Going Green -- Youth Recycling

                                                      FINAL REPORT

                                        YOUTH RECYCLING PROGRAM

                           Prepared by:

                        HUNTERS POINT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
                       47-43 Vernon Boulevard, Long Island City, NY 11101

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

     Utilizing funds supplied by the New York Community Trust and the US EPA, the
Executive Director of the Hunters Point Community Development Corporation working
with and through the Board of Directors and using volunteers and interns created a
Youth Recycling Program as an entrepreneurial experience for local youth.

Introduction

     As the result of a most successful prior program to teach youth about Urban
Ecology, the Hunters Point Community Development Corporation (HPCDC) chose to
move the theoretical experience of classroom and field trips to the REAL world of
business practicality.  The Directors of the HPCDC decided that the move by New York
City to recycle offered a reasonable and timely topic in which to involve youth.  In the
process of interesting youth in ecology through recycling we also involved parents,
siblings and friends.   Most times positively yet periodically not.

     Recycling, as a process, is taken for granted in Hunters Point and throughout the
nation.  Someone tells you what to recycle.  Another person picks up and segregates
that which can be recycled.  Finally a "something" performs the task we know as
recycling.  As a mandated task, recycling is oft times ignored and/or forgotten.  The task
at hand was to interest youth in the entire recycling process.  Youth would decide what
to recycle, where to obtain that which they recycle, how to effectively and profitably
dispose of that corrected, and finally develop the organization which once begun could
continue without necessity of future funding.

     The Youth Recycling Program was begun by utilizing the experience gained by
interns who identified the residential and business locations in the community which
generate recyclable materials.  In Hunters Point we located 414 apartments and 615
businesses.  As the NYC Department of Sanitation was to collect from the apartment
resident, It was decided that our window of opportunity lay in the business community.
What follows tells you how the Hunters Point Community Development Corporation
turned opportunity into reality.

MINING FOR REDEEMABLES

     Initially the HPCDC utilized paid interns from the Community Service work
release crews of the NYS Correctional Facility on Van Dam Street in Long Island City,
NY.  Four individuals armed with letters of introduction personally visited each of the
615 businesses listed in our commercial revitalization data base.  Each business was
invited to sign on as a participant in the Youth Recycling Program.

     Visits were followed by a letter from the Executive Director, Dr. Thomas V.
Sobczak, P.E., to reinforce our intent.  Concurrently the then President of the HPCDC,
Santo Anzalone and Dr. Sobczak visited and explained our plans to Deputy
Commissioner of Sanitation for Recycling, Marcia Brystyn.  The Commissioner and her
staff prepared materials concerning recycling for distribution to our entire community.
At a NYC Department of Business Services sponsored Sales Day, June 19, 1993, the
NYC Department of Sanitation Coordinator for the Borough of Queens, explained the
coming of recycling to shoppers and visitors.  She extolled the potential of the HPCDC
Youth Recycling Program.

     HPCDC worked intensively to gain community recognition, continued awareness
of the necessity of recycling and the benefits would could accrue to the youth of our
community.  Business that were "on-the-fence" joined our program.  At one point we
had over 250 businesses involved.  It was than we realized that the scope of recyclable
was so immense as to damage our program by its early participant enrollment success.

     Our first dose of reality occurred when we learned that aluminum must be
crushed and boxed.  Sale of aluminum gained only .30 cents per pound.  Anyone who
stored aluminum can attest to the volume necessary to gain the dollars promised to
youth participants.   Our learning continued when we found paper to pay only $.70 per
hundred pounds.  Again, our limited space and the space required by the volumes
anticipated caused us to rethink our program.  Further, NYC Department of Sanitation
were reluctant to collect our excess as they had trouble disposing of the materials they
were collecting in Manhattan.  Metal salvagers required a minimum of a half ton before
they would pick up scrap.

     Redeemable cans and glass/ plastic bottles offered a reasonable solution.  We
pooled the businesses who had volunteered and found that we could easily collect the
equivalent of $140.00 per week.  At this point we made a conscious decision to collect
only redeemable based on our adjusting for the realities of volumes and costs to
recycle.

ADJUSTING FOR REALITY

     The original concept for Youth Recycling was to have dumpsters at strategic
locations (51st Ave., 48th Ave., and 45th Road).  Neighbors and businesses would be
asked to bring their cans and bottles to these locations.  As the new Executive Director
reviewed this concept he found flaws which would eliminate any potential to create an
on-going program.

     Dumpsters are a reasonable idea until one determines the monthly cost of a
dumpster rental.  HPCDC contacted Corrieri Carting, Crown Carting and Five Towns
Carting.  The monthly rental cost for each one yard dumpster was $75.00.  In terms of
bottles and cans this required 4,500 cans/bottles to be collected and redeemed to break
even.  In terms of crushed aluminum we would need 750 pounds to break even.  In
terms of paper we would need 32,124 pounds.  In modelling a mix we found that the
one yard dumpster was to small.

     Following collection the recyclable must than be segregated, boxed or bagged
and stored for pickup.  A survey of available garage space showed an additional cost of
$175.00 per month for the storage area.  Then we estimated that the cord, boxes and
plastic bags needed to house the segregated recyclable would average another $80.00
per month.

     In total, $480.00 per month was required to operate the program. 

     HPCDC went back to the drawing board and again surveyed the community and
its businesses.  Our survey determined that the collection mix was about 3,000
cans/bottles, 50 pounds of aluminum and 2,000 pounds of paper.  In total income would
be only $215.00.  The originally conceived program was destined to operate at a loss
($265/mo).

     The Youth involved would be working as volunteers as the monies intended for
their payment for participation would not accrue to the program as originally conceived.

CREATING A PLAN TO OPERATE AT A PROFIT

     The decision to collect only redeemable cans and bottles narrowed the planning
task.  Further, the decision to seek resources solely from business allowed focus.  We
now took the list of potential participants and created a map to pictorially depict the
boundaries and volumes of participating companies in our catchment area.

     Using our interns we walked the potential routes and timed the trips.  As Youth
would be walking to and from a pickup we also had to adjust for the volume any one
company might provide.  It was determined that the longest walk was 30 minutes in
each direction.  The average of any walk was 10 minutes each way.  Volumes of
recyclable posed our next problem. For example, CAVITRON on Borden Avenue was a
15 minute walk.  They generated two 30 gallon trash bags of bottles and cans.  This
requires two youth for one round trip or one youth making two trips.

     Once again all potential donors were contacted to determine whether we could
make a pickup more than once a week and specifically what was the best day and time
between 3:00PM and quitting time.  If we were to collect from all potential suppliers we
would require 84 hours per week (14 youth working 7.5 hours per week.  To pay the
youth at the originally proposed $5.00 per hour the program must bring in $575.00 plus
the $80 for supplies.  We had decided to store it in our office space to save money.

     The goal of $625 per week was quickly determined to be impossible.

     HPCDC again rethought the program.  We determined that 75 businesses
provided 85% of the cans and bottles.  At this point we recreated our map and
performed our study of routes and times again.  This new allocation of resources
required only 25 hours per week.  This reduced the youth participant requirement from
fourteen to four.  The combined salary and expenses were now an attainable $230.00.

     HPCDC now created four routes for each of five work days.  We communicated
our schedule to each of the selected participants.  Concurrently we wrote to the 175
businesses who had volunteered and explained our predicament.  In the spirit of
community support about 30 firms offered to periodically drop their recyclable at the
HPCDC office.  These offers were gratefully accepted.  Another 60 firms asked that
should we expand our program, we could contact them as they would like to help out.

     The now firmed up plan involved 75 businesses and would come close to break
even.  Youth Recycling had come to Hunters Point.

TRIALS AND TRIBULATIONS OF YOUTH RECYCLING

     HPCDC now began collecting cans/bottles.  Initially we utilized interns for the
pickups.  This initial effort worked out the bugs in the program before any youth might
be discouraged.  Interns went to visit selected participants with the youth, introduced
the youthful collectors to their target market and helped organize youth actions to
optimize their efforts.  Youth were provided the amount of training and assistance
required to make them comfortable in their entrepreneurial endeavor.

     Youth received classroom training based upon the New York City Department of
Sanitation Recycling plans.  We used collected recyclables to demonstrate the physical
appearance and required packaging.  The selected youth transmitted this information to
their clients.  In this way the HPCDC prevented our client resources from being
penalized by ignorance of the NYC recycling program.  This little extra helped to make
the HPCDC and our Youth Recycling Program better and more appreciated in our
catchment area.  Further, we obtained and distributed the stickers required to be placed
upon trash cans used in the NYC Recycling Program.

     Our first problem appeared when we attempted to crush the cans/bottles to claim
our nickels.  HPCDC contacted Pepsi Cola, Coca Cola, Budweiser, Millers, etc. through
authorized distributors.  We were informed that they do not have facilities to reclaim
cans/bottles.  We were directed to go to neighborhood grocery stores.  The grocery
stores indicated that they did not want to participate as they did not sell us the product.
New York City Department of Sanitation informed HPCDC, after the fact, that they had
millions of cans and bottles as well as crushed aluminum stored on a pier along the
Hudson River.  They had not been able to reclaim their monies.  The Assistant
Commissioner suggested that HPCDC obtain ENVIPCO machines.

     HPCDC contacted ENVIPCO in California.  We were told that each machine
rents for $150.00 per month and that a maintenance agreement would cost $300 per
month for the three machines (aluminum cans, plastic bottles and glass bottles).  We
found ourselves the proud owners of 6,000 redeemable at the end of the first week. 

     HPCDC separated and stored this material at our office.  At worst we utilized
50% of our office space for storage.  Our savior turned out to be Supermarkets General
Corporation.  Their PATHMARK store at Northern Boulevard in Woodside, NY agreed
to give our youth the use of their redemption room for three hours each week.  We used
and continue to use the auto of the Executive Director to transport, once or twice each
week, the separated collection of redeemable product to PATHMARK.  This requires
four 12 mile round trips.  Our first problem was addressed by this stop gap solution.
Those implementing a program as described in this report be advised that the disposal
of donations will pose a major obstacle to program success.

     Our second major problem was keeping youth involved and interested.  Youth in
the Hunters Point Community began working with spirit.  Unfortunately pickups were
required on hot days in summer and on rainy days.  Youth did not find $37.50 per week
for 15 hours a sufficient incentive to continue working.  We found that those most
interested participated in after school activities and were therefore unavailable two or
three days each week.  During the first month we had a two hundred (200) percent
turnover.  At times we were forced to regress and use interns to keep our
responsibilities to donors.  This was accomplished so as not to lose the momentum of a
successful contributor base.  Youth participation continues to be spotty.  We were
deluged with youth in the period from November 1 until Christmas week.  They used the
program to generate monies for Christmas gifts.  During the school holiday in January
few students wanted to work.  The program stabilized in February and continues with a
turn over rate of 25% per month.

     Our third problem came from parents.  They thought collecting "garbage" to be
insulting to their children.  HPCDC utilized the neighborhood fraternal organizations as
support systems to convince parents that honest toil was not necessarily white collar.
As examples, the than pastor of the local church told his youth program and altar boys
about the benefits of work and the local Lions went out of their way to praise youth
involved both to the youth directly, to parents who worked or purchased from their
business and to their fraternal brothers at meetings.  A tribute to our success occurred
when the church youth program began a competitive program.  Unfortunately for the
church it did not succeed.  We learned this when the church offered to sell HPCDC
6,000 cans at $.025 each.

     Our fourth and final problem occurred during the warm weather.  As recyclable
were kept for six or seven days between trips to PATHMARK, the office developed fruit
fly infestation.  This problem was minimized by the use of insect spray and a more
robust program of trips to the PATHMARK reclamation center.  During that warm period
we worn our welcome at PATHMARK thin.

LESSONS LEARNED

     The most important lesson learned was that complete and total planning for
multiple worse case scenarios is basic to program success.  Our original plan, while
creative, was not realistic.  The use of dumpsters which remain unsecured allowed
those seeking redeemable product to take items away, usually in darkness at their
leisure.  Additionally dumpsters are expensive.

     Individuals, like water follow the path of least resistance.  Without a planned and
followed-up pickup few would bother to walk to the dumpster.  Further, individuals
operated in their own self interest.  All private carters contacted indicated that their
experience was that we would accumulate more general trash than recyclable.  This
was proven several times when our recyclable pickup was stored with loose trash in the
firms dumpster.  This forced our youth to carry additional 30 gallon trash bags and
transfer from contaminated containers into clean bags.  We found that a new expense
of waterproof work gloves ($7.95) was added.  We also learned that work gloves
disappear with each youth turnover.

     Agencies charged with recycling are oriented to developing policies which usually
cannot be applied in practice.  New York City Department of Sanitation provided dozens
of handouts and ample advice which did not appear to be tested in practice.  Several
times we provided insight to those who initially offered to train our participants.  While
they knew residential problems they were basically unaware of the problems faced in
the business community.

     Redemption centers are few and far between.  Redemption is geared to a
shopper who brings a dozen cans or bottles.  Unless the redemption center arranges to
handle high volume on a single user only basis the process of collecting nickels might
take as much as four times the length anticipated.  Also, certain days are inappropriate
to redeeming monies for cans.  We learned that the end of the month, prior to the
delivery of Social Security and Social Service payments caused a massive increase of
people cashing in cans and bottles.  We found that homeless individuals tried several
times to steal redeemable product from our youth.

     Not all stores sell or redeem all cans and bottles.  The variety of redeemable
materials is such that 10% or more were not candidates for redemption at PATHMARK.
In each case, we contacted the manufacturer and located his nearest distributor.
HPCDC than cached the specific brand until a sufficient quantity was amassed to
warrant a trip to the specified redemption location.  

      Youth had a different agenda from that which we supposed.  It appears that
manual labor is unacceptable after one watched "Duggie Howzer", "Bevis and
Butthead" or "The Simpsons".  We found that in our community youth had sufficient
disposable income to refrain from manual labor.  Further, parents contributed to youth
disposable funds rather than let them collect "garbage".

     Well treated firms donated consistently.  They went out of their way after a
period of time to package the recyclable in the 30 gallon bags HPCDC provided.  As
youth continued over a longer period of time, firms tended to work with them.  On
several rainy days our youth walked to a pickup only to be driven back to the HPCDC.

     Young females neither applied nor accepted invitations to participate.  We went
out of our way to entreat females of high school age to join the program.  Special efforts
were made to provide minimal walking distance and lighter loads.  We went so far as to
obtain designer paper shopping bags from stores such as Bloomingdales (a contributor
at their warehouse on 49th Avenue) and Lord and Taylor.  In this way people on the
street would not know that the female was involved in a recycling program.  Despite all
these efforts we could not convince any female to participate.  Recycling was
considered not to be feminine.

CONCLUSION

     At this writing the program continues.  All 75 original contributors remain
involved.  About 40 smaller businesses drop off their cans and bottles at our office.
Weekly income allows the operation of the program at a marginal loss ($15-20/wk).
Were we to suggest a program of this type again, we definitely would.  The intangible
benefits of neighborhood resident and business awareness of recycling, youth
understanding of the practicalities of the process and the benefit of physical recycling
bring rewards in knowledge and experience.  The Western Queens Gazette, NY
Newsday and the NY Daily News printed articles and photos of our program.  Columbia
University School of Social Work assigned a graduate student to compile and publish a
paper about our experience.

     The largesse of New York Community Trust and the US EPA are hopefully
rewarded by our accomplishments and this report.