To flesh out how the information exchange processes will be conducted, it is important to select tools and techniques to use at particular points in the decision process.

Selecting Public Involvement Techniques

[After identifying and interviewing stakeholders], the third step [in achieving meaningful public involvement] is selecting tools and techniques to use at particular points in the decision process, to flesh out how the information exchange processes will be conducted. Matching information needs with public involvement techniques is an opportunity for creativity. Many excellent resources are available to provide ideas for appropriate approaches to accomplish particular objectives (see the reference list at the end of the chapter). Appendix D provides the table of contents from several publications on selecting public involvement techniques.

No two projects are exactly alike, and public involvement tools and techniques should be tailored to reflect the particular character of each project-its group of stakeholders, its geographic location, the successes and failures of previous public outreach programs, the level of complexity and controversy, and so on. Even cultural differences in stakeholder groups will be of importance in identifying effective techniques. For example, reliance on websites or e-mail lists for disseminating project information may not be effective ways to reach lower income groups or certain segments of the population. Agencies working in Alaska have noted that some native tribes prefer and react better to formal presentations from government officials over open house formats. The key, of course, is to understand the local groups and differences and tailor an approach that works for the stakeholders, not one that is more convenient for the agency.

Techniques are also likely to differ from one decision point to another within any project because the nature of the required information exchange is different. At the beginning of the process, for example, the agency usually seeks to discover community issues and validate its understanding of the project need, but may have relatively little detailed or substantive information to share with the community. Later in the process, the agency is seeking feedback on particular alternatives and may need opportunities to present a large amount of detailed information.

The tendency in planning for public involvement is to schedule project-specific events and encourage stakeholders to participate in them. Experience on many projects has shown that while it may be a bit less efficient, project team participation in community- and stakeholder-sponsored activities may yield much more satisfactory results. In many cases, taking the project to the stakeholders, rather than the reverse, increases the likelihood of successful information exchange.

It is important to recognize that no matter how thorough a stakeholder identification activity is conducted at the outset of the project, the list of stakeholders will change as the project progresses. As more detailed information is available, members of the general public who were previously uninterested in the project will become stakeholders. The earlier all of the interested parties can be identified the better. For that reason, it is a good practice to include mechanisms for outreach to the general public, in addition to known stakeholders, as a continuing element of the overall public involvement plan.

The pilot states have all focused on development of materials to aid in planning for public involvement. Minnesota DOT has developed a guide to public involvement entitled Hear Every Voice. Chapter 5 of the guide includes descriptions of public involvement techniques as well as evaluations of how they have worked within the context of a plan or project. Appendix D includes excerpts from the document to illustrate the types of techniques discussed and the evaluation template. Appendix D also contains example public involvement plans and options for assembling stakeholder advisory groups.