[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Challenging the Pollution Prevention Technical Assistance model




I don't think it's constructive to pose the question so negatively.  In
my opinion, we have found just the opposite in Massachusetts.
Substantial, measured success with direct services and arguably much
less to show for indirect.  Although I'd like to say that it's due to
excellence of our staff, it may have more to do with the fact that the
state requires the tracking of use of toxic materials, so we can measure
the difference between the companies we've helped and those who haven't
come to us - and we see those differences.  We can also measure the
impact of the planning requirements - and we see a big impact.   Toxics
use reporting requirements also make people take P2 seriously, and helps
the P2 assistance program to have an impact.  Another thing I think is
important is the depth of assistance provided.  Onsite, long-term,
detailed assistance that is finely tailored to specific needs and which
involves expertise and indepth research into alternatives and how they
match with client requirements, works better than one-size fits all.

There are other factors that are important, such as who you hire and how
you manage them.  We need an objective discussion of these factors.

What we don't need is a prejudgement of the outcome.  Let's undertake
the discussion with a neutral framing of the issues, so that we can
understand how to measure success and pinpoint the elements that cause
it.