The spectrum of public involvement

[Dan Dozier <ddozier@tlisystems.com>]

Hello all:

My name is Dan Dozier.  I work as a mediator and arbitrator, with particular focus on environmental and public policy disputes, including Superfund and other hazardous waste disputes (both between EPA and the community and between EPA and responsible parties), policy dialogues and negotiated rulemaking, and land use and zoning disputes. I live and work in Bethesda, Maryland, have three children, and love to ride bikes (I often commute to work on my recumbent bicycle).

The topic today,"Identifying the Public" is about how EPA can best identify and then involve or inform the public regarding its actions and policies.  

I think that the term "public involvement" means different things to different people, or even different things to the same people depending on the situation.  I think it is useful to consider the different meanings of the concept "public involvement."  

What, exactly, does public involvement mean?  As yesterday's discussion began to point out, there is a range of meanings to that term.  For instance, a wonderful organization of which I am a member, the International Association for Public Participation (known as IAP2), has set out a spectrum of the different levels of public involvement, which they call the Public Participation Spectrum.  The levels range from:
·	Inform - the promise is "we will keep you informed," (e.g. fact sheets, web sites);

·	Consult - the promise is "we will keep you informed and listen to and acknowledge concerns and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision," (e.g. requests for public comment, focus groups, surveys, public meetings);

·	Involve - the promise is "we will work with you to ensure that your concerns and issues are directly reflected in the alternatives developed and provide feedback on how the public input influenced the decision," (e.g. workshops or deliberative polling);

·	Collaborate - the promise is "we will look to you for direct advice and innovation in formulating solutions and incorporate your advice and recommendations into the decisions to the maximum extent possible," (e.g. citizens advisory committees, consensus-building processes such as negotiated rulemaking or policy dialogues); and

·	Empower - the promise is "we will implement what you decide," (e.g. juries, ballots, delegated decisions).

I think that identifying the appropriate public(s)depends to a great extent on the level of involvement that EPA is, either explicitly or implicitly, offering, although in nearly every matter, at a minimum, the Agency should (must) inform.  However, I think most people would agree that informing is not nearly enough in many situations. 

The issues go beyond informing the public -- which, as the discussion to date has shown -- is difficult to do effectively.  There is no "one" solution to informing the public, and EPA has the obligation to inform different publics differently.  If you lived near a Superfund site, public information, in my opinion, is more that just publically available information from an EPA database.  I think the Agency has a responsibility to notifiy people directly, through mailings or radio and tv spots or newspaper ads (or a combination of all of the above) about the site and -- and this is where the spectrum of levels of involvement come in -- of other avenues of involvement, if people are interested. 

I look forward to more discussion about this issue -- especially about how to effectively involve people in some of the more "intensive" involvement techniques such as consultation and collaboration.

Daniel P. Dozier
TLI Systems, Inc.
4340 East West Highway
Suite 1120
Bethesda, MD 20814
301-718-2270
DDozier@TLISystems.com
www.tlisystems.com