Validating the Need and Planning for Success in the Federal Hiring Process

Most federal agencies consider the start of the hiring process to be the development of the job posting. However, the federal hiring process really begins well before the job is posted and the official clock starts. There are many decisions that need to be made before an agency can begin hiring. These decisions have a number of dependencies and require collaboration and alignment between leadership, program leaders, budget professionals, hiring managers, and human resource (HR) staff. What happens in these early steps can not only determine the speed of the hiring process, but the decisions made also can cause the hiring process to be either a success or failure. 

In our previous blog post, we outlined the steps in the federal hiring process and identified bottlenecks impacting the staffing of roles to support permitting activities (e.g., environmental reviews). This post dives into the first phase of the process: planning and validation of the hiring need. This phase includes four steps:  

1. Allocate Budget for Program Staffing and Workload
2. Validate Hiring Need Against Workforce, Staffing, and Recruiting Plans
3. Request Personnel Action to Fill the Job
4. Launch Recruiting Efforts for the Position

Clear communication and quality collaboration between key actors shape the outcomes of the hiring process. Finance staff allocate the resources and manage the budget. HR workforce planners and staffing specialists identify the types of positions needed across the agency. Program owners and hiring managers define the roles needed to achieve their mission and goals. These stakeholders must work together throughout this phase of the process.

Even with collaboration, challenges can arise. For example, there may be:  

• A lack of clarity in the budget appropriation and transmission regarding how the funds can be used for staffing versus other program actions;
• Emergent hiring needs from new legislation or program changes that do not align with agency workforce plans, meaning the HR recruiting and hiring functions are not prepared to support these new positions; and
• Pressure from Congressional appropriators and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to speed up hiring and advance implementation, which is particularly acute with specific programs named in legislation;
• New tools outside of the boundaries of individual staffing (e.g., shared certificates of eligibles) that need to be considered and integrated into this phase.

Adding to these challenges, the stakeholders engaging in this early phase bring preconceptions based on their past experience. If this phase has previously been delayed, confusing, or difficult, these negative expectations may present a barrier to building effective collaboration within the group.

Breaking Down the Steps

For each step in the Planning and Validation phase, we provide a description, explain what can go wrong, share what can go right, and provide some examples from our research, where applicable. This work is based on extensive interviews with hiring managers, program leaders, staffing specialists, workforce planners and budget professionals as well as on-the-job experience.  

Step I. Allocate Budget for Program Staffing and Workload

In this first step, the agency receives budget authorization or program direction funding through OMB derived from new authorizing legislation, annual appropriations, or a continuing resolution. Once the funds are available from the Treasury Department, agency budget professionals  allocate the resources to the particular programs inside the agency. They provide instructions regarding how the money is to be used (e.g., staffing, contracting, and other actions to support program execution). For example, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) provided funding for grants to build cell towers and connections for expanding internet access to underserved communities. This included a percentage of funds for administration and program staffing.

In an ideal world, program leaders could select the best mix of investments in staffing, contracting, equipment, and services to implement their programs efficiently and effectively. They work toward this in budget requests, but in the real world, some of these decisions are constrained by the specifics of the authorizing legislation, OMB’s interpretation, and the agency’s language in the program direction. 

What Can Go Wrong

• Prescriptive program direction funding can limit the options of program managers and HR leaders to craft the workforce for the future. In some cases, the legislation even identifies types of people to hire or the hiring authority to be used (e.g., Excepted Service, Competitive Service, Direct Hire Authority, etc.). This limits the program leaders’ options to build or buy the resource solutions that will work best for them.
• Legislation can be ambiguous regarding how programs can use the funding for staffing. This delays implementation because it requires deliberation by OMB, the agency budget function, program leaders, and even the agency attorneys to determine what is permissible with the funding. This can also increase risk aversion as agency leaders have grown concerned with trespassing on the Anti-Deficiency Act, which prohibits federal agencies from obligating or expending federal funds in advance or in excess of an appropriation, and from accepting voluntary services. For example, with the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) funding, one agency we spoke with decided to only authorize term hires because of the time-limited nature of the funding, despite having attrition data that predicted permanent positions would become available in the coming years. This can limit recruiting to only those willing to take temporary positions and reduce the ability to fill permanent, competitive roles.
• Delays between the passing of legislation, Treasury Department authorization, and OMB budget direction can create impatience and frustration by Congressional appropriators and agency leaders who want to fill jobs and implement intended programs. This pressures program leaders and HR specialists to make faster, sometimes suboptimal, decisions about who to hire and the timeline. They tend to proceed with the positions they already have, instead of making data-based decisions to match future workload with their hiring targets. In one case, a  permitting hiring manager under this kind of pressure wanted to hire an Environmental Protection Specialist, but did not have a current PD or recruiting strategy. They opted for a management analyst position for which they already had a PD because they could hire for this position faster.

What Can Go Right

• Budget/Legislative Integration: Agency Chief Financial Officers (CFOs), program leaders and Legislative Affairs consult with each other to anticipate the impacts of new legislation and changes to budget language that alter resource management and staffing decisions. For example, one agency we spoke with anticipated the increased demand for HR services resulting from the yet-to-be passed BIL, and thus used existing open positions to hire the HR staff needed to recruit and hire the hundreds of new staff to support the legislation.
• Clear Guidance: Establishing clear budget guidance as early as possible and anticipating upcoming changes helps program and HR leaders plan for and implement optimal program resources. This frequently requires collaboration and consultation with all the parties involved in resource decisions, especially when new legislative mandates are ambiguous or provide no direction on resource use. In one of our discussions with a science agency, we learned that the agency engaged in collaborative negotiations across its programs to allocate the resources from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in the absence of clear legislative direction.

Step II. Validate Hiring Need Against Workforce, Staffing, and Recruiting Plans

After receiving their budget allocation, program leaders validate their hiring need by matching budget resources with workload needs. A robust workforce plan becomes useful, as it allows leaders to identify gaps in the current workforce, workload, and recruiting plans and future workload requirements. Workforce plans that align with budget requests and anticipate future needs enable HR specialists and hiring managers to quickly validate the hiring need and move to request the personnel action. 

What Can Go Wrong

• Frequently, workforce plans do not address emergent needs coming from new legislation or abrupt program changes. This is often due to rapid technology changes in the job (e.g., use of geographical information systems or data analysis tools), dynamism in the external environment, or unfunded mandates. This means program leaders and hiring managers need to quickly adapt their workload estimates and workforce configurations to match these new needs. 
• Ambiguity in the legislative intent for staffing can extend into this step. This creates a delay as the program leads work to build consensus on the positions needed, the hiring authorities to be used, and the timeline for bringing new candidates onboard.
• If program leaders have been constrained in backfilling open positions (due to previous budget issues) these immediate needs limit their options to configure a workforce for the future. When coupled with competition across the agency for resources and a lack of workforce planning data, program leaders often sacrifice longer term, sustainable workforce needs for short-term solutions.

What Can Go Right

• Readiness: A mature process in which workforce planners, legislative analysts, and program leaders are anticipating and addressing changes in legislation and their external environment reduces surprises and enables HR staff and program managers to adapt when new staffing or changes are required. In one interview, a program leader described using empirical data on key workload indicators to develop workload projections and determine the positions needed for implementing their program requirements.
• Strike Teams: When legislation or outside changes result in a hiring surge, successful agencies form strike teams with sponsorship from senior leaders. These strike teams pull staff from across the agency – leaders, program leaders, HR leaders and implementers – to focus on meeting the demands of the hiring surge. In response to the infrastructure laws, affected agencies were able to accelerate hiring and target key positions with these teams. Many agencies are doing this to address the AI talent surge right now.
• Integration with Strategy Development: The best workforce planning emerges when key actors are embedded into the agency’s strategy; each strategic goal has a workforce component. Using scenario planning, simulation, and other foresight tools agencies can develop adaptive, predictive workforce plans that model the workforce of the future and focus on the skills needed across the agency to sustain and thrive in achieving its mission. When the future changes, the agency is ready to pivot. OPM’s Workforce of the Future Playbook moves in this direction.

Step III. Request Personnel Action to Fill the Job and Launch Recruiting Efforts for the Position

Note: Requesting personnel action to fill the job is a relatively straightforward step, so we have combined it with launching the recruiting process for simplification.

In most agencies, the hiring manager or program leader fills out an SF-52 form to request the hiring action for a specific position. This includes defining the position title, occupation, grade level, type of position, agency, location, pay plan, and other pertinent information. To do this, they verify that the funding is available and they have the budget authority to proceed. 

Though recruiting can begin before and after this step, this is the chance to begin recruiting in earnest. This can involve activating agency HR staff, engaging contract recruiting resources if they are available, preparing and launching agency social media announcements, and notifying recruitment networks (e.g., universities, professional organizations, alumni groups, stakeholders, communities of practice, etc.) of the job opening.

What Can Go Wrong

• If a hiring manager intimates that a potential candidate has an “inside track” on a position or promises that a candidate will be hired. These trespass on Merit Systems Principles and Prohibited Personnel Practices can result in financial damage to the agency and censure for the hiring manager.
• When an agency lacks recruiting resources and network connections, especially for highly specialized roles or a talent surge, this hinders agencies from reaching the right communities to attract strong applicants and restricts the applicant pool.
• Segmented recruiting to just HR and its resources results in a lack of expectation that the hiring manager plays a key role in recruiting and actively promotes the job to their networks.
• At any point in the process, funding can be pulled and the personnel action will need to be canceled. This disheartens the hiring manager and HR staff, who are ready to start the hiring process.

What Can Go Right

• Build The Pipeline: Hiring managers and recruiters who build and maintain pipelines of potential applicants for key positions have a ready base to begin outreach. This is permissible as long as there is no expectation that those on this list will receive any preferential treatment, as stated above. For example, in our discussion with one land-management agency, we learned that they keep in touch with potential candidates by sharing periodic updates on their programs and job opportunities. This continues to engage a pool of candidates and provides access to an interested community when launching a new position.
• Build Enthusiasm For The Job Across The Ecosystem: Rallying peers, fellow alumni, agency leaders, universities, contractor contacts, and others across HR and program networks to build enthusiasm for the open position and joining the agency. One sub-agency office we met promotes its positions on a variety of public sites (i.e., LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, and their website). 
• Direct and Sustained Attention to Recruiting: Agencies that set clear expectations for hiring manager engagement in recruiting fare better at attracting qualified candidates because the hiring manager can directly speak to the job opportunity.
• Tell the Story: Hiring managers and recruiters that tell a compelling story of the agency and the importance of this job to the mission help potential applicants see themselves in the role and their potential impact, which increases the likelihood that they will apply.

Conclusion

Following What Can Go Right practices in this beginning phase can reduce the risk of challenges emerging later on in the hiring process. Delays in decision making around budget allocation and program staffing, lingering ambiguity in the positions needed for programs, and delayed recruiting activities can lead to difficulties in accessing the candidate pools needed for the roles. This ultimately increases the risk of failure and may require a restart of the hiring process.

The best practices outlined here (e.g., anticipating budget decisions, adapting workforce plans, and expanding recruiting) set the stage for a successful hiring process. They require collaboration between HR leaders, recruiters and staffing specialists, budget and program professionals, workforce planners, and hiring managers to make sure they are taking action to increase the odds of hiring a successful employee.

The actions that OPM, the Chief Human Capital Officers Council (CHCO), their agencies, and others are taking as a result of the recent Hiring Experience Memo support many of the practices highlighted in What Can Go Right for each step of the process. Civil servants should pay attention to OPM’s upcoming webinars, guidance, and other events that aim to support you in implementing these practices.

As noted in our first blog on the hiring process for permitting talent, close engagement between key actors is critical to making the right decisions about workforce configuration and workload management. Starting right in this first phase increases the chances of success throughout the hiring process.

The success of historic federal investments in climate resilience, clean energy, and new infrastructure hinges on the government’s ability to efficiently permit, site, and build projects. Many of these projects are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which dictates the procedures agencies must use to anticipate environmental, social, and economic impacts of potential actions. 

Agencies use digital tools throughout the permitting process for a variety of tasks including permit data collection and application development, analysis, surveys, impact assessments, public comment processing, and post-permit monitoring. However, many of the technology tools presently used in NEPA processes are fragmented, opaque, and lack user-friendly features. Investments in permitting technology (such as software, decision support tools, data standards, and automation) could reduce the long timelines that plague environmental review. In fact, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)’s recent report to Congress highlights the “tremendous potential” for technology to improve the efficiency and responsiveness of environmental review.

The Permitting Council, a federal agency focused on improving the “transparency, predictability, and outcomes” of federal permitting processes, recently invested $30 million in technology projects at various agencies to “strengthen the efficiency and predictability of environmental review.” Agencies are also investing in their own technology tools aimed at improving various parts of the environmental review process. As just one example, the Department of Energy’s Coordinated Interagency Transmission Authorizations and Permits (CITAP) Program recently released a new web portal designed to create more seamless communication between agencies and applicants. 

Yet permitting innovation is still moving at a slow pace and not all agencies have dedicated funding to develop needed technology tools for permitting. We recently wrote a case study about the Department of Transportation’s Freight Logistics Optimization Works (FLOW) project to illustrate how agency staff can make progress in developing technology without large upfront funding investments or staff time. FLOW is a public-private partnership that supports transportation industry users in anticipating and responding to supply chain disruptions. Andrew Petritin, who we interviewed for our case study, was a member of the team that co-created this digital product with users. 

In a prior case study, Jennifer Pahlka and Allie Harris identified strategies that contributed to DOT FLOW’s success in building a great digital product in government. Here, we expand on a subset of these strategies and how they can be applied to build great digital products in the permitting sector. We also point to several permitting technology efforts that have benefited from independently applying similar strategies to demonstrate how agencies with permitting responsibilities can approach building digital products. These case studies and insights serve as inspiration for how agencies can make positive change even when substantive barriers exist. 

Make data function as a compass, not a grade.

Here is an illustrative example of how data can be used as a compass to inform decisions and provide situational awareness to customers. 

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) recently launched a ​​Permitting Mapping Tool to support grantees and others in deploying infrastructure by identifying permitting requirements and potential environmental impacts. This is a tool that both industry and the public can use to see the permitting requirements for a geographic location. The data gathered and shared through this tool is not intended to assess performance; rather, it is used to provide an understanding of the landscape to support decision making. 

NTIA staff recognized the potential value of the Federal Communication Commission’s (FFC) existing map of broadband serviceable locations to users in the permitting process and worked to combine it with other available information in order to support decision making. According to NTIA staff, NTIA’s in-house data analysts started prototyping mapping tools to see how they could better support their customers by using the FCC’s information about broadband serviceable locations. They first overlaid federal land management agency boundaries and showed other agencies where deployments will be required on federal lands in remote and unserved areas, where they might not have a lot of staff to process permits. The team then pulled in hundreds of publicly available data sources to illustrate where deployments will occur on state and Tribal lands and in or near protected environmental resources including wetlands, floodplains, and critical habitats before releasing the application on NTIA’s website with an instructional video. Notably, NTIA staff were able to make substantial progress prior to receiving Permitting Council funds to support grant applicants in using the environment screening to improve the efficiency of categorical exclusions processing. 

Build trust. Trust allows you to co-create with your users. Understand your users’ needs, don’t solicit advice. 

Recent recipients of Permitting Council grants for technology development have the opportunity to define their customers and work with them from day one to understand their needs. Rather than assuming their customer’s pain points, grant recipients can gather input from their customers and build the new technology to meet their needs. Recipients can learn from FLOW’s example by building trust early through direct collaboration. Examples of strategies agencies can use to engage customers include defining user personas for their technology; facilitating user interviews to understand their needs; visiting field offices to meet their customers and learn how technology integrates into their work processes and environment; conducting observations of existing technologies to assess opportunities for improvement; and rapidly prototyping, testing, and iterating their solutions with user feedback. 

In the longer term, the Permitting Council and other funding entities can drive the adoption of a user-center approach to technology development through their future grant requirements. By incorporating user research, user testing, and agile methodologies in their requests for proposals, the Permitting Council and others can set clear expectations for user involvement throughout the technology development process. 

In comparison to DOT FLOW, where the customers are largely external to the federal government, the customers and stakeholders for permitting technology include internal federal employees with responsibilities for preparing, reviewing, and publishing NEPA documentation. But even if your end-users are within your organization (or even on your same team!), the principles of building trust, co-creating, and understanding user needs still apply. 

Fight trade-off denial. 

When approaching the complex process of permitting and developing technological tools to support customers, it is critical for teams to focus on a specific problem and prioritize user needs to develop a minimum viable product (MVP). A great example of this is the Department of Energy (DOE)’s Coordinated Interagency Transmission Authorizations and Permits Program (CITAP). 

DOE collaborated with a development team at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to create a new portal for interstate transmission applications requiring environmental review and compliance. The team applied a “user-centered, agile approach” to develop and deploy the new tool by the effective date for new CITAP regulations. The tool streamlines communication by allowing the project proponent to track the status of the permit, submit documentation, and communicate with DOE through the platform. Through iterative development, DOE plans to expand the system to include additional users, including cooperating agencies, and provide the ability for cooperating agencies to receive applicant-submitted materials. Deprioritizing these desired functions in the initial release required tradeoffs and a prioritization of user needs, but enabled the team to ultimately meet its deadline and provide near-term value to the public. 

Prioritizing functionality and activities for improvements in permitting can be challenging, but it is critical that agencies make decisions on where to focus and start small with any technology development. Having more accessible data can help inform these trade off decisions by providing an assessment of problem criticality and impact. 

Don’t just reduce burden – provide value. 

Our partners at EPIC recently wrote about the opportunity to operationalize rules and regulations in permitting technology. They discussed how AI could be applied to: (1) help answer permitting questions using a database of rulings, guidelines, and past projects; (2) verify compliance of permits and analyses with up-to-date legal requirements, and (3) automatically apply legal updates impacting permitting procedures to analyses. These examples illustrate how improving permitting technology can not only reduce burdens on the permitting workforce, but simultaneously provide value by offering decision support tools.

Fund products, not projects. 

The federal government often uses the project funding model for developing and modernizing technology. This approach provides different levels of funding based on a specific waterfall process step (e.g., requirements gathering, development, and operations and maintenance). While straightforward, this model provides little flexibility for iteration and little support for modernization and maintenance. Jen Pahlka, former U.S. Deputy Chief Technology Officer, recommends the government move towards a product funding model that acknowledges software development never ends, rather there is ongoing work to improve technology over time. This requires steady levels of funding and has implications for talent.

Permitting teams should be considering these different models when developing new technology and tools. Whether procuring technology or developing it in-house, teams should be thinking about how they can support long-term technology development and hire employees with the knowledge, skills, and abilities to effectively manage the technology. Where relevant, agencies should seek to fund products. While product funding models may seem onerous at first, they are likely to have lower costs and enable teams to respond more effectively to user needs over time. 

Several existing resources support product development in government. The 18F unit, part of the General Services Administration (GSA)’s Technology Transformation Services (TTS), helps federal agencies build, share, and buy technology products. 18F offers a number of tools to support agencies with product management. GSA’s IT Modernization Centers of Excellence can support agency staff in using a product-focused approach. The Centers focused on Contact Center, Customer Experience, and Data and Analytics may be most relevant for agencies building permitting technology. Finally, the U.S. Digital Service (USDS) “collaborates with public servants throughout the government”; their staff can assist with product, strategy, and operations as well as procurement and user experience. Agencies can also look to the private sector and NGOs for compelling examples of product development. 

Looking forward

Agency staff can deploy tactics like those outlined above to quickly improve permitting technology using existing authorities and resources. But these tactics should complement, not substitute, a longer-term systemic strategy for improving the U.S. permitting ecosystem. Center of government entities and individual agencies need to be thinking holistically about shared user needs across processes and technologies. As CEQ stated in their report, where there are shared needs, there should be shared services. Government leadership must equip successful small-scale projects with the resources and guidance needed to scale effectively. 

Additionally, there needs to be an investment from the government in developing effective permitting technology, with technical talent (product managers, developers, user researchers, data scientists) hired to support these efforts). 

As the government continues to modernize to meet emerging challenges, it will need to adopt best practices from industry and compete for the talent to bring their visions to life. Sustained investment in interagency collaboration, talent, and training can shift the status quo from pockets of innovation (such as DOT FLOW and other examples highlighted here) to an innovation ecosystem guided by a robust, shared product strategy.

In the last three years, the Biden Administration has passed a wave of legislation to address infrastructure, climate, and economic vulnerabilities: the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and the CHIPS and Science Act (CHIPS). These key laws provide funding and support to rebuild bridges, increase internet access, replace aging water systems, invest in clean energy technologies, build advanced semiconductor factories, and much more. These projects can improve the lives of all Americans, but all have one common implementation bottleneck: permitting. 

Permits underpin many of these projects because they are required for the use of land and other resources under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and other laws. This means that before building can begin, environmental specialists, scientists, engineers, attorneys, and other experts need to form  federal agency permitting teams to conduct environmental assessments, analyses, community engagement, and legal reviews to provide the required permits and authorizations.

Prior to these new bills passing, the federal permitting workforce was already overwhelmed, according to agency professionals. With the implementation of BIL, IRA, and CHIPS, the demand for permitting has only ballooned, driven by these investments in our future; changing laws, regulations, and policies impacting permitting; and the need for more environmental reviews and authorizations. Additionally, improving existing processes and technology tools to increase transparency and manage the permitting workload has engendered complexity. Not only does this further the need for new talent and skill sets that vary from traditional permitting teams, but it also leads to thousands of new customers beginning new, modernized processes. The Permitting Dashboard, owned by the Permitting Council, illustrates the status of some permitting projects and shows over 7,400 permitting projects planned, in progress, or paused as of September 2024. These demands far exceed the current workforce capacity. 

The federal government is looking to address their surge hiring needs, but have run into challenges. In FY24, there were just under 11,000 full time employee permitting roles anticipated to be hired. However, hiring efforts have run into a number of barriers. Process delays caused by siloed ownership across the hiring process and outdated job descriptions; finding, selecting, or creating an assessment strategy; a need to reclassify roles; required multi-stakeholder reviews; and background checks have all slowed progress. Many of these have been exacerbated by the need for interdisciplinary permitting roles. Appropriation delays, misunderstanding regarding hiring flexibilities and authorities, and insufficient candidate pools have presented additional challenges for HR leaders, hiring managers, and HR specialists to navigate together. Additionally, the type of permitting work conducted and thus, the hiring needs, vary across agencies based on their mission and role in the permitting process, presenting challenges for collaboration and centralized solutions. Outdated federal hiring policies limit agency’s ability to recruit in a more competitive and geographically dispersed manner.

Most of these hiring challenges are not unique to permitting. Rather, they illustrate the pain points experienced by hiring managers, HR specialists, and HR leaders across government. Permitting hiring challenges are merely a microcosm of federal hiring and can serve as an example to identify critical talent reforms.

In the short term, all agencies involved in the permitting process need to prioritize hiring for permitting roles. The Biden Administration, agency leadership, and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) need to be focused on finding solutions to address these process bottlenecks, and agencies should be looking for opportunities to collaborate and support their shared hiring goals through activities such as, pooled hiring, shared certifications, and standardized agency job descriptions. Implementation of the guidance and recommendations in a recent OPM-OMB Memo on Improving the Federal HIring Experience will help close many of these hiring challenges for agency permitting teams.

Without the permitting workforce needed for implementation, the American public will not reap the benefits of this new legislation. A diversified energy portfolio, improved and safe transportation systems, rural broadband access, resilient supply chains, and clean, accessible water will remain unattainable. The federal hiring process is the linchpin to onboarding this critical talent, and agency leaders are key to prioritizing these efforts. Our nation has not had this opportunity for decades; we do not want to let this moment pass. But if we are not able to build the government capacity needed for implementation, the impact of this historic legislation will go unrealized.

A recent wave of historic federal investments in climate resilience, the clean energy transition, and new infrastructure charges the government with delivering on a broad range of ambitions. Those efforts will succeed or fail based on our government’s ability to implement—that is, to responsibly permit, site, build, and deploy key infrastructure and related projects. Given the importance of federal permitting in that equation, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) and the Environmental Policy Innovation Center (EPIC) are collaborating to take advantage of a key window of opportunity for permitting innovation.  

As part of our efforts, we are focused on documenting the status quo in permitting technology, identifying bright spots and best practices where they exist, and making recommendations for center-of-government entities that can help agencies build, buy, and deploy better tools and processes. The latest of those efforts is an inventory of digital environmental permitting tools; a beta version of this inventory is now available. We built the inventory to provide a snapshot of the permitting technology landscape, and to open lines of dialogue for cross-application and cross-agency learning. 

Permitting tools in this inventory range widely in intended use cases and maturity levels. Most agency permitting tools we found are single-agency built and used, and in many cases, could be improved by reducing feature fragmentation and improving content reliability (more on that below!). 

Why we built this inventory

Systems and digital tools play an important role at every stage of the permitting process. From project siting and design, to permit application steps and post-permit activities, agencies use digital tools for an array of tasks throughout the permitting “life-cycle”—including for things like permit data collection and application development, analysis, surveys, and impact assessments, as well as public comment processes and post-permit monitoring. With the assistance of those tools, members of the public learn about the details of proposed projects and provide input through online public commenting platforms; in turn, agencies receive, store, and analyze community input and recommendations.

Understanding and improving how the federal government builds, buys, and deploys the technology that enables those activities can play a key role in accelerating permit timelines, lowering costs, expanding access to key information, and improving the rigor of permitting analysis. We built this inventory to enhance our collective understanding of how that software is used in the federal permitting process—and to open lines of dialogue for cross-agency and cross-sector learning. 

The inventory is currently in draft form; a final version will be shared in the coming weeks.

Inventory of Environmental Permitting Tools (beta)

Historic federal investments in climate resilience, the clean energy transition, and new infrastructure will hinge on the government’s ability to efficiently permit, site, and build key projects. That’s why EPIC and the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) are collaborating on strategies and resources to help accelerate permitting innovation.

It’s clear that there is ample momentum, dedicated resources, and an urgency among federal leaders to act to accelerate permitting’s speed and efficiency. In a recent public comment, we argued that National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reforms should be conceived, developed, and deployed with the end users in mind.  Similarly, agencies should consider how reforms and permitting modernization projects might leverage technology to improve how agency permitting teams, project sponsors, and the affected public engage with the process.

What this inventory includes

This inventory catalogs more than sixty permitting applications (software) across federal and state agencies, non-profit organizations, and private companies. Aside from the state-level tools, all applications we cataloged apply to federal NEPA permitting. We included state tools because they are examples federal and private developers can learn from.

While many software programs are used throughout the environmental permitting process, this compilation only includes those tools that are expressly intended for steps in the permitting process. The inventory emphasizes applications that are publicly accessible or advertised, rather than a comprehensive list of internal systems. We sourced these applications from staff interviews with the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of Energy (DOE)—as well as through federal agency permitting websites, Google keyword searches¹, and snowball sampling from private companies.

What we learned

Much of what we discovered as we found, analyzed, and cataloged the permitting tools in the inventory wasn’t surprising—and we see ample opportunity for more learning and improvements across tools. Initial take-aways from our analysis include: 

Bright spots exist among the many permitting tools out there—including applications that center user needs and leverage innovative technology. Much of the innovation we see in permitting tools is happening in the private sector—but with major potential for federal use cases.  For instance, breakthroughs in geospatial analysis and machine learning-empowered decision support are improving methods for siting and designing projects, reducing the time spent conducting feasibility studies, and on-the-ground surveying. Moreover, Artificial Intelligence (AI) text analysis and user-centered design are enabling rapid document writing, public comment processing, and easy to navigate databases. Real-time remote sensing and geospatial imaging innovations have also expanded the frontier of post-permit monitoring. 

Permitting tools in this inventory range widely in intended use cases and maturity levels. Applications we found span project siting and design, permitting, and post-permit activities—and range in age from two months to more than twenty years of active use. The most frequent intended user base of federal tools appears to be decision makers and officials, as opposed to field staff or public stakeholders. The public sector has primarily built project record databases, informational sites, and webforms for permit application development purposes. In contrast, the private sector’s tools are generally oriented toward pre-permitting geospatial analysis and scenario planning, as well as public comment submission and processing.

Most agency permitting tools we found are single-agency (including single-bureau) built and used. Over the past five years, several agencies have built permitting tools that incorporate transparency and public engagement best practices by making project information available online. Yet these tools—and the vast majority of others inventoried—are siloed across organizations since most are single-agency built and used, with the exception of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Database, which encompasses all federal permitting agencies. That reality makes missed opportunities for interagency coordination around permitting data the norm.

Content reliability issues and feature fragmentation are common, which could have implications for timeliness and implementation.

Content reliability. Nearly every agency’s NEPA-permitted project database had significant gaps in important content—including tens of thousands of missing projects and the absence of dates, documents, and geospatial location data. Because the data collected during permit development and project implementation isn’t systematically captured, stored, or made available in an interoperable system, that information is lost both to science as well as to data-driven adaptive management practices from which future permitting decisions would benefit. Without complete information, the public can’t adequately review projects in their own communities and agencies can’t perform permitting workflows at the pace, rigor, and scale needed to meet national environmental and infrastructure goals.

Feature fragmentation. Despite numerous common steps and data needs across tool users, agency workflows, and permitting stages, we found numerous instances of application features spread over multiple programs rather than in a consolidated application. This fragmentation is often the result of tools built in silos by different departments and/or at different points in time. Fragmentation increases confusion throughout the permitting process because users (including agency staff) must know the exact source of a particular piece of information, both to search for and record it. With multiple entry points, we often see inconsistent record-keeping and reporting as well as missing information.

Looking ahead

Forthcoming work from FAS and EPIC will build on this inventory with focused recommendations on how federal agencies can leverage technology as a core tool in permitting modernization efforts. More broadly, our teams are also working to support federal agencies in their efforts to innovate across a host of permitting policy, talent, data, and systems challenges. The North Star of this work is to empower leaders in and around government to plan, site, and build key environmental restoration and infrastructure projects faster, better, and at lower cost in the months and years ahead. 

Is your tool missing from our permitting inventory? Interested in learning more about this work? Share your tools and any additional information with us!

This research was made possible with the generous support of Arnold Ventures.

Summary

With the Biden-Harris Administration and Congress together pursuing major infrastructure investments, there is an important question as to how best maximize potential economic and environmental benefits of new infrastructure. Reforming the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is one of the most straightforward and impactful ways to do so. Currently, many major infrastructure projects are delayed due to significant, NEPA-mandated requirements for environmental-impact review. Such delays are frequently exacerbated by vague statutory requirements and exceptional litigation risks. Updated guidance for environmental reviews under NEPA, coupled with strategic judiciary reforms, could expedite infrastructure approval while improving environmental outcomes.

Congress and the Biden-Harris Administration should strive to clarify environmental regulatory requirements and standing for litigation under NEPA. Specific recommended actions include (i) establishing well-defined and transparent processes for public input on governmental environmental-impact statements, (ii) shortening the statute of limitations for litigation under NEPA from two years to 60– 120 days, and (iii) requiring that plaintiffs against governmental records of decision must have previously submitted public input on relevant environmental-impact statements.