Indian Affairs: Better Management and Accountability Needed to Improve Indian Education
Published: 2013-09-24T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In 2012, the federal government provided over $850 million to 185 BIE schools that serve about 41,000 Indian students living on or near reservations. BIE is part of Indian Affairs within the Department of the Interior, and BIE's director is responsible for managing education functions at all BIE schools. BIE's mission is to provide quality education opportunities to Indian students.
GAO was asked to study the extent to which BIE is achieving its mission. GAO examined (1) how student performance at BIE schools compares to that of public school students; (2) what challenges, if any, BIE schools face assessing student performance; and (3) what management challenges, if any, affect BIE and its mission.
For this work, GAO reviewed agency documents and relevant federal laws and regulations; analyzed student assessment data from 2005-2011; and conducted site visits to BIE schools and nearby public schools in four states based on location, school and tribal size, and other factors.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Students in Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools perform consistently below Indian students in public schools on national and state assessments. For example, based on estimates from a 2011 study using national assessment data, in 4th grade, BIE students on average scored 22 points lower for reading and 14 points lower for math than Indian students attending public schools. The gap in scores is even wider when the average for BIE students is compared to the national average for non-Indian students. Additionally, the high school graduation rate for BIE students in 2011 was 61 percent, placing BIE in the bottom half among graduation rates for Indian students attending public schools in states where BIE schools are located.
BIE's administrative weaknesses have resulted in it experiencing difficulty assessing the academic progress of its students and adequate yearly progress (AYP) for its schools as required by federal law. Department of the Interior (Interior) regulations generally require BIE schools to administer the same academic assessments used by the 23 respective states where the schools are located. However, in the 2011-12 school year, at the direction of BIE officials, 21 schools did not administer their state assessment. These schools administered an alternative assessment that had not been approved for assessing AYP. BIE made this critical decision without the appropriate level of review at Interior or the Department of Education (Education) because it does not have procedures specifying who should be involved in making key decisions. Further, BIE did not provide its schools their AYP status for the 2011-12 school year prior to the start of the next school year, hindering school officials' ability to develop appropriate strategies to improve student performance. Unless BIE provides schools information that affects student instruction in a timely and consistent manner, it will be difficult for BIE to be well-positioned to improve student academic performance in the future.
Fragmented administrative services and a lack of clear roles for BIE and Indian Affairs' Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management (DAS-M)--that until July 2013 was responsible for BIE's administrative functions--contributed to delays in schools acquiring needed materials, such as textbooks. In July, Indian Affairs underwent a realignment, which assigned another office in Indian Affairs the responsibility for most of BIE's administrative functions. The realignment is intended to improve efficiency in delivering services to Indian Affairs stakeholders, including BIE schools. However, it is unclear to what extent, if at all, the changes will result in improved services for BIE schools. For example, Indian Affairs had not conducted a recent analysis before implementing the realignment to determine if it has the right people in place with the right skills doing the right jobs. Such workforce planning is critical given Indian Affairs' recent realignment and employee buy-out and early-out initiatives. Similarly, Indian Affairs has not developed a strategic plan with specific goals and measures for itself or BIE, or a strategy for communicating with stakeholders. Such a strategic workforce plan and performance measures could help improve operations and align the organization's human capital program with its current and emerging mission and programmatic goals.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: Among other things, GAO recommends that Indian Affairs develop and implement decision-making procedures and a communications protocol to ensure that BIE has effective management controls and comports with federal laws and regulations. To improve BIE's management of its schools, GAO also recommends that Indian Affairs develop a strategic plan that includes goals and measures for BIE and a revised strategic workforce plan. Interior concurred with all of our recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In fiscal year 2012, the Department of the Interior (Interior) and the  Department of Education (Education) provided over $850 million to  Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools, slightly over $650 and $200  million, respectively. This funding supports 185 BIE schools, primarily in  rural areas and small towns, in 23 states. These schools serve about  41,000 Indian students living on or near reservations, representing about  7 percent of the Indian student population. BIE’s mission is to provide  quality education opportunities to Indian students. However, poor student  outcomes raise questions about how well BIE is achieving its mission. For  example, a recent BIE-funded study found the achievement levels of BIE  students much lower than the general population of students.  Accordingly, you asked us to study aspects of BIE’s mission. Specifically,  this report examines: (1) how student performance at BIE schools  compares to that of public school students, (2) the challenges, if any, BIE  schools face assessing student performance, and (3) what management  challenges, if any, affect BIE and its mission of educating Indian students.  We intend to issue a second report that will compare funding and  expenditures for BIE schools to those of nearby public schools.
We used multiple data collection methods to address these issues. To  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 (NAEP), a project  of Education. In addition, we analyzed student performance data for 3rd  and 7th grades from BIE and selected state educational agencies in three  of the four states we visited (selection described below) for school years  2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12, the most recent 3 years for which data  were available. We also used data from a 2011 study on Indian education  conducted through NAEP by the National Center for Education Statistics.
Further, we analyzed Education’s provisional data on regulatory adjusted  cohort graduation rates for school year 2010-11, which was the most  recent data available on cohort graduation rates at the time of our review.  We assessed the reliability of the student performance and graduation  rate data used in our study by reviewing related documentation and  interviewing officials who are knowledgeable about the data. We found  the data sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. In addition, we  reviewed the methodology used for the 2011 study on Indian education  and found the study sufficiently reliable to use in the report.
To determine the challenges, if any, BIE schools face assessing student  performance and what management challenges, if any, affect BIE and its  mission of educating Indian children, we conducted site visits to BIE  schools and interviewed administrators and teachers about student  performance and management issues. In addition, we interviewed  officials in Education and in Interior’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for  Indian Affairs’ Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management,  BIE, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Further, we interviewed  administrators and teachers at public schools in close proximity to the BIE  schools we visited to obtain their perspectives on issues relating to  student performance. We also reviewed agency documents including  budget justifications, guidance, internal correspondences, and agency- sponsored management studies, and we reviewed relevant federal laws  and regulations. We selected site visit locations to reflect an array of BIE  schools that varied in administration type, school and tribal size, and  location. Specifically, we visited 16 BIE schools that serve the Oglala  Sioux Tribe in Pine Ridge, South Dakota; the Mississippi Band of the  Choctaw Indians; the Navajo Nation in New Mexico and Arizona; and  various Pueblo Indians in New Mexico. The views of the officials we  spoke with at these locations are not generalizable to all administrators  and teachers at BIE or public schools nationwide.
We compared BIE’s actions related to management challenges to criteria  on key practices for collaboration, organizational transformation, and  workforce planning that GAO previously identified and to Standards for  Internal Control in the Federal Government. We conducted this  performance audit from July 2012 through September 2013 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: BIE’s mission is to provide Indian students quality education opportunities  starting in early childhood in accordance with a tribe’s needs for cultural  and economic well-being. Students attending BIE schools must be  members of federally-recognized Indian tribes, or descendants of  members of such tribes, and reside on or near federal Indian  reservations. BIE’s Indian education programs derive from the federal  government’s trust relationship with Indian tribes, a responsibility  established in federal statutes, treaties, court decisions, and executive  actions.
BIE, formerly known as the Office of Indian Education Programs when it  was part of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), was renamed and  established as a separate bureau within Interior in 2006. Organizationally,  BIE is under the Office of the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, and its  director reports to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs.  The BIE director is responsible for the direction and management of  education functions, including the formation of policies and procedures,  supervision of all program activities, and approval of the expenditure of  funds for education functions. BIE is composed of a central office in  Washington, D.C.; a major field service center in Albuquerque, New  Mexico; 3 associate deputy directors’ offices located regionally (1 in the  east and 2 in the west); 22 education line offices located on or near Indian  reservations; and schools in 23 states. Of the 185 elementary and  secondary schools BIE administers, 59 are directly operated by BIE (BIE- operated), and 126 are operated by tribes (tribally-operated) through  federal contracts or grants. BIE provides funding on the same terms to  tribally-operated schools as it does to BIE-operated schools based on the  number of students attending the schools, among other factors. A local  education line office manages the BIE-operated schools, functioning like  a public school district superintendent’s office. It also provides technical  assistance to tribally-operated as well as BIE-operated schools.
While BIE schools are primarily funded through Interior, they receive  annual formula grants from Education, similar to public schools. Like state  educational agencies that oversee public schools in their respective  states, BIE administers and monitors the operation of these Education  grants. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, as  amended, holds recipient schools accountable for improving their  students’ academic performance, using Education program funds they  receive through BIE. Specifically, under ESEA, schools must be  measured to determine whether they are making adequate yearly  progress (AYP) in meeting standards in math, reading, and science. In  turn, the performance information must be reported to parents. Interior  determined that, to measure AYP, each BIE school would use the  definitions used by the state in which the school was located.
BIE and its predecessor, the Office of Indian Education Programs, have  been through a number of restructuring efforts. Before 1999, BIA’s  regional offices were responsible for most administrative functions for  Indian schools. In 1999, the National Academy of Public Administration  (NAPA) issued a report, commissioned by the Assistant Secretary of  Indian Affairs, which identified management challenges within BIA. The  report concluded that BIA’s management structure was not adequate to  operate an effective and efficient agency. The report recommended  centralization of some administrative functions. According to BIE officials,  for a brief period from 2002 to 2003, BIE was responsible for its own  administrative functions. However, in 2004, in response to the NAPA  study, its administrative functions were centralized under the Deputy  Assistant Secretary for Management (DAS-M).
More recently, in 2011, Indian Affairs commissioned another study— known as the Bronner report—to evaluate the administrative support  structure for BIE and BIA. The report, issued in March 2012, found that  organizations within Indian Affairs, including DAS-M, BIA, and BIE, do not  coordinate effectively and communication among them is poor. The report  recommended that Indian Affairs adopt a more balanced organizational  approach to include, among other things, shared responsibility, new  policies and procedures, better communication, and increased  decentralization. administrative structural realignment intended to address the Bronner  report recommendations.
Bronner Group, Final Report: Examination, Evaluation, and Recommendations for  Support Functions (March 2012).
section_title: BIE Students Score Consistently Below Indian Students in Public Schools on National Assessments and Have Relatively Low Graduation Rates
paragraphs: Students in BIE schools have performed consistently below Indian  students enrolled in public schools on national assessments administered  by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) between  2005 and 2011. For example, in 2011, 4th grade estimated average  reading scores were 22 points lower for BIE students than for Indian  students attending public schools. For 4th grade mathematics, BIE  students scored lower, on average, than Indian students attending public  schools, but the gap was less than for reading scores—14 points in 2011.  Figure 1 shows the trend in the estimated average 4th grade reading and  math scores for students in BIE schools as compared to Indian students  in public schools and the national average for non-Indian students.
In 8th grade, BIE students also scored consistently lower, on average, on  NAEP assessments than Indian students in public schools. However, for  reading the performance gap was slightly less than it was for 4th grade.  For example, in 2011, 8th grade estimated average reading scores were  19 points lower for BIE students than for Indian students attending public  schools. Further, Indian students attending BIE and public schools have  consistently scored lower on average than the national average of non- Indian students in 8th grade on both the math and reading NAEP  assessments. Figure 2 shows the trend in estimated average 8th grade  reading and math scores for students in BIE schools compared to Indian  students in public schools and the national average for non-Indian  students.
Further, Indian students attending BIE and public schools have  consistently scored lower on average than the national average for non- Indian students in 4th and 8th grades on both the math and reading  NAEP assessments. 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. For  example, in 2011, larger percentages of Indian students were eligible for  free and reduced-price lunch (an indicator of low family income) in both  grades 4 and 8 as compared to non-Indian students. In addition, the  percentage of 8th grade Indian students reporting that at least one parent  had some education beyond high school was smaller than the  percentages of Black, White, and Asian students.
In states we visited, BIE students also consistently underperformed Indian  students in public schools on state reading and math assessments in 3rd  and 7th grade, over the most recent 3-year period for which data are  available. Specifically, in Mississippi and South Dakota, a lower  percentage of students in BIE schools scored at the proficient level or  above on 3rd and 7th grade state assessments compared to Indian  students in public schools. In Arizona, the difference in the performance  of students in BIE schools and Indian students in public schools was less  marked, with a somewhat lower percentage of students in BIE schools  scoring at the proficient or above levels.
Finally, students attending BIE schools had relatively low high school  graduation rates compared to Indian students enrolled in public schools in  the 2010-2011 school year. Specifically, the graduation rate for BIE  students for the 2010-2011 school year was 61 percent—placing BIE  students in the bottom half among graduation rates for Indian students in  states where BIE schools are located. student graduation rates ranged from 42 percent to 82 percent. Figure 3  shows the Indian student graduation rates for BIE and states where BIE  schools are located.
Our analysis of graduation rates covered 20 of the 23 states where BIE schools are  located. At the time of our review, cohort graduation rate data were not available for 2 of  the 23 states where BIE schools are located, and we excluded data from an additional  state due to the small number of students in the Indian student subgroup for which the  graduation rates were calculated.
section_title: BIE Has Difficulty Complying with Various Assessment Requirements and Collaborating with Education, but is Working to Address Certain Challenges
paragraphs: BIE’s administrative and internal control weaknesses have resulted in  difficulty assessing the academic progress of its students and AYP for its  schools as required under ESEA. In addition, BIE has delayed critical  efforts to collaborate with Education. BIE’s efforts to assess student and  school performance are not consistent with internal controls standards  that can help agencies operate more effectively and help ensure  compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
subsections: section_title: BIE Provided Inaccurate and Changing Guidance to Schools
paragraphs: BIE officials provided inaccurate guidance to some of its schools about  which student assessment to administer in the 2011-12 school year,  resulting in a lack of compliance with federal requirements. In that school  year, BIE offered its schools in New Mexico the ability to administer an  assessment—in lieu of the state assessment—that was not approved by  Education for use as an accountability tool for determining whether  schools made AYP under ESEA. Education officials told us they did not  approve any BIE schools to use assessments other than those required  by Interior’s regulation.ESEA accountability requirements, Education has an external group of  experts to evaluate the assessment. This evaluation ensures that the  assessment is aligned with the state academic content and achievement  standards taught in the classroom and is valid and accessible for use by  the widest possible range of students—such as students with disabilities  and students with limited English proficiency. However, BIE did not  submit a request to Education to review the assessment through this   To determine whether an assessment meets  process. As a result of BIE’s guidance, 21 of BIE’s 42 schools in New  Mexico administered an alternative assessment that Education was  unable to use to hold schools accountable for student performance under  ESEA.
Further, BIE did not act within the scope of its authority when providing  this option to schools. Under an Interior regulation, BIE schools are  generally required to administer the same academic assessments used  by the 23 respective states where the schools are located. While this  regulation allows BIE schools to use alternative assessments for the  purposes of ESEA, the Secretaries of Education and Interior must first  provide approval. In addition to not obtaining Education’s approval of  the assessment, BIE made this critical decision without the appropriate  level of review by the Secretary of the Interior or his designee. This  happened because BIE does not have procedures that specify who  should be involved in making key decisions. As a result, BIE offered its  schools a choice to use an assessment without approval from the  Secretaries, which does not align with Standards for Internal Control in  the Federal Government. These standards state that significant events  should be authorized and executed only by persons acting within the  scope of their authority. Further, the standards state that internal controls  and other significant events need to be clearly documented to help  management with decision making and to help ensure operations are  carried out as intended. The documentation should appear in  management directives, administrative policies, or operating manuals.
BIE officials acknowledged that they did not obtain approval from the  Secretary of Interior to allow schools in New Mexico to use the Northwest  Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress rather  than their state assessment as required by an Interior regulation, nor did  they submit a waiver request to Education to allow them to do so. As a  result, they acknowledged they did not adhere to the correct process  when providing schools in New Mexico the option of which assessment  they could administer.
BIE also provided changing directions to its schools about what  assessments they could use to assess students’ academic progress in  the 2012-13 school year to comply with ESEA. For the 2012-13 school  year, BIE school officials in Arizona, Mississippi, and South Dakota said  that BIE directed them to administer the alternative assessment it allowed  the BIE schools in New Mexico to take during the prior school year,  instead of their respective state assessments. However, in late  September 2012, BIE directed them to administer both their state  assessment and the alternative assessment. As a result, some BIE  schools, such as those in Arizona, experienced delays in obtaining  materials for the state assessment. Further, school officials in Arizona,  Mississippi, and South Dakota were under the impression that their  schools would administer the alternative assessment used in New Mexico  instead of their respective state assessments. Without clear decision- making procedures, BIE has not provided schools consistent guidance to  help them develop strategies to inform instruction.
section_title: BIE Did Not Inform Schools about Adequate Yearly Progress in a Timely Manner
paragraphs: BIE did not notify schools of their AYP status for the 2011-12 school year  before the start of the 2012-13 school year. Specifically, BIE did not notify  its schools of their AYP status for the 2011-12 school year until April and  May 2013—over 6 months after the school year typically begins.  According to Education officials, the impact of schools not knowing  whether they made AYP depends on their performance the previous year.  Some BIE and school officials we spoke with expressed concern that  without this information on whether they made AYP they were unable to  comply with ESEA and notify parents in a timely manner of the schools’  performance. Schools receiving ESEA Title I Part A funds face specific  consequences depending on how many years they do not make AYP.
Table 1 shows the remedial actions for BIE Title I Part A for schools that  do not make AYP. Such actions may include replacing school staff,  implementing new curricula, or appointing outside experts to advise  schools.
Federal internal control standards provide that information should be  recorded and communicated to management and others who need it in a  form and within a time frame that enables them to carry out their internal  control and other responsibilities. For an entity to run and control its  operations, it must have relevant, reliable, and timely communications.  Without such timely communication, BIE and school officials were unable  to make informed decisions about additional actions that might be needed  to support educational reforms.
According to BIE officials, many of their challenges informing schools of  their AYP status in a timely manner stem from having to determine the  performance scores and AYP status for schools in 23 different states,  each with its own accountability system. In 2008, we reported that BIE  officials told us that, given the work involved, it was challenging to  calculate and report proficiency levels to schools before the start of the  subsequent school year. Further complicating their efforts, BIE officials  noted that state calculations of AYP are not crafted with BIE schools in  mind. BIE officials cited Arizona as an example. According to these  officials, based on Arizona’s formula for calculating AYP, BIE schools  typically do not have enough students in each grade to be able to use the  state’s formula. Additionally, BIE officials said that the varied locations of  BIE schools make it difficult to compare academic achievement across  states, address student achievement issues, and provide technical  assistance. BIE officials told us they found it especially challenging in  calculating AYP results for the 2011-12 school year because Education  granted waivers to several states—including states where BIE schools  are located—that allowed these states to change the performance targets  used to assess their schools’ yearly progress (accountability systems).  For example, BIE had developed a method for comparing academic  achievement across states, but is no longer able to use this method to  calculate achievement across states because of these Education waivers.
BIE officials plan to address their challenges by transitioning to a unified  accountability system which uses the same indicators to determine AYP  for all BIE schools. To accomplish this, Interior must first change its  regulation that generally requires BIE schools to use the assessments of  the states in which they are located. Interior has begun the process for  making this change, but the process could take several months to a year,  according to a BIE official. This process requires Interior to undertake a  negotiated rulemaking, which includes the formation of a negotiated  rulemaking committee with members from the federal government and  tribes served by BIE schools. In January 2013, Interior announced its  intent to establish such a committee (which will recommend specific  changes to the regulation) and invited tribes to nominate prospective  members.
section_title: Critical BIE and Education Collaborative Efforts Have Been Delayed
paragraphs: In December 2012, the Departments of the Interior and Education  established a memorandum of understanding (MOU), required by an  Executive Order. The MOU is to, among other things, take advantage of  both Departments’ expertise, resources, and facilities and address how  the Departments will collaborate. The MOU created a BIE-Education  Committee to facilitate communication between the two agencies. Among  other goals, the BIE-Education Committee seeks to improve the  academic performance of Indian students. The Committee is charged with  exploring ways to promote more effective school reform efforts and build  support for BIE’s efforts to monitor and enforce compliance with  Education program requirements for which schools receive funding,  particularly tribally-operated schools. The Committee is also to examine  options to support BIE responsibilities, including the option of having  Education establish conditions on the funding it provides to BIE consistent  with applicable laws.
BIE officials in the field who provide technical assistance to schools, as  well as Education officials, noted that some tribally-operated schools  need to improve their administrative and technical capacity to comply with  requirements for schools receiving Education grants. Such grants include  those under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that  support services to students with disabilities, and ESEA. For example, a  senior BIE official said the local education line offices she is responsible  for supervising frequently receive questions from tribally-operated school  administrators about education laws and regulations. The official  commented that this situation is particularly problematic as there is  frequent turnover among some tribal school administrators in her region,  so the local education line offices must educate new administrators on  federal education requirements whenever a change in leadership occurs.  BIE officials told us that they face challenges holding some tribally- operated schools accountable for compliance with federal education laws  and regulations because those schools are under the purview of the  tribes. BIE’s past problems holding its schools accountable led Education  to impose an ongoing corrective action plan on BIE to improve its schools’  compliance with IDEA and ESEA requirements. As a part of this plan, BIE is required to submit quarterly progress reports to Education on how  it is implementing the plan, and there are special conditions on its IDEA  funding, such as additional documentation requirements. Although BIE  officials can provide information to tribally-operated schools about  Education grant requirements, they stated that unlike with BIE-operated  schools, it is difficult to compel these schools to follow the requirements.
The BIE-Education Committee has not yet begun grappling with issues  such as improving BIE schools’ services for students or holding schools  accountable for Education funding requirements because Interior has not  designated officials to serve on the committee. Consequently, as of mid  July 2013 the Committee had not met although the MOU calls for it to  meet at least once every three months. According to Education officials,  the committee is expected to meet some time in August 2013. In the  absence of committee meetings, the activities outlined in the MOU have  not yet been undertaken, such as exploring ways to help BIE’s ability to  monitor and enforce compliance with Education grant programs. We have  previously concluded that collaboration can benefit from formal written  agreements, like an MOU, but ineffective implementation of an MOU may  contribute to the sporadic and limited amount of collaboration between  agencies.
section_title: Poor Management and Communication Hinder Support for BIE Operations
paragraphs: Challenges such as a fragmented administrative structure and frequent  turnover in leadership have prompted Indian Affairs to undergo an  administrative structural realignment. DAS-M staff, who provide  administrative services, have been detailed to BIA’s regional offices and  now report to BIA regional directors. The realignment is intended to  improve efficiency in the delivery of services to BIE, among others.  However, the process Indian Affairs followed to develop the realignment,  and its lack of a strategic plan and workforce analysis, run counter to key  practices for organizational transformations, as well as principals for  strategic workforce planning.
subsections: section_title: BIE Faces Fragmented Administrative Services
paragraphs: Until July 2013, Indian Affairs’ DAS-M was responsible for BIE’s  administrative functions, including handling school contracting needs,  facilities, and budget issues. However, as we noted in our February 2013  testimony, poor communication, incompatible procedures and a lack of  clear roles for BIE and DAS-M staff, and leadership turnover have  hampered efforts to improve Indian education.
According to school officials we interviewed, communication between  Indian Affairs’ leadership and BIE is poor, resulting in confusion about  policies and procedures. Working relations between BIE and DAS-M’s  leadership are informal and sporadic, and BIE officials reported having  difficulty obtaining timely updates from DAS-M on its responses to  requests for services from schools. In addition, there is a lack of  communication between Indian Affairs’ leadership and schools. For  example, a high-ranking BIE official noted there are no clear procedures  regarding school maintenance and facilities matters and agreed it is  confusing for schools not to have a process to follow when requesting  assistance concerning these matters. Additionally, 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  leadership in Washington D.C. and Albuquerque. For example, school  officials in one state we visited reported that they requested information  from BIE’s Albuquerque office in the 2012-13 school year about the  amount of IDEA funds they were due 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 education line 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.
BIE schools have encountered delays in contracting due to DAS-M’s lack  of knowledge about the needs of schools and the laws and regulations  regarding educational institutions. BIE does not have a specific  contracting team assigned to it, although the contracting needs of schools  are different than those of a federal agency. Purchasing items for schools  in a timely manner, for instance, is critical to ensure that all supplies and  textbooks are delivered before the start of the school year. However,  DAS-M’s procurement process has caused delays in textbook delivery to  some schools. In another instance, DAS-M processes led to the  termination of a contract held by an experienced speech therapist serving  a BIE school in favor of a less expensive contract with another therapist.  However, the new therapist was unable to travel to the schools being  served to provide therapy to students. As a result, the schools were  unable to implement students’ individualized education programs in the  timeframe required by IDEA. In addition, although BIE accounts for  approximately 34 percent of Indian Affairs’ budget, several BIE officials  reported that improving student performance is often overshadowed by  other Indian Affairs priorities. DAS-M staff’s focus on supporting other  offices within BIA, such as the Office of Trust Services, hinders staff from  seeking and acquiring expertise in education issues.
Leadership turnover in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian  Affairs, DAS-M, and BIE has exacerbated the various challenges created  by administrative fragmentation. For instance, the tenure of acting and  permanent assistant secretaries in Indian Affairs has ranged from 16 days  to 3 years, and the post was vacant from August 2003 through February  2004 (see fig. 4). In previous reports about other agencies, we found that  frequent changes in leadership may complicate efforts to improve student  achievement, and that lack of leadership negatively affects an  organization’s ability to function effectively and to sustain focus on key  initiatives.
Indian Affairs underwent an administrative structural realignment on July  1, 2013, and DAS-M administrative staff responsible for BIE  administrative functions have been detailed to BIA’s regional offices  based on their current geographical duty station. These DAS-M staff will  now be reporting to BIA regional directors, who will have authority over  most of BIE’s administrative functions, including acquisitions, budget,  facilities management, financial management, and property. DAS-M will  continue to be responsible for information technology and human  resource functions. In addition, DAS-M will continue its responsibilities  overseeing and monitoring BIE activities, including updating its policies  and procedures and providing technical assistance to administrative staff  in the field.
Indian Affairs’ recent realignment—approved by the cognizant  congressional committees in late May 2013—is intended to improve  efficiency in the delivery of services to Indian Affairs stakeholders,  including BIE schools. According to information we received from Indian  Affairs in June 2013, the provision of administrative functions by BIA  regional offices would be governed by service-level agreements  specifying the services provided to BIE and the responsible parties based  on BIE’s needs. However, although Indian Affairs officials told us these  agreements would be signed and in place before the realignment took  effect, the agreements were not in place as of late July 2013.
The process Indian Affairs followed to develop the realignment plan is  unclear and Indian Affairs did not consult BIE officials on the specific  changes outlined in the realignment request it submitted to Congress. For  example, it did not consult with BIE on transferring the responsibilities for  most of BIE’s administrative functions to BIA regional offices. Additionally,  although Indian Affairs informed Congress that the realignment would be  overseen by an Executive Implementation Oversight Board, several  senior BIE officials, including an acting BIE Director, reported that they  were not asked for input into the new plan. Indian Affairs officials  acknowledged that their office had not consulted with BIE officials on  potential organizational changes since before the Bronner report was  issued in March 2012. The Bronner report recommended that Indian  Affairs, among other things, develop new policies and procedures and  increase decentralization, but does not address the specific changes  entailed in the realignment. Key practices for organizational  transformation include employee involvement in organizational change to  help create the opportunity to increase employees’ understanding and  acceptance of organizational goals and objectives, and gain ownership  for new policies and procedures. Such involvement also allows  employees to share their experiences and shape policies. In addition,  while Indian Affairs conducted tribal consultations in April and May 2012  on the findings of the Bronner report, Indian Affairs did not formally  consult with tribes on the specific changes entailed in the realignment  before it took effect on July 1, 2013. Indian Affairs’ main method of  obtaining information from tribes is through tribal consultations.
In addition to implementing its realignment without seeking input from key  stakeholders, Indian Affairs’ leadership does not appear to have broadly  communicated information about the realignment to BIE schools or BIE  officials in the field. For example, although the realignment was already in  effect, two BIE school administrators and the director of a BIE education  line office with responsibility for a large number of schools told us on July  8, 2013 that they had no knowledge of the realignment. Another BIE  school administrator said she had just recently found out about it. As a  result, these school administrators were unaware that BIA regional  offices, rather than DAS-M, would be responsible for carrying out their  administrative functions, including acquisitions, budget, and financial  management. This information is important to school administrators to  have because they have experienced problems with administrative  services, such as acquisition of textbooks. According to one high-ranking  BIE official, improvements under the realignment are not likely, in part,  because there is little communication between BIE and BIA regional office  officials. These reactions may stem from the insufficient involvement of  BIE and school officials in planning for the realignment and could  undermine support for the change.
Indian Affairs officials acknowledged that the office has not established a  strategic plan with specific goals and measures for itself or for BIE or a  strategy for communicating with stakeholders. Key practices for  organizational transformation suggest that effective implementation of a  results-oriented framework, such as a strategic plan, requires agencies to  clearly establish performance goals for which they will be held  accountable, measure progress towards those goals, determine  strategies and resources to effectively accomplish the goals, and use  performance information to make the decisions necessary to improve  performance. In addition, communicating information early and often  helps to build an understanding of the purpose of planned changes and  builds trust among employees and stakeholders. Although Interior as a  whole has a strategic plan, BIE’s inclusion in the Interior plan consists of  two performance measures to improve Indian education, but it does not  detail how BIE will achieve these goals. Indian Affairs and BIE officials  were unable to provide us with a more specific plan articulating the  strategies they will use to achieve BIE’s mission of improving education  for Indian students. BIE officials commented that a strategic plan would  help BIE leadership and staff pursue goals in a consistent manner and  collaborate to achieve them.
Key practices for organizational transformation also suggest that  performance goals and measures are an important part of the strategic  planning process. Specifically, performance measures allow an  organization to demonstrate its progress toward meeting performance  goals. Performance goals and measures are part of a broader system  that creates a “line of sight” showing how team, unit, and individual  performance can contribute to overall organizational results. Interior’s  fiscal year 2008 Performance and Accountability Report lists two  performance measures that relate to BIE school construction and nine  measures for BIE relating to individual student performance, cost per  student, and teacher qualifications. However, there are no measures for  how internal departments, such as DAS-M and BIA, are fulfilling their  responsibilities to provide administrative and facilities support to BIE  schools. In a response to questions from Congress, Interior stated that its  realignment plan requires the development and execution of performance  measures for the delivery of administrative support functions, but it is not  yet clear what specific measures will be adopted because the service  level agreements between BIE and BIA regional offices have not yet been  negotiated. Without such performance measures, BIE and BIA staff  cannot be held accountable for meeting agency goals.
According to key principles for workforce planning, another element of an  effective strategic plan is a clear strategy for maintaining and improving   Key principles for effective strategic workforce  an agency’s workforce. planning include: (1) aligning an organization’s human capital program  with its current and emerging mission and programmatic goals and (2)  developing long-term strategies for acquiring, developing, and retaining  staff to achieve programmatic goals. The appropriate geographic and  organizational deployment of employees can further support  organizational goals and strategies. Effective deployment strategies can  enable an organization to have the right people, with the right skills, doing  the right jobs, in the right place, at the right time.
While Indian Affairs’ most current workforce plan is for 2008-2013, it was  based on workforce data from fiscal years 2003-2007. Therefore, the data  in the plan would not reflect recent changes in the workforce or current  workforce needs. As a result, Indian Affairs’ recent realignment may result  in an imbalance in BIA regions’ workload in supporting BIE schools. For  example, under the realignment, 11 of the 12 BIA regional directors are  responsible for providing administrative support to BIE schools in their   However, BIE schools are unevenly distributed among the 11  regions. BIA regions, with the regions containing between 2 and 65 schools (see  table 2). Therefore, 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 be prepared to support the  schools in that region.
In addition, DAS-M records show that almost 250 employees in BIE and  BIA left the agency in recent months using the Voluntary Early Retirement  Authority and Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments offered by  Interior, which agency officials told us were prompted by the  sequestration. Indian Affairs recent realignment as well as its employee  early-out and buy-out efforts in the first half of 2013 highlights the  importance of workforce planning. Staff departures can affect  organizational capacity, and in this instance, may affect implementation of  the realignment. Current information on attrition rates and geographic and  demographic trends could be used to estimate the number of employees  with specific skills and competencies and the bureau’s staffing needs  going forward. Further, a revised workforce plan could focus on the  strategic deployment of staff with educational expertise to regions with a  large number of BIE schools and education-specific training for DAS-M  and BIA staff with responsibilities in support of Indian education.
Further, some tribes are planning to convert BIE-operated schools to  tribally-operated schools in the future. For example, the Navajo Nation  intends to convert its remaining 31 BIE-operated schools to tribally- operated schools. Should this occur, only 15 percent of BIE schools  would remain BIE-operated. While such a shift would decrease BIE’s  administrative responsibilities, BIE’s oversight, monitoring and technical  assistance responsibilities would remain. We have previously reported  that it is essential that agencies determine the skills and competencies  that are critical to achieving their missions and goals, especially when  factors change the environment within which agencies operate.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The federal government, through the Department of the Interior, has a  trust responsibility for the education of Indian students. However, the  extent to which Interior is effectively meeting its responsibilities is  questionable considering students’ relatively poor academic performance  and BIE’s myriad administrative and management challenges. BIE lacks  clear procedures for decision-making, which has resulted in it acting  outside the scope of its authority, undermining school officials’ ability to  assess student performance under ESEA and potentially affecting their  compliance with federal regulations. Further, while Indian Affairs has  reported the benchmark for the quality of education BIE provides to its  students is whether its schools meet AYP goals, BIE’s ongoing  challenges calculating AYP and reporting this information to schools may  exacerbate poor school performance. Also, given the significant  challenges BIE and Indian schools face in improving student academic  performance, it is critical that Interior leverage existing resources and  opportunities to improve communication. For example, as of late July  2013, Interior had not yet appointed members to the BIE-Education  Committee. Unless BIE collaborates with partner agencies and provides  schools information that affects student instruction in a timely and  consistent manner, it will be difficult for BIE to be well-positioned to  improve student academic performance in the future.
While Indian Affairs has undertaken another realignment of its  administrative functions, it is unclear to what extent, if at all, the changes  will result in improved services for BIE and schools. For instance, Indian  Affairs implemented the realignment without seeking input from a broad  range of stakeholders. Further, it did not develop a strategic plan with  specific goals and measures for itself or BIE or strategies to achieve  these goals. In addition, it has not updated its workforce plan or assessed  Indian Affairs’ realignment and its impact on BIE to ensure it has the right  people in place with the right skills to effectively meet the needs of BIE  schools. In addition, BIE did not develop a strategy for communicating  key decisions to stakeholders, including schools. Rather than contribute  to improved administrative functions, the lack of planning and  communication efforts may ultimately undermine them. Therefore,  undertaking these steps as well as developing a comprehensive,  systematic approach to providing technical assistance would help  improve school officials’ administrative capacity and technical expertise,  especially related to BIE compliance with Education requirements.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct the Assistant  Secretary-Indian Affairs to take the following five actions:
Develop and implement decision-making procedures for BIE that  specify who should be involved in the decision-making process for key  decisions that affect BIE and its schools to ensure that BIE has  effective management controls, is accountable for the use of federal  funds, and comports with federal laws and regulations. Such  procedures should be clearly documented in management directives,  administrative policies, or operating manuals.
Develop a communication strategy for BIE to inform its schools and  key stakeholders of critical developments that impact instruction in a  timely and consistent manner to ensure that BIE school officials  receive information that is important for the operation of their schools.
Appoint permanent members to the BIE-Education committee and  ensure that the committee meets quarterly as required by the MOU to  improve collaboration between BIE and Education and address the  challenges that Indian schools face in improving student performance.
Develop a strategic plan that includes detailed goals and strategies for  BIE and for those offices that support BIE’s mission, including BIA, to  help Indian Affairs effectively implement its realignment. Development  of the strategic plan should incorporate feedback from BIE officials  and other key stakeholders. To gather stakeholder input, we  recommend that the plan include a comprehensive communications  strategy to improve communication within Indian Affairs and between  Indian Affairs and BIE staff.
Revise its strategic workforce plan to ensure that 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 BIE schools have  sufficient support.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Interior and  Education for review and comment. Education chose not to provide  comments. Interior’s comments are reproduced in appendix I.
Interior concurred with all of our recommendations. Interior stated that the  report’s findings and recommendations will aid its efforts to move forward  with improving the quality of education in Indian country. For example,  Interior noted that it is obtaining advice from Education and other subject- matter experts on how to improve BIE’s structure and systems.
Interior agreed with our recommendation about the need to develop and  implement procedures for key decisions affecting BIE to ensure it has  effective management controls and makes decisions that comport with  federal laws and regulations. Interior said that as part of Indian Affairs’  realignment, it will need to refine and redefine some of the roles and  responsibilities of BIE and BIA and noted it is currently finalizing a plan  driven by these changes. To reflect changes in the roles of BIE and BIA  as a result of the realignment, Interior acknowledged the importance of  updating its policy documents, such as departmental manuals. In addition  to these actions, we believe it is important for Interior to review existing  policies to understand what additional controls are needed to ensure BIE  activities comply with relevant laws and regulations.
Interior agreed with our recommendation to develop a communication  strategy. Interior said that BIE should develop and follow set  communications protocols within its schools and field offices to ensure  that each entity understands its roles and responsibilities.  In response to  our recommendation to appoint permanent members to the BIE- Education Committee, Interior stated that it had appointed members to  the Committee in late July 2013 and that the first Committee meeting was  held in mid-August 2013.  As Interior and Education move forward with  the Committee, we believe it is important to ensure that it meets on a  regular basis and that the Departments evaluate and monitor the extent to  which it is achieving its stated goals.
In response to our recommendation that BIE develop a strategic plan,  Interior stated that it has established a committee—composed of key  Indian Affairs offices—to develop a comprehensive communication plan  for BIE.  Interior plans to seek input from key stakeholders on the plan,  including the States and tribal Departments of Education.  In addition  these actions, we believe it is important that this plan include specific  goals and measures for Indian Affairs and BIE that align to BIE’s mission  of improving the quality of Indian students’ education.
Lastly, in response to our recommendation on the need for strategic  workforce planning, Interior stated it had completed a workforce plan that  served as the foundation for the current Indian Affairs’ realignment.   However, the workforce plan was based on workforce data from fiscal  years 2003-2007 and would not reflect recent changes in the workforce or  current workforce needs. As a result, we believe it is important to revise  the strategic workforce plan to reflect current staffing needs.
We are sending copies of this report to relevant congressional  committees, the Secretaries of Interior and Education, and other  interested parties. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on  GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix II.
section_title: Appendix I: Comments from the Department of the Interior
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgements
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Elizabeth Sirois (Assistant  Director), Ramona L. Burton, Sheranda Campbell, Rachel Miriam Hill,  and Matthew Saradjian made key contributions to this report. James E.  Bennett, Holly A. Dye, Alexander G. Galuten, Sheila R. McCoy, Jean L.  McSween, Kathy Peyman, Vernette G. Shaw, and Sarah E. Veale  provided support.