Evaluation Question
Data Sources & Methods
Key Findings
Key Learning


Key Learning


  • The OR program was built upon existing institutional knowledge and experience, relationships, and infrastructure, resulting in reduced need for training and upfront costs. Other states and municipalities will have varying levels and types of infrastructure to accomplish similar goals. The efficiency and feasibility of program design and implementation will benefit from initial thorough assessments of existing infrastructure, including transportation, reprocessing capacity, and related knowledge and experience.
  • A collaborative and/or strategic process for selecting collection sites may improve efficiency of planning and implementation. Opportunities include clear statements of process steps, criteria for site selection and designated opportunities for specific stakeholders (retailers, HHW operators) to provide input in the process.

Assessment fee

  • One goal of the Oregon paint legislation is that consumers are aware of the fee. In July 2011, few (11%) recent purchasers of paint were aware of the fee (PaintCare Report Appendix, page 100). Fee awareness may be increased through a more strategic and targeted education and outreach campaign (see Evaluation Question 3). Future iterations of paint legislation may consider whether consumer fee awareness is a necessary policy goal. In August 2010, most OR residents (73%) indicated that the fee was reasonable with few (23%) indicating it was not reasonable (PaintCare Report Appendix, page 92).
  • The process used to set the fee/design fee structure (GSU Report, page 16) is a baseline model for other states; it covered costs in the first year of the program. Notably, lower than expected collection of oil-based program products contributed to the one-year surplus.

Related Materials

PPSI Paint Evaluation Preliminary Findings