Stakeholder Action Plan:
Vasquez Boulevard/I-70 Superfund
Site
Findings and Recommendations
By
George Weber
303/494-8572 * [email protected] * www.gwenvironmental.com
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Meeting agenda:
• Presentation of findings and recommendations;
• Questions, answers, and discussion;
• Decisions about next steps – if any; and, if so …
• Action Plan, and next meeting.
PLEASE HOLD QUESTIONS UNTIL END!!
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
PURPOSE:
• Over-arching goal: develop a better understanding of how well the
Program process has been working, so that we can get as many
community members as possible to take advantage of the services
offered.
• More specifically:
– Identify additional influential stakeholders.
– Develop strategies for avoiding or minimizing potential conflict
among community groups and individuals.
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Methods:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
‘Action’ or ‘critical’ research;
Qualitative case study design;
Conceptual framework;
Sample -- 20 representative
stakeholders as ‘knowledgeable
informants’;
Questionnaire survey;
Follow-up in-depth interviews;
Follow-up contacts;
Review of documents;
Analyst became participantobserver as facilitator;
Qualitative analysis; and
Write-up of results &
recommendations based on the
conceptual framework.
May 26, 2005
Graphical Representation of Conceptual Model:
Why & How Stakeholders Mobilize
to Address A Problem Collaboratively
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
How Findings and Recommendations Should be
Viewed – Some Qualifications
• Assessment intended to determine perceptions, not ‘right’ or
‘wrong’.
• Language is a mix of paraphrasing, quotes, and comments by the
analyst. Attempt was made to distinguish the latter.
• Analysis is judgmental, analyst’s interpretation
• Conclusions should be viewed as ‘working hypotheses’ – not
necessarily certain, validated ‘Truth’.
• Conclusions are intended for discussion, plausibility should be
weighed. Hope is that these stimulate thought, more discussion
and analysis, and insights for improving implementation
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Of 20 Knowledgeable Informants:
Participating:
•
10 participated fully.
Not Participating:
•
1 declined to answer survey
•
1 answered survey, declined interview
•
1 partially answered survey, then did not respond to contacts
•
1 said they would respond, didn’t
•
1 never responded to any contacts.
•
5 EPA decided not to pursue given concerns raised about PWRA
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Problems & Actions for Improving Program
Implementation Identified:
within context of this assessment, given Site Manager’s
goals, are framed as potential barriers or constraints on Program
implementation.
• Presumably, if barriers are removed or mitigated, then Program
implementation should proceed more effectively and efficiently.
•
‘Problems’,
• ‘Actions’ -- to eliminate or mitigate a barrier or just improve
implementation.
• We are relying on the ‘collective wisdom’ of participating
stakeholders.
• Some ‘actions’ have been implemented as a result of the assessment
process and through progress in implementation occurring during
assessment process.
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Barriers Perceived by Participants and Analyst –
Many of the problems have been addressed –
• Assessment is ‘action’ or ‘critical’ research
• Doing the research starts the process of change
• Some preliminary results provided to EPA, Site Manager responded,
some addressed in WG facilitation
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Additional influential stakeholders were identified:
• EPA, initiating CHP has identified additional stakeholders
(individuals and organizations)
• Assessment did identify some new stakeholders
• Some stakeholder organizations identified, but not
representatives/contacts
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Representation and involvement may have
decreased over time
Potential causes:
• Lack of Working Group meetings
• Absence of key individuals (facilitating, central
positions, boundary spanners)
• Natural phenomena expected given stage of
Program development
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Potential for continuing conflict is present given perceptions of ‘The
Process’
• Legal-administrative and cultural realities of ‘The Process’ differ
• Opposite perspectives of CHP initiative were held by participants
• Perception that overarching process – community representation and
involvement – is faulted
• Desire to customize implementation AND work through ‘The Process’
(Don’t triangulate)
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Potential for continuing conflict is
present given perceptions of ‘The
Process’ –
Legal-administrative & cultural realities of ‘The
Process’ differ:
• EPA & CDPHE CERCLA Program Mangers have
responsibilities and authority
• Others are in advisory or supporting roles
• Culture developed has created expectations of a CD
process (open, equals, consensus decisions)
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Potential for continuing conflict is
present given perceptions of ‘The
Process’ –
Opposite perspectives of CHP initiative were held by
participants:
• DEH described extensive & intensive community
representation & involvement
• Community residents felt left out of award decision &
development process
• If unresolved, potential source of big conflict
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Potential for continuing conflict is present
given perceptions of ‘The Process’ –
Opposite perspectives of CHP initiative were held by
participants:
Speculative questions:
•
Did DEH reach out to others, but NOT CEASE? Or,
•
Did the issue relate more to specific DEH staff and how they worked?
•
Is finding a factor of the limited assessment?
•
Did CEASE fall through the cracks? If so, how?
Look closer at who DEH contacted and how they involved them?
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Potential for continuing conflict is present
given perceptions of ‘The Process’ –
Opposite perspectives of CHP initiative were held by
participants:
Factors helping explain?
• Conflict between legal-administrative reality vs. the
culture that has developed of ‘The Process’;
• Communication problems, and most specifically lack of
Working Group meetings; and
• Absence of less intensive involvement of several key
agency and community individuals during the spring
and summer 2004.
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Potential for continuing conflict is present
given perceptions of ‘The Process’ –
Opposite perspectives of CHP initiative were held by
participants:
• Lesson may offer guidance of how to avoid or
minimize potential conflict in Program implementation
remaining, and in future clean-up programs.
• We may have ‘fixed’ 3/31 & 4/7
• Watch Steering Committee Meetings
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Potential for continuing conflict is
present given perceptions of ‘The
Process’ –
Some may hold a perception that the
overarching process for involving Site
residents, i.e., community representation
and involvement, in the Program as a
whole is faulted
How many think this way? Who?
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Potential for continuing conflict is
present given perceptions of ‘The
Process’ –
Customize implementation AND work
through ‘The Process’ (‘Don’t
triangulate’)
• Are you trying to have it both ways?
• Is this lose-lose?
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Some questions:
•
Should EPA & CDPHE remind Working Group members of legal roles?
•
How would ‘NOT triangulating but working through the process’ affect
the potential for conflict?
•
Should you be explicit that the Working Group is THE main arena -- and
that groups/people need to be involved -- or they could miss out?
•
Should you work to broaden representation again, e.g., recruit folks that
have abdicated from or been ‘pushed out’ of the process’ – or leave it
alone?
•
Should EPA & CDPHE just cut deals bilaterally -- at the risk of stirring
conflict with CEASE and the larger Working Group?
•
Have we planted a solution to this knot?
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Potential for conflict will remain for at least 6
reasons:
• Tension between the legal-administrative & cultural realities will
remain
• Bilateral initiatives by Program Managers
• Competition and differences among community organizations
• DEH may be a competitor, and EPA may have enabled this
• Conflicts and negative affect ARE present among some community
groups and leaders within the site
• Increasing representation and involvement in the Program and
‘The Process’ may increase the potential for conflict
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Alternative action recommendations to consider
• Strategic alternatives
• Tactical Tools
• A simplified view of the Site, its neighborhoods,
and some stakeholders and their relationships –
a ‘bridging approach’ for focusing subsequent
implementation?
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Strategic alternatives:
• Pursue a full ‘community development’ (CD)
strategy
• Do not pursue CD approach, ‘just do it’
• Continue as have been, make no changes
• Tailored and focused implementation of
‘tactical tools’ as appropriate for Program
component and Site social characteristics.
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Pursue a full ‘community development’ (CD) strategy –
emphasize ‘Cultural Process’, pursue principles including:
•
Actively striving to increase comprehensive representation &
involvement;
•
Open process;
•
Consensus decision making;
•
Community members as decision makers, government agencies and nongovernmental organizations as supporting resources;
•
Community members doing as much Program work as possible; and
•
Focus on developing community capacity through completing clean-up.
Ideal seems unrealistic, at minimum, given legal responsibilities imposed on
EPA & CDPHE.
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Do not pursue CD approach, ‘just do it’ -Not realistic – Program needs support and
help of community organizations, leaders,
and residents to be effective and efficient.
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Tailor and focused implementation:
• Some of this is being implemented now
• Distinguish ‘soils’ and ‘CHP’ Program
components
• ‘Weight’ each differently on the ‘CD’ and
network spectrums for now
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Tailor and focused implementation
Soils program seems more appropriate for focused implementation
effort:
• Well developed,
• Clearly in implementation,
• Routinized,
• Primary tasks require ‘big’ organizations with ‘big’ resources,
• When soils are sampled and remediated, isn’t this job done?
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Tailor and focused implementation -CHP seems appropriate for a more CD, broader network approach:
•
Earlier stage of development, still somewhat formative,
•
Not yet routinized,
•
Some of the activities are suitable for community residents to perform,
•
Job isn’t done at end of Superfund
•
Development of community capacity is critical to continue addressing the
problems after EPA
•
You promised!
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Tactical Tools
• Work within ‘The Process’
• Improve communication, and community
representation and involvement
• Continue refining information basis for your
decisions
• Evaluate – ask if you are using all the tools
available to you as effectively as possible
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Tactical Tools - Work within ‘The Process’
• Propose new initiatives to the Working Group
for discussion and feedback?
• Strive for consensus on general principles, and
that details will be developed by appropriate
parties?
• Remind the group, politicly, of the legal and
administrative parameters within which the
Program Managers must work?
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Tactical Tools - Improve communication, and
community representation and involvement
• Proactively facilitate and maintain relationships among
stakeholders
• Rotate each meeting through different neighborhoods
• Conduct each meeting in the evening so working site residents can
attend and participate
• Improve credibility
• Conduct outreach and education redundantly because of the
context
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Tactical tools – Continue refining
information basis for your decisions
• Continue identifying and assessing
stakeholders
• Develop more maps
• Complete matrix of individual X affiliations
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Tactical tools – Continue refining information
basis for your decisions
• Continue identifying and assessing stakeholders
– Continue attempting contact to assess specific
stakeholders who have not participated
– Continue ‘snowball’ sample
– Identify new owners, ‘gentry’ using other means
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Tactical tools – Continue refining information basis for
your decisions
• Make some more maps
– Neighborhood boundaries;
– Parcels of concern and status (sampled Y-N, results – over or
under threshold, remediated Y-N, landscaping completed Y-N,
etc.);
– Household characteristics (e.g., owner-renter occupied;
children under/over threshold; ethnicity);
– ‘Community leaders’ addresses.
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Tactical tools – Continue refining information basis for your decisions
•
Complete ‘contingency table’ – individuals X affiliations (neighborhoods,
organizations, other?)
Purpose is to identify ‘Who is affiliated to what ‘events’, i.e., neighborhoods,
organizations.
– Matrix as is demonstrates a lack of complete data -- doesn’t identify
all affiliations of each individual, and we have not identified a
representative, or contact, for each organization type and specific
organizations.
– Many ‘gaps’ probably could be filled by DEH and EPA-CR staff to
see real gaps.
– Table could be used to assist in targeting outreach.
– Prerequisite for mathematical analysis that could do this more
precisely.
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Tactical tools – Evaluate
• Ask if you are using all the general tools
available to Program Managers as
effectively as possible:
– Elements of ‘power’ in a network questions,
examples:
• Have you established a relationship with all the
stakeholders you’ve identified, and using these
relationships effectively?
• Are you using all sanctions and rewards?
• Are you as credible as possible?
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
A simplified view of the Site, its neighborhoods,
and some stakeholders and their relationships
and how ‘soils’ might proceed
• Maybe this is way for ‘soils’ to proceed.
• Can be ‘experiment’, maybe useful for CHP to use
later.
• Raises questions, needs for additional information, but
focuses these – maybe Program Managers as a group
can fill in the blanks to identify potential ‘bridges’.
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
Meeting agenda:
• Questions, answers, and discussion;
• Decisions about next steps – if any; and, if
so …
• Action Plan, and next meeting.
May 26, 2005
VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan
May 26, 2005