Organization and Convening of Collaborative Processes

[Deborah Dalton <dalton.deborah@epa.gov>]

Many of the best models of collaborative processes that EPA and other federal and state agencies have sponsored have a few characteristics in common:

(1) they were entered into deliberately and deliberatively - a proactive decision was made to enter into a longer term process that was designed to result in recommendations or an agreement.

(2) the agency sponsored or conducted a "convening" study, aka "conflict assessment", or "issues assessment" in which a neutral facilitator contacted and talked with all of the parties to determine (a) what were the issues that could be and should be addressed regarding the subject at hand; (b) who are the parties - individuals, organizations, state, local and tribal governments, industries who need to be at the table to discuss and perhaps to resolve the issues; (c) who are the individuals who can participate on behalf of or represent these parties; (d) what resources, information, etc needs to be available for the parties to sufficiently address the issues.  

We have found that when these steps are taken, that the likelihood of a constructive dialogue - and perhaps good, implementable recommendations or an agreement  - is increased significantly.  

It does take (1) advance planning, (2) management support and desire (3) funding resources for the facilitator and for the process if entered into, (4) time enough for good discussions.  Not all issues that EPA is in charge of decision making have the resources and time necessary to conduct this type of collaborative process, but we have found that when we do the decisions are better and the parties are more creative and the recommendations have a higher chance of being implemented.  

This is not to say that EPA always conducts this type of assessment - we don't - but we are trying to educate staff and management that this is a good use of their time and resources.