**General Questions**

Managers who completed the self certifications forms were asked to agree
or disagree with two statements of general interest about the facility
they managed. These and the other questions asked on the form paralleled
observations the inspectors were asked to make when they visited the
shops. The first question asked the manager to respond to this
statement: "The facility conducts periodic facility wide assessments to
determine environmental compliance." The inspectors were also asked to
supply information about periodic facility wide assessments. Table 1
shows the before and after comparison between those shops who were
inspected in both stages.

Table 1 "Does the facility conduct periodic facility wide assessments to
determine environmental compliance." (analysis of those shops inspected
both times)

+---------+------+--------+------+---------+-----+---------+-------+
| First   | Yes  | Fre    | Per  | Second  | Yes | Fr      | Pe    |
| Ins     |      | quency | cent | Ins     |     | equency | rcent |
| pection |      |        |      | pection |     |         |       |
+---------+------+--------+------+---------+-----+---------+-------+
|         |      | 2      | 6.9  |         |     | 18      | 60.0  |
+---------+------+--------+------+---------+-----+---------+-------+
|         | No   | 27     | 93.1 |         | No  | 12      | 40.0  |
+---------+------+--------+------+---------+-----+---------+-------+
|         | T    | 29     | 1    |         | To  | 30      | 100.0 |
|         | otal |        | 00.0 |         | tal |         |       |
+---------+------+--------+------+---------+-----+---------+-------+
| The     |      |        |      |         |     |         |       |
| dif     |      |        |      |         |     |         |       |
| ference |      |        |      |         |     |         |       |
| between |      |        |      |         |     |         |       |
| the     |      |        |      |         |     |         |       |
| insp    |      |        |      |         |     |         |       |
| ections |      |        |      |         |     |         |       |
| is      |      |        |      |         |     |         |       |
| statis  |      |        |      |         |     |         |       |
| tically |      |        |      |         |     |         |       |
| sign    |      |        |      |         |     |         |       |
| ificant |      |        |      |         |     |         |       |
|         |      |        |      |         |     |         |       |
| p \<    |      |        |      |         |     |         |       |
| .001    |      |        |      |         |     |         |       |
| (using  |      |        |      |         |     |         |       |
| a       |      |        |      |         |     |         |       |
| paired  |      |        |      |         |     |         |       |
| samples |      |        |      |         |     |         |       |
| t-test) |      |        |      |         |     |         |       |
+---------+------+--------+------+---------+-----+---------+-------+

There was a dramatic change that occurred between the two inspections.
Less than 7% of facilities inspected both times and for whom the
inspectors recorded an answer conducted periodic facility wide
assessments in 2002. In 2004, 60% of those facilities conducted such
assessments. One would find such a change by chance less than one time
in a thousand. Something happened and it appears that it can be
logically inferred that the program of self assessment and education was
successful in changing this behavior.

Were those who submitted self-assessment forms more likely to change
their behavior? It can be argued that those who submitted
self-assessment forms were those who were more involved with the program
and showed more cooperation with the program. It would be anticipated
that, if the program was a prime catalyst in changing behavior, those
who submitted the forms would be even more likely to have changed
behavior. Table 2 shows a comparison between those who submitted forms
and those who did not.

Table 2 "Does the facility conduct periodic facility wide assessments to
determine environmental compliance." By self-certification (analysis of
those shops inspected both times)

  ----------------- ------- ----------- --------- ------------------- ------- ------- ----------- ---------
  1^st^ Inspection  Yes     Frequency   Percent   1^st^ Inspection    Yes             Frequency   Percent
  (no self-cert)                                  (self-certifiers)                               

                            1           7.7                                           1           6.2

                    No      12          92.3                          No              15          93.8

                    Total   13          100.0                         Total           16          100.0

  The difference                                                                                  
  between the                                                                                     
  self-certifiers                                                                                 
  and the non-self                                                                                
  certifiers is not                                                                               
  statistically                                                                                   
  significant                                                                                     

  2^nd^ Inspection  Yes     Frequency   Percent   2^nd^ Inspection            Yes     Frequency   Percent
  (no self-cert)                                  (self-certifiers                                

                            9           56.2                                          9           64.3

                    No      7           43.8                                  No      5           35.7

                    Total   16          100.0                                 Total   14          100.0
  ----------------- ------- ----------- --------- ------------------- ------- ------- ----------- ---------

Although the differences between the self-certifiers and the non
self-certifiers were very small they were in the right direction. Table
2 shows that in the 1^st^ inspection period both of these groups were
quite similar. In both groups only 1 of the shops conducted facility
wide assessments. In both groups that number increased by 8 by the
second inspection. Since this same improvement occurred in a slightly
smaller group, the percentage improvement for the self-certifiers was
slightly better. Both groups showed good improvement in this area and
almost identical improvement.

**Hazardous Waste Generation and Management**

Shop managers were asked to respond to a series of 15 questions about
their hazardous waste related practices. The first question asked
whether the facility generates hazardous waste. Inspectors reported in
the first stage inspections that 18 shops generated hazardous waste
(this was 48.6% of those shops that inspectors reported on in that
stage). Inspectors reported in the second stage inspections that 22
shops generated hazardous waste (this was 56.4% of those shops that
inspectors reported on in that stage).

Four of the 14 other questions asked of shop managers related to above
ground storage tanks. But inspectors reported no such storage tanks in
these facilities so those questions can be ignored. In regard to the
other 11 questions asked about hazardous materials the numbers of
facilities are so small that it is more useful to construct a scale and
give a score to different facilities and then to compare those scores.

**Oil Usage and Storage**

Two questions about oil usage and storage remain for analysis. The first
asked inspectors "if oil is sometimes stored on site in other than
tanks, are the containers that the oil is kept in kept closed?" Table 8
shows the results

Table 8 "If oil is sometimes stored on site in other than tanks, are the
containers that the oil is kept in kept closed?" (analysis of those
shops inspected both times)

  --------------- ------- ----------- --------- ------------ ------- ----------- ---------
  First           Yes     Frequency   Percent   Second       Yes     Frequency   Percent
  Inspection                                    Inspection                       

                          5           41.7                           12          63.2

                  No      7           58.3                   No      7           36.8

                  Total   12          100.0                  Total   19          100.0

  The difference                                                                 
  between the                                                                    
  inspections is                                                                 
  not                                                                            
  statistically                                                                  
  significant                                                                    
  --------------- ------- ----------- --------- ------------ ------- ----------- ---------

There was a change that occurred between the two inspections. The number
of shops for which the inspector answered "yes" more than doubled.
Because of the small sample size it cannot be said that this isn't due
to chance, so the result is not statistically significant. Still the
result, together with those results already reported leads one to the
conclusion that the program did have some success.

The other question that can be analyzed that concerns oil storage asks
"Are the containers in good condition (not leaking or overflowing)?"
This question is also a contingency question only asked of those who
store oil on site, so it is unlikely there will be enough of a sample
that inference can be made from the results. Still the results might be
suggestive. Table 10 shows that there was not enough variation in the
answers to this question to make it valuable for research purposes.
Though the percentage of those in compliance in the second stage was
higher the numbers are so low that this difference is easily explained
by chance

Table 10 "Are the containers in good condition (not leaking or
overflowing)?" All reported data from inspections

  --------------- ------- ----------- --------- ------------ ------- ----------- ---------
  First           Yes     Frequency   Percent   Second       Yes     Frequency   Percent
  Inspection                                    Inspection                       

                          9           60.0                           16          76.2

                  No      6           40.0                   No      5           23.8

                  Total   15          100.0                  Total   21          100.0

  The difference                                                                 
  between the                                                                    
  inspections is                                                                 
  not                                                                            
  statistically                                                                  
  significant                                                                    
  --------------- ------- ----------- --------- ------------ ------- ----------- ---------

**Air Compliance**

The next section of the self-reporting form asked the shop managers to
answer questions about air compliance all but one of the questions ask
about painting operations. That one remaining question is s key one. In
the context of dust becoming airborne or preventing the creation of a
nuisance outside the property's boundary, the inspectors are asked to
reply to the question "Is the facility taking appropriate precautions?"
Table 11 shows the results from all the inspections where answers to the
question were provided

Table 11 "Is the facility taking appropriate precautions?" All reported
data from inspections

  --------------- ------- ----------- --------- ------------ ------- ----------- ---------
  First           Yes     Frequency   Percent   Second       Yes     Frequency   Percent
  Inspection                                    Inspection                       

                          8           66.7                           17          73.9

                  No      4           33.3                   No      6           26.1

                  Total   12          100.0                  Total   23          100.0

  The difference                                                                 
  between the                                                                    
  inspections is                                                                 
  not                                                                            
  statistically                                                                  
  significant                                                                    
  --------------- ------- ----------- --------- ------------ ------- ----------- ---------

Table 11 shows again that there was progress in gaining cooperation of
the shops between the first inspection and the second. This progress
though was small and in the context of a contingent question where the
inspectors do not provide answers for every shop, they are not
statistically significant.

The other questions in this section have to do with painting operations.
Five of these questions can be combined in an index to show whether
there was progress between the stages. The five questions which are
combined are:

1.  Does the facility have written good operating practices?

2.  Does the facility make the required provisions for training of
    operators on practices, procedures, and maintenance requirements
    that are consistent with the equipment manufacturers'
    recommendations and the sources' experience in operating the
    equipment, with the training to include proper procedures for
    maintenance of air pollution control equipment?

3.  Are there solvents, paints, contaminated rags, or other
    VOC-containing materials stored in closed containers when not in
    use?

4.  Is the facility using enclosed spray gun cleaning, VOC-recycling
    systems OR other spray gun cleaning methods where practical that
    reduce or eliminate VOC emissions?

5.  Does the facility know if compliant paints are used?

Table 12 Average scores on constructed Painting Operation Compliance
Index (All inspected facilities)

+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Average Score   | 1^st^          | 2^nd^          | Self Reported  |
| on painting     | Inspection     | Inspection     | (Relevant N=9  |
| operation       |                | (Relevant N=11 |                |
| compliance      | (Relevant      |                |                |
| index           | N=14)          |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
|                 | 40%            | 62%            | 78%            |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| The difference  |                |                |                |
| between the     |                |                |                |
| inspection      |                |                |                |
| stages is not   |                |                |                |
| statistically   |                |                |                |
| significant     |                |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+

Table 12 again shows that there was significant progress among shops on
painting operation compliance, but because there are so few in the
sample the results were not statistically significant.

**Conclusion**

Many of the questions asked on the self-certification form and the
parallel questions from the inspectors form were contingent questions
that only applied to a fraction of the shops. The number of shops for
which complete data was available was also small. So with many of these
contingent questions few conclusions could be drawn. But on those
questions where conclusions could be drawn the data was uniformly
indicative of a change for the better among the auto shops in the Park
Heights neighborhood. The changes were small but some of them were
statistically significant.

In the areas of general maintenance there were statistically significant
changes. In the area of hazardous waste management there were
statistically significant changes and a significant number of shops quit
accumulating scrap tires as part of their business activities.

Those shops that participated to a greater extent by completing the
self-certification forms appeared to be more likely to change for the
better, but the difference between those who submitted the forms and
those who didn't was too small to allow any firm conclusions to be
drawn.

COMMUNITY Perception Survey Excerpts

**Background**

The University of Baltimore's Schaefer Center for Public Policy with the
assistance of the Park Heights Community Health Association (PHCHA)
constructed a survey instrument to ascertain some of the effects of the
Park Heights Environmental Compliance Assistance Program. That program
was designed to reduce the level of environmental degradation caused by
Auto mechanic and auto body shops in the Park Heights area using a model
that emphasized self reporting and education rather than coercive
penalties. The PHCHA created the draft of the survey. The Schaefer
Center's staff reworked the survey to make it more rigorous. The PHCHA
had the primary responsibility for administering the survey. The
Schaefer Center has conducted an analysis of the results.

The research design employed was basically a before-and-after design.
For some aspects of this analysis, the answers given to questions asked
before implementation of the program are contrasted with the answers
given to those same questions after implementation. For other aspects of
the analysis, where the attitudes of the residents of the neighborhood
are important regardless of the stage of implementation, answers from
both the before and after waves are aggregated.

The survey was administered in three parts. At the community's kick-off
meeting to describe the Program the survey was administered to
participants. This was a non-random survey and is not used in this
analysis. Next in October, 2003 prior to implementation of the major
education initiatives of the Project, the survey was administered to
people who lived in randomly chosen residences throughout the
neighborhood. The Schaefer Center took the boundaries of the
neighborhood and generated a list of random street addresses with those
boundaries. The Center then asked the PHCHA to go to those addresses and
ascertain the closest residential building and attempt to question
someone at that residence. Answers from this stage of the research
design will be designated "first wave" answers.

In March 2004, after the education components of the Project had been
implemented a new group of addresses were randomly chosen and the PHCHA
again interviewed residents. Answers from these March interviews will be
designated as "second wave" answers. Forty-three interviews were
conducted in the nonrandom kick-off phase, 143 were conducted in the
first wave and 154 were conducted in the second wave.

There were no statistically significant differences found on most of the
basic demographic questions and on other questions whose answers were
not expected to change because of implementation of the project. This
indicates that the respondents in the first and second wave were similar
enough that we can infer that differences found between the second wave
and the first wave were caused by the implementation of the project.

The survey instrument is presented in Appendix A. For the most part,
this analysis presents the results of the surveys by addressing the
questions in the order they were asked but it begins by addressing some
of the most important questions first.

**Knowledge of the Project**

There were 143 residences randomly selected in the first wave and 154
such residences in the second wave. In the first wave, only 20 (14.0 %)
answered "yes" to the question "Do you know about the Park Heights
Environmental Compliance Assistance Program?" (See Table 1). Those who
answered "yes" were asked "Do you believe Park Heights Environmental
Compliance Assistance Program is helping to improve the environmental
conditions in your neighborhood?" Of the 18 households who responded to
this follow up question, 17 (94.4%) answered "yes." (See Table 2).

In the second wave, 63 of the 135 (46.7 %) who responded answered "yes"
to the question "Do you know about the Park Heights Environmental
Compliance Assistance Program?" This represented an important increase
from the 14% who had answered this question "yes" in the first wave.
Many more people knew about the program. Those who answered "yes" were
again asked the follow up question "Do you believe Park Heights
Environmental Compliance Assistance Program is helping to improve the
environmental conditions in your neighborhood?" Of the 47 households who
responded to this follow up question, 41 (87.2%) answered "yes." Many
more people knew about the program and the approval rates for the
program stayed very high. This difference is statistically significant.

In fact, we can say with 95% confidence that at least 22% more of the
population of Park Heights had heard of the project during the second
wave (March 2004) compared to the time of the first wave (October 2003).

Table 3 (Question 23) "Do you know about the Park Heights Environmental
Compliance Assistance Program?"

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 14%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="4">First Wave</td>
<td rowspan="2">Yes</td>
<td>Frequency</td>
<td>Percent</td>
<td rowspan="4">Second Wave</td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">Yes</td>
<td colspan="2">Frequency</td>
<td>Percent</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>20</td>
<td>14.3</td>
<td colspan="2">63</td>
<td>46.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>No</td>
<td>120</td>
<td>85.7</td>
<td colspan="2">No</td>
<td colspan="2">72</td>
<td>53.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Total</td>
<td>140</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td colspan="2">Total</td>
<td colspan="2">135</td>
<td>100.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="10"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2" rowspan="4"></td>
<td rowspan="4"><p>Total</p>
<p>Both</p>
<p>Waves</p></td>
<td rowspan="2">Yes</td>
<td colspan="2">Frequency</td>
<td colspan="2">Percent</td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="4"><p>The difference between the waves is
statistically significant</p>
<p>P &lt; .001</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">83</td>
<td colspan="2">30.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>No</td>
<td colspan="2">192</td>
<td colspan="2">69.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Total</td>
<td colspan="2">275</td>
<td colspan="2">100.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Table 4 (Question 23a asked of those who answered "yes" to Question 23)
"Do you believe Park Heights Environmental Compliance Assistance Program
is helping to improve the environmental conditions in your
neighborhood?"

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 14%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="4">First Wave</td>
<td rowspan="2">Yes</td>
<td>Frequency</td>
<td>Percent</td>
<td rowspan="4">Second Wave</td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">Yes</td>
<td colspan="2">Frequency</td>
<td>Percent</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>17</td>
<td>94.4</td>
<td colspan="2">41</td>
<td>87.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>No</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>5.6</td>
<td colspan="2">No</td>
<td colspan="2">6</td>
<td>12.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Total</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td colspan="2">Total</td>
<td colspan="2">47</td>
<td>100.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="10"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2" rowspan="4"></td>
<td rowspan="4"><p>Total</p>
<p>Both</p>
<p>Waves</p></td>
<td rowspan="2">Yes</td>
<td colspan="2">Frequency</td>
<td colspan="2">Percent</td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="4">The difference between the waves is not
statistically significant</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">58</td>
<td colspan="2">10.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>No</td>
<td colspan="2">7</td>
<td colspan="2">89.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Total</td>
<td colspan="2">275</td>
<td colspan="2">100.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>