Detailed Information on the
EPA Environmental Education Assessment

The administration is continuing its recommendation to terminate the program at EPA and rely on NSF programs to fulfill scientific education initiatives.

The administration is continuing its recommendation to terminate the program at EPA and rely on NSF programs to fulfill scientific education initiatives.

Transition program activities to other program offices that fulfill scientific education initiatives.

Propose to zero out the program's budget for FY 2009.

Measure: Percent of all learners who gained environmental knowledge by participating in an environmental education project.

Explanation:Measures the performance of Office of Environmental Education (OEE) programs in assessing how much environmental knowledge individuals gain by participating in environmental education projects funded in EPA's environmental education grants program. (See OEE Revised Draft Strategic Plan (2005-2008), Long-Term Goal 1).

Measure: Percent of all educators who gained education skills by participating in an environmental education project.

Explanation:Measures the performance of OEE programs in assessing how much educational skills teachers and other educators gain by participating in environmental education projects funded in EPA's environmental education grants program. (See OEE Revised Draft Strategic Plan (2005-2008), Long-Term Goal 1).

Measure: Cumulative number of correlations showing how national environmental education curricula can be used to meet state education standards.

Explanation:Measures the performance of OEE programs to strengthen the use of environmental education in formal settings. (See OEE Revised Draft Strategic Plan (2005-2008), Long-Term Goal 1)

Measure: Percent of National Network for Environmental Management Studies (NNEMS) fellows who pursue environmental careers.

Explanation:Measures the performance of OEE programs to promote and support environmental careers. (See OEE Revised Draft Strategic Plan (2005-2008), Long-Term Goal 5).

Measure: Ratio of number of students that have improved environmental knowledge per total dollar expended, reported as dollar per student.

Explanation:Measures the efficiency of OEE programs in improving student environmental literacy. (See OEE Revised Draft Strategic Plan (2005-2008), Long-Term Goal 1).

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the Environmental Education (EE) Programs is to provide national leadership and resources to the field of environmental education at the local, state, national and international levels, to encourage careers related to the environment, and to leverage non-federal investment in environmental education and training programs. Congress mandates the following programs to accomplish this purpose: 1) teacher training; 2) EE Grants to grassroots and larger organizations nationwide; 3) fellowships to college students; 4) youth awards for achievements to protect the environment; 5) a task force of Federal agencies to increase coordination; 6) an external advisory committee to advise EPA; and 7) a separate nonprofit foundation to work with the private sector to advance environmental education.

Evidence: Purposes as identified in Section 2 of the National Environmental Education Act of 1990 (the Act) which is Public Law 101-619 or 20 USC 5501. EPA's Office of Environmental Education (OEE) Strategic Plan. The National Environmental Education and Training Foundation Charter, articles of incorporation, and bylaws.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: Congress found, and Roper ASW survey research results confirm, that efforts to inform and educate the public concerning complex environmental problems are not adequate and financial support to develop an educated workforce for the environmental fields is not sufficient. Environmental education opportunities must be available in schools and universities to teach students about career opportunities in the scientific and environmental fields. Increased environmental knowledge will decrease pollution and solid waste, help improve public health, advance scientific learning, and increase private sector funding and volunteerism for public purposes.

Evidence: National Environmental Education Act, Sections 2,3,4,5,6,7,&10. 68% of adult Americans questioned fail a basic environmental knowledge quiz (Roper ASW International, Environmental Survey, 2002). By 2012, 50% of the federal environmental and natural resource workforce will reach retirement age, possibly creating a void of trained environmental professionals in the workforce. EPA believes that some of the environmental ed activities provide knowledge for persons to pursue environmental professions.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: There is not sufficient evidence to show that EPA does not duplicate other local, state, national, and private environmental education programs.

Evidence:  

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: Congress drafted the Environmental Education Act to be perscriptive of allocation of funds. EPA is required to implement and manage statutorily-mandated programs with specific associated dollar appropriations: 38% of appropriated funds are for Environmental Education Grants to educational or environmental agencies and non-profit organizations; 25% are for training and supporting environmental educators (Teacher Training); 25% are for activities of the Office of Environmental Education to include interagency agreements (IAGs) with other Federal agencies, administrative costs, and contractors; 10% goes to the National Environmental Education and Training Foundation (NEETF) for challenge grants to education agencies and non-profit organizations; and 2% to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to develop and manage a teacher award program. This perscriptive allocation can prevent EPA from distributing funds based on performance.

Evidence: National Environmental Education Act of 1990, PL 101-619 (Section 11).

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: The target audience has benefitted from federal funding for EE and from the non-federal matching funds leveraged by these programs. Since 1992, over 2,500 EE Grants have been awarded competitively nationwide. Each year, EE Grants reach 50,000 students and 6,000 teachers, plus 100,000 in the general public. EE Grants require a match of 25%, which is typically greatly exceeded; e.g., in 2002 EPA awarded $2.7 million for EE grants and leveraged $5.2 million in non-federal matching funds. The Teacher Training Program has educated over 100,000 teachers and leveraged 30% of the funding or $6 million from non-federal sources. 1,200 college students have received training and career development the National Network for Environmental Management Studies (NNEMS) Fellowship Program. Over 40 IAGs with other Federal agencies for $5.7 million in funds have leveraged $7.5 million from other agencies. NEETF leverages its $700,000 annual federal funding to realize a $20 million business impact from matching grant funds; and has programs with high visibility such as Greenbiz.com; development of EE curricula for healthcare providers; and EE training of broadcast meteorologists.

Evidence: Listing of over 2,500 EE grants with descriptions of each grant and state location is available on the EE website at epa.gov/enviroed; List of 2002 grants with non-federal match per grant; Environmental Education; Solicitation Notice explaining required matching funds in Paragraph (K)(4); Training and Partnership (EETAP) teacher training description available on website listed above; 2003 National Network for Environmental Management Studies (NNEMS) description of fellowship program projects to fund students and support career development which attracts youth into environmental engineering jobs (also available on website listed above); List of IAGs with other Federal Agencies; NEETF annual report.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The program has five long-term measures, two of which are outcomes and are new. One outcome measure attempts to evaluate the impact of the program on the level of environmental knowledge of students. This measure is a pre-cursor to a more advanced measure that is under development for the future, which will aim to measure student achievement and/or teacher aptitude. The second long-term outcome measure gets at the purpose of the program to encourage careers related to the environment.

Evidence: See Measures Tab

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The program has not established a basline, timeline, or targets.

Evidence: See Measures Tab

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The program has two annual measurs, one of which is an efficiency measure, which servss as both an annual and long-term efficiency measure.

Evidence: See Measures Tab

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The program has not established a basline, timeline, or targets.

Evidence: See Measures Tab

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: All programs and projects supported by OEE are directly linked to OEE's long-term performance goals identified in the Revised Draft Strategic Plan 2005-2008. All partners and grantees are required to provide quarterly or semi-annual reports to enable EPA to confirm that they are supporting teachers, states, improved quality, research, or career development. For example, the Grant Solicitation Notice defines the educational priorities by which grant applications will be evaluated and awarded, and stipulates that reports are required from all grant recipients. The Revised Draft Strategic Plan Timeline specifically identifies the stakeholders from which OEE will solicit input.

Evidence:  

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: While the program has not had an independent, quality review of sufficient scope of its performance, i.e., how well it is accomplishing its mission and meeting its long-term goals, it is in the process of developing an appropriate evaluation to be completed by July 2005 (per PART guidance). The two evaluations that the program provided as evidence do not meet all the criteria for independence, quality, and scope. For example, the program cites an audit in 1996 by its Inspector General (IG). This audit, however, was a review of the program office's management, administration, and staffing, not the accomplishment of its performance measures. Therefore, the IG audit is not adequate as evidence for this question. Another review, which was independent and of quality (used rigorous evaluation methods), was of insufficient scope. The review was a pre-post comparison group study of Utah high school students. The program is currently consulting with inhouse evaluation experts to design a rigorous evaluation of sufficient independence, scope, and quality.

Evidence: Program has met with its inhouse evaluation experts and has also submitted a program evaluatoin timeline, detailing milestones until July 2005. "An Analysis of the 2000-2001 Environmental Survey of Utah High School Students" by Insight Research, submitted to the University of Utah and EPA. "Environmental Education: Mixed Results at EPA", EPA IG, 1996.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: EPA estimates and budgets for the full annual costs of operating its programs, taking into consideration any changes in funding, policy and legislation. All spending categories and the resource levels and activities are included in the annual Congressional Justification. Performance data are considered at every step in EPA's planning and budgeting process (i.e., developing the OMB submissions, Congressional Justification, and annual Operating Plan and results in the Annual Report). The Agency's financial information is integrated with performance and other program data to support day-to-day decision making of managers and executives. OEE program managers are given and use current financial information to make decisions on program management. If funding levels change, it is possible for OEE to quickly calculate the impact on each EE program managed and revise plans accordingly.

Evidence: Section 11 of The Act; Annual Congressional Justification, Budget Automation System (BAS) Reports. EPA was selected as a government-wide finalist for the 2002 President's Quality Award in the area of budget and performance integration.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: Prior to 1998, OEE did not have a strategic plan, long-term performance goals, or specific performance measures. To ensure the optimum use of staff and funds, OEE devised in 1998 a strategic plan to ensure that resources were allocated to areas and projects that best develop and improve the field of environmental education, such as the national environmental education materials guidelines. The strategic plan also was designed to address identified needs (i.e., internal and external evaluations of existing EE curricula indicated that too many materials existed and too few were well-designed). Hence, OEE funded the development of the environmental education materials guidelines (Exhibit 26) to address the need for guidance for educators and others who develop materials. Improved curricula and educational products have resulted. Based in part on results from the 2005 PART, OEE is revising its strategic plan (Exhibit 2) and has established a timeline (Exhibit 37) to solicit and incorporate feedback into the plan from OEE's internal and external stakeholders.

Evidence: Prior to 1998, the Environmental Education Programs did not have a strategic plan, long-term performance goals or specific performance measures. To ensure the optimum use of staff and funds, in 1998 OEE devised a strategic plan to ensure that resources are allocated to areas and projects that most develop and improve the field of environmental education, such as the national environmental education guidelines. The strategic plan was also designed to fill gaps, i.e. internal and external evaluations of existing EE curricula indicated that too many materials existed and too few were well designed. Hence, OEE funded the quality materials guidelines to fill the gap in directions to educators and others who develop materials. Improved curricula and educational products have resulted. Since 1998, the OEE has revised and updated the strategic plan as necessary . The current strategic plan was revised in 2002 and is in place until 2005, when OEE will convene with partner organizations and agencies to assess the need for revisions.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The program collects information from key partners for the following aspects of the program: 1) Teacher Training Program and IAGs -- EPA reviews quarterly progress reports; comments on the design of annual independent evaluations; and reviews results of the evaluations. Results are then factored into planning for the following year. 2) Competitive grant programs -- project officers are required to develop post-award monitoring plans to ensure timely collection of performance information from grantees, perform a sample of on-site reviews, and take corrective action where necessary. 3) NEETF ' EPA receives regular status reports, and evaluates the budget. The program, however, has not collected baseline performance data necessary to set meaningful, ambitious performance targets or evaluate results.

Evidence: Office of the Administrator Post-Award Management Plan for Assistance Agreements; Draft report on the environmental education activities and authorities of 14 Federal agencies; EETAP 2001 Evaluation Study, Western Michigan University; EETAP Capacity Building Evaluation, independent review team, 2002; EETAP Formative Evaluation, independent review team, 2002.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Prior to awarding any funds for the partners listed above, EPA project officers critique all objectives and milestones in project work plans, perform cost analyses, and require revisions where necessary. Once funds are awarded, all partners are subjected to thorough post-award monitoring of expenditures as compared to the original budget. EPA monitoring also ensures adherence to timelines and evaluation of performance results. For the environmental education grant programs, the standing policy is that no incremental funding awards are made unless they were planned from the inception of the work plan and/or were scheduled to be phased into future years. The EE Grant Program Solicitation Notice informs applicants that if they will be needing funds above their original budget amount, they must submit a new proposal in the next grant cycle and go through another competition process. There is no tolerance for cost over-runs or additions to the original budget. No-cost extensions to the budget period are approved if the project officer deems that there is sufficient reason.

Evidence: Office of the Administrator Post-Award Management Plan for Assistance Agreements; Environmental Education Grants Program Solicitation Notice; Invitation for Proposals, National Environmental Education Training Program (EETAP Teacher Training)

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Prior to the beginning of each fiscal year, OEE develops a projected budget based on the percentages established by Congress in the Act. Flexibility in spending within those program categories and percentages is determined by the EE Strategic Plan which has goals, objectives, and subobjectives and are obligated by program and object class codes. The EPA Operating Plan and Strategic Plan require that individual offices track their funds in that manner. OEE also must ensure that the 10 EPA regional offices receive adequate funding from the appropriation to manage their own EE Grant Program expenditures and other EE operations. Obligations and expenditures are tracked in the Agency's Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) against the Operating Plan. Fund transfers between program objectives in excess of congressionally established limits require Congressional notification and/or approval.

Evidence: EPA's annual Operating Plan and Congressional Justification; EPA's Strategic Plan, Budget Automation System (BAS) data; EPA's Annual Report and Financial Statements; EPA's Policy on Compliance, Review, and Monitoring (EPA 5700.6; Post-award monitoring and Advanced monitoring (i.e. on and off-site grantee review); documentation of post-award monitoring in assistance agreement files; grantee project reports and financial status reports.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The program has increased the useage of IT to enhance communication, achieve efficiencies, eliminate duplication, and conserve or leverage resources. These IT approaches include the use of: (1) a grants database on-line and searchable by recipient organization, environmental issue, dollars leveraged and other key topics. This database allows EPA to study trends in grants issued and alter funding priorities accordingly. It also assists in preventing duplicate or repeat awards of grants from two regional offices or by Headquarters. (2) an on-line searchable EE materials database, that represents EPA's best effort to catalog all existing EE materials developed or funded by EPA. This resource allows EPA to prevent the unnecessary and costly development of duplicate materials. (3) a website with links to each of the EE programs such as grants, youth awards, and internships. This site and the teacher training website improves public access to quality EE information and materials. All products and materials developed through the teacher training program are available on-line to reduce consumer purchase costs and EPA's material production costs.

Evidence: Environmental Learning in America: Working Toward Nationwide Environmental Literacy, 2002; National Environmental Education Act of 1990 (PL 101-619), Section 4; EE website epa.gov/enviroed ; the contractor that assists the EE staff by developing IT was selected through use of the competitive sourcing process and IGCEs are performed for budget analysis and level of effort purposes.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: OEE works with other EPA offices, such as the Office of Water, in the development and dissemination of EE programs, projects and materials. EPA collaboration is done at two levels: at HQ and also at the ten regional offices each of which has an environmental education coordinator. OEE chairs the National EE Task Force which brings together many Federal agencies to reduce duplicative efforts and leverage resources. OEE coordinates a citizen advisory council, which represents the following sectors: business and industry, not-for-profits, colleges/universities, primary/secondary education, state departments of education and environmental protection, and senior Americans. The Teacher Training Program is a partnership of 11 organizations and universities which coordinate delivery of EE training programs and sevices for educators. The EE Grant program creates partnerships with thousands of state, local and grassroots organizations. All programs mandated by the Act are accomplished through partnerships with organizations producing and providing EE at the national, state, and local levels.

Evidence: The Act, Sections 4,5, 6, and 9, mandates collaborations as listed in this response through a Federal Task Force, a National Advisory Council, and a Teacher Training Program; additional Information about each of these collaborations can be found on the epa.gov/enviroed website. The NEETF website (neetf.org) also contains information about extensive partnerships with business, industry, NGOs, health organizations, etc; publication demonstrating collaboration between OEE and another EPA office entitled Education Projects in the Office of Water -- A How-To Guide for Developing Environmental Education Projects.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The program follows EPA's financial management guidelines for committing, obligating, reprogramming, and reconciling appropriated funds. Agency officials have a system of controls and accountability, based on GAO and other principles, to ensure that improper payments are not made. At each step in the process, the propriety of the payment is reviewed. EPA trains individuals to ensure that they understand their roles and responsibilities for invoice review and for carrying out the financial aspects of program objectives. EPA received an unqualified audit opinion on its FY02 financial statements and had no material weaknesses associated with the audit. EPA is taking steps to meet the new accelerated due dates for financial statements.

Evidence: Annual Congressional Justification, Budget Automation System (BAS) reports, unqualified audit opinion on EPA FY02 financial statements, Fiscal Year 2002 Advice of Allowance Letter, 2002 Integrity Act Report, resource policies at: http://intrasearch.epa.gov/ocfo/policies.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: OEE has made changes to improve management of programs. Three steps for improved management are: (1) OEE designed and implemented an on-line database that allows for the tracking of all competitive EE grants awarded since 1992. The database allows OEE to determine the dollar amount of each grant; recipient organization; the geographic location; the audience, such as teachers; environmental issue; and method of delivery for each grant. This database allows for analysis of trends to direct funds where needed and provides a safeguard against duplicate funding. (2) Creation of an EE Resource Library for materials developed and/or implemented by EPA, grantees, and other key partners. Collecting this information in a searchable database will save money by preventing EPA Offices (Air, Water) and regions from duplicating curricula; it also identifies gaps in materials development. (3) The post-award monitoring requirements recently put into place for the EPA managers of grants and assistance agreements will improve oversight and quick solutions to management issues as they arise.

Evidence: Environmental Education Grants Database available on line; Environmental Education Resource Library which is searchable by topic such as pesticides or asthma; Office of the Administrator Post-Award Management Plan for Assistance Agreements.

Are grants awarded based on a clear competitive process that includes a qualified assessment of merit?

Explanation: OEE uses the Federal Register and EPA website to advertise the availability of funds. EE programs are also featured in educational journals, newsletters and catalogs that list grant programs. The EE Grant Solicitation Notice spells out the 100 point scoring system used for each grant proposal. The structured scoring system evolved to distinguish between excellent proposals. Precise scores lead to the selection of top quality proposals. Out of 100% of applications per year and average of 94% of the grantees are non-repeaters from one year to the next. The number of applications received annually has dropped to under 1,000 nationwide because of the high rejection rate. A two-tiered review process uses external reviewers and EPA panels to score applications. A Reviewer Guidebook with explicit directions and scoring sheets are improved annually based on comments from EPA and external reviewers.

Evidence: EE Grant Program Solicitation Notice (Paragraph G) specifies that grantees will not be selected more than once, unless they have a new project or a new audience. The OEE website and Grant STATS database list all EE Grants awarded by State and on average less than 6% received a grant in the previous year. EPA required enhanced Grant Competition Policies in 2003 and the EE Grant Program was used as the model Solicitation Notice in the Administrator's Office Handbook. OEE Grant Reviewer Guidebook.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: Grantees are required to submit quarterly reports to explain their: progress to date; expenditures; preliminary data results; descriptions of equipment purchased; techniques and materials used; and a statement of activity anticipated for the next reporting period. Differences between the proposed work plan and progress or expenditures to date must be explained to enable EPA to take corrective action. A final report is also required and it must expand on the above and also include two copies of all tangible products resulting from the grant, such as curriculum, videos, workshop agendas, training materials, and posters. EPA has an on line financial system that allows staff to print a report of the expenditures to date for any grant awarded. EPA recently issued tighter monitoring requirements and now schedules mandatory off-site and on-site evaluations of grantees.

Evidence: EPA Post Award Management Guidance; Cost Analysis Guidance; and Copy of Financial Report (Random selection).

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: OEE created an analysis system to track expenditures for grants and audiences reached. It allows EPA to study trends to improve the grant program and share information with the public. Educational priorities can be revised to direct funds into gaps in EE or away from saturated topics. This EE Grant Searching Tool and Tracking System (EE STATS) is on line and allows access to the following information about grants: matching funds per grant; environmental issue addressed, such as lead in water; educational priority such as career development; type of recipient organization such as university, state agency, or nonprofit; target audience such as teachers; and number of grants and dollars per state. EE STATS can also search over 2,500 EE Grants and locate grants by word search, e.g. grants that addressed asthma or endangered species. It allows the public to determine if another organization has experience and can serve as a partner on a grant project. Also, on the website the public can see a State map showing the location of every EE Grant and find partners with expertise that are located nearby.

Evidence: Grant STATS Graphs and search pages by topic; Grant Maps from website epa.gov/enviroed

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The program does not have data for its long-term performance measures.

Evidence: See Measures Tab

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The program does not have data for its annual performance measures.

Evidence: See Measures Tab

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The program is in the process of developing an efficiency measure, but has procedures that have resulted in cost effectiveness in program execution. These include: (1) Teacher Training Program - leverages resources by funding a consortium of universities and partners to work toward a common purpose, rather than funding each individually; (2) Grant Solicitation Notice - reaches educators in all states to impart news, such as the discontinuance of EE funding for new curricula, because excellent materials already exist and limited resources will now be used to train educators about the proper use of the materials; (3) EE Resource Center - reduces EPA's duplication of materials by enabling access to existing materials that EPA HQ or Regions developed or sponsored through grants; (4) Grant STATS system - enables EPA offices to determine whether an organization has already received EE funding for a project that is being proposed elsewhere; and (5) the Federal Task Force on Environmental Education which reduces duplication of effort among agencies, such as USDA and Interior. More recently implemented information management procedures through the internet have resulted in cost effectiveness. These include new online applications for NNEMS fellowship and President's Environmental Youth Award programs, and enhanced data collection and quality review process for Grant STATS.

Evidence: Grant Solicitation Notice; Description of Resource Library which is also available on line; description of Grant Searching and Tracking System (Grant STATS) which also available on line; List of Interagency Agreements and description of projects.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The program has not been evaluated to assess impacts at the state or local level, therefore it is difficult to assess its performance relative to state and local programs with similar purpose and goals. Other examples of possible duplication include the North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE) and SEEK: Sharing Environmental Education Knowledge, Minnesota's Interactive Directory of Environmental Education Resources. NAAEE, which is made up of professionals and students, provides support for environmental education and educators through a variety of programs and activities.

Evidence: NAAEE website: www.naaee.org.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The independent review of Utah high school students showed that there were beneficial changes in the students who participated in environmental education post participation as well as conpared to students who had not participated. The most notable impacts were of student attitudes toward the environment and in student knowledge about environmental issues, events, and in determining means of solving environmental problems. Less change was noted in specific student behavior as compared to the control group (students who had not had environmental ed). Because the evaluation was a small sample size and there were limitations with the study, the program cannot receive a higher rating. The program is in the process of developing a rigorous evaluation of sufficient scope and independence.

Evidence: Program has met with its inhouse evaluation experts and has also submitted a program evaluatoin timeline, detailing milestones until July 2005. "An Analysis of the 2000-2001 Environmental Survey of Utah High School Students" by Insight Research, submitted to the University of Utah and EPA. "Environmental Education: Mixed Results at EPA", EPA IG, 1996.