Capacity Building Report

VI. NEXT STEPS

This section outlines an integrated approach to moving forward on building the capacity of citizens and communities to participate in environmental decisions. The comprehensive approach outlined below would require substantial resources and, therefore, may not be feasible to implement in its entirety. For this reason, these recommended next steps are designed so that some of them can be pursued and implemented separately. For example, the specific approaches outlined in section C below could be initiated independent of the more overarching steps discussed in sections A and B, although this may not be the optimal strategy for purposes of designing a long-term approach to capacity building.

Any approach to building the capacity to participate in EPA activities is necessarily linked to the public participation processes used. The processes define in large part what capacity is being built to do and whether participation is likely to occur once local capacity is built. Thus, although this study was not designed to address public participation processes and approaches specifically, it nevertheless became apparent early in the course of the project that, in developing an approach to capacity building, public participation issues were implicated and require attention before capacity building needs can be met by EPA. For this reason, the discussion of next steps focuses initially on public participation processes and approaches as they relate to capacity building efforts.

A critical first step in addressing capacity building needs is to determine when public participation is required and when it is discretionary. In addition, it is necessary to determine the type of public participation required (e.g., notice and comment, meetings). A threshold review of the statutes and regulations EPA implements would provide the foundation for EPA’s capacity building efforts because it would serve as a reference for what communities need the capacity to do with respect to Agency activities. For example, the research could produce a list of mandatory public participation opportunities, such as commenting on Superfund cleanup plans, and the mechanisms for doing so, such as stakeholder group discussions, submitting written comments, or attending public hearings.

As part of the review of EPA mandated and discretionary public participation duties, a study of the authorities of the states with respect to public participation under delegated programs would advance capacity building goals. Furthermore, because so many programs are delegated to the states, research on EPA’s authority to review and oversee state public participation efforts is necessarily an integral part of such a review. Again, unless meaningful opportunities for public participation are available, at the state level as well as through EPA, local capacity building efforts will not produce an increase in the level and quality of community involvement.

While much has been written on general goals and purposes in seeking public participation, EPA Headquarters and the Regional offices have not yet fully adopted and integrated specific goals and principles into their public participation processes. Clearly defining these goals would advance public participation and capacity building efforts on many fronts, including clarifying the expectations of both EPA staff and stakeholders about public involvement. While EPA has taken strides in this direction with its draft principles for public participation and its Stakeholder Involvement Action Plan, additional efforts may be necessary.[71]

Goals could be developed first on a general level. For example, goals could include seeking to make better informed decisions, documenting how EPA responds to community concerns, and facilitating better acceptance by citizens of EPA decisions. In addition, goals could be developed that address more specific and complex issues, such as EPA’s expectations with respect to state public participation efforts under delegated programs. The goals could also address issues such as the challenges of involving the public in science-based decisions. For example, one goal could be to provide the public with lay-person explanations or guidebooks on how various regulatory requirements work in practical terms or how scientific findings relate to pending EPA decisions. Thus, capacity building could focus in part on how to develop these lay-person guides and deliver them to communities.

Any effort to develop goals and principles should involve the public early and extensively. As a part of that effort, it would be critical to manage communities’ expectations and clearly identify any limitations and constraints up front so that the public can participate in a useful and constructive manner and maintain confidence in EPA processes. White papers could be developed for purposes of guiding public input, and the plethora of research on public participation purposes could also inform EPA’s efforts.

Once EPA’s statutory and regulatory authority is clarified and goals and principles are established, the Agency will be in a position to develop a more detailed approach for how to use its authority to accomplish its goals and principles. Specifically, EPA could determine how the Agency will exercise public participation duties that are mandatory and whether and how to exercise discretionary authorities. The plan could provide a road map of EPA public participation opportunities and approaches under all of the programs the Agency administers, and thereby help to educate communities, states and all EPA staff about how to involve the public more effectively in environmental decisions.

An integrated approach that would apply Agency-wide could be developed through the use of an internal EPA work group process that involves the Regional offices and that is informed by research on potential options and approaches. Early public participation in this process of developing a plan would be essential but again should be based on realistic expectations.

B. A Strategic Approach to Capacity Building

After EPA has adopted goals and principles for public participation and developed a public participation plan, it will be well-positioned to address the need for local capacity building. Rather than initiate specific pilot projects or initiatives immediately, EPA could develop a strategic plan that would lay out a path, as well as governing processes and goals, for delivering citizens and communities capacity building tools that would increase the level and quality of their participation in EPA activities. The plan could be an EPA-wide effort that includes all of the program offices, as well as the Regional offices. In developing the plan, EPA could set limits on the amount and duration of the funding and support it is willing to provide for capacity building and could incorporate goals and approaches to foster private sector support for capacity building efforts.

A strategic plan would help to guide capacity building efforts in an integrated, consistent, cost-effective, and focused manner.[72] The research presented in this report on potential approaches and models could serve as a starting point for development of the strategic plan, but the plan should be developed with substantial public input through a process that establishes reasonable expectations about what it is feasible for EPA to do with respect to capacity building. The public could include members of national, local, and environmental justice groups that could work closely with EPA Headquarters and Regional offices.[73]

The components of a capacity building plan would need to be determined but could include, for example, the following issues:

Developing Specific Initiatives: The plan could establish a process for identifying and implementing specific capacity building approaches and initiatives using this study as a starting point.

Clarifying Capacity Building Authority: The plan could develop procedures for determining whether particular approaches to capacity building are within EPA’s statutory and regulatory authority to implement.

Tailoring Capacity Building for Specific Audiences: The plan could provide an approach for determining whether capacity building should vary in light of the public’s differing levels of knowledge about environmental and/or technical issues; the particular type of environmental problem involved in the decision; the physical location(s) or geographic extent of the environmental problem; and the type of decision being considered or proposed. The information collected about the need for tailoring capacity building to specific communities or audiences could inform any broad initiatives on capacity building that are developed.[74]

Minimizing Burdens: The strategic plan could provide for a review of EPA participation processes for possible ways to reduce the time and cost of participating and for developing new processes that would be less burdensome. This type of review would be a particular challenge in light of the increased support for collaborative processes that involve the public in an integral way in EPA decision-making, because such processes are often time-consuming. The plan could also include steps for assessing ways to make public participation less burdensome for EPA.

Developing Staff Incentives: The plan could examine ways to encourage EPA and state Agency staff to use public participation more effectively, including providing substantial feedback to community and citizen participants about their input and whether or not it was used to reach a decision. Incentives could include new performance measures or new employee awards.

Establishing Benchmarking: The plan could establish strategies and methods for measuring whether capacity building efforts are successful.

Developing a Feedback Loop: The plan could provide for mechanisms for receiving ongoing feedback from the public about whether capacity building efforts are effective and how they could be improved.

C. Potential Pilot or Programmatic Initiatives

Ideally, any specific initiatives should grow out of a strategic planning process, but EPA’s resources are not infinite and the Agency may want to move forward on some concrete proposals, whether or not it undertakes the efforts suggested in subsections A and B above. Accordingly, the following section outlines an overview of some of the initiatives that could be undertaken now – either simultaneous with, or independent of, the activities in subsections A and B – based on the foregoing discussion of potential approaches to capacity building.

Several options may merit consideration by EPA that could be tested either in a pilot format or integrated into day-to-day operations. Because of the numerous approaches and combinations available to the Agency, it is important to note that the following options are only representative of the myriad potential approaches that emerged from the interviews and research on other models. For a more specific discussion of any of the approaches summarized below, see Section III above.

The details of any of these approaches to capacity building would need to be developed with substantial input from communities and other stakeholders. As discussed above, EPA’s involvement of stakeholders in the development of approaches to capacity building is essential to assuring the credibility, support, and effectiveness of the efforts. Furthermore, if any of these approaches is integrated into daily operations or tested in pilot format, it is critical that the public be given the opportunity to evaluate on a timely basis the effectiveness of the new efforts and to provide regular input on how to improve them. A pilot project should, therefore, have a clear evaluative component.

1. Information Dissemination

Building local capacity through improved information dissemination could be pursued in a variety of ways – through new programs and by improving EPA's current way of doing business. Several new approaches to disseminating information to communities through in person information delivery (phone and face-to-face) may merit further examination. Approaches that would require the development of new programs that could be tested on a pilot basis include independent information brokers, community ombudspersons, and a new general hotline. The strengths and weaknesses of these approaches and important considerations in testing them are discussed in section III of this paper. The key challenges would be to staff the efforts with people who are trusted and credible with the communities they serve. This could be achieved in a variety of ways, including accountability mechanisms such as boards of directors in the case of information brokers or through the establishment of hotline dockets that must be completed. Although new programs of this type present considerable resource implications, it may be possible to explore some of these approaches through collaboration with established federal, state and non-governmental organizations' programs such as the USDA Extension Service. While such collaborative efforts may not solve long term funding problems or provide the best approach for the long-term success and effectiveness of EPA’s local capacity building efforts, they could at least allow for the testing or vetting of some of these approaches.

Improved information dissemination could also be pursued through approaches that seek to strengthen mechanisms already being used by the Agency. These include increasing document access at the community level, updating and more aggressively using mailing lists, enhancing e-mail capacity, improving established hotlines, and continuing to fill data gaps by increasing the scope and quantity of data available on the Internet.

Finally, using regulated entities and community groups to help disseminate information to stakeholders could be further explored. As discussed in section III above, the use of these groups could be structured in a variety of ways: businesses could disseminate information in utility bills or through mailings to communities impacted by their operations; community groups could be given grants to facilitate the dissemination of information to their constituents; and collaborative efforts between industry and stakeholders, such as the Common Sense Initiative, could be used to increase the flow and exchange of information. Each of these approaches presents unique challenges that may be difficult to overcome, but each approach also has distinct strengths that may warrant further consideration.

A suggested approach for moving forward with an information dissemination initiative or pilot is to develop, convene and staff a conference that would include a wide range of stakeholders such as representatives of communities, citizen organizations and industry, as well as governmental officials, to identify and prioritize the approaches that have the greatest potential to build capacity and to design one or more pilot projects. The pilot projects could include those that would require, as well as those that would not require, federal financial support.

The conference organizers would identify and invite individuals and organizations with expertise in the relevant models, or other models that might inform the conference on the strengths and weaknesses of each alternative approach. The participants at the conference, with the assistance of conference staff, would select a pilot that could be undertaken with existing EPA resources, by leveraging resources, or by partnering with an NGO or another governmental Agency. The participants could then recommend an EPA or state regulatory activity for purposes of applying the pilot approach. The group volunteering to undertake the pilot activity would then report periodically to the conference participants about the status and success of the activity.

If appropriate, a second conference would be convened within a year after the initiation of the pilot project or projects to review and evaluate the pilot and determine how to institutionalize or broaden successful initiatives. A detailed review of the process for developing the pilot, an evaluation of the pilot, and a study of how to overcome any barriers to effective implementation and possible incentives that could encourage or refine the implementation of the project, would enable leaders throughout the country to adopt and implement similar projects.

2. Training for Communities

Several approaches to providing education and training to communities as a way to build capacity may merit consideration. First, training in how to participate in EPA processes, such as education on dispute resolution or running meetings, could be provided through workshops, guidebooks, and other mechanisms. In addition, training on environmental laws and regulations, including for example how permitting processes work, could be offered. This approach, discussed in more detail above, focuses on building the capacity of those that are already interested in participating in EPA processes and want to be able to participate more effectively. Training, depending on how it is implemented, may focus capacity building resources on a relatively small number of citizens, but perhaps with a greater return in terms of quality of participation than the broad brush approaches that focus on wider dissemination of information to larger groups.

In order to develop a specific training initiative or pilot project, a workshop could be developed in conjunction with community representatives from a selected region. Working with those representatives, experts in skills training for citizens could: identify the objectives of a training initiative; develop an agenda; select appropriate faculty; and design hands-on exercises and role-playing training mechanisms. The training course could then be piloted and a report prepared for public dissemination detailing the lessons learned and the successes of the workshop design. The report and workshop materials would also serve as a model for future workshop or training initiatives or as part of a blueprint for training trainers.

3. Technical Support

Building capacity through enhanced technical support could also be considered. The possible approaches to providing technical support vary considerably. Efforts could focus on using the current TAG model under the Superfund program as a basis for providing support for participating in other programs or for broadening the scope of activities that grants would cover. Other ways of exploring technical assistance include the use of new collaborative approaches, such as the Common Sense Initiative or Good Neighbor Agreements, that can allow the regulated community to provide the technical support that communities need to understand and participate in regulatory initiatives. Increasing the accessibility of technical documents and preparing succinct summaries of technical issues or legal requirements could also enhance local capacity from a technical and scientific perspective. Furthermore, consideration of models used in Europe for providing technical support to communities could result in the development of new approaches.

In order to develop a technical assistance pilot project or initiative, a similar conference-based approach as described with respect to an information dissemination pilot project could be used. Conference organizers would need to establish up front clear parameters and limitations with respect to potential approaches, in order to manage expectations of the participants.

4. Proactive Assessment of Community Needs

Although not a direct capacity building tool, proactive assessment of community capacity building needs could in the long run prove valuable to capacity building efforts. A series of roundtables could be convened across the country to seek focused and local perspectives on the specific and general needs of citizens and communities. The roundtables would build on the interviews from this study by providing a forum for constructive dialogue among citizens and the government. The discussions would also help determine whether capacity building efforts need to be sensitive to various factors unique to particular communities, processes, media, or issues. The roundtables would be designed to capture the insights of individuals; to foster discussion among the participants; to help identify pilot projects that could be implemented with existing resources; and to serve as resource material for a capacity building strategic plan for the states and EPA. A report on the roundtable discussions could be disseminated to the public to secure feedback from stakeholders. The report would assist communities in working with localities, states, and EPA in strengthening their capacity to participate in regulatory and other government processes.

VI. NEXT STEPS

This section outlines an integrated approach to moving forward on building the capacity of citizens and communities to participate in environmental decisions. The comprehensive approach outlined below would require substantial resources and, therefore, may not be feasible to implement in its entirety. For this reason, these recommended next steps are designed so that some of them can be pursued and implemented separately. For example, the specific approaches outlined in section C below could be initiated independent of the more overarching steps discussed in sections A and B, although this may not be the optimal strategy for purposes of designing a long-term approach to capacity building.

A. Public Participation Authority, Goals, and Public Participation Plan

Any approach to building the capacity to participate in EPA activities is necessarily linked to the public participation processes used. The processes define in large part what capacity is being built to do and whether participation is likely to occur once local capacity is built. Thus, although this study was not designed to address public participation processes and approaches specifically, it nevertheless became apparent early in the course of the project that, in developing an approach to capacity building, public participation issues were implicated and require attention before capacity building needs can be met by EPA. For this reason, the discussion of next steps focuses initially on public participation processes and approaches as they relate to capacity building efforts.

A critical first step in addressing capacity building needs is to determine when public participation is required and when it is discretionary. In addition, it is necessary to determine the type of public participation required (e.g., notice and comment, meetings). A threshold review of the statutes and regulations EPA implements would provide the foundation for EPA’s capacity building efforts because it would serve as a reference for what communities need the capacity to do with respect to Agency activities. For example, the research could produce a list of mandatory public participation opportunities, such as commenting on Superfund cleanup plans, and the mechanisms for doing so, such as stakeholder group discussions, submitting written comments, or attending public hearings.

As part of the review of EPA mandated and discretionary public participation duties, a study of the authorities of the states with respect to public participation under delegated programs would advance capacity building goals. Furthermore, because so many programs are delegated to the states, research on EPA’s authority to review and oversee state public participation efforts is necessarily an integral part of such a review. Again, unless meaningful opportunities for public participation are available, at the state level as well as through EPA, local capacity building efforts will not produce an increase in the level and quality of community involvement.

While much has been written on general goals and purposes in seeking public participation, EPA Headquarters and the Regional offices have not yet fully adopted and integrated specific goals and principles into their public participation processes. Clearly defining these goals would advance public participation and capacity building efforts on many fronts, including clarifying the expectations of both EPA staff and stakeholders about public involvement. While EPA has taken strides in this direction with its draft principles for public participation and its Stakeholder Involvement Action Plan, additional efforts may be necessary.

Goals could be developed first on a general level. For example, goals could include seeking to make better informed decisions, documenting how EPA responds to community concerns, and facilitating better acceptance by citizens of EPA decisions. In addition, goals could be developed that address more specific and complex issues, such as EPA’s expectations with respect to state public participation efforts under delegated programs. The goals could also address issues such as the challenges of involving the public in science-based decisions. For example, one goal could be to provide the public with lay-person explanations or guidebooks on how various regulatory requirements work in practical terms or how scientific findings relate to pending EPA decisions. Thus, capacity building could focus in part on how to develop these lay-person guides and deliver them to communities.

Any effort to develop goals and principles should involve the public early and extensively. As a part of that effort, it would be critical to manage communities’ expectations and clearly identify any limitations and constraints up front so that the public can participate in a useful and constructive manner and maintain confidence in EPA processes. White papers could be developed for purposes of guiding public input, and the plethora of research on public participation purposes could also inform EPA’s efforts.

Once EPA’s statutory and regulatory authority is clarified and goals and principles are established, the Agency will be in a position to develop a more detailed approach for how to use its authority to accomplish its goals and principles. Specifically, EPA could determine how the Agency will exercise public participation duties that are mandatory and whether and how to exercise discretionary authorities. The plan could provide a road map of EPA public participation opportunities and approaches under all of the programs the Agency administers, and thereby help to educate communities, states and all EPA staff about how to involve the public more effectively in environmental decisions.

An integrated approach that would apply Agency-wide could be developed through the use of an internal EPA work group process that involves the Regional offices and that is informed by research on potential options and approaches. Early public participation in this process of developing a plan would be essential but again should be based on realistic expectations.

B. A Strategic Approach to Capacity Building

After EPA has adopted goals and principles for public participation and developed a public participation plan, it will be well-positioned to address the need for local capacity building. Rather than initiate specific pilot projects or initiatives immediately, EPA could develop a strategic plan that would lay out a path, as well as governing processes and goals, for delivering citizens and communities capacity building tools that would increase the level and quality of their participation in EPA activities. The plan could be an EPA-wide effort that includes all of the program offices, as well as the Regional offices. In developing the plan, EPA could set limits on the amount and duration of the funding and support it is willing to provide for capacity building and could incorporate goals and approaches to foster private sector support for capacity building efforts.

A strategic plan would help to guide capacity building efforts in an integrated, consistent, cost-effective, and focused manner. The research presented in this report on potential approaches and models could serve as a starting point for development of the strategic plan, but the plan should be developed with substantial public input through a process that establishes reasonable expectations about what it is feasible for EPA to do with respect to capacity building. The public could include members of national, local, and environmental justice groups that could work closely with EPA Headquarters and Regional offices.

The components of a capacity building plan would need to be determined but could include, for example, the following issues:

Developing Specific Initiatives: The plan could establish a process for identifying and implementing specific capacity building approaches and initiatives using this study as a starting point.

Clarifying Capacity Building Authority: The plan could develop procedures for determining whether particular approaches to capacity building are within EPA’s statutory and regulatory authority to implement.

Tailoring Capacity Building for Specific Audiences: The plan could provide an approach for determining whether capacity building should vary in light of the public’s differing levels of knowledge about environmental and/or technical issues; the particular type of environmental problem involved in the decision; the physical location(s) or geographic extent of the environmental problem; and the type of decision being considered or proposed. The information collected about the need for tailoring capacity building to specific communities or audiences could inform any broad initiatives on capacity building that are developed.

Minimizing Burdens: The strategic plan could provide for a review of EPA participation processes for possible ways to reduce the time and cost of participating and for developing new processes that would be less burdensome. This type of review would be a particular challenge in light of the increased support for collaborative processes that involve the public in an integral way in EPA decision-making, because such processes are often time-consuming. The plan could also include steps for assessing ways to make public participation less burdensome for EPA.

Developing Staff Incentives: The plan could examine ways to encourage EPA and state Agency staff to use public participation more effectively, including providing substantial feedback to community and citizen participants about their input and whether or not it was used to reach a decision. Incentives could include new performance measures or new employee awards.

Establishing Benchmarking: The plan could establish strategies and methods for measuring whether capacity building efforts are successful.

Developing a Feedback Loop: The plan could provide for mechanisms for receiving ongoing feedback from the public about whether capacity building efforts are effective and how they could be improved.

C. Potential Pilot or Programmatic Initiatives

Ideally, any specific initiatives should grow out of a strategic planning process, but EPA’s resources are not infinite and the Agency may want to move forward on some concrete proposals, whether or not it undertakes the efforts suggested in subsections A and B above. Accordingly, the following section outlines an overview of some of the initiatives that could be undertaken now – either simultaneous with, or independent of, the activities in subsections A and B – based on the foregoing discussion of potential approaches to capacity building.

Several options may merit consideration by EPA that could be tested either in a pilot format or integrated into day-to-day operations. Because of the numerous approaches and combinations available to the Agency, it is important to note that the following options are only representative of the myriad potential approaches that emerged from the interviews and research on other models. For a more specific discussion of any of the approaches summarized below, see Section III above.

The details of any of these approaches to capacity building would need to be developed with substantial input from communities and other stakeholders. As discussed above, EPA’s involvement of stakeholders in the development of approaches to capacity building is essential to assuring the credibility, support, and effectiveness of the efforts. Furthermore, if any of these approaches is integrated into daily operations or tested in pilot format, it is critical that the public be given the opportunity to evaluate on a timely basis the effectiveness of the new efforts and to provide regular input on how to improve them. A pilot project should, therefore, have a clear evaluative component.

1. Information Dissemination

Building local capacity through improved information dissemination could be pursued in a variety of ways – through new programs and by improving EPA's current way of doing business. Several new approaches to disseminating information to communities through in person information delivery (phone and face-to-face) may merit further examination. Approaches that would require the development of new programs that could be tested on a pilot basis include independent information brokers, community ombudspersons, and a new general hotline. The strengths and weaknesses of these approaches and important considerations in testing them are discussed in section III of this paper. The key challenges would be to staff the efforts with people who are trusted and credible with the communities they serve. This could be achieved in a variety of ways, including accountability mechanisms such as boards of directors in the case of information brokers or through the establishment of hotline dockets that must be completed. Although new programs of this type present considerable resource implications, it may be possible to explore some of these approaches through collaboration with established federal, state and non-governmental organizations' programs such as the USDA Extension Service. While such collaborative efforts may not solve long term funding problems or provide the best approach for the long-term success and effectiveness of EPA’s local capacity building efforts, they could at least allow for the testing or vetting of some of these approaches.

Improved information dissemination could also be pursued through approaches that seek to strengthen mechanisms already being used by the Agency. These include increasing document access at the community level, updating and more aggressively using mailing lists, enhancing e-mail capacity, improving established hotlines, and continuing to fill data gaps by increasing the scope and quantity of data available on the Internet.

Finally, using regulated entities and community groups to help disseminate information to stakeholders could be further explored. As discussed in section III above, the use of these groups could be structured in a variety of ways: businesses could disseminate information in utility bills or through mailings to communities impacted by their operations; community groups could be given grants to facilitate the dissemination of information to their constituents; and collaborative efforts between industry and stakeholders, such as the Common Sense Initiative, could be used to increase the flow and exchange of information. Each of these approaches presents unique challenges that may be difficult to overcome, but each approach also has distinct strengths that may warrant further consideration.

A suggested approach for moving forward with an information dissemination initiative or pilot is to develop, convene and staff a conference that would include a wide range of stakeholders such as representatives of communities, citizen organizations and industry, as well as governmental officials, to identify and prioritize the approaches that have the greatest potential to build capacity and to design one or more pilot projects. The pilot projects could include those that would require, as well as those that would not require, federal financial support.

The conference organizers would identify and invite individuals and organizations with expertise in the relevant models, or other models that might inform the conference on the strengths and weaknesses of each alternative approach. The participants at the conference, with the assistance of conference staff, would select a pilot that could be undertaken with existing EPA resources, by leveraging resources, or by partnering with an NGO or another governmental Agency. The participants could then recommend an EPA or state regulatory activity for purposes of applying the pilot approach. The group volunteering to undertake the pilot activity would then report periodically to the conference participants about the status and success of the activity.

If appropriate, a second conference would be convened within a year after the initiation of the pilot project or projects to review and evaluate the pilot and determine how to institutionalize or broaden successful initiatives. A detailed review of the process for developing the pilot, an evaluation of the pilot, and a study of how to overcome any barriers to effective implementation and possible incentives that could encourage or refine the implementation of the project, would enable leaders throughout the country to adopt and implement similar projects.

2. Training for Communities

Several approaches to providing education and training to communities as a way to build capacity may merit consideration. First, training in how to participate in EPA processes, such as education on dispute resolution or running meetings, could be provided through workshops, guidebooks, and other mechanisms. In addition, training on environmental laws and regulations, including for example how permitting processes work, could be offered. This approach, discussed in more detail above, focuses on building the capacity of those that are already interested in participating in EPA processes and want to be able to participate more effectively. Training, depending on how it is implemented, may focus capacity building resources on a relatively small number of citizens, but perhaps with a greater return in terms of quality of participation than the broad brush approaches that focus on wider dissemination of information to larger groups.

In order to develop a specific training initiative or pilot project, a workshop could be developed in conjunction with community representatives from a selected region. Working with those representatives, experts in skills training for citizens could: identify the objectives of a training initiative; develop an agenda; select appropriate faculty; and design hands-on exercises and role-playing training mechanisms. The training course could then be piloted and a report prepared for public dissemination detailing the lessons learned and the successes of the workshop design. The report and workshop materials would also serve as a model for future workshop or training initiatives or as part of a blueprint for training trainers.

3. Technical Support

Building capacity through enhanced technical support could also be considered. The possible approaches to providing technical support vary considerably. Efforts could focus on using the current TAG model under the Superfund program as a basis for providing support for participating in other programs or for broadening the scope of activities that grants would cover. Other ways of exploring technical assistance include the use of new collaborative approaches, such as the Common Sense Initiative or Good Neighbor Agreements, that can allow the regulated community to provide the technical support that communities need to understand and participate in regulatory initiatives. Increasing the accessibility of technical documents and preparing succinct summaries of technical issues or legal requirements could also enhance local capacity from a technical and scientific perspective. Furthermore, consideration of models used in Europe for providing technical support to communities could result in the development of new approaches.

In order to develop a technical assistance pilot project or initiative, a similar conference-based approach as described with respect to an information dissemination pilot project could be used. Conference organizers would need to establish up front clear parameters and limitations with respect to potential approaches, in order to manage expectations of the participants.

4. Proactive Assessment of Community Needs

Although not a direct capacity building tool, proactive assessment of community capacity building needs could in the long run prove valuable to capacity building efforts. A series of roundtables could be convened across the country to seek focused and local perspectives on the specific and general needs of citizens and communities. The roundtables would build on the interviews from this study by providing a forum for constructive dialogue among citizens and the government. The discussions would also help determine whether capacity building efforts need to be sensitive to various factors unique to particular communities, processes, media, or issues. The roundtables would be designed to capture the insights of individuals; to foster discussion among the participants; to help identify pilot projects that could be implemented with existing resources; and to serve as resource material for a capacity building strategic plan for the states and EPA. A report on the roundtable discussions could be disseminated to the public to secure feedback from stakeholders. The report would assist communities in working with localities, states, and EPA in strengthening their capacity to participate in regulatory and other government processes.

Welcome | About this Event | Briefing Book | Join the Dialogue | Search the Site