1 / 41

Stakeholder Action Plan: Vasquez Boulevard/I-70 Superfund Site

This document presents the findings and recommendations from the VB/I-70 Stakeholder Action Plan meeting, aimed at developing a better understanding of the Program's effectiveness and identifying strategies to avoid conflicts among community groups. The assessment was conducted through qualitative research methods involving 20 knowledgeable informants. The document also highlights potential barriers to program implementation and suggests actions for improvement. The goal is to stimulate discussion and insights for enhancing implementation.

ctolbert
Download Presentation

Stakeholder Action Plan: Vasquez Boulevard/I-70 Superfund Site

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Stakeholder Action Plan:Vasquez Boulevard/I-70 Superfund Site Findings and Recommendations By George Weber 303/494-8572 * gw@gwenvironmental.com * www.gwenvironmental.com

  2. 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!!

  3. 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.

  4. VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan Graphical Representation of Conceptual Model: Why & How Stakeholders Mobilize to Address A Problem Collaboratively 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 participant-observer as facilitator; • Qualitative analysis; and • Write-up of results & recommendations based on the conceptual framework.

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

  8. VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan Problems & Actions for Improving Program Implementation Identified: • ‘Problems’, 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. • ‘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.

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

  12. 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

  13. 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)

  14. 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)

  15. 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

  16. 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?

  17. 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.

  18. 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

  19. 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?

  20. 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?

  21. 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?

  22. 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

  23. 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?

  24. 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.

  25. 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 non-governmental 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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

  28. 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?

  29. 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!

  30. 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

  31. 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?

  32. 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

  33. 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

  34. 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

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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?

  38. VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

  39. 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’.

  40. 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.

  41. VB/I70 Stakeholder Action Plan

More Related