 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
en español | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
Contents: Background and Significance of EJ Issues Research Methodology and Project Design Outreach to all members of the Rural Coalition Pre-Project Landmark Events and Activities Other Projects launched using the CRR Methodology Progress Report and Project Evaluation Federal Legislation and Regulations Overview
of the Community-Responsive Partners in Environmental Health Project This four year Project, funded in part by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), was based on an innovative concept - the establishment of a multidisciplinary, tri - partite collaboration between communities suffering from environmental injustice, scientists from a reputed institution (in this case The Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute (EOHSI) of Rutgers University, NJ), and local health providers. Leaders of these three groups were to form the National Advisory Board (NAB) to coordinate the Project and monitor its annual progress and challenges. The staff of the Rural Coalition was to serve as the facilitators of the entire Project. The end goal was toÊ increase the number of communities conducting environmental justice research, improving the quality of relationships among the scientific, health and affected communities, and improving the quality of research design.Ê The Project was intended to facilitate the process of identifying and remedying health hazards arising from environmental pollution. The main aim was to develop a working plan that could be applied to all communities everywhere, irrespective of their geographical location and kind of problem being experienced by them. As a result, two model areas at geographically disparate areas of the country were selected to apply the Community Responsive Research (CRR) model (link to ppt 1 slide). The two model projects, in an African-American community in Sumter County Alabama located ten miles from the largest toxic waste dump in the country, and in a farmworker community suffering from pesticide exposure and poor working conditions at the US-Mexico border, were selected to test the Community Responsive Research (CRR) model.Ê Research,Ê including health surveys, water testing, and pesticide exposure monitoring was conducted in these model communities. Today, other RC member groups, including Jesus People Against Pollution (Columbia, MS), the Florida Farmworkers Project (Apopka, FL), the Land Loss Prevention ProjectÊ (Durham, NC), and the Concerned Citizens of Tillery (NC) are working to launch similar projects in their respective communities. Background and Significance of EJ Issues The comprehensive nature of the RC project underscored the urgency rural, low-income communities feel to make immediate progress in addressing their long-standing environmental health concerns. Beginning in 1991, Rural Coalition members rated environmental health concerns as their top priority for collaborative work through the Rural Coalition.Ê As the membership of the Coalition grew to 90 member groups working in hundreds of rural communities throughout the nation, environmental health was increasingly not only a priority but an urgent concern.Ê The specific environmental health problems identified or suspected by the communities were wide-ranging. What was clear is that rural communities, particularly those with high minority populations, have become repositories for all manner of environmental hazards produced by industry and the military. Pesticide hazards are prevalent especially among farmworkers, but increasingly for other rural residents. Yet community after community cited frustration at their inability to accurately identify and solve environmental health problems that they have long perceived.Ê Most were anxious to develop not only the resources, but also the background they needed to move towards solutions.Ê The project reflected their call to develop a collaborative project to assist them in acquiring researchÊ skills and contacts needed, andÊ to broker specific relationships with scientists willing to develop projects that are responsive to the communities. Past experience in research and collaboration with the scientific community was almost universally either negative or nonexistent among rural communities. Rural Coalition members--who represent Latino and indigenous communities from Alaska to the Southwest and Great Lakes affected by nuclear hazards and toxic waste, African-American communities in the rural South who are exposed to threats as diverse as toxic dumps, industrial pollution from petrochemicals and nuclear power, and bacterial and other hazards from the expanding poultry industry,Ê Appalachian communities affected by mining, dumping, nuclear research and industry, rural women around the nation working in textiles and other similarly hazardous jobs,Ê and migrant farmworkers exposed to pesticides and other hazards from industries at the border--generally felt their problems had not been evaluated or studied comprehensively by environmental health researchers.Ê In cases where studies had occurred, much of the research was sponsored by the offending industry.Ê The communities had little confidence in the results of such studies which were at times used to oppose organizing efforts of communities.Ê Overwhelmingly, poor rural communities felt that they had been overlooked by researchers. Another problem common to many communities is the lack of local health providers with the interest or specific training to diagnose and treat environmental health problems.Ê In some cases, communities felt providers dismissed patient requests to explore environmental links to specific illnesses, or were reluctant to expose environmental health patterns they or the community perceived, due to lack of information or fear of political pressure.Ê One farmworker group pressured local clinic physicians toÊ receive the training and certification recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency.Ê But they are still working to get the physicians toÊ force growers to immediately release data on chemicals applied to fields where workers have taken ill, as required by law.Ê The intervention of health providers is essential as growers are not required to release the data to the workers themselves.Ê In certain communities, employees in hazardous industries are required to use company doctors, who may or may not have relevant training, and who are suspected of dismissing environmentally-health related complaints. Because so few practicing physicians are certified in occupational medicine, and many of the practicing physicians work for large corporations and are not accessible to the public, the communities most in need of physicians with this expertise do not have access to them. Therefore the project addresses the real need to train primary health care providers directly involved in the communities affected by environmental pollution to recognize symptoms caused by environmental contamination or pesticide poisoning and treat their patients accordingly. Communities felt that better training for providers willing to work with communities was essential, and wider networking among providers and between providers and scientists would be likely to encourage the providers to more accurately diagnose and be more proactive in calling attention to both individual health problems and community health patterns meriting further study. As the Rural Coalition progressed with the development of the project, it also becameÊ clear that previous attempts of communities to work with researchers had failedÊ because the communities and the scientists spoke very different languages. One community, for example, after their conversation with scientists, urgently asked "what is an exposure assessment." Each community also had preexisting perceptions and/or mistrust of the other, or else the communities had simply not found scientists with theÊ commitment and skills to work effectively as partners with the communities.Ê In the process of forming the National Advisory Board for this project, community representatives on the Board also heard research scientists recount bad experiences where communities released research findings the scientists felt were incomplete or misrepresented, or where communities attacked scientists after research on environmental health links proved inconclusive.Ê The Health and Environment Committee of the Rural Coalition became increasingly convinced that by improving communication and networking among communities, providers and researchers, tremendous benefits could be derived. With specific training, community representatives could learn basic terminology and strategies of environmental health assessments, and public health and safety precautions communities may wish to implement. Together with scientists, they could then cogently present to communities the various alternative strategies and research or remediation tools available to identify, mitigate, treat or prevent environmental health problems.Ê The CRR model thus, starts with the community, and involves the providers and scientists in the development and implementation of the project. Because all parties are included in the conception of the project, all would take joint responsibility for interpreting the results.Ê The community, using a model of popular education, as developed by Brazilian educator Paolo Freire and used by the Farmworker Institute and many other community-based education programs, would identify community concerns and priorities to the scientists and providers.Ê Together the group would decide on alternatives to define problems, analyze causes, identify alternative solutions and design and implement collaborative problem-solving strategies.Ê While in some cases, political action may be one of a number of strategies to mitigate exposures, the scientist will know early in the project under what conditions the community would employ that strategy.Ê While training could feasibly be provided for all communities as they came together at the Rural Coalition Annual Assembly, most still had no real access or strategy to find researchers with the skills and interests applicable to their problems.Ê As a national network, the Rural Coalition had the unique ability to assist both the model projects and other interested communities in building skills and relationships. In developing the model projects, it became clear that the scientists most qualified to assist the community, were not necessarily those closest geographically.Ê But the NIEHS Environmental Health Center scientists participating in the project also knew other researchers at their own or other institutions and were very willing to make initial contacts.Ê Because the Rural Coalition and the scientists and providers at the National level were making a commitment to employ their credibility and to transfer their skills to communities, initial meetings between communities and scientists are showing signs of being more productive, and more quickly producing results.Ê Thus, the comprehensive CRR process established communication and training programs which respond to the urgency culturally or geographically isolated rural communities feel to begin effectively addressing problems. This investigation aimed to more quickly improve the ability of these communities to begin solving environmental health problems by developing and testing a model of community-responsive research conducted as a partnership with two diverse communities.Ê The National Advisory Board would collaborate to advance the competency and understanding of many communities, including participants in two model projects,Ê in basic health and safety knowledge and in assessment tools and strategies.Ê Finally, by building effective relationships among networks of scientists connected to Environmental Health Centers, among local providers with their own system of contacts, and among the communities with a long or emerging history of collaboration in the Rural Coalition, the project aimed to prepare many more communities to develop serious and well thought-out proposals for collaborative partnerships to address environmental health communities in at least 5 more of the communities now urgently seeking action. According to the PHS report, Healthy People 2000, progress in improving environmental health will come from emphasizing the prevention of human exposure to agents already released. The Rural Coalition's project thus aimed at empowering low-income, grassroots rural communities of color by transferring the knowledge and training necessary to prevent and/or decrease their exposure to toxic agents which will negatively affect community health. There is a strong basis for rural communities' concern. Almost 95% of the rural population relies on groundwater as the main source of drinking water. Each year thousands of wells are closed because of hazardous waste or pesticide contamination. There is evidence that nonconventional pollutants (NCPs) are a potentially important source of hazardous exposure. These unidentified, unregulated NCPs represent a risk of unknown magnitude. The absence of evidence of their risk is often the result of the failure to conduct research. Hazardous wastes have produced serious effects in some populations. Yet populations who may be at high risk have not been adequately identified.. Scientific data is currently insufficient to establish unequivocally the link between environmental health risks and variables such as socioeconomic status and ethnicity/race.Ê Many rural communities include hazardous waste dump sites, but few of the scale of the mammoth Chemical Waste Management hazardous waste landfill at Emelle, Alabama.ÊÊ The county where it sits is poor, African American, and has the highest cancer and infant mortality rates in the state.Ê Identifying and communicating real health risks would thus both fill a research gap concerning potential exposure to hazardous waste and meet the needs of this community to understand what potential health problems they have already identified may be related to environmental pollution. This was thus the first time that this community and others like it had access to a partnership with scientists who can begin to address the perceived needs of the community. Agricultural workers have an annual death rate five times greater than the national rate for all occupations combined. The magnitude of pesticide exposures and their impact on the health of farmworkers are not known, particularly among ethnic minorities. Minorities are more likely to be subjected to adverse agricultural exposures than non minorities. Assessments of acceptable exposure to pesticides cannot be the same as the acceptable daily intake of pesticides from dietary exposure since migrant farmworkers are much more likely to have heavier exposure to the pesticides.Ê OSHA regulations do not cover farmworkers. Research Methodology and Project Design This project built on the previous experience and overwhelming interest of its participants to create effective partnerships among diverse constituencies and enhancing what one community can learn from another in forming partnerships. The advantage of this Rural Coalition project was that while specific training and outcomes could be expected at two model sites, it has the potential to have a moreÊ wide-ranging impact in many different and varied rural low-income communities of color by employing the skills and track record of the Coalition to brokering partnerships for interested member community groups with scientists and providers through the National Advisory Board. The investigation employed a process of training and popular education to build competency, understanding and trust in tripartite relationships among the three diverse groups on a National Advisory Board. The Board transfered skills and trust to assist two low income, minority community members of the Rural Coalition represented on theÊ Advisory Board;Ê one a rural African-American communityÊ at the site of a toxic waste dump, and the second a farmworker population near the border of Mxico, which was intended to build similar relationships on local advisory boards which design and implement specific techniques to identify and mitigate particular exposures.Ê The experience of the model projects in achieving collaboration and competency responsive to the needs of the communities was to be reviewed by the national board and shared with many more rural communities whoÊ suspect environmental pollution as a source of health problems and express interest in the same process. Training conducted annual at the Rural Coalition Assembly was to build competency in assessment and health and safety strategies through annual training of trainers from all communities.Ê Model projects and the advisory board shared progress, perceptions andÊ strategies with other interested communities,Ê scientists, and providers. During the course of the investigation, the Board was to help the Coalition match additional communities with scientists and providers for preliminary assessment of chemical or physical agents, the health outcomes and developing strategies to intervene.Ê Evaluation focused on outcomes of the model projects, levels of competency and trust developed at all levels, the strength and ongoing nature of tripartite relationships developed through national networking, and the number of communities where new projects are initiated among scientists and providers with specific skills pertinent to that community. This project had four components: 1) A National Advisory Board ; 2) a model project in Texas; 3) a model project in Alabama; 4) training and networking to prepare additional communities to develop effective partnerships and projects for their own communities . What follows is a brief description of the four components and a description of methods used in each setting. The Rural Coalition National Advisory Board (NAB) was a partnership between NIEHS scientists, primary health care providers involved in communities affected by environmental pollutants, and Rural Coalition community representatives. It provided ongoing evaluation and feedback to the two model projects.Ê As additional communities presented projects to the Board, it would review projects and match communities with particular scientists with the skills and interest in working with the community. The NAB thus enabled a wide spectrum of isolated low-income rural communities of color access to some of the most renowned scientists with a wide range of expertise in environmental health. Methodology: Popular Education: In the first year of the project, representatives of the Farmworker Health and Safety Institute presented a symposium to familiarize all members of the National Advisory Board, including representatives from each sector in the model community projects, with the process of popular education. This widely used technique, which was to be used by both model projects, attempted to transfer to communities the skills they need to solve problems they experience. The community undertook a participatory process to do the following: 1) Decide how to define the problem. - It was assumed that this may involve specifying what data is available, and what is currently unknown.Ê It may end with the conclusion that there is no problem. Or a community with very limited resources may ask scientists to present several ways to approach the problem, with the costs involved and the likelihood of finding definitive results.Ê In one case, a community of farmworkers decided to commit energy to raising funds to test wells for pesticide contamination when initial results found high levels of contamination in a high percentage of wells.Ê The results allowed the workers to negotiate clean-up. In other cases, communities may decide the costs of the research are too great. 2) Specify how to analyze the causes -Ê Again, the process may be very different from community to community.Ê Collaboration with local health care providers and researchers would increase the range of options available, and help communities understand the relative costs and the time involved. They will also help the communities find out which tools and strategies require medical and research technical assistance, and which can be conducted by the communities themselves. This stage in the process involved the transference of skills from scientists to communities, and aimed to improve their ability to address future problems. 3) Research the Solutions- The community was to review any finding and outline with all partners a full range of solutions. These may involve preventing or treating health impacts through training or medical intervention.Ê Clean-up efforts or improved technology required by law or used by other communities may be specified.Ê The solutions may involve a full range of health and safety training, and/or medical, scientific, technical, political or legal interventions.Ê Again, the participation of the providers and scientists would help communities best assess the costs and community impact in the long and short term. 4)Ê Develop Collective Community Strategies to Solve the Problem -Ê The community, in collaboration with the other partners on the local Advisory Board, would summarize their findings and alternatives for action, and establish priorities for action.Ê Sometimes, immediate training to protect the community would be most important.Ê In others, more drastic clean-up and intervention strategies would be required. If the process was effective, the scientific and local health providers would be willing to support the findings and action alternatives the community chooses, or at least to verify the basis by which they were chosen. Outreach to all members of the Rural Coalition The fourth component of this project was the most unique and the most essential: outreach to engender the process of partnerships and empowerment through training to all the other rural communities who comprise the membership of the Rural Coalition and are concerned about the impact of environmental pollution on their health. Ms. Lorette Picciano-Hanson, Principal Investigator and Executive Director, Rural Coalition, and Rural Coalition staff were to provide all the staff work for outreach to all members of the Rural Coalition. Methods: * Training of National Advisory Board in coeducation * Training at Rural Assembly * Training at Rutgers * Questions on Community descriptions as a first step By the end of this project, over 30Ê grassroots community members who come from high risk communities of low-income and minority populations with a disproportionately high risk of adverse effects of environmental agents on human health would be trained in the basics of environmental health literacy: how to access data bases, how to liaison with NIEHS environmental health research centers, how to map their communities, and how to reduce their exposure. One model demonstration project would enable residents to ascertain whether hazardous pollutants were present and if so, how to reduce their exposure in a low-income rural Afro-American community; the other model demonstration project would demonstrate the effectiveness of providing workplace training to low-income Hispanic migrant farmworkers by scientists and primary health care providers in order to enable the farmworkers themselves to reduce their exposure to harmful chemicals. Another outcome of this project was to use what had been learned from the model demonstration pilot projects to inform other communities with similar needs. The National Advisory Board would closely monitor and evaluate the projects on a biannual basis in order to suggest any mechanisms to strengthen the projects. The NAB would also have a training exercise in process, so that the grassroots community members, the health providers, and the scientists can begin the process of co-education and of speaking the same language. The National Advisory Board would meet once a year. An External Review Committee was to be established to report to the Advisory Board. Training at the Rural Coalition Annual Assembly was to be conducted on key issues in environmental health: 1) how to increase environmental health literacy. 2) how to access the data base and information available from the EPA and other federal agencies, such as NIEHS, National Library of Medicine, ATSDR, state and local governments concerning local environmental and health assessments. If no data base currently exists, how to conduct a house to house survey and create a state birth defects registry. 3) how to set priorities for their environmental and health needs. 4) how to map a community for potential sources of environmental contamination and/or risk. 5) how to do an objective environmental health assessment and design a health survey. 6) how to decrease exposure. 7) how to seek initiation of a process of remediation. The training was to occur at the annual Rural Assembly for three consecutive years. At each assembly, approximately 100 grassroots rural community members would be trained in groups of 15-20 each. Training was to be for one day, with an additional one-day workshop for those who wanted additional training. The training curriculum would draw on existing curriculum available through the NIEHS Worker Training Program and the George Meany Center. Training was to be modeled on the "Lab Test," developed and utilized by the University of Alabama at Birmingham, which incorporates elements of actual field exercises and written instruments. In Years 2, 3, & 4, the two model projects would make presentations at the Rural Coalition assembly. The presentation would be joint presentations with the community leader, the provider and the NIEHS scientist. This training would increase the personal safety of rural low-income community members at high risk, as well as enable those who had been trained to hold community forums in their communities to explain what they had learned. This training process was to be facilitated by the national scope and membership of the Rural Coalition. This training would have a ripple effect because the people who would be trained were geographically and ethnically diverse, yet all would be from low-income rural groups who had been disproportionately affected by high adverse effects of environmental agents on human health. Finally, the Rural Coalition would ensure that its membership of 80+ rural grassroots community groups had access to the communications strategies developed in the course of this project. Commonalities and connections between the two model projects: * low-income, rural, of color, not OSHA-protected * both serve on Board Subcommittee on Health and Environment * History of collaboration - Carlos learn credit from Fed. Merit and Significance: * Empower grassroots, low-income, minority rural groups which have been left out of OSHA protection to identify hazards and reduce exposure to environmental contamination. * Rural groups have been excluded because end numbers so small * co-education model * Brokering between the three parties * Learn applications from 2 model projects in other communities * History of RC collaboration * RC Board involved in every step of this application * Bring the expertise of top scientists to these communities, which have been left out. * Inform the understanding of key NIEHS scientists of the needs of rural low-income minority communities. Pre-Project Landmark Events and Activities: 1988: RC Native American Taskforce worked with nine Indian communities to collect and analyze contamination of groundwater. Achievements: Results proved contamination did exist, allowed members to negotiate with EPA to provide free water and clean up. Training given to local women enabled them to contribute to local capacity building in this field and become certified health practitioners. Research methodology and practical strategies employed during this project were disseminated to 12 other nations and to other areas in the US, thus contributing to the development of a standard body of knowledge and uniform practice in this field. Helped the Rural Coalition itself to identify and clarify its environmental justice objectives and agenda. Allowed RC over the next few years to develop a vision of participatory education and research aimed at assisting rural communities in identifying and addressing environmental hazards and health care needs in conjunction with other communities similarly situated, irrespective of geographical location and cultural composition. 1991: RC Board of Directors Meeting held. The meeting was marked by the formal recognition of the significance of health and environmental issues to the constituent communities, and the need for establishing a strategic planning process whereby all affected communities can collaborate and share their experiences, resources and emerging expertise.Ê Fall 1992: RC Annual Assembly convened in El Paso, Texas. Initial training in the process of community health assessments was provided to the participants. The Health and Environment Committee was also formed as an integral part of the Rural Coalition, thus demonstrating the seriousness with which these issues were being viewed by RC members. 1993: RC established a dialogue with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) on the possibility/ likelihood of putting its new vision / research methodology into experimental usage for a trial period. This marked the beginning of the collaborative process on which the Community-Responsive Partners for Environmental Health Project is founded. February 1994: NIEHS, along with other federal agencies hosted the symposium on Health Research and Needs to Ensure Environmental Justice. The issues, concerns and recommendations emerging from this symposium were similar to those already expressed by the Rural Coalition, thus providing the initial bridging point between these two institutions / organizations for future collaboration. There was an emerging consensus on the need to make government agencies as well as research scientists more responsive to the needs of colored and low- income communities. Capacity - building and empowerment of communities was also stressed. NIEHS Director, Dr. Ken Olden elaborated his concept of "Community-Responsive research," wherein communities are provided active participation in research dealing with environmental issues directly affecting them. This was an important milestone in the recognition of and respect for the abilities and knowledge of local communities, and their capacity to contribute to efforts aimed at ameliorating their problems. Pat Bellanger, the Chair of the RC Health and Environment Committee, also attended, and was instrumental in establishing initial contacts with members of the scientific community. This was thus the first attempt to overcome the underlying suspicion and tension that had marked previous contacts between scientists and community representatives. Certain shortcomings were also identified as instrumental in perpetuating and exacerbating the plight of the poorer communities: (a) the lack of health practitioners with sufficient interest and expertise in the peculiar health hazards faced by colored and low income communities; (b) scientists and community members have significantly different world views or "cultures" - i.e. they have different notions of how the world works, and certain pre - conceptions about each other which have prevented meaningful collaboration between them in the past. So different are these two worldviews that they almost speak separate languages. As a result the input of the communities into the work of research scientists is minimal. Since governmental policy arises out of the results of such research, the input of the communities into the very policies that change / affect / govern their lives is restricted to the bare minimum. Since noone understands their situation as the community members themselves, very often these policies do not address the real issues that need immediate remedial action. AÊ longÊ -term, continuous collaboration between community representatives, research scientists and health practitioners was thus seen as a priority goal of the new EJ focus of the RC. Only then could the underlying causal factors essential for formulating new policies and establishing procedures for action and implementation be identified and elaborated. Fall 1994: Pat Bellanger met Dr. Eula Bingham, a former OSHA Administrator, during a White House meeting on environmental justice. They shared their views on community collaboration and empowerment, and decided to form a partnership between the Rural Coalition and scientists from NIEHS. August 1994:Ê RC Formed a National Advisory Board on "Partnerships between Communities and Federally Funded Institutions in Community Based Health and Environment Assessment. September 1994: The board held its formative meeting in Minneapolis, wherein community representatives and research scientists agreed for the first time to put aside their differences for the sake of their common concern / belief in EJ. They agreed that environmental hazards pose a real and significant danger to human health, and that socio_ economically disadvantaged communities (especially those of color) face disproportionate consequences of such environmental hazards.Ê 1994: Presidential Executive Order on Environmental Justice issued, stressing that government policies need to be more responsive to the needs of marginalized communities. RC was one of the groups responsible for lobbying for this action, thus successfully placing its objectives on the federal policy agenda. 1994: NIEHS Director, Dr. Ken Olden and NIEHS staff attend the RC Annual Assembly in South Carolina. Discussion on emerging partnerships takes place. The research design for the Community-Responsive Project was presented to the RC membership, and approved. The Assembly's focus was on Community- based development. It was established that the best way to encourage economic development projects in low- income communities was through networking between similar communities through training sessions and networking in order to share and transfer knowledge and skills. The Rural Coalition was acknowledged as a central point from which such community group interaction could be initiated and coordinated / organized. On this basis, solid, long- term relationships could be built. It was also established that if such face - to - face contact could be introduced between community members and representatives of the scientific community and health providers, then mutual trust and respect could result all around.Ê Establishment of the Project: Fall 1995: The Rural Coalition, along with three NIEHS scientists - Drs. Eula Bingham, Robert Snyder and Philip Landrigan, elaborated and obtained a four- year NIEHS grant for a research proposal for the Community-Responsive Partners for Environmental Health Project. This was a major vindication of the view, propounded by the Rural Coalition for a number of years, that community - based research and participatory education are the two main transformative vehicles on which future community development and empowerment will occur in the field of environmental justice. Through the formation of collaborative relationships between researchers, health providers and community representatives, the process of identifying health hazards and initiating remedial action will be greatly simplified and facilitated. Moreover, as has been established both in theory as well as in practice, partnership teams are an integral part of meaningful / successful implementation and effective resource utilization. It was also envisioned that once the initial four - year period of this Project was over, the results and lessons of the collaboration, as well as the research methodology itself would be disseminated to and applied in other geographical areas and culturally disparate communities. 1995: As one of the main components of the Community-Responsive Partners for Environmental Health Project, a National Advisory Board was set up to act as the coordinator and evaluator of the NIEHS Project. The primary function of the NAB was to act as the intellectual unit for the Project as a whole. As such, it has labored over the past four years to: (a) find a common language whereby representatives of different disciplines and groups can understand each others' perspectives and world views; (b) achieve mutual understanding of what constitutes a research partnership; (c) clarify the roles of the various partners in this on - going collaboration; and (d) define expectations.ÊÊ The deliberations of the NAB have necessarily been energetic and sometimes acrimonious, due to the nature of the issues being discussed. Annual meetings of the NAB have been convened in Washington DC twice in the past: on March 2 1996, and on March 24 1997,Ê and April 1998. TheÊ meetings were characterized by brainstorming sessions on new ideas and emerging concepts; identification of limitations and delaying factors that negatively influenced the Project outcomes, and possible remedial strategies; evaluation of emerging roles and what form they would / or should take in the future; and identification of possible collaborations, especially with federal agencies. March 24 1997 (Second NAB Meeting): Introduction of the draft "Principles of Collaboration" by Pat Bellanger to NAB members. These Principles constitute a novel set of recommendations of how to structure collaborative partnerships between different groups of actors involved in the EJ Project. The main issues of controversy related to accountability, transparency of research and community empowerment in decision-making. Although the Principles were not approved due to the controversial nature of these three issues, they nevertheless represent an innovative conceptual development in the field of effective policy-making and implementation in the field of environmental justice. April 1998: A major issue of debate at the third NAB meeting was the issue of accountability. Since the NAB meets only once a year, it was agreed to establish a steering committee that would confer by phone at least quarterly. This steering committee was established in order to ensure continuous accountability and contact between the NAB members. June 1998 NAB Steering committee planning session Model Project #1: Sumter County, Alabama: This predominantly African - American community is represented by the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund, headquartered at its Rural Training Center at Epes, located approximately 10 miles from Emelle - the site of one of the largest chemical waste dumps in the US. This dump is owned and operated by Chemical Waste Management, one of the largest, most powerful business conglomerates in the region, and a formidable economic and political entity. The primary research question addressed in this model project was to determine the veracity of the community's concerns that the large incidence of health problems such as breast cancers in the region was related to the chemical effluents from the waste dump. The first steps in determining this were to conductÊ health examinations of the county residents, as well as to conduct scientific assessments of the chemical composition (primarily of metallic contaminants since they have a low deterioration rate), in the ground water. In order to ensure maximum utilization of limited resources, it was also decided to train community members in the collection and analysis of such water samples. This would also serve to reassure those local residents who had previously raised concerns that water samples collected in the past were not the same as those that were represented in research results. Community representatives from the Federation were joined in this effort by Drs. Robert Snyder and Brian Buckley of the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute (EOHSI) of Rutgers University, and by Dr. Sandral Hullett, a local health practitioner. Every effort was thus made to include as wide a variety of talents as possible in this partnership in order to cover different aspects of the problem in a holistic / comprehensive way.Ê Landmark events in this project: Fall 1996: Formation of a Local Advisory Board, with Cleo Askew of the Federation as the Chairman andÊ Coordinator. This was in accordanceÊ with the envisioned goal of the Project - to provide the community representative(s) with a leading, active role in the process as a whole. This would also ensure accountability in the whole process of scientific research and environmental health assessments, since the representatives of the community are fully cognizant of every stage of the research process as it unfolds, thus making sure that community interests are never compromised. February 5-6 1996; April 12-13 1996; October 11-12 1996; and June 6-7 1997: Training activities under the aegis of EOHSI scientists were conducted amongst county residents in collaboration with the local advisory board and Dr. Hullett. Dr. Snyder in particular was involved in this on-site community outreach / education effort. Cleo Askew simultaneously received formal training at EOHSI labs on the correct procedure for collecting and analyzing water samples. July - August 1996: Dr. Hullett underwent an environmental and occupational clinical residency at EOHSI, which provided an ideal opportunity for EOHSI scientists and her to exchange views regarding their special areas of interest with respect to the Project. Following her training, Dr. Hullett was invited to join EOHSI. February 24, 1998: RC Health and EnvironmentÊ Meeting convened at Epes, Alabama. Participants reviewed the status of the Community-Responsive Partners Project so far. Project goals as a whole were identified as including water sampling, medical exams of at least 100 people, community education, youth involvement, and Dr. Hullett's Morbidity study of Sumter and Greene Counties, Alabama. Summer 1999: Environmental Health Fair organized by the Local Advisory Board and Dr. Hullett at the Geiger Junior High School. This is a significant milestone in the process of educating the local residents about the nature of environmental hazards facing them and how to deal with them in response. A special youth demonstration / workshop will be conducted by Dr. Brian Buckley for the high school students. Speakers from the State Health Department, Chemical Waste Management and residents from areas around the landfill will also attend this health fair. This is the manifestation of stage two of the research model: dissemination of the data collected so far amongst the affected communities, thus ensuring the transparency of the whole process. This would also be an ideal opportunity for gathering feedback on the work done so far from the community as well as to identify further areas of concern requiring future action. A similar, extended program is being considered for the fall of this year. Model Project #2: The Binational Project: The major research question here was how to determine the extent of pesticide contamination to which migrant farmworkers from the US and Mexico were exposed while working in the Chili fields in El Paso, Texas. Data collection in this case was envisioned to be extremely difficult due to the fact that the sample population was always on the move, was subject to multiple exposures, and that most of these exposures are of a cumulative nature, leading to chronic health problems which manifested themselves after variable periods of time. In this case, therefore, the input of the local community representatives, particularly from the Sin Fronteras Organizing Project (SFOP), with Carlos Marentes as its spokesperson, was essential for the success of the project. The collaboration of EOHSI scientist Dr. Mark Robson, and Dr. Beatriz Gomez, a local health provider from Chihuahua, Mexico, was also secured.Ê Other significant actors include Dr. Elva Villanueva, a local health provider at Sin Fronteras, Dr. Mary Ann Smith, a Toxicologist, and Dr. Jerry Poje of the Minority Health Program at NIEHS. Landmark Events in this Project: January 1996: Dr. Mark Robson conducted a site visit to the Border Agricultural Workers Center and the Frente Democratico Campesino in Mexico, wherein the process of understanding the concerns of the local communities first hand was launched. January 1996: Steering Committee for Binational Pesticides / LAB meet at the Centro de Trabajadores Agricolas Fronterizos in El Paso. March 1996: Training held by the Farmworker Health and Safety Institute (FHSI) in El Paso for farmworkers on how to recognize and mitigate pesticide exposure. Since then, regular training sessions have been held by the Sin Fronteras staff in conjunction with various agencies / organizations to train / educate farmworkers about the dangers from pesticides and how to combat them. June 14-16 1996: The first ever Binational workshop on "Collaborative Partnerships with Farmworkers and Families: Pesticides, Agriculture and Environmental Justice on the US- Mexico Border," was held in El Paso, Texas, and Chihuahua, Mexico. This meeting was sponsored by a grant from NIEHS, signifying the latter's' interest in increasing the level of collaboration with the Rural Coalition. RC was also successful in obtaining a grant from the North American Fund for Environmental Cooperation (NAFEC), which has permitted the further expansion of this multi -disciplinary dialogue from the field of pure research into the policy arena. The approximately 80 participants at this workshop represented an unprecedented collection of governmental policy-makers including Dr. Olden, the Director of NIEHS, research scientists, health practitioners and community representatives from both the US and Mexico. The meeting focused on future multi- disciplinary collaborations in the areas of research, environmental monitoring, health surveys, farmworker education and training of health professionals in the recognition of pesticide- related diseases. The main limitations to dealing with pesticide- related health problems were also identified. These included: lack of proper enforcement of existing regulations regarding the safe usage of pesticides; laxity in the provision of basic sanitation to farmworkers; inadequate andÊ descriptions of safe work practices and training documents for the farmworkers; and inadequate record keeping with regard to occupational diseases, which makes the identification of possible trends in incidence and nature of disease virtually impossible. Once these limitations were identified and recognized as posing a real hindrance to the successful implementation of Community-Responsive science and policy in this Project, it was possible for the participants to discuss the next stage of possible strategies to overcome them. The Workshop included a field visit on June 15 to the Ejido Benito Juarez, a Mexican farm community in Chihuahua. This trip offered the participants with the ideal opportunity to understand the concerns of the farmworkers through informal consultations and small group discussions. Brainstorming sessions during the last day of the workshop led to certain significant recommendations emerging from the different clusters of participants. The most significant one came from the community representatives, who called for the establishment of a Binational Commission within the Rural Coalition to ensure that human rights violations against farmworkers are monitored and redressed. This was a significant expression of trust in RC's ability and willingness to look after the concerns of the poorest sections of society. RC's objective of focusing both on accountability as well as solutions was thus strengthened. The Commission was established in the RC the following year, and its mandate extended to cover future collaboration and training in identifying, studying and remedying environmental hazards. October 1996: Dr. Mark Robson and Dona Schneider, an epidemiologist, traveled to El Paso to meet with Carlos Marentes and members of the Rural Coalition staff. After mutual consultation, the group came up with two concrete research plans for 1998: (a) development of a field conditions survey, one the most successful occupational health surveys developed to date, aimed at providing the scientists with an idea of the daily conditions relating to food, water and hygiene encountered by farmworkers in the fields. The respondents all utilize the facilities available at Sin Fronteras, and hence it was the responsibility of Carlos Marentes and his associates to distribute and collect these surveys and forward them to the EOHSI scientists for analysis. (b) development of a pilot project to be put into action during the upcoming growing season. The idea behind the project was to collect the work clothes of 6 - 10 farmworkers at Sin Fronteras and conduct a full - body dossimetry to determine the level of contaminants from pesticides that these workers are exposed to. August 1998: Dr. Mark Robson of EOHSI traveled to Sin Fronteras to begin the process of collecting clothes from farmworkers in order to conduct full - body dossimetry of the amount of pesticide they're exposed to. This simple study design promises to offer valuable information on farmworker exposure to pesticides. Plans are also underway to develop a survey study which would examine respiratory outcomes of farmworkers and attempt to investigate potential work related exposures which may be related to respiratory problems. Furthermore, a survey documenting the basic field conditions which farmworkers routinely face has been administered since January 1998 to all workers entering the SFOP.Ê This is one of the best scientifically designed occupational health surveys in practice today, and the final compilation and analysis of results will be made available to comparable farmworker populations. Target populations for such partnership include those in Florida, where the Farmworker Association of Florida (FAF) will be the main survey administrator, and in New Jersey, where the Farmworker Health and Safety Institute (FHSI) will be the main propagant. The report on the findings of the survey and on analysis of pesticide residue in worker clothing is in the process of completion. Initial findings of survey data indicate that farmworkers are routinely denied their basic rights in the fields of El Paso. Almost half lack access to basic field sanitation as required by federal law, and in some cases, are even denied access to safe drinking water. The survey is thus one of the first to directly document the widespread laxity of compliance and enforcement of health and safety standards, and to begin exploring the impact on workers of such laxity. It is expected that the forthcoming Report will document conditions that Sin Fronteras has long suspected to exist. Further analysis based on the data on crops harvested and surveys dates and data will allow researchers to identify potential dangers from exposure to specific pesticides. While results show that a minority of workers are directly sprayed or areÊ working in fields recently sprayed with pesticides, an overall picture of seasonal dangers is likely to emerge. Early 1999: Dr. Robert Snyder and his associates Dona Schneider, Carlos Marentes and Elva Villanueva plan to co-author a book based on compilations of their "Field Conditions Survey" -Ê a major contribution to the body of knowledge on this subject. This is especially significant since there are, to date, only about seven formal studies conducted on the environmental health hazards, particularly those arising from pesticide exposure, to which farmworkers are exposed.Ê In addition to the above, SFOP continued to host a series of visitors and make presentations to many groups on the concerns of workers at the border. The farmworker groups continued to emphasize the need to prioritize policy changes that would most specifically address the changes proposed by farmworkers themselves. The need to build a solid base of support strong enough to make policy changes feasible was also stressed upon. The Sin Fronteras Organizing Project has also been able to increase its activities in grassroots organization, education and pesticide safety training. In 1998-99 alone, over 70 meetings and trainings were convened and organized all over the region, including New Mexico, Texas and Northern Mexico. Although activity was concentrated at the Border Farmworkers Center in El Paso, the geographical breadth of activity was increased to encompass Epes, Alabama, where an organizational meeting was held in August 1998. Efforts in the field were primarily located at the Farmworkers Center and in the Chihuahua region of Mexico, where the Sin Fronteras staff collaborated with The Farmworker Health and Safety Institute (FHSI) and Frente Democratico Campesino (FDC) in conducting a series of advanced workshops. The primary aim of these workshops was to establish a set of master trainings which would continue the training program after the end of the grant period, thus assuring the sustainability of the work already underway. More workers in the US and Mexico were certified based on EPA standards, with more information incorporated into the training related to standards in Mexico. For example, the pesticides training held at the Sin fronteras Farmworkers Center, El Paso, in September 1998, resulted in 61 participant farmworkers receiving their EPA Workers Protection Standards cards. Additionally, a lot of the training in the Center was.conducted by farmworkers themselves, thus testifying to the efficacy of this program in enabling the farmworker community to better understand the issues which affect it deeply. A regular training program will continue both in the US and Mexico based on these organizational efforts aimed at strengthening the regional network. Efforts to raise public awareness of the contributions farmworkers make to society and the risks they face in their work continued this year following the "Day of the Bracero"event held at the Center in November 1998 . Special attention was paid to the history of workers who labored in the US under the Bracero program in the middle of the century. Numerous other public education and training events were also held this year. For example, a series of meetings was held from February to April 1999 at different locations in Mexico as a collaboration between the FDC and RC member group COSYDDHAC. These meetings, especially those held in San Pedro, Coahuila (March 13), Tlahualilo, Durango (March 14), and Jimenez, Chihuahua (March 20), each involved more than 100 farmworkers. Based on the above review of activities at the two Model Project sites. it was possible to conduct an evaluation of the Project status during the June1999 NAB meeting. ÊÊ Ê Other Projects launched using the CRR Methodology: Columbia, Mississippi Project: March 2 1996: RC launched a partnership between its member group Jesus People Against Pollution (JPAP) and scientists from the University of Cincinnati under the leadership of Dr. Kathryn Brown. An initial proposal was submitted to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Justice Office, to assess whether the increasing occurrence of health problems in a predominantly African-American community in Columbia, Mississippi was related to pollution from a nearby Superfund site where a major explosion occurred in Riechold Chemicals (an Agent Orange producer) in 1977. Mentoring for this project was provided by the Federation of Southern Cooperatives in Sumter Alabama, in accordance with the original contention of the RC research design -- that communities, once trained, can disseminate their knowledge and experience to other, similarly situated communities. The proposal included specific action such as evaluation of the level of contamination at residential areas near the Superfund site; develop a health surveillance and epidemiological survey plan for the area residents; and develop a strategy to place JPAP as an integral member of the decision-making body in that area. Plans are also underway for determining how to safely and effectively move the residents from the area to a safer location. The EPA is still reviewing this proposal. February 1997: JPAP received an award from the National Award Council for Environmental Sustainability for its outstanding work in leadership development and environmental education. Early 1999: RC sponsored a week- long lab training session for JPAP Executive Director, Charlotte Keys, at EOHSI in New Jersey. This will enable Ms. Keys to further train her Associates in Columbia, Mississippi on the methods of identifying and analyzing chemical contaminants in ground water. The Landloss Prevention Project/Concerned Citizens of Tillery: January 1996 LLPP submitted an NIEHS EJ research proposal relating to the issue of hog waste and environmental justice. Concerned Citizens of Tillery submitted one in the same round with Dr.Ê Steve Wing.Ê This proposal was funded and research begun. The two groups colloborated and continue to collaborate. July 30 1997: David H. Harris, Executive Director of the Land Loss Prevention Project (LLPP), a member group of the Rural Coalition, presented a paper titled "The industrialization of agriculture and environmental racism: a deadly combination affecting neighborhoods and the dinner table"Ê to the 72nd Annual Convention of the National Bar Association Seminar on EJ. Based on the data reported in this study, the RC launched a partnership with scientists from Duke University and UNC _ Chapel Hill, North Carolina under the leadership of Dr. Steve Wing, and health providers from the county health department. Together, they submitted a proposal to NIEHS for a project to research and evaluate / analyze water pollution from the large number of commercial hog farms that have sprung up in the region. LLPP has also instituted a draft petition for rule making to be filed with the EPA to issue regulations regarding the proper disposal of the waste products of such large _ scale hog industries.Ê Florida Farmworkers Project: Early 1997: Based on the model developed at Sin Fronteras, the Farmworker Association of Florida, a RC member group, initiated a partnership proposal with FHSI and EOHSI to seek a NIEHS grant to research, evaluate and mitigate pesticide exposure in local farmworker communities. FHSI Proposals submitted Progress Report and Project Evaluation: The timeframe from 1994-1999, during which the Rural Coalition and its partners tested out their original "Community -Responsive Partners in Environmental Health" research model, was extremely crucial. It enabled the participants not only to understand the practical limitations of the model, but also to mesh out its positive aspects so as to be one step closer to a universal methodology (link to ppt 2 slide), applicable to communities in all geographical regions in the future. In order to enumerate upon this statement, a brief review of the project in its individual areas over the last four years would be instrumental. Although many initial expectations, goals andÊ objectives still remain to be accomplished, the positive achievements of the project so far are wide-ranging and long - term, despite the short time frame since its inception. The key issues of community participation and empowerment converged in Dr. Kenneth Olden's concept, articulated in late 1993,Ê of "Community-Responsive research," wherein communities are provided active participation in research dealing with environmental healthÊ issues directly affecting them. This viewpoint was supportive of the Rural Coalition's continuing efforts to promote theÊ recognition of, and respect for, the abilities and knowledge of local communities, and their capacity to contribute to efforts aimed at ameliorating their problems. The significance of Dr. Olden's concept increases when viewed in conjunction with the 1994 Presidential Executive Order on Environmental Justice, which stresses that government policies need to be more responsive to the needs of marginalized communities. The Rural Coalition was one of the groups responsible for lobbying for this action, thus successfully placing its objectives on the federal policy agenda. In Fall 1995, the Rural Coalition, along with three NIEHS scientists - Drs. Eula Bingham, Robert Snyder and Philip Landrigan, elaborated and obtained a four- year NIEHS grant for a research proposal for the Community-Responsive Partners for Environmental Health Project. This was a major vindication of the view, propounded by the Rural Coalition for a number of years, that community-based research and participatory education are the two main transformative vehicles on which future community development and empowerment will occur in the field of environmental justice. Through the formation of collaborative relationships between researchers, health providers and community representatives, the process of identifying health hazards and initiating remedial action will be greatly simplified and facilitated. Moreover, as has been established both in theory as well as in practice, partnership teams are an integral part of meaningful / successful implementation and effective resource utilization. It was also envisioned that once the initial four - year period of this Project was over, the results and lessons of the collaboration, as well as the research methodology itself would be disseminated to and applied in other geographical areas and culturally disparate communities. In its original research proposal, the Rural Coalition had stressed on the development, maintenance and application of a multidisciplinary, tripartite collaboration between community representatives, research scientists and local health practitioners at two locations - Sumter County, Alabama, and El Paso, Texas. This was because one of the criteria for testing the efficacy and uniqueness of the Community-Responsive Partners Project was to apply it to two, geographically distant and culturally disparate communities. The research model is unique because no other research design has previously been applied to such widely disparate communities, bound only by the fact of their poverty and under- representation in national and local policies / laws. This was thus another manifestation of the RC stance that Community-Responsive science is based on certain universally applicable principles that can be used anywhere, for any kind of health disparity issue. Hence, it was envisioned that theÊ application of this model at these two test locations, accompanied by a constant process of review and evaluation, would result in a revised model that would be universally applicable to any community, irrespective of geographical location and specific nature of the health disparity issue / problem it faces. The Rural Coalition was intended to act as the central point from which such community group interaction could be initiated and coordinated / organized. On this basis, solid, long- term relationships could be built. It was also envisioned that if such face - to - face contact could be introduced between community members and representatives of the scientific community and health providers, then mutual trust and respect could result all around. A National Advisory Board (NAB) was set up to act as the coordinator and evaluator of the NIEHS Project, and to serve as one of the vehicles for promoting mutual trust and respect between the partners. The primary function of the NAB was to act as the intellectual unit for the Project as a whole. As such, it has labored over the past three years to: (a) find a common language whereby representatives of different disciplines and groups can understand each others' perspectives and world views; (b) achieve mutual understanding of what constitutes a research partnership; (c) clarify the roles of the various partners in this on - going collaboration; and (d) define expectations.Ê In addition, it has endeavored to: (a) monitor model and emerging projects, (b) monitor the quality of partner relationships (partnership generator), (c) develop new strategic collaborations, (d) develop funding resources, and (f)provide multidisciplinary accountability. The deliberations of the NAB have necessarily been energetic and sometimes acrimonious, due to the nature of the issues being discussed. Annual meetings of the NAB have been convened in Washington DC four times so far: in March 1996, MarchÊ 1997, April 1998, and June 1999. TheÊ meetings were characterized by brainstorming sessions on new ideas and emerging concepts; identification of limitations and delaying factors that negatively influenced the Project outcomes, and possible remedial strategies; evaluation of emerging roles and what form they would / or should take in the future; and identification of possible collaborations, especially with federal agencies. A significant development at the Second NAB Meeting of March 24 1997 was the introduction of the draft "Principles of Collaboration" (link to ppt 5 slide) by RC Board member, Pat Bellanger, to NAB members. These Principles constitute a novel set of recommendations of how to structure collaborative partnerships between different groups of actors involved in the EJ Project. The main issues of controversy related to accountability, transparency of research and community empowerment in decision-making. Although the Principles were not approved due to the controversial nature of these three issues, they nevertheless represent an innovative conceptual development in the field of effective policy - making and implementation in the field of health disparities. Based on the original research proposal, the following results were expected : (a) Lasting inter-disciplinary tripartite relationships: Accomplishments: Access to a diverse network of scientists and communities was established, which allowed all parties concerned to interact personally with each other. As a result, new partnerships and understandings evolved and preliminary relationships were established between scientists and community members, especially at the personal level. This led to the recognition of the modus operandi of different groups, as well as a better understanding of the issues & practical limitations involved in such a venture. At the end of the four-year period, all participants agreed thatÊ the Project did contribute (to a small degree) toward encouraging mutual trust, flexibility and reciprocity between partners. Hence, some of the distrust that that communities feel when confronted with partnership opportunities with scientists was removed. Challenges & Improvement Opportunities: The main impediment to the development of long - lasting tripartite relationships was primarily inadequate communication (link to ppt 4 slide), leading to confusion regarding roles and responsibilities among the parties. This restricted the development of mutual understandings between partners.Ê (b) Identification and mitigation of hazards at model Communities (superior to previous efforts): Accomplishments:Ê (i) Scientific data collected through water samples and health surveys (Sumter County, AL); (ii) Dr. Hullett's training at EOHSIÊ (Sumter County, AL), which puts her in a better position to recognize the health problems arising out of the landfill in the area. Since she's the Director of West Alabama Health Services Clinic, this has placed her in a position to disseminate this knowledge to her colleagues. Thus she's in a very unique position as far as contributing to increasing awareness and training others is concerned; (iii) Dr. Hullett's morbidity studyÊ (Sumter County, AL); (iv) Risk Assessment published by Ejido Benito Juarez (El Paso, TX); (v) Year - long survey of field conditions (El Paso, TX;) Challenges & Improvement Opportunities: (i) Limited resources and opportunities for field trips for data collection; (ii) Confusion regarding roles and responsibilities. (c) Building competency in environmental health assessment through community training Accomplishments: (i) Improved Community capacity building & empowerment, especially due to the involvement of Community leaders in the decision - making process for the Project; (ii) Improved Community self - reliance through education and scientific training. (iii) Provision of computers and training to the Community, especially through the newly- launched Supermarket Program. This program is designed to increase the economic viability of small organic farmers in the U.S. and Mexico through the formation of a marketing and health network through the utilization of an interactive, icon-driven website with up-to-the minute information on markets to link groups serving thousands of farmers and rural residents in the U.S. and Mexico.On April 23-28 1999,Ê RC staff under the leadership of Debra Livingston launched the supermarket program at Epes, Alabama. The key components of this program were the provision of state- of-Ê the- art computers to small farmers and producers and train them in the usage of electronic mail and the internet in order to develop and maintain a network with other producers all over the US and in Mexico. Participants in this training included about 55 representatives of RC member groups from all over the country. (iv) Education and training of farmworkers in recognition and avoidance of pesticide poisoning (El Paso, TX). As a result,Ê farmworkers in Texas are no longer passive victims. On the contrary, they are now aware that an active involvement is necessary to deal with their serious health problems and other related issues. (vi) Reduced apathy among Community members. Challenges & Improvement Opportunities: (i) Lack of a "common language" of communication; (ii) Limited resources and opportunities for education; (iii) Limited supply of equipment & teachers.Ê (d) Initiation of additional tripartite projects, using CRR model and NAB networking Accomplishments: (i) Two - year cooperation between North American Fund for American Cooperation (NAFEC), SFOP and RC for farmworker training (1997 - 98); (ii) Proposed collaboration between Jesus People Against Pollution (JPAP), Rural Coalition and the University of Cincinnati in Columbia, MS (launched 1996). An initial proposal was submitted to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Justice Office, to assess whether the increasing occurrence of health problems in a predominantly African - American community in Columbia, Mississippi was related to pollution from a nearby Superfund site where a major explosion occurred in Riechold Chemicals (an Agent Orange producer) in 1977. Mentoring for this project was provided by the Federation of Southern Cooperatives in Sumter Alabama, in accordance with the original contention of the RC research design - that communities, once trained, can disseminate their knowledge and experience to other, similarly situated communities. The proposal included specific action such as evaluation of the level of contamination at residential areas near the Superfund site; develop a health surveillance and epidemiological survey plan for the area residents; and develop a strategy to place JPAP as an integral member of the decision - making body in that area. Plans are also underway for determining how to safely and effectively move the residents from the area to a safer location. The EPA is still reviewing this proposal. (iii) Several funding proposals with Farmworker Health and Safety Institute (FHSI), New Jersey,Ê and EOHSI were submitted throughout the Project; (iv) The Land Loss Prevention Project (LLPP) and Concerned Citizens of Tillery in NC (launched 1996). These groups submitted an NIEHS EJ research proposal relating to the issue of hog waste and environmental justice in North Carolina. The proposal aims to establish a project to research and evaluate / analyze water pollution from the large number of commercial hog farms that have sprung up in the region. LLPP has also instituted a draft petition for rule making to be filed with the EPA to issue regulations regarding the proper disposal of the waste products of such large - scale hog industries.Ê (v) Florida Farmworkers Project with EOHSI & FHSI, NIEHSÊ and others (launched 1997). This Project intends to utilize the same survey and research methodology applied at Sin Fronteras to detect, evaluate and mitigate pesticide exposure in local farmworker communities. (vi) Participation on the Small Farms Commission of Nelson Carrasquillo as the only farmworker representative. (e) Periodic evaluation and dissemination of results: Accomplishments: (i) Greater publicity for FSC and its EJ activities (Sumter, AL) (ii) Binational Commission (El Paso, TX); (iii) Risk Assessment published by Ejido Benito Juarez (El Paso, TX); (iv) NAB Steering Committee planning session (June 1998);Ê (v) NIEHS Grantees Meetings, (especially on October 26- 30 1997). This meeting was significant because participants reviewed the lessons and challenges of multi - disciplinary collaboration, especially as it relates to front - end project design and a universally applicable research methodology. (vi) participation of Dr. Hullett on the Institute of Medicine (IOM) EJ Committee; Fall 1996: (vii) RC Presentations at various fora:Ê * Fall 1996: SUNY Albany Meeting where RC Executive Director, Lorette Picciano presented a paper titled "Community -Responsive Partners: Perspectives for Rural Health Professionals into the 21st Century". * March 1996: Carlos Marentes and Dr. Mark Robson presented a joint paper titled "Collaborative Partnerships for Farmworkers for Environmental Justice" to the Institute of Medicine's Committee on EJ: Research, Education and Health Policy Needs. * December 6 1996: RC Chairman Carlos Marentes presented a paper titled "Farmworkers and Environmental Justice: An Update on Research, Education, and Health Policy Needs" to the Institute of Medicine's Committee on Environmental Justice.Ê * November 1996: RC members Cleo Askew, Lorette Picciano, Jill Gay, and collaborators Drs. Mark Robson, Robert Snyder, and Ken Olden collaborated on several partnership presentations made at the American Public Health Association (APHA) conference held in New York . These presentations allowed the Association to evaluate the tripartite relationships developed under the NIEHS Project in its community responsive health and environment investigations. * October 1997 : RC Director Lorette Picciano was invited to give the community perspective in an address at the NIEHS 30th Anniversary Celebration in Research Triangle Park,Ê NC.ÊÊÊ Stress was placed during this presentation on the efficacy of the concept and model of community responsive health research developed by RC and NIEHS representatives over the past few years. It was reiterated that this research design was an effective new way of doing business, and was an invaluable tool for future identification of research priorities, community outreach and education, and development of competent tripartite teams able to handle the problems peculiar to different affected communities. * November 10 1997: RC Executive Director Lorette Picciano presented a paper summarizing the status of the NIEHS Project and its findings relating to collaborative research at the American College of Toxicology Meeting held in McLean, Virginia. This meeting was organized by Dr. Robert Snyder, and included other EJ grantees as participants. Ms. Picciano's paper was later published in the ACT Journal.Ê Challenges & Improvement Opportunities: (i) Slow and cumbersome decision - making process; (ii) NAB did not meet enough for smooth facilitation of the process; (iii) Lack of sufficient resources at the RC level for continuous full - time staffing and support purposes; (iv) Changes in Project personnel and leadership at all levels (eg. retirement of Pat Bellanger and Eula Bingham, the formative RCÊ members of the Project). Based on the above summary evaluation, the last NAB meeting recommended that key areas requiring attention in the future include: (a) Communication between community representatives and the scientists on the specific goals and objectives of the Project. This is because each Party to the collaboration ventured into the Project with its own pre - conc |
