^{.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.

-------