial Park
                           GB-URP • Boston Indicators

                                    Phase 3
                            MA Urban Rivers Program
                       Comparative Risk Assessment • MEJN
                      RCC-Center for Environmental Education
                    Piecemeal to Cohesion • River Reconnaissance

                                    Phase 2
                          Public Housing Survey • NELCC
                      NESCAUM Conferences • EJ in the Hood
             Green Spaces Healthy Places • Coalition to Protect • Chinatown
                 Hazards Mapping • The Food Project • Tellus Institute
                   Neighborhoods Against Urban Pollution (NAUP)

                                    Phase 1
      Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative • Public Roundtables • EPANE EJ Program
               EOF • ACE • MA Lead Law Workshop • Academic Research
Dimmock Community Health Center • BU School of Public Health • Tufts University • City Year
00
CN

-------
la Emergency        , uv iromm-n«
         . Hart*01
                                          *+ff*  *    vr
                                                       in JJartfrrd, C\

-------
Case Study  2:
Evolution of the Environmental
Justice Movement in
Hartford, CT
During the 1960s and lull's Hartford
lost much of its manufacturing base,
and  the  middle  class  fled to the
suburbs. In 1991), Hartford's population
was approximately  130,0(10 people,
with 70"d minority  including 36%
Black and 34"" Latino. Residents live
in an area of 18.4 square miles with  1 ^
neighborhoods. Hartford is the 8'h
poorest city in the country and hosts a
regional  landfill,  sewage treatment
plant, sewage sludge incinerator, trash-
to-energy  incinerator, and four small
electrical generation plants. The trash-
to-energy incinerator contributes 56%
of the non-traffic air pollution. Two
major interstate highways (1-84 and 1-91)
border Hartford and  four state high-
ways traverse the city producing 70%
of  the   mobile  source   carbon
monoxide. Childhood lead poisoning
rates are twice the state average. The
Connecticut River, an American Heritage
River, has a 6sh consumption alert due
to high levels of mercury in the
watershed. The Park River and Piper
Brook have  high bacteria levels and
metals contamination from combined
sewer overflows, point source and
non-point source runoff. Sprawl and
lack of investment created 339 acres
of vacant land  and nearly 1,000 aban-
doned buildings.  Hartford is a city
where money is made, but not locally
invested.

This case  study will examine the role
of the UEI and community partners
to create a new climate in  Hartford
where the community's voice influences
decisions  that are reversing years  of
environmental injustice and are changing
the quality of the environment where
they live, work and play.
30
            Hartford
            Phase 1
Phase 1:
Understanding  the Problem &
Identifying Stakeholders

UHI's initial efforts in Hartford were
met with mistrust by the community.
The I'HI participated in local community
meetings and sponsored focus groups
to start building credibility and begin
understanding the range of issues facing
residents.  These  meetings were a
catalyst to bring stakeholders together
and marked the first time local residents
saw government listening and not
dictating. The key community concerns
included chronic respiratory illnesses,
lack of environmental health data
available to the public, lack of political
               Mt US A VOICE'
 Community member in Hartford, CT calls
for action against toxic pollution.
representation, and no  support for
community needs. Community stake-
holders also expressed concern  over
the local landfill and possible adverse
health effects. Residents  were  also
worried that local air pollution caused
by neighboring waste facilities and
heavy highway traffic could be keep-
ing their children sick.

L'HI's key  partners  were ONE/
CHANE, Inc. and the Hartford Health
Dept.  (HHD). ONH/CHANH is  a
nonprofit organization  working to
rebuild North Hartford  to meet
resident driven priorities and resolve
environmental problems.  The  UEI
helped these partners sponsor  a
conference tided "Redefining the Urban
Environment" to  bring together  a
broad range of stakeholders for  a
dialogue and greater awareness of
local environmental justice  issues and
community concerns. UEI's work with
the HHD expanded the Environmental
Health Division to  improve access to
accurate and timely information of
concern to the public and enabled the
HHD  to work more effectively  with
local constituents.

UEI's efforts were  enhanced by
environmental justice site  tours to raise
awareness of the realities of the
environmental problems  in  Hartford.
Securing participation and support
from EPA New England  staff was
viewed by residents as critical to the
success of the UEI pilot program and
included the Regional  Administrator,
EPA's senior management  team, and
program managers. Congressional
representatives, the Mayor, heads of
state agencies, local political  leadership,
grassroots groups and the media  were
also engaged and  informed. These
early efforts and  partnerships  with
community stakeholders  laid a strong

-------
foundation for identifying projects that
would start to  address the greatest
concerns of Hartford residents.
Phase 2: Building Capacity &
Developing  Local Partnerships

Once the UEI started to build rela-
tionships with a few partners and
learned community concerns, the next
step was to engage more stakeholders
and work together to understand the
scope of the environment and public
health problems in the city. UEI's fund-
ing and  technical assistance helped
community partners develop the skills
and knowledge needed to be informed
and involved in local decision making.
Funding also supported our flagship
partners and projects with new part-
ners including Building Parent Power
(BPP), Hartford Areas Rally  Together
(HART), and Knox Parks. Represen-
tatives from these  groups, residents,
and local  block captains received a
series  of UEI sponsored trainings on
environmental education, data gadier-
ing and evaluation, and GIS.  The UEI
also worked with ONE/CHANE to
educate residents  and youth in  the
Northeast and Clay Arsenal neighbor-
hoods and conduct hundreds of door
to door community surveys to involve
more  residents.

UEI's partnership with BPP, a parent
led advocacy organization, convened
environmental justice education and
awareness sessions for  residents in
English and Spanish. The sessions
increased awareness and understand-
ing of the connections between  the
quality of the environment and public
health. Each session identified locaJ
resources and offered practical tools
for parents to address asthma, lead
poisoning,  integrated pest manage-
ment,  and  the city's rat crisis. This
project direcdy involved parents and
promoted accountability and safer in-
door environments in public schools.

The UEI also worked with HART,
Knox  Parks and ONE/CHANE to
address illegal dumping on vacant and
abandoned land, urban blight, and eco-
nomic development in low income
and minority neighborhoods. Creating
community gardens helped partners
transform abandoned, trash strewn lots
into productive gardens one lot at  a
time. The  gardens gave  residents
Community resident advocates for cleaner air and a response to asthma prevalence in Hartford, CT.
                                                                                       CASE STUDIES/31

-------
Knox Parks Chestnut Hill
Reclamation Project
\\"hcn Knox Parks Founda-
  'ii considered reclaiming a
scries nt"vacant lots m Hart-
ford and turning them into a
     urban green space- with
multiple uses, lead contami-
nation \vas the last thing on
their mind. The community-
  K.ised organization  \vas
  orking in partnership with
members  of the Cla\ Hill
neighborhood and  devel
    1 a detailed plan  tc > turn
this rwo acre vacant lot into
a passive park and an urban
garden with a teaching area
for used by students of the
local Ouirk Middle School.
Full implementation  of this
plan was  stalled after  soil
sampling revealed lead levels
on the majority of the  site
that were < tvcr the residential
threshold  established by the
I lartford Dept. of Health. In
     ,  the  I  11  helped
Knox  Parks  Foundation
succ<        i'tain resources
through    the     RCRA
Hnforcement Division by
using  resources fr
Supplemental Ivnvironmental
Project (SFP) in Hartford to
remediate  the lead from the soil by using phytoremediation. Phytoremediation uses certain types of plants as
crops to absorb the lead through  their leaves and stems and  significantly reduces lead levels from soil over
time. The  Chestnut Street Reclamation Project sponsored an F'.arth Day celebration and work day to begin the
first phase of  transforming the lot into a passive park  and urban garden. Students from the Quirk Middle
School, along with volunteers from local community groups,  I                 it and the I II  worked side
by side removing trash, debris and planting trees and shrubs. Subsequent events engaged an additional 20
students from Trinity College, local community groups and HPA staff to transform this open space into a
  •mmunity garden by constructing fencing, raised beds, and planting vegetables and flowers. The result of this
  jmbined effort has turned a vacant lot into a productive, enjo
greenspace
public.

-------
ownership and pride in the neighbor-
hood. L'EI funding and  technical
assistance  established an  effective,
working   partnership   between
formerly competing community groups
to produce environmental results.

The Hartford Neighborhood Envi-
ronmental  Project  (HNEP) was
launched in 1995 by the CT-DEP's
Pollution Prevention Office to work
with residents and businesses to pro-
mote pollution prevention, quality of
life improvements, and enhance eco-
nomic development in two neighbor-
hoods. The UEI provided  multi-year
funding to expand the original project
to service seven Hartford  neighbor-
hoods. Over four years, HNEP used
voluntary and traditional enforcement
techniques to produce results. HNEP
initiated a series of efforts including:
train-the-trainer seminars for neighbor-
hood leaders on environmental issues;
reclaiming hundreds of pounds of
Mercury through community ther-
mometer exchanges and  household
hazardous waste collection days;
cleaning over 100 illegal neighborhood
dump sites; introducing recycling in a
90 unit  cooperative housing project;
developing  a plan to turn a one acre
illegal dumping site into a garden and
recreational area; and hosting Poster &
Poem Contests for Hartford schools.
The UEI joined CT-DEP  and com-
munity partners to host Earth Day
Conferences with forums on house-
hold pollution prevention, managing
construction and demolition  waste,
asthma awareness, reducing lead paint
poisoning,  air and water pollution,
deterring illegal dumping, sustainable
development, and creating community
gardens. These small project successes
continued to build trust between com-
munity partners and demonstrated that
working together can achieve results.
           Hartford
            Phase 3
 Phase 3: Leveraging Resources
 to Improve Public Health & the
 Environment

 Improving  public  health and the
 environment in Hartford required co-
 ordination among stakeholders and
 dedicated resources.  The HNEP's
 program continued to grow and expand
 and their education  and  outreach
 activities to  empower thousands of
 Hartford residents to be aware of their
 actions and the impact on the environ-
 ment.  HNEP has fostered environ-
 mental stewardship, partnership devel-
 opment, and collaborative environ-
 mental problem solving.

 The Capitol  Region  Roundtable was
 created by community partners and
 supported by the UEI to enhance pre-
 vious community collaborations and
 unify  major stakeholders  across
 Hartford neighborhoods. The UEI
 was a partner in the Roundtable and
 helped host forums on  environmental
 and public health issues which impact
 residents within the Capitol Region.
 The Roundtable and community
 partners hosted an Environmental
Justice Community  Forum and
 Environmental Justice Tour for EPA's
 National Environmental Justice Director.

 The strength of the  foundation built
 by  the UEI and our community
 partners through a few years of small
 scale project  work was  soon tested by
 a public health crisis. An article in the
 Hartford Courant reported that the
 asthma rate in Hartford is more than
 five times the national average. The
UEI,  HEJN,  Capitol   Region
Roundtable, and community partners
responded quickly by launching an
asthma education campaign through
public forums, a media campaign and
an Asthma Policy Forum. Targeted
education and outreach  for local
officials resulted in the City Council
declaring an "Asthma F,mergency".
The  partners also held an Asthma
Legislative Briefing to promote greater
awareness among legislators about the
severity of the asthma epidemic and
provided recommendations  for policy
development. The UEI leveraged EPA
New England Indoor Air Quality tech-
nical experts and sponsored commu-
nity trainings  on asthma prevention,
triggers and EPA's Tools for Schools
Program with ConnectiCOSH. Local
parents created demand to start
implementing EPA's Tools for Schools
and  Integrated Pest  Management
strategies in Hartford schools.

The UEI also  worked with the HHD,
University of Connecticut  Environ-
mental Research Institute, and the John
Snow Institute to develop a website
to share Hartford specific information
with  the public. Staff time,  materials,
and information were dedicated from
nearly two dozen state, local, and com-
munity sources to work together to
produce a quality' website.  Environ-
mental health issues covered in the web
site include lead poisoning prevention,
asthma, indoor air quality, outdoor air
quality, open/green space, brownfields
and environmental justice.

Another example of how the  UEI
links agency resources with commu-
nity needs is  the collaboration that
addressed public concerns about
contamination on Pliny  Street  in
Hartford. The abandoned site once
hosted a plating company and the soil
               CASE STUDIES/33

-------
contained high levels of hexavalent
chromium and other dangerous toxic
substances. Resources were leveraged
from local, state, and federal sources
to safely  secure  the  site,  conduct
sampling and  community outreach,
hold public information meetings, and
plan for future site reuse.  Partners
included the DEI, EPA New England
Emergency  Response, Brownfields
Pilot Program, CT Dept. of Public
Health, CT-DEP, City of Hartford,
HHD, Pliny Street Block Association,
Clay   Arsenal   Neighborhood
Revitalization Zone, and  My Sister's
Place shelter for women and children.
These project successes set the stage
for a more effective  and diverse
partnership to develop which would
transition UEI's  role from one of
leadership to participating as one of
many voices working together to solve
problems in Hartford.
            Hartford
            Phase 4
Phase 4: Effective Partnerships

The Hartford Environmental Justice
Network (HEJN) was formed in re-
sponse to community concerns about
the siting of another fossil-fueled
power generator in South Hartford,
and has served as a foundation to unify
many community groups and stake-
holders around common issues and
events. Residents were concerned that
this new  project would be the  tenth
power generator located next to a pre-
dominantly Black and Latino commu-
nity already overburdened with many
air pollution sources. The HEJN soon
developed a reputation  for holding
major local polluters accountable for
activities that endanger public health.
The HEJN has grown to include over
30  neighborhood and community
groups including UEI with over 1,000
members. What the HEJN has accom-
plished as an effective partnership is
unprecedented in Hartford's history.
HEJN members researched the issues
related to hosting a new fossil-fueled
power generator, raised public aware-
ness about the relationship between air
pollution and  respiratory  health,
requested  a public hearing,  and
arranged the first environmental
public information session by neigh-
borhood groups.  This was a highly
successful strategy that led to an agree-
ment where Northeast Utilities actually
removed  the new power generator.

The environmental enlightenment in
Hartford initiated by the UEI, ONE/
CHANE, HEJN and our other com-
munity partners led to the foundation
Dr. Mark Mitchell addresses residents and actii-ists at a public awareness event in Hartford, CT.
34

-------
Local activists and residents in Hartford, CT protest pollution from industry.
of  the  Connecticut  Coalition  for
Environmentaljusrice. This state-wide
coalition expands and enhances  the
efforts of the HEJN through its
mission to "protect urban environments"
in the State of Connecticut.
Phase 5: Healthy Communities
Today in Hartford there are organized
community residents, with a common
purpose, and effective and lasting part-
nerships that work together to slowly
reverse a history of environmental
injustice, guard against  environmental
vandals, air polluters, and hazardous
waste dumpers. Residents of Hartford
are now empowered with knowledge
and awareness of environmental laws,
regulations and policies that exist to
protect them. \\Tien enforced, those
laws, regulations and processes cham-
pion their cause for environmental jus-
tice. It has taken several years, but the
environmental results  from capacity
building and  focusing resources are
evident. Hartford residents participate
in greater numbers  in  local and
regional  efforts  to safeguard and
improve the quality of the environment
and public health.  Environmental
justice partnerships have successfully
blocked the  siting of any medical
waste storage and disposal in the City
of Hartford, and defeated a pro-
posal  to site the largest truck stop in
New England. Local, state and fed-
eral governments are partnering with
organized neighborhood groups to
promote healthy communities.
The residents of Hartford have
fought long and hard for their cries
of injustice to be heard. Finally, their
perseverance is beginning to pay off.
The first African-American  to be
elected on the Green  Party ticket ran
on  an  environmental justice plat-
form.  Connecticut  now requires
industry to actively engage and solicit
input from the community whenever
applying or  reapplying for permits.
Developers  now  solicit  input from
the HEJN  and  the Connecticut
Coalition for Environmental Justice
prior to designing redevelopment
plans. There is a new level of respect
for the voice  and  needs of  the
community and a willingness to  find
common ground to respond to
community  concerns  whenever
making environmental decisions.
                                                                                      CASE STUDIES/35

-------
         Environmental  Justice  in Hartford, CT
                               Phase 5
                           Community Voice
                          Influences Decisions
                               Phase 4
                   Hartford Environmental Justice Network
                  CT Coalition for Environmental Justice

                               Phase 3
                     Hartford & Environment Website
                  Capitol Region Roundtable • Pliny Street
                EJ Community Forum • Asthma Policy Forum

                               Phase 2
                         Building Parent Power
                    CT Environmental Justice Network
                        Multi-lingual EJ Sessions
            Earth Day Events • HNEP • CT DEP • HART • UCONN
      Neighborhood Revitalization Zones • Environmental Data Assessment

                               Phase 1
Stakeholder Roundtables • Hartford Health Dept. • ONE /CHANE • Resident Surveys
  Block Captains • Urban Environment Conference • EJ Tours • Landfill Forums
                                                                                  >o
                                                                                  ro

-------

                                       warning*
                                       to target
                                       S.F. Asians
                                          POSITIVE
                                           POWER
                                         OF YOUTH
 NORTHWEST

  River pollution:
 ireful hut don't panic
A*
$1 land sale
offers lots
of lead for
little money
                        WIOV
          ION

                               Case
                                    >6i:udy 3
                               Lead P0\50ri\r\g Prevention in

                               Providence, RJ
Hows DARE'

-------
UEI staff and community volunteers disseminate educational materials door to door in
Providence, Rl.
Case Study 3:  Lead  Poisoning
Prevention in  Providence, Rl

Lead poisoning is a preventable
disease, which makes the health effects
on  children  from lead exposure
especially  tragic. Childhood lead
poisoning is one  of the most serious
environmental health problems in the
state of Rhode Island. The prevalence
of children with  elevated blood lead
levels in the state of Rhode Island is
more than  double the U.S.  rate. For
Hispanic children, the  rate in Rhode
38
Island is nearly six times the national
rate. In 1995, one out of every three
children  tested  in the  City  of
Providence under the age of six had
elevated blood lead levels.

Lead poisoning is linked to housing
conditions and the burden  of lead
poisoning is disproportionately borne
by low-income families, especially
those  who  live in Providence's
absentee-owned  rental properties.
These deteriorating structures and the
hazards they create affect the quality
                                                                       of life of entire  neighborhoods.
                                                                       Rhode Island has the fourth oldest
                                                                       housing stock in the nation, with 43%
                                                                       of the stock built before 1940 and
                                                                       over 75% built  before 1970. Nearly
                                                                       300,000 housing units in Rhode Island
                                                                       have potential lead paint hazards and
                                                                       associated lead-contaminated yards. Of
                                                                       these units, over  90,000 arc low
                                                                       income households.  Low  income
                                                                       households account for nearly 30% of
                                                                       the homeowners in Rhode Island.
                                                                       Overall, 31% of the low-income owners
                                                                       have housing problems and the rate
                                                                       rises  to 41% for  minority owner
                                                                       households.  Hispanic owner house-
                                                                       holds have the highest percentage with
                                                                       43.8% experiencing housing problems.
                                                                       In addition to poor housing quality,
                                                                       Providence also  has nearly 4,000 city-
                                                                       owned urban residential vacant lots
                                                                       which are host to illegal dumping and
                                                                       a home for rats.

                                                                       This case study illustrates the value and
                                                                       success of  the UEI's multi-stakeholder,
                                                                       community-based approach to focus
                                                                       federal  resources  to support
                                                                       community priorities and create  safer
                                                                       environments to  reduce the number of
                                                                       children with lead poisoning in Providence.
           Providence
            Phase 1
Phase 1: Understanding the
Problems  and  Identifying
Stakeholders

The UEI started its work in Providence
by hosting community focus groups
and meetings to understand the most
important problems facing residents.
These meetings and discussions with

-------
local leaders identified lead poisoning
and rats as top priorities. In 1995, The
Childhood  Lead Action Project (The
Project) was  the only community
group in Providence exclusively dedi-
cated to lead poisoning prevention. The
Proiect was formed in response to the
alarmingly high incidence of lead
poisoning in the city and developed
and  staffed a  community-based Get
the Lead Out Coalition to raise public
awareness about the need for action.
It became clear that The Project was a
critical partner and that they needed
financial and technical assistance to con-
tinue tackling this complex issue. The
UEI started working with The Project
and provided funding to stabilize the
organization and support outreach and
advocacy efforts representing low-in-
come and minority families with lead
poisoned children.

The  UEI identified other local stake-
holders that could help understand the
depth and  extent of lead poisoning
sources and contamination throughout
Providence. The UEI  engaged EPA
New England's  Lead Program staff
and  held a day-long "Lead-in-Soils
Charrette" \vith a diverse set of com-
munity  stakeholder  participants to
examine the problem of lead in soils,
especially in older residential homes.
This  charrette  created  landscape
contractor specifications to reduce  lead
in soils and created a community manual
and poster  for homeowners to keep
families safe from lead in their yards.

The UEI also started to work with the
Environmental Studies Program at
Brown  University to research  and
analyze housing stock conditions  and
investigate possible correlations with
lead  poisoning rates. The research
project identified Providence neighbor-
hoods with elevated blood lead levels
in children  and used  GIS technology
to map this data across the city along
with  housing code data from  the
City  of Providence. The research
project %rerified that dusters of children
with elevated blood lead  levels were
primarily located in deteriorating, low in-
come neighborhoods with old housing.

The  UEI  also worked  with  the
Olneyville  Housing Corporation
(OHC)  to survey housing quality in
Olneyvillc and South Providence and
identify lead  exposure pathways for
children. These neighhx >rh< x xls represent
twf>  of  the most under  served,
minority  and  low-income sections of
Providence. OHC compiled the survey
information and  organized a door-to-
door outreach campaign with  local
youth organizers to educate families
about  lead poisoning prevention.
UEI's initial work with these commu-
nity partners started to build the pilot
program's credibility and develop a
trusting relationship with our partners.
These successful small-scale projects
helped define the lead  poisoning
problem  in the city and set the  stage
for identifying more comprehensive
projects that would allow these stake-
holders  to work in partnership to
reduce lead poisoning rates.
           Providence
             Phase 2
Childhood I sad Action Project staff teach children and families how to eliminate incidence
of lead poisoning.
Phase 2: Building Community
Capacity & Developing  Local
Partnerships

UEI continued to support The Project's
efforts to inform and empower urban
families to keep their children sate
from  lead poisoning through preven-
tion. The Project spearheaded "Train
the Trainers" education programs to
train local leaders to share prevention
strategies and techniques with parents.
The Project organized three successful
lead conferences designed for environ-
mental and  public health leaders,
parents, and families to learn about lead
poisoning sources, methods for abate-
ment  and prevention, and treatment
options for children. The UEI worked
                CASE STUDIES/39

-------
with The Project to provide support
to engage parent participation and help
involve Brown University, Rhode Island
Department of Health (RIDOH),
local Congressional leaders, and the
Mayor's Office in the events.

In 1998, the Mayor of Providence
responded to the continuing lead
poisoning crisis by convening the
Providence Safe Housing Lead Task
Force (LTF). The  Mayor asked the
Executive Director of The Project to
serve as  Vice-Chair of  the LTF to
ensure that community needs would
be heard and met  The UEI worked
closely with The Project, the Mayor's
Office, RIDOH, and other community
partners to create a consensus-based
process to holistically identify ways to
reduce lead poisoning rates. The LTF
had  over fifty active participants
representing environmental groups,
local residents, public health officials,
acadcmia, local business,  and govern-
ment. Participants  volunteered their
time and expertise to identify solutions
to the lead poisoning problem over a
period of six months. The LTF had
three subcommittees: Housing, Health
& Education, and Funding and each
met on a regular basis for nine months.
The  UEI  recruited  EPA  New
England's Lead Outreach Coordina-
tor to provide federal regulatory
guidance expertise to the Health and
Education Subcommittee and ensure
that the  participants were aware of
agency outreach tools and resources.

The UEI participated on all three
subcommittees and helped find common
ground among stakeholders with
Differing objectives to ensure that me
subcommittees continued moving for-
ward to finish the  task force report
One key programmatic challenge
facing LTF participants was existing
lead regulations and policies. The
regulations and policies focused mainly
on  lead poisoning detection, rather
than prevention or abatement. The
participants identified that there were
inadequate state and local resources to
enforce existing city housing codes and
a lack  of political  will  to prioritize
enforcement efforts. Despite these
challenges, the window for advancing a
comprehensive   lead   poisoning
prevention policy for Providence was
now firmly open.
          Providence
            Phase 3
Phase 3: Leveraging Public Re-
sources to Improve  Public
Health & the Environment

The UEI continued to work with and
support The Project to expand its out-
reach  and education efforts  through
"Lead Safe  Parties" and engaging
parents to advocate for change. UEI
provided funding, technical expertise,
and staff time to work with  commu-
nity partners  to develop the LTF final
report recommendations and identify
next steps for action. The Project, the
Mayor's Office, and the UEI worked
together to  produce the LTF final
report. The  recommendations were
the result  of  capacity building,
partnership development, and com-
munity involvement that effective
community-based  environmental
protection requires. The LTF recom-
mended  three approaches to focus
action. The first strategy provided out-
reach, information and knowledge to
parents and property owners about the
danger and sources of exposure, and
practical prevention methods. The sec-
ond element created a housing invest-
ment and maintenance strategy to pro-
duce safe, well-maintained housing in
an efficient, affordable manner. The
third focus directed federal, state, city
and private-sector financial resources
to support implementation of LTF
recommendations. The Mayor of
Providence formally adopted all the
recommendations in the final report
and created a Steering Committee to
guide and oversee implementation.

The UEI and community partners
began  identifying ways to secure
additional public resources to implement
the LTF final report. The UEI worked
with local government, The Project,
and other LTF stakeholders to apply
for a U.S. Dept of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) Lead Based
Paint  Hazard Control Grant. The
partners were awarded $4 million in
resources to perform education and
outreach, and lead restoration programs
in Providence neighborhoods over
three years.

It was  also  clear to community part-
ners and the UEI diat lead poisoning
was not solely a housing problem, and
also included lead contaminated vacant
lots and residential yards. The UEI
started working on vacant lots in 1995
to support  Direct Action for Rights
and Equality (DARE). DARE played
a leadership role in organizing the com-
munity and galvanizing city action to
address the vacant lot and rat prob-
lem. When DARE and  the City of
Providence were identifying ways to
return  the vacant lots to productive
re-use, lead contamination became an
issue. The UEI worked with DARE
and the City of Providence to provide
resources from  EPA New England's
40

-------
Laboratory to  screen vacant lots for
lead. The UEI organized volunteers and
EPA New F.ngland staff to collect and
analyze  soil samples from  170 city-
owned vacant lots. UEI, DARE, the City
of Providence and RIDOH shared this
information with  the  public and
created a multi-lingual fact sheet to help
residents mitigate contamination and
protect children from lead poisoning.

The DEI  also continued work with
Brown  University  and  the City  of
Providence to gather information
from agencies,  organizations, commu-
nity groups, and residents on a range
of environmental issues including lead
poisoning. The results were published
in a report called "Livable Providence
2000" and was released to the public
during a community conference in
October  1999. The Livable Provi-
dence 2000 section on lead poisoning
supported the recommendations  of
the LTF final report. These shared
project successes enabled the UEI pilot
program to begin  a slow transition
from  a  prominent  leadership role to
become part of an effective partner-
ship that  would  work together to
achieve results.
           Providence
            Phase  4
Phase 4: Effective Partnerships

Effective partnerships join  diverse
stakeholders who work together to
define and meet clear goals and achieve
desired results. When the  Mayor of
Providence adopted the  LTF recom-
mendations and formed the Lead Task
Force Steering Committee (LTFSC),
UEI provided  funding  for staff to
work with community partners to take
the final report recommendations and
turn them into a coordinated action
plan. The committee  contained city
officials, the Rhode Island Department
of Health, UEI, The Project, The
Office of Attorney General, and a
number of other community-based
organizations. This steering committee
worked for over nine months to turn
the LTF  final report into a detailed
Goals Management Plan (GMP), that
outlines specific tasks and timelines for
progress. The GMP highlights six
areas  for lead poisoning prevention
work; Health and Education; Prevention;
Enforcement; Funding; Monitoring;
and Grant Management Each goal has
multiple objectives and  tasks that are
being coordinated by the LTFSC. The
LTFSC is now a working partnership
that continues to meet and track
GMP progress.

The UEI also helped community part-
ners launch a lead-safe yard program
for residential properties statewide in
Rhode Island. Working with the Rhode
Island Housing (RIH) and Mortgage
Finance  Corporation  through the
statewide Lead  Hazard Reduction
Program, the partners  received a
$250,000  grant  through  EPA's
Environmental Monitoring for Public
Access and Community Tracking
Childhood Lead Action Project conducts a "Lead Safe Party "providing in-home education to families in need.
                                                                                       CASE STUDIES/41

-------
(EMPACT) program. The project
creates lead sate yards at owner-occupied,
home-based daycare  units in low-in-
come neighborhoods across the state.
The project is managed by commu-
nity groups that collect and interpret
real-time soil lead data at daycare units
and homes with contaminated yards
and help residents make sound choices
to mitigate lead poisoning. The LTFSC
partnership and successful expansion
of joint projects, combined with con-
tinued leadership from The Project
and the R1DOH, set the stage for some
incredible and measurable environ-
mental results.
           Providence
             Phase 5
Phase 5: Healthy Communities

\\Tien the UEI started work in Provi-
dence in 1995, one in every three children
tested below the age of  six had
elevated  blood lead levels. In  1999,
blood sampling from  children tested
below the age of six had fallen to 1 in
5, compared to 1 in 10 state-wide. This
dramatic  achievement  is the  result of
years of work  of many people, orga-
nizations, and  thousands of hours of
time and our  community partners,
especially The Project, deserve the
credit for always leading  the charge.
LTFSC is not solely responsible for this
dramatic  improvement, but  its work
had  a positive impact in focusing
federal resources to support education,
outreach, and remediation work.
Progress made in enforcing lead
standards, holding negligent and recal-
citrant landlords accountable, years of
work by The Project and The Get The
42
Lead Out Coalition to reach out to
urban families about ways to prevent
lead poisoning, increasing lead inspec-
tions, and securing more funding
significantly contributed to reducing
elevated blood lead levels in Providence
children. To track the implementation
of the GMP, the LTFSC is creating a
measurement and communications
tool to evaluate tasks accomplished
and progress made. This tool will release
information to the public and will help
maintain accountability for results and
continue progress to eliminate lead
poisoned children in Providence.

Based on their exemplary work in lead
outreach  and education, The Project
continues its  leadership  role  to
respond to the incidence  of lead
poisoning in Rhode Island in general
and in Providence  specifically. The
Project is creating a Rhode Island
Lead  Collaborative  for community
groups and public entities to service
other urban cities  in Rhode Island.
This will be the first attempt to create
a state-wide outreach and education
agenda tor lead poisoning and will
hopefully set  the  stage  to  find
innovative solutions to ensure that one
day there are no more lead poisoned
children in Rhode Island.
UEI and EPA staff work with community volunteers to conduct soil sampling on i>acant
lots in Providence,  RI.

-------
                    Lead Poisoning  Prevention  in Providence, RI
                                              Phase 5
                                            Fewer Lead
                                          'oisonedChildre^

                                              Phase 4
                                      SHLTF Steering Committee
                                       Goals Management Plan
                                   EM PACT Lead Safe Yard Program

                                              Phase 3
                                   HUD Grant • Parent Action Group
                                      SHLTF Final Report Results
                                  Livable Providence 2000 Conference
                                 Community Train the Trainers Program
                                Vacant Lot Sampling • Rl Attorney General
m
CJ
                                 Phase 2
               Rl Dept. of Health • Environmental Indicators Project
                     Mayor's Safe Housing Lead Task Force
           EPA Lead Outreach Coordinator • Get The Lead Out Coalition
        DARE • Urban League of Rhode Island • Community Lead Conferences

                                 Phase 1
          Community Forums • Lead-in-Soils Charrette • Brown University
              Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Environmental Affairs
Olneyville Housing Corporation • Childhood Lead Action Project • EPA NE Lead Program

-------
                    Lni |')'>5-2IHMI t<> implement integrated \\orkplans in  each target an, log thousands of \v<
 hours in the field, and put the L'HI Community Development Pyramid model into action resulted in the following eight
 lessons learned from the
Lesson  1:
Build Credibility  &  Redefine
Roles and Responsibilities
In order to implement the UEI Com-
munity Development Pyramid, the
UEI had to redefine traditional roles
and responsibilities for staff. UEI had
to serve as a trusted and dependable
partner at the table with a wide range
of stakeholders. The staff also had to
serve as faciliators,  capacity-builders,
and as visionaries to help find common
ground  between  groups  and
organizations with no successful history
of working together on environment
and public health issues. The UEI had to
become an effective  and efficient team
that could  become dedicated and
effective resources, working together to
leverage all available resources at the agency
and help to put a face on the agency.

The UEI also facilitated redefining roles
and responsibilities within the commu-
nity and local government The commu-
nity had to be broadly denned with a
broad list of stakeholders beyond local
residents.   The  community  was
responsible to  become informed
decision-makers  and critical partners
throughout all phases of the  pilot
program, and must  be treated  as
valuable and critical resources. The role
of local government also had to change.
Local government had to work in ef-
fective partnership with the EPA and the
broadly-defined group of stakeholders
and jointly share responsibility for
developing inclusive and responsive
local infrastructure  for healthy urban
communities in the 21" Century.
44
Lesson 2:
All  Stakeholders  Must  Be
Engaged &  Invested
The UEI staff learned first hand in the
field that  no one person speaks for
everyone—and it takes more than just
one or two people around  a table to
solve complex environment and public
health problems. In order to build a
strong base of local partners and stake-
holders, UEI  made sure that a wide
range of stakeholders were engaged
throughout  the  entire   process
including  representatives from local
residents,  academia, local  business,
medical community, local government,
state government, environmental
groups, churches, faith-based groups,
and other non-profit entities. Once
these stakeholders were identified, the
UEI initiated a "Win-Win Approach"
to achieve measurable environmental
results with our local partners. This
approach  is locally-driven, meaning
that the core of the work responds to
local concerns and priorities and focuses
on building community capacity to
tackle environment and public health
problems.  This is distinctly different
from a traditional agency approach that
puts EPA  in the lead for determining
priorities. The UEI's successful approach
let people define the problems and
focused EPA resources to directly
respond to those priorities. The approach
also developed inclusive partnerships.
Everyone with a stake in the future of
an urban community must be involved
early and  constantly throughout the
process. These stakeholders must also
be accountable  for results—sharing
responsibility for making measurable
improvements  is  a  tremendous
motivator for successful partnerships.
Without ownership and sweat equity,
stakeholders cannot be personally invested
or empowered to serve as  long-term
environmental stewards and work
together to produce meaningful change
in their neighborhood.

Lesson  3:
Recruit Staff  With The Right
Skills, Passion & Creativity
The UEI team  has gone through
considerable transition  since  its
inception, but one fact has remained
unchanged:  this  program requires a
special set of skills, ability, and passion
to get the work done efficiently and
effectively.  UEI staff must have
excellent communication,  organiza-
tional and technical skills, be creative,
be willing to learn from  mistakes,
respond  well under pressure, be a
mediator, resolve conflict, and have a
passion for helping people resolve
problems. All staff members must be
able to work independently and as a
cohesive  team. A critical element to
supporting each member of the unit
is a multi-functional team, with a
full-time Team Leader, that meets
regularly to share experiences,
concerns, and work together to resolve
challenges. This combination of skills is
critical to ensure that  EPA builds and
maintains credibility throughout the
implementation of each phase of the
UEI  Community  Development
Pyramid. If there is a staff transition,
a new credibility-building process has

-------
to take  place for  the  new staff
member. It is also critical to note that
although some of these skills can  be
learned through training, some things
can only be gained through the right
aptitude and attitude to  embrace
change and learn by doing. This is not
a job or position for every person that
works in the federal government, but
is very challenging and can be very
rewarding for the right person.

In addition to having the appropriate
people representing EPA through this
program, the City Program Manager
must also  be able to identify and
secure participation from the multiple
levels of stakeholders for each city to
ensure  results.  This  requires  a
considerable   but  worthwhile
investment of time and training to help
educate and enable community stake-
holders to be involved and  informed
about their  environment and public
health. Training might include specific
sessions on  how to apply for federal
grants, facilitation,  or an  in-depth
training on risk assessment or the health
effects from lead  poisoning.  In
addition, stakeholders must share some
of the characteristics of UEI staff: they
must be creative and open to new
ideas,  communicate well, and  be
amenable to coalition building and
conflict resolution. These are skills that
can be learned or improved through
training: The critical link is that if you
have the right person representing the
UEI pilot program and designing and
implementing a work plan for a city,
the staff member will identify and train
the right community stakeholders  to
participate in the program.
Lesson 4:  Funding  Must Be
Stable,  Used  Effectively  &
Leveraged

Building an infrastructure  to solve
problems requires stable and targeted
funding. When the UEI pilot program
first started, grant awards were all sole
source funding.  This was critical  to
ensure that funding could be used
where it was needed the most—to
identify, support  and  encourage
participation by community stakehold-
ers and understand the problems  in
each target city. This funding helped in
part build the  pilot program's credibil-
ity, enticed early partners to work with
the UEI pilot program, and helped
secure a position in each target city as
a federal program with resources, staff,
and initiative to solve problems. Over
time, the financial resources were
allocated in a different way—through
competitive Requests for Proposals that
demanded strongly written proposals
from  prospective applicants. Without
stable funding, the UEI would not have
been able to secure participation from
the wide range  of stakeholders
necessary to address the problems and
would not have been able  to continue
building  up   toward   effective
partnerships and  healthy, livable urban
communities.

Another lesson learned through fund-
ing is that not all organizations can
grow  and develop into key players in
a community. Funding one organiza-
tion consistently  for several years can
be an effective  strategy,  as long  as
environmental results are consistently
achieved and that the projects continue
to focus and increase collaboration
with other partners. The UEI pilot
program demonstrated that efforts  to
stabilize small non-profit  groups for
several  years  through "general
support" funding did not guarantee
that even group would continue to
grow and develop. It is important to
know  when to stop funding an
organization that does not continue to
grow or evolve, but try to continue to
have them participate as a member of
specific projects. Although funding
demands shift and change over time,
there must be a stable source of fund-
ing for the UEI program to ensure
continuity  between  projects and
leverage small  grants into greater
resources for larger projects. A final
funding-related lesson learned  is that
part of effective funding is for the UEI
staff to help identify opportunities to
leverage resources from alternative
sources. UEI staff must help commu-
nity partners develop the skills, abilities
and expertise to secure funding from
other agency organizations, founda-
tions, and other private sector sources.

Lesson 5:  Start Small &
Leverage  Successes

Building credibility in an urban com-
munity takes more than just providing
financial resources. It requires the skill
of a dedicated staff person (i.e. UEI
City Program Manager) to bring stake-
holders together to share small, "event-
level" successes and then leverage these
small successes into larger scale projects.
Event-level successes could include an
Earth Day trash pick-up event, build-
ing a community garden, or hosting a
small breakfast  discussion group to
bring people together around a com-
mon issue or concern. Starting small
lets participants feel positive about
donating their time and effort to attend
and participate, and over time encour-
ages other stakeholders to take on
larger roles. This approach is also per-
formance based. Local strategies need
indicators or benchmarks to  insure
                                                                                    LESSONS LEARNED/45

-------
    Woonasquatucket River Greenway
          •>t  neglect, illegal dumping, lack of useabic open space, .mil ah.iinloin.-d industrial sites along the hanks
    ot the \\oonsaquatuckct  Ri\er in Providence, Rl seemed a daunting challenge when The Providence PI.in
         ' trying to create a hike parh in 1"'»\ Trash From illegal dumping and overgrowth made it hard tor some
                 ^n see rhe river. Residents that did see if witnessed abandoned cars, tires, and shopping carts. In
    the area along the river, over V.",, ..("children lived in poverty and there was ..nlv 2.1 acres of park space per
    KMHI residents with limited public access to the river. The Providence Plan decided that the community and the
    \\oonasquaruckct deserved better. The Greenway project catah/cd urban renewal along the river to en
    plan for more usable green spaces, better recreational opportunities and a bicycle path along the river to link
    parks and neighborhoods. The final product will include a 5~ mile greenway, paths, and green spaces stretch-
    ing from the  Johnston and Providence line to \\aterplace Park in downtown Providence.

    The Providence Plan's  vision for turning a neglected river into a valuable urban natural resource has included
    educating local residents  about the Greenway project. With the help of UEI funding, the River Rangers
    Program was  created in 1W8 to engage youth, build community outreach and education  programs, promote
    community stewardship of existing and new open green spaces, and conduct clean-ups and physical restora-
    tion projects along the  river.  Mobilixmg each
    summer, the  River Rangers serve as stewards of
    public parks in the river corridor, and teach youth
    how to take  care of their environment through
    park maintenance, community development, and
    education. The Providence Plan continues to shine
    as a leader to implement the Greenway's vision and
    spearhead Providence's revitalization of the
    \\ i >c >nasquatucket River as valuable natural resource
    to benefit the most economically disadvantaged
    neighborhoods.
 accountability and measure progress in
 meeting community-driven priorities.

 In early stages of the UEI Community
 Development Pyramid, staff needed
 to  take  on  the  greatest share of
 organizational and administrative tasks.
 As events prospered and more people
 become involved, the City Program
 Manager was able to build credibility
 from these successes and other stake-
 holders started to assume a stronger
 leadership role. Building  off of these
 small successes  is key  to building
 community  capacity   to   solve
 problems. UEI staff learned that it is
 critical to constantly look for oppor-
46
tunities to continue to move forward
and bring people together rather than
just being content to stay with small
scale projects. Ideas for new and
improved projects can come from a
variety of sources, including the
increasing list of stakeholders involved
with each passing event  and success.
This combined  approach  to  share
accountability, measure progress and
share successes through the  UEI
Community Development Pyramid
served as building blocks for larger,
"structural" change that increased the
community's capacity to solve  their
greatest environment  and public
health problems.
Lesson  6: Empower Urban
Communities  With New Skills
& Information

UEFs field experience clearly demon-
strated that urban communities do not
have adequate information about the
quality of their environment on a neigh-
borhood level, and they also do not
inherently have all the skills necessary
to become an informed and active
decision-maker to change local, state,
and federal laws  and policies to pro-
duce a better and safer environment.
One of the greatest values that the UEI
brought to community stakeholders
was through trainings—ranging from

-------
how to write grant proposals, to tips
on preventing lead poisoning, reducing
asthma triggers through EPA's Tools
for  Schools,  conflict-resolution,
general management skills, and much
more. Federal, state, and local government
has a language and uses terminology
that is not reflective of the people that
it serves. The UEI helped to inform
and  train   local   residents,
environmental groups, and community
partners to be able to participate more
effectively when  they interacted with
government staff on every level.

Lesson  7:
Urban  Communities  Have
Environments  & People Worth
Protecting
Five years of field experience design-
ing,  refining, and implementing this
                                pilot has lead to new discoveries in
                                building livable urban communities in
                                New England. When UEI  staff first
                                started reaching out directly to stake-
                                holders, several misconceptions existed.
                                One fundamental misconception was
                                that communities don't care about the
                                environment, and  that the quality of
                                the environment does not  matter as
                                much  to urban residents as other
                                social issues like poverty- and crime.
                                Secondly, there was a strong sentiment
                                from urban stakeholders that EPA
                                does not care about urban communi-
                                ties and that the agency will not make
                                any meaningful or measurable environ-
                                mental improvements in cities.

                                The reality is that citizens rally around
                                and  respond to environmental and
                                public health problems that  impact
                         their families and their children. Lead
                         poisoning and asthma are passionate
                         environmental issues for parents who
                         want their children to have the best
                         possible experiences in  life.  Urban
                         vacant lots strewn with  illegally
                         dumped trash, drug needles, and rats
                         are critical  for a parent  wanting  to
                         protect their child but also wanting
                         them to have a safe place  to play out-
                         side. Dangerously high levels of dioxin,
                         PCB, mercury, and bacteria contami-
                         nation in  urban rivers  and  ponds
                         affect families that rely on fishing  to
                         provide  a source  of  food.  The
                         thousands of parents and families that
                         the UEI has worked with over the past
                         five years soundly refute the notion that
                         urban residents do  not  care about
                         environmental quality  because  they
                         happen to live in a concrete jungle.
       August 1999 - September 2000
   3500
   3000
   2500
   20QO
   1500
    1000
     500
                                          In 1999, the UEI team recognized the need to expand public
                                          access  to  information  on  urban  environment  and
                                          public health problems in the target cities of Boston,
                                          Providence, and Hartford. EPA New England initiated
                                          an expansion of us regional web page, and the UEI
                                          worked with the EPA New  England Communications
                                          Team  to  create and  launch a  detailed  site sharing
                                          information  with  the  pubic on priorities, projects,
                                          progress, and partners in each target  city. The UEI team
                                          worked with our  community  partners to  highlight
•

current, has undergone design improvements to ease navigation, and content has grown over time- to meet
customer needs. Ir is consistently one of the most frequently accessed sites on the EPA New England \Veb site.
        Aug  Oct  Dec Feb April  June Aug Sept
         99   99   99  00  00   00   00 00
collaborative  projects,  create  links  to community
organizations and  active stakeholders, and create an
on-line  resource page for urban work in New England.
The site was officially launched in July  1999 and public
response has exceeded our wildest expectations. The  I I  1
web page  is updated regularly  to keep  information
                                                                                 LESSONS LEARNED / 47

-------
   IPX \c\\ I  ngl.md accomplishments in urban areas prior to the 1  II  pilot program were
   and mainly t<        -i low-funded efforts through the environmental justice  and lead programs. I laving the
       irces to !.        nteiisive five-year effort at the local level in three targeted cities lias demonstrated thai the
   I  I I improved the qualify of the environment and public health In  establishing  sustainable environmental infra
   structure at the community level in its target cities. It also demonstrated that KPA can and must work with urban
   communities to continue to improve the environment and public health. I'll Matt learned some of the reahiK
   of working tor cultural change within an organization and are all the richer for embracing the lessons learned by
   implementing a process that genuinely sought to empower and enable  residents who live in inner cities.
The L'EI pilot  program  benefitted
from key  internal leadership  and
achieved considerable success work-
ing in true partnership with urban com-
munity stakeholders with a compara-
tively modest investment of financial
resources and staff time. From 1995-2000
the UEI pilot program awarded  and
managed a total  of 111 grants valued
at 53,357,197 in the neighborhoods of
Greater Boston, Providence,  and
Hartford. By comparison, the total
budget for EPA New England in
FY2000 alone was $54,676,604 with
$7,070,934 dedicated to the regional
Brownfields Program. The annual
operating budgets in 2001 for UEI target
cities are $1.7 billion for Boston, $447.33
million  for Providence, and $422.66
million for  Hartford.  EPA New
England's effort to clean up the Boston
Harbor in Massachusetts took ten years
and cost over $4 billion.

As we look toward the future, the UEI
pilot  program will include a greater
emphasis on the principles of Smart
Growth. Over the past few  years it
became apparent  that the Smart
Growth Initiative was working to
facilitate  more strategic growth
patterns in suburban and rural areas.
Urban communities and their issues
were  not  a prominent part of their
action plan nor was regional planning
48
efforts a prominent part of the UEI
strategy even though both initiatives
support sustainability. It was natural for
both efforts to work more closely
together. Both programs have started
to support working in partnership to
insure that as solutions for environmen-
tal problems are considered, the maxi-
mum benefit with the least externali-
ties for everyone will be evaluated
before actions are taken. The UEI and
Smart Growth are merely at the preci-
pice of what could prove to be a very
powerful discussion between unlikely
urban,  suburban and rural partners.
Again, the UEI and Smart Growth are
working  with like minded academic
institutions and private entities as well
as community partners. A region with
a common  vision that provides eco-
nomic  growth and  opportunities as
well as environmental protection for
everyone is definitely a rainbow worth
chasing and a risk worth taking.

The UEI's efforts and investment to
benefit communities have gone far
beyond external accomplishments. In
fact, over the past five years there has
been a considerable shift in the accep-
tance and legitimacy of working in
urban areas in EPA New England. The
combined efforts of the Environmen-
tal Justice movement, formalization of
the Brownfields Redevelopment
program, and the work of the UEI
have made  it standard operating pro-
cedure to invest and work in  urban
cities. Today, EPA New England has
placed a greater emphasis across
departments, programs  and offices to
dedicate resources to serve  urban
communities. This is a distinct change
in operating procedure and  sets the
stage  for being able to service more
urban communities in the  future and
making  sure that  the  resources
dedicated to projects  are effective,
efficient and service the greatest envi-
ronmental needs of urban residents.
However, the lasting  proof of the
success of the pilot is the sustainable
infrastructure of organizations  which
will continue to grow and network with
an ability to improve their environment
and quality of life while maintaining
support through a public and private
resolve to redistribute resources  in a
just and inclusive manner. EPA has only
scratched die surface of what  needs
to be accomplished  to provide the
quality of environment and public
health deserved by urban residents in
every city  in America.  The UEI
demonstrates that a community-based
approach drat builds an environmental
infrastructure and increases local
capacity to creatively solve problems
will cost-effectively produce meaning-
ful and measurable results.

-------
  There are three broad conclusions drawn from the UEI pilot program that are applicable nationwide:

  •Developing a sustainable environmental infrastructure that redefines roles, responsibilities and measuring success
   is critical to solve urban environmental and public health problems. At a minimum, government at all levels must:
   insure that urban residents maintain a prominent role in the decisions and protection of their health and environ-
   ment; create a level playing field with mutual benefits for urban residents and local business and an understanding
   that both must work together to achieve results; and measure success by including short term results and the
   future exponential results of current activities. Programs that do less will underestimate the potential benefit
   and/or damage that current actions have on the future.

  •New regulatory and non-regulatory approaches must be coupled widi an annual commitment of dedicated
   resources to meaningfully redress urban environmental problems. It takes a significant investment of time and
   resources to halt degradation no less  reverse environmental  trends in a sustainable  manner. These creative
   approaches must be dynamic and develop an iterative process that involves many stakeholders including aca-
   demic and health professionals.

  •EPA must develop a creative and holistic strategy grounded in the principles of environmental justice and smart
   growth to create safe and healthy urban communities for future generations across America. Cumulative  risk is
   a result of the panoply of pollution sources that represent vast residual risks uncontrolled by current environ-
   mental  regulations. Environmental injustice is manifested through cumulative risk, compounded by social and
   economic inequities and unsustainable growth practices.
UEI staff and comrnun^ volunteers celebrate after distributing 10,000 copies of the "Do's and Don'ts for the \\~oonasquatucktt River"
fa urimn residents in RJjoeJe Island.
                                                                                          CONCLUSION/ 49

-------
Brownfields Abandoned, idled, or underused industrial or commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is
complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination.

Capacity Building Increasing the ability of a community, group, or  organization to organize, access resources, and
address community problems.

Community Based Environmental Protection (CBEP) A holistic and collaborative approach to environmental
protection that brings together public and private stakeholders within a place or community to identify environmental
and public health concerns, set priorities, and forge comprehensive solutions. Through CBEP, which is often called a
place-based or ecosystem approach, stakeholders consider environmental protection along with human social  needs,
work toward achieving long-term ecosystem health, and foster linkages between economic prosperity and environmen-
tal well-being.

Community Gardens Vegetable and ornamental gardens established for safe food production, neighborhood
beautification, and economic development and to promote neighborhood building and cohesion.

Environmental Monitoring for Public Access and Community Tracking (EMPACT) A new approach to work-
ing with communities to collect, manage, and present environmental information to  the public  It aims to work with
communities to make timely, accurate, and understandable environmental information  available to millions of people in
the largest metropolitan areas across the country so that communities and individuals  can make informed, day- to- day
decisions about their lives.

Environmental Justice The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including a racial, ethnic, or sodoeconomic
group, should bear a disproportionate share of  the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial,
municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of  federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies.

Government Results Performance Act of 1993 (GPRA) The purposes of this  Act are to (1) improve the
confidence of  the American people in the capability of the Federal Government, by systematically holding Federal
agencies accountable for achieving program results; (2)  initiate program performance reform with a series of pilot
projects in setting program goals, measuring program performance against those goals, and reporting publicly on their
progress; (3) improve Federal program effectiveness and public accountability by promoting a new focus on results,
service quality, and customer satisfaction; (4) help Federal managers improve service delivery, by requiring that they plan
for meeting program objectives and by providing them with information about program results and service quality, (5)
improve congressional decision-making by providing more objective  information on achieving statutory objectives,
and on the relative effectiveness and efficiency of Federal  programs and spending; and  (6) improve internal manage-
ment of the Federal Government

Geographic Information System (GIS) Software and hardware systems that relate and display collected data in
terms of geographic, or spatial, location.

-------
Healthy Housing Part of the EPA New England Children First campaign, aimed at creating healthier environments in
the places children spend most of their time—at home, in schools and outdoors. Healthy Housing focuses on issues such
as lead poisoning, asthma, tap water, environmental tobacco smoke, radon, and household hazardous waste.

Indoor Air Quality Air quality inside buildings including homes, schools, and office buildings. Since 90 percent of our
time is spent indoors, indoor space is an important part of environmental health.

Integrated Pest Management The coordinated use of  pest and environmental information with available pest
control methods to prevent  unacceptable levels of pest damage by the most economical means and with the least
possible hazard to people, property, and the environment

Livable Communities A comprehensive and holistic approach towards healthy neighborhoods  that strives to foster
green space, good air quality, safe streets, and a strong local economy.

Open/Green Space A portion of  a development site that is permanently set aside for public or private use and will not
be development. Open space may be used as community open space or preserved as green space (in a natural,
undisturbed, or revegetated condition).

Pollution Prevention An organized,  comprehensive effort to systematically reduce or eliminate pollutants or
contaminants prior to their generation or their release or discharge into the environment

Sprawl or Urban Sprawl The movement of businesses and industry from urban to suburban areas with the effect of
reducing employment and economic opportunities in the urban center and increasing traffic flow and environmental
impacts to suburban areas.

Stakeholders A variety of individuals, organizations, and agencies interested in a particular place or issue.  Stakeholders
may include individual residents and landowners, civic and religious organizations, businesses and industry associations,
environmental and conservation groups, and governmental agencies at all levels.

Sustainable Development Development that  meets  the needs of the present without  compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs (United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development); a
concern for sustainable development counsels long-term time horizons consistent with our responsibilities to others,
recognition of the interdependence of the economy and the environment,  and more comprehensive, integrated ap-
proaches to economic development and environmental protection (EPA, 1993).

Urban Environmental Initiative  (UEI) A multi-media, place-based pilot program in EPA New England started in
1995 to address urban environment and  public health issues in the targeted cities of Boston, MA; Providence, RI; and
Hartford, CT.

Vacant Lots A neglected parcel of property in a residential area. In many cases, houses were built on these lots, but fell
into disrepair and were subsequently demolished, leaving behind a legacy of contamination and a haven for illegal
dumping of wastes and rats.

-------
\uthois:
Krisn N. Rea, UEI Team Leader
Stacey Johnson, UEI Hartford City Program Manager
Nerissa Wu, L'EI Special Projects Coordinator
Lois K.  Adams, Chief of Pesticides, Toxics, and Radiation
Peer Reviewers:
Joonu Andrews, EPA New England; Veronica Eady, Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs;
Lynn Gilleland, EPA New England; Lynne Hamjian, EPA New England; Jack Hale,  Knox Parks Foundation;
Roberta Hazen  Aaronson, Childhood Lead Action Project; Pat Hynes, Boston University School of Public Health;
Cynthia Jennings, Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice; Shannah Kurland, Direct Action for Rights and
Equality;  Katherine Laurence, EPA New England; Penn Loh, Alternatives for Community and Environment; Robert
Mendoza, EPA New England; Jim Owens, EPA New England; Geeta Pradham, Independent Consultant; Mark Mitchell,
Mitchell Health  Consultants; Marv Rosenstein,
EPA New England; Man- Sherwin, Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection;
William Shutkin, New Ecology, Inc.; David
Webster,  EPA New England; Paul Wintrob,
EPA  New England; and James  Younger,
EPA New  England.

Special Contributors:
John DeVillars,  Brownfields Recovery
Corporation; Naomi Mermin, Tufts
University School of Medicine; and
Maria Van Dusen, Massachusetts
Riverways Program.

CIS Maps:
Christine Foot, Signal Corp.

Acknowledgement:
We would like to recognize the continuing
support, leadership and vision of
Robert W. Varney, Regional Administrator,
to serve the needs of  all communities in
New England.
   N«* England
Nonal Laboratory
                                           UEI and EPA staff celebrate after conducting soil sampling for heavy metals on
                                           vacant lots in Providence, Rl.

-------
UEJ Ctfmmunrty  Partners in Connecticut
Building Parent Power
Christian Activities Council
Citizen's Research Education Network
City of Hartford
Clay Arsenal Neighborhood Revitalization Zone
Clay Hill Block Association
Connecticut Audubon Society
Connecticut Bicycle Collaborative
Connecticut Children's Medical Center
Connecticut Citizen's Research Group
Connecticut Department of Environmental  Protection
Connecticut Department of Public Health
Connecticut Environmental Justice Coalition
Connecticut Indoor Environments Resource Team
Connecticut Ri%rer Watershed Council
Connecticut Voices for Children, Inc.
Eastern Connecticut Resource and Conservation Development Area
Hartford Area Rally Together
Hartford Enterprise Zone Business
       Association
Hartford Environmental Justice
       Network
Hartford Growth Council
Hartford Health Department
Hartford Hospital
Hispanic Health Council
Knox  Parks Foundation
North Eastern Block Association
North End Block Association
ONE/CHANE
Pliny Block Association
Ragin' Cajun
Riverfront Recapture
South  Arsenal Neighborhood
       Development Corporation
Southside Institutional Neighborhood
       Association
St. Francis Hospital and Medical Center
UCONN's Environmental Division
UCONN Environmental Research Institute
University of Connecticut Cooperative
       Extension Services
Upper Albany Merchants Association
Upper Albany Neighborhood
       Collaborative
USDA CT Office
US HUD CT  Office
                                       Residents and \onth work, toother planting frees jnd flninrs to mereast
                                       in / {t/rtf'ord, f.T.

-------
UEJ Community  Partners* in  RJi^de bland
Allen AME Church
AMEN Inc.
Americorps
Audubon Society of Rhode Island
Brown University, Center for Environmental Studies
Center for Hispanic Policy and Advocacy
Childhood Lead Action Project
Citizens Bank
City of North Providence, Mayor's Office
City of Providence, Office of Neighborhood
       Environmental Affairs
City Year
Clean Water Action
Direct Action for Rights and Equality
Dunkin' Donuts
Environmental Diversity Education Forum
Friends of the Moshassuck
Greater Elmwood Neighborhood Services
Groundwork Providence
Grow Smart Rhode Island
Hasbro Children's Hospital
HELP Lead Safe Center
Keep Providence Beautiful
Northern Rhode Island Conservation
       District
Olneyville Housing Corporation
Olneyville Merchants Association
Paddle Providence
Progreso Latino
Providence Dept of Planning
Providence Environmental Court
Providence Environmental Strike Team
Providence Foundation
Providence Housing Authority
Providence Neighborhood Housing
        Corporation
Rhode Island Department of
       Environmental Management
Rhode Island Department of Health
Rhode Island Housing and Mortgage Finance
       Corporation
Rhode Island School of Design
Roger Williams Park Zoo
Save the Bay
Smart Growth
South Providence Development Corporation
Southeast Asian Development Corporation
Southside Community Land Trust
The Providence Plan
United Way
University of Rhode Island
Urban League of Rhode Island
VNA of CARE New England
West End Renewal Fund
Woonasquatucket River Greenway Project
Youth in Action
                                      A resident volunteer distributes information door to door to urban residents in
                                      Providence, RJ.

-------
UEJ  C^mmunrby Partners i
                                           n
Alliance for Boston Neighborhoods
Alternatives for Community and Environment
Appalachian Mountain Club
Boston College
Boston Harbor Watershed Team
Boston University, School of Public Health
Bowdoin Street Health Centers
BSC Group
Chelsea Community Connection Coalition
Chelsea Creek Action Group
Chelsea Green Space and Recreation  Committee
Chelsea Human  Service Collaborative
Chinese Progressive Association
City of Boston,  Dept. of Neighborhood
        Development
City of Boston,  Environmental Services Department
City of Boston, Office of Sustainable Boston
City Life/Urban Vida
City Year
Coalition to Protect Chinatown
Codman Square  Health Center
Committee for Boston Public Housing
Conservation Law Foundation
Dimock Health Center
Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative
Eagle Eye Institute
Earthworks Project
East Boston Ecumenical Community Committee
East Boston Recreation, Master Planning, Advisory
       Council
Environmental Diversity Forum
Environmental League of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Freedom House, Inc.
Garden Futures
Greater Boston Environmental Justice Network
Greater Boston Urban Resources Partnership
Grecnleaf Composting
Massachusetts Bays Program
Massachusetts Coalition for Occupational Safety
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
       Management - Forest Service
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
       Protection
Massachusetts Department of Fisheries,
       Wildlife and Environmental Law
       Enforcement Riverways Programs
Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture
Massachusetts Department of Public  Health
Massachusetts Environmental  Collaborative
                                                    Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department
                                                           of Urban Planning
                                                    Massachusetts Public Health Association
                                                    Metropolitan Area Planning Council
                                                    Mystic River Watershed Association
                                                    National Center for Ix-ad Safe Housing
                                                    Neighborhood of Affordable Housing
                                                    Neighborhoods Against Urban Pollution
                                                    New England Ix;ad Coordinating Committee
                                                    Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management
                                                           (NKSCAUM)
                                                    Reaching Out to Chelsea Adolescents (ROCA)
                                                    Re-Vision House
                                                    Roxbury Community College, Center for
                                                           Environmental Education
                                                    Roxbury Environmental  Empowerment Program
                                                    Save the Harbor/Save the Bay
                                                    Second Nature
                                                    Smart Growth
                                                    South Boston Health Center
                                                    STRIVE
                                                    Suffolk County Conservation District
                                                    Tellus Institute
                                                    The Food Project
                                                    Toxic Action Center
                                                    Tufts University
                                                    University of Boston, Urban Harbors Institute
                                                    Urban Resource Partnership
                                                    Urban Revival, Inc.
                                                    US Department of Agriculture
                                                    US Department of Health and Human Services
                                                    US Department of Housing and Urban  Development
                                                    The Watershed Institute
                                                A City Year youth collects soil samples in Boston, MA.

-------
  <**
  >
"

-------