What makes a public-involvement record defensible?

Three things a reviewer will look for: that you can show who you heard from, that you can show you made a genuine effort to reach people you did not hear from, and that the record has not been edited after the fact. TIPS addresses all three — verified responses establish that a respondent is real, the density map shows geographic coverage including the gaps, and responses are stored immutably with the original question wording snapshotted onto each one.

How does multilingual fielding work?

You add languages to a survey and supply the translated wording for questions, options, the pre-survey profile step, and the invitation email. An optional auto-translate draft gets you a first pass to edit rather than a blank page. Respondents choose their language on the survey itself, and every response aggregates into one dataset regardless of the language it was answered in.

Can we run an open public comment period and an invited stakeholder process at the same time?

Yes, and this is the common pattern. Post a QR code and a public link for the open channel, and send email invitations to your stakeholder and committee lists for the invited channel. Both feed one dataset with deduplication across channels, so somebody on the technical advisory committee who also scans the flyer at the library is counted once.

What is the difference between a verified and an anonymous response here?

A verified response is one where TIPS has affirmative evidence the email address is real — either the respondent arrived through an emailed link or they clicked the verification link in their confirmation email. Anonymous responses have no identity attached. Both are legitimate public input; the distinction matters when someone challenges the record, because you can report the counts separately and show that the verified subset supports the same conclusion.

Yes. Everything is exportable at any time as CSV and GeoJSON, and the read-only API lets you pull it programmatically. Nothing about the export is gated behind a plan tier or a support ticket.

How does this fit with in-person meetings?

It complements them rather than replacing them. Kiosk mode runs the same survey unattended on a tablet at an open house, so walk-ins contribute to the same dataset as the online respondents — which means the open-house attendance sheet and the online survey stop being two separate records you have to reconcile in the appendix.

← Solutions

Public Involvement Software for Transportation Planning

Public involvement is judged on the record it leaves behind. TIPS is built to produce that record — who you heard from, where they were, what language they answered in, and which voices you were still missing when the comment period closed.

In short. Field one survey across open and invited channels, in as many languages as your community speaks, with responses deduplicated across channels and identity-verified where it matters. Report geographic coverage and demographic cross-tabs, and export a board-ready PDF for the plan appendix.

The record is the deliverable

Nobody runs a public-involvement process for its own sake. It exists because a plan, a project, or a funding award depends on demonstrating that the affected public had a real opportunity to participate — and because the process will be reviewed by somebody who was not in the room. That reviewer asks the same questions every time.

Who did you hear from? Counts alone don't answer this. Demographic and geographic breakdowns do.
Who didn't you hear from, and what did you do about it? A coverage map that shows the gap, and a record of the outreach aimed at closing it.
Could the public actually participate? Language access, mobile access, and a channel that doesn't require attending a 6pm meeting.
Is the record intact? Responses that haven't been quietly reworded or re-scoped after collection.

Language access

Field it in the languages your community speaks.

Language access is not a nice-to-have in a federally funded process. TIPS treats it as a first-class property of the survey rather than a separate translated PDF that nobody fills out.

One survey, many languages

Questions, options, the profile step, and the invitation email all translate. Respondents pick their language on the survey itself.

Auto-translate first draft

Generate a machine first pass so your reviewer edits a draft instead of starting from a blank page. Human review still governs what ships.

One dataset

A Spanish response and an English response to the same question aggregate into the same chart — no post-hoc merging of separate language files.

Coverage

Show the map, including the holes in it.

A respondent-density map is the single most useful artifact a public-involvement process produces, and not because it shows where you succeeded. It shows the neighborhoods that didn't answer — which is the finding that drives the second round of outreach and the sentence in the plan explaining what you did about it.

Density heatmap of respondents, from drawn routes and zip codes
Segment cross-tabs comparing any question against demographics
Verified vs. anonymous counts reported separately
Branded, board-ready PDF export for the plan appendix

Two channels, one count

Run an open public channel (QR codes, a public link, a kiosk at the open house) alongside an invited channel (email to stakeholder and committee lists). TIPS deduplicates across both, so the totals you report are people, not submissions.

Designing for public input vs. targeted outreach →

Where this shows up in practice

Public involvement is a requirement attached to a lot of different work products. These are the ones agencies most often bring to TIPS:

Common questions

What makes a public-involvement record defensible?: Three things a reviewer will look for: that you can show who you heard from, that you can show you made a genuine effort to reach people you did not hear from, and that the record has not been edited after the fact. TIPS addresses all three — verified responses establish that a respondent is real, the density map shows geographic coverage including the gaps, and responses are stored immutably with the original question wording snapshotted onto each one.
How does multilingual fielding work?: You add languages to a survey and supply the translated wording for questions, options, the pre-survey profile step, and the invitation email. An optional auto-translate draft gets you a first pass to edit rather than a blank page. Respondents choose their language on the survey itself, and every response aggregates into one dataset regardless of the language it was answered in.
Can we run an open public comment period and an invited stakeholder process at the same time?: Yes, and this is the common pattern. Post a QR code and a public link for the open channel, and send email invitations to your stakeholder and committee lists for the invited channel. Both feed one dataset with deduplication across channels, so somebody on the technical advisory committee who also scans the flyer at the library is counted once.
What is the difference between a verified and an anonymous response here?: A verified response is one where TIPS has affirmative evidence the email address is real — either the respondent arrived through an emailed link or they clicked the verification link in their confirmation email. Anonymous responses have no identity attached. Both are legitimate public input; the distinction matters when someone challenges the record, because you can report the counts separately and show that the verified subset supports the same conclusion.
Do we own the data?: Yes. Everything is exportable at any time as CSV and GeoJSON, and the read-only API lets you pull it programmatically. Nothing about the export is gated behind a plan tier or a support ticket.
How does this fit with in-person meetings?: It complements them rather than replacing them. Kiosk mode runs the same survey unattended on a tablet at an open house, so walk-ins contribute to the same dataset as the online respondents — which means the open-house attendance sheet and the online survey stop being two separate records you have to reconcile in the appendix.

Have a comment period coming up?

Start a free trial and stand up the survey before the window opens. If you'd rather talk through the process design first, we're happy to.

Start free 14-day trial Talk to us