U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Review of Hotline Complaint 

Concerning the Region 4 

Environmental Justice Small 

Grants Selection Process 

Report No. 13-P-0299 June 21, 2013 

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: 

fax: 

1-888-546-8740 

202-566-2599 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Mailcode 2431T 

online: http://www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.htm Washington, DC 20460 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 13-P-0299 

June 21, 2013 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.gov/oig/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 dorsey.jerri@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 5700.5A1, 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 5700.5A1, 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 

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $000s) 

Planned 

Page Completion Claimed Agreed-To 

Rec. No. No. Subject Status1 Action Official Date Amount Amount 

1 5 Provide adequate training to ensure volunteer 

review panelists are knowledgeable about 

environmental justice prior to serving as 

EJ Small Grants review panelists.

2 5 Provide additional training on objectivity and the 

meaning of each environmental justice grant 

criterion. 

3 5 Obtain feedback from review panelists on ways to 

improve the grant review and selection process, 

including the consensus panels. 

4 5 Notify review panelists when EJ Small Grants 

applicants are selected for an award. 

 Director, Region 4 Office of O 

Environmental Justice 

Director, Region 4 Office of U 

Environmental Justice 

Director, Region 4 Office of O 

Environmental Justice 

Director, Region 4 Office of O 

Environmental Justice 

O = 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 

1 
 

 

 

 

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-FY12-0017 

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 

m e e t i n g 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 
 

 

 

 

Appendix B 

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 11