The Environmental Protection Agency has terminated the program that gave Fordham a $60 million grant for environmental justice programs, according to an email sent by Tania Tetlow on May 6.
Through the Thriving Communities Grantmaking Program, Fordham was given $48 million to distribute to partner organizations and received $12 million for its own administrative costs, according to University Spokesperson Bob Howe. However, Howe wrote in an email that “very little of the total” amount promised ever reached the university or its partners before the program’s termination.
Tetlow wrote in her email that Fordham received over 1,000 applications for subgrants through the program. Julie Gafney, executive director of the Center for Community Engaged Learning, said that no grants were finalized before the program was terminated.
According to Tetlow, the EPA explained that the program was terminated because “the objectives of the award are no longer consistent with EPA funding priorities.”
Fordham’s website states that the EPA notified the university of the grant’s termination on May 2. The EPA is in the process of terminating nearly 800 different grants associated with environmental justice, according to a court filing on April 23.
According to Tetlow, the EPA explained that the program was terminated because “the objectives of the award are no longer consistent with EPA funding priorities.”
Fordham was one of 11 grantmakers approved under the EPA’s Thriving Communities Grantmaker program. Under the program, Fordham was responsible for organizing subgrants to community organizations in EPA Region 2, encompassing New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and eight Indian nations.
Despite the large number of grant applications, sub-grants were never awarded due to the uncertainty around federal funding after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, according to Gafney.
“From inauguration day onward, our funds were frozen and then lifted and frozen and lifted, so it was a process of uncertainty. We weren’t able to enter into contracts with any of the applicants. We had to wait for more stability,” Gafney said.
Gafney wrote Fordham’s application for the grant and directed the program’s execution in her role as “principal investigator.” She said the program’s cancellation is a significant setback to funding community organizations.
“It is heartbreaking because this was a brand new and very promising method for moving federal funding directly to communities. I think what we structured was really strong, and I think it could have served as a model for future funding opportunities like this. Now we are basically going to turn the clock back four years and have to start all over,” Gafney said.
Gafney said the program attracted organizations seeking federal funding for a wide range of applications, including projects that would build resilience against extreme weather events, clean polluted bodies of water and build infrastructure for renewable energy. According to Gafney, the program allowed local organizations to take control of the response to issues that affect their communities.
“We know that the people closest to the problems have the best knowledge to construct viable solutions, but often these are the very communities cut off from federal funds due to the heavy burden of applications, reporting, reimbursement model funding and oversight requirements,” Gafney wrote in an email.
Gafney said that the program had the potential to direct federal funding to historically disenfranchised U.S. territories Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
“This was an opportunity for us to begin to address some of the funding inequity that exists between states and territories and to start a process of moving money to Puerto Rico, to the U.S. Virgin Islands and to other territories,” Gafney said.
Fordham stated that it “made every effort to prevent the grant from being rescinded, including extensive appeals to elected officials, and engagement with the EPA.”
According to Gafney, the cancellation was particularly surprising because Congress, not the agency, should have the sole authority to make the decision.
“The grant is funded by congressionally directed dollars, and so a change for that funding really should be coming from Congress. It should not be coming from the agency, and it should not be coming based on a change in priorities of the executive branch,” Gafney said.
