» A \
\ WJ
% P«o^°
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Review of Hotline Complaint
Concerning the Region 4
Environmental Justice Small
Grants Selection Process
June 21, 2013
Report No. 13-P-0299
Scan this mobile
code to learn more
about the EPA OIG.
-------
Report Contributors:
Andres Calderon
Ming Chang
Jerri Dorsey
Heather Drayton
Kalpana Ramakrishnan
Patricia Taylor
Abbreviations
EJ
Environmental Justice
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY
Fiscal Year
OEJ
Office of Environmental Justice
OIG
Office of Inspector General
Cover photo: The hydroponic garden at the Miami Science Museum. The museum received
an FY 2012 Environmental Justice Small Grant for a gardening project that
promotes environmental justice and encourages healthy, environmentally
friendly alternatives to industrially produced agriculture. (EPA OIG photo)
Hotline
To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact us through one of the following methods:
email: OIG Hotline@epa.gov write: EPA Inspector General Hotline
phone: 1-888-546-8740 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
fax: 202-566-2599 Mailcode 2431T
online:
http://www.epa.gov/oiq/hotline.htm
Washington, DC 20460
-------
^{.D S7/w
*. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 13-P-0299
|" UHV ^ Hffiro nf Incnortnr f^onoral June 21, 2013
Q
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
Why We Did This Review
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of
Inspector General, received an
anonymous hotline complaint
concerning the review and
selection process for the EPA
Region 4 environmental justice
grants. The goal of the EPA's
Environmental Justice Small
Grants Program is to help
communities build joint
partnerships to address
environmental and public health
issues. The complaint
questioned whether certain
applicants received preference
and were preselected for
grants. The complaint also
questioned whether Region 4
management targeted a select
audience. The purpose of this
review was to determine
whether the Region 4 Office of
Environmental Justice followed
policies and procedures when
selecting EJ Small Grants
recipients for fiscal years 2010,
2011 and 2012.
This report addresses the
following EPA Goal or
Cross-Cutting Strategy:
• Working for environmental
justice and children's health.
For further information, contact
our Office of Congressional and
Public Affairs at (202) 566-2391.
The full report is at:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2013/
20130621-13-P-0299.pdf
Review of Hotline Complaint Concerning the
Region 4 Environmental Justice Small Grants
Selection Process
What We Found
Our review of the EPA's Region 4 Office of Environmental Justice found that
management had controls in place to protect against bias, fraud, and preselection
of EJ Small Grants recipients during FYs 2010, 2011 and 2012. We found that the
Region 4 OEJ followed EJ Small Grants policies and procedures when selecting
EJ Small Grants recipients, with the exception of one requirement. We found that
the Region 4 OEJ did not ensure all review panelists are "knowledgeable about
environmental justice prior to serving," a requirement of the EPA Order 5700.5A1,
but adhered to the other policies and procedures during the period we reviewed.
During interviews with a sample of review panelists, we found no evidence that
EJ Small Grants applicants received preference or were preselected for awards
from FY 2010 through FY 2012. Additionally, during interviews with a sample of
review panelists, we found no evidence that Region 4 OEJ leadership supported
or targeted a select audience for grants.
Some review panelists we interviewed suggested that additional training on
objectivity and understanding the ranking criteria would be helpful. We also found
that review panelists were not informed of the final selection of EJ Small Grants
recipients. Additionally, review panelists were not offered a debriefing meeting to
provide suggestions on the process. Inadequate review panelist training and a
lack of follow-up and communication on the final selection of grant recipients may
have contributed to perceptions that the EJ Small Grants review and selection
processes were improperly executed.
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We recommend that the Region 4 OEJ director provide adequate training to
ensure that review panelists are knowledgeable about environmental justice prior
to serving on EJ Small Grants consensus review panels. We also recommend
additional training on objectivity and the definition of each ranking criterion.
Further, we recommend that the Region 4 OEJ obtain feedback from review
panelists, as well as notify panelists when recipients are selected for awards.
Region 4 OEJ agreed with all four recommendations and provided corrective
actions with estimated dates of completion. We believe that three of the proposed
corrective actions address our recommendations. We consider three of the four
recommendations resolved and open pending completion of corrective actions.
The remaining recommendation is unresolved pending receipt of a revised
corrective action and estimated date of completion.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
June 21, 2013
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Review of Hotline Complaint Concerning the Region 4
Environmental Justice Small Grants Selection Process
Report No. 13-P-0299
- /
FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.
/
TO:
A. Stanley Meiburg, Acting Regional Administrator
Region 4
Denise Tennessee, Acting Director
Region 4 Office of Environmental Justice
This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report contains findings that describe the problems the OIG
has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of the OIG
and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. The agency agreed with all four
recommendations and provided corrective actions with estimated dates of completion. We believe that
three of the four proposed corrective actions address our recommendations. We consider three of the
four recommendations resolved and open pending completion of the corrective actions. The remaining
recommendation is unresolved pending receipt of a revised corrective action and estimated date of
completion.
Action Required
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this report
within 60 calendar days. Please provide a revised corrective action and estimated date of completion for
the one unresolved recommendation. Your response will be posted on the OIG's public website, along
with our memorandum commenting on your response. Your response should be provided as an Adobe
PDF file that complies with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as amended. The final response should not contain data that you do not want to be released to the
public. If your response contains such data, you should identify the data for redaction or removal along
with corresponding justification. We have no objections to the further release of this report to the public.
We will post this report to our website at http://www.epa.gov/oig.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact the Assistant Inspector
General for Program Evaluation Carolyn Copper at (202) 566-0829 or copper.carolyn@epa.gov;
or the Acting Director for Toxics, Chemical Management, and Pollution Prevention Jerri Dorsey at
(919) 541-3601 or dorsev.ierri@epa.gov.
-------
Review of Hotline Complaint Concerning the Region 4 13-P-0299
Environmental Justice Small Grants Selection Process
Table of Contents
Purpose 1
Background 1
Environmental Justice Small Grants 1
EPA Grants Competition Policy 2
Grants Selection Processes 2
Scope and Methodology 2
Results of Review 3
Hotline Finding 3
Review Panelist Training and Follow-Up 4
Conclusions 5
Recommendations 5
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation 6
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 7
Appendices
A Agency Response to Draft Report 8
B Distribution 11
-------
Purpose
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General hotline
received an anonymous complaint letter about the EPA Region 41 environmental
justice grants selection process. The complaint questioned whether certain
applicants received preference or were preselected for awards. The complaint also
questioned whether the Region 4 Office of Environmental Justice targeted a select
audience. Our objective was to determine whether the Region 4 OEJ followed
policies and procedures when selecting EJ Small Grants recipients for fiscal years
2010, 2011 and 2012.
Background
Executive Order 12898, issued in 1994, directs federal agencies to include
environmental justice as part of their mission. Agencies should identify and
address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority and low-income
populations. The EPA and other agencies are required to develop an agency-wide
environmental justice strategy.
The EPA developed Plan EJ 2014 to include environmental justice in its
programs, policies and activities. The strategic document describes the "Grants
and Technical Assistance Goal" as a way to deliver financial and technical
assistance to communities. Grants are used to empower communities to improve
their health and environment. The plan named Region 4 as one of the lead regions
to support environmental justice community-based programs for local and tribal
organizations.
Environmental Justice Small Grants
The OEJ at EPA headquarters offers grants and cooperative agreements to fund
community-level environmental justice activities. Since 1994, the EJ Small
Grants Program has awarded $23 million to 1,253 community-based
organizations. The goal of the EJ Small Grants Program is to help communities
build joint partnerships to address environmental and public health issues.
EJ Small Grants are awarded on a competitive basis. According to the EJ Small
Grants Program, a successful project should include a well-designed strategic plan
that addresses local environmental and public health issues.
The Region 4 OEJ manages regional EJ Small Grants and is responsible for
integrating environmental justice into its regional, local, state, and other federal
government programs, policies, and procedures.
1 EPA Region 4 includes the following states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Tennessee.
13-P-0299
1
-------
EPA Grants Competition Policy
The EPA Order 5700.5A1, Policy for Competition of Assistance Agreements,2
provides the agency with policy and requirements for grant competition. The
competition policy states that EPA grants should be awarded using an objective
and unbiased process. Grant competitions must be in line with U.S. Office of
Management and Budget guidance, and grant announcements should be made
available to the public on agency websites and on the federal grant solicitation
website.
The competition policy also sets requirements for grant competition
announcements. The announcements should include funding opportunity,
eligibility and submission information. The policy states that applications must be
objectively and fairly evaluated by review panelists that do not have a conflict of
interest with respect to the application or applicant. The policy also states that
review panelists should be knowledgeable in the field of endeavor for which
awards are being competed.
Grants Selection Processes
The EPA Order 5700.5A1 states that program offices may create a consensus
review panel (consensus panel) to review and evaluate grant applications.
Consensus panels are comprised of grant review panelists. Before a consensus
panel, review panelists must independently review applications. According to the
EPA headquarters' OEJ Memorandum of Instructions for EJ Small Grant
Competitions, a subset of agency grant policy instructions, review panelists meet
during a consensus panel to discuss individual application scores. The reviewers
must reach a consensus on all scores. The grants competition policy states that
program offices should provide guidance and training to review panelists.
Program offices should supply a copy of the competition announcement, a
summary of the evaluation and award selection process, eligibility criteria,3 and
scoring guidelines. The competition policy also says review panelists must
provide explanations for the scores and ratings.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted our work from July 2012 through April 2013 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards issued by the Comptroller
General of the United States. These standards require that we plan and perform
the review to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence. This evidence is to
provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our review
2 Assistance agreements include both grants and cooperative agreements. Grants do not have EPA staff involved
with projects. Cooperative agreements usually have an EPA project officer as part of the agreement's activities.
3 EJ Small Grants applicants have to pass two criteria. First, threshold eligibility criteria determine whether
applicants may be ineligible due to any legal, policy, administrative, and/or financial restriction. Second, the ranking
criteria include items such as the project's budget, description and performance measures.
13-P-0299
2
-------
objectives. We believe the evidence we obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our review objectives.
In addition to reviewing the EPA Order 5700.5Al, we also reviewed the
following:
• Panelist training documents published by the EPA's Office of Grants and
Debarment.
• Region 4's FY 2010 through FY 2012 EJ Small Grants documents.
• The grant competition announcement and eligibility criteria.
• Region 4's request for volunteer review panelist documents.
• EJ Small Grants review panelist training instructions and documents from
the OEJ at EPA headquarters and the OEJ in Region 4.
• Review panelists' signed conflict-of-interest forms.
• Ranking and scoring documents from each year.
We interviewed officials from the OEJ at EPA headquarters and in Region 4 to
determine whether procedures and management controls were in place to guard
against the preference or preselection of EJ Small Grants applications. We also
interviewed a sample of FY 2010 through FY 2012 EJ Small Grants review
panelists. We randomly selected seven review panelists to interview. The review
panelists we interviewed served at least once during the FY 2010 through FY
2012 EJ Small Grants process. We interviewed these review panelists to
determine whether there was any perception of preferences or preselection of
grantees during the consensus panels or by the Region 4 OEJ.
Results of Review
With the exception of ensuring all review panelists are knowledgeable about
environmental justice prior to serving, the Region 4 OEJ followed EJ Small
Grants policies and procedures during the period we reviewed. The Region 4 OEJ
had management controls in place to protect against bias, fraud, or preferential
selection of EJ Small Grants recipients. However, during interviews with review
panelists, we found further training was necessary. Additionally, review panelists
did not receive follow-up information about the applications selected to receive
grants. Inadequate review panelist training and lack of follow-up may have
contributed to an impression that there was preferential or preselection of EJ
Small Grants recipients in Region 4.
Hotline Finding
According to the EPA Order 5700.5A1, review panelists should be
"knowledgeable in the field of endeavor for which awards are being competed."
The Region 4 OEJ did not meet this aspect of the order. The Region 4 OEJ sent a
request throughout the region for volunteer review panelists from various EPA
program offices. During interviews with our sample of EJ Small Grants review
panelists, we found that some review panelists were not knowledgeable about
13-P-0299
3
-------
environmental justice issues or concerns prior to serving as review panelists. The
Region 4 OEJ stated there was preference to select volunteer review panelists
familiar with EJ issues and the EPA statutes, but the volunteers were not required
to have prior EJ knowledge.
With the exception of ensuring that all review panelists were knowledgeable
about environmental justice, we found that the Region 4 OEJ followed policies
and procedures when selecting FY 2010 through FY 2012 EJ Small Grants
recipients. We found that there was a separation of duties when determining an
applicant's eligibility. For instance, the headquarters OEJ first determined
whether applications passed the threshold eligibility, then Region 4 review
panelists scored applicants based on the EJ Small Grants ranking criteria.
In accordance with the EPA Order 5700.5Al, each review panelist signed a
conflict-of-interest statement during FY 2010 through FY 2012. The EPA's
headquarters OEJ and the Region 4 OEJ provided training on basic environmental
justice information, objectivity, ranking criteria, and guidance on how to rank and
score applications based on ranking criteria. According to Region 4 EJ Small
Grants ranking and scoring documents, review panelists first individually scored
grant applications based on ranking criteria. Review panelists discussed applicant
qualifications in order to reach consensus agreement on scores.4 Applications
were ranked by regional staff. Applications were then sent to the EPA's
headquarters OEJ, which made the final selection of EJ Small Grants recipients.
During interviews with our sample of EJ Small Grants review panelists, no one
reported any perceived evidence of applicants receiving preference or being
preselected for awards. Additionally, no one believed the Region 4 OEJ
leadership supported or targeted a select audience for grants.
Review Panelist Training and Follow-Up
During our review, we noted that additional training and follow-up
communication could improve the Region 4 EJ Small Grants review and selection
process. First, some of our sample review panelists reported additional training on
objectivity should be provided. Some review panelists noted that the additional
training on objectivity would reduce personal biases and should be reinforced at
the beginning of consensus meetings.
Our interviews with review panelists revealed that both new and repeat volunteers
stated that additional training on the meaning of each ranking criterion would also
be helpful. As stated earlier, consensus panels were used to discuss an
application's strengths and weaknesses based on ranking criteria. Some review
panelists who were interviewed said additional training would help new review
panelists understand the meaning of each criterion. Review panelists stated that a
4 Only applications with a large variability in scores among the review panelists were discussed during consensus
review panels.
13-P-0299
4
-------
better understanding of the criterion would reduce differences in individual
scores.
Second, the Region 4 OEJ did not offer a debriefing meeting to review panelists
after the completion of the consensus panels. The Region 4 OEJ acknowledged
accepting feedback from review panelists, but the feedback did not occur in a
formal manner. Additionally, even after EJ Small Grants recipients were
announced by the headquarters OEJ, Region 4 review panelists were not notified
which applicants received awards.
Conclusions
The Region 4 OEJ had management controls in place to protect against bias,
fraud, and the preselection of grant recipients for FY 2010 through FY 2012 EJ
Small Grants. However, Region 4 did not ensure that review panelists were
knowledgeable about environmental justice issues prior to reviewing applications.
Based on interviews with a sample of review panelists, we found some were
inadequately trained on ranking criteria and objectivity. Additionally, review
panelists were not notified which applicants were chosen to receive grants. Each
of these factors may have contributed to perceptions of preferences or the
preselection of EJ Small Grants recipients.
The Region 4 OEJ said changes will be made to the upcoming FY 2013 EJ Small
Grants review and selection process. Officials plan to ensure that review panelists
are knowledgeable about environmental justice prior to serving on a review panel
and that additional training on objectivity is provided. The Region 4 OEJ also said
it will request feedback from review panelists and notify panelists which
applicants were selected for awards once the headquarters OEJ announces grant
recipients.
Recommendations
We recommend that the director of the Region 4 Office of Environmental Justice update
existing procedures to:
1. Provide adequate training to ensure volunteer review panelists are knowledgeable
about environmental justice prior to serving as EJ Small Grants review panelists.
2. Provide additional training on objectivity and the meaning of each environmental
justice grant criterion.
3. Obtain feedback from review panelists on ways to improve the grant review and
selection process, including the consensus panels.
4. Notify review panelists when EJ Small Grants applicants are selected for an
award.
13-P-0299
5
-------
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation
In its response to the draft report, the EPA agreed to all four recommendations
and provided corrective actions with estimated dates of completion. We believe
that recommendations 1, 3 and 4 are addressed by the proposed corrective actions.
We require a revised corrective action and estimated date of completion for
recommendation number 2. The OIG requires additional information pertaining to
how objectivity and scoring criteria will be addressed in their training.
We consider recommendation numbers 1, 3 and 4 resolved and open pending the
completion of corrective actions. Recommendation number 2 is unresolved
pending receipt of an agreed-upon corrective action and estimated date of
completion. The agency's complete response is in appendix A.
13-P-0299
6
-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (In $000s)
Rec. No.
Page
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Planned
Completion
Date
Claimed
Amount
Ag reed-To
Amount
5 Provide adequate training to ensure volunteer
review panelists are knowledgeable about
environmental justice prior to serving as
EJ Small Grants review panelists.
5 Provide additional training on objectivity and the
meaning of each environmental justice grant
criterion.
5 Obtain feedback from review panelists on ways to
improve the grant review and selection process,
including the consensus panels.
5 Notify review panelists when EJ Small Grants
applicants are selected for an award.
Director, Region 4 Office of
Environmental Justice
Director, Region 4 Office of
Environmental Justice
Director, Region 4 Office of
Environmental Justice
Director, Region 4 Office of
Environmental Justice
0
1 0 = Recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending.
C = Recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed.
U = Recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
13-P-0299
7
-------
Appendix A
Agency Response to Draft Report
May 17, 2013
SUBJECT: Draft Report: Review of Hotline Complaint Concerning the
Region 4 Environmental Justice Small Grants Selection
Process, Project No. OPE-FY 12-0017
FROM: Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming
Regional Administrator
Denise Tennessee, Acting Director
Office of Environmental Justice
TO: Carolyn Copper
Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation
This response will address the factual accuracy of the Draft Report, dated April 18, 2013,
and provide comments on the findings and recommendations. We appreciate the
comprehensive review of the Environmental Justice Small Grants Program (EJSG) because
it provided an objective assessment of how the program is being implemented by the
Region 4 Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ). Based on the interviews your team
conducted and their research, the report is factually accurate and I concur with the findings
and recommendations.
The report noted that some review panelists were not knowledgeable about environmental
justice (EJ), and they wanted more in-depth training on ranking criteria and maintaining
objectivity during the review. Historically, review panelists were selected because they had
an interest in environmental justice; were aware of and worked on EJ projects and were
knowledgeable about the environmental statutes. Many, but not all, of them had previously
taken the Fundamentals of Environmental Justice Training (a 2-day course). As you noted,
the EPA headquarters and Region 4 OEJ provided training on EJ and information on
evaluating and scoring the applications, via teleconference prior to the review period.
In response to Recommendation 1 and in order to address your findings and increase the
reviewers' knowledge, the Region 4 OEJ will require all EJSG reviewers to have completed
the Fundamentals of Environmental Justice course. This 2-day training requirement will be
added to the Region 4 EJSG Standard Operating Procedure Handbook (SOP). To comply
with Recommendation 2, Region 4 OEJ will communicate to the Headquarters OEJ that we
want a more robust discussion about: 1) ranking and scoring criteria and 2) reviewer
objectivity to reduce personal bias. These topics will need to be more adequately addressed
13-P-0299
8
-------
in their training and Region 4 will continue to reinforce this message with the reviewers
before and during the consensus review process.
The report also noted that the regional review panelists were not provided a formal
opportunity to give their feedback and provide comments to improve the EJSG Program. In
response to Recommendation 3, Headquarters OEJ is currently addressing this issue
nationally and we are collaborating with them. They are hosting a teleconference on Jun 14,
2013, Reviewer Roundup, to allow all regional review panelists and EJ offices to provide
input on the EJSG Program. Region 4 OEJ has extended the invitation to all of our review
panelists and has encouraged them to participate and provide feedback. Recommendations
from the Reviewer Roundup will be incorporated into the Region 4 EJSG SOP.
The final recommendation is to notify the review panelists about the applications selected for
award. Historically, we have posted an announcement on the Region 4 website
congratulating the successful applicants that included a summary of projects' objectives, and
it was also announced to the EJ Council. To comply with Recommendation 4, beginning
with the FY2013 awards, the review panelists will receive a link to the website to notify
them of the awardees. This notification process will be added to the EJSG SOP.
This summarizes our response to the comments and recommendations. If you have any
additional questions or concerns, please contact Denise Tennessee or my staff at (404) 562-
8460.
13-P-0299
9
-------
Number
Recommendation
High-Level Intended Corrective
Actions
Estimated
Completion by
Quarter and
FY
1
Provide adequate training
to assure volunteer review
panelists are
knowledgeable about
environmental justice
prior to serving as EJ
Small Grants review
panelists.
Region 4 OEJ will require all EJSG
reviewers to have completed the
Fundamentals of Environmental
Justice course. This 2-day training
requirement will be added to the
Region 4 EJSG Standard Operating
Procedure Handbook (SOP).
Q3/FY 2013
2
Provide additional
training on objectivity and
the meaning of each
Environmental Justice
Small Grant criterion
Region 4 OEJ will communicate to
the Headquarters OEJ that we want
a more robust discussion about: 1)
ranking and scoring criteria and 2)
reviewer objectivity to reduce
personal bias. These topics will
need to be more adequately
addressed in their training and
Region 4 will continue to reinforce
this message with the reviewers
before and during the consensus
review process. The need for this
discussion will be added as a topic in
the EJSG SOP.
Q4/FY 2013
3
Obtain feedback from
review panelists on ways
to improve the grant
review and selection
process, including the
consensus panels.
Recommendations from the
Headquarters' Reviewer Roundup
meeting will be incorporated into
the Region 4 EJSG SOP.
Q3/FY 2013
4
Notify review panelists
when EJ Small Grants
applicants are selected for
an award.
Beginning with the FY2013
awards, the review panelists will
receive a link to the website to
notify them of the awardees. This
notification process will be added
to the EJSG SOP.
Q4/FY 2013
13-P-0299
10
-------
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Regional Administrator, Region 4
Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)
Agency Follow-Up Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for External Affairs and Environmental Education
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 4
Director, Office of Environmental Justice, Region 4
Director, Office of Environmental Justice (Headquarters)
Deputy Director, Office of Environmental Justice (Headquarters)
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Region 4
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Environmental Justice (Headquarters)
13-P-0299
------- |