Improving EPA's Performance
with Program Evaluation
Evaluation of Community-Based Environmental Protection
Projects: Accomplishments & Lessons Learned
Series No. 5
By continuously evaluating its programs, EPA is able to capitalize on lessons learned and incorporate that
experience into other programs. This enables the Agency to streamline and modernize its operations while promoting
continuous improvement and supporting innovation. This series of short sheets on program evaluation is intended
to share both the results and benefits of evaluations conducted across the Agency, and share lessons learned
about evaluation methodologies in this evolving discipline. For more information contact EPA's Evaluation Support
Division at www.epa.gov/evaluate.
At a Glance
Evaluation Purpose
To evaluate the effectiveness of the Regional
CBEP process.
Evaluation Type
Process Evaluation
Publication Date
March 2003
Partners
Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation,
EPA Regions 3, 4, 7, 8
Contact
Gerald Filbm, OPEI (202) 566-2182
Web Links
http://www.epa.gov/ecocommunity/pdf/
evaluate.pdf
Background: Why was an evaluation
performed?
Community-based environmental protection (CBEP) refers to an
integrated, place-based, participatory approach to managing the
environment that simultaneously considers environmental, social,
and economic concerns . The CBEP process "brings together public
and private stakeholders within a place or community to identify
environmental concerns, set priorities, and implement
comprehensive solutions. CBEP considers environmental
protection along with human social needs, works toward achieving
long-term ecosystem health, and fosters linkages between economic
prosperity and environmental well-being." (U.S. EPA, February
1999)
EPA supports and participates in an array of CBEP efforts
throughout the United States. EPA conducted an evaluation of
five place-based projects in which the Agency participated, either
as a project leader or in a supporting role. The objective of the
evaluation was to identify: (1) the advantages and disadvantages
of the community-based approach; (2) the benefits that would
not be realized under traditional environmental management
programs; and (3) based on EPA's experience, ways that the Agency
can tailor its participation and support of community initiatives
to help produce the best results.
NCEI
NATIONAL CENTER FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATION
-------
Basic Evaluation Approach: How
did they do it?
The evaluation required five steps, outlined below.
Step I: Development of basic criteria to select
CBEP projects that were the subject of the
evaluation. The criteria included
geographic diversity, diversity of mission
(e.g., ecosystem management versus public
health protection), a range of EPA roles
(e.g., lead versus support role), and projects
that encountered institutional challenges.
Step II: Development of a basic set of questions
that served as a foundation/framework for
the interviews.
Step III: Collection of data through phone
interviews (EPA managers, staff from
partner agencies, non-governmental
organizations, and citizen participants) and
from a wide variety of written material
(project reports, online project descriptions
and internal tracking materials).
Step IV: Analysis of data.
Step V: Development of report findings and
recommendations.
Step VI: Peer Review
Evaluation Results: What was
learned?
In general, the evaluation suggests that the CBEP
approach can enhance the success of environmental
protection efforts, provided that the process is carefully
designed to organize the input of key participants and
delineate clear roles and responsibilities. CBEP can
also yield a variety of benefits that traditional
regulatory approaches may not. These spinoff benefits
include creation of new partnerships, enhancement of
EPA's image among key constituencies, and
development of local capacity to address
environmental issues independently. Finally, the
evaluations suggest that EPA plays an important role
in promoting CBEP, both through funding and through
technical support and management of multi-
disciplinary initiatives. Additional findings are
presented below.
How Does the CBEP Process
Affect the Achievement of Project
Goals?
The evaluation's findings illustrate that:
• a meaningful geographic boundary can enhance
projectsuccess;
• CBEP projects require carefully designed
decision-making processes;
• clear roles and leadership responsibilities are
essential; and
• CBEP projects may require special time, resource,
and leadership commitments.
What Value-Added Benefits Does
CBEP Create?
The evaluation's findings illustrate that:
• clear performance indicators are essential to project
management;
• CBEP can yield new forms of integration and
coordination;
• CBEP provides partnership benefits that extend
beyond the project;
• CBEP promotes capacity-building and sustainability;
• CBEP efforts create legitimacy and signal
community support; and
• CBEP can influence broader public policy.
Approach for this Evaluation
Step I
Develop CBEP Selection Criteria
Step II
Construct Framework of Questions
Step III
Collect Data through Interviews and Literature Reviews
Step IV
Analyze Data
StepV
Prepare Report Findings and Recommendations
Step VI
Peer Review
-------
How Can EPA Best Support
CBEP?
The evaluation's findings illustrate that:
• EPA funding, and how it is provided, is of crucial
importance;
• in its CBEP involvement, EPA should play a "niche"
role; and
• EPA may be uniquely equipped to organize diverse
interests around multi-disciplinary issues.
Evaluation Outcome: What
happened as a result?
EPAs Office of Policy and Economic Innovation
(OPEI) plans to distribute the report to key
stakeholders for review, and share it with others as a
model for community-based approaches.
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Policy,
Economics and Innovation
(1807T)
June 2003
EPA-100-F-03-009
------- |