Effective Public Involvement Using Limited Resources (2010)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

9INTRODUCTION This section summarizes findings from the 26 interviews. A copy of the 40 question survey can be found in Appendix A, a listing of the participating agencies in Appendix B, and a sum- mary of the responses by question, agency type, and respon- dent in Appendix C. Although there appeared to be no clear- cut definition of public involvement responsibilities nor how responsibilities were to be undertaken, the interviews revealed similarities and differences in how public involvement was conducted by DOTs, MPOs, transit agencies, and local gov- ernments. More often than not respondents from MPOs, tran- sit agencies, and local governments tended to respond in a similar way and their responses have been grouped under MPO. These similarities and differences are highlighted here by 11 areas of interest. Under each area of interest are num- bered paragraphs that represent a summary of the responses to Questions 1–40. Individual summarized responses from each agency for Questions 1–40 can be found in Appendix C. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 1. Meeting citizen needs, preserving the quality of com- munities, improving the quality of life, providing transportation experiences that delight their cus- tomers, and creating opportunities for public input were mentioned as goals related to the public and public concerns in the mission statements of approx- imately two-thirds of the 26 respondents. 2. Respondents from all of the MPOs, transit agen- cies, and local governments, and 8 of the 11 DOTs stated that their agencies were centralized rather than decentralized. 3. Respondents from all of the MPOs, transit agencies, and local governments, and 8 of the 11 DOTs reported that within their agency the authority for public in- volvement activities was centralized at headquarters. Respondents at the three decentralized DOTs said their district offices had the authority to provide full- service public involvement activities. 4. DOT respondents said there was no clear-cut defini- tion of public involvement responsibilities or how these responsibilities were to be undertaken except in terms of organizing a public hearing and specific plans, programs, or documents (National Environmental Pol- icy Act, Statewide Transportation Improvement Pro- gram, etc.). MPO respondents stated that they were mandated to prepare a Public Participation Plan and it identified specific public involvement requirements for them to undertake in terms of a public involvement process that was continuous. 5. In general, DOT respondents reported that they had public involvement components in the phases from policy development to operations and maintenance, whereas MPO respondents said they had public involvement components in the phases from policy development through systems planning and project planning. STAFFING 6. Most DOT respondents said they had a staff mem- ber(s) assigned to public involvement efforts related to customer services and holding public hearings. Other staff members performed as needed public involve- ment functions, although they had full-time job respon- sibilities that were not public hearing related. All MPO respondents reported that they had full-time staff members dedicated to public involvement. 7. Most DOT respondents stated that those who con- ducted public involvement did not have any academic background in the social sciences or specific experi- ence in social work, marketing, or customer service, and few were members of professional organizations that had public involvement tracks. Instead, they noted that the preconstruction engineer was ultimately responsible for the public involvement effort. Many MPO respondents said that members of their staffs had academic backgrounds or specific experience in education, marketing, media relations, public rela- tions, communications, community outreach, volun- teering, facilitation, conflict resolution, and customer service, and many were active in professional organi- zations that had public involvement tracks. 8. Almost all of the DOT and MPO respondents noted that their staffs received internal and external train- ing at some time in community impact assessment, public involvement, environmental justice, or context- sensitive solutions, although it was not on a consistent basis. 9. Both DOT and MPO respondents said that very few staff members had more than 20 years experience; with most having zero to six years experience. 10. DOT respondents reported that many of their staff members came up through the ranks and had limited CHAPTER THREE SURVEY RESULTS

10 exposure as to how other state DOTs conducted public involvement. MPO respondents said that their staffs tended to come from other agencies and had broad experience. 11. Within the DOTs, respondents reported that there were very few staff members that were dedicated part time or full time to public involvement efforts, as opposed to the MPOs who said they generally had one or more full-time staff members dedicated to public involvement. 12. Almost all of the DOT and MPO respondents reported that they used consultants. 13. Very few DOT or MPO respondents required their consultants to be certified or prequalified to conduct public involvement. COST QUANTIFICATION 14. Almost all DOT and MPO respondents replied that they had never quantified the costs of doing public involvement. Some said they had never been asked to do this, others that they had not been able to do this, and still others noted they had not quantified the cost of doing public involvement. 15. Almost all DOT and MPO respondents reported that they had not allocated the cost of doing public involve- ment, did not know how these costs were allocated, did not allocate cost this way, or did not break out cost allocations. 16. Almost all DOT and MPO respondents said they did not know how public involvement costs were quanti- fied (percent of project cost, cost per person in the project area, or other). PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS (SOCIAL/ COMMUNITY ISSUES, STUDIES, AND REPORTS) 17. DOT respondents replied that consultants or their own planners generally provided technical studies or reports that addressed social, economic, and commu- nity issues as part of an environmental document. MPO respondents stated that they prepared Environ- mental Justice/Title VI and community background reports, as well as periodic population and economic forecasts in house. 18. A few DOT respondents mentioned they had formal processes on how to prepare a community impact assessment or equivalent for each specific project. MPO respondents tended to continuously collect and update socioeconomic information as part of their ongoing forecasts. 19. DOT respondents said they identified various segments of the populations through their site assessments and during field visits, whereas MPO respondents stated that they identify segments of the populations as part of their mandated Public Participation Plans, through the use of their citizens’ advisory committees, and their relationships with community-based organizations. 20. DOT and MPO respondents reported that they worked with a mixture of groups, including citizens’ advisory committees, the community, elected officials, census data, churches, nonprofit organizations, and Title VI coordinators to help them make decisions about how to tailor public involvement to a specific group. 21. DOT respondents identified multiple ways to develop a public involvement plan, whereas MPO respondents by and large followed their mandated Public Partici- pation Plans and Environmental Justice/Title VI Plans. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS (LEVEL OF EFFORT, EDUCATION, AND DOCUMENTATION) 22. Most DOT and MPO respondents said that the scope of the project and the type of environmental docu- ment most often determined the amount of effort that would be devoted to public involvement. 23. DOT and MPO respondents replied that they provided education to the public at a variety of types of meet- ings, using visualizations, writing documents in “plain speak,” posting information on the website, playing interactive games, publishing monthly newsletters, and going door-to-door and personally contacting people. Some respondents were beginning to use photographs and videos and placing visualizations on Flickr, Facebook, and YouTube. 24. Most DOT respondents noted they had access to some but not all of the manuals, policies, guidance, and plans related to community impact assessment, environmental justice, public involvement, and con- text-sensitive solutions. Most of the MPO respon- dents referred to their Environmental Justice/Title VI Plan, which may or may not have been a part of their Public Participation Plan, guidance on environmental justice and limited English proficiency, and other compliance requirements. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS (GOALS) 25. Most DOT and MPO respondents reported that their agency had public involvement goals that included ensuring that all interested parties had an opportunity to participate fully in the transportation decision- making process, making the public aware and pro- viding an opportunity for meaningful involvement in the process, and involving as broad an audience as possible. 26. Both the DOT and MPO respondents said that their goals were developed by working groups, agency leaders, public affairs managers, elected officials, citizen advisory committees, regional transportation committees, and through their Public Participation Plans. Some of the respondents had not been with their agency when the goals were established and could not provide any insight into how these goals had been developed or who developed them.

11 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS (COMMUNICATING PUBLIC INPUT AND COMMITMENTS) 27. Most of the MPO respondents noted their agency had a well-defined process for communicating public input internally and externally, whereas many DOT respon- dents said they received comments and responded to them but beyond that, their process appeared to be less well-defined. 28. Many of the DOT respondents were using sheets of green colored paper attached to their environmental documents or placed inside their documents to iden- tify their commitments, others were using more for- malized web-based tracking, whereas MPO respon- dents mentioned that they track them as outlined in their Public Participation Plan, on their website, through a database, with meeting minutes, and through interactive games. DEFINITIONS OF SUCCESSFUL, EFFECTIVE, AND COST-EFFECTIVE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 29. Both DOT and MPO respondents defined successful public involvement similarly—getting informed con- sent from the public, providing equitable access to deci- sion making and offering opportunities to provide input that is carefully considered when the transportation decisions are made, getting a better decision than what you set out to do, reaching a representative set of the population, and acquiring meaningful input that results in a plan that reflects the priorities of the community. 30. DOT respondents reported that effective public in- volvement was getting people to show up and voice their opinions, providing everyone with timely oppor- tunities to comment and a variety of ways to get involved, getting buy-in into the problems and solu- tions, and everyone having an understanding of how the agency arrived at its solution and being in agree- ment with that solution. MPO respondents most fre- quently noted that successful public involvement and effective public involvement was the same thing. Others believed it was not only when the agency got information from the public that helped the agency understand the public’s issues, but also when the agency was able to provide information to the public that helped the public understand the agency’s con- cerns. Some defined effective public involvement as being when everyone (planners, public, lawmakers, and decision makers) was engaged, all were on the same page, everyone was working for the common good, and the process was transparent. 31. The most frequent response from DOTs was that they had not or did not define cost-effective public involvement, and had never tied public involvement back to cost—it simply cost whatever was necessary. Others stated it was engaging a sufficient number of stakeholders to reveal the pertinent issues and receive meaningful input that could affect the project’s out- come. MPO respondents said spending money on human resources to go out and talk to people, not having a huge budget but having staff resources, and an ongoing process to build knowledge, understand- ing, and relationships. MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 32. DOT and MPO respondents expected similar out- comes from their public involvement efforts. These ranged from all citizens having an opportunity to comment in an equitable manner early, clearly, and continuously; having somebody who gets involved that was not involved before; better public awareness of a project as a result of public involvement efforts; and a more knowledgeable public, improved com- munication between the public and the planning process, the planners, and a better substantiation of the plan that results from the process. 33. Almost all DOT and MPO respondents said that their agency had not developed quantitative or qualitative measures of effectiveness or that they were in a spe- cific area such as air quality. Those attempting to do this responded that they considered their efforts to be unsophisticated and rudimentary—counting heads, number of meetings, number of newsletters, etc. 34. Because most DOT and MPO respondents noted that their agencies had not developed quantitative or qualitative measures of effectiveness, they could not respond to the question of do these measures include measures of the equity or inclusiveness of their pub- lic involvement to ensure that their efforts targeted groups that were traditionally underrepresented in the decision-making process and underserved by trans- portation facilities. 35. Most DOT and MPO respondents reported that their agency did not measure the cost-effectiveness of their public involvement. EFFECTIVE, COST-EFFECTIVE, AND INEFFECTIVE TECHNIQUES 36. Most DOT and MPO respondents identified their most effective techniques as being a mixture of personal, face-to-face encounters with the public by piggyback- ing on events sponsored by other organizations, going to other organizations and making presentations, and holding a variety of small or one-on-one meetings. A mixture of print and electronic media, on-line activities, and visualizations was also mentioned. All respondents stated their agencies had a website and that some of them had individual project-specific websites. When asked if they thought their websites were effective, most respondents replied in the affirmative, but were unable explain how they measured their effective- ness. Most respondents did not know whether or not

12 their website had a counter. Those who knew their website had a counter were unaware if it could tell how many unique hits it received. Similarly, many respondents noted that they prepared and provided press releases to print and electronic media, but did not track them to see if they were picked up by local media. 37. Most DOT and MPO respondents stated that their most cost-effective techniques were very similar to those they had identified as effective techniques— a mixture of meeting types such as open houses, piggybacking on other meetings, workshops, focus groups, sending information home with students, and small meetings. Similarly, a mixture of print and electronic media, and websites were also mentioned. 38. The most frequently mentioned ineffective technique by both DOT and MPO respondents was newspaper advertisements. This was followed by a mixture of errors such as holding meetings in locations outside the project area, at inconvenient times, and in diffi- cult places to find, as well as basing the mailing lists on tax assessor information, and holding a meeting with the plan already decided upon. 39. Almost every DOT and MPO respondent was famil- iar with some technique to engage at least one of the traditionally underserved groups—racial and ethnic minorities; those of low income, limited English pro- ficiency, and low literacy; the elderly or disabled; those without access to transportation, second and third shift workers, single mothers with children, and others. Many respondents had used bi-lingual inter- preters and translated printed materials, held meetings during the daylight hours in accessible buildings, pro- vided transportation or held the meetings in the com- munity, and held meetings in the morning or at mid- day, but few respondents had any experience in engaging those with low literacy by using oral media and the pulpit, or engaging single parents and their children by providing food and a licensed and bonded child care provider at their meetings. LEVERAGING RELATIONSHIPS 40. Almost all DOT and MPO respondents reported that their agencies had been and were continuing to be proactive in forming relationships with the media, neighborhood associations, school groups, community- based organizations, faith-based organizations, non- governmental organizations, nonprofit organizations, and piggybacking on these organizations. SUMMARY The surveys revealed that there were both similarities and differences in how DOT and MPO respondents conducted public involvement. Similarities Among Agencies • How the human element was mentioned in mission statements and public involvement goals were set. • That the organization was centralized, rather than decentralized. • The types and frequency of training received by staff members. • Consultants were used to conduct public involvement tasks. • Costs of doing public involvement had not been quan- tified. • The scope of the project and the type of the environmen- tal document determine the amount of effort expended on public involvement. • A variety of types of meetings, using visualizations, writ- ing documents in “plain speak,” posting information on the website, playing interactive games, publishing a monthly newsletter, and going door-to-door and talking to people were commonly used ways to educate the public. • Public involvement goals were frequently identified and developed with the assistance of working groups, agency leaders, public affairs managers, and others. • The definition of successful public involvement was similar, but few agencies had developed quantitative or qualitative measures of effectiveness except for specific areas such as air quality. • Quantitative measures of effectiveness had not been developed to measure equity, inclusiveness, or cost- effectiveness of public involvement efforts. • Generally, the most effective public involvement techniques were a mixture of personal and face-to- face encounters and the most ineffective technique was advertising in the newspaper. Although websites were considered effective, there was little evidence to support this. Differences Among Agencies • Distribution of public involvement responsibilities. • Phases of transportation decision making that have pub- lic involvement components. • Number of staff allocated part-time or full-time to con- duct public involvement. • The qualifications, professional designations, and mem- berships in professional organizations of staff members doing public involvement. • The technical studies and reports conducted to address social and community issues, and the subjects addressed by these technical studies/reports. • Ways in which segments of the population were identified. • The structure of public involvement plans. • The integration of public input into decision making. • Methods used to document and track commitments through each phase of the process. • Definitions of effective and cost-effective public involvement.