Top

MAPC Artist-in-Residence Program

Written by
Watercolors of shoeprints hang drying on a line
MAPC Artist-in-Residence Program
CHANGE FONT SIZE

MAPC >> Resources >> Project

MAPC

Smart Growth & Regional Collaboration

Artist-in-Residence Program

The MAPC Artist-in-Residence program launched in 2017 as part of the Arts & Culture Department. The goal of the MAPC Artist-in-Residence program is to bring arts, culture, and creativity into the agency’s multidisciplinary planning work with cities, towns, and other organizations. By tapping the talents and perspectives of a visiting artist, the residency aims to infuse arts, culture, and creativity into planning projects while enriching and expanding the creative practice of the visiting artist.

The program has embedded two artists in MAPC for consecutive eighteen-month residencies. The residency of Carolyn Lewenberg began in April 2017 and concluded in November 2018. The residency of Hortense Gerardo began in late 2018 and will conclude at the end of June 2020. Gerardo’s term was extended to account for the impacts of the global COVID-19 pandemic.

In addition to leading a variety of creative projects at MAPC, both Carolyn and Hortense have helped shape the values and direction of the Arts & Culture Department through ongoing reflection, evaluation, and contributions to departmental work planning over the course of their residencies.

More from Arts & Culture

Arts & Culture Main Page

Arts & Culture Blog

Arts & Planning Toolkit

The Artists

July 26, 2017. Boston, MA. MAPC staff photos day 2. Metropolitan Area Planning Council. © 2017 Marilyn Humphries

Carolyn Lewenberg | April 2017 – November 2018

Carolyn Lewenberg is a visual artist with strengths in collaborating with government and non-profit entities and engaging at-risk youth in environmentally-responsive sculptural art-making. Since her time as the inaugural MAPC artist-in-residence, she has expanded her creative placemaking practice and her work with municipal partners.

Learn More About Carolyn’s Work at MAPC
May 15, 2019. Boston, MA. MAPC staff headshots. Metropolitan Area Planninfg Council. Marilyn Humphries

Hortense Gerardo | December 2018 – June 2020

Hortense Gerardo is a playwright and movement artist as well as a professor of anthropology. Her skills in directing complex artistic collaborations, her commitment to engaging performers of all skills and disciplines, and her rigorous training in anthropological research and systems thinking are evident in the creative work she has led during her residency.

Learn More About Hortense’s Work at MAPC
Continue reading...

Upham’s Corner Arts & Innovation District

Written by
MBTA Uphams Corner Commuter Rail Sign
Upham’s Corner Arts & Innovation District
CHANGE FONT SIZE

MAPC >> Resources >> Project

MAPC

Smart Growth & Regional Collaboration

Arts & Culture, Economic Development, & Housing

Upham’s Corner Arts & Innovation District

Managing Neighborhood Change

MAPC’s Arts & Culture department led a multi-disciplinary effort with the MAPC Housing and Economic Development teams to establish an arts-and-culture centered approach to managing neighborhood change in Upham’s Corner. The City of Boston released the Upham’s Corner Arts & Innovation District: Managing Neighborhood Change report on Dec. 10, 2018. The report’s findings support the continued implementation of the Boston Creates cultural plan and Imagine Boston 2030 at the neighborhood level.

Read the Report Here

BACKGROUND

The City of Boston Mayor’s Office of Arts and Culture, the Mayor’s Office of Economic Development (MOED), and the Boston Planning and Development Agency (BPDA) – with support from the Department of Neighborhood Development (DND) – engaged MAPC for this project.

Goals were to assess commercial and residential vulnerability to displacement, identify strategies and best practices for mitigating displacement, and engage in outreach to establish opportunities to leverage the neighborhood’s existing assets (particularly the Strand Theatre) to support neighborhood-based workforce development initiatives. MAPC began work in September 2017 with outreach, data collection, and analysis. The findings were shared in a series of memos submitted to the City of Boston between fall of 2018 and spring of 2018. These memos were consolidated into the chapters and sections that comprise the final report.

A building in Upham's Corner with a p

Upham’s Corner

Upham’s Corner is undergoing changes to its commercial corridor and cultural facilities, creating an opportunity to strengthen the area as a cultural hub. The City of Boston is committed to investing in cultural facilities as part of a broader strategy to stimulate creative community and revitalization in Upham’s Corner.

The acquisition of parcels near the Strand Theater to develop a new Upham’s Corner Branch Library, along with nearby housing and arts development by the City of Boston and Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative, have led Upham’s Corner to the precipice of significant neighborhood investment and change. The City of Boston engaged MAPC to work on this plan in an effort to mitigate the impact of this change on Upham’s Corner residents.

Continue reading...

Accelerating Climate Resilience Grant Program

Written by
A collage of five different images of buildings, houses, the beach, people outside, and a meeting.
Accelerating Climate Resilience Grant Program
CHANGE FONT SIZE

MAPC >> Resources >> Project

Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) Call for Proposals – Now Open!

Go to the Application Section for all of the Information

Accelerating Climate Resilience (ACR) Grant Program

MAPC is working in partnership with the Barr Foundation to accelerate climate resilience in the region by helping municipalities advance strategies that protect people, places, and communities from the impacts of climate change.

The intent is to fund actionable resilience interventions that facilitate long-term, innovative changes leading to greater readiness for climate change. In particular, MAPC seeks to elevate projects that will advance climate equity, regional coordination, and social cohesion.

Accelerating Climate Resilience (ACR) Speaker Series
The Accelerating Climate Resilience (ACR) Speaker Series is open to the public and a space where experts and practitioners from across the country come together to discuss innovative ways to advance resilience strategies that protect people, places, and communities from the impacts of climate change.  

Go to the ACR Speaker Series Webpage

Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) Call for Proposals – Now Open!

Proposal Submission Deadline: May 30, 2025 (5:00 p.m. ET)

The Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) is currently accepting proposals for
15-month projects (up to $50,000) and for 21-month projects (up to $125,000). 

Eligibility
In addition to the 101 cities and towns in the MAPC region, eligible lead applicants also include entities and/or organizations that work in and serve the people of the MAPC region. The organizations are defined as local 501(c)(3) community-based organizations, tribes, and Indigenous communities. Community-based organizations without 501(c)(3) status are encouraged to partner with their municipality to submit an application.

Informational Participation Opportunities
MAPC hosted two opportunities to provide potential applicants with more information prior to submitting their proposals.
Note: These were optional opportunities. Attending either or both was not required in order to submit a proposal. 

Informational Webinar | May 1, 2025
Watch the Recording | View the Presentation Slides
Access the Questions and Answers document

Grant Writing Workshop (for non-municipal applicants) | May 6, 2025

Important Links

Online Proposal Submission Form
Note: If you are unable to access or complete the online form, please contact Van Du ([email protected]) for a fillable PDF version of the form.

Invitation for Proposal
Only for your information and drafting purposes prior to completing the application form. Please download a copy of this form to your own computer.

Meet the Team

Headshot of Van Du.

Van Du
Assistant Director, Environmental Planning
[email protected]

Francelis Morillo Suarez

Francelis Morillo Suarez
Clean Energy and Climate
Planner II
[email protected]

Headshot image of staff member Kat Kobylt

Kat Kobylt
Senior Environmental
Planner
[email protected]

Program Priorities

Blue Icon of an open palmed hand facing up and a leaf above the hand.

Nature-based solutions for climate resilience, such as green infrastructure, climate-smart parks, urban forestry, floodplain protection, and restoration of natural systems.

Blue icon of three people inside of a circle. Along the outside of the circle is a pattern of mini circles with a dashed line between the mini circles.

Contributions to social resilience or cohesion, such as public space improvements, dialogues, gatherings, training programs, and public health improvements, particularly for populations or neighborhoods vulnerable to climate change.

Blue icon of a bag tied at the top with the money "S" symbol on the bag.

Innovative financing or infrastructure investment program models.

Blue icon of a piece of paper with horizontal lines on it. In the lower right is a symbol/shape with a check mark inside of it.

Municipal climate resilience policy; including regulations, zoning, permitting, and inspectional services.

Blue incon of a vehicle from the right side with a leaf and stem coming out the back of the vehicle.

Projects that combine climate adaptation with climate mitigation.

Blue icon of four open palmed hands in a circle around a circle. Inside the circle is a check mark.

Capacity building through municipal staffing or climate coalitions/convenings, such as stormwater partnerships, regional climate networks, or watershed-based climate resilience initiatives.

Blue icon of an open palmed hand facing up. Above the hand are three people.

Innovative public outreach, engagement, and education efforts; including artistic, cultural, or creative projects that advance climate change knowledge or action.

Blue icon of a farm house and a silo. In front of both are horizontal and vertical lines representing a field.

Local food systems or community agriculture resilience measures.

Blue icon of three houses stacked in a diagonal way.

District-scale climate resilience pilots that are scalable and replicable.

Resources

ACR Funded Projects

Continue reading...

Massachusetts Local Food Action Plan

Written by
ph-healthy-food-systems-1

ph-healthy-food-systems-2

ph-healthy-food-systems-3

ph-healthy-food-systems-4

Massachusetts

Local Food Action Plan

The Massachusetts Local Food Action Plan establishes a vision for a food system that is socially just, environmentally resilient, and ripe with economic opportunities.

About the Project

Massachusetts has a rich and diverse food system – from varied agriculture, to innovative food processing facilities, to initiatives to improve the health and affordability of food in our communities.

In 2015, MAPC and its partners completed the Massachusetts Local Food Action Plan on behalf of the Massachusetts Food Policy Council. The Plan lays out statewide goals for increasing agricultural and seafood production, food security, workforce training and employment, and protecting natural resources. The Massachusetts Food System Collaborative was established at the completion of the Plan, and coordinates its implementation.

Why It’s Important

The Massachusetts food system is vibrant in many ways, but the state also faces challenges. The state’s local food production and markets are leading nationally, and are contributing to farm viability and improving access to healthy food. At the same time, Massachusetts deals with challenges such as losing farmland to development and high rates of obesity and diabetes. Through the food system planning process, we identified strategies for building upon the strengths and address the challenges of the Massachusetts food system.

Read the plan here.

New Logo Wide



Read the Plan Here

Massachusetts Food System Collaborative

The Massachusetts Food System Collaborative coordinates the implementation of the action plan.

Statewide Partnership

As the liaison to the Massachusetts Food Policy Council, the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR), contracted with MAPC to lead the food planning process.

MAPC engaged several project partners across the state, with combined experience in food system planning, public engagement, and economic development.

Partner websites:

ph-healthy-food-systems-diagram

Resources & Documents

The Massachusetts Local Action Food Plan:

Food Plan – Full

Posters

The following posters analyze various components of the food system. 

People

Economy

Production: Land and Commodities

Processing

Distribution

Food Access, Security and Health

Food Waste & Nutrient Recovery

Production on Land 

Boston
Northeast Massachusetts
Southeast Massachusetts

Production at Sea

Boston
Northeast Massachusetts
Southeast Massachusetts

Photos

 

Continue reading...

Malden Housing Needs Assessement

Written by

HOUSING MALDEN!

Malden Housing Needs Assessment

Photo by Paul Hammersley

   news   about   resources   affordable housing   HPP    Chapter 40B   SHI   Safe Harbor   Glossary

NEWS

Malden Housing needs Assessment

Read the Malden Housing Needs Assessment to learn more about the city’s population, housing supply, and gaps in affordability.

 

About
August 27, 2015. Malden, MA. Immigrant Entrepreneurs Revitalizing Malden: A Story Tour Join MAPC, Mayor Gary Christenson and The Immigrant Learning Center, Inc. (ILC) for a dynamic walking tour of Malden's downtown immigrant business community. Hear first-hand stories of migration and business generation. Learn how the city is connecting and partnering with its immigrant small-business owners to revitalize the square for the entire community to visit and enjoy. Metropolitan Area Plannong Council. MAPC. © 2015 Marilyn Humphries

The City of Malden worked with the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) to develop a Housing Needs Assessment that considers the community’s demographics, housing supply, and how well the housing meets the needs of residents.

This analysis, completed by MAPC, the regional planning agency serving the people who live and work in the 101 cities and towns of Metropolitan Boston, can be found here. The Malden Housing Needs Assessment indicates Malden has significant current unmet housing needs that are projected to increase in the coming decade. The lack of supply in the face of such strong regional and local demand for housing will likely continue to drive up prices, impacting some Maldonians’ ability to maintain their homes, meet their basic needs, support the local economy, and ultimately stay and thrive.

Malden Housing Assessment Needs Advisory Committee

The Advisory Committee (AC) helped guide the Housing Needs Assessment process.

Committee members responsible for:

●   sharing local knowledge of community attitudes towards housing, housing need and demand, challenges and barriers to meeting demand, development trends, and development opportunity areas

●   identifying stakeholders

●   reviewing and providing input on the analysis

There are ten AC members, two of which are ex-officio members:

●  Neal Anderson, Ward 7 Councilor

●  Deborah Burke, Ex-Officio, Executive Director, Malden Redevelopment Authority

●  Steven Finn, Executive Director, Malden Housing Authority

●  Maria Luise , Ex-Officio, Special Assistant to Mayor Gary Christenson

●  Karen Lynch, Mass Senior Action Council

●  Josh O’Dor, Resident

●  Michelle Romero, Malden City Planner

●  Ose Schwab, Resident

●  Anna Tse, YMCA Board, Community Preservation Committee

●  Ryan O’Malley, Ward 4 Councilor

AFFORDABLE
HOUSING

Housing is considered affordable when it costs 30% or less of a household’s income and is deed-restricted to eligible low- and moderate-income residents. Affordable Housing has restrictions to preserve affordability for decades or in perpetuity, ensuring that lower-income households can stay in their communities without having to make difficult decisions, such as skipping meals or doctor’s appointments to have enough money to pay for their home.

Affordable Housing eligibility is usually based on the Metropolitan Area Median Income (AMI) calculated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The AMI for Malden is $107,800. Typically, households eligible for deed-restricted Affordable Housing must be at or below 80% of AMI. For a household of one, 80% AMI is $56,800; for a household of three, it is $81,100.

Learn about Affordable Housing:

Chapter 40B

The goal of Chapter 40B is to encourage the production of affordable housing in communities throughout the Commonwealth, especially those with less than 10% subsidized housing.

Chapter 40B is a state statute that requires municipalities to increase and maintain their Affordable Housing inventories at 10% of their total year-round housing stock. If Affordable Housing in a community is under 10%, developers may petition the local Zoning Boards of Appeals (ZBA) for a permit for housing developments with at least 20-25% Affordable units even though they do not fully comply with local zoning; the ZBA has limited grounds for refusal.

Through Chapter 40B, Affordable Housing has been produced that in most cases could not have been built under local zoning. Developments created under Chapter 40B include church-sponsored housing for the elderly, single-family subdivisions that include Affordable units, adaptive reuse projects, multifamily rental housing developments, and mixed-income townhouse or condominium developments.

Learn about M.G.L. Chapter 40B:

Subsidized Housing inventory (SHI)

The Massachusetts SHI is used to measure each community’s stock of low- and moderate-income Affordable Housing for the purposes of M.G.L. Chapter 40B. The SHI is determined as a percentage of the entire housing stock per the latest U.S. Decennial Census. The SHI is maintained by the MA Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD).

Learn more about the SHI:

Safe Harbor

Communities have three mechanisms for claiming “Safe Harbor” from Chapter 40B development. Safe Harbor allows the ZBA to deny a developer a Comprehensive Permit.

  1. HPP Certification.
    If a municipality has a locally adopted and state approved HPP and is making measurable progress toward reaching the state goal of 10% Affordable Housing by producing Affordable Housing units at an annual rate of 0.5% or 1% of its year-round housing units. (Safe Harbor is for a 1-year or 2-year period, respectively.)
  2. 10% on the Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI).
    If more than 10% of a community’s total housing stock as counted by the U.S. Decennial Census is deed-restricted Affordable Housing.
  3. 1.5% General Land Area Minimum (GLAM).
    If 1.5% of the municipality’s total area zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use is dedicated to deed-restricted Affordable Housing.

Currently, 10.1% of Malden’s housing stock is on the SHI, but the percentage will likely decrease following the 2020 U.S. Decennial Census because market-rate development did not often coincide with Affordable Housing production there past 10 years. Malden is investigating eligibility under the 1.5% land area criteria.

Learn more about Safe Harbor:

HPP glossary

The purpose of this glossary is to provide an accessible dictionary of housing-related terms that may be used throughout the HPP process and plan.

resources

September 10, 2018 Memo Recap

October 15, 2018 Memo Recap

Past Meetings

Kick-Off Meeting

To launch this process, MAPC staff visited Malden in September to tour the city and talk with various groups. Through these focus groups, MAPC staff gained a greater understanding of the city’s current conditions, including housing stock, recent development trends, and issues pertaining to affordability and development impacts. Focus groups, a planning best practice, were invite-only and designed to allow a variety of voices to be heard.

November 5, 2018 | Advisory Committee Meeting

January 7, 2019 | Advisory Committee Meeting

July 8, 2019 | Housing Needs Assessment Meeting

MAPC staff presented findings from the Housing Needs Assessment and answered questions from Advisory Committee members and the public.

Top of page

Continue reading...

Malden Open Space and Recreation Plan 2017

Written by

MAPC partnered with the City of Malden to prepare an Open Space and Recreation Plan for the city. The 2017 Malden Open Space and Recreation Plan updates and revises the 2010 Open Space and Recreation Plan approved by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. This Plan Update was prepared by the Malden Open Space and Recreation Plan Update Committee and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, with the assistance of Malden residents, members of City boards, committees and staff, including the Malden Redevelopment Authority.

Over the last seven years, the City has worked to implement many of the action steps identified in the 2010 Plan, spending more than $20 million on open space and recreation projects. These improvements include completion of the Northern Strand Community Trail ($1.1 M); Macdonald Stadium Upgrades ($2.1M); High Rock Acquisition ($1.8M); Howard Park ($7.6M) and Waitts Mount ($1.5M).

Continue reading...

North Reading Master Plan

Written by
By John Phelan - Own work, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=10602712

By John Phelan – CC BY 3.0

North Reading Master Plan
CHANGE FONT SIZE

MAPC >> Resources >> Project

North Reading Master Plan 2020-2030

About the Project

In 2018 and 2019, MAPC prepared a master plan for the town of North Reading. The Town of North Reading Master Plan for 2020-2030 provides a roadmap based on community consensus ideas to help the Town achieve its long term quality-of-life goals.

During the master planning process, a community evaluates its assets and envisions how to shape or preserve certain parts of Town. In addition to serving as a reference document to inform decision-making at local boards, committees and Town Meeting, the Master Plan also provides a sense of mutual certainty for existing and prospective residents and businesses about what type of community North Reading would like to be in the future. Ideally, future zoning amendments, Town policies and/or investments will be in harmony with the goals and recommendations and create conditions that will get the Town closer to its long term vision.

Read the more about the plan on our Planning101 blog: “A Comprehensive Master Plan for North Reading.”

Download the Plan

Click here

Overarching Consensus Goals

Some of the goals and strategies that received the most interest and support and informed the plan’s recommendations, goals, and strategies.

Attract private investment and redevelopment with desired uses and traditional walkable Main Street streetscape form.

Make desired leisure-retail and needed condos/apartments viable by investing in and/or supporting wastewater infrastructure.

Create a shopping district with leisure-retail uses along an inviting streetscape with outdoor seating areas and upper-story homes and offices that reinforce ground-floor retail uses.

Address housing demand by allowing more options, including market-rate small lots/dwellings, that also enliven mixed-use/retail development.

Create attractive roadway and new robust town center to attract private investment and desired development type.

Make zoning clearer to allow desired and/or needed  uses, as well as compact, vertically-integrated mixed-use that can eventually help support goals such as local mass transit, affordable housing, and leisure retail

Support water and wastewater infrastructure to in turn support desired physical landscape and uses along Route 28.

Protect drinking water quality by preventing runoff and contamination

Encourage economic development by attracting more retail, commercial/office and light industrial development in order to ease the residential tax base.

 

MORE INFORMATION

Danielle McKnight, AICP
North Reading Town Planner/Community Planning Administrator
[email protected]

Carlos Javier Montañez
MAPC Principal Planner
[email protected]

First Advisory Group Meeting

June 2018
Click here to see all of the word clouds from the preliminary visioning.

Online Community Survey

August – November 2018
Click here to take the online survey.

 

Draft Materials for First Public Workshop

September 2018

Other Materials

Outreach Poster

Final Plan

Continue reading...

Addressing the Opioid Epidemic: Information Sharing Toolkit

Written by

This Metro Mayors Coalition (MMC) initiative is the result of recommendations from the 2017 MMC Opioid Forum.

Box_Cover_Only_WEB
Addressing the Opioid Epidemic: Information Sharing Toolkit
CHANGE FONT SIZE

MAPC >> Resources >> Project

A major challenge in providing care and ongoing support for people with opioid use disorders is effectively and legally sharing information.

Individuals with a substance use disorder (SUD) interact with a range of organizations and individuals, from hospitals to police officers, recovery coaches, or family members. Helping people with SUDs recover often requires that those parties work together and understand the circumstances of those in recovery in as close to real time as possible. There are of course operational barriers to effective information sharing, but of equal importance is an understanding of the legal parameters that delineate what medical and addiction treatment information can be shared – and shared by whom, and with whom; with whose consent; in what formats; and when.

Acknowledgements:

Harvard Cyberlaw Clinic: Austin Bohn, Mason Kortz, Michael Roig

MAPC Logo with Name
Metro Mayors Logo Transparent
HOW TO STAY UPDATED:

Sharon Ron

CONTENTS

Navigate this toolkit by clicking on the sections below.

Jump-to section

Overview of federal & state privacy laws

Federal Laws Regulating Data Sharing
+ HIPAA Privacy Rule
+ HIPAA Part 2
+ Family Educational Rights and Privacy (FERPA)

MA State Laws in Regulating Data Sharing

Jump-to section

the role of consent under
the law

HIPAA Privacy Rule
HIPAA PART 2
FERPA

Jump-to section

info sharing in
the municipal
context

Examples of Cities that have Implemented Data Sharing Systems
+ Camden Arise
+ Chelsea Hub
+ Data-Driven Justice Initiatives

Example Scenarios

The content of this resource was developed by the Harvard Law School CyberLaw Clinic.

The Clinic conducted this work in support of a project the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) is leading on behalf of the 15 cities and towns in Greater Boston’s inner core that make up the Metropolitan Mayor’s Coalition (MMC).

A forum held in May 2017 and subsequent engagement with municipal public health and safety personnel from MMC communities identified information sharing as a key challenge in addressing the opioid epidemic for local governments. This project intends to help municipal officials improve information sharing approaches and this document is intended to inform their options.

This is designed to address some basic questions for organizations and municipal officials about the laws that govern medical and addiction treatment related information. To achieve that goal, this resource summarizes federal and state data sharing laws and their application; presents the role of consent regimes that enable information sharing; provides some scenario-based examples to inform practice; and describes data sharing models that currently exist.

By no means is this resource comprehensive and the statements herein do not constitute formal legal advice. The rules governing data sharing can be highly case-specific and different circumstances may result in different applications. Talking to appropriate legal counsel is therefore recommended before implementing any data sharing plans.

Read the PDF version

OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL AND STATE PRIVACY LAWS

FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING DATA SHARING

The primary, federal bodies of law that apply are HIPAA’s Privacy Act,
HIPAA’s Part 2, and FERPA.

The Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information (“Privacy Rule”) is the implementation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) to protect certain healthcare data. The Confidentiality of Substance Use Disorder Patient Records (“Part 2”) imposes additional restrictions on the disclosure and use of substance use disorder patient records. Depending on the person or organization holding the data, and the nature of the information involved, healthcare data may fall under the Privacy Rule, Part 2, or both.

HIPAA Privacy Rule

Under 45 CFR Parts 160 and 164, the Privacy Rule applies to all covered entities and business associates.

Covered entities include health plans, health care clearinghouses, and health care providers who transmit any health information in electronic form in connection with a transaction covered by the Privacy Rule. Government agencies may be covered entities. For example, Medicare and Medicaid are health plans, and public health agencies that process data or facilitate health information exchanges may qualify as health care clearinghouses.

Business associates are organizations that handle Protected Health Information (PHI) on behalf of covered entities, usually as contractors. Common business associates include data storage providers, benefits managers, patient portal providers, and legal, business, or accounting firms.

What data does the Privacy Rule apply to?

The Privacy Rule prohibits a covered entity or business associate from using or disclosing PHI, except as otherwise permitted.

The Privacy Rule does not restrict information that has been de-identified. De-identified protected health information is health information that does not identify, nor could be reasonably used to identify, an individual. The Privacy Rule defines 17 specific pieces of information that must be removed for PHI to be de-identified, as well as a catch-all for any unique number, characteristic, or code that is associated with an individual.

However, de-identified data can include a code used internally by the covered entity to identify an individual, as long as that code is not made available outside the covered entity.

What exceptions from the Privacy Rule are available?

With proper HIPAA authorization, most data can be disclosed. Additionally, some information may be shared with some parties based on a simple, unwritten agreement by the patient (see the “Consent” section below). There are also some situations in which a covered entity (or business associate) may disclose PHI without authorization or consent.

The limits of these exceptions are not always clear. For example, there is no definition for what constitutes being “involved with” a patient’s care. Guidance from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) describe it as including close friends, caregivers, and home health aides, but does not expressly limit it to those circumstances. Similarly, the “public health” exception has been the subject of much debate and even some litigation. The few judicial opinions available suggest that the exception applies to tracking or preventing disease and injury on a large scale but not to individual interventions or treatment. However, exactly where the line should be drawn is still an open question.

HIPAA Part 2

Part 2 applies to any substance abuse information obtained by a federally assisted substance abuse program, which means any program that (1) directly or indirectly receives federal funds, is federally licensed, or is tax-exempt under federal law and (2) primarily provides substance abuse treatment. Such programs may include an individual, entity, or identified unit within a general medical facility holding itself out as providing, and provides, substance use disorder diagnosis, treatment, or referral for treatment. Such programs also include medical personnel or other staff in a general medical facility whose primary function is the provision of substance use disorder diagnosis, treatment, or referral for treatment, and who are identified as such providers.

What data does Part 2 apply to?

Part 2 restricts disclosure of information that could reasonably be used to identify an individual as having or had a substance use disorder either directly, by reference to publicly available information, or through verification of such identification by another person.11

Part 2 does not restrict information that has been de-identified. De-identified PHI is health information that does not identify, nor could be reasonably used to identify, an individual. The Privacy Rule defines specific requirements for data to be considered de-identified in 45 CFR § 164.514.

What exceptions from Part 2 are available?

HIPAA Part 2 has a much stronger prohibition against use and disclosure than the Privacy Rule. Part 2 allows for communications within a substance abuse program, or between a substance abuse program and an entity that has direct administrative control over it, such as a hospital that contains a substance abuse clinic. However, even these disclosures are on a “need to know” basis—they are limited to those persons who need the information in connection with the provision of diagnosis, treatment, or referral for treatment of patients with substance use disorders. Records can also be disclosed in a medical emergency; the substance abuse program must document any disclosure made under this rule.13 Any other disclosure requires authorization compliant with Part 2 requirements.

Family Educational Rights and Privacy (FERPA)

FERPA applies to educational agencies and institutions that receive funds under any program administered by the U.S. Department of Education. This law exists because these educational agencies generally would not be covered entities under HIPAA.

An educational agency subject to FERPA may not have a policy or practice of disclosing the education records of students, or personally identifiable information from education records, without a parent or eligible student’s written consent. An “eligible student” is a student who is at least 18 years of age or one who attends a postsecondary institution at any age.

Education records are records that directly relate to a student and are maintained by the educational agency or by a party acting for the agency or institution. At the elementary or secondary level, a student’s health records, including immunization records and records by a school nurse, maintained by an educational agency subject to FERPA are considered education records. As education records, the information is protected under FERPA and not HIPAA. Education records also include transcripts, disciplinary records, and attendance information.

De-identified education records may be shared without consent under FERPA.

FERPA protects personally identifiable records and information.

Personally identifiable information includes but is not limited to:

  • The student’s name or address, or that of their family;
  • Any personal identifier, such as a social security number, student number, or biometric record;
  • Indirect identifiers, such as the student’s date of birth, place of birth, and mother’s maiden name;
  • Other information that, alone or in combination, is linked or linkable to a specific student that would allow a reasonable person in the school community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty; or
  • Any other information, if the educational agency or institution reasonably believes that the requester knows the identity of the student involved.

What exceptions are available from FERPA?

There are two exceptions that allow disclosure of education records without consent.15 In either circumstance, the disclosure may only occur on the condition that the receiving party will not disclose the information to any other party without the consent of the parent or eligible student.

MASSACHUSETTS STATE LAWS REGULATING DATA SHARING

Massachusetts privacy law is not as comprehensive as HIPAA or HIPAA Part 2. Under Massachusetts General Law, MGL c.111, s.70E, the “Patients’ Rights Law,” patients are conferred a broad right to “confidentiality of all records and communications to the extent provided by law” and are granted the right to “informed consent to the extent provided by law.” However, despite its sweeping language, the Patients’ Rights Law has been interpreted to permit the sharing of private health information insofar as it is done in compliance with HIPAA and Part 2.

Other discrete laws and regulations impose piecemeal restrictions that, by and large, are consistent with or slight variations on the federal confidentiality regime.

MGL c.94c, § 18B
MGL c.94c, § 18B

Voluntary Non-Opioid Directive Form

This law directs the health departments to create forms, which would be voluntarily signed by patients, directing hospitals not to administer opioids to them.

MGL c.94c, § 24A
MGL c.111, § 70F
MGL c.112, § 12A
MGL, c. 112, § 135A
MGL c.112, § 172,

Other Massachusetts State Laws that Regulate Data Sharing

For the purposes of this project, 104 CMR 27.17 (which governs mental health facilities), largely align with HIPAA in terms of what private health information may be disclosed. Written authorizations are required for the disclosure of private mental health information, barring exigent circumstances. On the subject of mental health, the report “Sharing Behavioral Health Information in Massachusetts” is quite useful.17 Similarly, 105 CMR 165.084 (the regulation governing substance abuse programs) limits disclosures except where consistent with “42 CFR Part 2, and 45 CFR Parts 160 and 164 (HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules).”

On the subject of school record privacy, 603 CMR 23.00 regulates the use and disclosure of such documents. Disclosure of school records to third parties is only possible with the informed written consent of an eligible student or that student’s parents. An eligible student is one who is 14 years old or has entered the 9th grade. The student or parent is able to designate which parts of the record can be disclosed. Copies of the record must be offered to the student or parent. Personally identifiable information may only be disclosed to a third party “on the condition that he/she will not permit any other third party to have access” to that information without the written consent of the student or parent.

The type of consent required for the sharing of private information is contingent on two main factors: the kind of data sought to be shared, and the stakeholders involved in the sharing. Of course, an individual is free to personally share information about him or herself with anyone of their choosing. The legal limits on information sharing come into play when a health provider who controls someone’s private information seeks to make a disclosure to a third party. Often, consent is the vehicle that enables third party disclosures.

When health providers seek to share information, their disclosures are governed by HIPAA and Part 2. Such disclosures generally require one of two types of consent: an opportunity to object (which can be oral or written) or authorization (which must be written and often has additional requirements). However, as discussed above, HIPAA does provide some narrow exceptions where Private Health Information (PHI) may be disclosed without a patient’s prior approval. Barring those exceptions, all PHI disclosures require consent.

HIPAA PRIVACY RULE

The vast majority of healthcare disclosures require HIPAA authorization. An authorization is a special type of consent given by the patient that enables healthcare providers to share PHI.

Authorizations are written; a patient cannot give authorization orally. The form must be signed by the patient, and must also include a disclaimer articulating the patient’s rights with respect to the authorization (e.g., the patient’s right to revoke authorization). HIPAA authorizations are subject to the “minimum determination rule” which provides that disclosures should only contain the amount of information necessary to achieve their purpose.

In sum, an authorization form must include:

  1. The patient’s name
  2. The identity of the party disclosing the information
  3. The identity of the third party recipients of the information
    • For HIPAA, a “class” of individuals may identified, as opposed to specific individual’s names. The class can be as broad as “medical professionals.”
  4. A specific description of the information meant to be disclosed
  5. The purpose of the disclosure
  6. An expiration date, or expiration event
    • The expiration date must relate in some way to the purpose of the disclosure.

Consent may also be conferred under HIPAA by providing the patient the opportunity to agree or to object.19 This kind of consent only applies in very narrow circumstances. Under two specific scenarios, a healthcare provider may disclose PHI to the patient’s family member, relative, close personal friend, or any other person identified by the individual.

Scenario One

When the patient is present, PHI disclosures can be made to the aforementioned individuals if:

  • 1. The patient agrees,
  • 2. The healthcare provider offer the patient an opportunity to object and the patient does not object, or
  • 3. The provider reasonably infers from the situation that the individual would not object.
Scenario Two

when the patient is absent or incapacitated, the provider may disclose the information to the aforementioned parties if he or she believes it to be in the best interests of the patient. This kind of disclosure must be limited to what is minimally necessary.

INFORMATION SHARING IN THE MUNICIPAL CONTEXT

EXAMPLES OF CITIES THAT HAVE
IMPLEMENTED DATA SHARING SYSTEMS

There are no restrictions on the use or disclosure of de-identified health information.

De-identified health information neither identifies nor provides a reasonable basis to identify an individual.

There are two ways to de-identify information under the Privacy Rule, either:

  1. a formal determination by a qualified statistician; or
  2. the removal of specified identifiers of the individual and of the individual’s relatives, household members, and employers is required, and is adequate only if the covered entity has no actual knowledge that the remaining information could be used to identify the individual.

However, the difficulty arises when PHI is involved. A healthcare organization covered by Part 2 or the Privacy Rule must either have authorization from the individual or fall under a specified exemption in order to use or disclose any PHI. Even organizations that are not governed by HIPAA, such as law enforcement departments, are sometimes prohibited from sharing substance abuse information obtained from a Part 2 program. Some states have similar “re-disclosure rules” that apply to non-substance abuse PHI as well.

There are also a number of exceptions to HIPAA that apply to law enforcement. The Privacy Rule allows law enforcement to obtain an individual’s PHI without his or her written authorization in certain circumstances.

Examples

Camden Arise

Camden Arise is a data-sharing plan information from public data systems, including criminal justice, healthcare, and housing, to create a multi-dimensional picture of citywide challenges. It is a program of the Camden Coalition—a coalition of healthcare providers, community partners, and advocates—working to address complex medical and social challenges. In their first project integrating data, they have created two separate agreements. One is a data sharing agreement between the Camden City School District and the Camden Coalition of Healthcare Providers in which the School District to provides data to the Coalition, particularly regarding absenteeism. The other is a memorandum of understanding between The County of Camden (Department of Police Services) and the Camden Coalition of Healthcare Providers authorizing the police to provide information to the Coalition. (https://www.camdenhealth.org/arise-camden/)

Chelsea Hub

Chelsea Hub is a collection of community organizations, organized by the Police Department, that meets weekly to share information about individuals or families at risk and strategize ways to intervene. The data sharing that occurs goes through a four-stage process: identification of individuals at risk (through the identification of risk factors); introduction of de-identified data to gain intervention consensus; identification of the appropriate parties through revealing limited information; and a detailed conversation among the parties who deliver relevant services about the individual. (https://chelseapolice.com/chelsea-hub/)

Data-Driven Justice Initiative

The Data-Driven Justice Initiative is a data-sharing program that initially started in the Obama White House, and is now coordinated by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. One of its most successful projects is a collaboration between Johnson County, Kansas, and the University of Chicago’s Center for Data Science and Public Policy. The program tracks individuals across multiple public systems, including jails, emergency rooms, mental-health facilities, and social services, and attempts to identify the most effective ways to get people the care they need. The University of Chicago has entered multiple data-sharing agreements with private and public data providers so that it can integrate and analyze the data in a secure and confidential environment. (https://www.naco.org/resources/data-driven-justice-playbook; https://dsapp.uchicago.edu/projects/criminal-justice/data-driven-justice-initiative/)

A medical provider may disclose information to law enforcement in the following situations:

  • In compliance with a court order, warrant or subpoena;
  • In response to an administrative request;
    • Administrative requests are made without the involvement of a judge. They can be made by law enforcement or certain other administrative agencies. Such a request must include a description of the limited information desired, as well as the purpose of that information.
  • In response to a request for information that serves the purpose of identifying a suspect, fugitive, witness, or missing person;
  • In response to a request for information about the victim of a crime;
    • The victim must him or herself agree to this disclosure.
  • In order to report abuse, neglect, or domestic violence (these disclosures may also be made to other authorized agencies, such as public health agencies, social services, or protective services);
  • In order to report to law enforcement when required by state law;
  • In order to report the death of an individual;
  • When necessary to alert police to an on-site criminal activity, or off-site criminal activity to which medical providers responded;
  • Where, in the medical provider’s professional judgment, disclosure is necessary to prevent domestic violence or any other serious, imminent threat to an individual or the public;
  • In the course of investigation concerning national security;
  • In response to a request concerning an individual in a correctional facility or in police custody.

SCENARIO 1

Example Scenario

A police officer asks a hospital’s representative (not a substance abuse, Part 2, organization) if a particular individual has been to the hospital, and if so, ow often and for what purpose. How should the representative respond?

First, the representative may share the information if the hospital has a valid HIPAA authorization from the individual, the authorization lists the hospital as a party who can make the disclosure and lists the police as a party to whom the disclosure can be made, and the authorization has not expired or has been revoked.

If there is no authorization, the representative may indicate the individual’s presence in a facility if the individual has had the opportunity to object to this type of disclosure, but it is limited to location and general condition, as discussed above. Additionally, they may disclose information about a patient who is suspected to be a victim of a crime if either the individual agrees to the disclosure or the individual is unable to agree because of incapacity or emergency circumstances and the representative reasonably believes it is in the best interest of the individual.

If there is no authorization and no opportunity to object to certain disclosures, then the representative may disclose if it falls under one of the exceptions. Particularly applicable are the exceptions for requests by law enforcement. Among others, the representative may disclose limited information for purposes of identification and location of a suspect, fugitive, material witness, or missing person. They may also disclose information about a patient who is reasonably believed to be a victim of abuse, neglect, or domestic violence as required by law.

SCENARIO 2

example scenario

A police officer is sitting among various social service oriented organizations, including hospitals, and asks ifand  individual has been hospitalized recently or regularly. How should the representative respond?

First, the representatives may disclose the relevant PHI (e.g. name, admitted date, etc.) if the individual has granted valid HIPAA authorization to do so. In this case, each participating organization could receive information from the representative. However, each participating organization would need to obtain separate authorization to disclose information separately (although only if the organization is covered by HIPAA).

Without authorization, it is unlikely that one of the exceptions would apply because of the many stakeholders present (thus, the law enforcement exceptions do not apply), and the representative is unable to respond. This is the same for organizations that are covered entities under the HIPAA Privacy Rule, regardless of whether Part 2 applies (although they have different requirements for valid authorization).

Other organizations who are not subject to HIPAA may be able to share this information if they are able. However, they must be compliant with any applicable re-disclosure limitations, which may apply if the information was originally disclosed from an organization subject to HIPAA.

SCENARIO 3

example scenario

A HEALTH CARE REPRESENTATIVE ASKS A POLICE OFFICER IF AN INDIVIDUAL HAS BEEN ARRESTED OR PREVIOUSLY IMPRISONED, AND IF SO, HOW OFTEN AND FOR WHAT REASON. HOW SHOULD THE OFFICER RESPOND?

Arrest and conviction records are public record, so the officer should be able to respond accordingly, subject to Massachusetts state law.

SCENARIO 4

example scenario

A HOSPITAL RECEIVES A NEW PATIENT AND KNOWS THAT THEY HAVE A RECOVERY COACH. THE HOSPITAL IS UNSURE IF THE RECOVERY COACH IS AWARE OF THE HOSPITALIZATION. WHAT CAN THE HOSPITAL DO?

If the hospital has either obtained the individual’s agreement, provided an opportunity for the individual to object to the disclosure and they did not object, or reasonably inferred that the individual does not object, then the hospital may notify a family member, personal representative of the individual, or another person responsible for the care of the individual. The notification may include the individual’s location and general condition. If the recovery coach is considered “responsible for the care of the individual,” then it is likely the recovery coach may be notified.
If the individual is not present or the opportunity to practicably object to the disclosure due to incapacity or anemergency circumstance is not present, then the hospital may exercise its professional judgment to determine if the disclosure is in the individual’s best interest. However, the recovery coach must still be considered responsible for the care of the individual to allow notification.

1. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/index.html
2. https://www.integration.samhsa.gov/operations-administration/the_confidentiality_of_alcohol_and_drug_abuse.pdf
3. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html.
4. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) provides a summary here: https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/privacysummary.pdf
5. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance/business-associates/index.html. See 45 CFR § 160.103 for further definition of business associates.
6. 45 CFR § 164.514
7. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/provider_ffg.pdf; https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hipaa-opioid-crisis.pdf.
8. Big Ridge, Inc. v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 715 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2013).
9. Miguel M. v. Barron, 17 N.Y.3d 37, 950 N.E.2d 107 (2011).
10. 42 CFR § 2.11

11. https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/part2-hipaa-comparison2004.pdf
12. 42 CFR § 2.12(c)(3).
13. 42 CFR § 2.51.
14. See joint guidance on FERPA and HIPAA here: https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/doc/ferpa-hipaa-guidance.pdf
15. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/99.31; https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/doc/ferpa-hipaa-guidance.pdf
16. https://www.mass.gov/eohhs/docs/eohhs/masshiway/20151207hitcouncilpresentation.pdf
17. https://mehi.masstech.org/sites/mehi/files/documents/Behavioral_Health_Data_Sharing_FINAL.pdf
18. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/faq/264/what-is-the-difference-between-consent-and-authorization/index.html
19. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/45/164.510
20. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/faq/505/what-does-the-privacy-rule-allow-covered-entities-to-disclose-to-law-enforcement-officials/index.html

Continue reading...

Somerville Community Energy Baseline

Written by
Somerville Community Energy Baseline

CHANGE FONT SIZE

MAPC >> Resources >> Project

MAPC

Smart Growth & Regional Collaboration

Clean Energy

Somerville Community Energy Baseline

In 2015, the City of Somerville received technical assistance from MAPC to develop a Community Energy Profile through MAPC’s Local Energy Action Program. Somerville’s Community Energy Baseline is designed to provide city officials with a clear understanding of Somerville’s energy use along with regional context for municipal energy consumption. A detailed data and analysis of energy consumption across the municipal, residential, and commercial and industrial (C&I) sectors in the Somerville is provided. Additionally, the document also includes a regional comparison of municipal energy consumption with the neighboring cities of Cambridge and Medford.

The information and analysis presented in this Community Energy Baseline document is intended to give Somerville a more nuanced and granular understanding of energy consumption in the community, with preliminary recommendations on measures to investigate.

Download the report.

Programs & Initiatives

Honeywell Energy Performance Contract is a $7.8 million energy savings performance contract with as a mechanism to fund deep energy retrofits in municipal facilities.

Somerville’s residential energy efficiency program was a joint initiative between Somerville’s Housing Division, OSE, and Commission on Energy and Climate Change. Designed to address energy efficiency in multi-family and rental units, the program ran from November 2011 through December 2012

Continue reading...

Beverly Cultural Planning

Written by

Beverly Cultural Planning
CHANGE FONT SIZE

MAPC >> Resources >> Project

Beverly Cultural Planning

In 2018, MAPC worked with the City of Beverly to develop goals and an implementation strategy for the city’s arts district. The final Beverly Arts District 2.0 Plan was published in Dec. 2018.

This project resulted in a Beverly Arts District strategy that includes a vision for the district’s long-term success and contains short- and long-term recommendations with potential funding sources. The resulting vision is shared by a set of key implementation partners.

The goal of the plan was to cultivate fresh ideas for cultural district programming, establish ways to measure the district’s impact, and position Beverly to make progress on some of the more challenging aspects of district management, implementation, and sustainability.

Background

In 2013, the project “Creating a Cultural District in Downtown Beverly” led to the establishment of the Beverly Arts District (BAD). Since then, cultural partners including BAD and Beverly Main Streets have implemented certain parts of the plan to raise the profile of the Beverly Arts District through programming and events.

In 2018, MAPC awarded a technical assistance grant to the City of Beverly to develop a strategy for the next stage of the cultural district. The implementation plan includes a shared vision for the long-term success of the project, short- and long-term policies, programmatic recommendations, and potential funding sources. The goal of the plan is to cultivate fresh ideas for cultural district programming, establish metrics to measure the district’s impact, learn from key case studies, and position the City of Beverly and Beverly Main Streets to make progress on some of the more challenging aspects of district management, implementation, and sustainability.

MapC’s Role

MAPC led community outreach and engagement activities, facilitating advisory committee meetings, conducting stakeholder interviews, and holding focus groups. In addition, MAPC analyzed stakeholder feedback to establish goals for the district and metrics for district success. MAPC also provided research support to document relevant cultural district management and funding models and recommended action steps to meet district goals.

Photo of the Beverly Arts District Advisory Committee (13 people at a table)
The Beverly Arts District Advisory Committee
Final Report

QUESTIONS?

For more information about this project, please contact Annis Sengupta at [email protected] or 617-933-0774.

IMG_5479

Project Updates

After a final meeting with the Advisory Committee in July, MAPC completed the plan document. Find the Beverly Arts District 2.0 Plan here.

On Dec. 3, the City of Beverly kicked off plan implementation with a meeting facilitated by MAPC. A grant of $5,000 from the Massachusetts Cultural Council and a $5,000 match from the City of Beverly has created a total of $10,000 in staffing for the first year of the plan’s implementation.

Continue reading...