As more U.S. states pass or consider extended producer responsibility for packaging legislation, a key component is becoming table stakes: the statewide recycling needs assessment. But the who, when and how of this process is still a topic of debate.

Packaging EPR is still brand new in the United States, so the process of undertaking a statewide recycling needs assessment is often a regulatory requirement for implementing the program. This type of report, which compiles data on how a state manages its recycling systems, is meant to guide producer responsibility organizations and their EPR program operations.

Needs assessments are also becoming a broader way for states to gain insight into what’s working well in recycling and waste systems and what needs an overhaul. This is particularly true in states that haven’t yet adopted an EPR program but decide to pass an interim “study bill.” The strategy is meant to help lawmakers decide whether and how a future EPR law would benefit the state. 

Such assessments also raise more questions about who should lead the planning and design process and what timeline offers the best chance for stakeholders to create recycling systems that benefit the most residents. 

Regardless of the style and approach, needs assessments aim to offer a wealth of data and insight, said Sarah Edwards, North America director for Eunomia. The consulting firm has been involved in developing needs assessments for Colorado, Maine, Illinois, Minnesota, California and Maryland.

“It’s about what's happening now on the ground, and what that might look like in the future,” she said.

Who sets the tone of the report?

Each state has taken a slightly different approach to their needs assessments, but the content of the reports share some key similarities. Common information typically includes data on existing infrastructure and capacity, operations costs, disposal and recycling methods, as well as packaging collection volumes. 

The report may also offer tailored, state-specific recommendations, such as how to harmonize existing recycling programs, boost specific infrastructure investments or streamline accepted recycled materials lists.

Maryland’s needs assessment, for example, offered hypothetical models for how much packaging could be captured under an EPR program. Colorado’s needs assessment offered three separate scenarios for increasing collection and recycling rates based on a range of operating and capital costs.

Disagreements over who should dictate the content and approach to a needs assessment can affect what ends up in the final report, said several sources. A key issue is whether the PRO should help design the assessment and decide what kind of data to include, or whether this process is best left up to a state agency or lawmakers.

EPR bill language can sometimes influence the scope of a needs assessment, Edwards said. For example, Washington, the newest state to pass EPR for packaging, explicitly listed metrics that should be included in the needs assessment in the bill language. Similar language is expected to be included in the RFP process. The state’s Department of Ecology is conducting the process.

Meanwhile, Maine is taking a different approach by directing its future PRO to conduct the needs assessment. The state is still in the process of choosing its PRO.

Shane Buckingham, chief of staff at Circular Action Alliance, the PRO operating in multiple U.S. states, said his organization prefers having “a central role in defining the scope of the needs assessment” and working closely with the assessment contractor, rather than seeing the final report after it’s completed. CAA led the needs assessment in Colorado in partnership with Eunomia. 

When a PRO isn’t “meaningfully involved” on the front end, the resulting report might end up with data gaps, he said in an email. “In these cases, a follow-up assessment has been required, adding time and cost.”

In Colorado, CAA was allowed to design the needs assessment “specifically to guide the program plan and sequencing decisions,” which gave CAA more freedom to collaborate with stakeholders and fill in those gaps, he said. 

Which comes first: EPR or needs assessments?

Yet some other stakeholders insist that states should conduct a needs assessment long before they even consider an EPR for packaging law or choose a PRO. In their view, a state must have a fuller picture of its recycling strengths and weaknesses before deciding whether EPR is the right move to improve waste management. 

The American Forest & Paper Association advocates for states to conduct needs assessments prior to considering EPR for packaging laws, saying the approach “helps states avoid unintended consequences” such as increasing costs for residents or “negatively affecting recycling rates for easy-to-recycle materials like paper.” 

New York state’s Center for Sustainable Materials Management commissioned a needs assessment from RRS in 2024, noting the work was “undertaken in anticipation” of the state potentially passing an EPR law. But so far, lawmakers failed to pass such a law, most recently in both 2024 and 2025.

States like Illinois and Rhode Island have not passed an EPR for packaging law but are in various stages of putting together needs assessments that could inform future discussion. This year, Rhode Island’s state legislature voted to go down this path rather than pursue a combination bottle bill/ EPR for packaging law. The decision was pitched as a compromise to smooth over competing stakeholder viewpoints about packaging EPR.

Discussions over timing of a study bill also raised tensions in Maryland, where the state legislature in 2023 significantly changed the wording of a proposed EPR for packaging bill in favor of a study bill. The final report from that bill came out in February 2025, but just three months later, the state passed an EPR for packaging law. Some stakeholders raised concerns that the bill was introduced before the final results from the study bill came out, but bill sponsors said subsequent amendments reflected some of those recommendations. 

More states could pursue both EPR for packaging and related needs assessments in coming years, as evidenced by recent activity in multiple states.

A pending bill in the Massachusetts state legislature calls for a statewide needs assessment, while a separate state EPR commission has advocated for “appropriating resources” to fund a study. Meanwhile, Virginia is drafting a new statewide solid waste management plan with recommendations to both pursue an EPR for packaging law and a statewide recycling needs assessment.

This story first appeared in the Waste Dive: Recycling newsletter. Sign up for the weekly emails here.