United States Office of Policy, EPA/100-R-03-002

Environmental Protection Economics, and January 2003

Agency Innovation www.epa.gov/evaluate

Towards an

Environmental Justice

Collaborative Model

Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used

to Address Environmental Justice Issues in

Communities

Case Studies

January 2003

Prepared for the Federal Interagency Working Group on

Environmental Justice by the U.S. EPA Office of Policy,

Economics, and Innovation


2 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

Towards an Environmental Justice

Collaborative Model

Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address

Environmental Justice Issues in Communities
Acknowledgements

The Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in

Communities (Evaluation Report) and Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address

Environmental Justice Issues in Communities benefited from the assistance of several

organizations and individuals. First, the strong support and cooperation from the federal

Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice and EPA’s Office of Environmental

Justice has been invaluable. Second, comments from individuals who participated on two

national conference calls to discuss the evaluation effort greatly assisted in improving the

evaluation methodology. Furthermore, partnership leaders and coordinators graciously helped

minimize the challenge of conducting interviews within partnership communities across the U.S.

In addition, constructive comments from Tom Beierle, John Callewaert, Caron Chess, Bruce

Tonn, and Gregg Walker notably enhanced both the content and organization of the Evaluation

Report. Improvements to the final versions of the case studies were also made possible

because of assistance from Garth Beyette, Noemi Emeric, Paula Forbis, Michael Garrett, Brian

Holtzclaw, Ralph Howard, Harold Mitchell, Altheà Moses, David Ouderkirk, Kara Penn, and

Elena Rush. Finally, a special thanks to all partnership members who, through their thoughtful

reflections, recommendations, and critiques, helped provide a clearer understanding of what it

means to use multi-stakeholder collaboration as a tool for strengthening environmental

protection and improving the overall quality of life in some of the nation’s distressed

communities.

Towards an Environmental Justice Collaborative Model: Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used

to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

January 2003. EPA/100-R-03-002

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation.

Washington, D.C. A team based in EPA’s Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation

performed this evaluation. Eric Marsh was the project manager for this effort.

This report is a companion report to Towards an Environmental Justice Collaborative Model: An

Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

(EPA/100-R-03-001). View both of these on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/evaluate/ej.htm.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... 5

 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 12

 2 Barrio Logan Partnership......................................................................................................... 23

 3 Bridges to Friendship Partnership ........................................................................................... 42

 4 Metlakatla Peninsula Cleanup Partnership ............................................................................. 57

 5 Metro East Lead Collaborative................................................................................................ 70

 6 New Madrid Tri-Community Partnership................................................................................. 83

 7 ReGenesis Partnership ........................................................................................................... 98

List of Interviewees.................................................................................................................. 114

Copy of Interview Guide.......................................................................................................... 116

Works Cited............................................................................................................................. 119

Endnotes ................................................................................................................................. 127

5

Executive Summary

In June 1999, the federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (IWG)

began to develop the concept of an Integrated Federal Interagency Environmental Justice

Action Agenda (Agenda) as a way of incorporating environmental justice in all policies,

programs, and activities of federal agencies. Finalized in May 2000, the IWG’s Agenda seeks to

build dynamic and proactive partnerships that access the initiatives and resources of federal

agencies to improve the quality of life of minority and low-income communities that suffer

disproportionate environmental impacts.

To help implement the Agenda, the IWG selected fifteen IWG national demonstration

projects in June 2000. To make the selections, the IWG considered several criteria which

included the extent to which the projects: were community-based; had strong community

interest; represented areas that were predominantly minority or low-income populations; had

sufficient resources to carry out activities; had previously taken steps to address or consider

environmental justice issues; had the commitment of at least two federal agencies to participate;

and were committed to using multi-stakeholder collaborative problem-solving as a tool for

addressing environmental justice issues. Goals of the projects were varied, but included,

among others: asthma rate reduction, comprehensive lead abatement, and contaminated site

cleanup.

A critical component of these projects for the IWG were parties’ commitments to

collaborate with each other to address environmental justice issues of concern and federal

agencies’ commitments to coordinate with each other to help support the projects. After

witnessing many years of environmental justice disputes end with less-than-ideal solutions and

long-lasting negative relations between stakeholders, the IWG came to recognize the

importance of encouraging a cooperative, problem-solving spirit across stakeholders. Once

these issues are raised to the federal government, the IWG explains that, they typically “(1) cut

across agency jurisdictions or areas of expertise; (2) involve many stakeholders holding

mutually inconsistent perspectives about the nature of the issues confronting them; and (3)

involve parties having longstanding, adversarial relationships.” 1 In response, the IWG argues

that use of a multi-stakeholder collaborative effort can be an effective way to achieve

sustainable, quality-of-life improvements for communities in which issues have taken “the form

of intractable, multifaceted, and multi-layered disputes.” Furthermore, the IWG explains that

championing collaboration at local levels, with federal agencies serving as partners, is a realistic

and necessary response to the on-going environmental justice issues facing affected

communities.

Following the designation of the projects, the IWG continued to champion collaboration

as an important tool for addressing environmental justice issues. Furthermore, the IWG began

identifying elements of success based upon the current projects and past efforts that used multicollaborative problem-solving around environmental justice issues in order to outline an

“environmental justice (EJ) collaborative model.” Committed to learn from the demonstration

projects and inform the development of the emerging EJ Collaborative Model, starting in

November 2000, the IWG began working with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to

develop an evaluation strategy. The plan eventually included the development of six case

studies for six demonstration projects, and a cross-case study analysis. Data used to develop

the case studies was generated primarily through interviews of partnership members conducted

between September 2001 and April 2002, and document review. Interview data was collected

through use of a semi-structured, open-ended interview guide. The case studies include:
6 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

ß 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.

ß 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.

ß 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.

ß A partnership between federal agencies and several organizations based in East St.

Louis and surrounding communities that is taking a comprehensive approach to reducing

local threats from lead-poisoning.

ß 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.

ß A partnership consisting of numerous groups and agencies and driven by a grassroots

group in Spartanburg, South Carolina that is seeking to cleanup contaminated and

abandoned sites and revitalize the nearby neighborhoods.

Following completion of the case studies, the cross-case study analysis was performed

that examined: 1) partnership process, activities, and outcomes; 2) key factors influencing

partnership success; 3) value of collaboration to address environmental justice issues; and 4)

value of federal agency involvement in these efforts. Following these analyses, findings were

developed based upon a review of the core analytical sections and the six case studies.

Findings describe the value of using collaboration as applied in the six partnerships, value of

federal involvement, and specific factors contributing to progress and success of the

partnerships. Some of the core findings are described below.

Multi-stakeholder collaboration can act as a transformative mechanism for enabling

communities and associated stakeholders to constructively address complex and longstanding issues concerning environmental and public health hazards, strained or nonexistent relations with government agencies and other institutions, and economic

decline.

Multi-stakeholder collaboration in the environmental justice context can be

transformative in two ways. First, it can provide disadvantaged communities with an opportunity

to openly discuss concerns and potential solutions to issues affecting them in a manner that

genuinely suits the affected community’s needs. Second, it can provide public service

organizations, including government agencies and community-based organizations, with an

effective forum to coordinate, leverage, and strategically use resources to meet complex public

health, environmental, and other socio-economic challenges facing disadvantaged communities.

The power of the collaborative approaches used in the six partnerships is reflected in the fact

that nearly 80 percent of the interviewees addressing this topic (52 of 66) indicated that the

issues facing the affected communities either would not have been addressed, or would not

have been addressed to the same extent, if at all, without use of a collaborative approach.
Executive Summary 7

The partnerships are generating a variety of positive outcomes for the affected

communities.

The partnerships’ most significant outcome has been the creation or enhancement of

relationships through which numerous, diverse, and sometimes competing, stakeholders can

come together and engage in constructive dialogue to overcome environmental justice

concerns. Through these collaborative partnerships, community organizations and residents

strengthen their capacity and confidence to work with agencies and institutions that are intended

to serve the public. In addition, this collaboration helps build or reinforce critical bridges

between institutions and the affected communities, which are important ingredients for local

environmental protection and redevelopment. The partnerships are also obtaining strong

support and/or involvement from members in the affected communities, and better ensuring the

implementation and/or the more effective implementation of specific public health,

environmental protection, and other economic development programs.

The partnerships are also enabling the many institutions seeking to provide community

assistance to work more effectively with the affected communities.

Targeted programs designed to assist communities are made more effective and best

applied when sponsoring officials can more efficiently navigate challenging stakeholder

relationships and understand how their program may fit the affected community’s overall needs.

Working through a forum that is already strongly supported by the community and involves

numerous and diverse stakeholders can reduce service providers’ needs to develop separate,

independent relationships within the affected community necessary to more effectively

implement their programs.

Several of these partnerships have and continue to face challenges to improve situations

for the affected communities.

Most notably, parties struggle with the maintenance and operation of their partnerships,

grappling with such day-to-day issues as coordination and ensuring continued cooperation

amongst the different parties. Furthermore, several partnerships are facing challenges with the

implementation of specific activities, such as developing more protective zoning regulations and

ensuring that all responsible parties participate in the cleanup of contaminated sites. In

addition, some partnerships are still learning how best to engage the affected communities they

are working in to ensure that all residents have a genuine voice in and/or sufficient knowledge of

the partnership efforts and their activities. Finally, one partnership, although committed to

working out differences, has struggled to bridge diverse perspectives amongst participating

stakeholders.

Federal agencies have and continue to play key roles in these partnerships.

First, federal agencies have assisted in the creation or continued implementation in all

the partnerships by generating or seizing opportunities and by providing energy and

enthusiasm. Second, they have supplied the partnerships with critical resources, knowledge,

and expertise. Finally, federal agencies have provided or enhanced the credibility, legitimacy,

and/or trust surrounding the partnership efforts. This has been done by validating community

concerns regarding issues of environmental justice, offering assurances that certain locallybased 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.
8 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

Despite the positive roles of federal agencies, cooperation and coordination in support of

partnership efforts within and between federal agencies could be enhanced and made

more apparent to non-federal partners. 

Some interviewees believe that coordination has improved. However, some don’t see

any evidence of cooperation, while others are unclear about the cooperation. Some federal

representatives, however, are exhibiting signs of improved coordination. One federal agency

has developed an internal team to better coordinate the many agency-led activities taking place

in the partnership community. In two other partnerships, memorandums of understanding were

established to improve coordination and cooperation between some participating federal

agencies. Moreover, at least one federal representative at the regional level has begun meeting

with representatives of different federal agencies to discuss ways in which they can coordinate

on additional partnerships centered on issues of environmental justice.

Much of the success of these efforts can be attributed to individuals, either at the

community, regional, NGO, or government level, who took it upon themselves, at real risk

of failure, to pull diverse groups together.

Pulling partnerships together, especially when the goal is to address challenging

environmental problems and social relationships, and/or help a community revitalize, can be a

difficult endeavor. This challenge is magnified when organizations are not accustomed to

working in a coordinated manner, and when resources for maintaining the partnerships are not

always readily available. Such an effort requires not only leadership skills, patience, and the

ability for creative thinking, but also strong interpersonal skills that naturally lend themselves to

stakeholder bridge building. In many instances, such a combination of skills in one individual

may not be available; nevertheless it confirms the need for communities and other institutions

desiring to use collaborative partnerships to look for these qualities in persons to lead or co-lead

these efforts.

Conclusion and Recommendations

This evaluation examined the value of using collaborative partnerships to address

environmental justice issues in predominantly low-income or minority communities. The

evaluation was built upon six case studies that were primarily written between December and

July 2002. Through this effort, the evaluation team and the IWG sought to set a high standard

for evaluating environmental justice (EJ) collaborative partnerships. The evaluation team

strived to accurately convey the spirit of what partnership stakeholders believed to be the main

successes and challenges of their collaborative efforts, as well as what they expressed to be the

overall value of using collaboration to address complex local issues. In addition, the evaluation

team sought to provide a broad and insightful understanding of EJ collaborative partnerships in

terms of what they are achieving, factors contributing to their progress and success, specific

organizational barriers that may be limiting collaboration, and the role of federal involvement in

these efforts.

Evaluation findings indicate that the partnerships are producing a variety of important

results. In regards to overall value of collaboration, most interviewees indicated that the issues

facing the affected communities either wouldn’t have been addressed or wouldn’t have been

address to the same extent, if at all, without use of a collaborative approach. Interviewees also

saw federal involvement in these efforts as critical. In addition to the many positive points

voiced, interviewees also noted the partnerships are facing some challenges, including

difficulties associated with partnership maintenance and operational support. Despite these and

other challenges expressed, most interviewees voiced very favorable impressions of the
Executive Summary 9

partnerships to which they were associated. Much additional work will be needed in the future

to more fully understand the strength of multi-stakeholder collaboration for resolving local

environmental justice issues. However, evidence from this evaluation suggests that use of

these approaches, as demonstrated within these partnerships, can be an effective means for

addressing environmental justice issues in communities.

To advance the use of multi-stakeholder collaborative partnerships as a means for

addressing environmental justice issues in communities, the evaluation team recommends the

following:

For institutions at all levels responding to environmental, public health, and socio-economic

challenges associated with community revitalization...

Expand use of multi-stakeholder collaboration as a tool for addressing environmental

justice issues in distressed communities. Government at all levels, community

organizations, faith groups, other NGOs, philanthropic foundations, and the business

community should review opportunities to initiate, support, and participate in multistakeholder collaborative partnerships.

Use of collaborative approaches can effectively enable disadvantaged communities and

associated stakeholders to constructively address complex and long-standing issues concerning

environmental and public health hazards, strained or non-existent relations with government

agencies and other institutions, and economic decline. Participation in these efforts not only

better ensures that the nation’s least advantaged populations’ concerns are heard and

addressed; it can also better ensure the effective delivery of community development services.

Assistance in these efforts need not only take the form of financial resources and expertise, it

can take the form of personal interaction with the affected community as partners, improved

coordination across organizations, and enhanced coordination within organizations.

For those organizations and institutions actively participating in, supporting, or overseeing EJ

collaborative partnerships...

Identify long-term opportunities with organizations and institutions to build the

administrative and coordination capacity of the collaborative partnerships.

Partnerships reviewed for this study have creatively found ways to remain functioning

and ensure continued coordination. However, energy continually devoted to the performance of

administrative functions by partnership leaders is energy lost to further meet, discuss ideas,

develop strategies, and/or oversee the implementation of partnership actions. Furthermore,

strong assurances of long-term administrative and coordination support can go far in terms of

reducing overall anxiety of partners and especially partnership leaders. Finally, a wellestablished administrative and coordination function can potentially assure potential partners

that the partnership is a solid operation worthy of additional support.

Promote community-based leadership and organizational development at the local level

for communities using multi-stakeholder collaboration to address EJ issues.

It is much easier for partnerships using multi-stakeholder collaboration to implement

actions that support the affected community if the community has a strong voice in partnership

affairs. The community’s voice is best heard if the partnership includes representatives of

community groups that have broad local support. In order to obtain greater community

involvement in partnerships lacking a strong voice from the community, efforts should be made,
10 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

to encourage community organizations and their leaders to emerge from within the affected

community and work with the partnership as partner members. This could be done through: (1)

strategic use of grants to either build or enhance the capacity of existing community-based

organizations to participate; (2) sharing of lessons learned from local leaders representing EJ

collaborative partnerships about how to better ensure local leadership; and (3) informal and

formal requests from partner members asking local community-based organizations for their

direct involvement.

Focus attention on the environmental, public health, and socio-economic outcomes

produced by EJ collaborative partnership activities.

Attention given both upfront and throughout a partnership’s life cycle to several items

should move the partnership that much closer to generating the type of results desired by the

affected community. Items to consider include: (1) the identification of short- and long-term

goals; (2) the implementation of activities and leveraging of resources in pursuit of these goals;

and (3) the careful linking of goals, activities, and environmental, public health, and socioeconomic outcomes. To help do this, partner members should early on consider using

community visioning, strategic planning, performance measurement, and evaluative tools.

For the academic community...

Systematically promote rigorous academic study and intellectual discourse around the

use of collaborative models to address EJ issues.

Much additional work is needed to more fully understand the value of EJ collaborative

approaches at both the national and community level. This could take the form of additional

program evaluations and other research efforts. Moreover, this could involve academic

symposiums and even new coursework that examine both the theory underlying EJ

collaborative approaches, its current application, and potential for use on a broader scale.

For the IWG...

Link those involved in EJ collaborative partnerships into a national structure that

encourages cross-partnership learning and builds additional support.

Partners operating in isolation may feel that their work is overwhelming and that they are

continually charting new territory. This could be at least partly overcome if partner members are

made to recognize that they are part of a process that is being used in places across the

country to address complex issues in the midst of challenging stakeholder relationships. Efforts

to create a national structure could include: (1) continuing the on-going effort by the IWG to

promote a national dialogue on use of EJ collaborative approaches; (2) hosting annual regional

and national conferences for partnership members and others interested in such approaches to

discuss partnership progress and successes; and (3) distributing a national newsletter to

partnership members that provides updates on partnership progress, partnership resources,

and recommendations for overcoming partnership obstacles to success.

Fully develop the EJ Collaborative Model.

A carefully articulated model would provide a clearer understanding for parties interested

in collaboration of how, and under what circumstances, collaboration can take place, and what

benefits effective collaboration could produce in addressing environmental justice issues.

Second, such a model would enable the IWG, and leaders of the EJ collaborative partnerships,

to learn from EJ collaborative efforts in a more systematic fashion. The full development of the
Executive Summary 11

EJ Collaborative Model could include: (1) identification of the Model’s main components; (2)

identification of basic outcomes to be achieved; (3) a discussion that clearly explains the links

between collaborating and the expected outcomes of collaborating; (4) identification of

indicators that can be used to determine the extent to which outcomes are being achieved; (5)

identification of agreed upon questions to systematically identify key factors contributing to

partnership progress and success; and (6) development of a data gathering plan that is userfriendly and minimizes the burden of data collection.

Review opportunities to forge stronger links between established government

environmental programs that are critical to the cleanup and revitalization of

disadvantaged communities.

These include federal initiatives such as DOE’s Brightfields, EPA’s Brownfields, DOE’s

Clean Cities, DOE’s Rebuild America, EPA’s Smart Growth Index, EPA’s Superfund, and

others. These programs produce results acting independently. In order to fully meet the needs

of communities challenged by numerous environmental, public health, and socio-economic

issues, EJ collaborative partnerships would greatly benefit if the leaders and coordinators of

these programs either enhance or begin formal partnerships with each other. Formal

coordination efforts could include periodic assessments of (1) how cooperation by 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.

Expand internal federal support for both current and future EJ collaborative partnerships.

The IWG has played an important leadership role in supporting, nurturing, and promoting

EJ collaborative partnerships. However both current and future EJ collaborative partnerships

would benefit by expanded IWG support. First, each IWG-sponsored partnership would benefit

by having a designated champion within the IWG. Second, partnerships would benefit by

additional technical assistance in the form of planning and evaluation, regular diffusion of

lessons learned, and greater understanding of the availability and accessibility of the broad

array of resources, particularly at the federal level, for both community partnership building and

community revitalization initiatives. Furthermore, partnerships could benefit from tools that

enable them to understand the linkages between these government programs and how they

could be accessed and used collectively to better meet environmental and revitalization goals.

Although it is beyond the scope of the IWG to provide this type of technical assistance to

partnership communities on a regular basis, the IWG can collectively help envision, oversee,

and support information diffusion systems that enable partnerships to more efficiently and

effectively develop and obtain desired outcomes for the partnership communities.

 
12

1 Introduction

Background

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the federal government gave increasing attention to

issues of environmental justice. Grassroots protests and government and academic research

began to reveal how communities of color and low-income were faced with a disproportionate

share of unwanted land uses and disparities in environmental protection. As a first response,

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) opened the Office of Environmental Equity in

1992, which became the Office of Environmental Justice. An important effort that emerged from

this office was the creation of the National Environmental Justice Advisory 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 requiring all federal

agencies to ensure environmental justice issues are addressed in all agency programs, policies,

and procedures. In addition, the Order required the formation of a federal interagency

workgroup, chaired by EPA, to better ensure coordination across federal agencies in resolving

environmental justice issues. By 2000 several federal agencies, along with an increasing

number of state governments, local governments and members of the business community,2

had initiated programs or taken actions to remedy environmental justice issues.

The Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice

An important component of the federal effort to address environmental justice issues

was the development of the “Integrated Federal Interagency Environmental Justice Action

Agenda” (Agenda) released in May 2000 by the federal Interagency Working Group on

Environmental Justice (IWG). The overarching goal of the Agenda is to build “dynamic and

proactive partnerships among Federal agencies to benefit environmentally and economically

distressed communities.” In the Agenda the IWG stressed that that by working more effectively

together, federal agencies would “enhance identification, mobilization and utilization of Federal

resources...[enabling] distressed communities to improve environmental decision-making and

more efficiently access and leverage Federal government initiatives.”3

To help implement the Action Agenda, the IWG selected fifteen national demonstration

projects in June 2000. To make the selections, the IWG considered several criteria which

included the extent to which the projects: were community-based; had strong community

interest; represented areas that were predominantly minority or low-income populations; had

sufficient resources to carry out activities; had previously taken steps to address or consider

environmental justice issues; had the commitment of at least two federal agencies to participate;

and were committed to using multi-stakeholder collaborative problem-solving as a tool for

addressing environmental justice issues. Of the projects selected, eleven had specific local

communities as focus areas; three had particular states or regions as their focus area and one

focused on national tribal environmental justice policy. Some of the projects selected emerged

as a direct result of the IWG designation process; others were already established and were

selected to highlight their on-going commitments to multi-stakeholder collaboration4. Some of

the goals of the various projects included:
Introduction 13

ß Cleanup of a polluted waterway;

ß Community empowerment to better address local environmental justice issues;

ß Conversion of vehicular fleets to cleaner fuels;

ß Community economic development;

ß Comprehensive lead abatement;

ß Local air quality improvement;

ß Contaminated site cleanup; and

ß Asthma rate reduction. 5

No special IWG funding awards were given to the projects as a result of IWG designation.

Why Collaboration?

A critical component of these projects for the IWG were parties’ commitments to

collaborate with each other to address environmental justice issues of concern and federal

agencies’ commitments to coordinate with each other to help support the projects. After

witnessing many years of environmental justice disputes end with less-than-ideal solutions and

long-lasting negative relations between stakeholders, the IWG came to recognize the

importance of encouraging a cooperative, problem-solving spirit across stakeholders. Once

these issues are raised to the federal government, the IWG explains that, they typically “(1) cut

across agency jurisdictions or areas of expertise; (2) involve many stakeholders holding

mutually inconsistent perspectives about the nature of the issues confronting them; and (3)

involve parties having longstanding, adversarial relationships.”6 In response, the IWG argues

that use of a multi-stakeholder collaborative effort can be an effective way to achieve

sustainable, quality-of-life improvements for communities in which issues have taken “the form

of intractable, multifaceted, and multi-layered disputes.” Furthermore, the IWG explains that

championing collaboration at local levels, with federal agencies serving as partners, is a realistic

and necessary response to the on-going environmental justice issues facing affected

communities.

Towards an Environmental Justice Collaborative Model

Less than a year following the designation of these projects, the International

City/County Management Association hosted a forum, sponsored by the Ford Foundation. The

Forum brought together numerous stakeholders to discuss opportunities for collaboration,

identify elements for successful collaboration, and hear from different partners involved in three

of the IWG’s national demonstration projects. Following this forum, the IWG continued to

champion collaboration as an important tool to address environmental justice issues. In its

efforts to further promote an “environmental justice collaborative model” the IWG began

outlining elements of success based upon the demonstration projects and past efforts that used

multi-stakeholder collaborative problem-solving. The IWG grouped elements of success into

five categories that include: issue identification and leadership formation; capacity- and

partnership-building; strategic planning and vision; implementation; and identification and

replication of best practices.7

Since the designation of the national demonstration projects, groups dedicated to issues

of environmental justice have endorsed this collaborative approach to problem-solving. In 2001,

the National Environmental Policy Commission’s Report to the Congressional Black Caucus

Foundation Environmental Justice Braintrust stated, “The IWG demonstration projects are

particularly significant. They point to the potential to problem-solve across stakeholder groups

in a constructive, collaborative manner, building relationships, avoiding duplicated efforts, and

leveraging instead of wasting resources.”8 Furthermore, in June 2002, EPA’s National
14 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

Environmental Justice Advisory Council recommended that EPA support advancement of the

IWG’s Action Agenda and “its collaborative interagency problem-solving model as exemplified in

the fifteen demonstration projects.”9 In April 2002, the IWG announced a second round of

nominations for projects working to address environmental justice concerns, and expects to

make selections by mid-November. As part of the criteria for selection, the IWG asked proposal

sponsors to discuss how their project exhibited elements of success mentioned in the paragraph

above.10

Roots of the Environmental Justice Collaborative Model

The emerging Environmental Justice (EJ) Collaborative Model is being built on lessons

from the on-going national demonstration projects as well as upon on lessons from many

existing comprehensive, collaborative efforts, such as the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative

in Boston, Massachusetts, and the programs of the Bethel New Life Community Development

Corporation in Chicago, Illinois.11 Other important influences include the National Advisory

Council on Environmental Policy and Technology’s Integrative Environmental Justice Model

Demonstration Approach, developed in 1993; the City of Clearwater, Florida’s effort to develop

a model environmental justice strategic plan for brownfields redevelopment, begun in 1996;12

and lessons from a document entitled Community Collaborative Wellness Tool.

13 What sets the

IWG’s approach apart from these efforts is the IWG’s emphasis upon systematically promoting

multi-stakeholder collaboration as a tool for addressing environmental justice issues on a

national scale. Through the IWG’s national pilot projects and soon-to-be announced

revitalization projects, the concerted effort by federal agencies to serve as partners in these

projects, and enhanced federal participation and coordination, the IWG expects that distressed

communities will be enabled to more easily access existing federal and other resources that

enhance environmental protection and community revitalization.

Collaboration Explored in Brief

Before reviewing the collaborative projects in more detail, it is helpful to discuss briefly

the term collaboration. In her comprehensive treatment of the subject, Barbara Gray defines

collaboration as “a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can

constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited

vision of what is possible.”14 Collaboration, according to Gray, is typically used to resolve

conflicts or advance shared visions, and it can be used in a variety of settings including “joint

ventures among businesses, settlement of local neighborhood or environmental disputes,

revitalization of economically depressed cities, and resolution of major international problems.”15

According to Gray, the collaborative process typically consists of three phases: (1) the problemsetting phase, in which parties join together to discuss concerns; (2) the direction-setting phase,

in which parties use organizational techniques such as agendas and subgroups to works

towards and reach an agreement; and (3) the implementation phase, in which the parties

generate outside support for their agreement and monitor it to ensure its proper

implementation.16 Gray associates several benefits with collaboration, which are listed below:17
Introduction 15

Figure 1. The Benefits of Collaboration (from Gray)

Gray also points out several realities associated with collaboration. First, collaboration

will not always work, as, for instance, when one party holds significantly higher power relative to

the other participants. Second, collaboration may not always resolve complex, multiparty

issues, especially when parties perceive the dispute as centering on a distinctly defined set of

gains and losses. Furthermore, collaboration can be difficult when the parties’ perceptions of a

threat “have deep psychological and emotional roots.” To overcome this challenge, Gray

suggests that collaboration must pay careful attention to the design of stakeholder meetings. In

addition, Gray suggests that effective collaboration requires a significant investment of time by

the participants, and “the skill and forbearance of a convening organization and/or a skilled third

party.”18

In a more recent examination of the topic, Steven Daniels and Gregg Walker describe

collaboration as a process involving “interdependent parties identifying issues of mutual interest,

pooling their energy and resources, addressing their differences, charting a course for the

future, and allocating implementation responsibility among the group.”19 They also describe

several important features of collaboration, which are listed below.20

Figure 2. Key Features of Collaboration (from Daniels and Walker)

The Benefits of Collaboration (from Gray)

ß Broad comprehensive analysis of the problem domain improves the quality of solutions.

ß Response capability is more diversified.

ß It is useful for reopening deadlocked negotiations.

ß The risk of impasse is minimized.

ß The process ensures that each stakeholder’s interests are considered in any agreement.

ß Parties retain ownership of the solution.

ß Parties most familiar with the problem, not their agents, invent solutions.

ß Participation enhances acceptance of solution and willingness to implement it.

ß The potential to discover novel, innovative solutions is enhanced.

ß Relations between the stakeholders improve.

ß Costs associated with other methods are avoided.

Key Features of Collaboration (from Daniels and Walker)

1. It is less competitive and more accepting of additional parties in the process because they are

viewed more as potential contributors than as potential competitors.

2. It is based on joint learning and fact-finding; information is not used in a competitively strategic

manner.

3. It allows underlying value differences to be explored, and there is the potential for joint values to

emerge.

4. It resembles principled negotiation, since the focus is on interests rather than positions.

5. It allocates the responsibility for implementation across as many participants in the process as

the situation warrants.

6. Its conclusions are generated by participants through an interactive, iterative, and reflexive

process. Consequently, it is less deterministic and linear.

7. It is an ongoing process; the participants do not meet just once to discuss a difference and then

disperse. However, collaborations may have a limited life span if the issues that brought the

participants together are resolved.

8. It has the potential to build individual and community capacity in such areas as conflict

management, leadership, decision making, and communication.
16 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

The authors argue for the use of collaboration as an important public policy tool to

address natural resource conflicts—one that can effectively balance two competing societal

public policy goals of “technical competence and participatory process”.21 They also carefully

point out, however, that collaboration is a challenging endeavor. They explain that to

collaborate, experts must learn to communicate without the use of jargon and to admit that their

views reflect “fundamental value preferences.” Also, to collaborate, citizens must make a

substantial investment of their own time, acknowledge contrasting “worldviews and political

preferences” and take care to make only reasonable demands of agency staff and tax dollars.22

Moreover, they explain that whether parties begin to collaborate hinges entirely with the

participants, since “there is no practical way or ethical reason to force them to interact

collaboratively.” They add to this by stating, “Collaboration cannot be forced, scheduled, or

required; it must be nurtured, permitted, and promoted.”23 As with Gray, Daniels and Walker

also emphasize the importance of design in collaboration. They note that, “A process is not

collaborative just because someone labels it so, but the collaboration emerges from the

interactions of the participants, which, in turn, is encouraged, by the thoughtfulness of the

design.”24

Overview of Case Study Development

Although the EJ Collaborative Model is still emerging, since the launch of the Action

Agenda, the IWG has been committed to learn from the national demonstration projects. By

better understanding how these projects use collaborative processes, the IWG hopes to

continue developing a collaborative model that other communities addressing environmental

justice issues can more easily apply in the future. In the fall of 2000, the IWG began exploring

the possibility of having the Evaluation Support Division in 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 that some stakeholders may be reluctant to participate in a

government-sponsored evaluation, especially given that projects were voluntary, challenging

issues were being addressed and, many projects were still in the early stages, the evaluation

team took three steps. First, the team composed a set of environmental justice evaluation

guiding principles (see Appendix B) intended to describe what an evaluation is, why it is useful,

how it can be done in a manner that is respectful of the community, and how evaluation results

can be used to empower the participants involved. Second, the team sought a high degree of

input from a range of groups including the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, the

IWG, demonstration project leaders, program evaluators, business representatives, academia,

and environmental justice activists.* 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

 

*

 In addition to providing both the NEJAC and the IWG the opportunity to comment on the evaluation approach, two

facilitated national conference calls were conducted in 2001 to better inform the direction of the evaluation. To view

proceedings of the national conference calls go to: http://www.epa.gov/evaluate/ncc.htm.
Introduction 17

for the six projects reviewed. The six case studies were then analyzed to address the following

topics:

ß Partnership process, activities, and outcomes;

ß Key factors influencing partnership success;

ß Value of multi-stakeholder collaborative partnerships to address environmental justice

issues; and

ß Value of federal agency involvement in these efforts.

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. The

evaluation team generally followed the interview guide; however, not all questions were asked

of all interviewees. Interview questions were structured loosely on the program framework

described below.

Objectives ® Process ® Outputs ® Institutional Effects ® Environmental Outcomes†

 - - 

 External Factors

Figure 3. Steps in a Program Framework

A concerted effort was made to interview individuals that (1) possessed a strong

understanding of the partnership they were associated with; and (2) accurately reflected the

diversity of partnership interests. The evaluation team made the decision not to interview

persons unaffiliated with individual partnerships. Such an effort would have required resources

well beyond our scope. However, even by limiting the interviewee pool in this way, the

evaluation team fully expected to uncover a diversity of responses within single partnerships.

To identify interviewees, the evaluation team typically developed a draft interviewee list

based upon an initial review of partnership documents. A chart describing the types of

organizations participating in each of the six partnerships reviewed, based upon a listing in the

December 2000 IWG Demonstration Projects Interim Report, is included below.

 

†

For the purposes of this figure “environmental outcomes” are also meant to include public health and quality of life

outcomes.
18 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

Types of Organizations Participating in the Six Partnerships Reviewed 

Based Upon December 2000 Interim Progress Report List

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Project Consultant

Academia

Business/Industry

Office of U.S. Congressional Official

Local Elected Official

Federal Government Official

State/Regional Government Official

Local Government Official

Community/ Non-Profit

Number of Organizations

Chart 1. Types of Organizations Participating in the Six Partnerships Reviewed Based Upon December

2000 Interim Progress Report List

Partnership leaders were then asked to provide feedback on the potential interviewees

and suggest more suitable candidates if necessary. In total, the evaluation team conducted 66

separate interviews and a total of 79 individuals participated. Care was taken to work within the

constraints of the federal Paperwork Reduction Act. The distribution of interviewee type is

included below.

Interviewees for the Six Partnerships Reviewed by Organizational 

Type (September 2001-March 2002)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Project Consultant

Academia

Business/Industry

Office of U.S. Congressional Official

Local Elected Official

Federal Official

State/Regional Government Official

Local Government Official

Community / Non-profit

Number of Interviewees

 Chart 2. Interviewees for the Six Partnerships Reviewed by Organizational Type

 (Sept. 2001–March 2002)
Introduction 19

As evident from the table, representatives of community organizations and federal

agencies represented the bulk of the interviewees. When establishing the interviewee list at the

on-set, community organizations and federal agencies were most often the main participants in

the partnerships. Given the high degree of federal involvement in these projects, the distribution

of interviewees by federal agency is also presented.

Federal Interviewees by Organization

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Natural Resources Conservation Service

National Park Service

Department of Labor

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Federal Aviation Administration

Environmental Protection Agency

Department of Defense

Coast Guard

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Army Corps of Engineers

Number of Interviewees

 Chart 3. Federal Interviewees by Organization

Interviews were primarily conducted between mid-September and the first week of

October 2001. However interviews for two partnerships were conducted between late

November 2001 and April 2002. In addition, the evaluation team reviewed 15 to 75 documents,

depending upon availability, to develop each case study. These documents included written

community histories, formal project reports, fact sheets, site assessments, environmental

management plans, community planning documents, and newspaper articles.

Case studies were structured to allow for cross-case analysis and included the following

sections: (1) community history, (2) partnership background, (3) partnership goals and process,

(4) partnership activities, (5) measuring partnership success, (6) partnership successes and

challenges, (7) recommendations for improving the partnership, (8) lessons for other

communities considering partnerships, (9) value of federal involvement, and (10) findings. Parts

1-4 were mostly descriptive and relied primarily on background documents, while parts 5-10

relied primarily on interviewee data. To conduct the analysis using interview data, responses to

particular questions were reviewed to identify themes and patterns. Care was taken to ensure

that the comments carefully reflected the sentiment of the interviewees’ and the degree to which

interviewees agreed with others on a particular topic.

Case study findings were based upon the interview data, the document review, and the

evaluators’ overall impressions of each partnership. Interviewees were also given two

opportunities to review their partnership case study and provide comments regarding the case

study’s organization, content, accuracy, and readability. In addition, the evaluation team, on

occasion, contacted a few specific individuals associated with the partnerships to clarify certain
20 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

questions related to partnership background and process. Case studies were written

understanding that the descriptions and analyses of interviewee comments reflected interviewee

perceptions about the partnerships at a single point in time. Moreover, the evaluation team

recognized that the partnerships, and interviewee perceptions of them, would continue to

evolve.

The case study partnerships were selected based upon several considerations including

the extent to which they represented an adequate level of geographic variability and adequate

variability in regards to the partnership types (both in terms of the partnership focus and the

demographic characteristics of the affected community). In addition, attention was placed upon

those partnerships that were more representative of those types of partnerships that the IWG

expects will be more commonly implemented in communities in the future.

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 industrial land uses near residential homes. Through a structured,

facilitated partnering process, the Barrio Logan partnership has brought long-standing

adversaries together to discuss, form goals, and implement actions to address some of the

numerous quality of life issues facing the community.

The Bridges to Friendship Partnership emerged in 1998 out of concerns that a major

redevelopment effort in a distressed Washington, D.C. neighborhood would fail to benefit local

residents and could eventually result in their displacement. Initiated by community

organizations and officials at the Washington Navy Yard, these groups formed a structured but

flexible partnership involving numerous community non-profits, several federal agencies, and

the District of Columbia government to ensure that local residents would benefit from the

redevelopment through better coordination, communication, and pooling of expertise and

resources. With over forty partners today, partnership members view this coordinated approach

as an effective way to conduct business and continue to search for opportunities to better serve

local residents.

The Metlakatla Peninsula Cleanup Partnership is a unique emerging collaboration

between the Metlakatla Indian Community (MIC), federal agency field staff in Alaska, and

federal headquarters staff based primarily in Washington D.C. Its purpose is to ensure the

cleanup of over 80 primarily government-contaminated sites on the MIC’s home island in

southeast Alaska. Through these coordinated efforts, the parties hope to cleanup the sites in a

manner that is satisfactory to the Tribe, making more efficient use of resources, and map out a

process for cleanup of complex multi-party sites. The issues are complex given the numerous

agencies and other parties involved in the contamination, the different parties’ policies and

procedures for contaminated site cleanup, and disagreements over who should cleanup the

sites and to what level. The partnership effort began in 2000 after the designation by the IWG

as a national demonstration pilot and built upon an on-going local collaboration primarily

between the MIC and Alaska federal agency field staff.

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
Introduction 21

surrounding communities may be a result of lead-contaminated soil. Recognizing the need for a

comprehensive approach to reduce the threat of lead-poisoning, in early 1999, an EPA

representative brought several groups already at work on lead and related issues together to

form a structured partnership. Although initially focused on East St. Louis, the project soon

expanded its focus to other nearby neighborhoods. In addition, the enthusiasm over the

partnership’s lead-reduction efforts spurred the partnership to begin simultaneously addressing

brownfields redevelopment.

The New Madrid Tri-Community Partnership resulted in 1998 after local residents

from one rural community in southern Missouri requested the assistance of the federal Natural

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to help it tackle numerous social, economic, and

environmental challenges. Responding to the call, NRCS joined together with EPA, a regional

non-profit, and two additional communities in the area to begin addressing common residential

concerns. Soon after the partnership was designated by EPA as a Child Health Champion

national demonstration project, these groups began taking a structured approach to addressing

asthma, lead, and water quality issues in the three communities. Since then, the partners have

made significant progress meeting the objectives outlined under their program.

The ReGenesis Partnership emerged in 1999, after the leader of a 1,400-member

group representing two distressed and adjacent neighborhoods in Spartanburg, South Carolina

brought together numerous stakeholders in an effort to cleanup and revitalize the area. By

building a shared vision for redevelopment, the energy and enthusiasm surrounding the effort

brought together approximately 70 organizations representing a range of interests, which

includes the cleanup and redevelopment of two Superfund equivalent sites, the building of a

health clinic, a recreational greenway, new road construction, and new affordable housing. This

loosely structured partnership is headed by Harold Mitchell, the leader of ReGenesis, and

guided by a core group including Mitchell, and representatives of the City, the County, and

EPA’s regional office based in Atlanta.

Partnership Similarities and Differences in Brief

Across the six partnerships reviewed are both similarities and differences. First, the

partnerships started at different points in time. Some started as early as 1998 and others as

late as 2000. Second, some partnerships were initiated by communities or community-based

organizations while others were initiated by federal agencies. Most partnerships have identified

issues, formed goals, and are taking actions or planning actions to address these issues. Most

have well-defined operating structures, however only one regularly relies on a professional

facilitator. The partnership coordination mechanisms range from tight to loose, and the scope of

solutions sought by each of the partnerships vary from specific to comprehensive. In all

partnerships diverse stakeholders are participating, however, most stakeholders represent

community or government-based organizations. Finally, all partnerships have varying levels of

community involvement.
22 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

Partnership

Title

Partnershi

p Location

Demographics

of Affected

Community

Geographic

Characteristics

Year

Initiated

Partnership Focus

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

Southeaster

n 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 1999

Improve children’s

health by reducing

lead poisoning

New Madrid TriCommunity

New Madrid

County,

Missouri

African

American/

Caucasian/Low

income

Rural 1998

Address childhood

lead poisoning,

asthma and allergies,

and water

contaminants

ReGenesis

Spartanburg,

South

Carolina

African

American/Low

income

Urban/Rural 2000

Address and

revitalize

contaminated sites

Figure 4. Case Study Partnerships Summary 
23

2 Barrio Logan Partnership

[This effort has] gotten people from these agencies talking and getting to know each

other which is critical.

We’re talking about safety, housing, trucks, and all the things that are important to

the community.

Previous enemies are working together to figure out what they can do to fix the

problem instead of fighting.

I saw this partnership as an opportunity to break the cycle that had been going on for

the last 30-40 years.

— Interviewees, Barrio Logan Partnership

Community History*

The City of San Diego is located on the southern California coast, less than fifteen miles

from the northern border of Mexico. Home to a diverse population of approximately 1.2 million

people25†, the City was named the most efficiently run city in California in February 2002.26 The

Mayor’s Office is currently engaged in efforts to improve overall quality of life for San Diegans,

focused on such goals as reducing traffic congestion, cleaning the area’s bays and beaches and

enhancing San Diego’s neighborhoods.27 Through San Diego’s “City of Villages” initiative the

City hopes to help its historically and culturally distinct communities thrive by working with them

to address and integrate commercial, employment, housing, transit, and civic use needs.28

 One San Diego community, where residents have been working for many years to

strengthen its neighborhoods and boost overall quality of life for residents, can be found near

the City’s downtown area. Barrio Logan is a predominantly Latino community located on the

border of the industrialized portion of the San Diego Bay.29 Between 1910 and 1920, this area

saw a large influx of immigrants from Mexico wanting to escape Mexico’s poor economy and

political turmoil.30 Following this migration, Barrio Logan transformed into one of the largest

Mexican-American communities in California31 and came to be known as “the historical and

symbolic center of the San Diego Chicano Community.”32 As San Diego’s downtown grew, and

both the state and the city began to modernize, however, Barrio Logan began experiencing a

series of fundamental changes.33 First, the revision of city zoning laws in the 1950s led to

industrial growth in the community and brought a series of junkyards sited near schools and

homes34 as well as other industries, including plating, furniture, woodworking, auto body, and

welding shops,35 tanneries and canneries.36 Second, U.S. Interstate 5 was built in the early

1960s, which “physically divided the community and resulted in forced relocation of residents.”37

Finally, in 1969, the Coronado Bay Bridge was constructed, leading to more displacement of

 

*

 Interviews for this case study were conducted primarily during the week of October 8, 2001. One additional interview

was conducted in late October. Twelve separate interviews were conducted and a total of fourteen persons

participated. Interviews were conducted with representatives of community organizations, federal, state, and local

government agencies, local business, and industry.

†

 The current population total of the City of San Diego equals 1,223,400.
24 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

residents and further community resentment.38 By 1979, Barrio Logan’s population had fallen

from 20,000 to only 5,000.

Today, roughly 6,000 people reside in Barrio Logan, of which approximately 85 percent

are Hispanic.39 The community consists of a tightly concentrated mixture of homes, commercial

buildings, and industrial facilities, including a waterfront industrial and naval complex.40 Despite

a heavy concentration of industry, unemployment is significantly greater than the city average,41

and 40 percent of households earn incomes below the state’s poverty level.42 Moreover, Barrio

Logan residents struggle with antiquated, inadequate and poorly maintained housing,

overburdened schools, and insufficient health care and social services.43 In addition, Barrio

Logan residents are faced with a myriad of environmental health issues. Today, nearly

3,000,000 pounds of toxic pollutants are emitted from facilities in the community, children exhibit

an incidence of asthma at over twice the rate of the national average,44 and the region’s

respiratory health hazard index is 100-200 times above acceptable standards.45 In addition,

residents are faced with pollutants from a high volume of commuter and truck traffic.

Despite its many obstacles, Barrio Logan residents have kept a strong sense of

community and continue to push for improvements. This is perhaps best symbolized by an

event in 1970 in which Barrio Logan residents resisted efforts by the California Highway Patrol

to build a parking lot on land underneath the Coronado Bay Bridge that had previously been

designated by the City to become a community park.46 Born out of many years of negative

relations between the community and the City,47 these actions eventually resulted in the

establishment of Chicano Park, which became famous for its collection of murals,48 and other

programs and initiatives including the Chicano Community Clinic and the Chicano Park Steering

Committee.49

By the mid-1970s, residents, along with businesses and the City had begun to work

together in an effort to boost the quality of life in the community.50 An example of such an effort

was the development of Barrio Logan/Harbor 101 Community Plan, adopted by the City Council,

which called for a series of improvements in the community, including zoning and land use

changes.51 Despite activity within the community and the plan’s call for new zoning in the

community, change has not come quickly. For instance, the new redevelopment zone

recommended in the Barrio Logan/Harbor 101 Community Plan was not established until 199152

and only included a portion of Barrio Logan. 53 Moreover, neither the new zone nor subsequent

zoning amendments eliminated the mixed industrial-residential land use pattern in Barrio

Logan.54 Nevertheless, residents and different organizations continued to move forward on

numerous fronts to improve Barrio Logan’s quality of life and reduce the threat from air pollution.

For instance, in another effort to stop incompatible land uses, community residents and a local

environmental justice organization active in the Barrio Logan area, the Environmental Health

Coalition, pressured the City of San Diego Land Use and Housing Committee to pass a

measure in 1994 calling for the relocation of the chrome plating shops and chemical distribution

facilities from Barrio Logan.55 Similarly, in 1996, the City of San Diego along with the Barrio

Logan Livable Neighborhoods Team developed the Barrio Logan Revitalization Action Plan,

which, among several other action items, suggested that the City relocate existing polluting

facilities to areas where they would not pose a risk to sizeable populations.56 Despite these

actions by the City, not one of the polluting facilities has yet been relocated from the area.57

Another initiative was an effort by the California Air Resources Board to do extensive

testing for air pollution and health effects in partnership with several stakeholders in the

community.58 Others include a major multi-year study being conducted in cooperation with the

University of Southern California, the Environmental Health Coalition, and a local health clinic to

assess how air pollution in Barrio Logan may be linked to certain illnesses; and an effort
Barrio Logan Partnership 25

sponsored by the local American Lung Association chapter to reduce incidences of asthma

among asthmatic children in schools.59

Partnership Background

Although these and other initiatives were underway in the late 1990s to address different

concerns of the community, and Barrio Logan’s sister community of Logan Heights, most

operated independently of each other. Project organizers did not regularly consult with one

another to complement efforts, share lessons learned, and avoid project duplication. Further,

despite the many efforts, community concerns were not being fully addressed. For example,

some residents wanted neighborhood truck traffic, which passes by a local elementary school,

rerouted, or speed limits lowered, to better ensure the safety of their children as they walked to

and from school. Others were concerned about Barrio Logan’s many vacant and abandoned

properties. Based upon these observations, a senior advisor working out of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency’s Border Office in San Diego, who has since retired, sought

an opportunity to help meld the many positive Barrio Logan initiatives into a more

comprehensive community development approach.

In early 2000, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official applied to have Barrio

Logan designated as a national Environmental Justice Pilot Project, sponsored by the federal

Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Environmental Justice, hoping that this effort would

provide a forum for all the efforts underway in Barrio Logan to come together and bring

additional resources and national attention to the community. In May 2000, the IWG selected

Barrio Logan to be one of the fifteen national pilot projects. Following this, the EPA official

asked the Environmental Health Coalition (EHC), an organization with a strong tradition of

working with the Barrio Logan community, to serve with EPA as the project co-lead. EHC,

however, was not quick to accept, concerned that participation in such a collaborative approach

would curtail the organization’s ability to participate in certain activities, such as community

demonstrations, and ultimately limit its authority to advocate for the Barrio Logan community.

Despite these reservations, EHC determined that the pilot project’s potential to bring additional

resources to the community outweighed the organization’s initial concerns.

After agreeing to share leadership roles, EPA and EHC began developing a strategy to

bring the organizations such as local industries, businesses, government agencies and

community groups together and build a collaborative partnership. The pre-planning team

realized that this would be a difficult endeavor since several potential members would find it

difficult to work in concert due to past or present disputes, some involving litigation. For

instance, several organizations, agencies, and industries have differing perspectives regarding

the validity of data collected from local air monitoring stations and whether those results suggest

that the local population suffers from disproportionately greater exposure to air emissions than

other comparable groups. Recognizing the difficulties, EPA and EHC made the decision to hire

a professional facilitator to help guide the collaborative process.‡ One was selected with prior

experience working in the Barrio Logan community, and over the next several months, EPA,

EHC and the facilitator began framing the focus of the partnership and determining how best to

build an effective partnership.

In November 2000, EPA and EHC held the kick-off session for the Barrio Logan

Demonstration Project. Several organizations already working on projects in the area, whom

the pre-planning team had previously identified, attended the session. During the meeting, the

pre-planning team emphasized that the project would last two-years, be results-oriented, and

 

‡

 The facilitator, funded by EPA, represents the company of Katz and Associates.
26 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

would “focus on addressing incompatible land use practices, unacceptable air quality, and

associate health impacts for the residents of Barrio Logan.”60 Due to the interest expressed by

organizations in attendance, the pre-planning team chose to continue the partnership building

process and formally request that all interested organizations apply to join the Barrio Logan

Demonstration Project,61 even those previously identified. No organization would be

guaranteed acceptance into the partnership. In January 2001, EPA and EHC made this request

in a letter sent to potential partners. An excerpt is included in the box below:

Figure 5. Excerpt from EHC & EPA Letter Asking Potential Partners to Consider Joining the Barrio Logan

Demonstration Project

Included in the letter were four questions designed to enable the pre-planning team to

better determine whether interested recipients would be asked to participate in a partnering

session to be held at the end of January. The questions are listed below.62

Figure 6. Excerpt from EHC & EPA Letter Asking Potential Partners to Justify Why They Would Make an Effective

Partner

After receiving application letters and making decisions about who should be asked to

participate, the partnering session, hosted by the Mercado Tenants Association in Barrio Logan,

was held. The Association provided meeting space, language translation, and information to

Barrio Logan residents affected by the demonstration project. The “One-Day Partnering

Workshop” focused on outlining roles, responsibilities, partnership obligations and planned and

potential partnership activities.63 Furthermore, the workshop gave potential partners an

opportunity to shape the Partnering Agreement, a draft document crafted by the pre-planning

Excerpt from EHC & EPA Letter Asking Potential Partners to

Consider Joining the Barrio Logan Demonstration Project

 This letter is to solicit your organization’s interest in being a partner in this Demonstration

Project and to outline the criteria for being invited as a partner. We are looking for a diverse

group of partners, including federal, state, and local governments, business and industry,

academic institutions, social justice groups, health promotion and community-based

organizations. Based on the interest expressed at the first meeting and since then, we have

set forth a process for selection of partners that will ensure that the group is as inclusive as

possible and is committed to achieving common goals. We need to emphasize that the

Demonstration Project is not an advisory group nor a discussion group, it is a working

partnership with people committed to solving problems in Barrio Logan.

Excerpt from EHC & EPA Letter Asking Potential Partners to

Justify Why They Would Make an Effective Partner

1. Does your organization agree with the problem and goal statements on the attached

sheet? (All project partners must fundamentally agree with these statements in order to

participate in the project)

2. What is your organization’s primary interest and/or priority for this project?

3. What value (resources or technical assistance) will your organization add to this effort?

4. Who will serve as your organization’s representative? Please provide his/her name and

contact information.
Barrio Logan Partnership 27

team that was designed to create an arena of respect where partners could communicate and

work together as equals.

Specifically, the Partnering Agreement provided background on the project and outlined

key problem and goal statements for the project, and roles for both the project leads and project

partners necessary to achieve project goals. The key problem and goal statements are included

in the table below. 64

Figure 7. Key Problem and Goal Statements Outlined in the Barrio Logan Partnering Agreement

Roles of the project leads, as outlined in the Partnering Agreement, included (1)

providing meeting notes; (2) maintaining the project web site; (3) complying with evaluation and

reporting requirements of the demonstration project; (4) coordinating funding requests; and (5)

preparing meeting summaries. Some of the roles of the partners included (1) staying committed

to project success; (2) sharing data and information to assist partners and help the overall

project meet its goals; (3) coordinating activities that could potentially complement or conflict

with each other; (4) identifying obstacles to achieving project goals and developing solutions to

overcome them; and (5) thinking creatively about how partners can collaboratively make a

difference in the health and wellbeing of the Barrio Logan community.65 In addition to describing

the goals and roles, the Partnering Agreement also outlined several steps that would be taken in

the event of disagreements between partners. The section describing these steps is included in

the box below. 66

Key Problem and Goal Statements

Outlined in the Barrio Logan Partnering Agreement

Problem Goal

Emissions of air pollution and toxins from local

industries, small businesses, automobiles, and diesel

vehicles in Barrio Logan and Logan Heights pose

unacceptable health risks to local residents.

Reduce exposure of residents to air

pollution.

Incompatible land use in zoning in Barrio Logan and

Logan Heights exposes residents to increased risks

of hazardous materials accidents and health impacts

from air toxic emissions.

Reduce incompatible land uses in

Barrio Logan and Logan Heights.

Children’s health is a concern for local residents due

to ambient environmental factors as well as risks

within the home and schools such as lead-based

paint and other sources of indoor air pollutants.

Improve children’s health by

improving the ambient environment,

as well as reducing exposure of

children to health risks within the

home, schools, and the community.
28 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

Figure 8. Excerpt from the Barrio Logan Partnering Agreement describing the Partnership’s Conflict Resolution

Process

Following the partnering

workshop, each potential partner was

required, as a condition of participation

in the partnership, to agree to

statements put forth in the Partnering

Agreement. By signing the document,

partners were expected to show that

they could look beyond the past, and

“work together to demonstrate how

agencies and communities working in

concert can achieve meaningful

improvements in public health for

communities such as Barrio Logan.”67 A

diverse collection of partners ultimately

signed the agreement. These included

eighteen representatives from the city,

county state, and federal government,

community-based organizations,

industry, a business association,

environmental and public health groups,

and the San Diego Port District. Several

organizations decided they could not

agree with or sign the Partnering

Agreement. Representatives of these

groups, however, were allowed to attend

subsequent meetings and participate as

observers. These included

representatives from a local college, the

San Diego School District, and offices of

local and U.S. politicians. The list of

organizations is included in Figure 10.

Excerpt from the Barrio Logan Partnering Agreement describing the

Partnership’s Conflict Resolution Process

In the course of partnership activities, disagreements will inevitably arise regarding whether a

course of action should or should not be taken. The Partners agree to work in a collaborative

fashion and to facilitate consensus on these issues whenever possible. If consensus cannot be

reached, the Partners agree to use mediation to attempt to reach a resolution. Further, the

Partners agree they will attempt to resolve the disagreement expeditiously and constructively to

benefit Project goals. In the event of an impasse, the co-leads shall be the final decision

makers, carefully weighing the consequences of any decision to take action where there is a

lack of consensus. If the co-leads cannot agree, then the action in question would not be taken.

In any event, individual Partners cannot be compelled to participate in an action to which they

do not agree. Individual Partners may also abstain from participation in a decision when they

believe it would be inappropriate for them to do so.

Active

American Lung Association

California Air Resources Board

California Department of Transportation

California Environmental Protection Agency

City of San Diego-Traffic Division

Environmental Health Coalition

Inner City Business Association

Katz and Associates

MAAC Project

National Steel and Shipbuilding Company

Mercado Tenant’s Association

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

San Diego City Attorney’s Office

San Diego Housing Commission

San Diego Unified Port District

South West Marine, Inc.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Observers

Barrio Logan College Institute

City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency

Congressman’s Bob Filner’s Office

County of San Diego

County of San Diego Health and Human Services

Mayor Dick Murphy’s Office

Private Citizen

San Diego City Councilmember Inzunza’s Office

San Diego Air Pollution Control District

San Diego Unified School District

Supervisor Greg Cox’s Office

Figure 9. Barrio Logan Partnership’s Partners and Observers
Barrio Logan Partnership 29

Regular partnership working sessions began in March 2001. Sessions were held

approximately once per month on a weekday and typically lasted around three hours. Sessions

included (1) presentations by non-partners on various local initiatives that could impact Barrio

Logan and partnership activities, (2) facilitated discussions between partners about different

activities already underway in Barrio Logan and existing resources partners could provide that

could benefit Barrio Logan, and (3) opportunities for partnership work groups to strategize and

report out to the larger group their progress. As described in the Partnering Agreement, the

Partnership decision making process was based upon consensus. In addition, to ensure that all

would be heard, the facilitator typically tried to bring both majority and minority opinions into the

discussion. Very few topics discussed provoked strong disagreement across parties.

At the close of the March 2001 meeting, partners agreed to develop three work groups

that would each focus on one of the goals identified in the Partnership Agreement68. During the

next meeting, partners organized themselves into three work groups: Land Use, Children’s

Health, and Air Quality. The organizations participating in each work group are listed in the

figure below.69

Initial Barrio Logan Partnership Work Groups

and Participating Organizations

Figure 10. Initial Barrio Logan Partnering Work Groups and Participating Organizations

Each work group was then asked to discuss among participants three main questions

that would help organize them. The questions are listed in the box below:70

Air Quality Work Group

National Steel and Shipbuilding Company

San Diego Air Pollution Control District

San Diego City Attorney’s Office

California Air Resources Board

California Department of Transportation

San Diego Unified Port District

California Office of Environmental Health

 Hazard Assessment

Environmental Health Coalition

Children’s Health Work Group

American Lung Association

San Diego Housing Commission

San Diego Vacant Properties Coordinator

Mercado Apartments

San Diego County Department of

 Environmental Health

California Air Resources Board

Land Use Work Group

Cal/EPA Dept of Toxic Substances Control

Cal/EPA Environmental Justice Program

Inner City Business Association

Environmental Health Coalition
30 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

Organizing Questions for the Barrio Logan Partnership Work Groups

1. Given the goal statement of your work group, brainstorm what an ideal wellness state

would be for the community of Barrio Logan. What will success look like after achieving

improvements in air quality/children’s health/or land use planning?

2. Looking at current and future resources/programs identified for Barrio Logan, where do

you see gaps?

3. What kind of initiatives or programs that currently do not exist, might begin to address

the gaps identified above?

Figure 11. Organizing Questions for the Barrio Logan Partnership Work Groups

Each work group developed a series of responses for each question that was recorded

on flip sheets. The facilitator then used these responses as a discussion point to help direct the

work groups towards specific tasks they could work on. A representative from EHC then agreed

to help combine the discussions of each work group into one matrix that would enable them to

further identify priority action items and collaborative opportunities. This matrix was then

discussed at the following May 2001 meeting. A sample of this matrix is presented below.71

Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project

Goals, Objectives and Solutions Matrix (Sample)

GOALS REDUCE AIR

POLLUTION

IMPROVE CHILDREN’S

HEALTH

REDUCE INCOMPATIBLE

LAND USES

OBJECTIVES Fuller compliance

with air regs

No exposure to indoor

pollutants and lead

No polluters near resident

SOLUTIONS

Political Will

Community Power

Stronger Regs &

Enforcement

Revise community

plan & zoning

Pollution Prevention

Public Awareness

Transportation

System

Low interest loans &

tax incentives

Healthy Homes

Program

Research & Data

Collection

Figure 12. Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project Goals, Objectives and Solutions Matrix

(Sample)

Although the process was straightforward, partners experienced difficulties in prioritizing

actions. Several factors may have slowed this process, including lack of partnership funding,

lack of an effective partnership model about the most appropriate actions to take, lack of

commitment from individual partners, and the inability of some participants to speak on behalf of

their respective organizations. In addition, the partnership co-lead representing EPA retired in

the summer of 2001, creating temporary uncertainty for the other partners about EPA’s
Barrio Logan Partnership 31

leadership commitment while the agency secured a replacement. Nevertheless, the facilitator

and partnership leaders worked to keep everyone on track. By May 2001, a sprit of

collaboration had developed between the different parties and a foundation for partnering had

been built, evidenced by the sharing of meals during regular meetings. §,72 The partners have

since continued to meet. An initiative that grew out of cooperation between two very distinct

organizations starting in the late spring of 2000 had transformed into a genuine partnership

representing several organizations by the spring of 2001. Some factors that may have

contributed to this initial success may have included use of an effective partnership design, use

of a skilled facilitator, leadership displayed by several organizations, a continued belief that the

issues identified needed to be addressed, mutual recognition of the benefits of regular

information sharing, and a shared belief that the partnership was moving in the right direction.

The evolution of the Barrio Logan partnership is depicted in the graphic below.

Figure 13. EPA Representation of the Evolution of the Barrio Logan Partnership

Partnership Activities

By October 2001, the partnership was still undergoing a process of determining which

actions should be taken to help the partnership reach the three main goals. Nonetheless, even

to this point, the partnership had engaged in activities that would help the partnership members

realize their goals. For example, the partnership had identified partners that many in the

partnership had not previously known, including the Inner City Business Association and the

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).73 Second, several partners had

been actively involved in the solicitation of resources to benefit Barrio Logan residents. For

instance, as of May 2001, four partners (EHC, the City of San Diego, MAAC Project, and HUD),

were working together to obtain a Lead Hazard Control Grant that would provide Barrio Logan

with $1 million to remedy lead-contaminated soil and dust in homes.74 In addition to securing

funding through grants, several persons were contributing varying portions of their staff or

volunteering to support the project.

The following sections primarily describe interviewees’ responses to questions gathered

from interviews conducted by EPA’s Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation during the

week of October 8-12, 2001. The sections focus on interviewees’ impressions regarding

measuring partnership success, identifying successes and challenges, recommendations for

 

§

 Meetings are held at The Mercado or at the Logan Heights Police Department. Meetings are generally held during

the day; however, as of October 2001, the partnership was considering changing the meeting time to boost

participation from community residents.

Evolution of the Barrio Logan Partnership

 May 2000 May 2001

F = Facilitator

EPA

 F

EPA

 EHC

 EPA EHC

 F
32 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

improving the partnership, overall value of the partnership, and the value of federal involvement

in the partnership.

Measuring Partnership Success

As of October 2001, the partnership had not developed a framework for measuring the

overall success of the partnership in meeting the three goals. However, the three goals agreed

upon by the partners should serve as a critical basis from which the partnership can begin

assessing partnership progress and success once activities are decided upon and implemented.

Further, when asked how the partners might determine success, the fourteen interviewees

addressing this topic had several suggestions—some focusing on general measurement

considerations, and others focusing on specific indicators to measure. Regarding general

considerations, three interviewees urged the need to be specific about what gets measured.

For instance, one remarked that any measurement must focus on what the partnership can

accomplish. Regarding the type of data that should be collected–quantitative or qualitative—

one interviewee recommended that quantitative data be collected – through pre- and post-tests.

Another, however, cautioned the use of quantitative data, suggesting that it may result in

harmful disputes between partners.

 Specific indicators recommended for measurement focused on such topics as public

health improvement, community improvement (e.g., quality of life), and community

empowerment. Suggestions for public health indicators included the extent to which schools in

the area participate in the Open Airways and Tools for Schools programs and the extent to

which trucks are re-routed or some people are relocated away from truck routes. However,

another interviewee recommended that the rerouting of trucks not be considered an indicator of

project success. Suggestions for community improvement indicators centered mainly on the

extent to which the partnership results in a better quality of life for the community. Suggestions

for community empowerment indicators included the extent to which the community becomes

part of partnership solutions, the number of community plans adopted by the city government,

and the extent to which community residents take ownership over the partnership.

Partnership Successes

When asked if partners were satisfied with their ability to participate in the project

decision-making process, twelve of the twelve interviewees who addressed the question

responded positively. One noted that the process has given everyone a voice, and another

remarked that she/he actually looks forward to the meetings. Three interviewees, however,

qualified their remarks. Two noted that no major decisions had been made yet, and another

remarked that while the process has been fine so far, it was still too early on in the process to

genuinely judge.

Regarding whether interviewees were satisfied to the extent issues most important to

them and their organizations were being addressed by the partnership, most indicated they

were satisfied; however several qualified their remarks. Five out the eleven who addressed the

question said yes, without providing any qualifying remarks. For instance, one mentioned that

the partners “are talking about safety, housing, trucks, and all the things that are important to

the community.” Two additional interviewees indicated that their issues were being addressed,

but only to a limited extent. For example, one remarked that the zoning issues were not being

addressed to the extent they should be. Two interviewees were less satisfied—one noting it

was too early to tell, and another stating that his/her issues had not yet been addressed.

Another flatly stated that his/her issues were not being addressed. Finally, one interviewee
Barrio Logan Partnership 33

remarked that his/her organization did not join the process to address a particular issue, rather,

they joined to “participate in the process...[and] do [their] share.”

When asked about the outcomes, or results, of the partner activities for addressing the

main issues of the affected community, not surprisingly seven of the ten addressing this

question remarked that it was too early to tell.** For instance, one interviewee remarked that

the partnership was still identifying problems. However, four interviewees indicated that the

partnership is already having a positive impact for the affected community. These include:

agencies becoming more familiar with each other; enhancement of community pride; community

empowerment; the highlighting of important health issues in the affected community; and a

more coordinated community development. Even some who indicated it was too early to judge

the outcomes of the partnership activities, later noted some positive outcomes. For example,

one noted that bringing these organizations together has resulted in a greater rate of

accomplishment.

When asked whether interviewees were satisfied with the outcomes of partner activities,

nine of the eleven addressing this question indicated that they were satisfied. One indicated

that she/he was very, very satisfied. Another indicated that the partnership had produced

positive dialogue and relationship building. Two indicated they were satisfied but would like to

see more tangible efforts being made to assist the community. Two others who were satisfied

also explained that the process was slow, with one noting that this was to be expected. The

one interviewee who was unsatisfied remarked that the process was moving too slowly. A final

interviewee provided an ambiguous response.

When asked what has been their greatest success thus far, nine of the fourteen

interviewees addressing this question referenced the partnership itself. For instance, one

interviewee stressed that the partnership had brought diverse groups of people together,

including some who were previously adversaries. When asked what had been the key factors

contributing to the partnership’s development, interviewees cited the Partnering Agreement, the

facilitator, and EHC’s and EPA’s leadership roles. Specifically, one noted that both

organizations were able to get involved without being accusatory. Another also remarked that

the two organizations’ outreach to potential partners had been important for the partnership’s

development. This same interviewee also suggested that another key factor was the

willingness of different groups to participate in the process.

Another interviewee explained “the fact that people have been able to set aside what

goes on outside the partnership and still participate in good faith to bring results to Barrio

Logan” was a critical success. Reasons for this success include obtaining partnership

agreement on the goals, the partnering session, the Partnering Agreement, and the absence of

participants that could harm the process. Finally, one interviewee cited the partnership’s ability

to keep the partnership’s diverse members interested and talking with one another as the

partnership’s greatest success. In addition, three remarked that it was still too early to tell what

the partnership’s greatest success was.

Interviewees were also asked whether the organizational styles and procedures of the

different partner organizations limited effective collaboration between partners. Participants

rarely pointed to specific problematic organizational styles. Instead interviewees commented

primarily on inter-group dynamics. Three interviewees explained that there seemed to be a

 

** 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.
34 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

strong willingness to work together within the partnership. For instance one stated that

“everybody adopted the can-do attitude and they knew that they had different opinions and tried

not to let this interfere with how these groups approached [the partnership].” Two additional

interviewees indicated, however, that, despite a willingness to work together, some barriers still

existed. For example, one explained that industry participants have a different decision-making

style than EHC, whose style is more “community inclusive.”†† Two others mentioned that

potential partners that would have found it difficult to participate chose not to sign the Partnering

Agreement. However, one of these same interviewees indicated that it was too early to truly tell

if barriers between partners would arise. Similarly, another remarked that conflict might

certainly occur in the future, as does with all large groups; however, she/he further indicated that

this could be constructive. In addition, two interviewees were concerned about the motives

behind some groups’ participation, and one was concerned about not being able to enroll the Air

Pollution Control District as a partner.

Nine of the fourteen interviewees who addressed existing organizational barriers

between partners referenced the facilitator as a main reason for enabling partnership members

to work together. One interviewee noted that the facilitator fostered a “let’s work together” spirit

amongst the partners. Another noted that “without [the facilitator] this group would not be able

to exist.” Of the four not referencing the facilitator, three specifically referenced the Partnering

Agreement as an important tool for enabling the different organizations to work together. One

interviewee did remark, however, that to improve collaboration, a more active facilitator was

needed.

Partnership Challenges

When asked about the greatest challenges facing the partnership, interviewees

produced a variety of responses. Four of the fourteen who addressed the question indicated

that agreeing to and then implementing actions to address the goals is the partnership’s most

significant challenge. Similarly, one interviewee noted that the biggest obstacle is simply

accomplishing a tangible activity. She/he went on to say that the partnership “was trying to

jump too far”, instead of taking calculated steps. Further, the interviewee expressed frustration

at the partnership’s desire to address issues that she/he felt could not be accomplished in a

short term such as the re-routing of trucks. A set of interviewees cited the partnership’s slow

nature as a major obstacle. For instance, one noted this presented a problem since partners

must answer to their organizations, which represent different goals and interests, and justify

their time committed to the partnership. Another cited the partnership’s lack of a mandate or

enforcement authority as an obstacle. To overcome this, she/he suggested getting the Mayor

and city government more involved in the process. Other difficulties cited included:

“synchronizing” participants so that they share a common base of understanding about the

issues of concern; deciding how to relocate businesses away from residences and businesses;

keeping key decision makers involved in the partnership; ensuring greater community

engagement in partnership planning and implementation; a need for funding, especially for

mailing, coordination, and translation activities; trust issues; and developing and implementing

initiatives through a group consisting of volunteers.

Interviewee’s Recommendations for Improving the Partnership

When interviewees were asked how the partnership could be improved, six of the twelve

addressing the question recommended that the community be more involved in partnership

 

†† This interviewee did note, however, that the facilitator developed a decision-making process that addressed these

concerns.
Barrio Logan Partnership 35

activities. Some interviewees were not convinced that the residents have enough information

about the partnership and what the partnership is trying to accomplish. Further, although these

interviewees believed they were working to improve the quality of life for the residents of Barrio

Logan, they felt that residents should be more involved in how that happens. One interviewee

remarked that “the community is not involved as much because they have not been asked.

However, if asked, they will help.” To obtain greater participation, one interviewee suggested

hosting partnership meetings at churches and the Barrio College, and at times when residents

can more easily attend. Another interviewee recommended that partnership members go out

into the community, visiting residents and companies in order to better understand what their

concerns are. She/he concluded by stating that “sometimes [the partnership’s] views are

different from the people that live here.” Directly related to community involvement, another

interviewee recommended that the partnership make greater use of simultaneous translation in

partnership meetings, because without it, some residents are excluded.

Four interviewees stressed the need to engage in activities that will produce real results.

For instance, one urged the partnership to “pick a goal that will lead to tangible change.”

Closely associated with this recommendation, one interviewee recommended that the

partnership develop a workplan. Closely related to this recommendation, another urged that the

partnership meet more frequently to ensure that partnership initiatives are planned.

A group of comments related to organizational structure and representation. Three

interviewees recommended that the partnership be divided into sub-groups to improve

partnership efficiency. Another recommended that partners be re-evaluated, particularly to

better understand those that are active. Further, she/he added that the partnership should

identify a clear leader, noting that “you can play a football game without a lineman, but you can’t

play football without a quarterback.” In addition, two argued that the partnership needed the

support of the City, and another added that the partnership needed members “with the authority

to participate.” Additional recommendations included: using a more aggressive facilitator;

obtaining a letter from U.S. EPA’s Administrator recognizing the Barrio Logan partners for their

work in the area; encouraging partners to make more resources and educational opportunities

available to the community; hosting a community health fair; and securing more funding for the

partnership.

Interviewee’s Recommendations for Other Communities

Twelve interviewees offered suggestions for other communities interested in using

collaborative partnerships to address environmental justice issues. One set of comments

focused on building the partnership. Four comments encouraged partnership builders to focus

on community involvement in the partnership’s formative stages. Specifically, two

recommended that the community should be brought into join the partnership first. One of these

recommended that the community be allowed to define the problems and be involved in

decision making. Four additional comments recommended locating potential partners who are

leaders and/or action oriented, with one directly urging partnerships to screen out those

potential partners who are not inclined to participate. As stated by one interviewee:

Get as many people to the table as possible – the key players. Do

whatever it takes to get the key players. Have some public notices. Let

them know there’s a group out there and they are looking for input. Get the

elected representatives at the table–the council, the city planning

[department], the state and city representatives. Getting these folks in and

partnering. You need the political will. Need power to make changes. Get
36 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

as many interested partners as possible—people that can actually do

something.

Other recommendations regarding this topic included identifying partners that would be affected;

ensuring that a full spectrum of stakeholders are involved; and encouraging as many

organizations as possible to participate.

A second set of comments focused on how to create a genuine collaborative process.

Two interviewees recommended using a partnering agreement. According to one, a partnering

agreement helps to remove conflict. Similarly, one recommended making sure that all partners

start from the “same page” and another recommended obtaining “buy-in” from all partners.

Related, another interviewee recommended that a facilitator skilled in conflict resolution be

brought in to guide the process after a thorough community assessment has been performed to

help define the problems the partnership will address. Further, one interviewee stressed the

need to “get people involved in a positive way from the beginning” and avoid bringing up history.

Once a partnership has been brought together, one interviewee stressed that it is

important to obtain specific commitments from partners. Another recommended that partners

develop realistic expectations about what each of the participating organizations can do, noting

explicitly that “resources these groups may bring may not be funding.” Other recommendations

included having patience, focusing on achievable goals since it is very important to see

identifiable change in community, and providing resources for translation.

A final set of comments stressed the need for partnerships to incorporate a mechanism

that will truly empower them. One interviewee remarked that partnerships such as Barrio

Logan’s lack power. To boost the power of a partnership, one recommended building alliances

with local planning bodies, noting that local officials don’t often go against the wishes of local

planning bodies. A second suggested that for partnerships to have genuine power, they may

need to be built using a top-down approach.

Value of the Collaborative Partnership

When asked about the value of the collaborative process used by the partnership, of the

fourteen addressing the question, nine remarked that the collaborative process had added

value, three indicated that it was too early to tell, and one remarked that she/he could not speak

on behalf of the community. Five interviewees explicitly referenced information sharing. The

information shared by the partners is not only seen as a resource, as in the sharing of expertise,

it also enables more effective partnership planning. For instance, one remarked that

involvement in the partnership has required agencies to reveal where they stand publicly on

different issues. Further, another interviewee suggested that the partnership allows the partners

and the community to understand what each agency can and cannot do, to see their areas of

expertise and their limitations. Additionally, she/he added that many of the agencies, such as

the planning department, the air district, and CALTRAN, seem to be natural partners, and sitting

at the same table allows them to see how they can work together. The process of seeing how

different groups can work together, “leaves the participants empowered.”

Two interviewees noted that having the representatives from the different organizations

leave their offices to physically view this community and understand the needs of the residents

has been very valuable. According to one, this would not have happened without the

partnership. Further, this same interviewee added that this process of interacting with different

groups in the community would result in the breakdown of negative stereotypes surrounding

small businesses.
Barrio Logan Partnership 37

Two other interviewees cited the ability of the partnership to create change as its main

value. One stated that the value has come from the partnership’s ability to engage those that

have the ability and authority to make changes to benefit the Barrio Logan community. Another

indicated that although she/he can't prove it yet,

the value [of the partnership] is we've set the stage and foundation of

synergizing for addressing the community issues. [The partnership] in a

position to affect some changes with the city or city council that will have

some long-range impacts in the community. Some resources have come

the communities’ way and if they can focus their energies they could get

more. They can leverage this partnership to get more.

Additional value of the partnership cited by some interviewees includes: the securing of some

additional resources for the community; the potential to leverage more resources; and a

reduction in duplication of resources.

When asked if they thought the Barrio Logan community could use this same

collaborative process to address similar problems in the future, seven of the thirteen addressing

the question said yes, two said no, and four said they didn’t know. For those responding yes,

four remarked that strong leadership would be needed to make the process work, particularly

local leadership. For those responding that they did not know, one interviewee remarked that

the partnership might leave a core group in place. Another remarked that this type of process

would only be used in the future if the Barrio Logan partnership produces tangible results. For

those responding no, one interviewee voiced a concern that the current partnership would end if

EPA and EHC were to leave the process. Further, she/he indicated that it would be very hard to

pull a community coalition together. The other interviewee indicated that this process would not

be used again because the community has not been effectively involved. However, she/he

qualified her remark noting that if the community was brought into this process, the partnership

could become an important conduit for change.

 When asked whether the main issues affecting Barrio Logan would have been

addressed without the use of a collaborative approach, responses were very mixed. Of the ten

who addressed the question, two indicated yes, two indicated somewhat, two indicated probably

not, three indicated unclear, and one indicated no. Of those indicating yes, one remarked that

different agencies would address the issues; the other mentioned, similarly, that the issues

would be dealt with through a piecemeal approach. The interviewee noting that the issues

probably would not have been dealt with mentioned that the issues would have either been

addressed contentiously or not at all. The interviewee indicating that issues would not have

been dealt with remarked that any attempt to address them would have been too fragmented

and resulted in too many disputes.

Value of Federal Involvement In the Partnership

When asked what was the effect of having federal partners participate in the partnership,

eleven of the fourteen interviewees addressing the question indicated that federal involvement

did, indeed, add value; two were unclear; and one indicated that federal partners did not provide

value, except for name recognition. Of the eleven indicating value, five interviewees stated that

federal partners brought credibility/legitimacy to the project. For instance, one remarked that

federal partners make “local entities feel more accountable, like someone outside San Diego is

looking at what they are doing.” Four indicated that the federal partners have brought much

needed resources to the project, including the sharing of information. One non-federal
38 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

interviewee remarked that “the [federal government] brings a lot of resources. The federal

government is a very large resource. It’s up to us to utilize those resources.” Two mentioned

that federal involvement has brought a sharp focus to the environmental justice issues in the

area, with one noting that federal involvement encouraged state and local governments to

acknowledge the environmental justice issues in the area. Two additional interviewees

remarked that the personal skills EPA’s former senior advisor brought to the project were critical

for project success. In addition, one remarked that the fact that the partnership had federal

partners was essential to one company’s participation. Interviewees also indicated that

involvement of federal partners would result in the partnership having a larger impact and higher

status. Finally, one interviewee stated that having federal partners involved was very important.

Concerns regarding federal involvement were also raised. Two interviewees remarked

that federal agency involvement in the partnership discouraged some potential partners from

joining. Another remarked that along with federal involvement might come expectations that

cannot be met. A non-federal interviewee noted that EPA’s reputation could be damaged if the

project fails. Another interviewee remarked that federal partners have not interacted with the

community, and the community feels that it has little say regarding federal agency activities. In

addition, one noted that, although, she/he is excited by federal participation, the federal partners

may be difficult to work with because of their bureaucracies. Finally, another interviewee noted

that the community might not regularly distinguish between federal and state partners.

When interviewees were asked what they thought the federal agencies gained from the

partnership, seven of the fourteen addressing the question stated that it gave them a better

sense of how, when, and where agencies are able to participate in communities. 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.” Further, another noted that by working in the community, federal partners could be

more effective in how they perform their work. Two interviewees stated that partnership has

provided an opportunity to build relationships and be more strategic. For instance, one noted

that

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.

Another noted that the partnership has enabled relationships to develop between EPA, HUD,

and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). She/he stated that HUD

may not have become involved in Barrio Logan without the demonstration project, and further, it

is unlikely that HUD would have encouraged the City to apply for the lead grant. Additional

benefits of participating in the Barrio Logan partnership cited by interviewees included

opportunities to: better understand environmental justice issues; show that federal partners are

doing work to address these issues; share lessons learned with other communities; learn a

combination of skills—both technical and social; and influence action. For the last comment, the

non-federal interviewee remarked that “EPA can influence action because people listen to

them.”

When asked whether federal agencies have been able to better coordinate their

activities as a result of their involvement in the Barrio Logan partnership, of the thirteen

addressing the question, nine didn’t know, two said yes, and two said no. Of those that didn’t

know, one interviewee remarked that the federal partners were probably sharing information.

One didn’t see any coordination. One indicated that the federal partners had kept the
Barrio Logan Partnership 39

partnership informed. And finally, one suggested that HUD, EPA, and NIEHS needed to

coordinate better. For those responding yes, that federal partners were coordinating more

effectively, one federal interviewee remarked that coordination is especially improving in the

Barrio Logan project. For those responding no, one interviewee remarked that she/he has not

seen the federal partners contribute substantively to the partnership.

Interviewees were also asked if participating federal partners had identified conflicting

requirements in their statutes or regulations that have been barriers to the success of the Barrio

Logan partnership. Nine of the thirteen interviewees addressing this question indicated that

none had been identified. One interviewee remarked that in the partnership’s case, having

federal agencies participate actually led to a larger collaboration since federal policies typically

require a broad range of public involvement. Another remarked that although conflicting

requirements had not been identified, working with federal bureaucracies could be burdensome.

Two indicated that some policies or approaches could limit effective collaboration. One noted,

for instance, that one federal partner’s ability to participate is limited by its mission. Another

remarked that one federal agency had an important philosophical difference with another federal

agency about participating in the partnership. She/he added that originally, this agency did not

want to participate, but the agency’s regulations did not prevent the agency from participating.

The agency ultimately chose to participate and now benefits from information sharing.

Finally interviewees were asked what they would recommend federal agencies do to

best tailor their roles to participate in collaborative processes. Eight of the fourteen addressing

this question stated that federal partners should provide funding. Directly related to funding,

four suggested that federal partners should require that an evaluation component be built in to

collaborative efforts. Three interviewees recommended that federal partners should provide

collaborative efforts with facilitation services. However, one did suggest that requirements

should be built into to allow for facilitators to be removed. Still related to funding, one

interviewee suggested that federal agencies provide administrative support for such items as

issue follow-up, the production of overheads, and organization of tours. Another added that

translation services should be federally supported. Also on the topic of funding, one federal

interviewee stated that most agencies have little or very few resources and limited funding; but

added that they can provide resources by way of staff time and staff expertise.

Five interviewees urged federal agencies to enable communities to play key roles in the

development and/or implementation of community-based partnerships. For instance, one

recommended that partnerships/IWG demonstration projects be developed simultaneously with

the community—defining goals and identifying problems. Three interviewees recommended

that federal agencies allow certain partners–either a single partner, a single federal partner, or a

group of partners—to take a stronger leadership role in these efforts. Two interviewees

suggested that federal partners better focus their resources to support collaborative efforts. For

example, one suggested that federal partners should better coordinate and plan with each other

before going into potential partnership communities.

Interviewees also recommended that, in order to best participate in collaborative efforts,

federal agencies should: develop a mix of both social and technical skills; maintain a federal

representative in the partnership location; keep federal partnership staff consistent; use

influence to encourage support for these efforts at the local level; initiate a partnership through

local government channels; be patient; be active; and send high-ranking, personable staff to

participate.
40 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

Key Findings (as of October 2001)

ß Overall the participants were satisfied with the partnership and their ability to participate in it.

However, several were concerned that the partnership may lose momentum if it cannot

produce tangible outputs in the very near future.

ß Many of the participants would like to see greater attention placed on involving Barrio Logan

residents in the partnership to a level the residents feel comfortable with. Several are

concerned that the issues of powerful organizations will override residents’ issues and

concerns.

ß Most participants agree with the decision to use a facilitator and a Partnering Agreement.

They feel that these have been critical resources, and without them, it would be difficult to

engage in genuine, productive partnering.

ß Several participants agree that use of the collaborative process has, or will, greatly assist

the Barrio Logan community. Without this process, it is doubtful that critical issues would be

addressed to the extent they would without the partnership.

ß It is clear that the Barrio Logan partnership is quite passionate about its mission. The many

and diverse partners have been able to overcome several obstacles just to be able to sit in

the same room and discuss issues. If the partnership can maintain resources and

momentum, the partners should achieve their goals and leave Barrio Logan with better air,

housing, and overall quality of life.

Afterword

After interviewees had the opportunity to review the first draft of this case study, the

Barrio Logan Partnership submitted an update regarding partnership activities occurring

between October 2001 and June 2002. Since October 2001, partnership members have formed

three task forces, or subcommittees of the larger group, to work on specified projects in

furtherance of the partnership goals. The Truck Traffic and Diesel Reduction Task Force is

identifying both short- and long-term strategies for truck traffic and diesel emissions reduction in

the community. The Regulatory Enforcement and Pollution Prevention Task Force is targeting

the automobile repair and auto body industry for pollution prevention education and regulatory

enforcement. Finally, the Community Planning Task Force plans to produce a “how to” manual

to assist residents in organizing a community planning group or similar body that can address

land use and zoning issues.75

The Barrio Logan Partnership also provided comments that were developed at the

Partnership’s April 3, 2002 meeting, at which partners were asked about the value of the

Demonstration Project so far. The comments are listed below:

ß The partnership has served as a catalyst for getting elected officials more involved in

both contamination and land use planning issues.

ß The regular opportunity for communication among the Partners has deepened each

other’s understanding of the issues and problems.

ß The California Air Resources Board agreed that it stayed in the community longer than

would have been the case if the partnership had not heightened their concern. The San

Diego Air Pollution Control District also agreed that participation in the partnership had
Barrio Logan Partnership 41

focused their attention on Barrio Logan and led them to do more outreach, such as the

newsletter.

ß The National Steel and Shipbuilding Company indicated that participation in the

partnership had led to its engagement in several projects in Barrio Logan that it likely

would have not gotten involved in otherwise.

ß Overall, the group agreed that the Demonstration Project was very valuable, that

positive things were occurring that would not have otherwise, and that in terms of the

three work plans, they wanted to stay the course.76

Finally, the Barrio Logan Partnership explained that the City of San Diego has started

the process of revising the zoning and community plan for Barrio Logan. On June 12, 2002, the

Land Use and Housing Committee of the City Council considered whether to develop a

workplan for revision of the zoning, community and redevelopment plans for the area. The

partnership sent a letter to Councilmember Ralph Inzunza, the Councilmember for the area, in

support of the elimination of incompatible land uses in Barrio Logan. Four partners provided

testimony at the hearing. The matter passed unanimously.77
42

3 Bridges to Friendship Partnership

Partners are involved because they know it is the right thing to do and they have

been doing it for four years.

It is like going from zero collaboration to a huge amount of collaboration.

The things important to the Navy are understanding, and identifying, issues that are

important to the community, which include, jobs, environmental cleanup, parking, you

name it.

[Bridges to Friendship] is trying to embrace the unique needs of the population

through community visioning. Much work has happened in conjunction with what is

going on [with] the Navy Base.

— Interviewees, Bridges to Friendship Partnership

Community History*

Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States, is bordered by the states of Maryland

and Virginia, and divided into four quadrants: Northwest, Northeast, Southwest and Southeast.

The Southeast and Southwest quadrants consist of approximately 146,619+ people representing

a variety of racial and social backgrounds. Neighborhoods also vary ranging from upper middle

class to low income. The Southeast quadrant is also home to the Washington Navy Yard, which

is bordered by the Anacostia River to the south and occupies over seventy acres of space. The

Navy Yard is surrounded by neighborhoods noted by the local press for high drug use and crime

rates, a large unemployed population, and high numbers of welfare recipients.78

The neighborhoods in Southwest and Southeast D.C. traditionally housed lower to

middle income Caucasian and African American working classes.79 For example, in the late

1800’s one of the first D.C. suburbs, called Uniontown, was created for the Navy Yard workers

in Southeast D.C. Originally this was a “Whites-only” settlement but after the Civil War,

Frederick Douglas broke the exclusive covenant and many free African Americans settled in the

area.80

By 1920, Southwest and Southeast D.C. were made up of vibrant and diverse

communities. For example, Anacostia, the section of Southeast D.C. east of the Anacostia

River, claimed a higher percentage of home ownership than any other sections of D.C.81 The

area was made up of thriving neighborhoods where Navy Yard employees, doctors, lawyers and

other community members shopped, visited movie theaters, and strolled down the scenic

Anacostia waterfront.82 Southwest D.C. was also thriving. Although traditionally poor, the years

between 1895 and 1930 were hailed as the neighborhood’s “golden years”, characterized by

rich cultural traditions and strong community ties.83

 

∗

 Interviews for this case study were conducted from December 2001 through March 2002. Thirteen separate

interviews were conducted and a total of sixteen persons participated. Interviews were conducted with

representatives of non-profit organizations, federal agencies, and local agencies.

+

 Figure calculated by using (1) D.C. Office Of Planning/State Data Center’s information overlaying the 2000 census

tracts on the D.C. quadrant divisions, and (2) the 2000 U.S. Census population data.
Bridges to Friendship Partnership 43

However, rapid population growth, poor zoning laws, urban renewal in selected D.C.

neighborhoods and the creation of concentrated public housing lead to a socio-economic shift in

the population of Southeast D.C. In 1967 the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC)

began construction of 30,000 public housing units in Anacostia. Public service expansion did

not keep pace with the influx of residents to Anacostia, however, and by the 1970’s “the area

schools were 83% over capacity” and there were an inadequate number of health care facilities

in the area.84 During this same time, areas in Southwest D.C. also underwent major transitions

as neighborhoods perceived by city officials as slums were cleared, streets were widened, new

streets and superblocks were constructed, and businesses, residents, and community

landmarks were relocated or eliminated.85

Through the 1980s to the late 1990s conditions in several neighborhoods throughout

Southwest and Southeast D.C. continued to deteriorate. The area’s traditional diversity could

no longer be seen, and in Anacostia in the late 1990’s the population was approximately 90

percent African American, seven percent Caucasian, and two percent Hispanic86. In 1997,

Anacostia residents had an average yearly income of $26,000 versus a citywide average of

$40,000, and only 28 percent of the adult residents had attended college compared to 52

percent of adult citywide residents.87

Recently however, conditions in Southwest and Southeast, have taken a turn for the

better. In 1997, for instance, the Good Hope Marketplace shopping center—the largest retail

development in Southeast D.C. in over 20 years and one of only two supermarkets in all of

Southeast—was completed.88 Similar initiatives began in Southeast in conjunction with the

planned redevelopment of the waterfront neighborhoods along the Anacostia River. During the

increased revitalization efforts in Southeast D.C., the Navy Yard also began a major

redevelopment effort. The division between the Navy Yard and the community, long symbolized

by the Yard’s high brick walls, were beginning to be bridged.

Bridge building began in 1995, when the Navy Yard was designated to serve as a major

administrative facility for the Navy, through the Base Realignment and Closure Act. More than

5,000 additional military and civilian personnel were to be relocated at the Navy Yard over the

next several years, doubling its workforce at the time. Furthermore, in 1996, a lawsuit filed by

the Sierra Club alleging that waste from the Navy Yard and South East Federal Center (SEFC)

discharged into the Anacostia posed an imminent and substantial danger to human health and

the environment. In January 1997, under EPA oversight, the Navy completed an environmental

investigation of the Washington Naval Yard facility, and in 1999, the Navy Yard was approved

for cleanup under the Superfund program.

Partnership Background

In conjunction with any installation restoration, in this case, the Superfund cleanup

project, the Navy is required to establish a Restoration Advisory Board. The Navy Yard’s

Restoration Advisory Board began regular meetings to inform the community about the cleanup

procedures at the Navy Yard and garner input directly from surrounding residents as well as

from local community-based organizations. Issues associated with cleanup raised concerns

from residents regarding area redevelopment and the potential displacement of surrounding

community members by new Navy Yard personnel.

The new independent development in the area, along with indications that Navy Yard

redevelopment would spur additional development outside the base, raised concerns of many

local residents who feared that the purchase and/or restoration of deteriorating urban property
44 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

by developers or incoming, middle-class or affluent people would eventually result in the

displacement of lower-income residents. At the same time, the Navy Yard, community-based

organizations, federal, and city governments had begun to examine ways to respond to these

and other issues, including concerns about the Navy Yard work force and limitations.

Eventually, these different groups began pooling their resources in a collective effort to revitalize

the Navy Yard’s surrounding communities by providing “wide access to economic, employment,

and training opportunities for residents”.89 This initial collaborative effort, referred to as Walls to

Bridges, lasted less than a year. However, many of these same organizations regrouped to

form a much stronger collaborative effort in 1998, which still operates today.

In July 1998, fourteen organizations signed a partnership agreement marking the

beginning of the Bridges to Friendship (B2F) Partnership. Admiral Christopher Weaver, who

had recently become Commandant of the Washington Navy Yard, began to champion the B2F

mission. Since that time the B2F Partnership has recruited approximately 40 members,

including six federal agencies, three city agencies, 25 community-based organizations, four forprofit organizations, and two universities. The partnership has also received significant attention

and praise. In 1998, the White House formally recognized the B2F Partnership for its

commitment to environmental justice and empowering community residents. Furthermore, in

May 2000, the Interagency Working Group on the Environmental Justice demonstration project

named the B2F Partnership a national Environmental Justice demonstration project, because of

its commitments to collaborative problem-solving.

Partnership Process

Upon signing the partnership agreement in July 1998, the 14 original B2F partner

organizations developed an operational

structure that consisted of five work

groups, a steering committee composed

of the five work group chairs, and an

executive board composed of the

original signatories to the partnership

agreement. The Executive Board

designated an executive director to

continue building partnership resources,

conduct overall coordination of the

effort, and provide an administrative

infrastructure. The executive director

carried out his duties with the help of

contractor support. A work group chair

led each work group, whose focus was

defined by direct and indirect (via

community-based organizations) public

input. The work group chairs were originally charged with implementing activities that would

move the partnership forward to meet its goals. The chairs of the workgroups were given

extensive autonomy and were expected to report to the Executive Board on actions, proposed

milestones, and needs.

Originally the Executive Board and the Steering Committee met once a month, then

settled into a quarterly schedule. The Executive Board and Steering Committee, whose roles

have been somewhat integrated over time, are charged with the tasks of maintaining the

partnership’s mission and addressing conflicts or questions brought to the B2F Partnership from

its member organizations. The executive director, David Ouderkirk, and Admiral Weaver

Alice Hamilton Occupational Health Center

Arthur Anderson

Covenant House Washington

D.C. Department of Employment Services

Ellen Wilson Redevelopment LLC

Friendship House Association

Global Environment & Technology Foundation

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Forest Service

U.S. Department of Interior, National Parks Service

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

U.S. Department of Labor

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. General Services Administration

U.S. Navy, Navy District Washington

Figure 14. EPA List of Original Members of the Bridges to

Friendship Partnership
Bridges to Friendship Partnership 45

typically preside over these Executive Board/Steering Committee sessions, during which the

participating organizations voice their views about the partnership’s progress. In addition, the

executive director also updates members on the plans and activities of the various work groups.

Following Executive Board/Steering Committee sessions, session minutes are typically writtenup, distributed to the session participants for review via electronic mail, finalized, and then made

available to all B2F Partnership members. In addition to the Executive Board/Steering

Committee sessions, the executive director occasionally calls all members together to discuss a

critical topic, or to allow the work groups to update all partner members on their recent activities.

Executive Board/Steering Committee sessions usually produce decisions that are

agreeable to all. This is perhaps, due, in part, to the notion that all those participating in the

partnership want to see genuine community redevelopment in the area. Questions raised by

partner members center more on how resources can be linked and made to fit together rather

than on whether or not something should be done. Other important reasons for the

sustainability of the effort may include the belief by participating organizations that it is in the

best interest of their own organization to participate, consistent and effective B2F leadership,

the fact that most participants either reside or work in or near the Southwest/Southeast D.C.

area, and the implementation of activities that can be easily supported by partner members and

the community. Although disagreements do arise between organizations about how activities

should be implemented, in most instances the members make a genuine effort to work through

them. If an issue around a certain activity proves irresolvable, the issue may not be addressed

again or the concerned organizations in some instances may choose to no longer participate in

that particular activity. According to the executive director, partners seek to reach consensus

positions on issues that most parties feel positive about and accommodating positions on issues

that generate strong reactions from a few or several organizations. No organization, however,

has withdrawn immediately from B2F because of a conflict; rather, dissatisfied partners

gradually reduce their participation in the partnership over time.90

Two B2F work groups currently design and implement most of the activities for the B2F

Partnership. A work group chair is responsible for calling and facilitating work group meetings,

during which members assess existing activities and, if necessary, brainstorm, plan, and decide

how to implement new ones. Decisions on actions to take are typically based upon the needs of

the Southeast and Southwest D.C. communities as perceived by the work group members and

the resources that B2F members can provide. Once a work group agrees to a plan of action,

this plan is communicated at the Executive Board/Steering Committee meetings. Although

technically the B2F leadership can disapprove of a work group’s plan, in most instances the

action plans are endorsed.

As with the Executive Board/Steering Committee meetings, in most instances little

disagreement has emerged amongst the parties within the work groups. This is due mainly,

perhaps, to the same reasons outlined above. In addition, the work groups are not static. If

members recognize that their work group is no longer critical, they either discontinue the work

group or transfer the necessary remaining functions to a more active work group.

Disagreements and challenges do arise, however. For instance, within the Job Training Work

Group, disagreements centered on both the focus and the methods to be used for the B2F job

training program.91 In addition, some work group members have shown less commitment than

others and some have been resistant to participation by various organizations with whom they

have had issues in the past. Similar to the handling of difficult topics in the Executive

Board/Steering Committee meetings, if work group members cannot resolve them, the topics

may be left avoided, or the organization voicing the concerns may decide to leave the work

group.
46 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

The partnership primarily relies on voluntary resource commitments from its partner

members. It also originally relied upon federal funding to support the executive director position

and to provide contractor support for B2F activities and publications. In October 1998, the Navy

funded David Ouderkirk, an EPA employee under an Interagency Agreement, enabling him to

direct B2F Partnership activities. Later, in February 1999, however, the partnership

encountered problems funding its management infrastructure. Federal legal counsel

determined that the B2F Partnership was a “non-federal entity”, prohibiting Navy personnel from

directing the B2F Partnership and the use of appropriated funds for any B2F activity. This

decision prohibited Ouderkirk from directing the B2F Partnership and prohibited the Navy’s

contractor from working with B2F to provide support for meeting logistics, reporting, printing,

web-page design and maintenance, and list serves. Furthermore, in November 1999, the

Interagency Agreement for the executive director position had expired, and EPA found itself in

the position of no longer being able to loan B2F a full time employee. At the same time, the

partnership agreed that the position had to be funded by a non-federal organization due to the

ruling of the federal lawyers. These funding and placement issues took months to resolve and

B2F had its first regroup meeting in July 2000. These various set backs greatly hampered the

participating groups’ abilities to coordinate their actions and slowed the partnership’s

momentum. The funding problems have only temporarily been resolved. For the time being the

executive director position is funded by the City, but located within the federal government (U.S.

Navy). There are still no extra resources for administrative contractor support.

Despite these challenges, approximately 40 organizations continue to participate in the

B2F Partnership and exhibit a high level of enthusiasm when working together. Although B2F

maintains a well-defined operational structure, the partnership allows for a significant degree of

organizational flexibility by design. Organizations can participate in the partnership to gain and

share information about resources and opportunities that are pertinent to their work. If

organizations identify a problem or project that fits with B2F’s mission and goals, the

organizations then join the partnership, providing information, resources, and enthusiasm. If

these organizations continue to have projects that fall in line with B2F’s mission as well as

resources to contribute, they become permanent partners and continue to enrich and add depth

to the partnership. If however, their plans no longer coincide with B2F’s mission, the

organizations stop sending representatives to B2F meetings and stop assuming partnership

responsibilities. A representation of the B2F Partnership is shown in the figure below.

Community Orgs

D.C. Agencies Businesses

Federal

Agencies

Work Groups

Job Training and Career Development

Youth Outreach

B2F

Admin

Figure 15. EPA Representation of the Bridges to Friendship (B2F) Partnership, Washington, DC
Bridges to Friendship Partnership 47

Partnership Goals

As part of B2F’s formal agreement, B2F developed a vision statement, mission

statement, and statement of purpose. B2F’s vision statement is described below.92

In order to bring about this revitalization, the B2F partnership, as described in its mission

statement, seeks to maintain “a process for organizational collaboration and delivery of services

in a positive operating environment for all of the partners to nurture trust, understanding, and a

shared vision.”

In addition to the statement of purpose, mission statement, and vision statements, B2F

has articulated five main goals. The partnership describes these goals as follows: (1) support

the federal government’s commitment to environmental justice, (2) provide residents with job

training and the opportunity to compete for real jobs, (3) empower the community and promote

community building, (4) restore the environment, and (5) promote sustainable economic

development.93 Furthermore, each workgroup has developed its own goals. The Job Training

and Career Development Work Group seeks to create sustainable job training and lifelong

learning opportunities in Southeast and Southwest D.C. The Youth Outreach Work Group

seeks maximum participation of youths five to 25 years of age in activities and opportunities

generated by the redevelopment of the Navy Yard. The purpose of this activity is to promote

and improve youth educational, social, and economic development. Moreover, this work group

seeks to provide work skills and training opportunities for youth in the construction and

environmental industry while exposing them to diverse training opportunities through job

shadowing, internships, and job placement.

The now discontinued Small Business/Private Sector Outreach Work Group, whose

work has been absorbed to an extent by the other by the remaining two work groups, sought to

achieve sustainable economic development by creating entrepreneurial opportunities for the

greater Southeast D.C. area. Additionally, the group sought to foster interaction and support

from the private sector. This work group was responsible for fostering relationships with

contractors and potential private sector partners. Ultimately, the group focused on increasing

the number of quality businesses operating in Southeast and Southwest Washington, D.C. The

now discontinued Community Outreach Work Group, whose work was also been absorbed by

the remaining two work groups, sought to broaden community awareness and interaction

beyond sub-community boundaries through an improved environment, more-attractive urban

landscape, and increased perception of safety and trust.

Vision Statement of the Bridges to Friendship Partnership

To bring about revitalized Southeast and Southwest Washington D.C. communities, to

preserve and enhance the quality of life and the natural and cultural heritage of the area,

Bridges to Friendship will leverage existing resources and expertise, act as a catalyst, create

new synergies, and support existing efforts.
48 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

Partnership Activities and Accomplishments

The primary product of Bridges to Friendship is the process of building organizational bridges

and fostering their use – identifying and organizing the sharing of resources and serving as a

broker, catalyst or implementor to reach common goals.

-Excerpt from the B2F Statement of Purpose

The B2F Partnership activities and accomplishments center around (1) securing and

leveraging resources, (2) linking Southeast and Southwest D.C. youth to local job opportunties,

(3) and sharing information among partner organizations and the community. While B2F’s

partner organizations carry out many of the B2F activities, the partnership has been responsible

for enhancing the magnitude and number of acomplishments of its partner members. During

the first year the B2F Partnership was credited by its partners with helping garner over $4

million in grant funding. This money was distributed to individual partners, and used to help

accomplish the goals embodied in B2F’s statement of purpose, mission statement, and vision

statements.

As part of B2F’s efforts to link Southeast and Southwest D.C. youth to local job

opportunities, B2F has engaged in a number of activities. As of January 2002, the B2F

Partnership’s environmental job training program had graduated more then 300 students with a

job placement rate of over 70 percent, according to the Alice Hamilton Occupational Training

Center, one of B2F’s partners. These students were trained in hazardous material clean-up,

asbestos abatement, lead paint abatement, general construction industry safety, first aid/CPR,

control of biochemical hazards in construction, and other topics. Graduates from the

environmental jobs training program were involved with the cleanup activities at the World

Trade Center, Pentagon and Brentwood Postal Facility.

In addition to its environmental job training program, the B2F Partnership is branching

into other promising career fields in order to provide more opportunities for neighborhood youth.

For instance, two B2F partners—the Navy Yard and Covenant House Washington—recently

signed a Memorandum of Understanding, signaling the start of a child care training and job

placement focus for the B2F Partnership. In addition, B2F partners including EPA Region 3,

Covenant House Washington, the Low Impact Development Center, Community Resources,

Inc., and the Sustainable Communities Initiatives have developed a low-impact development

training program.

Bridges to Friendship has also facilitated job shadowing, internship, and elementary

school programs along with life skills workshops. Internships have been provided by a number

of federal agency partners. For example, Covenant House Washington and the National Park

Service implemented Operation Challenge in 1999, an internship program that provided

summer employment opportunities for 40 community youth. Furthermore, the Alexandria

Seaport Foundation has joined together with Covenant House Washington in order to provide

pre-apprenticeship training for the building trades. The partnership has also teamed with

Starbase-Atlantis, a program designed to stimulate disadvantaged youth’s interest in science,

math, and technology development. In addition, the partnership has collaborated to develop a

“Pathways to Your Future” workshop that includes a manual with different modules on personal

development, including such topics as writing effective resumes and giving effective interviews.

The B2F Partnership, along with individual members, is further working towards

reforming a number of federal processes. For instance, the Navy Yard has made efforts to
Bridges to Friendship Partnership 49

refine their hiring processes in order to facilitate hiring of local residents. In addition the B2F

Partnership has produced a document issued by Naval District Washington, entitled “Lessons

and Suggestions for Effective Community Partnering.” This document provides feedback on

opportunities to improve federally funded services.

Moreover, B2F has engaged in a number of activities to facilitate the sharing of

information between partner organizations and the community. For instance, the partnership is

collaborating with the Workforce Organizations for Regional Collaboration to track and make

available information regarding employment opportunties for District residents using a database.

In addition, B2F implemented “Columbia Rising,” a series of community dialogues whose

“purpose is to create neutral ground for discussion among community representatives with

diverse viewpoints on major community issues, and move toward the collaborative resolution of

those issues.”94 Finally, the partnership has orchestrated a number of community meetings and

published a series of newsletters, brochures, fact sheets, and one annual report, in order to

advertise B2F activities and gain community input for future activities.

The partnership also tried to stimulate new development in the area, particularly courting

businesses that will provide jobs to local residents. The B2F Partnership has organized

business development seminars and fairs in order to provide contracting opportunities and

technical assistance to local businesses. The partnership has also partnered with the Anacostia

Waterfront Initiative, a District, federal, and community partnership, centered on revitalizing the

Anacostia waterfront and nearby communities95. B2F is further active in community pride

activities, by participating in community events and clean-up days. For instance, the Navy

regularly conducts community cleanup days where Admiral Weaver along with his staff

participate alongside local residents to remove trash along the Anacostia River and from local

neighborhoods.

The following sections primarily describe interviewees’ responses to questions gathered

from interviews conducted by EPA’s Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation during from the

month of December 2001 to the month of March 2002. The sections focus on interviewees’

impressions regarding measuring partnership success, partnership success and challenges,

recommendations for improving the partnership, overall value of the partnership, and the value

of federal involvement in the partnership.

Measuring Partnership Success

The B2F Partnership initiated several efforts to monitor and evaluate the partnership to

help partners determine success of its activities. Efforts were unsuccessful due to severe

limitations on the administrative resources of the partners and the partnership as a whole.96

Despite this, B2F partners provided several suggestions for measuring success. Nine of the

thirteen interviewees who answered the question mentioned that counting the number of people

pre-trained, trained and placed in a job would be one way that B2F could measure success.

Four of thirteen specifically mentioned the D.C. Department of Employment Services-sponsored

database developed by B2F that tracks the number of students pre-trained, trained, and placed

in jobs as a tool that could be used to support this monitoring effort. Three interviewees

suggested that counting the number of community events and the number of people who

attended those events would serve as a measurement of success, with one noting that, for

example, one B2F-sponsored event had more than 3,000 people in attendance. One

interviewee noted that after a “clean up day” there is an immediate observation of stronger

community pride, as well as an indirect correlation between the amount of visible community

trash and neighborhood pride. They suggested that this was a measure of success. Another

interviewee mentioned the number of businesses that invest and move into the area could be a
50 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

measure of success. To actually measure success, she/he noted that the B2F Partnership

could count the number of private and public sector jobs that open up in the area. Finally, one

interviewee noted that another measure of success would be the number of residents in the

community that know about the B2F Partnership.

Partnership Successes

When asked whether interviewees were satisfied with their ability to participate in the

partnership’s decision-making process, sixteen out of the sixteen indicated they were satisfied.

As one interviewee described it, “effort put into the process is directly proportional to the

benefits received.” However, three interviewees mentioned that although the involvement

opportunities were available, their organizations were not attending as many meetings as they

would have hoped.

When asked if the issues most important to their organization were adequately

addressed, nine out of the sixteen interviewees stated that the collaboration was not only

making a genuine effort to meet the B2F Partnership goals but that the issues most important to

them were being addressed. The seven other interviewees were generally satisfied with

partnership activities but qualified their statements with the following comments. One federal

representative cited his/her frustration with continually needing to convince new agency deputy

administrators about the merit of the B2F Partnership. Another mentioned that the problems of

gentrification and poor quality school systems were not being adequately addressed. Two

interviewees mentioned that not enough jobs were available once the job training activities were

over. Finally, one stated that he/she “wished that B2F could measure its success.”

When asked about the outcomes, or results, of the partner activities for addressing the

main issues of the affected community, of the twelve answering the question, six cited B2F's

skills-building efforts for community residents.† For instance, one interviewee noted that six

hundred people have been trained and employed in environmental jobs as a result of B2F

efforts. Similarly, one interviewee cited development of a community-based resource—the still

on-going apprenticeship center. Two other interviewees remarked that the partnership has

provided the community with greater access to development opportunities. For instance, one

interviewee remarked that B2F has linked local residents to local employment opportunities.

This same interviewee further added that the partnership has prevented local residents from

being driven out of the area because of area redevelopment. Another interviewee explained

that B2F was having a very subtle impact for the affected community. Finally, one interviewee

explained that it was difficult to gauge B2F's impact, because it lacked an appropriate baseline

by which to measure, and another interviewee provided an ambiguous response.

When asked if they were satisfied with the outcomes of partnership activities so far, five

out of the twelve who addressed this question answered positively. Three stated that they were

very satisfied with some of the outcomes, for example, the aspects of job training, but were

dissatisfied with the outcomes of other partnership activities including job placement results.

Finally, four of the interviewees said that they would never be satisfied, but agreed that B2F was

doing an excellent job with the resources they had.

When asked about the greatest success of the B2F Partnership ten of the fifteen

interviewees addressing the topic cited the partnering with others and building of a network as

 

†

 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.
Bridges to Friendship Partnership 51

the greatest success. For instance, one interviewee stated, “If you have a partnership you can

accomplish darn near everything you want to.” Four stated that the B2F Partnership was

fostered by equal commitment from all the partner members to the partnership goals, mutual

respect for all the partners involved, and good communication between the partners. Four

interviewees believed that the B2F Partnership decreases the amount of duplicative activities

completed in the communities by partnering agencies and organizations. Three interviewees

noted that the B2F Partnership approach offers more creative ideas to resolve difficult issues.

Eight of the fifteen interviewees cited B2F-sponsored job training as a success.

Furthermore, seven of the twelve interviewees cited B2F’s youth outreach programs as an

important success. As one interviewee stated “We (B2F) are trying to match a person to the job

they really want.” Other successes cited included: (1) community’s increased understanding of

the Navy Yard; (2) community’s improved understanding that federal agencies care about what

happens to them; and (3) federal agencies’ improved understanding of the needs of the

community.

Partnership Challenges

When asked about the challenges facing the B2F Partnership nine of the fifteen

interviewees addressing this topic cited the challenge of ensuring sufficient funding, specifically

as it relates to administrative support. The interviewees stated that the B2F Partnership would

benefit greatly from the establishment of an administrative support staff, however, there is no

funding currently available, and David Ouderkirk, the executive director, currently does the

majority of the administrative work alone. One interviewee stated that the lack of resources

associated with the designation of the B2F Partnership as an IWG demonstration project was a

challenge since more work accompanied the demonstration project designation. Finally, one

interviewee said that the B2F Partnership did not establish itself as a 501(c)(3) non-profit status.

An interviewee clarified by explaining that non-profit status would resolve funding issues within

the partnership but it would not allow the federal employees to sit on the Executive Board. This

would greatly hamper information sharing, a main activity of the partnership, between the

community and the federal government.

Five of the fifteen interviewed agreed that the tragic events occurring on September 11,

2001 have affected the B2F Partnership. The B2F Partnership’s workgroup and executive

board meetings have been impacted since that date. Furthermore, there has been limited

civilian access to the Navy Yard since that time. Finally, two interviewees said that the

momentum that B2F had gained earlier was deflated a bit after the tragedy. Related to the

events of September 11, was the rise of unemployment in the community surrounding the Naval

Station immediately following. Some interviewees believe B2F helped relieve and improve this

situation with programs already in place.

Four of the fifteen interviewees stated that the B2F Partnership needed to re-energize,

and regain momentum. For instance, one stated that the B2F Partnership moved too slowly

and needed “more action and less talk.” Another interviewee mentioned that maintaining

momentum without regularly scheduled meetings was difficult. Another stated that if the

community’s needs were not met quickly the residents’ interest in the B2F Partnership would

wane. Other difficulties cited included community outreach and partner recruitment.

When asked if different organizational styles were barriers to partnership success seven

out of the eleven interviewees who addressed this topic said yes. Three cited the federal

government’s lack of ability to fund the partnership as a barrier to success. Two interviewees

expressed concern generated by federal agencies’ standard protocol which encourages
52 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

regional staff, as opposed to headquarters staff, to take the lead in assisting in communitybased efforts, even when the headquarters staff are already based in or near the affected

community. One interviewee stated that the historically adversarial relationship between the

District of Columbia and the federal government made it difficult for the two to effectively work

together. Finally, one interview mentioned that it was impossible for federal employees to be on

the executive board of a non-profit organization. She/he further explained that this barrier

prevented B2F from switching to a non-profit status and assuring funding. Four interviewees,

however, did not identify any organizational barriers, noting, instead that B2F’s main purpose

was to work around them.

Interviewees were also asked if there were conflicting federal regulations that limited the

success of the partnership. Eleven out of the thirteen that answered the question said yes.

Five mentioned the federal government’s inability to neither legally finance the executive

director position nor provide funds for B2F contractual support was a major barrier. One

interviewee mentioned a particular instance when a federal agency was not able to provide a

grant to a non-profit partner because of statutory restrictions. Finally two interviewees

mentioned that the restriction prohibiting a federal employee from participating on a non-profit

organization’s executive board was a major barrier to B2F success.

Interviewees’ Recommendations for Improving the Partnership

When asked about ways to improve the B2F Partnership, twelve of the sixteen

interviewees stated that B2F would benefit from an increase in funding and resources.

Specifically nine interviewees explained that increased funding and resources to support

administration work would significantly enhance the partnership. Similarly, three interviewees

mentioned that increasing administrative capacity would greatly increase the success of the B2F

Partnership. Along these lines, three interviewees mentioned the need for B2F to provide a set

agenda before meetings to ensure a common basis of understanding from which to work. Seven

recommended that the partnership establish a permanent time and location for meetings. As

one interviewee stated “a way to improve this problem (scheduling conflicts) is to establish a

permanent meeting location and set a permanent date (e.g., the first Tuesday of every other

month).” She/he added that the permanent location should be a comfortable space and have

parking availability. Two other interviewees, concerned about lack of all partners’ email

capacity, recommended that the partnership only use technology that every partner possesses

to distribute pertinent information.

Three interviewees recommended soliciting greater direct input from the community

before B2F-sponsored programs are initiated. To help do this, one interviewee noted that the

B2F Partnership should establish an ombudsman for the community. Finally one interviewee

mentioned the need to continue to break down the bureaucratic barriers in the federal system as

a way to further improve the B2F Partnership.

Interviewees’ Recommendations for Other Communities Using Partnerships

When asked to provide recommendations for other communities interested in using

partnership approaches to address environmental justice issues, eight of thirteen interviewees

addressing this question suggested defining a clear vision statement and focusing on what the

member organizations want to accomplish in the beginning stages of the partnership formation.

They went on to say that it is necessary for communities to construct their partnership structure

around this defined vision statement. Four interviewees stated that an agency should expect to

donate money and time. Two expanded this by saying in initial stages of the partnership

formation process, partners should require potential members to explain what resources their
Bridges to Friendship Partnership 53

organization can supply to the partnership. Three went on to say the partnership should be

inclusive, and open to all who want to participate with the understanding that every organization

will have something to contribute.

Two interviewees recommended that communities using partnerships enlist the services

of a strong facilitator and coordinator. Another remarked that the partnership should account for

issues of member burnout. To avoid this she/he recommended that the member organizations

rotate personnel who are the key contacts to the partnership. Another interviewee

recommended that the partnership stay flexible since the flexibility within the B2F Partnership is

what makes it successful. In addition, another interviewee cautioned other communities using

partnerships to be aware that as the “level of expectation rises, the level of action seems to

reduce.”

Finally, two non-profit representatives advised other non-profit organizations to avoid

expecting that entry into a partnership will result in increased funding. They further explained

that non-profit organizations need to understand that a partnership, and resulting network,

allows participating organizations to tap into a wide range of resources, only one of which may

be money. According to the interviewee, partnerships “will yield you gains”, but only if the nonprofit organization believes in the partnership as a whole. In addition, she/he warned that nonprofit groups cannot “circumvent the group for their own enhancement.”

Value of the Collaborative Partnership

When asked if the issues facing the affected community would have been addressed

had the B2F Partnership not been formed thirteen of the fifteen interviewees who answered the

question stated that the issues would not have been addressed to the same extent, if at all.

Four remarked that the partnership model was the only way to fully address the issues facing

the affected communities, and added that the services provided by individual organizations

would have been fractured, inconsistent, and would not have received as much “buy-in” from

the community. However, two interviewees felt that the community was empowered before the

partnership came into being and, therefore, many issues were already being addressed.

However, one of these interviewees acknowledged that B2F enhanced and focused the groups.

When asked about the value of addressing issues through a collaborative partnership

approach, three of the fifteen interviewees who addressed this topic stated that the B2F

Partnership provided a network of resources and contacts for support. Four mentioned that the

partnership provided a structure for different organizations to pool their individual resources.

Further, three others stated that this pooling of resources and increased communication

between individual organizations reduced the redundancy of services provided to the affected

community. Four interviewees said the B2F Partnership provided an excellent forum where

community issues can be discussed. One went on to say that the partnership ensured

community participation, specifically through the inclusion of non-profit community

organizations. Two others mentioned that because all organizations were working together, this

reduced the likelihood that one organization would take the lead within the community. Finally,

one interviewee mentioned that the collaborative method was a “good vessel for the

environmental justice campaign.”

Interviewees were asked if the B2F Partnership could be used to address similar issues

that the community might face in the future. Eleven of the sixteen stated that the model could

be used for future issues. Five thought that the collaborative model approach is the new way

the government should do business. Two interviewees commented that the B2F membership

has the expertise needed to cover many areas of the affected community and the uniqueness of
54 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

this project is in its depth. Another interviewee went so far as to say the “collaborative is the

only way to overcome classic bureaucratic barriers blocking good things from happening.”

However, three interviewees were skeptical of the model. One mentioned that the approach is

still untested. Another thought it was a good approach but still needed to be improved, and one

thought that “we are too bureaucratically trained” for the collaborative model to continue to work.

Value of Federal Involvement in the Partnership

When asked about the effect of having federal agencies participate in the B2F

Partnership, thirteen of the thirteen interviewees who answered the question had positive things

to say. Ten stated that federal involvement has added credibility to the partnership. One

explained that federal involvement in the collaboration validated the community’s concerns that

a problem exists. Five stated that the federal government provides resources and expertise in

the form of money, training, outreach programs, and accountability via documentation.

Furthermore, two of those interviewees mentioned that federal involvement boosts community

enthusiasm and increases the community’s organizational capacity. Three of the thirteen

interviewees stated that federal involvement results in greater information sharing between the

community and other organizations.

When asked what the federal agencies gained by participating in the B2F Partnership,

eight of the fourteen interviewees who answered stated that the federal agencies now have a

greater understanding of the affected communities. Four clarified by stating that the B2F

Partnership allows federal agencies to “see who in a community is benefiting from their

mandates.” One said that the federal agencies “sometimes deal with policy rather than people,”

and the collaborative process is helping the federal agencies better identify ways to help

troubled communities. Three interviewees stated the agency activities performed collectively

have a greater impact on the community. Two others mentioned that the collaborative process

has helped the federal agencies identify the activities of other federal agencies in the community

and therefore reduced redundancy of services provided.

Four interviewees stated that federal employees have gained job satisfaction from

working within the B2F Partnership. They expanded by mentioning that they really enjoy this

type of “hands on” work as well as the satisfaction received from seeing newly trained youth in

their offices everyday. Another interviewee mentioned that the B2F Partnership has increased

the visibility of the federal government within the affected community and that this has provided

validation of the agencies’ work within the community. Finally one said that the collaborative

process allows federal employees to expand the boundaries of traditional government work.

When asked whether federal agencies have been better able to coordinate their

activities as a result on their involvement in the B2F Partnership, eleven out of eleven

interviewees that answered responded positively. One interviewee stated that “every time

agencies get together and understand how they can relate and what resources they each can

bring to the table they are more likely to do it again.” Two others said that they are “gaining

contacts and starting [partnership] spin-offs.” Another interviewee, however, remarked that

while the partnership has increased coordination between agencies, it hasn’t directly resulted in

improved coordination within his agency. Finally, one interviewee remarked that the partnership

had resulted in increased coordination with staff and mid-level managers. She/he added,

however, that some federal agency managers wanted their agencies to take credit for

accomplishments that should be attributed to the B2F Partnership, and thus the partnership,

according to the interviewee, could benefit from improved coordination.
Bridges to Friendship Partnership 55

Interviewees were also asked what federal agencies could do in order to better

participate within community-based partnerships. Four out of the thirteen that answered this

question thought it was necessary for the agency to provide the partnership with a point of

contact, whose role would be to represent the agency in all the partnership activities while

keeping the partnership’s mission in the minds of management. Two of these same

interviewees mentioned that it was very important to pick the right person for this role, stressing

that the representative needed to be energized and interested in the project. Two others

mentioned providing flexibility under non-profit status regulations in order to allow the federal

representatives to the B2F Partnership to continue to participate if the B2F Partnership officially

organized into a non-profit.

Two interviewees mentioned that federal agencies should support the collaborative

problem solving method at all levels within the member organization and structure themselves in

a way that would facilitate their participation in partnership efforts. Along these lines, two

interviewees stated that federal agencies need to better market use of collaborative

approaches. They felt that this would increase federal agencies’ support for participation in

these efforts. Two remarked that federal agencies should understand that they are part of the

community as well as the needs of that community when participating in partnerships. Two

interviewees also stated that federal agencies need to be prepared to take risks and be able to

cope with failure when partnering. One of these further suggested that agencies should not be

afraid to invite the public onto their facilities and explain to them what role the agency plays in

the community. Finally, one interviewee said that work assignment rotations should be

incorporated into every government employee’s job requirements in the hopes that the rotation

will allow them to see how their decisions affect the “real world.” She/he went on to say that

federal agencies should be given incentives to participate in community-based partnerships.

Key Findings

ß The collaborative approach used by the B2F Partnership has allowed its member

organizations to better ensure that some of the most disadvantaged members of Southeast

and Southwest D.C. communities benefit form the recent development in the area and are

not forced to relocate, particularly those living near the Washington Navy Yard. The

majority of interviewees agreed that without the B2F Partnership it is unlikely that concerns

of the disadvantaged community members would have been considered to the same

extent.

ß B2F has experienced substantial success since its inception in 1998, in leveraging

resources, sharing information and resources, building job skills and identifying job

opportunities for youth. All interviewees believe that the partnership has made a genuine

effort to meet the B2F Partnership goals and that the issues most important to them were

being addressed. The members of the B2F Partnership consider the on-going collaboration

a success.

ß B2F would benefit from a fully funded, executive director position and increased

administrative support to ensure that it can continue its many positive efforts thus far.

Funding would help to coordinate the partnership, advertise the partnership’s activities and

accomplishments both within the community and amongst potential members, and ensure

that the partnership does not lose its momentum yet again.

ß In part, the success of the B2F Partnership can be attributed to the strong, charismatic

personalities involved. For example, many interviewees stated that the partnership would

not have enjoyed the same level of success without the continuing effort of the executive
56 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

director, David Ouderkirk, to maintain the lines of communication and act as organizer for

the partnership. Interviewees also mentioned the importance of Admiral Weaver, a highly

visible champion who increased the visibility and credibility of the B2F Partnership. It should

be mentioned, however, that the B2F partners may rely too heavily upon these individuals,

and that if they were to leave the partnership, B2F might not continue to be as effective.

ß The operational structure within the B2F Partnership allows for a unique flexibility. Potential

partners are able to come to the B2F Partnership with a proposed activity and as long as

that activity coincides with B2F’s overall goals the partnership will expand to perform that

activity. The partnership members have a positive attitude and continuously look for ways

they can help member organizations solve problems and attain goals rather than focusing

on the reasons why a certain problem is impossible to solve.

ß B2F continues to have the strong support of numerous and diverse partner organizations

including federal agencies, city government, non-profit and community organizations, and

academic universities.

ß Although many interviewees listed measures that could be used to track the success of the

B2F Partnership, no formal measurement and evaluation system is currently in place. It

would benefit the partnership to institute a system to enable it to more systematically

measure the group’s progress towards achieving its goals, better focus resources, and

more easily understand when to make programmatic changes. The partnership could also

use the results of this measurement system to more easily communicate its

accomplishments.
57

4 Metlakatla Peninsula Cleanup Partnership

We are struggling with past relationships and trust issues. As long as we move as a

group with no one individual making decisions we're ok.

Between feds -we have varying interpretations of what [standards] the site should be

cleaned up to...This makes [cleanup] difficult.

The [Partnership] saves everyone time and facilitates the overall cleanup. Saves

everyone time, especially for the Tribe. Could be a huge value for them in the end.

Knowing people at the other agencies has been a tremendous help. You get to know

people in the other agencies, and you start to look to them for other project

partnerships dealing with other issues.

— Interviewees, Metlakatla Partnership

Community History*

Annette Island is located on the southern tip of a chain of islands in southeast Alaska

and covers approximately 200 square miles. Mild winters, cool summers and heavy rainfall,

along with both flat and mountainous terrain, forest, lakes, bogs, coastal beaches and rocky

shoreline, characterize the island. Annette supports a range of fish and wildlife, including

wolves, deer, three species of salmon, and American Bald Eagle. In addition, humpback

whales typically migrate alongside Annette’s shorelines.97

In 1887, William Duncan, an Anglican missionary based in British Columbia, secured

rights to an Alaskan island for himself and a small band of Tsimshians Indians followers after

fundamental disagreements with church officials and a growing loss of control over Tsimshian

territory to government officials and non-natives.98 Mr. Duncan, along with 700 Tsimshians then

left their home in Metlakatla, British Columbia and traveled 100 miles to Annette Island.99 The

Tsimshians established New Metlakatla on the northern tip of a major peninsula in the island’s

southwest region. Four years later, Congress formally established this and nearby surrounding

islands as a permanent reserve for the Tsimshians.100 In New Metlakatla, “the Community

created for itself a life that combined the old with the new.”101 Residents built a church, sawmill,

fish cannery, community hall, guesthouse, and Victorian-style houses connected by

boardwalks.102 They also re-established the native council103 and continued subsistence

patterns of fishing and gathering.104

At the onset of World War II, the U.S. government recognized the strategic importance of

Annette Island’s location and leased 12,000 acres six miles south of Metlakatla from the

Metlakatla Indian Community (MIC) in order to build an Army Air Force base and small Navy

base. Several federal agencies assisted in the development of over 700 buildings that

 

*

 Interviews for this case study were conducted between November 29, 2001 and April 4, 2002. Eight separate

interviews were conducted and a total of ten persons participated. Interviews were conducted with the tribal

environmental coordinator, an environmental consultant for the tribe, and representatives of six different federal

agencies. Interviews with federal agencies included representatives from both headquarters and field level staff

based in Alaska, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which serves as the federal steward for tribal lands.
58 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

eventually supported roughly 7,000 troops.105 At the war’s conclusion the facilities quickly

emptied;106 however, soon afterward the federal government once again began using a portion

of the facilities. In 1948, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and later the U.S. Coast

Guard (USCG) leased the airfield which served as the airport for Ketchikan,107 a nearby Alaskan

city.

New construction in the 1940s resulted in “runways, taxi routes, hangars, storage tanks

and facilities, housing, docks, a hospital, and infrastructure improvements to water, sewage, and

communications” and, until that time, was the only development on the peninsula outside of

Metlakatla.108 Federal involvement on the island was important for the Metlakatla economy109

and brought a limited number of well-paying employment opportunities for local residents.110

However, such benefits diminished with the cessation of most federal activity by the mid-1970s.

When a new airport opened in Ketchikan in 1974, FAA transferred most of the airfield and

equipment to the MIC.111 Metlakatla residents made use of several former FAA housing

structures for forestry offices. Further, community members developed a small sawmill inside

the hangar as well as a mill machinery maintenance shop in another building nearby. However,

most of the sites went unused.112 To support itself, the MIC continued to primarily rely upon its

commercial fishing and timber harvesting operations.

Today the MIC consists of roughly 1,400 residents.113 The median income for Metlakatla

families in 1990 was over $38,000 and unemployment was 13 percent.114 However, by 2000,

unemployment had risen above 80 percent, as many residents lost jobs and saw their royalty

payments disappear primarily due to federal timber restrictions that began taking effect in the

mid-1990s.115 Even before the restrictions and a disastrous fishing season in 1995,116 however,

the Tribe was making plans to diversify its economy and fortify its natural resource base. For

instance, the MIC eventually developed plans to construct a water bottling plant, a tribal

economic development office, and a rock quarry and engage in several other economic

development initiatives.117 A primary focus of the Tribe’s, however, was the cleanup of the

abandoned facilities, debris, and potential contamination primarily leftover at the former airfield

site.

Metlakatla Peninsula Cleanup Background

Concerned about the former sites’ potential impact on health, local food supply, and the

economy, in the early 1990s the Tribe took steps to investigate the former site in more detail.

The Tribal Environmental Coordinator, along with the Tribe’s contractor, identified over 80 sites

with environmental concerns, including “underground and above-ground storage tanks, disposal

areas, barrels, explosives, asbestos-containing materials, lead-based paint, and spills.” A

summary report later developed noted that, “Environmental contamination presents a risk to

residents and workers at the site and to sensitive wetland and coastal environs.”118

Instead of pursuing a Superfund designation for the Peninsula, the Tribe sought to work

cooperatively with the federal agencies that had contributed to past contamination. In January

1995, the MIC sent a formal letter to FAA asking the agency for it to assist in addressing the

environmental issues identified by the Tribe.119 The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), COE†,

USCG, and FAA responded by conducting an environmental review to assess past government

impacts on the island completed in August 1997.120 In the meantime, FAA and COE began

working on a Coordinated Comprehensive Cleanup (C3) Plan to better coordinate cleanup

efforts by the federal agencies and make effective use of resources.121 MIC’s contractor, in

 

†

 Under the Department of Defense’s Formerly Utilized Defense Sites program, COE is the lead agency for cleaning

up sites used by the U.S. Army, Air Force, and Navy (See Federal Aviation Administration, Annette Island

Environmental Restoration Issues, p. ES-1).
Metlakatla Peninsula Cleanup Partnership 59

cooperation with the Tribe, also developed a master plan describing resources required for

cleanup and how MIC members could be hired to support cleanup activities 122. By July 1999,

several agencies, either formally or informally, had signed a Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU), along with the MIC, to ensure cleanup cooperation.123 Today, the MOU Work Group

consists primarily of field-level representatives from FAA, COE, the MIC’s environmental

coordinator, and the contractors for each organization.‡

MOU Work Group

It is useful to think of the MOU Work Group’s activities as roughly falling into three main

categories: (1) administrative, (2) environmental, and (3) community involvement and outreach.

In reference to the first, the MOU Work Group, as well as individual members, engage in several

activities to enhance cooperation and coordination. First, the MOU Work Group hosts bi-weekly

teleconference calls guided by a strict agenda where the members discuss “issues associated

with accomplishing the cleanup work, including MIC priorities, technical approaches, regulatory

requirements, sharing of data, coordinated scheduling of work activities, and community

outreach.” 124 Meeting minutes as well as numerous other cleanup-related documents are

posted on an Annette Island cleanup site sponsored by FAA. Second, the MOU Work Group

has developed several additional tools, including a quality assurance program plan, to expedite

cleanup work.125 Third, COE and FAA (and USCG to a more limited extent) also share

resources to enhance efficiency of the cleanup effort. For instance, COE and FAA shared office

space, exchanged personnel, and used a single engineering firm. By collaborating on these

activities, as well as community involvement efforts that will be discussed in detail below, FAA

estimates that the federal agencies involved saved over $750,000 from 1999 through 2001.126

Regarding environmental activities, agencies involved in the MOU Work Group have

made concerted efforts to cleanup all single party sites, although the MIC has yet to issue a

“closed” status for any. Further, FAA and COE have teamed up to address two-party

contaminated sites involving FAA and a DOD-led agency. Once money becomes available, and

allocation responsibilities have been identified, the responsible agencies will move to cleanup

these more complex sites. A list of specific environmental accomplishments from October 1999,

through October 2000, is listed in the table below.127

 

‡

 BIA is an original MOU signatory but is not a regular participant in MOU Work Group activities. USCG signed on to

the MOU Work Group as an informal member. Since 2001 the agency has not participated with the MOU Work

Group, although it is still involved in limited cleanup activities on the island.
60 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

Environmental Accomplishments of MOU Work Group Members and USCG

October 1999 through October 2000

BIA

ß Eight contaminated buildings and pads dismantled and disposed

ß Scrap metal removed in conjunction with FAA

COE

ß 10,000 feet of former fuel line drained and cleaned

ß 7,000 gallons of fuel/water mixture removed

ß Additional mercury-impacted soil removed at one site

FAA

ß Debris removed from 30 sites

ß 53 sites investigated to determine extent of contaminants possibly released into environment

ß 45 abandoned towers with lead-based paint demolished and recycled

ß 800 abandoned drums removed and recycled off the island

ß 14 underground one aboveground fuel storage tanks decommissioned and disposed of off island

ß 700 tons of scrap metal removed from island

USCG

ß Process for removal of three storage tanks begun

Figure 16. Environmental Accomplishments of MOU Work Group Members and USCG October 1999 through October

2000

Community involvement and outreach activities of the MOU Work Group members

include consultation and outreach, actively hiring local MIC residents, and Work Group team

building. Regarding this first activity, members of the MOU Work Group provide briefings to the

Tribal Council approximately once per year. MOU Work Group members have also conducted

several community outreach activities, including participating at the Tribe’s yearly Founder’s

Day celebration and community health fair. Members of the MOU Work Group have also

actively sought to hire MIC residents to conduct cleanup activities, a critical objective of the MIC.

For instance, COE hired seven local residents (50 percent of total field workforce) in 2000.128 In

addition, MOU Work Group members, and most noticeably FAA, have been actively pushing for

enhanced teamwork between members. Recently this desire culminated in a rigorous oneweek team building exercise held in Ketchikan, Alaska in March 2002, paid for by FAA.

Although the MOU Work Group experienced some successes in coordinating and

initiating cleanup actions on several sites, according to an FAA document, cleanup efforts have

been hampered for several reasons, including lack of full coordination across MOU Work Group

members, insufficient funding, varying agency environmental policies, and lack of single overall

lead agency.129 

Partnership Background and Goals

Recognizing the need for additional assistance and an opportunity, in early 2000, an

agency official within the Department of Defense (DOD), based near Washington, D.C.,

developed a proposal for the cleanup work at Annette Island to be accepted as a federal

Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice national demonstration project. The DOD

official hoped that this national designation would enable enhanced coordination of agency

officials at the Headquarters level, and, in turn, enable parties involved directly in the cleanup to

identify, assess, and remediate contaminated sites more efficiently. The MIC agreed to this

approach, recognizing that such a designation would help better ensure that cleanup work on

the island would be completed. In June 2000, the proposal was accepted, and, soon after, the

Environmental Justice (EJ) Work Group was formed, consisting primarily of agency
Metlakatla Peninsula Cleanup Partnership 61

headquarters officials from FAA, COE, USCG, BIA, as well as EPA. The MIC is also a member,

however, issues involving distance and coordination has limited the MIC’s involvement. The EJ

Work Group and the MOU Work Group do not regularly hold formal meetings together;

however, loose coordination exists between the two.

Although not well defined, it is helpful to visualize the partnership around the issue of

island cleanup as consisting of three distinct components: (1) the MIC; (2) the EJ Work Group;

and (3) the MOU Work Group. All groups have as a common goal to cleanup the contaminated

sites on the island; however, they each have a slightly different focus. The MOU Work Group

members are focused primarily on cleaning up sites. The EJ Work Group is focused primarily

on facilitating the resolution of difficult cleanup issues; and the MIC, although represented on

both work groups, is focused on ensuring that cleanup will take place in a manner that meets

the needs and priorities of the Tribe. The Metlakatla Peninsula cleanup partnership is depicted

in the graphic below.

 Figure 17. EPA Representation of the Metlakatla Peninsula Cleanup Partnership

In addition, after the MIC was designated as a Brownfields Showcase Community in

October 2002, efforts were made by the EJ Work Group, MOU Work Group, and EPA

Brownfields officials to ensure that communication lines between the cleanup effort and the

Brownfields redevelopment effort would remain open. By integrating cleanup and potential

options for reuse at three sites through the cleanup and Brownfields work, the parties hope to

better ensure that the cleanup will match the Tribe’s desired reuse of the site and potentially

make much more efficient use of resources.

On-Going Issues Impeding Cleanup

Despite the EJ Work Group’s intention to resolve challenging issues impeding site

cleanup, progress in cleaning the more challenging multi-party sites has been slow. Two critical

issues are discussed in more detail below.

MIC

Assessment

Allocation

Cleanup

MOU Work

Group EJ Work

Group

Metlakatla Peninsula

Cleanup Partnership
62 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

Allocation of responsibility for cleanup at multi-party sites. The numerous parties

involved, the numerous transactions involving property, and insufficient records,

complicate allocation. For instance, the MOU Work Group identified 18 parties that

may be liable for cleanup costs including nine US federal agencies, two Canadian

federal agencies, the State of Alaska, the MIC, and five private companies.130 Closely

related are the complicated tasks of determining who should fund cleanup at multiparty sites and then who should be responsible for conducting the remediation.

Determination of what constitutes a “clean” site. Members of the MOU Work Group

desire to seek official approval indicating that their site is clean once appropriate

remedial action has been taken. This matter is complicated, however, as it is not clear

to all parties involved what entity has responsibility to make such a determination, nor

what level of cleanup might be considered appropriate. As a sovereign nation that can

be delegated authority from the federal government to manage its environmental

programs, the MIC has developed, and received approval from EPA for several

cleanup standards put forth by the Tribe. However, the Tribe has yet to develop

and/or receive approval for standards that correspond to all the contaminants found at

the sites.131 Further, the various parties involved in the cleanup often have varying

internal guidance recommending that different levels of cleanup should be met.132

FAA-Alaska has been active in putting forth suggestions to resolve remaining issues,133

however, no action was taken in response to these suggestions. Further, most Metlakatla

Peninsula Cleanup partners expect that solutions to the remaining issues will need

endorsement from the EJ Work Group before moving forward in concert. In an effort to resolve

some of the on-going obstacles, the EJ Work Group initiated an alternative dispute resolution

process (ADR) in 2001 led by a team from EPA’s Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center. In

January 2002, the ADR team submitted preliminary recommendations to the EJ Work Group on

how to improve the process. This was followed up by a two-day meeting in Seattle held in June

that involved the Tribe and members of both the MOU and EJ Work Groups. It is too early to

tell the impact the meeting will have on improving the course of cleanup activity on the island.

The following sections primarily describe interviewees’ responses to questions gathered

from interviews conducted by EPA’s Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation from late

November 2001 through late April 2002. The sections focus on interviewees’ impressions

regarding measuring partnership success, partnership success and challenges,

recommendations for improving the partnership, overall value of the partnership, and the value

of federal involvement in the partnership. It is important to note that this case study diverges

from others in that only two main categories of partners, federal agencies and the MIC, are

currently playing a central role alongside the MIC in this partnership effort. Interviewees include

the MIC tribal environmental coordinator, the MIC’s environmental consultant, BIA, DOD

Headquarters, COE-Alaska, FAA-Headquarters, FAA-Alaska, USCG-Alaska, USCGHeadquarters, and EPA-Headquarters. BIA is the federal steward for tribal lands and is

perceived as somewhat more closely allied with MIC interests, while EPA is considered to be a

neutral party.

Measuring Success

The Metlakatla Partnership does not have a measurement framework to determine

success of their effort. However, five interviewees had thoughts regarding what success might

look like and how the project should be evaluated. First, two interviewees noted that project

success would be indicated by cleanup of the contaminated sites. One added that currently 60-

70 cleanup sites had an “open” status, meaning that the Tribe was not in agreement that the
Metlakatla Peninsula Cleanup Partnership 63

sites had been adequately cleaned up. Similarly, another interviewee felt that success would be

indicated by a cleanup of the island to a degree that the MIC was comfortable with. Further,

she/he added that an additional indicator of success would be a cleanup that took ten years as

opposed to twenty to complete. In addition, she/he added that milestones should be used to

help gauge project success. Another interviewee suggested that the on-going accumulation of

cleanup data should be used to evaluate success. She/he further suggested that periodic

checks by a federal representative should be conducted to ensure that cleanup is going as

planned. Finally, one of the same interviewees remarked that an evaluation framework is

needed, but that no single framework should be required for Interagency Working Group

Environmental Justice pilot projects.

Partnership Successes

In terms of greatest overall success, no clear consensus emerged from the interviewees’

responses. Four referenced the coordination of the partnership as its biggest success.

Specifically, two cited the coordination between agencies in the field. Another cited more

generally the coordination between the federal agencies, noting that the technical

communication between them is very well established and the agencies’ engineers are very

knowledgeable. This interviewee added that the effective coordination between the federal

agencies has resulted from these agencies’ dedication of funding, enthusiastic people, and

management support. Along similar lines, another interviewee noted previous cleanup efforts

were very sporadic and that mere involvement in this type of project “is a big deal.” She/he

went on to say that, “People are pulling together because everyone sees it as something

positive for the community.” Related to coordination, two interviewees directly referenced the

involvement of certain stakeholders as the partnership’s greatest success. One noted

specifically the involvement of DOD’s Len Richeson as critical in leading the EJ demonstration

project. Another cited the involvement of (1) federal agencies, particularly those not previously

active in working with Tribes (which may have resulted from the EJ Demo pilot designation); (2)

a tribal representative who has a leadership role; (3) a strong technical consultant for the Tribe

who can act in accordance with tribal values.

Another major success, according to two interviewees was dedication. One interviewee

noted that the MOU Work Group’s dedication despite many frustrations was the partnership’s

greatest success; while a second emphasized the dedication of the EJ Work Group, which has

continued to meet after two years despite many frustrations. She/he added that the group has

continued to meet because of their obligations to clean up the sites. Another noted that the

greatest success of the effort, thus far, was the agreement by the MOU Work Group members

to participate in a rigorous team building session. She/he went on to say that it’s important for

the members to talk first about “what makes us tick” and then discuss allocation. Finally, one

interviewee stated that the partnership’s greatest success has been the visibility it gained when

the cleanup effort was designated as an Environmental Justice national demonstration project.

Because of this, according to the interviewee, agencies provided more funding for the effort.

Partnership Challenges

Interviewees voiced several challenges facing the partnership. The most consistently

raised challenges centered on issues of trust and communication, allocation, and cleanup

standards. First, several interviewees raised concerns over communication and trust issues.

Specifically, five cited problematic communication issues between the MIC and federal

agencies. Of these, two noted that it appeared that federal agencies did not allow sufficient

Tribal input in decisionmaking. One noted that within the EJ Work Group it “seems like they are

not letting the community in.” Two remarked that the federal agencies were not given sufficient
64 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

access to the Tribal Council. One of these explained that the federal agencies only had access

to the Tribal Council once per year but additional meetings were needed. She/he went on to

explain that the lack of timely meetings can be especially problematic when the agencies want

to obtain site “close-out” standards from the Tribe. Also related to communication difficulties,

one of the same interviewees stated that the federal agencies did not fully understand their trust

responsibilities in relation to the Tribe. In addition, a sixth interviewee stated that the EJ Work

Group did not sufficiently communicate with the MOU Work Group. Finally, one interviewee

noted that one of the major difficulties has been establishing trusting relationships between all

the federal agencies and the Tribe.

Second, four of ten interviewees noted the difficulty of determining cleanup responsibility

for the multiparty sites on the island. One remarked that the on-going allocation process has

been “really, really challenging.” She/he went on to say that part of this difficulty stems from an

inability to set meeting times when all parties can attend. Another interviewee commented that

the parties are willing to discuss allocation, but some are becoming frustrated.

Third, four interviewees cited the lack of consensus regarding cleanup standards as a

major partnership hurdle. Interviewees voiced concern that the Tribe may have set standards

too high in some instances, or that the Tribe’s standards aren’t equivalent to EPA’s or the State

of Alaska’s. One interviewee noted that his/her organization is regularly required to cleanup to

the most stringent level, but in some instances current technologies do not detect to levels

required by MIC standards. Another voiced concern that the Tribe wanted his/her agency to

remove certain contaminants to a level beyond background levels. She/he did note, however,

that the concerns over cleanup standards were being negotiated one standard at a time.

Other barriers to success cited include: (1) inconsistency between some of the various

agency policies and terminology guiding cleanup, such as what is meant by the term “lead

agency”; (2) getting reluctant parties to address their contamination cleanup responsibilities; (3)

lack of sufficient involvement by EPA Region 10 to help guide the cleanup process; (4) lack of

agreed upon contamination testing procedures; (5) lack of appreciation for the need to obtain an

allocation agreement for the multi-party sites, especially since most of these, according to the

interviewee, are the most contaminated; (6) determining who will actually conduct the cleanups

once allocation is determined; (7) consistent lack of funding; (8) disparities in funding availability

between parties; (9) ineffective communication about which cleanup issues are top priority; (10)

insufficient tribal experience to oversee the cleanup program; (11) addressing Tribal issues not

directly related to cleanup, which could confuse the cleanup process; and (12) winter weather,

which can slow the cleanup process.

When asked whether the organizational styles and procedures of the different partner

organizations limited effective collaboration between partners, of the ten interviewees

addressing this topic nine mentioned that some styles and procedures have limited effective

collaboration. Of these nine, five cited varying organizational policies regarding site cleanup

standards as problematic. For instance, one remarked that agencies under the Department of

Defense are only required to cleanup to approved EPA/State requirements, which could pose a

problem if the Tribe wants sites cleaned to a greater degree than EPA standards. Two voiced

concern that one agency’s cleanup standard is based on risk, another’s is based on the most

stringent standard approved, while another agency does not have a clear policy regarding this,

making it difficult to determine to what extent a site should be cleaned.

Another organizational barrier cited by two interviewees centered on budget/funding

issues. One remarked that different budget cycles made collaboration more difficult, while

another expressed concern about the inability for some organizations to consistently send their
Metlakatla Peninsula Cleanup Partnership 65

principle people to meetings. She/he added that a centralized travel budget might help alleviate

these concerns. This same interviewee also explained that the Tribe’s lack of resources for

environmental programs made it difficult for the Tribe to respond to issues raised by other

members of the MOU Work Group in a timely fashion. Another interviewee explained that

his/her organization’s policy prevented contracting with the MIC directly to perform cleanup

operations, thus limiting the number of MIC residents that could be hired. Another interviewee

voiced concern over a historical lack of trust between two partner organizations. She/he added,

however, that as long as EPA is seen as neutral, and all the members continue to make

decisions in a collective manner, this issue should not pose too great a difficulty. Finally, one

interviewee remarked that the federal agencies’ inability to always know what the others were

doing contributed to project difficulties.

Interviewees’ Recommendations for Improving the Partnership

Interviewees provided several different recommendations for improving the effectiveness

of the Metlakatla partnership. Three of the nine interviewees addressing this topic

recommended completing the allocation process. One advocated bringing together the EJ

Work Group members, ADR officials, and Brownfields representatives together in one room to

work out all issues associated with allocation. Another emphasized that allocation may only

work if a consent order can be applied. Related to the allocation process, one interviewee

urged all parties to come together and agree to a consolidated, massive cleanup effort, and then

urge Congress to appropriate the necessary funding. Contrasting with this recommendation,

two interviewees urged EPA to expand its leadership over the effort, while another urged that

one person be put solely in charge of the project who would act as the “information hub.”

Other recommendations included: (1) increasing coordination with EPA Region 10; (2)

conducting the MOU Work Group team building initiative; (3) ensuring that there is early,

substantial communication with the Tribe; (4) dividing the EJ Work Group members into smaller

groups to work on MIC priorities once they are fully understood; (5) providing greater follow-up,

such as meeting notes, following the EJ Work Group meetings; (6) training the MIC community

on ensuring effective communication with federal agencies; (7) ensuring that the MIC has close

communication with agency representatives in charge of implementing the ADR process

regarding allocation; (8) being realistic about cleanup schedules and funding requirements; and

(9) having EPA build a unifying framework to incorporate the many different activities associated

with the cleanup effort, including the environmental justice component, Brownfields, and

DOD’s Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program.

Interviewees’ Recommendations for Other Communities Using Partnerships

All ten interviewees provided recommendations for other communities using

partnerships to address environmental justice issues. The first set centered around structural

and operational considerations of partnerships. Three interviewees suggested using central

points of contact/single project leads. For instance, one stated that partnerships need to “assign

a lead agency...you need an established authority/decision maker from the beginning of the

process.” Two interviewees emphasized that resources be made available to ensure the

implementation of the partnership. One specified resources for “pulling the different member

organizations together in the collaborative” and another specified the need for administrative

support. Another interviewee suggested taking time to understand the local political structure.

Finally, one of these same interviewees urged that partnerships set standards about what they

intend to accomplish.
66 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

The second set centered on themes of openness and inclusiveness. Two interviewees

stressed the need for recognizing differences within agencies. For instance one of these stated

that when working with agencies “you need to learn differences in agencies, what their

processes are, and what their scope is.” Similarly, another interviewee encouraged

communities interested in partnerships to “be open and willing to talk.” Finally one interviewee

provided several recommendations regarding inclusiveness. She/he stated that when

developing a partnership it is important to “identify all the players in a project, include every

group even the ones that are not visible. Emphasize participation.” She/he went to say that it is

also important to use National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and environmental justice

guidelines to help guide partnership development. Moreover, the interviewee added that it is

important to keep in mind that tribal communities may lack the communication infrastructure

(e.g., email, television, and radio) that non-tribal communities have.

Value of Collaborative Partnership

When asked about the value of addressing issues through a collaborative partnership

approach, seven of the seven interviewees addressing this topic indicated that collaborating had

added value, although one of the interviewees remarked that collaborating had not been as

valuable as she/he had hoped. Four interviewees noted that the value of collaborating was the

efficiencies gained, such as time and money. One of these stated that by using the same

contractor, two agencies have saved between $600,000 to $1 million in cleanup expenses

alone. Another interviewee stated that the cost savings from collaborating would be most

significant for the Tribe, who, because of the partnership, no longer need to work out

disagreements with the different federal agencies on a one-to-one basis. She/he noted that

these savings for the Tribe could be really enormous by the time the cleanup effort is

completed. Related to economic benefits, one interviewee remarked that the partnership has

resulted in a large amount of money being injected into the MIC economy. Another explained

that the effort has resulted in the professional training of some MIC residents. These same two

interviewees explained that the partnership has resulted in some sites being cleaned up, and a

greater appreciation by the MIC that the federal agencies are addressing their cleanup

responsibilities. Finally, one interviewee explained that “the project fostered a better

understanding of involvement and a greater understanding of the different agency views of the

project.”

When asked whether the collaborative process could be used to address other issues

that the MIC is facing, of the six addressing this topic, four indicated yes, while two were

ambiguous in their responses. One who responded with yes remarked that this same type of

approach is beginning to be used in the Metlakatla landfill cleanup project.

When asked whether the main issues affecting the MIC would have been addressed

without a collaborative approach, of the nine that addressed the question, two indicated

unequivocally that the issues (primarily the cleanup issues) would not have been addressed,

one that the issues would not have been addressed unless a court order would have been

imposed, and four that some cleanup would have occurred but the effort would not have been

as effective. Two gave ambiguous responses. Of those indicating that the cleanup effort would

not have been as effective, one stated that without a collaborative approach, FAA would not

have been as extensively involved and that COE may have avoided cleanup until later and then,

once it began the cleanup, would have simply informed the MIC what it was doing, performed

the work and then left, all without (1) making use of local knowledge to enhance the cleanup

effort and (2) aiding the local economy by hiring local residents. Two interviewees indicated that

the cleanup effort would have taken a lot longer to complete, with one adding that the cleanup

would not have been performed to a level that would be satisfactory for the Tribe. In addition,
Metlakatla Peninsula Cleanup Partnership 67

another interviewee stated that sites simply would not have been identified to the extent they

would have without the partnership. Of those that were ambiguous, one remarked that it is

simply hard to say, while another remarked that every once in a while his/her agency has

thoughts about withdrawing from the partnership, but then, according to the interviewee “reality

hits home.”

Value of Federal Involvement in Partnership

When asked about the effect of having federal agencies participate in the Metlakatla

partnership for the Tribe beyond the immediate issue of federal cleanup responsibility, the five

interviewees addressing this topic produced a variety of responses. Two interviewees stated

that federal involvement helped improve the Tribe’s understanding of environmental issues,

such as environmental contaminants. Similarly, another interviewee stated that federal

participation enhanced the Tribe’s appreciation for the role of the regulator in environmental

protection. One of these same interviewees also stated that federal involvement resulted in the

training of some MIC residents for cleanup activities and improvement of their management

skills. Another interviewee explained that federal involvement has boosted the image of the

Tribe, heightened attention regarding activities needed to cleanup the island, and enabled the

Tribe to more easily gain access to key decision makers. Finally, one interviewee stated that

federal involvement has simply been critical to the cleanup work on the island.

When asked what federal partners have gained by participating in the MIC partnership,

five of the seven that addressed this topic indicated that federal agencies improved their

understanding of tribal issues. For instance, one interviewee stated that, “The agencies have a

greater appreciation for federally recognized tribes and a clarification of what it means to be

federally recognized.” Another interviewee explained that 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.” Similar to this, another interviewee indicated that

federal agencies have gained awareness of the difficulties tribal communities have in dealing

with multiple agencies. She/he added that, “We now understand their perspective and realize

some of their frustrations when comparing the different requirements of the federal agencies. It

has helped us rethink and focus on our communication.” Interviewees also stated that federal

agencies have accrued other benefits as a result of their participation, including: (1) a better

means of communicating between federal agencies; (2) an improved understanding of

environmental issues in Alaska; (3) cost savings for the federal government; (4) lessons learned

about the allocation process; and (5) a new model for conducting multi-federal agency cleanups.

When asked whether federal agencies have been able to better coordinate their

activities as a result of their involvement in the Metlakatla partnership of the seven interviewees

addressing this topic, three indicated yes, three indicated they weren’t sure, and one gave an

ambiguous response. Of those indicating yes, one interviewee explained that the partnership

had challenged his/her agency’s ability to work with public and private organizations, and

increased his/her agency’s ability to work together, even at the headquarters level. Another

interviewee explained that the federal agencies are coordinating better “because they now

understand steps to take...[for] a project of this magnitude.” For the interviewees indicating

possibly, two indicated that each’s own agency’s ability to collaborate has improved. The other

stated that “it is hard to see the influence of this compared to the whole great number of

coordinated projects; it is, however, reinforcing the federal collaborative trend.”

Interviewees were also asked what federal agencies could do to be more effective

partners in local collaborative efforts. Ten of the ten interviewees addressed this topic. Five
68 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

interviewees emphasized establishing points of contact to help guide the partnership. Of these

five, two suggested that single points of contact should be established within each agency, and

added that the partnership work must be a priority for them. Two other interviewees

recommended that one agency should be made to serve as the overall lead for the partnership.

One of these added that participating agencies should establish a common process and a

concise set of guidelines to grapple with issues where each agency has its own procedures,

such as with NEPA. Another interviewee recommended that the affected community be

empowered so that the partnership would be locally controlled and locally sponsored. She/he

added that partner members should only look to agency headquarters for support and advice,

not to guide the partnership.

Two interviewees provided suggestions specifically for cleanup. One interviewee

recommended that participating agencies develop some mechanism for determining cleanup

goals and persuading the responsible parties to negotiate cleanup issues. The second

interviewee urged EPA to make its cleanup expertise more available to other federal agencies,

especially ones not experienced in cleanup issues, although she/he added that regulatory

barriers prevented this. The interviewee further explained that if EPA had become involved in

helping coordinate cleanup issues earlier in the process, much time and money would have

been saved. Finally, one interviewee presented more general recommendations, suggesting

that federal agencies should communicate openly with affected communities and take time to

explain the everyday activities they are performing.

Key Findings§

ß The MOU Work Group and the MIC have made significant progress to ensure that the

contaminated sites on Annette Island will be remediated, although several issues,

including the allocation of cleanup responsibility for multi-party sites and reconciliation of

varied perspectives regarding appropriate cleanup standards, will need to be resolved

before the sites are cleaned to a level acceptable by all parties.

ß The overall cleanup effort could benefit by much more substantive interaction and open

communication between the EJ Work Group and the MOU Work Group. The Tribe, a

member of both work groups, appears satisfied with its involvement in the MOU Work

Group, but desires increased involvement with the EJ Work Group.

ß The goals of the MIC and the federal agencies have not been integrated. The Tribe

sees federal involvement on the island as an opportunity to address other

environmental, public health, and economic priorities in addition to contaminated site

cleanup; whereas the federal agencies involved in cleanup work are primarily concerned

about cleaning up the contaminated sites and don’t show signs they are ready to expand

this vision. Openly reconciling these two converging viewpoints should help reduce

frustrations for all parties in the future.

ß Better integrating the goals of the Brownfields effort, the cleanup effort and other similar

Annette Island initiatives where clear overlap exists, although challenging, would

increase efficiency and reduce frustration regarding cleanup and redevelopment efforts

for both the participating federal agencies and the Tribe.

ß Efforts by the MOU Work Group to openly communicate, establish common procedures,

and share resources have resulted in tangible benefits for all the parties involved,

 

§

 Findings based primarily upon data collected between 11/29/01-4/24/02.
Metlakatla Peninsula Cleanup Partnership 69

including an estimated cost savings for the participating federal agencies of over

$750,000 between 1999-2001.

ß The MIC has performed a difficult task in inventorying and assessing numerous

contaminated sites on the island, urging federal agencies to begin cleaning them, and

negotiating the different cleanup policies of the federal agencies. However, federal

agencies involved in the cleanup would appreciate if the MIC’s environmental program

had a greater number of technical staff that could assist in guiding the cleanup effort and

reviewing technical documentation.

Afterword

As noted earlier, during June 10-11, 2002, a meeting was held between Metlakatla

Partnership members to further address some of the remaining issues preventing additional

cleanup on the Metlakatla peninsula. Comments provided by one member indicate that the

meeting was well attended and participants were able to come to agreement on a process for

addressing allocation issues. Parties were asked to identify remaining sites they would cleanup

on their own. For those sites not identified for cleanup by a particular party, parties were to then

review a matrix to be used to enter into agreements between other parties responsible for

contamination at certain sites. Starting August 5, 2002, parties were to actively participate in an

allocation process and complete the process as soon as possible. Parties were then to work

together to cover their costs for site cleanup subject to the allocation. Finally, following the

completion of the allocation parties were to work together to support any share of costs that may

be determined by the allocation to be affiliated with past MIC activities. Parties were also

expected to jointly fund and cooperate to ensure completion of cleanup at sites subject to the

allocation.134
70

5 Metro East Lead Collaborative

We joined because it was important that we not duplicate efforts with Illinois EPA and

the Lead Collaborative.

Now everyone knows what the other is doing...We were doing the same thing. Now

we partner.

Value [of the collaborative effort] will be the benefit to the kids. A...generation of kids

will be protected.

— Interviewees, Metro East Lead Collaborative

Community History+

The City of East St. Louis and nearby surrounding communities including Brooklyn,

Alorton, Centerville, and Washington Park, in St. Clair County, are located in southwest Illinois

directly across the Mississippi River from St. Louis, Missouri. Built up around heavy industry, as

late as 1961, East St. Louis had a population of 77,000 benefiting from a strong economy and a

number of well-paying jobs. However, by the late 1960’s the economy had suffered a severe

setback resulting in factory closures and the exodus of more than half of the city’s population.135

Today, East St. Louis consists of approximately 32,000 residents. The population is 99 percent

minority. The poverty rate of the area is 45 percent. Sixty-five percent of the residents are low

income, and 24 percent are unemployed.136 The area is pocked by numerous vacant lots (four

miles out of the fourteen total miles making up East St. Louis are vacant) and abandoned

properties (one out of eight housing units are vacant)137, several of which serve dual roles as

children’s playgrounds and illegal junkyards. Old, dilapidated lead smelters and lead paint

factories are common, and at least twenty of these industrial sites are contaminated.138 The

East St. Louis region also has significant air quality and flooding problems. In addition, children

in the area suffer from lead poisoning at a rate of four times higher than the national average.139

The U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has reported that nearly

one in six children in America have high levels of lead in their blood. The long-term effects of

lead in a child can be severe, including learning disabilities, decreased growth, hyperactivity,

impaired hearing, and even brain damage. Most homes built in the U.S. before 1960 contain

heavily leaded paint and some homes built as recently as 1978 may also contain lead paint,

placing many young children at risk, especially children ages infant to six, who may ingest the

metal.140 Lead levels are perceived as dangerous by the U. S. Center for Disease Control

(CDC) at levels of 10 parts per million (ppm) or higher. However, Dr. Bruce Lanphear of the

Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Cincinnati has recently linked lead levels above five ppm

to low reading test scores and increased juvenile delinquency.141

High blood lead levels have been a known problem in East St. Louis and surrounding

areas for over a decade.142 However, extensive blood lead screening and lead soil sampling in

 

+

 Interviews for this case study were conducted in early October and early November 2001. Ten separate interviews

were conducted and a total of ten persons participated. Interviewees included representatives from community

organizations, state, federal, and regional agencies, and business.
Metro East Lead Collaborative 71

the area starting in 1999 began to reveal how much additional work was needed to alleviate the

threat.143 In the spring of 1999, St. Mary’s Hospital Corporate Health Center, the area hospital,

carried out school physicals in order to assess the extent of lead contamination in the school

children’s bloodstream.144 The results of the tests showed that one in five children in the East

St. Louis area had lead levels approaching the CDC dangerous level of 10 ppm. Further, lead

levels greater than 5 ppm were found in 70 percent of the children tested.145 Not only were the

lead levels abnormally high, but the ages of those poisoned were older than expected, six to

twelve.146 These findings led St. Mary’s Hospital to speculate that children must be coming into

contact with lead through means other than lead-based paint147. The hospital’s concerns

prompted the Illinois Department of Public Health, in conjunction with the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), to conduct a study to assess the level of lead in soil in selected East

St. Louis neighborhoods. Results subsequently showed high lead levels in soil at different sites.

It is unclear why community organizations and government institutions have not had

greater success in removing the threat of lead poisoning in East St. Louis even after several

years of attention has been placed on the issue and a steady flow of resources have been used

to address the problem. There are likely many varied and overlapping factors, a few of which

are briefly mentioned. The full extent of the problem may not be known. The scope of the

problem may be out of proportion to the financial and human resources required to address it.

Therefore, residents and parents in particular may not understand the threats, the symptoms, or

possible remedies. Moreover, even though they may recognize that lead’s effects can be quite

dangerous and possibly severe, some residents may stay silent on the issue fearing that if they

spoke out, they would face repercussions from landlords and county officials, including the

potential loss of their homes148 and public funding assistance.149 In addition, efforts by different

organizations to fully remedy the existing threat and locate and treat children already exhibiting

lead poisoning symptoms may not have been coordinated effectively due to staff and budget

constraints in the public health care sector150.

Partnership Background

As previously mentioned St. Mary’s Hospital turned to EPA and the Illinois EPA for

assistance in addressing the high incidence of child blood poisoning their testing program

revealed in East St. Louis and Washington Park. At the same time, several other organizations

were engaged in separate lead-based remediation efforts in the area, including the City, the

County, community-based non-profits, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The EPA official, who headed the agency’s leadbased work in St. Louis, came to the recognition that a multi-pronged strategy—one that could

simultaneously address lead paint in homes and lead in soil—would be needed. To be

effective, the official surmised that EPA would need to collaborate, link, and build off existing

efforts of the groups already at work, or capable of working in the East St. Louis area. Although

based in EPA’s regional office in Chicago, while the soil sampling was continuing the EPA

official began networking with a number of different organizations that were already working in

the East St. Louis area.

In early 1999, EPA called a meeting of stakeholders. As a result of this meeting the

stakeholders organized and began to call themselves the East St. Louis Lead Collaborative. In

May 2000 the East St. Louis Lead Collaborative was named as an Interagency Working Group

on Environmental Justice national demonstration project. In 2001, the collaborative expanded

to include additional communities in St. Clair County and changed its name to the Metro East

Lead Collaborative (MELC). The members of the MELC are described below.
72 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

MELC Member Organizations and Eventual Resource Contributions

Organization and Type Community

Represented

Eventual Contribution to MELC

East Side Health District (Local) East St. Louis Blood lead screening, Outreach

East St. Louis Community Development Block

Grant Operations, Inc. (Local)

East St. Louis Lead assessments, housing remediation

East-West Gateway Coordinating Council

(Regional)

East St. Louis Grantee, Soil Sampling, Outreach

Enterprise Community Vision 20/20

(Non-Profit)

East St. Louis Lead assessment, Redevelopment efforts

Illinois Department of Public Health (State) NA Grantee, Soil sampling, Blood lead

screening

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Collinsville, IL office (State)

NA Technical assistance, Outreach, Grant

money

Neighbors Technical Assistance Center

(Non-Profit)

East St. Louis Grantee, Outreach, Lead-safe yards

NEIGHBORS United for Progress (Non-Profit) East St. Louis Lead based paint assessments, Outreach

Regional Vocational System (Academic) East St. Louis,

St. Clair County

Outreach

Southwestern Illinois Resource Conservation

Development (Regional)

St. Clair County Grantee (biosolid remediation program)

St. Clair County Intergovernmental Grants

Department (County)

St. Clair County Grantee, Blood lead screening, Lead

assessment, Outreach, Housing remediation

St. Mary’s Hospital of East St. Louis

(Non-profit)

East St. Louis,

St. Clair County

Grantee, Blood lead screening, Outreach,

Coordination, Meeting space

St. Louis Community College (Academic) East St. Louis Grantee – job training, Outreach

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers

(Federal/St. Louis, MO)

N/A Technical assistance and site assessment,

Implemented Brownfields Showcase

Community Award

U.S. Dept of Agriculture/Natural Resources

Conservation Office (Federal/Champaign, IL)

N/A Technical assistance, Grant money

U.S. Dept of Housing and Urban Development

(Federal/Springfield, IL) and The Lead Hazard

Control Grant Office (Federal/Washington DC)

N/A Technical assistance, Grant money

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(Federal/Chicago, IL)

N/A Facilitation and technical assistance, Grant

money

Figure 18. MELC Member Organizations and Eventual Resource Contributions to MELC

Partnership Process

The initial meeting of the original MELC took place in February 1999 at St. Mary’s

Hospital in East St. Louis. Approximately 16 organizations attended. The meeting was used

primarily as a forum for the different participating organizations to get to know each other,

conduct a thorough analysis of each organizations’ activities, and identify what capacity the

organizations had to adapt their activities to best meet the needs of the community151.

Representatives described their organizations’ mission and what they had done previously or

were currently working on to reduce the threat of lead poisoning in the Metro East area.

Following this discussion, the organizations then putforth ideas regarding how they could

eliminate the redundancy of lead-focused services, how they might collaborate, and how they

might even join resources to better address local lead issues.152 The spirit of cooperation that

emerged from the initial meeting was positive so the organizations agreed to meet every two

months at St. Mary’s Hospital. At subsequent meetings, members would update the other

members on their organization’s progress and talk further about how they might potentially

assist each other.

The EPA official developed the agendas, distributed announcements and meeting times

via electronic mail, and then facilitated the collaborative meetings. She began collaborative

discussions by describing a potential collaborative strategy. The official would then ask how
Metro East Lead Collaborative 73

many agree to this approach by asking for a show of hands. Following this she would then

begin asking those who did not agree what their concerns were and how the strategy could be

modified to obtain their support. On most issues, consensus was reached. Consensus in the

context of the collaborative discussions did not mean that everyone was to be completely

satisfied with the decision; rather that

everyone could live with the decision.153

Since the early meetings were primarily

forums for better understanding each of the

other organizations, instead of collectively

strategizing how lead work in East St. Louis

should best be accomplished, the issues

were not overly contentious. Regarding

some topics, however, members would

reach a point where they would agree to

disagree. This was especially true for

discussions that centered on government

rules and regulations.154

Soon after these initial meetings,

participants in the collaborative organized

themselves into two subcommittees

according to resources and expertise. The

subcommittees held meetings outside of the

larger collaborative meetings.

Subcommittee members also regularly

spoke with each other via electronic mail

and the telephone. Although the subcommittees did not have designated chairpersons,

members discussed opportunities for working together to ensure the continuance of lead testing

and community outreach on lead issues, and the identification and cleanup of lead

contaminated sties and homes. From these discussions emerged unofficial plans of action,

which included basic goals, and how each subcommittee member would contribute to achieving

these goals. The subcommittee members then discussed their plans at the full collaborative

meetings. The plans generated questions and discussions from collaborative members but they

were both accepted. Following this, the subcommittees then began to provide regular updates

on their success at full collaborative meetings.

The management of the high number of organizations participating in the collaborative at

one point did become somewhat challenging for the EPA official. Nevertheless, she remained

committed to keeping everyone updated about collaborative meetings and activities.

Meanwhile, support and enthusiasm for the effort remained strong. Potential reasons that the

organizations continued to meet are likely several, but some most likely include: (1) a shared

belief and commitment across organizations that the goal of lead prevention would be better

achieved by participating in these dialogue sessions;* (2) the commitment of the different

organizations’ leadership, which gave staff a mandate to actively participate;155 and (3) the

leadership, interpersonal, and networking skills of the facilitator and representatives of several

organizations including St. Mary’s Hospital, the City, and the County.

 

*

 One indicator of this commitment, according to the EPA official, was the flexibility shown by several organizational

representatives who regularly adjusted their schedules to continue participating in Collaborative meetings that

frequently continued past their scheduled time (Noemi Emeric, City of Los Angeles; Brownfields Program Manager

(formerly with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 5), Phone Interview, 21 January 2003.

Coordinating Body

Health and

Communication

Subcommittee

Original Metro-East Lead

Collaborative

Lead and

Brownfields

Subcommittee

Figure 19. EPA Representation of the original Metro East

Lead Collaborative.
74 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

Reducing redundancy of services was a critical focus of the collaborative. One area of

redundancy identified by the City, County, and local health department centered on the various

lead safety brochures distributed by numerous different organizations, all containing different

information. To counter this, each organization participating in the collaborative contributed lead

safety information specific to each organization that was combined into a single lead safety

brochure that included a Metro East Lead Collaborative logo. Another instance centered on

how collaborative members should best interact with the community on lead remediation efforts.

At one meeting EPA explained that it desired to notify tenants and homeowners it suspected

had yards containing high lead levels through a formal notification process. A letter was to be

sent to residents describing the problem and indicating a number to call if they wanted their

yards tested. Other federal representatives in attendance agreed with this approach. However,

local government and non-profit organizations argued that the only way residents would

respond affirmatively would be to go door-to-door and explain the problem. After some

discussion, members of the collaborative agreed to a process that they felt would not only

inform a greater percentage of residents of potential lead dangers in their yards, but, at the

same time, inform them of opportunities for free lead-blood screening and indoor lead

remediation. To do this, three MELC members—EPA, Neighbors United for Progress, and the

Community Development Block Grant Operation—formed a three-person team that traveled

door-to-door in the affected neighborhoods. The team focused on: 1) educating residents about

i) the threats of indoor and outdoor lead contamination, ii) opportunities for blood-lead

screening, iii) opportunities for indoor lead remediation; and iv) opportunities for outdoor lead

remediation; and 2) helping residents fill-out the appropriate forms to access these services.

According to one of the partners closely involved in this effort, this multi-pronged team-approach

was much more efficient than traditional practices and much more mindful of residents’ time.156

Since October 2001, the MELC processes have changed considerably. For example the

coordinating and facilitating responsibilities, once mainly assumed by EPA’s regional office in

Chicago, are now provided locally.† St. Mary’s Hospital of East St. Louis began providing

coordination and communication responsibilities while meeting many of the facilitation needs.

The hospital’s department of Environmental Health & Community Action works closely with

other members of the collaborative to develop meeting agendas and to move forward with

collaborative-identified projects and goals. Members of the collaborative have widened their

leadership efforts by serving on local and regional boards and committees to further

coordination efforts, including increased partnership with the St. Louis Lead Prevention

Coalition, a non-profit regional agency working to end childhood lead poisoning in the metro

region. Increased participation by MELC agencies in MELC leadership, as well as regional

leadership, has increased ownership over the collaborative process and also decreases the

MELC’s overall dependence on EPA for coordination.157 While many residents of the East St.

Louis area are not directly participating in the MELC meetings, the empowerment of the

community groups and service providers representing them in the collaborative helps to

increase the sustainability of the MELC.

In addition, MELC members agreed to begin rotating the MELC meeting place every four

months during which a different organization with the collaborative assumed increased

responsibilities. However after recognizing that rotating meeting places hurt attendance levels,

the MELC returned to holding its meetings once again at St. Mary’s Hospital with coordination

provided by the hospital.

 

†

 The EPA official involved in the early coordination of the MELC was Noemi Emeric. She has since taken a position

with the City of Los Angeles and can be contacted at 213-978-0863. To learn more about the on-going work of the

MELC contact 618-482-7080 or see the MELC website at: www.metroeastcollaborative.com/.
Metro East Lead Collaborative 75

This case study explores background material and interviewee’s responses to selected

questions from early October 2001. Therefore the goals, activities, and findings of this case

study describe the MELC before it underwent the transformation described above.

Collaborative Goals

The MELC’s overall goal was to improve children’s health in the affected areas by

coordinating existing locally-based efforts to address lead. By sharing information and limited

resources, the MELC expected to reduce the redundancy of the lead-related activities already

underway in the East St. Louis area. Specific benefits of MELC’s coordination efforts were to

include:

ß Assessment of uncontrolled lead releases to surface soils in residential yards, schoolyards

and parks;

ß Lead-based paint hazard assessment and remediation throughout the county;

ß Housing rehabilitation and the removal of lead from abandoned lots;

ß Blood lead screening of children and pregnant mothers; and

ß Medical care referrals for cases of high lead blood content.158

Collaborative Activities

At the time of the interviews the MELC’s main activities centered on securing funding,

lead testing, cleanup and outreach. The MELC effectively organized and tapped into the many

resources provided by the individual partners. The MELC had secured over $3,250,000 from

the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S,

Housing and Urban Development Agency (HUD), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, the St.

Clair County Intergovernmental Grants Department, and East St. Louis Community

Development Block Grant Office159 for the effort. MELC applied these resources to implement

different projects that facilitated the achievement of their goals.

Once necessary resources were secured, partner members fully sampled and mapped

the affected communities to identify lead-contaminated homes and industrial sites, and later

began to identify high-risk groups in the area. By early October 2001, five homes were

completely remediated and 75 were identified and waiting to be completed. Five industrial sites

were in the process of being cleaned, and twenty others were identified. Approximately 25

percent of the children under age six in St. Clair County were tested for high blood lead levels

and St. Mary’s Hospital and other partners continue to test the community children’s blood lead

levels. After children with high blood lead levels are identified their names are given to the

County. The County then passes these high blood lead level notifications, and subsequent

identification of possible property remediation sites, to MELC partners responsible for site

remediation. The MELC then sends an MELC representative to personally notify the families

whose children have high blood lead levels and assist them with home remediation applications.

Following these actions site cleanup begins.

The MELC is also actively implementing an outreach campaign in order to (1) educate

residents of the dangers of lead poisoning, (2) inform residents of the existence of the MELC,

and (3) describe how the MELC can help residents solve their lead-related health risks. To

assist with its campaign, the MELC employs the media and regularly releases press kits. Part

of this effort resulted in a news special that reported the dangers of lead poisoning in the East

St. Louis area, which aired on KPLR WB 11 in St. Louis. The MELC also distributes brochures
76 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

and flyers to local church leaders and community members describing why lead is a problem,

who is affected most by lead, the symptoms of lead poisoning, where children can be tested,

how the doctor checks for lead, what parents can do to protect their children from lead

poisoning, and where lead is found around the house. Similarly, MELC partners have also

handed out “Lead Folders” which contain magnets and bookmarks with information that children

can share with their parents. Moreover, MELC partners have written articles, describing lead

health-risks and MELC support services, that have been featured in community newsletters

including the St. Mary’s “Neighborhood Care”, “Lead A Special Edition”, and the “Community

Environmental Resource Program newsletter”.

In addition, the MELC hosts community meetings in order to disperse information about

lead poisoning. For example, the MELC held two meetings in the Jackie Joyner Kersee Youth

Center in East St Louis. Although attendance by local residents was low, those who did

participate received free blood lead screenings and school supplies for their children ages zero

to 14 years. MELC partners also provided updates on MELC activities including the ongoing

lead soil sampling investigation, the lead paint and housing rehabilitation initiative, and the blood

lead screening and education campaign. Finally, the MELC also trains local residents to act as

community facilitators and share information about the dangers of lead to their neighbors.

The following sections primarily describe interviewees’ responses to questions gathered

from interviews conducted by EPA’s Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation during the

week of October 1, 2001. The sections focus on interviewees’ impressions regarding

measuring collaborative success, collaborative successes and challenges, recommendations for

improving the collaborative, overall value of the collaborative, and the value of federal

involvement in the collaborative.

Measuring Collaborative Success

The MELC has not developed an evaluation and monitoring framework to track

implementation of activities and measure. Nevertheless, the interviewees did have several

suggestions regarding this topic. Six out of the ten mentioned the importance of being able to

gather quantifiable data to measure success. These interviewees suggested counting the actual

number of contaminated sites cleaned up, homes made safe from lead paint, and children

tested and treated for lead poisoning. Along these lines, one interviewee added that the MELC

should work to have 125 homes cleaned of lead paint by the end of December 2002. Two

interviewees suggested conducting a comparative study that would quantify the number of

children with decreasing blood lead levels after the implementation of lead removal actions.

Similarly another interviewee mentioned conducting a comparative analysis of blood lead levels

in children of this generation with those of the next. In terms of what would actually constitute

success, more broadly, one interviewee mentioned that overall reduction of lead contamination

in East St. Louis would be one measure. Other interviewees suggested measures including

improved capacity of the community to address lead contamination issues, visible changes in

the local environment, housing redevelopment, the inflow of money and people back into the

community, and the development of additional green spaces.

Collaborative Successes

The majority of interviewees were satisfied with the role they played in the development

of the MELC and their ability to participate within the partnership. In addition, all of the

interviewees thought the issues most important to their organizations were being adequately

addressed. One community interviewee specifically mentioned being pleased to see an

emphasis on community capacity building demonstrated through local environmental job
Metro East Lead Collaborative 77

training in cleanup techniques for the community. Along these lines, an agency representative

stated that the MELC was doing a good job coordinating its efforts, siting as an example St.

Mary’s Hospital’s willingness to refocus on some of EPA’s goals.

When asked about the outcomes, or results, of the partner activities for addressing the

main issues of the affected community, few common themes emerged.‡ Two remarked that the

partnership is not yet mature enough to have the intended impact on the community. Two other

interviewees noted that the partnership has resulted in the injection of additional resources into

the affected areas. Two additional interviewees remarked that the partnership has resulted in

the communication to residents about environmental and public health risks. Related to public

education, another interviewee explained that because of the collaborative, agencies are

developing a better understanding of the issues facing the affected community. Another

interviewee explained that the collaborative has resulted in the cleanup of five homes with 75

more to go. Finally, one interviewee stated that, "The cleanup is having a major impact...The

realtors are aware...that we are testing with St. Mary's."

When asked if they were satisfied with the outcomes of their activities so far four of the

ten interviewees that answered the question said unequivocally yes. Five interviewees were

somewhat satisfied with the current outcomes. They clarified by stating that: (1) they were

afraid that the activities could not be sustained by the community organizations if other partners

did not continue to participate; (2) the activities were not being performed fast enough; and (3)

there is always more to be done. Finally, one interviewee thought it was too early to comment

since “he/she did not know what the outcomes were yet.”

The interviewees did not express a consensus about the “greatest success” of the MELC

and several responses focused on different qualities of the MELC. Five out of ten interviewees

agreed that the MELC’s greatest success was its ability to join diverse groups together and

provide a forum where these organizations could effectively discuss what resources and

expertise each could provide. They added that this information exchange reduced duplication of

efforts. Further, by better understanding what each organization could provide, the

organizations were able to more effectively identify contaminated sites and children at risk from

lead poisoning and more quickly initiate lead remediation activities. Two interviewees also

mentioned the procurement, organization, and assignment of funds within the collaboration as a

major success. On a related note, one interviewee commented how impressive it was that the

MELC had been able to accomplish so much without one major argument, especially given the

diverse organizations participating. Another commented that one of the important achievements

of the MELC has been its “staying power,” adding that the MELC is not only surviving but

actually gaining momentum.

Other successes of the collaborative mentioned by two interviewees included the

assessment of soil contamination and the identification of contaminated sites/houses. More

specifically two community interviewees mentioned the identification of twenty contaminated

sites and the subsequent cleanup of five as the project’s greatest success. One further

explained that EPA’s follow-through on this remediation work was a major success. Two

interviewees commented that even though the community residents were not empowered as

individuals, the community organizations involved in the collaboration were, which to them was

seen as a success. Other successes mentioned included fostering of community pride, and the

designation of the MELC as an Interagency Environmental Justice Demonstration Project.

 

‡

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.
78 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

Collaborative Challenges

 Interviewees gave many different answers when asked about the greatest challenge

facing the MELC. Although several viewed the level of coordination within the MELC as a

success, six of the ten interviewees also mentioned continued coordination and cooperation as

the most significant difficulty. Interviewees added that trust issues proved a major barrier to

working together. For instance, three mentioned that individual organizations were reluctant to

share their information, knowledge, and expertise with other partners. They went on to say that

this was being addressed by focusing on effective communication between partners as well as

through the increased understanding of the roles each partner played within the MELC. Another

barrier to collaborative effectiveness was voiced by three interviewees and centered on

difficulties in ensuring organizational involvement, keeping the MELC focused, and maintaining

momentum for MELC’s efforts. They said this might be due to a lack of coordination. Many

interviewees suggested that the MELC hire or assign an individual/organization to fill the role of

coordinator. These interviewees, however, clarified their remarks noting that too much

dependence on a coordinator may undermine the sustainability of the MELC, especially if the

coordinator were to leave.♦

Seven interviewees suggested that other main challenges were the (1) inability to

generate community awareness of the existence of the MELC or the dangers of lead poisoning,

and the (2) inability to gather local support for MELC sponsored activities. Interviewees stated

that the MELC has employed an extensive outreach campaign, however, several factors have

limited the MELC’s ability to work with the community. Two interviewees suggested that the

reason residents were so hesitant to take part in the project were trust issues with the

government and one interviewee thought the residents actually perceived the MELC as the

“government” rather then a collaborative including local non-government organizations. The

two interviewees added that the MELC could not build community support because the MELC

did not truly understand the community and therefore could not communicate effectively with

community residents. For example, one interviewee cited HUD’s challenging application

process for home redevelopment, which inhibited parents from applying even when they were

fully aware their children had high blood lead levels. According to that interviewee, in order to

overcome this problem the MELC has its members personally accompany notices informing

parents that their children are poisoned. The MELC representative then directly assists the

residents in filling out the home redevelopment applications.

The final challenge to progress mentioned was regulatory barriers. Two interviewees

stated that none of the federal agencies involved in the partnership are able to use their money

for demolition. It was further stated that this poses a real problem in East St. Louis, since

derelict structures are one of the major hazards in the area.

Interviewee’s Recommendations for Improving the Partnership

Interviewees responded with many suggestions when asked how to improve the MELC

in the future. Six interviewees mentioned that increasing the number and diversity of the

participants would be beneficial. Four interviewees stated that a greater number of federal

participants could increase both the MELC’s scope and effectiveness. Two other interviewees

mentioned the need for greater partner diversity within the MELC expressed through increased

 

♦

 It is worth mentioning that the MELC has addressed many of these challenges through reorganizing the partnership

process. According to one MELC member rotating the lead coordinator role has increased the level of individual

partner participation, fostered information sharing, and improved the overall momentum of the project.
Metro East Lead Collaborative 79

participation from local political leaders and businesses. They indicated that local government

(the Mayor) should be represented in order to increase trust between the MELC and community

residents. The interviewees also stated that the MELC would benefit if it took greater strides to

include and educate landowners and landlords of the MELC’s work. The interviewees thought

this might greatly facilitate housing remediation.

Three interviewees stated the MELC could benefit most from an increase in funding.

Another interviewee commented that every entity within the partnership should help secure

funding. Three interviewees expressed that additional time spent discussing each partner’s role

and the resources they could provide would be most helpful. For example, one interviewee said

every member of the partnership should have a working knowledge of every other organization

in the partnership, and be able to refer questions to appropriate individuals. Along these lines,

one interviewee mentioned that the roles of the participants be better defined within the

collaboration in order to better coordinate the MELC’s activities in the community. Further, two

interviewees mentioned that a coordinator/secretary should be used to pull the group together

and help keep it focused. Interviewees suggested that a community facilitator be used,

someone who was well known in the community to act as a liaison. One interviewee mentioned

a team building retreat in order to build trust.

Interviewee’s Recommendations for Other Communities

Eight of the ten interviewees offered suggestions for other communities interested in

using collaborative partnerships to address environmental justice issues. Six stressed the

importance of having the partnership be locally led. These interviewees stressed that

community organizations should lead locally based partnerships since they are closest to the

community and its problems, and would, therefore, more easily gain the trust of local residents.

Three interviewees emphasized that local partnerships need an array of partners including

representatives from community organizations as well as federal, state, and local agencies.

They implied that this would not only increase the amount of resources available to a

collaborative but also allow for more procedural flexibility for using those resources. Along these

lines, two interviewees stated that collaborative partnerships should work to ensure that “the

right people” get involved, particularly partners with a common mission who can easily join

services and organize resources. Another interviewee recommended that partnerships work to

define roles of the collaborative members and ensure that the lines of communication between

partners stay open. In addition, one interviewee suggested that the goal of collaborative

partnerships should be to empower local residents to help themselves.

Value of the Collaborative Partnership

Interviewees gave a variety of answers when asked about the value of the collaborative

process. Nine out of the ten interviewees stated that the issues facing the East St. Louis

community would not have been addressed to the same extent, if at all, had the MELC not been

formed. However, one interviewee did comment that it “was hard to say since EPA [and many

of the other organizations in the MELC] had been working in the area for a long time.” This

interviewee acknowledged that many organizations had been working in the area before the

formation of the collaborative, and suggested that it is impossible to know how much these

organizations would have accomplished separately.

Five interviewees stated that the collaborative process was most useful in stopping

redundancy of services. This was accomplished by opening the lines of communication

between MELC members, which allowed them to learn what other partners were doing in the

community and organize their resources and actions accordingly. For example, one interviewee
80 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

commented that, “Everyone is doing their own little piece of the pie,” rather than trying to tackle

this large and complex problem on their own. Two stated that the collaborative process

increased individual partners’ capacity to work together. They went on to say that the

collaborative process has enabled organizations within the MELC to develop a much better

understanding of what it means to work together. The lines of communication have been

opened and the organizations are more likely to work together in the future. Two interviewees

also stressed that the collaborative process resulted in a more effective outreach campaign

focused on educating residents on the dangers of lead poisoning and opportunities for

assistance. However, one interviewee did criticize the process the MELC was following. The

individual thought that this process was too slow thereby allowing gaps to form while services

were being delivered, citing as an example, the two-month delay between child lead testing and

the follow-up calls to the families.

Along these lines, interviewees were asked if the MELC could be used to address similar

issues that the East St. Louis community may face in the future. Six out of eight interviewees

were very confident that the model could be used for future issues. Three mentioned that

organizations within the partnership were already thinking about how the model could be

implemented to combat asthma. One interviewee stated that the MELC model has already

been used as a basis framework for a similar collaboration in the nearby community of

Washington Park. Two interviewees, however, were skeptical. One was unsure if the residents

even knew the MELC existed, and the other did not think that the community had the resources

to further address the lead issues without continued federal intervention.

Finally, interviewees were asked if the organizational styles and procedures of different

partners were barriers in the collaborative process. No interviewee felt that the different

organizational styles limited the performance of the MELC. Several, in fact, remarked how the

MELC used the differences of the organizations to its advantage. For example, one noted that

during MELC’s initial stages, participating organizations were given particular tasks that fit within

each organization’s mission to help carry out and fulfill the collaborative goals. In addition,

seven out of the ten interviewees remarked that the nature of a collaborative process is to

overcome procedural restrictions. For instance, since EPA did not have the jurisdiction to test

the blood lead levels of children, two other partners took action. St. Clair County obtained a

necessary grant and St. Mary’s Hospital had staff conduct the actual testing. EPA can now use

the results of the tests to direct additional federal attention on contaminated sites for cleanup in

East St. Louis.

Value of the Federal Involvement in the Partnership

Six of the eight interviewees who answered had positive things to say about federal

involvement in the MELC. Two non-federal interviewees went so far as to say that the MELC

would not have existed without the federal partners and, subsequently, the problems would not

have been addressed. Four interviewees stated that the agencies contributed funds and

expertise to the MELC. They also said that the federal agency representatives maintained open

lines of communication, were easily accessible, answered questions, and provided advice to the

other MELC members. Two said, the federal agencies helped foster a more holistic approach to

problem solving in this community. Two interviewees mentioned that federal involvement

brought attention to the affected communities and gave the project needed credibility. 

When asked what the federal agencies gained by participating in the MELC six out of

seven interviewees stated that the federal agencies now have greater community awareness.

They added that the federal agencies are now better able to assess the capabilities of the

communities they are working with. One community interviewee mentioned that “we have
Metro East Lead Collaborative 81

opened their eyes and they can see our handicaps.” Interviewees representing community

partners mentioned that the agencies have gained an increased sensitivity to peoples’ needs

and are aware that they have to customize the information and solutions they supply to the

communities they are dealing with. The federal agencies have learned how to listen to the

communities they are trying to help. Moreover, they are better equipped to work with the

communities rather than “tell the local representatives what to do.” For instance, according to

one interviewee in East St. Louis the agencies have learned that mass mailings do not work,

and a television/radio outreach approach is best in that community. Another interviewee

commented that the federal agencies have learned how to “network” with one another and will

be better able to work together in the future.

When asked whether federal agencies have been able to better coordinate their

activities as a result of their involvement in the MELC, interviewees responded positively. All

the interviewees stated that the federal agencies have been better able to coordinate their

activities as a result of the collaborative process. The agency representatives said that they are

coordinating better between themselves, and one even saw improvement in his/her

relationships with state agencies participating with him/her on other projects. Many

interviewees expressed that the agencies are sharing information and “thinking outside the box.”

One interviewee mentioned that the agencies are coordinating to innovatively use funds and

other resources on the project. However, two interviewees did say that despite these gains the

agencies could do better. Specifically, they could do a better job of sharing information, pooling

ideas, and defining their roles within the MELC.

Interviewees were also asked what federal agencies could do in order to better

participate within community-based collaboratives. Two out of the seven interviewees that

answered this question stressed the importance that federal agencies ensure participation of

local federal agency representatives. In this case the EPA representative was stationed in

Chicago, and many of the other federal representatives had their offices well out of the East St.

Louis area. One interviewee stated that it is very important to have a community-based person

participating with the federal agencies, one that can act as a liaison between the collaborative

and the community. The interviewee made this suggestion in reference to the trust issues

between the community and the “government.” This interviewee believes that the residents

equate the MELC with the “government.” Two interviewees stated that the federal agencies

should better recognize their responsibility to provide funding. One added that the agencies

should better advertise the grants that are available to combat the problems facing the target

community. However, two interviewees stated that it is important for the federal agencies to be

“more hands on,” and that agencies should participate in collaboratives not only with money, but

also with a willingness to share information and planning responsibilities. An interviewee said it

is important for federal agencies to work to find a collaborative model that works for the affected

community. Another stated that time should be spent identifying the problems and the

resources available to combat those problems.

Key Findings

ß The collaborative approach used by the MELC has enabled its member organizations to

reduce duplication and improve efficiency of key activities. For instance, the coordination of

blood lead level testing, site/house remediation, and community outreach programs in East

St. Louis and the surrounding region. Without the collaborative process it is unlikely that the

problems facing the affected community would have been addressed as efficiently or

effectively.
82 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

ß The members of the MELC regarded the collaboration as a success. However, interviewees

did see a possibility for improved local participation. Interviewees suggested that agency

representatives should have local offices in the region and that the MELC should have local

membership including local political leaders. The interviewees said that a collaborative

would achieve its goals most efficiently when it is locally lead.

ß A major challenge faced by the MELC was a lack of trust between partner members for each

other. In order to increase trust between members it was suggested that every partner

should have a working knowledge of every other partner.

ß The MELC has also had difficulties effectively communicating with local residents about its

programs. To overcome this the MELC has focused on improving its understanding of local

residents and modified its outreach campaigns accordingly.

ß Although the MELC has made significant strides to reduce risks from lead, a substantial

number of interviewees’ feel that the MELC would be even more effective if the partner

organizations’ roles were better defined and/or a full time coordinator was hired. Since

October 2001 the MELC has modified its procedures and better defined partner roles. This

action may have addressed the concerns voiced by the interviewees.

Afterword

According to a facilitating member of the collaborative who has been involved in MELC

coordination since the summer of 2001, the collaborative continues to meet every two months in

general meetings, and as frequently as two times a month in committee meetings to move

special projects and goals forward. Development of educational materials and programming, a

community health educator program that trains community residents, development of MELC

promotional materials, and the obtainment of additional resources represent just a few of the

MELC’s more recent efforts. In addition, an informal MELC leadership team working to provide

strategic recommendations for the general collaborative’s review and approval has emerged

over the course of the past six months.

Additionally, the MELC has taken a great deal of regional leadership and helped to

design a regional campaign, Lead-Free 2003, which included production of a calendar funded

through combined partner efforts that showcases children’s artwork promoting lead-safe

messages. Additionally, the MELC began a federal letter campaign in March 2002, which

eventually culminated in a regional event bringing regional partners together with ten high level

federal officials visiting from six agencies. Participants spent the day touring the area, learning

about current local capacity to address lead poisoning, and discussing strategies to increase

this capacity. Based on feedback received through this process, MELC members began

developing a five-year strategic plan. The strategic plan will be available on the collaborative’s

web site (www.metroeastcollaborative.com) and in print by March 2003. In addition, a MELC

documentary highlighting the collaborative process produced by Illinois EPA will be available by

April 2003.

While there have been changes in membership and individual leadership, the MELC

remains mission-driven, coordinated, and committed to improving the health and well-being of

children and their families in the Metro East.160
83

6 New Madrid Tri-Community Partnership

For community there was a self-consciousness. They wanted to see a change.

There was a focus on making sure change occurred.

My mayor–he asked me and several people [to participate in the Partnership]. He

told me...you go to this and represent [our community]. I participated as a

community team person and facilitator.

I've been in the agency for 24 years. That may have been the best collaborative

effort I have seen. Everyone involved took a piece of the project. Team effort all the

way.

As far as going in there to do what the resource plan called us to do - yes. There is

always more that can be done to help the community.

— Interviewees, New Madrid Partnership

Community History*

Howardville, Lilbourn, and North Lilbourn are three small rural communities grouped

closely together in the Bootheel region of Missouri, approximately 175 miles south of St. Louis

and less than five miles from the Mississippi River. Howardville and North Lilbourn are both

nearly 100 percent African American, while Lilbourn is roughly 60 percent Caucasian and 40

percent African American. Surrounded mainly by privately held farmlands, a majority of the

local residents are employed by the nearby farms, agricultural businesses,161 and industries in

the region. Neither Howardville, Lilbourn, nor North Lilbourn, however, have a sustainable

economic base and a majority of residents live in poverty and reside in substandard housing.162

Up until the late 19th century, much of Southeast Missouri was covered by water. In the

1890s, however, efforts were made to drain some of the area in order to provide additional land

for settlements and farming. Lilbourn, located just north of Howardville and just south of North

Lilbourn, was built up around a railroad junction in this region starting at the turn of the

century.163 Today it is the largest of the three communities with a population of just over 2,000.

Howardville and North Lilbourn were first established in the late 1930s when the Farmers’

Security Administration built housing for sharecroppers164 displaced by increased reliance on

farming machinery.165 In the following decades, Howardville and North Lilbourn, along with

Lilbourn, were beset with unemployment problems and a continued “socio-economic demise”

resulting from the region’s transformation to machinery-based agriculture. Without a thriving

economic base, “[d]ilapidated houses, debris, and vacant lots gradually emerged as residents

could not afford household repairs or to rebuild homes that burned down.” Although the

communities had some success in securing basic services, residents are faced with several

environmental hazards, in part due to lack of funding to support local infrastructure and maintain

 

*

 Interviews for this case study were conducted during the weeks of September 24 and October 1, 2001. Nine

separate interviews were conducted and a total of thirteen persons participated. Interviewees included community

members, representatives of local and regional organizations, and representatives of federal agencies.
84 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

New Madrid Tri-Community Partnership

 Tri-Community Team

 Technical Grantee

 Advisory

 Team 

housing. Threats include “lead, radon, and carbon monoxide exposure resulting from

substandard housing, inadequate water and wastewater treatment, water contamination by

pesticides and fertilizers; and presence of potential disease vectors such as mosquitoes,

roaches, and rats.”166 Residents have also expressed concern about use of a defoliant in

nearby cotton fields that residents claim contributes to outbreaks of asthma.

Despite common challenges and a willingness shown by community residents to work to

improve their living situations, the three communities have not always worked well together. In

the 1960s, Lilbourn, historically the most diverse and prosperous of the three communities,

secured a safe drinking water supply. In 1965, North Lilbourn installed a connection to

Lilbourn’s drinking water supply. The financial arrangement between the two, however, proved

satisfactory to no one, and for many years following, arguments between the two communities

centered on how much North Lilbourn should be charged for water use. The debate climaxed in

1995 and, after three years of assistance from a team of lawyers from the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency’s regional office in Kansas City, an acceptable water use agreement between

the two communities was finally reached.

Around this time, the three communities showed a willingness to work together to

address some common difficulties after North Lilbourn initially sought help on its own. This

cooperative effort had its origins in 1995 when the North Lilbourn community, frustrated by the

continued economic and environmental problems facing its community, sent a letter directly to

the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), an agency within the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, asking for help. NRCS officials based in Missouri responded by holding meetings

and conducting walking tours in the community. After observing North Lilbourn’s severe living

conditions167, NRCS began working with the community residents to identify and prioritize

community needs. During this time, recognizing the benefits of working together to address

common problems, Howardville and Lilbourn sought to join the partnership with NRCS and

North Lilbourn.168 All the communities and NRCS agreed to this and subsequently formed the

New Madrid Tri-Community Team.

Partnership Background

After the partners concluded their

community assessments in 1997, the TriCommunity Team and NRCS requested

community development assistance from

numerous federal, state, and local entities. In

August 1997, NRCS hosted a large meeting

in North Lilbourn with representatives from

approximately thirty different organizations.

Among the players that emerged as key

partners, in addition to NRCS and the TriCommunity Team, were EPA’s regional office

and a regional planning organization referred

to as the Great Rivers Alliance Natural

Resource Districts (GRAND). Together, EPA,

NRCS, and GRAND† formed an interagency

agreement that defined how these

organizations would work together to best

 

†

 GRAND is based in St. Louis and is closely affiliated with the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Formed in

1994, GRAND’s overall mission is to coordinate soil and water districts in Illinois and Missouri.

Figure 20. EPA Representation of New Madrid TriCommunity Organizational Structure
New Madrid Tri-Community Partnership 85

meet the needs of the New Madrid communities.

Following the formation of the original partnership, EPA’s new Child Health Champion

Campaign was launched in 1997, to place added emphasis on protecting children’s health. In

1998, EPA selected the Tri-Community for a Child Health Champion national pilot project.

Following its selection, the Tri-Community Partnership organized to ensure that the overarching

objectives of the Children’s Health Initiative would be met. The modified partnership

organizational structure included the Community Team, made up of the mayors plus three

mayor-appointed residents from each community; a Technical Advisory Team, represented by

government and community service organizations; and a coordinating organization led by

GRAND, responsible for the distribution of project funding made available by EPA’s Office of

Children’s Health and overall project coordination.169 Major partners included representatives

from Howardville, Lilbourn, and North Lilbourn,170 GRAND, NRCS, EPA, the Bootheel Lead

Nurses Association, the Delta Area Economic Development Corporation, Headstart‡, and the

Lincoln University Cooperative Extension.171 Together, these organizations agreed to a mission

statement provided below that outlines their overall vision.

Child Health Champion projects were asked to identify children’s environmental health

hazards; set community-specific goals; and then develop action plans to eliminate risks to

children.172 EPA provided $35,000 the first year of the project for baseline planning and

assessment, and then another $100,000 for implementation of project goals. Most of the money

was used to fund a part-time local coordinator residing in the area, community facilitators, and

the purchase of materials to help address the priority health risks. EPA was also expected to

provide technical assistance to communities as needed. However, the process for determining

baseline information, setting goals, and developing the action plan was to be initiated and led by

the Community Team.173

Although several priority areas were identified in the initial Tri-Community needs

assessments, EPA requirements for the Child Health Champion projects encouraged the

partners to narrow their focus to a handful of priority items. The core initiatives taking place in

New Madrid came to center on the goals developed for the Child Health Champion project.

However, other initiatives have taken or continue to take place in the Tri-Community area that,

although related, are not necessarily identified as core partnership activities. These include a

local recycling project, an energy conservation and home weatherization project, a farmers’

cooperative, and a Federal Transit Authority Jobs Access Project.174 These efforts have

received support from NRCS and EPA, but unlike with the Child Health project, EPA and NRCS

 

‡

 The Tri-Communities Head Start program is operated by a not-for-profit organization in Howardville. Head Start and

Early Head Start are comprehensive programs focused on young children, pregnant women, and their families. The

Head Start program is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS makes grants

available to local public health agencies, private organizations, Indian Tribes and school systems in order to operate

Head Start programs at the community level (September 5, 2001

http://www2.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/hsb/about/index.htm).

Mission Statement of the New Madrid Partnership

as stated in New Madrid Child Health Champion Action Plan

Our Mission is to create self-sustaining communities by building trust, communication and

collaboration within communities of Howardvile, Lilbourn, and North Lilbourn. We will prioritize

and resolve various environmental challenges and improve the environment in our homes and

communities to protect our children from these environmental hazards.
86 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

were not necessarily acting in concert in support of these activities. For clarity, this case study

will primarily focus on the work conducted by the three communities through the Child Health

Champion project.

Partnership Goals and Process

Starting in the summer of 1998, with the Community Team in the lead, partnership

members worked together to assemble baseline data on environmental and human health risks

and began identifying risk priorities. The first meeting took place in June and was facilitated by

an EPA field representative based in St. Louis. The Community Team, including

representatives from each of the three communities, attended along with the project manager

representing GRAND, and technical advisors representing NRCS, EPA and other organizations.

EPA representatives started the meeting by explaining the details of the project. EPA then

suggested a potential plan for selecting priority risks. After some discussion, the participants

unanimously agreed to a risk prioritization process. Participants decided that EPA would

conduct a science-based data collection on priority environmental and health risks, community

representatives would talk with their respective communities about what they view as priority

risks, a member of the local health department would discuss priority risks with other health

department colleagues, and a local Head Start representative would assess priority health risks

from an education perspective.175 The partnership then held meetings every two weeks through

December 1998 giving experts, technical advisors, and local residents the opportunity to provide

different perspectives on the many environmental threats facing the Tri-Communities.

Once these were complete, the Community Team and the Technical Advisory Team

members selected the priority health risks. To do this, the EPA facilitator started by listing all

risks identified by the different researchers as priority health risks. The facilitator then grouped

risks that demonstrated related cause-and-effect patterns in order to ensure that a greater

number of health risks could be addressed. Debate about the priority risks included comments

from both the technical advisors as well as community representatives. However, after the

grouping exercise, participants had little difficulty choosing the top three risk areas,176 which

included: childhood lead poisoning, asthma and allergies, and water contaminants.

Lead exposure was selected as a priority issue since several homes in the TriCommunity area were built before the use of lead paint in homes was outlawed. Asthma and

allergies were primarily chosen as a priority area since most childhood illnesses in the area

requiring treatment or hospitalization are due to some form of asthma or allergy. Finally, the

issue of water contaminants was selected as a priority area since residents had long voiced

concerns regarding both their drinking water and stagnant water in the area. Specifically, the

Community Team pointed to stagnant water as a common risk that can contribute to several

public health problems. The Team recognized drinking water as a potential risk since the local

water treatment facility lacked a quality control process to review effectiveness of drinking water

treatment techniques.177

Following the identification of the priority areas, the Community Team and the Technical

Advisory Team began operating on two tracks. The Advisory Team took the role in researching

potential activities that could be carried out locally to help address the priority environmental

health risks. Advisory Team representatives would then meet each week to discuss what each

was learning. Then, they would participate in bi-weekly meetings held by the Community Team

to discuss promising activities and obtain input from the Community Team representatives.

After a series of meetings, the Community Team selected a set of actions to help address each

priority risk. Following this, the EPA facilitator and representatives of the Community Team

together crafted an action plan that described how the risk areas would be addressed.178
New Madrid Tri-Community Partnership 87

Figure 21. EPA Representation of New Madrid

Partnership Approach

For the most part, the joint meetings of the Technical Advisory Team and the Community

Team to help identify Action Plan activities worked well.179 Possible reasons why the Technical

Advisory Group and the Community Team worked effectively together include: a strong desire

by all parties to improve health conditions in the Tri-Communities, strong management support

within each of the participating organizations, key logistical support and timelines putforth by the

Office of Children’s Health, effective facilitation at the Child Health Champion meetings, strong

overall project management by GRAND, and the solid foundation of local collaboration that

started in 1997.

However, according to an EPA official, tension did arise between EPA and NRCS

officials regarding how the joint meetings between the Technical Advisory Team and the

Community Team should be run. EPA had continued to use the same EPA representative who

facilitated the initial Child Health Champion meetings on priority health risks. NRCS officials,

however, balked at this approach explaining that in order to strengthen the capacity of the

communities, EPA should play the role of coach, instead of leader, and that EPA should train

and call upon local residents to lead the meetings. If not, NRCS argued, the community would

become too dependent upon EPA assistance. As it happened, at a few meetings, the regular

EPA facilitator could not attend, and the community participants indicated they did not want to

move forward without her. Although recognizing the validity of NRCS’ concerns, EPA still felt

compelled to help drive the process of identifying action items forward. EPA was concerned

that if it turned the process of reaching consensus on action items completely over to the

Community Team, the Community Team would not be able to meet the deadlines set down by

EPA’s Office of Children’s Health. To resolve the issue, EPA began facilitating these meetings

in tandem with a community representative.180

The action plan was completed in 1999,181 and approved for implementation by EPA’s

Office of Children’s Health in January 2000.182 Following this, a kick-off celebration was held in

New Madrid that included high-ranking officials from EPA’s Office of Children’s Health, EPA’s

deputy regional administrator based in Kansas

City, and Congressional as well as state

representatives. The action plan described the

priority health risk areas along with goals,

objectives, and activities, which together, were

expected to result in reduced risk from the

environmental threats. The overall approach

used to address risks outlined in the Action Plan

included a combination of education, capacity

building and proactive measures.183 First, trained

community members as well as technical experts

were to educate community members on the

three priority risk areas through a series of riskspecific mini-workshops, door-to-door visits to high-risk families, and a major health fair.

Second, capacity building was to be done by training community members as peer facilitators in

each of the three priority risk areas so they could help lead the mini-workshops and door-to-door

visits in the community. Finally, actions were to be taken to immediately address existing

problems, including planting trees and shrubbery to reduce blowing dust in the area and reduce

risks from allergies, providing in-home sampling kits to test drinking water for insecticides, and

improving stormwater drainage. A sample from the action plan describing goals, objectives, and

activities for reducing the threat from lead poisoning is included below:

New Madrid Partnership Approach to

Address Priority Risks

Educate Community

Build Community Capacity

Take Proactive Actions
88 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

Tri-Community Team’s Efforts to Reduce Children’s Exposure to Lead

Community Goals

Assure that 40% of all families in the Tri-Community has knowledge of the threat of lead

poisoning at no cost to the families

Provide necessary, time, place, and personnel to screen/test children in the Tri-Community for

lead poisoning at no cost to the families

Facilitate community capacity building for a more informed decision-making process resulting in

an improved quality of life

Measurable Objectives

All children in the targeted age group (6 mos. –72 mos.) in the three communities will be

screened/tested in the next 12 months for lead poisoning at no cost to the families.

Activities

Health Fair

Lead Specific Training Workshops

Figure 22. New Madrid County Tri-Community Partnership Action Plan Excerpt Describing Community

Goals, Measurable Objectives, and Activities

Partnership Activities

Following action plan approval, the next step in the process was to train representatives

from the community on the three priority health risks areas so that they could conduct

educational sessions with other community residents. At first, the Community Team planned to

ask community residents to participate as the facilitators. However, Community Team members

ultimately decided that they themselves could undertake the facilitation efforts.184 Community

Team meetings then were used as opportunities to train members as facilitators and to make

plans for the different educational sessions that would be provided.185 Community facilitators

had to undergo training over period of 40-50 hours for each specific risk or until they showed

mastery of the material.186 They also had to undergo a pre- and post-test to assess their

learning.187 Community facilitators received a small stipend both for the training they received

and the educational workshops they performed.188

Different technical experts, provided training to community facilitators on the priority risks

and how to address them. In a train-the-trainer workshop on asthma and allergies, for example,

trainers taught community facilitators how to recognize asthma and allergy attacks, advise

children and parents on the use of inhalers, and how to recognize an asthma attack. They also

trained them on the various risk-specific pamphlets, booklets, and videos that could be used to

help educate community members.189 According to a Child Health Champion evaluation,

community facilitators learned most of the information about the priority health risks by studying

information from EPA or other sources on their own.190

Ten Community Team members received training as community facilitators and

conducted most of the Child Health Champion education work.191 Implementation of the primary

Child Health Champion activities took place between the spring of 2000 and the fall of 2001.

Community. Community facilitators conveyed information “in group and one-on-one settings

during health fairs, in classrooms, and in workshops set in various community locations.”192 A

health fair, designed to educate families about the priority risks and provide professional

services to address health care concerns related to these risks, was held in the spring of 2000.

The health fair involved more than twenty local health care organizations, and provided health

exhibits and demonstrations, workshops for youth on asthma and lead hazards, and elevated
New Madrid Tri-Community Partnership 89

blood-lead level tests for all children ages six and under who attended the fair. An EPA

progress report describes the health fair as very successful, with high attendance by residents

from each of the three communities.193 Several mini-workshops focused on lead and

asthma/allergies involving the community facilitators were also conducted and, as of October

2001, were still on going. As a result of the health fair and mini-workshops, approximately 2,000

adults and 800 children in the Tri-Community area have been educated about the priority

risks.194 For each training, community facilitators issue workshop participants pre-tests and

post-tests to better understand the extent to which participants are enhancing their knowledge

of the priority risk areas.195

As part of the Child Health Champion effort, approximately 150 trees for windbreaks

have also been planted in North Lilbourn to reduce blowing dust from the surrounding

agricultural fields. However, according to one partner interviewed, the trees died because of

poor timing and soil conditions. Tree planting was scheduled for the other two communities for

the spring of 2001, but it is unclear whether this has been completed. Remaining activities

include lead and asthma home visits and activities associated with water quality. Miniworkshops focused on water quality were scheduled for the fall of 2001. In addition, local

stormwater drainage ditches were cleared as part of the effort.

Furthermore, although not stated as an activity in the action plan, securing partners and

funding has been an instrumental partnership activity. As of October 1, 2001, the partnership

consists of fifteen partners including federal, regional, state, local and community organizations

plus the direct involvement of each of the town’s mayors. Although financial dollars made

available from EPA’s Office of Children’s Health has been key in ensuring that several major

activities could take place, contributions from the Community Team have served as the

foundation for this effort. The Community Team assisted with soliciting community input, project

coordination and the health education of the Tri-Community citizens. Also instrumental has

been the work of GRAND, NRCS, and EPA. GRAND distributed project funds made available

by EPA and supported a senior project advisor and part-time local coordinator. The NRCS

Midwest Office committed both technical and capacity building assistance. EPA, through its

regional office, also provided considerable technical and capacity building assistance in the

three priority risk areas.

In addition, state, local, and academic partners played important roles. Missouri’s

Department of Natural Resources196 and Department of Conservation197 provided technical

advice and resources, and Missouri’s Department of Public Health provided educational

information on the three priority risks. Locally, the New Madrid County Health Department, the

Bootheel Nurses Association, the Howardville Headstart program provided health information,

health screenings and referrals, and the Delta Area Economic Development Corporation,

another local partner, helped run educational workshops.198 At the university level, the Lincoln

University Cooperative Extension program trained Tri-Community Team members on safedrinking water approaches and conducted water testing; the St. Louis Institute of Technology

trained Tri-Community residents on techniques for lead removal in the home; and the Lincoln

University Community Development Corporation provided necessary telecommunications

assistance to ensure that the training on lead could take place. Furthermore, organizations

including the Southeast Missouri Health Network helped sponsor certain partnership

activities.199

The following sections primarily describe interviewees’ responses to questions gathered

from interviews conducted by EPA’s Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation during the

weeks of September 24 and October 1, 2001. The sections focus on interviewees’ impressions

regarding measuring partnership success, partnership success and challenges,
90 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

recommendations for improving the partnership, overall value of the partnership, and the value

of federal involvement in the partnership.

Measuring Partnership Progress

From the beginning of EPA’s effort to sponsor a series of Child Health demonstration

projects around the country, EPA’s Office Children’s Health (OCH) placed significant emphasis

on evaluation. For its evaluation approach, OCH required that each Child Health Champion

project develop a plan to monitor and evaluate progress in meeting project goals and objectives.

OCH hoped that by encouraging Child Health Champion project communities to more

systematically document their successes and lessons learned, EPA would build the evaluation

capacity of these communities, resulting in greater sustainability of their projects. Using the

individual Child Health Champion project evaluations as a foundation, OCH then hoped to use

these results to inform a larger national evaluation of Child Health Champion projects that would

help it better understand whether the pilot projects worked as expected as well as other issues,

and bring lessons learned to new communities interested in trying similar approaches. 200

For individual project evaluation plans, each Child Health Champion project was

required to describe how the Community Team expects to track and evaluate: (1) the progress

of its efforts to reach intermediate and final outcomes; (2) the team-building and management

process; and (3) the cost to implement the different project activities. However, after

recognizing the difficulty that Community Teams were having in developing their action plans,

EPA had an evaluation consulting firm, Mathematica Policy Research (MPR), assist Community

Teams with this effort.201 MPR gave Community Teams wide latitude to develop evaluation

plans that would be most conducive to their priority risks and related activities.

For the Tri-Communities Child Health Champion project, MPR made two field visits to

New Madrid County to meet with project members, review New Madrid’s evaluation plan, and

assess project progress. The Community Team made plans to collect both qualitative and

quantitative data.202 Specifically, health fair attendance was to be documented, and lead

screening rates for New Madrid were to be reviewed before and after lead intervention efforts. 

Training workshops were to be assessed by reviewing participant satisfaction and knowledge

and awareness levels. Asthma reduction efforts were to be evaluated by collecting and

comparing data on asthma triggers in homes and school absences before and after one-on-one

home visits.203§ MPR made generic templates available that the Community Team used for

data collection purposes. These were then made available to GRAND who could assess and

modify them for its own data collection purposes.204 According to a former member of MPR who

was closely involved in this effort, at first members of the Community Team were skeptical of

the evaluation effort, but after they began to understand the tracking forms and how they could

be used, they became more appreciative of the approach. Community facilitators used the

evaluation forms for both the lead and asthma-related educational efforts throughout the

implementation period. GRAND, in particular, valued the evaluation forms because they

enabled the organization to better monitor the overall project’s effectiveness.205

During interviews conducted by EPA’s Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation, in

the fall of 2001, interviewees were asked how the New Madrid Partnership was measuring

project success. Two interviewees directly referenced the evaluation plan, while several

interviewees identified specific measures for the priority risk they were focusing on that

paralleled the measures described above. For instance, one interviewee stated that success in

 

§

 According to the Child Health Champion final evaluation report, asthma reduction efforts were not evaluated using

these measures because data on pre- and post-period school absences was not available, and home visit

interventions were not conducted (p. 65).
New Madrid Tri-Community Partnership 91

addressing asthma/allergies would be measured by reviewing the number of missed school

days due to asthma/allergies before and after the asthma workshops. Another interviewee

provided more general measures of success, which included setting goals, enabling the

communities to work together, and restoring community pride.

Partnership Successes

When asked if partners were satisfied with their ability to participate in the project

decision-making process, seven of the nine interviewees who addressed the question

responded positively. However, one of the seven did not approve of the way that the three

priority risk areas were selected. Further, two interviewees explained that they did not feel their

role was to be involved in the decision-making, but rather to focus on capacity building.

Regarding whether interviewees were satisfied to the extent issues most important to them and

their organizations were being addressed by the partnership, six of the seven addressing this

question indicated they were satisfied. One interviewee provided an ambiguous response.

When asked about the outcomes, or results, of the partner activities for addressing the

main issues of the affected community, all eleven interviewees responded positively. In terms

of specific outcomes, however, interviewees did not reveal a strong agreement around any one

type of outcome.** One outcome mentioned by three interviewees centered on increasing the

awareness of the community regarding the three priority health risks. Three separate

interviewees remarked that that the partnership has fostered a spirit of working together, with

one also adding that it fostered community pride. More generally, three interviewees noted that

the partnership has had positive impacts. For instance, one interviewee explained that the

partnership efforts have made living conditions a lot better. Two interviewees, one already

referenced, remarked that the partnership efforts resulted in boosted capacity of the community.

For instance, one explained that the community could now use tools to gain assistance and

provide assistance to them. Finally, another interviewee explained that the partnership has

generated a positive spirit.

When asked whether interviewees were satisfied with the outcomes of partner activities,

five of the ten addressing this topic indicated they were satisfied, one interviewee indicated

she/he was satisfied but would like to see more done for the partnership communities, three

were somewhat satisfied, and one interviewee provided an ambiguous response. One

interviewee expressed concern about the viability of the project once funding was discontinued.

Along these same lines, another interviewee remarked that more work could be done with the

Tri-Communities. In addition, another interviewee expressed regret at the lack of progress

made on water issues.

Early reports describe overall project activities as having been very successful in

meeting project objectives. Interviewees confirmed this impression as well. In addition, several

interviewees remarked that two related, but more difficult to measure outcomes, of these

activities have been the fostering of community pride and the improved ability of each

community to work together.

Despite overall satisfaction with project activities, interviewees were not in agreement on

what has been the greatest success of the project so far. Four of the ten interviewees

addressing this question commented that the partnership’s focus on the community was it’s

 

** 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.
92 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

greatest success. For example, three interviewees remarked that the greatest success has

been community empowerment, noting that the knowledge developed for this project as a result

of the health fair, training of community people as facilitators, and mini-workshops, will stay

within the Tri-Communities. Two interviewees cited lead testing of children as the projects’

greatest success. Another two interviewees cited improved agency understanding between

EPA and NRCS. And one interviewee suggested that the project’s greatest success was the

formation of the farmer’s cooperative, an initiative associated with, but not directly related to the

Child Health project.

Similar to this last interviewee’s comment, an additional success may be the increased

number of initiatives taking place in the Tri-Communities that, while not directly related to the

Child Health project, may be an indirect result of the positive work initiated by the TriCommunity Partnership. For instance, one EPA progress report emphasizes that since the

start of the New Madrid Children’s Health project, this single effort has “grown into a full blown

initiative” including a North Lilbourn recycling project, an energy conservation and home

weatherization project, the farmers’ cooperative mentioned above, and a transportation jobs

access project.206

Partnership Challenges

When asked about the greatest challenge facing the partnership, interviewees gave

several different responses. The most common theme, however, focused on the difficulties of

working together. For instance, three interviewees remarked that simply getting the

communities to work together has been the biggest obstacle to success. One of these stated

that this was due to the fact a project like this had never been tried before and was overcome

because residents recognized that their overall goal was to help children. Another remarked

that this difficulty had been resolved because of communication and leadership shown by

GRAND’s advisor, GRAND’s local coordinator, and EPA’s regional office. Another interviewee

suggested that forming the action plan was the biggest challenge because of the difficulty in

working with many different people. The interviewee added that this had been overcome

through discussion. Two additional interviewees remarked that competing interests between

the participating communities had been major obstacles to success, with one noting that this

had been overcome through communication. In addition, one of the same interviewees noted

that racial issues between the communities had served as a major barrier to success, remarking

that this too was overcome through communication.

In addition to the difficulties faced by working together, interviewees cited other

obstacles as well. Three interviewees cited communication issues as a problem. One

commented on the poor quality and lack of communication during the project’s formation.

Specifically, the interviewee remarked that initially outside partners showed a lack of respect for

the knowledge community residents had and failed to communicate and dialogue with the

community on the objectives of the project. Related to this obstacle, one interviewee from a

federal agency remarked that gaining the community’s trust initially in the process was a

challenge, indicating that not until “things materialized” did the agency feel they had the

community’s trust. In addition, this interviewee remarked that becoming accustomed to the

different styles of other participating agencies was also a challenge. Another interviewee

commented on the current state of project communication, specifically noting that the GRAND

headquarters office needed more communication with federal agencies issuing project grant

monies and partners actually implementing project activities. Another interviewee commented

that implementing some of the water-related activities described in the action plan had been the

biggest challenge. Finally, one interviewee remarked that an important challenge was obtaining
New Madrid Tri-Community Partnership 93

parental support for child lead testing. This was overcome, however, through parental

education about lead.

Interviewees were also asked whether the organizational styles and procedures of the

different partner organizations limited effective collaboration between partners. Most responses

centered on the difficulties that EPA and NRCS faced when initially starting to work together.

Interviewees noted that NRCS and EPA have two distinct styles: 1) NRCS is focused on

technical assistance whereas EPA has a stronger regulatory focus; and 2) NRCS encourages a

“locally-led process” for local projects, whereas EPA, through its Community Based

Environmental Protection approach, has tended to play a more “hands-on” role in locally based

projects. Although a positive relationship developed between EPA and NRCS, the contrasting

styles and approaches, as well as the personalities involved, created obstacles for both

organizations early on in the process. According to two interviewees, these differences were

resolved through communication and setting ground rules. In addition, one of these

interviewees added that the involvement of a project advisor supported by GRAND was also

critical.

Interviewees cited other organizational barriers as well. Three interviewees commented

that certain agency requirements placed on funding made it difficult to purchase needed items

for the partnership. For instance, although tree planting was designated in the action plan,

project money from EPA could not be used to actually purchase trees. In addition, one

interviewee noted that certain health agency requirements created an initial challenge for

conducting lead screening. According to interviewees, however, creative thinking enabled the

project partners to get around these challenges. For example, the project was able to obtain the

trees through donation and conduct lead screening by holding a health fair. Finally, one

interviewee noted that conflicts arose when individuals participating in the partnership served on

more than one of the partnering organizations.

Interviewees’ Recommendations for Improving the Partnership

Interviewees had few common suggestions for improving the future of the partnership,

due in part, perhaps, to the partners’ overall level of satisfaction for the project. Two

interviewees suggested ensuring that the project has a project manager, one who can ably

grasp the overall vision and goals as well as the project details. Two interviewees also

commented on the need for continued communication. Specifically, one interviewee

recommended that this be done by re-starting a group meeting process that occurred early on

between EPA, NRCS, and GRAND but has since been discontinued. However, the meetings

should be less frequent (e.g., once a month) and a community liaison should participate. A

second interviewee suggested that the partnership must stay focused on communication,

dialogue, and openness between partners, and stay dedicated. Another interviewee suggested

that the partnership host a final ceremony at the project’s end, similar to what was done at the

project’s beginning in order to provide a sense of closure for participants. Other suggestions

included establishing one common meeting space for partnership members to meet, giving

additional respect to local residents, allowing local residents to take full control over the project,

and emphasizing patience.

Interviewees’ Recommendations for Other Communities

Interviewees had several suggestions for improving future partnerships. Five of the nine

interviewees who addressed this issue emphasized the need for ensuring clear, up-front

communication about partner roles and responsibilities. One interviewee stressed that the New

Madrid partnership would have proved more effective if in the early stages all partners could
94 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

have sat down together and clearly explained what each was committing to the partnership

were to be. One interviewee also emphasized the need for participating federal agencies to

work closely together to understand what their roles would be vis-à-vis each other and decide

who would serve as the overall federal agency lead. The interviewee went on to suggest that if

one agency can’t identify itself as the federal lead, they both end up sending conflicting

messages to the community.

Three interviewees emphasized the need for partnerships to stay focused on what they

are trying to accomplish. One interviewee added that using facilitators to provide overall

direction is critical. Two more interviewees suggested that partners be open-minded, with one

adding that federal agencies should focus on more than just statistics when they are

determining how best to help communities. Another set of interviewees stressed that partners

in collaborative approaches must be patient, obtain local support, and look for “out of the box”

solutions. Other recommendations include focusing on communication, getting the whole

community involved, identifying one local partner member who has experience working with

federal agencies, keeping partnership activities transparent, providing transportation for partners

if necessary, and obtaining parental consent if children’s health activities are planned. Finally,

one interviewee recommended that one contact person be made available in each community

or county that can answer questions community residents may have about issues related to

public health and the environment.

Value of Collaborative Partnership

When asked directly about the value of addressing issues through a collaborative

partnership approach, most interviewees commented on the additional and shared resources

associated that partnerships can provide. One interviewee noted that in a partnership, if one

organization is not able to contribute the needed resources the partnership can network and

look to another partner to provide support. Another interviewee commented that through shared

resources, the partnership is capable of addressing multiple stages of a problem. Other values

of partnership approaches expressed by interviewees include improved understanding between

organizations, increased capability to identify issues and problems facing affected communities,

and a greater diversity of experience from which to draw upon. In addition, one interviewee

noted that the collaborative partnership is a non-traditional approach that can be very useful

mechanism for addressing issues in non-traditional communities.

When asked whether the collaborative process could be used to address other issues

that the New Madrid Tri-Communities are facing, nine of the nine persons who addressed this

question indicated that the process could certainly be used again. Three interviewees were

confident that once the project concluded, a model would be firmly in place to be used again.

Others added qualifications to their statements. One indicated that the collaborative model,

along with the capacity building skills that had been transferred to the Tri-Communities as a

result of the project, would enable other issues to be addressed through a similar process.

Another interviewee remarked that the model would work, but a challenge for the existing

project stems from some groups being still unwilling to participate in the process. Finally, in a

related comment, one interviewee noted that the collaborative process will effectively address

other issues depending on who does or does not participate.

Interviewees were also asked whether the main issues facing the Tri-Communities

would have been addressed without using a collaborative approach. Of the eight who

addressed this question, three stated simply that the issues would not have been addressed.

For instance, one interviewee stated that continued concerns over allocation of resources

between the communities would have discouraged any effective work in the area. Five of the
New Madrid Tri-Community Partnership 95

eight felt that some of the issues would have been addressed, but probably to a lesser extent,

and some would not have been addressed at all. For example one agency interviewee

remarked that the interviewee’s agency would have addressed what was allowable given

standard operating procedures, but the interviewee would have never thought to contact an

outside agency.

Value of Federal Involvement in the Partnership

When asked about the effect of having federal agencies participate in the New Madrid

Partnership responses fell into three categories: resources, knowledge, and credibility. Of the

seven who addressed this question, six identified resources as the key ingredient that the

federal agencies provided. One interviewee explained that the project could not have been

implemented without federal money. Another explained that because of federal involvement the

communities received a significant amount of high quality training. Closely related to the

category of resources is knowledge. Three interviewees specifically commented on the

information that the federal agencies shared that helped improve the project. For example, one

cited the federal agencies’ broad understanding of available resources and willingness to share

that information as being very important to project success. Another interviewee noted that the

federal agencies greatly assisted by their continual willingness to answer questions, offer

guidance, and provide coaching tips for the partnership project teams. In addition, two

interviewees remarked how federal involvement brought an increased level of credibility to the

project. For instance, one remarked that without external assurance from federal agencies,

communities could feel nervous about addressing environmental issues for fear of opening up a

“Pandora’s box.” With federal involvement, however, communities feel confident they can move

forward. In a related comment, one interviewee noted that when federal agencies get involved,

communities feel that work may happen at a more rapid pace. Finally, one interviewee

observed that despite the benefits of federal involvement, EPA’s presence in the TriCommunities intimidated farmers in the area. However, the interviewee felt positively about the

about the partnership and did not suggest this hampered the partnership’s ability to function

effectively.

When asked what federal partners have gained by participating in the New Madrid

Partnership, responses fell into three categories: better understanding of the community, the

right to claim success at the local level, and ability to use this model for future partnerships.

Four of the nine persons addressing this issue indicated that the federal agencies gained an

improved understanding of how to work with communities. For example, one remarked that by

working in these communities, the participating federal agencies gained perspective, learning

first hand how some of their policies and regulations impact the local level. Similarly, a fifth

interviewee stated that the agencies gained an improved understanding of the Tri-Communities,

including knowledge about their residents and public health problems. Three interviewees

stated that federal agencies gained the right to say they were successful. Specifically, two

noted that federal agencies could claim success as a result of their effective cooperation with

other organizations. Two other interviewees remarked that federal agencies gained the ability

to use or participate in collaborative partnerships at other sites in the future. Related, another

interviewee also remarked that federal agencies gained additional experience in regards to

networking and better project management skills.

Only six interviewees addressed whether federal agencies have been able to better

coordinate their activities as a result of their involvement in the New Madrid Partnership. Three

said yes, and three were equivocal, indicating that they were not sure. One agency interviewee

who responded affirmatively felt very strongly that collaboration had indeed increased. The

interviewee noted that the NRCS Midwest and EPA regional offices have met a few times and
96 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

recently made plans to partner together to identify and work with other distressed communities.

Of the three who were equivocal, one stated flatly that it was not clear whether coordination has

improved. Another remarked that although federal agencies may have been better able to

coordinate their efforts for this project, the key reason for this was the personalities involved,

and there is no indication that effective coordination will occur in future similar efforts. A third

interviewee was doubtful that effective collaboration occurred in the New Madrid project, noting

that in the beginning of the New Madrid project, only NRCS was visible, but towards the end,

only EPA was. The interviewee then added that most of the effective collaboration seemed to

occur between the individual federal agencies and the community, not necessarily with each

other.

Interviewees were also asked what federal agencies could do to be more effective

partners in local collaborative efforts. Interviewees offered several different suggestions ranging

from improving communication skills to better understanding the communities. Four of nine

recommendations centered on the need for federal agencies to stay open-minded when working

in collaboratives. Particularly, two of these interviewees emphasized the need to use more than

statistics when determining how to best help communities, and one stressed not letting

regulations prohibit involvement. In addition, three interviewees stressed the importance of

coordinating resources between federal agencies. Two interviewees, in particular, remarked

that agencies should focus more on getting the job done than their independence, and use an

umbrella coordinator, similar to GRAND, to ensure that the needed collaborative work will be

implemented. Other recommendations included entrusting the community to lead the

partnerships, developing a better understanding of the community before partnering, staying

committed to and honest within the partnership, setting ground rules, trying a different approach

if the current one is not working, and avoiding taking partnership issues personally.

In addition, one agency interviewee stressed that the key to best participating in a

collaborative partnership is by educating yourself about who your federal partners are and the

resources they have available. Speaking from experience, the interviewee explained that to do

this, it is important to invite federal partners to your agency meetings, such as environmental

justice forums, and meet with federal partners in one-on-one meetings. Interestingly, another

agency interviewee remarked that federal agencies do not need to tailor their roles to best

participate; rather, since they already have expertise, they should come to the table ready to

use their expertise to accomplish the goals of the project.

Key Findings

ß Participants overall are satisfied with the partnership’s progress and outcomes of the

partnership’s activities. However, concerns have been raised regarding the progress of

the water-related activities and additional work that will still be necessary in the TriCommunities once the Child Health project has ended in order to genuinely enhance

quality of life.

ß Without a collaborative process, it is unlikely that community concerns would have been

addressed as effectively as they are now. The New Madrid Partnership has brought

shared and additional resources and enabled creative solutions to problems.

ß One of the partnership’s key strengths has been its focus on community involvement

and capacity building. Not only have the participating community representatives been

in the lead for determining priority risks, the community representatives actively sought

input from other community members that weren’t directly participating in the project. In

addition, community representatives have been trained in facilitation and in the priority
New Madrid Tri-Community Partnership 97

risk areas, better ensuring that the knowledge gained as part of the project will stay

within the community, and that the Tri-Communities will find it easier to prioritize and

devise solutions to risks or other challenges their communities currently face or will face

in the future.

ß Another key strength of the project has been the working relationship between NRCS,

EPA, and GRAND. Arguably, without effective cooperation between these

organizations, it is doubtful that the New Madrid Partnership would have experienced the

success it currently does.

ß Use of a detailed action plan developed with significant community involvement has

enabled project participants to better understand how they fit within the overall project

framework and made it easier to keep the project focused and monitor progress.

However, use of the action plan to drive the project implementation has, perhaps, had

the unintended effect of limiting other activities that the partnership engages in.

ß It is unclear how the other on-going initiatives taking place in the Tri-Communities, such

as the farmer’s cooperative and the home weatherization project are associated with the

Child Health project. If these activities take place outside an integrated coordination

process, local residents as well as outside parties may find it difficult to understand how

these different parts fit together and important opportunities for synergy may be lost.

Afterword

Since interviews were conducted between September 24 and October 1, 2001, the New

Madrid County Child Health Champion project has officially closed, according to an EPA official

closely involved in the project. The Community Team, its community facilitators, and the

members of GRAND and Technical Advisory Team all helped to implement the actions

described in the New Madrid Child Health Champion project action plan. The Community Team

that first formed around 1997 has dissipated. However, the skills acquired or enhanced and

new relationships formed that first begun around 1997 still bears fruit today. For instance, one

former Community Team member recently helped initiate a community development corporation

in Howardville, which has been responsible for building new homes. Another former Community

Team member has been involved in the development of a new day care center in the New

Madrid area.207 In addition, EPA, Lincoln University, and the Missouri Department of Natural

Resources, all important components of the New Madrid Tri-Community Partnership, have kept

their working relationship in tact and committed to developing an environmental justice resource

center for New Madrid County and the surrounding region that will continue to identify and offer

support for local environmental protection, public health, and community development

initiatives.208
98

7 ReGenesis Partnership

In the beginning there was no cooperative spirit. Early the community was not happy

with the current state of affairs.

Harold made the first step reaching out...saying we want you to be involved and

asked for our input.

The community group is the driver and the most important partners are the local

government partners.

Now we actually have federal, state, local, and community all sitting down talking

about the same issue. Previously only adversarial stances were taken...[Now]

everyone more or less sharing the same vision.

This has been a real coming of age for people in the community. So much face-toface contact. It caused local people to recognize the extent of resources available.

— Interviewees, ReGenesis Partnership

Community History*

The County and City of Spartanburg are located in the upper northwest region of South

Carolina. Since 1970, the county’s population nearly doubled from 174,000 in 1970 to over

250,000 today.209† The City has remained at around 40,000 since that time but is located in the

center of an urban area that supports an estimated 115,000 people. Coupled with the

increases in population has been the Spartanburg region’s gradual transformation from a

traditional textile-based economy to a much more diversified one. By most indicators, the

Spartanburg area has been thriving over the past several years. The County now hosts more

than 115 internationally owned firms, and the City is currently undergoing a major downtown

revitalization effort that, through a $75 million public/private partnership, will bring a major hotel,

an office park, and a golf-learning center to the downtown area.210

Despite the prosperous economy, at least one section of the City has not benefited from

the economic expansion. The Arkwright and Forest Park neighborhoods are located just

beyond the City’s major downtown area. This community has a 96 percent African American

population in a county that is predominantly Caucasian and a city that is essentially half African

American and half Caucasian.211 Established around textile mills and other industrial facilities,

this community has been faced with the negative consequences of mill and plant closure.212

The area has not benefited from any significant commercial development for several years and

 

*

 Interviews for this case study were primarily conducted during the week of October 1, 2001. Two additional

interviews were conducted in late November. Fourteen separate interviews were conducted and a total of sixteen

persons participated. Interviews were conducted with representatives of community organizations, staff of local and

federal political representatives, federal, state, and local government agencies, a company, a local college, a

consulting firm, and a regional environmental organization.

†

 The current population total of Spartanburg County equals 253, 791 (75.1% Caucasian and 20.8% African

American).
ReGenesis Partnership 99

residents have difficulty accessing groceries, restaurants, or other shops unless they drive or

take a cab to other more affluent213 parts of the city.214

Most notably, however, the Arkwright and Forest Park community residents live near

several actual and potentially contaminated sites and an operating industrial plant. Residential

neighborhoods in Arkwright are closely intertwined with industrial areas due to minimal local

land use controls before 1976 and “a continued lack of zoning restrictions.”215 The areas of

most concern to local residents are a 40-acre site of an abandoned (and now deconstructed)

fertilizer plant referred to as the International Mineral and Chemicals (IMC) site, a 30-acre

former municipal dump, and an operating chemical plant located on a 35-acre site owned by

Rhodia Inc. Approximately 4,700 residents live within one mile of the site, 200 live within 1⁄4-mile

of the landfill,216 and a handful of residents live adjacent to the chemical plant boundary.

The many economic, environmental, health, and public safety concerns that residents

have attributed to these sites have prompted some to refer to this area collectively as the

“Devil’s Triangle.” Residents have stated that, “For decades, [they] have endured dump truck

traffic, smoke and fumes from landfill fires, and odors from the two industries.”217 Residents

have also stated that “there is a high percentage of cancer in the neighborhoods, especially

lung, bone, and colon cancer.”218 In addition, residents report that the area supports a high rate

of infant mortality, miscarriages, and birth defects.219 One resident also explained that from

January 2000 to July 2000, 24 people living within 1⁄4-mile of the dump had died.220 Beyond

health concerns, locals have reportedly seen their housing values fall since the 1970s.221

Community members suggest that new residents cannot move in because of their concerns

regarding the facilities and contaminated sites, and current ones are unable to move out

because they lack the resources to do so.222

ReGenesis

During the 1990s residents in the neighborhoods of Arkwright and Forest Park began to

inquire about the abandoned sites and put pressure on government agencies to clean them up.

One person in particular, Harold Mitchell, grew increasingly concerned about what he saw as an

alarming number of deaths and incidences of diseases in his neighborhood after returning to

live there in 1993. Observations and stories of criminal activity taking place at the fertilizer

facility, directly across the street from Mitchell’s home, also raised Mitchell’s and other local

residents’ level of concern.223 He soon began looking into both sites. Starting in 1994, Mitchell

obtained a file from the state environmental agency224 that described the type of hazardous

chemicals used in the fertilizer plant’s production processes225 and had informal conversations

with local residents about the type of work that took place at the facility226. His efforts to

generate support to address the abandoned sites were put on hold in 1996, however, because

of a serious illness in Mitchell’s family. In 1997, Mitchell once again turned his attention to the

abandoned sites.227

Around this time Mitchell also founded ReGenesis, a local environmental justice

organization made up of residents from the affected neighborhoods. While initially focusing on

getting the sites cleaned up, ReGenesis’ attention soon began turning to the revitalization of the

entire area.228 Today, with over 1,400 members from the affected area, this community-based

and community-driven organization229 continues to have strong support from the community and

is the primary body responsible for consulting with government agencies on the cleanup of the

contaminated sites in the area. In particular ReGenesis is working closely with government

agencies to ensure clean up of the former Arkwright Dump site and the abandoned fertilizer

plant. ReGenesis also participates in periodic meetings with the operating chemical plant in the

area to address concerns raised by community members. Finally, ReGenesis serves as the
100 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

main point of contact for the ReGenesis Partnership, a broad-based multi-stakeholder effort to

revitalize the Arkwright and Forest Park areas.

Abandoned Fertilizer Plant

The abandoned fertilizer plant, located directly north of the abandoned Arkwright Dump

opened in 1910, and continued to operate until closing in 1986. The facility, owned by IMC

Global, was then left idle and began to deteriorate.230 During its operations it employed many

residents from the Arkwright community. Some residents believed, however, that its operations

had a negative environmental impact on the community. In prior interviews conducted with

former IMC employees and Arkwright residents by EPA, interviewees noted that at times the

neighborhood had been filled with acid smells from the facility. They also noted that the acid or

particles from the plant had corroded the aluminum siding on their homes, roofing materials, and

the paint on their cars.231 After the plant’s closure, according to ReGenesis, the community

voiced concerns about the abandoned site.232 Between 1991 and 1995, South Carolina’s

environmental department required three groundwater assessment investigations, and

continuous periodic sampling of groundwater, at the site. Groundwater contaminants during

that time, and remaining at present, include several metals, nitrate, and fluoride. Based on the

levels detected, which are above groundwater standards, South Carolina’s environmental

department had required further investigation via deeper wells, and additional wells, but had not

required groundwater cleanup actions as of 1995.233 As discussed above, starting in 1994

Mitchell began to investigate this site as well as the abandoned dump. In late 1997, after a call

from Mitchell to EPA’s regional office in Atlanta, EPA began to examine the fertilizer plant site

more closely.234 An initial review by EPA found no short-term public health threat from the site;

however, EPA, subsequently, began more intensive investigations under the Superfund

process235 in order to assess the potential for long-term risk.236 An expanded site investigation

by EPA, began in January 1999237, revealed several chemicals of concern at concentrations

above background levels.238

During EPA’s expanded site investigation, the then private owner of the site, who had

purchased the abandoned facility from IMC in the late 1980s, began an unauthorized demolition

of the plant in June 1998.239 South Carolina’s state environmental agency halted the demolition

within hours, and later issued the owner a Notice of Violation and fine for the violation of local

and state regulations.240 Soon after, concerned about the site conditions, Vigindustries Inc., a

subsidiary of IMC Global, purchased back the fertilizer plant site,241 and put in place a

deconstruction plan developed in cooperation with nearby residents, Vigindustries, and

appropriate federal, state, and local officials to ensure the safe deconstruction of the facility.242

Deconstruction took place under State and EPA oversight over the summer and fall of 2000.243

During this time, IMC staff and ReGenesis began to work cooperatively to address more longterm clean up issues while EPA’s investigation continued.244 IMC appeared ready to see that

the fertilizer plant site would be redeveloped in accordance with ReGenesis’ overall

revitalization goals for the area after the clean up activities were completed. By the summer of

2000, however, the cooperation ended as over 1,200 residents filed suit in federal court against

IMC Global, who, according to a local newspaper report, accused the company of "multiple

offenses, including assault and battery through the release of toxic chemicals, concealing facts

about environmental dangers and practicing environmental racism in the predominantly black

community.”245 With the legal battles still ongoing, in July 2001, Vigindustries signed an

Administrative Order on Consent with EPA. The order commits Vigindustries to conduct a twopart study of the fertilizer site, assessing the level of contamination at the site and determining

options for cleanup.246
ReGenesis Partnership 101

Abandoned Arkwright Dump

The Arkwright Dump opened in 1954. According to a government report, it was

purchased by the City and reportedly used for disposal of municipal, medical, and automotive

wastes. It operated with relatively little oversight until it was closed in 1972 and capped with a

thin layer of topsoil. In 1976, the site was sold to a private citizen. Virtually no records exist for

the facility. Nearby residents continue to have open access to the dump area where thin

vegetation covers the waste and debris.247 As mentioned earlier, in 1994, Harold Mitchell began

investigating the abandoned dump along with the abandoned fertilizer facility. In early 1998,

Mitchell raised the issue of the abandoned dump to the attention of EPA’s regional office in

Atlanta.248 South Carolina’s state environmental agency subsequently became involved. State

personnel conducted an initial walk-through of the site, finding no immediate health threats.249

After receiving the appropriate paperwork from the state agency, EPA had discussions with

community residents and a consultation with the state agency, and ultimately chose to take the

lead in evaluating the site.250

Between October 1998 and May 1999, EPA sampling efforts at the site indicated

contaminants in the soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment.251 At EPA’s request, the

U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) then conducted a preliminary

health assessment based upon EPA’s sampling data. ATSDR’s report indicated that the

contaminants did not constitute a health threat, but added that more extensive data gathered

during EPA’s in-depth site evaluation could change their initial assessment and recommended

additional investigation of the site.252‡ EPA then made a determination to cleanup the site using

a traditional Superfund process§ in order to address long-term environmental and human health

risks.253 In November 1999, the City signed a voluntary agreement with EPA, referred to as an

Administrative Order on Consent,254 committing the City to conduct a two-part study of the

abandoned landfill, assessing contamination levels at the site and determining options for

cleanup.255 Although the City’s agreement with EPA does not commit the City to address the

site, EPA expects the City and other groups who have previously contributed waste to the

landfill to participate in the site activities. EPA anticipates that the second part of this study will

be completed in the spring of 2002.256**

Operating Chemical Plant

The operating chemical plant is directly south of the abandoned fertilizer site, bounded to

the east by the Arkwright Dump, and bounded to the west by a railroad line. Residences begin

just off the chemical company’s fence line. In the mid-1970s a South Carolina businessman

purchased the Arkwright Dump and opened up a chemical warehouse next to the site.

However, residents living in the community at the time state that they were told the site would

be used to develop low-income housing. After a few years, the chemical warehouse became an

operating chemical plant.257 In 1998, Rhodia, an international specialty chemical company,258

purchased the plant. Recently EPA recognized Rhodia as a member in its new EPA

Performance Track Program and the state recognized Rhodia with a pollution prevention

environmental award.259 Despite these special designations by the federal and state

government, many residents in the Arkwright and Forest Park areas feel strongly that a

 

‡

 This document was finalized in May 2000.

§

 Although EPA Region 4 is addressing contamination at the Arkwright Dump site through traditional Superfund

means, the Arkwright Dump site has not been placed onto the National Priorities List (NPL), which is the list of the

nation’s most hazardous sites; instead, EPA is addressing the Arkwright site through an “NPL-equivalent process.”

Region 4 has a number of sites being addressed in this manner. The term “NPL-Equivalent” has been used by

Region 4 to denote such sites.

** On August 6, 2002, EPA presented its “Proposed Plan” for site cleanup to the community in a public meeting. A

Record of Decision is expected in September 2002.
102 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

chemical company nearby is incompatible with their plans to improve quality of life and would

like to see the facility relocated. Rhodia reviewed the option to relocate but found it prohibitively

expensive. Rhodia is now working to build better relations with the community. In addition to

reaching out to better gauge community concerns and introducing more local residents to the

facility operations through open houses, Rhodia is currently undergoing a series of facilitated

dialogue sessions with ReGenesis in an attempt to address issues of contention and identify

best how it can participate in the ReGenesis’ plans to redevelop the area.

Partnership Background

For many years, the residents of Forest Park and Arkwright, according to Harold

Mitchell, had virtually no interaction with each other. Mutual concerns over the cleanup of the

abandoned fertilizer facility, however, helped bring the two communities together.260 The

residents began regularly interacting in 1998 and 1999 during meetings and workshops held

with community residents, EPA, and the state environmental agency to discuss issues related to

cleanup and Superfund site redevelopment. It was during these discussions that, according to

Mitchell, an EPA employee suggested how the residents could fully redevelop the area.261

In addition to forming ideas about broad-scale revitalization, these meetings and

workshops also played other critical functions. First, they were used to identify other

organizations that would need to participate to make a full-scale revitalization a reality. Mitchell

and other residents recognized the importance of this because of past, only marginally

successful attempts by groups in the area to implement urban redevelopment efforts. 262 These

groups, according to Mitchell, excluded other important players like the City and the County.263

Second, these meetings helped residents work out their animosity they had towards past

company, facility, and government officials whom they felt had allowed a considerable amount

of harm to come to their community.264

As an outgrowth of these meetings and workshops, ReGenesis soon began seeking

involvement of organizations to assist in the revitalization by engaging potential partners in oneon-one discussions and hosting a series of facilitated forums. This strong emphasis on

collaboration also led to the identification of the ReGenesis partnership as an Environmental

Justice Demonstration Project by the Interagency Working Group in May 2000. The first of

ReGenesis’ revitalization forums were held January and August 2000. Participants included

local, state, and federal government and officials, business, political representatives and

community development experts. The objectives of the forums were as follows:

1) Educate stakeholders in the fundamentals of brownfields;

2) Share the impact of the brownfields in the Arkwright/Forest Park Area;

3) Work together to build local commitment and plan to develop partnerships at the

local, state, and federal level;

4) Learn about tools and resources available to help the community revitalize

brownfields and promote sustainable reuse;

5) Lay the foundation to take a new look at the future development and growth of

Arkwright/Forest Park and Spartanburg as a whole;

6) Generate recommendations to ensure community involvement as well as short and

long-term development strategies; and

7) Achieve a beneficial revitalization for the Arkwright/Forest Park community.265

Although the first forum was described as successful,266 crucial events took place during

the second forum that eventually molded the partnership into the shape it still holds today. First,

a consultant for the community alienated potential supporters by presenting himself as
ReGenesis Partnership 103

Figure 23. EPA Representation of ReGenesis Organizational Structure

overconfident and misrepresenting the Arkwright and Forest Park neighborhoods by explaining

that they lacked the capacity and money to lead the revitalization effort.267 Following the forum,

a member of the IWG explained to Mitchell that only the community could represent itself and

that the community needed to take full leadership over the redevelopment process. Up until this

time, according to Mitchell, the community felt that it needed outside consultants to act on the

community’s behalf. In response, ReGenesis, and particularly ReGenesis’ director, Mitchell,

began to serve as the leader for the two neighborhoods. Second, the IWG representative,

according to Mitchell, also explained that ReGenesis needed to make sure that its vision and

priorities align with the vision and priorities of both the City and the County. If these can align,

the IWG representative pointed out, the federal agencies would be in a much better position to

offer assistance.268

Following another forum held in September, participants asked that specific individuals

be named to represent the community, the City, and the County. The City was involved

because of its role in the clean up and redevelopment of the Arkwright Dump. The County was

involved because much of the area ReGenesis planned to redevelop falls within the jurisdiction

of the County. Mitchell was

selected to represent the

community, Michael Garrett

was selected to represent the

City, and Elena Rush was

selected to represent the

County. These three came

to form the core steering

committee for the ReGenesis

partnership.269 A

representative from EPA’s

southeast regional branch

also began to regularly

participate in the core

steering committee meetings

because of its cleanup roles

with the Arkwright Dump and

fertilizer plant sites and its

current commitment as an

Environmental Justice

Demonstration Project

member.

The committee began

to meet regularly and jointly

plan partnership forums.

However, the process has

not always gone smoothly. For instance, early on, the County wanted greater assurances that

Harold Mitchell was, indeed, the spokesperson for the community. In response, the ReGenesis

board sent the County a letter explaining that in fact, Mitchell did fully represent ReGenesis,

which in effect represented the residents of Arkwright and Forest Park. The steering committee

uses these pre-forum meetings to explore important decisions regarding the revitalization effort.

Although formal consensus is not the goal, the steering group members regularly strive to reach

agreements acceptable to all, even amidst often-conflicting viewpoints. The partnership

revitalization forums are then used as opportunities to report out progress being made on the

revitalization effort. Typically Mitchell opens the forums with an introduction, and then the

 ReGenesis Partnership

Steering Committee

ReGenesis

City, County

EPA

Partners Partners

Partners

Partners
104 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

Number of Partners by Organizational Type 

in ReGenesis Partnership

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Community/ Non-ProfitLocal AgenciesState/Regional AgenciesFederal AgenciesAcademiaPolitical RepresentativesPrivate Sector

steering committee members give updates on specific tasks. Following this, a distinct

component of the revitalization process may be discussed in detail, such as a specific

brownfields redevelopment or the overall planning process.270

Two additional partnership forums were held in 2000. Starting in 2001, the steering

committee began holding forums on a quarterly basis.271 In addition to the partnership forums

and the work of the steering committee, a special Spartanburg Workgroup at EPA meets

monthly to coordinate its Spartanburg activities, often conducting conference calls with

members of the core partnership group. Mitchell explained that through the work of Rush and

Garrett, the community has begun putting its trust once again in both the City and County.

Mitchell explained that previously the community expected that once the City or the County

made a decision, the decision was final, irrespective of what the community had to say. Now,

according to Mitchell, the community views the City and County as allies.272

Although the partnership continues to expand its organizational capacity, and has

recently more

thoroughly defined its

organizational

structure, the

partnership is best

explained as consisting

of a broad collection of

individual connections

between the

partnership steering

committee and various

organizations.

ReGenesis has

tirelessly persuaded

new partners to

become involved in the

redevelopment effort.

However, the County

has taken an active role

in keeping track of the

existing and new

partners through an

electronic database and

informing partners of

upcoming forums either

through electronic or

regular mail.273 As of September 2001, a partnership summary indicated that 76 partners

currently contribute, or intend to contribute, to the redevelopment efforts.

Partnership Goals

The overall vision of the ReGenesis project is to clean up and revitalize the Arkwright

and Forest Park areas through the use of collaborative partnerships in order to transform the

community “into a nice place to live.”274 To achieve this vision, ReGenesis partners have

identified seven project goals. These include: (1) creating a comprehensive redevelopment

plan; (2) cleaning up contaminated sites; (3) providing for public safety, education, and life skills;

(4) ensuring public health; (5) improving transportation access; (6) creating green space and

Figure 24. EPA Estimate of Partners in ReGenesis Partnership
ReGenesis Partnership 105

greenway trails; and (7) developing affordable and energy efficient housing.275 In addition to

outlining the project elements, the project partners have identified five project approaches that

should be used (or adhered to) in pursuit of the project goals. These include: (1) collaborative

partnerships; (2) environmental justice; (3) community revitalization; (4) community

empowerment and participation; and (5) local problem-solving.276

Partnership Activities

The ReGenesis partnership is still in the early to middle stages in terms of meeting

project goals and few major partnership activities have been implemented. The recognition that

the partnership has more work to be done is reflected in the fact that relatively few tangible

effects from the cleanup and revitalization efforts can be seen. Apart from the deconstruction of

the fertilizer plant, the community is still waiting for EPA to make final determinations on the

cleanup of the Arkwright Dump and fertilizer sites before cleanup and revitalization activities can

begin.

Although most activities have not begun, the partnership has been heavily engaged in

laying the necessary groundwork to ensure planned activities will take place, which, in addition

to the cleanup of the contaminated sites, include 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 greater Spartanburg community; the construction of a series of

greenspaces and greenway trails; and the development of affordable, energy efficient housing.

To ensure these activities will take place, the partnership members have been working to

secure funding and additional partners.

Since 2000, the partnership has secured over $1.1 million through grants. The primary

sources of funding include: Senate Appropriations initiated by Senator Ernest Hollings (SC-D)

issued through HUD Neighborhood Improvement Grants; EPA Superfund Redevelopment,

Brownfields, and Environmental Justice grants; and a Department of Health and Human

Services (HHS) health center grant. The City and Vigindustries have also made monetary

contributions. The partnership has also identified over ten additional potential funding sources

for cleanup and revitalization activities. In addition to securing funding through grants, several

persons are contributing varying portions of their staff time or volunteering to support the

project. EPA’s southeast regional branch alone has over eight people involved in various

aspects of the partnership.

Another key partnership activity, underway since May 2001, has been periodic meetings

hosted by the City to identify which parties, in addition to the City, may have significantly

contributed waste to the Arkwright Dump. One of the first of its kind, this collaborative effort,

following EPA draft policy guidance, involves regular conference calls277 and interviews with

community members to determine the history of the site and better identify all possible waste

contributors. One interviewee commented that although community input to identify potentially

responsible parties is typically not significant, the Arkwright and Forest Park community has

provided an uncharacteristically large amount of helpful information. Finding additional

responsible parties that can help finance the cleanup will be critical since the Dump cleanup

costs are expected to be more than the City can pay.

The following sections primarily describe interviewees’ responses to questions gathered

from interviews conducted by EPA’s Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation primarily

during the week of October 1, 2001. The sections focus on interviewees’ impressions regarding

measuring partnership success, partnership success and challenges, recommendations for
106 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

improving the partnership, overall value of the partnership, and the value of federal involvement

in the partnership.

Measuring Success

The ReGenesis Partnership has not developed a framework to measure if and how well

their activities are being implemented, or if their activities are a success. Some measures of

success are, however, being built into discreet project components such as the health care

clinic work plan, the Brownfields assessment work plan, and the Arkwright Dump Superfund

Redevelopment Initiative (SRI) work plan. A sample of measures of success from the SRI work

plan278 is included below.

Figure 25. Sample of Measures of Success for Arkwright Dump Redevelopment Initiative

Several interviewees indicated that overall success would be measured in tangible terms

such as contaminated site cleanup and clinic construction. Another interviewee indicated that

some measures have been developed, but that they were dependent upon the cleanup of the

contaminated sites. One interviewee indicated that no overarching measures had been

developed, but such an effort would be valuable. Another endorsed the need to establish

timelines for each of the project goals.

Partnership Successes

Most interviewees expressed satisfaction with the direction of the partnership, their

ability to participate in it, and indicated that their interests were being met. Regarding the

success of project activities, most indicated that it was too early to determine the success of

partnership activities since most were still planned for the future. However, interviewees

expressed strong support for the actions that have been undertaken so far and felt strongly that

the future actions will have the desired effect. Two interviewees remarked that one direct

outcome of all the activities performed up to this point has been the bringing of real inspiration

and excitement to a group of people that previously had very little about the prospects in their

community. 

Goal

Coordinated efforts between

US EPA, the County, the City, the Community and other stakeholders

Objective: Create newsletter and website

to inform all stakeholders

Objective: Meetings with residents and

stakeholders

Objective: Identify stakeholders

Objective: Coordinate communication

between all stakehoders involved

Measure: number of hits on the website,

number of newsletters distributed

Measure: input from community meetings;

tracking participation at the public forums;

community participation on the various

committees; and number of inquries about the

project

Measure: survey results for stakeholders’

needs and concerns of the project

Measure: evaluation surveys; preparation of a

table of ongoing initiatives, the recipient or

entity responsible for managing the funds, and

key contacts
ReGenesis Partnership 107

In terms of greatest overall success, most interviewees indicated that the development

of the partnership itself has been the greatest success. According to interviewees, the

partnership has brought former adversaries together. One interviewee explained that with the

partnership different groups now had a common cause and were emotionally united. Another

explained that simply getting people together in the same room to work together on issues has

been very important. Asking for the reason behind the partnership success, most indicated

Harold Mitchell and ReGenesis first. The work of ReGenesis has enabled an atmosphere that

is conducive to partnering. As one interviewee noted, ReGenesis “extended the olive branch.”

ReGenesis wanted “everyone to be involved and everyone to benefit.” ReGenesis was

“interested in harmony instead of friction.” Other reasons given for the partnership’s formation

include the leadership roles of the Mayor and the County and the Interagency Working Group’s

urging of the various groups to come up with their own solutions to the challenges facing the

Arkwright and Forest Park.

Another major success, not entirely separate from the development of the partnership,

has been the securing of funding. Although some interviewees identified successful fundraising

for discreet project initiatives, such as the funding of the health clinic, others indicated that they

were pleased so far with the overall ability of the partnership to secure funding and resources.

Interviewees did not directly address why the securing of funds has been so successful,

however, it is likely that most would attribute this success to focused partnership leadership and

enthusiastic support for the partnership from a variety of different organizations.

In addition, interviewees cited the partnership’s commitment to community involvement

as an important success. Of the thirteen persons who addressed this issue, twelve highlighted

the efforts being made to involve the Arkwright and Forest Park neighborhoods in almost every

aspect of the project. The key reason for the high rate of community involvement is ReGenesis,

through which community members can have their concerns fed directly into the partnership.

The only challenge faced by ReGenesis, suggests one interviewee, has been the organization’s

difficulty in continually translating large amounts of technical information to the community on a

regular basis.

Partnership Challenges

Interviewees voiced several challenges facing the partnership but no clear consensus

emerged from the responses. Five interviews cited communication/organizational issues as an

impediment to success, noting that the numerous players and the many discrete components of

the project make it difficult to understand what the overall project goals are, what the roles of

each of the partners will be, and/or what activities are planned for the future. For instance, one

interviewee voiced a strong desire to contribute significantly, but has so far only participated on

a limited basis because of lack of guidance from the partnership on how best to participate.

Similarly, two interviewees remarked that a lack of a single point person for the project inhibits

success. Currently, Harold Mitchell is the overall leader of the project, however, neither Harold

nor anyone else participating in the partnership has the time or resources necessary to devote

full attention to project coordination and management. Despite these concerns, it is important to

note that within days before these interviews were conducted, the partnership steering

committee had distributed an information packet describing in detail the project elements, the

actual and potential resources dedicated to the project, and designated lead partners for

implementing each project element in preparation for an upcoming full partner meeting. It is

conceivable that this, in combination with the full partner meeting, served to clarify project goals

and elements along with partner roles and responsibilities.
108 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

A second challenge centered on industry/community tensions. Specifically, three

interviewees identified the conflicting viewpoints between ReGenesis and Rhodia as barriers to

success. To overcome this tension, one interviewee recommended that Rhodia and ReGenesis

continue their on-going dialogue. The interviewee also recommended that Rhodia work to

develop a better relationship with the nearby community. Two of these same interviewees also

identified the ReGenesis lawsuit against IMC as a potential barrier to success. Another

interviewee noted more generally that conflicting interests between the affected community and

industry might inhibit partnership success.

A third challenge focused on partnership sustainability. Because of the complexity of the

project and the length required to address the various issues, four interviewees indicated that

efforts to sustain momentum and support would be key. Expressing frustration, one interviewee

remarked that even finalizing a voluntary agreement between the City and EPA regarding the

Arkwright Dump took several months. In order to sustain the enthusiasm for the partnership,

one interviewee noted that new parties must be continually courted and regularly involved, such

as business leaders, over the next few years.

Another challenge centered on issues of funding. Four interviewees cited the difficulty

the partnership may face in ensuring adequate funding for partnership activities, even though

over a million dollars in grants has been secured so far. This is not surprising, however, since

the cleanup projects will undoubtedly prove to be very expensive. No suggestions were

provided on how to overcome this obstacle.

Other barriers to success cited by interviewees include obtaining the full support of the

City and the County for the cleanup and revitalization effort; bringing all the partners together in

a timely manner; persuading companies to take responsibility for their roles in the Arkwright

Dump site; fully engaging the business community as a partner; changing the mindset of the

community so it views itself as a driver of the revitalization process instead of simply another

participant within the partnership; ensuring that the contaminated sites are cleaned up;

understanding what constitutes success for the affected community; and completing a detailed

comprehensive plan for the revitalization effort. The comprehensive plan, which is being

developed out of funds from a Brownfields assessment grant provided by EPA, is currently in its

formative stages.

Interviewees were also asked whether the organizational styles and procedures of the

different partner organizations limited effective collaboration between partners. Of the twelve

who addressed this topic, seven indicated that the different organizational styles have not been

barriers. One explained that the great number and diversity of partners is actually a strength of

the partnership. Two interviewees remarked that even when differences emerge between

partners, solutions are sought in a cooperative manner. Another remarked, however, that even

though organizational differences limiting the effectiveness of the partnership were not

apparent, some organizations were not performing as capably as they could be. Five

interviewees highlighted organizational differences that have contributed to partnership

difficulties. One explained that differing organizational requirements within a government

agency had hindered the interviewee’s ability to complete a project grant proposal in a timely

manner. An agency interviewee remarked that federal agency travel restrictions limit some

federal agencies from participating as effectively as they could. This same interviewee also

noted federal agencies often don’t participate more constructively because it is not always clear

how their participation will directly relate to each agencies’ mission. A second agency

interviewee indicated that, in certain circumstances, certain ethics rules might limit agencies’

abilities to participate as effective partners. The interviewee cited a recent example where the

partner agency had been asked to send a letter to another ReGenesis partner agency
ReGenesis Partnership 109

endorsing a distinct component of the partnership. The agency’s ethics attorney explained that

it was inappropriate for either the agency or agency personnel to endorse a company or entity.

However, after consultation with the agency’s ethics attorney, the agency revised the letter from

one of support for the partnership component, to one expressing the agency’s interest towards

supporting the goals of the partnership that will partly be met by the implementation of the

partnership component.

Interviewees’ Recommendations for Improving the Partnership

Interviewee recommendations for improving the effectiveness of the ReGenesis

Partnership fell into three rough sets of recommendations. The first set centered on the need

for training. Three interviewees highlighted areas where the partnership could benefit from

training. Each, however, recommended different types of training. One suggested that more

general environmental justice and community involvement training be made available for

partners. A second interviewee suggested that partners should participate in leadership training

in order to better ensure that partner commitments are kept. A third recommended that partners

participate in training on professional collaborative management. Related to issues of

leadership and professional collaborative management, a second set of recommendations

focused on better establishing timelines and commitments. One felt strongly that timelines

should be produced for the main goals and that partners should then be kept accountable.

Similarly, a second interviewee indicated that more work needed to be done to secure stronger

commitments from partners. A third suggested that additional work was needed at the close of

each partner meeting to ensure important points were captured and clarified for all partners to

see, possibly being made available in a newsletter. A third set of recommendations focused on

ensuring that ReGenesis’ chairman, Harold Mitchell, was made executive director of the

partnership and given the resources necessary, such as an office, to perform all necessary

functions associated with the position. Other recommendations included ensuring that one

objective party be put in place to guide the partnership, making more information available

about the community, increasing communication between different federal agencies, obtaining

quicker responses from federal agencies, keeping an open mind, and respecting differences in

perspectives.

Interviewees’ Recommendations for Other Communities Using Partnerships

Thirteen interviewees offered suggestions for other communities interested in using

collaborative partnerships to address environmental justice issues. Most felt that a well-planned

partnership was essential. To achieve this interviewees recommended the following activities:

make a list of all possible partners from the federal to local levels, learn about their interests,

and then identify how their interests overlap and can benefit the partnership; bring partners into

the process early; establish a solid vision; ask partners what you want your community to look

like in ten years; obtain consensus on the goals and objectives; categorize and prioritize goals

and objectives; and secure buy-in from high level stakeholders. Three interviewees also placed

emphasis on the need for the community to speak with one voice. One even went as far as

suggesting that action be taken to better encourage and support grassroots leaders to emerge

from affected communities. Two interviewees also emphasized the need for communities to

obtain education on environmental justice issues at the start of the partnering process. They

added that that it is important for partners to understand how the affected community perceives

environmental injustice. Along with environmental justice training, one of the same interviewees

recommended that underlying issues of race and history be openly explored before taking

actions to address the immediate concerns. Finally, one interviewee suggested that

communities identify a federal contact when starting a partnership, and another suggested

reviewing other partnership success stories.
110 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

Value of Collaborative Partnership

When asked directly the value of addressing issues through a collaborative partnership

approach, interviewees came up with a variety of responses. One interviewee indicated that

partnering results in quicker decisions. Another indicated that partnering, or acting like a team

in the words of the interviewee, gives all interested parties a chance to provide their input and

feel positive about their contributions. Related to the team concept, one interviewee stated that

the partnership process has resulted in more people becoming aware of each other, and

another stated that the process enables partners to see the “connectivity across issues” since

each get to share their views. Also related to the team concept, one interviewee noted that in a

partnership, partners act as “lifelines” to each other through their willingness to share expertise.

Two interviewees noted that partnerships aid in the leveraging of resources. Particularly, one

noted that once different groups show a willingness to work together, others are more likely to

join in and participate. Finally, one agency interviewee noted that the partnership has made it

easier to encourage other agency colleagues working in Spartanburg to engage in additional

community involvement efforts.

When asked whether the collaborative process could be used to address other issues

that the Arkwright and Forest Park community is facing, thirteen of thirteen partners addressing

this topic responded affirmatively. In addition, most indicated that this approach could be used

in many other communities to address a variety of issues. One interviewee remarked that this

model would be very useful to begin applying in other communities facing Brownfields

redevelopment issues. Another mentioned that this model could certainly be used to address

future environmental justice issues facing other communities, and added that local leaders could

be persuaded to buy into a process like this every time. One interviewee cautioned, however,

that despite the seeming success of the partnership approach in Spartanburg, advocates should

not rely on a single “cookie-cutter” approach when pulling partnerships together.

When asked whether the main issues affecting the Arkwright and Forest Park

community would have been addressed without a collaborative approach, of the twelve that

addressed this question, two indicated that the issues would have been addressed but the

process would have taken much longer. For example, one stated that the issues would have

been addressed in a “very piecemeal and unorganized fashion.” Another was less confident,

stating that the issues may have been addressed, but less successfully. Five interviewees felt

that only some of the issues would have been addressed without a partnership approach. For

instance, two stated that while the contaminated sites may have been cleaned up, the effort to

plan the redevelopment of the Brownfields would not have been initiated. The remaining five

indicated that the issues would not have been addressed. For example, one interviewee

suggested that the competing interests between different parties could not have been resolved.

Another remarked that the parties would have ended up arguing the issues in court.

Value of Federal Involvement in Partnership

When asked about the effect of having federal agencies participate in the ReGenesis

Partnership, responses covered two broad categories: resources and credibility. Five

interviewees remarked that the greatest effect of federal involvement has been the resources

the federal agencies bring to the table. Specifically these resources, as indicated by the

interviewees, include money, technical assistance, and expertise. One interviewee stated that

without the federal technical expertise and dollars, the partnership would not have emerged.

Additionally, another type of resource that federal partners bring is a knowledge of resources

that other federal agencies may have available. One interviewee stated that enabling the
ReGenesis Partnership 111

community to identify the broad range of resources available at the federal level covering

everything from transportation to issues of public health is a key part of a holistic approach to

revitalization. Regarding issues of credibility, three interviewees specifically indicated that

federal involvement has elevated the level of trust and credibility surrounding the project. Along

these lines, another explained that having federal partners has helped the partnership earn the

trust of banks in the area. Additionally, the interviewee noted that having federal partners

involved helps to better ensure that money allocated for partnership activities does not get

misspent. Also related, but more intangible, one interviewee noted that having federal partners

involved helps provide a national presence and a direct connection with Washington, D.C.

Finally, one interviewee noted that having the federal partners involved “has been one of those

uplifting, empowering things for the community.”

When asked what federal partners have gained by participating in the ReGenesis

Partnership, most interviewees indicated that they gained a better knowledge of the community.

Specifically, they learned about specific threats that the community faced, such as the Arkwright

Dump. In addition, federal partners have learned more about how to effectively work with

communities and design policies that better meet the needs of local people. For instance, one

interviewee remarked that involvement in Spartanburg has helped the interviewee’s agency

better appreciate that the source of true collaborative problem solving is at the local level. In

addition, interviewees noted that federal partners have learned more about issues of

environmental justice and how to address them. One agency representative noted that before

becoming involved in this project, the interviewee did not fully appreciate the disparities facing

minority communities. In fact, before getting involved in the project, the interviewee typically

assumed that communities would look to federal agencies if they had problems. But

involvement in this community project enabled the interviewee to more fully appreciate how

some communities have lost full trust in the government to assist them. Other interviewees

noted that involvement in the ReGenesis project has helped federal partners gain the good will

of the community, learn how to think innovatively, and better appreciate that communities with

significant environmental problems may still be unidentified.

When asked whether Federal agencies have been able to better coordinate their

activities as a result of their involvement in the ReGenesis Partnership, most found it difficult to

answer, especially since EPA has been the federal agency most visible in Spartanburg.

Although three out of the eight interviewees who addressed this issue felt that EPA was doing a

good job in its coordination both with the City and the community, most interviewees were

unclear whether better federal coordination across different federal agencies has occurred. One

interviewee explained that towards the beginning of the partnership, several agencies indicated

they had resources to contribute; however, since that time it has appeared that many of these

same federal agencies have disengaged. This observation was also echoed by another

interviewee’s statement. Finally, one interviewee felt that having federal partners involved has

resulted in better coordination, mainly through improved understanding of the different agencies

resources, but that agencies still have a lot to learn in this area.

Interviewees were also asked what federal agencies could do to be more effective

partners in local collaborative efforts. The first set of recommendations centered on how

agencies should interact with communities. These included getting involved early on in the

partnership, meeting with the affected community at the ground level, genuinely listening to

community concerns, and ensuring that agency representatives possess sufficient maturity,

skill, and community involvement experience to participate effectively. One interviewee

remarked that it requires significant effort to undo damage resulting from actions taken, or

comments made, by agency representatives inexperienced in community work.
112 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

Another set of recommendations focused on how agencies promote and make their

resources available. Two interviewees suggested that federal agencies should do a better job

of disseminating information about applying for funding. Another suggested that agencies

should make community focused resources more user-friendly. Citing the former Livable

Communities initiative as a model, this interviewee 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 should then be

listed in a directory, similar to what the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice

(IWG) currently makes available describing federal contacts. Other suggestions regarding this

topic included making one agency serve as a lead agency for directing interested communities

to resources available at other agencies, and requiring that each agency involved in a

partnership use only one person to work directly with the community. One local interviewee

explained that it was intimidating to try and understand the different work EPA was trying to do

in Spartanburg. The interviewee further explained that with three-four different points of contact

at EPA, it made it that much more difficult to understand all the actions being undertaken.

Echoing this sentiment, an agency interviewee explained that EPA was working to ensure better

internal coordination at EPA of all those that were working directly on the Spartanburg issues.

To accomplish this, an internal work group has been functioning since the summer of 2001.

The work group has even developed a set of principles to better guide the work of the group.

Other recommendations to improve how federal agencies work in partnerships include sharing

the stories of these efforts around EPA more regularly, continuing the IWG, working to learn

more about the different resources that each agency has available, and requiring that more than

one federal agency be involved local partnerships in order to develop a fuller picture of

resources that are available.

Key Findings

ß Partners are generally satisfied with the current state of the partnership and their ability

to participate in it. They are satisfied that their interests are being met and are optimistic

about its future activities.

ß Participants would appreciate greater information on project goals, objectives, timelines,

measures of success, roles, and action items from meetings. This would enable

partners to feel confident about their role within the partnership and how they can best

apply resources to support it.

ß Partners are very satisfied with the level of community involvement in the partnership.

ReGenesis has been effective at keeping the Arkwright and Forest Park community well

informed about the actions of the partnership. In addition, ReGenesis ensures that input

from the community will be heard and used to help define and refine the overall

partnership vision and direct activities necessary to implement that vision.

ß Federal involvement played a significant role in helping the partnership emerge.

Specifically, federal partners have provided integral resources and technical assistance.

In addition, by directly participating, federal partners have boosted the credibility of the

partnership effort and raised expectations of the Arkwright and Forest Park community

that the overall partnership goals will be met.

ß Local participation by the City and County has also been critical to the partnership.

However, some partners feel that additional support from the City and County is still

needed in order for the partnership activities to be fully implemented.
ReGenesis Partnership 113

ß Much of the partnership’s concern regarding future activities centers on the investigation

and cleanup of the contaminated sites and the development of the Brownfields

comprehensive plan. EPA has not yet made final decisions regarding the cleanups of

the Arkwright Dump and fertilizer plant sites. Although expectations are that cleanup

issues will be resolved, several activities must be put on hold until key decisions

regarding the sites are made. Another key component is the development of a

comprehensive plan for the area. This plan will help better define the overall vision of

the partnership, but until a final plan can be completed and agreed to, few revitalization

efforts can proceed.

ß Unresolved disputes, between ReGenesis and Rhodia, and between ReGenesis and

IMC, could adversely impact the effectiveness of the partnership in the future. However,

few partners believe that these disputes will significantly detract from the partnership

achieving its overall cleanup and revitalization goals.

Afterword

After interviewees had the opportunity to review the first draft of this case study, a

member of the ReGenesis Partnership’s steering committee submitted an update regarding

activities of the partnership since March 2002. These are summarized briefly below. First, over

100 partners are now involved in the ReGenesis Partnership effort. Second, the ReGenesis

Partnership has been awarded a $230,000 Ford Foundation grant; and a $1.2 million U.S.

Senate appropriation for transportation development (U.S. Senator Ernest F. Hollings). Third,

the partnership has been awarded a $250,000 Weed and Seed grant from the U.S. Department

of Justice. Finally, in June 2002, Harold Mitchell was awarded EPA’s National "Citizens

Excellence in Community Involvement Award."279
114

List of Interviewees

Barrio Logan Partnership

Don Ames~ California Air Resources Board

Norma Chavez Metropolitan Area Advisory Council on Anti-Poverty Project

Susana Concha-Garcia~ American Lung Association of San Diego & Imperial Counties

Paula Forbis Environmental Health Coalition

Clarice Gaylord formerly with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Steven Gold San Diego Attorney's Office

James Justus Inner City Business Association

Jerry Martin~ California Air Resources Board

Lane McVey National Steel and Shipbuilding Company

David Merk Unified Port District

Lewis Michaelson Katz and Associates

Frank Riley U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Sonia Rodriquez~ Mercado Tenants Association

Charles "Muggs" Stoll California Department of Transportation

Bridges to Friendship Partnership

Richard Allen U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Uwe Brandes District of Columbia

Brian Christopher Alice Hamilton Occupational Health Center

Gentry Davis~ U.S. National Park Service

Camille Destafny U.S. Navy

Judith Dobbins~ Covenant House D.C.

Christine Hart-Wright Strive DC, Inc.

Linda Jackson Building Bridges Across the River

David Ouderkirk U.S. Navy

Randy Parker~ U.S. Department of Labor

Reginald Parrish U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mike Shannon~ Covenant House D.C.

Maxine Snowden~ U.S. National Park Service

Mike Wallach Anacostia Economic Development Corporation

Babette Williams~ U.S. Department of Labor

Admiral Christopher Weaver U.S. Navy

Metlakatla Peninsula Cleanup Partnership

Jeff Benson~ Metlakatla Indian Community

Garth Beyette Federal Aviation Administration

Robert Deering~ U.S. Coast Guard

Frank Esposito~ U.S. Coast Guard

Jere Hayslett Federal Aviation Administration

Robert Johnson Army Corps of Engineers

Cliff Mahooty U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs

Felicia Wright U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Len Richeson U.S. Department of Defense

Callie Ridolfi~ Ridolfi Engineers

~Denotes that individual participated in a group interview.
List of Interviewees 115

Metro East Lead Collaborative

Chris Anderson East St. Louis Community Development Block Grant Operation

Tony Camillo St. Mary's Hospital

Noemi Emeric U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Dave Eustis Southwestern Illinois Resource Conservation and Development

Blair Forlaw East-West Gateway Coordinating Council

Tom Miller Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Rebecca Perkins Neighbors United for Progress

Deb Roush Army Corps of Engineers

Joan Scharf St. Clair County Intergovernmental Grants Department

Lue Walters Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA)

New Madrid Partnership

Walter Bone~ Great Rivers Alliance Natural Resource Districts

Victor Blackburn~ Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA)

Mary Evans~ Community Facilitator

Gwen Farr Community Health Team

Darvin Green Lincoln University Cooperative, Community Development Corp.

Adrienne Hunter-Wells~ Community Coordinator

Laura McKeever~ Great Rivers Alliance Natural Resource Districts

Rose Minner Community Facilitator/Community Team Member

Althea Moses U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Willie Pittman~ Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA)

Fred Reeves Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA)

Ervin Schaedler~ Great Rivers Alliance Natural Resource Districts

Louise Typler Headstart

ReGenesis Partnership

Doug Bracket Spartanburg Technical College

George Fletcher~ Fletcher Consulting

John Funderburk Upstate Assistant for U.S. Senator E.F. Hollings

Mike Garret City of Spartanburg

Dr. David Goolsby South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

Brian Holtzclaw U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ralph Howard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Kelly Long Office of U.S. Congressman Jim DeMint

Harold Mitchell ReGenesis

Cynthia Peurifoy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Lewis Pilgrim Arkwright Neighborhood Association

Robert Reed~ Councilman for City of Spartanburg

Elena Rush Spartanburg County

James Talley~ formerly Mayor of City of Spartanburg

Jim Trafton Rhodia, Inc.

Brad Wyche~ UpState Forever

~Denotes that individual participated in a group interview.
116 Copy of Interview Guide

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:

ß key factors contributing to project success and challenges;

ß the effectiveness of multi-stakeholder collaborative partnerships to address

environmental justice issues; and

ß 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?

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)
Copy of Interview Guide 117

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.

5. Project Successes and Challenges
118 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

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?
119

Works Cited

Introduction

Daniels, Steven E. and Gregg B. Walker. Working Through Environmental Conflict: The

Collaborative Learning Approach. (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2001).

Gray, Barbara. Collaborating: Finding Multiparty Ground for Multiparty Problems. (San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1989).

Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice, Environmental Justice Collaborative

Model: A Framework to Ensure Local Problem-Solving, Status Report, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Justice, EPA 300-R-02-001,

February 2002.

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.

<http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/ej/actionagenda.pdf>.

International City/County Management Association, Report: Forum on Building Collaborative

Models to Achieve Environmental Justice – May 17 & 18 2001, Chevy Chase, Maryland.

Lee, Charles, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Environmental Justice, Associate Director

for Policy and Interagency Liaison, Electronic Communication, 2 April 2002.

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.

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.gov/compliance/resources/publications/ej/iwg_frn_ej_revit_proj.pdf>.

Barrio Logan Partnership

Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project. Electronic Communication. 17 July

2002.

Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project. “Partnering Session Summary, April

 4, 2001.”

Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project. “Partnering Session Summary,

March 6, 2001.”

Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project. “Partnering Session Summary, May

15, 2001.”
120 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project, “Presentation by Barrio Logan

Partnership,” Forum on Building Collaborative Models to Achieve Environmental Justice

hosted by the International City/County Management Association. Bethesda, Maryland.

17-18 May 2001.

Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project, “Revised Draft Partnering

Agreement for the Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project,”

Distributed at the Forum on Building Collaborative Models to Achieve Environmental

Justice hosted by the International City/County Management Association. Bethesda,

Maryland. 17-18 May 2001.

City of San Diego, “A Strategy for Updating the City’s General Plan,” General Plan, City of

Villages. 2002.

 <http://genesis.sannet.gov/infospc/templates/mayor/goal3.jsp#CityVillage>.

City of San Diego, Barrio Logan Livable Neighborhoods Team, “Barrio Logan revitalization

action plan.” September 1996.

City of San Diego; City Manager’s Office, “San Diego Recognized as Most Efficiently Run City in

California.” 4 March 2002. <http://www.sannet.gov/press/020304.shtml>.

Chicano Federation of San Diego County Inc. and Martinez/Wong & Associates, “Executive

Summary,” Barrio Educational Cultural Activities Complex Feasibility Study – Phase 1.

February 1984.

City of San Diego; Mayor’s Office, “Dick Murphy’s 10 Goals,” 2002.

<http://genesis.sannet.gov/infospc/templates/mayor/10goals.jsp>.

Concha-Garcia, Susanna, Tobacco & Environmental Health; American Lung Association of San

Diego & Imperial Counties, Electronic Communication. 23 April 2002.

Delgado, Kevin, “A Turning Point: The Conception and Realization of Chicano Park,” The

Journal of San Diego History. Winter 1998, Volume 44, Number 1.

<http://sandiegohistory.org/journal/98winter/chicano.htm>.

Forbis, Paula, Environmental Health Coalition, Electronic Communication. 17 July 2002.

Forbis, Paula, Environmental Health Coalition, Electronic Communication. 30 August 2002.

Pacific Institute, Lisa Owens-Viani and Arlene K. Wong, “Brownfields in Barrio Logan: New

Word for an Old Idea,” in Brownfields Redevelopment: Meeting the Challenge of

Community Participation. May 2000.

U.S. Census Bureau, “Table QT-P3: Race and Hispanic or Latino–San Diego city, California,”

Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. 17 April 2002.

<http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Environmental Health Coalition, Letter to

potential partners for the Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project.

San Diego, California. 9 January 2001.
Works Cited 121

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Interagency Environmental Justice Demonstration

Projects: An Interim Report. December 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Fact Sheet: Integrated Federal Interagency

Environmental Justice Action Agenda.” November 2000. <http://www.epa.gov/oeca>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 9, “Fact Sheet: Barrio Logan Environmental

Justice Project.” 13 November 2000.

Bridges to Friendship Partnership

Bridges to Friendship Partnership, “Columbia Rising: A Series of Community Dialogues

Approach.” 7 May 2001.

Bridges to Friendship Partnership, “Vision, Mission, and Statement of Purpose,” Memorandum.

4 June 2001.

Fountain, W.J., “Ward 8 In Profile: After Long Slide, Hope Peeks From Ruin,”

Washingtonpost.com. 28 May 1998.

Global Environment & Technology Foundation, “Bridges to Friendship Overview,” Bridges to

Friendship. 7 July 1998.

Global Environmental & Technology Foundation, “Community Empowerment Strategic Plan

Outline,” Bridges to Friendship. 10 July 1998.

Government of District of Columbia; Office of Planning, “Anacostia Waterfront Initiative,”

Welcome to Washington District of Columbia. 22 May 2002.

<http://www.planning.dc.gov/project/waterfront/index.shtm>.

Halnon, Mary, “Opportunity: Race in Anacostia through the Civil War,” Crossing the River; Race,

Geography, and the Federal Government in Anacostia. 21 May 2002.

<http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/ANACOSTIA/early.html>.

Halnon, Mary, “The Changing Face of Anacostia: Public Housing and Urban Renewal,”

Crossing the river; Race, Geography, and the Federal Government in Anacostia. 21 May

2002. <http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/ANACOSTIA/public.html>.

Ouderkirk, David, Naval District Washington; Executive Director, Bridges to Friendship,

Electronic Communication. 21 January 2003.

Ouderkirk, David, Naval District Washington; Executive Director, Bridges to Friendship, Phone

Interview. 21 January 2003.

Southwest Neighborhood Assembly, Inc., “History of Southwest DC.” 14 May 2002.

 <www.swdc.org/history.htm>.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “HUD Helps Create Jobs and Revitalize

SE Washington To Help President’s DC Economic Development Plan Succeed.” 12

March 1997.

 <http://www.hud.gov/library/bookshelf18/pressrel/pr97-28.html>.
122 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

Washington, DC: A National Register of Historic Places Travel Itinerary, “Washington’s

Neighborhoods.” 21 May 2002. <Http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/wash/dcneighbor.htm>.

Metlakatla Peninsula Cleanup Partnership

Alaska Department of Community & Economic Development, “Metlakatla. Alaska Community

Information Summary.” Certified December 2001.

<http://www.dced.state.ak.us/cbd/commdb/CF_CIS.cfm>.

Beyette, Garth, Federal Aviation Administration – Alaskan Region, Project Manager, Electronic

Communication. 9 July 2002.

Booth, William, “In Alaska, Logging Ban and Local Hopes Collide,” The Washington Post. 15

August 2001.

Congressional Declaration, 48 U.S.C. 358. 3 March 1891.

Federal Aviation Administration – Alaska Region, “Annette Island Cleanup Proposal, 2001-

2006,” Federal Interagency Environmental Justice Demonstration Projects Annette

Island Alaska. April 2001.

Federal Aviation Administration – Alaskan Region, “Annette Island. Proposed 2002 Program.

Operation Clean Sweep, Phase 1 and Phase 2.” December 2001.

Federal Aviation Administration, “Annette Island Environmental Restoration Issues,” Anchorage,

Alaska. August 1997.

 <http://www.alaska.faa.gov/annette/docs/Reports/ >. document 19.

Hosmer, Brian C., American Indians in the Marketplace: Persistence and Innovation Among the

Menominees and the Metlakatlans: 1870-1920. (Lawrence, Kansas: University of

Kansas Press, 1999).

Metlakatla Indian Community and Environmental Concern, Inc, “Metlakatla Indian Community

Annette Island Reserve Comprehensive Development Plan,” 1972.

Metlakatla Indian Community Environmental Justice Demonstration Project, “Meeting

Summary,” 12 September 2000.

Metlakatla Indian Community, “Letter directed to FAA,” 24 January 1995. (Included as an

appendix in United States Federal Aviation Administration, “Annette Island

Environmental Restoration Issues,” Anchorage, Alaska. August 1997.

<http://www.alaska.faa.gov/annette/docs/Reports/ >. document 19.

Metlakatla Indian Community, “Metlakatla Indian EC Benchmark Summary Report,” October

2001. Metlakatla Indian Enterprise Community, EZ/EC Communities. October 2001.

<http://www.ezec.gov/Community_BMS/MetlakatlaIndianCommunitybms.html>.

Metlakatla Indian Community, “1999 Annual Report Executive Summary,” Metlakatla Indian

Enterprise Community, EZ/EC Communities.

<http://www.ezec.gov/99_Exec_Summaries/metlakatlaexecsum.html>.
Works Cited 123

MOU Intergovernmental Workgroup, “Briefing Paper for the MIC Council.” October 2000. p. 2.

<http://www.alaska.faa.gov/annette/docs/Reports/>. document 50.

Pacific Rim Planners, Inc, “Annette Islands –Coastal Zone Management Program. Public

Hearing Draft Report,” Prepared for the Metlakatla Indian Community. Seattle,

Washington. June 1979. <http://unicorn.csc.noaa.gov/docs/czic>.

Ridolfi Engineers and Associates, Inc., ”Master Plan for Environmental Mitigation of the

Metlakatla Peninsula,” Prepared for Metlakatla Indian Community. Seattle, Washington.

Revised January 1998. <http://www.alaska.faa.gov/annette/docs/Reports/>. document

22.

Ridolfi Engineers and Associates, Inc, “Preliminary Assessment. Metlakatla Peninsula,”

Prepared for Metlakatla Indian Community. Seattle, Washington. 10 October 1996. pp.

7-10. <http://www.alaska.faa.gov/annette/docs/Reports/>. document 17.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Fact

Sheet, “Brownfields Showcase Community –Metlakatla Indian Community, AK,” EPA

500-F-00-228. Washington, D.C. October 2000. <www.epa.gov/brownfields/>.

Metro East Lead Collaborative

Belleville News-Democrat, “On Target to Fix Lead Problem,” Belleville News-Democrat. 3

September 2000.

Emeric, Noemi, City of Los Angeles; Brownfields Program Manager (formerly with U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency; Region 5), Phone Interview. 21 January 2003.

Getz, Jim, “Officials Tackle Lead-paint Problems “St. Clair-Monroe Post. 5 July 2001.

Hodapp, Mark, “Group Takes Aim at Youth Problems: Seeing Potential Fulfilled is Goal,” St.

Louis Journal. 11 March 2001.

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.

<http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/ej/actionagenda.pdf>.

Metro East Lead Collaborative, “Protecting Children’s Health & Reducing Lead Exposure

through Collaborative Partnership,” Environmental Justice Action Agenda Presentation.

East St. Louis, IL.

Parish, Norma. “Hospital Tests Children for Lead Poisoning in Metro East,” St. Louis PostDispatch. September 2000.

Penn, Kara, St. Mary’s Hospital of East St. Louis, Electronic Communication. 23 January 2003.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Metro East Soil

Sampling Work Update.” 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics and Office of

Ground Water and Drinking Water, “Lead Poisoning and Your Children.”
124 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

 <www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/lead.html>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Interagency Environmental Justice Demonstration

Projects: An Interim Report. December 2000.

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.

<http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/ej/actionagenda.pdf>.

New Madrid Partnership

“Action Plan: New Madrid county Tri-Community Child Health Champion Pilot Project,” 2000.

Harrington, Mary, formerly with Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.; Personal Communication.

29 January 2003.

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.

<http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/ej/actionagenda.pdf>.

Jason, Dr. Emil, “Presentation,” Sixteenth Meeting of the National Environmental Justice

Advisory Council, Volume II. 17 December 2000.

<http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/ej/nejacmtg/transcript_arl_1212

00.pdf>.

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc -- Mary Harrington and Embry Howell, “Evaluation of the

Child Health Champion Pilot Program: Final Report,” Submitted to: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency; Office of Children’s Health Protection. 30 September 2002.

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/Whatwe_champion.htm>.

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc -- Embry Howell, Mary Harrington, Elizabeth Langer, Sara

Roschwalb, and Rebecca Kliman, “Interim Report and Evaluation Plan: Child Health

Champion Pilot Program National Evaluation,” Submitted to: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency; Office of Children’s Health. 4 August 2000.

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/Whatwe_champion.htm>.

Moses, Altheà, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 7, Phone Interview. 23 January

2003.

“New Madrid County Tri-Community Child Health Champion Campaign Kick-Off Event.” 30

January 1999.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Interagency Environmental Justice Demonstration

Projects: An Interim Report. December 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 7, “Demonstration Project Criteria Information:

Integrated Federal Interagency Environmental Justice Action Agenda.”

ReGenesis Partnership
Works Cited 125

Administrative Order by Consent for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study and Removal, International

Minerals and Chemicals Site, Spartanburg, South Carolina, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Docket No. 01-3753-C, July 10, 2001.

Black and Veatch Special Projects Corp., “Community Involvement Plan. Arkwright Dump Site:

Spartanburg, South Carolina,” Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Region 4. 23 February 2001.

Black and Veatch Special Projects Corp., “DRAFT Community Involvement Plan,” International

Minerals and Chemicals Site: Spartanburg, South Carolina. Prepared for U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 18 May 2001.

Community & Economic Development Department; Spartanburg County, Jennifer L. Vissage &

Elena P. Rush, Cooperative Agreement Work Plan Arkwright Superfund Redevelopment

Initiative. 22 August 2001 (Revised 16 November 2001).

Conley, Linda, “Arkwright points an ailing finger at fertilizer plant,” Spartanburg Herald-Journal,

2 August 1999.

Conley, Linda, “Arkwright residents take steps to revitalize their community Visions for the

future,” Spartanburg Herald Journal. 12 December 1999.

“Discovering Rhodia,” Rhodia home page. <http://www.rhodia.com>. 5 December 2001.

Federal Interagency Working Group, “Sustaining Partnerships through Collaborative Action.”

Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice Brochure. February 2001.

Garrett, Michael, City of Spartanburg; Harold Mitchell, ReGenesis; and Elena Rush, County of

Spartanburg. Discussion Session. 19 December 2002.

Hamm, Tanya Bordeaux, in cooperation with the Spartanburg Area Chamber of Commerce,

Spartanburg: International Flavor, Southern Style. Printed in Mexico. 1999. Chapter

Two.

Holtzclaw, Brian. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4, Electronic Communication,

23 August 2002.

Howard, Jr., Ralph O. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4, Electronic

communication, 29 January 2003.

Howard, Jr., Ralph O. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4, Arkwright Dump Project

Manager, Electronic communication, 13 February 2002.

Norman, Diane. “Lawsuit takes aim at IMC over Arkwright site,” Spartanburg Herald Journal.

(Middle Tyger Bureau Editor), 11 April 2001.

“ReGenesis, Inc.: A Community-Based, Community-Driven Grass Roots Environmental Justice

Organization.” Informational Piece on ReGenesis, Inc.

Rhodia Inc. and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Environmental Achievement

Track. Application Form.” 3 August 2000. <http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack>. 5

December 2001.
126 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

TetraTechEM Inc., "Expanded Site Inspection Report for the International Minerals and Chemicals Site:

Spartanburg, South Carolina," (approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 16

November 2000,

U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, “Health Consultation, Arkwright

Dump,” 26 May 2000.

U.S. Census Bureau, “Population of Spartanburg city, South Carolina,” Census 2000 Summary

File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. 27 November 2001.

U.S. Census Bureau, “Population of Spartanburg County, South Carolina.” Census 2000

Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. 27 November 2001.

<http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4, “Arkwright Dump,” Fact Sheet. January 30,

2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4, Environmental Justice (EJ) “Contributions in

the Waste Management Division (WD), U.S. EPA Region 4 – Southeast.” Mid-April To

Mid-June, FY 2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4, “Fact sheet: IMC Fertilizer Site Update,”

Superfund Program. May 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4, “Fact sheet: Site Inspection (SI) Results:

Former IMC Fertilizer Site,” Superfund Program. March 1999.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4, “Update Fact Sheet No. 2,” Remedial

Investigation/Feasibility Study: Arkwright Dump Site. 25 May 2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA

Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot: Spartanburg County, SC, EPA 500-F-01-

286. April 2001.
127

Endnotes

 

1

Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental

Justice Collaborative Model: A Framework to Ensure Local Problem-Solving, Status Report, EPA 300-R-02-001,

February 2002. p. 5.

2

International City/County Management Association, Report: Forum on Building Collaborative Models to Achieve

Environmental Justice – May 17 & 18, 2001, Chevy Chase, Maryland. pp.7-10.

<http://icma.org/go.cfm?cid=1&gid=3&sid=135> (scroll to “Environmental Justice” and click on “White Paper”).

3

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.gov/compliance/resources/publications/ej/actionagenda.pdf>.

4

Ibid. p. 8.

5

Ibid. pp. 8, 13-41.

6

Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental

Justice Collaborative Model: A Framework to Ensure Local Problem-Solving, Status Report, EPA 300-R-02-001,

February 2002, p. 5.

7

Ibid. p. 5.

8 Qtd. in ibid. p. iv.

9

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council; A Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, “June 25, 2002 Letter to EPA Administrator,” in Integration of Environmental Justice in Federal

Agency Programs: A Report developed from the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council Meeting of

December 11-14, 2000. May 2002.

10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Federal Register Notice on Environmental Justice Revitalization Projects

sponsored by the Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice,” 24 April 2002.

<http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/ej/iwg_frn_ej_revit_proj.pdf>.

11 Charles Lee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Environmental Justice, Associate Director for Policy and

Interagency Liaison, Electronic Communication, 2 April 2002.

12 Ibid.

13 Environmental Justice Collaborative Model: A Framework to Ensure Local Problem-Solving, Status Report, p. 8.

14 Barbara Gray, Collaborating: Finding Multiparty Ground for Multiparty Problems. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Publishers, 1989). p. 5.

15 Ibid. pp. 6-7.

16 Ibid. p. 57.

17 Ibid. pp. 21.

18 Ibid.pp. 23-25.

19 Steven E. Daniels and Gregg B. Walker, Working Through Environmental Conflict: The Collaborative Learning

Approach. (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2001). p. 10.

20 Ibid. p. 63.

21 Ibid. pp. 10, 4.

22 Ibid. p. 11.

23 Ibid.p. 57.

24 Ibid. p. 12.

Barrio Logan Partnership

25 U.S. Census Bureau, “Table QT-P3: Race and Hispanic or Latino–San Diego city, California,” Census 2000

Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. 17 April 2002. <http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet>.

26 City of San Diego; City Manager’s Office, “San Diego Recognized as Most Efficiently Run City in California.” 4

March 2002. <http://www.sannet.gov/press/020304.shtml>.

27City of San Diego; Mayor’s Office, “Dick Murphy’s 10 Goals,” 2002.

<http://genesis.sannet.gov/infospc/templates/mayor/10goals.jsp>.

28 City of San Diego, “A Strategy for Updating the City’s General Plan,” General Plan, City of Villages. 2002.

<http://genesis.sannet.gov/infospc/templates/mayor/goal3.jsp#CityVillage>.

29 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 9, “Fact Sheet: Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Project.” 13

November 2000.

<http://www.epa.gov/region09/features/barriologan/fact.html>.

30 Kevin Delgado, “A Turning Point: The Conception and Realization of Chicano Park,” The Journal of San Diego

History. Winter 1998, Volume 44, Number 1. <http://sandiegohistory.org/journal/98winter/chicano.htm >.

31 Ibid.
128 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

 

32 Chicano Federation of San Diego County Inc. and Martinez/Wong & Associates, “Executive Summary,” Barrio

Educational Cultural Activities Complex Feasibility Study – Phase 1. February 1984. p. 2.

33 Delgado.

34 Ibid.

35 Paula Forbis, Environmental Health Coalition, Electronic Communication. 17 July 2002.

36 Susanna Concha-Garcia, Tobacco & Environmental Health; American Lung Association of San Diego & Imperial

Counties, Electronic Communication. 23 April 2002.

37 Chicano Federation of San Diego County Inc. and Martinez/Wong & Associates. p. 1.

38 Delgado.

39 City of San Diego; Barrio Logan Livable Neighborhoods Team, “Barrio Logan revitalization action plan.” September

1996. p. iii.

40 Ibid. pp. iii, 27.

41 Ibid. p. iii.

42 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 9.

43 Ibid.

44 Ibid.

45 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. 35. <http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/ej/actionagenda.pdf>.

46 Delgado.

47 Susanna Concha-Garcia, Tobacco & Environmental Health; American Lung Association of San Diego & Imperial

Counties, Electronic Communication. 23 April 2002.

48 Ibid.

49 Susanna Concha-Garcia, Tobacco & Environmental Health; American Lung Association of San Diego & Imperial

Counties, Electronic Communication. 23 April 2002.

50 Chicano Federation of San Diego County Inc. and Martinez/Wong & Associates. p. 1.

51 Ibid.

52 Pacific Institute. p. 66.

53 Paula Forbis, Environmental Health Coalition, Electronic Communication. 30 August 2002.

54 Ibid.

55 Ibid.

56 City of San Diego; Barrio Logan Livable Neighborhoods Team. p. 28.

57 Paula Forbis, Environmental Health Coalition, Electronic Communication. 30 August 2002.

58 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Interagency Environmental Justice Demonstration Projects: An Interim

Report. December 2000, pp. 68-69.

59 Ibid.

60 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Environmental Health Coalition, Letter to potential partners for the

Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project. San Diego, California. 9 January 2001.

61 Ibid.

62 Ibid.

63 Ibid.

64 Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project, “Revised Draft Partnering Agreement for the Barrio

Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project,” Distributed at the Forum on Building Collaborative Models to

Achieve Environmental Justice hosted by the International City/County Management Association. Bethesda,

Maryland. 17-18 May 2001.

65 Ibid.

66 Ibid.

67 Ibid.

68 Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project, “Partnering Session Summary, March 6, 2001.”

69 Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project, “Partnering Session Summary, April 4, 2001.”

70 Ibid.

71 Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project, “Partnering Session Agenda, May 15, 2001.”

72 Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project, “Presentation by Barrio Logan Partnership,” Forum on

Building Collaborative Models to Achieve Environmental Justice hosted by the International City/County Management

Association. Bethesda, Maryland. 17-18 May 2001.

73 Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project, “Fact Sheet: Protecting Community Health and

Reducing Toxic Air Exposure through Collaborative Partnerships in Barrio Logan,” Distributed at the Forum on

Building Collaborative Models to Achieve Environmental Justice hosted by the International City/County Management

Association. Bethesda, Maryland. 17-18 May 2001.

74 Ibid.

75 Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project, Electronic Communication. 17 July 17 2002.
Endnotes 129

 

76 Ibid.

77 Ibid.

Bridges to Friendship Partnership

78 W.J. Fountain, “Ward 8 In Profile: After Long Slide, Hope Peeks From Ruin,” Washingtonpost.com. 28 May 1998.

79 Washington, DC: A National Register of Historic Places Travel Itinerary, “Washington’s Neighborhoods.” 21 May

2002. <http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/wash/dcneighbor.htm >.

80Mary Halnon, “Opportunity: Race in Anacostia through the Civil War,” Crossing the River; Race, Geography, and

the Federal Government in Anacostia. 21 May 2002. <http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/ANACOSTIA/early.html>.

81Mary Halnon, “The Changing Face of Anacostia: Public Housing and Urban Renewal,” Crossing the river; Race,

Geography, and the Federal Government in Anacostia. 21 May 2002.

<http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/ANACOSTIA/public.html>.

82 Fountain, p. 1.

83 Southwest Neighborhood Assembly, Inc., “History of Southwest DC.” 14 May 2002.

 <www.swdc.org/history.htm>.

84 “The Changing Face of Anacostia: Public Housing and Urban Renewal,” p. 1.

85 “History of Southwest DC.” p 1.

86 Fountain. p. 1.

87 Ibid.

88 U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development, “HUD Helps Create Jobs and Revitalize SE Washington To

Help President’s DC Economic Development Plan Succeed.” 12 March 1997.

<http://www.hud.gov/library/bookshelf18/pressrel/pr97-28.html>.

89 Global Environment & Technology Foundation, “Bridges to Friendship Overview,” Bridges to Friendship. 7 July

1998.

90 David Ouderkirk, Naval District Washington; Executive Director, Bridges to Friendship, Phone Interview, 21 January

2003.

91 Ibid.

92 Bridges to Friendship Partnership, “Vision, Mission, and Statement of Purpose,” Memorandum . 4 June 2001.

93 Global Environmental & Technology Foundation, “Community Empowerment Strategic Plan Outline,” Bridges to

Friendship. 10 July 1998. p. 3.

94 Bridges to Friendship Partnership, “Columbia Rising: A Series of Community Dialogues Approach.” 7 May 2001.

95 Government of District of Columbia; Office of Planning, “Anacostia Waterfront Initiative,” Welcome to

Washington District of Columbia. 22 May 2002. <http://www.planning.dc.gov/project/waterfront/index.shtm >.

96 David Ouderkirk, Naval District Washington; Executive Director, Bridges to Friendship, Electronic Communication, 21

January 2003.

Metlakatla Peninsula Cleanup Partnership

97 Ridolfi Engineers and Associates, Inc, “Preliminary Assessment. Metlakatla Peninsula,” Prepared for Metlakatla

Indian Community. Seattle, Washington. 10 October 1996. pp. 7-10.

<http://www.alaska.faa.gov/annette/docs/Reports/>. document 17.

98 Brian C. Hosmer, American Indians in the Marketplace: Persistence and Innovation Among the Menominees and

the Metlakatlans: 1870-1920. (Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 1999). pp. 138, 185-200.

99 United States Federal Aviation Administration, “Annette Island Environmental Restoration Issues,” Anchorage,

Alaska. August 1997. p. 1.

<http://www.alaska.faa.gov/annette/docs/Reports/ >. document 19.

100 Congressional Declaration, 48 U.S.C. 358. , “ Annette Island Cleanup Proposal, 2001- 3 March 1891.

101 Pacific Rim Planners, Inc, “Annette Islands –Coastal Zone Management Program. Public Hearing Draft Report,”

Prepared for the Metlakatla Indian Community. Seattle, Washington. June 1979. p. 1.

<http://unicorn.csc.noaa.gov/docs/czic>.

102 United States Federal Aviation Administration, “Annette Island Environmental Restoration Issues.” p. 1.

103 Hosmer. p. 200.

104 Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. p. 1.

105 Federal Aviation Administration – Alaska Region, “ Annette Island Cleanup Proposal, 2001-2006,” Federal

Interagency Environmental Justice Demonstration Projects Annette Island Alaska. April 2001. p. 4.

106 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Fact Sheet, “Brownfields

Showcase Community –Metlakatla Indian Community, AK,” EPA 500-F-00-228. Washington, D.C. October 2000.

<www.epa.gov/brownfields/>.

107 Ibid.

108 Ibid.

109 Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. p. 29.
130 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

 

110 Metlakatla Indian Community and Environmental Concern, Inc., “Metlakatla Indian Community Annette Island

Reserve Comprehensive Development Plan,” 1972. pp. 59, 61.

111 Ridolfi Engineers and Associates, Inc, “Preliminary Assessment. Metlakatla Peninsula.” p. 14.

112 Ibid. p.15.

113 Alaska Department of Community & Economic Development, “Metlakatla. Alaska Community Information

Summary.” Certified December 2001. <http://www.dced.state.ak.us/cbd/commdb/CF_CIS.cfm>.

114 Ibid.

115 (1) Metlakatla Indian Community Environmental Justice Demonstration Project, “Meeting Summary.” 12

September 2000. (2) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Fact

Sheet, “Brownfields Showcase Community—Metlakatla Indian Community, AK.” EPA 500-F-00-228. Washington,

D.C. October 2000. <www.epa.gov/brownfields/>. (3) William Booth, “In Alaska, Logging Ban and Local Hopes

Collide,” The Washington Post. 15 August 2001. p. A01.

116 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

117 (1) Metlakatla Indian Community, “Metlakatla Indian EC Benchmark Summary Report,” October 2001. Metlakatla

Indian Enterprise Community, EZ/EC Communities. October 2001.

<http://www.ezec.gov/Community_BMS/MetlakatlaIndianCommunitybms.html>. (2) Metlakatla Indian Community,

“1999 Annual Report Executive Summary,” Metlakatla Indian Enterprise Community, EZ/EC Communities.

<http://www.ezec.gov/99_Exec_Summaries/metlakatlaexecsum.html>.

118 Ridolfi Engineers and Associates, Inc, “Preliminary Assessment. Metlakatla Peninsula.” p. 5.

119 Metlakatla Indian Community, “Letter directed to FAA.” 24 January 1995. (Included as an appendix in United

States Federal Aviation Administration, “Annette Island Environmental Restoration Issues.” Anchorage, Alaska.

August 1997. <http://www.alaska.faa.gov/annette/docs/Reports/ >. document 19.

120 Federal Aviation Administration – Alaskan Region, “Annette Island Cleanup Proposal, 2001-2006.” p. 7.

121 Ibid. pp. 7-8.

122 Ridolfi Engineers and Associates, Inc., ”Master Plan for Environmental Mitigation of the Metlakatla Peninsula,”

Prepared for Metlakatla Indian Community. Seattle, Washington. Revised January 1998.

<http://www.alaska.faa.gov/annette/docs/Reports/>. document 22.

123 “Annette Island Cleanup Proposal, 2001-2006.” p. 7.

124 MOU Intergovernmental Workgroup, “Briefing Paper for the MIC Council.” October 2000. p. 2.

<http://www.alaska.faa.gov/annette/docs/Reports/>. document 50.

125 “Annette Island Cleanup Proposal, 2001-2006.” p. 12.

126 Federal Aviation Administration – Alaskan Region, “Annette Island. Proposed 2002 Program. Operation Clean

Sweep, Phase 1 and Phase 2.” December 2001. p. 1.

127 MOU Intergovernmental Workgroup. p 2.

128 Ibid. p. 6.

129 Ibid. p. 12.

130 Ibid. p. 19.

131 Ibid. p. 14.

132 Ibid. p. 25.

133 See Federal Aviation Administration – Alaskan Region, “Annette Island Cleanup Proposal, 2001-2006.”

134 Garth Beyette, Federal Aviation Administration – Alaskan Region, Project Manager, Electronic Communication. 9

July 2002.

Metro East Lead Collaborative

135 Mark Hodapp, “Group Takes Aim at Youth Problems: Seeing Potential Fulfilled is Goal,” St. Louis Journal. 11

March 2001.

136 Metro East Lead Collaborative, “Protecting Children’s Health & Reducing Lead Exposure through Collaborative

Partnership,” Environmental Justice Action Agenda Presentation. East St. Louis, IL. Slide number 6.

137 Ibid.

138 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Metro East Soil Sampling Work

Update.” 2000.

139 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. 25. <http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/ej/actionagenda.pdf>.

140 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics and Office of Ground Water and

Drinking Water, “Lead Poisoning and Your Children.” <www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/lead.html>.

141Jim Getz, “Officials Tackle Lead-paint Problems “St. Clair-Monroe Post. 5 July 2001. p. 1.

142 Belleville News-Democrat, “On Target to Fix Lead Problem,” Belleville News-Democrat. 3 September 2000.

143 Ibid.
Endnotes 131

 

144 Norma Parish, “Hospital Tests Children for Lead Poisoning in Metro East,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch.” September

2000. p. B+.

145 On Target to Fix Lead Problem. p. 1.

146 Ibid.

147 Ibid.

148 Ibid.

149 Noemi Emeric, City of Los Angeles; Brownfields Program Manager (formerly with U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency; Region 5), Phone Interview, 21 January 2003.

150 Ibid.

151 Ibid.

152 Ibid.

153 Ibid.

154 Ibid.

155 Ibid.

156 Ibid.

157 Kara Penn, St. Mary’s Hospital of East St. Louis, Electronic Communication, 23 January 2003.

158 Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice. p. 25.

159 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Interagency Environmental Justice Demonstration Projects: An Interim

Report. December 2000. p. 35.

160 Kara Penn, St. Mary’s Hospital of East St. Louis, Electronic Communication, 23 January 2003.

New Madrid Tri-Community Partnership

161 “New Madrid County Tri-Community Child Health Champion Campaign Kick-Off Event,” 30 January 1999, p. 10.

162 Ibid. p. 10.

163 Ibid. p. 14.

164 Ibid. p. 10.

165 Ibid. pp. 13-14.

166 Ibid. p. 10.

167 Ibid. p. 11.

168 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 7, “Demonstration Project Criteria Information: Integrated Federal

Interagency Environmental Justice Action Agenda,” p. 3.

169 Ibid.

170 “New Madrid County Tri-Community Child Health Champion Campaign Kick-Off Event,” p. 9.

171 Dr. Emil Jason, “Presentation,” Sixteenth Meeting of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, Volume

II. 17 December 2000, p. II-139, lines 1-9.

<http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/ej/nejacmtg/transcript_arl_121200.pdf>.

172 “New Madrid County Tri-Community Child Health Champion Campaign Kick-Off Event,” p. 9.

173 Ibid., p. 11.

174 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Interagency Environmental Justice Demonstration Projects: An Interim

Report, December 2000, p. 49.

175 Altheà Moses, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 7, Phone Interview. 23 January 2003.

176 Ibid.

177 “Action Plan: New Madrid County Tri-Community Child Health Champion Pilot Project,” 2000, pp. 2, 3, 6, 9.

178 Altheà Moses, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 7, Phone Interview. 23 January 2003.

179 Ibid.

180 Ibid.

181 “Demonstration Project Criteria Information.” p 5.

182 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Interagency Environmental Justice Demonstration Projects: An Interim

Report, December 2000, p. 46.

183 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. 29, <http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/ej/actionagenda.pdf>.

184 Mathematica Policy Research, Inc -- Mary Harrington and Embry Howell, “Evaluation of the Child Health

Champion Pilot Program: Final Report,” Submitted to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Children’s

Health Protection. 30 September 2002. p. 48.

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/Whatwe_champion.htm>.

185 Ibid. p. 17.

186 “Action Plan,” p 5, 8, and 11.

187 Altheà Moses, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 7, Phone Interview. 23 January 2003.
132 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

 

188 Mathematica Policy Research, Inc , “Evaluation of the Child Health Champion Pilot Program: Final Report.” p. 17.

189 Altheà Moses, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 7, Phone Interview. 23 January 2003.

190 Mathematica Policy Research, Inc , “Evaluation of the Child Health Champion Pilot Program: Final Report.” p. 48.

191 Ibid.

192 Ibid.

193 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Interagency Environmental Justice Demonstration Projects: An Interim

Report, December 2000, p. 46.

194 “New Madrid progress report for the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice.” pp. 46, 48.

195 Altheà Moses, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 7, Phone Interview. 23 January 2003.

196 “Demonstration Project Criteria Information.” p. 4.

197 “Action Plan,” p 8.

198 “Demonstration Project Criteria Information,” pp. 4-5.

199 Interagency Environmental Justice Demonstration Projects: An Interim Report, p. 47.

200 Mathematica Policy Research, Inc -- Embry Howell, Mary Harrington, Elizabeth Langer, Sara Roschwalb, and

Rebecca Kliman, “Interim Report and Evaluation Plan: Child Health Champion Pilot Program National Evaluation,”

Submitted to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Children’s Health. 4 August 2000. pp. 2-3.

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/Whatwe_champion.htm>.

201 Ibid. pp. 21-22.

202 Ibid. p. 24.

203 Ibid. p. D-5.

204 Ibid. see Appendix B.

205 Mary Harrington, formerly with Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.; Personal Communication. 29 January 2003.

206 Interagency Environmental Justice Demonstration Projects: An Interim Report, p. 49.

207 Altheà Moses, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 7, Phone Interview. 23 January 2003.

208 Ibid.

ReGenesis Partnership

209 1)Tanya Bordeaux Hamm in cooperation with the Spartanburg Area Chamber of Commerce, Spartanburg:

International Flavor, Southern Style. Printed in Mexico. 1999. Chapter Two. 2) U.S. Census Bureau, “Population of

Spartanburg County, South Carolina.” Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. 27 November 2001.

<http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet>.

210 Black and Veatch Special Projects Corp., “Community Involvement Plan. Arkwright Dump Site: Spartanburg,

South Carolina,” Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4. 23 February 2001. pp. 3-2, 3-3.

211 1) Ibid. pp. 3-2, 3-4. 2) U.S. Census Bureau, “Population of Spartanburg city, South Carolina,” Census 2000

Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. 27 November 2001.

<http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet>.

212Community & Economic Development Department; Spartanburg County, Jennifer L. Vissage & Elena P. Rush,

Cooperative Agreement Work Plan Arkwright Superfund Redevelopment Initiative. 22 August 2001 (Revised 16

November 2001). p. 2.

213 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA Brownfields Assessment

Demonstration Pilot: Spartanburg County, SC, EPA 500-F-01-286. April 2001. <www.epa.gov/brownfields >.

214 Black and Veatch Special Projects Corp., “Community Involvement Plan. Arkwright Dump Site: Spartanburg,

South Carolina.” pp. 3-4, 3-5.

215 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA Brownfields Assessment

Demonstration Pilot: Spartanburg County, SC.

216 Black and Veatch Special Projects Corp., “Community Involvement Plan. Arkwright Dump Site: Spartanburg,

South Carolina,” pp. 3-4, 3-5.

217 Ibid. p. 3-9.

218 Ibid. p. 3-16.

219 Ibid.

220Ibid.

221 Ibid.

222 1) Ibid. p. 3-6. 2) Linda Conley, “Arkwright points an ailing finger at fertilizer plant,” Spartanburg Herald-Journal. 2

August 1999.

223 Michael Garrett, City of Spartanburg; Harold Mitchell, ReGenesis; and Elena Rush, County of Spartanburg,

Discussion Session. 19 December 2002.

224 Ibid.

225Linda Conley, “Fighting to save his community,” Spartanburg-Herald Journal. 19 October 2000.

226 Michael Garrett, City of Spartanburg; Harold Mitchell, ReGenesis; and Elena Rush, County of Spartanburg,

Discussion Session. 19 December 2002.
Endnotes 133

 

227 Ibid.

228 Federal Interagency Working Group, “Sustaining Partnerships through Collaborative Action,” Interagency Working

Group on Environmental Justice Brochure. February 2001.

229 Black and Veatch Special Projects Corp., “Community Involvement Plan. Arkwright Dump Site: Spartanburg,

South Carolina,” p. 3-9.

230 “ReGenesis, Inc.: A Community-Based, Community-Driven Grass Roots Environmental Justice Organization.”

Informational Piece on ReGenesis, Inc. (in Appendix 6: ReGenesis (Spartanburg, DC): Background Materials. August

24, 2000. Ford Foundation Briefing Packet).

231 Black and Veatch Special Projects Corp., “DRAFT Community Involvement Plan,” International Minerals and

Chemicals Site: Spartanburg, South Carolina. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4, 18 May

2001, p. 3-14.

232 “ReGenesis, Inc.: A Community-Based, Community-Driven Grass Roots Environmental Justice Organization.”

233 TetraTechEM Inc., "Expanded Site Inspection Report for the International Minerals and Chemicals Site: Spartanburg, South

Carolina," (approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 16 November 2000. p. 6-8.

234 Michael Garrett, City of Spartanburg; Harold Mitchell, ReGenesis; and Elena Rush, County of Spartanburg,

Discussion Session. 19 December 2002.

235 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4, “Fact sheet: Site Inspection (SI) Results: Former IMC Fertilizer

Site,” Superfund Program . March 1999. p. 2.

236 Ralph O. Howard, Jr., Arkwright Dump Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4,

Electronic communication. 29 January 2003.

237 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4, “Fact sheet: IMC Fertilizer Site Update,” Superfund Program.

May 2000. p. 1.

238 Ralph O. Howard, Jr., Arkwright Dump Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4,

Electronic communication. 13 February 2002.

239 Howard, Electronic communication. 13 February 2002.

240 Ibid.

241 Linda Conley, “Arkwright residents take steps to revitalize their community: Visions for the future,” Spartanburg

Herald Journal. 12 December 1999. (in Background Materials. August 24, 2000. Ford Foundation Briefing Packet).

242 “ReGenesis, Inc.: A Community-Based, Community-Driven Grass Roots Environmental Justice Organization.”

See “IMC Fertilizer Plant De-Construction Activities.”

243 Howard, Electronic communication. 13 February 2002.

244 “Arkwright residents take steps to revitalize their community: Visions for the future.”

245Diane Norman, “Lawsuit takes aim at IMC over Arkwright site,” Spartanburg Herald Journal. (Middle Tyger Bureau

Editor), 11 April 2001.

246 Administrative Order by Consent for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study and Removal, International Minerals and Chemicals

Site, Spartanburg, South Carolina, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Docket No. 01-3753-C. 10 July 2001.

247 Black and Veatch Special Projects Corp., “Community Involvement Plan. Arkwright Dump Site: Spartanburg,

South Carolina,” Ibid. p. 2-1.

248 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4, “Update Fact Sheet No. 2,” Remedial Investigation/Feasibility

Study: Arkwright Dump Site. 25 May 2001. p. 3.

249 Ibid.

250U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4, “Arkwright Dump,” Fact Sheet. January 30, 2001, p. 1.

251 Black and Veatch Special Projects Corp., “Community Involvement Plan. Arkwright Dump Site: Spartanburg,

South Carolina,” pp. 3-4, 3-5.

252 U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, “Health Consultation, Arkwright Dump.” 26 May 2000.

253 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4, “Update Fact Sheet No. 2,” Remedial Investigation/Feasibility

Study: Arkwright Dump Site. 25 May 2001.

254 Ibid.

255 Ibid.

256 Howard, Electronic communication. 13 February 2002.

257 Linda Conley, “Fighting to save his community.”

258 “Discovering Rhodia,” Rhodia home page. <http://www.rhodia.com >. 5 December 2001.

259 Rhodia Inc. and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Environmental Achievement Track. Application

Form.” 3 August 2000. <http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack>. 5 December 2001.

260 Michael Garrett, City of Spartanburg; Harold Mitchell, ReGenesis; and Elena Rush, County of Spartanburg,

Discussion Session. 19 December 2002.

261 Ibid.

262 Ibid.

263 Ibid.

264 Ibid.

265 “ReGenesis, Inc.: A Community-Based, Community-Driven Grass Roots Environmental Justice Organization.”

266 Ibid.
134 Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice Issues in Communities

 

267 Michael Garrett, City of Spartanburg; Harold Mitchell, ReGenesis; and Elena Rush, County of Spartanburg,

Discussion Session. 19 December 2002.

268 Ibid.

269 Ibid.

270 Iibd.

271 Ibid.

272 Ibid.

273 Ibid.

274 Conley, “Arkwright residents take steps to revitalize their community: Visions for the future.”

275 Ibid.

276 Ibid.

277 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4, Environmental Justice (EJ) “Contributions in the Waste

Management Division (WD), U.S. EPA Region 4 – Southeast.” Mid-April To Mid-June, FY 2001.

278 Community & Economic Development Department; Spartanburg County, Jennifer L. Vissage & Elena P. Rush. p.

7.

52 Brian Holtzclaw, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4, Electronic Communication. 23 August 2002.