Indian Affairs: Preliminary Results Show Continued Challenges to the Oversight and Support of Education Facilities
Published: 2015-02-27T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: BIE oversees 185 elementary and secondary schools that serve approximately 41,000 students on or near Indian reservations in 23 states. In 2014, Interior's Office of the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs funded the operations, maintenance, construction, and repair of about 1,785 educational and dormitory buildings, which are worth an estimated $4.2 billion. Recent reports have raised concerns about the physical condition of these facilities and their effect on Indian students' educational outcomes. Several studies indicate that better school facilities are associated with better student outcomes.
This testimony reports on ongoing GAO work related to the conditions of BIE schools. A full report will be issued later this year. Based on GAO's preliminary findings, this testimony focuses on: (1) what is known about the conditions of selected BIE schools and (2) the extent to which Indian Affairs effectively oversees and supports BIE school facilities.
For this work, GAO is reviewing agency data and documentation, and relevant federal laws and regulations; interviewing agency officials; and has conducted site visits to schools in three states, which were selected based on their geographic diversity and other factors.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Information on the physical condition of Bureau of Education (BIE) schools is not complete or accurate as a result of longstanding issues with the quality of data collected by the Department of the Interior's (Interior) Office of the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs (Indian Affairs). GAO's preliminary results indicate that issues with the quality of data on school conditions—such as inconsistent data entry by schools and inadequate quality controls—make determining the number of schools in poor condition difficult. These issues impede Indian Affairs' ability to effectively track and address school facility problems. While national information is limited, GAO's ongoing work has found that BIE schools in three states faced a variety of facility-related challenges, including problems with the quality of new construction, limited funding, remote locations, and aging buildings and infrastructure (see figure below).
GAO's ongoing work also indicates that several key challenges at Indian Affairs are impeding effective management of school facilities. Specifically, GAO found declines in staffing levels and gaps in technical expertise among facility personnel in Indian Affairs. Further, GAO found that Indian Affairs did not provide consistent oversight of some school construction projects. At a school GAO visited, Indian Affairs managed a $3.5 million project to replace school roofs. Yet the replacement roofs have leaked since they were installed in 2010, causing mold and ceiling damage in classrooms. Indian Affairs has monitored this situation but has not addressed problems with the roofs. Indian Affairs' facility management is also hindered by poor communication with schools and tribes and confusion about whom to contact to address facility problems. Poor communication has led to some school facility needs not being met. For example, school officials submitted a request for funding to address their school's lack of hot water almost a year before GAO visited the school, but Indian Affairs facility officials were unaware of this until notified by GAO. GAO's preliminary results indicate that these persistent challenges diminish Indian Affairs' capability to oversee and support facilities and provide technical assistance to schools. They also run counter to federal internal control standards and leading practices on workforce planning and construction project accountability.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the preliminary results of  work you requested on the physical condition of Bureau of Indian  Education (BIE) school facilities. BIE, within the Department of the Interior  (Interior), oversees 185 elementary and secondary schools that serve  approximately 41,000 students on or near Indian reservations in 23  states. Of these 185 schools, about two-thirds are operated by tribes  (tribally-operated), primarily through federal grants, and about one-third  are operated directly by BIE (BIE-operated). In 2014, Interior’s Office of  the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs (Indian Affairs) funded the  operations, maintenance, construction, and repair of about 1,785 school  buildings, worth an estimated $4.2 billion. Recent reports have raised  concerns about the physical condition of these school facilities and the  effect these conditions may have on the educational outcomes of Indian  students who attend them. Furthermore, our 2009 review of several  research studies found that better school facilities are generally  associated with better student outcomes. In other work, we have  reported that students in BIE schools perform consistently below Indian  students in public schools on national and state assessments. In  addition, these students have relatively low high school graduation rates  and experience higher levels of poverty than non-Indian students. For  today’s testimony, my statement will focus on (1) what is known about the  conditions of selected BIE schools, and (2) the extent to which Indian  Affairs effectively oversees and supports BIE school facilities.
To develop our preliminary analysis, we reviewed agency data and  documentation, including facility management guidance and maintenance  and repair reports, as well as relevant federal laws and regulations. We  also interviewed officials in Indian Affairs, including the Office of the  Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management, and in the Bureaus of Indian  Education and Indian Affairs. Our work was supported by a licensed  engineer, having relevant, related experience in federal facilities  construction and management. In addition, we conducted site visits,  accompanied by the engineer, to 12 BIE-operated and tribally-operated  schools in three states: New Mexico, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.  These locations were selected to reflect a mix of BIE-operated and  tribally-operated schools, geographic diversity, and variations in school  facility conditions. Our site visits were not designed as independent  facility inspections. We plan to conduct an additional site visit in the spring  of this year to complete our work. We will issue a final report later this  year that will provide our complete results on the conditions of BIE school  facilities as well as Indian Affairs’ accountability for school construction  and repair. We shared our preliminary findings with Interior officials and  incorporated their comments as appropriate.
We are conducting our ongoing work 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: The Department of the Interior’s Indian education programs derive from  the federal government’s trust responsibility to Indian tribes, a  responsibility established in federal statutes, treaties, court decisions, and  executive actions. It is the policy of the United States to fulfill this trust  relationship with and responsibility to the Indian people for educating  Indian children by working with tribes to ensure that these programs are   In accordance with this trust  of the highest quality, among other things.responsibility, Indian Affairs is responsible for providing a safe and  healthy environment for students to learn. Indian Affairs oversees multiple  bureaus and offices that play a key role in managing and overseeing  school facilities for Indian students (see fig. 1).
These bureaus and offices have several key responsibilities, including the  following:
The Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Management  oversees a number of administrative and operational functions to help  Interior meet its responsibilities for designing, planning, building, and  operating Indian school facilities. Specifically, the Deputy Assistant  Secretary oversees the Office of Facilities, Property and Safety  Management, which includes the Division of Facilities Management  and Construction. This office is responsible for developing policies  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. Regarding school facility  management, BIA oversees the day-to-day implementation and  administration of school facility projects through its regional field  offices. Currently there are 12 regional offices that report to the BIA  Deputy Bureau Director of Field Operations. Nine of these regions  have facility management responsibilities, which include performing  school inspections to ensure compliance with regulations and  providing technical assistance to BIE-operated and tribally-operated  schools on facility issues.
The Bureau of Indian Education oversees various educational  functions, including funding and operating BIE schools. Three  Associate Deputy Directors report to the Deputy Director of School  Operations and are responsible for overseeing multiple BIE education  line offices that work directly with schools to provide technical  assistance, including on facility matters. Some line offices have their own facility managers, and many schools—both BIE-operated and  tribally operated—also have their own facility managers or other staff  who perform routine maintenance and repairs.
Indian Affairs collects and tracks school condition data related to facility  deficiencies, capital improvements, or construction for specific inventory  items, such as classrooms, sidewalks, or utility systems. It also includes  information on school facility repair needs—commonly referred to as the  facilities deferred maintenance backlog—which are entered into an  automated information system known as the Facilities Management  Information System (FMIS). Responsibility for data entry into FMIS is  shared by Indian Affairs staff, school personnel, and an Indian Affairs’  contractor who conducts inspections of school facilities.
Indian Affairs uses a multilevel review process to examine the accuracy  and completeness of backlog information in FMIS. In this process, each  entry that school facility managers propose to add to the backlog list is  reviewed and approved by several levels within Indian Affairs, including  BIA agencies and regional offices, the Indian Affairs’ facility condition  assessment contractor, and with final approval by the Division of Facilities  Management and Construction. Indian Affairs uses approved backlog  information to make funding decisions regarding school facilities. Backlog  repair projects are prioritized based on health and safety risks, among  other factors. Indian Affairs also has various funding categories, including  emergencies and minor improvements. Once 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.
Over the past four decades, we have conducted a body of work on  challenges related to Indian education, including longstanding issues  regarding Indian Affairs’ management of school facilities. Our work on BIE  school facilities conducted in 1997 and 2003 highlighted the poor  conditions of Indian schools and the need for more reliable national data  to assess the condition of school facilities. Interior’s Inspector General  and others have also reported similar issues, including health and safety  hazards at BIE schools.
subsections: section_title: Indian Affairs Does Not Effectively Track School Conditions, and Persistent Challenges Affect Facilities at Selected Schools Indian Affairs’ Information on School Conditions Continues to Be Incomplete or Inaccurate, Which Reduces Its Effectiveness in Identifying Problems and Targeting Limited Funds
paragraphs: Our past work and other research pointed to a variety of persistent  challenges Indian Affairs has encountered in maintaining complete and  accurate data on the condition of BIE school facilities. For example, in  2003 we reported on inaccurate and incomplete data entry by school  officials, ineffective agency guidance, limited training in using FMIS, and  agency staff not being held accountable for ensuring data integrity.  Similarly, in 2011, the No Child Left Behind School Facilities and  Construction Negotiated Rulemaking Committee, which the Secretary of  the Interior was required to establish under the No Child Left Behind Act  of 2001 (NCLBA), also identified problems with the quality of FMIS data  on BIE school facilities.of school-level expertise in using FMIS, inadequate training, unreliable  access to FMIS, and infrequent data validation of deficiencies by Indian  Affairs’ contractor, among other issues. Further, the Committee reported  that no Indian Affairs staff were tasked with monitoring schools’ use of  FMIS to ensure that school officials were entering backlog items and, if  not, to provide them with technical assistance. As a result, the Committee  reported that problems using FMIS at many BIE schools were unresolved,  schools did not know where to turn for assistance, and data entry across  schools was inconsistent.
The Committee attributed the problems to a lack  Our ongoing work suggests that issues with the quality of data on school  conditions—such as inconsistent data entry by schools and insufficient  quality controls—continues to make it difficult to determine the actual  number of schools in poor condition, which impedes Indian Affairs’ ability  to effectively track and address school facility problems. For example,  while Indian Affairs has a multilevel review process for examining the  accuracy and completeness of backlog entries, we found that it does not  routinely monitor whether schools are entering complete data on their  facilities. For instance, an Indian Affairs internal control review of FMIS in  2010 identified inadequate controls for determining if and when all  identified safety deficiencies are addressed by schools because no Indian  Affairs office takes responsibility to ensure that such deficiencies are  addressed by schools. According to the 2010 review, without this  information Indian Affairs cannot identify and prioritize for funding for  these critical deficiencies. Indian Affairs officials told us that this issue  continues to be a significant challenge to FMIS data quality. We also  found that some schools we visited encountered obstacles to data entry.  For example, officials at one BIE-operated school noted that they did not  routinely enter information into FMIS because staff lacked expertise and  Indian Affairs did not provide them adequate training. As a result, they  said existing information on their facilities in FMIS significantly  understates their actual repair needs. According to a BIA regional officer,  frequent turnover among facility staff, especially at tribally-operated  schools, can exacerbate this gap in FMIS expertise. Schools can also  face difficulties gaining or maintaining access to FMIS. For example,  officials with one tribally operated school told us they encountered  persistent problems with connecting and maintaining access to FMIS,  sometimes limiting their use of the system to about 5 minutes at a time.  Interior’s Inspector General has recently found similar challenges with  data entry at several other schools, and it continues to monitor this issue.  According to Indian Affairs officials, the last centralized training on using  FMIS was held in 2012.
While Indian Affairs uses a contractor to address some data quality  issues by validating deficiencies on schools’ deferred maintenance  backlogs and facility inventories, our ongoing work has found that the  scope and frequency of their assessments are limited. According to  Indian Affairs officials, the contractor is supposed to assess the conditions  of schools by performing a visual inspection of each school once over a  3-year cycle, and inspections are grouped by region. One BIA regional  official told us that in his region one field inspector was sent to conduct an  onsite inspection and noted that a single inspector may not be capable of  assessing a school’s facilities because they may contain multiple  systems—such as heating/cooling, and fire alarm and suppression  systems—that require specialized expertise to assess. Officials also  reported that Indian Affairs policy is for the contractor not to assess  schools in a particular 3-year cycle if they are about to be replaced or  undergoing major construction. At one school we visited, which had not  been assessed in 5 years because of ongoing construction, we found  problems with both older and newly constructed buildings, such as  leaking roofs. Also, Indian Affairs’ contractor is responsible for reviewing  and updating information on school facility inventories during onsite  inspections. However, one school facility manager suggested that the  contractor’s inspections may be too short for a thorough and accurate  inventory of all buildings and systems.
In 2012, Indian Affairs began an effort to identify and correct inaccuracies  in schools’ backlog and inventory data to respond to the findings and  recommendations of the No Child Left Behind Negotiated Rulemaking  Committee’s 2011 report. Further, Interior is currently moving all school  facility data from FMIS to a new Indian Affairs facility information  management system based on Maximo, which is required by the agency   Officials said that through this data cleanup  for all departmental offices.effort, they have identified and eliminated duplicate backlog deficiencies  in FMIS, and they noted that Maximo will simplify data entry. However,  these officials also noted FMIS constitutes a one-stop shop for managing  school facility data, and that Maximo lacks several key functions that exist  in FMIS, such as project management and budget execution, among  others. They said they plan to add new applications to Maximo to work  around some of these limitations. Additionally, one BIA regional official  said that Maximo could be cumbersome to use and will require schools to  use multiple new systems. Indian Affairs has provided some training on  Maximo for schools, but officials indicated that there are currently few  active users in part because of frequent turnover among school staff, and  requests for facility funding are not yet able to be made in Maximo.
Our preliminary results suggest that Indian Affairs’ data cleanup efforts  and shift to Maximo will not address key challenges with school facility  data, including barriers to data entry at some schools and inadequate  data quality controls. As we have previously stated, incorrect and  inconsistent data undermines management of the federal government’s  real property assets. Federal agencies should improve the quality of their  data to document performance and support decision making. Further,  the National Forum on Education Statistics has stated that quality data  are important for making informed decisions about school facilities. We  believe that inaccurate and incomplete data will continue to hinder Indian  Affairs’ ability to identify and prioritize schools’ repair and improvement  needs and effectively target limited funds. This may also worsen existing  conditions at some schools and may lead to greater future costs and  degraded environments that negatively affect the education of BIE  students.
section_title: A Variety of Challenges Adversely Affect the Condition of Schools
paragraphs: During our ongoing work, we visited schools in three states that reported  facing a variety of facility-related challenges, including remoteness of their  locations, aging buildings and infrastructure, limited funding, and  problems with the quality of new construction, which we believe could  affect their ability to provide safe, quality educational environments for  students.
subsections: section_title: Remoteness of Locations
paragraphs: Several of the schools we visited during our ongoing review were located  in remote, rural areas and a few encountered obstacles in maintaining  their own infrastructure, such as water systems or electrical utilities. For  example, the facility manager at one school described an antiquated  water system that is costly to maintain and repair, does not generate  enough water pressure to fill the school’s water tower and cannot be used  effectively to fight fires. As we have previously reported, BIE schools tend  to be located primarily in rural areas and small towns and serve American  Indian students living on or near reservations.that because of their isolation, these schools tend to have more extensive   In particular, we found  infrastructure needs than most public schools—including their own water  and sewer systems, electric utilities, and other important services that are  generally provided to public schools by municipalities—and maintaining  them can be a considerable drain on schools’ resources.
section_title: Aging Buildings and Systems
paragraphs: Several schools we visited during our ongoing review faced challenges  with aging facilities and related systems. For example, at one school built  in 1959 we observed extensive cracks in concrete block walls and  supports, which a local BIA agency official said resulted from soft marsh  soil and a shifting foundation. According to school officials, two of their  boilers are old, unreliable, and costly to maintain, and sometimes it is  necessary to close the school when they fail to provide enough heat.  According to school officials, these systems also reflect 1950s  technology, so the costs to maintain them are high. Staff told us they also  have difficulty acquiring parts for these systems and, in some cases,  fabricate work-around parts to replace outmoded parts that wear out or  break. School and regional BIA officials considered the boilers to be safe,  but a BIE school safety specialist reported that the conditions of the  school’s boilers were a major health and safety concern. (See fig.2.)
At another school, we observed a dormitory for elementary school  students built in 1941 with cramped conditions, no space for desks, poor  ventilation, and inadequate clearance between top bunks and sprinkler  pipes in sleeping areas. School officials noted that students had received  head injuries from bumping their heads on the pipes and some students  had attempted suicide by hanging from them. (See fig. 3.)
In some cases, we found that schools with older buildings did not have  adequate systems for ensuring student health and safety. For example,  facility staff at one tribally operated school showed us an aging  telecommunications relay panel that they said did not allow phone calls  between dormitory floors and other buildings, making communication  difficult in the event of a campus-wide emergency, such as a fire or  security issue.
At another school, staff showed us exterior doors to campus buildings  that did not lock properly, and as a result, needed to be chained during  school lock downs. According to officials at the school, about 90 percent  of building entrances also lacked exterior security cameras, and some  buildings, such as student dormitories, had none. These challenges were  highlighted during our visit when the school had to perform a lock down  when a student made a Columbine-type threat.
section_title: Funding for Facility Operations
paragraphs: During our ongoing work, some school officials told us that they receive  less than their current estimated funding needs for facility operations,  which include fixed-cost items like fuel and electricity. For example, one  school official told us that facility operations were funded at about 50  percent of the school’s need. Such shortfalls in operations funds can  require a school to draw from its maintenance funds to keep the lights on  and buildings warm in the winter, leaving less money for building  maintenance. For example, officials with one school told us they may  defer maintenance or cut back maintenance staff if they do not have  enough funds for their operations and maintenance. Officials with several  schools noted using funds for educational purposes on facility operations.  Deferring maintenance can lead to bigger problems with school facilities.  For example, an official with a BIE education line office pointed out that  the poorly maintained rain spouts on one building of a BIE-operated  school led to water collecting behind the retaining wall, resulting in  separation between the sidewalk and the building. Over time, this water  intrusion may undermine the foundation. (See fig. 4.)
In 2008, we reported that federal agencies’ backlogs represent a fiscal  exposure that may have a significant effect on future budget resources.Further, the 2011 Negotiated Rulemaking Committee report observed that  without enough maintenance funds, schools’ maintenance needs go  unmet, deferred maintenance grows, the quality of the physical plant  deteriorates far more rapidly than it should, and the cost of repairs  increases. According to the 2011 report, over decades, shortchanging  spending on building maintenance degrades learning environments,  shortens the overall life of school buildings, and results in increased costs  for the federal government to fix these schools. (See fig. 5.)
During our ongoing review, several of the schools we visited reported  encountering problems with new construction. For example, officials at  three schools said they encountered leaks with roofs installed within the  past 11 years. According to officials at one school, despite two  replacements, the roof of their gymnasium—completed in 2004— continues to leak. Officials said the company that built the gymnasium  has since filed for bankruptcy. Other construction problems at the school  included systems inside buildings as well as building materials. For  example, in the cafeteria’s kitchen at this 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. (See fig. 6.)
Officials at an elementary school we visited also reported problems with  new construction. School officials noted that the heat pumps in their new  school facility did not have the capacity to adequately heat the building,  leading to cold classrooms and frequent pump failures in the winter  months. They also noted that the construction did not include a backup  generator, creating a risk of freezing pipes during winter power failures.  After our visit, school officials reported that a large concrete fragment fell  from the upper wall of a kindergarten classroom in new school building.  The classroom was unoccupied at the time.
section_title: Systemic Management Challenges Impede Oversight of and Support for School Facilities
paragraphs: Preliminary results from our work indicate that key challenges at Indian  Affairs are impeding effective management of BIE school facilities. These  challenges include limited staff capacity, inconsistent accountability, and  poor communication. These findings are consistent with our prior BIE  work, in which we found that Indian Affairs had similar challenges  overseeing BIE schools in other areas, such as in financial management  and workforce planning. Given Indian Affairs’ school facility  management challenges, a few schools in one region have developed  their own facility management program to ensure their needs were met.
subsections: section_title: Limited Staff Capacity to Address School Facility Needs
paragraphs: Our ongoing work suggests that the capacity of BIA regional facilities and  BIE school staff to address school facility needs is limited due to steady  declines in staffing levels, gaps in technical expertise, and limited  institutional knowledge. BIA regional officials and school officials we  interviewed noted significant challenges with staff capacity. In addition,  our prior work and other studies have cited the lack of capacity of Indian  Affairs’ facility staff as a longstanding agency challenge.
BIA Regions. Staff in certain regions told us that they have  experienced declining staffing levels for over a decade, despite key  responsibilities in overseeing BIE school construction and repair  projects as well as supporting schools with technical assistance. Our  preliminary analysis of Indian Affairs data shows that about 40 percent  of regional facility positions are currently vacant, including regional  facility managers, architects, and engineers who typically serve as  project managers for school construction. In one BIA region serving  over 15 BIE schools— along with additional Indian Affairs’ facilities  such as detention centers—the regional facility staff has decreased by  about half in the past 15 years, according to the regional facility  manager. As of December 2014, two project managers were tasked  with overseeing a growing workload of construction projects, among  other duties, and only one was a licensed professional, according to  the regional facility manager. The regional facility manager also noted  gaps in internal staff expertise, such as not having a mechanical  engineer on staff to review designs or external engineers’  assessments of systems such as heating and air conditioning.  Regional staff said that hiring an in-house boiler inspector would allow  them to conduct more frequent inspections and may cost less than  hiring contractors to do so. Without staff with particular construction  expertise, several Indian Affairs officials said that they have  increasingly relied on outside contractors. As we have previously  reported, risks to the federal government of extensive reliance on  contractors include not building institutional expertise as well as a  reduced federal capacity to manage the costs of contractors and to  ensure achievement of program outcomes.
Schools. Officials at several schools we visited said they face similar  capacity challenges. For example, we visited an elementary school  with one full-time employee for facility maintenance, along with one  part-time assistant. A decade ago, the school had about six  maintenance employees, according to school officials. As a result of  the staffing decrease, school officials said that facility maintenance  staff may sometimes defer needed maintenance.
Leading facility management practices emphasize the importance of  having managers with sufficient technical expertise. Staff capacity is  important because 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, doing the right jobs, in the right place, at the right time.  However, we have previously reported that limited staff capacity at Indian  Affairs impedes its oversight and support of BIE schools and that this runs  counter to effective human capital practices. recommended that Indian Affairs revise its strategic workforce plan.  Specifically, we recommended that Indian Affairs 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. Indian Affairs agreed to  implement the recommendation but has not yet done so.
section_title: Inconsistent Accountability for School Construction
paragraphs: Our preliminary results suggest that Indian Affairs has not provided  consistent oversight of some school construction projects, including  projects it managed itself and projects managed by tribes. According to  Indian Affairs and school officials we interviewed, some recent  construction projects, including new roofs and buildings, have gone  relatively well, while others have faced numerous problems. The  problems we found with construction projects at some schools suggest  that Indian Affairs is not fully or consistently applying management  practices to ensure contractors perform as intended. For example, 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.7.) 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  Indian Affairs. Despite numerous subsequent repairs of roofs, school  officials and regional BIA officials told us in late 2014 that the leaks  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.
Indian Affairs and school officials identified another recent construction  project that has faced problems. At a tribally-operated school we visited in  South Dakota, the school managed a project to construct a $1.5 million  building for maintenance and bus storage. According to these officials,  although the project was nearly finished at the time of our visit, 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 bus is too long. 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. 8.)
According to Indian Affairs officials, part of the difficulty with this project  resulted from the tribally-operated 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 potential  advantages such as faster project completion, but may also give greater  discretion to the contractor responsible for both the design and  construction of the building. 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  financial leverage over the contractor.
If problems persist with building construction, one accountability  mechanism is to retain a portion of a project payment. However, certain  Indian Affairs officials held conflicting views on whether withholding  project payments—known in the industry as retainage—is suitable to hold  contractors accountable for satisfactory completion of school construction  projects. For example, officials with the Division of Facilities Management  and Construction told us they usually retain 10 percent of payments until  an independent inspection of a construction project has been conducted.  However, officials in one BIA region said that the region tends not to use  this mechanism for school construction, due partly to past practice. In  prior work, we have found that retainage can be a strong motivator to  encourage contractor and subcontractor performance. Although the  applicability of such project accountability mechanisms may vary in  amount and may depend on the particular situation or project, we have  found that the federal government can be protected from poor quality  construction if it appropriately uses the various tools at its disposal to  manage and address problems.
section_title: Poor Communication with Schools Regarding Roles and Responsibilities of Different Indian Affairs Offices
paragraphs: Our preliminary results also suggest that unclear lines of communication  and confusion among BIE schools about the roles and responsibilities of  the various Indian Affairs’ offices responsible for facility issues hamper  efforts to address school facility needs. For example, the offices involved  in facility matters continue to change, due partly to two ongoing re- organizations of BIE, BIA, and the Division of Facilities Management and  Construction 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 for funding by February 2014 for a needed repair in the Facilities  Management Information System (FMIS) 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.
Another communication challenge that our ongoing work has identified for  all BIE schools and BIA regions is that BIE last updated its directory in  2011, which contains contact information for BIE and school officials. This  may impair communications, especially given significant turnover of BIE  and school staff. As a result, we believe that school and BIA officials may  not be able to share timely information with one another, which would  affect schools’ funding levels and priorities for repairs. For example, 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.
These preliminary findings are consistent with findings from our past work  in 2013, when we testified and reported on communication challenges  impeding effective operation of BIE schools. Specifically, at that time we  found that several officials at schools and BIE seemed confused about  whom to consult or make requests for assistance about school facilities.In addition, we found that unclear communication undermined other  aspects of school operations, such as annual testing of students. Thus, at  that time we recommended that Indian Affairs 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. In early 2014, BIE developed a draft  communication plan, but it has not yet been finalized, and it does not  specifically address communication about school facility issues. More  recently, Indian Affairs officials indicated to us that it does not plan to  finalize its communication strategy until mid-2016 given that the  organizational changes resulting from the two re-organizations since 2013  have not been fully implemented. While we recognize that the re- organizations have led to substantial changes in the roles and  responsibilities of offices within Indian Affairs, we continue to believe that  Indian Affairs needs a strategy to improve communication with BIE  schools, especially given schools’ confusion about which offices to  contact about facilities, and other issues.
section_title: One Alternative Program Developed by Schools in Response to Challenges with Indian Affairs
paragraphs: During our ongoing work, we identified an alternative program that some  schools developed to ensure their facility needs were met given Indian  Affairs’ facilities management challenges. Four tribally-operated schools  in one region created their own facilities management program because  according to program officials, they were dissatisfied with the amount of  time it took BIA to complete facilities-related projects, including a building  project that officials said took about 7 years to complete. They also said  that they were frustrated that their input was not always solicited on  proposed improvements to their facilities. Consequently, in 1997, the four  schools—in conjunction with their tribal stakeholders—formed the Eastern  Oklahoma Tribal Schools Facilities Management Program, a non-profit  consortium of tribally-operated schools in Eastern Oklahoma, to meet  their facility needs. According to program officials, its operations are  financed primarily through administrative fees for project management  services added to the schools’ backlog items, which are reimbursed by  Indian Affairs. Currently, the program is comprised of three professional  staff—two architects and a production technician—who maintain in-house  technical expertise and manage construction, project design and  oversight for the schools. In addition, program officials said that they  routinely enter backlog data in FMIS because schools typically do not  have the time, technical expertise, or capacity to do it themselves. An  official with Indian Affairs’ Division of Facility Management and  Construction told us that Eastern Oklahoma Tribal Schools Facilities  Management Program reflects a promising approach to managing  facilities, but Indian Affairs has not taken steps to disseminate information  on this approach among schools. In our ongoing work, we plan to further  review this approach and any others to determine how and whether  Indian Affairs can leverage any promising practices to help address  systematic school facility management challenges.  - - - - -  In conclusion, the federal government, through the Department of the  Interior, has a trust responsibility for the education of Indian students,  including building and maintaining school facilities. High quality school  facilities are extremely important to ensure that Indian students are  educated in a safe environment that is conducive to learning. However,  for decades, Indian Affairs has been hampered by fundamental  challenges in managing school facilities. In our previous work, we have  also found significant weaknesses with Indian Affairs’ oversight of BIE  schools in general. In addition, our preliminary work shows that Indian  Affairs continues to face challenges in ensuring that critical school facility  data are collected, staffing levels and technical expertise are  strengthened, construction projects are appropriately designed and  managed, and roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and  communicated. Unless these issues are addressed, some students will  continue to be educated in poor facilities that do not support their long- term success. We will continue to monitor these issues as we complete  our ongoing work and consider any recommendations that may be  needed to address these issues.
Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum, and Members of the  Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be pleased to  answer any questions that you may have.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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, Lisa Brown, Lara Laufer, Matthew Saradjian, and  Ashanta Williams. Also, providing legal or technical assistance were  James Bennett, David Chrisinger, Jean McSween, Jon Melhus, and  James Rebbe.
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.