t' \
¦ £.
*
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY
COUNCIL
MEMBERS
Na'Taki Osborne Jelks, PhD
Co-Chair
Sylvia Orduno,
Co-Chair
Michael Tilchin
Vice-Chair
Cemelli de Aztlan
April Baptiste, PhD
Benjamin J. Pauli, PhD
Joy Britt
Rev. Dr. Ambrose Carroll, Sr.
Scott Clow
Leticia Colon de Mejias
John Doyle
Jan Marie Fritz, PhD
Venu Ghanta
Yvonka M. Hall
Jill Lindsey Harrison, PhD
Loren Hopkins, PhD
Andy Kricun
Nina McCoy
Richard Mabion
Ayako Nagano, JD
Jeremy F. Orr, JD
Sofia Owen, JD
Jonathan Perry
Millie Piazza, PhD
Jerome Shabazz
Jacqueline Shirley, MPH
Pamela Talley, PhD
Brenda Torres Barreto
Sandra Whitehead, PhD
December 29, 2022
Michael S. Regan, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Administrator Regan:
Following much deliberation, the National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council (NEJAC, or the Council) requests an in-depth look at the way in
which environmental justice (EJ) and equity are incorporated into finance and
investments at the EPA ("the Agency"). This call for action has been made by
the NEJAC at previous public meetings to learn how the Agency is measuring
demonstrable outcomes and prioritizing resources in EJ communities to
address harmful air, soil, water, and other environmental impacts in the U.S.,
as well as among states, territories, and tribal nations.
To formalize this appeal, the Finance and Investment Workgroup ("the
workgroup") was established in the summer of 2021 by the NEJAC to look at
the ways in which funding has been/is being distributed to overburdened and
under-resourced communities. Given the public comments received during the
NEJAC public meetings regarding funding, which raised the same issues over
multiple years, the workgroup was asked to investigate both funding questions
as well as how funding and finance issues can get resolved in a timely manner.
The Council would like to acknowledge the work that is currently being done
by the EPA's leadership in response to the NEJAC's concerns, particularly its
involvement in the April 20-21, 2022, public meeting on finance and
investments. We welcome the Agency's incorporation of equity as a fourth
central principle to the overall mission of the Agency and the establishment of
an Equity Action Plan. These commitments are necessary for meaningful
improvements in and resolution of long-standing environmental injustices that
exist across the U.S., states, territories, and in tribal nations.
The EPA's Thriving Communities Technical Assistance Centers (TCTACs)
program is a critical response to the NEJAC's call for community-based hubs
of representation and collaboration for a wide array of stakeholders. We are
A Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
encouraged by the promise of the TCTACs to increase capacity -buildi ng-rel ated
activities for EJ community residents and organizations. These hubs will facilitate
leadership in equity-centered and culturally responsive methods by transforming
research, increasing potential capacity for greater access to funding opportunities,
and deepening community engagement practices through training and mentorship.
We acknowledge and greatly appreciate the work that is being done across the EPA's
national programs to address EJ in tangible, meaningful ways. Given the
considerable work that has gone into developing the Justice40 framework, which
covers a large number of EPA programs, the NEJAC would like to learn more about
EPA's methodology for calculating the distribution of program benefits, including
descriptions of the metrics used to measure them, particularly for marginalized,
overburdened and under-resourced communities and their residents. In addition, we
are interested in understanding how funding and investments are being disbursed by
relevant programs to ensure that EJ concerns are being addressed.
This inquiry is divided into five sections regarding marginalized, overburdened and
under-resourced community investments and benefits to gain an understanding of
EPA's methodology within and across programs. They consist of: (1) defining, (2)
prioritizing, (3) assessing and distributing, (4) measuring and tracking, and (5)
mapping and reporting. Each section aims to inform the NEJAC about how direct
and indirect financial benefits and investments are intended and are derived through
EPA programs and leadership decisions.
The NEJ AC is asking for the following information from the EPA across all five (5)
sections within the next six months:
1. A response as to how each of the sections we describe above are being
implemented.
2. A roadmap plan that outlines how EPA"s implementation of Justice40
objectives will be conducted.
3. A presentation of foreseen challenges or barriers toward ensuring timely
prioritization of funding and investments to EJ communities across short-,
medium-, and long-term timeframes.
4. A consultation with the NEJAC on the ways in which finance and investment
opportunities in communities with legacy EJ problems will result in
environmental and economic improvements for these communities.
Finally, in the attached document, we present an outline of our questions and then
offer some initial recommendations for your consideration.
The NEJAC is truly appreciative of your time and consideration of these concerns,
questions, and recommendations. We believe your administration's unmatched
commitment to ensuring equitable and meaningful policies and regulations for
communities with EJ concerns can only be improved with greater transparency and
reporting of the finance and investment activities in these communities.
A Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Sincerely,
±y- , '
'4m (A
(ZJ//
Sylvia Orduno, Co-Chair Na'Taki Osborne Jelks, PhD, Co-Chair
cc: NEJAC Members
Robin Morris Collin, Senior Advisor for Environmental Justice
Marianne Engelman-Lado, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights
Matthew Tejada, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice
for the office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights
Chitra Kumar, Director for the Office of Policy Partnerships and Program
Development
Paula Flores-Gregg, Designated Federal Officer of the NEJAC
Karen L. Martin, Federal Advisory Committee Team Lead
A Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
NEJAC Requests for the EPA Methodology on Investments and
Benefits in Environmental Justice Communities
1. DEFINING Investments and Benefits in EJ Communities
The NEJAC seeks information on how the EPA defines investments and benefits so they can be
provided to overburdened and under-resourced communities (i.e., how do the definitions of
investments and benefits help direct or determine where, how, when, and why EPA-funded
resources are utilized). The NEJAC calls for race/ethnicitv to be at the center of any
definition regarding environmental justice
a. Defining investments
i. How does the EPA define investments - direct and indirect - for economically
under-resourced, communities of color and/or communities overburdened with
significant environmental problems and/or communities with health disparities9
Does this definition include both EJ community residents and organizations9
b. Defining benefits
i. How does the EPA define benefits - direct and indirect - for economically under-
resourced, communities of color and/or communities overburdened with
significant environmental problems and/or communities with health disparities9
Does this definition include both EJ community residents and organizations9
c. Defining improving capacity
i. How does the EPA define quantifiable, measurable, and sustained improvement in
local capacity building9
d. Standardizing definitions across EJ communities
i. Regarding under-resourced, socially and economically disadvantaged,
communities of color, and/or communities overburdened with significant
environmental problems or with health disparities, what terminology and criteria
is the EPA employing to define and describe areas with EJ concerns for the
purpose of distributing investments and assessing benefits9
ii. How has the EPA incorporated health, equity, and civil rights into the definition
of EJ communities9
iii. How has the determination of these definitions been informed through meaningful
community engagement9
2. PRIORITIZING Investments and Benefits in EJ Communities
At the NEJAC's April 2022 public meeting. Deputy Administrator McCabe indicated that a
fourth principle for the EPA is advancing justice and equity. This is a laudable principle, and the
Council is hopeful it will lead to the resolution of many long-standing concerns over
environmental injustices that have been brought forward in multiple fora.
The NEJAC seeks to understand how the EPA's offices and programs prioritize and center the
concerns and needs of communities experiencing EJ problems through distribution of financial
investments and benefits. We anticipate that evidence toward these priorities would be shown
1
-------
through programs and policies operating with meaningful community involvement, authentic
public engagement, community-based project inputs, direct funding initiatives, and staffing. The
Council has been informed that there may be implementation barriers or challenges (e.g.,
technological) experienced by some Agency offices and programs.
a. How is the EPA seeking to incorporate community-defined priorities and selected
investments9
b. How is equity utilized as a determinant in the EPA's prioritization of when, how, where,
and why funding and investments are placed for EJ concerns9
• Example from the NEJAC's meeting public comments: In Michigan City, Indiana,
where two (2) million tons of toxic coal ash waste are leaking into Lake Michigan
and neighboring Trail Creek at the Northern Indiana Public Service Company's
(NIPSCO) Generating Station, residents are highly concerned that any EJ funding
that will become available to the State of Indiana - whether through the
Infrastructure Plan or Justice40 Initiative - will be deliberately misappropriated.
The EPA is urged to have boots on the ground in EJ communities like Michigan
City, where residents have tried to solidify funding through the EPA's air
monitoring grant contest. The residents attempted to navigate that complicated
process only to discover they needed matching funds to receive a grant. Frontline
community organizations do not have that kind of money and/or resources and
ask the EPA to consider changing this requirement.
c. Among the) " \ 1 seventy-thr^' ^ '<) pilot areas [pilot areasl. how are priorities
established to determine where, when, and why finances and investments were placed to
correct environmental problems in affected communities and to ensure justice and
equity9
• With respect to the EPA small grants program flowing through universities and
large nonprofits, we are concerned that EJ communities will not be meaningfully
engaged, and that organizations will prioritize existing relationships instead,
which will preserve the status quo. Thus, the EPA won't have the necessary
critical relationships, won't be directly involved with disadvantaged communities,
and won't have direct access to the innovative opportunities that offer a better
understanding of project needs across regions and systemic issues.
d. How is the EPA prioritizing the types of technical and financial assistance opportunities
that it is providing to governmental partners, other stakeholder groups, and, particularly,
EJ community groups, to include "ground floor" level assistance to communities with
traditionally lower capacity and funding9
3. ASSESSING/DETERMINING and DISTRIBUTING Investments and Benefits in
EJ Communities
The NEJAC is keenly interested in learning how the EPA determines and distributes funds for
Justice40 programs. We seek information on how the EPA provides avenues to allow for
residents and community-based organizations (CBOs) to gain access to funding and overcome
barriers that often prevent them from competing with better-resourced non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) and academic institutions.
2
-------
a. Regarding the assessment and distribution of funding for programs that fall under the
Justice40 framework, what research and methodology are being used to ensure EJ
communities and their residents directly benefit from current and new investments (i.e.,
by what processes are the programs funded to ensure equitable distribution of financial
resources to benefit EJ communities)9
i. How many EJ communities are recipients of the initial Justice40 six (6) pilot
programs9 What is their distribution across EPA regions9
ii. Under the Justice40 framework, how are CBOs included in the assessment and
distribution of funding and investments to address concerns in EJ communities9
iii. How is the EPA improving its assessment and distribution process to provide a
higher level of investments and benefits to EJ communities and their residents in
the future9
iv. How does the EPA plan to improve procurement and contracting processes to
ensure that resources get to targeted communities and their residents9
v. How does the EPA plan to integrate strong DEI accountability for companies who
receive funding to install new infrastructure and provide benefits to EJ
communities and their residents9
vi. How does the EPA plan to ensure that ownership opportunities improve for local
residents in EJ communities and provide economic opportunity for communities
of concern9
vii. How does the EPA plan to apply racial equity principles and objectives outlined
in Executive Orders on racial equity in providing investments and benefits to EJ
communities and their residents9 How will the EPA track this9
b. How are the EPA National Programs ensuring that their funding and investments are
successfully distributed to produce measurable benefits and outcomes for EJ
communities9
i. How are communities being selected9
ii. What are the standards being used to monitor where the funding is going and then
what they are being used for9
iii. What is being done to bring in new underserved and under-resourced
communities to the funding table9
iv. How is the EPA supporting EJ communities across its pilot areas through finance
and investments in the establishment of community workforce development
through training and worker programs9
c. When multiple agencies are contributing to an EPA EJ initiative, how is baseline
funding assessed by the EPA National Programs9
d. Assessing and strengthening regional engagement: the EPA Regional Offices are central
to ensuring the resolution of EJ problems. During the April 2022 public meeting,
NEJAC members raised questions about how the relationships between the EPA
Regional Offices and local community organizations and residents can be strengthened.
3
-------
i. How are the EPA National Programs assisting Regions with outreach and
proactively supporting EJ communities through funding and investments?
ii. How are the EPA Regional Offices assisting with community outreach across its
pilot areas?
e. How will public engagement in EJ communities become a central component of EPA"s
success in distributing investments and benefits in these communities9 To this end, how
has EPA effectively utilized the NEJAC's Model Plan for Public Participation (2000) in
its determination and distribution of investments9
i. How are adaptive and innovative approaches being incorporated into public
outreach and engagement (including culturally and linguistically appropriate
means)9
ii. How will the EPA provide accessible and culturally appropriate opportunities for
low-income, minority, and linguistically isolated stakeholders to meaningfully
participate in the decision-making process9
iii. How is the EPA funding or investing in hiring for language and cultural access
skills among those directly connected to the community and culture of the
impacted population, across its pilot areas?
iv. How are web-based Geographic Information System tools (e.g., EJScreen) being
used to help identify the location and concentrations of EJ communities, issues,
needs, and responses9
f. Developing capacity-building centers within marginalized communities can be an
invaluable resource to aid in the effective distribution of investments and benefits to EJ
communities and their residents. There are key questions about how the Thriving
Community Technical Assistance Centers (TCTACs) and other capacity-building
centers will be developed and operated.
i. What criteria will be used to determine the location of capacity-building centers9
ii. What EPA programs can be leveraged with capacity-building centers to
streamline the allocation of Agency resources9
iii. How will they engage with other EPA technical assistance centers such as the
Environmental Finance Centers (EFCs) and other federal agency TCTACs9
iv. For lower capacity communities in need of training, consultation, coaching,
meeting coordination, tools and resources, capacity development, and support,
how will these centers provide "ground floor" level assistance9
v. What steps will the EPA take to increase support for community-led initiatives9
4. MEASURING and TRACKING Direct Investments and Benefits in EJ Communities
To understand the scope and flow of the EPA direct and indirect funding, financing, and
investments in EJ communities, the NEJAC would like to learn how the following parameters
are measured and tracked in national programs, including those governed under the Justice40
framework.
4
-------
The unfair treatment of EJ communities has resulted in increased vulnerability to environmental
hazards, which is a result of adverse environmental, health, economic, or social conditions within
these areas. Investing in these communities will address decades of underinvestment, provide
essential critical resources, and promote equity and reduce disparities, which is crucial to
creating sustainable and just communities.
Our questions related to measuring and tracking investments and benefits are presented in three
sections: (a) What types of investments and benefits are being measured9 (b) How are
investments and benefits being measured9 and (c) How are specific barriers and challenges to
measuring investments and benefits being addressed9
a. What types of investments and benefits are being measured9
i. Direct benefits: In which ways are program investments and benefits for
communities with EJ problems and their residents measured and tracked for
program areas, and what measures were utilized to ensure intended targets receive
direct EPA benefits9 Below are a few examples of how these direct benefits might
be actualized
1. Benefits can include cumulative impacts, jobs, health, housing, resilience
building, capacity building, economic capital, and quality of life.
Contribution of funding is a critical part of benefits, so are "avoided harms."
These include: avoided heat islands, avoided flooding, avoided death
dismemberment, and disparities (economic, social, environmental, health).
2. Case study #1: One specific example is the Portland Clean Energy
Community Benefits Fund (PCEF), which is a community-driven model that
measures direct economic benefits and economic inputs for indexing
community benefit. The PCEF is the nation's first climate fund created and
led by communities of color. PCEF centers Black and Indigenous people,
and other disadvantaged and marginalized groups, in addressing the climate
crisis and advancing racial and social justice. PCEF strives to offer and
implement a community-led vision, grounded in justice and equity, that
builds citywide resilience and opportunity. The fund raises and distributes
millions of dollars in new annual revenue for workforce development, clean
energy, green infrastructure, and regenerative agriculture projects resulting
in green jobs, healthy homes, and sustainable communities.
(https://www.portland.gov/bps/cleanenergv)
ii. Indirect benefits: While it is common for services provided to be used as an
indirect or surrogate measure of benefits, the NEJAC is interested in working with
the EPA to ensure that investments focus more on delivering greater levels of
direct benefits for EJ communities and their residents. Yet we would raise
questions regarding how indirect benefits are measured.
1. In which ways does the EPA include services or other indirect benefits such
as grants and/or technical assistance to local institutions in its measurement
of benefits9
2. How will requiring an investment minimum strengthen the 40% goal for
direct investments in disadvantaged communities9
5
-------
3. What is the EPA doing to maximize direct investments and benefits and
minimize the reliance on indirect investments and benefits as measures of
impacts on EJ communities and their residents9
iii. Cumulative benefits: Just as cumulative impacts must be considered; cumulative
benefits must also be considered. Cumulative impacts and benefits are the long-
and short-term effects resulting from a range of activities in an area or region.
Any individual impact or benefit may be minor in isolation but in combination
with multiple effects they can be significant.
1. How can tracking positive cumulative effects better inform policymakers,
decision makers, and community advocates on how to balance negative and
positive impacts9 Often, economic benefits to communities are promoted to
counter negative health impacts but communities rarely realize the proposed
economic benefits. Can better tracking help communities and their residents
realize these benefits9
2. To understand how to track benefits it is crucial to understand how negative
impacts are tracked. If proximity to polluters, lack of healthcare, high levels
of racial and economic segregation are all tracked as cumulative negative
impacts, how will indicators like healthcare access, neighborhood diversity,
improved access to nature, improved air quality, and mixed income
communities be tracked as cumulative benefits9
3. How can cumulative benefits tracking empower at-risk communities to
identify potential areas for growth and future partnerships9
4. How will tracking cumulative benefits inform policymakers in determining
the effectiveness of their proposals9
5. Where can cross program col 1 aboration/coordination ensure cumulative
benefits for disadvantaged communities and their residents9
6. What additional metrics will need to be developed for adequate benefit
tracking to determine whether a community and its residents are receiving
cumulative benefits9
b. How are investments and benefits being measured9
i. Methodology
I. What methodologies is the EPA using for measuring and tracking each of
the following types of benefit indicators in its programs9 (Recognizing that
some methodologies may be complex, please identify current online
references for them)
• Social benefit indicators used by the EPA.
• Economic benefit indicators used by the EPA.
• Environmental benefit indicators used by the EPA
o Built
o Infrastructure
6
-------
o N atural/Ecol ogi cal
• Health benefit indicators used by the EPA
ii. Performance targets: What performance targets have been established by the
EPA to determine EJ community benefits?
1. How will the EPA improve methods for identifying, addressing, tracking,
and measuring progress toward achieving environmental justice9
2. What are the metrics of success that the EPA will use to evaluate the
Justice40 initiative9
3. How can the EPA integrate procedures that include j ustice-oriented funding
criteria to ensure Justice40 objectives are achieved across administering
agencies, EPA regions, and states9
4. How are targets modified based on data or community experience9
iii. Tracking Tools: The NEJAC acknowledges and appreciates the work being done
by the former Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) to develop a tool to track EJ
investments and benefits.
1. Will meaningful community involvement and authentic engagement be
central components in the further development of tracking tools9 How will
the EPA make this happen9
2. How will developing nationwide tracking tools allow for communities to
compare different strategies and for policymakers to understand the effects
of their decision making9
3. How will the system for tracking the allocation of EJ funds and their
community impact allow for the essential reporting on investment and
community benefits9 Understanding the paper trail of funding and correlated
benefits or negative impacts will provide the stakeholders with vital
information concerning ongoing environmental injustices.
4. How will the NEJAC and OEJ work together in an integrated process to
prepare tracking tools9 These tools will provide accurate on the ground
community data. With this data communities can drive the placement of the
investments and benefits to advance environmental justice.
iv. Tracking outcomes of funding and investments:
1. What are the baseline standards for the defined benefits in the EPA programs
that are now covered under the Justice40 framework9
2. What are the baseline benefits for EJ communities, including goals and
progress9
3. Are there common categories of benefits that are defined9
4. How are technical assistance programs adequate for assisting new EJ
communities and their residents in coming to and staying at the funding
7
-------
table? And how will they track and improve outcomes for these
communities9
5. How does the EPA hold itself accountable for ensuring that community-
defined benefits are materialized9 How does the EPA hold stakeholders
(state and local government, banks, business, and industry) responsible for
providing community-defined benefits9
c. How are specific barriers and challenges to measuring investments and benefits being
addressed9
i. How will the EPA ensure that place-based indicators of environmental hazards
and population characteristics are community-informed and relevant to the
geographic area of interest9
ii. How will the EPA expand access to and the availability of high-resolution,
hyperlocal data for tracking investments9
iii. How will the EPA incorporate indicators for social progress and climate resilience
to fortify existing screening tools so they can provide a robust profile of the
communities in greatest need of policy intervention, meaningful involvement, and
funding allocation9
iv. How will the EPA develop wellness and quality of life indicators in a way that
accurately represents individual and community well-being, while maintaining an
efficient and uniform system to evaluate and quantify wellness and
stress/stressors9
v. How will the EPA measure the impact of natural and environmental/industrial
hazards on disadvantaged groups, as opposed to on regions as a whole9 This is
important because disproportionate impacts on these groups can be masked by the
overall estimate for a region.
5. MAPPING and REPORTING Investments and Benefits in EJ Communities
a. The EPA needs to develop a clear and transparent approach to mapping and reporting to
the public on where the Agency's funding is distributed and used. How is the EPA
planning to accomplish this9
b. How will the EPA develop a visualization tool for funding that includes mapping of
indicators, applicants, and awarded grants/projects9 This tool should include information
about names of grantees, if they are publicly available, as well as demographic
breakdowns of grantees and participating organizations, locations of communities where
the project is taking place, and specific information on how the funds are being used once
they have been disbursed, etc.
i. How will future mapping tools incorporate longitudinal records, so each year's
data can be recorded and updated9 The ability to provide longitudinal data is
crucial and the Department of Energy's Energy Justice Dashboard provides a
framework for success.
8
-------
ii. Will the EPA engage with the WHEJAC to determine whether a funding
visualization tool can be incorporated into the Climate and Economic Justice
Screening Tool (CEJST)?
In conclusion, the NEJAC believes that prioritizing the tracking and transparency of funding to
under-resourced and overburdened communities is essential in achieving environmental justice.
There is momentum given the Justice40 framework and the associated political objectives to
make leaps forward in addressing environmental injustices within the U.S., states, territories, and
tribal nations. The NEJAC is encouraged by some of the work that is currently being done by the
EPA and looks forward to learning tangible results as it pertains to finance and investments to
address issues faced by communities with EJ concerns.
9
-------
NEJAC Recommendations to the EPA
1. DEFINING Benefits and Co-benefits in EJ Communities
a. The NEJAC recommends a "model" definition of benefits that will be used to determine
how benefits will be assessed in relation to the multiple funding streams that have been
designated to address environmental injustices, paying close attention to the Biden
Administration's EOs #14008 and #13834, and Justice40 initiative. This definition should
include a co-creation1 of metrics through meaningful engagement with residents of
communities that face environmental injustices to determine the prioritization of benefits
- both direct and indirect. Additionally, we seek an understanding of the EPA's definition
and measurement of co-benefits or ancillary benefits.
2. PRIORITIZING Investments and Benefits in EJ Communities:
The NEJAC recommends the following:
a. Clarify the scope and flow of investments, benefits, and co-benefits to EJ communities, to
ensure that those communities and their residents receive direct benefits. Clarify the
process for identifying, prioritizing and micro-targeting EJ communities.
b. EJ projects should be designed and determined by impacted EJ communities and their
residents through local CBOs2 that serve as program leads or principal investigators with
supportive partner organizations and institutions.
c. Investments should be targeted geographically where environmental hazards, pollution,
contamination, and infrastructure gaps exist. Project funding should flow directly to
target communities to leverage, build capacity and expertise, not be directed solely to
universities, large non-profits and/or non-local entities. This will help to maximize the
positive impacts to and minimize financial and administrative burdens on grassroots
organizations and impacted residents.
d. Ensure that grassroots organizations, CBOs, and NGOs, are prioritized for funding that
provides capacity building, administrative, and technical support to do the EJ work that
addresses their concerns. There should be a screening mechanism included in the grant
application review process that ensures the businesses and contractors paid to do the
work are members of the affected communities. The EP A should provide ample funds to
train community members to manage ongoing maintenance of projects in their
communities.
e. Investments need to be provided to those organizations that are based in the communities
that are experiencing the injustices. There must be direct funds that go into skills training
and workforce development within these communities. Creating and strengthening green
1 "Co-creation is engaging in an intentional relationship in order to make something together. Co-creating is usually making
something from nothing, using the dynamics of the relationship to build it." "Co-creation refers to a process of collaboration that
draws on different forms of knowledge, expertise and perspectives." Source: Beyond Buzzword: What Does "Co-create" Even
Mean? by Melissa Wong. https://www.thedesigngym.com/beyond-buzzword-co-create-even-mean/
2 CBOs are place-based and therefore more likely than NGOs to hit the target where funding is most needed. NGOs can qualify
for grants by showing affiliations with CBOs. There could even be a consortium of CBOs that comprise an NGO, for example.
10
-------
jobs programs in under-resourced, over-burdened and marginalized communities should
be prioritized. Furthermore, residents of EJ communities must lead the design and
direction of workforce development projects to ensure that they will economically
improve and benefit their communities.
f. Regional EJ advisory councils (REJACs) should be created in each EPA region to expand
and improve community engagement and leadership on EJ issues and related concerns.
i. The member nomination process should be modeled after the NEJAC.
Community input from local organizations and residents is crucial in selecting
members that would serve on these bodies.
ii. Area expert volunteers should be compensated for their work.
iii. At least one annual meeting should be held between the REJACs and the NEJAC
to address the state of EJ concerns and develop strategies for advancing EJ at the
national and regional levels.
iv. REJACs should directly address regional issues, in order to create a list of
priorities and to determine how the EPA Regional Offices communicate with
frontline and fenceline communities. There should be a method of delivering and
measuring technical support and funding to EJ communities, and accountability
so that people who need resources the most have capacity and access.
v. The EPA Regional Offices should be instructed to reach out to the NEJAC
members in their regions. Quarterly regional meetings consisting of the REJ AC
and any state level EJACs in the region should be convened by the Regional
Offices.
3. ASSESSING/DETERMINING and DISTRIBUTING Investments and Benefits in
EJ Communities
We're looking for balance, equal representation, equity, participation from the community itself,
serious inclusion of the community, recognition of the local people and their experiences,
leadership of the residents in these projects, and demonstrations of the empowerment of local
leadership by EPA funders.
We call for the meaningful and authentic engagement of communities of concern experiencing
environmental injustices. There must be community-driven processes in defining the benefits and
investments that result in meaningful improvements for communities and their residents.
The NEJAC recommends the following:
a. Under-resourced, over-burdened and marginalized communities need to have the capacity
to address their environmental injustices themselves. There must be an infusion approach,
targeting capacity building (both depth and breadth) in these communities to effectively
address injustices. This can be done through the following:
i. The EPA must fund and invest in technical support for CBOs and NGOs to
become lead Principal Investigators (Pis)/project directors. This funding should
be available for CBOs to build and maintain their capacity (leadership,
organizational, fiscal, and programmatic). As indicated by the following
11
-------
examples, the call for supporting CBOs and NGOs is coming directly from
community members who are impacted by injustices.
1. Example 1 from the NEJAC 's public meeting (April 2022) written public
comments. "Justice and Fair Treatment-Affected communities should be
empowered and engaged by designating federal funding for grassroots
community groups to hire independent, scientific, technical, and health
consultants. The EPA federal funding must also make sure that they do not
invest any time or money that does not deal with the problem from start to
finish. We are on the ground taking action against these environmental
injustices and we need your support."
2. Example 2 from the NEJAC's public meeting (May 2022) oral public
comments. "We've just had over the last two days, a whole conference with
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands talking about climate change and
wonderful projects that are being implemented and funded for climate
change and those are great opportunities to change our economy to
something that is not going to... make people sick and cause cancer and
asthma. We needed funding and technical expertise to get us started. Finally,
the funding... has to be directed to community offerings and not just local
government, which has really proven that they are ineffective, and
committed to implementing the forward-looking change needed. As Dr.
Wilson stated: "A lot of these government offices are the ones that kept us in
this sort of same result over and over."
The EPA Regional Offices should advance capacity building and maintain that
capacity within under-resourced, overburdened and marginalized communities
through adequate funding and investments of resources to:
1. Improve depth of communication with frontl i ne/fen eel i ne communities to
provide adequate resources (financial, technical, scientific, programmatic) to
address community concerns.
2. Increase the EPA EJ staffing capacity to enable hiring of community
members, through direct funding and investments, particularly full-time
employees (FTEs), to assist with addressing the EJ concerns of local
communities and grassroots organizations.
In getting benefits to the communities, workforce development is critical along
with DEI in contracting and procurement. The latter is important to understand
how the benefits get to communities without economic exploitation (i.e., contracts
being given to businesses not based in the community). When funding goes
directly to businesses within impacted communities, it cycles in the communities,
leading to greater economic benefits.
Assess and track outcomes of community engagement related to EJ concerns at
the national, regional, and state levels to ensure that the engagement is meaningful
and leads to positive impacts.
I. Provide funding for CBOs and outside partners to evaluate engagement
activities.
12
-------
v. Increase funding for after school and summer youth programs.
vi. The benefits must be experienced by those in the most marginalized spaces.
Metrics must be developed that capture these benefits (economic, social, health,
environmental, and ecological) and track how these benefits are providing
distributional and restorative justice.
vii. The EPA programs should establish an investment framework with objectives to
target and address disparities in EJ communities.
viii. Develop processes that enable residents of EJ communities to drive local policy as
well as address local administrative and legislative issues related to
environmental, climate, and energy injustices.
ix. Develop regional and local green banks to promote affordable, equitable green
energy growth through federal and regional agencies.
b. Commit to developing capacity-building centers (including EJ-funding accelerator
projects) within target communities to enable them to have local technical resources
available for applications.
i. Provide capacity-building resources to communities, especially to underserved
communities and those facing EJ challenges. For instance, in 2016, the EPA
sponsored a Near-Port Community Capacity Building Project with The Port of
Seattle (POS) in collaboration with Just Health Action. The Port of Seattle
decided to fund Just Health Action through a Memorandum of Agreement so they
could participate in the process as a community organizer and advocacy
organization. As a result of this investment, the Port Community Action Team
(PCAT) worked collaboratively with the POS in 2019 to develop a Community
Benefits Commitment.
ii. The EPA should work with EJ stakeholders to develop community-bui 1 ding
metrics for projects.
4. MEASURING and TRACKING Direct Investments and Benefits in EJ
Communities
It is imperative that investments in communities that have been historically under-resourced be a
national priority. Metrics must be developed to determine which strategies allow communities to
receive the maximum available benefits. Processes must be developed to identify investments
that achieve action-based outcomes to solve issues in EJ communities rather than simply
monitoring and reporting existing conditions.
The NEJAC recommends the following:
a. Develop clear and strong guidelines for states to implement EJ objectives with the federal
funding they receive. These guidelines should also apply to the states" work with local
governments and municipalities.
i. These guidelines should include:
I. Strong guidelines that provide for justice-oriented funding criteria,
implementation requirements, transparent reporting of results, objective
13
-------
evaluation, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure Justice40 objectives are
achieved.
2. Processes to cultivate the ability of EJ communities to manage and lead local
investments and to be included in decision making that promotes a multi-
sector approach to community-driven priorities.
3. Ensure EJ communities receive consideration for principal forgiveness on
loans, direct grants, and additional points on applications for infrastructure
projects.
4. Stronger EJ guidelines for regions, states, and local municipalities that
require reporting on how EJ objectives are being measured and met. These
guidelines should be developed in collaboration with leaders from
communities with EJ issues.
ii. This priority was highlighted in a recent (11/15/2021) letter by State of Michigan
officials [regarding EPA consultation on permitting in EJ communities] seeking
"clarity on how states should protect vulnerable communities in [controversial]
permitting decisions."
b. Consult with EJ communities to expand the EPA database for Supplemental
Environmental Projects (SEPs) at the state level.
c. Evaluate and measure the performance of TCTACs, EFCs, and other capacity-building
initiatives designed to assist EJ communities with planning and design grants and/or
bridge loans in terms of their success in helping these communities get through the
application, project development, implementation, and evaluation processes.
d. Provide EJ CBOs with grants for the construction of infrastructure (sewer, water,
transportation, housing, food, climate resilient) needed to provide safe and healthy
neighborhoods.
e. Develop measurement and tracking mechanisms that ensure investments in target
communities will build long-term climate equity and generate community wealth through
localized employment that will be retained to address economic inequality.
f. Use community input from local organizations and residents to build new initiatives that
address climate change, with a focus on equity in preparedness, response, recovery,
mitigation, adaptation, and resilience, build community wealth, and address inequities in
clean energy programs and/or social services funding.
g. All EPA supported programs at the national, regional, state, county, and municipal levels
should provide written documentation on the metrics that address direct and indirect
investments and benefits to the EJ communities served. This documentation should
include performance measures and goals designed to promote programmatic
accountability.
h. All EPA supported programs should measure their effectiveness in informing and
engaging community members around the investments needed to produce desired
community benefits. This approach increases public awareness about social, economic,
environmental, and health indicators for EJ communities.
14
-------
5.
MAPPING and REPORTING Investments and Benefits in EJ Communities
All EPA programs should develop an easily accessible and user-friendly public tool that provides
data on where EPA funding is distributed, used, and assessed. This tool should allow for
transparency and accountability, and it should be something that can be used by EJ communities.
There must be a method for communities to provide feedback on the tool, and for that feedback
to inform improvements in the tool over time.
a. Develop an online visualization tool for EPA funding that maps indicators, including
data on distributed resources, and allows for community-based analyses, such as:
i. Unit of analysis: develop a clear unit of analysis for defining EJ communities
from a geographic perspective.
I. Need units of analysis for geographic spatial understanding of the data (e.g.,
block groups or census tracts, zip codes or community defined boundaries)
to reduce the potential for places getting lost or missed in the analysis (i.e.,
masking).
ii. Applicant location: locations of project applicants and fiscally sponsored groups,
if different.
iii. Grantee demographics: a breakdown of grantees, organizations, and communities
where funded projects take place.
iv. Longitudinal data: provide longitudinal data on funding to EJ communities. For
example, the Department of Energy's Energy Justice Dashboard is a good model.
v. Accountability: provide a transparent accountability framework for tracking
federal spending for EJ.
vi. Disparities: provide data to identify and track absolute and relative magnitudes of
disparities within and across communities to support robust evaluation and
accountability.
b. There should be an EJ screening mechanism that ensures that the contractors paid to do
the work are members of the affected communities. If necessary, provide ample funds to
train residents from communities of concern to carry out ongoing maintenance.
c. Support improvement of currently existing tools and their concurrent use to identify and
prioritize community members" concerns.
i. Support better engagement with the WHEJAC regarding CEJST to determine
whether a funding visualization tool can be incorporated into this screening tool.
I. The purpose of the CEJST tool is to help Federal agencies identify
disadvantaged communities that are under-resourced and overburdened by
environmental hazards and related pollution and help with the disbursement
and allocation of funding to these "disadvantaged communities." The current
version of the tool provides socioeconomic, environmental, and climate
information to inform decisions that may affect these communities.
ii. Need interoperability of screening tools to microtarget resources to communities
with the most need. Thus, EJ Screen should be used in concert with CEJST.
15
-------
I. CEJST can be used in the initial review as an indicator of EJ concerns, but
since it doesn't include race, environmental racism, which is an important
predictor of environmental hazards, can't be directly incorporated into
screening with this tool. Thus, EJ Screen must be used as a paired tool with
CEJST.
d. Codify the use of screening tools or other processes for microtargeting federal funding
allocations to EJ communities and businesses. These screening tools should be used
along with community engagement to prioritize the needs within communities that have
been highly ranked due to their EJ concerns.
e. Use integrated indicators in EJ screening tools to consider cumulative impacts in
environmental decision making.
i. Formalize a mechanism to conduct and evaluate cumulative impacts for Agency
actions. Engaging with the Science Advisory Board, the NEJAC, and the National
Academy of Sciences can provide valuable feedback on how to include
cumulative impacts analysis into EJ Screen.
16
------- |