United States Office of Policy, EPA/1 OO-R-03-001
Environmental Protection Economics, and January 2003
Agency Innovation www.epa.gov/evaluate
Towards an
Environmental Justice
Collaborative Model
An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships
to Address Environmental Justice Issues in
Communities
Evaluation Report
January 2003
Prepared for the Federal Interagency Working Group on
Environmental Justice by the U.S. EPA Office of Policy,
Economics, and Innovation
-------
-------
-------
Towards an Environmental Justice
Collaborative Model
An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships
to Address Environmental Justice Issues
in Communities
-------
A ckno wledgements
An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in
Communities (Evaluation Report) and Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address
Environmental Justice Issues in Communities benefited from the assistance of several
organizations and individuals. First, the strong support and cooperation from the federal
Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice and EPA's Office of Environmental
Justice has been invaluable. Second, comments from individuals who participated on two
national conference calls to discuss the evaluation effort greatly assisted in improving the
evaluation methodology. Furthermore, partnership leaders and coordinators graciously helped
minimize the challenge of conducting interviews within partnership communities across the U.S.
In addition, constructive comments from Tom Beierle, John Callewaert, Caron Chess, Bruce
Tonn, and Gregg Walker notably enhanced both the content and organization of the Evaluation
Report. Improvements to the final versions of the case studies were also made possible
because of assistance from Garth Beyette, Noemi Emeric, Paula Forbis, Michael Garrett, Brian
Holtzclaw, Ralph Howard, Harold Mitchell, Althea Moses, David Ouderkirk, Kara Penn, and
Elena Rush. Finally, a special thanks to all partnership members who, through their thoughtful
reflections, recommendations, and critiques, helped provide a clearer understanding of what it
means to use multi-stakeholder collaboration as a tool for strengthening environmental
protection and improving the overall quality of life in some of the nation's distressed
communities.
Towards an Environmental Justice Collaborative Model: An Evaluation of the Use of
Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
January 2003. EPA/1 OO-R-03-001
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation.
Washington, D.C. A team based in EPA's Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation
performed this evaluation. Eric Marsh was the project manager for this effort.
This report is a companion report to Towards an Environmental Justice Collaborative Model:
Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in
Communities (EPA/100-R-03-002). View both of these on-line at:
http://www.epa.gov/evaluate/ej.htm.
-------
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 1
Executive Summary 5
CHAPTER 1 12
Introduction 12
Background 12
The Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice 12
Why Collaboration? 13
Towards an Environmental Justice Collaborative Model 13
Roots of the Environmental Justice Collaborative Model 14
Collaboration Explored in Brief 15
Goals of the Evaluation 17
Brief Discussion of Following Chapters 18
CHAPTER 2 19
Evaluation Methodology. 19
CHAPTERS 23
Overview of Case Study Partnerships 23
CHAPTER 4 26
Partnership Involvement Approaches, Activities, and Outcomes 26
Partnership Involvement Approaches 26
Satisfaction with Partnership Opportunities for Involvement 27
Perspectives on Whether Partnerships Adequately Address Participant Concerns 28
Partnership Activities 30
Outcomes of Partnership Activities 33
Satisfaction with Outcomes of Partnership Activities 35
CHAPTERS 39
Partnership Successes & Challenges 39
Partnership Successes 39
Partnership Challenges 41
CHAPTERS 45
Key Factors Contributing to Partnership Progress and Success 45
Distinct Partnership Identity 46
Existence and Strength of Leadership 46
Diversity of Partners 47
Local and/or Regional Government Involvement 48
Federal Involvement 49
Community Engagement 50
Communication 50
Agreed Upon Goals and Activities 51
Flexible, Overarching Vision 51
Administrative Structure 52
-------
Implementation of Environmental and Public Health Protection or Socio-economic
Development Activities 52
Development and Use of an Evaluation Framework 53
CHAPTER 7 55
Organizational Styles, Policies, and Procedures Influencing Progress and Success... 55
CHAPTERS 60
The Value of Collaborative Partnerships to Address EJ Issues 60
Value of Collaborative Approaches to Address EJ Issues 61
Addressing Issues Without Use of a Collaborative Approach 63
Using Collaborative Processes to Address Similar Issues Facing the Affected Communities
in the Future 65
CHAPTER 9 68
Federal Involvement in EJ Collaborative Partnerships 68
Value of Federal Involvement in EJ Collaborative Partnerships for Affected Communities 69
Value of Federal Involvement in EJ Collaborative Partnerships for Federal Agencies 70
Increase in Collaboration Across Federal Agencies as a Result of Collaborative
Partnerships 72
Interviewee Recommendations for Improving Federal Involvement in Partnerships 74
CHAPTER 10 78
Core Findings and Recommendations 78
Core Findings 78
Conclusion 81
Core Recommendations 82
Appendices 87
Appendix A 88
List of Interviewees 88
Appendix B 90
Guiding Principles for Evaluation of EJ Collaborative Model 90
Appendix C 94
Copy of Interview Guide 94
-------
-------
Executive Summary
In June 1999, the federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (IWG)
began to develop the concept of an Integrated Federal Interagency Environmental Justice
Action Agenda (Agenda) as a way of incorporating environmental justice in all policies,
programs, and activities of federal agencies. Finalized in May 2000, the IWG's Agenda seeks to
build dynamic and proactive partnerships that access the initiatives and resources of federal
agencies to improve the quality of life of minority and low-income communities that suffer
disproportionate environmental impacts.
To help implement the Agenda, the IWG selected fifteen IWG national demonstration
projects in June 2000. To make the selections, the IWG considered several criteria which
included the extent to which the projects: were community-based; had strong community
interest; represented areas that were predominantly minority or low-income populations; had
sufficient resources to carry out activities; had previously taken steps to address or consider
environmental justice issues; had the commitment of at least two federal agencies to participate;
and were committed to using multi-stakeholder collaborative problem-solving as a tool for
addressing environmental justice issues. Goals of the projects were varied, but included,
among others: asthma rate reduction, comprehensive lead abatement, and contaminated site
cleanup.
A critical component of these projects for the IWG were parties' commitments to
collaborate with each other to address environmental justice issues of concern and federal
agencies' commitments to coordinate with each other to help support the projects. After
witnessing many years of environmental justice disputes end with less-than-ideal solutions and
long-lasting negative relations between stakeholders, the IWG came to recognize the
importance of encouraging a cooperative, problem-solving spirit across stakeholders. Once
these issues are raised to the federal government, the IWG explains that, they typically "(1) cut
across agency jurisdictions or areas of expertise; (2) involve many stakeholders holding
mutually inconsistent perspectives about the nature of the issues confronting them; and (3)
involve parties having longstanding, adversarial relationships."1 In response, the IWG argues
that use of a multi-stakeholder collaborative effort can be an effective way to achieve
sustainable, quality-of-life improvements for communities in which issues have taken "the form
of intractable, multifaceted, and multi-layered disputes." Furthermore, the IWG explains that
championing collaboration at local levels, with federal agencies serving as partners, is a realistic
and necessary response to the on-going environmental justice issues facing affected
communities.
Following the designation of the projects, the IWG continued to champion collaboration
as an important tool for addressing environmental justice issues. Furthermore, the IWG began
identifying elements of success based upon the current projects and past efforts that used multi-
collaborative problem-solving around environmental justice issues in order to outline an
"environmental justice (EJ) collaborative model." Committed to learn from the demonstration
projects and inform the development of the emerging EJ Collaborative Model, starting in
November 2000, the IWG began working with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
develop an evaluation strategy. The plan eventually included the development of six case
studies for six demonstration projects, and a cross-case study analysis. Data used to develop
1 Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Justice Collaborative Model: A Framework to Ensure Local Problem-Solving, Status Report, EPA 300-R-02-001,
February 2002. p. 5.
-------
the case studies was generated primarily through interviews of partnership members conducted
between September 2001 and April 2002, and document review. Interview data was collected
through use of a semi-structured, open-ended interview guide. The case studies include:
A multi-stakeholder partnership based primarily in an inner city community near
downtown San Diego that is addressing health concerns brought about by incompatible
land uses.
A multi-stakeholder partnership focused on Southeast and Southwest Washington D.C.
championed by the Washington Navy Yard that is seeking to ensure that local
redevelopment efforts benefit local residents.
A collaboration between a tribal community in Alaska and several federal agencies that
is working to ensure cleanup of over 80 contaminated sites on the community's home
island.
A partnership between federal agencies and several organizations based in East St.
Louis and surrounding communities that is taking a comprehensive approach to reducing
local threats from lead-poisoning.
A partnership between three rural communities, federal agencies, and other
organizations in southern Missouri that is taking a structured approach to addressing
local asthma, lead, and water quality issues.
A partnership consisting of numerous groups and agencies and driven by a grassroots
group in Spartanburg, South Carolina that is seeking to cleanup contaminated and
abandoned sites and revitalize the nearby neighborhoods.
Following completion of the case studies, the cross-case study analysis was performed
that examined: 1) partnership process, activities, and outcomes; 2) key factors influencing
partnership success; 3) value of collaboration to address environmental justice issues; and 4)
value of federal agency involvement in these efforts. Following these analyses, findings were
developed based upon a review of the core analytical sections and the six case studies.
Findings describe the value of using collaboration as applied in the six partnerships, value of
federal involvement, and specific factors contributing to progress and success of the
partnerships. Some of the core findings are described below.
Multi-stakeholder collaboration can act as a transformative mechanism for enabling
communities and associated stakeholders to constructively address complex and long-
standing issues concerning environmental and public health hazards, strained or non-
existent relations with government agencies and other institutions, and economic
decline.
Multi-stakeholder collaboration in the environmental justice context can be
transformative in two ways. First, it can provide disadvantaged communities with an opportunity
to openly discuss concerns and potential solutions to issues affecting them in a manner that
genuinely suits the affected community's needs. Second, it can provide public service
organizations, including government agencies and community-based organizations, with an
effective forum to coordinate, leverage, and strategically use resources to meet complex public
health, environmental, and other socio-economic challenges facing disadvantaged communities.
The power of the collaborative approaches used in the six partnerships is reflected in the fact
that nearly 80 percent of the interviewees addressing this topic (52 of 66) indicated that the
An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues
-------
issues facing the affected communities either would not have been addressed, or would not
have been addressed to the same extent, if at all, without use of a collaborative approach.
The partnerships are generating a variety of positive outcomes for the affected
communities.
The partnerships' most significant outcome has been the creation or enhancement of
relationships through which numerous, diverse, and sometimes competing, stakeholders can
come together and engage in constructive dialogue to overcome environmental justice
concerns. Through these collaborative partnerships, community organizations and residents
strengthen their capacity and confidence to work with agencies and institutions that are intended
to serve the public. In addition, this collaboration helps build or reinforce critical bridges
between institutions and the affected communities, which are important ingredients for local
environmental protection and redevelopment. The partnerships are also obtaining strong
support and/or involvement from members in the affected communities, and better ensuring the
implementation and/or the more effective implementation of specific public health,
environmental protection, and other economic development programs.
The partnerships are also enabling the many institutions seeking to provide community
assistance to work more effectively with the affected communities.
Targeted programs designed to assist communities are made more effective and best
applied when sponsoring officials can more efficiently navigate challenging stakeholder
relationships and understand how their program may fit the affected community's overall needs.
Working through a forum that is already strongly supported by the community and involves
numerous and diverse stakeholders can reduce service providers' needs to develop separate,
independent relationships within the affected community necessary to more effectively
implement their programs.
Several of these partnerships have and continue to face challenges to improve situations
for the affected communities.
Most notably, parties struggle with the maintenance and operation of their partnerships,
grappling with such day-to-day issues as coordination and ensuring continued cooperation
amongst the different parties. Furthermore, several partnerships are facing challenges with the
implementation of specific activities, such as developing more protective zoning regulations and
ensuring that all responsible parties participate in the cleanup of contaminated sites. In
addition, some partnerships are still learning how best to engage the affected communities they
are working in to ensure that all residents have a genuine voice in and/or sufficient knowledge of
the partnership efforts and their activities. Finally, one partnership, although committed to
working out differences, has struggled to bridge diverse perspectives amongst participating
stakeholders.
Federal agencies have and continue to play key roles in these partnerships.
First, federal agencies have assisted in the creation or continued implementation in all
the partnerships by generating or seizing opportunities and by providing energy and
enthusiasm. Second, they have supplied the partnerships with critical resources, knowledge,
and expertise. Finally, federal agencies have provided or enhanced the credibility, legitimacy,
and/or trust surrounding the partnership efforts. This has been done by validating community
concerns regarding issues of environmental justice, offering assurances that certain locally-
based solutions to address these issues, are, in fact, appropriate, encouraging reluctant
Executive Summary
-------
regional and local officials to consider becoming involved in these efforts, and bringing a greater
overall degree of accountability to the partnerships.
Despite the positive roles of federal agencies, cooperation and coordination in support of
partnership efforts within and between federal agencies could be enhanced and made
more apparent to non-federal partners.
Some interviewees believe that coordination has improved. However, some don't see
any evidence of cooperation, while others are unclear about the cooperation. Some federal
representatives, however, are exhibiting signs of improved coordination. One federal agency
has developed an internal team to better coordinate the many agency-led activities taking place
in the partnership community. In two other partnerships, memorandums of understanding were
established to improve coordination and cooperation between some participating federal
agencies. Moreover, at least one federal representative at the regional level has begun meeting
with representatives of different federal agencies to discuss ways in which they can coordinate
on additional partnerships centered on issues of environmental justice.
Much of the success of these efforts can be attributed to individuals, either at the
community, regional, A/GO, or government level, who took it upon themselves, at real risk
of failure, to pull diverse groups together.
Pulling partnerships together, especially when the goal is to address challenging
environmental problems and social relationships, and/or help a community revitalize, can be a
difficult endeavor. This challenge is magnified when organizations are not accustomed to
working in a coordinated manner, and when resources for maintaining the partnerships are not
always readily available. Such an effort requires not only leadership skills, patience, and the
ability for creative thinking, but also strong interpersonal skills that naturally lend themselves to
stakeholder bridge building. In many instances, such a combination of skills in one individual
may not be available; nevertheless it confirms the need for communities and other institutions
desiring to use collaborative partnerships to look for these qualities in persons to lead or co-lead
these efforts.
Conclusion and Recommendations
This evaluation examined the value of using collaborative partnerships to address
environmental justice issues in predominantly low-income or minority communities. The
evaluation was built upon six case studies that were primarily written between December and
July 2002. Through this effort, the evaluation team and the IWG sought to set a high standard
for evaluating environmental justice (EJ) collaborative partnerships. The evaluation team
strived to accurately convey the spirit of what partnership stakeholders believed to be the main
successes and challenges of their collaborative efforts, as well as what they expressed to be the
overall value of using collaboration to address complex local issues. In addition, the evaluation
team sought to provide a broad and insightful understanding of EJ collaborative partnerships in
terms of what they are achieving, factors contributing to their progress and success, specific
organizational barriers that may be limiting collaboration, and the role of federal involvement in
these efforts.
Evaluation findings indicate that the partnerships are producing a variety of important
results. In regards to overall value of collaboration, most interviewees indicated that the issues
facing the affected communities either wouldn't have been addressed or wouldn't have been
address to the same extent, if at all, without use of a collaborative approach. Interviewees also
saw federal involvement in these efforts as critical. In addition to the many positive points
An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues
-------
voiced, interviewees also noted the partnerships are facing some challenges, including
difficulties associated with partnership maintenance and operational support. Despite these and
other challenges expressed, most interviewees voiced very favorable impressions of the
partnerships to which they were associated. Much additional work will be needed in the future
to more fully understand the strength of multi-stakeholder collaboration for resolving local
environmental justice issues. However, evidence from this evaluation suggests that use of
these approaches, as demonstrated within these partnerships, can be an effective means for
addressing environmental justice issues in communities.
To advance the use of multi-stakeholder collaborative partnerships as a means for
addressing environmental justice issues in communities, the evaluation team recommends the
following:
For institutions at all levels responding to environmental, public health, and socio-economic
challenges associated with community revitalization...
Expand use of multi-stakeholder collaboration as a tool for addressing EJ issues in
distressed communities. Government at all levels, community organizations, faith
groups, other NGOs, philanthropic foundations, and the business community should
review opportunities to initiate, support, and participate in multi-stakeholder
collaborative partnerships.
Use of collaborative approaches can effectively enable disadvantaged communities and
associated stakeholders to constructively address complex and long-standing issues concerning
environmental and public health hazards, strained or non-existent relations with government
agencies and other institutions, and economic decline. Participation in these efforts not only
better ensures that the nation's least advantaged populations' concerns are heard and
addressed; it can also better ensure the effective delivery of community development services.
Assistance in these efforts need not only take the form of financial resources and expertise, it
can take the form of personal interaction with the affected community as partners, improved
coordination across organizations, and enhanced coordination within organizations.
For those organizations and institutions actively participating in, supporting, or overseeing EJ
collaborative partnerships...
Identify long-term opportunities with organizations and institutions to build the
administrative and coordination capacity of the collaborative partnerships.
Partnerships reviewed for this study have creatively found ways to remain functioning
and ensure continued coordination. However, energy continually devoted to the performance of
administrative functions by partnership leaders is energy lost to further meet, discuss ideas,
develop strategies, and/or oversee the implementation of partnership actions. Furthermore,
strong assurances of long-term administrative and coordination support can go far in terms of
reducing overall anxiety of partners and especially partnership leaders. Finally, a well-
established administrative and coordination function can potentially assure potential partners
that the partnership is a solid operation worthy of additional support.
Promote community-based leadership and organizational development at the local level
for communities using multi-stakeholder collaboration to address EJ issues.
It is much easier for partnerships using multi-stakeholder collaboration to implement
actions that support the affected community if the community has a strong voice in partnership
Executive Summary
-------
affairs. The community's voice is best heard if the partnership includes representatives of
community groups that have broad local support. In order to obtain greater community
involvement in partnerships lacking a strong voice from the community, efforts should be made,
to encourage community organizations and their leaders to emerge from within the affected
community and work with the partnership as partner members. This could be done through: (1)
strategic use of grants to either build or enhance the capacity of existing community-based
organizations to participate; (2) sharing of lessons learned from local leaders representing EJ
collaborative partnerships about how to better ensure local leadership; and (3) informal and
formal requests from partner members asking local community-based organizations for their
direct involvement.
Focus attention on the environmental, public health, and socio-economic outcomes
produced by EJ collaborative partnership activities.
Attention given both upfront and throughout a partnership's life cycle to several items
should move the partnership that much closer to generating the type of results desired by the
affected community. Items to consider include: (1) the identification of short- and long-term
goals; (2) the implementation of activities and leveraging of resources in pursuit of these goals;
and (3) the careful linking of goals, activities, and environmental, public health, and socio-
economic outcomes. To help do this, partner members should early on consider using
community visioning, strategic planning, performance measurement, and evaluative tools.
For the academic community...
Systematically promote rigorous academic study and intellectual discourse around the
use of collaborative models to address EJ issues.
Much additional work is needed to more fully understand the value of EJ collaborative
approaches at both the national and community level. This could take the form of additional
program evaluations and other research efforts. Moreover, this could involve academic
symposiums and even new coursework that examine both the theory underlying EJ
collaborative approaches, its current application, and potential for use on a broader scale.
For the IWG...
Link those involved in EJ collaborative partnerships into a national structure that
encourages cross-partnership learning and builds additional support.
Partners operating in isolation may feel that their work is overwhelming and that they are
continually charting new territory. This could be at least partly overcome if partner members are
made to recognize that they are part of a process that is being used in places across the
country to address complex issues in the midst of challenging stakeholder relationships. Efforts
to create a national structure could include: (1) continuing the on-going effort by the IWG to
promote a national dialogue on use of EJ collaborative approaches; (2) hosting annual regional
and national conferences for partnership members and others interested in such approaches to
discuss partnership progress and successes; and (3) distributing a national newsletter to
partnership members that provides updates on partnership progress, partnership resources,
and recommendations for overcoming partnership obstacles to success.
Fully develop the EJ Collaborative Model.
A carefully articulated model would provide a clearer understanding for parties interested
in collaboration of how, and under what circumstances, collaboration can take place, and what
10 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues
-------
benefits effective collaboration could produce in addressing environmental justice issues.
Second, such a model would enable the IWG, and leaders of the EJ collaborative partnerships,
to learn from EJ collaborative efforts in a more systematic fashion. The full development of the
EJ Collaborative Model could include: (1) identification of the Model's main components; (2)
identification of basic outcomes to be achieved; (3) a discussion that clearly explains the links
between collaborating and the expected outcomes of collaborating; (4) identification of
indicators that can be used to determine the extent to which outcomes are being achieved; (5)
identification of agreed upon questions to systematically identify key factors contributing to
partnership progress and success; and (6) development of a data gathering plan that is user-
friendly and minimizes the burden of data collection.
Review opportunities to forge stronger links between established government
environmental programs that are critical to the cleanup and revitalization of
disadvantaged communities.
These include federal initiatives such as DOE's Brightfields, EPA's Brownfields, DOE's
Clean Cities, DOE's Rebuild America, EPA's Smart Growth Index, EPA's Superfund, and
others. These programs produce results acting independently. In order to fully meet the needs
of communities challenged by numerous environmental, public health, and socio-economic
issues, EJ collaborative partnerships would greatly benefit if the leaders and coordinators of
these programs either enhance or begin formal partnerships with each other. Formal
coordination efforts could include periodic assessments of (1) how cooperation by government
program coordinators can be improved, (2) how related government programs could be tailored
to more easily complement one another, and (3) how the public regularly obtains access to and
uses these programs.
Expand internal federal support for both current and future EJ collaborative partnerships.
The IWG has played an important leadership role in supporting, nurturing, and promoting
EJ collaborative partnerships. However both current and future EJ collaborative partnerships
would benefit by expanded IWG support. First, each IWG-sponsored partnership would benefit
by having a designated champion within the IWG. Second, partnerships would benefit by
additional technical assistance in the form of planning and evaluation, regular diffusion of
lessons learned, and greater understanding of the availability and accessibility of the broad
array of resources, particularly at the federal level, for both community partnership building and
community revitalization initiatives. Furthermore, partnerships could benefit from tools that
enable them to understand the linkages between these government programs and how they
could be accessed and used collectively to better meet environmental and revitalization goals.
Although it is beyond the scope of the IWG to provide this type of technical assistance to
partnership communities on a regular basis, the IWG can collectively help envision, oversee,
and support information diffusion systems that enable partnerships to more efficiently and
effectively develop and obtain desired outcomes for the partnership communities.
Executive Summary 11
-------
CHAPTER
Introduction
Background
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the federal government gave increasing attention to
issues of environmental justice. Grassroots protests and government and academic research
began to reveal how communities of color and low-income were faced with a disproportionate
share of unwanted land uses and disparities in environmental protection. As a first response,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) opened the Office of Environmental Equity in
1992, which became the Office of Environmental Justice. An important effort that emerged from
this office was the creation of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Councila federal
advisory committee that consists of a range of stakeholders that provide advice to EPA on
environmental justice matters. In 1994, Executive Order 12898 was signed requiring all federal
agencies to ensure environmental justice issues are addressed in all agency programs, policies,
and procedures. In addition, the Order required the formation of a federal interagency
workgroup, chaired by EPA, to better ensure coordination across federal agencies in resolving
environmental justice issues. By 2000 several federal agencies, along with an increasing
number of state governments, local governments and members of the business community,2
had initiated programs or taken actions to remedy environmental justice issues.
The Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice
An important component of the federal effort to address environmental justice issues
was the development of the "Integrated Federal Interagency Environmental Justice Action
Agenda" (Agenda) released in May 2000 by the federal Interagency Working Group on
Environmental Justice (IWG). The overarching goal of the Agenda is to build "dynamic and
proactive partnerships among Federal agencies to benefit environmentally and economically
distressed communities." In the Agenda the IWG stressed that that by working more effectively
together, federal agencies would "enhance identification, mobilization and utilization of Federal
resources...[enabling] distressed communities to improve environmental decision-making and
more efficiently access and leverage Federal government initiatives."3
To help implement the Action Agenda, the IWG selected fifteen national demonstration
projects in June 2000. To make the selections, the IWG considered several criteria which
included the extent to which the projects: were community-based; had strong community
interest; represented areas that were predominantly minority or low-income populations; had
2 International City/County Management Association, Report: Forum on Building Collaborative Models to Achieve
Environmental Justice-May 17 & 18, 2001, Chevy Chase, Maryland, pp.7-10.
http://icma.orq/qo.cfm7cicM &qid=3&sid=135 (scroll to "Environmental Justice" and click on "White Paper").
Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice, Integrated Federal Interagency Environmental Justice Action
Agenda. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Environmental Justice, EPA/300-R-00-008. November
2000. p. 5. http://www.epa.qov/compliance/resources/publications/ei/actionaqenda.pdf
12
-------
sufficient resources to carry out activities; had previously taken steps to address or consider
environmental justice issues; had the commitment of at least two federal agencies to participate;
and were committed to using multi-stakeholder collaborative problem-solving as a tool for
addressing environmental justice issues. Of the projects selected, eleven had specific local
communities as focus areas; three had particular states or regions as their focus area and one
focused on national tribal environmental justice policy. Some of the projects selected emerged
as a direct result of the IWG designation process; others were already established and were
selected to highlight their on-going commitments to multi-stakeholder collaboration.4 Some of
the goals of the various projects included:
Cleanup of a polluted waterway;
Community empowerment to better address local environmental justice issues;
Conversion of vehicular fleets to cleaner fuels;
Community economic development;
Comprehensive lead abatement;
Local air quality improvement;
Contaminated site cleanup; and
Asthma rate reduction.5
No special IWG funding awards were given to the projects as a result of IWG designation.
Why Collaboration?
A critical component of these projects for the IWG were parties' commitments to
collaborate with each other to address environmental justice issues of concern and federal
agencies' commitments to coordinate with each other to help support the projects. After
witnessing many years of environmental justice disputes end with less-than-ideal solutions and
long-lasting negative relations between stakeholders, the IWG came to recognize the
importance of encouraging a cooperative, problem-solving spirit across stakeholders. Once
these issues are raised to the federal government, the IWG explains that, they typically "(1) cut
across agency jurisdictions or areas of expertise; (2) involve many stakeholders holding
mutually inconsistent perspectives about the nature of the issues confronting them; and (3)
involve parties having longstanding, adversarial relationships."6 In response, the IWG argues
that use of a multi-stakeholder collaborative effort can be an effective way to achieve
sustainable, quality-of-life improvements for communities in which issues have taken "the form
of intractable, multifaceted, and multi-layered disputes." Furthermore, the IWG explains that
championing collaboration at local levels, with federal agencies serving as partners, is a realistic
and necessary response to the on-going environmental justice issues facing affected
communities.
Towards an Environmental Justice Collaborative Model
Less than a year following the designation of these projects, the International
City/County Management Association hosted a forum, sponsored by the Ford Foundation. The
Forum brought together numerous stakeholders to discuss opportunities for collaboration,
identify elements for successful collaboration, and hear from different partners involved in three
4 Ibid. p. 8.
5 Ibid. pp. 8, 13-41.
6 Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Justice Collaborative Model: A Framework to Ensure Local Problem-Solving, Status Report, EPA 300-R-02-001,
February 2002. p. 5.
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction 13
-------
of the IWG's national demonstration projects. Following this forum, the IWG continued to
champion collaboration as an important tool to address environmental justice issues. In its
efforts to further promote an "environmental justice collaborative model" the IWG began
outlining elements of success based upon the demonstration projects and past efforts that used
multi-stakeholder collaborative problem-solving. The IWG grouped elements of success into
five categories that include: issue identification and leadership formation; capacity- and
partnership-building; strategic planning and vision; implementation; and identification and
replication of best practices.7
Since the designation of the national demonstration projects, groups dedicated to issues
of environmental justice have endorsed this collaborative approach to problem-solving. In 2001,
the National Environmental Policy Commission's Report to the Congressional Black Caucus
Foundation Environmental Justice Braintrust stated, "The IWG demonstration projects are
particularly significant. They point to the potential to problem-solve across stakeholder groups
in a constructive, collaborative manner, building relationships, avoiding duplicated efforts, and
leveraging instead of wasting resources."8 Furthermore, in June 2002, EPA's National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council recommended that EPA support advancement of the
IWG's Action Agenda and "its collaborative interagency problem-solving model as exemplified in
the fifteen demonstration projects."9 In April 2002, the IWG announced a second round of
nominations for projects working to address environmental justice concerns, and expects to
make selections by early 2003. As part of the criteria for selection, the IWG asked proposal
sponsors to discuss how their project exhibited elements of success mentioned in the paragraph
above.10
Roots of the Environmental Justice Collaborative Model
The emerging Environmental Justice (EJ) Collaborative Model is being built on lessons
from the on-going national demonstration projects as well as upon on lessons from many
existing comprehensive, collaborative efforts, such as the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative
in Boston, Massachusetts, and the programs of the Bethel New Life Community Development
Corporation in Chicago, Illinois.1'1 Other important influences include the National Advisory
Council on Environmental Policy and Technology's Integrative Environmental Justice Model
Demonstration Approach, developed in 1993; the City of Clearwater, Florida's effort to develop
a model environmental justice strategic plan for brownfields redevelopment, begun in 1996;12
and lessons from a document entitled Community Collaborative Wellness Tool.'13 What sets
the IWG's approach apart from these efforts is the IWG's emphasis upon systematically
promoting multi-stakeholder collaboration as a tool for addressing environmental justice issues
on a national scale. Through the IWG's national pilot projects and soon-to-be announced
revitalization projects, the concerted effort by federal agencies to serve as partners in these
projects, and enhanced federal participation and coordination, the IWG expects that distressed
7 Ibid. p. 5.
8Qtd. in ibid. p. iv.
9 National Environmental Justice Advisory Council; A Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, "June 25, 2002 Letter to EPA Administrator," in Integration of Environmental Justice in Federal
Agency Programs: A Report developed from the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council Meeting of
December 11-14, 2000. May 2002.
10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Federal Register Notice on Environmental Justice Revitalization Projects
sponsored by the Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice," 24 April 2002.
http://www.epa.aov/compliance/resources/publications/ei/iwa frn ei revit proi.pdf.
Charles Lee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Environmental Justice, Associate Director for Policy and
Interagency Liaison, Electronic Communication, 2 April 2002.
12 Ibid.
13 Environmental Justice Collaborative Model: A Framework to Ensure Local Problem-Solving, Status Report, p. 8.
14 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
communities will be enabled to more easily access existing federal and other resources that
enhance environmental protection and community revitalization.
Collaboration Explored in Brief
Before reviewing the collaborative projects in more detail, it is helpful to discuss briefly
the term collaboration. In her comprehensive treatment of the subject, Barbara Gray defines
collaboration as "a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can
constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited
vision of what is possible."14 Collaboration, according to Gray, is typically used to resolve
conflicts or advance shared visions, and it can be used in a variety of settings including "joint
ventures among businesses, settlement of local neighborhood or environmental disputes,
revitalization of economically depressed cities, and resolution of major international problems."15
According to Gray, the collaborative process typically consists of three phases: (1) the problem-
setting phase, in which parties join together to discuss concerns; (2) the direction-setting phase,
in which parties use organizational techniques such as agendas and subgroups to works
towards and reach an agreement; and (3) the implementation phase, in which the parties
generate outside support for their agreement and monitor it to ensure its proper
implementation.16 Gray associates several benefits with collaboration, which are listed below:17
The Benefits of Collaboration (from Gray)
Broad comprehensive analysis of the problem domain improves the quality of solutions.
Response capability is more diversified.
It is useful for reopening deadlocked negotiations.
The risk of impasse is minimized.
The process ensures that each stakeholder's interests are considered in any agreement.
Parties retain ownership of the solution.
Parties most familiar with the problem, not their agents, invent solutions.
Participation enhances acceptance of solution and willingness to implement it.
The potential to discover novel, innovative solutions is enhanced.
Relations between the stakeholders improve.
Costs associated with other methods are avoided.
Figure 1. The Benefits of Collaboration (from Gray)
Gray also points out several realities associated with collaboration. First, collaboration
will not always work, as, for instance, when one party holds significantly higher power relative to
the other participants. Second, collaboration may not always resolve complex, multiparty issues,
especially when parties perceive the dispute as centering on a distinctly defined set of gains and
losses. Furthermore, collaboration can be difficult when the parties' perceptions of a threat
"have deep psychological and emotional roots." To overcome this challenge, Gray suggests
that collaboration must pay careful attention to the design of stakeholder meetings. In addition,
Gray suggests that effective collaboration requires a significant investment of time by the
participants, and "the skill and forbearance of a convening organization and/or a skilled third
party."18
14
Barbara Gray, Collaborating: Finding Multiparty Ground for Multiparty Problems. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers, 1989). p. 5.
15 Ibid. pp. 6-7.
16 Ibid. p. 57.
17 Ibid, pp.21.
-HO ' '
Ibid. pp. 23-25.
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction 15
-------
In a more recent examination of the topic, Steven Daniels and Gregg Walker describe
collaboration as a process involving "interdependent parties identifying issues of mutual interest,
pooling their energy and resources, addressing their differences, charting a course for the
future, and allocating implementation responsibility among the group."19 They also describe
several important features of collaboration, which are listed below.20
Key Features of Collaboration (from Daniels and Walker)
1. It is less competitive and more accepting of additional parties in the process because they are
viewed more as potential contributors than as potential competitors.
2. It is based on joint learning and fact-finding; information is not used in a competitively strategic
manner.
3. It allows underlying value differences to be explored, and there is the potential for joint values to
emerge.
4. It resembles principled negotiation, since the focus is on interests rather than positions.
5. It allocates the responsibility for implementation across as many participants in the process as
the situation warrants.
6. Its conclusions are generated by participants through an interactive, iterative, and reflexive
process. Consequently, it is less deterministic and linear.
7. It is an ongoing process; the participants do not meet just once to discuss a difference and then
disperse. However, collaborations may have a limited life span if the issues that brought the
participants together are resolved.
8. It has the potential to build individual and community capacity in such areas as conflict
management, leadership, decision making, and communication.
Figure 2. Key Features of Collaboration (from Daniels and Walker)
The authors argue for the use of collaboration as an important public policy tool to
address natural resource conflictsone that can effectively balance two competing societal
public policy goals of "technical competence and participatory process".21 They also carefully
point out, however, that collaboration is a challenging endeavor. They explain that to
collaborate, experts must learn to communicate without the use of jargon and to admit that their
views reflect "fundamental value preferences." Also, to collaborate, citizens must make a
substantial investment of their own time, acknowledge contrasting "worldviews and political
preferences" and take care to make only reasonable demands of agency staff and tax dollars.22
Moreover, they explain that whether parties begin to collaborate hinges entirely with the
participants, since "there is no practical way or ethical reason to force them to interact
collaboratively." They add to this by stating, "Collaboration cannot be forced, scheduled, or
required; it must be nurtured, permitted, and promoted."23 As with Gray, Daniels and Walker
also emphasize the importance of design in collaboration. They note that, "A process is not
collaborative just because someone labels it so, but the collaboration emerges from the
interactions of the participants, which, in turn, is encouraged, by the thoughtfulness of the
design."24
19
Steven E. Daniels and Gregg B. Walker, Working Through Environmental Conflict: The Collaborative Learning
Approach. (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2001). p. 10.
20 Ibid. p. 63.
21 Ibid. pp. 10,4.
22 Ibid. p. 11.
23 Ibid. p. 57.
24 Ibid. p. 12.
16 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
Goals of the Evaluation
Although the EJ Collaborative Model is still emerging, since the launch of the Action
Agenda, the IWG has been committed to learn from the national demonstration projects. By
better understanding how these projects use collaborative processes, the IWG hopes to
continue developing a collaborative model that other communities addressing environmental
justice issues can more easily apply in the future. In the fall of 2000, the IWG began exploring
the possibility of having the Evaluation Support Division in EPAs Office of Policy, Economics,
and Innovation conduct an evaluation of some of the on-going projects. Starting in November
2000, EPAs Evaluation Support Division began working with the IWG to begin to frame the
evaluation questions, with the expectation that findings from individual project evaluations would
serve as the basis for a cross project assessment.
Recognizing early on that some stakeholders may be reluctant to participate in a
government-sponsored evaluation, especially given that projects were voluntary, challenging
issues were being addressed and, many projects were still in the early stages, the evaluation
team took three steps. First, the team composed a set of environmental justice evaluation
guiding principles (see Appendix B) intended to describe what an evaluation is, why it is useful,
how it can be done in a manner that is respectful of the community, and how evaluation results
can be used to empower the participants involved. Second, the team sought a high degree of
input from a range of groups including the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, the
IWG, demonstration project leaders, program evaluators, business representatives, academia,
and environmental justice activists25 Finally, the team gave project leads the opportunity to
review and comment on the questions in advance to obtain assurances that (1) the evaluation
purpose was clear and acceptable to the community, (2) data collection techniques were
considerate of interviewees' time, and (3) interview questions were structured such that
participants could provide the most accurate information.
Although the primary focus of the effort did not change based upon stakeholder input,
the team did choose to develop case studies of the projects rather than individual evaluations
for the six projects reviewed. The six case studies were then analyzed to address the following
topics:
Partnership process, activities, and outcomes;
Key factors influencing partnership success;
Value of multi-stakeholder collaborative partnerships to address environmental justice
issues; and
Value of federal agency involvement in these efforts.
The information derived for this assessment is intended to assist individuals participating
in, or assembling, a collaborative effort centered on issues of environmental justice. The
evaluation provides specific lessons to avoid obstacles and enhance collaborative efforts. It
also serves as one model for evaluating projects using a collaborative approach in the future.
Additionally, the evaluation should enable champions and users of collaboration for
environmental justice work to further envision ways to develop the EJ Collaborative Model's
25 In addition to providing both the NEJAC and the IWG the opportunity to comment on the evaluation approach, two
facilitated national conference calls were conducted in 2001 to better inform the direction of the evaluation. To view
proceedings of the national conference calls go to: http://www.epa.qov/evaluate/ncc.htm.
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction 17
-------
conceptual framework and better articulate short- and long-term environmental, public health,
and socio-economic outcomes one would expect to see when the Model is ideally applied.
Brief Discussion of Following Chapters
The following chapter, Chapter Two, describes the evaluation methodology used to
conduct this assessment and how the evaluation team derived its findings and conclusions.
Chapter Three provides a brief overview of the six partnership case studies. Chapter Four
examines partnership opportunities for involvement as well as interviewees' perspectives
regarding this topic. This chapter also discusses partnership activities, participants'
perspectives regarding outcomes from these activities, and participants' satisfaction with the
outcomes of partnership activities thus far.
Chapter Five discusses the most common successes and challenges voiced by
interviewees across the partnerships. Chapter Six examines key factors influencing partnership
progress and success. Chapter Seven looks at the different styles, policies, and procedures of
the partner organizations that are impacting the progress of the partnerships. Chapter Eight
describes interviewees' perspectives regarding the value of using collaborative approaches to
address environmental justice issues, whether or not the issues of the affected community
would have been addressed without use of a collaborative approach, and whether or not such
an approach could be used again in the future by the affected community to address similar
issues.
Chapter Nine looks at federal involvement in the partnerships reviewed. In particular the
evaluation team describes interviewees' perspectives regarding the value of federal involvement
in collaborative partnerships for affected communities and the value of federal involvement in
collaborative partnerships for federal agencies. In addition, the team discusses whether or not
federal agencies are coordinating more effectively with each other as a result of their
participation in these efforts, and provides interviewee' recommendations for federal agencies to
best participate in EJ collaborative efforts in the future. Chapter Ten provides a set of core
findings and recommendations regarding how to best learn from and improve on-going and
future multi-stakeholder collaborative partnerships seeking to address environmental justice
issues in communities.
18 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
CHAPTER
Evaluation Methodology
This chapter describes the data used to inform this report and the six case studies, and
the types of analyses conducted. The data used to inform this report is based upon the
information provided in the six case studies. Data used to develop the case studies was
generated through a combination of data collection approaches, including phone interviews,
face-to-face interviews, and document review. Interview data was collected through use of a
semi-structured, open-ended interview guide that was adapted when needed for the
interviewees of different partnerships26 The evaluation team generally followed the interview
guide; however, not all questions were asked of all interviewees. Interview questions were
structured loosely on the program framework described below.
Objectives-» Process -» Outputs-» Institutional Effects-» Environmental Outcomes27
t t
External Factors
Figure 3. Steps in a Program Framework
A concerted effort was made to interview individuals that (1) possessed a strong
understanding of the partnership they were associated with; and (2) accurately reflected the
diversity of partnership interests. The evaluation team made the decision not to interview
persons unaffiliated with individual partnerships. Such an effort would have required resources
well beyond our scope. However, even by limiting the interviewee pool in this way, the
evaluation team fully expected to uncover a diversity of responses within single partnerships.
To identify interviewees, the evaluation team typically developed a draft interviewee list
based upon an initial review of partnership documents. A chart describing the types of
organizations participating in each of the six partnerships reviewed, based upon a listing in the
December 2000 IWG Demonstration Projects Interim Report, is included below.
The six projects reviewed all had varying titles. Stakeholders referred to their projects as partnerships or projects,
and in some case cases stakeholders used both terms interchangeably. Furthermore, in one project, partners
referred to the project effort as a collaborative. For consistency, the evaluation team primarily refers to the projects as
partnerships.
7 For the purposes of this figure "environmental outcomes" are also meant to include public health and quality of life
outcomes.
19
-------
Types of Organizations Participating in the Six Partnerships Reviewed
Based Upon December 2000 Interim Progress Report List
Community/ Non-Profit
Local Government Official
State/Regional Government Official
Federal Government Official
Local Elected Official
Office of U.S. Congressional Official
Business/Industry
Academia
Project Consultant
10 15 20 25 30
Number of Organizations
35
40
Chart 1. Types of Organizations Participating in the Six Projects Reviewed Based Upon December
2000 Interim Progress Report List
Partnership leaders were then asked to provide feedback on the potential interviewees
and suggest more suitable candidates if necessary. In total, the evaluation team conducted 66
separate interviews and a total of 79 individuals participated. Care was taken to work within the
constraints of the federal Paperwork Reduction Act. The distribution of interviewee type is
included below.
Interviewees for the Six Partnerships Reviewed by Organizational
Type (September 2001-March 2002)
Community / Non-profit
Local Government Official
State/Regional Government Official
Federal Official
Local Elected Official
Office of U.S. Congressional Official
Business/Industry
Academia
Project Consultant
10 15 20 25
Number of Interviewees
30
35
Chart 2. Interviewees for the Six Partnerships Reviewed by Organizational Type (September
2001-March 2002)
20 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
As evident from the table, representatives of community organizations and federal
agencies represented the bulk of the interviewees. When establishing the interviewee list at the
on-set, community organizations and federal agencies were most often the main participants in
the partnerships. Given the high degree of federal involvement in these projects, the distribution
of interviewees by federal agency is also presented.
Federal Interviewees by Organization
Army Corps of Engineers
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Coast Guard
Department of Defense
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Aviation Administration
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Labor
National Park Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
234567
Number of Interviewees
Chart 3. Federal Interviewees by Organization
Interviews were primarily conducted between mid-September and the first week of
October 2001. However interviews for two partnerships were conducted between late
November 2001 and April 2002. In addition, the evaluation team reviewed 15 to 75 documents,
depending upon availability, to develop each case study. These documents included written
community histories, formal project reports, fact sheets, site assessments, environmental
management plans, community planning documents, and newspaper articles.
Case studies were structured to allow for cross-case analysis and included the following
sections: (1) community history, (2) partnership background, (3) partnership goals and process,
(4) partnership activities, (5) measuring partnership success, (6) partnership successes and
challenges, (7) recommendations for improving the partnership, (8) lessons for other
communities considering partnerships, (9) value of federal involvement, and (10) findings. Parts
1-4 were mostly descriptive and relied primarily on background documents, while parts 5-10
relied primarily on interviewee data. To conduct the analysis using interview data, responses to
particular questions were reviewed to identify themes and patterns. Care was taken to ensure
that the comments carefully reflected the sentiment of the interviewees' and the degree to which
interviewees agreed with others on a particular topic.
Case study findings were based upon the interview data, the document review, and the
evaluators' overall impressions of each partnership. Interviewees were also given two
opportunities to review their partnership case study and provide comments regarding the case
study's organization, content, accuracy, and readability. In addition, the evaluation team, on
CHAPTER TWO: Evaluation Methodology
21
-------
occasion, contacted a few specific individuals associated with the partnerships to clarify certain
questions related to partnership background and process. Case studies were written
understanding that the descriptions and analyses of interviewee comments reflected interviewee
perceptions about the partnerships at a single point in time. Moreover, the evaluation team
recognized that the partnerships, and interviewee perceptions of them, would continue to
evolve.
The case study partnerships were selected based upon several considerations including
the extent to which they represented an adequate level of geographic variability and adequate
variability in regards to the partnership types (both in terms of the partnership focus and the
demographic characteristics of the affected community). In addition, attention was placed upon
those partnerships that were more representative of those types of partnerships that the IWG
expects will be more commonly implemented in communities in the future.
The focus of this report centers primarily on articulating the value, and key factors
influencing progress and success of the partnerships reviewed, as opposed to specific
outcomes articulated, for instance, in units of contamination cleaned, number of jobs generated,
or degree to which overall quality of life has been improved. This was due to several factors.
First, most of partnerships reviewed were at relatively early stages at the time of case study
development. Second, although most of the partnerships have identified goals, many lacked
fully developed theories that specified precisely what activities were associated with their
partnership efforts and what specific outcomes they expected to bring about once the activities
were implemented. Third, directly related to the second point, for most partnerships selected,
no baseline data, other than that already generated through traditional programs, was available
at the start of these projects.
Given the numerous, challenging issues that many of these partnerships work to
address, and given the particularly challenging set of stakeholder relationships that these
projects seek to transform into action-oriented collaboratives, these challenges are not
surprising. Some partnerships developed under the expectation that collaboration was simply a
more effective way to do business. For these, taking time to put in place a project monitoring
and evaluation system would most likely have seen as inefficient, and may have actually slowed
effective partnering if the IWG required it in the early stages. By focusing on the added value of
these efforts and factors that influence success, it is the hope of the evaluation team and the
IWG to begin to better understand what can be expected when collaborative approaches are
used by struggling communities, how they can best be applied, what type of evaluation system
is feasible and doable for these partnerships, and how success can best be measured in the
future.
22 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
CHAPTER
Overview of Case Study Partnerships
This chapter provides a very broad overview of the six partnerships examined for this
evaluation and concludes with a brief discussion outlining some of the partnerships' similarities
and differences.
The Partnerships
The Barrio Logan Partnership is based primarily in an inner city community near
downtown San Diego. The partnership formed in 2001 as part of the IWG designation after
initial discussions between a senior EPA official and representatives of the Environmental
Health Coalition, a local environmental justice organization with a long-standing history of
working in the Barrio Logan community. Barrio Logan is faced with several challenges, most
notably incompatible land-uses brought about through lack of proper zoning restrictions that led
to the emergence of industrial land uses near residential homes. Through a structured,
facilitated partnering process, the Barrio Logan partnership has brought long-standing
adversaries together to discuss, form goals, and implement actions to address some of the
numerous quality of life issues facing the community.
The Bridges to Friendship Partnership emerged in 1998 out of concerns that a major
redevelopment effort in a distressed Washington, D.C. neighborhood would fail to benefit local
residents and could eventually result in their displacement. Initiated by community
organizations and officials at the Washington Navy Yard, these groups formed a structured but
flexible partnership involving numerous community non-profits, several federal agencies, and
the government of the District of Columbia to ensure that local residents would benefit from the
redevelopment through better coordination, communication, and pooling of expertise and
resources. With over forty partners today, partnership members view this coordinated approach
as an effective way to conduct business and continue to search for opportunities to better serve
local residents.
The Metlakatla Peninsula Cleanup Partnership is a unique emerging collaboration
between the Metlakatla Indian Community (MIC), federal agency field staff in Alaska, and
federal headquarters staff based primarily in Washington D.C. Its purpose is to ensure the
cleanup of over 80 primarily government-contaminated sites on the MIC's home island in
southeast Alaska. Through these coordinated efforts, the parties hope to cleanup the sites in a
manner that is satisfactory to the Tribe, making more efficient use of resources, and map out a
process for cleanup of complex multi-party sites. The issues are complex given the numerous
agencies and other parties involved in the contamination, the different parties' policies and
procedures for contaminated site cleanup, and disagreements over who should cleanup the
sites and to what level. The partnership effort began in 2000 after the designation by the IWG
as a national demonstration pilot and built upon an on-going local collaboration primarily
between the MIC and Alaska federal agency field staff.
23
-------
The Metro East Lead Collaborative is an effort that emerged after a local hospital and
government officials determined that high lead levels in children in East. St. Louis and
surrounding communities may be a result of lead-contaminated soil. Recognizing the need for a
comprehensive approach to reduce the threat of lead-poisoning, in early 1999, an EPA
representative brought several groups already at work on lead and related issues together to
form a structured partnership. Although initially focused on East St. Louis, the project soon
expanded its focus to other nearby neighborhoods. In addition, the enthusiasm over the
partnership's lead-reduction efforts spurred the partnership to begin simultaneously addressing
brownfields redevelopment.
The New Madrid Tri-Community Partnership resulted in 1998 after local residents
from one rural community in southern Missouri requested the assistance of the federal Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to help it tackle numerous social, economic, and
environmental challenges. Responding to the call, NRCS joined together with EPA, a regional
non-profit, and two additional communities in the area to begin addressing common residential
concerns. Soon after the partnership was designated by EPA as a Child Health Champion
national demonstration project, these groups began taking a structured approach to addressing
asthma, lead, and water quality issues in the three communities. Since then, the partners have
made significant progress meeting the objectives outlined under their program.
The ReGenesis Partnership emerged in 1999, after the leader of a 1,400-member
group representing two distressed and adjacent neighborhoods in Spartanburg, South Carolina
brought together numerous stakeholders in an effort to cleanup and revitalize the area. By
building a shared vision for redevelopment, the energy and enthusiasm surrounding the effort
brought together approximately 70 organizations representing a range of interests, which
includes the cleanup and redevelopment of two Superfund equivalent sites, the building of a
health clinic, a recreational greenway, new road construction, and new affordable housing. This
loosely structured partnership is headed by Harold Mitchell, the leader of ReGenesis, and
guided by a core group including Mitchell, and representatives of the City, the County, and
EPAs regional office based in Atlanta.
Partnership Similarities and Differences in Brief
Across the six partnerships reviewed are both similarities and differences. First, the
partnerships started at different points in time. Some started as early as 1998 and others as
late as 2000. Second, some partnerships were initiated by communities or community-based
organizations while others were initiated by federal agencies. Most partnerships have identified
issues, formed goals, and are taking actions or planning actions to address these issues. Most
have well-defined operating structures, however only one regularly relies on a professional
facilitator. The partnership coordination mechanisms range from tight to loose, and the scope of
solutions sought by each of the partnerships vary from specific to comprehensive. In all
partnerships diverse stakeholders are participating, however, most stakeholders represent
community or government-based organizations. Finally, all partnerships have varying levels of
community involvement.
24 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
Partnership Partnership Demographics Geographic Year Partnership Focus
Title Location of Affected Characteristics Initiated
Community
Barrio Logan
Bridges to
Friendship
letlakatla
Peninsula
Cleanup
Metro East
.ead
;ollaborative
San Diego,
California
Southeast/
Southwest
Washington,
D.C.
Southeastern
Alaska
East St.
Louis/St. Clair
County, Illinois
Predominantly
Latino/Low
income
Predominantly
African
American/Low
income
Native
American/Low
income
African
American/Low
income
Inner city
Inner city
Rural/Island
Inner City
2000
1998
2000
1999
Address immediate
health concerns/
Boost overall quality
of life
Increase overall
resident employment/
Boost overall quality
of life
Cleanup
contaminated sites
Improve children's
health by reducing
lead poisoning
New Madrid Tri
Community
New Madrid
County,
Missouri
African
American/
Caucasian/Low
income
Rural
Address childhood
lead poisoning,
1998 asthma and allergies,
and water
contaminants
ReGenesis
Spartanburg,
South Carolina
African
American/Low Urban/Rural
income
Address and
2000 revitalize
contaminated sites
Table 1. Case Study Partnerships Summary
CHAPTER THREE: Overview of Case Study Partnerships
25
-------
CHAPTER
Partnership Involvement Approaches, Activities, and
Outcomes
Our organization's priorities are integrated into the partnership. [We've] been able to
feel good about participating, input, and cooperation.
- Interviewee, ReGenesis Partnership
We're talking about safety, housing, trucks, and all the things that are important to
the community.
- Interviewee, Barrio Logan Partnership
Impact so far is enthusiasm...there was a time when people felt hopeless about their
future. Now people feel positive about their future
- Interviewee, ReGenesis Partnership
This chapter looks at the case study partnerships in terms of their approaches for
involving different parties, activities conducted, and outcomes generated by these activities.
Partnership Involvement Approaches
Each partnership developed in a unique fashion and each has its own style for involving
partner members in partnership discussions and for involving the affected community. Despite
differences, some general patterns across the partnerships exist. First, partnership organizers
and leaders generally sought a high degree of involvement from a broad spectrum of
organizations, including federal, state, and local agencies, community-based organizations,
other non-governmental organizations, business and industry. Second, except for the Barrio
Logan partnership, partnership leaders allowed interested organizations to continually join and
did not appear to limit participation by any one organization. In the Barrio Logan partnership,
certain parties were not admitted to the partnership out of concerns that encouraging
involvement of parties reluctant to be involved in collaborative processes, or historically involved
in a very adversarial relationship with the affected community, would be detrimental to the
overall process. In another strategic decision, the leaders of the Barrio Logan partnership
developed a criterion that prevented potential organizations from joining the partnership if they
were unwilling to contribute resources to the partnership effort. These parties were, however,
allowed to observe the proceedings of partner meetings.
26
-------
Third, each partnership had at least a base level of community involvement. This came
in the form of involvement of residents from the affected community, who were usually affiliated
with grassroots organizations, or involvement of representatives of local, non-profit
organizations that may or may not have a high degree of community support, and may or may
not be directly based in the affected community. Fourth, most partnerships periodically host
broad forums in which all partners can provide input regarding partner activities. Furthermore,
four of the six partnerships have, at least once, assigned partner members to smaller
committees to focus greater attention on specific concerns of the affected communities. Finally,
most partnerships have at least one individual or a group of individuals that regularly perform
partnership leadership and coordination functions.
Satisfaction with Partnership Opportunities for Involvement
A total of 62 of 79 interviewees addressed a question regarding their satisfaction with
their ability to participate in the partnership decision-making process. Interviewee responses
were sorted into four response categories: yes, somewhat, no, and unclear. In addition, some
interviewees were either not asked the question or did not address the question when asked.
Responses are provided in the chart, and then discussed more below.
Are you and your organization satisfied with your ability to participate in the
partnership decision-making process?
Yes
Somewhat
Unclear
Question not asked /
addressed
Chart 4. Satisfaction with Participation in the Partnership Decision-making Process. Note: 62 interviewees answered
this question. An additional seventeen interviewees were not asked or did not answer the question, seven of which
represented the Metlakatla partnership (see footnote 28). The remaining ten interviewees include four with
ReGenesis, four with New Madrid, and two with Barrio Logan.
Of those interviewees addressing the question, 82 percent (51 of 62) indicated that the
partnerships they were involved in allowed them and the organizations they represent to
sufficiently participate in the partnership decision-making process. Five percent (3 of 62)
indicated they were only somewhat satisfied. Another five percent (3 of 62) were not satisfied,
and eight percent (5 of 62) gave responses that were unclear. Across five of the six
partnerships, most interviewees indicated they were satisfied with partnership opportunities for
CHAPTER FOUR: Partnership Involvement Approaches, Activities, and Outcomes
27
-------
involvement. One partnership (Metlakatla) did not reflect this trend.28 From this data, it appears
as though partnership mechanisms for involvement have been effective at allowing partners to
be adequately involved in partnership decision-making processes.
For the interviewees indicating that they were satisfied with the decision making process,
a Barrio Logan interviewee noted that the process has given everyone a voice. A ReGenesis
interviewee explained that stakeholders involved were willing to listen to parties representing
different views. Some interviewees who responded yes, however, provided caveats to their
responses. For instance, three Barrio Logan interviewees indicated that it was relatively early in
the process to be making such a determination. Two Bridges to Friendship interviewees
expressed a desire to have more participation from other groups. A New Madrid interviewee
remarked that she/he would liked to have seen more scientific input used when determining
which priorities the affected community would address. Finally, a ReGenesis interviewee
explained that she/he does not think that his/her federal agency should have a say in the
process since the partnership is community-, not federally-, driven.
For the interviewees indicating they were only somewhat satisfied with the decision
making process, a Metro East interviewee explained that there was still much more that could
be done to assist the affected community in terms of partnership communication with residents.
Similarly, a second Metro East interviewee expressed a desire to have greater community
involvement. For those indicating that the decision making process did not sufficiently allow for
their input, a Metlakatla interviewee expressed concern that community concerns were not
being adequately heard. Another interviewee, representing the same partnership, explained
that it appeared as though other partner members were making decisions without appropriate
consultation with the affected community. Finally, an interviewee representing the ReGenesis
partnership similarly expressed concern that during the partnership's initial stage his/her
organization was not given adequate opportunity to understand the vision of the partnership nor
how his/her organization could adequately contribute to the partnership.
Of the seventeen interviewees that either were not asked, or did not address, the
question, seven represented the Metlakatla partnership (70 percent of total Metlakatla
interviewees). The remaining ten include four from the ReGenesis partnership (25 percent of
total ReGenesis interviewees), four from the New Madrid partnership (31 percent of total New
Madrid interviewees), and two from the Barrio Logan partnership (14 percent of total Barrio
Logan interviewees).
Perspectives on Whether Partnerships Adequately Address
Participant Concerns
Interviewees were also asked whether their respective partnerships adequately address
their concerns and the concerns of their organizations. This topic is similar to the previous one,
and therefore requires further explanation. Partnerships can involve interested parties in
98
The evaluation team was aware in advance of the interviews that the Metlakatla partnership was struggling to
move forward on a set of issues related to the cleanup of multi-party contaminated sites. Challenges stem from the
involvement of numerous organizational representatives (some of whom aren't based in Alaska), the complex nature
of the issues under discussion, the competing cleanup policies of different organizations, lack of a centralized
coordination and leadership function, and insufficient communication between parties. Before and while the
interviews for this evaluation were taking place, Metlakatla partnership members were undergoing an intensive
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process in order to strengthen the overall partnership effort. The ADR process
involved a series of interviews and meetings between Metlakatla partner members and ADR professionals.
Recognizing this, the evaluation team generally shortened its interview time with Metlakatla partners and limited itself
from asking most Metlakatla interviewees the questions covered in this chapter.
28 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
several ways. Nevertheless, even with effective partner involvement mechanisms or
partnership leadership, partner members collectively may downplay ideas put forth by certain
parties if they feel, for instance, that implementation of those suggestions would diminish the
partnership's overall ability to reach its goal. A certain level of resistance to ideas, as with any
collaborative process, is to be expected. However, a partnership's overall effectiveness will
diminish if a sizeable portion of its partners begins to perceive its ideas as carrying little, if any,
weight in terms of influencing overall partnership direction.
A total of 54 interviewees addressed the question regarding this topic. Interviewee
responses were sorted into five response categories: yes, somewhat, too early to tell, no, and
unclear. In addition, some interviewees were either not asked the question or did not address
the question when asked. Responses are provided in the chart, and then discussed more
below.
Are the issues most important to you and your organization being
adequately addressed by the partnership?
Yes
Somewhat Too early to tell
Unclear
Question not
asked /
addressed
Chart 5. Satisfaction that Partnership is Addressing Partner Organizations' Main Issues. Note: 54 interviewees
answered this question. An additional 25 interviewees were not asked or did not answer the question, including nine
with the Metlakatla partnership, seven with ReGenesis, six with New Madrid, and three with Barrio Logan.
Of those interviewees addressing the question, 72 percent (39 out of 54) indicated that
their respective partnerships are adequately addressing the issues of concern to them and their
organizations. Thirteen percent of interviewees (7 of 54) indicated that they were only
somewhat satisfied. Two percent of interviewees (1 of 54) indicated that it was too early to tell.
Four percent of interviewees (2 of 54) indicated they weren't satisfied that the issues of concern
to them were being adequately addressed, and nine percent (5 of 54) gave responses that were
unclear. Four of the six partnerships roughly follow this same trend. In one partnership (Barrio
Logan) where these trends were not consistent, just less than one-half of the interviewees
addressing the question indicated they were satisfied, while the remaining half provided
responses ranging from somewhat satisfied to unclear. For the second partnership (Metlakatla)
not reflective of this trend, most interviewees were not asked the question. From this it appears
CHAPTER FOUR: Partnership Involvement Approaches, Activities, and Outcomes
29
-------
that, generally, the partnership members are making concerted efforts to listen and address
each other's issues of concern.
For the interviewees responding that their issues were adequately being addressed, a
Barrio Logan interviewee explained that, "We're talking about safety, housing, trucks, and all the
things that are important to the community." Similarly, a Bridges to Friendship interviewee
noted that what was important to her/his organizationunderstanding and identifying issues
that are important to the community, which include, jobs, environmental cleanup, and parking
was being addressed. An interviewee representing the Metro East partnership was pleased to
see a partnership emphasis on community capacity building, which was demonstrated through
local environmental job training in cleanup techniques for the community. An interviewee,
representing the ReGenesis partnership, who also responded positively, remarked that, if
anything, they had to slow the partnership down because it was coming together without all the
necessary pieces in place.
For the interviewees responding that the partnership was only somewhat addressing
their concerns, a Barrio Logan interviewee expressed concern that zoning issues weren't being
adequately addressed. Another Barrio Logan interviewee wanted to see more progress on
action. A Bridges to Friendship interviewee explained that she/he was satisfied, but could not
say the same for his/her agency since she/he had to continually resell the concept to upper
management. Finally, an interviewee, representing the Metlakatla partnership explained that
the partners in the partnership have not been given sufficient opportunity to assess whether
what they have decided to do will address the problems of the affected community. The 25
interviewees that either were not asked, or did not address, the question include nine
interviewees from the Metlakatla partnership (90 percent of total Metlakatla interviewees), seven
from the ReGenesis partnership (44 percent of total ReGenesis interviewees), six from the New
Madrid partnership (46 percent of total New Madrid interviewees), and three from the Barrio
Logan partnership (21 percent of total Barrio Logan interviewees).
Partnership Activities
To address issues facing the affected community, all the partnerships have identified, or
are in the process of identifying, activities that must be implemented. Some partnerships have
implemented, and continue to implement, various activities while others are still in the planning
process, or simply waiting for necessary actions to take place (e.g., resolution over disputing
policies for cleanup, cleanup of contaminated sites before redevelopment can begin, etc.). In
addition to actions to achieve specific environmental, public health, or other socio-economic
outcomes, partnership activities also include actions centered on partnership formation and the
sharing of information. Partnership activities, based upon the partnerships reviewed, fall into
seven non-exclusive categories listed below. The activities can be divided into two categories:
partnership-building activities and community-focused activities. Partnership-building activities
ensure that the partnerships can function effectively. Community-focused activities are specific
efforts by the partnerships to improve the quality of life for the affected communities. In
addition, partnership-building activities, indirectly, also have the potential to produce outcomes
similar to those achieved through community-focused activities. For instance, partnerships that
help repair existing, or enable new, linkages between the affected community and the regulatory
or business community may result in greater attention to environmental and public health
monitoring, or waste minimization efforts, for instance. These actions, could, in turn, result in
reduced environmental and health risk.
30 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
Partnership-building activities
In most partnerships, members have spent time identifying issues, forming goals, and
planning actions to best assist the affected community. Without such a plan, it is difficult for
partner members to be clear about how their input and resources may be of assistance or
confident that their participation will bring about any positive desired change. For instance,
members of the New Madrid partnership spent time early exploring what could be done to assist
the New Madrid communities. Following a designation by EPA's Office of Children's Health as
a Child Health Champion national demonstration project, New Madrid partners debated which
priority environmental health risks should be the focus of the effort and then, through the
formation of an action plan, how the ones selected should be addressed. Through regular
partnership forums and meetings between partnership steering committee members,
ReGenesis partnership members have spent considerable energy making sure that they could
agree how to implement a revitalization vision for the affected neighborhoods.
Directly related to this activity is the coordination and sharing of information and
resources between partners. Without such coordination, implementation of the approaches to
assist the affected communities would be difficult. Starting in March 2001, Barrio Logan
partnership members would regularly meet once per month for a three-hour session. Central
meeting activities included facilitated discussions between partners about different activities
already underway in Barrio Logan and existing resources partners could provide that could
benefit Barrio Logan. As another example, at a Metro East partnership meeting, partners
shared their perspectives about how best to reach residents in the affected community who may
have yards contaminated with lead. Because of this discussion, the agency tasked with
informing residents completely changed its planned approach. Instead of sending a letter to
residents suspected of having lead contaminated yards (and asking for them to contact the
agency if they would like remediation assistance), this agency joined with other Metro East
partnership organizations and went door-to-door in the affected community and explained to
residents the full array of lead remediation services available to them.
Also related, resolution of difficult issues between partners is an important partnership
activity. Without such effort to resolve differences, partnerships may be unable to function and
implement concrete actions to assist the affected community. In the Barrio Logan partnership,
few difficult issues have surfaced between parties. However, careful attention early on in the
partnership by the partnership leaders and facilitator to create a setting that was conducive to
effective partnering may have limited the need for this. For instance, the team carefully outlined
partnership goals that partners had to agree on before joining. In addition, the team explained
the specific process to be used through which difficult issues could be resolved. In the
Metlakatla partnership, unless the numerous competing issues can be resolved in a
collaborative manner, it is unlikely that several multi-party, contaminated sites will be cleaned
within a reasonable time frame. An alternative dispute resolution team from EPA is helping the
partners address these challenges. In the ReGenesis partnership, members of the core
steering committee regularly disagree about appropriate actions for the revitalization of the
affected neighborhoods, but they are usually able to reach mutually acceptable solutions. In
addition, the leadership of ReGenesis, the non-profit organization driving the ReGenesis
partnership revitalization effort, regularly meets outside of the partnership in a series of
facilitated dialogue sessions with representatives of a local chemical plant that is based in the
affected community to discuss ReGenesis' concerns about the plant and its potential impact on
the revitalization effort.
Finally, most partnerships make concerted efforts to secure funding and additional
partners to ensure the effective coordination of the partnership and implementation of certain
CHAPTER FOUR: Partnership Involvement Approaches, Activities, and Outcomes 31
-------
substantive activities and to bring additional energy and enthusiasm to the partnership. During
its first year the Bridges to Friendship partnership was credited by its partners with helping
garner over $4 million in grant funding, which was distributed to individual partners, and used to
help accomplish the partnership's goals. The Metro East partnership has secured over $3
million from a variety of federal, state, county, and local agencies. The New Madrid partnership
secured $135,000 from EPA for the Child Health Champion national pilot project, plus additional
assistance from EPA and several other organizations. In addition, the ReGenesis partnership
secured over $1 million through grants from federal sources.
Community-focused Activities
The partnerships have engaged in a variety of activities to assist the communities in
which they are working. First, partnerships have shared information with the affected
community about environmental and public health threats and ways to reduce their risk. In the
Metro East partnership and the New Madrid partnership, such information sharing has been
done primarily to educate community members about the risks of lead and/or asthma and
describe immediate steps residents can take to protect themselves. For instance, the Metro
East partnership organized a team of individuals representing three member organizations
EPA, Neighbors United for Progress, and the Community Development Block Grant
Operationthat traveled door-to-door in the affected neighborhoods to inform residents of lead
threats and help them obtain further assistance. Specifically, the team focused on: 1) educating
residents about i) the threats of indoor and outdoor lead contamination, ii) opportunities for
blood-lead screening, iii) opportunities for indoor lead remediation; and iv) opportunities for
outdoor lead remediation; and 2) helping residents fill-out the appropriate forms during the visits
to help them access these services. In the New Madrid partnership, community members as
well as technical experts educated community members on the risks of asthma/allergies and
lead through a series of risk-specific mini-workshops and a major health fair that reached
approximately 2,000 adults and 800 children. In the Bridges to Friendship partnership, the
focus of the information sharing has been to ensure that local people are made aware of job
openings brought on by area wide redevelopment. For instance, it is collaborating with the
Workforce Organizations for Regional Collaboration to track and make available information
regarding employment opportunties for District of Columbia residents.
The partnerships also engage in specific actions to reduce environmental and public
health threats, and/or promote socio-economic development. For instance, members of the
Metro East partnership fully sampled and mapped the communities in which it was working to
identify lead contaminated homes and industrial sites, as part of a larger multi-step effort to
reduce lead risk to children living in the area. As a result of Metro East partnership efforts, by
early October 2001, five homes had been completely remediated and 75 were identified and
waiting to be completed. In addition, five industrial sites were in the process of being cleaned,
and twenty others had been identified. The Bridges to Friendship partnership has instituted
several job-training programs, including an environmental job training initiative, to ensure that
local residents can participate in the area redevelopment. As of January 2002, the partnership's
environmental job training program had graduated more then 300 students with a job placement
rate of over 70 percent, according to one partner. The partnership has also organized business
development seminars and fairs in order to provide contracting opportunities and technical
assistance to local businesses. In addition, Bridges to Friendship partners including EPA,
Covenant House Washington, the Low Impact Development Center, Community Resources,
Inc., and the Sustainable Communities Initiatives have developed a low-impact development
training program.
32 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
Finally, partnerships also engage in specific community capacity building efforts. For
instance, in the New Madrid partnership ten community members were trained as peer
facilitators in issues of asthma and lead so they could help lead mini-workshops to educate local
residents about the risks associated with asthma and childhood lead-poisoning. To obtain
approval as a community facilitator, the community members had to undergo training over
period of 40-50 hours for each specific risk or until they showed mastery of the material. They
also had to undergo a pre- and post-test to assess their learning. The Bridges to Friendship
partnership has also facilitated job shadowing, internship, and elementary school programs
along with life skills workshops for residents in the affected community.
Types of Activities Implemented by EJ Collaborative Partnerships
Partnership-building
Identification of issues, formation of goals, and planning of actions to best assist the
affected community
Coordination, sharing, and pooling of information and resources between partners
Facilitation and resolution of difficult issues between partners
Identification of funding and additional partners
Community-focused
Sharing of information between partner organizations and affected community
Specific actions (e.g., lead testing) to reduce environmental and public health threats,
and/or promote socio-economic development
Build community capacity
Figure 4. Types of Activities Implemented by EJ Collaborative Partnerships
Outcomes of Partnership Activities
Identifying the outcomes29, or results, of partnership activities is a difficult task, given the
myriad of issues being addressed and the myriad of approaches used to resolve them. In
addition, for several of these approaches, only limited data on the outcomes is available.
Moreover, many partnerships lack theories that specify precisely what activities are associated
with their partnership efforts and what specific outcomes they expect to bring about once the
activities are implemented. These impediments are further compounded by the fact that the
different partnerships are at different stages in terms of developing goals and implementing
activities. Nevertheless, it is important to understand, even at a broad level, what participants
view as the outcomes of their activities, thus far, and whether or not they perceive these
activities as having the intended effect for the affected communities.
Emerging from the data, participants perceive the partnerships as resulting in
environmental and other quality of life improvements and increased pride and enthusiasm for
29 During the interview process, interviewees were asked questions about both the outcomes of partner activities and
the impact of activities for the affected communities. From the responses, it was clear that most interviewees viewed
the partnership activities in terms of outcomes, not impact. Therefore, the term outcome is used throughout this
discussion.
CHAPTER FOUR: Partnership Involvement Approaches, Activities, and Outcomes 33
-------
the communities. Furthermore, a number of interviewees cited the implementation of
environmental and other activities as a direct outcome of partnership efforts. This may be due,
in part, because many interviewees expressed that in the absence of their partnerships, the
implementation of these activities simply would not have taken place; or that implementation of
these activities logically results in reduced environmental and other risks for the affected
community. This style of response will be important to keep in mind when evaluation teams
work with partnerships to characterize the outcomes of partnership activities in the future.
For implementation of environmental and other activities designed to reduce
environmental and public health risk, and boost overall quality of life for affected communities,
interviewees mentioned a variety of activities. These include the cleanup of contaminated sites,
the testing of some homes for lead, implementation of extensive job training and related
programs, and the communication of environmental risks through brochures and environmental
conferences. Representatives from the Barrio Logan, New Madrid, and ReGenesis
partnerships also mentioned the building of community pride and enthusiasm as an outcome of
partnership activities. Closely related to the fostering of community pride, interviewees from the
Barrio Logan and New Madrid partnerships mentioned that partnership activities have
empowered communities. For instance, a New Madrid interviewee remarked that the
partnership she/he represented gave the people a lot of confidence to obtain the resources they
need.
When discussing improved environmental and other quality of life outcomes for the
affected communities, representatives from the New Madrid and ReGenesis partnerships
explained how the partnerships have resulted in improved community awareness in regards to
environmental and other public health risks. Particularly interviewees with the New Madrid
partnership explained how partnership activities have boosted education of community
members about environmental and health risks they face and how to respond. A New Madrid
interviewee also explained more generally that, "A lot of the things [the communities] didn't have
they now have. It has made living conditions a lot better." Another outcome, cited by
interviewees across the Metlakatla, New Madrid, and Bridges to Friendship partnerships,
revolved around how partnership activities have resulted in increased employment for local
residents. For instance, a Bridges to Friendship interviewee cited an example where
partnership activities resulted in the employment of several hundred people in the environmental
profession. Finally, another Bridges to Friendship interviewee explained that partnership efforts
have better ensured that development could take place in the affected area without forcing out
low-income residents. A text box below includes a more extensive list describing what
interviewees perceive as the outcome of partnership activities.
34 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
Outcomes of EJ Partnership Activities
as Perceived by Interviewees
Public health, environmental, socio-economic, and other quality of life improvements
Implementation of public health, environmental, socio-economic, and other quality of
life boosting activities
Boost in community enthusiasm and/or pride
Community empowerment
Securing of additional resources
Draws attention to problems in affected community
Improved coordination of information and resources between partners
Enables work to be accomplished at a quicker pace
Enables communication between partners
Enables more work to be done
Figure 5. Outcomes of EJ Partnership Activities as Perceived by Interviewees
Satisfaction with Outcomes of Partnership Activities
Interviewees were also asked whether they were satisfied with the outcomes of
partnership activities so far. Interviewees responded to this question in terms of satisfaction
with outcomes regarding (1) partnership efforts to begin laying the foundation for more
substantive actions at a later date, (2) specific environmental and public health efforts taken by
partner members to assist the affected communities; or (3) both. Interviewee responses were
sorted into six response categories: yes, yes but would like to see more, somewhat, too early to
tell, no, and unclear. In addition, some interviewees were either not asked the question or did
not address the question when asked. Responses are provided in the chart, and then
discussed more below.
CHAPTER FOUR: Partnership Involvement Approaches, Activities, and Outcomes 35
-------
Are you satisfied with the outcomes of these activities so far?
Yes
Yes, but would
like to see
more
Somewhat Too early to tell
Unclear
Question not
asked /
addressed
Chart 6. Satisfaction with Outcomes of Partnership Activities. Note: 53 interviewees answered this question. An
additional 26 interviewees were not asked or did not answer the question, including ten with the Metlakatla
partnership, six with ReGenesis, four with Bridges to Friendship, three with New Madrid, and three with Barrio Logan.
Of those interviewees addressing the question, 51 percent (27 of 53) indicated they were
satisfied with the outcomes of their partnership activities so far. Eleven percent (6 of 53)
indicated they were satisfied, but would like to see additional work done in the affected
communities. Twenty-five percent of interviewees (13 of 53) indicated that they were only
somewhat satisfied with partnership outcomes so far. Four percent (2 of 53) indicated that it
was too early to tell. Two percent (1 of 53) indicated dissatisfaction, and eight percent (4 of 53)
gave responses that were unclear. Across all partnerships except one, the majority of
interviewees were satisfied to somewhat satisfied with partnership outcomes so far. In the
Barrio Logan and ReGenesis partnerships, most of the interviewees indicated they were
satisfied. A number of interviewees representing the Bridges to Friendship, Metro East, and
New Madrid partnerships indicated they were either satisfied but would like to see more, or
somewhat satisfied with the outcomes of partnership activities so far. Finally, the Metlakatla
partnership was not reflective of the trends, as interviewees representing this partnership were
not asked the question. Generally, across five of six partnerships, a majority of interviewees
were satisfied with the outcomes of partnership activities so far. However, more than a third
were either (1) satisfied with partner outcomes but would like to see more work done in the
affected communities, or (2) only somewhat satisfied with partner activities.
For those interviewees indicating they were satisfied with the outcomes of their
partnership activities so far, an interviewee representing a partnership far along in the
implementation of partnership activities (Bridges to Friendship) noted that the partnership work
has benefited the community. Another interviewee, representing another partnership advanced
in meeting its objectives (New Madrid), explained that she/he was satisfied in terms of
implementing the activities described in the partnership action plan. Furthermore, an
interviewee representing another partnership somewhat advanced in implementing its activities
(Metro East), explained that the partnership has been efficient moving forward to cleanup
contaminated sites, and that without it, she/he was not sure how fast this would have occurred.
36 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
An interviewee, representing a partnership in the early stages of implementing partnership
activities (ReGenesis), remarked that the partnership was focused on the right activities and that
they would enhance the quality of life for the affected community. An interviewee representing
a partnership that was just beginning to implement activities (Barrio Logan) explained that
despite taking considerable time to start the partnership effort, she/he indicated that the group
was working well and that she/he was very satisfied.
For those indicating that they were satisfied with partnership outcomes so far, but would
like to see more, a Bridges to Friendship interviewee noted that she/he has been satisfied with
what the partnership has been able to accomplish so far, but that she/he would never be fully
satisfied. A New Madrid interviewee explained that as far as meeting his/her partnership
objectives, she/he was satisfied. However, there would always be more to be done to assist the
affected community. Finally, a Metro East interviewee remarked that she/he would never be
fully satisfied, but was pleased with what they have been able to do so far.
For those indicating that they were only somewhat satisfied, interviewees expressed a
variety of concerns that weighed against their feelings of satisfaction. For instance, a New
Madrid interviewee explained that his/her organization's actions as part of the partnership were
only able to address some of the affected community's concerns. A Bridges to Friendship
interviewee and a New Madrid interviewee expressed concerns over challenges associated with
specific partnership actions, not the partnerships overall. A Metro East interviewee and another
New Madrid interviewee commented on their concerns about the affected communities' abilities'
to continue with successes once the partnerships ended. Another Metro East interviewee
expressed concerns over the lack of the partnership's pace. A ReGenesis interviewee voiced
concern over the lack of resources dedicated to the partnership, noting that for efforts such as
these, resources need to be dedicated to someone on the ground in the affected community, as
is done for Brownfields Showcase Communities. Another Metro East interviewee remarked that
she/he was satisfied with the outcome of partnership activities to an extent, but that additional
federal participation was needed. Finally, a Barrio Logan interviewee expressed satisfaction for
the partnership efforts thus far, but wanted the partnership to begin taking more concrete
actions to assist the affected community.
For those indicating that they were not satisfied, a Bridges to Friendship interviewee and
a Metro East interviewee explained that that there was a long way to go in terms of having the
desired impact on the affected community. A Barrio Logan interviewee remarked that his/her
partnership should be further ahead. Finally, another Barrio Logan interviewee noted frustration
with the lack of resources allocated as part of the national demonstration project designation.
The 26 interviewees that either were not asked, or did not address, the question include ten
interviewees from the Metlakatla partnership (100 percent of total Metlakatla interviewees), six
from the ReGenesis partnership (38 percent of total ReGenesis interviewees), four from the
Bridges to Friendship partnership (25 percent of total Bridges to Friendship interviewees), three
from the New Madrid partnership (23 percent of total New Madrid interviewees), and three from
the Barrio Logan partnership (21 percent of total Barrio Logan interviewees).
CHAPTER FOUR: Partnership Involvement Approaches, Activities, and Outcomes 37
-------
Partnership Involvement Approaches, Activities, and Outcomes
Summary Findings
> Generally, partnership mechanisms for involvement have been effective at allowing
partners to be adequately involved in partnership decision-making processes.
> Generally, the partner members are making concerted efforts to listen and address
issues of concern to their partner members.
> Partnerships are implementing both partnership-building and community-focused
activities.
> Interviewees perceive their partnership activities as having a range of positive
outcomes, including the implementation of environmental protection and other efforts,
and improvements in environmental quality, public health, and economic conditions.
> A majority of interviewees addressing the topic (27 of 53) were satisfied with the
outcomes of their partnership activities so far. However, a number of interviewees
were either (1) satisfied with partner outcomes but would like to see more work done
in the affected communities, or (2) only somewhat satisfied with the outcomes of
partner activities.
Figure 6. Partnership Involvement Approaches, Activities, and Outcomes: Summary Findings
38 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
CHAPTER
Partnership Successes & Challenges
Success is working together as partners. There is equal commitment from all the
partners. No organization is treated different.
Challenge: trying to get the resources and the financial support. It is hard to use
federal and private funds together.
- Interviewee, Bridges to Friendship Partnership
[Greatest success is the] number of resources we have been able to get together to
get this done. Designating this as an EJ community allowed the community to
secure resources and work together.
[One of the greatest challenges is the] communication and coordination of all the
agencies.
- Interviewee, Metro East Lead Collaborative
This chapter takes a broad look at what interviewees have described as the greatest
successes and greatest challenges of the partnerships they are involved in. Although, on
occasion, the evaluation team takes time to highlight specific examples from certain case study
partnerships to add context to the findings, the team's primary goal is to provide the reader with
a macro-level understanding of some of the successes and challengers emerging from the
partnerships.
Partnership Successes
When asked about the greatest successes facing the development and implementation
of their respective partnerships, interviewees generated approximately 108 responses, which
fell roughly into 22 different response categories. As shown in the chart below, responses
ranged from spin-off activities generated because of the partnership to the formation/operation
of the partnership itself. The four most commonly cited responses are discussed below.
39
-------
Greatest Successes Across EJ Collaborative Partnerships
Formation/operation of partnership
Strong involvement of community/community organizations
Implementation of partnership-specific environmental protection or socio-
economic development activities
Decrease of duplicative activities
Able to more effectively perform public health and environmental protection
activities
Community empowerment
Increased ability to generate creative ideas to resolve difficult issues
Too early to tell
Improved interagency understanding
Ability to accomplish much with minimal conflict
Securing, organization, and assignment of funding
Designation/visibility gained as a result of designation as an IWG national
demonstration project
Dedication of partners
Types of partners involved
Partnership's ability to continue operating
Spin-off activities initiated because of partnership
Increase in community pride
Initiation of a team-building exercise
Federal agencies' improved understanding of community's needs
Community's improved understanding that fed agencies are concerned about
them
Community's increased understanding of a military installation
Ability to put aside disagreements outside partnership and still participate in
good faith
Numberwho
identified as greatest
success
38
14
12
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 2. Greatest Successes Across EJ Collaborative Partnerships. Note: approximately 75 interviewees provided a
total of 108 responses. An additional four were not asked or did not answer the question, including three with New
Madrid and one with Bridges to Friendship.
The most commonly referenced success, cited by 38 interviewees across five of the six
partnerships (Barrio Logan, Bridges to Friendship, Metlakatla, Metro East, and ReGenesis), was
the formation and operation of the partnerships themselves (35 percent of total response). In
two of the partnership communities (Barrio Logan and Spartanburg (ReGenesis)), tensions
between the community and other stakeholders were somewhat high before partnership
formation and clearly, simply arriving at a point where substantive dialogue could occur between
groups with often-adversarial histories was deemed very significant. Even in the other
partnership communities where tension across stakeholders was not as apparent, the act of
bringing diverse groups together to share knowledge, expertise, and resources and address
challenging issues was considered to be a very important step. The second most commonly
referenced success, cited by fourteen interviewees representing the New Madrid and
ReGenesis partnerships, was the strong involvement of community organizations and/or
residents from the affected community (13 percent of total response). This was most significant
in the ReGenesis partnership, which is driven by a single community organization that has the
strong support of almost the entire affected community.
The third most commonly noted success, cited by twelve interviewees representing three
partnerships (Bridges to Friendship, Metro East, and New Madrid), was the implementation of
partnership-specific public health, environmental protection, and/or economic development
programs (11 percent of total response). These include the successful (1) implementation of an
40 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
extensive job-training program; (2) assessment of soil contamination, and the identification of
twenty, and the cleanup of five, contaminated sites; and (3) lead testing of children. These
interviewees clearly saw the emergence of their partnerships as the reason these activities had
been undertaken. Metro East interviewees remarked that one of the partnership's greatest
successes was its ability to ensure that public health and environmental protection activities are
performed more effectively. Interviewees noted that by better understanding what each
organization could provide, the partnership organizations were able to more effectively identify
contaminated sites and children at risk from lead poisoning and more quickly initiate lead
remediation activities. The fourth most commonly referenced success, cited by nine
interviewees representing the Bridges to Friendship and Metro East partnerships, was the
reduction of duplicative activities performed by local organizations and agencies (8 percent of
total response). Interviewees from these partnerships saw the sharing of information and
strategic targeting of resources as an integral component to ensure the most efficient delivery of
services to the affected community.
Partnership Challenges
When asked about the greatest challenges facing the development and implementation
of their respective partnerships, interviewees generated approximately 111 responses, which
roughly fell into 19 different response categories. As shown in the chart below, responses
ranged from understanding what constitutes success for the affected community to agreeing to
and then implementing actions to address partnership goals. The four most commonly cited
responses are discussed below.
Numberwho
Greatest Challenges Across EJ Collaborative Partnerships identified as
greatest challenge
Maintenance and operation of the partnership 26
Implementation of partnership-specific environmental protection or socio-
economic development activities
Communication issues 14
Ensuring greater community engagement 9
Enabling specific parties to work together 6
Organizational policies/procedures that prevent implementation of partnership
activities
Trust issues 6
Agreeing to and then implementing actions to address the goals 5
Impact of 9/11 5
Insufficient community capacity 2
Partner recruitment 2
Partnership's lack of mandate or enforcement authority 2
Addressing peripheral issues, or ones that cannot be resolved in the short term 2
Understanding what constitutes success for affected community 1
Becoming accustomed to different organizational styles 1
Racial issues 1
Disparities in funding availability between parties 1
Lack of appropriate federal involvement 1
Lack of understanding regarding federal trust responsibilities 1
TableS. Greatest Challenges Across EJ Collaborative Partnerships. Note: approximately 74 interviewees provided a
total of 111 responses. An additional five were not asked or did not answer the question, including four with the New
Madrid partnership and one with Bridges to Friendship.
CHAPTER FIVE: Partnership Successes and Challenges 41
-------
The most commonly noted challenge, cited by 26 interviewees representing four of the
six partnerships (Barrio Logan, Bridges to Friendship, Metro East, and ReGenesis), centers on
maintenance and operation of the partnership (23 percent of total response). This challenge
included grappling with such day-to-day issues as coordination, ensuring continuing cooperation
amongst the different parties, maintaining partnership momentum, maintaining partnership
focus, and keeping key decision makers involved. The maintenance of the partnerships is
made difficult due to the numerous players, and some partnerships' efforts to simultaneously
address several crosscutting issues. In short, the partnerships require a certain base level of
coordination to function effectively. However, some of the partnerships struggled to maintain
adequate coordination. For instance, the ReGenesis partnership pulled together an impressive
number and array of partners to address several local issues. Despite this, however, the
partnership lacked a centralized office and day-to-day coordinator that could be easily
accessible to partners and welcome potential partners into the effort. Furthermore, lack of a
coordinator function slowed the partnership's ability to identify on paper what the partnership
goals were, who would provide support for what activities, and who specifically was participating
in the partnership. The Bridges to Friendship partnership, supported by an impressive number
and array of parties, benefited greatly from an executive director. However, instead of being
able to regularly focus on strategic planning and ensuring continued cooperation of the partners,
the executive director, lacking any paid coordinators, was required to spend significant time
performing routine partnership administrative work. Contrasting with these examples,
interviewees from the Metro East partnership voiced concerns about the coordination role being
led by a non-local official. Modifications to this partnership's operating structure, resulting in
more local coordination, have helped to address this challenge.
The second most commonly referenced challenge, cited by 20 interviewees representing
four partnerships (Barrio Logan, Metlakatla, New Madrid, and ReGenesis), centered on
implementation of partnership-specific environmental protection or socio-economic development
activities (18 percent of total response). Implementation of environmental protection or socio-
economic development activities is also cited as a success by several interviewees. The fact
that this is noted as both a success and challenge, however, is not surprising given the number
and diversity of activities the partnerships are seeking to implement. It is important to note,
however, that when interviewees cited the implementation of activities as a challenge, they did
not typically suggest that each partnership's specific problems would diminish the overall
success of their respective partnerships. More typically, interviewees' comments suggested
that although the problems were significant, they would eventually be resolved. Some of these
issues included:
Developing more effective zoning restrictions;
Persuading reluctant parties to address their contamination cleanup responsibilities;
Implementing water-related activities; and
Completing a detailed comprehensive plan for a revitalization effort.
Some of the partnership-specific challenges emerged out of difficulties within the
partnerships themselves. These included inadequate understanding across partners on ways to
implement certain action items or disagreements by partners over which issues should be
addressed. Others, however, were influenced by factors not directly associated with the
partnership. This often stemmed from the nature of the issue. For instance, a clear roadmap
for addressing a specific issue may simply not have existed at that time the partnership was
ready to begin that activity. In addition, the partnership may have simply been awaiting critical
components, such as funding or administrative support, that would then enable it to address the
issue of concern and move forward with other partnership activities.
42 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
The third most commonly noted challenge, cited by fourteen interviewees representing
four partnerships (Barrio Logan, Metlakatla, New Madrid, and ReGenesis), focused on
communication issues (13 percent of total response). Although open communication between
partners is clearly an essential ingredient to ensure the continued operation of a partnership,
several interviewees saw it as a distinct challenge, even in partnerships where the overall
satisfaction with the partnership was high. The Metlakatla partnership's effectiveness was
inhibited, partly, by insufficient communication between parties, although more recently, actions
have been taken to address this. Those working together had contrasting notions about the
overall scope of the partnership effort and weren't fully aware of each other's underlying
rationales for their different stances on issues. The New Madrid partnership, seen as a success
by interviewees today, suffered initially because of the poor quality and lack of communication
during the partnership's formation. One interviewee explained that outside partners showed
insufficient respect for community-based knowledge and failed to communicate and dialogue
with the community on the objectives of the effort. Furthermore, some ReGenesis partnership
interviewees were frustrated because of the lack of communication from the partnership
leadership regarding partnership activities. Although they felt positive about the partnership
generally, the lack of partnership-specific information communicated to them on a regular basis
left them feeling unclear about its overall direction and strength.
The fourth most commonly mentioned challenge, cited by nine interviewees representing
three partnerships (Barrio Logan, Bridges to Friendship, and Metro East), centered on ensuring
greater engagement with the affected community (eight percent of total response). Although in
every partnership, several different parties are involved, with some including several community
organizations, some partnerships have struggled to ensure that residents of the affected
communities have a genuine voice in and/or knowledge of the partnership and its associate
activities. For instance, the Metro East partnership has had only limited success in this area
despite several approaches it has used to reach out to the community in which it works. For
instance, one interviewee citing community engagement as challenge explained that people are
uncomfortable in identifying contaminated sites when the federal government is involved.
Another interviewee, representing the same partnership, explained that it has been difficult
communicating with the local residents and persuading them to take action on health risks
because the government makes them nervous. She/he added that parents are concerned that
if they take action on the health risk of concern their children will be taken away. Furthermore,
the interviewee explained that because parents cannot see immediate results from health
protection efforts for their children, they forget about the health risks.
CHAPTER FIVE: Partnership Successes and Challenges 43
-------
Partnership Successes and Challenges
Most Commonly Cited Successes
> The formation and operation of the partnerships (35 percent of total response).
> The strong involvement of community organizations and/or residents from the
affected community (13 percent of total response).
> The implementation of partnership-specific public health, environmental protection,
and/or economic development programs (11 percent of total response).
> The reduction of duplicative activities performed by local organizations and agencies
(8 percent of total response).
Most Commonly Cited Partnership Challenges
> The maintenance and operation of the partnership (23 percent of total response).
> The implementation of partnership-specific public health, environmental protection,
and/or economic development programs (18 percent of total response).
> Communication issues (13 percent of total response).
> Ensuring greater engagement with the affected community (8 percent of total
response).
Figure 7. Most Commonly Cited Partnership Successes and Challenges
44 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
CHAPTER
Key Factors Contributing to Partnership Progress and
Success
Because of EHC and EPA's leadership and personality, they have caused the
collaboration to go well. They were able to get people involved without being
accusatory.
- Interviewee, Barrio Logan Partnership
Why dialogue overall? Everyone saw good leadership in Re-Genesis, the City,
County, [South Carolina's environmental department], Rhodia, and IMC
beginning/trying to see themselves as partners. All levels of government see it.
Industry feels they can't be left out.
- Interviewee, ReGenesis Partnership
[DOD's representative] has been involved in the EJ pilot. He has been most helpful.
Very important to have a key, active, and supportive partner.
- Interviewee, Metlakatla Partnership
This chapter outlines factors contributing to the progress and success of the
partnerships reviewed. The evaluation team did not specifically ask interviewees to identify
factors that contribute to overall progress and success; rather, the evaluation team, where
appropriate, asked interviewees to identify factors contributing to certain successes and
challenges. Therefore, the following discussion of key factors is based upon (1) the findings
from the previous chapter on successes and challenges; (2) interviewees' identification of
specific factors influencing these successes and challenges; and (3) the evaluation team's
review of the six case studies. For the purposes of the following discussion, the evaluation
team presumes a successful partnership to be one that is operating as a cohesive unit, that
most of the parties involved with the partnership are satisfied with its operational procedures
and its progress, that the partnership is implementing, or on path to implement, actions focused
on achieving certain pre-set goals, and that the parties expect these actions will ultimately result
in the environmental and other quality of life improvements desired by the affected community.
As is generally the case with partnerships, they are dynamic; therefore references to the case
study partnerships made to illuminate the discussions below refer to only a single point in time
and should not be assumed to suggest the state of the partnerships today.
45
-------
Distinct Partnership Identity
EPA and EHC took the lead on inviting people
to participate and outlining what it means to be
a partner.
-Interviewee, Barrio Logan Partnership
One factor that can significantly impact partnership progress and success is the extent to
which a partnership develops a distinct partnership identity. This enables partners to better
understand what the partnership is and how they can relate with the partnership. Furthermore,
a strong partnership identify can help partners view themselves as belonging to something
uniquely separate from their organization
and make it easier to justify their
involvement to their organization's
management. A partnership's identity can
be forged by its leaders and/or by the
partners themselves. A partnership can
establish its identity by developing a
partnership name, formally inviting parties
to participate in the partnership, regularly providing and updating partnership membership lists,
publishing partnership newsletters or annual reports, collectively agreeing to goals and action
items, regularly hosting full partner meetings, regularly providing partners with meeting
summaries or highlights, and collectively implementing and monitoring partnership activities.
These actions appear straightforward. But instances in which someone clearly is not sure
whether they are members of a partnership or not, even though they desire to be part of the
partnership, indicate that a partnership identity has not been fully established, and could impede
critical additional support for partnership activities.
Existence and Strength of Leadership
A second factor that can significantly contribute to the progress and success of a
partnership is existence and strength of leadership. Leadership is most critical during a
partnership's formative stages. A partnership's existence may stem primarily from the
leadership shown by a single person or small group of individuals. However, once the
partnership forms, leaders are still critical. Leaders instill a more thoroughly defined identity
onto the partnership and instill confidence that the partnership is and will continue to operate
effectively. Moreover, a partnership without an easily recognizable leader makes it difficult for
parties to understand their overall mission and stay unified. Furthermore, leaders are able to
create linkages between people and organizations that may not necessarily be willing to
participate or understand how their participation could assist the partnership or their individual
organization. For instance, in the ReGenesis partnership, it was clear that one individual's
tireless efforts to draw people and organizations and interpersonal skills stimulated the
participation of numerous groups in the partner
effort. In the Barrio Logan partnership,
individuals representing two very different types
of organizations were able to work together and
join a diverse, and somewhat unlikely array of
over fifteen organizations to work in concert for
the affected community.
Leadership can also greatly influence the
number and diversity of partners who choose to
join and the number of activities the partnership
eventually decides to undertake. For instance, in
the ReGenesis partnership, partly due to strong
[The community organization] extended
the olive branch and said we want you
to be involved we want everyone to
benefit.
-Interviewee, ReGenesis Partnership
So many leaders involved. [It] adds
value and validity.
-Interviewee, ReGenesis Partnership
46 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
leadership, approximately 70 organizations made commitments to contribute to partnership
redevelopment efforts. The Bridges to Friendship partnership, which benefits by the leadership
of an executive director and a high level government official, has the involvement of
approximately 40 different organizations.
Leadership too strongly embedded within a single, or small group, of individuals,
however, may jeopardize the effectiveness of a partnership over a long-term period. If the
leader must leave the partnership unexpectedly, a leadership vacuum may emerge that cannot
easily be filled. Interviewees in at least two partnerships raised concerns regarding this. First,
in the Barrio Logan partnership one of the leaders officially retired from his/her organization.
Although the individual continued to participate in partnership meetings, concerns were raised
about the ability of the partnership leadership to keep organizations working effectively together.
However, the partnership's carefully crafted collaborative process, a cooperative spirit across
the partners, and the continued support of the retired individual's organization enabled the
partnership to steadily progress. In the Metro East partnership, concerns were raised that
leadership was too centralized and the partnership would stumble if a key individual stopped
participating. To overcome these concerns, other partner members enhanced their roles to
support various partnership functions. Another consequence of strong centralized leadership,
although not evident from these partnerships, may be the disengagement of some parties who
become disillusioned when partner leaders don't allow for the transfer of leadership skills to
other willing partners.
Partnership leaders should not be thought of as only those that initially bring the different
parties together or serve as the actual or nominal partnership directors. Indeed, in several of
the partnerships, as they evolved, it was evident that some individuals emerged to play critical
leadership roles, taking chances by working in areas where they were clearly unaccustomed.
Without such efforts, many of the partnerships, no matter the strength of the primary leader,
coordinator, or director, would have not experienced the same degree of success.
Diversity of Partners
Another important factor is diversity of partners. Clearly one of the unique elements of
the case study partnerships is the broad spectrum of different parties they draw together, some
of which have had, and in some instances continue to have, adversarial relations, or at the very
least were previously inexperienced at working together. Partnerships can make progress with
a relatively small number of parties cooperating, but the options for addressing community
concerns at a larger scale expand when a
wide array of parties choose to work Jhe more enfflfes have invo,ved the better
together. A robust partnership, although
more challenging to coordinate from an _,ntervi Brid to Friendship Partnership
administrative standpoint, can generate a
wider set of genuine options for
more effective sharing, and additional
leveraging of, resources and knowledge.
For instance, through the involvement and
[The key is to] get the elected representatives at
addressing community concerns and the table, the council district, the city planning
[agency], the state and city representatives-
getting these folks in and partnering.
, Barrio Logan Partnership
assistance of a broad range of partners,
the ReGenesis partnership has planned
several diverse actions to improve overall
quality of life for the affected community. These include, the cleanup of contaminated sites, the
CHAPTER SIX: Key Factors Contributing to Partnership Progress and Success 47
-------
building of a job training center, a technology center, and a public health clinic; the development
of a parkway more easily linking the neighborhoods to the main community; the construction of
a series of greenspaces and greenway trails; and the development of affordable, energy
efficient housing. The Bridges to Friendship partnership relies upon its different partners to
continually learn about additional large-scale employment opportunities to ensure that local
residents are made aware of them. Furthermore, in the Metro East and New Madrid
partnerships, in certain instances when specific partners were unable to provide resources to
aid partnership activities, they successfully turned to other partner members for support.
In addition to the identification of resources, the participation of a wide array of parties
can, but not necessarily, draw outside supporters to the partnership, such as federal, state, or
U.S. Congressional officials. Moreover, involvement of these groups may compel other parties
who have previously been hesitant to work with the affected community, to begin collaborating.
Nevertheless, complete openness may limit effective collaboration between partners. To
counter this concern, the Barrio Logan partnership carefully considered which organizations it
would extend partnership invitations to in order to better ensure that the potential partners would
be amenable to working together.
Local and/or Regional Government Involvement
The degree of local and/or regional government involvement is also a critical factor
impacting partnership progress and success. The case study partnerships are focused on
specific communities, and clearly, some form of local or regional involvement is needed for the
partnership to function. However, _^^^^^^^^^^^^^=^^^^^^^^^^^^^=
partnership progress is greatly influenced
by the degree to which local or regional
officials, representing either agencies or
elected representatives, choose to
support the partnership effort.
Substantive involvement at the local or
regional level sends a clear message to
both the affected community and external
parties that the partnership has critical
local support. In the ReGenesis
partnership, the city and county
governments, as well as city elected
officials, have played noticeable
partnership leadership roles. Although
one entity became involved initially
because of environmental liabilities
present within the affected community,
both entities participate on the
partnership's steering committee and both
exemplify a strong commitment to ensure
that the partnership efforts will meet the
needs of the affected community. In the
Bridges to Friendship partnership, after federal funds were no longer available to support the
partnership's director, the local government began funding the position. Although most
partnerships have some degree of either local or state government involvement, some
interviewees have suggested the desire to have greater local support. For instance, an
They've gotten the City, County and State to the
table, and you can't improve on that...
Interviewee, ReGenesis Partnership
Although the tribe did not instigate the EJ pilot
project they were supportive of it since the tribe
had already put together a plan about how all
the [federal agencies] fit...
-Interviewee, Metlakatla Partnership
The official group that formed the campaign
was comprised of six people from each town
and the three mayors.... The people were
appointed by the mayor. If people moved or
dropped out, the mayor reappointed [new
persons to participate]...
-Interviewee, New Madrid Partnership
48 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
interviewee with one partnership (Barrio Logan) that already has significant state level support
expressed the need for substantive participation from a critical local agency. An interviewee
with the Metro East partnership sought stronger support from local elected officials. Similarly,
an interviewee representing the Metlakatla partnership expressed the need to have greater
access to the local government to ensure local officials fully understand partner activities.
Federal Involvement
As with local and regional involvement, federal involvement has been critical to the
progress and success of the partnerships thus far. Federal involvement can bring much needed
resources to a partnership, but just as important, federal officials can bring additional broad-
scale understanding of the issues, additional coordination and leadership skills, and added
credibility for the partnership effort. In most of the partnerships reviewed, federal partners
played critical roles in initiating partnership ,^^^^^^^^^^^^=^^^^^^^^^^^^=1
activities. Today, most of these continue
to benefit from strong federal support,
primarily in the form of coordination and
leadership assistance. Federal partners
also provide funding support through their
traditional programs.
To us [the value] has been [federal agencies']
expertise, the opening of their communication
lines, making themselves available.
-Interviewee, Metro East Lead Collaborative
Federal involvement has been key to our work
here.
-Interviewee, Metlakatla Partnership
The biggest thing to make this work was the
IWG.
-Interviewee, ReGenesis Partnership
In addition to the many benefits of
federal involvement, partnership members
must also assess whether extensive
federal involvement might, over the long-
term, limit a partnership's sustainability.
In two partnerships (Barrio Logan and
Metro East) where federal involvement
was important to the partnerships'
development, concerns were raised about
the partnerships' viability if participation by
certain federal agencies' diminished. In
the New Madrid partnership, early reliance on a federal official to facilitate major partnership
meetings led to slowed progress on a few occasions when the official could not make the
meetings and community representatives did not want to proceed in the facilitator's absence.
Although determining the proper mix of federal involvement in a community-based partnership is
not easy, if indicators suggest to partnership members that discontinued participation of an
important federal partner might impede future partnership progress, partnership members
should take pro-active steps to address this. For instance, in the Metro East partnership, after
concerns about being too dependent upon EPA's regional office in Chicago, a local partner
assumed the partnership's coordination responsibilities. In addition, other members of the
partnership began to take on enhanced partnership leadership roles. In the New Madrid
partnership, to ease concerns about over-reliance on federal facilitation, the lead agency began
co-facilitating major partnership meetings with a community representative.
CHAPTER SIX: Key Factors Contributing to Partnership Progress and Success
49
-------
Community Engagement
Closely associated with the factors
of leadership, partner member diversity,
and local and federal involvement, is the
factor of community engagement.30 Ideally,
partnerships serving a community will have
the strong support of community residents.
This can enable partner members,
especially non-local partners, to feel
confident that their membership in the
effort, and more generally the overall
partnership, is meeting the needs of the
community. If no partner member belongs
to an organization that represents a broad
set of community residents, it is important
to gain the support and active involvement
of community support organizations in the
area, even if they only serve a certain
subset of the community. If this is not
achievable, concerted outreach efforts will
be needed to inform residents of
partnership activities, how they can get
involved, and where they can address any
potential concerns they may have about the
partnership. In most instances,
unequivocal broad-based community
support will probably be rare, but a
combination of community engagement
approaches can be critical for strengthening
the overall partnership and enabling both partners and residents to better understand whether
the partnership is having the desired impact in the affected community.
Communication
Not surprisingly, communication is another critical factor influencing the progress and
success of a partnership. Although
[The] community has led the way. This is kind
of nice for me, since this is not always so
often the case. They're telling us what they
want.
-Interviewee, ReGenesis Partnership
It was a total community involvement. Agency
made sure community, leaders, etc...were
totally involved in the process. Made sure
community was trained.
-Interviewee, New Madrid Partnership
Residents do not come to meetings.
Members of collaborative have events that
are out in the community. Members of the
collaborative go out and share information.
-Interviewee, Metro East Lead Collaborative
[There are] real advantages to getting people
involved in a positive way from the beginning.
-Interviewee, Barrio Logan Partnership
seemingly straightforward, its significance
cannot be overstated. An effective
partnership must allow the parties involved
to speak freely and ensure that the ideas of
the different partners will be treated with
respect and given due consideration.
Furthermore, effective partnerships must
ensure that information between partners
will be free flowing and that partners will
have open access to the information, ideas,
You can't collaborate when you're screaming
and hollering.
-Interviewee, ReGenesis Partnership
We made everything too polite and didn't
tackle the hard issues early enough in the
process.
-Interviewee, Metlakatla Peninsula Cleanup
30
Forthe purposes of this discussion the term "community" primarily refers to residents living within the boundaries of
the affected community, and secondarily, community organizations that either represent or primarily serve the
affected community.
50 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
and action items discussed at partnership meetings. The degree to which carefully crafted
communication policies are needed depend primarily upon the groups of parties working
together. If there has historically been a high level of contention between several of the
participating organizations, or if the parties have communication styles that are dissimilar, more
time spent on developing communication guidelines may be necessary. The Barrio Logan
partnership, through the assistance of a professional facilitator, spent several months
developing a plan for ensuring an atmosphere in which partners could communicate
constructively, even sponsoring a pre-session on how to work together effectively. Although
some concern was raised over the time devoted to this, the number satisfied with the
partnership effort thus far strongly suggests that such an investment to ensure effective
communication was well-worth it. In the Metlakatla partnership, a team of federal officials skilled
in alternative dispute resolution has been working with partner members to address persistent
issues of concern. In the ReGenesis partnership, two parties have been undergoing facilitated
dialogue sessions to address persistent issues of concern. The final outcome of these sessions
will influence the extent to which the overarching vision of the partnership will be achieved.
Agreed Upon Goals and Activities
The extent to which a partnership develops agreed upon goals and activities is another
important factor influencing success. Such an effort can help partners (1) understand the
potential scope of the partnership; (2) understand how they can best participate in the
partnership; (3) make more efficient use of
partner members' time and resources;
and (4) enable partners to understand
how they each individually and collectively
may impact the quality of life for the
affected community, which can, in turn,
help generate additional high level support
for an organization's involvement. As with
the factor of communication, identifying
goals and activities appears to be a
relatively straightforward process, but this
is not necessarily the case, and for some,
partners may be content in only half-
heartedly identifying goals and activities in
order to avoid conflict. The extent to
which goals and activities can be
determined relatively early can boost the
likelihood that the overall effort will be
successful.
We met and discussed how to get things
accomplished, then set goals on what we'd like
to see accomplished. From here we selected
priorities, then set specific goals.
-Interviewee, New Madrid Partnership
First, set vision. [Then] construct your
collaboration to meet that vision. Once you do
this nothing should stop you since resources
and vision are there.
-Interviewee, Bridges to Friendship Partnership
You need achievable goals to feel successful.
-Interviewee, Barrio Logan Partnership
Flexible, Overarching Vision
Although agreed upon goals and activities are critical, development of a flexible,
overarching vision describing what a partnership hopes to achieve can also influence
partnership progress and success. Clearly defined goals and activities can set a partnership
down a clear path to success. Unfortunately, after or while attempting to achieve these goals,
the partners may find that what they originally set out to do at some point proves insufficient for
generating the type of benefits needed to assist the affected community. Conversely, the
partners may come to discover that because of their initial successes, they now want to
CHAPTER SIX: Key Factors Contributing to Partnership Progress and Success
51
-------
continue partnering in order to generate even greater benefits for the affected community.
Either way, a flexible overarching vision can allow partners to more easily change or add to their
approach over time and prevent partners
This is not something we ever see ending. We
plan on keeping partnerships with the
communities open. We are here to stay and the
partnerships are part of our world.
-Interviewee, Bridges to Friendship Partnership
The foundation has to be set. Capture that
vision. Capture the different angles.
-Interviewee, ReGenesis Partnership
from expecting that once a certain goal is
achieved all of the key concerns of the
community will have been essentially
addressed. Furthermore, a flexible vision
can enable new parties to join a
partnership and make a case for how the
resources they offer can also be used to
achieve the same desired endpoints even
if the new partners' suggested activities
don't correspond exactly with the
partnership's pre-set activities.
Nevertheless, partnerships must take care
to ensure that partnerships visions are not so broad or so flexible as to prevent parties from
participating out of concern that the partnership lacks focus or achievable goals.
Administrative Structure
An administrative structure is also a critical determinant of partnership effectiveness.
Partnerships, like motorized equipment, must be well maintained in order for them to function
properly. Partnerships certainly need leaders, but they also need persons to assist in the
everyday tasks of identifying, reserving,
and preparing meeting space, preparing
and distributing agendas, developing
meetings summaries or highlights,
updating mailing lists, contacting people in
preparation for meetings, and responding
to requests for information about the
partnership by potential partners or other
interested parties. Many of these
activities must also be replicated at
partnership subcommittee levels
depending upon the partnership's overall
scope. Such requirements can take a
significant amount of time and money.
Some case study partnerships had persons that primarily performed coordinator functions. For
others, however, it was not always clear who primarily was in charge of the coordination role.
Although different approaches are available, it's clear that the extent to which a partnership has
a group dedicated to performing coordination tasks, whether it be through paid staff or
volunteers, the more focused a partnership can be on its primary focus areas.
Implementation of Environmental and Public Health Protection or
Socio-economic Development Activities
A partnership's progress and success is also influenced by the degree of its
implementation of environmental and public health protection or socio-economic development
activities in the affected community. Partnerships in early stages may not be ready to
implement such efforts and clearly, actions to enhance quality of life issues in the affected
[Our biggest challenge has been] figuring out
how to pay for that administrative core.
-Interviewee, Bridges to Friendship Partnership
It's overwhelming when people from so many
agencies [are involved]... and everyone has
something to say.... [We need] some way of re-
cap to tell what we just heard.
-Interviewee, ReGenesis Partnership
52
An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
You need to show a change in the community.
[You] need some permanent change to keep
the community involved and interested.
-Interviewee, Barrio Logan Partnership
community should not be taken without proper consideration. Nevertheless parties in
environmental justice partnerships are often interested in action within a short timeframe. To
the extent that even small partnership-related activities can be conducted at relatively early
stages of the partnership, this should: (1)
help partners understand and learn how
they can best implement activities as a
partnership; (2) build momentum within
the partnership; (3) serve as a catalyst for
larger-scale efforts at a later stage; and
(4) better pave the way for overall
partnership success. In the Barrio Logan
partnership where goals were carefully defined up-front, some interviewees expressed
frustration at not yet taking action. The Metro East partnership, buoyed by successes at the
early stages of its efforts, expanded its goals to address larger-scale issues after experiencing
some initial successes. The complexity of the issues and the stakeholder relationships
undoubtedly limit the pace at which activities can be implemented, but partner desires for action
should be carefully weighed against the timeframe the partnership sets to begin activity
implementation.
Development and Use of an Evaluation Framework
A final factor influencing success is the extent to which a partnership develops and uses
an evaluation framework beginning and throughout the stages of a partnership. The New
Madrid partnership, through contractor
assistance developed a framework and
used evaluative tools for measuring and
assessing performance and success. In
addition, the Bridges to Friendship
partnership initiated several efforts to
monitor and evaluate the Partnership to
help partners determine success of its
activities. However, these efforts were
unsuccessful due to Bridges to
Friendship's severe limitations on the
administrative resources of the partners
and the partnership as a whole. Most
interviewees representing partnerships
that lack evaluation frameworks feel strongly that their partnerships are moving in a successful
direction. Nevertheless, an evaluation framework developed alongside a partnership's goals
and activities can enable the partnership to better specify what they realistically expect to
achieve and what precisely they need to do to achieve these goals. Furthermore, once the
partnership begins implementation, they can help partners and outside supporters better
understand what the partnership is and is not achieving and what may be contributing to these
outcomes. Although, such an effort may initially seem burdensome, it should bear fruit later on
as parties can better understand whether their efforts are having the intended effects, more
easily make mid-course corrections, better make the case for additional support, and more
confidently set the stage for larger-scale efforts.
/ don't think they've come up with a definable
set of measures, but we need to develop this. It
needs to be on the agenda.
-Interviewee, ReGenesis Partnership
The meaningful discussion on measurement will
be when we get the initiatives laid out. How
should we measure it?
-Interviewee, Barrio Logan Partnership
CHAPTER SIX: Key Factors Contributing to Partnership Progress and Success
53
-------
Key Factors Influencing Partnership Progress and Success
> Distinct partnership identity
> Existence and strength of leadership
> Diversity of partners
> Local and/or regional government involvement
> Federal involvement
> Community engagement
> Agreed upon goals and activities
> Administrative structure
> Implementation of environmental and public health protection or socio-economic
development activities
> Flexible, overarching vision
> Development and use of an evaluation framework
Figure 8. Key Factors Influencing Partnership Progress and Success: Summary Findings
54 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
CHAPTER
Organizational Styles, Policies, and Procedures Influencing
Progress and Success
It's hard for me to say that [barriers have been] broken down. There is willingness to
work together, but that doesn't mean barriers are broken.
- Interviewee, Barrio Logan Partnership
The reason why organizational styles make things difficult is the same reason why
organizations are joining the collaborative.
- Interviewee, Bridges to Friendship Partnership
[We get] different reactions [from the] different agencies that we work with. They
aren't always exactly aware of what another is doing.
- Interviewee, Metlakatla Partnership
For us as a partner agency, conflicting, existing ethics rules and statutes may limit
our abilities to play as effective partners.
- Interviewee, ReGenesis Partnership
In addition to understanding specific factors contributing to progress and success in
collaborative partnerships used to address environmental justice issues, the evaluation team
was also interested in learning whether the styles, policies, and procedures of the different
organizations impacted the progress and success of the partnerships reviewed. Disagreements
are expected when numerous, often competing, parties begin to work together, form
agreements, and implement activities. The evaluation team's intent, however, behind
examining whether organizational styles influenced progress, was not to suggest that absence
of conflictual styles was positive, and presence was negative. Rather, the intent was to
understand to what level different styles impacted progress and success, and to learn what
those more general and specific barriers were that appeared to cause at least some undesired
effect on partnership progress.
Interviewees were decidedly mixed regarding whether the different organizational styles
have, indeed, impacted progress and success. Of the interviewees addressing the question
(57), roughly half of the interviewees indicated that the different styles had impeded progress,
55
-------
while the other half indicated that styles had not. Across three partnerships (Barrio Logan,
Bridges to Friendship, and ReGenesis) interviewee responses roughly followed this same
pattern. Across two partnerships (Metlakatla and New Madrid) interviewees indicated that
organizational styles had impeded progress, while interviewees with the Metro East partnership
indicated that organizational styles had not. The key finding, however, was that no
organizational styles, policies, and procedures were identified that interviewees expressed
would irreversibly harm the functioning of the partnerships. Nevertheless, interviewees did
identify some organizational styles that had or continue to have an undesired effect on
participation in partnerships and implementation of some partnership activities. Another
important lesson from the data analysis is that organizational barriers to collaboration exist not
only between organizations but within them as well.
Despite mixed signals from interviewees regarding the effect of the differing
organizational styles, that interviewees perceived challenges stemming from the differences
should come as no surprise. In fact, several interviewees remarked that it was partly because
of differing organizational styles and procedures that organizations chose to work together in
formal collaboration. For instance, in the Metro East partnership several interviewees remarked
that the nature of a collaborative process is to overcome procedural restrictions. As an
example, one federal partner in the Metro East partnership lacked jurisdiction to test the blood
lead levels of children. In response, two local partners took steps in concert to ensure that the
testing would proceed. Similarly, in the New Madrid partnership, once it was discovered that
one federal partner could not legally purchase equipment necessary to implement a certain
partnership activity, another federal partner stepped in to complete the purchase.
Nevertheless, differing organizational styles, policies, and procedures that act as barriers
to effective collaboration do exist. Furthermore, it is important to recognize that for every group
of stakeholders that was able to come together and work as a collective unit for the affected
community, there are groups that were never able to overcome different organizational styles to
the extent where they could consider themselves to be a genuine partnership. As different
groups continue to formally collaborate in the future to address environmental justice issues in
distressed communities, additional collaborative barriers will likely be identified. Types of
barriers noted by interviewees are described in the following figure and then discussed in more
detail below.
56 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
Organizational Styles, Policies, and Procedures
Limiting Effective Collaboration in EJ Collaborative Partnerships
Internal policies (e.g., inability of a federal agency to fund certain partnership work,
inability of a federal agency to sit on a non-profit board, inability of federal agency to
formally support a partnership activity not directly related to agency mission,
purchasing limitations, partnership activity implementation limitations, office protocol)
Lack of internal organizational support
Resource disparity across participating organizations (e.g., inability of affected
community to fully manage partnership demands)
Competing organizational styles (e.g., inclusive versus top-down style decision
making, regulatory-based versus technical assistance-based approaches to
assistance, agency-driven versus locally-driven approaches to assistance)
Competing organizational policies (different agency policies for addressing an
environmental issue)
Inconsistent intra-organizational procedures
Historically adverse relationships
Conflicts of interest (e.g., partner member sits on two or more different boards of
organizations belonging to a single partnership)
Figure 9. Organizational Styles, Policies, and Procedures Limiting Effective Collaborative in EJ Collaborative
Partnerships
In most partnerships, examples were found where agencies were prevented from
engaging in certain partnership activities or supporting a partnership in a certain way because of
internal policies. For instance, in the Bridges to Friendship partnership, several interviewees
were concerned that the participating federal agencies could neither legally finance an executive
director position nor provide contractual support for the partnership. In addition, interviewees
representing the same partnership expressed concern over a federal restriction that prohibits
federal employees from participating on a non-profit organization's executive board.
Furthermore, one interviewee with the Bridges to Friendship partnership cited concerns that a
federal agency was not able to provide a grant to a non-profit partner because of statutory
restrictions. Related to funding, in the Metlakatla partnership, federal restrictions on local hiring
limited the extent to which the federal agencies could fully support an important goal for the
affected community.
Similarly, in the ReGenesis partnership, an interviewee explained that agency rules
prevented him/her from developing a formal letter directly endorsing the partnership.
Interviewees, representing the Metlakatla and ReGenesis partnerships already referenced, also
expressed that travel restrictions had prevented them from participating as effectively in
partnership activities. Also related to internal policies, traditional agency protocol can also
impede partnership progress. For instance, in the Bridges to Friendship partnership, disputes
arose over how one critical agency should best participate. Official agency protocol dictated
CHAPTER SEVEN: Organizational Styles, Policies, and Procedures Influencing Progress and Success 57
-------
that regional agency staff should participate on a regular basis, however, closer proximity of
headquarters staff to the affected community called this protocol into question.
Directly related to internal policies, lack of internal support can also cause difficulties for
some organizations seeking to participate effectively in partnerships. For instance, an
interviewee with the ReGenesis partnership explained that federal representatives often don't
participate more constructively because it is not always clear how their participation will directly
relate to their agency's mission. Similarly, if a partnership is not given a high status within a
participating organization, management may not make available the necessary funding for
travel, potentially limiting the full effectiveness of partnership meetings. Resource disparities
across organizations can also impede partnership progress. For instance, in the Metlakatla
partnership, some organizations had difficulties advancing partnership goals, in part, because
the affected community did not have the workforce necessary to consistently provide feedback
needed to address partnership concerns.
Competing organizational approaches can also act as impediments to partnership
success. For instance, the New Madrid partnership struggled at times because the two key
federal partners actively involved had very different styles. One agency had a history of
technical assistance, while another had a history of regulatory enforcement, which shaped each
agency's approach to community-assistance. Furthermore, the former had traditionally
encouraged a "locally-led process" for community-based projects it was involved in, while the
latter had tended to play a more "hands-on" role in similar type efforts. Competing
organizational policies can also prove challenging for a partnership to overcome. For instance,
the Metlakatla partnership is still struggling to overcome the often-conflicting requirements of
several federal agencies' policies regarding contaminated site cleanup. In addition, inconsistent
intra-organizational procedures may also stall partnership progress. In this instance, an
interviewee with the ReGenesis partnership explained that different requirements within an
organization regarding the development of a grant for a central partnership redevelopment
activity hindered his/her ability to properly develop it.
Although not driven by a single policy or procedure, historically adverse relationships
may also contribute to the inability of partnership organizations to participate effectively. For
instance, in the Bridges to Friendship partnership, historically strained relations between federal
government and local government officials, two critical components to the partnership effort, had
made it difficult for them to work together, according to one interviewee. Conflicts of interest
may also cause difficulty for a partnership. For instance, one interviewee with the New Madrid
partnership explained that problems arose when one partner was active on two different boards
of organizations that both belonged to the New Madrid partnership.
Current and new collaborative partnerships that address environmental justice issues
will certainly face some of these same challenges described above in the future. The key for
these efforts will be the approaches the partners take to understand these challenges, prevent
them, solve them, and/or work around them. In several of the instances described above, the
partnerships were able to work through the challenges using a variety of means. For example,
in the instance of the two competing styles of the two federal agencies, differences were partly
resolved through communication, setting ground rules, the close involvement of a regional
planning organization, and good faith efforts to address each other's concerns. In the instance
mentioned above where the agency interviewee could not submit a letter from his/her agency
formally supporting the agency, the interviewee spent time talking to his/her ethics official about
options for showing support without violating any ethics rules. The conversation was critical
because the organization had not previously been in a position where it needed to support a
58 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
collaborative partnership in such a formal manner and the ethics official was not at first clear
how, or if, such a show of formal support could be done. In addition, regarding the Barrio Logan
partnership, when asked about organizational barriers inhibiting partnership progress, instead of
citing organizational barriers, most interviewees expressed support for either the partnership
facilitator, or the formal partnership agreement, developed in conjunction with the facilitator and
the two organizations that founded the partnership, to help guide collaboration between
partners. This suggests that a well-structured process for collaboration can help partners
transcend many of the organizational barriers that could limit a partnership's progress and
success.
Organizational Styles, Policies, and Procedures Influencing Progress and Success
Summary Findings
> Roughly half of the interviewees indicated that the different styles had impeded
progress, while the other half indicated that styles had not
> Interviewees did not identify any organizational styles, policies, or procedures that
would irreversibly harm the functioning of the partnerships.
> Organizational barriers to collaboration exist not only between organizations but within
them as well.
> Some types of organizational barriers impacting partnership progress include internal
policies, lack of internal support, resource disparity across participating organizations,
and competing organizational styles.
> At the initial stages of a partnership, a well-structured process for collaboration can help
partners transcend many of the organizational barriers that could limit a partnership's
progress and success.
Figure 10. Organizational Styles, Policies, and Procedures Influencing Progress and Success: Summary Findings
CHAPTER SEVEN: Organizational Styles, Policies, and Procedures Influencing Progress and Success 59
-------
CHAPTER
The Value of Collaborative Partnerships to Address EJ
Issues
The value is we've set the stage and foundation of synergizing for addressing the
community issues. [The partnership] is in a position to affect some changes with the
city or city council that will have some long-range impacts in the community.
- Interviewee, Barrio Logan Partnership
[This project] is very innovative...This project has put the people in touch with the
heads of agencies. It is very good at cutting through the normal bureaucracy,
hierarchy. People that are interested in participating are in touch with "power
brokers" in the federal agencies.
- Interviewee, Bridges to Friendship Partnership
[Participation in the collaborative effort] makes it easier for the Tribe. It is like "one-
stop shopping." There is no need to "have it out" with individual federal agencies. It
saves everyone time and facilitates the overall cleanup.
- Interviewee, Metlakatla Partnership
The value has been different agencies getting together being able to partner and
plan different events. You get to...come together and learn what others have been
able to do.
- Interviewee, Metro East Lead Collaborative
[Participation in the collaborative effort] widened horizons in identifying issues and
problems facing the community. [It] provides support and resources for working with
and dealing with problems.
- Interviewee, New Madrid Partnership
In this chapter responses to three questions are reviewed. What is the value of using
multi-stakeholder collaborative approaches to address environmental justice issues? To what
extent would the issues facing the affected communities have been addressed without use of a
collaborative approach? And to what extent can the collaborative processes be used again in
60
-------
the affected communities to address environmental justice issues that may arise in the future?
Results are based directly on interviewee responses to these three questions.
Value of Collaborative Approaches to Address EJ Issues
When asked about the value of using collaborative approaches, interviewees generated
approximately 80 responses, which fell roughly into 20 different response categories. As shown
in the table below, these range from better equalizing power relations between organizations
seeking to assist affected communities to improved sharing of information, which stands out as
the most commonly cited response (identified by 21 different interviewees). The four most
commonly cited responses are discussed below.
Value of Collaborative Approaches to Address EJ Issues . JNu"1rbeJr wh°
identified value
Improved sharing of information/resources/expertise 21
Efficiencies gained (e.g., reduction in duplication of services) 14
Securing, or potential leveraging, of additional resources 9
Better understand needs of affected community 7
Organizational empowerment 5
Provides greater opportunity for community development 4
Better equalizes power relations 3
Provides greater opportunity for community involvement 3
More effective outreach to community 2
Environmental and other improvements 2
Breakdown of negative stereotypes surrounding small businesses 1
Process too slow 1
Encourages more groups to participate 1
Encourages organizations to engage in additional community involvement .
activities
Allows organizations to see "connectivity" across issues 1
Greater diversity of experience from which to draw from 1
Fosters better understanding of involvement 1
Valuable approach for non-traditional communities 1
Greater appreciation by local community that federal government is addressing its .
responsibilities
Good vessel for environmental justice 1
Table 4. Value of Collaborative Approaches to Address EJ Issues. Note: approximately 66 interviewees provided a
total of 80 responses. Interviewees occasionally provided more than one response. An additional thirteen were not
asked or did not answer the question, including five with the New Madrid partnership, four with ReGenesis, three with
Metlakatla, and one with Bridges to Friendship.
The most frequently cited response regarding the value of collaborative approaches,
identified by 21 interviewees representing five of the six partnerships (Barrio Logan, Bridges to
Friendship, Metlakatla, New Madrid, and ReGenesis), focused on improved sharing of
information, resources, and/or expertise (26 percent of total response). According to the
responses, the sharing of information, resources, and/or expertise can produce several benefits
for the affected community and the partners involved. First, the sharing of information can
improve understanding between the different organizations participating in a partnership. For
instance, whereas previously organizations may have limited interactions with others groups or
the community, working collaboratively enables the different organizations, particularly public
agencies, to see where each stands on different issues. This can then further enable the
different organizations to more fully understand what each organization can and cannot do, and
their areas of expertise and limitations. Similarly, by better understanding the different
CHAPTER EIGHT: The Value of Collaborative Partnerships to Address EJ Issues 61
-------
organizations, partners can engage in more effective planning to assist the affected community.
One interviewee with the Barrio Logan partnership remarked that two state and local agencies
working on a problem seemed to be natural allies, and participating in the collaborative effort
enables them to see how they can work together. Furthermore, by the sharing of information
and pooling of resources, partners can expand their options in case a key partner cannot
provide the necessary resources. For instance, in the New Madrid partnership one agency was
legally prohibited from purchasing equipment to help implement partnership activities. To
alleviate this, the partnership simply turned to another partner member for which the activity
directly fit the organization's mission and obtained the needed support. Finally, by sharing
information, partners can begin to address multiple stages of a problem, and not be limited to
the primary focus areas of a few organizations.
The second most commonly cited response regarding value of collaborative approaches
to address environmental justice issues, cited by fourteen interviewees once again representing
five of the six partnerships (Barrio Logan, Bridges to Friendship, Metlakatla, Metro East, and
ReGenesis), revolved around the efficiencies gained through collaboration (18 percent of total
response). Although this response is closely related with the sharing of information, the number
providing responses directly associated with increased efficiencies merited a separate
discussion. According to interviewees, collaborating can limit redundancy of services and
resources specified for the affected community resulting in more effective service delivery and
cost savings. By collaborating, two agencies involved in the Metlakatla partnership effort saved
approximately $750,000 between 1999 and 2001. According to another interviewee involved
with this same effort, the biggest savings, however, will be for the affected community, who, by
partnering, will greatly reduce its overall transaction costs needed to communicate with several
different outside organizations. In the Metro East partnership, interviewees remarked that
partnering has enabled them to more effectively organize their resources and better pinpoint
how each can contribute to solving a large and complex problem facing the affected community,
instead of each facing the challenge on their own.
The third most commonly referenced response, cited by nine interviewees representing
three of the six partnerships (Barrio Logan, New Madrid, and ReGenesis), centered on the
securing and leveraging of additional resources (11 percent of total response). Although similar
to the sharing of information, resources, and expertise, this is a distinct value of collaborating.
By working together, partners can more easily identify a wider range of options for additional
resources beyond the sources accompanying the immediate partner organizations. One
interviewee with the Barrio Logan partnership remarked that if the partnership she/he was
associated with could focus their energies they could lever the partnership to secure additional
resources. Moreover, collaboration across parties can also result in additional parties wishing to
participate and/or contribute resources to the effort. Witnessing effective cooperation across
several different, and sometimes competing, groups, other parties may be more willing to
participate than they would if only a limited set of organizations were working on the issue.
The fourth most commonly mentioned response regarding the value of collaborative
approaches, cited by seven interviewees once again representing three of the six partnerships,
(Barrio Logan, Bridges to Friendship, and New Madrid) revolved around better understanding
the needs of the affected community (nine percent of total response). In several of the
collaborative efforts, major partnership meetings are held in or near the affected community the
partnership seeks to assist. This generally requires non-local partners to physically come to the
affected community, in some cases commuting several hours to attend the meetings. This act,
according to some interviewees, enables these partners to better understand the needs and
residents of the community. In addition, the partnerships, because of their inclusiveness, can
62 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
result in forums that make it easier for the affected community to voice its concerns. One
partnership (Bridges to Friendship), focused on ensuring that local residents benefit fully from
local revitalization efforts, is sponsoring a series of public dialogues to provide those in the
community, as well as other organizational representatives, the opportunity to speak candidly
about local concerns regarding a sensitive subject.
Addressing Issues Without Use of a Collaborative Approach
Interviewees were also asked whether the issues affecting their community would have
been addressed if a collaborative approach had not been used in the affected communities.
Without control populations, it is difficult to know with a high degree of certainty whether the
issues genuinely would or would not have been addressed. Interviewees' responses do,
however, provide a clearer understanding of the level of value the partners place upon
collaborative efforts. A total of 66 interviewees addressed this question. Responses were
sorted into six response categories: yes, not to the same extent if at all, not without a court
order, unclear, yes but would have taken longer, and yes. In addition, some interviewees were
either not asked the question or did not address the question when asked. Responses are
provided in the chart, and then discussed in more detail below.
Would the Issues Facing the Affected Communities Been Addressed
Without Use of a Collaborative Approach?
Not to same extent Not without court
if at all order
Unclear
Yes, but would
have taken longer
Yes
Question not
asked / addressed
Chart 7. Addressing Issues Without Use of Collaborative Approach. Note: approximately 66 interviewees addressed
this question. An additional thirteen were not asked or did not answer the question, including five with the New Madrid
partnership, four with Barrio Logan, two with ReGenesis, one with Bridges to Friendship, and one with Metlakatla.
Of those interviewees asked, twenty percent (13 of 66) said unequivocally no, the issues
would not have been addressed, while six percent (4 of 66) said unequivocally yes, the issues
would have been addressed. Fifty-nine percent (39 of 66), however, remarked that the issues
would not have been addressed to the same extent if at all, and two percent (1 of 66) indicated
CHAPTER EIGHT: The Value of Collaborative Partnerships to Address EJ Issues
63
-------
that the issues would not have been addressed without a court order. Twelve percent (8 of 66)
were unclear, and two percent (1 of 66) indicated that the issues would have been addressed
but it would have taken longer to address them. Across four of the six partnerships (Bridges to
Friendship, Metro East, New Madrid, and ReGenesis), far more interviewees indicated that that
either the issues would not have been addressed, or would not have been addressed to the
same extent if at all, than those providing other responses. For the remaining two partnerships,
in one (Barrio Logan), the same number that indicated the issues would not have been
addressed, or not to the same extent if at all, also indicated they were either unclear whether
the issues would have been addressed, or that, in fact, the issues would have been addressed.
In the second (Metlakatla), only slightly more interviewees indicated that the issues either would
not have been addressed, or not to the same extent if at all, than the interviewees indicating
they were unclear, or that the issues would have only been addressed through issue of a court
order.
Most of interviewees see use of collaborative approaches in their community as critical
for addressing environmental justice issues in the communities in which they work. Without use
of such approach, interviewees cited several concerns that could emerge. For instance,
approaches to address the issues would be too fragmented or inconsistent to result in the
appropriate outcomes. Deleterious disputes would arise over organizations' competing over the
allocation of resources. Some parties may have ended up arguing over the issues in court.
Environmental protection or public health-related efforts would not have received as much
support from the affected community nor would results have been as satisfactory. Furthermore,
these efforts would not have been as effective or as extensive. Finally, some critical parties
may have simply chosen not to become involved with the effort. For example, one interviewee
associated with the Metlakatla partnership explained that without use of a collaborative
approach, one federal agency would not have been as extensively involved in the partnership,
and another may have avoided working with the community until later in the future. She/he
further explained that, without use of a collaborative approach, the agency would have failed to
take advantage of local community knowledge and avoided hiring local residents to assist in the
environmental protection effort.
For those indicating yes, the issues would have been addressed even without a
collaborative approach, a set of interviewees with Bridges to Friendship explained that, in their
community, residents were already empowered and many issues were already being
addressed. An interviewee with the Barrio Logan partnership explained that different agencies
would address the different issues, while another Barrio Logan interviewee remarked that the
issues would be dealt with through a piecemeal approach. For most of those indicating that it
was unclear whether the issues would be addressed without use of a collaborative approach,
interviewees explained that it was simply difficult to tell. One interviewee with the Metro East
partnership explained that it is impossible to know how much these organizations would have
accomplished separately. More ambiguously, an interviewee with the Metlakatla partnership
explained that every once in a while his/her agency has thoughts about withdrawing from the
partnership, but then, according to the interviewee "reality hits home." The thirteen interviewees
that either were not asked, or did not address, the question, include five from the New Madrid
partnership (38 percent of total New Madrid interviewees), four from the Barrio Logan
partnership (29 percent of total Barrio Logan interviewees), two from the ReGenesis partnership
(13 percent of total ReGenesis interviewees), one from the Bridges to Friendship partnership (6
percent of total Bridges to Friendship interviewees), and one from the Metlakatla partnership (10
percent of total Metlakatla interviewees).
64 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
Using Collaborative Processes to Address Similar Issues Facing the
Affected Communities in the Future
Interviewees were also asked the extent to which collaborative processes used in their
partnerships could be used again to address similar issues that the affected community may
face in the future. A total of 64 interviewees addressed this question. Interviewee responses
were sorted into four response categories: yes, yes but with qualifications, no, and don't know.
In addition, some interviewees were either not asked the question or did not address the
question when asked. Responses are provided in the chart, and then discussed more below.
Can Collaborative Processes Be Used by the Affected Community to
Address Similar Issues in the Future?
Yes
Yes, but with
qualifications
Don't Know
Question not asked
/ addressed
Chart 8. Using Collaborative Processes to Address Issues Facing the Affected Community in the Future. Note:
approximately 64 interviewees addressed this question. An additional fifteen were not asked or did not answer the
question, four with the Metlakatla partnership, four with New Madrid, three with ReGenesis, two with Bridges to
Friendship, and two with Metro East.
Of those addressing the question, 66 percent of interviewees (42 out of 64) remarked
that the collaborative processes could be used again by the affected communities to address
similar issues in the future. Nineteen percent (12 of 64) indicated these processes could be
used again, if certain issues were addressed. Six percent (4 of 64) remarked that they couldn't
be used, and nine percent (6 of 64) indicated that they did not know. Across four of the six
partnerships (Bridges to Friendship, Metro East, New Madrid, and ReGenesis), those indicating
that the process could be used again, or used again with qualifications, greatly outnumbered
those indicating that the process could not be used again, or that they didn't know. For the
Barrio Logan partnership, those indicating that process could be used again, or used again with
qualifications, only moderately outnumbered those indicating that the process either could not
be used again, or that they didn't know. In the Metlakatla partnership, those indicating that the
process could be used again, or used again with qualifications only slightly outnumbered the
others indicating otherwise.
CHAPTER EIGHT: The Value of Collaborative Partnerships to Address EJ Issues
65
-------
For those indicating yes, similar collaborative processes could be used again,
interviewees from the Bridges to Friendship partnership remarked that this type of collaboration
is the new way government should do business. One of these interviewees explained that the
"collaborative [approach] is the only way to overcome classic bureaucratic barriers blocking
good things from happening." Interviewees also explained how they and others are already
using or planning to use similar collaborative processes to address other issues. For instance,
interviewees from the Metro East partnership explained that they had recently been strategizing
how to apply the same approach they were currently using to address issues associated with
asthma. Other interviewees, representing the same partnership, explained that the
collaborative approach was already serving as the framework to address similar issues in
another nearby community. An interviewee with the ReGenesis partnership expressed
enthusiasm that this approach could be effective for communities facing Brownfields
redevelopment issues.
In addition, a number of interviewees felt that similar collaborative processes would only
be helpful if certain conditions were available, such as strong leadership, particularly local
leadership, participation of the appropriate people, and evidence that the existing processes
produce results. Related, an interviewee with the Bridges to Friendship partnership remarked
that the collaborative approach is still untested. For the four interviewees remarking that the
collaborative approach could not be used again concerns centered on challenges with existing
partnerships, including over-dependence upon a few key leaders, over-dependence on federal
assistance, and inability for partners to break out of "bureaucratically-trained" mindsets. The
fifteen interviewees that were not asked, or did not address, the question, include four from the
Metlakatla partnership (40 percent of the total Metlakatla interviewees), four from the New
Madrid partnership (31 percent of total New Madrid interviewees), three from the ReGenesis
partnership (19 percent of total ReGenesis interviewees), two from the Bridges to Friendship
partnership (13 percent of total Bridges to Friendship interviewees), and two from the Metro
East partnership (20 percent of total Metro East interviewees).
66 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
The Value of Collaborative Partnerships to Address EJ Issues
Summary Findings
> EJ collaborative approaches add value by:
- improving the sharing of information, resources, and/or expertise between
organizations (26 percent of total response);
creating efficiencies (18 percent of total response);
securing and leveraging of additional resources (11 percent of total response); and
- helping organizations better understand the needs of the affected community (9
percent of total response).
> Of those addressing the question, nearly 80 percent of interviewees (52 of 66) indicated
that the issues facing the affected communities either would not have been addressed, or
would not have been addressed to the same extent, if at all, without use of this approach.
> Of those addressing the question, 66 percent of interviewees (42 out of 64) remarked that
the collaborative processes could be used again by the affected communities to address
similar issues in the future.
> Of those addressing the question, 19 percent (12 of 64) indicated that collaborative
processes could only be used again if certain conditions were available, such as strong
leadership - particularly local leadership, participation of the appropriate people, and
evidence that the existing processes produce results.
Figure 11. The Value of Collaborative Partnerships to Address EJ Issues: Summary Findings
CHAPTER EIGHT: The Value of Collaborative Partnerships to Address EJ Issues 67
-------
CHAPTER
Federal Involvement in EJ Collaborative Partnerships
Most federal agencies are looking to say, "We are partnering." They want to be part
of coalitions, joint efforts, leveraging resources, making communities aware of how to
apply for resources. Clearly they want to be a part of things like this if they have staff
time to do it.
- Interviewee, Barrio Logan Partnership
[Federal involvement has had a] fantastic effect. The Navy started the collaborative.
This was the crucial piece that enabled change and excited community based
organizations.
- Interviewee, Bridges to Friendship Partnership
[Participation in the collaborative efforts] has helped [federal agencies] to be more
community based. They have formed relationships with the private sector. They have
gotten out and seen the community. It informs their work with hands on experience.
They see who is benefiting from their mandates.
- Interviewee, Bridges to Friendship Partnership
Having federal agencies involved gave participants confidence that someone else
knows what we're doing; and if we need more resources we know where to go
- Interviewee, New Madrid Partnership
In the first set of partnerships highlighted by the Interagency Working Group on
Environmental Justice (IWG) as national demonstration projects, federal agencies played
important roles in helping partnerships meet their goals. Furthermore, an overarching goal of
the IWG is to enable federal agencies to be more effective players in locally based problem-
solving efforts centered on issues of environmental justice. Therefore, in this chapter the
evaluation team examines four questions. What is the value of federal involvement in
environmental justice (EJ) collaborative partnerships for affected communities? What is the
value of participating in collaborative partnerships for federal agencies? To what extent has
participating in collaborative partnerships improved federal agencies' abilities to coordinate
across agencies? And finally, how should federal agencies tailor their roles in order to best
68
-------
participate in collaborative approaches to address environmental justice issues? Results are
based directly on interviewee responses to these four questions.
Value of Federal Involvement in EJ Collaborative Partnerships for
Affected Communities
When asked about the value of federal involvement in EJ collaborative partnerships for
affected communities, interviewees provided roughly 73 different responses, which fell roughly
in 16 different response categories. As shown in the chart below, these range from better
ensuring that money is not misspent to bringing credibility, trust, and legitimacy to the
partnership. The two most commonly cited responses are discussed more below.
Value of Federal Involvement in EJ Collaborative Partnerships for Affected Number who
Communities identified value
Provide or enhance credibility/legitimacy/trust 26
Provide resources and/or expertise 25
Results in greater information sharing between partners 3
Key reason for partnership creation 2
Fosters more holistic approach to problem solving 2
Better access to decision makers 2
Improves community understanding of environmental issues 2
Boosts community enthusiasm 2
Strong interpersonal skills of specific federal employees 2
Brings attention to specific activities which should take place 1
Work accomplished at a more rapid pace 1
Enhances community's appreciation for federal regulators 1
Increases community's organizational capacity 1
Project has larger impact 1
Boosts image of affected community 1
Essential for bringing industry on board 1
Table 5. Value of Federal Involvement in EJ Collaborative Partnerships for Affected Communities. Note:
approximately 60 interviewees provided a total of 73 responses. Interviewees occasionally provided more than one
response. An additional nineteen interviewees were not asked or did not answer the question, including six with the
New Madrid partnership, five with Metlakatla, three with Bridges to Friendship, three with ReGenesis, and two with
Metro East.
The first most frequently noted response, cited by 26 interviewees representing five of
the six partnerships (Barrio Logan, Bridges to Friendship, Metro East, New Madrid, and
ReGenesis), centered on providing or enhancing the credibility, legitimacy, and/or trust
surrounding a partnership effort (36 percent of total response). Federal involvement can
validate that community member concerns are real, including concerns regarding environmental
justice. Local officials may not appreciate the magnitude of local environmental and public
health concerns without additional outside perspective. Second, federal involvement can
enhance confidence of local partners seeking to address their concerns that they are, indeed,
using the best remedies for addressing them. For instance, one interviewee with the New
Madrid partnership remarked that without external assurance from federal agencies,
communities could feel nervous about addressing environmental issues for fear of opening up a
"Pandora's box." With federal involvement, however, she/he noted that communities feel
confident they can move forward. Third, federal participation can encourage regional and local
officials to reassess whether they should consider becoming involved. By participating, federal
agencies can tip the balance in favor of local and regional participation if the local officials
perceive that their own non-participation will result in negative attention or that federal
CHAPTER NINE: Federal Involvement in EJ Collaborative Partnerships 69
-------
involvement gives greater political support to participate than before. In addition, federal
participation can bring additional accountability to the partnership. An interviewee with the
Barrio Logan partnership explained that federal involvement indirectly encourages local
agencies to be more accountable to the effort. Another interviewee with the ReGenesis
partnership explained that federal involvement better ensures that partnership resources will not
be misspent. Related, she/he explained that federal participation has enabled the partnership to
earn the trust of banks near the affected area.
The second most frequently mentioned response regarding the value of federal
involvement, identified by interviewees representing six of the six partnerships, focused on
providing resources and/or expertise (34 percent of total response). Interviewees, in particular,
cited the sharing of information and support through funding by federal officials as critical.
Sharing of information also includes sharing expertise, giving advice, and providing technical
assistance. In addition, two interviewees from two different partnerships (New Madrid and
ReGenesis) cited federal officials' understanding of the broad range of federal resources that
the partnerships could access as an important element of information sharing, with one noting,
for instance, that enabling the community to identify the broad range of resources available at
the federal level, covering everything from transportation to issues of public health, was a key
part of the community's holistic approach to revitalization. Also noted by two interviewees from
two different partnerships (Metro East and New Madrid), was a strong willingness by federal
officials' to make themselves accessible to other partner members and regularly respond to
questions. Also critical was the support of partnership activities through federal funding.
Interestingly, none of the partnerships received direct funding support by the IWG for being
selected as demonstration projects. However, different partnerships obtained fiscal support for
a variety of partnership-related activities primarily through traditional federal programs. Two
interviewees from two different partnerships (New Madrid and ReGenesis) explained that their
efforts would not have been possible without the funding provided at the federal level. In
addition, other resources made available by federal partners, cited by interviewees as important,
included training, outreach, and documentation. Finally, interviewees from the Metro East
partnership remarked that federal officials helped maintain open lines of communication.
Value of Federal Involvement in EJ Collaborative Partnerships for
Federal Agencies
When asked about the value of federal involvement in EJ collaborative approaches for
federal agencies, interviewees provided roughly 73 different responses, which fell roughly into
15 different response categories. As shown in the chart below, these range from providing a
better sense of how to participate in communities to better appreciating that communities with
significant environmental problems may still be unidentified. The three most commonly cited
responses are discussed more below.
70 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
Value of Federal Involvement in EJ Collaborative Partnerships
for Federal Agencies
Lessons regarding how best to work with affected communities
Opportunity to be more effective in working with communities
Lessons about partnering
Greater job satisfaction
Right to claim success in working with one community
Opportunity to be innovative
Opportunity to better understand environmental justice issues
Opportunity to build relationships
Opportunity to gain the goodwill of the community
Improved understanding of regional environmental and public health issues
Understanding that communities with significant environmental problems may still
be unidentified
Lessons about core agency programs
Opportunity to influence action
Opportunity to share lessons with other communities
Opportunities to show that federal partners are working to address EJ issues
Numberwho
identified value
36
8
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
Table 6. Value of Federal Involvement in EJ Collaborative Approaches for Federal Agencies. Note: approximately 63
interviewees provided a total of 73 responses. Interviewees occasionally provided more than one response. An
additional sixteen were not asked or did not answer the question, including four with the New Madrid partnership, four
with ReGenesis, three with Metlakatla, three with Metro East, and two with Bridges to Friendship.
The most frequently identified response, cited by 36 interviewees across all six
partnerships, centered on lessons learned about how best to work with affected communities
(49 percent of total response). Interviewees indicated that participation in the collaborative
partnerships has enabled federal partners to better understand affected communities and their
specific threats and how and when to work with them to address their concerns. For instance,
an interviewee with the Barrio Logan partnership noted that, "Being there, seeing the problems
these communities face, the struggles they endurethey can see firsthand how they can be a
resource to solving local problems." As a specific example of this, an interviewee with the Metro
East partnership explained that federal partners learned that for one public health effort, use of
television and radio as an outreach mechanism, instead of mass mailings, was the best way to
reach people in the affected community regarding certain public health risks. Similarly, an
interviewee with the Metlakatla partnership remarked that federal agencies "have gained the
understanding that Indian communities do not think like the rest of the world. The federal
agencies now know that they must deal with the cultural and the spiritual identity as well as
idiosyncrasies of tribal communication." Other lessons gained centered on learning how to
listen to community members and assess community capabilities. For instance, a Metro East
interviewee noted that "we have opened their eyes and they can see our handicaps." In
addition, interviewees remarked that participation has enabled federal interviewees to better
understand how their policies affect communities and consequently design more effective ones.
For example, another Metlakatla interviewee indicated that federal agencies have gained
awareness of the difficulties tribal communities have in dealing with multiple agencies. She/he
added that, "We now understand their perspective and realize some of their frustrations when
comparing the different requirements of the federal agencies. It has helped us rethink and focus
on our communication."
The second most commonly cited response, identified by eight interviewees
representing three partnerships (Barrio Logan, Bridges to Friendship, and Metlakatla),
suggested that participation in the collaborative partnerships enabled federal agencies to be
CHAPTER NINE: Federal Involvement in EJ Collaborative Partnerships
71
-------
more effective in working with communities (11 percent of total response). This finding is
different from lessons learned about how best to work with affected communities in that the
lessons are seen as a guide regarding how to conduct future work with communities more
effectively. The eight interviewees identified with the second finding already believe that
collaboration is an effective way to work with communities and, therefore, viewed the
opportunity to collaborate as a means for increasing the chances of success for their efforts.
For instance, three interviewees with the Bridges to Friendship partnership remarked that, by
collaborating, federal agencies are able to have a greater positive impact in the affected
community, while another interviewee representing the same partnership remarked that the
collaborative process has helped federal agencies identify the activities of other federal
agencies in the community and therefore reduce redundancy of services provided. Similarly, an
interviewee with the Barrio Logan partnership mentioned that the collaborative process enables
federal agencies to be more strategic.
Increase in Collaboration Across Federal Agencies as a Result of
Collaborative Partnerships
Interviewees were also asked whether the EJ collaborative partnerships have resulted in
improved coordination across federal agencies. Federal coordination is not a prerequisite for a
successful local collaboration. For instance, two federal agencies may both participate
effectively in a partnership without engaging in any unique coordination efforts between each
other. However, in some instances, federal agencies may limit the success of the partnership if
there is not effective coordination between them. This can be especially true when the federal
agencies are expected to play important leadership roles within the partnership or when each
agency sponsors activities that may compete with one another. Of the six partnerships
reviewed, some federal partners in the Metlakatla and New Madrid partnerships made use of
separate formal agreements requiring that they work together.
The question of whether the EJ collaborative partnerships have resulted in improved
coordination across federal agencies is undoubtedly more difficult for non-federal interviewees
to address since they usually cannot witness day-to-day conversations and interactions
between federal agencies, most of which are stationed outside the affected communities.
Nevertheless, improved coordination should be somewhat apparent at regular partnership
meetings and in the work of various partnership subcommittees. Furthermore, what may seem
as improved coordination to federal partners working together in a partnership may not
necessarily be viewed as such by non-federal partners. Therefore, federal as well as non-
federal perspectives regarding this topic are valuable. A total of 55 interviewees addressed this
question. Interviewee responses were sorted into three response categories: yes, no, and don't
know. In addition, some interviewees were either not asked the question or did not address the
question when asked. Responses are provided in the chart, and then discussed in greater
detail below.
72 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
Have federal agencies been able to coordinate more effectively as a
result of their involvement in EJ Collaborative Partnerships?
Yes
Don't know
Question not asked /
addressed
Table 7. Coordination Across Federal Agencies as a Result of Involvement in EJ Collaborative Partnerships. Note:
approximately 55 interviewees addressed this question. An additional 24 were not asked or did not answer the
question, including eight with the ReGenesis partnership, seven with New Madrid, five with Bridges to Friendship,
three from Metlakatla, and one with Barrio Logan.
Interviewees were decidedly mixed regarding whether federal coordination as a result of
collaborative efforts has increased. Of those addressing the question, 55 percent of
interviewees (30 of 55), representing all six partnerships, indicated that coordination had
improved. Forty percent of interviewees (22 of 55), representing four partnerships (Barrio
Logan, Metlakatla, New Madrid, and ReGenesis), indicated that they were unclear whether
improved coordination had occurred, and five percent of interviewees (3 of 55), representing two
partnerships (Barrio Logan and ReGenesis), indicated that coordination had not increased. In
two of the six partnerships (Bridges to Friendship and Metro East), the interviewees indicating
that coordination had increased clearly outnumbered those indicating that coordination had not
increased, or that they were unaware of increased coordination. In two other partnerships
(Barrio Logan and ReGenesis), most of the interviewees indicated that they were unclear
whether increased coordination between federal agencies has resulted from participation in the
collaborative partnerships. Finally, in the remaining two partnerships (Metlakatla and New
Madrid), roughly the same portion of interviewees indicating that increased coordination had
occurred also indicated that they didn't know whether increased coordination had occurred.
For those responding yes, interviewees mentioned that federal partners are gaining
contacts, sharing information, and/or coordinating strategically. A federal interviewee with the
Bridges to Friendship partnership remarked that, "Every time agencies get together and
understand how they can relate and what resources they each can bring to the table they are
more likely to do it again." Interviewees also remarked that participation in the partnership effort
has enabled federal agencies to coordinate more extensively with staff, mid-level managers, or
between agency field and headquarters levels. Furthermore, a federal interviewee with the
CHAPTER NINE: Federal Involvement in EJ Collaborative Partnerships
73
-------
Metro East partnership commented that his/her federal agency has improved its relations with
state agencies as a result of the partnerships. In addition, a federal interviewee with the Bridges
to Friendship partnership and a federal interviewee with the New Madrid partnership remarked
that participation in the collaborative efforts has resulted in additional collaboration with federal
agencies on other efforts. Some responding yes, did, however, caveat some of their responses.
For instance, another federal interviewee with the Bridges to Friendship partnership explained
that although partnering has increased coordination between federal agencies, it hasn't directly
resulted in improved coordination within his/her agency. Finally a federal interviewee with the
ReGenesis partnership explained that federal agencies could still improve their federal
collaboration.
For those responding that they didn't know, one non-federal interviewee with the Barrio
Logan partnership explained that federal partners were probably sharing information, while
some interviewees stated they simply did not see any coordination. Another non-federal
interviewee with the ReGenesis partnership noted that, early on in the partnership effort, it
appeared that several federal agencies planned to participate, but since then, several have
disengaged. A federal interviewee with the New Madrid partnership, however, felt that if there
was any coordination between the participating federal agencies, it was due mainly to the
personalities involved, and that there was no indication that this type of collaboration could be
conducted in the future. The interviewee further added that most extensive collaboration
appeared to be between the federal agencies and the affected communities, not between the
federal agencies themselves. The 24 interviewees that either were not asked, or did not
address, the question, included eight from the ReGenesis partnership (50 percent of the total
ReGenesis interviewees), seven from the New Madrid partnership (54 percent of the total New
Madrid interviewees), five with the Bridges to Friendship partnership (31 percent of the total
Bridges to Friendship interviewees), three from the Metlakatla partnership (30 percent of the
total Metlakatla interviewees), and one with the Barrio Logan partnership (7 percent of the total
Barrio Logan interviewees).
Interviewee Recommendations for Improving Federal Involvement in
Partnerships
When asked how federal agencies should tailor their roles in order to best participate in
collaborative approaches to address environmental justice issues, interviewees provided
roughly 89 different responses, which fell roughly into 31 different response categories. As
shown in the chart below, responses ranged from better focusing federal resources to setting
ground rules. However, only one recommendation stood out, and even this was only cited
across two partnerships. The fact that relatively few common recommendations were provided
may suggest that, generally, the interviewees feel positive about the role federal agencies in
these partnerships so far. The four most commonly cited responses are discussed in more
detail below.
74 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
Interviewee recommendations for how federal agencies should tailor their
roles to best participate in EJ collaborative approaches
Provide direct support
Provide one point of contact for each federal agency
Be creative
Enable community to play key roles in development and/or implementation of
partnerships
Improve accessibility of federal resources for affected communities
Require an evaluation component
Better focus federal resources
Understand the needs of the community
Establish single points of contact for the partnership
Participate in a hands-on manner
Allow certain partners to take a stronger leadership role in partnership
Do more effective job of marketing value of collaborative approaches
Structure agency organization in such a way to facilitate participation in
partnerships
Provide flexibility for those non-profit regulations that limit federal involvement
Ensure participation of local federal agency representatives
Learn more about the different resources each federal agency has available
Build in requirements to allow facilitators to be removed
Ensure that all levels of agency support the partnership
Recognize that you are part of the community
Establish unifying procedures when participating agencies have different
procedures for addressing a common issue
Empower local community to lead partnership
Ensure that a community person is available to coordinate with federal agencies
Use a collaborative model that fits the affected community
Avoid taking partnership issues personally
Don't change roles, use the expertise you already have
Get involved early in the partnership
Ensure that agency officials have the maturity and skills to participate effectively
Continue the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice
Require more than one federal agency to be involved
Stay committed to the partnership
Set ground rules
Numberwho
identified
recommendation
16
7
6
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 8. Recommendations for Improving How Federal Agencies Participate in EJ Collaborative Approaches. Note:
approximately 66 interviewees provided a total of 89 responses. Interviewees occasionally provided more than one
response. An additional thirteen were not asked or did not answer the question, including four with the New Madrid
partnership, three with Bridges to Friendship, three with Metro East, and three with ReGenesis.
The most commonly noted recommendation, cited by sixteen interviewees representing
two different partnerships (Barrio Logan and Metro East), was that federal agencies should
provide direct support for partnership efforts (18 percent of total response). Most often, direct
support meant funding. However, other interviewees suggested that federal partners should
provide direct support in terms of facilitation services, translation services, staff time and
expertise, and administrative services such as issue follow-up, overhead production, and
organization of tours. The second most commonly mentioned recommendation, cited by seven
interviewees across three partnerships (Bridges to Friendship, Metlakatla, and ReGenesis), was
that single points of contact should be provided for each participating federal agency (8 percent
CHAPTER NINE: Federal Involvement in EJ Collaborative Partnerships
75
-------
of total response). Interviewees with the Bridges to Friendship partnership remarked that a
single point of contact should be designated within each participating agency that can represent
the agency in all the partnership activities while regularly highlighting the partnership mission to
agency management. An interviewee representing the ReGenesis partnership explained that it
was difficult to understand the different work of one federal agency in the affected community,
noting that the agency had three to four main points of contact. Recognizing some of the
difficulties this posed for the affected community, as discussed above, a federal interviewee
explained that his/her agency was working to ensure better internal coordination of all agency
employees working directly on partnership issues in the affected community.
The third most commonly noted recommendation, cited by six interviewees representing
interviewees from two partnerships (Bridges to Friendship and New Madrid), was that federal
agencies should be creative when engaging in partnerships (seven percent of total response).
Two interviewees with the New Madrid partnership emphasized the need for agencies to rely on
more than statistics when determining how to best help communities. In addition, one of these
same interviewees stressed not letting regulations prohibit involvement. Finally, two
interviewees with the Bridges to Friendship partnership expressed the need to be able to take
risks and cope with failure when involved. The fourth most commonly cited recommendation,
also identified by six interviewees representing two different partnerships (Barrio Logan and
New Madrid), was that federal agencies should enable the affected community to play key roles
in the development and/or implementation of partnerships (seven percent of total response).
For instance, an interviewee with the Barrio Logan partnership recommended that partnerships,
such as IWG demonstration projects, be developed simultaneously with the community
defining goals and identifying problems. An interviewee with the New Madrid partnership urged
federal agencies to allow affected communities to lead the partnerships.
The fifth most commonly noted recommendation, cited by five interviewees also
representing two partnerships (Metro East and ReGenesis), was that federal agencies should
improve the accessibility of federal resources for affected communities involved in partnership
efforts (six percent of total response). For example, interviewees from both partnerships
suggested that federal agencies should better advertise how to apply for funds under existing
federal programs. Furthermore, an interviewee with the ReGenesis partnership suggested that
federal agencies should make these resources more user-friendly. She/he added that this could
be done in a number of ways, including asking each agency to support one person in each
region and state who could effectively talk about available resources with communities. These
persons could then be listed in a directory, similar to what the Interagency Working Group on
Environmental Justice currently makes available describing federal contacts.
76 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
Federal Involvement in EJ Collaborative Partnerships
Summary Findings
> Interviewees indicated that federal agencies play key roles in EJ Collaborative
Partnerships by:
- providing or enhancing the credibility, legitimacy, and/or trust surrounding a
partnership effort (36 percent of total response); and
- providing resources and/or expertise (34 percent of total response).
> Participation in EJ Collaborative Partnerships enables federal agencies to:
- learn how best to work with affected communities (49 percent of total response);
and
work more effectively with communities (11 percent of total response).
> Of those interviewees addressing the question, 60 percent (30 of 55), indicated that
federal coordination had improved as a result of participation in the partnerships; while
40 percent (22 of 55), indicated that they were unclear whether improved coordination
had occurred.
> Federal agencies could best benefit EJ Collaborative Partnerships by:
- providing direct support for partnership efforts (18 percent of total response);
designating single points of contact for each participating agency (8 percent of total
response);
being creative in how they work with partnerships (7 percent of total response);
enabling the affected community to play key roles in the development and/or
implementation of partnerships (7 percent of total responses); and
- improving the accessibility of federal resources for affected communities (6 percent
of total response).
Figure 12. Federal Involvement in EJ Collaborative Partnerships: Summary Findings
CHAPTER NINE: Federal Involvement in EJ Collaborative Partnerships 77
-------
CHAPTER
Core Findings and Recommendations
This chapter describes core findings regarding the use of multi-stakeholder collaboration
to address environmental justice issues in the six partnerships studied for this report. Findings,
based upon a review of the previous six chapters and the six partnership case studies, describe
the value of multi-stakeholder collaboration, value of federal involvement, and specific factors
contributing to progress and success of the different partnerships. A conclusion and then
recommendations follow. The recommendations are intended for those actively participating in
or overseeing the partnerships, as well as institutions at all levels responding to environmental,
public health, and socio-economic challenges associated with community revitalization. Such
institutions include community organizations, faith groups, other NGOs, local, state, federal and
tribal governments, philanthropic foundations, and the business community.
Core Findings
Multi-stakeholder collaboration can act as a transformative mechanism for enabling
communities and associated stakeholders to constructively address complex and long-standing
issues concerning environmental and public health hazards, strained or non-existent relations
with government agencies and other institutions, and economic decline. Multi-stakeholder
collaboration in the environmental justice context can be transformative in two ways. First, it
can provide disadvantaged communities with an opportunity to openly discuss concerns and
potential solutions to issues affecting them in a manner that genuinely suits the affected
community's needs. Second, it can provide public service organizations, including government
agencies and community-based organizations, with an effective forum to coordinate, leverage,
and strategically use resources to meet complex public health, environmental, and other socio-
economic challenges facing disadvantaged communities. The power of the collaborative
approaches used in the six partnerships is reflected in the fact that nearly 80 percent of the
interviewees addressing this topic (52 of 66) indicated that the issues facing the affected
communities either would not have been addressed, or would not have been addressed to the
same extent, if at all, without use of a collaborative approach.
The partnerships are generating a variety of positive outcomes for the affected
communities. The partnerships' most significant outcome has been the creation or
enhancement of relationships through which numerous, diverse, and sometimes competing,
stakeholders can come together and engage in constructive dialogue to overcome concerns
regarding environmental and public health protection, socio-economic conditions, and historical
animosities, and greatly reduce the likelihood of similar concerns arising in the future. Through
these collaborative partnerships, community organizations and residents strengthen their
capacity and confidence to work with agencies and institutions that are intended to serve the
public. In addition, this collaboration helps build or reinforce critical bridges between institutions
and the affected communities, which are important ingredients for local environmental protection
78
-------
and redevelopment. The partnerships are also obtaining strong support and/or involvement
from members in the affected communities. Moreover, they are better ensuring the
implementation and/or the more effective implementation of specific public health,
environmental protection, and other economic development programs.
The partnerships are also enabling the many institutions seeking to provide community
assistance to work more effectively with the affected communities. Targeted programs
designed to assist communities are made more effective and best applied when sponsoring
officials can more efficiently navigate challenging stakeholder relationships and understand how
their program may fit the affected community's overall needs. Working through a forum that is
already strongly supported by the community and involves numerous and diverse stakeholders
can reduce service providers' needs to develop separate, independent relationships within the
affected community necessary to more effectively implement their programs. Recognizing a
community's vision for redevelopment can also enable service providers and program managers
to tailor their programs and services to better suit community needs, and save resources in the
process. Furthermore, by participating in forums with the affected communities where ideas
and information can be easily exchanged, these providers can reduce redundancy, share
expertise, and more easily recommend other entities who can provide assistance if they,
themselves, cannot provide the desired services.
Despite positive outcomes, and participants' high levels of satisfaction for the
partnerships to date, several of these partnerships have and continue to face challenges to
improve situations for the affected communities. Most notably, parties struggle with the
maintenance and operation of their partnerships, grappling with such day-to-day issues as
coordination, ensuring continued cooperation amongst the different parties, maintaining
partnership momentum, maintaining partnership focus, and keeping key decision makers
involved. Furthermore, several partnerships are facing challenges with the implementation of
specific activities, such as developing more protective zoning regulations and ensuring that all
responsible parties participate in the cleanup of contaminated sites. In addition, some
partnerships are still learning how best to engage the affected communities they are working in
to ensure that all residents have a genuine voice in and/or sufficient knowledge of the
partnership efforts and its activities. Finally, one partnership, although committed to working out
differences, has struggled to bridge diverse perspectives amongst participating stakeholders
regarding the ultimate purpose of the partnership and work cooperatively to address the
affected community's key environmental concern.
Organizational styles, policies, and procedures of the different partner members have
contributed to challenges for the partnerships. For instance, in one partnership where two
federal agencies played key roles, their contrasting approaches to community assistance placed
stress on the partnership in its early stages. In another partnership, concerns over roles federal
agencies can play in partnerships that obtain a 501 (c) 3 status has continued to frustrate partner
members. Nevertheless, the partnerships are successfully managing the challenges caused by
the various organizational styles, policies, and procedures of the different partner members'
organizations. No barriers were identified that would irreversibly harm the functioning of the
partnerships. Even in the one partnership that was clearly struggling to overcome
organizational and other differences, most partners remained confident that on-going challenges
would be resolved. Moreover, representatives from at least two partnerships see overcoming
organizational differences as one of these collective efforts' greatest strengths.
In addition to the many important contributions made by a wide range of stakeholders,
federal agencies have and continue to play key roles in these partnerships. First, federal
CHAPTER TEN: Core Findings and Recommendations 79
-------
agencies have assisted in the creation or continued implementation in all the partnerships by
generating or seizing opportunities and by providing energy and enthusiasm. Second, they
have supplied the partnerships with critical resources, knowledge, and expertise. Finally,
federal agencies have provided or enhanced the credibility, legitimacy, and/or trust surrounding
the partnership efforts. This has been done by validating community concerns regarding issues
of environmental justice, offering assurances that certain locally-based solutions to address
these issues, are, in fact, appropriate, encouraging reluctant regional and local officials to
consider becoming involved in these efforts, and bringing a greater overall degree of
accountability to the partnerships.
Despite the positive roles of federal agencies, cooperation and coordination in support of
partnership efforts within and between federal agencies could be enhanced and made more
apparent to non-federal partners. Of those addressing this topic, 55 percent of interviewees (30
of 55) indicated that coordination had improved. Forty-five percent (25 of 55), however, were
less positive. Some interviewees don't see any cooperation, and some are unclear about the
cooperation. Some federal representatives, however, are exhibiting signs of improved
coordination. One federal agency has developed an internal team to better coordinate the many
agency-led activities taking place in the partnership community. In two other partnerships,
memorandums of understanding were established to improve coordination and cooperation
between some participating federal agencies. Moreover, at least one federal representative at
the regional level has begun meeting with representatives of different federal agencies to
discuss ways in which they can coordinate on additional partnerships centered on issues of
environmental justice.
Much of the success of these efforts can be attributed to individuals, either at the
community, regional, A/GO, or government level, who took it upon themselves, at real risk of
failure, to pull diverse groups together. Pulling partnerships together, especially when the goal
is to address challenging environmental problems and social relationships, and/or help a
community revitalize, can be a difficult endeavor. This challenge is magnified when
organizations are not accustomed to working in a coordinated manner, and when resources for
maintaining the partnerships are not always readily available. Such an effort requires not only
leadership skills, patience, and the ability for creative thinking, but also strong interpersonal
skills that naturally lend themselves to stakeholder bridge building. In many instances, such a
combination of skills in one individual may not be available; nevertheless it confirms the need for
communities and other institutions desiring to use collaborative partnerships to look for these
qualities in persons to lead or co-lead these efforts.
80 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
Core Findings Regarding the Use of EJ Collaborative Partnerships
Multi-stakeholder collaboration can act as a transformative mechanism for enabling
communities and associated stakeholders to constructively address complex and
long-standing issues concerning environmental and public health hazards, strained
or non-existent relations with government agencies and other institutions, and
economic decline.
The partnerships are generating a variety of positive outcomes for the affected
communities.
The partnerships are also enabling the many institutions seeking to provide
community assistance to work more effectively with the affected communities.
Recognizing a community's vision for redevelopment can also enable service
providers and program managers to tailor their programs and services to better suit
community needs, and save resources in the process.
Several of these partnerships have and continue to face challenges to improve
situations for the affected communities.
Organizational styles, policies, and procedures of the different partner members
have contributed to challenges for the partnerships.
The partnerships are successfully managing the challenges caused by the various
organizational styles, policies, and procedures of the different partner members'
organizations.
Federal agencies have and continue to play key roles in these partnerships
Despite the positive roles of federal agencies, cooperation and coordination in
support of partnership efforts within and between federal agencies could be
enhanced and made more apparent to non-federal partners.
Much of the success of these efforts can be attributed to individuals, either at the
community, regional, A/GO, or government level, who took it upon themselves, at
real risk of failure, to pull diverse groups together.
Figure 13. Core Findings Regarding the Use of EJ Collaborative Partnerships
Conclusion
This evaluation looks at the value of using collaborative partnerships to address
environmental justice issues in predominantly low-income or minority communities. The
evaluation is built upon six case studies that were written primarily between December and July
2002. Through this effort, the evaluation team and the federal Interagency Working Group on
Environmental Justice sought to set a high standard for evaluating environmental justice
collaborative partnerships. The evaluation team strived to accurately convey the spirit of what
partnership stakeholders believed to be the main successes and challenges of their
collaborative efforts, as well as what they expressed to be the overall value of using
collaboration to address complex local issues. In addition, the evaluation team sought to
CHAPTER TEN: Core Findings and Recommendations 81
-------
provide a broad and insightful understanding of EJ collaborative partnerships in terms of what
they are achieving, factors contributing to their progress and success, specific organizational
barriers that may be limiting collaboration, and the role of federal involvement in these efforts.
Evaluation findings indicate that the partnerships are producing a variety of important
results, including the improved opportunity for local residents and community organizations to
have a genuine say in efforts to revitalize their communities, enhancement of relationships
between stakeholders, implementation of environmental protection and other programs, and
improved delivery of community assistance by public service organizations. In regards to
overall value of collaboration, most interviewees indicated that the issues facing the affected
communities either wouldn't have been addressed, or wouldn't have been addressed to the
same extent, if at all, without use of a collaborative approach. Interviewees also saw federal
involvement in these efforts as critical. In addition to the many positive points voiced,
interviewees also noted the partnerships are facing some challenges, including difficulties
associated with partnership maintenance and operational support, and the implementation of
partnership-specific initiatives. Despite these and other challenges expressed, most
interviewees voiced very favorable impressions of the partnerships to which they were
associated. Much additional work will be needed in the future to more fully understand the
strength of multi-stakeholder collaboration for resolving local environmental justice issues.
However, evidence from this evaluation suggests that use of these approaches, as
demonstrated within these partnerships, can be an effective means for addressing
environmental justice issues in communities.
Core Recommendations
To advance the use of multi-stakeholder collaborative partnerships as a means for
addressing environmental justice issues in communities, the evaluation team recommends the
following:
For institutions at all levels responding to environmental, public health, and socio-economic
challenges associated with community revitalization...
Expand use of multi-stakeholder collaboration as a tool for addressing EJ issues in
distressed communities. Use of collaborative approaches can effectively enable disadvantaged
communities and associated stakeholders to constructively address complex and long-standing
issues concerning environmental and public health hazards, strained or non-existent relations
with government agencies and other institutions, and economic decline. Participation in these
efforts not only better ensures that the nation's least advantaged populations' concerns are
heard and addressed; it can also better ensure the effective delivery of community development
services. Government at all levels, community organizations, faith groups, other NGOs,
philanthropic foundations, and the business community should review opportunities to initiate,
support, and participate in multi-stakeholder collaborative partnerships. Assistance need not
only take the form of financial resources and expertise, it can take the form of personal
interaction with the affected community as partners, improved coordination across
organizations, and enhanced coordination within organizations.
For those organizations and institutions actively participating in, supporting, or overseeing EJ
collaborative partnerships...
82 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
Identify long-term opportunities with organizations and institutions to build the
administrative and coordination capacity of the collaborative partnerships. Partnerships
reviewed for this study have creatively found ways to remain functioning and ensure continued
coordination. However, energy continually devoted to the performance of administrative
functions by partnership leaders is energy lost to further meet, discuss ideas, develop
strategies, and/or oversee the implementation of partnership actions. Furthermore, strong
assurances of long-term administrative and coordination support can go far in terms of reducing
overall anxiety of partners and especially partnership leaders. Finally, a well-established
administrative and coordination function can potentially assure potential partners that the
partnership is a solid operation worthy of additional support.
Promote community-based leadership and organizational development at the local level
for communities using multi-stakeholder collaboration to address EJ issues. It is much easier
for partnerships using multi-stakeholder collaboration to implement actions that support the
affected community if the community has a strong voice in partnership affairs. The community's
voice is best heard if the partnership includes representatives of community groups that have
broad local support. Such representation can better enable partner members to understand the
needs of the affected community and then move forward in confidence to assist in addressing
the community's concerns. Similarly, strong local leadership can make it much easier for the
partnership to interact and communicate with the affected community. Obtaining unified support
from a community, however, can be very difficult, especially in less-homogenous communities
and in areas that lack a strong-sense of identity centered within a recognizable geographic
space. In order to obtain greater community involvement in partnerships lacking a strong voice
from the community, efforts should be made to encourage community organizations and their
leaders to emerge from within the affected community and work with the partnership as partner
members. This could be done through: (1) strategic use of grants to either build or enhance the
capacity of existing community-based organizations to participate; (2) sharing of lessons
learned from local leaders representing EJ collaborative partnerships about how to better
ensure local leadership; and (3) informal and formal requests from partner members asking
local community-based organizations for their direct involvement.
Focus attention on the environmental, public health, and socio-economic outcomes
produced by EJ collaborative partnership activities. What are the most significant outcomes of
EJ collaborative efforts for the affected communities? This question is not easily answered. But
the focus of these partnerships should ultimately rest on whether partnership activities produce
the desired outcomes for the communities they seek to assist, both in the short- and long-term.
A myriad of factors can determine whether a community can overcome the challenges
associated with enhanced environmental protection and community revitalization. And no
partnership will be able to fully address all of them (e.g., the economy). However, close
attention given both upfront and throughout a partnership's life cycle to several items should
move the partnership that much closer to generating the type of results desired by the affected
community. Items to consider include: (1) the identification of short- and long-term goals; (2) the
implementation of activities and leveraging of resources in pursuit of these goals; and (3) the
careful linking of goals, activities, and environmental, public health, and socio-economic
outcomes. To help do this, partner members should early on consider using community
visioning, strategic planning, performance measurement, and evaluative tools.
For the academic community...
Systematically promote rigorous academic study and intellectual discourse around the
use of collaborative models to address EJ issues. Although efforts by the IWG and partner
CHAPTER TEN: Core Findings and Recommendations 83
-------
leaders to articulate an EJ Collaborative Model will greatly improve public understanding of
collaborative approaches to address environmental justice issues, much additional work is
needed to more fully understand their value at both the national and community level. This
could take the form of additional program evaluations and other research efforts. Moreover, this
could involve academic symposiums and even new coursework that examine both the theory
underlying EJ collaborative approaches, its current application, and potential for use on a
broader scale. Such an effort should involve scholars focused on collaborative inquiry, dispute
resolution and mediation, environmental planning and policy, environmental justice, sustainable
communities and ecosystems, and others.
For the IWG...
Link those involved in EJ collaborative partnerships into a national structure that
encourages cross-partnership learning and builds additional support. Partners operating in
isolation may feel that their work is overwhelming and that they are continually charting new
territory. This could be at least partly overcome if partner members are made to recognize that
they are part of a process that is being used in places across the country to address complex
environmental, public health, and socio-economic issues in the midst of challenging stakeholder
relationships. Efforts to create a national structure could include: (1) continuing the on-going
effort by the IWG to promote a national dialogue on use of EJ collaborative approaches; (2)
hosting annual regional and national conferences for partnership members and others
interested in such approaches to discuss partnership progress and successes; and (3)
distributing a national newsletter to partnership members that provides updates on partnership
progress, partnership resources, and recommendations for overcoming partnership obstacles to
success.
Fully develop the EJ Collaborative Model. This would have several benefits. First, a
carefully articulated model would provide a clearer understanding for parties interested in
collaboration of how, and under what circumstances, collaboration can take place, and what
benefits effective collaboration could produce in addressing environmental justice issues.
Second, such a model would enable the IWG, and leaders of the EJ collaborative partnerships,
to learn from EJ collaborative efforts in a more systematic fashion. Using similar yardsticks
would enable the IWG to more easily learn from and assess individual collaborative efforts as
well as EJ collaborative partnerships at a broader level. The full development of the EJ
Collaborative Model could include: (1) identification of the Model's main components:
background components (e.g., need, local leadership), formative components (e.g., partnership
building, partnership dialogue, identification of goals to be achieved), and action components
(e.g., implementation of key actions, monitoring, and evaluation); (2) identification of basic
outcomes to be achieved: social (e.g., enhanced relationships, enhanced local capacity,
decreases in crime), economic (e.g., enhanced access to jobs, affordable housing, commercial
districts, and transportation), environmental (e.g., improved air and water quality, cleanup of
contaminated sites, reduced overall health risk, reduced illegal dumping), other quality of life
(e.g., enhanced access to green space), and institutional (e.g., creation of sustainable
mechanism for local-problem solving, enhanced capability of public service organizations to
effectively assist distressed communities); (3) a discussion that clearly explains the links
between collaborating and the expected outcomes of collaborating (e.g., how collaboration will
result in reduced environmental health risk for community residents) (4) identification of
indicators that can be used to determine the extent to which outcomes are being achieved: (5)
identification of agreed upon questions to systematically identify key factors contributing to
partnership progress and success; and (6) development of a user-friendly data gathering plan -
84 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
one that will not pose a significant burden on partner members and that can be easily used to
improve partnership performance.
Review opportunities to forge stronger links between established government
environmental programs that are critical to the cleanup and revitalization of disadvantaged
communities. These include federal initiatives such as DOE's Brightfields, EPA's Brownfields,
DOE's Clean Cities, DOE's Rebuild America, EPA's Smart Growth Index, EPA's Superfund, and
others. These programs produce results acting independently. In order to fully meet the needs
of communities challenged by numerous environmental, public health, and socio-economic
issues, EJ collaborative partnerships would greatly benefit if the leaders and coordinators of
these programs either enhance or begin formal partnerships with each other. Community
members can become easily overwhelmed with the numerous different national government
initiatives, and can become dismayed when agencies appear to lack coordination on programs
that in theory seem naturally complementary. Formal coordination efforts could include periodic
assessments of (1) how cooperation by government program coordinators can be improved, (2)
how related government programs could be tailored to more easily complement one another,
and (3) how the public regularly obtains access to and uses these programs. In addition,
opportunities for linkages between existing non-federal environmental and community
revitalization initiatives that could benefit EJ collaborative partnerships should be reviewed and
outlined to partnership members.
The IWG has played an important leadership role in supporting, nurturing, and promoting
EJ collaborative partnerships. However both current and future partnerships would benefit by
expanded IWG support. First, each IWG-sponsored partnership would benefit by having a
designated champion within the IWG. This would enable partnership concerns to be regularly
articulated and then debated by senior officials representing several federal agencies who are
already familiar with environmental justice issues and the use of collaborative approaches for
addressing them. Second, partnerships would benefit by additional technical assistance in the
form of planning and evaluation, regular diffusion of lessons learned, and greater understanding
of the availability and accessibility of the broad array of resources, particularly at the federal
level, for both community partnership building and community revitalization initiatives.
Regarding community partnership building resources, partner members could benefit from
greater information on and access to: (1) leadership and organizational capacity-strengthening
opportunities, (2) partnership training, (3) environmental justice training, (4) alternative dispute
resolution services, and (5) training for strategic planning and evaluation. Regarding community
revitalization resources, partnerships could benefit from information regarding environmental,
economic development, transportation access, housing, and crime prevention programs.
Furthermore, partnerships could benefit from tools that enable them to understand the linkages
between these programs and how they could be accessed and used collectively to better meet
environmental and revitalization goals. Although it is beyond the scope of the IWG to provide
this type of technical assistance to partnership communities on a regular basis, the IWG can
collectively help envision, oversee, and support information diffusion systems that enable
partnerships to more efficiently and effectively develop and obtain desired outcomes for the
partnership communities.
CHAPTER TEN: Core Findings and Recommendations 85
-------
Core Recommendations Regarding the Use of EJ Collaborative Partnerships
For institutions at all levels responding to environmental, public health, and
socio-economic challenges associated with community revitalization...
Expand use of multi-stakeholder collaboration as a tool for addressing EJ
issues in distressed communities. Government at all levels, community
organizations, faith groups, other NGOs, philanthropic foundations, and the
business community should review opportunities to initiate, support, and
participate in multi-stakeholder collaborative partnerships.
For those organizations and institutions actively participating in, supporting, or
overseeing EJ collaborative partnerships...
Identify long-term opportunities with organizations and institutions to build the
administrative and coordination capacity of the collaborative partnerships.
Promote community-based leadership and organizational development at the
local level for communities using multi-stakeholder collaboration to address EJ
issues.
Focus attention on the environmental, public health, and socio-economic
outcomes produced by EJ collaborative partnership activities.
For the academic community...
Systematically promote rigorous academic study and intellectual discourse
around the use of collaborative models to address EJ issues.
ForthelWG...
Link those involved in EJ collaborative partnerships into a national structure
that encourages cross-partnership learning and builds additional support.
Fully develop the EJ Collaborative Model.
Review opportunities to forge stronger links between established government
environmental programs that are critical to the cleanup and revitalization of
disadvantaged communities.
Expand support for both current and future EJ collaborative partnerships.
Figure 14. Core Recommendations Regarding the Use ofEJ Collaborative Partnerships
86 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
Appendices
A-List of Interviewees
B -Evaluation Guiding Principles
C -Copy of Interview Guide
87
-------
Appendix A
List of Interviewees
Barrio Logan Partnership
Don Ames- California Air Resources Board
Norma Chavez Metropolitan Area Advisory Council on Anti-Poverty Project
Susana Concha-Garcia- American Lung Association of San Diego & Imperial Counties
Paula Forbis Environmental Health Coalition
Clarice Gaylord formerly with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Steven Gold San Diego Attorney's Office
James Justus Inner City Business Association
Jerry Martin- California Air Resources Board
Lane McVey National Steel and Shipbuilding Company
David Merk Unified Port District
Lewis Michaelson Katz and Associates
Frank Riley U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Sonia Rodriquez- Mercado Tenants Association
Charles "Muggs" Stoll California Department of Transportation
Bridges to Friendship Partnership
Richard Allen U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Uwe Brandes District of Columbia
Brian Christopher Alice Hamilton Occupational Health Center
Gentry Davis- U.S. National Park Service
Camille Destafny U.S. Navy
Judith Dobbins- Covenant House D.C.
Christine Hart-Wright Strive DC, Inc.
Linda Jackson Building Bridges Across the River
David Ouderkirk U.S. Navy
Randy Parker- U.S. Department of Labor
Reginald Parrish U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mike Shannon- Covenant House D.C.
Maxine Snowden- U.S. National Park Service
Mike Wallach Anacostia Economic Development Corporation
Babette Williams- U.S. Department of Labor
Admiral Christopher Weaver U.S. Navy
Metlakatla Peninsula Cleanup Partnership
Jeff Benson- Metlakatla Indian Community
Garth Beyette Federal Aviation Administration
Robert Deering- U.S. Coast Guard
Frank Esposito- U.S. Coast Guard
Jere Hayslett Federal Aviation Administration
Robert Johnson Army Corps of Engineers
Cliff Mahooty U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs
Felicia Wright U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Len Richeson U.S. Department of Defense
Callie Ridolfi- Ridolfi Engineers
-Denotes that individual participated in a group interview.
88 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
Metro East Lead
Chris Anderson
Tony Camillo
Noemi Emeric
Dave Eustis
Blair Forlaw
Tom Miller
Rebecca Perkins
Deb Roush
Joan Scharf
Lue Walters
Collaborative
East St. Louis Community Development Block Grant Operation
St. Mary's Hospital
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Southwestern Illinois Resource Conservation and Development
East-West Gateway Coordinating Council
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Neighbors United for Progress
Army Corps of Engineers
St. Clair County Intergovernmental Grants Department
Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA)
New Madrid Partnership
Walter Bone-
Victor Blackburn-
Mary Evans-
Gwen Farr
Darvin Green
Adrienne Hunter-Wells-
Laura McKeever-
Rose Minner
Althea Moses
Willie Pittman-
Fred Reeves
Ervin Schaedler-
Louise Typler
ReGenesis Partnership
Doug Bracket
George Fletcher-
John Funderburk
Mike Garret
Dr. David Goolsby
Brian Holtzclaw
Ralph Howard
Kelly Long
Harold Mitchell
Cynthia Peurifoy
Lewis Pilgrim
Robert Reed-
Elena Rush
James Talley-
Jim Trafton
Brad Wyche-
Great Rivers Alliance Natural Resource Districts
Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA)
Community Facilitator
Community Health Team
Lincoln University Cooperative, Community Development Corp.
Community Coordinator
Great Rivers Alliance Natural Resource Districts
Community Facilitator/Community Team Member
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA)
Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA)
Great Rivers Alliance Natural Resource Districts
Headstart
Spartanburg Technical College
Fletcher Consulting
Upstate Assistant for U.S. Senator E.F. Hollings
City of Spartanburg
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of U.S. Congressman Jim DeMint
ReGenesis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Arkwright Neighborhood Association
Councilman for City of Spartanburg
Spartanburg County
formerly Mayor of City of Spartanburg
Rhodia, Inc.
UpState Forever
-Denotes that individual participated in a group interview.
Appendices
89
-------
Appendix B
Guiding Principles for Evaluation of EJ Collaborative Model
This section describes eleven Guiding Principles that serve as a starting point when preparing
to conduct evaluations involving communities and issues of environmental justice. The Guiding
Principles are intended to inform those leading and participating in environmental justice
evaluations about what evaluation is, why it is useful, how it can be done in an appropriate
manner, and how evaluation results can be used to empower those participants involved.
Emphasis is primarily placed on the need to be transparent, open, and sensitive to community
needs and concerns when working with communities involved in any aspect of an environmental
justice evaluation. Although, these principles are meant to reference Interagency environmental
justice projects since it is the analysis of these projects (via case studies) that will form the basis
for evaluating the environmental justice collaborative model, we hope that these principles will
be used and modified by other organizations engaged in environmental justice evaluation efforts
in the future. We expect that as the evaluation progresses, the Guiding Principles will need to
be refined to reflect lessons learned. The eleven principles are listed briefly below and are
explained in more detail on the following pages.
Guiding Principles
1
Evaluation is a learning experience. Evaluations are conducted to hear about the
successes AND shortcomings of projects so that interested parties may better understand
which efforts deserve duplication and which could benefit from change.
Evaluation should proceed from a sound understanding of the conditions, issues, and goals
of the community that the project is seeking to serve.
Evaluation should be flexible -custom fit to the scope, time frame and objectives of the
project.
Evaluation should closely involve all participants in each step of the evaluation process to
the greatest extent feasible.
Evaluation should be regarded as an opportunity for project participants to advance
existing relationships between partners and develop new ones with evaluators
The evaluator shall respect the needs and concerns of the interviewee.
Evaluation should allow for data to be collected and shared in ways transparent and
understandable to those participating in the evaluation.
The evaluation should collect data using both quantitative and qualitative measures of
success and ask project coordinators how they are measuring success.
Evaluation efforts should engage project participants in critical dialogues before, during and
after the evaluation to discuss how evaluation results can be used.
10
Evaluation provides data that can help inform government agencies and their partners how
to effectively address environmental justice issues at the local level.
11
Evaluation can identify and explore the value of new approaches and innovations.
1. Evaluation is a learning experience. Evaluations are conducted to hear about the
successes AND shortcomings of projects so that interested parties may better
understand which efforts deserve duplication and which could benefit from change.
Evaluation and case study development should be viewed as a unique opportunity to learn
valuable information about a particular project. Evaluation can help participants better
understand the successes and shortcomings of their project. The goal of an evaluation is not to
determine success or failure but rather to determine how well a project is addressing and
90 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
remedying the problems it originally sought to address. It should be expected that evaluation of
any project would describe aspects that have worked well and aspects that have proven
problematic. Rather than view any problematic area as a failure, identification of these areas
should be seen as an opportunity for project improvement. In addition, the lessons learned
through an evaluation may prove valuable to others involved in similar efforts in other
communities.
2. Evaluation should proceed from a sound understanding of the conditions, issues, and
goals of the community that the project is seeking to serve. Evaluation of an environmental
justice project should proceed with the understanding that the impacted community is the focal
point. Any study whose evaluators do not ground their analysis by first working hard to develop
a deep understanding of the participating community's conditions, issues, and goals will do a
disservice to all those seeking to benefit from the evaluation.
3. Evaluation should be flexible -custom fit to the scope, time frame and objectives of
the project. When developing an evaluation every effort should be made to ensure that the
questions asked will enable participants to provide the information needed to properly
characterize their project. Special attention should be placed on a project's scope, timeframe,
and objectives. No two environmental justice projects are completely alike. For example, one
project may have as its objective a discreet series of activities such as workshops conducted
over a relatively short period of time aimed at influencing an immediate, focused, policy
decision. Another may seek to achieve more broad, long-term objectives, such as encouraging
sustainable development at the local level. To properly clarify important distinctions between
projects, case studies will often be needed in addition to straightforward analysis.
4. Evaluation should closely involve all participants in each step of the evaluation
process to the greatest extent feasible. Evaluation is a cooperative exercise that should
closely involve all project participants in each step of the evaluation process-evaluation
development, data collection, and communication of results-to the greatest extent feasible.
Participants have the greatest understanding of a project's objectives and must be consulted in
order to develop questions that will enable interviewees to provide the most useful information.
Project participants must also be involved to collect data and to share their experiences.
Evaluation involving only a handful of participants will not provide a comprehensive account of a
project. Involving participants in questionnaire development, data collection and information
sharing will not only provide for a more effective evaluation but will also help pave the way for
greater acceptance of the evaluation regardless of the evaluation results.
Finally, project participants must be involved in communication of results and case studies.
Participants have a keen understanding of the impact the evaluation results may have on their
project and can provide valuable information in determining how results should be
communicated to ensure that results are used in the most constructive manner. In addition,
letting participants know up-front they will be involved in the communication of results should
enhance support for the evaluation.
5. Evaluation should be regarded as an opportunity for project participants to advance
existing relationships between partners and develop new ones with evaluators.
Environmental justice projects are unique in that they often involve stakeholders at many levels
to address cross-cutting issues. Collaborative efforts often face many difficult hurdles. As such,
the evaluation of a project should be viewed as an opportunity for project participants to
advance existing relationships between partners and to develop new ones with evaluators. The
Appendices 91
-------
dialogue that emerges from interaction between participating groups throughout the evaluation
experience will ultimately serve to enhance the final evaluation product and lay the groundwork
for future evaluation within the community.
6. The evaluator shall respect the needs and concerns of the interviewee. The evaluator
should keep several points in mind when preparing for and conducting interviews. First, the
interview process must not be cumbersome. An interview process that is disrespectful of the
interviewees' time or overly complex will only serve to impede the discovery of information and
sour the communicative relationship between the evaluator and interviewee. The evaluator
should also take pains to ensure that the interview setting does not intimidate the interviewee.
Care regarding this should be considered on two levels-the physical environment and proximity
during the interview to individuals with whom the interviewee does not have amicable
relationships. Finally, privacy concerns of the interviewee must be respected. As an evaluator,
it may be necessary to keep certain information private both (1) as a matter of courtesy and
common sense-as some things are simply inappropriate to release to the public-and (2) as a
means to obtain the most accurate information possible. The evaluator should address privacy
concerns with the interviewees throughout the interview process.
7. Evaluation should allow for data to be collected and shared in ways transparent and
understandable to those participating in the evaluation. Data will be collected and shared
in an open and honest manner. When conducting an evaluation, project partners should be
informed at the beginning of the evaluation what the evaluation is and why it's being performed,
what information will be needed, who will be contacted to provide that information (to the extent
privacy concerns are not violated), how that information will be analyzed, and how the results of
the evaluation will be communicated to the public.
Every effort should be made to effectively document thoughts, experiences, and concerns of the
project participants and other community members. In addition, every effort should be made to
document changes in the evaluation process, as it occurs, to avoid misunderstandings, overlap,
and ambiguity and minimize frustration for those conducting and/or participating in the
evaluation.
Finally, in regards to sharing results, care should be taken to ensure that results are clearly
communicated. Participants should then be given adequate time to review and provide
feedback on them. In turn, the evaluators should give focused attention to feedback on
evaluation results received from participants and clearly explain to them if, in certain instances,
their comments do not influence the final product.
8. The evaluation should collect data using both quantitative and qualitative measures of
success and ask project coordinators how they are measuring success. In evaluation, an
inherent tension exists between quantitative and qualitative analysis. In some situations it is
appropriate to have both statistical data and subjective interpretation. The evaluation should
attempt to strike a healthy balance between collecting both types of data, yet recognize that
many of the key elements of these projects will be hard to capture quantitatively. In addition,
the evaluation should ask project coordinators how they're measuring project success.
Information regarding how projects are measuring success should be used to inform the data
collection needs and enhance the findings of the formal evaluation.
9. Evaluation efforts should engage project participants in critical dialogues before,
during, and after the evaluation to discuss how evaluation results can be used. To go
beyond simple assurances that the evaluation will indeed be helpful, before and after the
92 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
evaluation is conducted, agency leads and other participants should engage in substantive
dialogues about specific ways the evaluation results can be used.
10. Evaluation provides data that can help inform government agencies and their
partners how to effectively address environmental justice issues at the local level.
Government agencies and their private partners are constantly trying to improve how they
develop and enact policies to address pressing economic, social, and environmental problems.
However, it can be difficult to begin developing policies if there is a lack of data that can justify
them doing so. Evaluation data on environmental justice projects can help inform Federal,
State, Tribal, and local government agencies and their community partners how to effectively
address environmental justice problems at the local level. Evaluation data on environmental
justice projects can also inform Federal, State, Tribal, and local government agencies on ways
to improve Federal, State, Tribal and local environmental protection policies.
11. Evaluation can identify and explore the value of new approaches and innovations.
Many environmental justice projects are engaged in new, innovative approaches to
environmental problem solving. Evaluation can play an important role in validating the
importance of new approaches to solve pressing economic, social, and environmental
problems. New problem-solving initiatives often receive several questions about whether such
initiatives are producing the intended results. This is especially the case for local problem-
solving initiatives involving multiple stakeholders. Evaluating environmental justice projects can
provide the data needed to properly characterize the value of these new approaches and
determine whether these approaches should be expanded in the future.
Appendices 93
-------
Appendix C
Copy of Interview Guide
Evaluating the Environmental Justice Collaborative Model
Interview Guide
Background
The Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (IWG) made the development of a
collaborative problem-solving model a priority last year by promoting fifteen environmental
justice demonstration projects. To better assess the value of the collaborative model and
capture lessons learned to benefit future partnerships, the IWG committed to the development
of an evaluation methodology.
To assist the IWG in carrying out this important task, the EPA Office of Policy, Economics and
Innovation's Evaluation Support Division is preparing case studies of selected demonstration
projects. These case studies seek to identify lessons learned in a number of important areas to
gain a better understanding of this emerging collaborative model. The
project/partnership/collaborative has been selected to be a candidate for the case study effort.
To gather the information needed to develop the case studies and assess the overall value of
the collaborative model, the Evaluation Team has created a series of interview questions to
discuss with stakeholders participating in the project/partnership/collaborative.
Your responses to these questions will provide lessons that the Evaluation Team can use to
better understand:
key factors contributing to project success and challenges;
the effectiveness of multi-stakeholder collaborative partnerships to address
environmental justice issues; and
the effectiveness of Federal agency involvement in these projects.
The guide includes standard questions we plan to draw from in our interviews with partners from
each of the participating projects. We may also ask a limited set of additional questions that are
more specific to your project. The interview will take approximately 60-90 minutes.
Your responses to these questions will be used solely by the Evaluation Team to develop the
evaluation/case study report. Your name or organization will not be directly associated with any
quotations used or narrative developed unless you specifically grant permission. Our notes
from your interview can only be made available to outside parties through a Freedom of
Information Act request; however, formal requests for interview notes are very rare.
We appreciate your assistance in this effort, and look forward to speaking with you.
1. General Background
a. Briefly describe the main issues facing the affected community that brought the
project/partnership/collaborative together?
94 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
-------
b. How long have you been a part of the project/partnership/collaborative?
c. Why did you decide to join the project/partnership/collaborative? What is your
role with the project/partnership/collaborative? (e.g., facilitator, project coordinator, participant)
d. Briefly describe how the project/partnership/collaborative came about.
-When was the project/partnership/collaborative started?
-What stage of development is the project/partnership/collaborative in now? (e.g., early,
middle, or late stages)
2. Background on Collaborative Process
a. Please describe generally how the project/partnership/collaborative works?
-How often do you and your project/partnership/collaborative partners meet?
-How do you make decisions as a group?
-How were you and others asked to participate?
-How does the group address difficult issues that arise between members?
b. Have the organizational styles and procedures of the different organizations limited
effective collaboration between partners? How do you and your partners break down
organizational barriers?
c. How does the project/partnership/collaborative allow for meaningful
community involvement? (e.g., are meetings open to the public, are meeting's structured so that
community participants can effectively participate, are technical issues clearly explained) How
has input from the affected community been used in prioritizing action plans during the planning
process?
d. To what extent has the project/partnership/collaborative resulted in greater
collaboration with Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments and organizations?
3. Satisfaction with Collaborative Process
a. Have you and your organization been satisfied with your ability to participate in the
project decision-making process? Please explain.
b. Are the issues most important to you and your organization being adequately addressed
by the project/partnership/collaborative? Why or why not?
4. Project Activities and Results
a. What are the main activities the project/partnership/collaborative has
undertaken so far? (e.g., air quality monitoring, brownfields redevelopment, community visioning
workshops, etc.)
b. To what extent has the organization you represent been able to dedicate resources to
help implement these activities? (e.g., volunteer time/expertise, staff time/expertise, $, technical
assistance)
c. What impacts have these activities had at addressing the main issues facing the affected
community?
Appendices 95
-------
d. Are you satisfied with the outcomes of these activities so far? Please explain.
5. Project Successes and Challenges
a. How does the project/partnership/collaborative plan to measure the success
of these activities?
b. What has been the greatest success of the project/partnership/collaborative so
far? What have been the main reasons for this success?
c. What has been the biggest challenge of the project/partnership/collaborative
so far?
-What have been the main reasons for this challenge?
-Has your group been able to overcome this challenge? How?
6. Value of Collaborative Process to Affected Community
a. What has been the overall value of using a collaborative process to address the main
issues facing the affected community?
b. Do you feel that the collaborative process used in the
project/partnership/collaborative can address similar issues that the affected community may
face in the future? Please explain.
c. How would the main issues facing the affected community have been addressed if the
project/partnership/collaborative had not been formed?
d. What would you recommend to improve how the
project/partnership/collaborative works in the future?
e. What additional lessons can you share with other communities interested in using a
collaborative process?
7. Value of Federal Involvement
a. Have participating Federal agencies identified conflicting requirements in their statutes
or regulations that have been barriers to the success of the
project/partnership/collaborative?
b. What has been the effect of having Federal partners participate in the project/
partnership/collaborative for the affected community?
c. What do you think the Federal agencies have gained by participating in the
project/partnership/collaborative?
d. Have participating Federal agencies been better able to coordinate their activities as a
result of the project/partnership/collaborative?
e. What would you recommend so that Federal agencies best tailor their roles to participate in
collaborative processes?
96 An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
------- |