PRACTICE—LESSONS LEARNED
Barriers to Equity Within Environmental Justice
and Climate Justice Grant Programs
Mary Buchanan1 and Joanna Wozniak-Brown2
1PhD, Connecticut Institute for Resilience and Climate Adaptation (CIRCA)
2PhD, AICP, Connecticut Office of Policy and Management (OPM)
a n o p e n a c c e s s
j o u r n a l
Keywords: distributive justice, procedural justice, equity, environmental justice, climate justice,
grantmaking
ABSTRACT
In 2020, Connecticut undertook a statewide engagement process via the Governor’s Council
on Climate Change (GC3) to develop priorities for climate change mitigation and adaptation,
especially from an equity approach. A priority action from the GC3 process called for grants
to fund participation by community-based organizations and nongovernmental organizations
to increase representation from communities that have been marginalized. This is similar to
efforts from other states and the federal government to direct funds to historically excluded
groups to redress inequities or to financially support their participation and sharing of their
expertise in these processes. While the programs have the intent to address inequity, often the
grantmaking mechanisms can make it harder for marginalized groups to participate in the
grant process, nullifying the grant’s intent. This review of environmental justice and climate
justice grant programs offers insight to grantmakers on embedding equity into the grant process
and, ideally, achieving their intent.
INTRODUCTION
The summer of 2020 was marked by a deep social and political reckoning with injustice in
multiple forms across the United States, spurred by police violence and larger patterns of racial
inequity; in the years since, academic and governmental institutions have increased efforts
beyond “business as usual” to embed equity and environmental justice more deeply into pro-
cesses, policies, and programs. This is especially true for efforts in communities that have been
marginalized because of race, color, national origin, religion, disability, or socioeconomic
status. During the protests of 2020 against racial injustice and violence, Connecticut was
simultaneously working to advance climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation
with an equity lens through the Governor’s Council on Climate Change (GC3). This combina-
tion of timing and events demanded that climate-related efforts prioritize equity, not as a stand-
alone goal or program, but integrated into any climate actions and programs.
In January 2021, the GC3 released “Taking Action on Climate Change and Building a More
Resilient Connecticut for All: Phase 1 Report: Near-Term Actions” (Governor’s Council on
Climate Change, 2021). The Equity and Environmental Justice (EEJ) Working Group was a
stand-alone committee as well as a reviewer of the actions developed by each working group.
The EEJ Working Group incorporated several principles of equity including distributive equity,
procedural equity, contextual equity, and corrective equity. Of the four types of equity
Citation: Buchanan, M., & Wozniak-
Brown, J. (2023). Barriers to Equity
Within Environmental Justice and
Climate Justice Grant Programs.
Journal of Climate Resilience & Climate
Justice, 1, 119–133. https://doi.org/10
.1162/crcj_a_00001
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1162/crcj_a_00001
Corresponding Author:
Mary Buchanan
mary.buchanan@uconn.edu
Copyright: © 2023
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Published under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International
(CC BY 4.0) license.
The MIT Press
Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00001/2157238/crcj_a_00001.pdf by guest on 07 September 2023
Barriers to Equity in Climate Grant Programs
prioritized by the GC3, distributive equity and procedural equity hold the most immediate
relevance for grantmakers. Grantmakers must design both the process of grantmaking (such
as the application instructions, forms, and requirements) and the outcome of grantmaking
(such as the selection of grantees and distribution of funds) in order to meet equity goals.
Ashley (2014, p. 689) distinguishes between distributive (“outcome of the process”) and pro-
cedural (“processes by which social decisions are made”) justice.1
Scholars and practitioners have distinguished equity and justice as separate, although
related, concepts. Equity is the “equal and fair distribution of opportunities, resources, and
environments free from climate hazards and risks regardless of individual/group identity or
background” (Chu & Cannon, 2021, p. 87). Justice is “recognition that minority groups are
structurally vulnerable and intergenerationally disadvantaged in terms of their cultural, polit-
ical, and socioeconomic rights” (Chu & Cannon, 2021, p. 87). The scope of this article limits
exploration of these differences except that procedural and distributive components in a cli-
mate change context have been more deeply explored as justice instead of equity. Historically
disadvantaged groups have been made more vulnerable to climate change impacts as well as
denied opportunities for resources that would increase their adaptive capacity to respond to
climate change. Brandstedt and Brülde (2019) describe “pure procedural climate justice” as an
approach by which “fair procedures must be worked out without any preconceptions about
just outcomes” (p. 790); in other words, outcomes are not identified as just by virtue of meeting
specific preconceived distributive goals, but by emerging from a fair process. Distributive
climate justice includes: “(1) identifying the goods and ills that are being distributed; (2) iden-
tifying the entities between whom they are to be distributed; and (3) identifying the most
appropriate mode of distribution as well as what this is based on (e.g., status, need, merit,
rights or ascriptive and social identities)” (Newell et al., 2021, p. 5). From a funding and grant-
making perspective, distributive equity and justice should be incorporated into the procedural
design and not serve as an independent or separate effort. For these reasons, our analysis here
focuses on these two principles (procedural and distributive), although further research on
contextual and corrective equity in the context of climate planning and action would certainly
be valuable.
While international negotiations continue on climate change mitigation and adaptation,
localities and their partners, such as ICLEI and EcoAdapt as national examples, continue to
push for action closer to home. Climate justice efforts, for adaptation in particular, often focus
on local scales of action, from neighborhoods to municipalities and potentially state levels
(Schlosberg & Collins, 2014). Across the United States, localities have differing levels of
authorities over important climate change mechanisms such as land use, siting of infrastruc-
ture, and transportation. This creates an interscalar tension that requires constant negotiation
and careful action to embed climate justice. Newell et al. (2021) call out the “local trap”
(Brown & Purcell, 2005), as transformative climate justice cannot presume independence
between the local, state, and international scales; despite that tension, the machinations of
adaptation planning must account for local priorities. In fact, climate justice can be an
“explanatory tool… [to] better explain the relationships at different scales that co-create and
maintain injustice” since “meaningful climate justice addresses complex issues across space,
place, and scale” (Sultana, 2022, p. 119). Increasing adaptive capacity through climate justice
goals such as increased participation, increased representation through recognitional justice
1 Please review the above-mentioned GC3 report for further descriptions of contextual and corrective equity.
Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice
120
Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00001/2157238/crcj_a_00001.pdf by guest on 07 September 2023
Barriers to Equity in Climate Grant Programs
(Newell et al., 2021), and enhanced social capital will increase resilience outside of brick-and-
mortar adaptation measures. To address several components of equity, a priority recommen-
dation from the EEJ Working Group was:
Develop and identify funding for a community engagement strategy to inform the
2021 GC3 planning process and implementation, including support in the form of grants
for partnering community-based, non-governmental organizations to design the commu-
nity engagement process, receive training, and co-develop recommendations to ensure
meaningful input and equitable approaches to mitigation and adaptation. Both public
and private funding should be pursued. (Governor’s Council on Climate Change, 2021)
In response to this recommendation, the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmen-
tal Protection (DEEP) allocated funds from the state’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative cap-
and-trade program to the Connecticut Institute for Resilience & Climate Adaptation (CIRCA) at
the University of Connecticut to create a pilot Climate & Equity Grant Program. It was impor-
tant to DEEP and CIRCA that the grant program be designed with limited barriers to participa-
tion. To address equity in the grantmaking part of the program, we reviewed other U.S.-based
grant programs with environmental and climate resilience and/or justice goals. The review
used a distributive equity, procedural equity, and climate justice lens to identify common bar-
riers to community-based organizations being able to access, apply, and deploy grant funds.
While the grant program achieves a priority of the GC3, this careful grant design seeks to meet
the spirit of the program as well.
To that end, we were guided by Mohnot et al.’s (2019) previous work on incorporating
equity into climate resilience programs, as well as Myrick et al.’s (2018) and GrantCraft’s
(2007) previous work on how grantmakers can enact specific values through grant programs.
Additionally, research conducted on administrative burdens (Herd & Moynihan, 2018;
Moynihan et al., 2015, 2016), in particular Herd and Moynihan’s (2018) framework, identifies
learning costs, compliance costs, and psychological costs as three specific categories of
administrative burdens faced by those seeking to access government benefits. Although much
of the literature on administrative burdens focuses on health care and social welfare access,
we expect similar conditions in nonprofit grant seeking, as labor resources and expertise are
key determinants for success in grant acquisition and other fundraising (Giving Compass,
2021; Rumbul, 2013; Suárez, 2011; Yi, 2010).
While the geospatial distribution of the grants is a consideration in the selection of final
grantees, the ability of historically disadvantaged communities to participate and utilize the
grants depends first on an equitable application process. Our review of other grant programs
with goals related to environmental and climate resilience and/or justice includes common
program characteristics and potential barriers to equity within the grantmaking process. We
conclude with recommendations for funders to address these barriers and potential next steps
for grantmaking as a tool for equity for governmental and academic contexts. Ideally, at the
conclusion of the grant program, we will be able to provide additional reflections on the grant
program’s performance and its service to marginalized populations.
REVIEW METHODS
Ten grant programs were reviewed. Each program had goals related to climate resilience plan-
ning, climate justice, and/or environmental justice. We assessed each program for structural or
administrative barriers that hinder access to these financial resources, that is, procedural
Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice
121
Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00001/2157238/crcj_a_00001.pdf by guest on 07 September 2023
Barriers to Equity in Climate Grant Programs
justice. The program selection process included the following criteria: variety of funding
sources; explicit mention of equity and/or justice within the program materials; and relevance
to the GC3’s goals for the upcoming Climate & Equity Grant Program in Connecticut. Four of
the programs reviewed are administered by state government agencies, two are administered
by the federal U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, two are administered by nonprofit 501(c)
(3) organizations, one is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion, and one is administered by a regional planning council. Grant program names and
sources are listed in Table 1.
Program websites, lists of previous grantees, and past or present requests for applications
(RFAs), if available, were reviewed for each program. The following characteristics were
assessed: 1) program goals (specified through program websites or RFAs); 2) eligibility of
applicants; 3) range of grant amounts; 4) match funding requirements; 5) letters of support
requirements; 6) award notification schedule; 7) funding structure (how the grant funds are
distributed or received); 8) evaluation criteria for application review; 9) timeframe; 10)
grantee deliverables; and 11) presence of language related to equity goals (on the program
website, RFA, or other associated program documents). These characteristics were selected
for study due to multiple considerations, such as the degree of work expected from the
applicant/grantee to fulfill program requirements, relevance to the authors’ goal of assessing
equity within environmental and climate justice funding programs, and availability of infor-
mation on program websites and in RFAs. Manual coding was used to record and organize
the information available on each grant program according to the categories in Table 2. The
Grant Program Name
Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness
Program Planning Grant Program
Community Resilience Partnership
Community Action Grant Program
Transformative Climate Communities
Planning Grant Program
Table 1. Grant Programs Reviewed
Grantor
Massachusetts Executive Office of
Energy and Environmental Affairs
Maine Governor’s Office of Policy
Innovation and the Future
California Strategic Growth Council
Environmental Justice Community Impact
Grant Program
New York Department of
Environmental Conservation
Environmental Justice Small Grants Program
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem
-Solving Cooperative Agreement Program
Environmental Protection Agency
Climate Action and Racial Equity Grant
Minneapolis Foundation
Program
Climate Justice for All Project Grants
The Climate Reality Project
Community Climate Resilience Grant
Competition
Accelerating Climate Resiliency Grant
Program
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Regional Integrated
Sciences and Assessments
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area
Planning Council
Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice
Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00001/2157238/crcj_a_00001.pdf by guest on 07 September 2023
Acronym
MA
ME
CA
NY
EPA-SG
EPA-CPS
MF
CRP
NOAA
MAPC
122
Barriers to Equity in Climate Grant Programs
Program Characteristic
Program goals*
*More than one code may apply.
Table 2. Manual Coding Categories for Grant Program Review
Categories for Coding
(cid:129) Climate mitigation or emissions reduction
(cid:129) Climate adaptation
(cid:129) Resilience
(cid:129) Assessment/evaluation of vulnerabilities or risks
(cid:129) Local or community levels of action
(cid:129) Regional levels of action
(cid:129) Equity or justice
(cid:129) Partnerships or collaboration
(cid:129) Public health
(cid:129) Economy
(cid:129) Preparation for additional future funding
Eligibility of applicants
(cid:129) Municipalities and/or tribes are eligible.
(cid:129) Nonprofit organizations are eligible.
(cid:129) Eligibility varies by round or is a combination of the above.
Range of grant amounts
(cid:129) Minimum grant award offered by each category of funding entity (federal,
state, foundation, planning council).
(cid:129) Maximum grant award offered by each category of funding entity (federal,
Match funding requirements
Letters of support requirements
state, foundation, planning council).
(cid:129) Yes, match funding is required.
(cid:129) No, match funding is not required.
(cid:129) RFA does not specify.
(cid:129) Yes, letters of support are required.
(cid:129) No, letters of support are not required.
○ Although not required, letters of support are encouraged.
○ Letters of support are neither required nor encouraged.
(cid:129) RFA does not specify.
Award notification schedule
(cid:129) RFA provides a specific timeframe to indicate when notification is expected
Funding structure
(if yes, note number of weeks/months).
(cid:129) RFA does not specify.
(cid:129) Funding will be provided upfront.
(cid:129) Funding will be provided as reimbursement.
(cid:129) RFA does not specify.
Evaluation criteria
(cid:129) RFA includes a scoring rubric with at least one scoring element explicitly
referring to equity or justice.
(cid:129) RFA includes a scoring rubric with no scoring elements explicitly referring
to equity or justice.
(cid:129) RFA does not include a scoring rubric.
Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice
123
Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00001/2157238/crcj_a_00001.pdf by guest on 07 September 2023
Barriers to Equity in Climate Grant Programs
Program Characteristic
Timeframe
(cid:129) RFA provides a specific timeframe to indicate the length of the grant period
Categories for Coding
Table 2.
(continued )
Grantee deliverables*
*More than one code may apply.
(if yes, note number of months/years).
(cid:129) RFA does not specify.
(cid:129) Final report expected.
(cid:129) No final report expected.
(cid:129) Progress report (midterm or quarterly) expected.
(cid:129) No progress report (midterm or quarterly) expected.
(cid:129) Deliverable(s) expected other than a report.
Presence of language related to equity goals*
*More than one code may apply.
(cid:129) RFA or associated grant program materials explicitly reference equity or
justice:
Note. RFA = request for application.
○ Referenced briefly (single reference appearing in only one section of the
document).
○ Referenced throughout (multiple references appearing in multiple sections
of the document).
(cid:129) RFA or associated grant program materials make no explicit reference to
equity or justice.
(cid:129) RFA or associated grant program materials refer to a mapping tool for
identifying environmental justice (EJ) populations.
(cid:129) RFA or associated grant program materials make no references to any
mapping tools for identifying EJ populations.
coding within each row was inductive (developed during the review process rather than
preset).
OBSERVATIONS
Observed commonalities across grant programs for these characteristics are listed in Table 3,
along with several notable characteristics unique to specific programs.
BARRIERS TO EQUITY IN GRANT PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS
Multiple program characteristics that potentially create barriers for applicants from underre-
sourced organizations and populations were observed in the grant programs reviewed. In
several cases, barriers relate to the amount of time and/or labor required from the applicant,
tipping the scales in favor of applicants with enough staff to meet these requirements. In other
cases, observed barriers relate to how equity goals are described and/or evaluated within the
listed grant programs. Table 4 indicates potential barriers to equity we identified in the grant
program reviewed, with grant program acronyms indicating which programs included each
observed characteristic.
Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice
124
Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00001/2157238/crcj_a_00001.pdf by guest on 07 September 2023
Barriers to Equity in Climate Grant Programs
Characteristics
Program goals
Table 3. Observed Commonalities Across Grant Programs
Observed Commonalities
(cid:129) Assessing climate vulnerability
(cid:129) Increasing community resilience
(cid:129) Reducing emissions
(cid:129) Fostering local/community solutions
(cid:129) Advancing climate equity
(cid:129) Building collaborative partnerships and/or regional coordination
(cid:129) Preparing communities for future implementation grant applications
(cid:129) Addressing public health concerns
Eligibility
Two programs are limited to municipalities and tribes:
(cid:129) MA
(cid:129) ME
Four programs are limited to nonprofit organizations:
(cid:129) MF
(cid:129) CRP
(cid:129) NY
(cid:129) NOAA
(cid:129) Of these, two (CRP; NY) require and one (MF)
prioritizes projects where the applicant
organization is at least 50%-led by members
of the affected population
Four programs vary by round or include combinations
of the above:
(cid:129) EPA-SG
(cid:129) EPA-CPS
(cid:129) MAPC
(cid:129) CA
Range of grant
amounts
The minimum grant award of any program reviewed
was $2,500, while the maximum award was $300,000.
(cid:129) The state programs reviewed ranged from
$5,000 to $300,000.
(cid:129) The federal programs reviewed ranged from
$25,000 to $200,000.
(cid:129) The foundation programs reviewed ranged
from $2,500 to $50,000.
(cid:129) The planning council program reviewed
had no minimum listed and a maximum
of $125,000.
Match fund
requirements
Of the programs reviewed, the majority do not require any form of match funding or leverage from applicants.
Exceptions to this include a requirement of municipal staff time for the MA program and match funding of
10–20% for actions that are not on a pre-issued list for the ME program. One program (NOAA) does not
specify whether match is required.
Letters of support
Generally encouraged, rarely required.
Notification
schedule
Range: 2 weeks–3 months after application submission deadlines. Most programs notify applicants 1–3 months
after application submission deadlines.
Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice
125
Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00001/2157238/crcj_a_00001.pdf by guest on 07 September 2023
Barriers to Equity in Climate Grant Programs
Table 3.
(continued )
Characteristics
Funding structure
Three programs provide grant awards upfront:
Observed Commonalities
(cid:129) MA
(cid:129) CRP
(cid:129) EPA-CPS
Three programs are reimbursement-based:
Four programs do not specify:
Evaluation criteria
Six programs include scoring rubrics (possible total of
100) in the RFA; four of these (*) have equity
components included in the rubric:
Four programs describe evaluation criteria but do not
include scoring rubrics:
(cid:129) MAPC
(cid:129) CA
(cid:129) NY
(cid:129) ME
(cid:129) MF
(cid:129) EPA-SG
(cid:129) NOAA
(cid:129) ME*
(cid:129) MF*
(cid:129) EPA-SG*
(cid:129) CA
(cid:129) EPA-CPS*
(cid:129) NY
(cid:129) CRP
(cid:129) MAPC
(cid:129) MA
(cid:129) NOAA
Timeframe
Range: 8 months–3 years, with grant periods of 1–2 years most common among the programs reviewed.
Grantee deliverables All programs require a final report or product after the grant period. All but one (MF) require progress reports
during the grant period (quarterly or midterm). Other deliverables include completed plans, case studies with
lessons learned, lists of next steps, blog posts, and workshop attendance.
Presence of equity
language in RFA
Most programs have at least some equity-related language in the RFA, although some have only vague or
perfunctory references.
Seven programs rely at least somewhat on a mapping
tool to indicate environmental justice populations;
of these, two (*) rely almost exclusively on the map:
(cid:129) MA
(cid:129) MF
(cid:129) EPA-SG
(cid:129) EPA-CPS
(cid:129) MAPC
(cid:129) CA*
(cid:129) NY*
One program included an equity toolkit among the
provided resources for applicants:
(cid:129) MA
Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice
126
Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00001/2157238/crcj_a_00001.pdf by guest on 07 September 2023
Barriers to Equity in Climate Grant Programs
Table 3.
(continued )
Characteristics
Other notable
features unique to
specific programs
Community Liaison Model, in which applicant
municipalities include paid advisors from climate-
vulnerable communities:
Observed Commonalities
(cid:129) MA
Requirement for projects to relate to “gathering or
transferring information or advancing awareness”:
Weekly “office hours” for applicants:
Requirement to participate in a “Resilience
Community of Practice,” including peer-to-peer
networking opportunities and workshops during the
grant period:
(cid:129) EPA-SG
(cid:129) EPA-CPS
(cid:129) CRP
(cid:129) MAPC
Note. See Table 1 for program descriptions and abbreviations. RFA = request for application.
Barriers related to burdensome application requirements (whether of time, labor, or tech-
nology) were most common, with eight of the reviewed programs having application char-
acteristics that require significant administrative effort from the applicant. In several cases
these potentially burdensome features were intentional requirements of the grant application
(similar to the “compliance costs” within Herd & Moynihan’s [2018] framework), while in
others the potential burden comes from a lack of clarity in the RFA and the subsequent like-
lihood that applicants will need to spend time seeking clarification or else will be discour-
aged from applying altogether (similar to the “learning costs” within Herd & Moynihan’s
[2018] framework). These characteristics are particularly problematic for programs that seek
to make grants to nonprofit organizations with limited resources or staff. It should be noted
that the later stages of grant award administration after an applicant has successfully
obtained a grant may also present burdens for nonprofit staff, particularly if an organization
has little prior history managing grants, although this is difficult to evaluate from application
materials alone.
Four of the reviewed programs included barriers related to substance rather than
style—including whether or not existing environmental and climate disparities were effectively
acknowledged and incorporated into program goals, application narratives, and evaluation
criteria. These barriers to equity may not overburden the applicant during the application
stage, but rather become pertinent during the evaluation and award stages of the grantmaking
process. Rigid parameters for indicating whether or not the proposed project “counts” toward
an equity goal, such as an overreliance on mappable boundaries to the exclusion of other
options for applicants to present the social context of their project, are one such example
observed in two of the programs reviewed. In contrast, questions that encourage applicants
to describe their thinking and practice surrounding equity issues, rather than an “in or out”
designation or a preassigned analytical framework, are more likely to produce valuable and
innovative answers (GrantCraft, 2007). Of course, even inclusive and equity-focused applica-
tion questions will not be enough to ensure equitable funding decisions if the evaluation cri-
teria do not incorporate these same values.
Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice
127
Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00001/2157238/crcj_a_00001.pdf by guest on 07 September 2023
Barriers to Equity in Climate Grant Programs
Table 4.
Potential Barriers to Equity in Reviewed Grant Programs
Characteristic
Reimbursement-based funding structures
Overly long RFAs or guidance documents
Potential Barrier to Equity
This funding structure—commonly used by government
agency grantors—limits the applicant pool to
organizations with the capacity to expend funds on
upfront costs and wait for reimbursement, thereby
excluding applicants with tighter budgets (Bettis &
Pepin, 2019).
Excessively long guidance documents (for example, the
155-page program guidelines associated with the fiscal
year 2021–2022 round of the CA program) require
larger time investments from applicants before and
during the application process, posing a hurdle to
organizations with limited or no paid staff time.
Onerous reporting requirements during the grant
period create a similar burden (Bettis & Pepin, 2019).
Observed in:
(cid:129) MAPC
(cid:129) CA
(cid:129) NY
(cid:129) CA
Failure to specify when applicants can
Insufficient information about the expected decision
expect to hear a decision
Long waiting periods before notification
and/or between notification and receipt
of funds
timeline makes it difficult for applicants to plan their
activities and can cause delays in organization
operations and in seeking alternative funding streams.
These practices create longer delays before funds reach
grantees and may lead to uncertainty for organization
operations. Long wait times may also be perceived as a
failure to be responsive or respectful of the applicant’s
time (Myrick et al., 2018).
Failure to specify the funding structure
Insufficient information about the expected funding
Reliance solely on an environmental
justice map without addressing equity
considerations in the application
narrative
Failure to explicitly include equity
considerations in the scoring rubric
structure and/or expected amount of match makes it
difficult for applicants to plan their activities and may
create additional time burdens due to the need to seek
clarification.
Map-based criteria for equity considerations may be
limited by data availability and scale, and require
some level of familiarity with operating interactive
maps. Equity considerations that are not well-captured
by the map and applicants who are not comfortable
with using online maps may be overlooked if the
application does not include additional opportunities
for description.
Mismatches between stated equity goals and the
application evaluation criteria will result in
undervaluing equity components of proposed projects.
Applicants may treat equity goals as optional or
secondary if they are not reflected in the scoring
formula (Mohnot et al., 2019). The ultimate
distribution of funds determined by these evaluations
will therefore fail to meet Myrick et al.’s (2018) goal of
“consistent, effective, values-driven practices.”
(cid:129) ME
(cid:129) NY
(cid:129) CA
(cid:129) EPA-SG
(cid:129) EPA-CPS
(cid:129) ME
(cid:129) MF
(cid:129) EPA-SG
(cid:129) NOAA
(cid:129) CA
(cid:129) NY
(cid:129) CA
(cid:129) NY
The following
programs did not have
a scoring rubric at all:
(cid:129) NOAA
(cid:129) MAPC
(cid:129) MA
Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice
128
Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00001/2157238/crcj_a_00001.pdf by guest on 07 September 2023
Barriers to Equity in Climate Grant Programs
Characteristic
Ambiguous language
Observed in:
(cid:129) NOAA
(cid:129) NY
(cid:129) ME
Table 4.
(continued )
Potential Barrier to Equity
Vague or overly general language hinders clarity about
program goals and about how well applicants meet
these goals. Mohnot et al. (2019), for example, point
out that “vulnerable communities” in the context of
climate change could refer to wealthy coastal
communities subject to sea level risk, or to
socioeconomically disadvantaged communities in
noncoastal areas—distinctly different populations with
distinctly different needs. GrantCraft (2007) notes the
tendency for grantors to shy away from an explicit
racial equity lens, instead remaining “above the fray”
of potentially fraught conversations. In addition to
potentially creating confusion for applicants and
creating additional time burdens due to the need to
seek clarification, this lack of clarity is likely to extend
to application evaluators as well.
Shapefile or KMZ requirements
Application components that require specialized
software to create (such as geospatial data files) pose
an obstacle for applicants without access to such
software.
(cid:129) CA
Note. See Table 1 for program descriptions and abbreviations. RFA = request for application.
The function and format of the application portals for the reviewed programs were not
included in the scope of this inventory, as these typically require log-in credentials and are
only active during an open application round. However, the application form itself—whether
submitted through an online portal or another format—is another potential pitfall. Prior
research from the #FixTheForm2 team at Grant Advisor identified “technical time-wasters”
in grant applications through a survey that reached 500 respondents from grant-seeking
organizations across nine countries (Aanestad & Solomons, 2021). Common time-wasters
are shown in Figure 1, with the top two complaints of not being able to see the full application
ahead of time and the time taken disproportionate to funding amount awarded—each
appearing close to 400 times within the #FixTheForm survey responses (Aanestad & Solomons,
2021).
Direct interviews with program administrators or grant recipients were also beyond the
scope of this inventory, but would be a useful avenue of future research to determine the extent
to which the barriers identified above are considered burdensome by applicants. Further
research on burdens facing grantseekers within the environmental justice and climate justice
fields specifically is likewise still needed in order to identify ways in which these grantseekers
may differ from the health care and social welfare applicants more commonly discussed within
the literature on administrative burdens (Herd & Moynihan, 2018; Moynihan et al., 2015,
2 More information about #FixTheForm can be found at https:// blog.grantadvisor.org/why-we-need-to
-fixtheform/.
Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice
129
Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00001/2157238/crcj_a_00001.pdf by guest on 07 September 2023
Barriers to Equity in Climate Grant Programs
Figure 1. Common “technical time-wasters” identified by #FixTheForm survey project (Aanestad & Solomons, 2021). Image copyright: Grant
Advisor, 2021. Image used with permission.
2016). In particular, while the administrative burdens identified within the grant programs dis-
cussed above fall largely into Herd and Moynihan’s (2018) categories of learning costs and
compliance costs, interviews with grant applicants and grant recipients could also shed light
on possible psychological costs (Herd & Moynihan, 2018) associated with applying for such
grant programs.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUNDERS
In Table 5 we offer suggested best practices for funding agencies to consider as they develop
and implement funding programs. These recommendations are based upon our review of
observed barriers presented above as well as previous literature on administrative burden
(Herd & Moynihan, 2018), “technical time-wasters” (Aanestad & Solomons, 2021), factors
for nonprofit success in grant seeking (Giving Compass, 2021; Rumbul, 2013; Suárez, 2011;
Yi, 2010), and the principles of procedural and distributive equity that shape the goals of the
GC3 (Governor’s Council on Climate Change, 2021)
Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice
130
Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00001/2157238/crcj_a_00001.pdf by guest on 07 September 2023
Barriers to Equity in Climate Grant Programs
Program Characteristics
Request for application
(RFA)
Application
Funding structure
Other grantmaker
responsibilities
Table 5.
Suggested Practices to Advance Opportunities for Equity in Grantmaking
Suggested Best Practices
(cid:129) Clearly articulate the equity goals of the grant program and the organization offering the grants.
(cid:129) Clearly state the types of applicants that are eligible, the types of projects that will be funded, the
funding structure, the grant amount, the expected deliverables, how applications will be evaluated,
and how soon applicants can expect to hear back.
(cid:129) Keep the RFA succinct and jargon-free.
(cid:129) Include a scoring rubric in the RFA with clear descriptions of the evaluation criteria, including at
least one scored component where equity is explicitly discussed. The evaluation criteria should be
clearly connected to the articulated goals of the grant program.
(cid:129) Include definitions for terms such as “vulnerable communities” that can have multiple meanings.
(cid:129) Review all 16 complaints highlighted by the #FixTheForm project and ensure that grant submission
portals and application forms do not feature these “technical time-wasters” (Aanestad & Solomons,
2021).
(cid:129) Provide the application in a format that can be viewed in its entirety and saved as a draft.
(cid:129) Keep the application relatively short to minimize the time burden on applicants. Some time burden
is inevitable and will depend on the specific circumstances of the grantmaking entity and the
proposed project; in general, grant makers should seek to ensure that the level of funding
provided by a grant program is proportional to the work required of applicants (Aanestad &
Solomons, 2021).
(cid:129) Ensure that the questions on the application are directly related to the evaluation criteria.
(cid:129) If the applicants are not themselves from the community affected by the grant project proposal,
applicants should be asked to describe how the affected community has been engaged in
developing the grant application and how input from the community has or will be meaningfully
incorporated into the goals and activities of the proposed project (including fair compensation for
the time spent providing input).
(cid:129) Collect demographic information about applicant organization leadership as part of the application,
both for prioritizing BIPOC-led organizations in each round and for tracking year-to-year
grantmaking progress over time in accordance with the Climate Funders Justice Pledge (Donors
of Color Network, n.d.).
(cid:129) Ensure that the application does not require special technology or a large number of attachments.
(cid:129) Direct payments awarded in advance (as opposed to reimbursements).
(cid:129) No match requirement.
(cid:129) Advertise the grant opportunity through multiple outlets instead of relying only on potential
applicants finding it themselves.
(cid:129) Provide applicants with assistance such as FAQ web pages and “office hours.”
(cid:129) Award decisions should be made by a diverse review panel, with transparency about the affiliations
and/or credentials of the panel members as well as the decision-making process.
(cid:129) Regularly report on how grant funds have been distributed.
(cid:129) Use a third-party survey tool to collect applicant feedback after the process to identify areas for
improvement.
Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice
131
Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00001/2157238/crcj_a_00001.pdf by guest on 07 September 2023
Barriers to Equity in Climate Grant Programs
CONCLUSION
This review of existing environmental justice and climate justice grant programs offers insights
for the future endeavors of the Connecticut GC3, particularly the launch of the Climate &
Equity Grant Program. It is also our intent that it will inform other grantmakers seeking to
reduce the barriers to participation in their funding programs. The first recommendation by
the Financing and Funding Adaptation and Resilience Working Group of the GC3 is to direct
at least 40% of all adaptation and resilience funding toward historically disadvantaged com-
munities. While other funding entities may differ in exact percentages, metrics, or goals, all
grantmakers seeking to distribute funds according to equity principles must ensure that their
funding processes are accessible to these communities. Burdensome application requirements
and underdeveloped (or undefined) conceptions of equity and justice are evidently still present
in many of the reviewed grant programs, despite their purported goals of advancing environ-
mental and/or climate justice.
As new funding programs to increase equity and justice in climate and other environmen-
tal programs grow, it will be imperative for program managers to evaluate how well their
programs are meeting these goals, especially in the context of the community they intend
to support. Multidisciplinary evaluations across adaptation planning, evaluation, and envi-
ronmental justice are needed to develop ongoing reviews and corresponding adjustments.
Geospatial and social science research partnerships could examine if the emerging mapping
tools for identification of historically disadvantaged and climate vulnerable populations and
any programs reach the intended communities and if the design and deployment of the pro-
grams achieve the goals of distributive and procedural equity and justice. Although this
review focuses primarily on financial assistance through grantmaking, it is worth mentioning
that technical assistance will also be needed for the interpretation of scientific information in
the climate and environmental context. Evaluations of grant programs should be shared
broadly as practice documents to inform and improve grantmaking processes and identify
best practices for advancing equity. Similar interdisciplinary teams may also develop
cross-case methodologies to guide researchers in their assessments and inform grant pro-
grams in other locations. The cross-cases could review different affected populations, histor-
ical and ongoing injustices, and economic context. Evaluation can be an onerous task but
presents an opportunity for trust-building, accountability, and reflective practice. It is our
hope that this review can inform and support emerging equity programs, in both practice
and mission.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by the Connecticut Institute of Resilience and Climate Adaptation
(CIRCA) at the University of Connecticut with funding from the Connecticut Department of
Energy & Environmental Protection (DEEP). Helpful comments were provided by CIRCA staff
and CT DEEP staff. The contents herein are opinions of the authors, not necessarily the opinion
or reflections of either their employers or the funders.
REFERENCES
Aanestad, K., & Solomons, L. (2021, April 15). #FixTheForm.
GrantAdvisor. https://blog.grantadvisor.org/fixtheform
Ashley, S. R. (2014). Is the inequality equitable? An examination of
the distributive equity of philanthropic grants to rural communi-
ties. Administration & Society, 46(6), 684–706. https://doi.org/10
.1177/0095399712469196
Bettis, A. J., & Pepin, S. (2019). Strengthening support for grantees:
Four lessons for foundations. The Foundation Review, 11(3),
96–104. https://doi.org/10.9707/1944-5660.1484
Brandstedt, E., & Brülde, B. (2019). Towards a theory of pure pro-
cedural climate justice. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 36(5),
785–799. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12357
Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice
132
Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00001/2157238/crcj_a_00001.pdf by guest on 07 September 2023
Barriers to Equity in Climate Grant Programs
Brown, C. J., & Purcell, M. (2005). There’s nothing inherent about
scale: Political ecology, the local trap and the politics of devel-
opment in the Brazilian Amazon. Geoforum, 36(5), 607–624.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.09.001
Chu, E. K., & Cannon, C. E. B. (2021). Equity, inclusion, and justice
as criteria for decision-making on climate adaptation in cities.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 51, 85–94.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.02.009
Donors of Color Network. (n.d.). Climate funders justice pledge.
https://www.climate.donorsofcolor.org/aboutthepledge
Giving Compass. (2021, September 2). To achieve equity in gran-
tmaking try these tips, tools, and models. https://givingcompass
.org/partners/justfund/to-achieve-equity-in-grantmaking-try-these
-tips-tools-and-models
Governor’s Council on Climate Change. (2021). Taking action on
climate change and building a more resilient Connecticut for
all: Phase 1 report, near-term actions. https://portal.ct.gov/-
/media/DEEP/climatechange/GC3/DRAFT-GC3-Phase-1-Report
-and-Near-Term-Recommendations-12_23_2020.pdf
GrantCraft. (2007). Grant making with a racial equity lens. https://
www.ncfp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Grantmaking-with-a
-Racial-Equity-Lens-GrantCraft-2007.pdf
Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. (2018). Administrative burden: Policy-
making by other means. Russell Sage Foundation.
Mohnot, S., Bishop, J., & Sanchez, A. (2019). Making equity real in
climate adaptation & community resilience policies & programs:
A guidebook. The Greenlining Institute. https://greenlining.org
/publications/2019/making-equity-real-in-climate-adaption-and
-community-resilience-policies-and-programs-a-guidebook
Moynihan, D., Herd, P., & Harvey, H. (2015). Administrative
burden: Learning, psychological, and compliance costs in
citizen-state interactions. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory: J-PART, 25(1), 43–69. https://doi.org/10
.1093/jopart/muu009
Moynihan, D., Herd, P., & Ribgy, E. (2016). Policymaking by other
means: Do states use administrative barriers to limit access to
Medicaid? Administration & Society, 48(4), 497–524. https://doi
.org/10.1177/0095399713503540
Myrick, E., Powell, N., & Bain, T. (2018). Leading with values:
Grants management and the case for more consistent, effective
grantmaking practices. The Foundation Review, 10(3), 22–38.
https://doi.org/10.9707/1944-5660.1425
Newell, P., Srivastava, S., Naess, L. O., Torres Contreras, G. A., &
Price, R. (2021). Toward transformative climate justice: An
emerging research agenda. WIREs Climate Change, 12(6), Article
e733. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.733
Rumbul, R. (2013). Structurally excluded? Structural embedded-
ness and civil society competition for funding. Journal of Civil
Society, 9(4), 341–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/17448689.2013
.839601
Schlosberg, D., & Collins, L. B. (2014). From environmental to cli-
mate justice: Climate change and the discourse of environmental
justice. WIREs Climate Change, 5(3), 359–374. https://doi.org/10
.1002/wcc.275
Suárez, D. F. (2011). Collaboration and professionalization: The
contours of public sector funding for nonprofit organizations.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(2),
307–326. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpart/muq049
Sultana, F. (2022). Critical climate justice. The Geographical Jour-
nal, 188(1), 118–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12417
Yi, D. T. (2010). Determinants of fundraising efficiency of nonprofit
organizations: Evidence from US public charitable organizations.
Managerial and Decision Economics, 31, 465–475. https://doi
.org/10.1002/mde.1503
Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice
133
Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00001/2157238/crcj_a_00001.pdf by guest on 07 September 2023
