RE: Outreach to Impacted Communities

[Steve Taylor <Steve@miltoxproj.org>]

I'd like to agree with Connie Tucker's comments and add a few thoughts of my own.

Connie states:

"One of the most effective outreach strategies is to intimately involve impacted community organizations that have been formed to address the environmental assault or existing impacted community orgnaizations that address the assault as a primary goal of the organization. These orgnaizations, called environmental justice organizations are more effective than the best EPA outreach in informing and involving the affected community."

I would strongly agree with the above.  The notion of EPA generating significant public involvement person by person seems daunting.  EPA staff almost certainly don't reside in or understand the community being affected.  Community members don't know and, more importantly, trust them.  And EPA staff can't (or won't) undertake the particular kinds of outreach necessary to stoke the fires of public involvement.  Existing organizations in the community, especially those specifically dedicated to the problem at hand, are much better vehicles for public involvement.

I would also note that identifying and informing the interested or affected public is only a very first step.  Most of us are constantly bombarded with things we need to do in our daily lives.  I don't even have children, and I still feel like I never have enough time to get to everything.  My experience is that encouraring public participation the issue of motivation is key.  This is why organizers talk about "agitation."  People have to make choices about their limited time and energy.  Federal register notices and various dry communications don't motivate people to get involved very well.  Again, organizations of affected residents and other community organizations are in the best position to motivate public involvement by arousing interest and agitating.

Connie also states:

"A word of caution, we have observed the creation of sham organizations to thwart the efforts and influence of vocal impacted community organizations. EPA must avoid empowering sham organizations. An organization representing the impacted community should have the support of the impacted community and it should provide information and outreach and conduct community meetings at the very least."

I agree that this is critical.  I would also note that sometimes these "sham organizations" are in fact public or quasi-public participation bodies, such as Restoration Advisory Boards at military sites.  Some of these bodies work well, but some are structured and run in ways which actually restrict public participation, or, even worse, use the sham public participation to legitimize autocratic decisions.

Steve