This story was published by The Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit, nonpartisan investigative news organization in Washington, DC.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Civil Rights will more aggressively evaluate recipients of EPA funding to ensure their compliance with federal civil-rights laws, the office said in a draft Strategic Plan released two weeks ago. Billed as an effort that “invigorates the EPA’s civil-rights mission,” the five-year plan commits the agency for the first time to conduct targeted compliance reviews.
Beginning October 1, the EPA’s civil-rights office will boost the number of proactive reviews of mostly state and local agencies by investigators on the ground. Targets will be chosen based on “statistical data, prior complaints, reports by other EPA offices” and other factors, the plan states. By fiscal year 2018, the office promises to complete six compliance reviews of recipient agencies per year; the annual tally will rise to 11 reviews by 2021, and 22 by 2024.
The office is responsible for investigating environmental-discrimination claims filed by communities of color under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It also processes discrimination complaints lodged by EPA employees.
Last month, a Center for Public Integrity investigation found that, since the mid-1990s, the EPA has dismissed 95 percent of all community claims alleging environmental discrimination without providing any remedy. In a series of stories entitled “Environmental Justice, Denied,” the Center examined how the EPA’s enforcement of Title VI has frustrated minority communities across the country. The series featured suggestions for how to fix the broken civil-rights office. One was to perform more proactive reviews.
The 19-page strategic plan centers on three overarching goals for the EPA’s civil-rights office: develop a “proactive compliance program,” ensure a “prompt, effective and efficient” complaint process and “strengthen” its own staff. Each aims to support Civil Rights Director Velveta Golightly-Howell’s vision for, in her words, “a model civil rights program worthy of replication.”
“We are steadily moving towards that goal, and much positive change has already occurred,” Golightly-Howell said in a statement introducing the plan. “While recognizing that there is still work to do, we are proud of our accomplishments.”
Under its plan, the office will provide policy guidelines for recipient agencies, including “examples of promising practices” to avoid environmental discrimination – something that experts, advocates and auditors have all suggested. In the draft, the office said it will “periodically” issue informal guidance and policy memoranda intended to help minority communities, as well as local and state agencies.
The plan does not mention one of the most fundamental and controversial policy debates for the EPA – the legal standards for determining environmental racism. Advocates and recipient agencies alike have called for the EPA to develop such standards for years.
The plan sets timelines for some initiatives that the office has already announced – the 2016 launch of a civil-rights annual report, for instance. It also addresses longstanding criticisms of the office as dysfunctional, committing to annual surveys of civil-rights staff, as well as specialized training.
One new effort is an upcoming “notice of proposed rulemaking” for civil-rights claims. The EPA is considering bringing its Title VI regulations in line with those of other federal agencies, it said, and giving the civil-rights office more “discretion” to handle complaints. Under existing regulations, the office has a 20-day deadline to decide whether or not to investigate Title VI complaints; if so, it has another 180 days to issue preliminary findings.
In its draft, however, the agency said that investigating Title VI complaints under these “self-imposed, inflexible deadlines is impracticable.” It cites what it calls “the scientific complexity” associated with environmental-discrimination claims, as well as “the number of discrimination allegations and theories.”
In a statement to the Center, the EPA said the notice of proposed rulemaking would do away with the 20-day and 180-day deadlines and instead require that complaints be processed “promptly.” The agency also would be given the ability to “request and receive compliance information from [funding] recipients on a regular basis.”
The EPA’s civil-rights office has long been criticized for failing to meet its own deadlines. The Center found that the office took nearly a year, on average, simply to determine whether to accept a complaint.
Five community groups sued the EPA in July, seeking to force the agency to finish investigating civil-rights claims that have been pending for at least a decade – some as far back as 1994.
Lawyer Marianne Engelman Lado, of Earthjustice, which represents the groups in the litigation, considers the notice “a red flag.” While the draft plan offers little detail, she said, “The only thing that seems clear is that [agency officials] want to roll back the statutory deadline … the EPA seems to want to take away the only handle we have to make them accountable in these cases.”
Brooklyn Law School professor Gregg Macey, who specializes in environmental law, said the notice’s emphasis on “EPA’s enforcement discretion” also raises concerns, especially since the strategic plan stresses use of “alternative dispute resolution” and other ways to settle Title VI complaints. Historically, he said, the civil-rights office has used such voluntary agreements to force improvements in community outreach or non-English language translations, among other things.
“It’s hard to locate in these agreements any improvement of environmental conditions on the ground,” Macey said.
The EPA’s strategic plan will be open for public comment through October 13.
This story is part of Environmental Justice, Denied. A look at the environmental problems that disproportionately affect communities of color. Click here to read more stories in this investigation.
Copyright 2015 The Center for Public Integrity.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.