RE: Criteria for policy effectiveness/success

[David James <james.david@epa.gov>]

I'm not so sure Peter Schlesinger's criterion for effective public involvement -- "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)" -- is true in all cases.

Last week Chris Bruce, thinking economically, asked "If reducing the costs of participation will increase participation, might not increasing the benefits do the same?" and at that time Schlesinger and Marci Kinter conceded his point, with different respective emphases.

Here's the mental model I work with, which has some bearing on this thread:

Given a member of the public and a given policy issue (not necessarily environmental), the likelihood of participation can be mapped on this axis (imagine a sketch of a bell curve):




 !

 !                      -------

 !                 -----   D   -----

 !          -------  C           E  -------

 ! ----------   B                       F   ----------

 !     A                                         G




At point "A", members of the public are worried about a problem but don't participate because they are scared to speak, embarrassed, or don't think it will make a damn bit of difference. At point "G", members of the public aren't worried about a problem, or are completely confident that the powers that be can take care of the problem.

Consider the Y-axis some indexed measure of likelihood of participation, with higher levels meaning more active involvement. Most of the public, when considering most situations they are confronted with, are somewhere in between, in the "B" to "F" range. Toward the "B" side, they are skeptical that their participation will make a difference, but the issue is important enough that they turn out when prompted. Toward the "F" end of the range, they think of themselves as "fine-tuning" government action that they conceive to be already in more-or-less the right direction.

Silence, apparent apathy, or general unresponsiveness can come from either the "A" end or the "G" end -- so it would be an error to measure public responsiveness success in the way Schlesinger recommends:  there may be little response because folks aren't worried. Read Sandman's great stuff on Risk being a function of Hazard and Outrage.

Schlesinger also writes that "Public involvement is successful if no interested group in a region is left out of decision-making." I would amend that to say, "Public involvement is successful if each interested group and individual who WANTS to be involved in the decision-making process gets a chance to be involved, IN THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY WOULD PREFER TO BE involved." (This, strictly speaking, is also an unattainable goal -- but one which is a wee bit easier to approach asymptotically). 

There are many individuals and groups who may make a strategic decision NOT to be involved publicly -- in order to respond to the demands of some internal constituency, or as an aid in fundraising. Should their lack of participation then be taken as a failure by the EPA? I don't think so. In fact in this light it could be seen as vaguely patronizing to pretend that non-participation is somehow always the "problem" of the public agency.

So, if not by the number of complaints, then how could public involvement be best evaluated? My hunch academics have a suite of good tools available for this purpose, though some may be to intensive to be practical for a lot of our work. I think EPA's sister agencies, especially the USDA Forest Service and the Department of Energy, can provide many useful examples of how to incorporate public opinion in their NEPA decision-making. Perhaps a quick post-decision follow-up survey of all participants who left their address could be a part of each public involvement effort -- a survey the results of which would also be made public.

I think the main thing to avoid is the feeling that somehow "if folks were as educated as me about this issue/problem/crisis, they'd have less trust in the process, like I do." Or "they'd have more trust in the process, like I do." Give folks the space to respond the way they respond, and don't assume off the bat that they are deluded or stupid if their response differs from yours. 

Public involvement will be more effective once the vastly different members of the American public become more truly tolerant of the diversity of opinion present.  A good place to start civil dialogue is at the point at which you presume good will even among folks who you disagree with.  EPA's role in fostering this starting point is very limited -- there's not much the agency can do in the short-term to change the civil climate in the country -- but the Agency can at all times model tolerance and openness by being tolerant and open.  

Here I repost, in its entirety, an early message of  mine about identifying the public. At some point an agency has to be satisfied with self-identification, I think.

----------- >
Dan Dozier has done a great service by pointing out that defining what public you seek to involve depends crucially on what level of involvement you anticipate allowing. Or of being forced by circumstances or law to accept. 

Mr. Dozier writes: "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."

Who is the public? It's more than "anybody likely to be pissed off by the consequences of the decision." Sometimes I find myself thinking that the public would better be thought of as "anybody who SHOULD be interested in the outcome, whether they realize it or not." -- But that's a dangerously arrogant perspective, since who are WE to decide who should be involved?

Government bodies have an obligation to continually invite public involvement, and to identify potentially interested parties through a well-thought through iterative process -- but there has to be an end point at which we say, "ok, now we've done enough to invite the public in. It's now up to the public to step up to the plate." 

We're far from the first generation to struggle with the issues of identifying and involving the public in a complex society in which difficult trade-offs must be addressed. My hero John Dewey, in his 1927 book "The Public and Its Problems," famously pointed out that:

"The essential need, in other words, is the improvement of the methods and conditions of debate, discussion and persuasion. That is the problem of the public. We have asserted that this improvement depends essentially upon freeing and perfecting the processes of inquiry and of dissemination of their conclusions. Inquiry, indeed, is a work which devolves upon experts. But their expertness is not shown in framing and executing policies, but in discovering and making known the facts upon which the former depend....It is not necessary that the many should have the knowledge and skill to carry on the needed investigations; what is required is that they have the ability to judge of the bearing of the knowledge supplied by others upon common concerns."

-----John Dewey, The Public and its Problems (Chicago: Sage Books, The Swallow Press, originally published by Henry Holt and Company, 1927), at 208.

Like water, information becomes stagnant unless it is flowing. It requires an active, engaged populace to make dry data cohere into  useful knowledge. As Dewey observes:

"Publication is partial and the public which results is partially informed and formed until the meanings it purveys pass from mouth to mouth." (p. 219)

Let a thousand flowers bloom! Let's seek to identify and notify the public by EVERY method discussed today. To those who say there's no money allocated for such an action, let's set up three or four pilot demonstrations in different EPA Regions, and get the new Regional Administrators in those Regions to sponsor a two-to-three year effort. And see what happens.

David James
Atlanta
james.david@epa.gov