Statement of Melissa Emrey-Arras, Director 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security

INDIAN AFFAIRS

Further Actions 

on GAO 

Recommendations 

Needed to Address 

Systemic 

Management 

Challenges with 

Indian Education

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Early 

Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary 

Education, Committee on Education and 

the Workforce, House of 

Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. ET

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

GAO-15-539T

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-15-539T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 

Elementary, and Secondary Education, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

House of Representatives

April 2015

INDIAN AFFAIRS

Further Actions on GAO Recommendations Needed 

to Address Systemic Management Challenges with 

Indian Education

Why GAO Did This Study

BIE is responsible for providing quality 

education opportunities to Indian 

students. It currently oversees 185 

schools, serving about 41,000 students 

on or near Indian reservations. Poor 

student outcomes raise questions 

about how well BIE is achieving its 

mission. In September 2013, GAO 

reported that BIE student performance 

has been consistently below that of 

Indian students in public schools. 

This testimony discusses Indian 

Affairs’ management challenges in 

improving Indian education, including 

(1) its administration of schools, (2) 

staff capacity to address schools’ 

needs, and 3) accountability for 

managing school construction and 

monitoring school spending. 

This testimony is based on GAO 

reports issued in September 2013 and 

November 2014, as well as GAO’s 

February 2015 testimony, which 

presents preliminary results from its 

ongoing review of BIE school facilities. 

A full report on school facilities will be 

issued later this year. GAO reviewed 

relevant laws and regulations; 

analyzed agency data; and conducted 

site visits to schools, which were 

selected based on their geographic 

diversity and other factors.

GAO has made several 

recommendations in its earlier reports; 

it is not making any new 

recommendations in this statement. 

What GAO Found

GAO has reported for several years on how systemic management challenges 

within the Department of the Interior’s Office of the Assistant Secretary–Indian 

Affairs (Indian Affairs) continue to hamper efforts to improve Bureau of Indian 

Education (BIE) schools. Over the past 10 years, Indian Affairs has undergone

several organizational realignments, resulting in multiple offices across different 

units being responsible for BIE schools’ education and administrative functions. 

Indian Affairs’ fragmented organization has been compounded by frequent 

turnover in its leadership over a 13-year period and its lack of a strategic plan for 

BIE. Further, fragmentation and poor communication among Indian Affairs offices 

has led to confusion among schools about whom to contact about problems, as 

well as delays in the delivery of key educational services and supplies, such as 

textbooks. Key practices for organizational change suggest that agencies 

develop a results-oriented framework, such as a strategic plan, to clearly 

establish and communicate performance goals and measure their progress 

toward them. In 2013, GAO recommended that Interior develop a strategic plan 

for BIE and a strategy for communicating with schools, among other 

recommendations. Indian Affairs agreed with and reported taking some steps to 

address the two recommendations. However, it has not fully implemented them.

Limited staff capacity poses another challenge to addressing BIE school needs. 

According to key principles for effective workforce planning, the appropriate 

deployment of employees enables organizations to have the right people, with 

the right skills, in the right place. However, Indian Affairs data indicate that about 

40 percent of its regional facility positions, such as architects and engineers, are 

vacant. Similarly, in 2014, GAO reported that BIE had many vacancies in 

positions to oversee school spending. Further, remaining staff had limited 

financial expertise and training. Without adequate staff and training, Indian Affairs

will continue to struggle in monitoring and supporting schools. GAO 

recommended that Interior revise its workforce plan so that employees are 

placed in the appropriate offices and have the requisite knowledge and skills to 

better support schools. Although Indian Affairs agreed with this recommendation, 

it has not yet implemented it.

Inconsistent accountability hampers management of BIE school construction and

monitoring of school spending. Specifically, GAO has found that Indian Affairs did 

not consistently oversee some construction projects. For example, at one school 

GAO visited, Indian Affairs spent $3.5 million to replace multiple roofs in 2010.

The new roofs already leak, causing mold and ceiling damage, and Indian Affairs 

has not yet adequately addressed the problems, resulting in continued leaks and 

damage to the structure. Inconsistent accountability also impairs BIE’s monitoring 

of school spending. In 2014, GAO found that BIE does not adequately monitor 

school expenditures using written procedures or a risk-based monitoring 

approach, contrary to federal internal control standards. As a result, BIE failed to 

provide effective oversight of schools when they misspent millions of dollars in 

federal funds. GAO recommended that the agency develop written procedures 

and a risk-based approach to improve its monitoring. Indian Affairs agreed but 

has yet to implement these recommendations.

View GAO-15-539T. For more information, 

contact Melissa Emrey-Arras at (617) 788-

0534 or emreyarrasm@gao.gov
Letter

Page 1 GAO-15-539T

Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member Fudge, and Members of the 

Subcommittee:

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today to discuss systemic 

management challenges facing the Department of Interior’s (Interior) 

Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools. For the past several years, we 

have reported on a broad range of issues related to BIE’s education 

programs and operations. Currently, BIE oversees 185 elementary and 

secondary schools that serve approximately 41,000 students on or near 

Indian reservations in 23 states, often in rural areas and small towns.1

About two-thirds of these schools are operated by tribes (triballyoperated), primarily through federal grants, and about one-third are 

operated directly by BIE (BIE-operated). BIE’s mission is to provide Indian 

students with quality education opportunities. Poor student outcomes, 

however, raise questions about how well BIE is achieving its mission. For 

example, in September 2013, we reported that student performance at 

BIE schools had been consistently below Indian students in public 

schools.2 High school graduation rates for BIE schools were also lower 

than the national average. In addition, recent reports have raised 

concerns about the physical condition of school facilities and the effect 

these conditions may have on the educational outcomes of Indian 

students who attend them.3

My remarks today will focus on management challenges to improving 

Indian education, which is overseen by Interior’s Office of the Assistant 

Secretary – Indian Affairs (Indian Affairs). Specifically, I will discuss Indian 

Affairs’ (1) administration of schools, (2) staff capacity to address schools’

needs, and (3) accountability for managing school construction and 

 1

For our analysis of BIE schools, we counted each school individually, including those 

schools that were co-located in the same building. Thus, the total number of BIE schools 

we present may appear differently in Interior documents.

2

GAO, Indian Affairs: Better Management and Accountability Needed to Improve Indian 

Education, GAO-13-774 (Washington, D.C.: September 24, 2013).

3

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, Inspector General’s 

Statement Summarizing the Major Management and Performance Challenges Facing the 

U.S. Department of the Interior, ER-SP-MOI-0008-2014 (Washington, D.C.: October 20, 

2014); Congressional Research Service, Federal Indian Elementary-Secondary Education 

Programs: Background and Issues, RL34205 (Washington, D.C.: February 11, 2013); and 

No Child Left Behind School Facilities and Construction Negotiated Rulemaking 

Committee, Broken Promises, Broken Schools (Washington, D.C. December 2011). 

Letter
Page 2 GAO-15-539T

monitoring school spending. My statement is based on our prior reports 

issued in September 2013 and November 2014 on BIE’s management of 

schools and its oversight of school spending,4 and on my February 2015 

testimony on our ongoing work on the condition of BIE school facilities for 

the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and 

Related Agencies.5

To perform this work, we used multiple data collection methodologies. 

Specifically, we reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations; analyzed 

agency data; and conducted site visits to schools, which were selected to 

reflect a mix of tribally-operated and BIE-operated schools, geographic 

diversity, and other factors. We also reviewed Indian Affairs’ budget 

documents and the Department of Education’s (Education) student 

performance data, and conducted interviews with agency officials. We 

determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of 

our work. Further details on the scope and methodology are available 

within each of the previously published products. We expect to issue a 

final report later this year that will provide our complete results on the 

condition of BIE school facilities, as well as Indian Affairs’ accountability 

for school construction and repair.

We conducted the work on which this statement is based in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions.

BIE’s Indian education programs derive from the federal government’s 

trust responsibility to Indian tribes, a responsibility established in federal 

 4

GAO-13-774, and GAO, Indian Affairs: Bureau of Indian Education Needs to Improve 

Oversight of School Spending, GAO-15-121 (Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2014).

5

GAO, Indian Affairs: Preliminary Results Show Continued Challenges to the Oversight 

and Support of Education Facilities, GAO-15-389T (Washington, D.C.: February 27, 

2015). 

Background
Page 3 GAO-15-539T

statutes, treaties, court decisions, and executive actions.6 It is the policy 

of the United States to fulfill this trust responsibility for educating Indian 

children by working with tribes to ensure that education programs are of 

the highest quality, among other things.7 In accordance with this trust 

responsibility, Interior is responsible for providing a safe and healthy 

environment for students to learn. BIE’s mission is to provide Indian 

students with quality education opportunities. Students attending BIE 

schools generally must be members of federally recognized Indian tribes, 

or descendants of members of such tribes, and reside on or near federal 

Indian reservations.8

All BIE schools—both tribally-operated and BIE-operated—receive almost 

all of their funding to operate from federal sources, namely, Interior and 

Education.9

 6

The federal government recognizes Indian tribes as distinct, independent political 

communities that possess certain powers of self-government. Federal recognition confers 

specific legal status on a particular Native American group, establishes a government-togovernment relationship between the United States and the tribe, imposes on the federal 

government a fiduciary trust relationship with the tribe and its members, and imposes 

specific obligations on the federal government to provide benefits and services to the tribe 

and its members.

Specifically, these elementary and secondary schools 

received approximately $830 million in fiscal year 2014—including about 

75 percent, or about $622 million from Interior and about 24 percent, or 

approximately $197 million, from Education. BIE schools also received 

small amounts of funding from other federal agencies (about 1 percent), 

mainly the Department of Agriculture, which provides reduced-price or 

free school meals for eligible low-income children. (See fig. 1).

7

25 U.S.C. § 2000.

8

Certain students who are not Indian may attend BIE schools, for example, children of 

school staff may generally attend BIE schools.

9

According to BIE officials, very little funding for BIE schools comes from tribes and other 

sources. 
Page 4 GAO-15-539T

Figure 1: Federal Funds to Operate Programs at Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) Schools for Grades K-12, Fiscal Year 2014

Note: The funding amount for the Department of Agriculture is an estimate based on the amount from 

the prior year. Funding for capital, debt service, and related programs are not shown because they 

are not considered as funding for ongoing operations.

a

Interior’s Indian School Equalization Program provides funding for basic and supplementary 

instruction and staffing to oversee student dormitories, among other services.

While BIE schools are primarily funded through Interior, they receive 

annual formula grants from Education, similar to public schools. 

Specifically, schools receive Education funds under Title I, Part A of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, as amended, 

and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Title I—the largest 

funding source for kindergarten through grade 12 under ESEA—provides 

funding to expand and improve educational programs in schools with 

students from low-income families and may be used for supplemental 

services to improve student achievement, such as instruction in reading 

and mathematics. An Education study published in 2012 found that all 

BIE schools were eligible for Title I funding on a school-wide basis 

because they all had at least 40 percent of children from low-income 

households in school year 2009-10.10

 10U.S. Department of Education, National Center on Education Statistics, Documentation 

to the NCES Common Core of Data Public Elementary/ Secondary School Universe 

Survey: School Year 2009–10. (Washington, D.C.: August 2012).

Further, BIE schools receive 
Page 5 GAO-15-539T

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act funding for special education 

and related services, such as physical therapy or speech therapy. BIE 

schools tend to have a higher percent of students with special needs than 

students in public schools nationally.11

BIE schools’ educational functions are primarily the responsibility of BIE, 

while their administrative functions are divided mainly between two other 

Interior offices.

• The Bureau of Indian Education develops educational policies and 

procedures, supervises program activities, and approves schools’

expenditures. Three Associate Deputy Directors are responsible for 

overseeing multiple BIE local education offices that work directly with 

schools to provide technical assistance. Some BIE local offices also 

have their own facility managers.

• The Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Management 

oversees many of BIE’s administrative functions, including 

acquisitions and contract services, financial management, budget 

formulation, and property management. This office is also responsible 

for developing policies and procedures and providing technical 

assistance and funding to Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) regions and 

BIE schools to address their facility needs. Professional staff in this 

division—including engineers, architects, facility managers, and 

support personnel—are tasked with providing expertise in all facets of 

the facility management process.

• The Bureau of Indian Affairs administers a broad array of social 

services and other supports to tribes at the regional level. Regarding 

school facility management, BIA oversees the day-to-day 

implementation and administration of school facility construction and 

repair projects through its regional field offices. Currently there are 12 

regional offices, and 9 of them have facility management 

responsibilities.12

 11For example, in school year 2009-10, about 18 percent of students in BIE schools were 

in special education, as compared to 13 percent in public schools. 

These responsibilities include performing school 

health and safety inspections to ensure compliance with relevant 

GAO-15-121.

12The remaining three regions do not have facility management responsibilities. Two 

regions receive facility support from another region or a tribally-operated nonprofit, and 

one region does not have BIE facilities.
Page 6 GAO-15-539T

requirements and providing technical assistance to BIE schools on 

facility issues.

In September 2013, we reported that BIE student performance on 

national and state assessments13 and graduation rates were below those 

of Indian students in public schools.14

 13To determine how student performance at BIE schools compares to that of public school 

students, we reviewed data on student performance for 4th and 8th grades at BIE and 

public schools for 2005 to 2011 using data from the National Assessment of Educational 

Progress, a project of Education. Since 1969, these assessments have been conducted 

periodically in various subjects such as reading and mathematics. Further, these 

assessments are administered uniformly across the nation, and the results serve as a 

common metric for all states and selected urban districts. 

For example, in 2011, 4th grade 

estimated average reading scores were 22 points lower for BIE students 

than for Indian students in public schools. In 4th grade mathematics, BIE 

students scored 14 points lower, on average, than Indian students in 

public schools in 2011. (See fig. 2.) We also reported that 8th grade 

students in 2011 had consistently lower scores on average than Indian 

students in public schools.

14Additionally, Indian students attending BIE and public schools have consistently scored 

lower on average than the national average for non-Indian students. Some of the 

difference in performance levels between Indian students and non-Indian students may be 

explained by factors such as poverty and parents’ educational backgrounds.
Page 7 GAO-15-539T

Figure 2: Fourth Grade Estimated Average Scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for Students 

in BIE Schools Compared to Indian Students in Public Schools and Non-Indian National Average, 2005 to 2011

Notes: The category “Non-Indian students (National average)” includes students in public, private, 

and Department of Defense schools. All score estimates from NAEP assessments have margins of 

error at the 95 percent confidence level of plus or minus 9 points or less.

Furthermore, students in BIE schools had relatively low rates of 

graduation from high school compared to Indian students in public 

schools in the 2010-2011 school year. Specifically, the graduation rate for 

BIE students for that year was 61 percent—placing BIE students in the 

bottom half among graduation rates for Indian students in states where 

BIE schools are located. In these states, the Indian student graduation 

rates ranged from 42 to 82 percent.
Page 8 GAO-15-539T

Indian Affairs’ administration of BIE schools—which has undergone 

multiple realignments over the past 10 years—is fragmented.15 In addition 

to BIE, multiple offices within BIA and the Office of the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Management have responsibilities for educational and 

administrative functions for BIE schools. Notably, when the Assistant 

Secretary for Indian Affairs was asked at a February 2015 hearing to 

clarify the responsibilities that various offices have over BIE schools, he 

responded that the current structure is “a big part of the problem” and that 

the agency is currently in the process of realigning the responsibilities 

various entities have with regard to Indian education, adding that it is a 

challenging and evolving process.16

 15

Indian Affairs provided us with a chart 

on offices with a role in supporting and overseeing just BIE school 

facilities, which shows numerous offices across three organizational 

divisions. (See fig. 3.)

GAO-13-774. 

16Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education Budget Requests for FY 2016: 

Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies of the 

H. Comm. on Appropriations, February 27, 2015. 

Organizational 

Fragmentation and 

Poor Communication 

Undermine Indian 

Affairs’ Administration 

of BIE Schools
Page 9 GAO-15-539T

Figure 3: Indian Affairs Chart on Offices with a Role in Supporting and Overseeing BIE Schools Facilities

Notes: DAS-M stands for the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Management.

Shaded boxes indicate offices without a role in supporting or overseeing BIE school facilities.
Page 10 GAO-15-539T

The administration of BIE schools has undergone several reorganizations 

over the years to address persistent concerns with operational 

effectiveness and efficiency. In our 2013 report, we noted that for a brief 

period from 2002 to 2003, BIE was responsible for its own administrative 

functions, according to BIE officials.17

In our 2013 report, we found that the challenges associated with the 

fragmented administration of BIE schools were compounded by recurrent 

turnover in leadership over the years, including frequent changes in the 

tenure of acting and permanent assistant secretaries of Indian Affairs 

from 2000 through 2013. We also noted that frequent leadership changes 

may complicate efforts to improve student achievement and negatively 

affect an agency’s ability to sustain focus on key initiatives.

However, in 2004 its administrative 

functions were centralized under the Office of the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Management. More recently, in 2013 Indian Affairs 

implemented a plan to decentralize some administrative responsibilities 

for schools, delegating certain functions to BIA regions. Further, in June 

2014, the Secretary of the Interior issued an order to restructure BIE by 

the start of school year 2014-2015 to centralize the administration of 

schools, decentralize services to schools, and increase the capacity of 

tribes to directly operate them, among other goals. Currently, Indian 

Affairs’ restructuring of BIE is ongoing.

Indian Affairs’ administration of BIE schools has also been undermined by 

the lack of a strategic plan for guiding its restructuring of BIE’s 

administrative functions and carrying out BIE’s mission to improve 

education for Indian students. We have previously found that key 

practices for organizational change suggest that effective implementation 

of a results-oriented framework, such as a strategic plan, requires 

agencies to clearly establish and communicate performance goals, 

measure progress toward those goals, determine strategies and 

resources to effectively accomplish the goals, and use performance 

information to make the decisions necessary to improve performance.18

 17

We noted in our 2013 report that BIE officials said that developing a 

strategic plan would help its leadership and staff pursue goals and 

collaborate effectively to achieve them. Indian Affairs agreed with our 

GAO-13-774. 

18GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Merger and 

Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2003).
Page 11 GAO-15-539T

recommendation to develop such a plan and recently reported it had 

taken steps to do so. However, the plan has yet to be finalized.

Fragmented administration of schools may also contribute to delays in 

providing materials and services to schools. For example, our previous 

work found that the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Management’s lack of knowledge about the schools’ needs and expertise 

in relevant education laws and regulations resulted in critical delays in 

procuring and delivering school materials and supplies, such as 

textbooks. In another instance, we found that the Office of the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Management’s processes led to an experienced 

speech therapist’s contract being terminated at a BIE school in favor of a 

less expensive contract with another therapist. However, because the 

new therapist was located in a different state and could not travel to the 

school, the school was unable to fully implement students’ individualized 

education programs in the timeframe required by the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act. In addition, although BIE accounted for 

approximately 34 percent of Indian Affairs’ budget, several BIE officials 

reported that improving student performance was often overshadowed by 

other agency priorities, which hindered Indian Affairs’ staff from seeking 

and acquiring expertise in education issues.

In our 2013 report, we also found that poor communication among Indian 

Affairs offices and with schools about educational services and facilities 

undermines administration of BIE schools. According to school officials 

we interviewed, communication between Indian Affairs’ leadership and 

BIE is weak, resulting in confusion about policies and procedures. We 

have reported that working relations between BIE and the Office of the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management’s leadership are informal 

and sporadic, and BIE officials noted having difficulty obtaining timely 

updates from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Management on its responses to requests for services from schools. In 

addition, there is a lack of communication between Indian Affairs’

leadership and schools. BIE and school officials in all four states we 

visited reported that they were unable to obtain definitive answers to 

policy or administrative questions from BIE’s leadership in Washington, 

D.C. and Albuquerque, NM.19

 19Indian Affairs, including BIE, has a major field service center in Albuquerque, N.M.

For example, school officials in one state 

we visited reported that they requested information from BIE’s 
Page 12 GAO-15-539T

Albuquerque office in the 2012-2013 school year about the amount of 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act funds they were to receive. The 

Albuquerque office subsequently provided them three different dollar 

amounts. The school officials were eventually able to obtain the correct 

amount of funding from their local BIE office. Similarly, BIE and school 

officials in three states reported that they often do not receive responses 

from BIE’s Washington, D.C. and Albuquerque offices to questions they 

pose via email or phone. Further, one BIE official stated that meetings 

with BIE leadership are venues for conveying information from 

management to the field, rather than opportunities for a two-way dialogue.

We testified recently that poor communication has also led to confusion 

among some BIE schools about the roles and responsibilities of the 

various Indian Affairs’ offices responsible for facility issues.20

We have observed difficulties in providing support for the most basic 

communications, such as the availability of up-to-date contact information 

for BIE and its schools. For example, BIE schools and BIA regions use an 

outdated national directory with contact information for BIE and school 

officials, which was last updated in 2011.

For 

example, the offices involved in facility matters continue to change, due 

partly to two re-organizations of BIE, BIA, and the Office of the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Management over the past 2 years. BIE and tribal 

officials at some schools we visited said they were unclear about what 

office they should contact about facility problems or to elevate problems 

that are not addressed. At one school we visited, a BIE school facility 

manager submitted a request in February 2014 to replace a water heater 

so that students and staff would have hot water in the elementary school. 

However, the school did not designate this repair as an emergency. 

Therefore, BIA facility officials told us that they were not aware of this 

request until we brought it to their attention during our site visit in 

December 2014. Even after we did so, it took BIE and BIA officials over a 

month to approve the purchase of a new water heater, which cost about 

$7,500. As a result, students and staff at the elementary school went 

without hot water for about a year.

21

 20

This may impair 

GAO-15-389T.

21Indian Affairs recently reported that it drafted an updated BIE national directory. 

However, the directory available on BIE’s website as of April 19, 2015 was dated 2011, 

and Indian Affairs officials did not provide us with a timeframe for publishing BIE’s updated 

directory. 
Page 13 GAO-15-539T

communications, especially given significant turnover of BIE and school 

staff. It may also hamper the ability of schools and BIA officials to share 

timely information with one another about funding and repair priorities. In 

one BIA region we visited, officials have experienced difficulty reaching 

certain schools by email and sometimes rely on sending messages by fax 

to obtain schools’ priorities for repairs. This situation is inconsistent with 

federal internal control standards that call for effective internal 

communication throughout an agency.22

Limited staff capacity poses another challenge to addressing BIE school 

needs. According to key principles of strategic workforce planning, the 

appropriate geographic and organizational deployment of employees can 

further support organizational goals and strategies and enable an 

organization to have the right people with the right skills in the right 

place.

In 2013, we recommended that 

Interior develop a communication strategy for BIE to update its schools 

and key stakeholders of critical developments. We also recommended 

that Interior include a communication strategy—as part of an overall 

strategic plan for BIE—to improve communication within Indian Affairs 

and between Indian Affairs and BIE staff. Indian Affairs agreed to these 

two recommendations and recently reported taking some steps to 

address them. However, it did not provide us with documentation that 

shows it has fully implemented the recommendations.

23 In 2013 we reported that staffing levels at BIA regional offices 

were not adjusted to meet the needs of BIE schools in regions with 

varying numbers of schools, ranging from 2 to 65. Therefore, we noted 

that it is important to ensure that each BIA regional office has an 

appropriate number of staff who are familiar with education laws and 

regulations and school-related needs to support the BIE schools in its 

region.24

 22GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 

Consequently, in 2013 we recommended that Indian Affairs 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

23GAO, A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-02-373SP (Washington, 

D.C.: March 15, 2002). This report describes a human capital model we developed that 

identifies eight critical success factors for managing human capital strategically. In 

developing this model, we built upon GAO’s Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist 

for Agency Leaders, GAO/OCG-00-14G (Washington, D.C.: September 2000). Among 

other steps, we also considered lessons learned from GAO reports on public and private 

organizations that are viewed as leaders in strategic human capital management and 

managing for results. 

24GAO-13-774. 

Staff Capacity to 

Support Schools Is 

Limited
Page 14 GAO-15-539T

revise its strategic workforce plan to ensure that its employees providing 

administrative support to BIE have the requisite knowledge and skills to 

help BIE achieve its mission and are placed in the appropriate offices to 

ensure that regions with a large number of schools have sufficient 

support. Indian Affairs agreed to implement the recommendation but has 

not yet done so.

BIA regional offices also have limited staff capacity for addressing BIE 

school facility needs due to steady declines in staffing levels for over a 

decade, gaps in technical expertise, and limited institutional knowledge. 

For example, our preliminary analysis of Indian Affairs data shows that 

about 40 percent of BIA regional facility positions are currently vacant, 

including regional facility managers, architects, and engineers who 

typically serve as project managers for school construction and provide 

technical expertise. Our work and other studies have cited the lack of 

capacity of Indian Affairs’ facility staff as a longstanding agency 

challenge.25 Further, officials at several schools we visited said they face 

similar staff capacity challenges. For example, at one elementary school 

we visited, the number of maintenance employees has decreased over 

the past decade from six employees to one full-time employee and a parttime assistant, according to school officials. As a result of the staffing 

declines, school officials said that facility maintenance staff may 

sometimes defer needed maintenance.26

Within BIE, we also found limited staff capacity in another area of school 

operations—oversight of school expenditures.27

 25GAO, Bureau of Indian Affairs Schools: New Facilities Management Information System 

Promising, but Improved Data Accuracy Needed, 

As we reported in 

November 2014, the number of key local BIE officials monitoring these 

expenditures had decreased from 22 in 2011 to 13, due partly to budget 

cuts. These officials had many additional responsibilities for BIE schools 

similar to school district superintendents of public schools, such as 

providing academic guidance. As a result, the remaining 13 officials had 

an increased workload, making it challenging for them to effectively 

oversee schools. For example, we found that one BIE official in North 

GAO-03-692 (Washington, D.C.: July 

31, 2003) and National Academy of Public Administration, A Study of Management and 

Administration: The Bureau of Indian Affairs (Washington, D.C.: August 1999). 

26GAO-15-389T. 

27GAO-15-121.
Page 15 GAO-15-539T

Dakota was also serving in an acting capacity for an office in Tennessee 

and was responsible for overseeing and providing technical assistance to 

schools in five other states—Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, and 

North Carolina.

Further, we reported that the challenges that BIE officials confront in 

overseeing school expenditures are exacerbated by a lack of financial 

expertise and training. For example, although key local BIE officials are 

responsible for making important decisions about annual audit findings, 

such as whether school funds are being spent appropriately, they are not 

auditors or accountants. Additionally, as we reported in November 2014, 

some of these BIE officials had not received recent training on financial 

oversight. Without adequate staff and training, we reported that BIE will 

continue struggling to adequately monitor school expenses. 

Consequently, we recommended in 2014 that Indian Affairs develop a 

comprehensive workforce plan to ensure that BIE has an adequate 

number of staff with the requisite knowledge and skills to effectively 

oversee BIE school expenditures. Indian Affairs agreed with our 

recommendation but has not yet taken any action.

Our work has shown that another management challenge, inconsistent 

accountability, hinders Indian Affairs in the areas of (1) managing school 

construction and (2) monitoring overall school expenditures. Specifically, 

this challenge hinders its ability to ensure that Indian students receive a 

quality education in a safe environment that is conducive to learning.

Inconsistent 

Accountability 

Hampers 

Management of 

School Construction 

and Monitoring of 

School Spending
Page 16 GAO-15-539T

In our February 2015 testimony on BIE school facilities, we reported that 

Indian Affairs had not provided consistent accountability on some recent 

school construction projects.28

 28Once funding for school construction and repair is approved, Indian Affairs offers three 

main project management options. Tribes and/or schools may choose to (1) have Indian 

Affairs manage the project, (2) manage the project based on a contract received from 

Indian Affairs, or (3) in the case of tribally-operated schools, manage the project based on 

a grant received from Indian Affairs. 

According to agency and school officials 

we interviewed, some recent construction projects, including new roofs 

and buildings, went relatively well, while others faced numerous 

problems. The problems we found with construction projects at some 

schools suggest that Indian Affairs is not fully or consistently using 

management practices to ensure contractors perform as intended. For 

example, officials at three schools said they encountered leaks with roofs 

installed within the past 11 years. At one BIE-operated school we visited, 

Indian Affairs managed a project in which a contractor completed a $3.5 

million project to replace roofs in 2010, but the roofs have leaked since 

their installation, according to agency documents. These leaks have led 

to mold in some classrooms and numerous ceiling tiles having to be 

removed throughout the school. (See fig. 4.) In 2011, this project was 

elevated to a senior official within Indian Affairs, who was responsible for 

facilities and construction. He stated that the situation was unacceptable 

and called for more forceful action by the agency. Despite numerous 

subsequent repairs of these roofs, school officials and regional Indian 

Affairs officials told us in late 2014 that the leaks and damage to the 

structure continue. They also said that they were not sure what further 

steps, if any, Indian Affairs would take to resolve the leaks or hold the 

contractors or suppliers accountable, such as filing legal claims against 

the contractor or supplier if appropriate.

Inconsistent Accountability 

for School Construction
Page 17 GAO-15-539T

Figure 4: Damaged or Removed Classroom Ceiling Tiles Due to Leaks in Recently-Installed Roofs

At another school we visited, construction problems included systems 

inside buildings as well as building materials. For example, in the 

cafeteria’s kitchen at one BIE-operated school, a high voltage electrical 

panel was installed next to the dishwashing machine, which posed a 

potential electrocution hazard. School facility staff told us that although 

the building inspector and project manager for construction approved this 

configuration before the building opened, safety inspectors later noted 

that it was a safety hazard.29

 29Since our visit in October 2014, school officials have reported that they have addressed 

this issue by relocating the panel.

(See fig 5.)
Page 18 GAO-15-539T

Figure 5: High Voltage Electrical Panel Installed Next to Cafeteria Dishwasher at a 

BIE-Operated School, October 2014

In South Dakota, a school we visited recently encountered problems 

constructing a $1.5 million building for bus maintenance and storage 

using federal funds. According to Indian Affairs and school officials, 

although the project was nearly finished at the time of our visit in 

December 2014, Indian Affairs, the school, and the contractor still had not 

resolved various issues, including drainage and heating problems. 

Further, part of the new building for bus maintenance has one hydraulic 

lift, but the size of the building does not allow a large school bus to fit on 

the lift when the exterior door is closed because the building is not long 

enough. Thus, staff using the lift would need to maintain or repair a large 

bus with the door open, which is not practical in the cold South Dakota 

winters. (See fig. 6.)
Page 19 GAO-15-539T

Figure 6: Exterior and Interior of Recently-Constructed Bus Maintenance Building Where Door Does Not Close When a Large 

School Bus Is on Hydraulic Lift

According to Indian Affairs officials, part of the difficulty with this federallyfunded project resulted from the school’s use of a contractor responsible 

for both the design and construction of the project, which limited Indian 

Affairs’ ability to oversee it. Indian Affairs officials said that this 

arrangement, known as “design-build,” may sometimes have advantages, 

such as faster project completion times, but may also give greater 

discretion to the contractor responsible for both the design and 

construction of the building.30

 30In a “design-build” arrangement, one team consisting of an architectural and engineering 

firm and a construction contractor may work together to complete the project.

For example, Indian Affairs initially raised 

questions about the size of the building to store and maintain buses. 

However, agency officials noted that the contractor was not required to 

incorporate Indian Affairs’ comments on the building’s design or obtain its 

approval for the project’s design, partly because Indian Affairs’ policy 

does not appear to address approval of the design in a “design-build”

project. Further, neither the school nor Indian Affairs used particular 

financial incentives to ensure satisfactory performance by the contractor. 

Specifically, the school already paid the firm nearly the full amount of the 

project before final completion according to school officials, leaving it little 
Page 20 GAO-15-539T

financial leverage over the contractor. We will continue to monitor such 

issues as we complete our ongoing work on BIE school facilities and 

consider any recommendations that may be needed to address these 

issues.

In our 2014 report on BIE school spending, we found that BIE’s oversight 

did not ensure that school funds were spent appropriately on educational 

services, although external auditors had determined that there were 

serious financial management issues at some schools.31 Specifically, 

auditors identified $13.8 million in unallowable spending by 24 BIE 

schools as of July 2014. Additionally, in one case, an annual audit found 

that a school lost about $1.2 million in federal funds that were illegally 

transferred to an offshore bank account.32

In addition, we found that BIE did not use certain tools to monitor school 

expenditures. For example, BIE did not have written procedures to 

oversee schools’ use of Indian School Equalization Program funds, which 

accounted for almost half of their total operating funding in fiscal year 

The same school had 

accumulated at least another $6 million in federal funds in a U.S. bank 

account. As of June 2014, BIE had not determined how the school 

accrued that much in unspent federal funds. Further, instead of using a 

risk-based approach to its monitoring efforts, BIE indicated that it relies 

primarily on ad hoc suggestions by staff regarding which schools to target 

for greater oversight. For example, BIE failed to increase its oversight of 

expenditures at one school where auditors found that the school’s 

financial statements had to be adjusted by about $1.9 million and found 

unreliable accounting of federal funds during a 3-year period we 

reviewed. We recommended that Indian Affairs develop a risk-based 

approach to oversee school expenditures to focus BIE’s monitoring 

activities on schools that auditors have found to be at the greatest risk of 

misusing federal funds. However, Indian Affairs agreed but has not yet 

implemented this recommendation.

 31GAO-15-121. 

32Interior reported in October 2014 that the incident was “a result of cybercrimes 

committed by computer hackers and/or other causes” and was under investigation. 

Nevertheless, the school’s annual audit stated that the school’s inadequate cash 

management and risk assessment procedures contributed to the incident and stated that 

the school must strengthen these procedures. 

Uneven Accountability for 

School Spending
Page 21 GAO-15-539T

2014.33 In 2014, we recommended that Indian Affairs develop written 

procedures, including for Interior’s Indian School Equalization Program, to 

consistently document their monitoring activities and actions they have 

taken to resolve financial weaknesses identified at schools. While Indian 

Affairs generally agreed, it has not yet taken this action. Without a riskbased approach and written procedures to overseeing school spending—

both integral to federal internal control standards—there is little assurance 

that federal funds are being used for their intended purpose to provide 

BIE students with needed instructional and other educational services.34

In conclusion, Indian Affairs has been hampered by systemic 

management challenges related to BIE’s programs and operations that 

undermine its mission to provide Indian students with quality education 

opportunities and safe environments that are conducive to learning. In 

light of these management challenges, we have recommended several 

improvements to Indian Affairs on its management of BIE schools. While 

Indian Affairs has generally agreed with these recommendations and 

reported taking some steps to address them, it has not yet fully 

implemented them. Unless steps are promptly taken to address these 

challenges to Indian education, it will be difficult for Indian Affairs to 

ensure the long-term success of a generation of students. We will 

continue to monitor these issues as we complete our ongoing work and 

consider any additional recommendations that may be needed to address 

these issues.

Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member Fudge, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be pleased to 

answer any questions that you may have.

 33Interior’s Indian School Equalization Program provides funding for basic and 

supplemental instruction, among other things. 

34GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
Page 22 GAO-15-539T

For future contact regarding this testimony, please contact Melissa 

Emrey-Arras at (617) 788-0534 or emreyarrasm@gao.gov. Key 

contributors to this testimony were Elizabeth Sirois (Assistant Director), 

Edward Bodine, Matthew Saradjian, and Ashanta Williams. Also, 

providing legal or technical assistance were James Bennett, David 

Chrisinger, Jean McSween, Jon Melhus, Sheila McCoy, and James 

Rebbe.

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(131359)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.