Environmental Justice: Federal Efforts Need Better Planning, Coordination, and Methods to Assess Progress

Environmental justice seeks to address the disproportionately high distribution of health and environmental risks among low-income and minority communities by seeking their fair treatment and meaningful involvement in environmental policy. In 1994, Executive Order 12898 directed 11 federal agencies to identify and address environmental justice issues related to their activities and tasked an interagency working group to coordinate federal environmental justice efforts. In 2011, 16 agencies, including the 11 original agencies, recommitted to planning and reporting on environmental justice efforts by signing an MOU.

GAO was asked to review federal environmental justice efforts. This report examines agencies' environmental justice actions, strategic plans and progress reports, and working group collaboration. GAO reviewed agency environmental justice plans, reports, and funding data; interviewed agency officials; and compared working group collaboration to leading collaborative practices.

Most of the 16 agencies that are members of the interagency working group on environmental justice—created by Executive Order 12898 in 1994—reported taking some actions to identify and address environmental justice issues, such as creating data tools, developing policies or guidance, and building community capacity through small grants and training. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created a mapping tool that can help identify low-income and minority communities exposed to health or environmental risks. Several agencies, such as EPA and the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and the Interior, also developed policies or guidance to analyze environmental justice issues during environmental reviews or enforcement activities. Most of the agencies supported their efforts with funds and staff from related programs, but EPA and the Department of Energy provided funds ($8.3 million in fiscal year 2018) and staff specifically for environmental justice.

Agencies' progress toward environmental justice is difficult to gauge, however, because most do not have updated strategic plans and have not reported annually on their progress or developed methods to assess progress. As they agreed to do in a 2011 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), most of the agencies developed environmental justice strategic plans, but only six have updated them more recently. Few agencies have measures or methods for assessing progress, and the working group has not provided guidance to help agencies with such assessments. The number of agencies issuing annual progress reports has declined (see fig.). Updated strategic plans and annual progress reports, along with guidance on performance measures and methods, would help agencies provide essential information to assess their progress.

The working group, chaired by EPA, has developed committees and written agreements to carry out its responsibilities to coordinate agencies' environmental justice efforts, but it is not carrying out several functions in the 1994 Executive Order. GAO has found that collaborative mechanisms, such as the working group, benefit from clear goals, but the working group's organizational documents do not contain clear strategic goals aligned to address the order. Clear strategic goals to carry out the executive order could enhance the group's strategic direction for intergovernmental environmental justice efforts.

GAO is making 24 recommendations, including that agencies update environmental justice strategic plans and report on progress annually, and that EPA consult with other working group members to provide guidance on assessing progress and to set strategic goals. Of the 15 agencies with recommendations, eight agreed. Other agencies' responses included partial agreement, disagreement, and no comment. GAO continues to support its recommendations.

The predominantly minority and low-income community of West Oakland,  California, is surrounded by three interstate freeways and abuts a major  port. Since 2000, the city has been redeveloping the port and the  adjacent Oakland Army Base. This redevelopment includes additional  infrastructure for the movement of commercial goods, such as  warehouses and distribution centers, which brings truck traffic and diesel  emissions to local streets. Up to 3,000 trucks visit the port each day. A  study conducted by the California Air Resources Board in 2008 found that  West Oakland residents are exposed to air concentrations of diesel  pollution that were almost three times higher than average  background levels in the surrounding area. Research indicates that West  Oakland’s experience reflects a nationwide problem with the distribution  of environmental and health risks for minority and low-income  communities. For example, a 2018 study found that minority and low- income communities in most states and counties across the country are  disproportionately exposed to facilities that emit harmful air pollution (e.g.,  industrial or waste disposal facilities).

Concerns about disparities in the health and environmental risks faced by  low-income and minority communities gave rise to the concept of environmental justice. Specifically, the environmental justice movement  grew out of efforts in the 1980s to draw attention to the location of  hazardous waste sites near poor communities with largely minority and  rural populations. The movement gained national attention in 1982 with  large-scale protests against the siting of a toxic landfill in a predominantly  African-American community in Warren County, North Carolina.

Environmental justice issues include a broad array of environmental  hazards, such as unsafe drinking water, proximity to chemical facilities,  and risks from climate change and natural disasters. The Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA) describes environmental justice as seeking the  fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of  race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development,  implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and  policies. In practice, this would mean that all communities enjoy the same  degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal  access to decision-making processes.

Federal agencies have been making efforts to identify and address  environmental justice issues for more than 25 years. In 1994, the  President signed Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address  Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income  Populations. The executive order directed each of 11 federal agencies to  “make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying  and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse  human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and  activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” It also  directed agencies to develop environmental justice strategies that include  a list of programs, policies, and activities that should be revised to better  address environmental justice issues. In addition, the executive order  established the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice  (working group), chaired by EPA.

After taking initial actions to implement the 1994 executive order, agency  participation fluctuated over the succeeding decades. EPA continued  some efforts to integrate environmental justice into its programs and more  widely across the federal government, but in 2004 and 2006, EPA’s  Inspector General made a number of recommendations to improve EPA’s  environmental justice efforts. In response to the 2006 report, EPA took  additional steps to implement the executive order, such as identifying  national environmental justice priority areas (e.g., reduce air toxics) and  improving environmental justice action plans.

We have also recommended improvements in EPA’s environmental  justice efforts, and the agency has largely implemented them. In July  2005, we made four recommendations to EPA to help ensure that  environmental justice issues are adequately identified and considered  when clean air rules are being drafted and finalized, and, in July 2007,  provided testimony on the status of these efforts. EPA disagreed with  these recommendations but subsequently implemented all four of them  by taking several actions. These actions included developing additional  demographic variables for use in a mapping program that it uses to help  identify communities of concern; requiring environmental justice training  for all regulatory policy staff in 2007; and drafting a policy for how EPA’s  Office of Air and Radiation will integrate environmental justice into its  programs, policies, and activities. EPA also created an agency-wide  process and a set of protocols for conducting environmental justice  program reviews when setting standards and developing rulemakings or  regulations.

In October 2011, we made four additional recommendations to support  EPA’s continued progress toward the effective integration of  environmental justice considerations into the agency’s programs, policies,  and activities. EPA partially agreed with the four recommendations and  implemented three of them by taking several actions. For example, EPA  defined key environmental justice terms in documents, developed an  environmental justice screening and mapping tool based on nationally  consistent environmental and demographic data, engaged states  regarding their roles and responsibilities (such as through briefings on  EPA’s 2014 environmental justice plan), and included milestones and  measures for implementation in its 2020 environmental justice action  agenda. EPA did not implement the fourth recommendation, which was  related to assessing resources, saying it was difficult to implement  because environmental justice efforts were integrated throughout the  agency.

In addition to taking these actions, EPA reaffirmed its commitment to  environmental justice through a 2010 memo, in which the EPA  Administrator cited environmental justice as one of the agency’s top  priorities. The agency also identified environmental justice as a cross- cutting strategy in its agency-wide strategic plan for fiscal years 2011  through 2015. (4)  called for all working group agencies to issue annual progress  reports on the implementation of their strategies.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) also agreed to participate  in the working group given its responsibility to oversee implementation of  the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In 2016, the working  group released its Framework for Collaboration, which described how it  planned to provide guidance, leadership, and support to federal agencies  in carrying out environmental justice efforts.

Executive Order 12898 directs each federal agency to make achieving  environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as  appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or  environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority  or low-income populations. For example, when the contractor operating a  Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Customs and Border  Protection inspection facility relocated the facility in West Oakland,  California, in 2014 as part of the redevelopment of the port and waterfront  area, the contractor did not initially consider the community’s previously  identified concerns over truck traffic and diesel emissions. However, the  community identified concerns about increased truck traffic and emissions  after the relocation and requested that federal agencies such as the  Department of Transportation (DOT) and DHS’s Customs and Border  Protection take action to help resolve the problems. Starting in 2015, the  community mapped and monitored air pollution related to these diesel  emissions with assistance from partners including EPA, an environmental  non-profit organization, and Google. DHS officials stated that when the  contract ended, the facility moved to a non-residential area. DHS officials  told us that the agency is considering incorporation of environmental  justice into its contracting procedures, as it already does for NEPA  processes.

You requested that we examine federal agencies’ environmental justice  strategies. This report examines (1) the extent to which the 16 working  group agencies have developed environmental justice strategic plans and  shown progress toward environmental justice goals since 2011; (2) the  actions the agencies have taken to identify and address environmental  justice issues related to their programs, policies, and activities since the  executive order was issued in 1994 and the resources they have used to  do so in recent years; and (3) the extent to which the working group has  collaborated on environmental justice efforts. To address all three  objectives, we reviewed the executive order, working group documents,  and agency plans, reports, and related documents; and interviewed  agency officials. We also attended the 2018 National Environmental  Justice Conference and Training Program in Washington, D.C., and  visited sites in Oakland, California, and Richmond, California, to add  context to our review with observations of communities with  environmental justice issues. We selected these sites because they had  minority and low-income populations with environmental and health  concerns.

To examine the extent to which the 16 agencies developed environmental  justice strategic plans and showed progress toward environmental justice  goals since 2011, we reviewed agency plans and reports issued from  2012 through 2018 and interviewed agency officials about the origin and  status of their plans and reports. We compared the agencies’  environmental justice strategic plans against leading practices for federal  strategic planning that our past work has identified, such as updating  plans at least every 4 years, articulating specific goals, establishing a  method to assess progress toward these goals, and aligning the plans  and goals with the agency’s mission. We also interviewed agency  officials about their progress toward the goals of the executive order and  their strategic plans.

To examine the actions agencies took to identify and address  environmental justice issues related to their programs, policies, and  activities, we reviewed agency environmental justice strategic plans,  progress reports, and related documents; and interviewed agency officials  about their environmental justice efforts since the issuance of the 1994  executive order. To examine what resources the agencies used for  environmental justice efforts in recent years, we obtained and reviewed  agency budget justification documents and agency-reported resources  data for fiscal years 2015 through 2018. We assessed the reliability of the  agency-reported resources data by corroborating with agency budget  justification documents or other internal agency budget documentation  and comparing it with information on any reported examples of  environmental justice efforts. In addition, we conducted 33 interviews with  environmental justice stakeholders about the agencies’ efforts. These  stakeholders included representatives from local and national nonprofit  organizations, universities, and private companies. We selected  stakeholders based on their expertise on a range of issues directly related  to environmental justice and on geographic dispersion. The views of  stakeholders we interviewed cannot be generalized to all similar  stakeholders, but they represent a range of stakeholder perspectives and  provide illustrative examples of views on agency efforts.

To determine the extent to which the working group has collaborated on  environmental justice efforts, we reviewed working group documents from  2012 through 2018, including recent plans and progress reports. We also  interviewed officials from working group committees. We compared the  working group’s organization, documents, and actions with key features  of collaborative mechanisms that we previously identified, including  clarifying roles and responsibilities, participating, establishing written  guidance and agreements, and establishing outcomes and  accountability. We selected these features because they were most  relevant to the working group’s activities. For further details on our  objectives, scope, and methodology, see appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2017 to September  2019 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

In 1994, Executive Order 12898 directed each federal agency to develop  an environmental justice strategy that identifies and addresses  disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental  effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and  low-income populations. Together, the 1994 executive order and the 2011  MOU include eight areas that agencies’ environmental justice efforts  should address, as appropriate, such as NEPA implementation and public  participation. Working group members have documented their  environmental justice strategies using environmental justice strategic  plans.

We have previously reported on the importance of certain leading  practices in developing or updating strategic plans and developing  periodic progress reports, including in our October 2011 review of EPA’s  environmental justice efforts. We reported that a multi-year strategic  plan articulates the fundamental mission of an organization and lays out  its long-term general goals for implementing that mission, including  resources needed to achieve the goals. To that end, during strategic  planning, which should occur at least every 4 years, an agency should  review its mission statement, review its strategic goals, align strategic  goals and strategies, and align strategic and annual performance goals.  In addition, a strategic plan should contain a description of how the goals  will be achieved, including human capital, information, and other  resources needed. Finally, agencies should develop annual performance  plans with annual performance goals—linked to the overall strategic  goals—and describe how the goals will be measured to assess progress  in achieving them. As one method for assessing such progress, we  identified key attributes of successful performance measures, such as  having measurable targets.

Interagency Collaboration on Environmental Justice

The 1994 executive order also created an interagency working group to  coordinate federal environmental justice efforts by serving the following  seven functions:

Provide guidance to federal agencies on criteria for identifying  disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental  effects on minority populations and low-income populations.

Coordinate with, provide guidance to, and serve as a clearinghouse  for each federal agency as it develops an environmental justice  strategy, in order to ensure consistent administration, interpretation,  and enforcement of programs, activities, and policies.

Assist in coordinating research by, and stimulating cooperation  among, EPA; the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS);  Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and other  agencies conducting certain research, data collection, or analysis.

Examine existing data and studies on environmental justice.

Develop interagency model projects on environmental justice that  demonstrate cooperation among federal agencies.

After a period of relative inactivity, 16 agencies and CEQ recommitted to  collaborating on environmental justice efforts through a revitalized  interagency working group when they signed the 2011 MOU.

We have previously found that federal agencies have used a variety of  mechanisms to implement interagency collaborative efforts, including  working groups, and that interagency collaboration mechanisms benefit  from key features, which raise issues to consider when implementing  such mechanisms. These features include defining and articulating a  common outcome; reinforcing agency accountability for collaborative  efforts through agency plans and reports; developing mechanisms to  monitor, evaluate, and report on results; agreeing on or clarifying roles  and responsibilities; including all relevant participants and determining  their ability to commit resources; identifying and addressing resource  needs; and documenting written guidance and agreements.

Federal Framework for Addressing Environmental Justice

The 1994 executive order did not create new authorities or programs to  carry out federal environmental justice efforts. As a result, federal  environmental justice efforts seek to use existing federal laws, programs,  and funding to address environmental and health problems that  disproportionately burden minority and low-income communities, such as  exposure to environmental pollutants.

Example  of Capacity Building Funded by  an EPA Environmental Justice Grant in  Spartanburg, South Carolina  EPA provided a $20,000 environmental justice  grant to a community organization in  Spartanburg, South Carolina, in 2000 to  support three research projects on the health  of residents and former employees at a  fertilizer plant and landfill sites. The target  area, on the south side of Spartanburg, had a  96 percent African-American population  according to EPA’s 2002 IWG Status Report.  EPA’s initial $20,000 grant paid for research to  help confirm health issues related to nearby  hazardous waste sites. According to EPA  officials, this initial investment has helped  Spartanburg secure investments in the  community. As a result, Spartanburg now has  community health centers, affordable housing,  and a recreation center.

Several environmental laws regulate pollutants in the air, water, or soil  and generally require a regulated facility to obtain permits from EPA or a  state. These laws also authorize the issuance of administrative orders,  among other things, to require cleanup of contamination. For example:

Under the Clean Air Act, EPA, along with state and local government  units and other entities, regulates air emissions of various substances  that harm human health.

The Clean Water Act regulates discharges of pollutants into waters  of the United States, including lakes, streams, and other water bodies.

The Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act prohibits the  treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste without a permit.

In addition, the Comprehensive Environmental Response,  Compensation, and Liability Act authorizes EPA to compel the  responsible parties to clean up contaminated sites and also allows  EPA to conduct cleanups and then seek reimbursement from the  responsible parties.

Federal enforcement actions include administrative orders issued by  EPA and civil or criminal judicial actions brought by the Department of  Justice (DOJ).

Under NEPA, federal agencies must evaluate the environmental  impacts of their proposed major federal actions using an  environmental assessment or a more detailed environmental impact  statement, with some exceptions. CEQ is responsible for overseeing  federal agencies’ implementation of NEPA. In 1997, the council  issued guidance stating that agencies should consider environmental  justice issues at several stages of the NEPA process, as appropriate.  This guidance provides principles for considering whether particular  agency actions raise environmental justice issues, such as looking at  the demographic composition of the affected area and seeking public  participation.

HHS has programs and initiatives that address environmental health  issues. Such efforts include the Centers for Disease Control and  Prevention’s National Environmental Public Health Tracking  Network—a data initiative which brings together health and  environmental data from national, state, and city sources—and the  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Report on  Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals—a series of reports  that uses biomonitoring to assess the U.S. population’s exposure to  environmental chemicals.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, prohibits  discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or  activities that receive federal financial assistance. To carry out and  enforce the provisions of the act, federal agencies have developed  programs to receive and investigate allegations of discriminatory  actions taken by recipients of federal funding.

In addition to these laws and programs, EPA also established a National  Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) in 1993 to provide  advice and recommendations to EPA’s Administrator about issues related  to environmental justice. NEJAC provides a forum for diverse  perspectives, with representatives from various sectors, including  academia, community groups, industry and business, non-governmental  and environmental organizations, state and local governments, and tribal  governments and indigenous groups. In recent years, NEJAC has issued  reports on key environmental justice issues, including one on industrial  waterfront areas (ports) and another on water and wastewater  infrastructure.

Most Agencies Have Developed Environmental Justice Strategic Plans but Have Not Shown Clear Progress toward Environmental Justice Goals

Most of the agencies that signed the 2011 MOU have developed  environmental justice strategic plans that contain strategic goals, but most  have not shown clear progress toward these goals. Specifically, 14 of the  16 agencies have developed environmental strategic plans, and 12 also  established strategic goals in these plans, but several agencies have not  updated their plans in recent years. In addition, most agencies have not  issued annual progress reports or established methods to assess  progress.

Most Agencies Have Developed Environmental Justice Strategic Plans and Established Goals, but Several Agencies Have Not Updated These Plans Recently

Most of the 16 agencies have developed environmental strategic plans,  and most of these plans included strategic goals to help direct the  agencies’ environmental justice efforts. As shown in table 1, 14 of the 16  agencies issued environmental justice strategic plans after 2011, when  they agreed to develop or update such plans under the 2011 MOU.

Of the 14 agencies that developed environmental justice strategic plans,  12 also established strategic goals in these plans, as shown in table 1.  Many of the agencies had multiple goals with common themes. For  example, eight agencies included goals that involved providing  assistance, such as grants, technical assistance, or direct services, to  environmental justice communities. Eight agencies also included goals  that involved promoting public participation; seven agencies included  goals that involved identifying and addressing environmental justice  issues; four agencies included goals related to training or educating  agency staff on environmental justice; four agencies included goals  related to promoting enforcement of Title VI; three agencies included  goals related to conducting research on environmental justice issues; and  three agencies included goals related to incorporating environmental  justice considerations into policies or guidance.

Two agencies—the Department of Defense (DOD) and Small Business  Administration (SBA)—did not issue environmental strategic plans after  2011 even though by signing the MOU they agreed, as appropriate, to  develop or update their environmental justice strategies by early 2012.  DOD issued such a plan in 1995, shortly after the executive order was  signed but has not updated its plan since. We have previously reported  that strategic planning serves as the starting point and foundation for  defining what the agency seeks to accomplish, identifying the strategies it  will use to achieve desired results, and then determining how well it  succeeds in achieving goals and objectives. DOD officials said that the  agency has not prioritized environmental justice efforts. By updating its  environmental justice strategic plan, DOD would have a foundation for  such efforts.

SBA has never issued an environmental justice strategic plan. SBA  officials said that the agency is uncertain whether it has a role in  implementing environmental justice and they were in the process of  reviewing whether SBA should continue its membership in the working  group. By assessing whether to participate in the 2011 MOU, SBA could  clarify its role.

Of the 14 agencies that developed environmental justice strategic plans  after 2011, six agencies have updated those plans and one has updated  its priority areas on its website. The 2011 MOU directs agencies to  update their strategic plans periodically, and GAO’s leading practices for  strategic planning suggest that strategic plans should be updated every 4  years. Five of the six agencies—the U.S. Department of Agriculture  (USDA), Department of the Interior (DOI), DOT, EPA, and General  Services Administration (GSA)—issued updated strategic plans in 2016 in  response to a request from the working group that all agencies update  their strategic plans. The sixth agency, the Department of Energy (DOE),  issued an updated strategic plan in 2017. HHS posted a list of “priority  areas of focus” for environmental justice for 2015 through 2016 on its  website. Agency officials noted that this was less resource-intensive  than conducting a full review and update of the strategic plan.

The remaining seven agencies—Commerce, Education, DHS, HUD,  DOJ, Department of Labor (DOL), and Department of Veterans Affairs  (VA)—have not updated their plans since issuing them after 2011. Six of  these agencies issued their environmental justice strategic plans in 2012,  and one of these agencies, DOJ, issued its revised strategic plan and a  companion guidance document in 2014. As a result, as of 2019, these  plans are more than 4 years old and may not reflect the agencies’ current  approach. Some of these agencies have taken preliminary steps to  update their plans, but with the exception of DHS, they do not have a time  frame for developing an update according to agency officials.

DHS officials stated that the agency was developing an updated  environmental justice strategic plan, which is scheduled for formal internal  review during calendar year 2019 and for release in 2020. DOJ officials  stated that they plan to meet in 2019 to review and discuss possible  updates to their strategic plan, but the agency does not intend to update it  unless any significant changes have taken place since they reissued it in  2014. According to HUD officials, HUD prepared a draft of an updated  environmental justice strategic plan for 2016 through 2020 and posted it  online for public comment in November 2016, but the agency has not  worked on the draft plan since then. According to agency officials, the  draft plan has not been finalized because of staff losses and because  HUD leadership prioritized other issues, such as long-term disaster  recovery, over environmental justice issues.

Officials from Commerce stated that the agency has not updated its  environmental justice strategic plan because of the time and resources  that this would require. Officials from Education, DOJ, DOL, and VA said  that they do not believe it is necessary to update their agency plans  because they are continuing to implement their existing plans or because  their approach to environmental justice work has not changed since their  plans were issued. However, in updating their plans, which are no longer  current, the agencies could explain that significant changes were not  made. By updating their strategic plans or by reaffirming the validity of  their current plans, these agencies (Commerce, Education, DHS, HUD,  DOJ, DOL, VA) would have a current plan to guide their environmental  justice activities as they committed to do in the 2011 MOU.

Most Agencies Have Not Shown Clear Progress toward Environmental Justice Goals

While 12 agencies have developed an environmental justice strategic  plan with strategic goals, most of them have not shown clear progress  toward achieving their environmental justice goals and the purpose of the  executive order. Specifically, the agencies have not comprehensively  assessed how environmental justice fits with their overall missions or their  progress toward the implementation of their strategic goals by issuing  annual progress reports or by establishing methods to gauge their  progress, such as performance measures. Furthermore, officials from  most agencies said that they are unable to determine how much progress  they have made toward achieving the major requirement from the  executive order because they do not have a way to assess progress.

Seven Agencies Assessed Environmental Justice within Their Agency Missions, and Seven Agencies Did Not Clearly Do So

Of the 14 agencies that developed environmental justice strategic plans  after 2011, we found that seven of the agencies—Commerce, DHS, DOE,  DOL, EPA, GSA, and HUD—assessed and discussed how their  environmental justice efforts aligned with their overall missions. For  example, HUD’s environmental justice strategic plan contains a section  that describes HUD’s mission to create strong, sustainable, inclusive  communities and quality, affordable homes for all. The section then  discusses its overall strategic goals and their relationship to  environmental justice. For example, HUD’s goal to build inclusive and  sustainable communities free from discrimination includes a subgoal to  promote energy-efficient buildings and location-efficient communities that  are healthy, affordable, and diverse. Similarly, Commerce includes a  section in its environmental justice strategic plan entitled “Relationship of  Environmental Justice to Agency Mission and Agency Strategic Plan  Goals or Objectives.” Among the agency-wide goals that support  environmental justice, Commerce describes the National Oceanic and  Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) efforts to manage fisheries, coastal  habitats and species, and protected areas, and to provide information and  warnings about weather conditions to the nation, including vulnerable  populations.

In our review of the 14 agencies’ environmental justice strategic plans, we  found that seven of these plans did not clearly show how the agencies  assessed alignment between the agencies’ environmental justice plans  and overall mission, although the 1994 executive order directed each  agency to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by  identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and  adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies,  and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. In  addition, EPA officials questioned how some environmental justice  strategic plans from agencies related to their agency’s core missions and  stated that to be effective, environmental justice should be considered  throughout agencies’ missions.

Our previous work found that effective strategic plans include, among  other things, agency missions and long-term goals, and that to encourage  the use of performance information, agency-wide goals and measures  should align. Specifically, we have previously found that an agency’s  program goals should flow from its mission statement and that its  strategic goals—those that explain what results are expected and when  they should be achieved—should also grow out of the mission statement.  Although half of the agencies’ environmental justice strategic plans did  not clearly show that their agencies assessed their connection to their  overall mission, officials from DOI, DOJ, USDA, and VA said that they  considered their agencies’ overall strategic plan’s mission and goals  when they developed their environmental justice strategic plans. HHS  officials commented that although HHS’s overall strategic plan is at a very  high level, some elements within its environmental justice strategic plan,  such as research, align with its overall strategic plan. The remaining  agencies did not explain whether they had considered their agencies’  overall mission and goals when developing their environmental justice  strategic plans.

The 1994 executive order requires that each federal agency makes  achieving environmental justice part of its mission and requires the  working group to provide guidance to agencies in developing their  environmental justice strategies. However, the working group has not  provided guidance to federal agencies on how to develop a strategic plan,  including how to demonstrate they have considered their broader agency  missions in developing their environmental justice strategic plans.  According to the working group’s charter, the working group creates  committees to carry out its responsibilities under this executive order, and  one of those committees—the Strategy and Implementation Progress  Report Committee—is to be available as a resource to federal agencies  as they develop and update their environmental justice strategies.  However, according to officials from EPA, which chairs the working group,  this committee has not provided guidance to agencies on what to include  in their strategic plans because each agency determines the direction of  their plans. By developing such guidance, the working group could assist  agencies in planning more strategically about which parts of their mission  are important for achieving environmental justice.

Fourteen Agencies Issued at Least One Progress Report after 2011, but Most Have Not Done So Annually

Of the 14 agencies that developed environmental justice strategic plans  after 2011, all have issued at least one annual progress report on the  implementation of these plans, but most have not issued such reports  every year, as they agreed to do in the 2011 MOU (see table 2).

As shown in table 2, two of the 16 agencies—DHS and DOJ—have  issued progress reports every year. In addition, several agencies issued  progress reports consistently during the first few years after signing the  2011 MOU but subsequently stopped issuing reports. For example, four  agencies—DOE, HHS, DOI, and DOL—issued progress reports through  2016 but have not issued reports for 2017. Four additional agencies  issued reports through either 2014 or 2015 but have not issued any  reports since then. Only four agencies—DHS, DOJ, EPA, and GSA— have issued progress reports for 2017. The two agencies that did not  develop environmental justice strategic plans after 2011—DOD and  SBA—have not issued any progress reports.

According to the 2011 MOU, each agency should issue an annual report  on the progress it has made over the previous year in implementing its  environmental justice strategic plan. However, agency officials from most  of the agencies said that they had not issued annual progress reports  because of competing priorities. In addition, officials from some agencies,  including USDA, DOE, and VA, cited the change in administration in  January 2017 as a factor in delaying or not issuing their progress reports.  Officials from DOE, HHS, and DOT said that they planned to issue  overdue progress reports in the near future. The remaining agencies who  have not issued a progress report since 2016 or earlier either did not  have plans to issue progress reports or did not provide information on the  status of their progress reports. However, we have previously found that  annual program performance reports can provide essential information  needed to assess federal agencies’ performance and hold agencies  accountable for achieving results. Further, we have previously found  that reporting is part of a broader performance management process that  includes identifying mission and desired outcomes, measuring  performance, and using this information to report on performance and to  identify gaps in performance. By issuing progress reports each year, the  agencies—Commerce, DOD, DOE, DOI, DOL, DOT, Education, HUD,  HHS, USDA, and VA—can have more reasonable assurance that they  have the information needed to assess their performance and to  demonstrate results.

Most Agencies Have Not Established Methods for Assessing Progress toward Their Environmental Justice Goals

The agencies’ progress reports generally describe the environmental  justice activities that the agencies conducted but do not include any  methods to assess progress. In our review of the most recent progress  reports issued by each of the 14 agencies, we found that these reports  contain information on activities undertaken by the agency over the  previous year. Some of the reports are organized by the goals that the  agencies identified in their environmental justice strategic plans and  include information on the agencies’ future plans for environmental justice  efforts.

However, most agencies have not established a method that would allow  them to evaluate their progress toward their environmental justice goals,  such as establishing performance measures. According to Office of  Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, performance measures are a  means of evaluating efficiency, effectiveness, and results. The guidance  also describes different types of these measures, including outcome  measures—indicating an agency’s progress toward achieving the  intended results of its efforts—and output measures—usually expressed  quantitatively and describe the level of activities that will be provided over  a period of time (e.g., the number of meetings held or the number of  people trained). Agencies may assess their progress using milestones,  which are scheduled events signifying the completion of a major  deliverable or a phase of work (e.g., a date by which the agency will  release a certain product), according to OMB guidance. While not  performance measures, milestones can help agencies track the actions  they have completed in implementing their environmental justice strategic  plans.

Of the 16 agencies that signed the 2011 MOU, four agencies—DOI, EPA,  HHS, and USDA—have established performance measures or milestones  for their environmental justice efforts. Of these four agencies, two  agencies—HHS and EPA—have reported on their progress toward  achieving the performance measures or milestones they established.  Examples of how the four agencies measured the progress of their  environmental justice efforts include the following:

DOI established performance measures in its 2012 environmental  justice strategic plan and reported on progress using these measures  in its 2013, 2014, and 2015 annual progress reports. DOI changed  from performance measures to milestones in its 2016 strategic plan.  For example, in the 2016 plan, DOI has target years for establishing  public outreach strategies and creating a best practices report on  public outreach activities for environmental justice communities.  According to agency officials, DOI made this change because the  performance measures from the 2012 plan were difficult and time- consuming to use, were not helpful in tracking progress, and did not  result in actionable outcomes. DOI believed that an action plan would  be easier to use for identifying actions to meet goals and for  measuring progress. DOI has not yet reported on the milestones from  its 2016 strategic plan. Its most recent progress report is from fiscal  year 2016, the first year that the strategic plan covers. Agency officials  stated that DOI plans to report on the milestones in its fiscal year  2017 progress report but did not provide a timeline for when this  report would be issued.

In its environmental justice strategic plan for 2016 through 2020, EPA  established four goals for reducing environmental and health hazards:  reducing children’s exposure to lead, reducing contamination of small  and tribal drinking water systems, reducing fine particle air pollution,  and reducing contamination at hazardous waste sites. EPA  established performance measures for tracking progress toward each  of these goals at the national level. For example, EPA’s goal is to  achieve air quality that meets national standards for fine particle  pollution in all areas of the country, with special emphasis on  communities with poor air quality and low-income populations. EPA  collected data from air monitors to determine its progress toward  achieving this goal. In its progress report for fiscal year 2017, EPA  reported an increase from 43 percent of low-income populations living  in counties that attained the standards in 2006 through 2008 to 92  percent in 2014 through 2016. According to agency officials, EPA  plans to continue reporting on the goals in the future. EPA has also  established several other performance measures and milestones for  its environmental justice activities. For example, in its environmental  justice strategic plan for 2016 to 2020, EPA provides the status for 28  environmental justice activities that it had included in its environmental  justice 2014 strategic plan.

HHS established many performance measures and milestones in its  2012 environmental justice strategic plan and reported on its progress  toward these measures and milestones in its annual progress reports.  In its most recent progress report, HHS reported that, as of January  2017, 30 of the 37 actions that it committed to undertake in the 2012  strategic plan had a status of “complete or substantial progress,” three  had achieved “some progress,” and four could not be carried out and  were deemed “inactive.” For example, HHS reported that it has  conducted outreach events to educate local communities on the  purpose and functions of the HHS Office for Civil Rights. In this report,  HHS also stated that it will no longer be reporting on these measures  and milestones going forward and that it would be developing a new  plan of action to achieve its environmental justice goals. HHS has not  yet developed such a plan and therefore does not have any current  performance measures or milestones.

USDA established several performance measures and milestones for  its five strategic goals in its environmental justice strategic plan for  2016 through 2020. For its first environmental justice strategic goal,  USDA established performance measures involving increased funding  for environmental justice-related programs. USDA established  milestones for the rest of its goals. Its five strategic goals are: ensure  USDA programs provide opportunities for environmental justice  communities; increase capacity-building within environmental justice  communities; expand public participation in program operations,  planning activities, and decision-making processes to benefit  environmental justice communities; ensure USDA’s activities do not  have disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts on  environmental justice communities and resolve environmental justice  issues and complaints; and increase awareness, skills, and abilities of  USDA employees regarding environmental justice issues. However,  the agency has not issued a progress report since its 2016 strategic  plan and has not yet reported on these measures and milestones.  Agency officials said that USDA has collected information on these  measures and milestones, but has not issued progress reports with  this information.

In our interviews with agency officials, a few described plans for  developing new performance measures. In particular, EPA has proposed  to implement a measure that would involve identifying key decisions  across the entire agency in which environmental justice was taken into  account. According to EPA officials, a significant way to incorporate  environmental justice into an agency’s mission, including its programs,  policies, and activities, is to include environmental justice considerations  in its various decision-making processes. For example, EPA has set a  goal of including environmental justice issues in the analyses for  regulatory or permitting decisions, such as Clean Air rules or permits;  officials stated that they could count the number of such decisions that  that have included environmental justice issues in the underlying  analyses for the decisions. Under the new performance measure, every  EPA office would be responsible for identifying a certain number of  decisions it has made and explaining how these decisions were affected  by environmental justice considerations. The measure would also allow  EPA to share examples of how various offices are taking environmental  justice into account, so that other offices could learn from these examples  (e.g., integrating environmental justice into permitting decisions). EPA  plans to pilot this new measure through September 2019.

The remaining 12 agencies have not established any performance  measures or milestones. In the absence of annual progress reports that  evaluate progress using performance measures or milestones, we  interviewed agency officials about the progress they had made toward the  primary directive in Executive Order 12898—to identify and address  disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental  effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority or low-income  populations. Officials from most of these agencies said that they are  unable to determine how much progress they have made toward  achieving this directive. Specifically, officials from six of the agencies  (Commerce, DOD, Education, DOJ, DOL, and VA) stated that they do not  have a method for gauging their progress, although several of these  agencies stated that they are able to identify specific accomplishments  they have made toward addressing environmental justice issues. A  seventh agency, DOT, said that it has made significant progress, but  faced challenges in developing quantitative performance measures.  Officials from DHS and GSA said that they gauge their progress by  tracking the completion of action items or goals from their environmental  justice strategic plans, and DOE said that it periodically gauges its  progress through conducting qualitative reviews of its environmental  justice work. Finally, DOD and SBA reported no efforts to gauge progress  toward implementing the executive order. Officials for most of the 12  agencies that have not developed performance measures for their  environmental justice efforts said they have not done so because it would  be difficult and they are unsure how to do so. For example, DOJ officials  commented that it would be difficult to develop meaningful measures that  are indicative of true progress toward achieving environmental justice.  EPA officials commented that encouraging agencies to adopt  performance measures for environmental justice would align with their  agency’s efforts and would involve, among several things, providing  guidance and training to the agencies.

The 2011 MOU states that annual progress reports issued by the  agencies should include performance measures as deemed appropriate  by each agency. In our previous work, we have found that it is important  for agencies to establish a method to assess their progress toward their  goals; such methods should ideally include performance measures or  milestones. We have also reported that performance measures are  important for tracking progress in achieving goals and are a key element  of effective strategic planning. Performance measures provide  managers with information on which to base their decisions, including  how effectively offices are integrating environmental justice in their  decisions. Performance measures also create powerful incentives to  influence organizational and individual behavior. Leading practices we  have identified include clearly relating performance measures to the  performance they will be used to evaluate and creating a set of  performance goals and measures that addresses important and varied  aspects of program performance.

The executive order directs the working group to provide guidance to  agencies in developing their environmental justice strategies. However,  the working group has not provided guidance to its members on methods  to assess and report on their environmental justice progress, such as  through performance measures, according to officials from EPA, which  chairs the working group. According to these officials, EPA is still  pursuing its own agency-wide performance measures. By developing  such guidance or creating a committee, the working group could assist  agencies in tracking and measuring their progress in achieving their  environmental justice goals.

Most Agencies Reported Taking Various Actions to Identify and Address Environmental Justice Issues, and Most Reported Supporting These Actions with Existing Resources

Most agencies that signed the 2011 MOU reported taking various actions  to identify and address environmental justice issues related to their  programs, policies, and activities; most also reported having limited  resources for these efforts. Examples of actions they reported taking  included improving research and data collection by creating data tools,  considering environmental justice issues when implementing NEPA and  enforcing environmental laws, and revising processes to ensure greater  public participation. Most agencies used resources from existing related  programs (e.g., civil rights or environmental programs) to support  environmental justice efforts, although two agencies provided dedicated  resources specifically to environmental justice efforts from fiscal years  2015 through 2018.

Agencies Reported Creating Data Tools and Revising Processes for Public Participation and Environmental Review

Most of the 16 agencies reported planning and implementing actions to  identify and address environmental justice issues to carry out the 1994  executive order and 2011 MOU. The executive order contains four  areas that agencies’ environmental justice strategies should include, as  appropriate:

Promote enforcement of all health and environmental statutes in  areas with minority populations and low-income populations.

Improve research and data collection relating to the health of and  environment of minority populations and low-income populations.

Identify differential patterns of consumption of natural resources  among minority populations and low-income populations (e.g.,  subsistence fishing or hunting).

The 2011 MOU contains four additional areas that the 16 agencies  agreed federal environmental justice efforts should include, as  appropriate:  Implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Implement Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

Consider impacts from commercial transportation and supporting  infrastructure (goods movement).

Each of the 14 agencies that produced an environmental justice strategic  plan discussed in their most recent plan how they would identify and  address environmental justice issues related to at least one of these eight  areas. Although most agencies did not formally report on progress  annually, all of the 14 agencies provided examples—in their strategic  plans or progress reports, in other related documents or on their  websites, or in interviews with us—of actions they implemented to identify and address environmental justice issues. In addition to the eight areas  outlined in the 1994 executive order and 2011 MOU, agencies also  provided examples of actions they took to provide internal training and  conduct external capacity building. See appendix II for additional  examples of agency actions to identify and address environmental justice  issues.

Improve research and data collection. In their most recent  environmental justice strategic plans, 11 agencies discussed planning to  improve research and data collection on environmental justice issues. At  least eleven agencies provided examples of research or data actions they  implemented, including creating data tools. For example, in 2015, EPA  publicly released its Environmental Justice Mapping and Screening Tool  (EJSCREEN), a web-based mapping tool that includes environmental and  demographic data at a local level, allowing users to identify potential  exposure to environmental pollutants and related health risks across  different communities. Officials from DOJ’s Environmental and Natural  Resources Division told us that they regularly use EJSCREEN to help  determine if cases involve environmental justice issues. Also, since 2015,  EPA and HHS’s National Institute on Minority Health and Health  Disparities and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences have  co-funded a collaborative research and data effort called the Centers of  Excellence on Environmental Health Disparities Research. This effort  facilitates research on diseases that are a burden on populations with  environmental justice issues and promotes knowledge sharing among  researchers.

Example of Addressing Environmental  Justice Issues in EPA Rulemaking  In January 2017, EPA released a final rule  amending its Risk Management Program, a  program under the Clean Air Act that requires  facilities using extremely hazardous  substances to develop a risk management  plan to submit to EPA at least once every 5  years. The rule changes were identified by a  Chemical Facility Safety and Security Working  Group composed of the Administrator of EPA,  and the department heads of Labor,  Homeland Security, Justice, Agriculture, and  Transportation, which was created in 2013 by  Executive Order 13650 after chemical facility  incidents that resulted in fatalities. The  executive order requires that the working  group develop ways to improve operational  coordination with state, local, tribal, and other  partners, including enhancing federal agency  information sharing.  In a May 2014 report, the working group cited  the need to familiarize all agencies with  Executive Order 12898 on environmental  justice. It identified concerns of communities  living adjacent to chemical facilities, many of  them low-income and minority, and the need  to share information with these communities,  including first responders.    Under EPA’s 2017 rule, risk management  plans must be provided to members of the  public upon request. The notice publishing the  final rule contained a section on  environmental justice comments and its  response to address environmental justice  concerns.   In May 2018, EPA proposed to rescind  several amendments to its rule. Industry and  some states raised concerns about the cost  and burden to carry out the rule.

Promote enforcement of health and environmental statutes. In their  most recent environmental justice strategic plans, 13 agencies discussed  planning to promote enforcement of health or environmental statutes in  some form. At least 12 agencies provided examples of actions they  implemented to promote enforcement, including ensuring enforcement of  environmental laws in communities with environmental justice issues and  addressing such issues in the resolution of cases against violators. For  example, in its 2017 progress report, EPA reported combining  EJSCREEN with enforcement and compliance data to help regional  offices and state, local, and tribal authorities focus reviews of compliance  with environmental laws in overburdened communities. EPA reported  reviewing all enforcement cases to see if communities with environmental  justice issues were affected and tracking how agency enforcement  actions to resolve these cases benefitted the affected communities. As  a result, EPA reported tracking that 45 percent of Supplemental  Environmental Projects—a type of beneficial environmental project  implemented as part of a civil enforcement action settlement—in fiscal  year 2017 were in locations with potential environmental justice issues.

Ensure greater public participation. In their most recent environmental  justice strategic plans, 14 agencies discussed planning to ensure greater  public participation in decision-making processes. All 14 agencies  provided examples of public participation actions they implemented,  including seeking public input on their environmental justice strategic  plans or consulting communities directly during environmental analyses  under NEPA, siting decisions, or enforcement cases. For example, in its  2016 progress report, DOI reported formally inviting tribes to participate in  environmental analyses and revising policies on tribal-government  relations. DOI also continued to have publicly designated environmental justice coordinators for each of its bureaus (e.g., Bureau of Land  Management), many of which deal directly with tribes or manage natural  resources they rely on, such as land or water.

Example of an EPA Environmental Justice  Grant to Study Microplastics in Tribal  Foods  In 2017, the Sitka Tribe of Alaska received an  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  Environmental Justice Small Grant to study  microplastics in its traditional food sources,  such as mussels and clams. Microplastics are  tiny pieces of plastic that are less than 5  millimeters in length and, according to EPA,  may contain toxic chemicals that can pose  human health and ecosystem risks when  ingested by aquatic animals.   According to EPA, the tribe planned to collect  samples of water and traditional foods from  four locations within its traditional territory and  test them for the presence of microplastics  and associated toxins. The results were to be  shared with the tribe and the public to inform  decisions about harvesting traditional foods.  Local students collected and tested Butter  Clam and Blue Mussel samples in 2018,  which showed that more than 80 percent of  the mussels and 100 percent of the clams  contained microfibers and other microplastic  particles.

Identify differential patterns of consumption of natural resources.  Because many Native Americans and other minority communities rely on  hunting, foraging, or fishing for food, five agencies planned actions to  identify or address risks to these food sources in their most recent  environmental justice strategic plans. At least eight agencies provided  examples of actions they implemented in this area, including collecting or  providing information on human health risks associated with the  consumption of polluted fish or wildlife. For example, in its 2015 progress  report, USDA reported that the Forest Service’s Alaska Regional Office  coordinated with DOT’s Federal Aviation Administration to accelerate  cleanup of petroleum-contaminated soil at a mixed-ownership site  containing national forest lands. According to USDA, the need for  accelerated cleanup arose because increasing sea-levels and tidal  surges that were encroaching on the area would have washed the  pollutants into nearby waters supporting a local subsistence fishery.

Implement NEPA. In their most recent environmental justice strategic  plans, 12 agencies discussed planning to consider environmental justice  issues in their NEPA analyses. At least 13 agencies provided examples of  NEPA actions they had implemented, including providing internal  guidance on how to include environmental justice issues in NEPA  analyses. For example, at DOI, it is departmental policy for all bureaus  to include consideration of environmental justice in the NEPA process  and some bureaus have developed their own guidance for doing so. For  example, DOI’s 2015 National Park Service NEPA Handbook requires the  agency’s environmental analyses to discuss and evaluate the impact of  proposals on minority and low-income populations and communities,  including the distribution of the benefits and risks among different  communities and populations.

Implement Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In their most recent  environmental justice strategic plans, 11 agencies planned to consider  environmental justice issues when implementing their Title VI programs.

At least 10 agencies provided examples of Title VI environmental justice  actions they implemented, some of which focused on providing training  and guidance. For instance, in 2016, DOJ, DHS, HUD, HHS, and DOT  jointly issued interagency guidance on Title VI to state and local agencies  involved in emergency activities. DHS and DOJ reported that DHS’s  Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and DOJ’s Civil Rights Division  coordinated to distribute this guidance in the aftermath of the 2017  hurricane season to ensure that federal funding recipients (e.g., state and  local agencies) were aware of their obligations to provide emergency  management services across communities without discrimination.

Consider impacts from climate change. In their most recent  environmental justice strategic plans, nine agencies discussed planning  to address impacts from climate change on communities with  environmental justice issues. At least 11 agencies provided examples of  actions they implemented in this area, including providing communities  with information on how climate change may affect them. For example, in  its 2016 progress report, DOI reported that the U.S. Geological Service  working with the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community and Skagit River  System Cooperative to build a coastal model to evaluate the impacts of  sea-level rise, storm surge, and waves, including effects on foods such as  salmon and shellfish. DOI reported that the model was used to inform  tribal climate adaptation and resilience plans.

Consider impacts from goods movement. In their most recent  environmental justice strategic plans, three agencies discussed planning  to address environmental justice issues arising from goods movement,  and at least five agencies provided examples of actions they implemented  in this area. For example, DOT’s Federal Highway Administration  developed a detailed freight and land use handbook in 2012, which  highlights potential negative impacts in communities with minority or low- income residents (e.g., air quality or light pollution) and provides guidance  on integrating freight and land-use planning to balance freight’s beneficial  economic impacts and harmful environmental impacts for affected  communities. For example, the handbook advises using off-peak  deliveries or anti-idling technologies to reduce impacts from emissions.

Provide internal training. Eleven agencies also provided us with  examples of training programs to help their staff identify and address  environmental justice issues within their work. For example, EPA  developed an introductory training on environmental justice, which was  required training for all EPA staff agency-wide when it was first launched  in 2015. More recently, EPA reported providing environmental justice  training in 2017 to more than 1,000 employees and contractors across the  government who were responsible for implementing NEPA. DOI  developed a web-based introductory training on environmental justice in  2015 that is available to all DOI employees and became required training  for project managers for the Central Hazardous Materials Fund in 2016.

Example of an EPA Environmental Justice  Grant to Build Community Capacity to  Reduce Exposure to Contaminated Soil  through Community Education  In 2017, the Trumbull Neighborhood  Partnership in Warren, Ohio, received an EPA  Environmental Justice Small Grant for an  educational initiative to reduce residents’  exposure to soil contamination from former  industrial activities, such as steel production.  According to EPA, with support from the  grant, the neighborhood partnership planned  to create a curriculum of best practices,  repurpose vacant land, and share a range of  educational materials with residents to help  them learn how to avoid exposure to  contaminated soil. As part of the educational  campaign on safe soil handling practices for  residential and community land use, the  partnership created a website to host  educational materials and also shared the  materials in person with residents and  contacted local contractors to help ensure  safe demolition practices.

Conduct external capacity building. Thirteen agencies also provided  examples of actions they implemented to fund and assist communities  with environmental justice issues to build their capacity to access  available resources and participate in federal decisions that affect them.  For example, since its inception in 1994, EPA’s Environmental Justice  Small Grants Program has awarded more than $24 million to over 1,400  organizations working with communities with environmental justice  issues. EPA provides these grants for up to $30,000 to support projects  that help communities build understanding of local environmental and  public health issues, develop strategies for addressing these issues, and  facilitate discussions about community priorities.

Most Agencies Support Environmental Justice Efforts with Resources from Related Programs

From fiscal year 2015 through 2018, most of the 16 agencies reported  supporting environmental justice efforts through existing related program  funding and staffing resources that were not specifically dedicated to  environmental justice. EPA and DOE were the only agencies that  dedicated resources specifically for environmental justice efforts in their  budgets.

In fiscal year 2018, EPA provided about $6.7 million, which, according to  EPA officials, supported 31 full-time-equivalents (FTE) for Office of  Environmental Justice staff in its headquarters and environmental justice  coordinators in regional offices and two environmental justice grant  programs. These staff support data tools such as EJSCREEN, provide  training sessions, and coordinate federal efforts through the Interagency  Working Group on Environmental Justice. The two grant programs  provide communities with funding to research and understand potential  environmental and health issues in their communities. For fiscal years  2015 through 2018, EPA awarded an average of about $1.2 million  annually in environmental justice grants to communities through the  Environmental Justice Small Grants Program and Environmental Justice  Collaborative Problem-Solving Cooperative Agreement Program. EPA  officials also reported using other related resources to support  environmental justice efforts, but said the agency does not track these  resources separately.

In fiscal year 2018, DOE provided about $1.6 million and, according to  DOE officials, one FTE for its environmental justice program in its Office  of Legacy Management. These resources support activities to manage  problems and concerns arising from the materials and chemicals on DOE  sites by giving communities and tribes near these sites opportunities and  tools to participate in DOE decisions. DOE also uses its funds and staff to  sponsor the annual National Environmental Justice Conference and  Training Program and to participate in the interagency working group.

Eleven of the remaining 14 agencies reported undertaking some  examples of environmental justice efforts with support from funding and  staff from existing related programs (e.g., civil rights or environmental  programs) from fiscal year 2015 through 2018. According to budget  documents and agency officials, these 11 agencies did not formally track  resources used to support environmental justice activities. Four of these  agencies—USDA, DOI, GSA, and HUD—provided us with estimates of staffing or funding resources used to support environmental justice  efforts. USDA estimated that a total of about eight FTEs annually were  charged by many different staff for fiscal years 2015 through 2018 and  that between $10,000 and $22,500 in funding annually supported the  National Environmental Justice Conference and Training Program. DOI  reported that it has one full-time Environmental Justice Outreach  Specialist and that most DOI bureaus have an Environmental Justice  Coordinator who handles environmental justice responsibilities as a  collateral duty. DOI also reported funding one small research project  related to environmental justice. GSA reported that staffing related to  environmental justice efforts constituted a portion of the total FTE  allocation within its Office of Civil Rights and estimated that this amounted  to less than one FTE annually for fiscal years 2015 through 2018. HUD  also estimated that less than one FTE was used specifically to support  environmental justice efforts annually for the period, with one designated  environmental justice lead and other staff serving on the working group as  needed.

Officials from the other seven agencies did not quantify estimates of  resources but told us that staff conduct these activities as collateral  duties. For example, DHS told us that its Office of the Chief Readiness  Support Officer, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Office of  General Counsel support its environmental justice efforts as needed. In  another instance, DOJ designated an Environmental Justice Director,  created a Senior Litigator for Environmental Justice position, and reported  that the department has other staff that spend a portion of their time  working on environmental justice efforts. Several agencies also reported  establishing internal working groups or other coordinating bodies to help  implement their environmental justice efforts, which means using some  staffing resources to support these coordinating efforts.

Three agencies—DOD, Education, and SBA—reported providing no  funding or staffing resources to carry out any environmental justice efforts  and also did not report any examples of environmental justice efforts from  fiscal year 2015 through 2018. Agency resources for environmental  justice were one of the concerns several stakeholders that we interviewed  raised (see textbox).

Stakeholder Perspectives on Federal Environmental Justice Efforts  Several stakeholders expressed concerns about agency resources, agency responsiveness to and awareness of environmental  justice issues, legal tools for raising environmental justice concerns, or overall prioritization of environmental justice efforts.  Stakeholders expressed concerns about the limited availability of resources for environmental justice efforts, including staff to carry  out environmental justice work and funding for related programs. One stakeholder told us that agencies need to prioritize their  environmental justice efforts because they have not identified all communities with potential environmental justice issues and lack the  resources to address all environmental justice issues. Several stakeholders discussed concerns about variation in agency staff  familiarity with environmental justice issues or responsiveness to issues raised. Stakeholders also expressed concerns about the  ability of existing legal tools to address environmental justice issues in the absence of a legal framework that specifically addresses  them. For example, stakeholders said that risks from cumulative pollutant exposure are not addressed by existing environmental  statutes. Several stakeholders also expressed concern about federal prioritization of environmental justice issues overall, including  enforcement, changes to existing environmental regulations, and limited consideration of environmental justice in rulemaking  processes.  Some stakeholders we interviewed, including representatives from local and national nonprofit organizations, university professors,  federal officials, and employees of private companies, also said that agencies’ efforts to build community capacity and develop tools  that address environmental justice issues have been helpful. Stakeholders told us that EPA’s Environmental Justice Small Grants  Program has helped communities, and DOE’s National Environmental Justice Conference and Training Program brings together  grassroots leaders, stakeholders, and agencies. Stakeholders said that EJSCREEN is a useful tool for agencies and the public to  screen for communities with potential environmental justice issues. Stakeholders also said agencies could use EJSCREEN in  additional ways (e.g., in rulemaking and permitting) and discussed some limitations for its use (e.g., data limitations and the need to  directly engage communities).

The working group has collaborated in issuing guidance and in several  other areas regarding environmental justice. The working group has also  demonstrated three of the key features of interagency collaboration that  we reviewed—leadership, clarity of roles and responsibilities, and written  guidance and agreements. However, its use of two features of  interagency collaboration—participation and organizational outcomes and  accountability—was limited.

The Working Group Has Collaborated to Issue Guidance and Assist Communities

Collaboration from an Interagency Working  Group Committee Assists with  Environmental Justice Issues in Lowndes  County, Alabama  A November 2017 American Journal of  Tropical Medicine and Hygiene study of  hookworm conducted in Lowndes County,  Alabama, highlighted a long-standing situation  created by poor wastewater management  affecting a largely rural, minority population in  the state. The makeshift septic tanks that  residents use in the absence of proper  wastewater treatment infrastructure do not  function properly in the moist, rich soil  common in that area. This problem increased  residents’ exposure to parasites, such as  hookworm, through untreated wastewater.  According to agency officials, in 2018, the  General Services Administration collaborated  with the Rural Communities Committee of the  Interagency Working Group on Environmental  Justice to help apply for Department of  Agriculture rural development grant funding for  decentralized sewer systems in Lowndes by  using federal surplus personal property as  matching funds. As of March 2016, the Equal  Justice Initiative and Alabama Center for Rural  Enterprise were working to identify and  employ alternative decentralized technologies  to treat wastewater in the county. The two  entities were also attempting to write and  implement policies requiring residents to  connect to public sewers.

In 2017, the Impacts from Commercial Transportation committee  released a compendium on publicly available federal resources to  assist communities impacted by goods movement activities.

In fiscal year 2017, with input and vetting from the Rural Communities  committee, USDA compiled and launched a web page with links to  community tools, funding opportunities, educational or  training assistance, and case studies to support rural communities  according to USDA officials.

In March 2016, the NEPA committee issued guidance entitled,  “Promising Practices for Environmental Justice Methodologies in  NEPA Reviews.” According to working group officials, this guidance  can assist federal agencies with incorporating environmental justice  during their NEPA reviews. In March 2019, the committee also  completed guidance for communities entitled, “Community Guide to  Environmental Justice and NEPA Methods.”

Hookworms can be found in soil contaminated  by untreated wastewater.

In 2016, the working group’s Rural Communities committee  participated in a brownfields redevelopment conference to help local  organizations understand and access resources to redevelop  brownfields in their communities.

In 2016, the Regional Interagency Working Groups committee  coordinated technical assistance to communities in EPA’s regions 2  and 4. For example, the group is working in North Birmingham,  Alabama, and other communities to evaluate air, water, and waste  issues.

The Working Group Demonstrated Some Key Features That Benefit Collaboration, but Participation and Use of Goals Were Limited

With respect to the five key features of interagency collaboration that we  reviewed, we found that the working group demonstrated leadership,  clarity of roles and responsibilities, and written guidance and agreements.  However, its use of two other key features—participation and clear  goals—was limited.

In our September 2012 report on interagency collaborative mechanisms,  we identified leadership as a key feature of collaborative groups and  stated that identifying a leader and sustaining that role throughout the  groups’ efforts are important. For the working group, EPA’s  Administrator was identified as the chair of the group in both the 1994  executive order and the 2014 Charter for Interagency Working Group on  Environmental Justice. EPA officials we interviewed described the  agency’s role as providing guidance to the working group agencies and  coordinating their efforts. More specifically, EPA officials we interviewed  said that as chair of the working group, EPA’s responsibilities include the  following:

Convene monthly meetings with the working group.

Provide public access to working group agencies’ environmental  justice strategic plans and annual implementation progress reports, a  list of working group agencies, and other information relevant to the  working group.

Lead the development and publication of the working group’s plans  and reports.

Our September 2012 report identified the need for collaborative groups to  have clarity about the roles and responsibilities of the participating  agencies. We stated that clarity can come from agencies working  together to define and agree on their respective roles and responsibilities,  as well as steps for decision-making. The working group has done this by  assigning roles to its chair and most of its member agencies. In particular,  according to working group officials, the topics for the nine working group  committees were based on the seven functions that the executive order  assigned to the working group and public input. Officials from 13 of the  working group members agreed to either chair or become a member of  one or more committees. The topics that these committees address, their  chair, members, and purpose are identified in table 3:  Our September 2012 report on interagency collaborative mechanisms  stated that agencies that articulate their agreements in formal documents  can strengthen their commitment to working collaboratively. Since 2011,  when the 16 agencies and CEQ recommitted to carrying out  environmental justice efforts, the working group has developed several  such documents including:

MOU on Environmental Justice. This document, signed in 2011, is  an agreement among member agencies to recommit to addressing  environmental justice issues. It also listed the four areas that the  agencies agreed to work on: NEPA, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act,  impacts from climate change, and impacts from goods movement.

Charter for Interagency Working Group on Environmental  Justice. This document, which was adopted in 2011 and updated in  2014, outlines the governance structure for the working group. It also  lists four committees to help carry out the working group’s  responsibilities under the executive order: public participation,  regional interagency working group, Title VI, and strategy and  implementation progress reports.

Framework for Collaboration. This document, which was issued in  2016 and covered a 3-year period through 2018, listed four goals of  the working group to advance greater federal agency collaboration. It  also listed and described the purpose of the nine working group  committees.

In our September 2012 report, we found that it is important to ensure that  the relevant participants have been included in the collaborative effort.  Participation in working group activities has been mixed. In the 2011  MOU, the 16 signing agencies and CEQ agreed to address environmental  justice issues and participate as members of the working group.  According to agency officials, most working group members attend the  monthly meetings.

The most active members of the working group, in terms of participation  in working group committees, have been EPA and DOJ. EPA, the chair of  the working group, also chaired or co-chaired six committees, and DOJ  chaired or co-chaired four. Both also participated in all eight of the active  committees (see table 4).

However, four agencies—DOD, Education, SBA, and VA—did not attend  any of the working group’s monthly meetings in fiscal year 2018. These  agencies also did not participate as leaders or members in any working  group committees in fiscal year 2018. Furthermore, DOD and SBA did not  have a designated representative as of March 2019.

These four agencies had various reasons for not participating more  actively in the working group or its committees. DOD officials said that  DOD has not been involved with the working group since August 2017,  when its working group representative retired, because it does not have  the resources to participate in the working group. Education officials also  said that they have had a limited role with the working group because  many of the topics discussed have not been relevant to their agency’s  missions. For example, according to Education officials, while research  has established that schools with poor environmental health conditions  often serve disadvantaged students, Education does not have authority to  plan, fund, construct, maintain, or operate school facilities and grounds.  As discussed earlier, SBA officials we interviewed said that they were  unclear on whether environmental justice applied to SBA’s mission and  that they were in the process of reviewing whether SBA should continue  its membership in the working group. VA officials confirmed that it has  also been inactive with the working group, but will call in to a meeting if  there are topics of relevance.

EPA officials commented that it is difficult to characterize what specific  opportunities are missed from the lack of representation by an agency.  However, they also commented that nonparticipation limits the working  group’s ability to fulfill its mandates in a strategic, methodical way across  the entire federal government. EPA officials further stated that the limiting  factor for the working group in its efforts to address the executive order on  environmental justice has always been the will of leadership across  federal government to make clear, measurable commitments of those  priorities and to adequately resource the attainment of those  commitments.

However, the participants signed the 2011 MOU about 8 years ago, and  the agreement has become dated and may not reflect the agencies’  current commitments or abilities to participate in the working group or the  broader environmental efforts. Our 2012 report on interagency  collaborative mechanisms stated that written agreements and documents  are most effective when they are regularly updated and monitored. By  updating the 2011 MOU and renewing the commitment among  participating agencies, EPA and the working group agencies would have  more reasonable assurance that those agencies who sign the agreement  are committed to participating.

Our September 2012 report found that collaborative mechanisms such as  the working group benefit from clear goals to establish organizational  outcomes and accountability. The report stated that participants might not have the same overall interests or may even have conflicting  interests, but by establishing a goal based on common interests, a  collaborative group can shape its own vision and define its purpose.

The executive order that created the working group assigned the working  group seven functions to carry out, as listed in table 5. While the working  group has developed documents with agreed-upon goals, which is  beneficial to collaboration, none of them address all the seven functions  of the executive order.

The working group’s organizational documents do not contain strategic  goals aligned to address the executive order as suggested by our  previous work on establishing clear goals for collaborative mechanisms.  Further, the three functions involving environmental justice research, data  collection, and studies are not described as part of the goals of the  working group, as laid out in its various documents:

The 2011 MOU includes four focus areas for the working group  members: NEPA, Title VI, impacts from climate change, and impacts  from goods movement. These do not include the executive order  functions of environmental justice data collection, research, and  studies.

The 2011 Charter for Interagency Working Group on Environmental  Justice states that the committees were created to help carry out the  working group’s responsibilities under the executive order. The  committees focus on certain working group roles and responsibilities,  including NEPA, goods movement, strategic planning, and public  participation. However, none of the committees focus on  environmental justice research, data collection, or studies.

The working group’s fiscal year 2016-2018 Framework for  Collaboration’s has four goals for collaboration: (1) enhance  communication and coordination to improve the health, quality-of-life,  and economic opportunities in overburdened communities; (2)  enhance multi-agency support of holistic community-based solutions  to provide assistance as needed to address environmental justice  issues; (3) advance interagency strategies to identify and address  environmental justice issues in agency programs, policies, and  activities; and (4) develop partnerships with academic institutions to  assist in providing long-term technical assistance to overburdened  communities. These goals do not pertain to environmental justice  research, data collection, or studies.

We found that the organizational documents do not provide strategic  goals with clear direction for the committees to carry out the functions of  the working group as laid out in the executive order. Our analysis, which  compares the functions of the executive order to documented working  group roles and responsibilities, shows that coordinated data collection  and examination of research and studies on environmental justice are not  included in these documents or committee purposes and have not been a  focus of the interagency working group since at least 2011. A DOI official  acknowledged that the working group has not addressed all of these  functions from the executive order; the official attributed the omission to a  lack of resources for the working group. EPA officials commented that  some individual agencies, such as HHS and EPA, have done work in  environmental justice data collection and research. As leaders of the  working group, EPA officials told us that the 2011 MOU, committee  groups, and framework for collaboration reflect the current priorities of the  working group, based on the public’s input. They were unsure whether a  coordinated effort in the data collection, research, and studies areas was  needed, but they said such an effort could be useful. They said that the  most useful role of the working group in research may be as a forum for  sharing of information and providing training opportunities. By clearly  establishing strategic goals in the working group’s organizational  documents to carry out the 1994 executive order, EPA, in consultation  with working group members, could enhance its strategic direction for  intergovernmental environmental justice efforts.

The interagency working group on environmental justice and its 16  member agencies have put in place the building blocks for an  environmental justice program across the federal government. They have  conducted a number of efforts over the last 25 years to implement the  Executive Order on Environmental Justice. Through these efforts, they  have developed tools such as EJSCREEN and guidance for incorporating  environmental justice under NEPA. Most of the agencies have also  developed strategic plans since 2011, although two agencies we  reviewed have not, and many others have not kept their plans updated.  SBA is in the process of reviewing whether it should continue its  membership in the working group, which should clarify its role after SBA  completes its review. DOD developed an environmental justice strategic  plan in 1995 after the executive order was issued but not since 2011  when the interagency working group members signed the MOU. By  updating its environmental justice strategic plan, DOD would have a  foundation for its environmental justice efforts. Another seven agencies  developed environmental justice strategic plans in 2012 but have not  updated them since. By updating their strategic plans, these agencies— Commerce, DHS, DOJ, DOL, Education, HUD, and VA—would have a  current plan to guide their environmental justice activities as they  committed to do in the 2011 MOU.

Moreover, most agencies—Commerce, DOD, DOE, DOI, DOL, DOT,  Education, HHS, HUD, USDA, and VA—have not shown clear progress  toward achieving their environmental justice goals in the 8 years since  they signed the working group’s 2011 MOU because they have not  consistently issued progress reports. By issuing progress reports each  year, the agencies can provide essential information needed to assess  their performance and demonstrate results.

The 16 agencies and CEQ signed the 2011 MOU to establish a  collaborative initiative across agencies to carry out environmental justice  efforts. Under the leadership of EPA, they have also put in place a  structure to coordinate with each other on their environmental justice  efforts. One area that the group has not coordinated, however, is in  developing guidance on what to include in strategic plans, such as  demonstrating how environmental justice is part of an agency’s mission,  or developing methods to assess and report on progress, which many of  the agencies said they needed. Under GAO’s leading practices for  strategic planning, agencies’ plans should address their missions,  articulate goals, and lay the groundwork for assessing progress. Only half  of the agencies that developed environmental justice strategic plans after  2011 clearly assessed how their plans fit into their overall missions. By  developing guidance on what agencies should include in their  environmental justice strategic plans, the working group could assist  agencies in planning more strategically about what parts of their mission  are important for achieving the environmental justice directives outlined in  Executive Order 12898. Few of the agencies had performance measures  or other methods to assess progress. By developing guidance on  methods that the agencies could use to assess and report on progress, or  creating a committee to do so, the working group could assist agencies in  tracking and measuring their progress in achieving their environmental  justice goals.

In addition, the working group faces challenges of unclear strategic goals  and mixed levels of participation. As noted in our earlier work,  collaborative mechanisms, such as the working group, benefit from clear  goals to establish organizational outcomes and accountability. Although  the 1994 executive order created the working group to carry out the  functions of the executive order, the working group’s framework focuses  on how the agencies will collaborate rather than setting clear strategic  goals to carry out the executive order. As a result, several of the  executive order’s functions are not being carried out by the working  group. By clearly establishing, in its organizational documents, strategic  goals for the federal government’s efforts to carry out the 1994 executive  order, EPA and the working group members could enhance the strategic  direction for intergovernmental environmental justice efforts. Furthermore,  by updating the 2011 MOU and having the 16 agencies and CEQ renew  their commitment to participating in the interagency collaborative effort  and the working group, EPA, as chair of the working group and consulting  with other working group members, would have more reasonable  assurance that those who sign the agreement are committed to  participate.

We are making a total of 24 recommendations to 15 agencies of the  Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice—nine to the federal  agencies that need to develop or update strategic plans  (recommendations 1-9); 11 to the federal agencies that need to develop  annual progress reports (recommendations 10-20); and four to the  Environmental Protection Agency as chair of the working group  (recommendations 21-24).

The Secretary of Commerce should update the department’s  environmental justice strategic plan. (Recommendation 1)

The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment should update the  department’s environmental justice strategic plan. (Recommendation 2)

The Secretary of Education should update the department’s  environmental justice strategic plan. (Recommendation 3)

The Secretary of Homeland Security should update the department’s  environmental justice strategic plan. (Recommendation 4)

The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development should update the  department’s environmental justice strategic plan. (Recommendation 5)

The Attorney General of the United States should update the  department’s environmental justice strategic plan. (Recommendation 6)

The Secretary of Labor should update the department’s environmental  justice strategic plan. (Recommendation 7)

The Administrator of the Small Business Administration should complete  the agency’s assessment of whether to participate in the 1994 Executive  Order and the 2011 Memorandum of Understanding, and, if appropriate,  develop an environmental justice strategic plan. (Recommendation 8)

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should update the department’s  environmental justice strategic plan. (Recommendation 9)

The Secretary of Agriculture should issue a progress report on the  department’s environmental justice efforts each year. (Recommendation  10)

The Secretary of Commerce should issue a progress report on the  department’s environmental justice efforts each year. (Recommendation  11)

The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment should issue a  progress report on the department’s environmental justice efforts each  year. (Recommendation 12)

The Secretary of Education should issue a progress report on the  department’s environmental justice efforts each year. (Recommendation  13)

The Secretary of Health and Human Services should issue a progress  report on the department’s environmental justice efforts each year.  (Recommendation 14)

The Secretary of Energy should issue a progress report on the  department’s environmental justice efforts each year. (Recommendation  15)

The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development should issue a  progress report on its environmental justice efforts each year.  (Recommendation 16)

The Secretary of the Interior should issue a progress report on the  department’s environmental justice efforts each year. (Recommendation  17)

The Secretary of Labor should issue a progress report on the  department’s environmental justice efforts each year. (Recommendation  18)

The Secretary of Transportation should issue a progress report on the  department’s environmental justice efforts each year. (Recommendation  19)

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should issue a progress report on the  department’s environmental justice efforts each year. (Recommendation  20)

The Administrator of EPA, as chair of the working group, should develop  guidance for agencies on what they should include in their environmental  justice strategic plans. (Recommendation 21)

The Administrator of EPA, as chair of the working group, should develop  guidance or create a committee of the working group to develop guidance  on methods the agencies could use to assess progress toward their  environmental justice goals. (Recommendation 22)

The Administrator of EPA, as chair of the working group, and in  consultation with the working group, should clearly establish, in its  organizational documents, strategic goals for the federal government’s  efforts to carry out the 1994 Executive Order. (Recommendation 23)

The Administrator of EPA, as chair of the working group, and in  consultation with the other working group members, should update the  2011 Memorandum of Understanding and renew the agencies’  commitments to participate in the interagency collaborative effort and the  working group. (Recommendation 24)

We provided a draft of this report to CEQ and 16 federal agencies— Commerce, DHS, DOD, DOE, DOI, DOJ, DOL, DOT, Education, EPA,  GSA, HHS, HUD, SBA, USDA, and VA—for review and comment.  Fourteen agencies provided comments on our report. The comments of  12 agencies—DHS, DOD, DOE, DOI, DOJ, DOL, DOT, Education, EPA,  HHS, USDA, and VA—are reproduced in appendixes III-XIV, respectively.  HUD and SBA provided comments by email. Of these 14 agencies, eight  agencies—DHS, DOE, DOI, DOJ, HHS, SBA, USDA, and VA—agreed  with our recommendations. Of the other six agencies that provided  comments, EPA agreed with two recommendations and disagreed with  two others; DOD agreed with one recommendation and disagreed with  one other; DOT partially agreed with the recommendation; DOL and HUD  neither agreed nor disagreed with their recommendations, and Education  did not agree with its two recommendations. We also made  recommendations to Commerce, but it did not provide comments in time  to include them in our report.

Although we did not make recommendations to them, CEQ and GSA  reviewed our report. CEQ provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate; GSA did not have any comments on our  report. In addition to CEQ, we also received technical comments and  clarifications from DHS, DOJ, DOT, EPA, HHS, and USDA, which we  incorporated as appropriate.

We directed four recommendations to EPA as chair of the Interagency  Working Group on Environmental Justice; the recommendations are  aimed at improving the strategic direction of the working group and the  federal government’s efforts. EPA stated that it appreciates our work on  this subject area and understands the need for interagency coordination  and is working closely and collaborating with its federal partners. EPA  agreed with the two recommendations to develop guidance for agencies  on what they should include in their environmental justice strategic plans  (recommendation 21) and to develop guidance or create a committee of  the working group to develop guidance on methods the agencies could  use to assess progress toward their environmental justice goals  (recommendation 22). However, EPA disagreed with the  recommendations to update the 2011 MOU and renew the agencies’  commitments to participate in the interagency collaborative effort and the  working group (originally recommendation 23, now recommendation 24)  and to clearly establish strategic goals for the federal government’s efforts  to carry out the 1994 Executive Order (originally recommendation 24, now  recommendation 23).

EPA stated that it disagrees with recommendations 23 and 24; instead of  updating the MOU, the agency will lead efforts to update the working  group’s fiscal year 2016-2018 Framework for Collaboration to include  guidance for strategic plans, tracking progress toward goals, and defining  alignment with the executive order. The agency also said that it believes  that the intent of recommendation 24 could be combined with  recommendation 23, making recommendation 24 unnecessary.

We believe that EPA misunderstood recommendation 24 and do not  agree it should be combined with recommendation 23. We agree with  EPA that the working group can benefit from greater guidance on  strategic plans, tracking goals, and alignment with the executive order to  carry out federal environmental justice efforts. In our report, we list three  organizational documents—the 2011 MOU, the 2011 Charter for  Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice, and the  Framework for Collaboration. Our recommendation is for EPA to clearly  establish strategic goals for federal efforts to carry out the executive order  and does not specify which organizational document needs to be updated  to address these issues. To help avoid confusion about the intent of this  recommendation, we made two changes in the report. First, we clarified in  the report that we were referring to the interagency working group’s  strategic goals and organizational documents to show that we are not  specifically recommending that the MOU be updated to meet this  recommendation. Second, we switched the order of recommendations 23  and 24 so that our recommendation to establish strategic goals  (previously recommendation 24) would no longer follow our  recommendation to update the MOU.

We disagree with EPA that it does not need to update the working group’s  MOU because it plans to update the working group’s Framework for  Collaboration. We believe that the MOU needs to be updated to address  the matter of participation by the members who signed it but do not  participate. As discussed in our report, the 2011 MOU is an agreement  among member agencies to commit to addressing environmental justice  issues. We do not have an opinion on when this document needs to be  updated, however, and we believe that it can be updated after the  working group discusses its strategic goals and updates its other  organizational documents. Federal agencies may clarify how they can  best participate through discussions of the working group’s goals and how  they can meet the purposes of the executive order.

DOD agreed with the recommendation that it update its environmental  justice strategic plan (recommendation 2), but disagreed with the  recommendation that it issue a progress report on its environmental  justice efforts each year (recommendation 12). DOD provided two primary  reasons why it disagreed with this recommendation. First, DOD stated  that it had achieved the intent of Executive Order 12898 by including  environmental justice considerations in its decision-making processes,  primarily by using the NEPA review process. Second, the department  stated that it has limited ability to further the implementation of  environmental justice and create new goals and metrics in operating  locations and mission. DOD stated that it is bound by its mission with  limited opportunities to change where the department operates.  According to DOD, for it to create new bases or close existing ones, it  must first obtain congressional approval and then perform a NEPA  analysis prior to implementation; also, its mission does not include a  federal role in regulating or directing off-base activity or land uses; and  aside from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil regulatory functions, it  does not routinely issue environmental permit decisions like federal  regulatory agencies. DOD stated that these reasons make it a significant  challenge for the department to meet our recommendation and therefore  does not see a tangible benefit to additional reporting.

We disagree with DOD that it does not need to issue a progress report on  its environmental justice efforts each year. As we state in the report, the  purpose of an annual progress report is to provide essential information  needed to assess federal agencies’ performance and hold agencies  accountable for achieving results. Reporting is part of a broader  performance management process that includes identifying mission and  desired outcomes, measuring performance, and using this information to  report on performance and to identify gaps in performance. DOD would  be reporting on goals that it set within its mission and authorities. For this  reason, we continue to believe that by issuing progress reports each year,  DOD could have more reasonable assurance that it has the necessary  information to assess its performance and to demonstrate results.

DOT stated that it partially concurs with recommendation 19 that it issue  progress reports annually. DOT stated that it commits to issuing progress  reports on its environmental justice efforts “when it determines that the  circumstances of its activities so warrant.” However, we continue to  believe that DOT should issue progress reports each year because doing  so would give DOT more reasonable assurance that it has the information  needed to assess its performance and to demonstrate results.

DOL neither agreed nor disagreed with the two recommendations for it to  (1) update its environmental justice strategic plan and (2) issue a  progress report on its environmental justice efforts each year  (recommendations 7 and 18). DOL stated that it values our review of its  work in this area and will review the recommendations and take  appropriate actions to improve program performance and delivery of  services.

HUD also neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations for it  to update its environmental justice strategic plan and issue a progress  report on its environmental justice efforts each year (recommendations 5  and 16). In an email, a HUD audit liaison official stated that the agency  had no comments at this time and will continue to work with the current  administration and the working group to update its environmental justice  strategic plan and issue a progress report on its environmental justice  efforts.

Education stated that our report did not sufficiently account for the  limitations on its legal authority in the subject area of environmental  justice and that our report would be more accurate and comprehensive if  it included more information about the department’s limited role.  Education also stated that it did not agree with the recommendations to  update its environmental justice strategic plan (recommendation 3) and  issue a progress report on its environmental justice efforts each year  (recommendation 13) because it does not believe this is the most  appropriate course of action for the department or an efficient use of  resources. We disagree with Education’s assessment. In the report, we  discuss Education officials’ comments that they have a limited role with  the working group because many of the topics discussed have not been  relevant to their agency’s missions. We also discuss Education’s legal  authority by including Education officials’ comment that the department  does not have federal authority to plan, fund, construct, maintain, or  operate school facilities and grounds. As discussed in the report, by  updating its strategic plan, Education would have a current plan to guide  its environmental justice activities, as it committed to do in the 2011 MOU.  By issuing progress reports each year, Education could have more  reasonable assurance that it has the necessary information to assess its  performance and to demonstrate results.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate  congressional committees; the Chair of the Council on Environmental  Quality; the Attorney General, Department of Justice; the Administrators  of the Environmental Protection Agency and General Services  Administration; the Acting Administrator of the Small Business  Administration; the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture,  Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services,  Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Labor, Transportation, and  Veterans Affairs; and the Acting Secretary of the Department of  Homeland Security. In addition, the report will be available at no charge  on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix XV.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report examines (1) the extent to which the 16 working group  agencies have developed environmental justice strategic plans and  shown progress toward environmental justice goals since 2011; (2) the  actions agencies have taken to identify and address environmental justice  issues related to their programs, policies, and activities since the  executive order was issued in 1994 and the resources they have used to  do so in recent years; and (3) the extent to which the Interagency  Working Group on Environmental Justice (working group) has  collaborated on environmental justice efforts. Sixteen federal agencies  and one agency of the Executive Office of the President are involved in  environmental justice efforts: the Council on Environmental Quality  (CEQ), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), General Services  Administration (GSA), Small Business Administration (SBA), Department  of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Commerce (Commerce),  Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Education (Education),  Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Health and Human Services  (HHS), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Housing  and Urban Development (HUD), Department of the Interior (DOI),  Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Labor (DOL), Department of  Transportation (DOT), and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

To address these objectives, we reviewed Executive Order 12898  (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority  Populations and Low-Income Populations), the 2011 Memorandum of  Understanding on Environmental Justice (MOU), working group  documents, and agency environmental justice strategic plans and  progress reports, and interviewed federal agency officials about the  documents. We also attended the 2018 National Environmental Justice  Conference and Training Program, in which leaders from various sectors  share ideas and approaches to achieving environmental justice. At this  conference, we observed sessions to gain background and context and  interviewed some attendees whom we identified and arranged to  interview prior to the conference. We also visited sites in Oakland,  California, and Richmond, California, to add context to our review with  observations of communities with environmental justice issues. We  selected these sites because they had minority and low-income  populations with environmental and health concerns. Including interviews  we conducted at the conference, we conducted 33 interviews with  environmental justice stakeholders about federal environmental justice  efforts and related issues. Of these interviews, 10 were with  representatives from national nonprofit organizations, seven were with  representatives from nonprofit groups who work on local issues, six were  with university professors, four were with employees of private  companies, two were with current or former government officials, and four  were with mixed groups of stakeholders. We identified these stakeholders  for interviews from our background interviews and document reviews. The  views of the stakeholders we interviewed cannot be generalized to all  similar stakeholders, but they represent a range of stakeholder  perspectives and provide illustrative examples of views of agency efforts.

To examine the extent to which the 16 agencies developed environmental  justice strategic plans since 2011, we determined which agencies had  completed an environmental justice strategic plan after signing the 2011  MOU and which agencies had also updated their plans at EPA’s request  in 2016. We made these determinations by reviewing the website of each  agency for its environmental justice documents, reviewing the  environmental justice strategic plans, and interviewing agency officials  about the origin and status of these environmental justice strategic plans.

To examine the extent to which the 16 agencies showed progress toward  environmental justice goals since 2011, we determined whether each  agency had completed annual environmental justice progress reports for  each year for fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2017 by reviewing the  website of each agency to identify these progress reports, reviewing the  progress reports we located, and interviewing agency officials about the  status and content of these progress reports. We also reviewed the  environmental justice strategic plans and progress reports to assess  whether agencies included a method to assess progress in accordance  with GAO’s leading practices for strategic planning and reporting,  including establishing goals and establishing a method to assess  progress toward goals. Specifically, we analyzed whether each agency’s  environmental justice strategic plan included goals and performance  measures or milestones, and whether each agency assessed progress  toward these goals using performance measures or milestones in  subsequent progress reports. We also interviewed agency officials about  their progress toward the goals of Executive Order 12898.

To examine the actions the 16 agencies took to identify and address  environmental justice issues related to their programs, policies, and  activities since the executive order was issued in 1994, we reviewed  agency environmental justice strategic plans, progress reports, and  related documents to identify illustrative examples of agency efforts in  each of the areas outlined in Executive Order 12898 and the 2011 MOU  as well as two additional areas identified by agencies. We also  interviewed officials from each agency to confirm or gather additional  information on these examples. The analysis included a detailed review of  the most recent environmental justice strategic plan and progress report  for each agency to identify examples of agency actions and a content  analysis of the most recent environmental justice strategic plan for each  agency. From this review, we (1) counted how many agencies discussed  plans to identify and address environmental justice issues related to the  areas outlined in the 1994 executive order and 2011 MOU in their most  recent environmental justice strategic plan, (2) developed a list of  illustrative examples of agency efforts to identify and address  environmental justice issues related to these areas, and (3) counted how  many agencies provided examples of actions they implemented related to  these areas. The examples are not a generalizable sample of the types or  instances of agency actions, but illustrate the various ways that different  agencies are implementing plans to identify and address environmental  justice issues and different approaches to doing so that may be useful for  other agencies, the Interagency Working Group on Environmental  Justice, and environmental justice stakeholders. We report a minimum  count of agencies that provided examples for each area because most  agencies did not formally report on progress annually and the information  we reviewed does not provide a complete record of agency environmental  justice efforts.

To examine what resources working group members used to support their  environmental justice efforts for fiscal year 2015 through 2018, we  obtained and reviewed agency budget justification documents and  agency estimates of resources data to determine which agencies (1) had  any funding or staffing resources dedicated specifically for environmental  justice in their budgets, (2) supported environmental justice efforts with a  mix of existing funding and staff from related programs, or (3) did not  report any examples of environmental justice efforts or use any resources  specifically for any environmental justice efforts. We assessed the  reliability of the agencies’ estimated resources data, including for  agencies that estimated no resources were used to support any  environmental justice efforts, by corroborating it with agency budget  justification documents or internal agency budget documentation,  interviewing agency officials about the data, and comparing it with  information on any reported examples environmental justice efforts. We  found it reliable for our purposes of describing which agencies had any  resources dedicated specifically for environmental justice in their budgets  and of presenting estimates of other funding and staffing resources used  to support environmental justice efforts.

To determine the extent to which the working group has collaborated on  environmental justice efforts, we reviewed working group documents  including the group’s fiscal year 2016-2018 Framework for Collaboration  and associated progress reports, its published guidance entitled  Promising Practices for Environmental Justice Methodologies in NEPA  Reviews, and its resource guide entitled Goods Movement Federal  Resources Compendium. We also conducted semi-structured interviews  with officials from working group committees. We compared the working  group’s organization, documents, and actions with key features of  collaborative mechanisms that GAO has identified, including clarifying  roles and responsibilities, participation, establishing written guidance and  agreements, and establishing outcomes and accountability. We selected  these features because they were most relevant to the activities of the  working group organization.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2017 to September  2019 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Additional Examples of Agency Actions to Identify and Address Environmental Justice Issues

Agencies provided examples of actions to identify and address  environmental justice issues:  Improve research and data collection  In 2017, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)  and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entered into a  memorandum of understanding (MOU) to improve communication and  data sharing about public and HUD-assisted housing located near  contaminated Superfund sites to help both agencies prioritize actions  protecting against human health and environmental risks.

The Department of the Interior (DOI) provided an example in which  the National Park Service used EPA’s Environmental Justice Mapping  and Screening Tool (EJSCREEN) in 2015 to check for populations  with respiratory health risks near a prescribed burn area (i.e., a  planned, controlled fire to manage wildfire risks) in Jean Lafitte,  Louisiana, as part of an environmental assessment (see fig. 1 for  example of EJSCREEN display).

Promote enforcement of health and environmental statutes

The Department of Justice (DOJ) officials told us that its attorneys  consider environmental justice issues when pursuing cases to enforce  federal environmental laws, and in 2014 it updated and reissued  guidance on how its attorneys should identify and address  environmental justice issues in their work. For example, DOJ reported  in its 2017 progress report that it sought and incorporated community  input on resolutions for a 2017 case involving several petrochemical  facilities alleged to be violating the Clean Air Act that were located in  Texas and Louisiana communities with environmental justice issues.  DOJ reported that some of the injunctive relief and monitoring  requirements included in the case settlement reflected suggestions  made by the community.

According to internal DOI guidance from 2018, the Central Hazardous  Materials Fund, which supports cleanup of contaminated sites on  federal lands through the Comprehensive Environmental, Response,  Compensation, and Liability Act, requires projects to be screened for  any potentially affected environmental justice communities and for the  requesting bureau to work with any communities that are identified  near the proposed project.

In its 2014 progress report, Commerce reported that the National  Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) developed a  handbook on procedures for government-to-government consultation  with federally recognized Indian tribes and Alaska Native Corporations  as part of an effort to facilitate meaningful and timely input from Tribes  into federal decisions that directly affect them.

In 2013, DOJ and EPA reported seeking and incorporating input from  low-income and minority communities on resolutions for several Clean  Water Act violations for sewer overflows in cities in Tennessee,  Mississippi, and Washington; these resolutions included requiring the  cities to address overflows at specific sites impacting these  communities and developing Supplemental Environmental Projects for  the cities to fix leaking private sewer pipes.

Identify differential patterns of consumption of natural resources  In its 2016 progress report, DOJ reported that its Environment and  Natural Resources Division negotiated a settlement to help improve  the passage of steelhead and salmon—fish that are important to the  Muckleshoot and Puyallup tribes—on the White River in Washington.

In its 2016 progress report, DOI reported that the U.S. Geological  Service worked with the Stillaguamish tribe in Washington, to assess  the effects of possible wastewater contamination on fish and wildlife in  the Stillaguamish River.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued an agency-wide  directive on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)  implementation in 2014 and the accompanying 2014 NEPA instruction  manual included public involvement requirements for populations with  environmental justice issues. For agency staff to implement this  guidance, DHS included questions about potential environmental  justice issues related to the proposed action in its NEPA assessment  system.

Since at least 2012, as part of the NEPA process for HUD-assisted  projects, HUD requires the environmental review record to document  any adverse and disproportionate impacts on low-income or minority  populations, and steps to engage the community in meaningful  participation about mitigating the adverse impacts or moving the  project.

The General Services Administration’s (GSA) 1999 Public Building  Service NEPA Desk Guide includes a section specifically on  environmental justice, which states that each GSA NEPA review  should include some level of environmental justice analysis. In its  2015 progress report, GSA reported that it continues to consider  environmental justice issues for proposed Public Buildings Service  projects.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) 1997 Departmental  Regulation on Environmental Justice directs USDA component  agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their NEPA  processes (e.g., Rural Development’s official guidance includes a  section on integrating environmental justice and socioeconomic  analyses into environmental reviews as part of the NEPA process).

Implement Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964  In its 2017 progress report, EPA reported that its External Civil Rights  Compliance Office provided training and technical assistance on  federal civil rights obligations to local agencies, tribal governments,  and 38 states across the agency’s 10 regions through outreach calls  and meetings in 2017.

According to the Department of Commerce, NOAA has developed  information, tools, and services to help society understand, plan for,  and respond to climate variability and change. As part of this effort,  NOAA built a web-based resource called Digital Coast, which can be  used to identify the risk of potential sea-level rise and inundation to  vulnerable populations (e.g., low-income).

According to the Department of Energy’s (DOE) 2015 progress report,  the 2015 National Environmental Justice Conference and Training  Program focused on climate change and climate justice. DOE also  issued a 2015 report on the vulnerabilities that tribal energy systems,  such as electric grid infrastructure, have to climate change and  extreme weather, and announced a grant opportunity to establish  clean energy projects and energy efficiency projects on tribal lands.

Consider impacts from goods movement  In its 2017 progress report, EPA reported prioritizing funding projects  to reduce elevated diesel emissions from equipment moving goods  and people near seaports and airports through its Diesel Emissions  Reduction Act grants.

The Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Federal Highway  Administration created an Environmental Justice Tools Peer Network  to share transportation practitioners’ experiences using EJSCREEN  and other relevant data tools in decisions about transportation  planning or project development.

DOJ officials told us that new attorneys and staff in its Environment  and Natural Resources Division—the primary division responsible for  prosecuting environmental cases—received training on environmental  justice issues.

In its most recent environmental justice strategic plan, DOT reported  that it offers environmental justice training throughout the agency to  help federal employees and grantees ensure compliance with  environmental justice policies. For example, in its 2015 progress  report, DOT stated that its Federal Highway Administration and  Federal Transit Administration offered courses and webinars on such  topics as environmental justice fundamentals, planning, and analysis;  Title VI; and freight impacts.

USDA officials told us that its National Resources Conservation  Service developed a webinar in 2014 to assist conservation planners,  partners, and technical service providers understand, analyze, and  document environmental justice issues related to planned  conservation actions under NEPA, such as data sources and potential  mitigation measures.

In its 2017 progress report, EPA reported holding training sessions for  community organizations on how to use EJSCREEN, how to apply for  grants, and other strategies and resources to deal with specific  environmental justice issues, such as lead exposure and poisoning.

Since 2007, DOE has sponsored an annual conference, the National  Environmental Justice Conference and Training Program, with  support from other agencies, to bring together community leaders;  federal, state, and local government representatives; tribal leaders;  environmental justice organizations; and others. The conference  provides a forum to share information, tools, and strategies for  identifying and dealing with specific environmental justice issues that  communities may be facing, and agencies in the working group  reported participating.

Since at least 2012, HUD has offered online training on environmental  justice for HUD grantees to help build their capacity to meet  environmental review responsibilities for HUD-assisted projects.

In 2017, DOI and EPA entered into an MOU to collaborate on  environmental justice and economic development issues by assisting  underserved communities through academic partnerships, technical  assistance, and training, in collaboration with the communities.

In its 2016 progress report, the Department of Labor reported that the  Employment and Training Administration’s Job Corps, a job training  program for low-income and at-risk youth, offers training in fields such  as green building and hazardous waste removal.

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Energy

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of the Interior

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Justice

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Labor

Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Transportation

Appendix X: Comments from the Department of Education

Appendix XI: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency

Appendix XII: Comments from the Department of Health & Human Services

Appendix XIII: Comments from the Department of Agriculture

Appendix XIV: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs

Appendix XV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

J. Alfredo Gómez, (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov.

In addition to the individual named above, Susan Iott (Assistant Director),  Allen Chan (Analyst-in-Charge), Peter Beck, Hannah Dodd, Juan Garay,  Rich Johnson, Matthew Levie, Ben Licht, Cynthia Norris, Amber Sinclair,  Kiki Theodoropoulos, and Elise Vaughan Winfrey made key contributions  to this report.

Environmental justice seeks to address the disproportionately high health and environmental risks found among low-income and minority communities by seeking their fair treatment and involvement in environmental policy. California's mostly minority and low-income community of West Oakland, for example, is surrounded by 3 freeways and a port. Its residents are exposed to diesel air pollution 3 times higher than the surrounding area.

Most federal agencies have plans to address environmental justice issues, but few assessed their annual progress. We made 24 recommendations, including that agencies update their plans and report on progress.