RE: Criteria for policy effectiveness/success

[Betty Winter <winter.betty@epa.gov>]

I have to disagree with the statement that "Effectiveness of the PIP can be measured by the level of public comment (how many letters, phone calls, emails, and faxes were received, and oral presentations made)." The best and most comprehensive public involvement techniques and efforts in particular areas or for particular issues will not result in input from stakeholders for the many reasons pointed out throughout this dialog.  EPA must have something else to evaluate public participation efforts in these cases.  Perhaps the idea of a checklist on who should have been interested (although as has been pointed out earlier, EPA may not be able to accurately identify all potential stakeholders)and agency efforts to reach those groups might be required.  In addition, the agency might document efforts to reach all stakeholders (advertisements and mailings, partnerships with community groups and/or local officials), Internet information, community interviews, information in libraries and community centers, meetings or open houses held, agency presentations at other community forums (such as PTA, City Council, and other meetings),and as Peter said "The PIP can be measured in terms of how much education was offered on issues, and how many and what kind of 'students' took part; what was learned."  This would hold the agency acocuntable but is very resource intensive and could turn into simply a check off requirement not real public involvement effots.  If the agency (using community input) had a way to prioritize issues for high public invovement or low public involvement efforts, such documentation could be required only for those issues of high interest to the community.  Would there be a way to do this?  

I do agree with Peter's statement that "Public involvement is successful if no interested group in a region is left out of decision-making."  But I am not sure how to document this in cases where there is no (or little) input from stakeholders (even after we have contacted them).