Last Thursday the CDC released guidelines, rather abruptly, that suggested that vaccinated individuals no longer needed to wear masks or socially distance in most cases. While it can be assumed that the purpose of releasing this information was to encourage more widespread vaccination, the method of information dissemination was confusing in that it came out in a blanket statement as opposed to as a well-defined information campaign. Knowing your audience, conveying nuance, and clearly explaining data are all important elements in public communication that the CDC missed here. The effect of this release was that it seemed to give everyone pause, no matter their personal opinions about masks and distancing, and think, “so what do we do now?”
It’s a fair question and one that can come up when the government and its agencies are attempting to convey new policies, laws, guidance, or regulations. The trouble with guidance is that it does not hold the same force of law or the administrative authority of regulation. Guidance is not binding, it is not subject to rule-making procedures (meaning there is no proposal or comment period for the public or experts), and institutions aren’t subject to enforcement action if guidance is not followed. The main purpose of guidance is to simply highlight expectations and priorities.
Let me take a few sentences to highlight why the nature of agency guidance is important and why it has caused some initial confusion. Laws derive from the legislature and are implemented through executive agencies – like the CDC – who interpret the law and develop regulations to implement its dictates. Laws and regulations have teeth and are binding. Guidance, on the other hand, is voluntary.
In the case of CDC guidance for the public, they are attempting to convey the best practices, standards, or expectations according to the scientific information they possess. How that guidance is interpreted in practice, however, remains a function of individuals, businesses, and government entities. That’s where the “deer in headlights” reaction is stemming from on this new guidance. There are no teeth in the guidance and a lot of room for interpretation. Businesses can continue to enforce mask and social distancing requirements or do away with them entirely. Individuals can choose to go to large gatherings unmasked and unvaccinated and we really aren’t at a point in this country that we are asking people to identify their vaccination status.
I am not suggesting that our pandemic response be codified into law or regulation, but if the CDC is going to share such sweeping guidance with the public, I am suggesting that our government understand the function of guidance and handle the public communication of that guidance accordingly.
For starters, crystal clear communication of what is safe and for whom would be a good start. Next, involve your stakeholders, namely state and local governments, before this kind of information is released so they can react appropriately and in an orderly fashion. Finally, rethink whether this kind of public policy communication is where the strength of the CDC lies. I would argue that while the CDC is excellent at interpreting scientific data and developing guidance based on that data, communicating it to the public can have major policy implications (such as effectively ending mask mandates for everyone) that should have been considered before potentially shifting the entire trajectory of the pandemic response.
Dr. Heather Farley is Chair of the Department of Criminal Justice, Public Policy & Management and a professor of Public Management in the School of Business and Public Management at College of Coastal Georgia. She is an associate of the College’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies.
Reg Murphy Center