TABLE B-1 Summary of Reviews of the STAR Program
Review | Type of Review | Brief summary | EPA’s Responses |
---|---|---|---|
U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. Congress). 2000. Environmental Research: STAR Grants Focus on Agency Priorities, but Management Enhancements Are Possible. Washington, DC. | Programmatic |
The review recommended that:
|
|
EPA’s Science Advisory Board and the Office of Research and Development’s Board of Scientific Councilors. 2000. A Joint SAB/BOSC Report: Review of the Science to Achieve Results (STAR). Washington, DC: EPA. | Scientific and programmatic review |
This review gave EPA an “overall favorable assessment,” but recommended that:
|
|
EPA Office of Inspector General Report, 2003. STAR Fellowship Program Needs to Place Emphasis on Measuring Results. | Programmatic review |
Here, the focus was narrow and on measuring the results of STAR’s fellowship program. EPA was asked to:
|
|
|
agree with comments on diversity and need for outreach. ORD agreed to conduct internal evaluations, establish performance measures, and collect data. |
||
Office of Research and Development’s Board of Scientific Councilors. 2009. Review of ORD’s National Center for Environmental Research (NCER) Letter Report. | Programmatic review |
Here, the focus was narrow and on measuring the results of EPA’s greater research opportunities (GRO) fellowship program.
|
|
EPA’s Science Advisory Board and the Office of Research and Development’s Board of Scientific Councilors. 2011. Office of Research and Development (ORD) New Strategic Research Directions. Washington, DC. | Programmatic review | This report reviewed ORD as a whole following ORD’s 2010 reorganization. It recommended that ORD incorporate the principles of sustainability into the six newly named research areas and that social, behavioral, and decision sciences be emphasized within ORD/support ORD’s technical and innovation goals. |
|
EPA’s Science Advisory Board and the Office of Research and Development’s Board of Scientific Councilors. 2012. Implementation of ORD Strategic Research Plans. | Programmatic Review |
This report reviewed ORD as a whole, and recommended that ORD:
|
|
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. EPA Needs to Improve STAR Grant Oversight. Edited by Office of the Inspector General. Washington, DC. | Programmatic Review |
Reviewed the STAR grant oversight process and recommend that EPA:
|
|
Review | Type of Review | Brief summary | EPA’s Responses |
---|---|---|---|
(EPA’s Science Advisory Board and the Office of Research and Development’s Board of Scientific Councilors 2016) | Programmatic Review |
This review was of EPA ORD’s entire research program. Recommendations include that EPA should:
|
|
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. OIG 2016. EPA Offices Are Aware of the Agency’s Science to Achieve Results Program, but Challenges Remain in Measuring an Internally Communicating Research Results That Advance the Agency’s Mission. Edited by Office of the Inspector General. Washington, DC. | Programmatic Review |
This review recommended that EPA:
|
|
|
|