U.S. INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION'S SURVEY OF CITIZENS GROUPS

On numerous occasions, federal agencies turn to the U.S. Institute for advice on how to engage the public for input on federal environmental programs and how to collaborate with citizens groups to manage or resolve conflict over environmental issues. Prompted by a request for suggestions from a stakeholder group considering how to engage citizens, the U.S. Institute reviewed a variety of citizens groups to learn more about how they function, what conditions favor their success, and any major insights or lessons learned from their experiences. We hope this information will assist agencies and environmental conflict resolution practitioners interested in convening similar citizens groups.

The Review Process

The U.S. Institute selected groups that addressed a wide array of natural resource management issues and were convened by federal agencies, state agencies, federal and state agencies, or by communities themselves. The 17 groups selected were located throughout the United States and were involved in nationally prominent cases where the citizens groups participated in addressing highly contentious issues. Once the groups were selected, Institute staff examined documents such as charters and bylaws, any studies and articles regarding the groups, and other information available online or through group Web sites. In addition, the Institute conducted interviews with participants of the groups, starting with a set of questions that were developed by Institute staff to compare across the groups.

Because there was no predetermined methodology for selecting the groups (other than striving for diversity) and the unavailability of concrete numerical data for many of the selected groups, and the loosely structured nature of the dialogues that took place during the interviews, the Institute’s review of citizens groups provides a qualitative analysis, rather than a scientific quantitative analysis.

The Groups Reviewed

FACA-chartered Federally Convened (non-FACA) Federal-State Convened State Convened Other
1. Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Work Group
2. Pinedale Anticline Working Group
3. Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve Advisory Committee
4. Steens Mountain Advisory Council
5. Lake Tahoe Federal Advisory Committee 		1. Grizzly Bear Introduction Citizen Management Committee 1. Chesapeake Bay Program Citizens Advisory Committee
2. Susquehanna River Basin Compact Water Quality Advisory Group 		1. Utah Wildlife Management Plans Advisory Committees
2. Colorado Wolf Management Working Group
3. Puget Sound Partnership 		1. Madison Valley Ranchlands Group
2. Malpai Borderlands Group
3. Blackfoot Challenge
4. Quincy Library Group
5. Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan
6. Klamath Settlement Group (not the actual title of the group because they do not have one)

"FACA-chartered" refers to advisory groups convened by a federal agency under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, having a formal charter and membership approved by the convening agency.


Findings

Up-Front Time Commitment and Duration

The time frame needed to organize and have a citizens group functioning well tended to be between three to six months. This was often dependent on political and administrative considerations, including the support available from the convening agency. Many groups dealing with highly contentious issues also needed anywhere from a few months up to a year to talk through their differences and to begin to build working relationships among participants.

The lifespan of the groups varied widely from as short as six months to indefinite. The groups that were formed to develop a concrete plan or provide advice on a wildlife or natural resource management plan tended to be shorter in duration, between six months and five years. Other groups formed to provide advice for more long-term management of natural resources had no fixed ending date. The FACA-chartered groups were all established for a specific time period of two years reflecting applicable law; however, their charters allowed for renewal and continuation of the group. A few of the interviewees from the more community-based groups mentioned that their groups could be in place forever because a collaborative way of managing the landscape and its natural resources has become a "way of life" for the local communities and participants. The longest running group is the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Citizen Advisory Committee which has been functioning since 1984. Many of these groups have been functioning for 12 years or longer.

Charter Development

Most of the groups selected had some document establishing the group that was either a charter or set of bylaws. All of the five FACA-chartered groups had very similar charters, based on a standardized format used across federal agencies. In many of the groups that were not FACA-chartered, the charter or bylaws were developed in a more participatory manner by the members of the groups themselves. The groups of the Blackfoot Challenge, Malpai Borderlands Group, and Madison Valley Ranchlands Group, although they started out with a more informal structure, developed formal documentation when they incorporated as nonprofit 501(c)(3)s.

The charters and bylaws of the groups generally included: scope and objectives, membership and criteria, roles and responsibilities of members, duration, formal structure, decision rules, ground rules and/or standards of conduct, confidentiality, and rules governing communication with the public and media.

Meeting Frequency

The meeting frequency of the selected groups varied from as little as twice a year to monthly, with many of the groups meeting on a quarterly basis. A number of the groups met more frequently during the formation stage and less frequently as the process matured. The lengths of the meetings varied from shorter two hour sessions to three-day long meetings. Although the groups made decisions during meetings involving all group members, it is important to note that much of the decision-making process occurred outside of the meeting through work groups, conference calls, and email exchanges.

Group Size/Membership and Selection

Group size generally ranged from eight to twenty-five active members who had some degree of decision-making authority. Two of the groups, the Blackfoot Challenge and the Madison Valley Ranchlands Group, have a membership of over 500 and 350 people, respectively, and their groups’ membership is open to people interested in becoming members. However, these members participate in a more limited way than those on the groups' boards of directors.

Members of the main decision-making body of the group, either the advisory committee itself or the board of directors, were generally selected for specific criteria such as being a representative of a particular interest or having stature within their constituency or within the community. For the groups outside of the "other" category, the members of those groups were selected by the agency, and in many cases, interest groups were identified by the agency and were asked to self-select a member to represent their interest. In the FACA-chartered committees, the secretary of the federal department for the agency convening the committee must approve the members (i.e. Secretary of the Interior for an advisory committee convened by the National Park Service). The selection criteria for the members are outlined in the group's charter or bylaws.

Decision Rules

The decision rules among the 17 groups revealed some interesting and creative variations. Six of the groups operated on full consensus which required all voting members to agree in order to move forward with a decision. Other groups had different forms of majority rule from simple majority (50% plus one) to supermajority (2/3). One group had an interesting concept of "consensus minus two" which required everyone but two members to agree upon something in order to move forward. Two groups said they strive for consensus, but if consensus was not achievable, the decision rules require large support, greater than half of the group, to make a decision. In these two groups, there are rules that state how minority viewpoints should be documented and passed onto the convening agency.

Organization and Structure

The formal organization and structure of these groups differed as well. As mentioned before, three groups had evolved into formal 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporations with boards of directors. The five FACA-chartered committees have provisions in their charters for a chairperson, either selected by the committee as a whole or by the convening agency or department secretary. Two of the groups, the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan group and the Quincy Library Group, had no specific organization or structure.

However, most of the groups include working groups or committees where much of the substantive work is accomplished. Some groups have standing working groups while others have more ad hoc working groups that are created in order to address or research a certain issue. Many of the groups also have dedicated staff, from state or federal agencies, from their own organization, or from professional facilitators.

Facilitation

Generally, the more controversial an issue, the greater the need for formal, external facilitation. Facilitation was sometimes needed during the formative phase of groups to assist with development of ground rules and other foundational documents and agreements. However, some of the groups were self-facilitated by agency staff, organizational staff, or participants themselves such as the chairpersons of the groups. The facilitators' success, whether it was an independent facilitator or agency staff, depended highly on participants’ perception of their credibility, neutrality, and commitment to serving the needs of the group as a whole.

Funding/Costs

There was a wide variation in costs from $15,000 to $1.4 million per year, with the typical costs ranging from $25,000 to $50,000 per year. The basic costs of a citizens group may include: participants’ travel; facilities; facilitation costs; staff time, salaries, and overhead; communication and outreach through newsletters, Web site, public notices and IT costs; and documentation and reporting of meetings and group activities. The $1.4 million annual operating budget is for the Blackfoot Challenge, which funds many science and other projects so this is certainly an outlier compared to the rest of the groups. A few of the groups' annual budgets include costs for science and analysis, projects, or designated project staff, which increases the costs greatly.

Outreach and Communication

Outreach and communication strategies among the 17 groups varied as well. For many groups, the informal networks of their members served as the primary means of outreach and communication to the broader public. Another form of communication is static Web sites containing meeting minutes, member contact information, projects, and other information. Many of the groups operate their own Web site or the Web site is hosted by the convening agency. Others also publish and distribute newsletters to the affected communities or interested people.

Most of the groups' meetings were open, where individuals from the public were allowed to attend, and some of the groups have time set aside for public commenting. One group that held closed meetings is the Klamath settlement group and this was decided partly on the need for confidentiality regarding legal issues. Many of the groups held their own public meetings to communicate directly with the public in order to gain more public input and advice on certain decisions and management issues.

The FACA-chartered and state convened committees have more formal stipulations regarding public participation, such as public notices must be posted for meetings, meetings must be open to the public, proceedings need to be memorialized, and public comment periods must be part of the groups' meetings. In addition to a group’s own outreach and communication strategies, media plays an important role in disseminating information from the group to the public. In some cases, the media attempted to influence the outcomes of the citizens groups; while in other cases, groups actually relied on media coverage for much of their public outreach.

Evaluation

Most of the groups did not have a formal evaluation process or standards. However, some of the groups have annual meetings to evaluate program achievements and to make necessary adjustments to meet their strategic initiatives. Some of the groups have been evaluated by external organizations such as the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Often, the media and the public at large keep a watchful eye on the groups and hold the citizens groups accountable, acting as an informal evaluator of the groups.

Lessons Learned

From the U.S. Institute's review of the 17 citizens groups and interviews with participants, common patterns and themes emerged. Participants noted several critical elements that helped a citizens group function successfully and they also provided key lessons learned.

  • Commitment from convening agencies is essential. Agencies should be able to provide the necessary resources for the group, have respect for the outcomes of the group, and put significant effort into convening and supporting the group. Many suggested that if an agency does not commit to the group fully, then convening the group would have a more negative effect than having not convened the group at all.

    Agencies must demonstrate their commitment through their conduct. Some participants noted the problem caused by lack of continuity from staff turnover and shifting agency priorities. If agency staff support or agency representation on a group changes from year to year due to turnover and the staff commitment levels to the group vary, participants may see this as a lack of commitment from the agency. Consistent commitment and support from the agency helps participants trust that the agency takes the group seriously.

    External influences that may be out of the control of the agency staff supporting the group sometimes pose problems. Agency hierarchy and chain of command may hinder the progress of the group if agency approval of group decisions takes a long time to obtain. Participants of a group may become frustrated with this seemingly slow process, especially if the group has worked hard at making its decisions.

  • A group must believe in its legitimacy and capacity for influencing decisions. If a group does not believe that its recommendations and advice will receive serious consideration by the ultimate decision maker, the group members will not be invested in the process and less willing to participate fully. A group's legitimacy and capacity for influencing decisions stem from how strong of a role the convening agency allows the group to play. Agency commitment, support, and respect for the group's outcomes help legitimize the role of the citizens group in the agency’s decision-making process.

  • All affected interests must be appropriately represented on the citizens group. Careful thought must be put into determining membership of the group in order to have full representation of interests.

  • The whole group must agree on goals and decision rules. Many groups found it important that each participant of the group agree to the goals and decision rules because this helped hold participants accountable to them. Having full agreement on goals and decision rules promoted keeping the groups on track because the document containing the goals and decision rules could always be referenced if certain members of the group strayed from them.

  • Formal and informal leadership is a key aspect of successful groups. Leadership comes in many forms including both formal leaders in designated positions and informal leaders who are well-respected by fellow participants. Many participants noted that formal and informal leadership from agency staff and group participants often helped the group make progress. Formal leaders such as chairpersons helped keep the group on track and facilitate discussions. Informal leaders not recognized officially in leadership positions can be essential in building bridges among participants. These informal leaders were well-respected by the group and people from all sides were willing to listen and follow their lead.

  • Relationships among participants are crucial. Building and developing relationships among members of a group is very important in order for the group to work together constructively. Adversaries can become allies when they discover the commonalities shared among them. Relationship building often occurs outside of group meetings, when people can separate themselves from the issue and talk more freely about their own personal lives. People can find commonalities by talking about their children, similar activities they do, and often their common interest in preserving the landscape and resources they share. By recognizing that each member of the group is a person and not an adversary or enemy, people will be more willing to understand different perspectives and learn to compromise in order to reach a shared goal.

  • Start small and build upon initial successes. Many participants found that addressing small problems first with a higher chance of agreement helped build group momentum. Starting small can also help participants learn to work together and build relationships before they tackle the more complex and harder-to-deal-with issues.

  • Change the paradigm and dynamic from conflict engagement to problem solving, collaborative learning, and conflict management. Instead of focusing on the conflict and dwelling on what has happened in the past, participants within a group must be willing to shift their ways of thinking and acting to learn collaboratively, resolve issues creatively, and manage the existing conflicts together. Focusing on conflicts and the past wrongs done to each other may hinder the progress of the group. It is important for participants to want to move forward through changing the way they engage with each other and by seeing themselves as a group working together towards a common goal.

  • Although the table frames the issue and provides for key milestone events, much of the significant work takes place away from the table. Groups often make their decisions at large group meetings; however, it is important to note that the thought process and discussions leading to each participant’s ultimate decision occurs outside of meetings. Participants may discuss things with each other away from the table and talk the issues through together. Often shuttle diplomacy is utilized by either a facilitator or respected group member between two parties that have difficulties reaching a common solution. Although the meeting may be the place where the final group decisions are made, often group work occurs in hotel lobbies, restaurants, online or through conference calls.

  • When science, information gathering, and analysis are central elements of the structure and process of a group, objectivity and credibility are critical considerations. For groups dealing with issues that involve science or technical matters, the information sources must be perceived as objective and unbiased to be helpful. Some participants felt that scientific research and analysis provided to the group was biased because the people involved in gathering the science were not independent, but rather received orders from superiors in their agency or organization, which had a stake in the outcome.

Conclusion

Many of the above-listed critical elements to success and lessons learned may seem obvious to experienced conflict resolution practitioners. However, the Institute hopes this discussion will provide some insight and benefit for agencies considering forming an advisory group or implementing some type of public participation process. The 17 groups interviewed varied greatly in many ways including establishing documents, operating costs, structure, and decision rules. While each process must be tailored to the unique circumstances of the situation, the themes discussed above played a role in the success of the citizens groups, regardless of the variations among the groups. So, while the specifics may vary, there are fundamental principles of collaborative process that should be kept in mind when deciding whether and how to engage citizens groups in addressing environmental issues.