Get Help Sealing Past Eviction Records in Worcester

WORCESTER — Worcester Community Action Council (WCAC) will offer on-site help for residents seeking to seal past eviction records at two upcoming Community Day events.

The service, provided in partnership with the Massachusetts Fair Housing Center, will be available Sept. 14 at 18 Chestnut St. and Oct. 8 at 219 Everett St., both from 11 AM to 1 PM. Trained staff and legal partners will meet one-on-one with eligible residents to review their eviction records and begin court petitions on site.

Registration is required, and residents are encouraged to bring photo identification, though court documents are not necessary. Interpretation services will be provided.

A 2025 state law allows eligible tenants to petition courts to seal eviction records, regardless of the outcome of the case. According to the WCAC, such records could remain publicly searchable indefinitely and follow tenants through future housing applications.

“An eviction record can follow a family for years, long after the circumstances that caused it are behind them,” WCAC CEO Marybeth Campbell said in a statement, adding that the goal is to open the door to stable housing and the stability it brings, including steady employment and a settled home for children.

Vineeth Hemavathi, executive director of the Massachusetts Fair Housing Center, said in a statement that his organization has repeatedly seen court records block people from housing even after cases were dismissed or judgments paid.

The record-sealing service is part of WCAC’s broader Community Day series, which also connects residents with financial coaching, energy assistance and youth programming in a single visit. WCAC serves 43 communities in and around Worcester.

Worcester’s Green Electricity Program Announces Rate Cut

The City of Worcester announced price changes in its Green Worcester ElectriCITY program that reduce program prices from its current level starting in December. The new rates are guaranteed for the next 24 months.

The pricing changes for the program’s two options are:

Worcester Standard Green: 16.31 cents/kWh (reduced 0.602 from 16.912 cents/kWh)
Worcester 100% Green: 17.73 cents/kWh (reduced 1.033 from 18.763 cents/kWh)

Most households in Worcester range from 477 kWh to 963 kWh of electricity usage per month. That equals savings of around $3 to $6 per month on the standard plan, and around $5 and $10 per month on the 100% plan compared to current prices.

Residents in Worcester are automatically enrolled in the Worcester Standard Green plan and may opt-out for National Grid‘s Basic Service. National Grid’s 9-month winter residential price, which takes effect Nov. 1 and is guaranteed through July 2024, is 18.213 cents/kWh.

Future savings with the Green Worcester ElectriCITY program compared to National Grid pricing cannot be guaranteed when National Grid prices change in August 2024. However, those enrolled in either Green Worcester plan can leave at any time with no exit charge.

The new Standard Green plan includes 40 percent more renewable electricity than the state minimum, an increase of 10 percent over the minimum from last year. The Standard Green plan sources a total of 64 percent from renewable sources in starting in 2024.

Green Worcester ElectriCITY has saved participants more than $12 million since the program’s launch in 2020 and helped the community to avoid more than 155 million pounds of CO2 emissions, according to the City of Worcester. This is equivalent to the emissions associated with 15,645 gasoline-powered passenger vehicles for a year.

Both Green Worcester ElectriCITY prices include a $0.001/kWh operational fee that will support aggregation program management and energy initiatives in the City.

Residents currently enrolled have to do nothing to continue in the same option they previously selected through their December 2023 meter read with the new price on January 2024 National Grid electric bills. The supplier will be listed as “Green Worc Electricity Aggregation Prog.” You can change the program option or leave the program before before December with no penalty or fee.

Green Worcester ElectriCITY is a group electricity purchasing program from the City of Worcester for Worcester residents and businesses. Massachusetts state law allows cities and towns to choose the electricity supplier for their electricity customers rather than have the local electric utility, which is National Grid for Worcester, buy their electricity.

To enroll, make changes to enrollment, or get more information, visit GreenWorcesterElectriCITY.com or contact customer support with Worcester’s program consultants at (833) 926-1207.

The Two Years Between Early Intervention and Kindergarten

by Saaya Daga, CommonWealth Beacon

Prince Lacroix’s mother, Eva Santiago, knew there was something different about her son early on. He was late to walk, late to babble, and he played with toys differently than other kids his age. She was a first-time mother at the time, staying in a shelter, and when she asked her pediatrician for support, he referred her to Early Intervention (EI), a federal-state partnership program aimed at supporting infants and toddlers at risk of or with developmental delays. A team from Bay Cove, one of the state’s Early Intervention providers, came out to evaluate him and at around two years old, Prince was enrolled.

Early Intervention became a one hour per week part of both Santiago and Prince’s life. An occupational therapist came to their home, worked with Prince directly, and spent time teaching Santiago activities and strategies she could use between visits to support his development. Slowly, Santiago began to notice a change: Prince started building with Legos, went on playdates through the program, and learned a few songs.

When Prince turned three, in mid-February, his Early Intervention services stopped, as they do for every child in Massachusetts, regardless of how much progress they have made or how much support they still need. It took about another six months, until that September, before he began special education services through Boston Public Schools. In the meantime, there was no developmental support.

Once Prince started preschool, the services were comprehensive, Santiago said. But the months in between left an impact. “I believe that changing the end mark of EI from three years old to when kids step foot into public school, would be really beneficial,” she said, arguing that her son lost valuable learning time waiting for his special education services to begin.

Prince’s diagnoses qualified him for special education services through his school district after he was no longer eligible for Early Intervention. For him, there was developmental support waiting in the distance. But for many children across the state who do not qualify for those services, what happens after they turn three can look very different.

“There are many kids that, when their services are dropped, are lost temporarily for two years. Parents will come in [to the office] and be frustrated about finding an affordable, accessible preschool to support their child’s development,” said Dr. Theresa Callahan, a Leominster-based pediatrician. “Those are the kids that fall behind, and the ones that do not start with their toes on the starting line for kindergarten.”

Early Intervention, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Health (DPH) in Massachusetts, is designed to identify children at risk of developmental delays early and broadly. A child can qualify because of a measurable developmental delay, a diagnosed condition like autism, or a range of social and environmental circumstances that put a child at risk, from homelessness to lead exposure. The program is free, and services are delivered in a home or community setting rather than in a clinic.

Special education, which is overseen by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), takes over once a child turns three and works differently. To qualify for an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and receive special education services, a child must fall into one of 13 federally recognized disability categories, and, most importantly, that disability has to interfere with the child’s ability to learn in a school setting. It is a higher, differently shaped bar than the developmental-delay standard Early Intervention uses.

“In the school system, they are looking at academics [and] is this child going to be able to participate in a regular school setting,” said Maura Buglione, director of development at Thom Child & Family Services, an Early Intervention provider that works with more than 10,000 infants, toddlers, and families statewide. “Whereas in EI, some of the things that we are working on are social, emotional, and behavioral. … There is such a close focus in EI on the parent-child relationship and supporting healthy relationships existing within the home.”

For students who exit Early Intervention at 3 and do not meet the bar for an IEP, there exists a two-year period — roughly ages three to five — between Early Intervention services and public kindergarten during which many parents and caregivers are left to figure out how to pay for developmental support options.

“Oftentimes, because the criteria to qualify for an IEP is a little bit different than the criteria to qualify for EI, you will have kids who did meet the criteria for EI but do not meet the disability status that is required to get an IEP,” said Buglione. Children with milder speech or language issues, borderline autism traits, or subtle sensory or motor delays often fall into that space, she said. “Their needs are not considered profound enough to qualify for an IEP.”

Planning a family’s transition out of Early Intervention is built into the program. Federal law requires that every child receiving services have a transition plan in place at the latest 90 days before their third birthday. If a child is eligible for special education, that transition plan also notifies the family’s local school district and hosts a “transition conference,” bringing together the family, the Early Intervention team, and school representatives to discuss what comes next before the services end.

IEP evaluations are conducted by local school districts and if a child qualifies, the IEP must be fully developed and in effect by their third birthday. If that birthday falls during the summer, the child’s IEP team, including parents, work together to determine the date when services under the IEP start.

Regardless of whether that child ultimately qualifies for an IEP, “we still work on a full-blown transition plan to whatever the next steps are,” said Buglione.

Some choose to continue pursuing development support through private insurance or out-of-pocket pay. Others enroll in private preschools. Massachusetts has no universal, publicly funded pre-K program for children whose families are unable to afford either. The closest thing, Head Start, only accepts children based on federal income guidelines or who are homeless, in foster care, or receiving public assistance.

The clearest snapshot of the transition comes from state data on the roughly 19,000 children who exited Early Intervention statewide between July 2022 and June 2023. About 40 percent were found eligible for special education services. Another 13 percent completed their Early Intervention services before turning three. Close to 10 percent of exiting children were determined not eligible for special education.  The remaining children either did not have their eligibility for special education determined, were withdrawn from early intervention services, or did not respond to the survey.

There is no state count of how many of those children went on to find support elsewhere and how many did not. The DPH collects data inside Early Intervention programs and DESE tracks whether eligible children referred from EI have an IEP implemented by their third birthday. Neither system looks at what happens to a child who exits EI without a referral, or is evaluated and found ineligible, once they leave.

A handful of newer state initiatives addresses the edges of this gap, though none of them address the gap itself. A section of the new state budget calls for automatically referring children entering shelters to Early Intervention.

Separately, DESE launched a pilot during the 2025-2026 school year called the Preschool Itinerant Team Initiative. It offers roughly $250,000 in grants to help school districts build “traveling teams” of special educators and therapists to deliver IEP services directly inside community preschools, rather than requiring separate public-preschool enrollment. Districts that fall short of state benchmarks for transitioning children from Early Intervention into special education are given priority for the funding.

There also exists a federal program, called the Part C Extension Option, that would give states the option to extend Early Intervention services for students who qualify for an IEP up to age five instead of cutting them off at three. That would allow them to continue with the same EI structure rather than moving to a preschool setting. Several states, including Connecticut, Maryland, and Colorado, have adopted it. Massachusetts has not, in part, because doing so would require substantial new investment both from the state and from private insurers.

“There would be a lot of people interested in that extension,” said Buglione. “It probably has not been discussed in a super meaningful way at this point here in Massachusetts because we know that the mechanism is not there for us to be able to do it. But I do think if the option was there to apply for this program, a lot of the Early Intervention vendors in Massachusetts would go for it.”

This article first appeared on CommonWealth Beacon and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

If We Want Better Local Government, Let’s Change the Election Calendar

If we want better local government, especially in Gateway Cities, let’s change the election calendar so more people vote when we elect municipal leaders

by Lane Glenn, CommonWealth Beacon

Within hours, the recent arrest of Lawrence Mayor Brian DePena on charges that he had defrauded the federal government out of $1.5 million dollars in COVID relief small business loans reignited stories about the city that, despite its amazing progress in recent years, just won’t go away.

The Boston Globe declared, “Lawrence mayor’s arrest a ‘step back’ for a city with a long history of political scandal” while NBC News Boston dragged out old footage under story headlined “After Lawrence mayor’s arrest, revisiting a predecessor’s scandals.” Then other outlets piled on.

The stories cited the constant investigations, charges, and convictions that dogged the administration of former Lawrence Mayor William Lantigua more than a decade ago, as well as recent scandals that, in addition to Mayor DePena’s arrest, include the conviction of his chief of staff on child pornography charges, concerns about voter fraud in a city councilor race, and the discovery of secret and illegal audio recordings inside City Hall.

Taken together, this mélange of malfeasance paints a picture of a city that, if you don’t know better, seems to embrace its bad boys (and the occasional bad girl), creating a reputation for lawlessness, especially among residents in the suburbs and beyond, that Lawrence does not deserve.

After all, no individual leader is larger or more important than the people of the city, state or nation they lead.

And besides, thanks to the way municipal elections are held, very few people in Lawrence, or in similar cities across Massachusetts and around the country, actually elect their mayor, so their reputation should not ride on his virtue once in office.

In the 2025 Lawrence municipal election, only 11,379 (17 percent) of the city’s 66,000 voting-age residents cast ballots, with Mayor DePena earning 6,106 votes over his challenger, Juan Manny Gonzalez, who chalked up 5,173.

That means a scant 9 percent of Lawrencians actually elected Mayor DePena.

While it may be tempting to blame voter apathy, weak turnout is unfortunately common everywhere in Gateway Cities like Lawrence, Lowell, Lynn, Chelsea, and Brockton (where the mayor is also in hot water), with large populations of low-income, minority, or immigrant residents, not because they don’t care, but for a host of other understandable reasons, like:

1. People don’t know there is an election.

If you don’t know there is an election this November, it’s because you’ve sworn off television, radio, and social media, your electricity is out, and, quite possibly, you’re in a coma. The reporting, advertising, and public chatter are unavoidable.

Indeed, most media and voter attention gets paid to federal or statewide elections that happen in November of even-numbered years.

But beyond the high-profile contests, there are 90,000 or so local governments across the country, including cities, counties, and townships, along with school, library, park, and other special purpose districts that, together, appoint nearly half a million elected officials. And together, those local officeholders have even more impact on most citizens’ everyday lives than presidents, members of Congress, and governors.

The problem is, nearly 60 percent of US cities, including, according to the Massachusetts Municipal Association, Lawrence and nearly every other city in the Commonwealth, hold their elections in “off-cycle,” odd-numbered years when hardly anyone is paying attention.

2. Poverty increases the “cost” of voting.

The poverty rate in Lawrence is 18 percent, nearly twice the statewide average of just under 10 percent; and the median household income is only $60,433, less than 60 percent of the state’s $103,960.

While it may take only a few minutes to actually cast a ballot, the full voting experience requires considerably more time. Voters need to know:

• when the election is
• whether their registration is current
• where and how to vote (including options for in-person, drop-off or mail-in ballots)
• who is running for which offices (and what those offices do)
• which extra questions are on the ballot (and what they mean)
• what the candidates stand for
• why the outcome matters.

And time is money.

For someone working two jobs, using public transportation, arranging childcare, and dealing with an unpredictable work schedule (in addition to possibly taking classes part-time at their local community college), those relatively minor time costs add up quickly.

On top of all that, the act of voting often takes longer in poorer communities with larger populations of Black or Hispanic residents than in more affluent, White communities, thanks to strained budgets, fewer polling places and poll workers, and, sometimes, extra requirements like voter ID laws.

3. Mobility matters.

Lower-income Americans are less likely to own homes, and much more likely to rent and to move more frequently. Moving disrupts not only voter registration, but how attached someone feels to the community where they live, and how likely they are to vote.

About two-thirds of American households are homeowners, and about a third are renters; but in poorer communities, like Massachusetts Gateway Cities, that’s flipped: 72 percent of Lawrence households rent, while only 28 percent own their homes, and similar disparities exist in places like Lowell, Lynn, Worcester, and Springfield.

The result? Fewer registered voters and lower turnout, especially for local elections.

How can cities like Lawrence help more residents vote?

Compared to many states, Massachusetts already makes voting relatively simple, though not for everyone.

According to the Institute for Responsive Government’s “Cost of Voting Index,” Massachusetts is already a “Top Tier” state, earning a C+ and ranking 11^th easiest among all 50 states for providing online and automatic registration, along with pre-registration at age 16; in addition to not requiring identification, offering early, in-person voting, and no-excuse voting by mail.

However, we trail behind states like Maine, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin because we lack same-day or Election Day registration, which could help low-income residents in cities like Lawrence who have relocated close to election time and want to cast a ballot in their new district.

Voters will have the opportunity to decide whether to make this change in November via Question 4, which would allow same-day voter registration, a measure being championed by Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin.

The most important change communities like Lawrence might consider, though, is the timing of elections. Considerable research has shown that moving a stand-alone municipal election in an odd-numbered year to align with any federal election typically doubles voter participation, and scheduling it during a presidential election can increase turnout by 25-35 points.

According to the Center for Effective Government at the University of Chicago, when it comes to aligning local and national elections, “The research is unanimous and persuasive: No other institutional reform we know of—short of making voting compulsory—comes anywhere close to having this kind of impact on turnout.”

Getting more people to the polls clearly does not guarantee electing honest, law-abiding candidates, but it can increase the scrutiny of those candidates, and their base of accountability once they are in office—especially in local elections, where your mayor is also your neighbor.

For now, keep in mind that despite the dire headlines about a few leaders who may have broken the rules, Lawrence is like cities everywhere, filled with honest, hard-working people who want the best for their families and their community and who, because of some additional challenges not everyone faces, may need some changes to the system so their voices can be heard.

Lane Glenn is president of Northern Essex Community College. He is a member of the board of MassINC, the nonprofit civic organization that publishes CommonWealth Beacon.

This article first appeared on CommonWealth Beacon and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Local Students to Contact International Space Station

WORCESTER – The EcoTarium Museum of Science and Nature, at 222 Harrington Way, announced on Monday, Jan. 19, that 10 local students will speak live with an astronaut aboard the International Space Station (ISS) in October. The museum will also invite hundreds of students to participate in the event and related education programs.

The students and the astronaut will communicate via the Amateur Radio on the International Space Station (ARISS) system.

“What a thrill to be able to place a call to outer space using radio waves,” said EcoTarium President and CEO Noreen Johnson Smith. “For more than 125 years, scientists have been using radio waves to communicate, and now we are measuring radio wave  emissions to discover distant objects in the universe. Calling the astronauts over HAM radio is an exciting lesson on the power of electromagnetic waves.”

The contact with ARISS will take place during the week of October 12 to 17. NASA will confirm the exact date and time in late September or early October.

ARISS is a joint venture by NASA, the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS), the American Radio Relay League (ARRL), and the Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation (AMSAT) to facilitate communication via Amateur Radio between astronauts aboard the International Space Station and schools and communities around the world

The EcoTarium will host a public community celebration of the event on Saturday, Oct. 17, at the museum. That event will include hands-on activities and educational experiences focused on amateur radio and space exploration.

According to the museum, this program advances the EcoTarium’s mission of igniting curiosity and inspiring a passion for science, technology, engineering, and math.

The call to the ISS is a collaboration with the Central Massachusetts Amateur Radio Association (CMARA) and North High School.

Learn more about the program at the EcoTarium website.

See Primary Election Results and General Election Candidates

Primary election day preliminary results on Tuesday, Sept. 1, saw 18,238 voters cast ballots in the City of Worcester, representing 15.2 percent of the 119,806 registered voters in the city. The following totals represent only those ballots cast in Worcester.

Of those ballots cast, 14,688 voted in the Democratic Party primary, while 3,550 voted in the Republican Party primary.

The most closely watched race within the Democratic Party, for United States Senator, saw incumbent Senator Ed Markey earn 10,132 votes in Worcester, 70.4 percent, over Seth Moulton.

Two contested elections for the nomination for state representative saw incumbents prevail.

In the Massachusetts 14th District, incumbent Rep. James O’Day earned 2,090 votes (63.7%) to challenger Barbur Rajeshkumar’s 1,182 votes (36%).

In the Massachusetts 14th District, incumbent Mary Keefe earned 1,285 votes (64.6%) while challenger Ron Waddell Jr. earned 696 votes (35%).

The Republican Party held a contested primary for its nominee for governor, with Michae Minogue earning 2,451 votes (70.3%) and securing the nomination. Brian Shortsleeve earned 1,013 votes (29%).

Multiple media outlets have declared Markey, O’Day, Keefe, and Minogue the winners of their respective races.

The general election nominees from the two major parties in November are:

(Note: (i) indicates an incumbent nominee)

• U.S. Senator
  • Ed Markey (D) (i)
  • John Deaton (R)
• U.S. Representative
  • Jim McGovern
•  Governor
  • Maura Healey (D) (i)
  • Michael Minogue (R)
• Lieutenant Governor
  • Kim Driscoll (D) (i)
  • Shawn Oliver (R)
• Attorney General
  • Andrea Joy Campbell (D) (i)
  • Michael Walsh (R)
• Secretary of State
  • William Galvin (D) (i)
• Treasurer
  • Deborah Goldberg (D) (i)
  • Elizabeth Dionne (R)
• Auditor
  • Diana DiZoglio (D) (i)
• Governor’s Councilor
  • Paul DePaulo (D) (i)
  • Margaret Abboud (R)
• 1st Worcester State Senate District
  • Robyn Kennedy (D) (i)
• 2nd Worcester State Senate District
  • Michael Moore (D) (i)
• Worcester and Hampshire Senator
  • Shannon Teabo (D)
  • Peter Durant (R) (i)
• 13th Worcester State Representative
  • John Mahoney (D) (i)
• 14th Worcester State Representative
  • James O’Day (D) (i)
• 15th Worcester State Representative
  • Mary Keefe (D) (i)
• 16th Worcester State Representative
  • Daniel Donahue
• 17th Worcester State Representative
  • David LeBoeuf (D) (i)
• Worcester County District Attorney
  • Joe Early Jr. (D) (i)
• Register of Probate
  • Stephanie Fattman (R) (i)

Not A Seat At The Table

On September 1st, the City of Worcester joined the rest of the state in running the state’s primary. It is a rainy day, and low turnout is expected. For the most part, races are unopposed, and the way it is seems destined to continue at the State House.

Often, if you read the local news, Democrats here in Massachusetts celebrate themselves and the policies in our Commonwealth. There are a ton of lawsuits against the Trump Administration, and it seems like many victories. But for the poor and middle-class people of our state:

-Prices keep rising

-Rents keep rising

-Homelessness is at all-time records

-Addiction keeps rising

So I was unsurprised to see the picture that District Attorney Joe Early posted on his Facebook. The picture was clearly from City Manager Eric Batista’s office. I have been there a few times in futile attempts to get various city managers to change their minds on this issue or that. It never works. As our illustrious Mayor shows us, all deals are done in the dark.

This picture included the following caption:

Today we met with City of Worcester, Massachusetts City Manager Eric Batista, City of Worcester Health & Human Services Commissioner Dr. Seema Dixit, Worcester Police Department (Official)’s Chief Paul Saucier, and Worcester County Sheriff’s Office Sheriff Lew Evangelidis to share ideas and brainstorm solutions to combat the opioid crisis and support Worcester’s unhoused population. Our hope is that by working together on a community solution, we can make a greater impact and continue building a safer, healthier Worcester.

How can it be a community solution if no one from the affected community is there? This is the disconnect our leaders have. In that picture there are registered Democrats, Republicans and unenrolled. All of them seem blissfully unaware that there is no one at that table with lived experience relative to the issues at hand. As much as the three law enforcement leaders might know about how to arrest people, prosecute them, and then house them in a corrections facility, none of them have ever lived on the street.

The interesting thing is that all of them know local professionals who have. All of them work in some capacity with program directors who interact daily with folks who have had successful recoveries. All of them have spoken publicly at events where people in recovery have had success. Yet, at this meeting of power brokers in that space, not one of them had the wherewithal to invite a person with relative experience.

It is such an interesting juxtaposition on this day, in the shadow of the Civilian Review Board debate, or the discussion of law enforcement accountability. If you go to their Facebook pages, you will see local people who argue up and down that no one without a law enforcement background should EVER oversee law enforcement personnel. The NEBPA Local 911 and its president take the same position.

Yet the same leaders think people without experience in the homelessness field or addiction field should have the ability to review and make decisions. They have a meeting, with a picture like this, taken on purpose on primary day, and show you exactly what they think of you.

I do not think that local people are stupid and offer no value to these important conversations. Looking at this picture, it would appear that they do.

Barre Woman Sentenced for $100,000 in Social Security Fraud

WORCESTER – A federal judge sentenced a local woman on Friday, August 28, after she pleaded guilty in May to Social Security fraud.

U.S. District Court Judge Margaret R. Guzman sentenced Jennifer Valley, 51, of Barre, to 10 months of home confinement, three years of supervised release, and one day in prison, deemed to be time already served.  The court also required her to pay $100,218 in restitution.

According to federal prosecutors, Valley stole $100,218 in Social Security retirement benefits from the government between October 2022 and August 2025. The government alleged that Valley collected benefits for an individual with whom she lived after the person died.

The beneficiary appointed Valley as the beneficiary’s representative payee to manage their Social Security benefits

Rather than report the beneficiary’s death, in June 2023 Valley submitted reports to the Social Security Administration with false information, allowing her to collect another $23,157

Worcester Community Remembers Longtime Activist Lynn Norris

WORCESTER — Dozens of community members gathered at Pleasant and Winslow Park to remember Lynn Norris, a longtime Worcester activist whose decades of work touched causes ranging from voting rights, housing, public transportation, and family services.

Norris died in May at the age of 75.

Originally from Louisiana, Norris began participating in social activism during the Civil Rights Movement. At 14, she traveled to Selma, Alabama, where she marched alongside the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Her commitment to activism continued throughout her life and eventually made her a familiar presence in Worcester’s community organizations and neighborhood campaigns.

“She was a fierce protector for the things and people she loved, and we were all lucky to have known her,” said local activist Parlee Jones.

Jones currently runs The Village, a community space on King Street that Norris helped establish as Stone Soup in 2006. The organization was created as a home for grassroots groups, artists and activists and became a gathering place for community organizing in Worcester.

Norris’s work extended across numerous organizations and causes. She was involved in the creation of the Worcester Parents Center, which eventually became the Worcester Family Resource Center, and worked as a grant writer at United Way. She also served as chair of Worcester’s Neighbor to Neighbor chapter and helped found the Worcester Zero Fare Coalition, which advocated for eliminating fares on Worcester Regional Transit Authority buses.

For many of those who gathered at the memorial, however, Norris’s impact was measured not only by the organizations she helped build or the causes she championed, but by the encouragement and support she offered to people around her.

“I met Lynn in 2016. She was really an amazing person,” two-time School Committee candidate and community activist Nelly Medina told This Week in Worcester at the memorial. “She always encouraged me to run for something, and when I did, she was the first one to support me and give a donation.”

Medina was among more than two dozen residents who spoke during the gathering, sharing stories about Norris and the influence she had on their lives and their involvement in Worcester’s civic life.

State Rep. Mary O’Keefe recalled Norris as a constant presence in neighborhood organizing, including at the Piedmont Community Center.

“She’d always check in and find out what’s going on, and like she always would, she became part of the woodwork,” O’Keefe said. “At one point we started a group called Women Together to address youth violence, and of course Lynn stepped up and became a strong voice.”

“She was tremendous,” O’Keefe added. “And we all need to think how we can help her legacy live on.”

$17.9 Million in Community Health Grants Awarded Across Mass.

BOSTON – Governor Maura Healey announced on Friday, Aug. 28, funding to improve community health across the state with $17.9 million in grants to 31 organizations.

The state intends the funding to support locally driven efforts for access to healthy food and housing, behavioral health, healthy aging, and other factors that impact health and well-being.

“Where you live, whether you can afford healthy food and housing, and whether you can get the support you need all have an impact on your health,” said Governor Maura Healey. “These investments put resources directly into communities to tackle those challenges and help people live healthier lives. We’re proud to support local organizations that know their communities best and are doing this work every day.”

This round of funding is the fourth awarded from the Massachusetts Community Health and Healthy Aging Funds. The 31 grant awardees will receive the grants over five years.

The three major areas the awardees will work in are:

• Building healthier communities by advancing community-driven policies, systems, and environments that make it easier for residents to lead healthy lives;
• Coordinating community health improvement planning by bringing local partners together to identify health priorities and develop solutions; and
• Supporting healthy aging through age-friendly policies, systems, and community supports that help older adults live safely and independently.

The awardees providing services in Worcester County:

• Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission – $600,000
• Neighbor to Neighbor Massachusetts Education Fund – $840,000
• Worcester Rise for Health – $1 million
• MAB Community Services, Inc./MA Association for the Blind and Visually Impaired – $400,000
• Friends of Indian Senior Citizens Organization, Inc. – $100,000
• Community Health Network for North Central Mass – $375,000
• Town of Ware – $375,000
• Worcester Community Action Council – $375,000

See the full list of awardees.

Policy, Systems, and Environmental Change (PSE) Grant

• Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission (Worcester County, $600,000)
• Collaborative Resolutions Group (Franklin, Hampden, and Hampshire counties, $1,000,000)
• Franklin County Community Development Corporation (Franklin, Hampden, and Hampshire counties, $994,290)
• Harborlight Community Partners (Essex County, $752,886)
• Latino Support Network (Essex County, $999,999)
• Massachusetts Food System Collaborative (statewide, $999,948)
• Massachusetts Housing & Shelter Alliance (statewide, $992,172)
• Massachusetts Public Health Association (Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden, and Hampshire counties, $1,000,000)
• Merrimack Valley Project (Essex and Middlesex counties, $1,000,000)
• Neighbor to Neighbor Massachusetts Education Fund (Essex, Hampden, and Worcester counties, $840,000)
• Old Colony Planning Council (Plymouth County, $525,000)
• South Asian Workers’ Center, Boston (Middlesex, Norfolk, and Suffolk counties, $999,947)
• The Marion Institute, Inc. (Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, Nantucket, Norfolk, and Plymouth counties, $997,363)
• Worcester Rise for Health (Worcester County, $1,000,000)
• Groundwork Southcoast (Bristol County, $100,000)
• Luminosity Behavioral Health Services, Inc. (Plymouth County, $100,000)

Healthy Aging Grant

• Health Care for All (Bristol, Essex, Hampden, and Suffolk counties, $500,000)
• MAB Community Services, Inc./MA Association for the Blind and Visually Impaired (Berkshire, Bristol, Essex, Hampden, Middlesex, Norfolk, Plymouth, Suffolk, and Worcester counties, $400,000)
• Nuestras Raíces, Inc. (Hampden County, $499,953)
• United Way of Franklin and Hampshire Region (Franklin County, $472,845)
• Friends of Indian Senior Citizens Organization, Inc. (Middlesex, Norfolk, and Worcester counties, $100,000)

Community Health Improvement Planning (CHIP) Grant

• Berkshire Regional Planning Commission (Berkshire County, $375,000)
• City of New Bedford Health Department (Bristol County, $375,000)
• Collaborative for Educational Services (Hampshire County, $375,000)
• Community Health Network for North Central Mass (Middlesex and Worcester counties, $375,000)
• Greater Lowell Health Alliance (Middlesex County, $375,000)
• Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (Hampden County, $374,736)
• Town of Ware (Hampden, Hampshire, and Worcester counties, $375,000)
• Worcester Community Action Council (Worcester County, $375,000)
• The Food Project (Essex, Middlesex, and Suffolk counties, $100,000)
• IFSI-USA Immigrant Family Services Institute (Plymouth County, $100,000)