Fair Access

A wide breadth of literature, spanning peer-reviewed studies, community testimonies, and government guidance, have shown that effective, meaningful engagement requires early and frequent collaboration with stakeholders at all levels of decisionmaking. As such, government agencies should:

• Conduct a stakeholder assessment to identify communities that could be directly or indirectly impacted by a proposal or decision, including creating a process for communities to self-identify as impacted, and using geospatial screening tools developed by federal (such as Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Environmental Justice Index), state, or local agencies. Through this process, agencies should identify trusted leaders and/or organizations in impacted communities. EPA’s Meaningful Engagement Policy offers guidance on how to conduct a stakeholder assessment.
• Provide opportunities to exchange information and understand community goals, needs, and barriers to participation before the decisionmaking process has begun. In rulemaking decisions, this may include more frequently relying on tools like Information Collection Requests and Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking, which invites pre-rulemaking public input.
• Co-develop a plan for meaningful engagement that respects people’s expertise and time and prioritizes shared ownership of decisionmaking, including:
  • Offering various opportunities for collaborative engagement, including informational webinars, public meetings, and town hall sessions offered in-person, virtually, and in hybrid settings, at different times that accommodate people’s schedules, with care for cultural holidays, and in locations accessible by public transit. Informational meetings in advance of formal hearings can also be a forum for raising questions and concerns that may not be directly relevant to the decision but lay the groundwork for transparent communication between agencies and communities.
  • While both oral and written feedback opportunities should be provided, ensuring that oral comments are adequately transcribed and processed so that speakers are not asked to re-submit the same testimonies in written format.
  • Offering “wraparound services” to promote engagement, including providing transportation to event, childcare, food, etc.
  • Providing services to enhance participation among people who do not speak English as a first language (such as translation) and people with disabilities (such as ASL interpreters and transcripts of meetings).
  • Hiring and/or training a culturally-competent facilitator or trusted member of the community to help serve as an ambassador for information exchange, as well as helping with planning meetings or other community engagement activities.
  • Compensating community members for continued engagement, especially those who engage more deeply in research and/or advisory groups. See the Urban Institute’s Equitable Compensation for Community Engagement Guidebook.
  • Guaranteeing at least 90 days for public comment periods.
  • Ensuring adequate funding and agency staffing to implement the proposed plan.
• After the decisionmaking process concludes, evaluate the effectiveness of the meaningful engagement activities, create a process to gather feedback, and adjust agency activities accordingly. EPA’s Meaningful Engagement Policy offers guidance and a checklist for evaluating public participation activities.

Successful engagement with communities requires open lines of communication, clear expectations, and accessible information related to the decisionmaking process. Agencies can help promote transparency and accessibility by:

• Communicating early, frequently, respectfully, and clearly the objectives, expectations, and constraints of how feedback and information will be collected and used in the decisionmaking process.
• Creating a central website with a dedicated email address and phone number where community members can contact the agency about the decisionmaking process or matter of concern. In rulemaking, agency website homepages should provide a one-stop point of access for all proposed regulations for comment, including all of the relevant links, instructions for submitting rulemaking petitions to help identify priority issues, and upcoming deadlines for actions related to the rulemaking. See recommendations from the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative on strengthening standards for government websites to promote participation.
• Providing information in online and print formats and communicating through a variety of channels such as social media, radio, websites, etc. Factsheets and infographics (see the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s graphic for submitting public comments) can help distill complex information in simple, clear steps for action. Information should also be conveyed in plain language. See additional guidance ensuring public notices are accessible and readable, as well as EPA’s Meaningful Engagement Policy for a list of outreach and communications strategies.
• Ensuring that information is communicated in ways that accommodates people with different needs, such as people who do not speak English as a first language (including, but not limited to, Spanish), people with disabilities, people with unreliable Internet access, and people who experience homelessness.
• Requiring that public commenters who submit “technical” or scientific research disclose their funding sources and sponsoring organizations. If data gaps are a barrier in the decisionmaking process, agencies should:
• Clearly describe what the gaps are, and work with community members to collaboratively develop data guidelines. They should create processes (such as “Data Walks”) for collecting stories and qualitative information that complement quantitative data, such as geospatial mapping tools and environmental monitoring data. Data collected by or for communities must be accessible and usable to members of the community. Indigenous data sovereignty efforts serve as an instructive example, recognizing the “rights of Indigenous people to collect and own their own data, and to apply it to decisionmaking as they see fit.” See the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance for guidance.
• Particularly in science-based decisions, agencies must ensure that “decision-relevant information is accessible and interpretable” in open sources to “build public trust in science,” and ensure that uncertainties are clearly communicated. Even more, while it may not be possible to provide access to all data (including private medical data), it is critical for agencies to provide transparency around the data collection and analysis process, and how different datasets or tools are used for different purposes (for example, using EPA’s EJSCREEN vs. CDC’s Environmental Justice Index). Finally, and crucially, agencies must document community engagement interactions and activities, and once a decision is made, share the outcome(s) of the process, what information was considered, and how public input influenced those decisions. See EPA’s Meaningful Engagement Policy for guidance on communicating outcomes of decisionmaking to the public.

Investing in grant programs, expanding community technical capacity, and creating community-led advisory or review bodies can markedly bolster meaningful engagement, especially in regulatory decisionmaking. Put simply, “public participation is only meaningful […] if the public has the capability to provide comments that agencies cannot ignore.” For example, in EPA’s Superfund program, technical advisory grants are awarded to non-profits and groups to contract with independent advisors to help them interpret and develop comments on Superfund site-related decisions. These grants can also fund technical advisory groups comprised of community, Tribal, non-governmental organizations, and businesses impacted by pollution or other issues, to serve as a “bridge between the [agency] and the community.” For example, the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition/Technical Advisory Group in Washington state was able to leverage hired technical advisors to support cleanup efforts at the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund site, challenge a flawed cost analysis, advocate to expand the area of the cleanup site, and support the development of a Health Impact Assessment. While agencies should make every effort to communicate technical and science-based information in plain language, technical advisory groups and grants can help community groups provide input on complex proposals in the “language” of the regulatory agency. Smaller grant programs can also provide individuals and organizations pathways for funding to support their participation (covering expenses like transportation, childcare, or translation of materials) and build capacity for future participation.

Advisory councils and review committees with mechanisms of influence (such as voting powers) that include community leaders and organizations can also help build and sustain longer-term relationships and information exchange beyond the decisionmaking process. Community benefits agreements and other negotiated agreements, in combination with other meaningful engagement strategies, can help “ensure the interests of frontline communities are integrated into decisionmaking and agencies are held accountable over the long-term…” Organized groups can also assist with monitoring and compliance with regulations. For example, pollution control advisory groups could support data collection and “relieve individual community members of having to stay informed and active in the dozens or hundreds of decisions that may impact their lives.”

At the federal level, advisory committees, such as the EPA’s National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, can be another way to allow an independent group of people with diverse expertise and experience to inform government decisionmaking and policy. A review of community engagement in HHS programs found that “making advisory groups more representative of the priority populations strengthened [government tools and resources] by making them more accessible, responsive, and tailored to the specific needs of priority populations.”

For meaningful engagement activities to be effective, government agencies must invest in cultural shifts that evaluate challenges and recognize power imbalances in past public participation efforts, adopt guidance and processes to direct these efforts going forward, and ensure these processes are rooted in values of equity and justice. As stated by Sherry Arnstein, who served as an advisor on “citizen participation” for the former U.S. Department of Housing, Education, and Welfare, “participation without redistribution of power is an empty and frustrating process for the powerless.” Some examples of frameworks and guidance include:

• International Association for Public Participation, IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation
• Biden Administration, White House Memorandum, Broadening Public Participation and Community Engagement with the Federal Government
• EPA National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, Model Guidelines for Public Participation
• Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, Environmental Justice Public Participation Guidance
• PolicyLink and The Kirwan Institute, Community Engagement Guide for Sustainable Communities

Shifting toward an agency culture that values community lived experience and resists corporate capture requires embracing concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion. As Race Forward explains, if governments are to work for everyone, agencies must “embed the principle of racial and other equity in administrative operations and procedures. That is how we change agencies’ institutional interests, which traditionally privilege efficiency, and refocus decisionmaking on substantive democratic goals, such as eliminating disparities...” Furthermore, as conveyed in EPA’s 2022 Equity Action Plan, this requires investments in “[full-time employees], training, resources, and expertise.” Arnstein further observed that when communities of color advocate for participation, “the American consensus on the fundamental principle [of public participation] explodes into many shades of outright racial, ethnic, ideological, and political opposition.” It is therefore critically important for government agencies to have the capacity and training to engage with and advocate for historically marginalized communities to bolster against these forces of opposition.

Agencies may also consider designating an ombudsperson who can proactively engage with communities and serve as a central contact point about how to get involved in government decisionmaking. For example, the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment designated an “environmental justice ombudsperson” to act as a liaison between impacted communities and the agency, develop processes to receive complaints and questions, and help ensure that community concerns are embedded in agency decisionmaking.

While traditional public engagement processes favor “technical” input, government agencies can also adopt creative processes to uplift and value community lived experiences. For example, convenings and other forums for information exchange can be designed to promote collaboration and exchange, rather than an “us vs. them” hierarchy. This might include using breakout groups, arranging chairs in a circle instead of a panel, and using handheld voting devices. In 2023, the National Academies of Sciences held a workshop, Representing Lived Experience in the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool, that integrated perspectives from academics, environmental justice leaders, and regulators through breakout groups and hands-on activities.

Furthermore, identifying and engaging local leaders can help with “mobilizing local capacity, engaging the community, and strengthening regional networks, particularly those who are fluent in the language and cultural norms.” Training trusted community leaders in facilitation and mediation can help with consensus-building in decisionmaking. Government agencies can also collaborate with partners in community or participatory science, as well as compliance monitoring.

Public participation can often feel costly—in resources and time—to communities. Agencies can help alleviate this burden with adequate planning and information gathering before the decisionmaking process begins (as previously discussed), coordinating between agencies involved in decisionmaking, using existing networks and relationships to build capacity, and clarifying internal roles and responsibilities among key staff. Agencies can also review what has previously been submitted in the public record to lighten the burden on communities that have already submitted extensive feedback on the issue in the past.

At the federal level, agencies can also collaborate with independent and executive agencies, including the General Services Administration, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Office of Management and Budget, and United States Digital Service to investigate and deploy strategies to improve communication and meaningful engagement.

For government agencies to be able to adequately invest resources into ensuring meaningful engagement, including developing plans and communications materials, organizing meetings and hearings, and fully evaluating the input from stakeholders throughout the process, they must be adequately resourced. According to the National Academies of Sciences, “public participation processes are more likely to be successful when agencies have adequate capacity and resources including skilled staff…” Ensuring that agencies have enough staff with the appropriate expertise; are able to invest in and adopt values around justice, equity, and meaningful engagement; and have funding to implement engagement plans, as well as provide technical assistance and grants, will be necessary for success.

Members of the U.S. Congress should support legislation that will enshrine the public’s right to access and influence decisionmaking and protect science-based decisionmaking from corporate and political influence. Lawmakers should support:

• EXPERTS Act, formerly known as the Stop Corporate Capture Act: This bill aims to prevent industry influence over regulatory agencies by increasing transparency in federal rulemaking by requiring disclosure of study funding. It also restores the practice of courts deferring to agencies’ expertise when laws are written in general terms, which was the norm until the Supreme Court overturned it with the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo case in 2024. The bill also creates an Office of the Public Advocate, imposes penalties for false comments by public companies, and allows reinstatement of rules rescinded through the Congressional Review Act within one year.
• A. Donald McEachin Environmental Justice for All Act: This bill was drafted with deep input and collaboration from communities and leaders advocating for environmental justice, and would expand opportunities for the public to influence environmental decisionmaking by requiring consideration of cumulative impacts in permitting, expanding participation in NEPA decisions, and funding technical assistance and grant programs, among other things. The sponsoring legislators also created a Statement of Principles for Environmental Justice Legislation based on public comments received in advance of drafting this bill, which can be used by lawmakers in the future.
• Scientific Integrity Act: This bill would require federal agencies that fund or oversee public science to establish and uphold clear scientific integrity principles. It formalizes these policies and gives them the force of law, ensuring that science, not just politics, ideology, or financial conflicts of interest, guides policy decisions. The bill also holds public scientists to the highest professional standards while safeguarding their rights and protections under the law.