c/EPA
 November 2011
EPA-100-F-11-029
           Evaluation of Region 7
           Tribal Grants
           Programmatic Processes
            Promoting Environmental Results
            i	1
            Through Evaluation

-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report, Evaluation of the Region 7 Tribal Grants Programmatic Processes, was developed for the
United States Environmental  Protection Agency's (EPA)  Office of Policy under Contract  EP-W-10-002
between EPA and Industrial Economics, Inc. (lEc) of Cambridge, Massachusetts. The evaluation team
(also referred to as the "evaluators" throughout this report) consisted of Andrew Schwarz, Victoria Diaz-
Bonilla, Jane Zhou, and Tom Santoro.

Ashley Betts and Heather Hamilton of EPA's Region 7 Office of Policy and Management and Office of
Tribal Affairs, respectively, provided critical assistance and background  information on the Tribal Grants
Program throughout the course of this study. Britta Johnson of EPA's Office of Policy Evaluation Support
Division provided technical support and advice for the evaluation.

This report was developed under the Program Evaluation Competition, sponsored annually by EPA's
Office of Policy.  Program Evaluation is one of the performance management tools  EPA uses to assure
itself,  the public, and other interested stakeholders that EPA programs are protecting human health and
the environment effectively and efficiently. The information obtained through program  evaluations can
shed light on whether EPA programs are meeting their goals and objectives, provide the evidence and
road  map  needed to replicate successes, and  identify those  aspects of  EPA  programs needing
improvement.  To access copies of this or other EPA program evaluations, please visit EPA's Evaluation
Support Division's website at http://www.epa.gov/evaluate.

-------
ACRONYMS
BMP:         Best Management Practice



CAA:         Clean Air Act



CERCLA:      Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act



CWA:         Clean Water Act



EPIC:         Environmental Protection in Indian Country



GAP:         General Assistance Program.



GMO:        Grants  Management Office



IGMS:        Integrated Grants Management System



NOFA:        Notice  of Funding Availability



PO:          Project Officer



QAPP:        Quality Assurance Performance Plan



RTOC:        Regional Tribal Operations Committee



TA:          Technical Advisor

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.  INTRODUCTION
Scope 2

2.  METHODS
Information Collection and Analysis 3
Identifying Evaluation Questions 3
Review of Existing Materials 6
Interviews 6
Data Analysis 6

3.  FINDINGS
Overview 8
Efficiency, Consistency, and Transparency 9
   Program Processes  9
   Program Office Organization 11
Communication with the Tribes; Issues Affecting Workplan Negotiation n
   Impact of EPA and Tribal Staff Turnover  14
   Need for More Direct Communication 14
   Need for More Training  14
Collaboration Among Region 7 Programs 15

4.  RECOMMENDATIONS
Overview 16
   Implement Grant Programs Consistently as Practicable, Adhering to Best
      Management Practices 16
   Identify Organization Design Features that Facilitate of Hinder Efficient Operation
      of the Grant Program and Collaboration Among Programs  17
   Work to Improve Communication with Tribes 18
   Better Equip EPA Staff to Work Effectively with Tribal  Staff 18
   Formalize the  Process to Review Grants  19
                                                                                         in

-------
APPENDICES:

Appendix A:   List of Tribes in EPA Region 7
Appendix B:   Grant Descriptions
Appendix C:   Evaluation Methodology
Appendix D:   Literature Review
Appendix E:   List of Interviewees
Appendix F:   Sample Interview Guide
Appendix G:   Process Maps
Appendix H:   Best Management Practices
                                                                                        IV

-------
EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for administering Federal environmental
statutes on  all  U.S. land.   Tribal  National governments play  an  important  role in the design  and
administration of tribal programs to ensure clean water, air quality, proper waste management,  and
safe management of pesticides and other toxic chemicals. To help Tribes build capacity and administer
environmental programs, EPA provides guidance and technical support, and issues grants, to federally
recognized Tribal governments and intertribal consortia.

In EPA Region 7, some tribal representatives have expressed concerns about the programmatic grants
processes. These points, albeit anecdotal in nature, encompass a variety of issues, including that the
grants negotiation  process  is too lengthy,  that feedback related to grant products  is  not timely or
productive,  and that  tribal priorities are  undervalued in workplan  activities. In order to better
understand these concerns and to ensure that the  programmatic grant processes  are as efficient,
consistent, and transparent as possible, the  Region 7 Tribal program and the Regional Tribal Operations
Committee (RTOC)  have formed a subgroup charged with reviewing and improving  communications
around tribal grants.

In support of this review, EPA performed an evaluation of the tribal grant program to assess how grants
are currently handled and to make recommendations to improve Region 7 processes. EPA contracted
with Industrial Economics, Inc. to assist in conducting a process evaluation, focusing on four of the grant
programs: the  Clean Air Act 103 (CAA) program, the Clean  Water  Act  106 (CWA)  program,  the
Brownfields 128(a) program, and the General Assistance Program (GAP).


METHODS

Working closely with representatives from  EPA headquarters and Region 7, the evaluator developed a
program  logic model that outlined the basic  structure and design of the tribal grant process  and
identified the expected outcomes associated with the grant process. Using the logic model and a set of
questions originally developed by  Region  7, the evaluation team  refined these into a series of key
questions that provided the framework for the remainder of the evaluation.

   1.  How can Region 7  make its tribal grant processes more efficient, consistent, and transparent
       across Regional program areas as well as tribes?
   2.  How can Region 7  improve its communication and coordination with tribes throughout the
       entire grants process, from  negotiation of grant applications to the management of activities
       conducted under the grants?
                                                                                         ES-1

-------
    3.  Are there ways for the different Region 7 programs to coordinate and collaborate for improved
       (e.g., consistent) grants management and tribal  relations, while still effectively  utilizing their
       specific programmatic expertise?
To answer these questions, the evaluator relied on two major approaches: (1) a review and analysis of
existing materials from  EPA,  and  (2) interviews with key technical and administrative personnel (e.g.,
POs and grant administrators) in Region 7 and other EPA regions, as well as with tribes in Region 7.

The information collected and reviewed by the evaluator included, but was not limited to:
    •   National  Program Guidance documents, GAP Guidance  documents, and regional guidance
       documents;
    •   Tribal assistance protocols;
    •   The  tribal  grants  best  management  practices  developed by  the  regional  and  tribal
       communication workgroup;
    •   Process maps and related information developed by the program grants office to describe the
       steps they take to solicit and award grants; and
    •   Notes from the RTOC meetings.
Interviews with EPA Region 7 personnel, tribal  staff, and staff from  other EPA Regions served as the
primary source of information collected for this evaluation and as the basis for many of the report's
findings.

DATA ANALYSIS
The evaluator's analysis and findings are based primarily on the results of the interviews, supplemented
by material gleaned from the background information. The evaluator first took the information provided
from  the  interviews and  organized  the results around the  key  evaluation  questions.  To  better
characterize the comments obtained, the evaluator noted common themes and distinguished between
ideas raised by certain groups


FINDINGS

The findings are summarized below:
EFFICIENCY,  CONSISTENCY, AND  TRANSPARENCY
We examined the steps that each program office took in administering the grant process and found that,
for the most part, the programs follow similar steps.  Some variation does exist and results from the
differences in  underlying requirements or elements  of  the programs themselves.  The important
distinctions and issues follow not from these programmatic differences, but rather from the discrepancy
in  how the programs implement the steps of  the process.  The relationship between  the program
officials and the tribal representatives and the speed and effectiveness of the communication between
them has the greatest impact on the efficiency and consistency of grant implementation. In addition, we
found that to some degree, differences in the way that personnel in regional programmatic offices are
                                                                                         ES-2

-------
organized impacts the relationships with the tribes and the efficiency of the grant process. While no
single organizational structure is necessarily superior  or  should  be adopted across the board, the
differing  approaches can impact both  internal coordination  within the Region  and the interaction
between  the Region and the tribes.

COMMUNICATION AND  COORDINATION WITH TRIBES
When analyzing the grant solicitation, review, and award process, the biggest "sticking point" occurs
around  workplan   negotiation.  Many   of  these problems  had  a common  underlying  theme:
communication issues and personality clashes between EPA and tribal personnel.  Perceived  lack of
responsiveness to tribal concerns and delays  in responding to inquiries were among the issues raised by
tribes in discussing communication issues that affected the workplan negotiations. On several occasions,
the evaluator heard from the tribes that the relationship with the EPA program officer was the most
important factor in an efficiently run grant. Turnover of staff, both at EPA and within the tribes, can have
a detrimental  impact on this  relationship and, therefore, the efficient administration of grants.  The
need for more frequent face-to-face communication was a common viewpoint expressed by the tribes.

COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION WITHIN  REGION 7
With regard to coordination between the Region  7 tribal grant programs, some regional respondents
indicated that they thought the GAP program POs or the Grants Management Office was responsible for
reviewing grants and identifying issues of concern, including duplication of effort or grants submitted to
the inappropriate program.  While this type of review on the programmatic side (e.g., determining the
appropriate grant vehicle) did occur on  an  informal and somewhat ad hoc basis, there  is no formal
mechanism for reviewing the grants across programs.   The  Grants Management Office does in fact
review each grant but with a focus only on the administrative components and not on the programmatic
issues.


RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the  key issues that  the Region wanted addressed  in the evaluation and an  analysis of the
findings, the evaluator has identified the following set of recommendations for EPA to consider:
    •   Implement grant programs as consistently as practicable across all grant programs, following the
       Best  Management  Practices developed  by  the Tribal/EPA Grants  and  Communications
       Workgroup;
    •   Identify organizational structures that facilitate  or  hinder  efficient  operation of the grant
       program and collaboration among programs;
    •   Work  to improve  communications  with the  Tribes, especially  with  regard to workplan
       negotiations;
    •   Better equip EPA staff to work effectively with Tribal staff, who are often new or inexperienced;
       and
                                                                                         ES-3

-------
Formalize the  internal process to review grants among programs to ensure that activities are
funded    under    the    right   grants    and   to    limit    duplication    of    effort.
                                                                                    ES-4

-------
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for administering Federal environmental
statutes on  all U.S.  land. Tribal National governments  play an important role  in the  design and
administration of tribal programs to ensure clean water, air quality, proper waste management, and
safe management of pesticides and other toxic chemicals. To help Tribes build capacity and administer
environmental programs, EPA provides guidance and technical support, and issues grants,  to federally
recognized Tribal governments and intertribal consortia.
The states of Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, and Iowa comprise EPA Region 7 and are home to nine tribal
nations (see Appendix A for a full  list of  the tribes). EPA currently awards cooperative  agreements
(hereafter referred to as grants) to seven  of the nine tribes. Tribes use these grants as one source of
funding to acquire the skills and capacity to develop,  manage and implement environmental programs.
The grants include the General Assistance Program (GAP), designed to enhance tribal capacity as well as
to help with  implementation of media-specific tribal grants.  Media-specific grants include the Clean Air
Act (CAA) 103, the Clean Water Act (CWA)  106,  and the Brownfield Response Program under the
Comprehensive Environmental  Response, Compensation, and Liability Act  (CERCLA 128(a)), funding to
implement the pesticide circuit rider, CWA 319, and Performance Partnership programs.
Within the region, technical and  administrative project officers (POs) manage tribal grants and work
with the regional Grants Management Office (GMO) to ensure that grant administration requirements
are met and that grant activities achieve desired results.
POs oversee the entire  grant process from the initial notification  of tribes that funding  is available
through the award and  closeout.  In the grant  community,  POs  are generally classified as either
administrative or technical and their responsibilities differ accordingly; however, many of the individuals
who handle tribal grants in Region 7 fulfill both functions1.  Administrative  duties include reviewing the
application,  budget,  and  workplan   for  completeness   and reasonableness; creating  funding
recommendations and commitment notices for input into EPA's electronic grants award system; and
reviewing  quarterly reports to ensure  the workplan activities are commensurate with the funding
drawdowns.  Technical duties involve reviewing the workplan and reports for technical  merit and
comparing planned activities with program guidance,  regulations, and statutes, and providing guidance
on technical activities during the grant period and meets with technical tribal personnel as needed.


EVALUATION SCOPE

In the past  some  tribal  representatives  have  expressed concerns about the  programmatic grants
processes. While often anecdotal in nature, tribes have raised concerns, including that the EPA grants
negotiation process is too lengthy,  that feedback related to grant products (work plans, reports, and
 Only within the water program are the administrative PO and technical PO separate positions.

-------
Quality Assurance Performance Plans (QAPP)) is not timely or productive, and that tribal priorities may
be undervalued in work plan activities.  Moreover, tribes have noted that poor communication often
impedes effective grant management.  In a survey that EPA Region 7 conducted in 2006, over 40 percent
of tribal environmental staff indicated that they felt there was a communication gap with Region 7 staff
on programmatic and administrative matters.  EPA officials also want to improve the efficiency of the
grant process, noting that while tribal grants represent only a small percentage of all the grants issued
by the Region, they take up a relatively large proportion of EPA's grants staff time.
In order to better understand these concerns and to ensure that the programmatic grant processes are
as clear and efficient as possible, the Region 7 tribal program and the Regional Tribal Operations
Committee (RTOC) have formed  a subgroup charged with reviewing and improving communications
around  the  tribal   grants,  specifically focusing  on  increasing  transparency  to  improve  grant
implementation.
In support of this review, EPA initiated this evaluation of the tribal grants program to assess how grants
are currently handled and to make recommendations to ensure that grants are addressed efficiently,
consistently, and transparently.   In addition, EPA wanted to  identify recommendations that would
encourage  effective communication  between Region 7 staff and tribes as well as collaboration among
Region 7  programs.  This evaluation focuses  on the Agency's tribal grant  allocation, approval,  and
management practices, rather than on grant products or activities conducted under the grants by tribes.
The  evaluation centers around four Region 7 grants: CAA 103, CWA 106,  CERCLA 128(a),  and GAP
(descriptions of these four grants are included as Appendix B)., with the understanding that examining
this set of grants would address the issues and concerns that had been identified. The evaluation  was
conducted with two key audiences in mind: the Region 7 personnel involved in the administration of the
grant programs, including their supervisors, and the tribes who receive grants from EPA.
EPA  contracted with  Industrial Economics, Inc. (hereafter referred to  as the evaluator)  to help conduct
the  evaluation.   The  evaluator  worked closely  with representatives from  EPA in designing  and
conducting  the  evaluation,  though  the findings  and  recommendations  reported   herein  are  the
evaluator's. Together, Industrial Economics, Inc.  and the  EPA representatives comprised the evaluation
team.

-------
METHODS
INFORMATION COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS APPROACH

This chapter describes the evaluator's approach for assessing the processes underlying the tribal grant
program.  A detailed methodology,  developed  at the beginning  of the  evaluation, is  included  in
Appendix C. The analysis sought to identify issues affecting the efficient, consistent, and  transparent
administration of the tribal grant process and to develop recommendations to address those issues,
while  at the same time identifying opportunities for both internal and external coordination and
collaboration throughout the process.


IDENTIFYING EVALUATION QUESTIONS

In  support of  this  evaluation, EPA Region  7  submitted a  proposal to  the  Program  Evaluation
Competition, conducted  by EPA's Environmental Services Division (ESD).  As part of its submission, the
Region included a series  of draft evaluation questions that were then modified by the evaluation team.
The logic model, shown in Figure 1, is a graphical representation of the steps involved in awarding and
managing the grants, as  well as the outcomes achieved by tribes following implementation of specific
grant activities. While post-award grant activity outcomes are shown in the logic model for the sake of
completeness, they were beyond the scope of this evaluation. Also, instead of surveying how effectively
tribes use grant funds, this evaluation revolves around the process behind grant awards. Furthermore,
the evaluation focuses on the  steps leading up to the time the grant application is entered into the
Integrated Grants  Management System (IGMS) (the top two lines of logic within the "Activities" and
"Outputs" columns).
As can be seen on Figure 1, the process outcomes (the main focus of this evaluation) are
   •   Fair and transparent grants processes across tribes and program areas;
   •   Effective communication and coordination between tribes and EPA;
   •   Valuation of tribal priorities and environmental needs; and
   •   EPA and tribal satisfaction with the process.

-------
Figure  1.

Resources/
   Inputs
Logic Model for EPA  R7 Tribal Grant Processes'
         Activities
Outputs
  Process
Outcomes
Grant Activity
  Outcomes

• Funding for
EPA Region 7
program and
grant offices
• EPA Region
7 technical
and
administrative
personnel:
- Project
officers
- Grant
administrators
- Regional
Quality
Assurance
Manager
• EPA IT
systems:
- Integrated
Grants
Management
System (IGMS)
• Financial
Data
Warehouse









• Grant application
solicitation (if necessary)
and support

• Grant application
negotiation, review, and
decision (incl. workplan
and budget):
- Threshold criteria
- Legal, regulatory,
and programmatic
compliance
• Obtaining concurrences
and additional approvals
(if necessary)

• Grant management.
progress tracking, and
support

• Quality assurance
project plan (QAPP)
review






• Postings on EPA website.
Grants.gov, or in Federal Register:
• Requests for proposals
• Notices of funding availability
• Grant application templates

• Inputs to IGMS
• Notifications of application
receipt
• Application feedback and
technical advice
• Negotiation milestones
• Funding recommendations
• Commitment notices
• Grant approvals and signatures
• Congressional notification
• Notification and mailing of grant
awards to Tribes, or notification of
grant ineligibility/ denial

• Updates to IGMS Post-Award
Database and grant files
• Feedback on quarterly progress
and final performance reports
(incl, requests for revisions, if
necessary)
• Phone calls and in-person visits to
Tribes for technical support

• QAPP approval (or requests for
revisions, if necessary)









1

• Fair, simple.
consistent, time-
efficient, and
transparent grants
processes across
Tribes and
program areas
• Effective
communication
and coordination
between EPA and
Tribes
• Valuation of
Tribal priorities
and environmental
needs
• EPA and Tribal
satisfaction







• Efficient and
effective use of
grant funding by
Tribes
• Increased Tribal
capacity to
administer
environmental
programs and
tackle
environmental
challenges
• Tribal activities
to monitor and
improve
environmental
conditions
• Enhanced
environment and
human health

 Note: Grant activity outcomes are shown in the logic model for the sake of completeness, but will were not be addressed by the evaluators during its their evaluation study. This evaluation was a process evaluation only,

 focusing on the Agency's tribal grant allocation, approval, and management practices, rather than on grant products or activities conducted under the grants by tribes.

-------
Using the process outcomes identified in the logic model, the questions were developed to address the
degree to which these outcomes were being  met and why leading to the following three major
questions and related sub-questions:
    1.  How can Region 7 make its tribal grant processes more efficient, consistent, and transparent
       across Regional program areas as well as tribes?
       a.   How are Region 7 programmatic grant processes currently structured?
       b.   What causes the grants negotiation and performance reporting processes to extend longer
           than they should, according to established guidelines? At which stages do the processes get
           held up?
       c.   What are the differences in work plan and quarterly report requirements for the different
           types of tribal grants (i.e., GAP grants and media-specific grants)?
       d.   How well  are tribal  priorities and  environmental needs incorporated  into the grant
           processes?
    2.  How can Region  7 improve its communication and  coordination with tribes throughout the
       entire grants process, from  negotiation of grant applications to the management of activities
       conducted under the grants?
       a.   Do  Region  7 project officers and tribes communicate on a consistent basis, or only when
           issues arise?
       b.   Is there ever confusion about roles and responsibilities?
    3.  Are there ways for the different Region 7 programs to coordinate and collaborate for improved
       (e.g.,  more consistent) grants management and tribal relations, while still effectively utilizing
       their specific programmatic expertise?
       a.   Which grant steps are mandated by EPA Headquarters or  statutes/regulations? Are there
           different grants steps in the other EPA Regions?
       b.   How does  Region 7  coordinate across programs? When a program issues a  grant to a
           particular tribe, does it always know which other grants  the tribe may be receiving, and does
           it coordinate its resources with these other grant programs?
       c.   Are there programmatic or environmental justifications for having some differences in the
           requirements for the different types of tribal grants?
The evaluation questions, coupled with the process evaluation intent, necessitated a qualitative analysis
based on stakeholder input, informed by available information on the tribal grants process.  The  general
steps taken to  collect and analyze the information, as well as the types  of information used, are
described below. The approach consisted of two major components: a review and analysis of existing
materials from  EPA and interviews with key EPA technical and administrative personnel (e.g., POs and
grant administrators) as well as with tribal environmental staff.

-------
REVIEW OF EXISTING  MATERIALS

EPA staff provided the evaluator with a great deal of background material on the programmatic and
administrative functioning of the tribal grant program,  which was supplemented by an independent
literature search. The information collected and reviewed by the evaluator included, but was not limited
to:
   •   National  Program Guidance  documents, GAP Guidance documents, and regional  guidance
       documents;
   •   Tribal assistance protocols;
   •   The  tribal grants  best  management practices  developed  by the  regional  and  tribal
       communication workgroup;
   •   Process maps and related information developed by the program grants office to describe the
       steps they take to solicit and award grants; and
   •   Notes from the RTOC meetings.
A full list of the materials reviewed by the evaluator is included in Appendix D.


INTERVIEWS

Interviews with EPA personnel and tribal staff served as the primary source of information collected for
this evaluation and form the basis for many of the report's findings. The interviews were designed to
gain perspectives  from a variety of individuals involved in the tribal grants process.   The evaluators
conducted interviews with Region 7 staff and their supervisors from the grants management and tribal
affairs offices as well as with staff and management from the four programmatic offices evaluated. We
also spoke with representatives from  six tribes as well as held a scoping call with members of the RTOC,
who worked on grants.  Additionally, interviews were conducted with  representatives from other EPA
regions to gain perspective of alternate grants management processes. A complete list of interviewees is
included as Appendix E.
Prior to the interviews, the evaluator prepared interview guides, tailored to the different interviewees,
based on the overall evaluation questions.  Appendix  F contains an  example interview guide.  The
evaluator provided the specific guide  to interviewees prior to the interview, which was then conducted
around these questions.


DATA ANALYSIS

As noted above, the  evaluation was based on a review and analysis of existing materials and interviews
conducted with tribal and EPA personnel. The background material helped inform the design of the key
evaluation questions and the interview guides. The evaluator's analysis and findings are based primarily
on the results of the interviews, supplemented by material gleaned from the background information.
For example, in developing the programmatic process maps described in Chapter 3, the evaluators relied
both on information provided during the interviews and the accompanying background information.

-------
The evaluator first took the information provided from the interviews and organized the results around
the key evaluation questions identified earlier The evaluator looked for common themes or concerns
and also noted where ideas were raised by specific groups, such as those who worked on various grants.
Given the relatively small sample of interviewees, the evaluator also took note of issues raised by only
one or two interviewees, in addition to ideas or themes raised by several commenters. We then took
the interview results and identified "answers" to the key evaluation questions, which are organized as
the Findings in Chapter 3.
In addition, based on the interview results and related background materials, the evaluators developed
graphical representations of the steps followed by EPA in administering each of the grants programs (up
to the point where the grant  application is submitted to IGMS)  and  of the ways that the different
programmatic  grant programs  are organized.   The evaluator  then confirmed the accuracy of these
graphics with program staff.

-------
FINDINGS
OVERVIEW

This chapter presents our findings, organized by the three overarching evaluation questions identified in
Chapter 2. To begin our analysis, we examined the steps that each program office took in administering
the grant process and found that for the most part, the programs follow similar steps.  Some variation
results from the differences in underlying requirements or elements of the programs themselves. (For a
full description of each grant program, see Appendix B.) The important distinctions and issues covered
in  this chapter follow not from these differences,  but rather from the discrepancies in how individual
programs implement the  grant administration steps. The relationship between the program officials
and the tribal representatives and the speed and effectiveness of the communication between them has
the greatest impact on the efficiency and consistency of how the grants are implemented. In addition,
we found that, to  some  degree, differences  in the way that the regional programmatic offices are
organized can impact the relationships with the tribes and the efficiency of the grant process. While no
single organizational  structure is necessarily  superior or should be adopted  across the  board, the
differing approaches  can  impact both internal coordination within the Region  and the  interaction
between the Region and the tribes.
When analyzing the grant solicitation, review, and award process, the biggest "sticking point" occurs
around work plan  negotiation. Many of these problems with workplan  negotiation have  a common
underlying theme:  communication issues and personality clashes between EPA and tribal personnel.
Perceived lack  of responsiveness to tribal concerns and delays in  responding to inquiries were among
the issues raised  by tribes  discussing communication issues that affected the workplan negotiations. The
evaluator heard on  several occasions from the tribes that the relationship with the EPA program officer,
and how that relationship affected the development and acceptance of  the workplan, was the  most
important factor in an efficiently run grant. To compound this, frequent turnover of staff, both at EPA
and within the tribes, can have a detrimental impact on this relationship. Finally, the need for  more
frequent face-to-face communication was a common viewpoint expressed by the tribes.
With  regard to  internal  coordination among the  Region  7 tribal  grant  programs,  some  regional
respondents indicated that they thought the  GAP POs or the Grants Management Office (GMO) was
serving to review grants and identify issues of  concern, including possible duplication of effort or that a
grant might be more appropriately placed with a different program. The GMO does in fact review each
grant but focuses on administrative components  more than programmatic issues while the GAP Pos
review the programmatic  side of some grants on an informal and somewhat ad hoc basis, there  is no
formal mechanism for reviewing the grants across programs.

-------
EFFICIENCY, CONSISTENCY, AND TRANSPARENCY

PROGRAM PROCESSES
To begin the analysis,  process maps were developed based on interviews and document  reviews.  A
process map is a graphical representation of the sequence of steps necessary to complete a process or
program and serves as a tool both to review those steps and to identify areas of possible improvement.
Tribal and EPA interviewees confirmed that, for the most part, the GAP, CAA 103, CWA 106, and CERCLA
128(a) programs generally follow the same  steps  in administering the tribal grants.  Working with
information provided during our interviews as well as material provided by EPA, we developed process
maps for each of the four programs (see Appendix F).  Process maps were shared with EPA staff in each
program to ensure their reflections of the grants process were accurate.  In addition to the maps we
produced for each program, we  also put together  a  general  process map that outlines the common
steps taken across the programs (See Figure 2):
Figure 2.    REGION 7 TRIBAL GRANTS PROCESS MAP
                Tribe is alerted either formally (e.g., issuance of NOFA) or informally (e.g., scoping discussions) of
                 funding availability. At this point, the regional program office may or may not know the total
                                      available funding amount.
                The Tribe submits an initial proposal, possibly with a preliminary budget and workplan or list of
                       proposed activities. Tribes may or may not be asked to follow a budget cap.

                                     A decision on funding is made.
                 Tribe submits draft workplan to Region 7 PO. Negotiation to finalize the budget, activities, and
                                      workplan language occurs.
                 Tribe submits full award application . Region 7 PO prepares funding recommendation attaching
                                          final workplan.

                        award approval process follows the same process as other program aw;

-------
Broadly speaking, there are 5 steps that comprise the workplan negotiation process for tribal grants.
    1.  Some communication (either formal or informal) with the tribes begins the process, followed by
       submission of an initial proposal from the tribe outlining what it would like to accomplish with
       the grant.  The tribes and regional  staff may discuss programmatic needs and what might be
       covered in the grant during RTOC meetings or over the phone.
    2.  Following interaction between Regional (and for the Brownfields tribal  response program,
       Headquarters staff), a decision on funding availability is made and communicated to the tribe.
    3.  The tribe submits a draft workplan based on the available funding, and negotiations begin. This
       process can involve several iterations.
    4.  Once agreement is reached on the scope and specifics of the workplan, the tribe submits the full
       application.
    5.  Once the application enters IGMS,  the  steps  within EPA are the same across all grants and
       beyond the scope of this evaluation.
While each grant program generally follows  similar steps up to the point at which the application enters
IGMS, important distinctions exist among the different programs. Also, at the request of the tribes, the
GAP grants are staggered throughout the year, unlike those for the other programs, which follow a more
consistent schedule.
Initially, there are differences in the amount of detail related to funding availability that is provided to
the tribes at the beginning of the process.  Prior to the beginning of the formal grants process,  all the
programs engage in informal communications with the tribe to  discuss tribal priorities and the possible
range of activities that might be included in  the grant.  For three of the programs evaluated, the  formal
process begins with the issuance of a Notice of Funding Availability  (NOFA).  In contrast, with the CWA
106 grants, the tribes initiate the process by  submitting their initial proposal.
The presence or absences of a NOFA does  not  directly affect the future  success of the workplan
negotiation process,  although some tribal  representatives  noted  that they liked the specificity and
reference to regional priorities in the CAA  103 program's NOFA.   The overarching problem that can
occur at this stage is the absence of specific  information on the likely future funding amount that  will be
available through the grant. This is exacerbated by the fact that the final funding decisions are often not
made until late in the grant cycle.  The disconnect between initial expectations on the part of the tribes
and the final allocation, which can be much  lower, can lead to concern among tribes that their priorities
are not being seriously considered throughout the process.  In  response to this problem, the Region 4
water program no longer solicits an initial submission from the tribes prior to knowing the grant amount
to be allocated. Representatives from Region 4 note that this change has been received positively by the
tribes and regional staff.
Another notable difference in the process occurs regarding flexibility in determining the size of the grant
that will be given to a specific tribe.  Unlike the other three programs reviewed, specific tribal funding
for the Brownfields program is prescribed  by the national program  office,  rather than  being  at the
discretion of the regional staff.  This inconsistency between individual  grants, although not a  problem
that can be addressed by the Region itself,  contributes to a sense of inconsistency in the overall tribal
grants program.
                                                                                             10

-------
PROGRAM OFFICE ORGANIZATION
In addition  to  the  processes that  each program  undertakes  in  administering  the grants,  the
organizational structure of each office varies.  Figure 3 on the following page shows the organizational
structures for the four program offices we reviewed.
While a formal organizational analysis to identify specific elements contributing to efficient operations
was  beyond  the scope of this evaluation, differences  in the  organization can impact interactions
internally or with the tribes. Moreover, different program responsibilities as well as budget and staffing
realities have a  direct impact on the way programs  organize.   For  example, in the  CERCLA 128(a)
program, there is an  identified grant coordinator who acts  as an intermediary between the project
officers and  the  regional  grants office in the grant awarding process.  The grant coordinator handles
most of the  administrative functions, leaving the POs to focus on the technical aspects of the grants.
This split of functions and the introduction of a layer between the POs and the GMO can possibly lead to
miscommunication within the office.  For example, we learned of an instance where a PO got conflicting
advice  on a workplan and budget dispute with the tribe from the grant coordinator and the GMO.
Another example is the decision of the water office to shift the position of the tribal coordinator to the
division director's office.  This change was designed to give the program a higher profile and facilitate
the elevation of issues to the division director.  Another change in the water program was transferring
much of the programmatic work to technical advisers  (TAs) familiar with the specifics of the different
water programs  and  splitting the tribal PO's administrative duties from one person to three.    Direct
contact between the tribes and TAs is warranted by the technical nature of many of the water programs,
but at least one of the tribes expressed some frustration that the single point of contact with the PO no
longer  existed. The addition of the two other administrative POs was made in  recognition of the need
for more direct communication with the tribes, the overwhelming demands of job for one person, and
efforts  to improve tribal PO succession planning.
                                                                                            11

-------
Figure 3.    CERCLA, CWA, GAP, and CAA Organization Charts
         CERCLA
        CWA 106
                                                                        Division
                                                                        Director
        GAP
             Tribes
   Project
   Officers
 Programmatic grant
management. Prepares
                                 Region 7 Tribal Program
                                      Coordinator
                                       Director for OTA
                                                                    legion 7 Tribal
                                                                    t Programs
field questions fr<
rram officers.
                                nts Office
        CAA 103
                               Chief of Community Partnership Section
                            Chief of Air Planning and Development Branch
                                          Director
                                   Final approval and signature of awards.
                                  Region 7
                                 n. i    . •', •
                                                                                         12

-------
Communication with the tribes; issues affecting workplan negotiation
As noted above, the most contentious  stage of the grant  process is  the  negotiation  around the
workplan, and the common theme expressed is the need for more effective communication between
the region and the tribes.  Primarily based on our interviews with regional and tribal  staff we have
identified a number of factors that relate to this problem, as illustrated in Figure 4 and discussed on the
following pages.
FIGURE 4.  Issues Cited in Interviews, as a Percentage of Responses
                     Frequency of Issues Cited In Interviews
            40%
      .-SI
        oh
      X Z
      — 
-------
Region.  Tribes in particular noted that there
was too much  reliance on e-mail and  direct
communication was  too  infrequent.   Some
"If you are on the third round of reviews of a work
plan or QAPP, pick up the phone or go visit the tribe
to work the issues out."
EPA  staff  indicated that  they rely on  email
 i     4.          4-u 4.  4-u   u         -4.4.                           ~EPA Program Manager
alone to  ensure  that  they have  a  written
record  of  communications.     On   some
occasions there was a lot of "back and forth"  between tribes and the Region on work plans or other
documents, all being conducted by e-mail. More direct discussions might have addressed issues in a
more efficient and less frustrating manner.  Some tribal representatives noted that conflicts (usually
attributable to specific individuals' personalities) were not rapidly or consistently  addressed  by the
Region, nor was the process for addressing them was well understood.  Several tribal members pointed
out that it took several years to get EPA to move a PO from a program, despite numerous complaints
from the tribes.

NEED FOR MORE TRAINING
Interviewees cited the need for more training for both EPA and the tribes. For EPA staff, a need exists
for more training directed at dealing effectively with the tribes, recognizing their status as independent
Nations and the fact that many of the tribal staff do not have the experience or expertise that other
grantees might possess. Moreover, it is important for EPA staff to recognize that each tribe is different
and the need to be flexible in dealing with the
 ,.,,    ij.,            ^     ,    ,  ,.     ..,,     "The grant process is an art, not a science and
different tribes; more so than when dealing with
                                              there is wiggle room to make judgments. POs are
other grantees such as states. There is an online
                                              trained  in the mechanics to award a grant but
training  currently  available  on how to work
                                              they don t receive training on applying
effectively with the tribes, but many EPA staff    ......        . ^  . .           .        , „
                                               discretion...their training could be improved.
expressed a need for  more classroom training,
with  modules   presenting  specific  regional                                GMO staff
examples, and the opportunity to  interact with  	
people who are more experienced  in dealing with the tribes. EPA staff also identified the need to assist
tribal staff in  learning more about how  to deal with the grants process and the specifics  of different
program requirements, but recognized that the high turnover rate complicates the delivery of effective
training.


COLLABORATION AMONG REGION 7 PROGRAMS

The final question the evaluation addressed was whether there was sufficient collaboration among the
grant programs to ensure that tribal  activities were conducted under the right grant programs and to
minimize any duplication of effort. During our interviews  with  EPA staff,  some media program POs
indicated that they rely on the GAP POs to review grants and identify any potential duplication of effort
or resources being requested and to verify if an activity was being conducted under the correct grant
program. While project officers did,  on  some occasions, raise concerns on  about a particular grant to
the GAP POs for review and comment, this occurred on an ad hoc basis and not in a systematic manner.
The GMO also reviews each grant,  but focuses on administrative components more than programmatic
issues.
                                                                                           14

-------
The  determination  of  whether an  activity is  being conducted  under the right grant program is
complicated by confusion over what activities are permissible under the GAP program. This issue is not
unique to Region 7 and the EPA Headquarters American  Indian Environmental Office is working on
guidance to clarify what activities are acceptable and which are  unallowable under the capacity
development provisions of GAP.
                                                                                           15

-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
OVERVIEW

Based on the key issues that the Region wanted addressed in the evaluation and an analysis of the
findings, we have identified the following set of recommendations for EPA to consider, and which we
discuss in detail below:
    •   Implement grant programs as consistently as practicable across all grant programs, using the
       Best Management Practices (BMPs) developed by the Tribal/EPA Grants and Communications
       Workgroup (Addresses issues raised about inconsistencies in the amount of information provided
       at the beginning of the grant cycle and the need for more consistent adherence to deadlines and
       milestones);
    •   Identify internal  organizational  structures that facilitate  or hinder efficient operation of the
       grant program  and  collaboration among programs  (Identifies  best practices and possible
       approaches that other programs might want to adopt);
    •   Increase  face-to-face communications  with the Tribes,  especially with regard to workplan
       negotiations;
    •   Better equip EPA staff to work effectively with Tribal staff, who are often new or inexperienced
       (Ensures  that EPA understand how Tribes differ from other grantees and how to work with
       them); and
    •   Formalize the internal process to review grants among programs to ensure that activities are
       funded under the right grants and to limit duplication of effort.

IMPLEMENT GRANT PROGRAMS AS CONSISTENTLY AS PRACTICABLE, ADHERING TO BEST
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
As discussed above, most issues of concern arise from the way that the process steps are implemented,
not from the steps themselves. The Tribal/EPA Grants and Communications Workgroup developed a
Tribal Best Management Practices Guide (see Appendix G) that contains a comprehensive description of
appropriate  actions to ensure that the  grant process is managed effectively.  We recommend that
programs implement the process in a manner consistent with the BMPs.  The guide is designed to set
forth tested methods for effective management of tribal grants.  We recommend that all programs
adopt all these practices,  but the most important to address concerns identified in this evaluation are:
    •   When announcing funding  opportunities for tribes, EPA  needs to be as clear and precise as
       possible regarding how  much funding is projected to be available in order to help the tribes
       develop an appropriate project in the  workplan based on the funding that will be received.
       While Region 7 may not know the exact funding amount, providing as much guidance as possible
       would minimize the potential disconnects between the early submissions by the tribes and the
       amount of money that is actually available in the grant.
                                                                                        16

-------
    •   To  prevent  long  negotiation  times for workplans, all POs, TAs, and tribal contacts will be
       accountable to review and provide comment to the workplan as soon as possible but within no
       more than 30 calendar days from receipt of draft workplan submission. If this timeline cannot
       be met, it is important to communicate this as soon as possible.
    •   Workplans should not take more than two drafts to reach the third and final document.  If
       consensus is not reached, a new approach is necessary (meet face-to-face in order to create a
       third  draft).  Moving  to more direct communication instead of continuing  to trade emails or
       marked-up drafts is more likely to ensure that interests and concerns are accurately conveyed.
    •   Workplan negotiations should begin  with the  EPA and tribal counterparts  agreeing to
       negotiation milestones and discussing workplan ideas up front.  The milestones should include a
       face-to-face  kickoff meeting including all  program staff and managers,  or  representatives of
       managers (i.e., Section Chiefs) who  have activities  in the  workplan,  as resources  allow.
       Identifying and keeping to well defined milestones will ensure  that neither party believes the
       other is delaying the process.
In addition, the evaluator  recommends that the program offices share the process  maps with the tribes.
In our interview with the Regional Tribal Operating Committee (RTOC), members of the group indicated
they had not seen any clear description of  the Region's processes and seeing this would  be useful for
them.

IDENTIFY ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN FEATURES THAT FACILITATE OR HINDER EFFICIENT OPERATION
OF THE GRANT PROGRAM AND COLLABORATION AMONG PROGRAMS
We recommend that the  Region undertake a  formal or informal organizational analysis to determine
what organizational  set ups are most conducive to effective grants management.  In this analysis, the
Region should ask why was the current decision  made and  how has the program  benefited or been
hindered by the organizational set-up. Among the  questions that should be addressed are the following:
    •   Do  Tribal grantees have a main point of contact, and/or do they have regular direct access to
       appropriate representatives for programmatic, administrative, and technical questions?
           o   Are there separate technical points of contact for tribes? Does the nature of the tribal
               grant program lend itself to this set-up?
    •   Do  tribal  project officers work exclusively with tribal grants, or do they also work with other
       types of grantees?
    •   Is there a single point of contact within the media grant program that interacts with the GMO,
       or does each PO contact the GMO for their projects?
    •   Who  contacts Headquarters or Region 7 Office of Tribal Affairs when there are programmatic
       questions - the project officer, or a single liaison for the program?
    •   What is the process for handling disputes between tribes and POs, and does  it differ from
       program  to  program? Does  the  organizational structure facilitate or  impede the prompt
       handling of personality disputes between tribal and regional  personnel?
                                                                                            17

-------
This  recommendation does not  suggest that there is one best  structure for  all  grants programs.
Differences in program requirements and the number of tribes with different grants argue against the
notion that one structure would work best for all programs.  Rather, we recommend that  staff get
together to discuss what works  well and what structures do not work  as well and see what best
practices emerge that might be shared among program offices.
As with  the  programmatic process  maps, we recommend  that the program offices  share their
organizational charts with the tribes including providing contact information for the individuals involved.

WORK TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE TRIBES
We recommend that, to the  extent  possible, the  Region  work to increase direct and face-to-face
communications with the tribes.  The evaluator recognizes that time and resource constraints can make
face-to-face meetings difficult or impossible. When  these meetings cannot be scheduled or  held, we
recommend that the Region make more effective use of webinars or other electronic tools to encourage
more direct communication.
In addition, we recommend that the Region consider collaboration  software,  such as SharePoint, to
allow regional and tribal staff to share information in a more timely way, track the status of documents,
and view calendars. The Region could allow differential status to different  users, allowing some to edit
documents and post information while allowing others only to view documents that had been posted.
Where these tools  are not available, the evaluator recommends the use of phone calls, with follow-up
emails if the substance of a meeting needs to be recorded.  Over-reliance on emails often  leads to
miscommunication; it is very hard to read "tone" in an email.

BETTER EQUIP EPA STAFF TO WORK EFFECTIVELY WITH TRIBAL STAFF
We recommend that the Region provide staff with additional training focusing on 1) understanding the
differences between working with the tribes and other grantees; and 2) adhering to best management
practices mentioned above. Part of this training should focus on the specific problems that arise from
dealing with relatively inexperienced  tribal representatives (due in part to the high turnover among
tribal staff) and ways to assist these tribes in navigating through the grants process. We understand that
the Region is already planning  additional EPIC (Environmental Protection in Indian Country) training for
POs and other tribal staff and we applaud this move.
In addition, we recommend that the Region consider ways to enhance  the status of the tribal PO
position in order to attract and retain qualified people.  One way to do this would be to focus more
attention on the importance of the  position and include an assessment  of the PO's  and other staff
members' effectiveness in working with the tribes as part of each staff  members' performance review.
As noted in the region's best  management practices, employees do  what  is measured and increasing
attention to the  role of the PO  through  performance measurement  can improve performance and
elevate the status of the position.  In addition, the evaluator suggests that senior management at Region
7 review the current job description and classification and discuss whether they need to be modified to
reflect the importance that the Region places on this position.
FORMALIZE THE PROCESS TO REVIEW GRANTS
Finally, we recognize that only a limited number of grants need to be reviewed to ensure that  activities
are being conducted under the most appropriate program and there is  no duplication of  effort or
                                                                                           18

-------
resources among grants. As noted above, there is some internal review that occurs for these purposes
but it does not occur in a standardized or routinized manner. We recommend that the program offices
work together to identify  and institute a more formal  process for this  review.  This process should
identify criteria for identifying those grants that should be reviewed and establish policies to ensure that
those programmatic grants that needed to be reviewed, in fact are run through the process.
                                                                                           19

-------
APPENDICES
                                        APPENDIX A:
                      FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED INDIAN TRIBES IN REGION 7

    •   Meskwaki Nation (Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa), Jama, Iowa
       Known as the Mesquakie or Meskwaki Indian Settlement, the approximately 8,000 total acres
       (BIA '05) of Sac & Fox land are located in the south central region of Tama County, Iowa. The
       Mesquakie Indian Settlement lies approximately 130 miles from the Mississippi River, the state's
       eastern border. As a member, of the Algonquian confederacy, the Mesquakie (commonly called
       the Sac & Fox Tribe) originally lived along the eastern seaboard. Pressure from White settlers
       and encroachment from other tribes caused them to migrate to an area around Lake Michigan.
       After the Blackhawk wars in 1842, the Mesquakie were forcibly removed to a reservation in
       Kansas. To prevent a forced  resettlement to Indian Territory in Oklahoma, the tribe returned to
       the Mississippi River  Valley in Iowa and purchased its own land. This property, originally 84
       acres, was placed in trust with the Governor of Iowa. In 1896, the Bureau of Indian Affairs
       assumed jurisdiction over the tribe and now the land is held in trust by the United States
       Government. On the Web: http://www.meskwaki.org/

    •   Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska, White Cloud, Kansas
       The Iowa Tribe's Reservation straddles two states.  The approximately 12,200 total acre (BIA '05)
       reservation is located in northeastern Kansas in Brown and Doniplan counties  and in the
       southeastern corner  of Nebraska in Richardson County. The original Iowa Reservation was
       established by Treaty of 1836, only to be reduced by the treaties of May 17, 1854 and March 6,
       1861. Tribal  headquarters are located three miles east of Morton, Kansas, on State Highway 36.
       On the Web: http://iowav.nativeweb.org/iowayksne.htm

    •   Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas, Morton, Kansas
       The Kickapoo Reservation is located in Brown County, Kansas, five miles West  of Morton, Kansas.
       The Reservation is six miles long and five-miles wide with approximately 19,800 total acres (BIA
       '05). The Kickapoo Tribe lived in Wisconsin and Illinois in the days prior to diplomatic relations
       with the United States government. The Kickapoo Tribe was originally designated reservation
       lands in an 1819 treaty in Missouri and was later moved to Kansas with lands recognized in a
       treaty with the United States signed on March 16, 1854 and amended in 1864 to further reduce
       land holdings. The Tribal Office is located six miles west of Morton on Highway 20, Yi mile North,
       % mile North, % mile  West at Senior Citizens Complex.
       On the Web: http://www.ktik-nsn.gov/government.htm

    •   Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, Mayetta, Kansas
       The Potawatomi reservation  consists of approximately 78,760 total acres (BIA '05) in roughly an
       11-mile square. The  Potawatomi are originally from the Great Lakes area of present day
       Michigan and Wisconsin. The Prairie Band were forcibly relocated to present day Kansas by the
       Indian  Removal Act of 1830.  The tribal headquarters are located seven miles west and one mile
       south of Mayetta.  On the Web: http://www.pbpindiantribe.com/
                                                                                         20

-------
•   Sac & Fox Tribe of Missouri in Kansas & Nebraska, Reserve, Kansas
    The Sac & Fox reservation straddles two states.  The Sac & Fox reservation lands consist of
    approximately 14,500 total acres (BIA '05) within Brown County, Kansas and Richardson County,
    Nebraska. Their reservation borders the Iowa reservation on the west. The original homeland
    of the Sac & fox was in the Great Lakes region, where the Sacs in habited the upper Michigan
    peninsula and the Foxes, the south shore of Lake Superior. The tribal headquarters is located  in
    Reserve, Kansas.
    On the Web: http://www.mnisose.org/profiles/sacfox.htm

•   Omaha Tribe of Nebraska, Macy, Nebraska
    The Omaha Tribal homelands are located in the northeast corner of Nebraska, overlapping into
    a small portion of western Iowa.  The area is comprised of the Omaha Tribal Reservation and
    adjacent counties with approximately 198,550 total acres (BIA '05). The Nebraska counties are:
    Thurston, Burt, Cuming, Wayne, and the Iowa county Monona.  The Omaha Tribe lived  near the
    Missouri River in present day Nebraska in the days prior to diplomatic  relations with the United
    States government. The Omaha Tribe was originally designated reservation lands along the
    Missouri River recognized in a treaty with the United States signed on  March 16, 1854.  Macy,
    Nebraska is the location of the headquarters for the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska. On the Web:
    http://www.omahatribeofnebraska.com/

•   Ponca Tribe of Nebraska, Niobrara, Nebraska
    The Ponca Tribal homelands are located in portions of three noncontiguous counties located in
    the eastern third of the state of Nebraska. The counties are Knox and Madison, situated in the
    northeastern section of the state, Douglas and Lancaster, located in southeastern Nebraska and
    Charles Mix in south central South Dakota. The service areas cover approximately 1,800 square
    miles. The Tribal Headquarters is located in Niobrara, Nebraska. There are four field offices
    located within the service area in Lincoln, Norfolk, Omaha, and Sioux City, Nebraska.  The Ponca
    Tribe lived near the Missouri River in present day Nebraska in the days prior to diplomatic
    relations with the United States government.  The Ponca Tribe signed several treaties in 1817,
    1825, and 1858 and was originally designated reservation  lands along the Missouri River
    recognized in a treaty with the United States signed in 1865. On the Web:
    http://www.poncatribe-ne.org/

•   Santee Sioux Nation, Santee, Nebraska
    The Santee Sioux Nation in Nebraska reservation is within  Knox County located in the north
    central part of Nebraska.  The service area includes the entire county, totaling 1,105 square
    miles with approximately 117,461 total reservation acres (BIA '05). The Santee Sioux Tribe
    consists of the members of the Isanti and lhanktowan divisions of the Great Sioux Nation. The
    Tribe was relocated to the reservation after Little Crow's War in Minnesota. It was originally
    designated reservation lands along the Missouri River recognized in a treaty with the United
    States signed in 1863. The Santee Sioux Nation  was further defined and the boundaries
    expanded by the act of March 2, 1889. The Santee Sioux Nation tribal  headquarters are located
    in Santee, Nebraska.
    On the Web: http://www.santeedakota.org/

•   Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, Winnebago, Nebraska
                                                                                        21

-------
The Winnebago Reservation is located in the northern half of Thurston County in the
northeastern corner of Nebraska, plus 1,800 acres in Woodbury County, IA; 26 miles southeast
of Sioux City, Iowa and seventy miles north of Omaha, Nebraska on state highways 75 and 77.
The Winnebago reservation has a total area of approximately 113,038 acres (BIA '05). The
Winnebago Tribe lived near the Missouri River in present day Nebraska in the days prior to
diplomatic relations with the United States government. The Winnebago Tribe was originally
designated  reservation lands along the Missouri River recognized in treaties with the United
States signed on March 8, 1865  and June 22, 1874. On the Web:
http://www.winnebagotribe.com/
                                                                                    22

-------
                                         APPENDIX B:
                     BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF GRANTS ADDRESSED IN REPORT
CAA 103: Section 103 of the Clean Air Act permits EPA to provide funding to tribes for the purpose of
building tribal knowledge and increasing their capacity to manage air quality issues on reservations and
tribal trust land. Air quality management activities eligible for funding under this grant include: setting
goals and standards to protect public health and the environment; assessing air quality through
emissions inventories and monitoring; and determining necessary reductions in pollution.3
CWA 106: EPA is authorized under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act to award federal grants to assist
tribes in administering water quality programs for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of water
pollution. Eligible water pollution control activities include: water quality planning, assessments, and
studies; ambient monitoring; community outreach and education activities; and data management and
reporting.4
CERCLA 128(a): Under Section 128(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA), EPA is able to provide funding to tribes for the establishment of response
programs and enhancement of their capacity. These response programs typically address the
assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment of brownfields sites as well as other contaminated sites. A few
of the activities eligible for funding are the development of legislation, regulations, procedures,
ordinances, guidance, etc. that would establish or enhance the administrative and legal structure of the
tribal response program.5
GAP: The Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act allows  EPA to provide General
Assistance Program (GAP) grants to federally recognized tribes and tribal consortia for planning,
developing, and establishing environmental protection programs in Indian Country. In addition, GAP
funding supports the development and implementation of tribal solid and hazardous waste programs.
The program aims to assist tribes in managing and developing the capacity of their environmental
protection programs, and to develop and implement solid and hazardous waste programs that are
consistent with federal laws and regulations and which address tribal needs.6
3 "The Tribal Air Grants Framework: A Menu of Options for Developing Tribal Air Grant Work Plans and Managing
Grants for Environmental Results," U.S. EPA, revised October 2007.
4 "Final Guidance on Awards of Grants to Indian Tribes under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act," U.S. EPA.
5 "Funding Guidance for State and Tribal Response Programs Fiscal Year 2010," U.S. EPA, OBLR, November 2009.
6 "Indian General Assistance Program 2006 Grant Administration Guidance - Effective February 24, 2006," U.S.
EPA.
                                                                                           23

-------
                                       APPENDIX C:
            METHODOLOGY FOR EPA REGION 7 TRIBAL GRANTS EVALUATION

INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 7 awards grants to Tribal nations across its
various media programs. Tribes use these grants as one source of funding to develop the skills and
capacity to develop and manage environmental programs, as well as to help implement them. Technical
and administrative project officers in each Region 7 media program manage Tribal grants and work with
the regional Grants Office to ensure that grant administration requirements are met and that results are
achieved.
Region 7's cross-cutting grants approach helps Tribes develop and implement multi-media
environmental programs.  However, Tribes have expressed concerns about the programmatic grants
processes, noting that requirements may vary among the different media programs and may be
conflicting or inefficient.  In addition, some Tribes believe that their priorities have not been sufficiently
recognized and addressed through programmatic grant processes. For example, in a Tribal
communications survey that EPA Region 7 conducted in 2006, over 40% of Tribal environmental staff
indicated that they felt there was a communication gap with Region 7 representatives on programmatic
and administrative matters.
In order to better understand these concerns and to ensure that the programmatic grant processes are
as clear and efficient as possible, the Region 7 Tribal program and the Regional Tribal Operations
Committee (RTOC) have formed a subgroup charged with reviewing and improving communications
around the Tribal grants, specifically focusing on improving transparency to improve grant
implementation. The group developed maps of existing Tribal grant processes for each of the different
media programs and drafted a list of best practices for managing grants for both the Agency and Tribes.
To support this review, this evaluation has been funded as part of EPA's annual Program Evaluation
Competition.  EPA has contracted with Industrial Economics, Inc. (lEc) to conduct a process evaluation of
the grant program, to assess how grants are currently handled, and to make suggestions so grants can
be addressed consistently, expeditiously, and effectively throughout all media programs.
An important component of the evaluation will be an assessment of the process maps developed for
each grant program. lEc will first determine if the process maps accurately describe the way that the
grants are issued and managed, in practice. If processes are followed, we will evaluate their
effectiveness. If actual practices vary from the steps laid out in the process maps, we will examine the
differences, develop revised process maps, and make suggestions as to whether the practices need to
be changed, or whether they are still effectively meeting the program goals. Additionally, we will seek
stakeholder input and benchmark against other EPA Regions.
lEc will conduct a process evaluation only, focusing on the Agency's Tribal grant allocation, approval, and
management practices, rather than on grant products or activities conducted under the grants by Tribes.
As an independent contractor, lEc will coordinate with EPA but will conduct its own analysis and make
its own recommendations.
This evaluation methodology describes the purpose for the evaluation, identifies the evaluation
questions and sources of data to answer the questions, and presents an analytic approach for
                                                                                           24

-------
interpreting the data. We also describe how the evaluation results will be reported and include a
project schedule.

THE  PROGRAM LOGIC MODEL
As an  essential first step in laying out the structure of the evaluation, we worked with EPA to develop a
program logic model that outlines the basic structure and design of the Tribal grant process, as shown in
Exhibit 1. This model shows the steps involved in awarding and managing the grants, as well as
outcomes due to specific activities that the Tribes undertook with the grants. Grant activity outcomes
are shown in the logic model for the sake of completeness, but will not be addressed by lEc during its
evaluation. The process portion of the logic model, which is supported by the series of program-specific
process maps that are described above, serves as the basis for the evaluation questions (see next
section) and will inform lEc's data collection efforts.
Key components of the logic model include:
•   Resources: Basic inputs of funds,  staffing, and knowledge dedicated to the program.
•  Activities: Specific actions taken to achieve program goals. For example, EPA issues grants and
   develops grant guidance and performance criteria.
•  Outputs: The immediate products that result from the activities, such as grant applications,
   guidance, and negotiations.
•   Process Outcomes: Include short- and long-term process outcomes, such as intended changes in
   awareness, attitudes, understanding, knowledge, and skills resulting from program outputs. For
   example, the grant guidance is designed to help inform Tribal members about the procedures and
   rules governing the grant program. Long-term outcomes parallel the overarching goals of the
   program and include the provision of clear and understandable rules and guidance, and a Tribal
   community satisfied with the process.
•  Grant Activity Outcomes: Include short- and  long-term outcomes due to specific activities that the
   Tribes undertook with the grants (e.g., increased Tribal capacity to administer environmental
   programs or improved environmental conditions).
                                                                                            25

-------
Exhibit 1.   Logic Model for EPA  R7 Tribal  Grant Processes7

























Resources/
Inputs


• Funding for

.
grant offices

• EPA Region
7 technical
and
administrative
personnel:
- Project
officers
- Grant
administrators
• Regional
Quality

• EPA IT
systems:
• Integrated
Management
- Financial

Data
Warehouse
























































Activities


* Grant application
and support




• Grant application
negotiation, review, and
decision {incl. workplan
and budget):
- Threshold criteria
and programmatic
compliance
and additional approvals
(if necessary)



• Grant management.
support




• Quality assurance
review



























Outputs


Grants.gov, or in Federal Register:
- Notices of funding availability
- Grant application templates


• Inputs to IGMS
• Notifications of application
receipt
• Application feedback and
technical advice
• Negotiation milestones
• Commitment notices
• Grant approvals and signatures
• Notification and mailing of grant
awards to Tribes, or notification of


• Updates to IGMS Post-Award
Database and grant files
• Feedback on quarterly progress
and final performance reports
(incl. requests for revisions, if
necessary)
« Phone calls and in-person visits to
Tribes for technical support


• QAPP approval (or requests for
revisions, if necessary)




















































Process
Outcomes





• Fair, simple,
consistent, time-
efficient, and
transparent grants
processes across
Tribes and
program areas
• Effective
communication
and coordination
between EPA and
Tribes

• Valuation of
Tribal priorities
and environmental
needs
• EPA and Tribal
satisfaction

































Grant Activity
Outcomes





• Efficient and

Tribes
• Increased Tribal
capacity to
administer
programs and
tackle
challenges

to monitor and
improve
environmental
conditions
• Enhanced
environment and
human health








7 Note: Grant activity outcomes are shown in the logic model for the sake of completeness, but will not be addressed by lEc during its evaluation. lEc will
conduct a process evaluation only, focusing on the Agency's Tribal grant allocation, approval, and management practices, rather than on grant products or
activities conducted under the grants by Tribes.
                                                                                                                                    26

-------
EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND SUB-QUESTIONS

EPA presented lEc with three interrelated draft evaluation questions in the contract work assignment.
Following discussions with EPA and the development of a logic model, lEc revised the evaluation
questions and developed the following three major questions:

    1.      How can Region 7 make its Tribal grant processes more efficient, consistent, and
           transparent across Regional program areas as well as Tribes?

    2.      How can Region 7 improve its communication and coordination with Tribes throughout the
           entire grants process, from negotiation of grant applications to the management of
           activities conducted under the grants?

    3.      Are there ways for the different Region 7 programs to coordinate and collaborate for
           improved (e.g., consistent) grants management and Tribal relations, while still effectively
           utilizing their specific programmatic expertise?

In addition, we have identified a number of more targeted sub-questions that fall under each of the
three key evaluation questions.  These sub-questions will help form the basis for the interview guides
that we develop, as well as help direct our other research.  For the interview guides, which will  be
tailored to the interviewee, we will modify the sub-questions into interview questions that encourage
participants to provide exampled and detailed responses (i.e., more than just "yes/no" responses).
Table 1 below lists the documents we plan to review and analyze and the individuals we will interview to
help answer each of the evaluation questions and sub-questions. The overarching evaluation questions
are highlighted in bold.
TABLE 1.
QUESTIONS AND RESEARCH METHODS
                 QUESTION
                                 REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF MATERIALS
 INTERVIEWS
How can Region 7 make its Tribal grant
processes more efficient, consistent, and
transparent across Regional program areas as
well as Tribes?
                              - Region 7 Tribal grants process maps
                              - Region 7 Tribal grants best management
                              practices
                              - Region 7 Tribal assistance protocols and
                              ro les / res po nsi bi li ties
                              - Region 7 Tribal communications feedback
                              evaluation
                              - National program guidance from each
                              media program
                              - GAP guidance
                              - Other EPA Regional guidance materials
                              - Grant NOFAs/RFPs
- Region 7
- EPA HQ
- Other EPA
Regions
- Tribes
How are the Region 7 programmatic grant
processes currently structured? What are the
overarching grant requirements for all the
programs  (e.g., number of days to close out a
grant, etc.)?
                              - Region 7 Tribal grants process maps
                              - Region 7 Tribal assistance protocols and
                              roles/responsibilities
- Region 7
What causes the grants negotiation and
performance reporting processes to extend longer
than they should? At which stages do the
processes get held up? Are clear milestones and
schedules set from the start?
                              - Region 7 Tribal grants best management
                              practices
                              - Region 7 Tribal communications feedback
                              evaluation
 Region 7
 Tribes
                                                                                             27

-------
                  QUESTION
    REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF MATERIALS
 INTERVIEWS
What are the differences in work plan and
quarterly report requirements for the different
types of Tribal grants (i.e., GAP grants and media-
specific grants)?
- Region 7 Tribal grants process maps
- Region 7 Tribal assistance protocols and
roles/responsibilities
- National program guidance from each
media program
- GAP guidance
- Other EPA Regional guidance materials
- Region 7
- EPA HQ
- Other EPA
Regions
- Tribes
How are the Tribes made aware of the different
work plan and quarterly report requirements for
the different types of Tribal grants? Is this
communication effective?
- Region 7 Tribal grants best management
practices
- Region 7 Tribal assistance protocols and
ro les / res po nsi bi li ties
- Region 7 Tribal communications feedback
evaluation
- Grant NOFAs/RFPs
- Region 7
- Tribes
Are the same programmatic grants processes
applied to each Tribe that receives funding?
                                           - Region 7
Are consistent programmatic grants processes
applied each year/funding cycle? If there are
differences, why?
How can Region 7 improve its communication
and coordination with Tribes throughout the
entire grants process, from negotiation of grant
applications to the management of activities
conducted under the grants?
- Region 7 Tribal grants process maps
- Region 7 Tribal grants best management
practices
- Region 7 Tribal assistance protocols and
roles/responsibilities
- Region 7 Tribal communications feedback
evaluation
- Grant NOFAs/RFPs
                                           - Region 7
- Region 7
- Tribes
How are Tribal priorities and environmental needs
incorporated into grant processes?
- Region 7 Tribal grants process maps
- Region 7 Tribal grants best management
practices
- Region 7 Tribal assistance protocols and
ro les / res po nsi bi li ties
- Region 7 Tribal communications feedback
evaluation
 Region 7
 Tribes
Do Region 7 project officers and Tribes
communicate on a consistent basis, or only when
issues arise?
- Region 7 Tribal grants best management
practices
- Region 7 Tribal assistance protocols and
roles/responsibilities
- Region 7 Tribal communications feedback
evaluation
Is there ever confusion about roles and
responsibilities?
- Region 7 Tribal grants best management
practices
- Region 7 Tribal assistance protocols and
roles/responsibilities
- Region 7 Tribal communications feedback
evaluation
 Region 7
 Tribes
 Region 7
 Tribes
                                                                                                      28

-------
                  QUESTION
                                                  REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF MATERIALS
 INTERVIEWS
Are there ways for the different Region 7
programs to coordinate and collaborate for
improved (e.g., consistent) grants management
and Tribal relations, while still effectively
utilizing their specific programmatic expertise?
                                              - Region 7 Tribal grants process maps
                                              - Region 7 Tribal grants best management
                                              practices
                                              - Region 7 Tribal assistance protocols and
                                              ro les / res po nsi bi li ties
                                              - National program guidance from each
                                              media program
                                              - GAP guidance
                                              - Other EPA Regional guidance materials
- Region 7
- EPA HQ
- Other EPA
Regions
Which grant steps are mandated by EPA
Headquarters or statutes/regulations? Are there
different grants steps in the other EPA Regions?
Are there any steps than could be removed or
altered without having an adverse impact on the
programmatic grant processes? At what level
would these changes need to be made (i.e.
headquarters or R7)?
                                              - Region 7 Tribal grants process maps
                                              - Region 7 Tribal assistance protocols and
                                              ro les / res po nsi bi li ties
                                              - National program guidance from each
                                              media program
                                              - GAP guidance
                                              - Other EPA Regional guidance materials
                                              - Region 7 Tribal grants best management
                                              practices
                                              - Region 7 Tribal assistance protocols and
                                              ro les / res po nsi bi li ties
- Region 7
- EPA HQ
- Other EPA
Regions
Are Region 7 project officers aware of differing
grant processes for the different programs?
How does Region 7 coordinate across programs?
When a program issues a grant to a particular
Tribe, does it always know which other grants the
Tribe may be receiving, and does it coordinate?
What kind of coordination is possible? Is this
coordination  happening? Can EPA's IT systems
(e.g., IGMS, Financial Data Warehouse) be used to
help?
                                              - Region 7 Tribal grants best management
                                              practices
                                              - Region 7 Tribal assistance protocols and
                                              roles/responsibilities
- Region 7
- Region 7
Are there programmatic or environmental
justifications for having some differences in the
requirements for the different types of Tribal
grants?
                                              - Region 7 Tribal grants process maps
                                              - Region 7 Tribal assistance protocols and
                                              ro les / res po nsi bi li ties
                                              - National program guidance from each
                                              media program
                                              - GAP guidance
                                              - Other EPA Regional guidance materials
- Region 7
- EPA HQ
- Other EPA
Regions
We discuss our data collection approach in more detail in the next section of this document.

DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY
lEc plans to use two data collection approaches: (1) a review and analysis of existing materials from EPA,
including the draft Tribal grants process maps and Tribal grants best management practices; and (2)
interviews and surveys with key technical and administrative personnel (e.g., project officers and grant
administrators) in Region 7, EPA Headquarters, and other EPA regions, as well as with Tribes in Region 7.

Review of  Existing Materials

lEc will review materials from Region 7, including but not limited to program process maps, grant
documents, Tribal assistance protocols and roles/responsibilities, the Tribal grants best management
practices, and the Tribal communications feedback evaluation. Region 7 will provide lEc with these
materials, if they are not publically available online. These materials will be especially useful in helping
                                                                                                  29

-------
lEc comprehend how Region 7's Tribal grant processes vary between programs and how they are
intended to function. lEc understands that the process maps and Tribal grants best management
practices are currently in draft form and will recommend any necessary modifications at the conclusion
of the evaluation.  lEc also expects to review materials from the EPA Headquarters' Grants Office as well
as from other EPA regions, such as National Program Guidance documents, GAP Guidance documents,
and Regional guidance documents. These materials will help lEc benchmark Region 7's Tribal grants
processes against the processes used elsewhere within EPA and identify possible lessons or best
practices that can  be transferred to Region 7 or from Region 7 to other Regions.  If there are time or
resource constraints, lEc will focus primarily on benchmarking for water grant programs, as water issues
are the most significant  environmental concern of the Tribes in Region 7.

Interviews  and Surveys
lEc will rely heavily on direct feedback provided through interviews with key technical and
administrative personnel in Region 7 as well as interviews with Tribes in Region 7, EPA Headquarters,
and other EPA regions.  lEc expects to conduct most of the interviews by phone and will provide
interviewees with  the questions in advance of the interviews. Each interview should take between one
and two hours, and will  be tailored to the interviewee. lEc may conduct follow-up interviews, if
necessary, and will also  encourage additional feedback from interviewees after they are interviewed. If
we cannot reach certain individuals due to  budgetary, scheduling, or time constraints, we will consider
the use of a short survey document, recognizing that this format will limit our ability to ask open-ended
questions.
Table 2 below shows the anticipated number of interviews within each category of interviewee. Group
interviews count as one interview for the purposes of this table.
TABLE 2.
ANTICIPATED INTERVIEWS FOR EACH INTERVIEWEE CATEGORY
INTERVIEWEE CATEGORY
Region 7
Tribes
EPA HQ (OITA, Program Offices, and OGD)
Other EPA Regions
Total
APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS
10-15
3-5
3-4
5-8
21-32
lEc plans to interview key technical and administrative personnel in Region 7, EPA Headquarters, and
other EPA regions.  Region 7 interviewees will include staff and management in the Water, Air,
Superfund, Tribal, and Grants offices, as well as Counsel. In particular, lEc plans to interview at least a
random representative sample of Region 7's:
        Regional Management (incl. program branch chiefs and other senior staff)
    -   Administrative Project Officers
    -   Technical Project Officers
    -   Technical Advisors
                                                                                           30

-------
       Grants Specialists
       Grant Management Officers
These staff and management will provide an insider's perspective on Region 7's Tribal grant processes,
allowing lEc to determine what the existing processes are (as compared to the process maps) and to
gain insight into how the processes can be made more efficient and consistent.
lEc also plans to interview representatives from OITA, National Program Offices (e.g., AIEO, OW, OAR,
Superfund, Brownfields, OPP, etc.) and OGD, as well as Regional personnel who have significant
experience in Tribal grant processes.  In particular, lEc plans to interview staff from EPA Regions 1, 2 and
4, which have a similar number of federally recognized Tribes as EPA Region 7. By interviewing EPA
employees outside of Region 7, lEc will be able to benchmark against Region 7's processes and
incorporate knowledge and experience gained in other parts of the Agency.  lEc will work closely with
the EPA COR and other members of the evaluation team to identify the appropriate personnel to
interview from these Regions.
There are nine federally recognized Tribes in Region 7, the majority of which are in receipt of active EPA
grants (see Table 3 below -Tribes that do not currently receive any EPA grants are marked with an
asterisk and will not be interviewed).  lEc intends to interview a representative sample of individuals
from the Region 7 Tribes who are familiar with Region 7's Tribal grant processes. lEc  will first interview
representatives from the Tribes that serve on the Regional Tribal Operations Committee (RTOC) Grants
Subgroup, and, in the event that these do not cover all types of grants, representatives from other
Tribes that receive different types of grants. Through its interviews of Tribes, I EC will  be able to verify
tribal concerns firsthand and receive suggestions from the perspective of the grant recipient.
TABLE 3.
FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBES  IN REGION 7
                                             TRIBE
                       Meskwaki Nation (Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa)
                       Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska*
                       Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas
                       Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation
                       Sac & Fox Tribe of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska
                       Omaha Tribe of Nebraska and Iowa*
                       Ponca Tribe of Nebraska
                       Santee Sioux Nation
                       Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska
TENTATIVE PROJECT SCHEDULE
A tentative project schedule is shown in Table 4 below.
                                                                                            31

-------
TABLE 4.
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE FOR EPA REGION 7 TRIBAL GRANTS EVALUATION
TASK
Participate in conference calls with EPA
Attend RTOC meeting in Lawrence, KS
Provide updates to RTOC
Review background documents
Develop draft logic model
Develop draft evaluation plan, incl. evaluation questions and
methodology
Revise evaluation plan
Interview Guides
Conduct interviews with EPA Regions, HQ, and with Tribes
Initial Findings
Draft final written report
Revise final written report
Provide oral presentation to EPA HQ and R7
APPROXIMATE TIME FRAME
Weekly throughout the evaluation
Complete
Quarterly throughout the evaluation
Complete; will re-review as necessary throughout the
evaluation
Complete
Complete
Complete
By March 2011
March-May 2011
Ongoing, but first cut by end of May 201 1
Early summer 2011
Late summer 201 1
Late summer 201 1
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
During the course of the evaluation, we will provide status updates to EPA, generally through telephone
conferences. We can also provide updates to the Tribes in Region 7 during the quarterly RTOC
meetings, either over the phone or in person.  In addition, we will present our final findings and
recommendations  in a written report, consolidated fact sheet, and oral presentation to EPA. We will
use the logic model and evaluation questions to frame our presentation, and the findings and
recommendations  will be directly organized around the evaluation questions. Region 7 will share the
final evaluation results  and recommendations with the RTOC, and will determine possible steps for
implementation.
After developing the initial findings and survey recommendations, the evaluators will draft the full
evaluation report for EPA review. The evaluation report is expected to be structured as follows
(however this may change somewhat depending on the evaluation findings):

Executive Summary
I.      Introduction (approx. 1 page)
     A.   Purpose/objectives of the evaluation
     B.   Evaluation questions
     C.   Structure of the report
                                                                                         32

-------
II.      Methodology and Approach (approx. 1-2 pages)
     A.  Study design
     B.  Data sources
     C.  Analytical approach
III.     Results (approx. 3-5 pages)
     A.  Summary response to each research question (combining information drawn from all data
         sources)
IV.     Findings and Conclusions (approx. 3-5 pages, in addition to graphics)
     A.  Description of the current programmatic grant processes
     B.  Strengths and weaknesses of current processes
     C.  Proposed changes to processes/"ideal future state"
     D.  Recommendations/path to implement proposed changes and reach "ideal future state"
                                                                                            33

-------
                                        APPENDIX D:
                                   LITERATURE REVIEWED
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Final guidance on awards of grants to Indian tribes under section
       106 of the Clean Water Act for FYS 2007 and beyond.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Indian General Assistance Program 2006 grant administration
       guidance (Effective February 24, 2006)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7 Tribal Group.  Draft recommendations. October 2006.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. Review of authorities available for
       Tribal program financial assistance awards. November 2006

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Tribal air grants framework: a menu of options. October
       2007.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7. Draft region 7 protocol for tribal assistance
       agreements. September 2006.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7. Region 7 tribal study-final report. December 2010

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7. Tribal grants process maps as provided by program
       offices. August 2010.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7. Tribal Air Non-competitive grant opportunity FY-2011
       the Clean Air Act 103 Tribal notice of funds available.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7 Tribal/EPA Grants and Communications Workgroup.
       Tribal/EPA best management practices guide for grants and communication.  February 2011.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7 Tribal/EPA Grants and Communications Workgroup.
       Meeting notes follow up. July 2010
                                                                                          34

-------
                                        APPENDIX E:
                        INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED FOR EVALUATION
Karen Sherrill; Grant Management Section Chief; EPA Region 7
Jacob Nicholls; Tribal Grants Specialist; Grants Management Section; EPA Region 7

Wolfgang Brander; Senior Regional Indian Program Manager; EPA Region 7
Heather Hamilton; GAP Project Officer, Office of Tribal Affairs; EPA Region 7
Stanley Holder; GAP Project Officer, Office of Tribal Affairs; EPA Region 7
Amanda Halstead; Sustainable Communities Partnership Coordinator; Office of Policy and Management,
       EPA Region 7

Steve Kovac; Branch Chief for Watershed Planning and Implementation; Water, Wetlands and Pesticides
       Division; EPA Region 7
Heather Duncan; CWA 106 Coordinator; Water, Wetlands and Pesticides Division; EPA Region 7
Amy Shields; Tribal Water Quality Standards Program Coordinator; Water, Wetlands and Pesticides
       Division; EPA Region 7

Amy Algoe-Eakin; Section Chief for Community Partnerships; Air Planning and Development Branch; EPA
       Region 7
Kim Olson; Project Officer; Air Planning and Development Branch; EPA Region 7

Stanley Walker; Branch Chief for Superfund Technical Assistance and Reuse; EPA Region 7
Ann Keener; Grant Coordinator; Superfund Division; EPA Region 7
Deborah Kennedy, Project Officer, Superfund Division, EPA Region 7
Jennifer Morris, Project Officer; Superfund Division; EPA Region 7

Dan Cozza; Water Quality Coordinator; Water Pollution Control Grant Program; EPA Region 5
David Horak; Water Quality Coordinator; Water Pollution Control Grant Program; EPA Region 5

Betty Winter; Tribal Project Officer; Office of Policy and Management; EPA Region 4

Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas: Luke Terry, Tej Attili, Mike Kelley
Sac & Fox Tribe of Missouri in Kansas & Nebraska: Rick Campbell, Teresa Ausberger, Scott Weir, Mathue
       Fasching
Prairie Brand Potawatomie Nation: Virginia LeClere, Sharron  Bosse, Adam  Irvin
Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska: Joseph Painter, Denise Jensen, Molly Feldick
Santee Sioux Tribe: Felix Kitto, Eric Miller, Joel Valburg, Jeramie Key, Anthony (Sam) Kitto
Ponca Tribe of Nebraska: Julia Sage
                                                                                           35

-------
                                        APPENDIX F:
                                 SAMPLE INTERVIEW GUIDE

EPA Region 7 Tribal Grants Evaluation
Interview Guide for EPA Region 7 CWA 106 Staff

CONTACT INFORMATION
       Name:        	
       Title:          	
       Email:         	
       Phone number:	


INTRODUCTION
Thank you for participating in this interview process. As you are aware, EPA Region 7 awards grants to
Tribal nations across its various media programs. As you may know, in order to ensure that the process
is as clear and efficient as possible, the Region 7 Tribal program and the Regional Tribal Operations
Committee (RTOC) have formed a subgroup charged with reviewing and improving communications
around the Tribal grants, specifically focusing on improving transparency in grant implementation.
Parallel to this effort, EPA has contracted with Industrial Economics, Inc. (lEc) to conduct a third-party
evaluation of the grant program. Through this evaluation, EPA is seeking to understand how the Tribal
grants process currently works and how it could be improved.
This will be an  evaluation of Region 7's processes only, focusing on the Agency's Tribal grant allocation,
approval, and management practices.  EPA Region 7 intends to use the results of the evaluation to
improve its internal processes and will share the results with the RTOC.
Throughout the interview, we would like to know about the processes with which you are most familiar.
We also encourage you to raise any items or topics you think are important to our evaluation. Notes
from specific interviews will be treated as confidential information, and information collected through
the interviews will be summarized thematically and will not be attributed to specific individuals in the
evaluation report. In presenting findings from the interviews, lEc may attribute findings to groups of
interviewees,  (e.g., a regional staffer), but we will not attribute findings or quotes to individuals.
The following interview questions are intended to serve as a guide for our conversation and are
provided in advance to spur your thinking and responses. Where possible, please be prepared to
provide specific examples.  If you prefer, you may provide comments in written form, although we
would like to have a  brief follow-up call with you if any clarifications are needed. Your responses are
important, and we look forward to speaking with you. If you have any questions or would like to
provide any additional feedback or information, please contact:
Andy Schwarz, Industrial Economics, Inc.
ams@indecon.com
617-354-0074
                                                                                           36

-------
INTERVIEW  QUESTIONS

Grant Process Steps  and Roles

     1.  Please briefly describe your position at Region 7 and your role as it relates to Tribes and Tribal
        grants. Which Tribal grants do you manage?

     2.  Please discuss the steps you typically go through when working on a Tribal grant for the CWA
        106 program. To assist in your response, please keep in mind the following typical grant stages
        and activities:
           •   Proposal  Solicitation and Eligibility
           •   Negotiating Work Plans and Budgets
           •   Awarding Funds
           •   Reviewing Performance Reports / Post-Award Monitoring
           •   Closing Out Grants

     3.  What  do you see are the successes in your Tribal grant process? What's working well? What
        are the key points in the process that have the biggest influence on achieving a positive
        outcome?
     4.  What  are opportunities for improvement? What are your biggest obstacles to success? Where
        in the process do problems occur that can prevent a positive outcome?

     5.  When major issues arise, who do you elevate them to or ask for their assistance with?
           •   How do you communicate with your Division Director?
           •   How do you communicate with the Grants Office?
           •   How do you communicate with the Office of Tribal Affairs in Region 7? What issues do
              you elevate to them or ask for their assistance with?
           •   Who is responsible for the ultimate resolution  of the issue (i.e., staff or management)?

Efficiency and  Consistency of  Programmatic Grant Processes

     6.  What  milestones are developed to keep the CWA 106 grants process on schedule?
           •   To the extent that grant processes (e.g., work plan negotiation, awarding funding,
              review of performance reports, closing out, etc.)  extend longer than anticipated, what
              do you see as the primary causes for these delays?
           •   What system, if any, is in place to track the timing of the process?

     7.  We understand that the CWA 106 program is currently under transition at Region 7.  Has this
        had any effect on grant processes?
                                                                                          37

-------
    8.  What type of guidance informs your Tribal grant process (e.g., statutes, Region 7 policy, EPA
        Headquarters guidance, etc.)?  Are there parts of the process that are at the Region's
        discretion?

           •   In your opinion, how could you do things differently to meet the requirements of the
              process?

    9.  Are you  aware of differing CWA 106 grant processes or grant resources in the other EPA
        regions? Do you talk with your colleagues in other regions about the grants process? Could
        Region 7 incorporate any elements from the other EPA regions to improve its  CWA 106 grant
        process?

Communication  and Coordination with Tribes

    10. Please describe how you communicate with the Tribes during the CWA 106 grant process.
           •   When and over what issues do you communicate (e.g., work plan and budget
              negotiation, performance reports, etc.)? Who is responsible for ensuring that
              communication takes place?
           •   What methods do you use to communicate (e.g., email, conference call, in-person
              meetings/site visits, etc.)?
           •   Do you communicate in a similar manner and frequency with each Tribe? Do most
              Tribes prefer the same method of communication? Do you prefer a particular method
              of communication?
           •   Are there areas where the communication could be improved? If so, please explain.
Coordination and Collaboration Across Region 7

    11. How does  Region 7 coordinate  across programs?
           •   Do you know which other grants the Tribe may be receiving,  and do you coordinate?
           •   What type of coordination is possible for Tribes receiving other grants (e.g., GAP,
              Wetland Program Development, or CWA 319 Grants)?
           •   Do you feel coordination across programs is done efficiently  and effectively? What
              opportunities do  you see for increased coordination, if necessary?
           •   What tools, such  as EPA's IT systems (e.g., IGMS, Financial Data Warehouse), could be
              used to help in coordinating grant efforts?

    12. How would you rate the level of communication that exists between grants managers and staff
        across Region 7? How could this communication be improved? What currently works well?
                                                                                          38

-------
Additional Information

     13. Please discuss any other issues affecting the efficiency or effectiveness of the CWA 106 grants
        process. Do you have any other suggestions to improve the process, from either the
        perspective of EPA or the Tribes?
                                                                                           39

-------
                                      APPENDIX G:
                                   R7 PROCESS MAPS


DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC PRE-AWARD PROCESS MAP OF CAA 103 TRIBAL GRANTS
  EPA Region 7 issues NOFA using tribal air guidance. Region 7's budget guidance to tribes depends
                     on yearly funding availability from EPA Headquarters.
                                       (February)
   The Region 7 PO evaluates proposals and discusses allocations with immediate supervisors and
   the Environmental Services Division prior to meeting the Region 7 director of the Air and Waste
   Management Division. Region 7 distributes funds based on work plan activity and prior grantee
                                      performance.
              Memorandum with final decision is signed by the director of AWMD.
    After Region 7 has decided to fund the project, work plan negotiations begin. This is often an
                     iterative process between PO and tribe (see below).
                                       (May-July)
    Tribe submits final, complete grant application package includingfinal work plan to Region 7
          grant office where it is entered into IGMS. (application due mid to end of July)
         Region 7 PO prepares funding recommendation in IGMS, attaching final work plan.
                             (award to be approved in August)
                                                                                         40

-------
DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC PRE-AWARD PROCESS MAP OF CERCLA 128(a) TRIBAL GRANTS
                      EPA Headquarters issues annual funding guick
                                 (November - December)
                     Tribe provides Region 7 PO with request for funding
                                    (by January 31)
       Region 7 engages in internal discussion of requests for funding and sends a consolidated
                                   response to EPA HQ
                   EPA HQ conference call with Regions to discuss allocations
             Region 7 PO learns of allocation to Tribe from EPQ HQ and informs Tribe
                                     (April or May)
                         Tribe submits draft workplan to Region 7 PO
    Tribe submits full award application . Region 7 PO prepares funding recommendation, attaching
                                     final workplan..
                         (at least 2 weeks prior to July 1 award date)
                                                                                       41

-------
DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC PRE-AWARD PROCESS MAP OF GAP TRIBAL GRANTS
    Tribe provides Region 7 PO with initial draft of the workplan in national format. Grants start
                         dates are staggered throughout the year.
                      (4-6 months before the current grant expires)
 Region 7 receives ~$990,QOO in GAP funds annually from EPA AIEO, but available funds vary from
               year to year. Region 7 sends out a Notice of Funding Availability.
                                  (typically in March)
                       Tribe submits draft workplan to Region 7 PO.

    inalized workpl;an reviewed by Region 7
    Tribal Program Coordinator reviews it.
                                                      Tribe resubmits
                                                      evised workplan
                                                      to Region 7 PO
While workplan is being finalized,
the Tribe prepares the application
   for Tribal Council signature.
   The Tribe sends the completed application to the Region 7 grants office.  If the final workplan is
             not attached to the application, Region 7 GAP PO will attach it in-house.
                                         I
      lication processed by the Region 7 grants office and the Region 7 PO prepares the Funding
         Recommendation and Commitment Notice for signature and award bytheGMO.
                                                                                        42

-------
     DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC PRE-AWARD PROCESS MAP OF CURRENT
                         CWA 106 TRIBAL GRANTS
   Tribe and Region 7 engage in preliminary discussions about funding availability and possible
                                 project activities.
             Tribe submits draft workplan and budget proposal to Region 7 PO.
                         (4 months before fun ding start date)
  While
workpfan is
  being
 finalized,
 the Tribe
 finalizes
the budeet.
  When
 budget is
 final, the
   Tribe
submits its
  award
application.
 (60 days
before the
 funding
L—I
L»B|
                                               Region 7 reviews
                                                 the revised
                                                 workplan.
                                               (within 30 days of
                                                  receipt)
                                                                    Tribe resubmits
                                                                    revised workplan
                                                                    to Region 7 PO.
                                                                    (within 30 days of
                                                                     r^rAlnt nf PH
comments)
                                              Region 7 PO sends
                                              comments to Tribe
                                               via email. Later
                                              rounds of revision
                                                may include
                                                follow-up via
                                              phone or face-to-
                                               face meetings.
                                              (With in 30 days of
              Region 7 PO prepares funding package for signature by Watershed Planning and
            Implementation Branch Chief and Water Wetlands and Pesticides Division Director.
                    The award follows the same process as other program awards.
                                                                                    43

-------
                                        APPENDIX H:
                         TRIBAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES GUIDE

This 'Best Management Practices Guide' is not prescriptive. It is up to each tribal environmental
director and EPA Project Officer (PO) to determine the best methods for interacting and to work
better as partners with "give and take."  Experience has suggested that the Practices in this Guide may
be useful for effective management of tribal grants and  cooperative agreements. Effectiveness and
timeliness of work products and processes depends completely upon cooperation and communication
between all parties involved in tribal grants management.
DEFINITIONS
Assistance agreement: The legal instrument used when the principal purpose of the relationship is the
transfer of money, property, or anything of value to a State or local government or other eligible
recipient to accomplish a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by Federal Statute. An
assistance agreement is an overarching term for both grants AND cooperative agreements.
       Grant agreement (which may also be called an assistance agreement) does not substantially
involve EPA in the project and the recipient has the authority and capability to complete all elements of
the program.
       Cooperative agreement includes substantial involvement between EPA and the  recipient during
performance of the contemplated activity.
       Performance Partnership Grant enables grantee to combine funds from more than one
environmental program grant into a single grant with  a single budget.
Award: the document, when signed by both parties (EPA and the Tribe) allows for funds to be
distributed and drawn.
General Assistance Program (GAP):  Funding for federally recognized tribal governments to protect
environmental and public health in Indian Country in the following areas: legal, enforcement and
compliance, technical and non-administrative, communications, administrative, solid and hazardous
waste.
Joint Evaluation: Evaluation that is carried out by representatives of multiple organizations or groups
working together that have a stake in the findings.
Program Grants: Grants listed under 40 CFR Part 35.101. Examples: Clean Water Act 106; Underground
Storage Tanks, Clean Air Act 105.
Project Grants - The funding, for fixed or known periods, of specific projects or the delivery of specific
services or products, without liability for damages for failure to perform. Project grants include
fellowships, scholarships, research grants, training grants, traineeships, experimental and demonstration
                                                                                          44

-------
grants, evaluation grants, planning grants, technical assistance grants, survey grants, construction
grants, and unsolicited contractual agreements.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES - Grants
1. BMP: In order to allow enough time for workplan negotiation, review, tribal council approval of
application, submission of application to EPA, and the award process, negotiation should begin at least
120 days (four months) prior to project period start date.
2. BMP: Draft workplans should be submitted to the EPA grants office with the application at least 60
days prior to the project period start  date. By the time applications are received by the EPA grants
office, workplans should be essentially complete. By statute Brownfields and Superfund programs have
90 days to fund  or return an application
3. BMP: Where not mandatory, tribes have the flexibility to use the template they choose for workplans
and reports, as discussed with the EPA PO. This is true for nearly all EPA programs (except for GAP).
Sample templates are available from  EPA program  offices.
4. BMP: To prevent long  negotiation times for workplans, all POs, technical advisors, and tribal contacts
will be accountable to review and provide comment to the workplan as soon as possible but within no
more than 30 calendar days from receipt of draft workplan submission.  If this timeline cannot be met,
please communicate this at your earliest convenience.
Workplans should not take more than two drafts to reach the third and final document. If consensus is
not reached, a new approach is necessary (meet face-to-face in order to create a 3rd draft.)
5. BMP: To prevent long review times for performance reports, all POs, technical advisors, and tribal
contacts will be  accountable to review and provide comment to the report as soon as possible but
within  no more than 30 calendar days from receipt of draft report submission.  For the purposes  of this
document, performance reports refer to quarterly  and final reports.  If this timeline cannot be  met,
please communicate this at your earliest convenience.
6. BMP: Workplan negotiations should begin with  the EPA and tribal counterparts agreeing to
negotiation milestones and discussing workplan ideas up front. The milestones should include a face-to-
face kickoff meeting including all program staff and managers, or representatives of managers (i.e.,
Section Chiefs) as resources allow, who have activities in the workplan.
At this meeting a draft workplan should be nearly complete. Meeting in person and discussing
workplans verbally are more productive; e-mail should be used for sharing documents, documenting
conversations for the grant file, and resolving minor issues.
Workplans should focus on content and results, accuracy, and workplan format;  grammar and
punctuation, are secondary.
Budget numbers are an estimate of anticipated workplan activities, but they should be at  least within 10
percent of the final application amount.  Remember that by the time an application is submitted,
workplans should be essentially final.
7. BMP: When announcing funding opportunities for tribes, EPA (when possible) needs to be as clear
and precise as possible regarding how much funding is projected to be available in order to help the
tribes develop an appropriate project in the workplan based on the funding that will be received.
                                                                                            45

-------
Funding opportunities include but are not limited to "Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA),"
competitive announcements, or Request for Proposals. EPA personnel may not talk to the tribes once
these announcements are made except in very general terms. Prior to the announcement, EPA may
provide more specific instruction
8. BMP: Grant applications need to be passed by tribal council resolution prior to submitting the
application to the EPA grants office. Tribal councils generally meet at least once per month. Workplans
and award amounts need to be close to final in time for tribal council meetings.  This should be
considered when developing the workplan negotiation milestones at the beginning of the workplan
negotiation process.
9. BMP: Create project schedules (on a calendar) to stay on task and to better manage tribal grants and
balance priorities. What gets done is what gets measured.
10. BMP: Be aware that grant project periods may not be on tribal fiscal years. This needs to be
considered when negotiating workplans.
11. BMP: Project periods should be up to but not more than two years to reduce administrative burden
and reduce the time it takes to negotiate a workplan (workplans and budget will need to cover both
years of the project, although, funding is only available annually).
12.  BMP: Draft workplans in Microsoft Word format are more useful and make EPA and Tribal
review/comment easier as notes can be added to the document rather than create a new document and
have longer more complicated comments.
13.  BMP: Workplans should be written clearly, concisely, and to the point. The workplan should be an
accumulation of discussions  and should stand on their own.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES - Communications
14. BMP: GAP POs may hold regularly scheduled calls with tribes and EPA POs and technical advisers to
discuss progress and various issues.  If practical, include the call schedules in the GAP workplan.
15. BMP: Tribal counterparts should call or email PO discuss/notify of changes or considered changes
to a project. This could also be done during the monthly calls listed previously.
16. BMP: When EPA is made aware of visits to tribal offices, the Tribal  Environmental Department
Director will be notified three days prior to visit via phone and written correspondence (e-mail is fine).
This is especially important for visits to utility departments or Casinos when the Environmental
Department may not be in the loop.
17. BMP: EPA and Tribal personnel will notify in writing (e-mail is fine)  when there is a change in
personnel.
18. BMP: EPA and Tribal personnel will acknowledge receipt of e-mails.
                                                                                           46

-------