Evaluation: sound and acceptable decisions

[Barry Zalph <bzalph@co.jefferson.ky.us>]

I have greatly appreciated the thoughtfulness, honesty, and diversity of the posts throughout this dialogue. As in a PIP on a specific environmental issue or project, those three characteristics of the public input (and agency responses) added much to the value of the exercise.

Caron Chess noted that evaluation involves comparing results with a priori goals. Others have posted very good suggestions regarding evaluation in terms of the quantity and influence of public participation and the satisfaction of participants. The "Introduction/Goals" thread touched on two other goals (among others) that deserve attention during evaluation of a PIP: 1) EPA decisions that better protect human and ecosystem health; and 2) less contention (lawsuits, etc.) in the wake of EPA decisions.

If a decision aims to reduce toxic emissions or concentrations, did it succeed to the desired extent? Did actual compliance costs exceed or stay below estimates? Did implementation result in unforseen benefits or problems? In some cases, one can answer these questions (although usually only over a period of years).

Did the decision result in a lawsuit, legislative challenge, or public outcry against EPA? How long and costly (to EPA and the community) were these challenges?

I would hope that improvements in public involvement would lead to improvements in these measures of the quality of decisions reached by the agency. Conversely, good scores on these measures should indicate (though certainly not prove without additional evidence) good public involvement.