EPA
Evaluation of the
Environmental Justice
Collaborative Model
Full Report (Draft)
4 September 2002
Do Not Cite or Quote
Prepared for the Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice
by the U.S. EPA Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation
-------
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 (Action Agenda) as a way of incorporating environmental justice in all policies,
programs, and activities of federal agencies. Finalized in May 2000, the Action 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 Action Agenda, the IWG selected fifteen IWG national
demonstration projects in June 2000. To be selected, projects had to represent areas that were
predominantly minority or low-income populations, be community-based and have strong
community interest. Further, projects were expected to have sufficient resources to carry out
the project, and have previously taken steps to address or seriously consider environmental
justice issues. Finally, projects were expected to be committed to using multi-stakeholder
collaborative problem-solving as a tool for addressing environmental justice issues and have the
commitment of at least two federal agencies to participate. Issues the projects sought to
address included air quality, contaminated site cleanup and redevelopment, lead abatement,
and others.
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
articulating elements of success based upon the demonstration projects and past efforts that
used multi-stakeholder collaborative problem-solving around issues of environmental justice.
Committed to learn from use of "the Environmental Justice Collaborative Model" in the
demonstration projects, 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 the case studies was generated 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 collaboration 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.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
1
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
¦ 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:
¦ Partnership opportunities for involvement, partnership activities, and partnership
outcomes;
¦ Key factors influencing collaborative partnership success;
¦ Value of multi-stakeholder collaborative partnerships to address environmental justice
issues; and
¦ 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 the Environmental
Justice Collaborative Model as applied in the six partnerships, value of federal involvement, and
specific factors contributing to progress and success of the partnerships applying the Model.
Core findings include the following:
The Environmental Justice Collaborative Model represents 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.
Partnerships applying the Model are generating a variety of positive outcomes for the
affected communities.
¦ The Model provides an important vehicle for the many institutions seeking to provide
community assistance but which lack effective mechanisms for doing so.
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 in using the Model
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 different
organizational styles, policies, and procedures of the different partner members.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
2
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
Federal agencies have and continue to play key roles in partnerships using the Model.
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 NGO, or government level, who took it upon themselves, at real risk
of failure, to pull diverse groups together.
Recommendations follow that 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. Core
recommendations include the following:
Expand use of the EJ Collaborative Model. 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
partnerships that apply the Model.
Link those involved in partnerships applying the Model into a national structure that
encourages cross-partnership learning and builds additional support.
Identify long-term opportunities for building partnership administrative and coordination
capacity with local colleges and universities, government agencies at all levels,
foundations, and non-governmental organizations.
Promote community-based leadership and organizational development at the local level
for communities applying the EJ Collaborative Model.
Focus attention on the environmental, public health, and socio-economic outcomes
produced by EJ collaborative partnership activities.
The IWG should work with organizations experienced in the evaluation of national
community revitalization efforts and community-based partnerships, as well as EJ
collaborative partnership leaders, to further the development of an assessment
framework for the EJ Collaborative Model as well as an action plan for implementing it.
Review opportunities to forge stronger links between established government
environmental programs that are critical to the cleanup and revitalization of
disadvantaged communities.
The IWG has played an important leadership role in supporting, nurturing, and promoting
partnerships applying the Model. However both current and future EJ collaborative
partnerships would benefit by expanded IWG support.
¦ Systematically promote rigorous academic study and intellectual discourse around the
use of collaborative models to address environmental justice issues.
Do Not Cite or Quote. 3 Draft: 9.4.02
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
4
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
Acknowledgements 7
CHAPTER 1 9
Introduction 9
The Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice 9
Emergence of the Environmental Justice Collaborative Model 10
Roots of the Environmental Justice Collaborative Model 11
Background and Goals of Evaluation 11
Brief Discussion of Following Chapters 12
CHAPTER 2 15
Evaluation Methodology. 15
CHAPTER 2 19
Overview of Case Study Partnerships 19
Case Study Partnerships Summary. 21
CHAPTER ^ 23
EJ Collaborative Partnerships—Partner Involvement, Activities, and Results 23
Partner Involvement 23
Satisfaction with Partnership Opportunities for Involvement 24
Perspectives on Whether Partnerships Adeguately Address Participant Concerns 25
Partnership Activities 27
Outcomes of Partnership Activities 29
Satisfaction with Outcomes of Partnership Activities 31
CHAPTER g 35
Partnership Successes & Challenges 35
Partnership Successes 35
Partnership Challenges 37
CHAPTER g 41
Key Factors Contributing to Partnership Progress and Success 41
Distinct Partnership Identity 42
Existence and Strength of Leadership 42
Do Not Cite or Quote.
5
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
Diversity of Partners 43
Local and/or Regional Government Involvement 44
Federal Involvement 45
Community Engagement 45
Communication 46
Agreed Upon Goals and Activities 46
Flexible, Overarching Vision 47
Administrative Structure 47
Implementation of Environmental and Public Health Protection or Socio-economic
Development Activities 48
Development and Use of an Evaluation Framework 48
CHAPTER ^ 51
Organizational Styles, Policies, and Procedures Influencing Progress and Success... 51
CHAPTER ff 57
The Value of Collaborative Partnerships to Address EJ Issues 57
Value of Collaborative Approaches to Address EJ Issues 58
Addressing Issues Without Use of a Collaborative Approach 60
Using Collaborative Processes to Address Similar Issues Facing the Affected Communities
in the Future 61
CHAPTER 9 65
Federal Involvement in EJ Collaborative Partnerships 65
Value of Federal Involvement in EJ Collaborative Partnerships for Affected Communities 66
Value of Federal Involvement in EJ Collaborative Partnerships for Federal Agencies 67
Increase in Collaboration Across Federal Agencies as a Result of Collaborative
Partnerships 69
Interviewee Recommendations for Improving Federal Involvement in Partnerships 71
CHAPTER 10 75
Core Findings and Recommendations 75
Core Findings 75
Core Recommendations 79
Appendix 83
List of Interviewees 85
Guiding Principles for Evaluation of EJ Collaborative Model 87
Copy of Interview Guide 91
Do Not Cite or Quote.
6
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
A ckno wledgements
The Evaluation of the Environmental Justice Collaborative Model and associated case
studies 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 the two national conference calls to discuss the evaluation effort
greatly assisted in improving the evaluation methodology. In addition, partnership leaders and
coordinators graciously helped to minimize the challenge of conducting interviews within
partnership communities across the United States. Furthermore, several partnership members
provided insightful comments, which greatly improved the quality of the case studies.
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 the nation's distressed communities.
A team based in EPA's Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation performed this
evaluation. Eric Marsh was the project manager for this effort.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
7
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
8
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
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 suffered from 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 emerging from this office was the creation of the National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council—a 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
which requires all federal agencies to ensure that issues of environmental justice 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 community1, 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" 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."2
To help implement the Action Agenda, the IWG selected fifteen IWG national
demonstration projects in June 2000. To be selected, projects had to represent areas that were
predominantly minority or low-income populations, be community-based and have strong
community interest. Further, projects were expected to have sufficient resources to carry out
the project, and have previously taken steps to address or seriously consider environmental
justice issues. Finally, projects were expected to be committed to using multi-stakeholder
1 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.org/ao.cfm?cid=1 &aid=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.aov/compliance/resources/publications/ei/actionaaenda.pdf
Do Not Cite or Quote.
9
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
collaborative problem-solving as a tool for addressing environmental justice issues and have the
commitment of at least two federal agencies to participate. Of the projects selected, most
centered on specific communities; however, three had particular states or regions as their focus
area and one focused on national tribal environmental justice policy. Some projects emerged
as a direct result of the IWG designation process, while others were already ongoing and were
selected to highlight their on-going commitments to multi-stakeholder collaboration. Issues the
projects sought to address included air quality, contaminated site cleanup and redevelopment,
lead abatement, and others.3 No federal awards were given as a result of IWG designation.
Emergence of the Environmental Justice Coiiaborative 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, that
brought together numerous stakeholders to discuss opportunities for collaboration, identify
elements for successful collaboration, and hear from different parties involved in three 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. The IWG argued
that use of a multi-stakeholder collaborative effort can be an effective way to achieve
sustainable, quality-of-life improvements for affected communities in which issues have taken
"the form of intractable, multifaceted, and multi-layered disputes." The IWG explained 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." By the time these issues are raised to the federal level, the IWG explained, 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."4 In its efforts to further
articulate an "environmental justice collaborative model" the IWG began articulating elements of
success based upon the demonstration projects and past efforts that used multi-stakeholder
collaborative problem-solving around issues of environmental justice. 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.5
Since the designation of the national demonstration projects, various groups focused on
issues of environmental justice have endorsed their collaborative approaches 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.'6 Further, 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
3 Ibid., p. 8. Also see Section II.
4 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.
5 Ibid., p. 5.
6 Qtd. in ibid., p. iv.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
10
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
exemplified in the fifteen demonstration projects."7 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 mid-November.8
Roots of the Environmental Justice Coiiaborative Model
The Environmental Justice (EJ) Collaborative Model is built 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.9 Other important influences include the National Advisory
Council on Environmental Policy and Technology's Integrative Environmental Justice Model
Demonstration Approach, developed in 1993, and the City of Clearwater, Florida's effort to
develop a model environmental justice strategic plan for brownfields redevelopment, begun in
1996.10 What sets the EJ Collaborative Model apart from these efforts is its systematic
application 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, through enhanced federal participation and coordination, enable
communities to more easily access existing federal resources that enhance environmental
protection and community revitalization.
Background and Goals of Evaluation
Although the theory underpinning the EJ Collaborative Model is still being debated and
articulated, since the launch of the Action Agenda, the IWG was committed to learn from the
use of the Model. In the fall of 2000, the IWG began exploring the possibility of having the
Evaluation Support Division in EPA's Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation conduct an
evaluation of some of the on-going projects. Starting in November 2000, EPA's 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, however, that stakeholders involved in several of the projects may
be reluctant to participate in a government-sponsored evaluation, especially given that projects
were voluntary, that contentious issues were being addressed and, furthermore, that many
projects were still in the early stages, the evaluation team took three steps. First, it composed a
set of environmental justice evaluation guiding principles intended to describe what 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 those participants involved.11 Second, the team
sought a high degree of input to inform the evaluation effort from a range of groups including the
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, the IWG, demonstration project leaders,
7 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.
8 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, Associate Director for Policy and Interagency Liaison, Office of Environmental Justice. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Electronic Communication, 2 April 2002.
10 Ibid.
11 View a copy of the Guiding Principles included as an Appendix.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
11
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
program evaluators, business representatives, and environmental justice activists.12 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 opportunities for involvement, partnership activities, and partnership outcomes;
¦ Key factors influencing collaborative 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 those participating in,
or attempting to assemble, 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 this model to further envision
ways to develop the Model's conceptual framework and better articulate short, intermediate, and
long-term environmental, public health, and socio-economic outcomes one would expect to see
when the Model is ideally applied.
Brief Discussion of Foiiowing 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 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.
12 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. e pa. a ov/eva I u ate/n cc. ht m.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
12
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
Chapter Nine looks at federal involvement in the partnerships reviewed. In particular the
evaluation team describes interviewees' perspectives regarding the value of federal involvement
for affected communities and the value of federal involvement for federal agencies. In addition,
the teams 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 upon on-going and future partnerships applying the EJ Collaborative Model.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
13
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
14
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
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 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 partnerships.13 Interview
questions were structured loosely on the program framework described below.
Objectives-* Process-» Outputs-» Institutional Effects-* Environmental Outcomes14
t t
External Factors
Figure 1. 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. To identify interviewees, the evaluation team typically
developed a draft interviewee list based upon an initial review of partnership documents.
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. In addition, given the high degree of federal involvement in these projects, the
distribution of interviewees by federal agency is also presented.
13
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. Further, in one project, partners referred to
the project effort as a collaborative. For consistency, the evaluation team primarily refers to the projects as
partnerships.
14 For the purposes of this figure, "environmental outcomes", are meant to include public health and quality of life
outcomes.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
15
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
Interviewees by Organizational Type
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
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Number of Interviewees
Chart 1. Interviewees by Organizational Type
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
01 23456789
Number of Interviewees
Chart 2. 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 roughly 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.
Do Not Cite or Quote. 16 Draft: 9.4.02
-------
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 the
opportunity to review the case study describing their partnership and provide comments
regarding the case study's organization, content, accuracy, and readability. Case studies were
written with the understanding that the descriptions and analyses of interviewee comments
would reflect the state of the partnerships and interviewee perceptions about the partnerships at
a single point in time, and that the partnerships, and interviewees perceptions of them, would be
evolve even as the case studies were undertaken.
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, most 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 seek 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. Further, some partnerships reviewed developed under the expectation that
collaboration was simply a more effective way to do business and therefore taking time to
ensure baseline data to test the effectiveness of the collaboration over time was most likely
seen as counterintuitive and may have actually inhibited effective partnering if mandated. 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 that we can 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.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
17
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
18
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
CHAPTER 3
\J
Overview of Case Study 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 incompatible land uses near residential homes. Through a structured,
facilitated partnering process, the Barrio Logan partnership has brought together 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 District of Columbia government to better ensure that local residents would benefit from the
redevelopment by coordinating, communicating, and pooling 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.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
19
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
Figure 2. EPA Representation of a Case Study Partnership (Bridges to Friendship, Washington, DC)
J2
Community Orgs
A
(^D^C. Agencies"~^^^ Admin ^^^^Riiginoggog"~~^
%
C Federal
Aaencies S
IS
~z
Working Groups
Job training
Career development
Business Development
Youth Outreach
Community Outreach
B2F facilitates open lines of communication between its partner organizations. This communication allows
the common goals of the B2F partners to be vocalized and their resources shared. The B2F workgroups are
responsible for brainstorming, planning, and implementing actions that will help the Partnership achieve
these shared goals.
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. 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 and built upon an on-going local collaboration primarily between the MIC and
Alaska federal agency field staff.
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 resulting from lead-contaminated soil. Recognizing the need
for a comprehensive approach to make effective use of the several organizations' knowledge
and resources already at work in the area on lead and related issues to reduce the threat, in
early 1999, an EPA representative brought these groups together to form a structured
partnership. Although initially focused on East St. Louis, the partnership effort 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 its numerous social, economic, and
environmental challenges. Responding to the call, NRCS joined together with EPA, a regional
Do Not Cite or Quote.
20
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
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 national Child Health
National Demonstration Project and 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 their objectives outlined under the 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 seeking to
participate in the revitalization, which includes the cleanup and redevelopment of two Superfund
caliber sites, the building of a health clinic, a recreational greenway, new road construction, and
new affordable housing. Today, this loosely structured partnership is headed by Harold
Mitchell, the leader of ReGenesis, and guided by a core group including Mr. Mitchell, and
representatives of the City, the County, and EPA's regional office based in Atlanta, working
together with subcommittees to implement partnership goals.
Case Study Partnerships Summary
Barrio Logan
San Diego,
California
Predominantly
Latino/Low
income
Inner city
2000
Address immediate
health concerns/
Boost overall quality
of life
Bridges to
Friendship
Southeast/
Southwest
Washington,
D.C.
Predominantly
African
American/Low
income
Inner city
1998
Increase overall
resident employment/
Boost overall quality
of life
Metlakatla
Peninsula
Cleanup
Southeastern
Alaska
Native
American/Low
income
Rural/Island
2000
Cleanup
contaminated sites
Metro East
Lead
Collaborative
East St. Louis/St.
Clair County,
Illinois
African
American/Low
income
Inner City
2000
Improve children's
health by reducing
lead poisoning
New Madrid Tri
Community
New Madrid
County, Missouri
African
American/
Caucasian/Low
income
Rural
1997
Address childhood
lead poisoning,
asthma and allergies,
and water
contaminants
ReGenesis
Spartanburg,
South Carolina
African
American/Low
income
Urban/Rural
1999
Address and
revitalize
contaminated sites
Table 1. Case Study Partnerships Summary
Do Not Cite or Quote.
21
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
22
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
CHAPTER
EJ Collaborative Partnerships—Partner Involvement,
Activities, and Results
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 partner opportunities for
involvement, types of activities implemented by the partnerships, and partnership outcomes
generated by these activities. Before proceeding, it is important to note that, during the
interviews, most partnerships were at different stages in terms of developing partnership goals
and implementing partnership activities, therefore not all interviewees were prepared to address
all topics.
Partner Involvement
Each case study partnership developed in a unique fashion and each has a different
style for involving partner members in partnership discussions and for involving the affected
community. Despite differences, some general patterns across the partnerships do emerge.
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, in every
partnership except one, partnership leaders allowed newly interested organizations to
continually join and did not appear to limit participation by any one organization. In the one
partnership where certain parties were not admitted to the partnership, this was done 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, this same partnership
Do Not Cite or Quote.
23
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
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.
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 community-based
organizations that may or may not have a high degree of community support, and may or may
not be based in the affected community. Fourth, five of the six partnerships, periodically host
broad forums in which all partners can provide input regarding partner activities.15 Further, five
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, five of the six
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.
Chart 3. Satisfaction with Participation in the Partnership Decision-making Process
Are you and your organization satisfied with your ability to participate in the
project decision-making process?
60
50 '
(/)
§ 40'
Q.
(/)
CD
oz
•5 30
20
10 '
Yes
Somewhat
No
Unclear
Question not asked /
addressed
Note: This question was answered by 62 interviewees. An additional seventeen interviewees were not asked or did
not answer the question, seven of which represented a single partnership. The seven interviewees representing this
partnership were not asked after opening remarks by several interviewees indicated that partnership was facing
several difficult issues. For the remaining ten interviewees, four represented a second partnership, four represented a
third, and two represented a fourth.
15 This partnership has since hosted a two-day forum attended by most partner members.
Do Not Cite or Quote. 24 Draft: 9.4.02
-------
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
involvement. Challenges faced by the one partnership not reflecting a similar trend are
discussed later in this section. 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,
one noted that the process has given everyone a voice. Another, representing a different
partnership, 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 interviewees, representing the same partnership, indicated that
it was relatively early in the process to be making such a determination. Two interviewees,
representing another partnership, expressed a desire to have more participation from other
groups. Another interviewee, representing a different partnership, remarked that she/he would
have liked to see more scientific input used when determining which priorities the affected
community would address. Finally, an interviewee, representing a different partnership,
explained that she/he does not think that her/his federal agency should have a say in the
process since the partnership is community-based.
For the interviewees indicating they were only somewhat satisfied with the decision
making process, one 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
interviewee, representing the same partnership, expressed a desire to have greater community
involvement. For those indicating that the decision making process did not sufficiently allow for
their input, one expressed concern that community concerns were not being adequately heard.
Another, with 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 a different 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 her/his organization could adequately
contribute to the partnership.
The seventeen interviewees that either were not asked, or did not address, the question
primarily include seven interviewees from one partnership. These seven were not asked the
question after it had become clear from interviewees' opening responses that partner members
had several issues to resolve in order for the partnership to function effectively. These
challenges stem from the involvement of numerous parties sited in dispersed locations, the
complex nature of the issues under discussion, the competing policies of different organizations
designed to address the issues, lack of a centralized coordination and leadership function, and
insufficient communication between parties. The remaining ten interviewees include four from
two partnerships and two representing one partnership.
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
Do Not Cite or Quote.
25
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
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 their 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.
Chart 4. Satisfaction that Partnership is Addressing Partner Organizations' Main Issues
Are the issues most important to you and your organization being
adequately addressed by the partnership?
45
40
35
-------
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, one
interviewee explained that, "We're talking about safety, housing, trucks, and all the things that
are important to the community." Another interviewee, representing a separate partnership,
noted that what was important to her/his organization - understanding and identifying issues
that are important to the community, which include, jobs, environmental cleanup, and parking -
was being addressed. Another interviewee, representing a third 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 a fourth 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, one interviewee, representing a partnership already referenced, expressed
concern that zoning issues weren't being adequately addressed. Another interviewee,
representing the same partnership, wanted to see more progress on action. An interviewee for
another partnership, already referenced, was satisfied, but explained that she/he could not say
the same for her/his agency since she/he had to continually resell the concept to upper
management. Finally, an interviewee, representing a fifth 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 one partnership already mentioned as struggling, seven from a second
partnership, six from a third partnership, and three from a fourth partnership.
Partnership Activities
To address issues facing the affected community, all the partnerships have identified
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 fall roughly 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.
Regarding partnership-building activities, in most partnerships, members have spent
significant time formulating shared visions, goals, and implementation strategies to best assist
the affected community. For instance, one partnership has developed a vision that includes the
Do Not Cite or Quote.
27
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
cleanup of contaminated sites; the 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
larger community; the construction of a series of greenspaces and greenway trails; and the
development of affordable, energy efficient housing. 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. Directly related to
this activity is the coordination and sharing of information and resources between partners.
Without such coordination, implementation of the strategy to assist the affected community
would be difficult. Also related, facilitation and resolution of difficult issues between partners is a
critical activity. Wthout such effort to resolve differences, partnerships may be unable to
function and implement concrete actions to assist the affected community. For instance, in one
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. Finally, most partnerships make concerted efforts to secure funding and additional
partners to ensure the effective coordination of the partnership and implementation of certain
substantive activities and to bring additional energy and enthusiasm to the partnership.
Regarding community-focused activities, the partnerships have engaged in a variety of
activities to assist the affected community. First, partnerships have shared information with the
affected community about environmental and public health threats and ways to reduce their risk.
In two partnerships, such information sharing has been done primarily to educate community
members about the risks of lead and/or asthma. For instance, in one partnership, partners
organized a health fair designed to educate families about asthma and other risks and to
provide professional services to address health care concerns related to these risks. In another
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. The partnerships also engage
in specific actions to reduce environmental and public health threats, and/or promote socio-
economic development. For instance, in one partnership already referenced, members fully
sampled and mapped the affected communities 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. Another partnership, already referenced, has instituted several job-training programs,
including an environmental job training initiative, to ensure that local residents can participate in
the area redevelopment. Finally, partnerships also engage in specific community capacity
building efforts. For instance, in one partnership already mentioned in this section, community
members were trained as peer facilitators in issues of asthma, lead, and contaminated water, so
they could help lead many workshops and conduct door-to-door visits with local residents to
educate them about risk-related issues associated with asthma, childhood lead-poisoning, and
contaminated water.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
28
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
Types of Activities Implemented by EJ Collaborative Partnerships
Partnership-building
¦ Multi-stakeholder development of shared vision, goals, and implementation strategy to
improve quality of life for 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., cleanup of contaminated sites, lead testing) to reduce
environmental and public health threats, and/or promote socio-economic development
Build community capacity
Box 1. Types of Activities Implemented by EJ Collaborative Partnerships
Outcomes of Partnership Activities
Identifying the outcomes16, 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 of these activities is
available. These impediments are further compounded by the fact that the different
partnerships are in 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 effected communities.
Emerging from the data, participants perceive the partnerships as resulting in
environmental and other quality of life improvements and boosting community pride and
enthusiasm. Further, 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 the
interviewees felt 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
16 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.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
29
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
programs, and the communication of environmental risks through brochures and environmental
conferences. Representatives across three partnerships also mentioned the building of
community pride and enthusiasm as an outcome of partnership activities. For instance, one
interviewee explained that, "This project gives a really good sense of hope. For so long [the
affected community] felt so ignored." Closely related to the fostering of community pride,
interviewees across two of the same partnerships mentioned that partnership activities have
empowered communities. For instance, one interviewee remarked that the partnership she/he
represented gave the people a lot of confidence to obtain the resources they need, like sewers.
A text box below includes a more extensive list describing what interviewees perceive as the
outcome of partnership activities.
When discussing improved environmental and other quality of life outcomes for the
affected communities, representatives from two partnerships explained how the partnerships
have resulted in improved community awareness in regards to environmental and other public
health risks. Particularly in one partnership, interviewees explained how partnership activities
have boosted education of community members about environmental and health risks they face
and how to respond. An interviewee explained more generally, that, "A lot of the things they
didn't have they now have. It has made living conditions a lot better." Another outcome, cited
by interviewees across three partnerships, revolved around how partnership activities have
resulted in increased employment for local residents. For instance, one interviewee,
representing a partnership already mentioned, cited an example where partnership activities
resulted in the employment of six hundred people in the environmental profession. Finally, an
interviewee representing this same partnership also explained that partnership efforts have
better ensured that development could take place in the affected area without forcing out low-
income residents.
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
Box 2. Outcomes ofEJ Partnership Activities as Perceived by Interviewees
Do Not Cite or Quote. 30 Draft: 9.4.02
-------
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.
Chart 5. Satisfaction with Outcomes of Partnership Activities
Are you satisfied with the outcomes of these activities so far?
30
Yes
Yes, but would
like to see
more
Somewhat Too early to tell
No
Unclear
Question not
asked /
addressed
Note: This question was answered by 53 interviewees. An additional 26 interviewees were not asked or did not
answer the question, ten of which represented a single partnership. These ten were not asked after opening remarks
by several indicated that partnership was facing several difficult issues. The remaining interviewees include six from
a second partnership, four from a third partnership, three from a fourth partnership, and three from a fifth partnership.
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, and two percent (1 of 53) indicated they were not satisfied. Across all
partnerships except one, the majority of interviews were satisfied with partnership outcomes so
far. In two partnerships, most of the interviewees indicated they were satisfied. Contrasting
with these two, a significant number of interviewees representing three partnerships indicated
they were either satisfied but would like to see more, or only somewhat satisfied with the
outcomes of partnership activities so far. Finally, one partnership was not reflective of the
trends, as interviewees representing this partnership were not asked the question. Generally,
Do Not Cite or Quote. 31 Draft: 9.4.02
-------
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, one interviewee, representing a partnership far along in the
implementation of partnership activities, noted that the partnership work has benefited the
community. Another interviewee, representing another partnership advanced in meeting its
objectives, explained that she/he was satisfied in terms of implementing the activities described
in the partnership action plan. Further, an interviewee, representing another partnership
somewhat advanced in implementing its activities, explained that the partnership has been
efficient moving forward to cleanup contaminated sites, and that without the partnership, she/he
was not sure how fast this would have occurred. Another interviewee, representing a
partnership in the early stages of implementing partnership activities, remarked that the
partnership was focused on the right activities and that they would enhance the quality of life for
the affected community. A different interviewee, also representing a partnership that was just
beginning to implement activities, 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, one 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. Another
interviewee, representing a second partnership, explained that as far as meeting his/her
partnership's meeting its objectives, she/he was satisfied; however, there would always be more
to assist the affected community. Finally, an interviewee from a third partnership 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, one
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. Two interviewees, one
representing a second partnership, expressed concerns over challenges associated with
specific partnership actions, not the partnerships overall. Two interviewees, one representing
partnerships already referenced, commented on their concerns about the affected communities'
abilities' to continue with successes once the partnerships ended. Another interviewee, also
representing a partnership already mentioned, expressed concerns over the lack of the
partnership's pace. An interviewee representing a fourth partnership 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 interviewee, representing a partnership already
referenced, remarked that she/he was satisfied with the outcome of partnership activities to an
extent, but that additional federal participation was needed. Finally, an interviewee representing
a fifth partnership 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, two interviewees representing separate
partnerships explained that that there was a long ways to go in terms of having the desired
impact on the affected community. Another, representing a third partnership, remarked that
his/her partnership should be further ahead. Finally, a different interviewee representing the
Do Not Cite or Quote.
32
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
same partnership 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 one partnership already mentioned as
struggling, six from a second partnership, four from a third partnership, three from a fourth
partnership, and three from a fifth partnership.
EJ Collaborative Partnerships -Partner Involvement, 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.
> In most partnerships, interviewees were satisfied with the outcomes of their
partnership activities so far. However, some 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.
Box 3. EJ Collaborative Partnerships -Partner Involvement, Activities, and Outcomes: Summary Findings
Do Not Cite or Quote.
33
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Ipllii
CHAPTER
\mJF
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 105 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.
-------
Chart 6. Greatest Successes Across EJ Collaborative Partnerships
Greatest Successes Across EJ Collaborative Partnerships
p,r,„,r,h,p
~
increase in community pride
Zl
„„,„d,„g
,
~
~
too early totell
~
0 1
5
Number ol
Responses
5 3
Note: Approximately 75 interviewees provided a total of 105 responses. An additional four were not asked or did
not answer the question. Three of these three represented one partnership, and one represented a second.
The most commonly referenced success, cited by 38 interviewees across five of the six
partnerships, was the formation and operation of the partnerships themselves (36 percent of
total response). In two of the partnership communities, 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 partnerships where tension
across stakeholders was not as apparent, the act of the bringing very 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 two 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 partnership that is driven by a single community organization, which,
in turn, has the strong support of almost the entire affected community.
The third most commonly noted success, cited by twelve interviewees representing three
partnerships, was the implementation of partnership-specific public health, environmental
protection, and/or economic development programs (12 percent of total response). These
include the successful (1) implementation of an 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. Related, several
interviewees, from one of the same partnerships referenced above, remarked that one of the
partnership's greatest successes was its ability to ensure that public health and environmental
Do Not Cite or Quote.
36
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
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 two partnerships, was the reduction of duplicative activities
performed by local organizations and agencies (9 percent of total response). I nterviewees 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 114 responses, which
fell roughly fell in 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.
Chart 7. Greatest Challenges Across EJ Collaborative Partnerships
Greatest Challenges Across EJ Collaborative Partnerships
understanding what constitutes success for affected community
becoming a ecus torn ed to different organizational styles
enabling specific parties to work together
insufficientcommunity capacity
disparities in funding availability between parties
lack of appropriate federal involvement
policies/procedures thatpr event implementation ofpartnership activities
lack of understanding regarding trust responsibilities
partner recruitment
impact of September 11
ensuring greater community engagement
maintenance and operation ofpartnership
ental protection or socio-economicdevelopmentactivities
partnership's lack ofa mandate or enforcement authority
addressing peripheral issues, or ones thatcannot be resolved intheshortterm
agreeing to and then implementing actions to address thegoals
of partnership-specific
Note: Approximately 74 interviewees provided a total of 114 responses. An additional five were not asked or
did not answer the question. Four of these represented one partnership, and one represented a second.
The most commonly noted challenge, cited by 26 interviewees representing four of the
six partnerships, 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
Do Not Cite or Quote.
37
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
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 ensure that they function effectively;
however, despite the many different groups involved, ensuring at least one coordinator for each
partnership can be difficult. For instance, one 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. Further, 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.
Similarly, another 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, partners within another
partnership voiced concerns about their partnership's coordination role being led by a non-local
resident, although modifications to this partnership's operating structure, allowing for more
distributed coordination, has helped to address this challenge.
The second most commonly referenced challenge, cited by 23 interviewees representing
four partnerships, centered on implementation of partnership-specific environmental protection
or socio-economic development activities (20 percent of total response). Interestingly,
implementation of environmental protection or socio-economic development activities is also
cited a success by several interviewees. The fact that this is cited 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's
partnership-specific problems would diminish the overall success of their respective
partnerships. More typically, interviewees' comments suggested that although the problems
were real, they would eventually be solved. 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.
The third most commonly noted challenge, cited by fourteen interviewees representing
four partnerships, focused on communication issues (12 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 partnerships was high. Although recently,
Do Not Cite or Quote.
38
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
significant attention has been devoted to addressing this, earlier one partnership's effectiveness
was inhibited, partly, by insufficient communication between parties. Those working together
had contrasting notions about the overall scope of the partnership effort and weren't fully way of
each other's underlying rationales for their different stances on issues. Another 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. Further, in
another partnership some partners 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, 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, one partnership has had
only limited success 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.
Further, the interviewee explained that because parents cannot see immediate results from
health protection efforts for their children, they forget about the health risks.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
39
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
Partnership Successes and Challenges
Most Commonly Cited Successes
>
The formation and operation of the partnerships (36 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
(9 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 (20 percent of total response).
>
Communication issues (12 percent of total response).
>
Ensuring greater engagement with the affected community (8 percent of total
response).
Box 4. Most Commonly Cited Partnership Successes and Challenges
Do Not Cite or Quote.
40
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
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. Unlike with several of the questions asked, 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 in 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.
-------
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. Further, 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, 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
[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
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. Further, 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 one 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 another instance, 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. In a third instance, one
organization was also able to bring together over fifteen different organizations to better
coordinate environmental and public health protection efforts for the affected community.
Partnership 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 first partnership referenced in the paragraph above, over 70 organizations
made commitments to contribute to partnership redevelopment efforts. A separate partnership,
Do Not Cite or Quote.
42
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
which benefits by the leadership of an executive director and a high level government official,
has the involvement of 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. Concerns regarding this were raised by interviewees in at least two
partnerships. First, in one 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 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 another partnership, concerns were raised that
leadership was too centralized and the partnership would stumble if this individual were to
discontinue with the partnership. To overcome these concerns, the partnership now rotates its
meeting place every four months during which a different partner organization assumes
coordination responsibilities. Another consequence, although not evident from these
partnerships, may be the disillusionment of some parties who initially see the partnership as a
unique empowerment vehicle for their community, yet choose to disinvest from the effort after
recognizing that the partner leaders are not interested in transferring leadership opportunities 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
The more entities you have involved the better. -Interviewee, Bridges to Friendship Partnership
[The key is to] get the elected representatives at the table, the council district, the city planning
[agency], the state and city representatives—getting these folks in and partnering. -Interviewee,
Barrio Logan Partnership
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 together. A
robust partnership, although more challenging to coordinate from an administrative standpoint,
can generate wider set of genuine options for addressing community concerns and more
effective sharing, and additional leveraging of, resources and knowledge. For instance, through
the involvement and assistance of a broad range of partners, one partnership has planned
several diverse actions to improve overall quality of life for the affected community. These
include, the cleanup of contaminated sites, the 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
Do Not Cite or Quote.
43
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
greenway trails; and the development of affordable, energy efficient housing. Another
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. Further, two
additional partnerships gave examples whereby when one partner was unable to provide certain
resources to aid specific partner activities, they successfully turned to other partner members
who provided them.
In addition to the identifying of resources, the participation of a wide array of parties can,
but not necessarily, draw attention to the partnership beyond the immediate affected
community, such as federal officials, state officials, or U.S. Congressional officials. 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, one 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
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
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 one 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 another 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, interviewees
have suggested the desire to have greater local support. For instance, one partnership that
already has significant state level support expressed the need for substantive participation from
a critical local agency. Another sought stronger support from local elected officials. Similarly,
an interviewee representing a separate partnership expressed the need to have greater access
to the local government to ensure local officials fully understand partner activities.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
44
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
Federal Involvement
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
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 five of the six partnerships reviewed, federal partners
played critical roles in initiating partnership activities. Today, four of the six continue to benefit
from strong federal support, primarily in the form of coordination and leadership assistance.
The benefits of federal involvement, however, are not always forthcoming or apparent. For
instance, in a partnership where more than one federal agency became involved, significantly
different approaches to working with the affected community initially created barriers to
successful partnership implementation until the differences could be resolved. Further, in
another partnership where several federal agencies were involved, successful coordination and
communication across all the agencies and the affected community remained elusive until
recently.
Community Engagement
[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
Closely associated with the factors of leadership, partner member diversity, and local
and federal involvement, is the factor of community engagement.17 Ideally, partnerships serving
a community will have the strong involvement in the partnership and/or be well informed and
supportive of partnership activities. This can enable partner members, especially external
community 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 members belong to an
organization that directly represents the interests of community residents, it is important to have
17 Forthe purposes of this discussion, community refers to residents living within the boundaries of the affected
community, and secondarily, community organizations that either represent or primarily serve the affected
community.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
45
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
the support and active involvement of community organizations in the area, even if they only
serve a certain subset of community residents. For instance, one partnership did not have a
partner that directly represented local residents, however, participation by roughly twenty
community organizations operating in the affected community enable the partnership to have
confidence that it is implementing activities that serve local residents' interests. If this is not
achievable, concerted outreach efforts will be needed to inform residents of partnership
activities and how they can get involved. 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 enable both partners
and residents to better understand whether the partnership is having the desired impact in the
affected community.
Communication
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 Partnership
Not surprisingly, communication is another critical factor influencing the progress and
success of a partnership. Although 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.
Further, effective partnerships must ensure that information between partners will be free
flowing and that partners will have open access to the information, ideas, 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. One 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 another partnership, a team of federal
officials skilled in alternative dispute resolution has been working with partner members to
address persistent issues of concern. In a separate partnership, two parties have been
undergoing facilitated dialogue sessions to also 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
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
Do Not Cite or Quote.
46
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
You need achievable goals to feel successful. -Interviewee, Barrio Logan Partnership
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.
Flexible, Overarching Vision
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
Although agreed upon goals and activities are critical, development of a flexible,
overarching vision describing what the partnerships hope 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
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 from expecting that once a certain goal is achieved all
of the key concerns of the community will have been essentially addressed. Further, 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 use 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
[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
Do Not Cite or Quote.
47
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
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 some
partnerships, 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
You need to show a change in the community. Need some permanent change to keep the
community involved and interested. -Interviewee, Barrio Logan Partnership
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
community should not be taken without proper consideration. Nevertheless parties in
environmental justice partnerships are often interested in action within a short timeframe, and 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 one partnership where goals were carefully defined up-front, some
interviewees expressed frustration at not yet taking action. While another 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
I 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
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. Only one
partnership, through contractor assistance, has developed a framework for measuring and
assessing performance and success. Furthermore, most interviewees of the partnerships that
Do Not Cite or Quote.
48
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
lack evaluative 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. Further, 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.
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
Box 5. Key Factors Influencing Partnership Progress and Success: Summary Findings
Do Not Cite or Quote.
49
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
50
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
CHAPTER 7
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, Spartanburg Partnership
In addition to understanding specific factors contributing to progress and success in EJ
collaborative partnerships, 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. Roughly half indicated that the different styles
had impeded progress, while the other half indicated that 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 one partnership several interviewees remarked that the
nature of a collaborative process is to overcome procedural restrictions. As an example, in this
same partnership, one federal partner 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 another 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. Further, 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 most likely 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 EJ
issues in local communities, additional collaborative barriers will likely be identified. Types of
barriers noted by interviewees are described in the text box and then discussed in more detail
below.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
52
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
Organizational Styles, Policies, and Procedures
Limiting Effective Collaboration in EJ Collaborative Partnerships
¦ Internal policies (e.g., inability for a federal agency to fund certain partnership work,
inability for 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)
Box 6. 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 one 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. Further, one interviewee with the
same 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 another 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 another partnership, an interviewee explained that agency rules prevented
her/him from developing a formal letter directly endorsing the partnership. Interviewees,
representing two 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 one
partnership, disputes arose over how one critical agency should best participate. Official
agency protocol dictated that regional agency staff should participate on a regular basis,
however, physical proximity to the affected community by non-regional staff, whom were much
closer, called this protocol into question.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
53
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
Directly related to internal policies, lack of internal support can also cause difficulties for
some organizations seeking to participate effectively in partnerships. For instance, one
interviewee explained that federal agencies often don't participate more constructively because
it is not always clear how their participation will directly relate to each 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 one 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, one partnership struggled initially 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. Further, 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, one 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, the interviewee 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 one partnership, historically sour relations between federal and local government,
two critical components to the partnerships 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 explained that problems arose when one partner was active on
two different boards of organizations that both belonged to the same partnership.
Current and new EJ collaborative partnerships 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, the differences were resolved through communication,
setting ground rules, and the close involvement of an NGO. 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 agency
had not previously been in a position where it needed to support a 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, in one 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-
Do Not Cite or Quote.
54
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
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.
Box 7. Organizational Styles, Policies, and Procedures Influencing Progress and Success: Summary Findings
Do Not Cite or Quote.
55
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
56
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
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
[Participation in the collaborative effort] widened horizons in identifying issues and
problems facing the community. Provides support and resources for working with
and dealing with problems.
- Interviewee, New Madrid Partnership
Value has been different agencies getting together being able to partner and plan
different events. You get to learn and come together and learn what others have
been able to do.
- Interviewee, Metro East Lead Collaborative
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
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 75 responses, which fell roughly into 20 different response categories. As shown
in the chart 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. The most commonly cited response was cited by 38
different interviewees. The four most commonly cited responses are discussed below.
Chart 8. Value of Collaborative Approaches for Addressing EJ Issues in Communities
Value of Collaborative Approaches for Addressing EJ Issues in
Communities
better equalizes power relations I
breakdown ofnegativestereotypes surrounding smallbusinesses
organizational empowerment
process too slow
encourages more groups to participate
encourages organizations to engage in additional community in vol vem en t a ctivi ties
valuable approach for non-traditional communities
greater diversity of experience from which to drawfrom
more effective outreach to community
fosters better understanding of inolvem ent
greater appreciation by local community that fed govtaddressing its responsibilities
environemntaland other improvements
good vessel for environmentaljustice
provides greater opportunity for community involvement
efficiencies gained (e.g., reduction in duplication ofservices)
securing, or potential leveraging, ofadditional resources
provides greater opportunity for community development
better understand needs of affected community
improved sharing of information/resources/expertise
0 5 10 15 20 25
Number of Responses
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. Five of these
represented one partnership, four represented a second, three represented a third, and one represented a
fourth.
The most frequently cited response regarding the value of collaborative approaches,
identified by 21 interviewees representing five of the six partnerships, focused on improved
sharing of information, resources, and/or expertise (26 percent of total response). According to
the responses of the different interviewees, 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
Do Not Cite or Quote.
58
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
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 organizations, partners can engage in more effective planning to
assist the affected community. One interviewee 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. Further, 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 another 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 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 once again by fourteen interviewees representing
five of the six projects, revolved around the efficiencies gained through collaboration (18 percent
of total response). Although this response is closely related 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 a 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 another 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, 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 specifically 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,
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 external
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 external partners to
better understand the needs and residents of the community. In addition, the partnerships,
Do Not Cite or Quote.
59
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
because of their inclusiveness, can result in forums that make it easier for the affected
community to voice its concerns. One partnership, focused on ensuring that local residents
benefit fully from local revitalization efforts, is sponsoring a series of public dialogues to give
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 Coiiaborative Approach
Interviewees were also asked whether the issues affecting their community would have
been addressed if a collaborative 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 more below.
Chart 9. Addressing Issues Without Use of Collaborative Approach
Would the Issues Facing the Affected Communities Been Addressed
Without Use of a Collaborative Approach?
u
—.—I—I—,— —.—I—I—.—
No Not to same extent Not without court Unclear Yes, but would Yes Question not
if at all order have taken longer asked / addressed
Note: Approximately 66 interviewees addressed this question. An additional thirteen were not asked or did not
answer the question. Five of these represented one partnership, four represented a second, two represented a
third, one represented a fourth, and one represented a fifth.
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
Do Not Cite or Quote.
60
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
would not have been addressed to the same extent if at all. 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, far more
interviewees indicated that that either the issues would not have been addressed, or would not
have been addressed to the same extent, than those providing other responses. For the
remaining two partnerships, in one, the same number that indicated the issues would not have
been addressed, or not to the same extent, 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, only slightly more interviewees indicated that the issues either would not have been
addressed, or not to the same extent; the remaining interviewees indicated 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. Further,
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
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 explained that, in their community, residents were
already empowered and many issues were already being addressed. Another explained that
the different agencies would address the different issues, while another 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 explained that it is impossible to
know how much these organizations would have accomplished separately. More ambiguously,
another explained that every once in a while her/his agency has thoughts about withdrawing
from the partnership, but then, according to the interviewee "reality hits home." For the thirteen
interviewees that either were not asked, or did not address, the question, five represented one
partnership, four represented a second, two represented a third, one represented a fourth, and
one represented a fifth.
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.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
61
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
Chart 10. Using Collaborative Process to Address Issues Facing the Affected Community in the Future
Can Collaborative Processes Be Used by the Affected Community to
Address Similar Issues in the Future?
45 -i
40
35
I 30
C
o
2 20
-------
the collaborative approach was already serving as the framework to address similar issues in
another nearby community. Another interviewee, representing another 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, another interviewee remarked that the collaborative still needs more
testing. For the three 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. For the 15 interviewees that either were not asked, or did
not address, the question, four represented one partnership, four represented a second, three
represented a third, two represented a fourth, and two represented a fifth.
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.
Box 8. The Value of Collaborative Partnerships to Address EJ Issues: Summary Findings
Do Not Cite or Quote.
63
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
64
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
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 as national demonstration projects, federal agencies played important
roles in helping partnerships meet their goals. Further, 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
examined four questions. What is the value of federal involvement in 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 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.
Chart 11. Value of Federal Involvement in EJ Collaborative Partnerships for Affected Communities
Value of Federal Involvement in EJ Collaborative Partnerships for
Affected Communities
pecific activities which should takeplace
key reason for partnership creation
workaccomplished ata morerapid pace
lore holistic approach to problem solving
better access to decision makers
inity's appreciation for federal regulators
sscommunity understanding ofenv issues
.er information sharing between partners
munity's organizational capacity
boosts community enthusiasm
projecthas larger impact
boosts image of affected community
;sential for bringing industry on board
a I skills of specific federal employees
provide resources and/or expertise
enhance credibility/legitimacy/trust
Number of Respo
Note: Approximately 60 interviewees provided a total of 73 responses. Interviewees occasionally provided more than
one response. An additional nineteen were not asked or did not answer the question. Six of these represented one
partnership, five represented a second, three represented a third, three represented a fourth, and two represented a
fifth,
The first most frequently noted response, cited by 26 interviewees representing five of
the six partnerships, 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 remarked that
without external assurance from federal agencies, communities could feel nervous about
Do Not Cite or Quote. 66 Draft: 9.4.02
-------
addressing environmental issues for fear of opening up a "Pandora's box." With federal
involvement, however, the interviewee 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 involvement gives greater
political support to participate than before. In addition, federal participation can bring additional
accountability to the partnership. Two interviewees for one partnership explained that federal
involvement indirectly encourages local agencies to be more accountable to the effort. Another
explained that federal involvement better ensures that partnership resources will not be
misspent. Related, the same interviewee 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 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, 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 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
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 one 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.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
67
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
Chart 12. Value of Federal Involvement in EJ Collaborative Partnerships for Federal Agencies
Value of Federal Involvement in EJ Collaborative Partnerships
for Federal Agencies
understanding that communities with significant env. problems may still be unidentified
lessons about partnering
opportunity to gain goodwill of the community
right to claim success in working with one community
lessons about core agency programs
improved understanding of regional environmental and public health issues
opportunity to be innovative
greater job satisfaction
opportunity to influence action
opportunity to share lessons with other communities
opportunities to show that federal partners are working to address EJ issues
opportunity to better understand environmental justice issues
opportunity to be more effective in working with communities
opportunity to build relationships
lessons regarding how best to work with affected communities
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Number of Responses
i i i i i i +=
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. Four of these
represented one partnership, four represented a second, three represented a third, three represented a fourth,
and two represented a fifth,
The most frequently identified response, cited by 36 interviewees across all six
partnerships, centered on gaining 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, one interviewee noted that "[b]eing there, seeing the problems these
communities face, the struggles they endure—they can see firsthand how they can be a
resource to solving local problems." As a specific example of this, another interviewee,
representing a different project, 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, representing another 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, one
community 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 interviewee, representing a partnership previously referenced, indicated
that federal agencies have gained awareness of the difficulties tribal communities have in
Do Not Cite or Quote.
68
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
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, suggested that participation in the collaborative partnership
enabled federal agencies to be more effective in working with communities (11 percent of total
response). For instance, three interviewees representing one 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,
another interviewee, representing a separate 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 two partnerships signed 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. Further, 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 more below.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
69
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
Chart 13. Coordination Across Federal Agencies as a Result of Involvement in EJ Collaborative Partnerships
Have federal agencies been able to coordinate more effectively as a
result of their involvement in EJ Collaborative Partnerships?
35 "
30
-------
additional collaboration with federal agencies on other efforts. Some responding yes, did,
however, caveat some of their responses. For instance, one federal interviewee explained that
although partnering has increased coordination between federal agencies, it hasn't directly
resulted in improved coordination within her/his agency. Another interviewee, representing the
same partnership, explained that despite increased coordination some federal agency
managers wanted to take credit for results that should be directly attributed to the partnership.
Finally, an interviewee, representing a different partnership, explained that federal agencies
could still improve at sharing information, pooling ideas, and defining roles within their
partnership. Similarly, an interviewee from another partnership explained that federal agencies
still had a lot to learn on this topic.
For those responding that they didn't know, one interviewee explained that federal
partners were probably sharing information, while some interviewees stated they simply did not
see any coordination. Other interviewees explained that their own agencies' ability to
coordinate had improved. This is reflected somewhat in the sentiment cited by some
interviewees involved in one partnership that cited EPA's key role when asked this question.
Since the summer of 2001, EPA's regional office involved in the partnership has been
conducting regular internal coordination meetings due to the many activities in which EPA plays
a key role in order to improve how EPA participates as a partner. Another interviewee
representing the same partnership noted that, early on in the partnership effort, it appeared that
several federal agencies planned to participate, but since then, several have disengaged. An
interviewee from a separate partnership, however, felt that if there was any coordination
between the participating federal agencies, it was due mainly to 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. For the
24 interviewees that either were not asked, or did not address, the question, eight represented
one partnership, seven represented a second, five represented a third, three represented a
fourth, and one represented a fifth.
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
suggests 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.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
71
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
Chart 14. Recommendations for Improving How Federal Agencies Participate in EJ Collaborative Approaches
How should federal agencies tailor their roles to best participate in
collaborative approaches to address environmental justice issues?
set ground rules
staying committed to partnership
require more than one federal agency to be involved
continue the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice
sure that agency officials have the maturity and skills to participate effectively
get involved early in the partnership
don't change roles, use the expertise you already have
avoid taking partnership issues personally
use a collaborative model that fits the affected community
sure that a community person is available to coordinate with federal agencies
empower local community to lead partnership
estabilsh unifying procedures when participating agency differing procedures
recognize that you are part of the community
ensure that all levels of agency support the partnership
build in requirements to allow facilitators to be removed
learn more about the different resources each federal agency has available
ensure participation of local federal agency representatives
provide flexibilty for those non-profit regulations that limit federal involvement
re agency organization in such a way to facilitate participation in partnerships
do more effective job of marketing value of collaborative approaches
allow certain partners to take stronger leadership roles in partnerships
participate in a hands-on manner
establish single points of contact for the partnership
understand the needs of the community
better focus federal resources
require an evaluation component
improve accessibility of federal resources for affected communities
ity to play key roles in development and/or implementation of partnerships
be creative
:t for each federal agency
provide direct support
provide one point of ci
Number of Response
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. Four of these
represented one partnership, three represented a second, three represented a third, and three represented a
fourth.
The most commonly noted recommendation, cited by sixteen interviewees representing
two different partnerships, 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 issue follow-up, overhead production, and organization of tours. The second
most commonly mentioned recommendation, cited by seven interviewees across three
partnerships, was that single points of contact should be provided for each participating federal
agency (8 percent of total response). Interviewees representing one partnership remarked that
a single point of contact should be designated within each participating agency that can
Do Not Cite or Quote.
72
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
represent the agency in all the partnership activities while regularly highlighting the partnership
mission to agency management. An interviewee representing another 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 her/his 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, was that federal agencies should be creative when
engaging in partnerships (seven percent of total response). Two interviewees representing one
partnership emphasized the need for agencies to rely on more than statistics when determining
how to best help communities. Another stressed not letting regulations prohibit involvement.
Finally, two interviewees associated with a separate 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, 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, one recommended that partnerships, such as IWG demonstration projects, be
developed simultaneously with the community—defining goals and identifying problems.
Another interviewee representing a separate 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, 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, four interviewees representing two different partnerships suggested
that federal agencies should better advertise how to apply for funds under existing federal
programs. Further an interviewee from one of the same partnerships 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 (IWG) currently makes available describing federal contacts.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
73
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
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 enable 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).
Box 9. Federal Involvement in EJ Collaborative Partnerships: Summary Findings
Do Not Cite or Quote.
74
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
CHAPTER
Core Findings and Recommendations
This chapter describes core findings regarding the use of the Environmental Justice
Collaborative Model 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
the Model, value of federal involvement, and specific factors contributing to progress and
success of the partnerships applying the Model. Recommendations follow that 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
The Environmental Justice Collaborative Model represents 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. Use
of the Model is transformative in two ways. First, it provides 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 provides 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 Model 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.
Partnerships applying the Model are generating a variety of positive outcomes for the
affected communities. The Model's most important contribution 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
multi-stakeholder collaboration, 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. Groups applying the Model are also obtaining strong support and/or
involvement from members in the affected communities. Moreover, they are better ensuring the
Do Not Cite or Quote.
75
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
implementation and/or the more effective implementation of specific public health,
environmental protection, and other economic development programs.
The Model, however, not only empowers and provides hope for struggling communities
and leads to the implementation of environmental and public health protection programs; it
provides an important vehicle for the many institutions seeking to provide community assistance
but which lack effective mechanisms for doing so. 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 greatly
reduces a program or service provider's needs to develop separate, independent relationships
within the affected community necessary to implement the program. 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 in
using the Model 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 their activities. Finally, one partnership, although committed to work
out differences, was struggling to bridge diverse perspectives amongst participating
stakeholders about the ultimate purpose of the partnership and how to 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
contributed to significant 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 different organizational styles, policies, and procedures
of the different partner members. 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 partnerships using the Model. First,
Do Not Cite or Quote.
76
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
federal agencies have assisted in the creation or continued implementation in all the case study
partnerships by creating 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 percent (22 of 55), however, indicated
that they were unclear whether improved coordination had occurred. 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 NGO, or government level, who took it upon themselves, at real risk of
failure, to pull diverse groups together. This requires not only leadership skills 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 who would lead or co-lead these efforts.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
77
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
Core Findings Regarding the EJ Collaborative Model
and Associated Partnerships
The Environmental Justice Collaborative Model represents 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.
Partnerships applying the Model are generating a variety of positive outcomes for
the affected communities.
¦ The Model provides an important vehicle for the many institutions seeking to provide
community assistance but which lack effective mechanisms fordoing so.
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 in using the
Model to improve situations for the affected communities.
Organizational styles, policies, and procedures of the different partner members
have contributed to real challenges for the partnerships.
The partnerships are successfully managing the challenges caused by the different
organizational styles, policies, and procedures of the different partner members.
Federal agencies have and continue to play key roles in partnerships using the
Model.
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 NGO, or government level, who took it upon themselves, at real
risk of failure, to pull diverse groups together.
Box 10. Core Findings Regarding the EJ Collaborative Model and Associated Partnerships
Do Not Cite or Quote.
78
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
Core Recommendations
Expand use of the EJ Collaborative Model. 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 partnerships that apply the
Model. 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 partner, improved coordination
across organizations, and enhanced coordination within organizations.
Link those involved in partnerships applying the Model 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.
Identify long-term opportunities for building partnership administrative and coordination
capacity with local colleges and universities, government agencies at all levels, foundations, and
non-governmental organizations. Partnerships reviewed for this study have creatively found
ways to ensure the continued coordination and functioning of their partnerships. 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. Further, 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 applying the EJ Collaborative Model. It is much easier for partnerships using
the Model 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 a strong local constituency. 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
Do Not Cite or Quote.
79
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
areas that lack a strong-sense of identity centered on a recognizable geographic space. In
order to obtain greater community involvement in partnerships lacking a strong voice from the
community, efforts should be made, as needed, 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 partnerships already applying the Model 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 partnerships using the Model should ultimately rest on whether partnership
activities will 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 be considered 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 linking of goals, activities, and environmental, public health, and socio-
economic outcomes. To help do this, early on partner members should consider using
community visioning, strategic planning, performance measurement, and evaluative tools.
The primarily qualitative data used for this assessment suggests that the six
partnerships reviewed have been very effective at generating social capital, leveraging action,
and better ensuring implementation of environmental activities. However, lack of a broadly
approved framework for regularly assessing partnerships applying the Model prevents full
understanding of the types and magnitudes of change EJ collaborative partnerships produce
and the key factors contributing to partnership progress and success. Furthermore, this inhibits
ongoing learning and mid-course corrections that are necessary to improve overall application
of the Model as well as individual partnership performance. To remedy this, the IWG should
work with organizations experienced in the evaluation of national community revitalization
efforts and community-based partnerships, as well as EJ collaborative partnership leaders, to
further the development of an assessment framework for the EJ Collaborative Model as well as
an action plan for implementing it. Such an effort should include: (1) the identification of both
short- and long-term environmental, social, institutional, and other outcomes that can
reasonably be expected from application of the Model; (2) indicators that can be used to
determine the extent to which outcomes are being achieved; and (3) agreed upon questions to
systematically identify key factors contributing partnership progress and success. Furthermore,
partnership leaders should be closely engaged in the development of the assessment
framework to ensure that that its use will not pose a significant burden on partner members, and
to ensure that results will have timely applicability for improving 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, EPA's Smart Growth, EPA's Superfund, and others. Although these
programs produce results acting independently, to fully meet the needs of communities
Do Not Cite or Quote.
80
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
challenged by numerous environmental, public health, and socio-economic issues, partnerships
using the Model 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 program coordinators can be improved, (2) how related 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
partnerships applying the Model. 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. 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 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.
Systematically promote rigorous academic study and intellectual discourse around the
use of collaborative models to address environmental justice issues. Although efforts by the
IWG and partner leaders to promote the 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.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
81
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
Core Recommendations Regarding the EJ Collaborative Model
and Associated Partnerships
Expand use of the EJ Collaborative Model. 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 partnerships that apply the Model.
Link those involved in partnerships applying the Model into a national structure
that encourages cross-partnership learning and builds additional support.
Identify long-term opportunities for building partnership administrative and
coordination capacity with local colleges and universities, government
agencies at all levels, foundations, and non-governmental organizations.
Promote community-based leadership and organizational development at the
local level for communities applying the EJ Collaborative Model.
Focus attention on the environmental, public health, and socio-economic
outcomes produced by EJ collaborative partnership activities.
The IWG should work with organizations experienced in the evaluation of
national community revitalization efforts and community-based partnerships,
as well as EJ collaborative partnership leaders, to further the development of
an assessment framework for the EJ Collaborative Model as well as an action
plan for implementing it.
Review opportunities to forge stronger links between established government
environmental programs that are critical to the cleanup and revitalization of
disadvantaged communities.
The IWG has played an important leadership role in supporting, nurturing, and
promoting partnerships applying the Model. However both current and future
EJ collaborative partnerships would benefit by expanded IWG support.
Systematically promote rigorous academic study and intellectual discourse
around the use of collaborative models to address environmental justice
issues.
Box 11. Core Recommendations Regarding the EJ Collaborative Model and Associated Partnerships
Do Not Cite or Quote.
82
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
Appendix
-List of Interviewees
-Evaluation Guiding Principles
-Copy of Interview Guide
Do Not Cite or Quote.
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
84
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
List of Interviewees
Barrio Logan Partnership
Don Ames-
Norma Chavez
Susana Concha-Garcia-
Paula Forbis
Clarice Gaylord
Steven Gold
James Justus
Jerry Martin-
Lane McVey
David Merk
Lewis Michaelson
Frank Riley
Sonia Rodriquez-
Charles "Muggs" Stoll
California Air Resources Board
Metropolitan Area Advisory Council on Anti-Poverty Project
American Lung Association of San Diego & Imperial Counties
Environmental Health Coalition
formerly with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
San Diego Attorney's Office
Inner City Business Association
California Air Resources Board
National Steel and Shipbuilding Company
Unified Port District
Katz and Associates
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Mercado Tenants Association
California Department of Transportation
Bridges to Friendship Partnership
Richard Allen
Uwe Brandes
Brian Christopher
Gentry Davis-
Camille Destafny
Judith Dobbins-
Christine Hart-Wright
Linda Jackson
David Ouderkirk
Randy Parker-
Reginald Parrish
Mike Shannon-
Maxine Snowden-
Mike Wallach
Babette Williams-
Admiral Christopher Weaver
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
District of Columbia
Alice Hamilton Occupational Health Center
U.S. National Park Service
U.S. Navy
Covenant House D.C.
Strive DC, Inc.
Building Bridges Across the River
U.S. Navy
U.S. Department of Labor
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Covenant House D.C.
U.S. National Park Service
Anacostia Economic Development Corporation
U.S. Department of Labor
U.S. Navy
Metlakatla Peninsula
Jeff Benson-
Garth Beyette
Robert Deering-
Frank Esposito-
Jere Hayslett
Robert Johnson
Cliff Mahooty
Felicia Wright
Len Richeson
Callie Ridolfi-
Cleanup Partnership
Metlakatla Indian Community
Federal Aviation Administration
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Coast Guard
Federal Aviation Administration
Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of Defense
Ridolfi Engineers
-Denotes that individual participated in a group interview.
-------
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.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
86
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
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.
2
Evaluation should proceed from a sound understanding of the conditions, issues, and goals
of the community that the project is seeking to serve.
3
Evaluation should be flexible -custom fit to the scope, time frame and objectives of the
project.
4
Evaluation should closely involve all participants in each step of the evaluation process to
the greatest extent feasible.
5
Evaluation should be regarded as an opportunity for project participants to advance
existing relationships between partners and develop new ones with evaluators
7
Evaluation should allow for data to be collected and shared in ways transparent and
understandable to those participating in the evaluation.
8
success and ask project coordinators how they are measuring success.
9
Evaluation efforts should engage project participants in critical dialogues before, during and
10
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
remedying the problems it originally sought to address. It should be expected that evaluation of
Do Not Cite or Quote.
87
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
any project will 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
dialogue that emerges from interaction between participating groups throughout the evaluation
Do Not Cite or Quote.
88
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
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
Do Not Cite or Quote.
89
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
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.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
90
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
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?
b. How long have you been a part of the project/partnership/collaborative?
Do Not Cite or Quote.
91
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
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?
d. Are you satisfied with the outcomes of these activities so far? Please explain.
Do Not Cite or Quote.
92
Draft: 9.4.02
-------
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?
Do Not Cite or Quote.
93
Draft: 9.4.02
------- |