Bridging the Gap: Applying Public Sector Insight to Justice Facility Planning

When it comes to planning modern justice facilities that serve entire communities, few people understand the full picture better than Regina Pyles, AICP. As a Senior Planning Associate at CGL, Regina brings a career’s worth of public sector knowledge to some of the nation’s most complex justice facility projects. Before joining CGL, she worked across multiple states and jurisdictions leading regional planning initiatives, engaging communities, and coordinating multi-stakeholder efforts.

In this interview, Regina shares how her public sector experience informs her private sector work, the challenges she’s overcome, and the lessons that continue to shape how she approaches justice facility planning today.

 

Prior to joining CGL, you served most recently as Director of Planning at the Central Savannah River Area (CSRA) Regional Commission (RC) – can you tell us about that role and the types of projects and responsibilities you managed there?

As the Director of Planning for CSRA Regional Commission, I wore a number of hats. I managed the day-to-day functions of the planning department. I was also our liaison to our community partners and to the funding agencies that funded the programs that department took on.

I was part of several coalitions representing the RC in select capacities. I was also a working director. Although I was doing management and administrative functions, I was working hand-in-hand with the planning staff—writing ordinances, working on comprehensive plans, urban redevelopment plans, and other studies. I did research and data analysis. I could get a call from a local government with an issue, whether they had a project with us or not. If they had a question we could help with, I’d get online or go through our books to try to help them find an answer. There was a lot of regular day-to-day assistance with our local governments.

For CSRA, we served 13 counties and over 40 cities, so it was pretty wide-ranging. We had more urban communities and very rural ones. Some of the projects we worked on included ordinance reviews for zoning codes, research and writing, and reviewing documents already written. We also worked on a project called a Compatible Use Study with our Fort Eisenhower (formerly Fort Gordon) installation in Augusta (Richmond County), Georgia.

We handled state-mandated projects like regular comprehensive plan updates and had latitude to work with community partners like the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT). I created a partnership with a local nonprofit and GDOT to do bicycle rodeos, where we provided free safety education and gave away bikes, helmets, and other safety materials. I also worked with other RC departments to start new projects—like working with the Area Agency on Aging to produce a food asset listing that included food pantries, gardens, and grocery stores to help address food insecurity.

 

Much of your public sector work focused on regional planning, community engagement, and long-term development strategies. How did those experiences shape your understanding of how justice facilities fit into the larger community ecosystem?

I would say that elements of my public sector experience—like working on comprehensive plans and zoning documents and being a part of public processes—contributed to my understanding of justice facilities in the community.

When you think about places like courthouses or correctional facilities, they are community facilities. They are part of the legal system in the U.S. and are fixtures in our communities. Think about the historic courthouse square in a small town or city—it has prominence and importance, not just physically, but metaphorically, as well.

When you work through processes for justice facilities from this side of the table, you must consider things like siting, distances between land uses, and impacts on the broader community. What are the neighbors thinking? What is the project doing for the community? Does it enhance or detract from the surrounding area?

You will also look at the interconnectedness of things. Cities, towns, and counties have budgets and competing priorities. You don’t build a new courthouse every day. You don’t build a new correctional facility every decade. These are large capital projects that have widespread implications, and they sometimes compete with other things that are equally important within the community. I believe my past public experience has helped me better adjust when having those conversations and understanding how these types of facilities fit into the broader context.

Looking back, what were some of the biggest challenges you faced when facilitating community planning initiatives across so many jurisdictions, especially when balancing different local priorities and policies?

Sometimes the challenge lies in where the initiatives have their roots. That can either make a process easier or harder. Is the initiative mandated by the state, like a comprehensive plan? Or is it perceived by the community as a tone-deaf government effort that doesn’t reflect what people actually want?

When you’re working with multiple jurisdictions—as we often were—for example, a county comprehensive plan might involve multiple cities, each with its own agenda and priorities. The stakeholders may differ, but the challenges remain similar – one of the biggest is getting everyone to think long-term.

Communities always have pressing short-term needs. Everyone has a different idea about how to spend limited dollars, and the public has strong opinions about how things should look and function. The key is having the vision and support to create plans that don’t sit on a shelf but have real momentum behind them.

I’d also say that sometimes the challenge lies in the necessity (or perception thereof) to pick winners and losers. If we can instead move to a win-win model—where everyone brings something valuable to the table—that’s when you see the real success. I saw that during a regional SPLOST transportation effort. Because everyone had a stake in the plan, they could each go back to their communities and say, “Here’s what we’re getting, and here’s what we’re contributing.” That collaboration made it possible.

How has your public sector background given you an advantage when managing the complex multi-stakeholder justice projects you now work on?

My public sector experience helps because I can put on the hat I used to wear when working directly with local governments. I remember their processes. I can act as a translator.

For example, we’re currently working on a large-scale project where we have to go through a zoning process. Not everyone on the CGL team was familiar with that, but I was able to support the team. I knew where to go and understood enough about zoning and land use to provide viable options before a land use attorney was brought on board.

That kind of familiarity—knowing how the public side works—helps us keep projects moving and fill gaps when clients are still assembling their teams.

In the public sector, you worked directly with community stakeholders from local governments to advocacy groups. How does that compare with how you now engage communities and stakeholders in large-scale justice facility projects?

In many ways, engagement on large-scale justice projects in the private sector isn’t that different from local planning. At the regional entities I worked for, we were like consultants—offering extra expertise and person-power not available at the local level.

We communicated with a variety of stakeholders from citizens to city councils, just like we do now. The difference in the private sector is that sometimes the levels of access are different. I may not have the same direct line to policymakers as I did in the public sector.

But the community still matters. We still have to bring them along in the process, especially with controversial justice facility projects. Whether the concern is land use or policy, it’s on us and our clients to keep the communication channels open. As a consultant, you may have to work a little harder to get those community contacts—but they’re just as important.

Justice projects often face intense public scrutiny. How does your previous experience managing public meetings and facilitating public input help you navigate the community response aspect of your current projects?

My previous experiences in public processes have made my approach at CGL more measured than it might otherwise be. You recognize that you’re not able to solve or resolve everyone’s issue when you’re coming into a project, but it’s always important to put your listening ears on—to note that you’re paying attention, to give people space to be able to share their views and concerns. If there are things you can work on or that the client can pick up on their own, you have that conversation.

I’m not one to immediately respond in a public setting anymore. I’ve learned that It’s okay to say I don’t have the answer in that moment rather than give the wrong answer. If I can respond to someone’s concern and let them know they’re heard, do some work on the back end, and then come back to them, that goes a long way.

Sometimes our community members just want to know that their government is listening, that the project leaders aren’t designing without them. Being able to listen and then come back to a community and say, “This is what we heard, and this is what we’ve done,” can make a significant difference.

What are some key differences you’ve noticed in how projects are planned and executed between the public and private sectors, particularly when it comes to ensuring community needs are addressed?

When the community leadership for a project and the private sector team make an effort to be tuned into the community’s needs, there doesn’t have to be a major difference in execution. Private firms are rightly focused on delivering a project on time and on budget. That’s appropriate.

But local communities bring deep knowledge—of needs, of local dynamics—that the private sector may not understand unless they’ve been involved in multiple local projects. Meanwhile, the private sector brings expertise and new approaches. When you combine those strengths, you get the best possible outcome.

Sometimes, if a project pauses to better respond to community input, it might affect the timeline or the budget in the short term—but it could lead to a better facility in the long term. Considering these facilities last for decades, it may be worth it.

What are some best practices for facilitating justice facility planning projects that involve sensitive community concerns?

One of the best things we can do is make time to do our research—listen, read, and acknowledge what’s being said and not being said. Walk in as a true partner in the process, not a savior. That savior approach isn’t often well received, whether you’re a public or private entity.

If the community feels like a solution is cookie-cutter or doesn’t address their unique concerns, that will cause problems. We also need to broaden our definition of “stakeholders.” That means evaluating whether all voices are represented at the table, not just the ones on a provided list.

For example, in one of our current projects, we surveyed residents of the correctional facility, staff, and local advocacy groups. We welcomed feedback from many sources. Even if not required, it’s worth asking: “What are the needs of incarcerated individuals? What’s the surrounding neighborhood feeling?” These questions help lead to better, more informed design.

 

How do you approach building consensus among diverse stakeholders—whether that’s elected officials, corrections leaders, neighborhood groups or advocacy organizations?

Trying to build consensus among diverse groups is an ongoing effort. You have to put on different hats and understand various perspectives. Everyone comes to the table with different lived experiences, and whether you’re a resident or an elected official, that shapes what you prioritize.

Consensus doesn’t mean everyone gets everything they want. It means finding a shared path forward that satisfies the broader goals. We work to identify those needs and find alignment, even if it requires compromise.

In your experience, what are some ways to keep momentum and trust intact during long, complex public projects that might span several years or a decade?

Creating and maintaining momentum and trust over time takes effort. Our clients and constituents have other priorities, so we need to emphasize wins and bring people along.

That can mean, for example, hosting periodic public meetings, sending newsletters or posting flyers in highly trafficked locations – not just relying on having a project website. Mailers and general outreach that say, “We’re still here, this is where we are…“—those go a long way . Keeping communication open, even when there isn’t a big update, helps maintain trust.

Internally, project teams can experience fatigue, too. It’s helpful to remind colleagues of where we started, how far we’ve come, and the successes along the way. And for communities, just showing up with a quick update—even without full designs—keeps the relationship strong.

 

Are there any lessons or valued contributions from your time in the public sector that you now apply when guiding clients through difficult moments in a project?

When I think about getting through difficult moments in a project, it’s like getting through difficult moments in life—you need to remember your “why.” We’re doing this project for a variety of reasons: to build better communities, to challenge and change systems, to respond to current conditions, and to plan for the future.

Sometimes progress is slow. But even small steps forward matter. We need to say what we mean, mean what we say, and move with honesty and understanding—acknowledging competing agendas and creating space for open dialogue.

 

Thinking about a recent justice facility project at CGL, can you share an example where your public sector skills helped resolve a challenge?

I think about a recent project where the team was building on an existing site, but the zoning wasn’t compatible with the project’s goals. The community had envisioned something else near that area. We needed to understand the zoning regulations and options.

My public sector experience allowed me to jump in and interpret the ordinances. I helped the team navigate next steps and determine who we needed to meet with, and what adjustments were possible—until a land use attorney could be brought in. That kept the project from stalling, keeping us on track and preventing costly delays.

 

What advice would you give to public agencies considering bringing in a private sector firm to support their justice planning projects? 

You want a team that has the necessary experience and can deliver on time and on budget. But also look at flexibility—how they solve problems, handle challenges—and how they manage community engagement. Ask how they approach both simple and complex scenarios.

Remain open-minded. Look at how the firm’s methods fit with yours, and whether they challenge you to consider new ways of working. You don’t want a cookie-cutter solution, and you don’t want a facility that’s stuck in the past. You want a firm that listens and can tailor their approach to your unique situation.

A good partner brings expertise—but also humility, flexibility, and a commitment to helping you establish a vision and design/build the right facility for that vision.

 

Stay tuned for Part 2 of our interview with Regina, featured in our companion video blog: “Justice Facility Planning: The Journey from Public Service to Private Sector Impact“