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.
-------
<**
>
"
------- |