PODCAST: Fellowship Program

Podcast Script for: “EPA Paid $14.5 Million to Foreign Fellows that Could Have Funded Research by U.S. Citizens or Permanent Residents”


[GARY]  Hello, I’m Gary Sternberg, with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Inspector General. I’m speaking with Beto Ibarra, who works in the OIG’s Office of Audit and Evaluation. Beto was an Auditor in Charge for the team that determined EPA monies totaling 14-and-a-half million dollars between October 2016 and December 2017 were used to award fellowships to people who were not citizens or permanent residents of the United States. First, Beto, can you tell me a bit about the fellowship program?

[BETO]  Sure, Gary. The EPA provides financial support for research fellowships and professional development opportunities to encourage students to obtain advanced degrees in the environmental sciences. These fellows generally work in EPA labs and offices. The idea is to encourage science, technology, engineering and math-related careers. The U.S. workforce needs professionals in these fields to generate solutions to environmental issues.

[GARY]  And how does the EPA award these fellowships? Does the EPA itself award the fellowships directly to students, or does the EPA provide money to organizations, which then award the money to fellows?

[BETO]  Both! The EPA awards some fellowships directly to postgraduate students. In addition, during the period covered by this audit, the EPA awarded cooperative agreements to three nonprofit organizations, which then selected fellows according to their own criteria. Those three nonprofits were the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health, and the National Academy of Sciences. 

[GARY]  Okay. Why did the EPA OIG conduct this audit of the EPA’s fellowship program? What were your team’s objectives?

[BETO]   There were three. We sought to determine whether the EPA’s awards to nonprofit organizations to fill fellowships are in the public’s best interest and an effective use of taxpayer dollars. We looked at whether the EPA’s execution of its fellowship program maximizes environmental research results and meets the agency’s mission. Lastly, we examined the accuracy and allowability of costs reported by the recipient organizations given cooperative agreements.

[GARY]  And what did you find?

[BETO]  Well, you mentioned a moment ago that, during the 11-year period the audit team studied, 14-and-a-half million dollars was spent on funding fellowships for foreign nationals. Specifically, 107 of 166 fellows hosted at EPA labs were foreign nationals. In the EPA OIG’s view, using taxpayers’ money to fund fellowships for students who are neither U.S. citizens nor permanent residents is not in the public’s best interest. Those funds could be put to better use.

[GARY]  So, why were the fellowships awarded to people who were neither U.S. citizens nor permanent residents?

[BETO]  Just to clarify, the EPA itself awarded fellowships only to people who met U.S. citizenship requirements or had permanent residency, and two of the three nonprofits followed the same practice. However, the third nonprofit—the National Academy of Sciences—did not. An EPA Office of General Counsel attorney told us that the EPA was reluctant to tell cooperative agreement recipients what to do regarding this matter. When we talked to the National Academy of Sciences officials, they said they awarded the fellowships based on the quality of the applicant and application regardless of nationality. However, they also acknowledged that whether to include foreign nationals in the program is entirely at the discretion of the sponsor, which is the EPA.

[GARY]  Why does the Office of Inspector General think it is important to only have fellowships awarded to U.S. citizens or people who have permanent residency?

[BETO]   The primary benefits of fellowships are reaped by students selected to participate. The EPA may offer long-term employment to fellows. Through fellowships, the EPA trains future professors, researchers and public health officials. Foreign nationals typically return to their home countries after fellowships end and take their newfound knowledge with them. As a best practice, these opportunities should go to U.S. citizens and permanent residents—we think that’s how the American taxpayers’ money should be invested.

[GARY]  So what did you recommend?

[BETO]  We recommended that the EPA stipulate in all future grants and cooperative agreements that fellowships only be awarded to U.S. citizens or those holding a visa permitting permanent residence in the United States, consistent with citizenship requirements for fellowships awarded directly by the EPA. The agency agreed to implement this recommendation.

 [GARY]  During your audit, did you find anything else of concern regarding the dollars awarded to the three nonprofit organizations for fellowships?

[BETO]  Yes. We found that the other two nonprofits—the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health—did not always report expenses to the EPA accurately. We determined that 11-thousand-nine-hundred sixty-five taxpayer dollars spent could have been put to better use if the EPA had conducted better monitoring. One fellow received an overpayment, while another was inappropriately provided relocation expenses as both the old and new locations were in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. The EPA agreed with our recommendation to perform more advanced monitoring reviews of payment documentation. We found no issues for the National Academy of Sciences’ reporting of expenses.   

[GARY]  Thank you so much, Beto, for sharing the results of this audit. For more information about this report and other EPA Office of Inspector General work, please visit our website at www-DOT-epa-DOT-gov-FORWARD SLASH-oig, and be sure to follow us on Twitter at epaoig.